35 Gender and Livelihoods

Anurekha Chari Wagh

Introduction:

It is a recognized fact that farmers, workers, peasants and urban poor have always waged a fight to access their livelihood. Sociologically speaking sustainable livelihood has to be perceived as a ‘right’ rather than a privilege. Thus right to livelihood is more than right to work, rather it is a right to pursue a dignified life. Priti Darooka, Executive Director of PWESCR, (Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights , New Delhi) detailed various issues connected to livelihoods and women. According to Darooka, “As collectively we start talking about livelihoods to be recognized as a human right, we need to get a more inclusive understanding of what we mean by livelihoods: issues connected with land, water, forest, right to food, food security, and income security and so on. So the first step in building up this network is building up a common understanding of what we mean by women’s right to livelihoods” (Darroka 2008). In the World Social Forum, 2009, based on a discussion on the link between women and the right to livelihoods there emerged a notion of the “right to a dignified life”. Speakers in different platforms captured the essence of livelihood in terms of self-sufficiency, the means of production or life itself, and as Tran Thi Lanh2 (Vietnam) captured powerfully in her opening speech, “Livelihood is every human right. This concept is in our heart, it is a culture, it is land and it is the environment. It is the basics of our human existence.”(Women’s Right to Livelihoods: Addressing Development and Displacement, World Social Forum 2009).

In the World Social Forum, 2009 the Right to Livelihood was defined in the following terms:

Right to Food and issues related to food security, sovereignty, and production including agriculture and seeds
Access to and ownership and control over natural resources such as land, water and forests.
Issues related to market, where one would get space to trade goods and services and participation with adequate education, skills, access to credit.

How does one conceptualize a gendered understanding to the right to livelihood debate? Sen (1999) argues that women are active agents who contribute both to the productive and reproductive economy. Thus a gender perspective refers recognizing that women stand at the crossroads between production and reproduction; between economic activity and care of human beings and therefore economic growth and human development.

1 In this module research assistance was provided by Ms. Paloma Mitra, Mumbai.

2 Tran Thi Lahn, Women and Right to Livelihood. World Social Forum Report 2009. PWECSR.

Thus here it is important to put in context gender specific factors that render right to livelihood a women’s issue (PWESCR Discussion paper 2011):

Women play a significant role in livelihood efforts and are families main contributors to agriculture and household nutrition and financial security
Right to Livelihood is linked to other human rights such as right to food, health, social security, work, education. Thus loss of livelihoods adversely affects her position in the power hierarchy and their bargaining capacity both in the household and the community.
Women face multiple forms of discrimination in terms of access and control over land, credit, skills education which are important for strengthening their security and livelihood. Things worsen with regard to Dalit women, Adivasi women (SC and ST women), as they face high levels of discrimination in employment and access and control over productive resources and markets.
Policy interventions are limited and does not take into consideration the structural inequalities that frame women’s lives, but also are farmed keeping in context the ‘male breadwinner model’. Such a framing limits the potential of policies to strengthen the livelihood demands of the poor women.
Women’s work include both paid and unpaid work and she has greater responsibility of household chores, such as cooking, cleaning, washing, and care of children and elderly. Women spent long hours on unpaid work, which is generally organized under the rubric of care.
Women are not involved in the decision making process and thus are not viewed either by the family, community and the policy makers as economic agents . Such a position does not help in facilitating strengthening of sustainable livelihoods.

Thus to develop systems that would facilitate sustainable livelihoods would require an understanding that one needs to engage with the gender issues. There are two aspects that are linked to the idea of livelihood is that of right to work, employment and right to food. In this module the focus is on right to work and sustainable employment. Further the module will initially discuss the challenges of livelihood in India, especially its connection with gender. Then the module will highlight the challenges faced by women in accessing work and sustainable employment. Lastly the module through an analysis of agrarian distress in India, highlight the precarious conditions of women farmers in Vidharba district of Maharashtra.

In order to do this the module is structured into three sections, followed by a conclusion. Section 1: titled Gender, Livelihood, Challenges discusses the link between gender and livelihood and puts forth the idea of Right to Livelihood. Section 2: titled Gender and Access to Work and Employment, highlights the challenges faced by women in accessing work and sustainable employment which is crucial for sustaining livelihood for the women for their family and household. Section 3: titled Agrarian Distress and Women farmers explains agrarian distress in India which is leading to increased vulnerability of women farmers, thereby placing their livelihoods at stake.

