ABSTRACT
A study on occupational mobility of the tribals in Mayurbhanj district of Odisha from agriculture to non-agriculture sectors
Jagannath Patra1, Sarthak Chowdhury2 and Rabindra Kumar Raj3
1Senior Scientist and Head, KVK, Mayurbhanj-II, OUAT, Bhubaneswar, Odisha;
2 Principal, Palli Siksha Bhavana, Visva Bharati
3Former Professor, Department of Extension Education, OUAT, Bhubaneswar
Email ID-
The tribal people as the dwellers of hills and forests have unproductive and uneconomic holdings, lack of irrigation facilities, traditional skills and primitive implements along with land alienation indebtedness. Their economy revolving around hunting, collecting, shifting cultivation and plough work. The fact is that the people could not meet all their food requirements and income from agricultural sources (settled and shifting) alone. Due to lack of sufficient scope for livelihood and deterioration of natural resources on which the tribal people depend much for their hereditary occupation, they migrate to other occupation or other places in search of job.Majority of cultivators use land only in kharif season and migrated to other places for alternative occupation like brickwork, construction work and industrial purposes in lean period.
According to Lipset and Bendix (1959), occupational mobility is the process by which individuals move from one position to another in society positions, which by general consent have been given specific hierarchical values”. The present study has been carried out with the objectives of to study the socio-economic profile of tribal people of the district and to analyse the nature and intensity of the occupational mobility from the agriculture to non-agricultural activities.
The study was conducted in Mayurbhanj district of Odisha purposefully in which the tribals occupy 58.72 % of the total population. Four blocks were selected randomly each one from four sub divisions.Fifteen tribal people were selected from each village as respondents randomlyfrom twelve villages three from each blocktotaling to sample size of 180.
The result showed that most of the respondents had very poor educational background.The findings showed that majority (72.22 percent) of the respondents had crop production as their primary traditional hereditary and presently also majority of the respondents had farming (35.0 percent) as their primary occupation followed by wage earner (20.55 percent). The finding pointed out that though the tribal people are diverting towards multifarious activities, still most of respondents have farming as their occupation either primary or secondary.On the basis of the finding of the study it is suggested thatliteracy level should be enhanced among the tribal people to increase their efficiency and better understanding of the scientific agriculture which can be implemented for checking mobility of the tribal people from agriculture to non-agriculture sector. There should be more investment and creation of employment opportunity in agriculture sector to make it more remunerative which will also develop more number of entrepreneurs among tribal people.
Key words: occupational mobility, tribal, primary hereditary occupation, secondary occupation
Introduction
The tribal people as the dwellers of hills and forests are surviving since time immemorial. With the passage of time, they have been facing multiple new challenges and devising their own responses to face them. During the post independence period, they have been experiencing induced social change through planned development and interventions. But in spite of such endeavor, the rate of progress and development are not commensurate with the expectations.The most of tribals have unproductive and uneconomic holdings, lack of irrigation facilities, traditional skills and primitive implements along with land alienation indebtedness. Their economy revolving around hunting, collecting, shifting cultivation and plough work. Majority of cultivators use land only in kharif season and migrated to other places for alternative occupation like brickwork, construction work and industrial purposes in lean period.
Enough technology in the field of agriculture has been developed in all land situations which is not only profitable, but also stable, sustainable and equitable. If all these technologies are used by the tribals perhaps they stay in their village and develop economic condition. Also there are various agencies working for the development of tribal people including line departments. Though due to intervention of different extension activities, the situation has been improving, still there are some areas of concern to be looked into specifically for the overall development.
Karn Deo Singh (2005) in his study in three districts viz. Koraput, Phulbani and Mayurbhanj, revealed that most households practice shifting cultivation, which seems to satisfy very essential nutritional requirements in form of pulses and oilseed as well as supplement the intake of cereal produced in low and midlands. The fact is that the people could not meet all their food requirements and income from agricultural sources (settled and shifting) alone. Due to lack of sufficient scope for livelihood and deterioration of natural resources on which the tribal people depend much for their hereditary occupation, they migrate to other occupation or other places in search of job. According to Lipset and Bendix (1959), occupational mobility is the process by which individuals move from one position to another in society positions, which by general consent have been given specific hierarchical values”. The mobility of the tribal people mainly depends on the availability of work/job, job satisfaction, relative economic advantage etc. The consequences of occupational mobility can be either positive or negative and are not restricted by the direction of the movement.
Shniper (2005) found that when economic conditions were favorable, individuals might have more opportunities to change jobs to earn more money, did the kind of work they prefer, or reduced their commuting time. Conversely, when economic conditions were less favorable, fewer opportunities with such desirable characteristics might be available.
Jagan Karade (2009) describes occupation is one of the best indicators of class, because people tend toagree on the relative prestige they attach to similar jobs. Those at or nearthe top rung of the prestige ladder usually have the highest income, thebest education, and the most of the power. He explained taht the educational achievements and occupational mobility among the scheduled castes in India, which showed that, the second generation of scheduled castes was highly mobile as compared to their fathers’ generation.
Ray and Majumder (2010) indicated strong intergenerational stickiness in both educational achievement and occupational distribution among the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who had been discriminated against historically. They further noted that occupational mobility was lower than educational mobility, indicating that educational progress was not being transformed into occupational improvement and brings up the possibility of discrimination in the labour market.
The present study has been carried out with following objectives.
- To study the socio-economic profile of tribal people of the district.
- To analyse the nature and intensity of the occupational mobility from the agriculture to non-agricultural activities.
REASEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in Mayurbhanj district of Orissa purposefully as the district enriched with most number of tribal people. The tribals occupy 58.72 % of the total population. The districts and sub divisions were selected purposively where as random sampling technique was followed to select blocks, villages and respondents. Four blocks were selected randomly each one from four sub divisions like Shamakhunta from Baripada Sadar, Kaptipada from Kaptipada, Bijatala from Rairangpur and Jasipur from Karanjia. Three villages were selected randomly from each block. Likewise twelve villages in total were selected randomly. Fifteen tribal people were selected from each village as respondents randomly totaling sample size of 180.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS
TABLE.1.1 Distribution of the respondents according to their Age
n=180
Sl. No. / Category / Number / Percentage1 / Young (18-35 years) / 103 / 57.22
2 / Middle (36-50 years) / 46 / 25.56
3 / Old (more than 50 years) / 31 / 17.22
From the Table.1.1, it was indicated that most of the respondents (57.22 percent) belonged to young age group (between 18- 35 years).
TABLE.1.2 Distribution of the respondents according to their category/caste of tribal
n=180
Sl. No. / Category / Number / Percentage1 / Santal / 61 / 33.89
2 / Bhumij / 36 / 20.00
3 / Kolha / 22 / 12.22
4 / Bathudi / 18 / 10.00
5 / Bhuyan / 16 / 08.89
6 / Ho / 09 / 05.00
7 / Munda / 09 / 05.00
8 / Sabar / 09 / 05.00
From the table.1.2, it was found that majority of the respondents belonged to Santal caste (33.89 percent) followed by Bhumij (20 percent), Kolha (12.22 percent), Bathudi (10 percent), Bhuyan (8.89 percent) and 5 percent each to Ho, Munda & Sabar. It is also conforming to the demographic figure about the distribution of the tribal in the district where Santal and Bhumij caste are predominant.
Fig. 1.1.1 Distribution of the respondents according to their category/caste of tribal
TABLE.1.3 Distribution of the respondents according to their Educational Status
n=180
Sl. No. / Category / Number / Percentage1 / Illiterate / 36 / 20.00
2 / Primary Level / 40 / 22.22
3 / Middle school Level / 33 / 18.33
4 / Matriculation / 40 / 22.22
5 / Higher secondary / 18 / 10.00
6 / Graduation / 06 / 03.33
7 / Post-Graduation and above / 04 / 02.22
8 / Any technical degree / 03 / 01.66
The table presented above implied that majority of the respondents made their education up to primary level and matriculation level (22.22 percent each) followed by illiterates (20 percent). From the observation it is evident that most of the respondents had very poor educational background.
Fig. 1.1.2 Distribution of the respondents according to their Educational Status
TABLE.1.4 Distribution of the respondents according to their Land holding
n=180
Sl. No. / Category / Number / Percentage1 / Less than 1 ac / 67 / 37.22
2 / Within 1-2 ac / 56 / 31.12
3 / Within 2-5 ac / 42 / 23.33
4 / More than 5 ac. / 15 / 08.33
From the table, it was found that the majority of the respondents belonged to marginal land holding category (37.22 percent).
TABLE.1.5 Distribution of the respondents according to their Annual Family Income
n=180
Sl. No. / Category / Number / Percentage1 / More than 1 lakh / 22 / 12.22
2 / 75,000-1 lakh / 09 / 05.00
3 / 50,000-75,000 / 39 / 21.66
4 / 25,000-50,000 / 74 / 41.11
5 / Less than 25,000 / 36 / 20.00
It was found that majority of the respondents had annual family income in the range Rs 25,000 to 50,000 (41.11 percent) followed by in the range of 50,000 to 75,000 (21.66 percent (5 percent).
TABLE.1.6 Distribution of the respondents according to their Cosmopoliteness
n=180
Sl. No. / Place / Extent of VisitVery often / Often / Occasionally / Never
Number / Number / Number / Number
1 / Visit to block level office / 43(23.88) / 58(32.22) / 70(38.88) / 09(05.00)
2 / Visit to district level office / 10(05.55) / 24(13.33) / 58(32.22) / 88(48.88)
3 / Visit to state level office / 0 / 05(02.77) / 38(21.11) / 137(76.12)
4 / Visit to national level office / 0 / 0 / 02(01.11) / 178(98.89)
5 / Visit to KVK / 15(08.33) / 09(05.00) / 27(15.00) / 129(71.67)
6 / Visit to nearby city / 13(07.22) / 75(41.66) / 70(38.88) / 22(12.22)
*Figures shown in the parentheses indicates the percentage
Cosmopoliteness influences their socio-economic status and mobility of the tribal people. From the table 1.7, it gave impression that 43 percent and 10 percent respondents visited to block level office and district level office very often. It was evident that most of the tribal people had contact within the block level office and also they were somehow access to the district level office whereas there was very poor linkage with the state and national level office.
TABLE.1.7 Distribution of the respondents according to their Extension Contact
n=180
Sl. No. / Extension Personnel / Extent of ContactVery frequently / Frequently / Sometimes / Never
Number / Number / Number / Number
1 / Field level official/workers / 24(13.33) / 51(28.33) / 67(37.22) / 38(21.11)
2 / Block level officials / 06(03.33) / 27(15.00) / 51(28.33) / 96(53.33)
3 / Sub division level officials / 03(01.66) / 03(01.66) / 57(31.66) / 117(65.00)
4 / District level officials / 03(01.66) / 03(01.66) / 21(11.66) / 153(85.00)
5 / State level officials / 0 / 03(01.66) / 03(01.66) / 174(96.66)
6 / Private companies / 0 / 06(03.33) / 21(11.66) / 153(85.00)
7 / NGOs / 0 / 12(06.66) / 30(16.66) / 138(76.66)
*Figures shown in the parentheses indicates the percentage
The table displayed the extent of extension contact of the tribal people under study in which it was found that very few were in contact with state, district, sub division and block level extension personnel. They had also very low rapport with the private companies and non- government organizations.
- To analyse the nature and intensity of the occupational mobility from the agriculture to non-agricultural activities along with the factors responsible for such mobility
In this section the nature and intensity of occupational mobility was analysed in different angle as well as the relationship with the socio-economic traits was also examined.
TABLE.2.1 Distribution of respondents according to their traditional hereditary occupation
n=180
Sl. No. / Occupations / Primary / SecondaryNumber / Percentage / Number / Percentage
1 / Farming / 130 / 72.22 / 36 / 20.00
2 / Animal Husbandry / 13 / 07.22 / 40 / 22.22
3 / Minor Forest Produce Collection / 12 / 06.66 / 48 / 26.66
4 / House hold value added products / 0 / 00.00 / 10 / 05.55
5 / Priest work / 04 / 02.22 / 0 / 00.00
6 / Wage earning / 21 / 11.66 / 46 / 25.55
It was clearly indicated from the table.2.1 that majority (72.22 percent) of the respondents had crop production as their primary traditional hereditary.
TABLE. 2.2 Distribution of respondents according to their present occupation
n=180
Sl. No. / Sectors / Primary / SecondaryNumber / Percentage / Number / Percentage
1 / Govt. service / 13 / 07.22 / 0 / 0
2 / Private/NGO service / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
3 / Business / 07 / 03.88 / 03 / 01.66
4 / Farming / 63 / 35.00 / 43 / 23.88
5 / Animal husbandry / 12 / 06.66 / 63 / 35.00
6 / Fishery / 0 / 0 / 15 / 08.33
7 / House hold products / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
8 / Industrial sector / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
9 / Wage earner / 37 / 20.55 / 30 / 16.66
10 / Political work / 03 / 01.66 / 0 / 0
11 / Contract job / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
12 / Skilled work / 09 / 05.00 / 26 / 14.44
The table.2.2 implied that majority of the respondents had farming (35.0 percent) as their primary occupation followed by wage earner (20.55 percent). The finding pointed out that though the tribal people are diverting towards multifarious activities, still most of respondents have farming as their occupation either primary or secondary.
TABLE. 2.3 Distribution of respondents according to their nature of occupational mobility
n=180
Sl. No. / Mobility to Sectors / Nature of mobilityMore than6 months/year / Less than6 months/year
Number / Percentage / Number / Percentage
1 / Govt. service / 13 / 07.22 / 0 / 0
2 / Private/NGO service / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
3 / Business / 07 / 03.88 / 03 / 01.66
4 / Farming / 63 / 35.00 / 70 / 38.88
5 / Animal husbandry / 12 / 06.66 / 63 / 35.00
6 / Fishery / 03 / 01.66 / 12 / 06.66
7 / Household produces / 06 / 03.33 / 03 / 01.66
8 / Industrial sector / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
9 / Wage earner / 37 / 20.55 / 30 / 16.66
10 / Political work / 03 / 01.66 / 0 / 0
11 / Contract job / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
12 / Skilled work / 09 / 05.00 / 36 / 14.44
The findings from the table.2.3 shows that, majority of the respondents (35.0 percent) had fully engaged in the farming sector more than six months in a year followed by wage earning in which 20.55 percents were engaged more than six years.
TABLE.2.4 Distribution of respondents according to intensity of mobility
n=180
Sl. No. / Mobility to Sectors / Intensity of MobilityRegularly in all years / In some years
Number / Percentage / Number / Percentage
1 / Govt. service / 13 / 07.22 / 0 / 0
2 / Private/NGO service / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
3 / Business / 07 / 03.88 / 03 / 01.66
4 / Farming / 63 / 35.00 / 70 / 38.88
5 / Animal husbandry / 12 / 06.66 / 63 / 35.00
6 / Fishery / 03 / 01.66 / 12 / 06.66
7 / Household produces / 06 / 03.33 / 03 / 01.66
8 / Industrial sector / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
9 / Wage earner / 37 / 20.55 / 30 / 16.66
10 / Political work / 03 / 01.66 / 0 / 0
11 / Contract job / 09 / 05.00 / 0 / 0
12 / Skilled work / 09 / 05.00 / 36 / 14.44
From the table it was implied that majority of respondents (35.0 percent) were engaged in farming regularly in all years followed by wage earner (20.55 percent). The finding pointed out that most of the respondents changed their occupation consistently in all years.
TABLE.2.5 Correlation coefficient between the socio-economic traits of respondents with their nature and intensity of mobility
n=180
Occupation (Dependant Variable) / Independent variables ExtensionAge / Category of caste / Education / Land holding / Annual family income / Cosmopoliteness / Extension contact
Govt. Service / 0.034 / -0.059 / 0.431** / 0.015 / 0.577** / 0.363** / -0.245**
Pvt. /NGO Service / 0.420 / -0.151* / -0.010 / -0.139 / -0.091 / 0.017 / -0.201**
Business / 0.032 / 0.260** / 0.402** / 0.232** / 0.262** / 0.380** / 0.253**
Farming / -0.171* / -0.139 / 0.021 / 0.374** / -0.130 / 0.026 / 0.615**
Animal husbandry / -0.252** / 0.191 / -0.139 / 0.099 / -0.225** / -0.139 / 0.321**
Fishery / -0.158* / -0.198** / 0.280** / 0.163* / 0.326** / 0.534** / 0.373**
Industrial Sector / -0.180* / 0.180* / 0.129 / -0.139 / 0.097 / -0.061 / -0.201**
Wage earning / -0.135 / 0.007 / -0.490** / -0.168* / -0.380** / -0.382** / 0.047
Political work / -0.102 / 0.102 / -0.006 / -0.037 / -0.052 / 0.142 / -0.114
Contract job / 0.420** / -0.151* / -0.149* / -0.139 / -0.091 / -0.217** / -0.138
Skilled job / -0.249** / -0.161* / -0.437** / -0.178* / -0.104 / -0.099 / 0.014
The table. 2.5 indicated the relationship between the socio-economic variable and occupational mobility of the respondents. From the table, it was noted that education, annual family income, cosmopoliteness had a positive and significant association with the government service. The socio economic traits like marital status, education, land holding, annual family income, cosmopoliteness, extension contact had only positive and significant association with the business sector. Likely the traits like land holding, extension contact had positive and significant association with the farming occupation. The mobility to animal husbandry sector had positive and significant association with extension contact. Similarly the mobility to fishery sector had positive and significant association with education, land holding, annual family income, cosmopoliteness and extension contact.
TABLE.2.6 Multiple regression analysis of the nature and intensity of mobilitywith the socio-economic traits of respondents
n=180
Socio-economic traits / Unstandardised Coefficients / Standardized Coefficients / ‘t’ value / Sig.B / Std. Error / Beta
(Constant) / 1.074 / 0.488 / 2.203 / 0.029
Age (x1) / -0.387 / 0.148 / -0.016 / -2.616 / 0.010
Category of caste (x2) / 0.858 / 0.139 / 0.321 / 6.186 / 0.000
Education (x3) / -0.831 / 0.084 / -0.739 / -9.935 / 0.000
Land holding (x4) / -0.398 / 0.064 / -0.673 / -6.209 / 0.000
Annual family income (x5) / -0.489 / 0.193 / -0.322 / -2.530 / 0.012
Cosmopoliteness (x6) / -0.016 / 0.066 / -0.026 / -0.251 / 0.802
Extension Contact (x7) / 0.592 / 0.066 / 1.149 / 9.031 / 0.000
Dependent Variable (y1): Nature and Intensity of occupational mobility
Model Summary
R / R Square / Adjusted R Square / Std. Error of the Estimate
0.603 / 0.646 / 0.596 / 0.63792
The above table indicated that all the causal variables together had explained 64.60 % of the variance routed with consequent variable intensity of occupational mobility.
REFERENCES
Karade, Jagan. Occupational Mobility Among Scheduled Castes. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: 17(2009)
Lipset, S. M. and Bendix, R.. Social Mobility to Industrial Society. University of California Press, California: 103(1959)
Ray, Jhilam and Majumder, Rajarshi. Educational and occupational mobility across generations in India: social and regional dimensions. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) Paper No. 28539. http;// mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/28539(2010)
Shniper, Lynn.Occupational mobility. Research Summary, employment data. Monthly Labour Review, December (2005)
Singh, Karn Deo. The Food and Nutrition Security on Community. Consolidated Report: Tribal Development Strategies from Phulbani, Orissa(2005)