CHAPTER VI

TOTAL YEARLY EMPLOYMENT/EARNINGS AND POVERTY

The
and

non-farm

households

the

employment

and earnings of

of Punjab and Bihar.

is two-fold.
of

preceding two chapters deal respectively with

Firstly,

labour

The aim of the present chapter

two chapters to arrive

employment/earnings.

resident

it attempts to put together the contents

previous

the

on-

at

the

total

yearly

The relative importance of each of the two

components of employment, namely on-farm and non-farm employment,

in the total yearly employment/earnings is discussed in the first
Secondly,

place.
and

level

of

an

attempt is made to estimate the incidence

poverty among the

households in the two states.

are

the

labour
test

rural

~poor'.

Consequently,

households of Punjab and Bihar,

validity

commonly

if differences are observed

incidence and level of poverty taking

the

labour

It needs to be pointed out that we

dealing with such a set of rural households as are

designated as
in

non-cultivating

of 'trickle-down' or

place

among

these should help us

1

percolation'

the
to

thesis,

around which a lively debate has ensued in the recent years.

In

this regard,

the following hypotheses

are

tested

empirically.

Hypothesis I
(a)

The

non-cultivating rural labour households living near

urban
of

industrial town enjoy larger number of total

e-mployment

and

a higher level of earnings

in

compared to similar households away from the town.

an

mandays
a

year

181

(b)

The

total mandays of employment and the level

are

higher

from

Bihar,

focal

town.

of

for the Punjab households compared

at

all conceivable distances from

earnings

with

those

the

urban

Hypothesis I I
(a)

Both

in

income

the

Punjab and Bihar,

per capita

net

of labour households in villages near the

household
towns

is

much higher than that of households away from the town.

(b)

The

per

Punjab

capita net household income of such households

is

much

higher

than

that

of

the

in

corresponding

households in Bihar at all distances from the focal town.

Hypothesis I I I
(a)

In

both

households
move

the

states,

the

proportion

of

rural

labour

below the poverty line keeps on declining as

we

from the interior of the countryside towards the urban

industrial town.
(b)

The

proportion of such households,

villages

compared

with

nearly

is lower in the

equally

distanced

Punjab
Bihar

villages.
The

above mentioned hypotheses necessarily imply

that

the gains of rapid economic growth in general and those emanating

from

the interaction between the agricultural transformation and

growing

rural-urban

linkages in particular have

trickled

more vigorously in the progressive areas of Punjab than those

down
in

''

182

Bihar.

But

is

it really so?

We seek confirmation

to

these

hypotheses through our sample data.

The
brings

chapter is divided into two sections.

Section

out a comparative picture of the Punjab and Bihar

households

labour

in terms of their total yearly employment/earnings as

well as its on-and non-farm components.

urban-rural distance,
regression

To capture the impact of

this analysis has been extended in terms of

analysis.

For facilitating more useful

comparisons

between Punjab and Bihar, discussion has also been carried out in
terms

of

per

attempts
on

earner and

per

capita

estimates.

to study the impact of the above mentioned

Section

B,

interaction

the incidence and intensity of rural poverty prevailing among

the labour households of Punjab and Bihar.

SECTION - A
Total Yearly Employment/Earnings
To
earning

begin

with,

let us look at total

position of Punjab labour

counterparts in Bihar.
regard.

The

households,

employment
vis-a-vis

and
their

Table 6.1 provides the essentials in this

conclusions drawn previously in chapters IV and

regarding the better employment and earning performance of Punjab

households over their counterparts in Bihar are further confirmed
at the level of total employment.
households

enjoy

only

It is evident that the Punjab

marginal

advantage

over

the

Bihar

households as regards the mandays of total yearly employment;

difference

is

less

than 10.0

per

cent.

However,

the

the
real

183

Table 6.1

Pattern-

of

Total Yearly Employment and Earnings of

Punjab

and

Bihar Households.
(Mean Value)
Sr.
No.

Employment/Earning
Source

1.

Variable

On-Farm Employment

Emp

Epd
PPR
Non-Farm Employment

Emp
Ern
Epd
PPR

3.

Total Employment

Bihar
(BHR)

Emp
Ern
Epd
PPR

Differential(di)

Ern

2.

Punjab
(PJB)

421.62
(69.76)
3736.43
(60.45)'
8.86
92.33

457.51
(82.50)
2265.12
(77.72)
4.95
97.33

-7.84

182.81
(30.24)
2444.46
(39.55)
13.37
74.33

97.05
(17.50)
649.53
(22.28)
6.69
47.33

88.37

604.43
(100.00)
6180.89
(100.00)
10.23
100.00

554.56
(100.00)
2914.65
(100.00)
5.26
100.00

64.96
78.99

276.34
99.85
8.99
112.06
94.49

--------------------------------------------------------------NOTE :

For an explanation of various notations Emp,

PPR and di, please see Table 4.1.

advantage
per

of the Punjab households comes out sharply in terms of

household

employment,
more
Bihar.
earns
This

Ern, Epd,

than

an

and

per day

earnings.

For

the

total

yearly

average rural labour household in Punjab

enjoys

double the earning compared with its

Also,

for every day of employment,

counterpart

in

the Punjab household

nearly double the amount accruing to the Bihar

household.

suggests that the growing and dynamic economy of Punjab

is

184

capable

of

providing much more remunerative employment

to

its

although the sheer number of days

for

rural

labour households,

which

employment is available to such households does not differ

much

between Punjab and Bihar.

employment

situation

point

of view of

acute

backwardness

The

In other

words,

the

relative

in Bihar may not look to be bad

from

'time criterion' yet it signals a situation

from the view-point of

'income

half of monetary return compared with Punjab.

reveals

relative

deprivation

of

criterion'.

same amount of human labour in Bihar brings only about

thus

the

one-

The Bihar scenario

for

the

labour

class,

presumably for the employer as well.

The division of total employment into on-farm and

non-

farm components throws up very striking contrasts between the two

study

areas.

Table

overwhelmingly

6.1

dominates
of

in

shows
both

that
the

on-farm
states.

absolute

number

on-farm employment in Punjab

mandays)

are relatively smaller compared with the

figure in Bihar (about 458.0 mandays).

of

employment

However,
(about

the
422.0

corresponding

Also the per cent

share

this component in the total yearly employment (about 83.0 per

cent)
former

in

the latter is much higher compared with

(about 70.0 per cent).

On the contrary,

that
the

of

the

situation

regarding the non-farm employment is tilting heavily in favour of

Punjab.

For example,

the absolute number of mandays of non-farm

employment as well as the per cent share of this component in the

total employment in Punjab(about 183.0 mandays and 30.0 per cent,
respectively)

are

much higher than those in Bihar

mandays and about 18.0 per cent respectively).

(about

97.0

185

It
yearly

is also clear that while the lion's share in

total

earnings is reported to be coming in the two states

on-farm
falls

employment,

but

the share of earnings from

from

this

head

short of their corresponding share in employment from this

component.
The
yearly
than

per cent share of non-farm earnings in

earnings
in

levels,

Bihar
a

the

total

is much higher in Punjab (about 40.0 per

cent)

(about 22.0 per cent).

In

terms

of

absolute

Punjab household records an extra of about 276.0

per

cent over its Bihar counterpart.

Finally
on- and

non-farm

substantially
households

and most notably,

components

higher

than

in

while per day earnings from

Punjab

in Bihar,

are

yet the

uniformly
edge

of

and
Punjab

is much more marked in non-farm component (about 100.0

per cent) against on-farm component (about 79.0 per cent).

The

preceding

differentials

highlights

instance,

relatively

discussion

of

Punjab

some important points.

bigger

proportion

of

and

Bihar

In the

first
yearly

total

employment/earnings is avilable in non-farm employment in

compared
farm

with Bihar.

On the other hand,

employment/earnings

Punjab.
employment

Punjab

the proportion of on-

in Bihar is much bigger than

that

of

Secondly, a slightly lower number of mandays of on-farm

in

Punjab,

vis-a-vis that in Bihar,

is

compensated by relatively higher mandays of non-farm

Consequently,

man

more

than

employment.

days of total yearly employment are higher in

Punjab than in Bihar.

Thirdly and most importantly,

the stable

186

and consistantly expanding agriculture in Punjab has enabled

labour

households

employment
offering
This

over

an edge in

all

correlates

their corresponding counterparts

diversified

employment/earnings

are

Bihar

And

by

that

Punjab,

the
more

compared

the sharp contrasts observed at

the

per household and per day earnings between Punjab

and

level

of

Bihar

offer

matter

much

lastly,

of

opportunities.

structurally

in the agriculturally progressive

with Bihar.

in

and further lends credence to our view

yearly

total

in

maintain

the former more remunerative employment

suggests

rural

to

its

ample evidence that labour effort

in

the modern system of

alone

agricultural

does

production;

institutions and technology also play a very crucial

augmenting

employment

the level of production

and

not

thereby

role

increasing

opportunities and rising earning levels for the rural

labour households.
The Villagewise Pattern

As

in

the preceding two chapters,

we look

pattern of Punjab-Bihar differentials at the village

particular,
urban

focal

constituents
study

the

level.

In

we would like to see the effect of distance from the

town on total yearly employment as well as its

two

viz on- and non-farm

the

areas of Punjab and Bihar.

empirically

the

relationship

between

urban

into

possibility

of

employment/earnings,
In this context,
the

existence

in

let us test
of

inverse

mandays of employment/earnings and

distance as also the superiority of Punjab

Bihar villages at all comparable distances.

villages

ruralover

187

The details of the villagewise

Table 6.2.
far

pattern are set out

This Table reveals a few important points.

First, as

as per household mandays of overall employment are concerned

Punjab

and

Bihar

Interestingly,

villages

while

represent

an

important

contrast.

in Punjab per household mandays (Emp.)

total yearly employment are statistically invariant with

to the distance from the focal
they

tend

This differential

Punjab,

while

on the one

hand,

per

male

employment,

construction,

industrial

loading/unloading
Consequently,

of

the

especially in
work,

grain

in

possibility

the
of

as

grain

availing

local

wage-paid

activities

weighing

such
well

etc.

mandays

employment inside the agriculture as also in the urban wage

non-farm employment gets restricted.

as
as

markets,
more

in

the latter

to compete with the former in the matter of

urban

states.

labour

migrant

near the town have largely substituted the

also

non-farm

in

two

labour in the matter of wage-paid on-farm employment,

has

respect

mandays of total yearly employment can be explained by

in

villages

of

in Bihar, on the other hand,

of factors operating simultaneously in the

host

First

town,

to decline significantly.

household

in

of
paid

However, such a phenomenon

of migrant labour is conspicuous by its absence in Bihar. Second,

in

Punjab,

the

shortage of power and cement (both these

in the

items

affect

the level and pattern of urban development)

urban

towns,

are reported to contribute their share in restraining the

total economic activity and thereby employment to the people from

nearby

villages.

explanation

Thirdly

and

more

importantly,

emerges from a very careful scrutiny

of

another
regression

Tab!e b.2

Villac:;t:toiis~

Fatte;;; of

Tot~l ~early Enplo:~ent

anti

E~rnings

of labour H0us~hDld~

in

Pun)i~

aod

B~har

!ME<an Value::
------------oo------------------~-------------~~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------u----------------

SL

E&ploy~ent/Earning

Variable State

No. Source

----------------------------------------------------------------------V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

Regression j9uation
Vi =o< + Dj

. . ---

No. of

Observations

V8

(if)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.

18

11

13

12

14

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. On-Farm Employment

Emp

PJB
BHR

di

303.24
C50.02l
348.69
(61. 661
-10.99

295.04
(53. 37l
293.49
(50.33)
0.53

353.08
(60.31)
538.77
(80.221
-34.47

449.29
(61. 741
539.43'
(97.821
-16.71

463.65
(68.89)
579.93
(84.26)
-2~.05

476.16 571.94 572.54

m .. 26l (92.17! (92.63)
428.39 536.74 513.33
(84.941 (98. 41l (97 .18)
11.15
6.56 -11.5,3

Vi = 313.30 + 16.26tD
(5.02]
Vi = 389.09 + 7.99tD
(3.30]

2"'7
I,
ljo,.,

"''-

Ern

PJB
.BHR
di

Epd

2422.06 2632.97 3431.33 3920.24 4164.~8 4216.99 4710.22 4804.8.9

<35.16) (43.11) (53.05) (50.95) (58.48) !69.77) (90.64) (90.69)
!971.13 1654.49 2727.08 2593.60 2983.41 2152.98 2400.97 (359.80
(55.00) (43.98) !75.48) (97. 57l (85. 78) (82. 72l (98. 35) (97. 32)
22.88
59.14
51.15
39.57
95.87
25 .82
96.18 103.61

Yi = 3023.24 +116.09 D
[3. 571
Yi = 2202.28 + 12.330

7.99

8.92

9. 72

8.73

8.98

8.86

8.24

8.39

Yi =

BHR

5.79

5.64

5.06

4.81

5.14

5.03

4.47

4. 60

Vi =

di

38.00
90.48
96.15

58.16
78.72
91.89

92.09
91.03
96.15

81.50
100.00
100.00

74.71
100.00
100.00

76.14
93.65
96.47

84.34
100.00
100.00

82.39
100.00
100.00

303.05
(49.481
211.85
(38.34)
43.05

252.87
(46.13)
289.62
(49.67)
-12.69

232.64
278.43
<39.69) (38.26)
132.85
12.00
(19. 78) (2.18)
75.11 2220.25

209.35
!31.11!
108.33
!15. 74)
93.25

PJB
BHR

Emp

PJB

292

( 1. 08 J

PJB

PPR

277

e. 74 - 0.02D
[-0.53]
6.38 - 0.11fD
[-5.22]

277

292

I
~

'-

Non-Farm Employment

BHR
di

140.17
48.60
44.27
!22. 74) (7.83) (7.37)
75.93
8.68
14.90
!15.06) (1. 59) (2.82)
84.60 459.91 197.11

Vi = 361.02 - 15.04 0
(-7.70]
Yi = 306.39- 13.53D
[-5.03]

223
141

Ern

PJB
BHR
di

4466.40 3474.52 3036.94 3774.79.

(64.84) (56.89) (46. 95) (49.05)
1612.17 2107.37
886.01
64.65
(45.00) !56,02) <24. 52) !2.43)
176.94
64.87
242.77 5738.96

2955.95 1827.13 486.19 493.25

(41.52) m.23l (9.36) 19.31)
494.39
449.85
40.24
64.98
!14.22) (17. 28l (1. 65) (2.68)
497.90
306.16 1188.23 659.08

Yi = 5036.38-228.J4 D
[-7.98]
Yi = 2261.49-119.130
[-6.49]

223
141
~

Epd

PJB

14.74

13.74

13.1!5

13.56

14.12

13.84

10.00

11.14

BHR

7.61

7.28

6.67

5.39

4.56

5.92

4.63

4.36

93.69

88.74

95.65

15!.58

209.65

120.27

115.52

155.5S

di

Yi = 14.84 - 11.32 D
(-6.191
7.44B.18tD
Yi =
[-8.24]

223
l'tl

(X)
(X)

PPR
3. Total

Employ~ent

Emp

PJB
BHR

85.71
84.62

PJB

606.29
(100. 00)
552.54
!100.001
9.73

BHR
di
Ern

PJB
BHR
di

Epd

-PPR

85.11
89.19

83.33
73.@8

- 85.71

547.91

585.72
110!.U01
671.62
(100.001
-12.79

727.71
(1@0.80)
551.43
(100.00)

!100.00)

583.11
(100.001
-6.04

19.~5

. 31.97

82.61
33.33

73.02
48.24

54.29
18.42

38.46
21.15

.673.00
(100.001
688.27
!100.001
-2.22

616.33
!100.00)
504.32
(100_, 00)
22.21

620.54
(100. 00)
545.42
(100. 00)
13.77

616.81
1100.a0v
528.23
!100.001
16.77

6888.47 6107.49 6468.27 7695.03 7120.93 6044.12 5196.42 5298.14

(100.00) (100.00) !100.00) me.001 (100.001 !100.00) (100.00) !101U0l
'
3583.90 3761.86 3613.08 2658.24 3477.79 2602.83 2441.21 2424.78
(100.001 (100.001 1100.00) (100.00) (100.001 !100. 001 !100.001 (100.001
79.02
189.48
la4.73
132.21 112.86 118.50
92.21
62.35

PJB

1t. 36

11.15

11.04

10.57

10.58

9.81

8.3~

BHR

6.49

6.45

5.38

4.82

5.05

5.16

4.48

4.59

di

75.04

72.87

105.20

119.29

109.50

90.12

86.83

87.15

PJB
BHR

10Ul0

100.00
100.00

100.m0
100.00

10iU0
100.00

100.00
100.00

100.00
100.00

100.00
100.00

100.00
100.00

100.00

8.59

Vi = 571.18 + 3.900
(1.30]
Yi = 601.48 - 4.68*0
(1, 98]

Yi = 6872.18- 81.04 D
[-2. 57]
Vi = 3776.86 - 86.08t0
[-6.90]

3M

350

300
300

Yi = 12.56 - 0.23 D
(-6.90]
0.11*D
6.45
Yi =
[-9.62]

3~0

3a0

-----------------------------,------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------

NOTE: Various notations used in this table are explained in Tables 4.1 and 4.2
*denotes significance of 't' values at 95.0 per cent level of confindence

190

results
on- as

for total employment-time in conjunction with those

for

While regression

co-

well as non-farm employment-time.

efficient

for

statistically
opposite

on-farm

and

significant,

directions

of

employment

non-farm

yet

are

they record a movement

each other i.e.

while

both
in

the

regression

co-

efficient for on-farm employment records an increasing pattern, a

decline

is

noticeable

with

regard

to

that

for

non-farm

employment. In other words, the increase in on-farm employment is

subsumed

by a corresponding decrease in non-farm employment with

the net result that as rural-urban distance increases, mandays of

total yearly employment per household do not vary
Compared

with

this,

in

Bihar,

the mandays

significantly.

of

total

yearly

employment are inversely related to distance from the focal town.

This

Punjab-Bihar contrast,

yearly

regarding the availability of total

employment with respect to distance from the focal

rejects our hypothesis in the case of Punjab;

other

hand,

it

in Bihar,

is duly confirmed by our sample

town,
on

data.

It

probably

owing to the fact that employment opportunities in

interior

of

sector.

And

Bihar

agriculture,
on

the

given

are
the

confined largely
low

level

of

to

the

the
is
the

agricultural

development

in

Bihar

on the one hand and the poor rural - urban linkages

other,

the mandays of employment register

declining

trend as distance from the focal town increases.

On the basis of the preceding analysis, we can maintain
that

in the case of Punjab,

the proximity of a village from the

focal town notwithstanding, per household mandays of total yearly

employment

do

not

differ much from

one

village

to

another.

W1

Secondly,

per

household and per day earnings from total

yearly

employment tend to decline with increase in rural-urban distance.

In

other

earning

words,

as we go into the interior,

of an average labour

the total

household goes on

yearly

declining,

and

with

it does the per day earning.

Since this is

happening

both

the

believe

rural

states,

households
mainly

in

the

the

because

however,

we

are

led to

interior end up with

of

lower

that

lower

earnings per day

of

in

labour

annual

incomes

work.

I t

different matter that in every comparable

i s,

location,

progressive situation of Punjab shows a signficantly

higher

daily earning compared with Bihar.

We may also have a look at village-pairs between Punjab
and Bihar.
the

Such an analysis helps us to test our hypothesis

superiority

households

in

irrespective
evident

practically

relatively

the

Punjab

households

matter of total

over

yearly

that

of

Bihar

employment/earnings

of the distance from the urban focal town.

that

However,

of

variations in employment time and

all

the

along the continuum

differentials
less

sharp

of

It

earnings

rural-urban

household and per day earnings.

with

differentials

Further,

distance.
are

in

per

the distantly located

villages in Punjab record comparatively higher increases both

per
than
towns

household and per day earnings over similar Bihar

contention

the two states.

that

transformation

This lends further substance to

the impact of the dynamics

and

rural-urban linkages is

of

rural

in

villages,

the villages located in immediate proximity from the

in

is

exist

in total mandays of employment

compared

on

focal
our

economic

comparatively

much

192

stronger in Punjab than in Bihar.

the

level

of

per

household

Consequently,

and

pronounced in Bihar against Punjab.

our

per

day

the decline in

earnings

is

more

This lends confirmation

hypothesis suggesting superiori)Y of Punjab households

to
over

that of their counterparts in Bihar in the matter of total yearly

employment/earnings.
Let

us

at all distances from the focal town.

now

examine

the

pattern

of

total

yearly

employment/earnings of PALH and PNLH groups cross-sectionally

by

making use of the information in Table 6.3.

As

is

expected,

PALH and PNLH groups are better

off

from each other in the matter of on-farm and non-farm employment/

earnings respectively.

It is, therefore, important to look into

the pattern of their total yearly

employment/e~rnings

between the

identical groups of the two states as also between the two groups
within

each state.

It is interesting to observe the

following

important points emerging from Table 6.3.

First, the PALH group in Punjab puts in nearly 24.0 per
cent

extra labour but earns about 126.0 per cent more from total

yearly employment at the household level than its counterpart

Bihar.

Consequently,

per day earning of the former is 82.0 per

cent higher than that of the latter.

the

Punjab's

less

the

same

for each of

components of total employment.

much
Third,

Second, the superiority of

PALH group over that of Bihar operates in more

manner

in

the

on-farm

and

or

non-farm

The Punjab's PALH group is thus

better off in every aspect of its total employment

status.

the differences in the employment and earning pattern

of

Table

6, 3

Pattern of Total Yearly Employment and Earnings of PALH ~d

PNLH Groups of Punjab and Bihar

t?

(Mean Value)
Sl.
No,
1
1.

Employment/
Earning Source

Variable

On-Farm
Employment

Emp

State

PALH

PNUi

ALL

cu

PJB
BHR
di

Ern

PJB
BHR
di

2.

Non-Farm
Employment

5523.91
(89.23)
2498.30
( 91. 15)
121. l l

180,89
( 35. 80)
168.69
( 30. 41)
7. 23

421.62
( 69. 75)
457.51
(82. 50)

244.93

1609.72 3736.43
( 26. 09) ( 60, 45)
1040.90 2265.12
(27. 20) (77.71)
54.65

243.16

203.83

140.01

Epd

PJB
BHR
di

8.85
4.87
81,72

8.90
6.17
44.25

8,86
4.95

PPR

PJB
BHR

100.00
100.00

83.21
83.33

92.33
97.33

Emp

PJB

63.80
( 9. 28)
42.00
( 7.57)
51.90

324.39

182.81
(30. 25)
97.05
( 17. 50)

-80.33

4559.45 2444.46
( 73. 91) <39.55)
649.53
2785.39
(72.80) ( 22. 29)
63.69

-85.37

BHR
di
Ern

PJB

( 64. 20)
386.02
( 69. 59)
-15.97

- 0.56
-21.07

-89.12

di

666.84
( 10. 77)
242.70
( 8.85)
174.76

Epd

PJB
BHR
di

10.45
5.78
80.80

14,06
7.22
94.74

PPR

PJB
BHR

52.76

100.00
100. 00

PJB

687.75
( 100. 00)
554.53
( 100. 00)
24.02

505.28
604.43
( 100. 00) ( 100. 00)
554.71
554.56
( 100. 00) ( 100, 00)
- 8.91

- 0.03

6190.74
( 100. 00)
2741. 00
( 100. 00)
125.86

6169. 16
(100.00)
3826. 29
( 100. 00)
61.23

-28.36

BHR

Total
Employment

623.95
( 90. 72)
512.53
( 92. 43)
21.74

Emp

BHR
di
Ern

PJB
BHR
di

Epd

PJB
BHR
di

PPR

PJB
BHR

37.~

9.00
4.94
82.19
(100.00)
(100.00)

---

12.21
6,90
76.96

-91.29

13.37
6.69
74. 33
47. 33
---------

6180.89
(100,00)
2914. 65
( 100. 00}

10. 23
5.26

----

------

36.11

0.35

-26.29
-28.41

(100,00} (100.00)
(100.00} (100.00)

------------~-------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE

For an explanation of various notations used in this Table,

See Tables 4. l and 4, 3.

~-

194

agricultural

employment

(PALH

group) are not

beaten

households whose major earnings accrue from non-farm

back

by

employment.

Farm employment is fairly competitive with non-farm employment in

Punjab

and those households which are primarily dependent on the

former do not have to suffer an undue disadvantage.

record

straight,

Punjab

is

the

remunerativeness

of farm

discernible in terms of our 1980-81

To put
employment

household

green

migrant

revolution years as also the intervening

labour

consistently

since

the

early

in

level

data in spite of the huge pace of mechanization witnessed

the

the

during

effects

1970's.

of
The

blessings of a growing agricultural economy are thus unmistakably

at play in Punjab.

In sharp contrast,

in Bihar,

the PALH group

fares rather poorly in comparison with the PNLH group.

growth

and

The tardy

fluctuating fortune of Bihar agriculture

makes

the

PALH group much weaker than the PNLH group.

Lastly,
employment

the

dependence

of

90.0 per cent of

tota~

on

non-farm
on-farm

In both the states,

more

employment time of the PALH group is

forthcoming through on-farm employment;

this

group

and likewise the dependence of PNLH group on

employment invites a special comment.

than

PALH

non-farm employment

for

group does not account for more than 10.0 per cent of total

employment

time.

respectively,
employment
employment.

On

the

contrary,

in

Punjab

and

Bihar

more than 35.0 per cent and 30.0 per cent of total

time of the PNLH group is forthcoming through on-farm

It is clear that in both the states,

the dependence

on agriculture and related activities is fairly big even by those

households which are getting a major parf of their yearly

income

195

from

sources

employment

In

outside agriculture.

opportunities

other

words,

non-farm

may have grown during the sixties

the seventies but dependence on agriculture is still of a

high order,

capability

the

to

growth

profile of agriculture including

provide higher employment and wages

its

still

holds

explanation to the employment and income status of

rural

labour households in India.

which

fairly

in agriculturally growing as well as backward areas.

Consequently,

larger

and

differentiate

And these are precisely the features

the Punjab situation sharply from

that

of

Bihar.

Per Earner Employment and Per Capita Income

So

far,

our analysis of employment and

remained confined at the household level.

analysis

earnings

has

It is possible that an

of this type may bypass many important

characteristics

of the household such as average number of earners per household,

household size,
household

etc;

economy.

which are otherwise significant aspects of

We

must take cognizance of these

features

also for developing a proper understanding of the earnings,

of living and family welfare,

level

on a comparable basis, between two

areas characterized by difference in such family attributes.

therefore,

work

out per earner employment and then

yearly income for the Punjab and the Bihar households.

per

We,

capita

Table 6.4

throws up a few significant features.

It may be observed from this Table that, on an average,
every

earner

in

a typical rural

labour

household

of

Punjab

196

Table
Net

Household

6.4

and Per Capita Income of Punjab and Bihar

Sample

Households
(Mean Value

Sl.
No.

Ind~cator

1.
2.

Bihar Differen(BHRi)
tial(di)

Punjab
( PJBi)

Total Yearly Mandays of

Employment
Per Earner Mandays

Employment

of

per annum)

604.43

554.56

8.99

268.64

234.98

14.32

3.

Net Earnings from Total

Yearly Wage Employent
( in Rs. )

6180.89

2914.65

112.06

4.

Net Earnings Per Earner

(in Rs.)

2747.06

1235.02

122.43

5.

Transfer Payments (in Rs.)

114.64

46.02

149.11

6.

Net Household Income

6295.53

2960.67

112.64

7.

Per Capita Income

1140.49

518.51.

119.96

BHRi

PJBi
NOTE :

d.
l

invests

=----------------------------BHR.i

nearly 14.0 per cent more human effort in a year but

able

to derive as much as 122.0 per cent extra earning

with

his counterpart in Bihar.

cultivating
capita
Bihar.

Similarly,

is

compared

for an average non-

rural labour household in Punjab,

the level of

income is nearly 2.20 times higher that of the

one

per
from

Taking into consideration the fact that Punjab and Bihar

experiences
contrasting

of

agricultural

situations,

it

growth

follows

represent
that the

sharply

two

gains

of

rapid

economic growth tend to trickle down to all strata of the society

197

PNLH groups of the two states are rather striking.

important
Punjab

to

on

It is indeed

note that a household belonging to PNLH

an average,

group

puts-in nearly 9.0 per cent less

than its Bihar counterpart,

in

labour

but earns nearly 61.0 per cent

more

in a year at the household level and roughly 77.0 per cent at the
per

day level.

the

per household mandays of non-farm employment for PNLH

in

Punjab

But

Further,

what is even more interesting is that

are smaller than in Bihar by nearly 16.0

these

relatively

higher

number

of

mandays

1
cent .

per
of

group

non-farm

employment do not make a Bihar household better off compared with

its Punjab counterpart.

On the other hand,

the differentials of

per household and per day earning make it obvious that PNLH group
of

Punjab has a relatively more remunerative structure of

total

yearly employment than its Bihar counterpart.

It

might as well be interesting to see the differences

between PALH and PNLH groups within each of the two

is

very interesting to see that the PALH group in Punjab

nearly
PNLH
the

states.

36.0

PALH

Thanks to this extra

economic

1.

the

group in Punjab manages to ward off any

most

striking

development

that

feature of
household

the

the

employment-time,
corrosion

their total yearly earning compared with the PNLH group.

indeed

enjoys

per cent more of employment time compared with

of the same state.

It

Punjab's

depending

in

it

is

model

of

largely

on

It is mainly because of smaller number (i.e.

48) households
in PNLH group in Bihar compared with 137 in Punjab out of a
to_tal of 30G.ample households in each of the study areas of
Punjab and Bihar

1~

when

growth

is high and sustained,

as

in

Punjab.

Thus,

contradiction to a popular belief that agricultural growth

to

immiserization

establishes

of

the

working

class,

our

data

in

leads
clearly

a positive association between the level of economic

development and the level of per earner or per capita earning

of

even the lowliest among the rural households.

To lend further evidence to the above conclusion
down to the villagewise pattern on the lines of Table
results

of

this exercise are presented in Table 6.5.

regard,

we

propose

to

test the

validity

of

our

we go

6.4.

The

In

this

hypothesis

envisaging higher economic gains, percolating from rural economic

transformation
capita

and

rural-urban

income in our case,

linkages as

evidenced

by

for households living near the

town

compared

with their distantly located counterparts and also

edge

Punjab households over their counterparts in

of

comparable distances from the focal

Table

per

the

Bihar

town.

6.5 clearly shows that per earner yearly earning

registers a declining trend both in Punjab and Bihar in terms

distance

from the urban areas.

However,

there are

differences

between

mandays

yearly employment are concerned.

of

the two as far as the level of

per

earner

While per

earner

distance

from

distance

does not affect the mandays of total yearly

per

Punjab,

the focal town;

earner
the

basis.

level

in Punjab,

of

significant

employment pattern in Bihar seems to be inversely related to

on

at

on the

It is mainly due to the

other

fact

the
hand,

employment
that

of urbanisation being relatively higher

in
and

Table 6.5

Villag~wise

Pattern of Net Household and Per Capita Income of Labour Households in Punjab and Bihar
!Mean Value Per Annum!

----------------------------------------------~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------

51.
No .

Indicator

State

v
A
E
L
L
6
----------------------------------------------------------------------V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

Regression Equation
Vi = ~ t fl Dj

VB

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

10

11

12

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Total 11andays of

Employment

PJB
BHR

606.29
552.54

547.91
583.11

585.72
671.62

727.71
551.43

673.00
688.27

616.31
504.32

620.54
545.42

616.81
528.23

2. Per Earner Mandays of

Employa:ent

PJB

271.88

291.44

Z72.43

275.65

259.85

265.66

247.23

264.73

Vi = 293.38 - 1. 49D

BHR

255.81

266.26

261.33

301.33

235.71

2~2.54

219.04

233.58

Vi = 278.45 -

[1.8~

3. Net Earnings from

Total Wage Employment
(Rs. l

PJB
BHR
di

6888.47
3583.90
92.21

6107.49
3781.86
62.35

6468.27
3613.08
79.02

7695.03
2658.24
189.48

7120.03
3477.79
104.73

6044.12 5196.42 5298.14

2602.83 2441.21 2424.78
132.21 112.86 l!8. 50

4. Net Earnings Per

Ei:lrner (Rs.l

PJ8

3089.00

3248.66

3008.50

2914.78

2749.05

2605.22 2070.29 2273.88

BHR

1659.21

1717.74

1405.87

1452.59

1191.02

1045.31

86.17

89.12

114.00

100.-66

130.81

149.21

3.0~'D

[-4.11]

Vi = 3609.06 - 79.01* D
[ -7. 02J

di

980.41 1082.49
111.17

110.06

Vi

45.74iD
[-10.91]

1775.~4-

5.. Transfer Pavaents

IRs.)

6. Net Household Income

181.81
44.05
312.74

PJB
BHR
di

76.08
24.92
204.98

211. B3
33.62
530.07

38.46
71.54
-46.24

17.14
72.19
-76.26

149.78
44.27
238.33

83.69
11.84
606.84

72.77
70.77
2.83

PJB

6964.47

6319.32

6506.73

7712.17

7269.81

6225.93 5280.11 5370.91

Yi

= 6986.58 - 81.01*D

BHR

3608.82

3795.48

3684.62

2730.43

3522.06

2646.88 2453.05 2495.55

Yi

= 3816.62 - 85. 4s*D

[-2.501

IRs. l

[-6.72]

92.98

66.50

76.59

182.45

106.41

135.22

PJB

1198.70

1253.83

1204.95

1173.85

1099.82

1140.28

BHR

621.14

685.10

655.63

541!.68

574.56

451.69

di
7. Per Capita Income

115.25

115.22

932.88 1019.15

Vi

= 1355.22- 17.72* D

421.49

Yi

= 721.26- 16.92.D

[-3.0?,J

IRs. l

441.69

[-7.75)
di

92.98

83.01

83.79

117.11

91.42

152.45

121.33

130.74

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------iiOTE:

For various notations used in this Table, please refer to Tables 4.1 and 4.2
1 shows the significance of 't' values at 95.0 per cent level of confidence
N = 300

0
0

201

strong

rural-urban

developed

linkages

be

mainly

because

infra-structural facilities like road

In Punjab,

transport services etc.

can

operate

of

conditions

seen upto a much larger distance,

household

states

and

the impact on the rural areas

compared

with

where such facilities are relatively much less developed.

net

well

income as well as per capita income in

Bihar
Again,

both

the

tend to decline in relation to rural-urban distance.

It

is particularly important to point out that per capita incomes in

the

remotest

village in the Punjab is more than 60.0

per

higher

than that in the one nearest to the urban-focal

Bihar,

and

if

we

compare the per capita income of

cent

town
the

first

village of Punjab with that of the farthest village of Bihar,

gap is nearly three times over.
that

at

double

or

economic
the

every possible distance,

Even pairwise comparison

the Punjab

higher level of per capita

In

the

shows

households

income.

in

enjoy

brief,

the

benefits of the Green Revolution in Punjab supported by

rising

employment

opportunities

from

non-agricultural

activities have accrued to rural labour households in villages as

far

as

15-16

comparison,
focal

kms.

villages

away from a typical urban

as

near as 2-3 kms from a

town in Bihar pale into insignificance.

clear.

Let

there

be agricultural growth

households benefit in the interior of the

there
its

town;

typical

in

urban

The implication is
all

around,

country~ide.

labour
And

let

be non-farm including industrial employment opportunities,

benefit does certainly percolate to rural labour

living even at places as far away as 15-16 kms.

of

focal

the

country~ide

in the

provided commutability is assured

households
interior
to

their

202

working

members

system.

a well developed

road

and

transport

This lends confirmation to our hypothesis regarding the

I

higher

per

villages

capita income levels of labour households living

near the focal town against those living

located
over

through

villages

their

as also the superiority of

in

Punjab

counterparts in Bihar in each pair

of

in

distantly
households

Punjab-Bihar

villages in this respect.

Finally,

let

us look at the above picture for the two

groups of households viz. PALH and PNLH.

Punjab-Bihar comparison.

The relative edge of Punjab households

again comes out sa very clearly.

of

Table 6.6. sets out the

For

exam~~e,

an average earner

the PALH group in Punjab enjoys about 20.0 per cent

employment
Bihar

time

but earns nearly 118.0 per cent more

counterpart.

more
than

its

Net household income of the Punjab group is

higher by approximately 125.0 per cent than that of Bihar

Consequently,

of

per

group.

capita income is nearly 122.0 per cent higher

in the case of Punjab PALH group over its counterpart in Bihar.

Compared
PNLH

category

employment the

tune

counterpart.
Punjab

is

in

time

of

with it,

Punjab enjoys nearly

the

but in terms of earnings,

about

78.0

Again,

net

nearly

an average earner belonging to

63.0

per

cent

household
per

corresponding group in Bihar.

cent

same

quantity

with

his

incomed of PNLH
than

that

In per capita terms,

edge is as high as 87.0 per cent.

of

he is better off to

compared

higher

the

Bihar

group
of

in
the

the Punjab's

202A

Table

6. 6

Net Household and Per Capita Annuc;:1. Income of PAL.I-f and PNLH Groups in
Punjab and Bihar
( l'-1 e an Value )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SL
No.
1.

Head

State

PAlli

PNlli

ALL

di*

---------------------------------------------------------------------------2
3
4
5
6
7
-------------~---------------------~----------------------------------------

604.43
554.56

36.11
- 0.03

257 .eo
256.81
( o. 39)

268.64
234.98

7.14
-10.03

6169.16
3826c 29
( 61. 23)

6180.89
2914. 65

o. 35
-28.36

di

6190.74
2741 .. 00
( 125.86)

Net Earnings .
Per Earner

PJB
BHR
di

2486.24
1142.08
( 117.69)

3147.53
1771.43
.( 77. 68)

2747.06
1235.02

-21.01
-35.53

5.

Transfer
Payments

PJB
BHR
di

78.80
45.81
( 72. 01)

157.29
47.17
( 233.45)

114.64
46.02

-49.90
- 2.88

6.

Net Yearly
Household
Income

PJB

6269.54
2786.81
( 124. 97)

6326.45
3873.46
( 63. 33)

6295.53
2960.67

- 0.90
-28.05

Per Capita
Yearly Income

PJB

1096.07
493.24
( 122. 22)

1198.19
641.30
(86.84)

1140.49
518.51

-23.09

Total Yearly
Mandays of
Employment

PJB
BHR
di

687.75
554.53
( 24. 02)

505. 28
554.71

2 ..

Per Earner
Mandays of
Employment

PJB
BHR
di

276.20
231.05
( 19. 54)

3..

Net Earnings
from Total
Yearly
Employment

PJB

~.

'7

'

BHR

BHR
di

BHR
di

NOTE :

(-8.91)--

For an explanation of various notations, PJB, BHR, PALH,

PNLH, di & di*, please refer to Tables 4.1 and 4. 3.

- 8.52

203

To
households

summarize,
of

practically

it

is

clear

that

the

rural

Punjab are much better off than those

in

every aspect of employment and

labour

of

Bihar,

earnings.

Even

those among them which depend on agricultural wage employment for

a

major portion of their earnings (PALH group) are

off

much

better

than those households of Bihar which are engaged largely

non-agricultural activities.
base

of

Finally, non-agricultural economic

a weak agricultural economy cannot be strong enough

compensate

for

the

employment

with

in

weak earning

potential

from

to

agricultural

the result that neither the PALH nor

the

PNLH

group of Bihar can compete with its counterpart in Punjab.

Table 6.7 proposes a comparison between the Punjab
the

Bihar households in yet another way.

average,
labour

per

capita

household

We find that,

net household income level of

in Punjab (Rs.

an

level

of

per

households

is

capita

net household

consistently

on

higher

income
than

Second,

of

that

Punjab
of

earn,

20.0

the

on

per

per cent of the rural labour households

capita

basis,

income of Bihar households.

nearly 2.4 times the

In other words,

per
the

labour
Bihar

households, at every step of the income distribution ladder.

bottom

an

average

1140.49) is roughly 120.0

cent higher than that of its counterpart in Bihar.

and

The

of

Punjab

per

capita

the 'poorest'

20.0

per cent of rural labour households in the Punjab are roughly 2.4
times better off than their counterparts in Bihar.
or

even

40.0

per cent on the ladder also show

yawning gaps between the two states.

throws

clear

The next 20.0

nearly

equally

The above relative picture

signals for the incidence of poverty

in

the

two

204

states.

Naturally,

severe

form in Bihar,

milder nature.

we

should

expect poverty in an

while in Punjab,

extremely

it should be of a

much

The analysis later in this chapter duly confirms

all this.
Table

Average

Per

6.7

Capita Yearly Income of the

Non-cultivating

Rural

Labour Households in Punjab and Bihar.

(Mean Value in Rs.)
Sl.
No.

Households

Per Capita

Bihar
(BHRi)

Punjab
( PJBi)
1

~early

Income
Differential(di)

----------------------------------------------------------------804.04
1.
Bottom 20.00 per cent
338.74
137.36
2.

Next 20.00 per cent

900.46

487.87

84.57

3.

Next 20.00 per cent

1072.39

492.30

117.83

4.

Next 20.00 per cent

1243.25

498.06

149.62

5.

Top 20.00 per cent

1450.06

692.87

109.28

All Labour Households

1140.49

518.51

119.96

Distribution of Net Household Income

In
net

household

labour
of

the preceding

such

analysis,

it has been observed that

income as also the per capita

levels

households in Punjab are significantly higher than

households

distribution

of

net

in Bihar.
household

We now propose to
income

of

households in terms of Lorenz curve technique.

the

income

distribution

of

Punjab

compare
and

of

those
the
Bihar

The estimates of

net household income of Punjab

and

Bihar

205

labour households have been presented in Table 6.8.

of

the

table,

efficients

in

we have also given the concentration

terms of Gini's

index.

This table,

At the

end

ratio

co-

brings out

the following important points.

Table 6.8
Distribution

of

Net

Household Income of Labour

Households

in

Punjab and Bihar.

Sl.
No.

Deute
Group

P U N J A B
Percentage
of Persons

B I H A R

Percentage
of Income

Percentage
of Persons

Percentage
of Income

1.

First

6.82

4.86

8.23

4.93

20

Second

8.27

5.79

8.58

6.05

30

Third

8.69

6.50

8.06

7.04

4.

Fourth

8.99

7.47

7.71

7.79

50

Fifth

8.81

8.45

8.93

8.57

Sixth

10.20

9.44

9.92

9.34

9.35

10.75

11.33

10.33

70

Seventh

Eighth

11.83

12.35

11.62

11.71

Ninth

13.16

14.76

11.56

14.46

Tenth

13.88

19.63

14.06

19.78

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

10.

All

Concentration =
ratio

.122

Concentration = .122
ratio

-----------------------------------------------------------------

206

From the preceding discussion,

even though,
and

it can be concluded that

there are not significant variations between Punjab

Bihar as regards the distribution of net

such

variations do

study areas.

household

income;

exist among the labour household in both the

It suggests that even within the broad category of

labour households,

some labour households have become better off

than their other brethen both in the agriculturally advanced

and

backward states.

SECTION - B
The Interaction and Rural Poverty
In
study

the preceding section,

the pattern of variations discernible in the total

employment I earnings,
net

an attempt has been made to

per capita income and the distribution of

household income of labour households in Punjab

In the present section,

yearly

and

Bihar.

it is proposed to study the impact of the

dynamics of rural transformation and growing rural-urban linkages

on

the incidence of poverty among the rural labour households in

the study areas of Punjab and Bihar.

test

the

authenticity

relationship
below

the

incidence

is

that

the

hypothesis

implying

in Bihar than in Punjab in each pair

Before

we

proceed

to analyse our

or reject this hypothesis,

in

positive

the proportion of rural labour

povery line and rural-urban distance and

villages.
confirm

between

of

In other words, we want to

the present

study,

of

households
the

higher

Punjab-Bihar

sample

data

to

the point we want to clarify

poverty

estimates

have

obtained on the basis of per capita net household income.

been

207

Firstly, distribution of net household income is uneven

among the labour households of Punjab as well as of Bihar.
evident

from the fact

that while the poorest nearly

It is

7 to 8

per

cent of persons in Punjab and Bihar share roughly 5.0 per cent of
net household income;
of

the richest nearly 14.0 per cent of persons

the study areas account for approximately 4 times

both

than their bottom 7-8 per cent counterparts.

For instance,

14.0 per cent persons of Punjab and Bihar

richest
20.0

per cent of net household income.

more

importagly

household

is

income

the

fact

that

Secondly,
the

more

share

nearly

and possibly

distribution

among the labour household.of Punjab

of

net

is

not

It is,

much different from that among such households in Bihar.

rather,

more

or less the same between the two states.

therefore,

quite

household

income

natural to expect that Lorenz curves

households

are

distribution

for

Punjab

located nearly equally from

the

representing the perfect egalitarian set-up.

noted

that

that

household

g'

works

households.

net

Bihar

labour

diagonal

line

net household income in respect of Punjab

and

in the

This is owing to

cumulative

percentages

of

the
net

income distributions are exceedingly small between the

Consequently,

for

variation.

for

from

differences

states.

ratios

is,

derived

labour households is not possible.

fact

two

of

It

It may, however, be

the super-imposition of Lorenz curves

distribution
Bihar

and

the

Punjab

It

net household income

and Bihar households do

not

concentration
register

much

is:a.sheer coincidence that the concentration ratio

out

to

be .122 both for

Punjab

and

Bihar

labour

208

Empirical Focus on the Poverty Theme

The frequency with which a concern for poverty is being

expressed
now

today in national as well as international circles has

reac-hed

point

where almost any

justified in the name of its abolition.

of

the

growing

realisation

type

of

programme

This is mainly

in the developed as

is

because

well

as

the

developing economies including our own that the benefits of rapid

economic
poor.

growth

wherever achieved have not

Consequently,

recent

also

unemployment.
views
The

endeavoured

to

explore

Apart from
some
its

studying

scholars

have,

nexus

with

unemployment-poverty

view while assuming poverty and

mutually interdependent i.e.

positive

the

Following a lively debate in India, two divergent

have emerged on the issue of

first

to

years have witnessed a plethora of

research writings on the theme of poverty.

2
poverty in its historical perspective
recently,

percolated

relationship

unemployment

nexus.
to

be

one causing the other, brings out a

between the two 3 .

The second view

runs

contrary to the first, and as such, comes out with negative or no

2.

R. Radhakrishna and S.A.R. Sastry (1979), "Rural Poverty: A

Historical Perspective", Productivity, Vol. XIX, No.
4,
Janury-March, pp. 531-543.

3.

Ranj it Sau,
( 1978),
"Growth, Employment and Removal of
Poverty", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.XIII,No.31-33,
Special Number, August, p.1280; and G.Parthasarthy (1979),
"Inter-State Variation
in Unemployment and Growth
of
Agriculture",
The Indian Journal ~ Labour Economics,
Vol.XXII, Nos.1-2, April-July, pp.45-50

209

association 4
reasoning

underlying

behind this latter viewpoint is that the poor can

afford to remain unemployed.

seek

The

between poverty and unemployment.

Consequently,

ill

they are forced

work at whatever level of earnings it is available.

to

Given

this type of situation, one would expect the excess labour supply
to

find

expression

unemployment.
advanced

and

in

Though

distress wage'

rather

than

seemingly plausible arguments

in

open

have

been

several convincing explanations have been

offered

from both the sides in support of. the views mentioned above,
the evidence gathered so far has failed to confirm and
very clearly and unabatedly

either the positive

association between unemployment and poverty.

is

extremely

views.

It

establish

or the negative
Consequently,

difficult to support or reject either of

can,

therefore,

be

yet

inferred that the

the

it
two

debate

on

unemployment-poverty nexus has, at best remained inconclusive and

surely far from clear.

Besides
domain,

the

traversed

the above mentioned important strides

research

along

on

two lines.

the

theme
First,

of

poverty

has

on the. theortical

in

broadly
plane,

various indices and measures to estimate poverty have been

debated

4.

by

quite

number of distinguished

scholars

its

hotly
in

the

D.T.Lakdawala,
(1978).
"Growth, Unemployment and Poverty, 11
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol.XXI, No. 1, 2,
April-July p. 1-30;and, J.N.Sinha (1978), "Rural Employment
Planning:
Dimensions
and Constraints," "Economic
and
Political Wekly, Vol.XIII, No. 6-7, Annual Number, pp. 295313.

'

210

of

Secondly,

and more importantly, several empirical attempts

been

made

measure

in

the

empirical

some

commonly

accepted

axiomatic

con d 1. t.1ons 5 .

framework

the recent past by various

extent

research

and intensity
on

of

research

poverty.

poverty is rich not

only

workers

survey

in

terms

while a few researchers have employed the NCAER

7

data ,

but

most of the studies

to

Consequently,

contents but also in terms of methodological contributions.

example,

have

of
For

sample

have been based on

NSS

5.

For a detailed and comprehensive survey,

see,
S.A.R.Sastry
(1980),
"A
Survey of Literature in Poverty,
Income
Distribution and Development",
Artha Vijnana,
Vol.XXII,
No.1, March,
pp.
62-88~(1980),
"Poverty, Concepts and
Measurement",
The Indian Journal of Economics
Vol.LXI,
No.241,
October,
pp.147-160;
and--Amitabh Kundu (1981),
"Measurement of Poverty:
Some Conceptual issues", Anvesak,
Vol XI, No.l-2, June-December, pp. 80-96.

6.

B.S.Minhas (1970),
"Rural Poverty,
Land Redistribution and
Development Strategy:
Facts and Policy",
Indian Economic
Review,
Vol.V,
(New Series), April, pp 97-128; P.K.Bardhan
(1973),
"On the Incidence of Poverty in Rural India of
the
Sixties",
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. VIII, Nos. 46,
Annual Number,
February,
pp.245-54;
V.M.Dandekar and
Nilkantha Rath,(1971) Poverty in India-1 : Dimensions and
Trends" Economic and Political--Weekly,
Vol.
VI,
No.
1,
January 2. pp. 25-48;
"Poverty in India-II :
Policies and Programme", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.
VI,
No.
2,
January 9, pp. 106~1~; A.Vaidynathan (1974),
"Some Aspects of Inequalities in Living Standards in Rural
India",
in T.N.Srinivasan and P.K.Bardhan(ed),
Poverty and
Income Distribution in India,
Statistical Publishing House,
Calcutta,pp.
215-241.
I.Z.Bhatty (1974),"Inequality and
Poverty in Rural India", in Srinivasan and Bardhan (ed), Op.
Cit,
pp.
291-316;
Montek S.Ahluwalia (1978),
"Rural
Poverty and Agricultural Performance in India",
The Journal
of Development Studies,
Vol.XIV,
No.III, April, pp298-323;
and
(1986),
"Rural Poverty,
Agricultural
Production and Prices: A Reexamination",
in John W.Mellor
and Gunvant M.Desai(ed),
Agricultural Change and Rural
Poverty:
Variations on a Theme by Dharm Narain",
Oxford
University Press, New Delhi, pp.59~5.

7.

I.Z.Bhatty,(1974) Op. Cit

211

data.
the

Some

individual research workers have have also

problem

of poverty on the basis of

through their own effort.

the

8
poor ,

rural

urban

poor .

approached

measure

occurring

is

another

testimate
planning

set

of

its

magnitude.
by

Some

the

temporal

studies

have

an expert committee

12

have

also

has

10

or

based their estimates

change
used

set up

commission in 1962 for the said purpose.

13

which

studies

as

Some scholars have also attempted

over time to study

formulated

researchers

well

problem of poverty either from state .1eve1

poverty
in

gathered

Further, while some studies deal with

from all India point of view.

to

data

some others relate to the rural as

There

the

primary

studied

the

by

Some
on

the

11

the
other

levels

8.

B.S.Minhas,

(1970), Op. Cit;&A.Vaidyanathan,(1974), Op.Cit,

9.

V.M.
Dandekar and Nilkantha
P.K.Bardhan (1973), Op. Cit.

10.

Indira Rajaraman,
(1974),
"Constructing the Poverty Line
Rural Punjab 1960-61 11 ,
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, Princeton, New Jersy,

11.

-----------(1975), "Poverty, Inequality and Economic Growth:

Rural Punjab,
1960-61-1970-71 11 , Journal
of Development
Studies, Vol XI, No. 4, July, pp.278-290.

12.

This expert committee consisted of. distinguished scholars

such as Prof.
D.R.
Gadgil,
Prof.
V.K.R.V.
Rao,
Dr.P.S.
Lokanathan,
Dr.B.N.Ganguli, Mr.Ashok Mehta, Mr.M.R.Masani,
Mr.Shriman
Narayan,
Mr.Anna
Sahib
Sahasrabudhe
and
Mr.Pitambar Pant.

13.

P.K.Bardhan (1973) Op.

Cit.

Rath

(1971)

Cit;

and

212

recommended
studies

14

poverty
P.M.

by

the

have

Pay

also

which,

Commission

used

in turn,

in

Bardhan's

1957.

estimates

Recently,many
for

measuring

are obtained as equivalents of Rs.20.0

at all India prices as recommended by the expert

mentioned

above.

committee

There are also some other studies which

estimated poverty on the basis of minimum calorie intake

on the basis of said estimates,
cost

of

the

minimum diet.

15

have
Then

these studies have estimated the

All those persons whose

income

expenditure level falls short of that <minimum' have been defined

as

the

poor.

phenomenon,

the

the expenditure I

But

as

the extent

of

poverty

is

dynamic

measurement of its magnitude over time requires

income figures in constant terms.

Thus account

has to be taken of changes in the level of prices which,

in turn,

necessiates

In

regard
to

the

choice of an

appropriate

deflator.

it is important to note that whereas some studies

use national income deflator

16

there are many others

this
prefer
which

14.

See for example,

G.S.Bhalla and G.K.Chadha (1983),
"Green
Revolution and The Small
Peasant:
A Study of
Income
Distribution~ong-Funjab Cultivators", -Concept
Publishing
Co.
Delhi,
p153,
and Harbans Singh (1986),
"Employment
Income and Consumption of Rural Labour Households in a Green
RevolutTOii Region:
~ Case Study~ Punjab
and Haryana",
Ph.D.
Thesis,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi, p.
118.

15.

V.M.Dandekar and Nilkantha Rath,

(1971),
Op.
Cit,
Ashok
Rudra
( 1974),
"Minimum Level of Living- A Statistical
Examination",
in T.N.Srinivasan and P.K.Bardhan
(ed),
Op.Cit.,
pp 281-290,
P.V.Sukhatme (1978),
:"Assessment of
Adequacy of Diets of Different Income Levels," Economic and
Political Weekly,
Vol.No.XIII,
Nos. 31-33, Special Number,
August,
pp.1373-1384,and
P.G.K.Panikar
(1980)
"Interregional
Variations
in Colorii
Intake," Working Paper
No.111,
Centre for DeveTopment Studies,
Trivandrum.
These
calorie estimates for defininig
the poverty line have
differed between 2100 to 2400 calories per person per day.

16.

B.S.Minhas,

(1970) Op. Cit.

213

have

preferred to use the Consumer Price Index for

Labour,

compiled

by

Central Ministry of Labour

regions of the country.

more representative
The
poverty
of

This Consumer

underlying

feature of almost .all such studies

of

that

population

different

the.prevailing extent of poverty so

conflicting
of

much

of data

18

to

same

data

Also there has also

been

evidence with regard to the trend in the

the reliability

tend

that

porportion

Over and above,

been expresed in official as well as

regarding

studies

so

populatiDn below the poverty line.

have

economic

indices when applied to the

yield different estimates of poverty.

on

estimates

from

disagree

and

only

suffering

Also

measures

not

independent

deficiency.

different

various

for

of the prices paid by the poorer people.

proportion

to

17

Price Index is said to be

is that they have sketched their

the

Agricultural

non-official

on which poverty

doubts
circles

estimates

are based in India.

Absolute Poverty in Punjab and Bihar

Before
data,
of

an

estimating poverty on the basis of

our

sample

important fact needs to be recognised that the

~oncept

poverty can be envisaged in absolute as welll as in

sense.

person

could

be

treated

as

poor

if

relative

either

(1973), Op. Cit, and A.Vaidyanathan,

the

(1974)0p.

17.

P.K.Bardhan,
Cit.

18.

For instance,
recently in May 1988,
a Committee has been
constituted under the chairmanship of Prof.
D.T. Lakdawala
to
suggest measures regarding
the collection of more
reliable data on poverty.
By implicatibns,
it means
that
the officaial data gathered so far are on poverty are less
reliable.

214

consumption
below

expenditure or the income level of his household

the

poverty)

socially
or

households

be

to the lowest say 20.0

poverty).

to

income

However,

or

line
per

(absolutely
cent

expenditure

the

central

of

the

distribution

problem

in

the

of poverty is to determine the poverty line

or

the

cut-off point of income or expenditure below which

one

measurement

may

belongs
according

(relative

critical

accepted minimum poverty

is

treated as poor and which at the same line

some socially accepted (minimal'

Two

main

approaches

may

reflect

standard of living.
are

noticeable

concerning

problem of defining a poverty line at a point of time.

the

While the

first approach attempts to define the poverty line or the cut-off

point

in

terms of the income level or some minimum

level required to purchase a bundle of goods,

in

expenditure

the other views it

terms of nutritional norm such as the intake of calories

and

proteins to keep a person fit in the working condition.

The pros

and

by

cons

of

these two approaches have been

detailed

many

research workers and we do not intend to repeat them here.

As

one

of our preoccupations in the present study

the estimation of prevailing poverty levels in the two states,

is

not out of place

to mention the procedural details

in

the present study.

To begin with,

we have made use of

headcount method to estimate the incidence of poverty

Punjab

and Bihar.

19.

19

a per

capita

it

followed

simple

Following Bardhan

is

the
in

monthly

P.K.Bardhan,
(1973) Op.
Cit,
p.247.
Incidentally Bardhan
and Dandekar and Rath have-arrived at the same figure
i.e.
Rs.15.0 P.M.
at 1960-61 , all India prices, for determining
the cut-off point.

215

expenditure

(income in the present case) of Rs.15.00 at

all-India prices has been taken as the cut-off

taking
the

point.

note of inter-state and rural urban price

Further,

differentials,

equivalents of Rs.15.00 for rural Punjab and Bihar have been

worked

out

prices.
for

1960-61

at

Rs.15.90 and Rs.15.80

at

The annual equivalents for these figures are

Punjab

and

corresponding
Punjab

and

households

Rs.189.60 for Bihar

figures

per

1960.61

capita

prices.

income

All

falls

short

identified

The following important facts

it

is

indeed

revealing to

note

that

incidence of poverty in Bihar (nearly 88.0 per cent of the

labour households),

incidence

of

poverty

Secondly,

rural

is

both in Punjab and Bihar,

relatively

greater

villages than in villages nearer the urban focal

between

the

is much higher than in Punjab (about 22.0 per

of such households).

in

town.

far-off
Lastly,

each pair of nearly equally distanced villages of Punjab

Bihar,

the incidence of poverty is terribly higher

in

the

This confirms

and

Bihar

villages than in the Punjab villages.

lends

empirical substance to our hypothesis on poverty

positive
urban

of

be mentioned in this behalf.

Firstly,

and

such

among non-cultivating rural labour households of the two

to

the

in

The villagewise and the overall incidence of

states are presented in Table 6.9.

cent

The

Rs.833.80

on an annual basis.
annual

1960-61
Rs.190.80

in Punjab and Rs.811.49 in Bihar have been

as poor households.
poverty

at

for 1980-81 work out to be

Rs.811.49 in Bihar,
whose

Rs.833.80

need

respectively

implying

association between the incidence of poverty and rural-

distance

and

relatively lower incidence

of

poverty

in

216

Punjab villages than that in those of Bihar,

at all

conceivable

distances from the focal town.

Table 6.9

Non-cultivating rural labour

hou~eholds

below the poverty line in

Punjab and Bihar on net household income level.

(Rs.833.80 in Punjab and Rs. 811.49 in Bihar a 1980-81 Prices)
Sl.

Village

1.

V1

21

19.05

26

18

69.23

2.

V2

47

17.02

37

26

70.27

3.

V3

78

15

19.23

26

20

76.92

4.

V4

14.29

21

19

90.48

5.

V5

23

17.39

15

13

86.67

6.

V6

63

13

20.p3

85

82

96.47

7.

V7

35

14

40.00

38

38

100.00

8.

V8

26

23.08

52

48

92.31

9.

All

300

65

21. 67

300

264

88.00

NOTE

A.

Total number of sample households

B.

Number of sample house-holds below the poverty line.

----------------------------------------------------------------c.

B::as percentage of

A-.

The preceding analysis makes it fairly obvious that the

Punjab
from

labour households have had a share in the gains resulting

economic

development

in

general

and

agricultural

217

transformation

in particular.

Consequently,

Punjab

model

of

ecconomic growth has been successful in making a real dent on the

problem
seems

of
to

poverty in the state.

be

non-existent

in

However,

such a

agriculturally

phenomenon

backward

areas,

examplified in our study by Bihar.

It might be stressed that the headcount measure of
incidence
of

of poverty registers a decline in poverty if a

number

persons belonging to an income class at the margin and

the poverty line move above it.

measure

of

the

the

below

Though the implications of this

incidence of poverty are easy to grasp

in

the

sense that it leaves a rough idea readily about the magnitude

poverty

in

working

out of the commitments involved in operational

of

concrete

poverty

number,

eradication,

limitations.

yet

which,

it

in turn

suffers

facilitates

from

strategy
number

of

In the first instance, the

incidence

of poverty estimated through this technique is

sensitive

to
it

the

Such limitations make it essentially a crude index

of poverty for many obvious reasons.

secondly

of

the
does

choice of a

particular

not

any

attach

cut-off

weight

point,

whatsoever

distribution of population below the poverty line.

highly
and

to

the

For example,

despite a rapid increase in the income or expenditure level of

person below the poverty line,
poor

he will continue to be treated as

so long as his income or expenditure level does not

the magic figure defined as the cut-off point.

measures

exceed

Thus, this method

the incidence of poverty irrespective of the degree

shortfall from the postulated cut-off point.

measure

is

Still further,

not sensitive to the redistributinn of income

of
this

among

218

the

For

poor.

income

from

instance,

persons

in the event of a pure

with higher incomes to

transfer

those

with

lower

the

usual

incomes within the population below the poverty line,

head-count
so

of

ratio does not record a change so long as the

amount

transferred does not help the beneficiaries to cross over the

poverty

line.

poverty

line

Similarly,
persons

to

if a transfer of income
those below it

takes

from

place

affecting the number of persons belo_w the poverty line,

head-count
does

not

make

Obviously,
poverty
margin

ratio does not register a decline in

a

there

becomes

sense

in

terms

of

social

above
without

the usual

poverty.

This

welfare

norms.

is a greater welfare gain if extremely

abject

less abject than if some poverty cases

are transformed to borderline above poverty

at

line

the

cases.

Sen's ~P' measure endeavours to overcome the problems inherent in

the

head-count

Consequently,

ratio

it

has

by

making

use

of

weighting

system.

been extensively employed by a number

of

research workers.

Sen's Poverty Measure

Closely

P' 20

akin to Gini's measure,

Sen's

P' measure

poverty has been extensively employed by studies on poverty.

is

essentially an ordinal measure which takes into

head count

ratio,

the

poverty

gap

ratio

and

20.

while

using

rank order weights in a manner

the

Gini

efficient of the income or expenditure distribution of the

Further,

It

account
the

of

copoor.

which

is

Amartya Sen,
"Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement",
Econometrica, Vol.44, No.2, March 1976, pp. 219-231.

219

sensitive

to

the

gap

between the below

poverty

line

/expenditure level of the poor and the cut-off point

income

itself,

it

higher weight per unit to the income I expenditure below

assigns

the poverty line.

As such, it seems to reflect a more realistic

picture of the incidence and intensity of poverty.

It
concerned
its
which

needs

measure

not only with the incidence of poverty but

intensity.
the

specified

~P'

to be recognised here Sen's

It

also

is employed in working out the

is
with

amounts

income or expenditure of the poor falls short of

cut-off

expenditure.

point

of

poverty

in

terms

of

by
the

income

or

The bigger is the shortfall from the cut-off point,

the greater shall be the weight per unit of that shortfall in the
poverty measure suggested by Sen.

Thus Sen's tp measure differs

from the Gini-coefficient in two important respects, viz.,(a)

being concerned only with the population below the poverty
and
from

(b)
the

in calculating the income or

expenditure

in

line,

differences

cut-off point and not from the average income

of

the

distribution itself.
The
borrowed

graphic

presentation

from Sen himself.

of

has

percentage

been
of

normalised
the

poor.

measure

In the said figure

poverty as the area represented by OMN.

and

'P'

in

percentage
For

~P'

has

measures the

OQ is the poverty
units.

e s t i rna t in g'

"' p ' ,

been

OT

is

income

line
the
or

expenditure differences are calculated from the cut-off point and

not

from

the mean income or expenditure

Consequently, -P'

of

the

distribution.

measure leaves out of reckoning the area OML as

220

Sen's . Poverty Measure 'p'

~0

:J

0.
0
0.

':'Ov
...._<..'

......

&'-J
. o<::-

. ~0~'

Sens'P'Mczasure

~OJ
0

(),l

(;

. <'(1,

.5-

9>0

~<li

0
.0

::..OJ

,/

\\(\e,...... .,

,/

q,{\''i,.... . . . . .
~o~ .....

