CHAPTER –V

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

5.1 Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Analysis

Percentage analysis is one of the statistical measures used to describe the sample in terms
of their demographic characteristics such as Taluks, Gender, Age, Community, Religion,
Marital Status, Education, Occupation, and Monthly Income etc., Distribution of sample
based on the above mentioned demographic characteristics is given in the following Charts
and tables.

Table 5.2 Gender wise classification of the Respondents

S. No Gender No. of the Respondents Percentage

1 Male 152 23
2 Female 497 77
Total 649 100
Source: Primary Data

The above Table 5.2 shows that among 649 respondents surveyed, majority 77 percent are

Male respondents and 23 percent are Female respondents. It reveals that Female respondents

are actively participated in this research.

respectively.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
 Table 5.29 Mean and SD of Satisfaction Level on Income

Std.
S.No
Statements Mean Deviation
1 I have sufficient income 1.46 0.55
2 Income is less than Expenses 1.61 0.49
3 Income is spent for family 1.66 0.48
4 Income is irregular 1.60 0.49
5 Income is uncertain 1.47 0.53
6 Unable to save 1.86 0.71
7 Less income for my work 2.31 1.19
8 Difference in Income for same job 2.12 1.12
9 Work is exploited 1.59 0.49
10 No satisfaction on Income level 1.57 0.50
Source: Primary Data

Mean score in the above table 5.29 reveals that “Less income for my work Insurance” which
has highest mean score (2.31) and standard deviation of 1.19, followed by Difference in
income for same job (2.12), Unable to save (1.86), Income is spent for family (1.66), Income
is less than Expenditure (1.61), Income is irregular (1.60), Work is exploited (1.59), No
satisfaction on Income level (1.57), Income is Uncertain (1.47) and the least is being “I have
sufficient Income” (1.46).

m.

CHI-SQUARE TEST

Gender and Level of Satisfaction

Ho: There is no association between Male and Female respondents and Level of Satisfaction

Table 5.42 Chi-square test for association between Male and Female and Level of
Satisfaction
 Level of Satisfaction Chi-square
Gender Total P value
Low Moderate High value
0 56 96 152
Male
(0) (37) (63) (100)
160 194 143 497
Female 86.451 0.001
(32) (39) (29) (100)
160 250 239 649
Total
(25) (39) (37) (100)
Source: Primary Data
Note: 1. The values within () refers to Row Percentage

The above table 5.42 shows that, since P value is less than 0.01, the null hypothesis is
rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence it was concluded that there is an association
between male and female respondents and Level of Satisfaction. Based on the row
percentage, 63 percent of the male respondents have high level of Satisfaction and 0 percent
of the male respondents have low level of satisfaction. In the case of female respondents 32
percent of them have low level of satisfaction and 29 percent of the female respondents have
high level of satisfaction. Majority in Female categories have low level of satisfaction than
male respondents.

FRIEDMAN TEST ANALYSIS

MEAN RANK OF SATISFACTION OF INCOME LEVEL

Ho: There is no significant difference among mean ranks of Satisfaction of Income Level

Table 5.49 Friedman test for significant difference among mean ranks of Satisfaction of
Income Level

Mean
S.No Statements of Income Chi-square value P value
Rank

1 Have sufficient Income 4.35

2 Expenses is more than Income 4.94

937.70 0.001**
3 Major income spent for family 5.09

4 Income is not regular 4.88

 5 Income is uncertain 4.84

6 Not able to save 5.70

7 Income is not sufficient 6.46

8 Different income for same job 6.01

9 There is exploitation 4.89
10 Not satisfied with my income 4.82
Note: 1. ** Denotes significant at 1% Level

It is observed from the analysis in table 5.49, Since P value is less than 0.01, the null
hypothesis is rejected at 1 percent level of significance. Hence it is concluded that there is
significant difference among mean ranks towards Satisfaction of Income Level. Based on
mean rank highest mean rank is the best one which is Income is not sufficient securing about
(6.46), followed by Different income for same job which is (6.01), then next Not able to save
which is (5.70) and the least mean score is on Have sufficient Income which is about 4.35.

