Impact Assessment of the District Poverty Initiative Project Rajasthan

household income was higher than non-CIG household average income, but in 2007, it is lower only in Baran
and Rajsamand. This is a clear indication of positive role played by DPIP.
Table 2.54: Total Income (Rs.pa)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Districts 2001 2007 Changes %
CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baran 17959 16373 28772 31436 60 92
Churu 18558 19853 39392 37021 112 86
Dausa 16887 17487 34049 26672 102 53
Dholpur 21144 21188 35047 30056 66 42
Jhalawar 14400 13940 23498 20843 63 50
Rajsamand 21124 24246 29425 29649 39 22
Tonk 18567 17491 33960 28291 83 62
Total 18362 19100 32668 29390 78 54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Capita Income
An important indicator of improvement in household’s economic status is improvement in its per capita income.
Appendices 2.1 through 2.10 show that where there is direct impact visible of DPIP intervention the per capita
income has improved. For instance, across the districts per capita income from agriculture has improved for CIG
households. So has been the case with per capita income generated from animal husbandry activities. These
changes have been marked in most districts and little less significant in others like Rajsamand.
Per capita income wage labour within the district has improved in all districts except Dausa and Dholpur, while
per capita income from wage labour outside the village in these districts has improved. This reflects on the
opportunities available to villagers in two districts outside the village. Dausa is near Jaipur and there are many
opportunities for a people to find daily work in the city which gives them higher remuneration than within the
village. Dholpur has mining sector that provide opportunity to villagers to work outside. The road construction
has also facilitated this. Mobility of people improves with roads and there are better transport facilities available
now. This also to a large extent is a positive development.
Per capita income from salaries has shown a mixed picture. It is also observed it is also not very significant
source of income. There are few households across the districts that have salary income. Some might have lost a
job or got a temporary job as is observed in an earlier section on occupation of the head.
Household industry is largely driven by demand for its product/service. DPIP had made intervention in this
sector, but the per capita income has seen only marginal improvements. It rather fell in Baran for CIG
households. In case of Non-CIG households the experience has been worse in most districts.
Per capita income from retail business in most districts had declined while in others it has marginally improved.
It depends on the scale of operation. With higher incomes and better infrastructure, people become mobile and so
have access to markets in the towns where possibly the goods are cheaper. This does affect local petty business.
54