International Research Journal of Social Sciences______________________________________ ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(4), 98-104, April (2015) Int. Res. J.Social Sci. International Science Congress Association 98 Role of Human Capital for Changing Livelihood Pattern: A Case Study in Nadia District of West Bengal DubeyPradipta, Bhadra Banerjee Tapati and Santra SubhrangsuDepartment of Rural Development and Management, University of Kalyani, Kalyani, West Bengal, INDIA Department of REC, PSV, Visva--Bharati, Sriniketan, West Bengal, INDIAAvailable online at: www. isca. in Received 1st December 2014, revised 14th February 2015, accepted 18th March 2015 Abstract The pattern of livelihood in rural area of West Bengal is a complex in nature as mentioned by Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway that, ‘a livelihood comprises the capability, assets and activities required for a means of living’. As per abidance of different research studies it has been found that so many ways are there to measure the status and changing pattern of livelihood in a particular area. But mostly accepted way is to go through five capitals to understand the subject better. In this research paper an attempt has been made to find out the role of human capital to change the pattern of livelihood in the four villages of Nadia district of West Bengal. Here we consider male headed household, family size, literacy rate and occupational health hazardas human capital. Findings show that these are the vital indicators to bring changes in the livelihood pattern of the study area. Keywords: Livelihood, human capital, male headed household, family size, literacy rate and occupational health hazard. Introduction Livelihoods of the poor can never be understood in any one-track logic - be it economic, social, technical, cultural or political. The livelihood systems are made up of very diverse elements which - constitute the physical, economic, social and cultural universe wherein the families live. The concept of livelihood first put forward by the Burndtland Commission (WCED 1987) of Sustainable Livelihood security. It was given these meanings: Livelihood is defined as adequate stock and flows of food and cash to meet basic needs. Security refers to secure ownership of, or access to, resources and income earnings activities, including reverse and assets to offset risk, case shocks and meet contingencies. Sustainable refers to the maintenance or enhancement of resources productivity on a long term basis. A household may be enabled to gain sustainable livelihood security in many ways – through ownership of land, livestock or trees; rights to grazing, fishing, hunting or gathering; through stable employment with adequate remuneration; or through varied repertories of activities. The most widely accepted definition of livelihood of stems from the work of Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway (1992): ‘a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living’. The livelihoods framework encompasses five assets (human, natural, physical, financial and social) and their change in four villages of the study area definitely indicated changing pattern of livelihood in this area. The livelihood approach is concerned first and foremost with people. So an accurate and realistic understanding of people’s strengths (here called “assets” or “capital”) are crucial to analyses how they endeavour to convert their assets into positive livelihood outcomes. The five capitals of livelihood is discussed below briefly. Human Capital: Human capital represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health that together enable people to perform different livelihood activities and achieve their livelihood objectives". Social Capital: social resources upon which people draw in seeking for their livelihood outcomes, such as networks and connectedness, that increase people's trust and ability to cooperate or membership in more formalised groups and their systems of rules, norms and sanctions. Natural Capital: Natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stocks from which resource flows and services (such as land, water, forests, air quality, erosion protection, biodiversity degree and rate of change, etc.) useful for livelihoods are derived. Physical Capital: Physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to support livelihoods, such as affordable transport, secure shelter and buildings, adequate water supply and sanitation, clean, affordable energy and access to information. Financial Capital: “Financial capital” denotes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(4), 98-104, April (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 99 and it comprises the important availability of cash or equivalent that enables people to adopt different livelihood strategies. 5and6 It is found that there are not many studies which has been done in past on livelihood in the selected field area. Only two studies found which were carried out in this area. First study was done in 2012 by Dubey and Santra in Shantipur block of Nadia district. The paper seeks to find out the Cost and Benefit of individual weaver as well as middlemen in the locality involved in the activity. Finding shows that land less poor families got an opportunity to maintain their livelihood through handloom. Middlemen also received the maximum portion of the profit. Still it is not possible to remove the middlemen without finding an alternative who can take the responsibility to supply raw materials and marketing the final product. Again study suggested that it can only be possible through Public-Private partnership. Another study was taken place in 2013 in Shantipur block. The paper stated that the weaving community of Shantipur of Nadia district of West Bengal performing the activities as a means of livelihood since long back. Earlier the weaving had potentiality to meet all basic demands of the families involved in the activity. But at present only the weaving alone as an activity failed to provide minimum livelihood support among the weaver. In the researchers had tried to represent the involvement of the community and the past and present status of the weaving as an economic activityThough all the five capitals of livelihood are important to study livelihood activities of any area, in this research paper only human capital is considered. Four indicators are taken to determine the composition and strength of this capital in the study area in the present paper. Objectives: i. To compare the changes of different indicators of human capital of livelihood across four villages of the study area. ii. To study the position of each village according to human capital of livelihood. Material and Method Sampling Method: The study has been conducted on 200 sample households in four villages of Nadia district of West Bengal (For detail sampling and methodology for the selection of district, blocks, villages and households please see the thesis “Livelihood Pattern and Its Change: A Case Study of Some Villages in Nadia District” [monograph]). Results and Discussion In this paper, attention is paid to the composition and strength of the human, physical, financial,social and natural assets and how these assets differ from village to village. For this, the four villages are given four different scores i. e. 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the basis of different parameters. The village which indicates lowest development given score 1, and the village indicates highest development given score 4. Human asset/ capital: Four parameters are considered to determine the change in human capital in different villages. i. Percentage of male Household (HH) Head, ii. Average Family size, iii. Literacy, iv. Health hazard faced Percentage of male HH Head: Table 2 Percentage of male Household (HH) Head Villages No. of male HH Heads Percentage of male HH Head Bansdob 22 70. 96 Haripur 48 90. 56 Dhawpara 63 92. 64 Krishnanagar 42 87. 50 Source: Field Study, 2014 As greatest percentage of male HH Head belongs to Dhawpara, this village is given the highest score i. e. score 4. Accordingly, Haripur, Krishnanagar and Bansdob has given score 3,2 and 1 respectively. See table 2. Average Family size: This is another important indicator of human capital. The formula followed to calculate average family size in each village is given below:Total no. of family member Average family size = Total no. of household Family size according to 2001 census: According to 2001 Census data the family size of India and West Bengal is 5. 3 and 4. 9respectively. Average family size of the studied district is same as the national data. Family size found in the study area was lower than the national data but higher than the state figure– 4. 7. The average family size of the selected blocks i. e. Tehatta-II and Shantipur is same- 4. 8 which are also equal to the national figure. Among the four villages of the Dhawpara has highest family size- 5. But Haripur and Bansdobhave same family size- 4. 6. But Krishnanagar belongs to the lowest position in terms of family size- 4.5. Graphical representation of family size of four villages of the study area according to census 2001 is shown in figure 1. Sum of family size of four villages Average family size of four villages= No. of villages Or, Average family size of four villages = 5+4.5+4. 6+4. 6 = 18. 7/4 = 4. 7 4 International Research Journal of Social Sciences__ Vol. 4(4), 98-104, April (2015) International Science Congress Association Hence, average family size of the study area according to 2001 census altogether is 4.7. Family size according to 2011 census: According to census 2011, the family size of India and West Bengal is 4 respectively. Average family size of the studied district is lower than both national and state figure- 4 Tehatta- II is same as the district figure like 2001 census Family size of Shantipur is greater than Tehatta Surprisingly, according to 2011 census, D hawpara has lowest Family size of four villages of the study area according to census 2001 Family size of four villages of the study area according to census 2011 Table-3 Family size according to Study 2014, Census 2001 and 2011  \n \r\r\r    \n \r\r\r  Sciences__ ______________________________________ ____________ International Science Congress Association study area according to 2001 According to census 2011, the family size of India and West Bengal is 4 .8 and 4.5 Average family size of the studied district is 4 .2. Family size of II is same as the district figure like 2001 census . Family size of Shantipur is greater than Tehatta -II i.e.4.3. hawpara has lowest family size-3. 9, which is completely contrary to the picture of 2001 census. Other three villages – Bansdob has same family size-4.2 . family size of four villages of the study area according to census 2011 is shown in figure 2. Applying the same formula discussed above, average family size of the study area according to 2011 census is 4 family size of the study area is far lower than the national an state figure which indicates a good sign Figure-1 Family size of four villages of the study area according to census 2001 Figure-2 Family size of four villages of the study area according to census 2011 Family size according to Study 2014, Census 2001 and 2011 2001 India  \r\r\r\r\r  \r\r\r \r \r  ____________ ISSN 2319–3565 Int. Res. J. Social Sci. 100 9, which is completely contrary to the picture of – Krishnanagar, Haripur and . Graphical representation of of the study area according to census Applying the same formula discussed above, average family size of the study area according to 2011 census is 4 .1. The average family size of the study area is far lower than the national an d state figure which indicates a good sign . See table 3. Family size of four villages of the study area according to census 2001 Family size of four villages of the study area according to census 2011 India 5. 3 International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(4), 98-104, April (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 101 West Bengal 4. 9 Nadia 4. 8 Tehatta - II 4. 8 Santipur 4. 8 Dhwapara 5. 0 Krishnanagar 4. 5 Haripur 4. 6 Bansdob 4. 6 Study area 4. 7 2011 India 4. 8 West Bengal 4. 5 Nadia 4. 2 Tehatta - II 4. 2 Santipur 4. 3 Dhwapara 3. 9 Krishnanagar 4. 2 Haripur 4. 2 Bansdob 4. 2 Study area 4. 1 Source: Field Study, 2014 and Census data 2001 and2011. Table-4 Average Family size: Villages Haripur Bansdob Dhawpara Krishnanagar Average Family size 4. 1 3. 6 4. 4 4. 2 Source: Field Study, 2014 Applying the formula it is noticed that Bansdobhas lowest family size so it is given lowest score (score 1) and Dhawpara has highest family size hence it is given the highest score (score 4). See table 4. According to field study, average family size of the study area 4. 1 which is exactly same as the average family size of the study area according to 2011 census. Literacy: According to 2001 census: According to the latest 2001 Census data the literacy rate of India and West Bengal is 64. 84% and 68. 64% respectively. Literacy rate of the studied district higher than the national figure but lower than the state figure- 66. 14. Among the two selected blocks, literacy rate of Shantipur (64. 16) is far better than Tehatta-II (57. 02). Among the four villages in the study area, Krishnanagar has highest literacy percentage (70. 54) which is even higher than the national as well as the state figure. It clearly indicated that this village is the most socio-economically developed village of the study area. Haripur is just below Krishnanagar in terms of literacy rate (61. 24) followed by Dhawpara (60. 72%) and Bansdob (59. 26%). Graphical representation of literacy rate according to 2001 census is shown in figure 3. Table-5 Literacy rate according to census 2001 and 2011 2001 India 64. 84 West Bengal 68. 64 Nadia 66. 14 Tehatta - II 57. 02 Santipur 64. 16 Dhwapara 60. 72 Krishnanagar 70. 54 Haripur 61. 24 Bansdob 59. 26 Study area 62. 94 2011 India 74. 04 West Bengal 76. 26 Nadia 74. 97 Tehatta - II 68. 52 Santipur 73. 10 Dhwapara 70. 68 Krishnanagar 74. 09 Haripur 65. 43 Bansdob 61. 55 Study area 67. 94 Source: Field Study, 2014 and Census data 2001 and2011. Average literacy rate of four village = Sum of literacy rate of four village No. of villages Or, Average literacy rate of four villages = 60. 72+7. 54+61. 24+59. 26 = 251. 76/4 = 62. 94 4 Hence, average literacy rate of the study area altogether is 62. 94%. Hence it is clear that average literacy rate of the study area is 62. 94 which is not much lower than both national and state figure. See table 5. According to 2011 census: According to the latest Census data (2011) the literacy rate of India and West Bengal is 74. 04% and 76. 26% respectively. Literacy rate of the study district is also appreciable (74. 97%). According to 2011 census, the picture of two selected blocks in terms of literacy rate is exactly same as in census 2001. Among the two selected blocks, literacy rate of Shantipur (73. 10) is far better than Tehatta-II (68. 52). The findings show that the literacy rate of Krishnanagar and Dhawpara was quite appreciable – 70. 68 % and 74. 09% respectively. But literacy rate of Haripur and Bansdob was lower than the other two- 65. 43 and 61. 55percent respectively. Graphical representation of literacy rate according to 2011 census is shown in figure 4. International Research Journal of Social Sciences__ Vol. 4(4), 98-104, April (2015) International Science Congress Association Graphical representation of literacy rate according to 2001 census Graphical representation of literacy rate according Applying the same formula discussed above, average literacy rate of the study area according to 2011 census is 67 table 5. Literacy rate according to field data, 2014 : Krishnanagar is the highest (85. 36 %), the village is given the highest score i.e.4. In similar way as literacy rate of Bansdob is lowest, the village is given the lowest score i. e Table-6 Average literacy rateVillages Haripur Bansdob Dhawpara Average literacy rate 66. 41 45. 50 75. 81 Source: Field Study, 2014 Applying the same formula discussed above, average literacy rate of the study area according to field data, 2014 is 68 Socio – economic condition of Krishnanagar and Dhawpara is better than the other two villages. Krishnanagar has a well infrastructure and well- established high school facility naturally literacy rate of this village is the highest that Krishnanagar of Tahatta- II had the highest percent of \n \r\r\r \n \r\r\r Sciences__ ______________________________________ ____________ International Science Congress Association Figure-3 Graphical representation of literacy rate according to 2001 census Figure-4 Graphical representation of literacy rate according to 2011 census Applying the same formula discussed above, average literacy rate of the study area according to 2011 census is 67 . 94%. See : As literacy rate of 36 %), the village is given the In similar way as literacy rate of Bansdob is e . 1. See table 6. Dhawpara Krishnanagar 85. 36 Applying the same formula discussed above, average literacy rate of the study area according to field data, 2014 is 68 . 27%. Krishnanagar and Dhawpara is Krishnanagar has a well established high school facility . Hence, naturally literacy rate of this village is the highest . Table shows II had the highest percent of literate population –85. 36 percent, much higher than the national and state figures. Krishnanagar was a predominantly Hindu village. The village was only 3 km away from the nearest town Palashipara. May be this is the higher rate of literacy of this village economic condition of Dhawpara is also good literacy rate of this village is quite good below Krishnanagar. In Haripur parents were mor e willing to engage their children in weaving which was the traditional and steady income source for the villagers. That’s why no. of drop out children was also higher in this village. In tribal village Bansdob education infrastructure including avai lability and facility of schools was not sufficient. The village had only one primary school but no high school. The awareness level about importance of getting education was also low. For this reason the average literacy rate of the four villages to gether was comparatively low than the census data. Occupational Health hazard faced: villagers are engaged with weaving them suffered from eye disease . villagers from all the four villages also suffered from Heap Pain, Knee pain, Chest pain, Asthma etc Haripur with greatest percentage (56  \r\r\r\r\r   \r\r\r\r\r  ____________ ISSN 2319–3565 Int. Res. J. Social Sci. 102 percent, much higher than the Krishnanagar was a predominantly The village was only 3 km away from the May be this is the reason for the higher rate of literacy of this village . Similarly, socio- economic condition of Dhawpara is also good . Naturally the literacy rate of this village is quite good – 75. 81 percent – only e willing to engage their children in weaving which was the traditional and steady income source for of drop out children was also In tribal village Bansdob education lability and facility of schools was The village had only one primary school but no The awareness level about importance of getting For this reason the average literacy gether was comparatively low than the Occupational Health hazard faced: In Haripur most of the villagers are engaged with weaving . For this reason, most of . Except eye disease the villagers from all the four villages also suffered from Heap Pain, Knee pain, Chest pain, Asthma etc . Health hazard is found in Haripur with greatest percentage (56 . 60%), hence the village is International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(4), 98-104, April (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 103 given score 1 and as Dhawpara has faced least percentage of health hazard, it is given score 4. The supporting table is provided in the annexure table 7. Preparation of table consisting final scoring of the four villages: The scores given to all the four villages according to the different parameters of five capitals are presented in tabular form in table 8. From table firstly scores of each village for each capital is summed up and then divided by total no. of parameters to get final ranking. As for example in human capital Bansdob is given score 1 according to Age and sex of Household Head, Average Family size, Literacy and score 2 according to the parameter Health status. Hence, total score of Bansdob is (1+1+1+2) or 5. Hence final ranking of Bansdob in human capital is 5/4 (as total no. of parameter for human capital is 4) = 1. 25. All the villages get final ranking for each of the five capitals by applying the same formula. See table 9. From table radar is prepared. From the radar the comparison of changes of different indicators of livelihood across four villages and position of each village according to each capital is clearly presented. Table-7 Percentage of people faced occupational health hazard Health hazard faced Village Haripur Bansdob Dhwapara Krishnagar Percentage of people faced health hazard related with their occupation 56. 60 9. 68 7. 35 8. 33 Source: Field Study, 2014 Table-8 Tabular representation of ranking of villages Assets Parameters Scores 1 2 3 4 Villages Human Age and sex of Household Head Bansdob Krishnanagar Haripur Dhawpara Average Family size Bansdob Haripur Krishnanagar Dhawpara Literacy Bansdob Haripur Dhawpara Krishnanagar Health Haripur Bansdob Krishnanagar Dhawpara Source: Field Study, 2014 Table-9 Final ranking of four villages Capital Haripur Bansdob Dhawpara Krishnanagar Human 2 1. 25 3. 75 3 Figure-5 Graphical representation of ranking of villages through radar diagram  \r\r \r! \r\r\n \r \r\r \r\r\r International Research Journal of Social Sciences____________________________________________________ISSN 2319–3565Vol. 4(4), 98-104, April (2015) Int. Res. J. Social Sci.International Science Congress Association 104 Figure 5 clearly reveals that Dhawpara get 3. 75 out of 4, which means in terms of human capital Dhawpara is the richest village among the four villages. Krishnanagar grabs second position after Dhawpara- scored 3. Haripur scored 2 and comes after Krsihnanagar. Tribal village Bansdob is poorest in terms of human asset. The village can able to score only 1. 25. The scores itself indicates that Krishnanagar and Dhawparaare more socio-economically developed villages compared to Haripur and Bansdob. Bansdob village is lacks of proper infrastructure of education. In terms of family size, also it ranks lowest. Only according to health hazard it is in third position just before Haripur. Hence, the reason behind the lowest score of Bansdob is quite clear. Exactly contrast picture can be seen in Dhawpara. So naturally Dhawpara gets highest rank after final ranking is done. Conclusion The sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) is a way to improve understanding of the livelihoods of poor people. It draws on the main factors that affect poor people's livelihoods and the typical relationships between these factors. It can be used in planning new development activities and in assessing the contribution that existing activities have made to sustain livelihood. The present paper also does a thorough study to find out the status of accession to human asset and its capabilities to combine the livelihood strategies for a means of living. The findings clearly show that the tribal village is in last position in terms of human asset and Dhawpara is in first position as far as human capital is considered. References 1.Walekar Asok, A Study of the Livelihood pattern of Carvers in Nanded District of Maharashtra (India), Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, {Bi-Monthly}, 3(2), (2013) 2.Chembers R., N.C. Saxena and T. Saha, To the hands of the poor-water and trees,Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi,Bombay,pp. 205,ISBN:81-204-0428-9 (1989)3.Kollmair M. and Gamper St., The Sustainable Livelihood Approach. Input Paper for the Integrated Training Course of NCCR North-South, Development Study Group. University of Zurich, (2002) 4.Odero K Kenneth, Extending the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework,Department of Rural and Urban Planning, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe (2000) 5.De Stagé R., Holloway A., Mullins D., Nchabaleng L. and Ward P., Learning about livelihoods. Insights from southern Africa, Oxfam Publishing. Oxford (2002) 6.DFID, Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development. http://www. livelihoods. org/info/info_guidancesheets. html (accessed: 14. 12. 2014) (2000) 7.Dubey Pradipta and Subhrangsu Santra, Means of Livelihood among the weaver community of Shantipur of Nadia district, International Journal of Current Research and Review, Nagpur, 4(6), (2012)8.Dubey Pradipta and Subhrangsu Santra, Weaving and livelihood in Shantipur of West Bengal: Past and present, International Journal of Current Research5(12), 4014-4017, (2013)