Report to the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association on India's economic development effort (Vol. 3 of 14) : Agricultural policy : appendices I - V

 AGFUCULTIEUL POLICY - i d14ostmemberse Appendices a r e a.nde v o ekre- Note: indiv ual of t h of t h e I'Iission th ar r of 1 f e r r e d t o as such i n Volume 1 , which i s t h e main text on llAgricultura,l Policyt1. Accord- ingly, t h e l i s t indicakes t h e authorship. For a,n explana-tion o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e llppendices t o t h e Report, s e e paragraph 15 of Volume 1 . 1 Paee No. I. The S t a t i s t i c a l Record IJ. David Hopper - 1 1 t o 1-42 1 1 . Review of P a s t Trends i n Agri-. c u l t u r e and P r o s p e c t s f o r 1970 Louis G. G o r e w 11 1 - to 1-1 11 1. 1 1 I m p l i c a t i o n s of A l t e r n a t i v e Rates of A g r i c u l t u r a l Growth f o r I n d i a n Economy Louis G. Goreux 1- 1 11 t o 111-15 IV. Production C o e f f i c i e n t s : The s'Yardst i c k s f 1 f o r Planning W. David Hopper IV-1 t o IV-13 V. The F a c t o r s of Production t o Generate a n Expanding Agriculture 11. David Hopper V-1 t o V-47 TI33 STATISTICAL RECORD W D a , d d Hopper .  - F TAELE O COIJTENTS Page No. A - The Data 1 B - Agricultural Production 5 C - Acres i n Agriculture 10 D - Productivity 02 Land 1a Tables 1 t o 8 Figures 1 t o 20  APPENDIX I H T E STATISTICAL RZCORD A - The Uata 1. The D i r e c t o r a t e of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s of t h e 15inistry of Food and Agriculture maintains a d e t a i l e d r e p o r t i n g system on 28 major crops. The information on production, a r e a and productivity underpinning t h e f i r s t p a r t s of t h e Agricultural Report i s based on information f o r t h e s e crops obtained from t h e Directorate. However, t h e r e i s considerable conf'usion i n t h e d a t a issued by t h e Directorate, with tl.ao or t h r e e versions of t h e same information bein, a v a i l a b l e i n p r i n t e d or mimeo~raphedform l i s t i n g t h e D i r e c t o r a t e a s t h e source. Sometimes t h 5 s confusion can be reconciled by delays i n publications t h a t cause revised i n f o r n ~ a t i o nt o appear i n p r i n t before e a r l i e r e s t h a t e s ; sonetimes t h e slow t r i c k l e of i n t e l l i g e n c e t o t h e D i r e c t o ~ a t ef o r c e s r e v i s i o n s of t h e revised date t o be issued concurrently irlth t h e revised information i n separate documents, one p r i n t e d and widely c i r c u l a t e d , ons mimeokraphed and given much narrower d i s t r i b u t i o n ; i t appears a l s o t h a t sometimes released d a t a have been inadequately prepared and imperfectly reconciled, i f reconciled a t a l l , t o t h e previous or concurrent information r e l e a s e d i n t h e s e v e r a l formal and informal documents of t h e Directorate and I~linistry. 2. Some of t h e confusion i n Indian d a t a on a g r i c u l t u r e can be t r a c e d d i r e c t l y t o an antiquated and inadequate system of d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and processing. The many l i n k s , each with i t s o m sources of e r r o r , t h a t separate t h e primary reporting u n i t s a t t h e v i l l a g e and market le- el from t h e C e n t r a l D i r e c t o r a t e and d i f f i c u l t t o supervise and control. Delays f o r checking and e d i t i n g f i e l d r e t u r n s f o r Labulatio2, f o r sample r e c o n c i l i a t i o n and control, and f o r f i n a l aggregation and adjustment, r e s u l t i n a bewildering flood of infor:nation relea.sed over s e v e r a l years 96th such precautionary t i t l e s a s I1preliminary, "current, I t '!final, " p a r t i a l l y revised, "revised, and lEully revised. I t For example, t h e 1964 Annual Nuiiber of A g r i c u l t u r a l ~ i t u a < i o - i n I n d i a published i n August n - . 1964 gives t h e 11fu17-yrevised estin.atesI1 of area and production of t h e 28 f o r e c a s t crops f o r a l l - I n d i a f o r t h e years 1959-60, and " f i n a i estimatesf1 and " p a r t i a l l y revised e s timatesf' f o r 1963-64 and 1962-63 respectivelg. The June 196L i s s u e of t h e s m e publication gave t h e I1final estimatesff f o r t h e a l l - I n d i a scene of 1962-63. The difference betxeen t h e " f i n a l estimateff and t h e " p a r t i a l l y revised estimate" f o r 1962-63 t o t a l fooddrain production iJas c l o s e t o one n i l l i o n metric tons, 77,507,000 toris a s the " f i n a l " and 78,&8,000 tons a s t h e f f p a r t i a l l y revised. If It i s hardly s u r p r i s i n g , therefore, t h a t s e v e r a l llestimatesllo f production a r e current i n d i f f e r e n t departments of Gover~~~ment t h e same time. Keepin;;, abreast at of t h e most r e c e n t estimate i s not an easy task. 3. !?le found, hotrever, t h a t confusion a l s o rose fron? t h e h a b i t of 1 t h e Directorate and t h e IIinistqr 0 Agriculture t o publish and r e f e r t o - a s t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e source f o r information on t h e s t a t e of a g r i c u l t u r e , an extensive s e t of index numbers on production, area, and productivit These a r e reproduced i n Tables 1, 2 and 3 a t t h e end of this Appendix.- D IJe found these index numbers, which a r e widely reproduced, had s e v e r a l i n t e r n a l inconsistancies t h a t added .to t h e confusion. For example, if t h e " f u l l y revised estimates" f o r production i n t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l year (Ju1.y t o June) 1959-60 published i n Augu.st 1964 a r e used a s a base and adjusted t o other years using t h e index s e r i e s , output of t o t a l foodgrains f o r 1957-58 i s 66.5 million metric tons when t h e production of each of t h e 1 basic foodgrain crops i s added together. However, the aggregate 1 index number f o r t o t a l Itfoodgrains" i n 1957-58 (combining t h e i n d i c e s of t h e same 1 crops appropriat,ely weighted) adjusted f o r t o t a l f oodgrains 1 production i n r e a l terms i n t h e base year gives an apparent production of 65.4 m i l l i o n tons. The difference i n e s t i n a t e s f o r 1957-58 i s an extreme case, but not an i s o l a t e d one. I n 1951~-55t h e difference was 3.6 miillon tons. For t h e f u l l period 19k9-50 t o 1963-6b3 t h e difference betveen crop to-tals f o r each year adjusted foT t h e f u l l y revised estimates of 1959-60, and t h e azgregate o u t ~ u t index f o r each of year adjusted by aggregate o u t p ~ ~ t 1959-63, a v e r a ~ e d , i n absolute terins, 341,000 tons, t a b l e 8 . Clearly, t h e r e i s a s e r i o u s f a u l t i n t h e index numbers, and I n t h e weights used f o r aggregation. There seems t o be no s a t i s f a c t o r y explanation f o r these inconsistancies, and it appeays impossible t o obtain a tiefinitive r e a l u n i t time s e r i e s f o r a r e a and output of each crop froin which one could construc.t a new s e t of index numbers. It i s not c l e a r also, d e s p i t e repeated questions of appropriate o f f i c i a l s , how t h e area and production indices a r e constructed, &at basic data a r e used, and hoa t h e weights f o r a ~ ~ r e g a t i o n over crop and geographic reporti-xg area a r e determined. 4. Compounding t h e conf'uslon i s e f f o r t of t h e Government of India t o s h i f t from a combination Znglish-Indian system of :<eights and measures t o t h e i.:etric system. Often lonz tons a r e confused izr-ith metric tons ( s p e l t tons and torines respectively I n Indian publications ), and c a r e l e s s comparisons a r e frequently made between numbers expressed i n d i f f e r e n t u n i t s . This source of confusion i s c a r r i e d t o a c r e s and hectares, xaunas (an Indian u n i t of 82.2 pounds ) and quintals, pounds and k i l o ~ r m - s ,e t c . Ths e r r o r s t h a t r e s u l t a r e often serious. For example, t h e " f u l l y revised" e s . t h a t e s of 1959-60 area and production r e f e r r e d t o above a r e published in acres and 1 0 n ~ tons, t h e estiinates f o r 1962-63 and 1963-44 published l a t h e same volume a r e f o r hectares and n e t r i c tonnes. Comparisons beti~eenhectares and acres a r e l a r g e enough t o spot t h e u n i t difference, t h e saine i s not t r u e f o r t h e 1-2/3 per cent difference betseen long tons and metric tons. - 7. 5 . . l t h these s e v e r a l sources of confusion, it i s hardly s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e r e i s equal confusion about t h e past peri'ornlance of t h e iJationls ---- a g r i c u l t u r e . I n t h e A,:ricultural S i t u a t i o n in India of August 1360 flrevisedtlestimai,es of production f o r -the index nuqber base year of 1949-50 r a i s e d t o t a l foodgrain output f r o m 54.0 million long- tons t o 57.6 m i l l i o n long tons. The index number exercise gone through above - ~.rithroman r m b e r s numbersr t a ofe taht et heexend m a b l e s >rith arabic are pa r t t. of t h e Appendix. Tables vrould p l a c e t h e base y e a r p r o d u c t i o n a t 53-0 o r 59-7 mill-ion l o n g t o n s depending on rl~27-ether h e a ~ g r e g a . t e ood2:rain index, i.e. 100, ifiIas used, t f o r t h e output of each c r o p was c a l c u l a t e d and s . m e d t o a t o t a l . The importance of t h e s e s e v e r a l e s t i m a t e s f o r determining a growth r a t e in o u t p u t i s g r e a t . For exa:aple, if t h e 1o:rest e s t i m a t e f o r 1949-50 i s used a g a i n s t t h e " p a r t i a l l y r e v i s e d " l o n g t o n o u t p u t e s t i m a t e f o r 1961-62 (79.757 m i l l i o n ) , t h e annual groirth r a t e betueen t h e two y e a r s t ~ o u l dbe 3.305 compound and L.O$ s b l p l e ; if t h e 1960 l l r e v i s e d l t f i g u r e i s used f o r t h e base y e a r , t h e growth r a t e s would drop t o 2.75% and 3 . Y ; i f t h e sum of a l l f o o d g r a i n c r o p s based on t h e i r i n d e x m b e r s 1 vras used, t h e r a t e s trould a g a i n drop, t h i s time t o 2 . z h and 2.80%. A confusion of l o n g and m e t r i c t o n s , t h e u s e of afiy one of t h e d i f f e r e n t " e s t i m a t e s n f o r t h e f i n a l y e a r , o r a comparison of i n d i c e s , ~ r o u l dl e a d t o o t h e r growth rates. 6. tJe b e l i e v e t h e s e s o u r c e s of d i f f i c u l t y a r e t h e major reasons f o r t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n I n d i a t h a t surrounds a n assessment of p a s t a g r i c u l t u r a l performance. But :;le cannot h e l p drawing a t t e n t i o n a l s o t o t h e r ~ i d e l yd i f f e r e n t e s t i m a t e s of foodgrain p r o d u c t i o n t h a t have been d r a m from t h e i h t i o n a l Sample Survey of t h e I n d i a n S t a t i s t i c a l I n s t i t u t e . I n N.S. S. r e p o r t s Number 73 and 79 ( b o t h p u b l i s h e d i n 1963) e s t i n a t e s a r e g i v e n f o r t h e production i n 1957-55, 1358-59 and 1959-60 of seven major c e r e a l s - r i c e , jorrar, b a j r a , r a g i , maize, ?:heat, b a r l e y - which comprise about 85 p e r c e n t of I n d i a ' s f o o d g r a i n output. These e s t i m a t e s rcere compared v i t h t h e o f f i c i a l e s t i i n a t e s of t h e D i r e c t o r a t e and ?:ere found i n a l l c a s e s t o be c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r , Table I. -- Table I N.S.S. and D i-r e c t o r a t e Z s t i m a t e s of T o t a l Production -. of Seven Iiajor C e r e a l s f o r 1?57-53, 1958-59, 1959-60 Source of L s t i n a t e T o t a l Production of Seven C e r e a l s { '000 l o n t toils ) 1957-56 1958-59 1 959 -60 O f f i c i a l Direc-torat e 51,329 60,47 8 61,068 J a t i o n a l Sample Survey 68,o6L 32,283 33,362 Per cent, A.s.s. i s of O T f i c i a l 132.6 136.1 137 3 Per c c i ~ tGro\.-ch betueen Annual E s t h a t e s by Source of Data Official Directorate +17.8 +1.0 J a t i o n a l Sample Survey +20.9 +l.9 Source: The iqational Saniple Survey, Some R e s u l t s of t h e Land ~ 3 . i l i z a t i o n survey and ~ r i l ? - C X T Y i nh p e r i i n e n t s , iluxber 73, * -- pa:e 19, :iju.nber 73, pa;e 1 7 . Both published b . The Cabinet g7 S e c r e t a r i a t : Governr~en-Lof I n d i a , 1963. Accordin; t o Government ofi'ici.als i n t h e i , i n i s t ; y of Food and Agriculture more r e c e n t estimates from l a t e r 1J.S.S. rrorl: and t h e l a t e r year estimates froin t h e D i r e c t o r a t e a r e c l o s e r t o g e t h e r . TLe more r e c e n t N.S. S. m a t e r i a l i s not a v a i l a b l e , and it i s not p o s s i b l e t o a s s e s s t h e reasons - - s t a t i s t i c a l o r o t h e r ~ ~ i s e f o r t h e kap closing. A study of t h e N.S.S. documents i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e o f 2 i c i a l m a t e r i a l does reveal sorne sulBprising d i f f e r e n c e s . Yields of i n d i v i d u a l crops implied i n t h e two estimates y varied rsidely, although a g ~ r e g a t e i e l d f o r t h e seven c e r e a l s d i f f e r e d by only about 1 0 per cent, t h e higher estimate being from t h e 1j.S.S. Acreages d i f f e r e d a l s o v i t h t h e I1.S.S. d a t a being a s much a s 30 per cent above t h e O f f i c i a l , Table 1 . 1 Table I1 1q.S.S. and D i r e c t o r a t e & . t b i a t e s of Total Acreaae - - - of Seven ~ ;ja r - c e r e a l s f o r 1957-58 t o 1959-60 o - Source of Estiinate Total Acreage of Sever1 Cereals ( '000 a c r e s ) Official Directorate Eational Sample Survey Per cent L.S.S. i s of O f f i c i a l lib. 7 122.8 131.1 Source: O f f i c i a l D i r e c t o r a t e data fro16 t h i s Appendix Table 6, N.S.S. daba a s i n Table I pa;e 21 and page 19. 7. It r-rould be out of p l a c ~ n -this Appendix t o ~ i v e i illore than passing a t t e n t i o n t o t h e N.S.S.-Directorate dispute. The i s s u e s of s t a t i s t i c a l methodolo~y, sample and enumeration procedures, r e l a t i v e e r r o r s and accuracy oi" r e s u l t s , afid t h e s e v e r a l o t h e r conlponents t h a t ~ould have .to be c a r e f u l l y e - m i n e d before judgmeat coul6. be passed (if indeed it could ever be) a r e beyond t h e scope of t h e main focus. 3ut it I J O U ~ Cbe ne;lis,ent ~ i f it ::ere not pointed oil% t h a t d i s c r e ~ a n c i e sa s l z r g e a s 35 n e r cent between es.tL.ates Issued m d e r Government Fmpriiilatur f o r a comr~loditya s v i t a l t o t h e I ~ a i a n econo;,iy a s c e r e a l s , places a s e r i o u s mystery a r o m d t h e t r u e s t a t e of t h e phenol~enoneach c l a i m t o l rneasure. Yet t h e r e i s s u r p r i s i n ~ l p i t t l e concern j.n o f f i c i a l c i r c l e s of t h e i i i n i s t r y of Food and Agriculture over t h e s e discrepaiicies, even though it i s lmor;r;l a i d e i y t h a t t h e 2.S. S. d a t a of t h e Indian S t a t i s t i c a l I n s t i t u t e plays a l a r g e r o l e i n F l a n n i n ~'Joini:~ission discussions, and i n t h e e s t i r i l ~ t e sof n a t i o n a i economic peri'ornai~ce and rrell-being. Perhaps t h e r e i s an i n p o r t a n t c l u e t o Third and Fourth Plan a s p i r a t i o n s f o r a g r i c u l t u r e i n t h e f a c t t h a t i f ' the Z.S.S. estimate 02 Zoodgrzin output f o r 19$9-50 of 00 millim long tons i s compared t o t h e estha-te Tor 1959-60 of 99 m i l l i o n loni; tons derived from t h e seven c e r e a l s representing  about 85 p e r cent of t o t a l foodgrains, t h e r a t e of growth over t h e intervening t e n years i s 5.13 per c e n t per anrlur~lcompound, and t h i s was achieved with a r e l a t i v e l y small expansion i n n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l inputs. 8. To a s s e s s t h e p a s t performance of Indian agricultrrre t ~ e have used t h e index numbers f o r t h e 28 major crops issued by t h e Directorate. A l l estimates of t r e n d s and grorrth r a t e s were derived d i r e c t l y from t h e s e i n d i c e s using t h e standard l e a s t squares technique. Tlle Real u n i t value, given i n metric tons, f o r each y e a r ' s production of an i n d i v i d u a l crop ;ras found by using t h e I f f u l l y r e v i s e d f f estimates f o r 1359-60 (Table 4 ) adjusted by t h e appropriate annual i n d i c e s . A ~ g r e g a t i o n sof r e a l production estimates iqere made by s u i i i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l coittponents. 3 - A~;ricul_t;uralProduction 9 Table I of t h e main Report on a g r i c u l t u r e presents t h e p e r annum compound ,ror.th r a t e s f o r I n d i a ' s rnaJor a g r i c u l t u r a l crops. These r a t e s trere c a l c u l a t e d from a least-squares a n a l y s i s t h a t regressed t h e time s e r i e s i n d i c e s of production f o r each crop a g a i n s t a fldummyfltime v a r i a b l e s t a r t i n g with 1950-51 a s t = l and ending with 1963-64 a s t=14. The ;;ro~rbn equation used f o r t h e a n a l y s i s Trras t h e f a m i l i a r lit = abt iihere a and b a r e t h e parameters t o be estimated, Iit t h e index of ~ ~ r o d u c t i o n of crop i i n year t, and t t h e durn;- year v a r i a b l e . A l o g a r i t l ~ x i c transformation of t h i s equation &ives loglOIit= ioglOa + t l o ~ ~ and , ~ b t h e compound p e r c e n t a ~ e~rowt,hr a t e per annum i s equal t o (antiloglob -1.Oj103.0 The least-squares e s t i m a t e s of b are given i n Table 1 1 a l o n ~ 1 with t h e i r standard e r r o r s and t h e r a t i o of t h e variance removed by each r e ~ ~ r e s s i o n t o t h e t o t a l variance of Iit, i . e . t h e r2. 1 Table 1 1 Least-squares estimate of t h e paralieter b i n .the t r e n d equaticrn Iit = abt, standard e r r o r or" estimate and r2, f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o ~ iindex of crops i n y e a r t regressed a g a i n s t t f o r t h e period 1950-51 t o 1963-64. A l l commodities -- b ( e s t i m a t e of b ) 1.0312 Standard Error 1.0026 r2 .go31 - Food,rains ?Yon-f oodkrains iiharif Cereals Rice Rabi Cereals <!heat Pdlses Oilseeds 3O 1.C O 1.0036 .a111 Groundnut 1.ah03 1.005~ 7753 Sugar cane 1.&Cs 1.0062 .7281 Cotton 1.Ohlo 1.0073 .6602 Ju%e 1.C309 1.0104 .3550 P l a n t a t i o n Crops 1.0251 1.00l7 .?139 . . ht r / a ~ i o n ' ~ i c ~q~ f fie~ern t f r m zero : l t h a p r o b a b i l i t y of l e s s than .05 but c,ianu -Gr~aE~r 10. Rough estimates of t o t a l f o o d ~ r a i n sf o r t h e year 1964-65 place t h e crop a t around 1 3 million tons". :."nether t h i s i s a metric o r long 16 ton estimate i s not specified, and it i s assur~ledt o be long tons. he assumption i s of l i t t l e consequence a s ;he 1.6 per cent over-estimate involved i s very small i n conqarison t o t h e rough nature of t h e output guess. ) Using t h i s value f o r t h e f i n a l year (t = 15), t h e ~ r o r h h a t e r alas re-calculated and found s t i l l t o be 3.03 per cent per annum from 1950-51 isith an e r r o r of 2.42 per cent, t h a t is, b = 1.0303, Sb = 1.0042, r2 = .7966. Such a r e s u l t could only come about if the 86 m i l l i o n long t o n estimate i s not off t h e trend l i n e by more than an i n s i g n i f i c a n t amount. I n f a c t t h i s i s t h e case a s i s evident from Table IV. This means t h a t t h e four years of flstagnationtl in Indian foodgrains production 1960-61 t o 1963-64, consisted of tr.!o years above t h e long term trend follorsed by ttro years belo;?, and t h e present rough guess f o r 1964-65 brings production r i g h t back t o t h e t h r e e per cent compound l i n e . Table I V - Index of t o t a l foodgrains production a s calculated from t h e compound trend l i n e I = 93.9(1.0303)t compared v i t h the a c t u a l index f o r t h e years 1950-51 -to 1964-65. (-L = 1, , 15) .. Index Actual Percentage Departure Year Calculated minus of Actual Index f ronl - from Trend Index Calculated Trend 1 1 . A &lance a t t h e foodgraiil production indices reveals t h a t of t h e 46 per cent increase in output from 19h9-50 ( t h e base y e a r ) t o 1964-65, the chankes appear t o have come about brabrxpt jumps i n production i n ; c e r t a i n years .id%l? subsequent years f l u c t u a t i n , around t h e rlerr l e v e l u n t i l another abrupt jump t o a s t i l . 1 hi3tier plane. The f i r s t of these j m p s was 1953-54 tcnen production r o s e from belot: %rend -to over 12 per cent above, and remained above f o r f o u r years. Another jump was i n 1958-59) but t h e percentage i n c r e a s e over t r e n d iras on1.y h a l f t h e value or" t h e e a r l i e r r i s e . These j u ~ p s , and t h e i r dir,fini.shin;;. s i z e has l e d t o speculation t h a t t h e r a t e of ,;ror.-tn of output of food;jrains i s declining and t n a t rrhile compound r a t e s can be d e t e r x h e d f o r t h e :.!hole period 19SO-Si t o 1964-65, a rnore c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s xould shorr a d e c e l e r a t i n z grov..th. 12. There a r e s e v e r a l ::ays in ~ ~ h i ca i study oi" t h e growth d a t a l c o d d be made t o t e s t t h e hypothesis t h a t grorrth i s declining, and t o measure t h e e x t e n t of t h e decline i f i n f a c t it i s doing so. '!.'e have adopted f o u r teclhniques f o r comparisoa purposes i n analysing t h e f o o d p a i n s data. The f i r s t rJas t o T i t an a r i t h m e t i c l i n e a r t r e n d t o t h e observed annual output i n d i c e s . The t r e n d l i n e It = a + b t has an i r l l p l i c i t diminishint,: r a t e 02 growth a s -t g e t s l a r g e r . The second rilethod Fras t o fit a quadratic a r i t h m e t i c fufiction (It = a + b t - c t 2 ) t o t h e annual i n d i c e s t h a t rrould t e s t f o r an even sharper drop i n t h e annual grorsth r a t e than t h e l i n e a r a r i t l m e t i c function by introducing a d e c e l e r a t i o n term ( - c t 2 ) . The t h i r d method :Jas t o f i t a f u n c t i o n of t h e type It = a t b ( l i n e a r i n l o g a r i t h r ~ s )t h a t a l s o 5i;plies a dixinrishing rate of grorJth a s t g e t s lai-ger. The f o u r t h method rJas t o shorten t h e period f o r rrhich a con~pound, i i a e a r a r i t h e t i c , and l i n e a r 10~;arithmic t r e n d s .r.:ere c a l c u l a t e d from 15 t o 1 G years, %hat i s , from 1950-51 t o 1964-65, t o 1355-56 t o 196L-65. A s a l l fovT methods involved t h e r"kLtin2 of ciifferent forms of t r e n d equation t o t h e saxe data, t h e r 2 a s 2 ixeasure of goodness of f i t and t h e . staridard e r r o r s of each regression c o e f f i c i e n t estiinate, rrere importan-t t o t h e a n a l y s i s . The res711ts a r e presented! ir, Table V. 13. It neght be concluded fro21 tlie h i t h e r c o e f f i c i e n t s 02 d e t e r - minations associated r?ith trend I"on;:s Lhat L , ~ p l y driminisliin~;: r ~roi:%h a t e s , t h a t it has indeed f a l l e n over t h e 15 years 1 9 5 0 - 5 1 t o 1-96k-65. But t h e i~jiprove:,len-ti n "ii-t i s c o t l a r u e , and co~::pari;li Lhe r e k x s s l o n c o e f f i c i e n t s of equations of si-ililar form f o r t h e 15 and 10 ysar periods it i s c l e a r t n a t t h e analgs.',~ has TOLUIC?no s t a t i s t i c a l * s l - n S l c a n t ciiff e-rence iil the t r e n d s which m i ~ h tbe a s s i p a b l e Lo a basic sL.:ctual cllange i n t h e a;i;ricultui-a1 econoi.:y. TIic appare:~', di-op i n t h e rai;e ol f o o d ~ r a b s output ~;ro:ith probabbj a of i s ~ s i t h i n r a n ~ e norrilal annual f l u c t u a t i o n s . But this i s a t e n t a t i v e conclusion a t best. The a n a l y s i s of +;he .;;-..o13eriods embraces an overlap of two-thirds of' t h e observations, and it i s evident thaS v a r i a t i o n s around t h e t r e n d r;ere l a r g e r ( r e l a t i v e l y ) i n -tile :rears 1955-56 t o 136L-65 than Ar t h e . t o t a l period. llc. The y e a r s s i ~ c e 1955-56 cover t h e ~2criodof t h e Second and Third Five-Year Plans. A s t h e s e Plans, mwe s o than the F i r s t , can be re.garded t a s i'ar::.-rlmiizrs o p t h e i:ourl';l 2lan speci.al a t t e n t i o n rras p ~ i d o .the i progress of a ~ r i c u l t u r e n t h e years 1955-56 t o 1963-61;; t h e r e s u l t s a r e presented in Table V I . (Except f o r tlie :_ross Luess about f'ood;;.raj.ns, no d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r 196b.-65).  Trend equations f i t t e d t o f o o d p a i n s production i n d i c e s and time. Paraxeter estimates (Standard e r r o r ) 1. Standard grorrth trend: 1950-51 %o 1964-65 2. Linear t r e n d - a r i t h a e t i c : 1950-51 t o 1964-65 3. Quadratic trend: 1950-51 t o l96h-6s k. Linear trend-logarithzi~ic: (Cobb-Douglas) 1950-51 t o 1964-65 It = a t b b = 0.1750 -840.5 (0.0211) 5. Standard growth trend: 1955-56 t o 1964-65 6. Linear. trend - arithmetic 1955-56 t o 196i;-65 7. Linear trend - Logarithmic I~ = a t b b = 0.0967 (0.0249)  Table VI t Least-squares e s t i m a t e of t h e parameter b i n t h e t r e n d e q u a t i o n Iit = ~ z b , s t a n d a r d e r r o r of e s t i m a t e and r2, f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n index of c r o p i i n y e a r t r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t t f o r t h e p e r i o d 1955-56 t o 1963-6b. E s t i m a t e of b Standard Crop i - - e r r o r of b A l l Conlmodities 1.0250 1.0053 .75b5 Foodgrains 1,0228 1.0069 .6089 i(on-f oodgrains 1.0287 1.0038 ,8882 Iiharif C e r e 3 l s 1.0283 1.0056 .7821 Rice 1.0297 1.0082 ,6462 Ftabi Cei-eals ;fileat Pulses 0.9?12'& 1.0128 .0632 Oilseeds Groundnut Sugarcane 1..0371 i .00d3 7339 Cottori 1.0263k 1.0177 .2339 Jute 1.0376/'tj 1.0172 ,4013 P l a n t a t i o n Crops 1.0266 1.0028 .92h9 /a Plot s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t frolil z e r o w i t h a p r o S a b i l i t y of l e s s t h a n -10. - S i j i n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from z e r o x i t h a probability of l e s s t h a n .05 b u t g r e a t e r t h a n .lo. 15. I n a s s e s s i n g t h e r e s u l t s oi' t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e s h o r t e r period, t h e same c a u t i o n should be e x e r c l s e d as i n a s s e s s i n g t h e f o o d g r a L ~ s p e r f o r a a a c e p r e s e n t e d above. But even a c c e p t i n g t h e r e s e r v a t i o n of c o t pushing t h e s t a t i s t i c a l uorli t o o f a r , it i s d i s c o n c e r t i n g t o f i n d t h a t Tor a l l save planta-Lion crops, t h e gro?rth r a t e s over t h e past, n i n e y e a r s a r e l o x e r t h a n f o r t h e 195C-5iqto 1962-6h p e r i o d . The e r r a 5 i c o u t p u t around t h e time t r e n d (iosrer rL v a l u e s ) l o r t h e t e n y e a r span noted i n t h e c a s e of f o o d g r a i n s i n Table V i s even more pronounced i n t h e n i n e y e a r period, an2 i s t r u e f o r a l l o t h e r crops s e l e c t e d . It i s obvious t h a t a ; r i c u l t u r e Ln t h e Becocd and T h i r d Flan p e r i o d s h a s been b e s e t by f o r c e s - i - ~ h e t h e r r o n na%ure o r t h e oinissicns and corilmissions of a b l - l c - d t u r a l p o l i c y .- f t h a t have m d e p r o g r e s s uneven and uncsrtairi. S t a t i s t i c a l l y t h e r e i s l i t t l e 1 d i f f e r e n c e betxeen t h e r e s u l L s ? r e s e n t e d i n Table 1 1 and Table V I , n e v e r t h e l e s s the i n f o m a t i o r i i n Table 31 adds sober s t r e s s t~ a concern aboul; t h e minimunl t a r z e t l e v e l of a f i v e p e r c e n t krorhh r a t e perd annum f o r a g r i c u l t u r e d u r i n g tile Fourth Flan.  C - Acres i n Azriculf,~we 16. It i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t i n 1965-66 330 : a i l l i o n a c r e s trill produce I n d i a ' s a g r i c u l t u r a l output. 02 t h e s e a c r e s 65 niillion a c r e s r J i l l s i v e an a d d i t i o n a l crop, so t h a t during t h e year a gross a r e a of 395 million a c r e s w i l l be harvested. The 330 m i l l i o n n e t a c r e s used f o r a g r i c u l t u r e i s about 41 per cent of I n d i a ' s land area, and about 45 per cent of t h e area o f f i c i a l l y lLsted and reported from v i l l a g e pape1-s. Table V I I l i s t s t h e use t o vshicli I n d i a ' s land xas put i n 1958-59. %ore r e c e n t d a t a i s " p r o v i s i ~ n a l ,but it shows t h a t land used f o r a g r i c u l t u r e , ~~ t h a t i s , "net a r e a s o ~ m , " " t o t a l cropped areal1 and t h e "area sovm more than once1' have r i s e n s l i g h t l y i n recent years. 17. f O t h e 32L.1 m i l l i o n a c r e s n e t used f o r s i n g l e or double c r o p p h g i n 1950-59, 57.3 m i l l i o n :.rere i r r i g a t e d of r~hicll8.8 inillion acres, or 15 per cent, i7zs used f o r multiple c r o p p i q . Therefore, of t h e 372.8 m i l l i o n a c r e s gross used t o provide t h e bumper h a r v e s t of 1358-59, 66.0 m i l l i o n , o r 18 per cent, t:as c l a s s e d a.s i r r i g a t e d . The distribu-Lion of land, both i r r i c ~ . a t e dand t o t a l gross acres, amon; various crops i s given i n Table ~ 1 1 1 . ~ 7 18. The :actors tha,t influence t h e a l l o c a t i o n of land among various crop a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e s t i l l a matter f o r research, but t h e r e i s s t r o n k evidence t h a t r e l a t i v e p r i c e s an2 t h e p r o f i t a b j - l i t y of co!:ipeting uses play an important, i f p r e c i s e l y undeterx;?inecl, r o l e . A study by 9 D i r e c t o r a t e of. Economics and S t a t i s t i c s of p r i c e 5 o l i c y i n India!? points out t h a t chances i n t h e r e l a t i v e p r i c e of j u t e t o r i c e bears a c l o s e r e l a t i o i l t o changes i n t l > e i r r e l a t i v e acreaLes, a sirriilar r e l a t i o n e x i s t s f o r whzat and sugarcane& and t h e study eludes t o other i n t e r - r e l a i i o n s between o i l s e e d , f i 5 e r s and fo o d p a i n s a l l o c a t i o n s . -/ ~hi lee send aofa tdepart someiihatr:efroia the acreagean aet af fpresentedyi n Tableo6 cai lte i t cd t h e Appendix; have no: made d o r t t o t r and r e c n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s , a n d rrould s t r e s s on2.y t h a t t h e confusion noted i n p a r t A of t h i s Appendix seems t o perrr;eai;e a l l s t a t i s - b i c a l m a t e r i a l r e l a t i n g t o Indian azricul.t.clre. -- - 2/'25nistr3r of Food and A;;riculLimre, i~conomicand Stati.s-Lical iidvisor, A g r i c u l t u r a l P r i c e Poiicy i n India, February 1963. See par-Licularly paragraphs 26-30. - -?l'lr~sin~ data from Ibid., pa;;es 22 and 21.:, t h e following r e l a t i o n s r;ere determined: 3 A~.: = 31.11 + 0.1612 pit: i v = .510 (0.0579) and d2t = 34.L3 i1.5631 P2.L-l + 4.2OLlt: i:2 = .9&6 ( 3373) ( .b131) ::here: A i s t h e r e l a t i v e acreage i n per c e n t o f : 1. J u t e t o r i c e , 2. sugarcane t o :,,;heat and P i s t h e r e l a t i v e p r i c e in per cent f o r t h e same r a t i o s . The i n c l u s i o n oi a trend v a r i a b l e i n t h e sugarcane-wheat r e l a t i o n i s t o t a k e accoimnt of s t r u c t u r a l s h i f t s i n %he supply P m c t i o n due t o the construction of more sugar facCories, and an expansion of tube well i r r i g a t i o n , much of which i s used f o r subar acreage. See a l s o Appendix V I I I .  Table VI I Land U t i l i z a t i o n i n India, 1353-59 14illion a c r e s T o t a l Geographical Area: Accordin2 t o Survey According t o Village Records ( r e p o r t i n g a r e a ) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Reportin, Area: Forests 130.1 Land not a v a i l a b l e f o r c u l t i v a t i o n 114.7 Land p u t .i;o norl.-asricultural uses 33.5 Barren and unculturable l a n d 31.2 Other uncultivated land excluding f a l l o u 97.h land Pen~ianentpasture and ~ r a z i n ~ 32-h Land under t r e e crops a d roves 1b. 1. Culturable lraste 50.9 F a l l o v Land. Old Fallorrs Current Fallow Net a r e a s o m 324.1 T o t a l cropped area ( g r o s s a r e a ) 372.8 Area sorm more than once 43 .'? Source: D i r e c t o r a t e of "Lonomics and Si;atistics, I Y r i i s t i ~of Food ~ an2 I ~ r i c u l t u r e ,A ; , r i c ~ d t u r a l S i t u a t i o n i n India, 301. X V I X -,0. ?.  Table VlII Cropunse Distribution of Gross Cropped Area and. Gross I r r i g a t e d Area 1956--.<9 Gross Gross Percenta~e Cropped Area I r r i & a t e d Brea of Crop Crops Area ( OoO acres) Percentage ioo0> acres percentage Irri~ated Food~rains 283,165 76.0 53,029 79.6 18.7 :<ice 81,000 21.7 29,765 44.7 36.7 ' .heat 31,164 8.l: 9, 323 lk. 9 31.3 Earicy 8,190 2.2 3,396 5.0 41 5 i~aize lo, ,534 2.3 1,101 1.7 10.5 Jo. :ar LkJk3s 11.9 , 1 535 2.3 3* 5 Bajra 28, l ~ 5 7.6 3L9 1.3 3 0 ;labi 6,313 2.7 1,071 1.6 17.0 &her cereals &mmts 13,1 k3 -. r' >*> 272 0.h 2.2 Gra111 24,323 6.7 2,933 b. 5 12.0 Other pulses r q7 I A J Y ~ ~ ) 2' 9.5 2,12-h 3.2 6.0 Sugarcane ; 1, 322 1.4 3 310 5.0 68.6 /7 Wner food crops' lGJ437 2.3 3,111 LC. 7 27.1 Oilseeds, /2 32,30b S. 3 1,oh3 1.6 3 2 Cotton 19,683 5 3 2,1;65 3.7 12.5 J u t e and ~ i e s t a 2,615 0. 'i (a1 Other Fibers 76L 3.2 ( a1 Tobacco 967 C.2 197 0.3 Podder Crops 13,401 2 5 * ~ 2 , 553 3.3 Tea 73L 0.2 (a > Coffee 295 0.1 (a) Iiubber 286 0.1 (a) Other non-iood crops 2,209 0.6 373 1.3 39*7(b) Total 372,762 10~. 3 66,591 100.0 17.9 - Includes( 2 (,457) , po.tat,oes c(332)i eand (1,i+58), black pepper,?32). a l l /1 fruits in acres ) h i l l s 'C30 other vegetabies (2 (2.31), - rape and /2 Includes ( i n '000 a c r e s ) =rou-rdnut ( l j , k S i ) , c a s t o r (1,212), sesanum (4,666): mustard ( 3 , 0 5 9 ) ~ linseed (3,365) and coconut (1,713). ( a ) Included i n other non-rood crops. ( b ) For a l l other non-food crops naricecl ( a ) . Source: P e r t i l i s e r S t a t i s t i c s , 1903-64, The F e r t i l i s e r Association of India, I\lew Uelhi. Conpiled from various Jlinistry of Food and Agriculture Publications. 19. A s allocat,ions of l.and amon,;: crops depend i n p a r t on r e l a t i v e p r i c e s , t h e grorrth i n t h e a l l o c a t i o n of land t o any one crop holding r e l a t i v e p r i c e s constant r t r i l l depend on t h e zrorrth of t h e t o t a l supply of land. I n India t h e t o t a l supply of c u l t i v a t e d land can be increased from two sources: from land not now c u l t i v a t e d , t h a t is, an expansion of n e t a r e a sown; and from increased double o r multiple cropping of land now - used f o r s i n g l e crop, t h a t is, an expansion of gross a c r e s c u l t i v a t e d while - holding n e t area f i x e d . In t h e p a s t f i f t e e n years t o t a l land used f o r t h e 28 b a s i c crops f o r r ~ h i c hf o r e c a s t s a r e made has gram a t t h e r a t e of 1.52 * 0.15 per c e n t compound, and from r a t h e r sketchy evidence o f t e n based on ''provisional" data, both sources have contributed. Table I X indicates occurred i n t h e Second Plan perFod. 20. It i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t by 1965-66 n e t a c r e s cropped 15 1 . 1 have r i s e n t o 330 m i l l i o n acres, or by 1-ess than one per cent i n t h e Third Plan period of 1960-61 t o 1905-66; t h a t gross a r e a cropped w i l l be 395 m i l l i o n a c r e s , up f i v e per cent s i n c e 1960-61; and t h a t a r e a double cropped 1 6 1 65 m i l l i o n acres, a r i s e of 33 per cent i n t h e same period. . 1 be W a r e unable t o j u d ~ et h e realism of t h e s e a n t i c i p a t i o n s , bot whatever e s t a t i s t i c a l estima:es u n d e r l i e thc:~, it i s c l e a r t h a t f u t u r e increases i n a g r i c u l t u r a l output : r i l l have t o come p r i ~ a r i l y from expanded double croppin& and improved y i e l d s . Table I X T o t a l Supply of A g r i c u l t u r a l L a ~ d1955-56 and 1960-61 1955-56 1960-61 Change Fiillion a c r e s -- Per cent change i\Jet a r e a cropped 313.2 326.9 + 8.7 + 2.5 Area sotdm more than once 44.3 48.9 + L.6 +lo. t Gross area cropped 362.5 375.8 +13.3 + 3.7 1/ Sources- : Culturable blaste Current Fallow Other Fallow lie chan;es i n land use i n t h e three c a t e g o r i e s add t o 11.7 m i l l i o n acres, 3 m i l l i o n acres, liiore than t h e increase i n n e t area cropped. Some of % h i s land undoubtedly contributed t o the more than 9 m i l l i o n a c r e increase i n land p u t t o n o n - a ~ r i c u l t u r a l use (such a s urban l a n d ) and land put t o grazin;. Source: Sonley & ;;inG Zeport t o the IBRD, Department of Operations Soutll Asia and :,iddle East, September 1, 1964. Appendix 7. 21. In a monsoonal climate of tile kind t h a t p r e v a i l s over most of India, double c r o p p i n ~depends almost ~ n t i r e l y t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of on -- s o i l moisture during Lhe dry o r r a b i season o i t h e year. It has been h ~ ~ ; ; t e s t etd a t inproved netnods of handlin; s o i l durin; and m e d i a t e l y in a f t e r t h e nlonsoon r a i n s could leac!, t o b e t t e r r o o t dcvelopmer~~ t h e post monsoon crop and, therefore, t o b e t t e r u t i l i z a 5 i o i l of resiciual rainy season moisture held i n t h e surface l a y e r s of t h e s o i l . T h i s i s c n t i r e l y possibl-e; but such s o i l preparation l i k e l y .:auld require auch l a r z e r por:er u n i t s -bhan t h e bullocl: yoke nol: a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c u l t i v a t o r ; and before t h e p o t e n t i a l of r e s i d u a l ilioisture can be lcno~n, more research i n s o i i and crop husbandqj i s n ~ e d e d . 22. A t t h e presen-t the, expanded i r r i g a t i o n i s t h e key t o e-qanded double cro2ping. Aspects of t h i s s a b j e c t a r e presented i n some d e t a i l i n Appendix V and V I . I n t h i s Appendix ve merely v i s h t o point t o t h e implications of i r r i g a t i . o n Lo e q a n d e d land USE t h r o u ~ h increased cropping i n t e n s i t y . a a t a on multiple land use and I r r i g a t i o n a r e not a v a i l a b l e r e a d i l y from Indian sources. Eut from observations it r.rould appear t h a t t h e r e i s not an ail-Lomatic r e l a t i o n between an expansion i n i r r i g a t e d a r e a and an e x p n s i o n i n n u l t i p l e crop pin^. Indeed, i n t h e case of nuch of t h e tube t;ell irri;;a-tcd a r e a i n North India t h e r e l a t i o n i s i n yeverse. :.%ereas before t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of a poxered well a inain crop and a v c a t c h ~ ~ c r o p would be Lror.,m on marry acres, a f t e r t h e ?re11 a t e n month crop of sugarcane viould occupy ixuch of t h e commanded acreage arid be accounted a s one crop. I n a r e a s i r r i g a t e d by canals, nost of t h e ~;a.i;eri s a v a i l a b l e only d u r i ~ g h e -=!charif or r a i n y season. P e r e n i ~ i a l t . water i s confined t o r e l a t i v e l y s a a l l acreages along t h e banks of t h e main canals and i t s major dis-trib~;.taries. Because an I1i.rriga-bed acre1' i s a convenient s t a t i s t i c a l u n i t , it i s t h e colilnon :.Jay oi' expressin2 t h e b e n e f i t s of an i r r i ~ a t i o nsysten, and 02 d i f f e r e r a land i n c r o s s t a t i s t i c s on t h e b a s l s of a fac-tor tha-t niakes a s i g n i f i c a n t difference t o t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y of an a c r e i n pr'oduclnb t h e same crop ( s e e Appendb IV). on But c l a s s i f j i n g land t h i s ;ray, and specifying i r r i ~ a t i o n tile b a s i s of acreage i s not useful f o r measuring t h e doubie cropping p o t e n t i a l of land. It i s ciifl'icillt, therefore, t o even speculate on hot: rapidly, o r by hor~ much, India could expand i-ts land input t o a g r i c u l t u r e . 23 The e q e c t a t i o a i s t h a t t o t a l land use v~ill i s e from 395 m i l l i o n r a c r e s i n 1965-66 Lo !2 n i l l i o n acres i n 1F70-71, t h a t i s , by 7.6 per cerit :5 during t h e Fourtll Plan period - aSouL 1.117 p e r cent per annul conpound. This compares 1 5 t h a f i v e per ce:it t o t a l r i s e during t h e Third Plan o r a compound i n c r e a s e of 0.975 per cent, per annm. !&ile gross a c r e s a r e expected t o expand t o k25 million, t h e a n t i c i p a t e d n e t acrea;e 1 1 go 5 1 only from 330 m i l l i o n a c r e s t o 33!: m i l l i o n acres, an increase or" 1.2 per cent i n f i v e years. Tnis means t h a t t h e planned expansion k double i croppin2 i s from about, 65 1;illion a c r e s t o y1 m i l l i o n acres, an iiicrease of 40 per cent o r 5.95 Fer c e ~ per nimum corfipouc;.&/ t - l/Since r r i t i n g t h i s Appendix D r . Gore-ax has obtained more elaborate d a t a on land use, past, present and planned. A s usual with Indian materials t h e s e data d i f f e r frorr. those quoted i n t h e t e x t , rrith D r . Goreux's ;,?aterial probabljr being more accurate. H i s data a r e added a t t h e end of t h e Appendix a s Table 3. 24. The implications of t h e s e pro-sosed i n c r e a s e s i n land use conpared t o performance d u r i n ~t h e Second and. Third Plan periods a r e presented i n Table 2:. I n o w v i e ~ r , t h e Fourth PIaa t a r k e t s a r e not impossi'ole, but i n tlie l i g h t of p a s t perforinance t h e y do su;;;;est t h a t vigorous e f f o r t s must be made i f they a r e t o becone a r e a l i t y . The Killistry of Food and Agriculture has suggested t h a t f l s p e c i a l cxfipaigns f o r double cropping" be organized, and t h a t t h e s e involve "the propagation of proper cropping p a t t e r n s throukh appropriate t e c h n i c a l advice," and t h e i n c l u s i o n of " s p e c i a l rileasures ... Tion f o r the provl of seeds =d o t h e r a g r i c u l t u r a l r e q u i s i t e s , ~ s r k e t i n g facilities'!. it i s hard t o a s s e s s t h e l i k e l y e f f e c t i v e n e s s of such s t e p s a s r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e seems t o be hos.n about t h e f a c t o r s c o n t r o l l i n g double croppin;; a t t h e farm l e v e l . Horrever, it i s hos..m t h a t t h e organization of t h e i r r i g a t i o n sgsten! a t t h e v i l l a z e i s one f a c t o r . The inethod of d i s t r i b u t i n g r ~ a t e rcommon i n r~ianyc m a l a r e a s where t h e r e a r e no cliannels t o each i n d i v i d u a l f i e l d i s by f i e l d t o f i e l d flooding do:-m t h e f i e l d s of a t e r r a c e . This leaves t h e cul-tivator of t h e lower f i e l d a t t h e mercy of t h e decisions made about crops and r o t a t i o n s by t h e o-mers of t h e higher f i e l d s . I f t h e owmer of t h e topmost f i e l d of t h e t e r r a c e decides he doesnl t r r a n t water durink t h e crop season, no o m e r of a l o r , ~ e r i e l d can f g e t rrater f o r l-is p l o t . The uncertain a v a i l a b i l i t y of water t o t h e lower portioiis of .';he .;,errace i s ro.fiec'ceci i n land values, r i t h t h e topnost f i e l d s e l l i n g from 500 t o 1,COO rupees more per a c r e than t o loviermost. But ..rater d i s t r i b u t i o n i s only one f a c t o r c o n t r o l l i n 2 double cropping opportunities; t h e c r i t i c a l t h i n 2 bettreen t h e h a r v e s t of one crop and t h e p l a n t i n & of a second prevents many c u l t i v a t o r s who have access only t o s10.i~ aniriial power f o r - b i l l a c e operations from double croppin:: a l l but a srtiall proportion of .their acreage; s h o r t ciwation f i r s t crop v a r i e t i e s t h a t rrould s t r e t c h t h e i n t e r c r o p period a r e not a v a i i a b l e i n many rezions, r o r i f they a r e , t h e i r y i e l d s a r e lo-,~: e l a t i v e t o longer duration v a r i e t i e s , and tlie s a c r i f i c e i n y i e l d , plus t h e added expense of t h e a d d i t i o n a l crop, nalces double cropping; u n a t t r a c - t i v ~ even though output per a c r e over t h e year lrould be l a r g e r ; problenls of s o i l f e r i i i i ' c g main-Lenance, and ; u n c e r t a i n s u p p l i e s o f e r t i l i z e r s , pi-ice i n c e n t i v e i s s u e s , an< s o on a r e a l l Factors t h a t enLer i n t o a c ~ l t i v a t o r ' sdecision t o double crop. Xost of t h e s e have not besn evaluated and none have been s t u d i e d i n depth. Eecauso of t h i s t h e r e can be l i - L t l e s p e c i f i c i t y i n t h e Govermlent program t o expand t h e a r e a under rnultiple cropping, and, in f a c t , t h e absence of s p e c i z i c i t y i s t h e most d i s t u r b i n g s i n z l e element in t h e conversations 2nd documents r e l a t i n g t o land use exyansion. 25 . I n assessing t h e p a s t performance of a g r i c u l t u r e , t h e rate of g r o ~ r t hof a r e a i s a c r i t i c a l question. Froni t h e i n d i c e s i n Table 2 s e v e r a l methods of ,analyzing t h e grorsth t r e n d s have been used 'GO s t u d j t h e o v e r a l l movenent i n area, and i n t h e r e l a t i v e grokth of that devoted t o f'ood&rains and non-foodgain crops. The r e s u l t s a r e ~ i - v e n Table X I . in L/l,,ini.stry of Food and Agriculture proposals f o r t h e Fourth Plan.  Table .X Changes in Gross, Net, and Doable Cropped Acres d u r i n g t h e Second and Third Plans, and a n t i c i p a t e d f o r t h e F o u r t h P l a n1/ , Second Plan Period Per cent Cofipound Grosrth E55-56 1960-61 Change x a t e i n Pey cent. milllori a c r e s Ket cropped a r e a 318.2 326.7 + 2.5 +O.495 Area so-.m t ~ r i c e bb.3 h.2.g +lo.4 +2,00 Gross cropped a r e a 362.5 375. 6 + 3.7 +a.73 Third P l m Period 1360-61 1965-66 -- (anuclpa%ed) Yet cropped a r e a 326. $ 332.0 + 2.9 Area sorm t7.rice 48.9 65.0 +-32.9 Gross cropped a r e a 375.3 JC \ .I 7 / f 0 + 5.1 F o u r t h Plan br.-Licipa+'Z O ~ S U ;Jet cropped a r e a 330.0 3311.0 + 1.2 Area s o r n t : ' ~ i c e 65.0 91.3 +LO.0 Gross cropped a r e a 395.0 $5.0 + 7.L S o u ~ c: Various Government docunents e .  Table X I Grorhh Trends i n a r e a devoted t o A l l 28 Forecast Crops, t o Foodgrain Crops and t o igon-foodgrain Crops, 1950-51 t o 1963-64 To A 1 1 28 Forecast C r o ~ s Zstimate of b 2 Trend Equation (Standard e r r o r ) r 7 1. Standard Growth Trend It = abt 2. Linear Trend - Arithnetic It = a + b t 3. Linear Trend - Logarithnietic Corment: - t h e f i t of equation 3 i s good stlggesting t h a t t h e ;;rowth r a t e r%:as r e l a t i v e l y high during t h e f i r s t y e a r s but has been declininh s i n c e , althouzh t h e r a t e of d e c l i n e i s a l s o dropping. 4. Stvldard Growth Trend It = a'ot 5. Linear Trend - Arithmetic It = a + S t 6. Linear Trend - Logarith~etic I = atb 0.078LO .9235 ( 0.00651) Comment: as t h e fit of' equatiori 6 is tile bes-L, t h e comnent above a p p l i e s here a l s o . 7. Standard Gro.i:til Trend 8. Linear Trend - Arithmetic 9. Linear Trend - Logarithmetic 1t = a t b 0.1147 8787 (0.0123) Comment: t h e r e may have beer1 a s l i g h t d e c l i n e i n a r e a growth r a t e between 1950-51 and 1 63-64, but t h e d e c l i n e i s n o t a s s h a r ~ r a s s t r o n g as o $g t h e t ~ c ?eyori o a a s i o t a ? abea Rs s above. g e r e s it .of e u a t i o 7 t o 9 su expande a t a 82c?lrnnz%atq b aream .?rains h-sen L- at a constant r a t e oY?Z?-pm cent per. anfiun conlpouhd 26. The comments in t h e t a b l e a r e self-explanatory. T o t a l a r e a has gr0r.m a-t a diminishing r a t e ; foodgrai:ls a r e a has a l s o ;,roir;n but a t r a t e lower than t h e r a t e of expansion i n t o t a l acrea6e; non-foodgrain a r e a has held a s-beady ~ r o ~ t h T i i s implies a d e c l i n e i n t h e share of food- . g r a l n s acreage r e l - a t i v e t o non-food;jrains, and a d d i t i o n s t o t h e stocir of land a r e being a l l o c a t e d t o non-foodgrains i n ever l a r s e r proportions. 27. The s1or:ing of t h e r a t e of i n c r e a s e i n t h e t o t a l land i n p u t t o on a g r i c u l t u r e places t h e burden of f u t u r e output grobr'~h t h e y i e l d khat can be mes.l;ed from t h e p r e s e n t l y c u l t i v a t e d area. 25. The ,ro::til i n land p r o d u c t i v i t y betueen 1950-51 and 1963-6h has not been of a magnitude t h a t l e a v e s one c o r i i d e n t t h a t I n d i a can s u c c e s s f u l l y o f f s e t a d e c l i n e i n area expacsion with an i n c r e a s e I n y i e l d sufl'icient -to hold even present, o v e r - a l l gror:i;;i r a t e s . Appendices I I V , V and V concenkrate on t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y and p r o j e c t & expansion of non-land i n p u t s trhich, vhen conbincd ~ 6 t h land, b r i l l l e a d t o higher y i e l d s . This s e c t i o n i s a b r i e f review of p a s t y i e l d performance using t h e data of Table 3 and a s t a l ~ d a r dg;rol-;-i;htrend l i n e . Because t h e gro~.sth .- ",here i . r l l l be some discrepancy a r e l e a s t - s q u a r e s c a l c ~ l a - t i oa i . ~ * betveen p r o d c c t i v i t y r a t e s and t h e ra.tes c a l c d a t e d f o r t h e &ro:r'~hof l a i d and output i n t h e same period. 29. f i The t r e n d r z t e s of kro~-&h o r yie:Ld ~ i v e n n Table do n o t deplct a d.yna-nic agricult.ure. That I n d i a ' s y i e l d s a r e lox! i n coiilparison tLiLh b~orldexperience i s a r e a d i l y and e a s i l y proven fac-L; t h a t I n d i a has had s o lot; a ~ r o t s t hr a t e i n 5rields clver t h e p a s t f o u r t e e n years i s l e s s well appreciated. Yet a~ioinbt h e Pood crops on1j r i c e has exizi'oited a yielc! ~ r o t ; t h , and t h i s crop has c a r r i e d .the increase i n c e r e a l and foodzrains productivity. Cotton and susarcaRe appear t o be t h e only b r i g h t crops among t h e noc-foodgralns. it i s impossible t o %race t h e causes of t h i s poor performacce. I n l a t e r zppendices t h e faiiclre t o expand nun-land i n p u t s , poor q u a l i t y research, and con.i'usion over t h e focus of extefisf on v i l l bear some of t h e blame by association il not by direct, ; . u i l t ; but t o assign cause i s t o p l a y an ex post game of " i f , ' ' an empty e x e r c i s e a t b e s t . 2 - Conclusion 30. It i s hard t o vierr t h e s . t a t i s L i c a 1 record of p a s t p e r f o r m a ~ c e :ritiir,ut f e e l i n g a profouni serise of pessiinism about t h e outlook f o r Indian a ~ r i c u l t u r e . Land a r e a i s increasin; a t a declining r a t e and t h e r e I s no prima f a c i e ex-idence t h a t tlie r:ay has been found even t o off s e t t h i s d e c l l n e by k n p r o v i n ~productivity, nuch l e s s t o build a vi&orous a ~ r i c u l t u r e t h a t w i l l be a b l e t o feed and clo.t,hc t h e n a t i o n ' s increasing ~ ~ ~ i l l i o nTo s. p l a c e t h e record a i a i n s t t h e Fourth Plan t a r s e t s rnakes t h e Plm loolc l i k e a c o l o s s a l e x e r c i s e i n delusion. Yet i;l-;ere a r e briglit spots, and t h e s e a r e explorec! i n Appendices I V , V ax~dV I i n an examinaiion of t h e nun-land i n p u t s t h a t o f f e r -the p o t e n t i a l of transforming t r a d i t i o n a l Indian a h r i c u l t u r e t o a modern r u r a l i n d u s t r y .  - Table XI1 2enc ' T- . ' 2 at e s of C;ro-..:th f o r tlie fildex 32 t h c i->rolluctivit;-3 ' Land 1 f o r Sel-ected Crops, 1350-51 t o 1963-61; using t h e Term I+.= abt Zstina-te of b (Standard e r r o r ) - r2 T o t a l of a l l 20 Forecast Crops 1.0158 (1.0020) Cereals Pulses Oilseeds Xharif c e r e a l s Rabi c e r e a l s ->. i~lCe Yhea-t Gram G r oundnu'; Sugarcane Cotton Jute Tea Rubber - Trend0.05. s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t /a than not frorc! zero rrith a p r o b a b i l i t y of l e s s  ...... Ccmo r - f N mN r - d o 3 I I a m r l a ~ o l rl rl rl d d dl I N " G1 lndl I N Nm 9 " : 2 1 d r l dI rl I m (I I r . .rl a 5: H m d ". 6 3 .rl + 0 ; 11 2 m 0, d 4 0 i p $ A d z 3 d n l 3 % 2 2 8 n l & n l < B 4.: m 2 2 d 2 .& $ 5 2 " m m : U . I X a a m H 'N ' . m 7 ?I 5-s "" r( U\ a 1 m NNI dcu 3' al . rll m rl I ddl cut-NI m ' ? . NI '2' d rn f I: 01 d ;l w w m I g 1 dl I m rl I I I i . . I I 1 d Y 'm . '11 < 2 ul 0 1 i"? '9 C1 m m 0 E-1 4 U Y NI rid -Y 4 m rl "I 441 Ell 4 4 O' ln + I I I I I I j C 5 0 %I 5 0 0 ". 1 1 . "2 ? c; S' ""' I O 'I d rnd w W 5 & 2 H 3 . 8 i d e E U H  - Table 1 Index Numbers of Agricultural Froduction in India (Continued) . (Agricultural Year 19k9-50 100) Comodity/Cmup WeirW 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-5k 195k-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-a 1. 2. 3. k. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9- lo. 1. 1 12. 13 1. 15. 16. Linseed 0.8 87.8 77.1 86.0 89.1 90.3 97.1 90.3 60.0 la.7 106.8 9k.6 109.7 1Oh.1 92.6 Castorseed -02- -- 80-5- - - !5:8- - - 19-7- - - 80-5- - - 25:k- - - 26~1-- - 25~3-- - 68-7- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 85.9 88.2 69.5 77.3 77.3 77.3 Cotton Jute bsta Tea Coffee Rubber L NAI N P A T TO CROPS -3z6- - -l!?k:O- - -l!?9:h- - -115~7- - -1$@- -- -- 0 - -11322- - -11322- - -123:O- - -122:7- - - -127.3- - -131.3- _ -135.1- - -1- .-6- - -139.5- - -1k0.7 -- -- -- i' Sugarcane(Cur) 8.7 113.7 122.8 101.6 89.5 115.9 119.8 137.2 138.1 U.5 153.3 173.9 163.7 15k.0 165.5 Tobacco 1.9 97.3 78.0 91.3 101.5 95.1 112.9 113.7 89.k 118.2 108.7 116.3 129.6 136.~ 125.~ Potato 1.0 l07.k 110.8 128.9 126.5 1U.l 120.3 1n.6 126.3 18.0 172.3 170.6 158.k 192.P 152.k* Pepper (Black) 1.2 97.2 107.5 102.8 98.0 lOh.9 131.9 122.9 120.8 127.2 126.7 13h.k 138.6 123.8 115.8 Chillies (Dry) Ginger (Dry) 2.0 -0.3- - 119.k -- - 2h.k - 118.b 26.0- 98.0 - 89.6- - 10L9 ,203- -- 131.9 2L3- - 122.9 -1Q5.7,- 120.8 -1Q2.3-- 121.5 -1Q5.O- 113.5 90,9- 122.1 - - - - - -1$&- - -1g,8- - 126.6 126.6 -1l_338- 1W.W - -130~8- - 139.3* -13125- - 152l- - -110:3- - -1&0- - -1?1:5 - - 97tb- - -u5:8- - ,120:l- - -12_9:2- - -12725- - - . . . . . . m .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . msCELLANEOUS 3 . 1 . . 155.8 150.8 lh9.7 15l.h NON-FOODCAAINS 33:1- - -'05:9- - - -i0328- - -i?lr:7- - -q0:9- - -l19:9- - -lj1:5- - -lZ9:5- - - 129.4 - -12~~0- -1k719- - -%9:2- - -i&o- - -151:8- - ALL-COMMODITIES l ! o - - 2516- - - 27.5- - -102.0- %* - - -1113- - -117~0-- -116~8- - -12k.3- - -115;9- --- 133.5 130.3 139.7 1U.b 137.2 10.5 *- Based on provisional estimates. ............................. NOTE: - The indices for 1960-61 t.o 1962-02 are generally based on partiaily revised estimates while those for 1963-6h are generally based on Final Estimates. The indices for these years are, therefore, subject to revision.  Appendix I - Table 2 Index Numbers of Area under Agricultural Crops i n India (Agricultural year 1949-50 = 100) Commodity/Group 1950-51 19%-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55.1955-56 1956-57 195'1-58 195,B9 96 -5-0 1960-61 19bl-62 1962-63 1963-64 1 2 3 h 5 6 ( t i 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I . FOOERAINS Rice Jowar Ba jra Mai a e Rabi Small m i l l e t s Kharif Cereals Wheat Barley Rabi Cereals CEREALS Gram Gur Other Pulses PULSES FOODGRAINS I1.NON-FOODGRAINS Groundnut i13.0 123.6 120.5 106.8 139.L 129.1 139.2 161.5 157.3 162.1 157.4 161.6 172.7 171.2 Sesamum 107.7 117.5 116.2 125.6 127.5 111.3 105.4 101.6 109.2 103.7 105.3 109.0 120.3 113.3 Rapeseed?Hustard107.0 123.4 108.1 115.2 125.2 131.2 130.3 123.7 2 49.2 47.2 161.0 159.4 154.1 Linseed 92.2 89.8 88.6 90.2 88.5 99.4 109.4 83.5 103.8 128.5 116.8 127.9 123.6 127.2 Castorseed 94.0 98.1 90.5 91.9 93.6 96.9 96.0 5 77.3 83.0 70.9 74.8 73.8 75.7 OILSEEDS 106.5 115.8 110.7 108.9 123.6 119.3 123.4 125.0 128.4 137.8 133.4 40.3 45.9 43.5  Appendix I - Table (cont ' d. ) 1 . NON-FOOIX;RAINS 1 cont Id. Cotton 119.2 132.9 128.9 41.7 153.0 164.0 162.7 162.6 161.6 1l~8.0 154.9 156.6 159.2 160.7 Jute 121.3 167.8 155.9 05.5 106.8 49.4 163.9 Q9.6 6 U.8 129.9 195.9 180.7 183.0 Mesta 100.0 104.9 103.4 99.0 93.7 122.2 156.2 163.0 193.2 154.3 46.6 204.3 199.4 202.6 FIBRES 108.8 125.0 130.4 137.3 47.2 160.7 161.8 160.7 161.3 47.2 151.8 160.7 161.5 163.1 Tea 100.4 100.1 100.4 99.3 101.0 101.3 100.7 102.3 102.6 105.6 105.b 105.b l 0 5 . b 105.b Coffee 103.6 105.7 107.2 97.6 103.2 104.2 104.7 110.1 120.5 123.7 126.9 126.W 1 2 6 . 5 ~ 126.9* Rubber 83.9 84.7 89.5 122.5 127.3 128.1 129.8 48.8 195.0 207.2 218.1 236.4 &4.6k 244.6% PLANTATION CWPS Sugarcane(Gur) 116.4 132.2 117.8 96.0 109.6 125.1 138.9 40.4 132.0 U.8 158.7 164.2 1 . 5 150.0 H Tobacco 102.7 82.9 104.2 106.1 99.6 117.8 120.4 103.3 108.9 117.4 115.1 121.2 119.7 U.1 I Potatoes 102.4 106.7 108.7 109.8 113.6 1 95 122.2 137.1 U.4 154.6 153.9 154.2 171.1 165.2 u U I Peppertblack) 100.5 103.0 103.0 106.1 108.1 112.2 112.8 117.8 118.0 119.2 129.7 129.4 128.9 129.1 Chillies(dry) 115.4 109.2 97.4 105.4 124.8 117.8 117.2 122.6 110.6 117.9 -120.7 117.3 120.3 122.7 Ginger ( dry ) 71.4 82.1 95.8 6 68.9 74.5 72.6 77.8 69.7 80.6 8 82.4 94.6 94.6 ALL COMMODITIES 99.9 101.7 105.3 111.2 112.3 115.0 116.0 14.7 119.4 120.7 118.5 121.4 122.5 122.2 - - Based on provisional estimates. 21 Note: The indices f o r 1960-61 t o 1962-63 are generally based on p a r t i a l l y Revised Estimates while those f o r 1963-64 are generally based on Final Estimates. The indices f o r these years are, therefore, subject t o revision. Source : Directorate of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India.  APPENDIX I - TABLE 3 Index Numbers of Agricultural Productivity i n India (Agricultural Year - 1949-50 - 100) Cm o 0o m t Grou 0- 9 5 - 6-5'( r5-45 SB 1956-59 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 9359- (' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U-I 15 I. FOOCGMNS Rice 87.1 92.2 98.6 115.7 105.2 110.8 14.2 100.2 117.8 14.3 124.3 124.0 111.5 125.5 Jowar 89.6 94.0 94.4 102.4 117.7 86.6 101.0 111.6 112.5 108.3 121.3 97.2 119.3 113.4 Ba jra 86.0 73.7 81.5 102.4 87.8 88.5 74.2 94.2 98.4 94.9 82.1 93.4 104.7 100.4 Maize 87.6 100.3 112.1 110.3 111.5 99.6 115.9 109.2 104.2 110.6 108.6 111.2 116.3 116.6 Rabi 94.8 87.6 87.2 117.5 112.7 128.4 125.9 118.9 122.8 126.2 115.7 123.0 127.0 121.9 SmallMillets 92.0 97.5 92.5 105.8 107.5 94.2 9.1 88.0 104.4 97.1 99.5 101.6 97,s 108.3 Kharif Cereals 88.2 90.7 93.6 107.9 101.9 103.0 109.0 99.8 112.8 111.4 118.6 117.7 112.5 122.7 Wheat 101.2 96.7 111.9 109.6 117.3 103.6 101.5 98.6 1a.O 111.5 122.4 128.6 114.6 105.1; Barley Rabi Cereals CEREALS 90.8 91.8 97.0 108.2 104.9 103.8 108.2 99.8 U3.2 111x7 119.6 120.4 113.3 119.7 Gram 107.5 107.2 124.9 10.6 130.9 117.7 136.9 8.3 1v.7 3.0 129.8 123.7 103.0 GW 98.2 93.1 88.3 ;6.5 89.0 101.4 108.0 Y6.i 1484.2 83.8 $4.2 68.2 77.7 63.0 Other Pulses 92.8 91.7 86.1 87.2 93.8 90.1 78.3 77.0 87.3 86.2 86.5 87.9 84.5 78.7 PULSES 99.8 97.5 100.9 104.6 107.4 101.4 104.8 90.8 111.2 96.7 110.2 101.2 97.2 84.8 I1.NON-FOOERAINS Groundnut Sesamum Rapeseed and Mustard Linseed Castorseed OILSEEDS  APPENDIX I - TABLE 3 cont'd. Index Numbers of Agricultural Productivity in India 1 . NON-FOODGRAINS- 1 oont d. Cotton 92.9 89.7 93.9.107.1 106.9 93.8 111.4 110.0 108.8 89.5 131.2 108.7 126.8 128.4 Jute 87.6 90.2 95.3 94.8 88.8 90.9 84.6 86.1 102.0 94.9 93.6 98.9 91.4 98.6 Mesta 100.0 99.9 99,9 99.5 145.7 143.0 141.8 120.4 132.5 111.6 116.2 124.8 125.6 132.5 Tea 103.4 109.4 . 101.3 109.3 105.8 116.4 113.1 116.4 116.2 1 . 126.4 122.3 122.3 Caff ee 108.4 106.6 117.4 150.1 147.1 188.2 194.9 208.7 199.8 209.9 279.8 189.2 219.7 219.7 Rubber 111.8 111.5 118.5 107.6 100.2 114.1 117.8 94.2 82.2 76.1 75.8 74.6 83.7 99.3 PLAN'TATlON CROPS Sugarcane(Gur) Tobacco Potato ~epper(b1ack) Chillies ( d r y ) Giinger ( d z y ) RP MISC?XLANEOUSC O S Note: The indices f o r 1960-61 t o 1962-63 a r e generally based on P a r t i a l l y Revised Estimates while those f o r 1963-64 a r e generally based on Final Estimates. The indices f o r these years are, therefore, subject t o revision. Source: Directorate of Economics & S t a t i s t i c s , Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Govt. of India.  --L Table F u l l y Revised Estimates oi' Area and Production of Forecast Crops i n India --- 1 9 5 9 r Troduc t i o n Area (Thousand Yield Per Crop - (Thousand ~ c r e s ) Long ~ o n s ) I - -I Acre i n Pounds Rice Jowar Ba j r a ijaize Rabi Small X i l l e ts T o t a l Xharif Cereals 183,435 51,013 623 !;!heat Barley T o t a l Rabi Cereals !il-, 42.0 12,835 0% T o t a l Cereals 224., 645 63,84.8 636 Gram Gr u Other Pulses T o t a l Pulses 61,366 11,613 k24 T o t a l Foodgrains 206,211 75,461 590 Groundnut 15,919 4,490 632 Castorseed 1,215 113 208 Sesamum 5,279 36h 154 Rapeseed. & Mustard 7,191 1,046 326 Linseed 4,877 b39 202 T o t a l Oilseeds 34,481 6,452 419 Cotton ( ~ i n t ) 18,027 3,515 11 76 Jute (Fiber) 1,685 4,k96 2 7 1,068 IIes t a ( ~ l b e r ) 725 1,143 - 7' 631 Sugarcane (Gur) 5,281 7,821 3,317 Black Pepper 233 26 250 Chillies (DPJ) 1,495 353 529 Ginger (337) 44 Lb 815 Potato 8Sh 2,690 5, l8k Tobacco 1,009 287 637 r Sannhemy ( ~ i b e & ~ o d d e r ) 639( 502) /3 80 0 357 /3 =s 7 -7 or -, -- :~; : - + ~ o u s R ~be_Les 0 332 ' l b s . each p- I n terms of thousand bales of !LOO l b s . each 3 -- R: lP-gricul-iuralr .S i t u a t i o n i n I n s , -4ug.1~ 1964, D i r e c t o r a t e of e ates t o fibe ---- Source ----. -- of t Ecoilomics and S t a t i s t i c s , ~ i i i l i s t r y Food and Agriculture.  Table 5 A.::ricultural Production (I'housand m e t r i c toils) To-tal Small 3ice Joxjar Saj r a ilaize Rabi 1,Iillets Cereals  Table 5 (cont'dj Food;,rains (Thousand metric tons ) ::heat Barley Total Totel Cereals RaSi Cereals So, 6k0  Table ->-,-..- 5 (cont'd) - 1.'oodr.-rrai:1~ (T!lousaild metric tons) -- --=---- Other Total Total Gram Gur !2zl.scs Pulses Foodgrains  Table -,. 5 (contJ1d) Cilseeds -- metric 5ons ) (~housa~~d - -.-- ----- :'.apesecci & -. -- --- Total - --- Groundnut Sesanum :mstard LinsceZ Cas torseed -Oilseeds 1st9-So 3,388 512 813 b1-8 130 5,161  Table .-.*--- 5 ( corlt ' d) F i b e r s and Suearcane ---- - _ _ _ . - - Y _ _ _ _ Cot.to12-- I I /a - ~ ~ - " O - - . /5 Jute-- -- l ~ c ~ /b a .- i > - - -- -- /C Sugarcaiie ( ~ u r ) - - /a Thousalid b a l e s of 332 Ibs. Thousand S a l e s c T 400 15s. - Thousand s e t r i c toils of raw sugar. Source: -* - O f f i c i a l i n d i c e s of Troducl;ion Area and Produc t i . \ r i ty f o r in:Jivirlual 3e crops ad jus -led f ronl the *:~Fully i s e d Z s t i n a t e s of Produ~*isioli, !I 1959-60, gi-~er1 paze 516 of t h e ----.-.---.i c u l t u r a i i t u a t i o n i n I n d i a 011 A~r S J kn:~sal ?:umber . i35.':..2 i r e c i ; o r a ~ e of Xcono:~iics and S LaLLssics, 91. i K c i s t r y or" Food and .'i,,ricut;ur;, A a ~ u s t1 6 i T o t a l s ar30 a c t u a l t o t a l s of i n d i v i d u a l crops.  Table 6 -- Area (Thousand Acres) Small Total Kharif Rice Jorrar Bajra lieize 3abi 3sllets Cereals 1 9 - 5 6 78,0&7 42,903 23,031 9,132 ,565 13,231 i76,915 1956-57 79,71;8 LO, 102 27,302 9,236 5,631 12,342 17$, 951 1957-58 79,864 42,755 27,596 10,330 5,971 12,081 !7 173, ?1 1958-59 81,933 4L, 370 23,237 10,5k2 6,276 12,7&5 1,34,153 1959-60 83,573 43,755 26,425 LO, 736 G, 222 12,721 :133,1:35  Table 6 (contld) -- Area (~housandAcres) ':heat Barley Total Total Cereals Rabi Cereals  Table 6 ( c o n t l d ) -L- -.a Area -.- (Thousand a c r e s ) 0ther TO t a r Total Gram Gur Pulses Pulses Foodgrains  --6 (contId) Table --- Area (Thousaild acres) Rape and Total - -- -- Groundnut Sesamum ;?ustard Linseed C a s t o r s e e d Oilseeds  Table 6 ( c o n t ' d ) - Area (Thousand Acres) Cotton Jute i4esta Sugarcane Source: O f f i c i a l i n d i c e s of Fk-oduction Area and P r o d u c t i v i t y f o r i n d i v i d u a l crops a d j u s t e d from t h e "Fully Revised Estimates of Production" 1959-60 given on page 514 of t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l S i t u a t i o n i n I n d i a , Annual Number 1964, D i r e c t o r a t e of Zconomics and S t a t i s t i c s , I E n i s t r y of Food and Agriculture, August 1964. T o t a l s a r e a c t u a l t o t a l s of i n d i v i d u a l crops. P r o d u c t i v i t y of A;,ricuitural Land - Yields i n Pounds p e r Acre Rice Joxar Bajra idaize Rabi Small isheat Barley i l i l l e ts  Table 7 ( c o n t l d ) P r o d u c t i - ~ t y Agricultural Land of - Yields i n Pounds per Acre - 0 Total Rapeseed Gram Gur Other ~ ~ ~ d - Ground- Castor- Sesa,m and Rilseserains nuts seed st.;rrd 1.7  Table 7 (con.tld) Productivity of d ; ; r i c u l t u r a l Land - Yields i n Pounds per Acre Linseed Cotton Jute 2iesta Sugarcane ( ~ i n) t (Fiber ) ( ~ i b e)r ( Gur ) Source: O f f i c i a l i n d i c e s of Production -4rea and P r o d u c t i v i t y f o r I n d i v i d u a l crops adjusted froin t h e "Fully Revised Estimates of Productionfl 1959-60 given on pa,e 516 of t h e A&rj.cultural Situa+,ion i n I n d i a , Annual Gumber 1964, a i r e c t o r a t e of Econonics and S t a t i s t i c s , i- ini is try o i Food and A ~ r i c u l t u r e ,August 1964. T o t a l s a r e a c t u a l t o t a l s of i n d i v i d u a l crops.  Table 8 Comparison of y e a r l y t o t a l foodgrain production estimates derived from ( 1 ) t h e aggregate index given in Table I and ( 2 ) from t h e sum of production estimates f o r each crop, both estimates based on t h e Iffully r e v i s e d H d a t a of production f o r 1959-60 adjusted by t h e o f f i c i a l indices. T o t a l Foodgrains (Thousand Eietric Tons ) Sum of T o t a l Individual Difference i n Estimate Based On crop $stimat,es from Estimates Aggregate Index Individual Crop Indices ( Co1 . 2 - Col 1. ) + 71r - 102 +1,021 + 373 Base Year 81,312 32, h49 73,1S2 So, 890  Table 9 U t i l i z a t i o n of Land in Hillion Acres During the Five-Year Plans ('First and Second P l a n : Achievementsj ? M !h Plan: Targets and Anticipated; Fourth Plan: Target) Absolute Values a t t h e Beginning and h d of Plan Periods - - Additions to Areas 1950-51 1955-46 1960-61 1965-66 1970-71 1st Plan 2nd Plan 3rd Plan Lth Plan (actual) (actual) ( a c t u a l ) (anticipated) ( t a r g e t s ) ( a c t u a l ) (actual) ( t a r g e t ) ( a n t i c i p a t e d ) ( t a r g e t ) (1) (2 (3) (b) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Area Under 28 S ~ e c i f i e dCrooa la Gross area (a = b + c ) 325.9 361.9 378.5 395.0 b2C.0 36.0 16.6 -- 17.0 25.C la Gross area three-year average 319.2 363.3 381.6 392.7 -- hlr.2 18.3 -- 11.1 -- lh Net area 293.L 31a.5 329.3 33c. 0 33L.O 25.1 10.8 -- 0.7 b.0 lc Area harvested more than once (multiple cropping) 32.5 L3.L L9.2 65.0 86.0 10.9 5.8 -- lL.0 21.0 Land reclamation during p l a n periods -- -- -- -- -- 2.7 1.2 3.6 3.0 2.5 Soil conservation on a g r i c u l t u r a l land -- -- -- -- -- 0.7 2-5 11.0 11.8 20.0 Area Unirrieated I.la s ~ m s area ( a = b + c ) 308.0 310.0 27.9 9.3 -- -- 2.0 l.la Gross area three-years average 270.2 263.1 299.1 301.2 308.L 306.3 295.9 -- 38.1 -- -- -- -- l.lb Net area 2b1;9 263.0 268.1 255.0 2U.O Zi.1 5.1 -- -9.0 -15 .O l.lc Area harvested more than once (multiple cropping) 28.3 36.1 h0.3 h9.0 66.0 7.8 h.2 -- +9.0 +17.0 Utilized) Area I r r i g a t e d ( ~ c t u a l l y 1.2a 1.2b - Gross area ( a b + c ) Net area 55.7 51.5 62.3 55.5 70.1 61.2 87.0 73.0 110.0 90.0 7.1 b.0 7.3 5.7 25.6 20.0 17.0 12.0 23.0 17.0 1 . 2 ~ Area harvested more than once (multiple cropping) L.2 7.3 8.9 b.0 20.0 3.1 1.6 5.6 5.0 6.0 Area Under Major and Medium I r r i g a t i o n 1.2.la Gross area 1.2.lb Net area (3ross Potential Area) Area I r r i g a t e d Under Finor Schemes 1.2.2a Gross Area 32.n 35.0 h3.0 56.9 73.8 3.0 d.C 12.8 13.9 17.C 1.2.2b Net Area 29.5 31.3 39. C -- -- 1.3 7.7 8.5 -- -- (See fcrllowlng page. )  Table 9 (continued) I n l i n e l a , t h e 19.50-51 and 19.55-56 f i g u r e s u c r e worked o u t backwards from t h e 1960-61 l e v e l quoted i n t h e kernorandurn and t h e o f f i c i a l index, r e v i s e d September 1964. The 1965-66 f i ~ u r e s were graphically extrapolated. 'The 1970-71 f i g u r e s r e s u l t from an i m p l i c i t assumgtion o f t h e fiourt!z P l m . To reduce t h e year-to-year f!.u.ctuations i n g r o s s cropped a r s a , t h r e e - y e a r averages c e n t e r e d on t h e ::tartin<: arid ending y e a r s of t h e Plan P e r i o d a r e shown on l i n e l a . Neglecting t h e y e a r l y f l u c t u a t i o n s i n t h e g r o s s i r r i g a t e d a r e a , t h e f i g u r e s shobm in l i n e l . l a Kere o b t a i n e d by dj-fferer~ce1.13 = 1 . 2 - 1.2a. For srlinor i r r i g a t i o n l i n e 1.2.2a, Colurm 6 and. 7. Fi2.ures of 9.5 2nd 9.0 a r e sometimes quoted, b u t t h e y inclucie s o u r c e s cf i r r i g a - t i o n n o t f a l l i n g i n t \ e c a t e g o r y c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s t a b l e . Sources: Second, 'Third PI-an, 3iemorandm on t h e F o u r t h P l a n , and o t h e r o f f i c i a l documents. I n case of c o n f l i c t i n g s o u r c e s p r e f e r e n c e was given t o t h e most r e c e n t ones and i n p a r t i c u l a r t o t h e 14emorandun on t h e Fourth Plan.  APPENDIX FIGURE I INDIA: ALL COMMODITIES .~ - (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50 100) 220 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 220 I IBRD- 2832  APPENDIX FIGURE 3 INDIA: NON- FOODGRAINS (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50 = 100) 220 I I I I I I I 220 I i 200 41 200 I I  APPENDIX I L INDIA: CEREALS 2'[ 2 0T (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50- 100) 220 2o 1 1 I- zoo I - 1 80 l e 160 o r 1 ---i 160 6U - Od I I I I I - - A 6 0 m (U m I R m P m y 1 I 1 6 4 S I ~ cl g 0 (D I I I B E a E d V:E m ( E 0m E m n I E 8 E a pc E m q) E a m E o a E - E @ E @ fo I a'  PPPENDIX FIGURE 5 INDIA: KHARIF CEREALS ~ (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50=100) 220 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1220  FIGURE 6 INDIA: RICE (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50 =loo) 220 I I I I I I I I 7 1 220 I I IBRD - 2636  APPENDIX I FIGURE 7 I INDIA: JOWAR (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50 100) O r j20 IBRD- 2637  APPENDIX I FIGURE 9 INDIA: BAJRA (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50 = 100) 220 I I 1 I I 1 I I r 1 220 200 200 180. 180 160 1 160 i 140 PRODUCTION I ~ -m - m~- ~ : a- m 3 m m m m o o m - -m - m - , ~ (U - rr) (O - -  APPENDIX I FIGURE 1 0 INDIA: RABl CEREALS (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50 100) 220 1 1 I I I I I I I I 220 I I 200 1 80 - 1180 I i 160. PRODUCTION llOo I 2 80 I I 60 -60 II rc a m o - d d d ( r , ( r , S f % I I I N 3 i d & C> N m E b , E b , D - Q d, ( , Q( , DQ c, m Q r E , (0 2 - IBRO 2 6 4 0  APPENDIX I INDIA: WHEAT (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-508 100) 220 220  APPENDIX I FIGURE 13 r- INDIA: GRAM (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50= 100) -2 20 I - 220 - r - 7 - 7 I - - 7 T -  nPPENDIX I FIGURE 14 INDIA: OILSEEDS (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949- 5 0 = 100) 220 I I I I I I I I 220 I 1 AREA \  APPENDIX I FIGURE I5 I INDIA: GROUNDNUT (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL Y E A R 1949-50 = 1 0 0 ) 1220 I I  APPENDIX I FIGURE 16 INDIA: MISCELLANEOUS CROPS - (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949 5 0 = 100) -- 220 220 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I1 I  INDIA: SUGARCANE (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL- YEAR 1949- 5 0 ; 100) . - .... .- 1--17- - - -. ; - - , 220 I I 220 l-T--l I I  FIGURE 18 INDIA: JUTE INDIA: COTTON (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949-50 = 100) -- 220 I  APPENDIX I FIGURE 2 0 I INDIA: PLANTATION CROPS (INDEX, AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1949 50 100) - 220 220 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I - 200 200 - '1 80 1 60 140 PRODUCTION em--- 120. 100 l l L - 1 ) 80 60- m A m * m ; n n n I Z I L I % I 0 n, S I G 1 C w u I cD m * (0 I I I I I I I # I 10 w a: - - - - - - - - - - e e e - - - cD REVIEW OF PAST TRENDS I N AGRICULTURE AND PROSPECTS FOR 1970 Louis G. Goreux  APPENDIX I1 1. - -- De~nand f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l c o m n o d i t i e s Past trends 1. Very d e t a i l e d e c o n o n e t r i c a n a l y s i s h a s been made from consumption s u r v e y s conciucted m a i n l y by t h e NSS. I n FA0 f o r e x a m p l e , r e have computed s e v e r a l hundred o f e l a s t i c i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s o f t h e demand f o r t h e e x p e n d i t u r e on m a j o r food i t e m s i n r e l a t i o n t o t o t a l l i v i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s . Such a n a l y s e s were c o n d u c t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r t h e a r b a n and the r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n , f o r d i f f e r e n t p e r i o d s of t i m e s , d i f f e r e n t r e g i o n s , c i t i e s of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s , e t c . The r e s u l t on t h e whole a r e f a i r l y consistent, t h e y show f o r f o o d g r a i n s a pronounced d e c l i n e o f t h e e l a s t i c i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s when income r i s e s . 2. The a n a l y s e s o f t i m e series c o v e r i n g t h e consumption o f t h e c o d n t r y a s a :,rhol.e i s s e v e r e l y l i i n i t e d by t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of r e l i a b l e s e r i e s , and by t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f i s o l a t i n g t h e i i a ~ a c to f a s i n g l e f a c t o r o n consumption c h a n g e s . These s e r i e s a r e based o n p r o d u c t i o n and c o v e r o n l y 28 s p e c i f i e d c r o p s , no r e l i a b l e s e r i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r a n i m a l p r o d u c t s . The c o n s ~ n p t i o nl e v e l o f t h e m a j o r food c r o p s i s c l o s e l y l i n k e d w i t h c u r r e n t p r o d u c t i o n l e v e l s ; due t o l a r g e p e a r t o y e a r f1u:tuations i n o u t p u t , t h e computation of t h e t r e n d i s g r e a t l y a f f e c t e d by t h e c h o i c e o f t h e p e r i o d , e v e n i f f l u c t u a t i o n s a r e i r o n e d o u t t h r o u g h t h r e e y e a r moving a v e r a g e s and i f t h e c o m p u t a t i o n i s >lade by l e a s t s q u a r e s a s shown i n t h e t a b l e be lo:^: --.--Average - compound r a t e o f gro:dth: p e r c e n t p e r y e a r s ----. --- 1943/50 t h r o u g h 1961/62 - - - through 1952/53 1961/62 Foodgrains Non-foodgrains A l l crops S o u r c e : Growth g a t e s i n A g r i c--- l t u r e , Gconomic and S t a t i s t i c a l A d v i s e r , - u : d i n i s t r y o f Food and A g r i c c l t u r e , December 1 9 6 4 , from t a b l e s 6 . 2 and 6.4. S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s Getxeen p a r e n t h e s i s . 3. With a p o p u l a t i o n grob.?ch e x c e e d i n g 2% a y e a r , t h e d i f f e r e n c e betr.~een a n a v e r a g e 3.5% and 2.5% i n c r e a s e i n Food g r a i n s h a s tremendous i m p l i c a t i o n s . S i n c e t h e y e a r s 1952/53 a i ~ d1961./62 a p p e a r r e l a t i v e l y norrnal, t h e p e r i o d 1952/53 t h r o u g h 1961/62 :,:as s e l e c t e d ; t h e t r e n d would be s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r f o r t h e p e r i o d 1949/50 - 1961/62 b u t l o w e r f o r t h e p e r i o d 1352/53 - 1963/64. 4. ' J i t h due r e g a r d s t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e d a t a a rough c h e c k o f t h e c o n s i s t e n c y b e t w e n income and p o p u l a t i o n grorlth on t h e one h a n d , consumption f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities o n t h e o t h e r h a s been a t t e m p t e d . The income e l a s t i c i t y a r e r o z g h e s t i m a t e s d e r i v e d from h o u s e h o l d s u r v e y s . The r e s i d i i a l shovm o n t h l~a s t l i n e o f T a b l e 11, a f t e r allo!ving f o r t h e p o p ~ l a t i o na n d t h e income e f f e c t c o u l d be a t t r i b i l t e d t o a s l i g h t d e c l i n e o f r e l a t i v e p r i c e s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d ; t h e s e r e s i a ~ a l sa r e i n any c a s e nuch below t h e m a r g i n o f e r r o r o f t h e b a s i c d a t a . --- TABLE 11 i Average Gro..,~thi a t e s D u r i n g t h e P e r i o d 1953-1962 -- c-- en P e r-.-- t p e r Year Compound ---r a i n s Foodg -- Non-foodgrains A l l crops - ileight -66 .34 1. O O Income cl a s t i c i t y .5-/a 1.25 .75 cornpo~indr a t e s p e r c e n t p e r year Income p e r c a p i ca !r e a l ) 1.3 1.3 1.3 Income e f f e c t .65 1.ti3 '38. Population e f f e c t 2.07 2.07 2.07 Combined p o p u l a t i o n and income e f f e c t 2.72 3.70 3.05 Domestic p r o d u c t i o n 2.46 3.58 2.94 Ee t i m p o r t s 19.00 Available suppl i e s 2.75 3.90 3.14 Residual .03 .20 .09 Based on 3 y e a r moving a v e r a g e s . The c r o p y e a r 1952/53 c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e c a l e n d a r y e a r 1 9 5 3 f o r N a t i o n a l Tncome estimates. = (1) x (2) Computed Erom t h e p o p r l a t i o n series g i v e n i n hood S t a t i s t i c s F e b r - a r y 19G4, T a b l e 1 3 p. 117. f i e e s t i m a t e s lool; on t h e lord s i d e and s h o u l d be checked w ih t h ei population experts. = (3) + (4) = a (7) + (1 - a> x (6) w i t h a = n e i i:-lport d i v i d e d by t h e a v a i l a b l e supplies i n t h e base year = (8) - ( 5 ) - /a T e c o e f f i c i e n t 0 . 5 i s on t h e h i g h s i d e ; i t c o u l d t a k e a c c o u n t o f t h e h o s t i t u u l u s g i v e n t o t o t a l demand by a t ~ ? r i c e s y s t e m ( f a i r - p r i c e shop f o r low i:~come consurner v e r s u s f r e e a a r ' c e t f o r h i g h income c o n s u m e r s ) . 5. A more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of fooclgrair. consumption h a s been a t t e m p t e d i n T a b l e 111. Again "Lree y e a r moving a v e r a g e s :?ere u s e d , and account was t a k e n of n e t i m p o r t s and changes i n government s t o c k s . P e r c e n t a g e v a r i a t i o n s i n y e a r t o y e a r consumption a f t e r e l b i n a t i o n of t h e income e f f e c t , a s shown i n c o l . 7 , a r e negatively c o r r e l a t e d with year t o y e a r v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e d e f l a t e d c e r e a l p r i c e s ; t h e amplitilde of p r i c e v a r i a t i o n s i s h i g h e r t h a n t h o s e of p e r c a p i t a consumption, which i s c o n s i s t e n t wLth a p r i c e i n e l a s t i c demand. Hormver, due t o t h e margin o f e r r o r i n t h e b a s i z d a t a i t does n o t seem p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l u e of t h e e l a s t i c i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s from t i r u e series b u t o n l y t o check t h a t t h e s e series a r e c o n s i s t e n t t ~ i z ht h e e s t i m a t e s o f t h e s e coefficients based on o t h e r s o ~ l r c e s ,c r o s s s e c t i o n s u r v e y s in particular. 6. Zven s m a l l v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e t o t a l Eoodgrain supply can r e s u l t i n pronounced p r i c e v a r i a t i o n a s shotm by t h e p r i c e d e c l i n e of 1954/1955 and t h e p r i c e r i s e of 1964. The low l e v e l of t h e p r i c e e l a s t i c i t y ( : s a y , 0 . 4 o r 0 . 5 ) i s a g g r a v a t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t p r i c e s a r e formed on a r e s i d u a l urban market where p e r c e n t a g e v a r i a t i o n s i n supply a r c l a r g e r t h a n t h o s e o f t h e t o t a l s g p p l y of t h e country. 7. A,nong f o o d g r a i n s consu::iption r o s e f a s t e r f o r c d r e a l s t h a n f o r p u l s e s , and among c e r e a l s f a s t e r f o r r i c e and :7heat, t h a n f o r m i l l e t s and b a j r a ( s e e T a b l e IV). The h i g h inco~ize e l a s t i c i t y f o r o i l s e e d s and s u g a r was confirmed by the p r e s s u r e on t h e p r i c e of t h e s e cotnaodities d e s p i t e a r a t e of p r o d u c t i o n g r o t ~ t hs u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r than f o r f o o d g r a i n s .  .. TABLE ..-I I : I Consiir~ptionof Foodgrains ( t h r e e - y e a r. -a v e r a g e ) "- -. . . I F - -.-, .-I 0 . -.. - a . . -. . --> .._. --I - _--_._I_ .- . . " _ _ - - _ ~ . --.-- . ----.---.----.----, - t di p e r c e n --a g e change from p r e c e.--.-n g y e a r --- . . --. P r i c e s of c e r e a l s Con sumpt i o n 9 e a l Income per A v a i l a b i l i t y of o v e r p r i c e s of a l l Relative Consuiop.tion of u n e x p l a i n e d capita foodgrains comnodities p r i c e s of foodgrains by :he income g r / p -~--.- ..---... (Index ...-. .-. = 103) ----...e r -c a p i t a per dav . I n d e .x .1 4 = 100) , Cncome p e r c a p i t a c e r e a l s Year. ---- 1951 (. ., -* - - (1) ----.-- ' (2) (.3') - - -I . - - .. . - (4i ' (5) per c a p i t a .( '6>----- ' effect a . - (7) -- >- - (7) = (6) - .5 (4) a s s u n i n g an Lncomc e l a s t i c i t y equal t o . 5 (1) 9 a t a f o r s i c g l e :lears t a k e n fro'? Table 1 3 , p . 177 Faod S t a ' i s t i c s Febr-lary 196Lr. (2) Data f o r s i n g l e y e a r s taker. frola Table 11 p . 115 Food S ~ a t i s t i c sFebriiary 1964. !3 ) DlvLding p r i c e i n d c x f o r cc;:eals jjr p r i c e i:;dex f a r a l l c o . a ? o d i t i e s Tab12 7 . 2 , > i i n i s t r y of Finance, and compu Ling ;h r e e y e a r average. 8. S i n c e a b r i e f r e v i e w of p a s t t r e n Z s d o e s n o t c o n t r a d i c t t h e e l a s t i c i t y c o e f f i c i z . . ~ t s s t i m a t e s from c r o s s s e c t i o n s u r v e y s i n I n d i a , e L.t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o p r o j e c t demand on t h e b a s i s of t h e s e c o e f f i c i e n t s . TAqLE I V : -. -- - T r e n d s i n Produc;ion and l ? h o l e s a l e r i c e o f Z ; a j ~ r Co~lmoditjl ------ Groups 1952-53 Through 1961-62 Averaqe P e r c e n t a g e I n c r e a s e . - - p -e r y e a r ( l i n-.--e a r ) - t -- Prod1.i~ i o n --... Clji-rent P r i c e s ----- Cereals 2.9% 0.4% dice 3.3 0.1 :!heat 4.2 0.0 Ba j r a - 0.3 3.6 Pulses 1.3 - 0.2 Oilseeds 3.3 6.2 Sugar 3.6 3.2 Tea 2.4 9.3 Cotton 1.8 1.0 Jute Q.2 8.5 A l l