See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319957420

The fourth industrial revolution, agricultural and rural innovation, and

implications for public policy and investments: a case of India

Article  in  Agricultural Economics · September 2017

DOI: 10.1111/agec.12388

CITATIONS READS

26 6,214

2 authors:

Uma Lele Sambuddha Goswami

Independent Researcher 17 PUBLICATIONS   166 CITATIONS   
99 PUBLICATIONS   1,812 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Working on a book, " Food for All: International Organizations and the Tranformation of Agriculture " Forthcoming from Oxford Universit press View project

This paper was prepared under the auspices of the Food Security Information Network’s Measuring Food and Nutrition Security Technical Working Group. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Uma Lele on 11 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The fourth industrial revolution, agricultural and rural innovation, and implications for public policy and

investments: A case of India

Uma Lelea,*, Sambuddha Goswamib

a
Independent researcher, Washington, DC, USA; formerly, Senior Advisor, World Bank
b
Research associate, Lele Team, Delhi, India

Received 1 February 2017; received in revised form 4 July 2017; accepted 11 July 2017

*Corresponding author: E-mail address: [email protected] (Ume Lele)

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:
10.1111/agec.12388.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Abstract

The Indian Government and public–private partnerships are developing and disseminating a

dizzying number of innovative, networked solutions, broadly known as the Digital India

initiative, to increase the efficiency of safety nets and worker productivity and to improve

life. Yet, challenges to turn the power of information and other technologies into a farmer-

friendly technological revolution for India’s 156 million rural households are considerable,

including: (1) reliable, up-to-date, location-specific message content for a diverse agriculture

to help stratified households shift to productive, knowledge-intensive agriculture as a

business—government, private sector, and civil society have big roles to play; (2) digital

literacy, i.e., teaching farmers how to choose and use apps, even where the digital divide is

absent; apps are, or soon to be, in regional languages; and (3) monitoring actual use and

impacts on users’ lives by understanding the adoption and adaptation processes. These

challenges call for bottom-up, complementary investments in physical, human, and

institutional capital, and farmer-friendly e-platforms, while forging ahead with many top-

down policy and institutional reforms currently underway, in which progress is real and

constraints holding back greater success are better understood.

JEL classifications: I38, O13, O14, O33, O38, O53, O35, Q15, Q18, Q55

Keywords: Innovation, technological change, industrialization, agriculture, food, safety nets,

poverty, climate change, India

2
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction

Since the famous study by Griliches (1957) of hybrid corn, agricultural economists

have undertaken hundreds of studies of adoption of new agricultural technologies. The study

focus shifted from single innovations to packages of innovations and diversity of impacts,

e.g., on farm productivity, employment, income, and, more recently, on food consumption

and nutrition. Interventions considered have become diverse, e.g., to cash transfers, social

safety nets, and financial innovations, such as M-Pesa (Joseph, 2017). Methodologies to

examine interventions also evolved, using experimental or semi-experimental designs to

construct counterfactual scenarios to understand reasons behind impacts (Huang and Ding,

2016). There is also substantial emerging literature on frameworks for understanding digital

technologies (Deichmann et al., 2016) and their roles in increasing productivity (Lio and Liu,

2006), as well as efficiency and constraints to their use, i.e., connectivity, content, capacity

(Nakasone and Torero, 2016), information asymmetries, and gender divide (Kondylis et al.,

2015; Aker et al., 2016).

From this evolutionary perspective, recent literature on the fourth industrial revolution

by Schwab (2016) and others, explores how rapidly scientific discoveries at large are

reshaping economies and societies, and whether government policies and interventions are

keeping pace with the rapid technological advances to take advantage of opportunities to

achieve inclusive economic growth, beyond digital technologies. Potentially, the speed and

range of technological change holds promise for accelerating inclusive agriculture and rural

development, leading to more rapid structural transformation from agriculture to high-

productivity manufacturing and other sectors. An issue of particular interest to all

stakeholders among late developers in Asia and Africa, they can leapfrog into reforms using

new tools. The extraordinary changes in computing power, connectivity, artificial intelligence

3
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
(AI), biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3D-printing,

nanotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing are changing the

way we manufacture, transact business, and live. Moreover, the fusion of different kinds of

technologies is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. The

fourth revolution has no boundaries; its high velocity affects the way business is done by

every business, government, and individual. The change also threatens to create more

structural unemployment, particularly among unskilled workers in developed and developing

countries alike. Through artificial intelligence and robotization, this revolution is expected to

worsen the situations of those already left behind, potentially threatening the conventional

liberal world economic order more than the forces of the anti-globalization movement,

already manifest in Brexit and Trumpism (Hammes, 2016).

The fourth industrial revolution, therefore, has profound implications for public

policymakers and other actors. Together, they must be proactive in building on beneficial

aspects of technological change, while minimizing adverse impacts among those already on

the margin. Yet, despite the spread of digital technologies worldwide, digital dividends have

lagged (World Bank, 2016), because the analogue investments in regulatory frameworks, and

physical and human capital have lagged more, particularly in rural areas, targeting poor

people and poor regions. Basu (2016), former World Bank Chief Economist, argued that,

despite being the largest exporter of information technology services and skilled manpower

among developing countries, India fell behind in digitally transforming its economy. China

surpassed India in the leveraging of the Internet.

We explore how India is wrestling with this revolution in terms of public policy and

public–private and NGO partnerships to elevate its development effort, particularly in

agriculture and rural development. Success stories of individual Information and

Communications Technology (ICT) interventions in agriculture abound (FAO, 2015, 2017),

4
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
but there are no country- and sector-level explorations of how public policymakers and

different stakeholders in developing countries are responding to the technological revolution

and affecting prospects for inclusive growth. The World Bank’s Independent Evaluation

Group (IEG) noted the speedy adoption of mobile technology has starkly contrasted to

lagging access to other basic infrastructure, including electricity, water, and roads, inhibiting

digital dividends (IEG, 2011). This paper argues that the immediate impacts of new

technologies are more evident on governmental redistributive policies than on those directed

at improving productivity and livelihood opportunities for the poor, even though information

is ubiquitous and the cost of providing it is seemingly declining rapidly.1

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: We first discuss why we focus on India

and its fourth industrial revolution. After defining innovation, we describe India’s policy to

double farmer incomes under climate change, various debates, and governmental policy

responses, seemingly coherent at the top but fragmented and disjointed at the bottom,

showing a lack of comprehensive state, district, and local strategies. McKinsey (2014)

provided an inventory of 12 technologies to achieve rapid participatory growth; we discuss

five components of farm income and how the McKinsey technologies could contribute to

doubling farm income. India’s emerging digitized public ecosystem is described next,

1
This article is based on the plenary lecture Uma Lele delivered at the 13th Agricultural

Science Congress of the University of Agricultural Sciences and the Indian Academy of

Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, India, during February 21–24, 2017, and the Filley-Gary

lecture she delivered at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, on April 7, 2017. The authors

are grateful to Brian Baldwin, Sham Banerji, Javier Ekboir, Ajay Vir Jakhar, Christopher

Parel, T. Ramasami, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on earlier versions.

5
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
illustrating institutional and physical infrastructure being put in place on a nationwide basis

but needed and missing at the ground level among poor households and poor regions. Recent

policy and programmatic reforms using digital technology, mainly concerning safety nets,

which have aimed to increase efficiency and equity, with good preliminary results, are

discussed next, but also noted are vested interests that hinder their wider adoption. Finally,

we consider a combination of new policies and programs, interacting with technologies and

their limitations for improving farm productivity. In conclusion, we emphasize the need to

invest more in physical and institutional capacity at the ground level to better understand the

adoption and adaptation processes to increase farm productivity.

2. Why India?

Criticism mounts: ―Across thousands of schools in India, expensive computers,

printers and scanners are gathering dust. In many panchayats and other local bodies, such

hardwares remain unused. Meanwhile, tonnes of government orders and circulars continue to

be scanned and uploaded on official websites, which serve absolutely no purpose to anyone‖

(Manzar, 2016). Via Digital India, however, the Government of India (GOI) is connecting 2.5

million gram panchayats with high-speed Internet by 2018, which is expected to be a game-

changer. Hundred thousands of panchayats have already become Internet-enabled.

India was an early industrializer: birthplace of weather-indexed insurance, as early as

the 1920s, (Chakravarty, 1920, quoted in Clarke et al., 2012); cradle of the Green Revolution;

leader in the software industry, including a proven track record in space exploration. India

was the first to mainstream a unique identification number (UID)/Aadhaar card; GOI

manages the largest food distribution and public employment schemes in the world, as safety

nets with huge scope to eradicate India’s blot of large-scale undernourishment, and it has the
6
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
largest crop insurance scheme. It stands first or second in the production of a number of

agricultural commodities and has been one of the fastest growing economies for nearly a

decade. Its prime minister discovered Twitter, as a communication tool to uplift public

discourse, well before Donald Trump.

Yet, India has fallen behind its Asian neighbors in inclusive growth, illustrated by

several key indicators of underperformance. Manufacturing share was only 16.6 percent of

the Indian GDP in 2015. Agriculture’s share in GDP dropped from 42 percent in 1970 to 17.5

percent in 2015; yet nearly half of India’s population makes a living from low-productivity

agriculture, with a majority of poverty in rural areas. Youth want nonfarm jobs, due to low

farm production, and higher aspirations. Seventy-five percent of rural women depend on

agriculture for their livelihoods, mostly doing backbreaking manual labor. India’s global

Gender Parity Score is one of the lowest in the world, using McKinsey’s 15 indicators

(Woetzel et al., 2015). With urban male migration and feminization of agriculture, increasing

women’s productivity is critical to uplifting rural India. Regional and rural–urban disparities

have increased, and unlike in China, rural populations have not benefitted from redistributive

policies, such as land reform, to make agriculture and rural livelihoods productive (Ghosh,

2010). Unless constraints to uplifting women are removed, women may well lead future

agitations, rather than today’s rural youth, argues Agarwal (2017).

2.1 India’s incomplete industrializations

India, an early industrializer, did not complete the first three industrial revolutions.

The steam-powered railway, launched in England in 1832, following the first industrial

revolution, led an engineer in 1843 to India, dispatched by English textile industrialists to

explore how a new railway could transport cheap cotton from Indian hinterlands to Bombay

7
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Harbor for shipment to England (IRFCA, n.d.). Colonial India lost its cotton textile industry

to the British automated textiles (Tharoor, 2016). The Tata Iron and Steel Company took

advantage of the second industrial revolution. Using electric power for mass production, the

company established the first Indian steel plant in 1907. By 1939, it was the largest steel plant

in the British Empire. Following India’s liberalization drive in 1991, the Indian steel industry

made inroads into Europe in the 21st century, only to be outcompeted by subsidized Chinese

steel production. In the third industrial revolution, India became the largest software exporter,

amounting to $121 billion in 2016, but growth rates decelerated from 20 percent early on to

less than 10 percent by 2016.

2.2. India’s fourth industrial revolution

IT experts note Indian software industry must either adjust to the fourth industrial

revolution or see its gradual demise. There is huge potential for the software industry to tap

the large domestic Indian agricultural and nonagricultural sectors. While both sectors have

more limited purchasing power than multinational clients, with improved management of the

Corporate Social Responsibility Policy Act of 2013–2014, IT could be a boon for India’s

rural poor. The act requires 2 percent of corporate profits be devoted to social causes. The

first such act enacted by any government, it is not without criticism about how it is

implemented (Balch, 2016). This paper explores whether GOI and other stakeholders are

exploiting the new technological revolution to increase productivity, efficiency, and equity in

delivery of services, to achieve faster, more equitable growth.

3. Defining innovation

Literature is replete with definitions of innovations since Schumpeter (World Bank,

8
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
2006). FAO (2012) provided a broad definition suited to our purposes: Agricultural

innovation is the process whereby individuals or organizations bring existing or new

products, processes and forms of organization into social and economic use to increase

effectiveness, competitiveness, resilience to shocks or environmental sustainability, thereby

contributing to achieve food and nutrition security, economic development and sustainable

natural resource management. Incorporation of social dimensions, resilience to shocks, and

environmental sustainability are particularly relevant to the conditions of climate change and

vulnerability of the poor. FAO (2010, ii) also coined the term, climate-smart agriculture:

“agriculture that sustainably increases productivity, enhances resilience (adaptation),

reduces/removes GHGs (mitigation) where possible, and enhances achievement of national

food security and development goals.”

India is one of the hardest hit by climate change, with wide-ranging impacts on

agriculture, as agriculture itself contributes to climate change. Rising temperatures, more

frequent droughts and floods, growing water scarcities, increased incidence of pests and

diseases, and land degradation require an adaptive response, by developing skills in the

public, private, and NGO sectors and, most importantly, in farming households

4. Doubling farmers’ income under climate change

In response to the farming crisis, in February 2016, Prime Minister Modi articulated a

vision of doubling Indian farmers’ incomes by 2022, now India’s national policy. The policy

stimulated considerable debate, including questions such as doubling of ―what income‖—

farm income or total household income, nominal or real income?

India’s Planning Advisor, Chand (2016 a, b) has focused on doubling agricultural

income from crops and livestock. He advocated a comprehensive and firmer approach to

9
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
replace currently patchy and sporadic reforms, near doubling of government expenditures,

vigorous implementation of the 2003 Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act,

and for secure land leases.

Swaminathan (2016) has emphasized soil health care, water harvesting and

management, appropriate technology and inputs, credit and insurance, opportunities for

remunerative and assured marketing, knowledge, skill, credit, and land ownership and

empowerment of women farmers.

Others in India are more skeptical (Gulati and Saini, 2016a, b; Desai, 2016; Sharma,

2016). Gulati and Saini (2016 a, b) argued that doubling farmers’ income would be a

―miracle of miracles,‖ without major reforms, calling for massive investments in research and

development (R&D). Fig. 1 shows the growing gap between China and India in public

expenditures on agricultural research.

<INSERT FIG. 1 approximately HERE>

There is no consensus on the role of Minimum Support Prices (MSPs). They have

played an important role in China and in India’s Green Revolution. Support prices of rice and

wheat still generate food that GOI procures for nationwide distribution. Some argue MSPs

are irrelevant (Waghmare, 2016); there is hardly any government procurement for crops

besides rice and wheat, even if MSPs are declared. MSPs help traders more than farmers

(Joshi et al., 2017). A conference of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development placed strong emphasis on the importance of institutional credit, farmers’

organizations in value chains and processing, and the role of investments in infrastructure,

such as cold storage. Recent reports point to growing banking debts (NABARD, 2016).

10
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
4.1 Policy responses

The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare launched the Pradhan Mantri Krishi

Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) to address India’s key agricultural challenges in the 21st century,

i.e., reducing poverty and ensuring food security for the growing population in the face of

climate change and scarce and limited water and land resources. Its total cost is $72 billion

over 10 years, $39 billion from central and state governments, and $31 billion from farmers’

contributions. Additional resources would be needed for capacity building. The initiative

proposes to provide irrigation to every farm in India (Har Khet Ko Pani) and improve water

use efficiency (More Crop Per Drop) (Wani et al., 2016). Other initiatives launched include

Digital India (transforming the rural economy and creating skilled jobs in rural areas), ―Make

in India,‖ and ―Swachh Bharat‖ (Clean India).

4.2 Opportunities posed by the technological revolution for broad-based inclusive

agriculture and rural development

The McKinsey Global Institute (2014) identified 12 empowering technologies,

classified into three categories for India, which could create both economic and social value,

helping India achieve its goals of rapid economic growth, greater social inclusion, and better

governance: technologies that “digitize” life and work (mobile Internet, cloud technology,

automation of knowledge work, digital payments, verifiable digital identity); smart physical

systems (Internet of Things, intelligent transportation and distribution, advanced geographic

information systems [GIS], next-generation genomics); and technologies for rethinking

energy (advanced oil and gas exploration and recovery, renewable energy, advanced energy

storage). Analyzing selected sets of applications of these 12 technologies across seven sectors

(financial services, education, health care, agriculture, energy, infrastructure, and government

11
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
services), the report estimated their economic impact in 2025 to be $250–$500 billion, about

45 percent of the total impact. McKinsey projects potential impacts of the 12 technologies by

2025 of about a $1 trillion, or 20–30 percent of India’s incremental GDP from 2012–2025, in

addition to other benefits of financial inclusion, health care, education, yield improvement,

farm and off-farm employment.

The report does not include investment costs in these technologies nor their location.

The 12 technologies fall into those potentially: (1) directly increasing farmers’ income by

their application to the agriculture, infrastructure, and energy sectors through

output/productivity improvement, cost reduction, and risk reduction; or (2) indirectly

affecting farmers’ incomes through access to improved quality of life, with better financial

services, enhancement of education/knowledge/skills, affordable and ―easy-to-reach‖ health

care and application to government services.

A recent International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)

report, prepared at the prime minister’s request, shows the practical application of these

technologies, based on ICRISAT experience in the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh,

preliminary costs, benefits and required implementation arrangements (Wani et al., 2016).

New technologies are crucial for small farmers to shift from input-intensive to

knowledge-intensive agriculture. India’s number of extension personnel is only one-sixth that

of China’s. With meager numbers of extension personnel serving the widely dispersed

farmers with diversified information needs, extension personnel are overburdened. Though

farmers need information on the entire food and agriculture value chain, from forecasts of

weather conditions to market prices of produce, public extension largely concentrates on on-

farm activities (Glendenning et al., 2010). An overview of the composition of farmers’

incomes and how technology might improve the efficiency and effectiveness of various

policies and interventions affecting farmers is instructive.

12
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
5. Double Farm Income or Double All Income of the Poor?

Farm household income consists of:

Farm income = f [Output x prices – cost of production] (1)

Precision agriculture can improve timeliness of planting and market prices through market

information and e-market reforms, with better directed fertilizer subsidies through Direct

Bank Transfers (DBTs), and improved agricultural extension. It is determined by: annual

output per farm household, which, in turn, is determined by: (1) yields per unit of land per

crop, (2) double or triple cropping per unit of land, (3) shift from low to higher value crops,

and (4) income from livestock and fisheries. Precision agriculture, combined with improved

seed supply, timeliness of planting, and land and water management can bridge the yield gap,

increase double and triple cropping, and increase farm income.

Farm size = f [Share of population in agriculture, land distribution, land access to

hire in or out more land, and other factors of production]. (2)

Digitized land registration, Internet of Things, mobile phones, and ―uberized‖ tractor service

helps to translate precision agriculture into farm management. Increased security of land

tenure, enabled by clarity of land records, stimulates land rentals, land consolidation, and

encourages youth and women to seek employment in more productive nonfarm jobs,

particularly for small and marginal farmers with unviable farms and backbreaking labor.

Contract farming is growing, with private companies providing improved seed and other

services, expecting farmers to produce outputs of the quality the private sector needs for

13
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
processing. Even micro-irrigation suppliers, such as Jain, are beginning to provide vertical

integration of services to cope with gluts of production of onions and other high-value crops.

Prices are determined either by Government Minimum Announced Procurement

prices (MSPs) for scheduled crops, or market prices for crops, livestock, and fisheries for

which there are no declared scheduled prices and market access tends to be limited, except

for farmers near good infrastructure and urban areas. If implemented rapidly, India’s e-

market initiative and improved price information via web portals can improve market

information, turning it into a national commodity market, as the policy intends.

Cost of production is determined by technology (such as improved genetic material,

including GM crops and precision agriculture), and by input costs (including improved

delivery of inputs, better designed input subsidies, higher quality advice to farmers through

improved extension, and market linkages). DBTs of fertilizer subsidies will eliminate

intermediaries, reduce fertilizer costs, and improve fertilizer management.

Nonfarm income = f [(Nonfarm employment and wages) + (Entrepreneurial

income from trade) + (Transfer payments/social safety nets such as Mahatma Gandhi

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) – debt)]. (3)

Safety nets, using digital approaches, are being improved. Domestic and international

remittances are important to this story. India’s annual remittances are about $63 billion

annually, compared to World Bank commitments of $3.9 billion in 2016.

How abject the poverty is can be seen from household income data. At the national

level, average monthly income (cultivation + farming of animals + salary/wages + nonfarm

business) per agricultural household was about $100, or $3/day, for a family of five

members—less than a $1/day in nominal terms, with huge interstate income differences and
14
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
farm income accounting for about 60 percent of the average monthly income (Fig. 2).

Farming income share is low in more urbanized and industrial states. Clearly, for the

estimated 156 million rural households per the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), there

is need for investment in transportation, power, and the Internet to create more employment

for women and youth in nonfarm activities in rural areas, as well as in agriculture.

<INSERT FIG. 2 approximately HERE>

6. India’s emerging digitized public ecosystem

The central government has established a newly digitized ecosystem through the

Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, working with all other concerned

ministries, in an attempt to reform the state’s giant service delivery system. Much of this

massive effort is very new, still work in progress. Some of the biggest initiatives are

identified, and some of the known outcomes are reported in the following section.

India’s newly approved, ambitious Goods and Services Tax (GST) system seeks to

establish a uniform interface for the taxpayer and a common and shared IT infrastructure

between the central government and the states. The portal is envisioned as a trusted National

Information Utility (NIU), providing a reliable, efficient, and robust IT backbone for the

smooth functioning of the GST regimen and enabling economic agents to leverage the entire

nation as one market, with minimal indirect tax compliance cost.

Common Services Centers (CSCs) are designed as strategic cornerstones of the

Digital India program, access points for delivery of various electronic services to villages,

thereby contributing to a digitally and financially inclusive society. More than service

delivery points in rural India, CSCs are meant as change agents, promoting rural

15
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
entrepreneurship and building rural capacities and livelihoods. They are intended to be

enablers of community participation and collective action for engendering social change

through a bottom-up approach, with a key focus on rural citizens.

The Public Distribution System (PDS), the world’s largest safety net of its kind,

facilitates the supply of food grains and distribution of essential commodities (mostly, wheat,

rice, sugar, and kerosene) through a network of 521,000 Fair Price Shops (FPS). The PDS

distributed subsidies worth Rs. 98,979.52 crore (US$ 15 billion)2 in 2014–15 from the Centre

(GOI 2016a). In April 2016, Prime Minister Modi launched an online platform for farmers,

eNAM (National Agriculture Market), a single-window service integrating mandis

(agriculture markets) online so that farmers and traders can view all APMC-related

information and services, commodity arrivals and prices, and buy and sell trade offers,

thereby helping farmers bid for the best price across markets. The mission is to link 585

mandis to the portal by March 2018 (Nair, 2016).

GOI launched a crop insurance scheme, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana

(PMFBY) in Kharif season, 2016, covering 37 million farmers, as the existing insurance

schemes (National Agricultural Insurance Scheme [NAIS] and the modified NAIS) were not

meeting the needs of the farmers for insurance coverage (GOI, 2016b).

