Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Agricultural policies in India

Contents:

Author Info

  • Mullen, Kathleen
  • Orden, David
  • Gulati, Ashok

Abstract

"Since the early 1990s, India has undergone substantial economic policy reform and economic growth. Though reforms in agricultural policy have lagged those in other sectors, they have nonetheless created a somewhat more open economic orientation. In this study, we evaluate the protection and support versus disprotection of agriculture in India. Our methodology involves examining market price support (MPS) for eleven crops, the expenditures on input subsidies benefiting farmers (for fertilizer, electricity and irrigation), and product-specific and total producer support estimates (PSEs) over the period 1985-2002. We draw on the extensive price-comparison and subsidy-measurement data sets and analysis developed earlier by Gulati and his co-authors, often using disaggregated analysis for representative surplus and deficit states. This allows us to explore how key cost adjustments impact the results. Overall, our results indicate that support for agriculture in India has been counter-cyclical. Support for agriculture has been rising when world prices are low (as in the mid 1980s and 1998-2002) and falling when world prices are high (as in the early and mid 1990s). Our results demonstrate the increased importance of budgetary payments for input subsidies in agriculture in recent years. Yet, in the aggregate for both price support and budgetary expenditures over the period 1985-2002 the counter-cyclical dimension of agricultural policy dominates a clear trend of movement from disprotection towards protection. Using different variants of MPS and PSE measurment we have extended earlier analysis to demonstrate the impact of key assumptions on the calculations. These assumptions we argue are important to consider. For example, in the standard approach, the MPS for the covered commodities is “scaled up” based on the share of the covered commodities in the total value of production. If the commodity coverage is less than complete, as is often the case, the scaling up procedure leads to a total MPS of greater absolute value than the MPS for the covered commodities. This can result in PSEs of different sign than the non-scaled up version but is inappropriate unless market price support for the commodities not covered is similar to that of the covered commodities. Furthermore, we find that the standard procedure of computing the MPS through a comparison of the domestic price to an adjusted reference price based on observed imports or exports can be problematic. This happens when trade volumes are relatively small. In such a scenario a reference price based on observed imports or exports can lead to misleading conclusions. To address the reference price issue, we follow Byerlee and Morris (1993). Essentially the approach adopted is to compute the level of protection or disprotection based on a counterfactual reference price chosen on economic criteria i.e. the adjusted reference price that would exist in the country if the policy interventions were removed. The relevant price can either be the autarky equilibrium price or the import or export adjusted reference price depending on the relationship among these prices. We apply this modified procedure for six crops (wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, sugar and groundnuts). The choice of the crops is dictated by the fact that India has been near self-sufficiency and there have been changes in the direction of trade over the period of analysis. The magnitudes of estimated support for agriculture obtained in this paper are important for several reasons. The estimates confirm that high levels of subsidies were required for India to export wheat or rice in recent years, a conclusion reached by several other studies. However, we report less disprotection of Indian agriculture in the 1990s than in earlier studies. Partly this difference is explained by the modified procedure for choice of a reference price. A large component of this difference can be accounted for by whether or not the scaling up procedure is invoked. There are also fertile areas for future research. Estimates of adjustment costs used in domestic-to-border price comparisons, such as transportation and processing costs or marketing margins, are crucial variables in the analysis and merit being re-examined and further updated. Resolving what are the most reasonable assumptions about reference prices, or extending the analysis to additional crops and livestock to reduce uncertainty in future assessments will also contribute to fuller understanding of the net stance of policy toward agriculture and how it has evolved over time" Authors' Abstract

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/mtidp82.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in its series MTID discussion papers with number 82.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fpr:mtiddp:82

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-862-5600
Fax: 202-467-4439
Email:
Web page: http://www.ifpri.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: South Asia ; South Asia and Central Asia ; Agricultural policy ; Producer Support Estimates (PSEs) ; Agricultural support ; Agricultural production ; Scaling up ;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Landes, Maurice R. & Jha, Shikha & Srinivasan, P.V., 2007. "Indian Wheat and Rice Sector Policies and the Implications of Reform," Economic Research Report 6386, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  2. Rakotoarisoa, Manitra A., 2008. "The Impact of Agricultural Policy Distortions on the Productivity Gap: Evidence from the Rice Production," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6154, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  3. Allan N. Rae, 2007. "Regional agricultural trade liberalization - Priorities for policy makers and future research needs," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: Studies in Trade and Investment - AGRICULTURAL TRADE - PLANTING THE SEEDS OF REGIONAL LIBERALIZATION IN ASIA, volume 60, pages 295-309 United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
  4. Abid A. Burki & Mushtaq A. Khan & S.M. Turab Hussain, 2006. "Prospects of Wheat and Sugar Trade between India and Pakistan : A Simple Welfare Analysis," Trade Working Papers 22249, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
  5. Cheng, Fuzhi & Orden, David, 2006. "Exchange Rate Misalignment and Its Effects on Agricultural Producer Support Estimates (PSEs) in India," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25299, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  6. Cheng, Fuzhi & Orden, David, 2005. "Exchange Rate Misalignment and Its Effects on Agricultural Producer Support Estimates: Empirical Evidence from India and China," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19121, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  7. Cheng, Fuzhi & Orden, David, 2005. "Exchange rate misalignment and its effects on agricultural producer support estimates," MTID discussion papers 81, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:mtiddp:82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.