|
|
ARE DISPARITIES IN INDIAN AGRICULTURE GROWING ?
|
Indian
agriculture has witnessed tremendous changes during the last 3 decades following
the adoption of green revolution technology during late 1960's The green revolution technology was initially adopted on a
large scale in the regions well endowed with irrigation. As this technology
possessed vast potential for increase in productivity, it led to impressive
growth in agricultural output in the regions where it was adopted. Because the
spread of green revolution technology was highly skewed in favour
of certain states and regions, this led to a high growth in agricultural output
in selected regions while the other regions suffered from stagnancy or poor
growth in agricultural output. Consequently, the first decade following green
revolution is believed to have increased inter state disparities in development
and incomes.
During the decade
of 1980's efforts were made to spur agricultural growth in low productivity and
stagnant states and regions. For this, special drives were launched to diffuse
improved agricultural technology in hitherto under-developed states. New crop
varieties, technologies and enterprises were developed for rainfed,
dry-land and other ecological settings to improve agricultural productivity and
income in such regions. Some studies have observed that these efforts have
borne fruits and agricultural growth during the decade of 1980's has become
broad based. It has been demonstrated based on specific crops or group of crops
that agricultural growth has picked up in low productivity eastern states. Such
indications have been used to create an impression that agriculturally
underdeveloped states have progressed at a fast rate during 1980's and early
1990's (Sawant and Achutan
1995; Bhalla and Singh 1997) which is further
interpreted to infer that regional differences in agriculture income and
productivity across states have narrowed down after initial phase of green
revolution.
However,
conclusions about inter-state disparities in agricultural development based on
single crop, group of crops or even crop sector can be misleading. There has
been progressive diversification towards livestock production within
agricultural sector which implies that exclusion of livestock sub sector while
evaluating growth performance is not justifiable (Sawant
1997). Thus, inter state performance of agricultural sector should be analyzed
based on state domestic product from the total agriculture.
Few attempts
have been made in the recent years to look at inter- state variations over time
in terms of performance of overall agriculture. It is found that in the short
run states exhibit a tendency to converge to a single rate of growth but in the
longer run there are two divergent patterns; states with better irrigation
spread tend to converge to higher rate of growth whereas states with lower
proportion of crop area under irrigation tend to converge to lower rate of
growth (Bhide, Kalirajan
and Shand 1998). Even this study does not comment on
convergence or divergence in agricultural performance when all states are
considered together.
Some studies
based on total state domestic product have shown that the gap in per capita
income between rich and poor states has continued to widen during the 1980's (Ghosh. Marjit and Neogi 1998). It becomes
interesting to see how agricultural growth has contributed to growing gap
between rich and poor states in the post green revolution period i.e. after
1980-81. Accordingly, we have examined the trend in agricultural productivity,
output growth and regional divergence in per rural person and per hectare Net
state Domestic Product (NSDP) from agriculture during the period 1980-81 to
1996-97. Inter-state divergence was measured using simple measure of
coefficient of variation (CV).
Agricultural
productivity per unit of land was below the national average in Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, Orissa,
Growth in
agricultural productivity for the country as a whole showed acceleration during
the first 7 years of decade of 1990's over the decade of 1980's. However, there
is lot of variation in productivity growth at state level, which varies from
-2.2 per cent to 6.7 per cent. The sharpest decline is observed in the case of
As a
consequence of high growth rate, agricultural productivity in
Table 1 :
Level and growth in NSDP ag/hectare at 1980-81 prices
|
States |
NSDP Agri. Rs./hec |
Growth rate % |
||
|
Triennium ding 82-83 |
Triennium ending 1996-67 |
1980/81 to 1990/91 |
1990/91 to 1996/97 |
|
|
Andhra pradesh |
3297 |
4915 |
2.36 |
4.50 |
|
|
4543 |
5250 |
1.70 |
0.20 |
|
|
3677 |
4290 |
2.70 |
-2.20 |
|
|
2712 |
3405 |
-0.40 |
3.90 |
|
Haryana |
4547 |
8242 |
4.60 |
2.70 |
|
Himachal Pradesh |
4722 |
6802 |
3.20 |
3.00 |
|
Jammu &
Kashmir |
5635 |
7567 |
1.20 |
2.60 |
|
Kamataka |
2475 |
3774 |
2.30 |
3.90 |
|
Kerala |
5936 |
9703 |
2.50 |
4.70 |
|
Madhya
Pradesh |
1704 |
2713 |
3.20 |
3.00 |
|
|
2091 |
3742 |
3.60 |
6.10 |
|
Orissa |
2590 |
2544 |
1.10 |
-1.30 |
|
|
5591 |
10093 |
5.00 |
300 |
|
Rajasthan |
1453 |
2670 |
4.10 |
4.20 |
|
Tamil Nadu |
3342 |
5716 |
3.90 |
2.00 |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
4182 |
6110 |
2.90 |
2.20 |
|
|
4479 |
10664 |
6.00 |
6.70 |
|
All |
3037 |
4611 |
2.77 |
3.14 |
Inter-state variation
in agricultural progress can also be seen from the variation in NSDP
agriculture per rural person (Table 2). This includes variation due to
agricultural productivity and land-man ratio. NSDP _ agriculture per rural
person for the country as a whole was around Rs. 800
in the early 1980's. It increased at the rate of 1 per cent during 1980's and
by 1.44 per cent per annum during first seven years of the decade of 1990's.
Among states, agricultural income per rural person during early 1980s exceeded Rs. 1500 in Haryana and Punjab,
whereas, it was below Rs 700 in the case of Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Kerala,
Tamil Nadu and Himachal
Pradesh. Growth rate in rural population exceeded the growth in NSDP
agriculture in Gujarat, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir and Orissa
during 1980-81 to 1990-91 which resulted in decline in per person agricultural
income. Per capita agriculture income during the 90's declined annually at the
rate of 5 per cent in Bihar, 3 per cent in Orissa
about 2 per cent in Assam and about 1 per cent in Himachal
Pradesh. In Uttar Pradesh per capita agricultural income showed negligible
growth. Per capita agriculture income showed growth rate of 5 per cent in West
Bengal and 4.8 per cent in Maharashtra during 1990-91
to 1996-97.
Table 2 :
Level and growth in NSDP agri./rural
person at 1980-81 prices
|
States |
NSDP Ag/ person Rs. |
Growth rate (%) |
||
|
Triennium Ending 2-83 |
Triennium Ending 1996-97 |
1980/81 to 1990/91 |
1990/91 to 1996/97 |
|
|
Andhra
Pradesh |
866 |
96Z |
060 |
160 |
|
Assam |
734 |
643 |
-0.20 |
-1.90 |
|
Bihar |
457 |
375 |
0.50 |
-520 |
|
Gujarat |
1095 |
1103 |
-2.20 |
2.60 |
|
Haryana |
1589 |
2103 |
2.30 |
0.50 |
|
Himachal Pradesh |
671 |
758 |
1.60 |
-1.10 |
|
Jammu &
Kashmir |
838 |
850 |
-1.00 |
0.60 |
|
Kamataka |
969 |
1211 |
080 |
280 |
|
Kerala |
624 |
994 |
2.40 |
4.20 |
|
Madhya
Pradesh |
737 |
963 |
1.80 |
1.80 |
|
Maharashtra |
917 |
1279 |
1.80 |
4.80 |
|
Orissa |
665 |
539 |
-0.20 |
-3.10 |
|
Punjab |
1902 |
2749 |
3.40 |
1.50 |
|
Rajasthan |
795 |
1138 |
1.90 |
2.00 |
|
Tamil Nadu |
582 |
860 |
2.20 |
1.50 |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
776 |
852 |
0.80 |
0.10 |
|
West Bengal |
604 |
1062 |
3.60 |
5.10 |
|
All India |
797 |
952 |
0.99 |
1.44 |
During the recent
triennium ending with year 1996-97, agriculture income per rural person was
below Rs. 400 in Bihar compared to Rs. 952 for the whole country, at 1980-81 prices. Orissa and Assam turn out to be second and third from the
bottom. Punjab and Haryana maintained first and
second rank respectively with per capita income of Rs.
