Size of Land Holding, Living Standards and Employment in Rural Western India, 1972-73 SWP459 World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 459 May 1981 Prepared by: Pravin Visaria, Consultant Development Research Center Copyright (D 1981 The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. The views and interpretations in this document are those of the author , 0 1J2 and should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated K organizations, or to any individual acting in their behalf. The views and interpretations in this document are those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to any individual acting on their behalf. WORLD BANK Staff Working Paper No. 459 May 1981 SIZE OF LAND HOLDING, LIVING STANDARDS AND EMPLOYMENT IN RURAL WESTERN INDIA, 1972-73 This study analyses the relationship between the size of land holding possessed by a household and the household's level of per capita expenditure in rural areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra States of India from October 1972 to September 1973, on the basis of the 27th Round of the Indian Nationa3 Sam- ple Survey. According to this study, although land is usually considered to be the most critical determinant of living standards in rural India, differences in per capita land can explain only a very small proportion of variance in the monthly per capita expenditure of households. The likely reasons for these findings are noted; they are hypotheses for further research. The incidence of poverty, measured on the basis of a norm adopted by the Indian Planning Commission in the early 1960's, declines with an increase in the size of land holding possessed; but it remains significant even among households with ten acres or more of land, particularly in V'aharashtra. As expected, the incidence of poverty is the highest among agricultural labour households and the lowest among rural white collar households. The study examines various characteristics of the households or popula- tion according to the size of land holdings. Noteworthy results include the finding that the differences in the illiteracy rates of the population aged 15 and over, and in the school enrollment rates for ages 5-19, according to size of holding, are smaller than is generally believed, particularly in rural Gujarat. On the other hand, the structure of employment shows signifi- cant differences according to the size of land holding possessed by the house- hold; and the incidence of unemployment varies inversely with the size of land holding, with significantly large differences. Prepared by: Pravin Visaria, Consultant Development Research Center Copyright 63 The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Professor V.M. Dandekar, Chairman of the Governing Council of the National Sample Survey Organization, and P.B. Buch, M.A. Telang and S.M. Vidwans, former or current Directors of the Bureaus of Economics and Statistics in Gujarat and Maharashtra, for providing me with an opportunity to study the 27th Round state sample data analysed in this paper. Several basic tables used for the preparation of this paper were compiled at the Gujarat Computer Centre in Gandhinagar, India, with the cooperation of a large staff working under the leadership of P.B. Buch. Others who have helped in the statistical work include R. Murti Pemmarazu, Shyamalendu Pal, Robert E. Sterrett, Jr. and Cynthia Hwa. The editorial advice of Vivianne Lake has improved the presentation of the material in- cluded in this paper. I am grateful to all of them. I have greatly benefitted from many discussions with Montek S. Ahluwalia, B.S. Minhas and T.N. Srinivasan at various stages of the prepara- tion of this paper. Others, whose advice was particularly useful during the earlier stage of preparation of data for analysis include Professor M.L. Dantwala, my teacher and colleague at the University of Bombay, and Sudhir Bhattacharyya of the N.S.S. Organization. Thanks are due to S.K. Sanyal of the NSS Organization for his comments on an earlier draft of the paper. However, the responsibility for all errors rests with me alone. Pravin Visaria TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 A. The Data and Their Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. An OutZine of the Paper and Summary of Results. . . . . . 3 II. EARLIER STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND AND POVERTY 8 III. SIZE OF LAND HOLDING, HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION AND POVERTY 17 A. Land Holding and PCE DeciZe . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Land Holding and HousehoZd Occupation. . . . . . . . . 17 C. HousehoZd Occupation and PCE DeciZe . . . . . . . . . 19 D. Size of Land HoZding and the Proportion of Poor Households. . 19 E. Distribution of the Poor HousehoZds by Occupation and Size of HoZding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 IV. RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS 30 A. MuZtipZe Regression AnaZysis. . . . . . . . . . . . 30 B. ResuZts of MuZtipZe CZassification AnaZysis. . . . . . . 35 C. Factors UnderZying the Weak ReZationship Between Land and Poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 V. SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS OR POPULATION BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING 40 A. Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 1. Average Household Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2. Average Household Size by Household Occupation . . . . 42 3. Age Composition of Household Heads . . . . . . . . 42 4. Age Distribution of the Population . . . . . . . . 43 5. Sex Composition of Population . . . . . . . . . . 43 6. Proportion of Female Heads . . . . . . . . . . . 44 B. Literacy, Education and School EnroZZments . . . . . . . 45 1. Literacy and Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . 45 2. School Enrollment Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 C. Economic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 1. Labour Force Participation Rates . . . . . . . . . 50 2. Labour Force Participation Rates by Occupation and PCE Decile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3. Incidence of Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4. Unemployment by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5. Incidence of Unemployment by Occupation and PCE Decile. 59 6. Status of Class of Worker Distribution of the Employed. 60 7. Occupational Distribution of Workers. . . . . . . . 61 Page No. VI. SOME IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS 63 ANNEX 1. DATA ON THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND HOLDINGS IN GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA--1972-73: AN ASSESSMENT 65 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 The Data. . . . . . . . 67 Stratification Scheme for the Rural Ze . . . .73 The Discrepancy Between the Expected and Actual Size of the SompZe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 ANNEX 2. MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS: SOME SUPPLEMENTARY RESULTS 76 Cropping Intensity as a Dummy VariabZe. . . . . . . . 76 Regression ResuZts for Different Regions . . . . . . . 76 ANNEX 3. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD LAND HOLDING AND PER CAPITA LAND 83 STATISTICAL APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 LIST OF TABLES Page No. II. EARLIER STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND AND POVERTY Table 1. Percentage of Poor Households in Rural India by Size Class of Operational Land Holdings, 1958-59 12 Table 2. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Per Capita Consumption with Size of Landholdings and Household Size as Explanatory Variables, India: 1958-59 14 Table 3. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Per Capita Consumer Expenditure (ACE) with Per Capita Land (in Acres) and Household Size as Explanatory Variables, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 16 III. SIZE OF LAND HOLDING, HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION AND POVERTY Table 1. Distribution of Rural Households by Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household and Household Occupation Group, Gujarat and Maharashtra, 27th Round of the NSS, 1972-73 20 Table 2. Percentage of Poor Households by Size of Class Land Holding Possessed, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 21 Table 3. Percentage of Poor Households by Size Class of Land Holding Possessed, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 22 Table 4. Percentage of Households Below the Poverty Line by Land Possessed and Household Occupation, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 25 Table 5. Regression Coefficients for the Percentage of Poor Households with the Average Size of Land Holding as an Explanatory Variable, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 27 Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Poor Households by Household Occupation and Size of Landholding, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 29 IV. RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS Table 1. Coefficients of Correlation between Selected Variables According to Household Occupation (Major Source of Income), Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 31 Table 2. Quadratic Specifications for Monthly Per Capita Expenditure by Household Occupation Groups, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 33 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page No. Table 3. Results of Multiple Classification Analysis of Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE) in Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 36 V. SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS OR POPULATION BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING Table 1. Selected Characteristics of Households or Population by Size of Land Holding Possessed, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 41 Table 2. Correlation and Regression Coefficients Showing the Association Between (i) The Proportions of Illiterates and Educated Up To Primary School Among Persons Aged 15 and Over, and (ii) The Size of Land Holdings, Rural Gujarat and M4aharashtra, 1972-73 46 Table 3. Correlation and Regression Coefficients Showing the Association between School Enrollment Rates and the Size of Land Holding, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 48 Table 4. Correlation and Regression Coefficients Showing the Association Between (i) Labor Force Participation Rates (Based on Usual Activity) and (ii) The Size of Land Holdings, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 51 Table 5. Correlation.iand Regression Coefficients Showing the Association Between (i) the Incidence of Unemployment in Terms of Current Activity and Persondays and (ii) the Size of Land Holding, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 54 Table 6. Quadratic Speicifications for the Incidence of Unemploy- ment in Terms of Persondays with the Size of Land Holding as the Explanatory Variable, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 56 ANNEX 1. Table 1. Distribution of Rural Households of Gujarat and Maharashtra According to the Size of Land Holding, 26th and the 27th Rounds of the NSS, 1971-72 and 1972-73 68 Table 2. Average Size of Holding in Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1971-72 and 1972-73 70 Table 3. Distribution of Households Not Operating Any Land by Size of Owned Land Holding, in Rural Gujarat, Maharashtra, and India, 1972-73 (26th Round) 72 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page No. ANNEX 2. Table 1. Quadratic Specifications for Monthly Per Capita Expenditure by Household Occupation Groups, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 77 Table 2. Distribution of Households by Household Occupation (Major Source of Income), Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 79 Table 3. Average Per Capita Expenditure, Per Capita Land and Household Size by Region and Household Occupation, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 80 Table 4. The R for Monthly Per Capita Expenditure with Specified Explanatory Variables, by Household Occupation and Different Regions, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 81 ANNEX 3. Table 1. Distribution of Households by Size of Household Land Holding and Per Capita Land, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 84 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This paper is complementary to the paper on "Living Standards, Employment and Education in Western India, 1972-73", prepared earlier. It is concerned with only the rural areas of the two states of Gujarat and Maharashtra and examines the relationship between the size of land holding and rural living standards as well as some of the salient charac- teristics of the households (and/or population) with holdings in different size classes. A. The. Dat,a dnd Thaiv*.'Zitat&n,. The data examined here were gathered from the "state samples" canvassed in the 27th Round of the National Sample Survey (NSS) from 5543 house- holds in rural Gujarat and 5329 households in rural Maharashtra.-/ The comparability of the data available for analysis with other sources of information was examined in Annex 4 to the earlier paper. However, the available 27th Round data on land holdings have been compared with those provided by the 26th Round conducted in 1971-72 in Annex 1 below. It is shown there that although the 27th Round questions on land possessed were intended to collect information on operational holdings, the data actually gathered seem to pertain to ownership holdings; otherwise, non-agricultural holdings, mainly house sites or adjacent land, were included. Whatever the reason, the proportion of households with land holdings of up to 0.49 acres seems to be overstated; when grouped data are used, such misspecification of land holdings would affect the category of households with up to one acre 1/ The number of sample households for rural Maharashtra has been stated as 5532 in the earlier paper. Three households were dropped from the sample during subsequent editing. -2- of land. These limitations might partly explain our finding that although land is usually regarded as the most critical determinant of the living standards in rural India, differences in per capita land can explain only a very small proportion of the variance in the monthly per capita expenditure (NPCE) of households. 0 B. An OtZine of the Paper and Summart.w' 6f Results Section II reviews briefly the earlier studies on the relationship between land and poverty. that were based on the analysis of the NSS data collected in the Eleventh and Fourteenth Rounds (conducted during 1956-57 and 1958-59, respectively). The results of the multiple regression analysis of per capita expenditure in rural areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra show that the responsiveness of expenditure to an increase in per capita land possessed by a household was almost the same in 1972-73 (in real terms) as that esti- mated for rural India as a whole in 1958-59. In relative terms, however, per capita expenditure in the two states seems more responsive to household size than to per capita land. Section III of the paper begins with an examination of the dis- tribution of households with land holdings of different sizes according to MPCE deciles. It reports the incidence of poverty or the proportions of poor households by the size of land holdings for (a) "regions" within the states, and (b) occupation (or the major source of income) of the household. The distribution of the poor households by size of land holding and house- hold is also shown. The incidence of poverty is the highest among agricultural labour households and the lowest among white collar households. The agricultural labour households account for only 30 to 40 percent of all (rural) house- -3- holds below the poverty line in the two states. Over 40 percent of the poor households in Maharashtra and almost 55 percent of those in Gujarat are cultivating households of which 27 to 35 percent (forming about 14 to 15 percent of all poor rural households) have land holdings of 10 acres or more. Thus, while the incidence of poverty declines with an increase in the size of land holding, it remains significant even among households with 10 acres or more, particularly in Maharashtra. The interregional differences in the proportions of the poor households show the Eastern region of Gujarat (with a predominance of tribal population) to be the worse off; the Saurashtra region (with its agriculture dominated by the cash crop of groundnuts) had the luwest proportion of poor households. The incidence of poverty was almost equal in the other three regions. In Maharashtra, the Marathawada region, generally regarded as the most backward and having a very low percentage of cultivated land under irrigation, had the lowest proportion of poor households; the Bhandara and Chanda districts with a fair amount of irrigation facilities followed. The other four regions had almost the same proportion of-poor. Section IV and Annex 2 report the results of the multiple regres- sion analysis of MPCE with per capita land and household size as the main explanatory variables and irrigation status or cropping intensity in the village as the dummy variables. 'The percentage of variance in NPCE (i.e. R ) explained by the quadratic'regression-is no more than 20 percent for rural Gujarat and 11 percent for rural Maharashtra, when all households are considered'together, and 22 and 8 percent, respectively, if the regression analysis is restricted to households reporting cultivation as their major source of income. -4- There are significant differences in the R values for different regions within the two states. For the Southern Plains of Gujarat, and Bhandara and Chanda in Maharashtra, 36 and 30 percent of the variance in MPCE is explained by the variables considered in the regression. (The * values for cultivating households are higher, 46 and 35 percent, respectively.) But the dummy variables have a noteworthy impact only in three of the eleven regions (see Annex 2). Results of a multiple classification analysis of MPCE are also shown in Section IV. When the NSS region, the household occupation, and the age, (general) education, usual activity (a combination of status-and farm/ non-farm work) and "skill" of the household head are added to per caDita land and household size as the explanatory variables, the R for NPCE increases to 33 percent for rural Gujarat and 16 percent for ruial Maharashtra. Clearly, further work is necessary to identify better predictors of the consumption level. 2 The R values appear to be smaller than might be expected on a priori grounds. The likely reasons are the heterogeneity of land and the non-availability of data on irrigation and on cropping intensity status of the land holding of each individual household. Such data at the village!level are not a good proxy for the household level information. Among other things, the available PCE data do not include any imputation for the rental value of owner-occupied dwellings. (The 1961 Census data show almost 90 percent of the rural households in the two states to be owners of their dwellings.) Insofar as the large landholders tend to have larger and better quality houses, their expenditure is underreported to a greater extent. The response errors, non-availability of data on remittances and/or the extent of out- -5- migration as well as the drought conditions during the first three quarters of the survey year are also likely to lower the explanatory power of the land variable. Section IV of the paper reports on various characteristics of the households or population (such as size, literacy, school enrollment rates, the level of labour force participation and unemployment, as well as the occupational and status distribution of workers) according to the size of land holdings. This analysis retains the size of land holding possessed by the household as the classificatory variable partly because most of the special programmes devised to assist the rural poor (such as the Small Far- mers' Development Agencies - SFDA's - and the Marginal Farmers and Agricul- tural Labourers' Agencies - MFAL) use the criterion of household land holding rather than per capita land. (Annex 3 indicates that if the households were grouped into some combination of deciles and quintiles, the ranking of the bottom and the top groups of households, having less than one acre or more than 20 acres, would remain unchanged but many of the households in the intermediate size classes of holding would be ranked differently.) Both in Gujarat and Maharashtra, the average household size in- creases with the size of land holding. The median age of the household head also tends to rise with the size of land holding, probably because when households split up, the division of land among children leads to smaller land holdings for the younger successors. But there is little systematic association between the size of land holding and the age composition (the dependency ratio) or sex ratio of the population. Female heads of households are, however, overrepresented among the landless or small land holders, per- haps because a majority of them are widows. -6- The differences in the illiteracy rates of the population aged 15 and over, and the school enrollment rates from ages 5-19, according to size of holding, are smaller than is generally believed, particularly in Gujarat. It is interesting to find that land holding no longer seems to have a strong influence on school enrollments. The labour force participation rates for all ages together do not show any systematic variation with the size of land holding, probably because there are no systematic differences in the dependency ratio associated with land. The incidence of unemployment (measured in terms of week-long unem- ployment, and particularly that in terms of the persondays of unemployment), however, varies inversely with the size of land holding, with significantly large differences. The differences in the incidence of unemployment are partly a reflection of the sizeable differences in the distribution of the employed according to class of worker and occupation. Consistent with the general impressions, the proportion of employees (and particularly "casual labourers" among whom the incidence of unemployment is much higher than the average in rural areas l/) varies inversely with the size of land holding whereas that of the self-employed and family helpers rises with the size of land holding. Essentially, these same relationships are reflected in the occupational dis- tribution of workers: the proportion of cultivators steadily rises whereas that of agricultural labourers falls as the size of land holding increases. These differences in the occupational and status composition of workers as well as the incidence of unemployment should indeed be captured by 1/ Pravin Visaria, "Poverty and Unemployment in Rural India: An Analysis of Recent Evidence,"'World Development, forthcoming. -7- such variables as "household occupation" and the "usual activity" of the household head. Some of the characteristics of the households and popula- tion by household occupation have been examined in Sections III and V. These data confirm the expected overrepresentation of the white-collar households in the top deciles and the overrepresentation of agricultural labour house- holds in the bottom deciles. However, when the household occupation and the usual activity of the household head are considered jointly with some other variables in the multiple classification analysis, the two variables ranked very low among the explanatory variables of variance in MPCE in rural Gujarat. It is hoped that further work will help to identify more important deter- minants of MPCE. In conclusion, the relatively low explanatory power of per capita land (admittedly undifferentiated land in terms of quality or the extent of irrigation and cropping intensity) with respect to the variance of monthly per capita expenditure has come as a surprise. Pending further work, how- ever, the study suggests the need for great caution in accepting the size of land holding owned and/or operated by a household as an index of its economic status and in relying upon land reform as the means to ameliorate poverty and reduce inequality in rural areas. The need to standardize the measure of land size, taking account of the quality and productivity of land, is obvious. This point has also been recognized in several earlier studies on the relationship between land and rural inequality. It is hoped also that future surveys of the NSS will try to collect more information on owned and operated land holdings as well as on other sources of income together with consumption expenditure in order to improve our understanding of the deter- minants of rural living standards. -8- II. EARLIER STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND AND POVERTY The relationship between the size of land holding and the level of per capita expenditure or poverty has been studied earlier on the basis of the NSS data collected in the Eleventh and Fourteenth Rounds (conducted) during the periods August 1956-March 1957 and July 1958-June 1959, respec- tively.) The Eleventh Round tabulation of households possessing cultivated land (including leased in land, and therefore relating to operational holdings) by levels of per capita expenditure was examined first by B.S. Minhas.-/ He showed that the proportion of people below the poverty line was only 40 percent among those with operational holdings of less than one cent of an acre-/ but between 83 and 72 percent among households with operational land holdings of 0.01 to 4.99 acres. Minhas' estimate of the proportion of the poor among households with less than one cent of an acre (40 percent) is not quite correct because rural households not possessing (operating) any cultivated land were excluded from 1/ B.S. Minhas, "Rural Poverty, Land Distribution and Development Strategy: Facts and Policy," Indian Economic Review (New Series), vol. 5, no. 1 (1970). Minhas had applied the Eleventh Round estimates of the propor- tion of poor households in each (operational) land holding class to his estimates of the proportion of persons in each class. However, within each land holding class, the average size of households is inversely related to the level of per capita expenditure. This is certainly evi- dent in our data for Gujarat and Maharashtra. Minhas' procedure would therefore involve an understatement of the number of poor persons in different size classes of holdings. Of course, his estimates of poverty based on the consumption expenditure data of the rural population or agricultural labourers are unaffected by the use of the Eleventh Round data. 2/ The number of sample households with operational holdings of up to 0.005 acre in the Eleventh Round was probably no more than 12 (0.21 percent to the total after the weights were applied) and some scepticism about their per capita expenditure distribution is in order. One cent of an acre equals one hundredth of an acre. -9- the Eleventh Round sample used for tabulation.-/ Such non-land operating households comprise essentially (a) the agricultural labour households not operating any land,-/ (b) the households of artisans and (c) non-agricultural white collar workers. The first two of these groups are known to suffer from a higher incidence of poverty than the land-operating households.-/ If the data for the entire sample had been tabulated, the difference in the pro- portion of the poor among households with operational holdings of up to 0.005 acre (including the landless) and those with 0.01 to 4.99 acres would have been less than shown by Minhas. It has not been possible to work out correct estimates because the proportion of the poor households (with a monthly per capita expenditure of Rs. 15 or less - in 1956-57 prices) in the total rural 1/ The data pertained to 5495 sample households from 1858 villages and excluded 1780 households which did not possess any cultivated land. The latter constituted 31.5 percent of the (weighted) total number of rural households and 24.4 percent of the rural population during July 1955 - June 1956 (the fixed reference period). See: The National Sample Survey, Report No. 140, Tabtes with Notes on Some Aspects of Agriculture in India: Eleventh Round, August 1956-February 1957 (RuraZ) (New Delhi, 1969), pp. 3-4, 12-13, 19-21. The relevant NSS tables are confusing because they label the households possessing less than 0.01 acre of land as those with "0.00" land and do not make it explicit that households not operating any land are excluded. 2/ Some 57 percent of the agricultural labour households surveyed in the Eleventh and Twelfth Rounds of the NSS did not operate any land. See: The NSS, No. 46, Tables with Notes on Consumer Expenditure of Agricul- turaZ Labour Households in Rural Areas: EZeventh and Twelfth Rounds, August 1956-August 1957 (Delhi, 1961), p. 42. The agricultural labour households were defined as those for whom "agricultural wage employment constituted the major source of income". 3/ The average size of households not possessing or operating any cultivated land was 3.8 persons higher than the 2.6 reported for households having operational holdings of up to 0.005 acres, who were included among those for whom the tabulation was done. The proportion of the poor varies in- versely with the size of the household and would be higher among the former. -10- sample for the Eleventh Round was only 52.41/, lower than the 71.9 percent estimated for households possessing some cultivated land.-/ If both figures are correct, the proportion of the poor among households which did not possess any cultivated land would be no more than about 10.1 percent, an implausibly low figure.- Unfortunately, it is not possible to examine the data in any greater detail. Subsequently, in 1971 Dandekar and Rath have used the data collected in the Eleventh Round of the NSS during 1956-57 to examine the proportion of the poor households among small land-owners (excluding those operating less than 0.01 acre of land) and the data from both the Eleventh and the Twelfth Rounds for a similar estimate for agricultural labour households. They con- cluded that "in spite of these rather old and fragmentary data, it is clear that the rural poor consist predominantly of the agricultural labour house- holds and small land holders with cultivated holdings of less than 5.0 acres and particularly less than 2.5 acres."k-/ According to them an important cause of rural poverty is the "lack of land resources."-/ 1/ The NSS, No. 77, Tables with Notes on Consumer Expenditure: Eleventh Round: August 1956-February 1957 (Delhi, 1963), p. 14. 2/ The NSS, No. 140, TabZes with Notes on Some Aspects of Agriculture in India: Eleventh Round, August 1956-February 1957 (RuraZ). 3/ The proportion of agricultural labour households with a monthly per capita expenditure of Rs. 15 or less during 1956-57 was about 70.9 percent. It is not possible to identify the distribution of agricultural labour house- holds not operating any land by per capita expenditure. See: NSS, No. 46, Tables with Notes on Consumer Expenditure: EZeventh Round: August 1956- February 1957 (Delhi, 1963), pp. 33-34. 4/ V.M. Dandekar and Nilkantha Rath, Poverty in India (Poona: Indian School of Political Economy, 1971), p. 16. The two groups were presumed to include also the "village artisans progressively thrown out of their traditional employment." 5/ Ibid., pp. 12-13. -11- Vaidyanathan has presented the Eleventh Round data on the per capita expenditure and the size of operational land holding (land possessed) to emphasize that the "rich households" (defined in terms of their per capita expenditure) "do not consist exclusively of big land holders nor are all big land holders 'rich'."1' His point is corroborated by a special tabulation of the Fourteenth Round data (for about 98 percent of the total rural sample households surveyed during 1958-59); it shows the distribution of households by land operated and the level of per capita consumption expenditure. Although the Fourteenth Round data used by Vaidyanathan were not weighted, they were more comprehensive than the Eleventh Round data and covered the households not operating any land.-/ Table 1 shows the proportion of the poor households from the Fourteenth Round, defined again as those with a per capita expenditure of Rs. 15 or less, for each land holding class.-/ Evidently, poverty was most prevalent among households not operating any land or operating holdings of less than 0.5 acres. The incidence of poverty was only slightly lower among households operating holdings of between 0.5 and 1.0 acres. Holdings 1/ A. Vaidyanathan, "Inequalities in Living Standards in Rural India," in Poverty and Income Distribution in India, T.N. Srinivasan and P.K. Bard- han eds. (Calcutta: Statistical Publishing Society, 1974). 2/ The proportion of rural households operating land up to 0.49 acres was 28.65 percent in Vaidyanathan's 14th Round table, but almost 37.0 per- cent according to the Eleventh Round (31.52 percent did not operate any land; and of the remaining 68.48 percent households, 7.96 percent oper- ated land holdings up to 0.49 acre). Vaidyanathan has noted that "bulk of missing households (for whom data were not available to him) appeared to be in the lower income group." Even if all of them had operational holdings of less than 0.5 acre, the Fourteenth Round estimate of the class falls short of that from the Eleventh Round or the Sixteenth Round (35.95 percent). 3/ An adjustment for the price rise between 1956-57 and 1958-59 (about 7.2 percent according to the index number of wholesale prices) would raise these figures; but unless one can use different price indices for different per capita expenditure classes, the observed relationship between land and the proportion of the poor would not be affected. -12- TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE OF POOR HOUSEHOLDS IN RURAL INDIA BY SIZE CLASS OF OPERATIONAL LAND HOLDINGS, 1958-59 Size of Household Operational Percentage of Poor Households Percentage Distribution Number Holding (with NPCE of Less than Rs. 15 of Households of Sample (Acres) in current prices) Poor Households All Households Households up to 0.49 51.7 37.3 28.6 2127 0.50 - 0.99 48.8 6.2 5.1 375 1.00 - 2.49 40.7 19.4 18.9 1402 2.50 - 4.99 35.2 16.8 18.9 1400 5.00 - 7.49 32.0 7.5 9.3 693 7.50 - 9.99 34.3 4.4 5.1 379 10.00 - 12.49 32.5 3.5 4.2 314 12.50 - 14.99 18.9 0.8 1.6 122 15.00 - 19.99 24.7 2.0 3.3 243 20.00 - 24.99 16.9 0.7 1.8 130 25.00 - 29.99 20.9 0.5 0.9 67 30.00 - 49.99 19.6 0.8 1.6 122 50.00 & More 7.8 0.1 0.7 51 All 39.7* 100.0 100.0 7425 * The proportion of poor households in rural India in 1958-59, with due account taken of the weights, was 41.9 percent. See: The NSS, No. 102, TabZes with Notes on Consumer Expenditure Fourteenth Round, July 1958 - June 1959 (Delhi, 1966), pp. 20-21. -13- of between 2.5 and 12.5 acres of land implied almost the same incidence of poverty (around 32-35 percent), which declined to between 17 and 25 percent of households with holdings up to 50 acres. Even among households with more than 50 acres of land, about eight percent appeared to be poor. Given the positive association between land holding and household size, the households with large land holdings probably enjoy some economies of scale in consump- tion and, therefore, a uniform poverty line may overstate the proportion of the poor among larger land holders. However, the inverse relation between the holding size and productivity per acre, partly attributable to the greater availability and use of irrigation facilities on smaller holdings, is a relevant explanatory factor. Vaidyanathan also analysed the Fourteenth Round data through a multiple regression analysis of per capita consumption with the size of land holdings and household size as explanatory variables, separately for four occupation groups of farmers, farm workers, professional and administrative workers and others. The results of his regressions are reproduced in Table 2. The R2 values or the percentages of explained variance are not shown by Vaidyanathan but all the coefficients are significant at the one percent level. The results of a multiple regression analysis of per capita expen- diture in terms of per capita land and household size for rural households in Gujarat and Maharashtra in 1972-73 can be compared with those of Vaidyanathan for rural India as a whole in 1958-59.11 Taking advantage of the relatively large sample for the two states, the regressions have been estimated separ- ately for the regions within Gujarat and Maharashtra, by household occupation 1/ It seems likely that Vaidyanathan's analysis used the size of household land holding rather than per capita land as one of the explanatory variables. -14- TABLE 2 RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION WITH SIZE OF LANDHOLDINGS AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE AS EXPLANATORY VARIABLES, INDIA: 1958-59 Regression Coefficients of Land Family holdings size 1. Farmers 0.422 -1.204 2. Farm workers 0.335 -1.377 3. Professional and administrative workers 0.782 -1.523 4. Others 1.11 -2.338 Source: A. Vaidyanathan, "Inequalities in Living Standards in Rural India," in Poverty and Income Distribution in India, T.N. Srinivasan and P.K. Bardhan eds. (Calcutta: Statistical Publishing Society, 1974), p. 228. -15- (determined on the basis of the major source of income). While the regional results are discussed elsewhere, Table 3 summarizes the estimates for the two states. The regression coefficients for land variables in our analysis are generally higher, except for households pursuing manual non-agricultural occupations. The coefficients for household size are also higher, except for cultivator households in rural Maharashtra. To a considerable extent, this seems to be the effect of inflation; the wholesale price index (1961-62 = 100.0) had increased from about 90.2 in 1958-59 to 207.1 in 1972-73 and 252.4 in 1973-74 (April to March in all cases). The percentage of explained vari- ance in per capita expenditure is rather low, particularly for rural Maha- rashtra. It is necessary to take account of other variables, as is done in Section IV below. In relative terms, per capita expenditure in rural Gujarat and Maharashtra seems more responsive to household size than to per capita land. Depending on the household occupation group, a one percent decrease in the average household size would raise per capita expenditure by between 0.22 and 0.38 percent, whereas a similar increase in average per capita land would increase per capita consumption by between less than 0.01 and 0.16 percent. (Except for cultivator households in rural Maharashtra, the absolute value of the elasticity of consumption with respect to household size exceeds that with respect to per capita land.) On the whole, our findings for the two states are broadly compar- able to Vaidyanathan's results for rural India as a whole during 1958-59. Section IV below reports other results of a multiple regression analysis based on a quadratic specification and including irrigation status of the village as a dummy variable. TABLE 3 RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF PER CAPITA CONSUMER EXPENDITURE (ACE) WITH PER CAPITA LAND (IN ACRES) AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE AS EXPLANATORY VARIABLES, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Zero Order Regression Coefficients of Coefficient Correlation of Coefficients Number of Household Per Capita Household Constant Determination PCE PCE Sample Occupation Land (PCL) Size (HS) Term . (R2) & PCL & HS Households Rural Gujarat All 5.31 -2.56 62.36 0.16 0.34 -0.25 5543 (60.6) (42.0) (149.5) Cultivation 4.95 -2.11 60.32 0.16 0.37 -0.26 2184 (48.1) (27.2) (100.9) Agricultural 3.68 -2.76 54.20 0.17 0.18 -0.38 2186 Labour (13.7) (31.2) (106.3) White Collar 25.35 -5.60 95.40 0.43 0.60 -0.30 336 Work (33.9) (16.2) (48.8) Other 0.59 -3.59 71.33 0.10 0.04 -0.32 837 (0.9) (20.6) (69.3) Rural Maharashtra All 2.48 -1.77 50,06 0.07 0.20 -0.17 5329 (49.6) (41.2) (188.2) Cultivation 2.44 -0.65 44.53 0.05 0.23 -0.10 1742 (37.0) (9.6) (91.8) Agricultural 2.92 -2.52 47.69 0.15 0.13 -0.37 2420 Labour (22.5) (58.6) (198.7) White Collar 6.59 -4.65 89.89 0.10 0.14 -0.25 305 Work (12.0) (17.7) (58.4) Other 0.57 -3.33 58.10 0.14 0.05 -0.37 862 (3.6) (35.8) (114.6) Note: Figures in parentheses show the 't' values. -17- III. SIZE OF LAND HOLDING, HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION AND POVERTY Given the predominance of agriculture in the rural economy of India, the scarcity of land available to the agricultural labour households and small land holders seems to be an obvious, important cause of their poverty. If cultivable land were abundant, the rural households would face no constraint regarding that key factor in agricultural production. However, the extent to which the possession and size of land holding determines the prevalent consumption levels in rural areas is an open question which is examined below and in the next section. The discussion below is based on the size of land holding possessed by the household, whereas per capita land is used as the explanatory variable in the next section. A. Land Holding and PCE Decile Tables Al and A2 in the Statistical Appendix show the decile dis- tribution of the households reporting possession of land holdings in different size classes as well as the land holding distribution of households in each PCE decile. It is evident that the rural landless are not predominantly in the bottom deciles whereas among the households with 20 acres or more of land, some five percent in rural Gujarat and eight percent in rural Maharashtra were in the bottom two deciles. As expected, however, those with large land holdings were overrepresented in the top PCE decile.-/ B. Land HoZding and HousehoZd Occupation It can be argued that the relationship between land holding and consumption or poverty should be examined for cultivating households. Among 1/ As shown in Section IV, the correlation between per capita land and the per capita consumption level of a household was no more than 0.34 in rural Gujarat and 0.20 in rural Maharashtra. -18- various ways of defining a cultivating household, one convenient approach is that followed by the NSS, which designates the major source of income of a household during the year preceding the time of the survey as its occupation.1/ Of course, when the economic activities of a household change over a year and/or when there is more than one worker undertaking different activities, an identification of the major source of income may require some detailed questions. Since the instructions to the NSS investigators do not prescribe any detailed questions, the data recorded in regard to the household occu- pation probably involve a certain degree of approximation. In the absence of specific data on the earnings of non-employee workers, however, there is no alternative to relying on the recorded information on the household occu- pation. In order to ensure an adequately large sample size, a distinction is made between four classes of households: those deriving a major part of their income from (a) cultivation; (b) agricultural labour; (c) white collar work (including medical and public health workers, teachers, village officials and other administrative managerial, professional and technical workers, clerical workers, traders, money lenders and other sales workers); (d) other workers (including agricultural workers not engaged in cultivation, artisans and craftsmen, barbers, launderers and other service workers, etc.). 1/ To some extent, the basic stratification scheme of the NSS sample also attempts a similar distinction between (a) rural labour households, (b) those self-employed in non-agricultural activity, and (c) others. (See Annex 1.) However, no tabulation is made separately for these substrata. -19- Table 1 shows the distribution of households according to the size of land holding and household occupation.-/ It shows that the landless households include a significantly larger proportion of households whose occupation was white collar work and "other" activities (crafts, etc.). C. Household Occupation and PCE DeciZe Table A.3 in the Statistical Appendix shows the decile distribution (in terms of PCE) of households (with the intermediate six deciles grouped into three quintiles) in each occupation group. It confirms the expected overrepresentation of the white collar households in the top decile. Table A.4 in the Statistical Appendix gives further information on the households of each occupation that fall in each decile. The inverse relation between MPCE decile and the household size holds for each occupation group, but the inter-decile range of variation in household size is the lowest for cultivating households. On the other hand, the inter-decile range of variation in PCE, like the total household expenditure, is the lowest for the agricultural labour households. D. Size of Land Holding and the Proportion 6f Poor_HouAZhoZds Tables 2 and 3 show the proportion of the poor households (defined as those with a per capita expenditure of Rs. 15.00 or less in 1960-61 1/ As would be expected, a comparison of these data with the occupational distribution of workers in Tables A28 and A29 in the Statistical Appendix shows a broad correspondence, with the proportion of cultivator house- holds exceeding the percentage of cultivators among workers (of both sexes together) in each size of land holding class and a contrary tendency in the proportion of agricultural labour households. Likewise, the pro- portion of households with white collar occupations exceeds that of white collar workers. It is quite likely that the income of a white collar worker or a cultivator ~in a household would exceed that of other workers, if any, engaging in agricultural labour or some other miscellaneous work. But cultivation and white coll.ar work also carry a certain prestige which may cause certain overstatement of such activities as the major source of household income. However, the biases introduced by such factors are believed to be relatively minor and unlikely to affect an examination of the incidence of poverty by size of land holding and household occupation. TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED BY THE HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP, GUJArAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 27TH ROUND OF THE NSS, 1972-73 Puraza C'4jarat -hur- -Ao.rashtrc Size rf Land Holding HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP HOUSEHOLD OCCLTATION GROUP Pcssessed by the House- Agricultural Agriculeural Ho'd (in acres) Wh.ite Collar Cultivators Labor Others. All White Collar Cultivators Labor Others All (A) in Each 'land Holding Size No Land 16.7 3.6 44.0 35.7 100.0 17.0 0.3 56.5 26.2 100.0 0.01- 0.99 14.4 3.4 52.2 29.9 100.0 9.5 5.9 60.4 24.2 100.0 1.00- 2.49 4.4 64.5 20.5 10.6 100.0 2.0 45.5 39.0 13.5 100.0 2.50- 4.99 1.5 86.9 7.5 4.0 100.0 2.6 58.7 31.6 7.1 100.0 5.00- 7.49 2.3 92.1 2.9 2.7 100.0 3.1 68.8 22.5 5.6 100.0 7.50- 9.99 1.5 94.4 2.6 1.5 100.0 3.4 79.4 14.4 2.9 100.0 10.00-19.99 1.1 95.9 1.7 1.3 100.0 2.1 83.8 9.4 4.6 100.0 20.00 & Above 0.5 98.6 0.7 0.3 100.0 2.4 91.6 3.0 2.9 100.0 All 5.8 62.8 19.2 12.2 100.0 5.9 46.4 34.4 13.3 100.0 (B) ln Sich HIoucehold Orcxaqtion Gro zo No Land 23.4 0.5 18.8 24.1 8.2 34.7 0.1 19.7 23.7 12.0 0.01- 0.99 53.5 1.2 59.0 53.3 21.6 36.5 2.9 39.8 41.4 22.7 1.00- 2.49 7.4 9.9 10.3 8.5 9.7 4.3 12.3 14.2 12.7 12.5 2.50- 4.99 4.2 22.1 6.3 5.3 16.0 5.8 16.6 12.1 7.0 13.1 5.C0- 7.49 4.7 17.6 1.8 2.7 12.0 5.9 16.4 7.2 4.6 11.0 7.5C- 9.99 1.6 9.4 0.8 0.8 6.3 3.1 9.2 2.3 1.2 5.4 10.00-19.99 3.2 25.1 1.4 1.8 16.4 4.7 23.7 3.6 4.6 13.1 20.00 & Above 0.7 14.2 0.3 0.2 9.1 3.9 18.9 0.8 2.1 9.6 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TAIBLE 2 PERCENTAGE OF POOR HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF CLASS IAND HOLDING POSSESSED, RURAL GUJARAT 1972-73 CMION Sit* of Land Holding Northerm Soutbern Dry (Acres) All Eastern Plains Plains Areas Saurashtra (A) PCE CRITERION (PEi? CAPI1A FXPEVPITURE OF Rs. 15.00 OR LESS AT 1960-61 PRICWS AND Rs. 38.90 AT 2972-73 PRICES) Nil 36.8 41.1 43.8 * 30.7 31.9 Less than 1.00 44.0 52.2 42.7 46.7 46.2 31.9 1.00 - 2.49 39.8 52.2 34.8 35.3 47.5 38.4 2.50 - 4.99 41.2 57.8 33.5 33.0 49.6 24.6 5.00 - 7.49 37.3 50.7 25.6 36.8 38.9 27.9 7.50 - 9.99 29.9 63.2 16.4 25.6 29.8 14.1 10.00 - 19.99 24.4 54.2 20.2 22.3 23.1 15.3 20.00 & More 13.5 __ 13.1 6.8 19.6 10.6 All 34.7 53.5 31.8 35.6 30.2 22.1 (H) THE CRITERIONI (TOTAL HO.SEiOLD EXPENDITURE OF RS. 87.00 OR LESS AT 1960-61 PRICES AND Rs. 225.60 OR LESS AT 1972-73 PRICES) Nil 59.1 95.4 67.2 * 60.8 44.8 Less than 1.00 62.2 70.9 62.8 66.1 71.1 43.8 1.00 - 2.49 59.7 62.9 64.3 51.9 82.2 38.1 2.50 - 4.99 55.2 75.1 48.8 40.8 55.1 38.7 5.00 - 7.49 37.9 55.2 28.] 32.7 38.8 21.9 7.50 - 9.99 28.5 57.6 18.9 15.4 44.5 8.5 10.00 - 19.99 18.5 32.5 13.7 19.1 23.7 12.1 20.00 & More 7.9 -- 8.6 -- 11.2 6.6 All 43.5 61.6 45.3 45.6 38.6 25.1 (C) DISTRIBUTION OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING Nil 8.2 1.0 14.0 0.2 15.7 11.8 Less than 1.00 21.7 21.9 14.4 37.2 11.1 20.9 1.00 - 2.49 9.7 11.5 14.3 14.1 3.2 1.9 2.50 - 4.99 16.0 25.3 22.0 13.9 6.9 7.1 5.00 - 7.49 12.0 19.4 12.0 11.0 7.3 8.5 7.50 - 9.99 6.3 7.0 6.0 5.0 7.6 6.3 10.00 - 19.99 16.4 11.9 10.4 13.8 22.8 26.7 20.00 & More 9.1 1.7 5.8 3.8 25.2 16.1 Not Reported 0.8 0.3 1.1 1.0 0.2 0.8 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sanple Households 5543 832 1575 923 650 1563 * lie nu.MbCL of seM;,le h11IScholds wais Loo snall to permiL estimaLes. NOTE: The poverty line in terms of 111W. is obtained by multiplying the average Lize of a household in rural Gujarat (5.8 persons) with the norm of a per capitn e.xpenditure of Rs. 15.00. hl'e regional dfffercnces in the average ?iz- of hon.chi5,( ! 11.1wso 1 f h','1 taken i o accoln't k-c.ilse the TIPHE el I trion is used only for an illustratio:t. -22- TABLZ 3 PERCENTAGE OF POOR HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE CLASS OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED, RURAL MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 REGION Nagpur Division Size of except Land Holding Poona Khandesh Maratha- Bhandara Bhandara (Acres) All Konikan Division & Nasik wada 6 Chanda & Chanda (A) PCf CRITERION (PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE OF Re. 15.00 OR LESS AT 1960-61 PRICES AND Rs. 40.60 OR LESS AT 1972-73 PRICES) Nil 60.0 46.3 61.3 69.4 57.9 58.1 36.5 Less than 1.00 63.6 66.5 60.6 73.9 59.8 66.4 52.1 1.00 - 2.49 66.6 68.5 64.7 77.4 55.5 68.0 63.0 2.50 - 4.99 59.4 55.2 59.6 69,9 38.8 63.5 69.5 5.00 - 7.49 58.8 70.6 56.2 58.2 47.9 66.4 58.9 7.50 - 9.99 57.5 78.5* 75.1 54.9 51.0 49.9 45.9 10.00 - 19.99 47,7 34.2* 57.9 47.8 38.7 50.6 27.4 20.00 & More 36.1 3.1* 44.0 52.5 29.9 30.9 35.3 All 57.3 60.9 59.5 63.6 46.5 58.3 53.8 (B) THE CRITERION (TOTAL HOUSEHOLD EXPE/DITUR OF RS. 79. 50 OR LESS AT 1960-61 PRICES OR RH. 215.20 OR LESS AT 1972-73 PRICES) Nil 80.4 72.9 76.4 80.3 77.3 93.1 73.7 Less than 1.00 78.2 82.7 73.8 79.7 69.6 84.3 77.9 1.00 - 2.49 75.9 82.3 68.8 88.8 65.2 74.0 77.0 2.50 - 4.99 64.4 50.9 64.1 72.6 60.5 80.2 56.5 5.00 - 7.49 60.6 54.2 59.9 56.2 54.6 71.4 54.8 7.50 - 9.99 51.8 61.2* 49.6 46.2 69.6 59.3 8.0 10.00 - 19.99 46.4 29.2* 43.2 38.2 43.0 60.2 37.9 20.00 & More 24.9 3. 1* 26.6 20.6 20.8 33.6 17.8 All 63.8 71.8 61.4 62.7 53.6 72.4 58.9 (C) DISTRIBUTION OP ALL flOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING Nil 12.0 8.7 15.0 18.8 8.9 11.1 3.3 Less than 1.00 22.7 28.6 18.3 14.3 22.7 28,8 26.2 1.00 - 2.49 12.5 29.0 14.9 9.2 4.8 6.1 20.1 2.50 - 4.99 13.2 20.0 13.6 13.3 8.2 10.4 21.0 5.00 - 7.49 11.0 7.7 12.1 11.1 11.7 12.4 5.7 7.50 - 9.99 5.4 1.2 4.4 9.4 5.7 5.8 7.6 10.00 - 19.99 13.1 ].3 12.6 15.1 19.1 15.4 10.3 20.00 & More 9.6 1.0 8.8 8.4 t8.4 10.1 5.7 Not Reported 0.5 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 -- -- All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Samuple Households 5329 671 1779 584 1029 916 350 * The number of sample houselholds was: less than 1J. NOTL: 1lie poverty line iti terms of TiiE is; obtained by multiplying LIhC average size of a houselinld in rural Kl,hrashtra (5.3 persons) with the nrm of a per capiLa e::p-sdltssre of Rs. 15.00. IThe rqgional differences in the average sizC Of a ho1:sje'i,d have not becit tatVs.v into accotint because the TIlE crIter,rn 1oi oisedI only for an il iwstrrat len. -23- prices l/) according to size classes of land holding. As was seen earlier in the NSS data of 1956-57, the percentage of households below the poverty line was lower among the landless than among landed households with less than 7.5 acres of land in rural Gujarat and less than 2.5 acres of land in rural Maharashtra. Households with land holdings from 2.5 to 10.0 acres in Maharashtra had almost the same proportion of the poor as the landless. Even among households owning more than 20 acres, some 14 percent in rural Gujarat and 35 percent in rural Maharashtra were below the poverty line. Prima facie, the estimated proportions of the poor among households with holdings of 10 acres or more are surprisingly large and contrary to general impressions. Perhaps our impressions overlook the positive asso- ciation between the size of land holding and household size, and are based on the total expenditures of the household. Tables 2 and 3 also show, therefore, the estimated proportions of poor according to a criterion based on the total household expenditure (THE) with the poverty line obtained by multiplying the norm of per capita expenditure by the average household size in rural Gujarat and Maharashtra. According to the THE criterion, the proportion of the poor among households with 10 acres or more is smaller than that according to the PCE criterion. However, the ranking of households according to PCE deciles is substantially different from that in terms of the THE decile and 1/ The consumer price index for agricultural labourers in rural areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra has been used to estimate the poverty line relevant for 1972-73 -- Rs. 38.90 for Gujarat and Rs. 40.60 for Maharashtra. The Bureau of Economics and Statistics in Gujarat has suggested, however, that the cost of living in rural areas of the state was higher than in rural India as a whole and that to ensure the desired minimum level of food intake, the poverty line should be set at a per capita consumer expenditure of Rs. 18.25 in 1960-61 prices. (See: Government of Gujarat, Incidence of Poverty in Gujarat (An Analysis Based on the Data on Consumer Ezpenditure), Ahmedabad, 1973) The price level in rural Maharashtra is also estimated to be higher than in rural India as a whole, bat the differential is less than observed in rural Gujarat. (See: G.S. Chatterjee and N. Bhattacharya, "Between States Variation in Consumer Prices and Per Capita Household Consumption in Rural India, ' Sankhya, Vol. 36, Series C, Pts. 2 & 4, pp. 337-368.) A higher poverty line would lead to a higher estimate of the proportion of the poor. -24- the extent of overlap between the poor households in terms of PCE and THE is not likely to be high.-/ In order to understand the factors that might explain the presence of poor households even among those with land holdings of 20 acres or more, the estimates in Tables 2 and 3 distinguish between five regions in rural Gujarat and six regions in rural Maharashtra. It is evident that the pro- portion of households with holdings of more than 20 acres was significantly higher in the "dry areas" (25 percent) and in the Saurashtra region (16 per- cent) of Gujarat, or in relatively dry Marathawada (18 percent) in Maharashtra (compared with the average of 9 percent in each of the two states). The proportion of poor households among those with 20 acres or more was also significantly higher in the dry areas of Gujarat than the state average for that class size, but that was not the case in Saurashtra or Marathawada. Table 4 shows the proportion of households below the poverty line by size of land holding and household occupation. According to Table 4, which shows the proportion of households below the poverty line by size class of land holding and household occupation, the incidence of poverty was signif- icantly lower among households occupied in white collar work and "other" activities. It is evident that the lower incidence of poverty among the landless than among landed households reflects the occupational distribution of the former. Within the ranks of cultivating households in rural Maharashtra, the incidence of poverty declines steadily (though rather slowly) with an l/ For further details on this point, see: Pravin Visaria, "Poverty and Living Standards in Asia: An Overview of the Main Results and Lessons of Selected Household Surveys," Working Paper No. 2 of the Living Standards M1easurement Study (LSMS) (Development Research Center, The World Bank, forthcoming). -25- TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS BELOW THE POVERTY LINE BY LAND POSSESSED AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Land Possessed White Collar Agricultural (acres) All Work Cultivation Labor Other RURAL GUJARAT No Land 36.8 8.8 14.6@ 48.7 37.6 0.01 - 0.99 44.0 20.9 34.1 57.9 32.1 1.00 - 2.49 39.9 57.9 33.6 61.0 29.6 2.50 - 4.99 41.2 27.3 40.6 49.8 44.3 5.00 - 7.49 37.3 13.1 37.4 46.4 46.3 7.50 - 9.99 30.0 37.2* 30.1 34.1 8.9* 10.00 - 19.99 24.3 N* 24.5 29.9 29.5 20.00 + more 13.2 N* 13.4 N* N* All 34.7 19.9 30.2 54.8 33.5 RURAL MAHARASHTRA No Land 60.0 35.5 -$ 72.1 50,4 0.01 - 0.99 63.6 37.2 67,8 67,1 64.0 1.00 - 2.49 66.6 50.1 64.6 69.0 68.9 2.50 - 4.99 59.4 41.0 55,4 70,1 51.4 5.00 - 7.49 58.8 48.0 54.3 70,7 72,9 7.50 - 9.99 57.5 49.5* 55.1 71,5 63.5 10.00 - 19.99 47.7 37.1 46.1 65.3 46.8 20.00 + more 36.1 1.8˘ 36.2 65.5 32.8 All 57.3 37.4 50.8 69.0 58.1 *Sample size: Less than 10 households. $Sample size: 2 households. @Sample size: 15 households. QSample size: 11 households. N: None. Note: The poverty line is estimated at a monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) of Rs. 38.90 in rural Gujarat and Rs. 40.60 in Rural Maharashtra (corresponding to a NPCE of Rs. 15.00 at 1960-61 prices). -26- increase in the size of household holding. In rural Gujarat, cultivators with holdings between 2.5 and 5.0 acres reported the highest incidence of poverty, higher than that among households with holdings up to 2.5 acres. Table 5 summarizes the regression coefficients for the proportion of poor households with the average size of land holding possessed by house- holds in each occupation class as the explanatory variable.-/ Given the eight size classes of land holding, the number of degrees of freedom for the regressions is no more than six. For the cultivating and agricultural labour households, the sample size permits use of somewhat finer size classes of land holding (13 and 9 respectively for Gujarat, and 14 and 11 respectively for Maharashtra). The finer breakdown increases the R for the cultivating households in both Gujarat and Maharashtra,-/ whereas the R for the agri- cultural labour households in rural Maharashtra remains statistically insignificant. The expected negative association between the proportion of the poor and the average size of land holding is confirmed for both Gujarat and Maharashtra with respect to all households, cultivating households and households deriving their major income from crafts or other miscellaneous activities. The negative association is also confirmed for the agricultural labour households in rural Gujarat and the white collar households in rural 1/ Except as noted in Table 5, the quadratic regressions for the proportion of the poor did not vield significantly better values of R2 and in fact rendered insignificant some of the regression coefficients for the size of land holding. 2/ The size classes of land holdings (in acres) distinguished only in the finer breakdown are as follows: (a) 0.01 to 0.49 and 0.50 to 0.99; (b) 10.00 to 12.49, 12.50 to 14.99 and 15.00 to 19.99; and (c) 20.00 to 24.99, 25.00 to 29.99, 30.00 to 49.99 and 50.00 and over. The other five classes are: - (a) the landless; (b) 1.00 - 2.49; (c) 2.50 - 4.99; (d) 5.00 - 7.49 and (e) 7.50 - 9.99. -27- TABLE 5 REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR THE PERCENTAGE OF POOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH THE AVERAGE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING AS AN EXPLANATORY VARIABLE, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Household Average Adjusted Occupation Size of Land Constant 2 Degree of Holding Term R R Freedom Rural Gu.iarat All -1.05** 41.92** 0.91** 0.89 6 (7.7) (26.4) Cultivation -0.60 33.85** 0.29 0.17 6 (1.6) ( 7.5) -0.71** 36.01* 0.62** 0.59 11 (4.3) ( 2.6) Agricultural -2.23** 56.96** 0.94** 0.93 6 Labour (10.0) (24.0) -2.76** 63.87** 0.85** 0.82 7 (6.2) (17.7) White Collar -0.89 29.72** 0.29 0.17 6 Work (1.5) ( 3.6) Other -1.62* 39.15** 0.54* 0.47 6 (2.7) ( 6.7) Rural Maharashtra All -0.87** 63.29** 0.92** 0.91 6 (8.4) (46.9) Cultivation -0.48 54.10** 0.12 -0.03 6 (0.9) ( 7..7) -0.66** 60.51** 0.65** 0.63 12 (4.8) (19.1) Agricultural -0.17 70.18** 0.37 0.27 6 Labour (1.9) (65.9) 0.08 69.30** 0.02 -0.08 9 (0.4) (33.2) White Collar -0.70** 45.34** 0.80** 0.76 6 Work (4.8) (14.5) Other -1.04* 64.00** 0.50* 0.42 6 (2.5) (13.4) * Significant at the five percent level. ** Significant at the one percent level. Note: For the cultivating households in Maharashtra, a quadratic regression estimated for the 14 size classes increases the RI to 0.90 (corrected R2: 0.88). The coefficients are: -2 p - 67.55 - 1.79 L + 0.02 L (30.7) (7.9) (5.3) where p = the proportion of poor households and L = average size of land holding in a size class interval. The critical value is 47.1 acres. -28- Maharashtra. For the agricultural labour households in Maharashtra, however, a negative association between the average size of land holding and the pro- portion of the poor is not confirmed. E. Distzribution of the Poor HousehoZds by Occupation and Size of Holding Table 6 shows the distribution of poor households by size of land holding and household occupation. -Households with land holdings up to five acres account for two-thirds of the poor households in both Gujarat and Maharashtra. Agricultural labour households account for about 30 percent of the poor households in rural Gujarat and a little over 40 percent of those in rural Maharashtra. It may seem surprising that approximately 15 to 17 percent of the poor households had land holdings of 10 acres or more. According to the Fourteenth Round data for rural India as a whole (see Section II, Table 1), some 8.5 percent of poor households had operational holdings of 10 acres or more. The much higher proportion of large land holders among the poor house- holds of Gujarat and Maharashtra probably reflects both the effects of drought in these states during 1972-73 and the relatively poorer irrigation facilities in the two states than in India as a whole, particularly for larger land holdings.!/ However, that brings us to the factors responsible for the observed weak relationship between the size of land holding and per capita expenditure. This issue, which requires further detailed discussion, will be taken up after reviewing the results of our multiple regression in the next section. 1/ According to the Agricultural Census of 1970-71, the percentage of irrigated area (irrespective of the source and/or intensity of irri- gation) in the total land area of holdings of 10 acres or more was 7.9 in Gujarat. See: Government of Gujarat, Socio-Economic Review: Gujarat State, 1974-75 (Ahmedabad, 1975),p. 38. The corresponding data for Maharashtra are not available at the moment. For India as a whole, the proportion of irrigated area in the holdings of 10 acres or more estimated on the basis of the 16th and the 17th Rounds of the NSS conducted during 1960-62, was 15.6 percent. See: B. Sen, "Oppor- tunities in the Green Revolution," Economic ond PoZitical Weekly, (Review of Agriculture)(March 1970), pp. A33-A40. TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF POOR HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION AND SIZE OF LANDHOLDING, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Rural Gujarat RuraZ Maharashtra Household Occupation Household Occupation Size of White Collar Agricultural White Collar Agricultural Land Holding All Work Cultivation Labor Other All Work Cultivation Labor Other No Land 8.7 0.3 0.1 5.0 3.2 13.2 1.3 0.0 3.5 2.8 0.00 - 0.99 27.5 1.9 0.7 18.9 6.0 25.0 1.4 1.6 16.1 6.1 1.00 - 2.49 11.1 0.7 6.0 3.5 0.9 14.7 0.2 6.4 5.9 2.0 2.50 - 4.99 19.0 0.2 16.2 1.7 0.8 13.6 0.2 7.5 5.1 0.8 5.00 - 7.49 12.9 0.1 11.9 0.5 0.4 11.1 0.3 7.2 3.1 0.8 7.50 - 9.99 5.4 0.1 5.1 0.2 0.0 5.5 0.2 4.1 1.0 0.2 10.00 - 19.99 11.5 - 11.1 0.2 0.2 11.0 0.2 8.8 1.4 0.5 20.00 & More 3.4 - 3.4 - - 5.7 0.0 5.5 0.3 0.1 All 100.0 3.3 54.7 30.3 11.7 100.0 3.8 41.2 41.5 13.5 Notes: (1) About 1.2 percent of the poor households in Gujarat and 0.3 percent of those in Maharashtra did not report the size of their land holding. They are included among the total but are not shown separately. (2) A poor household is defined as one with a per capita expenditure of less than Rs. 38.90 in rural Gujarat and less than Rs. 40.60 in rural Maharashtra. -30- IV. RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS This section presents the results of (a) a quadratic multiple regression analysis of monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE), with per capita land (PCL), and household size (HS) as the main explanatory variables- /, and the irrigation status (IS) and cropping intensity of the village as dummy variables, and (b) a multiple classification analysis of per capita expendi- ture with the list of explanatory variables expanded to include not only per capita land, household size, the NSS regions (five in rural Gujarat and six in rural Maharashtra), and four household occupation groups,-/ but also the age, general educational attainment and usual activity of the head of the household. A. MultipZe Regression Analysis For the regression analysis of the MPCE, we must choose between the two dummy variables of cropping intensity and the irrigation status of the village, which are likely to be highly correlated. Table 1 shows the linear correlation coefficients for selected variables for different regions and household occupation groups. As would be expected, PCE shows a positive relationship with PCL and a negative relationship with HS for all cultivating and agricultural labour households in all regions. For white collar worker households, the relationship between PCE and PCL is reversed, with very low values of coef- ficients, in five out of eleven regions and in three of the eleven regions for 1/ See Section II for the variance in MPCE explained by only PCL and HS on the basis of a linear model. 2/ See Section III for the definitions of household occupation groups. Note that some of the "non-cultivating" households had cultivation as a minor source of income. TABLE 1 Coefficients of Correlation between Selected Variables According to Household Occupation (Major Source of Income), Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 Eousehold Occupation _ _ All Households White Collar Work Cultivation Agricultural Labor Other PCE PCE PCL CI PCE PCE PCL CI PCE PCE PCL Ci PCE PCE PCL CI PCE PCE PCL Cl Region & PCL 6 HS 6 HS 4 IS & PCL & HS 6 HS & IS & PCL & HS 6 HS & IS 6 PCL & HS & HS & IS 6 PCL & HS 6 HS 6 IS Rural Gujarat All 0.34 -0.25 -0.10 0.74 0.60 -0.30 -0.04 0.73 0.37 -0.26 -0.25 0.73 0.18 -0.38 -0.06 0.74 0.04 -0.32 -0.09 0.82 Eastern 0.29 -0.32 -0.17 0.55 -0.02 -0.39 0.17 0.74 0.45 -0.32 -0.32 0.50 0.02 -0.35 0.02 0.78 -0.04 -0.32 0.16 0.29 Northern Plains 0.31 -0.24 -0.11 0.62 -0.01 -0.33 0.11 0.54 0.31 -0.26 -0.22 0.63 0.06 -0.40 -0.13 0.59 0.01 -0.30 -0.04 0.62 Southern Plains 0.53 -0.29 -0.17 0.61 0.73 -0.19 -0.03 0.40 0.61 -0.39 -0.36 0.56 0.03 -0.47 N 0.63 0.01 -0.34 -0.10 0.81 Dry Areas 0.36 -0.25 -0.16 0.94 0.87 -0.39 -0.22 1.00 0.40 -0.30 -0.38 0.91 0.13 -0.44 -0.16 0.97 0.32 -0.49 -0.17 1.00 Saurashtra 0.29 -0.21 -0.04 0.82 0.12 -0.45 0.06 0.89 0.28 -0.21 -0.33 0.81 0.35 -0.38 -0.03 0.75 0.03 -0.32 -0.02 0.88 Rural Maharashtra All 0.20 -0.17 -0.04 0.47 0.14 -0.25 0.20 0.49 0.23 -0.1C -0.20 0.50 0.13 -0.37 0.02 0.43 0.05 -0.37 -0.04 0.48 Konkan 0.09 -0.21 -0.08 0.65 -0.04 -0.39 -0.19 0.17 0.25 -0.11 -0.20 0.69 0.06 -0.17 0.26 0.43 -0.03 -0.34 0.25 0.75 Poona Division 0.15 -0.21 -0.01 0.31 0.04 -0.32 0.04 0.39 0.25 -0.15 -0.12 0.34 0.08 -0.31 0.01 0.26 0.13 -0.35 -0.03 0.35 Khandesh and Xasik 0.17 -0.03 0.02 0.90 0.55 0.31 0.90 0.96 0.08 -0.06 -0.24 0.87 0.24 -0.39 -0.07 0.94 -0.07 -0.43 -0.28 0.88 "arathavada 0.27 -0.21 -0.07 0.34 0.34 -0.66 0.05 0.43 0.26 -0.12 -0.23 0.38 0.20 -0.32 N 0.37 0.12 -0.32 -0.19 0.02 Nagpir Division except Bhandara and Chanda 0.21 -0.18 -0.09 0.40 -0.04 -0.51 0.05 0.17 0.17 -0.07 -0.31 0.40 0.16 -0.50 0.03 0.39 -0.06 -0.42 0.28 0.58 Bhandara and Chanda 0.40 -0.37 -0.11 0.43 -0.13 -0.40 0.43 0.64 0.51 -0.38 -0.31 0.47 0.07 -0.50 -0.10 0.43 0.61 -0.42 -0.21 0.32 Notes: (a) PCE: Monthly per capita expenditure of the household. PCL: Per capita land owned by the household. HS: Household size. Cl: Cropping intensity in the village. IS: Irrigation status of the village. (b) Cropping intensity and irrigation status are dummy variables defined for the sample village as a whole. Shey take the following values: 1 - multiple crop, 1 - sane irrigation 0 - single crop 0 - no irrigation. (c) N - negligible, less than 0.005. -32- households with other miscellaneous occupations. The relationship between PCE and household size is negative, however, for the "other" households in all regions and for the white collar worker households in all regions except Khandesh and Nasik in Maharashtra. The two dummy variables - cropping intensity and irrigation status of the village - are more strongly correlated in the dry and Saurashtra regions of Gujarat, and the Khandesh and Nasik region of Maharashtra because the availability of irrigation facilities is a critical factor if more than one crop is to be raised. The correlation in other regions could be lower perhaps, because the moisture in the soil could permit the growth of more than one crop even in the absence of irrigation facilities.-/ However, to avoid the problem of collinearity between the two variables, they must be intro- duced separately. The obvious hypotheses are that MPCE rises with PCL and declines with HS but there may be nonlinearity in the relationship because large land holdings are believed to include land of inferior quality and there may be economies of scale in consumption. The results of quadratic multiple regres- sion for the four household occupation groups, shown in Table 2, generally confirm these hypotheses. The coefficients for PCL are positive and statis- tically significant both in Gujarat and Maharashtra, except for the miscel- laneous "other" group in Gujarat (for whom the coefficient is positive but not significant) and the white collar workers in Maharashtra (for whom the coefficient is actually negative, though not significant).2' 1/ Note that the questions on the cropping intensity of the village related to the "normal" or usual "dominant crop pattern of the village" (single crop or multiple crop), which may be different from that during the drought-affected years of 1972-73. 2/ Table 1 in Section II indicates that the proportion of households with more than one acre of land was less than 35 percent for the white collar and "other" households. TABLE 2 QUADRATIC SPECIFICATIONS FOR MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE BY HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUPS, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Critical Values Per Capita Household Per Capita Household Irrigation Per Capita Household '.-ousehold Land Size Land2 Size2 Status Constan Lar,d Size Occupation (PCL) (HS)__ (PCL2) (HS2) (IS) Term R (PCL) (HS) RURAL GUJARAT All 7.42** -8.30** -0.19** 0.44** 4.96** 74.1** 0.20 19.53 9.43 (52.9) (41.7) (20.0) (30.1) (15.0) (109.7) Cultivation 7.19** -7.46** -0.19** 0.40** 8.24** 69:49** 0.22 18.92 9.33 (40.8) (28.7) (17.3) (22.3) (19.9) (69.4) Agricultural 6.98** -7.84** -0.26** 0.44** -0.53 66.15** 0.22 13.42 8.91 Labour (16.4) (26.4) (10.8) (17.3) (1.3) (76.4) White Collar 34.84** -13.06** -0.93** 0.67** 1.51 109.89** 0.45 18.73 9.75 Work (18.1) (11.4) (5.1) (6.7) (0.9) (35.2) Others 1.61 -8.26** -0.17 0.41** -0.07 81.27** 0.12 4.74 10.07 (1.2) (15.5) (1.0) (9.3) (0.1) (53.2) RLRAL A4HARASHTRA All 3.92** -6.28** -0.10** 0.32** 2.10** 60.54** 0.11 19.60 9.81 (49.7) (65.7) (27.3) (51.3) (9.2) (164.1) Cultivation 4.32** -2.78** -0.11** O.15** 3.91** 46.09** 0.08 19.64 9.27 (37.4) (13.2) (22.3) (10.7) (10.5) (57.5) Agricultural 3.55** -6.58** -0.21** 0.34** 1.84** 56.45** 0.20 8.45 9.68 Labour (16.1) (52.2) (5.5) (33.9) (9.1) (146.7) 'Wnite Collar -0.il -13.79** 0.30** 0.45** -7.20** 125.64 0.27 0.18 15.32 (0.1) (33.1) (2.9) (26.7) (4.6) (1.9) Other 1.74** -9.95** -0.08** 0.60** 2.19** 70.52** 0.21 10.88 8.29 (5.8) (36.6) (5.3) (25.6) (4.6) (94.2) 8* Significant at the one percent level. NOTE: Figures in parentheses show the 't' values. -34- The coefficients for household size are all negative and statis- tically significant at the one percent level. Excluding those for cultivators, the coefficients for different household occupation groups in Gujarat and Maharashtra are generally comparable. The availability of irrigation in the village has a positive and statistically significant effect on the MPCE of all groups of households (except the white collar workers) in rural Maharashtra and of the cultivating households in rural Gujarat. The negative coefficient for white collar workers of rural Maharashtra with respect to irrigation status may be due to variables not considered here. The negative coefficients for the square of per capita land suggest that per capita consumption rises with an increase in per capita land up to some point, but the relationship is in fact reversed when per capita land reaches the high value of 19 to 20 acres in both Gujarat and Maharashtra. The positive coefficients for the square of household size suggest economies of scale in consumption, which outweigh the negative effect of in- creasing size when the household size reaches a value between about nine and ten members (over fifteen for the white collar workers in rural Maharashtra). 2 The R , or the proportion of variance in MPCE explained by PCL, HS, the squares of the two variables and IS, is no more than 20 percent in rural Gujarat and 11 percent in rural Maharashtra. The R for cultivating households in Maharashtra is even lower - no more than 8 percent. The highest observed values of R are for the white collar workers - 45 per- cent in Gujarat and 27 percent in Maharashtra.l/ 1/ The R values as well as the regression coefficients remain virtually unaffected when the dummy variable of irrigation status is replaced by the cropping intensity of the village. See Table 1 in Annex 2 which also reports the regression results for various regions in Gujarat and Maharashtra. -35- Obviously, we need to take account of other variables in order to explain the variance in monthly per capita expenditure. Some of the variables that can be taken into account are the region, household occupation and sex, age and education of the household head as well as his usual activity (which would recognize whether the head was in the labour force or not, and if in the labour force, the farm or non-farm sector of employment, and the class of worker). Most of these variables (except age) would be entered into a regression as dummy variables. An alternative used here is the multiple classification analysis which can estimate the joint effect of several dummy variables that form different categories of a variable.-/ B. Results of MAutipZe Classification AnaZysis Table 3 below summarizes the variance in per capita expenditure of a household that is explained by the specified variables or predictors, with and without adjustment for other factors.-/ Variables are ranked according to the variance explained by them after adjustment. The R for per capita expenditure in rural Gujarat is about 33 percent, but that for rural Maharashtra is only 16 percent. For Gujarat, the household size, educational attainment of the household head and per capita land (in that order) are the three most important explanatory variables. The other three variables of region, age of the household head and substratum3/ (expected to be highly correlated with the occupation of the household) are 1/ Frank M. Andrews, et.al., MAultiple CZassification AnaZysis: A Report on Computer Progran for MuZtipZe Regression Using Categorical Predictors (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, Second Edition, 1973). 2/ The detailed data on the per capita expenditure of a household according to various categories of predictors are given in Pravin Visaria, "Living Standards, Employment and Education in Western India, 1972-73," mimeo- graphed, July 1980. 3/ See Annex 1. TABLE 3 Results of Multiple Classification Analysis of Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE) in Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 RuraZ Gujarat Rural Maharashtra Variance in MPCE Variance in MPCE Explained by the Variable Explained by the Variable Without With Without With Adjustment Adjustment Rank Adjustment Adjustment Rank for Other for Other of for Other for Other of Explanatory Variable Factors Factors B2 Factors Factors 82 (p2) (~2) (n 2) (82) 1. Region 0.029 0.021 4 0.005 0.002 6 2. Sub Stratum 0.050 0.014 6 0.034 0.004 5 3. Household Size 0.101 0.105 1 0.035 0.036 3 4. Household Occupation 0.073 0.005 9 5. Per Capita Land 0.104 0.070 3 0.071 0.041 2 6. Sex of the Household Head 0.005 0.006 8 0.009 0.001 7 7. Age of the Household Head 0.015 0.017 5 0.010 0.001 7 8. Education of the Household Head 0.102 0.082 2 0.069 0.046 1 9. Skill of the Household Head. 0.021 0.010 7 10. Usual Activity of the Household Head 0.054 0.005 9 0.046 0.008 4 Total Variance Explained (R2) 0.328 0.163 Interaction Effect 0.007 0.024 Sample Households 5560 5314 Notes: 1. The number of sample households for Gujarat is shown above as 5560 because the Gujarat Computer Centre had duplicated 17 households and assigned them fractional weights to ensure equal numbers of households in each PCE decile. For rural Maharashtra, some sample households had to be excluded because of incomplete data. 2. Interaction effect is estimated as the difference between the R2 and the sum of variance explained by each variable after adjustment for other factors. -37- next in importance. Interestingly, the explanatory power of the usual activity of the household head, five percent without adjustment for other factors, drops sharply to less than one percent after the adjustment. The same is true of the household occupation variable. In Maharashtra, educational attainment of the household head, per capita land and household size (in that order) are the three most important predictors of per capita expenditure. The explanatory power of each of these variables is less in Maharashtra than in Gujarat. As in Gujarat, the explan- atory power of the usual activity of the household head declines from about five to less than one percent after adjustment for other factors. C. Factors UnderZyinq the Weak ReZationship Between Land and Poverty Why is the association between the size of land holding and the per capita expenditure or the incidence of poverty as weak as it seems? One possibility is the understatement of expenditures by households with large land holdings, i.e., response errors. The absence of any imputation of rent for "owned houses used for residential purposes"l/ could also be a contribu- tory factor.-/ While no specific data are available, the general impressions about rural India in general and Gujarat and Maharashtra in particular suggest that the large land holders normally have larger and better quality houses. (Among the assets of rural households, buildings are the second most important 1/ NSS, 27th Round, Instructions to Field Staff, Vol. 1, Design, Concepts, Definitions and Procedures (New Delhi: September 1972), Para. 3.8.8 of the section on Schedule 1.0. Note, however, that the "cost of materials purchased for repair of a minor nature of residential building" was recorded in the expenditure data. 2/ In 1960, the percentage of rural households resident in rented dwellings was 9.4 in Gujarat and 12.0 in Maharashtra. See: Census of India, 1961, Vol. 1, India, Part IV.B., Housing and Establishment Tables, Delhi, 1964, Table E-II. -38- item after land.) Therefore, non-imputation of rent for owner-occupied housing can introduce a clear downward bias in the estimated per capita expenditure of households with larger holdings. Secondly, as noted above, there also exist economies of scale in consumption. Some earlier analysis has shown such economies of scale in the consumption of cereals as well as fuel and light.-/ Given the positive asso- ciation between the size of the household and the size of land holding, those with larger land holdings benefit from such economies. In other words, a uniform poverty line does not take account of the economies of scale in consumption of certain commodities. Thirdly, land is far too heterogeneous as an index of the income or earning potential of a household. The proportion of irrigated land is higher in small land holdings. The available data do not include information on whether and how far the land held by respondent households was irrigated.2/ The smaller land holdings are also cultivated more intensively, with a sig- nificantly higher input of labour per acre of land. The larger land holdings also tend to have relatively inferior land. On the whole, productivity per acre is much higher on smaller holdings. Fourthly, as shown below, in each size class of holdings, household size varies inversely with MPCE decile. As shown in Table A-5 in the 1/ See, for example, the analysis of the 17th Round data for Madras and Uttar Pradesh by N. Sreenivasa Iyengar, et.aZ., "Economies of Scale in Household Consumption: A Case Study," The Indian Economic Journal, vol. 15, no. 4, (Econometric Annual), pp. 365-477. 2/ The available data include information on whether or not "most of the cultivated lands" in the villages from which the sample households were selected are irrigated and if so, "the dominant source of irrigation." Likewise, there is information on "the dominant crop pattern in the vil- lage, i.e. whether normally the village is a single crop producing village or multiple crop producing village". This information is used in the regressions below in variables; but the village attributes would not necessarily hold for sample households. -39- Statistical Appendix, the landless households in the top decile had a signif- icantly lower household size than the average for the class, just as the households with large landholdings which fell in the bottom two deciles had a larger size than the average for their class. The higher household size is also associated with a higher dependency ratio, partly because of a higher proportion of children. Fifthly, the available data include no information on remittances and/or the extent of out-migration, which can have an important influence on the consumption level of rural households. Such out-migration is known to be quite important in the Konkan region of Maharashtra and the dry areas and Saurashtra region of Gujarat. Finally, the regression results presented above do not take account of the available information on the differences in the dependency ratios, labour force participation rates and the incidence of unemployment reported by individual households. However, even when these variables are taken into account, the explained variance in PCE is no more than 30.4 percent for rural Gujarat and 20.3 percent for rural Maharashtra.- It appears that the avail- able data do not include information on several other factors contributing to the variance in the PCE of rural households. 1/ The results have been summarized in Pravin Visaria, "Poverty and Living Standards in Asia," LSMS Working Paper No. 2. The MCA results summarized in that paper take account of the child-dependency ratio, the aged- dependency ratio and the labour force participation rate, and the inci- dence of unemployment among persons aged 10 and over (the last two vari- ables measured in terms of persondays) for each household, and also the occupation and industry of the head of the household. Household occu- pation and skill of the head of the household were, however, not considered in that analysis. -40- V. SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS OR POPULATION BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING In this section, some key characteristics of the households or population possessing land holdings of different size classes are examined.