Agriculture and Multidimensional Poverty For Human Development: A Case Study of Barak Valley in Assam
Agriculture and Multidimensional Poverty For Human Development: A Case Study of Barak Valley in Assam
Agriculture and Multidimensional Poverty For Human Development: A Case Study of Barak Valley in Assam
Agriculture and Multidimensional Poverty for Human Development: A Case Study of Barak Valley in Assam
Shamintra Ghosh
PhD Research Scholar, Dept-Economics, Assam University, India
ABSTRACT: This paper aims to study linkage among agriculture, poverty and human development and
evaluate sustainability indicators in the Barak Valley zone of Assam. The methodology used in this study was by collection of primary data and field observations. Samples for statistics were taken from heads of rural households in selected Agricultural Development Circles of three districts of Barak Valley. The sample consisted of 450 Households. The present paper analyses the agriculture-human development linkage of Barak Valley. Each component of agricultural performance is analyzed with the help of factor indices. The factor indices assist to understand the actual scenario of agricultural situation of sample ADOs in Barak Valley. A number of indices have been constructed to address the objectives of the study which includes: (a) Agricultural Performance Index (API), (b) Human development by Quality of Life Index (c) Multidimensional Poverty Index etc. All these indices have been constructed at the household level. Moreover, suitable statistical, regression techniques and econometric models will be used to analyze the relationship among concerned variables of the study
KEYWORDS: Agricultural Performance Index, Quality of Life Index & Multidimensional Poverty Index. I. INTRODUCTION
Barak Valley consists of three districts of Cachar, Karimganj and Hialakandi in southern part of Assam on the bank of river Barak and her tributaries. The population of the valley is 3,612,581 as per 2011 census. The economy of the Barak Valley is pre dominated by agriculture and allied sectors. More than 58 percent of the total working population in the valley is either cultivators or agricultural laborers and 70.7 percent of its workers earn their livelihood from the primary sector activities. But agriculture is already overcrowded and it shows that only 30.9 percent of the total geographical area in the valley constitutes its net sown area against 41.6 percent in the State of Assam. This means that the Barak Valley suffers from relative scarcity of cultivable land. In the consequence, Barak Valley is constrained to feed as any as 8277 persons per 1000 hectares of cultivable land. The corresponding figures for the Brahmaputra Valley and the State of Assam are 6445 hectares and 6567 hectares respectively whereas the all-India figure is 4305 hectares. Added to the scarcity of cultivable land in the valley, inadequate progress in intensive farming also exists. As such it would be interesting to study the interrelationships between performance of agriculture and human development scenario in the valley. Previous work World Development Report (2008), Rosegrant et al (2007), Dutta and Ravallion (1996), Dayal (1984), Dasgupta (1998), Thirtle et al (2001) etc have nicely analyzed the relation between agriculture and incidence of poverty in LDCs. Other studies by Pathasarathy (1975), Singh (2010), Gibson et al (1998), Kennedy (1987), (1990), Bezbruah (1994), Sen (1989), Singh et al (1984) etc made empirical analysis of quality of life in relation with agricultural productivity and rural development. The main objectives of the study are: To study the relation between agricultural performance and human development. To study the relation among multidimensional poverty, agricultural performance and human development. To find out the socio-economic factors determining sustainability of agriculture and rural development.
II.
