Subsistence and Rural Livelihood

Fischer, Andrew M.. “Subsistence and Rural Livelihood Strategies in Tibet under Rapid Economic and Social Transition”. Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies. 4 (Dec 2008).

This article discusses the role of subsistence in the livelihood strategies of rural Tibetan households during rapid economic and social transition. Fischer argues that subsistence is highly valued in these rural communities because it provides a choice. First, this is observed through “subsistence capacity” and income poverty and asset wealth. Second, Fischer relates that many rural Tibetans rely on low wage manual jobs despite the fact that this kind of work is used for a transition out of agriculture and low levels of education.

By observing the first paradox Fischer is able to account for not only physical wealth but also the aspects of wealth that are difficult to capture through conventional measures. He looks at wealth in terms of being able to subsist in household production. In one graph it shows the per capital rural household incomes. It appears that Tibet is fairly well off but in reality the graph does not account for inflation. Once again when looking at agriculture productivity it seems as though Tibet is above the national average but when you look at output to worker they fall far behind the national average. Conclusions show that low wage jobs are not worth it for small families because inflation will continue because of the rise of the nearby privileged public job sector. For my project I am curious how much economy affects the wages of Bylakuppe farmers. Do the farm workers tend to be of lower income families? What kind of wages do they make? How important is their job to them? How often are they finding new help?