Abstract
This paper provides an access based explanation of why institutional arrangements of compensation provision for land acquisition often fail to effectively rehabilitate displaced farmers in a developing country context like India. Farmers have a right to claim compensation in case of land takings, which specifies two methods of claim: consent method and arbitration method. Literature indicates that farmers' choice between the two methods has a significant impact on the compensation they receive. Using a binary response model on a primary dataset of 199 displaced farmers from Upper Krishna Irrigation Project, India, we analyse the determinants of this choice. We validate 'access based' hypotheses in choice of compensation and test whether in addition to allocated property rights, benefits actually depend on the 'access mechanisms' farmers have. Results suggest that the choice is governed by access to social identity and information. Therefore, farmers lacking these fail to get resettled despite the presence of a policy framework aimed at their rehabilitation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 548-564 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Journal of Development Studies |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 17 Partnerships for the Goals
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver