Investment, subsidies, and pro‐poor growth in rural India

Fan, Shenggen; Gulati, Ashok; Thorat, Sukhadeo

doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00328.x

Cited by 241 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If this is not possible, economic costbenefit analysis suggests that alternative types of investment, for example in research and extension and in rural roads, have yielded high returns in poor agrarian economies in the past (see e.g. Fan et al, 2004Fan et al, , 2007Economist Intelligence Unit, 2008). There are, however, a number of difficulties in choosing between these different types of investment using a simple comparison of the rates of return.…”

Section: The Agricultural Input Subsidy Programme: Outcomes and Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Malawi agricultural input subsidy programme: 2005/06 to 2008/09

Dorward

Chirwa

2011

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

306

223

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Agricultural Input Subsidy Programme: Outcomes and Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Malawi agricultural input subsidy programme: 2005/06 to 2008/09

Dorward

Chirwa

2011

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

306

223

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the literature, is is clearly acknowledged that higher agricultural productivity is crucial to raise income in rural agricultural areas and for the poorest of rural households Datt, 1996, 1998a;Timmer, 1997Timmer, , 2004Suryahadi and Sumarto, 2003;Fan et al, 2004Fan et al, , 2008. The literature does not distinguish carefully between the type of productivity improvements, differentiating between productivity improvements for the same crops versus shifts to higher productivity crops, an issue that deserves closer attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cash crop choice and income dynamics in rural areas: evidence for post‐crisis Indonesia

Klasen¹,

Priebe²,

Rudolf

2013

Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. In this paper we investigate the factors affecting income levels, income growth, and poverty reduction in rural Indonesia following the crisis of 1997/98. We particularly investigate the relative roles of non-farm incomes, productivity improvements achieved via changes in crops versus improvements on the same crops, and demographic changes induced by the crisis on income dynamics in rural Indonesia. Using a unique household panel data set for Central Sulawesi that allows us to control for a large set of household and geographical characteristics, household fixed effects as well as endogeneity issues, we find that falling household size and the adoption and intensification of new cash crop varieties can explain a substantial part of the observed post-crisis developments. Moreover, we compare our results to cross-sectional data from SUSENAS, Indonesia's large scale national household survey. While the overall determinants of rural incomes are very similar across both data sets, we find that the importance of agricultural self-employed income seems to be higher in Central Sulawesi than in most other parts of Indonesia. Although several factors could explain these differences, lessons from our Central Sulawesi data suggests that unexploited potentials in the production of cash crops in other areas of Indonesia might contribute to these findings. Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

“…The main concern is market distortions and inefficiency of the allocation of resources. Fan et al, (2008) find that agricultural input and output subsidies have proved to be unproductive, financially unsustainable, environmentally unfriendly in recent years, and contributed to increased inequality among rural Indian states. Furthermore, López (2004) focuses on structure of public expenditures as an important factor of economic development.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous literature shows that public expenditure on agriculture allocated towards the provision of public goods has greater returns than public expenditure allocated towards the provision of private goods (see Godtland et al, 2004;Fan et al, 2008;Fang and Norman (2014)). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Money for Wine?: Complementarities in the Provision of Private and Public Goods to Wine Producers

Gibbons¹,

Maffioli²,

Rossi³

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

work is licensed under a Creative Commons IGO 3.0 AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC-IGO BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo/ legalcode) and may be reproduced with attribution to the IDB and for any non-commercial purpose, as provided below. No derivative work is allowed.Any dispute related to the use of the works of the IDB that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the UNCITRAL rules. The use of the IDB's name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of IDB's logo shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IDB and the user and is not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license.Following a peer review process, and with previous written consent by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), a revised version of this work may also be reproduced in any academic journal, including those indexed by the American Economic Association's EconLit, provided that the IDB is credited and that the author(s) receive no income from the publication. Therefore, the restriction to receive income from such publication shall only extend to the publication's author(s). With regard to such restriction, in case of any inconsistency between the Creative Commons IGO 3.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license and these statements, the latter shall prevail.Note that link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the license. Abstract This paper evaluates the impact of two programs that provide public and private goods, in the form of irrigation canals and materials (such as hail nets). Using a twelve-year panel of wine producers from Mendoza and San Juan, Argentina, we find that the programs have had positive and significant impacts on production and yield. We also find that the programs present important complementarities, in the sense that being exposed to the two interventions increases the outputs more than the mere sum of the separate interventions.

show abstract

Investment, subsidies, and pro‐poor growth in rural India

Cited by 241 publications

References 1 publication

The Malawi agricultural input subsidy programme: 2005/06 to 2008/09

The Malawi agricultural input subsidy programme: 2005/06 to 2008/09

Cash crop choice and income dynamics in rural areas: evidence for post‐crisis Indonesia

Money for Wine?: Complementarities in the Provision of Private and Public Goods to Wine Producers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About