I will not enter into deals

I have been hit below the belt,
The agony is still being felt.

Please give me some time,
It is not just loosing a dime.

Well, it was a real hard blow,
I have seen harder ones though.

True, there is nothing so new,
When one has a different view.

The bruises will start to heal,
I will now take on with zeal.

This will also soon pass over,
As one starts with new fervour.

But, I will not change my values,
And, I will not enter into deals.

(Being hit below the belt can refer to a personal crisis but it can also refer to a larger crisis like the 2008 financial crisis or the current European crisis or even the problems that led to the Arab spring or other aspects that can be related to Easter or Passover or similar aspects in other religions. In such situations, one can replace I, me and my with we, us and our respectively. Further to have an impact while singing in a group, the first two lines can be repeated before every couplet. Keeping in line with the message from Easter/Passover one has kept the last line, and not the first one, as the title. For an earlier version, see Friends, give me some time, written on Good Friday.)


© Srijit Mishra, 8 April 2012, Easter/Passover

[Comment added on 13 April 2012: To move out from a low to high the poem could be recited twice. In the first instance, the first two lines are repeated before each couplet whereas in the second instance the last two lines are repeated after every couplet. Today is Maha Bishuba Sankranti/Bihu/Vishu. Have lots of juices for the upcoming summer and keep yourself well hydrated while humming the lines.]

Added 25 April 2012: On an academic front, if you are interested in Why Parties Enter Into Unfair Deals see the paper by Justin Malon.

Friends, give me some time

Friends, give me some time,
It is not just loosing a dime.

I have been hit below the belt,
The agony is still being felt.

Well, it was a real hard blow,
I have seen harder ones though.

True, there is nothing so new,
When one has a different view.

The bruises will start to heal,
I will now take on with zeal.

Without changing my values,
Without entering into deals.

© Srijit Mishra, 6 April 2012, Good Friday

This has been revised, see I will not enter into deals.

It is all in the line, our poverty line

The poverty estimates for 2009-10 in India by the Planning Commission has pegged the per capita per day poverty lines at 28.65 rupees in urban areas and 22.43 rupees in rural areas. Comparable poverty lines for 2004-05 are 19.29 rupees and 14.89 rupees respectively (see a note on poverty estimates for 2004-05).

Compared to 2004-05, the poverty line of 2009-10 has increased by 48.5 per cent and 50.6 per cent in urban and rural areas respectively.  During the same period, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Non-manual Employees (CPI-NME) and Agricultural Labourers (CPI-AL) increased by 48.8 per cent and 54.9 per cent respectively, as indicated in Key Indicators of Household Consumer Expenditure in India 2009-10 (see Table T7, p.17). An independent calculation of the CPI for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) indicates that between the financial years of 2004-05 and 2009-10 CPI-IW increased by 45.2 per cent. 

The 2004-05 estimates were updated to June 2001 in the Planning Commission's affidavit to the Supreme Court in October 2011 and pegged at 32 rupees and 26 rupees (rather, 32.16 rupees and 26.03 rupees) for urban and rural areas respectively. If 2009-10 estimates are used to update for June 2011 then an inflation accounted for by CPI-IW and CPI-AL indicates a poverty line of  32.25 rupees and 25.35 rupees for urban and rural areas respectively. Thus, the poverty line for rural, if not for urban, India indicates a decline when compared to the affidavit. 

These all may give the impression that we might be close at the urban level but miss the bus at the rural level.  However, a closer look at CPI-IW for food between the two financial years indicates an increase of 58.7 per cent. A relatively higher increase for food in CPI-AL is also expected.

The food price inflation in recent years is a known fact, but it has implications for the methodology used by the Planning Commission. At a given level of basket with food comprising a higher share, the poverty line should have increased more than the general price increase. If this has not happened then as per 2009-10 estimates from the consumption expenditure the price increase in non-food items was higher or something still remains unexplained - the calculation of the poverty line is a black box.

Further, at the actual expenditure there could be a shift in the consumption basket from food to non-food items and this would not be because of choice, but because of compulsions arising out of relative prices. The estimates given by the Planning Commission, who have already done the calculations, do not elaborate on this point. But, then they reiterate that it not about a point, it is a line.

