See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350891191

Performance of universal basic income programme in India: A case of PM-KISAN

Scheme

Article in Indian Journal of Extension Education · January 2020

DOI: 10.5958/2454-552X.2020.00001.8

CITATIONS READS
8 876

7 authors, including:

Kavitha H.N. Pramod Kumar

University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore Indian Agricultural Research Institute
3 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS 139 PUBLICATIONS 686 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anbukkani Perumal Rajarshi Roy Burman

Indian Agricultural Research Institute Indian Agricultural Research Institute
63 PUBLICATIONS 334 CITATIONS 170 PUBLICATIONS 877 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anbukkani Perumal on 10 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indian Journal of Extension Education
Vol. 56, No. 3, 2020 (1-8)

Performance of Universal Basic Income Programme in India:

A Case of PM-KISAN Scheme

Kavitha H.N.1, Pramod Kumar2, Anbukkani P. 3, Burman R.R.4

P. Venkatesh5, G.K. Jha6 and Prakash P.7

ABSTRACT

The study analysed the performance of the states with respect to the implementation of universal basic income programme
for farmers i.e., PMKISAN scheme. It is observed that a large proportion of total number of PMKISN beneficiaries belongs
to Uttar Pradesh (22 %),followed by Maharashtra (10.2 %) and Madhya Pradesh (7.2%). Large variation in performance of
the states as reflected from the proportion of beneficiaries to potential beneficiaries is observed. The states like Manipur,
Punjab, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Assam and Haryana rank high while the states like Sikkim, Goa, Lakshadweep,
Puducherry, Tripura, Bihar, etc., are lying at the bottom. The factors that are responsible for improving the performance of
the relatively poor performing states are greater financial access to farmers, infrastructural improvement and greater spread
of technology dissemination. It is also suggested that the states should focus on digitization of land records and Aadhar
seeding with bank accounts of prospective beneficiaries.

Key words: Cash transfer scheme, discriminant function analysis, PMKISAN, universal basic income.

INTRODUCTION
Various social protection schemes are in operation in
different countries with almost similar meaning and
content like, Universal Basic Income, Social Protection
Floor, Guaranteed Minimum Income, Universal Social
Protection, etc (Ortiz et al, 2018). The Union Finance
Minister Shri Arun Jaitley has advocated the concept of
Universal Basic Income (UBI) as an alternative to the
various social welfare schemes in an effort to reduce
poverty (GoI, 2016-17). The Survey showed that a UBI
that reduces poverty to 0.5 percent would cost between 4-
5 per cent of GDP, assuming that those in the top 25 per
cent income bracket do not participate. On the other hand,
the existing middle class subsidies and food, petroleum
and fertilizer subsidies cost about 3 per cent of GDP (PIB,
2017). The UBI scheme has financial implications for the
countries economy. In most cases it has not been
1.
Research Scholar, 2&6, Principal Scientists, 3&5. Senior Senior Scientists, Division of Agricultural, Economics, ICAR–IARI, 4. Principal Scientist, Division
of Agricultural Extension, ICAR–IARI, New Delhi and 7. Scientist, Section of Extension and Social Sciences, CTCRI, Thiruvananthpuram, Kerala.
continued for long due to the kind of fund needed for its
operation. The experiment being conducted by the NGO
GiveDirectly in Kenya is one of the few were the transfers
are given to all adults within selected communities and
over more than a decade (Banerjee et al., 2019). The UBI
programme being implemented in various parts of the
world has varying impact on socio-economic conditions
of the people. It is found to have a significant positive
effect on household expenditure, household coping
strategies, school enrollment, shift to nutritious food,
increased in health/education spending, decreased early
pregnancy; increased labour supply; increased living
standards, etc (Attanasio and Mesnard, 2006; Aker et al.,
2013; Akresh et al., 2013; Baird et al., 2013; Blattman et
al., 2013; Duryea and Morrison 2004; Michael 2018).
Agriculture in India is confronted with indebtedness,
climatic risk and price volatility (Joshi, 2018). To
overcome these, the government of India has initiated a
number of schemes like Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna
 2 INDIAN JOURNAL OF EXTENSION EDUCATION
(PMFBY), Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojna
(PMKSY), Soil Health Card (SHC), National
Agricultural Market (eNAM), market reforms, etc.
However the farm distress continues to plague rural India.
As a result the Prime Minister Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojna
(PMKISAN) scheme was introduced in the country on
th
24 February 2019 and became effective from 1
December 2018. The scheme is a Universal Basic Income
Programme for farmers to be given in Direct Benefit
Transfer mode (DBT). The scheme is intended to fuel
demand in rural economy, to enable the farmers to buy
inputs for agriculture and allied sector as also for meeting
their personal needs. The scheme is hailed as an efficient
one over the loan waiver and subsidy programmes as the
money is transferred directly into the farmers account. A
sum of ` 2000/- is given before each of the three crop
seasons with the aim that the farmers would use it for the
purpose of buying of inputs for agriculture. So far five
installments have been disbursed. It is being suggested
that the amount of support should be higher and inflation
linked, bottom up approach should be followed in
execution, tenant and agricultural labours too should be
brought under the ambit of the scheme, etc. Since the
scheme dolls out money it is expected that large
proportion of farmers would turn up to avail the facility.
However, it is observed that only 62 per cent of potential
beneficiaries have joined the scheme despite massive
campaign by the government. The performance of the
scheme varies across the states, with some states are
observed to be doing good while some are observed to be
not doing so good. It is therefore important to analyse the
performance of the states with respect to performance in
the scheme. It is more important to understand the reasons
for poor performance and how it could be improved. The
novelty of the study is that other studies have evaluated
the impact of the UBI scheme. Since India is big and is
very diverse the implementation of such a massive
programme which is expected to benefit 14 crore farmers
is a major issue. The study was therefore taken up with
following specific objectives to classify the states into the
good performing and relatively poor performing states,
and find the factors that can help the two groups of states
come together in terms of performance of PMKISAN
scheme.
METHODOLOGY
The data regarding the state wise number of farmers
registered in the scheme was collected from website
www.pmkisan.gov.in. The data pertaining to statewise
operational holding was compiled from agricultural