Progress on digitization of land records is another key reform for creating a fair and

competitive land market. Among potential benefits are increased tenure security, investment,

and agricultural and nonagricultural jobs. Nonviable small farmers are spurred to rent out

land through a transparent rental market, quit agriculture, and move to other enterprises

(Deininger, 2017). Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP) is a

positive, nationwide institutional reform, updating millions of land records a century or older,

2
1 USD = INR 65.
16
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
promoting interconnectivity between revenue and registration, and replacing the present

deeds registration and presumptive title system with conclusive titling and title guarantee.

GOI has doubled the budget for land record digitalization (Chandran, 2016). Well underway,

it is a huge task, which has not yet eliminated growing land conflicts, as urbanization and

infrastructure needs lead to nefarious land deals (Gowen, 2017).

GOI has mandated support for at least one of 22 Indian languages, besides English

and Hindi, in all mobile phones to be sold in the country from July 1, 2017.

In some important cases, such as food and fertilizer subsidies, crop insurance, and

micro-irrigation, the basic premises on which policies are based are faulty. By improving data

and analysis on a large scale, big data can help improve the content of these programs. Most

require states to act in a federal system of India’s government.

7. “Last mile” institutional infrastructure needed for reforms, safety nets

The Economic Survey of 2016–17 reports the central government has about 950

central sector and centrally sponsored subschemes in India, accounting for about 5 percent of

GDP by budget allocation, substantially higher than commensurate levels for a country of

India’s per capita income level. The top 11 central schemes account for about 50 percent of

the total budgetary allocation. Food Subsidy or PDS is the largest program, followed by Urea

Subsidy and the MGNREGS3 (GOI, 2017d).

There is a sharp mismatch in the poverty levels and welfare spending by the poor. The

3
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (SSA); Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) Subsidy; Pradhan Mantri Awas

Yojana (PMAY); National Health Mission; Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY);

Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS); Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM); and Mid-

Day Meal (MDM) schemes, among others.

17
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
poorest set of districts, 50 percent of the poor, access about 38 percent of the resources from

the six top welfare programs—PMAY, SSA, MDM, PMGSY, MGNREGS, and SBM (GOI

2017d). Reasons for this disparity are weak institutions and physical distance of beneficiaries

from banking institutions.

The rapid spread in India’s triple innovation system (JAM)—Jan Dhan (the Prime

Minister’s initiative to open universal bank accounts), Aadhaar, and mobile phones—is the

key vehicle for the delivery of safety nets and their reforms. Over 75 percent of the

population and nearly 95 percent of the adult population hold Aadhaar cards (GOI 2016c).

Despite the GOI’s effort to spur growth of bank accounts by depositing Rs1000

(US$15.4) per household through Jan Dhan, the basic savings account penetration in most

states is still relatively low—46 percent on average and above 75 percent in only 2 states

(Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh). Demonetization has hurt the rural population most, but

inadvertently, it is helping accelerate digitized banking in rural India, making rural folks use

new technology where over 90 percent of transactions are cash-based (Davis, 2017).

Policymakers now routinely talk about ―exclusion errors,‖ those most deserving not being

able to participate and ―inclusion errors,‖ those not deserving drawing on benefits, due

among other reasons, to not being able to participate in DBTs, i.e., not reaching ―unbanked‖

beneficiaries. Only 27 percent of villages have banks within 5 kilometers.

Given the serious problem of getting money from banks to households, the Reserve

Bank of India (RBI), in 2015, licensed 23 new banks—2 universal banks, 11 payment banks,

and 10 small finance banks.

Mobile technology allows for quick and secure banking transfers, improving the

quality and convenience of service delivery, but we need to know much more about the

computer literacy of the poor by age groups, since phones can inform beneficiaries of arrivals

of food supplies at ration shops or of fertilizer at local retail outlets. Mobile coverage is very
18
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
high, with over 1,010 billion customers among India’s population of 1.4 billion and 1.4

million agents or posts to serve the mobile phones. The government is licensing payment

banks and relying more on mobile phones, to make greater use of mobile payment

technology.

Growth in mobile phone production has exploded, making India an electronic hub

(GOI, 2017b). Yet, critics complain of government ―puffery‖ on numbers covered and

amount of savings under Aadhaar (Rajagopal 2017). Digital India is weakest at the grassroots

level where it should be strong. Of 250,000 panchayats, more than 50,000 have been

provided computers and connectivity, but these facilities are almost never used (Manzar,

2016).

8. Reforms through Digital Technology

8.1 The Public Distribution System (PDS)

PDS has been widely criticized for corruption, inefficiency, leakage, and urban bias

since its establishment in the 1960s. A recent major GOI (2016a) evaluation noted there is no

evidence that FPSs have reduced the incidence of underweight children or shifted higher

income consumers to the market for supplies. End-to-end computerization of the Targeted

Public Distribution System (TPDS) operations introduced in 1997, however, seems to be

helping the behemoth to increase transparency. Under the system, central government

procures, stores, and transports food; states distribute it to consumers through FPSs. Under

TPDS and before the National Food Security Act (NFSA) of 2013, the central government

allocated food grains (rice and wheat) of 35 kg per family per month for Below Poverty Line

(BPL) families, defined by India’s intensely debated poverty line. To focus TPDS more, a

program (Antyodaya Anna Yojana [AAY]) was launched in 2000, in which 10 million of the

19
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
poorest of poor families, from among the BPL families, were to receive priority allocation.

Since then, their ranks have expanded to 25 million families. Allocations to Above Poverty

Line (APL) families depend on availability and have ranged between 15 to 35 kg per family

per month. However, under NFSA, TPDS coverage has been delinked from poverty

estimates. The coverage of 75 percent and 50 percent of rural and urban populations,

respectively, prescribed under the Act is substantially above the poverty estimates. Eligible

households, i.e., priority households from the BPL and APL and households covered under

the AAY are entitled to receive food grains, which vary by price, quantity, and types of grain.

For example, the entitlements of priority households are 5 kg per person per month, and the

AAY families receive 35 kg per family per month (GOI, 2017a). Individual states offer

different levels of subsidies. The current system encounters both large ―inclusion‖ and

―exclusion‖ errors, and dependence on PDS—even by APL populations—has increased (GOI

2016a). Since 2014, the High Level Committee (HLC) on restructuring of the Food

Corporation of India (FCI) has recommended gradually moving to cash transfers, to save the

government possibly more than US$4.6 billion annually, while giving a better deal to

consumers. Cash transfers could be indexed with overall price levels to protect real income

transfers and routed through Prime Minister's Jan-Dhan Yojana (PMJDY),

dovetailing Aadhaar and UID numbers, empowering consumers, plugging high leakages in

PDS, and saving resources; it could be rolled out over the next 2–3 years (GOI, 2015).

Over the last two years, the Modi government has also focused on PDS reforms,

especially following the passage of the NFSA in 2013. Cutting pilferage from the PDS is

becoming easier, with almost all of the 230 million ration cards in the country being

digitized, and 56 percent of these already seeded with a UID and Aadhaar. Additionally,

several states have now installed electronic point-of-sale (ePOS) devices at their FPSs to

track sale of food grains to actual cardholders on a real-time basis. Yet, to some, Finance
20
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Minister Jetley’s target of ―300,000 out of 5.35 lakh FPSs by automation facilities by March

2017‖ seems unrealistic (Manzar, 2016). The limited progress in getting FPSs to adopt ePOS

machines for biometric authentication, noted in the Economic Survey (2015–2016), suggests

of resistance by FPS owners, fertilizer retail outlets, and other distributors who profit from

PDS and fertilizer subsidies.

Exclusion errors can be substantial if few beneficiaries have bank accounts and cannot

easily access them, and inclusion errors large if false claims are made. Bank account

penetration is growing, due to Jan Dhan, but in rural areas, physical connectivity to the

banking system remains limited.

To expand the beneficiary pool, GOI is improving financial inclusion by developing

banking correspondent and mobile money networks, while also promoting models like

BAPU—Biometrically Authenticated Physical Uptake. The government, sensitive to

exclusion, should improve delivery calls for first-mile (beneficiary identification), middle-

mile (distributor opposition), and last-mile (beneficiary financial inclusion) challenges.

8.2 Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) Subsidy

LPG use, instead of firewood or kerosene, is better for household health. ―Household

LPG is both untaxed and enjoys a universal subsidy, even though … 97 percent of LPG is

consumed by the richest 30 per cent of households‖ (GOI, 2016c, 56). Since beginning the

transfer of LPG subsidies via DBT to LPG users in 2014, over 176 million consumers are

participating, with US$6.2 billion in subsidies transferred directly to beneficiaries’ bank

accounts, a savings of US$ 3.2billion in two years. Misdirected subsidies to the rich and

upper middle class have been controlled, by blocking an estimated 33 million fake, ghost, and

duplicate LPG connections. LPG market prices rose 39.5 percent in 2015–16, in contrast to

the time before DBT usage, when commercial sales were not growing at all, as the subsidized
21
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
residential supply was diverted to commercial sales. Through GOI’s ―LPG Give It Up

Campaign,‖ 12 million consumers voluntarily gave up subsidies to provide the

underprivileged access to LPG. Nearly 6.3 million new LPG connections have been released

to poor BPL families in 2015–16, with a target of providing 50 million LPG connections over

three years for poor households, involving budgetary support of US$1.2 billion. The target

for 2016–17 was achieved in less than 8 months (GOI 2017c). Virtually, all urban dwellers

use LPG. Exclusion error (those not benefitting from LPG subsidy) remains large for reasons

discussed earlier.

8.3 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS)

MGNREGS guarantees up to 100 days of rural employment for those in need of employment

at Rs100 (US$1.5) a day, offering labor voluntarily in the construction of local physical

infrastructure. After August 2015, the national-level MGNREGS reforms entailed using

DBTs to beneficiaries from the central government, reducing transfer costs, waste, and

corruption. Following this example, delivering within-government transfers via JAM can help

the other 900 centrally sponsored schemes to reduce idle funds, lower corruption, and

improve the ease of doing business with the government, ensuring benefits go directly to

intended beneficiaries. Previously, disbursals were based on forecasted expenditure, with

funds moving from the central government to the state, district, and panchayats, idling in

local government accounts until expenditures were incurred (or misallocated and wasted),

and never returned.

To identify beneficiaries of target subsidies, depending on the program, the

government needs a database of eligible individuals, with information about beneficiaries’

income, occupation, and pregnancy status. Were all households eligible, i.e., subsidies de
22
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
facto universal, no specific information would be required. This has led to policy debate on

replacing subsidies with a universal basic income (UBI), although it is far from consensus.

Most Indian states have now digitized their PDSs. The recently released Socio-

Economic and Caste Census (SECC) contains information about household assets and

occupation. Another issue with identification relates to intrahousehold issues; some benefits

are for households, rather than individuals. (NFSA provides subsidized grain to households,

but cash transfers to mothers. Jan Dhan is monitored at the household level, while Aadhaar is

an individual identifier.)

9. The political economy challenge of sharing rents with supply chain interest groups

Most promising additional targets for JAM are fertilizer subsidies and within-

government fund transfers—areas under significant central government control, with

substantial potential for fiscal savings. There has been little progress, however, in eliminating

fertilizer subsidies or improving fertilizer messages.

9.1 Crop insurance

Indian farmers face many different kinds of disasters. GIS can provide ―just-in-time‖

weather and crop forecasts and estimates of actual production. Digital technologies are ideal

tools to design and administer crop insurance schemes. Utility of crop insurance schemes for

small farmers, however, has been questioned (e.g., Smith, 2016; Binswanger, 2012).

Coverage of the insurance scheme has increased, yet, despite substantial subsidy, there is

limited demand for insurance—except for farmers who borrow bank credit and for whom

insurance is mandatory. The subsidy has considerable fiscal implications and discourages

competition from alternative providers. The World Bank helped to bring good practice, but

23
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
the insurance scheme faced criticism (Ifft, 2001). Hazel and Hess (2017) discuss various

options to improve the insurance schemes.

10. New Technology to Increase Farm Productivity under Conditions of Climate

Change

Whereas subsidies keep incomes from sagging, the real need is for direct applications

of digital technology to increase farm productivity and address issues of climate change.

Remote sensing (via satellites), GIS, crop and soil health monitoring, and livestock and farm

management are commonplace. At the preharvest stage, digital technology can recommend

crop and input selection and assist in obtaining credit and insurance. At the on-farm stage,

there is need for weather advisories and disease and pest-related assistance, and at the

postharvest stage, real-time data on both domestic and export markets are needed. The

growth of competitive markets and demand for consistent food quality are making adoption

of such tech-based solutions necessary for the Indian farmer. Yet much of the scope for

application and innovation remains unexploited.

Since 1960, the increasing trend in weather extremes are well documented in India’s

breadbasket, northwest India (Aggarwal, 2016): droughts, short-term floods, heat events,

greater coefficients of variation, and multiple weather-related risks in the same season, as

well as declining and more variable rainfalls. Analysis of actual, potential, and attainable

levels of state yields of wheat and rice during 2004–2010 show how much higher rice and

wheat yields might have been if all the required inputs were available at the right time and

place. A better delivery system is needed, but also greater investment in research to develop

multiresistant crops. China’s investment in agricultural research is larger, as share of

agricultural GDP, whereas the share is declining in India. Furthermore, recently, China boldly

24
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
acquired Syngenta, one of big five private research companies, for $40 billion. India has

allowed itself to be bypassed by advances in genomics by refusing to approve the

technologies developed by its own nationals, as exemplified by Bt Brinjal, Bt mustard, and Bt

Jowar. These crops do not involve the usual ―multinational monopoly‖ argument; the crops

are grown by poor farmers; and they enable increased resistance to extreme climate,

minimizing some of the adverse environmental consequences of pesticide use that cause

cancer among farm workers. It is no surprise that global R&D activity is shifting towards

East Asia, which is becoming a major technology hub (MGI 2014).

With five of the top 20 Internet companies in China, the largest Chinese e-commerce

company, Alibaba, has 25 times the market capitalization of Flipkart, India’s largest e-

commerce company; fewer than two of five Indian businesses have an online presence,

compared to almost two-thirds of Chinese firms. Seth and Ganguly (2017) report an

estimated 34 private investment ventures in India, receiving US$295 million, compared to

US$427 million in China. Out of 10 deals, 53 Indian start-ups raised US$313 million in the

same year.

China had 665 million Internet users in 2014, compared to 227 million in India, due

partly to higher Internet costs and a smaller physical coverage. Additionally, Basu (2016)

identified two major constraints: access to less physical capital and less human capability.

Around 25 percent of India’s adult population cannot read or write, compared to fewer than 5

percent in China. In rural India, 10 percent of children aged 16 and below cannot identify

single-digit numbers consistently. Fewer than one in five can compute a subtraction,

performing considerably below their grade level. India needs to bridge the gender divide,

particularly investing in rural women’s education and training, and using new information

technology. A pioneering approach of the Swaminathan Foundation, working with fishermen

on weather advisories since early 2000, saved fishermen’s lives during the 2004 tsunami. The
25
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
foundation also trained rural women to use computers to be editors of local newspapers. (Lele

and Gandhi, 2009). Without such approaches at scale, Basu concludes, ―India’s challenge to

becoming a digital economy remains formidable.‖

In view of the magnitude of the challenge, coherent, climate-smart, integrated,

national- and state-level agricultural policy and strategy frameworks are needed, going

beyond the ―mission mode,‖ recommended by NABARD and ICRISAT (NABARD, 2016,

44). A few lagging Indian districts have ―caught up‖ with better performing districts, but a

substantial number have fallen further behind, despite registering positive, but low levels of

growth. (Kshirsagar and Gautam, 2013). Improved seeds, the other key element of the Green

Revolution technology, have spread faster and wider, but have not narrowed the productivity

differentials across districts. Market density has fallen more in the low-yield, stable districts,

constraining producer incentives. In the ―growth‖ districts, irrigation and fertilizers have

contributed to significant changes in productivity, but in others, cropping patterns need to be

more attuned to the environment. Crop management practices need improvement, with better

extension, input delivery, and market access, in more active partnerships with the private

sector.

Not only is there underinvestment in research, even reformed extension systems such

as the Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) and the Krishi Vigyan

Kendras (KVKs, or farmers’ learning centers) often have limited impacts, even as they are

given new responsibilities, such as soil testing. Central, state governments, and private

organizations have taken ICT measures for agriculture extension—including e-choupal,

Kisan Kerala, Aaqua, Rice Knowledge Management Portal, e-krishi, Mahindra Kisan Mitra,

Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO) Agritech Portal, Village Knowledge Centres,

the M. S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Village Resource Centres, the Indian Space

research organization, etc. Digital Green, an IT-based social organization oriented toward
26
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
NGOs, has shown the way for increasing the relevance and effectiveness of existing

extension system’s messages, using community (particularly women’s) participation and

videos and other forms of communication with 1.2 million farmers (Digital Green, 2013;

Gandhi 2017). One hundred Digital Greens of the same quality are needed to reach all

households, but the capacity of the public extension systems is also a real constraint to

scaling up Digital Green’s activities. (Rikin Gandhi, personal communication, June 27,

2017).

Government’s proposed rapid expansion in irrigation and promotion of solar energy

also presents a double-edged sword. Growth of rural electrification, combined with subsidies,

has led to unsustainable water usage. Rapid decentralized growth of solar energy is making

water exploitation easier, but contributing to unsustainable water use, if not accompanied by

other policies. Shah (2016) noted Madhya Pradesh (MP) had five successive years of normal

monsoon during 2009–2013, maximizing groundwater recharge and, with elective

mechanisms, been put in place for judicious use of this recharge. MP could well have sailed

through even two successive drought years. Shah recommends effective demand management

of water be a priority of irrigation reforms.

To manage demand, GOI is investing in the mapping of all aquifers, using modern

technology. An important initiative, it is making possible the quantification of the

relationship between rainfall and groundwater levels under alternative modes of irrigation

and farming, which should enable prioritization of prospective water and irrigation

investments. Nevertheless, Perry and Steduto (2017) argue convincingly, based on global

evidence, that promotion of micro-irrigation, without first establishing strict limits on water

use, could increase consumption per hectare (which explains yield increases), further

increasing consumption on extra-irrigated areas. Return flows to the environment/aquifer

recharge are thus reduced. So immediate production gains come at the cost of environmental
27
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
impacts and sustainability. Aquifers in India are overexploited, and many rivers are no longer

perennial. To control water use in agriculture, as in the case of PDS, either the central

government should become a co-manager of water, which is constitutionally a state

responsibility, and gradually enforce strict quotas consistent with sustainable use—or the

government should accept and publicize that uncontrolled groundwater use will, over time,

make water scarcity even more acute, threatening national security. New technologies can

help to measure and monitor stricter controls of usage, since milder participatory approaches

have been tried unsuccessfully. The collaboration between ICRISAT and Microsoft cloud

technologies shows, on a pilot scale, how precision agriculture enables the use of state-of-the-

art technologies to avoid wasting water and other inputs (Wani et al., 2016).

ICTs and apps are becoming ubiquitous, aimed at empowerment, enablement, and

market expansion. e-choupal is an example of an efficient supply chain system, empowering

farmers with timely and relevant information to enable better returns for their produce. With

a community-centric approach, it also provides farm insurance and farm management

practice. The Prime Minister emphasized that the practice of e-governance can create

transparency and improve governance, through IT enabling of the citizens, armed with

information.

India’s agricultural conservation principles of minimal soil disturbance, permanent

soil cover, and crop rotations cover only 1.5 million hectares, of about 75 million hectares

cultivated with rice and wheat, illustrating the challenges in scaling up. Again, vigorously

enforced soil testing, using computerized networked testing devices with effective extension,

can help.

11. Conclusions

28
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 New technologies can be a tremendous engine of growth, equity, and sustainability,

but are not silver bullets or substitutes for human and institutional development. Their scope

is vast, but their geographical application is still very limited in rural areas; many farmers

remain unaware of such advancements. Access to technologies is uneven. Richer farmers and

those in prosperous states, such as Punjab, Haryana, and Maharashtra, have better access to

public safety nets and technology than their poorer counterparts in poorer states, still

practicing old techniques and knowledge.

The vast network of panchayats and FPSs are underexploited for their tremendous

education and outreach to achieve productivity, nutrition, and health benefits. Insufficient

connectivity in rural areas, high costs in ensuring services, and lack of basic computer

knowledge and literacy hinders rapid development of e-agriculture. Substantial investment is

needed in physical infrastructure, power, broadband, and transportation. Due to low literacy

rates among farmers and the digital divide, new middlemen have emerged to provide ICT

services to farmers. India needs much larger investments, particularly in poorer regions and

in its poorest people. Farmers’ social media platforms are also needed, rather more like Agri-

Google, Krishi Facebook, and Krishi-LinkedIn—something to which they can relate. Digital

Green and its likes may be charting the way?

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the
publisher’s website: Appendix

29
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
References

Agarwal, B., 2017. The seeds of discontent: India faces not just a farmers’ crisis, but a

serious meltdown of farming families. Indian Express, June 15.

Aggarwal, P., 2016. Climate-smart agriculture: Addressing weather-risks related agrarian

distress. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food

Security, Borlaug Institute for South Asia, CIMMYT, New Delhi.

Aker, J.C., Ghosh, I., Burrell, J., 2016. The promise (and pitfalls) of ICT for agriculture

initiatives. Agric. Econ. 47 (S1), 35–48.

Balch, O., 2016. Indian law requires companies to give 2% of profits to charity. Is it

working? The Guardian, April 5.

Basu, K., 2016. India’s digital transformation. The Hindu, February 12. Accessed June 2017,

available at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/indias-digital-

transformation/article8224206.ece

Binswanger-Mkhize, H.P., 2012. Is there too much hype about index-based agricultural

insurance? J. Devel. Stud. 48 (2), 187–200.

Chakravarti, J.S., 1920. Agricultural insurance: A practical scheme suited to Indian

conditions. Government Press, Bangalore.

Chand, R., 2016a. Doubling farmer’s income: Strategy and prospects. Presidential Address,

Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, 76th Annual Conference, Assam

Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, November 21–23.

Chand, R., 2016b. Addressing agrarian distress; sops versus development. 23rd Dr. B. P. Pal

Memorial Lecture, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, May 26.

Chandran, R., 2016. Govt nearly doubles budget for digitisation of land records. E-paper,

Live Mint, September 7.

Clarke, D.J., Mahul, O., Rao, K.N., Verma, N., 2012. Weather-based crop insurance in India.
30
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 Policy Research Working Paper, No. 5985.

Davis, T., 2017. A case study in going cashless—India. CUInsight, April 20. Accessed June

2017, available at: https://www.cuinsight.com/case-study-going-cashless-india.html

Deichmann, U., Goyal, A., Mishra, D., 2016. Will digital technologies transform agriculture

in developing countries? Agric. Econ. 47 (S1), 21–33.

Deininger, K., 2017. Toward more evidence-based decision-making in the land sector: Can it

help to close implementation gaps? in P. Pingali and G. Feder, eds., Agriculture and

Rural Development in a Globalizing World: Challenges and Opportunities, 161–180,

Routledge, London.

Desai, A.V., 2016. Budget 2016: Jaitley’s promise to double farmers’ income in 5 years is

next to impossible. First Post, March 2. Accessed June 2017, available at:

http://www.firstpost.com/business/budget-2016-jaitleys-promise-of-double-income-

for-farmers-in-five-years-is-next-to-impossible-2651358.html

Digital Green, 2013. Website. Accessed June 2017, available at: https://www.digitalgreen.org

FAO, 2010. ―Climate-smart‖ agriculture: Policies, practices and financing for food security,

adaptation and mitigation, FAO, Rome.

FAO, 2012. Report of the FAO Expert Consultation on agricultural innovation systems and

family farming. Rome.

FAO, 2015. Success stories on information and communication technologies for agriculture

and rural development. RAP Publication 2015/02, edited by G. Sylvester, Regional

Office for Asia and the Pacific, FAO, Bangkok.

FAO, 2017. Success stories on information and communication technologies for agriculture

and rural development. 2nd edition, edited by G. Sylvester, Regional Office for Asia

and the Pacific, FAO, Bangkok.

Gandhi, R., 2017. Case study 1: Digital Green: Leveraging social networks for agricultural
31
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 extension, in G. Sylvester, ed., Success Stories on Information and Communication

Technologies for Agriculture and Rural development, 2nd ed. FAO, Regional Office

for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Ghosh, J., 2010. Poverty reduction in China and India: Policy implications of recent trends.

DESA Working Paper No. 92, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, United

Nations, New York.

Glendenning, C.J., Babu, S., Asenso-Okyere, K., 2010. Review of agricultural extension in

India: Are farmers’ information needs being met? IFPRI Discussion Paper 01048,

International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Government of India (GOI), 2014. Key indicators of situation of agricultural households in

India. NSS 70th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation,

National Survey Sample Office (NSSO), New Delhi.

Government of India (GOI), 2015. Recommendations of High Level Committee on

restructuring of FCI. Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, GOI,

January 22.

Government of India (GOI), 2016a. Evaluation study on role of Public Distribution System in

shaping household and nutritional security India. DMEO Report No. 233, NITI Aayog

Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office, Government of India, New Delhi.

Government of India (GOI), 2016b. PMFBY has provided coverage to 366.64 lakh farmers

(26.50%) and at this rate is likely to exceed the target of 30% coverage for both Karif

and Rabi seasons in 2016–17. Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture,

GOI, December 7.

Government of India (GOI), 2016c. Spreading JAM across India’s economy. In Economic

Survey Report 2015–16, 50–67, Ministry of Finance, GOI, Delhi. Accessed June

2017, available at: indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapvol1-03.pdf

32
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Government of India (GOI), 2017a. Department of Food and Distribution, Ministry of

Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. Accessed June 2017, available at:

http://dfpd.nic.in/faq.htm

Government of India (GOI), 2017b. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

Accessed June 2017, available at: http://meity.gov.in

Government of India (GOI), 2017c. Text of speech of Minister of State (I/C) for Petroleum

and Natural Gas, Shri Dharmendra Pradhan during curtain raiser of WLPGA 2017

Asia LPG Summit organized by World LPG Association in New Delhi. Press

Information Bureau, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, GOI, February 6.

Government of India (GOI), 2017d. Universal basic income: A conversation with and within

the Mahatma. In the Economic Survey Report 2016–17, 172–212, Ministry of

Finance, GOI, Delhi. Accessed June 2017, available at: indiabudget.nic.in/es2016-

17/echap09.pdf

Gowen, A., 2017. Trump cmpany’s partners in India are no strangers to legal entanglements.

The Washington Post, June 23.

Griliches, Z., 1957. Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of teleological change.

Econometrica 25(4), 501–522.

Gulati, A., Saini, S., 2016a. Farm incomes: Dreaming to double. Indian Express, July 28.

Gulati, A., Saini, S., 2016b. From plate to plough: Raising farmers’ income by 2022. Indian

Express, March 28.

Hammes, T.X., 2016. Will technological convergence reverse globalization? Strategic Forum

297, July 12, Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS). Accessed June 2017,

Available at: http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratforum/SF-297.pdf

Hazel, P., Hess, U., 2017. Beyond hype: Another look at index-based agricultural insurance,

in P. Pingali and G. Feder, eds., Agriculture and Rural Development in a Globalizing

33
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 World: Challenges and Opportunities, 211–226, Routledge, London.

Huang, K., Ding, J., 2016. Institutional innovation and policy support to facilitate small-scale

farming transformation in China. Agric. Econ. 47 (S1), 227-237.

Ifft, J., 2001. Government vs weather: The true story of crop insurance in India. Centre for

Civil Society. Accessed June 2017, available at:

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN023816.pdf

Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), 2011. Capturing Technology for Development: An

Evaluation of World Bank Group Activities in Information and Communication

Technologies, Vol. 1. IEG, World Bank Group, Washington, DC.

Indian Railways Fan Club (IRFCA), n.d. History of Indian railway. Accessed June 2017,

available at: http://www.irfca.org/~mrinal/history_ir.html

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and CGIAR, n.d. Agricultural Science

and Technology Indicators (ASTI). Data. https://www.asti.cgiar.org/

Joseph, M., 2017. M-Pesa: The story of how the world’s leading mobile money service was

created in Kenya. Accessed June 2012, available at:

http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/what/technology-blog/m-pesa-created.html#

Joshi, P. K., Kishore, A., Roy, D., 2017. Making pulses affordable again: Policy options from

the farm to retail in India. Econ. & Polit. Weekly 52 (1), 37–44.

Kondylis, F., Mueller, V. Zhu, S. (2015). Measuring agricultural knowledge and adoption.

Agric. Econ. 46 (3), 449-462.

Kshirsagar, V., Gautam, M., 2013. Agriculture productivity trends in India: A district level

analysis. Background paper of the World Bank Report, Republic of India:

Accelerating agricultural productivity growth, 2014.

Lele, U., Gandhi, K., 2009. M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation at 21: Report of the

Independent Program Review: 313. Accessed June 2017, available at:

34
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 http://59.160.153.185/library/node/589

Lio, M., Liu, M.C., 2006. ICT and agricultural productivity: Evidence from cross-country

data. Agric. Econ. 34 (3), 221–228.

Manzar, O., 2016. Automating the ration shops. E-paper, Live Mint, June 27. Accessed June

2017, available at:

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/F4TQhIViQ9gfs4lOCIaimN/Automating-the-

ration-shops.html

McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), 2014. India’s technology opportunity: Transforming work,

empowering people. Accessed June 2017, available at:

http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/indias-tech-opportunity-

transforming-work-empowering-people

Nair, A.A., 2016. Can e-commerce save the Indian farmer? YourStory, April 19. Accessed

June 2017, available at: https://yourstory.com/2016/04/modi-ecommerce-indian-

farmer/

Nakasone, E., Torero, M., 2016. A text message away: ICTs as a tool to improve food

security. Agric. Econ. 47 (S1), 49–59.

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), 2016. Doubling farmers’

income by 2022. Monograph. Accessed June 2017, available at:

http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/NABARD_Monograph.pdf

Perry, C., Steduto, P., 2017. Does improved irrigation technology save water? A review of

the evidence. Discussion paper on irrigation and sustainable water resources

management in the Near East and North Africa, FAO, Cairo.

Rajagopal, K., 2017. Govt. stats on Aadhaar coverage ―puffery‖, includes dead, petitioners

tell SC. The Hindu, June 23.

Schwab, K., 2016. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Business, New York.
35
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Seth, A., Ganguly, K., 2017. Digital technologies transforming Indian agriculture, in S. Dutta,

B. Lanvin, and S. Wunsch-Vincent, eds., The Global Innovation Index 2017:

Innovation Feeding the World, 105–111, Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO,

Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva.

Shah, T., Mishra, G., Kela, P., Chinnasamy, P., 2016. Har Khet Ko Pani? (Water to every

farm?): Emulate Madhya Pradesh's irrigation reform. IWMI–Tata Water Policy

Research Highlight, International Water Management Institute (CGIAR) and Sir

Ratan Tata Trust, Gujurat, India.

Sharma, D., 2016. Hoping against hope, no signs of doubling farmers’ income in the next five

years. Ground Reality blog, March 2. Accessed June 2017, available at:

http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.in/2016/03/hoping-against-hope-no-signs-of.html.

Smith, V.H., 2016. Producer insurance and risk management options for smallholder farmers.

World Bank Res. Observer 31 (2), 271–289.

Swaminathan, M.S., 2016. How to double farmers’ income. Financial Chronicle, March 23.

Tharoor, S., 2016. An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India. Aleph, New Delhi.

Waghmare, A., 2016. Why it is hard to double farmers’ income by 2022. IndiaSpend, March

30.

Wani, S.P., Bergvinson, D., Raju, K.V., Gaur, P., Vashney, R.K., 2016. Mission India for

transforming agriculture (MITrA). Research Report IDC-4. ICRISAT, Patancheru.

Woetzel, J., Madgavkar, A., Ellingrud, K., Labaye, E., Devillard, S., Kutcher, E., Manyika,

J., Dobbs, R., Krishnan, M., 2015. The power of parity: How advancing women’s

equality can add $12 trillion to global growth. McKinsey Global Institute Report,

September.

World Bank, 2006. Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening

of Research Systems. World Bank, Washington, DC.

36
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
World Bank, 2016. Digital dividends. World development report 2016. Accessed June 2017,

available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016

37
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

China India

Source: Based on data from https://www.asti.cgiar.org/

Note: China’s data available until 2013.

Fig. 1. Agricultural research expenditure as share of agricultural GDP (%) (2000–2014)

38
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 20000 90

Income from Farming (cultivation + farming of animals) as

Average Monthly Income (Rs.) per Agricultural Household
18000 80

16000
70
14000
60

Share of Total Income (%)

12000
50
10000
40
8000
30
6000
20
4000

2000 10

0 0
Mizoram

Uttarakhand
Kerala

Tripura

Uttar Pradesh

Bihar
Haryana
Punjab

Assam

Andhra Pradesh

Jharkhand
Karnataka
Meghalaya

Nagaland

Gujarat

Chhattisgarh
Tamil Nadu

Odisha
Jammu & Kashmir

Arunachal Pradesh

Manipur

Rajasthan

All India
Telangana
Himachal Pradesh

Sikkim

Madhya Pradesh

West Bengal
Maharashtra

Average Monthly Income (Rs.) per Agricultural Household

Income from Farming (cultivation + farming of animals) as Share of Total Income (%)

Source: Based on data from GOI (2014).

Fig. 2. Average monthly income (Rs) and income from farming as share of total income (%)

by agricultural household by states (July 2012–June 2013)

Appendix

39
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Table A.1: Portfolio of Indian Rural and Agricultural Households for the Agricultural Year (July 2012-June 2013)

Rural Households# Agricultural Households+

Income from
Average Monthly
Reporting Farming Farming
Share of Income (cultivation +
State (cultivation + (cultivation +
Number Number Rural farming of animals +
farming of animals) farming of
(thousand) (thousand) Households salary/wages + non-
as Principal Income animals) as
(%) firm business) per
Source (%) Share of Total
Household (Rs)
Income (%)
Andhra
8676 27.1 3597 41.5 5979 51.8
Pradesh
Arunachal
166 59.0 108 65.1 10869 73.2
Pradesh
Assam 5249 53.8 3423 65.2 6695 74.8
Bihar 14061 36.8 7094 50.5 3558 56.0
Chhattisgarh 3747 55.4 2561 68.3 5177 64.3
Gujarat 5872 45.6 3931 66.9 7926 61.4
Haryana 2585 42.0 1569 60.7 14434 72.8
Himachal
1325 27.1 881 66.5 8777 44.7
Pradesh
Jammu &
1375 25.0 1128 82.1 12683 30.5
Kashmir
Jharkhand 3752 43.7 2234 59.5 4721 56.0
Karnataka 7743 41.9 4242 54.8 8832 62.6
Kerala 5138 10.7 1404 27.3 11888 34.5
Madhya
8467 55.2 5995 70.8 6210 76.5
Pradesh
Maharashtra 12518 42.5 7097 56.7 7386 59.5
Manipur 258 52.6 176 68.2 8842 50.7
Meghalaya 472 53.1 354 75.1 11792 60.5
Mizoram 94 70.8 76 81.0 9099 59.6
Nagaland 413 38.2 262 63.5 10048 45.7
Odisha 7812 35.9 4494 57.5 4976 54.7
Punjab 2755 28.4 1408 51.1 18059 69.3
Rajasthan 8272 41.4 6484 78.4 7350 55.9
Sikkim 115 41.8 67 58.6 6798 39.4
Tamil Nadu 9361 22.9 3244 34.7 6980 43.2
Telangana 4931 45.9 2539 51.5 6311 72.9
Tripura 664 32.5 245 36.9 5429 56.8
Uttarakhand 1650 40.6 1061 64.3 4701 71.9
Uttar
24133 51.2 18049 74.8 4923 69.0
Pradesh
West Bengal 14136 26.4 6362 45.0 3980 30.3
$
All India 156144 39.5 90201 57.8 6426 59.8

Note: # The estimate of rural households as per the results of the Land and Livestock Holding Survey of NSS 70 th round.

40
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
+
The Situation Assessment Survey 2013 defines an agricultural household as a household receiving some value of produce
more than Rs.3000 from agricultural activities (e.g. cultivation of field crops, horticultural crops, fodder crops, plantation,
animal husbandry, poultry, fishery, piggery, bee-keeping, vermiculture, sericulture, etc.,) and having at least one member
self-employed in agriculture either in the principal status or in subsidiary status during last 365 days.
$
All India figures include all States and UTs which are not shown in the Table.

Source: Based on data from Government of India (GOI), 2014. Key indicators of situation of agricultural households in
India. NSS 70th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, National Survey Sample Office (NSSO), New
Delhi.

Table A.2: Potential Adoption of the Empowering Technologies and Their Applications in Agriculture,
Infrastructure, and Energy Sectors to Increase Farmer's Income in India

41
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 Increase Farmer's Income (Applying to Agriculture, Infrastructure,
Energy Sector)
Types of
Technologies
Technology Through
Through Cost
output/productivity Through Risk Reduction
Reduction
Improvement

§ Remote and e-enabled agricultural § Real-time market

Mobile internet extension and advisory services information

1. Digitizing life § Technology enabled crop

and work Cloud technology insurance
§ E-enabled project management systems

Automation of knowledge § Smart cities

work

Internet of things § Precision farming using sensors

§ Advanced metering systems for power and
water

§ Technology enabled agricultural supply

chains
Intelligent transportation § Integrated freight logistics
and distribution § Highway management

2. Smart
physical systems
§ Leakage-free public distribution system for
Advanced geographic food
information systems (GIS) § Precision farming using hydrology and soil
mapping
§ Water treatment and waste management
systems

Next-generation genomics
§ Hybrid and/or genetically modified crops

Advanced oil and gas § Fuel supply from shale oil and gas, coalbed
exploration and recovery methane

3. Rethinking
energy
§ Rural electrification
Renewable energy § Electricity from PV solar
§ Offshore wind and seaweed

Advanced energy storage § Stable power systems

42
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 § Energy-efficiency improvement technologies

Source: Based on McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), 2014. India’s technology opportunity: Transforming work, empowering
people. Accessed June 2017, available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/indias-tech-
opportunitytransforming-work-empowering-people.

43
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

View publication stats