Agricultural Growth across Crops and Regions: Emerging Trends and Patterns Author(s): S. D. Sawant and C. V.

Achuthan Reviewed work(s): Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 30, No. 12 (Mar. 25, 1995), pp. A2-A13 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4402529 . Accessed: 04/03/2012 06:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

-Agricultural Growth

across
S D Sawant C V Achuthan

Crops

and

Regions

EmergingTrendsand Patterns
There has been a significant upsurge in the production and productivity growth in Indian agriculture in recent years and it cannot be attributedmerely to a favourable weather. On the contrary, it appears that a shift to higher A far more importantrole played by yield improvement growthpath is undet-way. in inducing higher growth in output demonstratesthat the process of growth has been technologically more dynamictoo. Anotherwelcomefeature of growth has been its wider dispersal across crops and regions, making it more broad-based in the 1980s.
SUSTAINED growth in agricultural productionandproductivityis essential for overall stabilityof the Indianeconomy. B ut that is not.enough. The aggregate growth ratein agriculture hasremainedfairlystable and unchanged in the first two decades of the post-green revolution period. What is really required at the present stage of developmentof Indianagricultureis to step up agriculturalgrowth over and above the rate already achieved in the past. An accelerated growthin agricultural production wouldnotonly containwideningrural-urban income disparitybut also help in achieving a higher reduction in rural poverty. The qiiestif therefore is whether it would be possible to improve output growth in the sector in the years to come. Do agricultural pasttrends inagriculturejustify anyoptimism in this respect? Gross domestic capital formation in agriculture at constant prices showed a significant decline between 1980-81 and 1987-88, after registering a steep rise in the 1970s.IThe decline observed in the rate of growth of fixed capital formation was even steeper. Obviously, there was an apprehension that this adverse trend was in agricultural responsiblefornearstagnancy productionbetween 1983-84 and 1987-88. However, contrary to this pessimistic assessmentRao(1994)2found thattherehad been some improvement in agricultural growthin 1978-89 as comparedto 1967-78. He attributesit to a better utilisation of the existinginfrastructure in additiontogrowing importance and a wider spread of yieldraising technology in therecentperiod. Yet, there is a widely sharedreservation in this context that a period of successively good monsoonsmay be mainlyresponsiblefor the recent steadiness or improvement in agricultural growth.3 Tlat is to say, the observed improvementin growth may just be a weather-induced temporary phase. Therefore, to have a more realistic understandingof the future prospects of growth,it is necessaryto update agricultutal the assessment of growth by extending the database beyond 1988-89 as also to make it more rigorous through the meticulous statistical of agricultural analysis. we alsoneed performance sectoracrossthe Additionally, to look into the trends at the disaggregate states while Section IV presents a scrutiny level, that is, to examine which crops, in of cropwise growth in Indian agriculture. whichregions/statesindicaterelativelyhigher Part B discusses at length the results of growth potential and which are showing the state level analysis of output growth in signs of stagnation.It is equally necessary foodgrains and the major non-foodgrain to identify the sources of outputgrowth of crops in Sections V to VIII and at the end different crops so as to verify whether it is presents the conclusions of the study in the increase in area or increase in yield or Section IX. bothwhichcontributed to growth.Thiswould Part A help us in identifying the regional patterns of growthwhich lie behindthemacrotrends. I Of late, there has also been a frequent Coverage and Nature of Analysis reference in the agriculturalpolicy discussions to a need to diversify crop production, Evaluation of agricultural growth perin therelatively well developed formance attemptedin this paperis limited particularly agricultural regions of India. The objective to thepost-greenrevolutionperiodonly, that is to accelerate agriculturalincome growth is to the years from 1967-68 to 1992-93. Its andsimultaneouslymake it sustainabletoo, main focus is on the comparison between by promotingcultivationof high value non- the two sub-periods, namely. the period I, foodgrain crops. Are there indications of i e, the early phase of the green revolution suchdiversification takingplacein therecent periodcovering the years up to 1981-82 and years? If so, in favour of which crops and the period II, i e, the latter phase which in which regions? Is diversification based includes post-1981-82 years. We refer to mainly on inter-crop area shilftsor does it theseperiodsalso as the 1970s andthe 1980s represent a technologically more dynamic respectively.The studyuses theofficial crop situationinvolving acceleratedincreases in statistics drawn mostly from various productivityof more favouredcrops?What publications of the governmentof India.4 It are its implications for agriculturalincome includes 15 major states which together growth? These issues too need to be probed account for nearly 97 per cent of India's through scrutiny of the latest crop data at foodgrainproductionandNDP generated in the national and the state level, in order to agriculturalsector. The states are classified provide right orientation to the policy in five major regional groups in order to initiatives requiredto enhance agricultural organise and facilitate the discussion of the growth as also to sustain it in future. statelevelresults as alsoto tracetheregional if any,emergingin theperiodunder Keeping in view the above-mentioned patterns, broadobjectives we analysein thispaperthe study. The organisationof five regions is as cropoutputgrowthandthesourcesof growth, follows: at the national and the state level using the Southern Region :AndhraPradesh,Kanataka, most recent data. Kerala and Tamil Nadu The paperis divided in two parts.PartA WesternRegion: Gujarat andMaharashtra includes four sections and focuses mainly North-westemRegion: Haryanaand Punjab on the aggregate level analysis. Section I Central Region: MadhyaPradesh,Rasthan describes the coverage and nature of and Uttar Pradesh analysis, Section II examines growth Eastern Region: Assam, Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal. performanceof three crop groups, namely, Performanceis evaluated on the basis of foodgrains, non-foodgrains and all crops combined at the all-India level, and estimates of compound annualgrowthrates investigates whether *there has been in area,cropproductionandyield perhectare accelerationon decelerationin theirgrowth of principal crops at the all-India and the inrecentyears.Section mI analysesaggregate state level. Additionally, the growth rates

A-2

Economic and Political Weekly

March 25. 1995

reproducesalternativeestimates of growth The most striking feature of India's ratesof outputcomputedby fitting the trend agriculturalgrowth in the recent period as function (2) to the original series of index revealed by Table 1 is that of decisively numbersof production,forcomparisonwith superior performance of non-foodgrains the former. vis-a-vis foodgrains. Indeed, CAGR of nonIt is pertinentto note in this context that foodgrains outputrealised during 1981-92. estimation of trend functions (1) and (2) i e, 4.3 per cent exceeded significantly that yielded statisticallysignificantvalues of 'b' of foodgrains, namely, 2.92 per cent during and 'c' for all the threecrop groups and the the same period. The reason was, nonperiodswith all the correspondingvalues of foodgrains as a group benefited from R2 exceeding 0.95. In other words, the significantcxpansionin boththecomponents alternative procedure based on explicit of production.i e, at the rateof 1.71 percent inclusioni of rainfall index in the trend in area under themn and of 2.55 per cent in log Y = a + bt ... trend function functiondid notoffer anyimprovement over their yield per hectare in period II. In (1) where Y's are the triennial averages of Y, the estimation based on trend function (1) contrast, area under foodgrains actually theoriginal observations on area,production, andthusprovedthattheestimatesof CAGRs declined in the 1980s (CAGR = -0.26 per etc, and t i.s the time variable. based on trend function (1) and the time cent). Yet, it is importantto recognise that CAGRs are separatelycomputed for two series of triennial averages of the variable, foodgrains output continued to grow at the sub-periods for all the data sets and were almost free from the effect of rainfall rate of 2.92 per cent as the growth in yield additionallyfor the entire period in respect variations, which appear to be essentially per hectare of foodgrains exceeded 3 per of all-Indiacrop aggregates.The periods as randomin nattre. The subsequentanalysis cent (CAGR = 3.19 per cent) outpacing the mentioned in all the statistical tables are of agriculturalgrowth at the all-India and negative growth rate in areato a far greater (I): 1968-69 to 1981-82 and (II) 1981-82 to the state level was thereforerestrictedonly extent. 1991-92, where theyearrefers to the central to estimationof CAGRs obtainedby fitting An emergenceof significantnegativetrend year of the triennium. All the statistically trendfunction(1) to the time series of three- in growth of area under foodgrains (--0,26 etc. per cent) vis-a-vis relatively high positive non-significant CAGRs are treatedas zero year averages of area, productioni, growth rates. Further,the comparisonbetween the two growth in area under non-foodgrains(1.71 The use of three-year moving average sets of estimatesof CAGRs listed in Table I per cent) at the aggregate level, mentioned seriesof area,production oryield perhectare, for output of foodgrains (column 3), non- above, implies thatinrecentyearstherem ust instead of the original series is expected to foodgrains (column 6) and all crops have been an increasing shift of land from reduceconsiderably theinfluenceof extreme (column 9) also demonstrates that the foodgrainsto non-foodgrains.Whether,this variations inclimaticfactorson theassociated difference between them is very negligible phenomenon was almo>i universal across estimates of CAGRs. However, the for all the crops groupsandeach of the three the state.sor was restricted to only a few alternative weather adjusted estimates of periods. For example, two alternative states/regions of the country would be an CAGRs too are workedout for comparison estimates of CAGRs for foodgrains output interesting issue for investigation. But we attheall-Indialevelby fittinga trendfunction are 2.21 per cent and 2.17 per cent for would examine it in partB while analysing (2) in which index of rainfall is explicitly period 1,2.92 per cent and2.80 per cent for agriculturalgrowth at the state level. included as an independent variable. periodII and2.65 per cent and2.67 per cent The preceding discussion nmakesit clear for the entire post-green revolution periodl. that the non-foodgrains acquireda distinct log Y = a + bt + CR ... trend function (2) whereR is theall-Indiaannualrainfallindex The correspondingtwo sets of estimates of lead over foodgrains in India's agricultural constructed by the Indian meteorological CAGRs for non-foodgrainsoutputare 2.41 growthduringthe 1980s, i e, the latterphase andY's areoriginalobservations per cent and 2.44 per cent (period I), 4.30 of the greenrevolution.Further, department betweenthe on area. etc. per cent and 4.06 per cent (period II) and two sources of outputgrowthdominanceof Additionally.for verificationof existence 3.02 percent and3.07 percent for the entire yield over the area component was clearly of statistically significant acceleration or period. Similarly, alternative estimates of establishedin re.spect of both,thefoodlgrains deceleration in output growth we estimate growthrates for outputof all crops are 2.29 and non-foodgrains. Naturally, at the a quadratic in time variable by fitting a per cent and 2.28 per cent (period I), 3.43 aggregatelevel too, a fargreater contribution function (3), i e, log Y = a + bt + ct2to the per cent and 3.26 per cent (period II) and to growth in productionof all crops which time series of triennial averages of the all- finally 2.7 per cent and2.82 percent for the was at the rate of 3.43 per cent caine from Indiaindexnumbersof area,productionand entire period. the yield cormponent(CAGR = 2.93 per yield per hectare for foodgrains, nonTABLE 1: COMPOUNDANNUAL RATES OF GROWTH (CAGRs) IN INDEx NUMBERS OF AREA. foodgrainsandall crops. The same exercise PRODUCrION ANDYIELDPERHECrARE has been repeated for the state level (Per cent) foodgrains production series to ascertain emergenceof accelerationordecelerationin Foodgrains All Crops Non-foodgrains their output growth. Period Area Produc- Yield Area P?bduc- Yield Area Produc- Yield

are also worked out by using (i) the series of all-lndiaindexnumbers of area,production and yield per hectare of foodgrains, nonfoodgrainsandall crops, and(ii) the national and the state level series of net domestic productgeneratedin agriculturespecially to infer about aggregate performance of agriculture. Compound annual growth rates (henceforth CAGRs) have been estimated by fitting a simple trendfunction (1) to the time series of three-year averages of area, production or yield per hectare.

I1
Performance of Foodgrains,
I

(1) 1968-69 to 1981-82 Il 1981-82 to 1991-92 III 1968-69 to 1991-92

(2) 0.37 -0.26 0.13

tion (3) 2.21 (2.17) 2.92 (2.80) 2.65 (2.67)

(4) 1.85 3.19 2.51

(5) 1.06 1.71 1.17

tion (6) 2.41 (2.44) 4.30 (4.06) 3.02 (3.07)

(7) 1.34 2.55 1.83

(8) 0.54 0.49 0.48

tion (9) 2.29 (2.28) 3.43 (3.26) . 2.79 (2.82)

(10) 1.74 2.93 2.30

Non-Foodgrains and All Crops

Table I provides CAGRs based on trend function (1) and the time series of triennial averagesof all-Indiaindex numbersof area, productionand yield per hectareseparately for foodgrains,non-foodgrainsandall crops for the two sub-periods and the Entirepostgreen revolution period. In addition, it also Economic and Political Weekly

Notes: (1) All the growth rates are statistically significant at 5 per cent level. (2) Values in parentheses are CAGRs obtained by fitting a trend function (2). i e, log Y = a + bt + cRt where Y's are original index numbers and Rt's are the all-India rainfall Index numbers constructed by Indian Meteorological Department.

March 25, 1995

A-3

cent) than from the area component, the correspondingCAGR being 0.49 per cent only. This is not surprising in view of the fact that area has long ceased to be an important sources of growth in Indian agnculture. Againchangeswhich haveoccurredin the pace and sources of growth,in agriculture between period I and period II may provide some indication about the future course of growth. It would, therefore, be interesting to look into the changes in behaviourof area and yield components over the two phases of the post-greenrevolutionperiodandtheir impact on the pace of output growth. CAGR for foodgrains output moved up significantly from 2.21 per cent in period I to 2.92 per cent in period II. Acceleration in output growth rate of non-foodgrains in the 1980s was even more rapid as their growthrateincreasedsteeply from 2.41 per cent in period I to 4.3 per cent in period II. Consequently,growthin outputof all crops too accelerated in the 1980s reaching the level of 3.43 per cent from its earlier level of 2.29percentrealised in the 1970s. Again, the statistical evidence presented in the beginningof this section demonstratesthat the output growth rates are free from any systematic variations in rainfall. Thus, recent upsurge in growth appears to be more enduringratherthanjust a short-lived weather-induced phase. Changes in relative contribution of area andyield component.sto foodgrains output growthwere also noteworthy. In the 1970s area under foodgrains expanded gradually at tIe rateof 0.37 per cent but this positive W was replacedby anegative growthrate of --0.26per cent in the 1980s. However, much fa.steracceleration in the growth rate of yield per hectare, i e, from 1.85 per cent in periodI to 3.19 per cent in periodII. more than compenisated for declining trend in area and pushed up output growth above the level achieved in the 1970s. In contrast, non-footgrains experienced accelerated expans.n both in area, i e, from 1.06 per cent to 1.71 per cent and yield per hectare, i e, from 1.34 per cent to 2.55 per cent between the two sub-periods;. Indeed, it is remarkablethat the pace of growth in yield of non-foodgrainsnearlydoubled perhectare from the 1970s to the 1980s. Obviously, growthrateof yield per hectare of all crops combined, too moved up from 1.74 percent in period I to 2.93 per cent in period II. It was this rapid momentum in yield growth across the crops which was responsible, for irnproved performanceof Indianagriculture in the 1980s. Three conclusions clearly emerge from theprecedinganalysiss. One, atthe aggregate level there has been a marked upward movement in the pace of growth. Secondly, the major driving force behind it is the expansionin productivity. Thirdly,andmore importantly,the emergence of acceleration A-4

is unlikely to be merely a weather induced phenomenon andappears tobemoreenduring one.In ordertoreinforceourthirdconclusion we investigated further statistical significance of the process of acceleration. To examine thehypothesisof acceleration in growth over the entire post-green revolution period we fitted the trend function (3), i e, log y = a + bt + ct2to the triennialaveragesof index numbersof area, productionandyield perhectare,separately for foodgrains, non-foodgrains and all crops. The results of this second exercise are listed in Table 2. In all the regressions for productionand yield per hectare, the coefficients of t and t2, i e, 'b' and 'c' both, were found to be positive and statistically significant, establishing significant acceleration in production and productivity growth at the all-India level (columns 3 and 4). But in regression for area,the coefficient 'c' turns out to be negative and significant for foodgrains and positive and significant for non-foodgrains. This implies deceleration inareagrowthforfoodgrains andacceleration for non-foodgrains in the recent period. Aggregate area under all crops naturally shows absence of either deceleration or accelerationin the rateof its expansion ('c' being statisticallynon-significantandhence zero).Thatistosay, inter-crop shiftsfavoured non-foodgrain cropsatthecostof foodgrains particularlyin the latter part of the green revolution whiile very slow expansion in aggregate cropped area continued ('b' positive and significa,nt) without any perceptible change in its growth rate.5 Thus,ouranalysissupported anemergence of significant acceleration in aggregate production andproductivity growthin Indian in therecentyears.Ournext task agriculture is to analysegrowthtrends atthedisaggregate, i e, at the state level to investigate whether all the states or only a few participatedin thisprocessby pushingup aggregategrowth rates in agriculturein the 1980s.
TABLE

III Aggregate Performance of Agriculture at State Level

To examineaggregategrowthperformance of the states in crop production sector we requiredthe state level time series of index numbers of area, production.and yield per hectareof allcropscombined.In the absence of availabilityof these datafor all the states, we preferred to analyse aggregate growth performanceof agricultureacrossthe states on the basisof dataon statedomesticproduct originating in agriculture, though the two sets of data are not strictly comparable.6 CAGRs computed for this purpose on the
TABLE 3: COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES STATE (CAGRs) OF DOMESriC PRODUCr GENERATED INAGRICULTURE

(Based on the Time Series of Triennial Averages) Region/ States Southern 1968-69 to 1981-82 1981-82 to 1990-91

AndhraPradesh 2.48* (0.88) 1.81* (0.38)

Karnataka Kerala Tamil Nadu Westernt North Western Haryana Punjab Central MadhyaPradesh Rajasthan UttarPradesh
Ea.stern

2.47* (0.93) 3.21 * (0.96) 0.17 (0.24) 2.75* (0.85) 0.27 (0.02) 3.66* (0.85)

Gujarat 3.23* (0.60) 1.49 (0.05) Maharashtra 4.48* (0.83) 2.24* (0.43)
2.93* (0.86) 4.77* (0.90) 3.47* (0.97) 4.79* (0.99) 0.67 (0.25) 2.51 * (0.89) 3.1 1* (0.72) 4.91 * (0.63) 2.14* (0.84) 3.34* (0.96) 1.72* 1.39* 2.57* 2.46* 2.15* 2.16* (0.84) (0.70) (0.87) (0.88) (0.94) (0.96) 2.00* 2.34* 3.40* 6.88* 3.34* 3.28* (0.97) (0.69) (0.90) (0.97) (0.94) (0.95)

Assauii Bihar Orissa West Bengal All lndia (NDP) All India (GDP)

Notes: Figuresin parentheses are the confesponding R2values

* Statistically significant at S per cent

level.

2:ESTIMATESOF QUADRATIC IN TIME VARIABLE FlrTED TO TRIENNIAL AVERAGES oF AREA,

PRODUCTION AND YIE[LD:A1. INDIA

(Period: 1968-69 - 1991-92) Specification of

Independent Variable Constant
-

Regressioii Coefficients of
-t

'

(1) Foodgrains:

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Area
Production Yield Non-foodgrains Area Production Yield All crops Area Production Yield
* Significant at 5 per cent level

1.9758
1.8901 1.9142 1.9519 1.8880 1.9361 1.9727 1.8893 1.9166 @ Negligible value.

0.0032*
0.0078* 0.0043* 0.0018 0.0049* 0.0031 * 0.0021 * 0.0067* 0.0046*

-0.0001*
0.0001 * 0.0002* 0.0001* 0.0003* 0.0002* 0.0000@ 0.0002* 0.0002*

0.72
0.98 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.89 0.98 0.99

Economic and Political Weekly

March 25, 1995

i e, Mladhya Pradesh,growthwas at the rate of 2.51 per cent only in period II. In sum, if we leave aside deteriorationin agriculturalgrowth in the western region and in Andhra Pradesh from the southern region theprocessof acceleration was almost universal across the states in the 1980s. All At the all-India level G[)P and NDP thestateswhethergrowingmainlyfoodgrains generatedin agricultural sector increased at or non-foodgrains or both improved. their the rates of 2.16 per cent anid2.15 per cent per-formance. Naturally, the inter-crop I an(l 3.28 per cent and 3.34 per dispersal of growth must have been wider in periodK cent for the period11.As the data on the all- in the 1980s thanbefore.Inordertoreinforce India level were available for the entire this conclusion we would now shift the post-green revolution period at conistanit focus of ouranalysisfirsttocropwise growth (i c. at 80-81) prices a Chow test for performanceat the all-India level and then structuralbtreak was cariied out. This too at the state level in the sections thatfollow.
supported the hypothesis of signiificant

basis.of the series of triennial, averages of the SDP separatelyfor the two sub-periods arereproducedin Table 3. For comparison, as also to confirm accelerationi in growth of aggregate GDP and NDP originated in agriculture. all-India level growth rates are also provided in the same table.

