IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v41y2023i5ne12708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rural market imperfections in India: Revisiting old debates with new evidence

Author

Listed:
  • C. S. C. Sekhar
  • Namrata Thapa

Abstract

Motivation Ensuring viability of farming and increasing farmers' incomes are key policy concerns in India at present. To realize these aims, markets need to function well: market imperfections can increase production and transaction costs for farmers and thereby reduce incomes. A longstanding and repeated observation in India is that land productivity is inversely related to farm size, an inverse relation (IR) which may well indicate imperfectly functioning land, labour, and credit markets. Purpose The study revisits the inverse relation, to examine whether market imperfections still prevail in India, particularly in output, input, factor, and credit markets. Methods and approach Based on multi‐stage sampling, 1,800 households spread over 45 villages and 21 districts were surveyed across Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab. Micro‐econometric methods were applied to the household‐level data to test for relations between farm size and land and labour productivity, and implied evidence of market imperfections. Findings A strong IR between land productivity and farm size on the output side, and farm size and family labour use on the input side can be seen. However, intensive use of family labour on small farms is not the only determinant of farm size‐productivity relations. It is found that smaller farmers are relatively more constrained in obtaining credit. The results suggest that Sen's labour dualism theory, together with imperfections in land and credit markets, offers important insights. Also, drawing from the recent literature, measurement errors in plot size and production and “edge effect” could be some of the contributing factors. Policy implications Our findings point to the prevalence of surplus family labour on small farms, even a decade after the enactment of a major employment guarantee programme (MGNREGS), exacerbated by small farmers having limited access to institutional credit. Thus, particularly for marginal and small farmers, reforming land lease markets to enable easier access to land, providing better access to institutional credit, and improving literacy to enable farmers to deploy abundant household labour in other occupations, are needed to address some of the observed imperfections.

Suggested Citation

  • C. S. C. Sekhar & Namrata Thapa, 2023. "Rural market imperfections in India: Revisiting old debates with new evidence," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(5), September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:5:n:e12708
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12708
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12708?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. Sheng, Yu & Chancellor, Will, 2019. "Exploring the relationship between farm size and productivity: Evidence from the Australian grains industry," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 196-204.
    2. Barrett, Christopher B., 1996. "On price risk and the inverse farm size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, December.
    3. Michael R. Carter & Keith D. Wiebe, 1990. "Access to Capital and Its Impact on Agrarian Structure and Productivity in Kenya," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1146-1150.
    4. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    5. Barrett, Christopher B. & Bellemare, Marc F. & Hou, Janet Y., 2010. "Reconsidering Conventional Explanations of the Inverse Productivity-Size Relationship," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 88-97, January.
    6. Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara & Zezza, Alberto, 2013. "Fact or artifact: The impact of measurement errors on the farm size–productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 254-261.
    7. Alex Cohen, 2019. "Estimating Farm Production Parameters with Measurement Error in Land Area," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(1), pages 305-334.
    8. Stein Holden & Bekele Shiferaw & John Pender, 2001. "Market Imperfections and Land Productivity in the Ethiopian Highlands," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 53-70, September.
    9. Bevis, Leah EM. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2020. "Close to the edge: High productivity at plot peripheries and the inverse size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    10. Lamb, Russell L., 2003. "Inverse productivity: land quality, labor markets, and measurement error," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 71-95, June.
    11. Fulginiti, Lilyan E & Perrin, Richard K, 1993. "Prices and Productivity in Agriculture," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(3), pages 471-482, August.
    12. Rada, Nicholas E. & Fuglie, Keith O., 2019. "New perspectives on farm size and productivity," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 147-152.
    13. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing & Nagarajan, Hari K., 2008. "Efficiency and equity impacts of rural land rental restrictions: Evidence from India," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 892-918, July.
    15. Yu Sheng & Jiping Ding & Jikun Huang, 2019. "The Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity in Agriculture: Evidence from Maize Production in Northern China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(3), pages 790-806.
    16. Braverman, Avishay & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1982. "Sharecropping and the Interlinking of Agrarian Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(4), pages 695-715, September.
    17. Calogero Carletto & Sydney Gourlay & Paul Winters, 2015. "Editor's choice From Guesstimates to GPStimates: Land Area Measurement and Implications for Agricultural Analysis," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 24(5), pages 593-628.
    18. Assunção, Juliano & Braido, Luis H.B., 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1-8, November.
    19. Donald F. Larson & Keijiro Otsuka & Tomoya Matsumoto & Talip Kilic, 2014. "Should African rural development strategies depend on smallholder farms? An exploration of the inverse-productivity hypothesis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 355-367, May.
    20. Carter, Michael R, 1984. "Identification of the Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of Peasant Agricultural Production," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 131-145, March.
    21. Hans P. Binswanger & Klaus Deininger, 1997. "Explaining Agricultural and Agrarian Policies in Developing Countries," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(4), pages 1958-2005, December.
    22. Emmanuel Skoufias, 1995. "Household Resources, Transaction Costs, and Adjustment through Land Tenancy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 42-56.
    23. Rosenzweig, Mark R & Binswanger, Hans P, 1993. "Wealth, Weather Risk and the Composition and Profitability of Agricultural Investments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(416), pages 56-78, January.
    24. Amartya K. Sen, 1966. "Peasants and Dualism with or without Surplus Labor," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 425-425.
    25. Eswaran, Mukesh & Kotwal, Ashok, 1986. "Access to Capital and Agrarian Production Organisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(382), pages 482-498, June.
    26. Benjamin, Dwayne, 1995. "Can unobserved land quality explain the inverse productivity relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 51-84, February.
    27. Daniel Ayalew Ali & Klaus Deininger, 2015. "Is There a Farm Size–Productivity Relationship in African Agriculture? Evidence from Rwanda," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 317-343.
    28. Khusro, A.M., 1964. "Returns to Scale in Indian Agriculture," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 19(3-4), pages 1-33.
    29. Basu, Kaushik, 1983. "The Emergence of Isolation and Interlinkage in Rural Markets," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 262-280, July.
    30. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S. Jayne, 2021. "Factor Market Activity and the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Tanzania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(3), pages 443-464, March.
    31. Hayami, Yujiro & Ruttan, Vernon W, 1970. "Agricultural Productivity Differences Among Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(5), pages 895-911, December.
    32. de Janvry, Alain & Fafchamps, Marcel & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 1991. "Peasant Household Behaviour with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explained," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(409), pages 1400-1417, November.
    33. Bhagwati, Jagdish N & Chakravarty, Sukhamoy, 1969. "Contributions to Indian Economic Analysis: A Survey," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(4), pages 2-73, Part II S.
    34. Desiere, Sam & Jolliffe, Dean, 2018. "Land productivity and plot size: Is measurement error driving the inverse relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 84-98.
    35. Juliano J. Assunção & Luis H. B. Braido, 2007. "Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 980-990.
    36. de Janvry, Alain & Fafchamps, M. & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 1991. "Peasant Household Behavior with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explain," CUDARE Working Papers 198579, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    37. Gourlay, Sydney & Kilic, Talip & Lobell, David B., 2019. "A new spin on an old debate: Errors in farmer-reported production and their implications for inverse scale - Productivity relationship in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    38. Brandt, Loren, 1987. "Farm Household Behavior, Factor Markets, and the Distributive Consequences of Commercialization in Early Twentieth-Century China," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(3), pages 711-737, September.
    39. Feder, Gershon, 1985. "The relation between farm size and farm productivity : The role of family labor, supervision and credit constraints," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2-3), pages 297-313, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. C.S.C Sekhar & Namrata Thapa, 2021. "Agricultural Market Imperfections And Farm Profitability In India," IEG Working Papers 440, Institute of Economic Growth.
    2. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. Omotilewa, Oluwatoba J. & Jayne, T.S. & Muyanga, Milu & Aromolaran, Adebayo B. & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Awokuse, Titus, 2021. "A revisit of farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from a wide range of farm sizes in Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S. Jayne, 2021. "Factor Market Activity and the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Tanzania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(3), pages 443-464, March.
    5. Hailemariam Ayalew & Jordan Chamberlin & Carol Newman & Kibrom A. Abay & Frederic Kosmowski & Tesfaye Sida, 2024. "Revisiting the size–productivity relationship with imperfect measures of production and plot size," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 595-619, March.
    6. Mensah, Edouard R. & Kostandini, Genti, 2020. "The inverse farm size-productivity relationship under land size mis-measurement and in the presence of weather and price risks: Panel data evidence from Uganda," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304477, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Desiere, Sam & Jolliffe, Dean, 2018. "Land productivity and plot size: Is measurement error driving the inverse relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 84-98.
    9. Gourlay, Sydney & Kilic, Talip & Lobell, David B., 2019. "A new spin on an old debate: Errors in farmer-reported production and their implications for inverse scale - Productivity relationship in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    10. Steven Helfand & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "The Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: Refocusing the Debate," Working Papers 201811, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    11. Fang Xia & Lingling Hou & Songqing Jin & Dongqing Li, 2020. "Land size and productivity in the livestock sector: evidence from pastoral areas in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 867-888, July.
    12. Bevis, Leah EM. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2020. "Close to the edge: High productivity at plot peripheries and the inverse size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    13. Holden, Stein T. & Ali, Daniel & Deininger, Klaus & Hilhorst, Thea, 2016. "A Land Tenure Module for LSMS," CLTS Working Papers 1/16, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    14. Chiarella, Cristina & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Abeygunawardane, Dilini & Conforti, Piero, 2023. "Balancing the trade-offs between land productivity, labor productivity and labor intensity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 52(10), pages 1618-1634.
    15. Larson,Donald F. & Muraoka,Rie & Otsuka,Keijiro, 2016. "On the central role of small farms in African rural development strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7710, The World Bank.
    16. Taylor, Matthew P.H. & Helfand, Steven M., 2021. "The Farm Size – Productivity Relationship in the Wake of Market Reform: An Analysis of Mexican Family Farms," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315138, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Xingguang Li & Xuexi Huo, 2022. "Agricultural labor markets and the inverse plot size–productivity relationship: Evidence from China's apple growers," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 2163-2183, November.
    18. Ali, Daniel Ayalew & Deininger, Klaus, 2014. "Is there a farm-size productivity relationship in African agriculture ? evidence from Rwanda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6770, The World Bank.
    19. Abay, Kibrom A. & Abate, Gashaw T. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Bernard, Tanguy, 2019. "Correlated non-classical measurement errors, ‘Second best’ policy inference, and the inverse size-productivity relationship in agriculture," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 171-184.
    20. Foster, Andrew D. & Rosenzweig, Mark R., 2010. "Is There Surplus Labor in Rural India?," Center Discussion Papers 95273, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:5:n:e12708. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.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.