Agricultural subsidies that encourage production and productivity have been widely criticized because of the cost of subsidies and they are perceived to be far from uniformly distributed. There is a general view in academic, policy and political circles that agricultural subsidies are concentrated geographically, they are concentrated on relatively few crops and few producers and in many cases do not reach the targeted group(s). One of the most contentious issues surrounding input subsidies in general and fertilizer in particular in India is how much of what is paid out actually finds its way into the pocket of the farmer, and how much is siphoned away by the input companies. There has also been a debate about the issue of real beneficiaries of fertilizer subsidy like small vs. large farmers, well-developed vs. less developed regions, etc. Therefore, there is need to understand the fertilizer subsidy distribution pattern to assess whether the subsidy benefits the target group(s), an argument often made while giving any farm subsidy. This paper examines trends in fertilizer subsidy and the issue of distribution of fertilizer subsidies between farmers and fertilizer industry, across regions/states, crops and different farm sizes. The study shows that fertilizer subsidy has increased significantly in the post-reforms period from Rs. 4389 crore in 1990-91 to Rs. 75849 crore in 2008-09. As a percentage of GDP, this represents an increase from 0.85 per cent in 1990-91 to 1.52 per cent in 2008-09. The paper shows that general perception that about one-third of fertilizer subsidy goes to fertilizer industry is misleading because the underlying assumptions (i) that India’s entry into world market as an importer does not affect world prices, and (ii) world fertilizer markets are perfectly competitive, do not hold true. The world fertilizer trade-flows and markets are more concentrated and volatile and imports by India have significant impact on world prices. Moreover, with shift from the earlier cost-plus based approach to import parity pricing (IPP), the Indian fertilizer industry would be exposed to the world competition and efficient units would survive. Therefore, the proposed policy of direct transfer of fertilizer subsidy to farmers is misconceived and inappropriate and its adverse effects outweigh the perceived benefits of it. The study shows that fertilizer subsidy is more concentrated in few states, namely, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab. Inter-state disparity in fertilizer subsidy distribution is still high though it has declined over the years. Rice is the most heavily subsidized crop followed by wheat, sugarcane and cotton. These four crops account for about two-third of total fertilizer subsidy. The study highlights the existence of fair degree of equity in distribution of fertilizer subsidy among farm sizes. The small and marginal farmers have a larger share in fertilizer subsidy in comparison to their share in cultivated area. A reduction in fertilizer subsidy is, therefore, likely to have adverse impact on farm production and income of small and marginal farmers as they do not benefit from higher output prices but do benefit from lower input prices. This paper justifies the fertilizer subsidies and questions the rationale for direct transfer of subsidy to farmers.