1981-91. In the second periodrice occupied a leadingposition among all the cereals with lhighestgrowth in output at the rate of 3.87 the associated Rstatistically signiificanitandCl per cent. Wheat and maize followed it with higli. Secondly. for all but the CAGRs in output of 3.33 pei cent and values are faiIrly threestates(namely.Andrllra Gujarat 2.62 per cenitrespectively. Perfoimance of Pradelsh, andMaharashltra)CAGR values in period II the two inferiorcereals, namely, jowar and arehigherthanthe correspondingestimates baira was very poor with non-significant in period I. In otther words, majority of the states contributed to acceleration in agriTABLE 4: COMPOMOND ANNUAL GRow-rH RATEZS (CAGRs) FOR AREA, PRODUCriON AND culturalgrowth,thoughatdifferentialrates. YIELD OF CROPS: ALL. INDIA SouthernRegion: There was a fargieater (Per cent) improvementin the growth performanceof (-'AGRsfor 1968-69 to 1981-82 CAGRs for 1981-82 to 1991-92 Keralaaind Tamil Nadu where zero growtlh Crops/CropGroups Area Production Yield Area Production Yield rates in period I were replaced by 2.75 per ) (1I (3) (4) (2) (5) (6) (7) cent and 3.66 per cent respectively in 0.69* 2.16* 1.45* 0.62* 3.87* 3.25* period II. Improvement in Karnatakawv,as Rice Jowar -0.84* 2.61* 3.50* -1.96* -0.10 1.83* marginal (from 2.47 per cent to 3.21 per Bajara -1.03* 0.78 0.33 -0.90* 1.49 2.33 cent) while Andhlira Pradeshshowed decline Maize 0.10 0.59* 0.49 0.11 2.62* 2.46* in growth rate from 2.48 per cent to 1.81 Wheat 2.60* 5.21 * 2.55* 0.28 3.33* 3.06* per cent with much steeper fall in the Total cereals 0.36* 2.61* 2.25* -0.32* 2.97* 3.30* associated R2 value. Grdin -0.37 -0.73 -0.35 -1.40* -472 0.67* Western Region: Deterioration in the Tur 0.86* 0.85* -0.01 2.28* 1.19 -1.07 0.90* -0.004 -0.90* 0.38* 3.12* performance of the western regioni was Otherpulses 2.74* 0.47* -0.17 -0.65 0.10 1.26* 1.13* -seriouswith a far greater decline betweeni Total pulses 0.15* 1.71* 1.5s* 0.39* 2.52* 2.91* the two sub-periods in the growth rates of Khariffoodgrainis 0.81* 3.30* 2.47* -0.01 3.23* 3.26* SDP fromagriculture,i e. firom 3.23 percent Rahi foodgrains lotal foodgrains 0.38* 2.33* 1.94* -0.24* 2.83* 3.08* to 0 per cent for Gujaratandlfrom 4.48 per Groundnut -0.12 0.96* 1.07* 1.94* 3.36* 1.38* cent to 2.24 percent for Maharashtra. Again Sesamurn 0.08 0.40 0.33 0.63 4.00* 3.35* very low values of R- for Gujarat(0.05) and Rapeseeds anidmustard 1.61* 1.88* 0.21 4.59 9.32* 4.55* Maharasshtra (0.43) obtainedfor period 11as Coconuts 0.43* -0.26 -0.69* 3.65* 5.83* 2.10* compared to period I, i e, 0.60 anid0.83 Soyabean 38.56* 38.96* 0.28 16.48* 19.25* 2.38* 1.02 -1.88 -2.88* 18.42* 17.59* -0.70 respectively. demonstraterelatively hiigher Siunflower 1.91* 1.15* 0.75* 3.46* 6.30* 2.76* degree of weather-induced instability in Total nine 0.27 2.78* 2.51 * -0.57 3.73* 4.29* agriculture in theregion,particularly during Cotton Jute 1.45* 2.13* 0.81 * -0.75 1.81 2.94* the 1980s. Sugarcane 1.57* 2.65* 1.07* 1.61* 3.48* 1.80* North- Western. Central and Eastern Potatoes 3.90* 7.77* 3.72* 2.93* 4.71* 1.74* Regions: In all the states fromthe remaining Tobacco 0.08 2.72* 2.64* -2.22* -0.13 1.88* three regions SDP growth rates moved up Tea 0.65* 3.02* 2.39* 0.90* 2.75* 1.85* the early to the latterphase of the green Coffee firom 2.57* 4.38* 1.97* 1.60* 3.86* 2.19* revolution.Improvementwas exceptionally Natral Rubber 3.14* 5.66* 2.51* 1.49* 8.90* 7.06* higlhin West Bengal (from 2.66 per cent to Notes: (a) For soyabean and sunflower the period is froml1971-72 to 1981-82. 6.88 percent) followed by,1Itaiyana, Punjab, (b) For sesamum, coconut, soyabean and sunflower the period is from 1981-82 to 1990-91. andMadlhya In thefozrmer Raja.sthan Prade.sh. (c) For sesamum and coconut periodis: 1968-69 to 1990-91 threeagriculturalSDP expanded at the rate For soyabean and sunflower period is: 1971-72 to 1990-91 of about 4.8 per cent while in the latter, * Statisticallysignificant at 5 per cenitlevel. Economic anidPolitical Weekly March 25. 1995
A-S

structural breatk at the aggregate level hetween 1968-81 and 1981-9 1, reinforcing our earlier conclusions. Two immediateconclusions emerge from the scrutiny of the statewise results ot the agricultural SDP analysis presentted in Table 3. Onc. for majority of the states CAGR values for the period(sI and(H fl re

IV

Production Growth across Crops

Table 4 providesCAGRs for majorcrops
or1 cr'op groups separately for 1968-81 and

growthindicatingstagnationin theiroutput. Finally, at the aggregatelevel productionof cereals recorded growth at the rate of 2.97 per cent in the 1980s. The remarkablefeature of the growth in output of cereals in the recent decade was that increases in yield were almost solely responsible for it. Contributionof areawas either non-significant (as in case of maize and wheat) or significant but negative (e g, jowar and hajra). The single most exception to this was of rice crop which benefited marginally from area expansion (CAGR= 0.65 percent)inadditiontogrowth in productivityat the rate of 3.25 per cent. In the aggregate,however, cereals lost area at therateof -0.32 percent between 1981-91. Pulses as a group registered low but statistically significant growth in output at therateof 1.26percentin the 1980s. Almost total. contributionto this growth was from pulses other than gram and tur. Output of the latter two major pulses grown in India remained stagnant throughout the second period due to opposite trends in area and yield growth for both of them. Gram experienced decline in area (CAGR = -1.4 per cent) but small positive gmwth in yield per hectare (CAGR = 0.7 per cent), while turgained in arearapidly at the rate of 2.28

per cent but its productivity remained unstable and sshowed negative but nonsignificant trend. In contrast, rise in yield per hectare of 'other pulses' at the rate of 2.74 Per cent was mainly responsible for sati.sfactory growthin theiroutputatthe rate 3.12 per cent. It appearsthatcultivation of turhaspicked up in the stateswith relatively lower levels of yield but higher degree of weather-induced fluctuations. Thus, performanceof pluses was uneven andunsatifactorycomparedto thatof ma'jor cereals such as rice and wheat during the 1980s. Nevertheless, it was certainly an improvement over the clhroinicstate of stagnation in their output and yield per hectare whiclh prevailed during the early decade of the green revolution. The above mentioned differential performance of major cereals and pulses notwithstanding,output of all foodgrains expanded at the rate of 2.83 per cent solely due to rise in theirproductivityatthe CAGR of 3.08 percent. Between thekharifandrabi amuchhigher foodgrainsthelatterregistered
rate of growtlh in output, viz, 3.23 per cent with nloloss of area to other cIrops. Whereas

Inferior cereals, however, displayed retardationin growth over the period with a transitionfrom positive to zero-growthin jowar output and continued stagnation in outputof bajra.Among the pulses only the .other pulses' improved their growth performance attaining the growth level of 3.12 per cent in period II from 0 growth in outputin the early period. But therehas not been any perceptible change in the state of stagnationin the outputof gramand turthat prevailed throughoutthe post-green revolution period. At the aggregatelevel, therefore, pulses as a groupregisteredmuch less impressive improvement,i e, from0 growth in 1970s to just 1.26 per cent in 1980s.
Vaiying performance of major ceseals
an(d

pulses apart,growth rateof their aggregate outputmoved up fiom 2.33 per cent to 2.83 percent between the two periods..It was the result of upturnin their yield growth, i e, from 1.94 per cent to 3.08 per cenit.More between thekharifandthe rabi imiportantly, foodgrains,accelerationin outputand( yield was much sharper for growtlhin the 1980sX
TABLE 5: STATEWISE COMPOUND

the kharif foodgrains while in the case of thelatteroutputgrowth ratecontinuedalniost unchangedatthepre-1981 level. Thus, near doubling of growth rate in yield per hectare of khariffoodgrains (i e, from 1.55 per cent to 2.91 per cent) helped in reducing considerably the large disparity in output growth between the kharif anidrabi crops thatemerged in the early phase of the green revolution. In otherwords, the periodof the 1980s represent an important departure of the greenrevolution, from theearlyphalse in terms of greater pace of diffusion of technology to the kharif foodgrains. Oil.seeds: All theedibleoilseeds registered a high growth in production in the 1980s with CAGRs in their output rangin- -*m to 19.2Xpercent 3.36 percent for groundlnut for soyabean. Expansion in both area and to growth.But yield per hectarecontr-ibuted yield gIrowthplayed more or almostequally important role in respect of traditional as sesamum (3.3 percenit)and oilseeds suclh rapeseedsandmustard(4.55 percent) while areaexpansionconitributed overwhelmingly
i0k FootX;RAINS (Per
cenit)

H RATES ANNUAL GRoWT

outputof khariffoodgrains increased at the

moderate rate of 2.52 per cent despite loss

of areaat the rateof -0.39 per cent. Decline in area under kharif foodgrains must be a in areaunder reflectionZof significantdleclinie coarsecereals such asjowar andbajrawhile significant yield growth (i e, 2.91 per cent) mustbe theconsequenceof impressive gain in productivityol'ice andmaize mainly the
kharif crops.

CAGRS for 1968-69 to 1981-82 Region/State Area Production Yield

CAGRSlor 1981-82 to 1991-92 Area lroducttoni Yield

Percentage Sharein
Fo(odgrains

Production
for 1987-88

(1) Southern1 Regiont AndhraPradesh Karnataka Kerala Tamil Nadu WesternRegionl Gujarat Maharashtra North-Western Regionl Haryania Punjab Centirail RegionL MadhyaPradesh Rajasthan UttarPradesh Eastern Regioni Assamn Bihar Onse,a West Bengal All India

(2) -0.26 0.15 -0.86* -0.80* -0.69* 0.99* 0.69* 2.34* 0.57* 0.21 0.26* 1.01* -0.13 1.43* 0.05 0.38*

(3) 3.44* 1.99* 0.03 0.54 2.92* 5.66* 3.60* 5.74* 0.88* 1.59* 2.53* 1.30* 0.55 0.49 0.48 2.33*

(4) 3.57* 2.14* 0.89* 1.24* 3.63* 4.63* 2.90* 3.33* 0.31 1.38* 2.26* 0.29 0.68 -0.92* 0.43 1.94*

(5) -1.76* -0.54 -3.79* .0.81* -1.13 -0.01 -0.55 1.23* -0.58* -0.82 -0.01 0.60* -0.04 0.73* 0.99* -0.24*

(6)

(7) 3.13* 1.34* 1.56* 4.11* '0-0.06 2.11 * 5.10* 2.54* 2.96* 2.94* 3.37* 1.65* 3.14* 2.68* 5.05* 3.08*

to 1991-92 (8) 7.2 4.7 0.7 4.6 2.0 5.() 5.4 11.8 9.1 4.8 21.1 2.0 6.1 5.0 7.6 (97.1)@

Again, a comparison of performanceof foodgrainsbetweenithe two periods clearly shows that for rice, maize and pulses but for-the two, growthrates forener particularly moved upsignificantlyin the second peiiod. In contrast, growtlh in output of wheat deceleratedremarkablyfrom 5:21 per cent in period I to 3.33 per cent in the second thatof jowarfrom 2.61 per cent period an(d to 0 per cent. The only encouraging aspect of this otherwise pessimistic phenomenon has been thatthe fall in growthrateof wheat productionwas theresultof greatlyreduced expansion in area (i e, from 2.6 per cent in 1970s to 0 per cent in 1980s) and not due to decline in the pace of growth in yield per hectare of wheat which, in fact, improved marginallyfrom 2.55 per cent in period I to 3.06 in period II. It is but natural that the overwhelmingadvantageof areaexpansion which wheat enjoyed in the early phase of due to its decisive lead thegreen,revolution, in technological progress, is unlikely'to continueat the same pace as the othercrops begin to benefit increasinigly from the teclhnological advances and its wider diffusion. A jump in productivitygrowthof rice from 1.45 per cent in period I to 3.25 percent in periodIII and of maize 0 per cent to 2.46 per cent i.s a reflection of thi.s phenomenon.
A-6

1.32* 0.7') -2 29* 3.26* -1.18* 2.10* 4.52* 3.80* 2.37* 1.95 3.37* 2.26* 3.10* 3.43* 6.10* 2.83*

Notes: @ Aggregate percentageshare of 15 states * Statistically significant at S per cent level.

TABLE 6: REGIONWISECHANGES IN IRRIGATION

Region

Net Irnigated Area Per Cenit Change between Per Cent Share in All India Increasebetween 1980-81 1970-71 1970-71 1980-$1 and 1990-91 and 1990-91 and 1980-81 and 1980-81 2.1 49.1 24.8 36.7 3.0 23.0 19.5 15.2 18.0 27.0 40.4 24.9 2.2 18.3 15.5 56.1 2.2 100.0 16.0 6.4 10.7 42.9 24.0 100.0

Southern Western North-western Central Eastern All-India

Economic-and Political Weekly

March 25. 1995

togrowthin production of soyabean(CAGR forarea 16.48percent)andsunflower(CAGR for area 18.42 per cent). In the aggregate. thterefore,pr(xiuction of all nine edible oilseeds expandedat the rateof 6.3 per cent in the 1980s. Indeed. this represents a remarkable improvement over the low growth in their output (at the rate of 1.91 percent) realised in the early period of the green revolution.The associatedCAGRs for areaand yield per hectare were at the low levels of 1.15 per cent and 0.75 per cent respectively in the 1970s as against they being 3.46 per cent and 2.76 per cent in the low to very high 1980s.This transitionfirom growthin the oilseeds sector demonstrates the success of special efforts made in terms of developmentof technology andprovision of assuredand higher marketsupportto the oilseeds,sincethelate 1970s andunderscores theneedto continuethisstrategyin futuretoo. Fibre Crops: Production of cotton, thie majorfi'brecrop, registered relatively high growtlh(CAGR = 3.73 per cent) in 1980s vis-a-vis moderate rate of 2.78 per cent in the 1970s.Impressivegainin its productivity growth, i e, from 2.51 per cent in period I to 4.29 per cent in period II was solely responsible for its better performance in recent years. Performance ofjute was unsatisfactoryin the 1980s, despiteremarkable improvement in its yield growth from 0.81 per cent in the 1970s to nearly 3 per cent in. the 1980s. Statistically non-significanitgrowth in jute production in period II appears to be the result of greatly fluctuating yet gradually declining area underjute. Sugarcane, Potato and Tobacco: Sugarcane is yet anothermajorcommercial crop like cotton which has improved its performance consistently throughout the green revolutionperiod, with the CAGR of its productionmoving from 2.65 per cent in period I to 3.48 per cent in period II. Growth in area under sugarcanecontinued at the rateof 1.6 per cent throughthe entire period while yield growth accelerated betweenthe two sub-periodsfrom 1 percent to 1.8 per cent. Productionof potatoexpanded rapidly at the rate of 4.71 per cent in the 1980s both dueto expansionin areaandyield perhectare but much more so because of the former. Yet, it represents deterioration in its impressive growthrecordin the early phase of thegreenrevolutionwhenoutputincreased at the rate of 7.77 per cent to which again area and yield growth contributedequally. Growthperformance of tobaccowas worst in period II with absence of any rise in its output. Among all the non-foodgrains, tobaccois theonly crop which sufferedfrom significant loss of area at the rate of -2.22 per cent which neutralised completely positive growth(at the rateof 1.88 per cent) in its yield perhectare.Itis possible thatwith on areaundertobacco, restrictionls impo)sed Economic and Political Weekly

low productivity land.s havebeen withdrawn from cultivation by tobacco producers. In consequence, the state of moderateoutput growth in the 1970s wa-sreplaced by that of stagnation in output in the 1980s. Plantaion C)ops:Tea,themajorplantation crop in India revealed consistently stable thoughmoderategrowthat about3 per cent all throughthepost-greenrevolutionperiod. to production Both areaandyield contributed increasethoughriseinyield was thedominant sourceof growth.Marginal declinein growth rate in 1980s over the 1970s, i e, from 3.02 per cent to 2.75 per cent was mainly due to deceleration in its yield growth from 2.39 percent to 1.85 percent.Tea beingthemajor exportable crop of India, it is very disappointingthatgrowthin its productivity could not be accelerated in the 1980s. Coffee productionexpanded at the high rateof 3.86 per cent in the 1980s. Both area and yield components contributed almost equally to outputgrowth.Yet, itrepresented decline in outputgrowth fromthe pre-1981 level of4.38 percent, mainlydue to slowing down of expansion in area and not in yield per hectare. In contrast to moderate and marginially deceleirat,dperformanceof tea and coffee, natural rubberregisteredgreatlyaccelerated and high growth in its output at the rate of 8.9 per cent in the 1980s and that too due to unprecedentedimprovemenit in its yield growthfrom2.5 1percent in periodI to 7.06 per cent in period II. Fourimportant conclusions emerge from
the preceding analytical review of cropwise

majorityof themnotonly paceof production growth enhanced between the two subperiods but there was across the board acceleration in the 1980s in productivity growth rates too. Indeed, from among the 22 principalcrops, absenceof improvement in yield growthwas observedonly inrespect ofjowar, tur,tobacco andtea. Thirdly,there was dramatic transition from low to very high growth accompaniedby improvement inproductivitygrowth,in theoilseeds sector. Fourthly, sharp upturnin yield growth for kharif foodgrains was also a noteworthy featureof the cropwise growthin the 1980s. Our conclusions, therefore, provide an evidence in support of a wider,..greater diffusion of technology in recent years to large numberof crops not benefited in the early phase of the green revolution period.

Part B
v Performance of Foodgrains at State/ Regional Level
At the all-Indialevel CAGRof foodgrains output moved up from 2.33 per cent in period I to 2.83 per cent in period II. The upturn in output growth occurred mainly dueto significantacceleration inproductivity growth, i e, from 1.94 per cent before 1981-82 to 3.08 per cent in the period subsequent to 1981-82. It neutralised completely the negative effect of reversalof trend in area growth for foodgrains from 0.38 per cent in period I to 0.24 per cent in the latter period. It is possible that the patternof changes in growthratesof area,productionandyield perhectare of foodgrains betweentheperiods, obtained at the aggregate level is the result of similar changes in all the states or it may

trends in output anid yield growth. One, all the major crops excluding coarse cereals, gram,tur,jute andtobaccoexperiencedhigh growth rates (i e about 3 per cent or more) in theiroutputin recentyears. Secondly, for

TABLE 7: STATEWISE ESTriMATES OFQUADRATIC INTIMEVARIABLE, AVERAGES FrIrEDTOTRIENNIAL oF FOODORAIN (PERIOD 1968-69 TO 1991-92) PRODUCTrION States
Constant t

Regression Coefficients of
t2 R2

(1) Southernt Region AndhraPradesh

Kamataka

(2) 3.8194
3.7222

(3) 0.0175*
0.01 17*

(4) -0.0003*
-0.0003*

(5) 0.89
0.69

Kerala Tamil Nadu WesternRegion Gujarat Maharashtra North-Western Region Haryana Punjab Central Region MadhyaPradesh Rajasthan UttarPradesh Easternt RegionL Assam Bihar Orissa West Bengal

3.1056 3.8297 3.4799 3.7089 3.5747 3.7585 4.0062 3.7579 4.2076 3.3228 3.9242 3.6975 3A8830

0.0054* -0.0037 0.0168+ 0.0283* 0.0115* 0.0287* 0.0011 0.0066 0.0080* 0.0019 -0.0008 -0.0056* -0.0078*

-0.0004* 0.0003 -0.0005 -0.0006+ 0.0003+ -0.0002* 0.0004* 0.0001 0.0003* 0.0003* 0.0003* 0.0006* 0.0007*

0.81 0.34 0.21 0.68 0.95 0.99 0.91 0.66 0.95 0.95 0.78 0.94 0.85

Notes: * Significant at 5 per cent level, + significant at 10 per cent level.

