







































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 5 (1): 89-107 January 2022 

 
THEMATIC ESSAY 

Women’s Role in Agriculture and Food Security: 
Learnings from Gujarat and West Bengal 

Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt and Itishree Pattnaik 

 
Abstract: Ushering in the next phase of agriculture in India requires a deeper 
understanding of the growth process across regions and socio-economic contexts 
with an emphasis on strengthening the role of women. This paper argues that it is 
critical to capture socio-cultural diversity across various agro-climatic zones to 
arrive at a more detailed understanding of women’s labour contributions within the 
changing landscape of food security. The paper is based on an extensive survey 
carried out in the states of Gujarat and West Bengal. The analysis shows the 
immense contribution of women in the agricultural sector. Women’s contribution 
in farms is higher in West Bengal than Gujarat, but in Gujarat their contribution in 
the allied sector is significant. Women’s work in farms and their involvement in 
decision-making are the important determining factors for maintaining household 
food security. Thus, women’s roles in the farm need to be strengthened for the 
next phase of agriculture. 
Keywords: Agrarian distress, feminization, food security, Gujarat-West Bengal and 
logit model  

1. INTRODUCTION: GENDERED CHALLENGES  

Agriculture in India is changing. Changes in land-use patterns and the 
availability of natural resources on the one hand (Chand et al. 2011; Gupta et 
al. 2018) and socio-economic impacts on the other (Agarwal 1994; 2012) 
are impacting landholding size and productivity. How far these have 
influenced—positively or negatively—rural communities in the diverse 
regional contexts of India is yet to be determined. Two aspects demand 

 
 Center for Development Alternatives. amitagidr@gmail.com  

 Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian 
National University. kuntala.lahiri-dutt@anu.edu.au 

 Gujarat Institute of Development Research (GIDR). itipattnaik7@gmail.com 

Copyright © Shah, Lahiri-Dutt and Pattnaik 2022. Released under Creative Commons 

Attribution © NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of  Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web) 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v5i1.630  

mailto:amitagidr@gmail.com
mailto:kuntala.lahiri-dutt@anu.edu.au
mailto:itipattnaik7@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v5i1.630


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [90] 

 

particular attention: ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and ensuring 
women’s role therein. The latter is especially important given agriculture’s 
role in providing food security to India’s poor. Women’s dual role in 
farming households—where they grow and prepare food for 
consumption—is influential in steering how the household consumes food, 
thereby inextricably linking their participation in agriculture to food 
security. This paper investigates these aspects based on an extensive field 
survey carried out in two states in India. It attempts to understand, first, the 
trend of overall agricultural growth processes and their implications for 
natural resources; second, it examines the specific role of women farmers, 
and in particular, captures the conditions under which they perform their 
roles and whether their labour contributions benefit them or not; and third, 
it analyses women’s role in maintaining household food security. It is 
assumed that a specific focus on women’s role in agriculture within the 
overall changing scenario will help bring attention to women’s contribution 
to sustainable agriculture and poverty reduction, which is an overlooked 
link in Indian agriculture.     

The sudden changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have laid bare the 
urgent need to ensure food security for the rural poor. India, with 22% of 
the world’s poor (Government of India 2018),1 represents how global 
development has been unsustainable and requires re-envisioning. Food 
security can be ensured only in a healthy rural environment in which there 
is equity and protection of natural resources.  

Scholars (Quisumbing et al. 1995; Krishnaraj 2005; Mehra and Rojas 2008) 
have highlighted the key role of women in ensuring food and nutritional 
security within rural households. The lack of secondary data on the extent 
and nature of women’s labour in India continues to remain a major 
obstacle, and the innumerable ways women help farming families remain 
invisible (Siddiqui et al. 2017). The role of allied activities in the agricultural 
economy—such as dairy farming in Gujarat2 and fisheries in certain parts of 
West Bengal3—are also not well recognized, and there is a particular lack of 
studies on how women’s participation in these sectors strengthen and 

 
1 According to the 2021 Global Hunger Index, India is ranked 101 out of 116 countries. 
India’s score is 27.5, which implies that the country has a level of hunger that is serious (von 
Grebmer 2021).  
2 During 2017–2018 in Gujarat, dairy constituted 20% of the total agricultural sector (dairy 
sector constitutes only 9% of the total agriculture-allied sector in West Bengal; Government 
of India 2020a). 

3 During 2017–18, fisheries in West Bengal constituted 14.5% of the total agricultural sector 
(fisheries constitute only 3% of total agriculture allied sector in Gujarat; Government of 
India 2020a). 



[91] Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Itishree Pattnaik 

 
 

sustain farm and farming households. Further, women’s roles vary by 
context, and these diversities must be recognized for a better appreciation 
of their labour contributions.  

The findings of an extensive survey carried out in the states of Gujarat and 
West Bengal, which captures their intrinsic agro-climatic and socio-cultural 
diversities, is presented to understand the role of women in agriculture and 
in maintaining household food security. The micro-level study aimed to 
capture different agricultural systems rather than make direct comparisons. 
Four districts were selected in each state based on a maximum-variation 
principle to capture the variations in local agro-climatic and agro-ecological 
contexts. With two villages covered in each district, a total of 16 villages 
were sampled. Given the specific focus on women’s contributions to 
agriculture, only landholding households were selected.4 A complete house-
listing exercise was carried out, which covered 3,235 households in Gujarat 
and 2,770 in West Bengal. Stratified random sampling was used in the 
survey of 800 women farmers (comprising around 10–12% of the landed 
households in each village).5,6 

The paper is structured as follows: first, the context of women’s 
employment in Indian agriculture is presented in brief to show how the 
farm sector is increasingly being feminized. The second section discusses 
the agricultural growth process and women’s employment in agriculture in 
Gujarat and West Bengal. The third section presents the major findings, 
mainly capturing women’s contributions to farming, livestock rearing, and 
households and their role in decision-making and maintaining food security. 
The concluding section provides directions for future interventions.  

