Summary Impact of Government Policies on Haryana Farmers.docx

SUMMARY
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
A major contributor to the nation's growth is agriculture. It makes a significant contribution to
the Indian economy's national GDP and creates a great deal of job opportunities. Over the past
few decades, India's agricultural sector has advanced significantly. The agricultural industry in
India has experienced a significant shift in technology with the introduction of High Yielding
Varieties (HYVs) in 1966–1967. Utilizing these fertilizer-responsive seeds has increased
agricultural production per unit area significantly in a number of crops, providing the nation
with much-needed food grain self-sufficiency. The introduction of agricultural technology,
irrigation, and rising modern input usage have all accelerated the process of loosening the grip
of traditional agriculture. This has led to a movement that is commonly referred to as the "Green
Revolution" (Sharma, 1999). Through monoculture systems, superior crop varieties, chemical
fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation that rotates from a food grain-deficit country to a spare
condition, the Green Revolution encouraged the use of new technology for increasing crop
yields. The new agricultural development plan's success has given the Indian agriculture sector
renewed hope.
HARYANA'S FARM MECHANIZATION PROGRESS
Since its founding, Haryana's output of food grains has increased noticeably. One plausible
cause for increased production might be the application of novel agricultural technology. One
of the states that is leading the way in the use of advanced agricultural technology is Haryana.
Haryana is regarded as a technology transfer model state. Haryana is the state that has achieved
the most progress in farm mechanization among all agricultural technology.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Since the inception of this expression, the idea of work-life balance has been developing. In
the mid-1960s and early 1970s, business leaders believed that working women were the only
ones who could handle the demands of fulfilling both their personal and professional
obligations. Furthermore, up until then, it was mostly a Western idea. In response to a shift in
corporate attitudes throughout the 1980s, new employee benefit programs were put into place.
These include paid time off for expecting mothers, staff counseling programs, flexible work

SUMMARY
schedules, childcare facilities for working women's children, and the option to work remotely
to some degree. Around that time, males began to voice concerns about maintaining a work-
life balance. The 1990s saw a significant increase in the awareness of the value of work-life
balance and the realization that issues did not just effect female employees; rather, they also
had an impact on male employees, businesses, and human culture. Thus, the significance of
work-life balance has increased in the current era.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
One of the main factors contributing to India's agrarian distress is farmer debt, an issue that is
extensively studied. Nonetheless, the goal, scope, and origins of government policies on
farmers have been examined in this study. Additionally, it assessed farmers' utilization patterns
as well as their knowledge of Haryana's government policies formulated specifically for them.
Although there are numerous facets to the issue, just a few have been chosen for this research.
This study's scope is restricted to the state of Haryana. Furthermore, just six of Haryana's
twenty-two districts have been the subject of the study. The third chapter details the accepted
process for choosing respondents and districts. A descriptive analysis of the study's nature has
been conducted.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
“Impact of Government Policies on Haryana Farmers: An Evaluation”
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Total No of Reviews Covered=122
Period of Reviews = 2023 to 2000
RESEARCH GAP
In this chapter, the goals of the study and earlier research on the subject are examined. The
prior research has been divided into three areas. The aspects of various with the government
policies are covered in the chapter. The main issues and complexities found are: late payment
of claims; nonpayment of premiums; claims amount insufficient to mitigate agricultural losses;
lack of awareness and knowledge; lack of participation; high premium rate; failure to provide
aid to needy farmers; insufficient amount of subsidies; and unsatisfactory state government
participation because a small number of states benefit more than the majority of states. The

SUMMARY
state's agricultural expansion has resulted in notable adverse consequences on the environment
of the study region, notably with regard to soil and water resources, as a result of the altered
cropping pattern. The state's farmers are ignorant of the environmental risks that arise as an
outcome of various things. Therefore, it can be said that technical advancements in agriculture
and agricultural development have an influence on soil fertility, land resources, agricultural
production, and human dangers. Nearly all of the research mentioned above was done in the
various Indian states, as well as in parts of Haryana. However, not all elements have been
covered in the literature that has already been written about agricultural growth with the help
of government policies framed for the upliftment of agricultural sector in Haryana.
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
1. To study the Government policies available for Haryana Farmers.
2. To analyse the socio-economic status of Haryana Farmers.
3. To analyze the perception of Haryana farmers towards government policies
4. To analyze the impact of government policies on Haryana Farmers.
3.6 HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY
H01. There is no significant difference between the level of perception on demographic basis.
H01.1 There is no significant difference between the level of perception on the bases
of age.
of occupation.
of qualification.
of category.
of family type.
of land holdings.

SUMMARY
H02. There is no significant impact of government policies on Haryana Farmers.
H02.1 There is no significant impact of government policies on Haryana Farmers on
the bases of age.
the bases of occupation.
the bases of qualification.
the bases of category.
the bases of family type.
H02.6 There is no significant impact of government policies on Haryana Farmers on the
bases of land holdings.
POPULATION
The universe is made up of a group of individuals with different characteristics who share
knowledge. This study attempts to identify a representative sample from the whole universe,
despite the fact that time and resources are still limited for gathering data from respondents
Haryana state, which facilitates the process of choosing a study topic from a particular
perspective. The goal of this study is to identify a representative sample from the whole
universe, despite the fact that time and resources are still limited for gathering data from
respondents worldwide.
Respondents in the state of Haryana provided the researcher with the data. Because of this, the
researcher decided to use the Systematic Sampling Technique to choose a sample of
respondents from the state of Haryana.
SAMPLING UNIT
The National Capital was encircled by the state on three sides. Approximately 35% of the state's
area is located in the National Capital Region. The Three Agricultural Zones that make up
the state are determined by planting -patterns and environment. Thus, cropping systems and
agricultural systems have emerged.

SUMMARY
Agricultural Zones Of Haryana
Zones Districts
I Panchkula, Ambala, Kurukshetra, Yamunanagar, Karnal, Kaithal, Panipat and
Sonipat
II Sirsa, Fatehabad, Hisar, Jind, Rohtak, Faridabad and Palwal
III Bhiwani, Mahendergarh, Rewari, Jhajjar, Gurgaon and Mewat
Source: Gautam.P.L, Kairon.M.S, Singh.S.S and Dass.S (2013) “Working Group Report on Productivity
Enhancement of Crops in Haryana”, Published by Haryana Kisan Ayog, Government of Haryana.
SAMPLING AREA
A total of six hundred farmers or farm-households have been surveyed in order to meet the set
objectives. The table below shows the distribution of farmers by district:
Researcher gathered population-related data from the 2011 Census. The districts used for the
study's demography are listed below:
District-wise Sampling Distribution of Haryana State
Zones Districts Population
I Ambala 100
I Karnal 100
II Hisar 100
IV Rohtak 100
V Faridabad 100
VI Gurugram 100
Total 600
Source: Field Survey Report, 2020-21
Table 3.2 shows the sample area taken by the researcher which is six administrative divisions
of Haryana. The researcher has taken 100 respondents from each district.
A total of 12 villages were chosen, with at least two villages from each block is selected
districts. The second selection criterion is the village's location. It was determined that it should
be at a minimum distance of 15 kilometers from a city or town for the collection of data and to
analyse and interpret it for better results.
SAMPLE SIZE
The following method may be used to calculate the minimum sample size using Cochran's
sample size formula:

SUMMARY
Sample Size = z2 * p * q / e2
Researcher choose to work with a 95% confidence level so the values are as under: z2 = 1.96,
a standard deviation(p) is 0.5, q = 1-p, and
a confidence interval (e) of ± 5%;
just put the values in the formula:
((1.96)2 x .5(.5)) / (.05)2
(3.8416 x .25) / .0025
.9604 / .0025
384.16
So, the Minimum sample size need to be 385.
The researcher decided to use the stratified random sampling approach to choose 650
respondents as a sample size from the state of Haryana for data collection.
DATA COLLECTION
Data collection is the process of gathering information from various sources to meet a research
question. Depending on the kind of data, the data collection method is divided into two
categories:
PRIMARY DATA
The results of the study are solely dependent on primary data that was gathered from farmers
or respondents who were sampled or polled. The necessary information was gathered using a
pre-tested schedule that addressed every facet of farmers of government policies (in
accordance with the study's predetermined goals). From the chosen respondents, the researcher
gathered a variety of primary data or information. Lastly, information was gathered straight
from farmers or other final responde3.12rs. Nearly every topic covered during data collection
that was pertinent to this study was investigated, and the researcher made every effort to reduce
bias.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
Aside from the categories, the only factors that affect the choice of data collection method are
the study's objectives. Most studies employ the primary data collection approach, which

SUMMARY
consists of using a closed-ended questionnaire to get fresh data from a sample of respondents,
in order to meet their study objectives. The study adopts a qualitative approach for gathering
data about health insurance customers. Moreover, the study ensures that all necessary licenses
are acquired before the first round of data collecting from the chosen location. An open-ended
questionnaire is used to make the process of collecting data for the study easier. The
questionnaire for the study focused on farmers in a particular region in Haryana.
Data for the study were gathered using a standardized, closed-ended, self-administered
questionnaire. A questionnaire consists of several questions designed to collect data on the
study topic in a certain manner. Respondents provide comprehensive responses to the questions
when completing the questionnaire. Using the previously employed offline data gathering
strategy, the questionnaire was created. Section A contains the respondents' personal
information based on their demographic profile. Age, gender, educational background, number
of family members, annual income, and home location are some of the details included in this
data. Section B contains questions on considerations for selecting a job. Section D is devoted
to factors impacting work-life balance, which are the current employment criteria covered in
Section C.
PILOT STUDY
The efficacy of the questionnaire is assessed through a pilot study. A pilot research was
conducted to create the questionnaire for the current investigation. It improves the accuracy of
the questionnaire and reduces mistakes made when gathering the necessary data.
The research uses fifty sets of questionnaires to gather data. Based on feedback from fifty sets
of surveys, the questionnaire was appropriate and very simple for the respondents to grasp
throughout. Following the pilot research, the questionnaire's reliability was assessed; the
findings are displayed below. Section I: Demographic Profile The survey includes all relevant
factors.
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Analysis
Sr. No. Dimensions No. of Items Cronbach’s Alpha
1 Demographic Profile 08 0.801
2 Perception 10 0.879
3 Level Of Agreement 29 0.901
Source: Primary Data

SUMMARY
Not a single variable (less than 0.7) displayed indications of weakness or inadequate reliability.
These variables are eliminated from the survey and are not taken into account in the research.
As a result, data analysis uses the six trustworthy remaining dimensions.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardised Items
No. of Items
0.978 0.978 47
In the table above, the internal consistency alpha score is 0.978, which is more than 0.7 and
suggests that the scale is reliable.
SCALING AND CODING
The present study's questionnaire employs the Likert scale, a widely recognized and often
utilized method for collecting survey data. Each question on the questionnaire received points
from the defendant, and the defendant's overall score was determined once the scoring
methodology was made public. The responses to the queries were expected on a
(a) 2-Points scale with 1 denoting "Good" and 5 denoting "Not so good"
(b) 5-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting "strongly agree" and 5 denoting "strongly disagree"
The numerical numbers provided to the replies guarantee the weights assigned to each
response. The collected data was quantified using coding for analytical purposes using the
following rating scale and coding technique:
Rating Scale-1
1 2
Good Not So Good
Rating Scale-2
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
The following coding scheme was used for data analysis:
 Age(in years) –18-30 Years =1, 30 – 40 Years =2, 41 – 50 Years =3, 46 & Above 50 Years
=4

SUMMARY
Occupation- Agriculture as a primary Occupation =1, Agriculture as a Secondary
Occupation=2 and Other=3
 Qualification – Literate=1, Illiterate =2
 Category – SC =1, BC = 2, General=3
 Family Type- Nuclear=1, Joint=2
 Landholding-) Less than 1acre=1, 1-5 acres=2, 5-10 acres=3, 10-15 acres=4, More
than 15 acres=5
 Annual Income From Agriculture- Upto 5 lakh=1, 5-10 lakh=2, Above 10L=3
 Annual Income From Other sources- Upto 5 lakh=1, 5-10 lakh=2, Above 10L=3
 House Type- Pucca=1, Kuchha=2, Semi Kuchha=3
SECONDARY DATA
The secondary data came from the NSS 70th round report on the income, expenses, productive
assets, and debt of Indian agricultural families as well as the Statistical Abstract of Haryana
2018–19. In addition, NSS reports from earlier rounds on Data from the whole India debt
investment survey as well as information on the income, expenses, productive assets, and debt
of agricultural families in the country were used.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
The researcher in this study converted all of the data that was gathered from the schedule to
tables. Tables were created for the findings to be presented effectively. The qualitative data was
quantified using a scoring and coding system, then SPSS was utilized for the quantitative
analysis. Both the qualitative and quantitative analysis methods that were applied are covered
in the upcoming chapter of "Data Analysis and Interpretation". Bar graphs were created to
effectively visualize the results. In addition, calculations were made for the average and
percentage. The following is how the
(a) arithmetic mean was used to compute average (or mean) values:
= /N
Where,
X = Amount of loan or debt
= Mean value of X

SUMMARY
= Summation of X
N = Numbers of respondents or farmers
b) Chi-Square Test:-
Chi square test is an important test amongst several test of significance developed by
statisticians is chi –square .It can be used as a test of goodness of fit and as a test of
attributes.
A test for population variance
Χ2
= [(n - 1) * s2
] / σ2
Degree of freedom (V) = N-1
Test as a non parametric test
O - Observed frequency
E - Expected frequency
Degree of freedom (V) = N-1
c) Test Statistic for ANOVA
The test statistic for testing H0: μ1 = μ2 = ... = μk is:
Test Statistic for Chi-Square

SUMMARY
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The descriptive analysis used Mean, Frequency, Percentage, and Standard Deviation to analyze
the demographic features of the respondents.
Findings Based on Objectives
Findings related to the study based on the objectives specified in the study are discussed below
in detail:
Findings Based on Objective 2 (To analyze the socio-economic status of
Haryana Farmers.)
 10.67% of respondents came out to be of age group 18-30, 21.17% of respondents came
out to be of age group 30-40, 45.83% of respondents came out to be of age group 41-
50, 22.33% of respondents came out to be of age group above 50 years.
 32.00% of respondents highlighted that they had agriculture as a primary occupation.
62.17% of respondents stated that they had agriculture as a secondary occupation
whereas 5.83% of respondents stated that they had some other occupation as a
profession.
 29.17% of respondents were found to be literate and 70.83% of respondents were
found to be illiterate.
 21.67% of respondents were found to belong to SC category, 38.33% of respondents
were found to belong to BC category whereas 40.00% of respondents were found to
belong to the general category.
 43.50% of respondents belonged to the nuclear family whereas 58.50% of respondents
belonged to joint family.
 18.83% of respondents have less than 1 acre of land, 7.33% of the respondents have 1-
5 acres of land, 8.33% of the respondents have 5-10 acres of land, 45.00% of the
respondents have 10-15 acres of land whereas 20.50% of the respondents have more
than 15 acres of land.
 74.50% respondents have 5-10L of annual income from the agriculture whereas 25.50%
respondents have above 10L as their annual income of the respondents from agriculture.
 84.33% of the respondents have up to 5L as annual income from other sources, 9.67%
of the respondents have 5-10L as annual income from other sources whereas 6.00% of
the respondents have above 10L as annual income from other sources.

SUMMARY
 82.17% respondents found to have pucca house, 11.33% of the respondents have
kuchha house whereas 6.50% of the respondents have semi kuchha house.

Findings Based on Objective 3 (To analyze the perception of Haryana
farmers towards government policies.)
 80.50% of the respondents found Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) scheme
as good whereas 19.50% of the respondents found Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana
(PMFBY) scheme as not so good.
 24.50% of the respondents found Perception of farmers towards Pradhan Mantri Krishi
Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) scheme as good whereas 75.50% of the respondents found
Perception of farmers towards Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY)
scheme.as not so good.
 4.17% of the respondents found Perception of farmers towards National Agriculture
Market (e-NAM) scheme as good whereas 95.83% of the respondents found Perception
of farmers towards National Agriculture Market (e-NAM) scheme as not so good.
 56.17% of the respondents found Perception of farmers towards Agriculture
Technology Management Agency (ATMA) scheme as good whereas 43.83% of the
respondents found Perception of farmers towards Agriculture Technology
Management Agency (ATMA) scheme as not so good.
 46.50% of the respondents found Perception of farmers towards National Food Security
Mission (NFSM) scheme as good whereas 53.50% of the respondents found Perception
of farmers towards National Food Security Mission (NFSM) scheme as not so good.
 41.67% of the respondents found Perception of farmers towards Perception of farmers
towards Mission on Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH sub component of
NHM scheme as good whereas 58.33% of the respondents found Perception of farmers
towards Perception of farmers towards Mission on Integrated Development of
Horticulture (MIDH sub component of NHM scheme.as not so good.
towards Soil Health Card Scheme as good whereas 44.50% of the respondents found
Perception of farmers towards Soil Health Card Scheme as not so good.
towards Promotion of Agricultural Mechanization for In-Situ Crop Residue
Management scheme as good whereas 92.17% of the respondents found Perception of

SUMMARY
farmers towards Promotion of Agricultural Mechanization for In-Situ Crop Residue
Management scheme as not so good.
towards Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) scheme as good whereas 82.00%
of the respondents found Perception of farmers towards Paramparagat Krishi Vikas
Yojana (PKVY) scheme as not so good.
towards Small Farmers Agri Business Consortium (SFAC) scheme as good whereas
27.67% of the respondents found Perception of farmers towards Small Farmers Agri
Business Consortium (SFAC) scheme as not so good.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
4.21 H01. There is no significant difference between the level of perception
on demographic basis.
 H1.1 There is no significant difference between the level of perception on the bases
of age.
Sr. No. Government Schemes p- value Inferences*
1. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) .751 Not significant
2. Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) .934 Not significant
3. National Agriculture Market (e-NAM) .851 Not significant
4. Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA) .829
Not significant
5. National Food Security Mission (NFSM) .022
Significant
6. Mission on Integrated Development of Horticulture
(MIDH sub component of NHM
.884
Not significant
7. Soil Health Card Scheme .449
Not significant
8. Promotion of Agricultural Mechanization for In-Situ Crop
Residue Management
.808
Not significant
9. Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) .545
Not significant
10. Small Farmers Agri Business Consortium (SFAC) .918
Not significant
Chi-Square test was used for finding the difference between the level of perception on
demographical basis. The p-value significant level is found to be 0.05 at the scheme National
Food Security Mission (NFSM), rest all the schemes are not significant with the value more
than 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis stands partially accepted.

SUMMARY
H01.2 There is no significant difference between the level of perception on the bases of
occupation.
Sr. No. Problems of demonetization p- value Inferences*
Not significant
Not Significant
.798
Not significant
Not significant
Residue Management
.341
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
* Significant at 0.05 level of significance
demographical basis. The p-value is not significant at all levels. Thus, the null hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the level of perception on the bases of
occupation stands accepted.
qualification.
Not significant
Not Significant
.529
Not significant
Not significant

SUMMARY
Residue Management
.520
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
There is no significant difference between the level of perception on the bases of
qualification stands accepted.
category.
Not significant
Not Significant
.695
Not significant
Not significant
Residue Management
.947
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
There is no significant difference between the level of perception on the bases of category
stands accepted.
family type.

