Working Paper 2022-1

Five Decades of India’s Agricultural Growth Across Crops:

Emerging Trends and Patterns

Dr. Vinod Kumar, GM

राष्ट्रीय कृषि और ग्रामीण षिकास बैंक

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

आषथिक षिश्लेिणऔरअनुसंधान षिभाग,प्रधान कायाि लय, मुंबई

Department of Economic Analysis and Research
Head Office, Mumbai

12 July 2022
The views expressed in this paper are authors’ only. This is work in progress and any
use of material may be done keeping this in mind.

Suggestions/comments may be sent to the e-mail : [email protected]

2022 Vinod Kumar 1

Five Decades of India’s Agricultural Growth Across

Crops: Emerging Trends and Patterns

Dr. Vinod Kumar1

GM, DEAR, NABARD, HO, MUMBAI
E-mail: [email protected]

SUMMARY

This paper has analysed the trends and pattern in agricultural growth and crop output
growth at the national level, using time series data from 1967-68 to 2020-21 from published
sources. The area under foodgrains in gross cropped area (GCA) declined by 11.62% mainly
due to the fall in area under coarse cereals by 16.78% between triennium ending (TE) 1970-
71 and TE 2020-21. There was a definite shift from foodgrains to non-foodgrains, such as
fruits and vegetables, oilseeds, fiber, and condiments and spices, whose share in both area
and in value of output has been increasing during the study period. While the contribution
of cereals declined from 32.46% in TE 1970-1971 to 27.41% in TE 2020-21, the share of fruits
and vegetables increased considerably from 14.11% to 27.77% during the same period. In TE
2020-21, fruits and vegetables accounted for the largest share of the total value of crop
output followed by cereals, oilseeds, fiber and pulses. The study also reveals that
diversification towards high value crops (HVCs) offers great scope to enhance farmers’
income. The staple crops such as cereals, pulses and oilseeds occupy 77.33% of the GCA but
contribute only 46.37% of total value of output of crop sector. Interestingly, almost same
value of output (43.58%) was contributed by HVCs (fruits and vegetables, fibres,
condiments and spices and sugarcane) which occupy 20.12% of GCA during TE 2020-21.
These changes in the relative shares of crops in agricultural growth provide a clear
indication of the growing importance of high-value crops in Indian agriculture. However,
the long-term growth rate (during 1967-68 to 2020-21) shows that not a single crop
registered production growth of more than 4.0% per annum. The results of the crop output
growth model indicate that better irrigation facilities, normal rainfall and improved
fertilizer consumption will help boost crop output in the country. It may be concluded that
there is also a need to improve productivity of small and marginal farmers through
development and implementation of small holding farm technologies. The regenerative
agriculture through suitable integrated farming system (IFS) models is the need of the hour
to improve soil health, make agriculture profitable and sustainable in the long run. Crop
diversification towards oilseeds, pulses and horticulture needs to be given priority by
addressing the core issues of irrigation, investment, credit and markets in their cultivation.
While the Government has adopted the use of MSP as signal to encourage crop
diversification, there is also a need for coordinated action from the State Governments to
facilitate the shift to high value and less water guzzling crops to enable realization of the
objective of doubling farmers’ income in a sustainable way.

1General Manager, NABARD, Department of Economic Analysis and Research, Mumbai. The views
expressed are those of the author and not of the organization he belongs to, usual disclaimer applies.
 2022 Agricultural Growth 2

INTRODUCTION

Over the past seven decades, the Indian economy has undergone a significant structural
transformation away from agriculture and towards non-agricultural sectors. The share of
agriculture in the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) has consistently declined, from
an average 55.12 per cent in 1950-51 to 15.51 per cent in the 2021-22. Despite this rapid
decline, agriculture continues to be a key sector of the Indian economy because of its
strategic importance to food security, employment generation, exports and poverty
reduction. The sector employs close to 49 per cent (Periodic Labour Force Survey, 2020)
of the country’s total workforce and has been important for poverty reduction, especially
in the rural areas (Sharma 2011).

The experiences of developed countries show that the transfer of labour force from
agriculture to non-agriculture, particularly manufacturing, has promoted production
growth in agriculture and thus higher income (Gollin et al. 2002). However, India’s
manufacturing sector witnessed volatile growth and its share in total GVA at basic prices
has almost remained constant at 18 per cent in the recent times. Further, since the present
economic growth pattern in the country is driven by the services sector (53.74% share in
2021-22 at constant prices), labour absorption outside agriculture sector will continue to
be slow until technical education and skill upgradation in rural area improve
considerably.

Under these circumstances, higher agricultural growth is critical. It is a matter of concern

for policy planners, planners and researchers in recent times (Chand et al. 2007; Bhalla
and Singh 2009; Vaidyanathan 2010). Sustained agricultural growth, which is facilitated
by constant policy and institutional support, could foretell growth in the rural economy
and associated secondary activities (e.g., food processing and retail trading). However,
policy makers in the country have not given enough attention to agriculture-led rural
industrialization. This is despite the fact that agricultural growth per se was not visible
during the 1990s (Rao 2003). It is pertinent to note that, the growth performance of
agriculture was remarkable during the 1980s. In fact, deceleration during the 1990s was
attributed to the reduction in and/or stagnation of public expenditure on agricultural
infrastructure, defunct extension services, and biased economic reforms (Mahendra Dev,
2022 Vinod Kumar 3

2000). The first two decades of the twenty first century has shown the remarkable
agriculture growth, particularly during COVID-19 period when other sectors of the
economy contracted. This can be largely attributed to the renewed policy thrust from the
government (since 2005) to revive agricultural growth through various development
programmes, such as are Interest Subvention on crop loans and interest subvention on
prompt repayment, National Food Security Mission, the National Agriculture
Development Programme (Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana), Pulses Development
Programme, E-NAM, National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture, Pradhan Mantri
Krishi SinchaiYojana, Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima
Yojana, Gramin Bahndaran Yojana, Livestock Insurance Scheme, Micro Irrigation Fund,
PM-Kisan, Soil Health Card (SHC) Scheme, Agricultural Export Policy-2018, Agri
Startups, KCC scheme extended to animal husbandry and fishery farmers, Kisan
Sampada Yojana, Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture, Agriculture
Infrastructure Fund, National Mission on Oilseeds and Oilpalm, Promotion of Farmer
Producers Organisations, National Project on Organic Farming and MSP at levels of one
and half times of the cost of production of 23 major crops, etc. Implementation of these
programmes has contributed to agricultural growth and augmented farmers’ income in
the country while allowing state governments to better leverage and allocate resources to
the priority areas of development.
In recent times, trends in India’s agricultural growth are relatively well researched
themes. Systematic efforts have been made to examine crop output growth and its
elements through decomposition analysis (Joshi et al. 2006). The present paper is likely
to contributes to the existing knowledge on Indian agriculture by estimating crop output
growth through econometric methods. It also discusses the trends in agricultural growth
at national levels.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The present study is based on the secondary data compiled from various published
sources. Data on area, production and yield were collected from the Directorate of
Economics and Statistics (DES), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare. Data were
collected for major crops for the period 1968-69 to 2020-21. The study period has been
divided into five phases, viz., early green revolution (1967-68 to 1980-81), mature green
 2022 Agricultural Growth 4

revolution (1981-82 to 1990-91), early economic reforms (1991-92 to 2000-01), economic

reforms (2001-02 to 2020-21) and overall period (1967-68 to 2020-21). Compound
annual growth rates (CAGR) have been calculated by using the semi-log method. State-
wise and agriculture and allied sector data on value of crop output were compiled from
the National Statistical Office, MoSPI, Government of India. Data on Agricultural Gross
Value Added (AgGVA), value of output from agriculture and allied sector and capital
formation in agriculture and allied sector were compiled from National Accounts
Statistics, MoSPI and Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, MoAFW, GoI. For trend analysis,
three years’ average (triennium ending) of different variables were calculated to even out
the inter-year fluctuations and then presented.

Crop Output Growth Model

The growth performance of the crop sector is influenced by several factors such as use of
physical inputs by farmers, markets, irrigation, credit availability, weather conditions and
government policies. It is difficult to analyse the effect of all the variables in a simple
framework because these variables affect crop output through various mechanisms.
However, an attempt has been made here to examine the determinants of aggregate
growth of crop output at the national level through the neo-classical growth model, which
is described as follows.

The aggregate production function can be specified as

Y = F (F, K, R, CI, IRR) ............................. (1)

Where Y is the aggregate crop output value (2011-12 prices), F is fertiliser consumption,
IRR is the gross irrigated area, CI is cropping intensity and R is the rainfall.

The basis for the inclusion of rainfall in the production function is that a significant
proportion of cultivated area depends on rainfall and its variation affects crop output
substantially. Similarly, as the net sown area remains more or less constant over time
during the study period, cropping intensity is taken as proxy for land. The gross irrigated
area represents use of water from all sources of irrigation for crop production. Gross
capital formation in agriculture is considered as agricultural capital (2011-12 prices).
2022 Vinod Kumar 5

Assuming the Cobb-Douglas Production Function and taking differentiation of equation

(1), the following equation is obtained.

∆Yt = ß0 + ß1∆Ft + ß2∆Kt + ß3∆IRRt + ß4∆CI + ß5∆R + ei

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Trends in Gross State Domestic Product and Agricultural Gross Value

Added

The share of Agricultural Gross Value Added (AgGVA) in gross state domestic product
(GSDP) during 2011-12 to 2019-20 have continuously decreased in all states except in
Manipur and Meghalaya. The GSDP at constant prices has been grew at compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) of 6.03 per cent per annum during 2011-12 to 2019-20, which has
given a positive signal regarding the economic growth of the states. Out of 29 states, while
CAGR of 20 states are grew more than the national average, CAGR of rest of the states
were still at less than 6 per cent (Table 1). During 2011-12 to 2019-20, the agricultural
gross value added (AgGVA) in the country showed an increasing trend and grew at the
rate of 3.63 per cent per annum, which, though appreciable is still below the target of 4
per cent set by the India's policymakers. Further, the trend in agricultural growth differs
significantly (-15.74% in Chhattisgarh to 8.53% in Maharashtra) across the states. While
4 states, viz., Kerala, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Telangana have agricultural growth
rates more than the national average, the rest of the states have shown less than 3.5 per
cent growth in AgGVA. Interestingly, states like Kerala (5.72%), Maharashtra (8.53%),
Rajasthan (6.81%) and Telangana (5.90%) have shown an impressive performance in
terms of agricultural growth rate, However, the progress of these states are not reflected
in terms of percentage share of AgGVA in GSDP in 2019-20 (4-12%).

Some of the major states like Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and Tamil
Nadu though displaying steady growth for the entire state economy, have failed to achieve
even 3 per cent growth in agriculture and it is a cause of concern. The agricultural sector
in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir,
 2022 Agricultural Growth 6

Karnataka, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh needs special attention as their growth rates are
negative.

Table 1: State-wise Share of AgGVA in GSDP in the Economy at Constant

(2011-12) Prices (%)
State 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- Share CAGR CAGR
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 of of Ag of
AgGVA GVA GSDP
in
SGDP
in
2019-
20
Andhra 13.72 13.81 14.89 13.72 11.72 11.90 12.46 11.12 11.58 11.58 -4.64 8.15
Pradesh
Arunachal 23.12 24.87 23.97 21.12 18.80 12.80 12.49 11.78 12.72 12.72 2.36 6.16
Pradesh
Assam 14.40 16.95 15.35 14.79 13.39 12.99 12.11 11.77 10.70 10.70 -1.38 7.41
Bihar 17.24 18.49 13.76 12.61 11.92 12.16 12.13 10.30 8.97 8.97 -1.27 6.58
Chhattisgarh 11.38 11.59 10.86 11.01 10.38 11.48 9.06 9.53 9.17 9.17 -15.74 5.87
Goa 2.42 2.87 3.48 2.66 2.23 2.16 2.08 1.94 1.90 1.90 2.18 6.15
Gujarat 12.92 9.23 11.78 10.38 8.71 8.53 8.62 6.64 7.06 7.06 1.46 9.63
Haryana 13.74 12.02 11.27 9.71 8.85 8.93 8.62 8.29 7.84 7.84 0.58 8.41
Himachal 9.26 9.59 10.51 8.87 9.15 7.53 6.53 6.03 6.94 6.94 1.08 6.91
Pradesh
Jammu and 10.16 9.08 9.29 7.04 8.31 7.98 7.44 6.91 6.75 6.75 -1.28 5.86
Kashmir
Jharkhand 8.89 9.18 8.63 8.08 6.48 7.56 7.43 5.49 5.10 5.10 2.60 5.76
Karnataka 8.81 7.65 7.66 7.55 5.81 5.23 6.24 5.38 5.72 5.72 -3.61 8.87
Kerala 7.98 7.40 6.45 5.89 5.05 4.78 4.56 4.09 3.78 3.78 5.72 5.96
Madhya 23.24 26.72 25.23 24.31 21.37 25.02 23.15 21.08 21.59 21.59 0.70 7.76
Pradesh
Maharashtra 7.96 7.37 8.17 6.40 5.53 6.33 5.67 5.06 5.23 5.23 8.53 6.83
Manipur 10.67 12.27 11.86 11.62 9.29 8.31 14.27 12.27 14.14 14.14 2.55 6.45
Meghalaya 8.19 9.54 9.57 10.33 10.34 9.82 9.58 8.86 8.47 8.47 3.38 2.78
Mizoram 10.45 9.38 9.17 7.72 6.79 6.39 6.00 5.97 5.46 5.46 2.89 12.35
Nagaland 16.78 18.30 20.03 20.22 19.81 18.86 17.48 15.91 15.32 15.32 -0.25 4.84
Odisha 11.06 12.96 10.77 11.65 8.40 8.97 6.68 6.82 7.50 7.50 -1.20 4.86
Punjab 18.78 17.86 17.28 15.46 14.53 14.51 14.11 13.33 12.72 12.72 0.56 5.78
Rajasthan 16.90 16.64 16.85 15.01 12.99 12.73 11.62 11.65 12.33 12.33 6.81 6.14
Sikkim 7.00 7.15 6.90 6.48 5.95 6.21 6.28 6.67 6.55 6.55 -1.05 8.07
Tamil Nadu 7.15 5.33 5.93 5.87 5.17 3.38 3.99 3.84 3.93 3.93 0.75 7.05
Telangana 9.01 9.60 9.55 7.10 5.21 5.61 5.63 4.82 7.05 7.05 5.90 8.30
Tripura 16.61 16.18 16.10 13.79 13.74 12.88 12.80 12.83 13.39 13.39 2.23 9.64
Uttar Pradesh 17.15 17.20 15.89 14.45 13.92 13.32 13.22 12.96 12.66 12.66 -1.17 6.60
Uttarakhand 6.62 6.24 5.41 5.06 4.27 4.13 3.85 3.63 3.56 3.56 2.16 7.39
West Bengal 13.92 13.91 13.25 13.78 12.89 12.33 12.19 11.45 10.86 10.86 2.16 5.37
India 17.19 16.54 16.42 15.25 14.21 14.02 14.00 13.43 13.66 14.62 3.63 6.03
Source: Author’s estimates from Handbook of Statistics on Indian States, 2020-21, Reserve Bank of India.
2022 Vinod Kumar 7

