Crop Insurance Policies in India: An Empirical Analysis of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
India is home to over one-third of all undernourished children worldwide, and it ranks 94th out of 107 nations in the Global Hunger Index 2020. Instability in production and market risks make agriculture a risky business and directly affect farmers’ income levels, thereby impacting food security. This review aimed to understand various features of different crop insurance policies in India and to analyze the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana’s (PMFBY) impacts on Indian farmers. A literature search was performed in all popular databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, AGRICOLA, AGRIS, and Google search engines, as well as annual Indian government reports. The keywords “Crop Insurance” OR “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” OR “National Agriculture Schemes” AND “India” were searched to obtain relevant articles. By using cumulative data, we conducted a multiple regression analysis and a model was developed to estimate the effects of insurance characteristics on farmer coverage for the years 2017–2018 and 2018–2019. Agricultural insurance coverage under PMFBY remained low in terms of the number of farmers insured, the area insured, claims paid, and total farmers benefited. Compared to other schemes, the beneficiary and claim premium ratios were substantially lower under the PMFBY. The multiple regression analysis showed that farmers’ premiums have a significant effect on the number of farmers insured over time, although the subsidies do not have a significant influence in farmers’ insurance participation. Delays in claim settlement, the complexity of the system, and a lack of awareness among farmers are the major weaknesses of the PMFBY. Greater use of digital media could help spread awareness of these schemes among farmers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".