Conference Proceeding

Mathematics in Space and Applied Sciences (ICMSAS-2023)
ICMSAS-2023

Subject Area: Mathematics
Pages: 331
Published On: 03-Mar-2023
Online Since: 04-Mar-2023

 Read More >>

Author(s): P. S. Kutwal

Email(s): kutwal9999@gmail.com

Address: Dr. P. S. Kutwal
Associate Professor, Govt. College Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (H.P.) 174001
*Corresponding Author

Published In:   Conference Proceeding, Mathematics in Space and Applied Sciences (ICMSAS-2023)

Year of Publication:  March, 2023

Online since:  March 04, 2023

DOI:




Transformation of Rural Economy in Western Himalayan region: An Analysis

 

Dr. P. S. Kutwal

Associate Professor, Govt. College Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (H.P.) 174001

*Corresponding Author E-mail:   kutwal9999@gmail.com

 

Abstract

This research has a fresh look on the disparity in transformation of rural economy among states/union territories of Western Himalayan Region during 2001-2011. Western Himalayan Region was rurally more developed than India during 2001-2011. Across the states/union territories in Western Himalayan Region, both union territories (Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh) are rurally developed than Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. North and north western part of Western Himalayan Region was rurally developed than southern part. Eleven districts in Western Himalayan Region recorded negative change in non-agriculture workforce during 2001-2011. These were Lahul and Spiti, Chamba from Himachal Pradesh; Srinagar, Bandipore, Anantnag, Kulgam, Ganderbal from Jammu & Kashmir; and Rudraprayag, Uttarkashi, Tehri Garhwal, Bageshwar from Uttarakhand. It is matter of serious concern for the policy makers and planners of union/state governments. It was recommended that the Union and State Governments should start more rural development programmes keeping in view the target group and area.

 

KEYWORDS: Non-agriculture workforce, Western Himalayan Region, and rural development.

 

INTRODUCTION

India lives in rural areas. About two- third population of the country inhabits in rural settlements in 2011. As far as, Himalayan Region was concerned, nearly three-fourth population lived in rural areas. In this study, the non-agriculture workforce was taken as indicator to work out the rural development. The non-agriculture workforce reflects the transformation of rural agrarian economy to manufacturing and service economy. The transformation of rural economy leads to an overall rural, economic, and social development.

Development disparity is an omnipresent phenomenon at global, continental, country, and province level. At global level, countries have been categorized into developed, developing, and underdeveloped realms.

Objective

The major objective of this research paper was to:

·         Examine the trends and patterns of rural development disparity in Western Himalayan Region.

Research Question

The following major research question was forwarded for investigation:

·         What are the trends and patterns of rural development disparity in Western Himalayan Region?

Significance of the Study

The study of the trends and patterns of rural development disparity in Western Himalayan Region will provide an insight and unfold the real nature and intensity of disparity. The present study on disparity may be useful for policy makers and planners for the formulation of policy and programs.

Period and Unit of Study

The rural development disparity in Western Himalayan Region was studied covering two points of time i.e. 2001and 2011. India has adopted policy of liberalization, privatization, and globalization since 1990s. The free play of market accentuates spatial disparity in development. It attracts the considerable research interest to know development disparity during post reform period. The state/union territory and district level data were used for tracing the inter and intra-state/union territory rural development disparity.

 

The Study Area

This study was focused on Western Himalayan states and union territories. These states were erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir (now bifurcated into two union territories i.e. Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh), Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Administratively, there are 47 districts in 2011.These states were designated as hill states as well as special category states by National Development Council of India for preferential treatment to accelerate the development of disadvantaged region. The study area lies between 28°44´N to 37°5´N latitudes and 72°40´E to 81°01´E longitudes covering an area of 331 thousand Km2. It shares one-tenth (10.08 per cent) of total geographical area of India and contains 2.44 per cent of total population of the country in 2011.

 

Database and Methodology

The secondary data of Census of India have been used to measure the rural development disparity for two points of time i.e. 2001 and 2011. The data of Jammu & Kashmir have been adjusted in consonance with the administrative divisions of two union territories i.e. Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in order to know the development disparity. In this research, rural development was inferred using non-agriculture workforce in rural areas. In the present study, rural development disparity discussed at three spatial contexts: (i) Western Himalayan Region, (ii) inter states/union territories, and (iii) intra-state.

 

Limitations

Since measurement of rural development defies unanimity, the consensus on selection of indicator wassubjective and open to criticism. The present study was vulnerable on this account. But the selected indicator was found to be most appropriate.

 

Rural Development

Western Himalayan Region

Non-agriculture workforce of the Western Himalayan Region was recorded 24.88 per cent in 2001. It was higher than national average (21.72 per cent). The gap of non-agriculture workforce between the region and India was 3.16 percentage points (Table 1). Itreflects that the region wasrurally more developed than India. However, majority workforce was engaged in agriculture activities inboth regions.

 

The Western Himalayan Region recorded 27.70 per cent non-agriculture workforcein 2011.It was higher than national average (20.67 per cent). The gap of non-agriculture workforcebetween the region and India was 7.03 percentage points (Table 1). It increased from 3.16 percentage points in 2001 to 7.03 percentage points in 2011. It reflected that the transformation of rural economy of the region was more than India.

The Western Himalayan Region recorded 2.82 percentage points increase in non-agriculture workforceduring 2001-2011. Contrary to it, India recorded -1.05 percentage points decrease in non-agriculture workforce during corresponding period of time.

 

It was concluded from above observations that theWestern Himalayan Region was rurally more developed than India during 2001-2011.

 

Inter States/Union Territories

The spatial pattern of non-agriculture workforce among states/union territories in the Western Himalayan Regionreflected rural development disparity in 2001.It was observed that all states/union territories in the Western Himalayan Regionrecorded higher non-agriculture workforce than national average (21.72 per cent). It reflectedthat this region was performing better than India. Across states/ union territories in the Western Himalayan Region, Ladakh (37.86 per cent) recorded the highest non-agriculture workforce and the lowest in Uttarakhand(22.30 per cent). The gap between the highest and the lowest non-agriculture workforce was 15.56 percentage points (Table 1).

Comparing with the Western Himalayan Region (24.88 per cent), it was observed that both union territoriesin the Western Himalayan Regionrecorded higher non-agriculture workforce. These were Jammu & Kashmirand Ladakh. On the other hand, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhandrecorded lower non-agriculture workforce in the Western Himalayan Region (Table 1).

 

 

 

 

Table 1

India: Non-Agriculture Workforcein Western Himalayan Region,2001-2011

Sr.

State/Union Territory

Non-Agriculture Workforce (per cent)

2001

2011

Change 2001-2011

1

Jammu & Kashmir

28.52

31.25

2.73

2

Ladakh

37.86

46.56

8.70

3

Himachal Pradesh

23.05

25.59

2.54

4

Uttarakhand

22.30

25.78

3.48

Western Himalayan Region

24.88

27.70

2.82

India

21.72

20.67

-1.05







Source: Primary Census Abstracts, Census of India, 2001-2011.

Note: States/Union Territories were arranged in geographical contiguity.




REFERENCES

Gosal, G. S. and Krishan, G. (1979): ‘Regional Disparities inLevels of Socio-economicDevelopment in Punjab’, Department of Geography, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

Krishan, Gopal (1989): ‘Trends in Regional Disparities in India’, Asian Profile, Vol. (17).

Mohan, K. (2005): ‘Addressing Regional Backwardness: An Analysis of Area Development Programmes in India’, Manak Publication, New Delhi.

Smith, D.M. (1973): The Geography of Social Well-being in the United States- An Introduction to Territorial Social Indicators, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Human Geography a Welfare Approach, Edward Arnold, London.

UNESCO (1977): UNESCO’s Policy Relevant Quality of Life Research Programe, Paris.

Venkataramiah, P. (1969): ‘Interstate Variation in Industry, 1951-61: A Comment’,  Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 4.

Williamson, J. G. (1965): ‘Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development: A Description of the Patterns’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 13.

Williamson, J. G. (1965): ‘Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development: A Description of the Patterns’,  Economic Development and Cultural Change XIII, No. 4 (II).



Related Images:



Author/Editor Information

Dr. Sanjay Kango

Department of Mathematics, Neta Ji Subhash Chander Bose Memorial, Government Post Graduate College, Hamirpur Himachal Pradesh-177 005, INDIA