Production Constraints, Marketing Channels, and Contribution Margins in the Etikoppaka Traditional Toy Industry

Background: Etikoppaka village in Andhra Pradesh holds Geographical Indication (GI) status for its wooden lacquer toys. Despite policy initiatives including the Toy Clusters Scheme (2020) and BIS certification mandate (2021), artisans face persistent livelihood challenges. This study provides empirical documentation of these challenges.
Methods: Primary data were collected from 50 artisans using structured questionnaires and personal interviews (October–December 2025). Of 72 artisans approached, 50 responded (69.4% response rate). Secondary data were drawn from government reports and peer-reviewed journals. Analysis employed descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations) and one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post-hoc tests. Due to the exploratory cross-sectional design and purposive sampling (n=50), all findings are reported as associations; causal claims are not possible.
Results: In the sample, all 50 respondents (100%) perceive high raw material costs and high power charges as constraints. Marketing remains localized: 84% sell through local channels. Contribution margins differ significantly by unit size (p=0.001): large units show 15.6% margin versus 7.3% for small units. Cooperative raw material sourcing is associated with higher margins (13.5%) compared to outside-village sources (8.1%) (p=0.001).
Conclusion: The finding that 56% of artisans report low income as a problem while only 36% report irregular demand warrants further investigation. Universal perceptions of high raw material and power costs across the sample suggest the need for further policy investigation.

Traditional toys; Etikoppaka; artisans; marketing channels; contribution margins; Geographical Indication; BIS certification; Toy Clusters Scheme

1. Aggarwal, P. K., Rao, R. V., & Joshi, S. C. (2013). Wooden toys in India. Unasylva, 64(1), 240. (Print edition only; no DOI available) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC). (2023). *Tariff order for FY 2023-24*. Hyderabad: APERC. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bramley, C., & Biénabe, E. (2020). Geographical Indications and rural development: A review of evidence. World Development, 135, 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of India. (2022). National Curriculum Framework for School Education. New Delhi: Government of India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Government of India, Geographical Indications Registry. (2009). Etikoppaka toys: GI Application No. 477. Chennai: GI Registry. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Gupta, R., & Sharma, P. (2023). Digital marketing challenges for traditional handicraft artisans in India. Journal of Rural Development, 42(1), 56-72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. IMARC. (2021). *Indian toys market report 2021-2026*. New York: IMARC Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR). (2021). Ethical guidelines for social science research in India. New Delhi: ICSSR. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Khanna, S. (1987). Traditional Indian toys. Ahmedabad: National Institute of Design. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. KPMG & FICCI. (2021). Indian toys industry: Opportunities and challenges. New Delhi: KPMG India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kumar, V., & Singh, A. (2021). Marketing constraints in traditional craft clusters: A systematic review. International Journal of Rural Management, 17(2), 189-208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Mehta, R., & Verma, S. (2020). Livelihood challenges of traditional artisans in the post-GI era. Economic and Political Weekly, 55(12), 34-41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. National Institute of Design. (2019). Traditional toys of India: A documentation. Ahmedabad: NID Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Patel, S., & Desai, M. (2024). Exhibition-based marketing for rural artisans: Opportunities and barriers. Journal of Cultural Economics, 48(1), 89-106. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rangnekar, D. (2021). Geographical Indications and local development: The case of Indian handicrafts. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(4), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Reddy, K., & Lakshmi, T. (2023). Cooperative marketing and artisan profitability: Evidence from Telangana handicrafts. Journal of Co-operative Studies, 56(2), 45-62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis (IDS Working Paper No. 72). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Sharma, S. (2022, November 28). Toy imports drop 70% as exports rise 61% in three years. The Economic Times, p. 7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Singh, P. (2022). Sustainable livelihoods for traditional craft artisans: A capabilities approach. Journal of Rural Studies, 92, 234-248. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Suraj, M., & Nair, S. (2022). Impact of GI tagging on artisan incomes: A study of traditional craft clusters in Kerala. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(3), 412-428. (Print edition only) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Impact of Foreign Direct Investment in India
• Issues Involved in Digitalisation Special Reference to Indian Tourism Growth
• Relationship Marketing and Customer Loyalty in the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) Industry in Nairobi County
• Financial Literacy or Financial Inclusion? Which is Which, What is What—To Achieve Uganda’s 10-Fold Economic Growth By 2040
• Harnessing Natural Gas for Economic Transformation: Overcoming the Regulatory and Infrastructural Bottlenecks in Nigeria