Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 240

CHAPTER-1

OVERVIEW

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 1
1.1 Introduction:

In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an
economy over a period of time. When the price level rises, each unit of currency buys
fewer goods and services; consequently, inflation is also erosion in the purchasing power
of money – a loss of real value in the internal medium of exchange and unit of ac in the
economy. A chief measure of price inflation is the inflation rate, the annualized
percentage change in a general price index (normally the Consumer Price Index) over
time.

Inflation can have many effects that can simultaneously have positive and negative
effects on an economy. Negative effects of inflation include a decrease in the real value
of money and other monetary items over time; uncertainty about future inflation may
discourage investment and saving, or may lead to reductions in investment of productive
capital and increase savings in non-producing assets. e.g. selling stocks and buying gold.
This can reduce overall economic productivity rates, as the capital required to retool
companies becomes more elusive or expensive. High inflation may lead to shortages of
goods if consumers begin hoarding out of concern that prices will increase in the future.
Positive effects include a mitigation of economic recessions, and debt relief by reducing
the real level of debt.

Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by
an excessive growth of the money supply. Views on which factors determine low to
moderate rates of inflation are more varied. Low or moderate inflation may be attributed
to fluctuations in real demand for goods and services, or changes in available supplies
such as during scarcities, as well as to growth in the money supply. However, the
consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply
growing faster than the rate of economic growth.

Today, most mainstream economists favor a low steady rate of inflation. Low (as
opposed to zero or negative) inflation may reduce the severity of economic recessions by
enabling the labor market to adjust more quickly in a downturn, and reduce the risk that a
liquidity trap prevents monetary policy from stabilizing the economy. The task of
keeping the rate of inflation low and stable is usually given to monetary authorities.
Generally, these monetary authorities are the central banks that control the size of the

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 2
money supply through the setting of interest rates, through open market operations, and
through the setting of banking reserve requirements.

1.2 History of inflation:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 3
Inflation originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation. For
instance, when gold was used as currency, the government could collect gold coins, melt
them down, mix them with other metals such as silver, copper or lead, and reissue them
at the same nominal value. By diluting the gold with other metals, the government could
issue more coins without also needing to increase the amount of gold used to make them.
When the cost of each coin is lowered in this way, the government profits from an
increase in seignior age. This practice would increase the money supply but at the same
time the relative value of each coin would be lowered. As the relative value of the coins
becomes less, consumers would need to give more coins in exchange for the same goods
and services as before. These goods and services would experience a price increase as
the value of each coin is reduced.

From second half of the 15th century to the first half of the 17th, Western Europe
experienced a major inflationary cycle referred to as "price revolution", with prices on
average rising perhaps six fold over 150 years. It was thought that this was caused by the
increase in wealth of Habsburg Spain, with a large influx of gold and silver from the
New World. The spent silver, suddenly spread throughout a previously cash starved
Europe, caused widespread inflation. Demographic factors also contributed to upward
pressure on prices, with European population growth after depopulation caused by the
Black Death pandemic.

By the nineteenth century, economists categorized three separate factors that cause a rise
or fall in the price of goods: a change in the value or resource costs of the good, a change
in the price of money which then was usually a fluctuation in the commodity price of the
metallic content in the currency, and currency depreciation resulting from an increased
supply of currency relative to the quantity of redeemable metal backing the currency.
Following the proliferation of private bank note currency printed during the American
Civil War, the term "inflation" started to appear as a direct reference to the currency
depreciation that occurred as the quantity of redeemable bank notes outstripped the
quantity of metal available for their redemption. The term inflation then referred to the
devaluation of the currency, and not to a rise in the price of goods.

This relationship between the over-supply of bank notes and a resulting depreciation in
their value was noted by earlier classical economists such as David Hume and David
Ricardo, who would go on to examine and debate to what effect a currency devaluation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 4
(later termed monetary inflation) has on the price of goods (later termed price inflation,
and eventually just inflation).

1.3 Inflation in India:

India has been the cynosure for the past few years in the global economic arena owing to
its changing inflation patterns. Between the fiscal year 2004-05 and 2007-2008, India

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 5
had experienced an average growth rate of more than 9%, but the global crunch pinched
the economy so hard that the economy gave in to the adverse external shocks and few
sectors experienced a slump. Inflation in India 2009 stands at 11.49% Y-o-Y. The
inflation rate is referred to the general rise in prices, taking into consideration the
common man's purchasing power. Inflation is mostly measured in CPI.

In 2008 industry bodies, policy makers were all worried with the steadily-
mounting inflation. The middle of the year augmented the tension as the majority of
the population was wary of a double-digit inflation but things changed within few
months. Inflation in India actually fell below 1% during the third week of March, 2009.
The moderate inflation is the desirable of all too much of it or too less of it, in every way
worries the policy makers.

Understanding in the right manner inflation is such a situation when too many people
chase too few goods and too few services, which automatically makes the prices of the
goods and services high because of the high demand. At the same time, when inflation
falls below the desired mark (in the negative territory), then too few people chase too
many goods and too many services, making the prices of the goods and services under-
priced.

The India inflation is actually measured by the Y-o-Y variation in the Wholesale Price
Index. While the inflation as measured by WPI is at present at a very low level, the
inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index is at elevated levels of 9 to 10%.1

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 10.45 9.63 8.03 8.70 8.63 9.29 11.89 11.72 11.64 11.49 13.51 14.97
2008 5.51 5.47 7.87 7.81 7.75 7.69 8.33 9.02 9.77 10.45 10.45 9.70
2007 6.72 7.56 6.72 6.67 6.61 5.69 6.45 7.26 6.40 5.51 5.51 5.51
2006 4.39 5.31 5.31 5.26 6.14 7.89 6.90 5.98 6.84 7.63 6.72 6.72

1 http://business.mapsofindia.com/inflation/

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 6
1.4 Calculation of inflation:

Some economists assert that India’s method of calculating inflation is wrong as there are
serious flaws in the methodologies used by the government.2

• India uses the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) to calculate and then decide the
inflation rate in the economy.

2 http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/jun/07infla.htm

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 7
• Most developed countries use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to calculate
inflation.

1.4.1 Wholesale Price Index (WPI)

WPI was first published in 1902, and was one of the more economic indicators available
to policy makers until it was replaced by most developed ries by the Consumer Price
Index in the 1970s.

WPI is the index that is used to measure the change in the average price level of goods
traded in wholesale market. In India, a total of 435 commodities data on price level is
tracked through WPI which is an indicator of movement in prices of commodities in all
trade and transactions. It is also the price index which is available on a weekly basis with
the shortest possible time lag only two weeks. The Indian government has taken WPI as
an indicator of the rate of inflation in the economy.

1.4.2 Consumer Price Index (CPI)

CPI is a statistical time-series measure of a weighted average of prices of a specified set


of goods and services purchased by consumers. It is a price index that tracks the prices of
a specified basket of consumer goods and services, providing a measure of inflation.

CPI is a fixed quantity price index and considered by some a cost of living index. Under
CPI, an index is scaled so that it is equal to 100 at a chosen point in time, so that all other
values of the index are a percentage relative to this one.

Economists Shunmugam and Prasad say it is high time that India abandoned WPI and
adopted CPI to calculate inflation.

India is the only major ry that uses a wholesale index to measure inflation. Most ries use
the CPI as a measure of inflation, as this actually measures the increase in price that a
consumer will ultimately have to pay for.

1.4.3 How is WPI (Wholesale Price Index) calculated?


In this method, a set of 435 commodities and their price changes are used for the
calculation. The selected commodities are supposed to represent various strata of the
economy and are supposed to give a comprehensive WPI value for the economy.

WPI is calculated on a base year and WPI for the base year is assumed to be 100. To
show the calculation, let’s assume the base year to be 1970. The data of wholesale prices

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 8
of all the 435 commodities in the base year and the time for which WPI is to be
calculated is gathered.

Let's calculate WPI for the year 1980 for a particular commodity, say wheat. Assume
that the price of a kilogram of wheat in 1970 = Rs 5.75 and in 1980 = Rs 6.10

The WPI of wheat for the year 1980 is,

(Price of Wheat in 1980 – Price of Wheat in 1970)/ Price of Wheat in 1970 x 100

i.e. (6.10 – 5.75)/5.75 x 100 = 6.09

Since WPI for the base year is assumed as 100, WPI for 1980 will become 100 + 6.09 =
106.09.

In this way individual WPI values for the remaining 434 commodities are calculated and
then the weighted average of individual WPI figures are found out to arrive at the overall
Wholesale Price Index. Commodities are given weight-age depending upon its influence
in the economy.

1.4.4 How is inflation rate calculated?


If we have the WPI values of two time zones, say, beginning and end of year, the
inflation rate for the year will be,

(WPI of end of year – WPI of beginning of year)/WPI of beginning of year x 100


For example, WPI on Jan 1st 1980 is 106.09 and WPI of Jan 1st 1981 is 109.72 then
inflation rate for the year 1981 is,

(109.72 – 106.09)/106.09 x 100 = 3.42% and we say the inflation rate for the year 1981
is 3.42%.

Since WPI figures are available every week, inflation for a particular week (which
usually means inflation for a period of one year ended on the given week) is calculated
based on the above method using WPI of the given week and WPI of the week one year
before. This is how we get weekly inflation rates in India.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 9
1.4.5 Characteristics of WPI
Following are the few characteristics of Wholesale Price Index:

• WPI uses a sample set of 435 commodities for inflation calculation

• The price from wholesale market is taken for the calculation

• WPI is available for every week

• It has a time lag of two weeks, which means WPI of the week two weeks back
will be available now

CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH
NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 10
METHODOLOGY

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 11
2.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

➢ To find out middle class people views about inflation and price rise in the
economy.
➢ To find out effect of inflation on the family budget of middle class people North
and central Gujarat.
➢ To find out the effect of inflation on the different consumption object of middle
class income group.
➢ To find out change in the saving of the people.
➢ To find out people view on steps taken by government to control the inflation.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 12
2.2 SOURCES OF DATA
For systematic research, information is required from different sources of data.

➢ Primary Data:
Primary data may be described as those data that have been observed and recorded
by the researcher for the first time to their knowledge. We have collected primary
data through close ended questionnaire method, filled by consumers and retailers.

➢ Secondary Data:
Secondary data means the data which are readily available from different sources.
We have gathered these data from the websites, books and magazines.

2.2.1 Research methodology for Primary Survey

The research methodology adopted for primary survey is given below:

Research Approach:

➢ For gathering primary data, we have used survey approach, which is widely
used method for data collection and best suited for quantitative descriptive type
of research survey.
Research Instrument:

➢ For our research we have used questionnaire, which is the most, common
instrument used to collect the primary data. A questionnaire consists of the set
of questions presented to the respondents for their answers.

Questionnaire design:

Our prime objective of making questionnaire design is such that we want to find
the effect of the inflation on the consumption people, Like we want to measure
consumers their effort to match with inflation, and use of their saving and
investment option to them.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 13
➢ For fulfilling our objective we make questionnaire design on the basis of
following methods of measuring advertising effectiveness.

○ Likert semantic scale.


○ Dichotomous Questions
○ Filter or Contingency Questions
○ Rank Order Scaling

Sampling plan:
Here for research purpose sampling plan is prepared. This plan called for three
decisions.

I. Sampling unit
II. Sample size
III. Sampling procedure

○ Sampling unit (who is to be surveyed?)


The sampling units are the generally common people who normally buying
good and services in routine life but they are falling in the income group of
71000 to 300000.

○ Sample size (No. People should be surveyed)


For the purpose of research two hundred people of common class people
across Gujarat. Each and every Consumer is contacted with various
occupations like service person, businessman, professional and farmers.

○ Sampling procedure (how should the respondents chosen?)


To obtain representative center sample of the population should be drawn. Thus
here non-probability, convenient sampling method is used for consumer.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 14
2.3 ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH:

Statistical Tool: Chi-Square

➢ Chi-square is used with the help of applying SPSS software. In test we make
certain hypothesis and by applying T-Test and check the hypothesis on the bases
of choosing appropriate factor. So this way we try to analyze the data collected
through survey and try to present a clear picture of effectiveness of Radio FM
advertisement on listeners, Experts and focus group.

➢ Researcher had made certain hypothesis for better research for example

Ho: inflation affects the Sugar and Jaggary is independent to Family income

H1: inflation affects the Sugar and Jaggary is dependent to Family income

Ho: inflation affects the Edible oil is independent to sex

H1: inflation affects the Edible oil is dependent to sex

➢ Annova table: The Analysis Of Variance (or ANOVA) is a powerful and


common statistical procedure in the social sciences. It can handle a variety of
situations. We have used about the different situation of one between groups
factor here and two between groups factors in the next section.

➢ Reliability: Analysis Reliability analysis allows you to study the properties of


measurement scales and the items that make them up. The Reliability Analysis
procedure calculates a number of commonly used measures of scale reliability
and also provides information about the relationships between individual items
in the scale. Interclass correlation coefficients can be used to compute interpreter
reliability estimates.
➢ Correlation: Correlations measure how variables or rank orders are related.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 15
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE
REVIEWS

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 16
Chapter 3 Literature reviews

Topic: Evaluating Core Inflation Measures for India


Author: Motilal Bicchal, Naresh Kumar Sharma and Bandi Kamaiah
Abstract:
This paper discusses in some detail various existing approaches of measuring core
inflation, evaluating their potential advantages and disadvantages. Then a variety of
measures of core inflation for India based on three methods are constructed. Among
these measures, three are based on conventional ex-food and energy principle and one
measure that exclude fifteen of most volatile components are constructed. While
constructing exclusion based indices of core inflation, measures are constructed such that
only a small weight remains excluded from the index of the core inflation. The other two
core measures are variations of ‘Neo-Edgeworthian Index’ are constructed by
reweighting 69 disaggregated components series of WPI. Then another class of core
measures are computed based on weighted exponential smoothing which was primarily
developed by Cogley (2002). Estimates of core inflation based on their indices are then
Calculated for 1995 to 2007 (on monthly basis).
Conclusion:
Since the inception of the term core inflation, there is neither a commonly accepted
theoretical
definition nor an agreed method of measuring it. Because of the fact that it is
unobservable, it has to be estimated. One of the objectives of this paper was to review
existing theoretical approaches of measuring core inflation. We, then, constructed several
measures of core inflation for India. Among these measures, three are based on popular
ad hoc exclusion principle and one measure that excludes fifteen of most volatile
components. While constructing exclusion based core indices, we determined that it
should be done such that small amount of weight is excluded in constructing the core
index. The other two core measures, which are variations of ‘Neo-Edgeworthian Index’,
were constructed by reweighting 69 disaggregated components series of WPI. Further,
another class of core measures was constructed based on weighted exponential
smoothing which was primarily developed by Cogley (2002).

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 17
Topic: Inflation Targeting in India: Issues and Prospects
Author: Raghbendra Jha

Abstract:

Inflation targeting (henceforth IT) has emerged as a significant monetary policy


framework in both developed and transition economies. Some authors have argued that
for transition economies undergoing sustained financial liberalization and integration in
world financial markets IT is an attractive monetary policy framework. The present
paper evaluates the case for IT in India. It begins by stating the objectives of monetary
policy in India and argues that inflation control cannot be an exclusive concern of
monetary policy with widespread poverty still present. The rationale for IT is then spelt
out and found to be incomplete. The paper provides some evidence on the effects of IT in
developed and transition economies and argues that although IT may have been
responsible for maintaining a low inflation regime it has not brought down the inflation
rate itself substantially. Further, the volatility of exchange rate and output movements in
transition ries adopting IT has been higher than in developed market economies. I then
discuss India’s experience with using rules-based policy measures (nominal targets) and
discuss why India is not ready for IT. I show that even if the Reserve Bank of India
(RBI) wanted to, it could not pursue IT since the short-term interest rate (the principal
policy tool used to affect inflation in ries working with IT) does not have significant
effects on the rate of inflation. The paper concludes by listing monetary policy options
for India at the current time.
Conclusion:
This paper has argued that the primary objective of Indian monetary policy, at least in
the medium term, has to be the attainment of higher economic growth. Moreover, since
India has high inflation aversion, this objective does not conflict with that of short term
stabilization.
Monetary policy in India has to be conducted against this background. This paper has
argued that the multi-objective formulation pursued by the RBI has merit and that such
monetary policy should be pursued to maintain stable interest and inflation rates and a
slightly undervalued currency in order to engineer higher export led growth.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 18
A second policy measure is weighted towards real exchange rate appreciation (more in
line with IT) and would involve relatively larger current ac deficits. Real appreciation, in
turn, could be secured by nominal appreciation or by permitting higher inflation. Both
policies would lead to low inflation rates and reduced inflows of foreign capital and,
therefore, lower accumulation of reserves at given rates of sterilization. Policy packages
that use import liberalization would, like real appreciation, permit higher absorption via
higher current ac deficits but without penalizing exports. The optimal package for India
is a judicious combination of these two broad sets of policies with greater emphasis on
fiscal consolidation and import liberalization, rather than real exchange rate appreciation
via nominal appreciation or inflation. These are essential elements of an appropriate
monetary policy regime for India.

Topic: Inflation Determination with Taylor Rules: A Critical Review


Author: John H. Cochrane

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 19
Abstract:
The new-Keynesian, Taylor-rule theory of inflation determination relies on explosive
dynamics. By raising interest rates in response to inflation, the Fed does not directly
stabilize future inflation. Rather, the Fed threatens hyperinflation or deflation, unless
inflation jumps to one particular value on each date. However, there is nothing in
economics to rule out hyperinflationary or deflationary solutions. Therefore, inflation is
just as indeterminate under “active” interest rate targets as it is under standard fixed
interest rate targets. Inflation determination requires ingredients beyond an interest-rate
policy that follows the Taylor principle.

Conclusion:
Practically all verbal explanations for the wisdom of the Taylor principle — the Fed
should increase interest rates more than one for one with inflation — use old-Keynesian,
stabilizing, logic: This action will raise real interest rates, which will dampen demand,
which will lower future inflation. New-Keynesian models operate in an entirely different
manner: by raising interest rates in response to inflation, the Fed threatens hyperinflation
or deflation, or at a minimum a large “non-local” movement, unless inflation jumps to
one particular value.

Topic: inflation theory: a critical Literature review and a new Research agenda
Author: Alfredo Saad-Filho
Abstract:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 20
Marxian analyses of inflation tend to fall under three broad categories, those that
emphasize primarily the role distributive conflicts, monopoly power, or state intervention
on the dynamics of credit money. This article reviews these interpretations, and indicates
how they can be integrated. The proposed approach, based on the 'extra money' view,
departs from the circuit of capital and the endogeneity of credit money in order to
explain inflation in inconvertible paper money systems.

Conclusion:
They
This article has analyzed critically the three best known Marxian theories of inflation.
They argue, in different ways, that inflation is a historically specific phenomenon, but its
form can be abstractly determined from the broad features of modem capitalism.
However, beyond a certain point concrete studies become necessary in order to
contextualize the analysis. Different alternatives are proposed in order to overcome the
difficult dilemmas imposed by the attempt to explain inflation in inconvertible money
systems, while preserving the endogeneity and non-neutrality of money. They are also
heavily dependent on the context of the analysis.

Topic: exchange rate regimes and inflation – Only hard pegs make a difference
Author: Michael Bleaney and Manuela Francisco
Abstract:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 21
Previous research has suggested that pegged exchange rates are associated with lower
inflation than floating rates. In which direction does the causality run? Using data from a
large sample of developing ries from 1984 to 2000, we confirm that “hard” pegs
(currency boards or a shared currency) reduce inflation and money growth. There is no
evidence that “soft” pegs confer any monetary discipline. The choice between soft pegs
and floats is determined by inflation: when inflation is low, pegs tend to be chosen and
sustained, and when inflation is high, either floats are chosen or there are frequent
regime switches.

Conclusion:
The theoretical analysis suggested that pegs would be associated with lower inflation
than floats, provided that the costs of devaluation were significant. Whether the costs of
devaluation represent a major deterrent to inflation in any given form of peg is an
empirical question. In our empirical work we distinguish hard pegs (a shared currency or
a currency board) from other forms of peg (soft pegs), on the grounds that the obstacles
or disincentives to devaluation are much higher for hard pegs.

Topic: Inflation and Growth: In Search of a Stable Relationship


Author: Michael Bruno and William Easterly

Abstract:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 22
Are inflation and growth inversely associated, directly associated, or not associated? Is
the empirical inflation growth relationship primarily a long-run relationship across ries, a
short run relationship across time, or both? Like a bickering couple, inflation and growth
just cannot seem to decide what their relationship should be.

