IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pid/journl/v39y2000i4p477-486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Non-price Explanatory Variables in Fertiliser Demand: The Case of Irrigated Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Munir Ahmad

    (Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad.)

  • M. Ghaffar Chaudhry

    (Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad.)

  • Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry

    (Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad.)

Abstract

It follows from the experience of World economies that rising and balanced use of fertilisers is the key factor in agricultural productivity [FAO (1995); SFS and STI (1996); Habib-ur-Rehman (1982) and Pinstrup-Anderson (1976)]. In the case of Pakistan the stepped up fertiliser use has been argued to be incritable to realise existing untapped yield potential of major crops [Johnston and Kilby (1975)] and to induce yield increasing technological change in future [John Mellor Associates and Asianics Agro-Dev. International (1993)]. Although proper malnutrition involves the use of primary, secondary and micro-nutrients, Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus and Potassium (K) or NPK is generally considered to be sufficient to harvest normal crop yields [FAO and IFA (1999)]. Given this situation, this paper looks at various factors that determine fertiliser use in Pakistan. Although price of fertiliser is a critical factor in this respect [Schultz (1965) and Johnston and Cownie (1969)], only non-price factors are considered in this paper due to limitations of data. Apart from this introductory section, the paper comprises of three more sections. The following Section 2 explains the data and the empirical model. Section 3 presents the results. Section 4 summarises the main findings along with their policy implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Munir Ahmad & M. Ghaffar Chaudhry & Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry, 2000. "Some Non-price Explanatory Variables in Fertiliser Demand: The Case of Irrigated Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 39(4), pages 477-486.
    • Handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:39:y:2000:i:4:p:477-486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/PDR/2000/Volume4/477-486.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark W. Rosegrant & Prabhu L. Pingali, 1994. "Policy and technology for rice productivity growth in Asia," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(6), pages 665-688, November.
    2. George E. Battese, 1997. "A Note On The Estimation Of Cobb‐Douglas Production Functions When Some Explanatory Variables Have Zero Values," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 250-252, 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. repec:mth:jas888:v:7:y:2019:i:1:p:115-127 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Munir Ahmad & Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry & Mohammad Iqbal, 2002. "Wheat Productivity, Efficiency, and Sustainability: A Stochastic Production Frontier Analysis," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 41(4), pages 643-663.
    3. Muhammad Aamir, Shahzad & Waqar, Akram & Muhammad, Khan, 2016. "Technical Efficiency Analysis of Wheat Farms in the Punjab, Pakistan: DEA Approach," MPRA Paper 81846, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Oct 2017.

    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. Almeida, Alexandre N. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E., 2019. "Agricultural productivity, shadow wages and off-farm labor decisions in Nicaragua," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 99-110.
    2. Nathan D. DeLay & Nathanael M. Thompson & James R. Mintert, 2022. "Precision agriculture technology adoption and technical efficiency," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 195-219, February.
    3. Céline Nauges & Jon Strand, 2017. "Water Hauling and Girls’ School Attendance: Some New Evidence from Ghana," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(1), pages 65-88, January.
    4. Wollni, Meike & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2012. "Productive efficiency of specialty and conventional coffee farmers in Costa Rica: Accounting for technological heterogeneity and self-selection," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 67-76.
    5. Munir Ahmad, 2003. "Agricultural Productivity, Efficiency, and Rural Poverty in Irrigated Pakistan: A Stochastic Production FrontiermAnalysis," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 42(3), pages 219-248.
    6. Brannlund, Runar & Kristrom, Bengt, 2001. "Too hot to handle?: Benefits and costs of stimulating the use of biofuels in the Swedish heating sector," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 343-358, October.
    7. Michael Grimm & Peter Knorringa & Jann Lay, 2012. "Constrained Gazelles," World Bank Publications - Reports 26877, The World Bank Group.
    8. Mahabub Hossain, 2007. "Technological progress for sustaining food‐population balance: achievement and challenges," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 161-172, December.
    9. Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2023. "Noise pollution of container handling: External and abatement costs and environmental efficiency," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 82-93.
    10. Morales Sarriera, Javier & Serebrisky, Tomás & Araya, Gonzalo & Briceño-Garmendia, Cecilia & Schwartz, Jordan, 2013. "Benchmarking Container Port Technical Efficiency in Latin America and the Caribbean," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 4702, Inter-American Development Bank.
    11. Victor Stephane, 2016. "How Do Natural Disasters Affect Saving Behavior?," Working Papers halshs-01409651, HAL.
    12. 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.
    13. Heath Henderson & Leonardo Corral & Eric Simning & Paul Winters, 2015. "Land Accumulation Dynamics in Developing Country Agriculture," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 743-761, June.
    14. Gbemay Singbo, Alphonse & Larue, Bruno, 2014. "Scale Economies and Technical Efficiency of Quebec Dairy Farms," Working Papers 182482, University of Laval, Center for Research on the Economics of the Environment, Agri-food, Transports and Energy (CREATE).
    15. Atsushi Iimi & Liangzhi You & Ulrike Wood-Sichra, 2020. "Spatial Autocorrelation Panel Regression: Agricultural Production and Transport Connectivity," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 529-547, June.
    16. Adoho, Franck M. & Doumbia, Djeneba, 2022. "Informal Sector Heterogeneity and Income Inequality: Evidence from The Democratic Republic of Congo," Journal of Economic Development, The Economic Research Institute, Chung-Ang University, vol. 47(4), pages 55-77, December.
    17. Ringler, Claudia & Rosegrant, Mark W., 1999. "Impact on food security and rural development of reallocating water from agriculture:," EPTD discussion papers 47, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin, 2008. "Land Sales and Rental Markets in Transition: Evidence from Rural Vietnam," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(1), pages 67-101, February.
    19. Steinbuks, Jevgenijs & Narayanan, Badri G., 2015. "Fossil fuel producing economies have greater potential for industrial interfuel substitution," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 168-177.
    20. Ogundari, K. & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2011. "Estimating Technical Efficiency, Input substitution and complementary effects using Output Distance Function: A study of Cassava production in Nigeria," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 12(2).

    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:pid:journl:v:39:y:2000:i:4:p:477-486. 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: Khurram Iqbal (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pideipk.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.