Farmer Producer Organizations in India: Policy, Performance, and Design Issues

Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)


This chapter analyses the organisational design issues of these organisations in the country from an all-India baseline survey of 258 producer organisations with a focus on producer companies including detailed case analysis of 21 producer organizations during 2011-14 and an action research on developing sustainable producer organization during 2007-14. While there have been budgetary commitments, extension of support, and legal provision for producer companies during the last ten years by the government, development agencies, and civil society organizations, the performance of the producer organizations have been much below expectations. The financial gains to producer members have not been significant with only Rs.1492/- per member per month and a net income of Rs.480/- per member per month. The author focuses on the status of internal organizational design of producer organizations viz., size, scope, technology, governance and ownership for greater cooperative action and sustainability and argues for the need of simultaneous design of above five organisational design parameters.


Social Capital Ecosystem Service Producer Organization Producer Company Institutional Architecture 


  1. Barnard CI (1968) Functions of the executive. Harvard University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Collette L et al. (2011) Save and grow: a policy maker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production, food & agricultural organization, UNOGoogle Scholar
  3. Gopalakrishnan S et al. (2012) Plant growth-promoting traits of bio control potential bacteria isolated from rice rhizosphere. Springer Plus 1:71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Howard A (1940) Agricultural testament. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a crossroads, international assessment of agricultural knowledge science and technology. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Kondratiev ND (1921) New Economic Policy, 10th Congress, All Russian Communist PartyGoogle Scholar
  7. Marx K (1927) Economic and philosophic Manuscript of 1844Google Scholar
  8. Mason WT, Mason M (eds) (1994) Does ownership matter?: Japanese multinationals in Europe. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Mehta VL (1960) Committee on Cooperative Credit, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Mishra BS (2010) Credit cooperatives in India—past, present and future. Routledge, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Murray EV (2008) Producer company model—current status and future outlook: opportunities for bank finance, unpublished report, Reserve Bank of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Nayak AKJR (2010) Optimizing asymmetries for sustainability, national conference for agricultural productivity, college of agriculture. Reserve Bank of India, PuneGoogle Scholar
  13. Nayak AKJR (2012a) Integrated low cost agriculture for internal consistency and external synergy for sustainability of smallholder farmers: case of Nava Jyoti agricultural community, XIMB sustainability seminar series, working paper 4.0, Aug 2012Google Scholar
  14. Nayak AKJR (2012b)Optimal market boundary with minimal characteristic distance between small producer and customers: a strategy to realize higher value by both small producers and consumers from a transaction, XIMB sustainability seminar series, working paper 3.0, Aug, 2012Google Scholar
  15. Nayak AKJR (2012c) Institutional & organizational asymmetries: small producers and sustainability of rural agricultural communities, XIMB Sustainability Seminar Series 2.0, Working Paper, July, 2012 and Keynote Address at the National Workshop on Markets that Empower Farmers (& Consumers), XIMB-ASHA, XIMB, July 30, 2012Google Scholar
  16. Nayak AKJR (2013a) Management @ Grassroots, Xavier Institute of Management, BhubaneswarGoogle Scholar
  17. Nayak AKJR (2013b) Chap. 8, implementing community enterprise system for sustainability of agricultural communities—a manual. NABARD-XIMB-Rabo Bank Foundation Publication, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  18. Nayak AKJR (2013c) Economies of scope: context of agricultural science, smallholder farmers, and sustainability, research training seminar series, XIMB, Bhubaneswar, Nov 15, 2013 & National Livelihoods Conference, New Delhi, Dec 11, 2013Google Scholar
  19. Nayak AKJR (2014) Logic, language and values of cooperation versus competition in the context of recreating sustainable community systems, international review of sociology, March 2014. Routledge, London, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  20. North DC (1984) Transition costs, institutions and economic history. Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/J Inst Theor Econ 140(1):7–17Google Scholar
  21. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Panzar J, Willig R (1975) Economics of scale and economics of scope in multi-output production. Econ. Disc. Paper no. 33, Bell LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  23. Reserve Bank of India (1915) Report of the committee on cooperation in India. Reserve Bank of India, BombayGoogle Scholar
  24. Schumacher EF (1973) Small is beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered. Blonde & Briggs Publisher, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Sethi JD (1986) Trusteeship and the crisis in economic theory, in Trusteeship: The Gandhian Alternative, Gandhi Peace FoundationGoogle Scholar
  26. Shiva V (1993) Monocultures of mind: perspective on biodiversity and biotechnology. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Singh S (2008) Producer companies as new generation cooperatives, commentary, economic & political weekly, May 17, 2008Google Scholar
  28. Smith A (1776) Wealth of Nations. Oxford University Press, Reprint 1993, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Taylor FW (1997) Principles of scientific management. Dover Publication, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Teece D (1980) Economics of scope and scope of enterprises. J. Economic Behavior Organization, 1:223–247Google Scholar
  31. UNCTAD (2013) Wake up before it is too late, Trade and Environment Review, UNCTADGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Xavier Institute of ManagementBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations