Why Market Orientation Matters for Agriculture and Fishery Workers? Unravelling the Association between Occupational Background and Caloric Deprivation in India

Abstract

Background: Given the presumptions of low-productivity, developmental policies in low- and middle-income countries usually display a pro-manufacturing bias and largely undermine the potentials within the agriculture sectors in promoting sustainable growth and development. As a consequence, skill development is usually aligned with preferences of the manufacturing-led economic growth and is accorded high priorities in policymaking. However, the success of such skill development policies essentially hinges upon the assumption of a quick and successful structural transformation towards non-agricultural sector (manufacturing and services). But contrary to expectations, the pace of economic transition has been rather slow in India and almost one-half of the workforces continue to be engaged in agriculture and allied activities. Moreover, it is unclear whether such shift away from agriculture can necessarily lead to reductions in widespread deprivations in the form of food insecurity and under nutrition. In fact, it is also feasible that market orientation of skilled agricultural and fishery sector may display favorable impact on poverty and nutritional well-being of households. Methods: Therefore, drawing upon data from 68th round (2011-12) of nationally representative cross-sectional Household Consumer Expenditure Survey (HCES) of National Sample Survey (NSS), Government of India, this study aims to examine the association between occupational backgrounds and nutritional deprivation (average caloric consumption as well as low calorie intake) among Indian households. Results: Evidences show that agricultural and fishery labor households have lowest calorie intake (2086 kcal) across all the occupational groups. However, market oriented skilled agricultural and fishery workers’ (2261 kcal – rural, 2165 kcal - urban) have higher calorie intakes than those belonging to subsistence agricultural (2165 kcal – rural, 2149 kcal - urban) and fishery workers or agricultural and fishery laborer (2086 kcal – rural, 2071 kcal - urban). Further, the multilevel logistic regression estimates suggest that in rural areas, households engaged in skilled agricultural and fishery works have significantly (at 5% level) lower odds ratio (OR: 0.72, with 95% CI: 0.63; 0.82) of having insufficient calorie intake compared to the unskilled agricultural and fishery laborer households. Conclusion: These insights when combined with the occupation-specific random-effects suggests that policy focus to promote market oriented skilled agricultural and fishery workers can be an equally good option as direct investment in professional and managerial skills for manufacturing and services.