2749 and 2103. These results reveal that there is tremendous variation in per
hectare and per person agricultural income across states. Also, different
states are found to be moving on disparate growth path. Contrary to the claims
about potential of east India, agricultural growth in this region except West
Bengal is showing signs of stagnation and deterioration.
Coefficient of
variation in per hectare and per rural person NSDP agriculture among the major
states for different years is shown in Figure 1. There is a clear rising trend
in coefficient of variation in both agricultural productivity per unit area as
well as agricultural income per rural person. Grouping the consecutive years in
5 year periods (Table 3) shows that regional disparities in agricultural
productivity increased from 36 per cent during 1980-81 to 1984-85 to 40 per
cent during later half of 1980's. During the 1990's regional divergence further
increased to around 43 per cent.
Figure 1 :
Regional disparties in Indian
agriculture

Per person NSDP
agriculture showed similar trend but with higher magnitude. This is because
inter state variation in agriculture productivity has been further sharpened
due to inequality in land-man ratio. Per capita agriculture income across
states varied by about 41 per cent during early 1980's (Table 3). The
inequalities increased to the level of 47 per cent during second half of
1980's. Inter state variation in per person NSDP agriculture further increased
to more than 51 per cent during the 1990's.
Table 3:
Regional disparities in Indian agriculture in different periods
as revealed by coefficient of variation (%)
|
Average of the period |
NSDP ag hectare |
NSDP ag rural person |
|
1980-81to1984-85 |
3618 |
4075 |
|
1985-86(01989-90 |
40.39 |
47.33 |
|
1990-91 to
1994-95 |
43.99 |
52.61 |
|
1992 -93 to
1996-97 |
45.27 |
52.91 |
There is clear
evidence that since 1980-81 regional divergence in agricultural productivity
and income have grown and the gap between underdeveloped and developed, and,
poor and rich states has continued to increase. This has happened despite
special efforts made to reduce inter-state disparities by promoting level of
agricultural development in underdeveloped states. There is a need to make more
vigorous efforts on technological, institutional, and infrastructural fronts to
raise productivity and to accelerate growth rate not only of crop sector but
also of livestock and other sub sectors of agriculture in under developed
states. Special and immediate focus is needed for eastern states namely Bihar, Orissa and Assam, hill regions and eastern Uttar Pradesh.
There is no room for complacency on this score.
Bhalla G.S. and Gurmail Singh (1997).
Recent Developments in Indian Agriculture: A State Level Analysis. Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 32 (13). March 29.
Bhide Shashanka. K.P. Kalirajan
and R.T. Shand (1998). India's Agricultural Dynamics:
Weak Link in Development, Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 33 (39),
September 26.
Sawant S. D. (1997). Performance of Indian Agriculture with
Special Reference to Regional Variations, Indian Jn
of Agril. Econ.. Vol.52 (3), July- September.
Sawant S.D. and C.V. Achutan (1995).
Agricultural Growth Across Crops and Regions: Emerging Patterns and Trends,
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 30 (12). March 25.
|
October, 1999 |
Ramesh Chand |
|
NCAP has been established by the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research (ICAR) with a view to upgrading agricultural economics
research through integration of economics input in planning, designing, and
evaluation of agricultural research programmes and
for strengthening competence in agricultural policy analysis within the
Council. NCAP Policy Briefs are intended to contribute to debates
on important agricultural policy issues. Opinions expressed are those of the
author (s) I and do not reflect the views of the Centre. |