Changing Characteristics of Villages in Tamil Nadu 0

REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS
Changing Characteristics of Villages in Tamil Nadu

A Vaidyanathan, R Srinivasan
Illustrating the imaginative use of the Primary Census

Abstract for Tamil Nadu from the 1991 to 2011 censuses,
this paper separates villages that are chronically
backward from those that are more developed in terms
of demographic and economic characteristics. It also
makes use of the data to describe changes in spatial
distributions over time.
A Vaidyanathan (a.vaidyanathan053@gmail.com) is a long-standing

contributor to EPW and an Honorary Fellow of the Centre for
Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram; R Srinivasan (seenu242@
gmail.com) teaches econometrics at the University of Madras.
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
december 26, 2015
vol l no 52
he spatial aspects of development have been the focus

of wide-ranging research the world over. In India, the
emphasis has been more on tracking regional disparities
in overall development indicators. Studies of these disparities
across towns and villages are relatively rare. Village studies,
though numerous, have been mostly isolated case studies at
the disaggregated level or studies using a sample of villages
spread over a vast area. Neither of these two strands has used
the demographic data and infrastructure data at the village
level/urban ward level provided once in a decade since 1961 by
the Director General of Census Operations. The Primary Census
Abstract (PCA), published by the Directorate of Census Operations, gives demographic details of every revenue village and
urban ward.1 Identification of villages by district and taluk is
enabled through serially allotted codes. The Village Directory,
published by the Census Directorate, has information on the
availability of infrastructure facilities and public utilities in each
village and a Town Directory has similar details for every town
and city.2 These two databases enable not only disaggregated
analysis up to the village/urban ward level, but also identification of the outliersthe laggard villages and those that have
been consistently at the higher end of the development ladder.
The main aim of this paper is to illustrate the imaginative use
of one of the two databases for Tamil Nadu, the PCA, to separate
villages that are chronically backward from those that are more
developed in terms of demographic and economic characteristics and to describe the change in spatial distributions over
time. One of the authors earlier carried out a similar exercise
for the erstwhile North Arcot District in Tamil Nadu using 1971
and 1981 census data (Vaidyanathan 2013). He has also illustrated the richness of this database for the state as a whole in
another study (Vaidyanathan 2014). In this paper, we use the PCA
for all villages from the three censuses between 1991 and 2011.
This paper is divided into three parts. Section 1 paints a
broad picture of the average Tamil Nadu village and variations
in its characteristics over the three censuses. The population
size, sex ratio (SR), literacy rate (LR), work participation rate
(WPR), the proportions of agriculture and non-agriculture
workers and cultivators to total workers (AW/TW and Nonagri/TW) and proportions of agricultural labourers to total agricultural workers (AL/aW) are calculated for each village in
every census. The decadal changes in a representative average
Tamil Nadu village are discussed in this context.
Section 2 focuses on the comparison between the averages
in the bottom decile (BD) and top decile (TD) of the villages by
the values of each of the above features in 1991 and 2011.3 It
highlights differences between the bottom and the top deciles
65
in the mean value of each of the selected socio-economic indicators and their association with other characteristics in different years, as well as the quantum of such changes from 1991
to 2011. The focus is on describing distinct patterns of variation,
which might trigger further analysis on exploring the underlying
causes for these changes.
Section 3 describes the spatial distribution of villages in the
bottom and top deciles of each characteristic across districts
and taluks in 1991 and 2011. Mapping the spatial concentration
of villages in the top and bottom deciles provides the basis for
assessing whether and to what extent they are geographically
concentrated and whether such geographical concentrations
change over time.
1 Overall Trend through 1991, 2001 and 2011
The population of rural Tamil Nadu declined by 1.9 million in

2001 and increased slightly by 2.3 million in 2011. The annual
population growth rate in rural Tamil Nadu is far less than the
overall population growth rate of the state because of rapid
urbanisation. A progressive decline in the number of villages
over this period could be due to tiny villages being abandoned,
contiguous villages being amalgamated, and, more likely, the
larger villages being reclassified as towns because of urbanisation. The growth in total rural population and a reduction in
the number of villages are reflected in a progressive increase
in the average size of villages and a decline in the extent of
diversity in size (Table 1).
Table 1: Salient Socio-economic Characteristics of Tamil Nadu Villages,
19912011
Village Characteristics
Total population (crore)

Number of villages
Population/village
Literacy rate
Sex ratio
SR_06
%SCST
(TW/Total pop)
(Non-agri/TW)
(AW/TW)
(AL/AW)
(AL/TW)
(CUL/TW)
1991
2001
2011
Mean
CV (%)
Mean
CV (%)
Mean
CV (%)
3.68
15,902
2,315
47.1
981
945
24.3
45.1
32.5
77.5
57.7
44.7
32.7
112.5
27.7
8.7
26.7
95.2
24.2
55.0
23.9
43.6
47.1
74.7
3.49
15,400
2,268
58.2
992
933
25.4
50.3
29.9
70.1
61.2
42.9
27.2
96.4
18.3
9.8
24.6
92.4
20.6
71.5
31.2
37.7
50.4
78.1
3.72
15,049
2,474
65.8
993
936
27.2
50.7
34.8
65.2
68.4
44.6
20.6
94.9
13.4
12.6
25.8
87.9
18.4
63.9
34.6
34.1
50.5
95.3
The LR substantially increased from 47.1 in 1991 to 58.2 in

2001 and further to 65.8 in 2011. This was accompanied by a
progressive reduction in inter-village variation (measured by
its coefficient of variation or CV). Both reflect the success of
public investment in school education and other non-formal
literacy programmes.
The average SR shows a progressive though uneven increase
over the period. Child sex ratio (SR_06) declined from 946 to
933 during the 1990s and then marginally increased to 936 in
the subsequent decade. The child SR has remained lower than
the SR throughout but does not show a sustained trend. The
gap between the SR and SR_06 has widened over time. Also
noteworthy is the increasing dispersion of the SR and its near
constant nature over the period.
66
The proportion of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled

Tribes (STs) to total population (%SCST) increased by 0.9 percentage points in the 1990s and this almost doubled to 1.8 percentage points in the 2000s. Correspondingly, the dispersion
of SCs/STs declined over these two decades. The concentration
of the SC and ST population is increasing in rural Tamil Nadu
and their dispersion has been declining over time.
The WPR measured as the percentage of total workers to total
population (TW/T Pop) increased from 45.1 to 50.3 and then to
50.7 in the three censuses. Changes in age, gender and education need to be examined to understand this trend. The intervillage variability (CV) of the WPR has progressively declined.
The share of agricultural workers in the total workforce
(AW/TW) in the state increased marginally during the 1990s
and declined sharply in the 2000s. The percentage of nonagricultural workers (NAW/TW), which gives an idea of the extent
of diversification of employment, declined during the 1990s but
increased sharply in the next decade. Because of this, in absolute terms, between 1991 and 2001, the number of agricultural
workers increased while non-agricultural employment did not
show any change. In the subsequent decade, the number of
agricultural workers declined marginally and that of non-agricultural workers increased by 1.4 million, which was more
than the increase in the total number of workers. Unlike the
WPR, the inter-village variability of NAW/TW is much greater
than that of AW/TW, and both seem to have increased.
On an average, about one-third of the agricultural workers are
cultivators and two-thirds are labourers. The share of labourers
fell in 2001, but in 2011 increased to more than what it had been
in 1991. We find contrasting trends in the dispersions of AW/TW
and AL/TWthe former is increasing, while the latter is declining.
Table 2 shows the simple correlation coefficients between
different characteristics across villages in 1991 and 2011. Villages
with a higher SR tend, in both periods, to be smaller in size,
Table 2: Correlation between Characteristics of Villages in 1991 and 2011
Variable
Total Pop
Total pop
1991
2011
Sex Ratio
%SCST
Literacy
Rate
TW/T Pop
Sex ratio
1991
-0.057#
2011
-0.016*
%SCST
1991
-0.176#
-0.024#
2011
-0.163#
0.011
0.207#
0.141#
-0.204#
0.082#
0.080#
-0.152#
-0.101#
-0.039#
0.060#
-0.231#
-0.142#
-0.073#
0.016*
-0.326#
Literacy rate
1991
2011
TW/Total pop
1991
2011
Non-Agri/TW
1991
Non-agri/ AL/AW
TW
0.331#
0.017*
-0.146#
0.390#
-0.284#
0.257#
0.019*
-0.099#
0.271#
-0.360#
AL/AW
1991
0.113#
-0.025#
0.235#
0.149#
0.088#
0.126#
2011
0.049#
0.044#
0.211#
0.097#
-0.086#
-0.018*
2011
# Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); * correlation is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed).
december 26, 2015
vol l no 52
EPW
and have lower WPRs, but they are more literate and have more
diversified employment. In these cases, the pattern is more or
less the same in both years. But, between the two years, negative correlations become weaker and positive associations
stronger. A high SR also went with a lower incidence of SCs/STs
in 1991, but not in 2011.
Villages with higher literacy tend to be larger in size, have a
higher SR, and are more diversified in employment. But they
have a lower proportion of SCs/STs in their population, and a
lower WPR. Barring the WPR, these associations have weakened over time.
Villages with a higher incidence of SCs/STs tend to be smaller, have lower WPRs, and a higher proportion of agricultural
labourers and low-earning non-agricultural workers in the
workforce. A higher incidence of SCs/STs went with a lower SR
in 1991, but this association became positive in 2011. All these
associations had weakened in 2011.
These correlations suggest that the WPR tends to be lower in
larger, more literate villages and those with higher SRs and a
higher proportion of non-agricultural workers. A higher WPR is
associated with a higher incidence of SCs/STs. The strength of
all these associations has increased since 1991.
Villages with more diversified employment tend to be larger in
size and more literate, but with a lower incidence of SCs/STs,
lower SR, and lower WPR. All these associations weakened in 2011.
A greater dependence of agriculture on wage labour (measured by AL/AW) is associated with larger village size and higher
LR, but a smaller proportion of SCs/STs. This is the case in both
years but the associations have become weaker. In 1991, AL/AW
tended to be higher in villages with a higher WPR and more
diversified employment, and lower in those with higher SRs.
But the direction of these associations had reversed by 2011,
even as they remained significant.
low levels. But the WPR in the least literate group (48%) and
the proportion of workers in agriculture (92%) was much
higher compared to what they were (36% and 56%, respectively)
in the most literate group. In both respects, intra-group variability is higher (more so in the dependence on agriculture) in
least literate villages. It is noteworthy that the proportion of
labourers in the agriculture workforce in the least literate
group is nearly double but with much less intra-group variability compared to the most literate villages.
The trajectories of change in the two groups of villages also
differ in significant ways. The population in both groups of
villages has increased in absolute terms and as a proportion of
the total state population, but the change is more striking in
the most literate village group. Intra-group variation remains
high in both cases.
The overall SR has increased marginally in both groups but
somewhat more in the top decile. SR_06 has fallen marginally
in both groups. The proportion of SCs/STs remained more or
less the same in the bottom decile but increased significantly
in the top decile. Intra-group variability came down in the latter.
The WPR rose in both at more or less the same rate and both
report progressively greater diversification of employment, but
the pace was faster in the most literate decile. Among agricultural workers, the share of labourers declined in both, but the
change was more pronounced in the top decile. Inter-village variability in all these indicators became smaller in both groups.
2.2 Sex Ratio
Villages in the lowest decile had an average SR of 873, which

was about 10% lower than the state average; had 7% of the
total rural population; and were about 30% smaller than the
state average (Table 4, p 68). In villages in the highest decile,
Table 3: Bottom (BD) and Top Deciles (TD) by Literacy Rate, 1991 and 2011
We have focused on 10 variables from the PCA that give the

overall socio-economic characteristics of a villageLR, SR,
SR_06, %SCST, TW/T Pop, Non-agri/TW, AW/TW, AL/AW and
CUL/TW in the censuses of 1991, 2001 and 2011. We have classified villages by deciles using six important characteristics
SR, LR, %SCST, TW/T Pop, Non-agri/TW and AL/AW. We compare the average of the 10 variables in the bottom decile and
top decile of each of these seven characteristics.
2.1 Literacy Rate
In 1991, villages with the lowest literacy had a population of 2

million (6% of the total) and villages with highest literacy, 5.7
million (a little under 16% of the states population; Table 3).
On an average, villages in the former category were 40%
smaller than the state average while those at the high end of
literacy were much larger (more than twice the state average),
with intra-village variability being very high in both groups.
The least literate group had significantly lower SRs, both overall (953) and in the 06 age group (925). Both are higher than
the rates in the most literate group (997 and 925). Intra-group
variability in both features is more or less similar at relatively
EPW
december 26, 2015
vol l no 52
1991
2011
BD
2 Characteristics of Villages in the Bottom and Top Deciles
Mean
Total population
(in lakh)
Number of villages
Population/village
TD
CV
20.72
Mean
BD
CV
56.6
1,590
1,590
1,303 113.0 4,899
137.6
Literacy rate
21.9
38.2
66.3
Sex ratio
953
11.8
997 13.01
SR_06
925
37.3
964
%SCST
30.5 113.7
16.5 109.5
TW/Total pop
48.2
26.1
35.8
29.9
7.8 177.6
44.3
56.8
Non-agri/TW
8.2
39.1
Mean
29.23
(8.51)
1,505
1,942
(639)
TD
CV
Mean
39.02
(-17.58)
1,505
118.3 2,593
(5.3) (-2306)
50
16.2
(29.1)
(-22)
958
12
(5)
(0.2)
913
31.5
(-12) (-5.8)
30.1 113.5
(-0.4) (-0.2)
55.7
16.3
(7.5) (-9.8)
21.4
95.6
(13.6) (-82.0)
AW/TW
92.2
15.1
55.7
45.2
78.6
(-13.6)
AL/AW
45.0
66.8
63.8
40.7
61.9
44.4
(16.9) (-22.4)
AL/TW
41.4
68.3
35.5
63.6
48.7
(7.3)
CUL/TW
50.7
57.4
20.2
111.6
29.9
(-20.8)
CV
110.6
(-27)
79.1
4.4
(12.8) (-3.8)
1,007
32.2
(10.0) (19.1)
958
30.5
(-6.0) (-8.6)
23.6
94.0
(7.1) (-15.5)
42.0
25.2
(6.2) (-4.7)
54.5
50.9
(10.2) (-5.9)
26.1
45.5
(11.0) (-10.2)
63.0
(17.8)
74.2
(10.4)
33.8
(-6.9)
52.3
(16.0)
33.7
(-1.8)
76.0
(12.4)
80.0
(22.6)
11.7
(-8.5)
158.7
(47.1)
67
the SR averaged 1,128 (about 15% higher than the state average)
and they had 8% of the total population. Villages in this group
were about 40% smaller than the overall average. Compared to
the top decile, bottom decile villages were consistently less literate, had significantly lower SRs and child SRs; slightly higher WPRs;
and more or less the same degree of diversification. The incidence
of SCs/STs in the bottom decile was higher than in the top decile
in 1991, but significantly lower in 2011.
were about 40% smaller than the state average (Table 5). In the
top decile (predominantly SC/ST villages), which had 4% of the
states rural population, these villages were smaller than in the
bottom decile group and much (60%) smaller compared to the
state average. The intra-group variability was very high, it being far more pronounced in the top decile category.
Table 5: Bottom and Top Deciles by Percentage of SCs and STs, 1991 and 2011
Table 4: Bottom and Top Deciles by Sex Ratio, 1991 and 2011
1991
Total population
(in lakh)
Number of villages
Population/village
TD
CV
Mean
BD
CV
26.41
22.88
1,590
1,661
1,590
135.5 1,439 110.8
Literacy rate
41.4
Sex ratio
37.0
52.8
26.4
873
8.2 1,128
11.1
SR_06
804
33.2 1,021
47.3
%SCST
22.1
127.8
TW/Total pop
45.5
27.1
43.1
29.5
Non-agri/TW
23.1
89.1
22.9
79.7
AW/TW
76.9
26.8
77.1
23.7
AL/AW
54.1
52.1
50.4
55.3
AL/TW
41.6
62.6
38.9
62.7
CUL/TW
35.3
77.8
38.2
69.0
21.2 116.9
Mean
Total population
CV
22.1
Mean
BD
CV
Mean
16.35
TD
CV
Mean
29.18
24.66
(2.77)
(-1.75)
1,505
1,505
1,939 126.6 1,639
(278) (-8.9) (200)
61.9
18.3
69.2
(20.5) (-18.7) (16.4)
878
9.2 1,119
(5)
(1.0)
(-9)
858
29.7 1,013
(54) (-3.5)
(-8)
22.1 127.1
25.9
(0) (-0.7)
(4.7)
50.9
22.4
48.0
(5.4) (-4.7)
(4.9)
33.9
67.4
33.9
(10.8) (-21.7) (11.0)
66.1
35.6
66.1
(-10.8)
(8.8)
(-11)
60.9
46.0
68.8
(6.8) (-6.1) (18.4)
40.3
62.4
45.5
(-1.3) (-0.2)
(6.6)
25.8
95.2
20.6
(-9.5) (17.4) (-17.6)
CV
105.4
(-5.4)
13.9
(-12.5)
28.6
(17.5)
38.5
(-8.8)
102.9
(-14)
22.1
(-7.4)
69.4
(-10.3)
34.6
(10.9)
37.8
(-17.5)
23.6
(-39.1)
103.5
(34.5)
In the last two decades, there was no significant change in

the SR in either group. The child sr increased in the bottom
decile but there was no change in the top decile. Intra-group
variability of the SR increased in both; more so in the top decile.
The population of villages in both categories increased marginally in absolute terms and as a proportion of the total rural population. The average size of villages in both categories increased,
but it was more in the bottom decile than in the top decile. The
variability across villages increased marginally over the period in
the bottom decile but increased sharply in the top decile.
The proportion of SCs/STs in the population did not change
in villages with the lowest SR but increased in those with the
highest SR. Intra-group variability in this was high in both
groups, but with no significant change over the period.
The WPR shows an appreciable increase in both categories,
and both show an increase of more or less the same extent in
the degree of diversification. In both groups, the incidence of
labourers in the agricultural workforce increased, even as that
of cultivators came down substantially. This change was more
pronounced among cultivators.
2.3 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
In 1991, about 6% of the states rural population was in the bottom

decile (predominantly non-SC/ST) villages; SCs/STs comprised
less than 2% of the population; and villages in this category
68
2011
TD
Mean
2011
BD
Mean
1991
BD
Number of villages
Population/village
1,590
1,590
1,390 235.5 1,028 104.0
Literacy rate
51.9
31.6
39.5
38.5
Sex ratio
984
13.5
979
11.2
SR_06
940
52.8
967
30.1
%SCST
1.3
69.8
74.5
18.6
TW/Total pop
39.3
33.2
47.1
25.5
Non-agri/TW
25.6
85.8
13.9 124.5
AW/TW
74.4
29.5
86.1
20.2
AL/AW
49.3
57.3
65.3
47.0
AL/TW
36.7
68.8
56.2
51.1
CUL/TW
37.7
75.5
29.8
95
TD
CV
Mean
CV
19.02
18.11
(-3.08)
(1.76)
1,505
1,505
1,264 153.7 1,203
99.6
(126) (-81.8) (175) (-4.4)
66.1
16.1
61.4
21.2
(14.2) (-15.5) (21.9) (-17.3)
983
14.6
994
10.2
(-1.0)
(1.1)
(15) (-1.0)
936
46.3
935
36.0
(-4.0) (-6.5) (-32.0)
(5.9)
1.16
84.8
78.5
15.5
(-0.14) (15.0)
(4.0) (-3.1)
49.9
23.4
52.3
18.2
(10.6) (-9.4)
(5.2) (-7.3)
38.5
66.9
25.0
95.1
(12.9) (-18.9) (11.1) (-29.4)
61.5
41.9
75.0
31.7
(-12.9) (12.4) (-11.1) (11.5)
60.8
49.0
73.7
38.8
(11.5) (-8.3)
(8.4) (-8.2)
37.4
71.6
55.3
49.7
(0.7)
(2.8) (-0.9) (-1.4)
24.1 106.1
19.7 121.4
(-13.6) (30.6) (-10.1) (26.4)
The SR in the bottom decile was higher and SR_06 lower compared to the top decile. The intra-group variability of SR was far
more pronounced in the bottom decile than in the top decile.
Predominantly non-SC/ST villages were far more literate, had
considerably lower WPR, more diversified employment, and a
lower incidence of agricultural labour than in the decile with a
predominantly SC/ST population.
Over time, the total population in predominantly non-SC/ST
villages and their average size declined marginally, even as
both show a marginal increase in the predominantly SC/ST
group. Intra-group variability in this declined steeply in both
groups, but more strikingly in the top decile.
The proportion of SCs/STs in the population has not changed
much in predominantly non-SC/ST villages, but has risen in
the predominantly SC/ST group. Intra-group variability in this
index is much higher and increasing in the former but much
smaller and declining in the latter. The LR rose in both groups,
though more in the predominantly SC/ST category. Intra-group
variability in this declined in both.
The WPR shows no significant change in the predominantly
non-SC/ST group but shows a progressive rise in the predominantly SC/ST group. Employment progressively diversified from
agriculture in both groups but this shift was proportionately
more in the predominantly SC/ST group. Much of this diversification in both groups went with a significant decline in the proportion of cultivators among all workers. There was no change
in the proportion of agricultural labourers in the total workers
december 26, 2015
vol l no 52
EPW
in both SC/ST and non-SC/ST villages but their share in the total
agricultural workforce showed a significant increase in both categories. This shift was more in the predominantly SC/ST group.
2.4 Workforce Participation
In 1991, villages in the LD were larger than the average for the
state, reported an average WPR of 58%, and comprised 11% of
the total rural population (Table 6). Villages in the top decile
were much smaller in size (population about 63% compared to
the state average). They accounted for 8% of the total rural
population and an average WPR of 64%.
Table 6: Bottom and Top Deciles by Total Workers to Total Population,
1991 and 2011
1991
2011
BD
Mean
Total population
(in lakh)
Number of village
Population/village
TD
CV
40.52
Mean
BD
CV
23.41
1,590
1,590
2,548 176.6 1,472 101.7
Literacy rate
59.3
26.2
41.5
33.5
Sex ratio
991
13.5
982
10.8
SR_06
962
34.2
929
41.1
%SCST
17.1 146.5
26.3
103
TW/Total pop
28.9
13.2
63.9
6.9
Non-agri/TW
41.7
62.1
12.6 108.6
AW/TW
58.3
14.5
87.4
15.6
AL/AW
56.0
54.2
55.2
51.4
AL/TW
32.6
73.1
48.2
54.3
CUL/TW
25.6
117.4
39.2
70.3
Mean
39.6
(-0.92)
1,505
2,598
(50)
73.9
(14.6)
1,005
(14)
953
(-9)
22.7
(5.6)
35.8
(6.9)
58.9
(17.2)
41.1
(-17.2)
69.8
(13.8)
28.7
(-3.9)
12.4
(-13.2)
TD
CV
115.2
(-61.4)
12.4
(-13.8)
31.7
(18.2)
31.5
(-2.7)
103.2
(-43.3)
12.2
(-1.0)
47.2
(-14.9)
67.6
(53.1)
37.8
(-16.4)
84.5
(11.4)
164.8
(47.4)
Mean
CV
21.08
(-2.33)
1,505
1,401 103.3
(-71)
(1.6)
61.6
16.7
(20.1) (-16.8)
986
12.2
(4)
(1.4)
929
36.2
(0) (-4.9)
29.1
94.3
(2.8) (-8.7)
66.0
7.6
(2.1)
(0.7)
18.8
93.6
(6.2) (-15.0)
81.2
23.7
(-6.2)
(8.1)
59.1
48.7
(3.9) (-2.7)
47.9
54.6
(-0.3)
(0.3)
33.2
78.8
(-6.0) (8.5)
The WPR in villages of the bottom decile at 29% was much

lower than in the top decile where it was nearly 64%. The population of the former was more literate (59% against 41% in the
top decile) and had slightly higher overall and child srs, but a
significantly smaller proportion of SCs/STs (17% against 26% in
the top decile). Their employment was far more diversified
with 42% workers in non-agricultural activities compared to
12% to 13% in the top decile, and their agricultural workforce
had a higher proportion of labourers.
There are significant differences between the two groups in
changes over the last two decades. There was little change in
the total population in the two groups or in the average size of
their villages. In the social indicators, overall sr s as well as the
proportion of SCs/STs increased in both groups but the increase
was more pronounced in the bottom decile.
The WPR and the extent of diversification in employment
have increased in both groups but the changes are more striking in the bottom decile. The decline in the share of agriculture in the working population is shared by both cultivators
and agricultural labourers. In both deciles, the decline in the
share of cultivators is more pronounced than that of labourers.
The extent of decline is more pronounced in the bottom decile
EPW
december 26, 2015
vol l no 52
where diversification is also accompanied by a big increase in

labourers as a proportion of total agricultural workforce.
Employment in the bottom decile has been far more diversified
than in the top decile. The non-agriculture labourers to total
workers increased from 41.7% to 58.9% in the bottom decile
and only increased from 12.6% to 18.8% in the TD in 20 years.
The decline in dispersions of this variable in both deciles shows
the widespread change in each decile. The decline in agricultural
workers was mostly due to a sharper decline in cultivators.
2.5 Extent of Employment Diversification
Compared to villages with the least diversified employment

(lowest proportion of workers in non-agricultural activities
and the highest in agriculture measured by the Non-agri/TW
ratio; Table 7), villages with the most diversified employment
cover a much larger population, are much larger in size, significantly more literate, and have a larger proportion of SCs/
STs, higher SR and markedly lower WPRs. There are significant
differences between the two groups in the magnitude of
changes in all these aspects over the last two decades.
Table 7: Bottom and Top Deciles in Extent of Employment Diversification
1991
2011
BD
Mean
TD
CV
Mean
BD
CV
Total population
13.13
69.12
Number of villages
Population/village
1,590
826
1,590
98.2 4,347 109.7
Literacy rate
31.6
48.5
57.3
23.0
Sex ratio
969
13.8
976
12.3
SR_06
953
41.7
948
24.1
%SCST
33.7
99.3
17.7
114.1
TW/Total population
52.0
24.2
38.5
28.5
1.7
57.7
60.3
27.7
AW/TW
98.3
1.0
39.7
42.2
AL/AW
43.7
72.9
63.2
40.6
AL/TW
42.9
73.2
25.1
55.5
CUL/TW
55.4
56.8
14.6
78.0
Non-agri/TW
Mean
TD
CV
Mean
CV
18.42
54.21
(5.29)
(-14.91)
1,505
1,505
1,234 100.8 3,602
99.4
(408)
(2.6) (-745) (-10.3)
59.1
21.1
72.1
12.9
(27.5) (-27.4) (14.8) (-10.1)
984
12.7
998
10.2
(15)
(-1.1)
(22) (-2.1)
924
37.0
957
25.3
(-29) (-4.7)
(9)
(1.2)
36.4
89.4
22.5 105.4
(2.7) (-9.9)
(4.8) (-8.7)
57.8
17.8
44.0
21.4
(5.8) (-6.4)
(5.5) (-7.1)
5.5
43.0
79.6
12.4
(3.8) (-14.7) (19.3) (-15.3)
94.5
2.5
20.4
48.5
(-3.8)
(1.5) (-19.3)
(6.3)
59.1
54.1
67.1
36.1
(15.4) (-18.8)
(3.9) (-4.5)
55.9
54.7
13.7
61.1
(13.0) (-18.5) (-11.4)
(5.6)
38.6
79.7
6.7
75.8
(-16.5) (22.9) (-7.9) (-2.2)
The total population in the most diversified group in 2011 was

about 20% smaller than in 1991, and the average size of villages in
this group came down by about 16%. This probably reflects some
larger villages in this group graduating to urban status. In the least
diversified group, by contrast, the total population increased by
nearly 40% and the average village size by nearly 60%.
The WPR has increased significantly in both groups, somewhat
more in the least diversified category. The proportion of workers
in non-agricultural activities increased in bothfrom 60% to
nearly 80% in the most diversified group, and from less than 2% to
5.5% in the least diversified group. In absolute terms as well, the
number of non-agricultural workers increased in both groups, but
the increase in the most diversified group (from 16 to 19 million)
69
was much larger than in the least diversified group where its
growth was much smaller (from 0.11 million to 0.59 million).
The diversification process has resulted in a reduction in the
proportion of workers dependent on agriculture in both groups.
But this was far more marked in the most diversified group compared to the least diversified group, where close to 95% of workers are still employed in agriculture. It is also noteworthy that
while there was a sharp reduction in the number of agricultural
workers (from 11 million to 5 million) in the most diversified
villages, there was a significant increase (from 6.7 million to
more than 10 million) in the least diversified group. The composition of the agricultural workforce also changed, with the proportion of labourers among them recording an increase in both,
though more strikingly in the least diversified group.
Among the social indicators, there was a significant increase
in literacy in both groups but narrowing differences between
the two, and a modest increase in SR (slightly more in the least
diversified group). The proportion of SCs/STs in the population
increased in both groups, it being more pronounced in the
most diversified group.
2.6 Incidence of Wage Labour in Agriculture
Agricultural workers comprise cultivators and those that work

for them as wage labour. The latter as a proportion of all agricultural workers ranged in 1991 from less than 9% in villages
of the lowest decile to more than 97% in the top decile (Table 8),
highlighting one significant aspect of the agrarian structure.
Compared to villages in the top decile (with the highest incidence
of wage labour), those with the lowest incidence of wage labour
had a larger population and were smaller on an average, had a
significantly lower literacy rate, and a marginally higher SR.
On the other hand, they had a smaller proportion of SCs/STs in
Table 8: Bottom and Top Deciles by AL/AW, 1991 and 2011
1991
2011
BD
Mean
TD
CV
Mean
BD
CV
Total population
17.82
25.93
Number of villages
Population/village
1,590
1,590
1,121 108.3 1,631 144.4
Mean
TD
CV
Mean
CV
20.70
19.50
(2.88)
(-5.8)
1,505
1,505
1,373 117.5 1,295
96.7
(252)
(9.2) (-336) (-48.7)
64.0
17.7
66.1
16.2
(-22.7) (-19.7) (17.1) (-13.1)
980
13.2
998
11.5
(-11)
(1.8)
(17) (-1.4)
934
40.5
946
33.2
(-31) (-3.8)
(-12)
(0.4)
Literacy rate
41.3
37.4
49.0
29.3
Sex ratio
991
11.4
981
12.9
SR_06
965
44.3
958
32.8
%SCST
24.5 113.3
36.9
76.6
24.8
(0.3)
118.1
(4.8)
43.1
(6.2)
69.8
(-6.8)
TW/Total pop
43.8
31.6
45.1
27.1
51.7
(7.9)
23.2
(-8.4)
51.8
(6.7)
19.8
(-7.3)
Non-agri/TW
16.1 114.3
26.2
89.7
29.6
(13.5)
97.0
(-17.3)
23.8
75.3
(-2.4) (-14.4)
AW/TW
83.9
22
73.8
31.8
AL/AW
8.7
69.5
90.8
70.4
40.8
(-13.5) (18.8)
18.3
21.4
54.0
(12.7) (-15.5)
76.2
23.5
(2.4) (-8.3)
96.4
2.1
(5.6) (-16.2)
AL/TW
7.3
74.9
67.0
33.5
15.0
(7.7)
65.1
(-9.8)
73.4
(6.8)
24.2
(-9.3)
CUL/TW
76.6
23.9
6.8
59.4
55.4
(-21.2)
46.9
(23)
2.8
(-4)
57.8
(-1.6)
70
their population, a lower WPR, a lower degree of diversification

in employment, and a very low incidence of wage labour in
agriculture.
There have been significant changes in this pattern in the
last two decades. In both years, the total population of villages
in the lowest decile of AL/AW as well as the average size of
villages was smaller compared to the group with the highest
incidence of wage labour. The difference has however narrowed because the population in the lowest decile has increased while it has declined in the top decile. The literacy rate
has increased in both groups but at a faster rate in the bottom
decile and the gap has now disappeared. The WPR has increased
in both at more or less the same rate.
Changes in other indicators, however, show marked differences. The extent of employment diversification recorded a
steep increase in the bottom decile (the group with the least
incidence of AL/AW) while it declined substantially in the
group with the highest incidence of AL/AW. The steep reduction in the share of the SCs/STs in population (from close to
25% to less than 2%) in the bottom decile group contrasts with
a sizeable increase in the top decile. Particularly striking is the
phenomenal rise in AL/AW (from less than 9% to more than
60%) in the bottom decile compared to the increase from 91%
to 96% in the top decile.
While the discussion highlights diverse changes in characteristics of the bottom and top deciles by different socioeconomic indicators, it also gives an indication of changes in
disparities bet ween these two groups in particular indicators
and associated changes in other indicators. The disparity
between the bottom and top deciles has narrowed, albeit in
varying degrees, in all indicators. The decline is most pronounced in literacy rates and least in sex ratios. SCs/STs and all
economic indicators show a mixed pattern with reduced disparities and marginal changes in a majority of cases. A widening inter-decile disparity is also seen in economic indicators (especially the WPR and Non-agri/TW).
3 Spatial Distribution of Villages in Select Indicators
In every census, each village is given a code number, sometimes

a continuous code for villages in each taluk and at other times in
each district. In 2011, each village in the country was given a
unique code. The increasing number of districts and taluks are
accommodated by rearranging villages and towns, changing the
state and district codes in every census. Therefore, generating
matching codes across the three censuses for each village and
mapping changes at the village level is difficult. The subsequent
discussion focuses on changes at the taluk and district levels.
Though extensive changes in boundaries have taken place
at these levels, it is possible to reclassify the 2011 village-level
data corresponding to the taluks and districts as classified in
1991. Thus, 15,901 villages spread over 31 districts and 275
taluks in 2011 were mapped on 20 districts and 167 taluks listed
in the 1991 Census. This section is based on a regrouping of the
village-level data on the above basis and focusing on districts
and taluks with the largest number of villages in each decile.
We have listed the top 10 taluks in each decile. The distribution of
december 26, 2015
vol l no 52
EPW
all villages in each decile over all the districts and taluks is
given in Appendices 1 and 2 (pp 72-73).
individually and to a limited extent in their combinations.

However a more disaggregated look at these aspects at the
taluk level of these districts shows a more complex picture.
3.1 District Concentration
We analyse the concentration of villages in the bottom and top

deciles in each selected characteristic in different districts. It
so happens that the bulk (two-thirds to three-fourths) of
villages in both the lowest and highest deciles of all indicators
are concentrated in five to seven districts in both periods,
more or less in the same degree. In all indicators, the villages
in the two deciles are identical (Appendix 1).
The number of villages in the high-concentration districts
declined between 1991 and 2011 in both deciles of all indicators, barring the top decile of literacy and employment diversification. This implies that a sizeable number of villages in the
high-concentration districts in the bottom decile improved
their position and moved to higher deciles and that an increasing number are moving into these categories from other districts. The decline in the number of villages in high-concentration districts in the top deciles means that improvements are
being more widely diffused among other districts. On the other
hand, the increase in the number of villages in the top deciles
of the high-concentration districts in literacy and diversified
employment means that improvements in these respects are
more concentrated in the better-off districts.
Within the high-concentration group, there are considerable
differences in both the direction and extent of change. In both
deciles and all categories, the number of villages in the highconcentration districts has (with some significant exceptions)
declined in varying degrees. This decline in districts that are
worst placed in different indicators (including high SC/ST
and high AL/AW) points to a shift of villages to higher deciles,
again in varying degrees. The decline in the number of villages
that are best placed in different indicators (including low SC/ST
and low AL/AW), however, indicates some have moved to lower
deciles. Some districts show contrary trends in both groups.
For instance, South Arcot shows an increase in the number of
villages with low employment diversification, high AL/AW,
and high SR; Chengalpet in the low SC/ST group has high NAW
and low AL/AW; and Thanjavur has low SC/ST, low WPR,
and high SR.
Another notable feature is that the same districts figure in
both deciles of multiple indicators. Thus South Arcot and Chengalpet figure among the worst as well as best-placed districts in
five of the six indicators. Thanjavur figures in the bottom decile
of three indicators and four indicators in the top decile. Salem
figures among the best-placed districts in four indicators. That
these districts contain clusters of villagers that are worstplaced as well as those that are best-placed in the select socioeconomic indicators points to the coexistence of extremes
within them. It would be interesting to track whether this contrast has become sharper or weaker over time.
The data suggest that districts where the worst-placed and
best-placed villages are concentrated have remained largely
the same over the last two decades. Districts other than those
cited above have become more important in some indicators
EPW
december 26, 2015
vol l no 52
3.2 Changes at the Taluk Level
We focus on 10 taluks in each of the high-concentration districts that had the largest number of villages in the bottom and
top deciles of different characteristic in 1991 and 2011 and the
changes that have occurred in them (Appendix 2). It turns out
that the taluks that figure in these two deciles are seldom the
same across indicators and for the same indicator in the two
years. Among those that figure in both periods, only four figure
under more than one indicatorHarur and Hosur in Dharmapuri; Kattankulathur in Chengalpet; and Kallakurichi in South
Arcot, all of them in the worst-placed group. These villages can
be considered among the worst-placed in several key aspects.
Three of them also figure in the best-placed category of some,
much fewer, indicators.
A second striking feature is that between 1991 and 2011,
unlike at the district level, there were huge changes in the taluks
falling under both deciles and in all indicators. Overall, only half
figure in both years; the other half gave place to new entrants in
2011. The proportion of new entrants was higher at 60% in the
best-placed group than in worst-off group (40%), and markedly
higher in economic than in social indicators. New entrants are
the largest in Thanjavur, followed by South Arcot and Chengalpet.
New entrants in the worst-off group are largest in WPR and
ALW/AW and relatively few in NAW and literacy. This could be
because a relative deterioration in these aspects has pushed
some taluks into the lowest decile. New entrants in the bestplaced taluks, which are found in all indicators but is largest in
AL/AW, SR and WPR and least in NAW/AW, indicate that improvements in these aspects in the high-concentration districts
are being more widely diffused across their taluks.
The factors underlying these differences in new entrants
across indicators and districts and their significance are an important and worthwhile area for future research. Also worthwhile is exploring the shifts in the position of taluks in other
districts in various indicators. In most of these districts, the
number of village in the bottom decile of sr and literacy rate
are in the top decile by %SCST. The picture is similar in economic indicators but with some significant differences. The
total number of villages in the bottom decile of WPR shows a
slight increase, suggesting the position has worsened in more
villages. This tendency is very marked in Thanjavur and to a
smaller extent in North Arcot. But in all others there is improvement. The reduction in Non-agri/TW indicates that the
diversification of employment has spread to more villages,
largely reflecting the striking improvement in Chengalpet. In
all others, a sizeable number have moved to groups with a lower
degree of diversification. The decline in the number of villages
with the lowest dependence of agriculture on wage labour suggests a significant increase overall, practically in all districts of
the group. Also noteworthy is that the same districts figure in
both deciles of more than one indicator. Thus South Arcot and
Chengalpet are in the bottom decile of four out of six indicators
71
and five out of six indicators in the top decile. Dharmapuri and
Thanjavur are in four of six indicators in both deciles. Pudukottai
figures in the bottom decile in three of six indicators.
It is clear that both the worst-placed and best-placed regions
are concentrated in the same districts. At the same time, it
highlights the coexistence of extremes in a few districts.
It can be seen that the bulk (two-thirds to three-fourths) of
villages in both the lowest and highest deciles of all indicators
are concentrated in five to seven districts in both periods,
more or less in the same degree. In all indicators, the villages
in the two deciles are identical.
The number of villages in the high-concentration districts
declined between 1991 and 2011 in both deciles of indicators
except in the top decile of literacy and employment diversification. This implies that a sizeable number of villages in the highconcentration districts in the bottom decile improved their
position and moved to higher deciles and that an increasing
number are moving into these categories from other districts.
The decline in number of villages in high-concentration
Notes
1
The demographic details include population,

segregated by sex, literacy, age group 06
years, SC and ST, workers classified by industrial origin and by duration of employment as
main, marginal, and seeking employment.
The VD gives data on availability or nonavailability of schools, medical facilities, post
office, banks, roads, drinking water, electricity,
types of agricultural land, extent of irrigation
facilities in a village; distance to the nearest
districts in the top deciles means that improvements are being

more widely diffused among other districts. But the increase in
the number of villages in the high-concentration districts
means the highest literacy and most diversified employment
means are being concentrated in better-off districts.
Within the high-concentration group, there are considerable
differences in both the direction and extent of change. In both
deciles and all categories, the number of villages has declined
in the bottom deciles of all indicators, except SCs/STs and AL/
AW. This points to a move to higher deciles. In the top deciles
of these indicators, it indicates a shift to lower deciles. The
decline in numbers with the highest (lowest) concentrations of
SC/ST and of AL/AW means that the proportion of this group in
the population of some villages has come down (increased) to
the extent that they have moved to a lower (higher) decile.
There are, however, several individual exceptions, notably
Salem in LR, Thanjavur in WPR, South Arcot and Pudukottai in
NAW/TW in the bottom decile; and South Arcot, Chengalpet
and Thanjavur in the top decile of three of four indicators.
town; and even the distance to the nearest

school, medical facility, etc.
We have excluded the 2001 Census in the subsequent sections focusing on changes in the characteristics of villages falling in the bottom and
top deciles of selected characteristics partly because of limitations of space, and also because,
with a few exceptions, there are no discontinuities in the trend. The basic tabulations relating to
these two deciles, as well as village-specific data
in these groups, are available with the authors.
References
Vaidyanathan, A (2013): Socio Economic Characteristics of Villages in North Arcot: An Exploratory Study, Indias Evolving Economy: Puzzles and Perspectives, New Delihi: Academic
Foundation.
(2014): Socio Economic Characteristics of
Tamil Nadu Villages, Development Narratives:
The Political Economy of Tamil Nadu, V K Natraj
and A Vaidyanathan (eds), New Delhi: Academic
Foundation.
Appendix 1: Distribution of Villages in BD and TD across Districts in 1991 and 2011

Bottom Decile
District
Characteristic: Literacy rate

South Arcot (RD)
Dharmapuri (RD)
MGR Chengai (RD)
Salem
Tiruvannamalai
Sambuvarayar (RD)
Total
Characteristic: Sex ratio
Dharmapuri (RD)
South Arcot (RD)
MGR Chengai (RD)
Tiruvannamalai
Sambuvarayar (RD)
Pudukottai
Thanjavur (RD)
Total
Characteristic: %SCST
Dharmapuri (RD)
Salem
South Arcot (RD)
MGR Chengai (RD)
Thanjavur (RD)
Total
Characteristic: TW/total pop
South Arcot (RD)
MGR Chengai (RD)
72
Top Decile
1991
375
323
159
159
127
2011
324
314
137
198
109
1,143 1,082
District
Bottom Decile
1991
2011
Thanjavur (RD)
Chidambaranar
MGR Chengai (RD)
Tirunelveli
Tiruchirappalli (RD)
342
153
147
115
103
South Arcot (RD)

Total
94 124
954 1,046
234
232
158
152
203
209
135
148
South Arcot (RD)

MGR Chengai (RD)
Thanjavur (RD)
Salem
123
108
1,007
122
129
946
288
288
223
181
105
315
224
231
151
73
1,085
294
283
466
140
129
99
88
303
385
205
157
319
306
214
157
Total
1,050
996
994
Pasumpon
Chidambaranar
Tirunelveli
Pudukottai
MGR Chengai (RD)
Thanjavur (RD)
South Arcot (RD)
Ramanathapuram
Total
200
94
187
99
172
78
149 144
136 147
132 337
108
98
100
46
1,184 1,043
169
274
Salem
Kamarajar
195
134
202
55
Top Decile
District
1991
2011
District
1991
2011
Tiruvannamalai
Sambuvarayar (RD)
Pudukottai
North Arcot
215
428
South Arcot (RD)
128
196
156
91
85
101
Dharmapuri (RD)
Tiruchirappalli (RD)
Madurai
Coimbatore
Periyar Erode
Tiruvannamalai
Sambuvarayar (RD)
Total
126
125
112
108
99
89
70
68
48
140
72
1,099
113
981
MGR Chengai (RD)

Salem
North Arcot
Tirunelveli
Kamarajar
245
161
148
128
83
357
112
199
98
125
Total
765
891
Thanjavur (RD)
MGR Chengai (RD)
South Arcot (RD)
Madurai
376
323
217
151
334
244
296
119
1,067
993
Total
Characteristic: Non-agri/TW
South Arcot (RD)
Dharmapuri (RD)
MGR Chengai (RD)
Pudukottai
Tiruvannamalai
Sambuvarayar(RD)
Salem
Thanjavur (RD)
Total
Characteristic: AL/AW
Dharmapuri (RD)
Pudukottai
South Arcot (RD)
Ramanathapuram
Pasumpon
Tiruvannamalai
Sambuvarayar (RD)
MGR Chengai (RD)
Thanjavur (RD)
Total
1,039 1,057
309
241
140
129
121
344
149
52
191
108
115
89
87 151
1,142 1,084
228
220
219
152
125
203
122
209
423
47
121
102
39
148
135
129
1,206 1,416
december 26, 2015
Total
vol l no 52
EPW

Appendix 2: Taluk Concentrations
Appendix 2A: Distribution of Villages in BD and TD by LR across Taluks
Sl Taluks Bottom Decile
No
LR BD TW BD
91
11
1 South Arcot Kallakurichi

111
2 South Arcot Thiruvennainallur 76
3 Dharmapuri Hosur
4 Dharmapuri Harur
5 Tiruvannamalai
Chengam Sambuvarayar
6 South Arcot Tirukoilu
57
54
7
8
9
10
42
41
36
35
Dharmapuri Denkanikotta
Dharmapuri Krishnagiri
Salem Yercaud
Dharmapuri Pallakodu
69
65
11
12
13
14
Taluks Top Decile
Appendix2D: Distribution of Villages in BD and TD by WPR across Taluks
LR TD LR TD
91
11
108 Chengai MGR Kantaankolathur

56 Chidambaranar Thoothukudi
Tiruchendur
65 Tiruchirappalli Lalgudi
59 Thanjadvur Nannilam
Tirunelveli Ambasamudram
55
Vilathikulam
47 Tiruchirappalli Trichirapalli
42 Tirunelveli Nanguneri
45 Thanjavur Thiruvarur
44 Thanjavur Kudavasal
South Arcot Kattumannarkoil
Thanjavur Mayiladuturai
South Arcot Chidambaram
Thanjavur Kumbakonam
Thanjaur Thiruvaiyaru
40
39
37
37
32
30
30
29
29
29
41
46
63
45
40
31
37
34
32
32

No
TW BD TW BD
91
11
1 Chengai MGR Kantaankolathur 65

2 Pudukottai Avudaiyar Kovil 47
3 Chengai MGR Sriperumbudur 37
4
5
6
7
8
9
South Arcot Thiruvennainallur 34

South Arcot Kallakurichi
33
South Arcot Villupuram
32
Pudukottai Thirumayam
32
South Arcot Gingee
31
Pudukottai Alangudi
29
10 South Arcot Tirukoilu

29
11 North Arcot Ambedkar Walajpet
12 Thanjavur Kummbakonam
13
14
15
16
Thanjavur Tiruvidaimarudur
Thanjavur Pattukottai
Thanjavur Nannilam
17 Thanjavur Papanasam
Appendix 2B: Distribution of Villages in BD and TD by SR across Taluks

No
SR BD
91
1 Dharmapuri Harur
89
2 Dharmapuri Uttangarai
3 Salem Salem
4 Salem Omalur
5 Salem Sankari
6 Chengai MGR
Kantaankolathur
7 Dharmapuri Hossur
8 Salem Mettur
9 Tiruvannamalai
Sambuvarayar Chengam
75
71
64
57
48
36
35
29
29
11 Dharmapuri Pallakodu
12 Dharmapuri Denkanikotta
13
14
15
16
17
SR BD
11
Taluks Top Decile
SR TD SR TD
91
11
57
55

No
54
46
33
45
42
33
37
34
34
32
90
57
47
34
26
24
24
SCST
BD 91
1 Dharmapuri Uttangarai
66
2 Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar
Tiruvannamalai
51
3 Dharmapuri Harur
48
4 Chengai MGR Kantaankolathur 47
5 South Arcot Gingee
47
6 Dharmapuri Krishnagiri
43
7 Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar 42
Cheyyar
8 Pudukottai Arantangi
39
9 Thanjavur Peravurani
34
10 Salem Salem
31
11 Thanjavur Pattukkottai
12 Tiruvannamalai
Sambuvarayar Polur
13
EPW
SCST
BD 11
Taluks Top Decile
23
SCST SCST
TD 91 TD 11
66 Dharmapuri Harur
Chengai MGR Kantaankolathur
40
34 Chengai MGR Sriperumbudur
41 Salem Yercaud
38 Chengai MGR Maduranthagam
43 South Arcot Kattumannarkoil
68
66
59
35
66
62
60
59
44
61
46 Chengai MGR Kancheepuram 39

South Arcot Tindivanam
39
Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar
Chengam
37
35 Thanjavur Thiruvarur
36
Chengai MGR Cheyyur
december 26, 2015
vol l no 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Appendix 2C: Distribution of Villages in BD and TD by %SCST across Taluks

No
TW BD TW BD
91
11
67 Dharmapuri Harur
Dindigul Anna Palani
49 Kamarajar Virudhunagar
Aruppukottai
Coimbatore Pollachi
Tiruchirappalli Karur
Madurai Tirumangalam
Kamarajar Virudhunagar Sattur
Salem Tiruchengode
Chidambaranar Thoothukudi
Kovilpatti
29 Salem Rasipuram
Vilathikulam
35 Periyar Erode Dharapuram
37 South Arcot Gingee
47 Salem Attur
Vandavasi
Cheyyar
67
59
35
56
44
44
41
39
36
33
31
30
31
40
37
40
56
36
33
31
34
Appendix 2E: Distribution of Villages in BD and TD by AL/AW across Taluks
54 Pasumpon Sivagangai
Tiruppattur
68 Pudukottai Thirumayam
41 Pasumpon Sivagangai
Sivaganga
54 Tirunelveli Nanguneri
Chidambaranar Thoothukudi
Vilathikulam
Pudukottai Avudiayar Kovil
33
34 Kamarajar Virudhunagar
Aruppukottai
Ramanathapuram Tiruvadanai
Pasumpon Sivagangai
Devaikkottai
43 Chidmabaranar Thoothukudi
Kovilpatti
45 Thanjavur Patuukkottai
Thanjavur Orathanadu
Thanjavur Peravurani
Chengai MGR Kancheepuram
Tiruchirappalli Lalgudi
Pudukottai Alangudi
18
Taluks Top Decile
57
58
37
42
40
36
36
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ALAW ALAW
BD 91 BD 11
Dharmapuri Hosur
78
Pudukottai Avudaiyar Kovil 74
Ramanathapuram Tiruvadanai 60
Kamarajar Virudhunagar Tiruchuli 47
46
Dharmapuri Harur
42
Pudukottai Kulattur
41
Pasumpon Sivagangai Sivaganga 36
Dharmapuri Uttangarai
35
Pasumpon Sivagangai
Devaikkottai
South Arcot Gingee
Ramanathapuram
Paramakudi
38
Pudukottai THirumayam
38
Pudukottai Arantangi
Cheyyar
Tiruvannamalai
Dharmapuri Krishnagiri
Tiruvannamalai Sambuvaryar Polur
Thanjavur Pattikkottai
Taluks Top Decile
ALAW ALAW
TD 91 TD 11
Madurai Madurai North

Chengai MGR Tiruvallur
Chengai MGR Ponneri
Chengai MGR Sriperumbudur
34 South Arcot Kattumannarkoil
Thanjavur Thiruvarur
Chengai MGR Kancheepuram
66 Thanjavur Nannilam
Chengai MGR Maduranthagam
59
50
47
46
44
42
42
34
33
33
41 Thanjavur Papanasam
Chidmabaranar Thoothukudi
Vilathikulam
Madurai Tirumangalam
47
31
47
49
45
28
49
34
32
29
29
43
40
38
35
35
34
Appendix 2F: Distribution of Villages in BD and TD by Non-agri/

TW across Taluks
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Non-agri/ Non-agri/
TW BD 91 TW BD 11

71
Pudukottai Arantangi
South Arcot Gingee
35
Pudukottai Avudaiyar Kovil
61
South ArcotTittagudi
Dharmapuri Harur
83
Dharmapuri Uttangari
43
Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar Polur
Dharmapuri Hosur
37
Kamarajar Tiruchuli
51
Tiruvannamalai
Sambuvarayar Chengam
40
13 Dharmapuri Krishnagiri
33
14
15
78
55
53
51
49
40
35
34
33
30
Taluks Top Decile
Non-agri/ Non-agri/
TW BD 91 TW BD 11
Chengai MGR Sriperumbudur 35

Chengai MGR Kantaankolathur 70
Kamarajar Virudhunagar Sattur
North Arcot Ambedkar Walajapet
North Arcot AmbedkarVaniyambadi
Salem Yercaud
36
Chengai MGR Ponneri
Chenagi MGR Chengalpattu 35
Chenagi MGR Tiruvallur
North Arcot Ambedkar Vellore 30
Salem Salem
45
Periyar Perundurai
41
93
88
56
54
43
38
35
34
30
30
Tirunelveli Ambasamudram
40
North Arcot Ambedkar Gudiyatham 34
Chengai MGR Kancheepuram 30
73

Changing Characteristics of Villages in Tamil Nadu 0

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Changing Characteristics of Villages in Tamil Nadu 0

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS