You are on page 1of 24

Agricultural Price Policy, Farm Profitability and Food Security: An Analysis of Rice and Wheat

S Mahendra Dev, Chandrasekhara Rao

Affiliation: S Mahendra Dev (profmahendra@gmail.com) is with the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, New Delhi. N Chandrasekhara Rao (raonch@gmail.com) is at the Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad. Abstract
This paper examines the effectiveness of agricultural price policy in enabling farmers get sufficient profits to promote investment, technology and productivity and thereby to the food security of the country. The policy framework has been largely successful in playing a major role in regard to providing a reasonable level of margins of around 20% in both rice and wheat enabling the massive tasks of procurement and distribution that are crucial for poverty reduction. The increasing cost of production due to the overemphasis on getting prices right is the major factor that led to higher support prices. Another factor is the percolation of volatility in global prices through trade liberalization. Because of this, wheat support prices had to be hiked steeply in recent times so that sufficient quantities are procured. This has distorted parity between the prices of rice and wheat. It is argued that the balance between price and non-price interventions has to be brought back as in the decades prior to nineties. The yield increasing agricultural growth is preferable to reduce prices and simultaneously enhance welfare of the farmers and the poor.

Introduction

Agricultural price policy plays an important role in achieving growth and equity in Indian economy in general and agriculture sector in particular. The major underlying objective of the Indian government’s price policy is to protect both producers and consumers. Achieving food security at both national level and household level is one of challenges in India today. Currently, food security system and price policy basically consists of three instruments: procurement prices/minimum support prices, buffer stocks and public distribution system (PDS). Agricultural price policy is one of the important instruments in achieving food security by improving production, employment and incomes of the farmers. There is a need to provide remunerative prices for farmers in order to maintain food security and increase incomes of farmers. There has been a debate on price vs. non-price factors in the literature. However, a review of literature shows that they are complements rather than substitutes (Dev and Ranade 1998; Rao 2004&2006; Schiff and Montenegro 1997). In the post-reform period, it was viewed that reforms in non-agriculture would shift terms of trade (TOT) in favour of agriculture and lead to enhancement of private sector investment which in turn would raise growth in agriculture (Singh 1995). The favourable TOT in agriculture have some impact on agriculture in the post-reform period as the periods of improving TOT like the early nineties and recent years after 2004, witnessed robust growth in agricultural production in general and foodgrains in particular. However, the slackening of the efforts in case of non-price factors affected growth of production in the recent period. Food inflation of around 18-19 per cent in recent months is a concern particularly for the poor and vulnerable. Several factors such as shortages in domestic supplies due to drought situation; rise in international prices; shortages in global supplies mainly due to diversion of significant foodgrains to biofuels; increase in demand due to higher growth, national rural employment guarantee act (NREGA) and loan waiver scheme; inefficiencies in marketing system; speculation etc. have been responsible for the price rise in cereals, pulses, sugar, fruits and vegetables, milk etc. Increase in domestic supplies of agricultural production is important to provide food to the poor and others at reasonable prices. Increase in supplies is also necessary for the success of PDS system which is supposed to be an important instrument for food security at household level. Prices and supply side non-price factors can

1

This mine of data is largely unexplored for policy relevant research and encompasses 9000 farmers every year. However. The agricultural price policy has come under serious attack in recent periods on the grounds of higher support prices than the costs of production warrant and supposed distortion of the market leading to food deprivation. it tries to bring out the causes that necessitated recent increases in support prices and their relation to food security of the country. The costs and returns are calculated for all-India using this data to see the emerging trends in profitability. 2006-07 is the last year for which data for different states are available for rice and 2007-08 for wheat. prices and returns in rice1 and wheat farming to throw light on the impact of price policy on the profitability of farming in case of two of the most cultivated and consumed food crops in the country. Also. We have divided the study period into two periods roughly synchronizing with the pre 2 . The weights based on area and productions of respective crops are developed to combine the data from states.enhance yields and provide higher incomes for the farmers apart from providing food security for the poor. technology and productivity. The study analyses data for rice and wheat for a period of more than 25 years from 1981 to 2007-08 for all major growing states. Ministry of Agriculture is used for the analysis in this paper. This data help in analyzing the economics of cultivation of different crops as well as to see the effectiveness of macro policies like price policy2. The data collected annually under this scheme include all the major crops. The specific objectives are to find out the trends in the movements of costs. We have used area based weights for all the variables except cost of production. the overall objective of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of price policy in helping farmers get sufficient profits to promote investment. thereby to the food security of the country. The growth rates used are based on semi-log trend and deflation is done using consume price indices for agricultural labourers of individual states. The data generated under Cost of Cultivation Scheme (CS) of Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES). grown in an area of nearly 75 million hectares or more than 40% of the gross sown area. Against this background. Analysis of costs and returns in these crops gives some idea about the profitability of Indian agriculture and provide insights into the working of the price policy. It is also blamed frequently for the spikes in prices of food items that reached their peaks in 2009. Rice and wheat are the most state-protected crops and livelihoods of many farmers are dependent on incomes from these crops.

The costs and other data under CS data are comparable over time except for a minor change in valuation of family labour. the situation seems to have changed after 1994-95 and there are several years in which paddy cost of production per unit exceeded that of wheat. 3 . The first period starts with 1981 and ends with 1992-93 and the second period cover the years from 1994-95 to 2007-083. This was particularly noticeable after 1999-2000. The last Section provides concluding observations. The third Section examines the relationship among costs of production. labour and capital. The rest of the paper is structured into six sections. The first Section presents the costs in cultivation and production of rice and wheat. The fourth Section examines the trends in returns at all-India and across different states and the fifth Section brings together all these threads together to identify the causes for higher support prices in recent years.liberalization and liberalization eras. Trends in Costs and Yields The trends in C2 cost of cultivation per hectare and C2 cost of production per quintal and A2 cost of cultivation for the period 1981-82 to 2007-08 for rice and wheat crops are examined here. Nevertheless. There have been debates that rice should be given similar minimum support prices (MSP) as compared to wheat as the costs of both the crops are similar. while Section 2 gives the movements of minimum support prices and prices realized. Since 1991. reveals that the unit costs of the former are somewhat lower than those of the latter. However. 1. prices realised and wholesale prices. family labour is valued at casual labour wages and not those of attached labour. support prices. shown in Table 1. The total costs of production per unit of rice and wheat. it does not alter the overall conclusions of the paper. We examine this issue here by looking at the trends in ratio of rice costs to wheat costs. which includes imputed values of land.

