[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/2433.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Output vs Input subsidies in agriculture: a discrete choice experiment to estimate farmers’ preferences for rice and electricity subsidies in Punjab

Author

Listed:
  • Kaur, S.
  • Pollitt, M. G.
Abstract
Stabilization of prices has been an important element of achieving food price stability in most countries — both developing and developed, including India. In this paper, we rethink the ex-tension of the price stabilization as a compensation strategy to stimulate change in favour of low-water crops in Punjab. Groundwater facilitated impressive agricultural production, particularly record increases in wheat and rice productivity in Punjab, but also accelerated depletion of aquifers. Free electricity and negligible pumping costs aggravated the problem and the resultant policy failure encouraged unregulated use of groundwater, lower relative profitability of water efficient crops and a shift in favour of water intensive crops. Questions are now being raised about the sustainability of this intensive agriculture strategy. The rapidly depleting water table level and soil deterioration from overuse of fertilizers and pesticides are attributed to farmers’ preference for high-water rice variety. Drawing from the Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme, this stated preference experiment investigates farmers’ preferences to change high-water rice variety by low-water variety with compensatory payments. Results show that majority of farmers are willing to accept compensation for substitution by low-water intensive rice variety. In addition, the scheme can be accompanied by significant willingness to pay for electricity, but the WTP is contingent upon the nature of electricity charge.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaur, S. & Pollitt, M. G., 2024. "Output vs Input subsidies in agriculture: a discrete choice experiment to estimate farmers’ preferences for rice and electricity subsidies in Punjab," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2433, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:2433
    Note: mgp20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/research-files/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe2433.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Repetto, Robert, 1987. "Economic Incentives for Sustainable Production," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 21(3), pages 44-59, November.
    2. Kimmich, Christian & Sagebiel, Julian, 2016. "Empowering irrigation: A game-theoretic approach to electricity utilization in Indian agriculture," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(PB), pages 174-185.
    3. Michael J. Barrowclough & Jeffrey Alwang, 2018. "Conservation agriculture in Ecuador’s highlands: a discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 2681-2705, December.
    4. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    5. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schulz, Norbert & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept "Greening": Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Gremany," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170560, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Asrat, Sinafikeh & Yesuf, Mahmud & Carlsson, Fredrik & Wale, Edilegnaw, 2010. "Farmers' preferences for crop variety traits: Lessons for on-farm conservation and technology adoption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2394-2401, October.
    7. Shittu, Adebayo Musediku & Kehinde, Mojisola Olanike & Ogunnaike, Maria Gbemisola & Oyawole, Funminiyi Peter, 2018. "Effects of Land Tenure and Property Rights on Farm Households’ Willingness to Accept Incentives to Invest in Measures to Combat Land Degradation in Nigeria," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(2), pages 357-387, August.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273, May.
    9. Shaosheng Jin & Bashiru Mansaray & Xin Jin & Haoyang Li, 2020. "Farmers’ preferences for attributes of rice varieties in Sierra Leone," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 1185-1197, October.
    10. Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran, 2014. "Farmers’ Preferences for Production Practices: A Choice Experiment Study in the Rhone River Delta," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 112-130, January.
    11. Norbert Schulz & Gunnar Breustedt & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept “Greening”: Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 26-48, January.
    12. Gautam, Madhur, 2015. "Agricultural Subsidies: Resurging Interest in a Perennial Debate," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 70(1), pages 1-23.
    13. Aditi Mukherji & Arijit Das, 2014. "The political economy of metering agricultural tube wells in West Bengal, India," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(5), pages 671-685, September.
    14. Molle, F., 2003. "Development trajectories of river basins: a conceptual framework," IWMI Research Reports H033886, International Water Management Institute.
    15. Cummings, Ralph Jr. & Rashid, Shahidur & Gulati, Ashok, 2006. "Grain price stabilization experiences in Asia: What have we learned?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 302-312, August.
    16. Breustedt, Gunnar & Muller-Scheessel, Jorg & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36771, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Gunnar Breustedt & Jörg Müller‐Scheeßel & Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 237-256, June.
    18. Sayre, Susan Stratton & Taraz, Vis, 2019. "Groundwater depletion in India: Social losses from costly well deepening," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 85-100.
    19. Paolo Sckokai & Daniele Moro, 2006. "Modeling the Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy for Arable Crops under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 43-56.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bjørnåvold, Amalie & David, Maia & Bohan, David A. & Gibert, Caroline & Rousselle, Jean-Marc & Van Passel, Steven, 2022. "Why does France not meet its pesticide reduction targets? Farmers' socio-economic trade-offs when adopting agro-ecological practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    2. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    3. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    4. Martin, Inès & Vranken, Liesbet & Ugás, Roberto, 2021. "Farmers’ Preferences to Cultivate Threatened Crop Varieties: Evidence from Peru," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315216, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    6. Bartosz Bartkowski & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, September.
    7. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Miet Maertens, 2020. "Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 798-815, September.
    8. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Kehinde, M. O. & Shittu, A. M. & Osunsina, I. O. O., 2019. "Willingness to Accept Incentives for a Shift to Climate-Smart Agriculture among Lowland Rice Farmers in Nigeria," Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 9(1), October.
    10. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Arriaza, Manuel & Gomez-Limon, Jose A., 2015. "Matching supply-side and demand-side analyses for the assessment of agri-environmental schemes: The case of irrigated olive groves of southern Spain," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211919, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    13. Granado-Díaz, Rubén & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Gómez-Limón, José A., 2022. "Willingness to accept for rewilding farmland in environmentally sensitive areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    14. Pham, Hung Duy & Crase, Lin & Burton, Michael & Cooper, Bethany, 2019. "Strategies for integrating farmers into modern vegetable supply chains in Vietnam: farmer attitudes and willingness to accept," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    15. Lemeilleur, S. & Subervie, J. & Presoto, A.E. & de Castro Souza, R. & Macchione Saes, M.S., 2016. "Eco-certified contract choice among coffee farmers in Brazil," Working Papers MoISA 201604, UMR MoISA : Montpellier Interdisciplinary center on Sustainable Agri-food systems (social and nutritional sciences): CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRAE, L'Institut Agro, Montpellier SupAgro, IRD - Montpellier, France.
    16. Bennett, Michael T. & Gong, Yazhen & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice Experiments to Assess “Eco-compensation” for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 71-87.
    17. Star, Megan & Rolfe, John & Barbi, Emily, 2019. "Do outcome or input risks limit adoption of environmental projects: Rehabilitating gullies in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 73-82.
    18. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    19. Sponagel, Christian & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Piepho, Hans-Peter & Bahrs, Enno, 2021. "Farmers’ preferences for nature conservation compensation measures with a focus on eco-accounts according to the German Nature Conservation Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    20. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel, 2014. "Agri-environmental schemes in olive growing: farmers’ preferences towards collective participation and ecological focus areas," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182918, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agriculture; energy water nexus; electricity; discrete choice; Punjab; India;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:2433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jake Dyer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.