October - December 2012 - National Institute of Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Regional Dimensions of Food Security in Maharashtra 491each year between two census years is derived using exponential method. In order toestimate Per Capita Foodgrain Availability across regions, the population of Mumbai Suburbanand Gr. Bombay/Mumbai is excluded from the estimation because the populationin these districts does not depend on own produced foodgrains.9 See Dhanagare (1992), Dyson and Maharatna (1992) and DHMJ Drought Forum (2008) fordetails on droughts in Maharashtra.10 In India, the earliest attempt to define poverty line dates back to July 1962 by fixing it at` 20 MPCE to meet the minimum needs of life (Dandekar, 1981). It was further modified in1973-74 by the Task Force of Planning Commission (GoI, 1979). It estimated poverty line at` 49.19 for rural areas and ` 56.64 for urban areas based on MPCE at 1973-74 prices basedon calorie intake and adjusted for increase over time.11 The NSSO has been conducting large scale surveys every five years on a regular basissince 1973-74 for collecting information on consumption expenditure, known as“Quinquennial Survey”.12 The official poverty line for rural Maharashtra was ` 146.21, ` 334, ` 478 and for urbanMaharashtra ` 328.56, ` 539.71 and ` 637 for the period of 1993-94, 1999-00 and 2004-05,respectively.13 Tendulkar Committee submitted its report on November 2009 to the Planning Commissionarguing that the existing poverty line needed to be enlarged, so as to mitigate the effectof changing food habits and increasing expenditure on private essential goods such aseducation and health services caused by declining subsidies (GoI, 2009). Since theCommittee has enlarged the scope of food basket including expenditure on health andeducation, the poverty ratio has increased substantially for India as well as across States,particularly in the rural areas because expenditure on education and health services hadnot been included in the then existing poverty line, due to the provision of Governmentsubsidies. However, with the changing role of Government after the implementation ofnew economic reforms, subsidies for various welfare schemes are being rolled backsystematically. The new poverty ratio for India has increased from 28.5 to 41.8 per cent inthe rural areas and declined marginally from 25.9 to 25.7 per cent in the urban areas. Thefigures for Maharashtra have increased substantially from 30 to 59.3 per cent for the ruralareas and 25.9 to 30.3 per cent for the urban areas (ibid., p-35, Table 2).14 Green Revolution, despite being introduced in India during mid-1960s, took more than sixyears to record its adoption in Maharashtra (Deshpande et al 2007). Therefore, the periodbefore 1970-71 has been considered as a pre-GR period, while the coefficient of variancefor post-GR has been analysed for 1973-74 to 2005-06, because agricultural productionhas increased in the State with the adoption of new technology only after the shock ofthe drought in 1972-73.15 The carrying capacity of land has been measured in Deshpande et al (2007) by mensurationof land over changes in the workforce burden on agricultural sector.16 However, Sukhatme (1981) argues that environment variation is not the only cause ofunder-nutrition (p-1034).17 Underweight is considered an indicator for both chronic and transitory malnutrition(Mortorell and Ho, 1984).Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 31, No. 4, October - December : 2012
492 Nitin TagadeReferences1. Bruntland, G (1987), Our Common Future : The World Commission on Environment andDevelopment. Oxford, Oxford University Press.2. Dandekar Committee (1984), Report of the Fact Finding Committee on General IssuesRelating to Backward Areas Development, Mumbai, Planning Department, Government ofMaharashtra.3. Dandekar, V M (1981), Measurement of Poverty, R R Kale Memorial Lecture, Pune, GokhaleInstitute of Politics and Economics.4. Deaton, Angus (2005), Adjusted Indian Poverty Estimates for 1999-2000, In Angus Deatonand Valerie Kozel (eds), The Great Indian Poverty Debate, New Delhi, MacMillan, 239-48.5. Deshpande, R S (1988), Growth and Instability in Maharashtra, Artha Vijnana, Vol. XXX, No. 4,December, 317-39.6. Deshpande, R S and N Rajasekaran (1997), Impact of Watershed Development Programme :Experience and Issues, Artha Vijnana, Vol. XXXIX, No. 3, September, 374-90.7. Deshpande, R S, Nitin Tagade and A Naryanamoorthy (2007), Koradvahu MaharashtratilKrishi Sansadahnancha Visham Vikash (Uneven Development of Agricultural Resources inRainfed Maharashtra), Samaj Probhodhan Patrika, 180 (October-December), 422-31.8. Dev, S Mahendra and B L Mungekar (1996), Maharashtra’s Agricultural Development : ABlueprint, Economic and Political Weekly, XXXI (13), A38-A48.9. Dhanagare, D N (1992), 1992 Drought in Maharashtra : Misplaced Priorities, Mismanagementof Water, Economic and Political Weekly, XXVII (27), 1421-1925.10. DHMJ Drought Forum (2008), Combating Drought in Maharashtra, Published by InfoChangefor the Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme Supported by the UK Government’sDepartment for International Development (DFID).11. Dyson, Tim and Arup Maharatna (1992), Bihar Famine, 1966-67 and Maharashtra Drought,1970-73, The Demographic Consequences, Economic and Political Weekly, XXVII (26), 1325-32.12. EPWRF (2004), District-wise Agricultural Data Base for Maharashtra : 1960-61 to 1997-98,Mumbai, EPW, Research Foundation.13. FAO (2006), Food Security, Policy Brief, Issue 2, FAO’s Agriculture and Development EconomicsDivision (ESA).14. GoI (1979), Report of the Task Force on Projections of Minimum Needs and EffectiveConsumption Demand, New Delhi, Planning Commission, Government of India.15. ——— (2006), Economic Survey of India 2006-07, New Delhi, Planning Commission,Government of India.16. ——— (2009), Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation ofPoverty, New Delhi, Planning Commission, Government of India.Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 31, No. 4, October - December : 2012
Page 2 and 3:
Journal ofRural DevelopmentVol. 31
Page 4 and 5:
Journal of Rural Development, Vol.
Page 6 and 7:
MYRADA’S Capacity Building Interv
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 23 and 24:
392 Anita Singh and T. Babu18. Wool
Page 25 and 26:
394 Fahimuddinshared on 50-50 per c
Page 27 and 28:
396 FahimuddinTable 2 presents deta
Page 29 and 30:
398 Fahimuddindistricts. A notable
Page 31 and 32:
400 FahimuddinTechnical Diploma - -
Page 33 and 34:
402 FahimuddinTable 12 : Average Ne
Page 35 and 36:
404 FahimuddinTable 14 : Characteri
Page 37 and 38:
406 Fahimuddinsharing of inputs cos
Page 39 and 40:
408 FahimuddinReasons for Leasing-i
Page 41 and 42:
410 FahimuddinTable 24 : Main Occup
Page 43 and 44:
412 FahimuddinTable 26 : Distributi
Page 45 and 46:
414 FahimuddinTable 29 : Decision A
Page 47 and 48:
416 Fahimuddinan overwhelming major
Page 49 and 50:
418 FahimuddinNotes and References1
Page 51 and 52:
420 D Rajasekhar and R ManjulaCommu
Page 53 and 54:
422 D Rajasekhar and R ManjulaThe t
Page 55 and 56:
424 D Rajasekhar and R ManjulaTable
Page 57 and 58:
426 D Rajasekhar and R Manjulaexpen
Page 59 and 60:
428 D Rajasekhar and R Manjulavaria
Page 61 and 62:
430 D Rajasekhar and R Manjulapayme
Page 63 and 64:
432 D Rajasekhar and R Manjulashoul
Page 65 and 66:
434 D Rajasekhar and R Manjula5. Co
Page 67 and 68:
436 M. Mahadeva and K. Keshavamurth
Page 69 and 70:
438 M. Mahadeva and K. Keshavamurth
Page 71 and 72: 440 M. Mahadeva and K. Keshavamurth
Page 89 and 90: 458 Pradeep Kumar Mehtarequirements
Page 91 and 92: 460 Pradeep Kumar Mehtadisaster lev
Page 93 and 94: 462 Pradeep Kumar Mehtairrigation,
Page 95 and 96: 464 Pradeep Kumar MehtaThe correlat
Page 97 and 98: 466 Pradeep Kumar MehtaFarm Size :
Page 99 and 100: 468 Pradeep Kumar Mehta4 As during
Page 101 and 102: 470 Nitin Tagadeperformance of all
Page 103 and 104: 472 Nitin TagadeThe second element
Page 105 and 106: 474 Nitin TagadeAvailability of Foo
Page 107 and 108: 476 Nitin Tagadeand instability in
Page 109 and 110: 478 Nitin Tagadefoodgrain productio
Page 111 and 112: 480 Nitin TagadeTable 6 : Poverty R
Page 113 and 114: Journal of Rural Development, Vol.
Page 115 and 116: 484 Nitin TagadeThe carrying capaci
Page 117 and 118: 486 Nitin Tagadesecurity is declini
Page 119 and 120: 488 Nitin Tagadesector is substanti
Page 121: 490 Nitin TagadeNotes1 Maharashtra
Page 125 and 126: 494 Nitin Tagade35. Radhakrishna, R
Page 127 and 128: 496 Edakkandi Meethal RejiSHG movem
Page 129 and 130: 498 Edakkandi Meethal RejiSHGs act
Page 131 and 132: 500 Edakkandi Meethal RejiSocial Mo
Page 133 and 134: 502 Edakkandi Meethal RejiTable 1 :
Page 135 and 136: 504 Edakkandi Meethal RejiTable 4 :
Page 137 and 138: 506 Edakkandi Meethal Rejiemphasis
Page 139 and 140: 508 Edakkandi Meethal Rejimembers c
Page 141 and 142: 510 Edakkandi Meethal Reji9. Govern
Page 143 and 144: Journal of Rural Development, Vol.
Page 145 and 146: Food Security and Nutrition in Kera
Page 165 and 166: Journal Book Reviews of Rural Devel
Page 167 and 168: Book Reviews 537in the south. It wa
Page 169 and 170: Book Reviews 539expenditure) by usi
Page 171 and 172: Book Reviews 541encompass the role
Page 173 and 174:
Book Reviews 543education. The thir
Page 175 and 176:
Book Reviews 545and political empow
Page 177 and 178:
Book Reviews 547getting the reasona
Page 179 and 180:
Preparation of the ArticleTitle Pag
Page 181:
Dr. R.R.PrasadProf. & Head (CESD)NI
show all

October - December 2012 - National Institute of Rural Development

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?