A study of the socio-economic profile of agricultural labourers in Odisha

Introduction

The National Commission on Labour states that "An agricultural labourer is unskilled and unorganised and has little for his livelihood, other than personal labour." Therefore, individuals whose primary income source is wages and employment fall into this category. A notable characteristic of India's rural economy has been the increase in the number of agricultural workers, cultivators, and labourers involved in crop production. They typically earn low wages, working conditions that impose a significant burden on them, and experience highly irregular employment. (Vetrivel and Manigandan, 2013) [1] Conceptually, the term "livelihood" refers to how individuals strive to fulfil their various consumption and economic needs, manage uncertainties, and take advantage of new opportunities (Sunil and Vinaya,2016) [2] . Many individuals are earning their livelihood through farming, especially agricultural labourers, who live in impoverished conditions and suffer from exploitation and discrimination (Singh and Singh, 2015) [3] . The reduction in income levels, along with unproductive expenditure on rituals and ceremonies, is one of the main reasons peasant families are suffering under the burden of heavy debts (Gaur, 2014) [4] . The low standard of living was reflected in the expenditure pattern of agricultural labourers, as most of the money was spent on food and clothing (Chitodkar, 1992) [5] . Most of the farmers and agricultural labourers were not able to satisfy their consumption needs from their earnings. This results in the utilisation of a substantial part of debt to sustain basic living (Singh et al., 2017) [6] . In Odisha, according to the 2011 census, 61.8 per cent of total workers are engaged in agriculture, and more than 60 per cent of the total workforce are directly dependent on agriculture (Chaudhary and Singh) [7]. In India, half of the workforce is engaged as agricultural labourers. These labourers play a crucial role in determining production expenses, practising new technologies, and are vital for improving crop yields. Their means of livelihood are fundamental to the advancement of agriculture's socioeconomic status; hence, they need to be critically examined to identify all the factors. Although numerous studies have been conducted on agricultural labourers, limited studies focus on their livelihood analysis. Given above, this study has been undertaken as one among those investigations, with a particular focus on the state of Odisha.

Methodology

The study was conducted in Keonjhar and Kendrapara districts of Odisha with a sample size of 400 respondents. Sample size was determined using Yamane's formula(n=N/1+N(e)^2). From each village of Keonjhar, 48 respondents and 52 respondents from Kendrapara were selected by simple random sampling, making a total of 400 respondents. The selection of differential numbers of respondents from two sample districts was because of availability of a limited number of agricultural labourers in the sample area. For this study, four blocks each from two of the sample districts were selected by using simple random sampling. Four villages, i.e., Lipinda, Podang, www.extensionjournal.com Singhpur and Jatra, are selected from Keonjhar district, and the other four villages, i.e., Gajapitha, Jajanga, Kalapada and Birindola, are selected from Kendrapara district. An exploratory research design was used for this study because the livelihood realities of agricultural labourers in Odisha are incredibly complex and deeply tied to local social, economic, and environmental pressures. This approach allows us to bring the real, everyday challenges of these labourers to offer a clear picture that can help in guiding local policy and give future researchers a strong starting point. Primary data was obtained from the agricultural labourers by using a structured interview schedule, and focus group discussions and personal interviews were also conducted in the study area. The data was further analysed using statistical tools like mean, frequency and percentage.

Results and Discussion

Socio-economic profile of the agricultural labourers in Odisha Age

The respondents were classified into three categories, i.e, young (23 to 39 years), middle-aged (more than 39-55years), and the old age group (more than 55 to 70years). It is observed from Table 1 that in Keonjhar, most (53.12per cent) of the respondents were in the young age group (23-39 years), followed by middle-aged (35.93 per cent), whereas Kendrapara had higher middle-aged (50 per cent) and older-aged (36.53 per cent) respondents, reflecting that in Kendrapara, older generations are dominant in agricultural activities. Overall, (43.25 per cent) of the respondents were found to be in the middle age group. Similar findings were found by (Nisha and Asokhan, 2015) [8] , (Kumar et al., 2019) [9] and (Chaudhari et al., 2022) [10] .

Gender

The study categorises respondents based on gender into three groups: Male, Female, and others. It is observed from Table 2. Keonjhar had a greater percentage of female respondents (65.62 per cent) compared to male respondents (34.37 per cent), whereas in Kendrapara, the distribution was 71.15 per cent male and 28.84 per cent female; Collectively, males accounted for 53.5 per cent and females for 46.5 per cent.

