Impact of infrastructure on the development of rural life

This study focusing on assessing the socio-economic impact of infrastructure in Kanjwani district Faisalabad of Punjab with objectives to study the profile of rural households inhabiting villages having infrastructure and villages having less infrastructure and to determine the impact of infrastructure on educational attainment, health facilities availed, chemical fertilizer use, institutional support to farmers (Credit & Agricultural extension services), marketing cost, crop yields and average household income. Two villages having infrastructure and 2 villages having fewer infrastructures were selected for studies. These villages had similar characteristics, with respect to size of holding, type of tenure, mode of irrigation and cropping activities. Overall 80 households were selected, out of which 54 were farm households and the remaining 26 were landless; out of 80 respondents 44 were from villages having infrastructure and 36 from villages having less infrastructure. The data for the present study was collected with the help of a well-structured questionnaire. There was significant difference in the level of education among the villages having infrastructure and villages having less infrastructure. The occupational mobility was higher in the villages having infrastructure as compared to villages infrastructure. For example with the introduction of infrastructure seyp system, a traditional way of carrying out economic activities had changed. Further more, heads of households whose, ancestral occupation was "weaving", had completely shifted in case of villages having infrastructure 12 percent more respondent went to the doctor far their treatment as compared to villages having less infrastructure. Nobody went to traditional healer during their illness in villages having infrastructure, on the other hand 3.9 percent households believed in traditional healers in villages having less infrastructure. Thus the infrastructure in the rural area was instrumental in raising the value of land asset. The cropping intensity, in villages having infrastructure was higher by 13 percent relative to villages having less infrastructure. It was observed from the data that in villages having infrastructure the fertilizer dose per cropped acre for rice and wheat was higher by 41 and 17 percent, respectively, than the villages having less infrastructure. In villages having infrastructure, 20.7 percent farm household had availed the facility of credit from institutional source. On the other hand only 5.9 percent had availed the institutional credit facility in. villages having less infrastructure. 8. The average yield per acre of basmati rice, IRRI rice and wheat was higher by 19 percent, 6 percent and 26 percent, respectively, in villages having infrastructure compared with villages having less infrastructure. It was observed that farmers having no facility of infrastructure had higher marketing cost (35 and 31 percent more for basmati rice and wheat, respectively) than the farmers having access to infrastructure facilities. Furthermore, it was found that 27.7 percent farmers sold the marketable surplus to village dealer in the villages having infrastructure compared to only 4 percent in the villages having less infrastructure. It was obvious that infrastructure provided an incentive to village dealer for relatively more coverage. Both mean and per capita net household income of farm household was higher in the villages having infrastructure relative to villages having less infrastructure. The magnitude of the difference was to the extent of 18 percent in mean net household income and 25 percent in net per capita income. The ratio of satisfied household from their jobs was 30 percent higher in villages having infrastructure as compared to villages having less infrastructure.