Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 18 (2019) 269–274

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Full length article

Fertilizer consumption, water availability and credit distribution: Major

factors affecting agricultural productivity in Pakistan
Abdul Rehman a,⇑, Abbas Ali Chandio b, Imran Hussain c, Luan Jingdong a,⇑
a
College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, China
b
College of Economics and Management, Sichuan Agricultural University, China
c
Allama Iqbal Open University, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Agriculture is an important sector of Pakistan’s economy, accounting for approximately 26 percent of the
Received 21 May 2017 country’s gross domestic product (GDP). The aim of this study was to use an econometric analysis to
Revised 24 July 2017 investigate the relationship between agricultural gross domestic product (AGDP) and variables such as
Accepted 13 August 2017
cropped area, fertilizer consumption, credit distribution and water availability in Pakistan Data were
Available online 16 August 2017
explored from 1978-2015; we used time series data collected from secondary sources, including the
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Year Books and the Economic Survey of Pakistan. Data were anal-
Keywords:
ysed by using the Phillips-Perron (P-P) and Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) test, and results were inter-
Water availability
Credit distribution
preted by using the Johansen co-integration test. The Cobb-Douglas Production Function was used to
AGDP examine the impact of these major factors on agricultural productivity in Pakistan. We found that fertil-
Crop production izer consumption, improved seed distribution, and credit distribution had a positive and significant influ-
Fertilizer consumption ence on AGDP, whereas water availability had a negative but insignificant influence on AGDP. Based on
our results, we suggest that the Government of Pakistan should formulate policies and funding schemes
for the development and improvement of water availability including irrigation systems.
Ó 2017 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction Studies demonstrate that the agricultural sector enables the

Agriculture has been the largest economic sector in Pakistan,
since 1947, comprising 60% of Pakistan’s GDP. Although agricul-
tural production was historically the main source of revenue for
the economy of Pakistan, the agricultural sector as a share of the
GDP has declined significantly with time, due to technological
inventions. Thus, the agricultural sector as a share of the GDP has
reduced from 57% to 60% in 1949–50, to 29% to 31% in 1978–79,
and still further to 20.8% in 2014 (Pakistan Economic Survey,
2013–14). Nevertheless, agriculture still forms the backbone of
the Pakistan’s economy, employing 44% of the labour force and
contributing greatly to Pakistan’s export revenue (Pakistan
Economic Survey, 2014–15).
⇑ Corresponding authors.
E-mail address: abdulrehman@ahau.edu.cn (A. Rehman).
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
development of basic industries and other non-agricultural sectors.
Agricultural products serve as raw materials for other industries,
and create effective demand for other industrial products. These
incentives for demand and supply lead to industrial expansion,
which in turn promotes economic growth in the country
(Subramaniam and Reed, 2009). The growth of the Pakistan’s agri-
cultural sector has lowered as compared to other developing coun-
tries, but its growth rate has been sustained by technological
advances, subsidies and agricultural research. Thus, the agricul-
tural sector grew at a significant annual rate of 5.1% of the econ-
omy (Ahmed and Gill, 2007; Rehman et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2019).
In general, the agricultural sector in Pakistan faces several
obstacles, challenges and distortions, including lack of credit, lack
of water, increased agricultural inputs, lack of seeds and fertilizers,
natural resource management issues, power shortages and gaso-
line price volatility (Bhangar et al., 2008).
1.1. Major factors affecting agricultural productivity

1.1.1. Water availability

About 70% to 80% of the area in Pakistan is irrigated through the
Production and hosting by Elsevier
canal system. Recent data indicate that about 93% of freshwater

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.08.002
1658-077X/Ó 2017 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
270 A. Rehman et al. / Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 18 (2019) 269–274
resources in the country are used in the agricultural sector
(Qureshi et al., 2009). Evidence suggests that existing surface water
resources are lacking, and unbalanced in time and space. This
change in surface water runoff has led to the expansion of a
large-scale groundwater irrigation system in the Indus basin in
Pakistan. The dramatic increase in groundwater use over the past
half century has evolved into a ‘‘quiet revolution”, by the millions
of farmers who use groundwater as a reliable irrigation water sup-
ply. Since 1960, the share of total irrigated groundwater has
increased by more than 50 percent (Kijne et al., 1999). Although
groundwater resources play a vital role in agricultural productivity,
these resources are currently in scarce in Pakistan (Shah et al.,
2000).
Globally, agriculture consumes approximately 70% of all fresh-
water extracted (Winpenny et al., 2010). Due to the increasing
competition and demand of freshwater, and the increased supply
of freshwater for higher economic value uses to satisfy urban and
industrial needs, the use of wastewater is increasingly becoming
a regular and reliable means for irrigation globally, particularly
in semi-arid and arid regions (Scott et al., 2004). Tiercelin and
Vidal, (2006) revealed that nearly 90% of the world’s irrigated land
is using relatively unproductive surface irrigation methods. Thus
about 20 million hectares of irrigated land worldwide are severely
damaged by salt, and it is estimated that salt affected soil area will
surge by about 0.25 to 0.5 million hectares per year. The water
availability from 1960–2015 is shown in Fig. 1.
1.1.2. Fertilizer consumptions
Fertilizers are the main inputs used to achieve high and fast
rates of agricultural return. For instance, one kilogram of nutrient
fertilizer produces about 8 kg of grain. In Pakistan, almost all the
soil is deficient in nitrogen, about 80% to 90% is deficient in phos-
phorus and 30% in potassium. Balanced fertilization is defined as
the optimum yield of fertilizer necessary for optimal use of fertil-
izers and other inputs for all the necessary nutrients. Hamid and
Ahmed, (2009) used data from 1972 to 2007 and apply the Cobb-
Douglas Production Function (CDPF) to clarify the change in agri-
cultural added value. Their results show that agricultural added
value depends on the level of agriculture and trade in the labour
force engaged in agriculture, capital stock, intermediate inputs of
agricultural technology, and human resource development. Inter-
mediate inputs include fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, and other
high-yield variety crops. The state has established the importance
of fertilizers in increasing agricultural production as a developing
country. Fertilizers are commonly believed to be as important,
and contribute up to 50% of the growth in output (Tomich et al.,
1995). An analysis of the fundamental ways in which agricultural
productivity can be improved, especially in sub-Saharan Africa,
140 Water Availability (MAF)
120
100
MAF
80
60
40
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Years
Fig. 1. Water Availability in Pakistan from 1960 to 2015.
and to increase the productivity of agriculture through the use of
participations, including seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and the usage
of modern agricultural technology is urgent (Wanyama et al.,
2009).
The effects of output, education, farm size and fertilizer price
levels have a deep impact on crop production. Farmers use fertiliz-
ers for crop production, while gender, age and family size are not
(Amanze et al., 2010). Afzal and Ahmad, (2009) show that stable
fertilization leads to improved crop yields, and agricultural income.
Furthermore, deficiencies in soil nutrients serve as a remedy and
help to maintain the fertility of soil. It has been observed without
fertilizer usage, crop yields can no longer be increased. According
to Quddus et al., (2008), commercial fertilizer usage in Pakistan
was initiated in 1952, and 1000 tonnes of nutrient fertilizers con-
taining N were consumed; in 1959–60, 100 tonnes of phosphorus
containing fertilizers was used. Potash fertilizers started being
widely used in 1966, with a capacity of about 120 nutrient tonnes.
Fertilizer consumption from 1960–2015 is shown in Fig. 2.
1.1.3. Credit distribution
Credit is a basic and important necessity of the agricultural sec-
tor and any other commercial activity. Credit plays an important
role in the commercialization and modernization of agriculture
in rural economies. Institutional credit also has an important role
in the agricultural sector. Modern agricultural technology is neces-
sary for national and economic development, and the use of such
technology in rural economies is only possible when farmers are
provided credit for the purchase of modern technological inputs
(Schultz et al., 1980; Zuberi et al., 1989). Many developed countries
have recognized the benefits of using modern agricultural tech-
niques to raise their production. In rural economies, however,
farmers can only increase their agricultural production if they are
provided with farmer’s agricultural credit (Mellor et al., 1966).
The easy access and availability of credit makes it possible to raise
the production of agriculture. Therefore, it is necessary that gov-
ernments in Pakistan fulfil the credit requirements of agricultural
societies in the country (Vogt et al., 1978).
In Pakistan, institutional credit has been identified to have a
positive impact on the agricultural production (Iqbal et al., 2003;
Rehman et al., 2015). Much effort has been invested in advancing
agricultural credit delivery through the years. For instance, during
the 1970s, all commercial and private banks were nationalised, and
authorized and to deliver agricultural loans (Akram et al., 2008).
The fastest way to promote modern technology in agriculture is
to raise the credit demand for increasing agricultural yields of
farmers, and by providing them with easy and cheap credit. How-
ever, farmers in Pakistan were hesitant to use credit facilities from
formal credit institutions, due to the complex and lengthy process
5000
Total Fertilizer Used
4000
3000
000 N/T
2000
1000
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Years
Fig. 2. Total fertilizer consumption from 1960 to 2015.
 A. Rehman et al. / Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 18 (2019) 269–274 271

of applying for loans; they were more willing to invest in dual- 26

price payments after the input of their products into the market Total Land Used for Crops
24
(Abedullah et al., 2009; Rehman et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2019). The
credit distribution in Pakistan from 1960–2015 is shown in Fig. 3. 22

Million Hectares
20
2. Crop production
18
The agricultural sector in Pakistan directly supports the coun-
try’s population, and accounts for 26% of the GDP. Major crops 16
include sugarcane, rice, wheat, cotton, vegetables and fruits. There
14
is thus a critical and pressing need to improve agricultural produc-
tion to make more the use of resources such as water and land 12
more effective. However, in the Pakistan the irrigation system is
mostly controlled by landowners, who have about 40% of the ara- 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
ble land, making it difficult to bring about reforms. Years
Major crops including cotton, rice, wheat and sugarcane com-
Fig. 4. Land Used for crops from 1960 to 2015.
prise the most important commodities in Pakistan, due to their
high export value in the international trade market. Cotton, which
is a major cash crop accounts for about 6.9% of the agricultural 10000
added value, and contributes 1.4% to the country’s GDP. Pakistan 9000
is the fourth largest producer of cotton, with 9.8% of the global
8000
market share in 2011–12. During the same period, the export of Wheat Crop
7000
yarn and associated apparel accounted for about 26%, and was Rice Crop

000 Hectares
Bajra Crop
14% of the global market. The export of cotton accounts for 46% 6000 Jowar Crop
Maize Crop
of total exports at the national level, and employs 35% of the total 5000
Barely Crop
industrial workforce (Government of Pakistan, 2011–12; Rehman 4000 Sugarcane Crop
Cotton Crop
et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2019). The total area used for crops, and the 3000
area under major crop production from 1960–2015 are shown in
2000
the Figs. 4–7.
1000

0
3. Materials and methods 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Years
This study explored the impact of major factors on the agricul-
tural productivity in Pakistan over the period of 1978–2015. Fig. 5. Area under Major Crops from 1960 to 2015.

Annual time series data were collected from the Pakistan Bureau
of Statistics, the Statistical Year Books and the Economic Survey
70000 Wheat Production
of Pakistan (various statistical supplements). The variables used Rice Production
65000
in this study were: Agricultural Gross Domestic Product (AGDP) 60000
Bajra Production
Jowar Production
(in million rupees), cropped area (in million hectares), water avail- 55000 Maize Production
ability (in million acre feet), fertilizer off-take (in 000 nutrient ton- 50000 Barely Production
nes), improved seed distribution (in 000 tones) and credit 45000 Sugarcane Production
000 Tons

40000 Cotton Production

distribution (in million Rs.) respectively.
35000
(a) Specification of Cobb-Douglas Production Function Model 30000
In order to investigate the relationship between agricultural 25000
gross domestic product (AGDP), cropped area, fertilizer consump- 20000
tion, credit distribution and water availability in Pakistan. The fol- 15000
10000
lowing equation represents the Cobb-Douglas Production Function 5000
(CDPF) for the current study and is specified as: 0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Years
600000
Total Credit Distribution Fig. 6. Major Crops Production from 1960 to 2015.
500000

400000 Y ¼ AX b1 b2 b3 b4 b5
1 X2 X3 X4 X5 ð1Þ
Rs. Million

300000 Taking the natural logarithm of Eq. (1) and considering the five
explanatory variables, the Eq. (1) converts to the following form:
200000
LnY ¼ b0 þ b1 LnX 1 þ b2 LnX 2 þ b3 LnX 3 þ b4 LnX 4 þ b5 LnX 5 þ l ð2Þ
100000
Where,
0 b0 = Natural log of A = Intercept.
ln Y = Natural log of Agricultural Gross Domestic Product per
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Years
year in (million rupees).
ln X1 = Natural log of cropped area (in million hectare).
Fig. 3. Total Credit distribution from 1960 to 2015. ln X2 = Natural log of water availability (in million acre feet).
272 A. Rehman et al. / Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 18 (2019) 269–274

4500 unit root tests presented in Table 1 and Table 2 shows that all vari-
Wheat Crop Yield Per Kg/Hectares
Rice Crop Yield Per Kg/Hectares ables did not attain stationarity at their level form, while all vari-
4000
Maize Crop Yield Per Kg/Hectares ables became stationary after taking the first difference I (1), as
Yield Per Kg/Hectares

3500 Gram Crop Yield Per Kg/Hectares

Cotton Crop Yield Per Kg/Hectares representing the values of the ADF t-Statistic, and P-P Adj. t-Stat
3000 are greater than the critical values at the 5% level of significance.
2500

2000 4.2. Results of the Johansen co-integration approach

1500
This study examines the long run relationship between depen-
1000 dent variables like agricultural productivity, and five independent
500 variables including cropped area, water availability, fertilizer con-
0
sumption, improved seed distribution and credit distribution
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 respectively, over the period of 1978–2015. The Johansen Co-
Years integration test is based on two tests, that is, trace statistics and
maximum eigenvalue. The estimated results of Johansen Co-
Fig. 7. Yield per kg/hectares from 1960 to 2015.
integration tests are represented in Tables 3 and 4. The values of
the trace statistic (240.3840) and the Max-Eigen statistic
ln X3 = Natural log of fertilizer consumption (in 000 nutrient (93.66502) are larger than their critical values (95.75366 and
tones). 40.07757 respectively); this means that there exists a long-term
ln X4 = Natural log of Improved seeds distribution (in 000 relationship between dependent and five independent variables.
tonnes). Thus, we reject the null hypothesis of no co-integration. Addition-
ln X5 = Natural log of credit distribution (in million Rs.) ally, Trace statistic and Max-Eigen statistic tests indicate that the
b1, b2, b3, b4 = Output elasticities and m = error term. four co-integrating equation is at the 5% level.

This empirical study is based on the annual time series data over
the period 1978–2015. First, Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) and
Phillips-Perron (P-P) unit root tests including trend and intercept
were applied to check the stationarity of the series. Furthermore,
after checking the stationarity of the variables, the Johansen Co-
integration test was used to examine the long-term relationship
between agricultural productivity used as the dependent variable,
and the five explanatory independent variables. Finally, the Cobb-
Douglas production function was used to examine the impact of
the major factors on agricultural productivity in Pakistan.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Results of ADF and P-P unit root tests (including trend and
intercept)
In this study, ADF and P-P unit root tests were employed to
check the stationarity of the series. The estimated results of both
4.3. Regression analysis
The present study examines the impact of key factors on agri-
cultural productivity in Pakistan over the period of 1978–2015.
An econometric technique known as the Ordinary Least Square
(OLS) method has been employed. The estimated results of the
regression analysis are reported in Table 5. The overall significance
of the model could be seen from the value of the coefficient of mul-
tiple determination, that is, the R-square. The value of the R-square
is 0.924 which is high, showing that about 92% of the total change
in agricultural productivity can be explained by the five explana-
tory variables chosen in this study. The calculated value of the F-
statistic is 77.99601, which is highly significant. This suggests that
the explanatory variables included in the model significantly influ-
enced agricultural productivity.
Our results show that fertilizer consumption, improved seed
distribution and credit distribution are positive and significantly
influence crop production. Using fertilizer off-take as the main

Table 1
ADF unit root test including (Trend and Intercept).

Variables At level First Difference

t-Statistic Critical values t-Statistic Critical values
LnAGRP 2.226411(0.4617) 1% 4.226815 6.255271**(0.0000) 1% 4.234972
5% 3.536601 5% 3.540328
10% 3.200320 10% 3.202445
LnCROPEDA 2.267234(0.4404) 1% 4.226815 8.675618**(0.0000) 1% 4.234972
5% 3.536601 5% 3.540328
10% 3.200320 10% 3.202445
LnDISEED 2.502699(0.7823) 1% 4.226815 6.158716**(0.0001) 1% 4.243644
5% 3.536601 5% 3.544284
10% 3.200320 10% 3.204699
LnWA 1.577008(0.1369) 1% 4.234972 8.945190**(0.0000) 1% 4.234972
5% 3.540328 5% 3.540328
10% 3.202445 10% 3.202445
LnFRC 1.026479(0.9998) 1% 4.252879 6.946792**(0.0000) 1% 4.234972
5% 3.548490 5% 3.540328
10% 3.207094 10% 3.202445
LnCD 1.633555(0.7600) 1% 4.226815 4.725690**(0.0029) 1% 4.234972
5% 3.536601 5% 3.540328
10% 3.200320 10% 3.202445

Note: *, **, *** shows 1%, 5%, and 10% of significance level
 A. Rehman et al. / Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 18 (2019) 269–274 273

Table 2
P-P Unit root test (Including trend and intercept).

Variables At level First difference

Adj. t-Stat Critical values Adj. t-Stat Critical values
LnAGRP 2.229500 1% 4.226815 6.314103** 1% 4.234972
(0.4601) 5% 3.536601 (0.0000) 5% 3.540328
10% 3.200320 10% 3.202445
LnCROPEDA 2.034449 1% 4.226815 9.049883** 1% 4.234972
(0.5639) 5% 3.536601 (0.0000) 5% 3.540328
10% 3.200320 10% 3.202445
LnDISEED 2.498694 1% 4.226815 6.886200** 1% 4.234972
(0.3269) 5% 3.536601 (0.0000) 5% 3.540328
10% 3.200320 10% 3.202445
LnWA 1.551622 1% 4.226815 15.82521** 1% 4.234972
(0.7927) 5% 3.536601 (0.0000) 5% 3.540328
10% 3.200320 10% 3.202445
LnFRC 1.255563 1% 4.226815 7.431114** 1% 4.234972
(0.8833) 5% 3.536601 (0.0000) 5% 3.540328
10% 3.200320 10% 3.202445
LnCD 1.910422 1% 4.226815 4.760908** 1% 4.234972
(0.6290) 5% 3.536601 (0.0026) 5% 3.540328
10% 3.200320 10% 3.202445

Note: *, **, *** shows 1%, 5%, and 10% of significance level.

Table 3
Johansen Co-integration Test Using Trace Statistic.

Eigenvalue Trace Statistic 5 Percent Critical Value Prob** Hypothesized No.of CE(s)
0.936382 240.3840 95.75366 0.0000 None*
0.848018 146.7190 69.81889 0.0000 At most 1*
0.744104 82.66312 47.85613 0.0000 At most 2*
0.514364 36.32168 29.79707 0.0077 At most 3*
0.279652 11.76363 15.49471 0.1686 At most 4
0.017807 0.610910 3.841466 0.4344 At most 5

Trace test indicates 4co-integrating equation at the 0.05 level.

*
Denotes rejection of the hypothesis is at the 0.05 level.
**
Indicates values are accurate.

Table 4
Johansen Co-integration Test Using Max-Eigen Statistic.

Eigenvalue Max-Eigen Statistic 5 Percent Critical Value Prob** Hypothesized No.of CE(s)
0.936382 93.66502 40.07757 0.0000 None*
0.848018 64.05586 33.87687 0.0000 At most 1*
0.744104 46.34144 27.58434 0.0001 At most 2*
0.514364 24.55805 21.13162 0.0158 At most 3*
0.279652 11.15272 14.26460 0.1467 At most 4
0.017807 0.610910 3.841466 0.4344 At most 5

Max-eigenvalue test indicates 4 co-integrating equation at the 0.05 level.

*
Denotes rejection of the hypothesis is at the 0.05 level.
**
Indicates values are accurate.

Table 5
Regression Analysis.

The OLS Estimates of Cobb-Douglas Production Function

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C 21.14954 6.617215 3.196139 0.0031
LnCROPEDA 3.361398 2.753226 1.220894 0.2310
LnFRC 2.174827 0.928229 2.342987 0.0255
LnDISEED 0.722112 0.266856 2.706000 0.0108
LnCD 0.350132 0.173138 2.022268 0.0516
LnWA 4.604577 2.255333 2.041639 0.0495
R-squared 0.924167 Adjusted R-squared 0.912318
F-statistic 77.99601 (F-statistic) 0.000000
Durbin-Watson stat 0.843300

input indicates that its coefficient is 2.174827; this implies that a distribution as an input shows that its coefficient is 0.722112; this
1% increase in the use of fertilizers results in an increased means a 1% increase in improved seed distribution will enhance
agricultural productivity of 2.17%. Similarly, using improved seed the agricultural productivity almost by 0.72%. Additionally,
274 A. Rehman et al. / Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 18 (2019) 269–274
agricultural credit is a key factor, showing a positive effect on agri-
cultural productivity. The coefficient of agricultural credit is
0.350132, which implies that a 1% increase in agricultural credit
distribution will increase the agricultural productivity by about
0.35%. These findings are consistent with the findings of other
studies including Hussain (2012); Sial et al., 2011; Faridi et al.,
2015; Chandio et al., 2016 which show that there is a positive
and significant impact of fertilizer consumption, improved seed
distribution and credit distribution on agricultural productivity.
5. Conclusion and recommendations
The agricultural sector of Pakistan remains the main economic
sector, and contributes to about 60% of the country’s GDP. Produc-
tion in the agricultural sector is the main revenue source for the
overall economy in Pakistan. With time, the share of the agricul-
tural sector declined significantly due to technical developments.
To highlight the actual performance of agricultural production,
and the output of cropped area, fertilizer consumption, and credit
distribution, time series data were used from 1978-2015. These
data were collected from the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, the Sta-
tistical Year Books and the Economic Survey of Pakistan (various
statistical supplements). Data were analysed by using the ADF
and P-P tests, and results were interpreted by using the Johansen
co-integration test. Finally, the CDPF was used to examine the
impact of key factors on agricultural productivity in Pakistan. We
found that output fertilizer consumption, improved seed distribu-
tion, and credit distribution had a positive and significant relation-
ship with AGDP, while the output of water availability had a
negative impact, but no significant relationship with AGDP in
Pakistan. Therefore, we suggest and recommend that the
Government of Pakistan should introduce new policies and funding
schemes for the development of water availability through irriga-
tion systems.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the School of Economics & Manage-
ment, Anhui Agricultural University Hefei, China for its financial
and moral support. Moreover, the authors are also indebted to
the reviewers for their positive suggestions that helped to improve
the content of this study.
References
Abedullah, N., Mahmood, M., Khalid, I., Kouser, S., 2009. The role of agriculture
credit in the growth of livestock sector: a case study of Faisalabad. Pakistan. Vet.
J. 29 (2), 81–84.
Afzal, N. and S. Ahmad. (2009). Agricultural input use efficiency in Pakistan: Key
issues and reform areas. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC),
Islamabad, Pakistan. Research briefings, 1:3.
Ahmed, T., Gill, Z.A., 2007. Role of agricultural credits and efficiency of commercial
banks in Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 9, 921–924.
Akram, W., Zakir, H., Hazoor, M.S., Ijaz, H., 2008. Impact of agriculture credit
ongrowth and poverty in Pakistan (time series analysis through error correction
model). Eur. J. Scientific Res. 23 (2), 243–251.
Amanze, B., Eze, C., Eze, V., 2010. Factors influencing the use of fertilizer in arable
crop production among smallholder farmers in owerri agricultural zone of imo
state. Academia Arena 2 (6), 90–96.
Bhangar, M.I., Saima, Q.M., 2008. Water research activities in Pakistan. In:
Proceedings of the 1st technical meeting of muslim water researchers
cooperation (MUWAREC), December, p. 82.
Chandio, A.A., Jiang, Y., Joyo.M.A and Rehman.A,, 2016. Impact of Area under
Cultivation, Water Availability, Credit Disbursement, and Fertilizer Off-take on
Wheat Production in Pakistan. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 6 (10), 10–18.
Faridi, M.Z., Chaudhry, M.O., Tahir, N., 2015. Institutional credit and agricultural
productivity. An Evidence from Pakistan. Life 13 (3), 183–188.
Pakistan Economic Survey, 2013-14. Ministry of Finance. Government of Pakistan,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Pakistan Economic Survey, 2014-15. Ministry of Finance. Government of Pakistan,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan, 2011. Economic Survey 2010–2011. Economic Advisor’s
Wing, Finance Division, Islamabad.
Hamid, A., Ahmad, K.H., 2009. Growth and productivity in purview of transitional
dynamics in pakistan agriculture sector. Pakistan Econ. Soc. Rev. 47 (1). Summer
2009.
Hussain, A., 2012. Impact of credit disbursement, area under cultivation, fertilizer
consumption and water availability on rice production in Pakistan (1988–
2010). Sarhad J. Agric. 28 (1), 95–101.
Iqbal, M., Munir, A., Abbas, K., 2003. The impact of institutional credit on
agricultural production in Pakistan. The Pakistan Dev. Rev. 42 (4), 469–485.
Kijne, J.W., 1999. Improving the Productivity of Pakistan’s Irrigation: The
Importance of Management Choices. International Water Management
Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Mellor, J.W., 1966. The economics of agricultural development. The economics of
agricultural development.
Quddus, M.A., Siddiqi, M.W., Riaz, M.M., 2008. the demand for nitrogen, phosphorus
and potash fertilizer nutrients in Pakistan. Pakistan Econ. Soc. Rev. 46 (2), 101–
116.
Qureshi, A.S., McCornick, P., Sarwar, A., Sharma, B.R., 2009. Challenges and prospects
of sustainable groundwater management in the Indus Basin. Pakistan. Water
Resour. Manage. 24 (8), 1551–1569.
Rehman, L.J., Du, Y., Rafia Khatoon, A., 2015. Banking role and loan schemes for
agricultural development in China & Pakistan. Global J. Human-Soc. Sci. Res. 15
(7).
Rehman, A., Jingdong, L., Khatoon, R., Hussain, I., 2016a. Modern agricultural
technology adoption its importance. Role and Usage for the Improvement of
Agric. 16 (2), 284–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2016.16.2.12840.
Rehman, A., Jingdong, L., Shahzad, B., Chandio, A.A., Hussain, I., Nabi, G., Iqbal, M.S.,
2016b. Economic perspectives of major field crops of Pakistan: An empirical
study. Humanities and Social Sciences, Pacific Science Review B. 10.1016/j.
psrb.2016.09.002.
Rehman, A., Jingdong, L., Chandio, A.A., Hussain, I., Wagan, S.A., Memon, Q.U.A.,
2019. Economic perspectives of cotton crop in Pakistan: a time series analysis
(1970–2015) (Part 1). J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 18 (1), 49–54.
Schultz, T.W., 1980. Noble Lecture: The Economics of Being Poor. J. Polit. Econ. 88
(4), 639–651.
Shah, T., David, M., Sakthivadive, R., David, S., 2000. The global groundwater
situation: overview of opportunities and challenges. International Water
Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Scott, C.A., Faruqui, N.I., Raschid-Sally, L., 2004. 1. Wastewater use in irrigated
agriculture: management challenges in developing countries. In: Scott, C.A.,
Faruqui, N.I., Naser, I., Raschid-sally, L. (Eds.), Wastewater Use in Irrigated
Agriculture: Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities. CABI, UK.
Sial, M.H., Awan, M.S., Waqas, M., 2011. Role of institutional credit on agricultural
production: a time series analysis of Pakistan. Int. J. Econ. Fin. 3 (2), 126.
Subramaniam V, Reed M (2009). Agricultural Inter Sectoral Linkages and its
Contribution to Economics Growth in the Transition Countries, the
International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing,
China, August 16-22, 2009.
Tiercelin, J.R., Vidal, A., 2006. Traiteıd Irrigation,. France, Paris.
Tomich, T.P., Kilby, and B. Johnson., 1995. Transforming agrarian economies:
opportunities seized. Cornell University Press, Opportunities Missed Ithaca, NY.
Vogt, D., 1978. Broadening to access credit. Development Digest 16 (3), 3–5.
Wanyama, J.M., Moses, L.O., Rono, S.C., Masinde, A.A.O., Serem, A., 2009.
Determinants of fertilizer use and soil conservation practices in maize based
cropping system in Transnzoia district. A publication of Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute Kitale, Kenya.
Winpenny, J.T., Heinz, I., Koo-Oshima, S., Winpenny, J.T., Winpenny, J.T., 2010. The
wealth of waste: the economics of wastewater use in agriculture. food and
agriculture organization of the United Nations.
Zuberi, H.A., 1989. Production function, institutional credit and agricultural
development in Pakistan. Pak. Dev. Rev. 28 (1), 43–56.