diversification in India and their implications on agricultural economy and .... was unchanged in Andhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, under the scenario.
Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006 pp 23-36
Diversification of Indian Agriculture: Composition, Determinants and Trade Implications N.P. Singh, Ranjit Kumar and R.P. Singh Abstract The pattern of diversification across states/crops in India has been schematized and various determinants of diversification have been deciphered. To objectively confer the empirical resonance, values of Simpson index have been estimated. The diversification index (SID) has been found to range from 0.47 (WB) to 0.90 (Karnataka) in 1990-91 and from 0.40 (Orissa) to 0.92 (Karnataka) in 2000-01. The increase in diversification Index signifies shift towards non-foodgrain crops. In Karnataka, though the Index has increased, but the similar increases in area under foodgrain imply shift from coarse to fine cereals. Agricultural diversification is influenced by a number of infrastructural and technological factors. The coefficients have indicated that the presence of electricity and road density are negatively associated with the diversification. In the year 2001-02, large share of export earnings has come from non-traditional items, namely rice, fruits, vegetables, livestock and marine products, signifying positive boost to diversification. Indian agriculture has witnessed diversification with impressive improvements in the shares of livestock and fisheries sectors in the total income from agriculture. Within the crop sector, the diversification has largely been in favour of non-foodgrains crops in most of the states. However, diversification in these states has not been essentially for income generation, but also for the risk-mitigating proposition. However, harnessing the potential of diversification presupposes gradual restructuring of diversification hindering market institutions, infrastructure and quality standards.
Introduction Agricultural policies in the past have witnessed a series of iterative changes following the economic reforms during the 1990s that marked a Division of Agricultural Economics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (ICAR), New Delhi – 110 012
24
Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006
significant departure from the past. Though many of the reform processes were not initiated to directly affect the agriculture sector, it was affected indirectly (Chand, 2004). The mounting stock of food grains has partly been due to the weak purchasing power of the poor in the country. Nevertheless, the problem associated with buffer stock management and degradation of natural resources in some regions has triggered a debate to redefine the agricultural policies. As a remedial measure, it has been suggested that India should diversify its agriculture and get a foothold in the world market (Radhakrishna and Reddy, 2004). The diversified and accelerated agricultural growth would enhance the food security by improving the purchasing power of the poor in the perplexing situation of shrinkage in agricultural holdings, declining new investments in agriculture and increasing degradation of natural resources (Joshi et al., 2004). Diversification is an integral part of the process of structural transformation of an economy. As in other developing countries, Indian economy is also diversifying at the macro level with the secondary and tertiary sectors becoming progressively more important in terms of their contributions to national income as well as disposition of the workforce. Within the agriculture, some of the sub-sectors are progressively occupying a more significant place than the crop production, and within the crop-mix, the so-called superior cereals are progressing faster than the inferior cereals. However, the factors promoting diversification and the speed with which the changes occur vary under different situations (Vyas, 1996). Moreover, before a sincere attempt is made to suggest policies with regard to diversification, a thorough probe into the pattern and mode of diversification needs to be attempted. The present study was planned to schematize the pattern and ways of diversification across various states/crops in India. Further, it was also intended to decipher various determinants of diversification in India and their implications on agricultural economy and trade. Diversification and Its Components Diversification is basically understood as signifying the shift from the agricultural to the industrial domain. But, the intricacies underlying the diversification are many and need threadbare understanding. Though the former type of diversification indicates shift from one crop to another crop or from one enterprise/sub-sector to another enterprise/sub-sector, the other type of diversification may involve income-enhancing enterprises in addition to the existing ones. In essence, the diversification to commercial crops/ commodities becomes an essential strategy that can increase incomes in agriculture, minimize risks due to crop failures and above all, earn foreign
Singh et al.: Diversification of Indian Agriculture
25
exchange. Planned diversification increases both individual and social gains (Haque, 1996). This diversification strategy can be designed to help alleviate poverty, generate employment and conserve environment (Hayami and Otsuka, 1995). In India, diversification has occurred both across and within the crop, livestock, forestry and fishery sectors. Within the agriculture, the share of output and employment in the non-crop sectors, i.e. animal husbandry, forestry and fisheries, has been gradually increasing. Thus, diversification is taking place in terms of moving away from crop production to other agricultural activities. More significant changes are taking place within the crop sector, as is evident from the changes in cropping pattern, shown later. The sectoral composition and the changes during the 1990s in total income from various sectors have been depicted in Table 1. During the TE 1990-91, the income from crop sector stood at Rs 147221 crores (current prices) comprising a nearly 75 per cent share from agriculture and allied activities. This share fell to nearly 65 per cent in TE 2002-03. During the same period, the contribution from the livestock sector rose to 25 per cent from arround 17 per cent, increasing in value terms to Rs 156100 crores in 2002-03 from Rs 34533 crores in 1990-91. The fisheries sub-sector also showed an increasing trend in compositional share, from Rs 5781 crores (2.92 %) in 1990-91 to Rs 30000 crores (4.82%) in 2002-03. However, contribution of the forestry sector has remained almost static at around 5 per cent. This clearly indicates diversification towards the livestock and fisheries sector in terms of income contribution. Table 1. Shares of different sub-sectors in total income from agriculture at current prices (in crore Rs) Sectors Crop Livestock Forestry Fisheries Total
TE 1990-91
TE 1999-00
TE 2002-03
147221 (74.50) 34533 (17.47) 10068 (5.09) 5781 (2.92) 197603 (100.00)
384800 (69.98) 120000 (21.83) 23300 (4.24) 21700 (3.94) 549800 (100.00)
404400 (65.02) 156100 (25.09) 31500 (5.06) 30000 (4.82) 622000 (100.00)
Note: Figures within the parentheses are the per cent shares.
26
Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006
Determinants of Diversification Diversification offers a wider choice in the production of crops in the given area. The shift in cultivation from traditional, less-remunerative crops to higher-value crops leads to higher incomes for the producer. At the same time, cultivation of a variety of crops reduces risk. Several factors can induce a shift in the crops grown. These include government policies that promote specific crops, development of infrastructure like roads and markets, and relative profitability of crops. The horizontal diversification is the increase in the number of crops grown given the economical rationality of this expansion. The extent of horizontal diversification can be gauged empirically through Simpson’s index of diversification (SID). The Simpson index for major states was computed to evaluate the extent of diversification at two-points of time, beginning and end of 1990s and has been presented in Table 2. The SID ranged from 0.47 (WB) to 0.90 (Karnataka), in 1990-91, and from 0.40 (Orissa) to 0.92 (Karnataka) in 2000-01. The most interesting picture, that emerged from the ensuing analysis was that the area under food grains in the states like Bihar, West Bengal and Maharashtra had declined and the area under finer cereals had increased but the increase in SID values signifying shift towards non-foodgrain crops was clearly observed. In the state of Karnataka, though Table 2. Simpson’s Index of Diversification (SID) across various states of India: 1990-91 and 2000-01 States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Kerala Madhaya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bangal India
SID index 1990-91
2000-01
0.82 0.49 0.65 0.90 0.82 0.73 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.84 0.60 0.65 0.87 0.85 0.80 0.47 0.90
0.82 0.47 0.66 0.88 0.76 0.73 0.92 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.40 0.62 0.86 0.84 0.78 0.56 0.89
Singh et al.: Diversification of Indian Agriculture
27
Table 3. Categorization of states in relation to changes in SID and area under foodgrains during 1990s Area under foodgrains (%) Increasing Decreasing
Increasing
Diversification index (SID) Decreasing No change
Karnataka Bihar, Maharashtra, West Bengal
No change
Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh Haryana, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, India Punjab
the SID increased, the similar increases in area under foodgrain implied the shifting amongst various foodgrains-mix (from coarse cereals to fine cereals). In Tamil Nadu, the SID reflected a change in crop-mix. However, the index was unchanged in Andhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, under the scenario of decline in foodgrain area, signifying shift towards high-value enterprises other than foodgrain crops. Agricultural diversification is influenced by a number of factors, viz. road density, number of regulated markets, number of villages electrified, area under high-yielding varieties, per cent irrigated area, and fertilizer consumption per hectare on the one hand and per capita value of agricultural output and population per hectare of net sown area on the other. With double log equations of ordinary least squares (OLS) with SID as dependent variable, attempt was made to capture the effect of these factors and the same has been depicted in Table 4. Of all the variables, road density and number of electrified villages were found negatively affecting the diversification, clearly indicating that the diversification was taking place where the area was shifting more towards Table 4. Factors affecting diversification of agriculture Variable Constant Value of Agricultural out put (Rs/ha) Road density (km/ sq km) Electricity (No. of villages) Fertilizer consumption (kg./ha) Population per ha of net sown area Time dummy (0 for 1991, 1 for 2001) R2 Note: *Denotes significance at 1 % level
Coefficients 1.165 -0.371* -0.105* -0.120* 0.181* -0.351* 0.001 0.492
Standard error 0.388 0.134 0.040 0.400 0.051 0.087 0.026
28
Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006
specialized/ mechanized/ high-income farming. The coefficients indicated that the presence of electricity and road density were negatively associated with the diversification, as they tended to influence farmers for incomeenhancing activities, owing to the presence of developed market led by specialized farming. The major concern so far was more on foodgrain production, especially fine cereals to match the demographic challenges. Since, the buffer stocks of foodgrains are enough safeguards against possible natural calamities and social commitments, the thrust should now orient towards ecological factors and economic access to food through poverty alleviation, higher profits to farmers, sustainability of resources, import substitution, quality and competitive production for exports. These challenges can be met squarely by diversifying the cropping pattern and enterprises-mix through proactive developmental programmes and anticipatory researches that are relevant to the WTO regime. Diversification and Cropping Pattern A perusal of Table 5 depicting changes in gross cropped area (GCA) and share of different crops between 1990-91 and 1999-2000, revealed that Orissa and Bihar in the eastern region, HP in the northern region, Rajasthan and Gujarat in the western region and Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala in the southern region have witnessed a decline in the gross cropped area. Within the crop groups, the share of foodgrains area had declined virtually in all the states. Amongst cereals, the area had gone in favour of rice and wheat in the non-traditional growing areas, due to spread of technologies and adoption of HYV cultivars. Due to better market network, price incentives and favourable climatic conditions, the area under fruits had increased in AP, Gujarat, HP, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and even Bihar. However, the groundnut continued to be the most preferred crop amongst Gujarat farmers within the available natural resources and crop-mix, as its share in area increased from 16 to 18 per cent in GCA. Even after the decrease in GCA, the area under vegetables in Orissa and under cotton in AP, Gujarat and Rajasthan increased due to availability of superior cultivars and higher demand of staple cotton in the country. On the contrary, the GCA increased in UP, Punjab, Haryana and MP, possibly due to increased irrigation, technological push and proactive involvement of farmers in adoption of modern cultivars. The GCA also increased in West Bengal, Assam, Maharashtra, and Karnataka due to shift in area under coarse cereals, namely jowar and bajra, towards cash crops and fruits and vegetables. This phenomenon has also spurred the agricultural growth and income of the farmers in the region.
-
Karnataka, Maharashtra, India Karnataka, MP, Maharashtra, WB
Wheat
Bajra
Maize
Karnataka, Maharashtra, UP, India Cotton Maharashtra, Haryana, India Tea Assam, Karnataka, India Coffee Karnataka, India Vegetables Maharashtra, UP, WB, roots & tubers Karnataka, India Fruits & nuts Karnataka, Maharashtra, Assam, Haryana, WB, India
Sugarcane
Groundnut
Gram
Jowar
Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, India Karnataka, MP, Haryana, Maharashtra, UP, WB, India -
Rice
AP, Bihar, Gujarat, HP, Orissa, TN
MP, Punjab, UP
WB -
AP, Gujarat, Kerala Orissa, Rajasthan HP, Kerala, TN Kerala, TN Orissa
AP, TN
Gujarat, Rajasthan
AP, Bihar, Gujarat, TN AP
-
-
Gujarat, Orissa, Rajasthan, TN Bihar, HP, Rajasthan
Rajasthan, Kerala
AP Bihar, Kerala, TN
TN
Bihar
HP, Bihar, Gujarat, Orissa, Rajasthan, TN AP, Orissa, Kerala, TN
AP, Bihar, Gujarat, TN Orissa, Rajasthan, Kerala, AP, Bihar, Gujarat, Orissa, Rajasthan, TN HP, Orissa, Rajasthan
AP, Gujarat, Orissa
AP, Bihar, HP, Kerala
Decreased GCA Increased cropped area Decreased cropped area
Karnataka, MP, Punjab, UP
Karnataka, MP, Maharashtra, Punjab UP, Haryana, India Punjab, Haryana
Karnataka, MP, UP, WB, Maharastra, Haryana, India Karnataka, MP, Punjab, UP, Maharashtra, Haryana, India MP, Punjab, UP, Assam, Haryana, WB UP, Haryana, WB, India
Punjab, Assam
MP, Assam, WB
Increased GCA Increased cropped area Decreased cropped area
Crops
Table 5. Changes in GCA and share of different crops between 1990-91 and 1999-2000
Singh et al.: Diversification of Indian Agriculture 29
30
Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006
Due to low productivity and less price-fetching ability on account of poor industrial-orientation of farmers, growers had shifted away the area from these crops in a massive way. Moreover, the increased irrigation potential also had antagonistic effect on this crop group. The area had drastically reduced in Karnataka, MP, UP, WB, Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana and had paved way for the increased cropping intensity, primarily due to cash crops. However, area under vegetables in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Assam and WB had a phenomenal increase during the 1990s. The diversified industrial uses of maize helped maintain the status, especially in Maharashtra and Karnataka, but the traditional maize growing regions observed a decline in the cropped area. Diversification and Agricultural Trade India’s agricultural exports include pulses, rice, wheat, cereals, tobacco, sugar and molasses, poultry and dairy products, horticultural products, spices, cashews, sesame and niger seed, groundnut, oil meals, castor oil, shellac, fruits and vegetables, cotton, processed vegetables, juices and meat and marine products (Table 6). The share of agricultural exports in total exports of the country was 21.47 per cent in 2001-02, and it grew at an annual Table 6. Growth and trend of export of agricultural commodities (in crore Rs) Commodities
Agricultural and allied products Coffee Tea and mate Oil cake Tobacco Cashew kernel Spices Sugar and molasses Raw cotton Rice Fish and fish preparations Meat and meat preparations Fruits, vegetables, pulses (excluding cashew kernels, processed fruits and juices) Misc. processed food
1990-91 1994-95
19992000
2002-03 Growth rate (1990-91 to 2002-03)
3521
4367
5773
6962
6.53
141 596 229 147 249 130 21 471 257 535 78 119
335 311 573 81 397 195 20 45 384 1126 128 193
331 412 378 233 568 408 9 18 721 1183 189 288
205 341 382 211 424 342 375 10 1205 1432 284 350
5.66 -1.01 0.76 4.39 4.38 10.14 9.82 -21.10 11.45 8.08 12.45 9.82
119
90
154
307
8.34
Singh et al.: Diversification of Indian Agriculture
31
growth rate of nearly 6.53 per cent during the 1990s with notable increase in rice exports. A large share of exports earnings came from non-traditional items in the exports basket, namely rice, fruits, vegetables, livestock and marine products. The progress in exports of these items achieved during the 1990s clearly signified the positive impact of diversification. However, the future options must be accompanied by operationally effective measures to ease the adjustment process for the small and marginal farmers. The globalization of agricultural trade has brought to the fore access to markets, new market opportunities for employment and income generation; productivity gains and increased flow of investments into sustainable agriculture and rural developments. If properly managed, the liberalization of agricultural markets will be beneficial. It will force the adoption of new technologies, thereby reducing yield gaps, shift production function upwards and will attract new capital into the hitherto deprived sector. The increased exports will, in turn, add to the income, thereby development of the agriculture sector. To assess diversification at the state level, the major exportable commodities were grouped according to their respective production states (Table 7). It was discerned that the states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Himachal Pradesh showed high and increased diversification index during 1990s in respect of non-traditional export commodities. However, off late, the traditional export commodities are loosing ground against the non-traditional and hence, the share of these Table 7. Important states producing exportable agricultural commodities Commodities Cashew nut Tobacco Cotton Rice Fish Tea Coffee Oilseeds Sugar Pulses Fruits Vegetables Meat Spices
I
States (according to rank) II III
Maharashtra Gujarat Maharashtra Haryana WB Assam Karnataka MP UP MP Maharashtra WB AP AP
Kerala AP AP UP Gujarat WB Kerala Gujarat Maharashtra UP TN UP Kerala Rajasthan
AP Karnataka Gujarat Punjab AP Tripura TN Rajasthan TN Maharashtra Karnataka Bihar WB MP
IV Orissa Bihar Punjab Karnataka Karnataka Maharashtra Karnataka Rajasthan AP Orissa Karnataka Gujarat
32
Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006
commodities in export basket is declining, probably on account of stabilization in world prices and emergence of new competitors in the world market. Further, the global export requires strict adherence to a host of standards. Hence, the agenda for the future agricultural development and diversification must strive to enhance productivity, reduce costs and improve quality. The states/regions need to develop a competitive edge for the specified agricultural commodities. For instance, the state of Punjab, considered as the intensive agricultural region, is to boast of only basmati rice and cotton in the export market. This clearly calls for diversification to enhance the income of farmers and to legitimize the usage of natural resources.
Conclusions and Policy Options The major concern of Indian agriculture has been on increasing production of cereals, especially wheat and rice. After achieving selfsufficiency in foodgrains and maintaining adequate buffer stocks to meet the generic exigencies, new challenges have given rise to new thrust areas. The present thrust on the ecological and economic access to food through poverty alleviation, higher profits to farmers, sustainability of resources, import substitution, quality improvement and production for exports has led the planners to devise and implement the diversification strategies successfully. Indian agriculture has witnessed diversification with impressive improvements in the share of livestock and fisheries sector in the total income from agriculture. Within the crop sector, the diversification has largely been in favour of non-foodgrain crops in most of the states. However, the diversification in these states has not been essentially for income generation, but has also been for mitigating risk. The success of any diversification programme involves the development of crop- or enterprise-specific technologies, identification and development of market, and provision of economic incentives. The free trade in the offing envisages the movement from closed to market economies and leaves it to the market, domestic or international, to judge the competitive advantage of a specific product. The competitive advantage and export potential of a country or region for a specific product will depend on the extent to which the crop/commodities grown in the region (a) are competitive in terms of productivity and cost, (b) are remunerative to the farmers, (c) possess export potential and competitiveness in terms of prices, and (d) are able to maintain the quality desired in the international market. India enjoys a comparative advantage due to its diverse agro-eco regions in meeting the challenge posed in the liberalized regime through diversification
Singh et al.: Diversification of Indian Agriculture
33
options. However, harnessing the potential of diversification pre-supposes gradual restructuring of diversification-hindering market institutions, infrastructure and quality standards, and credit and fiscal setup into the diversification-encouraging ones. But, certain cautions regarding long-term food security, likely fluctuations in the international market and the element of risk in transitioning from traditional to commercialized agriculture in the presence of sizeable small and marginal farmers must also be kept in mind while speeding up the pace of diversification. The policies are in flux as the economic and political implications of globalization begin to be understood better. There is, however, a consensus that challenges ahead are indeed daunting, requiring greater attention and efforts.
Note The Simpson Index (SID) was calculated to find the extent of diversification and was worked out using the following equation :
where,
,
Xi is the area of the ith crop, and Wi is the proportionate area of the ith crop in the total cropped area.
References Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, (various Issues), Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi. Agriculture (Nov. 2001 & Dec. 2002), Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy Pvt. Ltd. Fertilizer Statistics (various Issues), The Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi. Haque, T., (1996) Diversification of small farms in India: Problems and prospects, In: Small Farm Diversification: Problems and Prospects, Ed: T. Haque. New Delhi: National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research. Hayami, Yuziro and Keijiro Otsuka, (1995) Beyond the green revolution: Agricultural development strategy into the new century, In : Agricultural Technology: Policy Issues for the International Community, Ed: Jock R. Anderson. CAB International, World Bank, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. Jha, Dayanath and Ramesh Chand, (1999) Sustainable food production, income generation and consumer protection in India, Agro-chemicals in Brief, Special issue, November, 21-27.
34
Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006
Joshi, P.K., Ashok Gulati, P.S. Badal and Laxmi Tewari, (2004) Agricultural diversification in South Asia: Pattern, determinants and policy implications; Economic and Political Weekly, 12 June: 2457-2467. Joshi, S.N., (1996) Yield gap analysis in agro-climatic sub-regions, In: Agro Climatic Regional Planning in India, Vol. II, Themes and Case Studies, Eds: D.N. Basu and S.P. Kashyap. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Radhakrishna, R. and K.V. Reddy, (2004) Food security and nutrition: Vision 2020, India Vision 2020, Report of the Committee on India Vision 2020, Planning Commission, Government of India, Academic Foundation. Chand, Ramesh, (2004) India’s National Agricultural Policy: A Critique, Working Paper No. 85, Delhi: Institute of Economic Growth. Satyasai, K.J.S. and K.U. Viswanathan, (1996) Diversification of Indian agriculture and food security, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(4): 674-679. Vyas, V.S., (1996) Diversification of agriculture: Concept, rationale and approaches, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(4): 636-643.
30.62 51.41 4.97 8.63 9.95 21.44 7.23 45.86 26.93 0.62 22.06 65.34 11.76 18.54 26.96 67.07 22.98
Andhra Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Assam Haryana Kerala Tamil Nadu West Bengal All India
29.98 50.38 6.54 8.38 11.96 20.43 6.75 53.99 31.61 1.04 22.27 63.77 18.03 11.65 33.81 64.70 23.70
Rice 1990-91 19992000
States
0.09 18.79 6.74 38.24 1.68 16.04 3.98 0.36 43.59 9.34 33.63 2.20 32.98 3.12 13.01
0.08 21.23 4.75 39.71 2.17 17.70 4.69 0.07 41.12 13.74 35.28 1.86 38.38 3.81 14.44
Wheat 1990-91 19992000 9.02 0.04 7.96 18.28 6.91 28.95 0.28 4.80 2.08 2.30 0.14 7.83 0.01 7.73
5.89 0.02 2.13 16.73 2.72 23.00 0.13 2.88 1.32 1.86 0.10 7.48 0.01 5.48
Jowar 1990-91 19992000 1.74 0.09 10.76 3.57 0.71 8.83 0.07 0.15 25.03 3.10 10.87 3.91 5.64
0.79 0.06 9.12 0.05 3.51 0.51 7.77 0.04 0.06 20.38 3.03 9.72 2.69 4.67
Bajra 1990-91 19992000
Cropping pattern in India: 1990-91 to 1999-2000
2.35 6.29 3.46 32.52 2.13 3.69 0.50 1.74 2.53 5.06 4.28 0.54 0.62 0.36 0.75 3.18
3.37 8.06 3.85 31.34 5.03 3.26 1.25 0.64 1.97 4.84 3.58 0.48 0.35 1.79 0.37 3.39
Maize 1990-91 19992000
0.49 1.62 1.59 0.35 1.95 10.30 3.06 0.48 0.80 8.51 5.02 11.59 0.14 0.30 4.05
1.09 1.07 0.81 0.21 2.64 10.47 4.17 0.38 5.06 3.09 0.06 1.66 0.12 0.28 3.32 Contd.
Gram 1990-91 19992000
Appendix I
Singh et al.: Diversification of Indian Agriculture 35
Andhra Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Assam Haryana Kerala Tamil Nadu West Bengal All India
States
18.19 0.05 15.91 10.29 1.34 4.02 4.17 0.13 1.20 0.60 0.04 0.45 13.91 0.23 4.47
13.77 0.05 17.99 0.03 9.15 1.00 2.32 0.93 0.07 1.42 0.42 0.01 0.23 12.80 0.31 3.62
1.36 1.43 1.12 2.30 2.01 1.33 7.30 2.67 3.33 1.99
1.78 0.97 1.98 0.31 2.98 0.19 3.09 0.24 1.31 0.10 7.55 0.71 2.21 0.19 5.10 0.25 2.23
19992000
199091
199091
19992000
Sugarcane
Groundnut
5.00 8.61 5.07 2.55 12.49 0.07 9.33 2.32 0.06 8.73 0.28 3.48 4.01
199091 7.98 15.16 4.46 2.00 14.56 0.45 5.76 3.02 0.03 0.04 9.06 0.49 2.83 0.01 4.62
200102
Cotton
0.21 0.02 6.05 1.15 0.56 1.17 0.22
199091 0.01 0.24 0.02 6.51 1.23 1.14 1.13 0.27
200102
Tea
0.07 1.13 2.78 0.47 0.15
199091 0.02 1.59 2.80 0.50 0.15
8.04 2.99 1.10 7.40 2.49 6.69 12.89 5.26 3.01
6.27 2.99 1.72 9.25 2.59 5.32 3.21 11.76 3.16
2.37 2.55 0.90 15.98 1.78 0.27 1.17 1.42 0.97 0.12 1.78 1.90 0.23 7.82 1.97 1.28 1.55
199091
3.45 3.10 1.74 20.54 2.60 0.26 2.42 2.40 0.37 0.10 1.18 2.59 0.47 6.26 3.56 1.36 2.00
19992000
Fruits & nuts
Appendix I — Contd. Vegetables, roots & tubers 2001- 1990- 199902 91 2000
Coffee
Cropping pattern in India: 1990-91 to 1999-2000
36 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 19 (Conference No.) 2006
