IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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


  • Fan, Shenggen
  • Gulati, Ashok
  • Thorat, Sukhadeo


"This paper reviews the trends in government subsidies and investments in and for Indian agriculture; develops a conceptual framework and model to assess the impact of various subsidies and investments on agricultural growth and poverty reduction; and, presents several reform options with regard to re-prioritizing government spending and improving institutions and governance. There are three major findings. First, initial subsidies in credit, fertilizer, and irrigation have been crucial for small farmers to adopt new technologies. Small farms are often losers in the initial adoption stage of a new technology since prices of the agricultural products are typically being pushed down by greater supply of products from large farms, which adopted the new technology. But as more and more farmers have adopted HYV, continued subsidies have led to inefficiency of the overall economy. Second, agricultural research, education, and rural roads are the three most effective public spending items in promoting agricultural growth and poverty reduction during all periods. Finally, the trade-off between agricultural growth and poverty reduction is generally small among different types of investments. As for agricultural research, education, and infrastructure development, they have large growth impact and a large poverty reduction impact. Several policy lessons can be drawn. Agricultural input and output subsidies have proved to be unproductive, financially unsustainable, environmentally unfriendly in recent years, and contributed to increased inequality among rural Indian states. To sustain long-term growth in agricultural production, and therefore provide a long-term solution to poverty reduction, the government should cut subsidies of fertilizer, irrigation, power, and credit and increase investments in agricultural research and development, rural infrastructure, and education. Promoting nonfarm opportunities is also important. However, simply reallocating public resources is not the full solution. Reforming institutions can have an equal, if not larger, impact on future agricultural and rural growth and rural poverty reduction." from Authors' Abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Fan, Shenggen & Gulati, Ashok & Thorat, Sukhadeo, 2007. "Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural India," IFPRI discussion papers 716, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:716

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Gulati, Ashok & Narayanan, Sudha, 2003. "The Subsidy Syndrome in Indian Agriculture," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195662061.
    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. Kym Anderson, 2006. "Reducing Distortions to Agricultural Incentives: Progress, Pitfalls, and Prospects," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1135-1146.
    2. Siddiqur Osmani, 2009. "Explaining Growth in South Asia," Chapters, in: Gary McMahon & Hadi Salehi Esfahani & Lyn Squire (ed.), Diversity in Economic Growth, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Raghbendra Jha, 2010. "Food security and small landholders in south Asia," ASARC Working Papers 2010-21, The Australian National University, Australia South Asia Research Centre.
    4. Kremer, Michael & Duflo, Esther & Robinson, Jonathan, 2009. "Nudging Farmers to Utilize Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya," CEPR Discussion Papers 7402, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Landes, Rip & Gulati, Ashok, 2003. "Policy Reform and Farm Sector Adjustment in India," Policy Reform and Adjustment Workshop, October 23-25, 2003, Imperial College London, Wye Campus 15735, International Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment Project (IAPRAP).
    6. Shah, Tushaar & Scott, C. & Kishore, A. & Sharma, A., 2003. "Energy-irrigation nexus in South Asia: Improving groundwater conservation and power sector viability," IWMI Research Reports H033885, International Water Management Institute.
    7. Giller, Ken E. & Andersson, Jens & Delaune, Thomas & Silva, João Vasco & Descheemaeker, Katrien & van de Ven, Gerrie & Schut, Antonius G.T. & van Wijk, Mark & Hammond, Jim & Hochman, Zvi & Taulya, God, 2022. "IFAD Research Series 83: The future of farming: who will produce our food?," IFAD Research Series 322005, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    8. Bathla, Seema & Yu, Bingxin & Thorat, Sukhadeo & Joshi, Pramod K., 2015. "Accelerating Agricultural Growth and Poverty Alleviation through Public Expenditure: The Experience of India," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211202, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Hazrana, Jaweriah & Kishore, Avinash & Roy, Devesh, 2020. "Supply response of staple food crops in the presence of policy distortions: Some evidence from India," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304490, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Prema-Chandra Athukorala, 2005. "Agricultural Trade Policy Reforms in India," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 6(1), pages 23-36, March.
    11. Anas Zyadin & Karthikeyan Natarajan & Suresh Chauhan & Harminder Singh & Md. Kamrul Hassan & Ari Pappinen & Paavo Pelkonen, 2015. "Indian Farmers’ Perceptions and Willingness to Supply Surplus Biomass to an Envisioned Biomass-Based Power Plant," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-13, April.
    12. Anderson, Kym & Kurzweil, Marianne & Martin, Will & Sandri, Damiano & Valenzuela, Ernesto, 2008. "Measuring distortions to agricultural incentives, revisited," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 675-704, October.
    13. Jayne, T.S. & Mason, Nicole M. & Burke, William J. & Ariga, Joshua, 2016. "Agricultural Input Subsidy Programs In Africa: An Assessment Of Recent Evidence," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 259509, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    14. Sudatta Ray & Hemant K. Pullabhotla, 2023. "The changing impact of rural electrification on Indian agriculture," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Akber, Nusrat & Paltasingh, Kirtti Ranjan & Mishra, Ashok K., 2022. "How can public policy encourage private investments in Indian agriculture? Input subsidies vs. public investment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. Cummings, Ralph Jr. & Rashid, Shahidur & Gulati, Ashok, 2006. "Grain price stabilization experiences in Asia: What have we learned?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 302-312, August.
    17. Shah, Amita, 2006. "Exploring sustainable production systems for agriculture: Implications for employment and investment under north-south trade scenario," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 237-241, September.
    18. Sunil Ashra & Malini Chakravarty, 2007. "Input Subsidies to Agriculture: Case of Subsidies to Fertiliser Industry across Countries," Vision, , vol. 11(3), pages 35-58, July.
    19. Rashid, Shahidur & Cummings Jr., Ralph & Gulati, Ashok, 2007. "Grain Marketing Parastatals in Asia: Results from Six Case Studies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1872-1888, November.
    20. Joshi, Pramod K. & Aggarwal, P.K. & Tyagi, N.K. & Pandey, Divya, 2015. "Role of development policies in combating climate change issues in Indian Agriculture: A frist order assessment of irrigation and fertilizer policies," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211817, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item


    Rural poverty; Agricultural growth; Public investments; subsidies; Pro-poor growth;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:fpr:ifprid:716. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.