buying, and remaining in autarky, in columns 2, 3 and 4) and non-market transfers (i.e., inherited out and autarky in columns 6 and 5) during the period under concern.<sup>9</sup> The top panel provides information on initial conditions in 1982 while the bottom panel illustrates the status in 1999. We first discuss information for market-participants followed by that for groups according to their non-market participation.<sup>10</sup> Initial conditions for market participants allow three main conclusions. First, the data point towards strong equalization of factor endowments through land sales; households who sold land had significantly smaller initial adult populations and per capita landholdings than purchasers (3.8 vs. 4.4 persons in the 14-60 age group and 2 vs. 1.3 ha per capita, respectively) and 15% of those purchasing land came from a landless dynasty.<sup>11</sup> At the same time, there were no significant difference in initial non-land asset endowments or the level of per capita income between those who purchased and sold land and those remaining in autarky although the two former groups had slightly higher initial consumption levels than the latter. Second, the fact that the number of unmarried sons and daughters for sellers (1.08 and 0.78) and buyers (0.88 and 0.68) is markedly above that of those in autarky (0.73 and 0.51) points towards a link between land market participation and live cycle events. Finally, with 9% and 13% in sales and purchase markets, compared to 17% overall, land market participation by scheduled caste households was uniformly low.

Shifting from initial to final conditions in the bottom panel of table 3 provides a number of insights. First, while differences in household size persisted in 1999, those who purchased land had made welfare gains that were more than 50% above those for the rest. Compared to initial levels that were not different from those by the rest or even slightly below average, purchasers’ levels of final asset ownership (Rs. 86,748 vs. about 57,000 for the rest of the sample), per capita income (Rs. 4,063 vs. 2,500), and expenditure (1,908 vs. 1,579 and 1,724), were all significantly above non-participants’ and sellers’ in 1999.

This was accompanied by purchasers shifting from the bottom of the three groups in terms of per capita land endowment to the top, with a significantly higher end-period level of 1.12 as compared to 0.7 ha per capita, for the rest of the sample. The extent to which such performance was underpinned by higher levels of productivity will have to be explored in the econometric analysis. Although 29% of sellers in the

> 9 Columns 2-4 identify changes in welfare over time between those who sold and purchased while columns 5 and 6 point towards generational differences between the old and the young generation for households who transferred land through inheritance and those who did not. In both cases, the results of t-tests for the significance of differences between the group transferring land and those remaining in autarky are indicated by stars as explained in the table.

> 10 The discrepancy of number of observations between 1982 and 1999 (5932 versus 3816) is due to household splits in the 1982-99 period.  Of the 3816 households of the initial sample that could be traced in the second round, 1174 split and formed a total of 3290 new households while 2642 did not experience any change, bringing the total number to 5933.

> 11 In other words, more than 60% of those who had been landless at the start of the period were able to acquire land through the market. At the same time 2% of the sample who were landless in 1982 managed to acquire land but had sold it by the end of the period.

12