Cost of cultivation. 4 . CoC.Cost of production.Table 1: Different Costs in the Production of Rice and Wheat at All-India Level Years Rice Wheat Ratio of paddy cost to wheat cost CoP 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 99 116 108 113 118 124 144 147 172 185 218 238 279 306 338 370 398 442 448 469 530 483 529 529 546 NA CoC 2892 2824 3351 3582 3718 3717 4653 5704 6340 6526 7884 7684 11212 11207 12651 13581 15495 16978 17365 18655 19193 19583 20670 21182 22059 NA A2 CoC 1705 1680 1959 2107 1966 2240 2828 3636 3539 3734 4161 3957 6369 6324 6703 7246 8710 9275 9798 10619 10949 10988 11776 11845 12543 NA CoP 122 125 135 133 123 132 146 168 172 197 204 238 294 318 361 381 383 415 450 466 499 498 537 592 586 617 CoC 3260 3475 3462 3752 3959 4058 4826 5636 5769 6872 7693 8808 10990 11681 13760 13236 14316 16459 17132 17279 18837 18925 19810 21847 23847 25575 A2 CoC 1946 2065 2039 2121 2335 2391 2777 3292 3361 3800 4303 4823 5446 6100 6927 6853 7268 8038 8751 9058 10027 10195 10975 11584 12681 13166 CoP 81 93 80 85 96 94 99 87 100 94 106 100 95 96 94 97 104 106 99 101 106 97 98 89 93 CoC 89 81 97 95 94 92 96 101 110 95 102 87 102 96 92 103 108 103 101 108 102 103 104 97 93 A2 CoC 88 81 96 99 84 94 102 110 105 98 97 82 117 104 97 106 120 115 112 117 109 108 107 102 99 - Source: Estimated by the authors based on CACP data at current prices Note: CoP.

90 and 0.40 2.41 Cost of cultivation (Constant prices) 1981-82 to 1992-93 1994-95 to 2006-07 4. it is only one factor among many factors in determining MSP.72 2. The ratio of A2 CoC of rice to wheat was higher than the corresponding ratio of C2 CoC as shown in Table 1. The conclusion is that the costs of rice have been similar to those of wheat since the mid-1990s.33 -3.17 2.58 0.46 2.55 2.15 -1. labour and capital in case of paddy compared to wheat.31 -1.52 -0.31 2.45 Yield (Qtls/ha) 1981-82 to 1992-93 1994-95 to 2006-07 1.14 -0.23 3.51 -1. However. The ratio came down to 0.32 1.95 3.55 1.73 0. On the whole the demand that the MSP of rice should be closer or slightly below wheat based on cost data may need sympathetic hearing.46 -6.13 -3.76 2.18 2.87 2.21 3.96 A2 Cost of cultivation (Constant prices) 1981-82 to 1992-93 1994-95 to 2006-07 4.02 2.08 1.65 -1. Table 2: Trend Growth Rates of Different Costs and Yield in Rice and Wheat at All-India Rice AllPeriod M.50 -0.54 0.P Punjab All-India Wheat Cost of production (Constant prices) 1981-82 to 1992-93 1994-95 to 2006-07 2.29 3.10 2.94 0.21 2. it may be noted that although cost is a major one.31 2.22 0.22 1.13 1.36 1.62 -0.56 2.The ratio of paddy cost of production to that of wheat is lower than the ratio of their cost of cultivation because of higher yields in paddy.63 -0.35 1.77 0.97 -2.86 3.52 5 .P Punjab India Haryana M.67 0.91 in the case of CoP in the years 2005-06 and 2006-07.96 1.01 4.74 -0.16 0.74 2.92 -0. This may be because of lower imputed values of land.

52 in wheat in the first and second periods respectively.67 to 0. AP and Punjab are the efficient producers of rice in the triennium ending 2007 (Table 3). while these costs went up in real terms in the second period (Table 2).P.N U.. Table 3: Cost of Production of Different States in Relation to All-India Average for Rice and Wheat State TE 1984-85 Rice TE 1996-97 TE 2006-07 TE 1984-85 Wheat TE 1996-97 TE 2007-08 - A. Madhya Pradesh produces rice at 30 6 .P 93 92 Assam 88 114 Bihar 110 109 Chattisgarh Gujarat H. The obverse is true in case of Assam and M.P 102 109 Orissa 84 96 Punjab 105 96 Rajasthan T. The growth in yield outstripped growth in cost of cultivation during the eighties enabling the cost per quintal to go down. As can be seen from the table.P 102 80 Uttarakhand W. Another important point to be noted is that the cost of cultivation has grown at a lower rate in the recent period indicating that the lower profitability might have discouraged farmers to invest in higher use of inputs and technology.54 to 0.Note: The second period extends up to 2007-08 for wheat Source: As in Table 1 The growth rates in the real costs of production declined in the background of a robust gain in per hectare yields in the first period. The reverse can be noticed for the later period. The farmers of AP and Punjab could produce a quintal of rice at 27% and 23% lower cost than that of the all-India average and they have improved efficiency of production by reducing the cost of production relative to all-India average during the study period. Bengal 119 117 All-India 100 100 Source: Calculated from CACP Reports 73 126 96 94 50 106 119 105 138 104 77 128 96 - 121 103 - 114 133 130 78 - 102 149 100 109 84 187 - 95 - 122 - 116 - 98 104 - 92 85 - 84 77 - 121 100 98 100 86 100 87 103 157 100 Which states are relatively efficient in costs of production relative to all-India average? The states of HP.P 102 Haryana 111 124 Jharkhand Kerala Karnataka 92 M.86 in rice and from 2. the growth rate in yields came down from 2.

87 na na na 7 . Rice prices for common variety increased from Rs.22 1990-91 to 2000-01 0.1080 during this period (Table 5). The CACP reports provide implicit prices which are derived from the CS data for different states. Bengal and Chattisgarh produce wheat at whopping 87%.a n. the implicit prices reflect the prices realized by the farmers.95 -2.81 1. Trends in MSPs and Prices Realised by Farmers In this section. In other words. Table 4: Trend Growth Rates in MSPs for Rice and Wheat in Real Terms Period Rice Wheat 1981-82 to1990-91 -0.23 6. In the 1990s. Rice and wheat prices have risen respectively by 62 per cent and 54 per cent during this period. 2.a 6.86 0.30 Source: Calculated from CACP reports Table 5: Inter Crop Price Parity of MSP Year Paddy common 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 115 122 132 MSP Paddy (Grade A) n.a n.a Wheat MSP 130 142 151 Annual % change in MSP Paddy Paddy Wheat common grade A n. Punjab and Haryana are the efficient producers compared to all-India average for wheat. Again it rose substantially during 2006-07 to 2009-10. Rajasthan.580 to Rs.a 9. W. Here. 57% and 49% higher cost than all-India.20 n. farmers from Assam and Tamil Nadu are expensive in rice production. the rate of increase in MSP of rice was lower than that of wheat. which may be impinging on their profitability seriously.34 Ratio of MSPs Common Grade A paddy/ paddy/ wheat wheat 0. Also.a n.510 to Rs.a n. Implicit price is the ratio of value of the output of main product per hectare to the yield per hectare.99 2. It is known the cost and production given by the CS are the reported data by the farmers. Jharkhand. Changes in MSP The changes in MSP show that the increase in rice and wheat prices were the highest during the period 2000-01 to 2009-10 as compared to those of earlier decades (Tables 4).89 0. The annual changes reveal that MSP increased significantly in the first few years after the reforms were introduced.a n. we examine the trends in minimum support prices (MSPs) and the prices realized by farmers.09 8.per cent higher costs.23 2000-01 to 2009-10 1.1000 while wheat prices rose from Rs.

00 1.88 0.94 0.07 1.37 7.04 1.00 6.89 0.26 13.56 25.04 0.93 0.94 0.61 1.38 21.16 20.22 5.43 17.67 10.86 0.03 1.a n.81 11.81 9. In the subsequent years the ratio was closer to one.85 3.67 15.a 146 150 150 154 160 170 185 195 205 215 235 245 270 280 310 330 340 360 360 375 380 395 415 445 440 470 490 520 510 540 530 560 530 580 550 580 560 590 570 600 620 650 745 775 900 930 1000 1030 Note: MSP includes bonus Source: CACP Reports 152 157 162 166 173 183 215 225 275 330 350 360 380 475 510 550 580 610 620 620 630 640 700 850 1000 1080 3. The ratio declined significantly in 1997-98 because of sharp rise in MSP for wheat.00 0.57 0.94 0.06 2.17 1.04 0.00 1. It was below 0. Similar trends can be seen for the ratio of grade A paddy to wheat.23 20.95 0.65 2. Trends in Prices Realized by Farmers Farmers are interested in prices realized by them than MSP per se.93 0.0 in 1989-90 (Table 5).02 1.70 3.a n.90 0. while wheat prices showed a positive growth rate and 8 .94 and 1.79 3.49 4. it was lower than 1.a 142 n.97 1.89 14.00 1. It ranged between 0.77 0.00 1.21 6.86 9. The MSP of wheat increased by 25% compared to 12.93 1.92 0. Only in the last two years the ratio reached 0.65 22.68 5. On the other hand.33 12.94 0.94 0.00 7. the prices realized by farmers were more than MSP for wheat in all the years (except 2001-02) during the period 1981-82 to 2007-08.90 0.82 1.95 14.64 3.10 n.82 2.47 4.65 8.17 5.92 3.02 11.93 0.98 0.64 0.79 8.0 during 2000-01 to 2003-04.00 10.90 from 1997-98 to 2007-08.0 for rice and wheat almost during the entire period (Table 6).09 1.01 0.80 0.92 0.56 9.88 0.63 14.18 2.93 0.88 5.7% rise for rice in that year.00 0.a 2.62 10.84 5.69 8.98 1.89 0.89 in 1981-82 to around 1.71 10.90 0.09 4.89 0.29 17.87 0.04 during 1989-90 to 1996-97.87 0.93 na na 0.66 5.89 0.93 0. Growth rates of prices realized in real terms show that rice prices showed a declining trend in both periods (Table 7).72 1.36 4.94 0.63 10.95 1.22 20.77 20.1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 137 n.66 3. This increase in the form of bonus for wheat distorted the inter-crop price parity.33 19.08 3.00 1. The ratio of price realized to MSP was higher than 1.74 6.45 5.90 0.89 0.39 14.59 9.00 1.95 The inter-crop price parity between rice and wheat shows that the ratio of paddy to wheat increased from 0.78 17.89 0. Only in the case of rice.81 14.90 and beyond.86 5.90 0.29 3.91 0.

05 0.24 1.04 0.22 1.97 1.21 1.35 Haryana -1. There was a decline in the ratio in the triennium ending 2006-07 at the all-India level and in 9 .71 AllIndia -0.64 -0.01 1.50 AllIndia -0.07 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.20 1.98 0.07 1.P 1.01 0.88 Punjab -0.a: not available 1.07 1.08 1.a 1018 Note: n.16 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.12 1.P -0.94 0.09 1.25 1.01 1.27 1.15 1.93 0.24 1.99 0.40 1.increased in the second period.19 1.92 0.11 1.36 Punjab -1.14 1.71 Note: The growth rates for wheat in case of the second and third periods go up to 2007-08 Regional Disparities in Price Realisation There are significant regional disparities when we consider the ratio of price realized to MSP.20 1.03 1.48 1.51 1. prices realized by wheat farmers have been higher and increasing as compared to that of rice farmers.14 1.94 0.24 1.07 2.09 1.05 1.06 1.11 1.a 1.16 1. In other words.41 1.15 1.98 n. Table 6: Price Realised in Relation to Minimum Support Prices in Rice and Wheat Years Price realized Rice 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Wheat Ratio of price realized to MSP Rice Wheat 121 151 151 165 151 160 145 165 163 173 162 175 191 202 199 214 211 221 221 257 283 332 289 345 363 388 385 413 416 531 429 517 494 563 516 612 477 586 484 589 511 625 516 626 557 648 561 761 609 898 n.01 1.20 Table 7 :Trend Growth Rates of Price Realised in Rice and Wheat Rice Period 1981-82 to 1992-93 1994-95 to 2006-07 M.91 0.74 Wheat M.28 1.08 1.

Table 8: Price Realised Relative to Minimum Support Prices in Rice and Wheat in Different States (in percentage) State TE 1984-85 107 103 147 110 109 124 110 116 106 103 127 115 Rice TE 1996-97 110 105 109 122 110 101 106 105 112 108 TE 2006-07 104 94 86 102 127 132 122 110 114 85 107 101 98 95 99 TE 1984-85 124 105 123 105 119 106 110 Wheat TE 1996-97 137 156 127 111 135 111 132 121 122 TE 2007-08 121 138 124 121 116 123 140 116 127 118 112 109 122 A. Bengal All-India Source: Calculated from CACP Reports 3.N U. It was much lower in states like Orissa. the margins have been higher since the mid-1990s and more so in the last three years of the study i. WB and UP (Table 8). we compare the trends in costs.several states excluding Punjab. realized prices. The ratio for wheat was much higher than for rice. Figure 1: Cost of Production and Price Realised in Rice during 1981.P Haryana Jharkhand Kerala Karnataka M.P Assam Bihar Chattisgarh Gujarat H.e. On the other hand. which means that the realized price is 32% higher than respective support price. Later the prices realized were almost similar to cost of production without any margin except in 2006-07. Assam. The higher ratio for wheat is true for all the reported states. Prices Realised and MSP In this section. HP and Haryana for rice. In the case of Haryana. Relationship between Costs. The trends in cost of production and price realized for rice show that the latter moved faster than the former till around 2000-01 (Figure 1).P Uttarakhand W.P Orissa Punjab Rajasthan T. For example. the prices realized by farmers for wheat have always been higher than cost of production (Figure 2).82 to 2006-07 10 . the realized price for wheat was 22% higher as compared to MSP at all India level in the TE 2007-08. 2005-06 to 2007-08. the ratio was higher by 32% in the same triennium. Particularly. MSP and wholesale prices. Bihar.

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 990-91 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1991-92 1992-93 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 CoP Price realised Figure 2: Cost of Production and Price Realised in Wheat during 1981-2007-08 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1989 -90 1 990-91 1981-82 1982 -83 1983 -84 1984 -85 1985 -86 1986 -87 1987 -88 1988 -89 1991 -92 1992 -93 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996 -97 1997 -98 1998-99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 CoP Price realised Another issue is growth in cost of production relative to the respective wholesale price indices (WPI). The wholesale price index for rice increased from 100. the increase in MSP in 2007-08 and 2008-09 was much higher than costs and WPI. As shown later.1 in 200607. the CoP has risen faster than WPI (Figure 3).5 in 2006-07. Here rice farmers were in difficult situation in terms of CoP compared to WPI.e.0 in 1981-82 to 478. The index of MSP of rice increased from 100 in 1981-82 to 539. In the last five years of the study i. 11 . The growth in MSP is almost similar to that in cost of production till 2001-02 after which spikes in cost of production are much higher relative to the MSP (Figure 3). 2002-3 to 2006-07. The index of cost of production shows that it was moving almost on par with WPI till 2001-02.

Thereafter. In other words. The WPI.Figure 3: Indices of Cost of Production. the MSP and WPI were always higher than CoP for wheat. MSP and Wholesale Prices in Wheat 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 990-91 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1991-92 1992-93 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2007-08 CoP MSP WPI 4 Returns to Farming Ultimately one has to look at trends in profitability in order to examine the viability of farming. we have examined the trends in net income (gross value of output- 12 2006-07 . For this purpose. especially after 199798.8 only during the same period for wheat (Figure 4). input costs including imputed costs were lower than output prices for wheat crop and the margins were higher for wheat as compared to rice. MSP and CoP changes were similar till the early 1990s. Figure 4: Indices of Costs of Production. MSP and Wholesale Prices in Rice 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1991-92 1992-93 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 1 990-91 CoP MSP WPI The index of cost of production rose from 100 to 505.

03 NI 558 FBI 1872 2238 1909 2173 2775 2711 3230 3286 3540 4472 6443 6854 8301 8203 11818 10260 FBIFL 1741 2109 Wheat GVO/CoC GVO/A2 CoC 1.05 2.21 1.16 2.11 1400 4257 1.18 3119 1.32 3107 2.32 1924 1.19 2.34 2.05 2.26 2622 7866 1.96 2.28 2.26 1181 3068 1.13 2.25 1.19 1.50 1.18 2.) Year NI 198182 198283 198384 198485 198586 198687 198788 198889 198990 199091 199192 199293 199495 199596 199697 1997561 626 1058 898 1326 1049 1262 1838 1143 1137 2026 1643 3170 2686 2603 1985 FBI 1748 1770 2451 2373 3078 2526 3088 3906 3944 3929 5748 5370 8014 7569 8551 8320 FBIFL 1440 1433 Rice GVO/CoC GVO/A2 CoC 2.33 2757 7980 1.27 3250 1.25 2571 2.52 2.24 1.24 486 1771 2. which gives the level of margin over total costs and variable costs. We also looked at trends in the ratio of gross value of output to C2 cost.71 2.08 1.28 5629 1.57 1044 2571 1.07 2.11 2.94 2.00 2.42 2.26 4302 1.17 828 1.13 2.29 13 .20 1.14 1.36 2058 1.29 1. respectively.36 1.20 2.22 4984 11422 9852 1.50 2.24 6330 5927 2. Table 9: All-India Costs and Returns in Rice and Wheat per Hectare in Nominal Terms (in Rs.13 2.15 3876 1.28 2534 2.40 1.25 714 2207 1.17 4689 2.19 1152 2641 1.22 2044 1.36 2.38 2869 6584 1. the ratio of gross value of output to A2 cost.05 2.17 1131 3353 1.09 942 3103 1..cost C2) and farm business income (gross value of output-Cost A2).15 1.20 3053 6197 1.21 6252 2.

A2 cost in most of the years except in the last seven years (Table 10).17 2.Net income.71 2.21 2.29 2.Cost of cultivation The ratios of gross of value of output (GVO) to costs show that the value of output has been more than all the costs throughout the period for both rice and wheat (Table 9).07 in 2001-07.19 1.Farm business income.25 2.30 2.26 2.33 2.93 3215 1. Significantly.85 3606 1.09 1. FL.24 2.a 12450 14582 12692 12127 12598 12801 12228 15086 20982 25590 12033 1.13 2. If we take the ratio of GVO to A2 cost for rice.08 1.0 1661 1382 1561 2867 n.16 14452 1.64 2.14 1994-95 to 2006-07 1. The averages given in Table 10 show that the ratio of GVO to C2 cost for rice has been maintained around 1.Gross value of output. while wheat farmers improved their profitability during 1981 to 2007.49 1981-82 to 2006-07* 1.13 1.30 1.21 2.a 10298 10440 8957 9060 8236 10256 10277 10897 12472 n. Though their counterparts 14 .37 12210 1.18 6161 1. the rice farmers could get only nine percent returns over their total cost of production in the TE 2006-07 when wheat farmers got 26 per cent net returns over costs (Table 9).29 2.25 till 1995 but declined to 1.89 1. Table 10: Ratios of Gross Value of Output to Costs (averages) Rice Wheat GVO/C2CoC GVO/A2CoC GVO/C2CoC GVO/A2CoC 1981-82 to 1985-86 1. If we consider C2 costs.40 22925 1.10 2. CoC.19 12275 1.07 1.Family Labour.31 1981-82 to 1992-93 1.11 1.34 2.25 11634 1.81 2.45 2.21 20338 1. FBI.40 respectively during 2001-2008 Period The profitability of rice seems to have been going down.24 2.08 1.07 1.a 1.38 14128 2.45 1996-97 to 2000-01 1.27 2.16 2..19 2.10 1991-92 to 1995-96 1. 27 and 2.03 1.a 7723 5403 1.92 9655 1.23 2.87 4656 1.24 2.33 * Note: The ratios of GVO with C2 and A2 cost of cultivation for wheat are 1.25 2.05 1.21 1.24 2.21 11662 1. GVO.13 1.94 7623 5927 5935 5049 6977 6987 7659 9070 n.13 4312 1.17 in 1996-2000 and to 1. the wheat farmers reaped more than 50% margin over total costs in 2007-08.23 12059 1. gross value of output has been twice to variable costs viz.99 13244 n.23 2.06 1986-87 to 1990-91 1.64 2001-02 to 2006-07 1.75 3919 1.52 Note: NI.00 1.91 3905 1.98 199899 199900 200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 3513 2737 1389 1023 -9.a n.07 1.

21 1.83 Bihar 1.34 1.06 1.16 1.19 1. TN.34 1.58 1.12 1.37 Jharkhand Kerala 1.26 1.04 1.41 and much higher than that of rice at around 1.12 1.8 TE 2006-07 1.13 1.3 Uttarakhand W.38 Table 12: Ratio of Returns to Variable Costs in Rice and Wheat in Different States TE 2006-07 2.67 3.P 1.06 3.6 in the triennium ending in 2007-08 (Table 10). and WB witnessed negative returns for rice in the latest triennium (Table 11). MP.59 1.91 U.64 2.32 1.33 1.95 1. the ratio of GVO to C2 cost for wheat increased over time. On the other hand.11 0.97 1.21 1.38 0.1 1.43 Rice TE 1996-97 1.24 1.48 T.19 M. This profitability ratio was around 2.28 Note: The total costs are represented by C2 cost of cultivation State TE 1984-85 1. Bihar.93 1.62 2.18 0.N 0. Karnataka.21 Rajasthan 1.09 1.17 1. returns for wheat rose for all the states considered in the study.39 1.in rice cultivation could get 13% margin in 2006-07 and probably slightly higher in the later years.15 Gujarat 1.14 1.1 0.21 in 1981-85 to 1. The ratio of GVO to A2cost has also risen as compared to the early 1980s. HP.29 0.2 1.93 Punjab 1. Profitability across States The returns over C2 costs show that the states like Assam.13 0.48 2. It may be noted that this ratio for wheat was 2.72 Assam 1. it still is nowhere near that for wheat farmers.93 All-India 1.98 1.8 1. Orissa.06 0.P 1.48 1.07 1.62 TE 2006-07 2.21 1.17 Orissa 1.15 1.P Assam Bihar Chattisgarh Gujarat H.37 1. Table 11: Ratio of Returns to Total Costs in Rice and Wheat in Different States Rice Wheat TE TE TE TE TE State 1984-85 1996-97 2006-07 1984-85 1996-97 A.9 in the TE in 2006-07.P 15 .41 H.92 1. On the other hand.31 2. UP.85 2.33 to during 1996-2000. while it declined for other states. The ratio increased from 1.19 1.17 0.34 1. Haryana and Punjab during the study period.23 Chattisgarh 1.84 TE 1984-85 3.44 1. In contrast to rice.P 1.48 1.37 3.P 1.27 1.95 2. The profitability improved for rice in AP.67 2.24 Wheat TE 1996-97 2.59 1.16 2.01 Karnataka 1.19 1.67 A. all states covered all costs for wheat except for Jharkhand and WB.01 Haryana 1. Bengal 1.3 1.3 1.

04 Jharkhand Kerala 1.43 2.8 1. Chattisgarh than other states.91 1.P 2.2 1 0. The situation in Jharkhand is also not remunerative enough to the farming community of wheat.32 Orissa 2.4 1.23 2.19 2.93 2. The returns for wheat are more than twice over A2 costs for the major wheat producing states.47 U.9 M.94 2.81 All-India 2.81 2.58 2. Haryana.2 0 1981-82 1982-83 1983-8 4 1984-85 1985-86 1986-8 7 1987-88 1988-89 1989-9 0 1991-9 2 1992-93 1994-95 1995-9 6 1996-97 1997-98 1998-9 9 1999-00 2000-01 2001-0 2 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 1 990-91 2006-0 7 2007-08 Rice Wheat Figure 6: Ratio of Returns to Variable Costs in Rice and Wheat 16 .85 3.06 T.39 1.89 1.95 2. Punjab.31 Rajasthan 2.49 1.4 0.6 1.47 Uttarakhand W.82 2.39 0.8 2.52 Note: The variable costs are represented by A2 cost of cultivation 2.26 1.P 2.23 2. all the states cover variable costs (A2) in rice and wheat with the exceptions being Uttarakhand for wheat (Table 12).18 2.44 Karnataka 2.25 1.6 0.1 2. The figures 5 and 6 shows that the ratio of returns over total costs (C2) and variable costs were higher for wheat as compared to rice since the mid-1990s.84 1.8 0.41 3. Figure 5: Ratio of Returns to Total Costs in Rice and Wheat 1.04 2.23 2.N 1.28 1.24 1.59 2. Bengal 2.78 3.75 2.62 However.21 2.96 1.Haryana 1.77 Punjab 1.14 2. The returns over variable costs for rice are much higher for HP.

However.02 n.79 1.15 2. On the other hand.53 17.P Wheat Punjab All-India 2. farm business income and farm investment income in the first period (1981-82 to 1992-93). the profitability for wheat is much higher than that of rice.17 5.06 -5.21 -2.17 6.c 0.81 2. Table 13: Trend Growth Rates of Returns to Farming in Rice and Wheat in Real Terms Period M.P 1981-82 to 1992-93 1994-95 to 2006-07 1981-82 to 1992-93 1994-95 to 2006-07 1981-82 to 1992-93 1994-95 to 2006-07 n.c Rice Punjab All-India et income Haryana M. At the state level. This could be partly due to better realization of prices for wheat.5 0 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1 990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Rice Wheat The higher profitability for wheat as compared to rice can also be seen in the growth rates of returns in constant prices (Table 13).08 1. the major point of distress for paddy farmers is that the returns over paid out costs also declined in the second period at 1. Rice recorded positive and high growth rates in net income. Source: As in Table 1 The growth rates of rice in farm business income were similar to those of wheat in the first period.35 -0.c: Not calculated as the state witnessed negative returns during this period. Note: The second period and the overall period go up to 2007-08 for wheat.15 1.56 6.5 1 0. it showed a negative growth rate in all these returns in the second period (1994-95 to 2006-07).87 -1.03 10.06 0.30 Farm investment income 1.05 3.3.15 3.96 3.37 3.93 5.01 0.67 2.16 3.15% per annum. the growth rates in 17 .5 3 2.14 3. In spite of similar growth rates for yields.47 4.90 5.00 -31.79 -4.07 0.59 3.15 1.c n.31 7. growth rates in profitability for wheat recorded positive growth rates of more than 2% in both net income and farm business income in the second period also.5 2 1.71 2.06 7.01 n. However.14 5.83 Farm business income 1.

1 573. Table 14: Projected Cost of Production and MSP: Rice and Wheat 1999-2000 to 2009-10 Years Rice Wheat Projected C2 MSP (in Rs. But. showed negative returns in the same period. The margin for wheat over cost was around 67% in 2008-09.) Cost per qtl cost (%) Cost per qtl (in Rs. Although growth rates in returns declined for wheat in Punjab.4 The data on costs and returns of crops from Cost of Cultivation Scheme are available with a lag and therefore actual cost data for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are not available to compare with MSP data. we have used projected cost data which is used by CACP for recommending MSPs (Table 14).7 580 2001-02 471.1 66.3 48. agricultural price policy evolved to take care of the undue rises in prices to the vast majority of vulnerable sections of population.3 540 25.3 624.9 590 11.1 29.5 700 2006-07 569.) (in Rs.8 630 2004-05 530. The growth in rice for Punjab has risen in spite of decline in yields for the second period and this may be because of the high level of yields even with some decline and higher price realization relative to the support prices.6% in 2005-06.1 515.0 775 30.9 550 2000-01 429.0* 1100 * Refers to modified cost C2 including transportation.2 29.P. Source: Various reports of CACP MSP over cost (%) 32.0 930 50.5 650 14. As compared to rice. it has always tried to maintain a balance between the interests of consumers and producers.2 648.6 640 2005-06 557.2 60. it can be said that the recent increases in support prices have the effect of ameliorating the distress of rice farmers. the growth rates for M.2 560 10. the margin over cost declined over time for rice from 30% in 1999-00 to 7.6 1080 2009-10 644.9 610 2002-03 505.3 28.6 600 7.P.7 741.5 48.3 27.5 1000 2008-09 619. Therefore. Increased Role of Price Policy and Open Trade ecessitating Higher Support Prices Historically.7 478. insurance premium and marketing charges.) MSP over Projected C2 MSP (in Rs.9 483. increased while those of Haryana declined in the second period. 5. they were nearly 3% per annum in farm business income and above 2% for net income in the second period.2 580 10.8 448.2 27. 18 .0 24. In the case of wheat.6 541. After the formation of price commission. the margins of MSP over C2 cost have been much higher for wheat except in 2009-10. the margin of MSP over cost for rice rose significantly from 14% in 2006-07 to nearly 60% in 2009-10.6 850 2007-08 595.8 415. Therefore.7 560 18.9 1030 59.returns for rice in Punjab rose in the second period while M.6 520 29.3 620 2003-04 525.5 496.) 1999-00 400. As can be seen from the table.

It is important to note here that these higher support prices are meant to compensate the slow-down in yield growth and consequent increase in cost of production that is the result of dwindling non-price interventions through public investments. While a large network of public distribution system ensures cheap food to the needy with appropriate levels of subsidy from time to time. a slew of policy initiatives are put in place to make farming profitable enough to invest sufficiently in technology for improving productivity per unit of land so that food security is not threatened. dissemination and adoption received a major setback due to this. the price policy remained subservient to the overall societal goal of poverty reduction on the whole until the new economic policies are introduced. As a consequence. This is because costs of production of both rice and wheat fell during that period as productivity improved at more than 2. the costs of production rose at the rate of nearly 1. The higher emphasis and reliance on price policy in the nineties altered the situation drastically4.Nevertheless. though increased initially. The policy aimed at encouraging higher production and the resultant food produce should be available at lower prices.4% of agricultural GDP in early eighties to 1. As a result of this policy shift. as price interventions to the relative exclusion of non-price interventions marked the new regime as pointed out by Sen (2001). Both higher production and cheap food are considered necessary for food security. These rising costs necessitate higher support prices to sustain the long-run margin of 20% over total costs. On the other hand.5% per annum in both the crops during nineties and beyond making growth of higher MSPs needed to help the farmers maintain the same incomes. research. the limits of the price policy in achieving these goals are recognized by the government and other non-price interventions are used primarily for the purpose. The analysis in the paper brings out this phenomenon clearly. The private investments. the earlier policy of ‘lowinput and low-output’ prices shifted to ‘high-input and high-output’ prices (Acharya 1997). public investments on irrigation.5% per annum and outstripped growth in cost of cultivation. if the MSPs are not hiked sufficiently as in case of rice in late nineties and early years of the new 19 .9% in 200103. growth rates in yields have gone down and eventually costs of production started rising. also stopped flowing in due to the operation of complementarity between public and private investments. Technology development. Thus. The MSPs in real terms declined in the eighties and still returns to farming did continue to be sufficient for the farming community. exgtension and other related infrastructure went down from 3. by late nineties. On the other hand. In this situation.

15% per annum for rice farmers. as these prices are meant to compensate for the rising cost of production in the absence of yield increasing public investments. The experience of the past few years clearly reveals that the option of trade for food security has limited scope in view of the huge demands of a large population of the country.5 per cent. The result of these higher support prices is that it hurts the consumers and has adverse impact on poverty reduction6. The higher support prices for crops like rice and wheat also distorts the inter-crop price parity. the farming community is not necessarily better off as a result of higher support prices. Therefore. making the gross margin to more than 50%. system of variable tariffs has to be implemented to insulate from the impacts on domestic prices of higher volatility in international food market. domestic prices of the respective commodity shoots up and procurement of sufficient quantities to the required levels to ensure food security becomes difficult. It was estimated by Parikh et al (2003) that a 10% increase in MSPs of wheat and rice leads to a decline in overall GDP by 0.33%. The analysis in the paper shows that their farm business income in real terms declined by 1. even if global prices recede considerably. This means that the balance between price and non-price interventions has to be struck as in earlier decades. reduction in investments by 1. To sumup. increase money wages for the farmers of other crops and eventually the cost of wage goods for the industries. The forced unidirectional movement of support prices also has an advantage in that assured prices and continuity in price structure can only stimulate supply response for agricultural commodities. When the international market prices are higher and rising as a result of any supply shock. The second major factor in driving higher support prices is the operation of market forces in a liberal and open trade regime.millennium. non-price interventions through public investments have to be accelerated to reduce the cost of production and thereby need for higher support prices. The price policy faces different challenges in such a scenario. Also. The pulls and pressures of democracy and farmer lobbies make it impossible to roll back these prices without very high political costs.9% and miniscule impact on agricultural GDP. margins go down and distress spreads. increase in aggregate price index by 1. They also conclude that the bottom 80% of the rural and all of urban population is worse off. 20 . For example. low production can coincide with low prices with liberalized imports and exports. Therefore. the government will have to offer higher prices5 as has happened in 1997 and 2007 and 2008 in case of wheat.

the wheat MSP has been 14% higher than that of paddy since then and up to 2007-08. which is a steep increase over just 14 mt in TE 1982. This does not mean that there are shortcomings in its working. This declining profitability seems to have discouraged them in increasing spending on yield augmenting technology as shown by the relatively declining growth rate of cost of cultivation. In fact. For example. Though the costs of production are similar for these two crops since the mid-nineties. Nevertheless. it seems to have encouraged farmers’ investments in yield increasing technology and in increasing production and enabling sufficient procurement to act as buffer stock and physical access to food by achieving and maintaining self-sufficiency. has distorted the intercrop price parity between rice and wheat. The country is by and large insulated from supply shocks because of its operation. In the recent period. These huge tasks of production. the prices of cereals increased by only 20% while they spiked by 150% in the international market during 2005-08. but only to highlight the fact its utility far outweighs any such problems to be rectified. the agricultural price policy does face some new challenges in the recent period with reduced non-price interventions in the form of pubic investments and also percolation of some of the global price volatility through open trade. lower (7%) returns over total costs 21 . the rice farmers have also suffered from lower price realization than the respective MSPs since 2000-01. procurement and distribution would not have been possible without the efficient working of the country’s price policy.15% per annum in real terms leading to distress for them. Concluding Observations The agricultural price policy has been largely successful in playing a major role in regard to providing reasonable level of margins of around 20% over total costs to the farmers of both rice and wheat. the analysis in this paper shows that these two are mainly responsible for higher support prices. The price intervention in enhancing MSPs for wheat in 1997-98.6. The trend of declining cost of production with higher growth in yields got reversed in the nineties and beyond and they went up at nearly 1. keeping in view of the fact that the market prices are higher. The needs for supplies to the PDS and various poverty alleviation programmes have also been increasing at a faster rate. providing buffer stocks for an offtake of 38 mt in TE 2008-09. The price policy could help in procuring 43 mt in TE 2008-09 compared to a mere 13 mt in TE 1982. In turn.5% per annum for rice and wheat. 2006-07 and 200708. The returns over paid-out costs also for rice farmers declined at 1.

On the whole. Whenever we use rice it refers to paddy. They can help in increasing yields. Several scholars have argued for yield increasing growth path for agricultural development to reduce adverse impact on the poor (Dantwala 1986.compared to 27% in wheat and higher growth in costs of production compared to the whole sale price indices between 2002-03 and 2006-07. higher emphasis has to be given for non-price interventions through public investments to supplement price policy measures7. lower poverty reduction in the nineties quite well. 22 . Therefore. measures to increase the storage capacities have to be initiated immediately and at the same time the quality of the stored grain needs to be given equal importance by upgrading the technology. and also hasten poverty reduction. 7. Orissa is critical in achieving equity in this regard. Sen (1999) explains vividly the vicious circle of low public investments. The option of involvement of private players in procurement and storage may also be explored subject to retaining the public control in view of food security needs. price support operations need to be extended to other crops like pulses and oilseeds to stimulate their production. To sum-up. The averages tend to mask regional variations and the impacts of price policy in a vast country like ours with divergent climatic conditions. Krishnaji 1990. The storage capacities at present for buffer stocks are sufficient to store less than 30 million tones. At the same time. 2. low yield growth. higher support prices. MP. the analysis presented in the paper shows that there is some merit in the argument that the MSP of rice should be closer or slightly below that of wheat. 1993-94 is excluded from analysis as too few surveys are done for that year. Rice and paddy are used interchangeably in the paper. It is also documented by some scholars. 6. Also. Sen and Bhatia (2004) and Raghavan (2008). while the actual needs often go beyond 50 mt. 5. Rao 1994). as the history of poverty reduction in the country shows that the proportion of the poor declined at faster rates when the food prices are low8. 4. The cost of production is higher than allIndia average in some of the poorer states due to low productivity and do not cover all costs. the price realisation does cover variable costs and leave a reasonable margin over that in all the states. the prices realized cover all costs in states producing efficiently at low cost. reduce the exclusive reliance on prices for farm profitability and food security. But. The recent hikes in support prices for rice are justified in this background. Decentralising the procurement operations by building necessary infrastructure in states like UP. otes 1. 3. Rao (2001) provides a detailed exposition of the changes in the agricultural price policy. See for example Chand (2010). Bihar.

Chand. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 59 (1): 91-104. _____ (2006): “Agrarian Crisis in Andhra Pradesh” Journal of Indian School of Political Economy. Singh. S Mahendra and C Ravi (2007): “Poverty and Inequality: All India and States. in John W Mellor and Gunvant M Desai (eds) Agricultural Change and Rural Poverty. “Aggregate Agricultural Supply Response in Developing Countries: A Survey of Selected Issues”. 43 (26&27): 123-129. Department of agriculture and Cooperation. 45 (2): 393-410. (Delhi: Oxford University Press). Frontline. V M (2001): “The Making of Agricultural Price Policy: A Review of C A C P Reports”. Dev. S Mahendra and Ajit Ranade (1998): “Rising Food Prices and Rural Poverty: Going Beyond Correlations”. 18 (2): 8-10. “Inaugural Address at the 54th Annual Conference of the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics”. Journal of Indian School of Political Weekly. M and C E Montenegro (1997). 38 (9): 891-895. Academic Foundation). Manmohan (1995). Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (9): 10-13. 23 . Rao. Economic and Political Weekly. Economic and Political Weekly. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Rao. Raghavan. 13 (1): 1-28. Abhijit (1999): “Agricultural Price Policy: Achievements and the Emerging Problems”. 50 (1): 1-6. Economic Development and Cultural Change. S S (1997): “Agricultural Price Policy and Development: Some Facts and Emerging Issues”. C H Hanumantha (1994): Agricultural Growth. See for a detailed exposition Dev and Ranade (1998) and Dev and Ravi (2007) References Acharya. Krishnaji. Economic and Political Weekly. (New Delhi: Oxford University Press). (New Delhi. M L (1986): “Technology. 1983-2005”. 33 (39): 2529-2536. N Chandrasekhara (2004): “Aggregate Agricultural Supply Response in Andhra Pradesh”. Ministry of Agriculture. Dantwala. ____ and M S Bhatia (2004): Cost of Cultivation and Farm Income in India. (Hyderabad: Visalandhra Publishing House).8. Ramesh (2010): “Understanding the Nature and Causes of Food Inflation”. Parikh. Dev. N (1990): “Agricultural Price Policy: A Survey with Reference to Indian Foodgrain Economy”. Rural Poverty and Environmental Degradation in India. Economic and Political Weekly. Schiff. Rao. Kirit S. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Sen. A Ganesh-Kumar and Gangadhar Darbha (2003): “Growth and Welfare Consequences of Rise in MSP”. ____ (2001): “A Whole Crop of Uncertainties”. 18 (1&2): 35-75. 42 (6): 509-521. Growth and Equity in Agriculture”. 25 (26): A-54-A-63. M (2008): “Changing Pattern of Input Use and Cost of Cultivation”. in Y V Krishna Rao (ed) ew Challenges Facing Indian Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly. 52 (1): 1-47.