- They include: (a) demographic characteristics such as the average household size, the age composition of the population and of heads of households, the sex ratio and the proportion of females among household heads; (b) liter- acy and educational attainment of the population aged 15 and over, and the school enrollment rates of persons aged 5-24; (c) the labour force partici- pation rates and the incidence of unemployment, and the status as well as the occupational composition of workers. A. Demographic Chwaracteristics Table 1 summarizes the key demographic characteristics of house- holds or the population according to the size of land holding possessed. The detailed data are presented in Tables A5 to A7 in the Statistical Appendix. 1. Average Household Size It is well documented that the average size of the household in India tends to increase with the size of land holding owned and/or operated. Our data for rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, shown in Table A5 in the Statistical 1/ Many of the basic tables used in this section were prepared at the Gujarat Computer Centre in Gandhinagar during the period January-June 1977. A subsequent tabulation of households by per capita land, shown below in Annex 3, indicated some coding errors in the classification of households according to the size of land holding in Maharashtra. Fortunately, the proportion of households affected by coding errors was no more than 0.65 percent of the total. The highest proportion for any single size class of holdings was 3.7 percent. Therefore, the data presented in the Statistical Appendix and discussed in this section are unlikely to be altered noticeably by the coding errors detected by us. In addition, as shown in Annex 1, there is some reason to believe that households with land up to 0.99 acre had reported owned rather than operated land and/or had included non-agricultural land in the reported land holding. TABLE 1 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS OR POPULATION BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Percentage Distribution Average Household Dependency Sex Ratio Percentage of Females of Female Household Land Size Ratio (Males per 1000 Females) Among Household Heads Heads Possessed Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural (Acres) Gujarat Maharashtra Gujarat Maharashtra Gujarat Maharashtra* Gujarat Maharashtra Gujarat Maharashtra No Land 4.9 4.0 967 946 1072 1079 10.5 16.9 15.2 20.8 0.00 - 0.99 5.1 4.5 940 938 1029 972 9.1 14.5 34.8 31.4 1.00 - 2.49 5.0 4.9 918 1035 1055 917 10.5 16.7 18.0 20.3 2.50 - 4.99 5.5 5.6 863 981 1009 962 5.3 9.1 15.0 11.6 r 5.00 - 7.49 6.2 5.6 925 953 1066 994 2.5 6.7 5.3 7.0 7.50 - 9.99 6.5 6.1 910 1036 988 1032 2.6 3.9 3.0 2.1 10.00 - 19.99 6.8 6.2 951 1011 1026 1076 1.7 3.7 5.0 4.7 20.00 & More 7.5 7.3 895 1016 1105 1101 1.6 2.4 2.5 2.1 All 5.8 5.3 922 984 1043 1010 5.7 10.4 100.0 100.0 * Excluding age group 0-4. Notes: (1) Dependency ratio is defined as the number of persons aged 0-14 and 60 or over per 1000 persons aged 15-59. (2) Households which did not report the size of land holding possessed by them formed 0.8 and 0.2 percent of the total in rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, respectively. -42- Appendix, conform to this general tendency. Household size varies inversely with MPCE decile and partly as a result, the relationship between the size of land holding and the level of per capita consumption is considerably less strong than is usually presumed. 2. Average Household Size by Household Occupation Table A6 in the Statistical Appendix shows the average size of households by occupation and size of land holding. (See Table 1 in Section II for the distribution of households by occupation and size of land holding.) Some of the estimates are based on a relatively small number of sample households. However, the positive association between the size of land holding and household size appears to hold for cultivating households in both states, and for agricultural labour households in Maharashtra. For agricultural labour and "other" households in Gujarat, the average household size first rises and then declines as the size of land holding increases. 3. Age Composition of Household Heads Tables A7 and A8 in the Statistical Appendix show the broad age distribution of household heads by size of land holding. They indicate that the households with smaller land holdings are headed by younger persons. The proportion of heads aged 45 years or more rises almost steadily with the size of land holding. However, this is not true of female household heads, many of whom are widows, who tend to be overrepresented among the landless and among households with small land holdings of up to one or 2.5 acres. The data confirm the expected impact of the growing pressure of population on land. As families split up and the land is divided among children, the young household heads inevitably come to possess smaller land -43- holdings. Some children also give up cultivation and cease to own or at least operate land. The same process explains the higher proportion of agricultural labourers among younger workers that has been highlighted by the data collected by the 1961 and the 1971 Censuses. 4. Age Distribution of the Population Given the differences in the age composition of heads of households by size of holding, there may be differences in the age composition of popu- lation as well../ Tables A9 and A10 in the Statistical Appendix show the age distribution of the population by size class of land holding for the two states studies in this paper. The dependency ratios summarized in Table 1 do not show any consistent pattern or sizeable differences in the age compo- sition associated with the size of land holding. The small differences observed could arise from the errors of age reporting. Therefore, there does not seem to be any reason to expect any age-related differences in the productive capacity of households according to the size of land holdings. 5. Sex Composition of Population It may seem that, like age composition, there is no a priori reason to expect differences in the sex composition of the population in households with land holdings of different sizes. However, conventional wisdom postulates that the incic nce of out-migration would vary inversely with the size of land holding; and given the predominance of males among 1/ A study of the age composition of population by decile of per capita income or expenditure in all the countries (or regions) covered by the present project has shown a steady inverse relationship between the dependency ratio and decile, largely attributable to the differences in the proportions of children aged 0-14. This observation is asso- ciated with a consistent inverse relationship between household size and deciles in terms of per capita income or expenditure. Pravin Visaria, "Poverty and Living Standards in Asia: An Overview of the Main Results and Lessons of Selected Household Surveys," Working Paper No. 2 of the Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS), Development Research Center, The World Bank. -44- out-migrants from rural areas of India, one can expect a deficit (or a relatively lesser excess) of males among households with no land or smaller land holdings.-/ The data in Table 1 do not show any systematic variations in the sex ratio of the population by size class of holdings; any impact of out- migration is difficult to detect. In rural Maharashtra, a marked deficit of males is noticeable in households with land holdings of 0.01 to 4.99 acres. In rural Gujarat, a relative deficit of males is seen in households with land holdings of 0.01 to 0.99 acres, 2.50 to 4.99 acres and 7.50 to 19.99 acres. But in the absence of any systematic tendency, it is difficult to infer the effect of sex-selective out-migration from the available data on the sex ratios of population. 6. Proportion of Female Heads According to Table 1, the proportion of females among household heads varies inversely with the size of land holding, both in rural Gujarat and Maharashtra. (The percentage of female heads among households with 0.01 to 0.99 acres is a little lower than among the landless households.) A majority of female household heads in rural Gujarat (81.5 percent) and Maharashtra (67.9 percent) are widows, who probably either sell their land or lease it out under various conditions; as a result, a high proportion of female heads get classified among households not owning or not operating any land. 1/ No data are available to us on the migration status of the households or individuals, although during the houselisting preceding the selec- tion of the sample, temporary in-migrant households migrating in search of occupation or for other purposes were distinctly identified as such. -45- B. Literacy, Education and SchooZ EnroZZments The two questions examined in this section relate to literacy and educational status of the rural population by size of land holding. First, to what extent do literacy and educational attainment increase with the possession of land? Second, and more important, which would influence the future differences in educational distribution, rise with the size of land holding? 1. Literacy and Educational Attainment Tables All and A12 in the Statistical Appendix show the distribu- tion of population aged 15 and over by size class of holding and educational attainment. The differences in the level of illiteracy by size class of holdings are significantly smaller than those according to per capita expen- diture. This is particularly true in rural Gujarat, where the male illit- eracy rates range between 59 and 59 percent and the female rates between 80 and 90 percent. Table 2 shows the regression coefficients for the proportions of illiterates and of those with education up to primary school./ They suggest a decline in the proportion of illiterates and an increase in the propor- tion of those educated up to primary school with an increase in the size of land holding possessed by the households. The coefficients for rural Gujarat, however, are not significantly different from zero. In Maharashtra, the decline in illiteracy rates with an increase in land holding is significant only for females and the two sexes together, but not for males. The coeffi- 1/ The regressions are based on the grouped data; in other words, the literacy rates and other variables are regressed on the average size of land holding in each class. The number of degrees of freedom is, therefore, quite small and leads, in turn, to the insignificance of many of the coefficients. -46- TABLE 2 CORRELATION AND REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS SHOWING THE ASSOCIATION BEIWEEN (i) THE PROPORTIONS OF ILLIIERATES AND EDUCATED UP TO PRIMARY SCHOOL AMONG PERSONS AGED 15 AND OVER, AND (ii) THE SIZE OF LAND HOLDINGS, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Constant Regression Correlation 2 2 Variable/Sex Term Coefficient Coefficient R Adjusted R RuraZ Gujarat Proportion Illiterate Males 54.52 -0.08 -0.27 0.08 -0.08 (39.46) (0.70) Females 85.03 -0.08 -0.24 0.06 -0.10 (56.47) (0.60) Persons 69.76 -0.09 -0.34 . 0.11 -0.04 (54.69) (0.87) Proportion Educated Up to Primary School Males 34.95 0.10 0.39 0.15 0.01 (31.44) (1.03) Females 12.78 0.08 0.31 0.10 -0.05 (10.10) (0.80) Persons 23.87 0.10 0.44 0.19 0.06 (23.84) (1.19) RuraZ Maharashtra Proportion Illiterate Males 51.81 -0.55** -0.92** 0.84 0.82 (40.91) (5.67) Females 87.14 -0.21* -0.74* 0.55 0.48 (89.68) (2.72) Persons 69.99 -0.42** -0.92** 0.84 0.82 (73.01) (5.67) Proportion Educated Up to Primary School Males .5.42 0.29 0.67 0.46 0.36 (20.67) (2.24) Females 10.04 0.19* 0.80* 0.64 0.58 (13.38) (3.25) Persons 22.40 0.26* 0.82* 0.66 0.61 (22.40) (3.45) * Signific.nnt at the five percent level. ** Significant at the one percent level. Notes: (1) Figures in parentheses show the 't' values for the regression coefficient. (2) Ior Lhe significant values of the correlation coefficients at the five and onea percent levels of significance, see: George W. Snedecor and William G. Cochran, Statistical Methods, Sixth Edition, A3nes: The Iowa State University Press, 1967, p. 557. -47- cient for males would probably become significant if the proportion of those educated up to primary and middle school was considered as a single group, but the differences in the R2 values for Gujarat and Maharashtra are diffi- cult to explain. 2. School Enrollment Rates The school enrollment rates for the age group 5-19, shown in Table A13 in the Statistical Appendix, indicate the extent to which the access to schools is influenced by the ownership of assets.-/ Both Gujarat and Maharashtra have enacted legislation for compulsory, tuition free, pri- mary education, but the other costs of education (including the opportunity cost of time spent in school, and the costs of appropriate clothing ard learning materials) have to be met by parents. It is, therefore, particu- larly interesting to observe that although the regression coefficients for school enrollment ratios for ages 5-14 shown in Table 3, have a positive slope, they are significantly different from zero only for boys in rural Gujarat. The values of the coefficientg are also quite low, indicative of the relatively small range of variation. The regression coefficients for school enrollment rates for the age group 15-19 have a small negative slope for females in both Gujarat and Maharashtra and for boys in Gujarat. Interestingly, the school enrollment rates for girls aged 15-19 were higher among the landless than among the large land holders, probably because the landless include a significant 1/ The school enrollment rates for the age group 5-9 are lower than for the next age group because the minimum age of entry into school is six or seven years. Also, the preference for reporting ages in figures ending with digits 5 or 0 leads to an overstatement of children aged five years and an understatement of children aged 0-4, which is not fully compensated for by the misreporting of children aged 5-9 as 10 years old. -48- TABLE 3 CORRFLATION AND RECRESSION COEFFICIENTS SllOWING TilE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SC,iOOi. ENROLLMF.NT RAiTES AND 7liE SIZE OF LAND IIOLDINC, RURAL GUJARAT AND MIAARASiHTRA, 1972-73 Constant Regression Correlation . 2 2 Term Coefficient Coefficient R Adjusted R Ruralt Gu,arat Males 5- 9 32.48 0.30* 0.73* 0.54 0.46 (24.71) (2.65) 10-14 53.33 0.22** 0.83* 0.69 0.63 (76.17) (3.63) 15-19 23.58 -0.03 -0.12 0.01 -0.15 (19.18) (0.29) Females 5- 9 21.63 0.20 0.43 0.19 0.05 (10.72) (1.17) 10-14 25.25 0.21 0.30 0.09 -0.06 (7.81) (0.77) 15-19 7.00 -0.14 -0.49 0.24 0.12 (6.02) (1.39) Persons 5- 9 27.93 0.22 0.55 0.31 0.19 (17.85) (1.62) 10-14 40.40 0.22 0.51 0.26 0.14 (22.34) (1.46) 15-19 15.44 -0.07 -0.31 0.10 -0.05 (15.13) (0.81) Rural Maharashtra Hales 5- 9 33.68 0.47 0.67 0.45 0.35 (12.10) (2.20) 10-14 57.60 0.48 0.51 0.26 0.13 (13.43) (1.45) 15-19 26.62 0.19 0.28 0.08 -0.07 (7.87) (0.73) Females 5- 9 2?.83 0.40 0.65 0.42 0.32 (,'.Oo) (2.07) 10-14 29.65 0.29 0.57 0.32 0.21 (13.35) (1.68) 15-19 5.46 -0.05 -0.12 0.02 -0.15 (2.47) (0.31) Petrsuns 5- 9 28.11 0.46* 0.73* 0.53 0.45 (12.34) (2.58) 10-14 44.67 0.39 0.60 0.36 0.26 (16.26) (1.85) 15-19 17.00 0.06 0.24 0.06 -0.10 (.13.91) (0.60) * Signif1cant at the five percetit level. ** SiiJfiCiUlt G: 'iC one percePit level. Note4: (1) Flg,w:-eu iin p.n-enthcses showe the 't" v3auCes for tVe regressloa c.cif iclturm.. (2) F1Xm 11W Signlfiri.,n. vaJtl?] of the correl:tion coeffL.ieiita at tie five and on.1 p"rc.'ir 3.!vels of !i1pniflea.rcc, see: Grge! W. Sr.:.- :,,ad Wtl itea C. Coch-an. 5trt-inticuzZ Pe.'hod!, Sixth iVit<:.i ',:c.: ri; lowa S::tte tii!vtizi!-y Pres;s, 3967, p. 557. -49- proportion of households with white collar occupations, where the educated parents are interested in educating their daughters as well. The relatively small land-related differences in school enrollment rates notwithstanding, there can exist, of course, significant differences in the quality of education received and/or the retention of literacy by children in different households. Quite likely, however, these differences are related more to the income level of the households, reflected in the per capita expenditure, than to the land possessed by households. C . Economic Characteristics The main economic characteristics on which data are available include the labour force participation rates and the incidence of unem- ployment, and for those classified as employed, the status or class of worker composition as well as the occupational distribution. The available data permit identification of (i) the usual activity of the population (defined as activities that have been pursued for a long period in the past and that are likely to be continued), (ii) the main or dominant activity during the week preceding the date of interview (or the reference week), which is some- times termed the current activity in India, and (iii) the activities pursued on each day of the reference week. As will be shown below, the labour force participation rates according to the three alternative concepts do not differ significantly, particularly for males, but the estimates of the incidence of unemployment do indeed vary according to the concept applied. Our dis- cussion of the status or class of worker and the occupational distribution of the employed, however, is based only on the usual aetivity data. -50- 1. Labour Force Participation Rates Tables A14 and A15 in the Statistical Appendix show the labour force participation rates (as well as the incidence-of unemployment) accord- ing to the alternative concepts.-/ The participation rates in- terms of usual and current activity are almost alike whereas those based on the time disposition data are lower than the other two sets, particularly for females, because some of them were outside the labour force for a part of the refer- ence week. On the whole, the differences in participation rates according to the size class of land holding are much smaller than those seen in rela- tion to the MPCE. Even the female participation rates in households with 20 acres or more of land are not much different from those in the landless or small land holder households. Table 4 shows the linear regression and correlation coefficients for participation rates (based on usual activity), for all ages and persons aged 10 years and over, related to the size of land holding. Given the small number of degrees of freedom, only the rates for females of all ages in rural Maharashtra show a significant negative correlation with land holding. However, while the rates for all ages and ages 10 and -over in Maharashtra show a negative relationship with land, the rates for all ages in Gujarat show a mild positive relationship with land. In any event, the values of 1/ The rates based on usual and current activity are labelled "rates in terms of persons" because each individual in the surveyed household was classified as in or out of the labour force according to his reported "usual" or "current" activity. (The conventional priority rule was applied, according to which priority was given to classi- fying a person as (i) in the labour force rather than outside the labour force, and (ii) employed rather than unemployed, depending on the nature of reported activities.) The rates based on the time disposition data, on the other hand, take account of the activities pursued on each day within the "reference week", recorded in units of half-days. -51- TABLE 4 CORRELATION AND REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS SHOWING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN (i) LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES (BASED ON USUAL ACTIVITY) AND (ii) THE SIZE OF LAND HOLDINGS, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASIITRA, 1.972-73 Variable/ Constant Regression Correlation 2 2 Sex Term Coefficient Coefficient R Adjusted R Labour Force Participation Rate (All Ages) Rural Gujarat Males 53.26 0.029 0.14 0.02 -0.14 (55.40) (0.36) Females 36.04 0.086 0.18 0.03 -0.13 (15.78) (0.44) Persons 44.76 0.065 0.21 0.04 -0.12 (30.19) (0.52) RuraZ Maharashtra@ Males 61.99 -0.010 -0.06 0.003 -0.16 (68.66) (0.14) Females 51.55 -0.205** -0.85** 0.73 0.68 (76.98) (4.00) Persons 56.71 -0.093 -0.61 0.37 0.27 (87.65) (1.88) Labour Force Participation Rate (Ages 10 and Over) Rural Gujarat Males 76.49 -0.103 -0.47 0.22 0.09 (81.09) (1.29) Females 51.38 0.061 0.10 0.01 -0.16 (17.49) (0.25) Persons 64.57 -0.057 -0.14 0.02 -0.14 (33.89) (0.35)' Rural Maharashtra Males 76.]6 -0.016 -0.08 0.01 -0.16 (69.84) (0.19) Females 64.76 -0.273 -0.68 0.47 0.38 (41.70) (2.29) Persoas 70.83 -0.100 -0.48 0.23 0.10 (73.59) (1.35) ** Significant at the one percent level. @ Labour force participation rates rclate to ages five and over. Note: Figures in parcnthes_s shIow the 't' values. -52- regression coefficients are all low and most of them are not significantly different from zero. The absence of any significant differences in participation rates according to the size of land holding partly reflects the absence of any systematic differences in the age composition of population associated with land.1/ 2. Labour Force Participation Rates-by Occupation and PCE Decile Tables A18 and A19 in the Statistical Appendix show the labour force participation rates based on the usual and the current activity con- cepts discussed in Section IV.-/ The most interesting aspect of these tables is the female participation rates. First, these rates in white collar and "other" households are significantly lower than in the cultivating and agri- cultural labour households. Secondly, in agricultural labour households, the rates rise with decile; in fact, it may be by virtue of women's earnings that these households are in the higher deciles. On the other hand, for women in cultivating and "other" households, who account for a majority of the rural population of their sex, the participation rates generally decline with MPCE decile (as was noted earlier in the analysis of the characteristics of households and population according to PCE decile).-/ 1/ To examine this question further, Tables A16 and A17 in the Statistical Appendix show the age-specific labour force participation rates by size of land holding for rural Gujarat and Maharashtra. The table for Gujarat also show the age-standardized participation rates, obtained by weighting the age-specific participation rates for each size of holding class by the proportionate age distribution of the total population (of the same sex). The age-standardized participation rates are not much different from the crude or non-standardized rates. 2/ Figures for Maharashtra are higher partly because of the exclusion of the age group 0-4 from the denominator. 3/ Pravin Visaria, "Living Standards, Employment and Education in Western India, 1972-73," mimeographed, July 1980. -53- 3. Incidence of Unemployment It is well-recognized that few in rural India can afford to remain unemployed for a prolonged time period and it is not surprising that the estimates of unemployment according to usual activity data are low.-/ How- ever, the data in Tables A14 and A15 in the Statistical Appendix show that the incidence of such unemployment was the highest among households with less than one acre of land. Furthermore, only the women in households with less than 2.5 acres of land or the landless reported unemployment as their usual activity. The incidence of unemployment in terms of current activity can usefully be termed the incidence of 'week-long unemployment' because only those without work and seeking or available for it throughout the week are classified as unemployed in terms of current activity.- Prima facie, our data indicate an inverse relationship between the incidence of week-long unemployment and the size of land holding, particularly in Gujarat. In Maharashtra, the relationship seems weak with respect to the incidence of male unemployment. According to Table 5, all the linear regression coeffi- 1/ This has happened despite the instruction to the investigators that if a person "normally pursuing a particular gainful activity for quite a long time in the past" had "currently ceased to pursue the same" and was seeking employment, i.e. was currently unemployed, the latter would be considered the usual activity. 2/ The estimates of unemployment in terms of usual and current activity have sometimes been labelled "end of the year stock rates" and "end of the week stock rates", to distinguish them from the unemployed per- sondays rate, which is called a "flow" rate. See: Raj Krishna, "Rural Unemployment - A Survey of Concepts and Estimates for India," World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 234 (April 1976), pp. 22-24. The validity of the label of "stock rates" to the first two estimates is questionable because the NSS interviews are carried out over the entire year and the reference weeks overlap. In other words, there is no fixed refer- ence data or reference point which would permit the Indian estimates of unemployment to be labelled as stock rates. Besides, as noted above, the usual activity estimates of unemployment do not indicate the pro- portion of persons unemployed for an entire year. -54- TABLE 5 CORRELATION AND RE=RESSION COEFFICIENTS SHOWING T;IE ASSOCIATI]ON BETWEEN (i) TIIE INCIDENCE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN TERMS OF CURrENT ACTIVITY AND PERSO,lDAYS AND (ii) THE SIZE OF LAND HiOLDING, RURAL GUJARAT AllD MAHARASIIT%A, 1972-73 Variable/ Constant Regression Correlation 2 2 Sex Term Coefficient Coefficient R Adjusted R Incidence of Week-Long Unemployment Rural Gujarat Males 2.70 -0.10 -0.69 0.48 0.39 (5.26) (2.35) Females 4.42 -0.21 -0.59 0.35 0.24 (3.29) (1.81) Persons 3.33 -0.14 -0.65 0.43 0.33 (4.32) (2.12) Rural Maharashtra Males 2.96 -0.06 -0.59 0.34 0.24 (6.76) (1.78) Females 6.16 -0.20 -0.68 0.46 0.37 (5.45) (2.25) Persons 4.32 -0.12 -0.69 0.48 0.39 (6.64) (2.34) Incidence of Unemployment in Terms of Persondays Rural Gujarat Males 7.91 -0.30 -0.69 0.47 0.39 (5.23) (2.32) Females 12.50 -0.53 -0.61 0.37 0.27 (3.79) (1.88) Persons 9.75 -0.39 -0.65 0.42 0.32 (4.40) (2.03) Rural Maharashtra Males 9.50 -0.20* -0.78* 0.61 0.55 (11.16) (3.07) Females 15.41 -0.41* -0.74' 0.55 0.48 (7.88) (2.72) Persons 11.98 -0.29* -0.77* 0.59 0.52 (9.34) (2.96) * Significant at the five percent level Note: Figures in parenthcses show the 't' valucs. -55- cients for the incidence of week-long unemployment were negative (and the value for males in rural Maharashtra was the lowest among the six values); but none of the coefficients was significantly different from zero. Among the three available measures of unemployment, that in terms of persondays is the most comprehensive insofar as it takes account of under- employment (or unemployment within the reference week among those classified as employed because of the use of the priority rule to determine current activity). It yields the highest estimates of unemployment and the inverse relationship between land and unemployment is most strongly evident in the estimates based on persondays. The linear regression coefficients of the incidence of unemployment in terms of persondays with respect to land possessed are also higher than those of the incidence of week-long unemploy- ment.-V However, these coefficients are significantly different from zero at the five percent level, only for rural Maharashtra and not for rural Gujarat. In fact, the incidence of unemployment among households with land holdings of 10 acres or more in rural Gujarat and 10 to 20 acres in rural Maharashtra exceeds that among households with 7.5 to 10 acres of land. While the differences are not large and should not be overemphasized, it is worth noting that a quadratic specification explaining the incidence of unemployment in terms of the average size of land holding substantially increases the percentage of explained variance.-/ Table 6 below shows the regression 1/ The all-India data on the incidence of unemployment in terms of per- sondays according to the size of land holding possessed by the house- hold are summarised in Table A20 in the Statistical Appendix. In rural India as a whole also, the incidence of unemployment in terms of persondays varied inversely with the size of land holding. Further, as in rural Maharashtra, the highest incidence of rural unemployment in the country is reported among households with land holdings of less than one acre rather than among the landless. 2/ Of course, the non-linear regressions with grouped data are subject to a specification error. TABLE 6 QUADRATIC SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INCIDENCE OF UNEMPLOYTENT IN TERMS OF PERSONDAYS WITH THE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING AS TH.E EXPLANATORY VARIABLE, RURAL GUJARAT AND MCi.ARASHTRA, 1972-73 Critical Percentage of Value of State/ Constant Regression Coefficients for Variance Explained Land Sex Term Land (Land)2 (R2) Adjusted R (Acres) RuraZ Gujarat Males 10.47** -1.24** 0.034** 0.90 0.87 18.2 (11.7) (6.0) (4.7) Females 17.53** -2.38** 0.066* 0.79 0.70 18.0 (6.6) (3.8) (3.1) Persons 13.29** -1.70** 0.046* 0.84 0.78 18.5 (8.3) (4.6) (3.7) Rural Maharashtra Males 10.85** -0.66** 0.014* 0.87 0.82 23.6 (15.6) (4.3) (3.1) Females 18.82** -1.57** 0.036** 0.91 0.88 21.8 (15.7) (6.0) (4.6) Persons 14.19** -1.05** 0.023** 0.92 0.88 22.8 (17.3) (5.8) (4.4) * Significant at the five percent level. ** Significant at the one percent level. -57- coefficients, which are all statistically significant at the five percent level and most of them at the one percent level. The critical value of land size at which the incidence of unemployment seems to rise is around 18 acres in Gujarat and between 22 and 24 acres, in Maharashtra. The observed high negative correlation between the incidence of unemployment in terms of persondays and the size of land holding is con- sistent with an earlier finding of a high positive association between un- employment and the percentage of casual employees among workers in different states of India.i' As shown below in the discussion of the distribution of workers by status, the proportion of employees, and particularly the casual labourers, does indeed vary inversely with the size of land holding and the highest value is observed among households with holdings of less than one acre. Table A21 in the Statistical Appendix shows the distribution of the unemployed persons - in terms of usual and current activity concepts - and unemployed persondays by size class of household land holding. In rural Gujarat, almost 50 percent of the men and 65 percent of the women reporting week-long unemployment were from households with less than one acre of land. The corresponding figures for rural Maharashtra were lower, 40 and 50 per- cent, respectively. About 56 and 45 percent of all unemployed persondays in rural areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra, respectively, are accounted for by members of households with no land or-less than one acre of land. In other words, whether we look at week-long unemployment or the unemployed persondays, 1/ Pravin Visaria, "Poverty and Unemployment in India: An Analysis of Recent Evidence," WorZd Development, forthcoming. -58- a substantial part of rural unemployment is experienced by households with very limited assets in terms of land.1/ 4. Unemployment by Age Tables A22 and A23 in the Statistical Appendix show the incidence of unemployment (based on usual activity data) by sex, broad age group and the size of land holding. They indicate that except for households with less than one acre of land, unemployment in terms of usual activity was reported essentially by young persons between the ages of 10 and 29., (If more detailed age groups had been used, most of these unemployed would probably be found in the age groups 10-24.) Unemployment estimates based on the current activity data would probably show a similar concentration of unemployment among the youth. Households with less than one acre of land are an exception, partly because their land holdings are too small to absorb any unemployed members into work on the family farm or household enterprise. Generally speaking, the sex-age composition of persons reporting unemployment in terms of usual activity in rural areas appears to be the same as that of persons classified as unemployed in terms of current activity (with a reference period of the week preceding the date of interview). There- 2/ fore, instead of presuming, (as is done in many discussions in India-/), that 1/ The landless households and households with less than one acre of land account for a lower proportion of all unemployed persondays in rural Maharashtra than in rural Gujarat. The reported incidence of unemploy- ment and poverty is higher in rural Maharashtra than in rural Gujarat among households with 10 acres or more of land. (See Table 4 in Section III and Tables All and A12 in the Statistical Appendix.) 2/ See, for example, the Government of India, Planning Commission, Draft Five Year PZan, 1978-83 (New Delhi, April 1978). -59- persons reporting themselves as usually unemployed represent the chronically unemployed or the core of rural unemployment, it would be more useful to determine the incidence of chronic unemployment by asking the currently unemployed (persons unemployed throughout the reference week) about the duration of their unemployment. 5. Incidence of Unemployment by Occupation and PCE Decile Tables A24 and A25 in the Statistical Appendix show the incidence of unemployment according to usual and current activity criteria for the four occupation groups, by PCE decile. Table A24 confirms that unemployment in terms of usual activity is particularly low - almost zero among females - in cultivator households. Among the non-cultivator households, the female unemployment is relatively higher among the white collar households. The differences related to this occupation group are sharper in Table A25 which reports the incidence of week-long unemployment. In Gujarat, the white collar households report the highest incidence of week-long un- employment-V and the cultivator households report the lowest incidence - both among males and females. In Maharashtra, the agricultural labour house- holds report the highest unemployment, both among males and females, but the differences in male unemployment in cultivating, white collar and other households are negligible. Women in "other" households of Maharashtra report a level of unemployment close to that of agricultural labour households. We have not compiled estimates of unemployment in terms of person- days by occupation group of the household; but there is little doubt that it will show even sharper differences, with much higher rates for the agri- 1/ The number of sample households having white collar occupations and falling in the bottom PCE decile was less than 10 in Gujarat. The high incidence of unemployment among them should be interpreted with caution. -60- cultural labour households than for the other three groups. This is implicit in the earlier results on the incidence of unemployment in terms of person- days according to the usual activity of the employed.l/ Finally, for some of the occupation groups, an inverse relationship between the incidence of unemployment in terms of current activity (i.e. week-long unemployment) and PCE decile is not observable. But the estimates of unemployment for any PCE decile (or size of holding class) are weighted averages of the values for different occupation groups in the decile (or holding class). Households in bottom deciles include a higher proportion of agricultural labour households, among whom unemployment is higher; and, there- fore, the aggregate data show an inverse relation between the PCE decile and the incidence of unemployment. 6. Status of Class of Worker Distribution of the Employed Tables A26 and A27 in the Statistical Appendix show the distribu- tion of workers by status and the size class of holding. The proportion of employees among all workers declines and that of the self-employed and family workers increases with the size of land holding both in Gujarat and Maharashtra. In Gujarat the landless workers include a significantly higher proportion of self-employed and a lower proportion of employees than workers in households with up to one acre of land. Among female workers of Gujarat, the proportion of employees drops. to below 10 percent in households with holdings of five acres or more; but in Maharashtra, this low value is reached only in households with holdings of 20 acres or more. The inverse relation- 1/ Pravin Visaria, "Poverty and Unemployment in India: An Analysis of Recent Evidence," WorZd DeveZopment, forthcoming. The incidence of unemployment in terms of persondays was about 19 percent among casual employees but only 2 to 4 percent among the self-employed and 3 to 5 percent among the unpaid helpers. -61- ship with size of land holding is particularly marked with respect to the proportion of casual employees. Among both male and female workers, the proportion of self-employed is higher and that of employees significantly lower in Gujarat than in Maharashtra. As shown below, the difference can be explained largely by the differences in the proportions of agricultural labourers within the ranks of agricultural workers. As shown in Annex 1, the proportion of landless households was slightly but not significantly higher in Maharashtra than in Gujarat. The average size of household holdings in Gujarat and Maharashtra according to the 27th Round was 7.28 and 6.92 acres, respectively, not signif- icantly different. Fiirther, with a slightly lower average size of household (5.32 as against 5.82 in Gujarat), Maharashtra had a slightly higher per capita land. But not only are the inter-regional variations in per capita land larger in Maharashtra than in Gujarat, the average productivity of land is also lower. The proportion of agricultural labourers has therefore been much higher and that of cultivators lower in Maharashtra than in Gujarat. 7. Occupational Distribution of Workers Tables A28 and A29 in the Statistical Appendix show the occupa- tional distribution of workers by size class of household holdings for rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, respectively. As would be expected, agricultural work is the usual occupation of over 80 percent of workers in households with one acre or more of land. An additional six to seven percent of all workers are engaged in varied manufacturing activities, essentially as artisans and craftsmen; they are an important group in households with up to one acre of land. The professionals, administrative and clerical workers -62- and traders or sales workers, who together account for only about four percent of workers, are also an important group accounting for about 11 to 12 percent of workers in the landless households. The most important occupational distinction between workers according to the size class of holding arises between the proportion of cul- tivators and agricultural labourers, discussed in the previous section.-/ On the whole, the households in different size classes of holdings in both states differ markedly with respect to the incidence of unemployment in terms of persondays and the occupational distribution of workers but not in their labour force participation rates. 1/ It may seem a little surprising that some three percent of the workers among the landless households of Gujarat and a little over one percent of those in Maharashtra were classified as cultivators. Since the proportion of tenant cultivators was reportedly no more than 0.02 percent in Gujarat and 0.3 percent in Maharashtra, others must be "owner cultivators." The possible explanations for some owner cul- tivators not "possessing" any land include (a) errors in classifi- cation, or (b) the fact that the data relate to "usual" activity and not current activity. The particular households may own some land and may usually be cultivators but they may have no operational holding. -63- VI. SOME IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS Some of the findings of the present analysis, namely that some 15 to 17 percent of the poor households had holdings of 10 acres or more, and that per capita land explained no more than 4 and 10 percent of the variance in the per capita expenditure of rural households in Gujarat and Maharashtra, are surprising. In Section III we have discussed some of the factors that might explain the weak relationship between land and the level of consumption. Pending a further exploration of these issues, some of the policy implications of our findings can be noted. First and foremost, given the heterogeneity of land, the size of land holding per se can be a misleading indicator of the economic status of a household. This has been recognised in the literature relating to the legislation imposing ceilings on land holdings as a means of reducing in- equality in rural areas. The importance of standardizing the acreage figures and of fixing ceilings on land holdings in terms of standard acres is obvious. It is necessary also to take account of the household size and to consider the level of per capita income or consumption that a household can attain with a given size of holding. While such norms can be applied at a point in time, it is difficult to take due account of the inevitable changes in the size of households and the fact that most land holdings get divided among the children over time (quite apart from the fictitious subdivisions of land that have often occurred in anticipation of the ceiling laws). One clear possibility in the area of land reform is to transfer the land holdings of "white collar" households to those who cultivate land as labourers or tenants, on the ground that the former should not continue -64- to control land assets while deriving a major part of their income from non-agricultural white collar activities.-/ The argument should be even more valid for urban households which continue to own land in rural areas. However, the land area released through such a legislation would probably not add up to much. It is difficult to add much from this analysis to what is already known for devising a program of ameliorating and/or eradicating poverty. However, the problems of households with land holdings of 10 acres or more should be somewhat easier to tackle through various measures to increase the intensity of cultivation and improve the productivity of land. For agricul- tural labour households, who report quite a high incidence of unemployment, an increase in the volume of available opportunities for employment on the public works projects as well as on farms owned and operated by others should help, although it would probably not be adequate to eliminate their poverty. An increase in the wage rate, supported by a program of raising the pro- ductivity of agriculture would have to receive adequate attention. For the households of artisans, etc., the increase in the incomes of agricultural households through rising productivity should help to raise the level of employment as well as earnings. l/ As shown in Sections III and V, the white collar households are clearly better off and the proportion of the poor is the lowest among them, particularly in Gujarat. However, the statement in the text reflects the author's views rather than an inference based on the data. -65- ANNEX 1 DATA ON THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND HOLDINGS IN GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA - 1972-73: AN ASSESSMENT An important innovation introduced in the schedules designed for the 27th Round of the NSS was an effort to relate the employment and unem- ployment in rural households to some key aspects of their agricultural base in terms of (a) the size of land holding possessed, (b) the net area of cul- tivated land (with details on the area irrigated and not irrigated), and (c) the crops grown and the area devoted to each crop (the latter only if there was some standing crop on the cultivated land, at the time of the interview). After the field work had begun, it was decided to abandon the collection of data on items (b) and (c); thus, the available data pertain only to the size of land holding possessed by the households. 1 Yet, since 2/ land is one of the most important assets of the rural population- , the relationship between the size of land holding and employment deserves careful consideration. To assess the validity of such an analysis, this annex seeks to compare the 27th Round data on the distribution of households according to the size of land holding (based on the state samples) with those collected in the 26th Round (July 1971 - September 1972), when along with the debt and investment survey sponsored by the Reserve Bank of India, a detailed survey of land holdings was conducted. 1/ This decision, communicated to the field staff and the states after the field work had begun, was not implemented uniformly all over the country. It is known that at least in West Bengal, the central sample schedules include information on these items. 2/ According to the All-India Debt and Investment Survey, 1971-72, the percentage share of land in the value of all assets reported by rural households in Gujarat, Maharashtra and India as a whole, was 57, 71 and 66, respectively. -66- Definitions In the 27th Round, the main question related to the area of land possessed by the household (i.e. all its members), defined as land owned plus leased in land minus leased out land.-/ The definition is similar to that used in the 26th Round, when the land holding possessed by a single household was termed the "household operational holding." A household operational holding would differ from the household ownership holding if the household leases in or leases out some land. But the 27th Round schedules did not require recording of leased in and leased out land. The 26th Round excluded from the scope of the survev all "land put to non-agricultural uses only , such as house sites, etc.,"-/ "pasture land" and "land which is exclusively used for livestock raising, produc- tion of livestock products and/or pisciculture".-/ The 26th Round data 1/ Since the collection of data on land holding was not a primary goal of the 27th Round, the definitions and instructions on the subject were very brief. The results of the 26th Round data are available in the following publications: (a) The central sample data for Gujarat and Maharashtra are released in: National Sample Survey, Reports No. 215.4 and 215.11, Tables on Land Holdings for Gujarat and Mdharashtra, respectively, vols. 1 and 2 (New Delhi: NSSO, July 1975). (b) Tables based on the pooled data from the central sample and the state matching sample (and for Gujarat the additional matching sample as well) have been published by the Reserve Bank of India in two separate volumes for Gujarat and Maharashtra in a series entitled: All-India Debt & Investrent Survey, 1971-72: Assets ond Liabilities of Rural HousehoZds on 30th Jzue 1971, StatisticaZ Tables (Bombay, undated). 2/ The NSS, Report No. 215.4, op.cit., p. 6. The cooperative farms were also excluded; but the number of such farms is negligible. 3/ The NSS, Twenty-sixth Round, July 1971-June 1972, Instructions to Field Staff, Vol. 1, Design, Concents, Definitiors and Procedure, (Calcutta: Indian Statistical Institute, June 1971), Para. 7.2.12. -67- relate, therefore, to only the agricultural holdings. Given the absence of a similar instruction in the 27th Round, our data on land holdings could be vitiated by the inclusion of non-agricultural land.-/ The 26th Round definitions distinguished a "household operational holding" from an "operational holding", the latter being defined as a "land holding operated under a single management", irrespective of title, size or location and "constituting one technical unit" (i.e., in the con- text of agricultural operations, a unit with more or less independent technical resources, etc., covering items like land, implements, live- stock, etc.). The same person or household could have more than one technical or managerial unit of land holdings; or a given operational holding could be jointly managed by more than one household. In a large majority of cases, a household operational holding would also be a dis- tinct technical and managerial unit, i.e., an operational holding. The published results show the distribution of households according to the size of ownership holdings as well as operational holdings. The Data Table 1 shows the distribution of households by size of land holding possessed, according to the state samples surveyed in 1972-73 (27th Round) as well as the central sample data showing the distribution of households according to the size of ownership and operational holdings in 1971-72 (26th Round). The differences between the distributions of households by ownership and operational holdings in the 26th Round are 1/ I am indebted to Dr. S.K. Sanyal of the NSS Organization for emphasizing this possibility and drawing my attention to the eighth Round data, which are discussed below. Dr. Sanyal does not necessarily agree with my interpretation of the data. 2/ The percentage of operational holdings managed Jointly (i.e. by more than one household) in rural India as a wliole was no More than 0.6. See: NSS, Report No. 215, Tabics on Lamd Iloidings: AZl Jtndia, p. 50. Table 1 DISTRIBUTI1ON OF RURAL. "OUSEEOLDS OF C'JARAT AND MAHARAS11TRA ACCORDING TO THE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING, 26TH AN') THE 27TH ROUNDS OF THE NSS, 1971-72 AND 1972-73 Distribution of Households Distribvtion of Povulation Averace Houselhold Size 26th Round 27th Round@ _ 26th Round 27th Round@ 26th Round 27th Round@ Household Household 'dcusa'hold Household Household Household Size of Land 3iinership Operational Land Ownership Operational Land Ownership Operational Land Holding (in acres) Holding Holding Possessed Holding F' olding Possessec Holding Holding Possessed PUPAL GUJARAT Nil 13.44 33.75 8.23 11.37 27.72 6.89 4.78 4.64 4.88 0.01 to 0.99 25.80 6.11 21.65 22.OZ 5.41 18.78 4.83 4.99 5.05 1.00 to 2.49 13.01 12.39 9.67 12.42 11.83 8.22 5.39 5.40 4.95 2.50 to 4.99 15.24 14.20 15.93 15.97 15.21 15.06 5.92 6.05 5.51 5.00 to 7.4-9 8.77 9.94 11.99 9.54 11.11 12.62 6.15 6.31 6.13 7.50 to 9.99 4.86 4.72 6.29 5.55 5.66 7.00 6.44 6.78 6.48 10.00 to 19.99 11.39 11.42 16.38 13.18 13.21 19.21 6.55 6.53 6.83 20.00 & Above 7.49 7.47 9.11 9.90 9.84 11.79 7.46 7.45 7.54 Not Recorded - - 0 0.75 - - 0.43 - - 3.33 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 5.65 5.65 5.82 RURAL MFARASHTFA 0 Nil 15.86 -.30.97 12.53 12.47 26.19 9.46 4.12 4.47 4.01 0.01 to 0.99 20.18 6.05 22.71 17.85 5.10 19.20 4.63 4.14 4.50 1.00 to 2.49 12.34 10.76 12.51 10.48 8.99 11.65 4.45 4.42 4.95 2.50 to 4.99 14.93 14.98 13.15 14.33 14.22 13.72 5.03 5.02 5.55 5.00 to 7.49 10.15 10.04 11.02 10.50 10.52 11.57 5.42 5.54 5.59 7.50 to 9.99 6.13 5.92 5.39 6.70 6.26 6.1' 5.73 5.58 6.05 10.00 to 19.99 12.99 13.29 13.12 16.34 16.66 15.19 6.59 6.63 6.16 20.00 & Above 7.44 7.98 9.57 11.34 12.07 11.10 7.98 8.00 7.28 All 100.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 5.27 5.27 5.32 Sample Size: Rural Gujarat RuraZ M':.aharas7'!tra Households Villages Households Villages 26th Round : 1424 180 2575 312 27th Round@: 5543 720 5332 624 *Central Sample @State Sample -69- important primarily with respect to the proportions of households with no land or less than one acre of land, and the same is true of the 27th Round distribution of households according to the size of land possessed and the 26th Round distribution of household operational holdings. The 27th Round data seem more comparable with the 26th Round distribution of households according to ownership holdings than with the distribution according to operational holdings. Table 2 shows the average sizes of land holdings according to the detailed class intervals used in the 26th Round. The differences between the 26th and the 27th Round data seem to be important primarily for house- holds with 0.01 to 0.49 acres of land.-/ The average size of land holdings possessed by households in this class in 1972-73 was very close to the average owned by the corresponding class in 1971-72. Once again, the land possessed data seem comparable with ownership holdings rather than operational holdings. It is possible, of course, that given the brevity of the 27th Round instructions about recording possessed land, some of the non-agricultural land holdings were included in the data. The only data compiled on this subject are available from the 8th Round conducted during 1953-54, when much of present day Gujarat was a part of Bombay state but the Saurashtra region was a separate state. The 8th Round data show that the percentages of non- agricultural holdings among operational holdings of 0.01-0.99 acres were 58 1/ The 26th Round percentages of households owning holdings of 0.01 to 0.49 acres in rural Gujarat and Maharashtra were: 20.96 and 17.03, respectively. The corresponding percentages for "possessed land" holdings in the 27th Round are: 20.20 and 19.60, respectively. The 26th Round percentages of households operating land holdings of 0.01 to 0.49 acres were 1.32 and 1.96, respectively, in the two states. -70- TABLE 2 AVERAGE SIZE OF HOLDING IN RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1971-72 AND 1972-73 Rural Gujarat Rural Maharashtra Size Class 1971-72 1972-73 1971-72 1972-73 of Holding Ownership Operational Land Ownership Operational Land (Acres) Holdings Holdings Possessed Holdings Holdings Possessed No Land - - - - - - 0.01 - 0.49 0.05 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.04 0.50 - 0.99 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.62 1.00 - 1.24 1.11 1.09 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.25 - 2.49 1.83 1.83 1.94 1.80 1.75 1.80 2.50 - 4.99 3.75 3.75 3.57 3.63 3.65 3.44 5.00 - 7.49 6.15 6.15 5.86 6.14 6.22 5.84 7.50 - 9.99 8.69 8.71 8.41 8.66 8.61 8.37 10.00 - 12.49 11.09 10.81 10.92 11.06 11.06 10.94 12.50 - 14.99 13.56 13.60 13.59 13.75 13.72 13.43 15.00 - 19.99 17.33 17.33 16.42 17.13 17.10 16.43 20.00 - 24.99 21.90 21.78 21.45 22.16 22.33 21.17 25.00 - 29.99 26.54 27.68 26.68 27.05 27.10 26.21 30.00 - 49.99 38.05 37.90 35.30 37.17 37.24 35.22 50.00 + 63.95 63.88 60.44 72.38 71.67 70.24 All 5.75 5.80 6.74 6.30 6.47 6.64 Gini Coefficient 0.692 0.695 0.617 0.682 0.683 0.681 Note: The 1971-72 data are from the 26th Round. See: National Sample Survey Organization, Reports No. 215.4 and 215.11, TabZes on Land Holdings at State LeveZ for Gujarat and Maharashtra, respectively, New Delhi, July 1975. -71- were 58 in Bombay and 86 in Saurashtra.-/ The validity of these estimates after an interval of almost 20 years is certainly debatable; but if 86 per- cent of the households in rural Saurashtra possessing holdings of 0.01 to 0.99 acres in 1972-73 had only non-agricultural land, the percentage of those not operating any agricultural holding would be 29.7 percent accord- ing to the 27th Round, and 32.1 percent according to the 26th Round, a relatively small difference.-/ It is possible that the 27th Round data for all areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra have partly been affected by the inclusion of non-agricultural land in the reported holdings. Much of such non-agricultural land would probably consist of house-sites, a possibility that would explain the fact that the differ- ences between the 26th and the 27th Rounds are concentrated in the size class of holdings of between 0.01 and 0.49 acre and the average size of such holdings was 0.02 acre in 1971-72 and 0.04 acre in 1972-73. According to the pooled sample data for 1971-72, summarised in Table 3 below, the proportion of land owning households among those not oper- ating land was 56.8 in rural Gujarat and 53.2 in rural Maharashtra.- Most of j/ The number of sample households surveyed in the 8th Round was 6919 (from 432 villages) in Bombay and 1764 (from 100 villages) in Saurash- tra. See: The NSS, No. 66, Report on Land HoZdinas (4) Rural Sector- States, Eighth Round: July 1954-ApriZ 1955, 1962, pp. 76-81. The basic tabulations do not distinguish between those owning less than 0.5 acres and others. 