This reminds me of a story. A well meaning ruler appointed 'accomplished' persons as advisers who articulated improving well-being through hard work, dedication and competition. The ruler was so convinced that people who were lazy, casual and non-performers (including the poor, the sick, and the old) were asked to improve, failing which they were banished from the kingdom. The latter was followed in letter and spirit by able and objective administrators who were not swayed by human emotions. Despite that, every time the ruler reviewed the situation there always existed a pool of poor and sick and some young people who looked old. To top it all they were losers and were the ones who could not make use of all the incentives given (in the form of subsidies and tax deductions among others) to succeed. No one could provide any answers.

The ruler was worried and would go into contemplative moods about what went wrong in banishing the lazy hares. Suddenly, one fine day (we will narrate the incident some other time) it chanced upon the ruler that competition by design has to have a winner and a looser. No matter what you do you cannot do away with the looser. Then how does the ruler showcase his achievements among the people and more so among the comity of nations. Reversing the policy of banishing 'lazy hares' or not incentivizing winners is not possible. Thus, the ruler after deliberation with thinkers agreed to take a middle position 'competition that is inclusive'. The change in the slogan was mere cosmetic and things continued as usual except for the fact that the non-performers were not banished. They were allowed to stay and some efforts were made to rehabilitate some of them and in some cases a policy of 'give them fish without teaching them how to catch' was also followed.

The combination of policies did not have the desired effect. Poverty did not get reduced. Good minds were put to work to arrive at a method of calculating poverty. The method did away with the baggage of calorie consumption instead of adding nutritional concerns. It was made robust enough for other minds to have difficulty in comprehending and their efforts in replicating it will only result in they loosing their minds (only Alexander can cut the Gordian knot). Thus, all eyes were on the method. And lo and behold, it showed results.  One has to concede that it is all in the line, our poverty line.

(Revised 21 March and 24 March 2012. Thanks to Mitali Chatterjee, Kinnary Desai and Smit Gade for comments). 

The 'I Know' Syndrome

There is this old adage that 'people staying in glass houses should not throw stones at each other'.  By extension, they should also not throw stones at others including those staying in stone houses because a retaliation can be dangerous for them. However, what is much more important is that the rules for the former need not be applied to the latter and vice-versa because the residents of the stone houses can throw stones (or let us say balls with the wall serving as markers like goalposts or stumps) at each others houses and still not harm each other, but they can harm those staying in glass houses.

If one of them represents the elite and the other the commoner (will differ from situation to situation) then it means that the former cannot decide on rules for the latter based on their experience. This is so because they cannot perceive the real world of others. Hence, the elite cannot and should not make policies for the commoner without understanding the latter perspective.

But, in the real world, I am afraid that, policy suggestion are articulated from a perspective that is redundant and irrelevant for whom it is intended. We refer to this as the 'I Know' syndrome. People in the West have an opinion on what is good for the East or should I say Middle East, the North articulates out the right path for the South, people in high rise think that they have the right solution for the homeless or those staying in the slums, people manning the Governments think that they do the correct thing for its poor. In practice, the policy maker, more often than not, is devoid of a real world understanding; they do not have either a field perspective or a peoples perspective.

People staying in structures that require more energy when alternative structures would have helped achieve the same will not and cannot understand the relevance of climate change and even less that their structures are also a cause of climate change. Bureaucrats and scientists working in silos cannot understand that agriculture is not only about food but more importantly about a symbiotic relationship between people and nature and a way of life that has social and cultural implications.

What is required is the policy maker should get out of their silos and meet and interact with people and understand their perspective on a continuous basis. This will be a good attempt to get out of the 'I Know'  syndrome.

-----
The Glass House Syndrome (the earlier version, prior to 24 April 2012, see details at the end below)

There is this old adage that 'people staying in glass houses should not throw stones at each other'.  By extension, they should also not throw stones at others including those staying in stone houses because a retaliation can be dangerous for them. However, what is much more important is that the rules for the former need not be applied to the latter because the residents of the stone houses can throw stones (or let us say balls with the wall serving as markers like goalposts or stumps) at each others houses and still not harm each other. 

If glass and stone stand as euphemism for elite and commoner respectively then it means that the former cannot decide on rules for the latter based on their experience. This is so because even if the people staying in glass houses can see what is happening outside that vision is truncated because they cannot see what is happening inside the other houses and they definitely cannot feel, hear, smell and speak to the others. In short, their senses cannot perceive the real world of others. Hence, those staying in glass houses cannot and should not make policies for the commoner without understanding the latter perspective.

But, in the real world, I am afraid that, policy suggestion are articulated from a perspective that is redundant and irrelevant for whom it is intended. We refer to this as the glass house syndrome. People in the West have an opinion on what is good for the East or should I say Middle East, the North articulates out the right path for the South, people in high rise think that they have the right solution for the homeless or those staying in the slums, people manning the Governments think that they do the correct thing for its poor. In practice, the policy maker, more often than not, is devoid of a real world understanding; they do not have either a field perspective or a peoples perspective.

People staying in glass houses will not and cannot understand the relevance of climate change and even less that their glass houses are also a cause of climate change. Bureaucrats and scientists working in glass houses cannot understand that agriculture is not only about food but more importantly about a symbiotic relationship between people and nature and a way of life that has social and cultural implications.

Well, to be fair to the glass house resident, they are perhaps not throwing stones, but then the world does not require their cotton either.  What is required is the policy maker should get out of the glass house and meet and interact with people and understand their perspective on a continuous basis. This will be a good attempt to get out of the glass house syndrome.

-----

24 April 2012: This blog was revised after reading People who live in glass houses: growing food not throwing stones. It was also because of this that the title of the blog was changed to 'the stone throwing syndrome' from 'the glass house syndrome' .

30 April 2012: The title was again changed to I Know Syndrome because 'stone throwing' can refer to a form of protest that common people use. 

Also see my, In search of a paradigm.

In search of a paradigm

Debates and discussions in the academic, media and public policy circles with regard to socio-economic issues have a tendency to identify positions as either Right or Left. The questioning mind thinks whether Right is right and  Left is to be left or is it the other way round where Right is to be left and Left is right. One talks of the virtues of the market a la Adam Smith and the other the virtues of a classless society a la Karl Marx.

Daniel Mackie, Thinkers, Adam Smith and Karl Marx

Among lay persons the discussions at times can point to the right-hand use among people being the norm whereas the left-hand use being an aberration by the supporters of Right, which is countered by stating that left-hand users are smarter and intelligent by the supporters of Left. There are others who want to broker peace and point out that there are advantages in both the hands while conceding that there can be situations where we are more attuned to the right and some others where we are more attuned to the left. But then a middle position leaves an unanswered question with regard to the appropriate paradigm. Are we both Right and Left? Or, are we neither Right nor Left? These questions put us in a catch-22 situation.

Getting back, the virtues of the market as also that of classless society have their own merit. The market gives the freedom to individuals to exchange their goods and services and because of the existence of large number of buyers and sellers none of them can determine the prices and it is this that can do away with any vested interest. A classless society does away with any kind of hierarchy and with it any power relationships that can lead to vested interest are also done away with. Both these are ideal situations that do away with some form of vested interest.

The doing away of vested interests is also articulated through the impartial spectator in Adam Smith's Moral Sentiments and the need is conveyed by the corruption of our moral sentiments, which is occasioned by the disposition to admire the rich and the great, and to despise or neglect persons of poor and mean condition. The role of the impartial spectator is taken forward in recent times by Amartya Sen in The Idea of Justice.

Another idea of doing away with vested interest is John Rawls' 'original position'. Here the individuals enter into an agreement by remaining under a veil of ignorance where they do not know their identities, as articulated in A Theory of Justice.

A very powerful call to our moral power is invoked when Mahatma Gandhi gave us a talisman. This talisman suggests that whenever in doubt an individual should recall the face of the most vulnerable person and contemplate whether the action to be taken will be of any help to that person and provide them with swaraj and it is this that will lead to one's doubt as also one's self melting away.  There will be no vested interest.

Steve Jobs in his commencement address (also see video below) to students at Stanford University refers to three stories from his life. The third one states that since he was 17 years old he has been starting his day every day by contemplating that it could be his last and it is this invoking of death that does away with all redundant things - external expectations, pride, fear, embarrassment or failure; only truly important things remain.  This reminds us about John Donne's Death be not proud, but more importantly it is also a very powerful moral power that does away with vested interest. 

Speaking about the contemporary political scenario in India one cannot but agree about the public perception of honesty and integrity by its Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. At least with regard to financial propriety at a personal level and without going into ideological differences and some other acts of omission and commission, one can also name half-a-dozen  Chief Ministers from different states cutting across political parties such as Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal, Manik Sarkar of Tripura, Narendra Modi of Gujarat, Naveen Patnaik of Odisha, Nitish Kumar of Bihar and Prithviraj Chavan of Maharashtra among others who are also known to satisfy the acid test of public probity in some sense. This is a good thing and a necessary condition to root out vested interests leading to corruption, but it is neither a sufficient condition nor the only test required for good governance.

For instance, being personally honest does not mean that we can assume that everyone around us is also honest. The assumption of trust is a positive thing, but this cannot be the basis of a statecraft to allow markets to rule the roost. Similarly, espousing a classless society through different process does not necessarily mean the absence of hierarchies and vested interests, as the recent experiences in the umpteen years of Left rule in West Bengal or the fall of the erstwhile Soviet Union suggest.

Markets or a classless setup are means to do away with some forms of vested interest so that people live in a fair society.  Thus, as a deeper reading of Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Rawls would show, it is people with plural concerns who should be at the centre of focus - the ends. As Amartya Sen would say, it is the enhancing of capabilities of people so that they can be and do what they have reason to value is what matters. These have been articulated in numerous ways in the Human Development Reports of the last two decades.

So, to sum up, the question of either Right or Left, or, neither Right nor Left are not the appropriate ones. One can use, markets as also classless set-up or any other means or none of them to help people depending on the context. One should take advantage of these as also other means and tools when required, but should also be on the guard for adverse implication that can come out of the usage of these. But, most importantly one should never loose sight of the people-centric approach, our end. It is this that takes us in our search for a paradigm to one called 'human development'.

An interesting note, tangentially related is Karl Marx and Adam Smith Drop In On Occupy Wall Street. This link and the link to some of the photographs have been put up on 25 April 2012.

To Bt Or Not To Bt?

To Bt Or Not To Bt? Risk and Uncertainty Considerations in Technology Assessment is the title of a new working paper from IGIDR by Sarthak Gaurav and myself (Srijit Mishra). I give below the abstract and some extracts from the Introduction and Conclusion, but without the references.

Abstract

The acreage under the transgenic Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton seeds in India has risen significantly since its legalization in the year 2002. Discussions on the advantages from the technology have focused on increments in productivity and income, without much analysis on risk. We point out that claims on productivity gains seem to be misplaced, as appropriate counterfactuals do not exist for the same hybrids. In this article we analyse production costs and crop incomes in drought years to test a simplistic theory of risk based on first principles. We employ a mixed-methods framework to draw inferences by combining data from two cross-sectional surveys in Gujarat (Saurashtra and Southern-Plains) and Maharashtra (Western Vidarbha) for the period 2009-10 and compare it with unit-level data for the corresponding regions from a nationally representative sample for the period 2002-03. Empirical evidence, though limited, brings out the problem of how a high cost technology could be associated with higher risks and may be dominated by traditional alternatives under certain conditions. Ethnographic accounts from the field provide qualitative support to our understanding of potential risks and uncertainties associated with the new technology.

Introduction

It is observed that in less than a decade since its legal introduction in 2002, there has been a remarkable diffusion of Bt cotton technology in India, with  the genetically modified seeds being used to cultivate nearly 90 per cent of the total area under cotton in 2010.  During this period, the yields and overall production has increased on an average, and India, which is the second largest producer of cotton in the world, became a net exporter of cotton from being a net importer. Should we accept these trends as evident of a successful adoption of the technology? Or, is there something more than what meets the eye – like the dominance of the QWERTY technology for keyboard layouts? In other words, can the increasing acreage under Bt cotton be solely attributed to inherent benefits of the transgenic seed technology or there are at work other mechanisms that demand explanation? More importantly, are we missing out on critical dimensions of assessing the technology amidst the ‘deceptive rhetoric, spin, and soundbite science portraying the wonders or horrors of the new technology’ propounded by the competing discourses of the pro and anti Bt camps? 

...

For a scientific evaluation of the hypothesized superiority of Bt cotton seeds in the causal sense, the use of these seeds should be the differentiating factor in attainment of higher yields and profitability in cotton production, ceteris paribus. Also, it should be borne in mind that in the absence of appropriate counterfactuals and adequate controls, any evidence that rejects the null hypothesis of Bt seeds not being superior to their non Bt counterparts, does not necessarily imply the superiority of Bt seeds, and vice versa. In the case of Bt cotton, the co-existence of scores of varieties with Bt genes and non Bt hybrids complicates the separability of the effects of the Bt strain.  Unfortunately, the Bt cotton discourse has failed to acknowledge this fundamental logic while attempting to establish the positive or negative impacts.

In this article, we argue that an improved understanding of risk and uncertainty is central to the assessment of Bt cotton technology by analyzing outcomes in two drought periods, across two cross-sections. First, we use unit-level data from the Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers from the 59th round of the National Sample Survey (NSS), for the period 2002-03 across specific regions of Gujarat (Saurashtra and Southern Plains) and Maharashtra (Western Vidarbha).   Then we employ data from our surveys and ethnographic inquiries in the similar agro-ecological zones in the two states for the period 2009-10. Furthermore, the Gujarat sample provides interesting comparisons across Bt and non Bt growers and ethnographic findings from the field in Wardha district of Vidarbha allow us to draw critical inferences on the Bt technology.

By taking up the analysis in two drought periods – one at a time when the legal (official) commercial transgenic varieties were introduced, and the other at a time when the technological diffusion can be assumed to have played out well, the findings of this article attempt to sensitize Bt cotton analysis to issues of risk and technological uncertainty. We believe, this article has two important contributions to improving our understanding of the Bt cotton debate. First, we argue for the need to consider the fundamental aspect of risk in the evaluation of the impact of Bt seeds. This assumes significance at a time of crisis in the Indian agriculture and spate of farmers’ suicides among predominantly cotton growers.

Second, our study is a contribution in mixed-methods research paradigm. In this context, we introduce a methodological innovation that combines quantitative and qualitative findings from the field with secondary data from a nationally representative sample that provides a rough baseline approximation in the context of Bt cotton evaluation for the two major cotton growing regions of the country, namely, Saurashtra and Southern Plains in Gujarat and Western Vidarbha in Maharashtra. It is quite likely that some farmers in the nationally representative sample would have already used illegal Bt seeds Nevertheless, the analysis can be safely assumed to be representative of non Bt usage scenario and hence a valid benchmark for conditions of cotton production in the relevant regions. For the current purpose we compare and contrast results from the NSS survey for the crop season of 2002-03 with that of some location specific and somewhat independent surveys in the above-mentioned two cotton growing regions during 2009-10.

...
Conclusion
In this article we argue that the perceived benefits and costs of introduction of the genetically modified seed technology, needs to be re-evaluated from the perspective that by being a substantial addition to cost in the farmers input vector, it also has risk considerations that need to be analyzed. Its dynamic interaction with a host of other factors like changing pest ecology, price risks, multi crop systems and market dynamics needs attention.

Using data from the Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers of the NSS 59th round, for a drought period 2002-03, we derive baseline scenarios for regions in Gujarat and Maharashtra. Data from the field and ethnographic evidence in similar regions provide changes in conditions of cotton production in the drought year 2009-10. First, we show that Bt technology is first order stochastically dominated by non Bt technology for our sample of cotton growers in Gujarat and the Bt technology adds substantial input costs to the production system.    

Second, findings from the village level study in Maharashtra provide evidence of technology uncertainty, rampant deskilling and sub-optimal production decision making by farmers with limited information. Widespread institutional failures in the market for seeds emerge as a major concern in the farmers’ adjustment process and demands immediate attention.

Last but not the least, we provide the first evidence on the riskiness of Bt cotton technology by employing a simple risk framework (Mishra 2008) which takes the ratio of  costs with that of net returns from cultivation of a specific crop. In this theoretical framework Bt technology can be both risk increasing or risk decreasing given the actual conditions under which the production occurs, but empirical evidence presented in this analysis indicate that Bt cotton has been risk increasing.

Even though our datasets are limited in terms of external validity and we employed a mixed-methods framework to address our core research question, we get substantive qualitative and quantitative confirmation on the Bt technology being associated with increasing risk in a drought year. This perspective is critical for the technology evaluation because the farmers stand to lose more in bad crop years than they would have in the case of traditional varieties. Moreover, if the net gains from Bt (at higher expected yields) are offset by the high intensity losses (frequent or otherwise), the yield advantage promised by Bt seeds should be taken with a pinch of salt because the absolute returns are so low that an increase in returns in such years would not lead to an increase in savings that can be used to compensate in a bad year. The riskiness of this technology becomes even more important from the fact that around 65 per cent of India’s cotton is produced in rainfed conditions and 35 per cent is irrigated.

We would like to emphasize that this article is not an addition to the existing literature on the productivity or socio-economic impact of Bt cotton technology, rather it is an attempt to introduce a new perspective in evaluating the technology by analyzing farm level data from a nationally representative sample and field level data from an ongoing panel data based study in one of the most challenging socio-economic and institutional contexts where the merit of the technology could be put to test. The contribution of our paper is that it introduces an alternative perspective on how the inherent riskiness of a so-called innovation like Bt cotton should be identified, irrespective of its potential benefits or observed merits across different parts of the country and among different groups of farmers. We demonstrate how a neglect of the simple economics of crop production and the associated risk factors can play out against the farmers who make a conscious decision to adopt a particular technology given multiple constraints, with the hope that it will pay off well.   

There are certain methodological issues in Bt cotton evaluation that have not been dealt with in this paper but could be taken up as future research. Bt hybrids outperforming the earlier non Bt varieties should not be taken as a positive increment in yield on account of Bt alone, and the separability of effects of the hybrid impacts from Bt traits in a seed should be strived at. Variability of yield and other dimensions like price risks need to be assessed rigorously. Moreover, Bt technology could also induce moral hazard in farming practices as the farmer would expect the superior technology to be causing higher yields. An analysis of the dynamic performance of the technology over an appropriate period of time across different agroclimatic conditions could throw more light and also help us study the associated effects on the ecology and environment. Despite these limitations, our analysis does suggest that the proposition – to Bt or not to Bt; demands more non reductionist analyses that take cognizance of the localized variations and institutional realities.

Those interested, may read the full paper, To Bt Or Not To Bt? Risk and Uncertainty Considerations in Technology Assessment.

Options and Priorities for Agriculture in India on the Eve of the Twelfth Five-Year Plan

Introduction

The Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), Mumbai and the Institute for Human Development (IHD), New Delhi with the support from the Planning Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and The World Bank conducted a two day workshop on 'Policy Options and Investment Priorities for Accelerating Agricultural Productivity and Development in India' at the India International Centre, New Delhi during 10-11 November 2011. Besides the inaugural session (where Dr Abhijit Sen, Member, Planning Commission delivered the keynote address), there were six technical sessions, viz., agriculture in the global perspective, agricultural growth, agricultural investments, technology, marketing and structural transformations, and three panel discussions on perspectives from the states, government perspectives and the way forward. Based on these deliberations, some policy aspects are raised on the eve of the twelfth five-year plan.

Issues and concerns

While agricultural productivity and development is an important question, there could be different perspectives such as increasing foodgrains production, providing livelihood security for more than half the population dependent on agriculture or efficiency in resource use of not only land but also water and other inputs. All these have their own rationale, but they can conflict with each other and that is the challenge for planning. In addition, questions of food inflation in recent times and the ongoing debate on food and nutrition security as also crop diversification, efficiency of small holdings and soil fatigue are also relevant concerns.

Learning from others

Drawing on the comparative study with a focus on Brazil, China and Indonesia, the lessons for India is to focus on research in facilitating appropriate technology, sprucing up the research and extension systems, emphasis on diversification and investment in infrastructure. At a global level, increasing hunger, adverse impacts on production on account of climate change and shift in acreage to biofuels among others are matters that are also pertinent for India.

Growth in agriculture: variation across states

After a period of deceleration from mid-90s, there has been a revival in agricultural growth in the eleventh plan, but this revival is being backed by a technology that is increasing the cost rather than reducing it, which jeopardises the livelihood sustainability of the mass of people dependent on agriculture. There are differences in priorities and policies across states and agro-climatic regions and the planning at the centre should take this into note. In particular, the rainfed regions and districts with lower productivity need special attention. The Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) should be bottom-up in spirit and not just in letter, that is, start planning from the village level by involving the local communities based on their requirements.

Investments in agriculture: public and private

Public investments should sustain the momentum on irrigation, research & development, and rural roads; focus on rainfed and eastern region; and find ways to make fixed capital efficient among others. The policy environment to facilitate private corporate investment should also look into appropriate regulatory and institutional issues. Farmer household level private investment is complementary to public investment, but for this to happen, appropriate credit facilitation should be provided by the formal banking institutions keeping the marginal and small farmer in mind. Further, research should be encouraged with farm level data. The unit level data maintained by the Department of Economics and Statistics (DES) and used by Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) should be made available to researchers so as to help in the policy deliberations and planning process.

Technology: a critical link

New technological developments are required to improve production and this necessitates change in agricultural education, facilitating research that has to be integrated with on-field training and extension education, draws on farmers' innovations and incorporates the ecological concerns among others. For all these, appropriate additional investment is required in research and development. There should be ample scope to integrate Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA) to the needs of the states with a focus on providing appropriate services, as required by the farmers. Efforts should be made to reduce yield gaps from research station potential to on-farm demonstration to actual farm outputs. Independent of the input-intensive cultivation, the alternative paradigm of rainfed cultivation with a focus on soil organic matter, supplementary irrigation, seed bank, millet production along with small ruminants and fisheries among others may be promoted on a pilot basis under the twelfth five-year plan in some selected blocks of backward rainfed districts. This also requires building up of farmer-friendly institutions to facilitate their livelihood security.

Market: beyond efficiencies

In recent years, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) laws have been enacted or are in the process of being enacted in most states, but some of the variation across states need to be bridged with subsequent amendments and the enacted laws need to be properly implemented and where there are no laws, appropriate regulatory structures need to be put in place. There is a case to empower marginal and small farmers by expanding their choice set so that they benefit from market transactions and this may be possible through pro-poor value chains, and appropriate contracts that are situation-specific to guard them against price and income shocks. Risk mitigation at the household level has to be based on diversification and low external input technologies. There is a need for appropriate insurance instruments – crop insurance at the farm level and weather-based insurance to factor in different stages of crops life cycle and input requirements.

Village studies: multiple perspectives required

The changing technological and market scenario as also socio-economic intervention is also bringing about a lot of changes in rural India. Revival of village studies from multiple perspectives would help complement our understanding from large scale surveys and macro data. Such studies need to be encouraged.

The way forward

On the eve of the twelfth five-year plan, the challenges for agriculture are multiple – climate change, foodgrains production, technology fatigue, resource use efficiency, food inflation, and livelihood security for those dependent on agriculture among others. It requires coming together of many domains and perspectives, as has been shown in this workshop wherein one received support from the government and multilateral organizations involving researchers from Indian as well as International institutes with an attempt to initiate a conversation between agricultural scientists and economists.

Alternative technologies emphasizing on sustainable and conservation practices with a focus on rainfed regions need to be explored. This has to be complemented with appropriate institutions: (1) those that organize farmers from the village level to aggregate their input and market requirements, (2) those that help to leverage scientific developments and the claimed potential with on-field outcomes at the farmer level through appropriate research and extension structure that are bi-directional in nature and also take into consideration the local situation – both agro-climatic as also socio-economic, and (3) those that facilitate collection and analysis of quality data at the micro (farm or household level including village studies), meso (regional or state-specific studies) and macro (aggregate economy level studies) level. There is also a case to bring together the concerns of agricultural development with that of rural development.

The task ahead is daunting. To quote Robert Frost, “…And miles to go before (we) sleep, And miles to go before (we) sleep.”

(This has been prepared by Srijit Mishra in consultation with S Mahendra Dev and with inputs from Ritika Palit, Sanjay Prasad, Upasana Sharma and D Suganthi.)

Some of my other recent related posts are:

Size-class and returns to cultivation in India

Food, hunger and ethics

Report on strengthening the role of agriculture for nutrition secure India

Poverty estimates in India