Research Plan Proposal

Regional Disparity in Agricultural Development:

A District Level Analysis for the State of Rajasthan

For registration to the degree of Ph.D.

Faculty of Social Sciences

Department of Economics
The IIS University, Jaipur

Submitted by

Sapna Newar
Enrollment No: ICG/2013/16419

Under the supervision of

Dr. Nidhi Sharma

Department of Economics
The IIS University, JAIPUR

Page 1 of 25
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction…………………………………………………. 3

Literature Review…………………………………………… 4

Objectives………………………………………………….... 17

Hypotheses…………………………………………………... 17

Methodology………………………………………………… 18

Bibliography……………………………………………….... 22

Page 2 of 25
 Regional Disparity in Agricultural Development:

A District- Level Analysis for Rajasthan

Introduction

For the overall development of a country like India, growth of agriculture sector is
a prerequisite. As the development of this sector not only helps the large section of
population dependant on it, but also affects the other sectors through forward and
backward linkages. There are very few studies conducted to measure inter-district
disparities in agriculture sector for the state of Rajasthan. Most of the studies
conducted earlier, have taken state as a unit for measuring disparities. In India
where some of the states are larger than many nations, there is need to conduct the
study at disaggregate level. Rajasthan which is largest state of the country, these
kinds of studies will help in identifying the factors responsible for disparities at
regional level and thereof will help in developing policies accordingly. The present
study is an attempt to analyse inter-district disparities in development of
agriculture sector in the state of Rajasthan. Shown in studies conducted earlier,
inter-district disparities in agriculture sector in the state have widened. Widening
inter-district disparities in the state is not only resulting in its low growth, but also
increasing dissatisfaction among the farmers of the less developed regions. The
main objective of the present study is to account for the reasons of disparities at
state and district level and to suggest the policy measures to achieve the target of
‘Inclusive Growth’.

Page 3 of 25
Review of Literature

There have been various studies in the field of agriculture. A few select studies
pertaining to prospects and challenges in the agriculture sector have been reviewed
here.

Rangarajan (1982) in his study analyzed the linkages between agriculture sector
and Industrial sector in India. Three types of linkages, namely demand,
production, saving and investment were discussed. The results of the report stated
that one percent increase in agricultural output increases the industrial production
by 0.5% and national income by 0.7%. The findings of the study corroborates the
experiences of Indian economy in the 1980s and 1990s.The trend growth rate of
3.2% in agricultural production during the 1980s contributed to the growth in
industrial production in the 1990s.

Eicher & Staalz (1998) in their book had taken in to account the recent
developments in agriculture across the countries in the world. Lessons taken in the
field of agriculture and rural development since 1950s in these countries have been
discussed. Three questions related to development of agriculture in middle and low
income countries have been addressed by authors. The questions were related to
role of agriculture in national development strategies and how can the agrarian
transformation be accelerated and how poverty can be reduced and more jobs can
be generated by rural economic development. Constraints imposed by some factors
like market failures, food insecurity, fiscally sustainable organizations,
environmental degradation, income and asset inequality, rural poverty, the
changing roles of the public and private sector in research, and input and output
marketing systems has also been discussed. In order to restructure their basic
economic institutions how different countries in the world fight with these

Page 4 of 25
constraints and for this purpose four case studies (China, Indonesia, Colombia, and
Sub-Saharan Africa) have been examined in this book.

Chand &Chauhan (1999) in their policy paper had shown regional disparities in
term of per hectare agriculture productivity and income among various states since
1980-81.The study had witnessed widening gap between developed and
underdeveloped, and, poor and rich states. Disparities in terms of per hectare
productivity and per rural person NSDP in agriculture among major states (16
states) for different year had been calculated through co-efficient of variation.
Results of the study showed that regional disparities in agriculture productivity
have increased from 36% during 1980-81 to 1984-85 to 40% during the later half
of 1980s and further increased to 43% during 1990s. Similar trend with higher
magnitude had been shown in per person NSDP. Inequality in land man ratio was
the reason stated in paper for these disparities and the study suggested that there is
need for more vigorous efforts on technological, institutional and infrastructural
fronts to raise productivity and to accelerate growth in agriculture sector.

