Search results

AbstractPrivate firms in monopsony undertake disruptive innovation like contract farming (CF), where the firm invests in the food supply chain, provides credit, assumes the risk, and implements management strategies. This study investigates the impact of monopsonist involvement in CF and its impact on food security indicators among smallholders. Findings reveal that the monopsonist CF structure for ginger processing in Nepal increases the market price by about 18%, yields by 10%, and profits by 66%. However, the impact varies with farm size. Small farms (≤0.51 hectares (ha)) engaged in CF have higher yields (18%), earn higher profits (81%), and receive higher market prices (12%) than small noncontract ginger producers. Contrary to popular belief, disruptive innovation in value chains by monopsonists could lead to higher yields, the market price received, and profitability for both small and large farmers.

AbstractThis article reviews the literature on contract farming (CF) in India and assesses the impact of smallholders' perceived production risks on the adoption of CF; the impact of CF on smallholders' food security; and its impact on employment generation in their farming enterprises. We also show the impact of the outcome variables by risk preference of smallholders. Using farm‐level data and endogenous switching regression methods, this study presents three key findings. First, the perception of weather and pest risk, access to irrigation facilities, extension visits, and access to institutional credit are the main drivers of CF adoption. Second, CF adoption increases food security and varies with the revealed risk preference of smallholders, and risk‐seeking smallholders tend to gain higher food security. Third, regardless of revealed risk preferences, smallholders who did not adopt CF benefit from adoption by reducing their labor requirements, with no significant losses in yield.

This book discusses various climate smart agro-technologies, their technical and economic feasibility across heterogeneous agro-climatic conditions, assessing farmers' willingness to adopt those technologies, impact of climate smart technology in agricultural production and possible policy and investment opportunities to upscale it. Containing eight chapters, the book starts with a discussion about the methodological aspects of priority setting of the farm technologies across various regions of South Asia including Eastern Indo-Gangetic plain, Western Indo-Gangetic Plain and arid regions. Using data from field based trials and expert solicitations, the book next deliberates on a list of feasible technologies, assessed by constructing climate smart Feasibility Index. Further on, there is an analysis, using stated preference method, of the behaviour of farmers in adopting climate smart technologies. Preference of women farmers has been given a special focus in this book. After discussing the method priority setting of the farm technologies, impact of climate smart technologies has been analysed using real time data. Government policies have been reviewed with the view of achieving climate smart agriculture in South Asia. The book also describes the optimization modelling framework for investment allocation and technology prioritization. The model integrates both the bio-physical and the economic optimization model to capture the agro-climatic heterogeneity within the region and the variability of technical feasibility across regions and crops. Results of this model will help policy makers to identify how much to invest, where to invest and what technologies to prioritize for investments.

AbstractAlthough the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in about a 24% decline in India's GDP during the April–June 2020 quarter, the nation's agricultural sector, somewhat surprisingly, seems to have done remarkably well. This paper examines whether the public transfer program Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY), announced immediately after the lockdown, benefited farmers in dealing with the COVID shock. Overall, 95% of the smallholders received support from at least one of PMGKY's four components. Direct cash transfers had significantly more impact than in‐kind transfer schemes. The result shows that farmers receiving cash transfers under PM‐KISAN, one component of PMGKY, were more likely to invest in buying seeds. In contrast, farmers receiving cash transfers under PM‐UY, another piece of PMGKY, were more likely to invest in fertilizer and pesticides. Finally, smallholders who received benefits from all four components of PMGKY were more likely to invest in purchasing seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides. Findings suggest the fungibility of public cash transfers from the recent PMGKY scheme is significant in alleviating credit constraints and increasing future investments in modern inputs.

COVID-19 induced significant economic and social disruptions in India. Rural households, including smallholders, were affected by loss in migrant income, livelihood and farm and non-farm incomes. During this lockdown, the Indian government enacted several emergency legislations to provide direct and indirect relief to workers and households. India's COVID-19 social assistance package, namely, PM-GKY, announced in March 2020, was designed to provide immediate relief to the vulnerable population. The PM-GKY provided cash direct benefit transfers (DBT) and in-kind supports (IKS) through existing schemes. ; PR ; IFPRI3; ISI; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; IFPRI-ICAR ; SAR; PIM ; CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

the April–June 2020 quarter, the nation's agricultural sector, somewhat surprisingly, seems to have done remarkably well. This paper examines whether the public transfer program Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY), announced immediately after the lockdown, benefited farmers in dealing with the COVID shock. Overall, 95% of the smallholders received support from at least one of PMGKY's four components. Direct cash transfers had significantly more impact than in‐kind transfer schemes. The result shows that farmers receiving cash transfers under PM‐KISAN, one component of PMGKY, were more likely to invest in buying seeds. In contrast, farmers receiving cash transfers under PM‐UY, another piece of PMGKY, were more likely to invest in fertilizer and pesticides. Finally, smallholders who received benefits from all four components of PMGKY were more likely to invest in purchasing seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides. Findings suggest the fungibility of public cash transfers from the recent PMGKY scheme is significant in alleviating credit constraints and increasing future investments in modern inputs. ; PR ; IFPRI3; ISI; IFPRI-ICAR ; SAR