Utilization of farmers towards PM-KISAN Scheme in Namakkal District of Tamil Nadu

Introduction

Smallholder agriculture continues to define the structure of Indian farming: small and marginal landholders together constitute the overwhelming majority of operational holdings in the country, and their limited resource base makes them disproportionately vulnerable to price shocks, input-cost inflation and climatic variability (Prusty et al., 2025) [5] . To supplement the income of this vast and heterogeneous group, the Government of India launched the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) scheme in February 2019, transferring a fixed annual income support directly into the bank accounts of eligible farmer families in three equal instalments. As an unconditional cash transfer, PM-KISAN was designed to ease liquidity constraints and allow beneficiaries the flexibility to spend the support according to their own priorities, whether on agricultural inputs, debt servicing, or household consumption (Ghosh et al., 2024) [2] . A growing body of evaluation literature has examined whether this design objective is being met. Ghosh et al. (2024) [2] used propensity-score matching to show that PM-KISAN beneficiaries recorded a measurably higher rural livelihood index than comparable non-beneficiaries, while Sihag and Malik (2024) [7] found that disbursement of instalments in Haryana was consistent and timely, with awareness levels varying across the beneficiary population. At the same time, several field-level assessments caution that the benefits of such transfer schemes, and of public extension services more broadly, are not distributed evenly across socio-economic strata: Krishna, Aravalath and Vikraman (2019) [4] demonstrated that access to agricultural extension services in India is systematically lower among socially disadvantaged groups, which in turn dampens the income gains such services would otherwise generate. This suggests that the socio-economic profile of a beneficiary population its age structure, education, landholding size, income class, cropping intensity, risk orientation and extension contact is not incidental background information but a key determinant of how effectively a scheme such as PM-KISAN can function on the ground. Despite this, many localized assessments of PM-KISAN report utilization and satisfaction outcomes without first establishing whether their sample is representative of, or skewed away from, an even spread across standard socioeconomic categories. Without this baseline check, it becomes difficult to judge whether a reported utilization pattern reflects the scheme's general performance or the particular composition of the surveyed group for instance, a sample dominated by older, experienced, low-income marginal farmers may report different utilization behaviour than one with a more balanced age and income profile. Establishing this baseline through a formal statistical test, rather than descriptive percentages alone, therefore strengthens the interpretive value of any subsequent utilization analysis (Alzahrani et al., 2023; Jha & Gupta, 2021) [1,3] . Against this background, the present study was undertaken with the following specific objectives: (i) to profile PM-KISAN beneficiary farmers across eleven standardized socio-personal, economic and communication-behaviour variables; (ii) to statistically test, for each variable, whether the beneficiary sample is evenly distributed across its categories or significantly skewed toward particular categories; and (iii) to assess the extent and adequacy of PM-KISAN fund utilization among the same respondents using a set of nine utilization indicators. Taken together, these objectives are intended to situate the utilization findings within a statistically grounded description of who the beneficiaries actually are.

Materials and Methods

Study area and sampling

The study was conducted among PM-KISAN beneficiary farmers in [study area/district/state to be inserted by the author]. A total of 70 respondents were selected through [sampling technique e.g., simple/proportionate random sampling to be specified] from the list of registered beneficiaries maintained under the scheme. Data were collected during [month(s)/year of data collection to be inserted] using a pre-tested, structured interview schedule administered through personal interviews.

Selection and scoring of variables

Eleven independent variables covering the socio-personal, economic and communication-behaviour dimensions of the respondents were selected on the basis of their established relevance in extension-education research: age, gender, education, landholding, type of land ownership, farming experience, annual income, cropping pattern, risk orientation, extension agency contact and social participation. Each variable was operationalized into mutually exclusive categories and assigned ordinal scores as summarized in Table 1, following conventions used in comparable socio-economic profiling studies of small and marginal farmers (Prusty et al., 2025; Alzahrani et al., 2023) [5, 1] .

Variable

Categories and Scores Age Young (18-35) = 1; Middle (>35-45) = 2; Old (>45) = 3 Gender Male = 1; Female = 2 Education Illiterate = 1; Primary = 2; Secondary = 3; Higher Secondary = 4; Graduate = 5 Landholding Marginal (<2.5 ac) = 1; Small (2.5-4.9 ac) = 2; Medium (9.8-24.7 ac) = 3; Big (>24.7 ac) = 4 Type of land ownership Tenant = 1; Owner = 2 Farming experience <10 yrs = 1; 10-20 yrs = 2; 20-30 yrs = 3; >30 yrs = 4 Annual income Low (Rs.35,000-1,90,000) = 1; Medium (Rs.1,90,000-3,45,000) = 2; High (Rs.3,45,000-5,00,000) = 3 Cropping pattern Single season = 1; Two seasons = 2; Three seasons = 3 Risk orientation No impact = 1; Moderate = 2; Reduced = 3 Extension agency contact Never = 1; Sometimes = 2; Regular = 3 Social participation Member (past) = 1; Office bearer (past) = 2; Member (present) = 3; Office bearer (present) = 4

Statistical analysis

Responses were coded and analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Frequencies and percentages were computed for every category of the eleven independent variables (Tables 23456789101112). A weighted mean and standard deviation were additionally computed for each variable using the ordinal scores in Table 1, to summarize the central tendency and spread of the sample on a common numeric scale. To formally test whether respondents were distributed evenly across the categories of each variable or concentrated in particular categories, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test was applied to each variable, with the null hypothesis (H0) that all categories of a given variable were equally likely (i.e., an even/uniform split), tested at the 5 percent level of significance. For the nine PM-KISAN utilization indicators (Table 13), a one-sample exact binomial test was used to test the null hypothesis that the proportion of 'yes' responses equalled 50 percent, again at the 5 percent level of significance. All computations were performed using standard spreadsheet statistical functions (chi-square and binomial distribution functions) and cross-verified against independent script-based computation. The majority of respondents (82.0 percent) fell in the 'old' age category (above 45 years), compared with only 7.0 percent young and 11.0 percent middle-aged farmers (Table 2). The weighted mean age score was 2.74 (SD = 0.58) on the 1-3 scale, and the chi-square goodness-of-fit test confirmed that this distribution differs significantly from an even three-way split (chi-square = 73.06, df = 2, p < 0.001). This pronounced skew toward older respondents is consistent with the widely documented ageing of the Indian farming workforce and implies that any communication or capacity-building strategy accompanying PM-KISAN in this beneficiary group should account for the preferences and constraints typical of older farm operators, such as lower digital literacy for grievance-redressal portals. Male respondents accounted for 70.0 percent of the sample against 30.0 percent female respondents (Table 3). The chisquare test confirmed this male-skewed distribution to be statistically significant (chi-square = 11.20, df = 1, p < 0.001), reflecting the wider pattern in Indian land records whereby operational holdings, and consequently PM-KISAN registration, remain predominantly recorded in the name of male household heads. This underlines a continuing gap in women's direct access to land-linked income-support schemes that has been flagged in related work on inclusion in extension and welfare delivery (Krishna et al., 2019) [4] . Respondents were fairly evenly spread across educational levels, ranging from 24.0 percent illiterate to 12.0 percent graduates (Table 4), giving a weighted mean education score of 2.84 (SD = 1.35) the highest variability of any variable in the study. Unlike age and gender, the chi-square goodness-of-fit test did not reach significance for education (chi-square = 6.14, df = 4, p = 0.189), indicating that, statistically, this sample cannot be said to be concentrated in any particular educational category. This relatively even educational spread is a favourable condition for scheme communication, since awareness material pitched at a single literacy level would otherwise risk excluding a substantial share of beneficiaries. Marginal and small farmers together accounted for 84.0 percent of the sample (Table 5), with a weighted mean landholding score of 1.91 (SD = 0.86) and a highly significant chi-square value (chi-square = 37.77, df = 3, p < 0.001), confirming that the sample is dominated by resource-constrained landholders. This composition is broadly consistent with national data showing that small and marginal households make up the bulk of India's operational holdings (Prusty et al., 2025) [5] and reinforces the rationale for a flat-rate income-support instrument such as PM-KISAN, which is explicitly targeted at this segment. Nearly three-fourths of respondents (73.0 percent) reported more than 30 years of farming experience, with no respondent falling in the least-experienced category (Table 6). The weighted mean experience score was 3.63 (SD = 0.66), and the chi-square test again confirmed significant skew (chi-square = 89.66, df = 3, p < 0.001) the single strongest departure from a uniform distribution among all eleven variables. Read together with the age distribution, this indicates a beneficiary base that is long-established in farming, which may translate into deep-rooted but potentially conventional cultivation practices that extension efforts would need to work with rather than assume away. All 70 respondents (100 percent) were owner-cultivators, with no tenant farmers represented in the sample (Table 7).

Results and Discussion

Age

Gender

Education

Landholding

Farming experience

Type of land ownership

Because this variable has zero variance (SD = 0.00) and only a single observed category, no chi-square test could be www.extensionjournal.com computed; the finding instead highlights a structural feature of PM-KISAN eligibility itself, since land-ownership records are the primary basis for beneficiary identification, a design feature that has separately been flagged as a source of exclusion for tenant and sharecropping farmers who cultivate land without formal title. Low-income households dominated the sample (73.0 percent), yielding a weighted mean income score of 1.36 (SD = 0.64) and a significant chi-square statistic (chi-square = 50.26, df = 2, p < 0.001) (Table 8). This concentration in the low-income bracket is precisely the population PM-KISAN is intended to reach, but it also means that the fixed annual transfer represents a comparatively larger share of household income for most respondent a point that becomes important when interpreting the utilization-adequacy findings in Section 3.9. Double-season (two-crop) cultivation was the modal cropping pattern, practised by 62.0 percent of respondents (Table 9), with a weighted mean score of 1.94 (SD = 0.61) and a significant chi-square value (chi-square = 27.80, df = 2, p < 0.001). This predominance of double-cropping suggests moderate, rather than intensive, cropping intensity across the sample, which is consistent with the resource constraints already indicated by the landholding and income distributions. More than half the respondents (57.0 percent) reported that the income support had 'no impact' on their willingness to take production risks, with only 4.0 percent reporting a reduced risk appetite (Table 10). The weighted mean riskorientation score was 1.47 (SD = 0.58), and the chi-square test confirmed a significant departure from an even spread (chi-square = 30.20, df = 2, p < 0.001). This pattern implies that, for most respondents in this sample, the transfer functions more as a supplementary income cushion than as capital that measurably alters cropping-risk decisions a nuance consistent with findings that unconditional cash transfers under PM-KISAN are typically absorbed into general household liquidity rather than earmarked for riskbearing investment (Ghosh et al., 2024) [2] . Contact with extension agencies was fairly evenly spread across the 'never', 'occasional' and 'regular' categories (36.0, 43.0 and 21.0 percent respectively; Table 12), with a weighted mean score of 1.86 (SD = 0.75). Unlike most other variables, the chi-square goodness-of-fit test for extension contact fell just short of the 5 percent threshold (chi-square = 5.00, df = 2, p = 0.082), meaning the sample cannot be said to be significantly concentrated in any one contact category. Even so, that 36.0 percent of respondents report never having contacted an extension agency is noteworthy, since prior evidence indicates extension contact is strongly associated with higher farm income and more effective use of scheme benefits (Krishna et al., 2019; Alzahrani et al., 2023) [4,1] ; strengthening outreach to this un-contacted segment represents a concrete, low-cost opportunity to improve the developmental returns from PM-KISAN. 'Member (past)' and 'Member (present)' were the two dominant social-participation categories, together accounting for 81.0 percent of respondents (Table 11), with a weighted mean score of 2.04 (SD = 1.03) and a significant chi-square value (chi-square = 29.09, df = 3, p < 0.001). Office-bearer categories, past or present, were comparatively rare (19.0 percent combined), suggesting that while most respondents engage with local farmer or cooperative groups, formal leadership roles remain concentrated in a small subset of the beneficiary population. www.extensionjournal.com Taken together, nine of the eleven variables show a statistically significant departure from an even distribution across their categories, confirming that this beneficiary sample is not a demographically 'flat' cross-section but one concentrated in specific socio-economic bands older, male, small/marginal-landholding, highly experienced, lowincome owner-cultivators practicing double-season cropping. Only education and extension-agency contact approximate an even spread, which is analytically useful because it means the utilization findings reported next cannot be dismissed as an artefact of, say, an all-graduate or all-regularly-contacted sample. All 70 respondents (100 percent) confirmed being registered PM-KISAN beneficiaries, receiving benefits since inception, and receiving all instalments regularly (Table 13, items 1-3), and the one-sample binomial test confirms each of these proportions to be significantly different from a 50 percent baseline (p < 0.001 in each case; Table B) indicating a scheme-delivery mechanism that, for this beneficiary group at least, is functioning close to its intended design with no reported disbursement failures. A clear majority also reported using the funds for agricultural purposes (82.9 percent), experiencing reduced cultivation costs (78.6 percent) and reduced overall farming expenses (71.4 percent), each significant at p < 0.001. A smaller but still significant majority (62.9 percent, p = 0.041) felt the funds had improved their farming activities more broadly, suggesting the perceived productivity benefit is real but somewhat more modest than the cost-relief benefit. The most striking results, however, concern adequacy rather than delivery: not a single respondent (0.0 percent) reported saving any portion of the PM-KISAN transfer, and only one respondent (1.4 percent) considered the amount sufficient for their agricultural activities both proportions significant at p < 0.001 in the direction of near-universal disagreement.

Annual income

Cropping pattern

Risk orientation

Extension agency contact

Social participation

Summary of chi-square goodness-of-fit tests

Utilization of PM-KISAN benefits

Read against the socio-economic profile established in Section 3.1-3.11 a sample dominated by low-income (73.0 percent), small/marginal-landholding (84.0 percent) households this pattern is consistent with the transfer being fully absorbed into recurring cultivation and household expenses rather than generating a surplus. This mirrors the broader finding in the literature that PM-KISAN, while www.extensionjournal.com effective at easing short-term liquidity constraints, was not designed, and does not currently function, as a scheme capable of generating savings or capital accumulation among its intended beneficiaries (Ghosh et al., 2024; Sihag & Malik, 2024) [2,7] .

Conclusion

This study statistically profiled 70 PM-KISAN beneficiary farmers across eleven socio-personal, economic and communication-behaviour variables and evaluated nine indicators of scheme utilization. The beneficiary sample was found to be significantly concentrated among older, male, small/marginal-landholding, highly experienced, lowincome owner-cultivator a profile that closely matches the population PM-KISAN is designed to target, with education and extension-agency contact being the only two variables that did not differ significantly from an even spread. On utilization, the scheme's disbursement mechanism performed strongly, with universal, regular receipt of instalments and a clear majority of respondents reporting productive use of the funds and reduced cultivation costs. At the same time, the near-total absence of savings and the almost universal perception that the transfer amount is insufficient point to a persistent adequacy gap rather than a delivery gap. On the basis of these findings, it is recommended that (i) the transfer amount be periodically reviewed against prevailing input costs and inflation, (ii) extension outreach be actively extended to the 36 percent of beneficiaries in this sample reporting no prior extension contact, given the established link between extension access and income gains, and (iii) future research build on this profiling exercise with respondent-level correlation or regression analysis to establish which specific socioeconomic characteristics most strongly predict utilization outcomes, which the present grouped-data analysis could not test directly.

As with any single-location, cross-sectional survey of modest sample size (n = 70), these findings should be interpreted as indicative of this specific beneficiary group rather than generalized to the national PM-KISAN population without further multi-site validation.

References

1. Alzahrani K, Ali M, Azeem MI, Alotaibi BA. Efficacy of public extension and advisory services for sustainable rice production. Agriculture. 2023;13(5):1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051062
2. Ghosh B, Mukherjee A, Quader ZS. Performance of cash transfer program on farmers' livelihood: Evidence from PM-KISAN scheme of India. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2024;8:1478795. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1478795
3. Jha CK, Gupta V. Farmer's perception and factors determining the adaptation decisions to cope with climate change: An evidence from rural India. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. 2021;10:100112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100112
4. Krishna VV, Aravalath LM, Vikraman S. Does caste determine farmer access to quality information? PLOS ONE. 2019;14(1):e0210721. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210721
5. Prusty AK, Ravisankar N, Kaur J, Joshi H, Rani M, Ridaura SL, et al. Tailored framework for sustainable intensification of marginal and small farms using farm typology to strengthen farm income. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. 2025;27:100847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100847
6. Ramana DBV, et al. Integrated farming systems improve the income of small farm holdings-An overview of earlier findings in the Indian context. Food and Energy Security. 2025;14:e70064. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.70064
7. Sihag R, Malik DP. Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN Scheme): Assessing the effectiveness of direct benefit transfer to farmers. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2024;7(3):475-478. https://doi.org/10.33545/26180723.2024.v7.i3f.462