Share of Agriculture Sector in Total GVA

The share of agriculture, forestry & fishing sectors in total GVA at 2011-12 basic prices has
seen a steady decrease over the years from 18.53 per cent in 2011-12 to 16.27 per cent in
2020-21, growing with Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 3.63 per cent. The
decline was mainly due to the decline in the share of crops in AgGVA from 65.39 per cent
in 2011-12 to 55.06 per cent in 2020-21. The share of the fisheries in AgGVA has increased
to 6.72 per cent in 2020-21 from 4.53 per cent in 2011-12. The share of the livestock in
AgGVA has also increased significantly from 21.79 per cent in 2011-12 to 30.13 per cent
2020-21. The share of forestry & logging has remained constant at about 8 per cent during
the entire period (Table 2). The livestock and fishing sectors have grown at a CAGR of
7.66 per cent and 8.90 per cent over the last ten years ending 2020-21. Development of
livestock sector has led to the improvement in per capita availability of milk, eggs and
meat.

The Gross Value of Output (GVO) at constant (2011-12) prices of the four main sub-
sectors, namely crop, livestock, forestry and logging and fishing and aquaculture which
together are called as agriculture and allied sectors are presented in Table 3. It may be
observed that the crops sub-sector which had accounted for 62.44 per cent of the
agriculture and allied sectors in 2011-12, consistently declined to 55.05 per cent in 2020-
21. The GVO of livestock sector increased steadily from 25.56 per cent in 2011-12 to 30.98
per cent in 2020-21. During this period, the output of milk, meat and eggs also recorded
an increasing trend. The share of milk, meat and eggs in output of livestock sub-sector
was 66.71 per cent, 23.12 per cent and 3.57 per cent, respectively in 2020-21, compared
to 67.20 per cent, 19.73 per cent and 3.41 per cent, respectively in the base year 2011-12.
The output of fishing and aquaculture sub-sector increased steadily from about Rs.80105
crore in 2011-12 to Rs.162449 crore in 2020-21. In percentage terms, the output of fishing
and aquaculture sub-sector has increased from 4.20 per cent in 2011-12 to 6.30 per cent
in 2020-21. However, the share of inland fisheries decreased from 57.65 per cent to 51.45
per cent during the period 2011-12 to 2020-21. The share of value of output of forestry
and logging is remained constant at around 8 per cent during the period.
 2022 Agricultural Growth 8

Table 2: Share of Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing at 2011-12 Prices

(Rs.crore)
Item 2011-12 2012- 2013-14 2014- 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 CAGR(%)
13 15
Agriculture, 1501947 1524288 1609198 1605715 1616146 1726004 1840023 1878598 1982303 2048032 3.63
forestry & (18.53) (17.84) (17.75) (16.53) (15.40) (15.24) (15.29) (14.75) (16.27) (16.27)
fishing
Crops 982151 983809 1037060 998425 969344 1020258 1075111 1049211 1106545 1127575 1.46
(65.39) (64.54) (64.45) (62.18) (59.98) (59.11) (58.43) (55.85) (55.82) (55.06)
Livestock 327334 344375 363558 390449 419637 461572 497830 540970 581450 617117 7.66
(21.79) (22.59) (22.59) (24.32) (25.97) (26.74) (27.06) (28.80) (29.33) (30.13)
Forestry & 124436 124743 132093 134609 136960 144547 152351 163949 164416 165624 3.71
logging (8.28) (8.18) (8.21) (8.38) (8.47) (8.37) (8.28) (8.73) (8.29) (8.09)
Fishing & 68027 71362 76487 82232 90205 99627 114730 124468 129893 137716 8.90
aquaculture (4.53) (4.68) (4.75) (5.12) (5.58) (5.77) (6.24) (6.63) (6.55) (6.72)
Total GVA 8106946 8546275 9063649 9712133 10491870 11328285 12034171 12733798 13219476 12585074 5.88
at basic
prices
Source: National Accounts Statistics 2022, MoSPI, Government of India.
Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage share in the total GVA.

Table 3: Value of Output from Agriculture and Allied Sectors at Constant (2011-12) Prices
(Rs. crore)
Items 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019- 2020- CAGR
20 21
Crop Sector 1191483 1198611 1257133 1228006 1206717 1277532 1331828 1317811 1382420 1419431 1.90
(62.44) (61.79) (61.75) (59.97) (58.23) (57.83) (55.39) (55.42) (55.47) (55.05)
Livestock Sector 487751 508074 530953 562026 595242 641217 671244 717125 760025 798726 5.84
(25.56) (26.19) (26.08) (27.44) (28.72) (29.06) (28.92) (30.16) (30.50) (30.98)
Fishing & 80105 83911 89865 96648 106504 117573 135811 147275 153326 162449 8.97
Aquaculture (4.20) (4.33) (4.41) (4.72) (5.14) (5.32) (5.85) (6.19) (6.15) (6.30)
Forestry & Logging 148748 149062 157748 161184 163778 172821 181894 195801 196282 197773 3.70
(7.80) (7.68) (7.75) (7.87) (7.90) (7.82) (7.84) (8.23) (7.88) (7.67)
Ag, Forestry & 1908087 1939658 2035699 2047864 2072241 2209144 2320777 2378013 2492053 2578378 3.50
Fishing (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
Source: National Accounts Statistics 2022, MoSPI, Government of India.
Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage share in the total GVA.
2022 Vinod Kumar 9

Investment in Agriculture and Allied Sectors

Investment is critical to the sustained growth of any sector. The Gross Capital Formation
(GCF) in agriculture and allied sectors relative to AgGVA in the sector has been showing
a fluctuating trend as shown in Table 4. Fluctuation in the GCF in the sector arises mainly
because of wide fluctuations in private investment in agriculture and allied sectors. As
may be observed from the table, while public investment has remained stable between 2-
3 per cent during 2011-12 to 2020-21, the private investment has fluctuated and the total
agricultural GCF has moved in sync with variation in private investment. Recognising that
there exists a direct correlation between capital investments in agriculture and its growth
rate, there should be a focused and targeted approach to ensure higher public and private
investment in the sector. Higher access to concessional institutional credit to farmers and
greater participation of private corporate sector, whose investment rates are currently as
low as 2 to 3 per cent in agriculture (Report on Doubling of Farmers' Income, 2018), may
help in improving private investment in agriculture. Private corporate investments need
to be roped in by offering appropriate policy framework coupled with increase in public
investment in the entire agricultural value system. Further, Gross Capital Formation
(GCF) in agriculture and allied sectors relative to AgGVA has been showing a fluctuating
trend from 14.70 per cent in 2015-16 to 15.94 per cent in 2020-21. The GCF in agriculture
and allied sectors in absolute terms increased from Rs.237648 crore in 2015-16 to
Rs.326533 crore in 2020-21 at 2011-12 prices. Further, public investment in and for
agriculture have remained low as only 2.28 per cent of AgGVA at constant (2011-12) prices
is spent for infrastructure development in agriculture in 2020-21. This must be raised to
4 per cent as recommended by the high empowered committee (GoI, 2007). That a deficit
in public expenditure on agricultural infrastructure and extension services substantially
contributed to the slowdown in agricultural growth has been pointed out by studies such
as Mahendra Dev (2000), Vyas (2001), Rao (2003) and Chand and Kumar (2004).

Ensuring steady investment in agriculture is crucial to ensure that quality inputs are made
available for agriculture production while also addressing the infrastructural bottlenecks.
Quality seed and optimum use of fertilisers are important pillars of growth in agricultural
productivity. It is also observed that a steady supply of electricity to agriculture brings
economic efficiency in production. Supply adequate and quality power (electricity) to
 2022 Agricultural Growth 10

agriculture sector is very low in most of states. These three inputs should be promoted
appropriately to raise output and farmers' income.

Table 4: Gross Capital Formation (GCF) in Agriculture and Allied Sectors

Relative to Agriculture Gross Value Added (AgGVA) at 2011 -12 Basic Prices

Year GCF in Agriculture & Allied GVA of GCF of Agriculture & Allied
Sector (Rs. crore) Agriculture & Sector as percentage of GVA of
Allied Sector Agriculture & Allied Sector (%)
(Rs. crore)
Public Private Total Public Private Total
2011-12 35696 238175 273870 1501947 2.38 15.86 18.23
2012-13 36019 215075 251094 1524288 2.36 14.11 16.47
2013-14 33925 250499 284424 1609198 2.11 15.57 17.67
2014-15 37172 235491 272663 1605715 2.31 14.67 16.98
2015-16 42522 195127 237648 1616146 2.63 12.07 14.70
2016-17 47767 219386 267153 1726004 2.77 12.71 15.48
2017-18 46032 226290 272321 1840023 2.50 12.30 14.80
2018-19 53493 243138 296631 1878598 2.85 12.94 15.79
2019-20 47040 254632 301671 1982303 2.37 12.85 15.22
2020-21 46728 279805 326533 2048032 2.28 13.66 15.94
Source: National Accounts Statistics 2022, MoSPI, Government of India and Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2021.

Changes in Cropping Pattern at All India Level

The cropping pattern in India has undergone significant changes over time. As the
cultivated area remains more or less constant, the increased demand for food due to
increase in population and urbanisation and change in food habits puts agricultural land
under stress resulting in crop intensification and substitution of food crops with high
value commercial crops. In fact, it is remarkable to observe that area under foodgrains in
gross cropped area (GCA) declined by 11.62 per cent mainly due to fall in area under
coarse cereals by 16.78 per cent between triennium ending (TE) 1970-71 and TE 2020-21
(Table 5). Wheat has gained importance with area allocation of only 10.42 per cent in TE
1970-71, and it steadily increased to 15.45 per cent in TE 2020-21. Area under rice
remained more or less constant during the period under study. Interestingly, area lost by
foodgrains was used for the cultivation of oilseeds, fruits and vegetables and non-food
crops to the extent of 3.67 per cent, 6.40 per cent and 3.79 per cent, respectively, between
TE 1970-71 and TE 2020-21. Although the shift from coarse cereals to high value crops is
likely to increase farm output and income to farmers, in rainfed areas it will expose
 2022 Vinod Kumar 11

cultivators to serious weather related risks because high value crops have a high water
requirement (Bhalla and Singh, 2009).

Table 5: Share of Area Under Major Crops in India (Percentage of GCA)

Crops TE 1970- TE 1980- TE 1990- TE 2000- TE 2010- TE 2020-

71 81 91 01 11 21
Rice 23.03 23.18 23.01 23.82 21.89 22.27
Wheat 10.42 12.98 13.04 14.28 15.18 15.45
Coarse cereals 28.48 24.25 20.48 16.17 14.38 11.70
Total cereals 61.93 60.41 56.53 54.27 51.45 49.41
Total pulses 13.50 13.23 12.94 11.49 12.68 14.40
Total foodgrains 75.43 73.64 69.47 65.76 64.13 63.81
Total oilseeds 9.85 10.11 12.51 12.96 14.36 13.52
Groundnut 4.42 4.14 4.64 3.68 2.90 2.62
Cotton 4.70 4.27 4.08 4.70 5.50 6.55
Total fibers 5.41 5.08 4.64 5.27 6.01 6.89
Sugarcane 1.62 1.62 1.90 2.23 2.46 2.43
Tobacco 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20
Condiments & 1.04 1.23 1.32 1.52 1.71 2.16
spices
Potato 0.31 0.43 0.51 0.69 0.91 1.08
Onion - 0.14 0.17 0.24 0.51 0.72
Total fruits & 2.24 2.77 3.57 4.35 4.78 8.64
vegetables
Fodder crops 4.15 4.50 4.59 4.55 3.98 4.53
Gross Cropped Area 100 100 100 100 100 100
(GCA)
Source: Authors' estimates from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare,
GoI.

Changes in Cropping Area at All India Level

Increase in area under total oilseeds is not reflective of general rise in area across all
oilseed crops, but seemed to be limited only to rapeseed and mustard and soybean. The
Technology Mission on Oilseeds launched in 1986 coupled with price support and
favourable market conditions for refined oil and protein-rich soya food encouraged the
shift in the area towards oilseeds. The area under groundnut came down from 4.42 per
cent in TE 1970-71 to 2.62 per cent in TE 2020-21. However, the area under commercial
crops like cotton and sugarcane registered significant increase from 4.70 per cent to 6.55
per cent and from 1.62 per cent to 2.43 per cent during TE 1970-71 to TE 2020-21,
respectively. Assured prices by Cooperatives and Sugar mills for sugarcane and
 2022 Agricultural Growth 12

guaranteed price for cotton through the government's monopoly procurement scheme
encourage the production of these crops while various schemes announced by the
National Horticulture Board accelerated the expansion of area under fruits and
vegetables.

It is quite understandable from the above discussion that high value commercial crops
are taking the lead in terms of area share. However, it would be interesting to analyse the
contribution of different crops in total value of output. Besides the level of physical output,
this will also capture the producer price of various crops in the country. Among crop
groups, fruits and vegetables accounted for the largest share of total value of crop output
followed by cereals, oilseeds, fiber and pulses in TE 2020-21 (Table 6). While the
contribution of cereals declined from 32.46 per cent in TE 1970-1971 to 27.41 per cent in
TE 2020-21, the share of fruits and vegetables increased considerably from 14.11 per cent
to 27.77 per cent during the same period. The change in share was determined largely by
commodity price, which rose proportionately higher for fruits and vegetables than cereals
in the recent decade (Chand et al. 2011). The growth in the horticultural sector has been
largely demand-driven and has been facilitated by improvements in roads,
transportation, communication, and electricity (Joshi et al. 2004) and the development
of retail chains that could establish linkages with farmers for procurement of their crops
through institutions such as contract farming and producers’ organizations (Birthal,
Joshi, and Gulati 2005; Roy and Thorat 2008). Further, to cater to the rising demand for
horticultural products without importing as much, the government of India has been
promoting the horticultural sector by establishing the National Horticulture Board (NHB)
in 1985 and then launching the National Horticulture Mission (NHM) in 2005.

Changes in Crop Output at All India Level

Among individual crops, rice accounted for the major share in the total value of crop
output but declined from 2000 onwards. Similarly, the value of wheat output reported a
steady increase until 2000-01 and declined thereafter. Pulses which registered a drop in
their contribution to the total value of output from 8.39 per cent in TE 1970-1971 to 4.45
per cent in TE 2010-11, however increased to 5.26 per cent in TE 2020-2021, due to
significant increase in the MSP of pulses. Meanwhile, the value of output of cotton
2022 Vinod Kumar 13

increased to 5.15 per cent in TE 2020-21 from 3.11 per cent in TE 2000-01. Cotton
production escalated primarily because of the widespread cultivation of Bt cotton. It was
found that productivity and profit from cultivation of Bt Cotton is substantially higher
than the conventional hybrid cotton varieties (Naik et al. 2005). The share of condiments
and spices in the total value of crop output also increased from 2.17 per cent in TE 1970-
71 to 5.45 per cent in TE2020-21. Overall, data analysis shows that agricultural
production in the 1980s was broad. However, commercialization of agricultural
production seems to have gained momentum in the early 1990s. There was a definite shift
from foodgrains to non-foodgrains such as fruits and vegetables, oilseeds, fiber, and
condiments and spices, whose share in both area and in value of output has been
increasing during the study period. Further, the study reveals that diversification towards
high value crops (HVCs) offers great scope to increase farmers’ income. The staple crops
such as cereals, pulses and oilseeds occupy 77.33 per cent of the gross cropped area (GCA)
but contribute only 46.37 per cent of total value of output of crop sector. Interestingly,
almost same value of output (43.58%) was contributed by HVCs (fruits and vegetables,
fibres, condiments and spices and sugarcane which occupy 20.12 per cent of GCA during
TE 2020-21. These changes in the relative shares of crops in agricultural growth provide
a clear indication of the growing importance of high-value crops in Indian agriculture.

Table 6: Share of Various Crops in Value of Output (at 2011-12 prices)

(Per cent)
Crops TE 1970- TE 1980- TE 1990- TE TE 2010- TE
71 81 91 2000-01 11 2020-21
Rice 17.26 17.23 18.14 16.67 14.68 13.96
Wheat 6.67 9.09 10.05 10.63 9.87 9.68
Coarse Cereals 8.93 7.66 6.28 4.47 4.26 3.78
Cereals 32.46 33.60 34.24 31.74 28.81 27.41
Gram 3.50 2.54 2.03 1.71 1.98 2.28
Arhar 1.51 1.33 1.34 1.02 0.80 0.94
Pulses 8.39 6.53 6.23 4.73 4.45 5.26
Groundnut 4.70 3.91 4.40 2.79 2.27 2.28
Rapeseed and Mustard 1.33 1.31 2.15 1.90 2.26 2.22
Oilseeds 8.27 7.30 9.79 8.75 9.11 8.44
Sugarcane 5.35 4.74 5.05 5.09 4.37 4.93
Sugars 6.20 5.47 5.78 7.64 6.47 6.13
Cotton 3.22 3.62 3.55 3.11 5.11 5.15
Fibres 3.78 4.25 4.03 3.57 5.52 5.43
Tea 0.59 0.63 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.62
 2022 Agricultural Growth 14

Coffee 0.42 0.51 0.49 0.66 0.58 0.46

Tobacco 0.96 0.96 0.84 0.68 0.73 0.40
Tomato 0.75 0.87 0.80 1.03 1.37 1.65
Onion 0.44 0.52 0.48 0.57 0.90 1.71
Potato 0.77 1.16 1.33 1.63 1.84 2.12
Fruits & Vegetables 14.11 16.73 15.88 20.55 23.58 27.77
Condiments & Spices 2.17 2.57 2.80 3.36 3.79 5.45
Others* 21.63 20.68 18.47 15.45 14.51 11.48
Total value of crop 100 100 100 100 100 100
output
Source: Author’s estimates from National Statistical Office data, MoSPI, Government of India.
Note. *includes other crops, by-products, kitchen garden, indigo, dyes and tanning materials.

Growth Performance of Major Crops at National Level

It is well documented in the literature that growth in area was the major source of
production growth until early 1960s (Bhalla and Singh, 2001; Vaidyanathan, 2010). The
high yielding varieties introduced in wheat and rice during the late Sixties heralded
India’s green revolution. Along with technology, new institutional structures enabled the
farmers to adopt improved methods of cultivation. The major changes included provision
of better irrigation facilities, government procurement system, guaranteed minimum
support price and supply of inputs at subsidized rates. As evident from Table 7, wheat
production registered compound annual growth of 5.48 per cent during the early green
revolution period (1967-68 to 1980-81). Both yield and area contributed to higher growth
in production. In the case of rice, growth in yield contributed to production growth of 2.18
per cent per annum. For foodgrains as a whole, the growth in area and yield were 0.39
per cent and 1.87 per cent, respectively and resulted in production growth of 2.27 per cent.
2022 Vinod Kumar 15

Table 7: Compound Annual Growth Rates of Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops in India
(Per cent)
Crops 1967-68 to 1980-81 1981-82 to 1990-91 1991-92 to 2000-01 2001-02 to 2010-11 2011-12 to 2020-21 1967-68 to 2020-21
Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield
Rice 0.75 2.18 1.42 0.60 4.20 3.58 0.78 1.87 1.08 0.11 1.71 1.60 0.24 3.58 1.54 0.34 2.22 1.87
Wheat 2.96 5.48 2.45 0.37 3.39 3.02 1.37 3.11 1.69 1.36 2.51 1.16 0.24 3.02 1.65 1.09 3.21 2.10
Coarse -1.00 0.71 1.74 -1.49 0.72 2.24 -1.60 0.36 1.99 -0.50 3.10 3.62 -1.13 2.24 3.28 -1.39 1.01 2.43
Cereals
Cereals 0.38 2.59 2.20 -0.25 3.12 3.38 0.18 2.03 1.84 0.27 2.25 1.98 -0.10 3.38 1.99 -.08 2.25 2.33
Pulses 0.43 -0.53 -0.95 0.13 1.50 1.41 -0.63 0.15 0.68 1.45 3.09 1.62 2.71 1.41 1.86 0.29 1.28 0.98
Foodgrains 0.39 2.27 1.87 -0.19 2.99 3.18 0.04 1.91 1.87 0.49 2.31 1.80 0.49 3.18 1.59 0.00 2.17 2.18
Groundnut -0.30 0.64 0.94 1.70 2.92 1.20 -2.75 -2.27 0.51 -0.81 1.95 2.77 0.60 4.74 4.36 -0.77 0.72 1.49
Rapeseed & 1.34 1.50 0.17 3.55 9.10 5.36 -1.78 -1.15 0.63 2.59 4.85 2.20 0.83 4.06 3.16 1.54 3.79 2.22
Mustard
Oilseeds 1.12 1.66 0.53 3.02 5.80 2.70 -0.87 0.56 1.45 2.21 5.37 3.09 0.19 1.70 1.57 -0.73 3.06 1.87
Sugarcane 1.65 2.64 1.38 1.35 2.97 1.61 1.91 2.74 0.82 1.30 2.31 1.01 -0.73 1.34 2.12 1.48 2.38 0.91
Cotton 0.08 2.62 2.55 -0.97 3.32 4.31 2.18 0.24 -1.90 3.17 14.20 10.70 0.95 -0.55 -1.58 1.02 3.91 2.87
Source: Author’s estimates from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, Government of India.
 2022 Agricultural Growth 16

However, it is interesting to observe a relatively higher growth in yield of all major crops
during 1981-82 to 1990-91, i.e., the mature green revolution period. It indicates that crops
other than rice and wheat shared the technological benefits. With decline in area,
impressive growth in production of most crops was mainly contributed by growth in yield.
Rice registered production and yield growth rate of 4.20 per cent and 3.58 per cent,
respectively. Wheat yield also showed splendid growth of 3.02 per cent. Growth in yield
of pulses (1.41%) and coarse cereals (2.24%) was significant. However, negative growth
(-0.19%) was reflected in the decline in area under foodgrains. Despite this, production of
foodgrains was high at 2.99 per cent, which was contributed by yield growth of 3.18 per
cent. Oilseeds recorded a growth rate of 5.80 per cent in production and 2.70 per cent in
yield. This could be attributed to Technology Mission on Oilseeds launched in 1986, which
laid emphasis on increasing productivity of oilseeds and bridging yield gaps between
experimental stations and farmers’ fields by adopting improved package of practices.
Similarly, cotton showed high growth in production by 3.32 per cent and yield by 4.31 per
cent. However, the impressive growth in crop production observed during the 1981-82 to
1990-91 was not sustained during the 1990-91 to 2000-01. Growth in the yield of almost
all crops declined during 1991-92 to 2000-01, i.e., the early economic reforms period. This
was, in fact, a alarming scenario, which resulted in low growth in crop output. However,
there was increase in area for rice and wheat during this period. Growth in area under
sugarcane and cotton increased during this period. Even though recording almost the
same level of growth in yield, the negative growth in area (-1.60%) resulted in a fall in
production for coarse cereals. In the case of pulses, the decline in the growth of yield and
negative growth in area (-0.63) led to fall in production. Consequently, growth in
foodgrains production declined to 1.91 per cent during the economic reforms period when
compared to 3.18 per cent in the mature green revolution period. There was significantly
improvement in production and yield of all most all crops during 2001-02 to 2010-11 and
2011-12 to 2020-21. Growth in yield of rice increased at 1.60 per cent but very low growth
in area resulted in sluggish growth in production when compared to the early economic
reforms period. In contrast, growth in both area and yield of wheat declined. Impressive
growth in yield of coarse cereals at 3.62 per cent and 3.28 per cent led to 3.10 per cent
and 2.24 per cent growth in production during 2001-02 to 2010-11 and 2011-12 to 2020-
21, respectively. Groundnut, which witnessed negative growth in area and production in
2022 Vinod Kumar 17

the previous decade (1991-92 to 2000-01), registered growth of 1.95 per cent and 4.74 per
cent in production due to high growth in yield (2.77% and 4.36%) during 2001-02 to
2020-21. Thus, impressive growth in groundnut along with rapeseed and mustard led to
increase in production of oilseeds. Cotton witnessed a whopping growth of 14.20 per cent
in production as a result of impressive growth of 10.70 per cent in yield during 2001-02
to 2010-11. The India's policymakers have envisaged an annual growth rate of 4 per cent
in agriculture and allied sectors since the 9th Five-Year Plan (1996-97 to 2001-02). As the
crop sector constitutes over three-fourth of total output its growth performance assumes
great importance in achieving this target. However, the long-term growth rate (during
1967-68 to 2020-21) shows that not a single crop registered production growth of more
than 4.0 per cent annum. However, few crops that showed decent growth in production
were cotton, rapeseed and mustard, wheat and rice. Further, growth in foodgrains
production was 2.17 per cent, which was only a little higher than the annual population
growth of 1.64 per cent as per Census 2011. This implies that production of foodgrains has
to be enhanced to achieve long-term sustainable food and nutritional security in the
country. It is also noticeable from the long term growth that area shifts have been taking
place from coarse cereals and oilseeds towards high value crops like sugarcane and the
more remunerative cotton.

Indian agriculture is dominated by small and marginal farmers (86.21%), who suffer
serious disadvantage in terms of scale, small farm size discourages many farmers to go
for diversification of fruits and vegetables mainly because of the price risk and
uneconomic lot for marketing. Most of the SMF have been facing several major
constraints such as input supply, credit availability, proper transport, and market facility,
etc. Their share nearly 60 per cent in total foodgrains production: 49 per cent rice, 40 per
cent wheat, 29 per cent coarse cereals and 27 per cent pulses as well as over half of the
country’s fruits and vegetable production, according to Agricultural Census 2015-16.
Small sized of farmers are also disadvantaged in terms of bargaining power in various
transactions in the inputs and output markets (Chand, 2017). These constraints can be
resolved with the promotion of farmer producers organisations (FPOs). SFAC and
NABARD are promoting FPOs to enable small and marginal farmers to reduce transaction
costs, access technology, raise bargaining power and integrate with value chains.
 2022 Agricultural Growth 18

Similarly, policy interventions are required to encourage production of oilseeds and

coarse cereals. Further, crop productivity has to be improved through better soil and
water management, profitable crop rotation, innovative marketing and investment in
farm education and rural infrastructure. Among these factors, the former two are
essential in ensuring sustainability of agricultural production through effective
maintenance of soil fertility through balancing use of chemical and organic fertilisers and
developing drought and pests and diseases varieties. The latter factors are important in
making agriculture more profitable through efficient marketing, access to and adoption
of new technologies like artificial intelligence, internet of things, block chain technology,
agri drone and providing incentives for making on-farm investment.

Analysis of Agriculture Performance in Indian States

State-wise CAGR of Value of Output from Agriculture and Allied Sectors

State-wise CAGR of value of output from agriculture and allied sectors during the period
between 2011-12 to 2018-19 at constant (2011-12) prices are presented in Table 8 and
Figure 1. It may be seen that the value of output from crop sector was grew highest in
Madhya Pradesh (6.59%) and followed by Andhra Pradesh (4.48%) and Chhattisgarh
(3.00%). In case of livestock sector, highest growth was observed in Tamil Nadu (11.97%)
and followed by Madhya Pradesh (9.93%) and Andhra Pradesh (8.40%). The fisheries and
aquaculture, Andhra Pradesh grew highest (22.92%) followed by Jharkhand (12.90%)
and Madhya Pradesh (12.07%). Forestry and logging sector grew highest in Goa (24.54%)
and followed by Sikkim (9.18%) and Chhattisgarh (7.77%). Total agriculture and allied
sectors grew highest in Mizoram with CAGR of 14.97 per cent due to diversification
towards high value crops followed by Andhra Pradesh (9.18%) and Madhya Pradesh
(6.97%). At the all India level, crop, livestock, fishing, forestry and tot al agriculture and
allied sectors grew by 1.53 per cent, 5.76 per cent, 9.48 per cent, 3.91 per cent and 3.27
per cent, respectively during the period 2011-12 to 2018-19.
2022 Vinod Kumar 19

Table 8: State-wise CAGR of Value of Output of Agriculture and Allied Sectors

During 2011-12 to 2018-19 at Constant (2011-12) Prices (%)

State Crops Livestock Fisheries Forestry Total

agriculture
and allied
sectors
Andhra Pradesh 4.48 8.40 22.92 2.02 9.18
Arunachal Pradesh -5.94 5.07 5.72 5.76 0.37
Assam 1.98 2.15 4.52 -0.41 2.15
Bihar 1.20 5.56 7.89 4.12 3.13
Chhattisgarh 3.00 4.06 11.77 7.77 4.64
Goa 0.47 -3.81 4.31 24.54 3.86
Gujarat -0.14 4.43 3.52 5.47 1.40
Haryana 0.33 6.22 9.52 -1.26 2.42
Himachal Pradesh 1.02 3.53 7.90 4.50 2.68
Jammu & Kashmir 1.34 4.80 0.10 6.76 3.05
Jharkhand 0.59 3.76 12.90 6.47 2.68
Karnataka 2.08 4.36 2.20 2.22 2.59
Kerala -3.13 0.37 2.87 2.91 -1.15
Madhya Pradesh 6.59 9.93 12.07 3.12 6.97
Maharashtra 0.60 4.92 0.85 6.01 2.20
Manipur 2.18 0.90 4.70 7.53 2.83
Meghalaya 0.89 2.95 20.46 4.33 2.47
Mizoram 2.62 15.41 5.38 29.37 14.89
Nagaland 3.26 -10.59 4.41 6.10 1.64
Odisha -0.17 2.36 12.26 5.55 2.09
Punjab 1.20 4.09 5.81 0.39 2.02
Rajasthan -0.27 7.48 9.74 4.58 3.00
Sikkim 3.26 3.07 2.04 9.18 3.50
Tamil Nadu -0.30 11.97 3.48 1.57 4.82
Telangana -1.92 6.57 3.94 0.28 1.75
Tripura 3.17 7.18 5.28 3.89 4.08
Uttar Pradesh 2.77 3.29 6.87 2.09 2.95
Uttarakhand -1.02 3.19 3.42 0.62 0.48
West Bengal 1.93 3.31 2.92 1.42 2.35
All India 1.53 5.76 9.48 3.91 3.27
Source. Authors’ estimates using National Statistical Office data, MoSPI, GoI.
 2022 Agricultural Growth 20

Figure 1: State-wise CAGR of value of output from agriculture and allied sectors
2022 Vinod Kumar 21

State-wise Value of output of Agriculture and Allied Sectors at Constant

(2011-12) Prices for Top Six States

State-wise percentage share of crops, livestock, forestry& logging, fishing & aquaculture
and total agriculture and allied sectors during the period 2011-12 to 2018-19 for top-6
States have been presented in Figure 2. Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest output of
crops in all the years, although its share in all India output has marginally increased from
12.96 per cent in 2011-12 to 14.05 per cent in 2018-19. The share of Madhya Pradesh has
gone up considerably from 7.06 per cent in 2011-12 to 10.28 per cent in 2018-19. The
share of Gujarat in all India output reduced from 8.87 per cent in 2011-12 to 6.84 per cent
in 2018-19. Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan together accounted for about a quarter of output
of livestock at constant prices. The output of Tamil Nadu has increased faster during this
period.

Maharashtra and Rajasthan have together accounted for 25.87 per cent of output of
forestry and logging. The share of Assam and Uttar Pradesh has decreased during this
period. West Bengal has reported the increasing output in fishing and aquaculture yet its
share in all India output has reduced from 24.63 per cent in 2011-12 to 16.39 per cent in
2018-19. The total share of Assam and Kerala in all India output has reduced in 2018-19
compared to that in 2011-12. Andhra Pradesh share in all-India output increased
significantly from 17.74 per cent in 2011-12 to almost 37.52 per cent in 2018-19. The share
of Assam and Kerala in all India output reduced during these years, although these
recorded a small increase in value of output.

Among the top 6 states, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh share in the total
Agriculture and allied sectors has increased from 5.55 per cent and 6.16 per cent in 2011-
12 to 7.97 per cent and 8.09 per cent in 2018-19, respectively.
 2022 Agricultural Growth 22

Crop Livestock Forestry and logging

7.4 12.8 8.7
West Bengal 7.1 Uttar Pradesh 14.9
Uttar Pradesh 10.0
14.1 9.7 11.4
Uttar Pradesh 13.0 Tamil Nadu Rajasthan
6.8 11.4
7.4 11.5 4.3
Rajasthan 7.9 Rajasthan Punjab
10.6 5.8
9.1 7.2 14.4
Maharashtra 10.0 Maharashtra Maharashtra
7.7 12.2
10.3 5.9 7.3
Madhya Pradesh 7.1 Gujarat Madhya Pradesh
6.4 7.5
6.8 8.1 4.03
Gujarat 8.9 Andhra Pradesh Assam
7.0 5.51
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
2018-19 2011-12 2018-19 2011-12 2018-19 2011-12

Fishing and Aquaculture Agriculture, forestry & fishing

Gujarat 3.6 12.6
5.3 Uttar Pradesh 12.8
Assam 4.0 8.5
5.5 Rajasthan 8.6
West Bengal 16.4 8.6
24.6 Maharashtra 9.4
Tamil Nadu 4.8 8.1
7.1 Madhya Pradesh 6.2

Kerala 4.0 6.2

5.9 Gujarat 7.8

Andhra Pradesh 37.5 7.9

17.7 Andhra Pradesh 5.5

0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15

2018-19 2011-12 2018-19 2011-12

Figure 2. State-wise Value of Output of Agriculture and Allied Sectors in Percentage.

2022 Vinod Kumar 23

Crop Output Growth Model

The ordinary least squares (OLS) approach was used to estimate the model, and all the
variables are in logarithmic form. It may be observed from the model that effect of gross
irrigated area and rainfall was positive and significant on crop output growth while the
effect of fertilizer was negative and significant on crop output growth (Table 9). Rainfall
and gross irrigated area were found to be significant at 1 per cent, while fertiliser was
significant at 5 per cent level of significance. In the model, the variable cropping intensity
was not significant. This might be as a result of the more or less fixed nature of cultivated
land. Additionally, the value of crop output is not considerably impacted by the
intensification of land use. The regression results model shows that normal rainfall and
better irrigation facilities have a positive and significant impact while improved fertiliser
consumption have negative but significant impact on the crop output growth in the
country.

Table 9: Regression Results of Agricultural Growth Model: Regression

Results for Crop Output Value: 1992-93 to 2020-21

Dependent Variable: ∆2 Crop Output Value

Variables
Constant 0.002427
-0.267648**
∆2Fertiliser
(-2.424380)
0.018726
∆2Capital_Formation
(0.473433)
-0.778854
∆2Cropping_Intensity
(-1.121397)
0.196410***
∆2Rainfall
(3.780314)
1.376566***
∆2Gross_Irrigated_Area
(6.765945)
R-squared 0.874118
Durbin-Watson Statistics 2.543177
No. of Observations 29

Note: Figures in parentheses are t values, *** significant at 1%, **Significant at 5%.
 2022 Agricultural Growth 24

CONCLUSIONS

There has been significantly changes in the cropping pattern in India with a noticeable
shift from foodgrains cultivation to commercial and high value crops. Among foodgrains,
the area for coarse cereals declined by 16.78 per cent between TE 1970- 1971 and TE 2020-
2021 due to the lack of appropriate technological breakthrough. The performance of
pulses in terms of area and output was not impressive during the study period. However,
increase in crop yield was a major factor in accelerating crop production in the country
since the green revolution. High yielding varieties/improved varieties, increased
irrigation facilities particularly precision irrigation, and adequate and timely availability
of fertilizers have impressively contributed to higher crop production growth in the
country. The results of the crop output growth model indicate that better irrigation
facilities, normal rainfall, and improved fertilizer consumption will help boost crop
output in the country.

Technology and institutional support for a few crops such as wheat, rapeseed and
mustard, sugarcane and cotton brought significant changes in crop area and output
composition in the country. Wheat occupied only 10.42 per cent of GCA in TE 1970-71
and this increased to 15.45 per cent in TE 2020-21 in the country. The expansion of area
for wheat, rapeseed and mustard, sugarcane and cotton crops resulted in a reduction of
area planted to coarse cereals and groundnut. The share of wheat, cotton, fruits and
vegetables and condiments and spices in the total value of crop output increased from
6.67 per cent, 3.22 per cent, 14.11 per cent and 2.17 per cent, respectively in TE 1970-71 to
9.68 per cent, 5.15 per cent, 27.77 per cent and 5.45 per cent, respectively in TE 2020-21.
Further, the share of rice, coarse cereals and pulses in the total value of crop output has
decreased from 17.26 per cent, 8.93 per cent and 8.39 per cent, respectively in TE 1970-
71 to 13.96 per cent, 3.78 per cent and 5.26 per cent, respectively in TE 2020-21. The area
for cotton increased from the 1980s and constituted about 5 per cent of the total value of
crop output in recent years. Meanwhile, the annual yield growth during 1967-1968 to
2020- 2021 for major crops was low.
2022 Vinod Kumar 25

International comparisons based on Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data for
the year 2019 (Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2021) show that yield per hectare of rice
was 7060 kg in China and 5837 kg in Indonesia against the all-India average of 4058 kg.
Similarly, the yield of wheat was 5630 kg in China and 7743 kg in France against the all-
India average of 3533 kg. In case of pulses, yield per hectare was 2050 kg in Canada
against the all-India average of 697 kg only. Hence, there is potential for enhancing the
yield of major crops through better soil and water management, profitable crop rotation,
innovative marketing, genetic engineering, and investment in farm education, research
and development and rural infrastructure. It may be concluded that there is also a need
to improve productivity of small and marginal farmers through development and
implementation of small holding farm technologies. The regenerative agriculture through
suitable integrated farming system (IFS) models is the need of the hour to improve soil
health, make agriculture profitable and sustainable in the long run.

WAY FORWARD

Crop diversification towards oilseeds, pulses and horticulture needs to be given priority
by addressing the core issues of irrigation, investment, credit and markets in their
cultivation. While the Government has adopted the use of MSP as signal to encourage
crop diversification, there is also a need for coordinated action from the State
Governments to facilitate the shift to high value and less water guzzling crops to enable
realization of the objective of doubling farmers’ income in a sustainable way. Research
shows that every rupee spent on agricultural research and development, yields better
returns compared to returns on money spent on subsidies or other expenditures on
inputs. The increase in agriculture research and development (R&D), from the present
0.65 per cent of GDP to at least one per cent, therefore, may improve productivity in crop
and allied sectors. Further, integrated farming on small farm holdings – crop, horticulture,
household dairy, backyard poultry, small pond-culture, and home-grown ducks – will cross-
hold risks and pave the way for farmer doubling his income erelong. Sustainability of
agricultural growth is assured thus through heavy capital investments in climate resistant
technologies, cashing in carbon credits sooner than later.
 2022 Agricultural Growth 26

REFERENCES

Bhalla, G.S., and G. Singh (2001), Indian Agriculture: Four Decades of Development. New
Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
Bhalla, G.S., and G. Singh (2009), “Economic Liberalization and Indian Agriculture: A
Statewise Analysis.” Economic and Political Weekly 44 (52): 34-44.
Birthal, P. S., P. K. Joshi, and A. Gulati (2005), Vertical Coordination in High-Value Food
Commodities: Implications for Smallholders. MTID Discussion Paper No. 85.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Chand, R., P. Shinoj, A. Gulati, and K. Ganguly (2011), “Managing Food Inflation in India:
Reforms and Policy Options”, Policy Brief 35, National Center for Agricultural Economics
and Policy Research, New Delhi
Chand, R., S.S. Raju, and L.M. Pandey (2007), “Growth Crisis in Agriculture: Severity and
Options at National and State Levels.” Economic and Political Weekly Vol.42, No.26,
pp.2528-2533.
Chand, Ramesh and Pramod Kumar (2004), “Determinants of Capital Formation and
Agriculture Growth: Some New Explorations”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol.39,
No.52, pp.5611-16.
Chand Ramesh (2017), "Doubling Farmers' Income: Rationale, Strategy, Prospects and
Action Plan", NITI Policy Paper No. 1, NITI Aayag, GoI.
Gollin, D., S. Parente, and R. Rogerson (2002), “Role of Agriculture in Development”, The
American Economic Review, Vol.92, No.2, pp.160-164.
Joshi, P. K., A. Gulati, P. S. Birthal, and L. Tewari (2004), “Agriculture Diversification in
South Asia: Patterns, Determinants and Policy Implications”, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol.39, No.24, pp.2457–2467.
Government of India (2007), Report of the Steering Committee on Agriculture and Allied
Sectors for Formulation of the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-08), Planning Commission,
April 15.
Government of India, National Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, New Delhi.
Government of India (2022), Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2021, Ministry of
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, 17 May.

Mahendra Dev, S. (1987), “Growth and Instability in Foodgrains Production: An Inter-

State Analysis”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.22, No.39, pp.A82-A92.

Mahendra Dev, S. (2000), “Economic Reforms, Poverty, Income Distribution and

Employment”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol.35 No.10, pp. 823-35.
2022 Vinod Kumar 27

Naik, G., M. Qaim, A. Subramanian, and D. Zilberman (2005), “Bt Cotton Controversy,
Some Paradoxes Explained”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.40, No.15, pp.1514-
1517.
Rao, C H Hanumantha (2003), “Reform Agenda for Agriculture”, Economic & Political
Weekly, Vol.21, No.29, pp.1943-48.
Rao, V.M. (1996), “Agricultural Development with a Human Face: Experiences and
Prospects.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.31, No.26, pp. A50-A62.
RBI (2021), Handbook of Statistics on Indian States, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.
Roy, D., and A. Thorat (2008), “Success in High-Value Horticultural Export Markets for
the Small Farmers: The Case of Mahagrapes in India”, World Development, Vol. 36,
No.10, pp.1874-1890.
Vaidyanathan, A. (2010), Agricultural Growth in India, Role of Technology, Incentives,
and Institutions. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
Vyas, V. S. (2001), “Agriculture: Second Round of Economic Reforms”, Economic &
Political Weekly, Vol.36, No.14, pp.829-836.