Farm Growth in Northeast India and Its Effect on Poverty

  • K. U. Viswanathan
  • Anannya Gupta
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)


Experience of growth in BRICS countries shows that one percentage growth in agriculture is two to three times more effective in poverty reduction when compared to one percentage growth emanating from non-agricultural sectors. State average of sectoral GSDP growth over 2008–09 to 2013–14 shows a recovery of 4.1% per annum as compared to 1.7% per annum during 2000–01 to 2004–05. Six out of the eight Northeastern states of India show higher than all India average performance during this period, viz. Sikkim (9.8%), Tripura (6.1%), Arunachal Pradesh (5.5%), Meghalaya (4.9%), Nagaland (4.9%) and Mizoram (4.3%). State wise analysis of various agricultural parameters and multi-dimensional poverty indicators revealed that each state has a unique relationship in terms of growth in agriculture and poverty. The hypothesis of high farm growth reduced poverty was true for Sikkim, Tripura, Meghalaya and Assam and true in the reverse direction for Manipur. High growth of agriculture was non-inclusive and hence could not have impact on poverty in Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland. Mizoram with too many population in rural areas depending on agriculture had high farm growth and but increase in rural poverty. However, the state had only 0.094 MPI value in 2011–12. Overall, states with high GSDPA growth observed reduced poverty taking other parameters into account. States with high share of Non-Farm Sector (NFS) and Animal Husbandry (AH) in monthly income of agricultural household had improving rural poverty. Improving performance of agriculture needs to be focused upon reducing poverty, both incidence and intensity of poverty. Among agricultural inputs, irrigation needs to be prioritised, as in ground water resources in northeast India are under-utilized while blessed with sufficient rainfall, which offers scope to install a battery of shallow and deep tube wells to draw ground water during the Rabi season. Further, efforts are to be made to increase production and productivity of high-value crops. Northeastern states have skill and raw materials to engage in self-employment activities, viz. weaving, pottery, cane and bamboo products, etc., and therefore, with the development of agriculture sector, NFS also to be stressed upon.


Farm growth Poverty Source of growth Inclusion 


  1. Agriculture Census, 2010–11. (2012). Agriculture census division, Department of agriculture & co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  2. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2014. (2015). Oxford University Press: Delhi.Google Scholar
  3. Binswanger, H. P. (1986). Agricultural mechanization: A comparative historical perspective. The World Bank Research Observer, 1, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Census of India. (2011). Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  5. Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy Pvt. Ltd. (CMIE). (2015). States of India. Retrieved from: on June30, 2015.
  6. Datt, G., & Ravallion, M. (1996). How important to India’s poor is the sectoral composition of economic growth? The World Bank Economic Review, 10, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Government of India (2013–14). (2014). Economic survey. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gallup, J., Radelet, S., & Warner, A. (1997). Economic growth and the income of the poor. CAER Discussion Paper No. 36. Harvard Institute for International Development: Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Government of India. (2012a). State of Indian agriculture 2011–12. (2012). Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  10. Government of India. (2012b). Background note and agenda for conference of state ministers and state secretaries in-charge of rural water supply and rural sanitation, Ministry of Drinking Water & Sanitation, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  11. Government of India. (July, 2013). Poverty estimates for 2011–12, Press note on Poverty Estimates, 2011–12. Planning Commission, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  12. Government of India. (2014). Key indicators of situation of agricultural households in India, NSS 70th Round, MoSPI, GoI, December 2014.Google Scholar
  13. Hazell, P., Ramasamy, C., et al. (1991). The green revolution reconsidered: The impact of high-yielding rice varieties in South India. Baltimore, USA and London, UK: Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Ministry of Agriculture, National Horticulture Board, India Horticulture Database—(2013) (2014).Google Scholar
  15. Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of India. (2015). Land use statistics. Retrieved from on July 15, 2015.
  16. Lipton, M., & Longhurst, R. (1989). New seeds and poor people. London, UK: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  17. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI). (2015). India country briefing, multidimensional poverty index data bank. In Oxford poverty and human development initiative. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Pocket Book on Agricultural Statistics. (2013). Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  19. Warr, P. (2001). Poverty reduction and sectoral growth, results from South East Asia. Canberra, Australia: Australia National University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NABARD, Assam Regional OfficeGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations