Journal of Agricultural Development and Policy, 2017

Volume 27, No. 1&2, 29-36

Income and Employment pattern of rural households: A case study of

High Hill Temperate Zone Households of Himachal Pradesh
Komal Sharma, Ravinder Sharma, Kanwar Pallavi Singh and Kapil Dev
Department of Social Sciences, Dr. Y.S Parmar University of Horticulture and
Forestry, Nauni, Solan

Abstract

Income and employment pattern has been reported in the rural areas of high hill temperate zone
of Himachal Pradesh, based on the primary data collected from 60 rural households. The results
revealed that the average family size of examined area comprised of 6 members where
the percentage of male was found to be 53 percent. The average number of females per
thousands of males was 889 in the study area. In the present study, number of nuclear
families was found to be higher than the joint families. The average proportion of active
workers was worked out to be 58.27 per cent and the overall dependency ratio w.r.t. total
workers was found to be 1:1.40. Literacy situation revealed that nearly 83.48 percent
family members were literate with a literacy index of 1.84, indicating poor quality of
education in the study area. Average number of animals was found between 5-6 per
household where maximum proportion constituted by sheep/goat and cows. About 48.48
percent of the total land holding was cultivated area with cropping intensity of 172 per
cent. Income generated from different resources helped to elevate the socioeconomic
status where maximum income generated from fruits (36.66%) and variation in income
was highest in vegetables (61.35%).
Keywords: Literacy, Livelihood, Land holdings, Income, Cropping intensity
JEL Classification: R11, R20

Introduction among social scientists the term is serious business

The state of Himachal Pradesh is a unique because it connotes one's position in the social
physiographic unit in western Himalayas. It has an hierarchy, how the hierarchy is structured, and
area of 55,673 [Link], which constitute roughly very often one's consequent life chances. In other
1/10th or 9.4 percent of the total area of Himalayan words, socioeconomic status indicates one's access
region. Himachal Pradesh is a part of complex to collectively desired resources, be they material
Himalayan physiography. Depending upon the goods, money, power, friendship networks,
physical condition the society has adopted itself by healthcare, leisure time, or educational
evolving different responses to the limited opportunities. And it is access to such resources
resources. Socioeconomic characteristics depict an that enable individuals and/or groups to prosper in
economic difference in society as a whole. the social world.
Socioeconomic status used for deep understanding Social hierarchy, or stratification, appears to be
that how society works, or perhaps how it should intuitively recognized by most everyone
work. While it is understandable that few go everywhere (Smith et al. 2011). During social
beyond a cursory understanding of the construct, interactions various indicators are typically
displayed or revealed in order to convey one's
Corresponding Author e-mail: kittu1992gautam@[Link]
 Journal of Agricultural Development and Policy
30

socioeconomic status to other members of the range and Pulga and Tosh from Kasol range were
social group. Common indicators include selected. Further from the selected blocks one
professional titles, clothing, hairstyles, automobiles, village each i.e., Garsa, Thela, Pulga and Barsheni
residential addresses and so forth. It is access to were selected respectively. Fifteen households were
such resources that enables individuals and/or selected from the each village.
groups to thrive in the social world. Those with
higher socioeconomic status tend to thrive and The data from 60 households were collected with
many aim to improve their socioeconomic status – the aid of structured and comprehensive
or the socioeconomic status of their offspring – in questionnaire exclusively prepared for the study.
order to improve their life chances. The data collected included information on age,
gender, literacy level, land holding, livestock, total
In the studied area most of the farmers were annual earnings etc. The data were collected
marginal farmers and few were small farmers through a personal interview method from the
where both the categories managed to generate selected households in the study area during the
their income by adopting diversification among year 2014-15.
crops in their farms. They produce different variety
of vegetables, fruits and other cereal crops in Analytical framework
different seasons. Apart from size of land holding To fulfill the specific objectives of the study
income also affected by education status, no. of and based on the nature and extent of availability
male members per households and no. of livestock of data, analytical tools and techniques have been
per household etc. employed for the analysis of the data. Simple
tabular analysis was used to examine socio-
The major socioeconomic factors that affected economic status, their resource structure, income
livelihood choice of rural dwellers in the place are patter. Tabular presentation was adopted to compile
age, number of years in school and agriculture in the general characteristics of the sampled farmers.
order to develop the sector of agriculture. Many Simple statistical tools like averages and
households remained undiversified as they had percentages were used to compare, contrast and
combined activities within farming, commerce, interpret the results. The sex ratio, literacy rate and
skilled non-farm and low skilled non-farm sectors. index were calculated using the following
Agriculture is the dominant source of income for formulas:
farm households in India but the non-farm sources
No .of Females
also contribute at a significant amount. The share of Sex Ratio = × 100
non-farm income declines with landholding size, No .of males
.
but has a positive relationship with total income. Total no. of literate
Livestock also contributes to the large extent in Literacy rate = × 100
Total population
the total income in the rural area. Socioeconomic
status of an area depicts the standard of living of ∑ Wi Xi
the people living there. The present study was Literacy Index =
conducted in a rural area of Himachal Pradesh ∑ Xi
where source of income was very limited and rural Where;
dwellers had to generate their income through
these limited resources. Therefore the present study Wi = Weights (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4) for illiterate,
was undertaken to account for income and employment primary, middle, matriculation, and
pattern of rural households in Parvati Forest Division secondary & above respectively.
of Kullu circle of Himachal Pradesh. Xi =
Number of persons in respective category.
Data Sources and Methodology

Dependency ratio w.r.t total workers
Present study was conducted in the High Hill
Temperate Wet Zone of Himachal Pradesh. Parvati No. of dependents in a family
forest division of Kullu circle was selected =
Total workers
randomly. This forest division has four ranges out
of which Hurla and Kasol ranges were selected.
Two blocks each i.e., Garsa and Thela from Hurla
 Income and Employment pattern of rural households
31

Dependency ratio w. r. t. average size of family varied between 0.38 ha to 1.13 ha with an average
No. of dependents in a family of size of 0.66 ha.
=
Total workers Size and structure of family
The size and structure of sampled households in
Cropping intensity = Gross cropped area
× 100 the studied area are presented in Table 2. The
Net sown area perusal of table shows that at overall level the
average family size was 6 members per household,
Results and Discussion 5 members per household in case of marginal
farmers and 6 members per household in small
Socio-economic characteristics of sampled-
farmers. Almost all the households in the sample
households
were male-headed. In the study area the percentage
To have a comprehensive profile of the farm of males was 53 per cent and females were 47 per
households, a demographic base becomes more cent. The number of females per thousand of
relevant. The social characteristics such as family males ranged between 839 in case of marginal
size, age, work force and sex composition of farm farm category to 939 in small farms with an
households, dependency ratio and literacy affect average of 889 at the overall level. Number of
the economic conditions and in turn affect social nuclear families was higher (40) than the joint
conditions. The significance of the social and families (20). A positive relationship was found
demographic variables is discussed below. First, between the farm size and the family in the study
the farmers are classified in to two categories area.
(marginal and small) on the basis of land holding. Literacy status
The distribution of the sampled households The overall literacy rate varied from 82.35
according to their holding size is presented in per cent to 84.61 per cent in marginal and small
Table 1. It can be seen from the Table 1 that 63 farm categories respectively. Male literacy rate was
per cent of the selected respondents belonged to higher (85.91%) as compare to the female literacy
marginal category and 37 per cent belonged to rate (80.77%). The table 3 showed a marked
small category. Further it can be observed that improvement in the literacy rate. However, literacy
average size of holding of the selected respondents index varied from 1.80 to 1.88 among the different

Table 1. Distribution of sampled households according to their land holdings

Category of Size of land No. of Percentage of Average size of
Farmers holding (ha) farmers farmers holding (ha)
Marginal <1 38 63.00 0.38
Small 1-2 22 37.00 1.13
Total 60 100.00 0.66

Table 2. Demographic profile of sampled households

Particulars Farm size
Marginal Small Overall
Average size of Family (No.) 5 6 6
Number of Males (%) 54 52 53
Number of Females (%) 46 48 47
Sex Ratio (Females/1000 males) 839 939 889
Structure of Family
Joint Families (No.) 11 9 20
(29.94) (40.90) (33.33)
Nuclear Families (No.) 27 13 40
(71.05) (59.09) (66.66)

Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total

 Journal of Agricultural Development and Policy
32

Table 3. Educational status of sampled households Occupational distribution

in the study area Per household occupational structure of the
Particulars Farm Size selected households is given in Table 4 and
Marginal Small Overall Occupational distribution showed that in selected
villages of Parvati forest division around 88.58 per
Illiterate 0.71 0.63 0.68 cent of the population was engaged in agriculture
(13.10) (10.84) (12.23) which was major constituents of livelihood
Primary 1.34 1.5 1.4 occupation whereas, 7.41 per cent households were
(24.72) (25.82) (25.17) engaged in business as secondary occupation at
Middle 1.5 1.54 1.57 overall level followed by services (4.01%) in
(27.70) (26.51) (27.15) private/public sectors. Similar trends in
Secondary 1.15 1.4 1.25 occupational distribution were observed on small
(21.22) (24.10) (22.48) and marginal farm categories. In case of marginal
High secondary 0.21 0.22 0.21 farms workers engaged in service were 3.54 per
(3.88) (3.80) (3.77) cent and in business were as 8.85 per cent. More
Non-school going 0.5 0.5 0.5
members of the small farm category were engaged
in business (5.97%) than in services (4.48 %).
(9.23) (8.60) (8.99)
Though the share of income was very small from
Total 5.42 5.81 5.56
non-farming but it helps to reduce the income
(100.00) (100.00) (100.00)
inequality among the farmers. Similar results were
Literacy rate (%) 82.35 84.61 83.48 found by Birthal et al., 2014 that the share of non-
Male literacy rate (%) 85.15 86.67 85.91 farm income declines with landholding size, but
Female literacy rate (%) 79.07 82.46 80.77 has a positive relationship with total income. The
Literacy index 1.8 1.88 1.84 nonfarm income diversification in China has been
Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total found to reduce income inequality and poverty (de
categories of the farms with an overall index of Janvry et al., 2005).
1.84. This highlighted the fact that literacy rate Workforce
was higher however; the quality of education was The proportion of active workers was
poor as indicated by low literacy index. worked out to be 59.70 per cent in marginal
Table 4. Occupational distribution of the sampled farmers and 56.25 per cent in small farm
households in the study area categories shown in Table 5. It was assumed that
(%)
Farm Size
persons in the
Particulars Marginal Small Overall
age group of 15-60 year are actively engaged in
Service 3.54 4.48 4.01 useful economic activities and were termed as
Business 8.85 5.97 7.41 working force. The dependents were found 43.64
Agriculture 87.61 89.55 88.58 per cent in case of small farmers and 40.29 per
cent in the marginal farmers. The overall

Table 5. Farm category wise distribution of workers and dependents of the sampled Households
Particulars Farm size
Marginal Small Overall
Average no. of workers 3.23 3.27 3.24
(59.70) (56.25) (58.27)
Average no. of dependents 2.18 2.54 2.31
(<14 yrs & >65yrs) (40.29) (43.64) (41.54)
Average family size (No.) 5.42 5.82 5.56
(100.00) (100.00) (100.00)
Dependency ratio w.r.t. total workers 1:1.47 1:1.29 1:1.40
Dependency ratio w.r.t. Family size 1:2.5 1:2.3 1:2.40
Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total
 Income and Employment pattern of rural households
33

Table 6. Distribution of sampled households

according to the size of land holding 11%

16% Cultivated Land

Farm size (ha)
48%
Particulars Minimum Maximum Average CV(%) Orchard
23%
Marginal 0.16 0.8 0.38 46.79 Pasture
Small 1.04 1.6 1.13 16.7 Barren Land
Overall 0.16 1.6 0.65 63
Fig 1. Land use pattern of sampled households in overall

dependency ratio with respect to total workers was

found to be 1:1.40 and among the different Land use pattern of sampled households
Land use pattern determines the type of farming
categories, it was observed 1:1.29 in small farms
system in an area. Farm categories wise land use
and 1:1.47 in marginal farms. Dependency ratio
pattern of sampled farmers is summarized in Table
indicates that on an average one worker has to
7. The average size of land holding on the overall
support more than one member in the family in
category was found 0.66 hectares of which 48.48
the sampled area. Dependency ratio estimated with
per cent was cultivated area and 22.72 per cent
respect to family size was found 1:2.40 on an
was under fruit crops. The other uses of land were
average.
area under pastures/ghasnis (0.11 ha) and barren
Distribution of sampled households according to land (0.07 ha). The cultivated area of marginal and
farm size small farms was 55.26 per cent and 46.01 per cent
According to size of land holding the farmers respectively. The average size of holding on
were categorized in the two categories; marginal marginal and small farms was found to be 0.38
and small farmers. Most of the farmers in the and 1.13 hectares, respectively. The results have
study area were having marginal and small land also been presented in Fig 1.
holdings. In case of marginal farmers the minimum
size of land holding was 0.16 hectares, whereas Cropping pattern of sampled households
Cropping pattern in any region depends mainly
maximum was 0.8 hectares. In case of small
on soil, altitude, micro-climate, availability of
farmers minimum land holding was 1.04 hectares
resources and management factors. The changes in
and maximum was 1.6 hectares. The data
the per cent share of area under different crops in
presented in Table 6, showed higher variations in
the gross cropped area reveals the extent of
land holding in marginal farmers (46.79%)
agricultural diversification in sampled farms. This
compared to small farmers (16.70%) with overall
reflects the future scope of each crop along with
variation of 63 per cent.
tentative requirement of the inputs for different
crops. A close scrutiny of the cropping pattern also
Table 7. Land use pattern of sampled household suggests the status of agriculture in the area. The
(ha) proportional share of a particular crop in gross
Particulars Farm size cropped area on the farm suggests the importance
Marginal Small Overall that the farmer attaches to a particular crop. This
Cultivated Land 0.21 0.52 0.32 importance can be both of economic nature as well
(55.26) (46.01) (48.48)
as social considerations on the part of the farmer.
Orchard 0.11 0.23 0.15 The cropping pattern of sampled farms was
(28.94) (20.35) (22.72) analyzed and the results have been presented in
Pasture 0.04 0.22 0.11 Table 8. It is evident from the table that the
(10.53) (19.47) (16.18) cropping intensity was higher (175%) on marginal
Barren Land 0.02 0.16 0.07 farm category as compare to small farm category
(5.26) (14.16) (10.89) (168%). At overall level it was worked out to be
Total Land Holding 0.38 1.13 0.66 172 per cent, which indicates that there is a scope
(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) for increase in farm efficiency. Wheat in rabi and
maize in kharif season were the predominant
Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total
 Journal of Agricultural Development and Policy
34
Table 8. Farm category wise cropping pattern of Table 9: Livestock inventory of sampled households
the sampled households (Number)
Particulars Farm size Particulars Marginal Small Overall
Marginal Small Cow 1.47 1.54 1.49
Overall (26.39) (30.92) (28.38)
Rabi Milk 1.15 1.27 1.2
Wheat 0.07 0.19 0.11 Dry 0.31 0.27 0.29
(12.50) (15.07) (13.58) Sheep/Goat 2.82 1.81 2.44
Barley 0.07 0.10 0.08 (45.24) (36.34) (46.47)
(12.50) (7.93) (9.88) Young stock 0.76 1.04 0.86
Pea 0.03 0.07 0.04 (13.64) (20.88) (16.38)
(5.35) (5.56) (4.94) Bullock 0.52 0.36 0.46
Potato 0.03 0.07 0.04 (9.33) (7.22) (8.76)
(5.35) (5.56) (4.94) Total 5.57 4.98 5.25
Kharif (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)
Maize 0.08 0.13 0.10
(14.28) (10.31) (12.35) Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total

Tomato 0.03 0.06 0.05 that marginal farms were using the land more
(5.35) (4.76) (6.17) intensively.
Cabbage 0.02 0.05 0.03
(3.57) (3.97) (3.70)
Livestock inventory
Livestock was raised traditionally in the study
Cauliflower 0.02 0.05 0.03
area for wide spectrum of benefits such as cash
(3.57) (3.97) (3.70)
income, food, manure, saving and insurance. Average
Urad 0.03 0.12 0.06
number of livestock is summarised in Table 9. Overall
(5.35) (9.52) (7.41) number of animals was found to be 5.25 per household
Urad under 0.02 0.04 0.03 whereas, on marginal farms it was found 5.57 and
fruit area (3.57) (3.17) (3.70) on small farmers 4.98 animals respectively. Out of
Rajmah 0.03 0.11 0.06 total livestock population, maximum proportion
(5.35) (8.73) (7.41) constituted sheep/goat (46.47%) followed by cows
Rajmah under 0.02 0.04 0.03 (28.38%) and young stock (16.38%). Bullocks
fruit area (3.57) (3.17) (3.70) were found to be very few in number 0.46
Fruit 0.11 0.23 0.15 (8.76%). Similar trends were found on small and
(19.64) (18.25) (18.52) as well as on marginal farms.
Gross Cropped 0.56 1.26 0.81 Income and Employment Structure of Sampled
Area (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Households
Net sown area 0.32 0.75 0.48
Income structure
Cropping 175 168 172
In order to calculate income structure as a whole,
intensity (%) income from different particulars (vegetables, fruit
and cereals) have been calculated. The present study
Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total revealed that villagers earn good amount of income
from vegetables, fruits and cereals. Average income
crops. Vegetable crops were also grown in the of marginal farmers from farm is Rs. 93735 whereas
study area however, area under kharif vegetable small farmers' average income was Rs. 156885 and
crops was found higher in comparison to rabi overall income from farm was Rs. 118023. In case
vegetable crops. Cereal crops were grown in of marginal farmers fruit, cereal and vegetable
cultivated land and small proportion was also contributed 35.51per cent, 17.99 per cent and 16.48
grown under fruit crops. The area under fruit crops per cent respectively whereas in case of small farmers
was 19.64 per cent on marginal farms and 18.25 fruits contributed 37.75 per cent, cereals contributed
per cent was on small farms. The analysis revealed 21.31 per cent and vegetables contributed 21.41
 Income and Employment pattern of rural households
35

Table 10 : Source of income of sampled households (Rs./HH/year)

Particulars Marginal Small Overall
Mini. Max. Average CV (%) Mini. Maxi. Average CV (%) Average CV (%)
Vegetables 15454 41.9 1812 33602 44.9 22434 61.3
5000 31150 (16.48) 5 5 73875 (21.41) 3 (19.00) 5
Cereal crops 16864 55.9 1590 33437 32.2 23238 55.0
7950 42100 (17.99) 5 0 49900 (21.31) 8 (19.68) 2
Fruits 33292 48.3 2750 59233 42.3 43269 54.2
0 70500 (35.51) 3 0 10100 (37.75) 4 (36.66) 9
Livestock 28125 26.0 2800 0 30613 15.2 29082 22.3
0 44800 (30.00) 9 0 44800 (19.51) 5 (24.64) 1
Farm 5545 14621 25.2 9480 22286 156885 21.8 118023 35.3
0 9 93735 3 0 3 (100) (100) 2
(100)
Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total

per cent. It shows maximum income came from livestock, cereals and then vegetables.
fruits in both the cases and overall income also
came from fruits (36.66%) followed by cereals Variation in income from different sources was
(19.68%) and vegetables (19%). Livestock also also calculated and maximum variation was found
played a very important role in their income in the in income from vegetables (61.35%) due to the
studied area. In case of marginal farmers livestock variation in land holding. Overall variation in
contributed 30 per cent and in case of small income from farm activities was recorded as 35.32
farmers it contributed about 19.51 per cent per cent.
whereas overall income from livestock was 24.64 Conclusion and Policy Implications
per cent. Similar results were found by Biradar et al.,
2013 that the percent contribution of livestock to Socio-economic indicators revealed that majority
the household income ranged from 18.60 to 33.90 of the sampled households have nuclear families
percent . The average income obtained from buffalo where average family size ranged from 5 to 6
farming was Rs. 75,236 (Sivaji et al., 2018). Thus persons, out of which 53 per cent were males.
the study revealed that overall fruits played a very Literacy situation revealed that nearly 83.48 per
important role in the income of farmers of cent family members were literates at overall level
marginal as well as small farms followed by

Vegetables
Cereal crops
Fruits
Livestock

Fig 2. Income from different sources of sampled households

 Journal of Agricultural Development and Policy
36

with a literacy index of 1.84, indicating poor MT 2013. Assessing contribution of livestock to
quality of education in the studied area. the livelihood of farmers of western
Occupational distribution revealed that 88.58 per Maharashtra. Journal of Human Ecology 41:
cent of work force in the sampled households 107-112.
practice farming, followed by business sector Birthala PS, Negia DS, Jhab AK and Singh D
(7.41%) and service sector (4.01%). On an average 2014. Income Sources of Farm Households in
58.27 per cent were the workers in family in India: Determinants, Distributional Consequences
overall farms. The overall dependency ratio w.r.t. and Policy Implications. Agricultural Economics
total worker was worked out to be 1:1.40 and Research Review 27: 37-48.
dependency ratio w.r.t. family size was 1:2.40
indicating that on an average one worker has to De Janvry A, Sadoulet E and Zhu N. 2005. The
support more than two family members. The Role of Non-farm Incomes in Reducing Rural
average size of land holding was found 0.66 Poverty and Inequality in China. Working Paper
hectares of which 48.48 per cent was cultivated 1001. Department of Agricultural & Resource
area. The cultivated land varied from 55.26 per Economics, University of California, Berkley.
cent to 46.01 per cent in marginal to small Available at http:// [Link]/are_ucb.
categories of the farm. The cultivation of cereal Sivaji DV, Natchimuthu K, Ramkumar S,
crops was more common followed by fruit crops. Sreekumar D and Ganesan R 2018. Socio
Cropping intensity was 172 per cent at the overall Economic Profile of Buffalo D.V. Farmers in
level. Fruits contributed maximum in the income Guntur and Prakasam Districts of Andhra
of both small (35.51%) as well as large farm Pradesh, India. International Journal of Current
categories (37.75%). Average income of marginal Microbiology and Applied Science 7: 1950-
farmers was worked out to be Rs. 93735 and in 1955.
case of small farmers it was Rs. 156885/HH/year. Smith EA, Mulder MB, Bowles S, and Hill K
Maximum variation was found in income from 2011. Wealth Inequality in Foraging,
vegetables i.e. 61.35 % due to variation in land Horticultural, Pastoral and Agricultural
holding of farmers. There is a need for establishing Populations. Current Anthropology 52:579-80.
basic infrastructures especially for health and
education to increase the crop-production and
productivity. Market structure should be developed
at a sufficient rate to impact on the reduction of
chronic poverty.
References Received: April 28, 2017 Accepted: August 10, 2017
Biradar N, Desai M, Manjunath L and Doddamani