評估農業政策和農村發展
 

印度農業持續為一半以上的人口提供生計,1991年之后,華盛頓共識政策對其造成了嚴重的負面影響。20世紀60年代和20世紀70年代的綠色革命幫助印度農業克服了一個“渡口”的存在，實現了生產的自給自足。這一成就是建立在一個平臺的支持之上的;有價格支持,補貼支持,信貸支持和營銷支持。在20世紀70年代和20世紀80年代，國家的干預作用引導了農村地區制度支持的網絡結構的出現。鑒于未改革的農業經濟與像水利等關鍵領域的公共投資減少的出現,作物、等級和地區這些支撐結構的利益變得分布不均。所以本文的中心論點是農業政策在農村發展的貢獻及其對農村發展的影響。
 

引言：
 

獨立后,為了穩定印度農業，作物、種姓、不平等的階級、不同地區的各種農業政策成為決策者面前的主要問題。20世紀60年代后期帶來了農業社會綠色革命的發展,但其影響是相反的，增加了農村地區租戶和耕者之間的差距。
 

ASSESSING AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 

In Indian agriculture, which continues to provide livelihood for more than half of the population, Washington Consensus-type policies after 1991 have had acute adverse effects. The green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s helped Indian agriculture overcome a “ship-to-mouth” existence and achieve self-sufficiency in production. This achievement was built on a platform of state support; there were price supports, subsidy supports, credit supports and marketing supports. The interventionist role of the state in the 1970s and 1980s led to the creation of a network of institutional support structures in rural areas. Given the unreformed agrarian economy with dwindling public investment in critical areas like irrigation, the benefits of these support structures were distributed unequally – across crops, classes and regions. So the central thesis of this paper is contribution of agricultural policies in rural development and its impact on rural development.

 

Introduction:

 

After independence, the main concern arose in front of planners to stabilize the Indian agriculture through various agricultural policies across crops, caste, unequal class, and various regions. Late 1960s brought green revolution to develop agrarian society but its impact was reversed like it increases gap between tenants and tillers in rural areas. It also raised the big question in front of us about equitable distribution of land in rural areas. Over the period of economic reform, agricultural growth rates slowed down significantly. Most importantly, the rate of growth of food grain production slowed down, and fell behind the population growth rates for the first time after independence. The per capita food grain availability fell from about 175 kg in 1992 to 163 kg in 2001. In a country where about half the children below the age of three are underweight and more than three-fourth of children aged 6-35 months are anaemic, the reduction in per capita food grain availability after 1991 has deeply worrisome implications. The spate of farmers’ suicides reported from certain parts of the country reflects the distress state of agriculture after 1991. Between 1997 and 2006, there were about 150,000 suicides by “farmers” in rural India (Nagaraj, 2008). So my main objective to present this paper is to analyze agricultural policies in development of agrarian society and its formulation in the past.

 

Agricultural Policy:

 

A policy is typically described as a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s). It can be considered as a "Statement of Intent" or a "Commitment". And agricultural policy describes a set of laws relating to domestic agriculture and imports of foreign agricultural products. Governments usually implement agricultural policies with the goal of achieving a specific outcome in the domestic agricultural product markets. Outcomes can involve, for example, a guaranteed supply level, price stability, product quality, product selection, land use or employment.

 

Who Are the Farmers Today?

 

As countries industrialize, the proportion of their labour force working in agriculture declines. In 2000, In China, the proportion of the total labour force employed in agriculture has declined from about 71 percent in 1978 to less than 50 percent, which still amounts to over 400 million people. With an additional 260 million people in India and 200 million in Africa working in farming — in both cases about 60 percent of their “economically active population” — it is clear that the vast majority of the world’s agrarian population today is in the Third World, or South. This is corroborated by the standard estimate, derived from the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), that today “agriculture provides employment for 1.3 billion people worldwide, 97 percent of them in developing countries” (World Bank 2007). Some of those 1.3 billion qualify as “farmers,” subject to many variations of what type of farmers they are, where, and when: during peak moments of the annual agricultural calendar? In good or bad rainfall years? Good or bad market years? In other words, not all farmers are farmers all the time. Many rural people may not qualify as “farmers” in any strong sense — perhaps a majority in some countryside at some times and over time — because they lack land or other means to farm on their own account or are engaged in only “marginal” farming. Peter Hazell et al define marginal farming as “incapable of providing enough work or income to be the main livelihood of the household.” They point out that in India, for example, the term is used for farms of less than one hectare, which make up 62 percent of all landholdings but occupy only 17 percent of all farmed land. This shows the category of population under marginalized section of the society in which this 17% of farm land is divided and remaining felled in to 38% of agrarian population which is either belongs to middle, rich or capitalist class. And the marginalized section can be understood through following categories. Terms like “peasant,” “small” or “small-scale” farmer, and “family” farmer are often used interchangeably in ways that are easily con- fusing. This is not just a semantic issue but has important analytical issues and differences. The term “peasant” usually signifies household farming organized for simple reproduction, notably to supply its own food (“subsistence”). Concerning size, some sources define “small farms” as those with less than 2 hectares of crop land, while others characterize small farms in the South by low levels of technology, reliance on family labour and a “subsistence” orientation (that is, “peasant”-like attributes). Thus, one criterion is spatial (farm size) and the other sociological (type of farming).

 

Phases in Agricultural Policy:

 

There is a close association between agricultural policy followed in the country and the magnitude and sources of output growth. Based on these, agricultural policy followed during the last five decades can be broadly distinguished in 3 phases.

 

First phase:

 

The period from 1950/51 to mid 1960s which is also called pre green revolution period witnessed tremendous agrarian reforms, institutional changes and development of major irrigation projects in particular areas like north western and western uttar pradesh. The main objective was to abolish intermediary landlordism; tenant operations were trying to provide security of farming and ownership of land but all these objectives were not fulfilled due to caste, class and power relations in villages were highly unequal. Land ceiling acts were imposed by all the states to eliminate large sized holdings and cooperative credit institutions were strengthened to minimize exploitation of cultivators by private money lenders and traders (Radhakrishna 1993). Land consolidation was also affected to reduce the number of land fragments.

 

Expansion of area was the main source of growth in the pre green revolution period. The scope for area expansion diminished considerably in the green revolution period in which growth rate in area was less than half the growth rate in the first period. Increase in productively became the main source of growth in crop output and there was significant acceleration in yield growth in green revolution period. The main source of productivity increase was technological breakthrough in wheat and rice. The country faced severe food shortage and crisis in early 1960s which forced the policy makers to realize that continuous reliance on food imports and aid imposes heavy costs in terms of political pressure and economic instability (Rao 1996) and there was a desperate search for a quick breakthrough in agricultural production. At this phase marginal and small farmers were practicing subsistence farming which provides them at least food for their family.

 

Second Phase:

 

One choice before the country was to go for spread of new seeds of high yielding varieties (HYV) of wheat and rice. Amidst a serious debate the then Government took bold decision to go for the import and spread of HYV of wheat and rice which involved use of fertilizers and irrigation. This marked second phase of agriculture policy in the country. The strategy produced quick results as there was quantum jump in yield. Consequently, wheat and rice production in a short span of 6 years between 1965/66 and 1971/72 witnessed an increase of 30 million tones which is 168 percent higher than the achievement of 15 years following 1950/51.

 

The biggest achievement of new agricultural strategy, also known as green revolution technology, has been attainment of self sufficiency in food grains. Since the green revolution technology involved use of modern farm inputs, its spread led to fast growth in agro input industry. Agrarian reforms during this period took back seat while research, extension, input supply, credit, marketing, price support and spread of technology were the prime concern of policy makers (Rao 1996).

 

Two very important institutions, namely Food Corporation of India and Agricultural Prices Commission, were created in this period in the beginning of green revolution period, to ensure remunerative prices to producers, maintain reasonable prices for consumers, and to maintain buffer stock to guard against adverse impact of year to year fluctuations in output on price stability. These two institutions have mainly benefited rice and wheat crops which are the major cereals and staple food for the country.

 

This phase brought food self sufficiency at national level but not at house hold level. The reason of this was huge flow of technological and credit flow in western part north India like Punjab and western Uttar Pradesh. The effect of green revolution was limited geographical area but not in whole parts of India. After analyzing from Table 1, I conclude that the growth rate between population and agricultural production during period 1960s-1980s is the growth rate of agricultural production is more than population growth rate. At that time agricultural production was at high in some parts of India but at the same time rate of poverty in rural areas was remains at 51.3% (Source NIRD report 2003-4) during 1977-78. So we can conclude that there was no meaning of that self sufficiency.

