54
CHAPTER IV CROPPING PATTERN – A DISTRICT WISE ANALYSIS
CHAPTER IV
CROPPING PATTERN – A DISTRICT WISE ANALYSIS
CONTENTS CHAPTER IV 220-269 CROPPING PATTERN- A DISTRICT WISE ANALYSIS
4.1 Cropping Pattern in the Districts 220
4.2 District Wise Decomposition of Absolute Output Growth 238
4.2.1 Model for Decomposition 240
4.2.2 Output Growth 248
4.2.3 Yield Effect 251
4.2.4 Cropping Pattern Effect 252
4.2.5 Area Effect 254
4.3 Decomposition of Output Growth- Crop Wise 257 4.4 Hypotheses Testing 267
LIST OF TABLES
4.1 Cropping pattern- District wise 222 4.2 Decomposition of absolute output growth in Kerala 243 4.3 Decomposition of output growth in Kerala- Growth rates 243 4.4 District wise Decomposition of absolute output growth
in Kerala 244 4.5 District wise Decomposition of absolute output growth in Kerala-Growth rates 246 4.6 District wise Decomposition of absolute output growth in Kerala-Crop wise 258
LIST OF FIGURES 4.1 Cropping pattern effect 268 4.2 Yield effect 268 4.3 Area effect 269 4.4 Output growth 269
CHAPTER IV
CROPPING PATTERN – A DISTRICT - WISE ANALYSIS
4.1. CROPPING PATTERN IN THE DISTRICTS:
Official sources of data on area and production of important crops are
available from Statistics for Planning published by Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, Government of Kerala. In this section district-wise area of twelve
important crops of Kerala is dealt with. Among the fourteen districts,
Pathanamthitta district was formed in 1983-84 by combining the taluks from
Kollam and Alappuzha. Similarly Wayanad was formed in 1981-82 by combining
taluks from Kozhikkode and Kannur and Kasargode was formed from Kannur in
1985-86. Analysis consists of four-time points-TE 1976-77, TE 1983-84,
TE 1994-95 and TE 2003-04.
Average of three years (being three years from each period) were taken to
find out the proportion of area under each crop in each district. Three-year
average of total cropped area of districts was taken to find the relative area.
According to the study of Department of Agriculture, district-wise
analysis identified five cropping patterns and the districts were grouped on the
basis of cropping patterns. In Kannur, Kozhikkode, Kottayam and Idukki the
suitable cropping pattern consisted of 50-70 per cent plantations, 10-30 per cent
paddy and 10- 30 per cent tapioca. In Malappuram 30-50 per cent plantations,
30-50 per cent paddy and 10-30 per cent tapioca is the most suitable cropping
pattern. For Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and Alappuzha the cropping pattern
included 30-50 per cent plantations, 10-30 per cent paddy and 10-30 per cent
221
tapioca. In Palakkad district, cropping pattern identified was 50-70 per cent paddy
and 10-30 per cent plantations. In the other districts Thrissur and Ernakulam the
most appropriate cropping pattern included 30-50 per cent paddy and 30-50 per
cent plantations. Kerala is predominantly a plantation State according to the
analysis.1
While the aggregate analysis revealed a decline in out put growth in
paddy, combination of other crops concealed the differential performance of
individual crops. Under food crops the growth rates in area of rice and tapioca
showed a negative trend for all periods under consideration while banana showed
a positive trend. For perennial crops only in the Period I area under coconut
showed a negative trend. Rubber and coffee showed a positive trend during all
periods. Pepper and areca nut expressed a negative area in the first period only. In
the first period cashew nut, ginger and cardamom showed a positive trend. Tea
was the only crop that showed different appearance in area under the first period
and the trend in area was positive only in Period III. While rubber is the fourth
most important crop in terms of area spread over most of the districts, coffee
ranks only seventh in terms of gross cropped area accounting for a little over two
per cent and largely concentrated in Wayanad district.
From the official data, the proportion of the area under each crop for each
district under four time periods is computed and given in the Table ( 4.1 ). The
following analysis shows district-wise performance of each crop in each district.
222
TABLE 4.1 Cropping Pattern-District Wise
Page 1 Rice
Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
15.90 12.92 8.88 3.22
14.58 16.91 12.33 5.46
0.00 16.71 9.88 4.58
39.80 41.73 33.50 24.51
17.71 14.93 11.19 5.90
9.07 5.07 1.99 1.39
Banana Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
1.80 2.84 2.76 4.01
1.69 1.63 2.49 2.95
0.00 2.24 2.93 3.73
1.55 1.67 1.64 2.39
2.01 1.92 2.56 3.19
1.26 1.59 1.33 1.79
Coconut Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
31.80 32.71 43.63 45.72
28.23 29.59 35.72 36.56
0.00 26.92 20.25 19.13
30.67 28.40 41.51 43.36
23.30 21.94 18.58 18.44
9.93 9.89 7.87 7.03
Arecanut Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
1.82 1.47 0.82 0.60
2.26 1.44 0.90 1.12
0.00 1.39 0.99 1.18
1.67 1.30 1.04 1.74
1.64 1.06 0.54 0.72
0.92 1.39 0.87 1.26
Cashewnut Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
2.11 2.91 1.61 1.23
2.42 3.03 2.78 2.30
0.00 2.01 1.18 0.95
1.37 1.79 3.68 3.39
0.44 0.65 0.35 0.33
0.77 0.71 0.32 0.50
Cardamom Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.07 0.07 0.09 0.002
0.05 0.04 0.00 0.004
0.00 0.04 0.75 0.57
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01 0.11 0.09
27.32 26.15 15.05 11.94
Coffee Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00
0.07 0.12 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00
0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00
0.61 0.42 0.00 0.00
1.51 2.79 6.05 4.43
223
Ginger Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.01 0.08 0.30 0.06
0.09 0.41 0.18 0.29
0.00 0.40 0.51 0.45
0.52 0.11 0.08 0.11
1.05 1.35 0.17 0.10
0.57 0.72 0.65 0.48
Pepper Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
2.14 2.40 2.28 3.34
3.38 3.31 3.85 5.44
0.00 3.65 3.93 4.56
2.07 2.24 1.19 1.56
5.69 5.44 3.85 4.11
4.93 7.06 18.92 23.07
Rubber Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
3.03 4.51 13.01 14.79
9.45 13.52 15.46 18.31
0.00 15.58 38.96 41.48
1.65 2.08 1.99 2.98
20.71 28.49 47.74 50.64
9.57 12.28 17.11 13.96
Tapioca Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
29.96 25.10 13.66 12.86
25.88 19.04 12.68 12.61
0.00 16.71 6.86 6.88
10.22 7.63 3.40 3.29
14.89 9.93 4.34 3.40
4.62 6.00 2.84 2.94
Tea
Year TVPM KLM PTA ALP KTM IDK TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.30 0.47 0.50 0.50
0.66 0.47 0.59 0.65
0.00 2.07 0.07 0.08
0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.11 0.92 0.90 0.97
9.75 13.82 10.98 9.00
224
Page 2
Rice
Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
40.68 37.44 27.06 14.38
48.68 46.93 30.48 17.89
54.20 53.19 40.90 35.23
33.13 31.09 17.46 7.48
20.45 12.97 4.57 2.44
0.00 22.97 11.69 6.29
Banana Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
1.80 2.13 2.83 4.73
2.38 1.92 3.16 3.84
1.27 1.12 2.06 4.09
1.47 1.76 2.89 4.76
1.61 1.51 1.58 2.22
0.00 1.26 2.19 5.84
Coconut Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
22.33 24.72 26.82 28.61
21.77 24.94 40.05 42.43
6.15 7.11 12.26 16.42
25.22 24.05 37.92 39.61
35.65 50.10 57.17 56.85
0.00 2.69 3.42 5.64
Areca nut Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
3.05 2.46 1.38 2.07
4.98 2.82 2.79 3.51
0.83 0.73 0.80 1.40
4.55 3.55 4.38 6.54
2.88 2.80 3.14 4.60
0.00 0.94 1.14 3.18
Cashew nut Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
1.52 1.59 0.84 0.64
2.60 3.16 2.53 1.84
3.25 4.03 2.34 1.75
7.15 8.50 5.02 3.97
1.66 2.32 1.77 1.74
0.00 0.75 0.35 0.73
Cardamom Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.003 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.61 1.01 1.05 0.86
0.07 0.07 0.03 0.03
0.82 0.21 0.56 0.10
0.00 3.21 2.53 2.03
Coffee Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.35 0.10 0.00 0.00
0.63 0.14 0.00 0.00
0.57 0.72 0.65 1.46
4.37 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.57 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 38.56 36.04 33.27
225
Ginger Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.48 0.86 0.63 0.19
0.14 0.04 0.06 0.06
0.25 0.11 0.32 0.36
0.63 0.18 0.07 0.07
0.46 0.88 0.13 0.10
0.00 1.29 3.24 1.98
Pepper Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
3.36 2.64 2.79 3.45
1.13 1.76 2.44 2.10
0.30 0.47 0.98 1.67
2.10 1.66 3.34 3.41
6.51 6.58 6.40 5.42
0.00 5.71 19.41 20.33
Rubber Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
9.06 10.07 24.63 25.84
3.53 4.25 5.00 6.67
2.55 3.64 7.22 9.19
6.05 7.62 9.00 11.04
6.03 7.26 7.33 7.76
0.00 2.01 2.85 3.23
Tapioca Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
6.20 4.63 2.33 2.58
4.13 2.51 1.41 0.65
2.99 3.93 2.85 1.62
9.89 7.19 3.40 2.66
3.45 1.73 1.59 1.85
0.00 1.86 0.92 0.90
Tea Year EKM TSR PLKD MLPM KKD WYD
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.07 0.004 0.0008 0.0009
0.22 0.19 0.22 0.26
0.10 0.20 0.23 0.27
0.56 0.07 0.06 0.07
1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 4.05 2.88 2.99
226
Page 3
Rice Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
23.81 17.42 6.52 3.96
0.00 0.00 1.92 2.37
29.21 27.26 17.21 10.26
Banana Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
1.74 1.29 2.19 2.34
0.00 0.00 1.92 2.37
1.69 1.72 2.33 3.47
Coconut Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
25.00 23.44 35.35 35.55
0.00 0.00 27.35 37.62
23.89 23.62 29.22 30.08
Areca nut Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
3.98 4.31 4.37 5.04
0.00 0.00 8.22 9.52
2.66 2.12 2.18 3.02
Cashew nut Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
12.20 20.11 10.69 10.22
0.00 0.00 16.30 13.47
3.66 4.95 3.49 2.98
Cardamom Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.31 0.27 0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.56 0.31
1.70 1.91 1.45 1.38
Coffee Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.33 2.08 2.72 2.81
227
Ginger Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.36 0.39 0.18 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.14 0.09
0.38 0.48 0.43 0.31
Pepper Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
8.48 7.48 12.46 8.32
0.00 0.00 4.82 4.38
3.75 3.76 6.07 6.88
Rubber Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
5.59 6.01 9.72 12.95
0.00 0.00 12.42 14.98
6.92 8.93 14.50 15.98
Tapioca Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
4.73 5.41 2.44 1.22
0.00 0.00 1.35 0.78
10.82 8.27 4.16 3.60
Tea Year KNR KSGD State
TE1976-77 TE1983-84 TE1994-95 TE2003-04
0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.25 1.24 1.14 1.23
TVPM – Thiruvananthapuram KLM - Kollam PTA- Pathanamthitta
ALP- Alappuzha KTM – Kottayam IDK- Idukki
EKM - Ernakulam TSR – Thrissur PLKD - Palakkad
MLPM – Malappuram KKD – Kozhikkode WYD – Wayanad KNR – Kannur KSGD – Kasargode.