Section 1: Gender, Livelihood, Challenges

In the context of India, since independence there has been a recognition of the fact that the linkage between Directive Principles of State Policy Art 39, where it is mentioned that, ‘the state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing…that the citizen, men and women equally, have the right to as adequate means of livelihood and that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The fact that this direction to the government is mentioned in the DPSP, which is non- justiciable renders it not so effective, making it dependent on the political will of the government. In recent times, two landmark legislations on social security for deprived and non-formal workers were enacted by the government: one Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA)3 and two, Unorganized Workers Social Security Act 2008 (UWSSA)4. The aim behind these acts was to ensure minimum level of social security for the deprived, marginalized and non-formal workers. Kannan (2010: 342) in his analysis of the schemes writes, ‘Both the initiatives are limited by eligibility, coverage and benefits’.

In 2011, the government initiated new poverty alleviation programme to address the poverty and to strengthen livelihoods of the rural poor. The programme was named National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM), which was based on universal social mobilization and financial inclusion of the rural poor. The programme focused on building confidence to develop self-employment among the poor, imparted skills training and focused on nurturing strong SHGs (Self Help Groups). Krishna (2012), states that ‘the NRLM does take into account multiple dimensions, of poverty nor the wider context and causes of deprivation. It does not address continuous problem of sustainability of natural resource base and resource conflicts. Again these are aggravated by state policies. Further NRLM is based on the idea of self- employment as the only way out of poverty- thereby institutionalizing the neo-liberal perspective of viewing poverty as individual incapacity based rather than reflection of structural inequalities.

3 MGNREGA – The MGNREGA aims at enhancing the livelihood security of people in rural areas by guaranteeing hundred days of wage employment in a financial year to a rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.

4 UWSSA 2008- The act to provide for the social security and welfare of the unorganized workers (meaning home-based workers, self-employed or daily wage workers).

Since the 1990s, the livelihoods of the rural poor are being rapidly transformed. Global pressures and the ‘opening up’ of economies have led to the swift changes in resource management systems and practices, thereby reshaping both traditional and modern institutions. The degradation of fragile eco systems and displacement of communities affect poor women, children and elderly. Because of this poor women across different communities and regions are particularly vulnerable because poverty and disempowerment by patriarchal, gender biased institutions (Krishna 2010). Further their conditions are worsened by the fact that in many cases women have to take care of the household responsibilities and their family everyday survival on their own as the men migrate to urban areas in search for better alternative employment. Agarwal (2003) states that in some cases poor women have formed collectivities to strengthen their resources and asset bases. Krishna (2012) cites Sainath, 2011 who writes that based on latest 2011 census, women are the most stable rural labour because of distress migration of males to urban areas in search alternative employment. Thus one can observe that in rural areas women not only have to take responsibility of the household but also take up paid work so as to ensure that they have a steady regular income. Thus women’s economic and livelihood needs are inter-wined with their socio-political interests and the strategies taken by men to deal with large scale rural unemployment and agrarian distress. Adding to this Krishna (2009), efforts to ensure sustainable livelihood are undermined by the following reasons:

Patriarchal backlash
Entrenched elite and caste oppression
Male alcoholism
Domestic violence against men
Men’s resistance to sharing domestic and caring responsibility
Failing to address issues of conflict at community and household level undermines the sustainability of livelihood programmes

Analysing the challenges of securing sustainable livelihoods, Krishna (2007) drawing upon the gendered understanding of citizenship, to argue that one needs to locate natural resource-based livelihoods in the wider context of development and link it with women’s citizenship rights. She calls for a conceptual link between citizenship and livelihood so that women’s productive rights are recognized so as to demand for a dignified life as political rights rather than as ‘recipients of welfare’. Critiquing the patronizing approach of the Indian state, Krishna demands for a right based approach to livelihood. She argues for the need to recognize women`s right to resources, their livelihood and employment strategies and highlights the importance of their collective agency in achieving it.

It is crucial for policy makers to recognize and take into cognizance the gendered nature of livelihoods as the development approach to livelihood is conceptualized as the ‘means of gaining a living, including livelihood, capabilities, tangible assets and intangible assets’ (Krishna 2007). Based on research in the North eastern parts of India, Krishna (2005) argues that given the ground situation of the food production system in North eastern India and rest of the country any assessment of food sustainability would be incomplete if gender indicators are not taken into account. Food and livelihood security cannot be ‘engendered without addressing structural aspects of development. Any intervention cannot be just grafted onto existing farming systems without sensitivity to the known social and ecological problems of agriculture. It is also a fact that though gender relations in some adivasi (tribal) societies are relatively more egalitarian but enormous changes are now taking place in their resource base and livelihoods (Krishna 2003). Thus women’s labour in subsistence crop, livestock and fish production contributes to family food security (Krishna 2012).

After establishing the need to conceptualize livelihood within a gendered framework and analyzing the challenges faced by poor women in India to secure, access and stabilize livelihoods, we now would discuss briefly the challenges faced by women in particular to get access to paid work and employment opportunities. As mentioned in the introduction right to work and employment is one of the core aspects of right to sustainable livelihoods.

Section 2: Gender and Access to Work and Employment

In the general debates about employment and sustainable livelihoods there is little analysis of gender issues. The Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference for Women identified equality of opportunity and treatment of women in employment as a critical area of concern. It also highlighted the inequalities in women’s access to and participation in the creation of economic structures and policies (Masika and Joekes 1996).

When we think about economic empowerment, we always think of it in terms of providing equal income opportunities, wages, collaborative decision making etc. but seldom do we think of promoting and implementing gender equality in all aspects of work and our existing lifestyle. Despite some progress made over the last few decades in increasing women’s labor force participation and narrowing gender gaps in wages, gender equality in the world of work still remains an elusive goal. While millions of women have become successful entrepreneurs, women are still grossly underrepresented in the world’s board rooms. In particular, in the developing world, women continue to form a large majority of the world’s working poor, earn less income, and are more often affected by long-term unemployment than men. This is obviously due to the unjust and unequal patriarchal and institutional structures in our society that relegates women to the private sphere. So when they do step into the public sphere, they do not have the requisite skills to enter into the workforce. As a result, many of them enter into the unorganized sector, where they wage a different struggle against oppressive forces of their employers who are generally male.

In the organized sector, women who successfully break the glass ceiling in their workplace, face the burden of a second glass ceiling as they fail to get the same amount of respect from their employees by virtue of being a woman. Hence she is not taken seriously or seen as capable of handling a superior post in comparison to their male counterparts. Also, when a large bulk of women enters into any profession, the value of the profession diminishes and those jobs are considered “soft jobs”. The best example to cite would be: teaching, as a profession. Somewhere it implies that women are incapable of handling technical oriented work and also men who are seen in this domain are considered to behave in a less masculine manner in comparison to men in other professions which are male centric.

Feminist interventions globally, and the advent of women’s movement in India, in particular, paved the way for women’s access to equal education and employment opportunities, that were previously denied to them before, both socially and institutionally. Women began to be seen not as mere passive recipients of developmental projects and programmes but as active participants in the development schemes implemented by the developing nations. However one must realize that although economic opportunities are crucial, it is not a sufficient precursor for gender equality or emancipation, partly because not all economic activity is empowering, and partly because additional measures are required to promote gender equality in other spheres (legal, political etc.). The pursuit of gender equality is bound to be a complex process since inequality is multi-causal phenomenon, linked to the intra- household decision-making processes and influenced by both market signals and institutional norms. Whilst access to economic activity is important in this pursuit, the key concern is to identify what forms of economic activity most enhance women’s position and under what terms and conditions (Masika and Susan Joekes, 1996). Agarwal (1994, 2003) emphasized that effective and independent property rights were likely to be the single most critical contributing factor to women’s economic well-being, social status, and political assertion.

Even though women have successfully made their mark in the market, be it formal or informal, they are nevertheless faced with mounting discrimination in the workplace. Moreover axes of caste, class and race further pose multiple constrains in their access to work and women not only face the patriarchal discrimination but face harassment, in many cases sexual at the hands of persons of authority. The discrimination and subjugation that women face at home is reflected even onto the public sphere, thereby curbing women’s growth. The economic analyses of labour markets explain women’s disadvantage and gender discrimination in terms of: supply factors- that determine the quantity and quality of women workers in the labour market like family responsibilities and constraints, gendered inequalities in education, training and access to productive resources. Demand factors– labour market segregation, discrimination in pay differentials and quality of employment, higher risks of unemployment which are conditioned by specific structures of the economy. Implicit policies– that include or exclude women like discriminatory legislation and regulations, employment discrimination, unequal hiring standards and lower pay for equal work, that govern their treatment in the economy and labour market (World Bank, 1994, ILO, 1994)

Other analyses have distinguished market and production factors from household factors such as household structure, income, resources and decision-making. Neo-classical economists have argued that reproductive labour is a cause of female disadvantage in the labour market. Family responsibilities and constraints operate at two levels. First, attitudinal obstacles may inhibit women’s participation in ’work’ or restrict girls’ or women’s access to education and training. Second, women’s employment opportunities may be limited due to their reproductive role that dictates that they have look after young children and care for the sick and elderly. These factors apply to both the formal and informal sectors (Baden and Milward, 1995).

Feminists have argued that female specialisation in child rearing and domestic labour is not natural but socially constructed and hence susceptible to change (Stichter and Parpart 1990). Feminist perspectives have pointed out that not only do definitions of work tend to exclude and underestimate much of women’s work but that within a patriarchal family structure, women may not control the proceeds of their labour. They may be obliged, coerced or predisposed to allocate their own incomes towards household or family, rather than personal needs (Baden with Milward, 1995).

A number of factors are understood to determine the different profiles of employment among women and men, and the lower returns to women’s work. Commonly cited factors include gender-differentiated levels of education, training and skills, and various types of gender discrimination in the labour market .Women’s relative lack of education and training contributes to their lower earnings. Lower returns to female labour force participation also act as a disincentive to future investment in female education, perpetuating a vicious circle. In addition, employers use lack of education and experience as a screening device to exclude women (and other disadvantaged groups) from employment. Relatively low educational levels also limit women’s access to information sources about employment (Baden and Milward, 1995) and reduce training opportunities (Arriagada, 1989).

Occupational segregation between men and women is widely documented in both developed and developing societies (Baden and Milward, 1995; Sayeed and Tzannatos, 1995). Women have narrower occupational choices compared to men. ‘Female’ jobs are often related to perceived female characteristics – such as patience, dexterity, caring, docility – or to traditionally ’female’ activities within the household such as cooking, cleaning, sewing, tending the sick and personal services of various kinds. In general, ’female’ jobs tend to be lower paid, less skilled’, less secure and lacking in opportunities for upward mobility, compared to male jobs. There are thought to be both institutional constraints and ideological factors which operate to exclude women from certain jobs. Employers may be reluctant to hire women because of their perceived higher rates of absenteeism, higher turnover, lesser human capital endowments and higher costs as well as for certain kinds of jobs deemed ’inappropriate’ for women. On the other hand, certain occupations may be considered ‘female’ and employers specifically select women to do these jobs, as in garments and electronics manufacturing. Precise problems of segregation by gender differ from country to country (Baden with Milward, 1995).

Discriminatory attitudes are reflected in labour market regulations (World Bank, 1995). Legislation exists in many countries to prevent women from working in certain kinds of occupation (e.g. mining occupations requiring shift or night work). Employers often select between female workers using criteria not applied to men, with age, marital status, number of children and appearance being major factors affecting employers’ attitudes towards employing women workers. Men’s and women’s career histories accordingly tend to diverge at certain life cycle events; marriage, age and children may lessen women’s access to employment opportunities whilst they tend to increase men’s. Women are constrained by the demands of domestic labour and child care, which inhibit them from participating in forms of employment involving inflexible hours, overtime, extensive travel or shift work, given the cost and difficulty of making child care arrangements and the difficulties of leaving children unattended (the most common outcome among the poor). Women themselves may ’choose’ typically female occupations, influenced by strong socio-cultural norms and gender stereotypes inculcated through the education system (Baden with Milward, 1995).

In both developed and developing countries a number of studies have confirmed that women earn on average less than men (ILO, 1994; Standing, 1989; Baden and Milward, 1995; Tzannatos, 1994). Women’s wages in developing countries range between 50 and 80 percent of men’s (ILO, 1995b). Furthermore, recording of gender differentials in earnings may underestimate the difference in that fringe benefits may accrue disproportionately to men (Baden and Milward, 1995). Gender divisions in the labour force are apparent by sector (e.g. female concentration in services; male in manufacturing), sub-sector (e.g. in manufacturing, female concentration in electronics and garments; male concentration in the car industry), as well as by occupational category (e.g. female concentration in unskilled manual, or clerical work; male concentration in skilled manual positions and in management) and by work status (e.g. female concentration in unpaid family labour; male concentration in self-employment) (Baden with Milward, 1995). Gender differentiated entry barriers for women and occupational segregation exists even in the informal sector in terms of lack of access to capital and to markets and in different activity profiles by gender. The informal sector has particular relevance to discussions about employment because it provides significant income earning opportunities for both men and women in developing countries. There is often a failure to recognize that workers face gendered conditions of access to labour markets, which discriminate against women specifically. Generally, women have less power than men, receive less for their work, have less control over household resources, receive less education, have less access to better paying jobs in the formal sector and are disproportionately represented among unpaid family workers and in the informal sector (Baden with Milward, 1995; World Bank, 1995).

Section 3: Agrarian Distress and Women Farmers’ Marginality

This section analyses the specific structural context of agrarian distress, evaluating agrarian policies of the state which has led to extreme insecurity among the agrarian community. This section addresses two questions: one how do we make sense of the structural inequality manifested in terms of agrarian distress in India and Maharashtra in particular? Two, how severe is this agrarian distress and what do farmers’ suicides imply for the women farmers?

It is important to recognize that the majority of farmers in India are owners of small and marginal agricultural plots, and thus seek to base their livelihood on no-viable option. Agrarian distress has rendered made the agrarian structure highly unequal and agriculture in a state of stagnation. This stagnancy could be observed in the decrease in productivity for almost all crops since the mid 1990s. Such a situation makes things very challenging because still a large section of population is still dependent on agriculture as their primary source of income. Mishra (2007) states that not only more than 50 percent of the rural population are either dependent on agriculture or are self employed within the agrarian economy, but also that the rural non-farm employment is limited.

Scholars link the distressed agrarian conditions to the shift in the priorities of the Indian nation state in the decades of the 1980s and 1990s. This shift was not only observed within the philosophically ideological framework of development, but was also reflected in the specific policies and programmes that were initiated and implemented by the state. This was a significant change from the initial decades of post-independence India when policy makers recognized that a majority of the Indian population depended on agriculture, and it was defined as the primary sector. Unfortunately, though the political rhetoric was pro-poor, the policy environment was characterized by adhoc, populist, and symbolic gestures that did nothing to change the inequalities embedded within the agrarian economy {Jodhka (2006), Patnaik and Patnaik (2001), Krishnraj (2006) and Sainath (2007)}.

Failure of the land reform programme in the 1970s and 1980s (that would have radically restructured agrarian structure by providing the landless with access to, and control over land) and the success of the Green Revolution in the 1980s fundamentally changed the way agriculture was practiced. The core of the Green Revolution was based on increased productivity through the use of high yield variety of seeds which led to a phase of commercialization of agriculture, which was clearly unsustainable (Vasavi 1994). Such an agrarian policy paved the way for the steady and rapid decline of Indian agriculture, in the 1990s, as is evident through stagnation in production, deteriorating soil conditions, and farmers engaging in high-capital single cash crops, based on short term gain at the cost of long term viability.

Krishnaraj (2006) argues that the industrial development policy followed today no longer needs linkages with agriculture, thereby completely marginalizing it. According to Patnaik and Patnaik (2001), globalization policies are compelling the Indian farmers to produce commercial crops and compete within the free unregulated international market thereby rendering the farmers vulnerable. This weakened position of the farmers is further undermined by the weake ning of the farmer’s movement in India (Krishnaraj 2006). Additionally landholdings have become so fragmented that there is little scope for agriculture regeneration (Jha 2003, Gupta 2005). Thus, the stagnancy and decline of agriculture conditions in India was accelerated by the liberalization and globalization policies of the 1990s, which left the marginalized farmers even more negatively susceptible to the logic of free market; the ensuing disastrous results included suicides by indebted farmers (Jodhka 2005). Analysis on the farmers’ suicides in Maharashtra also shows how the commercialization of agriculture pushed farmers to engage in a competitive based high-capital intensive exercise in an unregulated market making them highly vulnerable.

Krishnaraj and Shah (2004), Hirway (2002), Rao (2010), Padhi (2009) and Vepa (2009), have described the ways in which the agrarian crisis affects women in agriculture. Three interconnected factors: agrarian distress, male migration and farmers’ suicides have pushed women into agriculture, with fewer controls over productive resources where they have to deal with unviable agriculture, under precarious conditions. The work of women is mostly underestimated (Hirway 2002) though they are core to the agrarian economy, and make up the majority of the rural subsidiary and casual workers. It increases the work burden of women without a commensurate recognition of their work as cultivators, or through increased wages on par with men. Agriculture is undergoing a number of changes in this era of globalization and most of it negatively impacts women who are sole principal earners of their households, especially widows surviving farmers’ suicides left behind facing a daunting task (Krishnaraj 2005).

In such distressed conditions, which push farmers’ to take their lives, it is important to understand how the women, those who have survived their husband’s suicides, deal with such crises. There have been very few studies that have focused on the widow farmer dealing with such extreme conditions. Important among them is the research by Padhi (2009), who emphasizes the innumerable hurdles faced by women surviving farmer suicides in Punjab, India. Padhi analyzed how the women have to take care of their family without the support of the ‘man’ while remaining under constant control of her husband’s kin. Padhi elaborates by stating that after the deaths of their husbands, women are left fending for themselves, their children (who lose their ‘childhood’ and become young responsible adults), the elderly (especially with ever increasing healthcare costs), as well as dealing with the precarious agrarian situation.

Padhi emphatically states that the situation of women is a state of ‘pauperization despite ‘owning land’. Even though widow farmers own land, the structural inequalities due to fragile agrarian conditions are so deeply entrenched that access and control of ‘land’ by women farmers do not provide them with sufficient resources to deal with poverty and extreme hardships. Rao (2005) states that at the policy level and indeed in the development literature there is an assumption that since agriculture is increasingly becoming ‘feminized’, improvement of women’s endowment through land will increase production, decrease her poverty and ensure food security. Instead Rao argues that there is no proof that land ownership reduces poverty given that land is fragmented and agriculture is non-viable. Krishnaraj (2005) argues that independent land rights for women may not be a panacea as was earlier argued by gender and development scholars, due to the unsustainable nature of agriculture.

Conclusion:

In conclusion one can argue that structural inequalities due to fragile agrarian conditions are so deeply entrenched that rights to access and control of ‘agricultural land’ by women farmers do not provide them with adequate support to deal with poverty and extreme hardships. Such extreme vulnerability and precariousness of livelihood has pushed the women farmers to continuously cope with meeting the diverse needs of their families, prioritize wants, and deal with constraints in order to secure minimum economic security for themselves and their children, within constraining patriarchal structures. The state can work at the regional, national and global level to empower women and give them access to the rightful resources for their sustenance and livelihood. At the regional level and national level there should be provisions for ensuring education: there should be free children’s education and adult education as well as specific capacity building within women’s groups in urban and rural areas to enable them to take action to claim their rights and specifically access credit and the markets. Further there should be more outreach to women living in particularly vulnerable situations, such as the displaced and migrants, to deal with discrimination in community, family and the State. Additionally there should be demand for legislation, in particular concerning economic rights for women, such as reform of inheritance laws in India. Further we should examine government policies at the local and national level and mobilize women as workers with rights, organize women into unions to pursue their demands and lobby for better working conditions. At the international level one should build stronger global networks for women’s groups to unite, so as to ensure that women’s voices are heard and collectively fought to hold governments accountable and work towards ensuring rights of women.

you can view video on Gender and Livelihoods

References:

Agarwal, B (1989): ‘Rural Women, Poverty and natural resources: Sustenance, Sustainability and Struggle for Change’. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 24, No 3, WS 46-WS112.
_______ (1995): A field of One’s Own: Gender and Land rights in South Asia’. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge
________ (1999): Social Security and Farming: Coping with Seasonality and Calamity in Rural India in E. Ahmed, J Dreze, J Hills and A Sen (eds): Social Security in Developing Countries.
Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
_________ (2003): “Gender and land Rights: Revisited: Exploring New Prospects via the State, Family and Market’, in S Razavi (ed), Agrarian Change, Gender and Land Rights. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp 184-224.
Badn, S and Milward, K (1995): Gender and Poverty. BRIDGE Report Commissioned by Sida.
Institute of Development Studies. Brighton.
Darooka, P (2008): Social Security: A Women’s Human Rights Discussion Paper, No 2. PWECSR.
New Delhi.
Discussion Paper (2011): Locating Women’s Livelihood in the Human Right Framework. PWESCR No 3, July 2011. New Delhi. pp 1-12.
Jha, D (2003): Policy Drift in Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly Vol 38, No 47 (Nov 22-28) pp 4941-4948.
Jodhka, S (2006): Beyond ‘Crises’: Rethinking Contemporary Punjab Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly Vol 41, No 16 (Apr 22-28), pp 1530-1537.
Kannan, K P (2010): ‘Social Security for the Working Poor in India: Two National Initiatives’, Development. 53; 338-42.
Krishna, S (2003): Light Shines through Gossamer Theads. Inside- Outsside Political Spaces. Vol 38, No 17, pp 1691-1696.
_________ (2005): Gendered Price of Rice in North- Eastern India. Vol 40, No 25, pp 2555-2562.
_________ (2007): Women’s Livelihood Rights: Recasting Citizenship for Development. SSage Publication. New Delhi.
_________ (2009): Genderscapes: Revisioning Natural Resource Management. Zubaan: New Delhi.

_________ (2010): ‘Gender Equity in National Rural Mission: Institutions and Collective Actions:
paper presented at Two decades of Impact and Learning. Regional Conference: Orissa Watershed Development Mission. DFID and N R Int. U K). New Delhi 21-23. April 2010. Hirway, I (2002): Employment and unemployment situation in the 1990s – How good is the NSS data? Economic and Political Weekly Vol 37, No 21, pp 2027-2036.
_________ (2012): Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods; ‘Sidestream’/’Mainstream’ in W.
Harcourt (ed), Women Reclaiming Sustainable Livelihoods. Plagrave: Macmillan
Krishnaraj M and Shah, A (2004): Women in Agriculture. Academic Foundation: New Delhi.
Krishnaraj, M (2005a): Food Security: How and For Whom? Economic and Political Weekly Vol 40, No 25 (June 18), pp 2508-2512.
________ (2005b): Displaced from Land: Case of Santhal Praganas. Economic and Political Weekly Vol 40, No 41 (Oct 8-14), pp 4439-4442.
_________ (2006); Food Security, Agrarian Crisis and Rural Livelihoods: Implications for Women. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 41, No 52- (Dec 30- 2006 – Jan 5 2007), pp 5376-5388.
Masika, R and S Joekes (1996): Employment and Sustainable Livelihoods: A Gender Perspective Commissioned by SIDA. Report No 37. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
Mishra, S (2007): Risks, Farmers Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India. Is there a way Out?
Working Paper – 2007-014, IGDIR: Mumbai.
Padhi, R (2009): Women Surviving Framer Suicides in Punjab. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 44, No 19 (May 9 -15), pp 53-59 Patnaik, U and Patnaik, P (2001): The State, Poverty and Development in India in Nirija Gopal
Rao, N (2005a): Women’s Rights to Land and Assets: Experiencing of Mainstreaming Gender in Development Programmes. Economic and Political Weekly Vol XL, No 44-45, Oct 29, pp- 4701-4708.
Sainath, P (2007): The Decade of our Discontent. The Hindu. August 9th, 2007.
________ (2011): Census Findings Point to a Decade of Rural Distress’. The Hindu 27th September 2011.
Sayeed, H and Tzannatos, Z (1995): Sex Segregation in the Labour Force’. World Bank.
Sen, G (1999): Gender Mainstreaming in Finance: A Reference Manual for Government and Other Stakeholders. Commonwealth Secretariat. 1999. London.
Standing, G (1989): ‘Global Feminism through Flexible Labour’, World Development. Vol 17, No 7.
Sticher, S and Parpart, J (eds) (1990): Women, Employment and the Family in International Division of Labour. London: Macmillan.
Sydenham, E (2009): Women and the Right to Livelihoods. World Social Forum 2009. PWESCR.
Tzannatos, Z (1995): ‘Women’s Labour Hours’. World Bank: Washington D C.
Vasavi, A.R (1994): ‘Hybrid Times, Hybrid People’: Culture and Agriculture in South India. Man.New Series, Vol 29, No 2 (Jun 1994). Pp 283-300.
_________ (1999): ‘Agrarian Distress: Market, State and Suicides’. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 34(32), April 7th, pp 2263-68.
Vepa, S (2009): Bearing the Brunt: Impact of Rural Distress on Women. Sage Publications: New Delhi