Printer Friendly

Chayanov's economic analysis for rural Nepal: a case study of Dura community of Sindure Village.

Introduction

Ali societies include economic stratification. While a society exhibits stratification, it means there are significant discontinuities in the distribution of goods and services, rights and obligations, power and prestige. It would be difficult to give a single and precise meaning of stratification. However, 'class', 'stratification', 'social inequality' are phrases often used interchangeably in everyday language. There is a good measure of overlap between them indeed, even in their technical meanings. Apart from the problems of differing ideological idioms, Marxist literature has played a much greater part in the development of the term 'class'. Relating to this, Eric Wolf (1982) explains the concept of mode of analysis in his book entitled 'Europe and the People without History'. According to him, a mode of production is not a system of technology, nor a stage or a type of society, but a heuristic tool used to focus on the 'strategic' relationships of power and wealth. For him, the strategic relationships involved in the labour process--the mode of production--'underlie, orient, and constrain' (1982:76) the social order. Wolf expands the concept of production to include the social and not merely the economic: production therefore includes the reproduction of social institutions. Meillassoux also explains that what be calls variously the domestic 'society', 'community', 'economy' or 'mode of production' (1981: xii, 1983:50) are interconnected: 'Up to now and for ah indefinite future, the domestic relations of production have been organically integrated into the development of each and all the subsequent modes of production' (1981:xiv). David Seddon and his collaborators (see Blaikie et al 2001, Seddon 1995, Seddon et al 2002) also call it 'peasant or domestic production'. These Marxist models view in peasant societies the sources of subsistence as seemingly geared to sustaining economic inequality in the family and household. The work of Caldwell (1976) also argues for three basic modes of production: hunting and gathering, family mode of production, and industrial production, each defining a social system in the developing countries. Based on the Yoruba (of Nigeria) experience, Caldwell developed 'Theory of Intergenerational Wealth Flow', which includes a great divide between pretransitional and transitional regimes characterized by a change in the direction of the wealth flows from children to parents that followed the emergence of Western ideas regarding the benefits of the non-patriarchal child-centred nuclear family.

Caste denotes a kind of stratification associated with Hindu society in which the differences between strata are defined in the first instance in religious terms by degree of purity and impurity. How a fundamentally inegalitarian caste ideology and its social practices have affected life of study population has been discussed in the work of Subedi (2006). Here I am concerned with the structure of economic inequality as there has been little analysis of the relationship between demographic factors and inequality. Cross-national studies of inequality have found it difficult to obtain accurate measures and relatively little empirical research is available in Nepal. The local and household economy in the study population consists of two major interlocking spheres: the local farming system and the off-farm sphere (usually but not always, working for others). The former does not involve much cash income because most crops were grown for subsistence; the latter includes cash. Those spheres are interlocking in study area because changes in off-farm activities affect the local farming system--'directly for those taking part in such activities and indirectly for those not taking part, or taking part to a less extent' (Adhikari and Seddon 2002:221). The current study considers both farm and off-farm economies as a crucial factor that links the precise relationship between demography and social inequality in the context of rapid population growth. To our understanding of this issue, this paper works out with some measures of inequality (i.e. Gini-Coefficient, Chayanov's Economic Analysis and Nature of Land Fragmentation), which suggest how total inequality is distributed in the study population. In this context, naturalistic inquiry must be central, which involves a wide range of ethnographic approaches e.g. participant observation, and the focused in-depth interviews. In addition to the data collected through naturalistic inquiry, the combination of fieldwork strategies allows the assembly of social survey techniques.

Local Farming System in Ethnographic Setting

Nepal is a small landlocked Himalayan country situated between two major Asiatic civilisations: India to the south and Tibet, an autonomous part of China, to the north; it has an elongated rectangular shape with roughly northwest to southeast orientation. Nepal possesses a wide range of terrain, which consists of mountains, hills, elevated plains (locally called tars), river valleys and flat plains. The topography varies greatly from the low Tarai plain in the south, which has an average height of 300 meters above sea level, to the Himalayas in the north, which peak at more than 8,000 meters above sea level. The topography of Nepal can be divided conveniently into three main ecological regions: Mountain, Hill, and Tarai. The socioeconomic and cultural contexts of the people inhabiting these regions vary immensely.

For political and administrative reasons, Nepal is structured along hierarchical lines. There are four different levels (listed flora the lowest to highest): Village Development Committees (3395)/ Municipalities (57), Districts (75), Zones (14), and Development Regions (5). The Lamjung district (out of 75 districts) lies in the Western Development Region (WDR) of Nepal and covers an area of about 1,694 sq. km. The Lamjung district is divided into 61 administrative sub-units, or Village Development Committees (VDC). Sindure is one of the VDCs in Lamjung. The present political boundary of Sindure is not necessarily constitutive of a community. In this paper, the target study area refers to 'Sindure territory', which is not a VDC but rather includes three villages (Thuloshwoara, Turlungkot and Neta). Thus I use the 'Dura' and 'Sindure' throughout the paper as convenient abbreviations for 'the Dura community' and 'the target study area' respectively.

Sindure lies in the very fragile mountain environments in between Mid-Mountains and Siwalik. Ata height of 1472 meters above sea level, Sindure territory is located between 28[degrees]00, and 28[degrees]15'north latitude and 84[degrees]15, and 84030, east longitude. It borders Nalma VDC inthe North, Neta and Dhuseni VDCs in the South, Purankot and Chandreshwar VDCs in the East and Karapu and Bangre VDCs in the West. Its length from east to west is 6 kilometers and north to south approximately 3.75 kilometers. This makes an area of 22.5 sq. km, or 8.69 sq. miles. The people of Sindure exploit the available marginal natural resources within their traditional territory as adaptive strategies to environmental conditions and focus their subsistence activities on agriculturally productive areas (Gurung 1985, Subedi 2006). The Dura can be described as occupants of an agro-pastoral niche, as in the case of most of the Hill population of Nepal (Fricke 1994, Hitchcock 1966, Macfarlane 1976, among others). The study area is covered with about one third of the total land area (366.80 hectares) that is unfit for agriculture and forestry because it consists of steep, rocky, and barren slopes. Forests occupy about 50 percent of the land area (1126.65 hectares). The total area of 8.69 square miles represents about 50 percent of the land, which indicates the total areas of forest are 4.35 square miles (563.35 hectares). Fuelwood is a basic necessity of Dura populations. Domestic use accounts for 100 percent (95 percent in Nepal) of the energy consumed in Sindure. The annual per capita firewood consumption in Sindure is about 0.7 cubic metres (0.9 cubic metres in Nepal). In general, at least one person per household is engaged in collecting firewood. According to anthropological fieldwork, the average time taken to collect a load of firewood per person in Sindure is about two and half hours. Based on Macfarlane's (1976:44) method, we can assume that the growth rate for wood is approximately 20 cubic metres per hectares (or 10.61 cubic yards of wood) each year. As per this measurement, the forests of Sindure (only for the study area) produce 22,533 cubic metres per hectare. As Macfarlane (1976:42-43) reports, the unit of consumption is the amount ah adult male can carry: a load of 3ft in length and 1.5ft in diameter. The average weight of each load consists of 30kg (1.5 cubic ft.) approximately. The annual fuel consumption of wood is about 133 loads per year. This compares well with the estimate of 120 loads per year for the Gurung village of Thak (Macfarlane, 1976) in Nepal and 149 per load for Timling (Fricke 1994) in Nepal. In addition, the people of Sindure consume three loads for roofing and building. Biogas is one possible alternative source of energy but is not readily available in Sindure. Out of 381 households, only two have biogas plants.

Livestock rearing is integral to the Dura economic system. The keeping of a variety of livestock indicates an emphasis here on the adaptation and exploitation of positive features of the diversity of available resources. Almost all households retain some animals in Sindure. The domestic animals consist of chickens, goats, buffalos, oxen, cows, mules and pigs. So dependence on the forest as a source of fodder is still high. In this arca, during the monsoon period (June-Sept) the limited available grazing land provides enough feed for the animals only. The land area of Sindure is too steep for intensive use. According to Sindure Data, there are 381 Dura households and 59 non-Dura households (i.e. 1 Brahman, 9 Chhetries, 30 Sarkis, 9 Kamis, 10 Damais, 9 Gurungs, and 1 Tamang). The 381 households include 2299 people, for an average household size of 6.03 (as opposed to 5.56 average household size for rural Nepal: CBS 2002).

Almost all households in Sindure are farming households. According to data, peasant households of Sindure own an average of 0.4637 hectares for each of the 381 households, meaning a total of 176.65 hectares are actively cultivated in the village. This figure does not include barren land, public land, or the land of 69 households not interviewed. If we take this as characteristic of all 450 households, then the total population supported on this 22.5 sq km. area (8.69 sq. miles) is 2714. The ratio of 120.62 people per square kilometre is slightly lower than that of the rural population density, i.e. 135.57 people per square kilometre (CBS 2002) in Nepal. A peasant family in Sindure mainly produces for subsistence: growing food in the land available, processing it in the yard, and cooking it in the house. The bulk of their food comes from two kinds of land: dry and irrigated. Maize and millet are the main dry land crops with potatoes, soybeans and rice having only secondary importance. Often, corn-beans are planted between com rows and allowed to grow up the stalks after the com has been cut. Other topland fields are ploughed after the com harvest and planted with millet and soybeans. The main crop on irrigated land is, of course, rice. In addition to these crop productions, Dura households produce a variety of vegetables and fruits.

This amounts to 0.0768 hectares per person, which is much less land than that of Gurung's 100 sample households surveyed in Thak in 1976 (0.2647 hectares: see Macfarlane 1976), the Tamang's 132 households surveved in Timling (0.2590 hectares: Fricke 1994) in 1985, and Lahchok-Riban villages in Kaski District (0.75 hectares: see Seddon et al 2001). As to land per capita, the situation for Nepal (0.1022 hectares) as a whole seems slightly greater than that of Sindure and is more or less similar to that of the hill region (0.087 hectares) in 2001. Table.5.2 also shows that the average household allocates 42.61 percent of its land into maize, 33.13 percent into millet, 19.50 percent into rice, 3.93 percent into soybeans and 0.83 percent into potatoes.

Certain domestic, as well as agricultural, tasks are categorised as either men's or women's job in Sindure. The senior male in the family generally organises and watches over the agricultural work. He arranges meetings with other rural peasants to set up his planting schedule, and then makes sure he can hire any extra labour if he requires it on his planting days. Men drive the oxen and do the ploughing. They also turn over the soil in dry fields or in irrigated paddies to level the ground for planting the rice seedlings. Men make daily decisions about work, food distribution, expenditure, and long-term property management, although women also play an influential role in these decisions in Dura community. Childcare is primarily a woman's job. Sometimes the father may look after the children if theit mother is busy working in the fields. Most of the agricultural work is performed by reciprocal labour arrangement groups (parma system) in which each household sends a calculated number of members (usually women) to whomever is planting, seeding and harvesting on a given day. Women frequently carry manure to the field and also give finishing touch to a ploughed field for planting. It is a woman's job to cut the huge loads of fodder and grass needed daily for each cow or buffalo owned by the family. In addition to this, women are also responsible for the storage, processing, and preparation of any harvest. One of the major jobs for women is to process food by husking the raw paddy to get the edible grain and then grinding the maize, millet, etc. into flour (1). For cooking and cleaning-related tasks, at least four hours per day--that is about 182.5 person-days--is required and usually spent by women. I was also told that much of the work done by women in their duties as a housewife is considered by men as women's inheritance.

According to observation, the months of Phalgun through Chaitra (mid-March to mid-April) are considered to be scarce in terms of available food for consumption, since the previous year's production would have run out more or less at the end the Magh (mid-March). The period from Bhadra through Mangsir (mid-August through mid-December) is the time of greatest abundance. The period flora Poush through Phalgun (mid-December through mid-March) is considered an ideal time to leave home in order to look for temporary work. Most of the peasants often just take time off during this period. Many rituals and social functions also take place during this period, which leads to a reduction in subsistence production days.

In Sindure, a household on average owns 9.11 ropani (0.4635 hectares) landholdings (see Table.5.2). According to Table.5.5, approximately 614 person-days of labour are needed on average to produce major crops in 9.11 ropani. Thus Sindure data shows 53 that percent of the household members aged 15-59 are economically active and household size is about six persons. This data suggests that on average at least three persons are fully productive adults in one household. Even six year old Dura boys and girls start producing partly for the household. Subedi (2006) estimates the working hours a boy and a girl contributes to household activities. Both girls an a boys of age 9-14 spent as much as 3 and 4 hours per day in all work activities while the corresponding figure for the children aged 15 and above are 8 and 9. Overall, this suggests that when children reach ah age dose to 15, the household head can begin to diversify his economy to include wage labour in the context of Nepal (see also Fricke 1994:184). The work of Cain (1977) also reports in Bangladesh: an average male child became a net producer by age 12, and 'paid back' the cumulative costs of his own subsistence by age 15.

Now I want to calculate the number of days generally the Dura peasants engage in agricultural production. The Dura abide by a ritual calendar that marks a number of holidays as nonworking days and shapes agro-pastoral activities throughout the year. In addition, a number of days are considered as rest days to be used for performing worship only. Full and new moons in each month are also seen as days off for pursuing various social activities. Generally, a total of 43 days are viewed as non-work days. Other irregular non-work days occur when the weather is too bad, particularly when it hails. A wedding is regarded as a non-productive day and a family death also stops people working. Besides this, other days are taken off for reasons such as illness or travel to Beshisahar (headquarters of the district) for supplies. So, roughly 300 days are regarded as agricultural workdays in the village and the remaining days, i.e. 65, are considered days off, which is similar to the Tamang (Fricke 1994: 81-82). As estimated above, the average requirement per household amounts to 614 person-days. The average household has 3.0 worker units in Sindure who are available for work about 300 days out of the year, so 900 person-days are available for each household. Of these, 286 (900-614) person-days will be devoted to looking after cattle, goats, and buffalos, which is less than a year (365 days). In Sindure, the rest of the person-days (79) are fulfilled by children aged 6-14 as the early years of childhood create work for households.