SUMMARY
2. Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) .005 Significant
Significant
Not Significant
.190
Not significant
Not significant
Residue Management
.006
Significant
Not significant
Not significant
demographical basis. The p-value is significant at Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana
(PMKSY) with value equallent to .005, Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA)
with the value equallent to .007, Promotion of Agricultural Mechanization for In-Situ Crop
Residue Management with the value equallent to .006. Thus, the null hypothesis There is no
significant difference between the level of perception on the bases of family type is
partially accepted.
H1.6 There is no significant difference between the level of perception on the bases of land
holdings.
Not significant
Not Significant
.936
Not significant
Not significant

SUMMARY
Residue Management
.417
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
There is no significant difference between the level of perception on the bases of land
holdings is accepted.
Findings Based on Objective 4 (To analyze the impact of government policies
on Haryana Farmers.)
(i) The crops included in this scheme 6.5% of respondents were found to strongly agree, 17.2%
of the respondents were found to agree with the statement, 36.3% of the respondents were
found to be neutral towards the statement, 10.8% of the respondents were found to disagree
with the statement, 29.2% of the respondents were found to strongly disagree with the
statement.
The table above also highlighted the responses of the respondents towards the statement
Premium of crops. 7.7% of respondents were found to strongly agree, 26.0% of the
respondents were found to agree with the statement, 26.3% of the respondents were found to
be neutral towards the statement, 15.2% of the respondents were found to disagree with the
statement, 24.8% of the respondents were found to strongly disagree with the statement.
PMFBY scheme is mandatory for the farmers having land loans. 11.3% of respondents were
found to strongly agree, 1.2% of the respondents were found to agree with the statement, 15.0%
of the respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 43.3% of the respondents
were found to disagree with the statement, 29.2% of the respondents were found to strongly
disagree with the statement.
(ii) Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) 8.5% of respondents were found to
strongly agree, 19.5% of the respondents were found to agree with the statement, 22.5% of
the respondents were found neutral towards the statement, 9.7% of the respondents were
found to disagree with the statement, 39.8% of the respondents were found to strongly

SUMMARY
Subsidy pattern opted by the scheme for micro irrigation lands. 12.3% of respondents were
found to strongly agree, 32.8% of the respondents were found to agree with the statement,
12.7% of the respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 21.5% of the
respondents were found to disagree with the statement, 20.7% of the respondents were found
to strongly disagree with the statement.
Sealing of area under the scheme for availing the benefits of the scheme. 8.0% of respondents
were found to strongly agree, 12.2% of the respondents were found to agree with the statement,
Sealing of area under the scheme for availing the benefits of the scheme. 10.7% of respondents
were found to strongly agree, 17.2% of the respondents were found to agree with the statement,
(iii) National Agriculture Market (e-NAM). 8.5% of respondents were found to strongly
agree, 19.5% of the respondents were found to agree with the statement, 22.5% of the
respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 9.7% of the respondents were
found to disagree with the statement, 39.8% of the respondents were found to strongly disagree
with the statement.
(iv) Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA). 5.2% of respondents were
of the respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 55.% of the respondents
As per the table, Known to the implementing agency of ATMA. 14.7% of respondents were
of the respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 21.7.% of the respondents

SUMMARY
(v) National Food Security Mission (NFSM). 6.7% of respondents were found to strongly
agree, 5.6% of the respondents were found to agree with the statement, 9.3% of the respondents
were found to be neutral towards the statement, 36.3.% of the respondents were found to
disagree with the statement, 41.8% of the respondents were found to strongly disagree with the
statement.
As per table 4.31, Known to the implementing agency of the NFSM Scheme. 13.3% of
respondents were found to strongly agree, 5.3% of the respondents were found to agree with
the statement, 22.3% of the respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 9.0.%
of the respondents were found to disagree with the statement, 50.0% of the respondents were
found to strongly disagree with the statement.
(vi) Familiar with MIDH. 14.0% of respondents were found to strongly agree, 19.0% of the
respondents were found to agree with the statement, 2.0% of the respondents were found to be
neutral towards the statement, 34.7.% of the respondents were found to disagree with the
As per the table, Known to implement agency. 4.2% of respondents were found to strongly
statement.
As per the table, Known to components of the scheme. 19.7% of respondents were found to
strongly agree, 0.5% of the respondents were found to agree with the statement, 0.3% of the
respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 19.0.% of the respondents were
with the statement.
As per table, Known to the subsidy pattern of the scheme. 17.2% of respondents were found to

SUMMARY
with the statement.
(vii) Familiar with Soil Health Card Scheme. 21.7% of respondents were found to strongly
statement.
As per table, Benefits of Soil Health Card Scheme. 24.3% of respondents were found to
respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 9.5.% of the respondents were
with the statement.
(viii) Familiar to the scheme. 18.5% of respondents were found to strongly agree, 51.5% of the
respondents were found to agree with the statement, 8.5% of the respondents were found to be
neutral towards the statement, 8.0.% of the respondents were found to disagree with the
As per table. knowledge about the custom hire center. 24.3% of respondents were found to
with the statement.
As per table. Assistance is being provided on farm machinery under the scheme. 24.3% of
the statement, 24.7% of the respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 5.0%
As per table. Programmes and trainings organized under the scheme Promotion of Agricultural
Mechanization for In-Situ Crop Residue Management. 17.5% of respondents were found to

SUMMARY
with the statement
(ix) Level of scheme PKVY. 3.3% of respondents were found to strongly agree, 61.8% of the
As per table, the Implementing agency of the scheme. 21.3% of respondents were found to
with the statement.
As per table, Purpose of scheme. 18.3% of respondents were found to strongly agree, 16.8%
found to be neutral towards the statement, 12.5% of the respondents were found to disagree
with the statement, 32.3% of the respondents were found to strongly disagree with the
statement.
As per table, Assistance given for promotion of organic farming under the scheme. 14.7% of
the statement, 15.3% of the respondents were found to be neutral towards the statement, 24.3%
(x) Familiar to scheme. 7.3% of respondents were found to strongly agree, 23.5% of the
As per table 4.36, Familiar to scheme. 7.3% of respondents were found to strongly agree,
23.5% of the respondents were found to agree with the statement, 26.8% of the respondents
were found to be neutral towards the statement, 28.3% of the respondents were found to
statement.

SUMMARY
As per table, Implementing agency. 16.8% of respondents were found to strongly agree, 36.2%
of the respondents were found to agree with the statement, 5.8% of the respondents were found
to be neutral towards the statement, 24.8% of the respondents were found to disagree with the
As per table, Purpose of scheme. 10.5% of respondents were found to strongly agree, 42.3%
found to be neutral towards the statement, 9.8% of the respondents were found to disagree with
the statement, 10.8% of the respondents were found to strongly disagree with the statement.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
H02. There is no significant impact of government policies on Haryana
Farmers.
H02.1 There is no significant impact of government policies on Haryana Farmers on the bases of
age.
Multiple Comparisons
Tukey HSD
Dependent
Variable
(I) Age of the
respondents.
(J) Age of the
respondents.
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
The crops
included in this
scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .052 .192 .993 -.44 .55
41 – 50 Years .046 .174 .994 -.40 .49
Above 50 Years .140 .190 .883 -.35 .63
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.052 .192 .993 -.55 .44
41 – 50 Years -.006 .134 1.000 -.35 .34
Above 50 Years .088 .155 .941 -.31 .49
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.046 .174 .994 -.49 .40
30 – 40 Years .006 .134 1.000 -.34 .35
Above 50 Years .094 .132 .892 -.25 .43
Above 50 Years 18-30 Years -.140 .190 .883 -.63 .35
30 – 40 Years -.088 .155 .941 -.49 .31
41 – 50 Years -.094 .132 .892 -.43 .25
Premium of crops 18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.330 .197 .338 -.84 .18
41 – 50 Years -.463*
.178 .047 -.92 .00
Above 50 Years -.349 .195 .280 -.85 .15

SUMMARY
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .330 .197 .338 -.18 .84
41 – 50 Years -.133 .138 .767 -.49 .22
Above 50 Years -.019 .159 .999 -.43 .39
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .463*
.178 .047 .00 .92
30 – 40 Years .133 .138 .767 -.22 .49
Above 50 Years .114 .135 .833 -.23 .46
Above 50 Years 18-30 Years .349 .195 .280 -.15 .85
30 – 40 Years .019 .159 .999 -.39 .43
41 – 50 Years -.114 .135 .833 -.46 .23
PMFBY scheme
is mandatory for
the farmers
having land loan
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.078 .185 .975 -.55 .40
41 – 50 Years .211 .167 .590 -.22 .64
Above 50 Years .144 .183 .860 -.33 .62
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .078 .185 .975 -.40 .55
41 – 50 Years .289 .129 .117 -.04 .62
Above 50 Years .222 .149 .446 -.16 .61
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.211 .167 .590 -.64 .22
30 – 40 Years -.289 .129 .117 -.62 .04
Above 50 Years -.066 .127 .954 -.39 .26
30 – 40 Years -.222 .149 .446 -.61 .16
41 – 50 Years .066 .127 .954 -.26 .39
PMKSY helping
the farmers
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.490 .214 .101 -1.04 .06
41 – 50 Years -.381 .193 .201 -.88 .12
Above 50 Years -.351 .212 .348 -.90 .19
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .490 .214 .101 -.06 1.04
41 – 50 Years .109 .149 .886 -.28 .49
Above 50 Years .139 .173 .852 -.31 .58
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .381 .193 .201 -.12 .88
30 – 40 Years -.109 .149 .886 -.49 .28
Above 50 Years .030 .147 .997 -.35 .41
30 – 40 Years -.139 .173 .852 -.58 .31
41 – 50 Years -.030 .147 .997 -.41 .35
Subsidy pattern
opted by the
scheme for micro
irrigation lands.
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .039 .210 .998 -.50 .58
41 – 50 Years -.068 .190 .984 -.56 .42
Above 50 Years -.066 .208 .989 -.60 .47
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.039 .210 .998 -.58 .50
41 – 50 Years -.107 .147 .885 -.49 .27
Above 50 Years -.106 .169 .924 -.54 .33
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .068 .190 .984 -.42 .56

SUMMARY
30 – 40 Years .107 .147 .885 -.27 .49
Above 50 Years .002 .144 1.000 -.37 .37
30 – 40 Years .106 .169 .924 -.33 .54
41 – 50 Years -.002 .144 1.000 -.37 .37
Sealing of area
under the scheme
for availing the
benefits of the
scheme.
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .020 .190 1.000 -.47 .51
41 – 50 Years -.038 .172 .996 -.48 .40
Above 50 Years .087 .188 .967 -.40 .57
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.020 .190 1.000 -.51 .47
41 – 50 Years -.058 .133 .972 -.40 .28
Above 50 Years .067 .153 .971 -.33 .46
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .038 .172 .996 -.40 .48
30 – 40 Years .058 .133 .972 -.28 .40
Above 50 Years .125 .130 .771 -.21 .46
30 – 40 Years -.067 .153 .971 -.46 .33
41 – 50 Years -.125 .130 .771 -.46 .21
Additional
benefits for
marginal and
small farmers
under the
category of this
scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.214 .201 .711 -.73 .30
41 – 50 Years -.142 .182 .863 -.61 .33
Above 50 Years -.342 .199 .318 -.86 .17
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .214 .201 .711 -.30 .73
41 – 50 Years .072 .141 .957 -.29 .43
Above 50 Years -.127 .163 .862 -.55 .29
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .142 .182 .863 -.33 .61
30 – 40 Years -.072 .141 .957 -.43 .29
Above 50 Years -.199 .138 .474 -.56 .16
30 – 40 Years .127 .163 .862 -.29 .55
41 – 50 Years .199 .138 .474 -.16 .56
E-NAM facility is
given to Haryana
farmers by the
state government
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .191 .222 .824 -.38 .76
41 – 50 Years .390 .201 .211 -.13 .91
Above 50 Years .128 .220 .937 -.44 .69
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.191 .222 .824 -.76 .38
41 – 50 Years .199 .155 .574 -.20 .60
Above 50 Years -.063 .179 .985 -.52 .40
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.390 .201 .211 -.91 .13
30 – 40 Years -.199 .155 .574 -.60 .20
Above 50 Years -.262 .152 .315 -.65 .13
30 – 40 Years .063 .179 .985 -.40 .52

SUMMARY
41 – 50 Years .262 .152 .315 -.13 .65
Familiar to ATMA
scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.027 .168 .999 -.46 .41
41 – 50 Years -.112 .152 .881 -.50 .28
Above 50 Years -.035 .166 .997 -.46 .39
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .027 .168 .999 -.41 .46
41 – 50 Years -.086 .117 .885 -.39 .22
Above 50 Years -.009 .135 1.000 -.36 .34
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .112 .152 .881 -.28 .50
30 – 40 Years .086 .117 .885 -.22 .39
Above 50 Years .077 .115 .910 -.22 .37
30 – 40 Years .009 .135 1.000 -.34 .36
41 – 50 Years -.077 .115 .910 -.37 .22
Known to
implementing
agency of ATMA
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.139 .215 .918 -.69 .42
41 – 50 Years -.285 .195 .461 -.79 .22
Above 50 Years -.204 .213 .774 -.75 .35
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .139 .215 .918 -.42 .69
41 – 50 Years -.147 .151 .765 -.53 .24
Above 50 Years -.065 .174 .982 -.51 .38
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .285 .195 .461 -.22 .79
30 – 40 Years .147 .151 .765 -.24 .53
Above 50 Years .081 .148 .947 -.30 .46
30 – 40 Years .065 .174 .982 -.38 .51
41 – 50 Years -.081 .148 .947 -.46 .30
Familiar with
NFSM Scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .069 .177 .980 -.39 .52
41 – 50 Years .186 .160 .650 -.23 .60
Above 50 Years .495*
.175 .025 .04 .95
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.069 .177 .980 -.52 .39
41 – 50 Years .117 .124 .780 -.20 .44
Above 50 Years .426*
.143 .016 .06 .79
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.186 .160 .650 -.60 .23
30 – 40 Years -.117 .124 .780 -.44 .20
Above 50 Years .309 .121 .054 .00 .62
Above 50 Years 18-30 Years -.495*
.175 .025 -.95 -.04
30 – 40 Years -.426*
.143 .016 -.79 -.06
41 – 50 Years -.309 .121 .054 -.62 .00
Known to
implementing
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.031 .222 .999 -.60 .54
41 – 50 Years .155 .201 .867 -.36 .67
Above 50 Years .181 .220 .843 -.38 .75

SUMMARY
agency of NFSM
Scheme
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .031 .222 .999 -.54 .60
41 – 50 Years .186 .155 .630 -.21 .59
Above 50 Years .211 .179 .639 -.25 .67
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.155 .201 .867 -.67 .36
30 – 40 Years -.186 .155 .630 -.59 .21
Above 50 Years .026 .152 .998 -.37 .42
30 – 40 Years -.211 .179 .639 -.67 .25
41 – 50 Years -.026 .152 .998 -.42 .37
Familiar with
MIDH
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .309 .221 .501 -.26 .88
41 – 50 Years .381 .200 .227 -.13 .90
Above 50 Years .259 .219 .638 -.31 .82
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.309 .221 .501 -.88 .26
41 – 50 Years .072 .155 .966 -.33 .47
Above 50 Years -.050 .178 .992 -.51 .41
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.381 .200 .227 -.90 .13
30 – 40 Years -.072 .155 .966 -.47 .33
Above 50 Years -.122 .152 .852 -.51 .27
30 – 40 Years .050 .178 .992 -.41 .51
41 – 50 Years .122 .152 .852 -.27 .51
Known to
implementing
agency
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.035 .143 .995 -.40 .33
41 – 50 Years -.035 .130 .993 -.37 .30
Above 50 Years .030 .142 .997 -.34 .40
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .035 .143 .995 -.33 .40
41 – 50 Years .001 .100 1.000 -.26 .26
Above 50 Years .065 .116 .943 -.23 .36
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .035 .130 .993 -.30 .37
30 – 40 Years -.001 .100 1.000 -.26 .26
Above 50 Years .064 .099 .914 -.19 .32
30 – 40 Years -.065 .116 .943 -.36 .23
41 – 50 Years -.064 .099 .914 -.32 .19
Known to
components of
the scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.148 .238 .925 -.76 .46
41 – 50 Years -.193 .216 .808 -.75 .36
Above 50 Years -.171 .236 .887 -.78 .44
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .148 .238 .925 -.46 .76
41 – 50 Years -.044 .167 .993 -.47 .38
Above 50 Years -.023 .192 .999 -.52 .47
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .193 .216 .808 -.36 .75

SUMMARY
30 – 40 Years .044 .167 .993 -.38 .47
Above 50 Years .021 .164 .999 -.40 .44
30 – 40 Years .023 .192 .999 -.47 .52
41 – 50 Years -.021 .164 .999 -.44 .40
Known to the
subsidy pattern of
the scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .232 .210 .689 -.31 .77
41 – 50 Years .081 .190 .974 -.41 .57
Above 50 Years .243 .208 .648 -.29 .78
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.232 .210 .689 -.77 .31
41 – 50 Years -.151 .147 .736 -.53 .23
Above 50 Years .011 .170 1.000 -.43 .45
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.081 .190 .974 -.57 .41
30 – 40 Years .151 .147 .736 -.23 .53
Above 50 Years .162 .144 .676 -.21 .53
30 – 40 Years -.011 .170 1.000 -.45 .43
41 – 50 Years -.162 .144 .676 -.53 .21
Familiar with Soil
Health Card
Scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .454 .249 .265 -.19 1.10
41 – 50 Years .660*
.226 .019 .08 1.24
Above 50 Years .269 .247 .697 -.37 .91
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.454 .249 .265 -1.10 .19
41 – 50 Years .206 .175 .639 -.24 .66
Above 50 Years -.185 .201 .796 -.70 .33
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.660*
.226 .019 -1.24 -.08
30 – 40 Years -.206 .175 .639 -.66 .24
Above 50 Years -.391 .171 .104 -.83 .05
30 – 40 Years .185 .201 .796 -.33 .70
41 – 50 Years .391 .171 .104 -.05 .83
Benefits of Soil
Health Card
Scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years -.267 .206 .568 -.80 .26
41 – 50 Years -.137 .187 .884 -.62 .34
Above 50 Years -.208 .204 .740 -.73 .32
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years .267 .206 .568 -.26 .80
41 – 50 Years .130 .144 .806 -.24 .50
Above 50 Years .059 .167 .985 -.37 .49
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .137 .187 .884 -.34 .62
30 – 40 Years -.130 .144 .806 -.50 .24
Above 50 Years -.071 .142 .959 -.44 .29
30 – 40 Years -.059 .167 .985 -.49 .37

SUMMARY
41 – 50 Years .071 .142 .959 -.29 .44
Familiar to the
scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .153 .194 .858 -.35 .65
41 – 50 Years .021 .175 .999 -.43 .47
Above 50 Years .038 .192 .997 -.46 .53
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.153 .194 .858 -.65 .35
41 – 50 Years -.132 .136 .763 -.48 .22
Above 50 Years -.115 .156 .882 -.52 .29
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.021 .175 .999 -.47 .43
30 – 40 Years .132 .136 .763 -.22 .48
Above 50 Years .017 .133 .999 -.33 .36
30 – 40 Years .115 .156 .882 -.29 .52
41 – 50 Years -.017 .133 .999 -.36 .33
knowledge about
custom hire
center
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .460*
.178 .049 .00 .92
41 – 50 Years .432*
.161 .038 .02 .85
Above 50 Years .080 .177 .969 -.37 .54
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.460*
.178 .049 -.92 .00
41 – 50 Years -.027 .125 .996 -.35 .29
Above 50 Years -.379*
.144 .043 -.75 -.01
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.432*
.161 .038 -.85 -.02
30 – 40 Years .027 .125 .996 -.29 .35
.122 .022 -.67 -.04
30 – 40 Years .379*
.144 .043 .01 .75
41 – 50 Years .352*
.122 .022 .04 .67
Assistance is
being provided on
farm machinery
under the scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .224 .155 .476 -.18 .62
41 – 50 Years .526*
.141 .001 .16 .89
Above 50 Years .348 .154 .109 -.05 .74
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.224 .155 .476 -.62 .18
41 – 50 Years .302*
.109 .029 .02 .58
Above 50 Years .125 .126 .754 -.20 .45
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.526*
.141 .001 -.89 -.16
30 – 40 Years -.302*
.109 .029 -.58 -.02
Above 50 Years -.178 .107 .344 -.45 .10
30 – 40 Years -.125 .126 .754 -.45 .20
41 – 50 Years .178 .107 .344 -.10 .45
Programmes and
trainings
organized under
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .248 .161 .413 -.17 .66
41 – 50 Years .320 .145 .124 -.05 .70
Above 50 Years .001 .159 1.000 -.41 .41

SUMMARY
the scheme
Promotion of
Agricultural
Mechanization for
In-Situ Crop
Residue
Management
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.248 .161 .413 -.66 .17
41 – 50 Years .073 .112 .917 -.22 .36
Above 50 Years -.246 .130 .230 -.58 .09
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.320 .145 .124 -.70 .05
30 – 40 Years -.073 .112 .917 -.36 .22
.110 .021 -.60 -.03
Above 50 Years 18-30 Years -.001 .159 1.000 -.41 .41
30 – 40 Years .246 .130 .230 -.09 .58
41 – 50 Years .319*
.110 .021 .03 .60
Level of scheme
PKVY
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .193 .133 .470 -.15 .53
41 – 50 Years .118 .120 .762 -.19 .43
Above 50 Years -.222 .132 .333 -.56 .12
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.193 .133 .470 -.53 .15
41 – 50 Years -.075 .093 .853 -.31 .16
.107 .001 -.69 -.14
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.118 .120 .762 -.43 .19
30 – 40 Years .075 .093 .853 -.16 .31
.091 .001 -.57 -.10
30 – 40 Years .414*
.107 .001 .14 .69
41 – 50 Years .340*
.091 .001 .10 .57
Implementing
agency of the
scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .020 .188 1.000 -.46 .50
41 – 50 Years -.118 .170 .900 -.56 .32
Above 50 Years -.211 .187 .670 -.69 .27
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.020 .188 1.000 -.50 .46
41 – 50 Years -.138 .132 .722 -.48 .20
Above 50 Years -.231 .152 .426 -.62 .16
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years .118 .170 .900 -.32 .56
30 – 40 Years .138 .132 .722 -.20 .48
Above 50 Years -.093 .129 .889 -.43 .24
30 – 40 Years .231 .152 .426 -.16 .62
41 – 50 Years .093 .129 .889 -.24 .43
Purpose of
scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .702*
.229 .012 .11 1.29
41 – 50 Years .779*
.207 .001 .25 1.31
Above 50 Years .524 .227 .097 -.06 1.11
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.702*
.229 .012 -1.29 -.11
41 – 50 Years .077 .160 .963 -.33 .49
Above 50 Years -.178 .185 .769 -.65 .30
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.779*
.207 .001 -1.31 -.25

