Skip to main content
Log in

Who Leaves Farmland Fallow and Why? An Empirical Investigation Using Nationally Representative Survey Data from India

The European Journal of Development Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the determinants of the probability and proportion of owned land left fallow by farmers in India using nationally representative survey data. Using a zero-inflated beta regression, we find that having more land increased the likelihood of land being left fallow. Those with tractors were less likely to leave land fallow and had a lesser proportion of land left fallow. Living in a village which practised tenancy (predominantly fixed-rent tenancy) reduced the proportion of land left fallow. The amount of subsidised food grains the household received from the public distribution system, distance from nearest town and nonfarm opportunities available to the household increased the proportion of land left fallow. In summary, our results emphasise the importance of urbanisation, mechanisation and tenancy reforms for fallowing decisions of farm households. It also underpins the non-separability of production decisions from consumption and labour decisions.

A l’aide des données d’un sondage représentatif au niveau national, cet article étudie les déterminants de la probabilité que les agriculteurs en Inde laissent leur terres en jachère, ainsi que la proportion que ce type de terres représente. Grâce à une régression bêta à taux zéro, nous constatons que le fait d’avoir plus de terres augmente la probabilité de laisser la terre en jachère. Ceux qui ont des tracteurs sont moins susceptibles de laisser les terres en jachère et ont une proportion de leur terres laissées en jachère moins importante. Vivre dans un village qui pratique la location (principalement location à loyers fixes) réduit la proportion de terres laissées en jachère. La quantité de céréales alimentaires subventionnées que le ménage reçoit du système de distribution publique, la distance par rapport à la ville la plus proche et l’existence d’opportunités non agricoles à disposition du ménage provoque une augmentation de la proportion de terres laissées en jachère. En résumé, nos résultats soulignent l’importance de l’urbanisation, de la mécanisation et des réformes locatives sur les décisions de mise en jachère des ménages agricoles. Cela sous-tend également que les décisions de production ne peuvent être séparées des décisions de consommation et de travail.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Source: Land use statistics, Ministry of Agriculture accessed through www.indiastat.com.

Figure 2

Source: Land use statistics, Ministry of Agriculture accessed through www.indiastat.com.

Figure 3
Figure 4

References

  • Bardhan, D. and Tewari, S.K. (2010) An investigation into land use dynamics in India and land under-utilisation. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(4): 658–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, M., Kuemmerle, T., Elbakidze, M., Ozdogan, M., Radeloff, V.C., Keuler, N.S., Prishchepov, A.V., Kruhlov, I. and Hostert, P. (2011) Patterns and drivers of post-socialist farmland abandonment in western Ukraine. Land Use Policy 28(3): 552–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benayas, J.R., Martins, A., Nicolau, J.M. and Schulz, J.J. (2007) Abandonment of agricultural land: An overview of drivers and consequences. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buis, L. (2010) Analyzing proportions. Paper presented at the 8th German Stata Users Group Meeting on June 25, 2010 in Berlin. Accessible at http://www.stata.com/meeting/germany10/germany10_buis.pdf (Last accessed on 21st March, 2017).

  • Cook, D.O., Kieschnick, R. and McCullough, B.D. (2008) Regression analysis of proportions in finance with self selection. Journal of Empirical Finance 15(5): 860–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, G.I., Nahuelhual, L., Echeverría, C. and Marín, S. (2011) Drivers of land abandonment in southern Chile and implications for landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 99(3–4): 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giri, R. (1966) Changes in land-use pattern in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 21(3): 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2015) Household ownership and operational holdings in India. Report no. 571, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, National Sample Survey Office, New Delhi.

  • Haque, T. (2001) Impact of tenancy reforms on productivity improvement and socio-economic status of poor tenants. Policy Paper13. National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP), New Delhi. Accessible at http://www.landandpoverty.com/agenda/pdfs/paper/haque_full_paper.pdf (Last accessed on 14th March, 2017).

  • Hanstad, T., Haque, T. and Nielsen, R. (2008) Improving land access for India’s rural poor. Economic & Political Weekly 43(10): 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, L.A., Boye, M.E., Hackshaw, M.D. and Carlin, B.P. (2012) Multilevel bayesian models for survival times and longitudinal patient-reported outcomes with many zeroes. Journal of American Statistical Association 107: 875–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kihiu, E.N. (2016) Basic capability effect: Collective management of pastoral resources in southwestern Kenya. Ecological Economics 123: 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D. (2016) Discrepancies in data on landholdings in rural India: Aggregate and distributional implications. Review of Agrarian Studies 6(1): 39–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Agriculture. (2014) Agricultural Census 2010–11: All India report on number and area of operational holdings. Accessible at http://agcensus.nic.in/document/agcensus2010/completereport.pdf (Last accessed on 21st November, 2017).

  • Nadkarni, M.V. and Deshpande, R. (1979) Under-utilization of land – Climatic or institutional factors? Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 34(2): 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • NITI Aayog. (2016) Report of the expert committee on land leasing. Government of India, New Delhi. Accessible at http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Final_Report_Expert_Group_on_Land_Leasing.pdf (Last accessed on 14th March, 2017).

  • Ospina, R. and Ferrari, S.L.P. (2012) A general class of zero-or-one inflated beta regression models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 56(6): 1609–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papke, L.E. and Wooldridge, J.M. (1996) Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401 (K) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics 11: 619–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prishchepov, A.V., Müller, D., Dubinin, M., Baumann, M. and Radeloff, V.C. (2013) Determinants of agricultural land abandonment in post-soviet European Russia. Land Use Policy 30(1): 873–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy, C., Balasubramanian, R. and Sivakumar, S.D. (2005) Dynamics of land use pattern with special reference to fallow lands – An empirical investigation in Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(4): 629–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick, A., Jansson, T., Verburg, P.H., Revoredo-Giha, C., Britz, W., Gocht, A. and McCracken, D. (2013) Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy 30(1): 446–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, J., Davidova, S. and Latruffe, L. (2012) Determinants of smallholders’ decisions to leave land fallow: The case of Kosovo. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63(1): 119–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, K. (1980) Concealed Tenancy and Its Implications for Equity and Economic Growth. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A. (2016) Urban proximity and spatial pattern of land use and development in rural India. Journal of Development Studies 52(11): 1593–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikor, T., Muller, D. and Stahl, J. (2009) Land fragmentation and cropland abandonment in Albania: Implications for the roles of state and community in Post-Socialist land consolidation. World Development 37(8): 1411–1423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithson, M. and Verkuilen, J. (2006) A better lemon squeezer? Maximum likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychological Methods 11(1): 54–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, J., Yang, Z., Li, Z., Li, X., Xin, L. and Sun, L. (2016) Drivers of cropland abandonment in mountainous areas: A household decision model on farming scale in southwest China. Land Use Policy 57: 459–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thiagu Ranganathan.

Appendices

Appendix A: Land Use Classification in India

The reporting area for land utilisation statistics is classified into two broad categories, viz. cultivated area and uncultivated area. The uncultivated area includes forests, land not available for cultivation, fallow land other than current fallow and other uncultivated land excluding fallow land.11

Land not available for cultivation is further classified into area under non-agricultural uses, and barren and unculturable land. Cultivated area is further categorised into net sown area and current fallow land. The other uncultivated land excluding fallow land is categorised into culturable waste land, land under miscellaneous tree crops & groves not included in net sown area, and village commons, pastures and grazing land.

Area sown more than once is added to the net sown area to obtain the gross sown area/total cropped area. The sum of current fallow land and fallow land other than current fallow is used to obtain the total fallow land.

The relationship between different categories can be summarised as follows:

$${\text{Reporting area for land utilisation statistics}} = {\text{cultivated land}} + {\text{uncultivated land}}$$
$${\text{Cultivated land}} = {\text{net sown area}} + {\text{current fallow}}$$
$${\text{Uncultivated land}} = {\text{forests}} + {\text{land not available for cultivation}} + {\text{fallow land other than current fallow}} + {\text{other uncultivated land excluding fallow land}}$$
$${\text{Land not available for cultivation}} = {\text{area under non}} - {\text{agricultural uses}} + {\text{barren and unculturable land}}$$
$${\text{Other uncultivated land excluding fallow land}} = {\text{culturable waste land}} + {\text{land under miscellaneous tree crops}}\& {\text{groves not included in net sown area}} + {\text{village commons}},{\text{pastures}}\& {\text{grazing land}}.$$
$${\text{Total cropped area}}/{\text{gross sown area}} = {\text{net sown area}} + {\text{area sown more than once}}$$
$${\text{Total fallow land}} = {\text{current fallow}} + {\text{fallow land other than current fallow}}$$

Appendix B: Tenancy and Fallow Land

Consider a farmer who owns land equal to \(L_{0}\), leases out \(L_{s}\) through sharecropping and \(L_{r}\) through fixed-rent form of tenancy. Assuming that the farmer cultivates in \(L_{c}\) amount of land, a simplistic land use optimisation problem of the farmer could be presented as follows:

Maximise \(\tilde{\theta}f(L_{c} ,l,e) - C(L_{c} ,l,e) + rL_{r} + \tilde{s}L_{s} - c_{r} L_{r} - c_{s} L_{s}\)

subject to \(L_{c} + L_{r} + L_{s} \le L_{o}\)

where \(l\) and \(e\) are the labour and external inputs with \(f(\cdot )\) the production function and \(\tilde{\theta }\) is the multiplicative error term, \(C(\cdot )\) is the cost function, \(r\) is the rent per unit area of land, \(\tilde{s}\) is the risky unit output from land that is obtained from land that is given out for sharecropping, \(c_{r}\) is the costs involved in giving out land for fixed rent (which will involve potential loss of land to tenant and other transaction costs involving search for tenants etc.) and \(c_{s}\) is the cost of giving out land for sharecropping (which will involve potential loss of land to tenant and other transaction costs involving search for tenants, and monitoring of efforts). It is important to note that the output from sharecropping is risky while rent is fixed and costs for sharecropping might be higher as it involves monitoring. The Lagrangian of the above maximisation will be as follows:

$$\tilde{\theta }f(L_{c} ,l,e) - C(L_{c} ,l,e) + rL_{r} + \tilde{s}L_{s} - c_{r} L_{r} - c_{s} L_{s} + \lambda (L_{o} - L_{c} - L_{r} - L_{s} )$$
(1)

The first-order conditions for the optimal solution are as follows:

$$\tilde{\theta }\frac{\partial f}{{\partial L_{c} }} \le \frac{\partial C}{{\partial L_{c} }} \, L_{c} \ge 0,$$
(2)
$$r \le c_{r} \, L_{r} \ge 0,$$
(3)
$$\tilde{s} \le c_{s} \, L_{s} \ge 0,$$
(4)
$$L_{o} - L_{c} - L_{r} - L_{s} \ge 0.$$
(5)

The above equations suggest that farmers will cultivate that amount of land at which the risk-adjusted marginal income from cultivation is equal to the marginal costs of cultivation, they will rent out land at which the unit rent is equal to the marginal costs of renting out, and they will sharecrop land at which the risk-adjusted output from sharecropping is equal to the cost of giving out unit land for sharecropping. For those who leave land fallow, the optimal land cultivated, rented out, and sharecropped output together will be less than land owned by them. We have not considered the case of farmers leasing in land, but it can be shown that the conditions will remain the same even if it is considered. We have also assumed the consumption and labour supply decisions to be separable from land allocation decisions in our framework, which may not always be true.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ranganathan, T., Pandey, G. Who Leaves Farmland Fallow and Why? An Empirical Investigation Using Nationally Representative Survey Data from India. Eur J Dev Res 30, 914–933 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-018-0139-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-018-0139-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation