Impact of direct seeded rice technology adoption on farm income in Punjab

Balaji S J; Shiv Kumar; Vinayak R Nikam; Kingsly I T; Jaya Jumrani; Vister Joshi; Amit Kumar

doi:10.56093/ijas.v90i3.101502

Authors

Balaji S J Scientists ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012
Shiv Kumar Principal Scientist, ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012
Vinayak R Nikam Scientists, ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012
Kingsly I T Scientists, ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012
Jaya Jumrani Scientists, ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012
Vister Joshi Research Associate. ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012
Amit Kumar Senior Research Fellow, ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i3.101502

Keywords:

Adoption, Direct seeded rice, Impact, Propensity score matching

Abstract

The study isolates the impact of DSR technology on farm household well-beings in the state of Punjab using PSM technique on data pertaining to 2017-18. The results conclude that adopters of DSR technology have reduced their labor cost, and irrigation cost significantly, besides a marginal improvement in yield of paddy. The cost cutting on inputs and a slight improvement in yield due to this technology yielded a higher net income of about Rs. 8100/ ha compared to non adopters.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baser O. 2006. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching, Value in Health. 9(6): 377–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00130.x

Becerril J and Abdulai A. 2010. The impact of improved maize varieties on poverty in Mexico: A propensity score-matching approach, World Development 38(7): 1024–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.017

Caliendo M and Kopeinig S. 2008. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching, Journal of Economic Surveys 22(1): 31–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x

Dehejia R H and Wahba S. 2002. Propensity scorematching methods for nonexperimental causal studies, Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1): 151–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302317331982

Farooq M, Siddique K H M, Rehman H, Aziz T, Lee D and Wahid A. 2011. Rice direct Sseeding: Experiences, challenges and opportunities, Soil and Tillage Research 111(2): 87–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.10.008

Imbens G. 2004. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review, The Review of Economics and Statistics 86: 4–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023651

Kamboj B R, Kumar A, Bishnoi D K, Singla K, Kumar V, Jat M L, Chaudhary N, Jat H S, Gosain D K, Khippal A, Garg R, Lathwal O P, Goyal S P, Goyal N K, Yadav A, Malik D S, Mishra A and Bhatia R. 2012. Direct seeded rice technology in Western Indo-Gangetic Plains of India: CSISA Experiences. CSISA, IRRI and CIMMYT. 16 p.

Kaur S and Vatta K. 2015. Groundwater depletion in central Punjab: Pattern, access and adaptations, Current Science 108(4): 485–90.

Kumar V and Ladha J K. 2011. Direct seeding of rice: Recent developments and future research needs (Chapter 6). Advances in Agronomy, 111: 297–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387689-8.00001-1

Malabayabas A J, Templeton D and Singh P. 2012. Ex-ante impact of direct seeding of rice as an alternative to transplanting rice in the Indo-Gangetic Plain, Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development 9(2): 13–29.

Mendola M. 2007. Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: A propensity-score matching analysis for rural Bangladesh, Food Policy 32(3): 372–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.07.003

Mishra A K, Khanal A R and Pede V O. 2017. Is direct seeded rice a boon for economic performance? Empirical evidence from India, Food Policy 73: 10–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.08.021

MoAFW. 2019. Agricultural statistics at a glance 2018, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.

Rosenbaum P R and Rubin D B. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrica 701: 41–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41

Rosenbaum P R and Rubin D B. 1985. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician 39: 33–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383

Sahu S K and Das S. 2016. Impact of agricultural related technology adoption on poverty: A study of select households in rural India. (In) Siddharthan N and Narayanan K (Eds). Technology, India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1684-4_8

Sha W, Chen F and Mishra A K. 2019. Adoption of direct seeded rice, land use and enterprise income: Evidence from Chinese Rice Producers, Land Use Policy 83: 564–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.039

Sharma B R, Gulati A, Mohan G, Manchanda S, Ray I and Amarasinghe U. 2018. Water Productivity Mapping of Major Indian Crops, NABARD-ICRIER Report.

Wu H, Ding S, Pandey S and Tao D. 2010. Assessing the impact of agricultural technology adoption on farmers' well-being using propensity-score matching Analysis in Rural China, Asian Economic Journal 24(2): 141–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8381.2010.02033.x