For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8

The southern part of Rajasthan (Banswara, Dungarpur and Udaipur districts) is the most important area of the concentration of tribal population. In this region, the proportion of tribal population to total population is 62.1 percent and it accounts for 42.0 percent of the state’s total tribal population. The whole of Banswara and Dungarpur and a major part of Udaipur district are covered by the Tribal Sub-Plan. In this paper, attempts have been made to provide an overview of the occupation, employment and consumption expenditures of the tribal households in the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) areas of Rajasthan. The analysis has been carried out in a comparative framework in which a comparison has been made between the Scheduled Tribes and Others on the economic parameters so as to find out the level of disparity, if any, between the two social groups. In this study ‘Others’ stand for unreserved categories or net of STs in some cases. The analysis is based on secondary data provided by various government sources and information obtained through field survey. The National Sample Survey’s 66th round, region-wise data on employment unemployment situation and Population Census 2011 have been used to explain the economic characteristics of the households and the individuals.

The literature reviewed include the studies on livelihood, occupation, employment, consumption expenditure and poverty of tribes in Rajasthan and India.

A study by Rout et al (1992) on the pattern of employment, income and consumption expenditure in the tribal sub plan areas of Nasik district concludes that the present occupation of the tribes is incapable of providing employment and income opportunities to them. On the other hand, the consumption expenditure far exceeded their family income. To meet this deficit the tribal people borrowed from private moneylenders and thus they are heavily indebted.

Mohanty and Padhi (1995) examined the employment situation of the tribes in Orissa. In this district level analysis attempts have been made to explain the workforce participation, industrial classification of rural main workers and unemployment and under employment problems. The workforce structure shows that in comparison to the general population the proportion of cultivators is high among the tribes which imply that most of them are engaged in traditional low productivity employment.

In a similar study, Nadhkarni (1997) made the comparison of the scheduled tribe and scheduled caste population with the non-ST/SC population in terms of the industrial categories of main workers, it shows that bulk of the tribal workers continue to be dependent on agriculture and what is more disturbing is that majority of them are agricultural labours.

This diversity can be of considerable importance to the households in terms of providing security against adverse external shocks, coping with seasonality and generating additional income. For this reason, the removal of constraints to, or the expansion of opportunities for livelihood diversification is considered as increasingly important aim for rural development policy (Ellis, 1998).

A study by Meena, A K (2000), based on the NSS data (1993-94) shows that there are significant inters state variations in the magnitude of tribal poverty. In India, the proportion of people living below the poverty line is higher in the central tribal belt as compared to the north-eastern states. The average poverty level in the central belt was about 52 percent, which varied from about 26 percent in Andhra Pradesh to 72 percent in Orissa. In Gujarat and Rajasthan, the poverty levels are relatively low. The high poverty ratio of the central tribal belt is partly reflective of the high proportion of marginal workers and agricultural labour and low real wages of casual labour.

The limited employment sources in rural areas forces people to migrate towards the urban centres and such migration has positive implications for the rural livelihood as well. “There is a positive link between migration and rural livelihoods” (Ellis and Freeman 2005).

The poverty level is not only very high among the tribes in India; it is not declining at the desired rate. “Between 1983/84 and 2004/05, rural poverty has declined annually at the rate of 1.89 percent, the decline has been high for others (non-SC/ST) in comparison to SCs and STs and the decline being lowest for the STs”. (Thorat, 2011).

The poverty level is also determined by the livelihood category of the households. “In 2004-05 about 44 percent of the farm wage labour households and 33 percent of the non-farm wage labour households were poor. By comparison, the poverty rates of the self-employed in agriculture and self-employed in non-agriculture were only about 20 percent”. (Thorat, 2011).

Meena, AK (2018) finds that very high dependence of the tribes on low productivity agriculture sector and lack of diversification towards the other occupation categories is the main cause of their poor economic situation in Rajasthan.

Occupation and Employment

The workforce characteristics are important determinant of the livelihood of people. The workforce characteristics of the two regions have been explained by the activity status (UPS) of the people, workers to population ratio and the proportion of main workers in total workers.

The usual principal activity status details of the individuals, in terms of employed, unemployed and not in labour force, have been provided in table 1. In the TSP areas, 47.2 percent ST male and 35.6 percent ST female are employed by usual principal status (UPS). The proportion of unemployed by the same status is only 0.2 percent for male and nil for the female. A little more than one half (52.6 percent) of the males and about two-third (64.4 percent) of the females are out of the labour force. In case of ‘others’ the proportion of employed by usual principal status varies from 55.9 percent among male to 32.1 percent among female. About 0.4 percent of males and none of the females are unemployed by the same status. The remaining 43.7 percent male and 67.9 percent female are not in the labour force.

