Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:35:01.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minor millets in Tamil Nadu, India: local market participation, on-farm diversity and farmer welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2012

Hiroyuki Takeshima  and
Latha Nagarajan
Hiroyuki Takeshima
Affiliation:
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), USA. Email: [email protected]
Latha Nagarajan
Affiliation:
International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), 1331 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although farmer market participation raises income, it often also reduces on-farm varietal diversity. However, for under-utilized crops like minor millets, market participation may actually encourage growers to increase on-farm diversity through better access to new varieties exchanged at local markets and higher returns from varieties already grown. We test this hypothesis in two different agro-ecological niches, the Plains and the Hills in southern India. Empirical results based on propensity score matching indicate that, in the less fertile dryland plains, market participation improved on-farm varietal diversity of minor millets and increased net revenues – albeit with insignificant welfare effects on farm households. On the other hand, in the fertile hill ecosystems, market development had no effect on varietal diversity. Insights from such a comparison could help design suitable policy interventions for on-farm conservation of under-utilized crops in their own agro-ecosystems through active stakeholder participation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 5: Seed supply in local markets: supporting sustainable use of crop genetic resources , October 2012 , pp. 603 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Becerril, J. and Abdulai, A. (2010), ‘The impact of improved maize varieties on poverty in Mexico: a propensity score-matching approach’, World Development 38(7): 1024–1035.Google Scholar
Bellon, M. (2004), ‘Conceptualizing interventions to support on-farm genetic resource conservation’, World Development 32(1): 159–172.Google Scholar
Benin, S., Smale, M., Pender, J., Gebremedhin, B., and Ehui, S. (2004), ‘The economic determinants of cereal crop diversity on farms in the Ethiopian highlands’, Agricultural Economics 31 (2–3): 197–208.Google Scholar
Bezabih, M. (2008), ‘Agrobiodiversity conservation under an imperfect seed system: the role of community seed banking schemes’, Agricultural Economics 38(1): 77–87.Google Scholar
Bioversity International (2011), ‘Assessing the risk status of minor millets in the Kolli Hills, Tamil Nadu, India: Payments for Agrobiodiversity Conservation Services (PACS). Research findings (India 1)’, Rome: Bioversity International, [Available at] http://www.syngentafoundation.org/__temp/7__Research_Findings_1_EN_India_Rev.pdf.Google Scholar
Caliendo, M. and Kopeinig, S. (2008), ‘Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching’, Journal of Economic Surveys 22(1): 31–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, J., Swindale, A., and Bilinsky, P. (2007), ‘Household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide (v. 3)’, Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development.Google Scholar
Cochran, W.G. and 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
Cunguara, B. and Darnhofer, I. (2011), ‘Assessing the impact of improved agricultural technologies on household income in rural Mozambique’, Food Policy 36(3): 378–390.Google Scholar
Cunguara, B. and Moder, K. (2011), ‘Is agricultural extension helping the poor? Evidence from rural Mozambique’, Journal of African Economies 20(4): 562–595.Google Scholar
Di Falco, S., Bezabih, M., and Yesuf, M. (2010), ‘Seeds for livelihood: crop biodiversity and food production in Ethiopia’, Ecological Economics 69(8): 1695–1702.Google Scholar
DiNardo, J. and Tobias, J. (2001), ‘Nonparametric density and regression estimation’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(4): 11–28.Google Scholar
DiPrete, T. and Gangl, M. (2004), ‘Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments’, Sociological Methodology 34(1): 271–310.Google Scholar
FAO (2011), Guidelines for Measuring Dietary Diversity, Rome: FAO, [Available at] http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/wa_workshop/docs/FAO-guidelines-dietary-diversity2011.pdf.Google Scholar
Gotland, E., Sadoulet, E., de Janvry, A., Murgai, R., and Ortiz, O. (2004), ‘The impact of farmer field schools on knowledge and productivity: a study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 53(1): 63–92.Google Scholar
Government of Tamil Nadu (2010), Season and Crop Report of Tamil Nadu, 2008–09 (Fasli 1418), Chennai: Department of Statistics and Economics.Google Scholar
Gruère, G.P., Giuliani, A.., and Smale, M. (2008), ‘Marketing underutilized plant species for the poor: a conceptual framework’, in Kontoleon, A., Pasquale, U. and Smale, M. (eds), Agrobiodiversity, Conservation, and Economic Development. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gruère, G., Nagarajan, L., and Oliver King, E.D.I. (2009), ‘The role of collective action in the marketing of underutilized plant species: lessons from a case study on minor millets in South India’, Food Policy 34(1): 39–45.Google Scholar
Hayenga, M.L. (ed.) (1979), ‘Pricing problems in the food industry (with emphasis on thin markets)’, Monograph No. 7, N.C. Project 117.Google Scholar
Hoddinott, J. and Yohannes, Y. (2002), ‘Dietary diversity as a food security indicator’, FCND Discussion Paper No. 136, IFPRI, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S.P. (2001), The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Imbens, G. and Woolridge, J. (2009), ‘Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation’, Journal of Economic Literature 47(1): 5–86.Google Scholar
Lipper, L., Dalton, T., Anderson, C.L., and Keleman, A. (2010), ‘Agricultural markets and the sustainable utilization of crop genetic resources’, in Lipper, L., Leigh Anderson, C. and Dalton, T. (eds), Seed Trade in Rural Markets: Implications for Crop Diversity and Agricultural Development. London: Earthscan, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. (1988), Ecological Diversity and its Measurement, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Meng, E.C.H., Smale, M., Bellon, M.R., and Grimanelli, D. (1998), ‘Definition and measurement of crop diversity for economic analysis’, in Smale, M. (ed.), Farmers, Gene Banks, and Crop Breeding, Boston: Kluwer, pp. 19–31.Google Scholar
MSSRF (M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation) (2002), ‘Rural and Tribal Women in Agro-Biodiversity Conservation’, FAO RAP Publication 2002/08, Bangkok: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.Google Scholar
Nagarajan, L. and Smale, M. (2007), ‘Local seed systems and village level determinants of millet crop diversity in marginal environments of India’, Euphytica 155 (1–2): 167–182.Google Scholar
Nagarajan, L., Oliver King, E.D.I., Smale, M., and Dalton, T.J. (2010), ‘Access to minor millet genetic resources in rural market towns of Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu, India’, in Lipper, L., Anderson, C.L. and Dalton, T.J. (eds), Seed Trade in Rural Markets, Rome: FAO and London: Earthscan, pp. 125–145.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P.R. (2002), Observational Studies, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1985), ‘Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score’, American Statistician 39(1): 33–38.Google Scholar
Ruel, M. (2003), ‘Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review of measurement issues and research priorities’, Journal of Nutrition 133(11): 3911s–3926.Google Scholar
Shilpi, F. and Umali-Deininger, D. (2008), ‘Market facilities and agricultural marketing: evidence from Tamil Nadu, India’, Agricultural Economics 39(3): 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sianesi, B. (2004), ‘An evaluation of the Swedish system of active labour market programmes in the 1990s’, Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1): 133–155.Google Scholar
Smale, M., Bellon, M.R., Jarvis, D., and Sthapit, B. (2004), ‘Economic concepts for designing policies to conserve crop genetic resources on farms’, Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51(2): 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. and Todd, P. (2005), ‘Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?’, Journal of Econometrics 125 (1–2): 303–353.Google Scholar
Sthapit, B.R., Padulosi, S., and Mal, B. (2010), ‘Role of on-farm/in-situ conservation and underutilized crops in the wake of climate change’, Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources 23(2): 145–156.Google Scholar
Van Dusen, M.E. (2000), ‘In situ conservation of crop genetic resources in the Mexican Milpa system’, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Davis.Google Scholar
Van Dusen, E. and Taylor, J.E. (2005), ‘Missing markets and crop diversity: evidence from Mexico’, Environment Development Economics 10(4): 513–531.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J.M. (2002), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar