green revolution versus instability in foodgrain production in india

Green Revolution Versus Instability in Foodgrain

Production in India Jai Pal Singh

India has exhibited a remarkable growth in total foodgrain production during the last 40 years. Total foodgrain production has increased by 236% with an annual growth rate of 2.74% during the period 1950/51-1989/90. Average production increased by 72% between periods 1950/51-1965/66 (pregreen revolution) and 1966/67-1989/90 (green revolution). These increases have been accompanied by higher instability and risk in production of certain crops. This study applies variance decomposition procedures to time series data on foodgrains to analyse the sources of instability. Statistical identities have been used to provide an exact decomposition of the components of change in mean and variance of production. The coefficient of variation and variance of total foodgrain production increased by 6.97 and 239.65%, respectively, between the two periods. 0 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

India, predominantly an agricultural country, has been striving hard to cope with the increasing demand for food to feed its exploding population. It has been successful in its endeavor up to a considerable extent, as witnessed by a remarkable growth in foodgrain production during the last four decades. Total foodgrain production has increased by 236% (or 119.85 million tons) with an annual growth rate of 2.74% during the period 1950/51-1989/90. After the introduction of green revolution technology, average foodgrain production increased by 72% (or 51.22 million tons) between periods 1950/51-1965/66 (pregreen revolution) and 1966/67- 1989/90 (green revolution). These increases have been accompanied by higher instability and risk in production of certain crops. The

The author is thankful to Prof. S.D. Chamola, Prof. R.N. Pandey of the Department of Agri- cultural Economics, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, and the referee of the journal, whose comments were valuable in improving the quality of the article.

J.P. Singh is ScientistlAssociate Professor of Statistics in the De- partment of Agricultural Economics, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.

Agribusiness, Vol. 9, No. 5, 481-493 (1993) 0 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0742-4477/93/050481-13

48 2

coefficient of variation and variance of total foodgrain production increased by 6.97 and 239.65%, respectively, between the two periods.

Growth and instability in agriculture, as a matter of concern, has become a worldwide popular topic for research. Ray1 gave two specific purposes for which these measurements were usually made: (1) to examine whether the new technology has helped to accelerate crop production; and (2) to examine whether the new technology has made crop production more stable or unstable. So far, no conclu- sive answers settling the above two issues have been provided by research scientists.

Rao2 argued that because variability in yields tended to be greater than that of area productivity-based growth had contributed to greater variability in output. Barker et al.” showed that new technology resulted in greater variability and provided evidence that yields of crops grown with new technologies had larger variances.

To examine any possible association between new technology and production variability, Mehra4 carried out a study on instability in production between two periods, 1950/51-1964/65 (before the introduction of new technology, i.e. , pregreen revolution) and 1967/68-1977/78 (after the introduction of new technology, i.e. , green revolution) for India both at the national and state levels. She found that the standard deviation and coefficient of variation of production for all crop aggregates increased in the latter period as compared with the former and argued that much of this increased instability in total foodgrain production was caused by the widespread adoption of the improved seed/fertilizer-intensive technologies since the mid-1960s. Further, fluctuations in yield turned out to be the dominant force behind production instability.

With more complex identities and algebraic manipulations, Hazel15 examined the sources that might have caused the change in variance of India’s total cereal production between periods 1954/55-1964/65 and 1967/68-1977/78. Hazel1 estimated that the variability in total cereal production for all India increased by 342% between the two periods. Almost the same conclusions were drawn by Hazel16 while comparing the sources of increased instability in India cereal production with U.S. cereal production. Similar arguments were made by Walk- er7 and HazelL8 Singh and Gangwar9 gave similar remarks regarding instability in cereal production in Haryana, India.

The yields of crops grown with the new technologies seem more sensitive to weather and disease. Their yields are also sensitive to year-to-year variations in input use, as they require higher use of modern inputs arising from frequent price changes or restrictions in supplies.

More than one decade has passed since H a ~ e 1 1 ~ 7 ~ analysed this problem in the Indian context. By now, green revolution has matured and the adoption of improved seedlfertilizer-intensive technologies is widespread. Also about 7.0% more area has been put under irrigation and fertilizer consumption has increased by about 100% during 1977/78-1989/90. Plant protection measures have been adopted extensively and the use of high-yielding varieties of seeds has increased manifold. Certain production-stabilizing policies like prices and supply of inputs also have been implemented. They together have increased total food production considerably. These developments provide a reasonable basis to look into the problem afresh to revise the inferences and predictions based upon the data from

FOODGRAIN PRODUCTION IN INDIA 483

initial years of the green revolution. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to analyse the available data to document the changes that have occurred in the average area, production, and yield and identify the important components of the changes in average production and variability of foodgrains in India.

