Government Spending, Growth and Poverty in Rural India

Using state-level data for 1970–93, a simultaneous equation model was developed to estimate the direct and indirect effects of different types of government expenditure on rural poverty and productivity growth in India. The results show that in order to reduce rural poverty, the Indian government should give highest priority to additional investments in rural roads and agricultural research. These types of investment not only have much larger poverty impacts per rupee spent than any other government investment, but also generate higher productivity growth. Apart from government spending on education, which has the third largest marginal impact on rural poverty and productivity growth, other investments (including irrigation, soil and water conservation, health, and rural and community development) have only modest impacts on growth and poverty per additional rupee spent.     

Investment,subsidies, and pro‐poor growth in rural India

This article reviews the trends in government subsidies and investments in and for Indian agriculture; develops a conceptual framework and a model to assess the impact of various subsidies and investments on agricultural growth and poverty reduction; and presents reform options with regard to re‐prioritizing government spending. Subsidies in credit, fertilizer, and irrigation have been crucial for small farmers to adopt new technologies particularly during the initial stage of the green revolution in the late 1960s and 1970s. But it is now investments in agricultural research, education, and rural roads that are the three most effective public spending items in promoting agricultural growth and reducing poverty.     

Public–private partnerships and collective action in high value fruit and vegetable supply chains

Accessing developed country food markets entails meeting stringent food safety requirements. Food retailers impose protocols relating to pesticide residues, field and pack house operations, and traceability. To enable smallholders to remain competitive in such a system, new institutional arrangements are required. In particular, public–private partnerships can play a key role in creating farm to fork linkages that can satisfy market demands for food safety, while retaining smallholders in the supply chain. Furthermore, organized producer groups monitoring their own food safety standards through collective action often become attractive to buyers who are looking for ways to ensure traceability and reduce transaction costs. This paper compares the ways in which small producers of fruits and vegetables in Kenya and India have coped with increased demands for food safety from their main export markets.     

Diversification in Indian Agriculture toward High‐Value Crops: The Role of Small Farmers

Diversification by small farmers toward high‐value crops (fruits and vegetables [F & V]) that can raise farm incomes significantly has always been in question because of several reasons such as diseconomies of scale and lack of access to inputs such as capital and information. We present evidence that in India diversification toward high‐value crops exhibits a pro‐smallholder (rather than anti‐smallholder) bias. The smallholders however play a proportionally larger role in vegetables than in fruits cultivation. These patterns are consistent with simple comparative advantage‐based production choices. Even with small landholdings if labor endowments are high, such farmers diversify toward F & V. Though fruits cultivation is also labor intensive relative to cereals, it is less so relative to vegetables. Greater capital intensity implies a comparatively important role of credit in fruits. The results are robust to several tests on specification including those related to self‐selection. Chez les petits exploitants agricoles, la diversification en faveur de cultures à valeur élevée (fruits et légumes) permettant d’accroître considérablement le revenu agricole a toujours été remise en question pour diverses raisons, notamment les déséconomies d’échelle et le manque d’accès aux intrants comme le capital et l’information. Dans le présent article, nous montrons qu’en Inde, la diversification en faveur de cultures à valeur élevée semble plutôt favorable que défavorable aux petits exploitants agricoles. Toutefois, les petits exploitants sont proportionnellement plus présents dans la culture maraîchère que dans la culture fruitière. Ces observations concordent avec les choix d’une production fondée sur les avantages comparatifs. Même dans le cas des petites exploitations, lorsque les besoins de main‐d’?uvre sont élevés, elles se tournent vers les cultures fruitière et maraîchère. Bien que la culture fruitière soit une activitéà forte intensité de main‐d’?uvre comparativement à la culture céréalière, elle l’est moins que la culture maraîchère. L’intensité de capital élevée de la culture fruitière signifie que le crédit joue aussi un rôle important. Les résultats de plusieurs tests de spécification sont robustes, y compris ceux liés à l’auto‐sélection.