Income inequality among indigenous people dependent on traditional agroforestry system in Indian Himalayas


354 / 155

Authors

  • D K PANDEY College of Horticulture and Forestry, Central Agricultural University, Manipur, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh 791 102, India
  • P ADHIGURU KAB-I, New Delhi
  • H K DE ICAR-CIFA, Bhubaneswar
  • A D UPADHYAY CoF, CAU, Tripura
  • K RADHAKRISHNAN Fisheries College and Research Institute, Thoothukudi

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i6.114271

Keywords:

Forest dwellers, Income inequality, Northeast India, Shifting cultivation

Abstract

There is increasing concern about unequal distribution of income and wealth especially in developing economies, and to address this issue, there is greater thrust for inclusive development in the recent years. In this context, this paper looks into growing income inequality among the forest dwellers based on the empirical study conducted in North Eastern Hill (NEH) states of India. The primary data were collected through survey and personal interview covering a sample of 500 forest dweller households’ sampled during 2016-17 from 52 villages located across six NEH states (Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura). Further, various options of income generation by providing equal access to resources has been dealt in the paper. It was observed that the shifting cultivation (SC) remains the main source of livelihood in all the studied sites. The clear-cut inter-state income disparities among the forest dwellers were demonstrated by Gini ratios. The high variation in Gini ratios indicates higher disparities in nonfarm income and it may be because of unequal opportunities for non-farm activities. In addition, other factors which are contributing significantly to income inequality are socio-personal factors, policies and programmes on SC management. The understanding on the role played by such factors would greatly facilitate in evolving appropriate policy perspectives for reducing economic inequality through measures like increasing investment in human capital and thus ensuring a stable farm economy in this region.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdullah A N, Stacey N, Garnett S T and Myers B. 2016. Forest policy and economics economic dependence on mangrove forest resources for livelihoods in the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Forest Policy and Economics 64: 15–24.

Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belcher B, Hogarth N J, Bauch S, Börner J, Smith-Hall C and Wunder S. 2014. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. World Development 64: 12–28.

Bathla S and Kumar A. 2019. Factors contributing to income inequalities among agricultural households in India. Economic and Political Weekly 54(21): 55–61.

Belcher B, Achdiawan R and Dewi S. 2015. Forest-based livelihoods strategies conditioned by market remoteness and forest proximity in Jharkhand, India. World development 66: 269–79.

Chandramouli C. 2011. Census of India 2011. Provisional Population Totals Paper 1 of 2011 India Series 1. Registrar General and Census Commission of India, Government of India, p 140.

Chen J, Pu M and Hou W. 2018.The trend of the Gini Coefficient of China (1978-2010). Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies 17(3): 261–85.

Chhetri B B, Larsen H O and Smith-Hall C. 2015. Environmental resources reduce income inequality and the prevalence, depth and severity of poverty in rural Nepal. Environment, Development and Sustainability 17(3): 513–30.

Dikshit K R and Dikshit J K. 2014. North-east India: Land, People and economy. Springer, Dordrecht.

FAO. 2018. The state of the World’s forests - forest pathways to sustainable development. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, p 118.

FSI. 2019. State of Forest Report 2019. Forest Survey of India, Dehradun.

GOI. 2014. Report of the high level committee on socio-economic, health and educational status of tribal communities of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, May, 2014.

Gupta J, Pouw N R and Ros-Tonen M A. 2015. Towards an elaborated theory of inclusive development. European Journal of Development Research 27(4): 541–59.

Li P, Feng Z, Jiang L, Liao C and Zhang J. 2014.A review of Sweden agriculture in Southeast Asia. Remote Sensing 6(2): 1654–83.

Marchang R. 2018. Land, agriculture and livelihood of Scheduled Tribes in North-East India. Journal of Land and Rural Studies 6(1): 67–84.

Nguyen T V and Tran T Q. 2018. Forestland and rural household livelihoods in the North Central Provinces, Vietnam. Land Use Policy 79(1): 10–19.

Nhem S, Jin Lee Y and Phin S. 2018. The impact of forest resource decline: analyzing forest-related income supplements to reduce income inequality and poverty of the Kouy indigenous people living in Kampong Thom Province, Cambodia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 37(2): 97–119.

Pattanaaik S K, Hazarika B N, Pandey A K and Debnath P. 2016. Towards settled cultivation from traditional Jhum-A case study in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 50(6): 535–41.

Sarma P K, Huda E A, Baruah B, Mipun B S and Talukdar B K2015. Assessment of changing trends of shifting cultivation in Garo Hills landscape of Meghalaya-a geo-spatial approach. International Research Journal of Environment Science 4(11): 1–7.

Shackleton S, Campbell B, Lotz-Sisitka H and Shackleton C. 2008. Links between the local trade in natural products, livelihoods and poverty alleviation in a Semi-Arid Region of South Africa. World Development 36(3): 505–26.

Sloman J. 2006. Economics. 6th edn. Prentice Hall/Financial Times, London, p 720.

World Bank. 2006. India: unlocking opportunities for forest dependent people in India. Report - IN, World Bank: South Asia Region 85: 34481.

Downloads

Submitted

2021-08-23

Published

2021-08-24

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

PANDEY, D. K., ADHIGURU, P., DE, H. K., UPADHYAY, A. D., & RADHAKRISHNAN, K. (2021). Income inequality among indigenous people dependent on traditional agroforestry system in Indian Himalayas. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 91(6), 847–851. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i6.114271
Citation