Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What Socio-Technical and Institutional Determinants Explain the Farm-Level Economic Divergence?

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the multifaceted factors influencing agricultural farm productivity and test the hypothesis that participation in Water Users Association (WUA) activities contributes to improved farm productivity. Primary data was collected from the Sindh and Punjab provinces of Pakistan, and hierarchical regression analysis was employed to assess the statistical significance of different variable blocks. The findings reveal that farm productivity (measured in Rs/Acre) is primarily influenced by water and land resource characteristics (54%), followed by personal characteristics of resource users (7.9%) and community and institutional characteristics (1.1%). The study identifies a negative relationship between landholding size and age with farm productivity, while a positive relationship is observed between resource users' level of participation in WUAs and farm productivity. However, it is important to note that these positive outcomes should not solely be attributed to the success of devolution of irrigation management, as inequities in canal water allocation between head and tail still persist. The paper emphasizes the critical role of participatory irrigation management governance in addressing such inequities. The results further suggest that meaningful institutional and land reforms are essential for promoting equitable economic benefits in agricultural systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

Data used for the analysis of this study are available upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

EWP:

Economic Water Productivity

WCAs/WUAs:

Watercourse Associations/Water Users Association

FOs:

Farmers Organization

PIM:

Participatory Irrigation Management

IMT:

Irrigation Management Transfer

SIDA/PIDA:

Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority/Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority

LBCAWB:

Left Bank Canal Area Water Board

LHS:

Land Holding Size

CDI:

Crop Diversification Index

TSII:

Technical State of Irrigation Infrastructure

WSPI:

Water Scarcity Perception Index

LPI:

Land Performance Index

GDEI:

Group Dynamics Effectiveness Index

CCI:

Community Cooperation Index

IPAWB:

Institutional Performance of Area Water Board

LPWUA:

Level of Participation in WUA

WUAMI:

WUA Maturity Index

References

  • Akram AA, Mendelsohn R (2017) Agricultural water allocation efficiency in a developing country canal irrigation system. Environment and Development Economics 22(5):571–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X17000171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arfan M (2022b) Mapping impact of farmers organisation on the equity of water and land productivity: Evidence from Pakistan. Pak Dev Rev 61(2):275–294. https://doi.org/10.30541/v61i2pp.275-294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arfan M (2022a) Exploring the water governance policy framework for improving participatory irrigation management reforms. Rasta: Local Research, Local Solutions 81

  • Assuncao JJ, Ghatak M (2003) Can unobserved heterogeneity in farmer ability explain the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity? Econ Lett 80(2):189–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azhar S (2016) Colonial and post-colonial origins of agrarian development: The case of two Punjabs. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst

  • Bandyopadhyay S, Shyamsundar P, Xie M (2010) Transferring irrigation management to farmer’s associations: Evidence from the Philippines. Water Policy 12(3):444–460. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2009.111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee A, Iyer L (2005) History, institutions, and economic performance: The legacy of colonial land tenure systems in India. Am Econ Rev 95(4):1190–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger T, Birner R, Mccarthy N, DíAz J, Wittmer H (2007) Capturing the complexity of water uses and water users within a multi-agent framework. Water Resour Manag 21(1):129–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry RA, Cline WR (1979) Agrarian structure and productivity in developing countries: a study prepared for the International Labour Office within the framework of the World Employment Programme. Johns Hopkins

  • Chaudhry AM (2017) Improving on-farm water use efficiency: Role of collective action in irrigation management. Water Resour Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2017.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chayanov AV (1966) The theory of peasant economy. In: Thorner D, Kerblay B, Smith REF (eds).  Irwin, Homewood, Ill., USA

  • Cornia GA (1985) Farm size, land yields and the agricultural production function: An analysis for fifteen developing countries. World Dev 13(4):513–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deininger K, Squire L (1996) A new data set measuring income inequality. World Bank Econ Rev 10(3):565–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deolalikar AB (1981) The inverse relationship between productivity and farm size: a test using regional data from India. Am J Agr Econ 63(2):275–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois E, Blank G (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Inf Commun Soc 21(5):729–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elahi E, Khalid Z, Weijun C, Zhang H (2020) The public policy of agricultural land allotment to agrarians and its impact on crop productivity in Punjab province of Pakistan. Land Use Policy 90:104324

