Pattern of Land Concentration
P S Sharma
In this article land concentration ratios have been worked out to measure the relative disparity in the distribution of cultivated area among cultivating households, using data collected by the 1961 Census.
A study of the distribution pattern of households and area over 11 size-classes of holdings reveals that about
half of the total cultivated area is worked by about 12 per cent of cultivating households with holdings above 15
acres. At the other end 57 per cent of the households with holdings less than 5 acres cultivate 16 per cent of the
total cultivated area.
In the second part of the article correlation co-efficiencts between productivity and land concentration ratios
have been calculated for 20 crop regions, five State zones and for the country as a whole. Whatever significant
associations are observed between per acre productivity and (and concentration are all negative, thus confirming
the findings of the Farm Management Studies that the bigger farms have relatively lower productivity.
of the ways to study the pat- the cultivating households and cultitern of concentration of land vated areas have been grouped under
among cultivating households is to 11 size groups of holdings: less than 1,
find out the relative distribution of cul- 1-2.4, 2.5-4.9, 5-7.4, 7.5-9.9, 10-12.4,
tivating households and cultivated 12.5-14.9, 15-29.9, 30-49.9, 50+ and
area among the various size groups of unspecified. The total cultivating
holdings. This is statistically reflected households at all-India level have been
estimated to be 48.2 million accountby the levels of land concentration ratios. Concentration ratio is a statisti- ing for 369 million acres of cultivated
cal measure of the relative dispa- area' giving an average holding size
rity in the distribution of two related of 7.7 acres.
characteristics. It is a slatistical
The State-wise distribution of cultimeasure of the departure of the vating households and cultivated area
given distribution from the line of is given in Table 1. This shows that
equality. The smaller the difference Uttar Pradesh alone accounts for about
between the line of equal distribution one-fifth (9.5 million) of the total culand the given distribution of the re- tivating households, followed by Bihar
lated variables, the lesser will he the with 5.8 million households accounting
levels of concentration. In this paper for another 12 per cent. Maharashtra
land concentration ratios have been with 3.7 million, Andhra Pradesh with
worked out to measure the relative 3.9 million and Madhya Pradesh with
disparity in the distribution of cultivating households and cultivated area.
If the distribution of cultivating
households and cultivated area over
various size classes of holdings is exactly identical, the concentration ratio
will be zero. I f these two distributions
are infinitely uneven, concentration
will be unity.
ONE
4.3 million households, each separately
accounts for about 7 to 9 per cent.
States like J and K with 0.5 million
and Kerala with 1.0 million each account for about 1 to 2 per cent only.
As regards the distribution of cultivated area, it is found that as in the
case of cultivating households, Uttar
Pradesh also ranks high from the point
of view of cultivated area. However,
the relative proportion of area (13 percent) is less than the proportion of households (20 per cent). As
against this, Maharashtra and Madhya
Pradesh with 8 to 9 per cent cultivating households account for 12 to 13
per cent of the area indicating that
the average holding size is higher in
these States. Also in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab, relatively smaller
proportion of households have a higher
In 1961 Census, each cultivating
household is co-terminus with an individual holding. No joint operational
holdings have been considered. In
case of joint operational holdings, the
share of the respective households has
been taken as equivalent to the area
of that holding. Under 1961 Census,
1
The cultivated area has been estimated on the basis of arithmetic/geometric mean fixed for
each of the 9 size classes (except
50 + ) on the basis of actual area
and households especially tabulated for about 150 tehsils, spread
out in various regions of India.
For size class 50 + , the actual
size for a tehsil was taken to indicate the level in a district. The
cultivated area included net area
sown plus current fallows.
1825
December 11, 1965
proportion of area. Reverse lendency
has, however, been observed in Bihar
and West Bengal. In the rest of the
States, more or less equal proportions
of households and area have
been
observed.
A study of the relative distribution
pattern of households and area over 11
size classes at all-India and .State levels
reveals that in rural India about half
(50.69) of the total cultivated area
along with 12.44 per cent households
are located under large sized holdings
115 acre +) and another one-third of
area and households under medium sized holdings (5-15 acres). Only 16.18 per
tent of the area
along with 57.31
households are Iocated under small
sized holdings. The preponderance .if
cultivated area relative to households
under large sized fluidities is also observed in many of the Stales like Punjab [65 per cent), Rajasthan (744 per
cent), Madhya Pradesh (56 per cent).
Gujarat (67 per cent),
Maharashtra
(69 per cent). Andhra Pradesh (55 per
cent) and Mysore (59 per cent). In the
rest of the States, per cent area under
large sized holdings varies between (6
and 3] barring Kerala [13 per cent) and
J and K (1) per cent). As regards
medium sized biddings, it is observed
that in the Stales which are having
relatively significant proportions of
area under large sized holdings. the
household proportions are in excess
of area proportions, Reverse tendency, viz, area proportions exceeding
household proportions, has been unserved in the rest of the States located
in Central [excepting Madhya Pradesh), Eastern and Southern India texcepling Mysore).
The disparity in the proportion of
households and
cultivated area over
various size classes reflects the level
of concentration ratio with respect to
the distribution of area. In seeking
an explanation for the particular level
of concentration ratio, two aspects
have to be borne in mind (a) the disparily in the relative distribution of
households and area over various size
classes; (b) the disparity in households
and area proportions in that holding
SIZE where a
significant
proportion
(50 per cent ) of the cultivated urea
is located. The overall concern ration
ratio for cultivated area could be explained with the help of these two i n dicators. If one is interested in knowing the relative Ievels of concentration
of households as against area, then the
(b) indicator mentioned above would
be replaced by the disparity in area
and households proportions in that
holding size where a significant pro1826
THE
portion (50 per cent + ) of households
is located.
In this
Context if one
glances
through the levels of land concentration ratios as given in Table 2 for 15
States, it is observed that Andhra
Pradesh shows the
highest overall
concentration ratio 1.6076) and Assam,
the lowest concentration ratio 1.4326).
The relatively lower level of concentraion is observed in in Assam because
quite a significant proportion of cultivated area 147 per
cent) is located
under medium sized holdings, where
the ratio of household-area proportion is 0.61:1. Another 36 per Cent of
area is located
under
small sized
holdings where the ratio of householdarea proportion works out to 1.911:1.
Compared to the other States, the relative inequality levels in the distribution
turns not to be of a lower
order in Assam. In large sized holdings, the relative inequalities are higher compared to Andhra
Pradesh in
this sized class, yet since an insigni-
ECONOMIC
WEEKLY
ficant proportion (17 per cent) of area
is located under large sized holdings,
this has not affected the over-all concentration ratio. In Andhra Pradesh,
however, since a significant proportion
of area (55 per cent) as against 14
per cent of households is located under large sized biddings and since in
this size class, the relative levels of
inequality are higher than the levels
under medium sized holdings and
small sized h o l d i n g this has inflated
the concentration ratio. Other concentration ratios can he followed with
the help of this example,
II
Productivity and Land
Concentration
Theoretically, one would expect a
positive relationship between the productivity level and land concentration.
This is because higher the land contration ratio, higher will be area proportion
concentrated
in
relatively
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
December 11, 1965
larger sized holdings and since (he
productivity levels should be higher in
large-sized holdings due to economies
of scale, higher material inputs and
better management, the two are likely
to move in the positive direction.
Under Indian conditions, however, as
the Studies on Farm Management and
1961 Census data have shown, the relatively bigger farms are associated
with relatively lower productivity and
as a result, the land concentration
ratio and productivity levels have a
negative relationship. This negative relationship exists because of the following factors:
(i) Higher Iand. concentration ratios are associated with higher
proportion of area under large
sized holdings,
(ii) The area under large sized
holdings are relatively inferior
in quality of land.
(iii) The large sized holdings are
constituted of many small parcels of lands which in turn are
situated at distances from each
other. In fact, each of these
small plots are small sized
holdings, and, therefore, from
operational point of view, make
large scale efficient cultivation
difficult and perhaps un-economical too.
(iv) Relatively higher pressure of
workers in small sized holdings
enable them to use their land
and other associated resources
more intensively and thus Perhaps get higher per acre gross
production. In the case of bigger farms relatively fewer hands
are perhaps not able to utilise
their resources properly due to
difficulties of supervision, management and control. These
difficulties are particularly foil
in hilly and mountainous areas
where distances between plots
arc difficult to traverse and,
therefore, for operational convenience, the far flung plots are
given on lease to tenants for
cultivation. Also relatively higher proportion of hired workers
among total workers in large
sized holdings lends to deflate
the productivity levels as the
hired workers are supposed to
work less quantitatively and
qualitatively as compared to
family workers,
(v) Recent surveys and studies have
shown that relatively large farmers are of late assuming the
role of traders and speculators
and are in a position not only
* Significant at 5 per cent level of probability.
** Significant at 10 per cent level of probability.
*** Significant at 20 per cent level of probability.
1827