How important is basic infrastructure in securing livelihoods of Adivasis

In general, infrastructures such as all-weather roads, electricity, hospitals and water sources improve the livelihood of citizens. Most existing literature on the relationship between infrastructure and well-being also suggests a positive correlation.

Moreover, multiple World Development Reports have identified infrastructure as an important tool for poverty alleviation. A significant proportion of poverty in backward areas is due to a gap in infrastructure and its deficiency, noted a 2002 study on rural China published in the Journal of Applied Econometrics.

Gaps in infrastructure hampers access to products and markets, which may be seen as the main causes behind poverty, the research noted. Other studies that link poverty with infrastructure in the Indian context have also demonstrated a positive correlation between infrastructure and well-being.

A graph showing the village-wise distribution of Infrastructure in Jharkhand. It shows that most of the villages have seven to 13 infrastructures.

However, there are arguments on the negative role of infrastructure on citizens’ life. This mostly applies in the case of people who directly depend on natural resources, especially forests, on a daily basis for their livelihoods.

For example, Adivasis in the central Indian plateau region have been relying on the forest, forest fringe lands and other natural resources for centuries for their living.

A graph showing the village-wise distribution of Infrastructure in Odisha. It shows that most of the villages have seven to 13 infrastructures.

During colonial rule and even after that, the infrastructure in that area was created, by and large, to facilitate mining and transport of minerals and timbers to the ports and factories rather than for the well-being of the inhabitants.

In fact, infrastructure for facilitating mining and related activities has made the life of Adivasis residing there more vulnerable. Infrastructures such as large dams or wildlife sanctuaries greatly altered their relationship with natural resources, negatively impacting lives and livelihoods.

A recent report on the status of Adivasi livelihoods in Jharkhand and Odisha showed that the infrastructures in tribal areas positively impacted the livelihood outcomes of Adivasis in general. 

The report pointed out the overall poor status of livelihoods of Adivasis in these states. However, the villages with better infrastructure have performed well in terms of income and food security compared to villages that lack infrastructure. 

The average annual income of Adivasi households is Rs 75,378 and Rs 61,263 in Jharkhand and Odisha, respectively. This is much lower than the average household income of agricultural households in rural India, which is Rs 122,616. 

The report also showed that 53 per cent of Adivasi households in Jharkhand and 55 per cent of Adivasi households in Odisha are food-insecure to varying degrees. Of this, 25 per cent in Jharkhand and 12 per cent in Odisha are severely food insecure. 

The document showed a snapshot of the infrastructure in the sample villages. The data contains information on the availability of primary schools, Anganwadi centres, primary health centres, pharmacy shops, PDS outlets, mobile networks, electricity, all-weather road and public transport in the sampled villages. 

Further analysis of that data shows that livelihood outcomes such as income and food security are generally better in villages with better infrastructure. However, there are counterintuitive results showing a negative correlation between livelihood outcomes and infrastructure. 

A graph showing infrastructure and village-wise mean PCI (Jharkhand).

In the case of Jharkhand, 10 infrastructures have a positive correlation with per capita income (PCI). However, primary schools, Anganwadi centres and PDS outlets negatively correlate with the average PCI. Similarly, in the case of Odisha, the PDS outlet has a negative correlation with the average PCI. These are counterintuitive and need further exploration.

Infrastructure and PCI (Odisha).

In Jharkhand, the presence of the primary school, public health centres and pharmacy within 5 km, the presence of non-profits and mobile networks have a negative relationship with the percentage of households not having severe food insecurity.

Presence of infrastructure and percentage of households not severely food insecure, Jharkhand.

Public transport in both states also negatively correlates with the percentage of not severely food-insecure households. These are counterintuitive. Further study may reveal the actual reason.

Though there are debates around the role of infrastructure in tribal areas, the report shows that, by and large, infrastructure creation has helped improve the livelihood status of the Adivasis.

Presence of infrastructure and percentage of households not severely food insecure, Odisha.

However, results also show that infrastructure negatively correlates with livelihood outcomes in some cases, particularly in Jharkhand. This may be due to the poor quality of the infrastructure or lack of access to it. A deeper study is needed to understand the role of infrastructure in role in tribal areas. 

Views expressed are the authors’ own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth

Dibyendu Chaudhuri works with Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN). Kiran Limaye is an assistant professor at Sarla Anil Modi School of Economics, NMIMS, Mumbai. Amit Kumar works in the Research and Advocacy unit of PRADAN.

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.