228
The Southern most district of Kerala State, Thiruvananthapuram occupied
247 thousand hectares total cropped area of the State in 1974-75 declined to 190
thousand hectares in 2003-04 recorded 57 thousand hectares decline in area
(23.1 per cent decline). Proportion of food crops to total cropped area was 64 per
cent in the first period declined to 37 per cent in the last period. The non-food
crops’ proportion increased from 36 per cent to 63 per cent in the reference
period. The proportion has just reversed within 30 years of time lag.
Crop wise analysis showed a tremendous change in area proportion.
Proportion of rice which was nearly 16 per cent of total cropped area declined to
13 percent in 1982-83, again fell to 9 per cent in1993-94 and now in 2003-04 it
reached to 3 percent .A massive fall in the proportion of rice under this district
could be noticed. Tapioca, which is the cereal substitute of rice, observed the
same rate of fall in area. It fell from 30 per cent to 25.1 per cent in 1982-83 and
again to 14 per cent and it is only 13 per cent of the total cropped area of the
district in 2003-04. In the case of banana and other plantains the proportion of
area showed an improvement. During the starting period the proportion was only
1.8 per cent, which increased to 2.8 per cent in 1982-83. Stagnant for two time
periods it has reached to 4 per cent of the total cropped area in the district during
2003-04.
The perennial crop, coconut, occupied 31.8 per cent of area in the first
time period increased to 32.7 in second, 43.6 in third and reached 45.7 per cent in
the last period. For areca nut area declined from 1.8 per cent to 0.6 per cent within
first and last time periods. Cashew area also declined from 2.1 per cent to
229
1.2 per cent. Proportion of area under pepper showed a slight improvement from
2.1 per cent to 3.3 per cent. Area under ginger showed an improvement in the
second time point but during third and fourth time points it has declined.
Among plantation crops rubber showed more than four times
improvement in area proportion. In the beginning the proportion was only
3 per cent, raised to 14.8 per cent in the last time period. Other plantation crops
noticed negligible area in the district.
Kollam district occupied more area under rice, coconut, rubber and tapioca
which constituted more than 78 per cent of the total cropped area of the district in
TE 1976-77 and 73 per cent in TE 2003-04. The other crops such as plantains,
areca nut, cashew nut, ginger and pepper together occupied only 6.5 per cent of
the area in TE 1976-77 and 5.4 per cent in TE 2003-04. The other plantation crops
such as tea, coffee and cardamom occupied a little area in the district. Area under
food crops was nearly 60 per cent in the beginning dropped to 42.4 per cent in TE
2003-04. In the case of non-food crops the proportion of area increased from
40 per cent to 57.6 per cent between the two time periods.
Pathanamthitta district was formed only in 1983-84 and so the first period
was not taken into consideration. The district contributed 54.1 per cent of food
crops during the formation period, which was reduced to 34.2 per cent in
2003-04.But the district noted a large expansion in area under non-food crops,
which varied between 46 per cent and 64 per cent. Individual crop analysis
showed the contribution of crops- rice, coconut, rubber and tapioca- together
occupied more than 75 per cent of the total cropped area in 1983-84 and
72 per cent in 2003-04. Rice faced a sharp decline in area
230
(16.7 per cent to 4.6 per cent) followed by tapioca (16.7 per cent to 6.9 per cent)
coconut (26.9 per cent to19.14 per cent) and rubber area, which improved its
proportion from 15.6 per cent to 41.5 per cent. Other food crop plantains
including banana improved its area from 2.2 per cent to 3.7 per cent. Area under
areca nut showed a fluctuating trend while cashew nut suffered a fall in the area
proportion. Ginger also presented a fluctuating trend. Pepper gained in area and
the proportion increased from 3.7 per cent to 4.6 per cent. Another plantation crop
cardamom showed an improvement up to 1994-95 and after that it started to
decline. Coffee area was negligible in the district and the area under tea suffered a
set back in TE 1994-95 and TE 2003-04.
Alappuzha district constituted 80.7 per cent of the total area under three
crops- rice, coconut and tapioca during TE 1976-77 and 71.2 per cent in
TE 2003-04. Rice was in the first place in area, followed by coconut and tapioca,
in the first period but in the fourth period coconut came to the first position
followed by rice and cashew nut. Plantains improved their proportion from 1.5 per
cent to 2.4 per cent. Area proportion of areca nut improved slightly but cashew
nut showed an improvement from 1.4 per cent to 3.4 per cent. Area under pepper
declined followed by ginger. Plantation crops were not in a good position in
Alappuzha district that constituted only 3.08 per cent in TE 2003-04 whereas the
area under tea and coffee were very negligible.
Rice, coconut, rubber and tapioca occupied 76.6 per cent of the area of
Kottayam district in the first time period increased to 78.3 per cent in TE 2003-04
due to the sharp increase in the area of the rubber only. The other three crops
suffered a decline in area. In 2003-04 rubber occupied more than half of the total
231
cropped area of the district. During the first period coconut was in the first
position in area followed by rubber, rice and tapioca but in the fourth time period
rubber came to the first position followed by coconut, rice and pepper. Banana
noted an increase in area proportion from 2 per cent to 3.2 per cent. Areca nut and
cashew nut lost their area and cardamom also suffered a decline. Pepper area also
declined followed by ginger. The area under coffee was negligible but the
proportion of area under tea declined from 4 per cent to 1 per cent during the time
periods under consideration. All crops except rubber and banana suffered lose in
area in Kottayam district. Rubber gained 30 per cent of area and plantains attained
a small increase in area.
The major crops, which have larger proportion of area in Idukki district
included cardamom, pepper, rubber, coffee and tea. During the first period these
crops occupied nearly 53.2 per cent of the total cropped area among all crops
cardamom occupied highest proportion of area in the first time period and pepper
in the fourth time period. Rice, coconut, rubber and tea were in the same
proportion such as 9.1, 9.9, 9.6 and 9.8 respectively during the first period. But in
the fourth time period rice declined to 1.4 per cent, coconut to 7 per cent, rubber
increased to 13.96 per cent and tea after the increment in the second period
declined to 9 per cent. Proportion of area banana and plantains together showed a
small increment from 1.3 per cent to 1.8 per cent. Rice is the largest loser and
pepper is the gainer.
Coming to the central part of Kerala Ernakulam district showed a higher
level of decline in area under rice. Rice, coconut, rubber and tapioca occupied
78.3 per cent of total cropped area in the first period declined to 71.4 per cent in
232
the fourth time period. Rice, which occupied 40.7 per cent of the area in
TE 1976-77 declined to 14.4 per cent in TE 2003-04. Tapioca declined from
6.2 per cent 2.6 per cent. Coconut gained the area, which increased from
22 per cent to 28.6 per cent and rubber increased from 9.1 per cent to
25.8 per cent. Rice was in the first position in area proportion followed by
coconut, rubber and tapioca during the first period changed to coconut, rubber,
rice and plantains in 2003-04. Nearly 66.4 per cent fall occurs in area under rice.
Plantain area proportion increased from 1.8 to 4.7 per cent. Areca nut and cashew
nut showed declining trend in area. Other plantation crops cardamom, coffee and
tea have negligible area in the district. Proportion of area under ginger, even
though it increased during the second time period, sharply declined in the fourth
time period. Proportion of area under pepper declined in second and third period
got a recovery in TE 2003-04.
In Thrissur district rice, which was in the first position in TE 1976-77 with
48.7 per cent of the total cropped area came to the second position with 17.4 per
cent in 2003-04. Coconut improved its position from 21.8 per cent to
42.4 per cent, which attained first position in the area proportion. In the case of
other food crops tapioca and banana, there was a steep decline in area under
tapioca and increased area was noted in the case of banana. Proportion of tapioca
declined from 4.1 per cent to 0.7 per cent and that of banana an increase was
noted from 2.4 per cent to 3.8 per cent.
Cashew nut and areca nut performed badly during the years for which the
proportion of area under cashew nut declined from 2.6 per cent to 1.8 per cent and
that of areca nut from 4.98 per cent to 3.5 per cent after the steep decline in the
233
middle years. Pepper got a slight improvement in area and that of ginger also
there was a recovery. The plantation crops, rubber, cardamom, coffee and tea
together accounted only 7 per cent of the total cropped area of the district. In
TE 1976-77 the area under food crops was 72.9 per cent and that of non- food
crops it was only 27.1 per cent. But food crop area reduced to 43.2 per cent and
area under non- food crops increased to 56.8 per cent of the total cropped area.
The total cropped area of the district declined from 246 thousand hectares to
198 thousand hectares within the reference period.
Total cropped area of Palakkad district was 348 thousand hectares in the
first time period declined to314 thousand hectares in the fourth time period which
showed only 9.8 per cent reduction in area. Area under food crops, which was
78.3 per cent at the beginning, came to 64 per cent at the end year. Non-food crop
area, which was 21.7 per cent increased to 36 per cent in TE 2003-04. Area under
rice showed a decline from 54.2 per cent to 35.2 per cent. Following rice, tapioca
area changed from 2.99 per cent to 1.6 per cent. Banana and other plantains,
improved their position from 1.3 percent to 4.1 per cent. Rice maintained the first
position in area throughout the years.
Like in other districts area under coconut could not reached a position
above rice in the district. Coconut acquired more area, which showed an increase
of proportion from 6.1 per cent to 16.4 per cent. Other crops cashew nut, areca
nut, pepper and ginger have a small proportion of area in the district. In plantation
crops rubber occupied 9.2 per cent where cardamom has 0.9 per cent, coffee
1.5 per cent and tea 0.3 per cent of the total cropped area of the district in
TE 2003-04. Except cardamom all other plantation crops improved their area
234
from the beginning years. One of the notable features is that this is the only
district in which area under rice is the highest and dominating over other crops
during the period under consideration. Only in Palakkad district rice occupies the
first position in area with 35.2 per cent of the total area of the district where
coconut comes in the second with 16.4 per cent and rubber with 9.2 per cent.
Main crops, which grows in Malappuram district includes rice and
coconut with 33 per cent and 25 percent of total cropped area of the district
respectively during the TE 1976-77. Sharp fall in the area of rice reduced the
proportion from 33 per cent to 7.5 per cent while coconut gained the area and
reached in the first place by attaining area proportion with 39.6 per cent during
TE 2003-04. The area under rice reclined sharply from 92 thousand hectares in
1974-75 to 17 thousand hectares in 2003-04. The area under tapioca also declined
and the proportion declined from 9.9 per cent to 2.7 per cent.
Under food crops, banana showed a positive response to the area, which
changed from 1.5 per cent to 4.8 per cent within 30 years of time lag. Sharp
decline in area under rice influenced the food crop proportion, it declined from
65.9 per cent to 44.2 per cent and that of non- food crops proportion raised to
55.8 per cent from 34.1 per cent. During the mid seventies, rice was in the first
position in area changed to the third place during the TE 2003-04. Coconut gained
the first position followed by rubber. Cashew nut and areca nut have some
significant place in the area where area under cashew showed a negative trend but
areca nut improved its area proportion from 4.6 per cent to 6.5 per cent. In
plantation crops, rubber improved its position from 6 per cent to 11 per cent but
cardamom and coffee do not show any significant value. The area under tea is
235
also very negligible in the district. Ginger also has not much place in the cropping
pattern of the district.
Nearly 57 per cent of the area of Kozhikode district is under coconut
where area under rice is nearly 2.4 per cent, which was 20.5 percent in mid
seventies. Total cropped area, which was 280 thousand hectares, fell to
229 thousand hectares during the reference period. Food crop area changed from
46.7 per cent to 33 per cent and that of non-food crops from 53.3 per cent to
67 per cent. In mid-seventies rice, which was in the 2nd position turned to 5th
position in TE 2003-04. Coconut occupied the first position during the entire
period and rubber, pepper and areca nut followed it. When Wayanad district was
formed some taluks of Kozhikode district joined that district. Under plantation
crops during mid-seventies there was a considerable area under coffee but when
Wayanad district was formed most of the area under the crop transferred to that
district. Cashew nut area declined also the area of the ginger. Area under pepper
was more or less stable during the entire period. Rubber also maintained the same
proportion of area during the entire period.
When Wayanad district was formed 1981-82 by combining some taluks
from Kozhikkode and Kannur the cropping pattern of those districts was affected.
During TE 1983-84 rice occupied 22.97 per cent of area, coconut (3 percent),
rubber (2.1 per cent), pepper (6 per cent), ginger (1.3 per cent), tapioca
(1.9 per cent), areca nut (0.94 per cent) and cashew nut (0.75 per cent). Under
plantation crops coffee occupied 38.6 per cent of the total area, cardamom
3.2 per cent and tea occupied 4.1 per cent. At TE 2003-04 area under rice declined
to 6.3 per cent, coconut increased to 5.6 per cent, banana improved its position to
236
5.8 per cent; areca nut attained 3.2 per cent of share and ginger improved to
2 per cent of the total cropped area of the district. Pepper improved its position
and reached 20.3 per cent. Area proportion of coffee obtained 33.3 per cent and
tea declined to 3 per cent and rubber increased to 3 per cent. In the district, food
crops, which constituted 46.58 per cent of area increased to 52.09 per cent and
that of for non-food crops it was between 53.42 per cent and 47.91 per cent.
Kasargode district was formed from Kannur district in 1985-86. During
the first and second time periods only Kannur district was in existence. Proportion
of area under rice changed between 23.8 per cent and 17.4 per cent during first
and second time periods. In third and fourth periods, for Kannur, it declined to
6.5 per cent and 3.96 per cent respectively. In Kasargode district, it declined from
7.2 per cent to 4.6 per cent in third and fourth periods. Out of the total cropped
area (354 thousand hectares in 1974-75 and 270 thousand hectares in 2004-04) of
Kannur district 64.64 per cent came under the cultivation of food crops reduced to
51.07 in TE 1993-94 again declined to 45.42 per cent in TE 2003-04. The decline
in area under rice and tapioca is responsible for this and also the area
transformation to Kasargode district. Area under coconut, rubber and areca nut
has increased which led to the improved proportion of non-food crops. Proportion
of tapioca declined from 4.7 per cent to 1.2 percent in Kannur and in Kasargode it
was from1.3 percent to 0.8 per cent. Under food crops only banana showed a
small improvement in area proportion.
In the case of coconut, Kannur district showed an improvement in area
proportion (from 25 per cent to 35.6 per cent) and for Kasargode it ranged
between 27.4 per cent and 37.6 per cent. During the TE 1976-77 coconut was in
237
the first position with 25 per cent in area proportion followed by rice
(23.8 per cent) cashew nut (12.2 per cent) pepper (8.5 per cent) and rubber
(5.6 per cent). But after 30 years the position of rice was far behind, where
coconut occupied the first position (35.6 per cent) followed by rubber (12.95 per
cent) cashew nut (10.2 per cent) pepper (8.3 per cent) areca nut (5.04 per cent)
and then rice (3.96 per cent). In Kasargode district for TE 2003-04 coconut stood
in the first position (37.62 per cent) followed by rubber (14.98 per cent) cashew
nut (13.5 percent) areca nut (9.5 per cent) rice (4.61 per cent) and pepper
(4.4 per cent). Proportion of area under food crops changed from 49.07 per cent to
42.45 per cent within 20 years of time lag and for non-food crops positive
changes was noted between 50.93 per cent and 57.6 per cent. Other crops such as
plantains, cardamom, ginger and tapioca have very small impact in the area
proportion.
From the analysis of cropping pattern each district, as noted in the State,
area proportion of food crops was contracting and that of non-food crops,
especially rubber and coconut, were rising. Greatest decline in area was noted for
rice and the gainer is rubber. Largest fall in area under rice among districts was
noted in Thiruvananthapuram and the smallest in Palakkad.
Proportion of area under rice was the highest in Palakkad (54.2 per cent)
during TE 1976-77. In the same period the highest proportion of other crops
recorded were- Coconut in Kozhikkode (35.7 pre cent) Areca nut in Thrissur
(4.98 per cent) cashew nut in Kannur (12.2 per cent) Tapioca in
Thiruvananthapuram (29.96 per cent) Pepper in Kannur (8.5 per cent) Plantains
including Banana in Thrissur (2.4 per cent) Rubber in Kottayam (20.7 per cent)
238
Cardamom in Idukki (27.3 per cent) Tea in Idukki (9.8 per cent) Coffee in
Kozhikode (8.6 per cent, before the formation of Wayanad district) and Ginger in
Kottayam (1.05 per cent) district.
After the formation of Wayanad, Pathanamthitta and Kasargode districts
the highest proportion of area under the each crop varied. In TE 2003-04 the
highest proportion of each crop in the districts are – Rice in Palakkad
(35.2 per cent) Coconut in Kozhikode (56.9 per cent) Tapioca in
Thiruvananthapuram (12.9 per cent) Plantains including Banana in Malappuram
(4.8 per cent) Areca nut in Kasargode (9.52 per cent) Cashew nut in Kasargode
(13.5 per cent) Pepper in Idukki (23.1 per cent) Ginger in Wayanad
(1.98 per cent). The plantation crops, such as Rubber in Kottayam (50.64 per
cent) Cardamom in Idukki (11.9 per cent) Coffee in Wayanad (33.3 per cent) and
Tea in Idukki (9 per cent).
4.2. DISTRICT WISE DECOMPOSITION OF ABSOLUTE OUTPUT
GROWTH IN KERALA:
Decomposition of growth trends is an interesting development in the
analysis of agricultural growth. Various studies were conducted based on
decomposition of output growth in India and in Kerala. The researchers used both
multiplicative and additive models.
In the matter of growth of agricultural output the period 1980-1995 marks
a turning point in India’s agricultural development. One of the important study by
Bhalla and Singh (2000) on Indian Agriculture examined the growth performance
of agricultural output at the State level and district level during the periods
239
1962-1973, 1973-1983 and 1983-1993 based on 17 major States and 281 district
units obtained by clubbing 424 districts.
All the States have been clubbed into four regions where Kerala included
in the Southern region along with Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
During the initial period new agricultural technology, which has introduced
during the mid 1960’s had hardly any impact on rice with the result that southern
States were not able to derive appreciable gains from it. Second period from
1970-73 to 1980-83 the new seed –fertilizer technology spread to the southern
region. But in Kerala due to the vagaries of weather there was a perceptible
deceleration and negative growth in out put. Southern region recorded higher
growth rates in the third period 1980-83 to 1990-95. The main components of
growth of value of out put are the growth of yield, growth of area and changes in
cropping pattern. Increase in yield was recorded by southern region in which
Kerala having the highest level of land yields. During 1970-73 to 1980-83 Kerala
was the only state where yield growth rate was negative.
During 1962-65 to 1970-73 cropped area in Kerala grew very rapidly.
Southern region registered a significant decline in area under food grains while
Kerala recorded a major decline in area under rice. All southern region States had
acceleration in growth except Kerala during 1980-83 to 1992-95.
Bhalla and Singh categorized the districts in Kerala according to out put
growth as- in Ernakulam district out put growth rate during 1962- 65 to 1980-83
was between 1.5 to 3.5 per cent reduced the growth rate to less than 1.5 per cent
in 1980-83 to 1990-93. Kannur had out put growth increment during the reference
period. Thrissur, Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and Kozhikkode improved output
240
growth and Alappuzha remained in the same growth of out put during the
reference period.1
4.2.1 Model for Decomposition:
All decomposition models used in Kerala agriculture consist of interaction
terms. In Narain’s model also there was two interactions- cropping interaction and
location interaction. Decomposition model with out an interaction term is the first
attempt in Kerala agriculture. The decomposition model with the interaction term
has certain disadvantages as it either under estimates or over estimates the pure
effect of the variable. In the multiplicative framework, consistent decomposition
model with out any interaction term has been introduced for the first time by
Jamal and Azad 2 (1992) but no such attempt has been made in the additive
framework. Consistent decomposition of out put growth with the appropriate
additive model with out any interaction term is put forward by Majumdar and
Basu 3 (2005). For the district level study of the output growth in Kerala the
additive model with out interaction term is used.
At the constant price weight the value of out put can broadly be
decomposed into two components (1) area and (2) productivity. Again
productivity consists of two items (1) yield and (2) cropping pattern or inter- crop
allocation. In the case of individual crop there is no difference between yield and
productivity. So ultimately the components of growth considered for output
decomposition in the present study are area, yield and cropping pattern. In general
explanation of the area component takes into account rate of growth of gross
cropped area that includes the impact of change both in the net sown area and
cropping intensity. The yield component measures the impact of change in output
241
per hectare. Cropping pattern change implies to what extent area is shifted from a
low yield crop to a high yield crop.
As mentioned above, the three components area, yield and cropping
pattern have been considered in the present study for output decomposition. The
effect of each component is evaluated using, as weights, different combinations of
base and terminal years values of the other two components. In fact for each crop
and each effect weight is the arithmetic mean of three items. The first two items
represent the base year and terminal year values of the products of the two
remaining components and the third item is the average of the products obtained
by alternatively taking base year and terminal year values of the other remaining
component. It may be noted this third item is also an interaction term in the
language of Jamal and Azad 4 (1992) but this is not the Minhas 5 (1966) type of
residual. In fact such a ‘pooled-partial-effect-term’ is not required in this scheme
to ensure an identity since it has an in-built balancing system.
Output growth
Area effect Yield effect Cropping pattern effect
Output growth = At ∑ wi ci t yi t - Ao ∑wi ci o yi o
Area Effect =1/3 [ (At – Ao) { ∑ wi ci o yi o+ ∑ wi ci o yi t + ½ (∑ wi ci o yi t +∑ wi ci t yi o)}]
Yield Effect =1/3 Ao ∑ wi ( yi t - yi o) ci o+ 1/3 At ∑ wi ( yi t – yi o) ci t +
1/6 Ao ∑ wi ( yi t – yi o ) ci t + 1/6 At ∑ wi ( yi t – yi o) ci o
Cropping Pattern Effect =1/3Ao ∑wi (ci t – ci o) yi o+ 1/3 At ∑ wi ( ci t – ci o) yi t +
1/6 Ao ∑ wi ( ci t – ci o) yi t + 1/6 At ∑ wi ( ci t – ci o) yi o
242
The variables and notations used in the model are
At = ∑ a it = Gross Cropped Area where ai is the area under ith crop. i yi t = Vi t / At = yield of the ith crop.
Ci t = ai t / At = share of the ith crop in gross cropped area all at time t.
W = Constant price weight.
The subscripts ‘0’ and ‘t’ refer respectively to the base and ‘t’ th period.
Subscript ‘i’ is used for the ith crop (i = 1,2,3………….12).
In output decomposition, under linear framework, the effect of each
component (yield, area, cropping pattern) measures output growth due to that
particular component. For example, yield effect indicates the output growth due to
growth in yield.
Output growth (valued at constant prices) in Kerala and its districts over
the last three decades from 1974-75 to 2003-04 have been decomposed by the
model where output is decomposed into three components area, yield and
cropping pattern. The growth of each component has been estimated by regression
method (OLS).
In the case of output, area, yield and cropping pattern trend selections
showed that linear model gives best fit in the majority of the districts and the State
as a whole. Even though there are some variations in the districts, for the sake of
uniformity linear trend has been uniformly used for all the constituent component.
The significant values of R2 in the linear trend of the components established the
linear influence of time on each of the items.
243
The results of the decomposition of output growth linear framework
denoting sub periods have been presented in the Table (4.2) for the State and
Table (4.3) for the districts.
TABLE 4.2 Decomposition of Absolute Output Growth in Kerala (Million Rupees)
Components Period I Period II Period III Overall Period
Output growth -6347.1
-5874.9 6059.5 -1462.1
Area effect -1237.8 ( 19.5 )
-1264.8 ( 21.5 )
-531.6 ( -8.8 )
-980.2 ( 67.04 )
Yield effect -6809.4 (107.3 )
-5913.3 ( 100.7 )
7903.03 ( 130.4 )
-888.9 ( 60.8 )
Cropping Pattern Effect
1700.0 ( -26.8 )
1303.2 ( -22.2 )
-1311.97 (-21.7 )
407.1 (-27.8 )
Note: Figures in parentheses are the percentage contribution.
TABLE 4.3
Decomposition of output growth in Kerala (Growth rates) Components Period I Period II Period III Overall period
Output Growth - 0.85* 0.92** 0.95** 0.90**
Area Effect -0.93** 0.83** -0.58 0.45*
Yield Effect -0.25 0.90** 0.96** 0.92**
Cropping Pattern Effect -0.64 -0.68 -0.79** -0.92**
** Significant at 1% level * Significant at 5% level.
244
TABLE 4.4
District- Wise Decomposition of Absolute Output Growth in Kerala: TE 1994-95 is the Base Year
Components Period I Period II Period III
Thiruvananthapuram Output Growth 182.6 -88.3 10.7
Area Effect -102.5 (-56.13) -102.7 (116) -35.3 (-329.9) Yield Effect -507.96(-278.2) -411.6 (466.14) 308.4 (2882.3)
Cropping Pattern Effect 793.1 (434.3) 425.97 (-482.4) -262.4(-2452.3) Kollam
Output Growth 1414.4 -63.34 235.3 Area Effect -142.5 (-10.1) -119.6 (188.8) -43.5 (-18.5) Yield Effect -706.5 (-49.95) -542.6 (856.7) 274.1 (116.5)
Cropping Pattern Effect 2263.8 (160.1) 598.9 (-945.5) 4.7 (2.0) Pathanamthitta
Output Growth ---- -881.7 442.4 Area Effect ---- -61.5 (7.0) -34.8 (-7.9) Yield Effect ---- -479.9 (54.4) 709.6 (160.4)
Cropping Pattern Effect ---- -340.3 (38.6) -232.4 (-52.5) Alappuzha
Output Growth 730.2 200.4 -140.4 Area Effect -58.9 (-8.1) -51.3 (-25.6) -14.4 9 (10.2) Yield Effect -177.9 (-24.4) -103.5 (-51.6) 32.8 (-23.4)
Cropping Pattern Effect 967.1 (132.4) 355.1 (177.2) -158.9 (113.2) Kottayam
Output Growth -953.7 -883.6 946.8 Area Effect -144.4 (15.1) -150.8 (17.1) -67.02 (-7.1) Yield Effect -1047.6 (109.8) -921.2 (104.3) 1217.4 (128.6)
Cropping Pattern Effect 238.3 (-24.99) 188.4 (-21.3) -203.6 (-21.5) Idukki
Output Growth -1331.9 -644.95 2515.1 Area Effect -113.0 (8.5) -121.6 (18.9) -66.7 (-2.7) Yield Effect -1432.8 (107.6) -1193.4 (185) 2217.9 (88.2)
Cropping Pattern Effect 213.9 (-16.1) 670.03 (-103.9) 363.9 (14.5) Ernakulam
Output Growth -789.2 -580.8 398.8 Area Effect -97.6 (12.4) -102.3 (17.6) -43.4 (10.9) Yield Effect -417.02 (52.8) -418.3 (72.02) 982 (246.2)
Cropping Pattern Effect -274.6 (34.8) -60.3 (10.4) -539.8 (-35.4)
245
( 2)
Components Period I Period II Period III Thrissur
Output Growth -55.9 -157.3 -17.9 Area Effect -61.96 (110.8) -61.9 (39.4) -21.7 (121.2) Yield Effect -530.4 (948.9) -380.8 (242.1) -2.2 (12.3)
Cropping Pattern Effect 536.5 (-959.7) 285.4 (-181.4) 6.0 (-33.5) Palakkad
Output Growth -338.1 -267.2 246.5 Area Effect -104.6 (110.8) -107.1 (40.1) -40.7 (-16.5) Yield Effect -306.8 (90.8) -211.7 (79.2) 467.2 (189.5)
Cropping Pattern Effect 73.34 (-21.7) 51.5 (-19.3) -180 (-73.02) Malappuram
Output Growth 122.2 -219.2 207.7 Area Effect -80.3 (-65.7) -76.5 (34.9) -29.7 (-14.3) Yield Effect -476.4 (-389.90) -348.3 (158.9) 236.1 (113.7)
Cropping Pattern Effect 678.9 (555.4) 205.7 (-93.8) 1.3 (0.6) Kozhikkode
Output Growth 993.5 13.99 247.9 Area Effect -72.4 (-7.3) -56.6 (-404.7) -21.1 (-8.5) Yield Effect 29.8 (3.0) -146.9 (-1050) 39.5 (15.9)
Cropping Pattern Effect 1036.1 (104.3) 217.5 (1554.7) 229.5 (92.6) Wayanad
Output Growth ----- -1488.8 818.5 Area Effect ----- -111.4 (7.5) -56.8 (-6.9) Yield Effect ----- -619.4 (41.6) 982.4 (120.02)
Cropping Pattern Effect ----- -757.9 (50.9) -107.1 (-13.1) Kannur
Output Growth 694.8 -372.4 -71.2 Area Effect -131.6 (-18.9) -112.7 (30.3) -38.5 (54.1) Yield Effect -880.5 (-126.7) -813.8 (218.5) 28.0 (-39.3)
Cropping Pattern Effect 1706.8 (245.6) 554.13 (-148.8) -60.7 (85.3) Kasargode
Output Growth ----- ----- 206.7 Area Effect ----- ----- -19.5 (-9.4) Yield Effect ----- ----- 229.3 (110.9)
Cropping Pattern Effect ----- ----- -3.1 (-1.5)
246
TABLE 4.5
District Wise Decomposition of Absolute Output Growth in Kerala: (Growth Rates)
Components Period I Period II Period III Thiruvananthapuram
Output Growth -0.59 -0.772 ** 0.4 Area Effect -0.94 ** 0.85 -0.57 Yield Effect 0.54 0.80 ** 0.59 *
Cropping Pattern Effect -0.74 -0.96 ** -0.18 Kollam
Output Growth -0.88 ** -0.37 0.59 *
Area Effect -0.91 ** 0.9 ** -0.56 Yield Effect -0.38 0.92 ** 0.70 **
Cropping Pattern Effect -0.96 ** -0.9 ** -0.2 Pathanamthitta
Output Growth --- 0.88 0.73 **
Area Effect --- 0.43 -0.54 Yield Effect --- 0.84 ** 0.66 *
Cropping Pattern Effect --- 0.84 ** -0.34 Alappuzha
Output Growth -0.97 ** -0.797 ** -0.82 **
Area Effect -0.9 ** 0.9 -0.55 Yield Effect -0.64 0.76 ** 0.29
Cropping Pattern Effect -0.899 ** -0.93 -0.95 **
Kottayam Output Growth -0.87 ** 0.87 ** 0.92
Area Effect 0.91 ** 0.82 -0.57 *
Yield Effect -0.52 0.599 ** 0.90 Cropping Pattern Effect -0.74 0.11 -0.49
Idukki Output Growth 0.86 0.93 ** 0.98**
Area Effect -0.94 ** 0.81 -0.63 *
Yield Effect 0.21 0.78 0.98 **
Cropping Pattern Effect 0.63 0.07 0.92 **
Ernakulam Output Growth 0.75 * 0.46 0.90
Area Effect -0.93 ** 0.83 -0.57 *
Yield Effect 0.45 -0.13 0.89 Cropping Pattern Effect 0.70 0.71 -0.80 **
247
( 2 )
Components Period I Period II Period III Thrissur
Output Growth -0.89 ** 0.40 -0.34 Area Effect -0.92 ** 0.85 -0.57 **
Yield Effect -0.53 0.91 ** 0.67 *
Cropping Pattern Effect -0.90 * -0.96 -0.80 **
Palakkad Output Growth -0.03 0.45 0.52
Area Effect -0.94 ** 0.86 -0.58 *
Yield Effect -0.61 0.61 * 0.86 **
Cropping Pattern Effect 0.68 -0.86 -0.83 **
Malappuram Output Growth -0.96 ** 0.79 ** 0.86 **
Area Effect -0.90 ** 0.84 -0.57 *
Yield Effect -0.67 0.92 ** 0.86 **
Cropping Pattern Effect -0.94 ** -0.91** -0.47 Kozhikkode
Output Growth 0.69 -0.39 0.83 **
Area Effect -0.93 ** 0.94 -0.57 *
Yield Effect 0.63 -0.22 0.65 *
Cropping Pattern Effect 0.78 * -0.56 0.78 **
Wayanad Output Growth ---- 0.85 ** 0.79 **
Area Effect ---- 0.68 -0.61 *
Yield Effect ---- 0.53 0.86 **
Cropping Pattern Effect ---- 0.78 ** -0.30 Kannur
Output Growth 0.77 * -0.09 -0.51 Area Effect -0.94 ** 0.89 -0.57 *
Yield Effect -0.96** 0.96 ** -0.02 Cropping Pattern Effect 0.91 ** -0.83 ** -0.73 **
Kasargode Output Growth ---- ---- 0.83 **
Area Effect ---- ---- 0.34 *
Yield Effect ---- ---- 0.87 **
Cropping Pattern Effect ---- ---- -0.17 Note: ** and * represents 1% and 5% level of significance respectively.
248
4.2.2 Output Growth:
The output column of Table (4.2) and Table (4.4) for the State and for
each district gives the absolute output growth.
For the State, comparing to the base year (TE 1994-95) output growth
showed a decreasing trend since it shows negative values in Period I and
Period II. Period III exhibited a positive output growth. Since, after the
benchmark year output growth is positive and before it showed a negative value,
it is clear that the output growth is in the increasing trend. Now let us look into the
detailed causes of output growth during three sub periods and the major factors,
which are contributing to the output growth.
During the Period I the significant output growth, even though it is
negative comparing to the base period, the major factors responsible for this
change is area effect and yield effect. Cropping pattern effect does not show any
significant impact on output change.
But during the Period II all effects along with output growth shows
significant values. Major contributors to the output growth include area effect and
yield effect. Even though the cropping pattern effect is significant it acts in the
opposite direction of output growth.
During the third period significant positive output growth is the
contribution of yield effect only where the significant area and cropping pattern
effects acted in the reverse direction.
The main conclusion derived from the analysis is that; yield effect is
increasing and exerts a strong positive influence on output growth. Cropping
pattern effect changes from positive to negative values tells the declining nature
249
of the effect. Area effect remains negative before and after the benchmark year.
Output growth changes from negative to positive value, which shows the
increasing nature. Among the three effects yield effect determine the nature of
output growth in Kerala agriculture even though the other two effects are present.
Cropping pattern effect in all time periods acted in the reverse direction of the
output growth.
District wise absolute output growth, which is presented in the Table (4.4),
shows a different picture of output growth from the State.
During the Period I Kollam, Alappuzha, Malappuram and Kannur attained
positive output growth. In Kollam district the entire output growth was
contributed by the cropping pattern effect where area effect is negative. In the
case of Alappuzha district also, the cropping pattern effect is the only factor
responsible for the positive output growth. Area effect acted in the opposite
direction. Output growth in Malappuram district is the contribution of cropping
pattern effect only. Kannur district attained a positive output growth due to the
impact of cropping pattern effect only, where the negative impact of yield and
area effects together cannot overcome the positive impact of cropping pattern
effect.
In the Period II positive output growth was shown by Alappuzha district
only. In most of the districts the output growth was negative even though they are
significant. Area effect and yield effect showed negative growth rates where only
cropping pattern effect was positive. Comparing to the first period growth rate of
output growth improved in most of the districts (Table 4.5).
250
Period III shows a remarkable change in output growth. In most of the
districts the output growth is positive. Kollam, Pathanamthitta, Idukki,
Malappuram, Kozhikode, Wayanad and Kasargode districts present a positive
output growth. In Kollam, positive output growth is fully contributed by yield
effect where in Pathanamthitta also yield effect is the only factor. Idukki district
showed a positive output growth by the combined impact of yield and cropping
pattern effects. Output growths in Malappuram, Wayanad and Kasargode are
contributed by yield effect only. But in Kozhikode district both the yield and
cropping pattern effect are responsible, where the major factor of contribution is
the cropping pattern effect.
Thus from the analysis of output growth in districts, major idea arises
includes, the impact of cropping pattern effect in Period I and Period III in some
districts. In Period I they are Kollam, Alappuzha, Malappuram and Kannur where
in Period III the districts are Kozhikode and Idukki. In the third period growth
rates of cropping patter effect is negative except in Idukki and Kozhikkode where
this factor contributed to the output growth. Except for Alappuzha, Thrissur and
Kannur absolute output growths are positive. After the benchmark year output
growth became positive for most districts except for Alappuzha , Thrissur and
Kannur. In these districts Alappuzha and Kannur shows a change of output
growth from positive to negative and only Thrissur district shows negative output
growth in all periods.
251
4.2.3 Yield effect:
In decomposition of absolute output growth in State and in most of
districts maximum portion of output growth during the Period III is explained by
yield growth.
At the State level yield growth and output growth move in the same
direction. In the first two periods, the output growth was negative and third period
it became positive, which shows an increasing tendency due to the impact of yield
effect. Contribution of yield effect is very high during all periods. In the third
period the whole contribution of output growth is explained by yield effect.
Growth rates of yield are positive in Period II and Period III. The dominance of
yield effect in the determination of output growth can be noticed in all periods.
The district-wise pattern of yield effect can be obtained from the analysis
of absolute output growth. In the first period of the reference period no significant
impact can be noticed in any districts for the yield effect on output growth.
Growth rates of yield effects in all districts except for Idukki, Ernakulam and
Kozhikkode are negative. Only in Kannur district yield effect is significant but it
do not have any impact on output growth (Table 4.5).
During the Period II the position of yield effect improved and in more
districts it was significant which contributed to the output growth. Yield effects
were significant in Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Pathanamthitta, Alappuzha,
Kottayam, Thrissur, Palakkad, Malappuram and Kannur. In all these districts
growth rates are positive during the second period and have impact on output
growth.
252
Considering the Period III in most of the districts yield effect is the
dominant factor. In Kollam the entire output growth is due to the yield effect only.
In Pathanamthitta, Malappuram, Wayanad and Kasargode also the yield effect is
the only factor, which is responsible for positive output growth. In Idukki and
Kozhikkode districts, yield effect along with cropping pattern effect determines
the output growth.
From the analysis of yield effect the major conclusions derived are the
dominance of yield effect visible in the output growth is mainly in the third period
and in some districts in the second period. No impact can be noticed in the first
period. Thus the impact of yield effect on output growth increases in the reference
period.
4.2.4 Cropping Pattern Effect:
Though yield was the main engine of growth, cropping pattern effect has
positive impact on output growth in some districts. As far as the State’s output
growth is concerned the cropping pattern effect and output growth moves in
opposite directions. The impact of cropping pattern is declining in the reference
period. The value of the effect, which changes from positive to negative,
represents the declining nature. There exists a high negative correlation between
the output growth and cropping pattern effect. Since the positive correlation
between yield effect and output growth can over come the negative impact of
output growth is led by the yield effect.
In Period I positive output growth in Kollam, Alappuzha, Malappuram and
Kannur was only due to the impact of cropping pattern effect (see Table 4.3).
Growth rates showed a negative value except in Kannur district.
253
During Period II significant growth rates were obtained in
Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Pathanamthitta, Malappuram, Wayanad and
Kannur. But Pathanamthitta and Wayanad showed a positive growth rate. In
Wayanad district only the impact of cropping pattern was visible
(as per Table 4.5).
In the third period Idukki, Alappuzha and Kozhikkode indicated the
impact of cropping pattern effect on output growth. In Alappuzha district output
growth declined after the benchmark year due to the high impact of cropping
pattern effect. In other two districts output growths are positive and cropping
pattern effect contributed along with yield effect. But in Kozhikkode district the
larger contribution came from cropping pattern effect.
Since at the State level the cropping pattern effect changes from positive
to negative, in most of the districts the same pattern can be observed. In Kollam
district, absolute value even though declining remained as positive in all periods.
Growth rates are negative. In Idukki district growth rates are positive in all
periods.
Cropping pattern effect has the impact only in two periods, first and third.
While in the first period significant impact of the effect on output growth could be
noticed in Kollam, Alappuzha, Malappuram and Kannur and in the third period
Alappuzha, Idukki and Kozhikkode districts showed the impact of cropping
pattern effect on output growth. Highest growth rate is recorded in Idukki district
followed by Kozhikkode in the third period.
254
4.2.5 Area Effect:
Along with yield effect, area effect exerts influence on output growth at
the State level. In the Period I and Period II, the contribution of area effect was
19.5 percent and 21.5 percent to the output growth. The effect reversed during
Period III.
In the district wise analysis the absolute area effect, which contributed to
the output growth during the first period was in Kannur where the growth rate was
negative. Due to the increase in total cropped area in the State during the second
period in all districts growth rate in area effect is positive. Area effect is
significant at the State level in Period I and Period III.
In the Table (4.5) during the Period I area effect showed a positive growth
rate in Kottayam district only. Growth rates in area effect showed significant
values in all districts. Only in Kottayam district the area effect showed positive
growth rate.
During the second period all districts showed positive growth rates in area
effect but most of them were insignificant. No significant impact of area effect
could be noticed in output growth even though the total cropped area in the State
showed a positive growth rate.
In Period III, as in the State level, growth rates in area effect are negative
in all districts. Kottayam, Idukki, Ernakulam, Thrissur, Palakkad, Malappuram,
Kozhikkode, Wayanad, Kannur and Kasargode districts showed significant values
for area effect but only in Thrissur district the area effect had an impact on output
growth.
255
From the above analysis of area effect, district wise and period wise,
conclusion was reached that the growth rate in area effect is positive in all
districts in the second period, which has no impact on output growth. In the
Period I only Kottayam district showed positive growth rate while in Period III
Kasargode district exhibits the positive growth rate in area effect.
When the whole analysis of output growth and its components are
considered, at the State level and district level the common nature is the
increasing dominance of yield effect in the determination of output growth in
Kerala agriculture. In the State and the district level, from the beginning of
reference period onwards the impact of yield effect is gradually increasing. In the
earlier periods of study area effect had some impact at the State level and at the
district level-cropping pattern had the influence on output growth. But in the third
period the only dominant factor is the yield effect at the State level. But at the
district level in Idukki and Kozhikkode districts the cropping pattern effect
became one of the factors in the determination of output growth. Growth rate of
cropping pattern effect is the highest in Idukki in Period III among all periods of
the reference period. The highest growth rate in area effect is recorded in
Kottayam district during the first period. As far as the highest growth rates in
yield effect are considered it is in Idukki district during the third period. The
highest output growth rate is in Idukki during Period III.
Thus the highest growth rate in output growth; yield effect and cropping
pattern effect are recorded by Idukki district during Period III. Highest growth
rate in area effect is recorded by Kottayam district in the first period, which is one
of the districts where the output change was affected by area effect.
256
The main conclusion derived from the analysis of the impact of each
factor on output growth at the State level in the reference period is that only the
yield effect seemed to be significant which positively affects the output growth.
While analysing the impact and influence of each factor on output growth
separately during the reference period in all districts the major conclusions
derived include:
1. In Alappuzha district cropping pattern effect has a very strong positive
influence in the output growth.
2. In Ernakulam district yield effect is the major factor, which is positively
affecting the output growth.
3. Yield effect determines the output growth in Idukki district with high
positive impact.
4. In Kannur district cropping pattern effect influenced positively to the
output growth.
5. Output growth in Kozhikkode district is influenced positively by the yield
effect.
6. Palakkad district, which has positive output growth, is strongly affected by
high positive yield effect.
7. Yield effect has a strong positive influence on the output growth in
Pathanamthitta district.
8. In Wayanad district yield effect played a very important role in the
determination of output growth.
In other districts no specific significant impact can be noticed in the determination
of output growth for any component.
257
4.3 DECOMPOSITION OF OUTPUT GROWTH – CROP WISE:
Decomposition of output growth into area effect, yield effect and cropping
pattern effect under individual crops is discussed in this section. The major food
crops under consideration include rice, tapioca and banana and plantains. Other
crops included cash crops and plantation crops. The general tendency, which can
be seen while analyzing the data of area under major crops, is that there is a shift
of area from food crops to cash crops and plantation crops. In the analysis of State
level data the yield effect of twelve crops together contributed to the total output
growth. In the district level analysis, during the reference period, except in
Alappuzha and Kannur districts in most of the other districts output growth is
influenced by yield effect.
When considering about the cropping pattern effect of individual crops,
cropping pattern of crops is to be taken for the analysis (Table 3.5). In the
cropping pattern of important crops in Kerala the proportion of area under food
crops, mainly rice and tapioca showed a high decelerating tendency. The main
gainers included coconut, rubber, pepper and coffee. The analysis of cropping
pattern effect is based on the cropping pattern nature of the individual crops.
Based on triennium ending 1994-95, which is considered as the base year
of the study, showed absolute output growth of individual crops during three sub
periods of the reference period as a whole.
Area under paddy showed a sharp declining trend from the beginning of the
reference period. From the analysis of compound growth rates of area (Table 2.2)
under paddy it is confirmed that the rate of growth is negative and also declining
258
from period to period. During Period III the declining rate of growth of is
5.97 per cent.
TABLE 4.6
Decomposition of Absolute Output Growth in Kerala: Crop- Wise (Growth Rates)
Components Period I Period II Period III RICE
Output Growth -0.59 -0.68* -0.96**
Area Effect -0.93** 0.87 -0.55 Yield Effect 0.77* 0.88** 0.65*
Cropping Pattern Effect -0.91** -0.99** -0.98**
COCONUT Output Growth -0.91** 0.88** 0.79**
Area Effect -0.92** 0.81 -0.59*
Yield Effect -0.69 0.53 0.78**
Cropping Pattern Effect -0.71 0.96** 0.70**
TAPIOCA Output Growth -0.92** -0.96** 0.11
Area Effect -0.90** 0.87 -0.53 Yield Effect 0.01 0.90** 0.55
Cropping Pattern Effect -0.94** -0.99** -0.78**
RUBBER Output Growth 0.57 0.97 0.96
Area Effect -0.94** 0.77 -0.59*
Yield Effect -0.33 0.68 0.94 Cropping Pattern Effect 0.94** 0.98 0.92
PEPPER Output Growth 0.37 0.87** 0.37
Area Effect -0.94** 0.75 -0.58*
Yield Effect 0.68 0.59* 0.09 Cropping Pattern Effect -0.74* 0.98 0.91**
CASHEW NUT
Output Growth -0.83* 0.86** -0.74
Area Effect -0.93** 0.82 -0.59*
Yield Effect -0.92** 0.94 -0.52
Cropping Pattern Effect 0.97** -0.93 -0.96**
ARECA NUT Output Growth -0.73 0.75** 0.70**
Area Effect -0.93** 0.83 -0.64*
Yield Effect 0.93 0.71* -0.01 Cropping Pattern Effect -0.80 0.24 0.80**
259
( 2 )
Components Period I Period II Period III BANANA & PLANTAINS
Output Growth -0.25 0.97** 0.17 Area Effect -0.87* 0.79 0.54
Yield Effect -0.27 0.92** -0.52
Cropping Pattern Effect 0.84 0.96** 0.84**
CARDAMOM Output Growth 0.82* 0.57 0.95**
Area Effect -0.95** 0.80 -0.72**
Yield Effect 0.73 0.40 0.96**
Cropping Pattern Effect 0.89** 0.06 -0.77**
COFFEE Output Growth 0.76* 0.05 0.83**
Area Effect -0.96** 0.83 -0.62*
Yield Effect 0.45 -0.21 0.84
Cropping Pattern Effect 0.97 0.75** 0.67 TEA
Output Growth 0.54 0.65 0.19
Area Effect -0.94** 0.80 -0.57*
Yield Effect 0.66 0.67 -0.10
Cropping Pattern Effect 0.48 -0.93 0.88**
GINGER Output Growth 0.80* 0.88** -0.52
Area Effect -0.93** 0.76 -0.57
Yield Effect 0.69 0.94** 0.68*
Cropping Pattern Effect 0.64 0.12 -0.82**
Note: ** Significant at 1% level * Significant at 5% level.
Considering the share of the crop in cropping pattern the situation is the
worst. In the TE 1976-77 the share was 29.21 percent of the total cropped area,
which sharply fell to 9.65 percent in 2003-04.This shows the declining nature of
cropping pattern effect of this crop. Yield effect shows a positive growth rate and
the area effect is also under declining trend. Compound growth rates of
260
production of paddy show a negative growth in all periods (see Table 2.3). In the
decomposition of output growth of paddy into area effect, yield effect and
cropping pattern effect we see a high impact of cropping pattern effect on output
growth. Due to positive impact of cropping pattern on output growth during first
and second period absolute growth in output is positive where the other two
effects are negative. In the first and second period the contribution of cropping
pattern to output growth is 100 per cent. But the growth rates show a negative
trend (see Table 4.6).
Due to the declining tendency of growth rates of cropping pattern, after
the benchmark year output growth turned to be negative which shows the
declining trend of output growth. In the third period along with cropping pattern
effect area effect also exerts an influence on output growth. Yield effect became
positive during the third period, which shows an increasing trend.
Thus the study concluded that in the output growth of the paddy, major
component of influence is the cropping pattern than area effect, and yield effect
has no influence on the output growth.
Among the food crops, tapioca is the cereal substitute of rice, which acted,
in the same pattern as the paddy. Compound growth rate of area showed a sharp
decline during the initial periods of study than paddy. The rate of decline reduced
in the third period where the trend of paddy is in the reverse position. Growth
rates in yield are positive except in the first period. The share of tapioca changed
from 10.82 per cent in TE 1976-77 to 3.41 per cent in 2003-04, which shows the
declining trend in cropping pattern.
261
Among the three effects the impact of cropping pattern effect is very
strong in all periods where yield effect has no role in the output growth. Area
effect shows an impact in the third period. Since cropping pattern effect changes
from positive to negative before and after the benchmark year the effect shows a
decreasing nature. This tendency of cropping pattern effect has strong influence
on output where output growth shows a negative growth rate. Yield effect
changes from negative to positive shows the improvement and area effect remains
negative in all periods. The major conclusion derived in this analysis is that output
growth of tapioca is influenced more by the nature of cropping pattern effect.
Coming to the case of banana and plantains the situation is very different
from the case of tapioca and paddy. Since the growth rate in area shows a positive
trend in all periods and growth rate in yield shows positive only in the second
period, the growth rate in production is positive in Period II and Period III.
The components of output growth also show a different picture than the
case of paddy and tapioca. Both output growth’s and cropping pattern effect’s
absolute values changes from negative to positive and yield effect value fluctuate,
between positive and negative value and after the benchmark year the growth rate
turned to be negative. Large portion of output growth was the contribution of
cropping pattern effect in the first period and during the second period all three
effects together contributed to output growth. Again in the third period yield
effect and cropping pattern effect were responsible for output growth. Cropping
pattern growth rates were positive in all periods where the highest value was in
the second period. In the case of banana and plantains the complete dominance of
262
single factor cannot be noticed in all periods two of the three components were
responsible for the output growth.
Even though coconut is used as food item, large portion of the use is in the
industrial field. So it is considered as a cash crop. Growth rates in area show
positive values except in the first period, productivity growth rates are positive in
all periods and so production growth rates are positive except in the first period.
Output growth rates are positive except in the first period. Absolute value
of output growth shows positive change before and after the benchmark year.
Yield effect and cropping pattern effect are moving in a positive trend while the
area effect value remains negative. During first and second periods each
component is responsible for output growth but in the third period the area effect
had no role in the determination of output growth. Cropping pattern of coconut in
Kerala agriculture, which noted 23.89 per cent in the beginning of the study
reached up to 30.32 per cent in 2003-04 (see Table 3.5). The positive impact of
cropping pattern can be noticed in the growth of cropping pattern effect. Thus in
the case of coconut both yield effect and cropping pattern effect have a strong
impact in the output growth.
Major plantation crop of Kerala, rubber, attained the highest growth rate in
area during the reference period. It also showed a high growth rate in yield and
the highest growth rate in production. The share of the crop in the total cropped
area was 6.92 per cent in the beginning years of study reached at 16.14 per cent in
2003-04 showed a high growth rate in cropping pattern.
In the decomposition analysis growth rates output growth and cropping
pattern effect is positive in all sub periods where growth rate in yield effect is
263
negative only in first period and for area effect, the growth rates oscillates
between negative and positive values. In the third period yield and cropping
pattern effects dominate the output growth. Influence of yield effect is increasing
and contribution of cropping pattern diminishes from period to period. Absolute
values of output growth yield effect and cropping pattern effect changes from
negative to positive values show the increasing behaviour of these components.
As in the case of coconut, cropping pattern effect and yield effect also influences
output growth of rubber. Highest growth rate in output growth is in Period I
where growth rate in cropping pattern is the highest but not significant.
One of the major cash crops of Kerala, pepper, obtained a high growth rate
in area during Period II and except in the first period it showed a positive growth
rate. In the case of yield and production the growth rates are positive in all
periods. When output growth is decomposed the growth rate showed positive
values with the highest record in the second period. Absolute value of yield effect
changes from negative to positive before and after the benchmark year, which is
also applicable to the cropping pattern effect. Since the tendency of area effect is
the same for all crops no further mention is needed. Since growth rates of yield
effect have the declining tendency output growth also declines. Growth rates of
cropping pattern showed the highest rate in the second period.
Contribution of yield effect and cropping pattern effect is responsible for
output growth. The impact of yield effect increased in the third period than in the
first period and for cropping pattern effect the proportion has declined. Since the
share of crop in total cropped area increased from 3.75per cent to 7.13 per cent
during the reference period the growth of cropping pattern effect can be noticed.
264
Output growth of pepper is due to the combined effect of yield effect and
cropping pattern effect.
Output growth rate of cashew nut show positive value only in the second
period where high positive growth rate in yield effect is noticed along with the
positive growth rate in area effect. In all periods yield effect dominated the output
growth where only in the third period cropping pattern effect came in the
determination of output growth. The share of cashew in the total cropped area
increased first and then declined. In the first and third period the rates of growth
in out put growth are negative due to the impact of yield effect. Cropping pattern
effect acted against the output growth in earlier periods. Due to the decline in area
effect, yield effect and cropping pattern effect the absolute output growth became
negative after the benchmark year reached at the conclusion that yield effect is
responsible for the changes in output growth.
When analysed the compound growth rates area and yield of the crop
areca nut the growth rates of area showed negative value in the first period and
improved in the next two periods with a positive trend. But growth rates of yield
declined from period to period and reached negative in the third period.
Production growth rates improved from negative value to positive from the
second period onwards. The decomposition of output growth shows the recovery
of output growth and decline of yield effect. Cropping pattern of areca nut though
showed a negative trend during the first period came to the recovery position in
second and third periods. Cropping pattern effect also attained positive growth
trends in second and third periods. During the first period yield effect and area
effect contributed to the output growth. In the second period all effects were
265
responsible but in the third period cropping pattern effect and yield effect together
contributed to the output growth. As far as the output growth of areca nut is
concerned increasing impact of cropping pattern effect is visible along with the
declining nature of yield effect.
Other plantation crops cardamom, coffee and tea showed a positive nature
of output growth since the growth rates of output growth are positive in all
periods. Yield effect growth rates are also positive in all periods for the three
crops except for coffee in the second period and tea in the third period.
Since the cropping pattern of these crops are different in nature the
cropping pattern effect show different pattern. For cardamom the effect declined
due to the decline in the share of the crop. But in the case of coffee the percentage
share of the crop coffee increased from 1.33 per cent to 2.84 per cent. Growth
rates of coffee showed a positive rate. The case of tea is much different from
coffee and cardamom since the share of the crop improved in first period,
declined in second and again recovered in the third period. Growth rate of
cropping pattern effect also is positive in the first period, became negative in the
second and regained the positive rate in the third period.
Output growth of cardamom is influenced by yield effect. For coffee
cropping pattern also influenced the output growth together with yield effect and
for tea the yield effect is the most dominating factor. Yet the impact of cropping
pattern effect can be found in the third period.
The crop ginger occupies only 0.4 per cent of the total cropped area of the
State. Share of this crop increased during the first period and started to decline
from the second period leading to a negative growth rate in cropping pattern
266
effect during second and third periods. Yield effect growth rates are positive in all
periods. Output growth rates turned negative in the third period. Yield effect
dominated the output growth of ginger in the first and second periods but in the
third period cropping pattern effect influenced the output growth.
Major conclusions derived from the analysis of output growth of crops include:
1. The output growth of major food crops rice and tapioca is influenced by
cropping pattern effect of these crops than their yield effect.
2. Banana and other plantains together, which come under food crops, show
the influence of yield effect and cropping pattern effect in the
determination of output growth.
3. The main gainers of area in the crops are coconut, rubber, pepper, areca
nut and coffee where the output growths of these crops are the combined
contribution of yield and cropping pattern effect.
4. The impact of yield effect is very strong for cardamom and the output
growth of this crop are depending up on the yield effect only.
5. In the case of tea the yield effect is the influential factor for output growth
and yield effect together with the cropping pattern effect determine the
output growth in the case of ginger.
6. At the State level growth rates of output growth is positive in the second
and third periods and area effect acted in the same way for all crops.
7. Growth rates of yield effect are positive in second and third sub period and
for cropping pattern effect growth rates are negative.
8. Highest growth rate in output growth is in the third period, which is also
the period of highest yield effect.
267
4.4 HYPOTHESES TESTING:
1. H0: There is no relationship between output growth and cropping pattern
effect in the districts.
H1: Cropping pattern effect is positively related to output growth in the
districts.
2. H0: There is no impact of yield effect in the determination of output growth
in the districts.
H1: The impact of yield effect is positive in the determination of output
growth in the districts.
Based on the hypotheses testing results the above null hypotheses are
rejected since the calculated values of ‘t’ is greater than the tabled values. In
Kannur and Alappuzha districts cropping pattern effect is positively correlated
to output growth. In Ernakulam, Idukki, Kozhikkode, Palakkad,
Pathanamthitta and Wayanad districts output growth is determined by the
yield effect (Results are given in Appendix).
268
Figure 4.1
Cropping pattern effect
-4000000000
-2000000000
0
2000000000
4000000000
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Year
CPE Series1
Figure 4.2
Yield Effect
-15000000000-10000000000-5000000000
05000000000
1000000000015000000000
1 6 11 16 21 26
Year
YE Series1
269
Figure 4.3
Area effect
-2500000000-2000000000-1500000000-1000000000
-5000000000
500000000
1 6 11 16 21 26
Year
AE Series1
Figure 4.4
Output Growth
-15000000000-10000000000-5000000000
05000000000
10000000000
1 6 11 16 21 26
Year
OG Series1
270
NOTES AND REFERENCES:
1Bhalla G.S and Gurmail Singh (2000): Recent Developments in Indian
Agriculture- A District Level- Study, Sterling Publishers. 2Jamal Haroon and Azad Zaman (1992): “Decomposition of Growth Trend in
Agriculture: Another approach”, Indian Journal of Regional Science, Vol.47, No.4, October- December.
3Kakali Majumdar and Partha Basu (2005): “Growth Decomposition of
Foodgrains Output in West Bengal: A District Level Study”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.60, No.2, April- June.
4Jamal Haroon and Azad Zaman (1992): “Decomposition of Growth Trend in
Agriculture: Another approach”, Indian Journal of Regional Science, Vol.47, No.4, October- December.
5Minhas,B.S (1966): “Rapporteur’s Report on Measurement of Agricultural
Growth”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.21, No.4, October-December.
