Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T19:18:27.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Imperatives of the Green Revolution: Technical Efficiency and Ownership of Inputs in Indian Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Raghbendra Jha  and
Mark J. Rhodes
Raghbendra Jha*
Affiliation:
Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Bombay, India
Mark J. Rhodes
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
*
All correspondence to: Prof. Raghbendra Jha, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, General Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East), Bombay 400 065, India, Fax: +91-22-840-2752, e-mail: <rjha@igidr.ac.in>. We are indebted to two anonymous referees for helpful comments, to the editor, Prof. Harry Kaiser, for encouragement, to Dr. Tribhuvan Singh, Director of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, for giving us access to the data on which this work is based and to Santanu Gupta, Ph.D. student in IGIDR, for competent research assistance. All opinions expressed are ours alone.
Get access

Abstract

This paper attempts to ascertain the requirements (in terms of ownership of factors of production) for successful adaptation to the Green Revolution in Indian agriculture. We estimate stochastic production frontiers for wheat in two Indian states: Haryana (which has been significantly affected by the Green Revolution) and Madhya Pradesh (where the Green Revolution has had much less effect). In Haryana, but not in Madhya Pradesh, larger farm size and ownership of land and machines positively influence technical efficiency. Thus, with the Green Revolution advancing, land consolidation and vesting of clear ownership rights of land and capital with farmers becomes important.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , April 1999 , pp. 57 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aigner, D.J., Lovell, C.A.K., and Schmidt, P. 1977. “Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic Frontier Production Function Models.” Journal of Econometrics 6(1): 21–37.Google Scholar
Athreya, V., Boklin, G., Djurfeldt, G., and Lindberg, S. 1986. “Economies of Scale or Advantages of Class? Some Results from a South Indian Farm Economy Study.” Economic and Political Weekly 21(13):A-2–A-14.Google Scholar
Barbier, P. 1984. “Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Land Productivity: A Product of Science or Imagination.” Economic and Political Weekly 19(52):A-189–A-198.Google Scholar
Battese, G.E. and Coelli, T.J. 1992. “Frontier Production Functions, Technical Efficiency and Panel Data: With Application to Paddy Farmers in India.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 3(1): 153–169.Google Scholar
Battese, G.E. and Coelli, T.J. 1993. “A Stochastic Frontier Production Function Incorporating a Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects.” Working Papers in Econometrics and Applied Statistics, No. 69, Department of Econometrics, University of New England, Armidale.Google Scholar
Battese, G.E., Coelli, T.J., and Colby, T.C. 1989. “Estimation of Frontier Production Functions and the Efficiencies of Indian Farms Using Panel Data From ICRISAT's Village Level Studies.” Journal of Quantitative Economics 5(2): 327–348.Google Scholar
Binswanger, H. and Rosenzweig, M. 1986. “Behavioral and Material Determinants of Production Relations in Agriculture.” Journal of Development Economics 22(3): 503–539.Google Scholar
Chadha, G.K. 1978. “Farm Size and Productivity Revisited: Some Notes from Recent Experience of Punjab.” Economic and Political Weekly 13(39):A-87–A-96.Google Scholar
Coelli, T.J. 1993. “Finite Sample Properties of Stochastic Frontier Estimators and Associated Test Statistics.” Working Papers in Econometrics and Applied Statistics, No. 70. Department of Econometrics, University of New England, Armidale.Google Scholar
Coelli, T.J. 1994. “A Monte Carlo Analysis of the Stochastic Frontier Production Function.” Mimeo. Department of Econometrics, University of New England, Armidale. Google Scholar
Cornwell, C., Schmidt, P. and Sickles, R. 1990. “Production Frontiers with Cross-Sectional and Time-series Variation in Efficiency.” Journal of Econometrics 46: 185–200.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 1993. “The Econometric Approach to Efficiency Analysis.” In The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, eds. Fried, H.O., Lovell, C.A.K. and Schmidt, S.S., 68–119. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C. and Liu, J. 1994. “Estimation of a Non-neutral Stochastic Frontier Production Function.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 5(1): 171–180.Google Scholar
Jha, R. and Singh, S. 1994. “Intertemporal and Cross-section Variations in Technical Efficiency in the Indian Railways.” International Journal of Transport Economics 21(1): 57–73.Google Scholar
Kalirajan, K. and Shand, R. 1989. “A Generalised Measure of Technical Efficiency.” Applied Economics 21(1): 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumbhakar, S. and Bhattacharya, A. 1992. “Price Distortions and Resource-Use Efficiency in Indian Agriculture: A Restricted Profit-Function Approach.” Review of Economics and Statistics 74(2): 231–239.Google Scholar
Otsuka, K. and Hayami, Y. 1988. “Theories of Share Tenancy: A Critical Survey.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 37(1): 31–68.Google Scholar
Rao, V.M. 1970. “Farm Production Function Studies.” Economic and Political Weekly 5: 635–640.Google Scholar
Rudra, A. 1968. “Farm Size and Yield per Acre.” Economic and Political Weekly 3(1): 23–34.Google Scholar
Sankar, U. 1997. “Econometric Applications in Indian Agriculture.” In Econometric Applications in India, ed. Krishna, K.L., 1–52. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1962. “An Aspect of Indian Agriculture.” Economic and Political Weekly, Annual Number, 2: 23–36.Google Scholar