8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

1/11

Rural livelihood change? Household capital, community resources and

livelihood transition

Prem B. Bhandari*

Population Studies Center, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, USA

Keywords:

Capital

Farm exit

Livelihood

Nepal

South Asia

a b s t r a c t

Using the sustainable livelihoods approach, this study examines the extent to which household human,natural and economic capital, socio-cultural background and physical resources contribute to livelihood

change of farm household to non-farm activities in a rural agrarian setting of Nepal. A number of studies

examine the inuence of various macro-level, particularly economic factors on farm exit in developed

countries. However, we know much less about micro-level household and community assets that

contribute to decisions on livelihood transition by farm households in developing countries. I use the

unique longitudinal panel data between 1996 and 2001 collected from 1180 farm households from a

rapidly changing rural agrarian setting of Nepal. The   ndings reveal that the availability of household

labor, particularly children, access to cultivated land, and livestock ownership hinder decision to liveli-

hood transition net of other factors known to inuence livelihood change. Moreover, proportion of non-

farm households in the community signicantly and positively inuenced livelihood transition of farm

households. These ndings provide important insights on livelihood transition in a rapidly changing poor

rural agrarian context.

 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This study uses the sustainable livelihood approach to examine

the extent to which the access to various capital inuence a

household’s livelihood transition from farming to non-farm activ-

ities also called farm exit in a poor rural agricultural setting of 

Nepal. A number of studies explain farm exits in developed coun-

tries such as in the United States, Canada, Israel, Germany, Austria

and Finland (Bragg and Dalton, 2004; Foltz, 2004; Glauben et al.,

2006;   Goetz and Debertin, 2001;   Kimhi and Bollman, 1999;

Pietola et al., 2002; Stiglbauer and Weiss, 2000; Vare and Heshmati,

2004). Many of these studies focused on socioeconomic forces

inuencing farm exit such as government payments, off-farm

employment, land size, types of farm enterprises, land and live-stock ownership, and returns from off-farm employment oppor-

tunities. Some of them also examined the inuence of demographic

factors such as farm operators’  age, their marital status, gender,

family size, and number of children (Glauben et al., 2006;  Kimhi

and Bollman, 1999;   Pietola et al., 2002;   Stiglbauer and Weiss,

2000; Vare and Heshmati, 2004). Because a very small proportion

of the population of these countries is engaged in agriculture, these

studies are motivated by policies designed to retain farms (Bragg

and Dalton, 2004; Foltz, 2004; Goetz and Debertin, 2001).

Studies of farm exit or livelihood transition are almost entirely

absent in poor rural agrarian contexts of developing countries

including Nepal. This study contributes to the existing knowledge

gap by empirically examining the inuence of various livelihood

assets on livelihood transition of farm households to non-farm

activities in a poor rural agrarian context of Nepal. This investiga-

tion is important for several reasons. First, about three-quarters of 

poor people in developing countries directly or indirectly depend

on subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods. The   World Bank

(2008)   recognizes that promotion of agriculture is important in

agriculture-based countries particularly those in Sub-Saharan Af-

rica for achieving the Millennium Development Goal (MDG)through reducing poverty and hunger. However, in agricultural

transforming countries such as those of South and East Asia, the

Middle East and North Africa, the World Bank suggests assisting

farmers to help move out of agriculture in addition to other alter-

natives such as shifting to high value agriculture and promoting

non-farm activities as important pathways out of poverty.

Second, shift of farm occupation by individuals and households

to non-farm activities referred to as farm exit or livelihood transi-

tion is increasing recently in Nepal. The Nepal Labor Force Survey

reported a signicant decline in the proportion of population

currently employed in agriculture from 76 percent in 1998 to 67*   Tel.:  þ1 734 764 6349 (work); fax:  þ1 734 615 3557.

E-mail address:  prembh@umich.edu.

Contents lists available at  SciVerse ScienceDirect

 Journal of Rural Studies

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :   w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m /l o c a t e / j r u r s t u d

0743-0167/$ e  see front matter    2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.001

 Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 126e136

mailto:prembh@umich.edumailto:prembh@umich.eduhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstudhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.001http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstudhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.001&domain=pdfmailto:prembh@umich.edu

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

2/11

percent in 2008 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1999, 2009).1 More-

over, within households, it is often not only one or two individuals

but all members who change from farming to non-farming occu-

pations. For example, in the Western Chitwan Valley the setting for

this study, the 1996 Chitwan Valley Family Study (CVFS) reported

that about 7.5 percent of households left farming between 1996 and

2001 (Bhandari, 2006). While this rate of attrition might not seem

rapid, that it occurred in only   ve years makes it signicant.

Moreover, much less is known about various factors that contribute

to livelihood transition by farm households in developing countries

including Nepal.

Third, understanding of this issue is also important in the

Nepalese context because increasing pressure of population in

agriculture has been considered one of the important problems

facing the country (Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan,1995; Ashby

and Pachico,1987). It is believed that increased population pressure

on agricultural land has contributed to low agricultural produc-

tivity due to increased marginal land under cultivation (Chitrakar,

1990;  Karan and Ishii, 1996). Therefore, lessening the pressure of 

population in agriculture by diverting farm based individuals to-

ward non-farm activities such as formal and informal sector jobs,

tourism, and business has been the policy agenda of the Nepalese

government (NPC, 1998;  NPC, 2003). In addition, the World Bank(2008) also recognizes that assisting farmers to help move out of 

agriculture is one of the important pathways out of poverty. By

analyzing the unique longitudinal panel data of households at two

points in time, 1996 and 2001, this study affords to fulll the

existing knowledge gap by empirically examining the inuence of 

various capital assets on livelihood transition of farm households to

non-farm activities.

2. Study setting 

The Western Chitwan Valley situated in the southern plain of 

central Nepal is the setting for this study. The Valley is sur-

rounded by the Rapti River and the Royal Chitwan National Parkon the south, the Narayani River on the west and north, and

Barandabar forest on the east. The area covers part of the Bhar-

atpur municipality and 12 Village Development Committees

surrounded by the Narayani River, the Mahendra   Rajmarg   (the

national Highway), and the Chitwan National Park. Narayanghat

is the largest market center in the District, is the main business

hub.

The household economy is primarily agriculturally based. Before

the 1950s, the area was inhabited primarily by Terai Janajati

(indigenous) groups such as the Tharu, Darai and Kumal. At that

time, the area was heavily infested with malaria-bearing mosqui-

toes. In 1956, the government initiated the Rapti Valley Develop-

ment Project (RVDP) with aid from the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID) to initiate a rehabilitation

program in the Valley by eradicating malaria. The government also

provided land to migrants ranging from 4  bighas (1 bigha ¼ 0.68 ha

or 1 ha   ¼   1.5  bigha) to 100   bighas   by clearing the dense forest

(Shrestha, 1990). Currently, the Valley is inhabited mostly by in-

migrants, especially from the Hill and the high Hill as well as

other Terai districts including India (Blaikie et al., 2000; Guneratne,

1998). The Valley now is home to diverse ethnic communities that

range from Terai Janajati (indigenous) (e.g. Tharu, Kumal, Darai) to

high caste Hindu (e.g. Brahmin and Chhetri), Hill Janajati

(indigenous) (e.g. Gurung, Magar and Tamang),   Dalit   (e.g. Kami,

Sunar, Damai and Sarki) and Newar.

Transformation in the Valley has resulted in a proliferation of 

government services, businesses, and wage labor jobs in Nar-

ayanghat and Chitwan (Shivakoti et al., 1999). Various govern-

mental and non-governmental organizations such as the District

Agricultural Development Section, Agricultural Statistics Sub-

station, Agricultural Inputs Corporation, District Cooperative Sec-

tion, Cooperative Union, Nepal Food Corporation, Nepal Bank

Limited and Agriculture Development Bank including the Institute

of Agriculture and Animal Science provide various services. A few

large industries such as Bottlers Nepal and many other small scale

industries have been established in and around the Valley. More

recently, many poultry production farms have been established

(Bhandari and Ghimire, 2013;   Shrestha and Bhandari, 2000;

Shrestha et al., 1998/1999). Transportation and communication

networks such as roads, radio, television, and telephone facilities

are relatively well developed compared to other parts of the

country. These transformations have generated off-farm employ-

ment opportunities in trade, agribusiness, tourism, and industry

(Shivakoti and Pokharel, 1989).

3. The conceptual framework, empirical evidence andhypothesis

This study uses the sustainable livelihoods approach, a tool

developed to improve understanding of livelihoods, particularly the

livelihoods of the poor people. I use this framework e the access to

“capitals and capabilities”   (e.g.   Bebbington, 1999;   DFID, 1999;

Scoones, 1999)  e   in understanding a household’s livelihood tran-

sition from farming to non-farm activities. This sustainable liveli-

hoods approach is relevant for several reasons. First, this approach

recognizes the importance of capabilities, assets and activities

required for a means of living. Second, this approach helps under-

stand the links between individual or household assets and the

activities in which households engage with a given set of assets.

Third, this approach brings together various critical factors thataffect the vulnerability or strength of survival strategies (Allison

and Ellis, 2001;   Carney, 2002;   Ahmed et al., 2008). Specically, I

examine the inuence of the access to various livelihoods capital e

human capital (e.g. labor availability and skill),natural andnancial

capital (e.g. operational land holding and ownership of land and

livestock), socio-cultural context (e.g. caste/ethnicity), and physical

resources (e.g. the access to non-family community resources) on a

household’s livelihood transition from farming to non-farm activ-

ities in a poor subsistence agrarian setting of Nepal.

 3.1. Human capital and livelihood transition (farm exit)

Human capital comprises of amount and quality of labor avail-

able, skills, knowledge and health that together enable individualsor households to pursue different livelihood strategies to achieve

their livelihood objectives (DFID, 1999). In subsistence-based poor

rural agrarian societies, human capital such as the quality and

quantity of available labor is a building block for acquiring liveli-

hood objectives and sustaining livelihood outcomes. A household

uses traditional labor-using inputs, for example, bullocks (and hu-

man power) for plowing farm land, farmyard manure for fertilizing

crop  elds, and weeding and taking out diseased or insect infested

plants as long as family labor is available to carry out these activ-

ities. Their use depends upon the number of working-age family

members   e   men, women and children   e   available to the farm

household. The availability of working-age family members which

is directly used in household production determines the size of the

households’  farm labor force (Food and Agriculture Organization

1 The Nepal Labor Force Survey denes currentlyemployed as e if a person did at

least one hour’s work in the previous seven days or if the person had a job

attachment (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1999,   2009). This is in line with the

standards of the International Labor Organization (ILO).

P.B. Bhandari / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 126 e136    127

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

3/11

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

4/11

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

5/11

available in urban areas. Therefore, I hypothesize that  households

close to the urban center are more likely to exit farming (H7). Simi-

larly, the presence of non-farm households in the community may

also affect farm exit decision.  Goetz and Debertin (2001)  in their

study of the U.S. counties found that off-farm employment

encouraged farm exits in counties where the number of farm

proprietors declined. This implies that the proportion of non-farm

households may inuence farm exit decisions. Secondly, non-farm

households in the community exert pressure for off-farm services,

which may encourage farm households to engage in newly created

off-farm jobs. Hence, I argue that households living in communities

with large proportion of non-farm households are more likely to

exit farming (H8).

4. Methods

4.1. Data sources

Data for this study come from multiple surveys collected by the

Chitwan Valley Family Study (CVFS) from the Western Chitwan

Valley of south central Nepal. Specically, the 1996 household

census data, household consumption and agriculture survey data

1996 and repeated in 2001, and the 1996 neighborhood history dataare used in this study (for details,  http://perl.psc.isr.umich.edu/).

A farming household is the unit of analysis. The information

comes from the households that were farming during the 1996

household consumption and agriculture survey. A farming house-

hold is dened as a   “household in which at least one member (not

necessarily the head, the reference person or the main income

earner) is operating a holding” as dened by the FAO (1986, p. 144).

Specically, the survey considered a household as farming if the

household reported that it was engaged in the production of any

kind of crop in at least 10  dhurs  (0.500   kattha  ¼ 0.017 ha) of land

during the survey period. The survey also asked the actual size of 

land under various crops during the survey year. The validity of the

response on farming status was conrmed by examining the actual

size of land the householdwas cultivating during the surveyperiod,whether it is equal to or more than 10  dhurs. The 2001 household

consumption and agriculture survey also dened   ‘farming’  in the

same way as the earlier 1996 survey and the same procedure was

applied to identify a farm household.

The 1996 CVFS household census data and the 1996 household

consumption and agriculture survey data were collected from 1805

households located in 171 neighborhood clusters. However, due to

resource limitations, the 2001 household consumption and agri-

culture survey data were restricted to 1523 households living in 151

neighborhoods in 1996. Despite the fact, households that were not

included in the 2001 interview did not differ signicantly from the

1996 households. The data were collected using a face-to-face

interview technique that administered a scientically designed

interviewer assisted structured schedule. Information on the entireasset measures such as human, natural, economic and socio-

cultural context used in this study come from the 1996 survey.

The household farming status, the measure of livelihood transition

or farm exit, was obtained from the 1996 and 2001 surveys.

Neighborhood or community level information was also

collected in 1996 to construct measures of community character-

istics or community physical resources. The neighborhood clusters

were the lowest level sampling units considered for CVFS. In brief,

prior to choosing samples of these neighborhoods,the study area of 

the Western Chitwan Valley was  rst divided into three different

strata based on the approximate distance from Narayanghat, the

urban center of Chitwan District, to select a representative sample

of neighborhoods (see  Barber et al., 1997; for detail). Strata 1

included the area nearest to Narayanghat while strata 3 included

the area farthest from it. From each stratum, 10 settlements were

selected based on 1991 population census. Then, each settlement

was divided into small neighborhood clusters with   xed

geographic boundary. Each neighborhood clusters consisted of 5e

15 households living inside the boundary. Then, a representative

group of neighborhood clusters were chosen using the systematic

sampling techniques making a total of 171 neighborhood clusters.

From each neighborhood, neighborhood histories of community-

level changes over time such as bus services, schools, health ser-

vices, markets, dairy, cooperatives and other community services

were collected. The information was collected from each commu-

nity using in-depth interviews, key informant surveys, and other

secondary data sources.

4.2. Measures

4.2.1. Measure of livelihood transition or farm exit 

The 1996 household consumption and agriculture survey

conrmed the farming or non-farming status of a household by

asking:   “Does your household do any farming?” Similarly, the 2001

household consumption and agriculture survey also conrmed the

farming status of each household that was surveyed in 1996 by

asking the same question. In both surveys, the validity of theresponse on farming status was conrmed by examining the actual

size of land the household was cultivating during the survey period,

whether it is equal to or more than 10 dhurs. A household’s farming

status recorded in 1996 was compared to the farming status of the

same household in 2001. If a household was farming in 1996 and

was not farming in 2001, this change in status was considered as

livelihood transition from farming to non-farming or farm exit.

Thus, farm exit is measured as a dichotomous measure coded   “1” if 

a household reported a shift from farming to non-farming occu-

pation and   “0” otherwise.

4.2.2. Measures of capital

Among human capital are family labor characteristicssuch as the

availability of working age males and females, elderly, children andeducation. Availability of working age family members is the

number of working-age males and females 15e64 years of age

living in the household at the time of the 1996 survey. Similarly, the

presence of elderly is measured as the number of elderly in-

dividuals over 64 years of age. I also examined separately the effects

of the number of children below 6 years of age (non-working age),

and 6e14 years (working age). Since the household survey does not

identify a household head, the age (in years) of the oldest male is

used. If there was no male in the household, the age of the oldest

female was used. Similarly, education of the oldest male member in

a household is used as number of years of schooling. If there was no

male in a household, the education of the oldest female was used.

The access to and ownership of land, ownership of livestock and

farm inputs use are considered under   natural and/or economic capital. In the Chitwan Valley, two types of farm lands are available

e bari and  khet .  Bari  is upland, usually un-irrigated, and generally

not suitable for rice cultivation.  Khet  is low lying land that can be

irrigated during the monsoon season and is suitable for planting

rice. The 1996 household consumption and agriculture survey ob-

tained information about the ownership of   bari   and   khet   land

separately by asking   “Does your household own the land, is it

sharecropped, is it mortgaged, is it on contract to you, are you the

tenant of the land or are there some other arrangements?” Based on

the responses, farm households were categorized as (i) full owners,

(ii) owner plus sharecroppers (part-owners), and (iii) sharecrop-

pers. Similarly, the access to cultivated land is measured as the total

of  bari   and   khet   land cultivated by a farm household during the

survey year in the local unit, bigha and kattha (1ha¼

1.5 bigha¼

30

P.B. Bhandari / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 126 e136 130

http://perl.psc.isr.umich.edu/http://perl.psc.isr.umich.edu/

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

6/11

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

7/11

that the availability of working-age children and men are the two

statistically important human capital measures in the decision to

farm exit.

There could be several reasons behind this result.   Rosenzweig

(1977,   p. 124) pointed out two important roles of children:   “as

durable commodities which yield psychic income and productive

laborers.”   in agricultural households. In rural Nepal, children

provide support to their parents in a variety of productive roles (for

example, farm and off-farm work), as well as enabling labor (for

example, meal preparation and child care) (Kumar and Hotchkiss,

1988). They share a major portion of the household work burden

(National Planning Commission and UNICEF/Nepal, 1996). Forinstance, while boys under 14 perform activities such as farming,

livestock grazing, and collecting rewood and fodder, after 14 years

they take on the full responsibility of adult males such as plowing,

digging and chopping logs. Girls, in addition, perform activities

such as fetching water, cleaning, washing clothes, and caring for

younger children.

Another human capital measure, education, however, did not

statistically signicantly contribute to farm exit, although the di-

rection of the effect was as expected (odds ratio  ¼  1.030;  p  > .05,

Model 1). This result corresponds to the  ndings of  Stiglbauer and

Weiss (2000) among farmers in Austria and among dairy farmers in

the US (Bragg and Dalton, 2004). It could be due to less variation in

the level of education: 44 percent of the household heads were not

educated. Among those who were educated, about 68 percent of 

them had less than 10 years of schooling. I also examined the effect

of mean years of schooling of household members as used by Axinn

and Ghimire (2011) but the result was not statistically signicant

(results not shown).

5.2.2. Natural (and economic) capital and livelihood transition

(farm exit)

Among various measures of natural and economic capital

assessed in this study, only the cultivated size of land and livestock

ownership statistically signicantly contributed to farm exit. Net of 

all other factors, a one  kattha (30  kattha  ¼ 1 ha) increase in culti-

vated land signicantly decreased the odds of farm exit by about 4percent (odds ratio   ¼   0.962;   p   <   .01, Model 1), illustrating the

importance of the access to cultivated land on livelihood transition

of these smallholder farmers. Stated differently, a 10 kattha increase

(one-third of a hectare) in cultivated land holding would decrease

the odds of exiting farming by 40 percent. When this effect was

further examined by land ownership categories, this result held

true among full land owners but not for sharecroppers and part

owners (results not shown).

Interestingly, ownership of land did not statistically signicantly

contribute to farm exit. Adjusting for all other measures of capital,

full land owners were not statistically different from sharecroppers

and part-owners in terms of occupation change. Surprisingly, net of 

other factors, both part-owners and sharecroppers were found to

be less likely to exit farming compared to full land owners,

 Table 1

Descriptive statistics: demographic, socioeconomic, and neighborhood characteristics by household farming status (N ¼ 1180).

Measuresa Farming status

Left farming by 2001 (n  ¼ 80) Continued farming by 2001 (n ¼ 1100)

Mean or (%)b SD Minemax Mean or (%) SD Minemax

Human capital

Family labor availability by type

Number of working-age females 1.40*** 0.67 0e

4 1.76 0.97 0e

10Number of working-age males 1.35** 0.78 0e4 1.70 1.01 0e8

Number of elderly persons (>64 years) 0.23 0.53 0e2 0.24 0.52 0e2

Number of children (

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

8/11

although this effect was not statistically signicant. In addition,

when the analysis was disaggregated by land size categories, the

land ownership also did not play a signicant role on farm exit

(results not shown). I further compared sharecroppers alongside

marginal land owners as a single   ‘class’ with larger land owners. A

slightly stronger but still statistically not signicant relationship

was evident. This result suggests that the access to operational land

size was important in the decision to livelihood transition from

farming to non-farming activities in this setting.

Farm households that owned animals such as cattle, buffalo,

sheep and goat were over 51 percent less likely to exit farming

compared to those that did not own these livestock (oddsratio¼ 0.487; p < .05, Model 1). Households that used modern farm

technologies were assumed to enjoy the benets fromtheir use and

therefore, were notexpected to leave farming as frequently as those

who do not use these inputs. As expected, the use of bio-chemical

inputs (such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides) and mechanical

inputs (such as tractors, pumpsets, and farm implements) nega-

tively inuenced livelihood transition net of all other factors. But

both of these effects were not statistically signicant. This could be

because the farming is still subsistence based and is not fully

commercialized.

5.2.3. Socio-cultural context and livelihood transition (farm exit)

Interestingly but unexpectedly, the socio-cultural background

of farm household measured by caste/ethnicity was not

statistically important for livelihood transition. Although small

differences were observed in the rate of farm exit among caste/

ethnicity groups at the bi-variate level, these differences were

not statistically signicant suggesting any evidence of caste/

ethnicity differential in livelihood transition in this setting. One

reason could be that Chitwan is considered quite different from

rest of the country in terms of its egalitarian nature and as a

popular migrant destination. Although not directly related to

livelihood transition, other studies in this setting and Nepal

provided mixed results of differences by caste/ethnicity. For

example,   Bhandari et al. (2007)   using the 2001 Nepal De-

mographic Health Survey Data found that Brahmin and Chhetri(high caste Hindu) were not signicantly different from other

caste/ethnic groups such as Dalit, hill Janajati, Terai Janajati and

Newar in child immunization. Similarly,   Axinn and Ghimire

(2011) reported that household-level vegetation consumption  e

use of common land for grazing or collection of fodder did not

vary by caste/ethnicity in this setting of Western Chitwan Valley.

On the other hand, other scholars reported a caste/ethnicity

differential in human capital endowment such as father’s and

mother’s work and social capital endowment such as migration

of parents (e.g. Massey et al., 2009); migration of individuals (e.g.

Massey et al., 2010) and childbearing (e.g.   Ghimire and Axinn,

2010;   Ghimire and Hoelter, 2007) to mention a few. Therefore,

further exploration is necessary to understand why farm exit

decision was not related to caste/ethnicity in this setting.

 Table 2

Logistic regression models for predicting farm exit by household demographic, socioeconomic and neighborhood characteristics ( N ¼ 1180).

Measures Multivariate models

Model 1 e full model Model 2 e  reduced model

Human capital

Family labor availability by type

Number of working-age females   0.107 (0.898)   e

Number of working-age males   0.263 (0.769)   0.348 (0.706)*

Number of children (64 years) 0.105 (1.111)   e

Age of the household head (years)   0.061 (0.941)   e

Age of the household head squared 0.001 (1.001)   e

Education of household head (years) 0.030 (1.030)   e

Natural and economic capital

Size of cultivated land (kattha)   0.038 (0.962)**   0.049 (0.953)***

Land ownership: (Ref ¼ Full owners)

Sharecroppers   0.148 (0.862)   e

Owners plus sharecroppers   0.774 (0.461)   e

Any livestock (yes ¼ 1)   0.720 (0.487)*   0.735 (0.480)*

Technology use in agriculture

Bio-chemical technology: used any (¼1)   0.392 (0.676)   e

Mechanical technology: used any (¼1)   0.334 (0.716)   e

Socio-cultural context

Ethnicity: (Ref ¼ high caste Hindu e   Brahmin/Chhetri)

Dalit   0.035 (0.966)  e

Hill Janajati 0.141 (1.151)   e

Newar   1.237 (0.290)   e

Terai Janajati   0.010 (0.990)   e

Physical resources (neighborhood context)

Percent non-farm households 0.043 (1.044)*** 0.040 (1.041)***

Number of services within a 10-min walk   0.023 (0.977)   e

Proximity to urban center (Ref ¼ strata 1)

Strata 2 (between strata 1 and 3) 0.600 (1.823)   e

Strata 3 (farthest from urban center) 0.194 (1.214)   e

Intercept 0.581 (1.789)   e

Model Chi-square 127.598*** 107.927***

Degrees of freedom 22 5

2LL 457.450 477.122

Nagelkerke  R-square (percent) 26.2 22.4

Percent correctly classied 93.4 93.3

Wald Chi-square *** ¼  p < .001; ** ¼  p < .01; * ¼  p < .05; 1 ha ¼ 1.5 bigha ¼ 30 kattha.

