1. business and industrial
2. business operations
3. business plans

CHAP Ti??5
SOCIO-ECONOMI C CHARACTERISTICS
OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
CHAPTER 5
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF
SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
Soc~o-DemograptucVanables of Beneficlar~es
An Analysls of Econom~cStatus of Benelic~anes
Caste-W~seDlstribut~onof Sample Beneficlanes
Age-W~seD~smbutionof Sample Beneficlanes
Sex-W~seD~stnbut~on
of Sample Benefic~anes
Marital Status of Sample Benefic~anes
Fam~lyType of Sample Benefic~anes
Famlly Size of Sample Benefic~anes
Llteracy Level of Sample Benefic~anes
Occupat~onalD~stnbut~on
of Benefic~anes
Changes In the lnwmr Level of Benefic~anes
Employment Generat~onof Benefic~anes
Changes In the Household Expenses of Benefic~anes
Growth of Savings of Beneficlanes
Changes In the Asset Creat~onof Beneficlanes
Repayment Performance of Sample Benefic~anes
CHAPTER 5
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF
SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
To study the ~mpsctof IRDP on the milch animal beoefiaaries, fim of all we
should have a clear vlew of the socio-economic backgrounds of the respondents. In
this chapter, an attemp is made to examlne the socioeconomic chamcteristux viz,
caste-wse, category-wse, age, sex. fam~ly slze, l~teracy level, occupation,
wnsumptlon, income, savings, asset and employment among the selected four blocks
in the Union Territory of Pondtchemy. In order to cshmate the impact of datry loan
on the bmefictaries, ~twould k essentd to have a general background of the sample
beneficlanes 7henfote, rdentifyrng the differem m the wio-economic
d h o n s
of the sample beneficlanes among the selected blocks in the study areas
IS
a
pre-requisite for examimng the dynamic pmccss
Mllch an~malscheme under IRDP alms at Improving the economic well-bemg
of targeted beneficlanes in the rural economy. Th~sprogramme helps the most
economically backward and soc~allyhandicapped sectors of rural society However,
social factors may have a beanng on the utll~sat~onof the schemes by the
beneficlanes Before understand~ngthe Impact of the scheme, ~t 1s necessary to have
clear ~deaof the soc~aland m n o r n ~ ccond~tionsof the sample households Infact, the
study of socio-ccmomic condittons generally precedes any attempt on the analysis of
development activities by different target groups. fn this chapter, each tndicator is
explained with respect to the sample households.
In order to examine the nexus between the pattern of utilisation of the schemes
and social factors, the p.went chapter is devoted to aaalys~ngthe social and ewnomlc
variability and thcnby the level of util~sation.Thus, the degree of impact of the
scheme is governed by the s o c i ~ m i background
c
of the respondents. It has
been observed that social factors Q influence econormc change tn the developing
countries (Baditz, 1960). Hmce, ~t may be rwxsmy to identlfy the factors and
dtxuss their role in the context of economtc change which has been hypothestzed to
be scheme induced.
The living conditions in rival area is charactend by overcrowdmg, lack of
civic amenmes and euwomrc and social msrgtnalisation. Rural llnng may adversely
affect thc capabtl~tiesand prccpt~onof most of the ~nhabttants.Thus, the place of
habttat~onplays an important role in dctenntnlng the backwardness of a wmmuntty
(Warnbar Siagh. 1992). Beai Ekka (1993) expluned In hrs artlcle the soc~aland
economlc relationship among the tribal development schemes on economic achvltles
of the rural economy.
Moreover. the exlsttng soclal and wmmerctal systems operate agatnst them
leadtng to the excluston From maln stream of soclal and econornlc drvelopmrnt
(Ebrrbim, 1984). Thus, the liwng area seems to play an important role In determirung
the manner in which the scheme is utilised Poverty is generally mantfested in terms
of low income, lnadcquate housmng, poor health, limited or no education, high infant
mortality, low life and work expectancy and In most cases the general sense of
despondency and despair
Hence, soci-nomic
identify the soci-mic
status of a community. Social variables like caste,age,
indicators are to be chosen to
sex ratio, maritat status, family sire, family type,level of education. occupation and
economic variables like income, employment, savings, assets, consumption level,
investment and born,*
are identified as the indicators. The primary data wllected
from the sample beneficiary households me made use of to understand the
socio-ewnomic variability of the sample households
5.1. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES O F BENEFICIARIES
To have a comprehensive profile of the sample households, a demographic
base becomes more relevant. The social characteristics such as family stze, literacy,
age and sex wmposluon of sample households, affect the economic condlhons and ~n
turn affect social wndst~ons A social factor that may influence the pattern of
utlllsation of any Government Interventton by the beneficlanes 1s the caste system In
the lndlan context Caste 1s one of the instltuhons that has been in vogue in lnd~a
since the anciem days The essence of the caste system is the categorical limltanon on
vertical soctal mobility (Sutherlaad d al., 1979) The occupattonal dtv~slonof labour
based upon birth probably plays an important role in determining a sk~llIn the
formation of the sample households.