The Off-farm Income in Ethnographic Setting

The local farming system in Sindure suggests land cultivation has been intensive. The main reason is the persistence of poverty and population growth, which promotes overexploitation of natural resources through the destructive effects of people in search of land, fodder and fuel. Erik Eckholm reports 'many mountain regions could pass a point of no return within the next two or three decades. They would become locked in a downward spiral from which there is no escape, a chain of ecological reactions that will permanently reduce their capacity to support human life' (1975:769). He cites Nepal's Planning Commission as foreseeing 'the development of a semi-desert type of ecology in the hilly regions'. Downstream, the lowlands will experience 'devastating torrents and suffocating loads of silt' (1975:764, 765). The work of Blaikie et al (2001:214) also describes the degradation cycle: 'forest clearance for terraces, use of forest for compost and fodder to maintain production causing greater erosion, which in tuna destroys terraces, necessitating forest clearances for new terraces...' When agricultural activities are pushed to unsuitable intensities within the marginal environment, for example by fodder and firewood collection, and expansion of cropland on potentially unstable slopes, then the immediate causes of degradation are generally known. In this context, the real problem is out-migration that is forced by an increasing population leading to environmental degradation, which is subject to a great deal of uncertainly. According to key informant whose eldest son and his family were migrated out from Sindure, that is an example of a 'tragedy of the commons (Hardin 1968)' or 'failure of its predominantly subsistence-oriented agrarian economy'.
   Sindure was significant for the almost complete absence of
   efficient terracing. In the rainy season, soil erosion on outward
   sloping terraces as well as denudation of upper slopes was quite
   widespread. This natural disaster affected my availability of land,
   which was not enough to feed my family members. As a result my
   eldest son and his family left Sindure permanently.


It is not my intention to examine the relationship between permanent migration and fertility into the society of origin and destination. A decline of productivity, loss of grazing and declining levels of plant nutrition are most apparent in the Nepal Himalayas (Blaikie et al 2001, Eckholm 1975, Seddon et al 2002). Subedi (2006) argues that the high fertility in Sindure has contributed to a lessening of the accessibility of land. These factors cause certain disadvantages to households seeking sources of subsistence outside the purely domestic economy described. When agricultural production alone is insufficient to maintain a household, local peasant production is supplemented by the selling of some of the household's labour, either on the farms of others or indeed outside the local community on non-agricultural jobs.

Seddon and his colleagues (Adhikari and Seddon 2001; Seddon 1995, 2005; Seddon et al 2001, 2002) reveal that the hill regions of west and central Nepal have been associated with foreign labour migration and in particular with employment in the British and Indian army since the early 19th century. Theses studies also reveal the patterns of labour migration and remittances have varied socially (see also, Macfarlane 1976). David Seddon (2005) writes: 'most rural households now depend on at least one member's earnings from employment away from home and often from abroad' (http://www.migrationin formation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=277). The ethnographic source suggests that in the past the Duras were to a certain extent nomadic hunters, and there is still considerable geographical mobility as population pressure builds up in the older-established settlements. Migration and remittance economies are not new in Sindure because statistically, many younger Dura people have migrated temporarily to urban areas or abroad for employment. The work of Gurung (1985) also reveals the significance of remittances and pensions from foreign employment in the Dura economy. According to social survey, Sindure included 55 households, which had at least one member working away from the home. About 17 percent (55 out of 381) of households received cash remittances. This is lower than the data on the recent Nepal's National Living Standard Survey: '23 percent of all households surveyed (760 out of 3500) receive remittance with, on average, 1.24 remittances for each household receiving them. In the rural areas the proportion of household receiving remittances in the sample was 24 percent' (Seddon et al 2001:3). Such remittances were most commonly used to maintain members of the migrant families.

This study reveals that approximately 29 percent of economically active men aged 15-64 (172/594) were involved in the off-farm sphere in which 25 percent (150/594) were engaged in temporary out-migration. This is conspicuously high when compared to other village studies (see Adhikari and Seddon 2002:222). About two percent (13/629) of economically active women aged 15-59 were engaged in non-agricultural activities. According to our survey, 98.7 percent of total women in the age group 15-59 were economically active as unpaid family workers in agriculture, whereas among Dura women aged 15-49, 3.4 percent (13/387) worked as paid family workers outside home. For both age groups in Sindure, women's involvement in unpaid family work is higher than the national figure (90.8: CBS 2002).

Some Dura males have resorted to military service, which mostly involves joining the Indian army. In the course of fieldwork, there was no single Dura who served in the British army service but some Duras had British pension. I was told that most of the adult British army personnel had already migrated permanently to the towns (Pokhara, Kathmandu, Damaulee) because of their higher income level. Being in the foreign army service is a highly prestigious occupation because, economically, they bring strong support to the family household. In addition to joining a foreign army, Dura men also enlist in the Nepall army. If they are unable to serve in any military capacity, they travel to India, Saudi Arabia, Singapore or Middle Eastern countries, for example, in order to find work as manual labourers. Working abroad is a high-risk venture since the employers cannot ensure availability of jobs. The main reason for this situation is the high rate of illiteracy (and low level of education) that places the population at a disadvantage for most jobs. According to social survey, almost all those leaving the village have enlisted in the Indian army (45 percent) and civilian work in India (7 percent). In addition, the majority of jobholders worked outside Nepal as labourers, especially in the Middle East. This study identified about 12 percent working in Saudi Arabia and in Malaysia (4 percent), and other places, for example, Qatar, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Israel, etc. (6 percent). The major employer at all levels within Nepal, outside of farming, is the State, either in bureaucracy or in the Nepalese army (15 percent), although there are many industries and business sectors that have provided opportunities to many unemployed individuals (8 percent) and as others, for example, private households (4 percent). Seasonal work outside the village is another source of off-farm employment for rural households, but data suggest that there is no seasonal migration from Sindure to the Tarai or elsewhere. In Sindure, employment remained limited mainly including teaching in local schools, wage labour in agriculture, as well as non-agricultural activities like house construction and repair, fencing, hauling goods, farm produce and the like. Like rich households, some less well-to-do households may recruit local labourers in order to plant and harvest crops at the rimes of peak demand because of absent economically active household members who are away from home for employment. This study identified 17 (14 men and 3 women) teachers, 4 male labourers in the non-agricultural sector and one female government employee at the local health post. These people continue to be involved in peasant production. The Sindure data on the off-farm sphere is consistent with both macro and micro level studies aforementioned, which have indicated that 'off-farm incomes' have been becoming a major factor in determining the contours of village livelihoods in the hill areas since 1950s.

This study identified 52 percent of off-farm income (as opposed to 40 percent of all remittances coming from India to rural Nepal. See Seddon et al 2001:4) comes from India (Indian army pension, Indian army salary and wages from labour) and followed by non-farm incomes from elsewhere within Nepal (Nepalese army pension and salary, salary from both government and private sectors including teaching) accounted for about 30 percent. About 9 percent of total off-farm income comes from British army pensions and various countries (e.g. Hong Kong, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and other Middle Eastern countries) also constituted another 9 percent of total remittances. As outlined above, the local farming and household economy in Sindure is consistent with the work of Blaikie et al (2001:229-230), which identified similar responses to land shortage found in Nepal:

i. an extension of local arable land takes place with a resultant reduction in forest area and hence a reduction in the transfer of fertility to arable land, leading to declining yields and to a cycle of declining per capita output.

ii. peasant forms of production adapt to generally declining economic situations through exploiting 'communal resources' to avoid some of the pressures on private arable land.

iii. households are obliged to find supplementary incomes outside the peasant economy--either in India (as soldiers, coolies, chowkidars (watchmen), and workers in factories), or in local government services; or, in a minority of cases among the better off, from small business enterprises in the urban areas.

iv. response within the production itself is the intensification of the use of all land.

v. peasant producers diversify into cash crops and begin to sell a variety of agricultural commodities.

Thus, agricultural change is taking place, under various forces and pressures, rural households are increasingly reliant on income from elsewhere. Similar changes in other ethnic villages have also been reported throughout Nepal. For example, Macfarlane (1976) conducted an anthropological study of Mohoria village in Kaski District and revealed that 62 percent of men aged 19-45 were absent from the village: 53 percent of these worked abroad, mainly in 'the army', and 9 percent in the civil service in Nepal. The work of Adhikari and Seddon (2001) also shows that in some Gurung-dominated villages of Kaski District, remittances from abroad could contribute as much as 60 percent of household income. The best comparison is made by Fricke (1994). He discusses the changing experience in the 'family mode of production' in Timling of north central Nepal. During the period of 1981-82, he does not provide exact numbers but observes many Timling households sending their members to get involved in the wage labour economy of Nepal for short periods. Fricke also reports only one Tamang has an army pension and a few Tamangs from Timling have served as Gurkhas. In 1994, 66 percent of all men and 46 percent of all women 12 years old and above worked at road construction for wages for periods of a month or longer at least once in their lives; only 4 percent of the men had ever been in the army; only 3 percent of men and 4 percent of women had engaged in factory work, usually in the carpet factories of the Kathmandu valley (Fricke 1994:206). This study suggests the 'familial mode of production' is an inadequate conceptualisation for the 21st century Nepal.

Wealth/Income Distribution and Inequality

I provided the basic common agrarian features of Dura households enabling us to understand how Dura peasants maintain subsistence agriculture in their traditional way. The off-farm income may widen/narrow the gap between poor and wealthy households. In this light of discussion, I consider three modes of analysis: the Gini-coefficient, Chayanov model and nature of fragmentation of land, to our understanding of total inequality in the population. Before examining these issues, I calculate total wealth and income distribution.

As outlined above, each Dura household has at its disposal livestock, agricultural tools, and a variety of household articles to enable its members to earn their livelihood. It is clear the Dura still depend very heavily on animal milks, meat, manure, and the power they offer in agricultural work. As with the Magars (Hitchcock 1966), Gurungs (Macfarlane 1976) and Tamangs (1994), for most families, trade in livestock provides extra income even if the sales involve a few chickens or an occasional buffalo, goat, cow or pig. This suggests livestock comprises an integral part of Dura peasant society. An attempt is made here to calculate the worth of all household capital such as land, livestock, housing, household material goods and clothing. The calculation is based in part on the Dura Demographic and Socio-economic Survey of 2001/2002 (Subedi 2006).

The total value of capital invested in livestock is shown in Table. 1, which also shows the average amount of capital per household, and the total amount in the 381 households. There were a few households (only 6 out of 381), which have no livestock. One other component of property needs analysis: the amount of jewellery and ornaments. Due to the aftermath of conflict between the Maoists and the Government, respondents were sceptical about the economic survey, so they were less forthcoming about the real quantity of actual possessions including income they had. A key informant told us many pensioners, former army men, and schoolteachers have saving accounts in Beshisahar, the Headquartcr of Lamjung District.

Most of the respondents declined to give information on their savings in banks. It is just a missing dimcnsion. In addition, many expensive articles (for example, jewellery) and other sensitive goods (i,e. weapons) were generally kept secret. Even so, the enumerators attempted to gather all the information needed. Many households were visited twice in order to verify findings. Despite this, it is possible the estimates for these items are understated. However, the trend among Duras for jewellery possession is similar to the Gurung of Nepal (McFarland 1976). During social activities it is fashioned into one of the many beautiful ornaments w0rn by women, and conspicuously displayed. The poor households had no reserve of wealth in ornaments. Generally, British or Indian army personnel buy gold for their wives and daughters, according to a key informant. Dura people stress that jewellery is the emergency source of income. When the downward spiral of increasing indebtedness has begun, the only way out for families is to take a loan from the creditor, who generally takes jewellery as the deposit. The items owned by 30 sample households are shown in Table.2.

The Dura house can be divided into two types: single-storey, wood and earth buildings with thatched roofs, and two-storey buildings made of stone, with slate (slate and thatch roofs are being replaced by corrugated sheet) roofs. Many Dura still live in small, round and rectangular houses. However, modern rectangular houses are replacing the round houses. The round houses were made of wood, stone, and mud. They had as many windows as contemporary houses. A large house would be 30-32 elbow-lengths in circumference, a small one 16-19. The average value of houses in the sample is shown in Table.3. The range of prices for a new house will depend on the materials used in the construction. The observation shows that a medium two-story house with a split-level roof costs the builder approximately Rs. 125,000 to build in Sindure. For the evolution of households in the sample, only labour costs are considered when assigning a value to a house. Labour costs are about Rs. 17, 501.38.

Another major category of household capital is tools. The agricultural technology of the Dura is very simple, which means most power is provided by human labour and household tools are quite basic. Types of tools used have a significant effect on a whole range of Dura activities and institutions, from the distribution of wealth to attitudes towards the environment. For example, the only digging instruments are the metal-tipped plough and various sizes of spades and hoes. There is only one rice mill in the village, which is run on diesel. The total capital invested in the tools used for agricultural tasks including the list of non-agricultural capital and its worth is cited from the work of Subedi (2006).

Overall, Table.3 provides the total value of household capital that comprises livestock, agricultural tools, seeds and crops, and non-agricultural capital, such as housing, clothes, and jewellery, that help understand wealth distribution in Sindure. Many anthropologists describe the main features of clothing in community studies. In Sindure, most of the clothes are shop-bought and are quite western. However, any calculation of the value of clothing is still valid in that it helps measure a household's capital assets. The main type of clothing worn in Sindure and the numbers of garments of each type owned in a sample family is cited from the work of Subedi (2006).

Gini-Coefficients and Inequality in Ethnographic Setting

The Gini coefficient measures (see Shyrock and Siegel 1976) the proportion of the total area under the diagonal that lies in the area between the diagonal and plotted area (Lorenz curve). This has the property of being most sensitive to transfers around the modal income. Furthermore, it is common practice to present only the point estimate of an inequality index without a corresponding measure of its sampling variability. Gini coefficients vary between 0 and 1, with 1 being absolute inequality and 0 representing an absolutely equal distribution. Here, the Gini coefficient measures the coefficient of wealth concentration. The relationship between economic stratification and the distribution of wealth/income has been the focus of some investigators (Fricke 1994, Macfarlane 1976).

In order to understand this relationship, I work out with the distribution of wealth for the 381 households based on total rupee value for cultivated land, crops, agricultural implements, livestock, household articles, house structure, including income from off-farm sources (see Table.4).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Table.5 reveals the largest investment category is in land (66.41 percent) while the second largest is in livestock (10.34 percent). The Gini coefficients for income (0.90), land (0.80), seed and crops (0.82), clothing (0.73) and household goods (0.77) are each higher than the coefficient for the distribution of total wealth (0.69). As for the housing, most of the households were one-storey high, made of wood, mud and thatch. On the basis of the total labour cost to build a house, on average, the Gini coefficient of housing presents equal distribution. As outlined above, the agricultural systems of the Duras are not as richly gifted as the Gurung of Thak (see Macfarlane 1976) and Tamang of Timling (1994). Similarly, the Gini coefficient for the distribution of total wealth in Sindure (0.69) is higher than the other two ethnic groups Tamang (0.22) and Gurung (0.47) (see Fricke 1994:164), and Nepal as a whole (0.60- Seddon 1995:138). This suggests that the distribution of wealth in Sindure is not particularly egalitarian. The coefficients presented here are not precisely comparable, because they measure different indicators of wealth and they apply only to the owners of a given resource rather than to the whole range of variations in wealth.

For example, in this study I used all resources income, clothing, housing, household goods, agricultural tools, land, livestock, and crops, whereas Tamang's Gini-coefficient excludes the income variable and Gurung's Gini-coefficient includes only land, livestock and house; Nepal's Gini-coefficient was based on employment, income distribution and consumption patterns. Despite the methodological differences, it is clear that there is undoubtedly considerable inequality within the Dura domestic economy. The main reason lying behind the higher Gini-coefficient is that the widespread social and economic inequality are likely to accelerate rapidly in peasant society due to the effects of population growth, which can aggravate the situation, causing further reduction in the size of holdings. This process may translate into differences in wealth distribution where the overwhelming majority of the population is peasant. Chayanov (1966) calls it 'demographic differentiation', which is caused by economic differentiation among the peasantry, dictated by farm size that tends to follow a cycle coincident with the peasant family life cycle, increasing as family members matured into workers and declining as the family aged and disintegrated with the formation of new families. Here I employ Chayanov model (1966), which discusses the total economic inequality in the Dura society.

The Chayanov Model and Inequality in Ethnographic Setting

Chayanov's theorization and empirical research were designed to evaluate the nature of the peasant agricultural economy and the role of the peasant in the transition flora feudalism to socialism, in the Russian political context after the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. First, Chayanov discusses the influence of household demographic factors on agricultural production. He suggests that changes over time in the consumer/worker ratio are important in explaining changes in the household status and that change in socio-economic status is cyclical, corresponding to the growth and break-up of the household. He used two curves: one representing the declining value of goods as more goods are acquired (utility curve) and the other representing the increasing noxiousness of labour as more work is done (the drudgery curve). The point of interaction between these two curves is the balance between family consumer needs and the drudgery of labour, which determines the level of household production (1966:70-89). This concept provides theoretically, ethnographically, and historically motivated ways to explore household and political-economic systems and cultural correlates. Second, Chayanov argues that his model might be applied generally, 'not merely to the peasant farm, but to any family labour economic unit in which work is connected with expenditure of physical effort, and earnings are proportional to this effort, whether the economic unit be artisan, cottage industry, or simply any economic activity of the family'. The basic Marxist-theoretical question was whether peasants must pass through a capitalist stage or whether peasant agriculture was a stable system that could exist within socialism. Chayanov's position was the latter.

Based on Chayanov's Rule (1966), the organization of production, especially at the household level, has received much current attention. Sahlins (1971) has taken one aspect of Chayanov's analysis -the notion that other things being equal the amount of labor a worker does in a household economy will be directly related to the number of consumers he must support- and has suggested that where people do either more or less work than we would expect there must be some social mechanism by which the product is removed from overproducers and given to underproducers (see also Durrenberger 1980, Grennhalgh 1985, Hammel 2005, Fricke 1994, Macfarlane 1976, Tannenbaum 1984). Chayanov's ideas were criticized fiercely by Marxists. The Marxist criticism is that he considered the peasantry to be locally homogeneous and ignored the importance of class differences among them, both with respect to the local consumption standard and to factors like differential child mortality (Lenin 1956). American Anthropologist Susan Greenhalgh also criticizes Chayanov model as 'cross-sectional tests were limited to correlation analyses which do not reveal the amount of total inequality that is demographic in nature. Cross-temporal measures were based on inferences about family development and thus do not provide a valid measure of association between family change and economic mobility' (1985:572). Chayanov's analysis was able to explain neither market nor resource allocation in the absence of an adequate supply side argument--but some elements of his analysis provided a starting place for the discussion of Dura economic inequalities based on both farm and off farm economies, which are interlocking in the ethnographic setting as a whole.

The paper attempts to broaden Chayanov's work has three parts. He limited his explicit model of peasant households to nuclear family households, on the grounds that complex families were a thing of the past (ref. 2, pp. 54 and 56). Nevertheless, it is clear from his own and other data that patrivirilocal residence was common and that patrilineally extended if not fraternal joint families occurred (ref. 2, pp. 54, 56, 59, and 60). His work would be more broadly useful if it included consanguineally extended households and kin groups or even affinally extended ones, such as polygamous units, or affinal exchange systems. Ali of these are common in many contemporary world areas outside Europe and the Americas, and historically even within Europe, Japan, China, and other regions (ref. 2, p. 54, note 1).

For this purpose, the present paper considers two hypotheses to estimate the Chayanov model: No one works outside home and adult children work outside home. For the first hypothesis, Alan Macfarlane's coefficients of consumers and workers coefficients (see Tables: 6 and 7) are adopted to construct both the 'consumption unit' and 'production unit' for Sindure.

For the second hypothesis, this paper has used the production units on the basis of parents' preference. Generally parents prefer to send their adult sons to army services (British army, first choice; Indian army, second choice; Nepali army, third choice) according to ethnographic source. The present study found a few households where one of the sons is in the British army, another in the Indian army and youngest one in the Nepalese army (or other government job). On the basis of this income from various off-farm sources, the labour weighted unit is calculated as follows (cf. Macfarlane 1976):
   Man labouring in the village = 1.0 production unit Man in Nepal
   (Government as a school teacher/Private Sector) = 2.0 production
   units Man in India (civilian/army) = 3.0 production units Man in
   British army and abroad (Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, etc.) = 4.0
   production unit


Table.8 and Table.9 give the changing composition of consumer and worker units throughout the life of the household. Both tables show how both units increase and decrease in the domestic cycle and how the nature of the household can affect the pattern of these changes. Table.8 reveals the ratio of consumer and worker in the 38 years of the family's existence throughout the domestic cycle is greater than one. It is largely the family that exhibits the economic crisis in their annual budget.

The proportion reaches its two highest points, 2.12, and 2.36 in the twelfth and sixteenth year of the family's existence respectively and the first proportion immediately falls to 1.98, because the first born child comes to the aid of the parents. For both households, after the sixteenth year of the family, if no further children are born to the head of the family, as the children grow up the ratio of consumer and worker will fall rapidly, approaching unity because adult children are potential producers, which is the most important variable for looking at household economy. If all family members live together until the death of parents, that leads the consumer/worker ratios of joint households to be increased comparatively. Since the 29 years of family life, the consumer/worker ratio of joint households has been increasing because the couple has more 'consuming' children than potential producers to support, whereas the consumer/worker ratio of nuclear households has an up and down trend.

This paper has calculated the consumer/worker ratio for all households as classified in the landholding patters (see Subedi 2006). The consumer/worker ratio of the rich households is less than one, which suggests this family has a comfortable livelihood throughout the year. The consumer/worker ratio, on the other hand, is more than one among other three households, suggesting these households do not provide a reasonable livelihood throughout the year. However, income from the off-farm sphere adds the possibility of having less formidable economic liability to spend for household expenses. Relating to this I worked with the total households based on Sindure's labour weighted units. We see that there are 295 households (77 percent) that involve the consumer/worker ratio higher than one and 86 (23 percent) less than one. The data also reveals that 101 households have some source of income from a pension. Twenty-six households have 31 disabled persons (14 males and 17 females) of age 15 and above, of which five households have two disabled members of each household. Of them, 17 households do not have any source of income. Overall, there are 194 households (51 percent), which may face economic hardship throughout the year because they do not have any source of income. This figure is similar to another ethnic community, Gurung (50%: Macfarlane 1976:191).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Fig.2 also reveals the off-farm sphere has affected the structure of the development cycle. When adult children started working outside home that led to a gradual decline in the ratio of consumer/worker after 22 years of family life. Ah explanation is that households receive remittance from children who are working away from home. On the basis of cross-sectional analysis, this study clearly shows the relative importance of these two traits varies systematically with children's status of employment. This can be seen as a major factor of total inequality in Sindure. Based on landholding patterns (Subedi 2006), among the three households (marginal, poor and small landings), 94 percent had jobs away from home whereas the figure for the rich households was only 6 percent. However, from the examination of the entire households based on the level of poverty (Subedi 2006)2, 99 percent of total households from above poverty line were involved in jobs away from home. This suggests that the relationship between some wealthier households and off-farm jobs is firmly established. However, the work of Seddon and his collaborators (Adhikari and Seddon 2001, Seddon, Adhikari and Gurung 2001, Seddon and Graner 2004) revealed that the distribution of off-farm employment is very much skewed in favour of the rich households. As shown in Tables: 8 and 9, the consumer/worker ratio in the model peaks at 2.12 and 2.26 for the differing assumptions, which is higher than Chayanov's ratio (ranges from 1.00 to 1.94) and Tamang's ratio (changes from 1.60-1.75). In addition, the means of consumer/worker ratio in Sindure are low and its standard deviations (S.D.) are high over the developmental cycle (see Tables: 8 and 9) when compared to the Russian Peasant (Mean: 1.46 and S.D.: 0.17) and the Tamang (Mean: 1.70 and S.D: 0.16) (see Fricke 1994:183). These statistical indicators also suggest that there is persistence of structures of economic inequality in Sindure.

Fragmentation of Land and Inequality in Ethnographic Setting

An examination of meaning and values attributed to landholding patterns is also required. A continuous process of focused in-depth interview allows for discovery of a particular reality (for example, widespread land fragmentation due to fast growing population) and recognising its contextual similarity to another phenomenon encountered previously (for example, control over landholdings). Such analysis allows for more realistic findings. Using this method of enquiry, I collected a case that gives an example of how the wealthier patriline members are transforming into small marginal farmers generation after generation within the marginal environment.
   One Dura patriarch's family had three sons and two daughters. The
   total landholding of that family was about 250 ropani (12.72
   hectares). According to a key informant, this was a phenomenal
   figure by village standards, where the average holdings in the past
   amounted to about 40 ropani (2.0 hectares) but the latest figures
   show a household amounts to only 9.12 ropani or 0.4637 hectares. I
   was told that the family was called 'wealthier' or 'landlord'
   (Jamindar) in the context of Sindure. The meaning of landlord does
   not accord with Indian and African countries because Sindure is
   situated in the fragile mountainous regions of Nepal. After the
   parents' death, the three sons split and segmented the whole
   landholdings equally--each got 83 ropani (4.24 hectares). As a
   check on this generation, the elder gave birth to three sons and
   two daughters, the second, three sons and three daughters and the
   youngest one, six sons and three daughters. During the life-cycle
   period of the youngest brother, be bought 20 ropani (about 1.0
   hectare) and his total land amounted to 103 ropani (5.24 hectares).
   Daughters went to their husbands' house upon marriage and sons are
   already separated from their parent household. The landholding of
   first and second brothers was divided equally into five shares
   (three sons, and husband and wife), each held 16.6 ropani (0.85
   hectares) and the landholding of the youngest brother was shared by
   eight patriarch members (six sons, husband and wife) equally, each
   held about 13 ropani (0.66 hectares).


This example illustrates the complexity of inheritance and the relative decline in landholding in a wealthier family where three generations divided the unified amount of land. A limited land area has meant an aggregate downwards shift in distribution of owned landholdings because of the cumulative partitioning of land property through the complex process of inheritance, into increasingly smaller holdings. Historian Regmi observes 'notwithstanding the low man and land ratio, the extent of land holding among different families inhabiting the same area was not necessarily equal. Even assuming that holdings were more or less of the same size when they were first established, subsequent divisions led to inequality because of the unequal number of descendants in different families' (1971:31). Among the Russian peasantry, Chayanov (1966) also identified such kinds of differentiation, which is associated with the dynamics of household size (demographic differentiation), rather than the systematic inequality associated with differential control over the means of production and the exploitation of a poor peasantry by a rich peasantry or landlord class. A similar observation has been made in Taiwan (Greenhalgh 1985). Another point is that landholdings are simply becoming smaller through the process of inheritance when sons claim their angsa (share in the whole property) within the limited resources. The history of Dura tells of Yesho Brahma Shah, the ancestor of ex-shah king, who toppled the Ghale rule and ascended the throne of Lamjung in 1493. Gurung (1985) sees that the Duras performed a key role in ousting the smaller states ruled by the Ghale in Lamjung. The Shah rulers, in tuna, granted the Dura elites Birta lands, which were legally converted into raikar (which is private land on which the state levies tax) in 1959. Nepalese Historian Regmi (1971) reports that these lands were granted by the state rulers to the members of nobility, civil and military officials, and other selected groups in the society on which they depend for their sustenance and continuance of their authority. This suggests that distribution of landholdings is very inegalitarian.

Conclusion

The Dura's agrarian economy is largely organised to fulfil the subsistence needs of its people rather than to produce a marketable surplus. There is still the dominant importance of local resources to Dura subsistence in order to fulfil the household needs of its population and other living expenditure. As a consequence, overexploitation has caused severe degradation, including soil erosion, weed infestation, and ah increased susceptibility to fire and insects. The areas of degraded forests are utilised extensively by local communities, which are highly dependent on the patches of woodland, forest-fallow vegetation, natural shrubs, and planted-on-farm trees for their fuelwood, fodder, building material, and other basic needs. The means of mode of production reinforce the structures of inequality where the agriculture sector remains largely subsistence-oriented and fails to experience the long-desired 'transformation and commercialisation', suggesting Dura society is highly inegalitarian economically. This is consistent with the work of Seddon: 'In an agrarian economy the ownership of the means of production, and particularly of land, is central to any understanding of social and economic inequality' (1995:118). This issue is further viewed by the Duras of Sindure within the constraints of the family developmental cycles, which make non-negotiable demands on labour and allow peak labour potential for only brief periods. The cycles contain most of its labour force and produces what it needs for itself in terms of domestic succession. Land is the basic means of production of subsistence in Dura society. Duras' life and expectations are tied closely to the land, its products, producers and sons. Discussion on what children actually cost or bring has often been ambiguous. The off-farm income is crucial in determining the overall livelihood status of the Dura community. This suggests that Dura households have never been entirely maintained by agriculture.

References

Adhikari, J. and D. Seddon. 2001. Pokhara: Biography of a Town. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point.

Blaikie, P., J. Cameron, and D. Seddon. 2001. Nepal in Crisis: Growth and Stagnation at the Periphery. Delhi: Adroit Publishers.

Cain, M. 1977. "The Economic Activities of Children in a Village in Bangladesh" in Population and Development Review 3(3): 201-27.

Caldwell, J. C. 1976. "Towards a Restatement of Demographic Transition Theory" in Population and Development Review 2(3/4): 321-66.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (CBS) 2002. National Population Census 2001: Summary Sheet. Kathmandu: Nepal

Chayanov, A.V. 1966. The Theory of Peasant Economy. Illinois: The American Economic Association, Homewood.

Dura Sewa Samaj. 1995. Dura Jati ko Bhasa ra Parampara. Kathmandu: Dura Sewa Samaj, Central office.

Durrenberger, E. P. 1980. "Chayanov's Economic Analysis in Anthropology" in Journal of Anthropological Research 36 (2): 133-148

Eckholm, E. P. 1975. Losing Ground: Environmental Stress and World Food Prospect. New York: W.W., Norton

Fricke, T. E. 1994. Himalayan Households: Tamang Demography and Domestic Process. New York: Expanded edition, Columbian University Press.

Greenhalgh, S. 1985. "Is Inequality Demographically Induced? The Family Cycle and the Distribution of Income in Taiwan" in American Anthropologist 87(3): 571-594.