Joshi (1999) in his book made a comparative analysis of growth of agricultural

sector in India and that in developed countries. The findings of the book show that
the production of wheat per hectare in Japan was three times more than that in
India and the production of rice per hectare in Egypt was five times more than that
in India and the production of cotton per hectare in U.S.A was five times more than
that in India. Even today the Indian economy is dependent on agriculture and
agriculture depends on monsoon. High rate of economic growth in India depends
on agriculture .Similarly the failure of crops retards the rate of progress. The book
suggested constant and concentrated attention is necessary in the economic policy
in new areas for new crops and amongst new farmers where the effect of green
revolution was not evident.
Page 5 of 25
Ferroni, Kohli & Sood (2000) studied performance of agricultural sector in India
over the past thirty years. Agriculture in India plays an important role in its overall
development and dynamism. However, a lot needs to be done in this sector to
sustain high economic growth of the nation. This book explores the future and put
the audacious question: what could the agricultural sector in India look like 30
years from now and how should it look if it is to successfully meet the needs of the
country’s affluent society? A number of recommendations has been suggested in
this book like public programs needed to be much more focused and effective;
recognizing the importance of the scant factor water- long term constraint to
India’s agricultural growth and should be given top priority to significantly
improving the efficiency of water use; promoting technological advancement, new
high-yield seeds , including mechanization, to improving yields and productivity;
improving the effectiveness of agricultural research and extension; support further
improvements of the farm-to-market value chain and reduce spoilage; and improve
markets and incentives related to agriculture through reforms of prices, trade, and
subsidies. The vision of what India’s economy in 2040 with an affluent and
modern agricultural sector should and can look like, will require fundamental
changes in both the demand and supply sides of Indian agriculture.

Narain,Shanna&Bhatia(2002) in their paper had estimated the level of

development of various districts of Madhya Pradesh. Technique of composite
index was used to estimate the level of development separately for agriculture,
industrial, infrastructure and socio-economic field. 45 districts were selected and
each district was taken as a unit of analysis. The study was carried out for the
year1994-95 on 47 indicators. Coefficient of variation and statistical technique
given by Narain et al.were applied to construct composite index. Wide disparities

Page 6 of 25
in the level of development at state level were found. Infrastructural facilities were
found to have positive association with the development of state.

Varma(2004) in his study analysed inter-regional economic inequalities in

Rajasthan with the objective to measure inter-district inequalities prevalent in
various sectors of the economy and livelihood. For this purpose this study selected
97 indicators pertaining to 12 sectors. On the basis of the nature of development,
32 districts of the state were ranked by using simple weighted average. First
ranking was done for each sector and then a composite rank for all the indicators
were assigned to each district in the study. Moreover in this study districts were
also ranked on the basis of allocation of plan outlays over the period 1993-
2001.Results of the study revealed that there was difference in allocated funds to
developed and backward districts. Highly developed districts were allocated more
funds than the extremely backward districts. The study ranked districts as
extremely developed(ED), highly developed (HD), developed ones, average and
backward districts on the basis of weighted average. The districts with weighted
average of above 70 were ranked as ED. Jaipur was ranked at the highest in this
category followed by Ajmer, Jodhpur and Kota. The districts with weighted
average between 50-70 were ranked as ‘medium level of development’;
Jhunjhunun, Ganganagar, Alwar and Sikar were ranked in this category. Pali,
Bikaner, Bhilwara and Nagaur were categorized as ‘developed’ ones. Districts with
‘moderate development’ came out to be Udaipur, Hanumangarh, Churu and
Bharatpur. The ‘average’ districts, according to this study were Chittoregarh,
Rajsamand, Sirohi and Tonk. The scores of ‘backward’ districts were very low in
almost all the sectors. In this category districts were Jaisalmer, Dhaulpur, Karauli,
Sawai Madhopur, Jalore, Banswara,Dungarpur, Barmer, Bundi, Dausa, Jhalawar
and Baran. The study suggested that better planning, deliberate policies and Road

Page 7 of 25
Map based on sectoral plans prepared for districts were required to remove inter-
district inequalities. A number of measures had been suggested to reduce inter-
district inequalities. A model had been suggested based on the assumption that 60
per cent of the fund allocation would be allotted for meeting out the committed
expenditure and state level programmes and remaining 40 per cent could be made
available to the district. The study also suggested other measures to reduce inter-
regional inequalities prevalent in various sectors of the economy.

Pardey, Julian & Roley (2006) in their book analyzed the importance of R&D in
agriculture in developing countries. The world's agricultural economy was
transformed remarkably during the 20th century and in this increasingly
interdependent world, both rich and poor countries have depended on agricultural
research conducted in the private and public laboratories of these few countries,
even if they have not contributed to financing the activity. The book thrown light
on the fact that Brazil, China and India -the three largest developing countries in
the world are making transition, but yet the investment in agricultural research and
development in these countries fall short of the requirement and to overcome this
chronic problem of underinvestment in agriculture research and development these
countries need to increase investment in these sectors. The book had also shown
that rich countries are now no longer interested in simple productivity
enhancement rather as income increases dietary patterns and other priorities
change, so the research agendas of the rich countries also shifted from emphasis on
enhancing the production of staple foods to an increasing emphasis on enhancing
certain attributes of food (such as growing demand for processed and so-called
functional foods) and on food production systems (such as organic farming,
humane livestock production systems, localized food sources, and "fair trade"
coffee). Food-security concerns are still pervasive in the poor countries. Certain

Page 8 of 25
suggestions have been documented to change pattern of investments in agricultural
R&D in less-developed countries.

Shenggen, Gulati & Thorat (2007) in their book reviewed the trends in
government subsidies and investments expenditure on Indian agriculture by
government and had shown the impact of these expenditures on agricultural growth
and poverty reduction in India. The authors had suggested several reform options
with regard to re-prioritizing government spending and improving institutions and
governance. The major findings of the book were that to make small farmers adopt
new technologies initial subsidies in credit, fertilizer, and irrigation are crucial,
because of the reason that small farms are often losers in the initial adoption stage
of a new technology reason being that the agricultural products prices are typically
being pushed down by greater supply of products from large farms which adopted
the new technology. But results had also shown that continued subsidies had led to
inefficiency in the overall economy. The book had also shown the three most
important areas - agricultural research, education, and rural roads of effective
public spending which had helped in promoting agricultural growth and poverty
reduction during all periods. The results of the study had shown that investment in
agricultural research, education, and infrastructure had large growth impact and a
large poverty reduction impact. Expenditure on agricultural input and output
subsidies was proved to be financially unsustainable, environmentally unfriendly
and unproductive which had contributed to increase inequality among rural Indian
states. The book suggested that the government should cut subsidies of fertilizer,
power, irrigation, and credit to provide a long-term solution to poverty reduction
and to sustain long-term growth in agricultural production. Investments should be
increased in agricultural research and development, rural infrastructure, and
education.

Page 9 of 25
EPW Report (2008) discussed the prevailing disparities at state, inter-state and
intra-state level and challenges imposed on agriculture sector in terms availability
of finance. State-wise analysis revealed that a substantial proportion of farmers
wanted to leave farming profession as now it is no longer profitable. Inter-regional
disparities had further widened and ground level credit shares of central or eastern
region had either declined or stagnated, in spite of increase in state income share of
almost all underdeveloped regions between 1993-94/1995-96 averages and 2002-
03/2004-05 averages. A number of measures have been suggested to meet the
target of ‘Financial Inclusion’.

