Manpower vs machinery : a case study of conservation works in Lesotho

A coherent employment strategy is sorely needed to stave off the effects of gross under- and unemployment. This paper propounds the use of labor-intensive over capital-intensive methods in conservation and other public works as a way of providing domestic employment -- an argument supported by extensive cost-benefit comparisons and analyses of both methods. Using the results of an earlier analysis as augmented by new data on labor productivity and increased fuel prices, this paper first addresses labor-intensive costs. Data show that in labor-intensive operations substantial amounts of direct employment are created, while site overhead costs average about one-third of direct wage payments. Capital-intensive costs are presented in terms of the costs of heavy equipment, including those of operating machinery for 8 years (at 650 hr/yr, with an alternative analysis of 1,000 hr/yr); cost of replacement or depreciation; repair and maintenance; and other costs. Data compiled from the Thaba Bosiu Project indicate that the average conservation project using capital-intensive methods costs R360 and provides 10 man-days of employment per hectare. About three-fourths of this represents equipment costs, the rest being overhead and employment. Labor-intensive methods cost R68 less and provide 60 man-days of employment per hectare more than capital-intensive methods of construction. The analysis clearly demonstrates that a program of labor-intensive public works is a viable strategy for further developing Lesotho"s infrastructure, as well as for contributing significantly to its employment objectives. An 8-page appendix detailing the underlying cost analysis, as well as extensive tables and equations, are provided in support of the authors" conclusions.