CHAPTER IV

ON-FARM EMPLOYMENT/EARNINGS
The
since

the

While

some

rising occupational diversification in rural India

inception
of

the

of planning era is a well recognised fact.

old

activities

have

tended to disappear

gradually over the years, some others have expanded fast and some
new

ones

earnings

have
for

emerged
the

as

rural

population

including landless labour

some of the rural households are getting

Further,

households.

important sources of employment and

increasingly linked with the nearby sub-urban and urban towns for
the

purpose of their employment and earnings, depending upon the

level

of general development of the area and the availability of

infra-structural
level

of

facilities.

employment

of

In brief, the composition and the

rural labour households have undergone

perceptible changes in most part of rural India; and accordingly,

such

households

have reduced their extreme dependence on single

source of earnings, namely agricultural employment.

As

is

to

be

varying

the

cation

has

areas.

On the one extreme are the Green

have

witnessed

expected,

degree

occupational diversifiof

have

occupational

witnessed

rather

structures,

limited

inter alia,

in different

Revolution areas

undergone the most remarkable occupational

rural labour households, and, on the other

which

change

which

changes for the

extreme are the areas

change

in

primarily

the

rural
because

98
agricultural
been

growth

of a very low order.

the

on-farm

changes.

potential

of

has

This

labour

increased

network

of

economic
through

Besides,

households.

1
.
. th elr
. earnlngs.
.
ln
a rlse

towards

village

nexus,
urban

link

many

employment

roads,

rural

employment,

because of

many

has increased the on-farm earning

such as dairying and poultry have

activities

rural

rural

transformation there have

In areas of fast agricultural growth,

labour-absorption

technological

in

and agricultural

Again,
and

labour

the

contributed

thanks to a growing .
rising

rural-urban

households are benefitting

In sum, the structure of

and so on.

and earnings has

also

allied farm

undergone formidable changes

agriculturally growing areas under the combined impact of the

internal dynamics of rural transformation and growing rural-urban

linkages.

The

into

combined

the

basic objective of the present chapter is to look

impact

of

earnings

of

this

interaction on the on-farm

employment

and

cultivating

rural labour

households in the states of Punjab and

Bihar.

attempt

been

An

variations

observed

has

between

different

made
the

to

Punjab

categories

account

for

of

non-

the wide

and the Bihar on-farm

employment and income scenarios.

1.

This fact has been brought out in

quite a number of
studies.
In particular, see G.K.Chadha (1986), "The State
and Rural Economic Transformation: The Case of PunJab 195085," Sage Publications, New Delhi~ Harbans Singh (1986)
"EffiPloyment,
Income and -c0nsumptions
of Rural Labour
Households in a Green Revolution Region:A Case Study of
Punjab and Haryana," Ph.D. Thesis (unpublished), Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi.

99
The
many

on-farm

different

industrial
a

compulsions
between

For

has

more

example,

rapidly

and

nearness

to

an

in

urban-

its own influence on the on-farm off-farm

growing

and possibilities

farm

concrete

ways.

town

balances;

employment scenario can be visualized

non-farm

agriculture creates its own

regarding employment distribution

activities,

and

so

on.

To lend

content to various possibilities, we suggest below some

hypotheses which are tested empirically later in the chapter.

(i) The

yearly

household

on-farm mandays of employment and earnings per

keep

on

increasing

as

we move

away from the

town.
(ii) Earning per day of on-farm employment is inversely
to

distance

related

from the focal town both in areas of fast and

slow agricultural growth;

employment is,

the level of

earning per day of

however, much higher in the former compared

with the latter areas.

(iii) In

general,

as

countryside,
confined
of

the

larg~ly

on-farm

we

to

move

avenues

into
of

the
on-farm

interior

of

the

employment

are

agricultural wage employment;

sources

self-employment (e.g. dairying, poultry, etc.)

get reduced as the distance increases.

(iv) In each pair of nearly equally distanced villages of Punjab
and

Bihar,

basis is

the

incidence of employment/earnings on daily

higher in the former compared with the latter.

100

In
empirical

the

remaining

answers

to

part

of

this

chapter,

we

the various hypotheses set out above.

seek
To

facilitate a clear exposition of the agrarian realities of Punjab

and
To

Bhiar,
begin

the following order of discussion has been observed.

with,

the

overall on-farm employment and its various

components, namely on-farm

wage

employment,

on-farm

non-wage

(self) employment, and, dairying and poultry, have been discussed

between the two states.
both

in

Bihar,

respect
and,

predominantly

of

then

Further, this analysis has been extended

each of the sample villages of Punjab and
between

predominantly

non-agricultural

labour

agricultural

households.

This

and
is

followed by a discussion of wage-paid on-farm employment on daily

basis,
paid

wherein the relative significance of each source of wageon-farm

employment on daily basis is brought out.

In each

discussion, earnings (total as well as per manday) and employment

are

set

out side by side so that Punjab and Bihar differentials

are brought out in clear perspective.

Level of On-Farm Employment/Earnings

Before
to

taking up our hypotheses, we consider it useful

compare the overall position of Punjab labour households vis-

a-vis

their

on-farm
values
earnings

Bihar counterparts in respect of their total yearly

employment/earnings
of

different
for

all

and

its

various components.

Mean

components of total on-farm employment and

sample

households

of

Punjab

and Bihar are

detailed in Table 4.1.

101
Table

4.1

Pattern of On-Farm Employment and Earnings of

Labour
Households
in Punjab and Bihar
<Mean Value.Per Annum)

Sl.
No.

Employment/Earning
Source
2

1.

Variable

l-<Jage Emp 1 oyment

Emp
Ern
Epd
PF'R

Non-Wage Employment

Emp
Ern
Epd
PPF:

3.

4.

Dairying and Poultry

Total On-Farm
Employment

Emp:
Ern:
Epd:
PPR:

5.

di

6.

7.

310.62
(73.67)
2782.51
(74.47)
8.96
87.33
3.18
(0.75)
21.56
(0.58)
- 6.78
18.67

386.08
(84.39)
2048.37
(90.43)
5.31
93.67

-19.55

13. 13
(2.87)
92.38
( 4. 08) '
7.04
71.00

Ern

932.36

Epd
PPF:

<24.95)
8.65
82. IZHZJ

58.30
(12.74)
124.36
(5.49)
2.13
67.67

421.62
( 1 00. 00)
3736.43
(100.00)
8.86
92.33

457.51
(100.0(2))
2265.12
( 1 0 0 . 1Zl 0 )
4.95
97.33

Emp

Differential
(di)

107.83
(25.58)

Epd
PPR
1.
2.
3.
4.

Bihar
<BHF:i)'

Emp

Ern

NOTE:

Punjab
<PJBi)

35.84
68.74

-75.78
-76.66
-3.69

84.96
649.73
306.10

-7.84
64.96
78.99

Employment in Mandays (1 Manday = 8 hours)

Total Earnings (in Rs.)
Earning Per Manday of Employment
Percentage of Positive Response
F'JBi - BHRi
-------------

BHF:i
Value of ith component of total On-Farm Employment/
Earnings
Figures in the parentheses are percentage of the total
On-Farm Employment/Earnings
i

--These Notations

are

used in the subsequent Chapters as well.

:1.

102

It

is

clear

that

about

97.0 per cent of our sample

households in Bihar are engaged in on-farm employment of one type

of

or the other, compared with a slightly low figure of 92.0 per

cent

in

Punjab.

mandays

of

It is interesting to note that while

on-farm

employment

man-days) compared with

(457.51

position is

household
on-farm

in

Punjab

higher

relatively

in

as regards per household and

A non-cultivating

employment

in

from on-farm employment is

Punjab over Bihar.

greater

disposition

on-farm

total

(421 .62 mandays), the

rural labour

is earning nearly 65.0 per cent

earning

t~e

higher in Bihar

employment than its counterpart in Bihar.

, ,day

cent

slightly

Punjab

diametrically opposite

per manday of on-farm earnings.

per

are

This

of

activities

by

Consequently,
nearly 79.0 per

clearly shows that a

time

work

more from

and mandays of
Bihar

household

notwithstanding, the growing and dynamic agriculture of Punjab is

comparatively. more remunerative and is capable of increasing the
level of earnings much faster than in Bihar.
Let
To

begin

sample

is

with,

we

households

slightly
the

us look into the components of on-farm employment.

discover
is

about

that in Bihar, the involvement of

94.0

per

cent,

compared

with a

lower figure of about 87.0 per cent in Punjab as far as

most dominant constituent viz. wage-paid on-farm

concerned.

employment

In other words, on an average, a Punjab household

is putting in about 20.0 per cerit less effort in this type of onfarm
to

employment,
its

yet earning nearly 36.0 per cent more compared

counterpart

in Bihar.

The most striking feature of the

.
10J
differential earnings between the Punjab and the Bihar households
is

on the basis of earnings per manday of employment, the

that

average
the

Punjab household is nearly 70.0 per cent better off than

one

in

employment,
tends

to

mandays
However,
point

viz.
give

of

cultivation
wheat

as well as per household and per day earnings.

is

this

by

is

leased-in

land,

derived only as

the fast disappearing

paddy.

cent of sample
employment

of

and

tiny

pieces

of

land,

gathering the remains of

while in Punjab, this type of

a marginal activity, confined to

practice of gathering the remains of wheat

4.1

Table

is important to

source of on-farm employment in Bihar is

self-cultivation

of

It

more apparent than real.

and paddy after harvesting;

employment

and

(self) employment, a Bihar household

the impression of slight superiority in terms of

that

contributed

regards the other component of on-farm

non-wage

work

this
out

As

Bihar.

clearly shows that only about 18.0 per

households in Punjab are pursuing such sources of

against

as

high as 71.0 per cent in Bihar.

In any

case, a

relatively higher time spent on such activities in Bihar

but

much lower on dairying and poultry compared with Punjab,

brin~

out

pattern.

the

still

Rs.

spends

compared
more

earnings

weaknesses

of

the Bihar employment

On an average, the Punjab non-cultivating rural

households
poultry

structural

sharp

between

932.36

nearly

108 mandays in a year on dairying and

with only
if

we

Punjab

labour

Sa

in Bihar.

The differences become

compare per household and per day net

and Bihar. The figures

and Rs. 8.65 respectively, while these

for Punjab are

are only Rs.

104
and

124.36

employment

Rs.
and

2.13
earning

of

private

investment

lending

being

total

Punjab

out

households
only

67.0 2

has

dairy

higher

in Punjab through a
greatly

facilitated

The institutional

enterprises.

households have succeeded in augmenting their

to

that

much

in

our

greater
sample,

extent.
about

per cent in Bihar (Table 4.1).

through

fairly big
as

created

measures

The

Bihar.

It is worthwhile

82.0

per

cent

of

in Punjab are engaged in dairying and poultry against

employment

and,

in

for

relatively more effective in Punjab compared with

earnings

pointing

potential

institutional

series

Bihar, the

respectively

dairying

and

In fact,

income and

poultry enterprises occupy a

chunk of the total employment and earnings in Punjab,

many

studies

show,

have the effect of mollifying the

severity of overall income distribution in rural Punjab 3 .

The Villagewise Pattern

In the preceding analysis, we have compared the overall

position

of

Punjab

and

Bihar

labour

households in terms

of

2.

It
may be clarified here that in Bihar, percentage of
positive responses for earnings from dairying and poultlry
was higher than those for employment from this source.
It
is owing to the fact that in 15 sample households (all
belonging to PALH group in the discussion to follow), either
the working members while carrying out the work for their
employers on attached
basis were also tending their own
cattle or some local relative_while looking after the cattle
of the entire village was doing this job.

3.

See, for example, G.S. Bhalla and G.K. Chadha (1983); "Green
Revolution and the Small Peasant : A Study of Income
Distribution--among Punjab Cultivators"~ Concept Publishing
Company, New Delhi, Chapter 4, Table 4.5, p. 90.

105

discussion

is

that

different

household

in

the

components

yearly

total

on-farm

matter
of

of

on-farm

accrual

earnings

of

employment,

labour

in Punjab is far better placed than its counterpart in

Bihar.

We

may

pattern

of

on-farm

living

near

now

the

test our three hypotheses by comparing the

employment/earnings

focal

town

as

also

of

labour

households

away from it in the two

For this purpose;, the villagewise pattern of different

states.

components of on-farm
households

is

concreteness
effect

their

One broad conclusion that emerges from our

employment/earnings.

from

of

components

different

of

employment/earnings of Punjab-Bihar labour

presented
to

our

in Table

findings,

distance

is

worked

4.2.

To

lend

statistical

for most of the components, the

out

through linear statistical

relations such as:

Y.

=~+foD.J

Where

'Y.

employment/income,
sample
and

villages,
the

measures

is

the

observed

component

cross-sectionally

of

among

on-farm
the eight

'D.' is the distance between the 'jth' village

J

designated focal town,

the

ith

effect

of

'()('

distance.

is the intercept and '.fo '

Table

4.2

throws up many

interesting features.
I

Firstly,

a word about the extent of involvement in on-

farm employment (variable PPR under Sr. No. 4, Table

4~2).

As we

move away from the focal town, the rural labour households extend
their dependence on on-farm employment nearly completely.

Beyond

Table 4.2 Villagewise Pattern of On-Farm Employment and Earnings of Labour Households in Punjab and Bihar
(Mean Value Per Annum)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------v
A
6
E
Reoression Equation
No. of
L
L
Yi
-=
tX.
+
fi
Dj
Observations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sl. Employment/Earning Variable State

No. Source

V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

VB

(Nl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.

10

11

12

13

14

----------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

l.

Wage Elllplovment

Emp

PJB

BHR
di
Ern

PJB
BHR
di

Epd

PPR

177.14
(58.42)
289.88
(85.09)
-38.89

209.72
!71. 08)
261.86
!73. 89)
-3.29

247.47
(70.14)
470.62
(87.35)
-47.37

324.14
!72.14)
481.14
!89.20)
-32.63

310.91
!67 .06)
496.40
(85.60)
-37.37

368.94 455.83 448.96

(77.48) (79, 70 !78.42)
348.15 464.39 446.88
(81. 27l (86.52) (87.06)
-1.84
5.97
0.47

1677.54 1907.33 2276.34 2862.67 2858.74 3345.84 3885.74 3836.43

(69.26) !72.44) (66.34) i73.02l !68.65) !79. 34) (82.50) (79.85)
1722.80 1266.97 2546.20 2435.80 2706.63 1895.45 2289.77 2245.46
(87.40) (76.58) (93. 37l !93.92) (90.72) (88.04) (95.37) (95.15)
-2.63
-10.60
17.52
69.70
7it85
50.54
5.62
76.52

Yi = 223.43 + 14.74* D
[4. 7~
Yi = 363.73 + 4.66 D
[2.05)

262

Yi = 2154.62+ 114.90*D
(4.34]
Yi = 2122.25+ 6.220
[0.581

262

PJB

9.47

9.09

9.19

8.83

9.19

9.07

8.52

8.55

Yi =

BHR

5.94

5.87

5.41

5.06

5.45

5.44

4.93

5.03

Yi =

di

59.43

54.86

69.87

74.51

68.62

66.73

72.82

69.98

PJB
BHR

76.19
76.92

70.21
78.38

89.79
96.15

71.43
100.00

86.96
100.00

90.48
95.29

H~lt00

100.00

100.00
1BIU0

10.34 - 0.0a*o
[-3.86]
6.05 - 0.05*o
[-6.081

281

281

262
281
~

0\

...
'I

Non-wage Employeent

Yi = 13.78 + 0.33D
[1.19]
Yi = 20.89 - 0.24D

I1.85!
14.14.
.12.62)
-41.37

5.~8
3.13
5.37
(0.661 !8.941 10.871
t6.36 .18.68 10.75
13.82! (1. 99) 12.89)
-80.87 -49.72 -53.49

11.33
(0.33)
56.50
12.071
-79.95

47.86
(1.22)
109.46
14.221
-56.28

32.87
10.J9l
62.27.
12.091
-47.21

32.81
36.69
21.10
10.50! (0.78) (0.68!
62.40
50.65
120.52
15.601 (2.60! 12.151
-82.49 -41.20 -35 22

8.54

11.03

8.64

8.61

8.17

7. 11

7.89

Yi =

8.51

8.73

6.41

7.74

5.91

7.37

5.84

4.71

Yi =

di

-31.26

-2.18

72.07

11.63

45.69

10.85

21.75

67.52

PPR

PJB
BHR

14.29
65.38

10.64
64.86

14.10
65.36

42.86
85.71

26.09
73.33

17.46
74.12

28.57
73.68

26.92
67.31

E11p

PJB

123.76
140.811
37.19
!10. 921
232.78

83.49
!28.30)
61.92
!21.10)
34.84

103.72
129.381

116.86
126.01!
44.14
18.181
164.75

147.83
131.881
73.00
112.591
102.51

724.14
!29.901
132.38
16.72)
447.02

712.91 1143.65 1809.71 1272.48

133.33) !25. 76! m.56l
!27. 081
48.34
214.51
124.38
259.15
(7 .191
I1.86!
(15.661
14.56!
493.20
819.48 1988.77
175.10

PJB

13.62
13.99)
-82.89

1.83
!0.621
14.70
15.01)
-87.55

1.69
!0.481
8.81
I1. 641
-80.82

di

20.38
10.84)
115.94
!5.88)
-82.42

12.72
(0.48!
128.37
17.761
-90.09

PJB

5.85

BHR

2.33
11'1.771

BHR
di
Erm

PJB
BHR

Epd

3. Dairying and Poultry

8.2~

4.91
11.06)
10.53
(1.81)
-53.37

Emp

BHR
di
Ern

PJB
BHR
di

59.35

!11.011
74.76

104.10 110.74
!21.86) 119.36)
61.66
63.87
(14.91) 111.491
62.99
79.60

118.58
120. 7ll
55.69
110.851
112.93

850.05 787.80 935.65

!20.161 I16. 72J 119. 47J
63.69
13Ul0
48.81
16.36) (2.03) 12. 78)
520.47 1514.01 1369.67

56
213

[-1.46]

Yi = 99.74- !. 590

56

[0. B~J

Yi = 185.19- 5.45'0
[-3.01]
7.43- 0.050
[-!.47J
8.30 - 0.18 D
[-3.19]

213

56

213

Vi = 135.44 - 0.540
H.07J
Yi = 78.04 + 0.860
[ 1. 46]

246

Vi = 1313.42 - 19.820
H.41J
Yi = 290.15- 11.74 D
[-2.46]

246

201

216

......
0

"""

4. Total On-Farm
Employment

Epd

PJB

5.85

8.54

11.03

8.64

8.61

8.17

7.11

7.89

BHR

3.56

4.19

2.10

1. :a

2.94

2.14

0.79

1.14

di

64.33

103.82

425.24

685.45

192.86

281.78

800.00

592.11

PPR

PJB
BHR

90.48
53.85

63.83
72.97

78.21
69.23

101L00
76.19

95.65
93.33

80.95
65.88

88.57
65.79

96.15
63.46

Emp

PJB

303.24
IH!0.001
340.69
!100.00)
-10.99

295.04
1100.001
293.49
1100.001
0.53

!100.00)
538.77
I100.001
-34.47

449.29
1100.00)
539.43
(103.001
-16.71

463.65
1100.00)
579.93
1100.001
-20.05

476.16
1100.001
428.39
!100.00)
11.15

571. 9~
1100.00)
536.74
!100.001
6.56

572.54
1100.001
513.33
!100.001
-11. 53

BHR
di
Ern

PJB
BHR
di

Epd

PJB

353.~8

2422.06 2632.97 3431.33 3920.24 4164.08 4216.99 4710.22 4804.89

1100.001 1100.001 I100.001 1101U0J I100.001 !100. 00) !100.00) 1100.00)
1971.13 1654.49 2727.08 2593.60 2983.41 2152.98 2400.97 2359.80
1100.00) I100.001 I100.00) I100. 00) I100.00) 1100.001 1100.00) I100.00)
22.88
59.14
25.82
5!.15
39.57
95.87
96.18 103.61
7.99

8.92

9.72

8.73

8.98

8.86

8.24

8.39

Yi =

8.81 - 0.100

Yi..-=

2.64- 0.11 D
[-2.32)

246

H.llil
I

16.26*D
[5.02,.)
Yi = 389.09 + 7.99 D
[3.30]

Yi = 313.30

Yi = 3023.24 +116.09* D

201

277
292

277

[3.57J

Yi = 2202.28 + !2.33D
Ul8J

292

8.74 - 0.020

277

Yi =

[0.5~

PPR

BHR

5.79

5.64

5.06

4.81

5.14

5.03

4.47

4.60

di

38.00

58.16

92.09

81.50

74.71

76.14

84.34

82.39

PJB

90.48
96.15

78.72
91.89

9!. 03
96.15

100.00
11lilJ.00

100.00
100.00

93.65
96.47

100.00

100.00
100.00

BHR

100.00

Yi =

6.38 - 0.11 D
[-5.221

292

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NOTE:

1.

An explanations of various notations such as Emp, Ern, Epd, PPR, PJB, BHR and di is given in Table 4.1
Yi = the value of ith coaponent of Total On-.farnt Eaployment/EarninQs
><:=intercept i.e. th~ value of Ywhen the effect of the distance is- neutralised
.fo = eeasures the slope
Oj = distance b~tNeen a particular village and the urhan focul town
Figures in (
J are the percentages of Total On-Fant Ewplo);aent/Earnings
Figures in (
J are 't' values
B. denotes the significance of 't' valu::s at ~5.0 per cEnt level c:f cnnfidence
9. Notaticns used in this Table arG used in the subsEouent Chanters as M~ll _
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
i.

....0
(X)

109
a

certain

distance,

household

in

on-farm

involvement

involvement

employment

notwithstanding.

of

is

This

each
must,

rural
the

labour

degree of

is true both in Punjab and

Secondly, the per household mandays of on-farm employment

Bihar.
go

the

on increasing, both in Punjab and Bihar, as we move into the

interior

of

the

countryside.

The

statistical functions give

significant

regression

co-efficients.

importantly,

Punjab

Bihar represent sharp contrasts in the

matter

of

while
with

per

per

and

household

household

distance

in

and

earnings

Punjab;

in

Thirdly

per day earnings.

and

most

For instance,

from on-farm employment increase

Bihar,

on

the

other hand, the

increase

in per household earnings with increase in rural-urban

distance

is

hypothesis

not

regarding

employment

in

confirmation
the

case

rural

Bihar

rejects

relationship
distance

increasing

As

importance

such,
of

the

on-farm

in Punjab; while its validity cannot be stressed in

is
in

the

significant.

villages away from the focal town, gets empirical

of Bihar.

employment
distance

statistically

not

much

Punjab,
earn
part

Again, while per day earnings from on-farm

the

affected by the intervening effect of

labour

significantly

households in the interior of

less

on per day basis.

as

regards

the

This

of

our

hypothesis

between

per

day earning of on-farm employment and

from the focal town in the case of Punjab.

The

inverse

patter~

of per day earning in Bihar can be explained by the fact that the
phenomenon of daily commutation to nearby towns ceases to operate
beyond a certain distance with its obvious effect

on per day on-

110
farm

earnings.

commutation
from
a

In

Punjab,

on

the

other hand, the process of

does not get diluted even upto a fairly big distance

the focal town.

In other words, in the case of Bihar, with

decrease in rural urban proximity, the pull force of the urban

areas

becomes

the

less

labour

operative and total on-farm

households

is

more

employment for

intimately

tied

up

with

agricultural activities as such.

We

now

look

employment/earnings.
of

sample

higher
equally

Both

households

as

we move

distanced

involvement

of

at
in

in

the

components

rural

on-farm

Punjab and Bihar, the involvement

wage-employment

away from the focal

pair

of

of

Punjab

component

town.

and

labour households

However, between

Bihar
in

becomes

villages, the

this component is

higher in Bihar villages compared with equally distanced villages

in

Punjab.

This

suggests

relatively higher dependence of

Bihar households on this category of employment.

type

of

(wage-paid on-farm) employment, the mandays of work per

household
the

keep

interior;

uniformly
village

on increasing in both the states as we move into

for

each

village

in

Punjab, and

Bihar,

relative importance of
households,

the

mandays

are

equally distanced

lastly, as we move away

Bihar villages becomes smaller.

labour

in

higher compared with a more or less

town, the difference in mandays of

and

Again, for this

from the focal

employment between the Punjab

In other words, in terms of

wage-paid on-farm employment to the rural

the villages in the interior whether in the

111

advanced

state of Punjab or the slow growing areas of Bihar

are

lends confirmation to

our

quite

structurally

employment

empirical
out
from

This

implying a positive association between wage-paid on

hypotfiesis
farm

similar.

and

rural-ruban

confirmation

of

Inspite

distance.

of

the

relationship, it needs to be pointed

that Punjab villages near the focal town are quite different
their counterparts in Bihar.

earning

from

increases
pattern

this

in

(wage-paid

Punjab

but

is

But then

the total household

source

on-farm)

of employment

in Bihar.

unaffected

The Bihar

seems to emerge because, to an extent, the wage-payments

especially

to the attached farm servants are still determined by

traditional
earning

ties rather than by economic forces.

declines

as

Again, per day

we shift away from the focal town, both in

Punjab and Bihar.

It is indeed an interesting pattern ~inasmuch:--:,

as

of

the

higher,

..._

mandays
in

employment are less but per day earning is

villages

explanation

is

near

that

in

the

the

households

have

relatively

including

the

possibility

agricultural
however,

as

the

'

focal

villages
greater
of

towns.
near

The

plausible

the towns, labour

prospects of employability

higher

wage

rates

jobs.

both

in

well

as

non-agricultural

Undoubtedly,

cushion

of

high wage rate is available much more

sharply to all villages in Punjab compared with those in Bihar.

A
that

deserves

household
to

feature

special

earnings

village;

about

in

this

mention

category of on-farm employment

is

that

while

in

Bihar, per

register very wide fluctuations from village

Punjab,

on

the

other hand, they tend to rise

112

uninterruptedly
While

general

last

village

patent

as

we move

dynamism
not

from the first village to the last.

of Punjab agriculture, operating in the

much

less

intensively

as in the first is a

explanation for the systematically rising pattern in this

state, part of the explanation lies in differences in the mode of

wage

payment

servants.

in

tiny

level

latter
smaller

such

cash,

plot

fluctuating
low

the two states especially to the attached farm

While

generally
free

in

farm

labourers

they are commonly paid in

of

cultivable

fortunes

of

land

in

bound

than

to

be

terms of a rent-

Bihar.

And given the

agriculture as also the operation of a

of production technology in

are

in Punjab receive wages

more

Bihar, earnings from the

fluctuating,

less certain and

the contractual cash wage payment available in the

rural Punjab.
The
Punjab

superiority

over

wage-paid

in

Bihar

assertively through

an

alternative

Intuitively,

be

picture,
sample

that

of

it

say

may

can

rewarding

on-farm employment in
be

to

established

more

method

of

analysis.

compare

the

aggregate

at the village level or perhaps averaged over

villages, between Punjab and Bihar.

all

For this purpose, we

arrive at the village-level figures of employment and earnings by

blowing
the

up

average

households)
households

the

mean household level figures; for each village,

household-level

fig~re

(computed

from the sample

has been multiplied by the total number of relevant

in the village.

This gives us figure for the village

11J

as

whole.

area

of

This village-level figure divided by gross cropped

the

village

between

Punjab

and

overall

estimates

gives us the +igure in a shape comparable

In

Bihar.
for

all

a similar way, we have derived

villages

taken

together

It needs to be clarified here that the

Punjab and Bihar.

each for
totals

of employment and earnings in Punjab also include the figures for

the

migrant

labour.

The results of this exercise are given in

Appendix Table A-4.1.

Before
caution

needs

households,
included

to

proceed
borne

over

and

to

in

analyse our results, a note of

mind.

above

the

It

is

possible that some

labour households purposively

in our sample, might also be working as farm labourers,

though

for

figure

in

wage

we

short intervals only.

our sample,

employment

are

our blown-up
slightly

under~estimation
'.

should

picture

two

of

the

exclusively

to

superiority

is,

estimates of total on-farm

however,
in

Punjab

households do not

underestimated.

not,

states

the

Since such

distort

The degree of
the

relative

as much as the problem relates

households

where

in any case, of a very high order

the

absolute

~ompared

with

the situation in Bihar.

Appendix
village
higher

in

Bihar,

compared

reverse
area. For

Table

4.1

shows

that

practically for each

labour use per acre of gross cropped area is

with

its

counterpart in Punjab.

However, the

is true in the matter earnings per unit of gross cropped

instance, labour-use per acre of gross cropped area in

114
Punjab

is nearly 29.0 per cent lower than that in Bihar, but the

level

of

than

earnings

in

in the former is nearly 23.0 per cent higher

b 1.
latter on per acre of gross cropped area~ T~e

the

phenomenon

of

lower

mandays

of employment and higher level of

earnings per unit of gross cropped area may be attributed

higher
such
is

level
as

of

farm

mechanisation especially for

ploughing, harvesting and threshing, etc.

the

strength

employment

of

Punjab

basis

is

comparatively

progressive areas of Punjab

In
also,
is

the

matter

much

in

from

well as on 'time
in

the

than in backward Bihar.

of

on-farm non-wage (self) employment

the distantly located villages

villages

However, it

productive

involvement of sample households in

higher

nearby

the

operations

agriculture that wage-paid on-farm

on per acre of total cropped are as

criterion'

to the

the

focal

town.

Punjab and Bihar

compared with the

Between the Punjab and

Bihar villages at nearly comparable distances, the involvement is

much

higher

villages.
looks
the

in

of

As pointed out

the

Bihar

household

puts in
earnings

villages.

over the Punjab

Punjab counterpart inras much as

former

villages

earlier, a Bihar household apparently

have an edge over l~

to

located

most

more labour and earns a higher level of per

both

in

the

nearby

as

well as distantly

However, as far as per day earning from this

employment cate9ory is concerned, we can observe that even though

it

is

much lower in Punjab villages (Rs. 5.85) in the immediate

proximity
decline

of
as

the
we

focal

town,

yet, on ,an average, it tends to

move into the interior. In Bihar also, a more or

115

less declining pattern of earning per day is discernible.

between
the

Punjab and Bihar villages at comparable proximities from

focal

than

in

focal

town, while earnings per day are higher in the latter

the

town,

villages.
Bihar

Again,

former
the

villages in the immediate proximity of the

reverse

is

suggests

This

villages

is

true

that

relatively

in

the

decrease

distantly

located

in per day earning in

more sharper than Punjab when we

move away from the focal town in the rural areas.

As

observed

earlier

in

this

chapter,

a relatively

greater time spent in such activities in Bihar but a much smaller

in

dairying

structural
village
rural

and

to

households
in

counterpart
throw

each

in
up

inter-village

the

and

focal

reveals

the
A

from

poultry

in

involved in dairying and poultry

neat

of

Punjab

compared

with

its

and systematic pattern in terms of

deviations.

In

fact,

employment/earnings

in

poultlry are not affected as much by distance from

as

by

lending,
etc.

clearly

in

Punjab,

The picture on dairying and poultry does

very

town

facilities,

are
village

Bihar.

institutional

higher

with

village comparison shows that a higher percentage of

labour

dairying

compared

weaknesses of on-farm employment pattern in Bihar.

practically

not

poultry

However,

Table
total

villages

4.2.
on-farm
near

other

extraneous

availability
a

of

factors
milk

as

collection

few broad features emerge fairly

Firstly,

the

share of dairying and

employment/earnings
the

such

town

compared

is

relatively

with distant'1_.ly

116
located
Bihar

villages.
villages,

from

Secondly,
the

between

each pair of Punjab and

proportion of employment/earnings accruing

dairying and poultry are much higher in the former compared

with

the

latter.

This

employment/earnings
households
well

as

is

compared
away

from
this

Bihar,

the

distance

almost

the

more

pattern

of on-farm

diversified for Punjab

Bihar households in villages near

as

the focal town. Again, the level of per day

from

households

that

relatively

with

earning

notwithstanding.

shows

source is uniformly higher in Punjab than in

of

village

from

the

focal

town

Further, given the higherjnvaivement of Punjab

compared with those in Bihar in dairying and poultry,

in all pairs of Punjab-Bihar villages, it is obvious that

'dairying
economic

and

poultry', is comparatively a much more lucrative

proposition for Punjab households than those for Bihar.

The relatively low proportion of employment/earning from dairying

and
near

poultry
the

in the interior of the countryside than in villages

town

employment

is

strengthens
the

most

our

belief

dominant

that agricultural wage

component

of rural on-farm

employment/earnings in extremely remote villages.

On-Farm Employment/Earnings of PALH and PNLH Groups
We

have

looked

into

the

pattern

employment/earnings from yet another standpoint.

our

sample

rural

labour

of

on-farm

we have divided

households into two broad categories:

predominantly agricultural labour households (hereafter PALH) and

predominantly

non-agricultural

labour

households

(hereafter

117
PNLH).
more

To recapitulate, the rural labour households which derive

than

50.0

agricultural

sources

which

have

provide

designated

wage

4
PALH .

as

income from
The

two-way

above lines offers an opportunity to see

degree

of dependence on agricultural wage

the

major

of

wherewithal

their

living.

The

agrarian reality in India is gradually causing a shift

rural

category

labour.households

under the impact of

hand,

and,

the

rural

as

employments,
natural

to

witnessed
would

total

employment and income of those rural households

high

them

the

one

of

are
the

their

of

against those which have non-agricultural sources to

changing
of

on

employment

cent

labour

classification
the

per

expect

that

currently

in

fair

better

employment.

in

The

employment/income

agricultural transformation on the

rising
well
in

as
the

certain
terms

present
differences

from the PALH category to PNLH

of

avenues
urban,

of

non-agricultural

on

the other.

transitional

It is

phase, as being

parts of India, the PNLH group

more

section

productive
seeks

between

the

to
PALH

sources
examine

of
the

and the PNLH

groups.
Table
for
need

the

two

to

differences

4.3

groups

be

presents some aspects of on-form employment

of households.

underlined.

In particular, some points

Firstly,

in the pattern of on-farm

there

are

significant

employment/earning levels

of

PALH and PNLH groups of Punjab, compared with those of Bihar.

4.

The classification of these households has been rigorously

defined in chapter II of the present study.

Table 4. 3 Pattern of On-l .... rm Employment and Earnings of P ALH

and PNLH Groups in Punjab and Bihar (Mean Value Per .Annum)
118
Sl:.
No.

Employment/
Earning source

State

PALH

PNlH

ALL

1.

Variable

Emp

Wage
Employment

PJB

BHR
di
PJB

Ern

BHR
di
Edp

PJB

BHR
di
PJB

PPR

BHR

2.

SelfEmployment

PJB

Emp

BHR
di
Ern

PJB

BHR

499.21
(80.01)
439.08
(85.67)
13.69
4397. 61~
(79.61}
2311.10
(92.51)
90.28

di

Dairying
Poultry

,. ..

arid

245. 15

100.00
100,00

72.26
60.42

87.33
93.42

12.74
( 2. 49}
-64,21
30.74

( o. 56)
82.16

-62.59

245. 15

-11.72
-15. 16

1. 53
( 0.85}
15.15
( 8,98)
-89.90

3.18

193.04

1.3.13

-15.91

10,63

21.56

le9.18

146.05
( 14. 03)
-92.72

92.38

-43.75

6.78

- 2. 74-

( o. 66)

6.74
6.45
4.50

-28.11

6.93
9.64

7. 04

24.54
91.67

11.68
62,50

18,67
87.00

120,18
( 19. 26)
60.70
( 11.84)
97.99

93. 13
(51.48)
45.71
(27.10)
103.74

107.83

29.05

58. 30

32.79

1095.52
(19.83).
105. 04
( 4. 20)
942.96

738. 23
(45.86)
225.83
( 21. 70)
226.90

932.36

48.40

124. 36

-53.49

di

9.12
1. 73
427. 17

7.93
4.94
60.53

8.65
2.13

15.01
-64.98

PPR

PJB
BH.>t

91.41
70.24

72.26
54.17

62.00
67.67

Elllp

PJB

180.89

421. 62

244.93

457.51

203.83

1609.72 3736.43
( 100, 00)
1040.90 2265.12
( 100, 00)
54.65

243.16

BHR

PPR

PJB
'BHR

Emp

PJB

,.

di

Ern

PJB

BHH
di
Epd

PJB

BHR

Total On-Farm
Employment

860.86 278 2. 57
(53. 48)
669.02 2048. 37
( 64. 27)
28.67
5.31

PJB

BHR

4.

3C'f7. 20

8. 96

di

3.

386.08

1W.s.:,

( 63. 92)
- 20.03

6.20
60.97

( 3. 29)

Epd

478.93

9.98

4.56

310,62

86.23
(47.67)

8,81
5. 26
67.49

( o. 7 3)

di

BHR
di
Ern

PJB

BHR
di
Epd

PJB

5523.91
( 100. 00)
2498.30
( 100, 00)
121. 11

( 100. 00)

168,69
( 100. 00)

7.23

di

8.85
4,87
81.72

6.90
6.17
44.25

8.86
4. 95

PJB

100,00

83.21

92.33

BHR

100, 0(!

83.33

97.33

BHR
PPR

623.95
( 100. 00)
512. 53
( 100, 00)
21.74

-33.09

140.01

- 0.56
-21.07

--------------------------------------- ... ---- -- -------------------------- -NOTE :

1.
2.

For an explanation of various notations Emp, Ern, Epd, PPR,

di, please refer to Table 4.1.
'

P ALH i

- PN Ui i

di

------------------------

3.

Value of i th Component,

4,

bi~!:!!~.s in the parentheses are the perc('n:r-~rcs c:

n

PNLHi

t ~

E1!1ploylnent/Earnings,

119
In

the case of PALH group,

higher
its

dependence on

Punjab

group's

and

wage-paid on-farm employment compared with

counterpart,

involvement

terms,

Bihar scenario reflects a relatively

in

while

the

reverse is true about the

dairying and poultry.

In more concrete

while about 86.0 per cent of the total on-farm employment

nearly 93.0 per cent of on-farm earnings for the PALH group

Bihar

in

are

approximately
same

derived
80.0

in

group

from

per

agricultural wages alone, against

cent of employment and earnings for the

Punjab,

the

group's

earning from dairying and

poultry is a petty figure of 4.0 per cent

nearly
group

20.0
of

per cent in Punjab. It is thus clear that the

Punjab

lucrative

in Bihar compared with

has

more

diversified

PALH

and relatively more

structure of on-farm employment, not to speak of their

non-farm

employment which we propose to take up in the following

chapter.

It

is, therefore, no surprise that per day earning of

the Punjab PALH group from dairying and poultry (i.e. Rs.9.12) is
mani-fold

higher

compared

with

its counterpart in Bihar (i.e.

Rs.1.73 only).
In

the

matter of per day earning from wage-employment

(as agricultural labour), the PALH group in Punjab was better off
than

the one in Bihar, to the tune of about 70.0 per cent.

matter

of

between

available
to

fact, the differentials in wage rates would be higher

the

relatively

As a

Punjab and Bihar PALH groups if we keep in mind the

higher

mandays

of

employment

per

year

(499.21)

to the Punjab households compared with those available

their Bihar counterparts (439.08).

Summing over the decisive

120
edge of Punjab
agricultural
level

is

(Rs.8.85

in

wage-employment,

of total on-farm

earning

Not

households

markedly

dairying and poultry as

we

clearly

employment, the
in

favour

of

well

as

discover that at the

differential in per day

the

PALH

group of Punjab

and Rs.4.87 per day in Punjab and Bihar, respectively).

only

that

the

per

day earning is nearly twice as much in

Punjab as in Bihar, the mandays of yearly on-farm employment also

are

failry higher in the former than in the latter.

picture
as

shows

regards

The overall

many concrete advnatages of the Punjab households

the

employment time as well as per day earning from

each component of the on-farm employment.

It is equally important to underline that like the PALH
group,
with
day

the
the

PNLH group in Punjab fares much better in comparison

same in Bihar.

earning from dairying and poultry

employment
PNLH

In particular, the differential in per

from

total

on-farm

reveals a significantly better position of the Punjab

group.

bestows

or

In

more

brief,

fast

growing agriculture of Punjab

productive .employment

opportunities not only on

those households which are largely dependent on agricultural wage

employment
structure

but
of

also

on

those

employment.

The

which

have a more diversified

latter group thus enjoys larger

benefits of non-farm employment without being devoid of what they

can

chip-off

multiplicity

from agriculture as well.

of

supplementation
thus

solid

For the PNLH group, the

employment opportunities, in particular, income

accruing

gains

arising

to

them
out

of

through on-farm earnings are

the

Green

Revolution that

121
overtook
shows

the

rural Punjab since the late sixties.

Our analysis

that such benefits to rural labour households of Bihar are

yet to accrue on any significant scale.

Secondly,
employment
while

is

in

earning

the

Bihar,

can

per

day

earning

total

on-farm

latter group enjoys a much higher per day

to

the

former.

The equal per day earning in

perhaps

be

explained. by

growing

agriculture

in

the

labour,

real

fairly high per day earning from

to

accrue

is concerned.

the

fact that the fast

state throws up lots of demand for

increase in agricultural

seems

from

same between PALH and PNLH groups in Punjab,

the

compared

Punjab

the

wages and consequently a

on-farm employment.
PNLH

to

No special

group, as far as per day

The relatively higher time involvement of

in on-farm employment is not a disadvantage to those

households

which

employment.
accrue

In

depend
a

earnings

from agricultural

discriminately against those who depend more on it.

of

agricultural

benefits

of

higher

depend largely

on

major

from

incomes

out~ome

decisive

per

on

broad sense, per day on-farm earnings do not

dynamics

from

more

of

transformation in Punjab thus bestows

employment and earnings both on those which

agriculture as well as those which draw their
non-agricultural

agricultural

disa~vantage

dynamics

of those who

agricultural employment is
day

earning

The

from

employment.
in

Punjab.

This is the
In Bihar, the

subsist largely on earnings

clearly discernible inasmuch as

on-farm employment of the PNLH group is

Rs.6.17 compared with Rs.4.87 for the PALH group.

122
On-Farm Employment/Earnings on Daily Basis
In

the

preceding section, an attempt was made to look

into the pattern of overall on-farm

important

variations

in

the

employment/ earnings.

pattern

of on-farm

A few

employment/

earnings were observed betwen the two states.

the

Among
discussed

above,

three

the

components

wage-paid

of

on-farm

employment

component is indeed of extreme

importance to the type of households we are dealing with. It may,

therefore, be in the
into

this

aspect

source

could

of

on-farm

employment.

be to examine the proportion

employment/earnings
villages

fitness of things to look a bit more deeply

obtained

One very important

of wage-paid on-farm

on daily against regular basis, by

in the close vicinity of the urban-focal town and those

far out in the interior, by PALH group against PNLH group, and so
on.
daily

The

present section analyses some aspects of employment on

basis,

as

proportion

of

total

wage-paid

on-farm

employment.

An attempt is made to see if there exist significant

variations

in wage-paid agricultural employment/earning on daily

basis

as

proportion

earnings,

(a)

distanced

pair

between
of

of total wage-paid on-farm employment/

Punjab

and

Punjab and Bihar

Bihar,

(b) between equally

villages, and,

(c) between

PALH and PNLH groups of the two study areas.

To
our

begin with, we propose to look into the validity of

hypothesis

that

employment/earnings

attempts
on

daily

to visualise higher incidence of

basis

in total wage-paid on-farm

123

employment/earnings
Bihar.
of

In

this

on-farm

labour

in

employment

are

on daily basis prevalent among the rural

agricultural

more

as

labour)

employment and our

a mixture of agricultural labour households and

other rural labour households.

employment

compared with those in

To recapitulate, we are discussing wage-paid

(essentially

respondents

villages

regard, Table 4.4 introduces us to the degree

households.

on-farm

Punjab

Among the latter households also,

agricultural labour is quite common, and given a

diversified structure of their employment, their employment

as

agricultural

labour

We

have thus a mixture of household categories as also a mixture

of

economic exigencies prompting certain rural labour households

to

seek

employment

as

is relatively much more on daily basis.

agricultural

labour more acceptably on

daily rther than on regular basis.

Table

4.4

throws

up

few points.

The practice of

working as attached farm servants-another expression for

regular

agricultural wage-paid employemnt is of a very low order, both in

Punjab

and

Bihar.

one

moves

all

categories

type

of

into

of

Whatever

definite pattern as

villages. In fact, in certain villages, this

is

totally

non-existent among the sample

socio-politico reasoning may be framed for

this

aspect

that

the rural labour households, especially agricultural labour

households

of

the interior; the low incidence is prevalent in

employment

households.

One does not discover

on-farm employment, it is almost unquestionable

among them, have drifted away from attached jobs and

Table

4.4

Villagewise Percentage Distribution of Labour Households Between Wage-Paid On-Farm Employment on

Regular and Daily Basis :

Sl.
No.

Percentage of
Households
recorded as :

State

Average

VILLAGE
V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

VB

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.

Purely Attached
Farm Servants

PJB
BHR

9.09
10.00

7.14
4.00

2.

On-Farm Labour
Purely on Daily
Basis

PJB
BHR

81.25 63.64
40.00 68.97

65.72
28.00

3.

Mixed (On Attached

as well as Daily
Basis) Labour

PJB
BHR

18.75 27. 27
50. 00 31. 03

68. 00

27.14

Total On-Farm
Wage-Paid Latour

PJB
BHR

15.00
6.67

8. 77
3.70

2. 86
2.63

7.69
3.85

7. 25
3.56

40.00
19.05

65.00 56.14
33.33 71.61

60.00
39.47

50.00
44.23

61.45
49.82

60. 00
80. 95

20.00 35. 09
60. 00 24. 69

37.14
57. 90

42. 31
51. 92

31.30
46.62

100.0010QOO 100.00100.00 100.00100.00 100.00

100.00 1CD. 00 1CX4 00 100.00 "PO. 00 'PO. 00 100.00

100.00
100.00

100.00
100.00

---~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE

: ( 1)
( 2)

PJB
BHR

=
=

Punjab
Bihar

125

attached-obligations

partly

because the net year-round earnings

from wage-paid agricultural labour work on daily basis as well as

from

non-agricultural

earnings

jobs

tend

to be higher than the yearly

as an attached farm servant.

The seasonality premiums,

on certain agricultural operations do refelct themselves in terms

of

higher

these

wage

households

unattached
look
paid

rates

at

would

fully

farm employment.
the

62.0

agricultural

on

per

cent

agricultural

employment

each

with

each

substantiates

on

in

Punjab,

purely

corresponding
hypothesis
on

daily

employment/earnings

agriculture

In Punjab villages,

Still more important is the fact that

village

our

employment/earnings

Bihar

basis.

employment on purely daily basis against about 50.0

in

with

daily

of rural-labour houeholds are engaged in

practically

farm

This assertion gains credence if we

purely

per cent in Bihar villags.

compared

justify their action of seeking

percentage of households seeking agricultural wage

employment

nearly

and consequently, the economic acumen of

is

the

daily

of

basis is much higher

village
that

incidence

in
the

Bihar.

This

incidence

of

basis in the total wage-paid

on-

higher in Punjab villages compared

villages.

The

is

a source for providing this prompting

perhaps

for

daily-versus-regular

For

obvious

reasons,

growing

divison
this

cushion

strength

of

to the labour
is

Punjab

households.

available

to

Bihar

households on a much smaller scale.

Another
pattern

of

important

incidence

of

and

plausible explanation

wage-paid

agricultural

for the

empl~yment

on

___ ,i__jl...,.j

126

daily

basis

can

also

be

traced on employer's side in the two

states. The demand for attached farm labour on tpe part of Punjab
farmer has

significantly

factors.

First,

Punjab

during

declined over the years due to several

on account of huge influx of migrant labour in

peak

seasons

of

wheat

transplantation and harvesting, farmers do

shortage of labour.
of

farm

mechanisation

tractors,

harvesters

timeliness
led

to

such

Secondly, the

of

and

not suffer from acute

introduction of higher degree

Punjab
drills

paddy

especially
has

not

in

only

the form of
reduced

the

harvesting and threshing operations, but also has

gradual

as

in

harvesting,

disappearance of certain other field operations

ploughing

with bullocks, etc. Thirdly, because of work

standardisationand

rising incidence of conracts, the commercial

calculus

on

importance
hand,
or

the
in

such

their

Punjab

of
over

Punjab
the

developments are
degree

incidence

part

farmers
years.

has

gained

r~ising

In Bihar, on the other

_ conspicuous by their absence

is still fairly low.

As a result of this, the

of wage-paid agricultural employment on daily basis is

higher in Punjab than in Bihar.

It
of

is also quite important to note

that the incidence

mixed employment (attached + daily basis) is also fairly high

both
states

in

Punjab
need

urban-focal
mixed

to
town,

and
be

Bihar.

But the contrasts between the two

underlined.
the

In

Punjab

villages near the

percentage of households availing of the

employment opportunities is much smaller than those in the

127
far-away
relatively
and

as

In

villages.
greater

we

absolute

the

nearby villages, women-folk have a

share in the agricultural labour employment,

recede

from

dependence

the

on

focal

town, on the one hand, the

agricultural

employment

increases and

involvement of men-falk naturally increases, on the other.

the

observed

for

the

pattern

households

in Punjab.
to

Hence

In Bihar, there is a tendency

avail of all available avenues of work,

whether on purely daily basis or on contract basis or in the form

of

semi-attached

It

is not a mere coincidence. that the total mandays of employment

for

Bihar

uniformly

and

it

Yet

explanation

lies

than

sepcifications

wage-employment are

Punjab, although in terms of per day

with
in

the

and

possibly

rather

Bihar,

in

loose

more

plausible,

definition

contrast

given of such a worker in Punjab.

with

of

the

an

rigid

In Bihar, many

the small and medium-farmers, who do not engage themselves

cultivation because of certain social taboos, keep one or the

other
and

in

agricultural

another,

attached-farm-servant

in

in

the choice is rather limited.

is far behind its Punjab counterpart (see Table 4.1

4. 2)

among

etc.,

hous~hold,

higher

earning,

servant,

farm
in

fixity

hand 'attached'to themselves, generally for one year

many
of

traditional

cases, even for six months.

stay

with

the

employer,

Moreover, there is no
as

understood

in

the

sense; the fixity is only notional and the so-called

'attached-farm-servant' can seek work elsewhere while there is no

work going on at the employer's farm 5 . Understandably, therefore,
the

Bihar

picture on the incidence of mixed employment is to be

128
understood

in

its

own

right;

a simple comparison with Punjab

would not be in order.

We

have

seen

agricultural

seeking

above that the percentage of households

wage-paid

"attached-to

the

and

Analytically,

Bihar.

further

into

employment

on

the

basis

of

farm-service" is extremely low, both in Punjab

the

picture

therefore,
of

farm

it

is important to look

employment as agricultural

labourers on daily bas.is. Tables -4.5 through 4 8 'qeal with vchriotis

o

aspects of on-farm employment on daily basis. It may be clarified

at

this

point

any

degree

are

put

not

differentiated

daily

In other words, rural labour households are

on

employment
seeking

households

households
basis

onwards, all households reporting

wage-paid agricultural employment on daily basis

together.

agricultural

labour

of

that from now

and

the
on

basis of time duration of wage-paid

daily

basis;

obviously our sample

employment on daily basis are an amalgum of

reporting agricultural employment on a purely

those

with

varying

mixture of households

reporting on-farm employment on attached-cum-daily basis.

Table
households
(PPR),
5.

and

4.5

presents the

villagew~se

per cent of labour

reporting some agricultural employment on daily basis

the

proportion

of

agricultural

employment (Emp)/

This
type 'of employer-labourer relationship has been
described
as
'beck- and -call'
system.
For further
discussion,
please see Daniel and Alice Thorner.
"Types of
Employer-Labourer Relationship in Indian Agriculture'' in,
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1940-64, Selected
Readings; Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, Bombay,
pp.287-302

'I' able

4. 5

Percentage Share of Wage - Paid On-Farm Employment/Earnings on Daily Basis

in the Total Wage-Paid On-Farm and Earnings of Labour Households in Punjab
and Bihar
VILLAGE
Sl.
No.

Head

State

V1

1.

Emp

PJB
BHR

2.

Ern

3.

PPR

NOTE

0
0

l.

2.
3.
4.
5.

V4

v6

Average

PALH

PN

59.17 40.43 44.23 49.54 56.98 46.39 59.61 51.16

46.53 54.69 35.12 29.33 39.85 66.33 42.76 47.80

.49. 57
48.70

44.50
47.22

84.49
80.01

PJB
BHR

62.89 43.75 49.80 57.79 64.26 51.73 64.68 55.11

52.33 60.77 43.17 35.86 45.86 72.55 50.96 53.77

54.58
55.57

49.11
54.07

87.83
82.09

PJB
BHR

76.19 63.83 83.33 71.43 73.91 82.54 97.14 92.31

69.23 78.38 92.31100.00 93.33 91.76 97.37 96.15

81.00
90.33

88.34
96.43

72.26
58.33

PJB
BHR
PAUl
PNAUI
PPR

=
=
=

=
=

V2

V3

V5

V7

V8

Punjab
Bihar
Predominantly Agricul turaiLabour Households
Predominantly Non-agricultural Labour Households
Percentage of Positive Responses reporting Wage-paig
agricultural employment on daily basis.

130
earnings
seems

(Ern),

daily

of

time

households

of

fact,

on daily

daily

It

reporting agricultural employment on

As

no definite relationship between employment

basis (Emp., Table 4.5) and wage-paid earnings on

basis (Ern., Table 4.5) is discernible. Moreover, no clear

differences

are visible between Punjab and Bihar Villages either

the matter of agricultural employment-time on

wage-paid
Ther~

in

to them on daily basis.

basis (PPR) keeps on rising, both in Punjab and Bihar.

matter

in

accruing

generally true that as we move away into the interior, the

proportion

actually

earnings

type of

employment.

are, however, different explanations for what

is observed

Punjab

well

resulting

from

this

daily basis or

against that observed in Bihar.

developed

network

of

village

First,

Punjab has a

link roads. Consequently,

rural urban

nexus is much stronger in Punjab

in

Therefore, the rural labour households can afford to

Bihar.

keep

their options open relatively more in Punjab than in Bihar.

Secondly,
Punjab,
basis

because
the

as

Bihar,

on

demand

low.

huge

influx of migrant

farmers also prefer to employ farm

the

other

largely

for
of

of the

labour into

labour on daily

it is relatively more economical for them to do so. In

restricted

fact

compared with that

farm

hand, agriculture offers

to
labour

increasing

Consequently,

peak

season

operations.

limited demand,
In total, the

in Bihar is fairly low and

given the

supply of labour, wage rate is bound

in

Bihar,

employ farm labour on daily basis.

to be

it is the farmer who prefers to

131
Table
daily
look

basis
at

4.6

in

the

operations.

gives some details of on-farm employment on

respect of six field crop operations. First, we

overall

position, i.e. the average of all the six

Our sample data show that about 90.0 per cent of the

households in Bihar are engaged in agricultural wage-paid on-farm

employment

on

daily basis compared with a slightly lower figure

of 81.0 per cent in Punjab.

mandays

of

It may be noted that while the total

employment are higher in Bihar (188.02 mandays), the

position seems to be quite opposite with respect to per household

and

per day

operations,

earnings.
a

Averaged

typical

rural

over

labour

all

the six field crop

in

household

Punjab is

earning

nearly

labour,

on daily basis, than its Bihar counterpart. As a result

of

this,

Punjab

33.0

per

over

day

per

cent more from wage-paid agricultural

average earning

Bihar.

The

high

is

63.0 per cent higher in

and growing remunerativeness of

agricultural employment in Punjab thus comes up again in terms of

daily earning of
It
on

daily

households
in

Bihar

rural households.

we

look into operationwise employment and earnings

basis,
in
on

it

appears

the

other

hand,

nearly

it.

It is

are engaged

that

with

the

introduction

machinery,

the

operation

done

largely

while

none

of

the sample

Punjab reported any wage employment in ploughing,

households

mechanized in

that

Punjab.
through

in

of

one-third of the sample

on account

of the fact

of tractors, drills and other farm

ploughing

In Bihar, on the
bullock-driven

is

nearly

completely

other hand, it is still

ploughs.

Further,

on

132
Table

4.6

Pattern of On-Farm Employment and Earnings of Labour Households

in Punjab and Bihar on Da~ly Basis
(Mean Value Per Annum)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sl.
No.

Operation

Head

1.

Ploughing (Jutai)

Emp

Punjab

Bihar

di

17.03
( 9. 06)
95.43

Ern

( 8. 38)

Epd
PPR

2.

Sowing and
Transplantation
(Ropri and Biya
Kabarna)

Emp
Ern
Epd
PPR

3.

Weeding (Sohni)

Emp
Ern
Epd
PPR

4.

5.

Harvesting,
Threshing and
Winnowing
(Katni,Dauni
and U saoni)

Emp
Ern

Epd
PPR
0 ther Agricultural Emp
Operations such as
Watering, Manuring Ern
etc. (P atwan,
Patauni,Khad,
Epd
Cheetna, etc.)
PPR

6.

Cotton Picking

Emp
Ern
Epd
PPR

Total Wage-Paid OnFarm Employment on

Daily Basis

Emp
Ern
Epd
PPR

NOTE:

19.50
( 12. 67)
179.49
(11.82)
9.20
52.00
57.79
( 37. 57)
463.32
( 30. 50)
8.02
59.33
60.64
( 39. 38)
744.92
(49.04)
12.28
76.67
ll. 38
( 07. 39)
101. 24
( 06. 67)
8.90
26.33
4.67
( 3. 03)
29.98
( l. 97)
6. 42)
18.33
153.98
( 100. 00)
1?18. 67
( 100. 00)
9.86
81.00

5.60
32.33
56.50
( 30.05)
328.57
( 28. 87)
5.82
86.33

-65.49
-45. 37
58.08

25.60
( 13. 62)
115.54
( 10.15)
4. 51
86.67
86.11
( 45. 80)
583.37
(51. 25)
6.77
88.67
2.78
(91.47)
15.36
( 135. 00)
5. 52
17.67

125.74

188.02
( 100. 00)
1138. 26
( 100. 00)
6.05
90.33

-18. 10

301.00
77.83
-29.58
27.69
81.39
309.35
559.11
61.23

33.42
62.98

Notations used in this Table are explained in Table 4.1.

1JJ
account of differences in the cropping pattern in the two states,
while

none

of

employment

the sample households in Bihar reported any wage

in cotton picking; in Punjab, nearly 18.0 per cent of

the sample households were engaged in this operation.

In
sample

the

case of sowing and weeding, the involvement of

households

was

observed to be much higher in Bihar.

may be noted that while the mandays of employment

corresponding

level

of

It

as well as the

per household earnings from sowing were

lower in Punjab than in Bihar, the reverse seemed to be happening

for

weeding. However, per day earning from both these operations

were

much higher in Punjab than in Bihar.

although
in

per household mandays of employment in sowing are lower

Punjab

drill

partly

machinery

villages,

due to the introduction of large scale seedand

partly

because

this operation in Punjab

especially the transplantation of paddy, is generally

transferred
growing

This again shows that

to

and

carried

out by the migrant labour, yet the

agriculture of Punjab has kept per day earning from this

operation

sufficiently

to

mandays

lower

of

higher than that in Bihar.

employment and

With respect

earning per household

in

weeding-operation in Bihar, it may be observed that in the

first

instance,

paddy

this

cultivation,

and

operation
in

the

is

largely

restricted

to

second, it is carried out on half day

basis.

In

several

crops such as vegetables, paddy, wheat and so on. Hence,

due

bigger demand for labour in respect of weeding operation

to

Punjab, this operation is carried out in the case of

134
in

Punjab,

per

day earning from this operation was nearly 78.0

per cent higher in Punjab over Bihar 6 .

In
larger
not

harvesting and threshing operation

relatively

invovlement and higher mandays of employment in Bihar, do

place

Punjab

a Bihar household in a better position vis-a-vis his

counterpart. It is fairly evident that a Punjab household

while

putting

in

earning

nearly

Earning

on

higher

nearly

28.0

per

30.0

per

cent

less labour time, is

cent more than its Bihar counterpart.

per day basis for this operation makes the contrast

dramatically

that

a~so,

in

sharp;

per

day earning is more than 81.0 per cent

Punjab than that in Bihar.

there

is

huge influx of

This is despite the fact

migrant labour and a much higher

degree of mechanisation in Punjab for this operation too.

Villagewise Pattern of Daily Wage-Paid Employment

Some

features

for

the

villagewise

pattern

of

agricultural wage-paid employment/earnings on daily basis are set

out in Table 4.7.
in

overall

Table
the

Firstly, as far as the extent of participation

wage-paid

4.7)

on-farm

employment (PPR under Sr. No. 7,

on daily basis is concerned, we observe that in both

states,

the

rural

labour

households tend to increasingly

participate as we move away from the focal town.

Secondly, as is

evident

regression

from

efficients,
tend

the

mandays

statistically
of

significant

agricultural

co-

employment on daily basis

to increase in both the states as the rural urban proximity

declines.

Thirdly, while per household earning in Punjab

tend~to

Table 4.7 Villaoewise Pattern of On-Farm Emjlloyment and Earnings of Labour Households in Punjab and Billar on Daily Basis

(Mean Value Per Annum!

Sl.

Operation

Variable State

F:eqression E~uation
Yi = ()(. + .J~ Dj

No.

r.

PJouahinG
(Juta.i i

, __
C.\hll

8.65

7~62

(6. 42)

{6. 42}

(8. 43i

(9. 55i

26.33
(13.31 i

(5. 96:0-

46.89
(6.09)

85.90
(7. Sli

77. 10
(8.82i

144.! 7
(11.62)

6.21

6. 15

' 17
o.

Y5

V4

V3

V6

V7

VB

10

jj

ll

!2

(Ni

13

J.-..'

92

13.48

2~.

14

(8. "T'"'i
Jf..l

13. 97

(7.04)

14

~~

42.93 + 0.87 D

25.35
(11.87!

Yi

LL.~!

Yi = 269.93 + 2.260

C'~

"7C

J.J.! J

1i1.55

(8. 11)

81.23
(6. S'b)

5. =4

5.81

[0.961

( 11. 02)

PJB
BHK

.,.-I

~.:

5.47

",J.i,.~"..!

Yi =

6.24 -

*D

~1.05

[7. 631

PPF:

97

[l.96j

PJB
BHF:

Eod

V2

f'E
BHF.~

Ern

Vl

No. of
Observations

PJB

fHR

23.08

16.22

3Z. 77

23.8!

40.0~

38.82

.-,Q i;C'

'-~ ,,J

42.31

97

2. Sowino and Transplantation

Emp

PJB

25.67
124.491

BHF~

!Rooni and Bi ya Kabarnal

39.81
(29, 51)

Ern

di

-35.52

PJB

218.85

BHR.
di

Eod

PJB

16.B5
(19.87)

35.24
129. 72J
-52.19

11.38

15.00

{10, 39)

19.34)
42.24

48.92
(29.6~)

(29,93)

-76.74

-64.49
144.61
18.74)

142.45
(17.071

105.31

12~.751

265.75

233.14

317.35

251.49

129.48)

(30.28)
-38.90

128.87)

. (28. 79)
-42.50

-17.65
8.53

8.45

(9.29)

-66.82
9.25

9.64

23.43
(13. 23)
58.819
(29.73)
-60.15
231.28
112.59)
339.83
127.38)
-31.94

9.87

21.03
(12. 29)

29.94
(11. 02)

23.62
(10.28)

,Vi =

Yi =

41U1 - 0.261i
52.1~

71.48

62.08

60.27

m.95i
-70.58

(31.261

128.22)

-51.77

-6~.81

283.87
(11.78)
398.58

279.38

207.26

346.71

333.64

Yi = 353.23 - 0.830
H.251
Yi = 346.73 + 3.27D

(28.99)

(29.71)

(27.63}

[1.44]

-48.85

-19.42

-37.88

9.6~'

9.33

8.78

(11.ili

(9.80)

!56

H.7~~J

Yi =

+ 1. 2S':D
(3.33]

8.71 +

~r

0.~5

259

156
259

156

[3. 3\)

BHR

6.68

6.61

6.49

5.95

5.78

5.58

5.59

5,54

Yi

6.5~' - 0.iD7~D
[ -i2.18j

fPR

3. Weeding ISohnil

di

27 .6~'

27.84

PJB

57.14

46.81

BHR

69.23

PJB

31.43
(29.99)

62.02

70.76

72.97

88.46

42.86
95.24

30.79

39.99
(36.5!)

73.66

66.91

58.48

77.14

93.33

89.41

92.11

73.08
88.46

138.26)
18.24

55.26
!31.19!
24.67

116.37
!42.82)

43.48

!16.92)
43.03

(12. 93)

(12.47)

60.89
!35.58)
29.75
(12, 88!

di

!17 .11}
36.18

(36.31}
20.81
(17. 55)
47.96

236.79

124.01

104.67

324.4~

F'JB

260.67

253.89

335.56

510.04

506.60

(24.71)

(30.43}

129.60}

(30.83)

457.63
(24.91)

878.64
(34.93)

BHR

118.00
(13.09)
120.91

109.78
114.26)
131.27

139.54

84.73

(12. 70)

(9. 70)

113.22
(9. 121

140.48

501.96

304.20

132.07
!9.60}
283.58

BHR

Ern

42.53

di

23.08

27.96

61.43

27.42
! 13. 81i

96.19

Yi = 48.02 + 5.30*0

(41.88)
24.21
111..33)

[5. 22J

Yi

= 30.14-

0.~bD

178
2Hl

[-~.34]

~t

(29.27)

717.37
133.93)
109.07
97.23
(9.35)
(8.05}
705.57 637.81

Yi = 440.26 + 36.57 D
[4.30J.
Yi = 160.02 - 2.58~~
[-3.26)

260

Eod

8.29

8.25

8.39

8.3~

8.28

8.32

/,.J.J

7.46

y; =

8.28 -

BHR

5.11

5.28

4.99

4.65

4.59

4.44

3.98

Yi =

[-4. PJ
~
~.
5.)0
- 0.0ii.D
[-14.54]

Yi =

49.09 + 3.32 [1

y; =

78.62 + 1. 76~D

re

iii?

PPR

di

62.23

56.25

68.14

PJB

47.62
65.38

53.19

51.28

75.68

92.3i

42.38
\40.43)
61.62
(45.68i

31.34
(36. 96)
53.11

BHF:

4. Harvesting, Threshing Emo

F'JB

and Wi nnDiii nq

BHR

lKatni, Dauni and

Osauni)

Ern

47

80. 3~'

87.39

89.70

85.5i

71.43

43.48

95.24

1:'7

65.08
89.41

82.86
89.47

69.23
90.38

92.94
\34. 20)

83.92

78.4S'

.,.,.

1 ...~ .;. ,.)

76.52

(43.161
72.54

74.14
(46.! 7)
65.00

(43.19)

'jQ
w

...

\4U6l
105.34

(45.62)

1~1.13

0.3~

-17.02

-31.22

(44.78)
-40.99

(43.89)
-34.82

\46.m
!4.06

(43.21)
-10.47

- ...

PJB

532.27
(5@.45)
452.77

394.00
(47.221
368.95

597.68
(52.72)
544.18

916.64
(55.41)
447.93

964.87
(52.52)
629.Yi

865.29 1099.46 983.00

(50.00) (43.70) (46.50)
710.11 61t.44 63~.74

(50.22!

(47.92i

(5!.2!)

17.56

6.79

1~4.64

(50. 75)
53. i 7

(51.64)

di

(49.51)
9.83

F'JB.

12.56

12.57

12.64

12.36

') h 1
1...........

12.31

T""~'

"'J'""

~.).;../

!52.83)

78.36
11.83

11.71

!..,Q
'~

[4.6~
r"_.j.J..,

L~~

[2. 85]

(47. 35)

(52,24)
55.85

~.06

~r

(36. 54)

92.66
(46. 66)

di

BHR

Epd

*D

PJB

Yi = 64t.59 + 38.98 D

230

(4.05]
Yi = 593.36 + 6. !4D
if

l1,

Yi =

r;:.-,i

J~J

~~

12.77 - 0.05 u

230

[-2.~~]

BHF:

7,,.J.J
"7r

6.95

7.50

6.89

7.37

6.74

6.65

6.24

Yi =

7.50-

0.B5~D

H.49J

PPR

di

70.88

B0. 86

68.53

PjB

71.43
61.54

59.57

78.21

72.97

~2.

BHR

31

7:1

.-:.J7

7r,

71.10

~ '4
8 L.c,

?7. 89

87.66

71.43

65.22
93.33

79.37
90.59

97.14

84.62

97.37

96.15

10~UB

266

5. Other Aoriculturiil
Operations such as
Waterino, Manurinq,
etc. (F'atwan or

Emo

Pat auni. f:had Cheetna,

6.00
(3.74!
2.14
(!.52!
!80.37

15.52
(8.76)
2.53
(!. 28)
513.44

13.11
24.17
20.58
(7.66!
(8.90)
!8.96)
4.22
2.45
2.63
(1. 83) (1. 23)
( 1. 23)
210.66 886.53 682.51

Yi = 41.46 + 0.160
(ll. 39)
y
.1 =
15.78
0.00D
[-0.00]

,./, .JI

7.99
(7. 29!
1 Q"
.J.
(1.16i
316.15

22.23

76.20

(2. 66!
11.22

(6. 721
12.17
(1.1! j
526. !3

57.14
(3.45)
12.31
!1.41)
364. !8

141.40
(7.70i
14.00
(1.13)

11 i. 62 260.12 172.86
(6. 79i (8.19)
(8.18i
13.45
22. iS'
12.81
(!. 66)
( i.15l
(1. 06!
416. 10 1432.49 1249.41

Yi = 406.58 - 1. 960
[-0.57]
Yi = 101.44
1. 350
[-1.48]

PJB

3.24
(3.09!

BHF:

'''
! l.2Bi

2.49
(2.94)
1. 81
(1. 53)

di

87.28

F'JB

di

29.41
(2. 77i
11.23
(1.25)
161. 89

98. 13

PJB

9.02

8.93

.,7

...

1:'.,.

79
53

et:.)

Ern

BHR

Eod

6.

Cotton Pic kino

Emp

C'A

, ,.J't

9.52

9i0.l10

9.11

6. 4;

6. 1s

6.33

5.74

,J , .J..;:

di

38.98

44.26

50.71

65.85

65.~4

F'JB

4 ~~
11.54

6.38

2~.51

BH
" ~
..

10.81

15.38

!4.29
14.29

F'JB

2.10

7
.............

(2, 00)

{3, 92!

2.90
(2.65)

(2. 49)

6.43
(3.63i

13.97

!8.94

( 1. .)21

2i. 89
(2. 621

6.67

b. 5'i

BHR

PPF:

(1. 45)

.,,..,

4.~0

;;;:

C i

8.97
5.4~

8.53
5.49
..,.,

8.40

4.86

66.! 1

r<"

J-.t. ,;.,

72.84

3~.43

31.75

5!. 43

5iUl0

23.00

,..,.,

~.),.;,)

18.42

!7.31

5.84
(3. 4!)

8.31

5.38

(3.06!

(2.34)

c~

Yi =

9.78

Yi =

[-7.00]
6.41 - 0.L~:t;. o
[-5.90]

Yi = 25.18 +

ll.0B D

79
r~

.; .)

79

53

0.030
[0.13]

55

0.46[;
r-0.30J

55

BHF:

Ern

F'JB

4!.82

I i. 6ii

25.97
(1.57!

6.54

6.49

.,.,

.,,.,

~.3.

62

!2. 28l

p......l~i
w.

\2. 07)

f.
1

~qi
v',

6.50

6.39

6.28

1C:

,;,:,,)~

~,..,

1~

... Lo

{i =

i68.3~

Yi =

6.63

BHF:
Eod

PJB

L~

0.020
[-1.42]

55

BHR

....

\,.)
(X)

PPR
Emo

7. Ov2rall On-Farm
Haqe-E~oloyment

PJB
BHR

on

BHR

Haili Basis

di
Ern

PJB
BHF:

10(8!
(!03. 00i
134.88
(100. 0~)
-22.29

BHF:

84.79
!i00.C0l
118.59
(!0~.00)

-28.50

17.02

!!a0.00;
8.37

26.09

1~9.54

161L57

177.17

(100.00)
165.27
! !00. 00)
-33.72

(!0@.00)

\100. e01

14!.10
(100. 00)

197.80
!101'-00)
-10.43

11.54-

13.80

\i00.!Wl
3.14

(!0~.00i

89.39

!0.07

9.84

10. 35.

10.3~

6.68

6.49

6.65

. .., ..,,

i.L"i.f.

* denotes

23.08

171.16 2i1.74 229.69

(!00.001 (100.001 (100.001
23~.94
!98.58 213.60
!!00.00) (100.001 (100.00)
-25.89
36.84
7 "'

\!0iU0l
48.01

10.11

9.25

9.2B

6.19

6.27

5.95

5.88

5.65

.Jfi,/J

"'Jt:

".d.c.::
,\.,

55.64

66.4t1

65.39

69.92

57.31

62.83

p.1R

76.19

63.83

8.3. 33
92.31

7!. 43

73.91

10.00

93.33

82.54
91.76

97.14
97.37

92.31
96.15

C"'l

78.38

the significance of 't' values at

95,~ per

cent level of confidence

Yi = 1072.56 + 89.35 D

[4.50]
Yi = 1139.70 + 11.570
r

\!00.0ei m0.00J (!00.0!li

25.86 115.39
75.1B

37

1~.

., l"
..,.,*nL
9J,
. ..J + 10.-J.J
.
[5.13}
Yi = 167.94 + 3.86~0
[2.93]

Yi =

243
i.IL
"'"'

... .h ..

I. For an explanation of various natations used in this Table, olease see Tables 4.1 and 4.2
2. In Column No. 2 Names of the respective operations in Bihar are civen in the Brackets
3,

31.43

di

BHR
NOTE:

14.2'1

~.II

1054.97
834.45 1133.66 1654.41 1837.00 1730.69 2513.43 2114.11
(IDDOO) (10006,\ (IOOOO) ( 16600) (!vOOo;_ (loo.oo) t[OOO$ (10000)
?t-9.98
9~!. 5ll
873.56 1241.14
1166.90 1207.40
d00.~0J

di

1.,

9...~-.
u.

243
271

I d,.,

,OJ

10.79- 0.07*D
[-2. 68)
Vi = 6.67- 0.~L'D
Yi =

H.m

243

.,.,,

.;...'l

140
rise

significantly

same

is

day

not

with

increase

in rural-urban distance, the

true in the case of Bihar.

earning

is

concerned,

it

is

However, as far as per

clear

that

it registers a

significant decline in both the states as we move into the remote

villages away from the focal town.
We

may

agricultural
the

now

look at different operations of wage-paid

employment/earnings

sowing

operation.

It

rate of involvement in
in

both

We begin with

may be observed from Table 4.7 that

sowing operation (Variable PPR) is higher

the states in the extremely remote villages than in the

villages
while

on daily basis.

in

the

mandays

close
of

proximity of the focal town.

employment

in

this

Secondly,

operation

are

not

significantly affected by the intervening distance of rural-urban

proximity
an

in

Punjab; in Bihar on the other hand, these register

increasing

pattern.

Thirdly,

while per household earnings

remain invariant with respect to distance in both the states, per

day

earning

represents a diametrically opposite pattern between

Punjab and Bihar.

The Punjab-Bihar contrasts as observed in this

operation owe their explanation to many factors.

It
Punjab

is

is

largely

transplantation;
carried

important

in

to note that while this operation in

confined
Bihar,

on

to
the

out for paddy, wheat etc.

and

Bihar

villages

the

transplantation

vegetables
other

hand,

and

paddy

it is mainly

While female labour in Punjab

near the focal town largely participates in

of

vegetables

and paddy respectively; the

141

male

labour in the latter

transplantation
while

wheat

from

of paddy and sowing of wheat.

is

seed-drill,

increasingly participates both in the

sown

the

In Punjab however

largely by means of farm machinery called

resident

labour

of distantly located villages

the focal town have also to compete with the migrant labour

as far as the transplantation of paddy is concerned.

to

the

fact

higher

the latter is preferred more because of its

competence

employment
distance

in

in

this

from

increasing
the

that

the

This is due

this operation.
operation

focal

employment

become invariant with respect to

town

time

Consequently, mandays of

in

Punjab,

is in evidence.

while

in Bihar an

Further because of

practice of differential rate of earnings to male and female

labour

(generally

latter),

per

day

higher

wages

earning

to the former and lower to the

in Punjab tends to rise as against a

declaining pattern in the case of Bihar.

Further,
town,

earning

Bihar

villages.

earning
widen

between

every conceivable distance from the focal

per day in Punjab villages is much higher than in

Still

further,

the

differential

into

from

the

the

in per day

each pair of Punjab and Bihar villages tends to

with every increase in the distance.

move

Bihar.

at

In other words 1 as we

interior of the countryside, the per day earning

9peration of sowing and tranplantation gets diluted in

In

Punjab on the other hand, it shows a slight tendency

to increase for reasons detailed earlier.

142

As

for

involvement
remote
under

in

weeding

this

villages
serial

as

operation

opertion

is

weeding

concerned,

while

much higher in the extremely

compared with the nearby villages (variable PPR

No.

3) ,

there

are important differences between

Punjab and Bihar in this respect.

in

is

Firstly, rate of participation

operation is higher in Bihar

villages compared with

Punjab villages both located in close proximity'of the focal town

Secondly, while mandays of employment

and in those away from it.

in this operation in Punjab tend to rise as we move away from the

focal

town; in

Biha~it

remains unaffected by distance.

Further,

while per household earnings tend to rise with increase in ruralurban

distance
i's

reverse
operation
because

of

noticeable.

tends
of

extremely

lower

employment

offers

to

remote

positively

Punjab,

in

in

with

enough

in

However,

decline
per

Bihar

in

day

on

per

the other hand, the

day

earning

in

this

operation in the

villages that such a pattern emerges.

weeding
respect

employment

operation
to
to

in

distance
the

this

It is mainly

both the states.

earning

in

Punjab

tend

Mandays
to vary

because weeding of wheat

resident

labour

of

remote

villages.
It
Punjab

and

is interesting to observe that between each pair of

Bihar

villages, mandays

of

employment

as

well as

earnings (both on household and per day basis) are much higher in
Punjab
from

than
it.

in

Bihar,

both in villages near the town and away

This is due to the fact that in Bihar, this operation

is confined to paddy only.

Employment in this operation in Bihar

143

is

Hence
this
is

sustained largely by female labour.

on half day basis,

the pattern as observed in Bihar.

operation

mainly

In

Punjab~employment

is confined to vegetables, wheat, paddy etc.

in
It

carried out by men on full day basis, who in turn are

paid relatively higher wages.

Also, the participation of migrant

labour in this operation is very low in Punjab.

The
important

operation

daily basis.
carried

mandays

is

of harvesting and threshing is the most

among

wage-paid agricultural employment on

It needs to be pointed out that while harvesting is

out

threshing

states

operation

largely
done

in

on

terms

daily

of

basis

contractual

arrangements,

in both the states.

While

of employment in this operation tend to rise in both the

with

increase in rural- urban distance; per day earnings

registers

household

level tend to vary positively with distance because of

larger

declining

pattern.

Again,

while earnings at the

mandays of employment in the extremely remote villages of

Punjab;

in

Bihar, on the other hand, they remain invariant with

respect to distance.
It
Punjab

and

is

striking

to

observe that between each pair of

Bihar villages, the mandays of employment are higher

in Bihar than in Punjab practically at all rural-urban distances .

However,
this

in

the case of per household and per day earnings from

operation,

states.

The

explanation

an

lower
to

the

opposite pattern is visible between the two

mandays

of

employment in Punjab owe their

fact that on the one hand this operation is

144
largely

carried

out

with the help of thereshing machinery on a

large scale, it is still done with the help of a pair of bullocks

in

Bihar.

are

Consequently, smaller number of mandays of employment

available to the resident labour of Punjab in this operation

Still

further,

operation

in

reducing

despite
the

huge

Punja~,

is

It

such

influx

of

migrant

labour

in

this

also offers another patent explanation for

absolute

the

operation.

the

number

of mandays of employment in this

unique feature of Punjab agriculture that

adversaries (in terms of mandays of employment for

resident

labour)

it

compensates

much more in the form of

earning levels.
Employment/Earnings of PALH and PNLH Groups on Daily Basis

We

may as well look at the differences of agricultural

employment/earnings
of

on daily basis, between PALH and PNLH groups

the two study areas.

regard.

A few important features emerge as follows.

First,

together,
compared
does

the
with

not

compared

Table 4.8 presents some details in this

place
with

at

the

level

of

all

crop

operations

put

involvement of PALH group in Bihar is much higher

its
the

Punjab counterpart.
PALH

group

This larger involvement

of Bihar. in a better position

that of Punjab, either in terms of per household

mandays of employment or earnings, both total as well. as per day.

It

is

indeed striking that the PALH group in Punjab, putting in

just about 7.0 per cent extra labour time, is earning nearly 73.0

""

Table

4.8

145

Pattern ol Wage-Paid On-Farm Employment and Earnings on Daily Basis of

PALH and PNLH Groups in Punjab and Bihar
'

(Mean Vail.ue~ Per Arinum)' ""

---------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

Vari- State
PAlli
PNLH
ALL
sn.. Operation
d*
~~~----------------~E!~--------------------------------------------------6
4
2
8
7
3
5

-------------------------------------------------------------------------1.

Ploughing

Emp

Ern

Epd
PPR

2.

Sowing

Emp

PJB
BHR
PJB
BHR

21.88
(3.95)

95.43
{8, 38)

400.23

PJB
BHR

36.90

8.33

32.33

PJB

PJB

26,12
( 11. 76)
62.24
( 30. 02)
-58,03

11.63
( 15. 96)
26.35
( 30. 43)
-55.86

244.69
(11.33)
359.35
( 28. '76)
-31. ')l

101.91
( 13. 48)
166.96
(30.18)
-38.96

-4.60

19.50

124.59

56.50

136.20

179.49

140,10

328.57

115.23

6.96
-8.99

Epd

PJB
BHR
di

9. 57
5.17
62. ?>9

8.76
6. 34
38.17

9. 20
5.82

PPR

PJB
BHR

65.03
92.06

36.50
56.25

52.00
86,33

Emp

PJB

88.33
( 39. 76)
27.61
( 13. 32)
219.92

21.46
( 29.45)
15.04
(17.37)
42.69

57.79

174.81
( 23. 12)
76.93
( 13. 91)
~27. 23

463.32

303.76

115.54

59.74

_di

705.81
( 32. 68)
122.89
( 9.83)
474.34

Epd

PJB
BHR
di

7.99
4.45
79.55

8.15
5.11
59.49

8,02
4,51

PPR

PJB
BHR

73.62
92.46

42.34
56.25

59.33
86,67

Emp

PJB.

82.18
( 36. 99)
94.72
(45.69)
-13. 24

35.02
( 48. 06)
40.92
( 47. 25)
-14.42

60,64

134.67

86,11

131.48

997.97

744.92

124.84

40,41
55.83
12.14
6. 76
79.59

443.85
(58. 70)
283.88
56.35
12.67
6.94
82.56

583.37

125.59

12.28
6.77

-4.18
-2.59

84.05
95.24

67.88
54.17

76.67
88,67

BHR
di
Ern

PJB
BHR

Harvesting

109.45
(8.76)

5,60

di

4.

424.40

. 5.87

BHR

Weeding

17.03
( 9. 06)

5.60

di

3.

3. 73
( 4. 31)

PJB
BHR

BHR

Ern

19.56
( 9. 4 3)

BHR
di
Ern

PJB

Epd

BHR
di
PJB
BHR
di

PPR

PJB
BHR

~46.20)

25.60""

311.60
83.58

-1.96
-12.92

146
per

cent

higher

more

at

at

per

the

day

household level and about 61.0 per cent

level

than its Bihar counterpart.

Second,

while 30.0 per cent of total wage-paid agricultural employment on

daily

basis

PALH

group

against

and
in

nearly 29.0 per cent of total earnings for the

Bihar

are

obtained from sowing operation alone

about 12.0 per cent and 11.0 per cent for the same group

in Punjab, the group's earning from weeding is a meagre figure of

10.0

per

more

in

Still

Punjab.
either

cent

of

Bihar, compared with nearly 33.0 per cent in

further, the differential of per day earning for

these two operations reveals that both are relatively

lucrative

for PALH group of Punjab compared with its Bihar

counterpart.
Again

for

Punjab

puts

in

nearly

56.0

per

household
Like

labour
on

in

more

than

its Bihar counterpart at the

nearly 80.0 per cent at the per day level.

operations,

employment,

for

larger

that matter other aspects of

labour7time spent by the rural

Bihar does not bring it commensurate earnings, either

household

agriculture
capability

cent
and

other

agricultural

and threshing1 the PALH group in

nearly 13.0 per cent less labour time but earns

level

many

harvesting

or
in

in

.f>l}

per day

Punjab,
earning

basis.

more
more

The

pointedly

strength
in

terms

of
of

growing
labour

on per day basis, comes up sharply

again and again.

Like

PALH

group,

the PNLH group in Punjab also fares

much better in comparison with the same in Bihar.

In particular,

147
we can see that while putting in nearly 16.0 per cent less effort
than

its

Bihar

counterpart, it is earning nearly 37.0 per cent

more at the household level and 63.0 per cent more at the per day
level

than the latter.

Similarly in the case of sowing, per day

earning of PNLH group in Punjab is recorded to be nearly 38.0 per

cent

more

slightly
PNLH
in

than

its

Bihar

counterpart,

lower employment time.

even though it showed

Again in weeding operation, the

group of Punjab is better placed than its Bihar counterpart

all

respects.

participation

of

In

harvesting

Punjab

PNLH

and threshing operation, the

group

is

about

68.0

per cent

compared with a low figure of about 54.0 per cent for the similar
group

in

effort

in Punjab is found to be earning nearly 56.0 per cent more

the

basis
and

But while putting in about 14.0 per cent less

than its Bihar counterpart, a household belonging to PNLH

group
at

Bihar.

household

level and about 83.0 per cent more on per day

than its Bihar counterpart.

This suggests that employment

earnings of PNLH group of Punjab obtained on daily basis are

much

higher,

in

all

crop

operations, and hence in an overall

sense, this group has a considerable edge over its counterpart in

Bihar.
The

preceding discussion highlights that regardless of

relatively

greater

employment

by

employment,

the

comparatively
level

of

more

earnings

disposition
Bihar
growing

of

household
and

work
in

dynamic

remunerative

and

much

than

faster

time

some

and

aspects of on-farm

agriculture
capable
in

mandays of

of Punj,ab

is~

of increasing the

Bihar.

Further,

t48

relatively

higher

activities

in

activities

compared

weaknesses

of

more

time

Bihar

but
with

and

in

sections

particular,

of

Punjab;
in

non-wage

Punjab,

general,

brings

less

and

out

the

structural

biased functioning

those

dairying

employment/earning

floated

has

with

rega~d.

Consequently,

for

the

of rural
weaker

emerged as an important

rural

labour households in

in Bihar, however, much headway has

this

(self) employment

much lower in dairying and poultry

much

institutions

source

in

Bihar agriculture. Still further, on account of a

effective

in

spent

not as yet appeared

employment/

earnings

through

dairying and polutry enterprises occupies a fairly large chunk of

total on-farm employment/earnings in Punjab, which in turn, tends
to

mollify

Punjab.

the severity of overall income distribution in rural

Evidently, the on-farm employment/ earning structure is

comparatively more diversified in the progressive state of Punjab

than in the backward Bihar.
The sharp contrast of earnings per day of employment as
observed

in

Punjab and Bihar clearly reveals what a growing and

dynamic agriculture is capable of doing.

the

level

Punjab
not
rural

and

of

total

Bihar

earnings

from

Finally, differences at

on-farm employment between

clearly signify that sheer labour effort does

matter much in the modern system of agricultural production;

institutions and technology have their own role to play in

augmenting
households.

employment/earning opportunities for the rural labour

In

fine,

the

differential

pattern

of

on-farm

149
employment/earnings (both on overall as well as per day basis) as
observed
of

between Punjab and Bihar owes its explanation to a host

factors

strength

of

such as differences in the level of farm technology,

rural-urban

nexus

due to varying levels of infra-

structural facilities and institutional set up, and so on.