Farmer education and household agricultural income in rural India

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences in the rural household agricultural income by farmers’ education while exploiting a nationally representative household survey data set, i.e. the India Human Development Survey-2005, in the rural Indian context. The author seeks to answer the question: how much variation in the household net agricultural income per acre of land cultivated can farmers’ education explain? Design/methodology/approach - – The author has employed the ordinary least squares regression model with village fixed effects. The author also analysed the data using some exploratory statistics. Findings - – The author finds that farmers’ education significantly increases the net household farm income per acre of land cultivated last year. The results are robust to the inclusion of the five educational degree categories (dummies) in lieu of the years of schooling variable. The results are also robust to its decomposition into that for men and for women separately. Women farmers’ education has an amplified impact on farm incomes. The author also confirms the inverse relationship between the household agricultural income and land area cultivated, which is consistent with the huge literature on the negative relationship between land size-class and farm productivity. Practical implications - – In a developing country with a not-so-modernized agriculture sector and low adoption of newer farming technologies, this validated importance of education in explaining the differences in rural farm earnings has guiding policy implications in that a positive return to farmer schooling signals the need for increased investments in the farmers’ education and awareness so as to enhance farm incomes and productivity. The special policy thrust on education of women and women farmers is critical to ensuring higher farm incomes and outcomes. Originality/value - – The literature on the impact of farmers’ education on rural household agricultural income is very sparse. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this issue has not been addressed before in the Indian context. The author explains the contribution of farmer education to farm income in rural Indian households. The author also revisits the negative relationship between farm income and land size holdings in the Indian agriculture.