IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/inijae/230063.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Implication of Groundwater Institutions on Reducing Negative Externality, Enhancing Economic Efficiency and Welfare in Karnataka

Author

Listed:
  • Patil, Kiran

Abstract

The economic benefits and costs involved in an informal institutional arrangement of groundwater resource was analysed against control farm situation (non sharing farmers) in the present study. The sharing of well water among siblings was considered as an informal institution. Accordingly, a sample of thirty farmers sharing well water using snow ball sampling technique and a sample of seventeen farmers using simple random sampling were selected from central dry zone of Karnataka. In this study transaction costs and benefits of sharing water in irrigation well among siblings are estimated. The marginal productivity of groundwater irrigation due to the institution of sharing well water is estimated using linear regression with intercept dummy variable. The sustainable extraction path of groundwater is estimated using optimal control theory. The results indicated the absence of transaction cost in collective action, since sharing (a form of collective action which involves the cost of bringing siblings together providing information regarding importance of sharing water and the cost of convincing regarding sharing well water and the corresponding sustainable crop pattern, instead of drilling new well, which may result in reduced water in original well(s)) was among the siblings. Farmers who were sharing well water, experienced lower rate of failure of wells (23 per cent) when compared with farmers who were not sharing well water (for whom failure rate of wells was 46 per cent); had higher proportion of functioning wells (77 per cent) when compared with those not sharing (54 per cent). Similarly they experienced longer age of wells of 12.32 years, instead of 8.68 years; reduced negative externality (Rs. 1293 per well against Rs. 6692 per well), reduced cost of irrigation water per acre inch (Rs. 358 per acre inch against Rs. 599 per acre inch). Farmers who were sharing well water also realised higher net returns per rupee of functioning well (Rs.2,79,795 as against Rs.2,40,102) and net returns per rupee of irrigation water (Rs.10.83 against Rs. 7.23). The life of borewell could also enhance by 45 years instead of 8 years, by maintaining depth of wells.

Suggested Citation

  • Patil, Kiran, 2015. "An Implication of Groundwater Institutions on Reducing Negative Externality, Enhancing Economic Efficiency and Welfare in Karnataka," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 70(3), pages 1-15.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:inijae:230063
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.230063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/230063/files/14-Kiran%20Kumar%20Patil-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.230063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diwakara, H. & Chandrakanth, M.G., 2007. "Beating negative externality through groundwater recharge in India: a resource economic analysis," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 271-296, April.
    2. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Asghar, Sobia & Tsusaka, Takuji W. & Jourdain, Damien & Saqib, Shahab E. & Sasaki, Nophea, 2022. "Assessing the efficiency of smallholder sugarcane production: The case of Faisalabad, Pakistan," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    2. Pradhan, Deepa & Ranjan, Ram, 2016. "Achieving Sustainability and Development through Collective Action? An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of the Bore Pool Sharing Program on Farm Incomes and Crop Choices," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 152-174.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chia-Ying Chang & Chien-Chieh Huang & Ping Wang, 2000. "Fight Fire with Fire: A Model of Pollution and Growth with Cooperative Settlement," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0010, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    2. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Salant, Stephen W., 2011. "A free lunch in the commons," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 245-253, May.
    3. Murty, Sushama & Russell, R. Robert, 2010. "On modeling pollution-generating technologies," Economic Research Papers 271176, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    4. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    5. Herwig Immervoll & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jules Linden & Denisa Sologon, 2023. "Who pays for higher carbon prices?: Illustration for Lithuania and a research agenda," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 283, OECD Publishing.
    6. Yu-Bong Lai, 2004. "Trade liberalization, consumption externalities and the environment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(5), pages 1-9.
    7. Ni, Jinlan & Wei, Chu & Du, Limin, 2015. "Revealing the political decision toward Chinese carbon abatement: Based on equity and efficiency criteria," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 609-621.
    8. Costantini, Valeria & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2012. "On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 132-153.
    9. Arnott, Richard & Hochman, Oded & Rausser, Gordon C., 2008. "Pollution and land use: Optimum and decentralization," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 390-407, September.
    10. Christoph Böhringer & Carolyn Fischer & Nicholas Rivers, 2023. "Intensity-Based Rebating of Emission Pricing Revenues," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(4), pages 1059-1089.
    11. Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Badunenko, Oleg & Willox, Michael, 2022. "Do carbon taxes affect economic and environmental efficiency? The case of British Columbia’s manufacturing plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    12. Giancarlo Giudici & Massimiliano Guerini & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2019. "The creation of cleantech startups at the local level: the role of knowledge availability and environmental awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 815-830, April.
    13. Grüll, Georg & Taschini, Luca, 2011. "Cap-and-trade properties under different hybrid scheme designs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 107-118, January.
    14. Olivier Deschenes & Kyle C. Meng, 2018. "Quasi-Experimental Methods in Environmental Economics: Opportunities and Challenges," NBER Working Papers 24903, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Na Li Dawson & Kathleen Segerson, 2008. "Voluntary Agreements with Industries: Participation Incentives with Industry-Wide Targets," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 97-114.
    16. repec:ilo:ilowps:292066 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Wallace E. Oates & Wallace E. Oates, 2004. "A Reconsideration of Environmental Federalism," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 7, pages 125-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Sam Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn, 2009. "Carbon markets in space and time," GRI Working Papers 3, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    19. McGinty Matthew & de Vries Frans P, 2009. "Technology Diffusion, Product Differentiation and Environmental Subsidies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-27, March.
    20. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 1998. "Marketable pollution permits with uncertainty and transaction costs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 27-50, March.
    21. Ehigiamusoe, Kizito Uyi & Lean, Hooi Hooi & Smyth, Russell, 2020. "The moderating role of energy consumption in the carbon emissions-income nexus in middle-income countries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:inijae:230063. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isaeeea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.