16
S
tate
of
I
ndia
’
s
L
ivelihoods
R
eport
2015
focus on agriculture and rural development
over the years seems to have been declining
(Table 2.2).
The Budget allocations for agriculture,
rural development and irrigation—which
form the core of support to livelihoods—
declined from 11.6 per cent of the total
budget allocation in 2009–10 to 2.7 per cent
in 2015–16. While the allocations in 2015–
16 may be explained by the greater devolu-
tion of resources to states, it is difficult to
explain the decline in 2014–15 during which
the allocation to these sectors was only three
per cent. The Budget allocations also have
to be seen in the context of contribution of
agricultural sector toGDPwhich is around 15
per cent. The data relating toBudget expendi-
ture by states andCentre on agriculture, allied
activities, irrigation and rural development
was examined. The analysis shows that as a
percentage of total budgetary expenditure,
agriculture and allied services got an alloca-
tion of 10.8 per cent in 1991. While over
the years, the level has been fluctuating, it
declined to 8.89 per cent in 2013–14. In fact,
during the last five years from 2009–10, it
remained above the level of 10 per cent.
Similarly, as a proportion of GDP,
the expenditure on agriculture and rural
development sector put together did not
exceed three per cent since the last five
years (Figure 2.1). The maximum level
of 3.1 per cent was reached in the year
1990–91. After that, during the next twenty
five years, it breached the three per cent
level only once in 2008–09. The feeling one
gets is that, despite all the pronouncements
in favour of farmers and their livelihoods,
agriculture and rural development do not
get the desired funding support in the form
of development programmes that improve
production, productivity and incomes.
Some of the money intended to support
farmers, perhaps, is accounted for under
the Ministry of Finance for subsiding the
cost of farm credit and other ministries for
input subsidies on power, fertilisers, etc.
The linkage between subsidised farm credit
and improved farm livelihoods is nebulous.
Money being fungible, the subsidised credit
is perhaps excessively drawn by larger farm-
ers with banking access and diverted for
other purposes and really not applied in
agriculture per se. The diversion of resources
inequitably, impacts the small andmarginal
farmers who either do not have access to
the banking system or even when they have
it, can obtain very small amounts of credit.
The
krishkonnati
is mostly continuation of
earlier programmes and the addition of new
irrigation programmes.
What is clear from the Centre’s move is
that the responsibility to cater to the needs of
social sector, socially disadvantaged sections
as well as rural economic development has
been placed on the states. But whether these
expectations will be realised just because
higher revenue devolutions to states have
Table 2.2:
Combined current and capital expenditure of centre and states on agriculture and rural development (
`
billion)
1990–91 2000–01
2005–06
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
2013–14
Agriculture allied
117.14
308.21
584.27
1,270.91
1,446.43
1,509.11
1,886.62
2,128.27
Of which rural development
51.47
147.28
367.67
741.58
835.98
850.15
1,021.24
1,146.18
Net agriculture and allied
65.67
160.93
216.60
529.33
610.45
658.96
865.38
982.09
Irrigation major
32.78
120.71
248.64
346.05
346.70
363.27
430.34
505.75
Irrigation minor
14.82
28.88
53.44
100.93
121.26
130.45
170.36
203.45
Total irrigation
47.60
149.59
302.08
446.98
467.96
493.72
600.70
709.20
Capital expenditure on agriculture
6.67
37.11
55.42
164.24
126.06
173.41
195.42
237.87
Agriculture and irrigation
113.27
310.52
518.68
976.31
1,078.41
1,152.68
1,466.08
1,691.29
Total budget expenditure
1,526.01
5,448.32 9,292.06
18,103.75
21,060.41 23,478.32
27,284.07
31,916.55
Source:
Indian Public Finance Statistics 2013–14, Economic Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India; Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2014, Ministry
of Agriculture.
