Research on World Agricultural Economy

Understanding the Impact of Agriculture Insurance: Insights and Challenges of PMFY Scheme from Four States of India Using Pearson Correlation

Sirram Divi

Department of Public Policy and Administration, School of Liberal Studies (SLS), Pandit Deendayal Energy University (PDEU), Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382426, India; Honorary Research Associate, Faculty of Management Sciences, Durban University of Technology, Durban 4001, South Africa

Ganta Durga Rao

Department of Public Administration and Policy Studies, Central University of Kerala, Kasargod, Kerala 671316, India

Saurab Anand

Department of Sociology, Gujarat National Law University (GNLU), Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382426, India

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v6i1.1362

Received: 1 October 2024 | Revised: 26 November 2024 | Accepted: 29 November 2024 | Published Online: 13 February 2025

---

Abstract

In India, agriculture and the allied sector is one of the foremost sectors but it is highly dependent on weather, which makes it highly susceptible to climate change risks. Thus, building resilience in the sector becomes imperative. This paper will dwell on ex-post strategy of mitigative measure, by focusing on agricultural insurance (AIn). Currently, PMFBY 2.0, which was rolled out to stabilize farmers’ incomes against the increasing risks due to climate change and the SDGs. The review of the existing literature establishes a dire need for a comprehensive assessment of PMFBY on parameters such as awareness, satisfaction, and transparency. Thus, the present study attempts to fill this gap by measuring the perceived impact (PI) of PMFBY on three variables: awareness, satisfaction, and transparency. The study uses a sequential exploratory mixed-method research design, utilizing qualitative methods and quantitative methods. It uses 15 in-depth interviews and a questionnaire with dichotomous and matrix Likert scale questions to understand variables' effects on scheme performance in four states and their districts. The analysis was done using Pearson correlation to measure the linear correlation of PI of farmers on these variables. The results highlight multicollinearity among the factors, which indicates that PI has a positive relationship with the selected variables. Thus, provides a policy dimension to improve the effectiveness of the scheme through three interconnected variables. The study addresses the issue of the comprehensive assessment of PI on the PMFBY and provides a way forward for policymakers to create resilient policies in the sector.

Keywords: Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY); Crop Insurance; Pearson Coefficient; Agriculture Impact; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); Farmers; Agriculture Resilience

---

References

[1] Indian Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF), 2024. Agriculture and Allied Industries. Available from: https://www.ibef.org/download/1726048647_Agriculture_and_Allied_Industries_August%202024.pdf

[2] Swain, M., Asia Research Centre, London School of Economics & Political Science, et al., 2014. Crop Insurance for Adaptation to Climate Change in India. Asia Research Centre Working Paper 61. Available from: https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/textonly/india/publications/working_papers/ARCWP61-Swain.pdf

[3] Abid, M., Scheffran, J., Schneider, U.A., et al., 2015. Farmers’ perceptions of and adaptation strategies to climate change and their determinants: The case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Earth System Dynamics. 10(1), 167–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-225-2015, 2015

[4] Rite, A., Abnave, V., 2024. Rainfall variability, risk, and resilience: A comparative study of insured vs. Non-insured farmers in Maharashtra, India. Research on World Agricultural Economy. 5(4), 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v5i4.1138

[5] Wallemacq, P., Rowena, H., 2018. Economic losses, poverty & disasters: 1998–2017. Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disaster (CRED) and United Nation Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Available from: https://www.undrr.org/publication/economic-losses-poverty-disasters-1998-2017

[6] Malhi, G.S., Kaur, M., Kaushik, P., 2021. Impact of Climate change on Agriculture and its Mitigation Strategies: A Review. Sustainability. 13(3), 1318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031318

[7] Mills, E., 2007. Synergisms between climate change mitigation and adaptation: An insurance perspective. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 12(5), 809–842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9101-x

[8] Mahul, O., Stutley, C.J., 2010. Government support to agricultural insurance: Challenges and options for developing countries. World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA. pp 157–159. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/698091468163160913/Government-support-to-agricultural-insurance-challenges-and-options-for-developing-countries

[9] Raju, S.S., Chand, R., 2008. Agricultural Insurance in India: Problems and Prospects. National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAEP) NCAP Working Paper No. 8. Available from: https://www.rfilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Agricultural-Insurance-in-India-Problems-and-Prospects.pdf

[10] Wolfe, R., 1998. Opening up the green box: Agriculture in the Final Act of the Uruguay Round. In: Farm Wars. International Political Economic Series. Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK. pp. 106–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230390089_5

[11] Briones, R.M., Cajucom, N.R., 2019. Policy recommendations on integrating crop insurance into crop sector-related policies of ASEAN, and enhancing synergies and cooperation among related ASEAN bodies to crop insurance. Prepared for Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). 20 June 2019. Available from: https://www.asean-agrifood.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Annex-2_Policy-Recommendations-Report_final-draft_20.06.19.pdf

[12] Allied Market Research, 2023. Crop Insurance: Opportunity and Forecast, 2023–2032. Report no. A06791. Available from: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/crop-insurance-market-A06791

[13] Lok Sabha Secretariat, 2014. Crop insurance in INDIA. Report No. 17. Available from: https://sansad.in/ls/library/research

[14] Department of Economic Affairs - Ministry of Finance, 2024. Economic Survey of India: 2023–24. Available from: https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/doc/echapter.pdf

[15] Singh, R.S., 2018. Performance evaluation of PMFBY in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Agricultural Research Journal. 57(4), 389–405.

[16] Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2016. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY).

[17] Singh, P., Agrawal, G., 2020. Development, present status and performance analysis of agriculture insurance schemes in India: Review of evidence. International Journal of Social Economics. 47(4), 461–481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-02-2019-0119

[18] Agarwal, B., 2018. Can group farms outperform individual family farms? Empirical insights from India. World Development. 108, 57–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.03.010

[19] Duhan, A., 2017. Farmer’s perceptions towards crop insurance. International Journal of Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences. 6(8). 1–6.

[20] Gaurav, S., Chaudhary, V., 2019. Do farmers care about basis risk? Evidence from a field experiment in India. Climate Risk Management. 27, 100201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2019.100201

[21] Kaur, S., Raj, H., Singh, H., et al., 2021. Crop insurance policies in India: An empirical analysis of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. Risks. 9(11), 191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9110191

[22] Kollinal, R.K., Moolakkattu, D., Paul, D., 2009. Digital India - the great dream. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET). 10(3), 87–93. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3555052

[23] Ghosh, R.K., Gupta, S., Singh, V., et al., 2020. Demand for crop insurance in developing countries: New evidence from India. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 72(1), 293–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12403

[24] Biswal, D., Bahinipati, C.S., 2022. Why are farmers not insuring crops against risks in India? A review. Progress in Disaster Science. 15, 100241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2022.100241

[25] Kumar, Y., Singh, P.K., 2018. To study the influence of insurance policy on the agriculture field and Indian economy: Concept paper. In: Chattopadhyay, J., Singh, R., Prakash, O. (eds.). Renewable Energy and its Innovative Technologies. Springer: Singapore. pp. 13–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2116-0_2

[26] Sumanth, N., Sanjay, P., Kaveri, K.R., et al., 2020. Agricultural Extension and Support Systems in India: An Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) perspective (Karnataka, Maharashtra and West Bengal States of India). Discussion Paper 20. MANAGE- Centre for Agricultural Extension Innovations, Reforms and Agripreneurship, National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management (MANAGE), Hyderabad, India. Available from: https://www.manage.gov.in/publications/discussion%20papers/MANAGE_Discussion%20Paper%2020.pdf

[27] Florini, A., 2007. The Right to know: Transparency for an open world. Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA; Chichester, UK. pp 309–336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7312/flor14158

[28] Grimmelikhuijsen, S., 2012c. Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: An experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 78(1), 50–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429667

[29] Kadam, A., Patil, V.H., Mali, M., et al., 2024. Evaluating awareness and impact of government schemes in India: A comprehensive study. Library Progress (International). 44(3), 2184–2191.

[30] Morgeson, F.V., 2012. Expectations, disconfirmation, and citizen satisfaction with the US federal government: Testing and expanding the model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 23(2), 289–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus012

[31] Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research. 17(4), 460–469.

[32] Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L.P., 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publication: Los Angeles, CA, USA. pp. 69–247.

[33] Winarni, N.L., Anugra, B.G., Anisafitri, S., et al., 2021. Fieldwork during pandemic: Backyard bird survey and making student’s biological field practice works. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity. 22(4), 1887–1894. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d220435

[34] Jo, E.S., Gebru, T. Lessons from archives: Strategies for collecting sociocultural data in machine learning. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency; Barcelona, Spain; 27–30 January 2020. pp. 306–316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372829

[35] Moon, W., Balasubramanian, S.K., 2004. Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: The mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage. Review of Agricultural Economics. 26(2), 186–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00170.x

[36] Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., et al., 2015. The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 7(1), 22–53.

[37] Shirsath, P., Vyas, S., Aggarwal, P., et al., 2019. Designing weather index insurance of crops for the increased satisfaction of farmers, industry and the government. Climate Risk Management. 25, 100189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2019.100189

[38] Bhuiyan, M.A., Davit, M., XinBin, Z., et al., 2022. The impact of agricultural insurance on farmers’ income: Guangdong Province (China) as an example. PLoS ONE. 17(10), e0274047. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274047

[39] Patel, A., Singh, R., Chaturvedi, P., 2021. Evaluating the impact of public health interventions: A descriptive analysis of key variables. Journal of Public Health Research. 10(2), 145–155.

[40] Field, A., 2013. Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed. SAGE Publications Ltd.: India. pp. 78–102.

[41] Babbie, E., 2013. The Practice of Social Research, 13th ed. Cengage Learning: India. pp. 62–79.

[42] Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., et al., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 88(5), 879–903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

[43] Bryman, A., 2016. Social sesearch methods, 5th ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. pp. 7–16.

[44] Kline, R.B., 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 4th ed. The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA. pp. 424–452.