Poverty background

GROUP 1Shubha N

BhambhaniRam babu Jatav

Harish KumarAshish Rawat

Poverty is not merely a shortfall in incomes.

Multi Dimensional : It is Human deprivations for

Access to food – Malnutrition Lack of shelter - Homeless Health services – illness Gender discrimination Poor education Job – lack of skills Unclean water , improper sanitation facilities Stage of powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.

Reason for deprivation - the denial of political, social, and cultural opportunities and lack of economic opportunities

Income, Employment, Access to credit, Ownership of assets, etc.

Effects on Children

According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. 

Around 27-28 % of all children in developing countries are estimated to be

underweight or stunted.

For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:

640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)

400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)

270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)

Worldwide,

10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children

population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)

Effects on Women

Women make up half of the world's population and yet represent a staggering 70% of the

world's poor.

Of the 500,000 women who die in childbirth every year, 99% live in developing countries. In

other words, in developing countries, a girl or a woman dies every minute in giving birth. 

4 million girls and women a year are sold into prostitution. 

Improper Sanitation

Of the around six billion people in the world, at least 1.2 billion do not have access to safe

drinking water

More than 2.4 billion people do not have proper sanitation facilities, and more than 2,2 million

people die each year from diseases caused by polluted water and filthy sanitation conditions.

Effects on Education

Based on enrollment data, about 72 million children of

primary school age in the developing world were not in school

in 2005; 57 per cent of them were girls. And these are

regarded as optimistic numbers.

Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read

a book or sign their names.

121 million out of education worldwide.

Despite the growth and development of the Indian economy during the last couple

of decades, poverty is, parallel, increasing in absolute terms.

The bare fact is that nearly 27.5 % of India’s population still lives below the

poverty line, and 75 % of this, lives in rural areas.

A recent report laments that 77 % of Indians live on a daily income of Rs.20 only.

Eradication of abject poverty has become a public discourse on development

Earlier focus on the rate and pattern of growth, and

On inequalities in distribution of income and wealth

Evolution & acceptance of minimum living standard

National Planning Committee Report

The 15th Indian Labour conference

Committee on economic policy

Concept & concern of min living standards

Constituents of living wage

All the essentials of physical and social well being to every family within a reasonable time frame

National Planning committee (1938) report spelt the concept and content of minimum living standard. They estimated a poverty line ranging from Rs 15 to Rs 20 per capita per month

Committee on economic policy in Nehru’s time suggested a national minimum standard of “ all the essentials of physical and social well-being” to every family within a reasonable time as the practical goal of all development schemes

The directive principles of state policy - To ensure adequate livelihood and employment, health and nutrition, education and security to citizens

First three five year plans emphasised on Sustained high rates of growth as principal

means of alleviating poverty and Malnourishment, unemployment , Illiteracy And other manifestations of poverty

Emphasis in policy was on Reducing inequalities of income and wealth through Land reforms, Public ownership and control of key sectors and Progressive taxation

Real growth much slower Redistributive measures were ineffective Majority of population continued to

remain in appalling conditions Dr Ram Manohar Lohia drew attention of

parliament that more than half the population subsisted on less than 36 anna per head per day!

So serious need felt to improve the conditions

A time bound target of minimum income of Rs 20 per captia per month in rural and Rs 25/month in urban areas

Expenditure on health and education to be borne by state

Transfers and social welfare expenditure to ensure minimum for the poorest 20% of the population who are not likely to benefit automatically from growth

The Fourth Five-Year Plan still did not even mention minimum living standards or basic needs !

Various conceptual studies questioned the validity of GDP as a measure of well-being

A strong case for “quality of life” to include nutriotional status, life expectancy, literacy.

Mahalanobis Committee Findings (1964,1969) and Hazari's study (1976) found no reduction in inequalities in consumption, income or economic power

Dandekkar and Rath's (1974) monograph “Poverty in India” argued defining the poverty line Based on minimum income required for nutritional

diet and essentials Provided estimates of number below this line Outlined strategy , a massive public works

programme to provide minimum income.

Significant differences in estimates of mean incomes, consumption, inequalities indices and Poverty Incidence from different sources

Major controversy on decline in poverty Led to serious efforts

defining the concepts and measurement problems

Merits and weaknesses of source of data Interrelation growth, distribution, employment

and poverty Different Strategies for tackling poverty

Overall growth would not by itself be able to take care of needs of poor

Pace of growth -not uniform across regions All sections not integrated into wider

economy large sections not equipped to take

advantages of opportunities arising from growth

Hence the need to “Directly attack” on poverty

And programmes dealing directly to eradicate poverty

YEAR POPULATION (mn) GDP fc (bn) Rs PER CAPITA INCOME (Rs)

POVERTY LINE (/Head/Month) (Rs)RURAL URBAN

1961-62 444 180 383 20* 25

1973-74 580 637 1,021 49** 57#

1993-94 892 8180 8,106 250-280 325-375

1999-2000 1001 18582 16,546 ------- ------

2004-05 1089 29714 24,143 447 579

2009-10 1170 83584 46,249 673 860

2012-13 1217 94610 68,757 816 1000

2014 972 1407

*Health and Education excluded**2400 Cal.#2100 Cal.

Net Income ( NNP fc)= GDP mp + NFIA – Net Direct Tax –DepreciationBetween 1973-74 and 2012-13 :

• Per Capita Income (PCI)-Average- Increased by 66.34 from Rs 383/- to Rs 68757/- • Poverty Line increased by 18.84 for Rural and 23.68 for Urban- on CPI Basis

Despite tremendous increase in average per capita income between 1973-74 and 2012-13, India is still struggling with minimum living standard for poverty estimation which was accepted in 1938 and 1962

Due to slow growth, inflation, reduction in investments , there was a set back to economy, resulting in apprehension of increased inequalities, growing unemployment and worsening of poverty.

Various radical measures like abolition of privery purses, bank nationlisation (meant to contain rich) were tried without much success

Minimum Needs Programme Special schemes for small and marginal

farmers replaced by IRDP Rural employment scheme Mid day meals for school children Subsidised public distribution of food

and other essential commodities

Assurance of purchasing power sufficient to procure a collection of basic or minimum items of consumption

Elementary education for all children upto 14 year of age

Minimum public health facilities integrated with family planning and nutrition for children

Protected water supply Amenities for landless labour and slum improvement in larger towns Rural roads and rural electrification

Political spectrum accepted and adopted the idea of direct , targeted poverty alleviation programmes

Centre and states, Government started allocating new schemes, increasing the financial allocation progressively for meeting the minimum living standard

objectives Provided opportunities for large scale, wide

spread and diffused patronage as well as opportunities for personal gain for political leaders

Motivations were not that high as the slogans made out (GARIBI HATAO)

Many projects never reach their intended beneficiaries and much of their funding is either lost through corruption or that the benefits of the schemes are usurped by the socially and politically powerful, and by those with access to the government.

The ruling elites have tended to monopolize access to the resources of the State by controlling the state apparatus and by influencing economic policies for their selfish and sectional ends.

Even some of the best conceived poverty alleviation schemes have mainly benefited the better-off groups and those individuals with access to the government.

Help ThemHelp ThemBe a HumanBe a Human

Thank YouThank You