Poverty alleviation in India: a study of national plans, programmes and social audit.
Since India became part of the global economy and underwent economic reform in 1991, its economy is growing at a faster rate of nearly 10 per cent per annum! In the process, India has become the fourth largest economy in the world. In the last two decades, a significant proportion of the population across the country has reaped the benefits of this economic growth. They have become the part of global economy and market, and their lives have transformed into one of global citizens with all the comforts and luxury in life.
Apart from this burgeoning middle class in the country, the economic growth seemed to have touched the lives of the poor also. According to the National Sample Survey results, people living below poverty line have dramatically come down during the post economic reform era. Poverty alleviation programmes have assumed relevance as it is proved globally that the so-called 'trickle-down effect' does not work in all the societies and India is no exception to this. In recent times, there has been a significant shift in focus in the poverty literature away from the 'trickle-down' concept of growth towards the idea of 'pro-poor growth', which enables the poor to actively participate in and benefit from economic activities. Hence, the strategy of targeting the poor was adopted in India and the economic philosophy behind these special programmes was that special preferential treatment was necessary to enable the poor to participate in economic development. Inclusive growth also focuses on productive employment for the excluded groups. Poverty alleviation programmes have been designed from time to time to enlarge the income-earning opportunities for the poor. The programmes and schemes have been modified, consolidated, expanded and improved over time. These programmes are broadly classified into: The targeted programmes fall into four broad categories: (i) self-employment programmes (ii) wage employment programmes (iii) direct cash transfers to the targeted groups and (iv) Public distribution system (PDS). There are numerous centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) under the first three categories which are designed by the Centre, administered by the Ministry of Rural Development, but implemented by the States with States generally contributing 25 percent to their cost. In addition, some State governments have their own schemes. The multiplicity of the programs is advocated on the grounds of multi-dimensionality of poverty and regional variations in the efficacy of the delivery system. There is also recognition that it is problematic to close a scheme even if it is cost ineffective because of adverse publicity associated with the closure. Through PDS, the Central government is supplying six essential commodities at below market prices to 160 million families through 4, 50,000 nationwide fair price shops. The access to the system was near-universal until 1997. Targeting was introduced in 1997, and now the program is known as Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS). One of the important features of the implementing strategy of the 10th Five Year Plan is the crucial role given to the Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) in the delivery of TPDS. Till the end of 11th plan, Govt. of India aims at bringing down people below poverty line to the extent of 10 percent. So many programmes have been introduced by the Govt. of India for solving the problems.
Measurement of Poverty: Poverty Line
Poverty line is a cutoff point on the income distribution, which divides the population as poor and non-poor. People below poverty line, are poor and above that line are average or rich. Poverty line is therefore a derivation from inequality of income distribution. However cutoff level of income or expenditure is determined differently in different countries and regions. According to Planning Commission of India, "Poverty line is drawn on the basis of barest minimum desirable nutritional standards of 2400 calories per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories for urban areas".
Estimation of Poverty in India
In India poverty is estimated on the basis of 'Head Count Ratio' or on the basis of minimum consumption expenditure. In 1973-74 estimation of poverty was made on the basis of consumption expenditure through sample method. Planning commission has prepared several estimates through several basis. Estimation of poverty on the basis of trend and extent can be made in following manner.
Trends in Poverty in India
During five year plans, several programs have been introduced to alleviate poverty in India, yet there has been an increase in the number of poor persons in the country. There were about 32.1 crore persons living below poverty line in 1973-784. It remained almost stagnant during a decade of 1973-1983 but it come down to 26 crore in 1999-2000 and 22 crore in 2004-05. Poverty in rural sector always had been on higher side as compared to urban India. But it came down in 2004-05 in both rural and urban sector. By the end of 11th plan number of poor persons are expected to come down to 13.4 crore. A brief analysis showing absolute trend in poverty in India is shown through following Table-1.
Trends of State Level Poverty of India
In India different states have different number of poor persons. Utter Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttrakhand, Madhya Pradesh etc. have relatively more number of poor persons as compared to other states. In percentage form Orissa has the highest percentage of persons living below poverty line i.e., 43 percentage and Punjab has lowest i.e., 6 percent. A comparative study of rich and poor states is shown below Table-2.
According to economic survey report 2011-2012and 2012-13.
1. The percentage of people below the poverty line is very high in states like Orissa, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttrakhand, and Madhya Pradesh, both in terms of URP and MRP. Punjab is the best performing state in terms of this indicator.
2. Income inequality measured by the Gini coefficient (in rural areas) is highest in Haryana followed by Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. Though inequality is lowest in rural areas of Bihar and Assam, this may mean greater equality at low levels of income.
3. In urban areas, income inequality is highest in Madhya Pradesh followed by West Bengal, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Chhattisgarh.
Regional Poverty and Inequality
Although, income poverty has declined significantly at the all-India level, the decline has not been uniform across rural and urban areas. The poverty reduction in urban areas has usually been sharper than that in rural areas (which is home to nearly 67 percent of Indian population). The table also shows that although the rural income poverty has been declining continuously, income inequality had been growing till 1983-84, declined from 1983-84 to 199394 and increased afterwards from 1993-94 to 2004-05. On the other hand, although the urban poverty has been declining continuously, the urban inequality has been rising in an uninterrupted manner. The last column in the table displays the urban rural differential in per capita consumption expenditure which indicates a widening disparity from 1.334 in 1973-74 to
1.882 in 2004-05 on account of a higher rate of increase in per capita expenditure in urban areas as compared to rural areas.
HCR of 2004-05 and Report No. 508 on Level and Pattern of Consumer Expenditure for 61st Round, 2004-05 for Gini Index and Average Monthly Per capita Expenditure for 2004-05, reports of various rounds of household expenditure surveys conducted by NSSO for the data on average monthly per capita expenditure at current prices from 1973-74 till 1993-94.
Extent of Poverty
Since economic planning, main object of government of India has been lowering of Indian poverty. For this purpose recall, heavy expenditure was made during each plan. But on the basis of 30 days in 1999-2000, 26 percent of Indian population remained below poverty line. In actual fact, percentage of poverty in 1973-74 was 54.9 percent. It came down to 22 percent in 2004-05. Main reasons behind it are a fall in percentage of poverty in both rural and urban sectors. During these years, poverty percentage has come to a less than half. In 2010-11, 25.8 percent of population was below poverty line. In 2011-12, 32 percent of population was below poverty line. It is clear in the table 4 below.
Poverty Estimates for 2011-12
1. The estimates of state wise poverty lines for rural and urban areas for 2011-12 are given in Table-1. The percentage and number of persons below poverty line for all States/UTs for rural areas, urban areas and combined are given in Table-5. The all India poverty ratio is obtained as state-population weighted average poverty ratio, and the all India poverty line is the per capita per month expenditure that corresponds to the all India poverty ratio.
2. The NSSO tabulates expenditure of about 1.20 lakh households. Since these households have different number of members, the NSSO for purpose of comparison divides the household expenditure by the number of members to arrive at per capita consumption expenditure per month. This is called Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (MPCE) and is computed on the basis of three different concepts: Uniform Reference Period (URP), Mixed Reference Period (MRP), and Modified Mixed Reference Period (MMRP). As per Tendulkar Methodology, the poverty line has been expressed in terms of MPCE based on Mixed Reference Period. State-wise estimates of Average Monthly Per Capita Expenditure for rural and urban areas separately for the year 2011-12 are given in Table-6.
3. For 2011-12, for rural areas the national poverty line using the Tendulkar methodology is estimated at Rs. 816 per capita per month and Rs. 1,000 per capita per month in urban areas. Thus, for a family of five, the all India poverty line in terms of consumption expenditure would amount to about Rs. 4,080 per month in rural areas and Rs. 5,000 per month in urban areas. These poverty lines would vary from State to State because of inter-state price differentials.
4. The national level poverty ratio based on comparable methodology (Tendulkar Method) for 1993-94, 2004-05 and 2011-12 estimated from Large Sample Survey of Household Consumer Expenditure data of 50th, 61st and 68th round respectively are given below.
5. The percentage of persons below the Poverty Line in 2011-12 has been estimated as 25.7 percent in rural areas, 13.7 percent in urban areas and 21.9 percent for the country as a whole. The respective ratios for the rural and urban areas were 41.8 percent and 25.7 percent and 37.2 percent for the country as a whole in 2004-05. It was 50.1 percent in rural areas, 31.8 percent in urban areas and 45.3 percent for the country as a whole in 1993-94. In 2011-12, India had 270 million persons below the Tendulkar Poverty Line as compared to 407 million in 2004-05, that is a reduction of 137 million persons over the seven year period.
6. During the 11-year period 1993-94 to 2004-05, the average decline in the poverty ratio was 0.74 percentage points per year. It accelerated to 2.18 percentage points per year during the 7-year period 2004-05 to 2011-12. Therefore, it can be concluded that the rate of decline in the poverty ratio during the most recent 7-year period 2004-05 to 2011-12 was about three times of that experienced in the 11-year period 1993-94 to 2004-05.
