Agri workers’ incomes stagnating -Non- agri workers’ incomes galloping: -
Compiled by K.Ramasubba Reddy |
| Abstract: “All the resources in the village, human and natural, are used to create wealth, which does not remain in the village to benefit its own people, but reaches urban centres leading to their prosperity.” |
T 1: GDP and workforce Distribution
|
| |
1983 |
1983 |
1993-94 |
1993-94 |
2004-05 |
2004-05 |
| |
% GDP |
% Workforce |
% GDP |
% Workforce |
% GDP |
% Workforce |
| Agriculture |
40.0 |
68.5 |
30 |
64 |
22.2 |
56.5 |
| Industry |
24.3 |
13.8 |
25.2 |
14.9 |
26.1 |
18.8 |
| Services |
35.7 |
17.6 |
48.8 |
21.1 |
53.7 |
24.8 |
|
Source: Employment situation in India, R. Nagaraj
|
T 2: AGRICULTURE IN INDIAN ECONOMY- % share in the economy
|
| Year |
NDP at current prices |
Employment |
| 1950-51 |
58.2 |
69.4 |
| 1960-61 |
48.0 |
69.5 |
| 1970-71 |
47.9 |
67.8 |
| 1980-81 |
38.8 |
60.5 |
| 1990-91 |
33.2 |
59.0 |
| 2000-01 |
25.5 |
58.4 |
| 2003-04 |
24.0 |
58.4 |
Source: Ramesh Chand-INDIA’S AGRICULTURAL CHALLENGES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR GROWTH OF IT’S ECONOMY
|
It is observes from table T 1 that decline in employment in Agri sector from 68.5% in 1983 to 56.5% 2004-05 is less than proportionate to decline in GDP share. While decline in agri GDP share was 45%, decline in employment share was only 18%. This resulted in decrease in the growth rate of per capita income agrl workforce.
|
Shift of work force to services less than proportionate to increase in GDP share from 35.7% in 1983 to 53.7% in 2004-05. While increase in GDP share was about 50%, increase in employment share was only 40%. This resulted in increase in the growth rate of percapita income of services workforce.
|
The net result was widening disparities in the percapita incomes of agri workforce and services workforce as shown in table T 3.
|
T 3: Per worker income in agriculture and non agriculture (Rs at 1993-94 prices)
|
| |
1969 to 74 |
1979 to 84 |
1989 to 94 |
1999 to 04 |
| Agriculture |
9,000 |
10,000 |
11,000 |
11,000 |
| Non-agriculture |
33.000 |
29,000 |
40,000 |
60,000 |
Source: Same as T 2
|
Per worker income at constant prices in agriculture was stagnant around Rs 10,000 from 1969 to 2004, per worker income in non-agri sector doubled from Rs 30,0000 to Rs 60, 000 during the same period. Thus income disparities between agri and non- agri workers which was 300% in 1969 has steeply increased to 600% in 2004.
|
At an average rate of population growth of 2.1% during the period 1950-51 to 2004-05, per capita income of agricultural workforce was virtually stagnant at 0.5% per annum, compared to whopping increase in per capita industry sector workforce income at 4.7% per annum.
|
This trend of income disparities continued to further widen during 2005-10 also thus negating the XI Plan objective of inclusive growth.
|
| While increase in per capita agri workforce income during the five year period ending FY 2010 was only about 1.2% per annum, Per capita industry workforce income was 5.6% and that of services workforce 8.6%. This has resulted in wide variation between incomes of agri workforce and non- agri workforce. |
“If we take the village as a unit, not a geographical one but an economic one, it has a pool of resources, both human and natural. This essentially comprises agricultural land, trees, people, water, agricultural produce, wood, minerals, animals , milk, meat, animal skin and metal. This is the collective village property. Out of this wealth is created that translates into a slew of products and services, food grain, fodder, milk, leather, wood, metal, cotton to name a few, varying, of course, from region to region.
The logical flow of this wealth to the end-user is what determines who stays poor and who benefits in the rural scenario. Much of what has been generated in the villages finds its way into the markets, which are invariably in urban centres or, at any rate, not in the villages. |
All the resources in the village, human and natural, are used to create wealth, which does not remain in the village to benefit its own people, but reaches urban centres leading to their prosperity. Much of what the rural population needs in terms of daily use is now available only in the markets, leaving them with no option but to go chasing the very goods they have been creating. |
This can help us discern why poverty eradication as a goal still remains so elusive. Why the growth in the economy or the whole edifice of government’s policies, its slew of programmes, reforms and measures does not lead to a significant progress in poverty alleviation.” ET 8 Oct 2010, Karnaram Poonar & Sujatha Raghavan
|
| Krsr/Article/041110 |
