Suchergebnisse

A majority of the world's agricultural production takes place on small farms (less than 2 hectares). India has one of the smallest average farm sizes with over 68 per cent of its farms being marginal in size (below 1 hectare). Small farm production is constrained by challenges of accessing lumpy inputs of management and asset specific machinery, markets, credit, extension services and technology. Collective actions in the form of cooperatives in many parts of the world have played a vital role in overcoming these challenges and enabling agricultural growth. However, cooperatives in India have suffered from low participation, over-dependence on state assistance, poor management, political interference in their functioning and poor benefits to intended target groups. In recent years Producer Organisational Formats (POFs) such as Producer Companies (PCs), Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) and Farmers Federations (FFs) have emerged in an attempt to address some of these challenges faced by small producers. Although policy makers recognize this new cooperativism to have the potential to address small producer disadvantages, progress has been little in supporting or promoting POFs in India due to limited understanding of their functioning, impact and potential. This knowledge gap motivated this research. Using a conceptual framework grounded in institutional and collective action theories, this thesis examines (a) how POFs are structured on organisational, social and economic terms and (b) how resources are allocated and incentives aligned within these institutions. The thesis finds that the examined POFs are small, regionspecific collective actions, organised with the help of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) supported by the state. POFs relied on networks of social relationships, trust, norms and sometimes religious ideology to prevent collective action problems that hindered effective organisation. In economic terms, POFs helped improve market access and increased marketable agricultural surplus at the household level; yet, this surplus was not sufficient for households with marginal sized land to solely depend on farming as a livelihood activity. As for resource allocation and incentive alignment within POFs, the even distribution of collective goods to all members was a strong material incentive for participation. Social capital in the form of networks, norms and trust among members also incentivised participation. In sum the study finds that POFs have the potential to improve access to markets, credit, inputs and research and extension services, the lack of which has hindered small and marginal producer viability. In some cases social disadvantages of access arising from gender and caste were addressed through these organisations.

This study examines the decision to underwrite dividend reinvestment plans (DRPs) by Australian listed firms over the sample period 1995–2013. We find that the decision to underwrite a DRP for non-financial firms is negatively related to the level of franking credits attached to dividends, but positively related to the leverage of the firm and the discount for new shares issued in lieu of dividends. Non-financial and financial firms that are larger in size are more likely to underwrite their DRP. Lastly, underwriting of DRPs decreased with the onset of and subsequent to the height of the global financial crisis.

This paper uses the structuralist framework of agriculture-industry synergy in an economy to discuss the performance of the agricultural and industrial sectors in India. The industry - agriculture relationship is argued to be integral to economic development as the agriculture sector supplies raw materials, surplus labour to the industrial sector and acts as a source of demand for industrial goods. However, in India this relationship has been complex. This paper looks at the supply side constraints in the agricultural sector and the demand side constraints in the industrial sector to assess the poor development and growth in the two sectors. It concludes that India has not followed the structuralist pattern of sectoral development and poor agricultural growth has not been conducive for demand led industrialization, adversely affecting factor markets for both labour and land.

Transforming Food Systems for a Rising India -- Abbreviations -- Foreword -- Preface -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Author Biographies -- Chapter 1: Indian Food Systems towards 2050: Challenges and Opportunities -- 1.1 Motivation -- 1.2 Approach -- 1.3 Key Takeaways from the Book -- Chapter 2: Economic Growth, Agriculture and Food Systems: Explaining Regional Diversity -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Explaining Inter-State Divergence in Structural Transformation -- 2.2.1 Characterizing ST by Development Process Adopted -- 2.2.2 An Empirical Exercise on Characterizing ST in India -- 2.3 Transition from the Agriculture to the Non-agricultural Sector: Frictions and Search Costs in Labor Markets -- 2.3.1 The Push and Pull of Migration in Response to Disequilibria in Labor Markets -- 2.3.2 Explaining High R2R Migration Rates: Moving Low-skilled Agricultural Labor Between Low and High ST States -- 2.3.3 Explaining Low R2U Migration Rates: Illuminating Frictions That Affect the Speed of Transition -- 2.3.4 Changing Demographic Structure and Its Impact on Rural Productivity -- 2.4 Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 3: Rural Livelihood Challenges: Moving out of Agriculture -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Non-farm Sector as Part of the Development Strategy -- 3.2.1 Distributional Implications of Non-farm Income -- 3.3 Composition of the Rural Non-farm Sector in India -- 3.4 Urbanization and Growth of the Rural Economy -- 3.4.1 Emergence of Smaller Towns -- 3.4.2 Peri-urban Areas and Agricultural Growth -- 3.5 Policy Strategies to Encourage the Growth of the Non-farm Sector in India -- 3.5.1 Focus on Agriculture and Rural Infrastructure -- 3.5.2 Governing Census Towns as Urban Areas -- 3.5.3 Linking Food Systems to the Jobs Agenda -- 3.5.4 Skill Enhancement and Investment in Human Capital -- 3.5.5 Quality of Non-farm Sector -- 3.6 Conclusion.