7. It is important to note that although the trend decline documented above is based on the Tendulkar poverty line which is being reviewed and may be revised by the Rangarajan Committee, an increase in the poverty line will not alter the fact of a decline. While the absolute levels of poverty would be higher, the rate of decline would be similar. To illustrate the point, details about the magnitude of decline in poverty ratio at various levels above and below the Tendulkar Poverty Line are presented in various tables
8. The decline in poverty flows from the increase in real per capita consumption. The per annum increase in real MPCE for each of the ten deciles is presented at Table 5. The clear inference is that: (a) the real MPCE increased by much more in the second period (2004-05 to 2011-12) as compared to the first (1993-94 to 2004-05), (b) that the increase was fairly well distributed across all deciles of the population, and (c) the distribution was particularly equitable in rural areas.
Major Problems Caused by Poverty
Impact of Poverty on Women
* Being female is reported to be a risk factor for common mental disorders. Studies from India have shown that poverty and deprivation are independently associated with the risk for common mental disorder in women and add to the sources of stress associated with womanhood.
* Interviews with relatives of young women in rural China who had committed suicide and the survivors of suicide attempts revealed that hopelessness was a core experience, associated with poverty, limited educational and work prospects and the migration of husbands to urban areas for employment; these were in addition to other issues such as stigma for failing to produce a son, spouse and family abuse and forced marriages.
* Within a household, studies reported that some members of the household go without certain goods and services in order to increase the amount available for others; parents most commonly go without on behalf of children and women are most likely to go without than men.
* Depression during pregnancy is a common problem and is associated with indicators of socio-economic deprivation as well as other problems such as violence and loss of an intimate relationship
Impact of Poverty on Children's Mental Health
* Research suggests that household income influences child mental health. Children from low income families appear to have higher levels of depression and anti-social behaviour -such as bullying, being cruel, breaking things, cheating or telling less than children from more advantaged households. Children in chronically poor families show lower cognitive performance. A change in household income also influences the child's mental health. Drops in income increase depression and anti-social behaviour, while a move out of poverty and an improvement in household income results in improved child mental health.
* Poverty results in a less favorable family environment and poor quality parenting. It diminishes the ability of parents to provide supportive, consistent behaviour and may render parents more vulnerable to debilitating effects of life events. Parental mental health and behaviour in turn influences well-being of the child. The risk factors that additively influence a child's psychological adjustment include parents' employment and educational status, family size, maternal mental health, parental divorce, unsafe living environment, and parenting behaviors'.
* It is evident that the child who experiences poverty may also experience other life adversities.
* Adolescents who experience poverty are more likely to engage in drug and alcohol use at earlier ages, initiate sexual activity earlier, have increased mental health problems, and lower levels of academic achievement. The changes in the family due to economic strain are linked to externalized behaviors (marked by defiance, impulsivity, hyperactivity, aggression and antisocial features) in boys and internalized behaviors (evidenced by withdrawal, dysphoria and anxiety) in girls.
Poverty Alleviation Programmes and Social Audit
The programmes have been broadly classified into self-employment programmes, wage employment programmes, food safety programme and social security programmes. The focus is on the central government schemes only. It is not possible to map the special programmes of all the States. It must be noted here that some of the progressive States have added additional components or given further subsidy to enhance the benefits of the central schemes. For example, in the highly subsidized public distribution system of Andhra Pradesh, the BPL card holders were provided rice at Rs. 2 per kg.
Self-employment programmes: This programme was started in 1970s in rural areas of the country in the name of Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) to increase the source of income of small farmers and landless labourers. The beneficiaries were given subsidized credit, training, and infrastructure, so that they could find new sources of earning. In this scheme, agricultural labourers and small farmers received new skills to involve in vocations other than cultivating land. They included fishery, animal husbandry, and forestry. In the 1980s, this scheme was extended to scheduled castes and tribes, women and rural artisans.
IRDP suffered from certain shortfalls. One important factor is the attempt to develop an entrepreneur out of the unskilled landless labourer, who has no experience in managing an enterprise. Therefore, unviable projects were undertaken and sub-critical investments were made leading to collapse of these micro-enterprises. Banks were also indifferent to provide credits to the poor. It did not make a good banking sense to provide a loan to individual poor farmer and landless labourer, who did not have any experience in entrepreneurship. Poor targeting was another problem, where many non-poor managed to get the benefits.
Considering the shortfalls of the IRDP, the government replaced this programme with Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) in 1999. Considering the non-viability of the enterprise of the poor individual and his/her poor credit worthiness, SGSY focused on groups to lend money and develop micro-enterprises. This scheme involves the organization of the poor into self-help groups or SHGs and are provided with credit, technology, infrastructure and training. The SHG may consist of 10 to 20 members. Thus SGSY is a creditcum- subsidy programme, where credit is the major component and subsidy is the minor component. It is a credit driven programme back-ended with subsidy. Banks are generally comfortable with the credit worthiness of the SHGs. Unlike the IRDP, SGSY is more an empowering process and it focused on mainstreaming the poor to join the economic development of the country.
According to Asian Development Bank, microfinance is the provision of a broad range of services such as deposits, loans, payment services, money transfers, and insurance to poor and low-income households and their micro-enterprises 10. SGSY is one such micro-financing scheme of the government. Talking about micro-finance, the Grameen Bank concept of Bangladesh is well known. It is a nongovernmental financial institution providing credit to the poor in Bangladesh. In India, this concept is adapted to the existing commercial banking system. Instead of creating a parallel banking system for micro-credit like in Bangladesh, the Reserve Bank of India issued a policy circular in 1991 to all the commercial banks to participate actively and extend finance to SHGs. Banks had always problems of doing social banking with individuals, as they had to spend time and resources to select those who would pay back the loan. But SHGs, as a group presented a picture of solidarity among likeminded people ommitted to some micro-enterprise or individual goal seem to be credit worthy for the bank. The bank also ensured that the loan is put to use within 7 days for the purpose it was borrowed. Further, the banks allow SHGs to pay in weekly installment of small amount. Apart from the bank credit, the SHGs received government subsidy for their micro-enterprises.
By using the existing banking system of the country, the government has mainstreamed the rural poor into the formal financial system and to the market economy. By the end of March 2004, 1,232,768 SHGs have been linked to mainstream banks for savings services, of which 1,079,091 groups have accessed credit from more than 35,000 branches of commercial, co-operative and rural banks. The cumulative credit disbursed to these groups was US$ 887.32 millions. With an average membership of 16, at least 19 million people have access to formal savings facilities through SHGs, of which about 17 millions have also accessed credit services. This showed the magnitude and the impact of the programme in the country. It has become a social movement across Indian villages.
As a poverty alleviation programme, the success of micro-finance is gauged from its ability to service the population below the poverty line, i.e. targeting the poor. Compared to the normal State led financial institutions, the micro-credit programme performed better in serving the poor. But looking within the programme, various studies showed that only one-eighth of the beneficiaries belonged to below poverty line. It is in strong contrast to the Grameen Bank programme of Bangladesh, where only 4.2 per cent were outside the targeted population. On the whole, the richest among the poor benefited most and they have the capacity to use credit and technology to their advantage.
As a second indicator of evaluation of micro-financing, one would like to see increase in income and asset of the SHG members. Hulme and Mosley had compared the change in income of micro-credit target population and those who are not participating in the micro-credit programme. Their study also differentiated the targeted population into those who are above poverty line and those who are below poverty line. The study showed substantial income increase among the borrowers--an increase of 202 per cent as compared to the nonborrowers. The increase was 133 per cent for the BPL borrowers. This showed that the programme had surely benefited the BPL but at the same time those above BPL could benefit disproportionately higher than the BPL borrowers. In the same study, the researchers had found that those who adopted new technologies in their micro-enterprises had benefited the most and they formed just 12 per cent of the beneficiaries.
Wage Employment Programmes: The main purpose of the wage employment programmes is to provide a livelihood during the lean agricultural season as well as during drought and floods. Under these programmes, villagers worked to improve the village infrastructure such as deepening the village ponds, constructing village schools and improving the rural roads. Thus the programmes not only provided employment to the villagers but also improved village infrastructure and created village public assets. A positive fall out of this programme is that it created higher demand for village labour, thereby pushing up the wage of the labourer in the villages.
Food Security Programme: Meeting the very basic need of access to food is a major challenge to the government in the post-economic reform era. Those who are below poverty line are faced with the problem of meeting this very basic need. Starvation and hunger have been reported in different parts of the country, even in economically advanced States like Maharashtra. There is malnutrition in all age groups, especially among children. Problem of low birth weight due to under nutrition of mother during pregnancy and underweight of children are rampant in the country. The purchasing power of certain section of the society is so low that they cannot access food at the market price. They need the safety net of food subsidy. In this context, public distribution system or PDS assumes importance.
The PDS was originally a universal public distribution system or UPDS. The original UPDS was not conceived as an anti-poverty programme. The main objective was to create a demand for food grains thereby farmers benefiting from their produce. It was meant for price stabilization of food grains by giving price support. Due to widespread poverty in the country, the purchasing power for food grains was low but the supply of food was increasing. As a result, farmers got lower prices for their produce prompting the government to provide support prices and procure the food grains. Thus the government had to sit with overstock of food grains in the absence of a food distribution system. Thus the UPDS was a means to distribute the food grains to the people. Thus this strategy provided food subsidy to the consumers and price support to the farmers.
Social Security Programmes: Social security programmes are meant for those who are at the bottom of the BPL facing destitution and desertion. The central government has launched the National Social Assistance Programme or NSAP in August 1995. Under NSAP, there are three schemes. The first one is the National Old Age Pension Scheme or NOAPS. A pension amount of Rs.75 per month is given to those who are above the age of 65 yr and are destitute without any regular source of income or support from any family members or relatives. Though it is a very useful scheme for the elderly destitute, the coverage of the programme was not satisfactory. In the year 1999-2000, 8.71 million eligible elderly were identified, but the scheme could reach out to only 5 million beneficiaries. It was found that the benefits really reached the poor and the leakage rate was found to be low.
In addition to NOAP, the government has launched another programme called Annapurna in April 2000 for those elderly who are eligible for NOAPS but did not receive it due to budgetary constraints. They are given 10 kilograms of food grains per month free of cost. This programme did not take root in many States. As a result, only Rs. 174.4 million were utilized out of the allocated fund of Rs. 990.5 million in the year 2000-2001.
Urban Poverty Alleviation Programme: Urban poverty is the spill over effect of rural poverty. It is the push factor rather than the pull factor that is driving the urbanization process in most developing countries like India. Due to acute poverty in rural areas, the poor tend to migrate to cities (push factor) in search of work. Since they do not have any employable skills to get employment in the formal sector of the cities, they end up doing odd jobs in the informal sector of the city. Since normal housing is not affordable to them, they settle in lands that are not developed for housing, thus forming slums in cities. Living conditions in some of these slums are more depressive than the living conditions of the rural poor in villages.
Nehru Rozgar Yojana is implemented by the local self-government with the active participation of nongovernmental organizations. Compared to the need of the urban poor, the financial allocation is very small and hence only a few could benefit from this programme.
Urban Basic Services for Poor or UBSP: It is based on the principle of community development involving the community, especially women to improve their communities and environment. This programme is implemented in 25 States and 6 union territories covering 296 cities. Ten million urban poor are benefited from this programme. More than 130,000 women work as volunteers in this programme. The programme is a partnership of city, State and central governments along with NGOs and UNICEF.
Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Eleventh Plan
Under this plan following programmes were adopted for poverty alleviation.
1. Special efforts were made for the development of small and rural industries so as to provide employment in rural sector in non agricultural areas.
2. Special efforts were made for consolidating economic conditions off marginal and small farmers, artisans and untrained labourers.
3. Under MNREGS 100 days employment were provided soon after the registration of 15 days.
4. Aam Adami Bima Yojana has been launched from October 2, 2007. Besides, other initiatives undertaken to alleviate poverty include price supports, food subsidy, land reforms, Area Development Programmes, improving agricultural techniques, free electricity for farmers, water rates, PRIs, growth of rural banking system, grain banks, seed banks, etc. Such endeavors not only reduced poverty but also empowered the poor to find solution to their economic problems. For instance, the wage employment programmes have resulted in creation of community assets as well as assets for the downtrodden besides providing wage employment to the poor. Self-employment programmes, by adopting SHG approach have led to mainstreaming the poor to join the economic development of the country. But the focus on the sustainable income generation still remains illusive. A review of different poverty alleviation programmes shows that there has been erosion in the programmes in terms of resource allocation, implementation, bureaucratic controls, noninvolvement of local communities, etc. NABARD has also been contributing in Rural Poverty Alleviation through its various initiatives/ schemes like SHG Bank Linkage Programme, Watershed development, Tribal development, CDP, REDP, ARWIND, MAHIMA, Support to weavers, RIDF, R&D Fund, etc. The Eleventh Plan gave a special impetus to several programmes aimed at building rural and urban infrastructure and providing basic services with the objective of increasing inclusiveness and reducing poverty.
Plan Required for Poverty Alleviation in India
1. To promote growth in agricultural productivity and non-farm rural activities.
2. Public investment in rural infrastructure and agricultural research. Agricultural research benefits the poor directly through an increase in farm production, greater employment opportunities and growth in the rural non-farm economy.
3. Credit policies to promote farm investment and rural micro enterprises Policies to promote human capital to expand the capabilities of the poor Development of rural financial markets.
4. Self-Help Group Approach to be strengthened as it is a proven method of empowerment of the poor.
5. Involvement of local communities and people's participation in NRLM and MGNREGS.
6. Decentralization of the programmes by strengthening the Panchayat Raj institutions.
7. Public Distribution System (PDS) needs to be reformed and better targeted.
8. Provision of safety nets like targeted food subsidies, nutrition programmes and health.
9. Targeted poverty alleviation programmes to continue as the poor of the developing world may not aver the patience to wait for the trickle-down effect
The main objective of Indian planning is to alleviate poverty. In this regard government has launched many poverty alleviation programmes. Even then no radical change has been undergone in the ownership of assets, process of production and basic amenities to the poor. In this way poverty alleviation programmes have proved failure due to insufficient resources and lack of proper implementation, active participation of poor, proper identification of poor and infrastructure.
Debate on poverty in India has remained mostly in the domain of economists. Poverty is defined in terms of income, expenditure and nutritional value (calorie intake). Social dimension of poverty is a neglected area of study. Poverty is more of social marginalization of an individual, household or group in the community/society rather than inadequacy of income to fulfill the basic needs. Indeed, inadequate income is therefore one of the factors of marginalization but not the sole factor. The goal of poverty alleviation programme should not aim at merely increasing the income level of individual, household or group but mainstreaming marginalized in the development process of the country. The country cannot claim economic growth when a section of the people is marginalized to the periphery of the society. The rapid economic growth process should accelerate the access to services like education and health services for all, especially the marginalized citizens. The link between ignorance and poverty and ill health and poverty are well-established. There are diseases of poverty such as malaria, tuberculosis, diarrhea and malnutrition. Having fallen ill due to poverty, the poor do not have the resources to seek quality health care, for which he/she has to borrow money for treatment. Indebtness due to hospitalization leading to poverty has been well documented. Poverty therefore, is a complex phenomenon of many dimensions and not merely the economic dimension. Poverty alleviation programmes should address the issue of poverty from broader social and economic perspectives.
Economic Survey 2004-2005, website: http:/indiabudget.nic.in,visited on 9 May 2012.
Economic Survey 2008-2009, website: http:/indiabudget.nic.in, visited on 9 May 2012.
Economic Survey 2009-2010, website: http:/indiabudget.nic.in, visited on 9 May 2012 http://hetv.org/india/index.html visited on 25/8/ 2012.
Patel .V, Kirkwood, B.R, Pednekar S, Weiss H, Mabey D. (2006): Risk Factors for Common Mental Disorders in Women, Population based Longitudinal Study, Br J Psychiatry, Vol. 189, pp. 547-55.
Patel V, Kleinman A. (2003): "Poverty and Common Mental Disorders in Developing Countries", Bull World Health Organ, Vol. 81, pp. 609-15.
Payne S. Poverty, Social Exclusion and Mental Health: Findings from the 1999 PSE Survey, Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain, Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research, Bristol, University of Bristol, 2000, Press Note on Poverty estimates 2011-12 India
C. A. K. Yesudian (2007): "Poverty Alleviation Programmes in India a Social Audit", Indian Journal Tata Institute of Social Science, Mumbai.
Lovisi, G.M, Lopez J.R, Coutinho, E.S, Patel, V. (2005): Poverty, Violence and Depression during Pregnancy a Survey of Mothers Attending a Public Hospital in Brazil, Psychol Med, Vol. 35, pp. 1485-92.
Strohschein L. (2005): Household Income Histories and Child Mental Health Trajectories, Journal Health Soc Behaviour, Vol. 46, pp. 359-75.
Goosby, B.J. (2006): Poverty and Adolescent Mental Health: The Role of Maternal Psychological Resources, Presented in the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America held at Los Angeles, USA during March 30, April 11, 2006.
Caan W. (2000): Good for Mental Health-an Academy for the Social Sciences, Journal Mental Health, Vol. 2000, Issue 9, pp. 117-19.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2005): "Duration and Developmental Timing of Poverty and Children's Cognitive and Social Development from Birth through third Grade", Child Development, Vol. 76, pp. 795-810.
Table 1: Head Count Estimates of Poverty (in Crore) Year Rural Urban India 1973-74 26.1 6.0 32.1 1977-78 26.4 6.5 32.9 1983-84 25.2 7.1 32.3 1987-88 23.2 7.5 30.0 1993-94 24.4 7.6 32.0 1999-2k 19.3 6.7 26.0 2007 17.0 3.0 20.0 2011-12 10.4 3.0 13.4 Source: Economic Survey 2010-11, Eleventh Five Year Plan Table 2: Trends in Poverty among Different Sates (on the basis of URP) States with higher Percentage States with lower Percentage percentage percentage of Poverty of Poverty Orissa 46.4 Punjab 8.4 Bihar 41.4 Himachal Pradesh 10.0 Chhattisgarh 40.9 Haryana 14.0 Jharkhand 40.3 Kerala 15.0 Madhya Pradesh 38.3 Uttar Pradesh 32.8 Source: Economic Survey, Govt. of India 2010-2011. Table 3: Poverty and Inequality across Rural and Urban Areas Year Poverty Ration Gini Index of per Urban-Rural (in percent) URP capita consumption disparity in expenditure (in average monthly percent) current per capita price expenditure (URP) Rural Urban Rural Urban 1973-74 56.4 49.0 28.7 31.9 1.334 1977-78 53.1 45.2 29.5 33.7 1.396 1983-84 45.7 40.8 30.0 34.1 1.458 1987-88 39.1 38.2 29.4 34.5 1.585 1993-94 37.3 32.4 28.5 34.4 1.628 2004-05 28.3 25.7 30.5 37.6 1.882 Source: Planning Commission (2002) for HCR and Gini Index till 1993-94, Planning Commission 2007. Table 4: Percentage of People Living below Poverty Line Year 1973-74 1977-78 1983-84 1987-88 1993-94 Rural 56.4 53.1 45.7 39.1 37.1 Urban 49.0 45.2 40.8 38.2 32.4 Total 54.9 51.3 44.5 38.9 38.9 Year 1999-2k 2004-05 2010-11 2011-12 Rural 27.1 21.8 27.1 33.2 Urban 23.6 21.7 24.5 30.8 Total 26.1 21.8 25.8 32.0 Source: Economy of India, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Table 5: Percentage and Number of Poor Estimated by Tendulkar method, using Mixed Reference Period (MRP) Year Poverty Ratio Number of Poor (percentage) (in Million) Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total 1993-94 50.1 31.8 45.3 328.6 74.5 403.7 2004-05 41.8 25.7 37.2 326.3 80.8 407.1 2011-12 25.7 13.7 21.9 216.5 52.8 269.3 Annual average 0.75 0.55 0.74 decline 1993-94 to 2004-05 * Annual average 2.32 1.69 2.18 decline 2004-05 to 2011-12 * Source: Press note on Poverty Estimates 2011-12, p. 3. * Percentage points per annum. Table 6: State-wise estimates of Average Monthly Per Capita Expenditure as per Mixed Reference Period for 2011-12 States/UTs Rural Urban Andhra Pradesh 1563.21 2559.30 Arunachal Pradesh 1455.87 2241.63 Assam 1056.98 2090.18 Bihar 970.41 1396.65 Chhattisgarh 904.04 1776.21 Delhi 2690.24 3160.76 Goa 2460.77 2934.87 Gujarat 1430.12 2472.49 Haryana 1925.96 3346.32 Himachal Pradesh 1800.62 3173.30 Jammu & Kashmir 1601.51 2320.28 Jharkhand 919.59 1894.41 Karnataka 1395.10 2898.94 Kerala 2355.53 3044.22 Madhya Pradesh 1024.14 1842.35 Maharashtra 1445.89 2937.06 Manipur 1334.55 1448.91 Meghalaya 1315.11 2293.82 Mizoram 1384.44 2426.53 Nagaland 1756.70 2279.42 Odessa 904.78 1830.33 Punjab 2136.39 2743.07 Rajasthan 1445.74 2206.93 Sikkim 1445.06 2528.11 Tamil Nadu 1570.61 2534.32 Tripura 1194.14 1996.66 Uttrakhand 1551.42 2452.02 Uttar Pradesh 1072.93 1942.25 West Bengal 1170.11 2489.89 A and N Island 2508.19 4439.03 Chandigarh 2543.57 3000.27 Dadra and Nagar 1094.20 2346.15 Daman and Diu 2239.45 2163.94 Lakshadweep 2533.07 2666.49 Pondicherry 2309.92 2959.82 All India 1287.17 2477.02 Source: NSSO Report No. KI. (68/1.0) on key Indicators of Household Consumer Expenditure in India 2011-12, NSS 68th round, National Sample Survey Office. Table 7: State Specific Poverty Lines for 2011-12 Monthly per capita (Rs.) States / Union Rural Urban Territory Andhra Pradesh 860 1,009 Arunachal Pradesh 930 1,060 Assam 828 1,008 Bihar 778 923 Chhattisgarh 738 849 Delhi 1,145 1,134 Goa 1,090 1,134 Gujarat 932 1,152 Haryana 1,015 1,169 Himachal Pradesh 913 1,064 Jammu & Kashmir 891 988 Jharkhand 748 974 Karnataka 902 1,089 Kerala 1,018 987 Madhya Pradesh 771 897 Maharashtra 967 1,126 Manipur 1,118 1,170 Meghalaya 888 1,154 Mizoram 1,066 1,155 Nagaland 1,270 1,302 Odessa 695 861 Punjab 1,054 1,155 Rajasthan 905 1,002 Sikkim 930 1,226 Tamil Nadu 880 937 Tripura 798 920 Utterakhand 880 1,082 Uttar Pradesh 768 941 West Bengal 783 981 Pondicherry 1,301 1,309 All India 816 1,000 Source: Computed as per Tendulkar method on Mixed Reference Period (MRP) Table 8: Number and Percentage of Population below Poverty Line by States 2011-12 States Rural No. of Urban Percentage persons Percentage of persons (lakhs) of persons Andhra Pradesh 10.96 61.80 5.81 Arunachal Pradesh 38.93 4.25 20.3 Assam 33.89 92.06 20.49 Bihar 34.06 320.40 31.23 Chhattisgarh 44.61 88.90 24.75 Delhi 12.92 0.50 9.84 Goa 6.81 0.37 4.09 Gujarat 21.54 75.35 10.14 Haryana 11.64 19.42 10.28 Himachal Pradesh 8.48 5.29 4.33 Jammu and Kashmir 11.54 10.73 7.20 Jharkhand 40.84 104.09 24.83 Karnataka 24.53 92.80 15.25 Kerala 9.14 15.48 4.97 Madhya Pradesh 35.74 190.95 21.00 Maharashtra 24.22 150.56 9.12 Manipur 38.80 7.45 32.59 Meghalaya 12.53 3.04 9.26 Mizoram 35.43 1.91 6.36 Nagaland 19.93 2.76 16.48 Odessa 35.69 126.14 17.29 Punjab 7.66 13.35 9.24 Rajasthan 16.05 84.19 10.69 Sikkim 9.85 0.45 3.66 Tamil Nadu 15.83 59.23 6.54 Tripura 16.53 4.49 7.42 Uttrakhand 11.62 8.25 10.48 Uttar Pradesh 30.40 479.35 26.06 West Bengal 22.52 141.14 14.66 Pondicherry 17.06 0.69 6.30 A and N Islands 1.57 0.04 0.00 Chandigarh 1.64 .04 22.31 Dadra Nagar Haveli 62.59 1.15 15.38 Daman and Diu 0.00 0.00 12.62 Lakshadweep 0.00 0.00 3.44 All India 25.70 2166.58 13.70 States No. of Total No. of persons Percentage persons (lakhs) of persons (lakhs) Andhra Pradesh 16.98 9.20 78.78 Arunachal Pradesh 0.66 34.67 4.91 Assam 9.21 31.98 101.27 Bihar 37.75 33.74 358.15 Chhattisgarh 15.22 39.93 104.11 Delhi 16.46 9.91 16.96 Goa 0.38 5.09 0.75 Gujarat 26.88 16.63 102.23 Haryana 9.41 11.16 28.83 Himachal Pradesh 0.30 8.06 5.59 Jammu and Kashmir 2.53 10.35 13.27 Jharkhand 20.24 36.96 124.33 Karnataka 36.96 20.91 129.76 Kerala 8.46 7.05 23.95 Madhya Pradesh 43.10 31.65 234.06 Maharashtra 47.36 17.35 197.92 Manipur 2.78 36.89 10.22 Meghalaya 0.57 1 1.87 3.61 Mizoram 0.37 20.40 2.27 Nagaland 1.00 18.88 3.76 Odessa 12.39 32.59 138.53 Punjab 9.82 8.26 23.18 Rajasthan 18.73 14.71 102.92 Sikkim 0.06 8.19 0.51 Tamil Nadu 23.40 1 1.28 82.63 Tripura 0.75 14.05 5.24 Uttrakhand 3.35 11.26 11.60 Uttar Pradesh 118.84 29.43 598.19 West Bengal 43.83 19.98 184.98 Pondicherry 0.55 9.69 1.24 A and N Islands 0.00 1.00 0.04 Chandigarh 2.34 21.81 2.35 Dadra Nagar Haveli 0.28 39.31 1.43 Daman and Diu 0.26 9.86 0.26 Lakshadweep 0.02 2.77 0.02 All India 531.25 21.92 2697.83 Source: Press note on Poverty Estimates 2011-12, p. 6, Delhi Table 9: The eleventh Plan (XIth) Plan Allocation under various Schemes/Programmes Scheme/Programme Proposed out lay XIth Five Year (2007-2012) (Lakh Rs.) SJGSY 29656.12 SGRY 18016.64 DPIP9SS (EAP) / EAPII Phase 23158.72 Rural roads 50000.00 India Avas Yojana 27766.71 IWDP 10598.56 DRDA 6012.36 DPAP 21294.84 Gramin Ajivika Pariyaojna 22480.00 National Rural Rojgar Gurantee Scheme 199881.85 MP Rojgar Gurantee Council 3800.00 Mid day meal 69.462.00 BRGF 225695.00 Community Development 29265.20 Walmi 1250.00 Raod maintenance 2030.00 State rural road Connectivity 8647.60 CM Awas Yojana (Apna Ghar) 6200.00 State SGSY 1800.00 Training 50.00 Master Plan 1363.00 Sutradhar scheme 50.00 Gokul Gram adhosanrachan 5000.00 Godan Yojana 1000.00 Grand Total 7,64,478.50 Source: Ministry of Rural Development, p.4.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Political Economy Journal of India|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Performance of South Asian economies in meeting the MDGs and role of the world bank.|
|Next Article:||Nehruvian Economic Philosophy and its Contemporary Relevance (ed.).|