There was a time when researchers argued against the transfer of funds in the name of poverty alleviation programmes, as they felt this only compounded the wealth of powerful interest groups at the village level. There are other sides to the story too. In fact, some programmes in rural India have averted widespread starvation or helped millions of people to escape hunger once and for all. It was thus felt that the dynamics of one of the programmes sponsored by the Government of India be explored. Among these is the Supply of Improved Toolkits to Rural Artisans (SITRA) programme. This is the first time that this programme is being evaluated at the all-India level.

SITRA was launched as a sub-scheme of the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) in July 1992 with the objective of enabling rural artisans below the poverty line (BPL) to enhance the quality of their products, increase their production and income and ensure a better quality of life for themselves. This was also expected to help reduce their migration to urban areas.

1. It was thus possible to derive three interrelated objectives. First, to investigate whether the guidelines of the various schemes were being followed with reference to selection of beneficiaries, utilisation of funds allocated and transparency and involvement of people in programme implementation. Second, to analyse the survival of assets acquired, in particular whether all the assets acquired under the scheme had survived, were in use or were cost effective. Third, to study whether improved toolkits enhanced productivity of the artisans and in particular whether the programme contributed to increasing/improving the productivity, employment and living conditions of people below the poverty line.
2. The methodology was developed keeping the time constraint in mind. Evaluation was based on information gathered from three main sources, namely, the implementing agency (DRDA), the gram panchayat and individual artisans - both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

The number of districts for the study was fixed at 20 per cent of the total number of districts subject to a minimum of two districts in each state. The districts were selected through purposive sampling to ensure that these districts were adequately representative of the state with respect to geographical distribution and special conditions of the state, if any.

The sample districts were grouped into two strata, one stratum comprising districts where no watershed projects under the Desert Development Programme (DDP), Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) or Integrated Wasteland Development Programme (IWDP) had been implemented, and the other stratum comprising the districts where at least one of these programmes had been implemented. The sample blocks in each district were selected through random sampling with preference given to those blocks where the maximum number of programmes (DDP, DPAP, IWDP) were in existence.

Thirty field-level agencies assisted in the collection of primary data at the district, gram panchayat, beneficiary and non-beneficiary levels. The agencies were advised to select five villages from each of the selected blocks identified by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD). The agencies found it convenient to collect information from the gram panchayat office. The individual artisans were the final sampling units. However, two types of respondents were covered – i.e. BPL artisans who were beneficiaries under SITRA and BPL artisans who were non-beneficiaries.

The list of BPL households in each village/gram panchayat was obtained from the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), with due care being taken to identify the reference year. Wherever available, the BPL household list from the 1997 BPL census was used. In all other cases the 1992 BPL census list was used. From the frame of BPL artisans, five beneficiaries (selected randomly), or all of the beneficiaries in case there were less than five, were selected as beneficiary respondents and the schedule for beneficiaries filled up for each of them. Similarly, one non-beneficiary artisan from this frame of BPL artisans was chosen as a sample for the non-beneficiary artisan category. A total of 6788 sample beneficiaries and 1751 sample non-beneficiaries were covered for the study at the all-India level.

3. The first two chapters of this report explore some key aspects of development in the Indian context as a prelude to the fulfilment of the objectives stated above. The analysis argues that the major fundamental barriers to fulfilment of rural India’s immense potential arise from inefficient infrastructure and lack of timely irrigation. Hence, the study found it appropriate to portray the socio-economic characteristics of the sample districts selected for the survey and a comparison of these with the states.

When it was introduced, the SITRA programme targeted social groups like Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), women and physically handicapped. The study also revealed that the sample districts were less developed compared with the respective states, in terms of level of electrification in villages, area irrigated and literacy rate. In the sample districts, as also in the case of states, it was observed that among the different indicators, agricultural development, area irrigated and value of agricultural production were strongly related. The relations between other indicators, however, were not so strong. For instance, there were more primary health centres per lakh population in the sample districts, due to their inherent socio-economic structure, as compared with the states where there were more hospitals and dispensaries.

4. As far as the infrastructure development index (the percentage of villages electrified, road length per 100 sq. km, railway per 100 sq. km, post offices per lakh population, fixed telephone lines per 100 persons, etc.) is concerned, less developed states like Assam, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal on the whole were lagging behind, while forward states like Kerala and Punjab fared better in terms of human development and economic performance, respectively.
5. A substantial difference was observed in the average number of villages per gram panchayat (GP) from state to state in the 123 sample districts studied, due to the variation in the concept of GP across states. But the sample districts were well represented across different social groups. On the whole, the interstate variations were reflected in the sample districts and villages.

The occupational pattern of households under beneficiary and non-beneficiary categories was found to be predominantly craftsmanship followed by agriculture and domestic labour. However, this varied across states and union territories.

6. The planning and implementation of the SITRA programme showed variations not only across states but districts as well. For example, in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh the district collector took the decision regarding selection of beneficiary craft while the TRYSEM nominees in the same district were selected at the mandal level. The design of the toolkits was duly approved by the district level committee. The beneficiaries were to collect application forms from the block office. On selection, they made payment through demand draft at the mandal office. The DRDA then set a date for release of the toolkit. On that day, the toolkit suppliers also demonstrated the kits to the beneficiaries.

In contrast, in Wyanad district in Kerala, the decision on the crafts to be chosen was taken on the basis of the number of people trained under the TRYSEM programme in a particular year. The toolkits were designed with the help of representatives of prospective beneficiaries. They were displayed in a specific block for approval. Accordingly, the block officials finalised the selection of toolkits. The block office then sought tender. Specific forms were available for seeking benefits. Finally, the block officials in consultation with the panchayats’ pradhan/mukhia selected beneficiaries.

7. The difference between toolkits supplied and toolkits sanctioned to the beneficiaries can be taken as an indicator of the efficient/inefficient implementation of the SITRA programme. This indicator, however, showed large variations across states over the period 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. During the period 1996-1997, the number of toolkits supplied and the total toolkits sanctioned was same (100 per cent) in major states like Punjab, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Assam and Tamil Nadu. In Uttar Pradesh, the figure reported was dismal, only 26 per cent of the total sanctioned in 1997-1998. However, the state improved its position in 1998-99. The figure for Bihar in the same period stood at only 27 per cent. In 1998-1999, in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, only 40 per cent and 24 per cent of the total toolkits sanctioned respectively were supplied. The value of the toolkits varied during the reference period due to the types and nature of the toolkits.
8. The highest per capita income earned by beneficiary households was recorded as Rs 14,192 in Kerala, as against Bihar, where an average beneficiary was just managing to survive on an earning of Rs 2664. In the non-beneficiary category, an average Keralite was reported to earn Rs 12,836, while an average non-beneficiary household in Manipur was struggling to survive at a recorded income of Rs 1446.
9. The study also traced the distribution of households under both beneficiary and non-beneficiary categories according to annual household income size groups. The income size groups are: less than Rs 5000; Rs 5000-Rs 10,000; Rs 10,000-Rs 15,000; Rs 15,000-Rs 20,000; Rs 20,000-Rs 30,000 and above Rs 30,000. It was found that at the all-India level, beneficiary households in the under Rs 20,000 categories comprised about 92.5 per cent of the total beneficiary households before the toolkits were received, while 7.5 per cent were in the above Rs 20,000 categories. Interestingly, by dint of hard work and with the help of the toolkits, some of them (about 14 per cent) upgraded their position to the above Rs 20,000 category. Besides, a number of households under the beneficiary category had acquired assets like ceiling fan, TV and three-wheeler. At the all-India, state and union territory levels, in contrast, about 94 per cent of the total households under the non-beneficiary category in all size groups were looking for indirect intervention to upgrade their economic position.
10. Although the sample households were rural, artisan craft was the highest income source at the all-India level for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary category households. The study found that this income tended to rise among beneficiary households after the toolkits were received. In other words, with everything else held constant, use of toolkits would enhance these households’ income. Indeed, additional income from other sources may have increased overall income of households in this category, depending on the skill-specific jobs available in the market. With the exception of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, the households in this sample were dependent on artisan craft for earning a major share of their total income.
11. At the all-India level, about 50 per cent households under the beneficiary category felt that they received the toolkits simply on the basis of their application, while 26 per cent felt that they got it due to their relationship with the sarpanch. About 2 per cent disclosed that they had paid (transaction cost) for it. Most such cases were reported from Bihar (5 per cent) and Karnataka (about 4 per cent). About 20 per cent households under the non-beneficiary category at the all-India level were still trying to find out why they did not get the benefit of the SITRA programme. In West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, about 60 per cent and 58 per cent respectively felt that they applied for toolkits but did not receive the benefit. This strongly points to village functionaries with a political bias. This needs to be further verified. At the all-India level, a source of information was the sarpanch (about 37 per cent). However, there were other major contributory sources, too, such as the government, DRDA, or block officials.
12. The study revealed that at the all-India level, 39 per cent beneficiaries of the total sample were able to get the benefit within a month, 37 per cent were able to procure it between two and four months and the rest in more than four months. About 2 per cent beneficiaries paid transaction costs, the highest incidence of such cases being found in Punjab (14 per cent) and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (13 per cent). As regards the quality of the toolkits, 32 per cent of the total all-India level beneficiaries felt that some of the toolkits were good, 29 per cent found them ‘all are in good condition’, while 10 per cent felt that they were not good.
13. The study found that 34 per cent of the total households under the beneficiary category were using the entire toolkit, while a significant proportion of households (65 per cent) were using part of the toolkit. Strikingly, about 10 per cent were not able to use the toolkit because of its poor quality.
14. About 87 per cent of the beneficiaries felt that they benefited from SITRA, and this response was consistent across all states and UTs; for instance, product quality improved (77 per cent), total output went up (62 per cent), and earnings increased (64 per cent). However, in terms of savings, only 37 per cent beneficiaries at the all-India level felt that they were saving more. These beneficiaries also reported less borrowing (42 per cent). Finally, the beneficiaries on the whole (86 per cent) were happy with the programme and this perception was uniform across all states and UTs except Lakshadweep.
15. It is useful to focus on some highlight of the impact of SITRA in the major states. In Andhra Pradesh, 78 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4046 per year, whereas 87 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with earnings of Rs 3416.66 per year from craftsmanship only.
16. Before receiving the toolkits, 50 per cent and 30 per cent of the beneficiaries were in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 and Rs 10,000-15,000 respectively. After receiving the toolkits, however, 37 per cent and 45 per cent were seen in the income groups Rs 10,000-15,000 and Rs 15,000-20,000 respectively. In the beneficiary sample for Andhra Pradesh, the income from artisan craft increased from 83.4 per cent before receiving the toolkits to 91 per cent after receiving them. Among non-beneficiaries, mostly in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 per year, however, 90 per cent of the income came from artisan craft.
17. Beneficiaries who owned assets, like ceiling fan, motorcycle/scooter, TV, three-wheeler, etc. were much more than the non-beneficiaries who owned such assets.
18. Bihar is among the few states that were not able to derive much benefit from the SITRA programme. About 76 per cent of the beneficiaries in the state were craftsmen whose average earnings from craftsmanship were only Rs 2663.63, whereas 67 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen earning about Rs 3056 and another 21 per cent earning their living by manual domestic labour.
19. In Bihar, before receiving the toolkits 75 per cent of the beneficiaries were in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 and only about 15 per cent in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000. After receiving the toolkits there was a marginal change in the income distribution - beneficiaries in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 increased to about 32 per cent. In the beneficiary sample, income from artisan craft increased marginally, from 56 per cent to 65 per cent, only after receiving of toolkits. Among non-beneficiaries, mostly in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 per year, however, 56 per cent of the income came from artisan craft.
20. Beneficiaries who owned assets like ceiling fan, motor-cycle/scooter, TV, three-wheeler, etc. were much more than the non-beneficiaries who owned such assets. Some beneficiaries were also reported to have possesses tractors; power tillers, threshers, etc. but the percentage of such beneficiaries were even less than 1.
21. In Goa, all the beneficiaries selected for the sample were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 6958.33 per year. Similarly, all the non-beneficiaries too were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4625 per year from craftsmanship.
