See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227365225

Agricultural Productivity Trends in India: Sustainability Issues

Article  in  Agricultural Economics Research Review · January 2006

Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS
61 9,956

2 authors, including:

Surabhi Mittal

59 PUBLICATIONS   1,354 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Surabhi Mittal on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agricultural Economics Research Review
Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006 pp 71-88

Agricultural Productivity Trends in India:

Sustainability Issues
Praduman Kumar1 and Surabhi Mittal2

Abstract

The sustainability issue of the crop productivity is fast emerging. The

post-Green Revolution phase is characterized by high input-use and
decelerating total factor productivity growth (TFPG). The agricultural
productivity attained during the 1980s has not been sustained during the
1990s and has posed a challenge for the researchers to shift the production
function upward by improving the technology index. It calls for an
examination of issues related to the trends in the agricultural productivity,
particularly with reference to individual crops grown in the major states of
India. Temporal and spatial variations of TFPG for major crops of India
have also been examined.

Introduction
India has made impressive strides on the agricultural front during the
past three decades. Much of the credit for this success should go to the
several million small farming families that form the backbone of Indian
agriculture and Indian economy. Policy support, production strategies, public
investment in infrastructure, research and extension for crop, livestock and
fisheries have significantly helped in increasing the agricultural productivity,
food production and its availability. Notwithstanding these achievements,
producing additional food with limited land, and providing economic access
to food at the household level for ensuring food security would continue to
be a major challenge for the nation. India has experienced considerable
changes in the crop mix, yield and production since the inception of the
Green Revolution. The Green Revolution phase displayed a high yield growth

1
Consultant- Agricultural Economics, Policy Economics and Social Science Disci-
pline, The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. E-mail: [email protected]
2
Fellow, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, Core
6A, 4th Floor, India Habitat Centre, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110003. Email:
[email protected]
72 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006

per unit of input. The first post-Green Revolution phase (from late-1960s to
mid-1980s) was marked by the continued growth in returns from land through
the intensification in use of chemical inputs and machine labour. The second
post-Green Revolution phase (beginning the mid-1980s) was characterized
by high input-use and decelerating productivity growth. It calls for an
examination of the issues related to the trends in agricultural productivity,
particularly with reference to individual crops in recent years. In the present
paper, the temporal and spatial variations in the productivity status of major
crops in India have been analysed using the TFPG estimates. Some policy
measures have also been suggested for sustaining TFP of the crops.

The Approach
Decomposition of growth in agricultural output in India has attracted
the interest of researchers and policymakers since long. Various attempts
have been made to explain the growth in agricultural output in terms of area
and yield components, beginning with the first systematic study of Minhas
and Vaidyanathan (1965). Later, work on the decomposition of growth in

Box 1. Production growth models; Source: Kumar et al. (2004b)

 Kumar & Mittal: Agricultural Productivity Trends in India 73

agricultural output became more refined and invoked the total productivity
concept. Contributions of Evenson and Jha (1973), followed by Dey and
Evenson (1991), Sindhu and Byerlee (1992), Kumar and Mruthyunjaya
(1992), Rosegrant and Evenson (1992), Dholakia and Dholakia (1993),
Kumar and Rosegrant (1994), Evenson et al. (1999), Fan et al. (1999), Ali
and Byerlee (1999), Coelli and Rao (2003), Rozelle et al. (2003) and few
others have been the important parts of this genre. A comparison of the
yield-area decomposition model and productivity growth accounting model
has been depicted in Box 1. In Model 1, growth in agricultural output is
decomposed simply into area and yield components. This simple scheme is
easy to understand the dynamics of agricultural growth, particularly when
growth in land is the main source of output growth. In India, this was the
situation till 1960s; subsequently, with technological changes and as other
(non-land) inputs became more important, an alternative approach became
necessary. Model 2 is able to identify the sources of output growth in terms
of inputs and (total) productivity. The contribution of improved technology is
measured as TFP growth, which can be further decomposed into several
factors, viz. research, extension, education, infrastructure, health of natural
resources, and so on. The input growth is also influenced by several factors
like input-output prices, technological innovations, institutions, infrastructure,
policy initiatives, etc. As can be seen, Model 2 is more comprehensive and
more appropriate for understanding the dynamics of agricultural growth in
India.
Following pioneering works of Schultz (1953), Solow (1957), and Griliches
(1964), voluminous literature has appeared dealing with the measurement
and analysis of agricultural productivity at different levels of aggregation.
Three approaches for the measurement are the most representative:
(i) The parametric approach: It models the state of technology by
including a time trend in the production or cost functions and the partial
differentiation with respect to time to get estimates of technological
changes;
(ii) The accounting approach: It approximates technological change by
the computation of factor productivity indices, mainly the rate of change
of total factor productivity indices (Christensen, 1975); and
(iii) Non-parametric approach: This recent approach, termed as ‘non-
parametric’ by Chavas and Cox (1988) identifies a group of implied
linear inequalities that a profit maximizing (or cost minimizing) firm
must satisfy and estimates the rate of TFP using linear programming.
Amongst these, the accounting approach is popular because it is easy
to implement, requiring no econometric estimation.
74 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006

The use of TFP indices gained prominence since Diewert (1976; 1978)
proved that the Theil-Tornqvist discrete approximation to the Divisia index
is consistent in aggregation and superlative for a linear homogeneous trans-
logarithmic production function. In the present study, Divisia-Tornqvist index
has been used for computing the TFP indices for crops (for details see
Kumar et al., 2004a,b).

Review of Studies
A number of studies on the measurement of productivity have been
carried out for India (Table1). These studies can be classified into two
groups: (i) agriculture sector, and (ii) crop-specific analysis. Indian agriculture
has made substantial gains in productivity with the introduction of high-
yielding varieties, as measured by index of TFP (Rosegrant and Evenson,
1992; Dholakia and Dholakia, 1993; Evenson et al., 1999; Fan et al., 1999).
These studies have shown that the TFP growth in agriculture has been the
prime driving force behind the acceleration of overall growth in the Indian
economy achieved during the 1980s.
Evenson et al. (1999) have analysed the trends and sources of TFP
growth in India’s agriculture, and have shown that the gains in productivity
had contributed about 1.1 per cent per annum since 1956. The TFP and
conventional inputs contribute roughly 2.3 per cent growth rate per annum
in total crop output. Fan et al. (1999) have computed TFP for the agriculture
sector for India and different states of India for the period 1970 to 1995.
Five major crops (rice, wheat, sorghum, pearl millet and maize), 14 minor
crops (barley, cotton, groundnut, other grains, other pulses, potato, rapeseed,
mustard, sesame, sugar, tobacco, soybeans, jute, and sunflower), and 3 major
livestock products (milk, meat, and chicken) were included in the
measurement of output index. Five inputs (labour, land, fertilizer, tractors,
and buffalos) were included in the measurement of input index. TFP for
India grew at an average annual rate of 1.8 per cent. During the 1970s,
TFP growth rate was 1.6, but it grew fast during the 1980s, at 2.5 per cent
per annum. Since 1990, TFP growth in Indian agriculture has continued to
grow but at a little slower rate (2.3% per annum), but still it is at a high level.
Modern inputs such as HYV seed, fertilizer and irrigation were major
contributors to TFP growth in Indian agriculture. Rapid adoption of new
technologies and improved rural infrastructure induced productivity growth.
The government spending on productivity-enhancing investments (especially
agricultural research and extension), rural infrastructure (especially roads
and education), and rural development targeted directly to the rural poor, all
contribute to the growth in agricultural productivity. Avila and Evenson (2004)
have utilized FAO published data on cropland, pastureland, labour used in
agriculture, fertilizer, seeds, tractors and combine harvesters and animal
 Kumar & Mittal: Agricultural Productivity Trends in India 75

Table 1. Empirical studies on total factor productivity of agriculture in India

Author(s) Commodity Period Total factor productivity
Annual Share of TFP
growth in output growth
(%) (%)
Evenson, et al. (1999) Crops 1956-65 1.10 46.8
1966-76 1.39 50.2
1977-87 1.05 48.8
Birthal et al. (1999) Livestock 1951-70 -0.04 Negative
1970-80 0.93 33.2
1980-95 1.79 45.0
Fan et al. (1999) Crops and 1970-79 1.55 77.5
livestock 1980-89 2.52 66.5
1990-94 2.29 72.2
1970-94 1.75 66.3
Coelli and Rao (2003) Crops and 1980-00 0.90 NA
livestock
Avila and Evenson (2004) Crops 1961-80 1.54 68.1
1981-01 2.33 85.7
Livestock 1961-80 2.63 92.6
1981-01 2.66 69.3
Crops and 1961-80 1.92 78.7
livestock 1981-01 2.41 80.3
Joshi et al. (2003) Rice (IGP) 1980-90 3.50 NA
1990-99 2.08 NA
Wheat (IGP) 1980-90 2.44 NA
1990-99 2.14 NA
Crop sector in Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) of India
Kumar et al. (2004b) IGP 1981-90 2.02 43.7
1990-96 -0.02ns Negative
1981-96 1.21 34.22
TGP 1981-90 2.14 40.21
1990-96 -0.06ns Negative
1981-96 1.40 34.25
UGP 1981-90 1.10 29.28
1990-96 0.36 14.12
1981-96 0.89 25.81
MGP 1981-90 1.17 36.12
1990-96 -1.14 Negative
1981-96 0.37 17.31
Contd.
76 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006