Figures in parenthesis are odds ratios.

P.B. Bhandari / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 126 e136    133

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

9/11

5.2.4. Physical resources and livelihood transition (farm exit)

The results of the effects of various community resources also

referred to as physical capital on farm exit indicate that the pro-

portion of non-farm households in the community signicantly and

positively contributed to farm exit (odds ratio  ¼  1.044;  p  <  .001;

Model 1) net of all other factors. A one percent increase in the

proportion of non-farm households in the community increased

the odds of livelihood transition from farming to non-farming ac-

tivities by 4 percent. Interestingly, the effect of the number of non-

family services available in a community, which was statistically

signicant and positive without controlling for the effect of pro-

portion of non-farm households (results not shown), turned out to

be statistically non-signicant when the latter variable was

simultaneously included in the analysis. Similarly, rural or urban

location of a farm household was also not important in farm exit

decision. This could be because households living in communities

with relatively greater proportions of non-farm households de-

mand additional services, which help create off-farm employment

opportunities, thus encouraging other households to leave farming.

6. Summary and conclusions

Farm households in Nepal are changing their livelihood strate-gies by shifting their farming occupation to non-farm activities also

called farm exit. Using the sustainable livelihood framework, this

study contributes to our understanding of why some households

leave farming and why others continue it by examining the access

to various assets or forms of capital known to inuence livelihood

transition.

The  ndings revealed that various dimensions of human, nat-

ural, and economic capital and community resources inuence

decisions on livelihood transition in this poor rural agrarian setting

of Nepal. The availability of working-age family labor pool, partic-

ularlythe presence of working-age males andmore importantly the

presence of working-age children are found to be important human

capital that discouraged livelihood transition from farming to non-

farm activities. Thisnding is plausible because children are widelyused in carrying out farming and other household activities and

share a major portion of the household work burden (Filmer and

Pritchett, 1997;   Kumar and Hotchkiss, 1988;   Loughran and

Pritchett, 1997; National Planning Commission and UNICEF/Nepal,

1996). Moreover, children may take over farm responsibilities

from their parents as successors (Glauben et al., 2006). From a

policy perspective, this   nding suggests that if farmers are

encouraged to invest household resources in human capital

development of children such as schooling, rather than using their

labor on farm and household activities, the effect of the availability

of working-age children on farm exit may be altered. However,

exactly why the presence of working-age children in a household

hinders farm household’s occupation change to non-farm activities

in this setting remains unclear. Information on children’s time

allocation in farming, schooling, and other activities, and household

income sources, and their distribution in various activities,

including child development (for example, health and schooling)

may be necessary to answer this question.

Access to cultivated land and keeping livestock also reduced the

likelihood of farm exit. Other way round, farm households with

small size of operational land holding and with no or fewer live-

stock were more likely to change their livelihood strategies to non-

farm occupations. These  ndings have important policy relevance

in the Nepalese context where an overwhelming majority of 

households are engaged in farming. Moreover, many farm house-

holds own and cultivate very small holdings that are marginal or

 just enough to sustain livelihoods of their families. For example, in

2001, over one-half of farm households in Nepal reported to have

less than one hectare of land. In addition, the farming system is

crop-livestock mixed. In this situation, development of off-farm

employment opportunities suitable for small land holders as well

as those with no or few animals may encourage these farmers to

move out of farming. While employment of small farm holders in

the off-farm sector may result in higher incomes, their movement

out of farming will help relieve the pressure of population in

agriculture.

Interestingly but unexpectedly, the socio-cultural background of 

farm households was not statistically important in the decision to

livelihoods transition. The farm households that belonged to hill

 Janajati, Dalit, Newar and Terai Janajati were not statistically

signicantly different from those that belonged to the high caste

Hindu. This nding provides an important insight of no differences

in livelihoods transition based on caste/ethnicity. One of the rea-

sons could be that Chitwan is considered signicantly different

from rest of the country in terms of its egalitarian nature, migrant

population, centrality of geographic location and economic devel-

opment. Further investigation is necessary to understand the

mechanism why farm exit decision was not related to caste/

ethnicity in this setting.

The evidence indirectly suggests that increased access to phys-

ical resources such as non-family services may positively inuencefarm exit, the effect of which was mediated by the proportion of 

non-farm households in the community. Development of com-

munity resources such as schools, health services, banks, co-

operatives and bus service may provide off-farm employment

opportunities to individuals. This likely encourages households to

leave farming occupation thus increasing the proportion of non-

farm households in these communities. These non-farming

households may also demand additional off-farm services in the

community, which may further encourage other farm households

to exit due to an increase in off-farm employment opportunities.

While this is a plausible interpretation of this nding, conrmation

of this explanation requires data on the employment and occupa-

tions of those who left farming.

This study is not free from some methodological limitations.One of the important limitations is the conceptualization of liveli-

hood change e farm exit. This study denes livelihood transition in

a very simple way e whether a household that was farming in 1996

continued or discontinued farming in 2001. In reality, there are

complications. While households may say they are involved in

farming at the time of survey, their livelihood strategies may be

diverse and this study does not explore other livelihood strategies

such as part-off-farm employment (such as business or jobs or

wage labor) or migration of one or more members of the household

adopted by a farm household. Households may continue farming,

but farming may have played a very limited role in their overall

livelihood because sons or daughters may have professional income

or income from migration or from other off-farm sources. Some

farmers may farm land during the monsoon but leave fallow duringdry season when agriculture is more risky. Moreover, this research

also does not provide information on alternative livelihood stra-

tegies adopted by households that exited farming. Investigation is

also needed in order to create necessary services and facilities in

that direction. Further, it is also not clear whether the livelihood

outcomes of the households that changed from farming to non-

farming occupations are better or worse in off-farm sectors or

whether these households return to farm sector jobs.

In conclusion, this study provides evidence that households’

livelihoods assets inuence their livelihoods transition. These

ndings reveal that the presence of working-age children

encourage continuation of farming as a livelihood strategy. Thus,

from a policy perspective, encouraging farm households to invest in

the human capital development of children may increase farm exits

P.B. Bhandari / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 126 e136 134

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

10/11

in the long term. This study also provides evidence that the access

to natural and/or economic capital such as the size of cultivated

land and livestock keeping are two important factors that inhibit

livelihood transition from farming to non-farm activities. If Nepal

continues to pursue policies that encourage small farm holders to

leave farming, then appropriate economic policies must focus in

generating alternative employment opportunities in the non-farm

sector. Such policies should only be pursued if non-farm employ-

ment increases in suf cient numbers to absorb those who exit

farming. In the absence of employment growth in the non-farm

sector, such policies will likely be self-defeating and tend to un-

dermine the agricultural sector, while further exacerbating urban

unemployment and congestion.

 Acknowledgment

This research was supported by a number of grants from the

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

(NICHD) (Grant #R01-HD032912, Grant #R01-HD033551, and

Grant #R01HD033551-13). I thank William G. Axinn (PI) for

providing access to the data. Sincere thanks are due to Shannon C.

Stokes and Leif Jensen, my mentors at the Pennsylvania State Uni-versity for their guidance and valuable suggestions in my disser-

tation research. I thank Dirgha J. Ghimire for his continuous

encouragement. I would also like to thank the staff of the Institute

for Social and Environmental Research-Nepal for their contribu-

tions to the research reported here. I offer many thanks to three

anonymous reviewers who provided excellent feedback to improve

the quality of this manuscript. Last but not least, I owe a special

debt of gratitude to the respondents who continuously welcome to

their homes and share their invaluable experiences, opinions,

thoughts and have devoted countless hours responding to our

survey questionnaires. All errors and omissions remain the re-

sponsibility of the author.

References

Acharya, M., Bennet, L., 1981. The Status of Women in Nepal: the Rural Women of Nepal. Tribhuvan University, Centre for Economic Development and Adminis-tration, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Agarwal, Bina, 1992. Impact of HYV rice technology on rural women. In: Punia, R.K.(Ed.), 1992. Women in Agriculture, Their Status and Role, vol. 1. Northern BookCenter, New Delhi, pp. 233e260.

Ahmed, Nesar, Allison, E.H., Muir, J.F., 2008. Using the sustainable livelihoodsframework to identify constraints and opportunities to the development of freshwater prawn farming in Southwest Bangladesh. Journal of the WorldAquaculture Society 39 (5), 598e611.

Allison, E.H., Ellis, F., 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale  sheries. Marine Policy 25, 377e388.

Ashby, J.A., Pachico, D., 1987. Agricultural ecology of the mid-hills of Nepal. In:Turner II, B.L., Brush, S.B. (Eds.), Comparative Farming Systems. The GuilfordPress, New York, pp. 195e222.

Asian Development Bank, 2002. Poverty Reduction in Nepal: Issues, Findings, and

Approaches.   http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_Reduction_NEP/poverty_analysis.pdf  (retrieved on September 20, 2005).

Axinn, William G., Barber, Jennifer S., 2001. Mass education and fertility transition.American Sociological Review 66, 481e505.

Axinn, William G., Ghimire, Dirgha J., 2011. Social organization, population, andland use. American Journal of Sociology 117 (1), 209 e258.

Barber, J.S., Shivakoti, G., Axinn, W.G., Gajurel, K., 1997. Sampling strategies for ruralsettings: a detailed example from the Chitwan Valley family study, Nepal. NepalPopulation Journal 6, 193e203.

Bebbington, A., 1999. Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzingpeasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 27 (12),2021e2044.

Bennet, L., Dahal, D.R., Govindasamy, Pav, 2008. Caste, Ethnic and Regional Identityin Nepal: Further Analysis of the 2006 Demographic and Health Surveys. MacroInternational Inc., Calverton, Maryland, USA.

Bhandari, P.B., 2006. Technology Use in Agriculture and Occupational Mobility of Farm Households in Nepal: Demographic and Socioeconomic Correlates (Un-published doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, Depart-

ment of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University Park .

Bhandari, Prem, Ghimire, Dirgha, 2013. Rural agricultural change and fertilitytransition in Nepal. Rural Sociology.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12007.NIHMSID: NIHMS431748.

Bhandari, P., Chaudhary, P., Shrestha, S., Tiwari, P., 1996e1997. The Naike System:hired labor mobilization in rice production in western Chitwan. Journal of theInstitute of Agriculture and Animal Science 17e18, 65e70.

Bhandari, Prem, Shrestha, Sundar S., Ghimire, Dirgha J., 2007. Sociocultural andgeographical disparities in child immunization in Nepal. Asia-Pacic Population

 Journal 22 (2), 43e64.Blaikie, P.M., Cameron, J., Seddon, D., 2000. The Struggle for Basic Needs in Nepal.

Adroit, Delhi, India.Blaikie, P.M., Cameron, J., Seddon, D., 2002. Understanding 20 years of change in

west-central Nepal: continuity and change in lives and ideas. World Develop-ment 30 (7), 1255e1270.

Boserup, E., 1971. Women’s Role in Economic Development. George Allen andUnwin, London, England.

Boserup, E., 1990. Economic and Demographic Relationships in Development: Es-says Selected and Introduced by T. Paul Schultz. The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, Baltimore, London.

Bragg, L.A., Dalton, T.J., 2004. Factors affecting the decision to exit dairy farming: atwo-stage regression analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 3092e3098.

Buttel, F.H., Larson, O.F., Gillespie Jr., G.W., 1990. Sociology of Agriculture. Green-wood Press, New York, NY .

Cain, Mead T., 1977. The economic activities of children in a village of Bangladesh.Population and Development Review 3, 201e227.

Carney, D., 2002. Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and Possibilities forChanges. Department for International Development, London, UK.

Central Bureau of Statistics, 1999. Nepal Labour Force Survey 1998/99 StatisticalReport. National Planning Commission Secretariat, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009. Report on the Nepal Labor Force Survey 2008.National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kath-mandu, Nepal.

Chitrakar, P.L., 1990. Planning, Agriculture and Farmers: Strategies for Nepal. GaneshDevi Chitrakar, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Dahal, D.R., 2003. Social Composition of the Population of Caste/ethnicity andReligion. In: Population Monograph of Nepal 2003. Central Bureau of Statistics,Kathmandu, Nepal.

De Janvry, A., 1981. The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America. JohnsHopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

DFID, 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for InternationalDevelopment, London, UK.

Filmer, D., Pritchett, L., 1997. Environmental Degradation and the Demand forChildren: Searching for the Vicious Circle (World Bank Policy Research PaperNo. 1623). The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Findley, S.E., 1987. Rural Development and Migration: a Study of Family Choices inthe Philippines. West View Press, Boulder, CO.

Foltz, J.D., 2004. Entry, exit, and farm size: assessing an experiment in dairy price

policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86, 594e

604.Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 1986. Population and the Labor Force inRural Economies (FAO Economic and Social Development Paper No. 59). Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Ghimire, Dirgha J., Axinn, William G., 2010. Community context, land use, and  rstbirth. Rural Sociology 75 (3), 478e513.

Ghimire, Dirgha J., Hoelter, Lynette F., 2007. Land use and  rst birth timing in anagricultural setting. Population and Environment 28 (6), 289e320.

Glauben, T., Tietje, H., Weiss, C., 2006. Agriculture on the move: exploringregional differences in farm exit rates. Jahrbuch fur Regionalwissenschaft 26,103e118.

Goetz, S.J., Debertin, D.L., 2001. Why farmers quit: a county-level analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83, 1010e1023.

Groothaert, C., Kanbur, R., 1995. Child labour: an economic perspective. Interna-tional Labour Review 134, 187e203.

Guneratne, A., 1998. Modernization, the state, and the construction of Tharuidentity in Nepal. The Journal of Asian Studies 57, 749e773.

Gurung, O.P., 1987. Inter-relationship Among Pasture, Animal Husbandry andAgriculture: Case Study of Tara. In: National Resource Management Paper Series

No. 2. Winrock, Kathmandu, Nepal. Jackson, C., 1995. Environmental reproduction and gender in the third world. In:

Morse, S., Stocking, M. (Eds.), People and Environment. UCL Press, London,England.

Karan, Pradyumna, Ishii, Hiroshi, 1996. Nepal: a Himalayan Kingdom in Transition.United Nations University Press, Tokyo, New York, Paris.

Kimhi, A., Bollman, R., 1999. Family farm dynamics in Canada and Israel: the case of farm exits. Agricultural Economics 21, 69e79.

Kumar, S.K., Hotchkiss, D., 1988. Consequences of Deforestation for Women’s TimeAllocation, Agricultural Production, and Nutrition in Hill Areas of Nepal(Research Report No. 69). International Food Policy Research Institute, Wash-ington, DC.

Lawati, M.L., 2001. Racial Discrimination toward the Indigenous People in Nepal. In:A Non-government Report for the Third World Conference against Racism(WCAR). Paper Presented at the National Conference on the NPC in Kathmandu,April 26, 2001.   http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/lawom01a.htm.Retrived on September 11, 2005.

Levine, N.E., 1987. Caste, state, and ethnic boundaries in Nepal. The Journal of AsianStudies 46 (1), 71e88.

P.B. Bhandari / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 126 e136    135

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref5http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_Reduction_NEP/poverty_analysis.pdfhttp://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_Reduction_NEP/poverty_analysis.pdfhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref12http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12007http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12007http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/lawom01a.htmhttp://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/lawom01a.htmhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref46http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/lawom01a.htmhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref14http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12007http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref7http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_Reduction_NEP/poverty_analysis.pdfhttp://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_Reduction_NEP/poverty_analysis.pdfhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref1

8/18/2019 1-s2.0-S0743016713000442-main

11/11

Loughran, D., Pritchett, L., 1997. Environmental Scarcity, Resource Collection, and theDemand for Children in Nepal (Research Report). World Bank, Washington, DC.

Low, A., 1986. Agricultural Development in Southern Africa: Farm-Household Eco-nomics and the Food Crisis. James Currey, London, England.

Lu, Yao-Chi, 1985. Impacts of technology and structural change on agriculturaleconomy, rural communities, and the environment. American Journal of Agri-cultural Economics 67, 1158e1163.

Mahesh, R., 2002. Labour Mobility in Rural Areas: a Village-level Study (DiscussionPaper No. 48). Center for Development Studies, Kerala Research Programme onLocal Level Development, Thiruvananthapuram, India.

Mamdani, Mahmood,1972. The Myth of Population Control: Family, Caste, and Classin an Indian Village. Monthly Review Press, New York and London.

Massey, Douglas S., Williams, Nathalie, Axinn, G. William, Ghimire, Dirgha, 2009.Community services and out-migration. International Migration.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00581.x.

Massey, Douglas S., Axinn, William G., Ghimire, Dirgha J., 2010. Environmentalchange and out-migration: evidence from Nepal. Population and Environment32 (2e3), 109e136.

Menard, S., 1995. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Moore, W.E., 1966. Changes in occupational structures. In: Smelser, N.J., Lipset, S.M.

(Eds.),Social Structureand Mobilityin Economic Development. Aldine,Chicago,IL .National Planning Commission, 1998. The Ninth Plan 1997e2002. His Majesty’s

Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Kathmandu,Nepal.

National Planning Commission, 2003. The Tenth Plan: Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper 2002e2007. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, National PlanningCommission, Kathmandu, Nepal.

National Planning Commission and United Nations Children’s Fund/Nepal [UNICEF/Nepal], 1996. Children and Women in Nepal: a Situation Analysis. NationalPlanning Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan, 1995. Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan.Agricultural Projects Services Center, Kathmandu, Nepal.

NESAC, 1998. Nepal Human Development Report 1998. Nepal South Asia Centre,Kathmandu, Nepal.

Norwegian Refugee Council/Global IDP Project, 2003. Prole of Internal Displace-ment: Nepal. Compilation of the Information Available in the Global IDPDatabase of the Norwegian Refugee Council. Geneva, Switzerland .

Ogena, N.B., De Jong, G.F., 1999. Internal migration and occupational mobility inThailand. Asian and Pacic Migration Journal 8, 419e446.

Pampel, F.C., 2000. Logistic regression: a primer. Sage, Newbury Park, CA .Pandey, Tulsi Ram, Mishra, Surendra, Chemjong, Dambar, Pokhrel, Sanjeev,

Rawal, Nabin, 2006. Forms and Patterns of Social Discrimination in Nepal  e  aReport. UNESCO, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Patnaik, S.C., Debi, S., 1991. Women’s economic contribution. In: Punia, R.K. (Ed.),Women in Agriculture: Their Status and Role. Northern Book Center, New Delhi,India.

