Agricultural Mechanization in Nepal—Patterns, Impacts, and Enabling Strategies for Promotion



This chapter assesses the overall trends of mechanization in Nepal, identifies the determinants of its adoption, and assesses their impacts on household incomes and agricultural productivity. It mainly focuses on key agricultural machineries—tractors, threshers, and pumps, which all have generally substantive transformational effects compared to more traditional tools. The chapter also identifies policy implications for the adoption of mechanization by smallholders.



Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal


Agricultural Perspective Plan


Center for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization




International Rice Research Institute


Land Reform Saving Corporation


Ministry of Agricultural Development


National Agricultural Mechanization Committee


Centre for Natural Resources Management, Analysis, Training and Policy Research


Nepal Living Standard Survey


Propensity score matching


US Dollar


Value-added tax


Village Development Committee


  1. Biggs, S., & Justice, S. (2015). Rural and agricultural mechanization: A history of the spread of small engines in selected Asian countries. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01443.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, S., Justice, S., Gurung, C., Tripathi, J., & Sah, G. (2002, November). The changing power tiller innovation system in Nepal: An actor-oriented analysis. In A workshop on Agricultural and Rural Mechanization, Bangladesh Agricultural University. Bangladesh: Mymensingh.Google Scholar
  3. Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agrarian change under population pressure. London: Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Chamberlain, G. (1984). Panel data. In Z. Grilliches & M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 2, pp. 1247–1318). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cochran, W. G., & Rubin, D. B. (1973). Controlling bias in observational studies: A review. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A, 35(4), 417–446.Google Scholar
  6. CSAM (Center for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization). (2014). Country Pages. Accessed July 2, 2014.
  7. Gellner, D. N. (2007). Caste, ethnicity and inequality in Nepal. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(20), 1823–1828.Google Scholar
  8. Giordano, M., de Fraiture, C., Weight, E., & van der Bliek, J. (2012). Water for wealth and food security: Supporting farmer-driven investments in agricultural water management: Synthesis report of the AgWater solutions project, 38.Google Scholar
  9. Hatlebakk, M. (2016). Inter-generational determinants of migration decisions: The case of International Labour Migration from Nepal. Oxford Development Studies, 44(1), 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IRRI. (1986). Small farm equipment for developing countries. Los Banos, The Philippines: IRRI.Google Scholar
  12. Joshi, K. D., Conroy, C., & Witcombe, J. R. (2012). Agriculture, seed, and innovation in Nepal: Industry and policy issues for the future (pp. 1–60). Washington, DC, United States: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Khoju, M. R. (1983). Economics of pump irrigation in Eastern Nepal. In Consequences of small-farm mechanization. IRRI.Google Scholar
  14. Matthews, R. B., & Pilbeam, C. (2005). Modelling the long-term productivity and soil fertility of maize/millet cropping systems in the mid-hills of Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 111(1), 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. NARMA Consultancy Private Limited. (2016). Agri-mechanization Promotion Strategy Implementation Plan and Budgeting. Draft report.Google Scholar
  16. Pingali, P. (2007). Agricultural mechanization: Adoption patterns and economic impact. In R. Evenson & P. Pingali (Eds.), Handbook of agricultural economics (pp. 2779–2805). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrica, 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roumasset, J., & Thapa, G. (1983). Explaining tractorization in Nepal: An alternative to the ‘consequences approach’. Journal of Development Economics, 12(3), 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rubin, D. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2(3–4), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seddon, D. (1995). Migration: Nepal and India. In R. Cohen (Ed.), The Cambridge survey of world migration (pp. 367–370). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Shah, T., Hassan, M., Khattak, M. Z., Banerjee, P. S., Singh, O. P., & Rehman, S. U. (2009). Is irrigation water free? A reality check in the Indo-Gangetic Basin. World Development, 37(2), 422–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shah, T., Singh, O. P., & Mukherji, A. (2006). Some aspects of South Asia’s groundwater irrigation economy: Analyses from a survey in India, Pakistan. Nepal Terai and Bangladesh. Hydrogeology Journal, 14(3), 286–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh, O. P., & Kumar, M. D. (2008). Using energy pricing as a tool for efficient, equitable and sustainable use of groundwater for irrigation: Evidence from three locations of India. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting of IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program (Vol. 1, pp. 413–438). Hyderabad, India: International Water Management Institute.Google Scholar
  24. Takeshima, H. (2017a). Custom-hired tractor services and returns to scale in smallholder agriculture: a production function approach. Agricultural Economics 48(3), 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Takeshima, H. (2017b). Overview of the evolution of agricultural mechanization in Nepal: A focus on tractors and combine harvesters. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1662. Washington, D.C.
  26. Takeshima, H., Adhikari R., & Kumar, A. (2016a). Is access to tractor service a binding constraint for Nepali Terai farmers? IFPRI Discussion Paper 01508.Google Scholar
  27. Takeshima, H., Adhikari, R., Kaphle, B. D., Shivakoti, S., & Kumar, A. (2016b). Determinants of chemical fertilizer use in Nepal: Insights based on price responsiveness and income effects. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01507.Google Scholar
  28. Takeshima, H., Shrestha, R. B., Kaphle, B. D., Karkee, M., Pokhrel, S., Kumar, A. (2016c). Effects of agricultural mechanization on smallholders and their self-selection into farming: An insight from the Nepal Terai. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01583.Google Scholar
  29. Takeshima, H., Edeh, E., Lawal, A., & Isiaka, M. (2015a). Characteristics of private-sector tractor service provisions: Insights from Nigeria. Developing Economies, 53(3), 188–217.Google Scholar
  30. Takeshima, H., Adhikari, R., Poudel, M. N., & Kumar, A. (2015b). Farm Household Typologies and Mechanization Patterns in Nepal Terai. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01488.Google Scholar
  31. Takeshima, H., & Nkonya, E. (2014). Government fertilizer subsidy and commercial sector fertilizer demand: Evidence from the Federal Market Stabilization Program (FMSP) in Nigeria. Food Policy, 47, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Takeshima, H., & Yamauchi, F. (2012). Risks and farmers’ investment in productive assets in Nigeria. Agricultural Economics, 43(2), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Food Policy Research InstituteWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.Facilitating the Pursuit of SDGs in Nepal (FPSN), National Planning Commission/Nepal and UNDPKathmanduNepal

Personalised recommendations