special article

Economic & Political Weekly EPW march 21, 2009 vol xliv no 12 69

The authors express their sincere gratitude to Kalyan Sanyal and Sarmishtha Sen. The usual disclaimer applies.

Saumya Chakrabarti (saumyavb72@yahoo.co.in) is with the Department of Economics and Politics, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan. Anirban Kundu (anirban_kundu2006@rediffmail.com) is an independent researcher.

rural Non-Farm economy: a Note on the impact of crop-Diversification and land-conversion in india

Saumya Chakrabarti, Anirban Kundu

Crop-diversification under the integrated institutional

set-up of corporate contract farming – processing,

packaging and retailing – may displace the petty

manufacturing and services that have matured over the

years in different parts of rural India as a constituent of

an endogenous process driven by agricultural growth

and changing land-relations. As local availability of basic

food items and other agro-raw materials form the basis

of rural employment diversification by farmer as well as

landless households, diversification towards high value

commercial crops leading to squeezing of these supplies

may destroy the very foundation of the rural non-farm

economy that is engaged in petty production.

According to the proponents of traditional development theory economic development hinges on the growth of “modern” capitalistic industry through accumulation of

capital. Accumulation proceeds via generation, realisation and reinvestment of surplus created by using fixed capital with labour transferred from the labour-surplus “traditional” sector. How-ever, this path of development can be sustained only if adequate supply of food to the modern sector is guaranteed. Such a process is supposed to transform the traditional sector into a modern one and thereby ensuring self-sustained growth of the less d eveloped economy.

1 introduction

This has been the dominant development strategy during the 1950s and 1960s. However, since the early 1970s it has been in-creasingly argued that this Lewisian strategy is ineffective so far as broad-based employment generation is concerned. Several studies showed that hardly 2% to 3% of total increased workforce got employed in large-scale manufacturing sectors during the 1960s and 1970s in countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (A mjad 1988).

Consequently, the focus shifted towards the informal sector in general and rural non-farm (RNF) sector in particular as potential candidates capable of creating widespread income and employ-ment. Thus, the informal sector is no more considered as a resid-ual segment. It has been argued that instead of getting withered away through structural transformation the broadly defined in-formal sector is rather acting as a dispersed development engine. In fact, there has been a paradigm shift (Mellor 1976; Saith 1991; Ranis and Stewart 1993; Bangasser 2000; Lanjouw and Lanjouw 2001; Sanyal 2007).

Even if several developing countries are experiencing growth in agriculture, modern industry and services, there is gross ina-bility so far as absorption of surplus labour is concerned. This has prompted a process of rural-rural migration from agriculture to non-farm activities. In many of the cases this migration is a pros-perity-induced phenomenon (Mellor 1976; Saith 1992) rather than a distress-induced one (Vaidyanatham 1994). In different ways the overall expansion of developing economies has contri-buted to the growth of the RNF sector. Thus, expansion of labour intensive RNF activities could be considered as a mark of progress rather than that of retrogression (Radhakrishna 2002).1

Recently, the need for improvement of this sector has been rec-ognised in India as well. Consequently, its dynamics and the pat-tern of its dependence on other sectors of the economy especially

special article

march 21, 2009 vol xliv no 12 EPW Economic & Political Weekly70

1972-73 to 1999-2000 the total number of workers (usual status, primary and secondary status) and the share of employment in this non-farm sector had increased from 352.4 lakh to 726.4 lakh and 14.3% to 23.8%, respectively (Table 3). It is generally a rgued that the cause of such expansion of the RNF sector in I ndia is the particular pattern of growth of agriculture. C onsequently, farm-non-farm linkages have become an important issue of d iscussion.

3 review of literature on Farm-Non-farm linkage

As our basic issue of discussion is the impact of crop-diversifica-tion and agricultural land-conversion on the dynamics of the RNF sector, the literature on farm-non-farm linkages may provide us with the appropriate building blocks for the subsequent analysis.

Hence, we take up a journey through the relevant literature. Vaidyanathan (1986) in his study showed that where agriculture is unable to provide suffi-cient employment the RNF sector picks up a part of the slack. Thus, an inverse relationship between farm and non-farm employment was proposed (see also Bhaumik 2002). However, contrary to this “residual sector” hypothesis there is a vast literature that proposes a posi-tive relationship between farm growth and expansion of RNF activities.

Hazell and Haggblade (1990) consid-ering state and district level data for India calculated that on an average a Rs 100 increase in agricultural earnings is associated with a Rs 64 increase in RNF income (see also, IFPRI 1985; Hazell et al 1991). It was found by Haggblade et al (1989) that marginal consumption of locally produced non-foods is large (about 35%) in Asia (India and Malaysia). Mellor (1976) hypothesised that the green revolution generated increased demand for locally p roduced labour-intensive RNF goods and services. But the asser-tion that even the big farmer class could be the driving force for non-farm growth has been questioned by several researchers (Dunham 1991).

Using examples from India, Pakistan and Taiwan, Johnston and Kilby (1975) highlight the importance of production linkage. They point to small farmers’ demand for fertilisers and others similar inputs as well as that for equipment along with repair services provided by local artisans. According to Hazell and Roell (1983) small- and middle-sized peasant farmers have much higher propensity to consume labour-intensive rurally produced goods compared to that of their larger counterparts. In such cases non-farm employment multipliers are also substantial (Krishna 1976). Data from Punjab raises similar doubts about the significance of large farmer-based agriculture. In this respect we can site the study by Bhalla and Chadha (1983) on Punjab, where they found

table 1: Growth rates of agricultural Output and employment (in %)

1985-86 to 1994-95 1995-86 to 2002-03

Output growth rate 3.4 1.8 1983-93 1993-99 Employment growth rate 2.6 0Source: D Kapur’s comment on “Pre- and Post-Reform India” by S Bhalla and T Das, in India Policy Forum 2005-06, Vol 2, Sage, India, 2006.

table 2: employment share of Different sectors (in %)

Sector 1983 1993-94 1999-2000

Primary 69 65.5 60.4

Secondary 13.8 14.8 16.8

Tertiary 17.2 19.7 22.7Source: Indian Economy by R Dutt and K Sundaram, S Chand Publication.

table 3: Number (in lakh) and percentage of rNF Workers (to total workers) (us - ps+ss basis)

1972-73 1977-78 1983 1987-78 1993-94 1999-2000

352.4 364.9 459.2 559.6 631.8 726.4

14.3 16.5 18.4 21.7 21.6 23.8Source: “Employment Diversification in Rural India: A State Level Analysis” by S K Bhaumik in Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol 45(4), 2002 (p 721).

agriculture has become an important issue of research. Substan-tial empirical work has been done on the question of farm-non-farm linkages in India. It is proposed that farm sector growth i n-duces expansion of non-farm sector through demand (consump-tion) and supply side (forward and backward) linkages. E xpan-sion of non-farm economy, in its turn, helps agriculture to grow further through demand boost as well as through supply side support (Mellor 1976; Ranis and Stewart 1993). Thus, a growth multi plier process operates involving both farm and non-farm sectors.2 However, such a mechanism is argued to be d ependent largely on the condition of egalitarian growth in agriculture (Harriss 1991). Agricultural growth based on equitable asset dis-tribution is supposed to raise demand for locally p roduced labour- intensive goods and services through forward as well as backward linkages.

Nevertheless, at present Indian agri-culture is experiencing significant r e-source reallocations. Two such funda-mental changes are crop-diversification and agricultural land-conversion for indus trialisation. The government of I ndia is also shifting its policy focus from basic cereals production to production of so-called high value “non-food” com-mercial crops, especially vegetables, fruits and flowers. It is argued that such crop-diversification would boost e m-ploy ment and income generation. Moreover, it is supposed to e nsure sustainable cultivation (Joshi et al 2004). On the other hand, huge tracts of agricultural land are being converted for construction of industrial zones leading to loss of basic agricul-tural production. Such changes may, however, have profound i mpacts not only on the basic food crop (cereals) economy but also on the RNF sector. We, in this p aper, try to discuss the p robable impacts of crop-diversification and agricultural l and-conversion on the vast RNF economy e ngaged in petty p roduction.

The paper is constructed as follows. Section 2 presents some stylised facts on the employment situation in India. Section 3 p rovides the review of literature on farm-non-farm linkages. In Section 4, we note a few empirical observations on farm- non-farm relations pertaining to some states of India. In S ections 5 and 6 we try to explore the probable impacts of crop-diversification and agricultural land-conversion on the RNF s ector. Section 7 concludes.

2 some stylised Facts on the employment situation

Before going into the core of the issues let us present certain i nformation on the overall employment situation in India. In T able 1, the growth rates of agricultural output and employment are shown. It is pretty clear that the situation is alarming. It calls for a serious search for effective alternatives. So far as the s econdary and tertiary sectors are concerned there is also not much hope for employment generation (refer Table 2).

This is obvious given the nature of technology used in these sectors. In this situation, the RNF sector is said to provide some respite. Such optimism is also supported by the fact that from

special article

Economic & Political Weekly EPW march 21, 2009 vol xliv no 12 71

that middle peasantry (5-12.5 acre) and not the big or very big farmers is the dominant source of demand for non-farm goods and services. A survey on Arni, Tamil Nadu (Harriss 1991) has revealed that agricultural expansion has not encouraged local production of labour-intensive consumer goods; rather it has disproportionately expanded trade in “big city” products. Based on this survey Harriss concludes that not only agricultural output and income growth but also its pattern has serious implications for the growth of labour-intensive RNF sector.3 In particular he asserts that it is the egalitarian growth process in agriculture that is essential for the development of decentralised labour-intensive non-farm sector.

Similarly, the importance of redistributive land reforms in pro-moting localised RNF activities has been emphasised by s everal researchers (Saith 1991 and 1992; Ray 1994). In fact, small farm-based agriculture is supposed to help the growth of the RNF s ector through both the demand and supply side linkages. Agri-cultural expansion generates demand for local inputs especially rudimentary tools and farm services and for locally produced cheap consumer goods. On the other hand, such an expansion ensures the vital local supply of food and other raw materials.4

In this context, the observations of the West Bengal Human Deve lopment Report 2004 need special attention. It is argued that as the growth of agricultural output and income in West Bengal during the 1980s and 1990s has been achieved on the founda-tions of land reforms, it has created a wider market for mass

c onsumption goods and for different locally produced inputs i ncluding farm-related services such as petty processing and transportation, petty trading of crops, etc. On the other hand, it has also ensured the vital micro (household or village level) food security. Thus, the newly evolved class of small and marginal farmers and the bargadars concentrating mainly on basic crops production have been the source of food and raw materials for the local non-farm sector. Consequently, a mutually beneficial (reinforcing) endogenous growth process develops. Summaris-ing, we can say that the small farm economy specialising in non-mechanised production of basic crops generated on the one hand substantial agricultural employment and hence large market for cheap mass consumption goods, and on the other, demand for locally produced and supplied inputs of production and farm services.

Consequently, a large section of the rural population gets engaged in local non-farm activities. According to this report,

40% of the total rural workers in the state are engaged in such non-agricultural activities. A very large part of these activities are, in fact, undertaken in household enterprises. The National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO 2001) survey on the informal sector in India shows that the proportion (per 1,000) of enterprises l ocated within household premises is very high (571) for West Bengal and it is well above the national average (448). This is parti cularly plausible given the food security of the households ensured through formal access to the produce itself.

4 empirical Observations on Farm-Non-farm linkage

In support of our argument that the labour-intensive RNF sector is much more integrated with a small farm-based agriculture concentrating on primary commodities or basic cereals p ro-duction, we go for a simple empirical exercise. Using data from NSSO (2005) on productive assets for farm and non-farm business possessed by the farmer households we have con-structed Table 4 for three representative states and for all I ndia average.

We have selected purposively three states, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Punjab. Agriculture in these three states had performed well in the 1980s and early 1990s. However, Punjab’s progress was based on the growth of traditional foodgrain pro-duction (particularly wheat), while Tamil Nadu’s agriculture was one of the most diversified. Contrarily, in West Bengal a griculture was small farm based though concentrating mainly

on rice cultivation. From T able 4 it can be inferred that marginal (up to 1 hectare) and small (1.01 to 2 hectares) farmers are much more tied up with non-farm sector across India as well as in all the three representative states. These farmers largely depend on such equipment for farm and non-farm businesses, which are g enerally produced in the local labour intensive non-farm sector. P rimary implements like sickle, plough, axe, etc, are

mostly owned by the marginal and small farmers compared to medium (2.01 to 4 hectares) and large (4.01 to 10 hectares) ones. On the other hand, capital-intensive implements like power tiller, t ractor, pump are used proportionately more by upper class farmers.

Similarly, the machinery and equipment meant for non-farm business are mainly used by the small and marginal farmers. This is true for India as well as for the three states. Another interesting result is that this inclination is maxi - mum in West Bengal followed by Punjab and Tamil Nadu. This observation again s upports the view that extensive employ-ment diversification as experienced in rural West Bengal is largely due to its particular pattern of land and agricultural i ncome distribution.

A similar kind of inference could also be drawn if average monthly (net) income from non-farm business per farmer h ousehold for the three states is compared. This is done in

table 4: average (per Hectare) No of productive assets for Farm and Non-Farm Business possessed (per 1,000 Farmer Households by size class of land possessed) (season: kharif)

Size Class (in hectares) Up to 2 2.01-4 4.01-10 Up to 2 2.01-4 4.01-10 Up to 2 2.01-4 4.01-10 Up to 2 2.01-4 4.01-10Items West Bengal Tamil Nadu Punjab All India

[For farm business] (primary implements) Sickle, chaff-cutter, axe, spade, chopper, plough 5,064 2,707 1,426 3,700 2,363 1,175 5,543 3,402 1,906 5,776 3,038 1,564

Pump 101 120 91 242 279 192 360 400 220 128 141 91(Capital intensive implements) Power tiller, tractor 23 20 26 5 13 11 84 243 162 16 35 26[For non-farm business] Machinery and equipments 158 12 0 90 1 14 99 81 1 140 22 10Source: Calculated from NSS 59th round, Report No 497 (59/33/5), pp A28, A31, A35, A37.

special article

march 21, 2009 vol xliv no 12 EPW Economic & Political Weekly72

Figure 1. For the lowest size class of landholding though Punjab shows higher extent of rural employment diversification, for all other size classes West Bengal portrays a consistently robust trend. H owever, all three states show similar fluctu - ations in non-farm income, which could perhaps be a mark of distress-led and prosperity-induced diversification across dif-ferent size classes.

On the other hand, comparison of Punjab and West Bengal with Tamil Nadu gives us clear indication that crop diversifica-tion (as practised in Tamil Nadu) does not generate sufficient de-mand for rudimentary farm implements. We can hypothesise that land reforms in West Bengal and green revolution in Punjab concentrating mainly on basic crop production may have created significant demand for minor farm and non-farm implements, e specially from the small and marginal farmers. On the other hand, in Tamil Nadu agriculture concentrating on crop diversification could generate only moderate demand for such implements.

5 crop-Diversification and the rNF economy

We now turn to our analysis of the probable impacts on RNF e conomy due to diversification of agriculture. We have noted above that the pattern of agricultural growth is supposed to have s ignificant influence on the course of development of the RNF s ector. Hence, it seems quite likely that crop-diversification as well should have serious implications for non-farm progress. Based on the above analysis of farm-non-farm linkage literature we here try to put forward few propositions regarding the p robable effects of crop-diversification on the dynamics of RNF economy. We hypothesise, contrary to the usual belief that the particular type of agricultural growth based on diversification towards high value crop (HVC) could rather affect the labour- i ntensive RNF a ctivities adversely.

The HVC farming could serve well the current course of indus-trialisation by providing (processed) food to the relatively well-off population engaged in modern industry and through supply

of raw material for sophisticated processing meant primarily for exports (Singh 2004; Sidhu 2005). On the other hand, HVC culti-vation could be a better option for large farmers (Sen and Raju 2006) either having access to modern storage – processing – transportation facilities or having the ability to get attached with the big agri-business firms through corporate contract farming. Thus, this HVC cultivating segment of agriculture could easily get integrated with the so-called modernisation process. Neverthe-less, it might delink a large part of agriculture from the rural l abour-intensive non-farm sector with far-reaching implications.5

The whole chain of crop-diversification – processing, packag-ing, retailing – could be organised through firm-farm contract. However, it is seen that generally the large processing companies favour big farmers for undertaking contract farming, perhaps due to high transaction cost involved in case of the smaller coun-terparts (Singh 2004; Dev and Rao 2005; Kumar 2006). Con-versely, the large farmers happen to use finer (modern) products produced in formal industry for production and consumption purposes. Contract farming itself ensures use of modern inputs and modern farm services creating diversion of purchasing power in favour of “big city” products and thereby initiating substantial leakage of potential demand away from the labour intensive non-farm sector. Crop-diversification may induce agricultural output and income growth, it can also act as a boost to formal non-agri-cultural sectors, but it does not necessarily guarantee increased demand for local non-farm products.6

As has been noted earlier, there is a very close relation between small farm-based agriculture and the labour-intensive RNF sec-tor. On the other hand, under general conditions, the small and marginal farmers happen to be the producers of traditional or basic cereals. There is mutual interdependence between this b asic agriculture and the RNF sector through demand as well as supply side channels (Radhakrishna 2002). Small and marginal farmers either consume or use in production the local non-farm products and simultaneously provide the RNF sector with basic food items and other agro-products used as raw materials. Con-sequently, with crop-diversification if agriculture shifts away from basic food crop production, it may adversely affect the non-farm sector as many demand and supply side channels may get constricted/blocked.

insertion of Big capital

When these small and marginal farmers get involved in the pro-cess of crop-diversification, as a survival strategy, they have to face great hurdles/uncertainties (Sen and Raju 2006) due to lack of access to modern inputs, technology and knowledge and most importantly, due to lack of access to the market, and modern s torage-processing-transportation-packaging facilities. This creates the scope for intervention by big capital. Only huge investments

table 5: Monthly per capita consumer expenditure Over two Groups of ‘Food’ items for Farmer Households across Different Mpce classes (All-India in Rs)

Items/MPCE class (Rs) 0-225 225-255 255-300 300-340 340-380 380-420 420-470 470-525 525-615 615-775 775-950 950+

Cereals, cereal substitutes, 75.05 88.18 96.86 103.76 108.93 114.45 119.1 126.1 130.97 137.8 145.23 158.53 gram, pulses and their products (61.61) (57.59) (55.13) (52.18) (49.38) (47.01) (44.65) (42.92) (39.94) (36.33) (32.69) (27.87)

Vegetables, fruits (fresh), fruits (dry), beverages, 17.88 24.76 29.19 34.19 39.19 44.19 49.22 54.49 63.41 74.14 87.79 52.07 refreshments and processed food (15.55) (16.84) (16.61) (17.19) (17.76) (18.15) (18.45) (18.54) (19.34) (19.55) (19.76) (18.68)Numbers in the parentheses represent the corresponding shares (%).Source: NSS 59th Round Report No 495 (59/33/4), pp A84.

Figure 1: average Monthly (Net) income from Non-farm Business per Farmer Household (July 2002-June 2003) Net receipt (Rs)

Source: Derived from NSS Report No 497 (59/33/5), pp A187, A189, A191.

0

200

400

600

800

0.005 0.205 0.705 1.505 3.005 7.005

net r

ecei

pt (R

s.)

size class (mid value) of land possessed (hectares)

Average monthly (net) income from non-farm business per farmer household during the agricultural year (July'02-June'03)

Punjab

West Bengal

Tamil Nadu

0.005 0.205 0.705 1.505 3.005 7.005

800

600

400

200

0

Size class (mid value) of land possessed (hectares)

special article

Economic & Political Weekly EPW march 21, 2009 vol xliv no 12 73

in collection, transportation, storage, processing, packaging and finally retailing could effectively realise the potentials of crop-diversification (Rao et al 2006; Sen and Raju 2006).7 Hence, the intrusion of big capital in this elaborate chain of activities b ecomes imminent either through spot contracts or through the integrated institution of contract farming. The diversified HVC is siphoned off for “big city” consumption or for exports and on the other hand, modern inputs and modern farm services are intro-duced into the agricultural sector. The same channel could even be used to sell “big city” products in rural areas. Three clear con-sequences of this whole process could be: (i) lack of access to l ocal (basic) food supply making the non-farm sector vulnerable (Sen and Raju 2006); (ii) shifting of demand for agricultural i nputs and farm services from local non-farm sector to the m odern industry (Basant 1994); and (iii) “big city” cheap p roducts d isplacing non-farm consumer goods (Harriss 1991).