 

Third Phase:

 

The next phase in Indian agriculture began in early 1980s. While there was clear change in economic policy towards delicensing and deregulation in Industry sector, agriculture policy lacked direction and was marked by confusion. Agricultural growth accompanied by increase in real farm incomes led to emergence of interest groups and lobbies which started influencing farm policy in the country. There has been a considerable increase in subsidies and support to agriculture sector during this period while public sector spending in agriculture for infrastructure development started showing decline in real term but investments by farmers kept on moving on a rising trend (Mishra and Chand 1995, Chand 2001). The output growth, which was concentrated in very narrow pockets, became broad- based and got momentum. The rural economy started witnessing process of diversification which resulted into fast growth in non food grain output like milk, fishery, poultry, vegetables, fruits etc which accelerated growth in agricultural GDP during the 1980s. This growth seems largely market driven.

 

Though green revolution has been widely diffused in irrigated areas throughout the country, the dry land areas have not seen benefit of technological breakthrough as witnessed through green revolution technology. Of late, improved varieties of oilseeds and course cereals have provided some opportunities for productivity growth in dry land areas. A new phase was started in India’s economic policy in 1991 that marked significant departure from the past. Government initiated process of economic reforms in 1991, which involved deregulation, reduced government participation in economic activities, and liberalization. Though much of the reforms were not initiated to directly affect agriculture sector, the sector was affected indirectly by devaluation of exchange rate, liberalisation of external trade and disprotection to industry. Then came new international trade accord and WTO, requiring opening up of domestic market. Initially there were strong apprehensions about the impact of trade liberalisation on Indian agriculture which later on turned out to be real threat for several commodities produced in the country.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

All these changes raised new challenges and provided new opportunities that required appropriate policy response. Besides, last two decades had witnessed mainly price intervention that had a very limited coverage, and there was a sort of policy vacuum. Because of this, there was a strong pressure on the government to come out with a formal statement of agriculture policy to provide new direction to agriculture in the new and emerging scenario. In response to this, government of India announced New Agricultural Policy in July 2000.

 

New Agricultural Policy:

 

The challenges facing Indian agriculture can be grouped in four categories relating to (1) growth (2) sustainability (3) efficiency and (4) equity. There are also other important concerns like food security, livelihood, employment, improvement in standard of living of agricultural population. Addressing these challenges requires efforts on several fronts like incentive structure, infrastructure, technology, market development, extension, regulations, input supply, tenancy etc. New agriculture policy should address above challenges through efforts in abovementioned areas and also provide direction to the future of agriculture in the country.

 

After coming of new agricultural policies after 1990s that involved Neoliberal strategies which were made to focus on agricultural production. But the conditions of land holding pattern in rural areas were highly unequal according to table 2 and 3. This strategy even created a big gap in terms of production of big farmers and small farmers. Another policy change was to increase credit inflow among farmers in rural areas also developed middle class farmers to upper class farmers. The marginal and small farmers were not privileged of this policy due to several reasons as they have limited agricultural production can be called as consumption oriented production, low purchasing power, less mechanized agricultural practices, low social status within society, less control over natural resources like water. The strategies were made at that time by seeing agricultural production and export quality high yield crops. This resulted that the seeds of these crops had high value in market and only big and middle class farmers were able to buy these seeds and they made double profit by exporting the production. This opportunity was not availed by small or marginal farmers. Another negligence of agricultural policies, I find that these policies were not made to eliminate socio-economic differences among farmers in agrarian society of India.

