Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Diffusion of Micro-Irrigation Technologies in
Gujarat, Western India: Do Institutions and Policies
Matter?
Chandra Sekhar Bahinipati & P. K. Viswanathan
Gujarat Institute of Development Research (GIDR)
Ahmedabad, India
12th Meeting of the International Water Resource Economics
Consortium (IWREC)
Washington D.C.
September 13, 2016
Agro-Climatic Zones of Gujarat
Source: Authors’ Map
Mostly Arid
and Semi-
arid Agro-
climatic
zones
Introduction
• Gujarat, Western India – Mostly Arid and Semi-arid region
• Water scarcity & depletion of groundwater (Kumar 2005; Narula et al 2011)- e.g., SGWD in state: 41% (2004), 75% (2009) & 67% (2011)- 9 districts: overexploited (SGWD>100%) and critical (SGWD>85%) (GoI
2014)
• MI: Drip and Sprinkler – ↓ groundwater extraction and energy use –‘sustainable intensification’ (Fishman et al 2014)
• High likelihood of adoption – water scarce and groundwater based irrigation(Palanisami et al 2011)
• In Gujarat:- SPV: Gujarat Green Revolution Company Limited (GGRC) –2004-05- Subsidy Policy: caste, landholdings & geographical location
• Do Institutional Interventions and Subsidies enhance diffusion of MItechnologies in Gujarat?
MI Subsidy Policy in Gujarat
Source: Authors’ based on various GOs of GoG
MIS Schemes
Universal Tribal Taluka GWRDC Dark Zone
Taluka
SC/ST
INR
60,000/ ha
or 50 % of
the capital
cost of MI
cost
(2005)
Tribal
farmers
(43 tribal
talukas):
75% or
INR
90,000/
ha (2008)
Public
tubewells:
marginal
& small -
100% cost
of MI
(2009)
54 dark
zone
talukas:
60% of the
MI cost or
INR
60,000/ ha
(2012)
All SC
and ST:
75% cost
of MI or
INR
90,000/
ha (2015)
Marginal &
Small Farmer
60% cost of
MI or INR
70,000/ ha.
Dark-zone:
70% or INR
70,000/ ha
(2015)
Trends in MI adoption in Gujarat
(2006-07 to 2014-15)
Source: Authors’ figure based on data collected from GGRC
13.031.9 38.9 38.1
66.6
90.7
131.0140.1
123.8
25.7
49.056.8 62.0
103.4
149.1
209.9225.1
200.6
2006-0
7
2007-0
8
2008-0
9
2009-1
0
2010-1
1
2011-1
2
2012-1
3
2013-1
4
2014-1
5
No. of farmers adopted MI (in '000) Total area under MI (in '000 ha)
Diffusion of MI in Dark-zone Region
Source: Authors’ figure based on data compilation from GGRC
Note: the year 2006 represents the financial year, i.e., April 2006 to March 2007, and it is same up to 2013, and the data for 2014 covers between April and December; NSA- Net Sown Area
0.25
0.58 0.54
1.08 0.98
1.52
2.86
4.01
2.60
0.240.49 0.51
0.91 0.85
1.37
2.44
3.17
2.11
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage of Farmers and NSA under MI
% of Farmers % of total NSA
Diffusion of MI in Tribal Talukas
Source: Authors’ figure based on data compilation from GGRC
1.9 3.08 3.82 6.88
28.3424.9
26.9
22.8
4.22 4.846 9.67
36.91 36 35.87
31.02
y = 4.1679x - 3.9279R² = 0.7424
y = 5.4761x - 4.0761R² = 0.7434
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
No. of farmers (in '000) Area (in '000 ha)
Linear (No. of farmers (in '000)) Linear (Area (in '000 ha))
Incentives and Diffusion of MI: Empirical Approach
• Additional subsidy – sharp discontinuity in between dark and adjacent talukas
• Following RDD approach, the effects of treatment is estimated as:
• Where - adoption rate of MI and area under MI in village at time ‘t’
- treatment indicator (=1 if village access to extra subsidy)
- captures other covariates and - error term
i. All the villages
ii. Border villages - share border with the adjacent talukas
iii. Pair-wise difference within border villages
• Unbalanced Panel model
0 1 2Y T X uvt vt vt vt
vtY ' 'v
vtT
vtXvtu
Study Talukas, Gujarat
Source: Authors’ Map
• Dark-zone Talukas (52) and Adjacent Talukas (58) – 110 Talukas
• Villages & Towns: 8073 – 4019 in Dark-zone and 4054 in Adjacent
• Border Villages & Towns: 1456 – 855 in Dark-zone and 601 in
Adjacent
• Data:
- GGRC : no. of farmers adopted MI and area (in ha) – 2006-07 to
2014
- Census (2011): no. of households & village area (in ha)
- Government reports: taluka wise SGWD (overexploited, semi-
critical, critical & safe categories)
Data and Methods
Diffusion of MI in Study Talukas
Source: Authors’ Figure
0
.01
.02
.03
Me
an
ado
ptio
n R
ate
of M
I
20142006 20072007 20082008 20092009 20102010 20112011 20122012 20132013 2014 Year
95% CI Dark-Zone Taluka
Adjacent Taluka
(Dark-zone and Adjacent Talukas)
Adoption Rate of MI (2006 to 2014)
0
.00
5.0
1.0
15
.02
.02
5
Me
an
Ad
op
tion
Ra
te o
f A
rea
und
er
MI
20142006 20072007 20082008 20092009 20102010 20112011 20122012 20132013 2014 Year
95% CI Dark-Zone Taluka
Adjacent Taluka
(Dark-zone and Adjacent Talukas)
Adoption Rate of Area under MI (2006 to 2014)
Descriptive Statistics
Source: Authors’ computation
Note: Overexploited (SGWD> 100%); Critical (SGWD: 85-100%), Semi-Critical (SGWD: 65-85%); Safe(SGWD< 65%); *-village pair-wise difference
Full
Sample
Dark-
zone Adjacent
Border
Village
Difference*
Parameter
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
Mean (SD)
Adoption
Rate of MI
0.011
(0.031)
0.014
(0.035)
0.008
(0.025)
0.011
(0.030)
0.005
(0.060)
Area under
MI
0.008
(0.021)
0.011
(0.025)
0.005
(0.015)
0.008
(0.019)
0.005
(0.023)
Extra Subsidy 0.163
(0.370)
0.328
(0.470)
0
(0)
0.192
(0.394) -
Overexploited 0.304
(0.460)
0.61
(0.488)
0
(0)
0.30
(0.459) -
Critical 0.121
(0.326)
0.124
(0.33)
0.118
(0.323)
0.157
(0.364) -
Semi-Critical 0.179
(0.383)
0.096
(0.294)
0.261
(0.439)
0.184
(0.387) -
Safe 0.396
(0.489)
0.17
(0.375)
0.621
(0.485)
0.358
(0.48) -
Source: Computed from primary data;
Note: a- the omitted category is safe; the figures in the parentheses indicate village level cluster robust standard
error in case of OLS and WC- robust estimator for AB Model;*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05 and * p<0.1 respectively
Effect on Adoption Rate of MI
Adoption Rate of MI adoption
rate
Extra Subsidy 0.018***
(0.001)
0.012***
(0.001)
0.016***
(0.001)
0.012***
(0.002)
0.018***
(0.001)
1
ARMIt
-
0.055
(0.137) -
0.334***
(0.074) -
2
ARMIt
-
0.015
(0.070) -
0.108***
(0.019) -
Region Dummya
Overexploited -
0.096
(0.091) -
-0.001
(0.022) -
Critical -
0.251***
(0.088) -
0.051
(0.048) -
Semi-Critical -
0.012
(0.068) -
0.005
(0.040) -
2R / Wald 2 0.124 1835.12*** 0.130 1158.07*** 0.018
AR(2) z statistics
(Pr>z) -
0.766
(0.444) -
0.782
(0.434) -
No. of Obs. 72597 56460 13080 10172 7443
Year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Model OLS(FE) AB OLS(FE) AB OLS(RE)
Sample Full Full Border Border Border
Source: Computed from primary data;
Note: a- the omitted category is safe; the figures in the parentheses indicate village level cluster robust standard
error in case of OLS and WC- robust estimator for AB Model;*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05 and * p<0.1 respectively.
Effect on Adoption Rate of Area
Adoption Rate of Area under MI adoption
rate of Area Extra Subsidy 0.013***
(0.000)
0.008***
(0.001)
0.010***
(0.001)
0.007***
(0.001)
0.011***
(0.001)
1
ARMIt
-
0.460***
(0.033) -
0.203***
(0.077) -
2
ARMIt
-
0.137***
(0.026) -
0.027
(0.046) -
Region Dummya
Overexploited -
0.003
(0.008) -
-0.030
(0.026) -
Critical -
0.044**
(0.022) -
0.129***
(0.048) -
Semi-Critical -
0.039***
(0.015) -
0.016
(0.056) -
2R / Wald 2 0.126 5235.30*** 0.120 716.97*** 0.052
AR(2) z
statistics (Pr>z) -
0.493
(0.622) -
2.424
(0.015) -
No. of Obs. 71927 55944 13034 10136 7317
Year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Model OLS(FE) AB OLS(FE) AB OLS(RE)
Sample Full Full Border Border Border
Concluding Observations
Major findings:
I. Significantly increased adoption of MI technologies in the recent
years, especially in dark-zone and tribal talukas
II. Institutional Reforms and Subsidy Policies have been played an
important role for observed rapid diffusion
III. Major Determinants: Additional Subsidy and Social Learning – latter
has higher impact
IV. Less adoption in over-exploited region: ‘use it or lose it’ rule
Policy Suggestion
I. Promote the existing institutions and also provide subsidy for wide
scale adoption in the state
II. Scaling up this model across the country through recently launched
‘Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana’
Thank You
Email: [email protected]
T: +91(O) 2717-242366/ (M) 91-8128160893
GIDR Working Paper Series No. 231, Gujarat Institute of
Development Research (GIDR), Ahmedabad, India
