Search

Development Strategies and Governance (DSG); Transformation Strategies, This study examines the impact of access to India’s farm science centers (Krishi Vigyan Kendras, or KVKs) on agricultural households’ welfare using household data from the nationally representative Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households conducted by India’s National Sample Survey Office in 2013. Employing different matching techniques and endogenous switching regression models, it was observed that the KVKs have a positive and statistically significant impact on agricultural households’ economic welfare, although, that impact is heterogeneous. Further, the investments made in expansion of India’s network of KVKs have been quite remunerative, as the benefit- to-cost ratio of expenditure on KVKs ranges from 8–12. Moreover, present findings suggest that expanding rural formal credit markets and promoting literacy can maximize the potential impact of KVKs on agricultural households’ economic welfare.

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply, SAR, This study examines the role of caste-based affiliations in the smallholders’ social network interactions for adoption choices. In particular, whether lower-caste, namely Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, farmers rely more on social networks for information than their counterparts. We further explore whether social network effects are more pronounced when farmers interact within their caste than otherwise. Finally, the study tests whether the effects (intra-caste and inter-caste) vary by caste—SC/ST versus non-SC/ST farmers. The study uses a survey of 478 mustard farmers in Rajasthan, India. Econometric concerns related to unobserved heterogeneity are addressed by employing specifications with village fixed effects and a series of robustness tests. Simultaneity concerns are addressed by analyzing the social network effects in a dynamic adoption framework. Results show that the adoption choices regarding hybrid mustard seeds are more pronounced for the lower-caste farmers than for their counterparts. Findings reveal that social network effects are significant in intra-caste but not in the case of inter-caste. Finally, the result shows that the likelihood of accepting advice in technology adoption is higher when SC/ST farmers interact with non-SC/ST network members than when non-SC/ST farmers interact with SC/ST network members.

PR, 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; IFPRI3; ISI, SAR; A4NH

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; DCA; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; IFPRIOA; CRP2, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), We evaluate a large-scale model of agricultural advisory services, known as Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) or Farm Science Centers, introduced by the Government of India to facilitate smallholder adoption of new agricultural technologies. The study first evaluates the impact of frontline demonstrations and capacity-building programs conducted by KVKs and aimed at promoting a new wheat variety (HD-2967); it then examines gains in the speed of diffusion at the district level. The study’s second objective is to estimate the spillover effects of KVKs through social networks. The study identifies network beneficiaries based on a “networks within sample” approach. The study uses a matched difference-in-differences approach and sample of 1496 wheat farmers in Uttar Pradesh, India. The finding shows that frontline demonstrations and capacity-building programs positively impact the adoption of HD-2967. The magnitude of the impacts is larger for KVK beneficiaries, but substantial gains also arise for network beneficiaries. The study underscores the importance of frequently conducting interventions to influence adoption on aggregate at the district level. From a policy perspective, the study offers new insights for strengthening outreach and extension services designed to facilitate the transfer of agricultural knowledge and information, emphasizing frontline demonstrations, capacity-building programs, and spillovers in extending the scope of KVKs.

PR, IFPRI3; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; DCA, SAR

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; CRP2; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; Policy Reform Initiative Project (PRIP), SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI3; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; DCA; Capacity Strengthening; ISI, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Using a survey of 1,500 farmers, we identify farmer-level constraints to adoption of modern cultivars in Rajasthan, India, and decompose the overall elasticity into the elasticities of adoption probability and use intensity. We find that access to credit and intensity of extension services received drive adoption of modern cultivars, but both factors are more important for determining adoption probability than for determining use intensity. Moreover, the study assesses the roles that key traits of individual cultivars play in their adoption. Varietal traits significant for the adoption of modern cultivars vary by crop and geography. However, the main driver for continuing old cultivars across crops is taste attributes.

PR, IFPRI5, SAR, This open access book brings together varying perspectives for transformational change needed in India’s agriculture and allied sectors. Stressing the need of thinking for a post-Green Revolution future, the book promotes approaching this change through eight broad areas, indicating the policy shifts needed to meet the challenges for the coming decade (2021-2030). The book comprises of ten contributions. Apart from the overview chapter on transformational change and the concluding chapter on pathways for 2030, there are eight thematic chapters on topics such as transforming Indian agriculture, dietary diversity for nutritive and safe food; climate crisis and risk management; water in agriculture; pests, pandemics, preparedness and biosecurity natural farming; agroecology and biodiverse futures; science, technology and innovation in agriculture; and structural reforms and governance. The writing style of these papers written by technical experts is forward-looking—not merely an analysis of what has been and why it was so, but what ought to be. This is an essential reading for those interested in agriculture, food and nutrition sectors of India, and more so their interconnectedness.

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; IFPRI-ICAR, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), COVID-19 induced significant economic and social disruptions in India. Rural households, including smallholders, were affected by loss in migrant income, livelihood and farm and non-farm incomes. During this lockdown, the Indian government enacted several emergency legislations to provide direct and indirect relief to workers and households. India's COVID-19 social assistance package, namely, PM-GKY, announced in March 2020, was designed to provide immediate relief to the vulnerable population. The PM-GKY provided cash direct benefit transfers (DBT) and in-kind supports (IKS) through existing schemes.

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; IFPRI-ICAR, SAR, the April–June 2020 quarter, the nation's agricultural sector, somewhat surprisingly, seems to have done remarkably well. This paper examines whether the public transfer program Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY), announced immediately after the lockdown, benefited farmers in dealing with the COVID shock. Overall, 95% of the smallholders received support from at least one of PMGKY's four components. Direct cash transfers had significantly more impact than in‐kind transfer schemes. The result shows that farmers receiving cash transfers under PM‐KISAN, one component of PMGKY, were more likely to invest in buying seeds. In contrast, farmers receiving cash transfers under PM‐UY, another piece of PMGKY, were more likely to invest in fertilizer and pesticides. Finally, smallholders who received benefits from all four components of PMGKY were more likely to invest in purchasing seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides. Findings suggest the fungibility of public cash transfers from the recent PMGKY scheme is significant in alleviating credit constraints and increasing future investments in modern inputs.

PR, IFPRI4, DSGD; PHND; SAR, Agriculture, natural resources, and the nutrition landscape in South Asia (SA) are unique. As in other Asian regions, SA’s agriculture is largely smallholder based and continues to employ a large share of the workforce, compared with Latin America. Compared with Africa south of the Sahara (SSA), agricultural modernization and intensification in SA have progressed more substantially. However, compared with East Asia (that is, Northeast and Southeast Asia), the speed of agricultural transformation has remained slower in terms of the exit of labor from farming, despite comparable intensification levels. The region is still home to almost 300 million of the poor, a majority of whom live in rural areas, engaging in agriculture. SA is also one of the regions with the scarcest natural resource endowments per capita, including water resources.1 Finally, the multiple burden of malnutrition persists, as the region remains one of the largest contributors to global undernutrition, while simultaneously overnutrition continues to emerge (Meenaksh 2016). Therefore, in SA, understanding the evolution and implications of agricultural development is important particularly in the context of agricultural transformation, natural resource management, poverty, and food/nutrition security improvement.

PR, IFPRI3; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; IFPRI-ICAR; CRP2, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

Non-PR, IFPRI1; CRP2; DCA; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; Capacity Strengthening; IFPRI-ICAR, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), While the COVID-19 pandemic resulted about 24% decline in Indian GDP during April-June 2020 quarter, the nation’s agricultural sector, somewhat surprisingly, seems to have done remarkably well during the same period. Using phone survey of a sample of previously interviewed households from Northern India, this paper examines whether the package of public transfer program announced during the lockdown, called Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PM-GKY), has helped farmers deal with the shock. Overall, results show that 95 percent of the small holders received supports from at least one of the components of the PM-GKY scheme. Direct cash transfers have performed better than the in-kind transfer schemes. The econometric analysis, using a quasi-experimental method, suggests that the fungibility of funds received under the transfer package was significant in alleviating credit constraints and increasing agricultural investments in modern inputs. This is evident from the results that when only income support program (PM-KISAN) is considered, impact was limited to seed, not fertilizer and pesticides. By contrast, farmers who received benefits from all four programs (i.e., PM-KISAN, cash transfer for women, conditional cash transfers, and free food rations-KISAN) had spent significantly more on procurement of seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides.

PR, IFPRI3; Capacity Strengthening; CRP2; CRP4; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; IFPRI-ICAR, SAR; A4NH; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH); CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI3; CRP4; 2 Promoting Healthy Diets and Nutrition for all; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; Capacity Strengthening, SAR; A4NH, CGIAR Research Programs on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), We study the effects of food safety awareness on consumers’ milk purchasing behavior in Nepal. We conducted consumer survey and employed an instrumental variable regression. We find education, income, and social network to influence food safety consciousness (FSC). Our results indicate the positive impact of FSC on weekly milk expenditure and probability of purchasing milk from milk cooperatives. Any policy that helps to improve the FSC levels will likely increase the purchase of safe milk from the modern market outlet, and lack of such awareness raising policies has prevented the market for safe food from evolving and expanding.

Non-PR, IFPRI1; CRP4; CRP2; DCA; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; IFPRI-ICAR, SAR; A4NH; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH); CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), The Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) scheme aims to provide income support to farmers to facilitate timely access to inputs by easing their liquidity needs. This study, based on 1,406 farmers of Uttar Pradesh and using a binary choice model, examines the scheme’s targeting accuracy and the correlates of farmers’ spending patterns. Triple difference with matching estimators are used to identify the differential impact of PM-KISAN on Krishi Vigyan Kendras (farm science centers, or KVKs) beneficiaries. Results show that PM-KISAN reached to one-third of all the farmers in the first three months of its implementation. Moreover, the study finds no selection bias based on social, economic and agricultural characteristics. The scheme has significantly helped those who are relatively more dependent on agriculture and have poor access to credit. Moreover, scheme has significantly stimulated the KVK ’s impact on the adoption of modern cultivars.

Non-PR, IFPRI5; CRP4; DCA; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; Capacity Strengthening; IFPRI-ICAR, SAR; A4NH; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM); CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), An IFPRI-ICAR study in UP reveals that the scheme, along with agricultural advisory services, can pull farmers out of poverty. Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi, popularly known as PM-KISAN, announced in December 2018 was a tectonic shift in the nature of government support to farmers in India. This scheme was aimed at addressing the liquidity constraints of farmers for meeting their expenses for acquisition of agricultural inputs and services.

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; DCA; Capacity Strengthening; Policy Reform Initiative Project (PRIP); 2 Promoting Healthy Diets and Nutrition for all, SAR

PR, IFPRI4; DCA; CRP2; Capacity Strengthening; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; DCA; IFPRIOA; Policy Reform Initiative Project (PRIP), SAR; DSGD, Adoptions of improved technologies and production practices are important drivers of agricultural development in low-income countries like Nepal. Adopting a broad class of such technologies and practices is often critical for meeting the multifaceted goals of efficiency, profitability, environmental sustainability, and climate resilience. This study aims to address the knowledge gaps that still exist concerning what determines the adoption of improved technologies and production practices, the factors affecting their diffusion, the impact of interventions on productivity and crops grown, and the variability of impact within a particular country context. In this paper we address these questions using data collected as part of the USAID-led Knowledge-Based Integrated Sustainable Agriculture in Nepal (KISAN) project. We adopted a multistage sampling technique and surveyed 988 beneficiary households and 997 non-beneficiary households in KISAN intervention districts and non-intervention districts. Our findings suggest that, in Nepal, adoption of improved technologies and practices is significantly increased by improved access to markets, private sector involvement in selling improved seeds and disseminating information, membership in progressive farmers groups and cooperative societies, participation in agricultural training and farm visits, provision of subsidies for seeds, and access to credit. We also found the probability of the adoption of improved practices to be affected by farmers’ sources of information; for instance, the adoption of improved practices was increased when farmers obtained information from informal sources, cooperatives/farmers organizations, and public and private extension programs. The effects of KISAN projects vary significantly across the different crops grown, based on the evaluation models that address self-selection of both project participation and crop choices. These implications may also apply to other parts of the world facing similar

PR, IFPRI4; DCA; CRP2; Capacity Strengthening; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI5; DCA; CRP2; Capacity Strengthening; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; IFPRI-ICAR, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI4; DCA; CRP2; Capacity Strengthening; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI4; DCA; CRP2; Capacity Strengthening; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI4; DCA; CRP2; Capacity Strengthening; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI4; DCA; CRP2; Capacity Strengthening; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, SAR; MTID

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; CRP4; 2 Promoting Healthy Diets and Nutrition for all; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry, A4NH; SAR; MTID, CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH)

Non-PR, IFPRI5; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply, SAR, Agriculture sector in India is a primary source of livelihood for a majority of the population. Low and stagnant income in the sector remains a focal point of policy debate in India. The most prominent pathways to enhance farmers’ income is the adoption of improved agricultural technologies. This study documents the current state of agriculture technologies in India. The main objectives are: (a) What are the adoption levels of improved technologies and their impact on farmers’ income, agricultural production, natural resources and environment? (b) What are the constraints in up-scaling improved technologies and the conditions for success of their adoption? (c) What are the rate of return on agriculture research and extension system? and (d) What can be learnt from the global perspective on agriculture research and extension services?

Non-PR, IFPRI5; IFPRI-ICAR, SAR, CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH)

PR, IFPRI4; CRP2, PIM; SAR, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI4; CRP2, PIM; SAR, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI5; CRP2, PIM; SAR, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI4; CRP2, PIM; SAR, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

PR, IFPRI4; CRP2; Policy Reform Initiative Project (PRIP), PIM; SAR, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

Non-PR, IFPRI1; DCA; CRP2; CRP4; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; Agricultural Transformation and Market Integration (ATMI), SAR; A4NH; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH); CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), In this paper, we address the question of the agricultural market integration of Cambodia within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and its other top trading partners. Focusing on agricultural trade, we use two indicators, namely, “Trade Potential” and “Competition Indices,” to assess the nature and extent of the integration. More specifically, we identify the exports of Cambodia with high export potential and comparatively low competition in export markets. Higher trade potential with lower competition (value or volume) indicates an opportunity of higher returns for agricultural producers. In the case of Cambodia, “maize,”and “starches” are identified as high-potential exports with lower intra-ASEAN competition. There is also scope for regional cooperation in traditional exports such as “rice,” “manioc (cassava),” “molasses,” and “pepper” between Cambodia and other Southeast Asian countries for which both the export potential and intra-ASEAN competition are high. Finally, to demonstrate the upward movement in the value chain, possibly due to quality upgradation, we present the dynamics of the unit values of Cambodia’s agricultural exports.

Non-PR, IFPRI1; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; DCA; IFPRI-ICAR, SAR; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Agricultural advisory services are the most important knowledge-delivery institutions for accelerating the adoption of advanced technologies, and for improving farmers’ learning abilities for their implementation. These technologies have implications for the larger goal of agricultural development and farmers’ welfare. This study explores the spillover effects of an innovative public-sector program in India that provides agricultural advisory services. At the Farm Science Centre (known locally as Krishi Vigyan Kendra [KVK]), scientists demonstrate modern technologies and develop capacity-building programs. This paper examines the extent of direct and spillover benefits of KVKs. It also evaluates the impact of KVKs on the adoption of improved technologies for primary beneficiaries (those who receive the benefits directly from KVKs), and for those farmers who receive information flow from them. The study is based on a primary survey of 1,496 wheat farmers in Uttar Pradesh, India. Spillover information flows are captured by: a) farmers who visit frontline demonstration (FLD) sites by their own curiosity and are categorized as secondary beneficiary farmers, and b) farmers who obtain information flows from primary and secondary beneficiaries being in their social network and are categorized as network beneficiary. Identification is achieved by exploiting non-universal coverage of KVKs, and through the availability of recall-based panels for pre- and post-intervention years on the adoption of improved technologies. The study applied matched difference-in-difference (MDID) approach to examine the effect of frontline demonstrations (FLDs) and training programs. It also examine pre-intervention trends to provide a check on the validity of our estimates. Findings revealed that 3% of primary beneficiaries of FLDs can generate information spillover to 31% of farmers. For capacity building, the results showed that 3% of primary beneficiaries can generate information spillover to

PR, IFPRI4; DCA, SAR

PR, IFPRI4, SAR

PR, IFPRI4; DCA; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, DGO; SAR

PR, IFPRI4; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, SAR; DGO