







































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 5 (2): 119-124, July 2022 

INSIGHTS FROM THE FIELD 

The Impact of Pradhan Mantri Krishi Samman Nidhi 
Yojna on Food Security and the Healthcare-Seeking 
Practices of Agricultural Households in Bihar: A Note 
from the Field 

Reshmi Sengupta, Debasis Rooj 

 
1. INTRODUCTION  

Pradhan Mantri Krishi Samman Nidhi Yojna (PM-KISAN) is a 
Government of India (GoI) initiative to provide financial assistance to 
farmers. Its objective is to stabilize farmers’ income and support their 
financial requirements to invest in productive activities, including 

agricultural inputs. Each year, the government gives ₹6,000 to eligible 

farmers in three equal instalments of ₹2,000 each; the amount is transferred 
directly into farmers’ bank accounts.  

The literature suggests that cash transfer (CT) programmes have a positive 
impact on households’ welfare (Fiszbein and Schady 2009; Gertler 2004). 
As PM-KISAN has been promoted as a general CT programme, and 
farmers are free to spend the amount on various needs, the scheme may 
have broader household welfare implications. Therefore, this study looks at 
the role of PM-KISAN on household welfare based on food security and 
healthcare utilization.  

 

 
 Department of Economics, FLAME University, Gat No. 1270, Lavale, Off. Pune 

Bangalore Highway, Pune 412115, India; reshmi.sengupta@flame.edu.in 

 Department of Economics, FLAME University, Gat No. 1270, Lavale, Off. Pune 
Bangalore Highway, Pune 412115, India; debasis.rooj @flame.edu.in 

Copyright © Sengupta and Rooj 2022. Released under Creative Commons Attribution © 

NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of  Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v5i2.687  

 

mailto:reshmi.sengupta@flame.edu.in
mailto:reshmi.sengupta@flame.edu.in
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v5i2.687


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [120] 

 

2. PRIMARY SURVEY  

Bihar is one of the poorest states in India and has a predominately 
agricultural population. In recent times, Bihar has witnessed several climate 
change–related weather shocks (Jha and Haripriya 2019). Farming 
households in Bihar are at risk of climate change vagaries that may 
adversely affect their agricultural production and income stability. Given 
this vulnerability, we chose two of its districts, Rohtas and Nawada, for a 
pilot study. We conducted a survey from 20 October to 29 October 2021. 

Rohtas is a fertile district, whereas Nawada is drought-prone. As these two 
districts are exposed to different climatic shocks, selecting them provided 
us variations in the sample so we could capture farmers’ awareness of PM-
KISAN and the extent to which they benefit from it. Further, we selected 
two blocks from each district. From Nawada, we chose Nawada rural block 
and Akbarpur block. These are drought-prone areas near the district town. 
From Rohtas, we chose Sasaram rural block and Shivsagar block, which are 
primarily irrigated areas near the district town. From each block, we 
selected five villages based on discussions with block staff and local NGOs. 
On average, we chose 20 households from each village for face-to-face 
interviews; this added up to a sample of 400 households. We used a detailed 
questionnaire to capture household demographics, awareness about several 
agricultural programmes (including PM-KISAN), and whether the 
households had benefited from PM-KISAN in the last 365 days. Out of the 
400 households, 373 were aware of PM-KISAN, 224 had benefitted from it, 

and 149 were non-beneficiaries. The survey also collected data on the food 
security of the households, the health-seeking practices of pregnant women 
in the age group of 15–49 years, and healthcare use, immunization, and 
breastfeeding practices for children up to five years of age. 

3. RELEVANT FINDINGS  

Most of the farming households in the sample are marginal farmers (85% of 
beneficiaries and 75% of non-beneficiaries) who hold less than 2.5 acres of 
land. Nearly 9% of beneficiary and 5% of non-beneficiary households are 
small, with landholdings of less than five acres; and 6% of beneficiary and 
20% of non-beneficiary households are medium-sized, with more than five 
acres of land. Close to 33% of beneficiary households experienced crop loss 
during the last cropping season, while for non-beneficiaries, this figure 

 
 We asked the respondents whether or not they benefitted from PM-KISAN in the last one 
year, and they provided yes/no answers. Henceforth, we will refer to the 224 households 
who reported that they availed of the scheme and the remaining 149 households—who 
reported that they did not avail of the scheme—as non-beneficiaries. 



[121] Reshmi Sengupta and Debasis Rooj 
 

 
stood at 45%. For crop insurance, these numbers stood at 11% and 6%, 
respectively.  

Nearly 68% (Table 1) of PM-KISAN beneficiary households reported 
having adequate meals (at least three meals per day). Only 9% of adults had 
to reduce their food consumption or skip meals during the last 365 days. In 
non-beneficiary families, these numbers stood at 63% and 12%, 
respectively. Almost 28% of beneficiary households reported that they had 
enough food to eat in terms of quantity and variety compared to only 23% 
of non-beneficiary households. PM-KISAN beneficiary households also 
reported seeking more healthcare (nearly 83% sought care) and immediate 
care (47%) as compared to non-beneficiary households (76% and 41%, 
respectively).  

Nearly 37% of women in PM-KISAN beneficiary families received 
treatment for health complications during their pregnancies compared to 
only 35% of their counterparts in non-beneficiary families. Among the 
beneficiary households, 55% of women availed of government maternity 
benefits, like the Janani Suraksha Yojna (JSY). Almost 90% of pregnant 
women in beneficiary households sought antenatal care (ANC) under JSY, 
compared to 85% in non-beneficiary households. More women in 
beneficiary households (54%) sought ANC during the first trimesters of 
their pregnancies than their non-beneficiary counterparts (45%). A higher 
percentage of pregnant women from beneficiary households received at 
least two tetanus toxoid shots (11%) than pregnant women from non-
beneficiary households (9%). A slightly higher number of pregnant women 
in beneficiary households (21%) received at least 100 iron and folic acid 
tablets during their pregnancy than those in non-beneficiary households 
(20%).  

Although an equal percentage (92%) of women from both samples 
delivered in an institutional setup, more women in the beneficiary sample 
(55%) delivered in public health facilities than women in the non-
beneficiary sample (49%). Surprisingly, women in beneficiary households 
received lesser postnatal care (42%) than their counterparts in non-
beneficiary households (48%).    

Finally, nearly 75% of children in PM-KISAN beneficiary households 
received immediate postnatal care (within 24 hours of birth) as opposed to 
only 66% from non-beneficiary households. A marginally higher percentage 
of children from beneficiary households (99%) received some form of 
immunization compared to children from non-beneficiary families (98%). 
However, the percentage of full immunization in both samples remains the 
same (83%). Furthermore, a higher percentage of children in PM-KISAN 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [122] 

 

beneficiary households (83%) were breastfed immediately after their birth—
within two hours of delivery—than children in non-beneficiary families 
(77%). 

4. CONCLUSION  

Cash transfer programmes, such as the recently launched PM-KISAN, can 
protect farmers by providing income support and influencing the 
households’ health and nutritional outcomes. Our survey revealed that a 
majority of the families were aware of the policy. However, only two-thirds 
of the survey respondents availed or benefitted from it. Further, those who 
benefitted from the programme exhibited higher food security and 
practised better health-seeking behaviours. Therefore, it is evident that PM-
KISAN can play an important role in helping farmers by providing them 
with income security.  

Our preliminary findings based on the survey data and a two-sample t-test 
reveal that there is a statistical difference between PM-KISAN beneficiaries 
and non- beneficiaries in terms of the means of the healthcare use and 
nutrition variables. It shows that PM-KISAN beneficiary households are 
better off than non-beneficiary households in terms of these indicators. 

However, our interactions with farmers during field conversations revealed 
that many surveyed farmers are still not receiving the intended benefits 
because they are either unaware of the benefits or put off by lengthy 
bureaucratic processes—which range from filing applications to the 
prolonged and tiring claim settlement process, which often discourages 
farmers from utilizing government schemes. 

Further interaction also revealed that farmers often grapple with availing of 
these benefits due to a lack of identity proof or the required bank 
documents. Identity proof, such as an Aadhar number, is needed to access 
these benefits. However, these households often do not possess an Aadhar 
card. Even if they hold one, there may have been errors while recording 
their names, and, hence, they may face issues when confirming their 
identity. Moreover, these households are hardly aware of their bank account 
details, which are needed to encash the amount received through the 
scheme. Therefore, improvement in financial inclusion and financial literacy 
is another aspect that we emphasize to improve the welfare of farmers.  

If the government can ensure better promotion and implementation of 
these schemes, and make the bureaucratic process less restrictive and 
tedious, then the penetration of these schemes may be more profound. 



[123] Reshmi Sengupta and Debasis Rooj 
 

 
Table 1: Food Security and Health-Seeking Behaviour among PM-KISAN Beneficiary and 
Non-Beneficiary Households: A Two-Sample Mean Difference t-Test 

Variables PM-
KISAN=

0 

PM-
KISAN=1 

Mean 
Difference 

Adequate meals (at least 3 or more complete 
meals per day) 

0.627 0.677 –0.05** 
(0.011) 

Enough quantity and variety of food in the last 
year 

0.234 0.276 –0.042*** 
(0.005) 

An adult was required to reduce food 
consumption or skip meals 

0.115 0.085 0.030** 
(0.014) 

Members sought treatment for health problems, 
like fever, cough, diarrhoea, allergy, asthma, etc., 
in the last 12 months 

0.76 0.829 –0.07*** 
(0.000) 

Members sought immediate healthcare (within 
24 hours) for health problems 

0.413 0.468 –0.054*** 
(0.008) 

Members sought care in private healthcare 
facilities  

0.545 0.625 –0.079 
(0.109) 

Pregnant women sought treatment for health 
problems during their pregnancy 

0.354 0.371 –0.016 
(0.743) 

Pregnant women sought any ANC  0.846 0.902 –0.057* 
(0.089) 

Pregnant women sought ANC during their first 
trimester of pregnancy 

0.451 0.543 –0.092* 
(0.078) 

Pregnant women received at least two TT 
injections  

0.098 0.112 –0.014 
(0.517) 

Pregnant women received at least 100 IRF 
tablets 

0.201 0.211 –0.01 
(0.807) 

Women delivered in an institutional setup 0.919 0.916 0.003 
(0.921) 

Women delivered in a public institution  0.486 0.553 –0.068 
(0.184) 

Women delivered in a private institution  0.434 0.363 0.071 
(0.157) 

Women received immediate postnatal care 
(within 24 hours of birth) 

0.483 0.421 0.061* 
(0.087) 

Children received immediate postnatal care 
(within 24 hours of birth) 

0.664 0.753 –0.089** 
(0.022) 

Children received any immunization/vaccination 0.984 0.99 –0.006 
(0.543) 

Children received full immunization/vaccination 0.834 0.833 0.001 
(0.970) 

Children were breastfed immediately after birth 
(within 2 hours of birth) 

0.775 0.829 –0.055 
(0.107) 

Source: Authors’ calculations; *** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.10. Figures in 
parentheses indicate p-values.  
 

 
 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [124] 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

First, we would like to thank Professor Mahendra Dev, Dr. A Ganesh Kumar, and 
Dr. Vijaylaxmi Pandey for selecting us for the SPANDAN grant and giving us this 
excellent opportunity to work on an exciting research topic. We are also thankful to 
Prof. Manoj Panda for his invaluable suggestions on our paper. His 
recommendations have tremendously helped us refine our work. We appreciate the 
comments and directions given by Professor Brinda Viswanathan during the 
interim presentation to improve our work. We are incredibly grateful to all the 
participants of the SPANDAN workshop held on February 14, 2020, and June 25, 
2022, for their insights. We would like to sincerely extend our gratitude towards 
Prof. Alakh Sharma and the entire team of IHD, without whose guidance and help 
the primary survey would not have been possible. We also acknowledge the 
support provided by Dr. Ashwini Kumar and Mr. BKN Singh for their tremendous 
support during the field work. We would also like to thank Anurag Banerjee, Riham 
Goel, Tanisha Kouli, and Hashika Sharma for their research support. 
 
GRANTS  

This study has been funded by Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research 
(IGIDR), Mumbai, and the System of Promoting Appropriate National Dynamism 
for Agriculture and Nutrition (SPANDAN) India 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Das, Jishnu, Quy-Toan Do, and Berk Özler. 2005. “Reassessing Conditional Cash 
Transfer Programs.” The World Bank Research Observer 20, no. 1: 57–80.  
https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lki005  

Fiszbein, Ariel, and Norbert R. Schady. 2009. Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing 
Present and Future Poverty. World Bank Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-
8213-7352-1  

Gertler, Paul. 2004. “Do Conditional Cash Transfers Improve Child Health? 
Evidence from PROGRESA's Control Randomized Experiment.” American economic 
review 94, no. 2 (2004): 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302109  

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lki005
https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7352-1
https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7352-1
https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302109

