Social Work and Social Action
Guided by: Mr. Manoj Joseph
Presented on: 4th of Septermber, 2008
Venue:School of Rural Development, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
ABSTRACT
The emergence of Social work profession can be earmarked together with the emergence of the Charity Organization Society (COS) and the Settlement House Movement. Both, these made an immense contribution to social work practice, methods, knowledge and social work approaches. However, both these set a different tradition to social work practices viz. micro and macro social work practices. The underlying assumptions of these practices were entirely different though they have the same objectives. Charity Organization Society promoted individualized scientific philanthropy, where as the Settlement House Movement emphasized on social action to address the structural inequalities.
INTRODUCTION
Social work has been known as ‘Alms giving activity’, with a desire to help those who are in need or in distress, aiming to bring relief to individuals, families, groups, or community as a whole. This has been practiced from the very inception of human society or civilization, and could also be described as ‘traditional concept’. Mutual help and cooperation among people in times of needs were the hallmark of social living in ancient times.
In fact, social action is seen as an organized effort to change social and economic institutions as distinguished from social work or social service, the field of which do not characteristically cover essential changes in established institutions. Social action covers movements of political reform, industrial democracy, social legislation, racial and social justice, religious freedom and civil liberty; its techniques include propaganda, research and lobbying (Baldwin, 1966).
RADICAL TRADITIONS OF SOCIAL ACTION
The economic crisis/ depression of the 1890s in the American history provided the necessary environment for radical ideas to take root in the emerging field of social work. Prior to this crisis, various social movements were formed in response to the urging need of the masses in providing housing; health facilities, employment and the likes, which on the other hand facilitated in the development of social work profession. Such as Charity Organisation Society (COS) movement which began in 1877 in Buffalo, New York; The Settlement House movement, which began in 1886 in New York City; and several loosely related developments, notably the Children’s Aid Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which began in New York City in 1853 and 1875, respectively (Encyclopaedia of Social Work).
Norman Goroff described the ultimate aim of radical practice as “a radical transformation... to replace a competitive, alienating and alienated society, which because it is capitalist, exploitative, individualistic and hierarchically structured develops unequal life chances for its citizens, with a society based on cooperation, egalitarianism and non-exploitive relationships, where production of goods and services are for use and not intended sole for profit….”.
Social Action as strategy to Social change in India
Social reform, social work, social action and social protest may be seen as serially linked, particularly in Indian context. Just as social work can be seen to be related to social reform in its value orientation, it may be said to be linked with ‘social action’ in its activity orientation. Social action is an effort on the part of social workers to achieve social and structural change - with the help and on behalf of the underprivileged groups in society – but within the norms laid down by law for seeking change. The initiative and leadership in ‘social action’ is still with the outside leader who may be a member of the ‘establishment’ or the elite group in society (Gore, 1981;cited in Gore M.S., 1975).
CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL ACTION
Tracing back to the history of social work in the 19th century, social action has its conception with the emergence of the Settlement House movement in the west for structural adjustment and for bringing about change in the society. Till today, there can be no unanimity on the concept of social action, which has quite often been confused with community organization, community work, community action, radical social work practices, and also with reform and revolution, as they too are for bringing about change through collective action.
Rothman in his social action model refers to community work, which is issue oriented and attempts to generate a social movement. The worker or agency attempts to mobilize public opinion on a particular issue by educating people.
TYPES OF SOCIAL ACTION
Britto (1980; cited in Siddiqui H.Y., 1984) has identified two types of social action that can be carried out by the elite for an on behalf of the masses without their participation. It can also be carried out by the elite with a greater or lesser degree of participation of the masses and can be entirely carried out entirely by the beneficiaries themselves. The two types of Social Action can be identified as below –
i). Elitist Social Action
When the elite or group of people who has control and influence over the society due to their power and other factors take up initiative in Social Action with the minimum participation of the masses/people is termed as “Elite Social Action”. The three models of elite Social Action are –
a). Legislative Action Model – the elite group in the process of Social Action conduct studies on gravity the problem, creating public opinion, lobbying with like-minded individuals, agencies, etc. in order to benefit something from this particular group or to remove problems hindering their growth.Gandhi’s Satyagraha in the Chamaparan on behalf of the indigo workers in 1921 (Rajendra Prasad, 1922; cited in Siddiqui H.Y., 1984) can be sited as legislative action model.
b). Economic Sanction Model – here, the elite started gaining control over some economic, social, political or religious weapon and try to obtain benefit for the society.
c). Direct Physical Action Model – in this model, the elite group take law on their hand and punish those responsible for the cause of injustice for bringing benefit for the society.
Popular Social Action is carried out by masses or a large section of people with or without the involvement of the elite group. It is mainly to achieve social and/or civil/political rights from the unjust structures, agencies, policies or oppressive agents. The three models are -
a). Direct Mobilization Model – the elites analyse the root cause of the problem or grievances; they formulate the alternative policies and procedures and mobilize the masses for protest or strikes, in order to achieve their objective.
b). Dialectical Mobilization Model – here, the elites expose the contradiction in a system, promote conflicts with a belief and expectation for a better system and to results in better socio-economic-political structures. The actionists who follow a dialectical process take the logical to the ontological. They assume that all social forces in nature and human institutions clash and develop. Every institution and every social force contains in itself the element of its own disintegration, they contend.
c). Conscientisation Model – this model is based on the concept developed by Paulo Freire, where an individual or masses/people are encouraged and invited to critically analyse and understand the present social structure which restrict their life. He felt that this situation contained exciting possibilities for the true liberation of mankind as well as for the most efficient domestication of men (Freire, 1974, 1976; cited in Siddiqui H.Y., 1984) In other words, it is the establishment of critical awareness amongst service users of the social, economic and political realities of their oppression. This model needs and require education as this process not only makes one literate but also make the participants to become subject of their own history; to liberate them from all unjust restrictions in the society. This form of action involves maximum participation of the concerned population. Analytical framework and the analysis of a particular society discouraged is not provided where the people themselves analyse and understand the social structure which circumscribe their life.
Lee (1972; cited in Siddiqui H.Y., 1984) had identified three types of strategies for social action, but the strategy to be used or to be employed will also depend on the goal perception of the social actionist and the social milieu in which he is operating. The strategies of social action are collaboration, competition and disruption.
i). Collaboration – in this strategy, the social worker collaborate with the local authority and other authorities or agencies in order to bring about improvements in the existing social policy through demonstration or experimentation. Homogeneity of values and interests is the basic assumptions through which substantive agreement on proposals is obtainable
ii). Competition – here, the contending parties utilize commonly accepted campaign tactics to persuade, to negotiate and to bargain, publicity which lead to discomfort for the target of change, advocacy through media and attempts to isolate the target group form the opinions of the community at large.
iii). Disruption or confrontational – this strategy signifies a more militant approach, and it may include strikes, boycotts, fasts, tax-refusals, sit-in protests, rally and the likes.
SOCIAL ACTION; METHOD OF SOCIAL WORK
With the emergence of social work profession in the 19th century, it uses and applies different skills, knowledge, values and methods in the practice of this profession in taking up the task to enhance human well-being. The methods include casework, group work and community, social welfare administration and social action. Although, there is general agreement that these different methods form an integral part of the profession’s activities, preference for these practice methods give rise to different conception of social work’s wider commitment, roles and functions. Some of the professionals stress the need for preventive forms of intervention, and others believe that social work should seek to promote development and progressive social change. This give rise to a very diverse expression in this profession.
Social work and Social action can help the deprived seek and obtain justice within the existing law and in enforcement of Governments own declared policy. It can also be questions of Government’s policy or practice and stay within the law. The developmental function of social work aims at broader social coverage and a broader social policy and at strengthening of social institutions to make them more capable of meeting the aspiration of the population.
BARRIERS/CHALLENGES
As stated earlier, social work profession has been evolved form its metropole i.e. United States and United Kingdom to the peripheral nations such as India. Prior to this, the philosophy, theories, methods, principles of social work were diffused to India and our educational system adapted itself and created the necessary mechanisms to accommodate and integrate this innovation in to itself. It is natural for Indian social work to have all the major traits of the American social work as any social instruments is a products of the respective social-economic-political structures.
The social work profession is going through period of expansion and redefinition. Over the ages, the approaches to social work profession took its shape in 1980s in America and UK during the great economic depression. This led to the emergence of various social movements that were formed to respond the urging needs of the mass in providing housing, health, employment and this in turn led to the emergence of Charity Organization Society and Settlement House Movement. Radical social work has been significant and real during this progressive era, which was initiated by Jane Adams through the settlement house movement. It mainly focus on the issues of poverty and social justice, reflected the paternalistic attitudes of their upper-class origins, by focusing on the relationship between economic and social change and the needs of poor and working class families, which is a synthesis of ideas and actions that emerged both from institutions and organization created by disadvantaged and marginalized sections of the society and their allies.
Similarly, social reform, social work, social action and social protest could be seen as serially linked, particularly in Indian context. Just as social work can be seen to be related to social reform in its value orientation, it may be said to be linked with ‘social action’ in its activity orientation. The emergence of Mahatma Gandhi, Jayaprakash Narayan and other great social reformers that has made great contribution to social work and social action, for bringing about change in the society can be earmarked.
There is ample evidence to suggest that though social action in India has been viewed as a method to be used for bringing about change, the scope varies from tackling mass problems like conservation of natural resources, alcoholism, housing and health, etc. to bringing about a peaceful revolution.
REFERENCE
- Bhattacharya S., (2003). Social work – An integrated Approach. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd.
- El Nasr M. A., (1989). The term ‘Client’ in social work profession. International Social Work. Vol. 32; p.311-318.
- Goldman B.W. (1962). International Social Work as a Professional Function. International Social work. Vol. 5(1); p. 1-8.
- Gore M.S., (1965). Social work and Social Work Education. Bombay: Asia publishing house
- Gore M.S., (1997). A historical perspective of Social Work profession. The Indian Journals of Social Work. Vol. 58(3); p. 442-455.
- Healy K., (2000). Social Work Practices-Contemporary Perspectives on Change. New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd.
- Jha K.J. (2001). Encyclopaedia of Social work. Lucknow: Amul Publication Pvt Ltd.
- Jones D. & Mayo M. (1974). Community Work I. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1974, p. 128ff
- Lippit R., Watson J. & Westley B. (1958). The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace & world, Inc.
- Midgley J., (2001). Issues in International Social Work: Resolving Critical Debates in the Profession. Journal of social work. Vol. 1(1); p. 21-35.
- Narayan L., (2000). Freire and Gandhi: Their relevance for social work education. International Social Work. Vol. 43(2); p. 193-204.
- Powell F. (1988). The Politics of Social Work. New Delhi: SAGE publications India Pvt Ltd.
- Prasad B.D. (1997). Literature on Undergraduate Social Work Education. The Indian Journals of Social work. Vol. 58 (2); p. 244-264.
- Reisch M. & Andrews J., (2001). The Road Not Taken – a History of Radical Social Work in the United States. Philadelhphia: Brunner-Routledge.
- Siddiqu, H.Y. (1997). Analysis of literature on Social action. The Indian Journals of Social work. Vol. 58(2), p. 212-232.
- Siddiqui H.Y. (1984). Social work and Social action. New Delhi: Harnam Pulications.
Challenges and Issues of Poor and Marginal Farmers
Guided by: Mr. (L) Shiva Dhakal
Presented on: 24th of January, 2009
Venue: School of Rural Development, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
ABSTRACT
India is a developing country which is trying to come out of the morass of poverty and backwardness slowly through developmental programs. She has all the characteristics of under-development and backwardness that is common to developing countries. In order to break these vicious circles of poverty and underdevelopment, a planned process of economic development has been initiated by launching Five Years Plans in the country. Under the impact of planning, the overall growth of the economy has shown a significant improvement. However, the benefits of development have not trickle down significantly to help people living at the disaggregated levels. While the benefits of development have been pocketed mostly by the urban centers and well-to-do persons (the elites), the rural areas and the rural poor who strive their livelihood in the agriculture sector have failed to procure much benefit, they are the poor and marginalized farmers. The poor and marginal farmers are known for their economic backwardness, because of uncertain market; lack of adequate income from their products and lack of standardization of their products or produced goods/commodities.
This paper is an attempt to highlight the emerging challenges and issues of the poor and marginal farmers, to understand various programs and schemes that have been initiated to assist them and also to look in to its impacts.
1. INTRODUCTION
Land, labor and capital plays a vital role in developing the rural economy, as they are the main productive resources of the country. However, land, labor and capital in spite of its importance and necessities, it can be earmark with the prevalence of small infertile land, less productivity, low wages, and no access to credit facilities. In fact, these are the result of poverty, which has spread its roots in the rural areas where majority of the Indian population lives and strives for their livelihood. Therefore, poverty in India is rural poverty. Urban poverty is only an overflow of rural poverty. To break these vicious circles of poverty and underdevelopment, a planned process of economic development has been initiated by launching Five Years Plans. Under the impact of planning, the overall growth of the economy has shown a significant improvement. However, the benefits of development have not trickle down significantly to help people living at the disaggregated levels. While the benefits of development have been pocketed mostly by the urban centers and well-to-do persons (the elites).The poor and marginal farmers are known for their economic backwardness because of uncertain market, lack of adequate income from their products and lack of standardization of their products or produced goods/commodities. The majority of the farmers cannot take any form to withstand the market competition with a view to optimize the profit. In 1953-54, marginal farmers owned only about 6 per cent land. But, by 2002-03, they owned about 23 per cent of land. The share of marginal and small farmers in owned land went up from 16.3 per cent in 1953-54 to 43.5 per cent in 2002-03.
In the course of planned economic development, it revealed that backwardness and underdevelopment are deep seated in the rural areas. Rural areas are more characterized by low level of per capita income, greater incidence of poverty and unemployment, higher growth rate of population, lack of infrastructure, low productivity of agriculture, and poor industrialization. Rural development thus lies at the root of the economic development of the country. In order to promote the economic development of rural areas, the Government – Central and State have launched various schemes and programs. Later, target oriented schemes were introduced by the Government, with an objective to promote the development of hitherto neglected persons in the rural areas by suitable and viable scheme with a view to help them to cross the poverty line and by overcoming it.
2. RATIONALE
While the country has made considerable progress in increasing the production of cash crops such as oilseeds, sugarcane, cotton, fruits and vegetables, many questions relating to the sustainability of agricultural performance, persistent poverty and the potential for accelerated growth to poor and marginal farmers are being raised. Prior to these, sustainability has been questioned and issue has arisen. In addition, it is assumed that the declining public investment in agriculture has adversely affects the potential for future growth, particularly in rural areas has attributed to the overall flaw in development strategies and priorities. Out of this dilemma, it is therefore necessary to look into the policies and programs for developing the rural areas and as well, the issues and challenges related to poor and marginal farmers. Thereby, understanding the scenario of rural development might help one to have an effective and efficient intervention in the process.
3. OBJECTIVES
4. BACKGROUND
Agriculture is the backbone of the Indian economy, which accounts for more than 25 percent of GDP and more than 65 percent of the population is dependent on agriculture. The prime concern of the country has always been the excessive poverty since time immemorial particularly in the rural areas. Several efforts have been made for poverty alleviation and for rural development. Though, at the national level, the percentage has declined, the population below the poverty line has not changed by numbers instead increases (Acharya and Panday, 1998, as quoted in Workshop on Rethinking Perspectives on Rural Development: Approaches and strategies, 2004). The share of agriculture in GDP is also declining (from 49 percent in 1973-74 to 26 percent in 1999-2000). The widely debated issue of development involves concurrent attention relating to ecological sustainability, economic efficiency, equity and peoples’ participation. It is in this context that an appropriate system approach for alternative production cum support mechanism through technological as well as policy intervention is to be sought out. The present approach of the farmers/villagers as recipients of new technology/package is needed to be modified to that of partners in technology development and extension network.
During the Fifties, major policies were of the removal of the middlemen from the farming sector, i.e. abolition of Zamindars and Jagiradars, allocating land to the tiller by following land reforms and lad ceiling acts. The alternative to land reform arose due to the pressure to increase in yield results that is self-sufficiency in food grains. This process accelerated in Sixties, when the annual wheat import exceeds 10 million tons (Acharya and Pandey, 1998, as quoted in Workshop on Rethinking Perspectives on Rural Development: Approaches and strategies, 2004). Here, starts the second era of agricultural development that is Green Revolution headed by the agricultural scientists, with the support of Ford and Rockefeller Foundation. A strong opinion was put forth that the food production could only rise by introducing high yielding varieties and the use of chemical fertilizers along with irrigation. This proposition was suggested by a need transfer of appropriate scientific inputs to the farmers in raising the productivity (Schultz, 1964,as quoted in Workshop on Rethinking Perspectives on Rural Development: Approaches and strategies, 2004).
Green revolution has been argued that the low income groups, both in the rural and urban areas, would drive a greater benefit from the decline in the relative price of food grains, than the upper income groups. However, consumers seems to have benefited relatively more than the producer from the productivity of grains, particularly in the case of rice and jawar (Tyagi, 1990, as quoted in Workshop on Rethinking Perspectives on Rural Development: Approaches and strategies, 2004).
Unlike the earlier Plans, the Fifth Plan (1980-85) presented and give more emphasize to uplift the poor economically through a variety of programs of self and wage employment as well as area development. These programs provide small loans to generate self-employment such as Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP); National Rural Employment Guarantee Program (RLEGP) for creation of wage, which is presently known as Jawahar Rojgar Yojana (JRY). Though the programs have been able to make some changes in poverty status, by and large due to the elaborate top-down system in all the rural development schemes, lack of local infrastructure for permitting investment and lack of basic human skills have not permitted the full potentials of rural people to emerge. In the early nineties, due to Globalization process, the Structural Adjustment Program, the situation of the primary sector further ruined, this has led to major shift in earlier cropping patterns sometimes with the ‘modern’ technologies to cope with the emerging economic threat.
Often, we discussed thatthe benefits of development has not trickle down significantly to help people living at the disaggregated levels. So, here comes a queries on the people who are being trap by the development of the Country and the target groups living at the desegregated levels and the target group of the policies and program laid out for the rural areas. Thus, it is necessary to probe into the characteristics of the farmers who are poor and marginal.
5. CHARACTERISTIC OF FARMERS (POOR AND MARNINAL)
Poor and marginal farmers may be defined in may dimension, viz. Socially, Culturally and Economically. S/he is a very important change agent in every society as they are the primary producer. However, s/he is one of the most enigmatic characters in rural economic development. It is her/his dynamism that paves the gap and bridge between the conspicuous demand of the urban people and the real life in villages, but preciously, her/his role is often unclear. Marginal, small and poor farmers may be either an individual or a group, both are equally significant.
The marginal and small farmers are known for their economic backwardness because of uncertain market, lack of adequate income from their products and lack of standardization of their products or produced goods/commodities. The loss minimization, therefore, becomes the dominant concern rather than profit maximization through their products. The community of poor and marginal farmers has a strong dependence on the elite group and so they exercise their ‘price levy’ on the farmers. Thus, in the process, the economically backward poor and marginalized farmers’ group bogs down to the authoritarianism of the traders, big money lenders or the landlord and suffer from exploitation.
Regardless of their dependence and indebtedness upon the traders, big money lenders or the landlord, they also depend on the market for meeting their basic needs and necessities. However, the poor and marginal farmers withstand the risks and threats of the market in one way or the other for their survival. And, as a primary producer, the production linkages at times become the deciding factor for their bread and butter.
5.1 PRODUCTION LINKAGES
Marketing is an essential postulate of production. In agriculture sector, the production is by and large, of subsistence level and thus marketable surplus is considerably low. The market for the agricultural products is unorganized and dominated by the middlemen to a large extent. These markets consist of small marketable surplus through fragmented and small-unorganized markets held periodically in the small villages and face variety of problems including that of remunerative prices.
However, the poor and marginal farmers or in other words, the primary producers are forced to sell their produce goods and products in an exploited price in order to meet their daily and basic needs, and even at times for the day. They, themselves now become sellers and as well buyers who sell their primary products at a very low price and buys at a very high price, where value addition was done in the commodities. The farmers-sellers can be broadly classified in to three categories namely, marginal and small, medium, and large marketable surplus size groups. Since the majority of the farmers belong to marginal and small marketable group, they cannot take any form to withstand the market competition with a view to optimize the profit.
6. PROGRAM/SCHEME IMPLEMENTED
As stated earlier, the country’s Five Years Plans has played a major role in the development of the country, may it be the urban and rural areas. It is only through these Five Years Plan, various policies, programs and schemes were/are taken up to developed the rural areas in particular. Hence, over viewing the Five Year Plans would give us a better perspective on how importance is given to agriculture, and to the poor and marginal farmers. In addition, to probe into the programs and schemes on how effective and efficient it can address their issues and problems.
6.1 OVERVIEW OF FIVE YEARS PLANS
The First Plan was launched with two-fold objective, viz., to correct the disequilibrium in the economy and to initiate simultaneously a process of all round balanced development which would ensure a rising national income and steady improvement in living standards, where agriculture, including irrigation and power was given the topmost priority and emphasized primarily laid on crop production.
The Second Plan was drawn to meet the increasing demand for food and raw materials on account of growing population and expanding industries. The higher production was envisaged to e achieved largely through improved techniques and propagation of intensive cultivation. It aimed to develop the livestock of the country and rural upliftment measures are taken up side by side with increased crop production.
The Third Plan have given the first priority to agriculture as from the experience of the first two plan shown that the growth of rate in agricultural production is one of the main limiting factors in the progress of Indian economy. The plan provided an outlay on agricultural programs including large and small irrigation schemes, soil conservation and co-operation by setting up two priority goals; to produce enough food grains to be self-sufficient; and to produce enough commercial crops to meet the needs of exports and industry.
The Fourth Plan have aimed at a growth of about 5 percent per annum over the next decade and to enable a large section of the rural population including those which aimed at maximizing production and those which aimed at remedying imbalances. Ten area development schemes were executed in different command areas for speedy agricultural development of areas covered by the respective irrigation projects.
The Fifth Plan was formulated at a time when the economy was facing severe inflationary pressures. Its major objectives were to achieve self-reliance and to adopt measures for raising the consumption of the people living below the poverty line. Here, in this plan, removal of poverty has become a primary consideration for formulating programs. The small and marginal farmer scheme were unified and enlarged, thereby giving employment to a large labor population during the off-season.
The Sixth Plan aims at a compound annual growth rate of 3.83 percent in the gross value added in agriculture and over 5 per annum in value of gross output. To achieve these goals, it took up strategy for crop production based on steady growth of food grains production, substantial increase in pulses production, self-sufficiency in oilseeds and increased production of export-oriented crops like tea, tobacco, etc.
The Eight Plan continued to support important programs to maximize agricultural production. It aims at consolidating the gains from the base built over the years in agricultural production. Focuses were also given to development programs in extending improved technologies amongst the farmers. Seed, fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation are the basic inputs for agricultural development in support to production.
The Ninth Plan again give priority to agricultural sector and emphasize was given on raising the capabilities of small and marginal farmers as well as conserving and maximizing the value from scarce resources; infrastructure development and minor irrigation. Regional programs were formulated for hilly, backward and tribal areas, and agriculture credit received special attention.
The Tenth Plan focus was given to raise the cropping intensity of agriculture land and priority is also given to the development of rural infrastructure that supports not only agriculture but all rural economic activities. Similarly, attention is also given to the development and dissemination of technology for agricultural growth.
The Eleventh Plan has also recommended a similar approach: “The agricultural strategy must focus on the 85 per cent of farmers who are small & marginal, increasingly female, and who find it difficult to access inputs, credit and extension or to market their output. While some of these farmers may ultimately exit from farming, the overwhelming majority will continue to remain in the sector and the objective of inclusiveness requires that their needs are attended to.”
6.2 Intensive Agricultural District Program (IADP); In response to the food grain crises of 1957-58, it is the period of the Second Plan where the Government of India made an effort to increase agricultural production on an emergency basis, where the program was sponsored by the Ford Foundation. Government came up with Intensive Agricultural District Program (IADP) on the basis of the ‘10-Point program’, popularly known as the Package Program, on the basis of the‘10-Point program’.The program sought to achieve rapid increases in agricultural production through concentration of financial, technical, extension and administrative resources. Its aim in the long run was to achieve a self-generating breakthrough in productivity, and raise the production potential by stimulating the human and physical processes of change.
For the implementation of the program, GOI approved seven districts in June 1960 and suggested the scheme be implemented in one district in each of the 15 states of the country, where all elements required to increase production were provided simultaneously – Adequate and prompt supply of credit, based on production plans made available through strengthened cooperatives and timely supply of production requisites, such as fertilizers, and pesticides; arrangements for marketing and other services through cooperatives, so as to enable the cultivators to obtain a remunerative price for their marketable surplus and adequate storage facilities; intensive educational efforts, particularly through crop demonstrations, to disseminate knowledge of improved agricultural practices and strengthening transport arrangements to ensure mobility of supplies and staff.
6.3 Small Farmer Development Agency (SFDA) and the Marginal Farmer and Agricultural Laborers (MFAL) were both launched in 1970-71 as per the recommendation of the report of the All-India Rural Credit Review Committee (1969). Accordingly, the Fourth Plan laid special emphasis on enabling small farmers (2.5 to 5.0 acres of land holding) to participate in the process of development, and share its benefit. Similarly, the Marginal Farmer and Agricultural Laborers (with landholdings below 2.5 acres) emphasized to improve the productivity and income through a variety of activities, like crop husbandry (including multiple cropping), increased use of new inputs, water harvesting techniques, minor irrigation, livestock, poultry and fishery.
Both the agency, an autonomous agency were registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. During the Fifth plan, based on the recommendation of the National Commission on Agriculture, SFDA and MFAL were merged into one composite Scheme, called the Small Farmers, Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Project. After the extension of Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) to all community development blocks, the SFDA/MFAL agencies have been renamed the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) who is responsible for the implementation of all rural development programs, particularly, the poverty alleviation program in the district.
6.4 Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) is the single largest anti-poverty program in all the community development blocks in the country. It was launched in 1978-79 towards the end of Fifth Plan in 2,300 selected blocks in the country and extended to all blocks in the country form 2October, 1980. It aims at providing income-generating assets and self-employment opportunities to the rural poor, to enable them to rise above the poverty line once and for all. It also seeks to redistribute assets and employment opportunities in favor of the rural poor, and thereby reducing income inequalities. Its target group consists of the poorest of the rural poor-small and marginal farmers, agricultural and non-agricultural laborers, rural artisans and craftsmen, Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) families who live below the poverty line.
IRDP is a centrally-sponsored scheme and is funded on 50:50 basis by the Central and the States. The beneficiaries are assisted through viable bankable projects which are financed partly by subsidy and partly by bank loans. The beneficiary could select a project suited to his/her background, skills and personal preferences from a shelf of schemes in the fields of agriculture, irrigation, animal husbandry, village industries and the like activities.
7. EMERGING CHALLENGES AND ISSUES MARGINAL FARMERS
7.1 An overwhelming proportion of farmers in India are marginal or small. At all India level, more than 80 per cent of the farmers belong to marginal and small farm size groups, owning or operating less than 2 hectares of land. These two farm size groups’ also account for a large proportion of the total farm households in most of the states. It is also mainly due to sub-division of land-holdings and other processes such as land distribution; their percentages show an increasing tendency over time. The percentage of marginal farmers has gone up from nearly 38 per cent in 1953-54 to about 70 per cent in 2002-03. There has also been an increase in the percentage area owned by marginal and small farmers. In 1953-54, marginal farmers owned only about 6 per cent land. But by 2002-03, they owned about 23 per cent of land. The share of marginal and small farmers in owned land went up from 16.3 per cent in 1953-54 to 43.5 per cent in 2002-03.
7.2 Poverty has often contributed and the attribute to the vicious circle of low income, low level of savings and investments which in turn leads to the low level of employment (financial support for education) and income. In addition, one can also take into account that low productivity, market imperfection (price fluctuation), traditional technology and know-how for production, concentration of power, and the likes are also the factors which has widened the circle.
7.3 Agricultural Credit is a problem when it cannot be obtained and it is also again a problem when it can be obtained. It can be generalized that the poor and marginalized farmers are indebted to money lender or to the banks, co-operatives credit societies, etc. If a farmer is defaulter of the bank, he is not eligible for loan. Eventually, he turns to private money lender to borrow money in a very high interest rate in order to meet his daily requirement; family and as well necessary equipments to produce. As a result of which, they are indebted to pay back the money in cash (very high interest rate) or in kind (products) irrespective of the market value or price (most of the time in a very deteriorated price).
7.4 The small land and asset base of marginal-small farmers which leads to small and inadequate incomes is compounded by a number of other factors. Some of general issues that confront marginal-small farmers as agriculturalists are: imperfect markets for inputs/product leading to smaller value realizations; absence of access to credit markets or imperfect credit markets leading to sub-optimal investment decisions or input applications; poor human resource base; smaller access to suitable extension services restricting suitable decisions regarding cultivation practices and technological know-how; poorer access to “public goods” such as public irrigation, command area development, electricity grids; greater negative externalities from poor quality land and water management, etc.
7.5 There is a long interval in agriculture or gap during which the cost of production is incurred before crop is harvested and moved into market for sale. It takes months to receive the return of its labor and supply of agricultural produce is seasonal while the demand exists all the year round. This makes the financial arrangements and requirements that they need within the gap more avoidable and tends to fall into the trap of debt. Moreover, the farmer can hardly foresee the conditions which they will fall into or may prevail when they harvest the crop and the time it is marketed. For which, they used to take risk and face the uncertainties, such as droughts, flood, diseases, defects in seeds and manures, etc.
7.6 Lack of proper storage facilities to hold back and store their surpluses products, in a time when their products is more than that of the demand in the market or when the market prices fails/adjustment of his output to fluctuation in demand, thus add to further difficulties. Further, most of their products are perishable products or commodities, which need to be marketed just after harvest, without which the commodities need to be further processed with the use of technology that they cannot afford due to financial constraint.
7.7 Inadequately structured farmers associations or other similar forms of jointly-owned organizations that could interface with traders or could undertake marketing. These institutions or the like institutions hardly exist or do not exist. Thus, as a result, the poor and marginal farmers remained handicapped (a) low quality of, and inexperienced, management; (b) undercapitalized financial base; (c) limited access to capital; and (d) poor paid staff. These constraints inhibit their ability to compete in the open market or adapt to changes in the marketing environment.
7.8 Increasing Globalization has added an international dimension to the problems faced by these farmers. And, this could be clearly observed on how the situation has worsened over time. The policies of huge subsidies and protectionism, widely practiced by industrialized countries, often have a negative effect on small farmers in developing countries. Nearly all industrialized countries, though having a very small proportion of their population in farming, can go to great lengths to protect their agriculture. Such policies have a devastating effect, among others, on farmers in developing countries as well as the international environment (natural, economic, political and social). As through the process of Globalization, the market has now become the deciding factor, where there are rapid increase in competition in terms of quality and quantity of the produced goods/commodities, and thus exclude the poor and small farmers who has no/lack in standardization of their produced goods/commodities.
7.9 The Government Policies are often at times governed by a need to keep urban prices low. Policies on food aid, imports of subsidies foods or trade further expose small farmers to unfair market competition and undermine local markets to the detriment of small producers. The issue of leveling the playing field for the smallholders remains.
7.10 Private sectors’ role are on increasing where the States’ or the Governments’ role has been minimized. Here, there arise confusions or no clear consensus on the appropriate role of the government and the private sector in providing remunerative prices to the small farmers. The real purchasing power of the rural producers has fallen due to the removal of subsidies by the private undertaking agencies and there declines in farm-gate prices of food crops and basic commodities, either through rising technical efficiency of production, or because of uncontrolled competition from subsidized sources in developed countries.
8. CONCLUSION
The paper sought look into the some of the some of the emerging issues of the poor and marginal farmers which made them marginalized in this rural economy though they has the most enigmatic characters in rural economic development. Concerning the emerging issues of the poor and marginal issues, it can be concluded that it is not just the decline in public investment in agriculture, which has adversely affects the potential for future growth. The issues such as Government policies particularly in adopting the policy of Globalization, inadequately structured farmers associations, long interval in agriculture to get the expenditure incur and their small land and asset base can be noted to have attributed to the marginalization of poor and marginal farmers.
9. REFERENCE
· Archarya S.S and Chaudhri D.P.: Indian Agricultural Policy at the Crossroads; Priorities and Agenda, Rawat Publications, Jaipur and New Delhi, 2001.
· Balwinder S.: Agricultural Credit; Sources, Problems and Emerging Issues, Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2000.
· Bhalla G.S.: Indian Agriculture; Four Decades of Development, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2001.
· Dr. Swaminathan M.S.: Report of the High level Committee; An Action Plan for Agriculture for coming 25 years, MCAER, Government of Maharashtra, 2003.
· Katar S.: Rural Development; Principles, Policies, and Management, 2nd edition, Sage publication, New Delhi, 1999.
· Karmakar K.G.: Rural Credit and SHGs – Micro finance needs and concepts in India, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1000
· (L). Mamoria C.D. and Dr. Badri B.T.: Agricultural Problems, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 2003.
· Rajagopal: Rural Marketing Administration in India, Kaveri Books, Delhi, 1995.
· Rajagopal: Rural Marketing; Development Policy, Planning and Practice, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 1998.
· Rathod R.(Project Co-ordinator): Report of Scoping Study – Vidarbha Livelihood Reconstruction Project, School of Rural Development, TISS, 2008.
· Smrutirekha M.: Institutional Finance and Rural Artisans – progress, performance and prospects, Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2004.
· TISS – Rural Campus: Workshop on Rethinking Perspectives on Rural Development: Approaches and strategies, December 14-15, 2004.
· TISS – Rural Campus: Causes of Farmer Suicides in Maharashtra; an enquiry, March 15, 2005.
India is a developing country which is trying to come out of the morass of poverty and backwardness slowly through developmental programs. She has all the characteristics of under-development and backwardness that is common to developing countries. In order to break these vicious circles of poverty and underdevelopment, a planned process of economic development has been initiated by launching Five Years Plans in the country. Under the impact of planning, the overall growth of the economy has shown a significant improvement. However, the benefits of development have not trickle down significantly to help people living at the disaggregated levels. While the benefits of development have been pocketed mostly by the urban centers and well-to-do persons (the elites), the rural areas and the rural poor who strive their livelihood in the agriculture sector have failed to procure much benefit, they are the poor and marginalized farmers. The poor and marginal farmers are known for their economic backwardness, because of uncertain market; lack of adequate income from their products and lack of standardization of their products or produced goods/commodities.
This paper is an attempt to highlight the emerging challenges and issues of the poor and marginal farmers, to understand various programs and schemes that have been initiated to assist them and also to look in to its impacts.
1. INTRODUCTION
Land, labor and capital plays a vital role in developing the rural economy, as they are the main productive resources of the country. However, land, labor and capital in spite of its importance and necessities, it can be earmark with the prevalence of small infertile land, less productivity, low wages, and no access to credit facilities. In fact, these are the result of poverty, which has spread its roots in the rural areas where majority of the Indian population lives and strives for their livelihood. Therefore, poverty in India is rural poverty. Urban poverty is only an overflow of rural poverty. To break these vicious circles of poverty and underdevelopment, a planned process of economic development has been initiated by launching Five Years Plans. Under the impact of planning, the overall growth of the economy has shown a significant improvement. However, the benefits of development have not trickle down significantly to help people living at the disaggregated levels. While the benefits of development have been pocketed mostly by the urban centers and well-to-do persons (the elites).The poor and marginal farmers are known for their economic backwardness because of uncertain market, lack of adequate income from their products and lack of standardization of their products or produced goods/commodities. The majority of the farmers cannot take any form to withstand the market competition with a view to optimize the profit. In 1953-54, marginal farmers owned only about 6 per cent land. But, by 2002-03, they owned about 23 per cent of land. The share of marginal and small farmers in owned land went up from 16.3 per cent in 1953-54 to 43.5 per cent in 2002-03.
In the course of planned economic development, it revealed that backwardness and underdevelopment are deep seated in the rural areas. Rural areas are more characterized by low level of per capita income, greater incidence of poverty and unemployment, higher growth rate of population, lack of infrastructure, low productivity of agriculture, and poor industrialization. Rural development thus lies at the root of the economic development of the country. In order to promote the economic development of rural areas, the Government – Central and State have launched various schemes and programs. Later, target oriented schemes were introduced by the Government, with an objective to promote the development of hitherto neglected persons in the rural areas by suitable and viable scheme with a view to help them to cross the poverty line and by overcoming it.
2. RATIONALE
- To highlight the emerging issues and challenges of poor and marginal farmers.
- To understand various initiatives and interventions of the Government to address the issues of farmers.
- To understand the impact of the programs implemented for the development of farmers
4. BACKGROUND
During the Fifties, major policies were of the removal of the middlemen from the farming sector, i.e. abolition of Zamindars and Jagiradars, allocating land to the tiller by following land reforms and lad ceiling acts. The alternative to land reform arose due to the pressure to increase in yield results that is self-sufficiency in food grains. This process accelerated in Sixties, when the annual wheat import exceeds 10 million tons (Acharya and Pandey, 1998, as quoted in Workshop on Rethinking Perspectives on Rural Development: Approaches and strategies, 2004). Here, starts the second era of agricultural development that is Green Revolution headed by the agricultural scientists, with the support of Ford and Rockefeller Foundation. A strong opinion was put forth that the food production could only rise by introducing high yielding varieties and the use of chemical fertilizers along with irrigation. This proposition was suggested by a need transfer of appropriate scientific inputs to the farmers in raising the productivity (Schultz, 1964,as quoted in Workshop on Rethinking Perspectives on Rural Development: Approaches and strategies, 2004).
Green revolution has been argued that the low income groups, both in the rural and urban areas, would drive a greater benefit from the decline in the relative price of food grains, than the upper income groups. However, consumers seems to have benefited relatively more than the producer from the productivity of grains, particularly in the case of rice and jawar (Tyagi, 1990, as quoted in Workshop on Rethinking Perspectives on Rural Development: Approaches and strategies, 2004).
5. CHARACTERISTIC OF FARMERS (POOR AND MARNINAL)
5.1 PRODUCTION LINKAGES
However, the poor and marginal farmers or in other words, the primary producers are forced to sell their produce goods and products in an exploited price in order to meet their daily and basic needs, and even at times for the day. They, themselves now become sellers and as well buyers who sell their primary products at a very low price and buys at a very high price, where value addition was done in the commodities. The farmers-sellers can be broadly classified in to three categories namely, marginal and small, medium, and large marketable surplus size groups. Since the majority of the farmers belong to marginal and small marketable group, they cannot take any form to withstand the market competition with a view to optimize the profit.
6. PROGRAM/SCHEME IMPLEMENTED
The First Plan was launched with two-fold objective, viz., to correct the disequilibrium in the economy and to initiate simultaneously a process of all round balanced development which would ensure a rising national income and steady improvement in living standards, where agriculture, including irrigation and power was given the topmost priority and emphasized primarily laid on crop production.
The Fourth Plan have aimed at a growth of about 5 percent per annum over the next decade and to enable a large section of the rural population including those which aimed at maximizing production and those which aimed at remedying imbalances. Ten area development schemes were executed in different command areas for speedy agricultural development of areas covered by the respective irrigation projects.
The Fifth Plan was formulated at a time when the economy was facing severe inflationary pressures. Its major objectives were to achieve self-reliance and to adopt measures for raising the consumption of the people living below the poverty line. Here, in this plan, removal of poverty has become a primary consideration for formulating programs. The small and marginal farmer scheme were unified and enlarged, thereby giving employment to a large labor population during the off-season.
The Sixth Plan aims at a compound annual growth rate of 3.83 percent in the gross value added in agriculture and over 5 per annum in value of gross output. To achieve these goals, it took up strategy for crop production based on steady growth of food grains production, substantial increase in pulses production, self-sufficiency in oilseeds and increased production of export-oriented crops like tea, tobacco, etc.
The Eight Plan continued to support important programs to maximize agricultural production. It aims at consolidating the gains from the base built over the years in agricultural production. Focuses were also given to development programs in extending improved technologies amongst the farmers. Seed, fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation are the basic inputs for agricultural development in support to production.
The Ninth Plan again give priority to agricultural sector and emphasize was given on raising the capabilities of small and marginal farmers as well as conserving and maximizing the value from scarce resources; infrastructure development and minor irrigation. Regional programs were formulated for hilly, backward and tribal areas, and agriculture credit received special attention.
The Tenth Plan focus was given to raise the cropping intensity of agriculture land and priority is also given to the development of rural infrastructure that supports not only agriculture but all rural economic activities. Similarly, attention is also given to the development and dissemination of technology for agricultural growth.
The Eleventh Plan has also recommended a similar approach: “The agricultural strategy must focus on the 85 per cent of farmers who are small & marginal, increasingly female, and who find it difficult to access inputs, credit and extension or to market their output. While some of these farmers may ultimately exit from farming, the overwhelming majority will continue to remain in the sector and the objective of inclusiveness requires that their needs are attended to.”
6.2 Intensive Agricultural District Program (IADP); In response to the food grain crises of 1957-58, it is the period of the Second Plan where the Government of India made an effort to increase agricultural production on an emergency basis, where the program was sponsored by the Ford Foundation. Government came up with Intensive Agricultural District Program (IADP) on the basis of the ‘10-Point program’, popularly known as the Package Program, on the basis of the‘10-Point program’.The program sought to achieve rapid increases in agricultural production through concentration of financial, technical, extension and administrative resources. Its aim in the long run was to achieve a self-generating breakthrough in productivity, and raise the production potential by stimulating the human and physical processes of change.
For the implementation of the program, GOI approved seven districts in June 1960 and suggested the scheme be implemented in one district in each of the 15 states of the country, where all elements required to increase production were provided simultaneously – Adequate and prompt supply of credit, based on production plans made available through strengthened cooperatives and timely supply of production requisites, such as fertilizers, and pesticides; arrangements for marketing and other services through cooperatives, so as to enable the cultivators to obtain a remunerative price for their marketable surplus and adequate storage facilities; intensive educational efforts, particularly through crop demonstrations, to disseminate knowledge of improved agricultural practices and strengthening transport arrangements to ensure mobility of supplies and staff.
6.3 Small Farmer Development Agency (SFDA) and the Marginal Farmer and Agricultural Laborers (MFAL) were both launched in 1970-71 as per the recommendation of the report of the All-India Rural Credit Review Committee (1969). Accordingly, the Fourth Plan laid special emphasis on enabling small farmers (2.5 to 5.0 acres of land holding) to participate in the process of development, and share its benefit. Similarly, the Marginal Farmer and Agricultural Laborers (with landholdings below 2.5 acres) emphasized to improve the productivity and income through a variety of activities, like crop husbandry (including multiple cropping), increased use of new inputs, water harvesting techniques, minor irrigation, livestock, poultry and fishery.
Both the agency, an autonomous agency were registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. During the Fifth plan, based on the recommendation of the National Commission on Agriculture, SFDA and MFAL were merged into one composite Scheme, called the Small Farmers, Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Project. After the extension of Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) to all community development blocks, the SFDA/MFAL agencies have been renamed the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) who is responsible for the implementation of all rural development programs, particularly, the poverty alleviation program in the district.
IRDP is a centrally-sponsored scheme and is funded on 50:50 basis by the Central and the States. The beneficiaries are assisted through viable bankable projects which are financed partly by subsidy and partly by bank loans. The beneficiary could select a project suited to his/her background, skills and personal preferences from a shelf of schemes in the fields of agriculture, irrigation, animal husbandry, village industries and the like activities.
7. EMERGING CHALLENGES AND ISSUES MARGINAL FARMERS
7.1 An overwhelming proportion of farmers in India are marginal or small. At all India level, more than 80 per cent of the farmers belong to marginal and small farm size groups, owning or operating less than 2 hectares of land. These two farm size groups’ also account for a large proportion of the total farm households in most of the states. It is also mainly due to sub-division of land-holdings and other processes such as land distribution; their percentages show an increasing tendency over time. The percentage of marginal farmers has gone up from nearly 38 per cent in 1953-54 to about 70 per cent in 2002-03. There has also been an increase in the percentage area owned by marginal and small farmers. In 1953-54, marginal farmers owned only about 6 per cent land. But by 2002-03, they owned about 23 per cent of land. The share of marginal and small farmers in owned land went up from 16.3 per cent in 1953-54 to 43.5 per cent in 2002-03.
7.3 Agricultural Credit is a problem when it cannot be obtained and it is also again a problem when it can be obtained. It can be generalized that the poor and marginalized farmers are indebted to money lender or to the banks, co-operatives credit societies, etc. If a farmer is defaulter of the bank, he is not eligible for loan. Eventually, he turns to private money lender to borrow money in a very high interest rate in order to meet his daily requirement; family and as well necessary equipments to produce. As a result of which, they are indebted to pay back the money in cash (very high interest rate) or in kind (products) irrespective of the market value or price (most of the time in a very deteriorated price).
7.4 The small land and asset base of marginal-small farmers which leads to small and inadequate incomes is compounded by a number of other factors. Some of general issues that confront marginal-small farmers as agriculturalists are: imperfect markets for inputs/product leading to smaller value realizations; absence of access to credit markets or imperfect credit markets leading to sub-optimal investment decisions or input applications; poor human resource base; smaller access to suitable extension services restricting suitable decisions regarding cultivation practices and technological know-how; poorer access to “public goods” such as public irrigation, command area development, electricity grids; greater negative externalities from poor quality land and water management, etc.
7.5 There is a long interval in agriculture or gap during which the cost of production is incurred before crop is harvested and moved into market for sale. It takes months to receive the return of its labor and supply of agricultural produce is seasonal while the demand exists all the year round. This makes the financial arrangements and requirements that they need within the gap more avoidable and tends to fall into the trap of debt. Moreover, the farmer can hardly foresee the conditions which they will fall into or may prevail when they harvest the crop and the time it is marketed. For which, they used to take risk and face the uncertainties, such as droughts, flood, diseases, defects in seeds and manures, etc.
7.6 Lack of proper storage facilities to hold back and store their surpluses products, in a time when their products is more than that of the demand in the market or when the market prices fails/adjustment of his output to fluctuation in demand, thus add to further difficulties. Further, most of their products are perishable products or commodities, which need to be marketed just after harvest, without which the commodities need to be further processed with the use of technology that they cannot afford due to financial constraint.
7.7 Inadequately structured farmers associations or other similar forms of jointly-owned organizations that could interface with traders or could undertake marketing. These institutions or the like institutions hardly exist or do not exist. Thus, as a result, the poor and marginal farmers remained handicapped (a) low quality of, and inexperienced, management; (b) undercapitalized financial base; (c) limited access to capital; and (d) poor paid staff. These constraints inhibit their ability to compete in the open market or adapt to changes in the marketing environment.
7.9 The Government Policies are often at times governed by a need to keep urban prices low. Policies on food aid, imports of subsidies foods or trade further expose small farmers to unfair market competition and undermine local markets to the detriment of small producers. The issue of leveling the playing field for the smallholders remains.
7.10 Private sectors’ role are on increasing where the States’ or the Governments’ role has been minimized. Here, there arise confusions or no clear consensus on the appropriate role of the government and the private sector in providing remunerative prices to the small farmers. The real purchasing power of the rural producers has fallen due to the removal of subsidies by the private undertaking agencies and there declines in farm-gate prices of food crops and basic commodities, either through rising technical efficiency of production, or because of uncontrolled competition from subsidized sources in developed countries.
8. CONCLUSION
The paper sought look into the some of the some of the emerging issues of the poor and marginal farmers which made them marginalized in this rural economy though they has the most enigmatic characters in rural economic development. Concerning the emerging issues of the poor and marginal issues, it can be concluded that it is not just the decline in public investment in agriculture, which has adversely affects the potential for future growth. The issues such as Government policies particularly in adopting the policy of Globalization, inadequately structured farmers associations, long interval in agriculture to get the expenditure incur and their small land and asset base can be noted to have attributed to the marginalization of poor and marginal farmers.
9. REFERENCE
· Archarya S.S and Chaudhri D.P.: Indian Agricultural Policy at the Crossroads; Priorities and Agenda, Rawat Publications, Jaipur and New Delhi, 2001.
· Balwinder S.: Agricultural Credit; Sources, Problems and Emerging Issues, Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2000.
· Bhalla G.S.: Indian Agriculture; Four Decades of Development, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2001.
· Dr. Swaminathan M.S.: Report of the High level Committee; An Action Plan for Agriculture for coming 25 years, MCAER, Government of Maharashtra, 2003.
· Katar S.: Rural Development; Principles, Policies, and Management, 2nd edition, Sage publication, New Delhi, 1999.
· Karmakar K.G.: Rural Credit and SHGs – Micro finance needs and concepts in India, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1000
· (L). Mamoria C.D. and Dr. Badri B.T.: Agricultural Problems, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 2003.
· Rajagopal: Rural Marketing Administration in India, Kaveri Books, Delhi, 1995.
· Rajagopal: Rural Marketing; Development Policy, Planning and Practice, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 1998.
· Rathod R.(Project Co-ordinator): Report of Scoping Study – Vidarbha Livelihood Reconstruction Project, School of Rural Development, TISS, 2008.
· Smrutirekha M.: Institutional Finance and Rural Artisans – progress, performance and prospects, Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2004.
· TISS – Rural Campus: Workshop on Rethinking Perspectives on Rural Development: Approaches and strategies, December 14-15, 2004.
· TISS – Rural Campus: Causes of Farmer Suicides in Maharashtra; an enquiry, March 15, 2005.