own

working paper
2016-16

Universite Laval

A CGE analysis of the implications of

technological change in Indian agriculture

Joydeep Ghosh
Amarendra Sahoo
Bekele Shiferaw
Sika Gbegbelegbe

June 2016

A CGE analysis of the implications of technological change

in Indian agriculture
Abstract
A recursive dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model is used to conduct an exante analysis of the economy-wide impacts of new agricultural technologies in India.
Differential impacts of changes in productivity of new promising cultivars for irrigated and
rainfed maize and wheat are incorporated in the model. Technological change in these
crops results in higher future economic growth as well as food security, both in food
consumption and availability. While there is considerable scope for increasing the production
of both crops through the introduction of new technologies, maize (both irrigated and
rainfed) with promising cultivars for higher yield gain generates significant growth in output.
The projected gains for wheat are primarily in the rainfed wheat output as this is where the
yield gaps are highest from the promising technologies. Lower prices, particularly for maize
and wheat, stimulate higher consumption of these cereals and other food commodities.
Rural households benefit more than their urban counterparts in food consumption. Although
maizes contribution to the national economy is less than wheat, given the relatively higher
estimated yield gains from promising maize technologies, the positive impacts of maize
technologies on food security and national income are higher than the impacts of wheat. In
view of the land and water constraints in Indian agriculture, maize which is predominantly
rainfed and widely adapted could be a viable alternative for the future. However, a joint
improvement of maize and wheat productivity would further enhance economic conditions
and food security in India.

Authors
Dr Joydeep Ghosh
Independent Consultant,
New Delhi, India

Dr Amarendra Sahoo
Partnership for Economic Policy,
Nairobi, Kenya

Dr Bekele Shiferaw
Partnership for Economic Policy,
Nairobi, Kenya

Dr Sika Gbegbelegbe
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture,
Lilongwe, Malawi

Acknowledgement
This research was carried out with support from the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP). PEP receives
funding from the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom (or
UK Aid) and the Government of Canada through the International Development Research
Center (IDRC). The Authors are also grateful to anonymous reviewers for useful comments.
The usual disclaimers apply.

Table of contents
I.

Introduction

p.1

II.

Technological change in Indian agriculture

p.3

III.

Methodology

p.6

IV.

Scenarios and results

p.8

4.1.

Effect of productivity growth in irrigated and rainfed maize

4.2.

Effect of productivity growth in irrigated and rainfed wheat

4.3.

Effect of joint productivity growth in maize and wheat

V.

Conclusion

p.13

References

p.16

Tables

p.19

ANNEX

p.22

I.

Introduction

India faces many challenges in its agricultural sector. Agricultural growth (about 4%
between 2004-05 and 2012-13) has lagged behind other sectors (about 8% for industry and
9% for services between these periods) of the economy, and this has significant implications
in terms of income, employment, food security, rural-urban migration, etc., since a large
section of the Indian population is still dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. The
country achieved self-sufficiency in major food staples at the macro level, but still faces local
level deficits and challenges of high prevalence of malnourished children and high
incidence of rural poverty. Studies have shown that higher farm yield and agricultural
research could bring both absolute and relative gains to poor rural households (Datta and
Ravalion, 1998; Fan et al., 2000). Thus, future growth in agricultural productivity is likely to
be a key factor for achieving higher levels of economic growth, poverty reduction and food
security.
Wheat and maize are important cereals grown in Asia for both household consumption and
commercial purposes. Wheat is the second most important staple food crop in India after
rice, with a share of about 39% in total cereal production. Analysis of growth rates of wheat
production reveals that the growth of wheat production declined from about 4 percent
during 1986-1997 to about 0.7 percent during 1996-2008, while the growth rate for coarse
cereals (which includes maize) increased marginally from 1.2 percent to 1.5 percent during
the two time periods. Similarly, analysis of trends in the yield growth rate shows that wheat
yield growth declined from 2.9 percent to 0.3 percent, while the yield growth rate for
coarse cereals declined from 3.7 to 2.3 percent, during the two time periods (Mahendra
Dev and Sharma, 2010). This indicates that the overall production and productivity change
in maize has been higher than that of wheat in recent years. During 2004-05 to 2013-14,
maize has recorded the highest annual growth rate in cultivated area (2.5 percent) and
production (5.5 percent), and the second highest annual growth rate in yield (2.8 percent),
after barley, among cereals due to various government incentives to promote this sector
(KPMG, 2014).
The average production of wheat for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 was about 84.36
million tons, with a productivity of about 2.95 tons/hectare (t/ha) which is lower than the
world average of 3.09 t/ha in 2012 (see Figure 1). Currently about 92 percent of the wheat
is grown on irrigated land. As can be seen from Figure 1, wheat productivity, which has
been in an upward trend during the early 2000s, has shown increasing variability with
several drops till 2013; on the other hand, maize yields have remained more or less
stagnant between 2000 and 2013 (FAO, 2013). In the case of kharif (summer) maize in
rainfed situations, the average production was about 14.93 million tons with productivity of
1


about 2.09 t//ha, while the average production of rabi (winter) maize (mostly irrigated) was
about 4.85 million tons, with a productivity of about 3.94 t/ha. The world average
productivity of maize was about 4.88 t/ha in 2012.
About 86% of the wheat production was consumed by households (around 9% was
exported and the rest was used as seeds and feedstock) in 2013, contributing almost 25%
of daily caloric intake and about 38% of the total cereals consumption (FAO, 2013). The
share of wheat in household expenditures on cereals was 33% and 36% for rural and urban
households respectively in 2009-10 (Government of India, 2012). On the other hand, maize
is the third most important cereal in India in terms of production after rice and wheat,
accounting for around 9% of the total food grain production in the country, most of which is
used by the poultry, cattle feed and industrial starch sectors. About 34% of maize
production in 2013 was used for household consumption, accounting for a relatively small
share of the daily calorie intake and around 4% of the total cereal consumption (FAO,
2013).1 The share of maize in household consumption expenditure on cereals in 2009-10
was about 1 and 0.2 percent, for rural and urban households in India, respectively
(Government of India, 2012). Thus, the share of maize in household expenditures on cereals
is significantly lower than that of wheat.
Recently, income growth has enabled households to switch their consumption patterns
towards non cereals like fruits and vegetables, meat, fish, milk and poultry products, and as
a result, per capita household consumption of maize has declined over time. However, the
demand for maize as livestock feed has increased significantly, reaching 76% of production
between 2005 and 2013, compared to 55% in China over the same period (FAOSTAT,
2013). Therefore, unlike wheat which is mainly used as a major food staple, the contribution
of maize to current and future food security in India comes through its direct consumption
as well as its role in the production of livestock especially poultry.
Technological change in Indian agriculture will play a key role in enhancing future food and
nutritional security, poverty reduction and adaptation to climate variability and change. Our
study therefore investigates the potential food security and growth impacts of introducing
promising maize and wheat varieties, developed by the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and its national partners. This analysis examines the
potential benefits from these sources of technological change compared to the existing
varieties of these crops on long-run (2030) food security and well-being. Given the direct
and indirect inter-linkages in the economy and the existence of different household groups
with heterogeneous consumption and income structures, an economy-wide framework in a
dynamic setting is needed to rigorously analyze these effects. Accordingly, we conduct an
ex-ante analysis of the economy-wide implications of introduction of these promising

1

For comparison, the per capita calorie contribution of maize and wheat in China (4% and 38%, respectively in
2013) is more or less similar to that of India. However, for Indonesia, a major consumer of maize, the per capita
calorie contribution of maize in total cereals consumption is significantly higher (14%) than Indias.


agricultural technologies, i.e. improved heat and drought tolerant varieties of wheat and
maize, using a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents a brief description
of technological change in agriculture, with a special reference to maize and wheat in India.
The methodology section briefly describes the database and the recursive dynamic CGE
model used in the analysis. The key results are discussed in the fourth section, while the last
section concludes.

II.

Technological change in Indian agriculture

Technological change has played a major role in the development of the agricultural sector
in India. The high yielding varieties (HYVs) of wheat, developed at CIMMYT in Mexico
(Mexican semi-dwarf wheat varieties), were found to be quite suitable for conditions in
north-western India, namely the states of Punjab and Haryana, and the region of western
Uttar Pradesh. The introduction of wheat HYVs which kick-started the green revolution in
India was followed by the introduction of rice HYVs from the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI). But the most important factor underlying the dissemination of the new
technologies was the diffusion of private tube-wells which allowed expansion of irrigated
wheat production. The new seed-fertilizer technologies, especially for wheat, started to
spread very rapidly in northwest India followed by rice HYVs in parts of peninsular India,
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu and as a result India moved closer to food self-sufficiency
(Fujita, 2010).
An important limitation of this pattern of agricultural development was that only some parts
of the country (high potential areas with access to irrigation) benefitted from the
introduction of HYVs while most of rural India experienced negligible gains in terms of
higher incomes and poverty alleviation. The poorest areas that relied on rain-fed agriculture
were the slowest to benefit from the introduction of HYVs, contributing to widening
interregional disparities and an incidence of poverty that still remains high (Hazell, 2010;
Fan and Hazell, 2001). According to a study by Fan and Hazell (2001), investments in rural
infrastructure, agricultural technology, and human capital are now at least as productive in
many marginal environments (rainfed areas) as in irrigated areas, and they have a much
larger impact on poverty. Further, the study states that greater public investment in some
low-potential areas could actually offer a win-win strategy for addressing productivity and
poverty problems.
The decade of the 1980s witnessed very favorable agricultural growth in India, including
almost all regions and almost all the important crops (Fujita, 2010). The rapid increase of
rice production during the 1980s was fundamental to the economic development of
hitherto poverty-stricken rural areas. As mentioned above, the most important factor
supporting this rapid agricultural growth was the widespread diffusion of private tube-wells,
especially small-scale shallow tube-wells. The diffusion of tube-wells in rain-fed areas (or
3


areas unreliably irrigated by government canals) enabled farmers to grow HYV wheat
instead of pulses in the dry season (rabi or winter) and to improve rice yield substantially by
switching from traditional to modern varieties (HYVs) in the monsoon season (kharif). Thus a
highly productive double cropping system of HYV rice and HYV wheat was established over
broad rural areas, especially in the Indo-Gangetic Basin. It has been reported that
agricultural growth during the 1980s was accompanied by a substantial increase in labor
productivity in many parts of India (Bhalla and Singh, 1997). The agricultural growth of the
1980s also led to higher caloric intake in India as well as in neighboring countries. The per
capita calorie intake in South Asia increased from 2100 calories/day in the late 1970s to
2300 calories/day in the late 1980s (FAO, 1995). Over this period, India also experienced an
increase in per capita calorie intake from about 2,055 calories/day to 2,282 calories/day.
The income improvement achieved in rural India during the 1980s through the spread of
new agricultural technologies was vital for the overall economic development of the country
(Fujita, 2010). Many studies (Rosegrant and Evenson, 1992; Dholakia and Dholakia, 1993;
Evenson et al., 1999; Fan et al., 2000) have shown that total factor productivity (TFP) growth
in agriculture was the prime driving force behind the acceleration of overall growth in the
Indian economy achieved during the 1980s.
During the 1990s, however, agricultural growth slowed down. An analysis (Kumar and
Mittal, 2006) of TFP growth rates for this period reveals two important facts: (a)
technological gains did not occur in a number of crops such as coarse cereals, pulses,
oilseeds, fibers, sugarcane, vegetables; and (b) crops and areas where technological gains
had occurred during the early years of the Green Revolution had exhausted their potential.
During the Green Revolution era, large investments in high yielding varieties (HYVs),
fertilizers and irrigation resulted in significant growth in food production. However, in recent
years, agriculture has been experiencing diminishing returns to input use and a significant
proportion of the gross cropped area has been facing environmental degradation,
stagnation or negative growth in TFP (Pingali and Rosegrant, 2001; Kumar and Mittal,
2006). The sharp fall in investment, especially in public investment, has also been one of the
main causes for the deceleration of agricultural growth and development in India (Kumar,
2001). The relationship between agricultural productivity growth and poverty has received
considerable attention in the literature. In India, it is estimated that a 1% increase in
agricultural value added per hectare leads to a 0.4% reduction in income poverty in the
short run and a 1.9% reduction in the long run, the latter arising through the indirect effects
of lower food prices and higher wages (Ravallion and Datt, 1996).
Thus, in order to promote economic growth and to address the issues of poverty and food
insecurity over the long term, policy makers in India have to focus on striking the right
balance between crops and technologies in favorable and in less favorable environments. In
view of the various constraints facing Indian agriculture, there has been a renewed policy
thrust from the government in recent years to revive agricultural growth through various
programs such as the National Food Security Mission (NFSM) with objectives, among
4


others, of increasing production of rice, wheat and pulses through expanding the amount of
cultivated area and productivity enhancement, in order to improve food security, reduce
poverty and create employment opportunities. Though maize does not figure among the
priority crops for NFSM, Joshi et al. (2005) observed that maize is a promising option for
diversifying agriculture in the upland areas of India. Despite considerable progress in maize
research in India, the benefits of maize improvement have not been realized to the same
extent as for rice and wheat.
Research and extension in germplasm improvement, and dissemination of these germplasm
lines (heat and drought tolerant maize and wheat varieties) by CIMMYT and its partners
could significantly boost production of these two crops and contribute to national food
security. Our study focuses on the impacts of adoption of these promising maize and wheat
varieties, compared to the existing varieties, on the long-run food security and well-being of
India.
Wheat is one of the staple food crops in India, with production being dominated by
irrigated technologies. Wheat in India faces various biotic and abiotic challenges. The key
biotic stresses affecting wheat include weeds and diseases (Kosina et al., 2007; Shiferaw et
al., 2013). In addition, climate change can facilitate the emergence of new diseases, causing
substantial losses (Shiferaw et al., 2013). The key abiotic constraints to wheat production
consist of stresses from drought and heat. A warmer climate would threaten wheat
production through higher day and/or night temperature. Cases of climate extremes
consisting of high temperature, even if they occur over a short period of time, could also be
disastrous on wheat. Increased water scarcity caused by climate change would lead to
drought stress in wheat. However, water scarcity might also incite the use of low quality
water, which might lead to increased soil salinity. Hence, salinity is considered as another
key abiotic constraint to future wheat production.
This study focuses on promising maize and wheat varieties with tolerance to abiotic stresses
as current crop models do not incorporate the incidence of biotic stresses. Three types of
promising wheat technologies were assessed using crop growth models (DSSAT): cultivars
with tolerance to drought stress; heat stress; and combined drought and heat stress. The
largest yield gain would come from the adoption of wheat tolerant to combined heat and
drought stress (Table A1). Hence, in our scenario simulations, we apply only combined heat
and drought stress tolerant promising maize and wheat technologies. However, the gain
would mainly come from drought tolerance in rainfed wheat systems; drought-tolerant
wheat would generate a yield gain of 9.29%. Given the small share of rainfed wheat in total
wheat area in India, national benefits from the promising wheat technologies are not
expected to be substantial. On the contrary, irrigated wheat farmers in India are already
using relatively more modern varieties. Hence, the yield gain for irrigated wheat is expected
to be very low, resulting only in 1.2% increase in productivity.


Maize in India faces a different set of constraints compared to wheat. Two major abiotic
stresses affect maize production in India: drought and water logging (Joshi et al., 2005). In
some cases both stresses occur over a season with maize experiencing excess moisture
early in the season, followed by terminal drought (Shiferaw et al., 2011). Heat is another
stress currently affecting maize; it is also projected to have disastrous effects on future
maize production in the country. Maize is also vulnerable to multiple diseases, pests, and
weeds. However, most farmers are able to control weeds. The proliferation of insect pests
varies across different regions, as does the incidence of maize diseases (Joshi et al., 2005).
Among the promising technologies, maize cultivars with tolerance to heat stress are clearly
the ones that would deliver the largest yield gain if they were adopted by Indian farmers. In
irrigated maize systems, heat-tolerant maize cultivars would bring about yield gains of
25.25%; in rainfed systems, the yield gains would be about 21.36% (Table A5). Our model
uses maize varieties with combined heat and drought tolerance.

III.

Methodology

A recursive dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model (Decaluw et al., 2010)
was constructed for estimating the impacts of productivity improvements in maize and
wheat in India. CGE models consider the linkages between the different sectors of the
economy, and the model developed for this study captures the effects of technology
interventions in wheat and maize on socioeconomic indicators like GDP, production,
household income, food security, trade etc. A Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) for India for
the year 2007 (Pradhan et al., 2013) is the main source of data for this study. Some
modifications were done to the SAM to address the objectives of this study. The economy
is classified into 19 production sectors, of which 8 are agricultural activities, including maize
and wheat (Table A2). It is to be noted that given the importance of productivity differences
between irrigated and rainfed technologies, we consider irrigated and rainfed activities for
each crop production. A crop produced by irrigated and non-irrigated activities can satisfy
the domestic as well as export demand as single undifferentiated commodity.
The structure of the economy based on the 2007-2008 SAM suggests that the service
sector comprises the largest share of value added in the economy, at about 62% (Table A3).
In the agricultural sector, livestock and fish and other crops, which includes pulses and
oilseeds, have the highest shares in the total value added in the economy, at 6.42% and
6.39%, respectively, followed by paddy rice (1.96%) and wheat (1.52%). However, maize
contributes marginally to the economys value added. Irrigated wheat dominates Indias
wheat production, accounting for about 91% of total value added in wheat production. On
the other hand, rainfed production of maize accounts for 79% of total value added in maize
production in the economy. While maize has the highest export intensity, i.e. share of
exports in total production (16.41%) relative to other crops, wheat has very negligible
6


export intensity. Although imports of wheat as a share of its total supply (imports plus
domestic production, all in value terms) is low (2.36% in 2007-08), India continues to import
wheat. However, the import intensity of maize is very small.
In the model, the output of a sector is produced by a Leontief function of intermediate
inputs and real value added. Valued added is a constant elasticity of substitution (CES)
function of composite labour and composite capital. Skilled labour and unskilled labour are
combined in a CES function, while composite capital is a CES aggregation of land and (nonland) capital. Land is used only for cultivation purposes. Irrigated land is mobile between
irrigated crop activities and rainfed land is mobile between rainfed activities.2 Labour is also
mobile between the sectors. Existing capital is sector-specific. Land and capital are
assumed to be fully utilized. However, labour supply is endogenously determined in the
model to account for unemployment. While there is an involuntary unemployment among
unskilled labour based on an assumed minimum wage, skilled unemployment is based on
an efficiency framework, i.e. an increase in the competitive real wage brings down the
unemployment rate3.
Household classification is based on the primary occupation of the household. There are
five rural and four urban occupational household groups (see Annex Table A2.1). Only the
rural cultivator household group owns land; hence, any change in rent to land would affect
the households in this group. This household also receives 55% of income from capital
(Table A3). In fact, rural other households consisting of mostly rent seekers get about 76%
of their factor income from capital. It is obvious that income from labour is the highest
source of income for agricultural labour and non-agricultural labour (artisan) households in
rural areas. Households save a fixed proportion of their income and their consumption
follows a linear expenditure system (LES) function, where there is a minimum fixed
consumption level and the supernumerary consumption depends on prices, income and
elasticity4. Table A4 reveals that households spend a significantly larger share of their
income on wheat compared to maize, and rural households spend a relatively larger share
of their income on these commodities, which is consistent with reality. Most of household
food expenditures are on livestock and fish and processed food, representing about
9.09% and 8.68%, respectively, in their total expenditure budget, followed by other crops
including pulses and oilseeds (7.66%), paddy rice (3.59%) and wheat (2.67%).

The model does not consider transformation of rainfed land to irrigated over the long run.
Estimated unemployment rates for skilled (16%) and unskilled (3.5%) are based on the National Sample Survey,
the 66th round, Schedule 10, Employment and Unemployment 2009-2010. Elasticity of unemployment is
assumed to be -0.44 (Vepa, 2010).
4
We have used -1.64 as the Frisch parameter based on Kula (2002).The income elasticity of demand for rural
and urban households, respectively, are 0.75 and 0.65 for wheat, 0.40 and 0.30 for maize and were estimated
based on various sources (Swami and Binswanger, 1983; Bhalla and Hazell, 1997; Abdulai et al., 1999). As
income elasticity of demand for maize in India is expected to remain low with income growth, we assume lower
elasticity of 0.20 and 0.10 for rural and urban households.
3


The world prices of commodities are fixed in the model. Imports and exports are functions
of world prices relative to domestic prices and exchange rates. Armington and constant
elasticity of transformation (CET) functions are used for modelling substitution possibilities
between imports and domestic goods, and exports and domestic goods, respectively. With
respect to external balance, the current account balance (foreign savings) in dollar terms is
the difference between exports and imports valued at the world price and net transfers and
factor payment from abroad, which is fixed in the model. The nominal exchange rate is
fixed as the numeraire and all prices are expressed relative to the exchange rate.
In the dynamic setting of the model, new capital is generated in the long run through
investment that can be destined to a sector based on the competitive returns to capital and
the cost of capital. Assuming that the economy follows a balanced growth path (between
2007 and 2030), all the fixed variables are updated assuming a fixed population growth rate
(2.0%) in the business as usual (BAU) scenario. The model is also calibrated for the BAU
scenario using the trend in exogenous productivity growth rates for the existing varieties of
irrigated as well as rainfed maize and wheat based on a study from IMPACT (Rosegrant et
al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2015).

IV.

Scenarios and results

The study focuses on promising technologies with tolerance to heat and drought stress.
The counterfactual increases in the productivity of the two crops are obtained through crop
modelling. It is to be noted that there are significant differences in the yields of irrigated
and rainfed technologies and these differences are taken into account in the simulations
(Table A1). Three different scenarios regarding technology interventions in maize and wheat
were run using the CGE model and the effects on different indicators were compared to
their BAU levels. The scenarios are:
-

Scenario 1: Increase in combined productivity of irrigated (26%) and rainfed (22.3%) maize.

Scenario 2: Increase in combined productivity of irrigated (1.2%) and rainfed (8.5%) wheat5.

Scenario 3: Increase in combined productivity of irrigated and rainfed maize and wheat.

It is assumed that released promising varieties of crops will completely replace the existing
varieties and the new varieties will be adopted from 2015 through to 2030. The above
scenarios consider the differences in the productivity of the crops. We incorporate a yield
differential between irrigated and rainfed maize and wheat6. We focus on the long-run

5

As already discussed, compared to the higher estimated productivity gain from the promising maize varieties,
the estimated gain for wheat has been small. For the purpose of a comparable impact, we also conduct a
simulation with an equal productivity change in wheat as that in maize (26% and 22.3% respectively for irrigated
and rainfed).
6
The yields of existing varieties of irrigated and rainfed maize are 3.18 t/ha and 1.82 t/ha, respectively, while
2.78 t/ha and 1.80t/ha , respectively, for wheat. This is based on IMPACT estimates (Rosegrant et al., 2012).


analysis for 2030 by contrasting the technological change scenarios with the business as
usual (BAU) scenario.

4.1.

Effect of productivity growth in irrigated and rainfed maize

Impacts of adoption of promising crop varieties on major macro variables are presented in
Table 1. In the scenario where both improved varieties of irrigated and rainfed maize are
introduced simultaneously, increasing the irrigated and rainfed maize productivity by 26%
and 22.30% respectively, the economy experiences a gain in real GDP (0.04%). The
increased GDP mainly results from growth in agricultural GDP (0.13%), with significant
increases in maize output (4.76%). Well-being of households improves in terms of
consumption as well as food availability. Due to the drop in the consumer price index (0.05%) and particularly food prices (-0.13%), overall household consumption in the
economy increases by 0.04% with a 0.07% increase in food consumption. The food security
index defines as food availability per workforce also rises by 0.08%. Higher growth in
agriculture brings down the unskilled unemployment rate by 0.66%. There is also a marginal
decline in skilled unemployment (-0.09%) resulting in a 0.26% drop in national
unemployment rate. Prompted by the favourable domestic prices, exports of the economy
increase by 0.05% and overall imports show a marginal increase (0.02%).
Table 2 shows the impact on GDP and other variables at a more disaggregated sectoral
level. Increased productivity of irrigated and rainfed maize induces rainfed maize
production to increase significantly by 12.90% and irrigated maize by 3.54%. It is to be
noted that only 24% of the land under maize cultivation is irrigated and the rest is rainfed;
however, baseline irrigated maize productivity is about 3.18t/ha, while it is 1.82 t/ha for
rainfed. Due to a larger productivity increase in irrigated maize compared to the rainfed
maize there are differences in the effects on production. The higher increase marginal
productivity of rainfed maize dominates the production activities over the irrigated maize in
response to the technological change. Increased maize production also stimulates other
cropping, livestock and processed food activities, albeit marginally. An increase in maize
production in response to the application of promising technology in both irrigated and
rainfed maize activities leads to significant decline in the consumer price of maize (-11.94%)
and marginal declines in prices of other consumption goods resulting from increased
activities of other related sectors. A falling price level results in higher household
consumption, with the highest increase in maize consumption (2.12%). Maize is an
important export crop in India, with about 16% of its production being exported, but with
insignificant imports (Table A3). Export competitiveness of maize improves significantly
(16%) due to the cheaper domestic maize prices (11.91%), while imports of maize decline
by 21.01%.


Impacts on factor demand and income due to the introduction of new crop varieties are
presented in Table 3. A significant increase in productivity due to the application of
combined promising irrigated and rainfed maize technologies reduces the use of factor
inputs, whereby demand for labour, land and capital in irrigated maize activities declines
significantly by 17.54%, 17.07% and 18.06%, respectively, while in rainfed maize demand
for inputs declines by 9.66%, 9.72% and 1.89%,. As labour is mobile, the displaced labour
gets absorbed in other activities including non-crop sectors resulting in marginal increases
in aggregate demand for labour. Land released from maize activities is available for
allocations to all other crops. Declining factor demand results in a slight decline in labour
income, while rental income from land declines by 0.21%. However, income from capital
shows a slight increase.
Despite a decline in the nominal income from land and labour, households gain marginally
in terms of real income (real consumption budget) or due to the marginal gain from the
non-agricultural income (Table 4). Although there seems to be no significant change in the
income distribution, households in the cultivator category who are the owners of
agricultural land experience slightly less increase in income compared to other household
groups, which could be attributed to the declining rent to land. All households benefit from
declining prices, as well as real income, resulting in increases in both food and non-food
consumption. Moreover, rural households increase their consumption more than the urban.

4.2.

Effect of productivity growth in irrigated and rainfed wheat

With the joint increase in irrigated and rainfed wheat productivity (1.20% and 8.50%,
respectively) resulting from the use of promising irrigated and rainfed wheat varieties, there
is a marginal impact on the economy where GDP increases by 0.03% (Table 1).
Contributions of agriculture and wheat to GDP are less than the improved maize
technology scenario, 0.08% and 0.39%, respectively. At the aggregate level, impacts on the
consumer price index and consumption are more or less the same as the earlier maize
scenario (-0.04% and 0.03%, respectively). Food consumption improves by 0.06% as food
prices decline by 0.10%. Economic well-being also improves as food availability per worker
marks an increase of 0.05%. Unemployment in the economy declines by 0.17% with a major
decline in unskilled unemployment (-0.45%) and a marginal drop in the skilled
unemployment (-0.07%). Exports increase marginally (0.02%) due to the economys price
advantage; however there is almost no aggregate change in imports.
Adoption of promising irrigated and rainfed wheat varieties enhance the rainfed wheat
production significantly by about 27.71% while the production of rainfed wheat increases
very marginally by 0.01% (Table 2). About 92% of the land under wheat cultivation is
irrigated, and most of the wheat production is through modern technologies; hence, the
scope to increase production through productivity enhancement seems to be low.
10


Increased wheat activities have a marginal positive effect on other sectors as well. With the
improved varieties of irrigated and rainfed wheat consumer prices of wheat decline by
0.86%, which is significantly less than the price effect for the case of improved maize
varieties (Table 2). Other commodities also benefit from declining prices. Lower consumer
prices leads to higher household consumption of wheat (0.40%) with marginal increases in
consumption of other items. Cheaper domestic prices of wheat lead to a 1.08% increase in
wheat exports, while imports decline by 1.37% (Table 2). These changes are much lower
than in the improved maize scenario.
A very high proportion of resources is already engaged in irrigated wheat activities
compared to the rainfed system, and an increase in output due to increased productivity in
this sector could only be achieved by reduced demand for production factors. On the other
hand, rainfed wheat with a very small proportion of resources requires a higher amounts of
factor inputs in order to increase its production in the wake of its improved productivity.
Even a small productivity increase in irrigated wheat activities reduces the demand for
labour, land and capital by about -1.20%, -1.02% and -1.19%, respectively (Table 3).
Moreover, released resources from the irrigated wheat production crowds in resources to
rainfed wheat activities, leading to higher productivity. Larger increase in rainfed wheat
production is complemented by increased demand for labour and land (24.42 and 24.37%,
respectively). However, as there exists excess labour supply (unemployment) in the
economy, total demand for labour increases by 0.25%. Capital investment also shifts from
irrigated wheat activities (-1.18%) to rainfed activities (2.77%). In tune with the declining
factor demand, income from land declines more than other factors (-0.13%) followed by
marginal -0.01% for labour. There is almost no change in capital income.
Changes in total real consumption budget (real income) and consumption by households
are displayed in Table 4. All households gain in terms of increase in their real income and
similar to the case of improved maize varieties in Scenario 1, the cultivator household group
gains the least in terms of increase in real income, though very marginally; also, food
consumption is relatively higher for rural households than urban households.
It is to be noted that a lower productivity improvement in wheat compared to a significant
increase in maize productivity causes relatively lower impacts on economic and welfare
indicators. A similar degree of productivity change in wheat as in maize activities would
provide a more comparable analysis7. However, for our scenario analysis we have chosen
more realistic research-based values for productivity change resulting from promising maize
and wheat varieties.

Compared to the maize technology scenario, the economy experiences even higher GDP growth (0.39%),
increased food availability (0.93%) and food consumption (0.93%). The consumer price index also declines (0.61%) more than if improved maize varieties are adopted.

11

4.3.

Effect of joint productivity growth in maize and wheat

In the scenario where irrigated and rainfed maize and wheat varieties are simultaneously
adopted, production of maize and wheat increases by 4.77% and 0.44% respectively
leading to higher growth in the agricultural and overall GDP by 0.21% and 0.07%
respectively (Table 1). As expected, the joint impact is dominated by the changes resulted
due to the improved maize varieties. It also has positive impacts on output on the
manufacturing (0.21%) and service (0.05%) sectors. With increased economic activities,
inflation in terms of the consumer price index declines by 0.09%, mainly driven by a drop in
food prices (-0.23%),

inducing higher household food (0.12%) and non-food (0.04%)

consumption. Besides, economic well-being in terms of food availability also improves by

0.13%. The economy experiences a reduced unemployment rate (-0.43%) with significant
declines in unskilled unemployment (-1.11) followed by a 0.16% drop in skilled
unemployment. The economy benefits from an increase in overall exports by 0.08%
although imports of the economy increase marginally by 0.02%.
A joint increase in maize and wheat productivity for both irrigated and rainfed cultivation
enhances rainfed wheat output by about 27.84% while irrigated wheat increases only by
0.05%, resulting in a small increase in aggregate wheat output of 0.44% (Table 2). The
combined impact of changes in wheat and maize technologies used on wheat and maize
production still retains the individual impacts of the respective technological changes. A
lower technological change in the case of irrigated wheat (1.2%) as compared to 8.5% for
rainfed wheat is expected to bring relatively higher benefits to the sectors with higher
marginal productivity, i.e. rainfed wheat. On the other hand, a large improvement in rainfed
and irrigated maize technologies by 22% and 26%, respectively, in fact, results in a
significant increase in the rainfed maize production (12.83%) along with the increased
irrigated maize output (3.58%) yielding a 4.77% increase in total maize output. Positive spillover impacts of increased wheat and maize production are observed in other activities,
mainly with increase in livestock and processed food output, 0.11 and 0.10%, respectively.
Consumer prices decline following significant declines in maize prices (-11.93%), and wheat
prices (-0.90%) (Table 5). Buying prices of other commodities decline slightly. Household
food consumption increases, with the highest increases being in maize consumption
(2.13%) and wheat consumption (0.44%). Lower domestic prices of maize and wheat
increase competitiveness of these crops vis--vis rest of the world. There is increase in
exports of maize and wheat with declining imports (Table 2). Exports of maize increase by
14.57%, while that for wheat increase by 1.14%. Similarly, imports decline significantly for
maize (-21.05%) and less for wheat (-1.39%).
A large productivity change due to the introduction of promising maize technologies results
in much higher maize production, but with declining factor demand in both irrigated and
rainfed maize activities. Demand for labour, land and capital in irrigated maize production
12


declines by 17.70%, 17.45% and 18.06%, respectively and by 9.63%, 9.43% and 1.91%%
respectively in rainfed wheat activities (Table 3). Given the dominating size of resources
under irrigated wheat in the economy, a small productivity increase in irrigated wheat
delivers only a marginal increase in its output with a decline in demand for its factor inputs,
-1.14%, -0.93 and -1.20, respectively for labour, land and capital. The displaced inputs are
allocated to activities where they have higher comparative advantage, mainly to rainfed
wheat activities besides marginally to other sectors. Overall demand for labour in the
economy increases (0.26%), reflecting a decline in unemployment in the economy. A large
decline in demand for land and labour in maize and irrigated wheat activities leads to a
decline in land income by 0.33% followed by marginal decrease in labour income (-0.02%).
However, income from capital shows a (marginal) increase (0.01%).
A simultaneous increase in maize and wheat productivity leads to a relatively higher
increase in real income across the households compared to individual maize- and wheatbased scenarios (Table 4). Although rural cultivators like in other scenarios experience a
relatively smaller gain in real income, the increase in their real income is higher than in the
previous scenarios. All households benefit from increases in both food and non-food
consumption. The distribution of the effects on household consumption is mainly driven by
the increased maize productivity, where rural households experience relatively higher gains
compared to their urban counterparts in terms of food consumption.

V.

Conclusion

The main objective of this paper is to understand the potential food security and welfare
benefits from the introduction of new agricultural technologies, especially the upcoming
and promising varieties of wheat and maize, in India. A recursive dynamic CGE model is
used to evaluate these effects at the national level using the best available data. Future
production potential (productivity) of these crops under conventional and improved
technologies is obtained from crop growth simulation modelling undertaken by crop
modellers as part of a global effort for analysis of alternative futures for agriculture, and this
data was used as exogenous parameters in the CGE model.
A significant increase in irrigated and rainfed maize productivity (26% and 23.3%
respectively) due to the introduction of promising technologies in Scenario 1 increases
irrigated and rainfed maize output by 3.54% and 12.90% respectively. This leads to growth
in aggregate maize output by 4.76%. Most other economic activities also benefit, though
marginally, from the increase in maize production. The maize technology has positive
impacts on the economy and households by increasing GDP and the food security index
(food availability per worker) by 0.04% and 0.08%, respectively, with a decline in the
consumer price index (-0.05%). Declining food prices (-0.13%) with a significant drop in the
buying prices of maize (-11.91%) induce higher consumption of aggregate food (0.07%) and
13


maize alone (2.12%). The unemployment rate declines by 0.26%, mainly driven by a
reduction in the unemployment rate of unskilled labour (-0.66%). Technological change in
maize also generates a significant response which increases exports (14.54%) and reduces
imports (-21.01%) of this staple. The growth in maize productivity also leads to a significant
decline in factor demand in irrigated maize activities followed by rainfed maize production.
However, households still gain in terms of modest increases in their real income and food
and non-food consumption, with rural households benefiting more than urban households
in terms of increased food consumption.
Productivity growth in wheat in irrigated and rainfed systems (by 1.2% and 8.5%
respectively) in Scenario 2 leads to a significant increase in rainfed wheat output (27.71%),
but a marginal change (0.01%) in irrigated wheat output, leading to an increase in total
wheat output of around 0.39%. Households benefit in terms of increased GDP (0.03%),
food availability (0.05%) and a decline in the consumer price index (-0.04%). The
unemployment rate in the economy drops by 0.17% as unskilled unemployment declines by
0.45%. A 0.10% decline in the food prices leads to a 0.06% increase in total food
consumption. The introduction of new technologies leads to a 1.09% fall in the consumer
price of wheat, leading to a 0.4% increase in total household consumption of wheat. Wheat
imports decline by 1.37% while exports increase by 0.86%. However, the overall impact of
improved wheat productivity is significantly lower than the effect of promising maize
technologies simulated in Scenario 1. This is mainly because of the significantly higher
productivity gain from the promising varieties of maize compared to wheat. Given that
wheat production is much larger than maize in India, a proportional gain in productivity for
wheat would causesignificantly higher economic (0.39%) and food security (0.93%) gains
compared to the case of increased maize productivity. Despite the decline in factor
demand associated with productivity change, the real income of households increases
marginally and by less than scenario 1. However, all households gain both in terms of food
and non-food consumption.
However, an increase in combined maize and wheat productivity (scenario 3) induces higher
impacts on output, consumer prices, food security and national income. Adoption of joint
technology improves GDP and food availability per worker by 0.07% and 0.13%,
respectively. The fall in consumer prices steered mainly by declining food prices
encourages higher food and non-food consumption. Increased economic activities mainly
driven by agricultural growth results in reduced unemployment rate (-0.43%), primarily from
unskilled unemployment (-1.11%) followed by skilled unemployment (-0.16%). With the
improved maize and wheat technologies, import dependency declines while raising the
export competitiveness of the two crops. Aggregate wheat output increases by 0.44%,
largely driven by the gain in output in the rainfed systems (27.66%) and marginally by
irrigated systems (0.05%). On the other hand, production in irrigated and rainfed maize
increases by about 3.58% and 12.83%, respectively, resulting in a 4.77% increase in total
14


maize output. Consumer prices decline by -0.09% with a significant decline in maize prices
(-11.93%), followed by a fall in the price of wheat (-0.90%). Although demand for factors of
production

in maize and wheat activities decreases, the real income of all households

improves with a relatively smaller increase for cultivator households. Like in the other
scenarios, the food consumption gain is relatively higher for rural households compared to
their urban counterparts.
From food security and economic growth perspectives, the simultaneous introduction of
improved irrigated and rainfed technology (wheat and maize) is the best, followed by
irrigated and rainfed maize and irrigated and rainfed wheat. Technological change also
generates gains in national GDP and real income of households, albeit marginally. Food
security in terms of food consumption and food availability improves. The unemployment
rate, particularly of unskilled workers, declines in all the scenarios. Significant declines in
consumer prices of wheat and maize not only prompt higher consumption of these crops,
but also increase overall food and non-food consumption. Improvement in maize and wheat
productivity brings higher benefits to rural households than their urban counterparts.
In short, there is considerable scope for increasing the production of maize and wheat in
India through the introduction of new technologies. Although maizes contribution to the
national economy is currently less than wheat, given the higher potential gains in maize
productivity from introduction of promising maize varieties, the impacts of improved maize
varieties on food security and national income are seen to be comparable or better than the
impacts of the current promising wheat varieties. However, an equal increase in the
productivity of wheat is expected to have even higher economy-wide impacts than maize.
Given the resource constraints in Indian agriculture, maize, with its high yield gaps and
predominantly rainfed production, has the potential to become a promising alternative in
the future especially in areas where groundwater levels are being depleted and the
potential for irrigated wheat (or rice) is limited. However, joint technological changes in
wheat and maize could bring higher future economic growth, food security and household
welfare in terms of food consumption. One caveat is that this study has not taken into
account the potential impacts of climate change on crop productivity. The positive effects
of heat and drought tolerant technologies are likely to be stronger if climate change
impacts are considered explicitly in the baseline and alternative scenarios, an area for future
analysis.

15

References
Abdulai, A., Jain, D.K. and Sharma, A.K. (1999). Household food demand analysis in India.
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50(2):316-327.
Bhalla, G.S. and Hazell, P. (1997). Foodgrains demand in India 2020: A preliminary exercise.
Economic and Political Weekely, 32(52):A150-A154.
Bhalotra, S. (2010). The impact of liberalization on employment and wages. In: S.K. Prmanick
and R. Ganguly (eds.), Globalization in India: New Frontiers and Emerging Challenges. PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Datta, G. and Ravallion M. (1998). Farm productivity and rural poverty in India. Journal of
Development Studies, 34(4):62-85.
Decaluw, B., Lemelin, A., Robichaud, V. and Maisonnave, H. (2010). The PEP standard
computable general equilibrium model: single country, recursive dynamic version-PEP1t,
available online at http://www.pep-net.org/uploads/media/PEP-1-t_v1_2.pdf.
Dholakia, R.H. and Dholakia, B.H. (1993). Growth of total factor productivity in Indian
agriculture. Indian Economic Review, 28(1): 25-40.
Evenson, R.E., Pray, C. and Rosegrant, M.W. (1999). Agricultural Research and Productivity
Growth in India. Research Report No. 109. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Fan, S., Hazell, P.B.R. (2001). Returns to public investments in the less-favored areas of India and
China. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 83 (5):12171222
Fan, S., Hazell, P.B.R. and Thorat, S. (2000). Government spending agricultural growth and
poverty in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 82(4):1038-1051.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1995). World Agriculture:
Towards 2010. Rome: FAO.
FAO (2013). FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013.
Fujita, K., 2010. The Green Revolution and Its Significance for Economic Development - The
Indian Experience and Its Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. Working Paper No. 17. JICA
Research Institute, June 2010.
Ganesh,K.A., Mehta, R., Pullabhotla, H., Prasad, S.K., Ganguly, K., Gulati, A. (2012). Demand
and supply of cereals in India 2010-2025. Discussion Paper 01158. International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Government of India (2011). The Census of India. Office of the Registrar General and Census
Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affair Government of India.
Government of India (2012). Household Consumption of Various Goods and Services in India,
NSS 66th Round (July 2009 June 2010), National Sample Survey Office, National
Statistical Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
Government of India (2015). Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2014. Directorate of Economics
and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture.
Hazell, P.B.R. (2003). The impact of agricltural research on the poor: a review of the state of
knowledge. In: S. Mathur and D. Pachico (ed.), Agricultural Research and Poverty
Reduction: Some Issues and Evidence. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT),
Cali, Colombia. 4358.
Hazell, P.B.R. (2010). An assessment of the impact of agricultural research in South Asia since
the green revolution. In: Pingali, P. and Evenson, R. (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural
Economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 34693530.
Hoogenboom, G., Jones, J.W., Wilkens, P.W., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Hunt, L.A., Singh, U.,
Lizaso, J.L., White, J.W., Uryasev, O., Royce, F.S., Ogoshi, R., Gijsman, A.J., Tsuji, G.Y. and

16


Koo, J. (2012). Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) Version 4.5
[CD-ROM]. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Joshi, P. K., N.P. Singh, N. P., Singh, N. N., Gerpacio, R. V. and Pingali, P. L. (2005). Maize in
India: Production systems, constraints, and research priorities. International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Laguna, Philippines.
Kosina, P., Reynolds, M., Dixon, J. and Joshi, A. (2007). Stakeholder perception of wheat
production constraints, capacity building needs, and research partnerships in developing
countries. Euphytica, 157(3), 475483. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9529-9.
KPMG (2014). Maize in India. In association with FICCI and NCDEX. India Maize Summit 2014.
Kula, E. (2002). Regional welfare weights in investment appraisal- the case of India. Journal of
Regional Analysis and Policy, 32(1):99-114.
Kurosaki, T. (1999). Agriculture in India and Pakistan, 1900-95: Productivity and Crop Mix.
Economic and Political Weekly, 34 (52): A160-A168.
Kumar, P. (2001). Agricultural performance and productivity. In: Acharya, S.S. and Chaudhri, D.P.
(ed.), Indian Agricultural Policy at the Crossroads. Rawat Publications, New Delhi. 353-476.
Kumar, P. and Mittal, S. (2006). Agricultural productivity trends in India: Sustainability issues.
Agricultural Economics Research Review, 19: 71-88.
Linehan, V., Thorpe, S., Andrews, N., Kim, Y. and Bieaini, F. (2012). Food demand to 2050:
Opportunity to Australian agriculture. Research by Australian Bureaue of Agricultural and
Resource Economics and Science, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry,
Australian Government.
Mahendra Dev, S. and Sharma, A.N. (2010). Food security in India: performance, challenges and
policies. Oxfam India working papers series September 2010 OIWPS - VII
Nayanan, S., Dalafi, S. and Gulat, A. (2008). India: maize economy, incentives and policies. In:
Gulati, A. and (eds.), Maize in Asia: Changing Markets and Incentives, A. Gulati and J.
Dixon. Academic Foundation, New Delhi and International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center (CIMMYT).
Nazli, H., Haider, S.H. and Tariq, A. (2012). Supply and demand for cereals in Pakistan, 2010
2030. Discussion Paper 01222. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
D.C.
Pradhan, B.K., Saluja, M.R. and Sharma, A.K. (2013). A social accounting matrix for India 200708. Institute of Economic Growth (IEG) Working Paper No. 326, Delhi, India.
Pingali, P. and Rosegrant, M. (2001). Intensive food systems in Asia: Can the degradation
problems be reversed? In: Lee, D.R. and Barrett, C. Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural
Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment. CABI Publishing.
Ravallion, M. and Datt, G. (1996). How important to Indias poor is the sectoral composition of
economic growth? World Bank Economic Review, 10:125.
Robinson, S., Mason dCroz, D., Islam, S., Sulser, T.B., Robertson, R.D., Zhu, T., Gueneau, A.,
Pitois, G., Rosegrant, M.W. (2015). The International Model for Policy Analysis of
Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description for Version 3.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.
Rosegrant, M.W. and Evenson, R.E. (1992). Agricultural productivity and sources of growth in
South Asia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67 (3): 757-761.
Rosegrant, M.W. and the IMPACT Development Team (2012). International Model for Policy
Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description. International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.
Shiferaw, B., Prasanna, B., Hellin, J. and Bnziger, M. (2011). Crops that feed the world 6. Past
successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food
Security, 3(3), 307327.

17


Shiferaw, B., Smale, M., Braun, H.J., Duveiller, E., Reynolds, M. and Muricho, G. (2013). Crops
that feed the world 10. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat in
global food security. Food Security, 5(3), 291317.
Swamy, G. and Binswanger, H.P. (1983). Flexible consumer demand systems and linear
estimation: food in India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(4):675-684.
Thirtle, C., Lin, L. and Piesse, J., 2003. The impact of research-led agricultural productivity
growth on poverty reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin America. World Development,
31:19591975.
Yadav, R., Singh, S.S., Singh, G.P. and Prabhu, K.V. (2012). Wheat production in India:
Technologies to face future challenges. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2(2):164-173.
Website:

NSSO (National Sample Survey Organisation), 2005 in: Transition in food composition
pattern. Available at:
http://www.wcd.nic.in/research/nti1947/6.%20Consumption%20expenditure.pdf

18

Tables
Table 1: Impact on national GDP and other variables at macro level in 2030
Changes from baseline level in 2030 (%)
Total GDP at factor cost

Simulation 1

Simulation 2

Simulation 3

0.04

0.03

0.07

Agriculture

0.13

0.08

0.21

Maize

4.76

0.02

4.77

Wheat

0.05

0.39

0.44

0.03

0.02

0.05

Manufacturing
Services

0.03

0.02

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.07

Food consumption

0.07

0.06

0.12

Non-food consumption

0.02

0.02

0.04

Public consumption

0.01

0.01

0.03

Investment

0.02

0.01

0.03

Exports

0.05

0.02

0.08

Household consumption

Imports

0.02

0.00

0.02

Consumer price index

-0.05

-0.04

-0.09

Food

-0.13

-0.10

-0.23

Non-food

-0.01

-0.01

-0.02

Food security index

0.08

0.05

0.13

Unemployment rate (%)

-0.26

-0.17

-0.43

Unskilled

-0.66

-0.45

-1.11

Skilled

-0.09

-0.07

-0.16

19


Table 2: Impact on disaggregated variables at macro level in 2030
Changes from baseline level in 2030 (%)
Simulation 1

Simulation 2

Simulation 3

Output
Maize

4.76

0.02

4.77

Irrigated

3.54

0.04

3.58

Rainfed

12.90

-0.07

12.83

Wheat

0.05

0.39

0.44

Irrigated

0.05

0.01

0.05

Rainfed

-0.02

27.71

27.66

Other crops

0.05

0.03

0.08

Livestock

0.08

0.03

0.11

Processed food

0.06

0.04

0.10

Other industry

0.03

0.02

0.05

Services

0.03

0.02

0.05

Household consumption

0.04

0.03

0.07

Maize

2.12

0.01

2.13

Wheat

0.04

0.40

0.44

Other food

0.05

0.03

0.08

Non-food consumption

0.02

0.02

0.04

Consumer prices

-0.05

-0.04

-0.09

Maize

-11.91

-0.02

-11.93

Wheat

-0.03

-0.86

-0.90

Other food

-0.04

-0.03

-0.07

Non-food

-0.01

-0.01

-0.02

Imports

0.02

0.00

0.02

Maize

-21.01

-0.04

-21.05

Wheat

-0.02

-1.37

-1.39

Other food

-0.03

-0.04

-0.07

0.02

0.01

0.03

Exports

0.05

0.02

0.08

Maize

14.54

0.03

14.57

Wheat

0.06

1.08

1.14

Other food

0.07

0.05

0.13

Non-food

0.02

0.02

0.04

Non-food

Table 3: Impact on factor demand and income in 2030

Changes from baseline level in 2030 (%)
Simulation 1

Simulation 2

Labour

Land

Capital

Labour

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.25

Maize irrigated

-17.71

-17.54

-18.07

0.02

Maize rainfed

-9.66

-9.72

-1.89

-0.09

Wheat irrigated

0.04

0.278

0.01

Wheat rainfed

-0.03

0.003

-0.004

0.05

0.17

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.03

-0.21

0.01

-0.01

Factor demand

Other crops
Non-crop sectors
Factor income

0.04
-0.01

Land

Simulation 3
Capital

Labour

Land

Capital

0.00

0.26

0.00

0.01

0.09

0.01

-17.70

-17.45

-18.06

0.11

-0.02

-9.63

-9.43

-1.91

-1.20

-1.02

-1.19

-1.14

-0.93

-1.20

24.42

24.37

2.77

24.39

24.37

2.77

0.08

0.01

0.08

0.20

0.03

0.02

0.06

-0.13

0.002

-0.02

-0.33

0.01

0.03

20


Table 4: Impact on household food and non-food consumption in 2030
Simulation 1 (% change over baseline)
Simulation 2 (% change over baseline)
Total real
Total real
consuconsuProcess Other Nonmption
Process
Other Nonmption
Maize Wheat ed food food
food
budget
Maize Wheat ed food
food
food
budget
Rural
Non-agri selfemployed
Agricultural
labour

2.13

0.033

0.055

0.042

0.028

0.041

0.008

0.42

0.040

0.030

0.022

0.031

2.19

0.050

0.079

0.062

0.052

0.034

0.008

0.43

0.039

0.029

0.021

0.026

Non-agri labour

2.17

0.064

0.098

0.079

0.071

0.038

0.008

0.43

0.043

0.032

0.024

0.029

Cultivators

2.18

0.069

0.104

0.085

0.077

0.029

0.007

0.42

0.037

0.027

0.019

0.024

Other households

2.08

0.033

0.055

0.043

0.029

0.047

0.007

0.41

0.035

0.026

0.018

0.034

Self-employed

1.05

0.016

0.035

0.028

0.009

0.042

0.003

0.35

0.033

0.025

0.016

0.031

Salaried class

1.04

0.011

0.027

0.021

0.001

0.036

0.002

0.34

0.026

0.019

0.009

0.028

Casual labour

1.07

0.019

0.039

0.031

0.013

0.038

0.004

0.36

0.037

0.029

0.020

0.030

Other households

1.04

0.013

0.030

0.024

0.005

0.041

0.002

0.34

0.025

0.018

0.008

0.030

Urban

Table 4 (Continued): Impact on household food and non-food consumption in 2030

Simulation 3 (% change over baseline)
Processed
food

Other
food

Nonfood

Total real
consumption
budget

Maize

Wheat

Rural
Non-agri selfemployed

2.14

0.45

0.09

0.07

0.05

0.07

Agricultural labour

2.20

0.48

0.12

0.09

0.07

0.06

Non-agri labour

2.18

0.49

0.14

0.11

0.10

0.07

Cultivators

2.18

0.49

0.14

0.11

0.10

0.05

Other households

2.09

0.44

0.09

0.07

0.05

0.08

Self-employed

1.05

0.37

0.07

0.05

0.02

0.07

Salaried class

1.04

0.35

0.05

0.04

0.01

0.06

Casual labour

1.07

0.38

0.08

0.06

0.03

0.07

Other households

1.04

0.35

0.06

0.04

0.01

0.07

Urban

21

ANNEX
Table A1: Yield gain from promising cultivars
Crop

Irrigated/rainfed

Characteristics of germplasm
Heat tolerance

Irrigated
Wheat
Rainfed

Irrigated
Maize
Rainfed

Yield gain
(%)
0.43

Drought tolerance

0.12

Tolerance to combined heat and drought stress

0.50

Heat tolerance

0.09

Drought tolerance

9.29

Tolerance to combined heat and drought stress

9.39

Heat tolerance

25.25

Drought tolerance

0.97

Tolerance to combined heat and drought stress

26.01

Heat tolerance

21.36

Drought tolerance

1.18

Tolerance to combined heat and drought stress

Source: DSSAT estimates provided by CIMMYT

22.31

Table A2: Production sectors in the CGE model

Sector No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

Sector
Paddy
Irrigated wheat
Rainfed wheat
Irrigated maize
Rainfed maize
Cash crops
Other crops
Livestock and fish
Mining
Manufacturing food
Fertilizers
Other manufacturing
Construction
Electricity
Water
Transport & communication
Trade
Government services
Other services

Table A2.1: Household groups in the CGE model

Sector No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Household group
RH1
RH2
RH3
RH4
RH5
UH1
UH2
UH3
UH4

Description
Rural non-agricultural self employed
Rural agricultural labour
Rural other labour (artisans)
Rural agricultural self employed (cultivators)
Rural other households
Urban self-employed
Urban salaried
Urban casual labour
Urban other households

22


Table A3: Structure of production, exports and imports in India

Paddy

Sector share in
total value
added (%)

Exports share
in production (%)

Imports as
share of total
supply (%)

1.96

6.38

0.00

Irrigated

(57%)

Rainfed

(43%)

Total wheat

1.52

Irrigated

0.05

2.36

(91%)

Rainfed

(9%)

Total maize

0.18

Irrigated

16.41

0.07

1.19

2.2

(21%)

Rainfed

(79%)

Other crops

8.2

Irrigated

(42%)

Rainfed

(58%)

Livestock, fish

6.42

1.64

1.38

Processed food

1.29

7.36

3.62

Other industries

16.80

25.58

29.66

Services

62.05

4.47

4.47

Total
100
10.31
12.70
Note: Figures in the parentheses are VA shares of irrigated and rainfed wheat
and maize in total VA of wheat and maize respectively

Table A4: Household sources of income and food and non-food consumption shares (%)
RH1

RH2

RH3

RH4

RH5

UH1

UH2

UH3

UH4

Total

Sources of factor income

Labour

52.21

91.85

89.45

37.79

23.59

45.24

84.48

81.69

25.71

49

Capital

47.79

8.15

10.55

55.08

76.41

54.76

15.52

18.31

74.29

50

Land

7.13

Household consumption
Paddy

5.30

7.86

5.31

5.13

2.83

2.11

1.82

4.44

1.17

3.59

Wheat

3.49

3.88

4.11

4.31

1.93

2.07

1.53

2.87

0.86

2.67

Maize

0.24

0.57

0.77

0.96

0.21

0.03

0.02

0.09

0.01

0.31

Other crops

9.00

13.87

10.80

10.41

6.07

5.74

5.05

9.81

3.36

8.00

Livestock, fish

11.34

14.69

13.30

14.77

7.57

6.35

5.07

9.93

3.37

7.66

Cash crops

0.36

0.64

0.40

0.53

0.27

0.25

0.24

0.41

0.13

0.34

Processed food

9.47

14.04

13.12

10.09

8.55

6.21

6.31

11.34

7.20

8.68

Other manufacturing

20.04

16.49

16.23

21.91

15.84

16.31

17.67

15.85

9.38

17.44

Services
Source: SAM (2007-08)

40.76

27.96

35.96

31.88

56.72

60.94

62.29

45.26

74.51

50.22

23

3.5

35

30

2.5

25

20

1.5

15

10

2013-14

2010-11

2007-08

2004-05

Area Wheat

2001-02

1998-99

1995-96

1992-93

1989-90

1986-87

Yield Maize

1983-84

1980-81

1977-78

1974-75

1971-72

1968-69

Yield Wheat

1965-66

1962-63

1959-60

1956-57

1953-54

1950-51

0.5

Area mil. ha

Yield (t/ha)

Figure 1: Long-term trends in wheat and maize yields and area in India

Area Maize

Source: Government of India, 2015

24