The study aims to examine the livelihood of Sambalpuri handloom weavers of Western Odisha, India. By using the primary field survey data and analysing both the qualitative and quantitative data, it presents the socio-economic conditions of the weavers. A binary choice model is used to analyse the livelihood of weavers. The analysis shows that although the price of the product is quite high, almost all the weavers are not satisfied with the amount of the emoluments that they receive. The middleman plays a critical role in marketing. But the actual benefits from marketing the Sambalpuri handloom products are going to middleman rather than weavers. It recommends making necessary policies both by the central as well as the state governments to rescue these handloom weavers.
AshleyC., & CarneyD. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experiences. Department for International Development.
2.
BortamulyA. B., GoswamiK., & HazarikaB. (2013). Determinants of occupational choice of workers in the handloom industry in Assam. International Journal of Social Economics, 40(12), 1041–1057.
3.
BrennigJ. J. (1986). Textile producers and production in late 17th century coromandel. Indian Economic and Social History Review, 23(4), 333.
4.
Business World. (2020, July 30). Vidya Balan dons saree with mathematical equations for 'Shakuntala Devi' e-promotions.
5.
ChambersR. (1989). Editorial introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy, In ChambersR. (Ed.), Vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS Bulletin, 2(2), 1–7.
6.
ChambersR., & ConwayG. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for 21st century (Discussion Paper 296). IDS Sussex.
7.
CrillR. (1998). Indian ikat textiles. Victoria and Albert Museum.
8.
De HaanA. (1999). Livelihoods and poverty: The role of migration – A critical review of the migration literature. Journal of Development Studies, 36(2), 1–47.
9.
De HaanA. (2011). Inclusive growth? Labour migration and poverty in India(Working Paper No. 513, ISS Working Paper).
10.
De NeveG. (2003). Expectations and rewards of modernity: Commitment and mobility among rural migrants in Tirupur, Tamil Nadu. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 37(1–2), 251.
11.
DesaiC. (1989). Ikat textiles of India. Thames and Hudson Ltd.
12.
Development Commissioner for Handlooms. (2019). Fourth All India Handloom Census 2019–20. Ministry of Textiles, Government of India.
13.
EllisF. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press.
14.
GhoshG. K., & GhoshS. (2000). Ikat textiles of India. APH Publishing Corporation.
15.
GittingerM. (1982). Master dyers to the world: Technique and trade in early Indian dyed cotton textiles. Textile Museum.
16.
Government of India. (2012). Sambalpuri bandha saree and fabrics. Geographical Indications Journal, 44, 22–46.
17.
LibelM., & RoyT. (2004). Handmade in India: Traditional craft skills in a changing world. In FingerJ. M., & SchulerP. (Eds), Poor people’s knowledge: Promoting intellectual property in developing countries. World Bank.
18.
LiuW., LiJ., RenL., XuJ., LiC., & LiS. (2020). Exploring livelihood resilience and its impact on livelihood strategy in rural China. Social Indicators Research, 150, 977–998.
19.
MamidipudiA., SyamasundariB., & BijkerW. (2012). Mobilising discourses: Handloom as sustainable socio-technology. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(25), 41–51.
20.
MamidipudiA. (2016). Towards a theory of innovation in handloom weaving in India. Maastricht University.
21.
McFaddenD. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In ZarembkaP. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (pp. 105–142). Academic Press.
22.
MinesM. (1984). The warrior merchants: Textiles, trade and territory in South India. Cambridge University Press.
23.
MohantyB. C. (2003). Ikat fabrics of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh: Studies in contemporary textile crafts in India, Ahmedabad.
24.
MohapatraN. (2014). A management approach to Sambalpuri sari with a sign of cultural facets. Odisha Review, 130–135.
25.
NarasaiahM. L., & KrishnaC. H. T. (1999). Crisis of handloom industry. Discovery Publishing House.
26.
NiehofA., & PriceL. L. (2001). Rural livelihood systems: A conceptual framework, Wageningen – UPWARD series on rural livelihood No. 1. WU-UPWARD.
27.
ParvinM. T., FatemaK., & HaqueS. (2020). Factors determining the credit accessibility by the small-scale entrepreneurs: A case of handloom weaving in Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Management, 15(8), 93–100.
28.
Planning Commission. (2002). Orissa development report. Government of India.
29.
PradhanS., & KhandualA. (2020). Community, local practices and cultural sustainability: A case study of Sambalpuri ikat handloom. In MuthuS. S., & GadettiM. A. (Eds.), Sustainability in the textile and apparel industries: Consumerism and fashion sustainability (pp. 121–139). Springer Nature Switzerland A.G.
30.
RaoP. S. (2012). Connecting the dots: A design approach to services for the poor [Doctoral thesis]. Northumbria University.
31.
RobinsonR. V., DavidE. J. R., & HillM. (2016). Participatory mixed methods research across cultures. In JasonL. J., & GlenwickD. S. (Eds.), Handbook of methodological approaches to community based research (273–282). Oxford University Press.
32.
RoyT. (1988). Size and structure of handloom weaving in the mid-thirties. Indian Economic and Social History Review, 25(1), 1–24.
33.
RoyT. (2002). Acceptance of innovations in early twentieth century Indian weaving. The Economic History Review, 55(3), 507–532.
34.
RoyT. (2005). Rethinking economic change in India: Labour and livelihood. Routledge.
35.
ScoonesI. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis (Working Paper, No. 72). Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
36.
ScoonesI. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171–196.
37.
UNIDO. (2008). IKAT handloom weaving cluster. Special issue on rural livelihood and poverty alleviation. UNIDO South Asia. 2(2).