SUMMARY
30 – 40 Years -.077 .160 .963 -.49 .33
Above 50 Years -.256 .157 .363 -.66 .15
Above 50 Years 18-30 Years -.524 .227 .097 -1.11 .06
30 – 40 Years .178 .185 .769 -.30 .65
41 – 50 Years .256 .157 .363 -.15 .66
Assistance given
for promotion of
organic farming
under the scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .236 .200 .641 -.28 .75
41 – 50 Years .105 .181 .938 -.36 .57
Above 50 Years .159 .198 .854 -.35 .67
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.236 .200 .641 -.75 .28
41 – 50 Years -.131 .140 .787 -.49 .23
Above 50 Years -.077 .162 .964 -.49 .34
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.105 .181 .938 -.57 .36
30 – 40 Years .131 .140 .787 -.23 .49
Above 50 Years .054 .138 .980 -.30 .41
30 – 40 Years .077 .162 .964 -.34 .49
41 – 50 Years -.054 .138 .980 -.41 .30
Familiar to
scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .163 .178 .795 -.29 .62
41 – 50 Years .045 .161 .992 -.37 .46
Above 50 Years .199 .176 .670 -.25 .65
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.163 .178 .795 -.62 .29
41 – 50 Years -.118 .124 .777 -.44 .20
Above 50 Years .036 .143 .994 -.33 .41
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.045 .161 .992 -.46 .37
30 – 40 Years .118 .124 .777 -.20 .44
Above 50 Years .154 .122 .586 -.16 .47
30 – 40 Years -.036 .143 .994 -.41 .33
41 – 50 Years -.154 .122 .586 -.47 .16
Implementing
agency
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .251 .213 .639 -.30 .80
41 – 50 Years .272 .193 .493 -.22 .77
Above 50 Years .176 .211 .838 -.37 .72
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.251 .213 .639 -.80 .30
41 – 50 Years .021 .149 .999 -.36 .40
Above 50 Years -.075 .172 .972 -.52 .37
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.272 .193 .493 -.77 .22
30 – 40 Years -.021 .149 .999 -.40 .36
Above 50 Years -.096 .146 .913 -.47 .28
30 – 40 Years .075 .172 .972 -.37 .52

SUMMARY
41 – 50 Years .096 .146 .913 -.28 .47
Purpose of
scheme
18-30 Years 30 – 40 Years .167 .173 .771 -.28 .61
41 – 50 Years .151 .157 .772 -.25 .56
Above 50 Years .118 .172 .901 -.32 .56
30 – 40 Years 18-30 Years -.167 .173 .771 -.61 .28
41 – 50 Years -.016 .121 .999 -.33 .30
Above 50 Years -.048 .140 .986 -.41 .31
41 – 50 Years 18-30 Years -.151 .157 .772 -.56 .25
30 – 40 Years .016 .121 .999 -.30 .33
Above 50 Years -.032 .119 .993 -.34 .27
30 – 40 Years .048 .140 .986 -.31 .41
41 – 50 Years .032 .119 .993 -.27 .34
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Post hoc shows the value less than significance level of 0.05 towards the statements like
familiar with soil health card scheme is 0.012, knowledge about custom hire center 0.002,
familiar with NFSM Scheme is 0.007, assistance is being provided on farm machinery under
the scheme is 0.001, programs and training provided under the scheme promotion of agriculture
mechanization for in-situ crop residue management is 0.012, Level of scheme PKVY is 0.000,
Purpose of scheme is 0.002. Thus the null hypothesis there is no significant impact of
government policies on Haryana Farmers on the bases of age is partially accepted.
bases of occupation.
Tukey HSD
Dependent
Variable
(I) Occupation of
the respondents.
(J) Occupation of
the respondents.
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
The crops
included in this
scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.157 .111 .333 -.10 .42
Others .123 .229 .853 -.42 .66
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.157 .111 .333 -.42 .10
Others -.034 .221 .987 -.55 .48

SUMMARY
Others Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.123 .229 .853 -.66 .42
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.034 .221 .987 -.48 .55
Premium of crops Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.079 .112 .758 -.18 .34
Others -1.124*
.232 .000 -1.67 -.58
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.079 .112 .758 -.34 .18
Others -1.203*
.223 .000 -1.73 -.68
primary
Occupation
1.124*
.232 .000 .58 1.67
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
1.203*
.223 .000 .68 1.73
PMFBY scheme
is mandatory for
the farmers
having land loan
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.098 .107 .630 -.35 .15
Others -.694*
.221 .005 -1.21 -.18
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.098 .107 .630 -.15 .35
Others -.597*
.212 .014 -1.10 -.10
primary
Occupation
.694*
.221 .005 .18 1.21
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.597*
.212 .014 .10 1.10
PMKSY helping
the farmers
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.425*
.122 .002 .14 .71
Others -.281 .253 .508 -.88 .31
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.425*
.122 .002 -.71 -.14
Others -.706*
.244 .011 -1.28 -.13

SUMMARY
primary
Occupation
.281 .253 .508 -.31 .88
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.706*
.244 .011 .13 1.28
Subsidy pattern
opted by the
scheme for micro
irrigation lands.
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.002 .118 1.000 -.28 .27
Others -1.431*
.244 .000 -2.00 -.86
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.002 .118 1.000 -.27 .28
Others -1.429*
.234 .000 -1.98 -.88
primary
Occupation
1.431*
.244 .000 .86 2.00
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
1.429*
.234 .000 .88 1.98
Sealing of area
under the scheme
for availing the
benefits of the
scheme.
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.254 .108 .051 -.51 .00
Others -.937*
.224 .000 -1.46 -.41
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.254 .108 .051 .00 .51
Others -.683*
.215 .004 -1.19 -.18
primary
Occupation
.937*
.224 .000 .41 1.46
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.683*
.215 .004 .18 1.19
Additional
benefits for
marginal and
small farmers
under the
category of this
scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.314*
.116 .019 -.59 -.04
Others -.036 .240 .988 -.60 .53
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.314*
.116 .019 .04 .59
Others .278 .231 .451 -.26 .82

SUMMARY
primary
Occupation
.036 .240 .988 -.53 .60
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.278 .231 .451 -.82 .26
E-NAM facility is
given to Haryana
farmers by the
state government
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.729*
.125 .000 -1.02 -.44
Others .062 .259 .968 -.55 .67
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.729*
.125 .000 .44 1.02
Others .792*
.249 .004 .21 1.38
primary
Occupation
-.062 .259 .968 -.67 .55
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.792*
.249 .004 -1.38 -.21
Familiar to ATMA
scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.312*
.095 .003 .09 .54
Others .825*
.197 .000 .36 1.29
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.312*
.095 .003 -.54 -.09
Others .513*
.190 .019 .07 .96
primary
Occupation
-.825*
.197 .000 -1.29 -.36
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.513*
.190 .019 -.96 -.07
Known to
implementing
agency of ATMA
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.445*
.122 .001 -.73 -.16
Others -1.370*
.251 .000 -1.96 -.78
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.445*
.122 .001 .16 .73
Others -.925*
.242 .000 -1.49 -.36

SUMMARY
primary
Occupation
1.370*
.251 .000 .78 1.96
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.925*
.242 .000 .36 1.49
Familiar with
NFSM Scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.225 .103 .073 -.02 .47
Others .491 .212 .055 -.01 .99
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.225 .103 .073 -.47 .02
Others .266 .204 .394 -.21 .75
primary
Occupation
-.491 .212 .055 -.99 .01
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.266 .204 .394 -.75 .21
Known to
implementing
agency of NFSM
Scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
1.150*
.115 .000 .88 1.42
Others 2.396*
.237 .000 1.84 2.95
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-1.150*
.115 .000 -1.42 -.88
Others 1.246*
.228 .000 .71 1.78
primary
Occupation
-2.396*
.237 .000 -2.95 -1.84
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-1.246*
.228 .000 -1.78 -.71
Familiar with
MIDH
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.628*
.125 .000 -.92 -.33
Others .281 .258 .523 -.33 .89
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.628*
.125 .000 .33 .92
Others .909*
.249 .001 .32 1.49

SUMMARY
primary
Occupation
-.281 .258 .523 -.89 .33
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.909*
.249 .001 -1.49 -.32
Known to
implementing
agency
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.324*
.082 .000 .13 .52
Others .186 .170 .515 -.21 .58
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.324*
.082 .000 -.52 -.13
Others -.138 .163 .675 -.52 .25
primary
Occupation
-.186 .170 .515 -.58 .21
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.138 .163 .675 -.25 .52
Known to
components of
the scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.564*
.135 .000 -.88 -.25
Others -1.069*
.280 .000 -1.73 -.41
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.564*
.135 .000 .25 .88
Others -.504 .269 .147 -1.14 .13
primary
Occupation
1.069*
.280 .000 .41 1.73
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.504 .269 .147 -.13 1.14
Known to the
subsidy pattern of
the scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.634*
.116 .000 .36 .91
Others 1.810*
.239 .000 1.25 2.37
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.634*
.116 .000 -.91 -.36
Others 1.176*
.230 .000 .64 1.72

SUMMARY
primary
Occupation
-1.810*
.239 .000 -2.37 -1.25
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-1.176*
.230 .000 -1.72 -.64
Familiar with Soil
Health Card
Scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.680*
.131 .000 .37 .99
Others 3.209*
.271 .000 2.57 3.85
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.680*
.131 .000 -.99 -.37
Others 2.529*
.261 .000 1.92 3.14
primary
Occupation
-3.209*
.271 .000 -3.85 -2.57
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-2.529*
.261 .000 -3.14 -1.92
Benefits of Soil
Health Card
Scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-1.066*
.108 .000 -1.32 -.81
Others -1.921*
.224 .000 -2.45 -1.39
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
1.066*
.108 .000 .81 1.32
Others -.855*
.216 .000 -1.36 -.35
primary
Occupation
1.921*
.224 .000 1.39 2.45
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.855*
.216 .000 .35 1.36
Familiar to the
scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.938*
.104 .000 -1.18 -.69
Others -1.460*
.215 .000 -1.97 -.95
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.938*
.104 .000 .69 1.18
Others -.523*
.207 .032 -1.01 -.04

SUMMARY
primary
Occupation
1.460*
.215 .000 .95 1.97
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.523*
.207 .032 .04 1.01
knowledge about
custom hire
center
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.780*
.099 .000 -1.01 -.55
Others -.336 .206 .233 -.82 .15
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.780*
.099 .000 .55 1.01
Others .444 .198 .064 -.02 .91
primary
Occupation
.336 .206 .233 -.15 .82
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.444 .198 .064 -.91 .02
Assistance is
being provided on
farm machinery
under the scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.636*
.087 .000 -.84 -.43
Others -.434*
.181 .044 -.86 -.01
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.636*
.087 .000 .43 .84
Others .201 .174 .480 -.21 .61
primary
Occupation
.434*
.181 .044 .01 .86
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.201 .174 .480 -.61 .21
Programmes and
trainings
organized under
the scheme
Promotion of
Agricultural
Mechanization for
In-Situ Crop
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.685*
.090 .000 -.90 -.47
Others -.525*
.185 .013 -.96 -.09
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.685*
.090 .000 .47 .90
Others .160 .178 .641 -.26 .58

SUMMARY
Residue
Management
primary
Occupation
.525*
.185 .013 .09 .96
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.160 .178 .641 -.58 .26
Level of scheme
PKVY
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.047 .077 .816 -.13 .23
Others -.529*
.160 .003 -.90 -.15
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.047 .077 .816 -.23 .13
Others -.575*
.154 .001 -.94 -.21
primary
Occupation
.529*
.160 .003 .15 .90
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.575*
.154 .001 .21 .94
Implementing
agency of the
scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.240 .108 .069 -.01 .49
Others -.380 .224 .207 -.91 .15
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.240 .108 .069 -.49 .01
Others -.620*
.215 .011 -1.13 -.11
primary
Occupation
.380 .224 .207 -.15 .91
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.620*
.215 .011 .11 1.13
Purpose of
scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.673*
.130 .000 .37 .98
Others 1.181*
.269 .000 .55 1.81
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.673*
.130 .000 -.98 -.37
Others .508 .259 .123 -.10 1.12

SUMMARY
primary
Occupation
-1.181*
.269 .000 -1.81 -.55
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.508 .259 .123 -1.12 .10
Assistance given
for promotion of
organic farming
under the scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.069 .116 .822 -.20 .34
Others -.411 .239 .200 -.97 .15
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-.069 .116 .822 -.34 .20
Others -.480 .230 .094 -1.02 .06
primary
Occupation
.411 .239 .200 -.15 .97
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.480 .230 .094 -.06 1.02
Familiar to
scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.223 .103 .076 -.46 .02
Others -.379 .212 .175 -.88 .12
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.223 .103 .076 -.02 .46
Others -.156 .204 .725 -.64 .32
primary
Occupation
.379 .212 .175 -.12 .88
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
.156 .204 .725 -.32 .64
Implementing
agency
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
1.011*
.113 .000 .75 1.28
Others 1.963*
.234 .000 1.41 2.51
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
-1.011*
.113 .000 -1.28 -.75
Others .951*
.225 .000 .42 1.48

SUMMARY
primary
Occupation
-1.963*
.234 .000 -2.51 -1.41
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.951*
.225 .000 -1.48 -.42
Purpose of
scheme
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.025 .100 .966 -.26 .21
Others .010 .208 .999 -.48 .50
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
Agriculture as a
primary
Occupation
.025 .100 .966 -.21 .26
Others .035 .200 .984 -.44 .50
primary
Occupation
-.010 .208 .999 -.50 .48
Agriculture as a
Secondary
Occupation
-.035 .200 .984 -.50 .44
Significant value of Post Hoc is significant at 0.05. Various statements have value significantly
higher than 0.05. The crops included in this scheme has 0.366 significant value and Assistance
given for promotion of organic farming under the scheme has 0.112 as significant value,
Purpose of scheme has 0.961 siginificant value. Thus, the null hypothesis There is no
significant impact of government policies on Haryana Farmers on the bases of occupation is
partially accepted.
bases of qualification.
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
The crops included in this
scheme
Between Groups 14.743 1 14.743 9.604 .002
Within Groups 917.997 598 1.535
Total 932.740 599
Premium of crops Between Groups .500 1 .500 .301 .583
Within Groups 993.365 598 1.661
Total 993.865 599

SUMMARY
PMFBY scheme is
mandatory for the
farmers having land loan
Between Groups 2.275 1 2.275 1.558 .212
Within Groups 873.244 598 1.460
Total 875.518 599
PMKSY helping the
farmers
Between Groups 3.081 1 3.081 1.582 .209
Within Groups 1164.438 598 1.947
Total 1167.518 599
Subsidy pattern opted by
the scheme for micro
irrigation lands.
Between Groups 35.497 1 35.497 19.640 .000
Within Groups 1080.797 598 1.807
Total 1116.293 599
Sealing of area under the
scheme for availing the
benefits of the scheme.
Between Groups 33.216 1 33.216 22.595 .000
Within Groups 879.078 598 1.470
Total 912.293 599
Additional benefits for
marginal and small
farmers under the
category of this scheme
Between Groups 1.525 1 1.525 .884 .347
Within Groups 1031.215 598 1.724
Total
1032.740 599
E-NAM facility is given to
Haryana farmers by the
state government
Between Groups 13.978 1 13.978 6.715 .010
Within Groups 1244.807 598 2.082
Total 1258.785 599
Familiar to ATMA
scheme
Between Groups 4.647 1 4.647 3.918 .048
Within Groups 709.193 598 1.186
Total 713.840 599
Known to implementing
agency of ATMA
Between Groups 43.730 1 43.730 23.005 .000
Within Groups 1136.735 598 1.901
Total 1180.465 599
Familiar with NFSM
Scheme
Between Groups 2.773 1 2.773 2.062 .151
Within Groups 804.185 598 1.345
Total 806.958 599
agency of NFSM Scheme
Between Groups 43.285 1 43.285 21.446 .000
Within Groups 1206.975 598 2.018
Total 1250.260 599
Familiar with MIDH Between Groups 26.750 1 26.750 13.122 .000
Within Groups 1219.084 598 2.039
Total 1245.833 599
agency
Between Groups 20.641 1 20.641 24.628 .000
Within Groups 501.192 598 .838
Total 521.833 599
Known to components of
the scheme
Between Groups 11.829 1 11.829 4.956 .026
Within Groups 1427.170 598 2.387
Total 1438.998 599
Between Groups 5.315 1 5.315 2.839 .093

SUMMARY
Known to the subsidy
pattern of the scheme
Within Groups 1119.379 598 1.872
Total 1124.693 599
Familiar with Soil Health
Card Scheme
Between Groups 72.998 1 72.998 28.456 .000
Within Groups 1534.067 598 2.565
Total 1607.065 599
Benefits of Soil Health
Card Scheme
Between Groups 96.507 1 96.507 58.524 .000
Within Groups 986.118 598 1.649
Total 1082.625 599
Familiar to the scheme Between Groups 44.625 1 44.625 29.369 .000
Within Groups 908.640 598 1.519
Total 953.265 599
knowledge about custom
hire center
Between Groups 42.452 1 42.452 32.452 .000
Within Groups 782.266 598 1.308
Total 824.718 599
Assistance is being
provided on farm
machinery under the
scheme
Between Groups 19.833 1 19.833 19.423 .000
Within Groups 610.640 598 1.021
Total
630.473 599
Programmes and
trainings organized under
the scheme Promotion of
Agricultural
Mechanization for In-Situ
Crop Residue
Management
Between Groups 19.402 1 19.402 17.916 .000
Within Groups 647.596 598 1.083
Total
666.998 599
Level of scheme PKVY Between Groups 21.639 1 21.639 29.386 .000
Total 461.998 599
Implementing agency of
the scheme
Between Groups 2.130 1 2.130 1.415 .235
Within Groups 900.370 598 1.506
Total 902.500 599
Purpose of scheme Between Groups 69.150 1 69.150 32.074 .000
Within Groups 1289.244 598 2.156
Total 1358.393 599
Assistance given for
promotion of organic
farming under the
scheme
Between Groups 26.364 1 26.364 15.875 .000
Within Groups 993.129 598 1.661
Total
1019.493 599
Familiar to scheme Between Groups 9.765 1 9.765 7.360 .007
Within Groups 793.433 598 1.327
Total 803.198 599

SUMMARY
Implementing agency Between Groups .016 1 .016 .008 .927
Within Groups 1152.857 598 1.928
Total 1152.873 599
Within Groups 762.453 598 1.275
Total 764.198 599
Premium of crops is 0.583, PMFBY scheme is mandatory for the farmers having land loan is
0.212, PMKSY scheme is for farmers is 0.209, Additional benefits for marginal and small
farmers under the category of this scheme is 0.347, Familiar with NFSM Scheme is 0.151,
Known to the subsidy pattern of the scheme is 0.093, Implementing agency of the scheme is
0.235, Implementing agency is 0.927, Purpose of scheme is 0.242. Thus the null hypothesis
There is no significant impact of government policies on Haryana Farmers on the bases of
qualification is partially accepted.
H02.4There is no significant impact of government policies on Haryana Farmers on the bases
of category.
Tukey HSD
Dependent
Variable
(I) Category of the
respondents.
(J) Category of
the respondents.
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
The crops
included in this
scheme
SC BC -.264 .137 .131 -.59 .06
General -.164 .136 .447 -.48 .15
BC SC .264 .137 .131 -.06 .59
General .099 .115 .663 -.17 .37
General SC .164 .136 .447 -.15 .48
BC -.099 .115 .663 -.37 .17
Premium of crops SC BC .057 .142 .914 -.28 .39
General .012 .140 .996 -.32 .34
BC SC -.057 .142 .914 -.39 .28
General -.046 .119 .922 -.33 .23
General SC -.012 .140 .996 -.34 .32
BC .046 .119 .922 -.23 .33
PMFBY scheme
is mandatory for
SC BC -.464*
.131 .001 -.77 -.16
General -.444*
.130 .002 -.75 -.14
BC SC .464*
.131 .001 .16 .77

SUMMARY
the farmers
having land loan
General .020 .110 .982 -.24 .28
General SC .444*
.130 .002 .14 .75
BC -.020 .110 .982 -.28 .24
PMKSY helping
the farmers
SC BC -.110 .153 .753 -.47 .25
General -.023 .152 .987 -.38 .33
BC SC .110 .153 .753 -.25 .47
General .087 .129 .779 -.22 .39
General SC .023 .152 .987 -.33 .38
BC -.087 .129 .779 -.39 .22
Subsidy pattern
opted by the
scheme for micro
irrigation lands.
SC BC -.217 .148 .311 -.57 .13
General -.522*
.147 .001 -.87 -.18
BC SC .217 .148 .311 -.13 .57
General -.305*
.125 .039 -.60 -.01
General SC .522*
.147 .001 .18 .87
BC .305*
.125 .039 .01 .60
Sealing of area
under the scheme
for availing the
benefits of the
scheme.
SC BC .056 .135 .911 -.26 .37
General -.074 .134 .846 -.39 .24
BC SC -.056 .135 .911 -.37 .26
General -.130 .114 .490 -.40 .14
General SC .074 .134 .846 -.24 .39
BC .130 .114 .490 -.14 .40
Additional
benefits for
marginal and
small farmers
under the
category of this
scheme
SC BC -.250 .143 .189 -.59 .09
General -.447*
.142 .005 -.78 -.11
BC SC .250 .143 .189 -.09 .59
General -.197 .120 .230 -.48 .09
General SC .447* .142 .005 .11 .78
BC
.197 .120 .230 -.09 .48
E-NAM facility is
given to Haryana
farmers by the
state government
SC BC .361 .159 .060 -.01 .73
General .343 .157 .075 -.03 .71
BC SC -.361 .159 .060 -.73 .01
General -.018 .133 .990 -.33 .30
General SC -.343 .157 .075 -.71 .03
BC .018 .133 .990 -.30 .33
Familiar to ATMA
scheme
SC BC -.360*
.118 .007 -.64 -.08
General -.448*
.118 .000 -.72 -.17
BC SC .360*
.118 .007 .08 .64
General -.088 .100 .650 -.32 .15
General SC .448*
.118 .000 .17 .72
BC .088 .100 .650 -.15 .32
SC BC .404*
.153 .023 .04 .76

SUMMARY
Known to
implementing
agency of ATMA
General .422*
.152 .016 .06 .78
BC SC -.404*
.153 .023 -.76 -.04
General .018 .129 .989 -.28 .32
General SC -.422*
.152 .016 -.78 -.06
BC -.018 .129 .989 -.32 .28
Familiar with
NFSM Scheme
SC BC -.077 .128 .820 -.38 .22
General -.063 .127 .873 -.36 .23
BC SC .077 .128 .820 -.22 .38
General .014 .107 .991 -.24 .27
General SC .063 .127 .873 -.23 .36
BC -.014 .107 .991 -.27 .24
Known to
implementing
agency of NFSM
Scheme
SC BC -.192 .158 .444 -.56 .18
General -.395*
.157 .032 -.76 -.03
BC SC .192 .158 .444 -.18 .56
General -.203 .133 .279 -.51 .11
General SC .395*
.157 .032 .03 .76
BC .203 .133 .279 -.11 .51
Familiar with
MIDH
SC BC .179 .158 .497 -.19 .55
General .197 .157 .420 -.17 .57
BC SC -.179 .158 .497 -.55 .19
General .019 .133 .989 -.29 .33
General SC -.197 .157 .420 -.57 .17
BC -.019 .133 .989 -.33 .29
Known to
implementing
agency
SC BC -.318*
.102 .005 -.56 -.08
General -.314*
.101 .005 -.55 -.08
BC SC .318* .102 .005 .08 .56
General .004 .085 .999 -.20 .20
General SC .314*
.101 .005 .08 .55
BC -.004 .085 .999 -.20 .20
Known to
components of
the scheme
SC BC .204 .170 .453 -.19 .60
General .397*
.168 .049 .00 .79
BC SC -.204 .170 .453 -.60 .19
General .193 .143 .366 -.14 .53
General SC -.397*
.168 .049 -.79 .00
BC -.193 .143 .366 -.53 .14
Known to the
subsidy pattern of
the scheme
SC BC .230 .150 .278 -.12 .58
General .243 .149 .235 -.11 .59
BC SC -.230 .150 .278 -.58 .12
General .013 .126 .994 -.28 .31
General SC -.243 .149 .235 -.59 .11

SUMMARY
BC -.013 .126 .994 -.31 .28
Familiar with Soil
Health Card
Scheme
SC BC -.459*
.179 .029 -.88 -.04
General -.311 .178 .187 -.73 .11
BC SC .459*
.179 .029 .04 .88
General .148 .151 .589 -.21 .50
General SC .311 .178 .187 -.11 .73
BC -.148 .151 .589 -.50 .21
Benefits of Soil
Health Card
Scheme
SC BC .379*
.146 .027 .03 .72
General .478*
.145 .003 .14 .82
BC SC -.379*
.146 .027 -.72 -.03
General .099 .123 .699 -.19 .39
General SC -.478*
.145 .003 -.82 -.14
BC -.099 .123 .699 -.39 .19
Familiar to the
scheme
SC BC .348*
.138 .032 .02 .67
General .331*
.137 .042 .01 .65
BC SC -.348*
.138 .032 -.67 -.02
General -.017 .116 .988 -.29 .25
General SC -.331*
.137 .042 -.65 -.01
BC .017 .116 .988 -.25 .29
knowledge about
custom hire
center
SC BC .280 .128 .075 -.02 .58
General .164 .127 .404 -.14 .46
BC SC -.280 .128 .075 -.58 .02
General -.116 .108 .528 -.37 .14
General SC -.164 .127 .404 -.46 .14
BC .116 .108 .528 -.14 .37
Assistance is
being provided on
farm machinery
under the scheme
SC BC .131 .113 .473 -.13 .40
General -.004 .112 .999 -.27 .26
BC SC -.131 .113 .473 -.40 .13
General -.135 .095 .328 -.36 .09
General SC .004 .112 .999 -.26 .27
BC .135 .095 .328 -.09 .36
Programmes and
trainings
organized under
the scheme
Promotion of
Agricultural
Mechanization for
In-Situ Crop
Residue
Management
SC BC .038 .116 .943 -.23 .31
General .077 .115 .782 -.19 .35
BC SC -.038 .116 .943 -.31 .23
General .039 .097 .915 -.19 .27
General SC -.077 .115 .782 -.35 .19
BC
-.039 .097 .915 -.27 .19

SUMMARY
Level of scheme
PKVY
SC BC -.145 .096 .288 -.37 .08
General .000 .095 1.000 -.22 .22
BC SC .145 .096 .288 -.08 .37
General .145 .081 .171 -.04 .34
General SC .000 .095 1.000 -.22 .22
BC -.145 .081 .171 -.34 .04
Implementing
agency of the
scheme
SC BC -.054 .135 .915 -.37 .26
General -.035 .134 .964 -.35 .28
BC SC .054 .135 .915 -.26 .37
General .020 .113 .984 -.25 .29
General SC .035 .134 .964 -.28 .35
BC -.020 .113 .984 -.29 .25
Purpose of
scheme
SC BC -.536*
.164 .003 -.92 -.15
General -.386*
.163 .048 -.77 .00
BC SC .536*
.164 .003 .15 .92
General .151 .138 .520 -.17 .47
General SC .386*
.163 .048 .00 .77
BC -.151 .138 .520 -.47 .17
Assistance given
for promotion of
organic farming
under the scheme
SC BC -.231 .143 .240 -.57 .10
General -.216 .142 .282 -.55 .12
BC SC .231 .143 .240 -.10 .57
General .015 .120 .991 -.27 .30
General SC .216 .142 .282 -.12 .55
BC -.015 .120 .991 -.30 .27
Familiar to
scheme
SC BC -.215 .127 .207 -.51 .08
General -.036 .126 .955 -.33 .26
BC SC .215 .127 .207 -.08 .51
General .179 .107 .214 -.07 .43
General SC .036 .126 .955 -.26 .33
BC -.179 .107 .214 -.43 .07
Implementing
agency
SC BC .322 .152 .086 -.03 .68
General .077 .151 .867 -.28 .43
BC SC -.322 .152 .086 -.68 .03
General -.245 .128 .133 -.55 .05
General SC -.077 .151 .867 -.43 .28
BC .245 .128 .133 -.05 .55
Purpose of
scheme
SC BC -.162 .124 .391 -.45 .13
General -.106 .123 .663 -.40 .18
BC SC .162 .124 .391 -.13 .45
General .056 .104 .854 -.19 .30

SUMMARY
General SC .106 .123 .663 -.18 .40
BC -.056 .104 .854 -.30 .19
The significant value of the statements PMFBY scheme is mandatory for the farmers having
land loan is 0.001 which is below 0.05, Subsidy pattern opted by the scheme for micro
irrigation lands is 0.001 which is below 0.05, Additional benefits for marginal and small
farmers under the category of this scheme is 0.007, E-NAM facility is given to Haryana farmers
by the state government which is below 0.049, Familiar to ATMA scheme which is 0.001,
Known to implementing agency of ATMA which is below 0.012, Known to implementing
agency of NFSM Scheme 0.037, Known to implement agency which is below 0.003, Familiar
with Soil Health Card Scheme which is below 0.038, Benefits of Soil Health Card Scheme
which is below 0.004, Familiar to the scheme which is below 0.025, Purpose of scheme which
is below 0.005. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted partially.
bases of family type.
ANOVA
Sum of
scheme
Between Groups 10.736 1 10.736 6.963 .009
Within Groups 922.004 598 1.542
Total 932.740 599
Premium of crops Between Groups 7.535 1 7.535 4.569 .033
Within Groups 986.330 598 1.649
Total 993.865 599
PMFBY scheme is
mandatory for the
Between Groups 2.752 1 2.752 1.886 .170
Within Groups 872.766 598 1.459
Total 875.518 599
PMKSY helping the
farmers
Between Groups 16.212 1 16.212 8.421 .004
Within Groups 1151.306 598 1.925
Total 1167.518 599
irrigation lands.
Between Groups 4.211 1 4.211 2.264 .133
Within Groups 1112.082 598 1.860
Total 1116.293 599
Between Groups 1.612 1 1.612 1.059 .304
Within Groups 910.681 598 1.523
Total 912.293 599
Between Groups .313 1 .313 .181 .671