Pietola, K., Vare, M., Lansink, A.O., 2002. Farmer ’s Exit Decisions and Early Retire-

ment Programs in Finland. Paper presented at the 10th EAAE Congress“‘Exploring Diversity in the European Agri-Food System.” Zaragoza, Spain.

Pradhan, R., Shrestha, A., 2005. Ethnic and Caste Diversity: Implications forDevelopment. Working Paper Series No. 4. Nepal Resident Mission, AsianDevelopment Bank.

Prasad, C., Singh, R.P., 1992. Farm women: a precious resource. In: Punia, R.K. (Ed.),Women in Agriculture: Education, Training and Development. Northern BookCenter, New Delhi, India.

Rani, Seema, Malaviya, A., 1992. Farm mechanization and women in paddy culti-vation. In: Punia, R.K. (Ed.), Women in Agriculture: Education, Training andDevelopment. Northern Book Center, New Delhi, India.

Rosenzweig, M.R., 1977. The demand for children in farm households. Journal of Political Economy 85, 123e146.

Sachs, Carolyn,1996. Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture, and Environment.Westview Press, Inc., Colorado.

Scoones, I., 1999. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: a Framework for Analysis. IDSWorking Paper 72. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK.

Shivakoti, G.P., Pokharel, B., 1989. Marketing of Major Crops in Chitwan: a CaseStudy of Six Village Panchayats. In: Research Report Series No. 8. Winrock,Kathmandu, Nepal.

Shivakoti, G.P., Axinn, W.G., Bhandari, P., Chhetri, N., 1999. The impact of communitycontext on land use in an agricultural society. Population and Environment 20,191e213.

Shrestha, N.R., 1990. Landlessness and Migration in Nepal. Westview Press, Boulder,CO.

Shrestha, S.S., Bhandari, P., 2000. Analysis of Protability, Price Behaviour, andMarket Integration of Poultry Industry in Chitwan (Research Report). TribhuvanUniversity, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Chitwan, Nepal .

Shrestha, N.R., Conway, D., 1985. Issues in population pressure, land resettle-ment and development. Studies in Comparative International Development20, 55e82.

Shrestha, S.S., Bhandari, P., Bhattrai, G.R., 1998/1999. Economics of poultry pro-duction in Chitwan District of Nepal. Journal of the Institute of Agriculture andAnimal Science 19e20, 125e132.

Singh, Ram Iqwal, Singh, Daulat, Singh, R.K., 1992. Green revolution and ruralwomen. In: Punia, R.K. (Ed.),1992. Women in Agriculture: Their Status and Role,vol. 1. Northern Book Center, New Delhi, pp. 277e284.

Skouas, E., 1994. Market wages, family composition and the time allocation of children in agricultural households. The Journal of Development Studies 30,335e360.

Stiglbauer, A.M., Weiss, C.R., 2000. Family and non-family succession in the Upper-Austrian farm sector. Cabiers d’Economie et Sociologie Rurales 54, 6e26.

Sudgen, Fraser, 2009. Neo-liberalism, markets and class structures on theNepali lowlands: the political economy of agrarian change. Geoforum 40,634e644.

Vare, M., Heshmati, A., 2004. Perspectives on the Early Retirement Decisions of Farming Couples (Discussion Paper No. 1342). Institute for the Study of Labor,Bonn, Germany.

Watts, Himangshu, 2009. 40% of Farmers Will Quit Farming in India: Survey. OneWorld South Asia.   http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/40-of-farmers-will-quit-farming-in-india-survey#.UGsKylFmNZA . Retrieved on July1, 2012.

World Bank, 2008. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development.World Bank Publications.World Bank/DFID, 2006. Unequal Citizens: Gender, Caste and Ethnic Exclusion in

Nepal. A Co-publication of The World Bank and the Department for Interna-tional Development, U.K., Kathmandu, Nepal.

P.B. Bhandari / Journal of Rural Studies 32 (2013) 126 e136 136

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref51http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00581.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00581.xhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref59http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref59http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref60http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref60http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref61http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref61http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref61http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref61http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref61http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref62http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref62http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref62http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref62http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref62http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref62http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref63http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref64http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref64http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref64http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref64http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref65http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref65http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref65http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref65http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref65http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref65http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref67http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref67http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref67http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref68http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref68http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref68http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref68http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref69http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref69http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref69http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref70http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref70http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref70http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref71http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref71http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref72http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref72http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref73http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref73http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref73http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref74http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref74http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref74http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref74http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref75http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref75http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref76http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref76http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref76http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref76http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref76http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref76http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref77http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref77http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref77http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref77http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref77http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref79http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref79http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref79http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref79http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref81http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref81http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref81http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref81http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref81http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref82http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref82http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref82http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref82http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref83http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref83http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref83http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/40-of-farmers-will-quit-farming-in-india-survey#.UGsKylFmNZAhttp://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/40-of-farmers-will-quit-farming-in-india-survey#.UGsKylFmNZAhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref85http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref85http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref86http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref86http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref86http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref86http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref86http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref86http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref85http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref85http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/40-of-farmers-will-quit-farming-in-india-survey#.UGsKylFmNZAhttp://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/40-of-farmers-will-quit-farming-in-india-survey#.UGsKylFmNZAhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref83http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref83http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref83http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref82http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref82http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref82http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref82http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref81http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref81http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref81http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref80http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref79http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref79http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref79http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref79http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref78http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref77http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref77http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref77http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref77http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref76http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref76http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref76http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref75http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref75http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref74http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref74http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref74http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref74http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref73http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref73http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref73http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref72http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref72http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref71http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref71http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref70http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref70http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref70http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref69http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref69http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref69http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref68http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref68http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref68http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref67http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref67http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref67http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref66http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref65http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref65http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref65http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref64http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref64http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref64http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref64http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref63http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref62http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref62http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref62http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref61http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref61http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref61http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref60http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref60http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref59http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref59http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-2/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(13)00044-