A Comparative assessment of socio-economic determinants influencing beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries under the ARYA program in Kaushambi district, U.P.

Introduction

In the era of Science and Space -Agriculture remains the primary pillar of India's economy, particularly India's rural economy where 47 per cent of the population is dependent on agriculture for livelihood and almost 65 per cent of the population lives there (Economic Survey 2021 data). India has 378 million young people. Two out of three lives in rural areas, and are largely disconnected India's story of economic growth with women and youth disproportionately affected (State of Rural Youth Employment 2024) In the village context, youth embody a productive force whose skills, aspirations and adaptability can reorient agriculture from subsistence practices towards innovation and enterprise. Thus focus of the government on rural development and youths became imperative as they contribute not only to household incomes but also to larger village economy through agriculture and allied activities. At the national level empowering youth in agriculture strengthens the overall economy, reduces unemployment and fosters inclusive rural development. To guarantee more equal and inclusive growth the emphasis has been on particularly enhancing the quality of rural life (Indian Economic Survey 2021-2022) The rural youths generally tend to migrate because of several pull push factors, between 2001 and 2011 while population grew by 18 per cent, the number of migrants increased by 45 per cent. In 2011, 99 per cent of total migration was internal and immigrants comprised 1 per cent.

The government aims to encourage rural youth to take up agriculture as a means of livelihood. However, many young people in rural areas face a dilemma. On one hand, they lack the highly specialized skills required to join other sectors of the economy, limiting their options. On the other hand, agriculture, the most accessible occupation for them, is often seen as unattractive due to its low profitability, uncertain returns, and limited opportunities for growth. As a result, rural youth find themselves caught between limited choices and an unappealing agricultural sector, leading to uncertainty and hesitation about their future. To keep youths in agriculture, we need to make it more profitable and a viable option for their livelihoods. Recognizing the value of rural youth in agriculture, ICAR started a program called "Attracting and Retaining Youth in Agriculture" on July 16, 2015. The program aims to draw rural youth to agriculture and keep them engaged by involving them in agrienterprises and helping them become agri-entrepreneurs. The major goal remains to build up the confidence they need to sustain farming as a viable career rather than seeking just a livelihood sustaining work in cities (Bairwa and Kushwaha, (2015) [4] . At times, certain calamities offer an opportunity to revive existing systems. The COVID-19 pandemic was one such moment, forcing thousands to reverse migrate from urban centers back to rural areas. This shift presents a renewed opportunity to refocus and strengthen the objectives of the ARYA scheme, making it more relevant and impactful in the current context. That's why several experts suggest full fledged implementations of the scheme (Thakur et al., 2021) [6] .

Methodology

Ex-post facto research design was used for the present study as the event has already occurred and the design is considered appropriate The study was conducted in the state of Uttar Pradesh, where maximum KVK's are engaged in implementing the ARYA scheme. These KVK,s run entrepreneurship development training programmes and also provide assistance to these trained youths to set and run their enterprise. In the current investigation, the Kaushambi KVK was chosen as the scheme is successfully running in the area, and is focussing in three enterprises namely Poultry, Seed production and Goatery. For the study, 160 youths beneficiaries and 160 youths non beneficiary were selected from the same region. [1] and Khode et al. (2009) [2] .

Results and Discussion

Education

It is well established that people who are having more formal education tend to have more awareness of their lives and the related innovations. (Table 1) findings in the study suggest that among the beneficiaries the largest proportion of respondents belongs to the group who had attained education at least up to intermediate level with 31.88 per cent, followed by respondents 26.87 per cent who were having Graduate level of education. whereas in case of Non Beneficiaries respondents with secondary education level were prominently found with 35.00 per cent population, followed by primary level of education with 32.50 of respondents. Consistent with the findings of Hundal et al (2016) [6] .

Gender

It can be inferred from the above table that there was predominance of male participants in both groups, comprising 80.62 per cent and 85.62 per cent respectively, while females account for only 19.38 per cent and 14.38 per cent in each group. This suggests that the study population is largely male-dominated.

Caste

Data in the table reveals that 41.25 per cent of beneficiaries were from the General category followed by 37.50 per cent and 16.25 per cent from SC and OBC category respectively. Only 5 per cent belong to the ST category. Whereas in nonbeneficiaries 41.25 per cent belong to SC category followed by General category and then OBC category.

Occupation

It was concluded from table-1 that 40 per cent of the respondents from the beneficiaries category had agriculture as a major occupation while most of the respondents (43.12 per cent) were involved in agriculture+labour. While only 7.50 and 5.62 per cent of beneficiaries were involved in agriculture+subs and independent occupation respectively. In contrast, 31.25 per cent of non-beneficiaries had agriculture as their major occupation followed by 20.62 per cent in agriculture+labour followed by 18.13 per cent had independent occupation. While only 13.13 per cent were involved in agriculture+subsidiary. There were few nonbeneficiaries (10.62 per cent) that were doing nothing.

Family type

Data in table-1 indicated that the majority of respondents in both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries group were having nuclear family as their family type accounting for 68.12 and 63.12 per cent respectively followed by joint family. Similar findings by Satyanarayan and Jagadeeswary (2010) [3] .

Size of Family

Among the category of beneficiaries, 63.12 per cent had families of 4-8 members, while 27.50 per cent had less than 4 members and only 9.38 per cent had more than 8 members. While non-beneficiaries show a higher percentage (46.26 per cent) in the 4-8 member category, with 30.62 per cent having less than 4 members and 23.12 per cent with more than 8 members. This indicates the predominance of medium sized families, which often ensures manageable household responsibilities while doing agricultural work.

Type of House

Among the beneficiaries, 53.12 per cent live in cemented houses followed by those of 30.62 per cent who live in semi-cemented houses, and 11.88 per cent in thatched houses, while a minimum of 4.38 per cent live in mansions.

Whereas among the non-beneficiaries, 45.63 per cent reside in semi-cemented, 28.12 per cent in thatched, while barely 1.25 per cent lives in mansions. Cemented and semi-cemented houses indicate a better socio-economic status and better quality of living. Different research paper's consistently show that pucca (cemented) houses are more common among economically better-off households, while vulnerable groups tend to live in poorer housing types.

Land Holding

Among beneficiaries, 43.12 per cent hold small land holding (1-2 ha), followed by 37.50 per cent of those who are marginal (>1 ha), and only 10 per cent medium land holding www.extensionjournal.com

(2-4 ha), with landless and large holders at 6.25% and 3.13% respectively. Whereas among non-beneficiaries, 55 per cent are marginal and only 1.88 per cent are large holders. Marginal and small landholdings dominate, which aligns with the broader Indian pattern of land fragmentation and prevalence of small to marginal farmers. Small holdings often constrain agricultural productivity but can promote diversification and family labor use.

Annual income

Table 1 illustrates that among beneficiaries 47.50 per cent fall in the medium income bracket (₹50,000-₹2,00,000), followed by 28.12 per cent in the high income group (above ₹2 lakh). Among non-beneficiaries, most of the respondents were in the low income category, followed by 34.37 per cent in medium annual income category. The higher proportion of medium and high income among beneficiaries suggests better economic gains, possibly due to program participation. Similar trends are observed in ARYA outcome studies, which note increased economic security and income diversification among beneficiaries. Similar findings were given by Rajesh et al (2024) [9] .

Extension Contact

Among beneficiaries, 44.38 per cent have medium extension contact, followed by 40.62 with high contact and 15.00 per cent with low contact. For non-beneficiaries, 51.26 per cent have low extension contact, 38.12per cent have medium extension contact, and only 10.62per cent have high extension contact. Extension contact is crucial for effective dissemination of agricultural information and technology. The relatively high contact in beneficiaries indicates that program participants are better connected to extension agencies. Similar studies show that proactive extension linkage leads to better adoption of innovations among youth in ARYA and other extension-focused programs.

Mass Media Exposure

Table 1 depicts, Among the beneficiaries, 46.25 per cent respondents have medium mass media exposure, followed by 28.75 per cent have high, and 25.00 per cent have low mass media exposure. Whereas in contrast the nonbeneficiaries respondents show 44.38 per cent with low mass media exposure, 15.00 per cent with high exposure.

Mass media exposure plays a key role in awareness and adoption of agricultural practices. The greater exposure among beneficiaries enhances their access to timely and relevant farming information. National studies confirm that youth with more media exposure are more likely to adopt new farming methods and diversify their livelihoods. The table illustrates the overall socio-economic profile of ARYA scheme respondents of both beneficiaries and non beneficiaries, categorizing them into low, medium, and high group. Among beneficiaries, the maximum respondents fall in the medium category (41.87 per cent), with 31.25 per cent in high and 26.88 per cent in low. In contrast the Nonbeneficiaries show a higher proportion in the low category (43.12 per cent), followed by medium (36.26 per cent) and only 20.62 per cent in high.

Innovativeness

As the above results show a higher percentage of ARYA recipients receive medium or high ratings, this suggests that they typically have a better socio-economic standing than non-beneficiaries. The scheme's beneficial effects on the social and economic advancement of participating youngsters are highlighted by the increased number of nonbeneficiaries in the low category. These results are in line with recent research that demonstrates the substantial contributions that focused rural initiatives like ARYA make www.extensionjournal.com to improving livelihoods, empowering young people, and decreasing socioeconomic inequalities in rural communities.

References

1. Gautam US, Chand R, Singh DK. Socio-personal correlation for decision making and adoption of dairy practices. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2007;7(2-3):10-11.
2. Khode NV, Sawarkar SW, Banthia VV, Nande MP, Basunathe VK. Adoption of improved dairy cattle management practices under Vidarbha development programme package. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2009;9(2):80-84.
3. Satyanarayan K, Jagadeeswary V. A study on knowledge and adoption behaviour of livestock farmers. Indian J Anim Res. 2010;44(2):100-106.
4. Bairwa SL, Kalia A, Meena LK, Lakra K, Kushwaha S. Agribusiness management education: A review on employment opportunities. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2014;4(2):1-4.
5. Hundal JS, Udeybir S, Singh N, Kansal SK, Bhati JS. Impact of training on knowledge level of goat farmers in Punjab. Haryana Vet. 2016;55(1):47-49.
6. Thakur NB, Chauhan NB, Chauhan CD. Role of ARYA: Luring the youth in agriculture in COVID-19 scenario. Indian Farmer. 2021;8(2):212-215.
7. Economic Survey. Economic survey highlights thrust on rural development. PIB. 2023 Jan 21.
8. Transform Rural India. Transform Rural India Report: State of Rural Youth Employment 2024. 2024.
9. Rajesh M, Suresha SV, Raghuprasad KP, Ganesamoorthy S. Attracting and retaining youth in agriculture (ARYA) project paves way to livelihood security of youth. Mysore J Agric Sci. 2024;58(1):264274.