IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/13663.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dynamics of Land Use Competition in India: Perceptions and Realities

Author

Listed:
  • Sharma, Vijay Paul

Abstract

Diversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses is an issue of public debate in every agrarian economy experiencing rapid urbanization and industrial development. However, the issue has become more complex and politicised in India due to widely varied perceptions about the extent of diversion of agricultural land and the causes and socio-economic consequences of loss of agricultural land. It is generally perceived that large-scale conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses has occurred and the issue of acquisition of large tracts of fertile land by corporates and displacement of farmers, agricultural workers, and other rural communities has become a major political rather than socio-economic issue. We try to determine whether the perceptions are consistent with empirical evidence on land use competition and identify main drivers that contribute to loss of agricultural land. The evidence shows that agricultural land conversion has become a serious issue in the country but the extent and intensity varies across different states. Between triennium ending (TE) 1991-92 and TE2011-12, net sown area in the country declined by about 1.8 million ha but it increased in some states, e.g. about 20 lakh ha in Rajasthan and 9.5 lakh ha in Gujarat. In contrast, Odisha lost over 17 lakh ha net sown area, Bihar (including Jharkhand) 12.4 lakh ha, Maharashtra (7.6 lakh ha), Tamil Nadu (7.1 lakh ha), Karnataka (3.1 lakh ha), Andhra Pradesh (2.7 lakh ha) and West Bengal (2.6 lakh ha). Contrary to general perception, Gujarat is the only state which has been able to add about 3 lakh ha to its total agricultural land during last two decades. Area under non-agricultural uses increased from 21.3 million ha in TE1991-92 to 26.3 million ha in TE2011-12 and almost all states witnessed an increase in area under non-agricultural uses. The empirical results revealed that urbanization, road infrastructure expansion and industrial development were the most important factors affecting agricultural land. Therefore, proper planning and management of land resources and appropriate policy framework are required to check conversion of agricultural land. Managing urbanization process and industrial as well as infrastructure expansion in a desired way that protects productive agricultural land and uses barren and unculturable wastelands (about 17.2 million ha) is very critical to country’s prosperity and sustainability. Hence, restriction on conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural uses (mainly for industrial estates) and proper planning and implementation of land use policies are needed. The recent and current trends in agriculture and non-agriculture land use should not be a cause for either panic or complacency. However, strategic planning that avoids land use conflict by identifying areas, mainly barren and unculturable wastelands, for non-agricultural activities such as urban and industrial expansion and protecting productive farm lands is necessary to address land use conflicts and co-existence of agriculture and other non-agricultural activities. The problem of small and fragmented farms underlines the need for revisiting tenancy laws so as to increase the effective farm size.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharma, Vijay Paul, 2015. "Dynamics of Land Use Competition in India: Perceptions and Realities," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-06-02, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
  • Handle: RePEc:iim:iimawp:13663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iima.ac.in/sites/default/files/rnpfiles/20799648232015-06-02.pdf
    File Function: English Version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bardhan, Pranab K, 1973. "Size, Productivity, and Returns to Scale: An Analysis of Farm-Level Data in Indian Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(6), pages 1370-1386, Nov.-Dec..
    2. Berry, R Albert, 1972. "Farm Size Distribution, Income Distribution, and the Efficiency of Agricultural Production: Colombia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 403-408, May.
    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. Ashraf, Jawaid & Pandey, Rajiv & de Jong, Wil, 2017. "Assessment of bio-physical, social and economic drivers for forest transition in Asia-Pacific region," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 35-44.
    2. Braja Bandhu Swain & Nils Teufel, 2017. "The impact of urbanisation on crop–livestock farming system: a comparative case study of India and Bangladesh," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 19(1), pages 161-180, April.

    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. Sharma, Vijay Paul, 2012. "India’s Agricultural Development Under the New Economic Regime: Policy Perspective and Strategy for the 12th Five Year Plan," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(1), pages 1-33.
    2. Gilligan, Daniel O., 1998. "Farm Size, Productivity, And Economic Efficiency: Accounting For Differences In Efficiency Of Farms By Size In Honduras," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20918, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Mochebelele, Motsamai T. & Winter-Nelson, Alex, 2000. "Migrant Labor and Farm Technical Efficiency in Lesotho," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 143-153, January.
    4. Klaus Deininger & Denys Nizalov & Sudhir K Singh, 2013. "Are mega-farms the future of global agriculture? Exploring the farm size-productivity relationship for large commercial farms in Ukraine," Discussion Papers 49, Kyiv School of Economics.
    5. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    6. Bharadwaj, Prashant, 2015. "Fertility and rural labor market inefficiencies: Evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 217-232.
    7. Coelli, Tim J. & Battese, George E., 1996. "Identification Of Factors Which Influence The Technical Inefficiency Of Indian Farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 1-26, August.
    8. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Yanyan Liu & Sudhir K. Singh, 2018. "Can Labor-Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size–Productivity Relationship? Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(2), pages 239-258.
    9. Klasen, Stephan & Reimers, Malte, 2017. "Looking at Pro-Poor Growth from an Agricultural Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-168.
    10. Thottappilly, Anna, 2021. "Identifying the Income Effect on Nutrition for Agricultural Households: Separability of Production and Consumption," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315335, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Biggs, Huntley H,, 1972. "Technological Alternatives for Agricultural Development: Employment and Output Considerations," WAEA/ WFEA Conference Archive (1929-1995) 323750, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. 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.
    13. Tandel, Vaidehi & Hiranandani, Komal & Kapoor, Mudit, 2019. "What’s in a definition? A study on the suitability of the current urban definition in India through its employment guarantee programme," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 69-84.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Akram-Lodhi, A.H., 2001. "Vietnam's agriculture: is there an inverse relationship?," ISS Working Papers - General Series 19096, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    17. Coronese, Matteo & Occelli, Martina & Lamperti, Francesco & Roventini, Andrea, 2023. "AgriLOVE: Agriculture, land-use and technical change in an evolutionary, agent-based model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    18. Thapa, Sridhar, 2007. "The relationship between farm size and productivity: empirical evidence from the Nepalese mid-hills," 106th Seminar, October 25-27, 2007, Montpellier, France 7940, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. repec:zbw:iamodp:274820 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. C.S.C. Sekhar, 2021. "Price or income support to farmers? Policy options and implications," IEG Working Papers 420, Institute of Economic Growth.
    21. Phu Nguyen-Van & Nguyen To-The, 2016. "Technical efficiency and agricultural policy: evidence from the teaproduction in Vietnam," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 97(3), pages 173-184.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iim:iimawp:13663. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eciimin.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.