Table 1. Empirical studies on total factor productivity of agriculture in

India — Contd.
Author(s) Commodity Period Total factor productivity
Annual Share of TFP
growth in output growth
(%) (%)
LGP 1981-90 5.13 67.64
1990-96 1.25 36.22
1981-96 3.08 56.83
Fisheries sector
Kumar et al. (2004a) Aquaculture 1992-98 4.40 71.66
Marine fish 1987-98 2.01 48.43
NA: Data not available; ns: not significant

stocks for measuring the changes in TFP for crop production, livestock
production and aggregate agricultural production for two periods, 1961-1980
and 1981-2001. Owing to the limitation of data on factor shares, the TFP
growth rates seem to be on a higher side. Modern varieties of the Green
Revolution, increase in the education level of labour force, and increases in
dietary energy have been reported as sources of TFP growth in the paper.
Modern varieties contributed maximum (64%) to TFP growth, followed by
schooling (22 %) and nutrition (14 %).
An analysis of productivity of the crop sector in the Indo-Gengetic Plains
(IGP) by Kumar et al. (2004a) has revealed that the TFPG of the crop
sector in the IGP had risen at the rate of 1.2 per cent per annum during the
period 1980-81 to 1996-97. The TFP results for different agro-eco-regions
have shown considerable variations. The Low- Gangetic Plain (LGP) region
has depicted the highest growth in TFP (3.1%) and MGP, the lowest (0.37%).
The TFP growth rates were estimated at 1.4 per cent in the Trans-Gangetic
Plain (TGP) and 0.9 per cent in the Upper-Gangetic Plains (UGP). In IGP,
one-third of output growth was contributed by TFP. However, the contribution
of TFP to output growth varied from as high as 57 per cent in the LGP to a
meagre 17.3 per cent in the MGP. The shares of TFP in the output growth
of the crop sector in the TGP and the UGP regions were observed to be 34
per cent and 26 per cent, respectively. The output growth in the UGP and
the MGP was input-based, while in the LGP, it was technology-based. The
output growth in the TGP was input- as well as technology-based. The
analysis has confirmed that contribution of TFPG to output growth had
started declining and was, in fact, showing a tendency of further deterioration
in the process. Productivity growth, which picked up during the early-1980s,
could not sustain during 1990s and this situation raised an alarm for the
policymakers and researchers of the country.
 Kumar & Mittal: Agricultural Productivity Trends in India 77

Birthal et al. (1999) have analysed the trend in TFP for the livestock
sector in India. The livestock output grew at the rate of 2.6 per cent per
year over the period 1950-51 to 1995-96. The input index increased by 1.8
per cent per year and the TFP grew at about 0.8 per cent, implying that
technical change contributed about 30 per cent to the overall growth over
the past 45 years. Period-wise results were more revealing. There was no
TFP growth during the first period (1950-51 to 1970-71), implying no progress
in productivity. The real swing started during the 1980s when the sector’s
output touched nearly 4 per cent and the TFP growth jumped to nearly 1.8
per cent, contributing 45 per cent to the total output growth. Avila and
Evenson (2004) have also reported the accelerating growth in the livestock
TFP, growing at the rate of 2.7 per cent per year during 1981-2001 period,
contributing 69 per cent to the total livestock output growth.
Kumar et al. (2004b) have analysed the trend in TFP for the aquaculture
and marine sector of India. The TFP indices for aquaculture have revealed
that the TFP indices grew by 4.4 per cent annually and accounted for two-
thirds of the output growth. The growth in aquaculture was mainly technology-
driven. The TFP growth of fish in the marine sector moved with 2.0 per
cent annual growth and accounted for half of the output growth in the marine
fisheries.
Most studies have focussed on the estimates of the effect of
technological change for agriculture as a whole or total crop production.
Owing to non-availability of input allocation data on individual crops, this
may over- or under-estimate the TFP for the crop sector to the extent that
rates of technical change differ across crops. Thus, the assessment of TFP
change which is one of the most important factors influencing crop
production, ought to be studied for individual crops. With the availability of
micro-level farm data3 in India, few crop-specific TFP studies have emerged
since 1992 (Pinstrup et al., 1991; Sindhu and Byerlee, 1992; Kumar and
Mruthyunjaya, 1992; Kumar and Rosegrant, 1994; Jha and Kumar, 1998;
Kumar et al. 1998; Kumar, 2001; Joshi et al., 2003). The present analysis
covered all the major crops grown in various states of India.

The Data
For constructing the total input index, ten inputs [human labour, bullock
labour, machine labour, farm yard manure (FYM), nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium fertilizers, irrigation, plant protection and land] were included.
3
These data were collected under the “Comprehensive Scheme for the Study of
Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops”, Directorate of Economics and Statistics,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
* Refers to undivided states.
78 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006

Cost share of each input was computed by dividing the individual input-cost
by the total production-cost for all principal crops at the state level, based on
the cost of cultivation data collected under the “Comprehensive Scheme for
the Study of Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops,” of the Directorate of
Economics and Statistics (DES), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of
India (GoI). These data were used for computing the TFP for major crops
of the state. The data on quantity and price of important inputs and crop
output were compiled for the available years, covering the period 1971-
2000.

Productivity Trends for Major Crops

Examining the TFP growth of major crops grown in different states of
India, given in Table 2, one could see a strong perception that (a) technological
gains have not occurred in a number of crops, notably coarse cereals, pulses,
oilseeds, fibres, sugarcane, vegetables, etc. during the 1990s, and (b) crops
and areas, where these gains occurred during early years of Green
Revolution, have exhausted their potential. To validate these observations,
we had undertaken the analysis with more disaggregated perspective on
changes in output, input and TFP for major crops across states of India,
based on more recent micro-farm level data covering the period 1971-72 to
1999-00. The results presented in Appendix I for 1971-1986 and in Appendix
II for 1987-2000 reveal that all crops have benefited from the technological
change in some parts of the country, but there are some exceptions in pulses
and oilseeds where only a few states has performed well. Several states
have recorded positive TFP growth. Paddy and wheat, the major staple
food crops, have performed well in productivity gains. However, TFP of
paddy has started showing deceleration in Haryana and Punjab but TFP of
wheat is still growing in these two Green Revolution states. All eastern
states have shown improvement in TFP of paddy after the mid-1980s.

Sustainability Issues
At the farmers’ level, sustainability concerns are being expressed that
the input levels have to be continuously increased in order to maintain the
yield at the old level. This poses a threat to the economic viability and
sustainability of crop production. A sustainable farming system is a system
in which natural resources are managed so that potential yield and the stock
of natural resources do not decline over time. However, each of the
components of sustainable agriculture is complex and some quantifiable
measures are needed to check whether a farming system is sustainable or
not. Due to the multidimensional nature of the concept of sustainability and
the difficulties in determining specific threshold values for these dimensions,
 Kumar & Mittal: Agricultural Productivity Trends in India 79

Table 2. Annual growth rate in input, output, TFP of crops grown in different
regions of India: 1971-2000
(in per cent)
Crop Region Period Input Output TFP Share of
TFP in
output
Paddy (rice) East 1971-86 1.46 1.60 0.15 9.31
1986-00 1.45 2.73 1.28 46.80
West 1971-86 1.64 0.39 -1.25 Negative
1986-00 2.75 4.70 1.95 41.49
North 1971-86 2.17 4.48 2.31 51.56
1986-00 2.57 2.68 0.11 4.22
South 1971-86 2.45 3.76 1.31 34.87
1986-00 1.43 2.59 1.16 44.89
India 1971-86 1.82 2.46 0.64 25.87
1986-00 1.88 2.96 1.08 36.43
Wheat East 1971-86 3.72 0.00 -3.72 Negative
1986-00 0.75 0.94 0.19 20.45
West 1971-86 1.25 2.02 0.77 38.07
1986-00 4.84 5.72 0.88 15.45
North 1971-86 3.04 5.33 2.29 43.02
1986-00 2.35 3.01 0.66 22.04
India 1971-86 2.64 3.93 1.28 32.64
1986-00 2.91 3.59 0.68 18.98
Coarse West 1971-86 2.58 3.83 1.25 32.71
cereals 1986-00 0.41 0.95 0.55 57.43
North 1971-86 0.08 0.34 0.26 75.56
1986-00 -0.77 -0.01 0.76 Negative
South 1971-86 1.54 3.55 2.00 56.49
1986-00 -1.29 -3.11 -1.82 58.47
India 1971-86 2.14 3.49 1.36 38.82
1986-00 -0.09 0.03 0.12 440.58
Pulses East 1971-86 6.06 7.22 1.16 16.07
1986-00 -10.9 -14.14 -3.22 22.81
West 1971-86 1.81 1.99 0.18 8.97
1986-00 3.40 3.31 -0.10 Negative
North 1971-86 0.00 0.61 0.61 100.00
1986-00 -2.08 -2.02 0.06 Negative
South 1971-86 3.82 5.26 1.45 27.46
1986-00 1.37 -0.26 -1.63 Negative
India 1971-86 1.96 2.47 0.52 20.83
1986-00 1.65 1.25 -0.39 Negative
Oilseeds East 1971-86 6.06 5.59 -0.47 Negative
1986-00 -4.93 -4.67 0.26 Negative
Contd.
80 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006

Table 2. Annual growth rate in input, output, TFP of crops grown in different
regions of India: 1971-2000 — Contd.
(in per cent)
Crop Region Period Input Output TFP Share of
TFP in
output
West 1971-86 5.52 5.38 -0.14 Negative
1986-00 7.44 8.13 0.69 8.49
North 1971-86 6.06 7.22 1.16 16.07
1986-00 3.47 3.30 -0.17 Negative
South 1971-86 2.69 3.24 0.55 16.88
1986-00 1.37 1.01 -0.36 Negative
India 1971-86 4.50 4.64 0.14 2.98
1986-00 5.22 5.55 0.33 5.90
Fibres East 1971-86 3.31 3.44 0.13 3.90
1986-00 -3.36 -2.76 0.60 Negative
West 1971-86 3.64 5.18 1.54 29.80
1986-00 3.67 4.73 1.06 22.37
North 1971-86 2.67 2.70 0.03 1.19
1986-00 3.84 -0.57 -4.42 Negative
South 1971-86 3.08 3.67 0.59 16.07
1986-00 4.70 4.04 -0.66 Negative
India 1971-86 3.38 4.41 1.03 23.30
1986-00 3.09 3.04 -0.05 Negative
Sugarcane East 1971-86 0.00 0.00 0.00 Negative
1986-00 2.22 11.90 9.68 81.34
West 1971-86 4.74 4.46 -0.28 Negative
1986-00 6.47 5.97 -0.50 Negative
North 1971-86 0.90 1.35 0.45 33.10
1986-00 3.60 3.11 -0.49 Negative
South 1971-86 0.66 3.48 2.82 81.05
1986-00 6.27 5.84 -0.43 Negative
India 1971-86 1.24 2.02 0.79 38.92
1986-00 4.36 4.26 -0.10 Negative
Vegetables East 1971-86 1.36 2.16 0.80 37.04
1986-00 6.57 -0.56 -7.13 Negative
West 1971-86 0.00 2.91 2.91 100.00
1986-00 5.12 6.98 1.86 26.65
North 1971-86 0.97 4.30 3.33 77.44
1986-00 6.94 9.47 2.53 26.72
India 1971-86 0.97 3.56 2.59 72.70
1986-00 6.64 6.45 -0.19 Negative
East: Includes states of Bihar, Orissa, Assam and West Bengal of India
West: Includes states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat
North: Includes states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh
South: Includes states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala
 Kumar & Mittal: Agricultural Productivity Trends in India 81

Table 3. Distribution of crop area according to TFP growth in India: 1971-2000

(per cent share of crop area)
Crop Period Stagnation Less than 1% Greater than 1%
TFP < 0 % annual TFP annual TFP
growth growth
Paddy (Rice) 1971-86 30.5 25.9 43.6
1987-00 15.0 32.8 52.2
Wheat 1971-86 10.3 17.3 72.4
1987-00 2.8 74.7 22.5
Coarse cereals 1971-86 19.8 9.6 70.5
1987-00 60.2 9.8 30.1
Pulses 1971-86 42.8 36.6 20.5
1987-00 69.2 26.6 4.2
Oilseeds 1971-86 35.6 18.3 46.1
1987-00 28.3 10.6 61.1
Sugarcane 1971-86 20.3 61.0 18.6
1987-00 90.9 5.4 3.7
Fibres 1971-86 53.8 7.2 39.0
1987-00 32.5 1.4 66.1
Vegetables 1971-86 0.0 27.5 72.5
1987-00 27.5 0.0 72.5

it may be even too ambitious to seek the absolute level of sustainability. We

should probably be satisfied with the relative ranking. Lynam and Herdt
(1989) had proposed a non-positive trend in TFP as an indicator of lack of
sustainability of the production system. This has been widely accepted and
used as an indicator of unsustainability of production (see Ethui and Spencer,
1993; Cassman and Pingali, 1995; Kumar et al., 1998). The farming system
is sustainable if it can maintain the TFP growth over time.
As can be seen in Table 3, the area under rice with more than 1 per
cent TFP growth was 44 per cent in 1971-86 and it increased to 52 per cent
in 1987-2000. However, the area under stagnant TFP for paddy declined
from 31 per cent in 1971-86 to 15 per cent in 1987-2000. Even for wheat,
the stagnated TFP area declined from 10 per cent in 1971-86 to 3 per cent
in 1987-2000. The coarse cereals experienced more than one per cent TFP
growth on 71 per cent of the total crop area during the 1980s, which declined
to 30 per cent during the 1990s. About 60 per cent of the area under coarse
cereals is facing stagnated TFP. Similarly, the productivity gains which
occurred for pulses and sugarcane during the early years of Green Revolution,
have now exhausted their potential. About 70 per cent area under pulses
82 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006

and 90 per cent area under sugarcane during the 1990s have depicted
stagnated TFP. The sign of improvement in productivity gains has been
observed for oilseeds, fibres and vegetables in the recent years. Thus, there
is a strong evidence that technological change has generally pervaded the
entire crop sector. The crops and states where technological stagnation or
decline is apparent need to be focused on research, extension and natural
resource management strategies (Fan et al., 1999; Kumar et al., 2004a).

Conclusions and Policy Implications

The sustainability issue of the crop productivity is fast emerging. The
productivity attained during the 1980s has not been sustained during the
1990s and has posed a challenge before the researchers to shift the production
function by improving the technology index. It has to be done by appropriate
technology interventions, judicious use of natural resources and harnessing
biodiversity. During the Green Revolution era, large investments were made
on research and development for the irrigated agriculture. The promotion of
HYV seed - fertilizer - irrigation technology had a high pay-off and rapid
strides of progress were made in food production. However, in recent years,
agriculture has been experiencing diminishing returns to input-use and a
significant proportion of the gross cropped area has been facing stagnation
or negative growth in TFP. The sharp fall in the total investment, more so in
the public sector investment, in agriculture has been the main cause for the
deceleration of agricultural growth and development (Kumar, 2001).
Moreover, the ratio of amount spent on extension to that on research has
been falling. A vast untapped yield potential still exists in the country. This
coupled with the second-generation technologies and heterogeneity in
production environment warrants much more intensive extension efforts.
The slowing-down of emphasis on extension will further widen the gap in
the adoption of technology. Extension services need to be strengthened by
scaling-up investment levels and improving the quality of extension. The
first step in this direction should be to increase the availability of operating
funds. This will result in accelerating the TFP growth, improving sustainability
of the crop sector and minimizing the yield gap in the region.
The problems of waterlogging and soil salinity may develop sooner or
later in many irrigation project areas due to over-irrigation and deep
percolation and seepage losses in the absence of a suitable drainage system.
The problem is likely to aggravate further in future if proper soil management
practices, including provision of suitable field irrigation channels and drainage
system, are not undertaken. Due to the degradation problems, growth in
TFP has not made headway across a substantial area of the country for
 Kumar & Mittal: Agricultural Productivity Trends in India 83

major food crops. Over-irrigation and alarming rates of groundwater

depletion in the IGP have caused land degradation and other environmental
problems. Further, the quality of available water has been deteriorating (Singh
et al., 2000).
The findings of the study have significant policy implications on the
supply of agricultural commodities, and the national food and household
nutritional security. An increase in agricultural investments, especially in
research and development, is urgently needed to stimulate growth in TFP.
Recognizing that there are serious yield gaps and that there are already
proven paths for increasing productivity, it is highly pertinent for India to
maintain a steady growth rate in TFP. As TFP increases, the cost of
production would decline and the market prices would stabilize at a lower
level. Both the producers and consumers will benefit. The fall in food prices
will benefit the urban and rural poor more than the upper income groups,
because the former spends a much larger proportion of its income on cereals
than that by the latter. All efforts need to be concentrated on accelerating
growth in TFP to fight poverty, whilst conserving natural resources and
promoting ecological integrity of the agricultural system. More than half of
the required growth in yield to meet the target of demand must be achieved
from research efforts by developing location-specific and low input-use
technologies with emphasis on the region/sub-regions/districts where the
current yields are below the potential national average yields. The districts/
sub-regions/regions where TFP stagnation or decline has taken place, as
identified in the paper, must get priority in agricultural research and
development.

References
Avila, A.F.D. and R.E. Evenson, (2004) Total Factor Productivity Growth in
Agriculture: The Role of Technological Capital. Economic Growth Centre.
Ali, M. and D. Byerlee (Eds.), (1999) Technological change and productivity in
Pakistan’s Punjab: Econometric evidence. In: Sustaining Rice-Wheat Production
Systems: Socio-Economic and Policy Issues: Rice-Wheat Consortium, Paper
Series 5. New Delhi, India: Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains,
p. 99.
Birthal, P.S., A. Kumar, A. Ravishankar and U.K. Pandey, (1999) Sources of Growth
in Livestock Sector. Policy Paper No. 9, New Delhi: National Centre for
Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP).
Cassman, K.G. and P.L. Pingali, (1995) Extrapolating trends from long-term experiments
to farmers’ fields : The case of irrigated rice systems in Asia. In: Agricultural
84 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006

Sustainability in Economic, Environmental, and Statistical Terms. Eds: V.

Barnett, R. Payne and R. Steiner. London: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Chavas, J.P. and T.L. Cox, (1988) A nonparametric analysis of agricultural technology.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70: 303-310.
Christensen, L.R., (1975) Concepts and measurement of agricultural productivity,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57: 910-15.
Coelli, Tim J. and D.S. Prasada Rao, (2003) Total Factor Productivity Growth in
Agriculture: A Malmquist Index Analysis of 93 Countries, 1980-2000.
International Association of Agricultural Economics Conference held in Durban,
August.
Dey, M.M. and R.E. Evenson, (1991) The Economic Impact of Rice Research in
Bangladesh. Economic Growth Center. New Haven: Yale University, Mimeo.
Dholakia, R.H. and B.H. Dholakia, (1993) Growth of total factor productivity in
Indian agriculture. Indian Economic Review, 28(1): 25-40.
Diewert, W.E., (1976) Exact and superlative index numbers. Journal of Econometrics,
4: 115-145.
Diewert, W.E., (1978), Superlative index numbers and consistency in aggregation,
Econometrica, 46: 883-900.
Ethui, S.K. and D.S.C. Spencer, (1993) Measuring the sustainability and economic
viability of tropical farming systems: A model from Sub-Saharan Africa.
Agriculture 9: 279-296.
Evenson, R.E. and D. Jha, (1973) The contribution of the agricultural research system
to agricultural production in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
28(4): 212-230.
Evenson, R.E., C. Pray and M.W. Rosegrant, (1999) Agricultural Research and
Productivity Growth in India. Research Report No. 109. Washington, D.C:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., P.B.R. Hazell and S. Thorat, (1999) Linkages between Government Spending,
Growth, and Poverty in Rural India. Research Report No. 110. Washington,
D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Griliches, Z., (1964) Research expenditures, education and the aggregate agricultural
production function. American Economic Review, 54: 961-974.
Jha, D. and Praduman Kumar, (1998) Rice production and impact of rice research in
India, In: Impact of Rice Research. Eds: Prabhu L. Pingali and Mahabub Hossain,
TDRI and IRRI.
Joshi, P.K., L. Joshi, R.K. Singh, J. Thakur, K. Singh and A.K. Giri, (2003) Analysis of
Productivity Changes and Future Sources of Growth for Sustaining Rice-
Wheat Cropping System. National Agricultural Technology Project ((PSR 15;
4.2), New Delhi: National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
(NCAP).
 Kumar & Mittal: Agricultural Productivity Trends in India 85

Kumar, P. and Mruthyunjaya, (1992) Measurement and analysis of total factor

productivity growth in wheat, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
47(7): 451-458.
Kumar, P., (2001) Agricultural performance and productivity, In: Indian Agricultural
Policy at the Crossroads, Eds: S.S. Acharya and D.P. Chaudhri, New Delhi:
Rawat Publications.
Kumar, P. and Mark W. Rosegrant, (1994) Productivity and sources of growth for
rice in India, Economic and Political Weekly, 29(52): A183-A188.
Kumar, P., P.K. Joshi, C. Johansen and M. Asokan, (1998) Sustainability of rice-
wheat-based cropping system in India, Economic and Political Weekly, XXXIII:
A-152-A-158.
Kumar, P., D. Jha, A. Kumar, M.K. Chaudhary, R.K. Grover, R.K. Singh, R.K.P. Singh,
A. Mitra, P.K. Joshi, Alka Singh, P.S. Badal, S. Mittal, J. Ali, (2002) Economic
Analysis of Total Factor Productivity of Crop Sector in the Indo-Gangetic
Plain of India by District and Region-NATP Project under Irrigated Agro-
Ecosystem, Production System Research, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, New Delhi.
Kumar, P., A. Kumar and C.P. Shiji, (2004a) Total factor productivity and economic
impacts of fisheries technology in India. Agricultural Economics Research
Review, 17(Conference number): 131-144.
Kumar, P., A. Kumar, and Surabhi Mittal,(2004b) Total factor productivity of crop
sector in the Indo-Gangetic Plain of India: Sustainability issues revisited. Indian
Economic Review, 39(1):169-201.
Lynam, J.K. and R.W. Herdt,(1989) Sense and sutainability: Sustainability as an
objective in international agricultural research. Agricultural Economics, 3:
381-398.
Minhas, B.S. and A. Vaidyanathan, (1965) Growth of crop output in India, 1951-54
to 1958-61: An analysis by component elements, Journal of the Indian Society
of Agricultural Statistics, 17(2): 230-252.
Mittal, Surabhi and P. Kumar, (2000) Literacy, technology adoption, factor demand
and productivity: An econometric analysis. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 55(3): 490-499.
Mittal, Surabhi and R.C. Lal, (2001) Productivity and sources of growth for wheat in
India. Agricultural Economic Research Review, 14 (Conference No.): 109-120.
Paroda, R.S., (1996) Sustaining the Green Revolution: New Paradigms. B.P. Pal
Commemoration Lecture. 2nd International Crop Science Congress, 22 November,
New Delhi.
Pinstrup, Andersen P., M. Jaramillo, P.B.R. Hazell and C. Ramasamy (Eds), (1991)
The Impact of Technological Change in Rice Production on Food
Consumption and Nutrition. The Green Revolution Reconsidered: The Impact
86 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006

of High Yielding Rice Varieties in South India, 85-104. Johns Hopkins

University Press; Maryland; USA.
Rosegrant, M.W. and R.E. Evenson, (1992) Agricultural productivity and sources
of growth in South Asia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(3):
757-61.
Rosegrant, Mark W. and Robert E. Evenson, (1995) Total Factor Productivity and
Sources of Long-term Growth in Indian Agriculture, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, EPTD discussion paper No. 7.
Rozelle, S. Jin, J. Huang and R. Hu, (2003) The impact of investments in agricultural
research on total factor productivity in China. Crop variety improvement and
its effect on productivity. In: The Impact of International Agricultural Research,
Eds: R.E. Evenson and D. Gollin. UK: CABI Publishing.
Schultz, T.W., (1953) Economic Organization of Agriculture, New York: McGraw-
Hill Co.
Sindhu, D.S. and D. Byerlee, (1992) Technical Change and Wheat Productivity in
the Indian Punjab in Post-GR Period. Working Paper 92-02, Economics, Mexico:
CIMMYT.
Singh, R.K., G.N. Singh, D. Kumar, G. Babu, R. Kishor and P. Kumar (2000) A State-
of-the-Art Report on Waterlogging and Sodic Soil in Indo-Gangetic Plains of
UP. NATP Project (ICAR). Department of Agricultural Economics & Statistics,
C.S. Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur. p. 15.
Solow, R.M., (1957) Technical change and aggregate production function, Review
of Economics and Statistics, 39(3): 312-320.
 Appendix Ia
Trends in total factor productivity for various crops in selected states of India, before 1971-86
Crop Total factor productivity
Increasing No change Decreasing
< 1% 1-2% > 2%

Paddy Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,
Assam Uttar Pradesh West Bengal
Jowar Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh
Tamil Nadu Karnataka,
Maharashtra
Bajra Rajasthan Gujarat Haryana, Uttar Pradesh
Maize Himachal Pradesh Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan
Ragi Tamil Nadu Karnataka
Wheat Punjab, Rajasthan Haryana, Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal Bihar
Barley Rajasthan
Moong Andhra Pradesh, Orissa Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan
Urad Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu
Arhar Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh
Gram Uttar Pradesh Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan
Groundnut Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat Tamil Nadu
Linseed Madhya Pradesh
Rapeseed & mustard Haryana, Rajasthan Assam
Sunflower Maharashtra
Soyabean Madhya Pradesh
Cotton Haryana Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab
Kumar & Mittal: Agricultural Productivity Trends in India

Pradesh, Tamil Nadu

Jute Orrisa Bihar, West Bengal Assam
Sugarcane Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka Haryana, Maharashtra, Bihar
Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh
Onion Maharashtra
87

Potato Bihar, Uttar Pradesh

Source: Computed by the authors from data on cost of cultivation, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Govt. of India.
View publication stats
Appendix Ib
88

Trends in total factor productivity for various crops in selected states of India, 1986-2000
Crop Total factor productivity
Increasing No change Decreasing
< 1% 1-2% > 2%

Paddy West Bengal Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Karnataka, Haryana, Punjab

Bihar, Madhya Uttar Pradesh
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu
Jowar Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra Karnataka, Rajasthan
Bajra Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra,
Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh
Maize Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh Himachal Pradesh
Ragi Karnataka, Tamil Nadu
Wheat Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab Bihar, Uttar Pradesh Himachal Pradesh
Rajasthan,
West Bengal
Barley Uttar Pradesh Rajasthan
Moong Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh, Orrisa, Rajasthan
Urad Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh, Orrisa, Tamil Nadu
Arhar Gujarat Madhya Pradesh Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh
Gram Madhya Pradesh, Haryana Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Groundnut Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orrisa Karnataka
Tamil Nadu
Linseed Madhya Pradesh
Rapeseed & Assam, Haryana, Rajasthan, Punjab
mustard Uttar Pradesh
Sunflower Maharashtra Karnataka
Safflower Karnataka Maharashtra
Soyabean Madhya Pradesh
Cotton Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh Haryana Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra Punjab, Tamil Nadu
Jute West Bengal Assam, Bihar, Orrisa
Sugarcane Bihar Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006

Onion Maharashtra
Potato Uttar Pradesh Bihar