DATA AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS

All the major food crops, namely, rice, wheat, jowar (sorghum), bajra (pearlmil- let), maize, barley, ragi (fingermillet), gram (chickpea), and arhar (pigeonpea), have been included in the study. All other (residual) food crops have been taken together. Wheat, barley, and gram are grown during rabi (winter season) whereas rice, jowar, bajra, maize, ragi, and arhar are grown during kharif (rainy season). Only food crops grown for grains have been taken into account and no distinction has been made between grain produced for human or livestock consumption.

Like Mehra4 and H a ~ e l l , ~ , ~ the production variability has been measured in two time periods, the pregreen revolution and the green revolution. The former preceded the introduction of the improved seed/fertilizer technologies and the latter followed its adoption. The first period of 16 years ranged from 1950/51 to 1965/66 and the second period of 24 years ranged from 1966/67 to 1989190. The relevant time series data on area, production, and yield (production per hectare) were obtained from various published sources, mainly, Area and Produc- tion of Principal Crops, and Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, both published by Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Coopera- tion, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.

Year-to-year fluctuations in areas sown and yields of each crop reflect the influence of long- and short-term sources of variations. By assuming an indepen- dent and deterministic long-term trend in each variable (HazelF), the arealyield data for each crop and period were detrended through quadratic equation by regressing the logarithm of area and yield on time and square of time (Brem- ponglO) using ordinary least squares estimation technique. The residuals cen- tered on the mean areadyields for each period were used as the primary data for analysis. Detrended production for each crop and period were obtained by multi- plying the detrended area and corresponding yield data. Unlike Mehra4 and H a ~ e l l , ~ , ~ the data for drought years (1965/66 (in the first period) and 1966/67 and 1987/88 (in the second period) have been included in the study because none of the values lie outside the range, mean 2 3 SD, for each crop and period in both the detrended series of area and yield.

Like H a ~ e l l , ~ . ~ variance decomposition procedure has been applied to data on crop production to identify the sources of instability in Indian foodgrain production. Statistical identities have been used to provide an exact decomposition of the components of change in the mean and variance of food crops and total foodgrain production between two periods. This approach is different from the usual econometric approach. This method of analysis does not impose any behav- ioural assumptions on the data, and without any assumption about how the real world works is able to identify the important components of increased foodgrain production instability (Hazel15). Once these components are identified, analytic work can tackle the problem of understanding how they come about and how they may be changed through policy intervention.

484 SINGH

Let P denote production, A the area sown, and Y the yield. Then, for each crop P = AY. As shown by Goodman" and Bohrnstedt and Goldberger,12 the variance of production, V(P), can be expressed as

V(P) = A2V(Y) + P V ( A ) + 2AYCov(A,Y) - Cov2(A,Y) + R (1)

where A and Y denote the mean areas and yields and R is a residual term. Clearly, a change in any one of these components will lead to a change in V(P) between two periods of time. Similarly, average production, E(P), can be expressed as

E(P) = AY + Cov(A,Y) (2) It is affected by changes in the covariance between area and yield and by changes in mean area and yield. The objective of the decomposition analysis is to parti- tion the changes in V(P) and E(P) between the first and second periods into constituent parts, which can be attributed separately to changes in the means, variances, and covariances of areas and yields. The method for the decomposition of average production is presented because of its simplicity. However, it adequately illustrates the principles involved.

Using eq. (2), average production in the first period is

E(P,) = AIYl + Cov(A1,Y,) (3)

and in the second period is

E(P2) = A,Y2 + Cov(A,,Y,) (4)

Each variable in the second period can be expressed in terms of its counterpart in the first period plus the change in the variable between the two periods. For example,

A, = A, + A A

Equation (4) can, therefore, be written as

E(P,) = (A, + AA) (y, + AY) + Cov(A,,Y,) + ACov(A,Y) (5) The change in average production, AE(P), is then obtained by subtracting eq.

(3) from eq. (5). Thus,

AE(P) = E(P,) - E(P,) = AIAF + F,AA + A A A P + ACov(A,Y) (6)

which can be arranged as in Table I. The change in the variance of production, AV(P), can be decomposed in the same way and arranged as in Table 11.

Table I. Components of Change in Average Production.

Source Components of Change

Change in Mean Yield Change in Mean Area Interaction between Changes in

Mean Area and Mean Yield Change in Area-Yield Covariance

A, A P Yl A A AA A P

A Cov ( A , Y )


Table 11. Components of Change in the Variance of Production.

Source Components of Change

Change in Mean Yield Change in Mean Area Change in Yield Variance Change in Area Variance Interaction between Changes in Mean

Change in Area-Yield Covariance Interaction between Changes in Mean

Interaction between Changes in Mean

Interaction between Changes in Mean

Yield and Mean Area

Area and Yield Variance

Yield and Area Variance

Area and Yield and Change in Area-Yield Covariance

Change in Residual

2A,A9 Cov(Y,,A,) + ( 2 9 A 29,AA Cov(Y,,A,) + (2A1M- + (AA)z)V(Y,)

+ (AE)z)V(Al)

(AAZAV(Y) ( 9 J 2 A V(A) 2 A Y u Cov(Y,,A,)

(24,Y1-- 2 Cov(Y,,A,))A Cov(Y,A) - (A Cov(Y,A))l (ZA,AA f (AA^)2)AV(r)

( 2 f , A 9 + (A9)2)AV(A)

(2E1AA + 2A1AF + 2AAAE)A Cov(Y,A)

AV(W) - sum of the other components

CHANGES IN AVERAGE PRODUCTION, AREA, AND YIELD

Total foodgrain production for all India increased on average by 51.22 million tons (or 72.14%) between the two periods (Table 111). A lion’s share, about 42.71 million tons (or 83.4%) of this increase was due to remarkable increases in average production of only wheat (22.70 million tons) and rice (20 million tons) together. It was followed by 3.15, 2.36, and 1.83 million tons of increases in average production of maize, jowar, and bajra, respectively. Barley and gram observed decline in their average productions by 0.20 and 0.35 million tons, respectively. Ragi (by 0.56 million tons) and arhar (by 0.28 million tons) also observed marginal increases in their average production. The average production of other foodgrains (the residual ones) increased by 0.88 million tons. In terms of percentage changes, average wheat production observed the highest increase of 243.62% between the two periods. It was followed by maize (91.61%), rice (68.12%), bajra (52.16%), ragi (31.78%), and jowar (29.41%).

The average area sown with total foodgrains increased by 12.74% (or 14.14 million hectare) between the two periods. Wheat (8.47 million hectare) and rice (6.13 million hectare) together contributed the maximum (14.60 million hectare) toward this increase in the average area sown under total foodgrains. As a consequence of green revolution technology, a shift in area from jowar, barley, and gram to other crops, mainly rice, wheat, maize, and arhar, was also observed (Table 111). As more and more area has been brought under irrigation, the high- yielding varieties of wheat and rice become relatively more profitable. Also, the yields of jowar, barley, and gram are more likely to be affected by the vagaries of nature because these are grown mainly under rain-fed conditions whereas wheat and rice, grown under irrigated conditions, are almost certain (less risky) crops. Wheat recorded the highest increase of 69.75% in the average area sown between the two periods. In kharif, approximately 1.00 million hectare average area from jowar was shifted in to rice, maize, and arhar.

486

Table 111. Average Production, Area, and Yield.

Period -

Crop 1st 2nd

Change

Net %

Average Production (million tons) Rice 29.3771 Wheat 9.3163 Jowar 8.0161 Bajra 3.5154 Maize 3.4438 Barley 2.6454 Ragi 1.7648 Gram 5.1462 Arhar 1.7278 Other Foodgrains 6.0452 Total Foodgrains 70.9981

Rice 33.0006 Wheat 12.1369 Jowar 17.5025 Bajra 11.0862 Maize 4.0881 Barley 3.1742 Ragi 2.4135 Gram 8.8819 Arhar 2.4162 Other Foodgrains 16.3211

Average Area (million hectare)

Total Foodgrains 11 1.02 12 Average Yield (tondhectare)

Rice 0.8902 Wheat 0.7676 Jowar 0.4580 Bajra 0.3171 Maize 0.8424 Barley 0.8334 Ragi 0.7312 Gram 0.5794 Arhar 0.7151 Other Foodgrains 0.3704 Total Foodgrains 0.6395

49.3899 32.01 28 10.3739 5.3491 6.5987 2.4419 2.3242 4.7900 2.0089 6.9251

122.2141

39.1362 20.6029 16.5058 11.5871 5.7929 2.2640

7.3908 2.8383

16.5592 125.1624

1.2620 1.5538 0.6285 0.4613 1.1391 1.0784 0.9352 0.6481 0.7078 0.4182 0.9764

2.4852

20.0128 22.6965

2.3578 1.8337 3.1549

-0.2039 0.5594

-0.3562 0.281 1 0.8799

51.2 160

6.1356 8.4660

- 0.9967 0.5009 1.7048

-0.9102 0.0717

- 1.49 1 1 0.4221 0.2381

14.1412

0.3718 0.7862 0.1705 0.1442 0.2967 0.2450 0.2040 0.0687

-0.0073 0.0478 0.3369

68.12 243.62 29.41 52.16 91.61 -7.71 31.70 -6.92 16.27 14.55 72.14

18.59 69.75 -5.69

4.52 41.70

-28.67 2.97

- 16.79 17.47 1.46

12.74

41.77 102.42 37.23 45.47 35.22 29.40 27.90 11.86

-1.02 12.90 52.68

The changes, mostly increases, in the average yields were the major causes toward the increases in the average foodgrain production of almost all crops (Table 111). Better responsiveness of the high-yielding varieties toward higher doses of fundamental inputs and improved agricultural infrastructure could have been the main reason for this. Maize and arhar were the only two crops where the changes in areas were of greater consequences than the changes in average yields. The average yield for total foodgrains increased by 52.68% during the two


periods. Average yield of wheat showed an outstanding increase of 102.42% between the two periods. Bajra (45.47%), rice (41.77%), jowar (37.23%), maize (35.22%), barley (29.40%), and ragi (27.90%), gram (11.86%), and other foodgrains (12.90%) also observed substantial increases in their respective average yields. The increase in average yield of jowar was enough to compensate for the loss in average area sown, whereas barley and gram could not cover the losses in their average productions due to loss of average area sown despite the increases in their average yields.

Average production increases were accompanied by more than proportionate increases in the standard deviations of production for almost all crops (Table IV). Average production of total foodgrains increased by 72.14% whereas the standard deviation increased by 84.13%. Consequently, the coefficient of variation of total foodgrain production increased by 6.97% between the two periods. A similar trend emerged for all crops except wheat, arhar, and other foodgrains, where the increases in average production were higher in comparison with increases in standard deviation. Therefore, the coefficients of variation for these crops de- creased in the second period.

Table IV also shows the variability and relative risk in production (as measured by the coefficient of variation) of different crops. The coefficient of variation has

Table LV. Coefficients of Variation of Production and Yield.

Period Change

Crop 1st 2nd @)

Production Rice Wheat Jowar Bajra Maize Barley Ragi Gram Arhar Other Foodgrains Total Foodgrains

Rice Wheat Jowar Bajra Maize Barley Ragi Gram Arhar Other Foodgrains Total Foodgrains

Yield

7.83 7.93

10.05 13.28 7.10 9.55 9.14

10.24 10.72 8.07 6.31

6.80 7.21

10.37 10.01 6.06 7.44 9.49 9.22

11.02 6.66 5.16

8.39 7.53

11.20 24.80 11.58 13.70 11.96 15.05 10.25 7.44 6.75

6.55 5.32

10.45 20.61 10.90 8.10 8.94

11.32 9.83 6.78 5.19

7.15 -5.04 11.44 86.75 63.10 43.46 30.85 46.97 -4.38 -7.81

6.97

-3.68 -26.21

0.77 105.89 79.87 8.87

-5.80 22.78

-10.80 1.80 0.58

488 SINGH

changed considerably for all crops. Bajra experienced an 86.75% increase, the largest, in its coefficient of variation, showing bajra as the most risky crop, whereas wheat observed a decrease of 5.05% in the coefficient of variation, proving wheat the safest among all the crops. Production risk for maize, barley, ragi, and gram has increased considerably as the coefficient of variation for these crops increased in the second period. Crops like bajra, maize, barley, ragi, and gram, generally grown under rain-fed conditions (as they require less water), are relatively more risky as compared to rice and wheat, which are grown under assured irrigated conditions.

The relative risk in production has increased substantially for most of the crops; much of this increase must be attributed to increased variability in yield (Table IV). The relative risk in yields has increased substantially for fewer crops, like bajra (105.89%) and maize (79.87%), as compared to their relative risk in production for the reasons explained above. The coefficients of variation of average yield for jowar, barley, gram, and total foodgrains increased by 0.77, 8.87, 22.78, and 0.58%, respectively, whereas the corresponding increase in the coefficients of variation of average productions were 11.44, 43.46, 46.97, and 6.97%, respectively. Rice, wheat, ragi, and arhar experienced a considerable decline in their relative yield risks. Rice and ragi observed decline in their respective coefficients of variation of average yields whereas they observed increases in their coefficient of variation of average productions. Thus, the changes in relative yield risks were important variables explaining the changes in relative risks of production.

SOURCES OF INSTABILITY

Components of Change in Production Variability

Table V presents the components of change in the variance of individual foodgrains for all India.

Changes in yield variances accounted for large shares of the changes in the variance of production for most crops except wheat. They accounted for 88.96% of the increase in the variance of jowar production, followed by 62.68, 40.84, 28.72, and 192% of the increase in the variance of production of bajra, maize, rice, and other foodgrains, respectively. Change in the yield variance accounted for 37.88% of increase in the variance of total foodgrain production. Changes in the yield variance were of greater consequence in all the kharif (rainy season) crops, like rice, jowar, bajra, and maize. The large share of the increase in the variance of production due to changes in yield variances of rice, jowar, bajra, maize, and total foodgrains were consistent with large increases in the standard deviations (Table VI) of yields of these crops. A decline of 11.76% in the standard deviation of arhar yields explained the negative effect of changes in yield variance on the variance of arhar production.

Changes in mean yields accounted for small shares of the changes in the variance of production for most crops except barley and jowar, which accounted for 8 % (sixth largest) of the increase in the variance of total foodgrain production.

Changes in mean area were more important than changes in mean yield for all crops except jowar, bajra, and other foodgrains. They accounted for 157.85%, the largest, of the increase in the variance of arhar production, followed by 15

Table

V.

Com

pone

nts

of C

hang

e in

the

Var

ianc

e of

Pro

duct

ion

(%).

Cro

p

Oth

er

Tota

l R

ice

Whe

at

Jow

ar

Baj

ra

Mai

ze

Bar

ley

Rag

i G

ram

A

rhar

Fo

odgr

ains

Fo

odgr

ains

So

urce

Cha

nge

in M

ean

Yie

ld

Cha

nge

in M

ean

Are

a C

hang

e in

Yie

ld V

aria

nce

Cha

nge

in A

rea

Var

ianc

e In

tera

ctio

n be

twee

n C

hang

es

in M

ean

Yie

ld a

nd M

ean

Are

a C

hang

e in

Are

a-Y

ield

C

o-

vari

ance

In

tera

ctio

n be

twee

n C

hang

es

in M

ean

Are

a an

d Y

ield

V

aria

nce

Inte

ract

ion

betw

een

chan

ges

in M

ean

Yie

ld a

nd A

rea

Var

ianc

e In

tera

ctio

n be

twee

n C

hang

es

in M

ean

Are

a an

d Y

ield

an

d C

hang

e in

Are

a-

Yie

ld C

ovar

ianc

e C

hang

e in

Res

idua

l

Cha

nge

in t

he V

aria

nce

of

Prod

uctio

n

4.20

14

.75

28.7

2 3.

14

0.45

6.90

14

.99

10.5

1 3.

72

-1.1

5

14.9

8 - 12

.06

88.9

6 2.

73

-0.4

5

3.97

0.

85

62.6

8 1.

43

0.06

2.63

9.

87

44). 8

4 1.

87

0.56

23.8

8 -0

.90

5.24

0.

05

-49.

34

2.89

-2

5.70

15

7.85

77

.35

24.3

7 80

.94

-98.

26

138.

64

12.2

6 10

.33

29.9

0 -3

.18

-0.0

8 0.

25

0.10

w 0

20.4

0 8.

79

0

U

c,

20.7

1 3.

27

n 2

v z

-35.

08

16.6

2 0

55.5

9 8.

07

192.

06

37.8

8

0.34

0.64

2

19.0

0

11.6

8

14.3

8

19.7

5

-15.

09

-9.8

8

15.2

8

5.78

6.01

41.0

1

31.9

9 38

.32

-46.

88

80.1

7

-38.

03

1.44

-2

4.88

-3

7.07

3.16

11

.52

2.40

1.

60

1.55

93

.55

7.80

2.

61

-0.5

8 5.

72

4.29

12.9

8 35

.06

-4.4

2 8.

00

5.50

-2

.48

12.1

3 3.

18

12.9

9

1.92

224.

80

-15.

68

963.

42

32.8

3

108.

94

0.35

746.

55

-9.8

4

883.

26

-172

.38

1.77

94

.91

-45.

15

77.0

0 19

8.36

89

.57

23.8

9

-160

.29

-1.7

8

11.3

3 23

9.65

490

Table VI. Change in Standard Deviations of Yield and Area.

Crop

% Change in SD

Yield (Au,) Area (Au,,)

Rice Wheat Jowar Bajra Maize Barley Ragi Gram Arhar Other Foodgrains Total Foodgrains

36.23 49.19 38.19

204.67 144.01 40.96 20.39 37.71

-11.76 14.87 53.55

67.08 53.23 15.56 27.83 48.60

188.23 121.06 17.73 47.22 8.48

55.62

and 8.79% of the increase in the variance of wheat and total foodgrain production, respectively. Changes in mean area had a stabilizing effect on the variance of jowar, barley, and gram production but little effect to reduce/increase the variability of bajra and ragi production.

Changes in the variances of areas sown were of lesser importance in comparison of changes in yield variances for all crops except barley. Change in the area variance of barley had the largest contribution, 138.64% in destabilization of the barley production, and was consistent with a large increase of 188.23% in the standard deviation of barley area. Change in area variance contributed only 3.22% in the production variance of total foodgrains.

Changes in the covariances between areas and yields had destabilizing effects on the production of all crops except jowar, gram, and other foodgrains, where these changes largely contributed toward the stability of production of these crops. Change in the area-yield covariance was the largest component of change in the variance of production of ragi (38.22%) and second-largest component of change in the variance of production of bajra (15.28%) and total foodgrains (16.62%). These changes are largely in accordance with the changes in the area- yield correlations (Table VII).

Table V further reveals that the interaction terms were important sources of the changes in the variance of production. If added together, interaction terms accounted for about 66 (largest), 53, 48, 28, and 22% of the increases in the variance of production of wheat, barley, maize, rice, and total foodgrains, respectively.

Finally, changes in the residual term contributed substantially to changes in the production variances for jowar and gram and had stabilizing effects on production of wheat, maize, barley, arhar, other foodgrains, and total foodgrains.

Components of Change in Average Production

Components of change in mean production of individual foodgrains are reported in Table VIII. Changes in mean yield and mean area accounted for 72.98 and

FOODGRAIN PRODUCTION IN INDIA

Table VII. Area-Yield Correlations.

Period

Crop 1st 2nd

Rice 0.38 0.71 Wheat -0.16 0.58 Jowar 0.37 0.07 Bajra 0.38 0.58 Maize 0.54 0.38

Ragi -0.40 0.40 Gram -0.13 -0.37 Arhar -0.26 0.09

Total Foodgrains 0.60 0.69

Barley 0.49 0.22

Other Foodgrains 0.34 0.22

49 1

17.62%, respectively, of the increase in average production of total foodgrains. Changes in mean yields were more important than changes in mean areas for most crops except maize, barley, gram, and arhar, where the changes in mean areas were more important than changes in mean yields.

Changes in covariances between areas and yields had contributed negligibly toward the changes in the average production of all crops. Interaction effects between changes in mean yields and mean areas were considerably large for almost all crops except bajra, ragi, arhar, and other foodgrains. They accounted for 9.30, 110.94, 29.26, and 27.54% of the increase in average productions of total foodgrains, barley, wheat, and gram, respectively. Interactions were negative for jowar and arhar.

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Increases in average yields were more important than increases in mean areas toward the increases in average production of almost all food crops. Better responsiveness of high-yielding varieties to higher doses of the modern inputs and improved agricultural infrastructure seem to be the main reasons for the increases in yield.

Changes, mainly the increases in yield variance, area-yield covariance, and interactions, were of greater consequence for the variability of production of all crops. The larger contribution of interaction terms indicated that the simul- taneous changes in area and yield further enhanced the production instability. This could have been due to the aggregate effect of increased sensitivity to weather and diseases and year-to-year variations in input use arising from variable prices and erratic supply of water and modern inputs at the time of their requirement.

Production risk has increased considerably for rain-fed crops like bajra, maize, barley, ragi, and gram as compared to rice and wheat, which are grown on assured irrigated lands, Relative risk in yields has increased for fewer crops like bajra and maize as compared to relative risk in production.

Tab

le V

III.

Com

pone

nts

of C

hang

e in

Ave

rage

Pro

duct

ion

(%).

Cro

p

Sour

ce

Oth

er

Tota

l R

ice

Whe

at

Jow

ar

Baj

ra

Mai

ze

Bar

ley

Rag

i G

ram

A

rhar

Fo

odgr

ains

Fo

odgr

ains

Cha

nge

in M

ean

Yie

ld

61.1

8 41

.98

127.

14

85.7

2 38

.50

-386

.57

87.3

9 -1

69.8

3 -6

.00

88.7

3 72

.98

Cha

nge

in M

ean

Are

a 27

.24

28.5

8 -1

9.58

8.

48

45.3

4 37

7.11

9.

06

239.

12

106.

36

10.0

6 17

.62

Inte

ract

ion

betw

een

Cha

nges

in

11.3

8 29

.26

-7.2

6 3.

87

16.0

0 11

0.94

2.

49

27.5

4 -1

.04

1.30

9.

30

Mea

n A

rea

and

Mea

n Y

ield

C

hang

e in

Are

a-Y

ield

C

ovar

ianc

e 0.

20

0.18

-0

.30

1.93

0.

16

-1.4

8 1.

06

3.17

0.

68

-0.0

9 0.

10

Con

trib

utio

n of

Ind

ivid

ual

Cro

p to

39

.08

44.3

2 4.

62

3.58

6.

16

-0.4

0 1.

09

-0.7

0 0.

55

1.72

10

0.00

C

hang

e in

Mea

n Pr

oduc

tion

of

Tota

l Fo

odgr

ains


In coming years, there is little scope to add more land under cultivation due to fast urbanization and hence the growth of production due to area expansion. Therefore, growth in yield is the only option left to increase production.

Lower prices, smooth and timely supply of fertilizers and other inputs, increase in assured irrigation facilities, and timely availability of the critical inputs are the major production-stabilizing measures. In the long run, yield instability could be reduced by research to evolve high-yield varieties that are also resistant to common insects, pests, and diseases and suitable to different agroclimatic conditions.

Crop insurance, diversification, and buffer stocks may prove the best safe- guards against the risk of crop failures due to different reasons.

REFERENCES

1. S. K. Ray, “Instability in Indian Agriculture Revisited,” in Recent Advances in Agricultural Statistics Research, P. Narain, O.P. Kathuria, V.K. Sharma, and Prajneshu, Eds., Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi, 1991, p. 11.

2. C.H.H. Rao, Technological Change and Distribution of Gains in Indian Agriculture, Mac- millan Co. of India, Delhi, 1975.

3. R. Barker, E.C. Gabler, and D. Winkelmann, “Long-term Consequences of Technological Change on Crop Yield Stability: The Case for Cereal Grain,” in Food Security for Developing Countries, A. Valdes, Ed., Westview Press, Boulder, Co. 1981, p. 53.

4. S. Mehra, “Instability in Indian Agriculture in the Context of New Technology,” Research Report 25, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 1981.

5. P. B. R. Hazell, “Instability in Indian Foodgrain Production,” Research Report 30, Interna- tional Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 1982.

6. P.B.R. Hazell, “Sources of Increased Instability in Indian and U.S. Cereal Production,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 302 (1984).

7. T.S. Walker, “HYVs and Instability in Sorghum and Pearl Millet Production in India,” International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (mimeograph), Hyderabad, 1984.

8. P.B.R. Hazell, “Sources of Increased Variability in World Cereal Production Since the 1960s,” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 36, 145 (1985).

9. J.P. Singh and A.C. Gangwar, “Instability in Cereal Production in Havana: A Decomposition Analysis,” in Recent Advances in Agricultural Statistics Research, P. Narain, 0. P. Kathuria, V.K. Sharma, and Prajneshu, Eds., Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi, 1991, p. 130.

10. K. Gyimah-Brempong, “Export Instability and Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 39, 816 (1991).

11. L.A. Goodman, “On the Exact Variance of Products,” Journal of American Statistical Associa- tion, 55, 708 (1960).

12. G.W. Bohrnsted and A.S. Goldberger, “On the Exact Covariance of Products of Random Variables,” Journal of American Statistical Association, 64, 1439 (1969).

green revolution versus instability in foodgrain production in india

Documents