prasad1
Active member
We can get a measure of the rural poverty from the fact that 38.3 per cent of households are landless and earn mostly from casual labour, notes Subir Roy
It is not as if we did not know a lot of this, but it is still very useful that the Socio-Economic and Caste Census 2011 definitively tells us the following: India remains predominantly rural. Altogether, 73.5 per cent of Indian households live in the countryside.
The comparable figure for China is 47 per cent (in 2013).
Less than half of rural households are engaged in agriculture.
Of all rural households, only 30 per cent are engaged in cultivation.
So, the role of agriculture as the main source of livelihood in rural India is not all that it has been cracked up to be.
The clear task ahead is to find enough jobs away from agriculture not just for those entering the job market but also those who wish to quit an overcrowded sector.
Manual casual labour is the key source of rural livelihood.
Over half of rural households, 51 per cent, earn their livelihood by doing odd jobs.
These could be in cultivation, during key agricultural seasons like the times of planting and harvesting, but they could as well be in any other activity. Or the absence of work in rural areas can and does lead to migration to cities.
A colossal three-fourths of rural Indians earn less than Rs 5,000 per month.
In 74.5 per cent of rural households, the highest-earning member earns less than Rs 5,000 per month.
A household can have more than one earning member, and children are usually roped in to help earn something, so total household income will be higher -- but this 'three-fourths' benchmark gives a measure of how poor most in rural India are.
Over a third of rural household own no land.
To make a dent on poverty that is both immediate and long-term, it is vital to both raise the level of expenditure on public health and education and improve the way it is spent.
Out-of-pocket expenditure on health, and even the poor pursuing private education, immediately impact poverty.
Over time, a better-educated and healthier workforce can only facilitate higher growth.
Higher social-sector expenditure can result from higher overall growth; but better utilising what is spent is more challenging.
Government initiatives in two areas can have an immediate impact.
Higher public expenditure on infrastructure, particularly building rural roads, can impact rural wages.
Better watershed management and water harvesting can, through higher crop yields, impact the income of the 30 per cent rural households who own unirrigated land.
http://www.rediff.com/business/column/clumn-india-remains-mostly-rural-and-poor/20150715.htm
It is not as if we did not know a lot of this, but it is still very useful that the Socio-Economic and Caste Census 2011 definitively tells us the following: India remains predominantly rural. Altogether, 73.5 per cent of Indian households live in the countryside.
The comparable figure for China is 47 per cent (in 2013).
Less than half of rural households are engaged in agriculture.
Of all rural households, only 30 per cent are engaged in cultivation.
So, the role of agriculture as the main source of livelihood in rural India is not all that it has been cracked up to be.
The clear task ahead is to find enough jobs away from agriculture not just for those entering the job market but also those who wish to quit an overcrowded sector.
Manual casual labour is the key source of rural livelihood.
Over half of rural households, 51 per cent, earn their livelihood by doing odd jobs.
These could be in cultivation, during key agricultural seasons like the times of planting and harvesting, but they could as well be in any other activity. Or the absence of work in rural areas can and does lead to migration to cities.
A colossal three-fourths of rural Indians earn less than Rs 5,000 per month.
In 74.5 per cent of rural households, the highest-earning member earns less than Rs 5,000 per month.
A household can have more than one earning member, and children are usually roped in to help earn something, so total household income will be higher -- but this 'three-fourths' benchmark gives a measure of how poor most in rural India are.
Over a third of rural household own no land.
To make a dent on poverty that is both immediate and long-term, it is vital to both raise the level of expenditure on public health and education and improve the way it is spent.
Out-of-pocket expenditure on health, and even the poor pursuing private education, immediately impact poverty.
Over time, a better-educated and healthier workforce can only facilitate higher growth.
Higher social-sector expenditure can result from higher overall growth; but better utilising what is spent is more challenging.
Government initiatives in two areas can have an immediate impact.
Higher public expenditure on infrastructure, particularly building rural roads, can impact rural wages.
Better watershed management and water harvesting can, through higher crop yields, impact the income of the 30 per cent rural households who own unirrigated land.
http://www.rediff.com/business/column/clumn-india-remains-mostly-rural-and-poor/20150715.htm
