Poverty Assessment in Rural Area of Jodhpur District in Western Arid Region of Rajasthan

An attempt has been made to assess the poverty status in rural area of Jodhpur district of western Rajasthan. Two villages were randomly selected fall in the radius of 20 km from the Jodhpur city whereas another two villages were selected 60 km far from Jodhpur city with poor infrastructure facility and poor non-farm employment. 30 respondents were randomly selected from each selected village.A total of 120 respondents were selected from four village for the study. Simple tabulation method was used. For determining the poverty status, income method was used. From the study, it is revealed that agriculture, livestock, non-farm-labor activities are the main factor for poverty assessment. Size of land holding is a crucial factor. Marginal and small land holding couple with low income, are the main reason for poverty. The percentage of earners in the family size groups and percentage of dependents is inversely proportionate.


INTRODUCTION
Poverty is very complex and complicated problem and faced by various developing and under-developing countries. A simple meaning of poverty is the inability to secure minimum requirement for life, health and efficiency. These requirements include minimum human needs in respect of food, clothing, housing, education and health. The planners have been using a term 'Poverty line'. Those who can fulfill their minimum needs are 'above poverty' line and those who cannot are 'below poverty line (BPL). In1987-88, 30% population was below poverty line; therefore large number of people in our region, particularly in the rural area is extremely poor as compared to the urban inhabitants. Poverty affects the general health and efficiencies of the people and resulted into low productivity. This inadequate economic development causes more poverty and it continues, ultimately forms the vicious civil. Problems of poverty, hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, unemployment and poor medical facilities are enhancing the economic inequality. It means vast disparities in the income of different sections of people and it's also mean different levels of standard of living in rural as well as in urban areas. There are several definitions of poverty, and scholars disagree as to which definition is appropriate for India. Inside India, both income-based poverty definition and consumption-based poverty statistics are in use. Outside India, the World Bank and institutions of the United Nations use a broader definition to compare poverty among nations, including India, based on purchasing power parity (PPP), as well as nominal relative basis. Each state in India has its own poverty threshold to determine how many people are below its poverty line and to reflect regional economic conditions. These differences in definition yield a complex and conflicting picture about poverty in India, both internally and when compared to other developing countries of the world. There is a wide difference exists in estimate of poverty because of the differences in methodologies, data adjustments and pre-deflation used. Studies on poverty in India began with Dadadhai Naoraoji in the 19 th Century (Naoroji 1962). The major work on poverty estimates during the pre-independence period is that of V.K.R.V. Rao (1936) who revised Naoroji estimates of per capita income. Mukherjee (1969) updated the poverty estimate of Naoroji and Rao at 1948-49 prices than laying the foundation of further work on this subject in independent India. Further, in-depth studies on poverty in independent India are by Charan Singh (1964) and Tirlok Singh (1969 ab.). After the publicaton of Myrdal's Asian Drama in 1969 when stalwarts like  and Dandekar (1980) took up the burden of the theme. It is an accepted fact that there are large disparities both in the income and assets distribution. All over the country there is glaring evidence of concentration of wealth Considerable interest had been shown in equalities in India. II. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE DESIGN A two stage stratified sampling procedure is adopted to select the sample households. The sample included adequate proportion of social class and their working status to ensure comparison for ascertaining the effects of inequality and poverty. Sample selection is done in two stages; stage one refers to selection of villages and urban blocks of Jodhpur city and households were selected in stage two. Two villages were selected fall in the radius of 20 km from the Jodhpur city whereas another two villages were selected 60 km far from Jodhpur city with poor infrastructure facility and poor non-farm employment. 30 respondents were randomly selected from each selected village. A total of 120 respondents were selected from four village for the study.

III.
TOOLS AND TECHNIQUE Income method was used to find out the poverty status of selected respondents. Income from different sources were collected.The data for the study was collected using a wellstructured exhaustive schedule through personal interview of adult male/female covering all the aspect of the study. Simple tabulation method was used.
The selected respondents were categories in four different groups as follows and same are presented in the Table 1.
Category I: Income from farming comprises agriculture, livestock and allied activities (farming). Category II: Income from agricultural ans nonagricultural labourers, collies, hand-card puller, horse/bullock cart driver, vendor, hawker, masonry etc. The wages included cash and kind(Wage earners).
Category III: Income from occupations consists of, paltry/tea shop, owner, artisans, black smith, gold smith, carpenter, tailoretc (Business and crafts). Category IV: Income includes occupation, college, school/university teacher etc in government and private official, who get regular services from public or private institutions.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results based on income method for determining the poverty status of rural population in Jodhpur district of western arid region of Rajasthan. The income of rural sample household from different sources are shown in the Table 2. From the table 2, it is revealed that agriculture is the main source of household income (75%) followed by livestock, non-farm-labor activities, business and craft. Similarly, income from agriculture accounts maximum (31.96%) followed by business and craft, non-farm-labour, salary and livestock. Distribution of rural sample household according to operational land holding and share of income from different sources was estimated and same are shown in Table 3. From the table 3, it is observed that land less respondent earning from non-agricultural activities contributed nearly 97 per cent.As the size of holding increases, the income from agriculture and allied activities increases except the medium farmers (4 to 7.5 ha) who received less income from agricultural and allied activities and also from non-farmlabour.  27,350/-. The nonfarm-activities contributed more than agricultural and allied activities. In this group, allied activities is the main source of income from agricultural and allied activities. The contribution of nonfarm-activities is more than agricultural and allied activities. The relative per cent contributions of different sources of gross income in different categories of sample households are shown in the table 5. From the Table 5, it is observed that in the category I, 62.12 per cent income from agriculture followed livestock, nonfarmactivities and salaries. In case of category II, the main source of income is nonfarm -activities (29.82 per cent) followed by agricultural wages and agricultural. However, in the category III, the main source is business and craft (80.11) followed by agriculture. The remaining activities contributed nearly 9 per cent only. The IV category, salaries (71.89 per cent) is the main source of income followed by business and craft. The overall income is from agriculture followed by business and craft, nonagriculture wages and salaries. Distribution of sample household into different family size groups based on number of earners and their dependents are presented in Table 6. It is observed that highest per cent dependents (77.67 per cent) is found in household having 11 and above family size groups. The family size of 1 -2 have maximum earners (62.50 per cent). The percentage of earners in the family size groups and percentage of dependents is inversely proportionate. It indicated as earners are decreases dependents increases. The dependency ratio is increasing with increase in family size. The average dependency ratio is 2.41.  From the above discussion, it is revealed that agriculture, livestock, non-farm-labor activities are the main factor for poverty assessment. Size of land holding is a crucial factor.
Marginal and small land holding couple with low income, are the main reason for poverty. The percentage of earners