E-ISSN:2583-1747

Research Article

Farm Laborers

Management Journal for Advanced Research

2025 Volume 5 Number 2 April
Publisherwww.singhpublication.com

Evaluating the Socio-Economic Analysis of Agricultural Labourers for Wages Gap and Differences in Modern Livelihood

Tiwari SK1*, Prawal S2
DOI:10.5281/zenodo.15581963

1* Sachin Kumar Tiwari, Research Scholar, Department of PM&IR, Patna University, Patna, Bihar, India.

2 Sharad Prawal, Professor, Department of PM&IR, Patna University, Patna, Bihar, India.

The research assesses the socio-economic status of agricultural worker, wage inequalities, and livelihood changes in contemporary agriculture. With India's Agricultural sector significantly transforming through mechanization and institutional change, worker shortages and varying wages have risen as key issues. The paper intends to discuss the effects of modernization and technological change on job security, income stability, and living conditions of Agricultural workers. A mixed-method strategy, involving a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods, was utilized. A structured questionnaire-based data collection took place among 150 Agricultural laborers in the Siwan district of Bihar on a stratified random sampling basis. Analytical software like MS Excel and SPSS were employed to evaluate the correlation, variation in means, and regression analyses. The result indicates a direct positive correlation between socio-economic standards and remuneration, demarcating variance in education levels, income profiles, and jobs stability. Modernization and the process of technological change have a critical impact on livelihood sustainability and job security, where mechanization is a force both enhancing efficiency and displacing labor. The research highlights the call for equitable wage policy and inclusive labor sustainability strategies to reconcile agricultural productivity with rural economic stability.

Keywords: farm laborers, wage disparity, livelihoods

Corresponding Author How to Cite this Article To Browse
Sachin Kumar Tiwari, Research Scholar, Department of PM&IR, Patna University, Patna, Bihar, India.
Email: 		Tiwari SK, Prawal S, Evaluating the Socio-Economic Analysis of Agricultural Labourers for Wages Gap and Differences in Modern Livelihood. Manag J Adv Res. 2025;5(2):100-106.
Available From
https://mjar.singhpublication.com/index.php/ojs/article/view/216

Manuscript Received Review Round 1 Review Round 2 Review Round 3 Accepted
2025-03-03 2025-03-27 2025-04-24
Conflict of Interest Funding Ethical Approval Plagiarism X-checker Note
None Nil Yes 4.84

© 2025 by Tiwari SK, Prawal S and Published by Singh Publication. This is an Open Access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ unported [CC BY 4.0].

Manag J Adv Res 2025;5(2)100
Download PDFBack To Article1. Introduction2. Review
of Literature3. Objectives4. Hypothesis5. Research
Methodology6. Results7. Discussion8. ConclusionReferences
Tiwari S.K., et al. Evaluating the Socio-Economic Analysis of Agricultural Labourers

1. Introduction

The transition in sectoral composition from agriculture to non-agricultural sectors serves as a significant measure of economic progress. India, like other nations, is experiencing similar transformations (Srivastava et al., 2020). The agricultural industry in India has seen a notable transformation in recent years, with a conspicuous labor shortage noted on rural farms, phenomena previously deemed improbable in the Indian setting (Thomas, 2012). Until recently, Indian agriculture was characterized by a surplus of agricultural labor, with a significant section of the workforce engaged in it even when not really necessary. This labor remained underutilized owing to the residual nature of agricultural jobs. A likely cause of this over-supply was the poor productivity and pay in agriculture, which prompted increased labor absorption to achieve a subsistence income for family activities. This resulted in an inverse correlation between labor productivity and labor absorption (Alha, & Yonzon, 2011).

The agricultural labor force is seen to possess superior living conditions compared to their colleagues elsewhere in the nation, due to their collective bargaining strength. The scarcity of labor supply and resulting elevated salaries constitute a significant impediment to enhancing food production, particularly rice, in the state (Devi, 2012). The expansion of labor regulations to agriculture aims to enhance the wages and living circumstances of agricultural labourers. Nonetheless, transaction costs have risen due to the additional time devoted to managing labor data and resolving salary disputes. The cost of labor has increased due to the compensation for overtime, including work performed on public holidays and Sundays (Visser, & Ferrer, 2015). Paid leave (including Sundays and notice periods) must account for the value of non-monetary benefits. Increased labor expenses may result in the replacement of in-house labor by owned equipment, contracted machinery, or contracted labor (Brandt, & Ncapayi, 2016). A greater income signifies an enhanced quality of life for agricultural laborers, although it has specific repercussions for agriculture. Without efficient agricultural mechanization and further strategies to mitigate the diminished labor supply, elevated wages may increase production costs,

hence exerting inflationary pressure on the economy (Sneha, et al.,2024).

In India, the majority of laborers and their families are employed in agriculture, relying on agricultural income for their sustenance (Kumar, et al., 2020). The majorities of the impoverished resides in rural regions and are employed in agriculture, receiving lower income compared to the non-agricultural sector (Baysan et al., 2024). The average productivity of employees in agriculture is inferior to that of other industries. The disparity in salaries between rural (agricultural) and urban (non-agricultural) sectors indicates a potential misallocation of labor spatially (Baysan et al.,2019). The discrepancies between rural and urban regions partially arise from variations in labor market results. Specifically, the interplay of diverse work outcomes and labor wages may partially explain the relative disadvantage experienced by those residing outside urban areas (Ananian, & Dellaferrera, 2024).

Labor in commercial agriculture often gets a monetary salary together with in-kind compensation. The cash compensation is typically disbursed weekly or monthly and often included a year-end bonus (Smalley, 2013). These benefits differ across kinds of farms. For instance, on livestock farms, workers often get milk and may be granted privileges to graze a certain number of animals on the premises. Cultivation rights permit a laborer to farm a certain tract of land; the farmer may further provide seeds and fertilizers. Rations often include maize meal, meat, canned commodities, and vegetables. Farmers may offer housing or designate an area for their laborers to construct their own residences (Wilkinson et al., 2020).

The aim of this research is to assess the socio-economic status of Agricultural labourers, with a specific focus on wage differences and living differences in contemporary agriculture. It aims to examine the effect of modernization and technological changes on employment security, economic stability, and overall quality of life among Agricultural workers. By analyzing labor market conditions, rural-urban migration, and structural change in agriculture, the research attempts to gain insight into equitable wage structures and sustainable livelihood strategies for Agricultural labourers in modern India.


Manag J Adv Res 2025;5(2)101
Tiwari S.K., et al. Evaluating the Socio-Economic Analysis of Agricultural Labourers

This contribution of the study for knowledge of socio-economic differences among Agricultural labourers through the examination of wage differentials and livelihood contrasts against the backdrop of modernization and technological change. It brings to the fore the implications of structural change in agriculture for employment security, income stability, and standards of living. The research further identifies the implications of labor migration, mechanization, and labor market forces in rural livelihoods. It furnishes empirical observation by proposing recommendations for equitable pay scales, remunerative labour practices, and better socio-economic status of the Agricultural labourers under contemporary farming regimes.

There are seven sections in the paper. The first part is introduction of the document. A literature review on the socio-economic analysis of Agricultural labourers for wages gap and differences in modern livelihood presented in section 2. Section 3 and 4 delineates the objectives and hypotheses of the investigation. Research Methodology is given under section 5. The outcome is presented in section 6 of the document. Section 7 presents a discussion of the outcomes. Section 8 presents a conclusion and future scope for further study. References have finally been included

2. Review of Literature

The notion and implementation of livelihood have evolved through many phases in the progression of Western nations. Efforts are undertaken to improve the sustainability of farm families' livelihoods and to augment the role of sustainable improvement of their livelihood capital in reducing the rural-urban income disparity (Wu, Y., et al., 2024). Similarly (Amayo, F., et al., 2021) Investigated the methodologies of agriculture and their application influences the achievement of livelihood results. Despite the aspirations of rural women to achieve favorable results, their efforts are undermined by inadequate agricultural techniques. On the other hand (Yu, H., Chen, et al., 2024) examining the effects of various farmland transfer methods on farmers' income inequality might elucidate the factors contributing to the income disparity among farmers. Meanwhile (Giller, K. E.,et al., 2021) stated that agriculture is crucial for family food security and income; our findings elucidate the need for off-farm work for many individuals.

It examined the outcomes of the growing population of sub-Saharan Africa, the anticipated agricultural growth, and the significance of agriculture in future economic development.

The inelastic demand for labor means that pay increases did not lead to a corresponding reduction in labor use, resulting in higher labor costs in agricultural production(Srivastava, S. K., et al., 2020).Likewise (Davidova, S.,et al., 2022) examined the disparities in labor conditions between organic and conventional dairy farms. All elements of working conditions are influenced by whether a farm is organic, albeit this is not the only determinant. Numerous factors affect working conditions, including the manufacturing environment and labor demographics. Moreover (Nye, C. 2021) studied farm labor contributors predominantly, though not exclusively, originate from an agricultural background, entering through one of three avenues: direct experience, further or higher education, or post-travel. Additionally, constraints at farm, local, and national levels affect the capacities and opportunities accessible to prospective farm workers. Such limits eventually impact the capacity to attract personnel and address labor shortages in the industry, as well as to appropriately align people with employers.

The existing literature points to several determinants of Agricultural labor livelihoods such as income inequality, land transfer, farming practices, and off-farm work. Yet, there is a large research gap concerning the socio-economic analysis of wage inequalities and livelihood variations among Agricultural labourers in contemporary farming environments. There are very few research studies that look into how structural transformation in farming, organic versus conventional working environments, and changing labor requirements create wage variations. An analysis of the influence of labor composition and rural-urban migration on labor market performance also remains under-explored, and therefore more research is needed on fair wage structures and livelihood resilience.

3. Objectives

i. To assess the socio-economic conditions of Agricultural labourers, including their education, living standards and financial stability.


Manag J Adv Res 2025;5(2)102
Tiwari S.K., et al. Evaluating the Socio-Economic Analysis of Agricultural Labourers

ii. To evaluate the impact of modernization on Agricultural labourers job security and livelihood sustainability.
iii. To evaluate the impact of technological advancements on Agricultural labourers job security and livelihood sustainability.

4. Hypothesis

H1: There is a significant relationship between the socio-economic conditions (education, living standards and financial stability) and the wages of Agricultural labourers.
H2: Modernization has a significant impact on Agricultural labourers’ job security and livelihood sustainability.
H3: Technological advancements significantly affect Agricultural labourers job security and livelihood sustainability.

5. Research Methodology

This study follows a mixed-methods research approach through qualitative and quantitative design in an attempt to thoroughly explore the impact of modernization, technological advancements, and socio-economic variables on job security, sustainability of livelihoods, and remuneration of Agricultural laborers in the Siwan district of Bihar region. The research uses a descriptive and exploratory approach, specifically targeting Agricultural laborers with a stratified random sampling technique and a sample of 150. The data are collected from primary sources using a structured questionnaire and secondary sources. Statistical tools such as MS Excel and SPSS are utilized and analytical methods like mean, standard deviation, correlation, and regression are utilized for analyzing the impact of independent variables—modernization, technological advance, and socio-economic variables (e.g., education, level of living, and economic security)—on the dependent variables—job security, livelihood sustainability, and remunerations of Agricultural laborers.

6. Results

Demographic Variables

Sr. No.Demographic CharacteristicsN%
1Education LevelGraduate and above2617.3%
Higher Secondary Education3422.7%
No Formal Education149.3%
Primary Education4328.7%
Secondary Education3322.0%
2Living StandardsHigh4832.0%
Low4328.7%
Moderate4530.0%
Poor149.3%
3Financial StabilityHighly Unstable149.3%
Moderately Stable3422.7%
Stable5939.3%
Unstable4328.7%
4Wages of Agricultural LaborersBelow 10,000149.3%
10,000 to 15,0004328.7%
15,000 to 20,0003322.0%
20,000 to 25,0003422.7%
Above 25,0002617.3%
5Employment TypeContractual5134.0%
Daily Wage3422.7%
Part-Time4230.0%
Permanent2315.3%

The demographic profile indicates a fluctuating range of socio-economic statuses among the respondents. On the educational front, the highest percentage (28.7%) has achieved completion of primary level, followed by 17.3% with graduate degrees and above. A significant percentage (22.7%) achieved higher secondary level, while 9.3% have no education. Differences in living standards are indicated with 32% being high, 30% being moderate, 28.7% being low, and 9.3% being poor. Assessments of financial stability indicate 39.3% of individuals being stable, 28.7% being unstable, and 9.3% being highly unstable. The classification of wages of agricultural laborers indicates 28.7% falling in the ₹10,000 to ₹15,000 category, while 17.3% earn more than ₹25,000. The nature of work is largely contract-based (34%) and part-time (30%) and only 15.3% with permanent work.


Manag J Adv Res 2025;5(2)103
Tiwari S.K., et al. Evaluating the Socio-Economic Analysis of Agricultural Labourers

These results indicate significant disparities in education, income, and employment security that may have implications for socio-economic progress and overall quality of life.

H1: There is a significant relationship between the socio-economic conditions (education, living standards and financial stability) and the wages of Agricultural laborers.

HypothesisFactorCorrelationHypothesis Result
MeanSDPearson Correlation (r)Sig value
H1Socio-economic Conditions8.86673.19535.974.000Supported
Wages of Agricultural Laborers3.10001.25719
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The hypothesis (H1) examines the correlation between socio-economic conditions and Agricultural laborers' salaries. The average score for socio-economic conditions is 8.87, with a standard deviation of 3.20; in contrast, the average salary for Agricultural laborers is 3.10, with a standard deviation of 1.26. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) is 0.974, which is an extremely strong positive correlation between socio-economic conditions and Agricultural laborers' salaries. The significance level (p = 0.000) affirms the reality that this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The hypothesis is therefore confirmed, and it identifies that socio-economic conditions have a significant impact on the salaries that Agricultural laborers earn.

H2: Modernization has a significant impact on Agricultural laborers job security and livelihood sustainability.

Hypo
thesis		Regression WeightsBeta
Coefficient		R2Ft-valuep-valueHypothesis
Result
H2Modernization > Job Security and Livelihood Sustainability.175.0314.6952.167.032Supported

The regression test for H2, which tests the impact of modernization on the security of jobs and the sustainability of livelihoods, reveals a beta coefficient of 0.175, confirming a positive relationship between the two variables.

The R² of 0.031 indicates that 3.1% of the variance in job security and livelihood sustainability is accounted for by modernization. The F-statistic of 4.695, combined with the t-value of 2.167, indicates the statistical significance of the model. The p-value of 0.032, which is less than the commonly accepted 0.05 cut-off, confirms the significance of the relationship. Based on these findings, Hypothesis H2 is confirmed, revealing that modernization has a positive impact on the security of jobs and the sustainability of livelihoods.

H3: Technological advancements significantly affect Agricultural laborers’ job security and livelihood sustainability.

Hypo
thesis		Regression WeightsBeta
Coefficient		R2Ft-valuep-valueHypothesis
Result
H3Technological advancements > Job Security and Livelihood Sustainability.506.25650.8607.132.000Supported

The hypothesis (H3) looks at the effect of technological development on job security and livelihood sustainability. The results from the regression analysis reveal a beta coefficient of 0.506, indicating a moderate positive correlation between technological development and job security and livelihood sustainability. The R² of 0.256 indicates that technological development accounts for 25.6% of the explained variation in job security and livelihood sustainability. Also, the p-value of 0.000 (below 0.05) supports that the relationship is significant at a high confidence level. Based on these findings, the hypothesis (H3) is verified, which implies that technological innovation has a positive impact on job security and livelihood sustainability.

7. Discussion

Agricultural labourers persist in working on land that has transitioned to corporate or industrial ownership due to the resultant implications. They may lose their means of subsistence due to the land being repurposed for the construction of factories and industries (Suharyanto, A., et al., 2021). Conversely, less discerning Agricultural borrowers exhibit indifference, therefore misallocating agricultural finance for unproductive uses (Kaur, & Gupta, 2018).


Manag J Adv Res 2025;5(2)104
Tiwari S.K., et al. Evaluating the Socio-Economic Analysis of Agricultural Labourers

The degree to which smallholders benefit from the adoption of organic farming and the expanding organic market remains contentious due to various constraints, including elevated labor costs, labor shortages, reduced yields from organic practices, insufficient marketing infrastructure, and financial obstacles unique to smallholders (Sahu, R. S., et al., 2024). Additional adaptation strategies encompass modifications to conventional agriculture, both on-farm and off-farm diversification, engaging the family in income generation, minimizing farming expenses, exercising frugality in post-harvest practices, transitioning land from coffee cultivation to alternative crops, and acquiring loans while liquidating owned assets. Smallholder farmers use these tactics to endure the prevailing economic realities (Irawan, 2025).

8. Conclusion

The socio-economic profile of Agricultural labourers stresses the persistent wage disparities and livelihood vulnerability in the context of agricultural modernization. The findings suggest sweeping gaps in wages, employment security, and living conditions with modernization and technological forces having a key role in determining job security and livelihood sustainability. While mechanization improves efficiency, it also lowers labor demand and thus requires policy interventions for equitable wage structures. Future studies need to investigate adaptive methods of labor inclusion in contemporary agriculture, sustainable mechanization policy, and fair wage structures to promote the socio-economic prosperity of Agricultural labourers without compromising agricultural productivity and rural economic stability.

References

1. Alha, A., & Yonzon, B. (2011). Recent developments in farm labour availability in India and reasons behind its short supply. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24(conf), 381-390.

2. Amayo, F., Akidi, I. L., Esuruku, R. S., & Kaptui, P. B. (2021). Farming methods and the livelihood outcomes of women in Eastern Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 13(3), 182-191.

3. Ananian, S., & Dellaferrera, G. (2024).Employment and wage disparities between rural and urban areas(No. 107). ILO Working Paper.

4. Baysan, C., Dar, M. H., Emerick, K., & Sadoulet, E. (2019). The agricultural wage gap within rural villages.

5. Baysan, C., Dar, M. H., Emerick, K., Li, Z., & Sadoulet, E. (2024). The agricultural wage gap within rural villages. Journal of Development Economics, 168, 103270.

6. Brandt, F., & Ncapayi, F. (2016). The meaning of compliance with land and labour legislation: understanding justice through farm workers’ experiences in the Eastern Cape. Southern Africa Anthropology, 39(3), 215-231.

7. Davidova, S., Hostiou, N., Alebaki, M., Bailey, A., Bakucs, Z., Duval, J., ... & Walder, P. (2022). What does ecological farming mean for farm labour?. Euro Choices, 21(3), 21-26.

8. Devi, P. I. (2012). Dynamics of farm labour use—An empirical analysis. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 25(2), 317-326.

9. Giller, K. E., Delaune, T., Silva, J. V., van Wijk, M., Hammond, J., Descheemaeker, K., ... & Andersson, J. A. (2021). Small farms and development in sub-Saharan Africa: Farming for food, for income or for lack of better options?. Food Security, 13(6), 1431-1454.

10. Irawan, A. (2025). The smallholder coffee farmer's livelihood adaptation strategies in Bengkulu, Indonesia. Journal of Strategy and Management, 18(1), 73-95.

11. Kaur, H. J., & Gupta, S. (2018). Socio–economic conditions of farmers: A study of rural Punjab. International Journal of Applied Service Marketing Perspectives, 7(03), 3429-3450.

12. Kumar, S., Answer, E., Immanuelraj, T. K., Kumar, S., Singh, H. P., Mishra, S. N., & Sarkar, S. K. (2020). Agricultural wages in India: Trends and determinants. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 33(1).

13. Nye, C. (2021). The farm worker and the ‘drift to the land.’ Roots, routes, opportunities, and constraints to career pathways in farming. Journal of Rural Studies, 83, 201-214.

14. Sahu, R. S., Tiwari, M., & Deka, N. (2024). The role of organic farming in creating food security and sustainable livelihoods for India’s smallholder farmers: a systematic review using PRISMA. Organic Agriculture, 14(1), 95-121.


Manag J Adv Res 2025;5(2)105
Tiwari S.K., et al. Evaluating the Socio-Economic Analysis of Agricultural Labourers

15. Smalley, R. (2013). Plantations, contract farming and commercial farming areas in Africa: A comparative review. Future Agricultures Working Paper, 55, 73.

16. Sneha, S. B., Srivastava, S. K., Ray, M., Praveen, K. V., & Singh, A. (2024). Agricultural wages in India: Trends and structural changes. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 37(1), 1-11.

17. Srivastava, S. K., Singh, J., Kumar, N. R., Singh, N. P., & Ahmad, N. (2020). Changing agricultural labour market and its effects on farm economy in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(4), 469-480.

18. Srivastava, S. K., Singh, J., Kumar, N. R., Singh, N. P., & Ahmad, N. (2020). Changing agricultural labour market and its effects on farm economy in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(4), 469-480.

19. Suharyanto, A., Hartono, B., Irwansyah, I., Tuwu, D., & Umanailo, M. C. B. (2021). Marginalization socio farm laborers due to conversion of agriculture land. Cogent Social Sciences, 7(1), 1999563.

20. Thomas, J. J. (2012). India's labour market during the 2000s: Surveying the changes. Economic and Political Weekly, 39-51.

21. Visser, M., & Ferrer, S. (2015).Farm workers' living and working conditions in South Africa: Key trends, emergent issues, and underlying and structural problems. Pretoria: International Labour Organization.

22. Wilkinson, J. M., Lee, M. R., Rivero, M. J., & Chamberlain, A. T. (2020). Some challenges and opportunities for grazing dairy cows on temperate pastures. Grass and Forage Science, 75(1), 1-17.

23. Wu, Y., Wu, Y., Wang, H., & ZHu, N. (2024). Study on the sustainability of farmers’ livelihoods capital and its impact on the rural-urban income gap.

24. Yu, H., Chen, K., Zhu, Q., & Guo, B. (2024). Farmland transfer mode and livelihood capital endowment impacts on income inequality: Rural survey data of Hubei province, China. Sustainability, 16(2), 509.

Disclaimer / Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of Journals and/or the editor(s). Journals and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Manag J Adv Res 2025;5(2)106