Market access without income transformation: A qualitative study of Moonj artisans under the ODOP Scheme

Introduction

Traditional craft has always been a central theme for the development of the rural economy. In India, the craft-based production system provides livelihood opportunities for rural households while preserving cultural knowledge and traditional skills. Recognising this potential, the government has introduced several policies to support the craft and artisans through financial assistance, skill development, technological upgradation, and market expansion. Among these initiatives, the One District One Product (ODOP) has emerged as a prominent policy intervention to promote district-specific traditional products. The ODOP scheme was first introduced by the Uttar Pradesh Government in 2018 and later adopted by several ministries at the national level. The scheme seeks to promote the uniqueness and specialisation of each district to create sustainable economic opportunities. The ODOP scheme constitutes some key components, including skill development programmes, financial assistance, a common facility centre, and market development assistance. Among these, market development assistance plays an essential role in promoting the selected products. The objective of this assistance is to facilitate market linkages and product branding through exhibitions, fairs, trade events, institutional marketing channels, and digital platforms such as the ODOP mart. This enhances artisans' reach from the local market to national and international markets. However, this enhanced market access does not ensure the automatic transformation of the livelihood of the artisans and small-scale producers. Research has shown that when market insertion does not follow the integration of producers into high-value functions, the economic benefits of market expansion may remain limited. This problem becomes particularly significant in traditional craft, where the production system is largely confined to informal, household-based, and gendered labour organisations. These structural constraints limit the transformation of the artisans and small-scale producers. Even when product sales increase, artisans receive limited economic benefits, which constrain their productivity and limit their ability to respond to expanding market demand. www.extensionjournal.com Existing studies on the ODOP scheme largely focus on descriptive assessment of its promotional activities and export performance. Limited research has examined how such market-led interventions affect artisans' livelihoods. To address this gap, this study examines the Moonj case sector in Prayagraj district under the ODOP scheme. While this scheme has enhanced the market reach from local markets to national and international platforms, the artisans of Mahewa continue to report modest returns and limited livelihood transformation. The study used semi-structured interviews with Moonj artisans and related actors to analyse the impact of the market-led intervention on them. The findings suggest that although the ODOP scheme improves market connectivity and income regularity, it doesn't substantially transform artisans' livelihoods due to structural constraints within the production system and value chain. This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that market expansion under the ODOP scheme does not necessarily lead to livelihood transformation, as value chain governance, production constraints, and gendered labour structures limit artisans' ability to capture value.

Literature review 2.1 ODOP Scheme

The ODOP scheme has emerged as a significant government initiative to bring about significant changes to the districts' economies. Inspired by Japan's One Village One Product (OVOP) and Thailand's One Tambon One Product (OTOP), the ODOP scheme seeks to harness the districts' specialities and uniqueness. Existing studies on ODOP primarily emphasise its role in expanding market visibility and promotional activities. Studies show that the scheme profoundly affects the market linkages and visibility of district-specific products through exhibitions, fairs, trade events, institutional marketing channels and digital channels. Studies show that the share of ODOP's products in the nation's total exports has increased significantly. Uttar Pradesh's exports have increased by 76% since the ODOP scheme's inception in the state. The interventions under the scheme are often interpreted as mechanisms to reduce market isolation and increase demand for local products. As a result, the ODOP scheme is frequently positioned within development policy as a strategy to enhance income opportunities and promote export-oriented growth in the handicraft and small-scale production sectors. However, literature also suggests that the scheme has structural and organisational constraints that impede its benefits. Studies of similar initiatives, such as OVOP and OTOP, indicate that the success of such programmes depends not only on market promotion but also on the development of production capabilities, local entrepreneurship, and institutional support structures. Studies find that the ODOP scheme has not substantially addressed structural constraints, such as infrastructure, skill development, a fragmented value chain, or marketing challenges. For instance, Misra, Maurya, and Tewari [23] analyse the demand and supply gap for two agricultural products in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Research on craft-based industries indicates that producers are often embedded within informal, household-based production systems characterised by limited capability, fragmented organisation, and dependence on intermediaries.

These limitations restrict artisans and small producers to low-value activities. Consequently, regardless of the government's interventions, the conditions of ground-level workers do not improve.

Market access and Value chain

Market access is an important component for improving the economic outcomes of small producers. By connecting producers to broader consumer bases, market integration is expected to enhance demand, increase sales, and improve income opportunities. Policy interventions often prioritise market expansion through various mechanisms and channels, assuming that greater visibility will translate into better livelihoods for producers. However, empirical and theoretical research suggests that the relationship between market access and income outcomes is neither automatic nor linear.

In the International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain, Gary Gereffi [9] introduced the global value chains (GVC) framework. According to him, value chains are governed by relationships that determine how decisions about production, pricing and market network are organised. Within this framework, upgrading is considered a key pathway for producers to improve their economic position. Later, Humphrey and Schmitz [14] introduced different types of upgrading, including process, product, and functional upgrading. However, he argued that integration in the value chains doesn't automatically lead to upgrading. Upgrading depends on the nature of the buyersupplier relationship, knowledge transfer, capability development, and institutional support. Participation in the global value chain can create opportunities for upgrading, but governance and structural factors may constrain such upgrading. Therefore, market integration doesn't translate unless the governance structure and structural mechanisms change. Small-scale producers often face substantial barriers to upgrading due to limited technological capabilities, weak institutional support, and restricted access to market information [17] . So the producers may remain integrated into markets without significantly improving their capture of greater economic value.

Gendered Labour in Informal Craft Production

Feminist political economy scholars have argued that labour markets are not neutral economic systems but are shaped by gender relations, household structures, and social norms. In craft production, women are often concentrated in low-paid, informal, and home-based work. [7,15] Women's participation in economic activities, therefore, doesn't automatically lead to empowerment. Studies on informal and handicraft industries consistently highlight a division of labour within production systems. Women are dedicated to socially delegated gendered roles, mainly confined to the crafting process, while men are dominant in marketing, negotiation, and economic decisionmaking. This segregation of labour reinforces gendered economic hierarchies and limits women's economic role. While women's participation provides access to incomegenerating activities within the household, their confinement to labour-intensive production and limited involvement in market decisions reflects the precarious conditions. www.extensionjournal.com Furthermore, the informal nature of handicraft production reinforces these gendered economic roles [22] . Such systems often rely on intergenerational skill transfer within households rather than formal training structures. Consequently, women's economic contribution may remain undervalued and disconnected from market decision-making processes.

Research Gap

Existing studies on the ODOP scheme largely focus on descriptive assessments of its market expansion activities. While these studies highlight the growing visibility of traditional products through exhibitions, institutional marketing channels, and digital platforms, little research has examined how such market-led interventions affect artisans' livelihoods. There is insufficient empirical analysis of whether expanded market access altered the governance or the structural foundation of the commodity chain. Emerging evidence suggests that although market connectivity may increase for Moonj products, the economic gains for artisans often remain modest. This raises important questions about the structural limitations of market-led development strategies under the ODOP scheme in traditional crafts. By examining the Moonj craft, this study seeks to address this gap by analysing the paradox of expanding market access without a corresponding transformation in income.

Research Objective

To address this gap, the study examines the structural constraints that limit the ability of expanded market access to generate meaningful income transformation for artisans. It analyses how the market-oriented interventions under the ODOP scheme interact with value chain governance and production organisation to shape artisans' economic outcomes.

Methodology

The study adopts a qualitative research design to examine the paradox of the market expansion under the ODOP scheme and the income transformation of the Moonj artisans. Fieldwork was conducted in the Mahewa region of Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, known for the Moonj craft. Purposive sampling was used to select the participants to capture the perspectives of artisans involved in production and marketing. The study sample size is 15, including Moonj artisans, a member of a self-help group (SHG), and a private entity associated with the ODOP scheme. The semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data, focusing on production practices, market access, and income transformation. The collected data were analysed using thematic analysis [4] . Interview responses were manually coded to identify recurring themes related to value chain governance, production constraints, and livelihood outcomes. To maintain confidentiality, respondents were identified using anonymised codes (R1 through R15). Ethical considerations were observed throughout the research process. Prior to each interview, participants were informed about the objectives of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, and their right to decline or withdraw at any stage without consequence. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and anonymity was ensured.

Findings 4.1 Expansion of Market Access and Value Chain

The study found that market access assistance successfully expanded the product's reach from local markets to national and international markets through exhibitions, fairs, trade events, digital platforms and institutional linkages. However, this market integration remains channelised through institutions such as the Angel self-help group, the District Industrial Centre (DIC) and private entities associated with the ODOP. Respondents indicated that they now sell directly to the Angel self-help group, eliminating the need to wait for customers or middlemen. As one artisan noted, "We complete our product and then sell it to them. We receive our payment instantly, " (R7). This indicates that artisans have a limited role in the downstream value chain, having limited control over pricing and market decisions. From a value chain perspective, this reflects the absence of functional upgrading, in which artisans remain confined to low-value-added activities despite market insertion [9,14] . They do not have access to higher-value-added activities within the value chain, such as design, branding, marketing, or retailing, beyond basic production. The scheme expanded market access, but governance over high-value activities remains concentrated downstream, reinforcing artisans' status as price takers within a buyer-driven configuration that reflects the characteristics of a captive governance structure. Consequently, artisans' income stabilised through the institutionalised channel without transformative mobility within the commodity chain, generating dependent integration through the institutional intermediaries. Artisans create the product but do not control market identity. The study further reveals significant price disparities across different levels of the supply chain. Participating artisans claim that they receive approximately Rs 75 as a base price. In contrast, a SHG representative stated that its selling price starts at Rs 200, whereas a private entity linked to ODOP reported a starting price of Rs 650. The widening gap between production and retail prices reflects structural inequality within the value chain. As Kaplinsky [17] argues, market insertion does not guarantee equitable value capture unless governance structures and rent distribution mechanisms are reconfigured. In the Moonj case, value appears to accumulate at intermediary and retail stages, where branding, packaging, and market positioning occur. Artisans in informal and home-based production www.extensionjournal.com systems lack direct access to the end market and to pricesetting mechanisms, limiting their bargaining power and ability to negotiate higher returns. The persistence of downstream governance and restricted functional roles confines artisans to low-value production, preventing value capture and limiting upgrading despite access to markets. Although the ODOP scheme incorporates incentives that could potentially facilitate functional upgrading, the persistence of institutional mediation, limited backward linkage, and insufficient capability enhancement restricts the translation of market access into innovation and higher-value participation. This reflects a condition of delayed or incomplete upgrading rather than structural failure. Thus, a meaningful transformation would likely require a reconfiguration of governance in which institutions serve as facilitators of capability development rather than as primary market channels, thereby enabling greater producer participation in value capture.

Gendered and informal structure of production

Women respondents consistently reported that they are primarily involved in the interweaving process of Moonj products, while men manage marketing and economic decisions. As a respondent explained, "men take the product to the local market and negotiate with buyers". This aligns with existing studies that argue for the gendered division of labour and the concentration of women's economic participation in production. Participants' description of "in between" household tasks, suggesting that productive labour is intertwined with domestic work. The integration of women's economic activities into household reproduction processes remains invisible and undervalued. Feminist political economy scholars emphasise that labour markets are socially embedded and gendered institutions rather than neutral economic spaces [7] . The Moonj production system reflects this pattern: women's participation is limited to home-based production, while men dominate market activities.

Moreover, women participants responded that "I learned this work after the marriage from in-laws". This demonstrates the informal structure of production and skill acquisition that acts as a barrier to the transmission of market access and income to artisans. This limits women's direct engagement with market institutions and entrepreneurial activities. Moreover, skill transmission through the patriarchal household structures rather than formal training reinforces the women's confinement to production roles. From a value chain perspective, women's limited engagement in market decisions and negotiations restricts their access to higher-value functions within the chain. As value chain research suggests, actors positioned at exchange interfaces often capture a greater share of value, leaving production-oriented workers with limited bargaining power. Consequently, market expansion under the ODOP scheme does not translate into income transformation of the women artisans. Thus, the gendered and informal nature of the Moonj production reinforces the paradox identified in this study: expanding market access without structural transformation of the producer's role.

Supply-driven intervention without productivity enhancement

The ODOP scheme comprises supply-driven interventions, such as common facility centres, research labs, financial assistance, skill development initiatives, and ODOP outlets [11] . However, the findings suggest that such interventions remain insufficient to address deep structural constraints that hinder innovation, design development and technological upgradation of the Moonj production system. Development literature emphasises that market expansion alone is insufficient for structural transformation when production capabilities remain limited [17,14] . In the absence of process upgrading, producers remain confined to labourintensive production activities, with limited scope to scale output or to capture value. With these constraints, the production of Moonj products primarily relies on traditional interweaving techniques carried out within a household-based informal production system. Respondents reported that completing a single product requires two to three days, depending on the complexity of the product. Despite this intensive labour input, financial returns remain disproportionately modest. "I had a stall in an international exhibition. Some foreign people asked how long it would take to complete an order of one thousand. I answered 6 to 7 months, which was less than what it would actually take. They moved on, saying it would take too long," said one of the respondents (R1). This experience illustrates the scalability limitations in the production system, revealing the competitiveness gap. Such constraints hinder process upgrading, which refers to improvements in production efficiency through technological or organisational innovation [14] . When production relies on traditional techniques without complementary technological support, expanding output and diversifying products become difficult. In addition, Moonj products are primarily designed for local consumers, limiting their appeal to national or international consumers. Thus, market visibility remains insufficient in the absence of productivity-enhancing interventions that constrain artisans' income transformation.

Regular income but limited transformation

Participants reported that market expansion and institutional support under the ODOP have made their income more regular than in the past, whereas previously their income depended heavily on seasonal demand and market access. This suggests that ODOP's contribution to income stabilisation is by providing institutionalised marketing channels. However, income stabilisation doesn't ensure meaningful income enhancement. Participant artisans stated www.extensionjournal.com that they typically receive Rs 75-130 per product when selling through SHG, with prices varying by product. Since a product usually takes 2 to 3 days, their monthly income from moonj production would range between Rs 3, 000 and Rs 5, 000, which remains economically inadequate. Thus, Artisans experience reduced income volatility but no significant upward income growth. One of the respondents explained this trade-off clearly, "We get Rs150 by selling to a customer. But we don't get customers daily. By selling products to them (SHG), at least we get regular income." This statement illustrates a tradeoff between stability and profitability, in which artisans prefer institutional channels not because of higher returns but because they reduce market uncertainty. This provides predictable earnings but also makes artisans dependent on intermediary channels with limited price margins. Due to the modest return, the production incentives for innovation and diversification remain weak. As the private entity respondent (R1) stated, "There is no motivation among the workers. Even if I provide the colours to change the colour of products, still, workers are not interested". This indicates that the weak financial returns discourage experimentation with new designs or product improvement. Moreover, participation in trade events may enhance the product's visibility, but it doesn't necessarily translate into consistent demand, highlighting the gap between market exposure and effective market integration. The participating private entity mentioned that it had a stall in the Mahakumbh mela. He reported that "I hardly sold ten pieces". This experience highlights that, despite ODOP facilitating stalls at exhibitions and fairs, product sales remain uncertain and inconsistent, affecting income expectations. The uncertainty experienced by downstream actors indicates that demand for Moonj products remains fragmented and unpredictable. Therefore, market exposures do not guarantee demand realisation for traditional craft. The persistence of uncertain sales across the value chain reinforces producers' income precarity. Thus, these findings suggest that ODOP contributes to income stabilisation rather than substantial income transformation for Moonj artisans. Several respondents reported that many households in Mahewa that previously engaged in Moonj craft production have gradually discontinued and shifted to alternative occupations. This transition indicates the craft's declining economic viability, as labour-intensive production and modest returns make moonj weaving less competitive than other livelihood opportunities.

Discussion

The findings of the study reveal a structural paradox in state-led market intervention: expanded market access does not necessarily translate into income gains when underlying production and value chain structures remain constrained. While the ODOP has successfully enhanced visibility and institutionalised channels, it does not alter the artisans' position within the value chain. Global value chain theory emphasises that upgrading requires movement into highervalue functions such as branding, design, or marketing [9,14] . However, in the Moonj case, market insertion occurs without functional upgradation. Consequently, artisans experience reduced income volatility but remain at a low-productivity equilibrium. The time-intensive and technological backwardness further reinforces this structural disjuncture, as they restrict output expansion and scalability. Consequently, demand exposure does not translate into increased earnings because production capacity cannot adjust to market signals. In the absence of systematic investment in design innovation, technological upgradation and process improvement, the ODOP's market-facing orientation is not complemented by production restructuring. This structural mismatch prevents effective value capture. Gender segregation of labour deepens these constraints. Moonj production is embedded within women's domestic responsibilities, while economic decisions and market negotiations are mediated by a male member or institutional intermediaries.

Consequently, enhanced market opportunities do not disrupt the entrenched hierarchy of economic decision-making and market control. Instead, market access operates within the pre-existing gender structures rather than transforming economic authority. The significant price escalation from artisan-level production to retail sale reflects differential control over market functions. Exclusion of artisans from the downstream market limits their access to the final price mechanism, despite their labour input. Artisans' market participation remains institutionally mediated through SHGs and private entities, limiting their direct engagement with end consumers and price-setting mechanisms. Artisans thus remain price takers within the commodity chain. The interlinkage of these dynamics suggests that ODOP has produced market connectivity without transforming the structural foundation. While the ODOP's market-led intervention minimises uncertainties and improves income regularity, it does not transform the artisans' functional role, bargaining position, productive capacity, or gendered hierarchies. The Moonj case, therefore, illustrates that ODOP's market-led inclusion strategies, when detached from capability enhancement and value redistribution mechanisms, may generate visibility without mobility. This demonstrates that structural transformation within the commodity chain is a prerequisite for economic transformation through connectivity. Without complementary interventions that address technological upgrading, value-chain governance, and gendered labour relations, expanded market access alone is unlikely to produce meaningful livelihood transformation for smallscale producers.

Conclusion

The objective of this study was to examine whether expanded market access under the ODOP scheme translates into meaningful livelihood transformation for Moonj artisans. This study finds that although the ODOP scheme has expanded market connectivity and income regularity, it has not substantially transformed artisans' economic conditions within the value chain. Artisans remained confined to labour-intensive production activities, with limited control over the price mechanism or the downstream market functions. The analysis suggests that without capacity building, technological upgradation, and an equitable distribution mechanism, market access is insufficient to achieve livelihood transformation. Gendered segmented labour and institutional mediation further reinforce these structural constraints, limiting artisans' bargaining power and functional mobility. Therefore, the study argues that market linkages must be accompanied by structural repositioning within the commodity chain for substantial livelihood outcomes. The foundational structure should be prioritised to stabilise the balance between market expansion and livelihood transformation. The structural transformation in the Moonj would require functional upgrading, technological improvement, more equitable value distribution and the restructuring of gendered market roles. These transformations of the foundational structure must be accompanied by the mobilisation of the artisans to the downstream market within the value chain. The mobilisation of the producers to participate in marketing, branding and pricing can generate real transformation.

References

1. Arora M. Gendered labour in the artisanal industry: Uncovering the lives, histories, and conditions of women artisans in India and Guatemala. J Stud Res. 2023;12(3).
2. Barrientos S, Gereffi G, Rossi A. Economic and social upgrading in global production networks: A new paradigm for a changing world. Int Labour Rev. 2011;150(3-4):319-340.
3. Barrett CB. Smallholder market participation: Concepts and evidence from eastern and southern Africa. Food Policy. 2008;33(4):299-317.
4. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.
5. Chant S, Pedwell C. Women, gender and the informal economy: An assessment of ILO research and suggested ways forward. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2008.
6. Chen MA. The informal economy: Definitions, theories and policies. WIEGO Working Paper. 2012;(1).
7. Elson D. Labour markets as gendered institutions: Equality, efficiency and empowerment issues. World Dev. 1999;27(3):611-627.
8. Gereffi G, Humphrey J, Sturgeon T. The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy. 2005;12(1):78-104.
9. Gereffi G. International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain. J Int Econ. 1999;48(1):37-70.
10. Government of India. Handicrafts sector: Employment and livelihoods. New Delhi: Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Ministry of Textiles; 2019.
11. Government of Uttar Pradesh. One District One Product (ODOP) scheme report. Lucknow: Government of Uttar Pradesh; 2021.
12. Government of Uttar Pradesh. One District One Product (ODOP) scheme document. Lucknow: Government of Uttar Pradesh; 2024. https://invest.up.gov.in/wpcontent/uploads/2024/04/ODOP_140424.pdf
13. Government of Uttar Pradesh. One District One Product (ODOP): Operational guidelines. Lucknow: Department of MSME; 2021.
14. Humphrey J, Schmitz H. How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters? Reg Stud. 2002;36(9):1017-1027.
15. Kabeer N. Paid work, women's empowerment and gender justice: Critical pathways of social change. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies; 2008.
16. Kaplinsky R. Globalisation and unequalisation: What can be learned from value chain analysis? J Dev Stud. 2000;37(2):117-146.
17. Kaplinsky R. Globalization, poverty and inequality: Between a rock and a hard place. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2005.
18. Khan M, Amir Z. Agribusiness and handicraft marketing strategies of artisans in Uttar Pradesh and its implications. Int J Mark Stud. 2013;5(3):1-10.
19. Knight J. The One Village One Product Movement: What it is, how it has been replicated, and recommendations for a UNIDO OVOP-type programme. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization; 2014.
20. Kumar A. Prayagraj district diagnostic study report. Lucknow: Government of Uttar Pradesh; 2023.
21. Kurokawa K, Tembo F, te Velde DW. Challenges for the One Village One Product movement in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ann Reg Sci. 2010;45(3):679-694.
22. Mezzadri A. Class, gender and the sweatshop: On the nexus between labour commodification and exploitation. Third World Q. 2016;37(10):1877-1900.
23. Misra R, Maurya NK, Tewari S. One District One Product (ODOP) scheme: A tale of two agricultural products in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Productivity. 2021;62(1).
24. Nadvi K. Global standards, global governance and the organization of global value chains. J Econ Geogr. 2008;8(3):323-343.
25. Pandey S. Sustainability of One District One Product Scheme in Prayagraj, India: A case study. International Journal of Novel Research and Development. 2024;9(3):c11-c18.
26. Pietrobelli C, Rabellotti R. Global value chains meet innovation systems: Are there learning opportunities for developing countries? World Dev. 2011;39(7):12611269.
27. Ponte S, Sturgeon T. Explaining governance in global value chains: A modular theory-building effort. Review of International Political Economy. 2014;21(1):195223.
28. Press Information Bureau. Government initiatives under ODOP scheme. New Delhi: Government of India; 2023. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID= 1948019
29. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Clusters for competitiveness: A practical guide and policy implications for developing cluster initiatives. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization; 2009.