Correlation Analysis on Factors of Incidence of Poverty, Rural

Development and Panjayat Raj

Relationship among the Poverty Factors

H0: There is no significant relationship between the various Factors of Incidence of

Poverty, Rural Development and Panjayat Raj

Table 5.54 Karl Pearson Correlation Coefficient between Factors of Incidence of

Poverty, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Awarenes
Satisfaction
Povert s of State
Income Expenditur on State Poverty
Factors y Borrowings and
Level e Level and Central Eradication
Causes Central
Schemes
Schemes
Poverty
1
Causes
Income
.230** 1
Level
Expenditure
.531** 0.058 1
Level
Borrowings .659** .354** .532** 1

Awareness .649** .360** .531** .329** 1

 of State and
Central
Schemes
Satisfaction
on State
.686** .261** .597** .651** .617** 1
and Central
Schemes
Poverty
.187** 0.022 -.194** .126** .080* -.253** 1
Eradication

Note: 1. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Poverty Causes: From the above table 5.54, it is crystal clear that respondents perception

towards poverty causes has significant correlation with income level (0.230), expenditure

level (0.531), borrowings (0.659), awareness of state and central schemes (0.649),

satisfaction on state and central schemes (0.686) and poverty eradication (0.187) at 0.01 level

of significance. This implies that there is a positive correlation between poverty causes and

other factors of incidence of poverty, Rural development and panchayat Raj.

Income Level: Regarding the correlation between income level, there is a positive

correlation between expenditure level (0.058), borrowings (0.354), awareness of state and

central schemes (0.360), satisfaction on state and central schemes (0.261) and poverty

eradication (0.022) at 0.01 level of significance which implies that there is a positive

correlation between the income level of the respondents and factors affecting poverty and its

incidence and there exists a significant positive relationship between income level and other

poverty factors such as borrowings, awareness of state and central schemes and satisfaction

on state and central schemes where as there does not exists a significant positive relationship

between income level and expenditure level (0.138).

Expenditure Level: From the above table it is crystal clear that respondents perception

towards expenditure level has significant correlation with poverty causes (0.531), income

level (0.058), borrowings (0.532), awareness of state and central schemes (0.531), and

satisfaction on state and central schemes (0.597) at 0.01 level of significance. This implies
that there is a positive correlation between poverty causes and factors affecting poverty and

its incidence. Expenditure level and poverty eradication (-0.194) at 0.01 level significance

have a negative correlation.

Borrowings: As far as the correlation between borrowings and other poverty factors is

concerned it implies a positive correlation between poverty causes (0.659), income level

(0.354), expenditure level (0.532), awareness of state and central schemes (0.329),

satisfaction on state and central schemes (0.651) and poverty eradication (0.126) at 0.01 level

of significance and there exists a significant positive relationship between borrowings and

other poverty factors as the P value is less than 0.05, the alternate hypothesis is accepted.

Awareness of State and Central Schemes: Regarding the correlation between the awareness

and utility of state and central schemes, there is a positive correlation between poverty causes

(0.649), income level (0.360), expenditure level (0.531), borrowings (0.329), satisfaction on

state and central schemes (0.617) and poverty eradication (0.080) at 0.01 level of significance

which implies that there is a positive correlation between the income level of the respondents

and factors affecting poverty and its incidence and there exists a significant positive

relationship between awareness of state and central schemes and other poverty factors as the

P value is less than 0.05, the alternate hypothesis is accepted.

Satisfaction on State and Central Schemes: The correlation results between the satisfaction

on state and central schemes implies positive relationship between poverty causes (0.686),

income level (0.261), expenditure level (0.597), borrowings (0.651), awareness of state and

central schemes (0.617) and negative correlation between poverty eradication (-0.253) at 0.01

significance level and there exists a significant positive relationship between satisfaction on

state and central schemes and other poverty factors as the P value is less than 0.05, the

alternate hypothesis is accepted.

Poverty Eradication: From the above table it is crystal clear that respondents perception

towards poverty eradication has significant correlation with poverty causes (0.187), income

level (0.022), borrowings (0.126) and awareness of state and central schemes (0.080) at 0.01

level of significance. This implies that there is a positive correlation between poverty causes

and factors affecting poverty and its incidence where as poverty eradication and expenditure

level (-0.194) and satisfaction on state and central schemes (-0.253) have a negative

correlation at 0.01 significance level and there exists a significant positive relationship

between poverty eradication and other poverty factors as the P value is less than 0.05, the

alternate hypothesis is accepted.

V. REGRESSION

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF INCIDENCE OF POVERTY, RURAL

DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION ON INCOME LEVEL

In this study, the dependent variable is Satisfaction on Income Level and the independent
variables are Poverty Causes, Poverty Eradication, Satisfaction on Expenditure Level,
Satisfaction on Borrowing level, Awareness of Government Schemes, Government (Central
and State) Schemes.

1. Dependent variable : Satisfaction on Income Level (Y)

2. Independent variables : : 1. Satisfaction on Expenditure Level (X1)
: 2. Satisfaction on borrowing level (X2)
: 3. Awareness of Government Schemes (X3)
: 4. Government Schemes (X4)
: 5. Poverty Eradication (X5)
: 6. Poverty Causes (X6)
3. Multiple R value : 0.531
4. R square value : 0.282
 5. F value : 42.037
6. P value : <0.001**
7. Durbin Watson : 1.692

Table: 5.55 Multiple Regression Analysis on Income

Unstandardized Standardized Collin
Coefficients Coefficients earity Statistics
T
Model P value
SE of value
B (Beta)
B Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 19.493 2.066 9.434 <.000**

-
X1 -0.308 0.025 -0.640 12.190 0.003** 0.405 2.466

X2 0.222 0.037 0.333 5.961 <.000** 0.357 2.798

x3 0.072 0.013 0.368 5.651 <.000** 0.264 3.790

X4 0.093 0.035 0.194 2.652 0.008 0.210 4.772

X5 -.088 .027 -.145 -3.202 0.001 0.549 1.822

X6 -.004 .015 -.013 -.244 0.807 0.386 2.588

Note: 1. ** Denotes significant at 1% level

2. * Denotes significant at 5% level
The multiple correlation coefficient is 0.531 measures the degree of relationship between the
actual values and the predicted values of Satisfaction on Income level. Because the predicted
values are obtained as a linear combination of Satisfaction on Expenditure Level (X 1),
Satisfaction on borrowing level (X2), Awareness of Government Schemes (X 3), Government
(Central and State) Schemes (X4), Poverty Eradication (X5), and Poverty Causes (X6). The
coefficient value of 0.531 indicates that the relationship between Satisfaction on Income level
and the six independent variables is quite strong and positive.
The Coefficient of Determination R-square measures the goodness-of-fit of the
estimated Sample Regression Plane (SRP) in terms of the proportion of the variation in the
dependent variables explained by the fitted sample regression equation.
Thus, the value of R square is 0.282 simply means that about 28 percent of the variation in
Satisfaction on Income level is explained by the estimated SRP that uses Satisfaction on
Expenditure Level, Satisfaction on borrowing level, Awareness of Government Schemes,
Government (Central and State) Schemes, Poverty Eradication, and Poverty Causes as the
independent variables and R square value is significant at 1 percent level.

The multiple regression equation is Y=19.493+ -0.308X 1+ 0.222X2+ 0.072X3+

0.093X4 + -0.88X5+ -0.004X6

Here the coefficient of X1 is -0.308 represents the partial effect of Satisfaction on Expenditure
level on Satisfaction on Income level, holding the other variables as constant. The estimated
positive sign implies that such effect is positive that Satisfaction on Income level score would
increase by -0.308 for every unit increase in Satisfaction on Expenditure level and this
coefficient value is significant at 1 percent level.

Similarly coefficient of X2 is 0.222, X3 is 0.072, X4 is 0.093,X5 is -.088, X6 is -.004 also

represents the partial effect on Satisfaction on Income level holding the other variables as
constant. The estimated positive sign implies the effect is positive for every unit increase and
this coefficient value is significant at 5 percent level.

Based on standardized coefficient, Awareness of Government Schemes (0.368) is the most

important factors to extract Satisfaction on Income level, followed by Satisfaction on
borrowing level (0.333), Government (Central and State) Schemes (0.194). Other
independent variables are statistically significant and positively contribute to Satisfaction on
Income level from the table 5.55