Content uploaded by Aradhna Aggarwal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aradhna Aggarwal on Aug 20, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Aggarwal, A.; Garg, A.
Socioeconomic Effects of Land Use
Change for Industrialization:
Evidence-Informed Learnings from
Sri City India. Businesses 2024,4,
299–314. https://doi.org/10.3390/
businesses4030019
Academic Editor: Lester Johnson
Received: 13 June 2024
Revised: 22 July 2024
Accepted: 25 July 2024
Published: 29 July 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
Socioeconomic Effects of Land Use Change for Industrialization:
Evidence-Informed Learnings from Sri City India
Aradhna Aggarwal 1, * and Ankita Garg 2
1Department of International Economics, Government and Business, Copenhagen Business School,
Solbjerg Pl. 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
2Centre for Social and Economic Progress, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021, India
*Correspondence: aradhna.aggarwal@gmail.com
Abstract: This study examines the socioeconomic impacts of large-scale land conversion from
agriculture to industry on affected households, focusing on Sri City, an industrial hub in South India
established under the SEZ Act 2005. Data from 250 households in and around Sri City were collected
on socioeconomic indicators aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals using a structured
survey method. Quasi-experimental methods, specifically nearest neighbor matching based on
the Mahalanobis distance model, were employed for analysis. The findings indicate that affected
households experience benefits, but these are not unequivocal. The study underscores the importance
of project-specific factors, land acquisition strategies, and approaches to business leadership in
shaping the socially sustainable outcomes of land conversion, from agriculture to industry.
Keywords: land relocation; Sri City; India; industrial development; GVCs; land lost farmers;
socioeconomic sustainability; quasi experimental designs
1. The Context
Growth-enhancing structural change, involving the relocation of economic resources
from low-productivity agriculture to high-productivity industrial and services sectors, is
intrinsically linked with the sustainable development agenda. As labor, land, and other
resources shift from low-productivity agriculture to the non-agricultural sector, particularly
industry, overall productivity increases and incomes expand. This shift propels the economy
into a virtuous circle, where the growth of productive employment, capacities, and earnings
mutually reinforce each other, accelerating growth, reducing poverty, promoting urban
development, and improving human well-being [1,2].
In their pursuit of achieving structural change, policymakers in developing countries
have continually sought new innovative tools to accelerate industrial development. In
the contemporary world, the tool that has transformed the way industrialization can take
place in these countries is ‘insertion into and moving up the global value chains (GVCs)’.
However, global competition is so intense that without deliberate policies to foster a
favorable investment climate, addressing high transaction costs, inadequate provision of
public goods, and low productivity which are pervasive in these countries, they may not be
able to avail the opportunities to integrate themselves within these networks. To offset some
aspects of an adverse investment climate, policy makers increasingly rely on economic
zones, in general, and special economic zones (SEZs), in particular. While these zones
primarily aim to overcome high production and transaction costs resulting from the lack of
infrastructure and inefficient public service delivery, their role in exploiting agglomeration
benefits is critical in enhancing efficiency and productivity. They serve as the springboards
for entering into GVCs. However, one of the outcomes of the proliferation of these zones is
the accelerated conversion of large chunks of agricultural land into industrial and urban
spaces, which can have serious socioeconomic effects on households that depend on land
Businesses 2024,4, 299–314. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses4030019 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/businesses
Businesses 2024,4300
for their livelihoods and other local communities (https://cprindia.org/understanding-
the-impacts-of-land-use-change/ (last accessed on 20 July 2024)).
Harvey [
3
,
4
] coined the term ‘accumulation by dispossession’ to describe the land use
change policy for industrial use in the contemporary neoliberal regime. According to him,
governments under austerity programs tend to mobilize private investment by offering
fiscal and legislative incentives (favorable legal regulations) for setting up economic zones.
This type of policy is “redistributive” of existing wealth rather than “generative” of new
wealth. It does not lead to agrarian transitions; rather, it is land grab for capitalist develop-
ment without economic development, dis-accumulating agrarian assets and marginalizing
rural labor. The adverse effects are exacerbated by the dire state of transparency in land
acquisition, together with weak and deficient governance, lack of safeguards, unlawful
expropriation, and minimal application of agreed-upon compensation measures [
5
–
10
]. It
is argued that even if rightful compensation is assured, the affected households are not
equipped to transform their agricultural livelihood into a non-agricultural one [
11
,
12
]. The
jobs created in these economic zones for locally affected people tend to be low-paying due
to their low level of skills and qualifications, while the more sophisticated and highly paid
jobs are often filled by outsiders, benefiting a narrow set of class interests and accentuating
social and economic inequalities [9].
There is a large body of literature assessing the socioeconomic effects of land con-
version for industrial use. However, the existing studies focus either on the effects of
large-scale land acquisition on land-lost farmers [
9
,
13
–
25
] or explore the effects of large
industrial parks/estates/SEZs on regional economies/local communities [
26
–
33
]. The
present study analyses the aggregate and distributional effects of land use conversion
from agriculture to industry on both land-lost farmers and households in surrounding
areas. Further, unlike most existing studies that focus primarily on income levels, this
study comprehensively assesses the socioeconomic sustainability of land relocation using
quantitative tools, with special reference to a large industrial project in India—the ‘Sri City
business city’. Socioeconomic sustainability is a multidimensional concept and is captured
in this study by a comprehensive set of indicators drawn from the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). The study is based on the premise that the impact of land acquisition is
unavoidably differentiated; namely, there are ‘winners and losers’, and how people gain or
lose out depends much on their capabilities, the type of deal and project, the investors, the
speed of the process, and other macro- and micro-structural conditions [
34
–
36
]. Ours is one
of few studies that has adopted a counterfactual approach to measure the distributional
effects of the land use conversion for industrial zones on those directly affected by the
project. The novelty of the present study also lies in the use of multidimensional indicators
of socioeconomic sustainability.
India is structurally underdeveloped, with 46% of total land and 45.6% of the workforce
still in agriculture, which contributes only 15–16% to GDP. A mere 9% of the total land is
under non-agricultural use. The enactment of the SEZ Act 2005 was the first major effort by
the government to channelize private investment in industrial and urban development and
induce structural change in the allocation of resources. As part of the incentive package,
the government offered attractive tax incentives to private developers for setting up SEZs,
with a promise to acquire land on their behalf using ‘eminent domain’, which allowed
governments to take private property for public use without the owner’s consent. This led
to public uproar and sparked farmers’ protests across the country, which sometimes turned
violent [
37
,
38
]. SEZs became synonymous with land grab for real estate development by
the private sector. A large stream of literature appeared, aligned with Harvey’s concept
of ‘accumulation by dispossession’ [
9
,
18
,
37
,
39
–
46
], describing the SEZ policy as a form of
coercive redistribution that served class interests [
41
]. In addition to land grab, the criticism
touched upon several other aspects—from macro-economic issues related to their impact
on government revenue, employment, trade, and foreign exchange earnings to social issues
including food security, labor rights, regional inequities, and environmental protection.
The government dissipated the resistance to SEZs by first withdrawing from the process
Businesses 2024,4301
of land acquisition and then gradually diluting all direct tax incentives. This led to the
cancelation, delay, and downsizing of existing projects and a decline in the number of
new applications [
47
]. The area under notified SEZs declined steeply from 496 km
2
as of
September 2012 to 397 km
2
by 12 January 2023. As of 2022–2023, 270 operational SEZs
have generated 2.9 million jobs and contributed almost 20% of total annual goods and
service exports. Yet, their national-level effects are not so visible, with a large chunk of the
population still stuck in agriculture and employment growth accounting for a minuscule
contribution to growth [33].