2. WOMEN’S LABOUR CONTRIBUTIONS IN AGRICULTURE  

With the changes occurring in agriculture, women, who have long been 
treated as unpaid workers, are beginning to receive much-needed 
recognition as farmers. As men migrate out of rural areas, seeking non-

 
4 Women in landless households were not selected because they do not take part in farm 
decision-making processes, except in terms of their indirect impact on the cost of labour, in 
which they are involved. 

5 In each surveyed household, we identified women who were “most involved in 
agriculture”, since they were best equipped to respond as they were most likely to be 
involved a broad range of activities and decision-making functions. 

6 Questions were asked relating to land ownership (both at the household and individual 
level), women’s labour contribution (in the household, farm, and livestock rearing), decision-
making, food security, migration status, women’s involvement in training and extension 

services, membership in community activities, women’s like or dislike of farming, etc.   



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [92] 

 

agricultural employment, the involvement of women in the farm sector has 
increased. Indian policymakers term this concentration of women’s labour 
in agriculture as the “feminization of agriculture” (Government of India 
2018). In fact, this is not an entirely new phenomenon in India (Agarwal 
1985; Duvvury 1989). However, in the context of the deepening agrarian 
crisis (Mishra 2007; Singh, Kaur, and Kingra 2021), characterized by 
declining farm incomes, male out-migration, and worsening water 
shortages, the nature and causes of the feminization of the agricultural 
workforce and its implications for the future development of the 
agricultural sector are matters of concern. This is particularly important 
because, till recently, recognition of women as “workers” or “farmers” 
remained largely absent, leading to a lack of representation in policymaking 
and development programmes.  

2.1 Agriculture: Gujarat and West Bengal 

The economies of Gujarat and West Bengal differ substantially. The per-
capita annual income in 2018–19 for Gujarat and West Bengal was 

₹195,845 and ₹101,138, respectively, as compared to the national average of 

₹126,521 (GOI 2020). The annual average growth rate of income from 
agriculture from 2011–2012 to 2016–2017 was slightly over 3% in Gujarat 
and slightly less than 2% in West Bengal (CSO 2019). This could be partly 
because Gujarat’s agriculture has gained from groundnut and cotton7 
cultivation despite having a large proportion of dry land. Against this, 
paddy8 is the dominant crop in West Bengal. Unfortunately, the relatively 
higher growth in Gujarat has not positively impacted the poor in a 
significant manner as the population below the poverty line is similar in the 
two states.9  

A total of 65.01% of males and 88.08% of females are engaged in 
agriculture in Gujarat (Government of India 2020b). Better connectivity to 
urban areas, heavy urban industrialization, and migration are the causes of 
lower employment in the rural non-farm sector (Shah and Pattnaik 2021). 
In West Bengal, 50.02% of males and 57.12% of females are engaged in 
agriculture. The state shows higher rural non-farm employment than 
Gujarat.  

 
7 The share of the area under cotton and groundnut farming during 2019–2020 was 24% and 
14%, respectively (Directorate of Economics and Statistics n.d.).  

8 The share of the area under paddy farming was 60% during 2019 (Directorate of 
Economics and Statistics n.d.).  

9 The share of the population below the poverty line was 16.6% in Gujarat compared to 
19.9% in West Bengal during 2011–2012. The share of the population below the poverty line 
was 21.9% across the whole of India during the same period.  



[93] Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Itishree Pattnaik 

 
 

2.2 Trajectories of the Agricultural Sector over Time 

Even during the early years following Independence, the growth of the 
agricultural sector of the two states followed different trajectories. In the 
1950s, Gujarat’s agricultural sector benefited from well irrigation and 
cooperatives producing milk, sugar, and cotton, which were mainly 
concentrated in the central, southern, and northern regions of the state. 
While the Saurashtra region (western region) did not benefit from 
cooperatives during this time, the agricultural sector saw some growth due 
to the immense political mileage gained from the groundnut oil lobby—telia 
raja.10 After the 1990s, cotton also contributed significantly to the growth of 
Saurashtra’s agriculture. Saurashtra, a dry region, has mainly depended on 
groundwater resources and farm power supplies to fuel its growth. The 
development of the dairy sector is another major factor that accelerated the 
high growth of agriculture and allied sectors (Kumar et al. 2007).  

In West Bengal, on the other hand, the agricultural development process 
was significantly impacted by the land reforms that started immediately 
after Independence and were mainly designed to protect the rights of poor 
cultivators. In the early 1970s, land reforms and the decentralization of local 
self-government became the main political agenda (Rogaly et al. 1995). Unlike 
in Gujarat, the focus here was on defining the rights of the poor rather than 
supporting agro-based industrial development. It is important to note that 
only after liberalization in the 1990s, commercialization and rapid agro-
industrialization were promoted in West Bengal (Shaw 2020). Since the 
1990s, the share of non-food grain cropped areas and areas under potato 
farming have significantly increased. How the agricultural growth process 
has helped unlock various alternatives, especially for women, has been 
addressed in the following analysis.   

