Sources of Growth of Foodgrain: A case study of North-Eastern Region

Abstract
In this paper an attempt is made to estimate the relative shares of growth of area and yield to the growth of output of foodgrain in North -Eastern region. Due to predominance of agriculture sector in the region, the growth performance of the economy hinges mainly upon the growth performance of agricultural sector. The strategy for overall development, may therefore, focus mainly on agriculture as the core of the development process. However, the growth performance of agricultural sector is not uniform across states. The traditional and less developed segment of agriculture is characterized by the low level of primitive technology and low productivity; both per unit of area cultivated and per person employed. The over all economic development in the region is considered as less developed by any set of development indicators as compared to other states. A general belief also prevails that the green revolution technology has not been percolated to such an isolated area. In order to assess the growth performance of agricultural sectors, an evaluation of the contribution of individual elements of the composite growth process, the decomposition model has been used. The overall growth of output of foodgrain in real term has been decomposed into growth due to changes in area and growth due to changes in yield. The growth of output of foodgrain in North East economy is accounted by both the growth of area and yield; whereas the growth of yield of foodgrain in national economy is the primary factor of growth of output of foodgrain when the area under foodgrain grown negatively. However, gap between the growth of output of foodgrain in the north- eastern economy and national economy tended to decline. The growth of output of foodgrain in Mizoram, Nagaland is much higher than the growth of output foodgrain in national economy. Yield is the dominant factor of growth of output of foodgrain in Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur and Assam.

Sources of Growth of Foodgrain: A case study of North-Eastern Region

Tarujyoti Buragohain1

e-mail: tburagohain@ncaer.org Introduction

1. Importance of Agricultural Sector: The agricultural sector occupies the central place in the developing economies as it generates the highest proportion of output and absorbs the greatest proportion of the labour force. The explosive growth of population and relatively limited size of the secondary and tertiary sectors of these economies dictate that either non-agricultural sectors should grow at such high rates as are warranted by the growth of the labour force or the ever growing numbers of job seekers flocking to the labour markets will continue to be accommodated and absorbed in the primary sector in general and agriculture in particular. But the modern sector of secondary and tertiary sectors of these economies are relatively capital intensive whereas the agriculture is relatively labour intensive which enables the primary sector to generate relatively more employment per unit of invested capital. It may be noted that irrigation and cropping intensity have got a very high employment potential (Prakash, S. and Rajan,P. 1977).

The growth of agriculture and the economy as a whole are so closely related that the rapid growth of the former accelerates the growth of the entire economy, whereas the sluggish or negative growth or stagnation of the agricultural output makes the entire economy slide down the development path (Prakash, S. and Rajan,P. 1977). But the agriculture sector of these economies poses difficult problems, as a very large segment of this sector has been entwined
1

The author is working in NCAER as Economist

in the low income, low wage and low productivity equilibrium trap for long. Only a small part of it is modern and reasonably developed. Besides, like the national economy and its constituents sectors, the agriculture in developing economies is also characterized by a variety of dualisms. The traditional and the less developed segment of agriculture is characterised by the low level primitive technology and low productivity; both per unit of area cultivated and per person employed and hence, low returns to investment. Since the less developed segment of agriculture is relatively predominant in the rural economy, developing economies have also been facing the food shortage.

The strategy of development may, therefore, focus mainly on agriculture as the core of the development process. Only an adequately and properly developed agricultural sector may furnish an appropriate base for rapid industrialization. So evolving of an appropriate strategy of development requires delineating of the current status, problems, bottlenecks and constraints, as well as the factors that are conducive to growth, so as to facilitate the determining of the contours of future potential of development of the national and the regional economies. Besides, the identification and evolution of the contribution of the individual elements of the composite growth process may help in determining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the growth processes in operation so far. It may be facilitated by the decomposition of the overall growth of output into its components. This is especially true for the growth of agricultural output where the induction of new techniques of production lies at the core and base of the Green Revolution in India. Green revolution technology, in turn, hinges upon the intensive use of land augmenting inputs like high yielding seed varieties, water, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. and the adoption of modern cultural practices. However, a part of the overall growth of agricultural output in general and foodgrains in particular results

also from the growth of area under cultivation. Therefore, the overall growth may be decomposed into two components: due to growth of yield and due to growth of area.

2. Regional Inequalities:

The dual character of agriculture also reflects through the regional inequalities of developmental levels. Scarcity of resources and productivity of investment have forced decision makers to concentrate developmental efforts at few sectors and regions of the economy. Then, the same factors facilitated the extension of the selectivity approach from industry to agriculture subsequently (Prakash, S. and Mahapatra, A.C.1980). Therefore, the regional inequalities of agricultural development tended to widen through time.

Therefore, a general belief prevails that the success story of Green Revolution has remained confined to the narrow segment of North-Western India and isolated pockets elsewhere. Besides, it is also believed that the successful model may not be easily replicated in other regions, at least in the short run. Empirical evidence may, however, not conform to these propositions (Buragohain,T 1988)

3. Objectives of the study:

The major objectives of the paper is to (i) (ii) evaluate the growth performance of Output, Area and Yield of Foodgrain, decompose the overall growth of output into its constituent elements, in order to assess the relative contribution of the individual components, especially the acreage growth and the growth of yield to the growth of output of foodgrain. The study has been designed to examine the above aspects of growth of Foodgrains with reference to North-East India. The North - East consists of 8 states in India. These are

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, and Sikkim covering 262185 sq.km which is 8 percent of the total geographical area and 3.78 percent of the total population of India. The over all economic development of all the states of northeast is found to be very low by any set of indicators as compared to other states in India. However, these states together contribute about 2.5 % to NNP in India.

3.1 Methodology
Growth rates have been derived from the following growth curve: Log Y=Log a+bT+U --------------------------------------(1) which has been fitted to the data by ordinary least squares technique. The parameters, 1/Y. dy/dt = b is the growth rate, where t stands for time. Besides, the trend growth rates which reflect average growth performance of the economy over the entire period covered by the study, we estimated year to year rates of growth of the variables involves in order to evaluate the relative contribution of yield, and area to the growth of output of and inter-crop temporal variations.

3.2 Decomposition of Growth of Output

Decomposition approach has been used to study the relative contribution of different components of growth that is area under cultivation, productivity of land or yield to the aggregate increases in the output of different crops. But agricultural output may be measured either in nominal or real terms. If the output is measured in physical, that is real terms, price of the product does not enter into output accounting. Overall growth of output in physical terms may be decomposed into growth due to the changes in area and growth due to changes in yield as follows:

O()= A()Y() ---------------------------(2) Where O is output, A is area under the crop and Y is the yield per unit of area under cultivation of i-th crop group. Yield and Area may also be derived from the above identity;. Y() = O()/A()-----------------------------(3) A()= O()/Y()------------------------------(4) Partial differentiation of (2) will furnish the following relations:
O(i)/A(i)=

Yi and O(i)/Y(i)= A(i) -------------------(5)

First part of (5) furnishes an estimate of the incremental output when area under i-th crop is increased at the margin. It may, therefore, be defined as the incremental/marginal yield of i-th crop which practically equals the estimated level of average yield in relation (3). It is thus implicitly envisaged that the equilibrium condition of equality between the competing cropgroups. Pattern of allocation of land will be changed till the optimum pattern of allocation has been found. It is thus postulated that the farm operation manage the farms rationally and optimally, constraints of real life conditions notwithstanding. Actual allocation of patterns may therefore, be considered to conform to optimality on the analogy of the consumer theory (Prakash and Goel, 1979). Logarithmatic transformation of equation (2) Gives Log O(i) = Log A(i) + Log Y(i)-------------------(6) Total differentiation of (6) with respect to time will furnish 1/O( i).dO( i) /dt=1/A( i).dA( i)/dt+1/Y( i).dY( i)/dt------------------(7) This may also be re-organised as follows .dO( i)/dt= O( i)/A( i).dA( i)/dt+O( i)/Y( i).dY( i)/dt Substituting from 3,4 and 5 we get .dO( i)= O ( i)/A ( i). dA( i)+ O( i)/Y( i). dY( i)------------------------(8)

Relation (8) will thus conform to the Eulers theorem. Then relation (7) may also be reorganised in the following form (Prakash and Goel, 1979) R(O)=R(A)+R(Y)--------------------------------------(9) Where R denotes growth rate and the subscripts O, A and Y stand for output, area and yield respectively. 3.3 Sources of Data: Data have been taken from Basic statistics of North-Easter Region, North Easter Council, 2002 and Bulletin of Food Statistics (1994-95) Directorate of Economics & Statistics. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

4. Estimation of Trend Growth

Trend growth rates have been derived from the equation 1, fitted to the data by the method of Ordinary Least Square. The relative shares of area and Yield in the over all growth of output of Foodgrains have been estimated from equation 9. The implicit output elasticity of area and yield have been estimated as the ratios of the explicit trend growth rates assuming implicitly that these elasticities will be on constant elasticity curves: Acreage elasticity of output = do/o dA/A and Yield elasticity of output = do/o dY/Y 4.1 Empirical Results: The trend growth rates of output, area and yield of foodgrain have been estimated for India, North East and its individual states, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. The trend growth rates reflecting average growth

performance of the given crops over the entire period covered by the study. The trend growth rate is summery measure of trend largely independent of cyclical/seasonal and random/residual component. For removal of the seasonal/cyclical components of the growth rate crude data have been transformed into three-yearly moving average. The time series of moving averages consist of two components: trend and residual. The trend growth rate summerises the increases or decreases that occur in the values of the given variable over a period of time. The trend growth rate can be estimated from the growth from the growth curve fitted to time series data. This estimation gives only short run growth rates that has been estimated for output, area and yield for foodgrains. The sum of the trend growth rates, growth of area and the growth of yield may not exactly equal to the growth rate of output or 100 as the case may be due to the presence of the regression error or the residual component.

4.2 Growth of output in Physical Terms

Growth of agricultural output can materialize either through an increase in the area under cultivation or through an increase in yield per unit of cultivated area or both. Output can be raised only to a limited extent through the raising of the cultivated area since at the threshold the increase in the upper limit of the cultivated area are fixed by an large. Hence, the induction of land augmenting and yield enhancing technology which revolved around an increased use of such input as HYV seeds, water, power, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and the adoption of the improved cultural practice. The wide-spread diffusion of the new technology throughout the farm economy, constitutes the base of steady, sustained and spatially equitable growth of the farm output. The growth of output of various crops and decomposition of growth due to an increase in the cultivated area and an increase in the yield of land have been estimated from equation 9. The results are reported in table 1.

For purposes of analysis of the relative importance of the growth of area and yield, we have adopted the following assumptions: (a) A factor contributing 40 percent or less to the total growth of output is dominated or secondary factor; (b) the factor accounting for 60 percent or more of the overall growth of output will be identified as the primary or dominant factor; (c) whereas if both these components account for almost equal shares of the overall growth of the output, the component will be balanced designated as the proportional neutral component. It may be noted that in case of only two factors of growth of output, that is area and yield, if one component shows a balanced impact on growth, the other will automatically be balanced as well provided that the interaction effect is not disproportionately high/low.

4.2.1

Growth of Foodgrains: Output, Area and Yield in North Eastern Region (NER)

The growth curve fits well to the NER data of output, area and yield of foodgrain. The proportion of variation explained by the growth curve ranges from 81 percent for area to 87 percent for output. The output of foodgrains in NER has recorded an annual rate of growth of 1.07 percent during the period from 1980 to 2002. The overall growth of output has been decomposed into growth due to an increase in the cultivated area and an increase in the yield of land. The area and yield have increased at rates of 0.24 and 0.83 percent respectively during the same period. Incidentally the trend growth rate of area and yield add up to 1.07 percent and equal with the rate of growth of output, that is exhausting overall growth. This implies zero interaction effect. But the yield has increased 3.5 times more rapidly than area. These two factors that is area and yield have accounted for 23 and 77 percent respectively to the total growth of output of foodgrains in north-eastern region. Growth of yield has thus dominated

the growth of output. Hence, the decomposition identity may be considered to have been satisfied exactly. These growth rates of area and yield have been used to derive the estimates of the implicit output elasticities of area and yield. On a priori reasoning, elasticity of output is to be high with respect to the low growth factor under consideration and vice versa. Growth of output has been found to be highly elastic to area and just elastic to yield, the values of elasticities being 4. 40 and 1.29 respectively. Thus the area elasticity of output is 3.4 times more than the yield elasticity, implying that the growth of output is 3.4 times more responsive to the growth of area than to that of yield.

Analysis at the aggregate level may conceal a number of facets, facts and the features of growth of individual states. Hence the growth of output, area and yield has been estimated to its individual states.

4.2.2

Growth of Foodgrains: Output, Area and Yield in Assam

The growth curve fits well to data of output, area and yield of foodgrain in Assam. The proportion of variation explained by the growth curve ranges from 69 percent for area to 81 percent for output. The output of foodgrains in Assam has recorded an annual rate of growth of 1.05 percent during the period from 1980 to 2002. The overall growth of output has been decomposed into growth due to an increase in the cultivated area and an increase in the yield of land. The area and yield have increased at rates of 0.23 and 0.80 percent respectively during the same

10

period. Incidentally the area and yield trend growth rates add up to 1.03 percent and approximately equal with the rate of growth of output. This implies a very low interaction effect of both area and yield. But the yield has increased 3.5 times more rapidly than area. These two factors that is area and yield have accounted for 22 and 77 percent respectively to the total growth of output of foodgrains in Assam. Growth of yield has thus dominant factor of growth of output. Hence, the decomposition identity have been satisfied in case of Assam also. These growth rates of area and yield have been used to estimate the implicit output elasticities of area and yield. Growth of output has been found to be highly elastic to area and just elastic to yield, the values of elasticities being 4.5 and 1.3 respectively. Thus the area elasticity of output is 3.5 times more than the yield elasticity, implying that the growth of output is 3.5 times more responsive to the growth of area than to that of yield.

4.2.3

Growth of Foodgrain: Output, Area and Yield in Mizoram

The growth curve fits well to data of output, area and yield of foodgrain in Mizoram. The proportion of variation explained by the growth curve ranges from 63 percent for area to 88 percent for output. The output of foodgrains in Mizoram has recorded an annual rate of growth of 3.59 percent during the period from 1980 to 2002. The overall growth of output has been decomposed into growth due to an increase in the cultivated area and an increase in the yield of land. The area and yield have increased at rates of 1. 59 and 1.97 percent respectively during the same period. Incidentally the area and yield trend growth rates add up to 3.56 percent and approximately equal with the rate of growth of output. This implies a very low interaction effect which is only 0.03 percent. The growth of area and yield is almost equally to the

11

growth of output. These two factors that is area and yield have accounted for 44 and 55 percent respectively to the total growth of output of foodgrains in Mizoram. Growth of yield has thus dominated the growth of output. Hence, the decomposition identity may be considered to have been satisfied in case of growth of foodgrain in Mizoram. These growth rates of area and yield have been used to derive the estimates of the implicit output elasticities of area and yield. The value of the elasticities are 2.3 and 1.8 respectively for area and yield.

4.2.4 Growth of Foodgrains: Output, Area and Yield in Nagaland

The growth curve fits well to data of output, area and yield of foodgrain in Nagaland. The proportion of variation explained by the growth curve ranges from 42 percent for area to 98 percent for yield. The output of foodgrains in Nagaland has recorded an annual rate of growth of 2.32 percent during the period from 1980 to 2002. The overall growth of output has been decomposed into growth due to an increase in the cultivated area and an increase in the yield of land. The area and yield have increased at rates of 1. 28 and 1.03 percent respectively during the same period. Incidentally the area and yield trend growth rates add up to 2.31 percent and approximately equal with the rate of growth of output. This implies a very negligible interaction effect of both area and yield. The sum of growth of area and yield is almost equally to the growth of output. These two factors that is area and yield have accounted for 56 and 44 percent respectively to the total growth of output of foodgrains in Nagaland. Growth of Area has thus dominated the growth of output. Hence, the decomposition identity may be considered to have been satisfied.

12

These growth rates of area and yield have been used to estimate of the implicit output elasticities of area and yield. The value of these elasticities are 1.80 and 2.25 respectively for area and yield.

4.2.5 Growth of Foodgrains: Output, Area and Yield in Tripura.

The growth curve fits well to data of output, area and yield of foodgrain in Tripura. The proportion of variation explained by the growth curve ranges from 53 percent for area to 86 percent for yield. The output of foodgrains in Tripura has increased an annual rate of growth of 0.85 percent during the period from 1980 to 2002. The overall growth of output has been decomposed into growth due to an increase in the cultivated area and an increase in the yield of land. The area has grown negatively at a rate of -.34 percent whereas yield have increased at a rate of 1. 17 percent during the same period. Negative growth of area has diluted the impact of growth of yield of the overall of growth of foodgrain in Tripura. These two factors that is area and yield have accounted for -40 and 139 percent respectively to the total growth of output of foodgrain. This implies that the growth of yield has not been fully neutralized by the fall in area. Growth of yield has been a dominant factor to the growth of output. These growth rates of area and yield have been used to estimate the implicit output elasticities of area and yield. The value of these elasticities are 2.48 and 0.72 respectively for area and yield.

13

4.2.6 Growth of Foodgrains: Output, Area and Yield in Arunachal Pradesh

The growth curve fits well to data of output, area and yield of foodgrain in Arunachal Pradesh. The proportion of variation explained by the growth curve ranges from 44 percent for yield to 69 percent for output. The output of foodgrains in AP has recorded an annual rate of growth of 0.96 percent during the period from 1980 to 2002. The overall growth of output has been decomposed into growth due to an increase in the cultivated area and an increase in the yield of land. The area and yield have increased at rates of 0.69 and 0.23 percent respectively during the same period. The area and yield trend growth rates add up to 0.92 percent and approximately equal with the rate of growth of output. This implies very negligible interaction effect of both area and yield which is about .05 percent. These two factors that is area and yield have accounted for 72 and 24 percent respectively to the total growth of output of foodgrains in AP. Growth of area has thus dominated the growth of output. Hence, the decomposition identity may be considered to have been satisfied here also. The value of the elasticities are 1.34 and 4.26 respectively for area and yield.

4.2.7 Growth of Foodgrains: Output, Area and Yield in Manipur

The growth curve fits well to data of output, area and yield of foodgrain in Manipur. The proportion of variation explained by the growth curve ranges from 40 percent for output to 58 percent for yield. The output of foodgrains in Manipur has recorded an annual rate of growth of 0.90 percent during the period from 1980 to 2002. The overall growth of output has been decomposed into

14

growth due to an increase in the cultivated area and an increase in the yield of land. The area has grown negatively at a rate of -.29 percent whereas yield have increased at rates of 1. 19 percent respectively during the same period. Negative growth of area has diluted the impact of overall growth upon yield in Manipur like Tripura. These two factors that is area and yield have accounted for -32 and 132 percent respectively to the total growth of output of foodgrain in Manipur. This implies that the growth of yield has not been fully neutralized by the fall in area under cultivation in the state. Growth of yield has been only the dominant factor to the growth of output in Manipur. These growth rates of area and yield have been used to estimates the implicit output elasticities of area and yield. The value of these elasticities are 3.06 and 0.75 respectively for area and yield.

4.2.8 Growth of Foodgrains: Output, Area and Yield in Meghalaya

The growth curve did not fit well to the data of output, area and yield of foodgrain in Meghalaya. The explained proportion of total variation is as low as 0.08percent for area to 0.14 percent for output of foodgrain. The output of foodgrains in Meghalaya has recorded at a measly rate of growth of 0.064 percent during the period from 1980 to 2002. The overall growth of output has been decomposed into growth due to an increase in the cultivated area and an increase in the yield of land. The area has grown negatively at a rate of 0 -.22 percent whereas yield have increased at rates of 0.29 percent respectively during the same period. Negative growth of area has diluted the impact of overall growth upon yield in Meghalaya like Manipur and Tripura. These two factors that is area and yield have accounted for 356.56 and 456.56 percent respectively to the total growth of output of foodgrain in Meghalaya. This implies that the growth of yield has not been fully neutralized by the fall in area under cultivation in

15

the state. Growth of yield has been the only factor to the growth of output in Meghalaya. The value of the elasticities are 0.28 and 0.21 respectively for area and yield.

4.2.9 Growth of Foodgrains: Output, Area and Yield in India

The growth curve fit well to the Indian data of output and yield. The proportion of variations explained by the growth curves are 75 and 94 percent respectively for output and yield of foodgrain in India. However, the curve did not fit well to the data of area under cultivation of foodgrain. The output of foodgrain has recorded an annual rate 1.12 percent during the period from 1980 to 2002. The yield has increased at a slightly higher rate at 1.14 percent, whereas the area under cultivation has declined at a nominal rate of .021 percent. Hence, the negative growth of area has diluted the impact to growth of yield on output of foodgrain in India. However, the negative growth of area in not significance. The area and yield have just contributed 1.8 and 101.5 percent of the over all growth of output of foodgrain respectively. The identity comprising of the sum of shares of growth of area and growth of yield on the one side is satisfied as these shares add up to 100 or total growth of output. The growth of output is highly elastic to the changes in area, but it is also elastic to the change in yield. The area and yield elasticities of output are in fact 54.06 and 0.99 respectively. But the value of yield elasticity does not differ significantly from unity.

5.Conclusion and outlook

The gap between the growth of output of foodgrains in the regional economy of North-East and the national economy has tended to decline. The growth of yield of foodgrains is the primary factor of growth of output of foodgrain in national economy when the area under

16

foodgrain grown negatively. The growth of output of foodgrain in regional economy is accounted by the growth of both acreage and yield. However, the yield has been the dominant factor of growth of output in regional economy also. The growth of output of foodgrain in Mizoram and Nagaland in much higher than the growth output of foodgrain in national economy in one hand and yield is the dominant factor of growth of output in Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur and Assam on the other. This implies that the modern green revolution technology has been percolating in these states. Within the region, all states except Meghalaya, have recorded satisfactory growth of output; and the growth may largely be attributed to the productivity growth. Intra-regional inequalities of production of foodgrains have tended to be mitigated in so far as the dominance of the Assam economy in the region has been diluted. A heartening feature revealed by these results is that the modern green revolution process seems to have seeped from the national to even remote and difficult areas like Mizoram, Manipua and Tripura.

References
Barewald,F. (1969), History and Structure of Economic development Indian Book house. Bhatia, V.G. (1967), Measurement of Economic Development and Growth Potential, 1967, Economic Analysis in Input-Output Framework, Vol.I. Published by Gokhale Institute of politics and Economics, Pune. Buragohain, T. (1988): Agricultural Development; A study of Inter-crop and inter regional variation in North-East India. Unpublished M.Phil thesis. Buragohain, T. (1995): Agricultural Development, Marketed Surpus and Price of Foodgrains in Indian Economy Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Minhas, B.S. and Vaidyanathan, A., (1965)Growth of Crop output in India, 1951-54 to 1958-60. Journal of Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, Vol.XVII, Prakash,S. and Rajan, P. (1977), Agricultural Development in Madhya Pradesh; A study of Rates, Pattern and Production Relations; Mimeographed, Proceedings of National Relation

17

Agricultural Development in India, sponsored by Planning Commission, Giri Institute of Developmental Studies, Lucknow, August 1977. Prakash, S. and Mahapatra, A.C. (1980), Economic Development in the States of Madhya Pradesh, India- A study of Inter-Temporal and Intra-spatial Variations, Third World Planning Review, Vol.2, No.1 1980. Prakash, S. , Goel V. (1986), Regional Inequalities of Agricultural Development in India with special reference to Growth of Output of Foodgrains. The Economic Journal of Nepal, Vol. IX, July-Sept.

Table.1 Trend Growth rate of Output, Area and Yield of Foodgrains and Relative Shares of Area and Yield and Elasticity of Area and Yield with respect to Output
States NER a b 0.01068 0.00243 0.00825 0.01118 -0.00021 0.01135 0.00964 0.00693 0.00226 0.01046 0.00232 0.00803 0.00903 -0.0029 0.01194 0.00064 -0.0023 0.00299 0.0359 0.0156 0.0197 0.02317 0.01283 0.0103 0.00846 -0.0034 0.01174 R2 0.87 0.81 0.86 0.75 0.01 0.94 0.67 0.69 0.44 0.81 0.687 0.799 0.40 0.437 0.584 0.141 0.097 0.086 0.881 0.628 0.846 0.769 0.983 0.416 0.694 0.528 0.864 t 10.70 8.52 10.10 7.19 -0.11 17.10 6.41 6.21 0.86 8.60 6.11 8.22 3.37 -3.63 4.88 1.67 -1.35 1.24 11.23 5.36 9.68 4.83 31.19 3.48 6.22 -4.36 10.40 Elasticity of A&Y 4.401 1.278 -54.061 0.0.988 1.34 4.26 4.501 1.282 -3.06 0.75 -0.28 0.21 2.301 1.821 1.80 2.251 -2.48 0.72 Shares of R(A)&R(Y) 23 77 -1.80 101.52 72 24 22 77 -32 132 -357 457 44 55 56 44 -40 139

O 3.542 A 3.537 Y 3.006 India O 5.094 A 5.086 Y 3.008 Arunachal O 2.166 Pradesh A 2.161 Y 3.036 Assam O 3.387 A 3.402 Y 2.985 Manipur O 2.405 A 2.255 Y 3.149 Meghalaya O 2.194 A 2.157 Y 3.035 Mizoram O 1.489 A 1.619 Y 2.887 Nagaland O 2.006 A 2.084 Y 2.905 Tripura O 2.571 A 2.478 Y 3.094 O=Output, A=Area, Y=Yeild

18