An analysis of the effects of the subsidies targeting on rural households; applying the approach of sustainable livelihoods in Kalat and Binalud County

Introduction According to general census in 2011, rural population of the country has been over 21 million and 603 thousand people. Considering the per capita monthly subsidy equivalent to 455,000 riyals, it can be resulted that in the first three years of the project, over 353 trillion has been allocated to rural community. Calculations show that this amount is equivalent to 2.4% of the total budget intended for this period of time. It was the first time that this amount of cash was being directly distributed among villagers by its cost and expenditure management being transferred to the families themselves. It seems that this method of paying subsidies has greatly influenced on economic and social status of rural communities. Considering economic and cultural structure of rural societies together with attempts to remedy the lack of liquidity, a large amount of subsidies granted is spending for household livelihood expenses such as food, non-food and service expenses. Therefore, in this article we are intended to investigate the impacts of targeted subsidies on the current status of livelihood expenses of rural households in different social strata as well as making a comparison of targeted subsidies in two geographical areas (Kalat and Binalud). Generally, in this research we are trying to find answers to the questions that: 1) how is the position of natural resources, economic capital and people s income in rural areas of Kalat and Binalud (Torghabeh Shandiz)? 2) How did targeted subsidies affect to change patterns of livelihood expenses in different classes of rural areas in the County of Kalat and Binalud? And is there any significant difference between the two areas or not? Methodology This research is an applied one which has been provided using the quantitative approach of descriptive-analytical. This is an exploratory research, as well. Basically, it has been done using the principals of survey researches which has investigated the effects of targeted subsidies (independent variable) on livelihood expenses of rural households (dependent variable) applying post event processing. This research has done in the two cities of Kalat and Binalud located in Khorasan Razavi. There are two reasons for choosing these cities. First, these are greatly influenced by their position i.e., they are located near the metropolitan County of Mashhad. Then, due to the border location of the two cities, not many researchers have concentrated on the matter of development in these areas, yet. So, due to the importance of environmental contrasts in geography, data analysis has been conducted using comparative approach that helped us study different aspects of the matter to determine and classify the role of different geographical foundations (including natural conditions, the distribution of basic economic resources, income, and social conditions) in class differences among rural groups. We have eventually compared the impact of paying subsidies on the increase of income and consequently on changing spending patterns of livelihood expenses by the residents of the two areas. Questionnaires providing in two types of qualitative and quantitative are being considered as the main tools of the study. Quantitative questions are mostly intended to answer the first question of the research which includes some issues of households' social features (population, age, gender, education) and economic resources (occupation, expenses and income, land, livestock, housing, and machinery resources). Qualitative questions aim at the investigation of changes in spending patterns by rural households to answer the second question arose in the research. This type of questions consist of 8 main components (food and non-food items, educational, medical, and healthcare expenses, communication services, tourism, Energy, agricultural institutions) of more than 54 reagents. Discussion and conclusion Emphasizing sustainable livelihoods approach, this research aims at analyzing consequences of targeted subsidies plan on the changes in spending patterns in different social strata of rural communities. Then, comparing the results in the two areas of Kalat and Binalud we will be able to examine the impact of geographical factors. As contrasting foundations of every natural area can be considered to be the basis of economic and social differences of different societies that may be changed later by the government policies. According to the survey, particular environmental situations and capacities of rural settlements in each of these areas has made different economic functions at regional level related to local communications and its connection with the metropolitan County of Mashhad. These factors are so much effective that each single one can cause long-time consolidation of special economic, social and cultural mechanisms in rural areas and geographical environments. There is no doubt that these factors firstly influence the economic business of the studied area. In Binalud, there are approximately 10 % of rich families by an average monthly income of higher than 20 million riyals which are owning of almost about 21% of economic resources. In return, the rest 70% of low-income families (less than 10 million riyals) are providing with 52% of economic resources. This situation indicates bigger class differences in this area. The above mentioned indicators are not so much far from each other in Kalat. Additionally, different interactions and communications between urban and rural areas and their impacts on the households' livelihoods caused changes in spending patterns of rural households. Because,b 65% of Kalat villagers mentioned that, compared to the past, after receiving cash subsidies no change occurred in their spending. As an overall conclusion, the new method of targeted subsidies has relatively influenced the increase of income in lower social classes (about 15 to 25%) and somewhat moderated class differences. This factor has greatly affected spending patterns and made it improved, while it can be said that, due to the free price of subsidized goods, it didn’t lead to the sustainable livelihood of households.