Gurung, G. 1985. Dura Jati Ko Samajik Adhyayan. Kathmandu: CNAS.

Hammel, E. 2005. "A Model for the Economics of Complex Kin Units" in Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (19): 7043-7046.

Hardin, G. 1968. 'The Tragedy of Commons' in Science 126 (3859): 1243-1248

Hitchcock, J. T. 1966. The Magars of Banayan Hill. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Lenin, V. I. 1956. The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

Macfarlane, A. 1976. Resources and Population: A Study of the Gurungs of Nepal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meillassoux, C. 1981. Maidens, Meal and Money: Capitalism and the Domestic Community. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.

Meillassoux, C. 1983. "The Economic Base of Demographic Reproduction: From the domestic Mode of Production to Wage-Earning" in Journal of Peasant Studies 11 (1): 50-61.

Regmi, M. C. 1971. A Study in Nepali Economic History, 1768-1846. New Delhi: Manjusri Publishing House.

Sahlins, M., 1971. "The Intensity of Domes- tic Production in Primitive Societies: Social Inflections of the Chayanov Slope". In G. Dalton (ed.) Studies in Economic Anthropology. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Seddon, D. 1995. Nepal: A State of Poverty. New Delhi: Vikash Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.

Seddon, D. 2005. 'Nepal's Dependence on Exporting Labor'. In Country Profile on Information Source (www.migrationinformation.org). Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute

Seddon, D., J. Adhikari, and G. Gurung. 2001. The New LAHURES: Foreign Employment and Remittance Economy of Nepal. Kathmandu: Nepal Institute of Development Studies (NIDS)

Seddon, D., P. Blailde, and J. Cameron. 2002. Peasants and Workers in Nepal. New Delhi: Adroit Publishers.

Seddon, D. and E. Graner. 2004. "Nepal's Remittance Economy--a decade of change (1996/97 to 2003/04)". In M.K. Dahal (ed.) Nepalese Economy: towards building a strong economic nation state, Kathmandu, Nepal: Tribhuvan University and Hira Book Enterprises.

Shryock, H. S., J. S. Siegel and Associates. 1976. The Methods and Material of Demography. London: Academic Press.

Subedi, P. K. 2006. "Fertility Behaviour among Duras: Multidisciplinary Approaches". Unpublished PhD Thesis. Exeter: University of Exeter.

Tannenbaum, N. 1984. "The Misuse of Chayanov: 'Chayanov' Rule' and Empiricist Bias in Anthropology" in American Anthropologist 86(4): 927-942

Wolf, E. 1982. Europe and the People without History. California: University of California Press.

Notes

(1) Rice was husked by traditional footmill (Dhiki) ten years ago. Now modern rice mills exist, so most households take the paddy there for processing grain. Many households still use the hand mills for grinding millet and com.

(2) Based on 1995/1996 Nepal Living Standard Survey data, the poverty line is calculated at NRs 4,404 per person per annum (see Lanjouv, Pete, Giovanna and Salman Zaidi (date-na). 'Poverty in Nepal Today'. The World Bank).
Table.1: Worth of Livestock (in Rs.)

                               Per     Number      Per
          Total     Number    Adult      of      Juvenile    Total
Animal    Number   of Adult   Value   Juvenile    Value      Value

Chicken    1240      310       350      930        100      201500
Goat       906       604      1500      302        750      1132500
Buffalo    627       418      9000      209        3000     4389000
Ox         487       325      7500      162        4500     3166500
Cow        147        98      1500       49        500      171500
Mule        22        22      30000      --         --      660000
Pig         20        5       6500       15        600       15500
Total      3449      1782               1667                9736500

                    Total
Animal      %       Value

Chicken    2.07     528.87
Goat      11.63    2972.44
Buffalo   45.08    11519.69
Ox        32.52    8311.02
Cow        1.76     450.13
Mule       6.78    1732.28
Pig        0.16     40.68
Total     100.00   25555.11

Source: Subedi (2006)

Table.2: Jewellery and Ornaments in 30 Households

Articles          Local name     Number   Approximately
                                           value of pne
                                             item (Rs.)

Gold Bracelet     Ba1a             48              8000
Gold Chain        Sikri            19              8000
Nose Ringlet      Bulanki          60               250
Nose-top          Phuli            84               110
Earring           Dhugri           62              4000
Small Ear Ring    Ring/Marbadi     79              3500
Drop Earring(s)   Sir-Mundri      518               100
Skull Pendant     Sirbandi         11              2500
Gold Garland      Kantha           25             74000
Gold Garland      Naugedi          23             12000
Bead Garland      Potee            31               400
Total

Articles                           Total Value
                                         (Rs.)

Gold Bracelet                         3,84,000
Gold Chain                            1,52,000
Nose Ringlet                            15,000
Nose-top                                 9,240
Earring                               2,48,000
Small Ear Ring                        2,76,500
Drop Earring(s)                         51,800
Skull Pendant                           27,500
Gold Garland                          6,00,000
Gold Garland                          2,76,000
Bead Garland                            12,400
Total                                20,52,440
                  (18658.55 [pounds sterling])

Source: Subedi (2006)

Table.3: Household Capital in Sindure 2002 and Thak 1969

Type                          Sindure 2001/2002 *

                       Rupees     [pounds sterling]     %

i. Agriculture        206022.57        1872.94        67.70
Land                  164050.29        1491.37        53.11
Livestock             25555.11         232.32          8.27
Agricultural Tools     2786.07          25.33          0.90
Seed and crops        13631.10         123.92          4.41
ii. Non-agriculture   102861.77        935.10         33.30
Housing               17501.38         159.10          5.67
Household Goods        9290.80          84.46          3.01
Clothing               7654.92          69.59          2.48
Jewellery             68414.67         621.95         22.15
Total                 308884.34        2808.04        100.00

Type                              Thak 1969 **

                       Rupees    [pounds sterling]     %

i. Agriculture        38443.60        1601.80        77.60
Land                  28150.00        1172.92        56.82
Livestock             1423.00          59.29          2.87
Agricultural Tools     435.60          18.13          0.88
Seed and crops        8435.00         351.46         17.03
ii. Non-agriculture   11098.80        462.38         22.40
Housing               5060.00         210.83         10.21
Household Goods       2236.80          93.17          4.51
Clothing               856.00          35.67          1.73
Jewellery             2945.00         122.71          5.94
Total                 49541.40        2064.18        100.00

Source: * Subedi (2006), ** Macfarlane (1976)

Table.4: Distribution of Total Wealth for 381 Households

Value (in Rs.)        Number of      %      Cum. %
                      Households

00000.00-99999.99         24        6.30     6.30
100000.00-199999.99      129       33.86     40.16
200000.00-299999.99      123       32.28     72.44
300000.00-399999.99       71       18.64     91.08
400000.00-499999.99       22        5.77     96.85
500000.00-599999.99       11        2.89     99.74
600000.00-699999.99        1        0.26    100.00

Total                    381      100.00

Source: Subedi (2006)

Table.5: Value of Household Capital by Category (in Rs.)

Category      Land       Livestock    Agricultural    Seed and
                                         tools         crops

Mean        164050.29     25555.11      2786.07       13631.10
S.D.        87300.13      23503.39       961.14        7614.92
Gird co.      0.80          0.57          0.50          0.82
Sum        62503158.89   9735500.00    1061494.25    5193449.79
Total         66.41        10.34          1.13          5.52

Category    Housing      Clothing      Income     Household
                                                    goods

Mean        17501.38     7654.92      6548.23      9290.80
S.D.        3444.35      3756.53      8511.10      3519.51
Gird co.      0.02         0.73         0.90         0.77
Sum        6668026.00   2916525.00   2494874.00   3539795.00
Total         7.09         3.10         2.65         3.76

Category      Total

Mean        247015.30
S.D.        111293.09
Gird co.      0.69
Sum        94112822.93
Total        100.00

Source: Subedi (2006)

Table. 6: Coefficient to Construct Consumer Units

Household members                                   Consumption unit

Males above 14 years                                      1.00
Females above 14 years                                    0.83
Males and Females of 10 years but below 14 years          0.83
Males and Females of 6 years but below 10 years           0.70
Males and Females of 1 year but blow 6 years              0.50
Males and Females of below 1 year                         0.00

Source: Adapted from Macfarlane 1976: 162

Table.7: Production Multipliers at various ages by sex

Age (years)   Male   Age (years)   Female

0-8           0.0        0-6        0.0
9-13          0.2        7-12       0.2
14-16         0.6       13-15       0.4
17-19         0.8       16-17       0.6
20-45         1.0       18-45       0.8
46-60         0.8       46-55       0.8
61-70         0.6       56-70       0.6
70+           0.2        70+        0.2

Source: Adapted from Macfarlane, 1976: 162

Table.8: Mean Consumer/Worker Ratio throughout Domestic Cycle
in Sindure, 2002 (if no one works outside home)

Year of        Nuclear households           Joint Households
family's
existence   Consumer   Worker   Ratio   Consumer   Worker   Ratio

1             1.83      1.8     1.02      1.83      1.8     1.02
2             1.83      1.8     1.02      1.83      1.8     1.02
3             1.83      1.8     1.02      1.83      1.8     1.02
4             2.33      1.8     1.29      2.33      1.8     1.29
5             2.33      1.8     1.29      2.33      1.8     1.29
6             2.33      1.8     1.29      2.33      1.8     1.29
7             2.83      1.8     1.57      2.83      1.8     1.57
8             2.83      1.8     1.57      2.83      1.8     1.57
9             3.03      1.8     1.68      3.03      1.8     1.68
10            3.53      1.8     1.96      3.53      1.8     1.96
11            3.53      1.8     1.96      3.53      1.8     1.96
12            4.23      2.0     2.12      4.23      2.0     2.12
13            4.36      2.2     1.98      4.36      2.2     1.98
14            4.86      2.2     2.21      4.86      2.2     2.21
15            5.06      2.2     2.30      5.06      2.2     2.30
16            5.19      2.2     2.36      5.19      2.2     2.36
17            5.39      2.6     2.07      5.39      2.6     2.07
is            5.56      3.0     1.85      5.56      3.0     1.85
19            5.89      3.2     1.84      5.89      3.2     1.84
20            5.89      3.4     1.73      5.89      3.4     1.73
21            6.02      3.4     1.77      6.02      3.4     1.77
22            6.02      3.8     1.58      6.02      3.8     1.58
23            6.15      4.4     1.40      6.15      4.4     1.40
24            6.32      4.6     1.37      6.32      4.6     1.37
25            5.49      3.8     1.44      5.66      3.8     1.49
26            6.32      4.8     1.32      6.49      4.8     1.35
27            6.49      5.4     1.20      6.66      5.4     1.23
28            6.49      5.4     1.20      6.66      5.4     1.23
29            4.66      4.0     1.17      7.16      5.8     1.23
30            3.83      3.4     1.13      7.16      5.2     1.38
31            3.83      3.4     1.13      7.16      5.2     1.38
32            4.66      4.2     1.11      8.49      6.0     1.42
33            4.66      4.4     1.06      8.49      6.2     1.37
34            4.66      4.4     1.06      8.69      6.2     1.40
35            2.83      2.6     1.09      9.69      6.2     1.56
36            3.66      3.4     1.08      9.69      6.2     1.56
37            3.66      3.4     1.08     10.39      6.6     1.57
38            3.66      3.2     1.14     11.02      6.4     1.72

Mean          4.32      3.02    1.49      5.59     3.64     1.58
S.D.          1.47      4.1     0.41     12.38     1.31     0.35

Assumption: For conjugal households, only the youngest son remains
until the death of his father and for joint households, all sons
(including grandchildren) remain until the death of their father.

Table.9: Mean Consumer/Worker Ratio throughout Domestic Cycle
in Sindure 2002 (if adult Children work outside home)

Year of        Nuclear households          Joint Households
family's
existence   Consumer   Worker   Ratio   Consumer   Worker   Ratio

1             1.83      1.8     1.02      1.83      1.8     1.02
2             1.83      1.8     1.02      1.83      1.8     1.02
3             1.83      1.8     1.02      1.83      1.8     1.02
4             2.33      1.8     1.29      2.33      1.8     1.29
5             2.33      1.8     1.29      2.33      1.8     1.29
6             2.33      1.8     1.29      2.33      1.8     1.29
7             2.83      1.8     1.57      2.83      1.8     1.57
8             2.83      1.8     1.57      2.83      1.8     1.57
9             3.03      1.8     1.68      3.03      1.8     1.68
10            3.53      1.8     1.96      3.53      1.8     1.96
11            3.53      1.8     1.96      3.53      1.8     1.96
12            4.23      2.0     2.12      4.23      2.0     2.12
13            4.36      2.2     1.98      4.36      2.2     1.98
14            4.86      2.2     2.21      4.86      2.2     2.21
15            5.06      2.2     2.30      5.06      2.2     2.30
16            5.19      2.2     2.36      5.19      2.2     2.36
17            5.39      2.6     2.07      5.39      2.6     2.07
18            5.56      3.0     1.85      5.56      3.0     1.85
19            5.89      3.2     1.84      5.89      3.2     1.84
20            5.89      3.4     1.73      5.89      3.4     1.73
21            6.02      3.4     1.77      6.02      3.4     1.77
22            6.02      3.8     1.58      6.02      3.8     1.58
23            6.15      7.4     0.83      6.15      7.4     0.83
24            6.32      7.6     0.83      6.32      7.6     0.83
25            5.49      6.8     0.81      5.66      6.8     0.83
26            6.32      7.8     0.81      6.49      7.8     0.83
27            6.49      8.4     0.77      6.66      8.4     0.79
28            6.49      8.4     0.77      6.66      8.4     0.79
29            4.66      6.0     0.78      7.16     10.8     0.66
30            3.83      5.4     0.71      7.16     10.2     0.70
31            3.83      5.4     0.71      7.16     10.2     0.70
32            4.66      6.2     0.75      8.49     11.0     0.77
33            4.66      7.4     0.63      8.49     12.2     0.70
34            4.66      7.4     0.63      8.69     12.2     0.71
35            2.83      3.6     0.79      9.69     12.2     0.79
36            3.66      4.4     0.83      9.69     12.2     0.79
37            3.66      4.4     0.83     10.39     12.6     0.82
38            3.66      4.2     0.87     11.02     12.4     0.89

Mean          4.32      3.97    1.31      5.59      5.59    1.31
S.D.          1.47      2.30    0.56     12.38      4.19    0.56
COPYRIGHT 2011 Research Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Subedi, Pushpa Kamal
Publication:Contributions to Nepalese Studies
Article Type:Case study
Geographic Code:9NEPA
Date:Jul 1, 2011
Words:11556
Previous Article:Medieval Maithili stagecraft in the Nepalamandala: the Bhaktapur school.
Next Article:Social exclusion in education: a study of primary school dropouts in Nepal.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters