Socio-economic profile and constraints faced by agripreneurs under PMFME scheme

Introduction

Agriculture is an important sector of the Indian economy and provides livelihood opportunities to a large proportion of the rural population. However, the sector is increasingly confronted with challenges such as low profitability, rising input costs, post-harvest losses, inadequate value addition and limited employment opportunities. In this context, entrepreneurship in agriculture has emerged as an important approach for diversifying rural livelihoods, generating employment, improving income and promoting value addition to agricultural produce. Agripreneurship combines agricultural activities with entrepreneurial skills and enables farmers and rural individuals to utilize available resources for establishing and managing income-generating enterprises. Agripreneurship can therefore contribute to rural economic development by creating employment and income opportunities and by encouraging the commercialization and diversification of agriculture (Unni & Balasree, 2025) [23] . The importance of entrepreneurship in rural areas is particularly significant because rural entrepreneurs contribute to employment generation, utilization of local resources and improvement in the standard of living. Jayadatta (2017) [10] reported that rural entrepreneurship can promote balanced regional development and provide alternative employment opportunities, while also helping to reduce rural-urban migration. However, rural entrepreneurs frequently operate under conditions of limited financial resources, inadequate infrastructure, restricted market access and insufficient technical knowledge. These factors can adversely affect the establishment, survival and expansion of rural enterprises. The socio-economic characteristics of entrepreneurs play an important role in understanding their entrepreneurial activities and capacity to manage enterprises. Age, education, land holding, family characteristics, annual income, social participation, risk-taking ability, innovativeness and information-seeking behaviour are among the characteristics that may influence entrepreneurial behaviour and enterpriserelated needs. Nagar et al. (2019), while studying rural youth, found that the respondents were predominantly characterized by medium levels of land holding, social participation, annual income, risk-taking ability, innovativeness and informationseeking behaviour. The study further reported that land holding, source of income, annual income, informationseeking behaviour and innovativeness were significantly related to agro-based training needs. www.extensionjournal.com Despite the potential of agripreneurship, entrepreneurs face several constraints that can restrict the development and sustainability of their enterprises. Rural entrepreneurs commonly encounter financial difficulties, inadequate infrastructure, marketing problems, difficulties in procuring raw materials, limited technical knowledge and complicated legal formalities. Jayadatta (2017) [10] identified lack of finance, inadequate infrastructural facilities, competition, marketing difficulties, dependence on middlemen, transportation and storage problems, legal formalities and lack of technical knowledge among the major problems faced by rural entrepreneurs. Against this background, the Government of India introduced the Pradhan Mantri Formalisation of Micro Food Processing Enterprises (PMFME) Scheme under the Aatmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan to provide financial, technical and business support for upgrading and formalizing micro food-processing enterprises. The scheme promotes access to credit, branding and marketing, common infrastructure and technical support. The scheme is particularly relevant to agripreneurs as food processing offers opportunities for value addition, diversification and rural employment. However, the effectiveness of such support depends on the socio-economic characteristics, resources, capabilities and constraints of beneficiaries. Therefore, the present study entitled "Socio-Economic Profile and Constraints Faced by Agripreneurs under PMFME Scheme" was undertaken to assess the socioeconomic characteristics of PMFME agripreneurs and identify the major constraints faced by them, thereby providing useful insights for improving support, training and facilitation mechanisms for micro food-processing enterprises.

Methodology

In this study, Kolhapur district of Maharashtra State was purposively selected as the study area. Kolhapur district comprises twelve talukas, namely Karveer, Panhala, Shahuwadi, Kagal, Hatkanangale, Shirol, Radhanagari, Bhudargad, Ajra, Gadhinglaj, Chandgad and Gaganbawada. Among these, four talukas, namely Karveer, Hatkanangale, Gadhinglaj and Ajra, were purposively selected considering the presence of PMFME beneficiaries and micro food processing enterprises in these areas. The primary list of beneficiaries was obtained from the concerned District Superintendent Agriculture Officer (DSAO) office, which served as the basis for further sampling and data collection. Different villages from the selected talukas were selected based on the availability and distribution of beneficiaries under the PMFME scheme. Seven villages from each selected taluka were purposively selected. From each selected village, five PMFME beneficiaries (agripreneurs) were selected by using a purposive sampling method. Thus, 35 agripreneurs from each taluka and a total of 140 agripreneurs were selected for collection of the required information. The ex-post-facto research design was adopted for the present study since the phenomenon under investigation had already occurred and was continuing without any manipulation by the researcher. Ex-post-facto research is a systematic empirical inquiry in which the researcher has no direct control over the independent variables because their manifestations have already occurred or are inherently non-manipulable. Therefore, relationships among the selected variables were studied without direct intervention by the researcher.

Results and Discussion

The socio-economic and entrepreneurial profile of agripreneurs provides an important basis for understanding their participation and performance under the PMFME scheme.

A) Socio-Economic and Entrepreneurial Profile of Agripreneurs 3.1 Age

Age is an important socio-economic characteristic that may influence the entrepreneurial behaviour, risk-taking ability, decision-making and willingness to adopt new technologies among agripreneurs. The data presented in Table 1 revealed that half of the agripreneurs (50.71%) belonged to the middle-aged category (36 to 55 years). This was followed by 25.00% of the agripreneurs belonging to the young age category (up to 35 years), while 24.29% belonged to the old age category (56 years and above). (Devi et al. 2019) [8] . The predominance of middle-aged agripreneurs may be attributed to their greater work experience, financial stability and entrepreneurial maturity, which help them manage enterprises effectively and take informed decisions. Young agripreneurs may be more enthusiastic towards establishing food processing enterprises, while older agripreneurs may benefit from their accumulated experience and established social networks.

Education

Education plays an important role in improving an individual's knowledge, awareness, decision-making ability and willingness to adopt new technologies. In the case of agripreneurs, education may help them understand enterprise-related information and manage business activities more effectively. The data presented in Table 2 revealed that the highest proportion of agripreneurs (33.56%) had completed secondary education, followed by 30.00% who had completed higher secondary education. Further, 22.86% of the respondents were graduates, while 9.29% had education up to the primary level and 4.29% had postgraduate qualifications. None of the respondents was illiterate. Thus, the findings indicate that the majority of agripreneurs possessed a moderate level of formal education. (Rempuii 2022) [20] .

Social Participation

The data presented in Table 3 revealed that the majority of agripreneurs (56.43%) had a medium level of social participation, followed by 30.71% who had a low level of participation. Only 12.86% of the respondents had a high level of social participation. Thus, the findings indicate that most agripreneurs had a medium level of social participation, reflecting moderate involvement in social organizations and community activities. (Baindha et al. 2017) [4] .

Annual Income

The data presented in Table 4 revealed that the highest proportion of agripreneurs (30.71%) belonged to the medium annual income category (₹15,30,001 to ₹19,70,000), followed by 22.14% in the low-income category (₹10,90,001 to ₹15,30,000). Further, 20.71% of the respondents belonged to the high-income category (₹19,70,001 to ₹24,10,000), while 13.58% were in the very-low-income category (up to ₹10,90,000). Only 12.86% of the agripreneurs belonged to the very-high-income category (above ₹24,10,000). This study indicates a moderate economic position among the respondents, with scope for improving their income through better enterprise management, value addition and market opportunities. (Mubeena et al. 2020) [18] .

Employment Generation

The data presented in Table 5 revealed that the majority of agripreneurs (64.29%) generated employment for 1-4 workers, followed by 22.14% who provided employment to 5-10 workers. Further, 7.86% of the respondents generated employment for 11-15 workers, while only 5.71% provided employment for 16-20 workers. (Kowsalya 2017) [14] .

Size of Land Holding

The data presented in Table 6 revealed that the majority of agripreneurs (54.29%) belonged to the marginal landholding category with up to 1.00 ha of land, followed by 28.57% who had small landholdings of 1.01 to 2.00 ha. Further, 10.71% of the respondents belonged to the semi-medium category (2.01 to 4.00 ha), while 4.29% and 2.14% belonged to the medium (4.01 to 10.00 ha) and large (more than 10.00 ha) categories, respectively. (Nigade 2022) [19] .

Risk Orientation

The Data observed in Table 7 revealed that the more than half (62.86%) of agripreneurs had a medium level of risk orientation, whereas 22.85% showed a low level and 14.29% had a high level. The higher proportion of medium risk orientation could be attributed to the respondents' www.extensionjournal.com educational levels, as most had completed secondary and higher secondary schooling and their belonging to the middle-aged category. These aspects may have influenced them to adopt a more cautious and balanced approach to risktaking. (Kolgane et al. 2018) [13] .

Sr

Achievement Motivation

The data presented in Table 8 revealed that more than half of the agripreneurs (56.42%) had medium achievement motivation, followed by 29.29% with high and 14.29% with low achievement motivation, which may be attributed to their desire for economic stability, enterprise growth and better outcomes. (Siddeswari et al. 2021) [22] .

Sr

Innovativeness

The data in Table 9 results demonstrated that in (63.57%)of agripreneurs had a medium level of innovativeness, followed by 22.14% with high and 14.29% with low innovativeness. This medium level may be attributed to their willingness to adopt improved practices and new ideas, while financial constraints, risk associated with new technologies and limited technical knowledge may have restricted higher innovativeness. (Devi et al. 2019) [8] .

Economic Orientation

The data presented in Table 10 revealed that (64.29%) of agripreneurs had a medium level of economic orientation, followed by 20.71% with low and 15.00% with high economic orientation. This medium level may be attributed to their focus on stable income and self-employment, while limited financial resources and risk-bearing capacity may have restricted them from pursuing higher economic opportunities. (Bhargavi et al. 2024) [5] .

Market Orientation

The data presented in Table 11 observed that (62.14%)of agripreneurs had a medium level of market orientation, followed by 21.43% with high and 16.43% with low market orientation. This medium level indicates that most agripreneurs had moderate awareness of market trends and consumer preferences, while limited market information and marketing skills may have restricted higher market orientation. (Kale 2020) [11] .

Entrepreneurships Development Programme Participation

The data presented in Table 12 studied that (71.43%) of agripreneurs had attended one training programme, followed by 23.57% who had not received any training, while only 5.00% had attended two or more training programmes. The higher participation in one training may be due to the usefulness of training in developing basic entrepreneurial and technical skills, whereas limited awareness, lack of timely information and fewer product-specific training opportunities may have restricted participation in multiple programmes. (Shirke et al. 2025) [21] . [16] .

References

1. Afroz S, Singh R, Nain M, Mishra J. Determinants for agripreneurship development under Agri-Clinics and Agribusiness Centres (ACABC) Scheme. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2022;92(2):258-262.
2. Ahmad T, Haneef R. Socio-economic and sociopersonal characteristics of agri-entrepreneurs: a study of Uttarakhand and Punjab state of India. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology. 2021;39(7):101-109.
3. Anandashankar MK, Upendranath S. A study of socioeconomic and entrepreneurial characteristics of tribals of Mayurbhanj district in sabai grass enterprise. International Journal of Management and Engineering. 2014;5(3):426-438.
4. Baindha A, Berwal RK, Kumar A, Sankhla G, Kumar V. Socio-personal, communication and psychological profile affecting entrepreneurial behaviour of milk processors. Young. 2017;35(1):2-43.
5. Bhargavi R, Chowdary KR, Lakshmi T, Siva Jyothi GL. Profile of agripreneurs in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2024;10(2):95-100.
6. Deepthi V, Rambabu P, Gopikrishna T, Vishnu D. Profile characteristics of agripreneurs in Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Agricultural Journal. 2018;65(1):230-234.
7. Dendup T, Chhetri R, Dolma C. Challenges of young agripreneurs in Eastern Bhutan. Social and Management Research Journal. 2021;18(1):53-72.
8. Devi CL, Praveen PLRJ, Lakshmi T, Nagavani AV. Profile characteristics of women agripreneurs in Kadapa District of Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(7):924-932.
9. Gaonkar DS, Naik KR. Opportunities and challenges in agripreneurship in India. CLIO: An Annual Interdisciplinary Journal of History. 2020;6(8):112-116. doi:10.9790/487X-1909023544.
10. Jayadatta S. Major challenges and problems of rural entrepreneurship in India. IOSR Journal of Business and Management. 2017;19(9):35-44.
11. Kale ND. Impact of National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) on its beneficiaries in Marathwada region. Parbhani: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2020.
12. Katakwar S. Agri-entrepreneurship: challenges and opportunities. International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology. 2022;8(1):163-170.
13. Kolgane BT, Suramwad SR, Dound RV. Study the entrepreneurial behaviour of pomegranate growing farmers in Solapur District of Maharashtra State. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;7(1):29562958.
14. Kowsalya D. Impact of Integrated Farming System Demonstration (IFSD) Programme on livelihood and nutritional security of farmers of Mandya District [PhD thesis]. Bangalore: University of Agricultural Sciences; 2017.
15. Kumar T, Singh SR, Kumari P, Panda CK. Socioeconomic and psychological profile of agrientrepreneurs of Bhagalpur district of Bihar. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2019;8(2):238242.
16. Logu. A study on problem and prospect of women beedi worker in Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram district. www.extensionjournal.com International Journal for Research in Engineering Application and Management. 2021;7(2):44-47.
17. Ministry of Food Processing Industries. Annual report 2024-25: PM Formalisation of Micro Food Processing Enterprises (PMFME) Scheme. New Delhi: Government of India; 2025.
18. Mubeena M, Lakshmi T, Praveena PLRJ, Nagavani AV, Murthy BR. Profile characteristics of rural youth agripreneurs of Andhra Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2020;9(6):314-319.
19. Nigade DD. Impact on Kisan Credit Card scheme among the beneficiary farmers in Marathwada region. Parbhani: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2022.
20. Rempuii. Attitude of rural youth towards agripreneurship. Parbhani: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2022.
21. Shirke SN, Warwadekar SC, Mardane RG, Torane SR, D Ahiphale TP. Profile characteristics of beneficiaries of Pradhan Mantri Formalisation of Micro Food Processing Enterprises (PMFME) scheme. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2025;8(10):42-45.
22. Siddeswari GK, Sathya Gopal PV, Sailaja V, Ravindra Reddy B. Socio-psychological characteristics of the practicing women entrepreneurs emerged out of selfhelp groups in Andhra Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(1):14-21.
23. Unni N, Balasree R. Problems and prospects of agripreneurship in Kerala. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology. 2025;13(7):364-373. doi:10.22214/ijraset.2025.73029.
24. Verma R, Sahoo A, Rakshit S. Opportunities in agripreneurship in India: need, challenges and future prospects. Rashtriya Krishi. 2018;13(1):69-72.
25. Yoganandan G, Vignesh T. Challenges in agro entrepreneurship in Tamilnadu, India. International Journal of Research in Commerce, Economics and Management. 2016;6(2):37-39.