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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