In that backdrop, the present study uses a case study approach to show how project
idiosyncrasies can affect the outcomes of these projects at the regional level. The case in
point is the ‘Sri City business city’ set up as a hybrid SEZ under the SEZ Act 2005 in Andhra
Pradesh State of India. We collected data from 250 households spread across 33 villages
in and around Sri City through a fully structured survey and used the nearest neighbor
matching method based on the Mahalanobis distance model for the counterfactual analysis.
The rest of the study is divided into four sections. Section 2describes the idiosyncrasies
of the project and formulates the hypothesis. It also defines the concept and indicators of
socioeconomic sustainability. Section 3then describes the data, variable construction, and
methodology for the analysis. Section 4presents the empirical results. Finally, Section 5
concludes the analysis.
2. Sri City and Socioeconomic Sustainability
Sri City, set up by a private developer under the SEZ Act 2005, is spread over 7500 acres.
The project is located in one of the most backward districts of Andhra Pradesh. The two sub-
district administrative divisions where the business city is located within the district were
predominately made up of subsistence farming of paddy on rain-fed land. People were
dependent on agriculture with poor rainfall records, lack of options in life, and widespread
poverty. Over 73% of the landholdings, according to government data, were less than 1
acre. Only 3% of the holdings were above 4 acres, but 75% of the area under them was
barren. Even though 51% of people were literate, most of them had completed just primary
education. In this backdrop, land acquisition for the project proceeded relatively smoothly,
devoid of any major hurdles and protests, despite the grim picture of land wars that had
ensued following the enactment of the SEZ Act 2005 in most other parts of the country [
48
].
Even though land was acquired by the state on behalf of the private developer using
eminent domain, several good practices were ensured by the latter in this process. The
developer, a young, first-generation, professionally qualified entrepreneur, has strong local
roots. According to the literature, emotionally connected business leaders have a positive
future outlook, empathy for local population, and passion about their work [
49
]. Thus,
land was mostly acquired ‘on consent’, supported by prior notification. For compensation,
prices well above the market rate were offered by the developer (up to 5 times). Additional
compensation was paid for trees and other structures such as wells and tubewells. Generally,
it is observed that the relocation of land-lost farmers leads to a series of changes, including
their social and economic conditions, psychological conditions, and cultural norms, which
might have a negative impact on their well-being [
21
]. In the case of Sri City, however,
habitation areas of the villages were not acquired. The decision to preserve the habitat
(even today, 14 villages are inside Sri City) prevented forced migration and the relocation
of land-lost farmers. Finally, and most importantly, each village family was assured one
job without any recommendation. A village coordinator was appointed to look after the
overall progress of relief and rehabilitation. A ‘Human Resource Academy’ was set up in
2006, much in advance of commercial activities, to train the people in plumbing, masonry,
electrical work, driving, software, tailoring and embroidery, security, and housekeeping,
etc. Assured jobs after training in the academy became an attractive proposition for the
local people. Social entrepreneurship created a positive sum between the developers
and the inhabitants in the Sri City area. The engagement of the state in land acquisition
was also reported to have helped in building trust between the developer and locals and
Businesses 2024,4302
facilitated the process. As a result, the land acquisition targets were achieved within a
period of one and a half years. Additionally, despite uncertainties in government policies
and unfavorable public opinion regarding SEZs, the project became operational and put to
generative purpose within just two years of the initiation of the land acquisition process.
During the financial crisis of 2008, which severely affected the inflows of investment and
job creation, people felt insecure and restless and organized protest marches to demand the
promised jobs. But these agitations soon died down as Sri City started picking up in 2014,
and since then, it has been on a high growth trajectory.
Its focus on manufacturing in general and light engineering and electronics industries
in particular is critical in creating job opportunities for a wide spectrum of local workers,
from low- to high-skilled ones. With over 210 companies from various countries, Sri City
became instrumental in attracting other large industrial projects in the automobile and
telecommunication sectors in the region. The project is immensely benefited by several
location-specific factors, such as the (i) easy availability of land, (ii) high-class infrastruc-
ture, (iii) unrestricted supply of power and water, (iv) proximity to ports, airports, and
highways, (v) cheap unskilled labor in the vicinity, and (vi) proximity to the metropolitan
city of ‘Chennai’, with assured supply of adequate skilled and technical manpower and an
established manufacturing eco-system to source components and supplies from.
Based on the above observations, we hypothesize that land conversion for the project
has had socially and economically sustainable outcomes. Socioeconomic sustainability
is a very broad concept which encompasses numerous indicators [
50
]. We draw on the
Sustainable Development Goals to identify four sets of indicators for the analysis: (i) ma-
terial and financial well-being (SDG #1: No Poverty); (ii) quality of life (SDG #1: Access
to basic services; SDG #6 Water and Sanitation); (iii) source of income (SDG #8: Decent
employment); and (iv) access to education (SDG #4) and health and mental well-being
(SDG #3). The analysis is conducted to assess both aggregate and distributional effects of
land conversion for industrialization, using all these indicators. While doing so, it also
explores whether relocation of land to industry is equality-enhancing (SDG #10).
3. Data, Methodology and Variable Construction
3.1. Database
A primary survey was conducted between 19 September and 17 October 2021 to collect
data for this research. A list of 42 villages within a radius of approximately 25 km of Sri
City was prepared. Some of these villages were in the neighboring state of Tamil Nadu as
well. We decided to cover all 42 villages but finally could gather information from 33 of
them within the given time frame. In addition to villages, the town of Sulur Peta, which is
around 23 km from Sri City, was also covered in the survey.
Using a fully structured questionnaire, we conducted face to face interviews to compile
the survey data from 250 households, which we divided among villages according to their
population. The sample of households in each village was based on the availability and
consent of the households to talk. Care was taken to cover the various strata of the
population. To conduct the survey, we engaged 7 Field Surveyors with at least a bachelor’s
degree. They were given classroom and field-based training. The surveyors were locals
having familiarity with the local culture and language. The surveyors’ performance was
monitored through daily reporting by them.
The questionnaire covers a wide range of questions capturing household character-
istics, migratory status of households, income, sources of income, occupational status,
savings, borrowings, education and health status, and expenditures. Both the baseline
and current period information were acquired by including relevant questions in the same
survey. For this, the questionnaire comprised ‘before and after’ types of questions related
to income, sources of income, satisfaction, financial status, and standard of living. Respon-
dents were asked to recall baseline information. To cross check their responses, the key
questions about their income, sources of income, and standard of living were asked at least
twice in different styles seeking different levels of information.
Businesses 2024,4303
3.2. Methodology
Two different non-parametric methodologies were utilized for the analysis. Initially,
the basic t-test was employed to assess whether transformative changes in human well-
being occurred in the region at the aggregate level compared to the baseline year 2007. A
pre-specified set of indicators was employed for this analysis.
Subsequently, distributional effects were assessed by analyzing changes in the well-
being of those directly affected by the project in comparison to those who were not (referred
to as the comparison group), using quasi-experimental designs. This required the identifi-
cation of those directly affected by the project (treated groups) and the comparison groups.
Three distinct treated groups were identified: (i) land-lost farmers, (ii) individuals living
within 5 km radius of the business city, and (iii) those within 10 km. For each treated
group, a comparison (matched) group was identified, consisting of households as similar as
possible to the treatment group in terms of personal traits but not subjected to the treatment.
There are several techniques available in the literature to identify the comparison
group by reducing sample selection bias. This study utilizes the nearest neighbor matching
method (NNM) based on the Mahalanobis distance model. The model minimizes the
Mahalanobis distance between the treated and comparison groups based on multiple
covariates, as measured by M(X
t−
X
c
) =
√
(X
t−
X
c
) Sˆ(
−
1)(X
t−
X
c
), where X
t
and X
c
are
the mean vectors of treated and comparison groups, and S is the pooled sample covariance
matrix of X. The recent literature suggests that the Mahalanobis distance model is more
efficient, with a lower level of bias, model dependence, and imbalance compared to other
popular methods, namely propensity score matching methods [51,52].
Once the comparison group was identified, the effect of treatment on outcomes was
estimated by comparing outcomes between the two groups in the matched sample. The
average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) is reported here, which is referred to as the
counterfactual effect. The ATT is calculated as [Yi
−
Y0|Di = 1], where Di denotes the
treatment status of household i and Y is the average outcome for the treated and comparison
groups. Table 1presents the description of treatment groups and the covariates that are used
to match the non-treated groups with treated groups to construct the comparison groups.
Table 1. Description of the variables.
Treatment
variables
Land-lost farmers Land-lost farmers = 1 if sold partial or full land to Sri City =0, otherwise.
HHs living within 5 km of
Sri City
Distance_5 = 1 if the distance of their village from Sri City is less than 5 kms,
=0 otherwise
HHs living within 10 km
of Sri City
Distance_10 = 1 if a HH is located within 10 km of distance from Sri City; =0 if
the household is located at more than 10 kms of distance.
Covariates Household characteristics
used for matching
Dummy for caste = 1 if scheduled castes (designated by Article 341 of the
Constitution) and other backward castes (Article 15(4)), =0 otherwise
Number of household members
Head’s age
Head is a male = 1; =0 otherwise
Head’s education years
Maximum education (years)
Average household age
The share of working age (14–64) members
If working in/for Sri City = 1; =0 otherwise
If beneficiary of a welfare scheme = 1; =0 otherwise
If currently owning land = 1; =0 otherwise
The outcome variables covering the indicators of socioeconomic sustainability are
organized into four categories: (i) material and financial well-being (captured by household
income, total and per capita, bank accounts, savings and borrowings); (ii) quality of life
(access to basic services, good living conditions and asset holdings); (iii) sources of income
(agriculture, regular job or self-employment); (iv) access to education (expenditure on
Businesses 2024,4304
education and attainment of high school education), and health and mental well-being
(incidence of chronic disease, income satisfaction). The definition of these variables is
provided in the results tables to avoid duplicity. It should be noted that due to the lack
of data on income expenditure on education, we rely on the information regarding the
sufficiency of income for children’s education.
4. Results
4.1. Aggregate Effects
Table 2presents the mean of each outcome variable in the baseline and current periods
in Columns 1 and 2, respectively. A t-test statistic is presented in Column 3 corresponding
to each outcome variable to assess if there is a statistically significant difference between the
mean values in the two periods. It is observed that the t-statistic turns out to be significant
for all outcome variables, indicating transformative changes in socioeconomic indicators
that have taken place in the region since the establishment of Sri City. Not only has the level
of income increased significantly over time but its composition has also changed, with a
significantly higher share of income accounted for by regular jobs. This provides evidence
of structural change occurring in this previously agrarian area, transitioning towards an
industrial economy, which is considered to enhance growth and reduce poverty [1,2].
Table 2. T-test results with means and coefficient of variation for pre- and post-Sri city period.
Outcome Variables
Base Line Year Average (1)
Current Year Average (2) t-Statistic of Mean
Difference (3)
Annual household income (Rupee @2021 prices) 156,077.9 (90) 236,887.4 (75) 6.9 ***
Household income per capita (Rupee @2021 prices) 39,925.8 (102) 65,610.1 (72) 8.8 ***
Agriculture as the major income source = 1; 0 otherwise 0.50 (100) 0.27 (164) −8.4 ***
Job as the major income source = 1; 0 otherwise 0.27 (166) 0.76 (56) 14.0 ***
Business as the major income source = 1; 0 otherwise 0.216 (200) 0.404 (142) 6.2 ***
Share of agriculture in total income 77.9 (142) 20.9 (259) −13.6 ***
Share of job in total income 17.45 (155) 61.96 (65) 9.8 ***
Share of business in total income 16.4 (167) 21.1 (129) 2.18 **
If owned a house = 1; =0 otherwise 0.28 (159) 0.57 (87) 9.2 ***
If living in huts = 1; =0 otherwise 0.42 (119) 0.02 (701) −12.6 ***
No. of types of rooms in house 1.93 (90) 3.44 (31) 14.7 ***
Access to water and electricity 1.27 (75) 1.87 (28) 10.0 ***
Number of vehicles 0.32 (160) 0.92 (54) 16.1 ***
Weighted average of the no. of electronic gadgets 0.17 (101) 0.42 (47) 19.2 ***
No. of bank accounts 1.61 (65) 3.15 (46) 14.0 ***
If reported savings = 1; =0 otherwise 0.10 (301) 0.37 (130) 8.0 ***
If reported borrowing = 1; =0 otherwise 0.35 (184) 1.00 (86) 10.4 ***
If satisfied with income = 1; =0 otherwise 0.39 (125) 0.69 (67) 9.00 ***
If income is sufficient for education of children = 1; =0 otherwise 0.26 (167) 0.33 (143) 1.8 *
Note: Cols. 1 and 2 show mean (coefficient of variation in %); *** significant at 1%, ** at 5%, and * at 10% levels.
There has also been a significant increase in self-employment, likely due to increased
economic activity in the region. Improvement in financial well-being is evident with an
increased number of bank accounts and savings. However, there is a caveat: borrowings
have also increased significantly over time. This could partly be due to improvements in
standards of living in terms of housing type, access to utilities, and asset holdings. Overall,
there is higher income satisfaction, indicating improved mental well-being. The perception
regarding income sufficiency for children’s education has also shown improvement, albeit
Businesses 2024,4305
weakly at 10% unlike other variables that turn out to be significant, mostly at 1%, implying
that family expenditures on education have grown over time.
Finally, it must be noted that the coefficient of variation has declined sharply for all
variables used in the analysis. Our results demonstrate that variability in the socioeconomic
position of households declined post Sri City. Specifically, we provide evidence of improved
equality over time as land was relocated from agriculture to a successful industrial project.
The increase in dispersion in the distribution of three variables—‘agriculture as a major
source of income’, ‘share of agriculture in total income,’ and ‘living in huts’—further
supports the result that the project has had overall welfare-enhancing and inequality-
reducing effects in the region.
4.2. Distributional Effects
The average treatment effects on affected households based on NNM are presented
in Tables 3–6. Table 3covers material well-being, while Tables 4–6focus on other aspects.
Each table presents three sets of counterfactual results for three different treatment groups:
land-lost farmers, households (HHs) within 5 km of distance, and HHs within 10 kms of
distance. These are further broken down into base year (2007), current year (2021), and
the difference between the base and current years termed as difference-in-difference (DID).
The results are discussed below.
Table 3. Impact of Sri City on material well-being of treated groups: Average treatment effects on
treated groups based on the NNM.
Treatment Group Well-Being Indicator Pre-Sri City Base Year (1) Current (2)
Difference in Difference (3)
Annual household income
Rs @2021 prices
Land-lost farmers −1,21,214 *** (−3.62)
[241] −26,919.5 (−0.65)
[241]
94,294.5 * (1.93) *
[241]
Distance_5 −77,363 *** (−3.28)
[242] −18,845 (−0.70)
[242]
58,518 ** (2.18)
[242]
Distance_10 −99,447.75 *** (−3.99)
[242] −54,578.98 (−1.92) *
[242]
44,868.77 (1.48)
[242]
Household income per
capita
(Rs @2021 prices)
Land-lost farmers −35,876 *** (−4.15)
[242] −462.3 (−0.05)
[241]
35,244.5 *** (3.15)
[241]
Distance_5 −22,580 *** (−3.44)
[241] −2943 (−0.41)
[242]
19,618 *** (2.85)
[241]
Distance_10 −26,437.23 *** (−3.99)
[241] −9445.149 (−1.42)
[242]
16,934.43 ** (2.45)
[241]
No. of bank accounts
Land-lost farmers −0.22 (−0.92)
[240]
0.152 (0.39)
[242]
0.203 (0.48)
[240]
Distance_5 −0.149 (−0.94)
[240] −0.130 (−0.66)
[242]
0.165 (0.74)
[240]
Distance_10 −0.16 (−1.03)
[240] −0.162 (−0.76)
[242]
0.007 (0.03)
[240]
If saving money
Land-lost farmers 0.17 (1.15)
[243]
0.203 * (1.72)
[242]
0.02 (0.11)
[243]
Distance_5 0.032 (0.68)
[242] −0.057 (−0.81)
[242] −0.089 (−1.21)
[242]
Distance_10 0.032 (0.82)
[242]
0.045(0.63)
[242] −0.028 (−0.36)
[229]
If borrowing money
Land-lost farmers 0.27 * (1.69) *
[240]
0.389 ** (2.06)
[242]
0.101 (0.52)
[240]
Distance_5 −0.213 ** (−2.08)
[240]
0.276 ** (1.99)
[242]
0.459 *** (3.08)
[240]
Distance_10 −0.052 (−0.53)
[240]
0.33 ** (2.43)
[242]
0.366 ** (2.41)
[240]
Notes:
@
Rs. Indian Rupee. The Exchange value in 2021: 0.01352 USD per rupee. Parentheses show t-statistics and
brackets are number of observations; *** significant at 1%, ** at 5%, and * at 10% levels.
Businesses 2024,4306
Table 4. Source of income.
Well-Being Indicator Pre-Sri City Base Year (1) Current (2) Difference in Difference (3)
If agriculture was the major
income source = 1; 0 otherwise
Land-lost farmers 0.61 *** (8.1)
[242] −0.05 (0.71)
[242] −0.644 *** (7.25)
[241]
Distance_5 0.179 *** (2.69)
[242] −0.090 (−1.59)
[242] −0.249 *** (−4.58)
[241]
Distance_10 0.16 ** (2.37)
[242] −0.10 (−1.72) *
[242] −0.25 *** (−4.51)
[241]
If job was the major income source
= 1; 0 otherwise
Land-lost farmers −0.322 ***(−3.9)
[242]
0.068 (0.85)
[242]
0.39 *** (3.43)
[242]
Distance_5 −0.171 ** (−2.28)
[242]
0.049 (0.72)
[242]
0.219 *** (2.62)
[242]
Distance_10 −0.23 *** (−3.22)
[242] −0.078 (−1.20)
[242]
0.16 * (1.73)
[242]
If self-employment was the major
income source = 1; 0 otherwise
Land-lost farmers −0.085 (−1.3)
[241]
0.034 (0.29)
[240]
0.068 (0.8)
[240]
Distance_5 0.045 (0.68)
[242]
0.013 (0.15)
[242] −0.04 (−0.61)
[242]
Distance_10 −0.081 (−1.16)
[242] −0.081 (−0.92)
[242]
0.0 (0)
[242]
Share of agriculture in total income
Land-lost farmers 47.0 *** (5.46)
[219] −3.59 (−1.19)
[219] −51.48 *** (6.38)
[219]
Distance_5 18.99 *** (2.87)
[219] −1.69 (−0.71)
[242] −20.21 *** (−3.46)
[219]
Distance_10 19.0 ***1 (2.85)
[219]
0.19 (0.08)
[242] −17.09 (−2.84) ***
[219]
Share of job in total income
Land-lost farmers −17.34 **(−2.26)
[222]
6.27 (0.81)
[222]
20.31 * (1.71)
[222]
Distance_5 −7.94 (−1.08)
[222]
6.12 (1.02)
[242]
15.1 * (1.87)
[222]
Distance_10 −16.99 ** (−2.42)
[222] −2.59 (−0.44)
[242]
15.04 * (1.78)
[222]
Share of self-employment in total
income
Land-lost farmers −5.29 (−0.98)
[218]
14.6 *** (2.59)
[242]
18.39 *** (2.91)
[218]
Distance_5 −0.296 (−0.05)
[218] −1.86 (−0.34)
[242] −0.852 (−0.16)
[218]
Distance_10 9.55 (1.73)
[218]
0.73 (0.13)
[242] −2.51 (−0.48)
[218]
Note: Parentheses show t-statistics and brackets are number of observations; *** significant at 1%, ** at 5%, and *
at 10% levels.
Table 5. Quality of life.
Well-Being Indicator Pre-Sri City Base Year (1) Current (2) Difference in Difference (3)
If owned a house = 1; =0 otherwise
Land-lost farmers −0.24 (−2.94) ***
[242]
0.203 (2.08) **
[242]
0.54 (5.64) ***
[242]
Distance_5 −0.033 (−0.46)
[242]
0.07 (0.85)
[242]
0.11 (1.64) *
[242]
Distance_10 −0.091 (−0.019)
[242] −0.019 (−0.25)
[242]
0.084 (1.18)
[242]
If living in huts = 1; =0 otherwise
Land-lost farmers 0.39 (3.63) ***
[242]
0.017 (0.47)
[242] −0.36 (−3.65) ***
[239]
Distance_5 0.024 (0.32)
[242] −0.032 (−1.56)
[242] −0.057 (−0.78)
[241]
Distance_10 0.019 (0.25)
[242] −0.013 (−0.55)
[242] −0.052 (−0.71)
[241]
No. of types of rooms in house
Land-lost farmers −1.39 (−5.21) ***
[242] −0.263 (−0.82)
[239]
1.122 (3.5) ***
[239]
Distance_5 0.001 (0)
[242]
0.182(1.08)
[239]
0.339 (1.45)
[239]
Distance_10 −0.019 (−0.08)
[242] −0.020 (−0.11)
[239]
0.14 (0.63)
[239]
Businesses 2024,4307
Table 5. Cont.
Well-Being Indicator Pre-Sri City Base Year (1) Current (2) Difference in Difference (3)
Access to water and electricity
Land-lost farmers −1.14 (−7.15) ***
[242]
0.135 (0.84)
[242]
1.12 (6.43) ***
[242]
Distance_5 −0.106 (−0.89)
[[242]
0.049 (0.58)
[242]
0.163 (1.27)
[242]
Distance_10 −0.136 (−1.16)
[242]
0.052 (0.59)
[242]
0.201 (1.63)
[242]
Number of vehicles
Land-lost farmers −0.31 *** (−3.05)
[242]
0.135 (0.78)
[242]
0.19 (1.11)
[242]
Distance_5 −0.081 (−0.94)
[211]
0.041 (0.52)
[211]
0.106 (1.08)
[241]
Distance_10 −0.071 (−0.94)
[242]
0.078 (1.02)
[242]
0.11 (1.28)
[242]
Possession of the no. of electronic
gadgets
Land-lost farmers −0.068 *** (−2.97)
[242] −0.011 (−0.32)
[242]
0.082 ** (2.0)
[242]
Distance_5 0.009 (0.39)
[242] −0.030 (−1.13)
[242] −0.009 (−0.03)
[242]
Distance_10 0.006 (0.26)
[242] −0.039 (−1.30)
[242] −0.004 (−0.12)
[242]
Note: Parentheses show t-statistics and brackets are number of observations; *** significant at 1%, ** at 5%, and *
at 10% levels.
Table 6. Education and health.
Method Indicators Pre-Sri City Base Year (1) Current (2) Difference in Difference (3)
NNM If income was sufficient for
education of children (If yes = 1; 0
otherwise)
Land-lost
farmers −0.15 (−1.25)
[242]
0.017 (0.17)
[242]
0.17 (1.15)
[242]
Distance_5 0.033 (0.42)
[242] −0.081(−1.14)
[242] −0.114 (−1.21)
[242]
Distance_10 −0.006 (−0.009)
[242] −0.130 * (−1.81)
[242] −0.123 (−1.25)
[242]
Paired ttest
Mean of high school pass:
(Difference between the age group
14_28 and age group above 28 years)
Land-lost
farmers -1.18 (1.24)
[36] -
Distance_5 - 2.12 ** (2.40)
[79] -
Distance_10 - 2.04 ** (2.01)
[108] -
Mean of degree holders: (Difference
between the age group 14_28 and
age group above 28 years)
Land-lost
farmers -1.72 * (1.67)
[60] -
Distance_5 - 2.33 ** (2.30)
[122] -
Distance_10 - 2.84 *** (2.67)
[161] -
NNM Whether any member has chronic
disease in the HH: Current scenario
(treatment vs. comparison groups)
Land-lost
farmers -0.305 *** (2.93)
[242] -
Distance_5 - 0.041 (0.74)
[242] -
Distance_10 - 0.106 ** (2.02)
[242] -
NNM Satisfaction with income
(If yes = 1; 0 otherwise)
Land-lost
farmers −0.85 (−0.76)
[242]
0.067 (0.066)
[242]
0.152 (1.12)
[242]
Distance_5 −0.065 (−0.82)
[242] −0.154 * (−2.22)
[242] −0.089 (−1.09)
[109]
Distance_10 −0.110 (−1.41)
[242] −0.156 * (−2.21)
[242] −0.045 (−0.53)
[242]
Note: Parentheses show t-statistics and brackets are number of observations; *** significant at 1%, ** at 5%, and *
at 10% levels.
Businesses 2024,4308
4.3. Material Well-Being
The results presented in Table 3demonstrate a robust positive impact of land con-
version on the incomes of land-lost farmers compared to the comparison group. These
farmers had significantly lower incomes than the comparison group in the baseline period.
However, over time, their incomes increased, with the difference in incomes between the
two groups shrinking and becoming insignificant by 2021. On average, the difference in
annual household incomes between the two groups has steeply decreased by Rs. 94,294.5
(USD 1274.5 @ Rs.1 = 0.01352 USD), while the difference in income per capita has reduced
by over Rs. 35,000 (USD 476.4), as shown in Column 3. These results can be attributed to
job generation and the promise of jobs for each land-lost household. During formal inter-
views, companies revealed how labor availability changed over time, shifting from being
abundant to scarce in recent years, with high labor turnover becoming a major challenge
they are facing.
In the realm of research, most studies assessing the impact of land acquisition focus
on incomes in their analysis, yielding diverse results [
28
,
31
,
53
–
58
]. Nguyen et al. [
14
]
demonstrate that losing agricultural land negatively influences household farm income
in the short run, but as employment in non-agricultural sectors increases, incomes also
improve. Additionally, Aggarwal and Kokko [
31
] find that adverse effects diminish over
time. Studies by Han et al. [
59
], Zhang et al. [
60
], and Xie [
61
] reveal that the effects of land
acquisition on material well-being vary with farmers’ education. Our results show that not
only land-lost farmers but the households living within 5 kms also benefit in material terms.
Even though the improvement in incomes is somewhat less impressive than for those who
lost land, it turns out to be significant. However, as we move farther from Sri City, the
benefits further dissipate. Indeed, the households living up to 10 kms of distance found
their incomes improved but the improvement was significantly large only for income per
capita and not household income. The results are in line with the findings in the existing
literature that the benefits of such a project dissipate with distance (for instance, [30,32]).
It must also be noted that gains are more robust for income per capita than the total
household incomes. This may be attributed to a smaller family size in the current period.
Land acquisition and large compensation split up most large families due to more options
in life available to them. Out of sixty-two households, fifty land-lost households reported
living in a joint family system in the base year. Of them, 35 families broke up and new
nuclear families came up in their place. The average family size reduced from nine to
four over time. Despite improved incomes, the number of bank accounts reported by
households and the probability of savings, which are good indicators of financial well-
being, have not shown statistically significant improvement over time for any treatment
group (Column 3: Table 3).
On the other hand, the probability of borrowings has increased across all treatment
groups (Column 2: Table 3). In the baseline period, the probability of borrowing was
significantly higher than the comparison groups only for land-lost farmers (Column1:
Table 3). However, post-Sri City, its probability turns out to be significantly higher for all
treatment groups (Column 3). More than two-thirds of the respondents reported borrowing
money over the past five years. Health is the number one reason, followed by social
ceremonies and education.
4.4. Sources of Income
Relocating labor from low-productivity agriculture to the higher-productivity manu-
facturing sector is increasingly viewed as a critical condition to generate decent employment
(see [
33
] for literature review). Our results (Table 4) provide overwhelming evidence of
structural transformation in the composition of income sources of households away from
agriculture towards regular jobs in the region, post-Sri City (Table 4).
The probability of agriculture being the major source of income for all three treatment
groups has declined significantly. For instance, land-lost farmers were 61% more likely to
have agriculture as the main source of income than the comparison group in the baseline
Businesses 2024,4309
period (Column1: Table 4). However, in the current period, the difference turns out to be
insignificant (Column 2), depicting a decline in the probability of agriculture as the major
source for 64% for them (Column 3). On the other hand, the probability of regular jobs
as the major income source increased significantly by 40%, while that of self-employment
increased insignificantly by 7%.
These results are upheld for the remaining two treatment groups as well. However,
once again, the average treatment effect of difference in difference (Col 3: Table 4) dimin-
ishes as the distance from Sri City increases. This suggests that the impact of Sri City on
income source composition is more pronounced for households closer to the industrial hub.
Evidence of structural transformation is further supported by changes in income
shares. The share of jobs in the incomes of treatment groups increased significantly, while
that of agriculture declined. This indicates that land-lost farmers have been absorbed into
jobs without migrating from their local habitat. The results for households living within
5 and 10 km remain more or less the same (albeit with low average treatment effects of
difference in difference) but the results for self-employment are ambiguous.
A major challenge in India is how to transition a significant portion of the population
stuck in agriculture into the manufacturing sector. The Sri City project demonstrates that a
successful manufacturing project can be instrumental in this transition. These findings are
supported by evidence from China and Vietnam as well [12,54,61].
4.5. Quality of Life
The results presented in Table 5demonstrate significant changes in the living standards
of land-lost farmers compared to the comparison group over the two periods. In the
base year, the average treatment effect on almost all variables depicting the standard of
living turns out to be negative for land-lost farmers compared with the comparison group
(Column 1). For ‘living in huts,’ however, the effect is significantly positive, indicating that
these farmers were 39% more likely to stay in huts.
In 2021, the average treatment effect of all indicators turned insignificant, suggesting
that the gap between the two groups became insignificant (Column 2), and the improvement
(difference-in-difference) in nearly all of them has been significant compared with the
comparison group since the base period (Column 3). There are studies that provide evidence
that land-lost farmers’ dwellings and living standards improved over time [62,63]).
For the two other treatment groups as well, there have been improvements in the
standard of living, even though the difference is not significant in most cases. This indicates
that the project has had an inequality-reducing effect in the region in terms of the standard
of living, although the effects are not significantly large. Our results align with Abagna
et al. [
64
], who find that the positive effect on the quality of life persists within 10 km of
special economic zones (SEZs) in selected African countries.
4.6. Education and Health
We lacked baseline information on achievements in education and health. Therefore,
for education, we evaluated the sufficiency of income for children’s education in both the
baseline and current years by asking households about their income adequacy for their
children’s education. Table 6presents the results, indicating an increase in the probability
of satisfaction with income sufficiency for education among land-lost farmers (Column 3).
This is despite a significant rise in their incomes from a very low baseline. For households
residing within 5 and 10 km, this satisfaction has in fact declined despite an income increase.
This suggests a potential rise in educational expenditures in the region. As households
witness improvements in their economic circumstances, they might prioritize investing
more in their children’s education, leading to reduced satisfaction levels regarding their
ability to meet educational expenses. To bolster this hypothesis, we conducted further
analysis by dividing the sample into two age groups, ‘14 to 28’ and ‘28 and above,’ and
employed t-tests to compare pre- and post-Sri City levels of their education. Across all
treatment groups, educational achievements were notably higher in the 14–28 age group,
Businesses 2024,4310
predominantly comprising individuals who came of age during the post-Sri City era. This
inclination could be attributed to more favorable educational opportunities arising from an
enhanced quality of life [20,31,55].
Regarding health, we evaluated the probability of having chronic diseases in the
current period using the NNM based on the Mahalanobis distance model. Our observation
is that the probability of chronic diseases is highest among land-lost farmers, despite
improvements in other socio-economic indicators. Previous studies by Qian [
65
] and Wang
et al. [
66
] have shown that land expropriation can adversely affect farmers’ health, primarily
due to psychological stress. While only 18% of households in our study attributed chronic
diseases to stress and overworking, it is essential to delve deeper into the specific factors
contributing to the higher prevalence of chronic diseases among land-lost farmers. We tried
to understand whether they have any income-related psychological stress. Our findings
indicate that despite improvements in material well-being and the general standard of
living, happiness and satisfaction levels remain indeterminate. While land-lost farmers
report a positive change, albeit not significant, the other two treatment groups have become
significantly unhappier. This shows that we cannot rule out stress as one of the outcomes
associated with increasing material well-being due to enhanced aspirations and the higher
cost of living in the region.
Several studies have focused on the happiness and satisfaction of land-lost farmers,
yielding mixed findings. Some report widespread dissatisfaction [
22
,
58
,
60
,
67
], while others
find satisfaction to have increased [
62
,
68
–
72
]). Liu et al. [
73
] highlight that compensation
remains a major cause of dissatisfaction despite increased incomes, while Wang et al. [
66
]
conclude that the increase in household income cannot offset the negative effect of land
acquisition on happiness. These divergent findings underscore the complexity of assessing
subjective well-being and the need for comprehensive analyses that consider various
socio-economic factors.
5. Conclusions and Policy Implications
In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive assessment of the socioeconomic
sustainability of the Sri City business city project and its associated land use change
from agriculture to industrial development and urbanization. Drawing on survey-based
data collected from 250 households in and around Sri City, we adopt a multidimensional
approach to define socioeconomic well-being.
Our findings, based on an aggregate before and after analysis, indicate a significant
transformation over time in the region across various indicators of socioeconomic well-
being. Further, controlled comparisons between well-being scenarios with and without
Sri City for three treatment groups—land-lost farmers, households living within 5 kms
of the project, and households living within 10 kms, for assessing distributional effects—
reveal that while the lives and livelihoods of those living within proximity to the project
have improved, land-lost farmers have benefitted the most across various dimensions
of socioeconomic sustainability. Our analysis also reveals that the benefits of the Sri
City project are smaller for households living up to 10 km from the project compared
to those living within 5 km. This finding suggests that proximity to the project plays a
crucial role in determining the extent of benefits accrued to households and underscores the
importance of targeted interventions and inclusive planning strategies aimed at maximizing
the positive effects of the project. However, it is noteworthy that despite improvements in
socioeconomic well-being, satisfaction and happiness levels have not significantly improved
for any treatment group, and borrowings have also increased significantly. This could
be attributed to the accompanying rise in material and capability-enhancing aspirations
associated with development.
Further, we argue that these results may not be generalized. However, they provide
evidence that land use change for large-scale industrialization can have positive outcomes
on the well-being of local communities, particularly land-lost farmers if it is supported by
careful planning, inclusive policies, and sustainable practices. Our analysis underscores the
Businesses 2024,4311
notion that a good land acquisition model for land use conversion extends beyond mere
compensation and rehabilitation efforts. It should aim at providing affected households
with choices and a positive future outlook. This hinges on the success of the industrial
project, which in turn calls for careful project location selection, effective land acquisition
practices, visionary leadership, strong commitment, and strategic management to harness
opportunities and confront challenges effectively. By prioritizing inclusive development
and sustainability, industrial projects like Sri City have the potential to drive socioeconomic
progress and improve the well-being of local communities.
Finally, our analysis underscores the importance of manufacturing projects in generat-
ing relatively more equal effects by absorbing both skilled and unskilled labor compared
to service-based counterparts. We present an analysis that stands in contrast with earlier
studies, such as Levien’s [
9
] examination of the Rajpura IT-SEZ case, which illustrated how
land use policy changes could lead to dispossession without accompanying development
and highlights the need for a strategic shift towards manufacturing SEZs. The lack luster
approach of the government of India towards SEZs has hit manufacturing zones particu-
larly badly, with the actual employment in them being 85 per cent short of the target as of
January 2019. Our study demonstrates that successful manufacturing projects, like Sri City,
have the potential to generate relatively more equal effects by absorbing both skilled and
unskilled labor compared to service-based projects, which mainly cater to skilled workers.
It is imperative to prioritize such industrial projects that can have a significant impact on
fostering a more inclusive and sustainable economic environment.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A.; methodology, A.A.; software, A.A. and A.G.; valida-
tion, A.A.; formal analysis, A.A.; investigation, A.A.; resources, A.A. and A.G.; data curation, A.G.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.A.; visualization, A.A.;
supervision, A.A.; project administration, A.A.; funding acquisition, A.A. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond Sweden as part of the project
titled, “Special Economic Zones: A force for good to reduce inequality?”.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used in this study are collected by the authors as part of an
ongoing study and are not readily available.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Aggarwal, A. How has Globalization Affected the Economic Growth, Structural Change, and Poverty Reduction Linkages? In New
Perspectives on Structural Change: Causes and Consequences of Structural Change in the Global Economy; Alcorta, L., Foster-McGregor,
N., Verspagen, B., Szirmai, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 551–576.
2.
Aggarwal, A.; Kumar, N. Structural Change, Industrialization and Poverty Reduction: The Case of India; Development Papers 1206;
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) South and South-West Asia Office: New
Delhi, India, 2012.
3. Harvey, D. Paris, Capital of Modernity; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
4. Harvey, D. A Brief History of Neoliberalism; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005.
5.
Bottazzi, P.; Crespo, D.; Bangura, L.O.; Rist, S. Evaluating the Livelihood Impacts of a Large-Scale Agricultural Investment:
Lessons from the Case of a Biofuel Production Company in Northern Sierra Leone. Land Use Policy 2018,73, 128–137. [CrossRef]
6.
Drbohlav, P.; Hejkrlik, J. Social and economic impacts of land concessions on rural communities of Cambodia: Case study of
botumsakor National Park. Int. J. Asia-Pac. Stud. 2018,14, 165–189. [CrossRef]
7.
Dürr, J. Sugar-Cane and Oil Palm Expansion in Guatemala and Its Consequences for the Regional Economy. J. Agrar. Chang. 2017,
17, 557–570. [CrossRef]
8.
Engström, L.; Bélair, J.; Blache, A. Formalising village land dispossession? An aggregate analysis of the combined effects of the
land formalisation and land acquisition agendas in Tanzania. Land Use Policy 2022,120, 2022. [CrossRef]
9. Levien, M. Dispossession without Development: Land Grabs in Neoliberal India; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018.
Businesses 2024,4312
10.
Neef, A. Land Rights Matter! Anchors to Reduce Land Grabbing, Dispossession and Displacement. A Comparative Study of Land Rights
Systems in Southeast Asia and the Potential of National and International Legal Frameworks and Guidelines Analysis; Analysis 60; Brot für
die Welt Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e. V: Berlin, Germany, 2016.
11.
Nguyen, T.T.H.; Tuan, T.V.; Bui, Q.T.; Man, Q.H.; Walter, T.d.V. Socio-economic effects of agricultural land conversion for urban
development: Case study of Hanoi, Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2016,54, 583–592. [CrossRef]
12.
Nhung, P.T.; Kappas, M.; Faust, H. Improving the Socioeconomic Status of Rural Women Associated with Agricultural Land
Acquisition: A Case Study in Huong Thuy Town, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. Land 2019,8, 151. [CrossRef]
13.
Duong, M.T.T.; Samsura, D.A.A.; van der Krabben, E. Socio-economic and environmental impacts of land acquisition for tourism
development in Vietnam. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2023,9, 2283923. [CrossRef]
14.
Nguyen, T.T.; Hegedus, G.; Nguyen, T.L. Effect of Land Acquisition and Compensation on the Livelihoods of People in Quang
Ninh District, Quang Binh Province Labor and Income. Land 2019,8, 91. [CrossRef]
15.
Dires, T.; Fentie, D.; Hunie, Y.; Nega, W.; Tenaw, M.; Agegnehu, S.K.; Mansberger, R. Assessing the Impacts of Expropriation and
Compensation on Livelihood of Farmers: The Case of Peri-Urban Debre Markos, Ethiopia. Land 2021,10, 614. [CrossRef]
16.
Debela, D.D.; Stellmacher, T.; Azadi, H.; Kelboro, G.; Lebailly, P.; Ghorbani, M. The Impact of Industrial Investments on Land Use
and Smallholder Farmers’ Livelihoods in Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2020,99, 105091.
17. Feldman, S.; Geisler, C. Land Expropriation and Displacement in Bangladesh. J. Peasant Stud. 2012,39, 971–993. [CrossRef]
18.
Ghatak, M.; Mitra, S.; Mookherjee, D.; Nath, A. Land acquisition and compensation: What really happened in Singur? Econ. Polit.
Wkly. 2013,48, 32–44.
19. Buddhadeb, G. What Made the ‘Unwilling Farmers’ Unwilling? A Note on Singur. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2012,67, 13–16.
20.
Huang, X.; Huang, Y.; He, Q.; Yang, X. Assessment of livelihood vulnerability of land-lost farmers in urban fringes: A case study
of Xi’an, China. Habitat Int. 2017,59, 1–9. [CrossRef]
21.
Yang, B.; Wu, C. Empirical study on the relationship between health, happiness and social capital of land-lost farmers. Issues
Agric. Econ. 2009,2, 25–29.
22.
Zhang, C.; Hu, W. Research on the change of happiness and its influencing factors of land-lost farmers—Taking the suburbs of
Hangzhou as an example. World Surv. Res. 2012,8, 30–34.
23.
Kusiluka, M.M.; Kongela, S.; Karimuribo, E.D.; Kusiluka, L.J. The negative impact of land acquisition on indigenous communities’
livelihood and environment in Tanzania. Habitat Int. 2011,35, 66–73.
24.
Kombe, W.J. Land acquisition for public use, emerging conflicts and their socio-political implications. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev.
2010,2, 45–63. [CrossRef]
25.
Ocasiones, L.G. You Can’t Have Our Land”: Land Grabbing and the Feminization of Resistance in Aloguinsan, Cebu. Philipp.
Sociol. Rev. 2018,66, 35–60.
26.
Brussevich, M. The socioeconomic impact of Special Economic Zones: Evidence from Cambodia. World Econ. 2024,47, 362–387.
[CrossRef]
27.
Wang, J. The economic impact of Special Economic Zones: Evidence from Chinese municipalities. J. Dev. Econ. 2013,101, 133–147.
[CrossRef]
28.
Le, T.Y.; Phamb, V.H.; Cuc, T.T.; Pham, M.H.; Dao, Q.T. The effect of industrial park development on people’s lives. Manag. Sci.
Lett. 2020,10, 1487–1496. [CrossRef]
29.
Alkon, M. Do special economic zones induce developmental spillovers? Evidence from India’s states. World Dev. 2018,107,
396–409. [CrossRef]
30.
Hyun, Y.; Ravi, S. Place-Based Development: Evidence from Special Economic Zones in India; Boston University—Department
of Economics—The Institute for Economic Development Working Papers Series, dp-306; Department of Economics, Boston
University: Boston, MA, USA, 2018.
31.
Aggarwal, A.; Kokko, A. SEZs and poverty reduction: Evidence from Andhra Pradesh, India. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2021,17,
1793–1814. [CrossRef]
32.
Gallé, J.; Overbeck, D.; Riedel, N.; Seidel, T. Place-Based Policies, Structural Change and Female Labor: Evidence from India’s Special
Economic Zones; September 5, 2022 Structural Transformation and Economic Growth; Working Paper 040; CEPR: London, UK, 2022.
33.
Aggarwal, A. Special Economic Zones in South Asia: Structural Change, Competitiveness and Growth; Routledge: New York, NY, USA;
London, UK, 2024.
34.
Davies, K.F.; D’Odorico, P.; Rulli, M.C. Land grabbing: A preliminary quantification of economic impacts on rural livelihoods.
Popul. Environ. 2014,36, 180–192. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
McCarthy, J. Processes of inclusion and adverse incorporation: Oil palm and agrarian change in Sumatra, Indonesia. J. Peasant
Stud. 2010,37, 821–850. [CrossRef]
36.
Borras, S.M., Jr.; Franco, J.C. Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change: A preliminary analysis. J. Agrar. Change
2012,12, 34–59. [CrossRef]
37.
Levien, M. The land question: Special economic zones and the political economy of dispossession in India. J. Peasant Stud. 2012,
39, 933–969. [CrossRef]
38. Aggarwal, A. Special Economic Zones: Revisiting the Policy Debate. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2006,41, 4533–4536.
39.
Banerjee, A.V.; Bardhan, P.K.; Basu, K.; Chaudhury, M.D.; Ghatak, M.; Guha, A.S.; Majumdar, M.; Mookherjee, D.; Ray, D. Beyond
Nandigram: Industrialization in West Bengal. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2007,42, 1487–1489.
Businesses 2024,4313
40.
Chakravorty, S. Land Acquisition in India: The Political Economy of Changing the Law. In Seeking Middle Ground: Land, Markets,
and Public Policy; Chakravorty, S., Palit, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Delhi, India, 2019.
41.
Levien, M. From Primitive Accumulation to Regimes of Dispossession: Six Theses on India’s Land Question. Econ. Polit. Wkly.
2015,50, 146–157.
42.
Misra, K. Political Domination and Economic Dispossession of Farmers: The Case of Land Acquisition for Special Economic
Zones in India. J. Glob. Dev. 2021,12, 181–219. [CrossRef]
43. Palit, A.; Bhattacharjee, S. Special Economic Zones in India: Myths and Realities; Anthem Press: Delhi, India, 2008.
44. Sampat, P. Special Economic Zones in India. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2008,43, 25–29.
45.
Sathe, D. The Political Economy of Land Acquisition in India: How a Village Stops Being One; Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore; Springer
Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017.
46.
Wahi, N.; Bhatia, A.; Gandhi, D.; Jain, S.; Shukla, P.; Chauhan, U. Land Acquisition in India: A Review of Supreme Court Cases from
1950 to 2016; Centre for Policy Research: New Delhi, India, 2017.
47.
Zheng, Y.; Aggarwal, A. Special Economic Zones in China and India: A Comparative Analysis. In The Oxford Handbook of Industrial
Hubs and Economic Development; Oqubay, A., Lin, J.Y., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 607–622.
48.
Kumar, U. Impact of SEZ on inequality: A study of Sri City SEZ in Andhra Pradesh, India. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2018,119,
3067–3080.
49.
Carter, L. The Emotionally Connected Leader Achieving Organizational Change and Peak Performance. Lead. Lead. 2019,95,
19–25.
50.
Custodio, H.M.; Hadjikakou, M.; Bryan, B.A. A review of socioeconomic indicators of sustainability and wellbeing building on
the social foundations framework. Ecol. Econ. 2023,203, 107608. [CrossRef]
51.
Frölich, M. Nonparametric IV estimation of local average treatment effects with covariates. J. Econom. 2007,139, 35–75. [CrossRef]
52. King, G.; Nielsen, R. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. Polit. Anal. 2019,27, 435–454. [CrossRef]
53.
Le, K.; Nguyen, M. The impacts of farmland expropriation on Vietnam’s rural households. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2020,24, 1560–1582.
[CrossRef]
54.
Nguyen, Q.; Kim, D.C. Reconsidering rural land use and livelihood transition under the pressure of urbanization in Vietnam: A
case study of Hanoi. Land Use Policy 2020,99, 2020. [CrossRef]
55.
Tuan, N.T. Shrinking agricultural land and changing livelihoods after land acquisition in Vietnam. Bull. Geogr. Soc.-Econ. Ser.
2021,53, 17–32. [CrossRef]
56.
Tuyen, T.Q.; Lim, S.; Cameron, M.P.; Van Huong, V. Farmland loss, nonfarm diversification and inequality among households in
Hanoi’s peri-urban areas, Vietnam. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 2014,36, 327–377. [CrossRef]
57.
Coulibaly, B.; Li, S. Impact of Agricultural Land Loss on Rural Livelihoods in Peri-Urban Areas: Empirical Evidence from
Sebougou, Mali. Land 2020,9, 470. [CrossRef]
58.
He, S.; Liu, Y.; Webster, C.; Wu, F. Property rights redistribution, entitlement failure and the impoverishment of landless farmers
in China. Urban Stud. 2009,46, 1925–1949.
59.
Han, J.; Huo, Z.; Sun, X. Loss of Happiness for Land-Expropriated, Urbanised Residents: A Comparison Based on Multiple
Groups. Int. J. Environ. Resour. Public Health 2022,19, 2425. [CrossRef]
60.
Zhang, Y.; Dai, X.; Yu, X. Urban integration of land-deprived households in China: Quality of living and social welfare. Land Use
Policy 2020,96, 104671. [CrossRef]
61.
Xie, Y. Land expropriation, shock to employment, and employment differentiation Findings from land-lost farmers in Nanjing,
China. Land Use Policy 2019,87, 104040. [CrossRef]
62.
Li, C.; Wang, M.; Song, Y. Vulnerability and livelihood restoration of landless households after land acquisition: Evidence from
peri-urban China. Habitat Int. 2018,79, 109–115. [CrossRef]
63.
Nguyen, P.; Van Westen, A.; Zoomers, A. Compulsory land acquisition for urban expansion: Livelihood reconstruction after land
loss in Hue’s peri-urban areas, Central Vietnam. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 2017,39, 99–121. [CrossRef]
64.
Abagna, M.A.; Hornok, C.; Mulyukova, A. Place-Based Policies and Household Wealth in Africa. Kiel Institute for the World
Economy (IfW Kiel). 2024. No. 2263. Available online: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/place-based-policies-and-
household-wealth-in-africa-32548/ (accessed on 22 July 2024).
65.
Qian, Z. Land acquisition compensation in post-reform China: Evolution, structure and challenges in Hangzhou. Land Use Policy
2015,46, 250–257. [CrossRef]
66.
Wang, D.; Qian, W.; Guo, X. Gains and losses: Does farmland acquisition harm farmers’ welfare? Land Use Policy 2019,86, 78–90.
[CrossRef]
67.
Tong, W.; Zhu, L.; Lo, K. Livelihood adaptation and life satisfaction among land-lost farmers: Critiquing China’s ur-banisation-
driven land appropriation. Bull. Geogr. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2019,46, 149–161. [CrossRef]
68.
Hu, Q.; Wu, G.; Song, K.; Ou, X.; Li, Z. Evaluation of the Impact of Rural Land Expropriation on Land-Expropriated Farmers’
Welfare by Means of Amartya Sen’s Theory of Capability. Econ. Geogr. 2019,39, 187–194.
69.
Hu, W.; Zhang, X.; Song, Y.; Shen, L.; Liu, J.; Zhang, A. Life satisfaction approach to farmers’ compensation for land acquisition:
Empirical study from the suburbs of Wuhan City. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2014,12, 316–323. [CrossRef]
70.
Kumar, P.; Kumar, P.; Garg, R.K. A study on farmers’ satisfaction and happiness after the land sale for urban expansion in India.
Land Use Policy 2021,109, 105603. [CrossRef]
Businesses 2024,4314
71. Lu, M.; Jiang, S.; Zuo, T. Fairness and Happiness. Stud. Labor Econ. 2014,4, 26–48.
72.
Qu, S.; Heerink, N.; Xia, Y.; Guo, J. Farmers’ satisfaction with compensations for farmland expropriation in China: Evidence from
micro-level data. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2018,10, 572–588. [CrossRef]
73.
Liu, L.; Wang, T.; Xie, L.; Zhan, X. Influencing Factors Analysis on Land-Lost Farmers’ Happiness Based on the Rough DEMATEL
Method Discrete Dynamics. Nat. Soc. 2020,2020, 6439476. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