March 25, 1995

A-7

also be the net effect of contrastingpatterns acrossthestates.Whatis,therefore, necessary is to examine trends in foodgrains output of sources growth andtherelativeimportance level. Forthis of growthatthe'disaggregated purpose,we analyse the state-level CAGRs forfoodgrainsin the 15 majorstates of India (Table 5). SouthernRegion:In the 1980s (column 6, Table 5) foodgrains outputexpanded at the low rateof 1.32 per cent in AndhraPradeslh, remained stagnant with non-significant declined significantly growthin Karnataka. at the rate of -2.29 per cent in Kerala, and increasedat a relatively high rateof 3.26 per cent in Tamil Nadu. However, by andlarge, growth in yield per hectare was not unsatisfactoryduring this period in all the states with the growth rates ranging from 1.56 per cent in Kerala to 4.11 per cent in Tamil Nadu.7 In contrast, growth in area underfoodgrains received a severe setback with the negative trendemerging in all the states.Therateof decline in areawas highest inKerala(-3.79percent) followedby Andhra Pradesh(-1 .76 percent), Tamil Nadu (-0.81 per cent) and Karnataka (negative but nonsignificant trend). Thus, during the latter phaseof thegreenrevolution,southern region experienced significant absolute decline in areaunderfoodgrains leading to depressed or negative growth in outputof foodgrains. of growthperformance Again,comparison betweenthetwo sub-periodsclearly reveals deteriorationin the foodgrain economy of thesouthernregion.Outputgrowthdeclined steeply from 3.44 per cent in the 1970s to 1.32percentin the 1980s inAndhraPradesh, the leading foodgrainproducingstateof the region.In Karnataka positive growthrateof 1.99 per cent in period I was replaced by zero growthratein period II while in Kerala too deterioration was morethanevidentwith a transition from stagnation in the early phaseto significantnegativegrowthinoutput in the latter. Contrary to. this, growth performance improved in Tamil Nadu remarkablywith a sshiftfrom stagnation in productionin period I to growth at the rate 3.6 per cent in period I1. As TamilNadurepresented anexceptional situation of dramatic revival of growth in thefoodgrainssectorwe examinedthescatter diagramof the state's foodgrain output. It revealed that high growth rate obtained for the1980swas astatistical illusion.Successive troughsin the state's foodgrainoutputin the early 1980s were followed by the process of slowrecoverywhichcontinuedthroughout the 1980s, with restorationtopre-198 1level of output coming only at the end of the 1980s. As such, there is no indication of a decisive breakin growthenvironmentaway from the state of stagniation.A few more observations from the I990s would be required to ascertainexistence of significant revival if any, in Tamil Nadu'.s foodgrain economy. A-8

Nevertheless, persistence of a negative trendin areaunderfoodgrainsin the region as a whole, significant fall in outputgrowth rates in three states and an absence of sustainedpositive growth in the fourthone (i e. Tamil Nadu) hints at accelerated deteriorationin the foodgrain economy of the southernregion in the years to come. WesternRegion: Performance of foodgrains in the western region too was characterised by worsening of growth environmentfrom the 1970s to the 1980s.

CAGRSof foodgrain output declined from 5.66 per cent to 2.1 per cent in Maharashtra and from 2.92 per cent to -1.18 per cent in Gujarat.Associated fall in yield growthwas equally steeper. Very high growth close to 6 per cent realised in the 1970s in Maharashtrawas partly a reflection of recovery to normal level after severe depre-ssion in output between 1970-71 and 1973-74, the successive yearsof acutedrought.Yet. therecovery was quick and was followed by rapid and

TABLE8: STATEWISE COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES(CAGRS) FOR MAJOR NON-FOOmX;RAINS

CAGRSfor 1968-69 to 1981-82 Crops/States Area Production Yield

CAGRSfor 1981-82 to 1991-92 Area

(1)

(2)

(3) -0.05 4.53* 0.04 -0.09 0.83 7.85* 7.28* -0.47 3.63* 4.59* 16.38* 5.91* -2.40* 2.56* 3.86* -0.33 3.25* 2.45* 1.12 5.10* 15.21* 4.12* 7.32* 3.54* 2.25* -0.17* 1.35 5.64* 5.58* 3.15* 9.85* -0.97* 0.12 4.08* 2.23* 6.59* 4.27* 3.81* 10.08* 10.37* 2.11*

(4) 0.59 2.83 0.71* -0.15 1.71* 0.75 1.32 -0.51 0.92 2.31 1.56 4.85* -1.78* (.72* 0.82* 1.58* -1.03 2.89* 1.33* 1.35* 12.29* 4.34* 3.04* 0.82* 1.05* 1.42* 2.59* 3.38* 3.51 * 5.12* 0.74 -0.70* -3.03* 0.10 0.45 3.33* 2.21* -1.21 * 5.41 * 4.71* -0.84*

(5) 5.82* -1.90 1.52* 5.54* 0.69 5.70* 14.22* -5.16* 10.76* 8.05* 9.64* 10.64* 2.93* 7.62* 3.04* 3.08* 1.12 -0.15 -4.32* 4.23* 4.61* -5.20 1.53 -0.73 -0.20 -1.84* -2.20 -1.39* 0.07 3.60* 3.43* -1.60* 0.84 -1.19* 1.52* 4.00* 3.51* 5.42* 2.54* 6.22* 2.30*

Per Cent Sharein AIM-; Productoion Yield Production (1987-88 to 1991-92) (6) (7) (8) 6.97* -1.82 5.18* 5.52* 3.41 5.18* 16.64* 1.10 17.01* 12.99* 1 1.67* 15.85* 4.54* 6.59* 2.91 * 18.44* 9.14* 2.71* -3.03 6.89* 3.12 3.93* 7.08* 2.66* 2.43* -1.07 -0.04 1.53 2.23* 7.43* 3.46* -1.24* 9.21* -4.84 3.86* 2.49 4.57* 5.78* 3.95* 8.29*. 2.53* 1.11 0.08 3.59* -0.02 2.69* -0.49 2.12* 6.60* 5.72* 4.57* 1.89 4.70* 1.56* -0.96 -0.12* 14.91* 7.93* 2.89* 1.39 0.56* -1.41 9.63* 5.46* 3.42* 2.65* 0.83* 2.18* -0.15 2.16* 3.71* 0.02 0.43 8.31* -3.68 2.31 * -1.45* 1.02* 0.33 1.37* 1.95* 0.22
-

Groutndruits AndhraPradesh -0.63 1.65* Gujarat -0.66 Taniil Nadu Karnataka 0.06 Maharashtra -0.87 8.68* Orissa Rapeseedvatid Mustard 5.88* Rajasthan 0.04 UttarPradesh 2.68* Haryana 2.23* MadhyaPradesh Gujarat 14.58* 'West Bengal 1.01 Coconluts Kerala 0.63* 1.83* Taniil Nadu Kamataka 3.02* AndhraPradesh 1.27* Cottonl 4.33* Punjab Maharashtra -0.42 Gujarat -0.21 3.71* Haryana AndhraPradesh 2.58* Karnataka 0.17 4.15* Rajasthan Jute West Bengal 2.69* Bihar 1.18* Assam -1.57* Tobacco AndhraPradesh -1.20 2.19* Gujarat Karnataka 1.99* Chillies AndhraPradesh 1.87* Orissa 9.05* Maharashtra -0.27 3.25* Rajasthan Karnataka 3.99* Sugacane UttarPradesh 1.77* Maharashtra 3.15* Tamil Nadu 2.01* Karnataka 5.07* Potato UttarPradesh 4.43* West Bengal 5.40* Bihar 2.98*
*

27.9 16.9 16.4 12.6 10.8 6.8 33.8 20.5 11.0 9.0 7.6 7.2 47.2 23.4 13.2 6.8 23.1 17.5 13.0 11.3 9.6 8.5 7.7 68.9 14.1 11.5 36.7 31.5 7.2 46:6 10.6 9.9 6.1 5.6 44.0 14.3 10.3 9.0 42.2 29.0 10.0

Statistically significance at 5 per cent level.

Economic and Political Weekly

March 25, 1995

share in all-India foodgrains production. negligible role of expansion in area under the 1980s, however, there was absence of From among the four eastern states, West foodgrains. similarmomentumin the foodgrainsoutput Bengal. Bihar andOrissa are the important In fact, in the centralregion trendin area producersof foodgrains, accounting for a under foodgrains was negative (-0.58 per growthin Maharashtra. In Gujarat.moderate growth in the early combined shareof 18.7 percent in all-India cent)in MadhyaPradeshandnon-significant withtheirindividualsharesbeing in the other two states. In the easternregion period(2.92 percent) was replacedby a long production phase of high fluctuations in output in the 7.6 per cent, 6.1 per cent and 5 per cent thoughtrendin areawaspositive,itremained below 1 per cent in the threestates andnon1980s. Indeed, after reaching a peak level (column 8, Table 5). of outputin 1983-84 the foodgrains output In the 1980s West Bengal surpassed all significant in the fourth one, i e, Bihar. In in Gujaratremained greatly depressed and theothcrstatesof Indiain foodgrainsoutput contrast, growth in yield per hectare of below its 1983-84 level rightup to 1992-93. growthwith the CAGRof 6.1 percent. Uttar foodgrains was either close to 3 per cent or Lackofmomentumin growthin the western Pradesh,Orissa and Bihar followed it with exceeded it in all the statesexceptingAssam, reference CAGRvalues exceeding 3 percent whereas it being as hipi as 5.05 per cent in West regioncanpartlybe explainedwitlh to negligible expansion in irrigationin the in Madhya Pradeshand Assam foodgrains Bengal. 1980saccompaniedby increasedfrequency output expanded at the moderate rate of Comparison of the growth performance and severity of monsoon failures.8 about 2.3 per cent. Rajasthanalone was an between the early and latter phases of the North-Western Region: In contrastto the exception with almost stagnantand highly post-green revolution period reveals a discouraging performance of the southern unstable foodgrain output in the second universal trendof accelerationin growth in and the western regions, the noth-western period. all the central and eastern state.sexcepting The most remarkable feature of the Rajasthan.InMadhyaPradesh,outputgrowth region which spearheaded India's green revolution continued to be the high growth output growth in these parts of India was rate moved up steeply from 0.88 per cent region even in the latter phase of the green overwhelmingly dominant contributionof in period I to 2.37 per cent in period 11 revolutioni.But between the two states, it yield increasesin expandingoutputand the despite a significant reversal in the trendin was Haryanawhich established a clear lead TABLE 9: COMP'OUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES OF SDP FROMAGRICULTURE,O{rr'Ur OF over Punjab througlh rapid accelration in AND MAJOR FOomxiRAINS NON-FOODORAINS FOR SELECTED STATES foodgrains production and productivity (Pe- cent) growth rates. thereby relegating Punjab to the second position. CAGRs of Outputfor Percentage Percentage 1968-69 1981-82 rate State/Crops Share in Foodgrainsoutputincreasedat a higih Sharein to to State's Cropped All-India of 4.52 percent in periodII in Haryanawli'e 1981-82 1991-92 Area 1990-93 Production1987-91 growthrate in Punjabwas relatively lower (5? (4) (2) (1) (3) at 3.80 percent only. Haryana's impressive growth in output even in total absence ot Kerala supporting expansion in area unider SDP 1romagriculture 0.17 2.75* 2.9 was due to very highigrowth in Foodgrains foodgrain.s 0.03 -2.29* 24.10 0.7 -2.4* 4.54* 36.42 47.2 yield per hectare at the rate of 5.1 per cent, Coconuts 5.69@a' 3.01@ 14:52 97.4 double the level achieved in Punjab.i e, 2.54 Naturalrubber 0.97 9.07* 7.29 97.4 percent. No otherstateexcept West Bengal Pepper Pradesh could exceed growth rate of 5 per cent in Anidhrea SDPfroii agriculture 2.48* 1.81* 7.9 fo(xgrains yield per hectarelike Haryanain Foodgrains 3.44* 1.32* 60.47 7.2 period II. Groundnuts -0.t5 6.97* 19.79 27.9 Comparativeperformanceof Punjaband Chillies 3.15* 7.43* 1.83 46.6 betweenthetwo sub-periods Haryana reveals Coconuts -0.33 18.44* 0.53 6.8 opposite changes in momentum of growth. Colton 15.21* 3.12 5.89 9.6 1.35* -0.04 1.48 36.7 Outputgrowthdeceleratedin Punjabsteeply Tobacco fiom 5.74 percent in the early phase to 3.80 WestBetngal 6.88* 7.6 per cent in the latter phase of the green SDP from agriculture 2.46* 0.48* 6.10 80.54 7.6 revolution.Haryana surpassedPunjabin the Foodgrains Jute 3.54* 2.66* 6.56 68.9 latterplhaseby accelerating output growth 5.91 * 4.96 .15.85* 7.2 Rapeseeds rate to 4.52 per cent fiom its earlier level Potato 10.37* 8.29* 2.70 29.0 of 3.6 per cent. The noticeable and most Rajastlhan encouragingaspectof thi.stransformation in SDP froIma 3.1 1* agriculture 4.91 * 6.5 the north-westernregion has been that the Foodgrains 1.59* 1.95* 68.19 4.8 7.28* 16.64* 33.8 12.56 to acceleratedoutputgrowthin Rapeseeds contributioni 2.99@ 13.62* 18.53 10).22 was entirelyfromincreasesin yield All nine oilseeds Haryana 7.08* ttonl 7.32* 7.7 2.60 whiledeceleration in outputgrowthin Pun;ab CoI 0.12 9.21 0.23 6.1 was mainly due to decrease in area growth Chillies rate (i e, from 2.34 per cent in period I to Hla,yana SDP froIm1 agriculture 2.93* 4.77* 4.4 1.23 per cent in period II). Nevertheless, it Foodgrains 5.4 3.60* 4.52* 72.33 is necessary to take note of the fact that Rapeseeds 3.63* 17.0)1* 10.44 11.0 growth in foodgrains productivity 10.01 6.89* Cotton 5.10* 11.3 decelerated in Punjab, though marginally. SugarcaIIe 3.90* 2.76 3.6 -1.35
sustained expansion in output thereafter. In from 3.33 percent to 2.54 per cenit. betweeni