The two broad types of fam~lyare the jo~ntfamily and the nuclear famlly
Almost one fourth of the total numbcr of the families wnsbtute women headed
families in the slums of developing countries (Shrnthi, 1995). It
IS
observed that one
tiurd of the total households in South Asia alone are female-headed households
(United Nrtiona Or0.abrtions, 1985). These female heads of the households may
be slngle paremts or the husband may not be contributing to the Income of the fam~ly
The level of educabon is a major tool for economtc change that would lead to
ra~singa person nceiv~ngcducat~onabove the poverty level and thereby reduc~ngthe
high poverty percentage of the wuntry (AdiKlbuh, 1995). The l~teracylevel of the
howhold throws light on the development of a person, farn~lyand community. The
lewl of cducahon
schema
IS
a dctesrmning factor mth reference to the avarllng of IRDP
Thus, level of education ~nfluencessk~llformahon, knowledge and other
factors.
Family slze
IS
an Important soc~odemograph~c
factor, wh~chmay influence
the economic acttvlty of the fam~ly More part~cularly.the dependency ratlo I e the
proportion
of non-eaming members to that of earning members determines labour
tlme schedule of the kneficlmes of IRDP scheme and t k ~ fam~ly
r
members Wlth
the decrease In the average size of the fam~ly,the demograph~cburden In terms of
dependency relationship is Icssmd. In other words, small families achieve greater
efficiency in the proportion between earners and dependents (Fmuke and Chasin,
1996).
5.2. AN ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC STATUS OF BENEFICURDES
Tbc income geaarting IRDP schemes like milch animals povide employment
and asset to the tuga group vcry specifically. Milch animal schemes enhance the
wn& Ird sclfcmploymcnt
e
t
s
for the poor thereby, facilitating them to
break the vicious circle of poverty by gmrating more income, The improvement in
the e
d
c wcll bnng of t h e poor houstholds dau to scheme utilisatlon can be
measurrd la tnmJ of ccoaomic parsmaas in the ponval~sationpaiod In other
wordo. to assess the armanic well
bang of the targeted p u p s , it may be more
relevant to mdysc the level of resources in relation to their Mds. Income 1s generally
undemood as w mnd~aorof thc uxmomic status. Though, income is quite essential
for gauging the ewnomffi status of the households. it may not be sufficient by Itself to
explain the same. Hence, the levels of savings, asset and debt should also be taken
into account
for
measuring
the
economic
status
(National Commisrion on
UrknL.tiom,19BB)
An attempt
IS
mrde to expmtne their econornlc status before and after the
milch an~malscheme asststance In terms of Income. employment, savlngs, asset and
repayment performance of the sample households The economic status of the poor
households would be revealed by lack of household capltal whlch IS very essent~alfor
the household cconomlc ectivlties (Kosambi, 1995). The primary survey revealed
that low income and lack of sutficient savings were responsrble for the lack of
Investment in education, ssset creation and poor repayment performance
The savings are utilised to bridge the gap between the receipt of Income and
expendIhlre. Yet mother obsenation is that tbc level of indebtedness has also
increased along with the appreciation in the level of income, savings and asset
fonnahon. 'Ibis is due to thc
of rCpying capacity of the beneficiaries In
the post-utilisation period It is to be noted that with the Increase in income the
percentage of debt also Inc-
across all target groups
pnmary survey, the increase in the level of debt
IS
As revealed during the
not only because of credit
worttuness but also because of newly acquired habits.
5.3. CASTEWISE DI!iTWBUTION OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
Caste 1s one of the tmportant vanables whlch determtnes the wlal status In
lnd~a ln order to study the impact of any programme, one should analyse the
proportion of people who are benefited and also the percentage of people allev~ated
above the poverty llne Th~scan be one of the most important factors In judgng the
impad of the programme The caste-wise d~stnbunonof the sample beneficlanes 1s
gtven In table 5.1.
Table 5.1 reveals the distribuuon of the respondents across scheduled caste
and other non-sohcduled castes. Of the total 300 sample units, 38 per cent belong to
the scheduled castes and 62 per cent of the benefic~aries belong to the other
communities. A wmpmison across the blocks show that only 22 per cent scheduled
caste beneficiaries ~dentifiedIn Anankuppam block and In the range of 46-50 per cent
of scheduled caste beneficiaries households In the other blocks.
Table 5.1
CASTE-WISE DISI'RIBUTION OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
3
Oulgaret
10
(17 621
4
Kanukal
45
(50)
1
II
(52 38)
45
(50)
90
(100)
-.
Total
114
(31)
Swm: Prrmuty Survcy. 20Ol.
Note: I.'r~ure.t~n p r e r ~ ~ h e s e.\ltr~w
s pt.rcmtu.cts
186
(62)
300
(100)
1
Mnrkcting of dairy products 11kemilk is subjected to caste herarchy, because
of unacceptability of milk and milk products by higber social class from lower ones in
the Pond~chenyvillages is same as in the most of the h h n villages
5.4. ACEWISE DISTIMBUTION OF SAMPLE BENEFECIARIES
Age is a demographic and noneconomic factor wh~chaffects the income,
saving and investment of the households. Tbcrefore, it is interesting to understand the
distribution of the households rcording to their age level. Age-wise distribution of
population reveals the proportton of the total labour force In the populahon It 1s a
well known fact that people In the age group of 20 to 40 are more producnve than the
other age groups. Though under the IRDP, assistance IS given to mfferent age groups,
but realisat~onof maximum benefits from the scheme IS governed by the working age
group of the bmeficmry. Therefore, Table 5 2 gives the d~smbuoonby age of the
sample benetic~ar~s
It reveals that 56 67 per cent of the sample benetic~anesbelong
to the ngc group of 40 to 60 yean while 36.67 per cent belong to the age group of 20
to 40 years and the remarrung 6 66 per cent belong to the age group of above 60 years
Table 5.2
AGCWISE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BENEFICMRIES
Source: Prtmary Survey, 2001.
Nme: Ftgures #np r e n r h e . ~
show percentages.
5.5. SEX-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
Male and female m o 1s thc composltlon of the populmon Ek~thare required
In the process of &onorn~cactlmtles Table 5 3 bnngs out the sex-mse dtsmbuhon of
sample beneficiaries It can be seen from the table that out of the total 300 sample
kncticianes, 220 are males and 80 are females Th~sforms 73 33 per cent and 26 67
per cent respechvely As per the norms of the programme. 33 33 per cent of the
beneficiaries should be women beneficiaries.
But In our sample study, women
beneficiaries are less by about 6 66 per cent. This may be due to the fact that farming
is carried on mostly by males In thew selected blocks
Table 5.3
SEX-WISE DlSTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
Source: I'rrmnry Survey, 2001
Norc: /.'ryres m purenIhe.~esshow prcenlage~
5.6. MARITAL STATUS OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
Table 5 4 brings out the marital status of the sample beneficlanes Among the
sample households of 300. 20 are bachelors, 265 are marned and 15 are widowers
T h ~ sforms 7 per cent, 88 per crnt and 5 per crnt respect~vely
5.7. FAMILY TYPE OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
Further. ~t may also be necessary to find out how far the two types of
famil~esviz., joint family and nuclear fam~lywould influence the pattern of
ut~lisationof the lRDP Table 5 5 brings out the d~stributionof farn~lytype of
sample benefic~anes.It reveals that of the total 300 sample benefic~anes,the nuclear
famlly type beneficuuies are Ihe maumum_beneficianes 1.e. 77 67 per cent, whereas
the joint fam~lytype beneficiaries have the mmmum percentage of 22 33.
Table 5.5
FAMILY TYPE OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
SI.
Block
No.
I
AnB"Luppam
2
Vllllanur
3
Oulgaret
4
Kara~kal
Total
Joint Family
Nuclear
Family
30
(26 09)
I2
(16 22)
5
(23 81)
20
(22 22)
67
(22 33)
85
(73 91)
62
(83 78)
16
(76 19)
70
(77 78)
233
(7767)
Soum: Prrmary Survey. 2001
NMe: Frpwes inpurenlhesfs s k ~ w
perL.cvu[r&!r\.
115
(100)
74
(100)
21
(loo)
90
(100)
300
(100)
I
(
1
1
5.8. FAMLLY SIZE OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
Family size
IS
one of the demograptuc variables that influences the level of
sanngs and investment of the sample houscholds. Table 5 6 reveals the
I-e,
distribuuon of fam~lysize of the sample households which tncludes small family,
medrum fam~ly and large family. Of the total respMldmu of 300 sample
bcneficlmes. 52 per cent have 4 or less than 4 memben In the fam~ly.About 37 per
cent of the families have the family size of above 4 but I-
than 6 members
However, b ~ gf m l l e s of above 6 members constitute only 33 which 1s 1 1 per cent
of total number of sample households.