2/ The estimates pertain to Saurashtra region. The distribution of households by size class of land possessed in each region is shown in Tables 1 and 2 in Section II. For the 26th Round data by regions, see: NSS, No. 215:4, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 200. The 26th Round sample for Saurashtra consisted of 378 households from 48 villages. 3/ According to the central sample data for 1971-72, 75.5 percent of the households not operating any land in rural Gujarat and 68.1 percent of those in rural Maharashtra had reported some owned (but not operated) land. -72- TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS NOT OPERATING ANY LAND BY SIZE OF OWNED LAND HOLDING, IN RURAL GUJARAT, MAHARASHTRA, AND INDIA, 1971-72 (26TH ROUND) Land Rural Rural Rural Owned Gujarat Maharashtra India Nil 43.2 46.8 28.8 0.01- 0.49 53.2 47.5 62.0 0.50- 0.99 0.6 0.1 1.6 1.00- 2.49 1.3 1.5 3.1 2.50- 4.99 0.7 1.1 1.9 5.00- 7.49 0.2 1.2 1.1 7.50- 9.99 0.1 0.5 0.5 10.00-19.99 0.2 0.8 0.6 20.00 & More 0.3 0.5 0.2 All 100.00 100.00 100.0 Source: Reserve Bank of India, AZZ India Debt and Investment Survey, 1971-72: Assets and LiabiZities of RuraZ HousehoZds as on 30th June 1971: StatisticaZ TabZes, Vol. 1, AlZ- India & States, Bombay, 1975, Table 2 (pp. 17, 73 & 80). The estimates are based on the pooled sample, including the central sample, the the matching state sample and the additional matching sample canvassed on behalf of the Reserve Bank. -73- those owning but not operating land had holdings of up to 0.5 acre. However, few of the households owning less than one acre of land (only 1.5 percent in rural Maharashtra, one percent in rural Gujarat and 5.7 percent in rural India) reported leasing out their land. Itseeus that it is impossible to deter- mine whether the instruction to exclude non-agricultural holdings frorT: the scope of the 26th Round Survey notwithstanding, the non-leased out and non-operated land, put to non-agricultural use, was included in the ownership holdings. Stratification Scheme for the Rural SompZe Of course, there were significant differences in the sampling design of the 26th and 27th Rounds. In the 26th Round, the households residing in the sample villages were divided into four substrata on the basis of the area of land operated by them. The first substratum was to consist of households not operating any land whereas the cut-off points for demarcating the other three substrata were to be so chosen that the area operated in the three classes was "roughly" equal. (The limits could vary from one region to another.) On an average, three households were to be chosen from each substratum in each village so that households operating larger land holdings would receive more weight than their proportion in the total rural households. In the 27th Round, on the other hand, the households in sample villages were divided into three substrata according to their "means of livelihood", with a distinction made between (a) self-employment in non-agricultural activity, (b) rural labour and (c) others. The number of sample households to be selected from the three strata was expected to be two, five and five, respectively. These differences in the stratification schemes of the 26th -74- and 27th Rounds would not affect the state level estimates of means because the multipliers are adjusted, but they may have some effect on the distributions. The Discrepancy Between the Expected and Actual Size of the SconpZe The officials of the Bureau of Economics and Statistics of Gujarat State-/ have drawn attention also to the fact thst the number of sample households surveyed in the 26th Round was short of the expected number by 34 percent and the percentage shertfall showed sizeable variations by sub- stratum, ranging between a low of 14.3 percent for the substratum of house- holds not operating any land and a high of 47.0 percent for the substratum of households with relatively "large" land holdings. (For the intermediate two strata, the percentage shortfall was almost identical, 38.3 and 38.1 percent, respectively.) In the 27th Round also, the number of surveyed households was about 35.8 percent short of the target. The shortfall was the highest (60.4 per- cent) for the substratum of households engaged in non-agricultural activities, about 30.7 percent for the rural labour households and 31.2 percent for other households. The discrepancies between the expected and actual number of surveyed households are allowed for by adjusting the multipliers (or inflation factors) used to arrive at state level estimates. However, the Gujarat state officials have pointed out that the validity of such adjust- ments for various substrata is somewhat questionable, because the non-response (or shortfall) is not necessarily uniform across different size classes of holdings. 1/ Thanks are due to Mr. P.B. Buch, Director of the Gujarat Computer Centre for providing the details on this point. -75- Conclusion On the whole, however, the differences in the stratification schemes of the 26th and the 27th Round samples and the discrepancy between the expected and actual size of the samples do not seem to provide an adequate explanation of the large difference between the percentage of households not operating any land in 1971-72 and the percentage of households classified as not "possessing" any land in 1972-73. It is more plausible to think that the 27th Round data relate to ownership holdings and/or include land used for non-agricultural purposes, such as house-sites, although while designing the schedules and drafting the instructions, the objective was to obtain data on the size of operational holdings of each household. Whatever the true explan- ation, the effect of the observed discrepancies would be to weaken the asso- ciation between the size of land possessed and the consumption level of the household. The problem could have been avoided if the 27th Round had dis- tinctly recorded the area of land owned, possessed and cultivated, as was done in the 14th Round, for example (Schedule 1.1 on "income and expenditure").1/ 1/ As noted in the text, the widespread drought conditions could also have had the same effect of weakening the association between the level of consumption and even the area of cultivated land. -76- ANNEX 2 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS: SOME SUPPLEMENTARY RESULTS The main purpose of this annex is to present a brief discussion of the results of multiple regression analysis of per capita expenditure for different regions in rural Gujarat (five) and Maharashtra (six). However, we shall first review the effect of substituting cropping intensity of the village for irrigation status as a dummy variable in the quadratic regres- sion discussed in Section IV. Cropping Intensity as a Dunmy Variable Table 1 reports the quadratic specifications for the four house- hold occupation groups in the two states in which the normal cropping inten- sity in the sample village is used as a dummy variable (O = single crop; 1 = more than one crop) in place of irrigation status (Table 2 in Section IV.) The R is unaffected and remains low both in Gujarat and Maharashtra even after the dummy variable is changed. More interestingly, whereas the con- sumption level of cultivating households (as well as "all" households) is significantly higher in villages with multiple cropping, that is not the case for agricultural labour households. For the white collar households in rural Maharashtra, and for households with miscellaneous occupations in rural Gujarat, residence in a village with multiple cropping seems to lead to a lower consumption level. The explanation for this odd result might lie in some other correlates which are not taken into account here. Regression Results for Different Regions The regression analysis has been done separately for the five regions of Gujarat and six regions of Maharashtra. If the household occupa- TABLE 1 QUADRATIC SPECIFICATIONS FOR MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE BY HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUPS, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Critical Values Per Capita Household Per Capita Household Irrigation Cropping Per Capita Houselhold Household Land Size Land2 Size2 Status Intensity Constant 2 Land Size Occupation (PCL) (HS) (PCL2) (HS2) (IS) (CI) Term R (PCL) (HS) RURAL GUJARAT All 7.43** -8.33** -0.19** 0.44** -- 4.44** 74.44** 0.20 19.55 9.47 (52.9) (41.8) (20.0) (30.1) (13.4) (110.5) Cultivation 7.47** -7.46** -0.20** 0.40** -- 8.16** 68.94** 0.21 18.68 9.33 (42.1) (28.7) (18.3) (22.3) (19.8) (68.4) Agricultural 7.03** -7.84** -0.26** 0.44** -- -0.21 65.99** 0.22 13.52 3.91 Labour (16.5) (26.4) (10.8) (17.9) (0.5) (76.4) White Collar 34.90** -12.91** -0.95** 0.66** -_ -2.67 111.36** 0.45 18.37 9.78 Work (18.2) (11.2) (5.3) (6.5) (1.6) (36.2) Other 1.37 -8.25** -0.15 0.41** -_ -2.04* 81.98** 0.12 4.57 10.06 (1.0) (15.5) (0.9) (9.3) (2.0) (53.7) RURAL 4HTARASHTRA All 3.98** -6.25** -0.11** 0.31** -- 0.93** 61.16** 0.11 18.09 10.08 (50.6) (65.4) (27.9) (51.1) (3.7) (168.4) Cultivation 4.53** -2.64** -0.11** 0.14** -- 1.38** 46.61** 0.08 20.59 9.43 (39.8) (12.6) (23.8) (10.3) (3.4) (58.0) Agricultural 3.66** -6.57** -0.22** 0.34** __ 0.01 57.35** 0.20 8.32 9.66 Labour (16.6) (52.1) (5.7) (33.9) (0.0) (151.2) White Collar -0.48 -13.85** 0.33** 0.45** -- -5.53** 123.90** 0.26 0.73 15.39 Work (0.4) (33.2) (3.1) (26.9) (3.1) (66.3) Other 1.97** -9.90** -0.09** 0.59** -- 2.32** 70.78** 0.21 10.94 9.17 (6.7) (36.5) (6.0) (25.5) (4.5) (96.1) * Significant at the five percent level. * Significant at the one percent level. NOTE: FFigures in parentheses show the 't' values. -78- tion groups are distinguished within each region, the size of the sample for households reporting white collar work as their major source of income in "dry areas" of Gujarat and Bhandara and Chanda in Maharashtra is small, less than 20. (See Table 2, which shows the unweighted sample size for each occupation class and the percentage distribution of households by occu- pation after the weights have been applied.) Table 3 shows the average monthly per capita expenditure, average per capita land and average household size (with their standard deviations) for the four occupation groups in each region. As would be expected, it shows that the per capita land in households of white collar workers gen- erally exceeds that for agricultural labour households and "others". The per capita consumption expenditure of white collar households is, however, always higher than that of the other three groups of households. Table 4 shows the R2 values indicating the percentage of variance in monthly per capita expenditure explained by a quadratic specification of per capita land and household size-in addition to the dummy variables. The following points deserve attention. First, there are marked regional differences in the R values- , which are significantly higher for the Southern Plains of Gujarat, and Bhandara and Chanda in Maharashtra. Secondly, the variables taken into account explain more than 55 percent of the variance in the PCE of white collar households in the Southern Plains and dry areas of Gujarat, and in Khandesh and Nasik and Marathawada in Maharashtra. Their performance, however, 1/ Three figures after the decimal points are shown because in several cases, the effect of dummy variables is seen only in the third figure. -79- TABLE 2 Distribution of Households by Household Occupation (Major Source of Income), Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 Household Occupation White Collar Agricultural- Region Work Cultivation Labour Other All Rural Gujarat All 6.1 62.8 19.2 11.9 100.0 (336) (2184) (2186) (837) (5543) Eastern 4.9 70.7 16.3 8.1 100.0 (70) (372) (260) (130) (832) Northern 5.5 67.1 19.3 8.0 100.0 Plains (85) (800) (539) (151) (1575) Southern 6.5 52.4 25.5 15.6 100.0 Plains (64) (231) (438) (190) (923) Dry Areas 4.8 63.8 16.2 15.2 100.0 (19) (212) (327) (92) (650) Saurashtra 8.1 59.8 17.4 14.8 100.0 (98) (569) (622) (274) (1563) Rural Maharashtra All 5.9 46.4 34.4 13.3 100.0 (305) (1742) (2420) (862) (5329) Konkan 6.9 59.8 15.7 17.6 100.0 (66) (224) (203) (178) (671) Poona Division 8.2 41.2 36.9 13.8 100.0 (113) (505) (927) (234) (1779) Khandesh 5.7 47.8 37.7 8.7 100.0 (35) (200) (280) (69) (58,4) Marathawada 4.2 49.1 31.5 15.2 100.0 (34) (344) (455) (196) (1029) Nagpur Division 4.4 39.9 45.5 10.2 100.0 except Bhandara (44) (331) (428) (113) (916) and Chanda Bhandara and 4.3 55.0 23.4 17.3 100.0 Chanda (13) (138) (127) (72) (350) Note: Figures in parentheses show the unweighted number of sample households. TABLE 3 Average Per Capita Expenditure, Per Capita Land and Household Size by Region and Household Occupation, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 Mean per capita expenditure per month Mean per capita land (in rupe.s) (in acres) Mezn household size Ilousuhit,ld Occupation Household Occupation Household Occupation Wcw Cult Ag. Lbr. Other WCW Cult. Ag. Lbr. Other WC(4 Cult. Ag. Lbr. Other Region All 1 2 3 4 All 1 2 3 4 All 1 2 3 4 Rural Gujarat All 54.06 74.33 56.43 40.51 53.10 1.25 0.28 1.86 0.19 0.20 5.82 5.05 6.22 5.21 5.11 (31.78) (48.72) (31.54) (17.55) (31.55) (1.89) (1.13) (2.06) (0.77) (0.77) (2.70) (2.44) (2.73) (2.34) (2.81) Eastern 44.11 65.28 43.50 34.16 56.61 0.96 0.18 1.31 0.11 0.09 5.67 4.94 5.94 5.45 4.28 (26.14) (36.91) (23.44) (14.02) (42.34) (1.32) (0.37) (1.42) (0.22) (0.19) (2.73) (2.49) (2.73) (2.44). (2.82) Northern 55.25 68.24 58.93 40.56 50.90 1.02 0.16 1.46 0.12 0.14 5.58 5.00 5.82 5.11 5.10 Plains (29.40) (36.57) (30.41) (17.42) (24.98) (1.48) (0.44) (1.62) (0.34) (0.38) (2.49) (2.38) (2.52) (2.35) (2.28) Southern 59.34 87.91 66.23 37.24 60.47 0.96 0.49 1.70 0.06 0.15 5.54 5.08 6.00 5.09 4.96 Plains (40.95) (60.91) (41.58) (13.87) (42.36) (1.71) (0.96) (2.06) (0.14) (0.41) (2.74) (2.28) (2.91) (2.22) (2.85) Dry Areas 53.19 92.68 53.86 43.31 48.47 2.31 0.93 3.27 0.50 0.64 5.76 5.16 6.37 4.87 4.33 (27.56) (82.83) (19.47) (18.55) (16.25) (3.19) (3.13) (3.32) (1.89) (1.73) (2.70) (2.75) (2.62) (2.33) (2.50) I Saurashtra 57.51 68.17 60.87 49.14 47.92 1.47 0.08 2.32 0.36 0.12 6.54 5.11 7.14 5.48 6.13 0 (29.32) (31.40) (32.12) (20.61) (18.13) (1.74) (0.30) (1.73) (0.93) (0.36) (2.76) (2.47) (2.69) (2.34) (2.94) Rural Maharashtra All 43.84 70.31 46.40 36.31 42.68 1.30 0.53 2.31 0.39 0.46 5.32 4.97 5.80 4.97 4.71 (29.84) (54.69) (32.30) (16.37) (23.59) (2.31) (1.60) (2.86) (0.79) (1.54) (2.72) (3.36) (2.80) (2.40) (2.61) Konkan 41.67 80.27 37.86 33.75 46.48 0.47 0.52 0.68 0.08 0.12 4.97 4.64 5.37 4.62 4.03 (28.08) (60.02) (19.32) (15.33) (29.56) (0.90) (1.51) (0.98) (0.15) (0.26) (2.69) (2.99) (2.71) (1.92) (2.78) Poona Division 42.53 69.49 43.86 36.22 39.49 1.17 0.71 2.00 0.61 0.46 5.54 5.30 6.04 5.25 4.97 (26.63) (56.48) (22.96) (16.67) (19.72) (2.01) (1.63) (2.60) (1.04) (1.13) (2.82) (3.29) (2.86) (2.64) (2.63) Khandesh and 42.20 65.26 46.68 32.45 44.74 1.21 0.38 2.25 0.26 0.23 5.89 5.15 6.70 5.23 4.73 Nasik (31.95) (58.51) (36.12) (12.71) (27.19) (2.15) (1.68) (2.66) (0.42) (0.55) (3.30) (5.20) (3.50) (2.41) (2.76) Hiarathawada 46.73 68.00 50.69 39.89 42.29 1.88 0.64 3.18 0.39 1.12 5.55 4.91 5.98 5.16 5.19 (23.45) (42.39) (23.57) (18.00) (19.10) (2.64) (2.40) (2.68) (0.84) (2.94) (2.53) (2.97) (2.54) (2.34) (2.5.) Nagpur Division except Bhandara 45.14 70.82 52.72 36.09 44.83 1.59 0.25 3.52 0.33 0.21 4.75 4.50 5.09 4.62 4.12 anid Chanda (38.72) (55.00) (52.01) (16.39) (27.27) (2.95) (0.62) (3.86) (0.67) (0.53) (2.31) (2.41) (2.38) (2.19) (2.28) Bhandara 44.70 62.36 46.22 41.29 40.18 1.02 0.30 1.69 0.16 0.22 5.23 4.68 5.65 4.38 5.20 and Chanda (19.25) (27.76) (19.53) (15.63) (17.00) (1.59) (0.64) (1.87) (0.27) (0.36) (2.33) (1.70) (2.35) (2.18) (2.26) Ncte: (a) WCW: white collar worlc; Cult.: cultivation; Ag. Lbr.: agricultural labour. (b) Figures in parentheses show the standard deviation of per capita expenditure, !ear capita land and household size. The means shown above are means of the values for sample households. TABLE 4 THE R FOR iUNTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE WITII SPECIFIED EXPLAIXATORY VARLA8LES, bY HOUSEIGLD OCCUPATiON AN;D DIFFEFE;;T RECICNS. ROSAL GCJARAT A.. IMAkAJArSH0A, 1972-73 All H1ou-rhOls , ihit Coilr Work CLltiv-. or Ar.ic trl '2bor _o-r 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 ,Rc,,lon L,L .E.3, L.L .II.H .I L.L . 0H.H C L.L,II,H L.L .h.H .I L,L .P.H .C L.L M.11H L- L2 LL.11.H-5 L.L ,H.li L.L I L.l 2,I,H2 C l,L 2,H' LL2 p 2 X L i2 _'_2 C 0.1Q2 RURAL GUJARAT All 0.192 0.19B 0.197 0.453 0.454 0.454 O.i99 0.215 0.215 0.224 0.225 0,224 0.124 0.124 0.:^ 1. E.atoro 0.221 0.237 0.228 0.157 0.157 0.161 0.295 0.332 0.312 0.173 0.209 0.203 0.142 0.143 0:42 2. Sorthern ilal.n 0.165' 0.169 0.169 0.149 0.149 0.163 0.153 0.155 0.154 0.238 0.238 0.238 0.128 0.129 0.134 3. Southor. PlaI.n 0.348 0.360 0.358 0.645 0.645 0.649 0.431 0,454 0.462 _ 0.288 0.290 0.292 0.144 0,145 0.115 4. 0,1 A.... 0.199 0.206 0.205 Q.S31 0.84; 0.841 0.219 0.220 0.219 0.220 0.260 0.263 0. 'a 0.355 0.2'1 5. S...r.shtr. 0.143 0.144 0.143 0.234 0.243 0.272 . 0.107 0.107 0.109 0.288 0.289 0.288 0.140 0.148 0.118 RURAL h blLrV,S1TRA All 0.114 0.115 0.114 . 0.262 0.266 0.264 0.076 0.080 0.077 0.198 0.201 0.198 0.203 0.205 0.205 1. boob.n 0.110 0.111 O.1iO 0.320 0.320 0.332 0.112 0.116 0.:17 0.081 0.087 O.06 0.207 0.220 0.211 2. Poo. Dli.ison O.1C 0.110 0.103 0.156 0.158 0.173 0.194 0.138 0.123 0.153 O.IP5 0.155 0.159 0.175 0.119 3. h-1-nrch anO ruaik 0.139 0.150 0.154 0.567 0.569 0.567 0.020 0.055 0.070 0.270 0.271 0.271 0.358 0.363 0.373 4. :'ra.r ..a.a 0,152 0.153 0.166 0.620 0.627 0.641 0.100 0.107 0.122 0.190 0.191 0.201 0.248 0.251 0.251 5. 5a ~-.tr B1itoo scopE Bhaslara a ....d CSanda 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.341 0.356 0.456 0.049 (.052 0.051 0.317 0.327 0.320 0.243 0.2'3 0.:53 6. rli5.Jara .*d Cha-d 0.302 0.303 0.306 0.177 0.281 0.178 0.344 1.3.5 0.354 0.316 0.320 0.329 0.613 0.619 0.611 L. ".r Ca.?t. Land j1: ;I.o.e.old Sle .: Irotoadan St0t.. of che Vill1oe C: Cro-pping at.nE.iy to th. VRi1.5e -82- is particularly poor in explaining the PCE of cultivating households in Khandesh, Nasik and the Nagpur division (except Bhandara and Chanda) in Maharashtra. Thirdly, even for the cultivating households, the dummy vari- ables have a noteworthy impact only in the eastern (largely tribal) region of Gujarat, and the Poona division, and Khandesh and Nasik in Maharashtra. The factors underlying the regional differences outlined above deserve a more detailed study than is possible in this paper. Such a study must also investigate the price level in different regions to understand why a region like Marathawada, which is considered to be the most backward in Maharashtra, had the highest per capita expenditure among the six regions during 1972-73. -83- ANNEX 3 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD LAND HOLDING AND PER CAPITA LAND Table 1 shows the distribution of households by the size of household land holding and per capita land for rural Gujarat and Maharashtra. The per capita land intervals were fixed to obtain an approximation of deciles or quintiles of households, but the attempt has not been wholly successful. The limits are different for the two states. The table helps to identify some errors in the coding of the size classes of household land holdings in rural Maharashtra. Some households coded as having no land or not reporting land did have some per capita land. Some others had more per capita land than the coded size of the land holding possessed by the household. Fortunately, the percentage of households affected by such errors is not significant in any size class of land hold- ings and the discussion in Section. IV above and the tables presented in the Statistical Appendix remain essentially unaffected by the coding errors. If per capita land were used to delimit deciles of households, the bottom decile in rural Gujarat and the second lowest decile in rural Maharashtra would include both the landless and some with land, resulting in a mixture of heterogeneous occupational categories (in addition to the mixture that already exists among the landless). If some combination of decile and quintile groups is accepted, the ranking of the bottom and the top groups of households (those with less than one acre or more than 20 acres) remains virtually unaffected according to per capita land and the household land holding. The intermediate groups with land holdings of between 1.0 and Table 1 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD LAND HOLDING AND PER CAPITA LAMT), P!T1'-L CUJAPAT AlTn w-A'TAR,ASHTRA, 1972-73 Size of Household Land Holding (Acres) Per Capita Land No 0.00- 1.00- 2.50- 5.00- 7.50- 10.00- 20.00& Not Re- (Acres) Land 0.99 2.49 4.99 7.49 9.99 19.99 more ported All RURAL GUJARAT No land 100.0 - - 100.0 9.1 Less than 0.01 - 0.7 - - - - - - - 0.1 0.01 - 0.10 - 94.1 0.5 - - - - - - 20.5 0.10 - 0.45 - 4.8 64.3 20.2 1.1 - - - - 10.6 0.45 - 0.70 - 0.4 20.9 34.4 14.1 4.2 0.2 - - 9.6 0.70 - 1.00 - - 6.4 19.6 36.9 19.5 2.5 - - 9.8 1.00 - 1.40 - - 3.7 14.8 23.8 30.1 13.2 0.9 - 9.7 1.40 - 2.00 - - 1.2 5.8 14.4 25.0 34.9 6.9 - 10.7 2.00 - 2.75 - - 2.8 3.1 4.1 11.4 26.3 16.0 - 7.7 More than 2.75 - - - 2.1 5.7 .9.8 22.9 76.3 - 12.3 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( 8.2) (21.6) ( 9.7) (15.9) (12.0) ( 6.3) (16.4) ( 9.1) ( 0.8) (100.0) RURAL MAHARASHTRA No land 96.2 0.3 - - - - 0.2* - 66.3 12.6 Less than 0.10 2.8* 86.8 0.7 - 0.1* - - 10.1* 20.0 0.10 - 0.32 - 10.5 56.5 5.9 - - - - 23.6* 9.1 0.32 - 0.56 0.4* 1.6 33.9 30.8 4.9 2.4 - - - 9.4 0.56 - 0.80 - 0.2 7.8 30.2 18.0 1.7 0.8 - - 7.2 0.80 - 1.25 - 0.1 7.8 18.6 '39.5 28.8 6.9 - - 10.2 1.25 - 1.80 - - 0.9 8.1 22.7 35.6 20.9 2.7 - 8.6 1.80 - 3.00 0.1* 0.3* 2.0 3.8 10.6 22.0 42.2 22.0 - 10.8 More than 3.00 0.4* 0.1* O.4* 2.7 4.1 9.5 29.0 75.3 - 12.2 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (12.8) (22.5) (12.6) (13.2) (10.8) ( 5.5) (13.1) ( 9.2) ( 0.2) (100.0) Note: Figures in parentheses show the percentage distribution of households by the size of household land holding. * Indicative of likely coding errors. -85- 20.0 acres are the ones where, depending upon the number of members, the ranking of quite a significant proportion of households according to per capita land could be quite different from that according to the size of household holding. Our discussion in Section IV relating to the characteristics of households with land holdings of different size classes retains the class intervals used by the NSS (i.e., does not use land per capita as the class- ificatory variable) in order to facilitate comparisons with other NSS tab- ulations. Some of our classes are the same as were prescribed to identify the target groups for the special programs initiated in the fourth Five Year Plan (1969-74) to assist the "small" and "marginal" farmers. For the pur- pose of these programmes, the marginal farmers were defined as those with a land holding of less than 2.5 acres whereas the small farmers were those having holdings generally ranging from 2.5 to 7.5 acres (one to three hectares).-1 According to these limits, some 33 percent of the cultivating households in rural India as a whole would be classified as marginal farmers and another 25 percent would be small farmers. 1/ See: T.N. Srinivasan, "Income Distribution: A Survey of Policy Aspects," in Sankhya, Series C, vol. 36, Parts 2&4 (June & December 1974), p. 258. Also, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Direc- torate of Economics & Statistics, Indian Agriculture in Brief, Fourteenth Edition (New Delhi, 1975), p. 206. A government publication suggests that the small farmers were those with 2.5 to 5 acres (or from one to two hectares). See: Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broad- casting, India: A Reference Annual, 1975 (New Delhi, 1975), p. 172. Each of the Small Farmer Development Agencies (SFDA) aimed at helping about 50,000 potentially viable small farmers in the project areas, whereas the Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers Development Agency (MFAL) was expected to benefit about 15,000 marginal farmers and about 5,000 agricul- tural labourers having a homestead and deriving more than 50 percent of their income from agricultural wages. The initial guidelines were sub- sequently revised as the SFDA's and MFAL's were set up in individual states. For Maharashtra, the revised criteria are reported in: Reserve Bank of India, Review of AgricuZturaZ Development and Cooperative Credit in Maharashtra (Bombay, 1977), pp. 43-45. 2/ These estimates are based on the distribution of household operational holdings reported by the 26th Round of the NSS during July 1971 - September 1972. See: National Sample Survey Organization, Report No. 215, Tables on Land HoZdings: AZZ India (New Delhi, 1976), p. 40. -86- STATISTICAL APPENDIX Table Number Title Al Distribution of Households by Size of Land Holding Possessed and Decile According to Monthly Per Capita Expenditure, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 A2 Distribution of Households by Size of Land Holding Possessed and Decile According to Monthly Per Capita Expenditure, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 A3 Distribution of Rural Households by Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Decile and Household Occupation Group, Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 A4 (A) Total Household Expenditure, (B) Average Household Size and (C) Per Capita Expenditure by Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Decile and Household Occupation, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 A5 Average Size of Households Classified According to the Size of Land Holding Possessed and the Decile Based on Monthly Per Capita Expenditure, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 A6 Average Size of Households According to the Size of Land Holding Possessed and Household Occupation, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 A7 Age Distribution of Heads of Households by Sex, According to the Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 A8 Age Distribution of Heads of Households by Sex, According to the Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 A9 Age Distribution of the Population, By Sex, According to Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 A10 Age Distribution of Population Aged 5 and Over by Sex and Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 All Percentage Distribution of Persons Aged 15 and Over by Size of Land Holding Possessed and Educational Attainment, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 -87- Table Number Title A12 Percentage Distribution of Population Aged 15 and Over by Size of Land Holding Possessed and Educational Attainment, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 A13 Percentage of Students in Age Groups 5-24 by Sex and According to Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 A14 Labor Force Participation Rates and the Incidence of Unemployment by Size of Land Holding, According to Alternative Concepts, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 A15 Labor Force Participation Rates* and the Incidence of Unemployment by Size of Land Holding, According to Alternative Concepts, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 A16 Labour Force Participation Rates (Based on Usual Activity) by Sex and Age According to the Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 A17 Labor Force Participation Rates (Based on Usual Activity) by Sex and Age According to the Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 A18 Labor Force Participation Rate (Based on Usual Activity) by Sex, Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Decile and Household Occupation Group, Rural Gujarat and Maha- rashtra, 1972-73 Al9 Labor Force Participation Rates (Based on Current Activity Data) by Sex, Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Decile and Household Occupation Group, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 A20 Incidence of Unemployment in Terms of Persondays by Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household, Rural India, October 1972 - September 1973 A21 Distribution of (a) Persons Classified as Unemployed in Terms of Usual and Current Activity and (b) Unemployed Persondays by Size of Land Holding, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 A22 Incidence of Unemployment (Based on Usual Activity) by Sex and Age, According to the Size of Land Holding (in Acres), Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 A23 Incidence of Unemployment (Based on Usual Activity) by Sex and Age, According to the Size of Land Holding (in Acres), Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 -88- Table Number Title A24 Incidence of Unemployment Based on Usual Activity by Sex, Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Decile and House- hold Occupation Group, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 A25 Incidence of Unemployment (Based on Current Activity) by Sex, Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Decile and Household Occupation Group, Rural Gujarat and Maharash- tra, 1972-73 A26 Class of Worker Distribution of Employed Persons (In Terms of Usual Activity) by Sex and Size of Land Holding Possessed, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 A27 Class of Worker Distribution of Employed Persons (In Terms of Usual Activity) by Sex and Size of Land Holding Possessed, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 A28 Occupational Distribution of the Employed Population by Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household and Sex, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 A29 Occupational Distribution of the Employed Population by Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household and Sex, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 TABLE Al DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED AND DECILE ACCORDING TO MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE, RURAL GUJARAT, 1972-73 Land Possessed DeciZe according to per capita expenditure (Acres) 1 2 3 | 4 | 5 6 7. 8 1 9 10 I All (A) Decile Distribution of Each Lcmd Holding CZass No Land 9.8 10.3 11.0 10.8 13.7 8.9 9.7 8.0 9.8 8.0 100.0 00.01 - 00.99 14.1 11.2 12.8 11.6 11.4 8.1 8.7 7.7 7.6 6.9 100.0 01.00 - 02.49 11.8 13.3 11.2 9.1 11.9 8.8 11.3 7.4 6.2 9.1 100.0 02.50 - 04.99 14.9 11.1 10.4 10.0 9.7 10.3 8.1 8.3 9.6 7.5 100.0 05.00 - 07.49 9.1 13.6 9.6 11.8 10.5 9.0 8.8 9.1 10.0 8.5 100.0 07.50 - 09.99 6.9 6.9 10.9 10.0 8.4 8.9 10.3 10.9 15.1 11.7 100.0 10.00 - 19.99 5.4 7.7 7.4 9.2 8.3 11.0 12.2 14.7 11.5 12.5 100.0 20.00 & more 1.9 3.3 4.9 5.8 5.9 15.1 13.3 14.2 14.5 21.2 100.0 All 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 (B) Land Holding Distribution of Each DeciZe No Land 8.1 8.4 9.1 8.9 11.3 7.3 8.0 6.6 8.1 6.5 8.2 00.01 - 00.99 30.5 24.3 27.7 25.0 24.6 17.5 18.7 16.8 16.6 14.9 21.7 01.00 - 02.49 11.5 12.9 10.8 8.8 11.5 8.5 10.9 7.2 6.0 8.8 9.7 02.50 - 04.99 23.8 17.7 16.6 15.9 15.6 16.5 12.8 13.2 15.3 11.9 15.9 05.00 - 07.49 10.9 16.3 11.5 14.1 12.6 10.8 10.5 11.0 12.0 10.2 12.0 07.50 - 09.99 4.3 4.3 6.8 6.3 5.3 5.6 6.5 6.9 9.5 7.4 6.3 10.00 - 19.99 8.9 12.7 12.2 15.1 13.6 18.1 19.8 24.2 18.9 20.4 16.4 20.00 & more 1.7 3.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 13.7 12.0 12.9 13.2 19.2 9.1 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: Households not reporting the size of their land holding formed only 0.8 percent of the total. Their distribution is not shown in Section (A); and they would account for the difference between the sum of percentages and 100 in Section (B). TABLE A2 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED AND DECILE ACCORDING TO MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE, RURAL MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 DeciZe according to per capita expenditure (Acres) 1 2 3 _ 4 | 5 6 7 8 | 9 10 All (A) DeciZe Distribution of Each Land HoZding Class No Land 12.8 12.6 11.0 8.8 8.3 7.0 7.6 8.7 9.5 13.7 100.0 00.01 - 00.99 12.9 10.6 12.5 10.7 9.4 9.9 9.8 9.2 7.5 7.4 100.0 01.00 - 02.49 12.1 12.9 13.5 12.2 8.8 10.7 8.4 8.7 7.1 5.6 100.0 02.50 - 04.99 10.9 10.7 8.8 10.0 13.1 8.5 12.4 8.0 9.9 7.6 100.0 05.00 - 07.49 9.5 9.2 10.3 10.6 10.2 10.9 9.8 9.4 12.2 8.0 100.0 07.50 - 09.99 4.8 8.6 7.0 11.5 14.4 15.8 7.3 13.4 9.8 7.4 100.0 10.00 - 19.99 6.0 7.9 6.1 9.9 9.4 11.1 11.5 14.1 13.5 10.5 100.0 20.00 & more 3.9 4.4 5.6 5.7 8.9 9.7 11.8 11.3 14.2 24.5 100.0 All 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10;0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 (B) Land HoZding Distribution of Each Decile 0 No Land 16.3 16.2 14.2 11.2 10.6 8.9 9.8 11.1 12.1 17.5 12.8 00.01 - 00.99 29.0 24.1 28.3 24.1 21.3 22.4 22.1 20.6 16.9 16.6 22.5 01.00 - 02.49 15.3 16.3 17.2 15.4 11.1 13.5 10.7 11.0 8.9 7.1 12.6 02.50 - 04.99 14.4 14.2 11.8 13.2 17.3 11.3 16.4 10.5 13.0 10.0 13.2 05.00 - 07.49 10.3 9.9 11.2 11.3 11.0 11.7 10.6 10.1 13.1 8.6 10.8 07.50 - 09.99 2.6 4.7 3.9 6.3 7.9 8.6 4.0 7.3 5.4 4.0 5.5 10.00 - 19.99 7.9 10.4 8.1 12.9 12.4 14.5 15.2 18.5 17.6 13.7 13.1 20.00 & more 3.5 4.0 5.2 5.2 8.2 8.9 10.9 10.4 13.1 22.5 9.2 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: Households not reporting the size of their land holding formed only 0.2 percent of the total. Their distribution is not shown in Section (A); and they would account for the difference between the sum of percentages and 100 in Section (B). TABLE A3 DISTRIBUTION OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS BY MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE DECILE AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP, GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Rurat GCaarat Rural F4ahara3htra HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP Monchly Per Capita Agricultural Agricultural Expenditure Decile White Collar Cultivators Labor Others All White Collar Cultivators Labor Others All (A) In Faeh AM.P.C.E. Decuie 1 1.1 50.6 39.3 9.0 100.0 3.4 33.5 50.8 12.3 100.0 2 2.0 58.6 28.9 10.5 100.0 1.4 38.0 45.5 15.1 100.0 3-4 5.0 56.2 24.8 14.1 100.0 4.6 40.7 40.2 14.4 100.0 5-6 4.7 62.8 18.9 13.6 100.0 4.3 48.7 35.2 11.8 100.0 7-8 6.0 69.7 12.2 12.1 100.0 3.8 51.6 30.5 14.1 100.0 9 9.0 69.3 7.8 13.9 100.0 6.8 55.9 23.8 13.4 100.0 %C 10 14.8 72.2 4.2 8.9 100.0 21.7 54.7 12.2 11.4 100.0 All 5.8 62.8 1962 12.2 100.0 5.9 46.4 34.4 13.3 100.0 (B) In Each RouaehoZd Occvation Group 1 1.8 8.1 20.5 7.4 10.0 5.8 7.3 14.9 12.3 10.1 2 3.4 9.3 15.1 8.7 10.0 2.4 8.2 13.2 15.1 10.0 3-4 17.1 17.9 25.8 23.1 20.0 15.7 17.5 23.4 14.4 20.0 5-6 16.2 20.0 19.7 22.3 20.0 14.7 21.0 20.5 11.8 20.0 7-8 20.7 22.2 12.7 19.8 20.0 12.9 22.2 17.7 14.1 2G.0 9 15.4 11.0 4.0 11.4 10.0 11.5 12.1 6.9 13.4 10.0 10 25.4 11.5 2.2 7.3 10.0 36.9 11.8 3.5 11.4 10.0 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -92- TABLE A4 (A) TOTAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE, (B) AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND (C) PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE BY MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE DECILE AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Raral Cu3arat Rural t4aharashtra HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION Agricultural Agricultural M.P.C.E. Decile White Collar Cultivators Labor Others White Collar Cultivators Labor Others (A) Total HouoehoZd Expenditure 1 159.56 161.90 138.03 158.75 112.02 121.81 109.92 97.93 2 205.25 209.05 175.31 162.90 123.47 154.22 141.02 141.11 3-4 229.22 247.27 193.37 224.54 163.91 180.52 155.45 156.08 5-6 270.26 307.36 225.33 251.47 248.49 226.13 183.94 192.59 7-8 297.09 365.59 226.50 253.08 279.54 270.00 200.09 202.21 9 417.14 418.29 286.16 253.16 309.40 329.51 189.06 224.77 10 511.33 548.09 292.88 389.82 435.45 '506.41 251.32 224.00 All 348.44 328.51 195.71 241.27 304.32 260.08 166.24 178.09 (B) Av6rage Household 5ize 1 6.4 7.1 6.3 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.2 5.7 2 6.7 7.1 5.9 5.5 5.1 6.3 5.9 5.9 3-4 6.3 6.7 5.3 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.2 5.2 5-6 5.8 6.5 4.9 5.4 6.6 6.0 4.9 5.2 7-8 4.9 6.1 3.8 4.3 5.8 5.7 4.2 4.2 9 5.5 5;5 3.8 3.3 4.9 5.3 3.1 3.6 10 3.8 4.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 5.0 2.9 2.4 All 5.2 6.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.8 5.0 4.7 (C) Per Capita Expenditure 1 24.91 22.84 21.92 22.67 16.49 18.00 17.84 17.19 2 30.53 29.60 29.54 29.55 24.37 24.38 23.94 24.10 3-4 36.28 36.98 36.52 37.19 29.57 30.13 29.87 29.85 '5-6 46.50 46.98 46.19 46.20 37.78 37.56 37.46 37.36 7-8 60.84 60.39 59.14 59.49 48.33 47.70 47.46 47.78 9 75.97 76.37 75.79 75.69 63.06 62.52 61.15 62.70 10 135.37 116.38 105.17 L24.35 123.30 102.27 86.43 94.23 All 67.24 52.78 37.54 47.69 61.21 44.86 33.42 37.85 -93- TABLE A5 Average Size of Households Classified According to the Size of Land Holding Possessed and the Decile Based on Monthly Per Capita Expenditure, Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra 1972-73 Size of Decile According to Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Land Holding (acres) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 All Rural Gujarat Nil 6.3 5.6 5.5 4.7 5.2 5.3 4.5 4.0 3.9 2.9 4.9 Less than 1.00 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.2 3.4 3.9 3.2 5.1 1.00 - 2.49 6.3 5.6 5.7 5.7 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.3 3.5 2.9 5.0 2.50 - 4.99 6.5 6.3 6.0 6.1 5.3 5.4 4.9 5.1 4.5 3.7 5.5 5.00 - 7.49 7.3 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.0 5.4 5.7 4.9 4.1 6.2 7.50 - 9.99 7.4 7.0 7.3 7.2 6.6 7.4 6.6 5.8 5.5 5.1 6.5 10.00 - 19.99 8.8 8.7 6.7 7.3 7.6 7.0 6.7 6.6 5.9 5.1 6.8 20.00 & More 9.8 8.6 9.0 8.2 8.7 8.5 7.8 7.6 6.8 6.0 7.5 All 6.8 6.6 6.2 6.2 6.0 6.1 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.3 5.8 Rural Maharashtra Nil 5.8 5.5 4.8 3.8 4.3 3.9 4.1 2.9 2.6 2.5 4.1 Less than 1.00 5.5 5.3 4.9 5.1 5.0 4.4 3.9 4.0 2.8 2.7 4.5 1.00 - 2.49 6.0 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.1 5.2 4.7 4.1 3.3 3.5 4.9 2.50 - 4.99 6.8 6.4 5.7 5.4 5.7 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 4.0 5.6 5.00 - 7.49 6.8 6.2 6.5 5.8 5.7 5.3 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.6 5.6 7.50 - 9.99 8.3 6.2 6.2 6.9 7.7 6.0 5.6 5.2 5.1 3.9 6.1 10.00 - 19.99 7.6 7.9 6.7 6.9 6.6 5.8 6.2 5.9 5.4 4.7 6.2 20.00 & More 9.2 8.6 7.4 7.4 8.5 7.7 7.1 6.9 6.5 6.2 7.1 All 6.3 6.0 5.6 5.5 5.8 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.5 4.1 5.3 Note: The size of land holding is not known for about 0.8 percent of the house- holds in rural Gujarat and 0.2 percent of those in rural Maharashtra. They are included among the total number of households in each decile whose average size is shown in the table. -94- TABLE A6 AVERAGE SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS ACCORDING TO THE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Size of Land Holding White Collar Agricultural (acres) All Work Cultivation Labor Others Rural Gujarat No land 4.86 4.62 4.82@ 5.04 4.74 Up to 0.99 5.05 5.19 5.06 5.04 5.02 1.00-2.49 4.95 6.35 4.49 5.61 5.94 2.50-4.99 5.51 5.92 5.43 5.86 6.38 5.00-7.49 6.14 5.82 6.10 7.03 6.77 7.50-9.99 6.46 6.00* 6.51 5.56 5.47 10.00-19.99 6.83 5.63* 6.88 6.46 4.63 20.00 & More 7.56 3.00* 7.61 5.24 4.00 All 5.82 5.18 6.22 5.21 5.05 Rural Maharashtra No Land 4.07 3.98 7.46$ 4.30 3.60 Up to 0.99 4.51 4.83 3.32 4.56 4.59 1.00-2.49 4.94 7.41 4.64 5.07 5.22 2.50-4.99 5.58 5.52 5.53 5.59 5.92 5.00-7.49 5.60 6.66 5.28 6.20 6.35 7.50-9.99 6.11 6.75* 6.05 6.38 5.70 10.00-19.99 6.21 6.42 6.16 6.88 5.77 20.00 & More 7.13 7.04˘ 7.10 8.44 6.80 All 5.32 4.97 5.80 4.97 4.71 * Sample size: Less than 10 households. @Sample size: 15 households $Sample size: 2 households ˝Sample size: 11 households -95- TABLE A7 AGE D1ST"i'1UT]ION OF IIN-AD) (F 11OUSENOl.D) YY ';l.X, ACCOR)NG TO THE SIZE OF MAN)) EOLJ;) !: POSSi:SSI,I)D BY '4iHE HON'il:,HOI)D, RUlRAL CUTANAT, 1972-73 Age of tl h llnuselol]d hood Siz( of f(!:.S 60 & N edian Land llol0ini |haa 15 15-9 30-414 45--59 Abovc A]l A, J MALI' HEADS No Lan.l 0,? 24.4 40.4 22.3 12.8 100.0 38.0 OO.01-00.99 0. 2 16.2 45.0 28.0 10.5 100.0 40.0 01.00-02.49 --- 18.6 4/i.7 26.0 10.8 100.0 39.0 02.50-0!,9S --- 15.? 45.3 30.0 9.5 100.0 40.7 05.00-07.49 9.6 45.3 31.1 14.0 100.0 42.8 07.50-09.99 30.3 42.5 33.3 14.1 10(.0 43.2 10.00-19.99 --- 8.2 37.0 37.1 17.6 100.0 46.2 20.00& Above 1-- I1.4 . 30.4 38.3 20.0 100.0 47,4 All ClasFcs 0.3 13.8 41.6 30.9 13.4 100.0 42.2 FEMALTE IE'xllS Nio Land --- 11.5 28.5 21.6 38.3 100.0 52.0 00.0l-00,99 2.8 2.9 29.0 37.2 28.2 100.0 50.0 01.00-02.49 1.9 1.9 24.5 41.5 30.2 100.0 50.5 02.50-04.99 10.2 18.8 46.5 24.4 ]00.0 51.6 05.CJ07.49J ---- 14.7 27.4 3G.8 21.1. 1U0.0 46.01 07.50-09.99* --- 0.0 39.2 49.0 11.8 100.0 48.8 10.00-19.99* --- 0.0 55.] 14.6 30.3 100.0 41.7 20.00& Ahove --- 0.0 43.2 13.6 43.2 100.0 57.4 All Classes 1.3 5.4 28.6 35.2 29.5 100.0 50.0 ALL IFJAS No Land 0.2 23.0 39.1 22.3 15.4 100.0 3'J.0 00.01-00).q9 0.5 15.0 43.4 29.0 12.2 100.0 41.0 01.00-02.49 0.2 16.9 42.6 27.6 12.8 100.0 4 0).0 02.50-04,99 14.9 43.5 30.9 10.2 100.0 41.3 05.00-07.49 --- 9.7 44.9 31.3 14.1 100.0 43.0 07.50-09.99 10.1 42.4 33.5 14.0 100.0 43.4 10.00-19.99 --- 8.1 37.3 36.7 18.0 100.0 46.2 20.00& Above --- 11.2 30.5 37.9 20.2 100.0 4 7.4 All Classes 0.3 13.4 40.9 31.1 14.2 100.0 42.7 PERCE,NTAGE OiF' FEMATLR 111ADS All 22.3 2.3 3.9 6.4 11.6 5.6 *Thcse figures are bascd on a small number of observamtions. Note: ---" indicates that no one in Lic particular cnrcgory %was reported as a household head. -96- TABLE A8 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS BY SEX, ACCORDING TO THE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED BY THE HOUSEHOLD, RURAL MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Age of the Household Head Size of Less 60 + Median Land Holding than 15 15-29 30-44 45-59 Above All Age Male Heads No Land 0.2 23.7 43.3 24.1 8.6 100.0 37.8 0.01- 0.99 - 18.5 44.2 25.5 10.7 100.0 39.2 1.00- 2.49 - 11.1 42.5 28.0 18.3 100.0 43.1 2.50- 4.99 - 11.3 39.1 35.3 14.2 100.0 44.3 5.00- 7.49 0.3 13.0 42.4 27.8 16.6 100.0 42.7 7.50- 9.99 - 8.5 37.7 34.6 19.2 100.0 45.5 10.00-19.99 - 12.0 34.1 34.0 20.1 100.0 45.8 20.00& Above - 9.7 33.4 31.1 25.9 100.0 47.2 All 0.1 14.2 40.1 29.8 15.8 100.0 42.8 -Female Heads No Land 5.7 17.5 24.6 25.8 26.5 100.0 45.5 0.01- 0.99 0.4 10.0 35.4 35.8 18.4 100.0 46.2 1.00- 2.49 - 9.3 42.4 23.0 25.3 100.0 43.9 2.50- 4.99 - 6.4 40.2 42.1 11.3 100.0 46.1 5.00- 7.49 - 7.1 31.0 44.6 17.1 100.0 48.0 7.50- 9.99 - - 40.3 35.3 24.3 100.0 47.2 10.00-19.99 - 4.0 64.2 19.6 12.1 100.0 37.9 20.00& Above - 11.3 9.4 28.8 50.5 100.0 59.6 All 1.3 10.4 35.7 31.5 21.1 100.0 45.7 AZZ Heads No Land 1.2 22.6 40.2 24.4 11.6 100.0 38.6 0.01- 0.99 0.1 17.3 42.8 27.9 11.8 100.0 40.2 1.00- 2.49 - 10.8 42.5 27.3 19.5 100.0 43.2 2.50- 4.99 - 10.9 39.2 36.0 14.0 100.0 44.5 5.00- 7.49 0.3 12.5 41.7 28.9 16.6 100.0 43.1 7.50- 9.99 - 8.1 37.8 34.6 19.5 100.0 45.6 10.00-19.99 - 11.6 35.2 33.4 19.7 100.0 45.6 20.00& Above - 9.7 32.8 31.0 26.5 100.0 47.5 All 0.2 13.8 39.7 30.0 16.3 100.0 43.1 -97- TABLE A9 Age Distribution of thie Population, By Sex, According to Size of Land tlolding Possessed by the Hotisehold Rurnl Cujarat, 1972-73 Size of Land Holding (in Acres) Up to I 1.00 to 2.50 to I 5.00 to I 7.50 to 10.00 to 20.00 & Agc Grouip | Nonie L 1.00 I 2.49 4.99 7.49 9.9 19.99 Above All MALES 0-4 14.84 13.51 13.46 12.69 13.69 12.05 13.20 11.71 13.10 5-9 17.50 16.34 17.24 16.63 16.65 15.77 15.80 15.37 16.36 10-14 13.98 13.55 13.25 13.91 13.46 15.48 14.32 14.51 14.03 (0 - 14) (46.42) (43.40) (43.95) (43.23) (43.80) (43.30) (43.32) (41.59) (43.49) 15-29 24.41 23.28 23.40 24.04 23.71 25.72 24.70 28.98 24.63 30-44 15.97 18.53 18.57 18.67 17.46 15.54 15.31 12.62 16.69 45-59 8.15 10.37 9.72 10.60 10.10 10.59 10.96 10.41 10.28 (15 - 59) (48.53) (52.18) (51.69) (53.31) (51.27) (51.85) (50.97) (52.01) (51.60) 60+ 5.04 4.43 4.37 3.47 4.93 4.85 5.71 6.40 4.91 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Median Age 17.10 19.20 18.75 19.20 18.90 17.25 19.05 19.35 18.90 FEMALES 0-4 15.70 15.68 13.94 13.71 13.38 13.92 12.93 12.85 13.97 5-9 15.56 15.45 15.95 14.98 16.19 16.71 16.12 14.58 15.63 10-14 9.84 12.53 11.49 13.17 12.99 12.77 14.18 12.07 12.71 (O - 14) (41.10) (43.66) (41.38) (41.86) (42.56) (43.40) (43.23) (39.50) (42.31) 15-29 27.84 24.31 23.52 25.22 25.66 28.51 25.93 27.91 25.80 30-44 16.28 16.82 17.91 17.63 16.97 14.84 15.24 16.97 16.37 45-59 9.17 9.76 11.21 11.19 10.04 9.56 10.38 10.76 10.31 (15 - 59) (53.29) (50.89) (52.64) (54.04) (52.67) (52.91) (51.55) (53.64) (52.48) 60+ 5.62 5.44 5.98 4.10 4.77 3.69 5.20 6.86 5.20 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Median Age 19.65 18.90 20.40 19.80 19.20 18.45 18.90 20.55 19.35 PERSONS 0-4 15.'5 14.57 13.69 13.20 13.54 12.99 13.07 12.25 13.52 5-9 16.61 15.90 16.61 15.81 16.42 16.25 15.96 15.00 16.01 10-14 11.98 13.05 12.40 13.54 13.23 14.12 14.25 13.35 13.38 (0 - 14) (43.85) (43.52) (42.70) (42.55) (43.19) (43.36) (43.28) (40.60) (42.91) 15-29 26.07 23.79 23.46 24.63 24.65 27.12 25.31 28.47 25.21 30-44 16.12 17.69 18.25 18.15 17.22 15.18 15.28 13.74 16.53 45-59 8.64 10.07 10.44 10.89 10.07 10.07 10.67 10.58 10.29 (15 - 59) (50.83) (51.55) (52.15) (53.67) (51.94) (52.37) (51.26) (52.79) (52.03) 60+ 5.32 4.93 5.16 3.78 4.85 4.27 5.46 6.62 5.05 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Median Age 18.45 19.05 19.65 19.50 19.05 18.60 18.98 19.95 19.20 Percentage Distribution of Popuilation 6.9 18.8 8.2 15.1 12.6 7.0 19.2 11.8 100.0 Dependency 967.3 939.9 917.7 863.2 924.9 909.5 950.8 894.5 921.8 ratio Sex Ratio (Males per 100 Fcmaln3) i) Populntion 1072 1029 1055 1009 1066 988 1026 1105 1043 ii) CUrretly snirried 954 978 940 943 97/ 974 953 959 9s0 -98- TABLE A10 Age Distribution of Population Aged 5 and Over By Sex and Sizc of Land Holding Possessed by the Household. Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 Size of Land Holding Possessed (in Acres) Age Grtup 5.n0-7.49d 0.01-0.99 oo-2.b9 |2.50-4.99 750999 0.00-19.99 20.00 & Above All HALES 5-9 20.29 19.05 18.89 18.19 17.54 17.80 19.25 19.07 18.81 10-14 15.95 14.78 18.07 16.62 16.15 18.74 14.94 14.97 15.98 *(5-14) (36.24) (33.83) (36.96) (34.81) (33.69) (36.54) (34.19) (34.04) (34.78) 15-29 25.49 25.75 23.01 24.54 26.69 23.43 27.40 26.03 25.49 30-4" 22.18 21.80 20.21 19.69 21.22 18.94 17.69 19.25 20.16 45-59 11.49 12.64 11.80 14.30 11.32 13.22 12.29 10.92 12.28 (15-S9) (59.16) (60.19) (55.02) (58.53) (59.23) (55.59) (57.38) (56.19) (57.93) 60 + 4.60 5.97 8.02 6.66 7.08 7.88 8.43 9.76 7.28 Total (5 & Over) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Median Age 23.10 24.42 23.50 24.28 24.17 23.62 23.66 24.20 23.95 FEMALES 5-9 17.56 19.25 18.70 19.01 19.71 20.49 17.93 17.13 18.68 10-14 12.29 13.36 15.31 15.42 13.39 13.68 14.37 13.79 13.99 (5-14) (29.85) (32.61) (34.01) (34.43) (33.10) (34.17) (32.30) (30.92) (32.67) 15-29 30.53 26.81 23.23 25.40 25.49 26.03 25.12 26.65 26.05 30-44 20.31 20.88 22.84 20.66 20.57 20.71 21.59 20.47 21.06 45-59 12.10 12.92 11.76 12.30 12.84 12.29 11.18 11.73 12.17 (15-59) (62.94) (60.61) (57.83) (58.36) (58.90) (59.03) (57.89) (58.85) (59.28) 60 + 7.22 6.79 8.14 7.21 8.00 6.81 9.82 10.22 S.05 Total (5 & Over) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Median Age 24.90 24.73 25.33 24.19 24.95 24.12 25.57 25.74 2A.98 PERSONS 5-9 18.97 19.15 18.79 18.60 18.63 19.12 18.61 18.15 18.74 10-14 14.19 14.06 16.63 16.01 14.77 16.25 14.66 14.41 14.99 tS-14) (33.1A) (33.31) (35.4?) (34.61) (3'i.40) (35.37) (33.27) (32.56) (33.73) 15-?O 27.91 26.28 23.13 24.98 26.09 24.71 2A.In ?^,32 25.77 30-44 21.28 21.34 21.58 20.18 20.89 19.81 19.57 19.83 20.61 45-59 11.78 12.78 11.78 13.28 12.08 12.76 11.75 11.31 12.23 (15-59) (60.97) (60.40) (56.49) (58.1.4) (59.06) (57.28) (57.62) (57.46) (58.61) 60 + 5.86 6.38 8.09 6.94 7.54 7.35 9.10 9.98 7.66 Total (5 & Over) 100,00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 Median Age 24.05 24.58 24.46 24.24 24.54 23.88 24.54 24.94 24.47 Sex Ratio (Maltes per 1000 F.males) 1079 972 917 962 994 1032 1076 1101 1010 Dependency Ratio* 640 655 770 711 693 746 735 740 706 * Number of Persons Aged 5-14 and 60 + per 1000 persons Aged 15-59. TABLE All PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS AGED 15 AND OVER BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, RURAL GUJARAT, 1972-73 Size of Land Holding Possessed (in Acres) Educational Attainment No Land 0.01-0.99 1.00-2.49 2.50-4.99 5.00-7.49 7.50-9.99 10.00-19.99 20.00 and Above All Males Illiterate 58.65 50.69 55.37 54.47 55.78 52.04 50.24 53.84 53.18 Primary School 30.84 38.04 35.22 36.28 33.86 36.73 37.77 36.92 36.25 Middle School 5.29 7.05 6.42 6.78 7.28 7.93 7.41 5.29 6.81 Secondary 4.03 3.54 3.00 2.34 2.58 2.83 3.82 2.89 3.16 Graduate & Above 1.20 0.68 0.00 0.13 0.49 0.47 0.76 1.07 0.60 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 300.00 Females Illiterate 84.51 79.82 84.91 89.73 87.40 84.28 82.48 82.37 84.18 Primary School 13.03 17.35 12.92 8.84 11.46 13.33 14.86 15.65 13.64 Middle School 0.86 0.97 1.14 1.00 0.87 1.92 1.46 1.48 1.20 Secondary 1.40 1.79 1.23 0.43 0.26 0.47 1.14 0.50 0,94 Graduate & Above 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.C4 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.(0 Persons Illiterate 71.74 65.01 70.07 72.23 71.26 68.24 66.17 67.64 68.52 Primary School 21.83 27.87 24.02 22.46 22.89 24.97 26.45 26.63 25.06 Middle School 3.05 4.06 3.79 3.87 4.15 4.91 4.47 3.45 4.04 Secondary 2.70 2.68 2.12 1.38 1.45 1.64 2.50 1.73 2.06 Graduate & Above 0.69 0.38 0.00 0.06 0.25 0.23 0.42 0.55 0.32 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 TABLE A12 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AGED 15 AND OVER BY SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, RURAL MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Size of Land Holding Possessed (in Acres) Educational Attainment INo Land | 0.01-0.99 1.00-2.49 2.50-4.99 5.00-7.49 7.50-9.99'10.00-10.99 20 00 All MALES Illiterate 53.82 55.05 49.29 47.83 48.67 42.76 46.46 34.42 47.82 Primary and Below 28.35 33.44 37.82 40.04 40.07 39.94 39.63 43.42 37.74 Middle School 9.41 7.17 10.77 9.14 7.98 13.28 9.79 15.28 9.99 Secondary School 7.63 3.98 2.00 2.73 3.15 3.78 3.81 6.43 4.13 Graduate & Above 0.79 0.36 0.12 0.26 0.14 0.25 0.31 0.44 0.33 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 FEMALES Illiterate 84.74 88.84 87.31 86.46 87.19 82.33 87.00 79.95 86.02 Primary and Below 9.57 8.84 10.62 11.67 10.62 14.59 10.50 16.20 11.19 Middle School 4.16 1.38 2.02 1.52 2.19 2.45 1.98 3.02 2.19 Secondary School 1.53 0.90 0.04 0.35 - 0.63 0.52 0.84 0.60 Graduate & Above - 0.03 - - - - - - 0.60 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 PERSONS Illiterate 69.43 72.36 69.55 67.58 68.07 62.60 66.28 56.62 67.13 Primary and Below 18,87 20.86 23.32 25.54 25.23 27.23 25.39 30.14 24.32 Middle School 6.76 4.21 6.11 5.24 5.07 7.85 5.97 9.30 6.05 Secondary School 4.55 2.41 0.96 1.52 1.56 2.20 2.20 3.70 2.34 Graduate & Above 0.39 0.17 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.16 0.23 0.17 All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 -101- TABLE A13 PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS IN AGE GROUPS 5-24 BY SEX AND ACCORDING TO SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED BY THE HOUSEHOLD, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Size of Landholding (In Acres) 0.01- 1.00- 2.50- 5.00- 7.50- 10.00- 20.00 Age Group Nil 0.99 2.49 4.99 7.49 9.99 19.99 & Above All RURAL GUJARAT MALES 5-9 32.5 31.7 32.0 33.9 38.9 30.4 38.1 40.5 35.8 10-14 51.9 55.9 54.4 52.9 54.9 53.5 56.6 59.8 55.4 15-19 25.5 21.5 19.8 27.9 23.3 23.2 23.1 22.5 23.4 20-24 0.8 3.5 4.0 2.7 6.1 1.2 7.9 4.7 4.4 FEMALES 5-9 20.5 26.2 27.5 20.5 19.3 17.1 24.7 29.6 23.6 10-14 25.9 36.5 24.0 17.8 19.7 25.4 34.6 31.2 28.1 15-19 7.0 9.1 3.4 8.6 7.6 2.2 6.5 3.2 6.4 20-24 - 1.6 - - 0.7 - - 1.5 0.6 PERSONS 5-9 27.1 29.0 33.1 27.6 29.6 23.5 31.4 35.4 29.9 10-14 41.6 46.7 40.6 35.9 38.2 40.7 45.8 47.5 42.7 15-19 16.5 15.7 12.6 18.5 15.4 11.9 14.7 13.9 15.1 20-24 0.4 2.5 2.0 ].3 3.3 0.5 4.1 3.2 2.5 RURAL MAHARASHTRA MALES 5-9 24.4 37.4 40.4 39.3 29.3 42.1 38.1 49.1 37.8 10-14 42.8 53.6 71.7 68.4 55.1 63.8 65.1 71.4 61.9 15-19 18.1 25.9 33.3 30.5 22.5 39.8 22.3 32.9 27.6 20-24 13.3 3.0 - 4.8 7.7 4.1 7.1 5.9 5.8 FEMALE. 5-9 14.6 23.7 23.9 34.9. 23.4 25.2 27.7 35.6 26.5 10-14 30.0 28.1 31.5 35.8 27.3 36.7 25.2 41.3 31.5 15-19 15.7 1.7 4.2 1.6 4.7 2.3 5.3 4.8 4.5 20-?4 2.6 0.2 - 0.8 - - - - 0.4 PERSONS 5-9 20.0 30.4 31.7 37.0 26.2 33.3 33.3 43.0 32.2 10-14 37.6 41.2 52.7 52.6 42.2 52.8 46.4 57.4 47.8 15-19 16.9 14.9 19.8 17.4 15.1 21.6 14.7 19.3 17.0 20-24 7.3 1.4 - 2.7 3.2 1.8 3.7 3.2 3.0 Notes: These rates are based on usual activity data. -102- TABLE A14 Labor Force Participation Rates and the Incidence of Unemployment by Size of Land Holding, According to Alternative Concepts, Rural Gujarat, 1972-73 Labor Force Participation Rates Incidence of Unemployment Males Females Persons Males Females Persons (A) Usual Activity Rates (in Terms of Persons) No Land 49.4 30.7 40.3 1.3 0.5 1.0 Up to 0.99 52.8 30.1 41.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.00-2.49 54.4 37.9 46.4 1.1 0.5 0.9 2.50-4.99 55.2 43.8 49.5 0.1 --- 0.4 5.00-7.49 54.1 40.7 47.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 7.50-9.99 55.6 36.3 45.9 0.4 --- 0.2 10.00-19.99 53.1 37.5 45.4 0.2 --- 0.1 20.00 & More 53.3 36.6 45.4 0.5 - 0.3 All 53.5 35.8 45.3 0.7 0.4 0.6 (B) Current Activity Rates (in Terms of Persons) No Land 49.2 29.7 39.8 3.8 8.7 5.6 Up to 0.99 52.8 29.6 41.4 3.8 7.5 5.1 1.00-2.49 54.3 35.5 45.2 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.50-4.99 55.0 42.5 48.8 2.7 1.5 2.2 5.00-7.49 54.5 39.3 47.1 1.6 1.7 1.7 7.50-9.99 55.6 36.1 45.8 0.2 0.4 0.3 10.00-19.99 53.0 37.3 45.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 20.00 & More 53.2 36.7 45.3 0.7 0.4 0.6 All 53.4 36.1 44.9 2.0 2.5 2.2 (C) Time Disposition Data (in Terms of Persondays) No Land 47.7 27.6 38.0 11.5 21.6 15.1 Up to 0.99 51.8 27.6 39.9 11.6 21.1 15.9 1.00-2.49 53.0 30.5 42.1 7.2 8.8 7.8 2.50-4.99 54.1 37.0 45.6 5.6 5.2 5.4 5.00-7.49 52.8 31.8 42.7 3.2 3.7 3.4 7.50-9.99 55.4 30.9 43.1 1.6 2.4 1.9 10.00-19.99 52.1 30.7 41.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 20.00 & More 52.2 31.5 42.4 2.2 2.8 2.4 All 52.4 31.1 42.0 5.5 7.9 6.4 -103- TABLE A15 Labor Force Participation Rates* and the Incidence of Unemployment by Size of Land Holding, According to Alternative Concepts, Rural Maharashtra, 1972-73 Labor Force Participation Rates Incidence of Unemployment Males Females Persons Males Females Persons (A) Usual Activity Rates (in Terms of Persons) No Land 62.1 49.9 56.2 0.6 0.1 0.4 Up to 0.99 63.8 50.3 56.9 1.2 0.2 0.8 1.00 - 2.49 59.2 51.2 55.1 0.8 0.1 0.5 2.50 - 4.99 61.0 51.1 55.9 0.3 - 0.2 5.00 - 7.49 65.0 53.0 59.0 0.7 - 0.4 7.50 - 9.99 60.4 49.7 55.1 0.7 - 0.4 10.00 -19.99 62.2 49.8 56.2 0.6 - 0.3 20.00 & More 61.6 44.0 53.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 All 62.1 49.9 56.0 0.7 0.1 0.4 (B) Current Activity Rates (in Terms of Persons) No Land 62.4 47.6 55.3 2.4 7.3 4.4 Up to 0.99 63.7 45.3 54.4 4.4 , 9.7 6.6 1.00 - 2.49 58.5 43.9 50.8 2.7 7.2 4.7 2.50 - 4.99 61.1 46.6 53.7 3.0 4.0 3.4 5.00 - 7.49 65.2 48.2 56.6 2.6 3.5 3.0 7.50 - 9.99 60.7 46.8 53.9 0.8 1.4 1.1 10.00 -19.99 62.3 47.1 55.0 2.7 1.7 2.3 20.00 & More 61.3 40.4 51.4 1.2 1.7 1.4 All 62.1 45.6 53.9 2.7 5.0 3.7 (C) Time Disposition Data (in Terms of Persondays) No Land 59.7 44.9 52.6 10.1 19.6 14.0 Up to 0.99 61.5 42.5 51.8 12.3 21.0 '5.9 1.00 - 2.49 55.0 39.4 46.8 9.4 15.0 11.9 2.50 - 4.99 57.7 42.0 49.7 8.7 11.9 10.1 5.00 - 7.49 61.0 42.8 51.8 7.5 10.0 8.4 7.50 - 9.99 57.5 41.4 49.6 4.8 6.9 5.7 10.00 -19.99 60.3 42.8 51.9 5.8 6.7 6.1 20.00 & More 59.0 36.4 48.3 4.3 5.5 4.7 All 59.3 41.5 50.4 8.2 12.8 10.0 *The data pertain to the population aged five years and over. In other words, persons in the age group 0-4 are excluded from the denominator; that partly explains the difference between the participation rates estimated for rural Gujarat and Maharashtra. -104- TABLE A16 LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES (BASED ON USUAL ACTIVITY) BY SEX AND AGE ACCORDING TO TIIE SIZE OF LA.ND HIOLDIENC POSSESSED BY TlE HOUSEHOLD, RURAL GUJASAT, 1972-73 Size of _lanU holding possensod bv household (inI ares) Age Nil Less than 1.0 to 2.5 to 5.0 to 7.5 to 10 to 20 or All 1.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 20 more Males 5-09 0.00 0.88 0.60 1.09 1.26 2.49 0.60 1.03 0.95 10-14 14.33 17.65 24.73 22.98 20.89 23.94 17.09 17.63 19.43 15-29 89.33 88.30 90.54 87.28 87.96 89.61 86.18 87.18 87.89 30-44 98.75 97.25 100.00 99.85 98.80 98.48 99.71 99.58 98.95 45-59 88.53 91.26 92.80 90.73 94.44 91.54 94.16 91.78 92.25 60+ 50.30 50.71 51.18 75.00 69.10 72.40 64.15 50.41 59.97 10 & Over Crude 73.01 75.09 78.34 77.84 77.32 76.55 74.62 72.91 75.57 Standardized 73.81 74.18 77.28 77.11 76.82 77.73 75.27 74.39 75.58 All Ages Crude 49.35 52.81 54.39 55.19 54.07 55.63 53.07 53.32 53.46 Standardized 52.06 52.47 54.61 54.57 54.39 55.24 53.19 52.64 53.47 Females 5-09 0.42 0.80 1.80 2.73 2.15 2.32 0.0 0.0 1.18 10-14 16.22 12.95 27.91 28.28 16.45 17.62 20.71 23.16 20.33 15-29 50.68 52.35 61.06 71.51 68.77 64.56 69.32 63.00 63.34 30-44 64.98 63.58 73.19 80.16 82.91 77.49 74.02 68.71 73.11 45-59 39.43 41.29 51.34 60.65 56.99 37.99 46.95 51.22 49.22 60+ 12.28 16.70 19.91 17.38 3.6.70 2.52 7.31 6.54 12.72 10 & Over Crude 44,51 43.5b 53.67 60.84 57.31 51.71 52.80 50,45 52.04 Standardized 43.29 43.59 53.42 60.11 57.03 50.61 53.77 51.23 52.03 All A. s Crude 30.67 30.11 37.92 43.81 40.70 36.25 37.46 36.62 36.82 Standardized 30.55 30.82 37.90 42.76 40.49 36.00 37.86 36.07 36.82 Persons 5-09 0.19 0.84 1.16 1.86 1.69 2.40 0.30 0.56 1.06 10-14 15.08 15.43 26.17 25.54 18.78 21.06 18.87 20.01 19.85 15-29 69.39 70.19 76.15 79.24 78.30 76.36 77.66 75.92 75.58 30-44 82.31. 81.47 87.20 90.33 91,22 88.17 87.05 83.60 86.42 45-59 63.39 67.39 71.12 75.35 76.36 65.97 71.50 72.19 71.14 60+ 30.95 32.21 33.55 43.87 44,21 41.94 37.43 28.80 36.17 10 & Over Crude 64.44 59.23 64.81 71.67 65.90 60.26 63.97 62.69 64.06 Standardized 5S.47 59.30 65.45 68.53 67,29 64.64 64.91 63.17 64.06 All Ages Crude 410.33 41.62 46.38 49.52 47.60 45.89 45.37 45.39 45.31 Standardized 41.2A 41.93 46.31 48.60 47,70 45.94 45.79 44.61 45.31 -105- TABLE A1 7 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES (BASED ON USUAL ACTIVITY) BY SEX AND AGE ACCORDING TO THE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED BY THE HOUSEllOLD, RURAL MAHARASiITRA, 1972-73 Size of Land HoldIng Possessed_(In Acres) Age Group No Lsnd 0.01-0.99 1.00-2.49 2.50-4.99 5.00-7.49 7.50-9.99 10.00-19.99 20.00 & Above All MALES 5-9 1.12 1.25 1.13 1.03 0.46 1.13 1.60 1.26 1.18 10-14 22.16 25.59 13.11 16.58 26.96 20.97 19.40 16.47 20.13 15-29 88.48 87.21 82.56 83.02 86.44 81.44 88.91 86.32 86.07 30-44 99.01 99.15 99.04 99.79 98.01 99.59 100.00 99.03 99.20 45-59 94.93 94.66 95.92 97.05 98.29 98.4f0 98.37 97.19 96.73 60 + 63.99 61.82 78.71 62.19 78.12 67.04 57.07 68.63 66.53 10 & Over Crude 77.66 78.46 72.75 74.31 78.68 73.77 76.60 75.76 76.22 All Ages Crude 62.13 63.75 59.22 60.99 64.96 60.35 62.18 61.56 62.10 FENALES 5-9 - 0.75 1.38 1.37 1.35 1.80 1.26 0.84 1.08 10-14 22.78 24.93 24.04 21.27 26.57 18.32 22.08 19.32 22.74 15-29 64.77 69.64 73.27 79.33 79.33 80.25 71.51 61.79 71.90 30-44 83.82 84.13 88.22 84.48 87.10 83.77 87.54 73.40 84.23 45-59 66.46 71.03 68.18 68.51 69.86 62.27 69.10 63.07 67.81 60 + 30.74 20.87 25.90 20.99 25.85 13.64 18.79 22.76 22.46 10 & Over Crude 64.25 60.66 61.05 64.05 67.24 67.19 61.76 53.76 61.95 All Ages Crude 49.85 50.30 51.24 51.08 53.')1 49.67 49.83 44.03 49.91 PERSONS 5-9 0.62 1.00 1.26 1.21 0.93 1. 3 1.49 1.07 1.13 10-14 22.42 25.27 18.36 18.88 26.78 19.87 20.67 17.77 21.35 15-29 76.00 78.12 77.69 81.11 82.95 80.82 80.90 74.50 78.95 30-44 92.04 91.69 93.07 91.80 92.62 91.45 93.37 86.44 91.59 45-59 80.86 82.55 ei.47 83.58 83.12 81.28 84.96 80.34 82.40 60 + 44.30 39.75 50.94 40.38 50.33 42.66 37.18 46.26 43.50 10 & Over Crude 71.14 68.01 68.43 71.15 72.74 71.24 71.42 66.12 69.81 All Ages Crude 56.22 56.93 55.06 55.94 58.96 55.09 56.22 53.21 56.04 -106- TABLE A18 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION HAIT (BASED Otl USUAL ACTIVITY) BY SEX, MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE DECILE AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION CIWUP, IUEAL GUJARAT AND MAIIARVSIITRA, 1972-73 Monthly Per Capita E ypenditure Decile Household OccupatIon GrouP Household Occupation Croup White Clilti- Agricultural White Culti- Agricultural Collar vators Labor Othors All Collar vators Labor Others All R1tRAL GUJARAT RURAL M{AHARASHTRA * MALES 1 47.3 52.1 48.1 45.1 50.0 55.7 53.5 57.6 54.1 55.7 2 34.4 52.9 50.5 41.9 50.9 64.3 53.7 61.1 53.6 57.1 3-4 47.9 52.9 52.5 50.7 52.3 56.9 60.6 62.0 57.4 60.6 5-6 40.0 54.8 58.5 51.2 54.3 58.8 63.1 67.4 62.7 64.2 7-8 47.1 53.3 62.3 55.7 54.0 50.7 62.1 70.0 68.8 64.4 9 48.4 57.9 60.9 51.3 56.5 68.8 64.7 77.3 67.1 67.4 10 58.1 59.9 81.0 62.2 60.4 65.5 61.7 77.1 80.1 65.3 All 47.8 54.4 53.7 50.8 53.6 60.1 60.9 64.5 62.0 62.1 FEMIALFS 1 17.2 44.0 38.8 26.0 39.9 41.5 43.4 49.4 37.8 45.6 2 28.3 42.7 37.5 31.3 40.2 48.1 54.7 50.1 41.6 50.6 3-4 14.2 42.3 43.2 21.9 38.3 32.8 54.2 55.2 39.7 51.6 5-6 9.1 38.1 42.7 25.3 35.9 36.0 50.7 57.0 46.2 51.4 7-8 7.7 37.8 47.7 19.0 35.2 22.6 51.1 62.9 41.2 51.8 9 11.8 39.9 46.7 18.5 35.6 20.1 46.5 67.0 38.3 47.2 10 19.3 34.8 54.3 8.6 31.7 30.4 44.3 68.3 45.4 44.6 All 13.1 39.8 41.7 22.7 36.9 31.2 50.1 55.7 41.4 49.9 PERSONS 1 30.3 48.2 43.5 34.8 45.0 48.4 48.4 53.5 45.6 50.6 2 31.6 47.9 44.4 36.8 45.7 55.6 54.2 55.8 47.5 54.0 3-4 30.7 47.7 30.2 36.8 45.4 43.6 57.3 58.5 48.3 56.0 5-6 24.8 46.6 50.6 38.3 45.2 47.1 56.6 62.1 54.5 57.7 7-8 27.3 45.8 55.4 37.7 44.9 38.4 56.8 66.5 54.8 58.3 9 30.3 48.9 54.0 35.9 46.1 45.1 55.7 72.3 52.3 57.4 10 40.9 47.6 68.4 3b.1 46.5 52.1 53.5 7320 69.1 56.1 All 30.8 47.2 47.8 36.9 45.4 46.4 55.5 60.1 51.6 56.1 PERCENHTAGE D] SZI:1IDtTION OF POPUlATION Males 5.2 67.1 17.3 1.0.5 100.0 5.6 50.6 32.4 11.5 100.0 Females 5.2 67.1 17.1 10.6 '00.0 5.0 50.9 32.4 11.7 100.0 Persons 5.2 67.1 17.2 10.5 100.0 5.3 50.8 32.4 11.6 100.0 *Figures relate to tl,e population aged five years and ovet. TABLE A19 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES (BASED ON CURRENT ACTIVITY DATA) BY SEX, MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURF DECILE AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Rural Gujarat Rural Maharashtra* HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP Mcothly Per Capita Agricultural Agricultural Expenditure Decile White Collar Cultivators Labor Others All White Collar Cultivators Labor Others All MaI a 1 47.3 52.2 48.1 44.7 50.0 55.7 53.7 56.7 53.9 55.3 2 34.4 53.3' 50.4 41.5 51.0 64.3 53.0 61.6 52.6 56.9 3-4 47.9 52.9 52.2 50.6 52.2 56.3 60.3 62.0 57.6 60.4 5-6 40.8 54.8 58.4 50.8 54.2 58.8 63.3 66.9 63.3 64.2 7-8 47.1 53.1 61.5 55.9 53.8 50.7 62.6 70.2 69.2 64.7 9 49.0 57.9 61.3 51.3 56.6 68.9 64.4 77.7 66.0 67.2 10 58.2 59.9 80.9 62.2 60.4 65.5 61.9 75.4 80.8 65.4 All 48.1 54.4 53.5 50.6 53.5 60.0 60.9 64.3 62.0 62.1 Fen7alaa 1 17.1 43.0 37.8 24.4 38.8 41.6 38.3 46.5 34.4 41.9 2 28.3 42.1 36.9 28.9 39.4 44.0 48.8 47.0 38.8 46.5 3-4 13.8 41.2 41.7 22.4 37.4 28.1 48.6 51.7 36.0 47.1 5-6 9.1 36.9 41.9 24.0 34.8 30.4 44.8 51.9 43.8 46.2 7-S 7.6 36.9 47.1 18.5 34.4 20.7 47.7 59.0 37.7 48.4 9 11.8 39.8 45.2 18.5 35.5 19.5 42.0 60.6 35.1 42.8 10 19.2 35.3 53.3 8.1 32.0 25.7 39.5 64.5 42.8 40.0 All 13.0 39.0 40.7 22.0 36.1 27.6 45.1 51.9 38.2 45.6 r-ersons 1 30.2 47.8 43.0 33.7 44.5 48.4 45.8 51.6 43.6 48.5 2 31.6 47.8 44.1 35.4 45.4 53.6 51.0 54.5 45.5 51.8 3-4 30.5 47.2 47.1 37.1 44.9 40.7 54.3 56.8 46.5 53.6 5-6 25.2 46.0 50.1 37.4 44.6 44.2 53.7 59.3 53.6 55.0 7-B 27.3 45.3 54.6 37.6 44.4 37.6 55.4 64.7 53.2 56.8 9 30.6 48.9 53.5 35.9 46.1 44.8 53.4 69.5 50.0 55.2 10 40.9 47.9 67.9 38.8 46.6 50.3 51.4 70.4 68.7 54.1 All 30.9 46.9 47.3 36.5 45.0 44.7 53.0 58.1 50.1 53.9 *Figures re1pre to the population aged five years and over. -108- TABLE A20 Incidence of Unemployment in Terms of Persondays by Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household, Rural India October 1972 - September 1973 Size of Holding (in Acres) Males Females Persons Nil 10.4 18.0 13.2 Less than 1.00 12.9 20.4 15.4 1.00- 2.49 6.8 10.7 8.1 2.50- 4.99 4.2 7.1 5.0 5.00- 7.49 3.2 5.4 3.9 7.50- 9.99 2.3 4.0 2.8 10.00-19.99 2.3 2.8 2.4 20.00 and More 2.6 2.3 2.5 All 6.9 11.3 8.2 Note: The figures are unweighted averages of the values for four subrounds. They are slightly different, therefore, from the widely-quoted esti- mates reporting the incidence of unemployment in rural India as 6.8, 9.9 and 7.8 percent, for males, females and both sexes together, respectively. -109- TABLE A21 Distribution of (a) Persons Classified as Unemployed in Terms of Usual and Current Activity and (b) Unemployed Persondays by Size of Land Holding Rural Gujarat and Maharashtra, 1972-73 Size of Rural Gujarat Rural Maharashtra Land Holding Males Females Persons Males Females Persons (a) UnenpZoyed in Terms of Usual Activity No Land 11.8 8.1 10.8 7.6 8.5 7.7 up to 0.99 40.8 70.2 48.3 35.5 44.7 36.2 1.00 - 2.49 12.6 12.1 12.5 13.0 12.3 13.0 2.50 - 4.99 14.2 -- 10.6 6.5 -- 6.0 5.00 - 7.49 3.8 9.7 5.3 11.4 -- 10.5 7.50 - 9.99 3.6 -- 2.7 6.6 -- 6.1 10.00 - 19.99 5.8 -- 4.3 12.8 -- 11.8 20.00 & More 7.4 -- 5.5 6.6 34.6 8.7 Not Reported -- -- -- -- -- -- All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (b) Unemployed in Terms of Current Activity No Land 12.8 19.2 15.7 8.4 13.8 11.5 up to 0.99 36.2 46.1 40.7 30.9 37.6 34.7 1.00 - 2.49 8.3 6.2 7.3 10.5 17.3 14.4 2.50 - 4.99 21.1 10.7 16.3 14.8 11.5 12.9 5.00 - 7.49 10.6 9.3 10.0 11.5 8.9 10.0 7.50 - 9.99 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 10.00 - 19.99 6.1 5.4 5.8 15.9 5.3 9.9 20.00 & More 4.1 1.8 3.1 6.1 3.8 4.8 Not Reported -- 0-.2 0.1 -- -- -- All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (c) UnempZoyed Persondays No Land 13.3 16.5 14.7 12.1 14.9 13.5 ulp to 0.99 38.8 44.8 41.5 29.1 32.7 31.0 1.00 - 2.49 10.9 8.9 10.0 12.0 13.8 12.9 2.50 - 4.99 15.4 12.1 13.9 14.0 13.3 13.6 5.00 - 7.49 7.4 6.1 6.8 10.9 9.4 10.1 7.50 - 9.99 2.0 2.2 2.1 3.6 3.2 3.1 10.00 - 19.99 7.0 4.9 6.1 11.3 8.0 9.6 20.00 & More 4.8 4.1 4.4 7.1 4.7 5.8 Not Reported 0.4 0.6 0.5 -- -- -- All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE A22 INCIDENCE OF UNEMPLOYMENT (BASED ON USUAL ACTIVITY) BY SEX AND AGE, ACCORDING TO THE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING (IN ACRES), RURAL GUJARAT, 1972-73 Size of Land Holding (In Acres) Age Group Nil 0,0-1.0 1.0-2.5 2.5-5.0 5.0-7.5 7.5-10 | 10-20 1 20 or More Not Reported All J MALES 5-9 ------ --- --- --- --- ---__ _ 10-14 --- 2.16 0.79 6.32 --- 2.97 3.44 --- --- 2.39 15-29 2.81 2.62 2.50 0.83 0.56 0.41 0.16 0.94 --- 1.25 30-44 o.i2 1.18 0.21 --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.28 45-59 --- 0.24 ___ --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.05 60+ --- 1.28 ---- -- --- --- --- --- 0.18 All Ages 1.33 1.62 1.09 0.68 0.22 0.37 0.22 0.45 --- 0.73 FEMALES 59 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ___-l 10-14 --- 4.36 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.52 15-29 1.16 1.90 1.43 --- 0.61 --- --- --- --- 0.53 30-44 --- 1.71 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.29 45-59 --- 0.44 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.07 60+ --°- - - - - - - - .°O All Ages 0.54 1.71 0.54 --- 0.26 ---0.38 PERSONS 5-9 ---- --- --- --_- --_ --- --- ---__ 10-14 --- 3.03 0.41 2.94 --- 1.84 1.59 --- --- 1.50 15-29 2.19 2.35 2.08 0.45 0.58 0.23 0.09 0.58 --- 0.95 30-44 0.18 1.37 0.13 --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.28 45-59 --- 0.30 --- --- --- --- --- 0.05 60+ --- 0.92 --- --- --- --- 0- --- --- G.15 All Ages 1.04 1:65 0.87 0.38 0.24 0.22 0.13 0.28 --- 0.59 Note: "---" indicates that no person in the specific age group and in households with the given size of land holding was reported to be un-ployed in terms of his usual activity. TABLE A23 INCIDENCE OF UNEM1'LOYMENT (BASED ON USUAL ACTIVITY) BY SEX AND ACE, ACCORDING TO THE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING (IN ACRES), RURAL MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Size of Land Holding Possessed (In Acres) Age Group No Land 0.01-0.99 1.00-2.49 2.50-4.99 5.00-7.49 7.50-9.99 10.00-19.99 20.00 & Above All MALES 10-14 1.21 1.91 - 2.84 1.57 1.98 1.69 - 1.51 15-29 1.45 3.08 2.34 0.61 1.54 1.93 1.21 0.98 1.67 30-44 - 0.11 0.22 - - - - - 0.05 45-59 _- - _ _ _ _ 60+ - - - - - _ _ _ _ 10 and Over 0.60 1.23 0.82 0.33 0.65 0.74 0.55 0.36 0.68 FEMALES 10-14 - - - - - 15-29 0.16 0.43 0.20 - - - - 0.62 0.19 30-44 _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ 45-59 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 60+ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 and Over 0.06 0.16 0.07 - - - - 0.23 0.07 PERSONS 10-14 0.70 1.00 - 1.27 0.86 1.23 0.84 - 0.77 15-29 0.87 1.86 1.28 0.30 0.82 0.94 0.72 o.83 0.99 30-44 - 0.06 0.10 - - - - - 0.02 45-59 _- _ _ _ _ 60+ - - _ _ _ 10 and Over 0.37 0.75 0.46 0.18 0.36 0.41 0.32 0.31 0.411 -112- TABLE A24 INCIDENCE OF UNE15LOYMENT BASED ON USUAL ACTIVI'IY BY SEX, MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITUPRE DECILE AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP, RUKAL CUJAR.AT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Household Occupation Group Household Occupation Group MPCE W'hite Cultivators Agricultural Others All White Cultivators Agricultural Others All Decile Collar Labor Collar Labor RllRAL GUJARAT RURAL MAIIARASHITRA Hales 1 15.2 0.5 0.6 4.2 0.9 - 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.1 2 - - 0.4 3.6 0.4 12.4 - 0.4 1.3 0.5 3-4 4.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.9 0.6 - 0.6 0.8 0.4 5-6 5.3 0.2 0.7 1.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.4 O.9 7-8 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.7 0.6 - 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.0 9 - 0.2 - 5.7 0.7 - 0.6 - - 0.4 10 3.0 0.6 1.8 3.5 1.2 0.6 - 0.7 0.5 0.3 All 1.3 0.4 0.6 2.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 Females 1 - - 1.3 1.0 0.5 - - - 0.3 N 2 - 0.5 1.2 4.6 0.9 - - 0.2 - 0.1 3--4 - - 0.7 2.0 0.3 _ - - _ _ 5-6 12.2 - 0.6 0.3 0.3 - - _ _ _ 7-8 15.5 - 0.7 - 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.4 0.2 9 - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 5.9 - - - 0.4 3.4 - - 1.8 0.4 All 4.8 0.1 0.8 1.3 0.3 0.7 N N 0.2 0.1 PC--sons * t-,- .,7 4,- ^ ^ ? 7 - 0.4; ',8O.5 n.6 2 - 0.2 n.7 4.1 0.6 6.8 - 0.3 0.7 n.3 3-4 3.2 0.4 1.0 1.5 0.7 0.4 - 0.3 0.5 0.2 5-6 6.6 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 7-8 2.4 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 - 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.6 9 - 0.1 - 4.4 0.4 - 0.3 - - 0.2 10 3.6 0.4 1.1 3.0 0.9 1.5 - 0.4 0.8 0.4 All 1.0 0.3 0.3 2.0 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 -113- TABLE A25 INCIDENCE OF UNEMeLOYNENT (BASED ON CURRENT ACTIVITY) BY SEX, MONTHLY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE DECILE AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION GROUP, RURAL GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTRA, 1972-73 Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Decile Pousehnld Occupation Croup Househol-l Occupation Group White Culti- Agricultural White Culti- Agricultural Collar vators Labor Others All Collar vators Labor Others All RURAL CUJARAT RURAL MAIARASHTRA MALES 1 25.9 2.3 3.8 9.5 3.6 - 1.3 7.4 0.7 4.3 2 - 1.2 3.6 5.8 2.2 12.5 1.5 4.4 2.6 3.2 3-4 6.6 1.1 3.4 2.3 2.0 0.6 0.9 3.8 1.9 2.2 5-6 5.2 1.1 3.4 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.7 5.3 0.9 3.4 7-8 0.2 0.6 4.1 2.0 1.0 - 2.3 3.2 1.7 2.4 9 2.6 0.4 1.9 6.4 1.2 2.1 1.9 3.5 1.7 2.2 10 5.6 1.9 3.0 4.2 2.6 1.9 1.0 1.4 3.4 1.5 All 4.5 1.1 3.6 3.5 1.9 1.6 1.8 4.6 1.7 2.7 FEMALES 1 23.1 1.1 8.3 6.6 4.2 3.0 3.8 15.5 12.0 10.8 2 - 1.3 6.7 13.4 3.3 8.6 3.1 7.8 10.9 6.3 3-4 - 0.4 6.6 8.9 2.5 - 2.6 9.5 6.8 5.8 5-6 12.2 0.9 7.8 2.7 2.5 - 1.9 7.7 3.9 4.1 7-8 22.5 0.2 7.7 4.1 1.5 - 2.1 4.2 3.4 2.8 9 12.2 0.9 7.0 7.9 2.1 1.9 1.4 8.3 1.1 3.0 10 6.0 0.7 8.8 - 1.4 4.0 0.5 4.4 2.0 1.5 All 8.4 0.7 7.4 6.6 2.5 1.6 2.2 8.7 6.0 5.0 PERSONS 1 25.0 1.8 5.8 8.4 3.8 1.3 2.3 11.1 5.4 7.2 2 - 1.2 4.8 8.8 2.6 10.9 2.3 5.8 6.2 4.5 3-4 5.1 0.8 4.3 4.2 2.2 0.4 1.7 6.5 3.9 3.8 5-6 6.5 1.1 5.3 2.1 2.0 1.3 2.4 6.4 2.2 3.7 7-8 3.4 0.4 5.6 2.5 1.2 - 2.2 3.6 2.3 2.6 9 4.4 0.6 4.0 6.7 1.5 2.0 1.7 5.5 1.5 2.5 10 5.7 1.5 5.2 3.7 2.2 2.3 0.8 2.7 3.1 1.5 All 5.3 1.0 5.2 4.4 2.2 1.6 2.0 6.4 3.4 3.7 -114- TABLE A26 CLASS OF WOllKER DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYED PERSONS (IN TERMS OF USUAL ACTIVITY) BY SEX AND SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED, RURAL GUJARAT, 1972-73 Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household (in Acres) Class of llorkhr No Land 0.01-0.99 1.00-2.49 2.50-4.99 5.00-7.49 7.50-9.99 10.00-19.99 20.00 & Above All MALES A. Self-Employed 31.8 19.7 54.9 71.4 72.4 74.2 76.2 81.4 60.3 (1) On-Farm 6.6 4.6 51.5 69.1 70.2 72.8 74.9 80.8 54.5 (2) Non-Farm 25.2 15.2 3.3 2.3 2.2 1.4 1.3 0.7 5.7 B. Employees 64.7 76.8 37.4 15.4 9.5 7.2 6.8 4.2 27.5 (I) Regular - on-farm 5.9 9.4 2.5 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.1 2.4 3.2 (2) Regular - non-farm 10.0 17.5 10.7 4.3 3.8 2.2 3.8 1.2 7.0 (3) Casual Laborers 48.8 49.9 24.3 9.8 4.8 4.1 1.9 0.6 17.3 C. Family Worl.ers 3.6 3.5 7.8 13.2 18.1 18.7 17.0 14.4 12.2 (1) On-Farm 0.7 0.8 7.2 13.0 18.1 18.5 17.0 14.3 11.4 (2) Non-Farm 2.8 2.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 - 0.1 0.8 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 FEMALE S A. Self-E.nploy.d 8.7 5.1 28.4 26.7 22.6 20.5 16.0 11.4 17.6 (1) On-Farm 3.8 2.9 28.2 26.4 22.4 20.2 14.8 10.4 16.5 (2) Non-Frrm 5.0 2.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 B. Eniployees 76.3 85.3 30.3 15.5 5.9 5.4 3.2 1.9 25.1 (1) Regul&r - on-farm 0.7 6.4 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.5 0.3 1.1 1.5 (2) Regul;r - non-farm 2.2 4.7 0.9 0.4 . 0.4 - 0.1 0.4 1.1 (3) Casual Laborers 73.5 74.2 28.6 15.0 4.4 4.9 2.9 0.4 22.4 C. Family Wo.kers 15.0 9.7 41.3 57.7 71.5 74.1 80.8 86.7 57.4 (1) On-Farm 5.3 5.1 40.1 56 ' 71.1 74.1 80.3 86.3 55.6 (2) Non-Farm 9.7 4.6 1.2 1.3 0.4 . - 0.5 0.4 1.8 All 100.0 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 '00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 PERSONS A. Seif-Emplayed 23.3 14.5 . 44.3 51.7 51.8 52.8 51.6 54.5 43.2 (1) On-Fans 5.5 4.0 42.2 50.2 50.4 51.8 50.4 53.7 39.4 (2) Non-Farm 17.7 10.5 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.2 0.8 3.9 B. Employees 69.0 79.8 34.6 15.5 8.0 6.5 5.3 3.3 26.6 (1) Regular - on-farm 4.0 8.3 1.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 1.9 2.5 (2) Regular - non-farm 7.2 13.0 6.8 2.5 2.4 1.3 2.3 0.9 4.7 (3) Casual Laborers 57.9 58.5 26.0 12.1 4.6 4.4 2.3 0.6 19.4 C. Family Workers 7.8 5.7 21.2 32.9 40.2 40.8 43.1 42.2 30.2 (1) On-Fans 2.4 2.3 20.4 32.2 40.0 40.7 42.8 42.0 29.0 (2) Non-Farm 5.4 3.4 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.2 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -115- TABLE A27 CLASS OF WORI;IR VISTRIIITrlON 01' EMPLOYED P?WSoNS (IN I'ERMS OF USUAL ActTIVIT\') BY SEX AND SIZE: OF LAND HOI.DINc roSsEbsED, IRURAL MAILARASllTRA, 1972-73 Size of LAnd Ho,lding Posscssed (In Acres) Class of Worker No Lc,,,d 0.01. ,00-2,49 2.50-4.99 _5.00.7.49 7.50-9.99 10.00-19.99 20.00 & Above All MALES A. Self-Employed 11.9 17.7 37.2 43.7 47.4 56.7 53.3 51.5 38.6 (1) On-Farm 0.8 2.8 31.0 39.6 44.2 52.0 50.9 48.6 32.0 (2) Non-Farm 11.1 14.9 6.3 4.1 3.2 4.6 2.4 2.9 6.6 B. Enploycs 84.4 78.1 52.o 39.7 36.7 20.6 17.7 10.2 44.1 (1) Regular - on-farm 10.9 14.6 9.5 - 6.4 5.9 3.4 3.8 3.5 7.7 (2) Regular - non-farm 18.1 8.5 4.7 4.2 4.2 1.8 2.4 1.9 5.7 (3) Casual Laborers 55.5 55.0 37.9 29.2 26.6 15.4 11.6 4.8 30.7 C. Family Workers 3.7 4.2 10.7 16.6 15.9 22.8 29.0 38.4 17.4 (1) On-Farm 1.0 1.2 8.7 15.1 15.2 21.9 28.8 38.0 15.9 (2) Non-Farm 2.7 3.0 2.1 1.5 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.3 1.5 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 loo.o FEMALES A. Self-Employed 5.6 7.3 14.3 9.4 7.4 3.6 4.5 2.2 7.2 (1) On-Fnrnm - 5.2 13.5 8.1 7.0 3.0 4.2 2.2 5.8 (2) Non-Farm 5.6 2.1 0.7 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 - 1.3 B. Eaplo; nes 88.5 83.5 45.8 39.8 31.9 21.7 17.1 7.7 44.9 (1) Regul;r - on-farm 1.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 - - - - 0.3 (2) Regul..r - non-farm 2.7 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.9 - 0.4 - 0.8 (3) Casua' Laborers 83.9 81.9 45.0 39.2 30.9 21.7 16.7 7.7 43.8 C. Family Workers 6.0 9.2 39.9 50.8 60.7 74.7 78.5 90.1 48.0 (1) On+-Fa:m 2,0 4.6 37.6 49,4 59.9 73.6 77.4 90.1 45.9 (2) Non-Farm 4.o 4.6 2.3 1.5 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.0 2.1 All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 PERSONS A. .elf-F.mployed 9.2 13.0 26.0 27.7 29.3 33.1 32.4 32.0 23.1 (1) On-Fann 0.5 3.9 22.5 24.9 27.4 30.2 30.9 30.3 19.1 (2) Non-Farm 8.7 9.1 3.6 2.8 1.9 2.8 1.5 1.8 4.0 B. Employees 86.2 S0.5 49.0 39.8 34.5 21.1 17.4 9.2 47.8 (1) Regular - on-farm 7.02 8.2 4.9 3.5 3.2 1.9 2.2 2.1 10.1 (2) Regular - noni-farm 11,5 5.2 2.7 2.5 2.7 1.0 1.5 1.2 3.3 (3) Casual Laborers 67.7 67.1 41.4 33.9 28.6 18.2 13.8 5.9 34.3 C. Family Woskers 4.7 6.5 25.0 32.5 36.2 45.9 50 2 58.8 29.1 (I) On-Farm 1.4 2.7 22.8 31.0 35.4 44.9 49.6 58.5 27.4 (2) Non-l'arm 3.2 3.7 2.2 1.5 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.2 1.7 All 100.0 1).0 100.0 I100.O 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE A28 OCCVtPATIONAL. DISTRIBLrrl(OE OF ?WI fIPLMFED tOFUL.ATMIBY SIZE OF LAND HOLDINGC POSSESSED BY lILE HOUSEIIOL.D ANI) 5SEX. RURAL GUJARAT. 1972-73 Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household (in Acres) Occupation No Land 0.01-0.99 1.00-2.4.9 2.50-4.99 5.00-7.49 7.00-9.99 10.00-19.99 20.00 4 Above All 94LF.S 1. Agricultural Work 57.84' 63.49 84.18 92.27 91.64 94.97 94.51 97.69 85.19 (a) owner or Tenant cultivators 3.87 3.30 55.21 79.61 85.60 88.37 89.63 93.15 63.30 (b) Agricultural Laborers 45.79 53.51 23.97 8.66 3.27 3.43 2.57 2.73 17.84 (c) OLher Agricultural. Forestry & FLshLng 8.18 6.68 5.00 4.00 2.77 3.17 2.31 1.81 4.05 2. Miners 6 Quarryono 0.06 0.22 - 0.11 - - - - 0.06 3. Manufacturing 21.24 18.78 8.55 5.36 4.74 2.69 2.42 0.66 7.71 (a) Spinners, Weavers, etc. 1.25 1.68 3.27 0.79 - 0.48 0.06 0.23 0.86 (b) Other Production Workers 19.99 17.10 5.28 4.57 4.74 2.21 2.36 0.43 6.85 4. Construction Workers 0.59 0.75 0.58 0.21 - - - - 0.27 5. Sales Workers 7.77 5.58 0.84 0.53 1.25 0.82 0.45 0.57 2.05 6. Transport Occupations 0.62 0.13 - -- - - - 0.06 7. Professionals 4.49 3.85 0.75 -0.50 0.76 0.17 0.81 0.80 1.54 S. Administrative 6 Clerical 2.41 3.66 3.50 0.78 1.16 0.82 1.48 0.28 1.76 9. Barbers, La.mderers and Other Service Workers 4.18 2.87 1.61 0.25 0.45 0.54 0.33 - 1.16 10. Unclassified 0.81 0.68 - - - - - - 0.18 11. All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.01) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 FEMALES 1. Agricultural Work 75.13 84.62 94.65 94.94 97.16 97.73 98.20 98.62 93.74 (a) Owner or Tenant cultivator. 1.83 2.98 46.64 59.29 71.82 72.11 75.76 82.89 54.78 (b) Agricultural Laborera 61.22 74.93 26.88 12.05 4.53 2.87 4.10 3.37 21.61 (c) Other Agricu1t.ral, Forestry 6 Fishing 12.08 6.71 21.13 23.60 20.81 72.75 18.34 12.36 17.35 2. Miners 6 Quarrymen - - - - - - - - - 3. Manufacturing 16.88 7.99 4.05 4.44 2.57 1.76 1.60 1.04 4.25 (a) Spinners, Weavers, etc. 2.16 0.36 0.43 0.57 - - 1.03 1.0/. 0.64 (b) Other Productlon Workers 14.72 7.63 3.62 3.87 2.57 1.76 0.57 - 3.61 4. Construction Workers 1.67 0.18 0.22 - - - - -0.13 5. Sales Workers 3.45 1.41 0.29 0.05 ---0.44 6. Transport Occupations - - - - - - -- - 7. Professionals 2.15 1.99 0.40 - 0.24 - -0.35 0.55 S. Adninistrative 6 Clerical - 0.18 - 0.17 0.02 - - - 0.05 9. Barbers, Launderers and Other Service W/riers 0.71 3.18 0.40 0.47 - 0.51 0.20 -0.75 10. Unclassified - 0.46 - - - - - 0.07 11. All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1. Agricultural Work 64.17 70.99 88.35 93.43 93.97 96.05 96.02 93.05 88.60 (a) Ower or Tcnant cultivators 3.12 3.19 51.79 70.64 79.89 81.89 83.58 89.20 59.91 (b) Agricultural Laborers 51.44 61.11 25.13 10.15 3.79 3.21 . 3.20 2.98 19.34 (c) Other Agricultural. Forestry 6 Fishing 9.61 6.69 11.4 3 12.64 10.24 10.95 8.84 5.87 9.35 2. Kirers 1. Quarrysen 0.04 0.14 - 0.06 - - - - 0.04 3. Manufacturing 19.64 14.95 6.76 4.95 3.84 2.32 2.09 0.81 6.33 (a) Spinners, Weavers, etc. 1.58 1.21 2.14 0.69 - 0.79 0.46 0.54 0.77 (b), Other Production Work'ers 18.06 13.74 4.62 4.26 3.8. 21.03 1.63 0.27 5.56 4. Conetruction Workers 0.99 0.54 0.43 0.11 - - - - 0.11 S. Sales Workers 6.19 4.10 0.62 0.31 0.73 0.49 0.27 0.35 1.45 6. Transport Occupations 0 .4t, 0.08 - - - - - - 0.04 7. Professionals 3.64 3.19 0.61 1.28 0.55 0.101 0.46 0. 62 1.11 B. Adoinistrative 6 rtetical 1.12 2.43 2.10 0.09 0.69 0.417 0.87 ). 17 1.08 9. torl.,.rs, T.ajndc-r,rs end Othter Sinrv1c, Workers 2.00 2.98 1.12 0.3'. 0.37 (1.5 3 0.2/ - 1.0or 10. Unclassified 0.01 0.60 - - - - - -0.1-3 11. All 100.(0 19n.00 ni,.00 I 011.~ 1 39.00 1,;,.W 19ŽItv. 0 ;'l0.f) 011.9'0 -117- TABLZ A29 OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBtITION OF TilE tPLOfED POPULATION 8Y SIZE OF LAND HOLDING POSSESSED BY TliE llOUSEllOLD AND SEX, RURAL NAIIARASIITRA, 1972-73 Size of Land Holding Possessed by the Household (in Acres) Occupaelon No Land 0,01-0.99 1,00-2.49 2,50-4.99 5.00-7,49 7,50-9.99 10,00-19.99 0.00 & Above All t4ALES 1. Agricultural Work 64.10 69.11 83.94 87.44 89.06 91.89 93.45 93.31 83.39 (a) Owner or Tenant 1.33 3.48 38.04 52.31 57.29 71.31 78.10 84.27 46.32 cultivators (b) Agricultural Laborers 58.32 60.89 41.02 31.24 28.86 17.48 13.23 6.19 33.44 (c) Other Agricultural, Forestry & Fishing 4.45 4.74 4.88 3.89 2.91 3.10 2.12 2.85 3.63 2. Miners and Quarrymen - - - - 0.19 - - 0.07 0.03 3. Manufacturing 14.77 17.86 10.88 7.63 5.35 3.45 3.15 2.60 8.78 (a) Spinners, Weavers, etc. 0.67 0.56 - 0.15 0.14 - 0.13 - 0.23 (b) Other Production Workers 14.10 17.30 10.88 7.48 5.21 3.45 3.02 2.60 8.55 4. Construction Workers 2.76 0.72 0.55 0.64 0.98 - 0.16 - 0.70 5. Sales Workers 2.90 3.40 1.59 0.92 1.22 1.91 0.81 1.50 1.80 6. Transport Occupations 0.05 0.25 0.15 0.12 0.37 0.07 - - 0.13 7. Professionals 5.63 2.07 0.27 1.27 1.05 0.92 0.63 0.85 1.53 8. Administrative & Clerical 6.65 3.56 1.35 1.32 1.43 0.64 1.31 1.48 2.29 9. Barbers, Launderers and Otber Service Workers 3.13 3.04 1.28 0.64 0.36 1.12 0.50 0.2C 1.33 10. All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 FEMALES 1. Agricultural Work 82.88 86.69 92.79 93.65 95.54 97.13 96.68 97.01 92.02 (a) Owner or Tenant 1.21 8.50 49.17 56.83 66.37 75.63 80.64 90.62 50.36 cultivators (b) Agricultural Laborers 80.08 75.72 41.22 35.88 28.43 20.05 14.46 5.30 40.04 (c) Other Agricultural, Forestry & Fishing 1.59 2.47 2.40 0.94 0.74 1.45 1.58 1.09 1.62 2. Miners and Quarrymen - - - - - - - - - 3. Manufacturing 7.61 10.78 5.58 4.86 2.80 1.80 2.26 2.60 5.25 (a) Spinners, Weavers, etc. 1.01 0.36 - 0.18 0.30 - - - 0.22 (b) Other Production Workers 6.60 10.42 5.58 4.68 2.50 1.80 2.26 2.60 5.03 4. Construction Workers 1.91 0.03 0.37 0.61 0.83 0.28 0.36 0.09 0.52 5. Sales Workers 2.84 1.33 0.57 0.18 0.09 0.52 0.16 0.27 0.72 6. Transport Occupations - - - - - - - - - 7. Professionals 1.33 0.52 0.06 0.27 0.23 - 0.16 - 0.32 8. Adninistratlve & Clerical 2.19 0.12 0.08 0;22 0.06 0.28 0.22 - 0.32 9. Barbers, Launderers and Other Service Workers 1.27 0.44 0.57 0.25 0.45 - 0.18 - 0.40 10. All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 !00.00 100.09 100.09 100.0' PERSONS 1. Agricultural Work 72.12 77.08 88.22 90.35 92.01 94.21 94.85 94.77 87.41 (a) Owners or Tenant 1.27 5.76 43.45 54.42 61.41 73.23 79.18 86.73 48.23 cultivators (b) Agri,ultural Laborers 67.61 67.58 41.12 33.42 28.67 18.62 13.76 5.84 36.46 (c) Other Agricultural, Forestry 6 Fishing 3.24 3.74 3.65 2.51 1.93 2.36 1.91 2.15 2.72 2. Miners and Quarrym,n- - - - 0.10 - - 0.0. 0.02 3. Manufacturing 11.70 14.65 8.29 6.32 4.21 2.70 2.76 2.61 7.22 (a) Spinners, Weavers, ctc. 0.81 0.46 - 0.16 0.22 - 0.07 - 0.23 (b) Other Production Workers 10.90 14.19 8.29 6.16 3.99 2.70 2.69 2.69 6.99 4. Construction Workers 2.40 0.43 0.46 0.63 0.92 0.13 0.25 0.04 0.61 S. Sales Workers 2.88 2.46 1.10 0.56 0.70 1.30 0.53 1.02 1.31 6. Transpoit Occupations 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.20 0.04 - - 0.07 7. Professionals 3.79 1.38 0.16 0.81 0.68 0.51 0.43 0.51 1.00 B. Adu,1nJ.tr.tive & Clerical 4.74 2.02 0.73 0.81 0.80 0.49 0.84 0.92 1.42 9. Barbers, Launderers and Other Service Vorkers 2.33 i.88 0.93 0.45 0.39 0.62 0.37 O.l1 0.91 10. All 100.0o 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0o 100o.00 10.00 100.00 100.00 M6ote: Persons hone caper 30tI w- n-t r-.urdc.d or unclsroif 3 -.1 occso,i,-lI. f.r 0.81, 0.16 n-.: :.52 percent of "ae, fe.410 and all wori, ro* rc,,pc,aEv- ly y, i y hnv.. b,t irn. tIc .3 iNC r O ... 1 .1f1 .de,u., ."ove. HG3881.5 .W57 W67 no.459 c.3 VisariaJ Prayin M. Size of land holding, living standards, and employment in - - -r