SUMMARY
marginal and small
farmers under the
Within Groups 1032.427 598 1.726
Total
1032.740 599
state government
Between Groups 20.697 1 20.697 9.996 .002
Within Groups 1238.088 598 2.070
Total 1258.785 599
Familiar to ATMA
scheme
Between Groups .023 1 .023 .019 .890
Within Groups 713.817 598 1.194
Total 713.840 599
agency of ATMA
Between Groups .931 1 .931 .472 .492
Within Groups 1179.534 598 1.972
Total 1180.465 599
Familiar with NFSM
Scheme
Between Groups 15.510 1 15.510 11.719 .001
Within Groups 791.448 598 1.323
Total 806.958 599
agency of NFSM Scheme
Between Groups 5.328 1 5.328 2.559 .110
Within Groups 1244.932 598 2.082
Total 1250.260 599
Familiar with MIDH Between Groups 4.889 1 4.889 2.356 .125
Within Groups 1240.945 598 2.075
Total 1245.833 599
agency
Between Groups 1.120 1 1.120 1.286 .257
Total 521.833 599
the scheme
Between Groups .045 1 .045 .019 .892
Within Groups 1438.954 598 2.406
Total 1438.998 599
Between Groups 21.786 1 21.786 11.812 .001
Within Groups 1102.908 598 1.844
Total 1124.693 599
Card Scheme
Between Groups 8.796 1 8.796 3.291 .070
Within Groups 1598.269 598 2.673
Total 1607.065 599
Card Scheme
Between Groups .384 1 .384 .212 .645
Within Groups 1082.241 598 1.810
Total 1082.625 599
Within Groups 939.143 598 1.570
Total 953.265 599
Between Groups 10.664 1 10.664 7.833 .005

SUMMARY
hire center
Within Groups 814.055 598 1.361
Total 824.718 599
Assistance is being
provided on farm
machinery under the
scheme
Between Groups 10.046 1 10.046 9.683 .002
Within Groups 620.427 598 1.038
Total
630.473 599
Programmes and
Agricultural
Crop Residue
Management
Between Groups 3.116 1 3.116 2.807 .094
Within Groups 663.883 598 1.110
Total
666.998 599
Level of scheme PKVY Between Groups .025 1 .025 .033 .856
Total 461.998 599
the scheme
Between Groups .291 1 .291 .193 .661
Within Groups 902.209 598 1.509
Total 902.500 599
Within Groups 1352.780 598 2.262
Total 1358.393 599
farming under the
scheme
Between Groups .597 1 .597 .350 .554
Within Groups 1018.897 598 1.704
Total
1019.493 599
Familiar to scheme Between Groups 3.407 1 3.407 2.547 .111
Within Groups 799.791 598 1.337
Total 803.198 599
Implementing agency Between Groups 31.532 1 31.532 16.816 .000
Within Groups 1121.341 598 1.875
Total 1152.873 599
Purpose of scheme Between Groups 1.131 1 1.131 .886 .347
Within Groups 763.067 598 1.276
Total 764.198 599
The null hypothesis There is no significant impact of government policies on Haryana
Farmers on the bases of family type is accepted partially because various values are found to
be below significant level of 0.05 of Post Hoc ANOWA test.

SUMMARY
bases of land holdings.
ANOVA
Sum of
scheme
Between Groups 5.972 4 1.493 .959 .430
Within Groups 926.768 595 1.558
Total 932.740 599
Premium of crops Between Groups 12.640 4 3.160 1.916 .106
Within Groups 981.225 595 1.649
Total 993.865 599
PMFBY scheme is
mandatory for the
Between Groups 12.961 4 3.240 2.235 .064
Within Groups 862.557 595 1.450
Total 875.518 599
PMKSY helping the
farmers
Between Groups 4.659 4 1.165 .596 .666
Within Groups 1162.859 595 1.954
Total 1167.518 599
irrigation lands.
Between Groups 2.436 4 .609 .325 .861
Within Groups 1113.857 595 1.872
Total 1116.293 599
Between Groups 6.670 4 1.668 1.096 .358
Within Groups 905.623 595 1.522
Total 912.293 599
marginal and small
farmers under the
Between Groups 1.371 4 .343 .198 .940
Within Groups 1031.369 595 1.733
Total
1032.740 599
state government
Between Groups 5.875 4 1.469 .698 .594
Within Groups 1252.910 595 2.106
Total 1258.785 599
Familiar to ATMA
scheme
Between Groups 10.430 4 2.607 2.206 .067
Within Groups 703.410 595 1.182
Total 713.840 599
agency of ATMA
Between Groups 19.052 4 4.763 2.440 .046
Within Groups 1161.413 595 1.952
Total 1180.465 599
Familiar with NFSM
Scheme
Between Groups 1.525 4 .381 .282 .890
Within Groups 805.434 595 1.354
Total 806.958 599
Between Groups 3.515 4 .879 .419 .795

SUMMARY
agency of NFSM
Scheme
Within Groups 1246.745 595 2.095
Total
1250.260 599
Familiar with MIDH Between Groups 4.194 4 1.049 .502 .734
Within Groups 1241.639 595 2.087
Total 1245.833 599
agency
Between Groups 3.996 4 .999 1.148 .333
Total 521.833 599
the scheme
Between Groups 4.095 4 1.024 .425 .791
Within Groups 1434.903 595 2.412
Total 1438.998 599
Between Groups 7.458 4 1.864 .993 .411
Within Groups 1117.235 595 1.878
Total 1124.693 599
Card Scheme
Between Groups 9.694 4 2.423 .903 .462
Within Groups 1597.371 595 2.685
Total 1607.065 599
Card Scheme
Between Groups 11.850 4 2.962 1.646 .161
Within Groups 1070.775 595 1.800
Total 1082.625 599
Within Groups 945.552 595 1.589
Total 953.265 599
hire center
Between Groups 8.008 4 2.002 1.458 .213
Within Groups 816.711 595 1.373
Total 824.718 599
Assistance is being
provided on farm
machinery under the
scheme
Between Groups 15.095 4 3.774 3.649 .006
Within Groups 615.378 595 1.034
Total
630.473 599
Programmes and
Agricultural
Crop Residue
Management
Between Groups 10.243 4 2.561 2.320 .056
Within Groups 656.756 595 1.104
Total
666.998 599
Level of scheme PKVY Between Groups 27.081 4 6.770 9.262 .000
Total 461.998 599

SUMMARY
the scheme
Between Groups 5.585 4 1.396 .926 .448
Within Groups 896.915 595 1.507
Total 902.500 599
Within Groups 1344.606 595 2.260
Total 1358.393 599
farming under the
scheme
Between Groups 13.042 4 3.260 1.928 .104
Within Groups 1006.452 595 1.692
Total
1019.493 599
Familiar to scheme Between Groups 3.781 4 .945 .704 .590
Within Groups 799.417 595 1.344
Total 803.198 599
Implementing agency Between Groups 38.394 4 9.598 5.124 .000
Within Groups 1114.480 595 1.873
Total 1152.873 599
Purpose of scheme Between Groups 1.894 4 .473 .369 .830
Within Groups 762.305 595 1.281
Total 764.198 599
The null hypothesis There is no significant impact of government policies on Haryana Farmers
on the bases of family type is accepted partially because various values are found to be below
significant level of 0.05 of Post Hoc ANOWA test.
Hypothesis Testing-Summary
Number Hypothesis Description Result
H01
There is no significant difference
between the level of perception on
demographic basis.
Partially-Accepted
H01.1
There is no significant difference between
the level of perception on the bases of age.
Partially-Accepted
H01.2
the level of perception on the bases of
occupation.
Accepted

SUMMARY
H01.3
qualification.
Accepted
H01.4
category.
Accepted
H01.5
family type.
Partially-Accepted
H01.6
the level of perception on the bases of land
holdings
Accepted
H02
There is no significant impact of
government policies on Haryana
Farmers.
Partially-Accepted
H02.1 There is no significant impact of
government policies on Haryana Farmers
on the bases of age
Partially-Accepted
H02.2 There is no significant impact of
on the bases of occupation
Partially-Accepted
H02.3
on the bases of qualification.
Partially-Accepted
H02.4
on the bases of category.
Partially-Accepted
H02.5
on the bases of family type.
Partially-Accepted
H02.6
on the bases of land holdings.
Partially-Accepted

SUMMARY
A more in-depth research of a few aspects of the current study may be conducted, and the study
may be expanded to include more domains later on. A few of these topics are noted in the
following section and will be discussed more later.
i. The current study focuses primarily on farmers, but future research might include
organic farmers.
ii. The current analysis just includes Haryana. There is still room to expand the
research into other areas.
iii. The study focused on data available with the farmers. The research can be
broadened in the future to cover organic services, another essential aspect of e-
commerce.
iv. The current study focused mostly on farmers belonging to the villages lying within
the area of The study might be expanded in the future to include a km from the
administrative cities that can be expanded to other categories of farmers
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
i. The researcher thoroughly collected and analyzed data from respondents and
framed this world.
ii. Nonetheless, the study's timing and sample size constraints have remained
unchanged. These are listed in the following order: Only farmers were eligible to
participate in the poll. Other responder groups were not included in the research
because to time, financial, and expertise constraints.Based on data provided by
respondents, findings and inferences have been made.
iii. Some respondents refused to offer accurate information due to time constraints or
illiteracy. Respondents were hesitant to disclose any personal information. Due to
the tiny sample size, it may not be completely representative of all farmers. Only
females who were aware of internet purchasing will be included in the investigation.
5.7 CONCLUSION
The government of India has created new policies for farmers specifically, but most farmers
are ignorant of them. As a result, it is critical to assess farmers' understanding and performance
regarding crop insurance -and agricultural development plans in Haryan.a's administrative
districts. Data was gathered through an interview schedule with 600 farmers picked at random
from these selected districts. According to the survey, perception of the farmers was checked
depending upon the policies launched by the government. Also, the impact of various
Government Policies launched for the farmers was checked on the basis of socioeconomic
status. The research highlights the perception as well as impact of government policies on the

SUMMARY
Haryana Farmers. Maximum of the respondents were found to strongly disagree with the
PMFBY, PMKSY, E-NAM, ATAMA, NFSM, MIDH and soil Health Card. So, the government
should try to uplift the schemed launched for the upliftment of the farmers of Haryana state.

Summary Impact of Government Policies on Haryana Farmers.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Summary Impact of Government Policies on Haryana Farmers.docx

Similar to Summary Impact of Government Policies on Haryana Farmers.docx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Summary Impact of Government Policies on Haryana Farmers.docx