Data has been collected from both primary and secondary sources. Multistage sampling has been followed. In the Barak Valley region there are six agricultural subdivisions (1) Cachar district (3 subdivisions), (2) Karimganj district (2 subdivisions) (3) Hailakandi (1 subdivisions). From each subdivision one ADO circle has been selected subject to the condition that the selected circle will represent the entire subdivision. From each ADO circle two villages (one agriculturally developed having at least some marketing network and other agriculturally underdeveloped) has been selected in consultation with Agricultural Development Officer. From the selected villages 450 sample of farming households has been selected for the
www.ijhssi.org
48 | P a g e
Agricultural Performance Index (API) would comprise the weighted measure of: Physical potential as measured by levels of land fertility. Availability and accessibility of markets, as measured by commercial sale levels of key agricultural commodities. 3. Level of technological achievements (innovations) as measured by use of improved seeds and other modernizing agricultural technologies. 4. Level of human effort (output per worker). Factor Indices or dimension indices will be prepared 1. 2. FI = Agricultural Performance Index= 1/4(Land fertility index) + 1/4(Market index) + 1/4(Technical achievement index) + 1/4(Workers productivity index) Wealth Index Wealth index does not mean property and income of the farmers, rather wealth index is a composite measure of 28 all such indicators which include every facets of human life and his/her different choices. They are 1) House type 2)Separate room for cooking/Kitchen 3) Ownership of house 4) Flooring 5) Toilet facility 6) Source of Electricity/Lighting 7) Main fuel for cooking 8) Source of Drinking Water 5) Car or Tractor 9) Moped or Scooter 10) Telephone 11) Refrigerator 12) Colour TV 13) Black and white TV 14) Bicycle 15) Electric fan 16) Radio 17) Sewing machine 18) Mattress 20) Pressure cooker 21) Chair 22) Cot or bed 23) Table 24) Clock or watch 25) Ownership of livestock 26) Water pump 27) Bullock cart 28) Harvester/Thresher. These indicators have been given weights and scores. On the basis of individual scores of 450 samples, dimension index or wealth index will be made. The Wealth Index = Education index Education index is calculated by taking equal weights of the two indicators- literacy level and child enrolment (if any school-aged child is out of school). The Literacy Index =
www.ijhssi.org
49 | P a g e
www.ijhssi.org
50 | P a g e
Excellent ( 0.8& above) Very good (0.6-0.8) Good (0.5-0.6) Average (0.4-0.5) Poor/ Less than average ( 0.2-0.4) Very poor/ bad performance (<0.2) Total
Distribution of farmers according to score in API Findings in API [1] The mean value of Agricultural Performance Index is 0.468 in Barak Valley which shows moderate achievement regarding entire agrarian system. The maximum or the best performer scored 0.854 who is sample-56 belonging to Dullabcherra ADO circle. The minimum one is the 0.071 or sample-302 in Motinagar ADO and 0.072 i.e. sample-83 in Sadarashi ADO. Those who have scored more than 0.800 index value belongs to the excellent group and they are only 6 in the study area i.e. only 1% of the total households. Agricultural performance is indicative of all aspects of agricultural development land fertility or labor efficacy or technology or marketing. Thus the API in Barak Valley shows the medium or moderate performance. [2] 101 farmers or 22% farmers in Barak Valley denote that they belong to good performers club. Most of them have performed well in technology achievement or marketing of the crop. Their performance lies in between 0.600 to 0.800 index value. [3] 23% farmers or a total of 102 samples performed 0.500 to 0.600 group known as good. Moreover the average performers with index value in between 0.400 to 0.500 are 19% of the farmers or a total of 87 in
www.ijhssi.org
51 | P a g e
0.886
s-338
level
180
40%
0.00
s-446
Vulnerable/ at risk of being poor (0.2-0.33) Multidimensionally Poor ( above 0.3) Severly Poor (above 0.5 ) Total
35
8%
181
40%
37 450
8% 100
www.ijhssi.org
52 | P a g e
Distribution of farmers according to score in MPI [1] Multidimensional poverty endeavors to include deprivation in all aspects of human life. The adoption of MPI in Barak Valley by the given guidelines shows that the mean performance is below the cut-off level. But it does not mean that the size of poverty stricken people are low rather the result shows that a huge portion of the people are poor. There are 218 (48%) farmers found multidimensional poor. [2] The mean performance of Barak Valley is 0.250 MPI while the maximum or the worst performer is s-338 with the index of 0.886 and the minimum or the best performer has achieved 0.00. The farmers who have scored zero or index value of 0.00 mean no deprivation at all. They have qualified in all ten indicators of deprivation. They are 17 in number or only 4% of the total samples under study. The best performer is mostly rich people, having big land holdings or better performer in wealth index, education and health index etc. [3] Those farmers who have scored in between 0.100 to 0.200 are regarded as safe or above poverty line. They are sizable in number in Barak Valley as 180 farmers or 40% of the total farmers. These farmers are welloff and they have deprivation in some of the indicators but qualified in most of the others. However it is clear that these 40% farmers are neither deprived in both the health indicators nor deprived in both the education indicators. Out of six indicators of living standard, hardly they may be deprived in 2/3 indicators. [4] Those farmers who have scored in between index value of 0.200 to 0.33 are vulnerable. Though they are not referred as poor yet deprivation score is such that they are close to risk. They constitute 8% of the farmers in my study area or 35 in all. [5] The farmers who are multi dimensionally poor scored more than index of 0.33. This cut-off has been set by experts earlier (2011- HDR). In Barak Valley the performance is really alarming. They are 181 in number which is huge or 40% of the total samples. Just imagine if 40% of the farmers are found multi dimensionally poor by the international standards out of 450, what could be the actual situation if the methodology is applied for entire population. All government claim about poverty reduction and schemes will be put before question. [6] There are farmers found during my survey that they are heavily affected by poverty. By MPI methods they scored more than 0.500 index value and thus fall in the category of severely poor. They constitute 8% of the total farmers under study or 37 in number.
www.ijhssi.org
53 | P a g e
Number of farmers deprived in various indicators The number of farmers deprived in different indicators of poverty show that there is large variation in the performance in facets of multidimensional poverty index in Barak Valley for the sample farmers. The Body Mass Index is an important indicator of nutritional status of the people. If BMI is found below the cut-off level of 18.5 kg/ , they are regarded as poor. The number of farmers deprived in BMI is 132 or 29% of the total
www.ijhssi.org
54 | P a g e
R Square .271 .828 .638 .509 .718 .258 .737 .823 .203 .700 .330 .355 .448 .541 .642 .529
Adjusted R Square .269 .828 .637 .508 .717 .256 .737 .822 .202 .695 .329 .354 .446 .540 .642 .528
Std. Error of the Estimate .140027 .067951 .098701 .114936 .085205 .138240 .082214 .05236 .174947 .12620 .10367 .10169 .17789 .16209 .182956 .21005
F-Dist. 166.506 216.130 788.809 464.086 114.113 155.611 125.903 208.113 114.330
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .071 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Constant .195 .231 .190 .210 .033 .277 .148 .083 .513 .052 .122 .013 .170 .106 .044 .294
B .550 .488 .547 .792 .894 .311 .430 .826 -.539 .135 .023 .497 .050 1.158 .076 1.163
API & -.451 MPI Indirect Linkage LPI & HI .850 LPI & .575 Schooling LPI& WI .596 TAI & .669 Schooling TAI & WI .736 MI & .802 Schooling MI & WI .727
The Agricultural Performance Index in Barak Valley is 0.468 which is moderate and we have analysed earlier about the performance of Barak Valley with our sample farmers. Now the determinants of Agricultural Performance Index in Barak Valley is analysed with help of regression analyses where a number of predictors have been found to determine or influence API largely. These predictors are both agrarian and social in nature.
www.ijhssi.org
55 | P a g e
www.ijhssi.org
56 | P a g e
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
IV. CONCLUSION
Thus we find that there exists a vital relation between factors of human development and agricultural development. Human development expands the productivity of the farmers in the form of raising the skill of farming, giving access to modern technology, more market information, extension services etc. Both issues are interlinked heavily to raise the growth rate, reduce the poverty and improve the human development situation. Economic development in true sense of the term requires the reinforcing effect of both agrarian and human development policies.
REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Gibson, C & Fincham, R.(1993): Nutritional survey of Ezingolweni and Nkandla. published report. Durban: University of Natal. Goswami, P.C. (1994): The Economic Development of Assam, Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana. Government of Assam (2009): Statistical Handbook, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Guwahati. Dasgupta, Partha (1998). The economics of poverty in poor countries. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 100:1, 41-68. Sen, A K (1981): Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Srinivasan, T N (2000): 'Growth and Poverty Alleviation: Lessons from Development Experience', Paper presented at the Symposium on Alternative Development Paradigms and Poverty Reduction, Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo. Datt, G and M Ravallion (1996a): 'Why have some Indian States Done Better than Others at Reducing Rural Poverty?' Economica, 65:257, pp 17-38. - (1998): 'Farm Productivity and Rural Poverty in India', Journal of Development Studies, April. (1999): 'When is Growth Pro-Poor? Evidence from the Diverse Experiences of India's States', Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. (2001): 'Why has Economic Growth Been More Pro-poor in Some States of India than Others?' Journal of Development Economics. Dreze J and Sen A.K. (2002): India: Development and Participation, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Gallup, John, Radelet, Steven and Warner, Andrew (1997). Economic Growth and Income of the Poor. Harvard Institute for International Development, CAER II Discussion Paper No 36.
[8] [9]
www.ijhssi.org
57 | P a g e