2011 01 ifad - smallholder farming in asia and the pacific

7/24/2019 2011 01 IFAD - Smallholder Farming in Asia and the Pacific

1/41

Smallholder Farming in Asia and the Pacific:Challenges and OpportunitiesGanesh Thapa and Raghav Gaiha


2/41

Session 3

Breakout session 2

Smallholder Farming in Asia and the Pacific:

Challenges and Opportunities1

Ganesh Thapa and Raghav Gaiha2

Paper presented at the FA! Conference on "e# !irections for Smallholder Agriculture

2$%2& 'anuar() 2*11

nternational Fund for Agricultural !evelopment

+ia Paolo !i !ono) $$) Rome **1$2) tal(

1Copyright of the paper is reserved by IFAD. The paper may not be reproduced in part or in full and in anyform without written permission of the Conference Organisers at IFAD e!mail" at.rahman#ifad.org$

%The authors respectively are the &egional 'conomist at the Asia and the (acific Division) IFAD and (rofessor

at the Faculty of *anagement +tudies) ,niversity of Delhi) India. The authors than- idhi /aic-er formeticulous research Assistance.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/41

%


4/41

0


5/41

Smallholder Farming in Asia and the Pacific: Challenges) and Opportunities,

S-..AR/

This paper assesses the challenges and opportunities faced by small or family farming in Asia and the(acific &egion in sustainable agricultural production and productivity enhancements) and indiversifying into high value commodities.

It is estimated that about 2 per cent of the world3s 455 million small farms less than % ha$ are inAsia and the (acific region. China and India alone account for 160 million and 60 million farms)respectively.

+mall farms continue to contribute significantly to agricultural production) food security) ruralpoverty reduction) and biodiversity conservation despite the challenges they face in the access toproductive resources and service delivery. They confront new challenges on integration into high

value chains) adaptation to climate change) and mar-et volatility and other ris-s and vulnerability.

They have integrated successfully into high value chains contingent upon support throughintermediation e.g. public 7private cooperation in ensuring food safety standards$ and internalisatione.g. through producers3 association in meeting 8uality standards$.

Attractive investment opportunities have opened up in agriculture) leading to large!scale investmentsand competition for land. 9hile new economies of scale e.g. in e:ternal financing$ have emerged)elimination of biases against smallholders e.g. in credit$ would enhance their competitiveness.

In complementing incentives to the private sector to innovate) governments must play an active role incoordinating the delivery of inputs) technical and output mar-eting services to small farms. +upport is

also needed to enable them to adapt to climate change and mar-et volatility.

0An earlier version of the paper Thapa %515$ was presented at the &oundtable on the role of smallholder agriculture andfamily farming in Asia and ;atin America and options for +outh!+outh cooperation organi


6/41

4


7/41

0 ntroduction

+mall farms) also -nown as family farms) have been defined in a variety of ways. The most commonmeasure is farm si


8/41

Correspondingly) the area operated by small farms increased from about 16 per cent to == per centduring this period C',+) %55$. The distribution of landownership in India has become lesss-ewed. The share of land area owned by small farms increased from %5 in 161!% to =0.4 in%550. Also) the trend toward landlessness also appears to have been arrested) with the percentage oflandless between 1621!2% and %550 remaining appro:imately at 15. In India the distribution ofoperational holdings actual area cultivated$ closely mirrors the distribution of land owned.

+mallholders3 contribution to the total value of agricultural output is also significant in manycountries of Asia. For e:ample) in India their contribution to total farm output e:ceeds 45 per centalthough they cultivate only == per cent of land. *any studies have also confirmed the inverserelationship between farm si


9/41

0 Transformation of agriculture

This section briefly discusses two important transformations in the agriculture sector) which haveprofound impact on the small or family farms of the two regions. In the first one) small farms playedan important role particularly in Asia in raising food production and incomes based on biological)chemical and mechanical innovations. The second transformation is more recent and presentsconsiderable challenge as well as opportunity for these farmers to benefit from new agriculture.

The Green Revolution

The Ereen &evolution in Asia) which mainly comprised a dramatic increase in the production of threeimportant cereal crops 7 rice) maiaigher production of all three maGor cereal crops

was reali


10/41

chain) and on the role of small farmers Eulati et al.) %55$. These countries include the largest andmost important transforming countries of Asia 7 @angladesh) India and (a-istan in +outh AsiaIndonesia) the (hilippines) Thailand and iet am in +outheast Asia and China in 'ast Asia.

The study documented a clear shift in food consumption from grains and other starchy staple cropssuch as cassava and sweet potatoes to meat) mil-) eggs) fish) fruits and vegetables mainly due toincome increases Table =$. In these countries) per capita grain consumption either increased veryslowly or even decreased between 1665 and %555. In contrast) per capita demand for vegetables)fruits) and animal products increased substantially in all countries.

In addition to rising domestic demand) these high!value commodities have also e:perienced highe:port demand. >igh!value products such as fruits) vegetables) livestoc- products and fish constitute arapidly growing share of international trade in agricultural products. In these countries as a group) theshare of high!value e:ports in total agricultural e:ports increased from =2 per cent to 40 per cent.

Due mainly to the high growth in domestic demand and) to some e:tent) an increase in e:ports) theproduction of high!value commodities in many Asian countries has grown more rapidly than that of

food grains. The production of food grains in the eight countries under study increased by 1.0 per centper year during the 1665s) slightly below the population growth rate of 1.4 per cent. In contrast) theproduction of high!value commodities grew much more rapidly during this period Table 4$. Fore:ample) fruit and vegetable production increased by 2.2 per cent in these eight countries. China) in

particular) achieved a very high growth rate in the production of fruits and vegetables. @etween 165and %55=) 4 per cent of the increase in global horticulture production came from China) 0 per centfrom all other developing countries and the remaining = per cent from developed countries Ali)%55$. India) Indonesia) (a-istan and iet am also recorded an annual growth rate of more than 0

per cent in the production of fruits and vegetables in the 1665s.

The production of livestoc- products also increased impressively in many Asian countries during the1665s. *il- production grew by =. per cent per year in these eight countries during this period. *ost

countries also achieved high growth rates in the production of eggs) meat and fish.

Transformation of agrifood industry

The growth in domestic consumption and production of high!value agricultural commodities in Asiaand the (acific was accompanied by a transformation of the agrifood industry) which includes

processing) wholesale and retail. Eovernments contributed to this mainly through investment inmunicipal wholesale mar-ets) parastatal processing firms and state!run retail chains. >owever) themain new developments are private!sector investment in and consolidation of processing and retail&eardon et al.) %556$.

An important element of this transformation is the restructuring of the wholesale sector) which started

with the public investment phase in the 1625s!165s in many parts of Asia and in the 1665s in China.This phase was characteri


11/41

growth in supermar-ets) which started in the early to mid!1665s) was driven by a massive flow offoreign direct investment and competitive domestic private investment) privati


12/41

%55$. The insights from these studies are highly relevant in the conte:t of rising food and oil prices)and their implications for the rural poor.

One important finding relates to the price response of mar-eted surplus of foodgrains. @ardhan and@ardhan %550$ first specify a theoretical model of farmers3 foodgrain mar-eting decision) positingthat in the production decision the relevant prices are those of foodgrains relative to competing cropsand agricultural inputs whereas in the consumption decision the relevant prices are those offoodgrains relative to competing consumption goods$ 7 including manufactured consumables. Theyconclude that the mar-eted surplus of grains is higher when the relative cereal price is higher) and it islower when the relative price of commercial crops is higher. The intuition underlying these results isthat) when the relative cereal price is high) more is mar-eted as less is consumed and when therelative price of commercial crops is high) mar-eted surplus of grains is lower because of switching ofacreage.

The analysis given here builds on this literature by using a recent all!India survey &ural 'conomicand Demographic +urvey &'D+$$ conducted by the ational Council for Applied 'conomic&esearch in 12 states of India in %552. As the household and village data are being subGected to

consistency chec-s) our results are not to be treated as definitive. The sample consists of 464households in the 12 states. 9e have wor-ed with smaller samples as outliers had to be eliminated.

Our focus is on mar-eted surplus by siaryana) ,ttar (radesh)

@ihar) Jhar-hand) 9est @engal) Orissa) Chhattisgarh) *adhya (radesh) >imachal (radesh and Andhra (radesh.1 hectareK%.=2 acres.6For details of the cross!country evidence) see Imai et al. %511$.

15In fact) evidence has accumulated pointing to a dietary transition in India. For details) see /ul-arni and Eaiha %515$) andEaiha et al. %515$.11All cross!tabulations are given in Anne: 1.

11


13/41

smallholders and highest among large landholders. As access to new technology and mar-ets withmore remunerative prices are positively lin-ed to educational attainments! admittedly) these lin-shave wea-ened somewhat with advances in ICT!smallholders are at a disadvantage1%.

Table A.1 describes access to different forms of rural infrastructure. ,nfortunately) access to these isin relation to a village and not a household. >ence we are unable to capture ine8uity in access by si


14/41

concentrated in lower ranges of yields compared with medium and large landholders) segments ofsmallholders also obtain very low yields for e:ample) in oilseeds$.

!eterminants of .ar4eted Suppl(

The specification used and the results are given in Anne: %.

a$ Cereals14

The tobit results on the mar-eted surplus of cereals are given in Table A.%.1. The main findings are14"

1. The higher the household head3s schooling) the higher was the mar-eted surplus of cereals.%. ;ower caste households the +cheduled Castes +Cs$) and Other @ac-ward Castes O@Cs$$

mar-eted lower fractions relative to Others the omitted group$) presumably because ofdiscriminatory practices in output and credit mar-ets.

0. Controlling for these and other effects) small landholders mar-ed significantly lowerproportions than large landholders the omitted group$) and these proportions weresubstantially lower.

=. The higher the price of cereals) the larger was the mar-eted surplus. The elasticity ofmar-eted surplus of cereals to its own village price is about 5.=1) implying that a 1 per centhigher price is li-ely to induce a 5.=5 per cent larger mar-eted surplus.

Figure" A.%.1 points to a 8uadratic relation between predicted mar-eted surplus and land si


15/41

long distances. The elasticity is 5.56) implying one per cent increase in distance to the nearestmar-et resulted in a 5.56 per cent lower mar-eted surplus.

4. Controlling for these effects) the price has a robust effect on mar-eted surplus. The elasticityis 5.10) implying that a one per cent higher price induces a 5.10 higher mar-eted surplus.

.Figure A.%.0 suggests an almost flat linear relation between predicted mar-eted surplus of vegetablesand landownedHoperated.

!d" %ilseeds

The tobit results for oilseeds the sample of households that grew oilseeds was also small 51$$ aregiven in Table A.%.=. The main findings are"

1. +omewhat surprisingly) the head3s education is not lin-ed to mar-eted surplus of oilseeds.%. 9hile +Cs mar-et lower fractions) +Ts mar-et higher fractions relative to Others$.0. @oth small and medium landholders mar-et lower fractions of their output than large

landholders!especially the former.=. Controlling for these effects) there is a significant positive price effect on mar-eted surplus of

oilseeds. The elasticity is 5.%2) implying that a 1 per cent higher price induces a 5.%2 per centhigher mar-eted surplus.

.

Figure A.%.= suggests that the 8uadratic does not fit the relation between mar-eted surplus andlandownedHoperated well.

In sum) our analysis confirms the important effect of price on mar-eted surplus of each of the fourfood commodity groups" cereals) pulses) vegetables and oilseeds. >owever) elasticities with respect toown price vary) with the highest for cereals) followed by pulses and then for oilseeds. For vegetables)easier access to mar-ets matters a great deal) given lac- of cold storage facilities. 'ducation ofhousehold head matters too in two commodity groups. To the e:tent that education enables access to

new technology and mar-et prices) it is also positively related to mar-eted surplus. In all four cases)smallholders are associated with lower mar-eted surplus. Our analysis) however) could not throw lighton whether smallholders mar-eted lower fractions because they received lower farm gate pricesandHor because their access to mar-ets was more constrained.

!eclining productivit( gro#th

A number of studies have confirmed a slowdown in productivity growth in cereal crops such as riceand wheat in maGor irrigated areas of Asia such as the Indo!Eangetic plain and 'ast Asia @handari etal.) %550 (ingali et al.) 1662$. For e:ample) rice yield growth in irrigated areas of Asia declined from%.01 per cent per annum in 1625!65 to 5.26 per cent in 1665!%555 >ossain) %55$. The maGor reasonsfor this decline in yield growth include" the displacement of cereals on better lands by more profitablecrops diminishing returns to modern varieties when irrigation and fertilia


16/41

5nvironmental prolems

(oor water management in many countries of Asia has resulted in land degradation in irrigated areasthrough salini


17/41

An analysis of land reforms in India by Deininger et al. using a %5 year panel 161!66$ of householddata for rural India yields useful insights into their effects. First) by allowing households to increaseinvestment) land reforms had a positive impact on accumulation of assets!both human and physicalcapital. (artly through this channel) land reforms promoted growth1. +econd) the benefits to the poorwere disproportionately large) implying a positive impact on e8uity. Third) the impact of reformsdeclined with time!land transfers have come to a virtual standstill in recent years! emphasising theneed for more imaginative approaches that ta-e note of e:isting opportunities to access land) theobstacles preventing such access) and the potential economic returns from land compared to thealternatives.

7ater shortages

In much of Asia) the demand for water for both agricultural and non!agricultural uses is rising andwater scarcity is becoming acute) thus limiting the future e:pansion of irrigation. Irrigated food

production in large areas of China and +outh Asia is being maintained through unsustainablee:traction of water from rivers or the ground ,D() %55$. The e:pansion of tubewell irrigation in+outh Asia has resulted in serious overdrawing of groundwater and falling water tables. In the

agriculturally advanced states of India 7 >aryana) (unGab) &aGasthan and Tamil adu 7 more than onefifth of groundwater a8uifers are overe:ploited 9orld @an-) %552$. As a result) water pumping hasbecome difficult and too costly. The most affected are small farmers) who have little access toe:pensive pumps and often have insecure water rights.

In Asia in general) and +outh Asia in particular) the area of land irrigated by large!scale surfaceschemes has been declining since the early 1665s. For e:ample) between 166= and %551) India and(a-istan together lost more than 4.4 million ha of canal!irrigated areas) despite very large investmentsin rehabilitation and new proGects *u-herGi et al %556$. +ome of these areas were lost due toirrigation!induced soil salinity and waterlogging.

!iversification

+mall farmers have the potential to raise their incomes by switching from grain!based productionsystems to high!value agriculture. Although the production of high!value agriculture is labour!intensive and thus more suitable for smallholders) they face a number of constraints. +ince high!valueagricultural commodities are perishable and their mar-ets are fragmented) there is high volatility intheir prices) and thus high mar-et ris-. In addition) small farmers have low volumes of mar-etablesurplus and the land they cultivate is mostly located in remote areas with poorly developedinfrastructure. As a result) smallholders face high transaction costs and ris-s in production andmar-eting of such commodities. They also face poor access to credit) and stringent food safety and8uality standards16.

9hile growth of urbanisation and rising incomes fuelled the growth of a diversified agricultural sector

and integration into high value chains lin-ed to supermar-ets in some parts of Asia and the (acific&egion) following the food crisis) there is evidence of erosion of trust in mar-ets allocating foodsupplies in countries worst affected) and heightened concerns for self!sufficiency in food staples.*anifestation of such concerns reflected in protectionist policies towards rice in particular$ runs theris- of slowing down diversification of agriculture.

1Tenancy reforms and ceilings have significant and positive reduced form$ effects on income) consumption and assets)

with the former yielding stronger effects. Deininger et al. %556$.16As noted in +ection III) although yields of food crops are higher among smallholders) the fact that they mar-et

substantially lower fractions of their outputs suggests that lac- of easy access to credit and mar-ets are maGor impediments.

1


18/41

mpact of climate change

&esearchers have predicted that climate change will have serious conse8uences for agriculture)particularly for smallholders in poor developing countries. In tropical countries even moderatewarming 1 degree C for wheat and mai


19/41

anthropometric measures of under!nutrition%0. Disasters often disrupt food production) resulting inloss of livelihoods and higher food prices. Finally) not only do poor rural people lose assets) but theyalso lac- access to ris-!sharing mechanisms such as insurance. It is therefore not surprising thatdisasters substantially increase poverty levels e.g. 45 per cent of the increase in the incidence of

poverty in the (hilippines during the 166 crisis was due to 'l ino$. Although the devastation isseldom confined to the poorer segments 7 including small farmers 7 in the absence of easy access tocredit and insurance they find it harder to recover their previous standard of living Jalan and&avallion) %551$.

Although there is overlap between poverty and vulnerability to poverty) with a diverse pattern bothwithin and $etween countries for which evidence e:ists) a useful insight is that poverty andvulnerability are distinct. Thus interventions designed to target the latter must differ from thosedesigned for the former. +pecifically) more careful attention must be given to ris- mitigation andcoping in dealing with vulnerability to poverty!especially in rural areas.

+0 Opportunities for higher productivit() higher incomes and sustainailit(

This section discusses technological as well as institutional innovations that can enable small orfamily farms to sustainably raise agricultural productivity and to increase incomes by accessingemerging mar-ets for high!value commodities.

Technological innovations to address environmental prolems and (ield gro#th

To address the concerns about the sustainability of Ereen &evolution technologies and their ability tobenefit poor farmers) particularly in less favoured areas) many are advocating new technologicalapproaches e.g. (ender) %55$. These include low e:ternal input and sustainable agricultureapproaches based on ecological principles of farming organic agriculture based on a similar set ofagro!ecological principles but without the use of artificial chemical fertili


20/41

%rganic agriculture

Organic agriculture is a specific type of low e:ternal input whose re8uirements are more restrictive 7no use of chemicals or genetically modified organisms. @ased on certification) price premiums of 15to 45 per cent are common for developing country e:ports of organic products IFAD) %554$. Organicfarming has increased rapidly in many Asian countries in the last few years. In %555!5%) there wereabout 5)555 farms producing certified organic products on about 55)555 hectares. This increased tomore than 65)555 farms on more than 0. million hectares in %554!5 (ender) %55$. China) Indiaand Indonesia are the maGor organic producers in Asia.

+everal studies have shown favourable impacts of organic agriculture on the costs of production andyields IFAD) %554 &eunglertpanya-ul) %551$. >owever) there are several constraints to the adoptionof organic farming. (rofit margins usually diminish due to increased competition) and organic

producers may face greater mar-et ris-s as the sector grows. (erhaps the most important concernamong smallholder farmers relates to the costs of certification and assuring compliance with organicstandards. These problems can be addressed by developing farmer organi


21/41

of private! and public!sector initiatives facilitating private!sector provision of mar-et informationthrough telecommunication and directing fiscal stimulus to rural areas.

)armer'producer organi(ations

To overcome challenges related to high transaction costs) small farmers in many countries haveformed producer organi


22/41

costs. *iyata et al %556$ also found that contract farmers earned more than non!contract farmerseven after controlling for household labour availability) education) farm si


23/41

.ar4eting support to smallholders through information and communication technolog(: the

case of e%Choupal in ndia

The e!Choupal initiative of the Indian Tobacco Company ITC$ is changing the lives of thousands offarmers in India. @etween %555 and %552) the agribusiness division of ITC set up )=55 Internet-ios-s called e!Choupals in nine Indian states) reaching about 0)555 villages and = million farmers.ITC establishes an Internet facility in a village and appoints and trains an operator sanchalak$ fromamong the farmers in the village. Thesanchalakoperates the computer to enable farmers to get freeinformation on local and global mar-et prices) weather) and farming practices. The e!Choupal alsoallows farmers to buy a range of consumer goods and agricultural inputs and services sourced fromother companies$.

The e!Choupal serves as a purchase centre for ITC for 10 agricultural commodities) with thesanchalakacting as the commission agent in purchasing the produce and organi


24/41

+0 5naling polic( and programme support to small or famil( farms8Selected 59amples from

Asia and the Pacific

There are powerful efficiency and e8uity reasons to support small farms in Asia and the (acific. Theyare economically more efficient relative to large farms) can create large amounts of productiveemployment) reduce rural poverty and food insecurity) support a more vibrant rural nonfarmeconomy) and help to contain rural!urban migration >aowever) there was one maGor difference between the two regions. In Asiancountries such as China and India) public interventions such as land policies) agricultural mar-etingand support services and agricultural research and e:tension benefited commercially oriented smallfarms. In China) small farms were supported after collective farms could not provide ade8uateincentives to increase production and productivity. @o: 1 provides the highlights of the current

programme of the Chinese government in support of small farmers.

%0


25/41

%=

o9 10 Polic( support to small farmers in China

The reform of the rural economic system in 162 laid an institutional foundation for ruraldevelopment and poverty reduction in China. The main element of the reform was to change the

agricultural production model from centrali


26/41

+0 Concluding remar4s

+mall farms have proved resilient over time and they continue to contribute significantly toagricultural production) food security) rural poverty reduction) and biodiversity conservation in Asiaand the (acific &egion despite the challenges they continue to face with respect to the access to

productive resources and service delivery. They are now facing new challenges on integration intonew agriculture dominated by value chains) adaptation to climate change) and management of mar-etvolatility and other ris-s and vulnerability.

>owever) they have also shown their ability to integrate into the emerging value chains) if they areprovided support through intermediation and internali


27/41

Tale 10 Changes in farm si3e and land distriution in selected Asian and 6atin American

countries

Country (eriod

;and distributionEini$

Average farm sia


28/41

Tale $0 Average annual percentage gro#th in per capita consumption of selected foods in

selected Asian countries) 1==*%2***

@3desh India (a- Indo (hil Thai iet China

Cereals 5.% !5.= 5.5 5.6 5.1 5.% 1.% !1.0

eg 5.% %.1 %.% 0.0 5.5 5.4 =.6 .4Fruits !1.4 %.6 5.4 1.6 5.% 5.0 1.2 15.5

*il- 5.% 1.6 0.5 4.6 1.4 4.5 10.4 4.5

*eat 1.5 5.6 5.% 5.= =.2 1.4 =.0 .

'ggs =. 1.6 1.6 0.2 1. !5.= 4. 6.2

Fish =.2 %.5 1. 0.% !1.= 0.6 0.2 .=

+ource" Eulati et al %55 based on FAO Food @alance Database$.

Tale &0 Average annual percentage gro#th in production of food grains and high value

commodities in selected Asian countries) 1==*%2***

@3desh India (a- Indo (hil Thai iet ChinaErains 0. 1.6 0. 1.2 1.= 0.2 4.2 5.1

Fruits Reg

1.2 =.0 0. =.1 %.1 %.1 =.2 15.%

*il- 0.5 =.% 4.2 %. !.4 1=. 0.4 4.

'ggs .= =.% =. =.6 0.= 1.1 .2 15.

*eat 0.= 0.5 %. 1. 4. 0. .0 2.

Fish 2.5 =.5 %.2 4.5 5.= 0.5 2. 11.0

+ource" Eulati et al %55 based on FAO Agricultural and Fisheries (roduction Databases$.

%2


29/41

Anne9 1

@a Cross%Taulations

Tale A01. !istriution @B of +illages ( Access to nfrastructure and .ar4ets

Distanceranges

earest9holesaleAgriculture(roduct*ar-et

earestPacca

&oad

earestAgriculturalInput +tore

earest@an-

earestDistricthead8uarters

earestTown

earestTelephonefacility

5 -ms 0.=% 2%.%2 1.12 1=.=6 5.55 %.4= 6.

5!4 -ms 1. %%.%2 0=.6 =1.1% 5.= %1.1 %%.4

4!15 -ms %2.04 %.4% %4.11 0%.21 4. 0%.0 4.10

above 15 -ms 45.=0 %.6= %0.0 11. 60.% =0.%% %.4

Total 155.55 155.55 155.55 155.55 155.55 155.55 155.55

%


30/41

b$ ernel !ensit( Functions of /ields

Figure A0101: ernel !ensit( Function for 6og

of Cereals Duantit( @in Duintal Produced PerAcre of 6and for Small) .edium and 6arge

6and


31/41

Anne9 2

@a The Toit .odel

9e have used a tobit specification in which positive$ values of mar-eted surplus of a foodcommodity are transformed logarithmically and


32/41

@ Toit Results

Tale A02010 Factors Affecting .ar4eted Surplus of Cereals: Toit 5stimates

':planatory ariables Coefficient t!statistic$ 'lasticity

;og of household head3s years of schooling 5.150.==$SSS 5.50560.==$SSSCaste dummy" +C !%.1404!11.24$SSS !5.5=5!11.26$SSS

Caste dummy" +T 5.%%451.5=$ 5.55%11.5=$

Caste dummy" O@C !5.=10!0.0$SSS !5.5%=6!0.0$SSS

;and owned dummy" +mall !%.5=44!11.42$SSS !5.160!11.42$SSS

;and owned dummy" *edium !5.54%%!5.%4$ !5.5515!5.%4$

;og of village level traders3 price for cereals 5.45410.64$SSS 5.=521=.5$SSS

Constant !5.01!%.46$SSS

Hsigma 0.05

umber of observations 46=

;eft!censored observations at dep.

variableK5

%650

,ncensored observations %261

;& chi!s8uare2$ 210.=SSS

(seudo &!s8uare 5.5046

;og li-elihood !646=.=22

ote";og of mar-et surplus of cereals is the dependent variable. SSS refer to significance at the 1 level ofsignificance. The elasticities are based on the uncensored observations.

01


33/41

Tale A02020 Factors Affecting .ar4eted Surplus of Pulses: Toit 5stimates


;og of household head3s years of schooling 5.55=05.50$ 5.55505.50$

Caste dummy" +C !%.5=0=!0.41$SSS !5.514!0.4=$SSS

Caste dummy" +T !1.=!%.52$SS !5.55%!%.5$SSCaste dummy" O@C 5.40621.41$ 5.51051.41$

;and owned dummy" +mall !%.2!4.65$SSS !5.15=!4.6$SSS

;and owned dummy" *edium !1.4125!%.26$SSS !5.5114!%.5$SSS

;og of village level traders3 price for pulses 1.254014.5$SSS 5.0166%1.2%$SSS

Constant !14.%%61!1=.0%$SSS

Hsigma .10%6



variableK5

455

,ncensored observations 0=

;& chi!s8uare2$ 1156.5SSS(seudo &!s8uare 5.142

;og li-elihood !%6=1.454

ote";og of mar-et surplus of pulses is the dependent variable. SSS and SS refer to significance at the 1 and4 level of significance) respectively. The elasticities are based on the uncensored observations.

0%


34/41

Tale A020,0 Factors Affecting .ar4et Surplus of +egetales: Toit 5stimates


;og of household head3s years of schooling 5.%%0.%4$SSS 5.5=050.05$SSS

Caste dummy" +C !5.0=42!5.=4$ !5.55%%!5.=4$Caste dummy" +T !4.2%!%.26$SSS !5.514!%.=$SSS

Caste dummy" O@C !5.===!5.1$ !5.556!5.1$

;and owned dummy" +mall !%.0210!0.05$SSS !5.52%6!0.0=$SSS

;and owned dummy" *edium !5.204!5.6%$ !5.5545!5.6%$

;og of village level traders3 price for

vegetables

1.=01=.14$SSS 5.10=5%%.04$SSS

;og of distance of whole sale agricultural

mar-et from the village

!5.56!0.=%$SSS !5.565!0.=2$SSS

Constant !1=.==!15.%=$SSS

Hsigma 2.01=%umber of observations 4%=


variableK5

4551

,ncensored observations %0

;& chi!s8uare$ 460.2%SSS


;og li-elihood !1=65.0060

ote";og of mar-et surplus of egetables is the dependent variable. SSS refer to significance at the 1 levelof significance. The elasticites are based on the uncensored observations.

00


35/41

Tale A020$0 Factors Affecting .ar4et Surplus of Oilseeds: Toit 5stimates


;og of household head3s years of schooling 5.5%215.12$ 5.5515.12$

Caste dummy" +C !1.=%=4!%.42$SS !5.515!%.4$SSS

Caste dummy" +T 1.=6%%.%5$SS 5.554%.%5$SSCaste dummy" O@C 5.1125.=4$ 5.55065.=4$

;and owned dummy" +mall !4.5601!11.14$SSS !5.1626!11.$SSS

;and owned dummy" *edium !%.0%%!=.=6$SSS !5.512!=.40$SSS

;og of village level traders3 price for

oilseeds

1.==1=12.5$SSS 5.%24=%=.1$SSS

Constant !1%.120!1=.%2$SSS

Hsigma .0161



variableK5

4560

,ncensored observations 51

;& chi!s8uare2$ 15%.0=SSS


;og li-elihood !%==.24%

ote";og of mar-et surplus of oilseeds is the dependent variable. SSS and SS refer to significance at the 1 and 4 level of significance) respectively.

0=


36/41

Figure A0201: 6og of Predicted .ar4et

Surplus for Cereals ( 6and


37/41

References

Ali) *. and D. @yerlee. %55%. (roductivity growth and resource degradation in (a-istan3s (unGab" Adecomposition analysis. 'conomic Development and Cultural Change 45=$" 06!0.

Anri8ue. ?an. %550. *eeting cereal demand while protectingnatural resources and improving environmental 8uality. Annual &eview of 'nvironmental &esources%"014!4.

Clawson) D.;. 164. >arvest security and intraspecific diversity in traditional tropical agriculture.'conomic @otany 06" 4!2.

Dalrymple) D.E. 16. The Development and Adoption of >igh!?ielding arieties Inter!AmericanDevelopment @an-) 'conomic and +ocial (rogress in ;atin America" 16 &eport 9ashington)D.C." 16$.

Deaton) A. +. 1662$ The Analysis of >ousehold +urveys" A *icroeconometric Approach toDevelopment (olicy) @altimore" The Johns >op-ins ,niversity (ress.

Deininger) /.) and D. @yerlee %515$. The &ise of ;arge!+cale Farms in ;and!Abundant DevelopingCountries" Does It >ave a FutureZ) ,niversity of California) @er-eley) Conference on Agriculture forDevelopment &evisited.

Deininger) /.) +. Jin and >. /. agaraGan %556$. ;and &eforms) (overty &eduction and'conomic growth" 'vidence from India) mimeo.

Dercon) +. %554. &is-) insurance and poverty. In +. Dercon ed.$ Insurance against poverty) O:ford"O:ford ,niversity (ress.

0


38/41

Di:on) J.) /. Taniguchi) and >. 9attenbach. eds$. %550. Approaches to assessing the impact ofglobali. Tchale) +.Thorat) I. ,rey) and (. 9obst. %55=. Institutions and economic policies for pro!poor agriculturalgrowth. Development +trategy and Eovernance Division Discussion (aper 14. 9ashington D.C."IF(&I.

'renstein) O.C.A. 1666. The economics of soil conservation in developing countries" The case studyof crop residue mulching. (h.D. Thesis. 9ageningen ,niversity.

'renstein) O.) ,. Faroo-) &. *ali-) and *. +harif. %552. Adoption and impacts of


39/41

Eovernment of India. %55. Agricultural statistics at a glance. Directorate of 'conomics and+tatistics) Department of Agriculture and Cooperation) *inistry of Agriculture. ew Delhi) India.

Eulati) A.) . *inot) C. Delgado) and +. @ora. %554. Erowth in high value agriculture in Asia and theemergence of vertical lin-s with farmers. (aper presented at the symposium) Toward >igh!alueAgriculture and ertical Coordination" Implications for Agribusiness and +mallholders. ationalAgricultural +cience Centre) (usa) ew Delhi.

Eulati) A.) . *inot) C. Delgado and +. @ora. %55. Erowth in high!value agriculture in Asia and theemergence of vertical lin-s with farmers. Forthcoming chapter in +winnen) J. ed.$ Elobal supplychains) standards) and poor farmers. ;ondon" CA@I (ress.

>aossain) *. %55. &ice Technology for (overty &eduction in ,nfavourable Areas. (ower (oint(resentation at the IFAD 9or-shop on 'valuation of AsiaH(acific &egional +trategy for &ural(overty &eduction) June %55. *anila" AD@

>owe) C.9. %55%. (olicy issues and institutional impediments in the management of groundwater";essons from case studies. 'nvironment and Development 'conomics 2%55=$"%4!=1.

Imai) /.) &. Eaiha and E. Thapa %511$. +upply &esponse to Changes in Agricultural Commodity(rices in Asian Countries) Journal of Asian 'conomics) vol. %%) no. 1.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture *ovements IFOA*$ %55. The world of organicagriculture" +tatistics and emerging trends %55.

Jalan) J. and *. &avallion. %551. >ousehold income dynamics in rural China. Draft.

Janaiah) A. /. Otsu-a) and *. >ossain. %554. Is the productivity impact of the green revolution inrice vanishingZ 'conomic and (olitical 9ee-ly =540$" 446!455.

Jennings) (. %552. &ice revolutions in ;atin America. &ice Today April!June %552. International &ice&esearch Institute" ;os @anos) (hilippines.

Joshi) (.) A. Eulati) and &. Cummings Jr. %552. Agricultural diversification in +outh Asia" @eyondfood security. In Joshi) (.) A. Eulati) and &. Cummings Jr. eds.$ %552. Agricultural diversificationand smallholders in +outh Asia. ew Delhi" Academic Foundation.

/anwar) +. %55$. &elative (rofitability) +upply +hifters and Dynamic Output &esponse in aDeveloping 'conomy) Journal of (olicy *odelling) %) 27.

/ir-) *. and T. guyen. %556. ;and!tenure policy reforms" Decolletivi


40/41

/rishna) &. 1664b$. The *ar-eted +urplus Function for a +ubsistence Crop" An Analysis with IndianData. In . /rishna 'd.$) +elected 9ritings" &aG /rishna pp. %570$. ew Delhi" O:ford ,niversity(ress.

/rishna) &. 1664c$. Agricultural (rice (olicy and 'conomic Development. In . /rishna 'd.$)+elected 9ritings" &aG /rishna pp. =6765$. ew Delhi" O:ford ,niversity (ress.

/ul-arni) . and &. Eaiha %515$. Dietary Transition in India. Centre for the Advanced +tudyof India) ,niversity of (ennsylvania.

;adha) J.) D. Dawe) >. (atha-) A. (adre) &. ?adav) @. +ingh) ?. +ingh) ?. +ingh) (. +ingh) A./undu) &. +a-al) . &am) A. &egmi) +. Eami) A. @handari) &. Amin) C. ?adav) '. @hattarai) +. Das)>. Aggrawal) &. Eupta) (. >obbs. %550. >ow e:tensive are yield declines in long!term rice!wheate:periments in Asia. Field Crops &esearch 1"146!15.

;ipton) *. 1660. ;and reform as commenced business" The evidence against stopping. 9orldDevelopment %1 =$"=1!42.

;ong) +.) '. Ainsworth) A. ;ea-ey) J. osberger) and D. Ort. %552. Food for Thought" ;ower!than!e:pected crop yield stimulation with rising CO% Concentrations. +cience 01%42%$" 161!%1.

*ar8ue


41/41

(ingali) (. and E. Tra:ler. %55%. Changing locus of agricultural research" 9ill the poor benefit frombiotechnology and privati

2011 01 ifad - smallholder farming in asia and the pacific

Documents