In the conventional context, leaving agricultural labour is seen as a sign of laudable economic progress. Agricultural labour is the poorest segment in the rural society and comprises, mostly, the functionally landless and marginal farm households. Hence, the sooner they can get out of low-wage agriculture the better it is for their economic survival.

But such numbers "missing" from agricultural labour market is not always welcome. If labour is "pushed out" of agriculture, it is termed as bad or as a sign of stagnation. If labour is "pulled in" by other sectors because of a better wage deal, it is dubbed as good and as a sign of security.

Both, "push" and "pull" factors continue to haunt economists in their search for an answer to the missing labour issue. Hossain's seminal study, however, showed that in rural Bangladesh the non-agricultural sector "pulled in" labour from agriculture. Economic progress over the years possibly paved the way for the "missing" labour to enhance both mobility and malleability across occupations.

Thus, while farming and other agricultural activities, albeit lamentably, lost ground over the periods under review, the eye-catching deviations could be observed in the case of agricultural labour serving as a source of employment. As said before, they come from a very poor economic base in rural areas. The share of agricultural labour force almost halved between 1988 and 2004 -- both as primary and secondary sources of occupation. Further, a lion's share of the "missing" agricultural labour found ways to serve as non-agricultural labour and, thus, found better living through higher non-agricultural wages.

For example, in 1988, only 8 per cent of the labour force was engaged in working in construction, transport, industrial, and other non-agricultural pursuits. By 2000, the share shot up to about 19 per cent. However, as recent data tends to reveal, the share of labour force engaged in non-agricultural activities, including business (but excluding services), registered a decline in 2004. The dropped out labour force might have found a way to farming in 2004 to raise its share of labour force employed (hence of agriculture) to about 53 per cent from about 52 per cent in 2000.

But for the female labour force, the opposite seems to have happened: from barely 4 per cent in 1988, the share of female agricultural labour rose to 15 per cent in 2004. The void created by the outflow of the male labour force might have partly been filled in by the female force. Pushed out by pervasive poverty, about 16 per cent of the rural female labour force once took up construction work as a source of survival in the past. But by 2004, the share dropped to 8 per cent. Similarly, business no more attracts females as it used to do before. Now a part of them have tilted to the transport sector also.

The proportion of male workers used in crop farming between 1988 and 2000 is reported to have significantly declined (45 per cent vs. 39 per cent). But by 2004, the share shot up to 42 per cent -- almost to the base level. At disaggregated level, only the employed male workers from the functionally landless group seem to have increased their share in crop farming: from about 13 per cent in 1988 to about 28 per cent in 2004. Whereas, the other groups registered a declining share in crop farming. In other words, it is only the functionally and marginal land owner groups that are increasingly turning to crop farming for their economic survival. But how?

A part of the explanation comes from the tenancy market. The proportion of rented land in rural Bangladesh -- as shown by the data -- rose from 23 per cent in 1988 to about 33 per cent in 2000, and further to about 40 per cent in 2004. Thus, the cultivated land left by the large and middle land owners is being rented out and is mostly managed by the poor land owners. But mere availability of land would not, perhaps, lure them unless conditions of contract are also changed.

Share cropping -- allegedly an age-old, inefficient, and exploitative tenancy arrangement with 50:50 output shares -- accounted for about three-fourths of the total rented-in land in 1988. Fixed rent and mortgage-in system accommodated 23 and 5 per cent, respectively. By 2000, however, the share of share-cropping arrangements dropped to about 64 per cent allowing fixed rent and mortgage-in system to raise the shares to about 21 and 16 per cent, respectively. In 2004, share cropping claimed about 60 per cent of all rented-in land. Fixed rent system accounted for 24 and mortgage 19 per cent. All the developments show that tenural arrangements have undergone tremendous changes and, possibly, the changes went to attract the poor farmers to crop farming.

The dynamics appear to be clear. Once upon a time, agriculture pushed labour out of land based activities, like crop farming, owing to its incapacity to hold them with subsistence wages. We are talking about the pre-green revolution era when aus season (dry season) claimed almost half of all cultivated land. The green revolution sent aus season almost to oblivion by downsizing its share in total cultivated area to 15 per cent in 2000 and 12 per cent in 2004. Even aman season witnessed a wane in its share of cultivated area. Boro seasons, with HYV package, marked its march from 47 per cent of cultivated area in 1988 to 75 per cent in 2004.

Meantime, infrastructural developments took place. Markets got integrated. Non-farm activities increased to lure labour with higher wages. The "missing" labor -- pulled in by non-farm sector -- pushed up the agricultural wages in the farm sector. Large and medium land owners found it hard to continue cultivation with such higher wages. Thus, those who served as agricultural labour in the past (functionally landless and marginal groups) entered into the scene as "land owners." Since they can somehow bear the costs of inputs, or better alternatives wait for them in non-farm sector, they bargain for fixed-rent system or mortgage-in system. In some places, the land owners are running after tenants to request them to till their lands. The "missing" labour is now returning to the land.

Agriculture in general, and crop sector in particular, will have to be patronized by the government in most cost-effective fashions in the years to come. The bulk of the population now engaged in agriculture is functionally landless, agricultural labour, and marginal farm groups. From an egalitarian perspective, the state has to see that policies do not go against them; distortions do not result in efficient allocation of resources. In other words, more emphasis should be placed on agriculture now than before as the poor now hold the promise.

Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University.