the two sub-periods. Centruland Ea.stern Region:UttarPradesh andMadhyaPradeshfromthecentralregion arethie two major.states growing foo)dgrains. They togetherclaim more than 30)per cent Economic and Political Weekly

Punijab SDP froI1 agriculture Foodgrains Cotton

3.47* 5.94* 3.25*

4.77* 3.80* 9.14*

84.54 10.19

6.6 11.8 23.1

Notes: * Statistically significant at S percent level,years of the period.

Based on triennial averages of thetermin)al

March 25, 1995

A-9

areagrowthfrom0.57 per cent to -0.58 per cent. Rise in output growth rate however was marginal in Uttar Pradesh, i e, from 2.55 per cent to 3.37 per cent. Yet, this improvementis crucial because the shareof Uttar Pradesh in the all-India foodgrains productionis not only maximum (21.1 per cent) but exceeds the combined share of Haryana and Punjab, i e, 17.2 per cent. Moreover, unlike Punjab contribution of areacomponentto expansion in foodgrains output remainednegligible throughoutthe post-greenrevolutionperiodin UttarPradesh. Changein the growthperformanceof the easternregion between the two periods was not only muchfasterbutmore dramatictoo. Absolute stagnation in production and productivity of foodgrainsin theearlyperiod was replaced by growth rates clo:se to or 3 percentinall thethreeimportant higherthan foodgrains producing states of the region, namely, West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. In Assamgrowthcontinuedwithoutbreakwith marginal acceleration between the two periods, i e, from 1.3 per cent to 2.26 per cent. Thus, it is evident that all the major states growing foodgrainisfrom the central andeasternpartsof Indiaexperienced rapi(d momentum in foodgrains output growth. How does one explainthis sharptranlsition in growthenvironmentin the easternregion and upturnin growth in the central riegion of India?Certainlymany factorsassociated with the wider adoptionof new technology suchas expansionin irrigation andextension services, development of infrastructure required fordistribution of seeds, fertilisers, credit, etc, must have contributed to bring about significant change in the growth environment inthese areas.'0 Theirelaborate anduptodateanalysis is out of the scope of the present paper. However, we prefer to make a brief reference to irrigation development in this context (Table 6). Expansion in net irrigated area in the easternregion was just 3 per cent between 1970-81 as against40 per cent in 1980-91. Share of the region in all-India increase in irrigationthereforejumped from 2 per cent in the 1970s to 24 per cenit in the recent decade. This significant gain in inrigation benefits of the region certainly must have played a crucial role in improving growtlh environmentin additionto increasedspread of new technology. In the central region, net irrigated area expanded significantly througlhthe 1970s (by 37 per cent) and the 1980s (by 27 per in the latter decade, the region continued to have significant share in the all-India increase in irrigationwhich was 56 per cent in 1970-81 and 43 per cent in 1980-91 as againstits share in aggregate net.sown area beingonly 36.5 percent. More importantly, the intra-regional (lispersal of ilTigationi bzenefitswas much be:tterin 1980)-91, as comparedto 1970-81. In the formerperiodl, A-10

in the ear-ly period. Again, highest value of H2obtainecd = 0.99) not for Punjab (i e, RH while the eastern regioni underwent only indicates extremely good fit of the remnarkable transition fromstagniation to highi quadiatic function but more importantly positivegrowthi. Simultaneously. momentum displays high stability of Punjab s im'gated of growth accelerated in the cenltal region agricuiture. andc high ggrowthiconitinue(d in the nortlhThe reisultsobtained for the central ancl western region. the eastern regions too reinforce our inferences based on the states' comparative VI performanlce in foodgrains output growth Patternof Accelerationin Foodgrains between the two suh-periods. With an
sectors of the southern ancdwestern regions

Uttar Prade,h was the major beneficiary with 60 per cent share in expansion of irrigation while in the 1980sMadhyaPradesh alone accounted for 50 per cent of the total irrigationex,pansionin the regioniand the share of Uttar Pradesh was reduced to 27 percent. This explains rapidaccelerationin growth in period II in Madhya Pradeslh and significant growth in the early period followved by furtherimprovementin growtlh in period II in Uttar Pradesh. Finally, it is evident from the preceding discussion that behind the relatively less impressive improvementin foodgrains output growth at the all-Indialevel (i e, from 2.33 per cent to 2.83 per cent) between the two phases of the post-greeni revolution period, lies a diverse pattern of trends in growth across the regions. At the one enidtherewas significant deterioration in the foodgrain

R2 (R2 = 0.21) for Gujaratconfirms again high vulnerability of its agriculture to vagariesof monsoon. Similarly,a relatively lower value of R' (i e, 0.68) sshows that agriculture in Maharashtratoo must have suffered, though to a lesser extent, from the weather-induced instability in the 1980s. The estimates of quadratic function obtained for Punjaband Haryanaare very instr-uctive. Highestvalue of 'b' (i e. 0.0287) among all the states and negative value of 'c' for Punjabconfirm its leading position in the early phase of the green revolution anclsubsequentslowing (lown olffoodgrain outputgrowthin thelatterperiodl. Incontrast, foodgrains sector in Ha-lyanaimprovedits performancein the latterphase(positiveand significant estimate of c') over and above
the moder-ate gIrowthi (b = 0.01 15) achieved

Output: States and Regions

We have concluded in the preceding

exceptioIn of Rajasthani coefficient of t2, i e,

discussion that tile riegional pattern of foodgrains output growtlhhas undergone a significant change in the latterph1?se of the greenrevolution to ;trenglhen perioi. Inorder ourinferencesfurther regar dingacceleratinig or decelerationin outputgrowtlh at thestatelevel we repeatedthe statisticalex'erciseof fitting a quadraticin time variable, i e, log y = a + bt + bt2to the time series ol triennial average of foodgrains output for all the states for the entire post-green revolution peri(xl.The resultts ar-e obtaine(d reproduced in Table 7. Statisticallysignificantpositive values of 'b' but negative values of 'c' conifirm significant deceler-ation in outputgrowthin Andhr-a Pradeslh, Karnataka Kerala.lIow andl value of R- (i e. 0.34) along with nonsignificanice of both the regregssion coefficients establishes exi.stence of high degreeof instability andabsenceof sustained increase or clecliniein growtlhin the entiec period for Tamil Nadu and support our reseirvations earlierregarcling express.-ed the
revival in its

'c' turnedout to be positive anid statistically signiificant for all the central and eastern statesestablisshing emergenceof acceleration in output growth. Highest magnitudeof c' (i e. 0.0007) demonstrates a far greater
improvemenit in ftodgraill.ns Output growth

in WestBengal thiani in any other estate. Againi estimates of 'b' are either statisticallynonsignificant (as in case of Madhya Pradesh, Assam andB ihar)or significantbutnegative (as forWestBengal anid Orissa).They imply stagnationiwitlh fluctuations in output in period( I in the former three states and fluctuations accompaniie( by significant depressionor negative trencl in outputin the latter two, i e. West Bengal anidOrissa. Lastly, non-significance of both 'b' and 'c' together witlhrelatively lower value of R2(i e. 0.66) for Rajasthanimplies absence
of sustained positive growth in foodgrains

outputin the cntir-e period along with a highi degree of weather-in(luced instabilityin the fooclgrains sector of Rajasthan. VII

possibility of significant cent). Though thepace of expanssion recducecd foodgrain sector.

State Level Performance of Non-Foodgrains

lt is not enough to examine perform,ance of foodgrains alone. GroWtliin output of non-foodgrainstoo is crucialin determining aggregate performance of agriculture, depending upon theirrelative sshare in crop to the extent that the pattern.Furthermore. for non-fooclgraitns is inmore demanld income theyenjoy relativelyhigherprice ela.sticanld over the foo(dgrainls advalntage theirrelative March 25. 1995

Significant anid high positive value of 'b' but significant and negative 'c' establislh decelerationi in outputgrowthin Maharashtra from highlpositive girowtlh rate in the ear-ly period. In Gujar-at, positive but relatively moderategrow(ltin the early phase appears to have bee:nreplaced by high fluctuations in outputin the.secornd period.Indeedl a very fit of quadraticand the lower value of pCoor

EconiomicanidPolitical Weekly

-weightage in aggregate production index may be even greaterthantheirsharein crop pattern. That is why, deceleration in performance of foodgrains in any region by itself need notbe acause forconcern so long as acceleratedgrowthin productionof nonfoodgrainsneutralisesthe depressingeffect of the former and leads to non-decelerated or even accelerated growth in aggregate index of production.Likewise, accelerated of foodgrains if achieved growth performance atthecost of considerablesetbackto growth in output of non-foodgrains may lead to deteriorationin the overall performanceof crop productionsector.Therefore, we need to analyse more carefully the performanceof non-foodgrains at the state level. Large number of noni-foodgrain crops such as oilseeds. fibre crops. condiments, andspices. vegetables andl fruits,plantation crops. etc, are grown in different parts of

for many states growthperformancein the 1980s represented a fargreater improvement over thatin the 1970s. The most distinct and importantfeatureof growth was that in all the regions other than the southern,unlike the past, growthrelied dominantlyon yield increase,thoughin a few instancesexpansion in areatoo complementedit, leading to very high growth rates. Inthe southernregion, which experienced pronouncedshift in areafromfoodgrainsto non-foodgrains,performanceof almost all the non-foodgrains in all the four states in periodII was satisfactoryandfarbetterthan thatof foodgrains as a whole, as also better than their own performance in period 1. Exceptionswere only of cotton andtobacco in Andhra Pradesh and groundlnut in in which case outputgrowthwas Karnataka
non-significant in the 19980s.Area expansion

contributedheavily to growth in output of all the major non-foodgrainsin this region. thecounti-ydepending upon theiradaptability to local agr-o-climatic conditions and their the remarkable exception being of cotton in relative profitability vis-a-vis foodgrains. Karnataka.Yield per hectare of cotton in Karnataka increased at the rate of 9.63 per Types of crops growni and their relative weightage in the crop pattern vary cent in period II, a rate higher than that over the states.Hence, it would realisedevenina progressive consiiderably .state likePunjab idealif we hadstatelevel aggregate (7.93 per cent). Thus, there is a reason to lhavebeen index nurMbers of area. production and believe that by and large superior of all non-fo(xigrains combined performanceof non-foodgrains must have productivity of states compensated more than adequately poor forjudgingthe rtlativeperformanice in respect of non-toodgraincrops. But such growth performance of foodgrains in thie comprehensivestatisticsforall theyears and southern region. Among the four state.s, the states are not available. Therefore, we however, AndhraPradeshseems to be the have triedto evaluate performanccof states only statewhereunsatisfactory performance with the help of two types of anialytical of cotton and tobacco might have exercises. overshadowedimpressive growtlh in output The first one involves scrutiny of the of groundnut(CAGR = 6.97 per cent) and CAGRs of area, production anidyield per cihillies (CAGR = 7.43 per cent) thereby hlectac fol- the major nionI-foodgrainlcrops depressing overall performance of nonin all the major states growing them. It is foodgrains in the 1980s. supplementedby the second exercise whichi Incontrastto satisfactoryperformanceof is restrictedto a few selected states,.where non-foodgrainsin the southernregion,their we compare groMlh in SI)P gener;atedin output growth more or less remaiined with thatin the state's foodgrain depressedin thewesterniregion. agriculture Exceptions output antd output of its major non- wereof cotton in Maharashtra rapeseeds ancd
foodgrains. in Gujarat. Output of cotton. the ma'jornonfoodgrain cr-opof Maharashtra (accounting

of bothgroundnutandcotton, Gujarat's two major non-foodgrain crops was disastrous duringthis period. It may be a reflection of the recurrence of bad-weather years in succession since the mid-1980s in the state andthus underscoresthe need for a rigorous specificationof weathervariableto evaluate its performance,more accurately. By and large all the states from the n6rthwestern, central and the eastern regions of India, the regions which performed exceedingly well in respect of growth in foodgrains output did equally well with regard to their major non-foodgrains too, particularly the oilseeds, cotton and sugarcane.In these states growth in output was moderate to high in respect of many non-foodgrains-. From among them the performance of West Bengal, Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan was much more impressive than that of others. VIII

Non-Foodgrains in Agricultural Economy of States

In orderto reinforce conclusions reached in the last section as also to demon.strate the crucialinfluenice of non-foodgrainis over the state'saggregateperformance in agriculture, we comparegrowthin SDP fromagriculture with the state's growth rates of foodgrains and non-foodgrainsoutputfor the two subperiods(columns2 and3 inTable9). Relative of fooclgrains andnon-foodgrains importance in the state's agriculturaleconomy and in the aggregate national production is al$o indicated by theirsharesin thestate'scroppecd area and in the all-Indliaproduction under columnis4 and 5 respectively, in the same table.Thisillustrative exercisewas restricted to only six states, two from the southern region ancltheotherfourfrom.the remainting regions. Our choice of the states was guidedlby the special features of the non-foodgrains output growth displayed by these states in the 1980s. The two southernstates, iamely, Kerala and Andhlra Pracdeshtopped in diver-sionof area from foodgrains to nonfoodgrains. Area under foodIgr-ainls declinecd

To keep the piresenit paper withinl the manageable limit in the discussion that follows we presient initiailly the broad overview of the state-level performanceof thie major non-foodgrains based on the -tatewise and cropwise CAGRs listedi in Table %.Thi.s is followedb y ourfinal a.sses.;sment regarding relative performaniceof states in increasing the outputof non-f0ocdgrainswith the helpof the second illustrative exercise. Incidentally. it also demonstrates the role played by non-foodgrains in the selected states in improving overall agiiculturalperformancein the recentyear-s. Productionof majorityof non-foodgrain crops expanded at moderate to hiiglh rates of growth in many states in period II (Table 8). Noticeable deviationisfrom this trendwere only of jute in the easternregion and tobacco in the .southernl region. Again,

for neatrly 13 per cent sshare of totalcropped area) expanded at the moderaterate of 2.5
the post-green revolution per cenitthl-oughlout

period. But the production of three other crops, namely, groundnut. sugarcane and chillies did not register significant growth in the 1980s. This representeda contrastto a far higlher rate of growtlh in the sugarcane of Maharasihtia (i e, 6.59 per production cent) registered in period I. On the whole therefore, the performanice of the non-

in these states at the CAGR of -3.79 percenit -1.76 percenlt (Kerala)ancl (Andhra Pradesh) in the 1980s. The other four, namely, West Bengal, Rajasthani.Haryana and Punjab showed exceptionally good pertformance in increasing the non-foodgrains output without significant diversion of area away from foodgrains. In fact, two ot them. i e, foodgrain sector in Maharaslitra was less PunjabandWest Bengal representtheother satisfactoryin the 1980s. asto the extreme. They have surpassedevery other comparedi statein expandlinig the areaunderfocdgrains early periodl of the green revolution. Among all the states, Gujaratwith neiarly in the recent years at the rate of 1.23 per 50 per cent of its crcopped area under non- cent anid0.99 percenitrespectively (column 5. foodgrains per-formediworse witlh regalrd to Table 5). growth in theiroutputin the 1980s witlhthe theagricultural Non-foodgrain.s clominate uniqueexceptionofrapeseedls." Performance economy oftKerala.Theirshlare in thle state'.s

Economic and Political Weekly

March 25. 1995

A-1l

croppattern. increasedatunprecedented rates of 17 percent and6.89 percent respectively. Indeed, there was across the board accelerationin growthratesbetweenthetwo sub-periods for all' the major crops in Haryana.But it was muclhsteeperfor Inotnfoodgrainsas comparedto loodgrains.This explainsrise in SDP growthratefor Haryana from 2.93 per cent in period I to 4.77 per cent in period II. With85 percentshareinthestate'scropped area,foodgrainsdominateoverwhelmingly the agriculturaleconomy of Punjab. The only non-foodgrain crop, worth the name, grown in the state is cotton. It occupies 10 per cent of the state's cropped area and claims 23 per cent share,the highest among allthestates, intheall-Indiacotton prxluction. Though foodgrains output growth decelerated in Punjab from about 6 per cent in period I to 4 per cent in period II. therewas steep rise in output growth rate for cotton from 3.25 per cent to 9.14 per cent andlin its yield perhectarefromOpercent to nearly 8 per cent. As a consequence growth in agriculturalSDP moved up in Punjabfrom 3.47 per cent in the early phase of the greei revolution to4.77 percent in its latterphase. withtheirsharein gross cropped arearanging Thus, it is important t) recognise thatboth from 68 per cent in Rajasthanto 85 per cent in Punjaband Haryanaacceleratedgrowth in Punjab (column 4 in Table 9). Among in productivityof non-foodgrainsplayed a them West Bengal revealed exemplaiy very crucial role in pushing the growth of in increasingits foodgrainsand agriculture'sSDP close to 5 per cent in the performance non-foodgrains output (particularly of latter phaseu of the green revolution. rapeseedsandpotato)in the 1980s.Naturally, Punjab being mainly responsible for it was reflected in its very high growth in India's success in the early phase of the SDP from agriculture (CAGR = 6;88 per green revolution. its subsequent growth cent) between 1981-91 higherthan anyother recordis crucialforunderstanding the future states. Rajasthani, Haryana and Punjab course of output growth in Hai-yana as also followed West Bengal with rise in theirSDP the other states of India where foodgrain.s from agricultureat the rateof 4.91 per cent. dominate the crop patternl.Hence, a few 4.77 percent and4.77 percentr espectively. additional comments on the naturc of its Raj a.sthanregisteredsecoudhighestgrowth performance would be helpful. rate in respect of SDP from agriculture in Thiere has beenapprehensionthiat it would period II, stagnation in its foodgrains bedifficultto acceleratefurtherproductivity notwith.sfanding. It w-as the re.sult of growthin Punj ab andthereforea .shift of area

croppedareahas reachedthe level of 76 per cent in the recent years with the share of foodgrains dropping,to just 24 per cent. Keralaenjoys monopoly in production of rubber and pepper while its share in the country's coconut production is nearly 50 per cent. Its agricultural performance in period I was very poor with stagnation in SID geenerated in agricultureto which poor performance of boththefoodgrainsandnonfoodgrains must have contributedequally. But therewas markedrevival in SDP growth from agriculture(CAGR = 2.75 per cent) in periodII,despitesignificantabsolute decline in the foodgrainsoutput at the rate of -2.29 per cent duringthe same period. It was the result of rapid expansion in output of its majorcommercial crops with their rates of growthrangingfrom 3 per cent (rubber)to 9 per cent (pepper)in the 1980s (column 3, Table 9). In AndhraPradesh,mainly a foodgrains growingstate,even in the 1980s, performance of agriculture in period I was relatively satisfactory with the CAGR of SDP from agriculturebeing 2.48 per cent. It reflected a much better performance of foodgrains (CAGR = 3.44 per cent) in addition to very high growth (15.21 per cent) in the cotton output,butpoorperformanceof groundnut, its majornon-foodgraincrop, as also of the other minor non-foodgrain crops. In the 1980s, however, growthin agricultural SDP decelerated to 1.81 per cent due to much steeperreduction in foodgrains outputgrowth (i e, from 3.44 percent to 1.32 per cent) and stagnationin outputof cotton and tobacco. High growthinproductionof groundnu t and chillies(atabout 7 percent)couldnotimprove the state's overall growth performance. In sum, significant revival in the nonfoodgrains sector in the 1980s ihadcrucial impacton agriclture's aggregate perfornance in Keralabut mixed performanceof major non-foodgrainswas not adequateenough to compensate for significant deceleration in thefoodgrainseconomy of AndhraPradesh. Foodgrains dominate the agricultural economy of the other four selected states

unprecedented high growth in the state's of almost all the non-foodgrainssuch outp.ut asoilseeds,cotton,chillies,coriander, onions, guarseeds etc. Their output growth rates rangedfrom 7.08 per cent to 16.64 per cent. More importantly,growth depended, to a largeextent,on improvement inproductivity and not on diversion of area away from *foodgrains. Indeed, in the absence of significant growthin foodgrainsoutputand withonly 32percentsshar.e ofnoi-foodgrains in the state's cropped area (in 1990-93) the rise in agriculturalSDP at the rateof nearly 5 percent is themostcreditableachievement for the state like Rajasthan. Similartowhathappenedin WestBengal, in Haryana tooproduction of bothfoodgrains and non-foodgrains expanded rapidlly in period II. Outputof rapeseeds and cotton, the twomajornon-foodgrains,whichclaims
more than 20 per cent share in Haryania'.s

away fromrice andwheat to high value nonfoodgraincropsparticularly thehorticultural crops with an accent on their processing is necessary to sustain growth in agricultural incomes. But the analysilsof crop .statistics presented in this paper clearly shows that as yet there is no distinct indication of an emergence of such sshiftin Punjab. On the contrary,positive expansion in area under
foodgrains (i e rice and wheat) continues

though naturallyat a rate fairly lower than that in the 1970s. By now, all the other traditionalcereals and crops like gram and groundnuthave been almost totally wiped out from the state thereby exposing agricultureto hazardsof intensive inigation combined with monoculture thereby threatening its long-term sustainability. Certainly,theabsenceof decisively superior
technology and price incentives as also of

the assured market support to crops other thanrice and wlheat must be responsiblefor this phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is evident thatthe fathmers in Punjabhaveutilised to amaximumextent the opportunities providedl by the recent
teclhniological advances in production of

cotton to push up growth in agricultural incomes. The lesson is, fargreaterimprovement in techlniological, infrastructural and price supportwould be neededin persuading the ftrmners to shift from foodgrains to nonfoodgrainis,especially in the regions where traditionallyfoodgrains dominate the crop pattern. Ix Concluding Remark,s Ouranalysisof Inlia's agricultural growth
aci-oss crops and regionis in the post-green

revolution period unfolds interesting dimensions of the new trends and patterns emergedin tl}e1980s. One thing is clearthat tlhere must be an upsurge, a -significant one. in the growth of aggregate productionand productivity in Indian agriculture and it canniotbe attributed merely to a favouurable weather. The fact that the role played by yield improvementin in(lucinghiglheroutput growtlh hacs been farmoreimportantthan that of expansioni in areaindicatesthattheprocess of growth has been techniologicallymore dynamic too. Whileacceleration inyield growthin recent
years has been significant forcrops like rice,

maize, other pulses, rapeseeds. seasamum, soyabean,rubberandcotton, formanyother to expandat therates crops yields conitinued close to theirpre-1981 levels. Again. unlike the past, enhancemenit in yield growtfthad
been more impress-ive fornon-foodgrains as

compared to foodgrains and among the foodgrains for kharif foodgrains vis-a-vis the rabi foodgrains. This is an indicationof a muchwiderdiffusion of teclhnology across the crop.sthan in the past.

A-12

Economic and Political Weekly

March 25t 1995

Yet another distinguishiAg character of agricultural growth in the 1980s has been its wider dispersalover the regions. This is evident from the fact that the foodgrains output growth picked up in many less developed areas from the central and the eastern regions where growth had been sluggish in the early phase of the green revolution. Moreover, with fairly rapid expansion inproductivity of non-foodgrains, growth in agricultural incomes too acceleratedin majority of the states in the 1980s. In sum, with the wider dispersal of growth acrosscropsandregions, agricultural growth has become more broad-based in recentyears. Whatdo the regional trends and patterns tell us about future course of agricultural growth in different regions of India? The performanceof the westernregion has been most unsatisfactoryin the 1980s among all the regions of India, as also comparedto its own performancein the 1970s. This may be interpretedas an indication of increasing preference to non-agricultural sectors involving a shift of resources away from thispredominantly agriculturein dryfarming region."2 Nevertheless, the role played by adverseweather conditions and the greatly reduced pace of expansion in irrigation in depressingproductiongrowth in the 1980s in this region cannot be ignored. Hence, we believe that for ascertaining direction of futurechange in agriculturein the western region it is necessary to undertake a more carefulevaluationof thegrowthperformance by including rigorous specification of weather variable in the trend function and covering a few more years, from the 1990s. Fromamong the remaining four regions, thesouthernregion shows a distinctdownturn in the foodgrains output growth. The trend is mainlycausedby ashiftof areaawayfrom foodgrains and is accompanied by a more thancompensatorygrowth in the output of Thisnew trendtowardsnonnon-foodgrains. foodgrains is unlikely to get reversed in future. On the contrary, it may get further consolidated withtheincreasinglypromising opportunitiesfor the agriculturaland agrobasedexportsemergingdue to liberalisation oftheIndianeconomy.Is thesouthernregion thenexpectedtomove towardsspecialisation in non-foodgrains?This would very much dependuponthepace of development of the agro-processingindustryandinfrastructure forfarmexportsas also theextentof efficient mobilisation of foodgrain surpluses from the other regions to the southern region. In the north-westernregion, though high growth in foodgrains output at the rate of about4 per cent continued in the 1980s, the growth experience of Punjabdemonstrates thatsustenanceof high growthin agriculture techno-economic environment withincurrent would be increasingly difficult in future.'3 Crop diversification, howsoever desirable

forsustaining highgrowth,wouldnotreceive momentum, unless economically more attractive anddecisively competitiveoptions to rice and wheat crops come forth. Keeping in view the likely deterioration of the foodgraineconomy in thewesternand southern parts of India and the declining prospectsof highgrowthin foodgrains output and yield in the north-western states, it appears inevitable that the central and the eastern regions have to share increasingly the burden of India's food security in the years to come. Fortunately, not only the potential to achieve this goal has been promisingin these two regions, buttheyalso have demonstratedthe ability to do so by responding positively to the special policy initiativesprovidedin the 1980s andmoving away from the early scenario of sluggish growth. A greater thruston these policies anda commitmentof adequateresourcesfor their implementation would therefore be neededto stepupfurther thetempoof growth in this region. Thus in ourjudgment, past trendsjustify the hope for a betterfuture.Whatis required for its realisation is to strengthen the policies and programmes for broadening further the base of agriculturalgrowth and making it more sustainable.In this context, the role of increased public investment in technological and infrastructural development for agriculture hardly needs to be underscored.A real task lies in achieving increasingly higher inter-crop and interregional dispersal of investment and its improvedutilisation.

Notes
(The authors are grateful to M L Dantwala for suggesting this topic for the study and also for his comments on the earlier draft of the paper. However, they are solely responsible for errors and omission in the present paper.]

1 ShettySL(1990): 'InvestmentinAgriculture: Brief Review of Recent Trends', Economic and Political Weekly,Vol XXV, Nos 7 and 10 8, February 17-24. Rath N (1989): GrowthandInvestment 'Agricultural in India', 11 Journal of the Indian School of Political 12 Economy, Vol I, No 1, January-June, 64-83. 2 Rao C H H (1994): Agricultural Growth, Rural Poverty and Environmental Degradation, Oxford.University Press. 3 ForexamplereferMVNadkamni, 'Agriculture 13 and Environment'-Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXIX, No 28, July 9, 1994, 1021-22. 4 Additionally we also used the following two publications of the Ceutre for Monitoring. IndianEconomy, Bombay for obtainingcrop statistics for the years 1990-91 to 1992-93. (i) Performance of Agriculture in Major States, 1967-68 to 1991-92. July 1993. (ii) Performance ofAgriculture, 1980-81 to 1992-93, May 1994. 5 Aggregate cropped area may increase graduallydue to rise in croppingintensity or

additions to net sown area depending upon dev'elopmentof irrigation and technology. (i) Index numbersof productionof all crops are the weighted aggregates of production indices of various crops, weights being the' base year value coefficients of crops adopted from the CSO's national income returns, while the CSO's state domestic product (S DP) series providevalue of output in agriculturenet of all costs and consumption of fixed capital used in production. (ii) SDP series used for computation of CAGRs for the period I, i e, 1968-69 to 1981-82 are at 1970-71 prices while those used for period II, i e, 1981-82 to 1990-91 are at 1980-81 prices. Growth in foodgains productivity both in period I and II at the rate higher than 3 per centin AndhraPradesh can be explainedwith reference to continued expansion in the net irrigated area throughout the post-green revolution period in the state. Again, for marginal decline in foodgrains productivity growthin periodIfin Kamatakaandmarginial improvementin Keralasimilarchanges in the rate of expansion in irrigated area under foodgrains must be partially responsible. However, net irrigatedarea remainedalmost unchanged in Tamil Nadu between.1970-71 and 1990-91. This appearsto be inconsistent with the estimate of high grou4 rate in foodgrains productivity (4.1 per cent) and hence requires careful scrutiny of the crop statistics for Tarnil Nadu. In addition to adverse weather conditions i nthe 1980s, negligible expansionin irrigation i e, only 5 per cent as against35 per cent rise in net irrigated area in the 1970s must be responsible for decline in foodgrains output growth rate in Maharashtra.In respect of Gujarat, however, higher frequency of monsoon failures mustbe mainly responsible for acute stagnation in foodgrains output, thoughexpansion in ifrigatedareatoo slowed down from 66 per cent in 1970s to 25 per cent in 1980s in the state. A view has been expressed thatthe reliability of the basic crop data of West Bengal for the 1980s is doubtful (Ray S Datta, Economic and Political Weekly,July 6, 1994; 1883-84). However, in absence of any authoritative judgment on this controversy, we prefer to ignore it, in the context of the present siudy. Rao C H H (1994); op cit, pp 6 and42. Nearly 75 per cent area under rapeseeds is irrigated in Gujarat. Ahluwalia Deepak, 'GrowthPerformancein IndianAgriculture',Journalof lndianSchool of Political Economy, Vol 3. No 4, OctoberDecember 1991. Growth in area under foodgrains in Punjab has been reducedto half in the second period (i e, from 2.34 per cent in period I to 1.23 per cent in period II) and there is almost no scope for fifrther expansion in area. Productivity growth for foodgrains too deceleratedfrom 3.33 per cent in period I to 2.54 per cent in period II (Table 5). With the currentlevel of irrigationin the state being 95 per cent and area under rice and wheat accountingfor 94 per cent of the croppedarea under foodgrains sustenance of high growth in foodgrains output would be increasingly difficult in the'north western region.

Economic and Political Weekly

March 25, 1995

A-13