Content uploaded by s.M. Rahaman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by s.M. Rahaman on Sep 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABLE RURAL LIVELIHOOD SECURITY IN INDIAN CONTEXT: A REVIEW
*1
Malangmei, L.,
1
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, WB
2
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur, Bihar
3
College of Agriculture, OUAT, Chip
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Economists of all over the world have been shown a great concern on livelihood security of the rural
people living in developing countries. Conceptually ‘livelihood’ denotes the means, activities,
entitlements and assets by which people make a living. Asse
water), social (community, family and social networks), political (participation and empowerment),
human (education, labour, health and nutrition), physical (roads, clinics, markets, schools and
bridges) and economic (jo
ways by various scholars. This is a very broader arena and often misjudged with income security.
Therefore, this paper is aimed to critically examine the existing literature and
interpretations regarding the different facets of livelihood security.
Copyright © 2015 Malangmei et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
INTRODUCTION
Livelihood has been defined as an adequate flow of resources
(both cash and kind) to meet the basic needs of the people,
access to social institutions relating to kinship, family and
neighbourhood, village and gender bias free property rights
required to s
upport and sustain a given standard of living
L
ivelihood security has been understood to encompass
ownership of or access to resources and assets to offset risks,
ease out shocks and meet contingencies (Chamber, 1989:
Redelift, 1990; Chamber and Conway,
1992; Long, 1997;
Complain, 1998; Ellis, 2000; Huq, 2000). More precisely,
livelihood security is about sustainable socio
cultural and political systems along with their constraints,
vulnerabilities, marginalization
and risks. Till the beginning
the nineties, not many studies assessing the livelihood security
across the globe were available in literature. More recently,
however, few studies have attempted to develop measures to
assess livelihood security raising different methodological
issues (Bouis, 1993; Haddad et al.,
1994; CARE, India, 1997;
Drinkwater and Rusinow, 1999; Frank, 2000; David, 1999;
*Corresponding author: Malangmei, L.,
Department of Agricultural Economics
Bidhan Chandra Krishi
Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal-
741252
ISSN: 0975-833X
Article History:
Received 28th July, 2015
Received in revised form
16th August, 2015
Accepted 21st September, 2015
Published online 20th October, 2015
Key words:
Diversity measurement,
Income diversification,
Rural livelihood,
Sustainability.
Citation
:
Malangmeih, L., Rahaman, S.M.,
Haldar, S.
context: A review”, International Journal of Current Research
REVIEW ARTICLE
UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABLE RURAL LIVELIHOOD SECURITY IN INDIAN CONTEXT: A REVIEW
Malangmei, L.,
2Rahaman, S. M., 3Haldar, S. and 1
Bera,
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, WB
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur, Bihar
College of Agriculture, OUAT, Chip
lima, Orissa, India-
768025
ABSTRACT
Economists of all over the world have been shown a great concern on livelihood security of the rural
people living in developing countries. Conceptually ‘livelihood’ denotes the means, activities,
entitlements and assets by which people make a living. Assets are defined as natural (land and
water), social (community, family and social networks), political (participation and empowerment),
human (education, labour, health and nutrition), physical (roads, clinics, markets, schools and
bridges) and economic (jobs, saving and credit). Livelihood security has been interpreted in different
ways by various scholars. This is a very broader arena and often misjudged with income security.
Therefore, this paper is aimed to critically examine the existing literature and
interpretations regarding the different facets of livelihood security.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Livelihood has been defined as an adequate flow of resources
(both cash and kind) to meet the basic needs of the people,
access to social institutions relating to kinship, family and
neighbourhood, village and gender bias free property rights
upport and sustain a given standard of living
.
ivelihood security has been understood to encompass
ownership of or access to resources and assets to offset risks,
ease out shocks and meet contingencies (Chamber, 1989:
1992; Long, 1997;
Complain, 1998; Ellis, 2000; Huq, 2000). More precisely,
livelihood security is about sustainable socio
-economic-
cultural and political systems along with their constraints,
and risks. Till the beginning
of
the nineties, not many studies assessing the livelihood security
across the globe were available in literature. More recently,
however, few studies have attempted to develop measures to
assess livelihood security raising different methodological
1994; CARE, India, 1997;
Drinkwater and Rusinow, 1999; Frank, 2000; David, 1999;
Bidhan Chandra Krishi
741252
Rahman and Alam, 2001; Christina
2002; Fazeeha, 2002; Matshali, 2002; Ellis
Distinction between livelihood diversification with Income
diversification
Livelihood Diversification has come under increasing scrutiny
because of its powerful and pervasive impact.
diversification is not synonymous with income diversification.
Income diversification can be defined as the composition of
household inco
mes at a given instant in time. Whereas,
l
ivelihood diversification (LD) refers to a continuous adaptive
process whereby households add new activities, maintain
existing ones or drop others, thereby maintaining diverse and
changing livelihood portfolios. T
diversification is defined as the process by which rural
households construct an increasingly diverse portfolio of
activities and assets in order to survive and to improve their
standard of living
(Ellis, 2000). It is a key strategy
people in many parts of the world try to make ends meet and
improve their well-
being. The literature on livelihood
diversification, which crosses several related fields and
disciplinary approaches, is
characterized
definitions.
Available online at http://www.journalcra.com
International Journal of Current Research
Vol. 7, Issue, 10, pp.21025-21033, October, 2015
INTERNATIONAL
Haldar, S.
and Bera, B.K. 2015. “
Understanding sustainable rural livelihood security in Indian
International Journal of Current Research, 7, (10), 21025-21033.
z
UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABLE RURAL LIVELIHOOD SECURITY IN INDIAN CONTEXT: A REVIEW
Bera,
B. K.
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, WB
-741252
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur, Bihar
-813210
768025
Economists of all over the world have been shown a great concern on livelihood security of the rural
people living in developing countries. Conceptually ‘livelihood’ denotes the means, activities,
ts are defined as natural (land and
water), social (community, family and social networks), political (participation and empowerment),
human (education, labour, health and nutrition), physical (roads, clinics, markets, schools and
bs, saving and credit). Livelihood security has been interpreted in different
ways by various scholars. This is a very broader arena and often misjudged with income security.
Therefore, this paper is aimed to critically examine the existing literature and
draw meaningful
interpretations regarding the different facets of livelihood security.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
Rahman and Alam, 2001; Christina
et al., 2001; CARE, USA,
2002; Fazeeha, 2002; Matshali, 2002; Ellis
et al., 2002).
Distinction between livelihood diversification with Income
Livelihood Diversification has come under increasing scrutiny
because of its powerful and pervasive impact.
Livelihood
diversification is not synonymous with income diversification.
Income diversification can be defined as the composition of
mes at a given instant in time. Whereas,
ivelihood diversification (LD) refers to a continuous adaptive
process whereby households add new activities, maintain
existing ones or drop others, thereby maintaining diverse and
changing livelihood portfolios. T
hus, “rural livelihood
diversification is defined as the process by which rural
households construct an increasingly diverse portfolio of
activities and assets in order to survive and to improve their
(Ellis, 2000). It is a key strategy
by which
people in many parts of the world try to make ends meet and
being. The literature on livelihood
diversification, which crosses several related fields and
characterized
by many terms and
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF CURRENT RESEARCH
Understanding sustainable rural livelihood security in Indian
Livelihood security approach is an integral part of many
organizations working for the poor. This approach evolved
from Sen’s (1981) theory on entitlement. Entitlement refers to
the set of income and resource bundles (e.g. assets,
commodities) over which households can establish control and
secure their livelihoods. The evolution of the concepts and
issues related to the theory of entitlements eventually led to the
development of the broader concept of household livelihood
security (HLS). There is diversity in defining HLS; many of
the definitions were being derived from the work of Chambers
and Conway (1992). In their early work they defined
livelihoods as “the capabilities, assets (stores, resources,
claims and access) and activities required for a means of
living; a livelihood is sustainable when people can cope with
and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance their
capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood
opportunities for the next generation”. Household livelihood
security may also be defined as a family’s or community’s
ability to maintain and improve its income, assets and social
well-being from year to year the relief to rehabilitation to
development continuum (Frankenberger, 1996).
Since the early-1990s, the concept of sustainable livelihood is
dominating the issue of rural development. Among the first
contribution to this area was by Chambers (1987). The concept
of sustainable livelihood has been interpreted in various ways
(Ellis, 2000). The sustainability of livelihoods becomes a
function of how men and women utilize asset portfolios on
both a short and long-term basis. Sustainable livelihoods are
those that are able to cope with and recover from shocks and
stresses such as drought, civil war and policy failure through
adaptive and coping strategies (Jirli et al., 2008). Capability,
equity and sustainability combine in the concept of sustainable
livelihood. The “livelihood becomes sustainable when it can
cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or
enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the
natural resource base” (Scoones, 1998).
The concept, Sustainable Rural Livelihood (SRL) is an attempt
to go beyond the conventional definitions and approaches to
poverty eradication. These had been found to be too narrow
that many researchers focused only on certain aspects or
manifestations of poverty, such as low income, or did not
consider other vital aspects of poverty such as vulnerability and
social inclusion. It is now recognized that more attention must
be given to the various factors and processes which either
constrain or enhance poor people’s ability to make a living in
an economically, ecologically and socially sustainable manner.
The SRL concept offers a more coherent and integrated
approach to poverty alleviation. To achieve sustainable rural
livelihoods different livelihood capitals such as human capital,
social capital, natural capital, physical capital and financial
capital would play a greater role to cope with shocks and
stresses and maintain or enhance the individual’s capabilities
and assets both in present and in the future without degrading
the natural resource base (Dadabhau and Kisan, 2013).
Nature of livelihood diversification found in rural
households
Diversification in rural livelihoods is the subject of conceptual
and policy-based research because income from farming has
come under pressure due to population explosion (Barrett
et al., 2001; Davies, 1993; Ellis, 1998; Bryceson, 1999). It is
being realized for some time that rural people no longer remain
confined to crop production, fishing, forest management or
livestock-rearing but combine a range of occupations to
construct a diverse portfolio of activities (Dercon and
Krishanan, 1996; Ellis, 2000; Unni, 1996). Growth of
agriculture and its diversification are crucial for the growth of
non-agricultural sector as well as overall economy and also for
reducing inter-regional economic disparities. Promotion of the
livestock based integrated farming system and the efficient and
effective self-help groups are the key initiatives to make
farming a profitable and less risky venture, thus sustaining
rural livelihoods and reducing regional inequalities (Kumar
et al., 2006). People diversify their income by adopting a range
of activities. Thus, income sources may include ‘farm income’,
‘non- farm income’ (non-agricultural income sources, such as
non-farm wages and business income), and ‘off-farm income’
(wages of exchange labour on other farms –i.e. within
agriculture, including payment in kind) (Ellis, 2000). Barrett,
et al. (2001) explained that exploiting these off – farm
opportunities could offer a pathway out of poverty for the rural
poor. The rural economy is not based mainly on agriculture but
rather on a diversified array of livelihood activities and
enterprises. Elsewhere, a common pattern for the very poor and
comparatively well off to have the most diversified livelihood,
while the middle ranges of income display less diversity (Ellis,
1999).
Socio-economic composition of rural households
Singh (2013) collected farm household income data in Uttar
Pradesh by taking a sample of 3474 farm households selected
from 24 districts, 42 blocks and 84 villages. Out of the total
farm households surveyed, 60.0 per cent were marginal
farmers, 25.0 per cent were small farmers, 11.4 per cent were
medium farmers and 4.4 per cent were large farmers. In this
context Saha and Bahal (2010) made a modest attempt to
demonstrate that farm and off-farm activities are carried out by
a significant proportion of adults and make an important
contribution to livelihoods in West Bengal. It shows that there
is a high involvement of farm households in different non-farm
income sources along with agricultural income (76.25%).
There was a high involvement of women (24%) also in
different diversification activities. Okere and shittu (2013)
observed that majority of the farm households were in their
economically active years (below 50years of age) and hence
can actively involved in livelihood diversification.
The study clearly indicated that male members dominate
agricultural activities and engaged more in diversified
livelihood activities in the study area. Joshi et al. (2006)
examined that the biggest advantage for smallholders is the
availability of their family labour. Smallholders owned about
4.5 persons/ha as compared to 1.2 persons/ha on medium farms
and 0.5 persons/ha on the large farms. The smallholders thus
had comparative advantage in switching-over to more
remunerative and labour-intensive crops. It was observed that
cultivation of vegetables required 58 per cent more labour than
that by cereals. On an average, vegetable production required
approximately 64 mandays/ha in comparison to 41 mandays for
21026 Malangmei et al. Understanding sustainable rural livelihood security in Indian context: A review
cereals. Earlier, Von Braun (1995) had concluded that
commercialization of agriculture benefits the poor by directly
generating employment and augmenting their income. The
impact of diversification and commercialization would have
direct bearing on poverty alleviation and nutritional security of
the poor households in the developing countries.
Singh (2004) examined the livelihood concerns in Rajasthan
for scarce water resource management. The availability of
work force and its deployment determines the level of
production, consumption, investment and saving pattern of the
households. In the development process of the agriculture
sector, the availability of labour force becomes crucial for the
households. The proportionate availability of labour force
varies between about 59 to 64 per cent across the selected
irrigation schemes. In Ranpur project area, females have the
leading position in the availability of labour force as compared
to other schemes. In Panwar area, they were lagging behind in
proportionate terms from their male counterparts with larger
proportion whereas there was slight difference in Awan and
Parsoli project areas. The analysis shows that the households
living in the command area are endowed with earning hands
than consumptives. The deployment of available labour force is
bifurcated into farm and non-farm sectors. There exists a large
variation in the deployment of available labour force between
these two sectors across the irrigation schemes.
In Parsoli project area, the farm sector was a major absorptive
of available labour force whereas in Ranpur project area, this
sector provided employment to only 42 per cent of the total
labour force engaged in this sector. It is becoming increasingly
evident that sustainable development can be meaningful only if
it takes both men and women into its fold (Rathore et al.,
2000). In many development projects, extension agencies
address only men since they are not sensitised to comprehend
the role of women in the development process. This resulted in
a weak link between women’s participation and development
of natural resources for the enhancement of productivity in the
agricultural sector (Shah, 2000). The rate of female
participation in the farm sector was substantially higher as
compared to males across all the schemes. In Ranpur and
Panwar project areas, more than half of the total labour force
was engaged in nonfarm sector. In case of Ranpur, it is because
of the fact that there are substantial opportunities for non-farm
employment due its location near Kota City. In case of Panwar,
large labour force is deployed in various activities related to
irrigation project at Bisalpur in Tonk district.
Different sources of livelihood diversification adopted by
rural households
Diversification is an integral part of the process of structural
transformation of an economy. Within the agriculture, some of
the sub-sectors are progressively occupying a more significant
place than the crop production, and within the crop-mix, the so-
called superior cereals are progressing faster than the inferior
cereals. However, the factors promoting diversification and the
speed with which the changes occur vary under different
situations (Vyas, 1996). Singh (2004) revealed a positive
relationship between farm size and level of income with the
exception of small and large size of farm in Ranpur and
Panwar project areas respectively. Poor households (marginal)
derive their major share of income from wage employment and
non-farm activities. It is because of the fact that they have
limited size of land holding and have to be dependent upon
other sources for their livelihoods whereas, the subsistence
level of income is concerned, the marginal size of households
in Panwar and Awan project areas were nearly at par
marginally below from the annual required subsistence income
estimate, i.e., Rs. 20,000 per rural family.5 The economic
condition of the poor households was comparatively better in
Ranpur and Parsoli project areas. The per capita income in
different schemes ranges from Rs. 5,840 to Rs. 8,906. In the
comparison of state level estimates of per capita income, i.e.,
Rs. 9,819 during the reference period, the prevailing per capita
income was lower with the certain exception of medium size of
households in the different project areas.
The condition of the poor households in respect of income was
noticeable. In Panwar project area, the per capita income of
larger size households was also very low that is because of the
abnormal size of family, viz., 11 persons. With the given facts,
it may be considered that existing irrigation facilities do not
contribute to farm income as should be expected. Khatun and
Roy (2012) estimated the average annual household income
was Rs. 48372 in West Bengal. They found that the major
source of livelihood for 57.28 percent of households was crop
farming followed by service (27 %) followed by non-farm
wage income (14 %). Singh (2013) examined that the average
household income of a farm household in Uttar Pradesh was
Rs. 129775. Out of this total income, crop husbandry
contributed Rs. 66,437 (51.19 %) followed by livestock sector
with Rs. 16959 (13.07 %). The non agricultural income sources
such as industry and trade, service, wage labour constituted the
rest 35.74 percent of annual income.
Kumar and Upadhyay (2009) estimated the profitability of goat
farming with low cost technology in the arid areas of
Rajasthan. The farmers earned an annual net income of Rs
1,539 to Rs 1,654 per goat and this enterprise contributed
almost 40 percent of the farm income for the sampled
household. The goat and sheep rearing activity generated a
total of 200.6 and 240.6 human-days per annum. In a similar
kind of study, Singh et al. (2013) found that goats are reared by
more than 75 per cent rural households in the form of mixed
farming system in the Bundelkhand region. Goats have been
found contributing 17 percent share to annual household
income in the study area. Prophylactic supports to all livestock
species and fodder interventions have provided additional
income of Rs. 3744 per household/year. The integrated goat-
rearing could generate employment of 224 person-days
annually besides milk for household consumption. Whereas
Gangwar et al. (2013) analyzed socio-economic impact of
poultry based farming system on farmers for their livelihood
security and women empowerment. They found that rearing a
small unit of 10-15 birds in backyard poultry gives a net
income of Rs. 11470/ annum. The study has revealed that
adoption of integrated poultry-fish farming fetch additional
income of Rs. 4000-5000 and employment opportunities for
45-50 human days in addition to the consumption of eggs/fish
and meat adds to food quality and livelihood security of the
resource-poor family.
21027 International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 7, Issue, 10, pp.21025-21033, October, 2015
Salim et al. (2013) assessed the level of livelihood security of
the fisherfolk in India by taking a sample of 4555 fisher
households selected from six fisheries sectors (marine capture,
inland capture, mariculture, fresh water and brackish water
aquaculture and marketing and processing) in 19 states of
India. It has been found that for a better livelihood security, the
respondent households have diversified their income sources
beyond fisheries, the major ones being labour, agriculture, and
business and non-farm activities. The average monthly income
across all sectors was about Rs. 6500, in which about 73
percent was from fisheries. For economic security, a
considerable number (around 40%) of fisher households had
average savings of Rs. 4200 per fisher household. Saha and
Bahal (2010) identified trading (grocery, stationary, tea stall
etc.) as the most prominent diversification activity followed by
livestock especially goat rearing followed by casual labouring
out and rural artisans. It was found that diversification
activities make a greater contribution to cash incomes for
poorer households, as the proportion of total cash income from
off-farm and nonfarm activities is larger for poorer wealth
groups. Women were also engaged in small scale trading in
various markets. They were mostly involved in assisting
trading and handloom activities. Similar observations were
made by Murthy (1983) and Carswell et al. (2000).
Measuring techniques and extent of livelihood security
The idea of measuring well being at the household level is
hardly new. For example, both Belcher and Sewell began
developing scales for measuring levels of living at the
household level in the 1950s (Belcher, 1951, 1972). In the last
two decades the frameworks for household livelihood security
have been explored and developed in a variety of institutions
like the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
and in many departments of applied anthropology (Drinkwater,
1994; Frankenberger, 1992, 1996; Maxwell, 1994). In the last
decade Frankenberger and others have effectively adapted
them as useful programming tools for not-for-profit relief and
development organizations (CARE East Africa, 1996; CARE
India, 1997). A wide range of approaches has been even further
refined during 1997–2000 (Frankenberger et al., 2000).
Lindenberg (2002) analysed livelihood security areas under
five broad dimensions: economic security, food security, health
security, educational security and empowerment. Akter and
Rahaman (2012) proposed to develop a composite set of HLS
indices (HLS) at the household level utilising a set of indicators
representing each of these dimensions using an approach
similar to Hahn et al. (2009). Stressing on agricultural
diversification in favour of livestock economy, L.D. Hatai, C.
Sen and H.P. Singh have evaluated the sustainable agricultural
development for rural livelihood perspective in different
districts of Orissa. They constructed sustainable Agricultural
Development Index (SADI) to establish inter-district priority
for the allocation of resources and upliftment of the rural poor
(Kumar et al., 2006). Thus, the extent of livelihood
diversification can be measured through various indicators, and
indices like number of income sources and their share,
Simpson index, Herfindahl index, Ogive index, Entropy index,
Modified Entropy index, Composite Entropy index etc.
(Shiyani and Pandya, 1998).
Simpson index as a measuring technique of livelihood
security
The pattern of diversification across states/crops in India has
been schematized and various determinants of diversification
have been deciphered by Singh et al. (2006). To objectively
confer the empirical resonance, values of Simpson index have
been estimated. The diversification index (SID) has been found
to range from 0.47 (WB) to 0.90 (Karnataka) in 1990-91 and
from 0.40 (Orissa) to 0.92 (Karnataka) in 2000-01. The
increase in diversification Index signifies shift towards non-
foodgrain crops. In Karnataka, though the Index has increased,
but the similar increases in area under foodgrain imply shift
from coarse to fine cereals. Saha and Bahal (2010) worked out
Simpson Index (SI) for studying the extent of diversification in
West Bengal. The average diversification index in the study
area was found out 0.46. Majority of the diversifiers (60%) had
medium extent of diversification as against only 21.74 per cent
of diversifiers adopted high extent of diversification.
It was found that for a vast majority of the rural population,
livelihood diversification was distress driven. Khatun and Roy
(2012) employed Simpson Index (SI) for studying the extent of
diversification in Burdwan and Purulia district of West Bengal.
The average diversification index in Burdwan district was
found out 0.56 which is far higher than the diversification
index of Purulia district (0.21), indicating that the households
of Burwan districts were engaged in more diversified activities
for income and livelihood than the household of other district .
Torane et al. (2011) used Simpson index to find out the
farming system diversification in North Konkan Region of
Maharashtra. The diversification index of farming systems
ranged from 0.12 to 0.90, indicating a wide variation in
distribution of per-farm income. Of the total farming systems
in the study area, 52 per cent have been found as the diversified
farming systems. Also, the area which is nearer to the sea coast
has shown higher diversification than the area away from the
sea coast. The diversification has revealed a positive co-
relation with profitability which underlines the importance of
combinations of enterprises. Similar results were obtained by
Talathi (2002) in case of fruits and vegetables in Thane district
of Maharashtra.
Herfindahl index as a measuring technique of livelihood
security
Okere and shittu (2013) assessed the level of diversification of
each of the households’ livelihood activities among farm
households using Herfindahl index in Odeda Local
Government Area, Ogun state, Nigeria. The study found that
income from non-farm sources accounted for 67.1 percent of
the farm households’ income and only a few (22.9 %) of the
farm households dependent on only one income source. The
results show that low farm income is a critical factor
encouraging livelihood diversification in the study area.
Pavithra and Vatta (2013) measured the extent of income
diversification in rural Punjab using Herfindahl’s
diversification index. They found that the landless and
marginal farm households derive a sizeable proportion of their
income from non-farm activities. The non-farm income sources
have been found to contribute towards reduction in income
21028 Malangmei et al. Understanding sustainable rural livelihood security in Indian context: A review
inequality. Whereas the same index used by Sharma et al.
(2006) to evaluate the farming systems of mountain region of
Himachal Pradesh shows a relatively less diversified farming
system practiced by the sample households.
Other composite index used for measuring livelihood
security
Akter and Rahaman (2012) employed the inverse of
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index for measuring the degree of
livelihood diversity that accounts both the relative size and
distribution of each source of livelihoods. The value of this
index increases with the increase in the number of sources of
livelihoods, and with the decrease of disparity in the share of
those sources in the livelihood outcome or income. Acharya et
al. (2011) analyzed the nature and extent of crop diversification
in the Karnataka state by using Composite Entropy Index
(CEI). The CEI for different crop groups has shown that almost
all the crop groups have higher crop diversification index
during post-WTO (1995-96 to 2007-08) than during pre-WTO
(1982-83 to 1994-95) period, except for oilseeds and vegetable
crops. There has been a vast increase in diversification of
commercial crops after WTO. Crop diversification is
influenced by a number of infrastructural and technological
factors. Singh and Sidhu (2006) worked out Theil’s Entropy
Index for measuring varietal diversification in Punjab. The
decline in fauna and flora was evident from the emerging
monoculture of rice-wheat system. A number of crops like sun
hemp, tobacco, cluster beans, sorghum, etc. had been replaced
by the rice and wheat crops, which got further squeezed in
terms of fall in varietal diversification.
Constraints faced by the households in maintaining
livelihood security
The Indian agriculture is continually dominated by small
landholders who are poor, usually undernourished and poverty-
stricken; by and large practise subsistence agriculture with very
limited marketable surplus. Their plight calls for urgent need to
augment their income for ensuring food security and alleviating
poverty. Production and livelihoods are linked with poverty
alleviation. However, generation of employment and income
and support of livelihoods is a high priority than production
(Chambers, 1988). Despite the vast potentiality to diversify the
livelihood towards farm and non- farm activities, there were
problems such as negative perception of the community,
outdated method of production, lack of improved technology
and skills, lack of business start- up budget and absence of
wide market for the non-farm output (Saha and Bahal, 2010).
Khatun and Roy (2012) documented several constraints which
act as obstacles to livelihood diversification but the nature of
these constraints differs across regions and livelihood groups.
The resource-poor are particularly vulnerable and unable to
diversify because of the entry barriers imposed by their weak
asset base. The other major constraints faced by the households
in diversified area are lack of credit facilities, lack of awareness
and training facilities, fear of taking risk, lack of rural
infrastructure, and lack of opportunities in non-farm sector,
while the main constraints in less diversified area are poor
transport facilities, unfavourable agro-climate, lack of credit
facilities, lack of awareness and training and lack of basic
infrastructure. Joshi et al. (2006) observed the principal
constraints faced by the smallholders in vegetable production
are the non-availability of good quality seeds, absence of
appropriate markets, high volatility in prices and lack of access
to technical know-how. Gangwar et al. (2013) identified that
high costs of feed and chicks are the major constraints of
integrated poultry farming.
Requirement of policy measures for sustainable livelihood
security
In developing countries, where a majority of families derive
their livelihoods from agriculture, sustainable agriculture
cannot be discussed in isolation of sustainable rural
livelihoods. Sustainable rural livelihood is a multifaceted
concept and refers to maintenance or enhancement of access of
rural families to food and income-generating activities on a
long-term basis. It encompasses secured ownership of, or
access to, resources, assets and income-earning activities to
offset risks, ease shocks and meet contingencies. In the Indian
context, where average farm-size is very small, and poverty
and food-security continue to be preponderant among small
landholders, the notion of sustainable agriculture ought to be
viewed in the context of need for enhancement of productivity,
production and profitability of agriculture and above all, for
improvement in the economic conditions of farmers. All these
need a careful and in-depth analysis (Kumar et al., 2006).
Experiences gained in other developing countries suggest that
diversification of agriculture towards high-value commodities
and creation of non-farm employment opportunities has helped
small landholders to augment their incomes and bail them out
of the vicious circle of poverty (Ryan and Spencer, 2001).
Enhancing income and employment opportunities for farmers
and agricultural labourers has always been a major objective of
India’s Five-Year Plans since the beginning. A number of
strategies have been followed to achieve this objective (Papola,
2010). During the initial phases, the emphasis was on land
reforms and agricultural growth. It was later realised that
higher agricultural growth by itself would not be sufficient to
ensure removal of rural poverty. Therefore, since 1970s, the
emphasis shifted to promotion of supplementary economic
activities and employment opportunities in the rural areas
(Kumar et al., 2006).
In this regard, the Situation Analysis Study of Indian farmers
conducted by NSSO as a part of Millennium Study of Union
Ministry of Agriculture, has brought out some highly relevant
and interesting results, some of which are: (i) An estimated 27
per cent of the farmers do not like farming because it is not
considered profitable, (ii) Nearly 40 per cent of the farmers, if
given a choice, would prefer to take up some other career, (iii)
There is very low level of awareness among farmers about the
modern eco-friendly technologies like use of bio-fertilizers,
IPM and IPNM as well as of government programmes like
MSP, crop insurance and agri-export promotion, (iv) Many
farmers have reported non-availability of modern inputs within
the villages, (v) Smallholders’ dependence for livelihoods on
dairying and other animal husbandry activities is higher than
that of not-so-small farmers, (vi) Nearly 50 per cent of farm
households are indebted and the ratio as well as average of
outstanding loan per farm household are higher in relatively
more developed states like Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Andhra
21029 International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 7, Issue, 10, pp.21025-21033, October, 2015
Pradesh, (vii) There is a considerable variation in per capita
expenditure of farm households across the states, (viii) The
MPCE of farm households was high in Kerala (Rs 901),
Nagaland (Rs 883) and Punjab (828); and low in Orissa (Rs
342), Jharkhand (Rs 353), Chhattisgarh (Rs 379) and Bihar (Rs
404). The situation is being ascribed to economic growth
without appreciable distributional benefits. In this context, it is
being argued by some that though India has eradicated famines
and reduced starvation after Independence, it has not provided
the minimum level of food security to the poorest of the
population, which is quite large in terms of its size. The recent
phenomenon of increasing suicides by farmers in some states
of the country reflects institutional and policy failures. It
appears that human and material resources and technology are
not the main constraints in establishing agriculture on the path
of sustainable development. However, these do become
constraints when the policy regimes are inappropriate and
ineffective. Perhaps, appropriate policy regime, farmer-friendly
governance and institutional framework are equally, if not
more, important.
Diversification is the single most important source of poverty
reduction for small farmers in South and South East Asia (FAO
and World Bank, 2001). Sustainable development has become
an important policy goal for most nations because of the
increasing evidence of failure on account of social and
environmental development. Moreover, governments have
accepted the responsibility for promoting the sustainability of
development, in response to the Agenda 21 programme
following the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED, 1992). Sustainable livelihoods have
been increasingly recognized as an important element of
sustainable development during the past decade. Livelihood
diversification has been embraced by a number of development
agencies, with UNDP the first to do so fully and the
Department for International Development (DFID) adopting it
as a central strategy for meeting the goals set out in its 1997
White Paper ‘Eliminating World Poverty’.
The contribution made by livelihood diversification to rural
livelihood is a significant one which has often been ignored by
policy makers who have chosen to focus their activities on
agriculture (Ellis, 1998). The combination of farm as well as
non-farm category of diversification is complementary in
nature. Farmers used the surplus generated through non-farm
activity in purchasing of input for cultivation. Crop yields are
subject to the uncertainties of rainfall and input supply. Farm
incomes were subject to the uncertainties of both yields and
prices. Berstein et al. (1992) and Berry (1989) found the
similar findings. In this context, Haggblade et al. (1989) have
suggested that certain policy interventions are necessary to
allow positive farm non-farm growth linkage. The livelihood
promotion strategies have to be linked to the local resource
base of the communities, which comprise land resources, water
resources, forest resources, livestock resources and local
human resources. Scientific management of natural resources
and introduction of modern and sustainable technologies into
agricultural practice is essential for ensuring sustainable
development of farm and non-farm activities in the rural areas
(Singh, 2010; Soumya, 2013). Development of livestock
resources need to be promoted with proper arrangements for
feed and fodder and delivery of good quality veterinary
services. Farming systems approach provides a suitable way
for promoting livestock development for sustainable livelihood
in the rural areas (Hegde, 2013). Singh et al. (2013) suggested
improvement of common property resources (pastures and
water bodies), value-addition of feed and fodder, bridging
knowledge gap and veterinary support are the key aspects for
sustainable goat production in the Bundelkhand region.
Kumar and Upadhyay (2009) emphasized on using current
fallow land as pasture with recommended legume and non-
legume grasses for improvement of goat farming. Provision of
market information, enhancing competition in milk and live
animal market through organized efforts, access to improved
technologies, critical inputs like vaccines, improved fodder
seeds, and easy institutional finance have been identified as
crucial for strengthening the goat-based farming systems in the
area. Saha and Bahal (2010) suggested that state machinery
should play a facilitator’s role in terms of promoting
investment in infrastructure development such as road,
electricity, irrigation facility etc. More of decentralised
operations for government programmes, especially using the
local institution for greater efficiency and better outreach
programmes are needed. Availability of support services such
as credit to diversifiers through appropriate changes in policies
and delivery mechanisms should be ensured for sustainable
development of the farmers going for diversification. Salim
et al. (2013) advocated the promotion of microfinance
enterprises like self-help groups (SHGs) to help the fishers to
address their problem of indebtedness. There exists huge
potential of imparting training to fishers, particularly the young
and womenfolk, on fisheries management and diversified
enterprises including services delivery.
The promotion of the traditional handlooms and handicrafts
through upgradation of technology, introduction of new
designs and materials and linking them to markets can generate
substantial income and employment in these regions (Singh,
2010). Public-private partnership models have to be evolved
for the promotion of rural industries. Producers’ organizations
and NGOs need to be encouraged with greater participation in
government programmes as they can play a powerful role in
providing technical and marketing support and generate the
benefits of economies of scale. The demand for services
delivery is increasing in the rural areas. Encouragement must
be provided for promotion of these services with training of
rural youth to take up new and emerging services.
Improvement in rural infrastructure in terms of roads,
electricity, credit facilities, market, telecommunication, storage
facilities, etc. and also institutional innovations to reduce entry
costs and barriers to poor livelihood groups is necessary for the
growth of both farm and non-farm sectors (Khatun and Roy,
2012; Gangwar et al., 2013).
Conclusion
Sustaining rural livelihoods is critically linked to the
enhancement of financial, physical, natural, social and human
capital (Carney, 1998; Davies, 1996; Soussan et al., 2000).
Improvement in each of these capitals is in turn dependent on
various indicators. Financial capital is dependent on income,
employment and savings; physical capital is dependent on
assets, watershed structures, infrastructures; natural capital is
21030 Malangmei et al. Understanding sustainable rural livelihood security in Indian context: A review
dependent on water, land, common pool resources (CPRs);
social capital is dependent on migration, collective action,
institutional strength, equity, and gender; and human capital is
dependent on health, education, skills. In the present context
financial capital is measured in terms of income from various
livelihood activities. Physical capital is measured in terms of
household’s possession of durable assets such as house,
machinery, livestock, etc. Natural capital is measured in terms
of improvements in land, water, and other common pool
resources (CPRs). Human capital is measured through changes
in expenditure on education and health. All the five capital are
inter-linked, as the indicators closely interact. Reddy et al.
(2008) emphasized on sustainable rural livelihoods (SRL)
approach as a more comprehensive approach in the context of
poverty alleviation. The SRL approach reflects the now
accepted understanding that poverty itself is a complex, multi-
dimensional experience that includes both material and non-
material aspects of life (Soussan and Lincklaen, 2003; UNDP,
2003). It lays stress on livelihood assets, or capital, as the basis
for the sustainable improvement of people’s livelihoods.
The five capital framework of SRL is seen as a more effective
reflection of development than income as it reflects both the
ability to accumulate wealth and the capabilities (or assets) that
households can deploy to secure a living. These assets are also
under the control of the households and are the basis for giving
people greater choice over the directions that their livelihoods
take. The concept of sustainable livelihoods is increasingly
being accepted as providing both a basis for understanding the
nature of poverty and for identifying the types of strategies that
can reduce poverty in an effective and sustainable manner
using different types of assets/capital. Akter and Rahaman
(2010) concluded that irrespective of regional differences in
opportunities, people in urban squatters appear nearly equally
insecure. This does not mean that the same intervention
strategy is equally applicable everywhere. There are
geographical differences in the component indicators. Access
to assets/capital endowment should be taken into consideration
to design programmes. Areas where land/housing/ponds more
accessible, livestock/fisheries based livelihoods may be
encouraged. Education enhancing policies are suitable for
everywhere. To conclude, a multi-sectoral integrated strategy
of promoting agricultural and non-agricultural activities in the
rural areas embedded in the local conditions and institutions
has to be adopted to meet the challenge of sustainable
development in the rural areas.
REFERENCES
Acharya, S.P., Basavaraja, H. and Kunnal, L.B. 2011. Crop
diversification in Karnataka: An economic analysis.
Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24(2): 351-57.
Akter, S. and Rahman, S. 2010. Determinants of livelihood
security in poor settlements in Bangladesh. NAF-IRN
International Working Paper Series, paper no.10, University
of Plymouth, United Kingdom, pp.30.
http://economia.unipv.it/naf/.
Akter, S. and Rahman, S. 2012. Investigating Livelihood
Security in Poor Settlements in Bangladesh. Paper prepared
for presentation at the 86th Annual Conference of the
Agricultural Economics Society, University of Warwick,
United Kingdom, 16 – 18th April, 2012.
Barrett, C.B., Reardon, T. and Webb, P. 2001. Non-farm
income diversification and household livelihood strategies
in rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy
implications. Food Policy, 26(4): 315-31.
Belcher, J. C. 1951. Evaluation and restandardization of
Seawall’s social status scale. Rural Sociology, 16: 246–59.
Belcher, J. C. 1972. A cross-cultural household level of living
scale. Rural Sociology, 37, 208-20.
Bernstein, H., Crow, B. and Johnson, H. (Eds.) 1992. Rural
Livelihoods: Crises and Response Oxford: Oxford
University Press and The Open University.
Berry, S. 1989. Coping with Confusion: African Farmers’
Responses to Economic Instability in the 1970s and 1980s,
Boston: African Studies Centre, Boston University.
Bryceson, D.F. 1999. African rural labour, income
diversification and livelihood approaches: A long-term
development perspective. Review of African Political
Economy, 26(80): 171-89.
CARE East Africa Region, 1996. Preparing for a rapid
livelihood security assessment (RSLA) guidelines and
checklist. Report. Narobi, Kenya: CARE.
CARE India, 1997. Household livelihood security assessment.
Report. Bastar, Madhya Pradesh, India: CARE, April 8–28.
CARE, U.S.A. 2002. Household Livelihood Security
Assessments: A Toolkit for Practitioners. TANGO
International Inc, Tuccon, Arizona.
Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, Department
for International Development, London, U.K.
Carswell, G. 2000. Sustainable livelihoods in Southern
Ethiopia, IDS Research Report, No.44, Brighton: Institute
of Development Studies.
Carswell, G., Hulme, D. and Cooke, B. 2002. Livelihood
diversification: increasing in importance or increasingly
recognized? Evidence from southern Ethiopia, Journal of
International Development, 14(6): 786-804.
Chamber, R. 1989. Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability,
Coping and Policy, IDS Bull., 2(2): 1-7.
Chamber, R. and Conway, G. 1992. Substantial Rural
Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century, IDS
Discussion Paper 276, Institute for Development Studies,
University of Sussex, Brighton, U.K.
Chambers, R. 1987. Sustainable rural livelihoods. A strategy
for people, environment and development. An overview
paper for Only One Earth: Conference on Sustainable
Development, 28–30 April 1987. IIED, London.
Chambers, R. 1988. Managing Canal Irrigation, Oxford and
IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Christina, H., Anne, M.T., Jennifer S.P. and Anderea, S.S.
2001, Addressing Food Security in Africa via Multiple
Livelihood Strategies of Women Farmers, Journal of Food
Policy, 26: 177- 207.
Complain, D. 1998, “Preface: Livelihoods Issues in Root Crop
Research and Development”, in
Dadabhau, A.S. and Kisan, W.S. 2013. Sustainable rural
livelihood security through Integrated farming systems - a
review. Agri. Reviews, 34(3): 207-15.
David, D. 1999, Household Livelihood Security in Urban
Settlement, Technical and Policy Unit, CARE International,
U.K.
21031 International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 7, Issue, 10, pp.21025-21033, October, 2015
Davies, S. 1993. Versatile Livelihoods: Strategic Adaptation to
Food Insecurity in the Malian Sahel, Institute of
Development Studies, Brighton, U.K.
Davies, S. 1996. Adaptable Livelihoods, Macmillan, London,
U.K.
Dercon, S. and Krishnan, P. 1996. Income portfolios in rural
Ethiopia and Tanzania: Choices and constraints. Journal of
Development Studies, 32(6): 850-75.
DFID 1997. White Paper on International Development.
Department for International Development: London.
Drinkwater, M. 1994. Developing interaction and
understanding: RRA and farmer research groups in Zambia.
In I. Scoones, and J. Thompson (Eds.), Beyond farmer first:
Rural peoples’ knowledge, agricultural research and
extension practice. London: Intermediate Technology
Practice.
Ellis, F. 1998. Survey article: Household Strategies and Rural
Livelihood diversification, The Journal of Development
Studies, 35(1): 1-38.
Ellis, F. 1999. Rural Livelihood Diversification in Developing
Countries: Evidence and Policy Implications, Natural
Resource Perspectives, ODI Number 40, hppt://www.odi.
org.uk.nrp/40.html.
Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing
Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
Ellis, F. 2000. The Determinants of Rural Livelihood
Diversification in Developing Countries. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 5(2): 289-302.
Ellis. F., Milton, K. and Alfred, N. 2002, Livelihood and Rural
Poverty Reduction in Malawi. LADDER Working Paper
No.17, National Economic Council, Ministry of Finance,
Capital Hill, Lilongwe.
FAO and World Bank, 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty-
Improving Farmers livelihoods in a changing World, Rome
and Washington D.C.
Fazeeha, A. 2002. Challenges to Women’s Livelihood
Strategies in a Dry Zone Peasant Colonization Scheme in
Rural Sri Lanka. NTNU, Dragvoll. N-7491, Trondheim,
Norway.
Frankenberger, T. 1992. Indicators and data collection methods
for assessing household food security. In M. Maxwell, and
T. Frankenberger (Eds.), Household food security:
Concepts, indicators, measurements: A technical review.
New York and Rome: UNICEF and IFAD.
Frankenberger, T. 1996. Measuring household livelihood
security: an approach for reducing absolute poverty. Paper
prepared for the Applied Anthropology Meetings,
Baltimore, MD, March.
Frankenberger, T., Drinkwater, M. and Maxwell, D. 2000.
Operationalizing household livelihood security: A holistic
approach for addressing poverty and vulnerability.
Program Document, CARE USA. Atlanta, GA: CARE.
Gangwar, L.S., Saran, S. and Kumar, S. 2013. Integrated
poultry-fish farming systems for sustainable rural
livelihood security in Kumaon hills of Uttarakhand.
Agricultural Economics Research Review, 26 (Conf.): 181-
88.
Haddad, L., Kennedy, E. and Sullivan, J. 1994. Choice of
Indicators for Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring.
Food Policy, 19(3): 329-43.
Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Brown, J. 1989. Farm-Non-farm
linkages in rural sub-Saharan Africa, World Development,
17(8): 1173-1201.
Hahn, M. B., Riederer, A. M. and Foster, S.O. 2009. The
Livelihood Vulnerability Index: A pragmatic approach to
assessing risks from climate variability and change- A case
study in Mozambique, Global Environmental Change,
19(1): 74-88.
Hegde, N.G. 2013. Mixed farming for sustainable livelihood of
small farmers in India, paper presented at International
Conference on Increasing Agricultural Productivity and
Sustainability in India: The Future We Want, organised by
National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), in
collaboration with M.S. Swaminathan Foundation, Chennai,
Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore. 8-9 Jan.
Huq, H. 2000. People’s Perception: Exploring Contestation,
Counter-Development, and Rural Livelihoods; Cases from
Muktinagar, Bangladesh, Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Jirli, B., Bhati, D. S. and De, D. 2008. Diversifying cropping
system with rapeseed mustard – An approach to sustain
livelihood. In proceedings of international seminar on
strategies for Improving Livelihood Security of Rural Poor,
Goa, India, pp: 201-02.
Joshi, P.K., Joshi, L. and Birthal, P. S. 2006. Diversification
and its impact on smallholders: evidence from a study on
vegetable production. Agricultural Economics Research
Review, 19(2): 219-36.
Khatun, D. and Roy, B.C. 2013. Rural livelihood
diversification in West Bengal: Determinants and
constraints. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 25
(1): 115-24.
Kumar, P., Singh, N.P. and Mathur, V.C. 2006. Sustainable
agriculture and rural livelihoods: A synthesis. Agricultural
Economics Research Review, 19(Conf.): 1-22.
Kumar, S. and Upadhyay, A.D. 2009. Goat farmers’ coping
strategy for sustainable livelihood security in arid
Rajasthan: An empirical analysis. Agricultural Economics
Research Review, 22(2): 281-90.
Lindenberg, M. 2002. Measuring household livelihood
security at the family and community level in the
developing world, World Development, 30(2): 301-18.
Long, N.S. 1997. Agency and Constraint, Perceptions and
Practices: A Theoretical Positions, in H. de Haan and N.
Long (Eds.) 1997. Image Andrealities of Rural Life:
Wageningen Perspectives on Rural Transformations, Assen,
The Netherlands, Van Garcum.
Matshali, S.M. 2002. Household Livelihood Security in Rural
Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Maxwell, S. 1994. Food security: a post modern perspective.
Working Paper, No. 9. Sussex: IDS.
Murthy, B. E. V. V. N. 1983. Entrepreneurship in small towns:
A study with apecial reference to two selected towns in
coastal Andhra. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Andhra
University, Visakhapatnam.
Okere, C.P. and Shittu, A.M. 2013. Patterns and determinants
of livelihood diversification among farm households in
Odeda local government area, Ogun State, Nigeria.
Research Journal’s of Economics, 1(1): 1-12.
21032 Malangmei et al. Understanding sustainable rural livelihood security in Indian context: A review
Papola, T.S. 2010. Livelihoods in Agriculture: Status, Policies
and Prospects, State of India’s Livelihood Report, edited
by Sankar Datta and Vipin Sharma ; An ACCESS
Publication, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Pavithra, S. and Vatta, K. 2013. Role of non-farm sector in
sustaining rural livelihoods in Punjab. Agricultural
Economics Research Review, 26(2): 257-65.
Rahman, S. and Alam, M. 2001. “Baseline Survey Report:
Livelihood Security Analysis of Vulnerable Urban
Households”, Jessore and Tongi Pourashauvas, CARE
Bangladesh, SHAHAR Project, House 61 A, Road 8A,
Dhanmondi Dhaka-1209, Bangladesh.
Rathore, M.S., Mathur, R.M., Joshi, K.N., Mathur, K., Singh,
D. Vidyasagar, Ahuja, K., Hukmani, C.S., Mathur, O.P. and
Thiruvengadachari, S. 2000. Rajasthan Water Resource
Consolidation Project: Base Line Survey, Institute of
Development Studies, Jaipur.
Reddy, V.R., Reddy, M.G., Reddy, Y.V.M. and Soussan, J.
2008. Sustaining rural livelihoods in fragile environments:
resource endowments and policy interventions - A study in
the context of participatory watershed development in
Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
63(2): 169-87.
Redelift, M. 1990. The Role of Agriculture in Sustainable
Development, in P. Lowe, T. Marsden and Whatmore (Eds.)
(1990), Technological Change and the Rural Environment,
London, David Fulton Publishers Ltd., Tea Directory of HP
(1997), Tea Board of India.
Ryan, J.G. and Spencer, D.C. 2001. Future challenges and
opportunities for agricultural RandD in the semi-arid
tropics. ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Saha, B. and Bahal, R. 2010. Livelihood Diversification
pursued by Farmers in West Bengal. Indian Research
Journal of Extension Education, 10(2): 1-9.
Salim, S.S., Sathiadas, R., Narayankumar, R., Katiha, P.K.,
Krishan, M., Biradar, R.S., Gopal, N., Barik, N. and
Kumar, B.G. 2013. Rural Livelihood Security: Assessment
of Fishers’ Social Status in India. Agricultural Economics
Research Review, 26 (Conf.): 21-30.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework
for analysis, Working Paper No. 72, Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, Sussex.
Sen, A. K. 1981. Poverty and famines. Oxford, UK, Clarendon.
Shah, A. 2000. Natural Resource Management and Gender:
Reflection from Watershed Programme in India. Indian
Journal of Gender Studies, 7(1).
Sharma, K.D., Pathania, M.S. and Lal, H. 2006. Farming
system approach for sustainable development of agriculture
in mountain regions - A case of Himachal Pradesh.
Agricultural Economics Research Review, 19(Conf.): 101-
12.
Shiyani, R.L. and Pandya, H.R. 1998. Diversification of
agriculture in Gujarat: A spatio-temporal analysis. Indian
Journal Agricultural Economics, 53(4): 627-39.
Shyamalie, H.W. and Saini, A.S. 2010. Livelihood security of
women in hills: A comparative study of India and Sri
Lanka. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(4):
710-21.
Singh, A.K. 2010. Livelihood options in non-farm sector in
dryland areas In: Rainfed Agriculture in India: Perspectives
and Challenges, Eds: Surjit Singh and M.S. Rathore. Rawat
Publications, Jaipur.
Singh, A.K. 2013. Income and livelihood issues of farmers: A
field study in Uttar Pradesh. Agricultural Economics
Research Review, 26 (Conf.): 89-96.
Singh, D. 2004. Livelihood concerns in water resource
management regimes in scarce conditions. Indian Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 59(1): 121-37.
Singh, J. and Sidhu, R.S. 2006. Accounting for Impact of
Environmental Degradation in Agriculture of Indian
Punjab. Agricultural Economics Research Review,
19(conf.): 37-48.
Singh, M.K., Dixit, A.K., Roy, A.K. and Singh, S.K. 2013.
Goat rearing: a pathway for sustainable livelihood security
in Bundelkhand region. Agricultural Economics Research
Review, 26 (Conf.): 79-88.
Singh, N.P., Kumar, R. and Singh, R.P. 2006. Diversification
of Indian Agriculture: Composition, Determinants and
Trade Implications. Agricultural Economics Research
Review, 19(1): 23-36.
Soumya, K.V. 2013. Crop productivity, food security and
environmental sustainability. Current Science, 104(1):
meeting report.
Soussan, J., and W. Lincklaen Arriens (2003), Poverty and
Water Security, Asian Development Bank, Manila,
Philippines.
Soussan, J., Piers B., Oliver, S. and Chadwick, M. 2000.
Understanding Livelihood Process and Dynamics, Working
Paper 7, Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia,
School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, U. K.
Sustainable Livelihood for Rural Households: Contribution
from Root Crop Agriculture, Los Banos, Laguna,
UPWARD, pp.9-12.
Talathi, J.M. 2002. An economic analysis of investment for
sustainable use of ground water in Konkan region of
Maharashtra state. Ph.D. Thesis (unpublished), submitted to
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka.
Torane, S.R., Naik, B.K., Kulkarni, V.S. and Talathi, J.M.
2011. Farming Systems Diversification in North Konkan
Region of Maharashtra- An Economic Analysis.
Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24(1): 91-98.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,
1992. Agenda 21, UNCED, University press Inc. New
York.
United Nations Development Policy (UNDP). 2003. Human
Development Report 2003, New York.
Unni, J. 1996. Diversification of economic activities and non-
agriculture employment in rural Gujarat. Economic and
Political Weekly, 31(33): 2243-51.
VonBraun, J. 1995. Agricultural commercialization: Impacts
on income and nutrition and implications for policy. Food
Policy, 20(3) (June).
Vyas, V.S. 1996. Diversification of agriculture: Concept,
rationale and approaches, Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 51(4): 636-43.
*******
21033 International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 7, Issue, 10, pp.21025-21033, October, 2015
