CHAPTER III

INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE IN GENERAL

Infrastructure is a frequently used word but there is no

consensus in economic literature on its precise meaning. The word

'infrastructure' evolved during the second world war by military

strategists to indicate wide ranging elements of war logistics. It was

later the word used by development economists interchangeably with

"overhead capital", a concept said to have been used for the first time

by H.W. Singer.I He identified two basic characteristics of

infrastructural facilities. First, they are not directly productive and

second, they are in nature of overhead installations, or costs which

are necessary for the continuation of directly productive activities. R.

Nurkse2 used the word "social overhead capital" highlighting several

characteristics of infrastructure, "lumpiness" being an important one.

The other suggested characteristics were that infrastructure facilities

were basic for any productive activity, could not be imported, required

large and costly installations, called for public assistance, had long

maturity period and generated external economics.

In Rostow's scheme of 'stages of economic growth', one of the

preconditions for "take - off' is the building up of 'social overhead

capital'. He suggested three characteristics of social overhead capital

in terms of nature of investment. "First, their periods of gestation and

pay off are usually long. Second, social overhead capital is generally

lumpy. Third, of its nature, the profits from social overhead capital

Singer. H.W 1951 "Development Prospects as Part of National Development Programme" In the Formulation and Appraisal of Development Projects.

Nurkse, R., 1955 Problems of Capital Formulation in Underdeveloped Countries. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

63

often return to the community as a whole through indirect chain of

causation rather than directly to the initiating entrepreneurs. "3

Economists have identified various elements of infrastructure by

using slightly different set of criteria, W.A. Lewis4 has included public

utilities, ports, water supply and electricity as the key elements of

infrastructure, B. Higgins5 has preferred transport, public utilities,

schools and hospitals. For Rosentein Rodan the services of overhead

capital are indirectly productive and become available only after long

gestation periods. According to him "social overhead capital is

characterised by four indivisibilities. First, it is indivisible (irreversible}

in time. It must precede other directly productive investment. Second,

its equipment has high minimum durability. Lesser durability is either

technology impossible or much less efficient. For this and other

reasons, it is very lumpy. Third it has long gestation period. Four, an

irreducible minimum social overhead capital industry mix is a

condition forgetting off the dead end."

The concept of social overhead capital received more liberal

treatment by A.O. Hirschman.6 He defined it as comprising "those

basic services without which primary, secondary and tertiary activities

cannot function. He suggested four conditions for distinguishing

social overhead capital. They are;

1. The services provided by the activity are necessary to facilitate

or are in some sense, basic to the carrying out of wide variety of

economic activities;

2. The services are provided in almost all countries by public

agencies or by private agencies subject to public control, and

they are provided free-of-charge or at rates publicly regulated;

3. The services cannot be imported: and

Rostow, W.W., 1964 The Economics of Take off Into Self Sustained Growth, Macmillian and Co. London.

Lewsi, W.A. I 955, The Theory of Economic Growth, Allen and Unwin, London, I 955.

5 Higgins B. I 959, Economic Development, New York.

6 Hirschman, A.O. I 958, The Strategy of Economic Development, yale Univesity Press, New Haveus.

64

4. The investment needed to provide the service is characterized by

"lumpiness". Hirschman enlarged the scope of social overhead

capital by including all public services from health to

transportation; communication, power and water supply as well

as such agricultural overhead capital as irrigation and drainage

system, besides including law and order. He introduced the

term "hardcore" emphasing transport, communication and

power as the hardcore elements of infrastructure. Youngson7

has elaborated upon the definition of infrastructure as

"overhead capital not as a set of things but a set of properties.

Capital instruments may possess none or some of all these

properties in varying degrees. To the extent that they possess

them, they may be regarded as overhead capital." Thus, the

main characteristics of infrastructural services are:

a) Though not directly productive, these are essential

because of their valuable and indispensable support to

productive services;

b) These services are pre-requisites of development;

c) These services cannot be imported i.e. non-importability;

d) These services are characterized by the Lumpiness of

investment i.e. these services cannot be built in bits and

pieces and there has to be a minimum size;

e) These services generate external economies; and finally;

f) By and large these services are provided by the state.

The above-mentioned characteristics are important for

conceptual clarity, but help us little in research work. We will have to

explore the scope of infrastructural facilities.

Prof. V.K.R.V. Raos has divided the various items of

infrastructure into nine broad categories and has included forty two

activities in it-

7 Yongson, A.J. 1967, Overhead Capital: A Study in Development Economics.

8 Roa, V.K.R.V. 1981, "Infrastructure And Economic Development" Commerce Annual No., Vol. 141, No. 3628.

65

i. Transport Roads, railways, shipping, ports and

harbours, airports and transport equipment.

ii. Communication Posts, telegraphs, telephones, radio, T.V. and

Cinema

iii. Energy coal, electricity, (hydel, thermal, nuclear),

windpower, solar power, oil gas and biogas.

iv.

V.

vi.

Intermediate

goods

Increasing

productivity of

natural

resources

Science and

Technology

vii. Information

System

viii. Finance and

market, health.

Minerals, steel, metals other than steel, basic

Outputchemicals, fertilizers and pesticides,

machinery and machine tools.

Reclamation of land, irrigation (major,

medium, minor) drainage, contour bunding

and land holdings, high yielding bovine

varieties, fishing boats, fishing equipment,

commercial forests.

Teaching, basic and applied research and

national laboratories liaison with production.

Mass media, libraries and museums, fairs

and Exhibitions, books and journals.

Saving institutions (public, private and

cooperative banking sectors) credit and

lending institutions (public, private and

cooperative sectors), and capital

ix. Human Resource Drinking water, disease eradication, public

Development hygiene, family planning, medical facilities,

education - literacy; schools. Colleges and

universities, professional education, technical

and industrial schools, development

disciplines.

This description of various economists and the meaning and scope

assigned by them to term infrastructure reflects the state of debate

Today we come across terms like economic and social infrastructure,

institutional and non-institutional infrastructure, dichotomy of rural

or urban infrastructure, industrial and agricultural infrastructure. It

66

is agricultural infrastructure which forms the core of the present

study.

3.1. Agricultural Infrastructure

The distinction between agricultural infrastructure and other

infrastructural facilities is not a clear cut one. The two categories at

times may overlap. There are a number of services which are shared

by agriculture and industry equally e.g. water supply: marketing and

warehousing; banking and cooperative services and transport and

communication, etc. Hence, all the major elements of infrastructure

also forms the backbone of infrastructure.

There is scarce literature on conceptualization of agricultural

infrastructure. Nicholls9 suggested that in the early stages of

economic development, agricultural infrastructure should be taken up

as overheard capital. He includes transport, education, agricultural

research and extension services, banking and credit institutions. De

Veries 10 scheme includes transportation, communication, power,

health services, education, water supply and housing. Waharton 11 has

provided us with a broader definition. He asserts that "the physical

capital and infrastructure or organisations both public and private,

which provide economic services to and which have significant impact,

directly or indirectly, upon the economic functioning of the individual

farm are included in agricultural infrastructure. He has divided

agricultural infrastructure in capital intensive i.e. infrastructure

which heavily involve reproduction of capital for provision of services,

such as, transport, communication, power installation, irrigation,

institutions and organisations which operate and provide facilities like

marketing, storage and processing. The other division is of capital

extensive which is infrastructural includes those items in which

9 Nicholls, W.H., 1963 "An Agricultural Surplus as a factor in Economic Development", Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 71.

10 De Varies, E., 1958 "Finance for Development", Proceedings of the I 01h International Conference of

Agricultural Economists, London.

11 Whaton. C.W., 1967 "The Inti·astructure for Agricultural growth in Southwork and Jhonston (eds.) Agricultural Development and economic growth, Cornell University Press.

67

capital component is relatively low, such as, agricultural research and

extension, component schemes, agencies catering to provide plant and

animal protection, diseases and pest control organisations. In India,

Shah (1969)12 made an attempt to construct a composite index by

taking all types of infrastructural facilities across the states of India

for 1967-68. The study does not take into account the impact of

infrastructure on economic development over a longer time period.

Sri Prakash ( 1977) 13 has selected each type of infrastructure

facility separately like industrial, agricultural infrastructures etc. But

no attempt has been made to look at the overall impact of

infrastructure.

V.K. Singh's 14 study in 1985 also ignores the sectoral aspects

and takes on overall view of the economy. Most of the studies, dealing

with agricultural infrastructure, have taken single component in

isolation. Kainth (1987)15 made an attempt to study agricultural

infrastructure and its impact on agricultural development across the

districts of Punjab. He had taken four technical and five general items

of agricultural infrastructures but the study has not considered

temporal variation. Lalli (1989)16 has dealt with disparities in Haryana

from 1966-67 to 1982-83 in terms of six items of agricultural

infrastructure. Bist ( 1992) 17 has worked the districtwise variation in

agricultural infrastructure and agricultural development for the state

of Uttar Pradesh. Urmilla (1994)18 had done a comparative study of

the state of Punjab and Orissa from 1961-63 to 1981-83 in terms of

12 Shah, N., 1969 "Infrastructure for the Indian Economy", Commerce, Annual Number. 13 Shri Prakasha, 1977 "Regional Inequalities and Economic Development with special reference to

infrastructural facilities in India", Indian Journal of Regional Services, Vo. 9, No.2, pp. 172-195. 14 Singh, V.K., 1985, Infrastructure and Economic Development in India, M.Phil Dissertation,

CSRD/JNU,ND.

15 Kainth, G.S., 1987, "Infrastructure and agricultural productivity - A Case study of Variations in Punjab," Journal of Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 4, No. I pp. 47-57.

16 Lalli, 1989, Disparities in Agriculture in Haryana, M. Phil Dissertation, CSRD/JNU,N.D.

17 Bist, N.S., 1992, Disparities in Agricultural infrastructure in Uttar Pradesh: 1974-75 to 1984-85 A Regional Analysis, M.Phil Dissertation, CSRD/JNU, ND.

18 Chakraborty, U., 1994, Growth of Infrastructure and Agricultural Development: A Case Study of Punjab and Orissa, M.Phil Dissertation, CSRD/JNU/N.D.

68

agricultural infrastructure and agricultural development. Several

studies are there which deal with open facility like irrigation, credit or

some other infrastructure in isolation. Pantl9 has described the

groundwater conditions in Eastem India. Main reason for agricultural

backwardness has been attributed to the under utilization of ground

water resources. Dhawan2o has done indepth study of irrigation which

he considered to be the most important agricultural infrastructure. He

has assessed the stability and productivity of irrigated lands in India,

discussed several plans and policies to improve irrigation system, to

maximize agricultural growth and achieving stability in output.

Several studies have been done on credit. Desai2I has given a very

general outline about institutional credit, its role in the process of

economic development. Thorat22 has divided rural credit into formal

and informal groups and an all India study is done on the subject. He

has highlighted the variations in the availability of rural credit in

various states and is of the opinion that the role of formal credit

societies has increased over time. Gadgi1, 23 has presented the review

and policies of agricultural credit in India. His study encompasses

agricultural credit institutions like cooperative societies, commercial

banks etc. at state level. Also, the impact of credit institution is felt on

agricultural development.

Market infrastructure is one of the major agricultural

infrastructures. Sidhu24 concentrated on the marketing infrastructure

19 Pant Niranja, "Groundwater issues in Eastern India", Future Directions for Indian Irrigation Research and Policy, Rrth Meinzen Dick and Mark Svendesen (eds), Indian Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

20 Dhawan, B.D., 1988, Irrigation in India's agricultural development- Productivity, Stability and Equity, Sage Publication, New Delhi.

21 Desai, B.M., 1987, "Credit", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 42, No. I, Jan-March, pp. 29-31.

22 Thorat, Sukadeo, 1991 "Regional Dimensions of Rural Credit in India", The Indian Geographical Journal, Vol. 66, No.2, pp. 89-97.

23 Gadgil, M.V. 1986 "Agricultural credit in India: A Review of Performances and Policies,", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economies, Vol. 41, No.3, July-Sept K pp. 282-309.

24 Sidhu, D.D., 1987, "Marketing", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 42, No.I. January­March, pp. 32-33.

69

in particular with the various policies. He evaluated the role of market

in supply of agricultural inputs like seeds, fertilizers, farm machinery

etc. He also discussed price polices and concluded that price policy

should lay emphasis upon the process of development programmers to

find solution to the unsettled problem.

Bhalla and Tyagi25 has analysed the impact of Green revolution

at district level during 1962-65 to 1980-83. They are of the opinion

that new technology has been replicated only in those areas which

had assured irrigation base to the area which have developed

irrigation over a period of time through large investment. To correct

the interregional inequalities, large infrastructural investments have

to be directed towards neglected areas. Johl26 has put emphasis on

the structural adjustments in agricultural sector to enhance growth

and productivity in post liberalization phase. He has discussed the

determinants of agricultural growth and agricultural investment plays

important role in agriculturally marginalized areas.

Mamoria27 and Lekhi28 have dealt with agricultural problems in

India with market and credit facilities in particular. Chopra 29 has

analysed the problems regarding eastern India with rich natural

resources endowments but low agricultural development. This study

attempts to find out the reason for this backwardness.

3.2 Infrastructure : Promoting Agriculture Industry

Provision of adequate and quality infrastructure in rural area is

a 'sine qua non' for increasing the productivity and efficiency of capital

and labour in agriculture, improving the credit absorption capacity of

the area, enhancing the productivity of crops and livestock, generating

25 Bhalla, G.S. & Tyagi D.S., 1989, Patterns in Indian Agricultural Development: A District Level Study. Institute for Studies in Industrial Development. New Delhi.

26 Johl, S.S. 1994, Structural Adjustments in Agricultural Sector for Growth and Productivity. Center for Research on Rural and Industrial Development, Chandigarh.

27 Mamoria, C.B. "Agricultural Problems in India", Kitab Mahal, Alahabad, 1969.

28.Lekhi, R.K., Agricultural Problems in India, Classic a I, Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1986.

29 Chopra, Kusum, "The emerging growth challenges to Indian agricultural", Rawat Publications (1990).

70

employment, increasing farmers income, thereby, minimizing the

incidence of rural poverty. Integration of Indian economy with global

economy and signing of Agreement of Agriculture under World Trade "----~

Organization has presented enormous opportunities as well as

challenges to agricultural sector to become cost effective, competitive

and quality conscious in the international market.

Infrastructure facilities forming the part of the study are (i}

gross irrigated area as percentage of gross cropped area (ii} fertilizer

consumption as kilograms per hectare, (iii} credit to agriculture as

rupees per capita, (iv) percentage of villages electrified, (v) density of

surfaced roads.

3.3 Irrigation Infrastructure

Irrigation hold immense importance in Indian agriculture.

Rainfall is restricted to only four months i.e. June to September in a

year when monsoon arrives. Monsoon rainfall is scanty and

undependable in many parts of the county, at times monsoons are

delayed or cease prematurely, therefore, pushing large areas into

drought conditions. The effects of irrigation on agriculture are many.

There is a firm upward tendency in the overall yield of irrigated crops.

India lying in tropical and subtropical regions has long growing season

and the farmers can grow crops on a year round basis. However, 80

percent of the annual rainfall is concentrated in less than four

months, multiple cropping based on rainfall is generally not possible.

This situation can be reversed with the help of irrigation. Also, the

successful adoption of high yielding varieties depends, to a large

extent, on the timely availability of ample water supply. Benefits of

'package technology' can be extended only if more irrigation facilities

are made available to larger areas of land. The possibility cannot be

ignored that provision of irrigation facilities can make some portion of

fallows, cultivable waste, etc. cultivable. Irrigation definitely reduces

instability in agricultural output levels. There are also lots of indirect

benefits of irrigation. The positive effects of irrigation are not hidden

from the policy makers, leaders of the country and farmers etc. Hence,

71

efforts are made since independence to increase the irrigation

potential.

Now discussing the current irrigation situation of Uttar Pradesh,

The gross irrigated area of Uttar Pradesh in 1980 was 44.79 o/o of

gross cropped area which increased to 56.86% in 1990 and in 2000

66.26% of GCA was irrigated. Hence Uttar Pradesh experienced a

CAGR of 2.41 o/o during 1980-90 and 1.54% during 1990-2000 decade.

The range between the minimum and maximum of gross

cropped area is about 72.5 o/oage points . During 1980's Bahraich has

the least area ( Table III (A) of Annexure) i.e. 13.2% of GCA., while

Meerut experienced the highest proportion of GIA to GCA i.e. 85. 7%.

In 1990 this gap widened to 81.13o/oage points. Bahrai<;:h at the lowest

and Meerut at the highest level of the list with, 16.08 o/o and 97.21 o/o

respectively. In the year 2000 the gap rose to 89.3o/oage points.

Hamirpur the least irrigated and Meerut the highest with proportion of

GIA to GCA of 15.87% and 99.4% respectively.

The difference in the range is increasing but the coefficient of

variation is constantly on decline. This indicates that there has been

an overall growth in the development of irrigation facility in the state

and the variation among the districts is reducing towards better

irrigation infrastructure. (Table 3.6)

The compound annual growth rate is positive leaving aside few

exceptions. Wherever there is negative growth rate, it is miniscule

which has been again positive in 2000. Hamirpur is the only district

where negative growth rate of 2. 7% has been recorded during 2000. (

Table III (A) of Annexure).

Table 3.1 shows the division wise o/o of GIA to GCA. The district

wise data is provided in the Annexure. The administrative divisions

are kept constant at 1980 level. The new districts are clubbed with

their mother districts only, to make the data at three points of time

comparable. It is evident from the table below that the districts in

north and north-west have good irrigation infrastructure as above

72

80% of the GCA is irrigated in 2000. Saharanpur, Meerut, Bareilly and

Muradabad divisions fall under this category.

South-western, south-eastern and part of eastern region

have 60 to 80% of their respective GCA irrigated. Kanpur,

Allahabad, Mirzapur, Varanasi, Agra, Azamgarh, Basti, Lucknow

and Faizabad divisions can be put under this category. Jhansi

and Gorakhpur divisions have recorded 40 to 60°/o of their

respective GCA irrigated, while Chitrakoot and Devipatan

divisions have only 20 tO 40°/o gross irrigated area to GCA.

Divisions

Saharan pur Meerut Agra Bare illy Moradabad Kanpur Allahabad Jhansi Chitrakoot Mirzapur Varanasi Azamgarh Gorakhpur Basti Luck now Devipatan Faizabad

Table: 3.1

Gross Irrigated Area

Gross Irrigated Area

%of GCA

1980 1990 2000 69.43 81.74 89.90 83.77 95.80 97.63 61.26 73.86 79.27 48.76 69.44 82.65 53.28 78.51 83.83 45.14 62.90 65.31 39.12 53.49 66.89 25.09 28.58 41.18 16.97 23.14 24.53 31.38 37.28 62.03 50.64 64.45 73.20 45.00 48.46 79.41 44.91 47.10 41.55 41.09 32.74 67.78 40.60 58.16 69.68 19.69 20.98 30.30 45.44 52.34 67.69

Source: StatiStical Abstract of Uttar Pradesh, CSO, Column 5 & 6 are calculated by Research Scholar

3.4 Fertilizer Consumption

CAGR %

1990 2000 1.65 0.96 1.35 0.19 1.89 0.71 3.60 1.76 3.95 0.66 3.37 0.38 3.18 2.26 1.31 3.72 3.15 0.58 1.74 5.22 2.44 1.28 0.74 5.06 0.48 -1.25 -2.25 7.55 3.66 1.82 0.63 3.75

1.42 2.61

The use of chemical fertilizers has been the third most

important input of green revolution after HYV seeds and irrigation,

rather the three are intertwined. Use of HYV seeds needs heavy dose

of irrigation and fertilizers to give high yields. Since the entire

culturable land has already been brought under plough and there is

73

very little scope for bringing new areas under cultivation, the

extension of net sown area is a difficult proposition.

Generally, the use of chemical fertilizers is made according to the soil

properties. Soil testing is very essential to know the nutrient status of

the soil. As a normal practice, it is suggested that NKP should be used

in the ratio of 4:2: 1 but it also depends upon the quality and

requirement of the soil and differs from place to place.

Although the use of fertilizers has considerably increased over

the years, this increase is more prominent in areas of green

revolution. The national average consumption of fertilizer is 88.2

kg/hectare. It is very high in north-western states of Punjab (190 kg),

Haryana (162 kg), Uttar Pradesh (126 kg) and southern states of

Andhra Pradesh (145 kg) and Tamil Nadu (115 kg).

Uttar Pradesh has the benefit of early start of green revolution

as the western part of the state had a good network of canals and

wells. When the use of HYV started the use of fertilizers came along

with it but eastern Uttar Pradesh started gearing up slowly towards

more use of chemical fertilizers. In 1980 the use of fertilizer was 44.38

kg/ha abd registered a CAGR of 6. 72 % CAGR during the decade 1980

and 1990 when fertilizer use touched 85.02kg/ha. In 2000 it was

recorded to be 123kg/ha witnessing a CAGR of 3.76% over 1990.

During 1980 Hamirpur had the lowest fertilizer consumption of

5.5kg/ha and Meerut had the highest with 89.74kg/ha. In 1990

Hamirpur again recorded the lowest with 22.34 kg/ha and it is due to

this low base that the CGAR is 15% during the decade the 1980-90.

Pilibhit has the maximum fertilizer consumption i.e. 174.57 kg/ha.

During 2000 Hamirpur had still the lowest position with 1 7. 54 kg/ha

and Muzaffamagar topped the list with 199.41 kg/ha (table 2 of

Annexure).

Coefficient of variation has been worked out to understand the

variation among the districts. The value of C.V. is declining every

passing decade, from 1980 (41. 78 %) to 1990 (38.93 %) again in 2000

(38.42 %) but there is only a marginal decline ..

74

The CAGR between 1980 and 1990 is very high in all districts, this is

due to low base value. Kanpur is an exception as it is the only district

which experiences negative growth rate. Between 1990 and 2000 the

compound growth rate is high, but eight districts in central, south­

western and eastern Uttar Pradesh had recorded negative growth rate

(Table III (B) of Annexure)

Table 3.2 shows the division wise use of fertilizers in kg/ha.

Saharanpur and Moradabad divisions has recorded the fertilizer use of

above 150 kg/ha which is quite high if compared with the national

and state averages throughout the study period. In Meerut, Bareilly,

Varanasi, Basti and Faizabad divisions, the fertilizer consumption was

between 125 and 150 kg/ha. Agra, Kanpur, Allahabad, Azamgarh,

Gorakhpur divisions have values below state average but above

national average. Lucknow and Devipatan divisions have low fertilizer

use, they fell in 50 to 100 kg/ha category, while Jhansi and

Chitrakoot fell in the lowest category of below 50 kg/ha. The south­

central and south-eastern districts show the least response to fertilizer

consumption throughout the study period. On the other hand western

and central divisions show high usage. Basti division has recorded a

CAGR of 7% in its fertilizer consumption throughout the study period.

Divisions are competing in their own categories but the broad ranking

has been maintained. The regions with low consumption in the

beginning are still at low ranks and vice a versa.

75

Table: 3.2

Fertilizer Consumption

Fertilizer Consumption

Divisions kg/hectare

1980 1990 2000

Saharan pur 66.16 123.5 175.55 Meerut 75.63 101.61 148.17

Agra 37.54 79.96 108.98 Bare illy 49.55 122.87 145.91 Moradabad 59.63 121.84 169.82 Kanpur 43.13 90.87 124.20 Allahabad 40.66 88.89 113.26 Jhansi 17.43 28.08 44.82 Chitrakoot 6.51 22.71 19.58 Mirzapur 29.26 39.08 67.79 Varanasi 71.66 114.06 133.87 Azamgarh 52.56 86.76 101.71 Gorakhpur 56.90 116.94 123.82 Basti 32.76 66.97 140.08 Lucknow 38.75 81.32 95.75 Devipatan 28.55 44.25 59.63 Faizabad 54.12 88.70 130.41

Source: StatiStical Abstract of Uttar Pradesh, CSO, Column 5 & 6 are calculated by Research Scholar

3.5 Rural Credit

CAGR o/o

1990 2000 6.44 3.58 3.00 3.84 7.85 3.14 9.51 1.73 7.41 3.38 7.74 3.17 8.14 2.45 4.89 4.79

13.31 -1.47 2.94 5.66 4.76 1.61 5.14 1.60 7.47 0.57 7.41 7.66 7.69 1.65 4.48 3.03 5.06 3.93

Agricultural credit is one of the most crucial infrastructure] in all

agricultural development programmes. For a long time the major

source of agricultural credit was the private moneylender. This source

of credit was inadequate and highly expensive and exploitative. Since

independence, a multi-agency approach consisting of cooperatives,

commercial banks and regional rural banks- known as institutional

credit, has been adopted to provide cheaper and adequate credit to

farmers. The major policy in the sphere of agricultural credit has been

its progressive institutionalization for supplying agriculture and rural

development programmes with adequate and timely flow of credit to

assist weaker sections and less developed regions.

We can classifY the credit requirements of farmers into two types­

productive and unproductive loans. The former include loans for

agricultural operations like buying seeds, fertilizers etc. They also

often borrow for unproductive purposes, such as for celebration of

marriages, births and deaths, for litigation etc.

76

Uttar Pradesh is gearing fast to provide this facility to its rural

population. From a megre 28 rs/capita in 1980 the credit to

agriculture rose to 125 rs/capita, recording a CAGR of 16.14 o/o. This

value again rose to 258 rs/ capita, i.e. a compound growth rate of

7.5%. though the state is pacing fast but this credit to agriculture is

much lower than other agriculturally developed states of India.

At district level, during 1980 Kanpur had the least credit

available for agriculture i.e. 8 rs/capita, this value rose to 10

rs/capita in 1990. During 2000 Pratapgarh had recorded the lowest

credit availability with 122 rs I capita. The highest credit to agriculture

was provided in Lucknow both during 1980 and 1990 with 231

rs/capita and 223 rs/capita, respectively though it is 8 rupees lesser

than previous decade but it is the highest. In 2000 Rampur shows the

quantum jump from 213 rs/capita (1990) to 642 rs/capita, carving a

niche at the highest position. (Table III (C) of Annexure)

Table:3.3

Credit To Agriculture

Credit to Agriculture Divisions As/capita

1980 1990 2000 Saharanpur 44 188 349 Meerut 41 198 315 Agra 33 162 423 Bare illy 33 158 426 Moradabad 30 185 461 Kanpur 21 94 251 Allahabad 10 75 158 Jhansi 34 152 258 Chitrakoot 14 96 288 Mirzapur 20 55 261 Varanasi 19 96 159 Azamgarh 21 93 152 Gorakhpur 27 85 144 Basti 17 48 157 Lucknow div 55 112 216 Devipatan div 13 115 222 Faizabad div 20 77 169

.. Source: StatiStical Abstract of Uttar Pradesh, CSO, Column 5 & 6 are calculated by Research Scholar

77

CAGR %

1990 2000 15.6 6.4 17.2 4.8 17.4 10.1 16.9 10.4 19.9 9.6 16.4 10.3 22.4 7.7 16.3 5.4 21.6 11.7 10.6 16.8 17.8 5.2 16.3 5.0 12.4 5.4 10.9 12.6 7.5 6.8

24.8 6.8 14.4 8.2

The coefficient of variation is very high in 1980, henceforth it

drastically reduced in 1990 to 44.23% and again increased by 1% in

2000. the variation among districts is brought down in first decade of

study but the period after 1990 did not experience much changes.

Allahabad, Varanasi, Azamgarh, Gorakhpur, Basti and Faizabad

divisions fell under the lowest category and in the year of 2000 they

provided less than 200 rslcapita as credit to agriculture. The divisions

of Kanpur, Jhansi, Chitrakoot, Mirzapur, Lucknow and Devipatan are

in the low category with 200-300 rslcapita credit made available to

agriculture. Saharanpur and Meerut divisions belong to medium

category with 300-400 rs I capita, while Agra, Bareilly and Moradabad

were in high category of above rs 400 I capita.

The north-western region has performed better in making credit

available to agriculture and the standards are improving over the

study period. The eastern, north-eastern and south-eastern regions

have to put in a lot of efforts to make this infrastructure work better.

On the other hand, central region during 80's performed well but later

the situation changed and the credit availability to agriculture became

too low in comparison to other regions.

3.6 Power

Energy plays an important role in economic development. Power

since early days has been significant factor of the level of development

in commercial sector, but these days it also signifies the level of

development in agricultural sector.

Second way to judge the power scenario in aural India is to see

the villages electrified over the years.

In mechanisation of agriculture, electricity plays a very

important role, it enhances the functioning of inputs and also handles

the output both quantitatively a swell as qualitatively. To improve

agricultural produce especially after green revolution, electricity

helped in further enhancement with the help of pump sets, threshers

etc. Electricity along with improving agricultural output also enhances

78

the living standards of rural people. Electricity has become an

important infrastructural facility.

During 1980s Mirza pur has the lowest percentage of villages

electrified while Meerut had 100% electrification. On an average

39.31% villages were electrified in Uttar Pradesh. In 1990s Mirzapur

was again on the lowest rank and by now Muzaffarnagar, Merrut,

Bulandshahar, Gazipur, Lucknow and Rae Bareli were cent percent

electrified. Gonda had the lowest rank with 37.93% village

electrification in 2000 and 9 districts had 1 OOo/o electrification.

Table: 3.4

Percentage of villages electrified

Village Electrified Divisions o/o

1980 1990 2000

Saharan pur 67.79 95.36 100.00 Meerut 84.48 100.00 99.49 Agra 40.71 85.82 92.65 Bare illy 32.37 62.71 74.76 Moradabad 48.37 76.88 85.16 Kanpur 45.98 72.52 87.67 Allahabad 44.59 75.11 83.41 Jhansi 27.41 63.05 74.20 Chitrakoot 24.32 56.67 65.02 Mirzapur 16.04 38.72 55.57 Varanasi 33.60 85.75 85.24 Azamgarh 31.97 85.38 94.46 Gorakhpur 26.08 61.35 68.29 Basti 29.80 42.60 58.13 Lucknow 37.00 68.00 75.33 Devipatan 23.69 59.45 55.90 Faizabad 39.45 71.28 78.47 Source: StatJstJcal Abstract of Uttar Pradesh, CSO,

Column 5 & 6 are calculated by Research Scholar

CAGR %

1990 3.47 1.70 7.74 6.84 4.74 4.66 5.35 8.69 8.83 9.21 9.82

10.32 8.93 3.64 6.28 9.64 6.09

2000 0.48

-0.05 0.77 1.77 1.03 1.92 1.05 1.64 1.38 3.68

-0.06 1.02 1.08 3.16 1.03

-0.61

0.97

The coefficient of correlation had its declining since 1980

onwards from 45% in 1980 to 25% in 1990 and further to 21 o/o in

2000. This is a good indicator as it shows that the gap in

electrification is reducing among districts.

The western Uttar Pradesh had best infrastructure facilities

throughout the state and from the beginning of the study period.

Contain sections of Eastern and Central Uttar Pradesh are also

performing well in this infrastructure. The Southern districts are poor

79

performers in this facility and have to gear up in the direction of rural

electrification.

The compound annual growth rate is positive during 1980

and 1990. Meerut, Varanasi and Devipatan divisions had experienced

negative CAGR during 1990-2000, but the values are miniscule.

The district wise data show positive growth rate throughout

1980-90 period and the values are high. This is due to low base

values. Gonda has experienced high negative growth rate in 2001.

The overall performance of the state on this front is quite

satisfactory.

3. 7 Road Density

Road transport is of particular advantage to the farmers. Good

roads help the farmers to move their produce, particularly the

perishable products like vegetables, quickly to the mandis and towns.

Only with development of the road system, the farmers can be assured

of a steady market for his products. This assumes great importance in

the context of the green revolution. Besides, good road reduce the

strain on the draught animals also, during the monsoon season

makes possible for the villagers to move out of their villages. Year

round linkage of villages with towns and cities by roads is important

for the overall development of the country.

The indicator used in the study is road length per hundred

square kilometers. The districts adjoining terai belt had poor road

density. In 1980 kheri had lowest density with only 7.58 km /00

sqkm. This position was taken by Rampur in 1990 with 12.39 km

road per hundred sqkm. Balia was lowest during 2001. while Meerut

had recorded highest road density throughout.

80

Divisions

Saharanpur Meerut Agra Bare illy Moradabad Kanpur Allahabad Jhansi Chitrakoot Mirzapur Varanasi Azamgarh Gorakhpur Basti Luck now Devipatan Faizabad

TABLE: 3.5

ROAD DENSITY

Density of Road per 00 sqkm

1980 1990 2000 25.08 33.52 48.99 44.88 57.85 66.09 26.23 38.97 47.60 16.39 21.48 43.25 14.37 19.76 39.61 14.58 21.85 43.69 18.32 25.76 39.93 11.65 19.33 26.52

9.78 15.89 28.33 22.26 32.39 41.22 18.51 28.71 50.65 16.80 31.49 36.34 24.13 39.79 48.27 27.59 33.99 43.34 13.60 . 20.88 47.10 10.75 15.27 40.55 14.44 24.66 40.13

CAGR %

1990 2000 2.94 3.87 2.57 1.34 4.04 2.02 2.74 7.25 3.24 7.20 4.13 7.17 3.47 4.48 5.19 3.21 4.97 5.95 3.82 2.44 4.49 5.84 6.49 1.44 5.13 1.95 2.11 2.46 4.38 8.47 3.58 10.26 5.50 4.99

The average road density was 18 kms in 1990s and 2000 respectively.

The coefficient of variation also declined. The compound annual

growth rate of the state is showing positive trend throughout across

all districts except in Balia where a negative 5.6 percent CAGR is

recorded. we can conclude that the road network is good in western

Uttar Pradesh.

81

Table: 3.6

Coefficient of Variation

Gross Irrigated Fertilizer Villages Credit to Road 1980 Area Consumption Electrified Agriculture Length

%of GCA kg/hectare o;o rs/capita /00 sqkm Minimum 13.21 5.5 16.04 8 7.58 Maximum 85.7 89.74 100 231 75.62 Mean 46.26 45.55 39.31 29.13 18.59 Std Deviation 16.44 19.03 17.80 32.76 10.68

C.V. 35.53 41.78 45.29 112.47 57.45 Gross Irrigated Fertilizer Villages Credit to Road

1990 Area Consumption Electrified Agriculture Length %of GCA kg/hectare 0/o rs/capita /00 sqkm

Minimum 16.08 22.34 38.72 11 12.39 Maximum 97.21 174.57 100 223 90.59 Mean 58.54 87.96 72.96 123.00 27.41 Std. Deviation 20.29 34.24 18.27 54.40 12.77 c.v 34.66 38.93 25.04 44.23 46.57

Gross Irrigated Fertilizer Villages Credit to Road 2000 Area Consumption Electrified Agriculture Length

%of GCA kg/hectare % rs/capita /00 sqkm Minimum 15.87 17.54 37.93 122 16.55 Maximum 105.17 199.41 100 642 95.58 Mean 68.78 114.61 79.13 273.43 43.70 Std. Deviation 20.16 44.03 16.70 124.19 12.88

C.V 29.31 38.42 21.10 45.42 29.47

82

UTTAR PRADESH LEVELS OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

1980

VALUES OF COMPOSITE INDEX

D <-4 .31

D -4 .3o- -2 .29

- -2 .28-0 .56

- 0.57-4.49

- >4 .50

UTTAR PRADESH LEVELS OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

1990

VALUES OF COMPOSITE INDEX

0<-4.31

D -4 .3o- -2.29

- -2 .28- 0.56

- 0.57-4.49

- >4 .50

UTTAR PRADESH LEVELS OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

2000

VALUES OF COMPOSITE INDEX

D <-4 .31

CJ -4.30--2 .29

- -2 .28- 0.56

.. 0.57-449

- >4 .50

Table: 3.7

Correlation Results

Correlation Results Sugarcane Area to GCA (%) Oilseeds Area to GCA (%)

1980 1980 Composite Index (infrastructure) 1980 0.516** -0.401 *

Sugarcane Area to GCA (%) Oilseeds Area to GCA (%) 1990 1990

Composite Index (infrastructure) 1990 0.477** -0.037

Sugarcane Area to GCA (%) Oilseeds Area to GCA (%) 2000 2000

Composite Index (infrastructure) 2000 0.416** -0.324*

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlations & Regression Results

Composite Index (infrastructure) 1980 R Square Value of production (Rs/ha) 1980 0.586** 0.34

Composite Index (infrastructure) 1990 R Square Value of production (Rs/ha) 1990 0.518** 0.27

Composite Index (infrastructure) 2000 R Square

Value of production (Rs/ha) 2000 0.635** 0.40 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The correlation and regression results are significant and show a strong relation

between agriculture and infrastructure. Hence we can conclude that the level of

rural development has a strong inter-linkage between agricultural base and level of

infrastructure available.

86

UTTAR PRADESH AREA UNDER SUGARCANE AND COMPOSITE INDEX OF INFRASTRUCTURE

2000 (Bivariate Mapping)

VALUES OF COMPOSITE INDEX

D <-4.31

1::::::::: :1-4 .30 --2.29

~ -2 .28 - 0.56

~ 0.57-449

~ >4 .50

SUGAR CANE AREA% TO GCA

0 <6

0 6-10

11 - 15

.. 16-20

- > 20

UTTAR PRADESH AREAUNDEAOILSEEDSAND COMPOSITE INDEX OF INFRASTRUCTURE

2000 (Bivariate Mapping)

VALUES OF COMPOSITE INDEX

0 <-4 .31

l: :: :::::: l-4 .30--2 .29

~ -2.28-056

~ 0.57 - 4.49

m >4.50

OILSEEDS AREA % TO GCA

0 <2

0 2-4

5-6

- 7-8

- >8

3.8 Composite Index for Infrastructure Development

Differentiation and integration are the two complementary sides of

any scientific and social research. We have been discussing the role

infrastructure in enhancing agricultural productivity, taking each

infrastructure individually, an attempt has been made to analyse this

relationship in more comprehensive and holistic manner. A composite

index is constructed. This index provides an understanding of

infrastructure in a collective manner. Thereafter this composite index

has been correlated with Value of agricultural output at three points of

time which is 1980, 1990 and 2000. correlations are also run with sugar

cane and oilseed are percentage of gross cropped area.

Maps 3 (a}, (b) and (c) show composite index values over time and space.

We can derive that the levels of infrastructure facilities are concentrated

in north westem Uttar Pradesh during 1980s' and by 2000 whole of

westem Uttar Pradesh is performing well in infrastructure facilities.

Maps 3 (d) and (e) show bivariate maps for composite index on one hand

and cane and mustard on the other.

Infrastructure is positively correlated with sugar cane and negatively

correlated with oilseeds. (Table 3. 7}

89