(),l
I..

.........

..c
Ul

.........

.........

(),l

.........

01

.........

(),l

"(),l

a.

Bottom x% population

Fig. 6.1

221

well as the area LMNK and corresponds to the area OMN divided

by

the area OST.

In its modified form,
2
p

n(q +1) Z

P' measure of poverty is given by:

(Z- Y.)

(q + 1-i)

1=1

Where;
~~

'P'

is the measure of poverty,

the

income or expenditure of the ith individual arranged in

ascending order of magnitude;

1

Thus
with

the

Z'

while

probiem

'q'

the population size,

is the number of people

is the cut-off point and

most other measures are

pf

identifying

the

population in terms of poverty line,

of

poor

Sen's

is
the

below

' i ' is the rank

merely
among

concerned
the

total

P' measure makes use

all the information available on the poor.

other measures,

'Y!

Thus compared to

it is not only analytically more sound, but also

a more comprehensive and an efficient index of poverty .

Recently
Sen's ~P' measure.
data

21

have been

suggested

to

However, since we are dealing with upgrouped

in the present study, Sen's

made use of,

21.

some modifications

to estimate the

1976 modified version has been

P' measure from the net

household

For example,
several scholars such as I.Z.Bhatty (1974),
F.Seastrand and R.Diwan (1975);
M.Alamgir (1976), N.Kakwani
(1977),
S.Anand (1977) and K.Hamada and N.Takayama
(1977),
have proposed several modifications to Sen's measure of
poverty.

222

income of our sample households.

the poverty line (Rs.
1980-81
value

prices),
~P'

of

The proportion of persons below

833.80 in Punjab and Rs.811.49 in Bihar at

their average per capita annual income and the

measure for different sample village and

villages of Punjab and Bihar are presented in Table

for

6.10.

all
This

table highlights the following important facts.

Firstly,
the

the proportion of population subsisting below

poverty line in Punjab (nearly 24.0 per cent) is much

than in Bihar (about 91.0 per cent ).

Secondly,

lower

the average per

capita income of labour households below the poverty line is much

greater in Punjab than in Bihar.
a

The per capita income level of

typically poor household in Punjab (Rs.681.07) is roughly 43.0

per cent higher than that of a poor household in Bihar (Rs.475.72

only).

Thirdly

(0.059)

p measure works out to be much lower in Punjab

than in Bihar (0.473).

It is thus beyond doubt that the

magnitude of absolute poverty is terribly higher in Bihar than in

Punjab.
If

we compare nearly equally distanced pair of

and Bihar villages,

much

line

is

villages

compared with their counterparts

much higher in Punjab villages than in

thereby

those

varying

is

Again, per capita income of persons below the poverty

suggesting
than

we observe that the incidence of poverty

higher in Bihar villages,

in Punjab.

Punjab

that the poor of Punjab are much

of Bihar.

distances
than

Bihar

Similarly,

from the focal

in Punjab villages.

the value of

less

poor

'P' measure

town is much higher

This again

villages

in

signifies

at

Bihar
that

223
Table 6.10
Sen's 'P'

H~asure

Calculated for Per Capital Net Household Inco1e of Labour

Households in Punjail and Bihar

Sl.

Description

v
A
E
L
6
-----------------------------------------------------------------

State

L.

No.

Vl

V2

V3

V4

V5

Vb

i'~

~!

All"

VB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------

"t.

10

11

12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PJB
18.85
18.99 21.38 Hl. 87 19.~8
24.13
42.93 28.47
24.es
1. Proportion of

2.

Persons Below the

Poverty Line

BHR

79.47

Per Capita Income

PJB
BHR

656.49

of the Persons
Below the Poverty

di

520.51
26.12

74.63

78.08

9"',J,.l,..,
')Q

92.39

98.8~

719.83 724.83 756.42 731.58

592.94 52!U8 548.47
26.17 22.24 45.44 33.39

658.38
444.25

57~. 53

48.13

95.58

9'1 ~0

624.11J 675.48
421.79 416.96
47.99 62.till

6Bl.Si
475.72
43. IT

l~IUB

-..~

line
T

,;,

NOTE:

Poverty Measure p. PJB

BHR

1. PJB

= Punjab

",, BHR

= Bihar

3. di

PJBi

IU50

11.031

0.039

0.350

0.307

0.273

e.0Hl
0.423

0.027
0.372

0.063
8.535

Ul.l42

iU64

0.559

0.547

BHRi

------------BHRi

4.

is the Per Capita Net Household Income of the Poor Household in ith Villaoe.

6.059
0.473

224

gains of agricultural modernisation have accrued relatively

to

the

poor labour households in Punjab than in Bihar.

more so in the extremely remote villages from the focal

It

can,

therefore,

transformation

economic
households

is

town.

be inferred that Punjab model

in the state to benefit from highly remunerative

and

sectors.

In contrast,

thrown

since the late sixties

of
the

employment

opprtunities both in
it is,

the

on-and

non-farm

indeed, distressing that Bihar model

up nothing but acute deprivation and poverty.

preponderant
grim

It

has helped

gainful

has

more

majority of its rural labour households.

It is

the

rural

labour households continue to live below the poverty line.

Even

in

situation that in Bihar nearly 88.0 per cent of

for

villages near the urban focal

town,

the incidence of poverty

among such households is extremely high, and, as we move into the

interior of the countryside,

the Bihar scenario seem to reveal a

situation of precarious existence.

There

is

yet another way of looking at

the

economic

situation of the poor households in the study areas of Punjab and

Bihar.

Besides

computing the per capita income of the

layers of the poor households,

various

we develop some rough idea of the

additional income needed for such households to cross the crucial

mark

of

poverity

level earnings.

Table 6.11

invites

few

observations.
Firstly,
households

in

approximately

per

Punjab
43.0

capita
(Rs.681.07)

income

of

level

considered

per cent higher than the per

as

the
a

poor

whole

capita

is

income

225
Table

6. ll

Average Per Capita Net Household Income of Non-Cultivating Rural

Labour Households Below the Poverty Line
(Rs. 833.80 per capita per annum in Punjab and Rs. 811.49 per
capita per annum in Bihar at 1980-81 Prices)
(Mean Value in R s. )
Sr.
No.

Poor Households

PUNJAB

Differential
( di)

B I H A R

----~----------------------~------Y----------X------~--~~-------------------

3.

6.

L0ttom 20. 00
per cent

546.79

287. Ol
(52. 49)

290.23

521.26
(179.60)

88.40

Next 20.00
per cent

646.72

187.08
( 28. 93)

401.49

410.00
( 102. 12)

61.08

Next 20.00
per cent

700.39

133.41
( 19.05)

476.71

334.78
( 70. 23)

46.92

Next 20.00
per cent

747.38

86.42
( 11. 56)

560.80

250.69
( 44.70)

33.27

Next 20.00
per. cent

787.89

45.91
( 5.83)

712.85

98.64
( 13.84)

10.53

All Poor
Households

681.07

152.73
( 22. 43)

475.72

335.77
( 70.58)

' 43.17

NOTE :

l.

Per Capita Income (Rs.)

2.

Additional Income needed to Cross Over .the

Poverty Line.

3.

Figures in the parentheses indicate the additional

income as percentage of per capita income to cross .over
the poverty line.

4.

di

Differential between per capita income of Punjab

and Bihar i. e.

--~~~-----~~~---
XBHR

226

level of poor households in Bihar (Rs.475.72}.

Secondly,

while

all the poor labour households of Punjab in our sample would need
roughly 22.0 per cent additional income in order to flip over the
poverty line,

in Bihar, no less than 71.0 per cent more would be

needed for this purpose.

sample

households

The degree of abject poverty among the

of Bihar is adequately conveyed through

measure for the total of sample households,

can

be

pinpointed

if

the

we

bottom

look

into

yet the real

misery

additional

income

the

40.0 or 20.0

this

requirement

of

per

cent

of

these

households.

The bottom 20.0 per cent of our sample households in

Bihar would need as much as 180.0 per cent more of income if they
have

to

cease

households

to

be

poor;

in

contrast,

the

bottom

in the Punjab sample suggest supplementation

tune of about 52.0 per cent.

Similarly,

20.0

to

the

while the top 20.0 per

cent of our sample households in Bihar would need as much as 14.0

per

cent

additional income to cross over the poverty

contrast,
already
need

the

veering around the poverty line itself,

only

poverty

6.0

line.

distribution,
the

poor

roughly

top 20.0 per cent poor households in

per cent additional income

Again

to

line,
Punjab

in
are

since they just

move

above

as is evident at different steps

the

of

the

the percentage share of additional income needed by

labour

households to cross over the poverty

3-4 fold higher in Bihar compared with that

line

in

is

Punjab.

These figures are thus good enough to convey a situation of utter

destitution
Bihar.

under

which

the labour households

live

in

rural

These are also suggestive of the formidable institutional

227

and

other

interventions needed to improve upon their

sub-human

existence.
Our

data therefore,

dispels the belief that gains

rapid economic growth in general and agricultural

in

particular,

poor.

wherever

On the other hand,

achieved,

of

transformation

have not percolated to

the

Punjab-Bihar contrast clearly reveals

that such gains have been shared by different strata of the rural
population in Punjab because the state has had a happy experience
of fast and sustained growth and such gains have largely bypassed
the lower strata of rural population in Bihar because growth here
has not only been very low,
there

has

hierarchy.

not

but unsteady as well.

been much to filter down

the

Consequently,

ladder

of

rural