Conclusion:
The early empirical literature on inflation and growth found little in the way of a
relationship between the two. The growth literature detected a relationship between
inflation and growth only after ries kindly provided some discrete high inflation crises in
the 1980s. And even then it was still unclear whether there was a long-run or a short-run
relationship because the empirical relationships were weak with long-period averages
and strong with short-period averages. Despite extensive counseling by the new growth
literature, the indecisive couple of inflation and growth cannot decide whether they
belong together in the short run or in the long run.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 23
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 24
4.1 Demographics:

a. Gender:

Gender: - Male respondents: 168, Female Respondents: 32

b. Occupation:

Occupation: - Service: 92, Business: 51, Professionals: 13, Farmers: 44

c. Family Income:

Income: - 71000-150000: 78, 151000-300000: 111, more than 300000: 11

d. No. of person in Family

Family Members: - 1-2: 8, 3-4: 67, 5-6: 99, More than 6: 26

e. No. of Service person in 2008 and in 2009:

Service person in 2008: - 0-2: 196, More than 2: 4

Service Person in 2009: -0-2: 194, More than 2: 6

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 25
f. No. of Children Studying:

No of Children studying: 1-2: 181, More than 2: 19

4.2 How inflation affect the consumer?

4.2.1 Sex

Effect of inflation * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
effect of strongly agree 81 15 96
inflation agree 75 14 89
neutral 10 1 11
disagree 2 2 4
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

Here 96 people are strongly agree that inflation affects to the buying behavior of people
out of total surveyed people among them 81 are male & 15 are female. Out of total
surveyed people 89 are agree that inflation affects to the routine life of people among
them 75 are male & 14 are female. Out of total surveyed people 4 are disagree. To sum
up approx. 70% of total people are males and remaining are females.

4.2.2 Occupation

Effect of inflation * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Profession
Service Business al Farmer Total
effect of strongly
36 23 8 29 96
inflation agree
agree 47 25 5 12 89
neutral 9 1 0 1 11
disagree 0 2 0 2 4
Total 92 51 13 44 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 26
Findings:

Out of total surveyed persons 96 are strongly agree that includes service people,
businessmen, Professional & Farmers and in number they are 36, 23, 8 & 29
respectively. In the same way persons who are agree are 89 that includes service people,
businessmen, Professional & Farmers and in number they are 47, 25, 5 & 12respy. Only
few peoples are neutral & disagree among total observed people.

4.2.3 Family income

Effect of inflation * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
effect of strongly 41 48 7 96
inflation agree
agree 26 59 4 89
neutral 7 4 0 11
disagree 4 0 0 4
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

Out of total people 78 are fall under the income between 71000 to 150000 where as 111
persons fall under the income between 151000 to 300000 and remaining 11 are from
more than 3 lacs. In the slab of 71 to 150 thousand 41 are agree 26 are agree 7 are neutral
& 4 are disagree. In the slab of 151 to 300 thousand 48 are agree 59 are agree 4 are
neutral & no one is disagree. In the slab more than 300 thousand 7 are agree 4 are agree
& no one is from neutral & disagree.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 27
4.2.4 No of member in family

Effect of inflation * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family Total


1-2 3-4 5-6 more than
6
effect of strongly 4 32 43 17 96
inflation agree
agree 2 32 46 9 89
neutral 0 3 8 0 11
disagree 2 0 2 0 4
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

Out of total people 8 are fall under such family that consists less than 2 member where as
67 persons fall under such family that consists family member between 3 to 4 and 99
3are fall under such family that consists less than 2 member income between 151000 to
300000 and remaining 11 are from more than 300000. In the slab of 71 to 150 thousand
41 are agree 26 are agree 7 are neutral & 4 are disagree. In the slab of 151 to 300
thousand 48 are agree 59 are agree 4 are neutral & no one is disagree. In the slab more
than 300 thousand 7 are agree 4 are agree & no one is from neutral & disagree.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 28
4.2.5 No of service person in 2008

Effect of inflation * No of service person in 2008 Cross tabulation

No of service person in 2008 Total


0-2 3-4
effect of strongly agree 94 2 96
inflation
agree 87 2 89
neutral 11 0 11
disagree 4 0 4
Total 196 4 200

Findings:

In above table No of service person in family and effect of inflation on consumption, it is


given that 94 respondents from less than 2 persons earning in family strongly agree that
inflation affects their consumption where as 87 people are agree with that. While 4
people are disagree. Where as a family consist of 3 to 4 earning persons believe that
inflation doesn’t affect very largely to the buying behavior of people.

4.2.6 No of service person in 2009

Effect of inflation * No of service person in 2009 Cross tabulation

No of service person in 2009 Total


0-2 3-4
effect of strongly agree 94 2 96

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 29
inflation
agree 87 2 89
neutral 11 0 11
disagree 2 2 4
Total 194 6 200

Findings:

In above table No of service person in family and effect of inflation on consumption, it is


given that 94 respondents from less than 2 persons earning in family strongly agree that
inflation affects their consumption where as 87 people are agree with that. While 4
people are disagree. Where as a family consist of 3 to 4 earning persons believe that
inflation doesn’t affect very largely to the buying behavior of people.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 30
4.3 How inflation affect most to the different consumption object?

Mode:

Particula Foo Educatio Clothe Transportatio LP Entrainment Phon


r d n s n G s e light
bill
Mode 1 2 2 4 6 6 7

Findings:

From the mode calculation of data which shows that food expense are mostly affected by
the inflation in the economy because the food is basic necessity for every consumer.
After food the measure affected object are clothes and education expenses. After that the
transportation expenses are affected most. At last the entertainment expense, LPG
consumption and phone bill consumption is affected.

Median

Particula Food Educatio Clothe Transportatio LPG Entrainment Phone


r n s n s light
bill
Median 1 3 2 5 5 6 5

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 31
From the median calculation of data which shows that food expense are mostly affected
by the inflation in the economy because the food is basic necessity for every consumer.
After food the measure affected object are clothes and education expenses. After that the
transportation expenses are affected most. LPG consumption and phone bill consumption
is affected. At last the entertainment expense is effected by inflation the middle class
people give more priority to the basic necessity while entertainment expense are having
secondary importance.

4.4 How you allocate your family budget for cereals and pulses in year 2008?

4.4.1 SEX:

Cereals & pulses * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
cereals & 6-10 % 36 10 46
pulses
10-15 % 104 21 125
more than 16 28 1 29
%
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of cereals & pulses and sex of
respondents, majority of males allocate 10 to 15 % to cereals & pulses while 28 of male
allocate more than 16%. Twenty one female allocate 10 to 15 % to cereals & pulses
while 1 of female allocates more than 16%.

4.4.2 Occupation:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 32
Cereals & pulses * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
cereals & 6-10 21 13 1 11 46
pulses
10-15 58 34 8 25 125
more than 13 4 4 8 29
16
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of cereals & pulses and occupation of
respondents, 58 people doing service allocate 10-15 % and 13 people allocate more than
16 %. 34 people doing business allocate 10-15 % and 4 people allocate more than 16 %.
25 people doing agro work allocate 10-15 % and 8 people allocate more than 16 %.

4.4.3 Family income:

Cereals & pulses * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
cereals & 6-10 % 26 20 0 46
pulses
10-15 % 46 68 11 125
more than 6 23 0 29
16 %
Total 78 111 11 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 33
Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of cereals & pulses and income of
respondent, 46 people from income slab of 71 to 150 thousand allocate 10-15 % and 6
people allocate more than 16 %. 68 people from the income slab of 151000-300000
allocate 10-15 % and 23 people allocate more than 16 %, 11 people from the income
having more than 3lakh allocate 10 to 15 % and 8 person allocate more than 16 %.

4.5 How you allocate your family budget for cereals and pulses in year 2009?

4.5.1 Sex:

Cereals & pulses * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
cereals & pulses 0-5 2 1 3
6-10 6 2 8
10-15 82 24 106
more than 16 78 5 83
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of cereals & pulses and sex of
respondents, majority of males allocate 10 to 15 % to cereals & pulses that is 82 while 78

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 34
of male allocate more than 16%. Twenty four female allocate 10 to 15 % to cereals &
pulses while five of female allocate more than 16%.

4.5.2 Occupation:

Cereals & pulses * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Profession Farmer
al
cereals & 0-5 1 2 0 0 3
pulses
6-10 4 0 0 4 8
10-15 44 30 4 28 106
more 43 19 9 12 83
than 16
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of cereals & pulses and occupation of
respondents, forty four people doing service allocate 10 to 15 % and forty three people
allocate more than 16 %. Thirty people doing business allocate 10 to 15 % and nineteen
people allocate more than 16 %. Twenty eight people doing agro work allocate 10 to 15
% and twelve people allocate more than 16 %.

4.5.3 Family income:

Cereals & pulses * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 35
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
cereals & 0-5 3 0 0 3
pulses
6-10 6 2 0 8
10-15 50 52 4 106
more than 16 19 57 7 83
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of cereals & pulses and income of
respondents, fifty people from income slab of 71 to 150 thousand allocate 10 to 15 % and
nineteen people allocate more than 16 %. Fifty two people from the income slab of 1.5 to
3 lacs allocate 10 to 15 % and fifty seven person allocate more than 16 %,

4.5.4 Family members:

Cereals & pulses * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family Total


1-2 3-4 5-6 more than
6
cereals & 0-5 0 2 1 0 3
pulses
6-10 0 4 4 0 8
10-15 4 31 61 10 106

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 36
more than 4 30 33 16 83
16
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between family member of respondent and their budget
allocation to cereal and pulses. Thirty one and thirty respondents with 3-4 family
members allocate 10-15%, more than sixteen percentages respectively. While in family
of 5-6 member sixty one and thirty three allocate 10-15% and more than 16%. While
family with more than six family member sixteen respondents allocate more than sixteen
percentages.

4.6 How you allocate your family budget for grocery in year 2008?

4.6.1 Sex:

Grocery * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 37
Grocery 6-10 13 0 13
10-15 115 30 145
more than 16 40 2 42
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of Grocery and sex of respondents,
majority of males allocate 10 to 15 % to Grocery that is one hundred fifteen while forty
of male allocate more than 16%. Thirty female allocate 10 to 15 % to Grocery while two
of female allocate more than 16%.

4.6.2 Occupation:

Grocery * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines
s
Grocery 6-10 6 2 1 4 13
10-15 63 39 9 34
more 23 10 3 6
than 16
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of Grocery and occupation of


respondents, sixty three people doing service allocate 10 to 15 % and twenty three people

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 38
allocate more than 16 %. Thirty nine people doing business allocate 10 to 15 % and ten
people allocate more than 16 %. Thirty four people doing agro work allocate 10 to 15 %
and six people allocate more than 16 %.

4.6.3 Family income:

Grocery * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Grocery 6-10 6 6 1 13
10-15 64 75 6 145
more than 8 30 4 42
16
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of Grocery and income of


respondents, sixty four people from income slab of 71 to 150 thousand allocate 10 to 15
% and eight people allocate more than 16 %. Seventy five people from the income slab
of 1.5 to 3 lakh allocate 10 to 15 % and thirty person allocate more than 16 %,

4.7 How you allocate your family budget for grocery in year 2009?

4.7.1 Sex:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 39
Grocery * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Grocery 0-5 0 2 2
6-10 4 2 6
10-15 71 18 89
more than 16 93 10 103
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of Grocery and sex of respondents,
majority of males allocate 10 to 15 % to Grocery that is seventy one while ninety three of
males allocate more than 16%. Eighteen females allocate 10 to 15 % to Grocery while
ten of female allocate more than 16%.

4.7.2 Occupation:

Grocery * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines
s
Grocery 0-5 0 2 0 0 2
6-10 3 2 0 1
10-15 37 20 9 23
more 52 27 4 20
than 16
Total 92 51 13 44 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 40
Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of Grocery and occupation of


respondent, thirty seven people doing service allocate 10 to 15 % and fifty two people
allocate more than 16 %. twenty people doing business allocate 10 to 15 % and twenty
seven person allocate more than 16 %. Twenty three people doing agro work allocate 10
to 15 % and twenty allocate more than 16 %.

4.7.3 Family income:

Grocery * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Grocery 0-5 2 0 0 2
6-10 4 1 1 6
10-15 49 38 2 89
more than 16 23 72 8 103
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of Grocery and income of


respondents, forty nine people from income slab of 71 to 150 thousand allocate 10 to 15
% and twenty three people allocate more than 16 %. Thirty eight people from the income
slab of 1.5 to 3 lakh allocate 10 to 15 % and seventy two person allocate more than 16 %,

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 41
4.8 How you allocate your family budget for edible oil in year 2008?

4.8.1 Sex:

Edible oil * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Edible oil 0-5 54 6 60
6-10 110 26 136
10-15 4 0 4
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

Cross tabulation is between budget allocation of edible oil and sex of respondents, 54
males allocate 0 to 5 % to edible oil while 110 of males allocate 6 to 10 %. Six female
allocate 0 to 5 % to edible oil while 26 of females allocate 6 to 10%.

4.8.2 Occupation:

Edible oil * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Edible 0-5 30 10 4 16 60
oil
6-10 60 39 9 28 136
10-15 2 2 0 0 4

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 42
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of edible oil and occupation of
respondents, thirty people doing service allocate 0 to 5 % and sixty people allocate 6 to
10 %. Ten people doing business allocate 0 to 5 % and thirty nine persons allocate 6 to
10 %. Sixteen people doing agro work allocate 0 to 5 % and twenty eight allocate 6 to10
%.

4.8.3 Family income:

Edible oil * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Edible oil 0-5 16 43 1 60
6-10 60 66 10 136
10-15 2 2 0 4
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of edible oil and income of
respondent, sixteen people from income slab of 71 to 150 thousand allocate 0 to 5 % and
sixty people allocate 6 to 10 %. Forty three people from the income slab of 1.5 to 3 lakh
allocate 0 to 5 % and sixty six people allocate 6 to 10%.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 43
4.9 How you allocate your family budget for edible oil in year 2009?

4.9.1 Sex:

Edible oil * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Edible oil 0-5 59 7 66
6-10 102 24 126
10-15 5 0 5
16-20 2 1 3
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

Cross tabulation is between budget allocation of edible oil and sex of respondents, 59
males allocate 0 to 5 % to edible oil while 102 of males allocate 6 to 10 %. Seven
females allocate 0 to 5 % to edible oil while 24 of females allocate 6 to 10%.

4.9.2 Occupation:

Edible oil * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 44
Edible 0-5 35 16 3 12 66
oil
6-10 53 31 10 32 126
10-15 3 2 0 0 5
16-20 1 2 0 0 3
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of edible oil and occupation of
respondent, thirty five people doing service allocate 0 to 5 % and fifty three people
allocate 6 to 10 %. Sixteen people doing business allocate 0 to 5 % and thirty one
persons allocate 6 to 10 %. Twelve people doing agro work allocate 0 to 5 % and thirty
two allocate 6 to10 %.

4.9.3 Income:

Edible oil * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Edible 0-5 15 46 5 66
oil
6-10 58 63 5 126
10-15 2 2 1 5
16-20 3 0 0 3
Total 78 111 11 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 45
Findings:

Here cross tabulation is between budget allocation of edible oil and income of
respondent, fifteen people from income slab of 71 to 150 thousand allocate 0 to 5 % and
fifty eight people allocate 6 to 10 %. Forty six people from the income slab of 1.5 to 3
lakh allocate 0 to 5 % and sixty three people allocate 6 to 10%.

4.10 How you allocate your family budget for Vegetables and Fruits in year 2008?

4.10.1 Sex:

Vegetables and fruits * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Vegetables 0-5 69 4 73
and fruits
6-10 99 26 125
10-15 0 2 2
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 62 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures. 37 % respondents are allocating 0-5
% for their vegetables and fruits. And remains 1 % respondents allocate between 10-15
% from their total budget. From 62 % who are allocating for 6-10 %, 99 are male and 26
are female respondents.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 46
4.10.2 Occupation:

Vegetables and fruits * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Vegetabl 0-5 40 18 4 11 73
es and
6-10 50 33 9 33 125
fruits
10-15 2 0 0 0 2
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers.

4.10.3 Family income:

Vegetables and fruits * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Vegetables 0-5 16 52 5 73
and fruits
6-10 60 59 6 125
10-15 2 0 0 2
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 47
From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 62 % respondents who
allocating 6-10 % budget for vegetables and fruits, 60 respondents are belongs to 71000-
150000 range of yearly family income and 52 respondents belongs to 151000-300000
range of yearly family income.

4.11 How you allocate your family budget for Vegetables and Fruits in year 2009?

4.11.1 Sex:

Vegetables and fruits * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Vegetables 0-5 64 5 69
and fruits
6-10 102 27 129
10-15 2 0 2
Total 168 32 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 48
Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 65 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures. 35 % respondents are allocating 0-5
% for their vegetables and fruits. And remains 1 % respondents allocate between 10-15
% from their total budget. From 65 % who are allocating for 6-10 %, 102 are male and
27 are female respondents.

4.11.2 Occupation:

Vegetables and fruits * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Vegetabl 0-5 40 19 3 7 69
es and
6-10 50 32 10 37 129
fruits
10-15 2 0 0 0 2
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers.

4.11.3 Family income:

Vegetables and fruits * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Vegetables 0-5 16 52 5 73

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 49
and fruits 6-10 60 59 6 125
10-15 2 0 0 2
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 62 % respondents who
allocating 6-10 % budget for vegetables and fruits, 60 respondents are belongs to 71000-
150000 range of yearly family income and 52 respondents belongs to 151000-300000
range of yearly family income.

4.12 How you allocate your family budget for Milk & related products in year
2008?

4.12.1 Sex:

Milk * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 50
Male Female
Milk 0-5 16 2 18
6-10 150 30 180
10-15 2 0 2
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 90 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures. 9 % respondents are allocating 0-5 %
for their vegetables and fruits. And remains 1 % respondents allocate between 10-15 %
from their total budget. From 60 % who are allocating for 6-10 %, 150 are male and 30
are female respondents.

4.12.2 Occupation:

Milk * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Milk 0-5 8 1 2 7 18
6-10 82 50 11 37 180
10-15 2 0 0 0 2
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers.

4.12.3 Family income:

Milk * Income Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 51
Income Total
71000-150000 151000- more than
300000 300000
Milk 0-5 9 7 2 18
6-10 69 102 9 180
10-15 0 2 0 2
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 90 % respondents who
allocating 6-10 % budget for milk and related products, 69 respondents are belongs to
71000-150000 range of yearly family income and 102 respondents belongs to 151000-
300000 range of yearly family income and 9 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 52
4.13 How you allocate your family budget for Milk & related products in year
2009?

4.13.1 Sex:

Milk * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Milk 0-5 16 2 18
6-10 150 30 180
10-15 2 0 2
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 90 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures. 9 % respondents are allocating 0-5 %
for their vegetables and fruits. And remains 1 % respondents allocate between 10-15 %
from their total budget. From 60 % who are allocating for 6-10 %, 150 are male and 30
are female respondents.

4.13.2 Occupation:

Milk * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Milk 0-5 8 1 2 7 18
6-10 82 50 11 37 180
10-15 2 0 0 0 2
Total 92 51 13 44 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 53
Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers.

4.13.3 Family income:

Milk * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000-150000 151000- more than
300000 300000
Milk 0-5 9 7 2 18
6-10 69 102 9 180
10-15 0 2 0 2
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 90 % respondents who
allocating 6-10 % budget for milk and related products, 69 respondents are belongs to
71000-150000 range of yearly family income and 102 respondents belongs to 151000-
300000 range of yearly family income and 9 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 54
4.14 How you allocate your family budget for LPG in year 2008?

4.14.1 Sex:

LPG * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
LPG 0-5 127 15 142
6-10 41 17 58
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 29 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures. 71 % respondents are allocating 0-5
% for their vegetables and fruits. From 60 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 127 are male
and 15 are female respondents.

4.14.2 Occupation:

LPG * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
LPG 0-5 65 35 12 30 142
6-10 27 16 1 14 58
Total 92 51 13 44 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 55
Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 142 are
allocating 0-5 % and 58 respondents are allocating 6-10 %.

4.14.3 Family income:

LPG * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000-150000 151000- more than
300000 300000
LPG 0-5 42 91 9 142
6-10 36 20 2 58
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 71 % respondents who
allocating 0-5 % budget for LPG, 42 respondents are belongs to 71000-150000 range of
yearly family income and 92 respondents belongs to 151000-300000 range of yearly
family income and 9 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 56
4.15 How you allocate your family budget for LPG in year 2009?

4.15.1 Sex:

LPG * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
LPG 0-5 135 22 157
6-10 33 10 43
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 22 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures. 78 % respondents are allocating 0-5
% for their vegetables and fruits. From 78 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 135 are male
and 22 are female respondents.

4.15.2 Occupation:

LPG * Occupation Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 57
Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
LPG 0-5 77 38 11 31 157
6-10 15 13 2 13 43
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 157 are
allocating 0-5 % and 43 respondents are allocating 6-10 %.

4.15.3 Family income:

LPG * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000-150000 151000- more than
300000 300000
LPG 0-5 54 92 11 157
6-10 24 19 0 43
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 79 % respondents who
allocating 0-5 % budget for LPG, 54 respondents are belongs to 71000-150000 range of
yearly family income and 92 respondents belongs to 151000-300000 range of yearly
family income and 11 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 58
4.16 How you allocate your family budget for Phone & Electricity bills in year
2008?

4.16.1 Sex:

Phone and Electricity bills * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Phone an 0-5 118 30 148
6-10 50 2 52
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 26 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures. 74 % respondents are allocating 0-5
% for their Phone and Electricity bills. From 74 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 118 are
male and 30 are female respondents.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 59
4.16.2 Occupation:

Phone and Electricity bills * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Phone 0-5 68 34 10 36 148
and ele.
6-10 24 17 3 8 52
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 148 are
allocating 0-5 % and 52 respondents are allocating 6-10 %.

4.16.3 Family income:

Phone and Electricity bills * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000-150000 151000- more than
300000 300000
Phone 0-5 60 78 10 148
and ele.
6-10 18 33 1 52
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 79 % respondents who

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 60
allocating 0-5 % budget for Phone and Electricity bills, 60 respondents are belongs to
71000-150000 range of yearly family income and 78 respondents belongs to 151000-
300000 range of yearly family income and 10 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

4.17 How you allocate your family budget for Phone & Electricity bills in year
2009?

4.17.1 Sex:

Phone and Electricity bills * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Phone and 0-5 129 29 158
Ele.
6-10 39 2 41
10-15 0 1 1
Total 168 32 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 61
Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 21 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures and 1 % is allocating 10-15 % from
their total expenditures. 79 % respondents are allocating 0-5 % for their Phone and
Electricity bills. From 79 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 129 are male and 29 are
female respondents.

4.17.2 Occupation:

Phone and Electricity bills * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Phone 0-5 78 34 11 35 158
and ele.
6-10 14 17 1 9 41
10-15 0 0 1 0 1
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 158 are
allocating 0-5 %, 41 respondents are allocating 6-10 % and 1 respondent is allocating 10-
15 %.

4.17.3 Family income:

Phone and Electricity bills * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Phone 0-5 60 89 9 158
and ele.
6-10 18 21 2 41
10-15 0 1 0 1

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 62
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 79 % respondents who
allocating 0-5 % budget for Phone and Electricity bills, 60 respondents are belongs to
71000-150000 range of yearly family income, 89 respondents belongs to 151000-300000
range of yearly family income and 9 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

4.18 How you allocate your family budget for Transportation in year 2008?

4.18.1 Sex:

Transportation * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 63
Transportation 0-5 131 24 155
6-10 31 6 37
10-15 2 0 2
16-20 4 2 6
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 19 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures and 1 % is allocating 10-15 % from
their total expenditures. 77 % respondents are allocating 0-5 % for and 3 % are allocating
16-20 % for transportation. From 77 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 131 are male and
24 are female respondents.

4.18.2 Occupation:

Transportation * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Transport 0-5 75 38 10 32 155
ation
6-10 15 9 1 12 37
10-15 2 0 0 0 2
16-20 0 4 2 0 6
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 155 are
allocating 0-5 %, 37 respondents are allocating 6-10 %, 2 respondents are allocating 10-
15 % and 6 respondents are allocating 16-20 %.

4.18.3 Family income:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 64
Transportation * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Transporta 0-5 53 92 10 155
tion
6-10 19 17 1 37
10-15 2 0 0 2
16-20 4 2 0 6
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 77 % respondents who
allocating 0-5 % budget for Phone and Electricity bills,53 respondents are belongs to
71000-150000 range of yearly family income, 92 respondents belongs to 151000-300000
range of yearly family income and 10 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 65
4.19 How you allocate your family budget for Transportation in year 2009?

4.19.1 Sex:

Transportation * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Transportation 0-5 146 24 170
6-10 12 3 15
10-15 4 0 4
16-20 6 5 11
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 19 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures and 1 % is allocating 10-15 % from
their total expenditures. 77 % respondents are allocating 0-5 % for and 3 % are allocating
16-20 % for transportation. From 77 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 131 are male and
24 are female respondents.

4.19.2 Occupation:

Transportation * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professiona Farmer
l
Transpor 0-5 80 40 12 38 170
tation
6-10 7 3 1 4 15
10-15 2 1 0 1 4
16-20 3 7 0 1 11
Total 92 51 13 44 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 66
Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 170 are
allocating 0-5 %, 15 respondents are allocating 6-10 %, 4 respondents are allocating 10-
15 % and 11 respondents are allocating 16-20 %.

4.19.3 Family Income:

Transportation * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Transportati 0-5 59 104 7 170
on
6-10 8 6 1 15
10-15 3 0 1 4
16-20 8 1 2 11
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 85 % respondents who
allocating 0-5 % budget for Phone and Electricity bills,59 respondents are belongs to
71000-150000 range of yearly family income, 104 respondents belongs to 151000-
300000 range of yearly family income and 7 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 67
4.20 How you allocate your family budget for Education in year 2008?

4.20.1 Sex:

Education * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female

Education 0-5 21 6 27
6-10 44 0 44
10-15 27 5 32
16-20 76 21 97
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 22 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures and 16 % are allocating 10-15 % from
their total expenditures. 14 % respondents are allocating 0-5 % for and 48 % are
allocating 16-20 % for Education. From 48 % who are allocating for 16-20 %, 76 are
male and 21 are female respondents.

4.20.2 Occupation:

Education * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 68
Service Business Professional Farmer
Educati 0-5 10 11 2 4 27
on
6-10 24 9 4 7 44
10-15 16 9 1 6 32
16-20 42 22 6 27 97
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 27 are
allocating 0-5 %, 44 respondents are allocating 6-10 %, 32 respondents are allocating 10-
15 % and 97 respondents are allocating 16-20 %.

4.20.3 Family income:

Education * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Education 0-5 13 13 1 27
6-10 11 29 4 44
10-15 6 22 4 32
16-20 48 47 2 97
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 69
From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 48 % respondents who
allocating 16-20 % budget for Education, 48 respondents are belongs to 71000-150000
range of yearly family income, 47 respondents belongs to 151000-300000 range of
yearly family income and 2 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

4.20.4 No. of Children Studying in Family:

Education * No of Children studying Cross tabulation

No of Children studying Total


1-2 More than 2
Education 0-5 26 1 27
6-10 42 2 44
10-15 26 6 32
16-20 87 10 97
Total 181 19 200

Findings:

97 respondents are allocating their 16-20 % expenditure behind Education. From that 97
respondents 87 has 1-2 children studying in family and 10 respondents has more than 2
children studying in family.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 70
4.21 How you allocate your family budget for Education in year 2009?

4.21.1 Sex:

Education * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Education 0-5 24 6 30
6-10 32 2 34
10-15 37 7 44
16-20 75 17 92
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 71
From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 17 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures and 22 % are allocating 10-15 % from
their total expenditures. 15 % respondents are allocating 0-5 % for and 46 % are
allocating 16-20 % for Education. From 46 % who are allocating for 16-20 %, 75 are
male and 17 are female respondents.

4.21.2 Occupation:

Education * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Service Business Professional Farmer Total
Educatio 0-5 15 9 2 4 30
n 6-10 20 9 1 4 34
10-15 25 7 5 7 44
16-20 32 26 5 29 92
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 30 are
allocating 0-5 %, 34 respondents are allocating 6-10 %, 44 respondents are allocating 10-
15 % and 92 respondents are allocating 16-20 %.

4.21.3 Family Income:

Education * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Education 0-5 17 9 4 30

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 72
6-10 4 27 3 34
10-15 10 32 2 44
16-20 47 43 2 92
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 46 % respondents who
allocating 16-20 % budget for Education, 47 respondents are belongs to 71000-150000
range of yearly family income, 43 respondents belongs to 151000-300000 range of
yearly family income and 2 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

4.21.4 No. of Children Studying in Family:

Education * No of Children studying Cross tabulation

No of Children studying Total


1-2 More than 2
Education 0-5 27 3 30
6-10 32 2 34
10-15 41 3 44
16-20 81 11 92
Total 181 19 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 73
Findings:

92 respondents are allocating their 16-20 % expenditure behind Education. From those
92 respondents 81 has 1-2 children studying in family and 11 respondents have more
than 2 children studying in family.

4.22 How you allocate your family budget for Entertainment in year 2008?

4.22.1 Sex:

Entertainment * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Entertainment 0-5 122 19 141

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 74
6-10 40 11 51
10-15 1 1 2
16-20 5 1 6
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 25 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures and 1 % is allocating 10-15 % from
their total expenditures. 70 % respondents are allocating 0-5 % for and 3 % are allocating
16-20 % for Entertainment. From 70 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 122 are male and
19 are female respondents.

4.22.2 Occupation:

Entertainment * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Entertain 0-5 61 40 8 32 141
ment 6-10 29 8 4 10 51
10-15 1 0 1 0 2
16-20 1 3 0 2 6
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 141 are

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 75
allocating 0-5 %, 51 respondents are allocating 6-10 %, 2 respondents are allocating 10-
15 % and 6 respondents are allocating 16-20 %.

4.22.3 Family income:

Entertainment * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Entertainm 0-5 54 80 7 141
ent
6-10 19 28 4 51
10-15 0 2 0 2
16-20 5 1 0 6
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 70 % respondents who
allocating 0-5 % budget for Entertainment, 54 respondents are belongs to 71000-150000
range of yearly family income, 80 respondents belongs to 151000-300000 range of
yearly family income and 7 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

4.22.4 No. of persons in family:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 76
Entertainment * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family Total


1-2 3-4 5-6 more than
6
Entertain 0-5 4 44 75 18 141
ment
6-10 4 20 19 8 51
10-15 0 1 1 0 2
16-20 0 2 4 0 6
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

141 Respondents are allocating 0-5 % of total expenditure for Entertainment. From that
141 respondents 4 persons has 1-2 family members, 44 persons has 3-4 family members,
75 persons has 5-6 family members and 18 people has more than 6 family members in
the family. 51 respondents allocate 6-10 % expenditure.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 77
4.23 How you allocate your family budget for Entertainment in year 2009?

4.23.1 Sex:

Entertainment * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Entertainment 0-5 140 29 169
6-10 26 2 28
10-15 2 1 3
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 14 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures and 2 % is allocating 10-15 % from
their total expenditures. 85 % respondents are allocating 0-5 % for Entertainment. From
85 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 140 are male and 29 are female respondents.

4.23.2 Occupation:

Entertainment * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Entertain 0-5 76 45 9 39 169
ment
6-10 14 6 4 4 28
10-15 2 0 0 1 3
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 78
From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 169 are
allocating 0-5 %, 28 respondents are allocating 6-10 %, and 3 respondents are allocating
11-15 %.

4.23.3 Family income:

Entertainment * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Entertainme 0-5 73 88 8 169
nt
6-10 4 21 3 28
10-15 1 2 0 3
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 85 % respondents who
allocating 0-5 % budget for Entertainment, 73 respondents are belongs to 71000-150000
range of yearly family income, 88 respondents belongs to 151000-300000 range of
yearly family income and 8 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 79
4.23.4 No. of persons in family:

Entertainment * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family Total


1-2 3-4 5-6 more than 6
Entertain 0-5 6 59 86 18 169
ment
6-10 2 8 11 7 28
10-15 0 0 2 1 3
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

169 Respondents are allocating 0-5 % of total expenditure for Entertainment. From that
169 respondents 4 persons has 1-2 family members, 59 persons has 3-4 family members,
86 persons has 5-6 family members and 18 people has more than 6 family members in
the family. 28 respondents allocate 6-10 % expenditure.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 80
4.24 How you allocate your family budget for other items in year 2008?

4.24.1 Sex:

Others * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Others 0-5 80 14 94
6-10 67 16 83
10-15 17 0 17
16-20 4 2 6
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 42 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures, 9 % are allocating 10-15 %, and 6 %
are allocating 16-20 % from their total expenditures. 42 % respondents are allocating 0-5
% for Other items. From 42 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 84 are male and 14 are
female respondents.

4.24.2 Occupation:

Others * Occupation Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 81
Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Others 0-5 36 20 6 32 94
6-10 42 22 7 12 83
10-15 10 7 0 0 17
16-20 4 2 0 0 6
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 94 are
allocating 0-5 %, 83 respondents are allocating 6-10 %,17 respondents are allocating 11-
15 % and 6 respondents are allocating 16-20 %.

4.24.3 Family income:

Others * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Others 0-5 45 44 5 94
6-10 25 53 5 83
10-15 4 12 1 17
16-20 4 2 0 6
Total 78 111 11 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 82
Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 47 % respondents who
allocating 0-5 % budget for Entertainment, 45 respondents are belongs to 71000-150000
range of yearly family income, 44 respondents belongs to 151000-300000 range of
yearly family income and 5 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

4.24.4 No. of persons in family:

Others * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family Total


1-2 3-4 5-6 more than 6
Others 0-5 4 28 49 13 94
6-10 3 29 39 12 83
10-15 1 9 6 1 17
16-20 0 1 5 0 6
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

94 Respondents are allocating 0-5 % of total expenditure for Entertainment. From that 94
respondents 4 persons has 1-2 family members, 28 persons has 3-4 family members, 49

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 83
persons has 5-6 family members and 13 people has more than 6 family members in the
family. 83 respondents allocate 6-10 % expenditure.

4.25 How you allocate your family budget for other items in year 2009?

4.25.1 Sex:

Others * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Others 0-5 139 28 167
6-10 20 4 24
10-15 7 0 7
16-20 2 0 2

Total 168 32 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 84
Findings:

From the above cross tabulation we have found that, from 200 respondents around 12 %
are allocating 6-10 % from their total expenditures, 3 % are allocating 10-15 %, and 1 %
is allocating 16-20 % from their total expenditures. 42 % respondents are allocating 0-5
% for other items. From 84 % who are allocating for 0-5 %, 139 are male and 28 are
female respondents.

4.25.2 Occupation:

Others * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professional Farmer
Others 0-5 73 42 11 41 167
6-10 13 8 1 2 24
10-15 5 0 1 1 7
16-20 1 1 0 0 2

Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the total respondents 46% are doing service, 25 % are doing Business, 6 % are
professionals and 22 % remains are farmers. From total 200 respondents 167 are
allocating 0-5 %, 24 respondents are allocating 6-10 %,7 respondents are allocating 11-
15 % and 2 respondents are allocating 16-20 %.

4.25.3 Family income:

Others * Income Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 85
Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Others 0-5 67 94 6 167
6-10 7 14 3 24
10-15 3 2 2 7
16-20 1 1 0 2

Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 39 % people are belongs to 71000-150000 yearly family
income. Another 55 % belongs to 151000-300000 yearly family income and around 5 %
belongs to more than 300000 rupee family income. From 84 % respondents who
allocating 0-5 % budget for Entertainment, 67 respondents are belongs to 71000-150000
range of yearly family income, 94 respondents belongs to 151000-300000 range of
yearly family income and 6 respondents belongs to more than 300000.

4.25.4 No. of persons in family:

Others * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family Total


1-2 3-4 5-6 more than 6

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 86
Others 0-5 4 55 88 20 167
6-10 2 10 8 4 24
10-15 1 1 3 2 7
16-20 1 1 0 0 2

Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

167 Respondents are allocating 0-5 % of total expenditure for Entertainment. From that
167 respondents 4 persons has 1-2 family members, 55 persons has 3-4 family members,
88 persons has 5-6 family members and 20 people has more than 6 family members in
the family. 24 respondents allocate 6-10 % expenditure.

4.26 ANOVA table for Income of family and allocation of budget 2008
(Sig. Level 5 %)

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 87
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
cereals & Between Groups 3.764 2 1.882 5.313 .006
pulses Within Groups 69.791 197 .354
Total 73.555 199
Grossary Between Groups 1.854 2 .927 3.731 .026
Within Groups 48.941 197 .248
Total 50.795 199
Edible oil Between Groups 2.068 2 1.034 4.404 .013
Within Groups 46.252 197 .235
Total 48.320 199
Vegetables and Between Groups 3.941 2 1.970 8.466 .000
fruits Within Groups 45.854 197 .233
Total 49.795 199
Milk Between Groups .347 2 .174 1.862 .158
Within Groups 18.373 197 .093
Total 18.720 199
LPG Between Groups 3.763 2 1.881 9.905 .000
Within Groups 37.417 197 .190
Total 41.180 199
Phone an Between Groups .536 2 .268 1.390 .251
Within Groups 37.944 197 .193
Total 38.480 199
Transportation Between Groups 3.157 2 1.578 3.964 .021
Within Groups 78.438 197 .398
Total 81.595 199
Entertainment Between Groups .666 2 .333 .766 .466
Within Groups 85.689 197 .435
Total 86.355 199
Education Between Groups 3.577 2 1.789 1.436 .240
Within Groups 245.418 197 1.246
Total 248.995 199
Others Between Groups 1.354 2 .677 1.185 .308
Within Groups 112.521 197 .571
Total 113.875 199

Findings:

The above table shows the results of allocation of budget like milk and related products,
phone and electricity bills, entertainment, education and others accept the null
hypothesis. So, there is no significant relationship between Income of family and
allocation of budget. But the factors like cereals and pulses, Grocery, Edible oil,
Vegetables and fruits, LPG, Transportation rejects the null hypothesis, and hence, there
is a significant relation among them.

4.27 ANOVA Table: Income of family and budget allocation 2009 (Sig. Level 5 %)

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 88
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
cereals & pulses Between Groups 8.530 2 4.265 11.890 .000
Within Groups 70.665 197 .359
Total 79.195 199
Grocery Between Groups 9.509 2 4.754 14.578 .000
Within Groups 64.246 197 .326
Total 73.755 199
Edible oil Between Groups 4.399 2 2.200 6.827 .001
Within Groups 63.476 197 .322
Total 67.875 199
Vegetables and Between Groups 5.120 2 2.560 11.612 .000
fruits
Within Groups 43.435 197 .220
Total 48.555 199
Milk Between Groups 2.323 2 1.161 11.628 .000
Within Groups 19.677 197 .100
Total 22.000 199
LPG Between Groups 1.392 2 .696 4.236 .016
Within Groups 32.363 197 .164
Total 33.755 199
Phone an Between Groups .038 2 .019 .105 .900
Within Groups 35.717 197 .181
Total 35.755 199
Transportation Between Groups 10.926 2 5.463 10.409 .000
Within Groups 103.394 197 .525
Total 114.320 199
Education Between Groups 8.418 2 4.209 3.490 .032
Within Groups 237.562 197 1.206
Total 245.980 199

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 89
Entertainment Between Groups 1.130 2 .565 3.365 .037
Within Groups 33.090 197 .168
Total 34.220 199
Others Between Groups 1.972 2 .986 2.993 .052
Within Groups 64.903 197 .329
Total 66.875 199

Findings:

The above table shows the results of allocation of budget like phone and electricity bills
and others accept the null hypothesis. So, there is no significant relationship between
Income of family and allocation of budget. But the factors like cereals and pulses,
Grocery, Edible oil, Vegetables and fruits, Milk and related products, LPG,
Transportation, Education and Entertainment rejects the null hypothesis, and hence, there
is a significant relation among them.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 90
4.28 Reliability test for food products affected by inflation with the help of
Cronbach's Alpha model:

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items


.728 5

Findings:

This is a model of internal consistency, based on the average inter-item correlation. The
value is greater than 0.7 so there is internal consistency and also inter item correlation in
them.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 91
4.29 How cereals and pulses are affected by inflation?

4.29.1 Sex:

Cereals and Pulses * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Cereals and Highly affected 98 8 106
Pulses
Affected 39 13 52
Average affected 28 9 37
Low affected 3 2 5
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From 200 respondents 53 % are highly affected by inflation in the case of cereals and
pulses. 26 % are affected by inflation. From 53 % respondents who are highly affected,
98 are male and 8 are female respondents.

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Cereals and Pulses is independent to sex

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 92
H1: inflation affects the Cereals and Pulses is dependent to sex

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 12.820(a) 3 .005
a. 6 cells (37.5%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .33.

The significance level is .005 and that is lower than the significance level we have
assumed in the case. So reject the null hypothesis.

4.29.2 Occupation:

Cereals and Pulses * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professiona Farmer
l
Cereals and highly 50 26 9 21 106
Pulses affected
affected 24 12 4 12 52
average 14 12 0 11 37
low affected 4 1 0 0 5
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From 53 % respondents who are highly affected, 50 are doing service, 26 are doing
business, 9 are professionals and 21 are farmers.

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 93
Ho: inflation affects the Cereals and Pulses is independent to Occupation

H1: inflation affects the Cereals and Pulses is dependent to Occupation

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.593(a) 9 .476
a. 6 cells (37.5%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .33.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case. Different people have different views regarding inflation. From 53 %
respondents who are highly affected, 50 are doing service, 26 are doing business, 9 are
professionals and 21 are farmers.

4.29.3 Family income:

Cereals and Pulses * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Cereals and highly 25 71 10 106
Pulses affected
affected 30 21 1 52
average 21 16 0 37
low affected 2 3 0 5
Total 78 111 11 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 94
a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Cereals and Pulses is independent to Family income

H1: inflation affects the Cereals and Pulses is dependent to Family income

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 26.290(a) 6 .000

a. 5 cells (41.7%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .28.

Findings:

Reject the null hypothesis because it is lower than the .05 in this case. From 200
respondents 53 % are highly affected by inflation in the case of cereals and pulses. 26 %
are affected by inflation.

4.30 How sugar & jaggary are affected by inflation?

4.30.1 Sex:

Sugar and Jaggary * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Sugar and highly affected 77 7 84
Jaggary
affected 49 10 59
average 30 11 41
low affected 11 4 15
very low 1 0 1

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 95
affected
Total 168 32 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Sugar and Jaggary is independent to sex

H1: inflation affects the Sugar and Jaggary is dependent to sex

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.751(a) 4 .068
a. 3 cells (30.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .16.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because in this case the significance level is more than the
defined significance level. People views are matching in this case.

4.30.2 Occupation:

Sugar and Jaggary * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Profession Farmer
al

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 96
Sugar and highly 39 19 8 18 84
Jaggary affected
affected 28 15 3 13 59
average 17 12 2 10 41
low 7 5 0 3 15
affected
very low 1 0 0 0 1
affected
Total 92 51 13 44 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Sugar and Jaggary is independent to Occupation

H1: inflation affects the Sugar and Jaggary is dependent to Occupation

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.903(a) 12 .961
a. 9 cells (45.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .07.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case.

4.30.3 Family income:

Sugar and Jaggary * Income Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 97
Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Sugar and highly 18 57 9 84
Jaggary affected
affected 22 36 1 59
average 30 11 0 41
low affected 8 7 0 15
very low 0 0 1 1
affected
Total 78 111 11 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Sugar and Jaggary is independent to Family income

H1: inflation affects the Sugar and Jaggary is dependent to Family income

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 54.645(a) 8 .000
a. 7 cells (46.7%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .06.

Findings:

Reject the null hypothesis. Here people views are very different with each other.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 98
4.31 How edible oil is affected by inflation?

4.31.1 Sex:

Edible oil * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Edible oil highly affected 20 6 26
affected 99 11 110
average 29 8 37
low affected 19 7 26
very low 1 0 1
affected
Total 168 32 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Edible oil is independent to sex

H1: inflation affects the Edible oil is dependent to sex

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.284(a) 4 .122
a. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .16.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 99
4.31.2 Occupation:

Edible oil * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professiona Farmer
l
Edible oil highly 16 3 3 4 26
affected
affected 54 29 8 19 110
average 12 10 2 13 37
low 9 9 0 8 26
affected
very low 1 0 0 0 1
affected
Total 92 51 13 44 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Edible oil is independent to Occupation

H1: inflation affects the Edible oil is dependent to Occupation

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 16.201(a) 12 .182
a. 7 cells (35.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .07.

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 100
Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case.

4.31.3 Family income:

Edible oil * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Edible oil highly 15 11 0 26
affected
affected 35 66 9 110
average 15 21 1 37
low affected 13 13 0 26
very low 0 0 1 1
affected
Total 78 111 11 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Edible oil is independent to Family income

H1: inflation affects the Edible oil is dependent to Family income

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 27.989(a) 8 .000

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 101
a. 6 cells (40.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .06.

Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

4.32 How vegetables and fruits are affected by inflation?

4.32.1 Sex:

Vegetables and fruits * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Vegetables and highly affected 41 2 43
fruits
affected 73 7 80
average 33 15 48
low affected 21 8 29
Total 168 32 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Vegetables and fruits are independent to Sex

H1: inflation affects the Vegetables and fruits are dependent to Sex

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 102
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 18.452(a) 3 .000
a. 1 cell (12.5%) has expected less than 5. The minimum expected is 4.64.

Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

4.32.2 Occupation:

Vegetables and fruits * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer
s al
Vegetables highly 25 11 3 4 43
and fruits affected
affected 37 18 6 19 80
average 21 11 2 14 48
low 9 11 2 7 29
affected
Total 92 51 13 44 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 103
a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Vegetables and fruits are independent to Occupation

H1: inflation affects the Vegetables and fruits are dependent to Family Occupation

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.000(a) 9 .351
a. 3 cells (18.8%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is 1.89.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case.

4.32.3 Family income:

Vegetables and fruits * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Vegetables highly 7 34 2 43
and fruits affected
affected 22 50 8 80
average 29 18 1 48
low affected 20 9 0 29

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 104
Total 78 111 11 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Vegetables and fruits are independent to Family income

H1: inflation affects the Vegetables and fruits are dependent to Family income

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 37.283(a) 6 .000
a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is 1.60.

Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

4.33 How milk and related products are affected by inflation?

4.33.1 Sex:

Milk and Related Products * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Milk and highly affected 67 2 69

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 105
Related
Products
affected 37 8 45
average 43 15 58
low affected 19 5 24
very low affected 2 2 4
Total 168 32 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Milk and Related Products are independent to Sex

H1: inflation affects the Milk and Related Products are dependent to Sex

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 16.973(a) 4 .002
a. 3 cells (30.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .64.

Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

4.33.2 Occupation:

Milk and Related Products * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 106
Service Business Profession Farmer
al
Milk and highly 35 24 4 6 69
Related affected
Products
affected 23 4 3 15 45
average 24 14 6 14 58
low 8 7 0 9 24
affected
very low 2 2 0 0 4
affected
Total 92 51 13 44 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Milk and Related Products are independent to Occupation

H1: inflation affects the Milk and Related Products are dependent to Occupation

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 25.015(a) 12 .015
a. 8 cells (40.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .26.

Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 107
4.33.3 Family income:

Milk and Related Products * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Milk and highly 12 54 3 69
Related affected
Products
affected 26 15 4 45
average 25 29 4 58
low affected 13 11 0 24
very low 2 2 0 4
affected
Total 78 111 11 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Milk and Related Products are independent to Family income

H1: inflation affects the Milk and Related Products are dependent to Family income

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 28.138(a) 8 .000
a. 7 cells (46.7%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .22.

Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 108
4.34 Monthly expenditure behind Cereals and pulses in rupees in 2008

4.34.1 Sex:

Serial and Pulses * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Cereal and 0-500 17 5 22
Pulses
501-1000 142 26 168
1001-1500 9 1 10
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From total 200 respondents more that 80 % people spend between the range of 501-1000
rupee behind cereals and pulses while 5 % people spend between the ranges of 1001-
1500. In the range of 501-1000 142 are male while 26 are female respondents.

4.34.2 Occupation:

Cereal and Pulses * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines
s
Cereal 0-500 14 4 1 3 22
and
501- 74 47 12 35
Pulses
1000

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 109
1001- 4 0 0 6
1500
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From total 200 respondents more that 80 % people spend between the range of 501-1000
rupee behind cereals and pulses while 5 % people spend between the ranges of 1001-
1500. In the range of 501-1000 74 are doing service, 47 are doing business, 12 are
professionals and 35 are farmers.

4.34.3 Family income:

Cereal and Pulses * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Cereal and 0-500 10 9 3 22
Pulses
501-1000 62 98 8 168
1001-1500 6 4 0 10
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From total 200 respondents more that 80 % people spend between the range of 501-1000
rupee behind cereals and pulses while 5 % people spend between the ranges of 1001-
1500. In the range of 501-1000, 62 has income between the ranges of 71000-150000
rupee, 98 has income between the ranges of 151000-300000 rupee and 3 has income
more than 300000 rupee.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 110
4.35 Monthly expenditure behind Cereals and pulses in rupees in 2009

4.35.1 Sex:

Cereal and Pulses * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Cereal and 0-500 20 4 24
Pulses
501-1000 128 25 153
1001-1500 16 3 19
1501-2000 4 0 4
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From total 200 respondents more that 75 % people spend between the range of 501-1000
rupee behind cereals and pulses, 10 % people spend between the ranges of 1001-1500
and 2 % respondents spend between the ranges of 1501-2000 rupee. In the range of 501-
1000 128 are male while 25 are female respondents.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 111
4.35.2 Occupation:

Cereal and Pulses * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professiona Farmer
l
Cereal and 0-500 13 7 0 4 24
Pulses
501-1000 72 40 13 28 153
1001-1500 4 3 0 12 19
1501-2000 3 1 0 0 4
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From total 200 respondents more that 75 % people spend between the range of 501-1000
rupee behind cereals and pulses, 10 % people spend between the ranges of 1001-1500
and 2 % respondents spend between the ranges of 1501-2000 rupee. In the range of 501-
1000 72 are doing service, 40 are doing business, 13 are professionals and 28 are
farmers.

4.35.3 Family income:

Cereal and Pulses * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Cereal and 0-500 12 9 3 24
Pulses
501-1000 57 91 5 153
1001-1500 7 9 3 19
1501-2000 2 2 0 4
Total 78 111 11 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 112
Findings:

From total 200 respondents more that 75 % people spend between the range of 501-1000
rupee behind cereals and pulses while 10 % people spend between the ranges of 1001-
1500. In the range of 501-1000, 57 have income between the ranges of 71000-150000
rupee, 91 have income between the ranges of 151000-300000 rupee and 5 have income
more than 300000 rupee.

4.36 Monthly expenditure behind Sugar and jaggary in rupees in 2008

4.36.1 Sex:

Sugar and Jaggary * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Sugar and 0-500 166 32 198
Jaggary 501-1000 2 0 2
Total 168 32 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 113
Findings:
In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
the sugar and jaggary where in the majority of the male and female respondent is below
the Rs. 500. Only two respondents are having usage of more than Rs. 500. While all
female are having usage of below Rs. 500.

4.36.2 Occupation:

Sugar and Jaggary * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Profession
Service Business al Farmer Total
Sugar 0-500 92 51 13 42 198
and 501-1000
0 0 0 2 2
Jaggary
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:
The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the sugar and jaggary. All service, professional and business person
respondent are having usage for below Rs. 500. The farmer of only two respondent
having the usage of the more than Rs. 500.

4.36.3 Family income:

Sugar and Jaggary * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Sugar and 0-500 76 111 11 198
Jaggary 501-1000 2 0 0 2
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 114
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
the sugar and jaggary. The people having income of 150000 and above having the usage
of the below Rs. 500. While respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are
only two having usage of the more than Rs. 500 for a month.

4.36.4 Family members:

Sugar and Jaggary * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Sugar 0-500 8 67 97 26 198
and 501-1000
0 0 2 0 2
Jaggary
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the sugar and jaggary. Majority of the family having the usage of the
sugar and jaggary is below Rs. 500. But two family with having the family size of the 5-
6 are using more than Rs. 500 after sugar and jaggary.

4.37 Monthly expenditure behind Sugar and jaggary in rupees in 2009

4.37.1 Sex:

Sugar and Jaggary * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Total
Sugar and 0-500 157 32 189
Jaggary 501-1000 11 0
Total 168 32 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 115
Findings: In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their
consumption of the sugar and jaggary where in the majority of the male and female
respondent is below the Rs. 500. Only eleven male respondents are having usage of more
than Rs. 500. While all female are having usage of below Rs. 500.

4.37.2 Occupation:

Sugar and Jaggary * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Professiona
Service Business l Farmer Total
Sugar 0-500 89 47 13 40 189
and 501-1000
3 4 0 4 11
Jaggary
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:
The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the sugar and jaggary. Majority of service, professional and business
person respondent are having usage for below Rs. 500. The farmer of only four
respondents having the usage of the more than Rs. 500. In service person and business
person respectively three and four family are having usage of more than Rs. 500.

4.37.3 Family income:

Sugar and Jaggary * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Sugar and 0-500 74 105 10 189
Jaggary 501-1000 4 6 1 11
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 116
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of the
sugar and jaggary. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the
usage of the below Rs. 500 but only seven family having the usage of the Rs more than
500. While respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only four having
usage of the more than Rs. 500 for a month

4.37.4 Family members:

Sugar and Jaggary * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Sugar and 0-500 8 61 95 25 189
Jaggary 501-1000 0 6 4 1 11
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the sugar and jaggary. Majority of the family having the usage of the
sugar and jaggary is below Rs. 500. But eleven family with having the family size of the
3-4, 5-6, are using more than Rs. 500 after sugar and jaggary.

4.38 Monthly expenditure behind Edible oil in rupees in 2008

4.38.1 Sex:

Edible oil * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Edible oil 0-500 114 28 142
501-1000 54 4 58
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 117
In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
edible oil where in the majority of the male and female respondent is below the Rs. 500.
Only fifty four male respondents are having usage of more than Rs. 500. While four
female respondent are having usage of more than Rs. 500.

4.38.2 Occupation:

Edible oil * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Service Business Professional Farmer Total
Edible 0-500 60 30 13 39 142
oil 501-1000 32 21 0 5 58
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:
The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the edible oil. Majority of service, professional and business person
respondent are having usage for below Rs. 500. The farmer of only five respondents
having the usage of the more than Rs. 500. In service person and business person
respectively thirty three and twenty one family are having usage of more than Rs. 500.

4.38.3 Family income:

Edible oil * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Edible oil 0-500 69 69 4 142
501-1000 9 42 7 58
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
edible oil. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the usage of the
below Rs. 500 but forty nine family having the usage of the Rs more than 500. While

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 118
respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only nine having usage of
the more than Rs. 500 for a month.

4.38.4 Family members:

Edible oil * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Edible 0-500 8 51 72 11 142
oil 501-
0 16 27 15 58
1000
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the edible oil. Majority of the family having the usage of the edible oil
is below Rs. 500. But sixteen and sixteen and twenty two family with having the family
size of the 3-4, 5-6, are using more than Rs. 500 after edible oil.

4.39 What is Monthly expenditure behind Edible oil in rupees in 2009?

4.39.1 Sex:

Edible oil * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Edible oil 0-500 110 27 137
501-1000 58 5 63
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
edible oil where in the thirty two percentage of the male and female respondent is below

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 119
the Rs. 500. Only fifty eight male respondents are having usage of more than Rs. 500.
While five female respondent are having usage of more than Rs. 500.

4.39.2 Occupation:

Edible oil * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Service Business Professional Farmer Total
Edible 0-500 62 32 12 31 137
oil 501-1000 30 19 1 13 63
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:
The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the edible oil. Majority of service, professional and business person
respondent are having usage for below Rs. 500. The farmer of thirteen respondent having
the usage of the more than Rs. 500. In service person and business person respectively
thirty and nineteen family are having usage of more than Rs. 500.

4.39.3 Family income:

Edible oil * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Edible oil 0-500 62 71 4 137
501-1000 16 40 7 63
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
edible oil. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the usage of the
below Rs. 500 but forty seven family having the usage of the Rs more than 500. While
respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only sixteen having usage of
the more than Rs. 500 for a month.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 120
4.39.4 Family members:

Edible oil * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
1-2 3-4 5-6 more than 6 Total
Edible 0-500 8 48 69 12 137
oil 501-1000 0 19 30 14 63
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the edible oil. Majority of the family having the usage of the edible oil
is below Rs. 500. But nineteen and thirty family with having the family size of the 3-4,
5-6, are using more than Rs. 500 after edible oil. Fourteen Family having more than 6
member are having usage of the more than Rs. 500.

4.40 Monthly expenditure behind Vegetables in rupees in 2008

4.40.1 Sex:

Vegetables and fruits * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Total
Vegetables and 0-500 158 30 188
fruits 501-1000 10 0
1001-1500 0 2
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
vegetable and fruits where in the majority the male and female respondent is below the
Rs. 500. Only ten male respondents are having usage of more than Rs. 500. While two
female respondent are having usage of more than Rs. 1000.

4.40.2 Occupation:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 121
Vegetables and fruits * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Professiona
Service Business l Farmer Total
Vegetables 0-500 87 46 13 42 188
and fruits 501-1000 5 3 0 2 10
1001-1500 0 2 0 0 2
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:
The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the vegetable and fruits. Majority of service, professional and business
person respondent are having usage for below Rs. 500. The farmer of two respondents
having the usage of the more than Rs. 500. In service person and business person
respectively five and three family are having usage of more than Rs. 500. In business two
person having the usage of more than 1000.
4.40.3 Family income:

Vegetables and fruits * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Vegetables 0-500 72 108 8 188
and fruits 501-1000 4 3 3 10
1001-1500 2 0 0 2
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
vegetable and fruits. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the
usage of the below Rs. 500 but six family having the usage of the Rs more than 500 to
1000. While respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only four
having usage of the more than Rs. 500-1000 for a month and two family having usage of
1000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 122
4.40.4 Family members:

Vegetables and fruits * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Vegetables 0-500 8 65 92 23 188
and fruits 501-1000 0 2 5 3 10
1001-1500 0 0 2 0 2
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the vegetable and fruits. Majority of the family having the usage of the
vegetable and fruits is below Rs. 500. But ten family with having the family size of the
3-4, 5-6, are using more than Rs. 500 after vegetable and fruits. Two Family having 5- 6
members are having usage of the more than Rs. 1000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 123
4.41 Monthly expenditure behind Vegetables in rupees in 2009

4.41.1 Sex:

Vegetables and fruits * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Vegetables and 0-500 87 19 106
fruits 501-1000 80 11 91
1001-1500 0 2 2
1501-2000 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
vegetable and fruits where in the majority the male and female respondent is below the
Rs. 500. Only eighty male and eleven female respondents are having usage of more than
Rs. 500. While two female respondent are having usage of more than Rs. 1000.

4.41.2 Occupation:

Vegetables and fruits * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Professiona
Service Business l Farmer Total

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 124
Vegetables 0-500 46 19 8 33 106
and fruits 501-1000 46 29 5 11 91
1001-1500 0 2 0 0 2
1501-2000 0 1 0 0 1
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the vegetable and fruits. Majority of service, professional and business
person respondent are having usage for below Rs. 500. The business person of two
respondents having the usage of the more than Rs. 1000. In service person and business
person respectively forty six and twenty nine family are having usage of more than Rs.
500. In business one person having the usage of more than Rs. 1500.

4.41.3 Family income:

Vegetables and fruits * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Vegetables 0-500 47 56 3 106
and fruits 501-1000 29 55 7 91
1001-1500 2 0 0 2
1501-2000 0 0 1 1
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
vegetable and fruits. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the
usage of the below Rs. 500 but sixty two family having the usage of the Rs more than
500 to 1000. While respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only
twenty nine having usage of the more than Rs. 500-1000 for a month and two family
having usage of 1000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 125
4.41.4 Family members:

Vegetables and fruits * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Vegetable 0-500 7 38 51 10 106
s and 501-1000 1 29 46 15 91
fruits 1001-1500 0 0 2 0 2
1501-2000 0 0 0 1 1
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the vegetable and fruits. Majority of the family having the usage of the
vegetable and fruits is below Rs. 500. But twenty nine, forty six, fifteen family with
having the family size of the 3-4, 5-6, are using more than Rs. 500 after vegetable and
fruits respectively. Two Family having 5- 6 members are having usage of the more than
Rs. 1000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 126
4.42 Monthly expenditure behind Milk and related items in rupees in 2008

4.42.1 Sex:

Milk and Related Products * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Milk and 0-500 7 1 8
Related Products 501-1000 61 16 77
1001-1500 51 13 64
1501-2000 48 2 50
more than 2000 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
milk and related product where in the majority the male and female respondent is
spending Rs. 500-1000. Only fifteen male and thirteen female respondents are having
usage of Rs. 1000-1500. While forty eight male respondent are having usage of more
than Rs. 1500.

4.42.2 Occupation:

Milk and Related Products * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 127
Professiona
Service Business l Farmer
Milk and 0-500 3 1 2 2 8
Related 501-1000 29 15 7 26 77
Products 1001-1500 30 16 2 16 64
1501-2000 29 19 2 0 50
more than
1 0 0 0 1
2000
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the milk and related product. Majority of service, professional and
business person respondent are having usage for below Rs. 500-1000. The business
people of sixteen respondents are having the usage of the more than Rs. 1000-1500. In
service person and business person respectively twenty nine and nineteen families are
having usage of more than Rs. 1500. In service person having the usage of more than Rs.
2000.

4.42.3 Family income:

Milk and Related Products * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Milk and 0-500 4 2 2 8
Related 501-1000 32 42 3 77
Products 1001-1500 40 22 2 64
1501-2000 2 44 4 50
more than
0 1 0 1
2000
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
milk and related product. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having
the usage of the below Rs. 1500 but forty two family having the usage of the Rs more

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 128
than 500 to 1000. While respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are
only forty having usage of the more than Rs. 1000-1500 for a month and two family
having usage of more than1500.

4.42.4 Family members:

Milk and Related Products * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Milk and 0-500 2 2 2 2 8
Related 501-1000 6 30 34 7 77
Products 1001-1500 0 15 43 6 64
1501-2000 0 20 20 10 50
more than
0 0 0 1 1
2000
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the milk and related product. Majority of the family having the usage
of the milk and related product is Rs. 500-1000. But fifty eight family with having the
family size of the 3-4, 5-6, are using Rs. 1000- 1500 after milk and related product. One
Family having 5- 6 members are having usage of the more than Rs. 2000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 129
4.43 Monthly expenditure behind Milk and related items in rupees in 2009

4.43.1 Sex:

Milk and Related Products * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Milk and 0-500 10 1 11
Related 501-1000 52 14 66
Products 1001-1500 28 4 32
1501-2000 59 13 72
more than 2000 19 0 19
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
milk and related product where in the majority the male and female respondent is
spending Rs. 500-1000. Only twenty eight male and four female respondents are having
usage of Rs. 1000-1500. While fifty nine male respondent are having usage of more than
Rs. 1500.

4.43.2 Occupation:

Milk and Related Products * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Profession
Service Business al Farmer Total
Milk and 0-500 7 2 0 2 11
Related 501-1000 26 16 6 18 66

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 130
Products 1001-1500 11 4 3 14 32
1501-2000 37 22 3 10 72
more than
11 7 1 0 19
2000
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the milk and related product. Majority of service, professional and
business person respondent are having usage for below Rs. 1500-2000. The business
people of sixteen respondents are having the usage of the more than Rs. 500-1000. In
service person and business person respectively thirty seven and twenty two families are
having usage of more than Rs. 1500. Eleven service persons having the usage of more
than Rs. 2000.

4.43.3 Family income:

Milk and Related Products * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Milk and 0-500 7 2 2 11
Related 501-1000 27 38 1 66
Products 1001-1500 14 16 2 32
1501-2000 29 39 4 72
more than
1 16 2 19
2000
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
milk and related product. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having
the usage of the below Rs. 1500 but thirty two family having the usage of the Rs 500 to
1000. While respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only forteen

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 131
having usage of the more than Rs. 1000-1500 for a month and two family having usage
of more than1500.

4.43.4 Family members:

Milk and Related Products * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Milk and 0-500 0 3 6 2 11
Related 501-1000 8 23 29 6 66
Products 1001-1500 0 14 14 4 32
1501-2000 0 23 43 6 72
more than
0 4 7 8 19
2000
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the milk and related product. Majority of the family having the usage
of the milk and related product is Rs. 1500-2000. But thirty two families with having the
family size of the 3-4, 5-6, are using Rs. 1000- 1500 after milk and related product.
Seven Family having 5- 6 members are having usage of the more than Rs. 2000.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 132
4.44 ANOVA Table: monthly expenditure of food products and family income 2008
(Sig. Level 5 %)

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square
Cerial and Between Groups .529 2 .264 1.693 .187
Pulses
Within Groups 30.751 197 .156
Total 31.280 199
Sugar and Between Groups .031 2 .016 1.581 .208
Jaggary
Within Groups 1.949 197 .010
Total 1.980 199
Edible oil Between Groups 4.565 2 2.282 12.280 .000
Within Groups 36.615 197 .186
Total 41.180 199
Vegetables and Between Groups .740 2 .370 4.476 .013
fruits
Within Groups 16.280 197 .083
Total 17.020 199
Milk and Between Groups 10.926 2 5.463 7.491 .001
Related
Within Groups 143.669 197 .729
Products
Total 154.595 199

Findings:

The above table shows the results of expenditure behind food products like cereals and
pulses and sugar & jaggary accept the null hypothesis. So, there is no significant
relationship between Income of family and expenditure of food products. But the factors
like Edible oil, Vegetables and fruits and Milk & related products rejects the null
hypothesis, and hence, there is a significant relation among them.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 133
4.45 ANOVA Table: monthly expenditure of food products and family income 2009
(Sig. Level 5 %)

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square
Cerial and Between Groups .112 2 .056 .187 .829
Pulses
Within Groups 58.843 197 .299
Total 58.955 199
Sugar and Between Groups .015 2 .008 .146 .864
Jaggary
Within Groups 10.380 197 .053
Total 10.395 199
Edible oil Between Groups 2.306 2 1.153 5.561 .004
Within Groups 40.849 197 .207
Total 43.155 199
Vegetables and Between Groups 2.285 2 1.142 3.901 .022
fruits
Within Groups 57.695 197 .293
Total 59.980 199
Milk and Between Groups 7.257 2 3.628 2.878 .059
Related
Within Groups 248.323 197 1.261
Products
Total 255.580 199

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 134
Findings:

The above table shows the results of expenditure behind food products like cereals and
pulses, sugar & jaggary and Milk & related products accept the null hypothesis. So, there
is no significant relationship between Income of family and expenditure of food
products. But the factors like Edible oil and Vegetables and fruits reject the null
hypothesis, and hence, there is a significant relation among them.

4.46 ANOVA Table: monthly expenditure of food products and sex 2008
(Sig. Level 5 %)

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square
Cereal and Between Groups .161 1 .161 1.024 .313
Pulses
Within Groups 31.119 198 .157
Total 31.280 199
Sugar and Between Groups .004 1 .004 .382 .537
Jaggary
Within Groups 1.976 198 .010
Total 1.980 199
Edible oil Between Groups 1.037 1 1.037 5.116 .025
Within Groups 40.143 198 .203

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 135
Total 41.180 199
Vegetables and Between Groups .115 1 .115 1.350 .247
fruits
Within Groups 16.905 198 .085
Total 17.020 199
Milk and Between Groups 3.315 1 3.315 4.339 .039
Related
Within Groups 151.280 198 .764
Products
Total 154.595 199

Findings:

The above table shows the results of expenditure behind food products like cereals and
pulses, sugar & jaggary and Vegetables & fruits accept the null hypothesis. So, there is
no significant relationship between Income of family and expenditure of food products.
But the factors like Edible oil and Milk & related products reject the null hypothesis, and
hence, there is a significant relation among them.

4.47 ANOVA Table: monthly expenditure of food products and sex 2009
(Sig. Level 5 %)

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square
Cerial and Between Groups .081 1 .081 .274 .601
Pulses
Within Groups 58.874 198 .297

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 136
Total 58.955 199
Sugar and Between Groups .115 1 .115 2.220 .138
Jaggary
Within Groups 10.280 198 .052
Total 10.395 199
Edible oil Between Groups .960 1 .960 4.505 .035
Within Groups 42.195 198 .213
Total 43.155 199
Vegetables and Between Groups .017 1 .017 .057 .812
fruits
Within Groups 59.963 198 .303
Total 59.980 199
Milk and Between Groups 1.581 1 1.581 1.233 .268
Related
Within Groups 253.999 198 1.283
Products
Total 255.580 199

Findings:

The above table shows the results of expenditure behind food products like cereals and
pulses, sugar & jaggary, Vegetables & fruits and Milk & related products accept the null
hypothesis. So, there is no significant relationship between Income of family and
expenditure of food products. But the factor like Edible oil rejects the null hypothesis,
and hence, there is a significant relation between them.

4.48 What is monthly consumption behind Cereals and pulses in 2008 (in K.G.)?

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 137
4.48.1 Sex:

Cereal and Pulses * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Cerial and 0-20 146 31 177
Pulses 21-40 18 1 19
41-60 2 0 2
61-80 2 0 2
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
cereal and pulses where in the majority the male and female respondent is below the
20kg. Only eighteen male and one female respondent are having usage of more than Rs.
20kg. While two female respondent are having usage of more than Rs. 40kg.

4.48.2 Occupation:

Cereal and Pulses * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Service Business Professional Farmer Total
Cerial 0-20 88 44 13 32 177
and 21-40 3 6 0 10 19
Pulses 41-60 0 0 0 2 2
61-80 1 1 0 0 2
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the cereal and pulses. Majority of service, professional and business person
respondent are having usage for below 20kg. The business person of forty four
respondents having the usage of the less than 20kg. In service person and business
person respectively three and six family are having usage of 20- 40kg. In business one
person having the usage of more than 60 kg.

4.48.3 Family income:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 138
Cereal and Pulses * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Cereal and 0-20 69 100 8 177
Pulses 21-40 9 7 3 19
41-60 0 2 0 2
61-80 0 2 0 2
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
cereal and pulses. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the usage
of the below 20kg but seven family having the usage of the 21-40kg. While respondent
who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only nine having usage of the 21-40kg
for a month.

4.48.4 Family members:

Cereal and Pulses * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Cereal 0-20 8 64 86 19 177
and 21-40 0 1 11 7 19
Pulses 41-60 0 0 2 0 2
61-80 0 2 0 0 2
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the cereal and pulses. Majority of the family having the usage of the
cereal and pulses is below 20kg. But one, eleven with having the family size of the 3-4,

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 139
5-6, are using more than 20kg after cereal and pulses respectively. Two Family having 5-
6 members are having usage of 41-60kg.

4.49 What is monthly consumption behind Cereals and pulses in 2009 (in K.G.)?

4.49.1 Sex:

Cereal and Pulses * Sex Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 140
Sex
Male Female Total
Cereal and 0-20 149 29 178
Pulses 21-40 16 3 19
61-80 2 0 2
more than 80 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
cereal and pulses where in the majority the male and female respondent is below the
20kg. Only sixteen male and three female respondent are having usage of more than Rs.
20kg. While two male respondent are having usage of more than Rs. 40kg.

4.49.2 Occupation:

Cereal and Pulses * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Professiona
Service Business l Farmer Total
Cereal and 0-20 86 45 13 34 178
Pulses 21-40 4 5 0 10 19
61-80 1 1 0 0 2
more than
1 0 0 0 1
80
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the cereal and pulses. Majority of service, professional and business person
respondent are having usage for below 20kg. The business person of forty five
respondents having the usage of the less than 20kg. In service person and business

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 141
person respectively four and five family are having usage of 20- 40kg. In business one
person having the usage of more than 60 kg.

4.49.3 Family income:

Cereal and Pulses * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Cerial and 0-20 69 101 8 178
Pulses 21-40 9 7 3 19
61-80 0 2 0 2
more than 80 0 1 0 1
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
cereal and pulses. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the usage
of the below 20kg but seven family having the usage of the 21-40kg. While respondent
who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only nine having usage of the 21-40kg
for a month.

4.49.4 Family members:

Cereal and Pulses * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Cereal and 0-20 8 65 85 20 178
Pulses 21-40 0 0 13 6 19

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 142
61-80 0 2 0 0 2
more than
0 0 1 0 1
80
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the cereal and pulses. Majority of the family having the usage of the
cereal and pulses is below 20kg. But eleven family with having the family size of the 5-
6, are using more than 20kg after cereal and pulses respectively. Six Family having 5- 6
members are having usage of 21-40kg.

4.50 Monthly consumption behind Sugar & jaggary in 2008 (in K.G.)

4.50.1 Sex:

Sugar and Jaggary * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Sugar and 0-20 165 32 197
21-40 3 0 3

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 143
Jaggary
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
sugar and jaggary where in the majority the male and female respondent is below the
20kg. Only three male respondent are having usage of more than Rs. 20kg. While 32
female respondent are having usage of below than Rs. 20kg.

4.50.2 Occupation:

Sugar and Jaggary * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Service Business Professional Farmer Total
Sugar 0-20 91 51 13 42 197
and 21-40
1 0 0 2 3
Jaggary
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the sugar and jaggary. Majority of service, professional and business
person respondent are having usage for below 20kg. The business person of fifty one
respondents having the usage of the less than 20kg. In service person and farmer
respectively four and five family are having usage of 20- 40kg.

4.50.3 Family income:

Sugar and Jaggary * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Sugar and 0-20 78 108 11 197
Jaggary 21-40 0 3 0 3
Total 78 111 11 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 144
Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
sugar and jaggary. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the
usage of the below 20kg but three family having the usage of the 21-40kg. While
respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 none family having usage of the
21-40kg for a month.

4.50.4 Family members:

Sugar and Jaggary * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family Total


1-2 3-4 5-6 more than
6
Sugar 0-20 8 67 96 26 197
and
21-40 0 0 3 0 3
Jaggary
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the sugar and jaggary. Majority of the family having the usage of the
sugar and jaggary is below 20kg. But three families with having the family size of the 5-
6, are using more than 20kg after sugar and jaggary respectively. 96 Family having 5- 6
members are having usage of below 20kg.

4.51 What is monthly consumption behind Sugar & jaggary in 2009 (in K.G.)?

4.51.1 Sex:

Sugar and Jaggary * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 145
Male Female
Sugar and 0-20 167 32 199
Jaggary
21-40 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
sugar and jaggary where in the majority the male and female respondent is below the
20kg. Only one male respondent are having usage of more than Rs. 20kg. While 32
female respondent are having usage of below than Rs. 20kg.

4.51.2 Occupation:

Sugar and Jaggary * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Service Business Professional Farmer Total
Sugar 0-20 91 51 13 44 199
and 21-40
Jaggary 1 0 0 0 1
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the sugar and jaggary. Majority of service, professional and business
person respondent are having usage for below 20kg. The business person of fifty one
respondents having the usage of the less than 20kg. In service person only one family are
having usage of 20- 40kg.

4.51.3 Family income:

Sugar and Jaggary * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 146
Sugar and 0-20 78 110 11 199
Jaggary 21-40 0 1 0 1
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
sugar and jaggary. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the
usage of the below 20kg but one family having the usage of the 21-40kg. While
respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 none family having usage of the
21-40kg for a month.

4.51.4 Family members:

Sugar and Jaggary * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Sugar 0-20 8 67 98 26 199
and 21-40
0 0 1 0 1
Jaggary
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the sugar and jaggary. Majority of the family having the usage of the
sugar and jaggary is below 20kg. But one families with having the family size of the 5-6,
are using more than 20kg after sugar and jaggary respectively. 98 Family having 5- 6
members are having usage of below 20kg.

4.52 What is monthly consumption behind Edible oil in 2008 (in K.G.)?

4.52.1 Sex:

Edible oil * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 147
Edible oil 0-20 164 32 196
21-40 2 0 2
41-60 2 0 2
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
edible oil where in the majority of the male and female respondent is below the 20kg.
one hundred sixty four male respondents are having usage of less than 20kg. While all
thirty two female respondent are having usage of less than 20kg. only four male
respondent are having usage of more than 20kg.

4.52.2 Occupation:

Edible oil * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Service Business Professional Farmer Total
Edible 0-20 91 50 13 42 196
oil 21-40 1 1 0 0 2
41-60 0 0 0 2 2
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:
The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the edible oil. Majority of service, professional and business person
respondent are having usage for below 20 kg. The farmer of only two respondents having
the usage of the more than 40 kg. In service person and business person respectively
ninety one and fifty families are having usage of less than 20kg.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 148
4.52.3 Family income:

Edible oil * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Edible 0-20 78 108 10 196
oil 21-40 0 1 1 2
41-60 0 2 0 2
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
edible oil. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the usage of the
below 20kg but only three family having the usage of the Rs more than 20kg. While
respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only nine having usage of
the less than 20kg for a month.

4.52.4 Family members:

Edible oil * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
1-2 3-4 5-6 more than 6 Total
Edible 0-20 8 67 97 24 196
oil 21-40 0 0 0 2 2
41-60 0 0 2 0 2
Total 8 67 99 26 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 149
Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the edible oil. Majority of the family having the usage of the edible oil
is below 20kg. But sixty seven and ninety seven families with having the family size of
the 3-4, 5-6, are using more than 20kg after edible oil. Two family having six member
using edible oil of 40kg a month.

4.53 What is monthly consumption behind Edible oil in 2009 (in K.G.)?

4.53.1 Sex:

Edible oil * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Edible oil 0-20 167 32 199
21-40 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 150
Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
edible oil where in the one hundred ninety nine of the male and female respondent is
below the 20kg. Only one male respondents are having usage of more than 20kg. While
none female respondent are having usage of more than 20kg.

4.53.2 Occupation:

Edible oil * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Service Business Professional Farmer Total
Edible 0-20 92 50 13 44 199
oil 21-40 0 1 0 0 1
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:
The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the edible oil. Majority of service, professional and business person
respondent are having usage for below 20kg. The farmer none respondents having the
usage of the more than Rs. 20kg. In service person and business person respectively only
one and none family are having usage of more than 20 kg.

4.53.3 Family income:

Edible oil * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Edible 0-20 78 111 10 199
oil 21-40 0 0 1 1
Total 78 111 11 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 151
Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
edible oil. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the usage of the
below 20kg but one family having the usage of the Rs more than 500. While respondent
who are having income of the 71000-150000 are seventy eight having usage of the less
than 20kg for a month.

4.53.4 Family members:

Edible oil * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
1-2 3-4 5-6 more than 6 Total
Edible 0-20 8 67 99 25 199
oil 21-40 0 0 0 1 1
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the edible oil. Majority of the family having the usage of the edible oil
is below Rs. 20kg. But sixty seven and ninety nine families with having the family size
of the 3-4, 5-6, are using more than 20kg after edible oil. One Family having more than 6
member are having usage of the more than 20kg.

4.54 Monthly consumption behind Vegetables and fruits in 2008 (in K.G.)

4.54.1 Sex:

Vegetables and fruits * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Vegetables and 0-20 99 22 121
fruits 21-40 66 10 76
41-60 1 0 1
61-80 1 0 1

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 152
more than 80 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
vegetable and fruits where in the majority the male and female respondent is below the
20kg. Only sixty six male respondents are having usage of more than 20-40kg. While 3
male respondent are having usage of more than 40 kg.

4.54.2 Occupation:

Vegetables and fruits * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Profession
Service Business al Farmer Total
Vegetables 0-20 53 28 9 31 121
and fruits 21-40 37 22 4 15 76
41-60 0 0 0 0 0
Total 90 51 13 46 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the vegetable and fruits. Majority of service, professional and business
person respondent are having usage for below 20kg. The farmer of thirteen respondents
having the usage of the more than 40kg. In service person and business person
respectively thirty seven and twenty seven families are having usage of more than 40kg.
In business twenty two person having the usage of more than 20kg.

4.54.3 Family income:

Vegetables and fruits * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Vegetables 0-20 51 68 2 121
and fruits 21-40 27 42 7 76

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 153
41-60 0 0 1 1
61-80 0 0 1 1
more than 80 0 1 0 1
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
vegetable and fruits. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the
usage of the below 20kg but seventy six family having the usage of the Rs more than 21-
40 kg. While respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are twenty seven
families having usage of the more than 20-40kg. for a month.
4.54.4 Family members:

Vegetables and fruits * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Vegetables 0-20 8 57 46 10 121
and fruits 21-40 0 10 52 14 76
41-60 0 0 0 1 1
61-80 0 0 0 1 1
more than
0 0 1 0 1
80
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the vegetable and fruits. Majority of the family having the usage of the
vegetable and fruits is below 20kg. But seventy six family with having the family size of
the 3-4, 5-6, are using more than 20-40kg. after vegetable and fruits. Two Family having
5- 6 members are having usage of the more than 40kg.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 154
4.55 What is monthly consumption behind Vegetables and fruits in 2009 (in K.G.)?

4.55.1 Sex:

Vegetables and fruits * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Vegetables and 0-20 84 22 106
fruits 21-40 81 10 91
41-60 2 0 2
more than 80 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 155
In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
vegetable and fruits where in the majority the male and female respondent is below 20kg.
Only eighty one male and ten female respondents are having usage of 20-40kg. While
two male respondents are having usage of more than 40 kg.

4.55.2 Occupation:

Vegetables and fruits * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Profession
Service Business al Farmer Total
Vegetables 0-20 47 23 8 28 106
and fruits 21-40 44 28 5 14 91
41-60 0 0 0 2 2
more than
1 0 0 0 1
80
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the vegetable and fruits. Majority of service, professional and business
person respondent are having usage for below 20kg. The business person of twenty eight
respondents having the usage of the more than 20kg. In service person and farmer
respectively forty four and fourteen family are having usage of more than Rs. 500. In one
service person having the usage of more than 40kg.

4.55.3 Family income:

Vegetables and fruits * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Vegetables 0-20 49 55 2 106
and fruits 21-40 29 53 9 91
41-60 0 2 0 2
more than 60 0 0 0 0
Total 78 111 11 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 156
Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
vegetable and fruits. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having the
usage of the below 20kg but fifty three family having the usage of the 20-40kg. While
respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only twenty nine having
usage of the more than 20kg for a month and two family having usage of 40kg in income
group of 150000-300000.

4.55.4 Family members:

Vegetables and fruits * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Vegetables 0-20 8 46 44 8 106
and fruits 21-40 0 21 52 18 91
41-60 0 0 0 3 3
more than
0 0 0 0 0
60
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the vegetable and fruits. Majority of the family having the usage of the
vegetable and fruits is below 20kg. But twenty one, fifty two, eighteen families with
having the family size of the 3-4, 5-6, more than 6 are using more than 20kgs after
vegetable and fruits respectively. Three family having more than 6 members are having
usage of the more than 40kg.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 157
4.56 What is Monthly consumption behind Milk and related products in 2008 (in
ltrs.)?

4.56.1 Sex:

Milk and Related Products * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Milk and 0-20 6 0 6
Related 21-40 73 19 92
Products 41-60 24 4 28
61-80 60 9 69
more than 80 5 0 5
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
milk and related product where in the majority the male and female respondent is

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 158
spending Rs. 20-40kg. Seventy male and nineteen female respondents are having usage
of 20-40ltr. While sixty male and nine respondents are having usage of more than sixty
liters.

4.56.2 Occupation:

Milk and Related Products * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Professiona
Service Business l Farmer Total
Milk and 0-20 2 0 0 4 6
Related 21-40 37 20 8 27 92
Products 41-60 12 8 3 5 28
61-80 37 23 1 8 69
more than
4 0 1 0 5
80
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the milk and related product. Majority of service, professional and
business person respondent are having usage of 21-40 liters. The business people of
twenty respondents are having the usage of the 21-40 liters. In service person and
business person respectively thirty seven and twenty three families are having usage of
more than Rs. 1500. In twelve service person having the usage of more than 40 liters.

4.56.3 Family income:

Milk and Related Products * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Milk and 0-20 2 2 2 6
Related
21-40 43 46 3 92

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 159
Products 41-60 16 12 0 28
61-80 16 48 5 69
more than 1 3 1 5
80
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
milk and related product. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having
the usage of the between 20-60 liters but forty six families having the usage of the 21-40
liters. While respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only forty three
having usage of the 21-40 liters for a month and two family having usage of less than 20
liters.

4.56.4 Family members:

Milk and Related Products * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Milk and 0-20 0 0 4 2 6
Related 21-40 8 35 40 9 92
Products 41-60 0 9 19 0 28
61-80 0 22 36 11 69
more than
0 1 0 4 5
80
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the milk and related product. Majority of the family having the usage
of the milk and related product is 20-40 kg. But thirty five, forty families with having

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 160
the family size of the 3-4, 5-6, are using 20-40 liters after milk and related product
respectively.

4.57 What is monthly consumption behind Milk and related products in 2009 (in
ltrs.)?

4.57.1 Sex:

Milk and Related Products * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
Male Female Total
Milk and 0-20 4 0 4
Related 21-40 68 19 87
Products 41-60 33 8 41
61-80 59 5 64
more than 80 4 0 4
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation the between sex of respondent and their consumption of
milk and related product where in the majority the male and female respondent is

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 161
spending 21-40 kg. Only sixty eight male and nineteen female respondents are having
usage of 21-40 liters. While fifty nine male respondent are having usage of more than
60liters.

4.57.2 Occupation:

Milk and Related Products * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation
Professiona
Service Business l Farmer Total
Milk and 0-20 2 0 0 2 4
Related 21-40 37 17 9 24 87
Products 41-60 20 10 2 9 41
61-80 29 24 2 9 64
more than
4 0 0 0 4
80
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

The above calculation shows that cross tabulation between occupation of respondent and
their usage of the milk and related product. Majority of service, professional and
business person respondent are having usage for between 20-40 liters. The business
people of seventeen respondents are having the usage of the more than 20-40 liters. In
service person and business person respectively twenty nine and twenty four families are
having usage of 60 liters. Two service persons having the usage of below 20 liters.

4.57.3 Family income:

Milk and Related Products * Income Cross tabulation

Income
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000 Total
Milk and 0-20 2 0 2 4
Related 21-40 41 45 1 87
Products 41-60 24 16 1 41
61-80 11 46 7 64
more than 0 4 0 4

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 162
80
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

In the above cross tabulation between yearly income of respondent and their usage of
milk and related product. Majority people having income of 150000 and above having
the usage of the between 21-40 kg but forty six family having the usage of the more than
sixty liters. While respondent who are having income of the 71000-150000 are only forty
one families are having usage of the more than 21-40 for a month and two family having
usage of less than 20 liters.

4.57.4 Family members:

Milk and Related Products * No of person in family Cross tabulation

No of person in family
more than
1-2 3-4 5-6 6 Total
Milk and 0-20 4 0 0 0 4
Related 21-40 8 34 39 6 87
Products 41-60 0 13 26 2 41
61-80 0 20 31 13 64
more than
0 0 1 3 4
80
Total 12 67 99 26 200

Findings:
In the above cross tabulation between No. of family member in family’s of respondent
and their usage of the milk and related product. Majority of the family having the usage
of the milk and related product is Rs. 21-40 liters. Thirty four, thirty nine families with
having the family size of the 3-4, 5-6, are using 21-40 after milk and related product.
Thirteen Family having 5- 6 members are having usage of the 60 liters a month.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 163
4.58 ANOVA Table: monthly consumption of food products and sex 2008
(Sig. Level 5 %)
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Cereal and Between Groups .493 1 .493 2.422 .121
Pulses
Within Groups 40.302 198 .204
Total 40.795 199
Sugar and Between Groups .009 1 .009 .576 .449
Jaggary
Within Groups 2.946 198 .015
Total 2.955 199
Edible oil Between Groups .034 1 .034 .694 .406
Within Groups 9.786 198 .049
Total 9.820 199
Vegetables and Between Groups .482 1 .482 1.396 .239
fruits
Within Groups 68.393 198 .345
Total 68.875 199
Milk and Between Groups 1.339 1 1.339 1.322 .252
Related
Within Groups 200.536 198 1.013

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 164
Products
Total 201.875 199

Findings:

The above table shows the results of Consumption of food products like cereals and
pulses, sugar & jaggary, Edible oil, Vegetables & fruits and Milk & related products
accept the null hypothesis. So, there is no significant relationship between Sex and
Consumption of food.

4.59 ANOVA Table: monthly consumption of food products and sex 2008
(Sig. Level 5 %)
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Cereal and Between Groups .100 1 .100 .407 .524
Pulses
Within Groups 48.695 198 .246
Total 48.795 199
Sugar and Between Groups .001 1 .001 .190 .664
Jaggary
Within Groups .994 198 .005
Total .995 199
Edible oil Between Groups .001 1 .001 .190 .664

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 165
Within Groups .994 198 .005
Total .995 199
Vegetables and Between Groups 1.269 1 1.269 3.881 .050
fruits
Within Groups 64.726 198 .327
Total 65.995 199
Milk and Between Groups 3.962 1 3.962 4.447 .036
Related
Within Groups 176.393 198 .891
Products
Total 180.355 199

Findings:

The above table shows the results of Consumption of food products like cereals and
pulses, sugar & jaggary, Edible oil and Vegetables & fruits accept the null hypothesis.
So, there is no significant relationship between Sex and Consumption of food. But the
factor like Milk & related Products rejects the null hypothesis, and hence, there is a
significant relation between them.

4.60 How inflation affected to hotels and restaurants expenses?

4.60.1 Sex:

Hotel and Restaurants * Sex Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 166
Sex Total
Male Female
Hotel and highly affected 29 5 34
Restaurants
Affected 69 19 88
Average 60 8 68
low affected 9 0 9
very low affected 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Hotel and Restaurants are independent to Sex

H1: inflation affects the Hotel and Restaurants are dependent to Sex

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.901(a) 4 .298
a. 3 cells (30.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .16.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 167
4.60.2 Occupation:

Hotel and Restaurants * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Professio Farmer
s nal
Hotel and highly 20 4 0 10 34
Restaurants affected
affected 32 22 10 24 88
average 36 22 3 7 68
low affected 4 3 0 2 9
very low 0 0 0 1 1
affected
Total 92 51 13 44 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Hotel and Restaurants are independent to Occupation

H1: inflation affects the Hotel and Restaurants are dependent to Occupation

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 23.898(a) 12 .021
a. 10 cells (50.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .07.

Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 168
4.60.3 Family income:

Hotel and Restaurants * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Hotel and highly affected 15 17 2 34
Restaurants
affected 40 40 8 88
average 22 45 1 68
low affected 1 8 0 9
very low 0 1 0 1
affected
Total 78 111 11 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Hotel and Restaurants are independent to Family income

H1: inflation affects the Hotel and Restaurants are dependent to Family

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 14.100(a) 8 .079
a. 9 cells (60.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .06.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 169
4.61 How inflation affected to Theatres?

4.61.1 Sex:

Theatres * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Theatres highly affected 16 2 18
affected 54 16 70
average 88 11 99
low affected 8 3 11
very low affected 2 0 2
Total 168 32 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Theatres are independent to Sex

H1: inflation affects the Theatres are dependent to Sex

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.951(a) 4 .203
a. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .32.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 170
Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

4.61.2 Occupation:

Theatres * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Profession Farmer
al
Theatres highly 13 3 0 2 18
affected
affected 30 21 6 13 70
average 43 25 7 24 99
low 5 2 0 4 11
affected
very low 1 0 0 1 2
affected
Total 92 51 13 44 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Theatres are independent to Occupation

H1: inflation affects the Theatres are dependent to Occupation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 171
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.682(a) 12 .556
a. 11 cells (55.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .13.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case.

4.61.3 Family income:

Theatres * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Theatres highly 5 11 2 18
affected
affected 30 39 1 70
average 38 54 7 99
low affected 5 5 1 11
very low 0 2 0 2
affected
Total 78 111 11 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 172
a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Theatres are independent to Family income

H1: inflation affects the Theatres are dependent to Family income

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.740(a) 8 .565
a. 7 cells (46.7%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .11.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case.

4.62 How inflation affected to Tours and travels?

4.62.1 Sex:

Tour and Travels * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Tour and highly affected 26 7 33
Travels
affected 51 11 62
average 68 9 77
low affected 20 5 25

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 173
very low 3 0 3
affected
Total 168 32 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Tour and Travels are independent to Sex

H1: inflation affects the Tour and Travels are dependent to Sex

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.741(a) 4 .602
a. 3 cells (30.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .48.

Findings:

Accept the null hypothesis because it is more than .05 in this case. People views are
same in this case.

4.62.2 Occupation:

Tour and Travels * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professiona Farmer
l
Tour and highly 15 7 2 9 33

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 174
Travels affected
affected 27 12 5 18 62
average 33 26 6 12 77
low 17 6 0 2 25
affected
very low 0 0 0 3 3
affected
Total 92 51 13 44 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the Tour and Travels are independent to Tour and travels

H1: inflation affects the Tour and Travels are dependent to Tour and travels

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 24.301(a) 12 .019
a. 7 cells (35.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .20.

Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

4.62.3 Family income:

Tour and Travels * Income Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 175
Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Tour and highly 12 20 1 33
Travels affected
affected 28 30 4 62
average 20 51 6 77
low affected 16 9 0 25
very low 2 1 0 3
affected
Total 78 111 11 200

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: inflation affects the tours and travel is independent to income

H1: inflation affects the tours and travel is dependent to income

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 15.648(a) 8 .048
a. 7 cells (46.7%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .17.

Findings:

Here all respondents have different view point regarding this case. So reject the null
hypothesis.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 176
4.63 What was your monthly expenditure behind hotels and restaurants in 2008?

4.63.1 Sex:

Hotel and restaurants * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Hotel and 0-200 31 10 41
restaurants
201-400 37 4 41
401-600 43 5 48
601-800 15 3 18
more than 800 42 10 52
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 21 % people are spending between 0-200 rupee behind
hotel and restaurants while 21 % people are also spending between 201-400 rupee. 24 %
people are spending 401-600 rupee behind hotels and restaurants and 26 % people are
spending more than 800 rupee in a month behind hotels and restaurants.

4.63.2 Occupation:

Hotel and restaurants * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer
s al
Hotel and 0-200 13 13 4 11 41
restaurants
201-400 26 9 1 5 41
401-600 21 7 3 17 48
601-800 10 6 0 2 18

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 177
more than 22 16 5 9 52
800
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the 26 % respondents who spends more than 800 rupee in a month behind hotels
and restaurants, 22 are doing service, 16 people are doing business, 5 people are
professionals while 9 people are farmers.

4.63.3 Family income:

Hotel and restaurants * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Hotel and 0-200 25 16 0 41
restaurants
201-400 10 29 2 41
401-600 21 24 3 48
601-800 4 14 0 18
more than 800 18 28 6 52
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the 26 % respondents who spends more than 800 rupee in a month behind hotels
and restaurants, 18 people have family income between 71000-150000 while 28 people
have family income between 151000-300000 rupee and 6 people have family income
above 300000 rupee.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 178
4.64 What was your monthly expenditure behind hotels and restaurants in 2009?

4.64.1 Sex:

Hotel and restaurants * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Hotel and 0-200 34 13 47
restaurants
201-400 51 6 57
401-600 30 5 35
601-800 36 4 40
more than 800 17 4 21
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

Here because of inflation the prices gone up in hotels and restaurants because of that
people transfers from higher level spending to lower spending behind hotels and
restaurants. Now 23 % people are spending between the range of 0-200 rupee monthly
while 28 % people spending 201-400 rupee and 20 % people are spending between the
ranges of 601-800 rupee per month. In the segment of more than 800 rupee per month
very few people are belonging.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 179
4.64.2 Occupation:

Hotel and restaurants * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer
s al
Hotel and 0-200 18 16 0 13 47
restaurants
201-400 28 10 2 17 57
401-600 16 9 6 4 35
601-800 21 6 3 10 40
more than 9 10 2 0 21
800
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the 28 % respondents who spends 201-400 rupee per month behind hotel and
restaurants, 28 people are doing service, 10 people are doing business, and 2 people are
professionals while 17 people are farmers.

4.64.3 Family income:

Hotel and restaurants * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Hotel and 0-200 25 21 1 47
restaurants
201-400 21 36 0 57
401-600 14 20 1 35

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 180
601-800 13 20 7 40
more than 800 5 14 2 21
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the 28 % respondents who spends more than 800 rupee in a month behind hotels
and restaurants, 21 people have family income between 71000-150000 while 36 people
have family income between 151000-300000 rupee and 0 people have family income
above 300000 rupee.

4.65 What was your monthly expenditure behind Theatres in 2008?

4.65.1 Sex:

Theatres * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Theatres 0-200 118 27 145
201-400 25 4 29
401-600 24 1 25
more than 800 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 181
Findings:

Above 70 % people are spending between the ranges of 0-200 rupee per moth behind
theatres. From that 73 % people 118 are male respondents while 27 are female.

4.65.2 Occupation:

Theatres * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professiona Farmer
l
Theatres 0-200 69 35 7 34 145
201-400 8 9 4 8 29
401-600 15 6 2 2 25
more than 0 1 0 0 1
800
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From above 70 % people who spend between 0-200 rupee per moth behind theatres, 69
respondents are doing service, 35 people are doing business, 7 people are professionals
and 34 people are farmers.

4.65.3 Family income:

Theatres * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Theatres 0-200 62 77 6 145

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 182
201-400 12 13 4 29
401-600 4 21 0 25
more than 0 0 1 1
800
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the 73 % respondents who spend between 0-200 rupee in a month behind theatres,
62 people have family income between 71000-150000 while 77 people have family
income between 151000-300000 rupee and 6 people have family income above 300000
rupee.

4.66 What was your monthly expenditure behind Theatres in 2009?

4.66.1 Sex:

Theatres * Sex Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 183
Sex Total
Male Female
Theatres 0-200 107 31 138
201-400 51 1 52
401-600 7 0 7
601-800 2 0 2
more than 800 1 0 1
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

69 % people are spending between the ranges of 0-200 rupee per moth behind theatres.
From that 69 % people 107 are male respondents while 31 are female. 26 % respondents
spend between 201-400 rupee. From that 26 % 51 are male and 1 is female respondent.

4.66.2 Occupation:

Theatres * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer
s al
Theatres 0-200 57 32 8 41 138
201-400 31 15 5 1 52
401-600 2 3 0 2 7
601-800 1 1 0 0 2
more 1 0 0 0 1
than 800
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 184
From above 69 % people who spend between 0-200 rupee per moth behind theatres, 57
respondents are doing service, 32 people are doing business, 8 people are professionals
and 41 people are farmers.

4.66.3 Family income:

Theatres * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Theatres 0-200 69 64 5 138
201-400 7 41 4 52
401-600 2 5 0 7
601-800 0 0 2 2
more than 0 1 0 1
800
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the 69 % respondents who spend between 0-200 rupee in a month behind theatres,
69 people have family income between 71000-150000 while 64 people have family
income between 151000-300000 rupee and 5 people have family income above 300000
rupee.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 185
4.67 Has your transportation expenditure got affected by inflation?

4.67.1 Sex:

Transportation Exp. affected by inflation * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Transportation Yes 161 32 193
Exp. affected
No 7 0 7
by inflation
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 193 has got affected by inflation in the case of
transportation. From that 193 respondents 161 are male and 32 are female respondents.

4.67.2 Occupation:

Transportation Exp. affected by inflation * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Professiona Farmer
l
Transporta Yes 90 50 10 43 193
tion Exp.
No 2 1 3 1 7
affected by

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 186
inflation
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the 193 respondents who got affected by inflation in the case of transportation, 90
are doing service, 50 are doing business, 10 are professionals and 43 are farmers.

4.67.3 Family income:

Transportation Exp. affected by inflation * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Transportati Yes 76 107 10 193
on Exp.
No 2 4 1 7
affected by
inflation
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:

From the total 193 respondents 76 people have family income between 71000-150000
while 107 people have family income between 151000-300000 rupee and 10 people have
family income above 300000 rupee.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 187
4.68 What is your monthly expenditure behind transportation in 2008?

4.68.1 Sex:

Expenditure behind transportation * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Expenditure behind 0-300 13 3 16
transportation
301-600 70 11 81
601-900 36 9 45
901-1200 28 6 34
more than 1200 21 3 24
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

40 % people are spending between the ranges of 301-600 rupee per moth behind
transportation. From that 40 % people 70 are male respondents while 11 are female. 22

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 188
% respondents spend between 601-900 rupee. From that 26 % 36 are male and 9 are
female respondent.

4.68.2 Occupation:

Expenditure behind transportation * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer
s al
Expenditure 0-300 5 2 4 5 16
behind
301-600 36 23 2 20 81
transportati
on 601-900 19 13 2 11 45
901-1200 20 5 1 8 34
more than 12 8 4 0 24
1200
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the 40 % respondents who spends 301-600 rupee behind transportation monthly,
36 are doing service, 23 are doing business, 2 are professionals and 20 are farmers.

4.69 What is your monthly expenditure behind transportation in 2009?

4.69.1 Sex:

Expenditure behind transportation * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Expenditure 0-300 13 3 16
behind
301-600 42 6 48
transportation
601-900 81 18 99
901-1200 18 0 18

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 189
more than 1200 14 5 19
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 50 % are spending between 601-900 rupee behind
transportation monthly. From that 50 % people 81 are male and 18 are female.

4.69.2 Occupation:

Expenditure behind transportation * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer
s al
Expenditure 0-300 5 2 4 5 16
behind
301-600 19 11 2 16 48
transportati
on 601-900 50 28 1 20 99
901-1200 10 6 2 0 18
more than 8 4 4 3 19
1200
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the 50 % people who spend 601-900 rupee behind transportation, 50 people are
doing service, 28 are doing business, 1 is professional and 16 are farmers.

4.70 Have you started use of electronic equipments which lower your bills?

4.70.1 Sex:

Use of electronic equipments * Sex Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 190
Sex Total
Male Female
Use of yes 149 29 178
electronic
no 19 3 22
equipments
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 178 people have started use of electronic equipments
which lower your bills.

4.70.2 Occupation:

Use of electronic equipments * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Business Profession Farmer
al
Use of yes 84 49 9 36 178
electronic
no 8 2 4 8 22
equipmen
ts
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the 178 respondents 84 people are doing service, 49 people are doing business, 9
are professionals and 36 are farmers.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 191
4.71 Have you disconnected your landline connection because of fixed cost?

4.71.1 Sex:

Disconnected Land line connections * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Disconnected yes 123 28 151
Land line
no 45 4 49
connections
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 151 people have disconnected their landline connection
because of fixed cost.

4.71.2 Occupation:

Disconnected Land line connections * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer
s al
Disconnect yes 66 39 9 37 151
ed Land
no 26 12 4 7 49
line
connection
s
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the 151 people who have disconnected their landline connection 66 are doing
service, 39 are doing business, 9 are professionals and 37 are farmers.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 192
4.72 How frequently do you shop in a month? (In 2008)

4.72.1 Sex:

Frequency of Shopping in 2008 * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Frequency of Once 32 14 46
Shopping in 2008
Twice 74 5 79
Thrice 27 2 29
More than thrice 35 11 46
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In 2008 40 % people were shopping twice in a month while 23 % people were shopping
once and more than thrice in a month.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 193
4.73 How frequently do you shop in a month? (In 2009)

4.73.1 Sex:

Frequency of Shopping in 2009 * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Frequency of once 67 14 81
Shopping in 2009
twice 57 7 64
thrice 30 8 38
more than thrice 14 3 17
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

In 2009 people have transferred from thrice and more than thrice segment to once. 41 %
people are going for shopping once in a month while 32 % people are going for shopping
twice in a month.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 194
4.74 What is your yearly expenditure behind branded wear? (In 2008)

4.74.1 Sex:

Branded Wear * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Branded Wear 0-1000 47 12 59
1001-2000 42 3 45
2001-3000 42 7 49
3001-4000 16 8 24
more than 4000 21 2 23
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

30 % people are spending 0-1000 rupee behind branded wears while 22 % & 24 %
people are spending 1001-2000 & 2001-3000 respectively behind branded wear.

4.7.42 Occupation:

Branded Wear * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer
s al

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 195
Branded 0-1000 25 13 4 17 59
Wear
1001-2000 26 13 1 5 45
2001-3000 27 9 2 11 49
3001-4000 4 10 4 6 24
more than 10 6 2 5 23
4000
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From the 30 % respondents who are spending 0-1000 rupee behind branded wear, 25 are
doing service, 13 are doing business, 4 are professionals and 17 are farmers.

4.75 What is your yearly expenditure behind branded wear? (In 2009)

4.75.1 Sex:

Branded Wear * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Branded Wear 0-1000 35 14 49
1001-2000 48 4 52
2001-3000 53 12 65
3001-4000 21 2 23
more than 4000 11 0 11
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 196
In 2009 33 % respondents are spending 2001-3000 rupee behind branded wears while 25
% & 26 % people are spending 0-1000 & 1001-2000 rupee respectively behind branded
wears.

4.75.2 Occupation:

Branded Wear * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer
s al
Branded 0-1000 19 15 2 13 49
Wear
1001-2000 30 6 3 13 52
2001-3000 26 21 4 14 65
3001-4000 11 7 3 2 23
more than 6 2 1 2 11
4000
Total 92 51 13 44 200
Findings:

From 33 % who are spending 2001-3000 behind branded wears, 19 are doing service, 15
are doing business, 2 are professionals and 13 are farmers.

4.76 Have you applied any remedial measure to cope up with inflation?

Findings:

Majority of the people are started buying in bulk quantity and started buying in diss.
Many people has started buying in small quantity too in opposition of buying in bulk
quantity. 12% of the people are lower the consumption of different commodities.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 197
4.77 Have you put any effort to increase your family income?

4.77.1 Sex:

Efforts to increase family income * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Efforts to yes 147 31 178
increase family
no 21 1 22
income
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

From the total 200 respondents 178 people have put efforts to increase their family
income.

4.77.2 Occupation:

Efforts to increase family income * Occupation Cross tabulation

Occupation Total
Service Busines Profession Farmer

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 198
s al
Efforts to yes 84 40 10 44 178
increase
no 8 11 3 0 22
family
income
Total 92 51 13 44 200

Findings:

From 178 respondents 84 are doing service, 40 are doing business, 10 are professionals
and 44 are farmers.

4.77.3 Family income:


Efforts to increase family income * Income Cross tabulation

Income Total
71000- 151000- more than
150000 300000 300000
Efforts to yes 76 92 10 178
increase
no 2 19 1 22
family
income
Total 78 111 11 200

Findings:
From 178 respondents 76 are belonging to 71000-150000 rupee family income, 92 are
belonging to 15000-300000 rupee family income and 10 are belonging to more than
300000 rupee family income who are putting efforts to increase their income.

4.77.4 Family members:


Efforts to increase family income * No of person in family Cross tabulation

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 199
No of person in family Total
1-2 3-4 5-6 more than
6
Efforts to yes 6 55 95 22 178
increase
no 2 12 4 4 22
family
income
Total 8 67 99 26 200

Findings:
From the total 178 respondents 6 people have 1-2 family members, 55 have 3-4
members, 95 people have 5-6 members in family and 22 people have more than 6
members in family.

4.78 How you have increased your income?

Findings:

As the inflation result in the increase in price people need more money to satisfied the
necessity. For that many people used different option to raise their income like part time
job, overtime, investment of saving etc. majority of the people are started overtime that is
thirty percent. While 27% has started investing in the different investment alternatives
too. Twenty three percent people have started part-time jobs.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 200
4.79 What is your monthly saving? (In 2008)

4.79.1 Sex:

Savings in 2008 * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Savings in 2008 2501-5000 21 5 26
5001-7500 57 15 72
7501-10000 59 8 67
more than 31 4 35
10000
Total 168 32 200

Findings:
36 % respondents have monthly savings between 5001-7500 rupee monthly while 34 %
respondents have saving between the range of 7501-10000 rupee per month.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 201
4.80 What is your monthly saving? (In 2008)

4.80.1 Sex:

Savings in 2009 * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
Savings in 2009 0-2500 4 2 6
2501-5000 48 4 52
5001-7500 62 21 83
7501-10000 30 1 31
more than 24 4 28
10000
Total 168 32 200

Findings:
42 % people have saving between the range of 5001-7500 while 26 % people have
saving of 2501-5000 rupee per month.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 202
4.81 How you are investing saving in different alternatives?

Findings:

People who are investing their savings in a different investment alternative majority
people are prefer to invest In the security market by investing in the share and stocks.
Thirty three percentage people are investing in the security market to generate return on
their saving. While twenty seven percent people are investing in the insurance and
seventeen percentages are investing in a postal schemes. While people who are prefer
fixed return are investing government instrument and fixed deposits too. Only one
percentage are investing in precious metal because they need larger amount.

4.82 Are you satisfied with actions taken by government to control the inflation?

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 203
4.82.1 Sex:

Action taken by government * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex Total
Male Female
action taken by Strongly satisfied 10 5 15
government
satisfied 36 16 52
Moderate 51 5 56
Dissatisfied 66 5 71
Strongly 5 1 6
Dissatisfied
Total 168 32 200

Findings:

35 % people are dissatisfied with the actions taken by government while 28 % & 26 %
people are moderate & satisfied respectively.

a. Chi Square test: (Sig. Level 5%)

Ho: action taken by government is independent to sex

H1: action taken by government is dependent to sex

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-


sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 18.117(a) 4 .001
a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected less than 5. The minimum expected is .96.

Reject the null hypothesis because the value of significance level is lower than the
defined significance level.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 204
CHAPTER 5
CO-RRELATION AND
REGRESSION
ANALYSIS OF
SECONDARY DATA

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 205
5.1 Relationship between Food grains (Serials and pulses) and Inflation:

COMM_NAME Food Grains(Cereals+Pulses) Inflation


INDX012001 171.0 5.1
INDX022001 169.2 5
INDX032001 169.8 5.5
INDX042001 171.1 0.5
INDX052001 173.0 0.9
INDX062001 175.7 1.1
INDX072001 175.6 1.3
INDX082001 174.1 1.5
INDX092001 173.3 1.6
INDX102001 172.9 2
INDX112001 172.4 1.8
INDX122001 171.2 1.4
INDX012002 168.9 0.9
INDX022002 169.7 1.1
INDX032002 170.7 1.6
INDX042002 170.1 0.6
INDX052002 169.9 0.7
INDX062002 170.7 2.2
INDX072002 172.6 2.7
INDX082002 175.8 3.5
INDX092002 177.1 3.3
INDX102002 175.1 3.5
INDX112002 175.9 3.5
INDX122002 175.6 3.3
INDX012003 175.2 4
INDX022003 176.9 5

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 206
INDX032003 177.3 6.5
INDX042003 176.1 0.6
INDX102002 177.0 3.6
INDX062003 177.3 1
INDX072003 177.5 0.5
INDX082003 176.4 1
INDX092003 175.9 2.2
INDX102003 176.6 2.2
INDX112003 176.0 2.6
INDX122003 174.2 2.7
INDX012004 176.4 3.9
INDX022004 177.7 4.4
INDX032004 175.4 4.6
INDX042004 172.7 0.5
INDX052004 173.2 1.3
INDX062004 174.1 3.3
INDX072004 175.4 3.9
INDX082004 178.7 4.9
INDX092004 178.9 4.8
INDX102004 179.0 5
INDX112004 178.9 5.2
INDX122004 179.3 4.5
INDX012005 179.3 4.4
INDX022005 180.2 4.8
INDX032005 179.9 5.1
INDX042005 179.1 1.4
INDX052005 179.2 1.5
INDX062005 182.1 2.5
INDX072005 184.9 3

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 207
INDX082005 185.6 3.2
INDX092005 186.1 4.1
INDX102005 187.0 4.6
INDX112005 188.4 4.5
INDX122005 189.3 4.1
INDX012006 192.7 3.4
INDX022006 194.4 3.9
INDX032006 194.8 4.1
INDX042006 194.5 1.2
INDX052006 196.7 2.4
INDX062006 198.4 3.2
INDX072006 198.8 3.6
INDX082006 201.0 4.4
INDX092006 206.5 5.6
INDX102006 210.6 5.9
INDX112006 212.4 6
INDX122006 214.1 5.8
INDX012007 213.5 6
INDX022007 213.8 6
INDX032007 211.1 6.7
INDX042007 210.9 0.6
INDX052007 210.9 0.9
INDX062007 211.2 1.1
INDX072007 214.1 1.7
INDX082007 215.6 1.7
INDX092007 215.5 2.3
INDX102007 216.3 2.4
INDX112007 216.9 2.5
INDX122007 216.3 3

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 208
INDX012008 217.7 4.11
INDX022008 219.1 5.02
INDX032008 222.3 7.41
INDX042008 223.9 7.61
INDX052008 222.8 7.61
INDX062008 223.8 8.75
INDX072008 228.1 11.91
INDX082008 229.7 12.1
INDX092008 229.8 11.98
INDX102008 235.3 10.72
INDX112008 237.5 8
INDX122008 239.6 5.91
INDX012009 242.2 4.39
INDX022009 247.9 2.43
INDX032009 248.1 0.26
INDX042009 250.6 0.75
INDX052009 254.3 0.13
INDX062009 256.0 -1.55
INDX072009 259.8 -1.58
INDX082009 262.3 -0.12
INDX092009 266.8 0.7
INDX102009 270.0 1.34
INDX112009 282.6 4.78
INDX122009 287.9 7.31

5.1.1 Karl Pearson Coefficient of correlation:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 209
Correlation between inflation and food 0.17
grains(cereals pulses)

Findings:

There is no relationship between inflation and food grains because both are not in the
same direction. The prices of food grains are very fast increasing as compare to inflation.
In India inflation is calculated on the bases of wholesale price index while whole world
calculate the inflation on the bases of consumer price index.\

5.1.2 Linear Regression Method:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 210
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.179506
R Square 0.032222
Adjusted R
Square 0.023092
Standard Error 29.25428
Observations 108

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 3020.402 3020.402 3.529279 0.063041
Residual 106 90716.16 855.8128
Total 107 93736.56

Standard Upper Lower Upper


Coefficients Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
Intercept 191.2874 4.68049 40.8691 1.04E-66 182.0079 200.5669 182.0079 200.5669
X Variable 1 1.994458 1.061651 1.878637 0.063041 -0.11037 4.099284 -0.11037 4.099284

Findings:

The Regression line Y= 191.28 + 1.99X.

R2= 0.023 which means the independent variable X explains 2% of the total variation
depends variable Y.

Standard error of intercept and slope co-efficient are 4.68 and 1.06 respectively. It shows
both co-efficient are statistically highly significant.

The confidence interval for Y intercept term at 5 % significance level is 182 and -0.11

5.2 Relationship between Fruits & vegetables and Inflation:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 211
COMM_NAME b. Fruits & Vegetables
INDX012001
INDX022001
INDX032001
INDX042001
INDX052001
INDX062001
INDX072001
INDX082001
INDX092001
INDX102001
INDX112001
INDX122001
INDX012002
INDX022002
INDX032002
INDX042002
INDX052002
INDX062002
INDX072002
INDX082002
INDX092002
INDX102002
INDX112002
INDX122002
INDX012003
INDX022003
INDX032003
INDX042003

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 212
5.2.1 Karl Pearson Coefficient of correlation:

Correlation between inflation and Fruits & 0.18


vegetables

Findings:

There is no relationship between inflation and Fruits & vegetables because both are not
in the same direction. The prices of Fruits & vegetables are very fast increasing as
compare to inflation. In India inflation is calculated on the bases of wholesale price index
while whole world calculate the inflation on the bases of consumer price index.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 213
5.2.2 Liner Regression Method:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.181082
R Square 0.032791
Adjusted R
Square 0.023666
Standard
Error 33.92056
Observations 108

ANOVA
Significanc
df SS MS F eF
4134.88 3.59366
Regression 1 4134.886 6 4 0.060724
1150.60
Residual 106 121964.1 5
Total 107 126099

Coefficient Standard Upper Lower Upper


s Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
39.3274 222.09
Intercept 211.4322 5.376203 1 4.79E-65 200.7733 1 200.7733 222.091
1.89569 0.06072 4.7441
X Variable 1 2.318914 1.223252 6 4 -0.1063 3 -0.1063 4.74413

Findings:

The Regression line Y= 211.43 + 2.31X.

R2= 0.032 which means the independent variable X explains 3% of the total variation
depends variable Y.

Standard error of intercept and slope co-efficient are 5.37 and 1.22 respectively. It shows
both co-efficient are statistically highly significant.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 214
The confidence interval for Y intercept term at 5 % significance level is 200 and -0.1

5.3 Relationship between Milk and Inflation:

COMM_NAME Milk inflation


INDX012001 158.3 5.1
INDX022001 159.8 5
INDX032001 162.7 5.5
INDX042001 167.7 0.5
INDX052001 166.1 0.9
INDX062001 164.1 1.1
INDX072001 163.5 1.3
INDX082001 165.8 1.5
INDX092001 165.3 1.6
INDX102001 166.5 2
INDX112001 165.8 1.8
INDX122001 166.5 1.4
INDX012002 166.9 0.9
INDX022002 167.3 1.1
INDX032002 168.7 1.6
INDX042002 171.2 0.6
INDX052002 170.7 0.7
INDX062002 169.2 2.2
INDX072002 171.5 2.7
INDX082002 172.3 3.5
INDX092002 172.3 3.3
INDX102002 172.3 3.5
INDX112002 172.3 3.5

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 215
INDX122002 172.3 3.3
INDX012003 172.3 4
INDX022003 172.3 5
INDX032003 172.3 6.5
INDX042003 172.3 0.6
INDX052003 172.3 0.4
INDX062003 172.3 1
INDX072003 172.3 0.5
INDX082003 176.5 1
INDX092003 176.5 2.2
INDX102003 176.5 2.2
INDX112003 175.9 2.6
INDX122003 177.1 2.7
INDX012004 177.1 3.9
INDX022004 179.2 4.4
INDX032004 184.4 4.6
INDX042004 182.4 0.5
INDX052004 181.8 1.3
INDX062004 183.9 3.3
INDX072004 185.0 3.9
INDX082004 183.6 4.9
INDX092004 183.6 4.8
INDX102004 183.6 5
INDX112004 183.6 5.2
INDX122004 184.0 4.5
INDX012005 184.4 4.4
INDX022005 184.3 4.8
INDX032005 183.4 5.1

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 216
INDX042005 183.6 1.4
INDX052005 183.3 1.5
INDX062005 184.4 2.5
INDX072005 184.4 3
INDX082005 184.4 3.2
INDX092005 184.4 4.1
INDX102005 184.4 4.6
INDX112005 184.4 4.5
INDX122005 182.7 4.1
INDX012006 182.3 3.4
INDX022006 185.8 3.9
INDX032006 187.0 4.1
INDX042006 187.0 1.2
INDX052006 192.0 2.4
INDX062006 198.3 3.2
INDX072006 192.5 3.6
INDX082006 191.6 4.4
INDX092006 196.4 5.6
INDX102006 199.8 5.9
INDX112006 198.3 6
INDX122006 196.1 5.8
INDX012007 197.9 6
INDX022007 200.5 6
INDX032007 201.2 6.7
INDX042007 203.0 0.6
INDX052007 205.6 0.9
INDX062007 207.3 1.1
INDX072007 209.2 1.7

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 217
INDX082007 212.2 1.7
INDX092007 212.6 2.3
INDX102007 213.9 2.4
INDX112007 216.1 2.5
INDX122007 216.1 3
INDX012008 216.1 4.11
INDX022008 218.2 5.02
INDX032008 219.5 7.41
INDX042008 221.3 7.61
INDX052008 221.9 7.61
INDX062008 224.5 8.75
INDX072008 225.0 11.91
INDX082008 226.0 12.1
INDX092008 227.4 11.98
INDX102008 229.4 10.72
INDX112008 230.7 8
INDX122008 232.1 5.91
INDX012009 233.7 4.39
INDX022009 234.2 2.43
INDX032009 235.8 0.26
INDX042009 234.2 0.75
INDX052009 235.8 0.13
INDX062009 241.1 -1.55
INDX072009 246.4 -1.58
INDX082009 247.7 -0.12
INDX092009 249.4 0.7
INDX102009 252.4 1.34
INDX112009 262.4 4.78

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 218
INDX122009 263.1 7.31

5.3.1 Karl Pearson Coefficient of correlation:

Correlation between inflation and Milk 0.22

Findings:

There is no relationship between inflation and Milk because both are not in the same
direction. The prices of Milk are very fast increasing as compare to inflation. In India
inflation is calculated on the bases of wholesale price index while whole world calculate
the inflation on the bases of consumer price index.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 219
5.3.2 Linear Regression Method:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.225149
R Square 0.050692
Adjusted R
Square 0.041736
Standard Error 25.30253
Observations 108

ANOVA
Significanc
df SS MS F eF
3623.82 5.66030
Regression 1 3623.829 9 6 0.019142
Residual 106 67863.11 640.218
Total 107 71486.94

Coefficient Standard Upper Lower Upper


s Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
46.4549
Intercept 186.2982 4.010297 6 2.7E-72 178.3474 194.249 178.3474 194.249
0.01914 3.97993
X Variable 1 2.170884 0.912466 2.37914 2 0.361832 7 0.361832 3.979937

Findings:

The Regression line Y= 186.29 + 2.17X.

R2= 0.050 which means the independent variable X explains 5% of the total variation
depends variable Y.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 220
Standard error of intercept and slope co-efficient are 4.01 and 0.91 respectively. It shows
both co-efficient are statistically highly significant.

The confidence interval for Y intercept term at 5 % significance level is 178 and 0.36.

5.4 Relationship between Sugar and Inflation:

COMM_NAME Sugar inflation


INDX012001 141.1 5.1
INDX022001 137.0 5
INDX032001 137.9 5.5
INDX042001 138.5 0.5
INDX052001 137.2 0.9
INDX062001 136.6 1.1
INDX072001 135.9 1.3
INDX082001 135.2 1.5
INDX092001 135.5 1.6
INDX102001 136.0 2
INDX112001 135.9 1.8
INDX122001 134.1 1.4
INDX012002 133.2 0.9
INDX022002 133.1 1.1
INDX032002 133.9 1.6
INDX042002 132.1 0.6
INDX052002 131.6 0.7
INDX062002 129.9 2.2
INDX072002 127.6 2.7

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 221
INDX082002 126.8 3.5
INDX092002 125.7 3.3
INDX102002 124.3 3.5
INDX112002 121.2 3.5
INDX122002 117.3 3.3
INDX012003 116.2 4
INDX022003 115.2 5
INDX032003 114.2 6.5
INDX042003 115.0 0.6
INDX052003 115.2 0.4
INDX062003 116.0 1
INDX072003 120.5 0.5
INDX082003 126.3 1
INDX092003 126.6 2.2
INDX102003 127.6 2.2
INDX112003 127.8 2.6
INDX122003 126.0 2.7
INDX012004 124.3 3.9
INDX022004 134.4 4.4
INDX032004 133.6 4.6
INDX042004 133.9 0.5
INDX052004 140.0 1.3
INDX062004 141.3 3.3
INDX072004 141.1 3.9
INDX082004 144.3 4.9
INDX092004 148.3 4.8
INDX102004 147.5 5
INDX112004 147.6 5.2
INDX122004 149.8 4.5

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 222
INDX012005 162.6 4.4
INDX022005 160.4 4.8
INDX032005 161.0 5.1
INDX042005 160.6 1.4
INDX052005 159.4 1.5
INDX062005 158.3 2.5
INDX072005 161.4 3
INDX082005 163.4 3.2
INDX092005 162.3 4.1
INDX102005 163.0 4.6
INDX112005 164.9 4.5
INDX122005 162.9 4.1
INDX012006 166.3 3.4
INDX022006 173.4 3.9
INDX032006 171.9 4.1
INDX042006 171.9 1.2
INDX052006 173.3 2.4
INDX062006 173.2 3.2
INDX072006 171.6 3.6
INDX082006 170.6 4.4
INDX092006 169.0 5.6
INDX102006 166.6 5.9
INDX112006 164.8 6
INDX122006 161.5 5.8
INDX012007 155.2 6
INDX022007 152.3 6
INDX032007 149.3 6.7
INDX042007 148.2 0.6
INDX052007 143.8 0.9

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 223
INDX062007 141.1 1.1
INDX072007 140.9 1.7
INDX082007 140.2 1.7
INDX092007 141.2 2.3
INDX102007 141.5 2.4
INDX112007 140.9 2.5
INDX122007 140.6 3
INDX012008 143.2 4.11
INDX022008 144.4 5.02
INDX032008 146.9 7.41
INDX042008 149.6 7.61
INDX052008 149.1 7.61
INDX062008 148.1 8.75
INDX072008 149.8 11.91
INDX082008 158.3 12.1
INDX092008 160.6 11.98
INDX102008 160.6 10.72
INDX112008 160.9 8
INDX122008 161.0 5.91
INDX012009 167.4 4.39
INDX022009 179.2 2.43
INDX032009 180.3 0.26
INDX042009 191.1 0.75
INDX052009 195.8 0.13
INDX062009 201.8 -1.55
INDX072009 202.5 -1.58
INDX082009 217.3 -0.12
INDX092009 233.0 0.7

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 224
INDX102009 234.9 1.34
INDX112009 248.4 4.78
INDX122009 250.0 7.31

5.4.1 Karl Pearson Coefficient of correlation:

Correlation between inflation and Sugar 0.04

Findings:

There is no relationship between inflation and Sugar because both are not in the same
direction. The prices of Sugar are very fast increasing as compare to inflation. In India
inflation is calculated on the bases of wholesale price index while whole world calculate
the inflation on the bases of consumer price index.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 225
5.4.2 Linear Regression Method:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.041582
R Square 0.001729
Adjusted R
Square -0.00769
Standard Error 27.07061
Observations 108

ANOVA
Significanc
df SS MS F eF
134.541 0.18359
Regression 1 134.5412 2 4 0.669172
Residual 106 77678.71 732.818
Total 107 77813.25

Coefficient Standard Upper Lower Upper


s Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
158.471
Intercept 149.9651 4.290528 34.9526 5.29E-60 141.4587 5 141.4587 158.4715
0.42847 0.66917 2.35375
X Variable 1 0.418293 0.976227 9 2 -1.51717 8 -1.51717 2.353758

Findings:

The Regression line Y= 149.96 + 0.41X.

R2= 0.001 which means the independent variable X explains less than 1 % of the total
variation depends variable Y.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 226
Standard error of intercept and slope co-efficient are 4.29 and 0.97 respectively. It shows
both co-efficient are statistically highly significant.

The confidence interval for Y intercept term at 5 % significance level is 141 and -1.51.

5.5 Relationship between Jaggary and Inflation:

COMM_NAME Gur inflation


INDX012001 117.7 5.1
INDX022001 113.3 5
INDX032001 118.3 5.5
INDX042001 129.4 0.5
INDX052001 138.8 0.9
INDX062001 146.2 1.1
INDX072001 148.4 1.3
INDX082001 150.6 1.5
INDX092001 156.5 1.6
INDX102001 147.3 2
INDX112001 141.4 1.8
INDX122001 125.5 1.4
INDX012002 123.8 0.9
INDX022002 121.4 1.1
INDX032002 123.7 1.6
INDX042002 127.0 0.6
INDX052002 128.7 0.7
INDX062002 134.0 2.2
INDX072002 137.9 2.7

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 227
INDX082002 139.1 3.5
INDX092002 142.6 3.3
INDX102002 142.2 3.5
INDX112002 133.4 3.5
INDX122002 111.7 3.3
INDX012003 113.7 4
INDX022003 114.5 5
INDX032003 113.4 6.5
INDX042003 115.1 0.6
INDX052003 115.2 0.4
INDX062003 116.5 1
INDX072003 120.8 0.5
INDX082003 122.1 1
INDX092003 123.1 2.2
INDX102003 131.7 2.2
INDX112003 122.2 2.6
INDX122003 115.3 2.7
INDX012004 123.2 3.9
INDX022004 127.3 4.4
INDX032004 131.6 4.6
INDX042004 134.9 0.5
INDX052004 153.3 1.3
INDX062004 167.3 3.3
INDX072004 177.2 3.9
INDX082004 190.7 4.9
INDX092004 196.4 4.8
INDX102004 192.9 5
INDX112004 175.4 5.2
INDX122004 167.4 4.5

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 228
INDX012005 171.6 4.4
INDX022005 174.3 4.8
INDX032005 173.6 5.1
INDX042005 179.3 1.4
INDX052005 189.3 1.5
INDX062005 196.1 2.5
INDX072005 195.8 3
INDX082005 202.3 3.2
INDX092005 208.6 4.1
INDX102005 213.5 4.6
INDX112005 201.2 4.5
INDX122005 184.7 4.1
INDX012006 182.1 3.4
INDX022006 179.2 3.9
INDX032006 178.3 4.1
INDX042006 178.0 1.2
INDX052006 182.8 2.4
INDX062006 185.8 3.2
INDX072006 185.8 3.6
INDX082006 192.0 4.4
INDX092006 199.5 5.6
INDX102006 197.6 5.9
INDX112006 191.8 6
INDX122006 185.9 5.8
INDX012007 178.7 6
INDX022007 173.9 6
INDX032007 171.8 6.7
INDX042007 169.1 0.6

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 229
INDX052007 166.7 0.9
INDX062007 163.7 1.1
INDX072007 165.7 1.7
INDX082007 169.3 1.7
INDX092007 172.2 2.3
INDX102007 171.6 2.4
INDX112007 171.1 2.5
INDX122007 170.1 3
INDX012008 172.2 4.11
INDX022008 175.4 5.02
INDX032008 176.2 7.41
INDX042008 181.1 7.61
INDX052008 189.4 7.61
INDX062008 189.4 8.75
INDX072008 190.1 11.91
INDX082008 192.3 12.1
INDX092008 196.4 11.98
INDX102008 204.4 10.72
INDX112008 212.9 8
INDX122008 208.7 5.91
INDX012009 221.8 4.39
INDX022009 232.5 2.43
INDX032009 241.7 0.26
INDX042009 248.0 0.75
INDX052009 268.4 0.13
INDX062009 270.0 -1.55
INDX072009 268.3 -1.58
INDX082009 274.8 -0.12

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 230
INDX092009 275.0 0.7
INDX102009 286.2 1.34
INDX112009 283.0 4.78
INDX122009 304.2 7.31

5.5.1 Karl Pearson Coefficient of correlation:

Correlation between inflation and Jaggary 0.10

Findings:

There is no relationship between inflation and Jaggary because both are not in the same
direction. The prices of Jaggary are very fast increasing as compare to inflation. In India
inflation is calculated on the bases of wholesale price index while whole world calculate
the inflation on the bases of consumer price index.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 231
5.5.2 Linear Regression Method:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.10534
R Square 0.011097
Adjusted R
Square 0.001767
Standard Error 44.06431
Observations 108

ANOVA
Significanc
df SS MS F eF
2309.48 1.18943
Regression 1 2309.488 8 7 0.277916
1941.66
Residual 106 205816.4 4
Total 107 208125.8

Coefficient Standard Upper Lower Upper


s Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
23.7872 179.974
Intercept 166.1282 6.983927 2 2.64E-44 152.2819 5 152.2819 179.9745
1.09061 0.27791 4.88351
X Variable 1 1.733048 1.589058 3 6 -1.41741 1 -1.41741 4.883511

Findings:

The Regression line Y= 166.12 + 1.73X.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 232
R2= 0.011 which means the independent variable X explains 1 % of the total variation
depends variable Y.

Standard error of intercept and slope co-efficient are 6.98 and 1.58 respectively. It shows
both co-efficient are statistically highly significant.

The confidence interval for Y intercept term at 5 % significance level is 152 and -1.41.

5.6 Weekly Inflation Data of year 2008 and 2009:

Period 2008 2009 IR(y)


1/5/2008 3.79 1/3/2009 5.24
1/12/2008 3.83 1/10/2009 5.6
1/19/2008 3.93 1/17/2009 5.64
1/26/2008 4.11 1/24/2009 5.07
2/2/2008 4.07 1/31/2009 4.39
2/9/2008 4.35 2/7/2009 3.92
2/16/2008 4.89 2/14/2009 3.36
2/23/2008 5.02 2/21/2009 3.03
3/1/2008 5.11 2/28/2009 2.43
3/8/2008 5.92 3/7/2009 0.44
3/15/2008 6.68 3/14/2009 0.27
3/22/2008 7 3/21/2009 0.31
3/29/2008 7.41 3/28/2009 0.26
4/5/2008 7.14 4/4/2009 0.18
4/12/2008 7.33 4/11/2009 0.26
4/19/2008 7.57 4/18/2009 0.57

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 233
4/26/2008 7.61 4/25/2009 0.75
5/3/2008 7.83 5/2/2009 0.48
5/10/2008 7.82 5/9/2009 0.61
5/17/2008 8.1 5/16/2009 0.61
5/24/2008 8.24 5/23/2009 0.48
5/31/2008 8.75 5/30/2009 0.13
6/7/2008 11.05 6/6/2009 -1.61
6/14/2008 11.42 6/13/2009 -1.14
6/21/2008 11.63 6/20/2009 -1.3
6/28/2008 11.89 6/27/2009 -1.55
7/5/2008 11.91 7/4/2009 -1.21
7/12/2008 11.89 7/11/2009 -1.17
7/19/2008 11.98 7/18/2009 -1.54
7/26/2008 12.01 7/25/2009 -1.58
8/2/2008 12.44 8/1/2009 -1.74
8/9/2008 12.63 8/8/2009 -1.53
8/16/2008 12.4 8/15/2009 -0.95
8/23/2008 12.34 8/22/2009 -0.21
8/30/2008 12.1 8/29/2009 -0.12
9/6/2008 12.09 9/5/2009 0.12
9/13/2008 12.23 9/12/2009 0.27
9/20/2008 11.99 9/19/2009 0.83
9/27/2008 11.98 9/26/2009 0.7
10/4/2008 11.44 10/3/2009 0.92
10/11/2008 11.35 10/10/2009 1.21
10/18/2008 10.68 10/17/2009 1.51
10/25/2008 10.72 10/24/2009 1.34

5.6.1 Karl Pearson Coefficient of correlation:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 234
Correlation between weekly inflation data of two -0.89
years

Findings:

There is negative relationship between two years inflation.

5.6.2 Linear Regression Method:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.816799
R Square 0.667161
Adjusted R 0.659043

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 235
Square
Standard Error 1.814287
Observations 43

ANOVA
Significanc
df SS MS F eF
270.515 82.1826
Regression 1 270.5155 5 5 2.41E-11
3.29163
Residual 41 134.9571 8
Total 42 405.4726

Coefficient Standard Upper Lower Upper


s Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
10.5515
Intercept 9.949665 0.298013 33.3867 2.37E-31 9.347816 1 9.347816 10.55151
X Variable 1 -1.22351 0.134964 -9.06546 2.41E-11 -1.49608 -0.95095 -1.49608 -0.95095

Findings:

The Regression line Y= 9.94 + -1.22X.

R2= 0.66 which means the independent variable X explains less than 66 % of the total
variation depends variable Y.

Standard error of intercept and slope co-efficient are 0.29 and 0.13 respectively. It shows
both co-efficient are statistically highly significant.

The confidence interval for Y intercept term at 5 % significance level is 9.34 and -0.95.

CONCLUSION
Conclusion of the primary data research:

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 236
• We have gone through 200 respondents and from them 168 are male and 32 are
female respondents.
• From the analysis we have found that 48 % respondents are strongly agree that
they have affected by inflation while 45 % are agree regarding the same case.
• From the total respondents service people and farmers mostly affected by
inflation.
• As per income criteria, between the ranges of 151000-300000 rupee family
income people mostly affected by inflation.
• As per Family members, who has 5-6 members in family, affected most by
inflation.
• As per service person in family, who has 0-2 service person in family, affected
most by inflation.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in cereals and pulses 62 % people allocate 11-
15 % budget behind that while 23 % people allocate 5-10 % budget behind
cereals and pulses, and 15 % respondents allocate more than 16 % behind that in
the year 2008.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in cereals and pulses 53 % people allocate 11-
15 % budget behind that while 42 % people allocate more than 16 % budget
behind cereals and pulses in the year 2009. Because of inflation respondents have
change the allocation of cereals and pulses.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in Grocery 72 % people allocate 11-15 %
budget behind that while 21 % people allocate more than 16 % behind Grocery in
the year 2008.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in Grocery 45 % people allocate 11-15 %
budget behind that while 21 % people allocate more than 52 % behind Grocery in
the year 2009. Because of inflation respondents have change the allocation of
Grocery.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in Edible oil 68 % people allocate 6-10 %
budget behind that while 30 % people allocate 0-5 % budget behind Edible oil in
the year 2008.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in Edible oil 63 % people allocate 6-10 %
budget behind that while 33 % people allocate 0-5 % budget behind Edible oil in
the year 2009.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 237
• In the case of allocation of budget, in Vegetables and fruits 63 % people allocate
6-10 % budget behind that while 36 % people allocate 0-5 % budget behind
Vegetables and fruits in the year 2008.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in Vegetables and fruits 65 % people allocate
6-10 % budget behind that while 34 % people allocate 0-5 % budget behind
Vegetables and fruits in the year 2009.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in Milk & related products 90 % people
allocate 6-10 % budget behind that while 9 % people allocate 0-5 % budget
behind Milk & related products in the year 2008 and year 2009.
• . In the case of allocation of budget, in lpg 142 people allocate 0% to 5% and 58
people allocate 6% to 10% in 2008 where as in 2009 it is 157 and 43 people
respectively.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in phone and electricity bill 148 people
allocate 0% to 5% and 52 people allocate 6% to 10% in 2008 where as in 2009 it
is 158 and 41people respectively.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in Transportation 148 people allocate 0% to
5% , 52 people allocate 6% to 10% and 6 people allocate 11% to 15% in 2008
where as in 2009 it is 158, 41 & 11people respectively.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in education 27 people allocate 0% to 5% , 44
people allocate 6% to 10% and 97 people allocate 16% to 20% in 2008 where as
in 2009 it is 30, 34 & 92 people respectively.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in entertainment 141 people allocate 0% to
5% , 51 people allocate 6% to 10% and 6 people allocate 16% to 20% in 2008
where as in 2009 it is 169, 28 & 0 people respectively.
• In the case of allocation of budget, in other items 94 people allocate 0% to 5% ,
83 people allocate 6% to 10% and 6 people allocate 16% to 20% in 2008 where
as in 2009 it is 167, 24 & 2 people respectively.

Conclusion of the secondary data analysis:

In this part the secondary data regarding of the rate of the inflation and the price of the
various commodity we reached the conclusion that though the inflation got negative no
difference is in the level of the price rise in the economy. There is a strong negative

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 238
relationship between weekly inflation rate of the two year 2008-2009. The inflation of
the both the year went in the opposite direction.

India, the 12th largest and the second fastest growing major economy in the world, has
been experiencing significant price instability in the recent past. Even though, the
sources of the phenomenon can be attributed to both internal as well as external factors,
correction of the problem will have to take place mainly though effective domestic
economic policies for both the demand management and supply adjustment. But the
domestic policy measures initiated in India have not seen bringing any significant effects
in controlling price volatility in the country.

It is also an appropriate time to critically think about the quality of the official inflation
statistics published in India. No single price index will be able to provide a measure
inflation that can be used for all the purposes. Five official price indices are published in
India, of which one is WPI and the other four are CPIs. All the five indices suffer from
some inherent deficiencies. The most common deficiencies include importantly the fact
that our compilation procedures neither systematically incorporate new goods and
services as they enter the market nor adjust for changes in the quality of goods and
services over time. Consequently, our price indices could not be used to gauge inflation
in the economy.
Our headline inflation measure, WPI, is extremely inadequate to track the inflationary
pressure in the economy for it excludes services, and it is more susceptible to the
problem of base effect. Moreover, it does not adequately reflect the expansion and
quality improvement of commodities. Therefore, the reported inflationary situation in
India, determined using the WPI, is unreliable to a great extent. In the absence of a
reliable measurement of inflation it is difficult to analyze the exact impact of the
inflation/deflation and announce appropriate policies to ensure price stability. It is high
time for India to revise the method of calculating price index and inflation measurement
so as to enable a proper and periodic assessment and control of inflation in the economy.
It would be desirable to take into consideration the following points while preparing a
price index and measuring inflation in India9.

Firstly, the current headline inflation measure, WPI, should be replaced with a newly
constructed comprehensive and aggregate broad based CPI or a cost of living index, and
which should be made available fortnightly or monthly. Inclusion of more services in the

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 239
index will give a true picture of inflation in India as the service sector accounts for more
than half of the GDP in India. More over, the new CPI should be made transparent in
terms of its content.

There seems to have a trade-off between the frequency and reliability of the inflation
figures. More frequent data are said to be less reliable data. Therefore, it is desirable to
changeover to a less frequent (fortnightly or monthly) and more reliable index in line
with the standard practice in other countries.

Secondly, the method of index calculation should accommodate quantitative and


qualitative changes in the commodity basket; the method should systematically
incorporate the entry of new commodities and services and also the exit of some old
commodities and services in the calculation of the index.

Thirdly, the current measure WPI should be modified or replaced (not for measuring
headline inflation, but to provide a better the producer price index) to incorporate
services and also more commodities in it.

Fourthly, a de-seasonalised price index should be used for measuring month-over-month


but annualized inflation rate, which is free from the base effect.
Finally, a better method of index construction, such as Fisher’s Ideal Index should be
used replacing the Laspeyres Index for the construction of all price indices. The indices
have to be revised periodically to capture the more dynamic segments of the economy.

However, the long run solution to the real inflation/deflation problem does not lie in the
revision of the method of its measurement; it rather depends on the appropriate supply
adjustment and demand management measures. Therefore, the government should
formulate appropriate economic policies to provide incentives to ensure adequate
domestic production and stabilize domestic demand for commodities and services in the
country.

NSVKMS/MBA/SEM-IV/MRP-II 240