ResearchBib Share Your Research, Maximize Your Social Impacts
Sign for Notice Everyday Sign up >> Login

The study role of Small Industries on improving the livelihoods of rural households (Case study: Sirvan and Chrdavl counties- Ilam)

Journal: Agricultural Economics (Vol.10, No. 4)

Publication Date:

Authors : ; ;

Page : 139-155

Keywords : Small Industries; Livelihood Approach; Employment; Rural Economy; Sirvan & Chardavol Counties.;

Source : Downloadexternal Find it from : Google Scholarexternal

Abstract

This research is to investigate the role of small businesses on livelihood assets of employed households in this type of industry in the period before and after employment and also non-employees with the approach of livelihood in the counties of Sirvan and Chardavol approach. Therefore, we investigated 20 villages of the two counties that is placed the number of 51 small industrial units in your range. According to Cochran correlation, a total of 373 employees were selected as the sample of 189 workers to respond to the questionnaire into two periods: before and after employment. As well as a total of 10155 families residing in tow counties, were selected as the sample of 376 non-employed heads of households to respond to the questionnaire related to non-employment. To collect research data used a survey design and completion of questionnaires and interviews with employees. The collected data is analyzed by using t, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests in spss software. The findings showed that aside from natural capital (pre-employment with an average of 2.32 & post-employment with an average of 2.55); the amount of human, financial, social and physical capitals & total capital of employed families after working in small industries (respectively 3.56, 3.81, 4.34, 3.80 & 3.61) is higher than the pre-employment (respectively 1.71, 1.39, 2.32, 2.28 & 2.05) and also the establishment of small industries in rural counties studied aside from natural capital (employeds with an average of 296.55 & non- employeds with an average of 276.19); has a positive effect on employed household (respectively 410.56, 434.54, 380.74, 359.58 & 374.46) than non-employed household (respectively 218.88, 206.82, 233.87, 244.55 & 237.03).

Last modified: 2018-08-20 15:32:39