NABARD Rural Pulse Issue - XVI, July - August 2016

Concept of Farmer in NSSO’s Situation Assessment Surveys of 2003

and 2013: Incomparability Issues and Implications
Dr. Mohinder Kumar*

The 59th round and 70th round of Situation Assessment Survey (SAS) reports of NSSO were
used extensively by researchers in making comparison of income of farmers and change in
other variables, between 2003 and 2013. Comparisons were made by researchers despite
NSSO having clearly stated that “due to the change in coverage and difference in some
important concepts and definitions followed in the two rounds, the results of SAS-2013 (70th
round) are not strictly comparable with the results of SAS-2003 (59th round)”. Beside the
issue of incomparability, survey reports have conceptual issues, i.e. problems in concepts/
definitions (not specified by NSSO) in SAS-2013. In current volume of Rural Pulse we
highlight and discuss major issues involved and reasons behind incomparability located in
contradictions between concepts and findings.

Introduction Comparability Issues

The role of farm statistics, particularly field level
primary data in formulation of policy, planning
and management of well-being of farmers has been
widely acknowledged. The first nationwide Situation
Assessment Survey (SAS) embodying mass of data
on socio-economic aspects of farmers was conducted
by NSSO during 2002-03. A summary of distinct
features, genesis and role in policy formulation of
NSSO’s 59th round of SAS-2003 is succinctly outlined
in an important research paper by Mehta (2009)2.
The SAS-2003 survey report is presented in NSSO
(2005)3. This exercise was followed by conducting 70th
round of SAS-2013 during 2012-13. Researchers, viz.,
Chandrasekhar et al (2016)4, Satyasai (2015)5 and
Satyasai et al (2016)6 have recently used survey-data
and results of SAS-2003 and SAS-2013 survey reports
extensively for making comparisons.
Comparisons were made by researchers despite NSSO
(2014: 4)7 stating that “due to the change in coverage
and difference in some important concepts and
definitions followed in two rounds, the results of SAS
2013 (NSS 70th round) are not strictly comparable with
the results of SAS 2003 (NSS 59th round). While making
any comparison of results of these two rounds, sufficient
care should be taken to account for these differences”.
NSSO (2014) did not elaborate or perhaps did not find it
feasible to elaborate what specific care should be taken
by researchers to account for each type of differences/
changes effected in SAS-2013. Moreover, changes were
in large number.
However, the four differences in SAS of farmers
(farmer households) conducted in 59th round and SAS
of agricultural households conducted in 70th round
mentioned by NSSO (2014: 3-4) in its report, are:

*Assistant General Manager, Department of Economic Analysis and Research, NABARD, Mumbai
1
Results of SAS-2003 survey report were used significantly in formulating policy recommendations by National Commission on Farmers (NCF)
in its report and subsequently in the first ever National Policy for Farmers (NPF) document of Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperation, GoI. See
Mehta (2009).
2
Mehta, Rajiv (2009): “Situation Assessment Survey for farm sector policy formulation”, paper presented from Ministry of Statistics & Programme
Implementation (MOSPI), Govt. of India in Expert Consultation on Statistics in Support of Policies to Empower Small Farmers, Thailand, Bang-
kok, 8-11 September 2009
3
NSSO (2005): Income, expenditure and Productive Assets of Farmer Households, MOSPI, GoI
4
Chandrasekhar, S and Nirupam Mehrotra (2016): “Doubling Farmers’ Income by 2022: What Would It Take?” Economic & Political Weekly,
Volume LI, No.18, April 30
5
Satyasai, K.J.S. (2015): “How Indian farmers borrow, produce and earn: Evidence from NSSO surveys”, Rural Pulse, Issue VIII, NABARD, Mum-
bai
6
Satyasai, K.J.S. and Sandhya Bharti (2016): “Doubling Farmers’ Income: Way Forward”, Rural Pulse, Issue XIV, NABARD, Mumbai
7
NSSO (2014): Key Indicators of Situation of Agricultural Households in India, MOSPI, Govt. of India.

Department of Economic Analysis and Research 1

NABARD Rural Pulse
i. Possession of land was an essential condition for
defining a person as farmer (farmer household) in
59th round, but an agricultural household as defined
in 70th round may or may not possess land.
ii. In order to eliminate households pursuing
agricultural activities of insignificant nature in 70th
round, households having total value of annual
produce more than Rs.3000 were only considered
for inclusion in the survey coverage. In 59th round,
farmers having insignificant farming activities, like
kitchen garden, etc. were straightaway excluded
from coverage.
iii. In 59th round, data were collected for ‘kharif’
and ‘rabi’ seasons from each sample household,
whereas in 70th round, data were collected for
two halves of agriculture year 2012-13 as July to
December 2012 and January to June 2013, from
each sample household.
iv. In 70th round actual expenditure (out of pocket
expenditure) incurred by the agricultural
household for running farm and non-farm business
was collected.
The aforementioned four differences are substantial
and by virtue of these fundamental differences in SAS of
NSSO (2014), there leaves a little doubt that statistical
results and findings of SAS-2003 are not amenable
to compare with SAS-2013. First difference pertains
fundamentally to the definition and concept of farmer/
farmer-household (replaced by agricultural household)
by change in basic criterion of land possession. Second
difference pertains to change in criterion for exclusion of
households pursuing “insignificant” farming activities.
Third difference is also basic and of fundamental nature
–regarding reference period (agricultural year vis-à-vis
season) of data. Fourth difference completely changes
the criterion of accounting costs/expenditure to actual/
out-of-pocket expenditure. With these differences
essentially of fundamental nature, comparison of
results of SAS-2003 and SAS-2013 is naturally expected
to morph into problematic, and be characterized as
comparison between incomparable entities. Basically,
incomparability points to conceptual issues related to
definition of farmer and its related concepts, which are
analyzed as under.
8
See National Policy for Farmers, Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperation, Govt. of India, 2007, p.4
9
SIS-2013 mentions that “households which were entirely agricultural labor households were not considered as agricultural household.” (NSSO,
2014: 3)
10
Three sources, viz., SAS-2003, SAS-2013 and NPF (2015) define farmer in totally different ways.
Department of Economic Analysis and Research 2
Issue - XVI, July - August 2016
Conceptual Issues
In this paper, we have outlined few important conceptual
issues in SAS-2013 vis-à-vis SAS-2003, which draw our
critical attention:
1. Criterion of defining farmer discards
necessity of land possession
Criterion of no-necessity of land possession to define
farmer is contested. In comparison to SAS-2003, overall
sample of SAS-2013 is expected to be biased in favor of
no-land-possessing-persons vis-à-vis land-possessing
cultivators. The essence of conceptualizing farmer as
cultivator is confounded and diluted as he makes way
for something different: a land-disabled farmer. Its
impact was soon witnessed in NPF’s policy document
which includes “agricultural laborers” in its definition
of farmer without mention of land ownership8. Mix-
up in defining farmer’s concept has gained alarming
form whereby SAS-2013 excludes landless agricultural
laborers from definition of farmer9. Divergence from
SAS-2003 definition of farmer based on criterion of
land possession becomes problematic.10
2. Conceptual exit of “farmer” and shift
to “agricultural” unit
The term “farmer (farmer-household)” of SAS-2003
is found absent throughout SAS-2013 report. NSSO’s
definition takes farmer and farming notionally away
from the realm of cultivation toward general notions of
“agricultural-household” and “agricultural activities”. In
the thought process of NSSO, farming is no longer core
activity. There is shift in focus from farmer and farming
activity to “agricultural activities”. For transformation
into “agricultural” system, concept of “agricultural
production unit” (APU) has been devised by NSSO.
However, contours and qualitative dimensions of APU
are not defined in report. Nonetheless it is intended to
dissociate notion of “household” from “farm” so that
general “agricultural” activity henceforth becomes pure
economic enterprise divested of familial connection,
based on hired labor and significant “profit” in a
framework of capitalist micro economic theory of farm-
firm, which is nonetheless not applicable to subsistence
farming. So, this conceptual shift is a major difference
in both the surveys.
NABARD Rural Pulse Issue - XVI, July - August 2016

3. Cut-off value and exclusion of 5. Wage and salary incomes clubbed

households
SAS-2013 excludes “households” from sample which
are “insignificant” and do not fit to be eligible as
“production units”. It claims that to keep large number of
households with insignificant agricultural activities out
of survey coverage, it was decided to have a minimum
value (Rs.3000) of agricultural produce for a household
to qualify as ‘agricultural production unit’. Cut-off value
is arbitrary (despite 68th round NSSO data source) from
quantitative aspect. Moreover idea of exclusion per se
is questionable from qualitative aspect. We contend
that “home grown consumption” per se may not justify
as valid ground to decide on eligibility for “agricultural
production unit” though NSSO excluded only below
threshold/cut-off level households.
4. Biased results due to exclusion
Findings of SAS-2013 are biased to the extent of
exclusion of “insignificant nature” of households.
Exclusion of subsistence households11 from SAS-
2013 shall have impact of artificially inflating average
income since overall sample has greater proportion of
other households doing “significant” sized agricultural
activities. Exclusion of households by NSSO in its
methodology is invalidated and contradicted by the
vision of National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM)
which envisages promoting cultivation of home
vegetable gardens to manage food shocks12.
together
NSSO’s (2014) mixing of wage and salary sources within
same agricultural household is a flawed concept and
marks a break from earlier practice of NSSO (2005) in
59th round that conceived “wage” without hyphenated/
clubbed with “salary”. Fixed salaried class person being
qualitatively differentiated in labor market (class,
nature of job and level of earning) may not be clubbed
with ad-hoc wage-labor class person even within same
household. Clubbing of wage and salary incomes within
a household distinguishes that particular household
from another household that has e.g. no salary income
but only wage income.
Reasons behind Incomparability
Incomparability of results of two surveys, viz., SAS-
2003 and SAS-2013 stems from two reasons: (i)
results and findings of SAS-2013 are biased and so
are less reliable; and (ii) results may be reliable (in
limited sense) only to the extent of their contradicting/
questioning weakly constructed concepts. In the words
of noted philosopher Lukacs13, findings need to “justify
the grounds [criteria] on which the concepts are so
constructed”. A few cases of incompatibility between
findings and concepts/criterion are discussed and
presented in Table-1.

Table 1: Findings and Concepts in SAS-2013: Incompatibility

Finding
About 63.5% of the agricultural households
reported cultivation as principal source of
income. They were dependent mainly on
cultivation (NSSO, 2014: 12).
About 93% of agricultural households in the
country possessed some type of land other
than ‘homestead land only’ (NSSO, 2014: 16)
More than 50% of the agricultural households
in the lowest size class (<0.01 ha) of land
possessed, did not operate any land14 (NSSO,
2014: 16).
Criterion for Concept
Land possession as criterion for
defining farmer is done away with
(NSSO, 2014: 2)
Land possession as criterion for
defining farmer is done away with
(NSSO, 2014: 2)
Land possession as criterion for
defining farmer is done away with
(NSSO, 2014: 2)
Contradiction
With 2/3rd majority of the households principally being
land-tillers doing cultivation, the criterion of discarding
land possession is not justified.
With 93% sample households possessing land since it’s
viewed critical for “significant” activities, criterion of
discarding land possession is not justified.
Daniel Thorner’s concept of Indian farmer “clinging
to land” is proved. Even if they do not operate land,
they continue to have its possession. Land-possessing
households included in sample (but not operating
land) hitherto are anyway similar to “entirely
agricultural laborer” households excluded by NSSO.
Therefore, discarding land possession criterion to select
households is self-contradictory/ unjustified15.

11
Annual consumption of home-grown produce below Rs.3000 (NSSO, 2014: 3)
12
See Food, Nutrition, Health and WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) (FNHW) Interventions –Protocol for Successful Implementation
and Monitoring, NRLM, MoRD, GoI, 2015
13
Lukacs, Georg 1923 (1967): “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat” in History & Class Consciousness, Merlin Press (http://www.
marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm)
14
Such non-operating land-possessing households included in sample are de facto agricultural laborer households, the category which was
excluded from sample by NSSO. Finding suggests exclusion unjustified.
15
SAS-2003 defined farmer/farmer-household by criterion of “operating” land; SAS-2013 defines agricultural-household in terms of land “possession”.

Department of Economic Analysis and Research 3

NABARD Rural Pulse Issue - XVI, July - August 2016

Table 1: Findings and Concepts in SAS-2013: Incompatibility

Finding
Average monthly income of the agricultural
households included net receipts from cultivation, same household are clubbed.
farming of animals, non-farm business and
income from “wages/salaries” (NSSO, 2014: 21)
Average monthly income of the agricultural
households included net receipts from
cultivation, farming of animals, non-farm
business and income from “wages/salaries”
(NSSO, 2014: 21)
A major share of agricultural production is for
own consumption (NSSO, 2014: 28). The data
show a lesser level of awareness about MSP and
even lower level of sale of crops to procurement
agencies. Even for the households reported sale
to the procurement agency, the quantity sold
was a very small percentage of total sale by
these households (NSSO, 2014: 31).
Average annual actual expenditure for
crop production and receipt per sample
agricultural household was Rs.2192 and
Rs.5542, respectively [with net income
Rs.3350] (NSSO, 2014: 36).
Criterion for Concept
Wage and salary incomes within
(NSSO, 2014: 12-13)
“Only actual (out-of-pocket)
expenditure on inputs for
recording agricultural expenditure
was followed. Imputed figures in
respect of consumption of inputs
out of home stock or out of free
collection as well as received in
exchange or borrowed were not
considered.” (NSSO, 2014: 3)
A large number of households
with value of annual consumer
expenditure of home-grown
agricultural produce below
Rs.3000 were eliminated from
sample to define farmer (NSSO,
2014: 3).
A large number of households
with value of annual consumer
expenditure of home-grown
agricultural produce below Rs.3000
were eliminated from sample to
define farmer (NSSO, 2014: 3).
Contradiction
Conceptual discrepancy of wage-salary mix is not
justified as the two sources of income are of different
genre. Therefore, wage-salary conceptual mix is not
justified.
NSSO aptly felt limitation of its own approach: “With
such method of accounting, it would not be possible to
derive true income of the household from agricultural
activities. It would be sufficient to provide income
[narrowly] from ‘paid expenditure’ approach”. (NSSO,
2014: 3). Hence, criterion of only “actual expenditure”
on inputs may not give true picture of net income from
agricultural (farm and non-farm) businesses.
Agricultural produce oriented to self-consumption/
subsistence or sold mainly to local traders does not
render them “insignificant”. Arbitrary exclusion of
such similar households from sample, treated as
“insignificant” types, is not justified.
There is not much difference between net income of
Rs.3350 of sample households and value of agricultural
produce of Rs.3000 for consumption as cut-off for
excluded households. Therefore, arbitrary exclusion of
“insignificant” type of households from sample is not
justified.

Conclusions inconsistency and poor reliability of comparison.

Viewed separately, results of SAS-2003 and SAS-2013 Such comparison may not be very convincing,
survey reports stand valid and hold ground as reliable consistent and dependable for policy formulation.
estimates. Mehta (2009) has recorded “wakeup call” Policy makers would gain from findings of NSSO’s
concern of National Commission on Farmers based surveys only if researchers could keep results of
on SAS-2003 and “dismal” condition/“serious crisis” SAS-2003 separated from SAS-2013 as there are
response of noted economist G.S.Bhalla to the findings serious fundamental conceptual problems.
of SAS-2003. 2. Although researchers made comparisons and
NSSO also termed SAS-2013 exercise as “repeat
However, direct comparison of two surveys may not be
survey” of SAS-2003, comparison/ repeat exercise
held valid as there are comparability and conceptual
may not be termed as adequately successful
issues involved. Conceptual issues are the most
in realizing the avowed objective of NSSO in
problematic aspect of SAS-2013, which renders its
knowing “change in economic condition” of sample
concepts “reified” and not suitable for strict comparison
subjects/respondents –due to incomparability and
of results vis-à-vis SAS-2003. conceptual issues.
Implications 3. It may be better if SAS-2003 is kept separated and
1. Comparison of incomparable parameters is isolated from SAS-2013 in view of paradigm shift in
expected to have adverse implications in terms of conceptualizing farmer16.

This is evident from three different definitions of farmer in SAS-2003, SAS-2013 and NPF (2007)
16

Publisher :- Shri M. V. Ashok, CGM, Department of Economic Analysis and Research (DEAR), NABARD, Head Office: Plot No. C-24, ‘G’ Block, Bandra-Kurla
Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051

Disclaimer: “Rural Pulse” is the publication of the Bank. The opinions expressed in the publication, are that of the Research Team and do not necessarily reflect those of the Bank or its
subsidiaries. The contents can be reproduced with proper acknowledgement. The write-up is based on information & data procured from various sources and no responsibility is accepted
for the accuracy of facts and figures. The Bank or the Research Team assumes no liability, if any, person or entity relies on views, opinions or facts & figures finding place in the document.
email ID : dear@nabard.org www. nabard.org.

Department of Economic Analysis and Research 4