disparities in agricultural productivity growth in andhra pradesh
TRANSCRIPT
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 1/20Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1557528
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 2/20Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1557528
134 The Indian Economic Journal Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
Disparities in Agricultural ProductivityGrowth in Andhra Pradesh
A. Amarender Reddy
In the backdrop of the demand for bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh state based on growingregional disparities, the paper examines the regional disparities in agricultural productivitygrowth in Andhra Pradesh from 1956 to 2007 at district level by using Malmquist productivityindices (MI). Overall, total factor productivity (TFP) growth in agriculture and allied activitiesin Telangana is 1.3 per cent per annum, 1.1 per cent per annum in Coastal, while in
Rayalaseema TFP growth is stagnant. It indicates that, there is a convergence in TFP growthamong districts of developed Coastal and less developed Telangana regions, but districts inRayalaseema region are left out of this growth process, as this region is not able to catch upwith other two regions in agricultural productivity. Irrespective of region most backwarddistricts in agriculture, Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Anantapur, Kadapa, Adilabad, Nalgonda,Mahbubnagar and Nizamabad showed stagnation in TFP growth during last 50 years. With theexisting resource endowment and technology, Telangana can increase its output by 28 per centfrom the existing level, while Rayalaseema region can enhance its output by 25 per cent,Coastal region by only 14 per cent as revealed from efficiency estimates. Shadow input sharesindicate that, still gross irrigated area, fertiliser use and availability of labour are limitingfactors to increase production at district level. Inefficiency effects model (Battese and Coelli,1995) reveals that, market infrastructure and credit availability are essential to increaseefficiency. There is significant influence of base year resource endowment both physical and
human for subsequent agricultural growth.
I. Introduction
Andhra Pradesh continues to be a predominantly agricultural state with 60 per cent of
total workforce in agriculture, even though its share in gross state domestic product
(GSDP) decreased to about 22 per cent in 2007. Hence, increasing productivity of
agricultural sector is important to increase incomes of majority of population. The
unweighted average poverty ratios and monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) for the year
2004-05 calculated from NSSO 61st Round as reported (Chaudhuri and Gupta, 2009)
indicates that the percent of poor is quite low (7.6%) in Coastal region when compared to
both Telangana (12.1%) and Rayalaseema (16.5%) regions. In the same lines, the MPCE
is quite high in Coastal (Rs.631) than Telangana (Rs.552) and Rayalaseema (Rs.524)
regions in rural areas. These differences in the poverty ratios after 50 years of planned
COMMUNICATION FOR DEBATE & RESEARCH / 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
A. Amarender Reddy, Administrat ive Staff College of India, Hyderabad. E-mai l: [email protected]
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 3/20
135Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh • A. AMARENDER REDDY
development in united Andhra Pradesh is mostly due to differences in agricultural
productivity and explain to a larger extent the reasons for ongoing agitation for separate
Telangana state. A comprehensive review of regional differences in agricultural productivity
growth in India by Kumar et al. (2008) emphasised that the district-level studies are moreuseful for policy prescription. Keeping the ongoing debate on regional disparities in Andhra
Pradesh intact, the study assess the changes in productivity and efficiency in agricultural
sector at district level with special emphasis on disparities at regional level with major
hypothesis that the productivity growth among districts and regions are not uniform.
Specific questions asked in this paper are: (i) what is the trend in total factor productivity
(TFP) growth among districts, what is the contribution of efficiency change and technical
change in TFP growth? Is there any convergence in TFP growth over the period among
districts and regions?; (ii) what is the trend in the shadow factor shares of inputs at district
and regional level, how they have changed between 1956 and 2007?; (iii) are there any
slacks in inputs at district and regional level, if yes, how much one can reduce input usewithout effecting output? And to what extent output can be increased with the exiting
resources?; and (iv) which factors influence efficiency at district level?
II. Data and Methodology
The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach is used for measuring productivity
change and efficiency. We have taken the value of crop output (Rs. crore) and value of
livestock and fisheries products (Rs. crore) as two outputs and gross irrigated area (GIA)
in 1000 ha, rainfed area in 1000 ha, labour in thousands (agricultural workers plus
cultivators), livestock population (cattle equivalents; one cattle is equal to one buffalo or
eight sheep or eight goats), fertiliser use (NPK tonnes), mechanisation (tractor equivalent;one tractor is equal to 40 iron ploughs or 80 wooden ploughs) as inputs. We have used
methodology followed in Fare et al. (1994) to estimate malmquist-type measure of
productivity and its decomposition into efficiency change and technical change. The method
assumes output orientation with constant returns to scale (CRS), as the input-oriented and
variable returns to scale (VRS) suffer from some methodological problems while analysing
regional data (Coelli and Rao, 2003).
We have used shadow price information, derived from the shape of the estimated
production surface to measure factor shares as followed by Coelli and Rao (2003) to know
the relative importance of inputs in influencing the productivity at district level, as price
information of inputs is not available for some inputs like irrigation and land. However, theDEA results are susceptible to the effects of data noise, and “unusual” shadow shares, when
degrees of freedom are limited. The paper also estimate slacks in inputs and outputs by using
efficiency measurement systems software. In order to check reliability of efficiency estimates
of DEA method, we also estimated the efficiencies by using Battese and Coelli (1995) frontier
production function approach with same input and output data (aggregated two outputs
namely crop and livestock value to make one dependent variable) with the assumption of
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 4/20
136 The Indian Economic Journal • Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
Cobb-Douglas production function and results are presented. Both methods gave similar
results; hence we can conclude that the DEA results are robust. We have also assessed the
effect of base year values on subsequent growth rate of different inputs and outputs to assess
whether the variables are converging over the period or not? The study used the data atconstant prices of year 2004-05 collected from Andhra Pradesh Statistical Abstracts from 1956
to 2007, every 10, year interval data points are used for DEA approach (to save
computations), while data for every year is used for Battese and Coelli (1995) model.
Districts are grouped into Coastal region (Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam (Visakhapatnam +
Vijayanagaram), East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur (Guntur + Prakasam),
Nellore, Rayalaseema region (Chittoor, Kadapa, Anantapur and Kurnool) and Telangana
region (Mahbubnagar, Hyderabad (Hyderabad + Ranga Reddy), Medak, Nizamabad, Adilabad,
Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam and Nalgonda) for regional level analysis.
III. Growth Rate of Outputs and Inputs During 1956-2007
Growth in Per Capita Income
Overall, the state recorded compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.76 per cent in
per capita income (PCI) from agricultural and allied sectors, with growth rate in PCI from
livestock (including fisheries) is much higher (3.17%) than PCI from crop sector (1.29%).
Nellore recorded the highest growth rate (4.25%) in agriculture, followed by Warangal
(3.64%), Karimnagar (3.02%), Medak (2.76%) and Krishna (2.71%), while the lower
growth was recorded in Nizamabad (-0.8%), Anantapur (0.31%), Visakhapatnam (0.70%),
and Mahbubnagar (0.88%). This indicates that the districts with resource endowment
showed higher growth. In case of PCI from crop sector, the highest growth was recordedin Warangal (3.33%), followed by Medak (3.28%) and Nellore (3.16%), while Anantapur
and Nizamabad recorded negative growth, some other districts like Mahbubnagar (0.41%),
Chittoor (0.77%), Hyderabad (0.45%) and West Godavari (0.90%) recorded less than 1 per
cent growth per annum. In the case of PCI from livestock sector many districts have
(Nellore, East Godavari, Chittoor and Srikakulam) recorded above 6 per cent growth per
annum, while Warangal, Krishna and West Godavari recorded about 5 per cent, Nalgonda,
Mahbubnagar, Visakhapatnam and Nizamabad districts recorded less than 2 per cent growth
per annum.
Growth in Inputs
CAGRs in credit, fertilisers, private investment in agriculture, literacy rate, farm
mechanisation, urbanisation, market infrastructure and irrigated area are positive and
significantly higher at state level with significant regional differences. Credit growth per
annum in nominal terms is about 10 per cent for Andhra Pradesh; the highest was recorded
in Hyderabad (16%), Kadapa (13%) and Nellore (13%), while less than 8 per cent were
recorded in Srikakulam, Anantapur and Nizamabad. CAGR per annum in fertiliser
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 5/20
137Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh • A. AMARENDER REDDY
consumption is much higher (7.44%) compared to other indicators, more than 8 per cent
is recorded in Warangal, Karimnagar, Khammam, Adilabad, Hyderabad, Kadapa, Nalgonda,
Mahbubnagar and Nizamabad, while less than 7 per cent recorded in Medak, Krishna,
Srikakulam and Anantapur. Growth in per cent of private investment to total investment is3.14 per cent in Andhra Pradesh, the higher growth (more than 5%) is recorded in
Mahbubnagar, Visakhapatnam, Nalgonda, East Godavari, Adilabad, West Godavari and Medak,
while less than 3 per cent was recorded in Srikakulam, Hyderabad, Krishna, Khammam and
Nellore and less than 2 per cent growth was recorded in Chittoor, Kadapa and Anantapur.
Growth rate in literacy rate is increased by 3.05 per cent in Andhra Pradesh, while more than
4 per cent growth was recorded in Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nalgonda, more than 3 per cent
recorded in Nellore, Warangal, Medak, Khammam, Srikakulam, Chittoor, Mahbubnagar,
Visakhapatnam and Nizamabad. Growth in mechanisation is 2.3 per cent in Andhra Pradesh,
with higher growth is recorded in Anantapur (3.46%), Krishna (3.52%), Khammam (3.69%),
Karimnagar (2.97%), Medak (2.39%), West Godavari (2.79%), Chittoor (2.67%) and Kadapa(2.68%). Overall growth in urbanisation is about 1.5 per cent in Andhra Pradesh, of which
Visakhapatnam (3.12%), Karimnagar (2.4%), Hyderabad (2.35%) recorded highest growth,
while Nizamabad, Mahbubnagar, Srikakulam, Kurnool, West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna
and Warangal recorded less than 1 per cent. Number of market yards increased by just 1.27
per cent per annum in Andhra Pradesh, with higher growth recorded in Kadapa (3.71%),
Hyderabad (3.4%), Kurnool (2.46%), East Godavari (7.76%), Khammam (2.61%), Krishna
(3.78%), Medak (4.07%) and Karimnagar (2.75%), while negative growth recorded in
Nellore, Warangal, Adilabad, Guntur and Nalgonda. Overall growth rate in GIA is much
higher at 1.11 per cent per annum, with higher growth rate in Khammam (3.47%),
Karimnagar (2.81%), Adilabad (2.5%), Warangal (2.49%), Kurnool (1.7%), Nizamabad(1.48%), Nalgonda (1.49%), Mahbubnagar (1.27%), Visakhapatnam (1.26%), Guntur
(1.32%), West Godavari (1.21%) and Medak (1.48%), while the lower growth in GIA is
observed in Hyderabad (0.96%), Anantapur (0.40%), Krishna (0.37%), Nellore (0.05%),
Chittoor (-0.18%) and Srikakulam (-0.22%).
On the other hand, growth rate per annum in labour (cultivators plus agricultural
workers), livestock population in cattle equivalent and cropped area under rainfed are
significantly low. Growth in agricultural labour is 1.02 per cent per annum in Andhra
Pradesh, with the higher growth in Guntur (1.99%), Khammam (1.77%), Mahbubnagar
(1.66%) and Visakhapatnam (1.38%), while lower growth is recorded in Srikakulam (-
1.36%), Nellore (-0.12%), Chittoor (0.66%), Kadapa (0.52%), East Godavari (0.83%),Medak (0.88%), and Nizamabad (0.96%). Overall, the growth rate in cropped area under
rainfed decreased by 0.56 per cent per annum; while the growth rate is significantly lower
in Nellore (-2.83%), Karimnagar (-2.31%), Nalgonda (-1.84%), Mahbubnagar (-1.10%) and
Nizamabad (-1.22%), while there is expansion of area under rainfed only in Visakhapatnam
(1.68%) probably due to expansion of area in Vijayanagaram. Growth rate in livestock
population is just 0.25 per cent per annum, with negative growth recorded in many districts
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 6/20
138 The Indian Economic Journal • Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
including Chittoor, Kadapa, Srikakulam, West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna and Nellore,
only in Guntur, Khammam and Adilabad growth rate is near about 1 per cent per annum.
The annual compound growth rate in PCI from crops is the highest in Telangana (1.7%),
followed by Coastal (1.57%) and Rayalaseema (0.86%), and while growth in PCI fromlivestock is the highest in Coastal (4.44%) followed by Rayalaseema (3.75%) and Telangana
(2.47%). Overall growth rate in PCI from agriculture and allied sectors is the highest in
Coastal (2.17%) followed by Telangana (1.93%) and Rayalaseema (1.29%). Growth in GIA
is the highest in Telangana (1.99%) followed by Coastal (0.72%) and Rayalaseema (0.58%).
Growth rate in fertiliser consumption is also the highest in Telangana (8.38%) followed by
Coastal (7.13%) and Rayalaseema (7.11%). Growth rates in urbanisation, literacy rate and
private investment in agriculture ( per cent of well-irrigated area to total GIA) are also the
highest in Telangana followed by Coastal and Rayalaseema. This indicates, in most of the
development indicators growth in Telangana is the highest, followed by Coastal and the
least in Rayalaseema. This reveals that, there is a convergence of growth in agriculturalsector between Coastal and Telanagana region, but drought prone Rayalaseema is lagging
behind in conformity with Reddy and Kumar (2006).
IV. Disparities in TFP Growth and Efficiency
Table 1 presents the district level TFP growth and its components for Telangana
districts. The highest TFP growth is recorded in Hyderabad, followed by Karimnagar,
Warangal, Khammam, Medak, Adilabad, Nalgonda, Mahbubnagar and Nizamabad. In case
of Hyderabad, the first three decades are with higher TFP growth (24 per cent during 1956-
1966, 69 per cent during 1966-1976, 50 per cent during 1976-1986) and larger share of
TFP growth is contributed by efficiency change, while in last two decades productivitygrowth is stagnant, may be due to shift of resources like land and labour to meet the
demands of urbanisation in Hyderabad. On the other hand in case of Karimnagar,
Mahbubnagar, Nalgonda, Warangal and Khammam TFP growth is higher in last three
decades, while in Adilabad, maximum TFP growth is recorded in last two decades. In most
of the districts, during 1986-1996 efficiency change contributed larger share, while during
1996-2007 technical change contributed larger share in TFP growth. Overall, there is
stagnation in TFP growth in Mahbubnagar and Nalgonda since last 50 years with decrease
in efficiency from 0.90 during 1956-1966 to 0.66 during 1996-2007 in Mahbubnagar and
from 0.77 to 0.70 in Nalgonda during the same period. In Medak, higher TFP growth is
recorded during 1966-1976 and 1986-2007, with overall TFP growth of 16 per cent perdecade coupled with significant increase in efficiency from 0.44 per cent to 0.75 per cent.
While in Warangal, TFP growth is 26 per cent per decade in last 50 years, with consistent
increase, except 1966-1976, for which TFP growth is decelerated, in line with many other
districts during 1976-1996, technical change is contributed a larger share, while during
1996-2007 the share of efficiency change (catching up) is higher in TFP growth. Only
district with deceleration in TFP growth in Telangana is Nizamabad with -3 per cent per
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 7/20
139Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh • A. AMARENDER REDDY
Table 1
Estimates of Efficiency (%) and TFP Growth Rates (%) per Decade and itsDecomposition from 1956 to 2007 in Telangana Districts
District Indicator 1956 1956-1966 1966-1976 1976-1986 1986-1996 1996-2007 1956-2007
Hyderabad Efficiency (B&C) 28 27 31 46 56 61 43
TFP growth 0 24 69 50 0 3 26
Efficiency change 0 10 80 38 0 0 22
Technical change 0 12 -6 8 0 3 3
Karimnagar Efficiency (B&C) 48 46 40 45 58 64 50
TFP growth 0 12 -21 63 68 32 26
Efficiency change 0 19 -8 25 23 30 17
Technical change 0 -6 -14 31 36 1 8
Warangal Efficiency (B&C) 35 36 38 45 57 72 49
TFP growth 0 30 -38 72 46 57 26
Efficiency change 0 81 -20 38 3 48 25
Technical change 0 -28 -23 25 42 6 1
Khammam Efficiency (B&C) 61 64 59 58 78 87 69
TFP growth 0 14 -40 66 41 37 17
Efficiency change 0 25 -41 12 7 27 2
Technical change 0 -9 1 48 32 8 14
Medak Efficiency (B&C) 44 40 47 59 64 75 56
TFP growth 0 10 21 5 31 15 16
Efficiency change 0 3 42 -10 26 9 13
Technical change 0 7 -15 16 4 6 3
Adilabad Efficiency (B&C) 50 50 57 67 73 89 67
TFP growth 0 1 4 -5 20 22 8
Efficiency change 0 -2 9 -9 10 0 1
Technical change 0 3 -4 5 8 22 7
Nalgonda Efficiency (B&C) 77 76 61 64 68 70 68
TFP growth 0 12 -35 43 15 12 6
Efficiency change 0 25 -18 -1 -4 -4 -1
Technical change 0 -10 -21 44 20 17 7
Mahbubnagar Efficiency (B&C) 90 80 64 63 63 66 67
TFP growth 0 -3 -40 58 18 10 4
Efficiency change 0 -4 -25 11 13 4 -1 Technical change 0 1 -19 42 4 6 5
Nizamabad Efficiency (B&C) 93 92 83 82 59 54 72
TFP growth 0 0 0 -9 24 -24 -3
Efficiency change 0 0 0 -17 -18 -30 -14
Technical change 0 0 0 10 51 8 12
Note: Efficiency (B&C) indicates the efficiency estimates from Battese and Coelli (1995) model.
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 8/20
140 The Indian Economic Journal • Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
decade, with significant reduction in efficiency from 0.93 per cent to 0.54 per cent during
last 50 years, however even in this district, TFP growth is 24 per cent during 1986-1996,
mostly contributed by technical change (51%) while efficiency change declined by 18 per cent.
Table 2 presents the TFP growth and its components for Rayalaseema districts. InRayalaseema region, TFP growth is decelerated in Anantapur and Kadapa, while it is
slightly higher at 8 per cent and 3 per cent per decade in Chittoor and Kurnool respectively.
In Anantapur both efficiency and technical change decelerated, while in Kadapa, there is
a significant upward movement during 1986-1996. In Kurnool, there was a significant
increase in technical change that helped in slight increase in TFP growth even though
efficiency decelerated, on the other hand in case of Chittoor efficiency change is contributed
to TFP growth.
Table 2
Estimates of Efficiency (%) and TFP Growth Rate (%) per Decade and its Decomposition from 1956 to 2007 in Rayalaseema Districts
District Indicator 1956 1956-1966 1966-1976 1976-1986 1986-1996 1996-2007 1956-2007
Chittoor Efficiency (B&C) 78 87 84 81 89 85 85
TFP growth 0 45 0 0 0 0 8
Efficiency change 0 90 0 0 0 0 14
Technical change 0 -23 0 0 0 0 -5
Kurnool Efficiency (B&C) 95 87 83 80 87 88 85
TFP growth 0 -33 -17 23 55 9 3
Efficiency change 0 -29 -9 3 28 -18 -7
Technical change 0 -6 -9 20 21 33 11
Kadapa Efficiency (B&C) 47 45 44 48 53 61 50
TFP growth 0 -29 -38 5 56 4 -6
Efficiency change 0 -1 -23 -10 13 2 -5
Technical change 0 -28 -20 16 38 1 -1
Anantapur Efficiency (B&C) 96 89 67 66 72 68 72
TFP growth 0 -1 -8 -16 0 4 -5
Efficiency change 0 9 -2 -25 5 -1 -3
Technical change 0 -9 -7 12 -4 5 -1
Table 3 presents TFP growth in Coastal region. In Coastal, the highest TFP growth wasrecorded in Nellore followed by Krishna, Guntur, East Godavari, West Godavari, Srikakulam
and Visakhapatnam. In Nellore, TFP growth was significantly higher with 40 per cent per
decade, of which 24 per cent is contributed by efficiency change and remaining 13 per cent
contributed by technological change. In Krishna, TFP growth is about 18 per cent per
decade of which 11 per cent is contributed by technical change and 6 per cent is
contributed by efficiency change. In Guntur, TFP growth is 13 per cent per decade, all of
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 9/20
141Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh • A. AMARENDER REDDY
Table 3
TFP Estimates of Efficiency (%) and TFP Growth Rates (%) per Decadeand its Decomposition from 1956 to 2007 in Coastal Districts
District Indicator 1956 1956-1966 1966-1976 1976-1986 1986-1996 1996-2007 1956-2007
Nellore Efficiency (B&C) 52 41 41 62 86 89 61
TFP growth 0 -10 15 139 58 39 40
Efficiency change 0 11 27 68 10 12 24
Technical change 0 -18 -10 43 44 24 13
Krishna Efficiency (B&C) 75 74 74 79 92 92 82
TFP growth 0 15 -6 27 40 17 18
Efficiency change 0 6 -2 22 2 3 6
Technical change 0 9 -5 4 37 14 11
Guntur Efficiency (B&C) 90 80 89 94 88 88 90
TFP growth 0 23 3 27 2 13 13 Efficiency change 0 19 -4 14 -19 -4 0
Technical change 0 3 7 12 25 18 13
East Godavari Efficiency (B&C) 91 86 81 80 92 92 86
TFP growth 0 16 1 0 6 0 4
Efficiency change 0 35 2 0 0 0 7
Technical change 0 -14 -1 0 6 0 -2
West Godavari Efficiency (B&C) 95 92 86 81 87 82 85
TFP growth 0 0 0 0 13 0 2
Efficiency change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Technical change 0 0 0 0 13 0 2
Srikakulam Efficiency (B&C) 61 60 60 66 80 91 71
TFP growth 0 -3 -3 -34 34 26 1
Efficiency change 0 47 1 -39 -6 16 0
Technical change 0 -34 -4 8 43 9 1
Visakhapatnam Efficiency (B&C) 90 86 84 85 93 92 88
TFP growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Efficiency change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Technical change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
which contributed by technical change. In East Godavari, there is almost stagnant TFP
growth, with deceleration in technological change. Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam and West
Godavari showed stagnation in TFP growth, even though in Srikakulam it improved during
last two decades. Among top 10 districts in terms of TFP growth six districts are from
Telangana, three from Coastal and one from Rayalaseema. Among the top four districts
namely Nellore, Hyderabad, Karimnagar and Warangal, the contribution of efficiency change
is higher than technological change, which indicates they are catching up with other frontier
districts. Among top 10 districts in efficiency six are from Coastal (Guntur, East Godavari,
West Godavari, Krishna, Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam), three are from Rayalaseema
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 10/20
142 The Indian Economic Journal • Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
(Anantapur, Chittoor and Kurnool) and only two are from Telangana (Nizamabad and
Khammam). While technological change contribution is higher in Krishna, Kurnool,
Khammam and Nizamabad.
Table 4 presents the region-wise trends in TFP growth. Overall TFP growth in Telanganais about 13 per cent per decade, while the same are 11 per cent per decade in Coastal,
while TFP growth in Rayalaseema is stagnant. In Telangana and Coastal until 1976 there
is stagnation in TFP growth, then after there is a good growth, while in Rayalaseema except
1986-1996, there is stagnation in growth. In both Coastal and Telangana, most of the
growth came from technological change, which indicates technological progress ushered by
Green Revolution in major crops like paddy. In Coastal, efficiency is highest throughout the
period, while in Telangana efficiency is the lowest, it indicates that with the existing
resource endowment and technology Telangana can increase its output by more than 28 per
cent from the existing level, while Coastal region can enhance it by only 14 per cent and
Rayalaseema by 25 per cent in 2007.
Table 4
Region-wise Estimates of Efficiency (%) and TFP Growth Rate (%) per Decade
and its Decomposition from 1956 to 2007
Region Indicator 1956 1956-1966 1966-1976 1976-1986 1986-1996 1996-2007 1956-2007
Telangana Efficiency (B&C) 54 53 51 58 64 70 59
Efficiency (DEA) -48 -40 -42 -37 -33 -28 -38
TFP growth 0 10 -15 34 28 16 13
Efficiency change 0 15 -3 8 6 7 6
Technical change 100 96 88 124 121 108 107
Coastal Efficiency (B&C) -22 -27 -30 -23 -11 -10 -20
Efficiency (DEA) -32 -21 -19 -15 -17 -14 -20
TFP growth 0 5 1 14 20 13 11
Efficiency change 100 116 103 105 98 104 105
Technical change 0 -9 -2 9 23 9 5
Rayalaseema Efficiency (B&C) -24 -26 -33 -32 -27 -25 -28
Efficiency (DEA) -23 -15 -23 -29 -22 -25 -23
TFP growth 100 91 83 102 125 104 100
Efficiency change 0 10 -9 -9 11 -4 -1
Technical change 0 -17 -9 12 12 9 1Total Efficiency (B&C) -35 -37 -40 -34 -26 -23 -32
Efficiency (DEA) 62 71 69 72 74 77 71
TFP growth 0 4 -10 20 24 12 10
Efficiency change 0 14 -2 3 4 4 4
Technical change 0 -9 -8 16 20 9 5
Note: Efficiency (B&C) indicates the efficiency estimates from Battese and Coelli (1995) model and Efficiency (DEA) from Data Envel-
opment Analysis model.
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 11/20
143Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh • A. AMARENDER REDDY
V. Changes in Factor Shares Differ Over Time and Space
Factor shares are virtual inputs and outputs, where the actual quantity is multiplied by
shadow price. Shadow price represents the scarcity value imposed by DEA on each input,
in the case of output; shadow share represents relative importance of each output inmaximising aggregate output value. These shadow shares also reflect either general factor
endowments or scarcity value (marginal productivity multiplied by input quantity) of inputs
at district level. Table 5 presents our estimated shadow shares obtained from the DEA. The
last two series in Table 5 represent the shadow shares for crops and livestock (both sum
to unity) over the study period. The change in shares appear to be quite reasonable as crops
accounted for 65 per cent of the total output in 1956 and its share reduced to 59 per cent
in 2007. The first six series in the table represent the shadow input shares. Shadow share
of irrigated land is much higher, even though it decreased from 59 per cent to 43 per cent,
which indicates that the scarcity of irrigated land in Andhra Pradesh and its importance in
increasing production. The shares of fertilisers increased from 11 per cent to 27 per cent,which indicates the increasing use of fertiliser in Andhra Pradesh over the period. The share
of cropped area under rainfed, aggregated over all the districts, seems to be quite stable
around 13 to 14 per cent. The labour share shows a steady increase from 1 per cent in
1956 to 9 per cent in 2007 and the share of livestock increased from 1 per cent to 5 per
cent, which indicates that slowly scarcity value of labour and livestock increased over the
study period in the labour and livestock abundant agrarian economy. While the share of
tractor (equivalent of farm equipment) decreased from 15 per cent to 3 per cent, however,
we have to note that this variable included tractor equivalent of tractors, wooden and iron
plough, hence it also reflect outdated farm machinery.
Table 6 shows the district-specific average output and input shadow shares for 1986-2007
underlying the TFP indices reported here. These shares are averaged over the last three
decades of the study period 1986 to 2007. These figures indicate that, in the total output of
agriculture and allied sector, share of crop output is 53 per cent, while share of livestock
(including fisheries) products is 46 per cent. The shadow share of GIA is highest with 45
per cent, followed by labour (26%), rainfed land (13%), livestock population (10%) and farm
implements and fertiliser (3 per cent each), which shows the importance of irrigation, labour,
rainfed area and livestock population in agrarian economy in Andhra Pradesh. Share of
irrigated land is much higher in the districts with scarce irrigation facilities (with higher
marginal productivity) in Adilabad (0.94), Anantapur (0.89), Chittoor (0.66), Kurnool (0.69),
Mahbubnagar (0.57), Hyderabad (0.57) and Kadapa (0.56). The shadow shares of labour are
quite high in districts with labour intensive agriculture with paddy as main crop without
much mechanisation like Nellore, (0.70), Nalgonda (0.62), Khammam (0.64), Srikakulam
(0.71), Warangal (0.57), Medak (0.46), Kadapa (0.38), Nizamabad (0.30) and Mahbubnagar
(0.38). In districts where land is a limiting factor due to urbanisation, its shadow share is
quite high. For example, in the Hyderabad, Krishna and Guntur the land share is 0.37, 0.44
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 12/20
144 The Indian Economic Journal • Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
Table 5
Factor Shares (Ratios) Estimated from DEA in 2007
District Labour Livestock Rainfed GIA Fertiliser Mechanisation Crop Livestock Population Area Value Value
Hyderabad 0 0 0 0.86 0 0.14 0 1(0) (0) (.09) (.91) (0) (0) (.51) (.49)
Karimnagar 0 0 0.45 0 0.55 0 1 0(0.19) (0) (0) (.81) (0) (0) (0.54) (.46)
Warangal 0 0 0.43 0.57 0 0 1 0(0) (0) (.05) (0.95) (0) (0) (.77) (.23)
Khammam 0 0 0.33 0.67 0 0 1 0(0) (0) (0) (0.91) (0.09) (0) (0.58) (0.42)
Medak 0.17 0 0 0.42 0.38 0.04 0 1(0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (.25) (.75)
Adilabad 0 0 0 0.88 0 0.12 1 0(0) (0) (0) (0.85) (0.15) (0) (0.56) (0.44)
Nalgonda 0.22 0 0 0.2 0.58 0 0.22 0.78(0) (0) (0) (.92) (.08) (0) (.48) (.52)
Mahbubnagar 0.14 0 0 0.52 0.25 0.08 0.35 0.65(0) (0) (0) (.9) (0.1) (0) (.6) (.4)
Nizamabad 0 0 0.4 0.6 0 0 1 0(0) (0) (.37) (0) (.63) (0) (.94) (0.06)
Chittoor 0 0 0.12 0.64 0.24 0 0.42 0.58(0) (0) (0.01) (0.99) (0) (0) (1) (0)
Kurnool 0 0.31 0 0.69 0 0 0.69 0.31(0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (.8) (.2)
Kadapa 0.05 0.05 0 0 0.9 0 1 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0.41) (0.59)
Anantapur 0 0.12 0 0.03 0.84 0 1 0(0) (0) (0) (0.89) (0) (0.11) (1) (0)
Nellore 0.48 0 0 0.52 0 0 0 1(0) (0) (0) (0) (0.07) (0.93) (0.61) (.39)
Krishna 0.3 0.03 0 0.67 0 0 0.37 0.63(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0.63) (0.37)
Guntur 0 0.21 0 0.79 0 0 0.61 0.39(0) (0.12) (0) (.88) (0) (0) (.57) (.43)
East Godavari 0 0.29 0 0 0.71 0.01 1 0(0) (0.1) (0) (0) (0) (0.9) (1) (0)
West Godavari 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.36 0.64
(0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (.84) (.16)Srikakulam 0.44 0 0 0.56 0 0 0.56 0.44
(0) (0) (0.67) (.33) (0) (0) (1) (0)
Visakhapatnam 0 0 0 0 0.86 0.14 0.14 0.86(0) (0) (0.5) (0.4) (.09) (0) (0) (1)
State 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.43 0.27 0.03 0.59 0.41(0.01) (.01) (.13) (.59) (.11) (.15) (.65) (.35)
Note: Figures in Parenthesis are for year 1956.
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 13/20
145Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh • A. AMARENDER REDDY
and 0.49 per cent respectively. In districts where land is a limiting factor due to urbanisation,
its shadow share is quite high. For example, in the Hyderabad share of land is 0.37. The
shadow share of land is also higher in West Godavari (0.67) and East Godavari (0.26),
Karimnagar (0.52), Chittoor (0.26) and Nizamabad (0.26) indicating higher land productivityin these districts. Shares of other factors, including livestock and fertiliser are also plausible
and appear to support the general scarcities of these resources in different districts. However,
in some districts the shadow share estimates are unusually high or low due to the
dimensionality problem in DEA or the district factor endowment may be significantly differ
from sample average, because of district-specific factors, such as land scarcity, labour
abundance, etc. For many districts, the errors in estimation of shadow prices may be a
combination of these two factors, to varying degrees.
Table 6
Average Factor Shares (Ratios) for Last Three Decades (1986-2007) Estimated from DEA
District Labour Live- Rainfed GIA Fertiliser Mechanisation Crop Livestock stock Area Value Value
Hyderabad 0.05 0.00 0.37 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Nellore 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
West Godavari 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Nalgonda 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.06 0.00 0.19 0.81
Mahbubnagar 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.05 0.00 0.20 0.80
Krishna 0.16 0.44 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.68
Medak 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.12 0.00 0.37 0.63
Khammam 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.53
Guntur 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.47East Godavari 0.00 0.64 0.26 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.42
Srikakulam 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.40
Visakhapatnam 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.51 0.09 0.28 0.62 0.38
Karimnagar 0.06 0.00 0.52 0.23 0.19 0.00 0.65 0.35
Warangal 0.57 0.00 0.16 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.24
Chittoor 0.05 0.01 0.26 0.66 0.02 0.00 0.77 0.23
Nizamabad 0.30 0.00 0.26 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.15
Adilabad 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.94 0.00 0.05 0.87 0.13
Anantapur 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.89 0.01 0.00 0.92 0.08
Kadapa 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.06 0.94 0.06
Kurnool 0.12 0.07 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.07 0.98 0.02
State 0.261 0.104 0.132 0.453 0.028 0.023 0.531 0.469
Table 7 presents actual input use and outputs for the year 1956, within parenthesis we
presented slack in variables (in%) in that year. The table also presents for inefficient districts,
the benchmarks considered while measuring slacks and for efficient districts, number of times
acted as benchmark while estimating slacks for inefficient districts. In the year 1956,
Nizamabad, Kurnool, West Godavari and Visakhapatnam are efficient districts, with
Nizamabad acted 14 times as benchmark for other districts, while Visakhapatnam 12 times,
Kurnool 11 times and West Godavari 4 times. Overall slack in crop output is zero, while
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 14/20
146 The Indian Economic Journal • Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
livestock output is 12.5 per cent. This indicates that with the existing resources, livestock
output could have been increased by 12.5 per cent in the base year 1956 in Andhra Pradesh.
In case of inputs, highest slack is observed in rainfed area (35%), followed by fertiliser
(24.9%), livestock population (22.8%), labour (14.7%), mechanisation (14.2%) and least incase of GIA (6.1%). This indicates that, without affecting the output, one could have reduced
the use of rainfed area by 35 per cent, fertiliser by 25 per cent, livestock population by 23
per cent, labour use by 15 per cent, farm machinery by 14 per cent and GIA by 6 per cent
in the base year. In case of rainfed area slacks are highest in Kadapa (74%) followed by
Nalgonda (64%), Anantapur (63%), Guntur (59%), Nellore (56%) and Adilabad (52%). In
case of fertiliser slacks are highest in Guntur (58%), Anantapur (58%) and Chittoor (62%),
which indicates overuse of fertilisers in Guntur, Anantapur and Chittoor in as early as 1956.
Slack in livestock population is higher in Kadapa (60%), Adilabad (57%), Khammam (44%),
Nalgonda (38%), Chittoor (38%) and Nellore (35%).
Table 8 presents slack variables in the model for the year 2007. In the year 2007,Hyderabad, Adilabad, Chittoor, West Godavari, East Godavari and Visakhapatnam are
efficient districts, with East Godavari acted 12 times as benchmark for other districts, West
Godavari and Adilabad acted 8 times each, while Hyderabad 6 times, Visakhapatnam 5
times and Chittoor 3 times. Overall, slack in crop output is 1.4 per cent, while livestock
output is 10.2 per cent. This indicates that with the existing resources livestock output
could have been increased by 10.2 per cent and crop output could have been increased by
1.4 per cent in the year 2007. In case of inputs, highest slack is observed in livestock
population (23%), followed by farm machinery (23%), rainfed area (21%), labour (7.2%),
fertiliser (5.3%) and least in case of GIA (1.7%). Which indicates that without affecting
the output, one could have reduced the use of livestock population by 23 per cent, farmmachinery by 23 per cent, rainfed area by 21 per cent, labour by 7.2 per cent, fertiliser by
5.3 per cent and GIA by 1.7 per cent. In case of livestock population slacks are highest in
Karimnagar (61%), Warangal (60%), Nellore (58%), Srikakulam (55%), Nizamabad (50%)
and Nalgonda (51%). In case of farm machinery slack is highest in Khammam (57%),
Karimnagar (50%), Anantapur (48%), Nellore (48%), Kadapa (43%), Nalgonda (40%) and
Warangal (36%). In case of rainfed area the highest slack is in Anantapur (55%) followed
by Krishna (41%), Kurnool (40%), Nellore (35%) and Srikakulam (33%). The highest slack
in labour is reported in Guntur (24%) followed by Khammam (19%), Karimnagar (16.5%)
and Anantapur (14%). The highest slack in fertiliser use is recorded in Kurnool (24%)
followed by Nizamabad (16%), Guntur (11.5%) and Srikakulam (11.3%). Table 9 presents region-wise factor shares and slack variables. Factor shares are much
higher for GIA and fertiliser in both Telangana and Rayalaseema, while in Coastal in
addition to irrigation and fertilisers, mechanisation and cropped area under rainfed are also
having higher factor shares in 1956. While in 2007, factor shares of irrigated area reduced
except Coastal, shares for fertiliser and cropped area under rainfed increased, while in
Rayalaseema factor shares for fertiliser and livestock increased at the cost of irrigated area.
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 15/20
147Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh • A. AMARENDER REDDY
Table 7
Value of Inputs and Output (Slack in Variables as % of Actual in Parenthesis) in 1956
S. District Bench Labour Livestock Rainfed GIA Fertiliser Mecha- Crop Livestock No. mark (1000) (1000) Area (1000 ha) (1000 t) nisation Value Valuedistricts/* (1000 ha) (tractors) (Rs. (Rs.
crore) crore)
1 Hyderabad 20, 11, 9 335 441 306 49 3 1133 75 53(16.9) (24.7) (0.0) (0.0) (15.1) (10.7) (0.0) (0.0)
2 Karimnagar 20, 11, 9 543 751 407 132 5 2267 178 96(0.0) (22.2) (27.5) (0.0) (37.5) (10.3) (0.0) (0.0)
3 Warangal 20, 11, 9 526 716 360 123 3 2469 170 38(10.7) (26.0) (0.0) (0.0) (19.1) (26.1) (0.0) (0.0)
4 Khammam 20, 11, 9 323 485 297 54 2 1247 187 88(25.9) (44.3) (37.0) (0.0) (0.0) (28.1) (0.0) (0.0)
5 Medak 20, 11 544 577 375 98 4 2020 141 177
(18.2) (19.2) (49.0) (0.0) (26.5) (20.3) (0.0) (0.0)
6 Adilabad 20, 11, 9 359 511 487 29 2 1619 134 69(51.2) (57.3) (51.7) (0.0) (0.0) (60.5) (0.0) (0.0)
7 Nalgonda 20, 11, 9 570 862 666 121 3 3065 248 174(10.8) (37.6) (64.0) (0.0) (0.0) (38.6) (0.0) (0.0)
8 Mahbubnagar 20, 11, 9 497 799 918 103 3 2554 326 145(1.4) (28.6) (49.0) (0.0) (0.0) (28.5) (0.0) (0.0)
9 Nizamabad (14) 395 420 176 127 1 1593 819 110
10 Chittoor 11, 9 727 952 263 177 5 2765 603 50(23.3) (37.6) (0.0) (0.0) (61.9) (18.9) (0.0) (118.2)
11 Kurnool (11) 572 801 1179 63 6 2084 474 104
12 Kadapa 20, 9 472 569 346 119 1 1322 303 53
(54.7) (60.3) (73.5) (43.8) (0.0) (35.5) (0.0) (0.0)13 Anantapur 11, 9 608 730 991 126 6 1800 754 60
(24.9) (29.0) (63.3) (0.0) (58.1) (0.0) (0.0) (85.8)
14 Nellore 20, 9, 18 639 1058 426 312 6 2292 249 71(1.1) (35.4) (56.0) (17.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
15 Krishna 20, 18 573 712 131 337 11 1615 547 124(17.8) (26.0) (17.7) (26.6) (40.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
16 Guntur 20, 11, 9 896 852 789 213 10 3173 740 375(9.0) (0.0) (58.9) (0.0) (57.8) (2.9) (0.0) (0.0)
17 East Godavari 9, 18 711 757 251 289 6 2640 994 64(2.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.4) (12.8) (0.0) (0.0) (179.9)
18 West Godavari (4) 600 679 134 338 9 2045 1075 190
19 Srikakulam 9, 18 1013 819 260 226 6 2879 865 46(37.7) (17.4) (0.0) (0.0) (42.2) (13.6) (0.0) (242.0)
20 Visakhapatnam (12) 740 751 206 170 4 2673 445 618
State 11643 14242 8968 3206 96 43255 9325 2705(14.7) (22.8) (35.0) (6.1) (24.9) (14.2) (0.0) (12.5)
Note: *for efficient districts number of times acted as benchmark are reported in parenthesis.
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 16/20
148 The Indian Economic Journal • Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
Table 8
Value of Inputs and Output (Slack in Variables as % of Actual in Parenthesis) in 2007
S. District Bench- Labour Livestock Rainfed GIA Fertiliser Mecha- Crop Livestock No. mark (1000) Population Area (1000 ha) (1000 t) nisation Value Valuedistricts/* (1000) (1000 ha) (tractors) (Rs. (Rs.
crore) crore)
1 Hyderabad (6) 589 530 196 76 100 3124 513 974
2 Karimnagar 17, 18 985 980 154 513 137 9124 2066 723(16.5) (61.3) (0.0) (18.3) (0.0) (49.8) (0.0) (109.3)
3 Warangal 17, 18 951 962 197 394 123 6613 2298 578(13.4) (60.2) (0.0) (0.0) (1.9) (35.6) (0.0) (140.0)
4 Khammam 6, 17 815 922 265 244 86 7126 2102 675(18.8) (46.3) (0.0) (0.0) (2.4) (57.0) (0.0) (20.7)
5 Medak 1, 20, 853 763 321 200 60 5675 1285 96710, 18 (0.0) (21.0) (26.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (15.4) (0.0)
6 Adilabad (8) 613 868 445 89 64 2354 2071 339
7 Nalgonda 20, 10, 968 1102 265 388 122 9417 1456 86617, 18 (0.0) (51.3) (15.8) (0.0) (0.0) (40.4) (0.0) (0.0)
8 Mahbubnagar 1, 20, 6, 1146 1249 542 257 88 6145 1413 79410, 17 (0.0) (29.8) (28.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
9 Nizamabad 17, 18 646 548 129 286 107 3745 1099 397(9.5) (50.6) (0.0) (0.0) (16.3) (17.2) (0.0) (98.6)
10 Chittoor (3) 1018 741 261 187 63 10640 1897 1111
11 Kurnool 1, 6, 17 1069 895 767 253 148 5349 2218 751(14.4) (0.0) (40.2) (0.0) (23.8) (24.3) (0.0) (0.0)
12 Kadapa 20, 6, 17 615 571 306 166 57 4479 1068 324(0.0) (0.0) (6.1) (6.9) (0.0) (43.0) (0.0) (29.0)
13 Anantapur 20, 6, 17 1063 945 1024 164 66 6809 1675 526(14.3) (0.0) (54.9) (0.0) (0.0) (48.4) (0.0) (8.3)
14 Nellore 1, 18 601 772 115 296 132 7170 983 1201(0.0) (58.1) (35.4) (0.0) (7.0) (47.8) (38.9) (0.0)
15 Krishna 1, 6, 17, 18 1002 592 298 440 209 7415 2572 2276(0.0) (0.0) (41.0) (0.0) (8.4) (19.8) (0.0) (0.0)
16 Guntur 1, 6, 17 2549 1408 778 662 301 10872 5056 2373(23.6) (0.0) (9.5) (0.0) (11.5) (13.6) (0.0) (0.0)
17 East Godavari (12) 1087 508 287 503 148 5405 4465 2003
18 West Godavari (8) 1082 489 79 628 230 6990 3581 3182
19 Srikakulam 6, 17, 18 500 786 257 203 81 3446 1236 573(0.0) (54.8) (33.2) (0.0) (11.3) (27.6) (0.0) (0.0)
20 Visakhapatnam (5) 1511 1118 503 310 70 5837 2405 1497
State 19663 16749 7189 6259 2392 127735 41461 22130(7.2) (23.0) (20.8) 9(1.7) (5.3) (22.9) (1.4) (10.2)
Note: *for efficient districts number of times acted as benchmark are reported in parenthesis.
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 17/20
149Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh • A. AMARENDER REDDY
Output shares of crops are much higher in 1956 with 0.80 per cent in Rayalaseema, 0.66
per cent in Coastal and 0.58 per cent in Telangana, while the share is reduced in Coastal
to 0.43 per cent in 2007, while in Rayalaseema a slight decreased to 0.78 has been
reported, while in Telangana slight increase to 0.62 has been reported.
Table 9
Region-wise Factor Shares (Ratios) and Slack in Variables as % of Actual Input and Outputs Estimated from DEA in 1956 and 2007
Region/year Labour Livestock Rainfed GIA Fertiliser Mecha- Crop Livestock Population Area nisation Value Value
Factor share
1956
Telangana 0.021 0.000 0.057 0.806 0.117 0.000 0.581 0.419Coastal 0.000 0.031 0.310 0.230 0.023 0.404 0.664 0.336
Rayalaseema 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.720 0.250 0.028 0.803 0.198
2007
Telangana 0.059 0.000 0.179 0.524 0.196 0.042 0.619 0.381
Coastal 0.174 0.076 0.143 0.363 0.224 0.021 0.434 0.566
Rayalaseema 0.013 0.120 0.030 0.340 0.495 0.000 0.778 0.223
Slack as % of actual
1956
Telangana 13.4 29.4 38.4 0.0 15.4 25.9 0.0 0.0
Coastal 11.4 12.5 33.1 7.6 25.0 2.8 0.0 15.3
Rayalaseema 24.3 29.9 31.7 10.7 38.9 12.4 0.0 41.6
2007
Telangana 6.7 37.6 11.2 3.8 2.5 28.9 1.4 33.7
Coastal 7.2 15.5 13.9 0.0 6.1 15.5 1.9 0.0
Rayalaseema 8.2 0.0 37.7 1.4 10.5 23.9 0.0 5.1
VI. Factors Influencing Technology and Efficiency
In addition to the DEA, to estimate robustness of efficiency estimates, we have used
frontier production function Battese and Coelli (1995) model. It also shed light on which
inputs have major contribution in district frontier production function (best practice
technology) and also to know the factors which influence the efficiency of districts asexplained in methodology section.
Table 10 presents the results of Battese and Coelli (1995) frontier production function
model results. Both dependent and independent variables are in logged form; hence it
assumes cobb-douglas production function and the coefficients represent elasticities of
respective independent variables. The dependent variable is “logged value of agricultural
production”, while independent variables are rainfed area (1000 ha), gross irrigated area
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 18/20
150 The Indian Economic Journal • Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
(1000 ha), labour (cultivators plus agricultural labourer in thousands), livestock (cattle
equivalents in thousands), fertiliser consumption (tonnes) and mechanisation (tractor
equivalent). Only GIA and labour variables are having positive elasticities, while all other
variables are having negative elasticities (which are in line with the findings of significantslacks, except GIA and labour). Time variable is having significant positive coefficient,
indicating there is a positive technological progress. Among explanatory variables in
inefficiency effects, number of market yards, agricultural credit, and Rayalaseema regional
dummy are positively associated with efficiency (negatively associated with inefficiency); all
other variables are having negative association with efficiency. As in line with efficiency
estimates, Telangana region is having positive and significant association with inefficiency
(hence negative association with efficiency).
Table 10
Battese and Coelli (1995) Model Results for Period 1956-2007
Dependent variable: value of agricultural production (Rs. crore) Coefficient t-ratio Mean
Constant 4.115* 16.0 1551.6
Log (agricultural labour (1000)) 1.442* 32.6 782.6
Log (livestock population (cattle equivalent 1000 nos.)) -0.949* -19.3 787.6
Log (rainfed area (1000 ha)) -0.164* -7.4 409.8
Log (gross irrigated area (1000 ha)) 0.143* 4.0 229.4
Log (fertiliser (tonnes)) -0.062* -3.3 47.6
Log (mechanisation (tractor equivalent)) -0.016 -0.5 3967.6
Time (year) 0.023* 18.2 26.5
Returns to scale 0.417Inefficiency effects
Constant 0.964 1.7
Log (market yards (number of market yards) -0.052* -2.0 65.7
Log (credit (Rs. crore) -0.222* -11.8 1750.8
Urbanisation (%) 0.002* 3.4 24.1
Literacy (%) 0.004 1.7 33.1
Private investment to total investment (%) 0.011* 8.9 30.9
Log (annual rainfall (mm) 0.050 0.6 922.8
Telangana region dummy 0.124* 2.0 0.5
Rayalaseema region dummy -0.274* -3.6 0.2
Sigma-Squared 0.088 13.5
Gamma 0.838 23.1
Log likelihood function = 46.2
LR test of the one-sided error = 408.4
Number of cross-sections = 20
Number of time periods = 52
Total number of observations = 1040
Note: * Indicates significant at 5% level of significance
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 19/20
151Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh • A. AMARENDER REDDY
VII. Base Year Effect on Subsequent Agricultural Growth
Table 11 presents the results of growth in per capita income (PCI) from agriculture and
allied activities as dependent variable and value of various other variables in base year
(1956) as explanatory variables. Labour and per capita income from agriculture in initialyear is having negative and significant influence on growth in per capita income, while
urbanisation in initial year is having negative but insignificant association. The fertiliser
consumption, irrigated land, and literacy rate in the base year are having positive influence
on growth in PCI from agriculture and allied activities at district level. Hence one can
conclude that, resource endowment (both physical and human) in initial years is having
positive influence on subsequent growth in per capita income.
Table 11
Effect of Base Year Resource Endowment on Subsequent Growth
of PCI from Agriculture During 1956-2007
Dependent variable: per cent growth (1956-2007)in per capita income from agriculture
Constant 9.236 (0.9)
Base year PCI from agriculture -1.386* (-4.0)
Base year agricultural labour (1000) -1.654* (-2.1)
Base year GIA (1000 ha) 0.455 (1.3)
Base year fertiliser (1000 tonnes) use 0.868* (2.7)
Base year Literacy (%) 0.189 (0.6)
Base year Urbanisation (%) -0.608 (-1.4)
Annual rainfall (mm) 1.84 (1.7)
R2 0.74
Note: Figures in parenthesis are t-values; all values of base year variables are in logged form except, variables measured in per cent.
* Indicates significant at 5% level of significance
VIII. Conclusion
The paper examines productivity growth since formation of united Andhra Pradesh in
1956 at district level by using Malmquist productivity indices. Overall, TFP growth in
agriculture and allied activities in Telangana is about 1.3 per cent per annum, the same are
1.1 per cent per annum in Coastal, while TFP growth in Rayalaseema is stagnant. It
indicates that, there is a convergence in TFP growth among districts of developed Coastal
and less developed Telangana regions, but districts in Rayalaseema region are left out of
this growth process, as Rayalaseema region is not able to catch up with other two regions
in agricultural productivity. Another important finding is that irrespective of region most
backward districts in agriculture, that is Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Anantapur, Kadapa,
Adilabad, Nalgonda, Mahbubnagar and Nizamabad showed stagnation in TFP growth during
7/23/2019 Disparities in Agricultural Productivity Growth in Andhra Pradesh
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disparities-in-agricultural-productivity-growth-in-andhra-pradesh 20/20
152 The Indian Economic Journal • Volume 58(1), April-June 2010
last 50 years. With the existing resource endowment and technology, Telangana can increase
its output by more than 28 per cent from the existing level, while Rayalaseema region can
enhance its output by 25 per cent, Coastal region by only 14 per cent as revealed from
efficiency estimates. Shadow input shares indicate that, still gross irrigated area, fertiliseruse and availability of labour are three important inputs, which limits the district
production frontier. Inefficiency effects model (Battese and Coelli, 1995) reveals that,
market infrastructure and credit availability are two important variables in increasing
efficiency. Study results also emphasis importance of resource endowment (physical and
human) in base year for subsequent growth.
References
Battese, G.E. and T.J. Coelli (1995). “A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production
Function for Panel Data”, Empirical Economics 20: 325-32.
Chaudhuri, S. and N. Gupta (2009). “Levels of Living and Poverty Patterns: A District-Wise Analysis for India”, Economic and Political Weekly XLIV(9): 94-110.
Coelli, T.J. and D.S.P. Rao (2003). “Total Factor Productivity Growth in Agriculture: A Malmquist Index Analysis of 93
Countries, 1980-2000”, Working Paper Series No. 02/2003. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis.
Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris and Z. Zhang (1994). “Productivity Growth, Technical Progress and Efficiency Changes
in Industrialized Countries”, American Economic Review 84: 66-83.
Kumar P., M. Surabhi and M. Hossain (2008). “Agricultural Growth Accounting and Total Factor Productivity in South
Asia: A Review and Policy Implications”, Agricu ltural Economics Research Review 21: 145-72.
Reddy, A.A. and P. Kumar (2006). “Occupational Structure of Workers in Rural Andhra Pradesh”, Journal of Indian School
of Political Economy : 180-95 January-July.
Appendix
Table A1
Region-wise Value of Explanatory Variables for Technical Inefficiency in the Model (B&C 1995) in 1956 and 2007
Region Year Markets Credit Urbanisation Literacy Private Rain(nos.) (Rs. crore) (%) (%) Investment(%) (mm)
Telangana 2007 619 48447 25.2 46.0 71.7 1084.61956 369 505 14.3 6.3 9.4 804.5
Coastal 2007 728 48701 34.5 53.9 22.6 1293.0
1956 420 1042 16.4 10.7 2.3 814.5
Rayalaseema 2007 379 13408 24.9 51.1 68.6 716.6
1956 125 277 14.2 9.8 28.9 682.0