Table 1: Percentage Distribution of Person by Usual Principal Activity Status

Activity Status	Social Group
	ST		Others
	M	F	M	F
Employed	47.2	35.6	55.9	32.1
Unemployed	0.2	0.0	0.4	0.0
Not in Labour Force	52.6	64.4	43.7	67.9

 Source: NSS 66th Round

The analysis shows that more ST males are out of labour force in comparison to the ‘Others’ male of the same region. However, the proportion of unemployed by usual principal status is two times more among the ‘Others’ males. In case of the female, more of the ‘Others’ females are out of the labour force.

The proportion of the workers in total population reflects the work participation rate and thus it is an important determinant of the household income in general and per capita household income in particular. The workers to total population details have been provided in table 2. In the TSP areas, the proportion of ST male worker to total ST male population is 51.2 percent whereas the corresponding proportion is 47.4 percent for the ST female. The proportion of non-ST male workers to total non-ST male population is 55.4 percent but only 38.5 percent non-ST female belong to the category of workers.

The inter social group comparison shows that the work participation rate is more among the non-ST male in comparison to the ST male but the situation is just opposite in case of females as more ST female belong to the category of workers.Therefore, in terms of the work participation rate, the ST male of both the regions are at a disadvantageous position with respect to the non-ST male but the work participation rate is more among the ST females of both the regions.

Table 2: Percentage of Workers to Total Population

District/Region	ST		Others
	M	F	M	F
Dungarpur	48.6	45.5	53.0	41.0
Banswara	52.7	52.8	55.5	44.3
Udaipur	51.4	43.6	56.1	35.8
TSP Region	51.2	47.4	55.4	38.5

  Source: Population Census

The Census of India defines main workers as those who remain employed for more than 183 days in a given year and those working less than 183 days are termed as marginal workers. Thus, higher proportion of main workers implies that more people remain engaged in livelihood activities for greater part of the year. The main worker details have been provided in table 3. In the TSP areas, about 60 percent of the ST male workers and 30 percent of the ST female workers are main workers. On the other hand, more than three-fourth (76.6 percent) of the non-ST males and 36 percent of the non-ST females belong to the category of main workers. Thus, on this front, the ST (both male and female) workers are at the disadvantageous position with respect to their non-ST counterparts. The relatively high degree of marginalization among the tribe of the TSP areas reflects their poor livelihood.

Table 3: Percentage of Main worker to Total Workers

District/Region	ST		Non-ST
	M	F	M	F
Dungarpur	40.4	12.6	63.6	20.3
Banswara	72.3	41.3	79.8	39.7
Udaipur	62.0	30.2	79.7	40.8
TSP Region	60.6	30.3	76.6	36.0

 Source: Population Census 2011

The nature and quality of livelihood of the people can be explained through their occupational characteristics. For this purpose, both the household and individual level details pertaining to the household types, employment categories of employed and the industrial categories of main and marginal workers have been used.

The household type is defined on the basis of the main source of earning of the household. The NSS categorizes the households into five household types (self-employed in agriculture, self-employed in non-agriculture, agriculture labour, other labour and others). The household type details have been provided in Figure:1

Figure 1: Households by Household Types

Source: NSS 66th round

A little more than one-half (51.4 percent) of the ST households have the status of self-employed in agriculture and another 40.4 percent households have the status of other labour. Thus, the self-employed in agriculture and other labour are the household types of more than 90 percent of the ST households. The proportion of households having the status of self-employed in non-agriculture and others are only 2.6 percent and 5.2 percent respectively. For the ‘Others’ household, the proportion of households in self-employed in agriculture and other labour categories are 45.1 percent and 22.5 percent respectively. It is important to note that about 20 percent of the ‘Other’ households have the status of self-employed in non-agriculture and another 11.4 percent households have the status of others household. Inter social group comparison shows that most of the ST households of the TSP areas are concentrated in the traditional low-quality occupations like self-employment in agriculture and other labour. On the other hand, there is a sizable diversification of ‘Others’ households towards the better-quality occupation categories such as self-employed in non-agriculture and others.

The individuals having the activity status of employed by UPS have been further divided into three broad employment categories; self-employed, regular salaried and casual labour. The details have been provided in table 4.

Table 4: Percentage Distribution of Employed by Employment Categories

Employment Status	Social Groups
	ST	Others
Self Employed
Male	56.5	69.3
Female	70.4	77.0
Regular Salaried
Male	3.3	10.8
Female	2.3	2.9
Casual Labour
Male	40.3	19.9
Female	27.3	20.0

 Source: NSS 66th Round

In the TSP areas, 56.5 percent ST male and 70.4 percent ST female employed have their status as self-employed. Casual labour is another important livelihood activity among the ST as 40.3 percent male and 27.3 female have their employment status as casual labour. The proportions of employed having the status of regular salaried are only 3.3 percent for ST male and 2.3 percent for ST female. The situation is different for the individuals belonging to ‘Others’ social group as about 70 percent of the employed male and 77 percent of the employed female have their status as self-employed. Further, about 11 percent of the ‘Other, male and 3 percent of the ‘Others’ female have their employment status as regular salaried. The proportion of casual labour is only about 20 percent for both male and female employed. The inter social group comparison shows that the proportion of individuals as self-employed and regular salaried is relatively more among the ‘Others’ whereas the proportion of individuals falling in the category of casual labour is more among the STs.

Besides the activity status and employment categories, the NSS provides the information about the industrial categories of the employed. These industrial categories are the real livelihood activities in which the people are engaged. The industry wise details of the individuals have been provided in table 5.

Table 5: Percentage Distribution of Employed by Industrial Categories

Industrial Categories	Social Group
	ST	Others
Agriculture and Allied	60.5	63.1
Mining and Quarrying	0.3	0.4
Manufacturing	0.5	5.5
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply	0.0	0.5
Construction	31.0	18.7
Wholesale-Retail Trade; Repair	1.5	3.6
Hotels and Restaurants	0.1	3.5
Transport, Storage and Communication	4.7	1.9
Other Services	1.5	2.9
All	100.0	100.0

Source: NSS 66th Round

About three-fifth (60.5 percent) ST employed are concentrated in agriculture and allied activities. Construction sector provides employment to another 31 percent workers. Thus, these two sectors (agriculture and allied and construction) are the sources of employment of more than 90 percent of the workers of the TSP areas. Another noticeable industrial activity is that of transport, storage and communication as it provides employment to 4.7 percent working individuals. In the industrial categories such as mining and quarrying, manufacturing, electricity, gas and water supply and hotel and restaurant the engagement of the tribal individuals is negligible.  Agriculture and allied sector is the employment provider to about 63 percent employed people and the proportion is 18.7 percent of those engaged in construction activities. It is important to note that besides these two sectors, the people find employment in almost all the other industrial categories. The industries like manufacturing, wholesale-retail trade; repair, hotel/ restaurants and other services provide employment to 5.5 percent, 3.6 percent, 3.5 percent and 2.9 percent of the working people respectively.

The above analysis shows that most of the STs are employed in traditional industrial categories but the employment portfolio of ‘Others’ is highly diversified towards the high productivity industrial categories like manufacturing, wholesale-retail trade; repair and hotel/ restaurant.

The Census of India divides the main workers into four industrial categories; cultivators, agriculture labour, household industry and others. The industrial category details of the main workers have been provided in table 6.

Table 6: Industrial Category of Main Workers

District/Region	ST				Non-ST
	CUL	AL	HHI	OTH	CUL	AL	HHI	OTH
Dungarpur	63.0	14.9	0.5	21.6	43.2	6.0	4.3	46.6
Banswara	79.8	11.8	0.4	8.0	46.5	8.1	7.4	37.9
Udaipur	58.2	17.8	0.7	23.3	48.2	7.7	3.3	40.7
TSP Region	69.0	14.6	0.5	15.9	47.1	7.5	4.3	41.1

  Source: Population Census

As per the 2011 Population Census, 69 percent ST main workers belong to the category of cultivators and another 14.6 percent are agriculture labour. Thus, about 84 percent main workers are engaged in agriculture sector either as cultivators or agriculture labour. The proportion of main workers in ‘others’ industrial category is 15.9 percent but only 0.5 percent main workers work in household industries. In case of the non-ST, about 47 percent of the main workers are cultivators and another 7.5 percent of them belong to the category of agriculture labour. Thus, only about 55 percent non-ST main workers are engaged in agriculture sector. The remaining 45 percent main workers belong to the categories of household industries (4.3 percent) and others (41.0 percent). The analysis shows that in TSP areas as a whole, there is a high dependence of the ST main workers on the traditional agriculture sector. On the other hand, in case of the non-ST, there is a clear diversification of main workers towards the other category.

Consumption Expenditure and Poverty

The level of consumption expenditure of the households in general and the monthly per capita consumption expenditure of its members in particular reflects the overall wellbeing of the people. Therefore, in this section, the level of consumption expenditure has been explained by showing the monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) across household types and further through the distribution of individuals into above poverty line and below poverty line MPCE classes.

Figure 2: MPCE by Household Types (2009-10) 

Source: NSS 66th round

The higher MPCE of a particular household type implies that the households belonging to that category have access to better quality income earning sources. The MPCE across household types details has been provided in Figure:2. Among the ST households, the MPCE is Rs 773.7 for all categories of the households. The examination of MPCE by household types shows that it is maximum for the self-employed in non-agriculture households (Rs 932.5) followed by the MPCE of other households (Rs 917.7). The MPCE of the self-employed in agriculture households; the household type of the majority of the households is only Rs 771.6. The MPCE of wage labour households is Rs 581.8 for agriculture labour households and Rs 749.6 for other labour households. The MPCE for ‘Others’ social group is Rs 1109.9 for all categories of the households. Further, the analysis of MPCE by household type shows that it is exceptionally high (Rs 1551.9) for the households of Others category. The self-employed in non- agriculture is another important household category where the MPCE is Rs 1253.0. On the other hand, the MPCE is only Rs 317.5 for the agriculture labour households. Further, the MPCE is Rs 974.0 for the households who are self-employed in agriculture. The comparison of the MPCE levels of ST households and others households reflects a wide disparity between the two social groups. The MPCE of the households of the ‘Others’ social group is about Rs 335 more than the MPCE of the ST households, in general.

In this section, the people have been grouped into monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) classes. In order to determine the MPCE classes, the individuals are categorized into two broad classes; below the poverty line (BPL) class and above the poverty line (APL) class on the basis of the rural poverty line of Rajasthan given by the Planning Commission of India (Tendulkar’s methodology). The individuals from both the BPL and APL groups are further sub categorized into two classes- the lower half and the upper half. The social group wise detail of both the regions has been presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Person by Poverty Line & MPCE Classes

Source: NSS 66th Round
About one-third (32.0 percent) of the ST of TSP areas belong to the lowest MPCE class (BPL-lower half) and another 17.4 percent belong to the next MPCE class (BPL-upper half) thus implying that about one half of them lives below the poverty line. Further, about 40 percent STs belong to the APL-lower half and only 10.7 percent STs belong to the highest MPCE class. Thus, the distribution of the STs in the MPCE classes shows that not only a large proportion of them are lying below the poverty line but majority of them are concentrated in the lower halves of the BPL and APL groups. On the other hand, only 18.6 percent of the ‘Others’ individuals belong to the BPL class and distributed evenly between the lower and upper half BPL classes. More than 80 percent individuals belong to the APL category and 47.7 percent of them fall in the APL- upper half MPCE class. The inter group comparison shows that the STs of the TSP areas have very low level of consumption expenditure (MPCE) implying their poor livelihood status. Their concentration in the lower halves of the BPL and APL categories shows their distressful situation.

1. Anderson, E. and P. Deshinkar (2005), “Livelihood Diversification in Rural Andhra Pradesh, India”, in Frank E and Freeman H A (ed) Rural Livelihood and Poverty Reduction Policies, Routledge, N.York. 2. Chadha, G.K., S. Sen and H. R. Sharma (2004), “Land Resources” in State of Indian Farmers: A Millennium Study, Vol.2, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Academic Foundation, N. Delhi. 3. Christopher, B. and B.M. Swallow (2005), “Dynamic Poverty Traps and Rural Livelihood”, in Frank E and Freeman H A (ed) Rural Livelihood and Poverty Reduction Policies, Routledge, N.York. 4. Census of India (2011). 5. Ghadolia, M. K. (1992), “Infrastructure Development Programmes in Tribal Sub-Plan Areas in Rajasthan”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol.47, No.3. 6. Meena, A.K. (2001), “Occupation, Employment and Poverty of Tribes in India: A Regional and Comparative Analysis”, M. Phil. Dissertation, CSRD/SSS/JNU/ N. Delhi. 7. Meena, A.K. (2015), “Livelihood Patterns of Tribes in Rajasthan: A Case Study of Hill and Plain Regions of Rajasthan”, Ph. D. Thesis, CSRD/SSS/JNU/ N. Delhi. 8. Meena, A.K. (2015), “Livelihood Pattern, Diversification and Earnings of the Tribes: A Comparative Analysis of Hill and Plain Regions of Rajasthan”, Proceedings of the 36th Indian Geography Congress, Department of Geography, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 9. Meena A.K. (2018), “Cost of Cultivation and Farm Income of the Tribal Households: An Analysis of Hill and Plain Regions of Rajasthan (India)”, Remarking an Analisation, pp 71-79, Vol-3, Issue-1, April. 10. Meena A.K. and Chandel N.K. (2019), “Demographic and Livelihood Characteristics of Sohela Village District Tonk (Rajasthan): A Micro Level Analysis”, International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, Volume 3, Issue 6 October ISSN: 2456-6470 11. National Sample Survey Organisation, (2009-10), “Employment and Unemployment Situation among Social Groups in India”, 66th Round. 12. Thorat, S.K. (1993), “Land Ownership Structure and Non-Farm Employment of Rural Households in India”, Indian Journal of Labour Economics Vol.36, No.3. 13. Thorat, Sukhadeo (2011), “Growth Inequality and Poverty Linkages during 1983-2005: Implications for Socially Inclusive Growth”, Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics, Vol. 66, No-1.