22. The beneficiaries were mostly in the income groups less than Rs 5000 and Rs 5000-10,000, which was 45 per cent in both groups. But after receiving the toolkits, they managed to increase their income, and beneficiaries in the income group less than Rs 5000 decreased to 27.27 per cent and those in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 increased to 18.19 per cent. Beneficiaries in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 also increased from about 9 per cent to 18.18 per cent.
23. About 42 per cent of the beneficiaries owned assets like ceiling fan, while non-beneficiaries in the same category were about 25 per cent. For assets like motorcycle/scooter, TV and three-wheeler, there was no difference between non-beneficiaries and beneficiaries.
24. In Gujarat, 93 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 7099.47 per year, while 74 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 5535 per year from craftsmanship.
25. Before receiving the toolkits the beneficiaries in the income groups Rs 5000-10,000 and Rs 10,000-15,000 were more or less equal in number. After receiving the toolkit, however, they managed to increase their income, which is evident from the fact that beneficiaries in the income group above Rs 30,000 increased from 4.35 per cent to 13.66 per cent. For non-beneficiaries, however, 70 per cent of the income came from artisan craft.
26. Beneficiaries who owned assets like ceiling fan, motorcycle/scooter, TV and three-wheeler were also more than the non-beneficiaries who owned such assets. For example, 53 per cent and 18 per cent of the beneficiaries owned a ceiling fan and a TV respectively as against 45 per cent and 12 per cent for the non-beneficiaries.
27. In Haryana, about 95 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 5751.90 per year, while 81 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4129.03 per year from craftsmanship.
28. Before receiving the toolkits, the beneficiaries were evenly distributed across all the income groups. After receiving the toolkits, however, there was a definite change in income distribution: beneficiaries in the income group Rs 15,000-20,000 increased from 37 per cent to 42 per cent and beneficiaries in the income group above Rs 30,000 increased from 8 per cent to 19 per cent. Interestingly, in the income group Rs 5000-10,000, beneficiaries also decreased from 4 per cent to 1.5 per cent, while income from artisan craft increased marginally, from 84 per cent to 88 per cent, only after receiving of the toolkits. Among non-beneficiaries, mostly in the income group Rs 15,000-20,000 per year, however, 79 per cent of the income came from artisan craft.
29. More beneficiaries owned assets like ceiling fan, motorcycle/scooter, TV and three-wheeler than did non-beneficiaries. For example, about 69 per cent and 50 per cent of the beneficiaries respectively owned a ceiling fan and a three-wheeler, as against 48 per cent and 32 per cent for the non-beneficiaries.
30. In Himachal Pradesh, about 50 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 5250 per year while about 58 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4791.66 per year from craftsmanship.
31. Initially, the concentration of the beneficiaries (56 per cent) in the state was mostly in the income group Rs 5000-10,000. But after receiving the toolkits they managed to increase their income, which is clear from the fact that beneficiaries in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 decreased to 37 per cent, while beneficiaries in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 increased from 18 per cent to 37 per cent, and in the income group Rs 20,000-30,000 increased from about 6 per cent to 12 per cent. From the income distribution figures it can be seen that the beneficiaries’ income from craftsmanship increased from 69 per cent to 72 per cent. In the case of non-beneficiaries, however, the maximum concentration (50 per cent) was in the income group Rs 5000-10,000.
32. There was not much difference between the assets owned by the beneficiaries and the non-beneficiaries in the sample. None of the groups reported owning any assets like tractors, power tillers and threshers. Beneficiaries who owned a ceiling fan were about 19 per cent, marginally more than the non-beneficiary figure of 16 per cent. In the case of other assets, 43 per cent and 37 per cent of the beneficiaries owned a TV and 37 per cent a three-wheeler, as against 25 per cent and 50 per cent respectively for the non-beneficiaries.
33. In Jammu & Kashmir, about 81 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4326 per year, while 90.48 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of about Rs 6250 per year from craftsmanship.
34. Initially, the beneficiaries in the state were equally spread across the income groups Rs 5000-10,000, Rs 10,000-15,000 and Rs 15,000-20,000. After receiving the toolkits they all managed to increase their income, which is evident from the fact that beneficiaries in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 decreased from 29 per cent to 1.6 per cent, while beneficiaries in the income group Rs 20,000-30,000 increased from about 10 per cent to 39 per cent. From the income distribution figures it can be seen that the income of the beneficiaries from craftsmanship increased from 67 per cent to 77 per cent. In the case of non-beneficiaries, however, the maximum concentration (57.14 per cent) was in the income group Rs 15,000-20,000. Income from craftsmanship comprised 79 cent of the total income of this group.
35. There was not much difference between the assets owned by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in the state. None of the groups reported owning any assets like tractors, power tillers and threshers. Beneficiaries who owned a ceiling fan were about 53 per cent, which is, surprisingly, much lower than the non-beneficiary figure of 86 per cent.
36. In Karnataka, 75 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 5213.63 per year, while 65 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4103.44 per year from craftsmanship.
37. Initially, 41 per cent and 34 per cent beneficiaries were from the income groups Rs 5000-10,000 and Rs 10,000-15,000 respectively. But after receiving the toolkits they managed to increase their income and there was an upward movement of the beneficiaries along the income group. Thus beneficiaries in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 decreased from 42 per cent to 18 per cent, while those in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 increased from 34 per cent to 42 per cent. From the income distribution figures it can be seen that the income of the beneficiaries from craftsmanship increased from 65 per cent to 79 per cent. In the case of non-beneficiaries, however, the maximum concentration (32 per cent) was seen in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000. The income from craftsmanship was 58 per cent of the total income of this group.
38. A much higher number of beneficiaries owned assets, like a ceiling fan, motorcycle/scooter, TV and three-wheelers than did non-beneficiaries.
39. In Kerala, about 93 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 14,191.70 per year, while about 95 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 12,836.20 per year from craftsmanship.
40. Before receiving the toolkits, beneficiaries in the state were more or less evenly distributed across all the income groups. Their maximum concentration (30 per cent) was in the income group Rs 15,000-20,000. After receiving the toolkits there was an upward movement of beneficiaries along the income groups. Thus beneficiaries in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 decreased from 19 per cent to 12 per cent, while beneficiaries in the income group Rs 20,000-30,000 increased from about 27 per cent to 28 per cent.
41. The number of beneficiaries who owned assets like a ceiling fan, motorcycle/scooter, TV and three-wheeler was marginally more than that of non-beneficiaries in the same category. In fact, beneficiaries who owned a three-wheeler were 16 per cent while non-beneficiaries were 22 per cent. Both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were observed not to have any assets like tractors, tillers and threshers.
42. In Madhya Pradesh, 73.93 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 5474.10 per year, while 52.44 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 3535.42 per year from craftsmanship.
43. Before receiving the toolkits, the largest number (51 per cent) of beneficiaries in the state was in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000. But after receiving the toolkits they managed to increase their income and there was an upward movement of the beneficiaries along the income groups. Thus beneficiaries in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 decreased from 38 per cent to 20 per cent, while beneficiaries in the income group Rs 15,000-20,000 increased from about 5 per cent to 22 per cent. The contribution of craftsmanship, however, remained more or less the same (around 52 per cent) before and after receiving the toolkits.
44. There is not much difference between the assets owned by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. More non-beneficiaries (23 per cent) than beneficiaries (19 per cent) owned a ceiling fan. Among other assets, about 17 per cent and 7 per cent of the beneficiaries owned a TV and three-wheeler respectively, as against 18 per cent and 9 per cent for the non-beneficiaries.
45. Maharashtra had a very high percentage of craftsmen among both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. About 92 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 5901.98 per year, while 90 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 5328.98 per year from craftsmanship.
46. Initially, 46 per cent of the beneficiaries in the state were in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000. But after receiving the toolkits, the beneficiaries in the income groups Rs 5000-10,000 and Rs 10,000-15,000 decreased from 23 per cent to 14 per cent and from 46 per cent to 27 per cent respectively, while the beneficiaries in the income group Rs 15,000-20,000 increased from 22 per cent to 41 per cent and in the income group Rs 20,000-30,000 from 2 per cent to about 12 per cent. The income distribution figures, however, showed a decline in the income of the beneficiaries from craftsmanship from 86 per cent to 83 per cent.
47. The number of beneficiaries who owned assets like a ceiling fan, motorcycle/scooter, TV and three-wheeler was not much more than the number of the non-beneficiaries who owned such assets. None of them reported to own any assets like tractors, power tillers and threshers. The number of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries who owned a ceiling fan was same, that is, 12 per cent. For other assets about 22 per cent and 19 per cent of the beneficiaries owned a TV and a three-wheeler respectively, as against 18 per cent and 8 per cent for the non-beneficiaries.
48. Seven states, namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura comprise the north-eastern states. Craftsmen among the beneficiaries were generally less than 20 per cent. However, craftsmen were 80 per cent in Assam with average earnings of Rs 4892.42, 82 per cent in Mizoram with earnings Rs 4754.77, and 86 per cent in Tripura with income of Rs 6022.22 from craftsmanship. Among the non-beneficiaries, the maximum craftsmen were in Mizoram (84 per cent) with income of Rs 4411.36, followed by 64 per cent in Assam with income of Rs 6840.90 and 86 per cent in Tripura with income of Rs 5482.75 from craftsmanship.
49. Initially, the beneficiaries in the union territories were spread across all the income groups, but after receiving the toolkits the beneficiaries generally moved upward along the income group in all the states. But on the whole, the increase in income was not too impressive. The sample also reveals that only a very small percentage among both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in the north-eastern states owned assets.
50. Nearly all the beneficiaries in all the north-eastern states said that the toolkit supplied had had a positive impact on their craft. More than 90 per cent of the beneficiaries in the area felt that the SITRA programme had also enhanced the quality of product, output, speed of work, earning, etc. Nearly 100 per cent of the beneficiaries in Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Mizoram, 98 per cent in Tripura, 95 per cent in Assam, 94 per cent in Manipur and 77 per cent in Nagaland felt that SITRA had helped them in their craft; 63 per cent in Arunachal Pradesh, 67 per cent Nagaland, 82 per cent in Assam, 87 per cent in Manipur and 98 per cent in Mizoram said that the quality of their product improved; while 88 per cent in Arunachal Pradesh and 83 per cent in Assam reported that their output increased. A substantial number of beneficiaries reported that they were earning more, thus they were also borrowing less and saving more. The majority of the beneficiaries in this area felt that they had acquired a good quality toolkit. They could spend more on education of children, eat better quality food and avail of better medical care. The majority of the beneficiaries, that is 91 per cent in Assam, 94 per cent in Manipur, 98 per cent in Mizoram, 97 per cent in Tripura, 79 per cent in Nagaland and 100 per cent in Arunachal Pradesh, felt that SITRA was a good project.
51. In Orissa, 87 per cent of the beneficiary sample comprised craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4140.01 per year, while 80 per cent of the non-beneficiary sample comprised craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 3367.85 per year from craftsmanship.
52. Among the beneficiaries in Orissa, 50 and 29 per cent were in the income groups Rs 5000-10,000 and Rs 10,000-15,000 respectively before receiving the toolkit. After receiving the toolkits, beneficiaries in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 decreased to 28 per cent, while beneficiaries in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 increased from about 29 per cent to 45 per cent. Similarly, there was an increase in the percentage of beneficiaries in all income groups above the income group Rs 15,000-20,000. From the income distribution figures it can be seen that the income of the beneficiaries from craftsmanship was nearly 75 per cent.
53. Regarding assets owned, there was not much difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. None of the groups reported owning any assets like tractors, power tillers, threshers, etc., although two beneficiaries were reported to own threshers. About 9 per cent of the beneficiaries and 7 per cent of the non-beneficiaries owned a ceiling fan. About 6 per cent and 13 per cent of the beneficiaries owned a TV and a three-wheeler respectively, as against 2 per cent and 8 per cent of the non-beneficiaries.
54. In Punjab, 89 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 5034.68 per year, while 77 per cent non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 3918 per year from craftsmanship.
55. Eight and half per cent, 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 10 per cent, 3 per cent and 3 per cent of the beneficiaries in the state were in the income groups less than Rs 5000, Rs 5000-10,000, Rs 10,000-15,000, Rs 15,000-20,000, Rs 20,000-30,000 and above Rs 30,000, respectively. After receiving the toolkits, the percentages in the respective groups changed to 4 per cent, 12 per cent, 44 per cent, 26 per cent, 8 per cent and 7 per cent. This definitely suggests that the beneficiaries shifted upward along the income group. The income distribution figures show that the income of the beneficiaries from craftsmanship increased marginally, from 85 per cent to 87 per cent.
56. Assets like tractors, power tillers and threshers were owned by 2 per cent, 3 per cent and 3 per cent of the beneficiaries respectively. Apart from this, there was not much difference between the assets owned by the beneficiaries and the non-beneficiaries. For other assets, 84 per cent, 44 per cent and 34 per cent of the beneficiaries owned a ceiling fan, TV and three-wheeler respectively, as against 83 per cent, 43 per cent and 37 per cent of the non-beneficiaries.
57. In Rajasthan, about 63 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4403.92 per year, while only 41 per cent non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 3918.44 per year from craftsmanship.
58. Initially, there were 31 per cent beneficiaries in the income groups below Rs 5000, Rs 5000-10,000 and Rs 10,000-15,000. But after receiving the toolkit the beneficiaries in the income groups below Rs 5000 and Rs 5000-10,000 decreased to 18 per cent and 9 per cent respectively, while the beneficiaries in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 increased to 45 per cent. Similarly, beneficiaries in the income group Rs 15,000-20,000 increased from 6 per cent to 24 per cent.
59. Tractors, power tillers and threshers were each owned by 1 per cent of the beneficiaries. Apart from this, 8 per cent, 7 per cent and 27 per cent of the beneficiaries owned a ceiling fan, TV and three-wheeler respectively, as against 2 per cent, 0 per cent and 12 per cent for the non-beneficiaries.
60. In Sikkim, only 18 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 7210.11 per year, whereas about 11 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4700 per year from craftsmanship.
61. Before receiving the benefits, the maximum (83 per cent) beneficiaries in Sikkim were in the income group Rs 5000-10,000. After receiving the toolkit, they managed to increase their income and there was an upward movement of the beneficiaries along the income group. Thus beneficiaries in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 decreased to 67 per cent, those in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 increased from about 11 per cent to 32 per cent. Among non-beneficiaries, however, the maximum concentration, that is 55 per cent, was seen in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000.
62. In Tamil Nadu, nearly 99 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 6094.37 per year, while 91 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 5341.53 per year from craftsmanship.
63. Before receiving the toolkits, 37 per cent of the beneficiaries were in the Rs 5000-10,000 income group, followed by 24 per cent in the Rs 10,000-15,000 group and 29 per cent in the Rs 15,000-20,000 income group. After receiving the toolkits, 29 per cent of the beneficiaries were in the income group Rs 5000-10,000, 14 per cent in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 and 35 per cent in the income group Rs 15,000-20,000. From the income distribution figures it can be seen that the income of the beneficiaries from craftsmanship increased from 77 per cent to 80 per cent. Among the non-beneficiaries, however, the maximum concentration (53 per cent) was seen in the Rs 5000-10,000 income group. The income from craftsmanship was about 78 per cent of the total income of this group.
64. Less than 1 per cent of the beneficiaries owned assets like tractors, power tillers and threshers. Apart from this, there was not much difference between the assets owned by the beneficiaries and the non-beneficiaries.
65. Among the beneficiary sample in Uttar Pradesh, 74 per cent were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4260.33 per year, and 68 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 3350.78 per year from craftsmanship.
66. Before receiving the toolkits, 35 per cent of the beneficiaries were in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 and 30 per cent in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000. After receiving the toolkits, there was an increase in their income : beneficiaries in the income group Rs 5000-10,000 decreased to 23 per cent, while beneficiaries in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 increased to 33 per cent. The income distribution figures show that the income of the beneficiaries from craftsmanship increased from 62 per cent to 64 per cent. The non-beneficiary concentration was maximum (37 per cent) in the income group Rs 5000-10,000. The income from craftsmanship comprised about 64 per cent of the total income of this group.
67. Both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were observed to own assets like tractors, power tillers and threshers, although the percentage was much less than one. The percentage of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries who owned assets like ceiling fan, TV and three-wheeler was very small.
68. There are five union territories in India, namely, the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Pondicherry, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Lakshadweep. The number of craftsmen among the beneficiaries in these union territories was generally less than the average all-India figures. The highest percentage of craftsmen was in Dadra & Nagar Haveli, where it was 72 per cent, followed by 59 per cent in Pondicherry. In the case of beneficiaries, the average yearly earnings from craftsmanship were again highest in Pondicherry, that is Rs 11,691.20, while the lowest, that is Rs 2909.09, were in Lakshadeep. Among the non-beneficiaries, too, the highest percentage of craftsmen was in Pondicherry, where the average income from craftsmanship was Rs 8000.
69. Before receiving the toolkits, the beneficiaries in the union territories were concentrated mostly in the income groups Rs 10,000-15,000 and Rs 15,000-20,000, with the exception of Daman & Diu, where 38 per cent of the beneficiaries were in the Rs 20,000-30,000 income group. After receiving the toolkits, there was an upward movement of the beneficiaries along the income groups. The only exception in this respect is Lakshadweep, where the data show that there was no change in income distribution before and after receiving the toolkits.
70. The sample reveals that neither beneficiaries nor non-beneficiaries owned assets like tractors, power tillers and threshers, the only exception being the Andaman & Nicobar Islands where about 3 per cent of the beneficiary population reported owning threshers. Some of the beneficiaries (about 3 per cent) were seen to own a refrigerator as against none among the non-beneficiaries. Many of the beneficiaries also had a ceiling fan : the most (91 per cent) being in Lakshadweep, while among the non-beneficiaries in the same state, two out of two were seen to own a ceiling fan. :Overall, the beneficiaries in Lakshadweep were seen to possess the highest percentage of assets.
71. In West Bengal, 86 per cent of the beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 4019.18 per year, while 70 per cent of the non-beneficiaries were craftsmen with average earnings of Rs 3350 per year from craftsmanship.
72. About 39 per cent of the beneficiaries were in the income group less than Rs 5000 and 54 per cent in the income group Rs 5000-10,000. After receiving the toolkits, there was an upward movement of the beneficiaries along the income groups. As a result beneficiaries in the income group less than Rs 5000 and Rs 5000-10,000 decreased to 15 per cent and 54 per cent respectively, while beneficiaries in the income group Rs 10,000-15,000 increased from about 6 per cent to 27 per cent. Similarly, the number of beneficiaries in all the income groups above Rs 15,000-20,000 also increased. In the case of non-beneficiaries, however, the maximum concentration (54 per cent) was seen in the income group less than Rs 5000-10,000. The income from craftsmanship was about 58 per cent of the total income of this group.
73. Only one beneficiary out of those interviewed reported owning a motorcycle. Strangely, no non-beneficiary was observed to possess any of these assets. Even here, only one non-beneficiary reported owning a three-wheeler.
74. The greatest concerns in India are poverty and not enough jobs (formal or informal) for its vast population. For any meaningful development it is imperative that policy-makers adopt an integrated approach and not an exclusionary one.
75. Plentiful assistance does not necessarily mean less poverty, nor is it necessarily a satisfactory solution to the problems of rural artisans, given their uncertain outlays and incomes. Again, conventional practices may not always work for them either. Hence, it is the government’s responsibility to facilitate the creation of a skilled workforce in the rural areas through technical support and training. Here it is crucial to adopt a local approach since there is no standard blueprint for training which is valid across all regions of the country. The institutional mechanism should allow local organisations to set their own rules. Training should be designed to meet market needs so that rural artisans can effectively produce and market their products and services.
76. Rural artisans are not always sufficiently aware of the government programmes as dissemination of information is usually less than adequate. Further, illiteracy makes bureaucratic machinery a daunting obstacle for them. Procedures should therefore be simplified and innovative mechanisms developed for rural artisans to make productive use of government support.