In Indian sociology, rural development cannot be divorced from caste, class, and power dynamics (Andre Beteille, Caste, Class, and Power, 1965). The IRDP specifically targeted the bottom rungs of the rural hierarchy—small and marginal farmers, agricultural laborers, rural artisans, and Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs).
- Sub-Programmes Convergence: IRDP subsumed several earlier targeted schemes such as SFAL (Small Farmers Development Agency) and MFAL (Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers Agency), alongside specific sub-groups like DWCRA (Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas) and TRYSEM (Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment).
- Asset Endowment Model: Unlike wage-employment schemes, IRDP provided subsidized credit and capital grants to acquire income-generating productive assets (milch cattle, looms, pump sets, artisanal tools), aiming to lift families permanently above the poverty line.
- Critique from Village Studies: Sociological evaluations by S.C. Dube (India's Changing Villages, 1958) and various NSSO field studies revealed that bureaucratized implementation often bypassed the structural blockages of landlordism and moneylenders (Sahukars). Elite capture frequently diverted IRDP subsidies to the dominant castes (M.N. Srinivas, The Remembered Village, 1976), leading to high rates of asset depreciation and loan default.