Why market orientation matters for agriculture and fishery workers? Unravelling the association between households’ occupational background and caloric deprivation in India

Abstract

Abstract Background Developmental policies in low- and middle-income countries pose immense potential within the agriculture sectors to escalate economic growth and development. Almost one-half of the workforces continue to be engaged in agriculture and allied activities with a relatively lower economic contribution than those employed in other sectors. Hence, realizing such potential however requires tremendous scaling up of skill development activities in the sector. Investing in skill development of workers engaged in agricultural and allied activities can potentially display notable value additions, income generation and therefore reductions in widespread deprivations in the form of food insecurity and undernutrition. Further with the direct link between nutrition and productivity, economic gains, it is further imperative to impart market exposure among subsistence and unskilled workers. This study therefore empirically investigates the association between households’ primary occupation and caloric deprivation in India. In particular, in a multivariate and multilevel framework, we identified how closely primary occupation of households explain the variation in caloric deprivation in India. Methods Drawing upon data from 68th round (2011–12) of nationally representative cross-sectional Household Consumer Expenditure Survey (HCES) of National Sample Survey (NSS), Government of India, we examined the association between occupational backgrounds of households and caloric deprivation (average caloric consumption as well as low calorie intake) among Indian households. Results Evidences show that agricultural and fishery labor households have lowest calorie intake (2086 kcal) across all the occupational groups. However, market oriented skilled agricultural and fishery workers’ (2261 kcal – rural, 2165 kcal - urban) have higher calorie intakes than those belonging to subsistence agricultural (2165 kcal – rural, 2149 kcal - urban). Further, the multilevel logistic regression estimates suggest that in rural areas, households engaged in skilled agricultural and fishery works have significantly (at 5% level) lower odds ratio (OR: 0.72, with 95% CI: 0.63; 0.82) of having insufficient calorie intake compared to the unskilled agricultural and fishery laborer households. Estimates from variance partitioning based on multilevel logistic regression models suggest that the households’ occupational group accounts for 7 to 14% of total variation in calorie consumption. Conclusion These insights when combined with the occupation-specific random-effects suggest that investing in skill development of agricultural and fishery workers may have immense potential to strengthen their nutritional status and to reduce deprivation levels.