Summary and Conclusion

204

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Street vending is an ancient phenomenon. It has been the mainstay of cities around

the world for centuries. Street vending is considered as the cornerstone of cities‟ historical

and cultural heritage. It is the most visible and active segment of the large urban informal

economy. They have become a part and parcel of life in any city. Street vendors flourish in

the areas that are popular congregations of the general public. They line up near railway

stations, along busy shopping streets, housing complexes, in front of religious places,

major sports and entertainment centres. Markets, pathways, highways and terminuses are

the other highly congested places were the street vendors sell their products.

Variations are seen in the employment context of street vendors. Their activity

varies in scale, timing, location and remuneration. It varies in terms of workforce, and

types of goods and services they sell. Street vendors may have fixed stalls, semi-fixed

stalls, crates, collapsible stands or wheeled pushcarts. Some sell from fixed locations by

displaying their merchandise on cloth/plastic sheets. Mobile vendors walk or bicycle

through the streets. Some work from the same site while some rotate among two or more

sites. Some move from one market to another on a rotation basis and some work in

weekly rotating markets. For some, it is a regular primary occupation while for others it

is secondary occupation and a source of additional income. Some take up street vending

on part time basis. Occasional vendors are also seen. Most work independently without

employees. Some hire employees or have family members assisting their activities. Some

even work as employees of informal and formal enterprises and a few vend for

205

commissions. The earning of street vendors depends on the products they sell, and it

deviates from trade to trade, location to location, volume of trade and terms of trade.

A few of the vendors‟ income are quite high while others are low.

Collecting and providing reliable data on street vending is a challenging one.

Street vendors may not report their place of work at all. They may feel uncomfortable

reporting their true occupation to government surveys. Also, many workers use street

vending as a secondary, seasonal, temporary or part-time occupation. Apart from that,

street vendors leave their business or relocate to other places easily. Finally, even when

reliable official statistics on street traders are available, they cannot always be

disaggregated in ways that would help urban planners and street vending organisations.

According to Government of India, there are around 10 million vendors in India.

In general, there are more men vendors than women vendors. Rough estimates suggest

that women constitute 30% of the total population of vendors in India and they earn

significantly lower income than their male counterparts.

A number of factors are responsible for the substantial increase in the number of

street vendors in India. Lack of gainful employment and poverty in rural areas make

people move from villages to cities. These migrated masses are with low education and

lack of specific occupational skills and fail to fit in formal economy. Also the percentage

of jobs in organized sector is shrinking. Only informal sector absorbs millions of these

underprivileged. Some are also forced into informal sector. When people lost their jobs in

formal sector due to closures, downsizing and mergers, they had no other option than to

engage in low-paid work in informal sector for the sake of survival.

206

Over 90% of the country‟s workforce is engaged in the informal sector for its

livelihood. Self-employment becomes an important source of livelihood for the urban

poor. The number of individuals getting involved in self-employment activities is on an

increase in India. A large proportion of unemployed live below poverty line and therefore

self-employment for them is possible only with very low capital or with financial

assistance. Street vending alone overcomes this constraint as it requires low capital.

It provides entrepreneurial opportunities to people who cannot afford to rent or own a

shop to sell their goods. It assures them a subsistence income and helps street vendors to

get out of poverty trap.

Street vendors provide incomparable services to the public. They meet

consumer‟s day to day economic needs. They offer goods and services such as food

items, textiles, accessories, stationery, toys and handicrafts and many more. They also

offer goods and services which are not available in off-street markets. Their retail options

are made easily accessible and convenient. Street vendors benefit urban rich and poor

buyers by making the products available at a lower price.

Street vendors assist small industries too. Small industries cannot afford to retail

their products through distribution networks in the formal sector. Street vendors help small-

scale industries and traditional sector to thrive by marketing their produced products.

They lend a hand to farmers, mainly fruits and vegetable farmers. They help sustain

employment, income and provision of services to the urban economy to a great extent.

Inspite of their invaluable services, street vendors are ignored and marginalised.

They face problems relating to their public space utilization. They are deprived of their

right to livelihood, right to use public places, right to safety, right to trade and their right

207

to dignity. They are deprived of legal spaces to carry on their activities. Indian cities are

not planned in a way to accommodate street vendors on roads and pavements. They are

relocated to municipal markets or hawkers‟ complex. Vending and non-vending zones are

created for them but they are done in an arbitrary manner. The interests of street vendors

and the needs of consumers are not considered. The middle and upper income groups are

decisive of the problems faced by them. They are perceived to block the egress of

crowded buildings like theatres, stadiums, parks, etc. Other problems what they are held

responsible for are „they often include a considerable number of minors‟ and „are also

considered to be less professional‟.

They survive in a hostile environment and do not have any kind of identity cards or

license. They face constant threat of eviction, exhortation, humiliation and seizure. They are

considered as nuisance, criminals, and are frequently evicted by police and the local bodies.

They are subject to harassment and struggle in their daily work life. They face unexpected

raids. They are entailed with heavy fines. They face risk of displacement during times of

elections, mega events and even during beautification of cities. They hardly have any

protective covers to safeguard themselves and their wares from waning because of heat,

rain and dust. There is no insurance coverage specifically for them in this regard.

Their growth is hindered by limited or no access to formal credit. Street vendors depend on

moneylenders and wholesalers for credit for their businesses. As private sources charge

exorbitant interests for their loans, street vendors have to borrow at a higher interest rate.

They receive less care for up-gradation of their technical and business skills. There is

massive overcrowding in their profession. There is no established grievance redressal

mechanism and dispute resolution mechanism.

208

They work under unhealthy, unsafe and unfavourable working environments.

They lack proper electricity and clean drinking water. Their work environment lack toilets

and provision for solid waste disposal. It ultimately results in unhygienic conditions.

They live in poor areas which lack access to basic healthcare and welfare services.

They are vulnerable to poor health and diseases. Street vendors work for very long hours

under extreme climate. It results in several forms of ailments like hypertension,

hyperacidity, or even diseases related to heart and kidney. Street vendors lack protection

for sickness, unemployment, employment injury, etc. Street vendors form informal

associations that negotiate with local authorities. These associations collect money from

their members and pay it as rent to the concerned authorities. In some cases local

musclemen, collect protection fees by threatening them. Thus a substantial income is

spent on all these payments.

To overcome these restrictions, street vendors organise themselves into trade

unions and associations. Trade unions help vendors get their problems redressed.

Although street vending organizations is been in existence for decades, it has not brought

much change in the plight of the vendors in India. These organisations are mainly

localised bodies representing street vendors in specific areas of the city. Only a very few

street vendors are unionized. Street vending organizations too face challenges. Street

vendors find difficult to devote time to the organizations.

National Association of Street Vendors of India was started in 1998. NASVI is a

federation of trade unions, Community Based Organizations (CBOs), NGOs and

professionals. It struggles for the livelihood of millions of vendors. It aims at ensuring

209

livelihood and social security of street vendors, building capacity of street vendor

organizations, gathers evidence and disseminates evidences and issues concerning street

vendors and undertakes schemes and programs to enable vendors get access to financial

services. This nationwide mobilization of vendors influenced the Government of India to

bring in National Policy for Street Vendors. „National Policy on Urban Street Vendors‟

was introduced in the year 2004. The Policy gave visibility to vendors‟ issues. The basic

objectives of the policy were to give vendors legal status and provide legitimate hawking

zones, to provide facilities for appropriate use of identified space, to eschew imposing

numerical limits on access to public spaces, to make Street vendors a special component

of the urban development/zoning plans, to promote self-compliance amongst Street

vendors, to promote organizations of Street vendors, to set up participatory mechanisms

with representation by urban vendors' organizations, to take measures to promote better

future of street vendors and to facilitate/promote social security and access to credit for

street vendors. The 2004 policy was later revised as „National Policy on Urban Street

Vendors, 2009‟. The 2009 policy improved upon the 2004 policy in the areas of provision

of civic facilities, registration procedures, registration fees, collection of revenue,

eviction, relocation, confiscation, organization of vendors, participative processes, public

health and hygiene, self-regulation, credit and insurance, rehabilitation of child vendors,

education and skill development, housing, social security, monitoring and review, dispute

settlement and capacity building. On 1st April, 2008, „Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana

(RSBY)‟ for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families in Unorganised Sector was launched

with the basic features of issuing smart cards to beneficiaries, insurance, cashless

transaction, bearing hospitalisation expenses and providing maternity benefit. Later

210

RSBY has been extended to street vendors. In 2010, the Supreme Court of India,

recognized street vending as a source of livelihood. The draft of the same was unveiled to

the public on 11th November, 2011 which focused on providing legitimate protection of

street vendors from harassment, demarcation of “vending zones”, proper representation of

vendors and women in decision making bodies and establishment of effective grievance

redressal and dispute resolution mechanism. „The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood

and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014‟ aims to regulate street vendors in public

areas and protect their rights. It stressed on the establishment of a Town Vending

Committee with the aim to conduct a survey of existing street vendors, to decide on the

areas of street vending, to ensure that all vendors are accommodated, to issue certificates of

vending to vendors and to decide on the amount to be collected as fees/tax from vendors.

Inspite of all efforts, the government policy pertaining to urban street vending is

rarely followed in spirit. Apart from that street vendors are controlled by multiple

authorities. They are impacted by laws, police manuals and procedures, by municipal

authorities, planning departments and local-level management. The laws related to street

vendors differ from state to state. However, street vendors are also growing rapidly as

their services are widely demanded by the public.

The present study is a comprehensive inquiry into the performance of street

vendors in all five zones in Coimbatore Municipal Corporation. The objectives of the

current study are

1. To analyze the socio-economic background of the street vendors,

2. To assess the quality of life of the selected street vendors,

211

3. To examine the practices of street vendors in the study area,

4. To find the motivational/conducive factors of the study group,

5. To identify their awareness level,

6. To measure the economic success of the street vendors,

7. To evaluate the problems confronted by selected group of street vendors and

8. To identify the needs of the street vendors in the city.

Under convenience sampling technique, 500 street vendors who sold their wares

in Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation during 2013 were selected for study. About

100 respondents each from North, South, East, West and Central zone were selected.

A detailed interview schedule was administered on the sample respondents. Observations

from surveying the locality and personal interviews too were administered. Considering the

conducive and compulsive factors responsible for the respondents‟ entry to street vending

and considering their socio-economic background, the following hypotheses were tested.

The null hypotheses tested were,

1. There was no significant difference in the average income of the respondents

before and after entering street vending in all the five zones.

2. There was no significant difference in the factors that influenced and compelled

the street vendors in the research area.

3. There was no significant difference in the level of need of street vendors in all zones.

4. There was no significant difference in the investment level of street vendors in

different zones.

212

5. There was no significant difference in the operational cost of street vendors in

different zones.

6. Success level is independent of years of experience, location of street vending,

total investment, hours at work, age, marital status and community.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Brief outline of the findings are

SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF THE SAMPLE RESPONDENTS

A significant proportion of the street vendors in the study area were from

„Backward Community‟. About 73.2% belonged to „Backward Community‟ and

19.2% belonged to „Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community‟. Only about

3.8% belonged to „Most Backward Community‟. The percentage of vendors from

„Forward Community‟ was 3.8.

About 75% of the households followed „Hindu‟ religion. About 16.8% were

„Muslims‟ and 8.2% were „Christians‟.

Most of the households in all the five zones adopted „nuclear family‟ system.

About 82% of the households in West zone, 74% in Central, 67% in South, 62%

in East and 57% in North adopted „nuclear family‟ system.

Most of the households had a family size consisting of „below 5‟ members. About

80% of the households had a family size of „below 5‟ members. Only around 20%

of the households had „above 5‟ members in their family.

213

Around 51.2% of the sample households were from „urban‟ areas and 49% were

from „rural‟ areas.

Only 31% (155 households) of the households were migrants. Majority of them

were non migrants. About 69% of them were non migrants. About 14% of the

households migrated from „other districts‟ of TamilNadu to Coimbatore and

16.6% of them migrated from „other states‟ of India to Coimbatore.

The study area had a higher percentage of „male‟ members than that of „female‟.

There was about 56% of „male‟ and 44% of „female‟ members.

A higher percentage of members were in the age group of „15 to 59‟ years.

The percentage of members in the age group of „15 to 59‟ years was 77.56.

Gender wise classification of „15 to 59‟ age group in the showed that there were

81.61% of female and 74.38% of male members. The percentage of members in

the age group of „6 to 14‟ years was 12.73. Members „below 6‟ years and „above

60‟ years of age were found to 4.11% and 5.60% respectively.

The average „Work Force Participation Rate‟ in the study area was 52.64%.

About 47.36% were dependent members. The percentage of „male participation‟

was 75.44 and „female‟ was 25.71.

A large proportion of the street vendor household‟s monthly income was „above

` 10000‟ It was found from the above table that 31.8% of households earned an

amount of „` 10000 to ` 15000‟ and 36.2% earned „` 15000 and above‟ every

month. About 25.2% of the household‟s monthly income ranged between „` 5000

214

to `10000‟ and only 6.8% household‟s monthly income was „below ` 5000‟.

The average monthly income of all households was found to be „`18269.40‟.

About 55.6% of the sample households spent from „`5000 to `10000‟ every

month. About 20.8% of households spent „below 5000‟, 16.8% spent from

„`10000 to `15000‟ and 6.8% spent „above `15000‟ every month. The average

monthly expenditure of all the households was „ 7687.88‟.

Income was found to have a greater impact on the consumption expenditure of the

households. The MPC of the sample households in the study area was 0.062.

The practice of saving money among households was seen to be low. Only 41.6%

of street vendor households kept aside a portion of their income as „monthly

savings‟. The households saved for „security‟, for „children's marriage, education

and employment‟, for „house construction‟, to „meet emergencies‟, for „business

reinvestment‟, to „repay debt‟ and to „meet day today expenses‟. The migrants

from Northern states of India saved a major portion of their monthly income for a

minimum period of three months and sent the amount to their families at Northern

India to meet their family expenses.

About 85.4% of the households did not have any debt. Only 14.6% of the

households have debts and they have borrowed an amount of „` 5000 to

` 5,00,000‟. They have borrowed from their „friends and relatives‟, „commercial

banks‟ and „chit funds‟ to „meet emergencies‟, for „marriage‟, for „children‟s

education‟ and for „house construction‟.

About 66.4% of them „did not own a house‟ and lived in „rented houses‟.

215

About 45.8% of the households lived in „tiled pucca houses‟ and 45.2% lived in

„pucca houses‟. Only 8.2% lived in „kutcha houses‟.

About 36.8% of households lived in houses with „2 rooms‟. Around 30.6% of

them lived in houses with „1‟room and 20.8% with „3‟ rooms. Only 5.4%, 3.8%

and 2.6% lived in houses with „4‟, „6‟ and „5‟ rooms respectively.

Nearly 91% of the street vendor households were „electrified‟.

About 58.6% of the households used „public tap‟ for fetching their drinking water.

Only 29.6% of the households had „toilet facility‟ at their houses. About 70.4%

did not have this basic facility.

About 62.4% of households used „Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)‟ as cooking

fuel. Around 13.4% depended on „biofuel‟ and 11.4% on „kerosene‟ for cooking.

Around 59% of sample households owned „furniture‟ and 41% did not have any

kind of „furniture‟.

The household possessions revealed that about 86.2% of the households had

„electronic items‟.

Around 62% of the sample households owned some or the other kind of vehicle.

Nearly 67.6% of the households possessed „ration card‟ and 32.4% did not have.

About 76.4% of households were enrolled in voters List.

Around 58.6% of households have received „television‟ from the government.

About 22% of the households have received „LPG‟, 20.2% „mixer, wet grinder

and table fan‟ and 12% „cycle‟. Almost 25.6% were under „Chief Minister‟s

216

Insurance Scheme‟. Only 1.2% of the households have received „cattle‟, 1.8%

„laptop‟, 3.8% „marriage assistance‟, 0.6% „tricycles for differently abled‟ and

6.2% have received „financial assistance during birth of their child‟.

Based on the Quality of Life Index which included food intake, income,

expenditure, shelter, occupation and literacy level, 62.6% of street vendor

households came under „vulnerable‟ group, 20.2% came under „middle income‟

group and 15.4% were „marginally poor‟. None of the households came under the

category of „extremely poor‟ or „high income‟ group.

PROFILE OF THE STREET VENDORS:

The proportion of „male‟ respondents in street vending activity was 92.2%.

The percentage of female was 7.8%.

Most of the respondents were in the age group of „20 to 40‟ years. About 51.2%

belonged to the age group of „20 to 40‟ years. There were 36% of street vendors

in the age group of „40 to 60‟ years. Only 7.8% of the respondents were „below

20‟ years of age and 5% „above 60‟ years of age.

Around 56% of the respondents have studied up to „secondary‟ level. Only 19%

of the street vendors were „illiterates‟. About 12.8% have studied up to „primary‟

level and 5.6% up to „higher secondary‟. About 4.6% of them were graduates and

2% were „technically‟ educated.

About 72.2% of the respondents were „married‟ and about 25% were „unmarried‟.

About 2% were „separated‟ and 0.8% were „widow(er)‟.

217

Almost 56.8% entered the workforce as street vendors. Around 40.4% of the

respondents were previously employed.

After entry in to street vending activity, about 45.53% of the respondents earned

„above `10000‟ whereas before entry, only 10.39% earned „above `10000‟.

There was a significant difference in the income earned by the respondents before

and after taking up street vending activity in all the zones (-8.595).

Around 52% of the respondents in the research area involved in street vending for

„less than 10‟ years. About 26.2%, 14.6% and 7.2% of the respondents engaged in

street vending for „10 to 20‟, „20 to 30‟ and „above 30‟ years respectively.

The sample respondents entered street vending mainly because of „interest and

experience in the same line (rank 1)‟ and „easy to venture (rank 2). Some also

entered because of existence of „densely populated area/large number of consumers

(rank 3)‟. The respondents also entered activity because of „easy availability of

materials (rank 4)‟ and because of „low cost of investment (rank 5)‟.

The factors that were compulsive towards the respondents‟ decision to take up

street vending revealed that „poverty (rank 1)‟ and „lack of employment

opportunities (rank 2)‟ was the principal factor that compelled street vendors to

enter this activity. Some also entered as it was their „family business (rank 3)‟.

Individuals were also compelled to undertake the activity because they were the

„sole bread winner (rank 4)‟ in their family.

There was significant difference in the extent of factors that were conducive to

take up street vending. There was mean difference in the conducive factors such

218

as „easy to venture (20.694)‟, „interest and experience in the same line (14.420)‟,

„needs no education/special skills (35.180)‟, „easy availability of materials

(10.655)‟, „low cost of investment (49.740)‟, „less competition (44.799)‟, „densely

populated area/large number of consumers (8.700)‟ and „suggestion by friends

and relatives (18.597)‟. Hence the null hypothesis was rejected. There was no

mean difference in case of „availability of finance (2.095)‟ and „to be independent

(4.311)‟. Hence the null hypothesis was accepted.

The significant difference in the degree of factors that were compulsive to take up the

activity, revealed that there was mean difference in the compulsive factors such as

„poverty (32.873)‟, „sole bread winner (9.552)‟, „lack of employment opportunities

(20.335)‟ and „family business (24.467)‟. Thus the null hypothesis was rejected.

There was no mean difference in case of „loss of previous job/dissatisfaction in

previous employment (4.045)‟. Hence the null hypothesis was accepted.

There was no much level of change in the respondents‟ awareness level after

entry into vending except in case of awareness on „street vendors‟

association/union/networks and its role‟. Before entry, 19% of street vendors

knew about it but after entry, about 36.4% knew about it. In case of other areas of

awareness, the improvement in awareness level was very low. The increase in

awareness level on „institutional facilities‟ was only from 18.8% to 20.8%, on

„welfare schemes of government‟, the increase was from 21% to 22%, in case of

„policies of the government for urban street vendors‟, it was from 6.4% to 7.4%,

about „rights of street vendors‟, the improvement in awareness level was from

219

1.8% to 2.8% and increase in awareness level on „rights/status and conditions of

street vendors in other states/cities‟, it was from 4.4% to 7.6%.

Most of the street vendors (66%) in the study area purchased their wares within

„Coimbatore city‟.

About 41.8% of the street vendors purchased their wares from „wholesalers‟. About

29.8% purchased from „retailers‟, 12.8% purchased directly from „manufacturers‟,

8.8% from „middlemen‟ and 5.2% „produced their products and sold‟.

Around 75% of the street vendors in the study area purchased their wares

„independently‟. Only 25% went for „group purchase‟.

About 16% of the respondents spent an amount of „`4000 to `8000‟ for a

purchase. About 12.6% spent „up to `500‟, 12.4% spent „`8000 to `16000‟ and

15.6% spent „above `32000‟ for a single purchase.

Most of the respondents made „spot cash payments‟. Around 71.8% of the street

vendors made „spot cash payments‟ and 28.2% made „credit payments‟.

Most of the street vendors made their purchases „weekly‟. Nearly 45.8%

purchased wares „once in a week‟. Around 23% made their purchases „daily‟,

17.4% „monthly‟, 6.6% „half yearly‟, 3.2% „quarterly‟ and 4% made their

purchases almost „once in a year‟.

Around 36% of the respondents spent „few hours a day‟ for their purchases.

Almost 21.6% of the respondents spent „few minutes in a day‟ and 20% spent

220

„few days in a week‟ for their purchase. For 12% respondents, it took „a fortnight‟

for a purchase and for 10.4%, it took „a month‟.

Most of the street vendors were „mobile‟. About 72.8% were „mobile‟ throughout

the day. Only 27.2% sold their wares in a „static place‟.

Around 59% of the respondents „sold on streets and pavements‟ and 29% „sold in

and around bus stops‟. Only 6.4% „sold near pavilion and stadium‟ and 5.6%

„sold near religious places‟.

Only 15.2% of street vendors possessed license. Around 84.8% did not possess license.

About 87.2% of the street vendors „sold same wares throughout the year‟.

Only 12.8% of them „sold different wares‟ according to seasonal demand.

Around 34.2% of street vendors in the study area displayed their wares in

„static/mobile stall‟ and 30.2% in „roving carts‟. Around 16.8% displayed their wares

in „open pitch‟, 9.4% each displayed in „baskets/rucksack‟ and „stationary cart‟.

The most popular way followed by the respondents to attract buyers for purchase

was to simply „call out loud‟. Nearly 80.8% of street vendors in the study area

attracted buyers by „calling out loud‟. Around 9.8%, 7.6% and 1.8% „used loud

speakers‟, „used bells‟ and „recorded and played‟ to pull the attention of buyers

respectively.

Around 46.4% of street vendors in the study area worked for „more than 12‟

hours, 29.2% worked for „9 to 12‟ hours and 14.2% worked for about „6 to 9‟

hours a day. Around 10.2% worked „below 6‟ hours a day.

221

About 79.2% of the respondents had peak sales in „morning and evening‟. Around

8.2%, 5.8%, 3.8% and 3% of the street vendors experienced peak sales in the

„evening‟, „throughout the day‟, during „afternoon‟ and during „morning‟ respectively.

About 14% of all street vendors experienced fully fledged sales on Sundays.

Most of the street vendors worked on all the days in a week. About 88.6% of the

respondents vended „daily‟. About 11.4% vended only „3 days and below‟ in a week.

Around 36.81% of the respondents in the study area travelled „below 10‟

kilometers daily to vend and nearly 63.19% of the street vendors travelled „above

10‟ kilometers.

About 79.4% of the street vendors were not associated with any union. Only

20.6% of the street vendors were a part of street vendors‟ union/association.

Around 63% of the respondents were „ready‟ to move if alternative spot for

vending is provided by the Municipal Corporation and 37% were „not willing‟ to

have a change in their work spot.

Almost 64.6% of the respondents „took their wares home‟ every day after their

business hours. Only 18.4% stocked them „at a common place‟ and 16.2%

stocked „at vending place‟.

The sample street vendors were in need of „an ID card to permit vending (rank 1)‟,

„social security schemes (rank 2)‟ and „licenses (rank 3).

There was a significant difference in the opinion of the need of the respondents in

the areas of „provision of shops‟, „need for a static place for vending‟, 'need for

222

licenses‟, „need for social security schemes like old age pension, sickness/accident

covers and others‟, „need for registration system for street vending‟ and „redressal

mechanism‟. Hence null hypothesis was rejected. There was no significant

difference in the areas of „need for an ID card to permit vending‟ and „training to

upgrade skills‟. Thus the null hypothesis was accepted.

Nearly 29.2% of the respondents have started their activity with an amount „less

than ` 10000‟, 20.8% have started with „` 10000 to ` 20000‟ and 23.8% with an

amount „above `50000‟. About 9.4%, 8.6% and 8.2% of the respondents invested

about „`30000 to `40000, „` 20000 to ` 30000‟ and „` 40000 to ` 50000‟ in street

vending respectively.

There was a significant difference between groups and within groups of street

vendors in relation to their investment. Thus the null hypothesis was rejected.

There was a significant difference between the investment level of street vendors

in North zone and the investment level of the respondents in Central zone.

The investment level of respondents of South zone was significantly different

with that of Central zone. There was a significant difference between the

investment level of street vendors in East and Central zone. Also there was a

significant difference between investment level of street vendors in West and

Central zone. There was a significant difference between the investment level of

street vendors in Central zone and all the other zones namely North, South, East

and West zone. Thus the null hypothesis was rejected. But there was no

significant difference between the investment level of street vendors in North

223

zone and the investment level of the respondents in South, East and West zones.

There was no significant difference between the investment level of the

respondents of South zone with that of North, East and West zone. Also there was

no significant difference between investment level of street vendors in East with

that of North, South and West zone. There was no significant difference between

the investment level of street vendors in West zone and all the other zones namely

North, South and East zone. Thus the null hypothesis was accepted.

About 73.8% of respondents invested their „own funds‟ and 16.8% depended on

„both own and borrowed funds‟ for investment. Only 9.4% had solely depended

upon „borrowed funds‟.

For 25% of street vendors‟, the cost of running the activity in the study area was

„below `5000‟. For 20.8% vendors, the operational cost was „` 10000 to

` 15000‟. For 18.2% of the respondents, the cost was „` 5000 to ` 10000‟ and for

17.2% it was „`20000 to `25000‟.

There was a significant difference between groups and within groups of street

vendors in relation to their operational cost. Thus the null hypothesis was rejected.

There was a significant difference between North zone and West zone with regard

to operational cost of the street vendors. Similarly there was a significant

difference between the operational cost of South zone and the West zone.

Considering the difference between East and other zones, there was a significant

difference between the operational cost of East and West zone. The operational

cost of the respondents in West zone was significantly different with the cost of

the respondents of North, South, East and Central zone. Also there was a

224

significant difference between the operational costs of the vendors in Central with

that of West zone. Thus the null hypothesis was rejected. There was no significant

difference between North zone and other zones such as South, East and Central

zone with regard to operational cost of the street vendors. And there was no

significant difference between the operational cost of South zone with that of North,

East and Central zone. Considering the difference between East and other zones,

there was no significant difference between the operational cost of East and North,

South and Central zone. Also there was no significant difference between the

operational costs of the vendors in Central with that of the cost of the respondents

in North, South and East zone. Thus the null hypothesis was accepted.

The daily earnings of most of the street vendors was between „`200 to ` 400‟.

Around 42.8% of the respondents earned between „` 200 to ` 400‟. About 27%

earned an amount of „` 400 to ` 600‟ per day. About 14.2% of street vendors earned

„below ` 200‟. About 8.4% of the respondents earned „above ` 1000‟, 3.6% earned

an amount of „` 600 to ` 800‟ and 4% an amount of „`800 to ` 1000‟ a day.

About 20.8% of sample street vendors earned an amount of „`15000 to ` 20000‟ and

29.8% earned „above ` 30000‟ per month by selling their wares. Around 15.4% of

street vendors had monthly sales revenue of „`10000 to `15000‟, 11.2%, earned an

amount of „` 20000 to ` 25000‟ and 11%, earned „` 5000 to 10000‟.

„Years of experience‟ of the respondents had a positive impact on their „sales‟.

It brought about an increase of `1154. About 33.7% variations in „sales‟ was

because of „experience‟.

225

Most of the respondents earned a monthly profit of „above `5000‟. Around 39.2%

and 21.6% earned profits to the extent of „` 5000 to `10000‟ and „` 10000 to

`15000‟ respectively. Around 13.2% street vendors‟ monthly profit was „below

` 5000‟. About 11.6% earned a profit of „` 15000 to ` 20000‟ and 10.4% earned a

profit „above `30000‟ a month.

„Sales‟, „years of experience‟ and „location‟ had a positive impact on „profit‟.

With increase in „years of experience‟, there was an increase in „profit‟ of „`130‟

and proper choice of „location‟ could raise „profit‟ to „`1552‟. All the three

variables brought about 95% variations in „profit‟.

Street vendors‟ performance based on proportion of own capital/borrowed capital

to total capital revealed that 94.6% of them were „very successful‟ and 5.4% were

„successful‟ in their employment activity. No street vendor was unsuccessful.

Street vendors‟ performance based on net profit to total investment revealed that

about 78% of the street vendors were „very successful‟ in their income generating

activity. About 12.6% were „successful‟ and 9.4% were „unsuccessful‟.

Street vendors‟ performance based on proportion of profit reinvested revealed that

about 62.4% of street vendors were „very successful‟ and 6.6% were „successful‟

and 31% were „unsuccessful‟ in their field of work.

The calculated χ2

value for „years of experience‟, „location of street vending‟,

„total investment‟, „hours of vending‟, „age‟, marital status‟ and „community‟ of

the street vendors in the study area was greater than the theoretical value. Hence

226

the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there was relationship between all the

specified variables and success level.

PROBLEMS OF STREET VENDORS

„Problem of drinking water facility (rank 1)‟ and „reduction in quality of wares

(rank 2) was the principal problem which the street vendors faced in the study

area. Some other major problems they came across were „problem in getting

minimum profit (rank 3)‟, „stiff competition (rank 4)‟ and „involves hard physical

work (rank 5)‟.

Factor loadings represent how much a factor explains a variable, high loading

indicates that the street vendors experienced that problem to a very high level.

Assuming a factor loading of more than 0.7 as having a high level of problem.

Thus the study area had high level of problems in the area of „levy of fine by

police‟, „constant threat of eviction‟ and „low security for goods‟. It was also

concluded that some variables which was higher than 0.60 indicates that the

problems should be looked into. Thus the job related problems were high in the

areas of „problem of drinking water facility‟ and „reduction in quality of wares‟.

Only 31% of respondents in the study area had „hyper tension‟, 22.8% had „high

blood pressure‟, 21.8% had „migrane‟, 10.2% had „hyper acidity‟ and 3.8% had

„urinary infection‟. None of them had „diarrhea and kidney ailments‟. But 7.4% of

street vendors suffered from others diseases such as „low eye sight‟, „diabetics‟,

„stomach ache‟, „back pain‟, „knee pain‟ and „tuberculosis (TB)‟.

227

CONCLUSION

Individuals chose street vending as their employment activity out of „interest and

experience in the same line‟. They also entered the activity as it was easy to venture. Poverty

was the main compulsive factor that pushed them into street vending. They purchased their

wares on a weekly basis from wholesalers. They purchased independently by making spot

cash payments. It took only a few hours for them to make a purchase. Most of the street

vendors were mobile and chose to sell their wares on streets and pavements by displaying

them on static/mobile stalls and roving carts. They worked for more hours in a day, but

experienced peak selling only in the morning and evening.

Majority of them were not licensed. Their quality of wares got reduced because of

heat, rain and dust. Since the street vendors did not have any proper places to stock their

wares and they had to carry it home every day after their business hours. They lacked

drinking water at their work place. They were highly in need of ID card to permit

vending. Creation of vending zones with needed facilities would reduce their problems

pertaining to street vending. The street vendors were ready to move to vending zones.

Street vendors‟ membership in their associations/unions was found to be very low. There

was a considerable increase in the income of the street vendors after entering in to

vending activity. In midst of all these difficulties, most of the street vendors have

emerged to be very successful in their activity.

SUGGESTIONS

Efforts must be taken to improve the employment level of female members.

Regular savings habit among households must be encouraged.

228

The welfare schemes of the government for the general public should be

promoted.

Awareness programmes and campaigns with regard to street vendor rights,

policies, social security schemes, institutional credit support and street vendor

association/union should be organised.

Entrepreneurial skills must be imparted to street vendors which would upgrade

their skills and help them overcome the problems arising out of stiff competition.

Street vendors should be issued ID cards and licenses for street vending. They

should be educated on the importance of possessing it.

Vending zones with all needed facilities should be created. It would reduce their

work related problems like lack of drinking water and reduction in quality of

wares because of heat, rain and dust.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH STUDIES

Municipal programmes for urban street vendors in Coimbatore District can be studied.

Study on street vendors on consumer point of view can be done.

A comparative study on male and female street vendors can be done.

Study on rural street vendors can be carried out.

A study on tourism and street vending can be done.

A study on nomadic vendors can be carried out.

Cultural adaptability among interstate migrant street vendors can be done.