Education

It is observed from Table 3 that the educational status was low across both districts. In Keonjhar, 42.7 per cent had primary level education, and only 4.16 per cent had education beyond higher secondary. In Kendrapara, a significant proportion (35.09 per cent) had up to high school education, but only 8.65 per cent had pursued higher secondary education and above. The total analysis showed that 28.7 per cent of respondents had a primary education, followed by 26.5 per cent with high school, and 18.5 per cent were illiterate. It indicates a restricted educational background among farmers, which may impact awareness and uptake of better farming practices. Similar findings were found by Chaudhari et al. 2022).

Land holdings

It was observed from Table 4 that none of the respondents in Keonjhar was landless, while 33.65 per cent of the respondents were landless in Kendrapara. Marginal holdings (2.5 acres or less) were most prevalent in both districts, 57.81 per cent in Keonjhar and 50.48 per cent in Kendrapara. Small holdings (2.5-5 acres) were also significant (26.25 per cent in total), but medium and above holdings were extremely rare (2.25per cent). This data shows that there is a dominance of marginal land holdings in the study region.

Source of extension contact

Extension contact plays a vital role in connecting farmers with research institutions, facilitating market access, and transferring technology. Different sources, such as Krishak Sathi, Block agriculture/ Horticulture officers, KVK scientists, NGO's, SHG/FPOs, are included in the data.

Based on the mean and standard deviation, the respondents were divided into low, medium and high. In Keonjhar, 72.92 per cent of the respondents reported a medium level of extension contact, while 15.63 per cent reported high contact, and there were only 11.46 per cent reporting low contact. In Kendrapara, the situation was even more towards the medium level of contact, with 82.21 per cent of the respondents belonging to this level. But there were notably low percentages (4.81 per cent) who experienced high extension contact, while 12.98 per cent had low contact.

Conclusion

The research study on the livelihood analysis of agricultural labourers in Keonjhar and Kendrapara districts of Odisha highlights significant demographic, social, and economic inequalities. Keonjhar revealed a greater percentage of younger, female respondents with poor education and more joint families, while Kendrapara contained more middleaged and male respondents with slightly improved education and increased income levels. Most of the respondents were from the middle classes with different livelihood capitals; wage earning, and agriculture were major activities. Kendrapara was more wage-oriented, and Keonjhar had more diversified activities, such as horticulture and livestock.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementI express my sincere gratitude to Dr Mahamaya Prasad Nayak for his invaluable guidance and constant encouragement throughout my research. His expertise in the field and dedicated supervision were instrumental in the successful completion of this study.

References

1. Vetrivel V, Manigandan R. An empirical study of agricultural labour in India. Journal of Exclusive Management Sciences. 2013;2(12):1-6.
2. Sunil R, Patel, Vinaya Kumar. Livelihood security for www.extensionjournal.com rural people in agricultural development. In: National Seminar SEEG-2016: Lead Paper. Anand: Society of Extension Education; 2016. p. 99-104.
3. Singh G, Singh K. Deplorable conditions of agricultural labourers in Punjab. Journal of Economic and Social Development. 2015;11:44-55.
4. Gaur M. Indebtedness and farmer suicide in the liberalised economy of Punjab. Global Journal for Research Analysis. 2014;3(5):126-160.
5. Chitodkar SS. A study of the pattern of employment, income and indebtedness of agricultural labourers in Dhule district. Ahmednagar, Maharashtra: Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri; 1992.
6. Singh G, Kaur GA, Kaur R, Kaur S. Indebtedness among farmers and agricultural labourers in rural Punjab. Economic and Political Weekly. 2017;6:51-57.
7. Chaudhary A, Singh S. Socio-economic conditions of agricultural labourers in Punjab. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2021;76(3):345-360.
8. Nisha R, Asokhan M. Empowerment of tribal women through livelihood development. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2015;20(8):6-10.
9. Kumar KR, Kumar A, Verma J, Singh SRK. Socioeconomic, communicational and psychological profile of tribal farmers for their livelihood status in West Nimar region of Madhya Pradesh, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(8):1564-1569.
10. Chaudhari RU, Chauhan NM, Chaudhary KL. Analysis of livelihood security of tribal farmers. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education. 2022;34(1).
11. Swathi G, Rambabu P, Gopikrishna T, Sankar Rao DV, Srinivasa Rao V. Livelihood systems of tribal farmers in Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Agricultural Journal. 2017;64(2):472-475.