3. MAJOR FINDINGS: WOMEN’S WORK, DECISION MAKING, 
AND FOOD SECURITY 

3.1 Women’s Work  

Although increasing numbers of rural families are supplementing their 
household incomes by seeking jobs outside agriculture, this does not seem 
to have happened for women. Many women are engaged in more than one 

 
10 Producer and mill owners of groundnut oil in Saurashtra region are called telia rajas as they 
have strong connection with political leaders, interested guilds, apolitical outfits, political 
parties, the bureaucracy, and the government and all these begin with the price of the 

groundnut.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [94] 

 

occupation, but mostly in the agriculture and allied sectors. The data show 
that 96% and 89% of the surveyed women are involved in the agricultural 
sector in Gujarat and West Bengal, respectively, as their primary 
occupation. The diversification (towards the non-farm sector) of the rural 
economy has had a limited impact on rural women workers, and men have 
gained more than women. Importantly, 71% of men and 74% of women in 
Gujarat, and 65% of men and 69% of women in West Bengal, are engaged 
in more than one occupation. However, women’s occupations, outside of 
cropping, are limited to livestock-rearing in Gujarat and fishing in West 
Bengal.11 In Gujarat, around 80% of women reported working in the dairy 
sector, either as a main or subsidiary occupation. In West Bengal, 49% of 
women reported fishing as a subsidiary occupation.  

Women’s increased labour participation in agriculture and allied sectors in 
Gujarat is mainly due to the major role played by women in the dairy 
industry. Another reason might be that men have been able to find 
opportunities in urban areas, leaving women to manage agriculture. Women 
do not seem to be receiving the same opportunities outside of agriculture as 
men in Gujarat, presumably due to the state’s industrialized–urbanized 
economy which led more male migration. This situation is different from 
that in West Bengal where the rural manufacturing sector employs the 
major share of workers, both male and female (Government of India 
2020b). Further, in West Bengal, though employment in the non-farm 
sector has been growing over time, more than 90% of businesses are own-
account enterprises (home-based small businesses) that do not generate 
enough surplus incomes for employment (Rajeev and Bhattacharjee 2018).  

Women’s labour in households is higher in both states, followed by 
livestock-rearing and farming (Figure 1). Livestock-rearing is considered an 
extension of household activities, which are done almost exclusively by 
women, especially in Gujarat. The development of the dairy sector in 
Gujarat is also a political topic, which, over time, has brought women to the 
centre (known as The White Revolution; Kurien 2004). However, in West 
Bengal, fishing is mainly conducted for household consumption and only a 
small share is sold. Appropriate institutional support may have given a 
better push to the allied sector in West Bengal.       

 

 
11 A major share of women in West Bengal reported the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural 
Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) as their subsidiary occupation. MGNREGA is a 
state-funded guaranteed employment programme that employs labourers for a fixed number 
of days and fixed wages.  



[95] Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Itishree Pattnaik 

 
 

Figure 1: Participation in Farming, Livestock-rearing, and Domestic Work in 
Gujarat and West Bengal  

 

Note:   1. Agriculture: all kinds of farm activities; livestock: all kinds of livestock 
activities; HH traditional farming: activities that take place within the home; HH 
other work: activities related to marketing and managing budgets.            
2. The indices are generated from a series of questions in the survey in which 
female respondents were asked the extent to which 11 different activities relating to 
their agricultural land (such as ploughing, weeding, harvesting, storage, marketing, 
etc.) were undertaken “entirely by men”; “mostly by men”; “equally shared by men 
and women”; “mostly by women”, and “entirely by women”. Responses were 
converted to numerical values by allocating a score (1 to 5) of 1 for each response 
that was marked as being undertaken “entirely by men” and a score of 5 for 
“entirely by women”. The average of all scores was then calculated, so that the 
higher the score, the greater the participation of women. Other indices for livestock 
rearing, household activities, and decision-making were calculated similarly.  
Source: Authors’ fieldwork in 2016. 

Moreover, women reported that labour-intensive activities such as weeding, 
farm cleaning, harvesting, and storing are mostly carried out by them; 
further, several crop-specific tasks are performed exclusively by women. 
These include extracting groundnut kernels (mainly in Gujarat in the 
groundnut belt of Rajkot district); cutting potatoes into pieces for planting 
(in Malda, West Bengal); and extracting fibre from jute (in Cooch Behar, 
West Bengal). In Gujarat, women primarily weed and harvest the land. In 
West Bengal, they carry out a much wider array of tasks: transplanting 
juvenile rice plants, winnowing wheat and pulses, cleaning and arranging 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [96] 

 

farm produce for sale, and drying agricultural products such as tobacco 
leaves. Furthermore, these activities are carried out manually due to a lack 
of mechanization. It is important to note that while mechanization has 
existed for a long time in both states, it has not reached the specific 
activities in which women are involved. The level of mechanization is lower 
in West Bengal, leading to women undertaking various strenuous 
activities.12 How far the vast range of women’s labour contribution in farms 
impacts empowerment (measured in terms of decision-making) is discussed 
below.  

3.2 Women in Decision-making  

Three aspects of decision-making were captured in the survey: (1) decisions 
related to farming and livestock—which crops to grow, which farm inputs 
to buy, the amount of farm produce to be sold (food grains), purchase of 
new immovable assets and large household purchases, and purchase/sale of 
animals; (2) decisions related to daily household purchases, including which 
vegetables to buy and what foods to cook, and visits to family or relatives; 
and (3) decisions related to health and education.  

we found that women’s participation in farming-related decisions is quite 
limited (with scores of 2.05 and 2.18 in Gujarat and West Bengal, 
respectively; Figure 2). Compared to farming, however, their role in 
decision-making in other minor aspects is relatively higher than men in both 
states. Further, women’s increased control over income and decision-
making has been noted to have a positive impact on the health and 
nutritional status of the family (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2010). The present 
analysis finds that women’s participation in decision-making regarding 
health and education is greater compared to other sets of decisions in both 
states. Women’s participation in livestock management is higher in Gujarat 
compared to West Bengal.  

The overall analysis shows that women are more involved in both labour 
and decision-making in West Bengal compared to Gujarat, which could be 
partly attributed to the different socio-cultural and political contexts 
(Pattnaik and Lahiri-Dutt 2020).   

 

 

 
12 Increasing labour hours or days does not necessarily bring in more income for women; 
rather, it further deepens the existing gender gap. Rural transformation has led to income 
diversification and facilitates men’s outmigration from their villages in search of better 
paying jobs, whereas women remain confined to the family farm and as wage labourers in 
the village.  



[97] Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Itishree Pattnaik 

 
 

Figure 2: Decision-making on the Farm and at Home 

 

Note: as explained in Note 2 in Figure 1. 
Source: Authors’ fieldwork in 2016. 

3.3 Women and Household Food Security  

Compared to the surveyed households in Gujarat, a relatively larger 
proportion of surveyed households in West Bengal are food insecure;13 
48.23% of households in Gujarat and 59.12% of households in West 
Bengal reported being food insecure.  

A logit model was constructed to examine the factors affecting household 
food security, with a focus on the contribution of women’s work.14 We 

 
13 Nine indicator questions were employed to capture food insecurity. The questions are 
related to food adequacy and financial constraints, including whether a condition has 
occurred during the four months prior to the survey. Each occurrence question is coded 
with a “yes” or “no”. For example: Did you or any household member worry about your 
household not getting enough food? Did you or any household member go to sleep at night 

hungry because there was not enough food?  

14 A multivariate binary logistic regression model was used to examine the factors that 
influence the odds ratio of household food status. The odds ratio is the ratio of the 

probability that a household would always be food secure ( ) to the probability that the 

household does not have enough food or is food insecure ( ). 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [98] 

 

considered a set of socio-economic and regional variables, along with 
women’s work and decision-making.    

Earlier studies have identified various determinants of household food 
security. Income, one of the main economic variables, is considered a 
fundamental factor in determining poverty and food security (Sarkar & 
Shekhar 2017). Hence, as per-capita income increases, the household’s food 
security is expected to improve. In rural households, livestock is a 
supplementary source of income. The higher the number of farm animals, 
the better the household’s food security as dairy products are a major 
source of protein consumption (Ramachandran 2003). Moreover, selling 
livestock for cash is also used as a coping strategy during times of crisis 
(Mukherjee & Nayyar 2011). Thus, the number of ruminants owned by the 
household might influence its food security status. Migration, specifically 
male migration, can have a diverse (positive or negative) impact. While the 
flow of remittances may positively influence household food security 
(Szabo 2015), it could impact some negatively because most of rural 
migration is distressed in nature (Keshri and Bhagat 2012); in the absence 
of remittances, the left behind women-headed households may be adversely 
affected (Choithani 2019). The demographic characteristics of a household 
also determine its food security and their impacts vary similarly. On one 
hand, the bigger the family, the higher the demand for food, leading to a 
greater risk of malnutrition (Gupta and Mishra 2014). On the other, a larger 
family might also have more labour supply, which is a vital factor in 
agricultural production, especially in poorer regions (Zakari, Ying, and Song 
2014). Land is an important asset in rural areas, making it another important 
variable that might influence a household’s food security. Lastly, 
sociocultural indicators such as caste and ethnicity are important factors 
that define the social position of the family in India (Rao 2005). Since caste 
is a major factor, it is hypothesized that lower caste groups are more food 
insecure than higher ones. Besides these economic and socio-cultural 
factors, a set of independent variables that capture women’s decision-
making (mainly farm-related) and control or management of household 
income are considered for the logit model (Table 1). For example, income 
from livestock is important for household cash flow, which is particularly 
evident in Gujarat; hence, women’s control over dairy income is considered 
an independent variable (however, allied activities—for example, fishing in 
West Bengal—are not included because of their limited contribution to the 
total household income).   

The dependent variable is the status of food security. The household’s food 
security status, the dependent variable, is coded in binary form, that is, food 
insecure = 0 and food secure = 1.  



[99] Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Itishree Pattnaik 

 
 

The logit model for Gujarat is defined as below: 

(1) 

The logit model for West Bengal is written below: 

(2) 

where, y*is the dependent variable,  represents the vector of parameters to 

be estimated, and e is the error term. Table 1 presents the descriptive 
statistics of the variables used in the model.  

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Used in the Model 

Sl. 
No. 

Variable Description 

1 Per capita income (PCI) Numerical  

2 Total area under cultivation (TAC) Numerical 

3 Share of area under irrigation (IRRI) Ratio 

4 Total number of livestock (LK) Numerical 

5 Type of family  Binary 

6 Number of income sources of the family (NIS) Numerical 

7 Migration (MIG) Binary 

8 
Women as cultivators or working in family farm 
(WC) 

Binary 

9 Women as agricultural labour (WA) Binary 

10 Caste: general caste as reference category Binary 

11 Caste: ST and SC (STSC) Binary 

12 Caste: Schedule tribe (ST) Binary 

13 Caste: Schedule caste (SC) Binary 

14 Caste: Other Backward Caste (OBC) Binary 

15 Women’s control over livestock income (WLI) Binary 

16 
Women participating in decisions related to what 
crop to grow (WPC) 

Binary 

17 
Women participating in decisions related to how 
much crop to keep for home consumption (WPH) 

Binary 

18 Women managing total household income (WMI) Binary 

19 Districts Binary 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [100] 

 

To avoid the problem of heteroscedasticity, robust standard error 
(clustered) was calculated. Additionally, the variance inflation factor (VIF) 
was measured to check the problem of multicollinearity. To explain the 
effects of confounding variables directly, the marginal effects of both 
continuous and discrete explanatory variables were estimated. 

Table 2: Result of the Logit Model  

Variables  Marginal effects (standard error) 

Dependent variable: status of food security  

Gujarat 

(Model I) 

West Bengal 

(Model II) 

Per capita income (in log-term) 0.06** (0.15) 0.20*** (0.25) 

Total area under cultivation 0.001 (0.005) 0.08*** (0.14) 

Share of area irrigated -0.001 (0.003) 0.007 (0.002) 

Total number of livestock 0.02** (0.07) -0.003 (0.0.1) 

Type of family (nuclear family as reference 
category) 

0.18*** (0.22) 0.12** (0.26) 

Number of income sources of the family -0.004 (0.13) -0.02 (0.10) 

Household migration status -0.21*** (0.33) -0.09** (0.24) 

Women as cultivators or working in family 
farms 

0.05 (0.29) 0.04** (0.27) 

Women as agricultural labour -0.18*** (0.30) 0.05 (0.29) 

Caste: General caste as the reference 
category 

  

Caste: ST and SC -0.12** (0.48)  

Caste: ST  -0.11 (0.51) 

Caste: SC  -0.05 (0.50) 

Caste: OBC -0.01 (0.36) -0.07 (0.37) 

Women’s control over livestock income 0.11** (0.25)  

Women participating in decisions related to 
what crop to grow 

0.09** (0.24)  

Women participating in decisions related to 
how much crop to keep for home 
consumption 

 0.07 (0.26) 



[101] Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Itishree Pattnaik 

 
 

Variables  Marginal effects (standard error) 

Women managing total household income  0.14** (0.27) 

District fixed effect  Yes Yes  

Observations 400 400 

Pseudo R2 0.11 0.14 

Log pseudo likelihood -246.1 -236.10 

Note: 1. Numbers in parentheses indicate robust standard error. 

2. P<0.01 = *** and p<0.05 = **  
3. In model I – VIF ranges from 6.22 (area cultivated) to 1.07 (type of 

family). Average VIF = 2.71.  
4. In model II – VIF ranges from 4.80 (caste SC) to 1.06 (women as 

agricultural labour). Average VIF = 2.36  

In Gujarat, factors such as income per capita (p < 0.05), ownership of 
livestock (p < 0.05), women’s decision-making in farm-related activities (p 
< 0.05), and women’s control of livestock income (p < 0.05) are found to 
be positively associated with household food security (Table 1). During the 
survey, it was found that farm income is mainly managed and controlled by 
men, but women retain the income earned from dairy. Households in which 
women are involved in the management of income15 (along with men) are 
more food secure compared to those where women are less involved. 
Further, joint families are food secure compared to nuclear families 
(p<0.01). Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward 
Castes (OBC) households are found to be more food insecure (p < 0.05) 
compared to general caste households. However, migration has a negative 
impact on household food security (p < 0.01).  

In West Bengal, factors such as income per capita (p < 0.01) and total area 
under cultivation (p<0.01) positively influence the status of food security 
(Table 1). As also found in the case of Gujarat, joint families are more food 
secure than nuclear families (p < 0.05) in West Bengal. Migration has a 
negative impact on the status of food security (p < 0.05). It was found that 
women’s involvement in income management influences household food 
security positively in West Bengal (p < 0.05).  

 
15 During the survey, participants were asked who has more control over income in the 
family: 1= exclusively male, 2 = mainly male, 3 = male and female both, 4 = mainly female, 
and 5 = exclusively female. We constructed an index, and when the number is above 3, we 

report it as “women’s involvement in the management of income.”   



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [102] 

 

Per capita income influences the food security of both states. However, its 
impact is significantly higher in West Bengal compared to Gujarat. With a 
1% increase in per capita income, the probability of a household being food 
secure is 6% in Gujarat and 20% in West Bengal. As West Bengal’s 
agricultural growth rate is lower than that of Gujarat, a slight increase in 
income will greatly influence the status of food security.  

Migration has a negative impact on food security in both states. With a 1% 
increase in migration, the status of household food security declines by 21% 
in Gujarat and 9% in West Bengal. Migration (predominantly male, as 
confirmed in our study), mainly being distressed in nature,16 has not 
improved the food security of households. This is evident in the larger 
historical out-migration in Gujarat.17 The intensity of the impact of 
migration (both in and out) on food security needs further analysis.   

Livestock ownership is an important factor that affects household food 
security in Gujarat but not in West Bengal. In Gujarat, milk animals and 
milk products have long been a significant supplementary source of income 
for a large number of rural households, and the sector received significant 
institutional and state support (Shah and Pattnaik 2014). Against this, the 
lack of equivalent institutional and state support in West Bengal could be 
seen as the major reason for the limited attractiveness of rearing small/large 
ruminants.  

Joint families are more food secure compared to the nuclear families in 
both states. Joint families, having undivided land and larger land size 
(except among the STs, as found in our survey), are more food secure.  

The link between the social status of households and food security is 
captured through the caste indicator; caste was found to have a significant 
impact on food security in Gujarat but not in West Bengal. In Gujarat, SCs 
and STs are more food insecure compared to the general castes, which was 
also found in past studies (Chakravarty and Dand 2006). Caste inequality 
has always been higher in central and western India (Maharashtra and 
Gujarat) compared to eastern India (West Bengal and Odisha; Borooah, 
2005).  

It is interesting to learn that women’s involvement in family farms is 
positive and significant in West Bengal but not in Gujarat. With a 1% 
increase in female participation in family farming, the family’s security 

 
16 With most of the migration being distressed in nature, the flow of remittance was 
negligible. 

17 A large proportion of landed area in Gujarat is dry, and the state is historically known for 
seasonal migration. 



[103] Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Itishree Pattnaik 

 
 

increases by 4%. The association, while positive, is not as significant in 
Gujarat. This may be because poor quality of land and limited access to 
water have been major factors resulting in fluctuating agricultural income in 
Gujarat. Fluctuating agriculture on one hand and the availability of better 
work opportunities in the non-farm sector, on the other, make Gujarat 
farmers less dependent on farm income as compared to West Bengal.  

Along with women’s labour contribution, their role in decision-making and 
their control over the household income are also important variables that 
determine the status of food security. Women’s decision-making and 
control over incomes also influence household food security in both states, 
highlighting their significant role. In Gujarat, a 1% increase in women’s 
involvement in management of livestock income and participation in farm-
related decision-making leads to an 11% and 9% increase in the status of 
household food security, respectively. In West Bengal, a 1% increase in 
women’s involvement in managing household income leads to a 14% 
increase in household food security.  

Overall, the analysis shows that food insecurity is higher in West Bengal 
than in Gujarat. This may be due to the types of crops cultivated and the 
importance of agriculture-allied sectors such as livestock in Gujarat having a 
significant role in shaping overall growth including women’s roles. West 
Bengal, despite having strong land reform and better agro-climatic 
conditions, has somewhat lagged in its agriculture growth process. 
However, it is clear from the analysis that women’s work on farms and 
involvement in the management of income has a positive impact on food 
security in both states. Thus, strengthening women’s role is essential for 
ushering in the next phase of agriculture.      

4. CONCLUSION 

The analysis emphasizes the extensive role of women in the agriculture 
sector. While in Gujarat, women’s role in agriculture is limited compared to 
West Bengal, their contribution in the allied sector (livestock/dairy) is 
significant. Women in West Bengal are engaged in a wider array of tasks in 
farming. However, women’s involvement in farm-level decision-making is 
very low in both states. This shows a lack of empowerment among women 
although they contribute immensely towards shaping agriculture and allied 
sectors. It must be noted that women’s labour contribution in farming and 
their involvement in decision-making related to farming influence 
household food security positively (along with other socio-economic 
characteristics of the household). Thus, improving the overall availability of 
food via better and women-friendly production technologies must go hand-



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [104] 

 

in-hand with women’s control over income and decision-making processes. 
Hence, future farming must focus on strengthening women’s involvement 
in decision-making by developing policies that recognize women as farmers. 
This requires that in the future, women’s contributions and concerns 
should be at the forefront of every intervention in agriculture, both at the 
micro and the macro levels. 

 
REFERENCES 
Agarwal, Bina. 1985. “Work Participation of Rural Women in Third World: Some 
Data and Conceptual Biases.” Economic and Political Weekly 20 (51/52): 21–28. 

Agarwal, Bina. 1994. “Gender and Command over Property: A Critical Gap in 
Economic Analysis and Policy in South Asia.” World Development 22 (10): 1455–
1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90031-0  

Agarwal, Bina. 2012. “Food Security, Productivity, and Gender Inequality.” IEG 
Working Paper No. 320. New Delhi: Institute of Economic Growth University 
Enclave, University of Delhi.  

Borooah, Vani K. 2005. “Caste, Inequality, and Poverty in India.” Review of 
Development Economics 9 (3): 399–414.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9361.2005.00284.x.  

Chakravarty, Sujoy, and Sejal A Dand. 2006. “Food Insecurity in Gujarat: A Study 
of Two Rural Populations.” Economic and Political Weekly 41 (22): 2248–2258. 

Chand, Ramesh, PAL Prasanna, and Aruna Singh. 2011. “Farm Size and 
Productivity: Understanding the Strengths of Smallholders and Improving Their 
Livelihoods.” Economic and Political Weekly 46 (26–27): 5–11. 

Choithani, Chetan. 2019. “Gendered Livelihoods: Migrating Men, Left-behind 
Women and Household Food Security in India”. Gender, Place and Culture 27 (10): 
1373–1394. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1681366. 

Directorate of Economics and Statistics. n.d. “Latest APY State Data”. Accessed 
10 February 2022. https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/APY_96_To_06.htm  

Duvvury, Nata. 1989. “Women in Agriculture: A Review of the Indian Literature.” 
Economic and Political Weekly 24 (43): WS96–WS112. 

Government of India. 2014. Report of the Expert Group to Review: The Methodology for 
Measurement of Poverty. Planning Commission. New Delhi: Government of India.  

Government of India. 2018. Economic Survey 2018–19. Ministry of Finance 
Department of Economic Affairs Economic Division, Vol. 1. New Delhi: 
Government of India. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2019-
20/economicsurvey/doc/echapter.pdf.  

Government of India. 2020. Economic Survey 2020-21. Ministry of Finance 
Department of Economic Affairs Economic Division. New Delhi: Government of 
India. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2021-
22/economicsurvey/doc/vol2chapter/echap01_vol2.pdf.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90031-0
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2005.00284.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2005.00284.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1681366
https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/APY_96_To_06.htm
https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2019-20/economicsurvey/doc/echapter.pdf
https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2019-20/economicsurvey/doc/echapter.pdf
https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2021-22/economicsurvey/doc/vol2chapter/echap01_vol2.pdf
https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2021-22/economicsurvey/doc/vol2chapter/echap01_vol2.pdf


[105] Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Itishree Pattnaik 

 
 

Government of India. 2020a. Employment and Unemployment Situation in India NSS 
68th ROUND. New Delhi: National Sample Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics 
and Programme Implementation, Government of India.  

Government of India. 2020b. Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS). New Delhi: 
National Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 
Government of India. 
https://www.mospi.gov.in/documents/213904/301563/Annual_Report_PLFS_2
019_20m1627036454797.pdf/18afb74a-3980-ab83-0431-1e84321f75af  

Gupta, Abha, and Deepak K Mishra 2014. “Food Consumption Pattern in rural 
India: A Regional Perspective.” Journal of Economic and Social Development 10 (1): 15–
34. 

Gupta, Raj, Mamta Mehra, Rabi Narayan Sahoo, and Inder Abrol. 2018. “Indian 
Agriculture Redefining Strategies and Priorities”. Economic and Political Weekly 53 
(41): 84–91.  

Keshri, Kunal, and RB Bhagat. 2012. “Temporary and Seasonal Migration: 
Regional Pattern, Characteristics and Associated Factors.” Economic and Political 
Weekly 47 (4): 81–86.  

Krishnaraj, Maithreyi. 2005. “Food Security: How and for Whom?” Economic and 
Political Weekly 40 (25): 2508–2512. 

Kumar, Anjani, Steven J Staal, NP Singh, and Dhiraj K Singh. 2007. “Livestock 
Sector Trade of India: Surging Momentum in the New Liberalised Regime.” Indian 
Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 (3): 395–410. 

Mehra, Rekha, and Rojas, Mary Hill. 2008. A Significant Shift: Women, Food Security 
and Agriculture in a Global Marketplace. Washington, DC: International Centre for 
Research on Women. https://www.icrw.org/publications/women-food-security-
and-agriculture-in-a-global-marketplace/  

Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, Agnes R Quisumbing, Julia A Behrman, Patricia Biermayr-
Jenzano, Vicki Wilde, Marco Noordeloos, Catherine Ragasa, and Nienke M 
Beintema. 2010. “Engendering Agricultural Research.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 
00973. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. 

Mishra, Srijit. 2007. “Agrarian Scenario in Post-reform India: A Story of Distress, 
Despair and Death.” Working Papers No. 1019. Mumbai: Indira Gandhi Institute 
of Development Research. 

Mukherjee, Shantanu, and Shivani Nayyar. 2011. “Monitoring Household Coping 
During Shocks: Evidence from the Philippines and Kenya.”  UK Department for 
International Development (DFID), United Nations Development Programme 
(UNDP), and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 
http://www.uneca.org/aec/2011/presentations/Day%203/142%20Household%2
0Wellbeing%20and%20Food%20Prices/Mukherjee%20and%20Nayyar_Monitorin
g%20Household%20Coping%20During%20Shocks%20Evidence%20from%20the
%20Philippines%20and%20Kenya.pdf  

https://www.mospi.gov.in/documents/213904/301563/Annual_Report_PLFS_2019_20m1627036454797.pdf/18afb74a-3980-ab83-0431-1e84321f75af
https://www.mospi.gov.in/documents/213904/301563/Annual_Report_PLFS_2019_20m1627036454797.pdf/18afb74a-3980-ab83-0431-1e84321f75af
https://www.icrw.org/publications/women-food-security-and-agriculture-in-a-global-marketplace/
https://www.icrw.org/publications/women-food-security-and-agriculture-in-a-global-marketplace/
http://www.uneca.org/aec/2011/presentations/Day%203/142%20Household%20Wellbeing%20and%20Food%20Prices/Mukherjee%20and%20Nayyar_Monitoring%20Household%20Coping%20During%20Shocks%20Evidence%20from%20the%20Philippines%20and%20Kenya.pdf
http://www.uneca.org/aec/2011/presentations/Day%203/142%20Household%20Wellbeing%20and%20Food%20Prices/Mukherjee%20and%20Nayyar_Monitoring%20Household%20Coping%20During%20Shocks%20Evidence%20from%20the%20Philippines%20and%20Kenya.pdf
http://www.uneca.org/aec/2011/presentations/Day%203/142%20Household%20Wellbeing%20and%20Food%20Prices/Mukherjee%20and%20Nayyar_Monitoring%20Household%20Coping%20During%20Shocks%20Evidence%20from%20the%20Philippines%20and%20Kenya.pdf
http://www.uneca.org/aec/2011/presentations/Day%203/142%20Household%20Wellbeing%20and%20Food%20Prices/Mukherjee%20and%20Nayyar_Monitoring%20Household%20Coping%20During%20Shocks%20Evidence%20from%20the%20Philippines%20and%20Kenya.pdf


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [106] 

 

Pattnaik Itishree, and Kuntala Lihiri-Dutt 2020. “What Determines Women's 
Agricultural Participation? A Comparative Study of Landholding Households in 
Rural India”, Journal of Rural Studies 76 (2020) 25–39. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.03.008  

Quisumbing, Agnes R, Lynn Brown, Hilary Feldstein, Lawrence Haddad, and 
Christine Peña. 1995. Women: The Key to Food Security. Washington, DC: 
International Food Policy Research Institute. 

Rajeev, Meenakshi, and Manojit Bhattacharjee. 2018. “Farm Non-Farm Linkage 
and Role of Non-farm Sector for Rural Development”. Policy Brief – 20. 
Bangalore: Institute for Social and Economic Change.  

Ramachandran, N. 2003. The paradox of gender food security. Paper presented at the 
Gender Poverty Summit, Women’s Political Watch and National Council for 
Applied Economic Research, 9–11 November, New Delhi. 

Rao, Anupama. 2005. Gender and Caste. London: Zed Books.  

Rogaly, Ben, Barbara Harriss-White, and Sugata Bose. 1995. “Sonar Bangla – 
Agricultural Growth and Agrarian Change in West Bengal and Bangladesh.” Economic and 
Political Weekly 30 (29): 1862–1868. 

Sarkar, Sanjit, and Chander Shekhar. 2017. “Household Food Insecurity and 
Coping Strategies in a Rural Community of West Bengal.” Social Science Spectrum 
3(1): 16–26. 

Shah, Amita, and Itishree Pattnaik. 2014. “High Growth Agriculture in Gujarat: An 
Enquiry into Inclusiveness and Sustainability.” In Growth or Development: Which Way 
is Gujarat Going?, edited by Indira Hirway, Amita Shah, and Ghanshyam Shah, 225–
263. India: Oxford University Press. 

Shah, Amita, and Itishree Pattnaik. 2021. “Pattern and Dynamics of the Rural Non-
farm Economy: A Case Study of Gujarat.” Journal of Social and Economic Development 
23 (1): 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-020-00132-y  

Siddiqui, Mohammed Zakaria, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Stewart Lockie, and Bill 
Pritchard. 2017. “Reconsidering Women’s Work in Rural India: An Analysis of 
NSS Data 2004–05 and 2011–12.” Economic and Political Weekly 52 (1): 45–52. 

Singh, Sukhpal, Manjeet Kaur, and HS Kingra. 2021. “Agrarian Crisis and 
Agricultural Labourer Suicides in Punjab.” Economic and Political Weekly 56 (13): 49–
56. 

von Grebmer, Klaus, Jill Bernstein, Miriam Wiemers, Tabea Schiffer, Asja Hanano, 
Olive Towey, Réiseal Ní Chéilleachair, Connell Foley, Seth Gitter, Kierstin 
Ekstrom, and Heidi Fritschel 2021. Global Hunger Index: Hunger and Food Systems in 
Conflict Settings. Welthungerhilfe and Concern Worldwide. 
https://www.globalhungerindex.org/pdf/en/2021.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2020. 

Kurien, V. 2004. “India.s Milk Revolution: Investing in Rural Producer 
Organizations”. World Bank. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/India%27s-
Milk-Revolution%E2%80%94-Investing-in-Rural-
Kurien/7a0cf47044be322984accdb8d0b08a00e3d4499c  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.03.008
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-020-00132-y
https://www.globalhungerindex.org/pdf/en/2021.pdf
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/India%27s-Milk-Revolution%E2%80%94-Investing-in-Rural-Kurien/7a0cf47044be322984accdb8d0b08a00e3d4499c
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/India%27s-Milk-Revolution%E2%80%94-Investing-in-Rural-Kurien/7a0cf47044be322984accdb8d0b08a00e3d4499c
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/India%27s-Milk-Revolution%E2%80%94-Investing-in-Rural-Kurien/7a0cf47044be322984accdb8d0b08a00e3d4499c


[107] Amita Shah, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Itishree Pattnaik 

 
 

Szabo, Sylvia. 2015. “Remittances as Significant Predictor of Food Security in Rural 
Bangladesh.” World Bank Online Blog. 
http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/remittances-significant-predictor-food-
security-rural-bangladesh  

Zakari, Seydou, Liu Ying, and Baohui Song. 2014. “Factors Influencing Household 
Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Southern Niger.” Sustainability 6 (3): 
1191–1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031191  

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/remittances-significant-predictor-food-security-rural-bangladesh
http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/remittances-significant-predictor-food-security-rural-bangladesh
https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031191

