Is agriculture good for India ?
Summer is here in Finland for good two weeks and hopefully many more to go. With the onset of summer all the snow has melted. We can now see black asphalt or cobbled stone road, the grassy surface and also the soil in the vast stretches of what look like agricultural farms. In these two years, I have found something strange with many of these agricultural farms, particularly those lying along Hameenlinna - Helsinki highway. I have never seen any crops ever on them. In winter it is understandable but why not in summer? The answer is there in the figures of Finnish economy. I don’t have the exact data but the trend is no different from most of the developed economies. The proportion of agriculture is very less in GDP. This also means that a small portion of Finnish population is actually engaged in agricultural activities. Hence much of land remains unutilized. Finnish agricultural is also heavily subsidized and the efforts are made by government to reduce the output of some of the crops (sugar beet).
This becomes quite interesting and relevant if I extrapolate it to India. As much as we hear about India becoming economic superpower we also hear about the burgeoning ‘urban-rural’ or ‘have-have not’ divide. India still has a sizeable population living below poverty line. So why hasn’t the economic prosperity trickled down to lower strata of Indian society? The answer is here. 56.7% of Indian work force and 70% of population is dependant on agriculture which as 21% share in GDP. The annual growth rate in agriculture is 1.3% as compared to 10.6% of services sector. This is exactly the reason why the impressive GDP growth has failed to lift the economic status of much of Indian population. So, what can be done?
There are two ways to deal with this. Increase the growth rate of agriculture to match with that of services and manufacturing or decrease the Indian work force (hence population) dependant on agriculture. It is too easy for anyone to guess that latter option is easier to achieve and more feasible. So like other developed counties, India should move its population towards services sector which has more stable and guaranteed income. Of course the question about food reliability will arise. But in today’s world economy, if a country has money from the services export then buying food grain won’t be a problem. The large demand population will further help by increasing the bargaining power. The Indian food demand has also the potential to change the economy of other countries as well. Imagine India sourcing rice from Bangladesh. Along with this, also lies the fact that India can’t totally eliminated agriculture. But lesser workforce will make agricultural activity lean and efficient leading to increased productivity.
15 Comments:
At 1:09 AM, Koi Pahailee said…
hmm...
what can I say. If they would only let the farmers rule.
I hate the jagirdaar system in Pakistan. Totally ruins the efforts of small farmers. totally. Its a slave system in this modern world.
At 6:35 AM, Abhinav said…
As always great post Satya.
Yea they urban-rural divide is widening coz the growth we are seeing today in India is only limited to certain parts (cities) of the country. If u compare this with China their growth involves and benifit a larger section of society. The reason being (i have not researched just assumption) set up of manufacturing units which benifits larger population unlike India the growth we are seeing in Software primarily.
India should move its population towards services sector which has more stable and guaranteed income
I totally agree..but who wants to work here, every body wants to live life king size (without working ofcourse). Atleast this is the trend i see in North India (read Western UP)
At 7:37 AM, greensatya said…
Koi - Is the jagirdaar system the same was Zamindar system ? If that is true then it is sad. The best way to immediately rescue the plight of small farmers is contract farming and co-operatives.
Abhinav - Yeah as China has more population in Manufacturing, India could have them in services. National culture is one hard thing to be changed.
At 8:45 AM, Y said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 8:55 AM, Y said…
I donot think it can ever be done consciously to shift a population from agriculture to some other sector. Agriculture forms the most basic core sector. Because it feeds the population.
Any industrialised nation, has to fulfill one very very basic requirement. The nation has to be self sufficient to produce the food which is its staple diet. more.
Self sufficient here means that the food is available such that it satisfies the 3 P's namely Product(food), Price, Placement(distribution) for the bottom most strata of the population.
The above point has been higlighted by you too. So what I wrote was sort of redundant. But this ellaboration was needed for me to say that consciously moving a populace from agri to another productive sector and then looking for alternative ways to fulfill agri requirements wont happen.
Plus outsourcing is a big big defensically strategic risk.
The only way ist to improve that 1.4% growth rate. That is very difficult. That needs a scientific and 'humanic' system overhaul.
Abhinav,
To me it appears as if Chinese growth is more concentrated and Indian growth more distributed. Chinese growth is heavily geographically biased towards their east coast. A large part of mainland western China is disgrunted.
On the contrary the Indian growth encompasses almost all regions barring the north east and JK. Here two the two regions suffer from local causes. Though east may be laggard as compared to the west.
This rural urban devide is a phenomenon which will accompany any country trying to grow.
This is equally apparent in the so called developed eastern part of China.
At 11:15 AM, greensatya said…
Sher - Hmm, so here's my take
Over the past 50 years our population has moved from agriculture to services and mfg. Even if nothing is done it will still move. I am merely asking to expedite it for the economic prosperity to trickle down to every level of our society.
Self sufficieny in terms of food grain 'production' has become a redundant concept. And no industrialised nations don't grow all their required food by themself. For that matter not any developed country. Come to my kitchen and I will show you globalisation. Self sufficiency means having MONEY to buy food grains.
Self sufficient was good for India in 1960 but now world has changed. If you have money then you can buy from anywhere. That time India didn't have money. Economics suggests us to do thing which we can do efficiently. We should do those things which give more return to 'us' compared to the effort put in agriculture.
Strategic risk !!! so you mean another country will not sell India wheat or rice even if paid. Just look a little back on Jan 1st ,2006 in the gas controversy between Russia and Ukraine. The answer lies there.
I again say that Indian agriculture is not too labour intensive and has more redundanices. It has to be made lean and efficient i.e to grow what we can grow efficiently and buy what we can cheaply. Today's India is not the same India of 1947.
Look at what farmers in Punjab have done. Using the subsidised power they are growing rice there plummeting the water table. They should grow which suits the climate there. I am not asking to eliminate Indian agriculture. I am asking two fold approach. 1. Make agriculture efficient 2. Shift redundant population to services.
Wow, I just now saw that Indian Express is carryign a similar editorial and they have explained the concept of self reliance quite beautifully. Read it here
At 11:53 AM, Abhinav said…
adding onto Satya's Point....we are talking abt economic prosparity...though agriculture is 21% or so of our GDP has the situation of farmers have changes (i am not talking abt Punjab)...look in News papers and u will see news of farmers commiting suicide. Even in the Green Belt of UP situation is no differnet .. the poin lies here is they are just exploited. ( i will not go into the details how) But the fact remains how can a sector which contributes so much to the GDP has not brought prosperity for the ppl involved.
Sher, may be the development in China is concentrated only in the East Coast but still the fact lies that manufacturing involves ppl frm all walk of life unlike software where only few are benifitted. The Point i was trying to make was Development should start from Grass root level.
At 12:25 PM, Y said…
//Self sufficieny in terms of food grain 'production' has become a redundant concept.
How can u say that :) That is the most basic need. It may be done in a way that is not apparent to you, but every country makes sure that this is in place.
Just for the sake of example. If sugar was our staple most diet. And we dont produce to our needs,Pakistan produces a surplus,then do you think the government will ever sit quite thinking Pakistan will always be there to export to us.
// And no industrialised nations don't grow all their required food by themself. For that matter not any developed country.
Satya go deep... very deep into it. Its all politics. Its all quid pro quo. And that is not saying food in return of money. It would be like country A getting food and in return providing country with another essential commodity that country B dooes not have and cant do without. Economic outsourcing..kind of what you propose comes with huge strategic water holes.
And keep in mind I am talking about the staple diet. Not delicacies.
//Self sufficient was good for India in 1960 but now world has changed. If you have money then you can buy from anywhere. That time India didn't have money. Economics suggests us to do thing which we can do efficiently. We should do those things which give more return to 'us' compared to the effort put in agriculture.
Money is not the moot point.
PLs tell me if money was...why is Iran resisting US????? We have to meet our very basic needs. Survival
//Strategic risk !!! so you mean another country will not sell India wheat or rice even if paid.
Its not that easily put. If you have a fight with your neighbour. And either of you want the other to be out of the city. And u r neighbour finds you are dependent on him for u r food...do u think he will provide you food..even if u give him money?
//ON Jan 1st ,2006 in the gas controversy between Russia and Ukraine. The answer lies there.
That was not survival at the very basic level.
//It has to be made lean and efficient i.e to grow what we can grow efficiently and buy what we can cheaply.
That dont work Satya. This is not auxilleries like TV, cars etc we are talking about.
And Satya u know whatever can be grown efficiently is already being grown in the areas everywhere in the world. Because wheat cud be grown in Punjab easily that punjabis prefer wheat not rice. Because bengal grows rice easily...bengalis eat rice not wheat.
Today's India is not the same India of 1947.
//I am asking two fold approach. 1. Make agriculture efficient 2. Shift redundant population to services.
redundant population to services ???
Finally I am not for the sake of arguing against, arguing against your point:) But there is a certain trend.
At 12:35 PM, Y said…
Abhinav,
I have a different view.
First of all our services part of GDP is close to 50%. And you are erring in thinking that all that is IT in nature. I had once in my post pointed out how wrong that is. The 'new' sector or the IT secor is a single digit contributor to GDP.
And lets face it..IT adds upto digital divide. Not only in India but everywhere. So u wont take it?? Everything has its blemishes...accentuating the devide is maybe IT's one of the many blemishes.
And just expanding a point of view. Even benefits from IT trickles down to the poor. And in the long term I think the benefits are more.
Take the case of B'lore. Ask the auto wallah how his earnings have increased ten folds after the IT boom. Whenever I travel on auto I ask them this...and thats the avg number they give. Just look at how the shuttle service has given daily bread to the transport business.. similarly the benefit trickles down. Some things are apparent and some are not.
At 12:58 PM, greensatya said…
Sher -
//How can u say that :) That is the most basic need. It may be done in a way that is not apparent to you, but every country makes sure that this is in place.//
I am also asking to make sure this. But I am not asking India to produce everything that it needs. If you talk about basic need then why don’t you ask to produce even palm oil. India imports them at present.
//Just for the sake of example. If sugar was our staple most diet. And we dont produce to our needs,Pakistan produces a surplus,then do you think the government will ever sit quite thinking Pakistan will always be there to export to us.//
Is Indian subcontinent microcosm of world ? If you see from global concept then this is not true. India will always make it sure that there are other countries to buy its produce.
//Satya go deep... very deep into it. Its all politics. Its all quid pro quo. And that is not saying food in return of money. It would be like country A getting food and in return providing country with another essential commodity that country B dooes not have and cant do without. Economic outsourcing..kind of what you propose comes with huge strategic water holes. //
Why do you think strategic risk is associated always with India ? Why don’t you think that other countries will also have this ? If the 1 billion population of India is buying wheat and a country is producing wheat to sell. Will it ignore India ? As I said in my post that India will have huge bargaining power just because of its market for food grains. It is quid pro quo, so India will have money to pay for the produce. The money is the one dimension of quid pro quo. There is a limit to strategic risk. This risk is eliminated due to combination of many factors. Or else don’t you think China has strategic risk as it imports crude Oil ?
//And keep in mind I am talking about the staple diet. Not delicacies.//
I am talking about what can be grown efficiently. Be it staple or exotic, does not matter.
//
PLs tell me if money was...why is Iran resisting US????? We have to meet our very basic needs. Survival//
Is Iran resisting US for its survival ? Oh my, please develop more on this. You can do a post on the current Iran controversy.
//Its not that easily put. If you have a fight with your neighbour. And either of you want the other to be out of the city. And u r neighbour finds you are dependent on him for u r food...do u think he will provide you food..even if u give him money? //
As I said above. It is not between neighbours. Even if it is then think India selling Pakistan rice and Pakistan selling wheat. Balances, right ? and also Pakistan dependant on export of its Wheat ? again will balance right. Or will Pakistan keep all its wheat with itself.
//That was not survival at the very basic level.//
Energy is as basic need for survival as food.
//That dont work Satya. This is not auxilleries like TV, cars etc we are talking about.
And Satya u know whatever can be grown efficiently is already being grown in the areas everywhere in the world. Because wheat cud be grown in Punjab easily that punjabis prefer wheat not rice. Because bengal grows rice easily...bengalis eat rice not wheat.//
do you think 21% of GDP should require 56.7% of work force ? What do you think be the other way to make economic prosperity down to lower level. One would to be increase growth rate in Agriculture. Is it that easy ? Okay accepted we make it 10% but don’t you think there is more redundant labour in Indian agriculture now ? Can’t it be done efficiently ?
//redundant population to services ???//
I meant population which will be redundant after agriculture is done efficiently.
//Finally I am not for the sake of arguing against, arguing against your point:) But there is a certain trend. //
No this is not question of arguing. It is a debate .
And Sher, judging by the recent wheat import from Australia, you would know that India is not self reliant in terms of wheat production. How much of risk that is? Did we feel that risk ?
At 1:03 PM, greensatya said…
Abhinav
See the statistic is like this
Share in GDP
services - 54%
Agriculture - 21%
Growth rate in first half of 2005-2006
Services - 10.6%
Agriculture - 2.1%
Work force in agriculture 56.7%.
Now more than half of Indian workforce is having a growth rate of 2.1% in their sector and around 20% of workforce(or even less) is having 10% growth rate. This is the reason for disparity.
Developed countries have typically less than 10% of their population dependent on agriculture.
At 2:15 PM, Y said…
First thing first..the example of Pakistan shud be taken as any other country. I used pakistan because that is the next country which comes to my mind after India. You can extrapolate US or any other.
Satya
I am getting confused as to what you want to say.
I think we have to agree that we need reforms in agriculture. And that 56.7% of the populace producing 21% of GDP is just not right.
But that doesnot mean we just work on getting the numbers right. Getting the numbers right is not the target. The target is economic prosperity. Numbers just show that.
Now u and the article r saying we should concentrate on exporting high value labour extensive crops and importing low value yet labour intensive crops.
Thats quite a Ricardoian philosophy. But Economists sadly donot incorporate human behaviour in their logic. Let me just stop at that.
Just look at the costs involved at the demand side(production level) and the supply side(production level).
But even then my dominant logic is this. Even if I were past the technological age and all ages beyond that....I would still not have myself depend on another one for my food no matter how rich I am.
Satya..if money was the case, why is US storing OIL/ It has money it can buy oil anytime...why is ONGC, IOC getting kicks and scouting for oil fields all round the world?...They are all wanting security.
If we were to outsource all our wheat/rice...ok let me put it this way if we donot give high importance to produce our own 'food'...we may stand at the loosing end in the long term.
This is not saying that we shudnt import when the need arises.Ofcourse we shud. But not totally depend on imports.
What you propose is good but in a wishful world. What I am saying looks myopic but I am living in a
twisted world. As our man Richard Dawkins says...I/we have 'naturally selected' myself/ourselves:)
At 2:24 PM, greensatya said…
Sher - I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
You think that all that is needed by a country should be produced inhouse at whatever cost it come. Now what if other countries start doing it? What will happen to India then?
You also seem to say that Economist and Economics does not reflect human behaviour. So you think Economics has failed all these years ?
In coming years India will have to anway buy the food for its population. It is bound to happen.
China imports all it grains and so does US buy its oil needed.
What I propose is a way to let the economic prosperity trickle down to lower strata and have equitable distribution of wealth.
As per present data there is not single country in world which produces all that it needs. With changing time our mindset has to change.
At 2:41 PM, Y said…
//You also seem to say that Economist and Economics does not reflect human behaviour. So you think Economics has failed all these years ?
That my fav slapping question ;-)
And u know the answer. Ofcourse a big YES.
Like majority of nursery rhymes start with the poem 'Jack and jill went up the hill', majority of economic textbooks start with the logic man is a rational animal. And thus they very nicely find themselves a way to abstract numbers, mathematical theories and such.
Also I have a question to all those big mouthed economists. Why in all the economic theory no importance is given to the 'firm'? Where is the firm in economic theory.. Walmart has a revenues size of 300bn$ that is 50% of India's GDP...and yet no analysis of the firm in economics..That shows how far apart it is from reality
At 2:52 PM, greensatya said…
Sher- Haha, I guess the slapping answer was not for me. I have never studied economics.
But stock market theories start with 'Man is an irrational animal':P
I didn't get the firm theory. So you can do a post on that.
Post a Comment
<< Home