Bhalla & Singh (2009) in their research article had thrown light on the changes in
Indian agriculture in terms of crop yields and total agriculture output in post
economic liberalization period(1990-93 to 2003-06) and compared it with pre-
reform period(1980-83 to 1990-93).To support the study the authors had studied
detailed data for 281 districts of India and provided district-wise analysis on
agricultural growth in India from the beginning of liberalization to the period of
slowdown in agriculture and rising farmer distress. The results of the study shows
that there was deceleration in the growth rate in crop yields as well as total
agriculture output in most of the states in India in post-reform period .The authors
had used the econometric techniques and statistical measures to analyze significant
issues related to agriculture in India. The paper discussed changes in cropping
pattern that have taken place in area allocation as well as in terms of value of
output. The results of the study had shown that slowdown in the process of
cropping pattern change meant that most government efforts to diversify
agriculture have failed to take off.

Reddy (2010) in his paper examined how regional disparities in A.P. had increased
since its inception and had suggested policy intervention to reduce these
Page 10 of 25
disparities. The author had used Gini-concentration ratio’s (GCRs) to calculate
agricultural production of two crops paddy and legume at district level and gross
irrigated area (GIA). Results had shown the Gini Ratio increased for GIA showing
that the benefits from land improvement/irrigation were increasingly concentrated
in a few districts. The author suggested that different districts of the state are
geographically not similar so there is need for different policy interventions
accordingly.

Bhalla & Singh (2010) carried out this study with a view to analyse the regional
patterns of levels and growth of agricultural output, productivity per agriculture
worker at district, state and regional levels. This report had used techniques like
cumulative frequency, Lorenz curve and econometric model to analyse the
disparities. This study was conducted to analyse the impact of new seed-cum-
fertilizer technology from 1990-93 to 2003-06 with special emphasis on 1991 since
if followed the introduction of economic reforms in India. The results of the study
had shown that prior to liberlisation Indian agriculture was protected from the
world competition and a huge amount of subsidies and various tariff concessions
were provided to promote private investment. After liberlisation in 1991,though no
direct reference was made to agriculture sector, but changes in macroeconomic
policy, exchange rate and trade policy, devaluation of the currency, reduction of
tariffs and reform of public enterprises put the agriculture sector in a tight corner.
The net effect thus was agriculture sector had negative protection and was
discriminated against.

The study covered 17 major states, 46 crops, 288 composite district units by
combing 420 districts. The study concluded inter-district disparities increased
during 60s, come down during 70s, 80s and a rapid reduction during 90s. Based on
the technique of regression analysis, the study had shown that inter-district

Page 11 of 25
differentials in agriculture development are statistically significant. Increasing
land productivity to compensate the declining farm family income due to
squeezing of their land holding size was provided as a solution.

Hariharan and Saravanan (2010) in their article had analysed the inter-state
variations in the growth of agricultural output in India under the WTO regime.
This article was based on times series data (total 22 years) and a comparison was
made in different states (31 states) of India prior and after implementation of AOA.
Regression coefficients of the simple linear regression model had been used. The
results had shown that agriculture sector in India had not gain much from the
reform process and globalization policies. Compound growth rates of agriculture
output in different states had shown decline from first period (1984-85 to 1994-95,
11 years prior to establishment of WTO) to second period (1995-96 to 2005-06, 11
years after the establishment of WTO).With respect to Rajasthan this paper had
shown that CGR for agriculture output has declined from 6.39 in first period to
0.60 in second period.

Birtha, Singh & Kumar (2011) in their paper have investigated the accelerated
economic growth among major India states during the period of economic
liberalization (1980/81–2004/05) and also analyzed the factors that enhanced
economic growth in these states and lead these states towards an identical steady
state. Results indicated that there was absolute divergence in income levels across
states. The paper suggested that investment in physical infrastructure and human
capital alone were not sufficient, rather investment it these sectors should be
accompanied by a reduction in employment pressure on agriculture by improving
labour market linkages of agriculture with non-agricultural sectors to enhance
economic growth, and by promoting growth-enhancing labour-intensive
agricultural technologies.
Page 12 of 25
Chand & Raju(2011) had studied instability and regional variation in Indian
agriculture in their policy paper. The major reason found for persistence of
regional disparities in agriculture and farm income were uneven effect of
modifications in technologies and formulation of some government policies. To
support their study they used mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation.
This instability in yield of foodgrains had exceeded 20 per cent in Rajasthan,
Gujarat, Maharashtra and Orissa in both the periods. Access to irrigation was
found to be the main factor for inter-state variations in instability in area,
production and yield. The results of the study found that impact of new crop
technologies and policies adopted during different periods since 1951 to reduce
variations in production and resulting risk had been lacking. The paper suggested
that there was a need for addressing risks in farm income by devising area-specific
insurance and some other suitable mechanisms.

Raman& Kumari (2012) in their paper analyzed district and regional level
disparity in agriculture development in the state of Uttar Pradesh using 13
agricultural development indicators with the help of UNDP based methodology.
Relative variations and changes in ranks of different districts have been computed
through composite index for two cross-section years 1990-91 and 2008-09. Results
of the paper had shown existence of high and persistent inter-state disparity in
agriculture in the state over the years. Development of agriculture in western
region followed by central region remained polarised and there was least
development in Bundelkhand region over the periods of 1990-91 to 2008-
09.Moreover the paper evidenced that maximum number of districts located in
western and central have scored best record where agriculture was commercialised,
technology was also advanced. Three suggestions had been provided in this paper
for the problem of inter-state disparities – to develop region specific policies, to

Page 13 of 25
develop a mechanism that ensures credit and subsidy to the neediest regions, and
need to identify the agro-climatic zones that have problems. The paper also
suggested that to make development process truly inclusive a more determined,
effort on the part of the policy makers was needed.

Andrabi and Khan(2013) The main objective of this paper was to account for the
differences in the level of agricultural development at district level. The authors
had used ‘Z-score’ technique, selected seven variables of agricultural development
and ranked the districts according to their level of development. CSS-Composite
Standard Scores were aggregated to find the disparity in agriculture development
in Kashmir valley.

Kumar & Jain(2013) in their study threw light on trends in growth and instability
in Indian agriculture at district level. The paper calculated average crop
productivity different category of districts- very low, low, average, high, very high.
The paper suggested that large scale stabilization measures like insurance should
be promoted to mitigate the consequences of persisting instability. Moreover, the
paper emphasized the importance of modern technology and prudent management
of rainfall water.

Tripathy&Umakanta(2013) focused on inter-district disparities in the

development across different districts in the state of Orissa in their paper. A
comparison was made at two points of time 1980-81and 2000-01. On the basis of
findings the different districts were categorized as very backward, backward,
developing, developed category. The paper had used log linear function to find out
growth rate of different indicators of development. The paper suggested the state
government should empower state Finance Commission to make assessment of the

Page 14 of 25
requirements of different districts according to their level of development and thus
meeting the objective of reducing disparities at state level.

Mukherji, Stuti &Shah (2013) in their paper emphasized on wide regional

variations in the country’s groundwater economy and have suggested that there is a
need to craft management strategies accordingly. The paper also pointed out slow
down in India’s groundwater economy since 2000-01 on the basis of data from the
four minor irrigation censuses conducted by the Ministry of Water Resources
between 1986-87 and 2006-07.According to planning commission report in 2007,
there were 1610 critical and semi-critical blocks of which 85% was in nine states-
Rajasthan was one of them. Power shortage was found to be the major reason for
under utilization of groundwater schemes since 1980s. About ownership pattern
the paper disclosed that things have not changed over time and 90% of all
groundwater structures are owned by private individual farmers. The steps taken
by West-Bengal to change the Ground –Water Act 2005, will make it easier for
small and marginal farmers to invest in wells and tube-wells.

Mkhize(2013) in their paper had made a comparison between structural

transformation in India and China. The results of the paper had shown that in India
share of agriculture sector in GDP has declined but with a larger portion of
population still dependant on this sector. Whereas in China, agricultural share in
GDP has been declining faster too, but so has its share in employment. This was
found to be one of the important reasons for structural transformation in China.
India was found to be still far away from a turning point in its structural
transformation. The paper also discussed rising feminization in agriculture sector,
and had thrown light on issues like - farm sizes will continue to decline, part time
farming will become the dominant farm model.

Page 15 of 25
Shafiqullah (2013) in his analyzed the spatial patterns of disparities and the levels
of agricultural developments in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The results of the study
had shown that agricultural development in the north-eastern and southern districts
had given signs of backwardness in the light of selected variables and the western
and central plain districts had given the impression of being in a higher side of4the
scale of development. The article recommended that there was tremendous scope
for development in the agricultural sector in this state. Sufficient land was
available in the state which could be brought under cultivation and by increasing
irrigation facilities, gross crop area could have been increased considerably. The
study suggested that districts having low level of regional development should be
given top priority so that they could come up at par with developed areas, and the
concept of planning with social justice may be fulfilled.

Ghosh (2013) in his book offered extensive information and in-depth analysis of
issues related to agriculture, industry and service sector in India. This book has
evaluated the performance of agricultural production and the impact of agricultural
reforms on spatial integration of food grain markets. This book has also focused on
issues related to regional disparities during post-reform and pre-reform period. In
field of agriculture this book raised the issue of inequality in income originated
from agriculture sector in India. Advanced econometric methods have been used to
approach the various issues pertaining to India.

Page 16 of 25
Objectives

1. To prepare a composite index of agricultural development for the districts of

Rajasthan on the basis of selected indicators.
2. To rank the districts in order of their agricultural development on the basis
of their respective composite index scores; and categorize them under three
levels of agricultural development, viz, Highly Developed, Moderately
Developed and Under Developed.
3. To analyze the degree of inter-district disparities in the levels of agricultural
development in Rajasthan at two points of time (1990-91 and 2010-11).
4. To examine the variation in inter-district disparities in Rajasthan over the
period under study and attempt to explore the reasons thereof.
5. To analyze the impact of state policies on growth and development of
agriculture sector in the state of Rajasthan.
6. To suggest measures to promote a balanced agricultural development in the
state of Rajasthan.

Hypotheses

H0: there is NO difference in the ‘level of inter-district disparities in agricultural

development of Rajasthan’ when measured at two points of time viz. 1990-91and
2010-11.

H1: there IS a difference in the ‘level of inter-district disparities in agricultural

development of Rajasthan’ when measured at two points of time viz. 1990-91and
2010-11.

Page 17 of 25
Data and Methodology

Coverage: The proposed study will cover all the 33 districts of the state of
Rajasthan. The study will attempt to analyze the extent of variations among
different districts of Rajasthan from 1980 to 2010.

Data: The study is based on secondary data primarily drawn from the ‘Statistical
Abstract of Rajasthan’ and ‘District Outlines’ published annually by the
Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
The other sources are Census reports, reports on Economic Census, and annual
publications by DES on Agricultural Statistics.

Indicators: The indicators selected to represent the level of ‘Agricultural

Productivity’ are:

1. Per-capita Food-grain Production (PCFP)

2. Per-capita Non Food-grain Production(PCNFP)
3. Percentage of Area Under Commercial Crops to Gross Sown Area
(PCCGSA)
4. Percentage of Area Under Cash Crops to Gross Sown Area (PCACGSA)
5. Percentage of Area Under oilseeds crops to Gross Sown Area (POCGSA)
6. Percentage of Area Under pulses production to Gross Sown Area
(PPCGSA)
7. Percentage of Area Under other Crops to Gross Sown Area (POCGSA)
8. Cropping Intensity (CI)
9. Cropping intensity for gross irrigated area(CIGIA)
10. Average price of agriculture commodities(APAC)
11. Value of per hectare agricultural production ('00 Rs) (VPHAP)
12. Average productivity of agriculture worker(APW)

Page 18 of 25
The indicators selected to represent the level of ‘Agriculture Infrastructure
Development’ are:

1. Percentage of net area irrigated to net area sown(PIAS)

2. Percentage of Net Area Sown to Cultivable Land (PNASCL)
3. Percentage of Gross Area irrigated through wells ,tubewells and diseal
pumpsets(PGIAWTP)
4. Percentage of Electrified wells and tubewells to total number of wells
and tubewells.(PEWT)
5. Availability of Gross Area Sown per Tractor (AGAST)
6. Distribution of Total Fertilizer per Hectare of Gross Area Sown
(DTFGAS)
7. Number of Krishi Upaz Mandis per Lakh of Population (NKUM)
8. Percentage of Total Electricity Consumption in Agriculture Sector
(PECASTE)
9. District-wise Percentage Distribution of Private Pumping Sets/Tube wells
(DPDPPT)
10. District-wise Percentage Distribution of Government Tube wells
(DPDGT)
11. District-wise Seed and seed replacement rate(DSSRR)
12. District-wise Quality control laboratories(DQCL)
13. Number of electric pumpsets (per 1000 ha. of area sown) (EP)
14. Number of tractors (per 10,000 ha. net area sown)(NT)
15. Electricity consumption in agriculture sector (per person in kwlhour)
(ECAS)
16. District- wise Percentage of Rainfall to total State Rainfall(PRSR)
17. District-wise Level of Groundwater(DWLG)

Page 19 of 25
The indicators selected to represent ‘Government Expenditure on Agricultural
Development’ are

1. Percentage of Government Expenditure on Agriculture Research and

Development to total Agriculture Expenditure(PAERDTE)
2. Percentage of Agriculture Expenditure on Agriculture training and
research centre (PAETR)
3. Percentage of Government Agriculture University to total Agriculture
Universities(PAUTU)
4. District-wise Total Subsidy Expenditure on Agriculture
Development(DSAD)

Methodology: The technique of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) will be

used in order to prepare composite indices of agricultural development for the
districts of Rajasthan at three points of time-1980-81, 1990-91 and 2010-11.

Districts will be ranked in order of their agricultural development on the basis of

their respective composite index scores; and will be categorized under three levels
of agricultural development, viz, Highly Developed, Moderately Developed and
Under Developed.

In order to measure the extent of inter-district disparities, statistical techniques of

standard Deviation, Coefficient of Variation, Gini coefficient and Lorenz curve
will be used.

Page 20 of 25
Chapter Scheme

The proposed study will be organized in the following chapters:

1. Introduction
2. Rajasthan and Its Districts: A Profile
3. Agricultural Productivity in Rajasthan: A District Wise Analysis
4. Agricultural Infrastructure Development in Rajasthan: A District
Wise
Analysis
5. Government Expenditure on Agricultural Development in Rajasthan :
A District Wise Analysis
6. Overall Agricultural Development in Rajasthan: A District Wise Analysis
7. Regional Disparities in Agricultural Development of Rajasthan: An Inter-
District Analysis
8. Government Policies and Measure: A Critical Analysis
9. Suggestions and Conclusions
Bibliography

Page 21 of 25
Bibliography

Andrabi, J. and Khan, I. (2013). Determinants of Inter-District Disparities in the

Levels of Agriculture Development in Kashmir Valley. European Academic
Research,1(8),2059-2070.

Bhalla, G., & Singh, G. (2009). Economic Liberalization and Indian Agriculture.
Economic &Political Weekly, XLIV (52).

Bhalla, G., and Singh, G.(2010). Growth of Indian Agriculture: A District Level
Study. Final Report on Planning Commission Project. Center for the Study of
Regional Development, 1-203.

Birthal, P., Singh, H., & Kumar, S. (2011). Agriculture, Economic Growth and
Regional Disparities in India. Journal of International Development, 23, 119–131.

Chand, R. &Chauhan, S.(1999).Are Disparities in Indian Agriculture growing?

National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (ICAR), Policy
Brief 8.

Chand, R., Raju, S., Garg,S.,& Pandey, M.(2011).Instability and Regional

Variation in Indian Agriculture. National Centre for Agricultural Economics and
Policy Research (ICAR), Policy Paper 26.

Eicher, C., & Staalz, J. (Eds.). (1998). International Agricultural Development.

(3rd ed.). London, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 259-274.

Page 22 of 25
EPW Research Foundation (2008). Agricultural Credit in India: Changing Profile
and Regional Imbalances.http://www.iibf.org.in/documents/reseach-report/Report-
16.pdf

Ghosh, M. (2013). Liberalization Growth and Regional Disparities in India. India,

Springer New Delhi Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London.doi;10.1007/978-81-
322-0981-2.Vol.1, 63-142.

Joshi, M. (1999). Green Revolution and its impacts. New Delhi, A.P.H Publising
Corporation. New Delhi, 39-60.

Kumar,A.& Jain,R.(2013). Growth and Instability in Agricultural Productivity: A

District Level Analysis. Agricultural Economics Research Review. National Centre
for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research.Vol. 26 (Conference Number),
31-42.

Marco, F., Kohli, H., & Sood, A. (2000). Transforming Indian Agriculture-India
2040. India, SAGE Publications Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved from-
http://www.uk.sagepub.com/books/Book240889/toc

Mkhize,B.(2013). The Stunted Structural Transformation of the Indian Economy-

Agriculture, Manufacturing and the Rural Non-Farm Sector. Economic&Political
Weekly Supplement . VOL XLVIII NOs 26&27,5-13.

Mukherji, A., Stuti, R.& Shah, Tushaar.(2013).Major Insights from India’s Minor
Irrigation Censuses: 1986-87 to 2006-07. Economic&Political Weekly Supplement
, VOL XLVIII NOs 26&27,115-124.

Page 23 of 25
Narain,P.,Shanna,S.&Bhatia,V.(2002). Dimensions of Regional Disparities in
Socio-Economic Development of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Society of Agricultural
Statistics.55( I), 88-107.

Pardey, P., Julian, A., & Roley, P. (2006). Agriculture R&D in the Developing
World: Too Little ,Too late? Washington DC, International Food Policy Research
Institute, 4-22.

Ramesh, R. and Kumari, R.(2012). Regional Disparity in Agricultural

Development: A District-Level Analysis for Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Regional
Development and Planning, Vol.1, 71-82.

Rangarajan, C.(1982). Agriculture growth and Industrial performance in India.

International Food Policy Research Institute, Research Report 33.

Reddy, A.(2010).In Perspective: Regional Disparities in Andhra Prades., India.

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269094212463791

Shafiqullah, (2013). Impact of Regional Disparities on Agricultural Development

in UttarPradesh- A Geographical Analysis. Global Journal of Human Social
science Geography, Geo-Sciences, Environmental Disaster Management,13,5.
Retrieved from- https://globaljournals.org/GJHSS_Volume13/5-Impact-of-
Regional-Disparities-on-Agricultural.pdf

Shenggen, F., Gulati, A., & Thorat, S.(2008). Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor
growth in rural India. Agricultural Economics, International Association of
Agricultural Economists, 39(2), 163-170, 09.

Page 24 of 25
Thakur, A., & Chauhan, S.(2010). Inter-Regional Disparities in India. Inter-state
variations in the growth of agricultural output in India under the WTO regime.
New Delhi, Deep&Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., ch-15, 285-293.

Tripathi,U.,Das, M.and Padhi,P.(2011).Regional Variation in Development Profile

of Orissa: An Econometric Analysis of Indicators of Development. Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research.1( 6).
Varma, S. (2004). A Study on Inter-Regional Economic Inequalities in Rajasthan,
Social Policy Research Institute, Jaipur. 35-100, 117-135. Retrieved from-
http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/sereport/ser/stdy_rgeco.pdf

Page 25 of 25