 

Recent Initiatives:

 

Several significant initiatives have already been taken in recent years by the government to reverse the downward trend in agricultural production and to find sustainable solutions for strengthening the farmers’ livelihood and income. Some of these important initiatives include: (i) Bharat Nirman; (ii) National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme; (iii) National Horticulture Mission; (iv) Expansion of Institutional Credit to Farmers; (v) Establishment of the National Bee Board; (vi) Establishment of the National Rainfed Area Authority; (vii) Establishment of the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB); (viii) Watershed Development and Micro Irrigation Programmes; (ix) Reforms in Agricultural Marketing and Development of Market Infrastructure; (x) Revitalisation of Cooperative Sector; (xi) Agri-business Development through Venture Capital Participation by the Small Farmer Agri-business Consortium; (xii) Reform and Support for Agriculture Extension Services; (xiii) National Rural Health Mission; (xiv) National Food Security Mission; (xv) Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana to incentivise the states to invest more in agriculture; (xvi) Integrated Food Law; (xvii) Legislative Framework for Warehousing Development and Regulation; (xviii) Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001; (xix) National Bamboo Mission and (xx) Knowledge Connectivity through Common Service Centres (CSC) and IT initiatives.

 

Critique of few agricultural programmes under new agricultural policies:

 

Bharat Nirman:

 

This programme has titled as a business plan for rural infrastructure which clearly shows that this programme is really benefitted those who have access and control over agricultural production. Because small or marginal farmers are not able to earn even two times food for their family from agriculture then how far these rural infrastructures like electricity, road will going to benefitted them. Even these rural infrastructures will create shift from farming to wage labour in big farmers from where at least they can earn two time food for their families. Due to this rural infrastructure big and middle class farmers get more benefitted by increasing their production at subsidized electricity and water from government agricultural policies.

 

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme:

 

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee programme came in 2005 for 100 days job assurety in rural areas. It provides livelihood for labourers by creating assets in village area. But its negative impacts of this programme now a days is many marginal farmer and small farmer left their agriculture and become labour for getting at least 100 days employment. But this shifting creates frustration and dissatisfaction about agricultural production.

 

Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY):

 

Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) came in 2007. The main objective of this programme of this programme is to incentivize the states that increase their investment in Agriculture and allied sectors. If we see the recent data in below table. Then we find that the increasing burden of labour force on a slowly contracting cultivable land area leads to increasing number of holdings with lower size. Over the period 1960-61 to 2003, the number of holdings doubled from 51 million to 101 million, while the area operated declined from 133 million hectares to 108 million hectares (Table 2). This has resulted in a sharp decline in average size of holding and growing marginalization. Added to this is the fact that despite land reforms, the landholding pattern continues to be skewed (Table 3).

 

 

The present status

 

It is usual to conceptualize the outcomes of development processes in terms of improvements in growth, equity, efficiency of resources use, and welfare of all sections, particularly the poor. For the purpose of this section, the following empirical counterparts selected as the critical goals to judge the present status of agriculture and rural development.

 

Agricultural growth and Diversification

 

Development with equity comprising:

 

Development of backward areas

 

Long term sustainable development

 

Poverty Reduction

 

Agricultural Growth And Diversification:

 

While there is strong evidence of a rise in agricultural growth rate since independence compared to stagnation earlier, the rate has remained below the level regarded as critical for the overall growth of Indian economy at the annual rate being planned, that is, 8% or more per annum.

 

Beginning with the early 1970, yield increases have been the major source of agricultural growth, but this process seems to be slowing down at present.

 

Instability in growth in causing periodic disruption in the economy and its growth and development processes.

 

With globalization, diversification is entering in a new phase of value addition and production for foreign markets. This phase needs new technologies, new of doing business, modern infrastructure, and new institutional arrangements. Too many things need to done in too little time!

 

Challenge:

 

It should be a matter of serious concern that despite high priority given to agriculture for over the last three decades, its growth rate remains below the level essential for development of Indian economy. Unless this constraint is overcome and India gets ready quickly for the new phase of diversification, there would be considerable uncertainty about the prospects for Indian economy in immediate years ahead. Another argument regarding growth and development is about whose development we are talking about the 38 % agrarian population who is already control over land. It is also challenge for government’s recent policies under which programmes like Expansion of Institutional Credit to Farmers, Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, Watershed Development and Micro Irrigation Programmes etc. are serving only to those farmers who have land, credit and power. Other farmers who have become landless due to increase in input cost of agricultural production. There are no programmes that can uplift these farmers if present then it is not implemented properly.

 

Development with equity comprising:

 

Developing Backward Areas:

 

Agricultural gained prominence in policy making with the beginning of green revolution in the late 1960s. The focus remained more on the relatively limited areas suitable for spread of the green revolution, resulting in neglect of the vast areas with different kinds of growth-cum-development potential than that available in green revolution areas.

 

As a consequence, yields remained stagnant in numerous pockets even when agriculture as a whole was growing. Over time, these pockets accounting for large areas in aggregate have become more hardcore backward areas in need of a different approach and strategy than those which worked so well in green revolution areas. While there is much talk, there are few signs of any substantial progress being made by the policymaker in reorienting policies in the direction needed by the backward areas.

 

Owing to these pockets, growth of Indian agriculture remains low in rate and unstable over time. Continuing neglect of these areas would make it nearly impossible for India to raise the pace at which its agriculture grows and diversifies.

 

Challenge:

 

The barrier in development of backward areas arises not so much from lack of technologies, resources, and funds, as from the weak political commitment at the top and absence of institutions to activate the local initiatives and leadership for development. The efforts to overcome this barrier remain half hearted and sporadic.

 

Long term sustainable development:

 

Land and water are the two critical resources whose conversation and optimum use form the essential foundation for sustainable development. The Indian policies in relation to land and water have been a combination of neglect and uncontrolled overexploitation. It is as if the policymaker treats land and water as free goods there are numerous well meaning laws to conserve and regulate land and water use.

 

Challenge:

 

It is necessary to take immediate steps, recognizing the gravity of the appropriate crisis. Agrarian structure is become exploitative system now a days so if I talk about sustainable development in agrarian society then we first understand the relation of various farmers classes along with their caste and also power relations within them. The major challenge emerges is the equal distribution of land, water, cattle and credit. These four material resources are the base of agricultural production.

 

Poverty reduction:

 

Policies for poverty reduction seek to improve the conditions of the poor through direct intervention. In the long run, however, poverty would have to be eliminated by creating adequate economic room for the poor in the main stream economy. Thus, poverty reduction policies are like fire-fighting measures, helping the poor until they find room in the mainstream. These policies these policies have a good record though the disputes about numbers among poverty researchers make it difficult for even experts to be sure about the actual achievement. More important, these policies have provided relief but the process of absorption of the poor in the mainstream economy seems to be making little progress.

 

Challenge:

 

The recent stricter norms to assess poverty-like the Human Development Index (HDI)-reveal a far more dismal picture of poverty than that presented by the Below Poverty Line (BPL) statistics. The present poverty reduction policies can do is little to improve this picture though what little they do still important enough to be analyzed for drawing lessons for the future. The policies for reducing are failed at implementation level because according to Tendulkar Committee the BPL population is 37.2% in 2004-5 and in rural areas it is 41.8% of total BPL population. So I can come across in rural areas it is more challenging for poverty reduction programmes under agricultural policies.

 

Conclusion:

 

The reform process in India after 1991 significantly weakened the institutional support structures in agriculture. The protection offered to agriculture from predatory imports was removed, resulting in a fall in prices of many commodities. As part of fiscal reforms, major input subsidies were brought down relative to the size of the agricultural economy. Public capital formation in agriculture continued to fall, and the growth of public expenditure on research and extension slowed down. The expansion of rural credit was halted, reopening the doors for the informal sector. Public resources were sought to be channeled away from food crops and towards high-value export-oriented crops. Regulated markets came to be treated as obstacles to efficient marketing.

 

A reversal of neo-liberal policies in agriculture has become absolutely essential to revive the livelihood systems of rural households in India. However, I would like to argue here that resistance to neo-liberalism can be successful only if the struggle is fundamentally linked to the struggle to resolve the old agrarian question. The strength of the resistance to neo-liberalism in India would continue to depend on the mobilization of poor peasants and agricultural labourers around demands that directly relate to their material conditions of life and work. Allowing for diversities, it remains the case that ending discriminations based on class, caste and gender in India depends critically on weakening the material basis of the landlord- and upper caste-hegemony in the villages. Imperialism has not changed this basic reality of the Indian village.

 

Acknowledgements:

 

I am grateful to my guide, Mr. Rohit Jain who inspires me with her experiences in movements. And I also thankful to Mr. Manoj joseph who gave us orientation about seminar presentation and draft format; to my friends who participated in my topic discussion through which I came to know various dimensions about Agricultural Policies and Rural Development.