62
PART IV APPENDICES
PART IV
APPENDICES
-285-
APPENDIX 2A
A Review of Evidence on Allocative Efficiency
Extensive study of allocative efficiency has taken place in
recent years to examine whether farmers use resources efficiently.
This appendix briefly reviews the methodology used and the evidence
available.
The analysis has generally been based on the use of homogeneous I .
production functions estimated from cross-sectional samples of farms.
The estimated function provides the basis for testing whether the
marginal value products of the resources are approximately equal to
the marginal cost of those resources. This test was generally carried
out at the geometric mean level of resource inputs [3]. More recent
studies have carried out the test at input levels other than the geom
etric mean and on different groups of farms [15].
The only major Australian study in this vein was undertaken by
Duloy [4] and relates to the sheep industry. This study indicated a
substantial range of marginal value products suggesting some inefficiency
in resource use. But the evidence was not so conclusive when considering
the possible gains in gross output from moving to the efficient level.of
resource use, as only relatively small gains in gross output occurred.
He concluded [4, p.163] " ••• that farmers are perhaps rather more rat
ional in their use of resources than would appear from the wide range
of resource productivities ••• ", but that some farmers may be employing
inferior technologies.
Most studies of allocative efficiency have been undertaken using
data from underdeveloped countries which suggests that allocative effic
iency is assumed in the developed countries. The objective was to test
1 The unrestricted Cobb-Douglas form has generally been used because of estimational and manipulative ease.
-286-
Schultz's hypothesis that "there are comparatively few significant
inefficiencies in the allocation of the factors of production in trad
itional agriculture" [9, p.37]. A number of Cobb-Douglas type
studies have tested this hypothesis and generally concluded in its I favour •
From these early studies, methodological developments have
proceeded in two directions. The most developed direction has included
considerations of different types of farms (generally small and large),
and has attempted to "disaggregate" allocative efficiency into price
and technical aspects. Yotopolous, Lau and Somel [15] considered
aspects relating to small and large farms in a Cobb-Douglas framework
and found no evidence that small farms allocated resources more effic
iently than large farms. They foreshadowed later work which tested
separately for price efficiency when different price regimes are applic
able to different farms (see Wise and Yotopolous [12]), and then tested
to establish whether some farms are technically more efficient than
others (see Lau and Yotopolous [6]). These studies have concluded that
both small and large farms are price efficient, but tnat small farms
have superior technical efficiency [14, p.222].
The other direction of methodological development, as yet
relatively unexplored. has been the introduction of risk into the
analysis of allocative efficiency. Dillon and Anderson [3] reappraised
some early studies in a statistical decision theory framework. The
results were inconclusive so far as accepting or rejecting the effic
ient allocation hypothesis of Schultz. However, consideration of risk
in a utility framework may clarify some aspects of allocative efficiency,
but to date Bardham [1] and Srinivasan [10] are among the few who have
specifically considered uncertainty in productivity analysis.
1 Examples of such studies are those of Chennareddy [2], Hopper [5], Sahota [8], Welsch [11] and Yotopolous [13].
-287-
The strength of this evidence depends on the importance
attached to the biases arising from the use of the Cobb-Douglas model.
Acceptance of this model leads to the conclusion that the evidence
generally supports the allocative efficiency hypothesis. But there are
important restrictive assumptions in the Cobb-Douglas model, partic
ularly constant partial and total elasticities of production and unitary
elasticity of substitution, that mean farmers are unlikely to be,oper
ating in a Cobb-Douglas world. In this regard the evidence is not con
clusive.
On the other hand, the Schultz hypothesis has not been disproved
either, although consideration of uncertainty offers strong possibilities
in this regard. For example, in a utility maximising situation where
farmers are risk averse less than optimal resource input levels .may
arise1 • But the case is not conclusively established either way, so
that for this study the efficient allocation of. resources is accepted
as the evidence tends to this view. Furthermore, there are methodolog
ical advantages from accepting this assumption, particularly as method
ologies for handling situations of a110cative inefficiency are complex
and less adequately developed.
APPENDIX 2 - References
[1] BARDHAM, P.K., "Size, Productivity, and Returns to Scale: An
Analysis of Farm-Level Data in Indian Agriculture",
J. Pol. Econ., 81(6), 1370-1387, Nov/Dec., 1973.
[2] CHENNAREDDY, V., "Production Efficiency in South Indian Agriculture",
J. Farm Econ., 49(4), 816-820, Nov., 1962.
1 Dillon and MacArthur [71 found that in these circumstances risk aversion . resulted in lower stocking rates than indicated by riskless analysis.
-288-
[3] DILLON, J.L. and J.R. ANDERSON, "A11ocative Efficiency, Tradit
ional Agriculture and Risk", Am. J. Agric. Econ.,
53(1), 26-32, Feb., 1971.
[4] DULOY, J.H., The Allocation of Resources in the Australian Sheep
Industry, Unpub. Ph.D'. thesis, University of Sydney, 1963.
[5] HOPPER, D.W., "Al1ocative Efficiency in a Traditional Indian Agric
ulture", J. Farm Econ., 47(3), 611-624, Aug., 1965.
[6] LAU, L.J. and P .A. YOTOPOLOUS, "A Test for Relative Efficiency and
an Application to Indian Agriculture", Am. Econ. Rev.,
61(1), 94-109, March, 1971.
[7] MACARTHUR, I.D. and J .L. DILLON, "Risk, Utility and Stocking Rate",
Aust. J. Agric. Econ., 15(1), 20-35, April, 1971.
[8] SAHOTA, G.S., "Efficiency of Resource Allocation in Indian Agric
ulture", Am. J. Agric. Econ., 50(3), 584-605, Aug.,
1968.
[9] SCHULTZ, T.W., Transforming Traditional Agriculture, New Haven,
Yale Univ. Press, 1964.
[10] SRINIVASAN, T.N., "Farm Size and Productivity Implications of
Choice Under Uncertainty", Indian J. of Statistics.
Series B, 34(4),409-420, Dec., 1972.
[11] WELSCH, D.E., "Response to Economic Incentive by Abaka1iki Rice
Farmers in Eastern Nigeria", J. Farm Econ., 47(4),
900-914, Nov., 1965.
[12] WISE, J. and P.A. YOTOPOLOUS, "The Empirical Content of Ration
ality: A Test for a Less Developed Economy, J. Pol.
~., 77(5),976-1004, Nov., 1969.
[13] YOTOPOLOUS, P.A., Al10cative Efficiency in Economic Development:
A Cross Section Analysis of Epirus Farming,. Athens,
Centre of Planning and Economic Research, 1967.
-289-
[14] YOTOPOLOUS, P.A. and L.J. LAU, "A Test for Relative Economic
Efficiency: Some Further Results", Am. Econ. Rev.,
63(1),214-223, March, 1973.
-290-
APPENDIX 3A
Discussion of the A.B.S. Workforce Definitions
The main source of data on the rural workforce used in this
study is the population census [2]. The following extract from the
explanatory notes accompanying the 1966 population census clearly
indicates the definitions used and the changes made for the 1966 census.
"1. At the 1961 and previous Censuses the ,work force was determined as:
"Those who are engaged in an industry, business, profession, trade or service at the time of the Census (including those on long service leave, etc.) ............ "; and
" ........... those·out of a job at time of the Census but who are usually engaged in an industry, business, profession, trade or service •••••••••• "
2. At the 1966 Census an additional set of ". four. questions was asked in order to obtain information on the,basis of which the work force could be determined more precisely. The questions were as follows:
"Did the person have a job or business of any kind last week (even though he may have been temporarily absent from it)? ANSWER "YES" or "NO"."
"Did the person do any work at all last week for payment or profit? ANSWER "YES" or "NO". Persons working without. pay as a helper in a "family business" or farm and members of the. clergy and of religious orders (other than purely contemplative orders) should answer "YES" to this question. Persons doing only unpaid housework should answer "NO"."
"Was the person temporarily laid off by his employer without pay for the whole of last week? ' ANSWER ''YES'' or "NO"."
-291-
"Did the person look for work last week? ANSWER "YES" "NO" (N " or , ote. Looking for work" means (i) being registe~ith Commonwealth Employment Service, or (ii) approaching prospective employers, or (iii) placing or answering advertisements, or (iv) writing letters of application, or (v) awaiting the result of recent applications.)"
3. The work force includes all persons for whom the "" i answer yes was g ven to anyone of these four
questions. Except that persons helping but not receiving wages or a salary who usually worked less than 15 hours a week were excluded from the work force , ••
5. The net effect of the new definition is to include approximately 108,000 additional persons in the Australian work force i.e. a proportionate increase in the Australian workforce of approximately 2.3 per cent, The major factor in this change was females working part-time (sometimes for only a few hours a week) some of whom, in 1961, did not, consider them-. selves as " ••• ;. engaged in an industry, business, profession, trade or service" •••••
8. Persons in the workforce were asked to state industry in accordance with the following instructions.
9 •
10.
"State the exact·branch of industry, business or service in which mainly engaged last week, using two or more words where possible. For example, "Dairy Farming", "Coal Mining", "Woollen Mills", "Retail Grocery", "Road Construction", etc. Employees should state the industry of their employer. For example, a carpenter employed by a coal mining company should state "Coal Mining". ' If employed by a Government Department or other public body, state also its name. For paid house-. keepers and domestic servants in private households, write "P.H."."
From the answers to this question, persons were classified according to the Bureau's "Classification of Industries" which provides for each person to be classified according to the nature of the business in which mainly engaged, regardless of whether operated by a Government authority, corporation or individual.
The precise classification of persons in the workforce according to industry is extremely difficult but subject ~
-292-
to continuing efforts to improve the quality of the data from census to census. Consequently the comparison of data compiled at the 1966 Census with that obtained at previous censuses is not only influenced by changes in the definition and content of the workforce but by the different responses which may have been evoked by efforts to improve the questions on the Census Schedule, and by some changes in coding rules designed to rectify known deficiencies in the data •. , Classification is difficult mainly because of the problem of conveying through a printed.form the exact nature of the information required (e.g. the conceptual difference between 'occupation' and. 'industry') and the consequential inadequacy of.·many replies."
This lengthy extract indicates that the collection of data is
an evolutionary' process. For example, the attempt to obtain greater
precision in. the estimate of the workforce and the.resultant warning
in par.lO, that over a period of time, particularly as long as the 50
years in this study. the consistency of the estimates may· be more
apparent than real. Many changes are made in the questions and anal
ysis which can introduce minor changes in the estimates. Over a long
period of time, the accumulation of these small changes can substant
ially influence the consistency of the estimates.
The most significant change to note is that contained in the
definition of the workforce, and the.resultant effects on the female
component of the workforce (par.5). In this study, an attempt has
been made to achieve consistency in the female workforce estimates by
providing an estimate on the basis of the old workforce definition
(see Section 3.2.4).
In the labour force survey [3], similar definitions to those
used in the 1966 population census are used. The details are:
"The labour force comprises all'persons who, during survey week, were employed or unemployed, as defined below •.
Employed persons comprise all those who, during survey week,
-293-
(a) did any work for pay, profit, commission or payment in kind, in a job or business, or on a farm (including employees, employers and self-employed persons), or
(b) worked fifteen hours or more without ,pay in a family business (or farm), or
(c) had a job, business or farm, but were not at work because of illness, accident, leave, holiday, production hold-up due to bad weather, plant breakdown, etc., or because they were on strike.
A person who had a job but was temporarily laid off by his, employer for the whole week without pay is excluded, and is classified in the tables as unemployed. A person who did some,work during the week, however,before he either lost his job or was laid off, is classified as employed. A person who held more than one job is counted only once, in the job at which he worked most hours during survey week."
Despite the similarity in the definitions, the labour force
survey tends to give generally higher estimates than the population
census. Sampling errors, which are higher for the rural sector than
other industries [3J may account· for some of this difference, while
no survey month coincides with the population census date. Other.
differences may arise because the labour force survey uses personal
interviews while the population census does.not •. Finally, in 1971,
the population census was based on the A.S.I.C. classification of
industries [1] while the classification used in the labour force survey,
is not clearly specified in the report ,[3] so differences in rural
workforce estimates could also arise from differing industry classifi-
cations.
The more important comparison, however,
lation census definitions and theA & P census.
in a sample A & P census form for N.S.W. 1972-73
is between the popu
The labour questions
is set out below.
PERSONS WORKING ON HOLDING at end of March 1973
EXCLUDE females mainly engaged in domestic duties and children attending schooL
-294-
PERMANENT (FULL-TIME) WORKERS
Owners, Lessees, and Sharefarmers actively engaged.in farm or station work
Relatives (of owners, etc.) over IS years of age working permanently full-time on farm but not receiving wages or salary
Employees (including managers and relatives) working permanently full-time on farm for wages or' salary
TEMPORARY WORKERS (SEASONAL AND CASUAL) Number of persons working tempor~ arily on holding (on wages or contract) at ,end of March 1973)
Males Females
In this case, the questions are more general and leave some scope for
interpretation. For example, the "end of March" is less precise than
the "last week" used in the population census; the exclusion of
"females mainly engaged in domestic duties and children attending
school" may give different results for unpaid helpers than the.IS
hours a week guideline for the population census; . and there is no
obvious classification for "temporary unpaid family help" or less than
full time "owners, lessees andsharefarmers" so that many of these may
be incorrectly classified as full-time. These are only. some. examples -.
of the problems and it is likely that these and other similar problems
give rise to the A & P census data being less accurate than the data
contained in the population census. For these reasons, the population
census estimates are generally preferred [6].
-295-
APPENDIX 3B
Seasonal Adjustment Factors for Male Employeesa
Year N.S.W. VIC. QLD. S .A. W.A. TAS.
1939 922 939 1063 933 882 885
1943 985 1000 1117 929 882 929
1945 970 1033 1133 892 990 993
1947 915 948 1020 820 990 935
1954 918 850 995 820 1019 900
1961 918 800 1094 800 1000 870
a These factors are those calculated by Keating [6; Appendix 4]. The factors indicate June 30th employment as a ratio of ,the average level of employment during that year. Where the June 30th level equals the average level the ratio.- 1000.
-296-APPENDU 3C
ESTIMATED MALE RURAL WORKFORCE, 1920-21 TO 1970-71a
Working Emp10yeesb Unpaid Year Proprietors
,000 ,000 Helpers Total
,000 ,000
1920-21 220.8 204.3 1921-22 225.8 28.9 454.0 1922-23 229.8
216,0 30.4 472.2 1923-24 233.5
214.3 32.3 476.4 1924-25 236.1
204.4 31.5 469.4 217.2 28.6 481.9
1925-26 236.5 219.0 26.2 1926-27 235.9 218.0 481.7
1927-28 235.7 25.4 479.3 1928-29 235.4
221.7 25.6 483.0 225.6 26.8 487.8 1929-30 236.3 224.4 30.5 491.2
1930-31 240.5 223.1 34.3 497.9 1931-32 246.1 205.3 36.6 488.0 1932-33 252.1 210.8 36.4 499.3 1933-34 254.0 215.1 34.0 503.1 1934-35 252.5 210.7 31.6 494.8 1935-36 251.4 213.4 30.1 494.9 1936-37 248.7 217.7 29.6 496.0 1937-38 247.0 224.8 30.0 501.8 1938-39 245.6 218.3 29.7 493.6 1939-40 243.7 212.4 30.7 486.8 1940-41 241.1 206.0 28.2 475.3 1941-42 236.3 172.7 24.1 433.1 1942-43 225.5 144,1 20,9 390.5 1943-44 230.7 135.6 21.1' 387.5 1944-45 241.2 140,0 23.3 404.5 1945-46 246.4 160.0 23.6 430.0 1946-47 249.9 169.2 22.0 441.1 1947-48 252.0 164.5 20.6 437.1 1948-49 251.7 165.7 18.5 435.9 1949-50 251.3 167.1 17.7 436.1 1950-51 252.4 165.4 17.4 435.2 1951-52 253.7 166.7 17.1 437.5 1952-53 256.0 172.6 16.4 445.0 1953-54 257.7 173.3 15.9 446.9 1954-55 258.3 168.2 15.7 442.2
1955-56 259.6 163.6 15.4 438.6 1956-57 259.5 161.8 14.8 436.1 1957-58 255.5 164.2 14.3 434.0 1958-59 248.2 162.8 13.3 424.3 1959-60 241.8 155.2 11.8 408.8
1960-61 240.3 148.3 11.3 399.9 1961-62 248.1 145.1 10.2 403.4 1962-63 238.5 143.6 9.9 392.0 1963-64 231.1 143.4 8.8 383.3 1964-65 228.8 141.8 8.6 379.2
1965-66 222.0 140.7 7.9 370.6 1966-67 224.3 139.9 8.0 372.2 1967-68 218.0 141.4 7.1 366.5 1968-69 208.2 137.2 7.6 353.0 1969-70 200.1 131.4 6.5 338.0
1970-11c 185.0 120.6 5.2 310.8
a 1920-21 to 1960-61 from Keating [6J, remaining years compiled from the population census [2] and A & P census IS].
b Includes unemployed and adjusted to approximate average employment for that year. c 1970-71 !nc1uded because 1971 was a population census ''benchmark'',
-297-APPENDIX 3D
ESTIMATED FEMALE lWRAL WORKFORCE, 1920-21 TO 1970-71a
Working Employees Unpaid Year Proprietors
,000 ,000 Helpers Total
,000 ,000
1920-21 6.0 2.3 1921-22 6.3 2.5
1.0 9.3 1922-23 6.5 2.6
1.0 9.8 1923-24 6.8 2.8
1.0 10.1 1924-25 7.2 2.9
1.0 10.6 1.0 11.1
1925-26 7.5 3.0 1926-27 7.9
1.0 11.5 3.2
1927-28 8.3 3.3 1.0 12.1
1928-29. 8.8 1.1 12.7
1929-30 9.6 3.3 1.1 13.2 3.4 1.1 14.1
1930-31 11.3 3.4 1.2 1931-32 13.0
15.9
1932-33 3.3 1.3 17.6
14.3 3.2 1.3 18.8 1933-34 15.6 3.4 1.4 20.4 1934-35 16.1 3.6 1.3 21.0 1935-36 16.0 3.8 1.3 21.1 1936-37 15.6 3.8 1.3 20.7 1937-38 15.1 4.0 1.3 20.4 1938-39 14.8 4.1 1.3 20.2 1939-40 14.5 4.7 2.1 21.3 1940-41 14.0 6.0 5.5 25.5 1941-42 13.6 9.7 9.6 32.9 1942-43 12.1 14.7 14.0 40.8 1943-44 13.0 15.4 13.3 41.7 1944-45 15.4 13.8 11.5 40.7 1945-46 16.1 11.3 7.9 35.3 1946-47 14.7 9.8 3.7· 28.2 1947-48 14.2 9.3 2.5 26.0 1948-49 14.7 9.4 2.6 26.7 1949-50 15.7 9.9 3.3 28.9
1950-51 16.8 10.1 3.8 30.7 1951-52 17.3 9.8 3.8 30.9 1962-53 18.0 9.7 4.0 31.7 1953-54 19.2 9.3 4.6 33.1 1954-55 20.0 9.3 4.8 34.1
1955-56 21.1 9.2 4.7 35.0 1956-57 22.6 9.4 4.2 36.2 1957-58 23.8 9.8 4.0 37.6 1958-59 25.1 9.7 4.0 38.8 1959-60 26.3 9.4 3.7 39.4
1960-61 27.4 9.6 3.3 40.3 1961-62 27.7 10.3 3.6 41.6 1962-63 27.9 11.2 3.8 42.9 1963-64 28.2 11.9 4.1 44.2 1964-65 28.4 12.7 4.3 45.4
1965-66 28.7 13.2 4.7 46.6
1966-67 29.1 12.2 4.4 45.7
1967-68 29.4 U.2 4.2 44.8
1968-69 29.8 10.2 3.9 44.0
1969-70 30.1 9.3 3.7 43.1
1970-71b 30.S 8.3 3.4 42.2
a 1920-21 to 1960-61 from Keating [6]. remaining years from the population census [2], labour force survey [3] and the A & P census [5].
b 1970-71 included because 1971 was a population censuS ''benchmark''.
-298-APPENDIX 3E
ESTIMATED UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE MALE RURAL WORKFORCE, 1920-21 TO 1969-70
Year Unemployeda
Employed Male
% ,000
1920-21 3.0 1921-22 2.4
13.6
1922-23 1.8 11.3
1923-24 2.3 8.6
1924-25 2.3 10.8 11.1
1925-26 1.8 8.7 1926-27 1.7 1927-28 2.9
8.1
1928-29 3.0 14.0
1929-30 5.5 14.6 27.0
1930-31 7.9 39.3 1931-32 8.4 41.0 1932-33 7.2 35.9 1933-34 6.0 30.2 1934-35 5.0 24.7 1935-36 3.9 19.3 1936-37 3.1 15.4 1937-38 2.9 14.6 1938-39 3.2 15.8 1939-40 2.8 13.6 1940-41 1.6 7.6 1941-42 1.1 4.8 1942-43 1.0 3.9 1943-44 1.0 3.9 1944-45 1.0 4.0 1945-46 1.1 4.7 1946-41 1.0 4.4 1947-48 1.8 7.9 1948-49 1.6 7.0 1949-50 1.4 6.1
1950-51 1.3 5.7 1951-52 1.1 4.8 1952-53 0.9 4.0 1953-54 0.7 3.1 1954-55 0.3 1.3
1955-56 0.4 1.8 1956-57 1.4 6.1 1957-58 2.4 10.4 1958-59 2.9 12.3 1959-60 2.0 8.2
1960-61 . 2.5 10.0 1961-62 1.9 7.7 1962-63 1.6 6.3 1963-64 1.0 3.8 1964-65 0.8 3.0
1965-66 1.1 4.1 1966-67 1.3 4.8 1967-68 1.2 4.4 1968-69 1.1 3.9 1969-70 1.0 3.4
a The unemployment rate is the percentage of the total male rural workforce unemployed. The series was derived from unemployment rates reported from the population census [2] and from the Labour Report [4].
Workforce ,000
440.4 460.9 467.8 458.6 470.8
473.0 471.2 469.0 473.2 464.2
458.6 447.0 463.4 472.9 470.1
475.6 480.6 487.2 477 .8 473.2
467.7 428.3 386.6 383.6 400.5
425.3 436.7 429.2 428.9 430.0
429.5 432.7 441.0 443.8 440.9
436.8 430.0 423.6 412.0 400.6
389.9 395.7 385.7 379.5 376.2
366.5 367.4 362.1 349.1 334.6
-299-APPENDIX 3F
TOTAL AND ADJUSTED RURAL WORKFORCE, 1920-21 TO 1969-70
Total Adjusted Rural Workforce
Year Rural
Workforce a b Males Females c . 000 .000 ,000
1920-21 463.3 430.3 6.7 1921-22 482.0 450.2 7.1 1922-23 486.2 456.5 7.3 1923-24 480.0 447,6 7.7 1924-25 493.0 460.8 8.1 1925-26 493.2 463.9 8.4 1926-27 491.4 462.3 8.8 1927-28 495.7 460.0 9.2 1928-29 501.0 463.8 9.6 1929-30 505.3 453.5 10.3 1930-31 513.8 446.6 11.6 1931-32 505.6 434.2 12.9 1932-33 518.1 450.6 13.8 1933-34 523.5 461.0 14.9 1934-35 515.8 459.0 15.4 1935-36 516.0 465.1 15.5 1936-37 516.7 470.3 15.2 1937-38 522.2 476.7 15.0 1938-39 513.8 467.4 14.8 1939-40 508.1 462.4 15.4 1940-41 500.8 457.8 17.7 1941-42 466.0 419.9 22.2 1942-43 431.3 379.3 26.9 1943-44 429.2 376.1 27.8 1944-45 445.2 392.3 27.5
1945-46 465.3 417.0 24.4 1946-47 469.3 429.0 20.2 1947-48 463.1 422.0 18.8 1948-49 462.6 422.5 19.3 1949-50 465.0 423.8 20.8
1950-51 465.9 423.5 22.0 1951-52 468.4 426.7 22.2 1952-53 476.7 435.3 22.7 1953-54 480.0 438.2 23.6 1954-55 476.3 435.4 24.3
1955-56 473.6 431.5 25.0 1956-57 472.3 424.8 26.0 1957-58 471.6 418.6 27.2 1958-59 463.1 407.3 28.1 1959_60 448.2 396.5 28.6
1960-61 440,2 385.9 29.4 1961-62 445,0 392.2 30.3 1962-63 434.9 382.3 31.2 1963-64 427,5 376.4 32.1 1964-65 424,6 373.2 32.9
1965-66 417,2 363.8 33.7 1966-67 417.9 364.6 33.1
1967-68 411.3 359.6 32.5 1968..69 397,0 346.5 32.0
1969-70 381.1 332.3 31.4
a Unadjusted sum of males and females in the rural workforce. b Adjusted for unemployment, and helpers· 0.65 adult male. c Female proprietors and employees. 0.75 adult male, female helpers· 0.4875
adult male. d Adjusted sum of males and females in adult male equivalents.
Tota1d
,000
437.0 457.3 463.8 455.3 468.9
472.2 471.1 469.3 473.4 463.8
458.2 447.1 464.4 475.9 474.4
480.5 485.4 491.7 482.2 477.8
475.5 442.1 406.2 403.9 419.8
441.4 449.2 440.9 441.8 444.6
445.5 448.9 458.0 461.8 459.7
456.5 450.9 445.7 435.4 425.1
415.3 422.4 413.4 408.5 406.1
397.5 397.7 392.1 378.4 363.7
-300-
[1]' AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Australian Standard Industrial
Classification, Canberra, 1969.
[2] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Census·of the Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra, various issues. The Tables used
in this study are those.classifying the population by
Industry and Occupational Status. The detailed data
from the 1971 census is unpublished and was provided
by the A.B.S.
[3J AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, The Labour Force, Canberra,
various issues.
[4] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Labour Report, Canberra, various
issues.
[5] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Rural Industries Bulletin,
Canberra. For details of all issues in this series see
same Reference Chapter 2.
[6] KEATING, M., The Growth and Composition of the Australian Work
force 1910-11 to 1960-61, Vols,l and 2, unpub. Ph.D.
h i A N U Nov 1967 Subsequently published t es s, "'J .. " •
as KEATING, M., The Australian Workforce 1910-11 to
1960-61, Canberra, Progress Press, 1973.
Year
1920-21 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1924-25
1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30
1930-31 1931-32 1932-33 1933-34 1934-35
1935-36 1936-37 1937-38 1938-39 1939-40
1940-41 1941-42 1942-43 1943-44 1944-45
1945-46 1946-47 1947-48 1948-49 1949-50
1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55
1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60
1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65
1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
-301-APPENDIX 4A
ESTIMATED TOTAL LABOUR PAYMENTS TO AUS C TRALIAN RURAL EMPLOYEES: a
1920-21 TO 1969-70. $m. CURRENT PRICES
Average Earningsb Award Wage
76 78
96
80 105
77 100
81 97
101 85 88
104
86 111
88 111 115
80 109 68 95 59 80 59 78 60 79 59 80 61 83 66 89 72 96 70 96 71 98 73 100 70 95 72 100 72 101 74 104 81 116 87 126 85 126
101 147 115 165
148 209 183 264 206 295 226 315 232 310
234 308 249 318 262 318 253 315 260 321
262 309 271 320 284 321 298 326 313 344
316 353 336 366 353 383 371 381 380 375
c
jl_ _ _ C
-Includes both male and female employees. females· 0.75 adult male rate.and an imputed ~.payment to unpaid helpers. unpaid helpers· 0.65 adult male rate. b" Based on estimated average earnings of 'rural employees. c Based on the award wage for"rura1industry. for 1920-21 to 1957-58. as shown in
Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Labour Report. Canberra. (various issues) thereaftet' l'!i1u"Ited bv the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Indices of Prices Paid. Canberra (mimeo). wages item.
-302-APPENDU 4B
ESTIMATED TOTAL LA:BOUR PAYMENTS TO AUSTRALIAN R a URAL PROPRIETORS : 1920-21 to 1969-70, $m, current prices
. '. . -. .
Average Multiplied Award Denison Year Earningsb Average Average Waged Earnings & . EarningsC Method
1% capita1f
1920-21 81 113 102 1921-22 109 99 79 111 107 69 1922-23 82 93 1923-24
115 102 73 99 85 118 106 79 1924-25 103 85 119 108 129 106 1925-26 89 124 110 1926-27 93
80 110 1927-28
129 117 62 114 92 128 1928-29 119 61 115 91 127 120 63 113 1929-30 89 124 121 40 109 1930-31 81 112 113 32 1931-32 79 97
109 107 46 1932-33 76 94 107 ·102 55 90
1933~34 75 104 99 84 1934-35 73 92
102 101 72 89 1935-36 75 104 100 90 1936-37 77
92 107 103 118
1937-38 80 111 97
106 106 98 1938-39' 79 110 110 71 97 1939-40 80 111 111 98 101 1940-41 82 114 112 75 102 1941-42 88 122 120 110 107 1942-43 98 136 136 153 122 1943-44 105 146 149 164 131 1944-45 111 154 157 114 136 1945-46 115 159 164 134 141 1946-47 121 167 175 133 152 1947-48 126 175 186 327 168 1948-49 149 207 216 312 194 1949-50 167 232 239 448 223 1950-51 217 300 306 732 309 1951-52 268 370 387 4B1 343 1952-53 ' 294 407 422 602 377 1953-54 324 448 452 505 408 1954-55 340 470 454 456 422
1955-56 355 490 468 517 437 1956-57 394 543 505 602 488 1957-58 416 573 504 302 503 1958-59 401 552 500 439 486 1959-60 416 572 513 487 511
1960-61 443 609 522 496 543 1961-62 474 651 560 ' 463 575 1962-63 479 658 541 519 586 1963-64 480 659 526 698 601 1964-65 503 690 552 620 623
1965-66 501 686 558 394 630 1966~67 546 749 594 693 683 1967-68 558 765 604 375 698 1968-69 579 792 595 624 726 1969-70, 601 820 593 516 750
a Includes both male and female proprietors, females. 0.75 adult male rate.
b Assumes the payment to proprietors is equal to the average earnings of rural employees.
c Assumes the payment to proprietors is equal to 1.4 times the average earnings of rurs1 employees.
d Assumes the payment to proprietors is equal to the award wsge of rural employees.
e Assumes the payment to proprietors is equal to rural factor output x (total wages paid in Australia/gross national product)-Estimsted actual wage payments to employees.
f Assumes the payment to proprietors is equal to the average earnings of rural employees plus a management allowance of I per cent of the capital stock value.
-303-
APPENDIX 4C
ESTIMATED TOTAL LABOUR PAYMENTS TO AUSTRALIAN RURAL WORKFORCE;a
1920-21 TO 1969-70, $m, CURRENT PRICES.
Year Award Wageb Average Multiplied Denison Average EarningsC Average d Methode Earnings and Earnings 1% Capital f
1920-21 198 157 189 1921-22 212 157 185 174
1922-23 202 162 189 147 170
1923-24 203 195 153 177
162 195 1924-25 209 156 179
166 200 210 185 1925-26 214 174 209 165 1926-27 229 194
181 217 149 1927-28 230 178 200
1928-29 236 214 148 199
179 215 150 200 1929-30 230 169 204 120 187 1930-31 208 149 180 100 1931-32 186 163
138 168 105 1932-33 181
151 136 166 114 148
1933-34 178 135 164 143 150 1934-35 181 132 161 131 145 1935-36 183 136 165 152 152 1936-37 191 143 173 184 162 1937':'38 201 152 183 178 168 1938-39 206 149 180 141 165 1939-40 209 151 182 168 169 1940-41 212 155 187 148 173 1941-42 215 158 192 180 177 1942-43 236 170 208 225 192 1943-44 250 177 218 235 200 1944-45 260 185 228 187 208 1945-46 280 196 240 215 221 1946-47 301 208 254 220 237 1947-48 313 211 260 412' 250 1948-49 363 250 308 413 292 1949-50 404 282 347 563 335
1950-51 515 365 448 880 452 1951-52 651 451 553 664 521 1952-53 717 500 613 808 578 1953-54 768 550 674 731 628 1954-55 764 572 702 688 647
1955-56 775 589 724 750 664 1956-57 823 643 792 851 728 1957-58 822 678 835 564 756 1958-59 816 654 805 692 728 1959-60 833 676 832 747 761
1960-61 831 705 871 758 792 1961-62 880 745 922 734 833 1962-63 862 763 942 803 857 1963-64 851 771J 957 996 885 1964-65 897 816 1,003 934 922
1965-66 910 817 1,002 710 931 1966-67 960 882 1,085 1,029 1,002
1967-68 987 911 1,118 729 1,034
1968-69 976 950 1,163 995 1,079
1969-70 968 981 1,200 896 1,109
a Females _ 0.75 adult male rate, unpaid helpers. 0.65 adult male rate.
b All receive payment based on adult male award wage.
c All receive payment based on adult male average earnings.
d Employees as in c, proprietors receive 1.4 times adult male average earnings.
e Employees as in c, proprietors receive aufficient to equate rural total labour payments/factor output ratio to total wages in the economy/gross national product ratio.
f Employees as in c, proprietors receive average earnings plus 1 per cent of capital stock value.
-304-
APPENDIX 5A
Land Values and Capitalised Value of the Residual
Return to Land
Two broad., groups of, factors influence, the value of agricultural
land. First, there is level of returns obtained from using that land
in agricultural production. This return can be considered a residual
or balance after all other payment claims by inputs have been met. "
That is, all purchased inputs have been paid for and all labour and
capital that is not fixed to the land have been rewarded prior to any,
return accruing to the land and attached improvements. The size of.
this residual return to land will be an important· determinant of the
value of~that land.
The second main influence on land prices is a group of factors
which Clark [5] usefully termed "amenity andexpectat;ion" factors.
These include personal benefits of owning the land such as: the pros
pect of capital gains, it's effectiveness as. a hedge against inflation,
being King of one's own mini Kingdom, etc., as well as expectations
about the future level of the residual returnto·land. Thefollowing
is designed to indicate (a) the relative magnitudes of the two factors,
(b) that the relative importance of the two factors varies over time,
and (c) the timing of major changes in the relative importance of the
two factors.
There is no way of estimating directly, the importance of the
amenity and expectation factors. But, with so~e assumptions, it,is
possible to assess the importance of the residual· return to land. To
do this, it.is necessary to estimate the payment to all inputs used in
production other than land and attached improvements. The analysis
begins with factor outputl which represents the 'return to.labour and
1 This term was introduced in Chapter 2, and.elaborated and estimated in Chapter 8.
-305-
capital including land. Labour payments consisting of actual wage
payments to employees, and 1.4 times the actual wage rate for prop-1
rietors have been deducted. The remaining deduction is a return on 2 livestock and plant and machinery capital, The residual return is
attributed to land and in a world of no uncertainty and no lags, can
be considered to be one year of an expected continuous stream of such
returns i.e. an annuity. The value of,landattributed to this flow
of returns should therefore be the present value lump sum equivalent of that annuity.
The procedure outlined above has been carried out using data
contained in this study. A range of discount rates and time periods
were tried, but only the present value of 20 year annuities discounted
at 5 per cent are reported here. This example is sufficient to fulfil
the purposes outlined earlier. The analysis is simplistic, and attrib
utes all other influences to the amenity and expectation factors, The
quantitative estimate of these amenity and expectation factors is
derived as the difference between actual land va1ues3 and the capital
ised annuity, These values are shown in Table SA.1, while Figure SA,l
shows the relationship between actual land values, and the capitalised
annuity value. In inteFpreting the diagram, where the actual land
value exceeds the capitalised ann~ity value, ,the amenity and expect
ation factors. are exerting a positive influence .on actual land prices
(and vice-versa). This would be expected in periods such as the early
1930's depression when farming was so unprofitab1e~ Land prices were
well above the capitalised value, and some suggested reasons for this
1
2
3
See Chapter 4.
These capital values are· estimated in Chapters 6 and 7 respectively. The rate of return is assumed to be identical to. that, discount ,rate used in converting the residual return from an annuity to a present value lump sum.
The derivation of these values is described in Section. 5.2, ,
$
15,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
5,000
2,500
o ~ ."L
1920/21 1930/31
Capitalised Return to Land
1940/41 1950/51
FIGURE 5A.1
Y
Actual Land Value
. 1960/61
Land Value and Capitalised Return to Land, 1920-21 to 1969-70: $m current prices.
Year
1969/70
I W o 01 I
-307-TABLE 5A.1
ESTIMATED "AMENITY AND EXPECTATION" VALUE IN LAND PRICES 1920-21 TO 1969-70
(current prices)
Year
1920-21 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1924-25
1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30
1930-31 1931-32 1932-33 1933-34 1934-35
1935-36 1936-37 1937-38 1938-39 1939-40
1940-41 1941-42 1942-43 1943-44 1944-45
1945-46 1946-47 1947-48 1948-49 1949-50
1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55
1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60
1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65
1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
Value of Land and
Improvementsa
$m
1.783 1.888 1.999 2.101 2.207
2.339 2.435 2.520 2.670 2.733
2.712 2.614 2.497 2.465 2.444
2,408 2,432 2,396 2,579 2,634
2,525 2,676 2,699 2,693 2.715
2,757 2,815 2,888 3.015 3.207
3,626 3,847 4,412 4,861 5,533
5,693 6,424 6,667 6,908 7,438
7,913 8,516 9,081 9,563
10,087
11,232 11,983 13,602 14,811 15,224
a Derived from Scott [10] and Gutman [6]'
Capitalised Retu~to
Land $m
1.313 576 587 636
1.704
634 213
. 194 270
-207
-291 -21 214 831 609
972 1,542 1,318
583 1.379
600 975
1,553 1.603
457
989 1,175 6,004 4,592 7,674
14,533 5,198 8,298 6,189 4,470
5.277 6,765 -118
3.486 4,063
3,572 2,376 3,963 8,255 5,943
471 6,412 -796
4,509 1.580
"Amenity and Expectations"
. Valuee $m
470 1.312 1.412 1.465
502
1.705 2.222 2.326 2.400 2.940
3.003 2.635 2,283 1.634 1,835
1,436 890
1,078 1,996 1,255
1,925 1,701 1,146 1,090 2,258
1,768 1,640
-3,116 -1,577 -4,467
-10,907 -1.351 -3.886 -1.328 1,063
416 -341
6,785 3,422 3,375
4,341 6,140 5,118 1,308 4,144
10,761 5,571
14,398 10,302 13,644
b id 1 eturn to land to be a 20 year annuity, Calculated by considering the res ua dr i discount rate of 5 per cent. from which the present value is derive us ng a
c Value of Land and Improvements less capitalised return to land.
-308 ...
are contained in Section 5.3, By way of contrast, the marked pros
perity of the early 1950's wool boom was not generally expected to
last at that level, so that the amenity and expectation factors
exerted a strong negative influence.
Any comparison of these results with those of 'Clark for U.K.
IS, Table 37; facing p,94] should be made carefully because of major
differences between the,agricu1tura1 structures in the two countries.
These include the much greater importance of production for export in
Australia, and the more important renting ~actor in the U.K. Despite
these cautionary thoughts, the,trends'are surprisingly simiiar.
Briefly, in both countries, the amenity and expectation factors ,are
strong positive influences to about 1932-33, then they begin to
diminish in their positive influence to eventually become strongly
negative in the 1950's. Finally, they regain a strong positive
influence again from the l,ate 1950's. The only major difference is
that ,Clark finds the amenity and expectation factors to be negative
from 1933-34, while in Australia the negative period coincides with
the post-war boom.
The main implication of this analysis lies in the ,varying
importance of the amenity and expectation factors ove~ time, particularly
in periods ,of major disturbances such as the.early 1930's and 1950's.
Considering this in the context of land va1ues,.it means that ,the
efficiency with which land values reflect the productivity of.1and·
will also vary, particularly in times of major disturban~es. As a
result, it will be very difficult to obtain a satisfactory means of
deflating current price land values to constant price value.s,. In the'
absence of a land.· price index pre-war, some' price proxy, is . needed. and
agricultural product prices,are an obvious. choice because they are a
major determinant of tbe size of the residual return to land. However,·
the use of these inethods,will not produce satisfactorY'resu1t$ due,to
the changing role of amenity' and expectation factors in determining
land·prices.
-309-
A second implication may appear contradictory but is not.
Although there are all kinds of disturbance factors operating to
produce the oscillations in the capitalised values as indicated in
Figure 5A.l, there is some tendency for the trend in actual land
values and the capitalised annuity value to move together. While
this is not pursued in detail here, the evidence is sufficient to
provide a warning about using land value as a measure of land input
as it will entail an element of circular reasoning. ariefly, this
means a tendency to try ,to explain rising output by rising land input
which in itself is partly determined by rising output. Th~s offers
further support for the use of a non-price based measure of land
input such as that outlined in Section 5,3,2.
-310-
APPENDIX 5B
IMPROVED AND UNIMPROVED RURAL LAND VALUES IN AUSTRALIA 1920-21 TO 1969-70a
Year Improvedb Un1m.provedb Value of Values Values Improvements C
$m $m $111
1920-21 1.783 974 809 1921-22 1.888 1.016 872 1922-23 1.999 1.069 930 1923-24 2,101 1,105 996 1924-25 2,207 1,131 1.076 1925-26 2,339 1.179 1,160 1926-27 2.435 1.198 1,237 1927-28 2,520 1,226 1,294 1928-29 2.670 1.249 1,421 1929-30 2.733 '1.255 1.478 1930-31 2.712 1,182 1,530 1931-32 2.614 1.153 1.461 1932-33 2,497 1,097 1.400 1933-34 2.465 1.093 1,372 1934-35 2,444 1.089 1,355 1935-36 2.408 1.072 1,336 1936-37 2.432 1.070 1.362 1937-38 2.396 1,053 1,343 1938-39 2,579 1.097 1.482 1939-40 2.634 1.106 1,528 1940-41 2.525 1.067 1,458 1941-42 2,676 1,103 1,573 1942-43 2,699 1.108 1,591 1943-44 2,693 1,100 1.593 1944-45 2,715 1.104 1.611 1945-46 2,757 1.102 1,655 1946-47 2.815 1.111 1.704 1947-48 2,888 1,131 1.757 1948-49 3.015 1.115 1.900 1949-50 3,207 1,145 2,062
1950-51 3,626 1,232 2,394 1951-52 3.847 1.291 2.556 1952-53 4,412 1.460 2.952 1953-54 4,861 1,554 3,307 1954-55 5.533 1.718 3.815
1955-56 5,693 1.774 3,919 1956-57 6.424 2,013 4.411 1957-58 6.667 2.066 4,601 1958-59 6,908 2,145 4.763 1959-60 7,438 2,266 5,172
1960'-61 7,913 2.531 5.382 1961-62 8,516 2,552 5,964 1962-63 9.081 2,648 6.433 1963-64 9.563 2.854 6,709 1964-65 10,087 2,882 7,205
1965-66 11.232 3,253 7.979 3,417 8.566 1966-67 11,983
9,842 1967-68 13,602 3,760 10.652 4.159 1968-69 14.811
4,274 d 10,950 d 1969-70 15,224 d
a All current prices. b Derived from Scott [10] and Gutman [6]. c Improved value less unimproved value. d
Interpolated.
-311-APPENDIX 5C
PRICE INDEX DEFLATED UNIMPROVED LAND ESTIMATES 1920-21 TO 1969-70
Year
1920-21 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1924-25
1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30
1930-31 1931-32 1932-33 1933-34 1934-35
1935-36 1936-37 1937-38 1938-39 1939-40
1940-41 1941-42 1942-43 1943-44 1944-45
1945-46 1946-47 1947-48 1948-49 1949-50
1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55
1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60
1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65
1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
Unimproved Values a
$m
974 1,016 1,069 1,105 1,131
1,179 1,198 1,226 1,249 1,255
1,182 1,153 1,097 1,093 1,089
1,072 1,070 1,053 1,097 1,106
1,067 1,103 1,108 1,100 1,104
1,102 1,111 1,131 1,115 1,145
1,232 1,291 1,460 1,554 1,718
1,774 2,013 2,066 2,145 2,266
2,531 2,552 2,648 2,854 2,882
3,253 3,417 3,760 4,159 4,274 c
Land Pric;, Index
63 65 67 69 69
66 66 66 66 67
65 63 61 59 57
56 56 59 58 59
61 64 67 69 71
74 76 78 80 85
91 100 100 121 133
144 154 163 170 176 180 184 189 195 203
213 226 240 251 n.a.
Index Deflated UnilJlproved Land
Value $m
1,546 1,563 1,596 1,601 1,639
1,786 1,815 1,858 1,892 1,873
1,818 1,830 1,798 1,853 1,910
1,914 1,911 1,785 1,891 1,875
1,749 1,723 1,654 1,594 1,555
1,489 1,462 1,450 1,394 1,347
1,354 1,291 1,327 1,284 1,292
1,232 1,307 1,267 1,262 1,288
1,406 1,387 1,401 1,464 1,420
1,527 1,512 1,567 1,657 n.a.
a Current prices derived from Scott [10J and Gutman 16J. b 1920 .. 21 to 1943...44, consumer price index 12J, 19.44-45 to 1969-70, Macph1l1amy [7,81,
base 1949-50 • 100. The two series have been spliced, and a six year lagged moving average calculated.
c Interpolated.
-312-
APPENDIX 5D
Compilation of an Index of Rural Public Capital
Total public capital expenditure estimates excluding defence
are available since 1860 in But1in [4]. His estimates are-generally
comparable to the official estimates in the.A,N,A, [1] which are avail
able from 1938~39, These estimates for th~ 50 years.beginning in 1920-21
are shown in Table 5D,l, column (1) and are derived·from But1in [4]
1920-2lto 1937-38, official national- income.estimates 1938-39 to 1947-48
reported in Butlin [4], and-A.N,A. [1] estimates since 1948-49. While
there is a detailed breakdown of some of this expenditure by purpose
such as land settlement and·irrigation, this only allocates a small
proportion of public expenditure to the.rural sector, ManYcexpenditures
such as those in the.transport. communications'and power generation
categories provide benefits to all sectors and are not allocated by
industry. Mathews [9] in his study of. public investment discusses
many aspects of particular rural investments, but does ,not include
any estimates or basis for estimating the proportiOn of total public
capital expenditure that has.a sign1ficantimpact on.the rural sector.
For the purposes of this study, an allocation has ,been based
on the proportion of rural output in Gross ,National Product (G,N.P,).
The basis for this allocation lies in -the assumption that public' capital
expenditure is likely.to be.directed.to-areas or industries in a way
which corresponds to the importance of these areas or industries as
sources of national output, This procedure is notable to indicate
minor changes in emphasis in public capital expenditure programs-but
merely to distill the main trends, In this,regard, the allocated
proportions shown in Table 5D,1, column (2) appear appropriate for
this purpose, and were derived from Butlin [4] for the years 1920-21
to 1937~8, official estimates .reported,in Butlin [4] for 1939-40 to
1947-48 and the A.N.A. [1] since 1948-49. . ,
-313-
TABLE SD.1
COMPILATION OF THE RURAL PUBLIC CAPITAL STOCK INDEX 1920-21 TO 1969-70a
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Public Rural Rural Deflated Rural Rural
Year Investment Allocation Allocation Rural Public Public $m Allocation Capital Capital
% $m $m $m Index
1920-21 135 28.3 38 68 891 64.6 1921-22 127 23.3 30 61 925 67.8 1922-23 126 22.5 28 59 956 70.4 1923-24 134 22.7 30 65 992 72.8 1924-25 149 26.5 40 84 1.046 75.5 1925-26 154 22.5 35 72 1.087 79.7 1926-27 167 21.4 36 75 1.129 82.8 1927-28 171 20.4 35 72 1.167 86.0 1928-29 161 21.4 34 71 1.203 88.9 1929-30 141 20.0 28 58 1.225 91.6 1930-31 104 20.6 22 46 1.234 93.3 1931-32 69 23.0 16 35 1.233 94.0 1932-33 73 23.4 17 38 1.234 93.9 1933-34 77 25.9 20 45 1.242 94.0 1934-35 97 22.3 22 49 1.254 94.6 1935-36 103 23.5 24 56 1.272 95.5 1936-37 120 25.1 30 61 1.295 96.9 1937-38 137 22.8 31 64 1.319 98.6 1938-39 124 19.7 24 49 1.329 100.5 1939-40 116 22.0 26 46 1.335 101.2 1940-41 100 20.0 20 34 1.328 101.6 1941-42 76 19.0 14 23 1.311 101.1 1942-43 60 20.0 12 18 1.289 99.9 1943-44 64 20.0 13 19 1.269 98.2 1944-45 70 20.0 14 20 1.252' 96.7
1945-46 90 21.0 19 27 1.241 95.3 1946-47 182 21.0 38 53 1,257 94.5 1947-48 236 24.0 57 68 1.287 95.7 1948-49 283 21.2 60 65 1.313 98.0 1949-50 399 24.4 97 97 1.371 ·100.0
1950-51 575 28.9 166 126 1.456 104.4 1951-52 792 18.9 150 89 1.502 110.9 1952-53 774 21.0 163 96 1.552 114.3 1953-54 799 18.6 149 88 1.594 118.2 1954-55 849 16.4 139 79 1.625 121.4
1955-56 903 15.9 144 77 1.653 123.7 1956-57 934 16.6 155 80 1.683 125.8 1957-58 977 13.0 127 67 1,700 128.2 1958-59 1.075 14.4 155 83 1.732 129.5 1959-60 1.214 13.6 165 88 1.768 131.9
1960-61 1.256 13.1 165 85 1.799 134.6 . 1961-62 1.402 12.3 172 88 1.834 137.0
1962-63 1.451 12.6 183 94 1.872 139.6
1963-64 1.602 13.7 220 111 1.927 142.6
1964-65 1.854 12.4 230 111 1.980 146.8
1965-66 2.058 10.4 214 100 2.021 150.8
1966-67 2.168 11.6 252 115 2.076 153.9
1967-68 2.372 8.6 204 92 2.105 158.1 246 106 2.148 160.3
1968-69 2.536 4.7 226 92 2.175 163.5
1969-70 2.755 8.2
a For a description of these items and sources. !efer to the text of this Appendix.
-314-
The ratio of rural output to G.N,P, is then applied to the
estimate of total public capital expenditure to obtain an estimate
of the proportion which benefits the rural sector. This amount is
shown in Table 50,1, column (3), The next step was to convert these
expenditures to 1949~50 base year prices. An.index was compiled (but
not shown, in Table 50,1) using items on which price information was.
available and which were important components in public capital invest
ment. Three items, metals and coal, building materials and·wages were
used and combined on an equal weights basis to form an index, From
1920-21 to 1958-59, this price information was derived from the
Melbourne Wholesale Price Index, and since 1959-60 from the.Wholesale
Price (Basic Materials and Foodstuffs) Index [2]. The resultant
deflated rural public capital expenditure estimate is shown ,in Table
50,1, column (4).
These annual gross public capital expenditures were used to
compile a stock series using a stock model
where Kt - public capital .stock in year t·
It - public capital expenditure in year t
d - diminishing balance rate'of depreciation of public
capital,
For these estimates, 'a rate of depreciation of 3 per cent was selected.
This is an arbitrary judgement made in the·absence of evidence on the.
real.rate of depreciation of public capital, ·and designed to reflect
the generally long-life of most public capital. The opening stock for
19~O-2lwas derived from But1in's [4] estimates extending back to 1860,
and processed in the same way as described above. For example, a
portion of the 1860 level of public capital expenditure is allocated to
rural use. in accord,with the ratio of rural production to G,N,P.,
deflated to,1949-50 prices, and then depreciated ,at a 3 per cent
-315-
diminishing balance rate, Repeating this process for all years from
1860 to 1919-20 and aggregating all years, resulted in a beginning
capital stock estimate for 1920-21 of $89lm. Stock estimates for
the remaining years were then derived via the stock model and are
shown in Table 5D.l, column (5). Finally, this stock series was
represented in index form with 1949-50 - 100, and is shown.,in column
(6), The index forms the .basis for estimating movements in the public
capital component of unimproved land as indicated in Appendix 5E,
-316-APPENDIX 5E
LAND AREA AND PUBLIC CAPITAL UNIMPROVED LAND ESTIMATES 1920-21 TO 1969-70a
Year Lan<1, x.a;:l~eac Public Total
Area Capitald Unimprovede mac. $m Value Land Value $m $m
1920-21 1.051 893 149 1.042 1921-22 1.041 885 157 1.042 1922-23 1.029 87S 163 1.038 1923-24 1.040 884 168 1.052 1924-25 1.006 855 174 1.029 1925-26 1.017 864 184 1.048 1926-27 1.020 867 191 1,058 1927-28 1,060 901 199 1,100 1928-29 1,047 890 205 1,095 1929-30 1,048 891 212 1,103 1930-31 1,022 869 216 1,085 1931-32 1,062 903 217 1,120 1932-33 1,066 906 217 1,123 1933-34 1,066 ·906 217 1,123 1934-35 1,065 905 219 1,124 1935-36 1.031 876 221 1,097 1936-37 1,000 884 224 1,108 1937-38 1,070 910 228 1.129 1938-39 1,079 917 232 1.149 1939-40 1.080 918 234 1,152 1940-41 1.055 897 235 1.132 1941-42 1.047 890 234 1.124 1942-43 1.055 897 231 1.128 1943-44 1.067 907 227 1.134 1944-45 1.074 913 223 1.136 1945-46 1.070 910 220 1.130 1946-47 1.080 918 218 1,136 1947-48 1.090 927 221 1,148 1948-49 1,083 921 226 1.147 1949-50 1.087 924 231 1.155
1950-51 1.091 927 241 1.168 1951-52 1.110 944 256 1,200 1952-53 1,116 949 264 1.213 1953-54 1.120 952 273 1.225 1954-55 1.127 958 280 1.238
1955-56 1.136 966 286 1.252 1956-S7 1,147 975 291 1,266 1957-S8 1.145 973 296 1.269 1958-59 1.150 978 299 1.277 1959-60 1.153 980 305 1.285
1960-61 1,168 993 311 1.304 1961-62 1,174 998 316 1,314 1962-63 1.180 1.003 322 1.325 1963-64 1.191 1.012 329 1.341 1964-6S 1.210 1.029 339 1.368
1965-66 1,211 1.029 .348 1.377 1966-67 1.216 1.034 356 1.390
365 1.409 1967-68 1.228 1.044 370 1.413 1968-69 1.227 1.043 378 1.421
1969-70 1.227 1.043
a All in 1949-50 prices. b Derived from Scott [10J. c Land area valued at $0.85 per acre. d
20 per cent of 1949-50 unimproved land value ($23lm), adjusted by the index of rural public capital from Appendix 5D.
e Sum of Land Area Value and Public Capital Value.
-317-
APPENDIX SF
Compilation of a Price Index for Improvements, to Land
The current price valuation of improvements is assumed to
approximate the depreciated replacement cost of effecting those,
improvements. This permits the deflation of that series to constant'
prices using an index based on the cost of effecting those improve
ments. Such an index is compiled taking into ,account the availability
of price information, and the relevance of items in effecting improve
ments. Throughout, equal weights have been allocated ,in the absence of
data on the importance of various components such as labour, materials,
chemicals, etc. in effecting improvements. This is a major deficiency
as it is likely that there has been substantial movements in the,
relative importance of input components. For example, in the ,1930's
and 1940's, the economic circumstances ,of low farm incomes and·1ater
wartime shortages of basic materials, would lead to the creation of
relatively more improvements with lower material requirements and,higher
on-farm labour content. Further, in the. 1950's and 1960's with heavy,
emphasis on pasture improvement, the ,mix of input·components,is likely
to be different to that of the 1930's and 1940's. To overcome·these
problems there is a need for detailed information on expenditures and
the use of labour ,and plant which is not available for recent years
let alone the ,whole 50 years. Hence, the equal weights procedure has
been invoked in the.absence of a feasible alternative.
Two sources have been used to derive the index of the cost of
improvements. The main source is theB.A.E. Prices Paid Indices [3]
which are available in disaggregatedcomponents from 1945~6 on, This
source is preferred because these indices specifically re1ate·to the
rural sector. From those indices, the following components were
Selected: seed fertilizer chemicals, fuel, machinery, fencing " , 1 .
materials, building mater,ia1s, wages. and contracts,. Prior to 1945-46,
1 This component i80n1y available from 1960-61 on.
-318-
data is more limited, and components were selected from the.Melbourne
Wholesale Price Index [2] which were comparable to items used from the'
B.A.E. indices and of relevance to the creation of improvements. The
selected components were chemicals, building materials, and metals and!
coal. The latter is included to represent items such as fencing wire,
machinery, waterpiping, etc. Wages was also included for this period:
and was derived from the award wage data discussed in Chapter 4. This!
wage series was compiled in an index form with the'same base year as
the Melbourne Wholesale Price Index.
The component indices were then used to.compile a single index . .
using equal weights. The years 1920-21 to 1944-45 which were built up
from the Melbourne Wholesale Price Index referred to a.base year of 1911.
The years 1945-46 to 1969-70 which drew on the B.A.E. Prices Paid Indices
relate to a base period of the.three years ended June 1963. Thus the
final calculation involved adjusting the index to a 1949-50 base. The
resultant index is shown in Table 5F.l.
-319-
TABLE 5F.1
Price Index for Improvements to Landa 1920.-21 to 1969-70.
(1949-50. - 100)
Year Index Year Index
1920.-21 56 1945-46 73 1921-22 50. 1946-47 75 1922-23 47 1947-48 81 1923-24 46 1948-49 90. 1924-25 46 1949-50. 10.0
1925-26 46 1950.-51 126 1926-27 48 1951-52. 159 1927-28 48 1952-:-53 160. 1928-29 48 1953-54 159 1929-30. 50. 1954-55 160
1930.-31 50. 1955-56 164 1931-32 47 1956-57 173 1932-33 47 1957-58 176 1933-34 46 1958-59 175
1934-35 46 1959-60. 177
1935-36 46 1960.-61 180.
1936-37 48 1961-62 180
1937-38 48 1962-63 179
1938-39 '49 1963 .. 64 179
1939-40. 55 1964-65 179
1940.-41 58 1965-66 187
1941-42 61 1966-67 195
1942-43 66 1967-68. 20.0.
1943-44 67 1968-69 20.3
1944-45 68 1969-70 20.1
a For the years 1920-21 to 1944-45, based on components selected from the Melbourne Wholesale Price Index [2], for 1945-46 to 1969-70., based on,components selected ,from the B.A.E. Prices Paid Indices [31; base'1949-5D - 10.0..
-320-
APPENDIX 5G
PRICE INDEX DEFLATED IMPROVEMENTS ESTIMATES 1920-21 TO 1969-70
Value of Price Index Constant Price
Year Improvementsa of Improve- Value of Estimated
Depreciation c $m menta b Improvements
$m $m
1920-21 809 59 1921-22 872 60
1,371 24 1922-23 930 59
1,453 26
1923-24 996 55 1,576 28
1924-25 1,076 52 1,811 30 2,069 32
1925-26 1,160 49 1926-27 1,237 47
2,367 35
1927-28 1,294 47 2,632 37
1928-29 1,421 47 2,753 39
1929-30 1,478 48 3,023 43 3,079 44
1930-31 1,530 48 3,188 1931-32 1,461
46
1932-33 49 2,982 44
1.400 48 1933-34 1,372
2,917 42
1934-35 48 2,858 41
1,355 48 2,823 41 1935-36 1.336 47 2.843 1936-37
40 1.362 47 2.898 41
1937-38 1.343 1938-39
47 2.857 40 1.482 47 3.153 45
1939-40 1.528 49 3.118 46 1940-41 1.458 51 2.859 44 1941-42 1.573 53 2.968 47 1942-43 1.591 56 2.841 48 1943-44 1.593 59 2.700 49 1944-45 1.611 63 2.557 48
1945-46 1.655 66 2.508 50 1946-47 1.704 68 2.506 51 1947-48 1.757 72 2.440 53 1948-49 1.900 76 2.500 57 1949-50 2.062 81 2.546 62
1950-51 2.394 91 2.631 72 1951-52 2,556 105 2.434 77 1952-53 2.952 119 2.481 89 1953-54 3.307 132 2.505 99 1954-55 3.815 144 2.649 115
1955-56 3.919 155 2.528 118 1956-57 4.411 163 2,706 132 1957-58 4,601 165 2.788 138 1958-59 4.763 168 2.835 143 1959-60 5.172 171 3.025 155
1960-61 5.382 174 3.093 162 1961-62 5.964 177 3,369 179 1962-63 6.433 178 3,614 193 1963-64 6.709 178 3.769 201
1964-65 7.205 179 4,025 216
1965-66 7.979 181 4.408 239
1966-67 8.566 113 4,681 257
1967-68 9.842 187 5,263 295
1968-69 10,652 191 5,577 320
1969-70 10,950 d 194 5,644 329
a Current prices derived from Scott [10] and Gutman [6].
b This series is a six year lagged moving average of the index discussed in Appendix SF.
c Depreciation estimated using 3 per cent diminishing balance, and in current prices.
d Interpolated.
-321-
APPENDIX 5 - References
[1] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Australian National Accounts,
Canberra, (various issues),
[2] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF "STATISTICS, Labour Report, Canberra, (various"
issues).
[3] BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Indices of Prices Paid, Canberra,""
(mimeo), "
[4] BUTLIN, N.G., Australian Domestic Product, Investment and Foreign
Borrowing, 1861-1938/39. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1962.
[5] CLARK, C., The Value of Agricultural Land, Oxford, Pergamon Press,
1973.
[6] GUTMAN, G.O., "Investment and Production in Australian Agriculture",
Rev. Mktg Agric. Econ" 23(4), 237-310, Dec" 1955.
[7] MACPHILLAMY, C.H., "Movements in Rural Land "Prices and Factors
Affecting These Movements", Unpublished' (mimeo), Sydney,
1968.
[8] MACPHILLAMY, C,H., "Rural" Land Prices - New South Wales Current
Situation and Prospects"; The Valuer, 22(1), 18-23,
Jan., 1972.
[9] MATHEWS, R., Public Investment in Australia, Melbourne, Cheshires,
1967.
[10] SCOTT, R.H., The Value of Land in Australia, Unpublished manu-"
script, Sydney, 1973.
-322-APPENDIX 6A
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK IN AUSTRALIA:
1920-21 TO 1969-70, milliona
Year Sheep Beef Dairy Cattle Cattle Pigs Poultry Horses
1920-21 81.8 10.4 3.1 0.8 1921-22 86.1 11.0 2.4
10.9 3.5 1.0 11.7 1922-23 82.7 2.4 10.7 3.7 1.0 12.0 1923-24 84.0 2.4
9.9 3.5 0.9 12.3 1924-25 93.2 2.3 9.6 3.7 1.0 13.0 2.3
1925-26 103.6 9.6 3.7 1.1 1926-27 104.3
13.2 2.3 8.5 3.5 1.0 13.4 2.1 1927-28 100.8 8.2 3.5 0.9 13.6 2.0 1928-29 103.4 7.8 3.5 0.9 13.7
1929-30 104.6 7.6 1.9
3.6 1.0 13.9 1.8 1930-31 110.6 7.9 3.8 1.1 14.7 1931-32 110.6
1.8 8.1 4.2 1.2 15.6
1932-33 112.9 1.8
8.3 4.5 1.2 15.9 1933-34 109.9 8.8 4.7
1.8 1.0 16.5 1.8
1934-35 113.0 9.1 4.9 1.2 17.0 1.8 1935-36 108.9 8.9 5.0 1.3 17.0 1.8 1936-37 110.2 8.6 4.9 1.2 16.7 1.8 1937-38 113.4 8.2 4.9 1.1 16.5 1.7 1938-39 111.1 8.0 4.9 1.2 16.7 1.7 1939-40 119.3 8.2 4.9 1.5 17.4 1.7 1940-41 122.7 8.3 4.9 1.8 17.7 1.7 1941-42 125.2 8.6 4.9 1.4 17.6 1.6 1942-43 124.6 9.0 5.0 1.6 18.1 1.5 1943-44 123.2 9.3 4.9 1.7 19.0 1.4 1944-45 105.4 9.3 4.8 1.6 19.4 1.4 1945-46 96.4 9.3 4.6 1.4 18.5 1.3 1946-47 95.7 8.8 4.6 1.3 18.7 1.2 1947-48 102.6 9.0 4.8 1.3 18.5 1.2 1948-49 108.7 9.2 4.9 1.2 18.3 1.1 1949-50 112.9 9.7 4.9 1.1 18.5 1.1
1950-51 115.6 10.4 4.9 1.1 18.5 1.0 1951-52 117.6 10.3 4.6 1.0 lS.2 0.9 1952-53 123.1 10.5 4.S ·1.0 17.9 0.9 1953-54 126.9 10.7 4.9 1.2 18.1 O.S 1954-55 130.8 10.9 4.9 1.3 17.9 0.8
1955-56 139.1 11.4 5.1 1.2 18.2 0.8 1956-57 149.8 12.1 5.1 1.3 21.7 0.7 1957-58 149.3 11.9 5.0 1.4 18.1 0.7 1958-59 152.7 11.4 4.8 . 1.3 18.8 0.7 -1959-60 155.2 11.6 4.9 1.4 20.0 0.6
1960-61 152.7 12.4 4.9 1.6 21.6 0.6 1961-62 157.7 13.0 5.0 1.7 22.4 0.6 1962-63 158.6 13.5 5.1 1.4 22.8 0.5 1963-64 165.0 14.2 4.8 1.5 25.5 0.5 1964-65 170.6 14.1 4.7 1.7 27.6 0.5
1965-66 157.6 13.3 4.6 1.7 28.9 0.5
1966-67 164.2 13.7 4.5 1.8 31.7 0.5
1967-68 166.9 14.8 4.4 2.1 33.8 0.5
1968-69 174.6 16.3 4.3 2.3 35.5 0.5
1969-70 180.1 18.0 4.2 2.4 38.9 0.5
a Except for poultry, derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics, Rural Industries Bulletin, Canberra. For details. see same reference. Chapter 2. Poultry e~timates from Angliss. D.B. and R.A. Powell. "Estimates of Poultry Numbers by States • unpublished U.N.E. paper. 1974 (mimeo).
-323-
APPENDIX 6B
ESTIMATED VALUE OF LIVESTOCK IN AUSTRALIA:
1920-21 TO 1969-70. $m. 1949-50 pricesa
Year Sheep Beef Dairy Cattle Cattle Pigs Poultry Horses Total
1920-21 409 364 140 8 11 97 1.028 1921-22 431 382 159 10 12 98 1.090 1922-23 414 374 165 10 12 95 1.068 1923-24 420 346 157 9 12 93 1.037 1924-25 466 337 166 10 13 92 1 •. 083 1925-26 518 336 166 11 13 90 1.134 1926-27 521 277 157 10 13 85 1.083 1927-28 504 286 155 9 14 82 1.049 1928-29 517 272 159 9 14 78 1.049 1929-30 523 267 160 10 14 74 1.048 1930-31 553 277 171 11 15 72 1.098 1931-32 553 283 189 12 16 71 1.122 1932-33 565 289 204 12 16 71 1.155 1933-34 550 309 211 11 17 71 1.167 1934-35 565 320 221 12 17 71 1.205 1935-36 544 313 224 13 17 71 1.182 1936-37 551 302 219 12 17 71 1.171 1937-38 567 288 219 11 17 70 1.170 1938-39 555 280 218 12 17 69 1.151 1939-40 597 286 220 15 18 68 1.203 1940-41 614 292 221 18 18 67 1.229 1941-42 626 303 221 14 18 64 1.246 1942-43 623 315 225 16 18 61 1.258 1943-44 616 324 221 18 19 58 1?256 1944-45 527 326 217 16 19 54 1.160 1945-46 482 324 207 14 19 51 1.097 1946-47 479 308 209 13 19 48 1.074 1947-48 513 315 216 13 19 47 1.121 1948-49 544 322 221 12 18 45 1.162 1949-50 565 339 222 11 19 42 1.198
1950-51 578 363 218 11 19 40 1.229 1951-52 588 360 208 10 18 37 1.222 1952-53 615 366 216 10 18 36 1.261 1953-54 635 375 220 12 18 34 1.294 1954-55 654 382 222 13 18 32 1.321
1955-56 696 399 228 12 18 31 1.383 1956-57 749 425 230 13 22 29 1.469 1957-58 747 416 225 14 18 28. 1.448 1958-59 764 399 218 13 19 27 1.439 1959-60 776 407 220 14 20 26 1.462
1960-61 763 435 221 16 22 24 1.481 1961-62 789 455 227 17 23 22 1.531 1962-63 793 472 228 14 23 22 1.552 1963-64 825 498 218 15 26 21 1.602 1964-65 853 492 214 17 28 21 1.624
1965-66 788 467 207 18 29 20 1.528 1966-67 821 481 204 18 32 19 1.575 1967-68 835 518 198 21 34 19 1.624
1968-69 873 572 192 23 36 18 1.713
1969-70 900 630 187 24 39 18 1.799
a Derived from the number of livestock using values as follows: sheep $5. beef cattle $35. dairy cattle $45. pigs $10. poultry $1 and horses $40.
~324~
APPENDIX 7A
Depreciation of Farm Machinery, 1920-21 to 1940-41
With information on both the stock and gross investment in
plant and machinery, an estimate of depreciation may be obtained.
Depreciation represents the difference between gross investment and
net investment, that is
Dt = GI t - (Kt+l - Kt )
where Dt = depreciation in period t
GI t = gross investment in period t
Kt +l - Kt = net investment in period t, that is the net addition
to the stock value (K) in period t.
Published data on the depreciated historic cost of plant and
machinery on farms spaned the period 1920-21 to 1940-41, as detailed
in Section 7.3.1. Gross investment in plant and machinery can be
estimated from data on imports and Australian production of plant and
machinery as discussed in Section 7.3.2. These data are used in
Table 7A.l to estimate the rate of depreciation of plant and machinery
on Australian farms.
The main difficulty with these estimated depreciation rates
is the effect of changing prices. The extent of the price changes can
be gauged from the plant and machinery price index. The problem lies
in the difficulty of deflating a stock valued at depreciated historic
cost in the absence of information on the age distribution of items
in that stockl • Thus, Table 7A.l is compiled in current price terms
which biases the estimated depreciation rates.· The bias will be upwards
when period t prices are lower than the prices in period t-l to
t-n when the stock was acquired. In these circumstances, an amount
of expenditure in period t equivalent to the amount of depreciation
1 The constant price stock estimates contained in Section 7.4 are not suitable for this purpose either because the inventory model from which they were derived, already incorporates a specified depreciation rate.
-325-
on the stock acquired in earlier periods, will add more to the real
stock of plant and machinery than is being subtracted via depreciation.
Thus, the estimated replacement component of expenditure (GI - NI ) t t
will be overestimated. As this is assumed to be equivalent to the
amount of depreciation on the stock of plant and machinery, this too
will be overestimated. The converse will apply when plant and
machinery prices are rising.
Throughout most of the period plant and machinery prices
were declining, rapidly through the 1920's then marginally to
1936-37 when they began to rise. This would partly explain the
relatively high estimated rates of depreciation in the late 1920's
and early 1930's, when prices were fairly stable, but significantly
lower than prices before the mid 1920's. Average depreciation over
the whole period was 9.13 per cent. Allowing for the price change
effect to be biasing the estimate upwards the real rate of deprec
iation on a straight line basis would seem to,. have been 9 per cent
or less.
-326-
TABLE 7A.1
Estimated Rate of Depreciation of Plant and Machinery, 1920-21 to 1940-41
(current prices)
Value of Net b Gross Depreciation Machinery f Year Stocka Investment InvestmentC Price Index d Ratee Amount
$m $m $m $m r.
1920-21 62.0 6.6 10.2 3.6 5.8 75 1921-22 68.6 6.7 10.8 4.1 6.1 69 1922-23 75.3 3.6 9.6 6.0 7.8 62 1923-24 78.9 8.1 13.4 5.3 6.8 61 1924-25 87.0 3.9 14.5 10.6 12.2 59 1925-26 90.9 6.8 14.1 7.3 8.1 58 1926-27 97.6 7.7 16.7 9.0 9.3 56 1927-28 105.3 3.0 15.0 12.0 11.4 55 1928-29 108.3 1.1 14.6 13.5 12.5 56 :1929-30 109.4 -3.3 11.6 14.9 13.7 56 1930-31 106.1 -7.2 5.9 13.1 12.3 54 1931-32 98.9 -3.8 3.8 7.6 7.7 52 1932-33 95.1 -1.9 5.6 7.5 7.9 51 1933-34 93.2 -2.2 5.9 8.1 8.8 49 1934-35 91.0 3.4 7.3 3.9 4.3 49
1935-36 94.4 1.5 10.7 9.2 9.8 49 1936-37 95.9 6.1 14.5 8.4 8.7 49 1937-38 102.0 9.0 20.0 11.0 10.8 54 1938-39 111.0 3.1 13.7 10.6 9.5 54 1939-40 114.1 2.2 12.6 10.4 9.5 58
1940-41 116.3
a Derived from Rural Industries Bulletin [3].
b Stock t+l - Stockt •
c Derived from Imports and Australian production of plant and machinery, Appendix 7C.
d'Gross Investment less Net Investment.
e Depreciation as per cent of the value of stock.
f Appendix 7E.
-327-
APPENDIX 7B
INVESTMENT, DEPRECIATION AND STOCKS OF PLANT AN;) MAr.H!NERY, 1920-21 TO 1969-70
STOCK BASED ESTIMATES. $m 1969-70 prices a
Year Stockb Depreciation Gross Investment
1920-21 117.0 11.7 20.5 1921-22 125.8 12.5 22.1 1922-23 135.4 13.5 19.6 1923-24 141.5 14.2 27.3 1924-25 154.7 15.5 22.1 1925-26 161.3 16.1 27.8 1926-27 173.0 17.3 31.0 1927-28 186.7 18.7 24.3 1928-29 192.3 19.2 21.2 1929-30 194.3 19.4 13.4 1930-31 188.2 18.8 5.6 1931-32 175.0 17.5 10.1 1932-33 167.7 16.8 13.1 1933-34 164.0 16.4 11.8 1934-35 159.4 15.9 22.9 1935-36 166.3 16.6 19.7 1936-37 169.4 16.9 29.5
·1937-38 182.0 18.2 34.8 1938-39 198.6 19.9 25.6 1939-40 204.3 20.4 24.1 1940-41 208.0 20.8 30.6 1941-42 217.9 21.8 31.2 1942-43 227.2 22.7 31.7 1943-44 236.5 23.6 36.6 1944-45 249.0 24.9 39.9 1945-46 263.8 26.4 36.4 1946-47 274.2 27.4 34.4 1947-48 286.9 28.7 51. 7 1948-49 310.4 31.0 66:0 1949-50 345.3 34.5 77.5
1950-51 388.1 38.8 80.8 1951-52 429.6 43.0 75.0 1952-53 462.0 46.2 75.2 1953-54 490.7 49.1 83.1 1954-55 524.5 52.4 83.5
1955-56 555.9 55.6 77.6 1956-57 577.7 57.8 86.8 1957-58 597.0 59.7 75.7 1958-59 612.9 61.3 83.3 1959-60 634.7 63.5 82.5
1960-61 653.7 65.4 88.4 1961-62 677.1 67.7 80.7
69.0 90.0 1962-63 690.3 71.1 95.1 1963-64 710.6 72.1 83.5 1964-65 720.6
744.8 74.5 100.5 1965-66 77.1 95.1 1966-67 770.7
77.9 1967-68 189.0 78.9 83.8 ~87.6 78.8 1968-69
79.2 68.9 1969-70 792.5
1 hi 1 Compilation described in Section a These estimates do not include commercia ve c es. 7.4, and data from Gutman [8] and A.B.S. [3].
b Stock • Stock - Depreciationt + Gross Investmentt • t+1 t
-328-APPENDIX 7C
PLANT AND MACHINERY SUPPLY IMPORTS AND DOMESTIC PRODUCTION : 1920-21 TO 1969-70 $m, current pricesa
Year Importsb Domestic Proportion to Estimated c Production Agriculture Supply Value
1920-21 2.68 4.58 1.00 10.2 1921-22 2.03 5.73 1.00 10.8 1922-23 1.55 5.37 1.00 9.6 1923-24 3.32 6.26 1.00 13.4 1924-25 3.74 6.57 1.00 14.5 1925-26 3.61 6.46 1.00 14.1 1926-27 4.27 7.64 1.00 16.7 1927-28 4.03 6.61 1.00 15.0 1928-29 4.01 6.33 1.00 14.6 1929-30 3.40 4.80 1.00 11.6 1930-31 1.30 2.95 1.00 5.9 1931-32 0.45 2.29 1.00 3.8 1932-33 0.68 3.40 1.00 5.6 1933-34 0.73 3.53 1.00 5.9 1934-35 1.30 3.94 1.00 7.3 1935-36 2.56 5.06 1.00 10.7 1936-37 4.01 6.30 0.99 14.5 1937-38 5.71 8.45 1.00 20.0 1938-39 2.98 6.81 1.00 13.7 1939-40 2.29 6.84 0.97 12.6 1940-41 1.63 8.60 0.95 13.9 1941-42 1.62 12.85 0.90 19.5 1942-43 3.30 13.46 0.85 22.4 1943-44 7.02 13.21 0.55 23.6 1944-45 14.62 13.18 0.65 32.0 1945-46 8.69 13.40 0.76 28.0 1946-47 6.92 13.43 0.83 26.7 1947-48 10.04 16.80 0.92 36.5 1948-49 20.19 20.77 0.84 53.5 1949-50 40.71 28.37 0.89 92.6
1950-51 50.19 40.48 0.79 114.1 1951-52 62.07 54.25 0.73 141.2 1952-53 32.87 46.85 0.94 109.6 1953-54 45.53 59.16 0.87 139:3 1954-55 52.24 61.11 0.82 146.8
1955-56 47.69 56.80 0.79 133.2 1956-57 39.94 51.41 0.89 122.7 1957-58 46.83 59.35 0.90 146.0 1958-59 40.79 60.52 0.89 136.2 1959-60 53.29 70.35 0.87 164.5
1960-61 57.32 69.86 0.86 168.3 1961-62 38.16 74.35 0.87 150.2 1962-63 54.33 80.18 0.87 170.1 1963-64 88.40 103.08 0.86 253.2 1964-65 106.44 117.37 0.83 291.0
1965-66 71.60 105.08 0.82 229.7 1966-67 63.38 126.93 0.85 252.2 1967-68 72.34 131.81 0.79 263.7 1968-69 54.79 161.48 0.79 282.9 1969-70 44.62 137.04 0.72 233.2
a Excludes vehicles
b Derived from Overseas Trade [2]
c Derived from Commonwealth Year Book [5].
d Assumed equal to 1.00 for years 1920-21 to 1935-36, thereafter estimated from information in Crawford, et.al. [7], Saxon [9,10] and the Rural Industries Bulletin [3].
-329-
APPENDIX 7D
INVESTMENT , DEPRECIATION AND STOCKS OF PLANT AND MACHINERY; 1920-21 TO 1969-70
SUPPLY BASED ESTIMATES, $m 1949-50 pricesa
Year Stockb Depreciation Gross Investment
1920-21 117.0 11. 7 1921-22 13.6
118.9 11.9 15.6 1922-23 122.6 12.3 15.4 1923-24 125.8 12.6 22.0 1924-25 135.2 13.5 24.5 1925-26 146.3 14.6 24.4 1926-27 156.0 15.6 29.9 1927-28 170.3 17.0 27.2 1928-29 180.5 18.0 26.0 1929-30 188.4 18.8 20.7 1930-31 190.2 19.0 11.0 1931-32 182.2 18.2 7.2 1932-33 171.2 17.1 11.0 1933-34 165.1 16.5 12.0 1934-35 160.6 16.1 14.8 1935-36 159.3 15.9 21.8 1936-37 165.2 16.5 29.5 1937-38 178.2 17.8 37.0 1938-39 197.3 19.7 25.3 1939-40 202.9 20.3 21.7 1940-41 204.3 20.4 22.8 1941-42 206.7 20.7 30.5 1942-43 216.5 21.6 32.4 1943-44 227.3 22.7 34.2 1944-45 238.8 23.9 46.4 1945-46 261.4 26.1 40.6 1946-47 275.8 27.6 36.6 1947-48 284.9 28.5 44.0 1948-49 300.4 30.0 58.1 1949-50 328.5 32.8 92.6
1950-51 388.3 38.8 95.9 1951-52 445.4 44.5 99.4 1952-53 500.3 50.0 71.2 1953-54 521.4 52.1 89.3 1954-55 558.5 55.9 91. 7
1955-56 594.4 59.4 80.7 1956-57 615.7 61.6 71.8 1957-58 625.9 62.6 79.8 1958-59 643.1 64.3 69.5 1959-60 648.3 64.8 82.3
1960-61 665.7 66.6 82.5 1961-62 681.6 68.2 72.2 1962-63 685.6 68.6 84.9 1963-64 702.0 70.2 118.9 1964-65 750.6 75.1 133.5
196~66 809.1 80.9 102.5 1966-67 830.7 83.1 109.2 1967-68 856.8 85.7 110.3 1968-69 881.4 88.1 113.2 1969-70 906.4 90.6 91.4
a These estimates do not include commercial vehicles. Compilation described in Section 7.4, and opening stock estimate from Gutman [8) and gross investment from Appendix 7C.
b Stockt+
1 - Stockt - Depreciationt + Gross Investmentt •
-330-
APPENDIX 7E
INVESTMENT. DEPRECIATION AND STOCKS OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. 1920-21 TO 1969-70
COMBINED STOCK AND SUPPLY BASED ESTIMATE. Sm. a
Year Stockb Depreciation Gross Investment Machinery Stockd
Price Indexc
1920-21 124.0 12.4 21.3 75 93 1921-22 132.8 13.3 26.3 69 92 1922-23 145.8 14.6 27.7 62 91 1923-24 158.9 15.9 32.5 61 97 1924-25 175.4 17.5 31.1 59 103 1925-26 189.0 18.9 37.4 58 110 1926-27 207.5 20.7 41.3 56 116 1927-28 228.1 22.8 31.9 55 125 1928-29 237.2 23.7 25.7 56 133 1929-30 239.1 ·23.9 11.0 56 134 1930-31 226.2 22.6 12.8 54 122 1931-32 216.4 21.6 14.3 52 112 1932-33 209.1 20.9 20.7 51 107 1933-34 208.8 20.9 16.3 49 102 1934-35 204.2 20.4 34.3 49 100 1935-36 218.0 21.8 35.2 49 107 1936-37 231.4 23.1 42.6 49 113 1937-38 250.9 25.1 45.2 54 136 1938-39 271.0 27.1 36.3 54 146 1939-40 280.2 28.0 31. 7 58 162 1940-41 283.9 28.4 34.8 61 173 1941-42 290.3 29.0 38.4 64 186 1942-43 299.6 30.0 39.8 69 207 1943-44 309.4 30.9 46.7 69 213 1944-45 325.2 32.5 58.3 69 224 1945-46 350.9 35.1 49.3 69 242 1946-47 365.1 36.5 52.5 73 266 1947-48 381.1 38.1 59.0 83 316 1948-49 402.0 40.2 74.4 92 370 1949-50 436.2 43.6 111.1 100 436
1950-51 503.7 50.4 118.3 119 600 1951-52 571.6 57.2 139.2 142 • 812 1952-53 653.7 65.4 99.5 154 1,007 1953-54 687.8 68.8 125.0 156 1,073 1954-55 744.0 74.4 128.5 160 1,190
1955-56 798.1 79.8 113.1 165 1.317 1956-57 831.4 83.1 100.4 171 1,421 1957-58 848.7 84.9 111.6 183 1.554 1958-59 875.4 87.5 97.3 196 1.715 1959-60 885.2 88.5 115.2 200 1,770
1960-61 911.8 91.2 115.5 204 1.860 1961-62 936.2 93.6 101.1 208 1,947 1962-63 943.6 94.4 118.7 211 1.992 1963-64 968.0 96.8 166.5 213 2,062 1964-65 1,037.7 103.8 186.9 218 2,263
1965-66 1,120.8 112.1 143.6 224 2,511 1966-67 1,152.3 115.2 152.7 231 2.661 1967-68 1,189.8 119.0 154.3 239 2,844 1968-69 1.225.1 122.5 158.3 250 3,063 1969-70 1.260.9 126.1 127.9 255 3,216
a These estimates include commercial vehicles. Estimates in 1949-50 prices unless indicated. Compilation described in Section 7.4, and data from Appendices 7B, 7D and Gutman [8].
b Stock • Stock - Depreciation + Gross Investmentt • t+1 t t
c 1920-21 to 1944-45 from Gutman [8], since 1945-46 from B.A.E. [6].
d Stock valued in current prices.
-331-
APPENDIX 7F
The Farm Stock of Commercial Vehicles under 10
and 15 per cent Depreciation
The ABS published data of commercial vehicles on farms
only covers the 1943 to 1951 period [3]. Since then, an estimate
of commercial vehicles on farms can be obtained from the 1963
Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage [4]. This survey indicates that
315,730 vehicles, about 38 per cent of all such commercial vehicles,
are used in the rural sector.
As described in Section 7.4.3, expenditure on commercial
vehicles has been estimated at 40 per cent of estimated expenditure
on plant and machinery other than commercial vehicles. Using this
estimate of expenditure on commercial vehicles deflated to base
prices, the inventory model can be used,to estimate the constant
price stock value. Dividing this value by the estimated vehicle
price, yields on estimate of the number of vehicles on farms. Similar
estimates can be derived for the number of vehicles scrapped and the
number of vehicles added in each year.
The inventory model requires the rate of depreciation
(or scrappage) to be specified. Only two rates have been considered,
10 and 15 per cent. The results for the stock of vehicles are shown
in Table 7F.l. This'shows that the 10 per cent depreciation rate
gives an estimate of 307,413 vehicles in 1962-63 which is close to
the Commercial Vehicle Survey estimate of 315,730. Furthermore, .
the trends appear reasonable; rapidly increasing numbers following
the early 1950's wool boom, slow increases in the late 1950's, until
after the 1961 credit squeeze; then rapid increases corresponding to
the rapid expansion in crop area in the middle 1960's; and a slowing
down in 1969-70 with the advent of wheat quotas and falling wool prices.
-332-
These results should be treated cautiously. Errors could
arise due to:
(i) errors in estimated expenditure on commercial vehicles,
(if) changing real value of commercial vehicles over time, and
(iii) varying rates of vehicle scrappage over time.
However, in the absence of additional data to validate the estimate
for years other than 1951 and 1963, the estimates are plausible
in indicating 1.63 such vehicles per holding in 1969-70, or 2.07
vehicles per commercial farm in 1968-691 / Further, the~e results
would lend support to a depreciation rate of approximately 10 per
cent rather than the more conventionally used depreciation rate of
15 per cent.
1 1968-69 is used because the number of commercial farms is available for that year [1] but not for 1969-70.
a Year
1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55
1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60
1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65
1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
a
-333-
TABLE 7F.1
Estimated Stock of Vehicles on Farms
10%
142,200b
174,084 189,571 212,100 233,538
247,773 256,265 267,517 273,028 283,968
293,852 297,970 307,413 331,972 360,800
372,401 385,708 398,202 410,800 412,053
Depreciation Rate
As at March 31st in the second year.
b A.B.S. [3] estimate for March 31st 1951.
15%
142,200b
166,346 174,200 189,559 203,770
210,798 212,424 217,448 217 ,088 222,773
227,645 226,995 232.184 273~086 294,142
297~691 303~573 309,084
.315,128 310,186
-334-
APPENDIX 7 - References
[1] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Classification of Rural
Holdings by Size and Type of Activity, Canberra,
various issues.
[2] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Overseas Trade, Canberra,
various issues.
[3] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Rural Industries Bulletin,
Canberra. For details of all issues in this series
see same Reference, Chapter 2. ""-",-
[4] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage,
1963, Canberra, 1965.
[5] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Year Book of the Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra, various issues.
[6] BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Indices of Prices Paid,
Canberra, (mimeo).
[7] CRAWFORD, J.G., et.al., Wartime Agriculture in Australia and
New Zealand 1939-50, Stanford University Press,
1954.
[8] GUTMAN, G.O., "Investment and Production in Australian Agriculture",
Rev. Mkgt Agric. Econ., 23(4), 237-310, Dec., 1955. < "
[9] SAXON, E.A., "Tractors on Australian Farms: pas\ and Probable
Future Australian Requirements", Qtly Rev. Agric. Econ.,
6(1), 11-13, Jan., 1953.
[10] SAXON, E.A, "Tractors on Australian Farms", Qt1y Rev. Agric.Econ.,
12(2), 81-86, April, 1959.
-335-
APPENDIX 8A
GROSS OUTPUT OF AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTUllE, 1920-21 TO 1969-70
Year Output Components Grosa Agricultural Gross
Value of Fa? Livestock Output Pricec Output
Production lnventobY current Index 1949-50
$m pricee Pricee Changes $m $m $m
1920-21 463 17 480 49 980 1921-22 379 22 401 35 1,146 1922-23 434 -9 425 41 1,137 1923-24 447 -14 433 44 984 1924-25 535 21 556 45 1,235
1925-26 465 21 486 42 1,158 1926-27 492 -20 472 40 1,179 1927-28 489 -15 474 43 1,103 1928-29 491 0 491 39 1,258 1929-30 402 0 402 34 1,182
1930-31 341 13 354 26 1,362 1931-32 340 6 346 25 1,384 1932-33 352 .8 360 23 1,563 1933-34 405 3 408 28 1,458 1934-35 368 10 378 26 1,453
1935-36 429 -7 422 30 1,406 1936-37 495 -4 492 35 1,404 1937-38 499 0 499 31 1,609 1938-39 444 . -6 438 29 1,512 1939-40 493 17 510 33 . 1,546
1940-41 451 9 460 34 1,352 1941-42 507 6 513 35 1,466 1942-43 597 5 602 41 1,468 1943-44 631 -1 630 44 1,432 1944-45 600 -43 557 45 1,237
1945-46 662 -32 631 50 1,261 1946-47 743 -14 729 59 1,236 1947-48 1,168 37 1,205 78 1,544 1948-49 l,2ll 34 1,245 82 r 1,518 1949-50 1,571 36 1,607 100 1,607
1950-51 2,375 50 2,425 160 1,515 1951-52 1,920 -10 1,910 130 1,469 1952-53 2,326 54 2,380 139 1,712 1953-54 2,301 45 2,346 136 1,725 1954-55 2,209 34 2,243 127 1,766
1955-56 2,315 78 2,393 126 1,899 1956-57 2,549 ll8 2,667 137 1,947 1957-58 2,258 -26 2,232 123 . 1,815
1958-59 2,523 -ll 2,512 117 2,147 1959-60 2,656 29 2,685 128 2,098
1960-61 2,745 25 2,770 129 2,147 1961-62. 2,734 63 2,797 124 2,256 1962-63 2,990 27 3,017 127 2,375
1963-64 3,399 70 3,469 139 2,495
1964-65 3,422 29 3,451 132 2,614
1965-66 3,316 -131 3,185 136 2,342
1966-67 3,825 64 3,889 137 2,839
1967-68 3,342 64 3,406 130 2,620
1968-69 ·3,947 116 4,063 130 3,125
1969-70 3,790 109 3,899 121 ·3,070
a The series for 1920-21 to 1938-39 is derived from Butlin [4], for 1939-40 to 1947-48 from the Value of Production. Bulletin [2l and for 1948-49 to 1969-70 from the A.N.A. [1].
b From Appendix 6B. c Derived from the Value of Production Bulletin [2].
-336-APPEmlU 8B
NON-FACTOR EXPENSES IN AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE 1920-21 TO 1969-70
Gross Non-Factorb Ratio N.F.E. Non-Factor
Year Outputa Expenses N.F.E./G.O. Price Expenses (G.O.) (N.F.E.) Index c 1949-50 prices $m $m $m
1920-21 463 .124 0.27 55 225 1921-22 379 109 0.29 49 222 1922-23 434 120 0.28 47 255 1923-24 447 121 0.27 46 263
.1924-25 535 148 0.28 46 322 1925-26 465 153 0.33 46 333 1926-27 492 163 0.33 48 340 1927-28 489 166 0.34 48 346 1928-29 491 173 0.35 48 360 1929-30 402 135 0.34 50 270 1930-31 341 122 0.36 50 244 1931-32 340 108 0.32 47 230 1932-33 352 108 0.31 47 230 1933-34 405 107 0.26 46 233 1934-35 368 99 0.27 46 215. 1935-36 429 107 0.25 46 233 1936-37 495 118 0.24 48 246 1937-38 499 134 0.27 48 279 1938-39 444 132 0.30 49 269 1939-40 493 131 0.27 55 238
1940-41 451 138 0.31 58 238 1941-42 507 150 0~30 61 246 1942-43 597 169 0.28 66 256 1943-44 631 180 0.29 67 269 1944-45 600 188 0.31 68 276
1945-46 662 201 0.30 72 279 1946-47 743 261 0.35 74 353 1947-48 1,168 320 0.27 80 400 1948-49 1,211 410 0.34 90 456 1949-50 1,571 457 0.29 100 457
1950-51 2,375 540 0.23 122 443 1951-52 1.920 665 0.35 158 421 1952-53 2,326 779 0.33 166 469 1953-54 2,301 834 0.36 168 496 1954-55 2,209 818 0.37 170 481
1955-56 2,315 859 0.37 172 499 1956-57 2,549 900 0.35 182 495 1957-58 2,258 972 0.43 190 512 1958-59 2,523 978 0.39 188 520 1959-60 2,656 1,045 0.39 192 544
1960-61 2,745 1,110 0.40 198 561 1961-62 2,734 1,158 0.42 200 579 1962-63 2,990 1,206 0.40 202 597 1963-64 3,399 1,263 0.37 202 625 1964-65 3,422 1,353 0.40 208 650
1965-66 3,316 1,475 0.44 218 677 1966-67 3,825 1,580 0.41 228 693 1967-68 3,342 1,589 0.48 236 673 1968-69 3,947 1,721 0.44 240 717 1969-70 3,790 1,728 0.46 242 714
a Gross Output excluding livestock inventory change in current prices - see Appendix 8A.
b Series for 1920-21 to 1938-39 from But1in [4], 1939-40 to 1947-48 interpolated, 1948-49 to 1969-70 from the A.N.A. [1]. The A.N.A. estimates for 1948-49 to 1958-59 adjusted by deducting net rent, interest and royalties paid by primary industry.
c For 1920-21 to 1943-44, this is the index of improvements from Appendix SF, and for 1944-45 to 1969-70, B.A.E. Prices Paid Index [3].
-337-APPENDIX 8C
FACTOR OUTPUT OF AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE 1920-21 TO 1969-70a
Year Grossb Non-Factor Depreciation d Factor Output Expenses c Output
$m $m $m $m
1920-21 980 253 69 658 1921-22 1,146 311 101 733 1922-23 1,037 295 90 651 1923-24 984 275 90 619 1924-25 1,235 329 95 811
1925-26 1,158 364 109 685 1926-27 1,179 408 122 650 1927-28 1,103 386 119 598 1928-29 1,258 444 143 671 1929-30 1,182 397 170 616
1930-31 1,362 469 223 668 1931-32 1,384 432 220 732 1932-33 1,563 470 229 865 1933-34 1,458 382 184 893 1934-35 1,453 381 195 878
1935-36 1,406 357 169 880 1936-37 1,404 337 149 918 1937-38 1,609 432 174 1,003 1938-39 1,512 455 204 853 1939-40 1,546 397 188 961
1940-41 1,352 406 179 767 1941-42 1,466 429 188 849 1942-43 1,468 412 167 889 1943-44 1,432 409 157 866 1944-45 1,237 418 157 662
1945-46 1,261 402 148 711 1946-47 1,236 442 132 662 1947-48 1,544 410 108 1,026 1948-49 1,518 500 115 903 1949-50 1,607 457 106 1,045
1950-51 1,515 338 82 1,096 1951-52 1,469 512 121 836 1952-53 1,712 560 136 1,016 1953-54 1,725 613 152 960 1954-55 1,766 644 184 938
1955-56 1,899 682 198 1,020 1956-57 1,947 657 200 1,089 1957-58 1,815 790 239 786 1958-59 2,147 836 269 1,043 1959-60 2,098 816 260 1,022
1960-61 2,147 860 269 1,017 1961-62 2,256 934 301 1,021 1962-63 2,375 950 309 1,117 1963-64 2,495 909 293 1,294 1964-65 2,614 1,025 335 1,254
1965-66 2,342 1,085 361 897 1966-67 2,839 1,153 382 1,304 1967-68 2,620 1,222 446 952 1968-69 3,125 1,324 481 1,320 1969-70 3,070 1,361 512 1,198
a All series deflated by the Agricultural Price Index (see Appendix 8A) to 1949-50 prices.
b From Appendix 8A. c Fro~ Appendix 8B. d From Appendices 5G and 7E.
-338-
APPENDIX 8 - References
[1] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Australian National Accounts,
Canberra, (various issue~).
[2] AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, Value of Production Bulletin,
Canberra. For details of all issues in this series,
see same Reference, Chapter 2.
[3] BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Indices of Prices Paid,
Canberra, (mimeo).
[4] BUTLIN, N.G., Australian Domestic Product, Investment and
Foreign Borrowing, 1861-1938/39. Cambridge Univ. Press,
1962.
-339-APPENDIX 9A
CAPITAL IN AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE. 1920-21 TO 1969-70
(stock values. 1949-50 prices)
Year Landa Improvements a Livestockb Plant andc Total
$m $m $m Mach1nery Capital $m $m
1920-21 1.042 1.371 1.028 124 3.565 1921-22 1.042 1.453 1.090 133 3.718 1922-23 11'038 1.576 1.068 146 3.828 1923-24 1,052 1.811 1.037 159 4.059 1924-25 1,029 2.069 1.083 175 4.356
1925-26 1.048 2,367 1,134 189 4,738 1926-27 1,058 2,632 1,083 208 4,981 1927-28 1,100 2,753 1,049 228 5,130 1928-29 1,095 3,023 1,049 237 5,404 1929-30 1,103 3,079 1,048 239 5,469
1930-31 1,085 3,188 1,098 226 5,597 1931-32 1,120 2.982 1,122 216 5,440 1932-33 1,123 2,917 1,155 209 5,404 1933-34 1,123 2,858 1.167 209 5,357 1934-35 1,124 2,823 1.205 204 5.356
1935-36 1,097 2,843 1,182 218 5,340 1936-37 1,108 2,898 1,171 231 5,408 1937-38 1,129 2,857 1,170 251 5,407 1938-39 1,149 3,153 1,151 271 5,724 1939-40 1,152 3,118 1,203 280 5,753
1940-41 1,132 2,859 1,229 284 5,504 1941-42 1,124 2,968 1,246 290 5,628 1942-43 1,128 2,841 1.258 300 5.527 1943-44 1,134 2,700 1,256 309 5,399 1944-45 1,136 2,557 1,160 325 5.178
1945-46 1,130 2,508 1,097 351 5,086 1946-47 1,136 2,506 1,074 365 5,081 1947-48 1,148 2,440 1,121 381 5,090 1948-49 1,147 2,500 1,162 402 5,211 1949-50 1,155 2,546 1,198 436 '5,335
1950-51 1,168 2,631 1,229 504 5,532 1951-52 1,200 2,434 1,222 572 5,428 1952-53 1,213 2,481 1,261 654 5,609 1953-54 1,225 2,505 1,294 688 5,712 1954-55 1,238 2,649 1,321 744 5,952
1955-56 1,252 2,528 1,383 798 5,961 1956-57 1,266 2,706 1,469 831 6.272 1957-58 1,269 2,788 1,448 849 6,354 1958-59 1,277 2,835 1,439 875 6,426 1959-60 1,285 3,025 1,462 885 6,657
1960-61 1,304 3,093 1,481 912 6.790 1961-62 1,314 3,369 1,531 936 7,150 1962-63 1,325 3,614 1,552 944 7,435 1963-64 1,341 3,769 1,602 968 7,680 1964-65 1,368 4,025 1,624 1,038 8,055
1965-66 1,377 4,408 1,528 1,121 8,434 1966-67 1,390 4,681 1,575 1,152 8,798 1967-68 1,409 5,263 1,624 1,190 9.486 1968-69 1,413 5,577 1,713 1,225 9,928 1969-70 1,421 5,644 1,799 1,261 10,125
a From Chapter 5. b From Chapter 6. c From Chapter 7.
Year
1920-21 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1924-25
1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30
1930-31 1931-32 1932-33 1933-34 1934-35
1935-36 1936-37 1937-38 1938-39 1939-40
1940-41 1941-42 1942-43 1943-44 1944-45
1945-46 1946-47 1947-48 1948-49 1949-50
1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 '1954-55
1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60
1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65
1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
-340-
APPENDIX 9B
CAPITAL IN AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE, 1920-21 TO 1969-70,
(current prices.)
Unimproved Improvements Livestock Plant Land to Land and
$m $m $m Machinery $m
974 809 504 93 1,016 872 382 92 1,069 930 438 91 1,105 996 456 97 1,131 1,076 487 103
1,179 1,160 476 110 1,198 1,237 433 116 1,226 1,294 451 125 1,249 1,421 409 133 1,255 1,478 356 134
1.182 1,530 285 122 1.153 1.461 281 112 1.097 1.400 266 107 1,093 1,372 327 102 1.089 1.355 313 100
1.072 1,336 355 107 1.070 1,362 410 113 1.053 1,343 363 136 1.097 1.482 334 146 1,106 1.528 397 162
1.067 1.458 418 173 1.103 1.573 436 186 1.108 1.591 516 207 1.100 1.593 553 213 1.104 1,611 522 224
1.102 1.655 549 242 1.111 1.704 634 266 1.131 1.757 874 316 1.115 1.900 953 370 1.145 2.062 1.198 436
1.232 2.394 1.966 600 1.291 2,556 1.589 812 1.460 2.952 1.753 1.007 1.554 3.307 1.760 1.073 1.718 3.815 1.678 1.190
1.774 3.919 1.743 1.317 2.013 4.411 2.013 1.421 2.066 4,601 1.781 1.554 2.145 4.763 1.684 1,715 2.266 5.172 1.871 1.770
2.531 5,382 1.910 1.860 2.552 5.964 1.898 1.947 2.648 6.433 1.971 1.992 2.854 6.709 2.227 2.062 2.882 7.205 2.144 2.263
3.253 7.979 2.078 2.511 3.417 8.566 2.158 2.661 3.760 9.842 2.111 2.844 4.159 10.652 2.227 3.063 4.274 10.950 2.285 3.216
Total
$m
2,380 2,362 2,528 2,654 2,797
2,925 2,984 3,096 3,212 3,223
3,119 3.007 2.870 2.894 2.857
2.870 2.955 2.895 3.059 3.193
3.116 3.298 3.422 3.459 3.461
3.548 3,715 4.078 4.338 4.405
6.192 6.248 7.172 7.694 8.401
8.753 9,858
10,002 10.307 11.079
11.683 12.361 13.044 13.852 14.494
15.821 16.802 18.557 20.101 20.725
-341-
APPENDIX 9C
NET INVESTMENT IN THE AUSTRALIAN RURAL SECTOR,
1920-21 to 1969-70, $m, 1949-50 prices
Land - Land- Improve- Plant Total Year Area Public ment to Livestock and Total Excluding
Capital Land Machinery Land
1920-21 -8 8 82 35 9 126 126 1921-22 -10 6 123 63 13 195 199 1922-23 9 5 235 -22 13 240 226 1923-24 -29 6 258 -32 16 219 242 1924-25 9 10 298 46 14 377 358
1925-26 3 7 265 51 19 345 335 1926-27 34 8 121 -51 20 132 90 1927-28 -11 6 270 -34 9 240 245 1928-29 1 7 56 -1 2 65 57 1929-30 -22 4 108 0 -13 77 95
1930-31 34 1 -206 5Q -10 -131 -166 1931-32 3 0 -65 24 -7 -45 -48 1932-33 0 0 -58 33 0 -25 -25 1933-34 -1 2 -35 12 -5 -27 -28 1934-35 -29 2 20 38 14 45 72
1935-36 8 3 55 -24 13 55 44 1936-37 26 4 -41 -10 20 -1 -31 1937-38 7 4 296 -1 20 326 315 1938-39 1 2 -35 -19 9 -42 -45 1939-40 -21 1 -260 52 4 -224 -204
1940-41 -7 -1 109 26 6 133 141 1941-42 7 -3 -127 17 10 -96 -100 1942-43 10 -4 -141 12 9 -114 -120 1943-44 6 -4 -143 -2 16 -127 -129 1944-45 -3 -3 -50 -96 26 -126 -120
1945-46 8 -2 -2 -63 14 -45 -51 1946-47 9 3 -66 -23 16 -61 -73 1947-48 -6 5 60 47 21 127 128 1948-49 3 5 46 41 34 129 121 1949-50 3 10 84 36 68 201 188
19.50-.51 17 1,5 -197 31 68 -66 -98 1951-52 5 8 47 -8 82 134 121 1952-53 3 9 25 39 34 110 98 1953-54 6 7 144 33 56 246 233 1954-55 8 6 -121 27 54 -26 -40
1955-56 9 5 178 62 33 287 273 1956-57 -2 5 82 86 18 189 186 1957-58 5 3 47 -21 26 60 52 1958-59 2 6 189 -9 10 198 190 1959-60 13 6 69 23 27 138 119
1960-61 5 5 276 19 24 329- 319 1961-62 5 6 245 51 8 315 304 1962-63 9 7 155 21 24 216 200 1963-64 17 10 256 50 70 403 376 1964-65 0 9 383 22 8~ 497 488
1965-66 5 8 273 -96 31 221 208 1966-67 10 9 582 47 3R 686 667 1967-68 -1 5 314 49 3.5 402 398 1968-69 0 8 67 89 36 200 192 1969-70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 86 D.a. D.a. D.a.
-342-
APPENDIX 9D
NET INVESTMENT IN THE AUS'IRALIAN RURAL SECTOR,
1920-21 to 1969-70. Sm. current prices
Land - Land - Improve- Plant Total Year Area Public: ments to Livestock and Total Excluding
Capital Land Machinery Land
1920-21 -4 4 46 17 7 70 70 1921-22 -5 3 62. 22 9 91 93 1922-23 4 2 110 -9 8 115 109 1923-24 -13 3 119 -14 10 105 115 1924-25 4 5 137 21 8 175 166
1925-26 1 3 122 21 11 158 154 1926-27 16 4 58 -20 11 69 49 1927-28 -5 3 130 -15 5 118 120 1928-29 0 3 27 0 1 31 28 1929-30 -11 2 54 0 -7 38 47
1930-31 17 1 -103 13 -5 -77 -95 1931-32 1 0 -31 6 -4 -28 -29 1932-33 0 0 -27 8 0 -19 -19 1933-34 0 1 -16 3 -2 -14 -15 1934-35 -13 1 9 10 7 14 26
1935-36 4 • 1 25 -7 6 29 24 1936-37 12 2 -20 -4 10 0 -14 1937-38 3 2 142 0 11 158 153 1938-39 0 1 -17 -6 5 -17 -18 1939-40 -12 1 -143 17 2 -135 -124
1940-41 -4 -1 63 9 4 71 76 1941-42 4 -2 -77 6 6 -63 -65 1942-43 7 -3 -93 5 6 -78 -82 1943-44 4 -3 -96 -1 11 -85 -86 1944-45 -2 -2 -34 -43 18 -63 -59
1945-46 6 -1 -1 -32 10 -18 -:23 1946-47 7 2 -50 -14 12 -43 -52 1947-48 -5 4 49 37 17 102 103 1948-49 3 5 41 34 31 114 106 1949-50 3 10 84 36 68 201 188
1950-51 21 19 -248 50 81 -77 -117 1951-52 8 13 75 -10 116 202 181 1952-53 5 14 40 54 52 165 146 1953-54 10 11 229 45 87 382 361 1954-55 13 10 -194 34 86 -51 -74
1955-56 15 8 292 78 54 447 424 1956-57 -3 9 142 118 31 297 291 1957-58 9 5 83 -26 48 119 105 1958-59 4 11 331 -11 20 355 340 1959-60 23 11 122 29 54 239 205
1960-61 9 9 497 25 49 589 571 1961-62 9 11 441 63 17 541 521 1962-63 16 13 277 27 51 384 355 1963-64 30 18 458 70 149 725 677
1964-65 0 16 686 29 181 912 896
1965-66 9 15 511 -131 69 473 4&9
1966-67 20 18 1.135 64 88 1.32.5 1.287 1967-68 -2 10 628 64 84 784 776
1968-69 0 16 136 116 9(1 358 342
1969-70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 109 n.a. n.a. n.a.
-343-APPENDIX 9E
GROSS INVESTMENT IN THE AUSTRALIAN RURAL SECTOR
1920-21 to 1969-70, $m, 1949-50 prices
Year Unimproved Improvements Livestock Plant Total Improvements Land to Land and and Plant
Machinery
1920-21 0 123 35 21 179 144 1921-22 -4 167 63 26 252 193 1922-23 14 282 -22 28 302 310 1923-24 -23 312 -32 32 289 344 1924-25 19 360 46 31 456 391
1925-26 10 336 51 38 435 374 1926-27 42 200 -51 41 232 241 1927-28 -5 353 -34 33 347 386 1928-29 8 147 -1 25 179 172 1929-30 -18 200 0 10 292 210
1930-31 35 -110 50 12 -13 -98 1931-32 3 24 24 14 65 38 1932-33 0 29 33 22 84 51 1933-34 1 51 12 15 79 66 1934-35 -27 105 38 34 150 139
1935-36 11 140 -24 35 152 175 1936-37 21 46 -10 42 99 88 1937-38 20 382 -1 46 447 428 1938-39 3 60 -19 37 81 97 1939-40 -20 -166 52 32 230 198
1940-41 -8 195 26 34 247 229 1941-42 4 -38 17 40 23 2 1942-43 6 -56 12 39 ~ 1 -17 1943-44 2 -62 -2 46 -16 -16 1944-45 -6 27 -96 48 -25 75
1945-46 6 73 -63 49 65 122 1946-47 12 9 -23 53 51 62 1947-48 -1 133 47 60 229 193 1948-49 8 121 41 74 244 195 1949-50 13 160 36 112 321 272
1950-51 32 -118 31 118 63 0 1951-52 13 120 -8 139 264 259 1952-53 12 99 39 100 250 199 1953-54 13 219 33 125 390 344 1954-55 14 -42 27 128 127 86
1955-56 14 254 62 113 443 367 1956-57 3 163 86 101 356 264 1957-58 8 131 -21 III 229 242 1958-59 8 274 -9 97 370 371 1959-60 19 159 23 116 317 275
1960-61 10 369 19 115 513 484 1961-62 11 346 51 102 510 448 1962-63 16 263 21 118 418 381 1963-64 27 369 50 167 613 536 1964-65 9 504 22 187 722 691
1965-66 13 405 -96 143 465 548 1966-67 19 722 47 153 941 875 1967-68 4 472 49 154 679 626 1968-69 8 234 89 158 489 392 1969-70 na ne 86 na na na
-344-APPENDIX 91
GROSS INVESTMENT IN THE AUSTRALIAN RURAL SECTOR
1920-21 to 1969-70, $m, current prices
Year Unimproved Improvements Livestock Plant Total Improvements Land to Land and and Plant
Machinery
1920-21 0 70 17 16 103 86 1921-22 -2 88 22 18 126 106 1922-23 7 138 -9 17 153 155 1923-24 -11 149 -14 20 144 169 1924-25 9 169 21 18 217 187 1925-26 5 157 21 22 205 179 1926-27 20 95 -20 23 118 118 1927-28 2 169 -15 18 174 187 1928-29 4 70 0 14 88 84 1929-30 -9 98 0 6 95 104
1930-31 18 -57 13 7 -19 -50 1931-32 2 13 6 7 28 20 1932-33 0 15 8 11 34 26 1933-34 1 25 3 8 37 33 1934-35 -12 50 10 17 65 67
1935-36 5 65 -7 17 80 82 1936-37 10 21 -4 21 48 42 1937-38 10 182 0 25 217 207 1938-39 2 28 -6 20 44 48 1939-40 -11 -97 17 18 -73 -79
1940-41 -5 107 9 21 132 128 1941-42 2 -30 6 25 3 -5 1942-43 4 -45 5 27 -9 -18 1943-44 1 -48 -1 32 -16 -16 1944-45 -4 14 -43 40 7 54
1945-46 4 49 -32 34 55 83 1946-47 9 1 -14 39 35 40 1947-48 -1 102 37 49 187 151 1948-49 7 98 34 68 207 166 1949-50 13 146 36 112 307 258
1950-51 40 -176 50 141 55 -35 1951-52 21 152 -10 197 360 349 1952-53 19 129 54 153 355 282 1953-54 21 328 45 194 588 522 1954-55 22 -79 34 205 182 126
1955-56 23 410 78 186 697 596 1956-57 5 274 118 173 570 447 1957-58 14 221 -26 203 412 424 1958-59 14 474 -11 191 668 665 1959-60 33 271 29 231 570 508
1960-61 18 659 25 235 937 894 1961-62 20 620 63 212 915 832 1962-63 29 470 27 250 716 720 1963-64 48 659 70 355 1,132 1,014 1964-65 16 902 29 407 1,354 1,309
1965-66 24 750 -131 320 963 1,070 1966-67 37 1,392 64 354 1,847 1,746 1967-68 8 923 64 368 1,363 1,291 1968-69 16 456 116 396 984 852 1969-70 na na 109 na na na
-345-
APPENDU 9G
ON-FARM CAPITAL PBODUCTION. 1920-21 TO 1969-70. $m.
Year Gross Capital On-Farm Produc~ion Investmenta b Expenditure of capital
(1) (2)
1920-21 86 27 59 105 1921-22 106 30 76 152 1922-23 155 28 127 270 1923-24 169 33 136 296 1924-25 187 30 157 341
1925-26 179 37 142 309 1926-27 118 38 80 167 1927-28 187 30 157 327 1928-29 84 23 61 127 1929-30 104 10 94 188
1930-31 -50 12 -62 -124 1931-32 20 12 8 17 1932-33 26 18 8 17 1933-34 33 13 20 43 1934-35 67 28 39 85
1935-36 82 28 54 117 1936-37 42 35 7 15 1937-38 207 42 165 344 1938-39 48 33 15 31 1939-40 -79 30 -109 -198
1940-41 128 35 93 160 1941-42 -5 42 -47 -77 1942-43 -18 45 -63 -95 1943-44 -16 53 -69 -103 1944-45 54 67 -13 -19
1945-46 83 57 26 36 1946-47 40 65 -25 -33 1947-48 151 82 69 85 1948-49 166 117 49 54 1949-50 258 176 82 82
1950-51 -35 241 -276 -219 1951-52 349 303 46 29 1952-53 282 254 28 18 1953-54 522 299 223 140 1954-55 126 304 -178 -Ill
1955-56 596 303 293 179 1956-57 447 317 130 75 1957-58 424 322 102 58 1958-59 665 316 349 199 1959-60 508 348 160 90
1960-61 894 369 525 292
1961-62 832 346 486 270
1962-63 720 395 325 182
1963-64 1.014 516 498 278
1964-65 1.309 517 792 442
1965-66 1.070 469 601 321
1966-67 1.746 560 1.186 608
1967-68 1,291 541 750 375
1968-69 852 583 269 133
1969-70 n.a. Sl1 n.a. n.a.
a In current prices, from Appendilt 9F, excluding land and livestock.
b In current prices, for years 1920-21 to 1947-48, gross investment in plant and machinery / 0.6, 1948-49 to 1969-70, gross fixed capital expenditure by primary industry, from A.B.S., Australian National Accounts, canberra.
c GroSs Investment less Capital Expenditure, (ll in current prices, (2) in 1949-50 prices, deflated by improvements price index.