Table 5.6
FAMILY SIZE OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
Small
I
Ananluppam
2
V~lltanur
3
Oulgarcr
4
Karukal
-
L
Total
(1 -4)
65
(56 5 )
35
(47 3)
10
(476)
45
(50)
155
(52)
Medium
(5-6)
Large
1
I
(above 6 ) I
40
10
(33 8)
(189)
(333)
(I9 I )
112
(37) -
I
I
Famil) Si7r
I
115
(100)
,
(100)
I
19. LlTERACY LEVEL OF SAMPLE BENEFICURIES
Education plays an important role in one's
economic
progress.
In the
context of the beneficiaries of the IRDP scheme. the level of educat~onhas been
classified Into two catqpries m, pnmary level and above primary level Table 5.7
reveals the literacy level of the sample bmficlanes, w l m we analyse the l~teracy
level of tbc sample bemficiaries, a shows that out of the 300 sample beneficlanes,
53 have stated that they are ~llitcrates, 175 have anended the pnmary level of
educahon and 72 have crossed the prirrmry level of education Thts forms 17 67 per
cent. 58 33 per cent and 24 per cent nspcchvely
Table 5.7
LITERACY LEVEL OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
Above
SL
,
Block
No
lllilmta
I
r-
;
I
I
/
1
25
(21 7)
70
(609 )
20
(174)
10
(13 5)
3
(14 3)
40
(54 1)
24
(32 4 )
74
(100)
15
(71 4)
3
(14 3)
I5
(166)
53
(1 7 67
50
( 5 5 6)
175
(58 33)
25
(27 8)
72
(24)
21
(100)
90
(100)
300
(100)
Anankupparn
1
115
(100)
?---
2
V~ll~anw
I
/*
3
Oulgarrc
I
1
4
Karalkal
t
I
1-
Total
Swm:I'rrmwy Surwy. 2001.
Note: f ~ t g w e m
s par en these.^ show prorrrtagr~s.
,
/
7
1
I
J
Sla OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFICUIUES
Occupation is one of the non-cconomic fectors influenc~ngthe Income of the
households.
Occuptton IS another factor affecang the dynarnlc process of a
scheme. Majonty of the rival poor are landless agricultural l a b o w n only Table
5 8 reveals the occupat~onald~stnbutlonof the sample bencficianes whtch ~ncludes
small fanners, nwg~nalfarmers, agnculrural labourers and othcn such as bus~ncss,
petty shop, rural amsans, etc
OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARlES
V~lllanur
1
r
4
;
5
80
(88 8)
240
Kara~hal
t
Total
(80)
L.
1
3
5
(5 6)
23
(8)
21
1
'
5
(5 6)
/
23
(8)
1
14
(4)
(loo)
300
(100)
1
1
Source: Prrmury Survcv. 2001
Nae: Ftpurrs tn prrnthrses
sk~w
pruenlupea
Of the total 300 sample benefic~ancs. 240 beneficlanes are apcultural
labourers wh~chforms the largest group of the total benetic~ana. 23 are small
farmers. 23 are marpnal farmers and 14 are other categwnes T h ~ sforms 80 pzr
cat, 8 per cent, 8 per cent and 4 per cent respectively. The returns from these
occupations arc at the bare subsnstence level and even below that level. Hence,
assistance is provided for these people in ordcr to IrA than above the poverty line
In the An-
block, 73.9 per cent of the sample bmcficnanes belong
to the landless agncultural labourers whtle 8 7 per cent belong to the margnal and
small formers and other uttgonts rtspoctrwly. In the Vrlllanur block, 81 per cent
of the sample beneficiaries belong to the agncultural labourers and 7 per cent belong
l small farmers respectively In the Oulgaret block, 71 4 per cent of
to m a r ~ n a and
the sample benefic~ariesengaged to the landless agncultural labourers and the
rernainnng 14 3 per cent belong to the margnnal and small farmers respect~vely The
d~stribut~on
of the bmeficianes in the Karaikal block
IS
hlghly skewed w t h 88 8 per
cent of the sample kndic~rvicsbelonpng to the agricultural labourers and the
remanning 5 6 per cent for small and r n a r ~ n a lfarmers respectively
Thus, the
occupahonal pattern of the sample beneficlanes reveals that the small and rnargnal
farmen' marn source of nnume 1s mostly from ~ulhvatl0nof land Majority of the
agncultural I.bowmr e c a w h n r marn nncorne fmm agncultural labour, but a few
of them recaw Income from other sources also
5.1 1. CHANCES
lN THE INCOME LEVEL OF BENEFICIARIES
Income ns one of the predornnnant econornnc factors In deterrnlnlng the
rwnornlc cond~bonsof the sample houwholds The h~gherthe level of nncorne. the
better is the level of Iivlng standard of the sample households. One of the objectives
of this study is to assess the impact of the scheme in terms of increase in income of
the benefic~aries Thus, income is the most important factor affechng the dynamic
process of a scheme The data w t h respect to average income of the sample
households in the selected blocks is depicted in table 5.9. It is further self-ewdmt
from the table that the average Income has ~ncreased in the penod after the
borrowng from the IRDP assistance In the Anankuppam block the average income
has ~ncrcascdfrom Rs. 14.610 to Rs 27,720 ~ndicanng89.73 percent
increase
in the
post IRDP penod. where as In the Vllllanur block and Oulgaret block, the per caplta
Income has increased by 70.85 per cent and 87 17 per c&mpectlvely
But in the
Karaikal block, the average income has increased to a much hlgher percentage of
103.% Thus. the percentage mcrease in income vanes in all the selected four blocks
in the sndy .rca Hence. it becomes essent~dto study the m
e of the sample
beneficurna before they are assisted
The calculated p a i d '3" statishc values are found to be slgn~ficantin all the
s e l d blocks at 1 per cent level of significance, thaeby indicating that the impact
of IRDP on income is significant in all the sample selected blocks However, the "3"
value is found to be higher in Karalkal block cornpanson to other three selected
blocks, thereby indicating a relattvely high significant impact of IRDP on income
generation In Karaikal block
TaMc 5.9
PATTERN OF INCOME - BEFORE AND AFTER DAIRY SCIIEME
(Mean values In Rupees per annum)
Source: t 'tmprr~cdfrr~~t~
ttrwry Alto
/Vote. * S~gnt/~cunt
ul OIIV prr ccnllrvt~l
The ccnfficient of vanation before borrowing for all the four selected
blocks were ranging between 32 51 to 60 54, while In the same blocks after
borrowing, the ccnficient of variation on an average has declined to 22 74 and
4 1 80 in the selected four blocks. 77us lmpl~esthat the wcfficient of vanatton ts
wmpararively less in the after the IRDP asststance than in the period before,
showng the s~gnificanceof co-effic~ent of vanation However, In terms of
Increase or decrease, the c w f i c ~ e n of
t vanatlon ranges from a lowest value of
30 1 1 to a high of 37.45 for the sample selected blocks, implying the effictency In
the disbursement of the IKDP asslstance
Therefore, the vanattons of the Income of the sample households have
been decltnad after borromng the IRDP asslstance In all the selected blocks The
cozff~c~ent
of vanatlon of income of the sample households In all the blocks has
declined from 49 l l per cent to 31 96 per cent whlch lndlcates that the dispant~es
In Income d~stnbut~on
among the sample households has declined Further, the
co-efic~entof vanatlon of change In Income 1s 35 02 per cent almost same in all
!he selected blocks In the study area Thus ~tclearly ~ndlcatesa posiuve lmpact on
the Income of m~lchanlrnal beneficlanes under IRDP In the selected blocks
Hence, da~ryingIS a source of supplementary Income to farmers for whom farm
Income 1s the maln source of tncome
5.12. EMPLOYMENT GENERATION OF BENEFICIARIES
In the prevtous section, the Impact of IRDP assistance under dairy scheme
on Income has been discussed The obje~tlveof the scheme was to provtde the
basis for self-employment which would ensure generatton of adequate Income.
The present sectlon deals wth the generatlon of employment inltlated by da~ry
actlvity In the selected four block of sample benefic~anes. Esttmates of
employment generated before and after assistance under IRDP are presented In
Table 5 10
There has been slgn~ficantimprovement In employment posttton for all
selocted blochs of sample beneficlanes as could be seen from table 6 2 In the
selected Anankuppam block, afier borrowng loan under IRDP, thelr number of
unlts of employment has ~ncreasedfrom 32 to 47 units, indicahng 48 56 per cent
Increase In thc post IRDP pnod, where as tn the Vllllanur block, Oulgaret block
and Karatkal hlock. the percentage of emplo,ment has Increased stgntficantly to
59 4 1.42 17 and 42 99 respectively Thus, In all selected four blocks in the study
area, the employment generallon has Increased slgn~ficantlyto 43 99 percent
The calculated paid
">" statlsttc values are found to be stgnificant tn all
the selected blocks at 1 per cent level of slbm~ficance,thereby lndlcattng that the
lmpacl of IRDP on employment generatlon
of the study area
IS
significant In all the sample blocks
E M P L O Y M E M A I T E R BORROI\'INC OVER THAT OF REFORE T l l E SCHEME
(\lean values In II~IIIS.I unit - 30 hours of \\.ark)
Chnngc in
Block
Employment
Ar~ankuppam
32
2142
47
1631
15
29.49
50
1111
14
1965
15
13784
1
V~llianur
1741
36
I720
OuIgaret
I
35
114291
All Blocks
/ /
Source: ( 'otnpirledJroni
I
3W
trtrvcy
0%;3
rltrla
(
HI 1 8 6 9
48
1
I i i
I488
I5
3591
The co-effictent of vanation before borrowing for all the selected four blocks
ranges between 14.29 to 22.19, while m the same blocks after borrowng. the
cwfficrent of variation has decltned to 8.69 and 16.48 in the selected four blocks
Thts means that the cozfictent of variat~onIS comparatively less tn the after IRDP
asststance, than In the period before. showing the s~gtuficanceof co-efficient of
vanatton However, In terms of ~ncreaseor decrease, the co-efic~entof varlatlon
ranges from a lowest value of 39.41 to a h~ghof 40 40 for the sample selected
blocks, lmplytng the efictency In the dtsbwement of the IRDP asststance
Thus the vanauons of the employment generat~onof the sample households
have dacllned after the borrowng IRDP ass~stanceIn all the selected blocks The coemctent of vanatton of employment generatton of the same households tn all the
blocks has declined from 20.70 per cent to 14 88 per cent whtch ~nmcatesthat the
dlspanttes In employment generatton among the sample households has decl~ned
Further, the cosfficrent of vanatton of employment generat~on1s 43 0 per cent
almosl same In all the selected blocks This clearly shows that the dev~ahon
hecomes wder after the ~ntroductlon of IRDP It ~mpltesthat there had been
stgn~ficantadd~ttonto employment In post IRDP per~ods
5.13. CHANGES IN THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES O F BENEFICIARIES
Consurnp~onIS another vanable whtch helps one In drawng the poverty
Ilne As consumption
IS
dtrectly related to the Income, one can eas~lypresume that
the consumption ts vny low, as Income 1s very low To put it an other way, as the
income is at the subsistence level or further below that level, the wnsumptlon of the
famtly is below the prescribed mtrumum level. Thts leads to malnumtton and other
health problems, which reduccs productivity T h ~ s calls one to study the
consumptlon level of the sample benefictanes before and after the asastance
The household consumptlon expendtture across the selected four blocks 1s
gven in table 5 1 1 It is w&nt from the table that the wnsumpbon of the
benefic~arysample households have tncnaud after the IRDP asststance For the 300
sample beneficlanes, there has been an average household expendrture Increase by
Rs 4.100 tndtcattng 35 62 per cent ~ncreasein the post-UU)P 17us Increase ln the
consumptlon expendrturc ts propomonate to the Increuse In the Income of the
beneficiarydue to the UU)P ssstrtanu
CHANGES IFi HOllSEHOLD EXPENDITURE- REFORE AND AFTER THE SCIIEME
(Mean values In Rupea per annum)
-
Blork
Before
I
ALr
-7
-/
Borrowln
Borrowln
1
-4----Vtllianur
Oulgaret
Mean
Mean
1 V:
I
11490
21
V:
i
I
24 69
I
11530' I585
16060
15700
2507
1820
I
1
Change in
Expmditurc
Mean
I
1
%
CV
pa!tF
/
Value [
I
4570
-
4170
70 5s
5579
j
39 77
I_
3617
564'
-
Karaikal
25 83
15540
25 79
4300
60 70
3826
8 29'
15610
2691
4100
7684
3562
13.04*
-
All Blocks
Swrcc ( 'omputcdfrom .survey dolo
There has been an increase of 30 86 per cent In the consumption expendlture
of the Ariankupparn block which is less than the average consumptton expendlture
of the sample population The consumptton expendtture In the Villtanur block,
Oulgaret block and Karaikal block has increased by 39 77 per cent, 36 17 per cent
and 38 26 per cent respecuvely whlch
IS
more than the average consumptlon
expendlture of the sample populat~on Thls rise In consumphon expenditure across
d~fferentblocks 1s almost In the same prOpoRlOn to the Increase In Income across
dtfferent sample selected blocks
l'he calculated p r e d "t" values are h~ghlyslgn~ticanttn all the selected four
whtch indicates that the ~mpactof IRDP on
blocks at I per cent level of s~gn~ticance
household expendlture 1s s~gnlficantIn all the sample blocks The "t"value shows
that the vanab~lityIn the h o w h o l d expendtture before and afier the assistance
IS
stattst~callyslgnlficant at one per cent level
It can be seen from table 5 1 1 that the w-effic~ent of vanatlon before
borrowng for all the selected four blocks were ranpng b - 1 5 85 per cent to
37 08 per a n t . whtk In the same Modts. after borromng from IRDP asststance, the
co-cfictent of vananon on an average has decltned to 18 20 per cent and 30 5 1 per
cent Thts lmplles that the co-effictent of vanatlon
IS
comparanvely less after the
lRDP asststance than In the penod before. showing the slgnifiurnce of co-efficicnt
of vanatton However, In terms of lnc-
or dec-,
the co-efictent of vanahon
ranges from a lowest value of 55.79 per cent to a high of 98.09 per cent for the
sample blocks, implytng the effictency in the dtsbursement of the IRDP assistance.
Therefore. the variat~ons of the household expendtture of the sample
households have declined after borrowing from lRDP ass~stancern all the selected
blocks, except Vllltanw block and Oulgaret block The coefic~entof vartation of
household cunsumpuon expendnure of the sample households tn all the blocks has
decllned from 29.91 per cent to 26 97 per cent, whlch shows that the dtspanttes In
household expenditure among the sample household has dacltned The results from
the table clearly ~nd~cates
that after gmtng milch an~malloan under IRDP, the
respondent's I-c
and expchture has also increased Thus, all tn all, the average
family expehture among the 300 sample households has ~ncnasedIn all blocks to
the extent of 35.62 per cent.
5.14. GROWTH OF SAVINGS OF BENEFICIARIES
The dam wth respect to average sawng of the households In the selected
blocks
IS
&tn table 5
12. l h s table show the average sawng of the sample
respondents through m~lchmmal assistance under R D P tn the study area In the
Anankuppam block. the average sawng has increased by 50 54 pcr cent. therebv
~nd~cattng
a relatlwly hgh stg~ficantImpact of IRDP asststance on savings But. In
the V ~ l l r ~ nblock
w
and Oulgant block, the average saving has tncreased to Rs 427
and Rs.542 m p t l v e l y . ~ndlcatlng
16.63 per cent and 13.39 per cent ~ncreaseIn the post-IRDP penod respectively In
the Karaikal block, the average saving has Increased to a much higher percentage of
64.11 Thus, the percentage increase In savlngs varies in all the selected four blocks
in the study area.
The calculated palred "t" value 1s found to be h~gherIn Kara~kaland
Anankupparn blocks In cornpanson to other two blocks, such as V~ll~anur
and
Oulgaret blocks. thereby ~ndicat~ng
a relat~velyhigh s~gn~ficant
impact of IRDP
assistance on savlng at I per cent level of s~gnificance Thus, the average sawng
has 1ncm.4 s~p~ficantly
in the Anankuppam and Kara~kalblocks at 1 per cent
level. whereas, In the
remaining
two blocks, the IRDP asslstance does not very
much lnfluencc the change In savlng of the sample howholds
'Table 5 12 shows that the co-effic~entof vanatlon In the savlng of the
sample households
~ils
higher
after borrowng of IRDP asslstance than before
borrowng The co-cff~c~cnt
of vanabon before borrowng IRDP asslstame for all
the bclccaed four MoJrs ranged between 40 48 to 50.47 per cent, wh~leIn the same
blocks after bomomng IKDP assistance. the cuefficlent of vanatlon on an average
has increased to 65 34 and 91.79 per cent T h ~ s~mpllesthat the cosfficlent of
vanatton 1s cornparat~velyhigh after the IRDP ass~stancethan In the penod before,
shoulng the lnslgnafiunu of mfficicnt of vanmon.
The variations of the saving of the sample households have declined after the
borrowing IRDP assistance in all the selected four blocks in the study area Thus,
the impact of the programme on the savlngs of the beneficiaries is significant and
has Increased the savlngs potentials of the beneficlanes of mllch anlmal scheme
5.15. CHANCES IN THE ASSET CREATION OF BENEFICIARIES
Assistance to buy milch anlmals IS pnmanly to add productive assets to the
sample households whlch have no or ~nsuffic~ent
land to sustatn the~rfamlly
Continuous and proper matntenance of animals would ensure not only generatlon of
Income but also stab111tyIn 11 Therefore, the expectation of the scheme In addtng
this asxt 1s removal of poverty through generatlon of gatnful employment and
sufficient
income.
This sartlon deals w t h the Impact of the propramme on assets
bu~ldlngas shown In table 5 I3
The net wonh of IRDP assets was analysed. wnstdenng assets created and
l~ab~ltty
dunng the course of mamtenancc of mtlch animals The deta~lsof acset
value In the selected four blocks are presented in tabk 5 13 It
IS
evident from the
table that the asset value has increased in the penod after borrowmng from IRDP
assistance
In the Anankuppam block. the assd value has tncnased from Rs 18.070
to Rs 26.780. indlcanng 48 20 per a n t Increase ~nthe post-IRDP period. where as In
the Vllltanur block. Oulgam block and Karalkal block. the average =set value has
lncreascd by 55 81 per cent.
61.43 per cent and 95.40per cent respectively In the Karaikal block, the average
asset value has increased to a much higher percentage of 95 40 Thus, the percentage
increase in asset value varies In all the selected four blocks In the study area
The "1" value shows the var~abilttyIn the asset value before and after the
IRDP assistance
IS
statrstccally stgncticant at 1 per cent and 5 per cent level of
scgncficance The calculated paired t values are found to be significant rn all the
selected four blocks in the study area
The co-efictent of vanatton before borrowing for all the selected four blocks
were rangrng between 85 86 to 1 19 26, while In the same blocks after borrowng
IRDP assistance. the u ~ f i c c e n of
t vanatlon on an average has decltned to 56 18
t vanatron However,
and 82 29. thereby cndrcattng the srgnlficancc of c o s f i c ~ e n of
In tcrms of rncrease or decrease. the cueffrcrent of vanatron ranges from a lowest
kaluc of 43 66 to a hrgh of 137 44 for the sample blocks. cmplycng the eficrency rn
rhc drsburscment of the IRDP asststance
Thus. the vanattons of the asset n l u of the sample households have been
k l r d after the borromng IRDP asslstsnce tn all the selected blocks The cor t t i c m t of vanatton of arwt v a l u of the sample households rn all the blocks has
k l ~ n e from
d
I05 81 to 75 63 pa cat. which tndtc~testhat the dtspant~esrn asset
value dmnbutton among the m p l e households has dccl~ned From a complete
analyscs of the average value of assets held by the respondents both before and after
the assistance, it is clew that the programme had an impact on the value of the assets
M d by them, that is. the average value of the total assets of the beneficiaries had
appreciated by 61 % per cent due to the financial asststance of the programme.
St& REPAYMENT PERFORMANCE OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARLES
Repayment of bank cradit IS deemed to be one of the tndtcators of successful
operation
of the scheme. Repayment lmplla generatton of adequate Income over
and above the household expmdrture a d an~malmmntenance T h ~ sKcnon deals
mth tbc repayment performance of sample beneficlanes m the selected four blocks
of the study area The block-wse class~ficauonof beneficlanes and the11repayment
prrformance are gtven In table 5 14 below
TIM 5.14
REPAYMENT PERFORMANCE OF SAMPLE BENEFICIARIES
b u m . <'o~mpttulfrom S u n q h a
As it could be seen i n the table 5 14, there was not much hfference i n
repayment performance between the d~fferentselected four blocks in the study area
The paccntage o f repayment In the selected four blocks, such as Ariankuppam,
Vlll~anur.Oulgaret and Kara~kal,are 37 61, per cent, 36 30 per cent, 37.94 per cent,
and 37.89 per cent respectively. As the household tncome level tncreased, the
rcpaylng capaclty also tncreased. As there was a tte-up arrangement, Increase tn
mllk y ~ e l dnaturally led to a htgher level o f repayment But. In many o f the cases,
beneficlanes had sold out the animals and settled the loan. Ln such a case, good
repayment perfcnmance med not represent sound economtc con&t~on o f
benefinanm.
'Thus. the household ~ncomr which rncludes d a l ~Income also, had
s~gnificant end pos~t~ve
assoclarion u i t h repayment performance Hence, the
rrpa\ment performance truly reflected the cconomlc condttlon o f the beneficlanes
I'hcrefore, the average repavment performance among 300 sample hou.seholdc has
~ncrra.sedIn all blocks to the euent of 27 41 per cent
From the anatomy o f socw-econornlc features o f the sample households o f
the study erca, the targeted bcncfic~aneshave been class~fiedas marginal and small
hnners. a~mcultunland non-agricultural labourers The socral and demogaph~c
banable such as slzr o f the fam~l),age and sex composltton. occupat~onalstructure.
l~tcrncvlevel, help us to understand whether the vanables have tnfluence on the
Impact o f IKDP on the rnllch antmal beneficlanes as they can contnbute poslttvel)
clr nepttvely the process ol'econorn~cdevelopment
The
economic
variables such as Income level, employment, household
expenditure, savings and asset creatlon also influence the IRDP on the milch an~mal
beneficiaries.
The
I&
behind this top~c1s to examine the ~nter-relabonshlp
between the Impact of lRDP assistance on m~lchanlmal beneficlarles and soclodemograph~cand
economic
charactenst~csof sample households
That is, how
IRDP ~nfluences by soc~o-demograph~cand econorn~ccharacter~st~cs
of sample
households
7hus. the forego~ngsect~onon the soc~oeconom~c
condltlons of the
sample households reveals that most of them are agncultural labourers wthout land
and thclr n u n oaxpauon 1s agriculture or agncultural labour This sethng prowdes
a background to study the Impact of the IRDP on thew econmlc and soctal
cond~t~ons