census depicted in Government of India website
http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in and GoI (2019a). The data
on bank branches was compiled from RBI(2019). The
data on rural roads, gross cropped area, number of soil
health card issue, area under micro-irrigation, number of
kisan credit card issued, etc were collected from
GoI(2019b). The performance of states was studied in
terms of proportion of beneficiaries as compared to
potential beneficiaries' i.e. based on number of
operational holdings is analysed. State-wise proportion of
st
beneficiaries receiving a different number of installment
amount was studied and the amount disbursed per hectare
of gross cropped area was analysed. Gap in the coverage
of potential beneficiaries and Kisan credit card accounts
was considered.
Discriminant function analysis is used to identify
factors that differentiate between poor performing state
and good performing states (Manaswi et al., 2018). It
helps to classify individuals into two or more distinct
groups, based on multiple characteristics, which when
considered singly may not indicate the presence of
distinct groups. It maximizes the distance “between the
groups” in relation to the variance “within the groups”, so
as to help in discrimination.
The functional form of the model is as follows,
Y=DiXi
Where 'Y' serves as a discriminant value for
classification. Diis the unknown weights assigned to
different characteristics. Xi are operational holdings (No),
Storage capacity (tons), bank branches (Nos.), KCC
advances per account (`), Gross cropped area (ha), Soil
health card per GCA (Nos.) and rural roads per GCA (Km/
ha) were selected to classify the states into either high
performing or low performing groups.
The unknown 'D' coefficients were calculated with
the formula (i= 1,2,…., p). Where di is the distance
between the means of the two groups, good and bad
th
performers, for the i character and sii are the pooled
variance from the two groups for the ith character. Then Y1
and Y2 values are computed using the following formula,
Where the X1i and X2i are considered as their
respective mean levels. Next, the discriminatory or
criterion value Y is calculated as
 PERFORMANCE OF UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME PROGRAMME IN INDIA:
A CASE OF PM-KISAN SCHEME
For each state, the classificatory Y values was
calculated from
Where the X1i's are the observed values of the
parameter of the state.
If the individual 'Yi' value is less than the Y value, the
state is classified into group 1 i.e., low performing state. If
the 'Y' value is more than Yi value, the state is classified
under group 2, i.e., high performing state. Thus, the
discriminant function was used for setting up a
classificatory measure to classify states into good and
poor performing groups. The magnitude of the Y values
and the group they indicate is decided based on
examination of the overall performance of the states in a
particular group.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Details of PMKISAN scheme
The important events related to PM-KISAN yojana is
represented in the Table 1. The PM-KISAN scheme
st
became effective from 1 December 2018 across the
country, only small and marginal farmers having
cultivable land were eligible to register and avail the
benefits of the scheme.
Table 1: Sequence of events related to PMKISAN scheme
3
th
from 8 Feb 2020, so that the farmers can avail both credit
and income transfer in the same account and increase the
productivity of crops through adoption of improved
cultivation practices. Upto 30th March 2020 the Aadhar
relaxation was provided to the farmers of the states like
Assam, Meghalaya and Union territory of Jammu and
Kashmir. Now the farmers have to compulsorily have
Aadhar authenticated bank accounts to get the benefits
under the scheme. The Government of India extended the
relaxation of Aadhar seeding of beneficiaries of the states
of Assam, Meghalaya, and Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir by one more year i.e., 30th March 2021 (PTI
2020).
Coverage of beneficiaries
The number of beneficiaries registered in the scheme
is depicted in Table 2. The total number of farmers
registered under the scheme as on 30th April 2020 is about
95.93 million. It is observed that the highest number of
beneficiaries were registered in the Uttar Pradesh (219
lakhs), followed by Maharashtra (97.99 lakhs), Madhya
Pradesh (68.7 lakhs), Andhra Pradesh (51.57 lakhs),
Bihar (64.2 lakh). The Union territories and smaller states
like Chandigarh (457), Lakshadweep (1516), Sikkim
(8877), Goa (9571), Puducherry (10478), Dadar & Nagar
Haveli (10744), Delhi (14262), Andaman & Nicobar
Island (16678) have all less than 20,000 beneficiaries.
Among the major states Uttarakhand (0.77 lakhs),
Himachal Pradesh (0.89 lakhs), Jammu and Kashmir
(10.22 lakhs), Haryana (16.46 lakhs), Jharkhand (17.16
lakhs) ranks the lowest with less than 20 lakhs of
beneficiary's registration.

Table 2: State-wise proportion of beneficiaries over

total beneficiaries in the scheme (as on
30th April 2020).
State Beneficiaries State Beneficiaries
No. % to total No. % to total

Andaman and 16678 0.0 Lakshadweep 1516 0.0

Nicobar Islands
Andhra Pradesh 5157163 5.4 Madhya Pradesh 6871205 7.2
Arunachal Pradesh 69867 0.1 Maharashtra 9799936 10.2
The cutoff date for eligibility under the scheme was
Assam 3110704 3.2 Manipur 324414 0.3
up to 1st Feb 2019, and according to this the land transfer
taking after the cut-off date was not eligible under the Bihar 6420869 6.7 Meghalaya 118235 0.1

scheme. The scheme was launched and the benefits were Chandigarh 457 0.0 Mizoram 83206 0.1
transferred to registered farmers accounts from 24th Feb Chhattisgarh 2268812 2.4 Nagaland 196796 0.2
st
2019. From 1 June 2019, the scheme was extended to all Dadra & Nagar Haveli 10744 0.0 Odisha 3687816 3.8
the farmers having cultivable land irrespective of land Daman and Diu 3675 0.0 Puducherry 10478 0.0
size, i.e., the scheme was extended also to farmers' having Delhi 14262 0.0 Punjab 2342402 2.4
cultivable land more than 2 hectares. After completion of Goa 9571 0.0 Rajasthan 6396235 6.7
one year of successful implementation of the scheme, the
Gujarat 5271337 5.5 Sikkim 8877 0.0
government has started the massive campaign to saturate
Haryana 1645578 1.7 Tamil Nadu 3873357 4.0
all the PM-KISAN beneficiaries with KCC account i.e.,
 4 INDIAN JOURNAL OF EXTENSION EDUCATION

Himachal Pradesh 888956 0.9 Telangana 3600362 3.8 Kerala 3006802 7705060 39.0
Jammu and Kashmir 1021830 1.1 Tripura 204507 0.2 Lakshadweep 1516 9471 16.0
Jharkhand 1716347 1.8 Uttar Pradesh 21920973 22.9 Madhya Pradesh 6871205 10569968 65.0
Karnataka 5090886 5.3 Uttarakhand 768324 0.8 Maharashtra 9799936 16049518 61.1
Kerala 3006802 3.1 Manipur 324414 151495 214.1
Total Beneficiaries 95933177 100 Meghalaya 118235 241817 48.9

Mizoram 83206 94161 88.4

Performance of states with respect to PMKISAN Nagaland 196796 205002 96.0
scheme
Odisha 3687816 5027205 73.4
State wise beneficiaries registered under the PM-
KISAN scheme over total operational holdings of the Note: Operational holdings for 2018-19 are projected based on number of operational
holdings from 1995-96 to 2015-16.
state is shown in Table 3. The opertional holdings of the Source: https://pmkisan.gov.in/; http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in/
states for the year 2015-16 is taken from the agriculture
It is observed from the Table 3 that only 63.2 per cent
census 2015-16. The data for 2018-19 was projected by
of the total potential beneficiary are registered. The states
computing the CAGR using the data from the period
like Manipur (214.1%), Punjab (213.1%), Andaman and
1995-96 to 2015-16. Operational holding is defined as all
Nicobar Island(139.1%), Assam(113.4%) and Haryana
land which is used wholly or partly for agricultural
(102.6%) the beneficiaries registered are more than the
production and is operated as one technical unit by one
potential beneficiaries as revealed from the number of
person alone or with others without regard to the title,
opertional holdings. The possibility is the existance of
legal form, size or location. The Ministry of Agriculture&
land under joint accounts. The families having land under
Farmers Welfare imlementing the PMKISAN scheme
joint ownership is also considered to be owner of the land
also considers operational holding data to understand the
and is permitted to avail the benefit. The proportion of
total number of farmers to be covered under the scheme.
beneficiaries over operational holdings is highest in
Therefore, the study has assumed operational holding as a
Manipur state and the reason is due to existence of
proxy for potential beneficiary. The share of
community ownership of land. In Assam there is a
beneficiaries to total operational holding of the states
possibility of faulty identification of beneficiaries by
reflects the efforts to be taken by the states to bring all the
panchayat representatives entrusted with the job for
beneficiaries under the scheme.
which the state government is reverifying the list
Table 3: State-wise percentage share of beneficiaries registered (Choudhary, 2020). Mishra (2020) too observed anomalis
in the PM-KISAN scheme over total operational in beneficiary data of Punjab and Haryana and states that
holdings (as on 30th April,2020) there could be fault in census reporting or the state
governmetns could have inflated the figures. However,
States and Union Number of Number of operational Beneficiary over the central governments verificaiton of beneficiary
territories beneficiaries holdings operational holdings (%)
records through dample survey observed that the data
Andaman and Nicobar Islands 16678 11988 139.1 provided by the state government is almost correct. The
Andhra Pradesh 5157163 8914198 57.9 other plausible explanation of such a high beneficiary to
Arunachal Pradesh 69867 111243 62.8
potential beneficiary ratio is the result of reverse tenance
prevalence in Punjab. Under this the large and medium
Assam 3110704 2744282 113.4
farmers lease in the land of small and marginal farmers
Bihar 6420869 17507540 36.7
who inturn become landless laboureres (Singh 2020). The
Chandigarh 457 647 70.6 states like Nagaland (96.0%), Gujarat (94.3%), Uttar
Chhattisgarh 2268812 4240028 53.5 Pradesh (90.4%), Mizoram (88.4%) and Himachal
Dadra and Nagar Haveli 10744 15257 70.4 Pradesh (87.5%) fall in the category of states where the 85
Daman and Diu 3675 8995 40.9 per cent of the potential beneficiaries are covered under
Delhi 14262 18584 76.7
the PMKISAN scheme. The government has changed the
existing law of not revealing the details of income tax of
Goa 9571 75854 12.6
individuals (Anonymous 2020). As a result the Joint
Gujarat 5271337 5591600 94.3 secretary (Farmers Welfare) can know the persons who
Haryana 1645578 1603865 102.6 have filed income tax as such people are not eligible to
Himachal Pradesh 888956 1016434 87.5 avail PMKISN benefit. This will help governmet to better
Jammu and Kashmir 1021830 1425089 71.7 identify the beneficiaries. The states like Kerala (39.0%),
Jharkhand 1716347 2990544 57.4
Bihar (36.7%), Tripura (32.7%), Puducherry (31.5%),
Lakshdweep (16.0%), Goa (12.6%) and Sikkim (11.8%)
Karnataka 5090886 9069235 56.1
 PERFORMANCE OF UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME PROGRAMME IN INDIA: 5
A CASE OF PM-KISAN SCHEME
account for less than 40 per cent of the potential might not be possible to assess the quantum of land holder
beneficiaries are registered under the scheme. States farmers. In such cases an alternative system is proposed
where beneficiaries accounts for less than operational like in case of Manipur “The certificate issued by the
holdings may be due to states have not completely Village authority, namely, the Chairman/Chief,
digitised the land records, updated the beneficiary list to authorizing any tribal family to cultivate a piece of land,
the centre for inclusion under the scheme, farmers may be accepted. Such certification of village
themselves have not registered in the scheme and also Chairman/Chief shall be authenticated by the concerned
may be due to documents problems. The basis of sub-divisional officers”.Similarly in case of Jharkhand a
assistance is per family leaves many farmers out of the modified criteria is issued for identification of farmers
reach of the scheme though they have land titles. States i.e., “The farmer will be asked to submit 'Vanshavali
with a greater number of farmer families, operational (Lineage)' linked to the entry of land record comprising
holdings and updated land records would have larger his \ her ancestor's name giving a chart of successor. This
number of beneficiaries comparatively. Few north eastern lineage chart shall be submitted before the Gram Sabha
states identification of beneficiary's itself is a major for calling objections. After approval of the Gram Sabha,
problem may be due to community ownership of the land the village level \ circle level revenue officials will verify
and lack of bank accounts etc. In Kerala about 40000 and authenticate the Vanshawali and possession of
farmers could not receive 4th installment after receiveing holding. This authenticated list of farmers after due
first three installents (Pallath, 2020). Its due to mismatch verification of succession chart shall be countersigned by
in names in the Aadhar card and what is feed in the the District level revenue authority (GoI, 2020).
PMKISAN portal while registering for the scheme. The
major reason for Bihar and Kerala doing so bad is the Determinants of status of states with respect to
prevalance of large proportion of out-migration. PMKISAN scheme
Incomplete tenancy records and land data are not digitised The states have been classified into two groups based
for states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, etc is on proportion of beneficiaries to potential beneficiaries of
another cause for poor identification of beneficiaries the states (Table 4). The states with more than 65per cent
(Roy, 2019). Further, it is also suggested that bottom-up of potential beneficiaries are classified as good
approach should be followed in implementation of the performing states.
PMKISAN scheme so that such hurdles are sorted out
easily. Table 4: Classification of states based on status of PMKISAN scheme
Status with good status Proportion of Status with Proportion of beneficiary
The affiliation of the various state governments to of PMKISAN beneficiary of total Relatively poor of total operational
operational holding status of holding (%)
different political parties has a greater role in percevied (%) PMKISAN
variations in performance of the states with respect to the
Madhya Pradesh 65.1 Arunachal Pradesh 62.8
PMKISAN scheme. The five non-BJP ruled states namely Dadar & Nagar Haveli 70.4 Maharashtra 61.1
West Bengal (Trinamul Congress), Rajasthan (Indian Chandigarh 70.6 Telangana 57.9
National Congress), Madhya Pradesh (India National Jammu & Kashmir 71.7 Andhra Pradesh 57.9
Congress), Delhi(Aam Aadmi Party), Sikkim( Sikkim Odisha 73.4 Jharkhand 57.4
Democratic Front)did not allow farmers to log into the Delhi 76.7 Karnataka 56.1
Rajasthan 79.4 Chhattisgarh 53.5
scheme during the first installment period (Mohan, 2019).
Himachal Pradesh 87.5 Meghalaya 48.9
As a result non of the eligible farmers receiving the Uttarakhand 87.5 Tamil Nadu 48.9
benefit even during the next installment period (April to Mizoram 88.4 Daman& Diu 40.9
July) as well. These states have either not shared the data Uttar Pradesh 90.4 Kerala 39
of list of beneficiaries or did not verify the list provided by Gujarat 94.3 Bihar 36.7
the center. However, the other non-BJP states namely Nagaland 96 Tripura 32.7
Punjab (Indian National Congress), Andhra Padesh Haryana 102.6 Puducherry 31.5
Assam 113.4 Lakshadweep 16
(Telgu Desam Party), Telangana (Telangana Rashtra
Andaman & Nicobar 139.1 Goa 12.6
Samithi), Tamil Nadu (AIADMK), Odisha (Bijju Janta Punjab 213.9 Sikkim 11.8
Dal), Kerala (LDF) and Chattisgarh (Indian National Manipur 214.1
Congress) participated. It is in the poor farmers interest
that the state governments should overcome the party The factors influencing the performance of states in
affiliation and wholeheartedly participate in the scheme. the scheme is analyzed using the linear discriminant
In North Eastern States like Manipur, Meghalaya, function analysis (Table 5). The states were classified into
Mizoram, Tripura, Sikkim, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh two groups i.e. states with good status of PM-KISAN and
the land ownership rights are community based and it states with relatively poor status of PM-KISAN. The
 6 INDIAN JOURNAL OF EXTENSION EDUCATION
results revealed that eight factors were discriminating the
states into two groups to the maximum extent. It can be
inferred from Table 4 that, the soil health card issued per
GCA was the significant variable which has highly
influenced the discrimination to the extent of 32.99 per
cent of all the variables under study. Further, the variables
like operational holdings (18.77%), rural roads per GCA
(15.78%), KCC advances per account (10.58%), gross
cropped area (9.09%), and micro irrigation per GCA
(6.20%), bank branches (5.22%), and storage capacity
(1.37%) contributed to the maximum extent towards the
gap between the good and poor performing states with
respect to the status of PM-KISAN in the country.
Variables like KCC advances per account, gross cropped
area and soil health card issued per GCA were positively
influenced the gap between the states with good and poor
status of PM-KISAN in the country. Operational
holdings, storage capacity, bank branches, micro
irrigation per GCA were found to negatively influence the
gap between the states with good and poor status of PM-
KISAN in the country.
Table 5: Discriminant function coefficients for factors
influencing status of states with respect to
PMKISAN scheme
Variables Coefficient Strength of contribution
Operational holding (No) -1.072
Storage capacity -0.078
Bank Branches (No) -0.298
KCC advances per account (`) 0.604
Gross cropped area (Ha) 0.519
Micro irrigation per GCA (No/ha) -0.354
Soil Health card issued per GCA (No/ha) 1.884
Rural roads per GCA(Km/ha) -0.901
If the farmers receive adequate and hassle free loans
as offered by KCC then the farmers will have lesser
problem and are likely to be less inclined to schemes like
PMKISAN to meet the input requirement of farming.
Similarly, if the gross cropped area is large for a state
means larger geographical area has to be covered
demanding more infrastructure and resource to include
the beneficiaries under the scheme. The Soil Health Card
is positively related to distance between the good and poor
status. Soil health card is a government of Indias' scheme
to provide the record of the status of health of soil of
farmers field at free of cost. The easy availability of Soil
Health Card reveals how the other income transfer and
subsidy related schemes are flowing to the residents of a
state. If the residents of a state are benefited by multiple
programmes they may not find the PMKISAN that
attractive and hence the distance between the two group of
states further increases. The higher is the number of
operational holding then more number of beneficiaries
would be there who come forward and seek the benefit of
the scheme. Thus the gap between the states reduces. The
higher is number of bank branches and greater is the
storage capacity in a state means the state has adequate
infrastructural facilities which are needed to reduce the
transaction cost incurred while availing benefit under any
scheme. The higher the infrastructural facility the poor
states also mode up The micro-irrigation area per gross
cropped area is a reflection of technological change
leading to demand for other complimentary inputs like
fertilizer, plant protection chemicals, labour, etc which
demand money and PMKISAN forms a easy source to
acquire and use capital in agriculture. Thus, with growth
and adoption of such technology leads to bridging in gap
between poor and good performing states.
CONCLUSION
th
The PMKISAN scheme was launched on 24 Feb
2019 and was effective from 1st Dec 2018. So far 9.59
crores of farmers are registered under the scheme. The
large proportion of the beneficiaries come from the states
of Uttar Pradesh (22.9%), Maharashtra (10.2%), Madhya
Pradesh (7.2%), Bihar (6.7%), Rajasthan (6.7%), Gujarat
(5.5%), Andhra Pradesh (5.4%) and Karnataka (5.3%).
Initially the scheme was meant for small and marginal
farmers and on 1st June 2019 the scheme became operative
18.77 for all the size class of farmers. One of the major reasons
1.37 for slow progress of the scheme as revealed from the
5.22 proportion of potential beneficiaries covered is due to
10.58 extension of the scheme benefits to all the farmers after a
9.09 lag period of 7 months. The exclusion criteria that is
6.20 inbuilt in the scheme is another reason for confusion
32.99
among the beneficiaries leading to slow progress in
15.78
joining the scheme. Many states have lagged behind in
performance of the scheme with less than 65 % of the
potential beneficiaries been covered so far. Among those
in this group are many are not so developed or
underdeveloped states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh,
etc. The factors which would improve the functioning of
the poor states and could bring them on nearer to the good
performing states is operational holding (Nos.), Bank
branches (No.), storage capacity, rural roads (Km per
GCA), micro irrigation (Nos. per ha), etc. The states
should open more and more bank branches as it is an
indication of the access to financial services being
available to the people. The focus of the states should be to
enhances access to financial services to the rural
inhabitants. The storage capacity and rural roads are an
indication of infrastructural facilities. The states should
improve the infrastructural facilities which will help the
farmers to come forward and join the developmental
schemes like PMKISAN. The micro irrigation is an
indication of technological advancement and its access.
The states should increase the access to improved
 PERFORMANCE OF UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME PROGRAMME IN INDIA:
A CASE OF PM-KISAN SCHEME
technology which will inturn create demand for
additional capital. Any technology in itself is not that
paying rather it demands investment in complimentary
resources to be able to generate the needed result. It is thus
concluded that the states who are lagging in performance
with respect to the PMKISAN scheme should focus on
embracing new technology, develop infrastructural
facilities, enhance the access to financial services. It is
also suggested that the states should focus on digitization
of land records and Aadhar seeding of prospective
beneficiaries. This will help in easy identification of
beneficiaries of the scheme and avoid the anomalies of
extremely low and high (> 100 %) proportion of
beneficiaries to the prospective beneficiaries as is
observed in many states.
Paper received on : April 02, 2020
Accepted on : May 25, 2020
REFERENCES
Aker, J.C., Boumnijel, R., McClelland, A. and Tierney,
N. (2013), Cash or Coupons? Testing the Impacts of Cash
versus Vouchers in the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Working Paper 320 March 2013, Center for Global
Development, 1800 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036, https://www.cgdev.org/sites/
default/files/Aker-Cash-versus-Vouchers_0.pdf
Akresh, R., Walque, D., Kazianga, H. (2013) Cash
Transfers and Child Schooling Evidence from a
Randomized Evaluation of the Role of Conditionality,
Impact Evaluation Series No. 82, & Policy Research
Working Paper 6340, The World Bank, Development
Research Group, Human Development and Public
Services Team, January 2013
Anonymous (2020) Government to share taxpayers'
information with I-T department for PM-KISAN scheme,
July 25, 2020, ET Now digital, https://www.timesnow
news.com/business-economy/economy/article/govt-to-
share-taxpayers-information-with-i-t-dept-for-pm-
kisan-scheme/627165
Attanasio, O., and Mesnard, A. (2006), The Impact of a
Conditional Cash Transfer Programme on Consumption
in Colombia, The Journal of Applied Public Economics,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2006.00041.x
Baird, S., McIntosh, C. and Ozler, B. (2010). Cash or
Condition? Evidence from a Cash Transfer Experiment.
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5259.
World Bank.
7
Banerjee A., Niehaus, P., Suri T. (2019) Universal basic
income in the developing world, Annual Review of
Economics, vol 11(1):Pp959-983.
Blattman, C. and Fiala, N. and Martinez, S., (2013)
Generating Skilled Self-Employment in Developing
Countries: Experimental Evidence from Uganda
(November 14, 2013). Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2268552 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.
2268552
Choudhury, R. (2020) Assam to re-verify PM-KISAN
beneficiary list, orders probe, https://www.ndtv.com/
india-news/assam-to-re-verify-pm-kisan-beneficiaries-
list-orders-probe-2231129
Duryea, S. and A. Morrison* (2004) The Effect of
Conditional Transfers on School Performance and Child
Labor: Evidence from an Ex-Post Impact Evaluation in
Costa Rica, Working Paper #505, Inter-American
Development Bank & World Bank, February 2004
GoI (2019a), Agricultural Census 2015-16: All India
Report on Number and Area of Operational Holdings,
Agricultural Census Division, Ministry of Agriculture
and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
GoI (2019b) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2019,
Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of
Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India
GoI (2020), Pradhan Mantri Krishi Samman Nidhi
Scheme, OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES,l Department
of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare,
Ministy of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, GoI.
Government of India (2017). Economic Survey 2016-17.
New Delhi, Government of India. Available online:
http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2016-17/echapter.pdf,
http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in/
https://pmkisan.gov.in/;
Joshi, PK(2018) Five ways to reduce farm distress in
India, January 29, 2018, https://www.ifpri.org/blog/five-
ways-reduce-farm-distress-india
Manaswi, B.H., P Kumar, Prakash P., P Anbukkani, GK
Jha, Amit Kar, DUM Rao (2018) Progress and
Performance of States in Performance of Farmers
Produces Organisations in India, Indian Journal of
 8 INDIAN JOURNAL OF EXTENSION EDUCATION
Extension Education 54 (2), 108-113
Michael, C. (2018), Testing a Univesal Basic Income in
Kenya, http://www.lse.ac.uk/LSEE Research-on-South-
Eastern-Europe/Assets/Documents/Events/Conferences-
Symposia- Programmes-and-Agendas/2018/COOKE-
MICHAEL-Testing-UBI-in-Kenya-v3.pdf
Mishra, P. (2020) PM Kisan scheme: Punjab, Haryana
report enrolments much higher than number of land-
holding farmers, Feb 19, 2020,https://www.financial
express.com/economy/pm-kisan-scheme-punjab-
haryana-report-enrolments-much-higher-than-number-
of-land-holding-farmers/1872406/
Mohan, V (2019) Politics mars PM-Kisan, benefits reach
only 25% of farmers, March 31, 2019, https://timesof
india.indiatimes.com/india/politics-mars-pm-kisan-
benefits-reach-only-25-of-farmers/articleshow/
68651916.cms
Ortiz I., Behrendt, C., Acuña-Ulate, A., Nguyen, Q.A.
(2018) Universal Basic Income proposals in light of ILO
standards: Key issues and global costing, ESS ─ Working
Paper No. 62, Social Protection Department,
International Labour Office, Geneva
Pallath, S (2020) Mismatch in names; 40,000 people fail
to get 4th instalment of PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi, May
14, 2020, Mathrubhumi, https://english.mathrubhumi.
View publication stats
com/news/kerala/mismatch-in-names-40-000-people-
fail-to-get-4th-instalment-of-pm-kisan-samman-nidhi-
1.4758981
PIB (2017) JAM and Center State cost sharing
prerequisite for a successful UBI, Press Information
st
Bureau, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 31
Jan 2017.
PTI(2020), Centre gives 1 more year exemption from
Aadhaar seeding to Assam, Meghalaya, Jammu and
Kashmir and Ladakh, April 22, 2020, The Economic
Times, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/
economy/agriculture/pm-kisan-centre-gives-1-more
year-exemption-from-aadhaar-seeding-to-assam-
meghalaya-j-k-ladakh/articleshow/75297274.cms
RBI(2019) Report on trend and progress of banking in
India, Reserve Bank of India.
Roy, A. (2019) The PM-KISAN challenge, Feb 15 2019,
https://www.orfonline.org/research/the-pm-kisan-
challenge-48167/
Singh, S (2020) A bill to corporatize farming, June 5,
2020, Frontline, https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-
nation/article31658098.ece