Household Livelihood Security Index (HLSI) of livestock farmers  vis-à-vis other occupational groups in rural Tamil Nadu

G. Senthil Kumar; K.N. Selvakumar; M. Prabu; A. Serma Saravana Pandian; C. Valli; P. Thilakar

doi:10.56093/ijvasr.v47i6.138171

Authors

G. Senthil Kumar Assistant Professor, Department of AH Economics, Madras Veterinary College, Chennai –7.
K.N. Selvakumar Director of Distance Education, TANUVAS, MMc, Chennai – 51
M. Prabu Professor and Head, Department of AH Economics, Madras Veterinary College, Chennai – 7
A. Serma Saravana Pandian Assistant Professor, Department of AH Economics, Madras Veterinary College, Chennai – 7
C. Valli Professor and Head, Institute of Animal Nutrition, TANUVAS, Kattupakkam - 603 203
P. Thilakar Assistant Professor, Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, Madras Veterinary College, TANUVAS, Chennai - 600 007

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijvasr.v47i6.138171

Keywords:

Household Livelihood Security Index, Livestock farmers, Occupation

Abstract

An attempt was made to compare the Household Livelihood Security Index (HLSI) of Livestock farmers vis-à-vis other occupational groups in rural Tamil Nadu using randomly selected 540 sample households from six poverty prone sample districts. HLSI was constructed for each sample household based on the previous literature and variations among different occupational groups and districts were compared. The HLSI was found to be the highest among crop + livestock farmers (0.4887), followed by fishermen (0.4821), non-farm (0.4701), livestock farmer (0.4583), crop cultivators (0.4347) and agricultural labourers (0.3860) with the overall HLSI of 0.4435. Among different districts, HLSI was found to be the lowest in Pudukottai district (0.3815), followed by Ariyalur (0.4324) and
Ramanathapuram (0.4455). Overall, it could be concluded that health and infrastructure indices among different occupations and locality was calculated to be higher when compared to other domains. The study revealed that there is an urgent need to improve the empowerment index irrespective of the locality and occupations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ali, J. (2007). Livestock sector development and implications for rural poverty alleviation in India. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 19, Article 27. Retrieved May 2, 2013, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/2/ali19027.htm.

Akter, S. (2012). Investigating livelihood security in poor settlements in Bangladesh. Contributed paper prepared for presentation at the 86 annual conference of Agricultural Economics Society. Warwick University, 16-18 th April 2012.

Anand, S. and A.K. Sen (1994). Human Development Index : Methodology and Measurement. Occasional papers. HDR office, New York.

CARE (2004). Measuring livelihood impacts: A review of livelihoods indicators, Livelihood Monitoring Unit (LMU) Rural Livelihoods Program CARE Bangladesh. TANGO International, Inc.

Chambers, R and G. Conway (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper No. 296. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Gopalakrishnan, B.V. and D.S. Leelavathi (2011). Infrastructure and Human development in India: An Interstate Comparison. Journal of Global Economy, 7(4) : 225-244.

Hahn, M.B., A.M. Riederer and S.O. Foster (2009). The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: A pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change—A case study in Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 19(1): 74-88.

Kusharjanto, H. and D. Kim (2011). Infrastructure and human development: the case of Java, Indonesia. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 16(1): 111–124.

Lindenberg, M. (2002). Measuring household livelihood security at the family and community level in the developing world. World development, 30(2): 301-318.

UNDP (1990). Human Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York.