Thus, the non-farm sector faces challenge from the introduc-tion of modern industrial commodities. The insertion of capital displaces the non-farm population, only a part of which could be internalised into the agricultural modernisation process. In this context, we can refer to the study of Basant (1994) on Gujarat. It is noted that “… growth of land productivity (or per capita out-put) based mainly on cropping pattern changes may not generate adequate impulses for the development of rural non-agricultural activities. It may be partly because the processing of output is likely to be concentrated in urban areas and the techniques of production may be capital-intensive”. Thus, the pattern of agri-cultural growth in Gujarat is such that it could not boost signifi-cantly the RNF activities of “rural located-rural linked” type. Rather, “urban linked” (though rurally located) firms played a significant role and whatever RNF activities developed was c apital-intensive in nature (ibid).

Agricultural diversification may also jeopardise macro, micro and especially, local and household food security.8 It could really be a problem for the petty producers both in agriculture produc-ing HVC and shifting away from basic cereals and in non-farm, getting displaced due to agricultural resource reallocation. Food insecurity at local as well as at household levels makes these farmer households dependent on external sources. However, as the non-farm households lose their work they are doubly affected. They neither have the access to local food supply nor do they have sufficient entitlement to exchange with.9

It is evident from Table 5 (p 72) that crop-diversification is bound to affect the food security of low-income earning farmer households who spend a large part of their income on basic food items such as cereals, pulses, etc.

This argument is supported by Table 6 as well. We have con-structed the average monthly per capita consumption expendi-ture for farmer households across different size class of land pos-sessed for the three representative states (as before) and for all-India. It shows that except Tamil Nadu, for all other cases the households with relatively smaller amount of land spend signifi-cantly higher proportion of their income on cereals and pulses compared to the bigger counterparts. Moreover, for West Bengal, Punjab and all-India averages the ratios of share of expenditure on cereals, grams, pulses and their products to that on vegetables

and fruits and to that on beverages, processed food, etc, fall dras-tically as the amount of land possessed rises. Hence, the wide-spread practice of crop-diversification with the motto of “ever-green revolution” under the guidance of the National Farmers Commission or National Horticulture Commission may lead to a significant erosion of micro food security, which, in turn, may destabilise the indigenous rural non-farm sector.

All the probable outcomes discussed above have resemblance with the Hymer-Resnick (1969) result where expansion of export-able cash crop sector of the colony displaces the rural traditional non-farm activities. In our present context, Ranis and Stewart’s (1993) “unfavourable post-colonial archetype” could also be r eferred to as a similar case. Ranis and Stewart, however, show that Taiwan’s agricultural progress based on “non-traditional” crop helped the development of “rural industry”, mostly processing and other related activities. But they categorically mention that such a linkage could be established because of the deliberate p olicy favouring the RNF sector (“Z-goods sector”). On the con-trary, the Philippine macro policy encouraged modern industry (“U-industry”), which led to the displacement of Z-goods sector even if, like Taiwan, the Philippines also concentrated on export of non-traditional processed crops. The Indian case of diversification under the macro framework of corporate contract farming seems to be closer to the case of Philippines rather than that of Taiwan.

table 6: Monthly per capita consumer expenditure shares Over Different ‘Food’ items for Farmer Households across size class of land possessedSize Class of Land Per Capita MPCE Share of Expenditure Share of Share of Possessed Consumption Class on Cereals, Cereal Expenditure Expenditure on Expenditure Substitutes, Grams, on Vegetables, Beverages, (in Rs) Pulses and Their Fresh and Refreshments and Products Dry Fruits Processed Food (%) (%) (%)

West Bengal < 0.01 435.47 420 – 470 48.83 13.65 4.21

0.01-0.40 437.73 420 – 470 48.83 13.65 4.21

0.41-1 561.13 525 – 615 44.95 14.44 4.33

1.01-2 731.50 615 – 775 41.26 14.17 5.15

2.01-4 896.98 775 – 950 39.59 13.94 5.71

4.01-10 987.54 950 + 35.41 15.76 6.47Tamil Nadu < 0.01 456.36 420 – 470 41.95 14.13 9.50

0.01-0.40 507.50 470 – 525 41.76 13.91 9.55

0.41-1 583.18 525 – 615 39.07 14.68 11.07

1.01-2 724.31 615 – 775 39.38 14.26 11.27

2.01-4 838.86 775 – 950 38.10 13.93 10.87

4.01-10 862.04 775 – 950 38.10 13.93 10.87Punjab < 0.01 624.13 615 – 775 25.39 11.26 6.96

0.01-0.40 658.44 615 – 775 25.39 11.26 6.96

0.41-1 833.44 775 – 950 22.36 11.66 7.08

1.01-2 940 775 – 950 22.36 11.66 7.08

2.01-4 1010.34 950 + 19.34 11.97 7.28

4.01-10 1351.03 950 + 19.34 11.97 7.28All-India < 0.01 417.63 380 – 420 47.01 13.50 4.65

0.01-0.40 434.54 420 – 470 44.65 13.43 5.02

0.41-1 485.81 470 – 525 42.92 13.36 5.18

1.01 -2 572.36 525 – 615 39.94 13.68 5.66

2.01-4 670.00 615 – 775 36.33 13.38 6.17

4.01-10 841.09 775 – 950 32.69 13.31 6.45Source: Computed from NSS 59th Round, Report No 495 (59/33/4), pp 10, A75, A78, A82, A84; and Report No 497 (59/33/5), pp A187, A189, A191.

special article

march 21, 2009 vol xliv no 12 EPW Economic & Political Weekly74

One may argue, as crop pattern changes RNF sector survives on this HVC cultivation itself. Evidently, it would not be possible since small farms would be tied up with the big agro-based multi-national corporations (MNCs) through contract farming – diversi-fication, processing, retailing chain both for inputs and market. Even the small and marginal farmers for sheer survival could a ccept this arrangement as crop-diversification becomes unviable without such contracting. This whole agreement between the small and marginal farmers and big agri-business firms would drive out petty non-agricultural activities by squeezing the d emand as well as the supply side channels. Though the huge population engaged in different types of RNF activities gets e xpropriated, only a minor fraction of it would be able to attach itself with the so-called modernisation process involving formal sector and HVC based agriculture.

6 land-conversion and the rNF sector

There are many studies which confirm that the access to land is a crucial factor explaining access to rural non-agricultural activi-ties/employment opportunities (West Bengal Human Develop-ment Report 2004; Ray 1994; Saith 1991). Thus rural households owning small plots of land or sharing landownership (or culti-vation) rights could diversify to different other localised petty activities over and above basic agriculture, using the benefits of agricultural growth itself. Micro food security ensured through access to land played an important role for rural employment d iversification. In fact, such diversification enabled the house-holds to neutralise the seasonal fluctuations of agricultural pro-duction. On the other hand, job diversification by the farmer households reduced the pressure on land as agriculture is man-aged more efficiently. Thus, small farm-based agriculture on the one hand, and employment diversification by these farmer house-holds, on the other, sustain a mutually reinforcing endogenous growth p rocess.

Nevertheless, the present debate hovering around the issue of agricultural land conversion for industrialisation is not paying sufficient attention to the probable impacts on this RNF sector. Agricultural land-conversion may seriously affect the micro food security shaking the very foundation of non-farm growth. The expropriation of peasantry displaces the localised labour inten-sive non-farm activities because the demand as well as supply side linkages between farm and non-farm sectors get snapped.

On the other hand, as the formal sectors expand, demand for HVC rather than that of basic cereals increases. Expansion of modern industry and services increases the demand for skilled labour and thereby disproportionately raises the income of the upper stratum of the population. This changes the demand pat-tern in favour of HVC shifting away from basic cereals. Conse-quently, the prices of HVCs rise creating incentive for the farmers to shift away from basic crop production. This may create not only micro food insecurity but also shortage of raw materials choking off the non-farm sector. Thus, the contractionary effects of agricultural land-conversion on the RNF sector get reinforced as the so-called modern diversified agriculture becomes inte-grated with the “advanced” sectors severing its close links with the labour intensive RNF economy.

Thus, land-conversion coupled with crop-diversification can doubly damage the foundations of the RNF sector. While, land a lienation disturbs micro food security, compensating the loss of food production due to conversion through crop-diversification reduces demand for non-farm inputs and local non-farm services. However, while, the issue of compensation in the context of land acquisition is intensely debated, there is almost nothing for the people engaged in localised non-farm sector.

7 conclusions

A very important proposition that emerges from the preceding analysis is that sectoral policies such as crop-diversification or agricultural land-conversion for industrialisation should not be formulated in isolation. Such policies should particularly take into account the corresponding impacts on the rural labour- intensive non-farm sector which is accepted as a dynamic s egment of the economy having enormous employment generation poten-tials. The policies of crop-diversification to raise farm income and land-conversion for rapid industrial progress should form only parts of a more comprehensive broader project encompass-ing all the major sectors of the economy.

Crop diversification could be a socially beneficial policy when it is complemented by extensive infrastructural facilities, finan-cial and technological support, etc, especially for the localised micro (labour-intensive) enterprises engaged in processing, s toring, grading and packaging. Furthermore, specific support to organise the marketing network is very crucial for a policy of crop-diversification targeted towards small farmers. Only such a comprehensive policy package can boost non-farm production and service activities involving indigenous resources and u tilising local labour. An appropriate institutional set-up should be organ-ised so that a labour-intensive growth multiplier process is trig-gered off involving both the diversified agriculture and neigh-bouring non-farm sector. At present, processing is mainly done by small-scale non-farm units (99.4%) where 86.8% of total processing sector employment is generated (Dev and Rao 2005). Only an appropriate institutional arrangement (e g, network of cooperatives engaged in production as well as distribution) along with government support for technological upgradation, infra-structure, farm-services, etc, are essential. However, land- conversion may have a serious impact and needs detailed p lanning to counterbalance the adverse effects.

Notes

1 It has been found (Bhaumik 2002) in the Indian context that the RNF sector can play effective role in reducing rural poverty.

2 In fact, growth of farm and non-farm sectors are not separate phenomena, rather parts of an integrated endogenous process (Sanyal 2007).

3 De Janvry and Sadoulet (1993) in the context of Latin America observe that be-cause of highly skewed distribution of land and farm income the benefits of agri-cultural growth could not be appropriated by the RNF sector in the absence of significant consumption linkages. In this context, we should refer to the Indian data on distribution of landholding which could provide some explanation for the existence of a large RNF sector. From the Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2003 (Government of India) it could be found that the share of small and marginal op-erational holdings with size up to two hectares increased from 70% to more than 80% during the period 1970-71 to 1995-96. However, the corresponding share for the large holdings of four hectares and above d eclined from 14% to almost 7% during the same period. This typical pattern of landholding may have contributed to the existence of the vast non-farm s ector in India.

4 Ranis and Stewart (1993) also indicate at such linkages in the case of Taiwan as compared to the Philippines.

special article

Economic & Political Weekly EPW march 21, 2009 vol xliv no 12 75

5 In fact, in various studies it is found that the re-gions practising intensive HVC cultivation in I ndia have concentrated in urban and semi-urban areas (Rao et al 2006). This corroborates our claim that there is a close link between diversifi-cation of agriculture and urban formal sector.

6 Thus the impact of diversification as pursued by the big farmers is undoubtedly contractionary for the non-farm sector engaged in petty production. We can refer in this regard to a study on Africa where small and very big farm growth is found to generate identical local growth multipliers indi-cating the inability of big farms to boost the local non-farm activities (Haggblade et al 1989).

7 Production, especially processing of HVC, seems to be more capital-intensive even across Africa. In fact, Haggbade et al (1989) report that activities like oil extraction, sugar production, tea drying and packaging, etc, are often performed in rural areas by large-scale enterprises. A similar pheno-menon may occur in India as well with introduc-tion of big capital in the chain of diversification – contract farming – processing – retailing. Such a situation could be found in Punjab where non-farm activities are actually labour saving (see in this context Saith 1991 and Singh 2004).

8 Lanjouw and Shariff (2004) note that marginal expenditure on local products is about 80% in all Asian and African countries surveyed. Of this 45% is spent on local food in Asia and 65% in A frica.

9 In fact, crop-diversification may even lead to land alienation adversely affecting micro food security and hence, reducing the scope for participation in local non-farm activities (West Bengal Human Deve lopment Report 2004). If, however, the small farm-based agriculture gets integrated into the extended circuit of “capital” through contract farming and thus backward and especially the forward linkages of agriculture with local labour-intensive non-farm sector are severed, this petty production based non-farm sector may face e xtinction. The complementarity between a gri-culture and rural non-agriculture is replaced with a tacit conflict, where development of “modern” agriculture displaces rural non-agricultural p opulation.

References

Amjad, R (1988): Rural Employment Planning: Selected Lessons from the Asian Experience (New Delhi: ILO ARTEP).

Bangasser, P E (2000): “The ILO and the Informal Sec-tor: An Institutional History”, ILO Employment Paper, Geneva, www.ilo.org.

Basant, R (1994): “Economic Diversification in Rural Areas: A Review of Process with Special Refer-ence to Gujarat”, GIDR Working Paper No 57, Ahmedabad, India.

Bhalla, G S and G K Chadha (1983): Green Revolution and the Small Peasant: A Study of Income Distribu-tion among Punjabi Cultivators (New Delhi: Con-cept Publishing).

Bhaumik, S K (2002): “Employment Diversification in Rural India”, Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol 45(4).

De Janvry, A and E Sadoulet (1993): “Rural Develop-ment in Latin America: Re-linking Poverty Reduc-tion to Growth” in M Lipton and J V D Gaag (ed.), I ncluding the Poor (Washington DC: World Bank).

Dev, S M and N C Rao (2005): “Food Processing and Contract Farming in Andhra Pradesh: A Small Farmer Perspective”, Economic & Political Weekly, June 25.

Dunham, D (1991): “Agricultural Growth and Rural Industry: Some Reflections on the Rural Growth Linkages Debate”, ISS Hague Working Paper No 114.

Haggblade, S, P Hazell and J Brown (1989): “Farm-Non-farm Linkages in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa”, World Development, Vol 17(8).

Harriss, J (1991): “Agriculture/Non-agriculture Link-ages and the Diversification of Rural Economic

Activity” in J Breman and S Mundle (ed.), Rural Transformation in Asia (Oxford University Press).

Hazell, P and A Roell (1983): Rural Growth Linkages: Household Expenditure Patterns in Malaysia and Nigeria, IFPRI Research Report No 41.

Hazell, P and S Haggblade (1990): “Rural-Urban Growth Linkages in India”, PRE Working Paper Series No 430, Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment Department, World Bank.

Hazell, P, C Ramasamy and V Rajagopalan (1991): “An Analysis of the Indirect Effects of Agricultural Growth on the Regional Economy” in P Hazell and C Ramasamy (ed.), The Green Revolution Re-considered: The Impact of High-Yielding Rice Varie-ties in South India (Baltimore: John Hopkins Uni-versity Press).

Hymer, S and S Resnick (1969): “A Model of an Agrar-ian Economy with Non-agricultural Activities”, American Economic Review, Vol 59, pp 493-506.

IFPRI (1985): International Food Policy Research Insti-tute Annual Report 1984 (Washington DC: IFPRI).

Joshi, P K, A Gulati, P S Birthal and L Tewari (2004): “Agriculture Diversification in South Asia: P atterns, Determinants and Policy Implication”, E conomic & Political Weekly, 12-18 June.

Johnston, B F and P Kilby (1975): Agriculture and Structural Transformation: Economic Strategies in Late-developing Countries (London: Oxford U niversity Press).

Krishna, Raj (1976): “Rural Unemployment: A Survey of Concepts and Estimates for India”, Staff Work-ing Paper No 234, World Bank.

Kumar, P (2006): “Contract Farming through Agri-business Firms and State Corporation: A Case Study in Punjab”, Economic & Political Weekly, 30 D ecember.

Lanjouw, J O and P Lanjouw (2001): “The RNF Sector – Issues and Evidence from Developing Coun-tries”, Agricultural Economics, Vol 26, October.

Lanjouw, P and A Shariff (2004): “RNF Employment in India: Access, Incomes and Poverty Impact”, Economic & Political Weekly, 2 October.

Mellor, J W (1976): The New Economics of Growth – A Strategy for India and Developing World (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press).

National Sample Survey Organisation (2001): Infor-mal Sector in India, July 1999-June 2000, NSS 55th Round, Report No 459, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.

– (2004): Consumption Expenditure of Farmer Households, NSS 59th Round, Report No 495, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implemen-tation, Government of India.

– (2005): Income Expenditure and Productive Assets of Farmer Households, January-December 2003, 59th Round, Report No 497, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.

Radhakrishna, R (2002): “Agricultural Growth, E mployment and Poverty: A Policy Perspective”, Economic & Political Weekly, 19 January.

Ranis, G and F Stewart (1993): “Rural Non- Agricultural Activities in Development”, Journal of Deve lopment Economics, Vol 40 (1).

Rao, P P, P S Birthal and P K Joshi (2006): “Diversifica-tion towards High Value Agriculture: Role of U rbanisation and Infrastructure”, Economic & P olitical Weekly, 30 June-7 July.

Ray, S (1994): “Farm-Non-farm Interaction in a L abour Surplus Economy”, Economic & Political Weekly, 31 December.

Saith, A (1991): “Asian Rural Industrialisation: C ontext, Features and Strategies” in J Breman and S Mundle (ed.), Rural Transformation in Asia (O xford University Press).

– (1992): The Rural Non-Farm Economy: Processes and Policies (Geneva: ILO).

Sanyal, K (2007): Rethinking Capitalist Development: Primitive Accumulation, Governmentality and Post Colonial Capitalism (New Delhi: Routledge).

Sen, S and S Raju (2006): “Globalisation and Expand-ing Markets for Cut-Flower: Who Benefits?”, E conomic & Political Weekly, 30 June.

Sidhu, M S (2005): “Fruits and Vegetables Processing Industry in India: An Appraisal of the Post-Reform Period”, Economic & Political Weekly, 9 July.

Singh, S (2004): “Crisis and Diversification in Punjab Agriculture: Role of State and Agribusiness”, E conomic & Political Weekly, 25 December.

Singh, J and R S Sidhu (2004): “Factors in Declining Crop Diversification – Case Study of Punjab”, E conomic & Political Weekly, 25 December.

Vaidyanathan, A (1986): “Labour Use in Rural India: A Study of Spatial and Temporal Variations”, Eco-nomic & Political Weekly, 27 December.

– (1994): “The Employment Situation: Some Emerg-ing Perspectives”, Economic & Political Weekly, 10 December.

tHe pOstNatiONal cONDitiONMarch 7, 2009

The Postnational Condition –Malathi de Alwis, Satish Deshpande, Pradeep Jeganathan, Mary John, Nivedita Menon,

M S S Pandian, Aditya Nigam, S Akbar ZaidiSouth Asia? West Asia? Pakistan: Location, Identity –S Akbar ZaidiThe Practice of Social Theory and the Politics of Location –Satish DeshpandeReframing Globalisation: Perspectives from the Women’s Movement –Mary E JohnPostnational Location as Political Practice –Malathi de AlwisThe Postnational, Inhabitation and the Work of Melancholia –Pradeep Jeganathan Empire, Nation and Minority Cultures: The Postnational Moment –Aditya NigamNation Impossible –M S S PandianThinking through the Postnation –Nivedita Menon

For copies write to Circulation Manager

economic and political Weekly320-321, A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013.email: circulation@epw.in