  • Expósito A, Berbel J (2019) Drivers of irrigation water productivity and basin closure process: Analysis of the Guadalquivir river basin (Spain). Water Resour Manag 33(4):1439–1450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox J (2019) Regression diagnostics: An introduction. Sage Publications

  • Henderson HV, Velleman PF (1981) Building multiple regression models interactively. Biometrics 391–411

  • Kamara AB (2004) The impact of market access on input use and agricultural productivity: Evidence from Machakos District Kenya. Agrekon 43(2):202–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karaye AK et al (2017) Influence of agronomic practices on crop production. Int J Sci Basic Appl Res 31(1)

  • Kerlinger FN (1966) Foundations of behavioral research. New York

  • Lewis M (2007) Stepwise versus hierarchical regression: Pros and cons. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, February 7, 2007, San Antonio

  • Mekonnen DK, Channa H, Ringler C (2015) The impact of water users’ associations on the productivity of irrigated agriculture in Pakistani Punjab. Water Int 40(5–6). https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1094617.

  • Mihaela, M, Titan E (2014) Education and innovation in the context of economies globalization. Procedia Econ Finance 15(1042–1046). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00667-4

  • Pedhazur EJ (1997) Multiple regression in behavioral research. Harcourt Brace, Orlando, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen AK (1962) An aspect of Indian agriculture. Econ Weekly 14(4–6):243–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teeroovengadum V, Seetanah B, Bindah E, Pooloo A, Veerasawmy I (2021) Minimising perceived travel risk in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic to boost travel and tourism. Tourism Rev 76(4):910–928. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2020-0195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thapa S (2007) The relationship between farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from the Nepalese mid-hills. Available at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/7638

  • Wang J, Xu Z, Huang J, Rozelle S (2006) Incentives to managers or participation of farmers in China’s irrigation systems: which matters most for water savings, farmer income, and poverty? Agric Econ 34(3):315–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We gratefully acknowledge all of the hard work of the data collection and data entry team at USPCAS-W, MUET: Hamza Sarwar, Zain, Saira Sidhu, Nabeel Ali Khan, and Mumair Chang. We thank Zunaid Alam Memon and Abdul Islam Lodhi for their input on survey tool design and sampling design and Maaz Saleem/ Sikandar Mangrio– our project’s focal person at the Nara Canal Area Water Board—for help with the recruitment of study participants. We especially thank all of the study participants for taking the time to answer so many questions and share their perspectives.

Funding

This research was supported by the ‘Research for Social Transformation & Advancement’ (RASTA), a Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) initiative, through Competitive Grants Programme Award [Grant No. CGP-01-027/2021].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Water, Jamshoro, 76090, Pakistan

    Muhammad Arfan, Kamran Ansari & Asmat Ullah

  2. Centre for Climate and Environmental Research, Institute for Art and Culture, Lahore, Pakistan

    Muhammad Arfan

Authors
  1. Muhammad Arfan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kamran Ansari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asmat Ullah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: M. Arfan; Formal analysis: M. Arfan, A. Ullah; Writing—original draft: M. Arfan; Review and editing: K. Ansari, A. Ullah. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Arfan.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval for the survey instrument used was taken from the Research Advisory Committee of the US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Water Jamshoro.

Consent to Participate and Publish

All participants were briefed about the objective and purpose of the research study and written consent was taken before the data collection and to publish the research findings as well.

Competing Interest

All authors declare there is no competing interest

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arfan, M., Ansari, K. & Ullah, A. What Socio-Technical and Institutional Determinants Explain the Farm-Level Economic Divergence?. Water Resour Manage 37, 4039–4057 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-023-03538-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-023-03538-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation