Nifty99000 100%

Sensex99000 100%

Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
RSS

News

Govt pays the price for inadequate agrarian reforms

Author: IANS/Tuesday, March 20, 2018/Categories: Agri & Fertiliser

Govt pays the price for inadequate agrarian reforms

The 180 km-long march of Maharashtra's farmers from Nashik to Mumbai that swelled to about 40,000 in number by the time it reached the state capital is a potent reminder of the burgeoning problem of agrarian distress in India. It is also indicative of how this segment of the Indian population -- which comprises about 60% of the total -- has found itself repeatedly short-changed in the country's developmental process.

Farmers in Maharashtra have gone through a particularly bad phase, with agricultural growth turning negative in the last three of four years. A spate of droughts and pest attacks -- combined with the disruptions in cash flow due to demonetisation and the cow slaughter ban -- have had an inimical impact on the state's agricultural sector.

Thus, the march centered on a few major demands: A complete farm loan waiver, the effective implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and revision of the minimum support price (MSP) as per the Swaminathan Committee recommendations. The government agreed to relax the eligibility criterion of loan waivers and address implementation issues for clearing land titles and setting the MSP.

There remain numerous fiscal and administrative difficulties in the actual fulfilment of these commitments, which themselves need to be explored in detail. However, the fact of the matter remains that these are by no means a sustainable long-term solution to the problem which arises each year across the country.

This year's Economic Survey pointed out that the level of real agricultural GDP and real agricultural incomes has remained constant over the last four years. During the same period, the gross capital formation (or investment) in agriculture has also declined from 2.9% of GDP in 2013-14 to 2.17 in 2016-17. Therefore, a more effective mechanism needs to be adopted to address these problems by increasing the productivity yield of farms and reducing their vulnerability to seasonal variability, price shocks and pests.

There is also a strong economic logic behind the need for agrarian reforms. The World Development Report of 2008 surveyed several developing countries over 25 years and found that growth in agriculture by 1 % reduces poverty by two to three times more than a similar growth in non-agricultural sectors. In China's case, it was 3.5 times more effective and for Latin American countries, it was 2.7 times more effective. Given that more than half of India is engaged in agriculture and that almost 75% of poverty is concentrated in rural areas, the economic gains from reforming the sector are self-explanatory.

The Chinese experience with agrarian reforms holds a few lessons for India. Unlike India, when China enforced economic reforms, it began by focussing on the agricultural sector. The commune system was dismantled and replaced with the household responsibility system and much of the stifling price controls were removed from agricultural goods.

Following the reforms, the sector grew at over 7% per annum between 1978 and 1984 as compared to a paltry 2.3 % in the pre-reform period of 1952-77. Also, due to this growth spurt, real rural income rose at 15.5 % per year during the same period, bringing poverty levels down from 33 % in 1978 to 15 % in 1984. The reduction in poverty increased the purchasing power of the masses and created a demand for industrial goods that paved the way for manufacturing reforms and the eventual revolution that brought about its historic growth phase for the next three decades.

In contrast to China, Indian reforms were less strategic and more by stealth. They were undertaken to resolve an economic crisis by adjustments in trade policy and delicensing of the industrial sector. Agriculture was kept out of these reforms and only later were piecemeal attempts made by tinkering with the agricultural policy. The reforms did help in ushering in macro-economic stability within the economy and boosting the overall rate of economic growth, but it only impacted the rural masses through shaky dynamics that resembled a trickle-down approach.

Most of the benefits that accrued to the sector came primarily either through indirect reforms of the exchange rate or from the transmission of rising global prices between 2004 and 2011. As a result, India managed to halve its poverty rate in over 18 years (from 45 % in 1993 to 22 % in 2011) as compared to merely six in China.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi aimed to double the income of farmers by 2022 when he came to power, but maintenance of status quo can hardly make such goals a reality. Quite a few structural changes are necessary to ensure sustainable growth in the sector.

First, the incentive structure for the farmers needs to be corrected. There is a consumer bias in agricultural policies to provide food security and price stabilisation, which often comes at the detriment of farmers who end up bearing the brunt. Ad hoc and unpredictable export bans are a case in point. Such trade-restricting policies should be avoided to provide a similar incentive structure as provided to the industries.

Second, considering that more than half of Indian agriculture is still rain-fed, a higher proportion of investment needs to be devoted to improving the agricultural infrastructure. In the total agricultural budget for 2018-19, merely 12 % has been allocated for investment while the rest is meant to be utilised for subsidies and safety nets.

Finally, there is practically no attempt at research and development (R&D) in agriculture. India spends merely 0.46-0.6 % of its agricultural GDP on R&D of the sector against a recommended norm of at least 1 % for developing countries. With such a lopsided policy intent, where is the scope of doubling farm incomes?

 

Print Rate this article:
No rating

Number of views (78)/Comments (0)

Kavita Giridhar Mallya

IANS

Other posts by IANS
Contact author

Leave a comment

Name:
Email:
Comment:
Add comment

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
x

Videos

Ask the Finapolis.

I'm not a robot
 
Dharmendra Satpathy
Col. Sanjeev Govila (retd)
Hum Fauji Investments
 
The Finapolis' expert answers your queries on investments, taxation and personal finance. Want advice? Submit your Question above
Want to Invest
 
 

Categories

Disclaimer

The technical studies / analysis discussed here can be at odds with our fundamental views / analysis. The information and views presented in this report are prepared by Karvy Consultants Limited. The information contained herein is based on our analysis and upon sources that we consider reliable. We, however, do not vouch for the accuracy or the completeness thereof. This material is for personal information and we are not responsible for any loss incurred based upon it. The investments discussed or recommended in this report may not be suitable for all investors. Investors must make their own investment decisions based on their specific investment objectives and financial position and using such independent advice, as they believe necessary. While acting upon any information or analysis mentioned in this report, investors may please note that neither Karvy nor Karvy Consultants nor any person connected with any associate companies of Karvy accepts any liability arising from the use of this information and views mentioned in this document. The author, directors and other employees of Karvy and its affiliates may hold long or short positions in the above mentioned companies from time to time. Every employee of Karvy and its associate companies is required to disclose his/her individual stock holdings and details of trades, if any, that they undertake. The team rendering corporate analysis and investment recommendations are restricted in purchasing/selling of shares or other securities till such a time this recommendation has either been displayed or has been forwarded to clients of Karvy. All employees are further restricted to place orders only through Karvy Consultants Ltd. This report is intended for a restricted audience and we are not soliciting any action based on it. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed herein constitutes an offer or an invitation to make an offer, to buy or sell any securities, or any options, futures or other derivatives related to such securities.