WHAT IS .POVERTY ?

In si~ple ,vords, poverty is a social phenomenon in which a sectjon of the society is ~able
to fulfil even its basic necessities of-life. However, when a substantta} s~gment of a society is
deprived of the minimum level of living and continues at a bare subsistence level, that society
is said to be plagued with mass·poverty. A group of experts_ argue~ that poverty can be assessed
on the ground when one fails to get a certain minimum consumption stand~~- Bu~ others have
asserted that it is difficult to agree on the amount of income that ensures the mtrumum consumption
standard at one point of times. According to·· Planning.·commission? !1 standard of private
consumption expenditure of Rs. 20 per capita per month is a bare m1n1mum. on -the basis of
I 960-61 prices. But, the individual researchers like B.S. Minhas and A. Va1dyanathan who
studied rural poverty accounted the poverty ·1ine while others, P.K. Bardhan, V.D. Dandekar
R. Nath and M.S. Ahlu,valia have determined their-· own -poverty lines. In the mean time'
•Planning Commission in Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-85) -has followed an alternative definitio~
of poverty as per 'Task Force on Projections of Minimum Needs and Effective Consumption
Demand.' In its report, Task_ Force has defined having a daily cealorie intake of 2400 per person
in rural areas and 2100 in urban areas. Further, the cut off points turn out to be Rs: 76 for rural
areas and Rs. 88 for urban· areas on the basis of 1979-80 prices. However, the poverty is used
in two ways : (i) Absolute Poverty and (ii) Relative Pov~rty.· · •
1. Relative Poverty. Relative Poverty refers to poverty in comparison with other countries.
According to U.N.O. those countries are treated as poor whose per capita total income in less
than US $ 725 per annum. Those countries arc treated as extremely poor whose per capita total
income is less than US$ 100 per annum. Per capita income in- India is around US$ 330, as such
it is counted among the very poor- countries of the .world. Per capita income of countries like
Egypt, Sri Lanka, Pakistan etc. is higher than that of India. Per capita income of United States
of America is 25,800 dollars ; of Japan it is 34,630 dollars and that of..Sweden 37 930 dollars.
Thus, relatively speaking, India undoubtedly is one of the poorest countries of th; world.

.6
 1

J,iequality of Income and Poverty All . . 65NII

ev1a~1on Programmes
2. Absol~te Poverty. Absolut . in view
of the economic conditions of a e poverty refers to the measure of poverty, keeping ertY in
this regard but in a large numbe c1untry. ~conomists have given many definitions ~f rv ontext
of per capita intake of calorie/ ~ndcou~~•es poverty has been sought to be defined in ev~rty in
1ndia in both these contexts. minimum level of consumption. We shall study po
(i} Calorie Criteria. The en . . . • day
is measured in terms of calories. t~at an md1v1dual gets ~rom the food that he eats ev:I}'first
Director General of World Fo d is vie'": was first of all given by Lord Boy~ Orr, t _e an
and A~ncultural _Organisation (FAO). Accor~1ng_ t~ hun, .
1
O
·ndividual must get minim
k t.-eated as below starv:' ,~00 calones. per day. Those getting less than ~1s m1nunum. 1
2
Hence an . ~? .~ne. According to Collin Clark, one kg. of m1lle~ wheat YI~ 5
31 50 calories.
th · h ' tn tvi ual must consume minimum •190 kg of foodgra1ns and pu ses :
per ~eari ~- erwt~ed. e_ will be counted among the poor. Prof. Ruth and Dandekar are of t~e_view •i
that .1n n ~a an. ind. iydidual must get minimum 2,250 calories per day. To satisfy this minimum· l
requ1remen an 1n 1v1 ual must get Rs 324 . d Rs 468 per annum in
b areas at l 960 61 . • per annum m rura1 areas an •
ur an .' . •. pnce~. _In accordance with this criterion 22 crore people or 42 percent
~f ~pu1ati~n in 1nd1 a was hving below poverty line. Planning commission argued that an
mdtVtd~al in r~al areas must get 2400 calories and in urban areas 2100 calories per day.
According to th1s ~~ncept, in 1990-91 in rural areas 51 percent and in urban areas ~O perce~t. of
the _people were hvin_g below the_ poverty line. Thus, 48 12ercent populat~on in ~nd!a. was hvmg
below the poverty h~e. According to Economic Survey 2000, in India an 1nd1v~dual _tak_es
45~ ~rams of ~ood~ra~n~ and pulses per day or 167 kgs. per annum. As per calones cntena,
India s populatton 1s hvtng below the starvation line. ·
~ii) Mini":'u~ Consumption Criteria. An Expert Committee appointed in 1962 by· the •
Planning Comnussion to detennine poverty line adopted Minimum Consumption Criteria. As per
this committee, those people will be treated as living below the poverty line whose consQI11ption
expenditure at 1960-61 prices is less than Rs. 20 per month. In 1968-69 those having consumption
expenditure_ less than Rs. 40 per month were regarded as living below the poverty line. According
to the above criteria, number of the population living below the poverty line· in 1960-61. and
1968-69 was 17.67 crore and 21.6 crore respectively. In 1976-77, cost of living index having
gene up, those people were considered living below the poverty line ,vhose income was less than
Rs. 62 per month in rural areas and Rs. 71 per month in urban areas. In _the opinion of Planning
Commission of India, persons spending Rs. 152 on consumption in urbm1: area an~ Rs. 132 in
rural area per month (at 1988-89 prices) should be treated. ~s falling ."~thin the _poverty_ line.
According to Report of Expert Group, 39.3 percent of pop~lation ,vas, hvmg below p~v~rty line
1
in 1987-88. Number of such people was 21 crore. A;ccording to NSSO, at 1993-94 pnces, the
persons whose per capita consumption pe~ ~onth 1s less than Rs: 229 in rural areas and
Rs. 264 in Urban areas will be treat~d as hvmg below the poverty bne.
ESTIMATES OF POVERTY
To study the extent of poverty,. th~re is no appropriate and relia~le statistical dat~. ~ven then
several economists and other orgall!sattons have conduct~d the studies to assess the incidence of •.
poverty in terms of distribution of income and consumption etc. . - •
Following Committee bas esti11_1atcd the e~~ent of poverty: The~ are :
{i) Ojha's Estimate of Pove~. (~1) P.K. Bardhan s ~stlma~~-
...
(111 ) D dekar and Rath's Estimate. (1v) E.P.W. Da Costas Esttmate.
an
( ) ~o ~kaf..a a n - · • ( vi B•S• M'nh
') E •
1 as st1mate.
:, Ma;eAhluwalia Estimate. • (viii) UNDP's Estimate (1992).
(;~ of s.P. Gupta, 1993. (x) Tendulkar and Jain's Estimate, 1993.
66NII The Economics of Development a,,_., Planning

RECENT ESTIMATES I

World Bank's New Perception of Poverty (2000-01 )

The World Development Report (WDR),.2000-2001 has given. a new percep~ion to p~veny
with an agenda sensitive to the needs of attacking pove~ by promoting opportunities, fac1htating •
empowerment and furthering security. The report explamed to seek to expand the u~derstanding
of poverty and its causes, while building on the_ Bank's past str~tegy, draws heavily from the
South-Asian experiences and Dr. Amartya Sen's 1~eas of ~mpowenng ~e poor. The re_P~rt found
that poverty remains a persisting dilemma and b~hes the t~~r~vement 1n human conditions with
global wealth, global connections and technological capabtl1ttes.
The report observed that of the World's 6 billi~n people, 2.8 billion live ~n less than $ 2
a day and 1.2 billion live on less than $ 1 a day with 44_ per cent of the depnv_ed ones living
in South Asia alone. The scope of the report has a substantially broadened perception of poverty
having drawn from the first-ever "Voices of the Poor" study based on experiences narrated by
more than 60,000 poor women and men in 60 countries.
The Report emphasised in its approach to tackling poverty from the over-reaching emphasis
of the 1950 s' on large investments in physical capital and infrastructure to the 1970s' on health
and education, the 1980' s on economic management and the 1990s' stress on governance and
institutions. It worried at the widening the gap between the rich and the poor countries which
leads to worldwide disparity in income.
Economic Su1Vey of 2001-02
According to the large sample survey data on consumer expenditure made available by the
National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) from its 55th Round Survey (July 1999-June 2000),
the poverty ratio on a 30 day recall basis, is estimated at 27.09 per cent in rural areas, 23.63 per
cent in urban areas and 26.10 per cent for the country as a whole. The incidence of poverty
expressed as a percentage of people living below the poverty line has witnessed a steady decline
from 55 per cent in 1973-74 to 36 per cent in 1993-94 and 26 per cent in 1999-2000. Though the
po~erty ratio declined, the number of poor remained stable at around 320 million for a fairly long
penod of two decades, (1973-1993), due to a countervailing growth in population. The latest estimates
for 2007 ~~al a sign~cantly r~~ced ~~ber of poor, at about 220 million out of a total population •
of 1027 million out of 1t 170 _million hve m rural a rear and 49 million lives in urban areas. ,
Estimate~ on the Basis of NSSO Data-2004-05 ~,
On the _basis of the qui-quinnial, large sample surveys on household consumer expenditure ~;
conducted by the National Sample ,Survey Organisation 61th Round (NSSO) incidence of poverty
ha_s been estimated for the year-•'2004-05. '
Table 6J Poverty Ratio by 4RP and MAP.

By Uniform Recall period (URP) Method

1. Rural 37.3 28.3
2. Urban 32.4 25.7 t

3. All India 36.0 27.5

I

By Mixed Recall Period (MRP) Method

1999-2000 2004-05
4. Rural 27.1 21.8
5. Urban 23.6 21.7
6. All India 26.1 21.8
1
Source : Planning Commission. l'1
I
 . .
JfllfJUolity of Income and Poverty Allev,a 61NII
tzon Programmes
It reveals from table 6 1 th .
_ data
s po ~ ratio of 28.3 pera~ :i: nn recall periods (URP) consumption distribution vely.
yield a s resp ecti
4-0 d 25.7 per cent for rural and urban areawas calculated
As aw~ole it was 27.5 _per cent in 200 5. ~ow~ve~, c~rresponding poverty , ratio
ft'Olll Mixed Recall Period (MRP) consump nbution data are 21.8 per cent for rural area
,
21.7 per cent for urban area and 2I 8 tion d1st
cent for le. Fur
the country as a who ther, study shows
that in 2004-05, the percentage of • rsperfrom Round
URP consumption distribution of NSS 6 st s of
of con sumer exp enditure data ( P~o
27 estunate
pe~ cent) are comparable with the poverty
1993-94 (50th Round) which was 36 cen! for the country as a whole. The percentage of poor
in 2004-0S from MRP consum tion per NSS 61 st Round of consumer expenditur
enditure of
e
data (21. 8 per cent) are rouphi exp es 1999-2000
SSth Rou g Y comparable1with the poverty estimat
nd) which was 26 •1 per
( cent as a wh0 e. • , 1
The average per ca •t . as ix:r 61st
Round (2004-05) is Rs ~~nsum ption expenditure for rural and urban populationpopulation on
ordingly, rural
an average spends abo~t 55 •per and Rs. ~,052.36 respectively. Accand rem aining 45 per cent on
r.-... ..1 ·tems. cent of its consumption on food
mon-1uuu 1
POVERTY LINE
line whi h • d' th l of purc ·ng power reqw•red to san•sfy the
hasi
erty
.. . Pov ds f line is the c ~n 1cates e leve
O a_ person. Thus, 1t shows the capacity to satisfy the
minimum level of human
muu thmw n nee
exp
monthly
ressed in the form of average per capitato keep a
need s •. e pur chasing pow _er can be
It: imum level of purchasing power required
expenditure. ~e have .an 1de~ ?f the min below which he would be considered ~r , the
f"rson a~ a mmun1!!11 level of hvmg, a ed little two
poverty line. This line divides the populatto~
Purchasmg Power cou~d then be call hasing power or more and the other group of those
groups, on~ of these which have this purc purchasing power. The former group is rega
rded as
people which does not have this much ofpeople are not regarded as poor. The latter group is
living "Above the Poverty line". These line". These people are called poor. Thus, the poverty
considered as living "Below the Povertyps (1) One of those who have the minimum required
line divides the people into two grou not of poor people and (2). The other group of those
purchasing power or more. This group is r.
hasing power, and ~ence they are called poo
people who do not have this much of purc
Population below Poverty Line w _the ~ve rty
Inequality of income is also det e~eCom d by ~e. number of people living beloend 1s less
our cou ntry. Acc ording to Plan nmg m1ss1on those whose monthly exp iturepers ons
line in l areas at 1993-94 prices are treated as
264 in urb an areas and Rs. 229 in rura
than Rs.
Table 6.2.
living below the poverty line as shown in Poverty in India
Table 6.2. Trends of Rural and Urban

39.1 21.2 27.09

Rural
23 4.8 23.62
7.5 • 38.2
Urban 38 •0 26 -0 26.0
Combined 30.5
was
li~ng below the poverty line in rural areas
Table 6.1 exhibits that the num~er of people 30.5 crore.
e and in urban areas 7.5 crore m ld9837882~_., 'J?1eir btotal number in the cowitry was ntry 38 9¾
23 a-or • ,o_ m ur an areas .and. in the entire cou
•
Thus, m• 198 7-88 39% in rurallareath
'
s an rty I A • it, m 999-2000, the number• ofo
e me. s agam st
of the population was living be ow e pov
68N II
The Economics of Development and Plan
ning
people living below the poverty line in rura
Their total number in the country as a who l areas was 21.2 ·crore and in urban area
s 4.8 crore.
population living below the poverty line in le was 26 crore. In 1999-2000, the percentage of
in the country as a whole 26%. The aboverural areas '"'.as 27.09%, in urban areas 23.62% and
number of people living below the poverty account testifies that as per go".ernment record, the
1999, the percentage of population living line has gone up: In_ spite of econo~ic reforms since
below the poverty hne has not declmed
number has actually increased in the cou rather their
ntry.
INCIDENCE OF POVERTY
The incidence of poverty in India has bee
number of population below poverty in Indi n given in .Table 6.3. This table depicts
population below poverty line declined to a. It is clear that m the rural areas the proportionthe
44.9 per cent in 1983 from 53 per cent m of
rate of decline was 8 per cent during the peri 197 0. The
On the other hand, in urban areas, the pov od 1970•83. Further, it fell to 41.7 percent in 1988.
1970 to 1988. The proportion of population erty percentage declined by about 12 per cent from
in 1970 which fell to 36.4 percent in 1983 below poverty line in urban areas was 45.5 per cent
the percentage of population below poverty and further to 33.6 per cent in 1988. In overall terms,
in 1988. While in tenns·of total populationline fell from 52.4 per cent in 1970 to 39.6 per cent
322.3 million from 1970 to 1988. In case under poverty line increase from 287.3 million to
of rural areas, it increased from 236.8
252.2 from 1970 to 1988. million to
Table 6.3 Population in India Below
Poverty Line (in millions)

1970 236.8 (53.0)

1983 50.5 (45.5) 287.3 (52.4)
• 252.1 (44.9) 64.7
1988 (36.4) 311.7 (42.5)
252.2 (47.7) 70.1 (33.6)
2000 193.2 (27.1) 322.3 (39.6)
2007 67.1 (23.6) 260.3
170.5 (21.1) (261.)
49.6 (15.1) 220.1 (19.3)
Source : Compiled from World Ban
k India..
Obviously, it i~ clear from Table 6.3 that
fro~ 5~.8 per cent m 1970•71 to 48.7 ~e incidence of poverty in rura
per cent m 1987•88. In the urban sector,l India declined
the mc1dence of poverty was to 37.~ the
~owever, for ~a l and urban popul~tionper cent 1987•88 against the 46.2 percent in decline in
taken together this percentage declined to 1970•71.
m 1987..88 agatnst 56.3 per cent m 197 45.9 per cent
recorded to be 26.1 percent which further 0-71. In 2000, combined incidence of powerty was
declined to 19.3 percent in 2007.
Inter-State Population Below Poverty
Line • •
. . Table 6.4 illustrates some selected ·inte
lme m moral and urban areas. r•state estimates of population living below
1 poverty
. Table 6.4. Position of siiies Regar
. ding Poverty Line-2004-05
(As per capita per Month) ·

Andhra Pradesh 292.95 542.89 Kerala

Assam • 430.12 559.39
387.64 378.84 Madhya Pradesh
Bihar 327.78 570.15
354.36 435.00 Maharashtra
Chhattisgarh 3'62.25 665.90
322.41 560.00 Orlssa
Delhi 325.79 528.49
410.38 612.91 Punjab
Goa 410.38 466.16
362.25 665.90 Rajasthan 374.57 559.63
,.-1quality of Income and Poverty All . . 69Nll
,,,., ev,atzon Programmes
c;uJarat 353.93 541.16 _Tamil Nadu 351.86 547.42
ttaryana 414.76 504.49 Uttar Pradesh 365.84 483.26
ttirnachal Pradesh 394.28 .. 504.49 Uttarakhand 478.02 637.67
Jammu & Kashmir 391.26 449.32
- 553.77 West Bengal 382.82
Jharkhand 366·.56 451.24 D and N Haveli 362.25 665.90
Karnataka 324.17 599.66 All India 356.30 538.60
-- •. Planning
sourc•
.
Commission and Econom·
1c
s
urvey 2006-07, Govt. of India
According to Table 6•4' 1·t 18
• · • · •
seen that different states have different per capita per month m rural
•
and urban population. The states like Jharkhand and Madya Pradesh present opposite scenes of w:b~
and rural poverty. For tbese two states, per capita per month was 366.56 and 327.78 for rural while
451 •24 and 570: 15 per capita per month respectively. Rural population under poverty line
!t stood at
Ill ~dhra_ Pradesh, Chhatbsgarh, Kamataka, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, per capita per month was
registered for these states are 292.95, 322.41, 324.17, 327.78 and 325.79 respectively. Regarding
urban poverty, ~e ~tates are As~am (378.84), Bihar (435.00), Jharkhand (451.24), and West Bengal
(449.32) _ther:e, it ~s worth noting that the poverty l~els compared with 1993-9~ are based_ on
consumpt1on in which the consun1er expenditure data has been collected for 30 days recall penod.
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
Table 6.5. highlights the international comparison in terms· of percentage of people living
on less than $1 a day from 1981 to 2001. In low income economies, people more than 50 percent
are living under poverty. TI1ey are·Nigeria, Zambia, Nepal, Kenya, Nepal, Ethiopia i.e. 70.2 per cent,
63.7 percent, 26.5 percent, 37.7 percent, 31.3 percent. In India too, there are also about
50 percent people ,vho are living under poverty. Even in middle income and upper-middle
income economies, people of about 20 per cent are living in poverty. These countries are
Philippines, Peru, South Africa, Brazil. In fact, people in such coootries are ill-fed, ill housed and
ill-educated. Insanitary conditions are extren1ely poor. They are in misery. In such countries,,
poverty breeds poverty. .
Table 6.5 Poverty % of people living on less than $ a day (PPP)-1981 to 2001

Brazil •11.6 Mexico 15.9

China 18.8 Nepal ·, .. 37.7
Ethiopia 31.3 Nigeria 70.2
Egypt Arab Rep. 7.6 Pakistan 31.6
India 44.2 Romania • 2.8
Indonesia 12.9 South Africa 11.5
Kenya 26.5 Sri Lanka 6.6
. 15.5 Zambia 63.7
MalaysIa
8ource : World Development Report-2003.

FACTORS RESPONSIBLE ~OR POVERTY ,

·. "d d in India. The main factors responsible for this are :
Poverty is w1 e sprea . d . th 1 45 ..."' h .
. . .· p ulation. The population unng e. ast yecus as mcreased at the
1. Rapidly Rising 6 verage 17 million people are added every year to its population
~i1c; of 2:2% per annumd.
n,uch raises the deman 1or
"'- ncoansump'tion goods considerably.
 ll. , . . rt • •• -
70NII The Economics of Development and Planning
2. Low Productivity in Agriculture. The level of.productivity in agriculture is low due
to subdivided and fragmented holdings, lack of capital, use of traditional methods of cultivation
and illiteracy etc. This is the main cause of poverty in the country.
3. Under. Utilised Resources. The existence of under employment and disguised
unemployment of human resources and under utilisation of resources have resulted in low
production in agricultural sector. This has brought down fall in their standard of living.
4. Price Rise. The continuous and steep price rise has added to the miseries o~ poor. It has
benefited a few people in the ·society and the persons in lower inc~me group find it difficult to
get their minimum needs.
5. Unemployment. The continuously expanding army of unemployed is. an~ther cause of
poverty. The job seekers are jncreasing in number at a higher rate than the expansion 1n employment
opportunities.
6. Social Factors. The social set up is still backward and is not conducive to faster development.
Laws of inheritence, caste system, traditions and customs are putting hindrances in the way of
faster development and have aggravated the problem of poverty.
7. Political Factors. The Britishers started lopsided development in India and reduced Indian
economy to a colonial state. They exploited the natlJ!al resources to suit their interests and weaken
the· industrial base of Indian economy: ·in independent India, the development plans have been
guided by political interests. Hence, the planning was a failure to tackle the problems of poverty
- ----· ,,· .and unemployment. -
. '. .
~Jf,ABLE MEASURES fOR SOLUTION •• . .
Societal glaring poverty is. neither 'desirable nor tolerable. Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru has
correctly observed, "In a poor country •there: is only poverty to redistribute. "
The following measures can go a· long way in reducing the inequalities of income.
These are : .: · · :
1. ·More Employment Opportunities.· Poverty ·can be eliminated by providing more
employment opportunities so that people may be able to meet their basic needs. For this purpose,
labour intensive rather than capital intensive techniques can help to solve the problem to a greater
exent. During the Sixth and Seventh Five Year Plans, the programmes like Integrated Rural
Development Programme, Jawahar Rozgar. Yojana and Rural Landless Employment
.Guarantee Programme etc. were started with a view to eliminate poverty in the rural sector.
- 11 •• -

••2. Minimum Needs Programme. The programme of minimum needs can help to reduce
poverty. This_ fact was realised in the early seventies as benefits of growth do not percolate to poor
people and less developed countries are left with no choice except to pay direct attention to the
basic needs of the low strata of the society. In the Fifth Five Year Plan, Minimum Needs Programme
was introduced for the first time.
• , 3. Social Security Programmes. -The various social security schemes like Workmen's
Compensation Act,·Maternity Benefit Act, Provident Fund Act, Employeses State Insurance Act
and other benefits in case of death, disability or disease while on duty can make a frontal attack
on poverty. · · ·, - .
. 4. Establishment of Small Scale Industries. The policy of encouraging cottage and small .-
industries .can help to create employment in rural areas specially in backward regions. Moreover,
this will transfer resources from surplus areas to deficit •without creating much problem of
urbanisation.· • •.. . • · ,: . ·r .__ :,•!; :··. -. . • . . . _ ~·

• •• • 5. Uplift of Rural Masses. As it is mentioned that India lives in villages, thus, various
schemes for the uplift of rural poor may be started. The poors living in rural areas generally belong
to the families of landless agricultural labourers, small and marginal farmers, village artisans,
J,rt(JUality of Income and Poverty Allev,a . 11/Vll
uon p
. rogrammes
scheduled _castes and scheduled tnbe s. How • must be remembered that Govenunent
of
odu ced m
India has intr any schemes fr
om
. ever
hme
, 1t
to time for the uplift of the poors.
6. Land Reform s. Lan d refo nn
ertaken to abo lish ; ha~ the mot to, "land belong to the tiller". Thus legislature
oieasures ~e~ e und holdings was
ndari System. Intennediaries and ceiling on is expected
.UX~· But it is a bad luck, these land ~mt 0 8 lac~ proper implementation. Eve n then, it
that 1f these re_fonns are implementedre :ll1 ously, it would yield better results which will
be helpful
to redu ce the mco me of the affiu ser~
7 Spread of Ed tton . ent section. .d d
• . uca . Edu cat. h I out the best in hum an bod y, mm
.
spint. Therefore, 1t is urgent to . ton e_ps to bring
e e~u caho n faci lities to all. The poo r should be given SJ>e(:181
facilities of stipend, free booksp:~~id enc y allo wan ce etc. The education will help to bnng
awakening among poo rs and . co? ttng .. .
faculty. .
8. Social and Political A:aise their men_tal active co-operation of citizens and po hti15
~
can not b d!"o sph ere. Wit hou t the
leaders, poverty ive social and pol_itical atmosphere
nec essa ry con dition foree~:~- ica_ted from India. A conduc
8
9. To Provide M" . icatmg. the poverty from its root.
can ~n;m ~m Re_ qua rem ents . Ens urin g the supply-of minimµm needs to the poor
sections of society ment and
tion sys te h ~dpb m ~olv mg the prob lem of poverty. For this, the public procure
distribu
m s ou e improved and strengthened.

~E R TY ALLEVIATION PROGRA
MMES
~ of ~n~ epen denc e, Indi a wed ded to the goal of democratic set up in the country.
After ~e da laid down that the state shall strive to pro whi~h
mote the
Under the Directive Pnnc1ples, it has been ord er in
are of ~e peo ple ~y secu ring and prot ecting, as effectively as it may, social With this
~e~
eco nollll~ and poli tica l, shal l info rm all the institutions of national life.' l
Justice, soc ial,
tegy of dire ct assa ult on pov erty and ineq uality through rural development and rura
motto, the stra . ·
employment programme has been adopted
g of the Com mun ity Dev elop men t Pro gramme in 1952 was a landmark in the
The launchin the people. It
of development with the participation of
history of India which ushered in an era rural development with a hierarchy of village level
to
adopted a systematic integrated approach vari ous fields to enrich rural life. 5000 Nat by
ional
block leve l wor kers draw n from
workers and t Programme
created under the Community Developmen
• Extension Service (NES) Blocks were During the Third Five Year Plan, the momentum was
the end of the Second Five Year Plan. grammes
mes even as allocations under the NES proMarginal
ned thro ugh a seri es of dev elop men t sche
maintai Farmer's Development Agencies foilowed
by
tapered. This was succeeded by the Small s for Rur al Em ployment, Food for Wo rk Programme,
t Age ncie s, Cra sh Sch eme
Farmers' Developmen y seventies.
ugh t-Prone Are as Pro gram me and Des ert Development Progralll!11e in the earl Committee
Dro on was evolved by the Balwant Rai Mehta
Panchayati Raj for decentralised administrati
in 1957. ment and poverty alleviation pro gr~
me s
196 1 to 199 5, m~n y rura l dev elop
During
w: •
wer introduced. These are given belo
e
(i) 20-point programme
(SFDA)
(ii) Small Framers Development Agency DA)
(iii) Marginal Framers and Agricultura
l Labour Development Agency (MFAL
P)..
(iv) Minimum Needs Programmes. (MN •
AP).
(v) Drought Prone Area Programme (OP
(vi) Desert Development Pr~gramme
(DDP).
(vii) National Rural Development Pro
gramme (NRDP).
nratee Programme (RLEGP).
(viii) Rural Landless Employment Gua
72/VII The Economics of Development and Planning
(ix)Development of Women and Children (DWCRA).
(x)Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART).
(xi)Training of Rural Youth for Self Employment (TRYSEM).
(xii)Crash Scheme for Rual Development.
(xiii)Antyodaya Yojana.
(xiv) Development of Tribal Areas.
(xv) Integrated Rural Development programme (IRDP).
(xvi) Jawahar Rozgar yojana.
RECENT. EMPLOYMENT GENERATION AND POVERTY
ALLEVIATION PROGRAMMES
1. Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana (JGSY).
2. Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS).
3. National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP).
4. Pradhan Mantri Gramodya Yojana (PMGY). .
(i) Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY).
(ii) Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya Yojana (Gramin Awas).
(iii) Pradhan Mantri Gramod~ya Yojana-~ural Drinking Water Project.
5. Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY).
6. Samagra Awaas Yojana.
7. Food for Work Programme.
8. Annapurna.
9. Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY).
10. Swarnjayanfr Gram Sw,arojgar Yojana (SGSY).
11. Sampooma Grameen RozgarYojana (SGRY).
12. Valmiki' Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY).
13. Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM).
14: National Rural Employment Guaran~ee Scheme (NREGS).
ECO NOM IC REFORMS AND POVERTY ALLEVIA'TION
PROGRAMMES • • •
During economic r~forms and liberalisation, several new schemes for social uplift and poverty
alleviation were launched by the Government of India.
These programmes include :
(a) The Employment Assurance Sche1ne for providing 100 days of unskille
d manual labour
to the rural poor in the 2475 back-ward blocks including those that are flood prone in
the country ;
(b~e Prime Minister's Rozgar yojana aimed at providing employment
to unemployed
youth through the creation of micro-enterprises ;
(c) rte National Social Assistance Programme which encompasses old age
pension, family
/benefits in case of death of the bread earner and maternity benefits ;
(d) _;J>e Rural Group Life Insurance Scheme, with a subsidised premium ;
 p 73 Ni l
Inequality of Inc om e an d Poverty Allev,·a,·ion rogrammes .
. · kn
(e) Th e Na tio nal on1 nu- f N · ·
nal sup por t to Prl Dlm y edu cat ion (also_ o~ as
M·1d-D M
Prn
"'o&'4&~ uue .
0 _ Utr illo
eal sch em e aim ed at pro vid ing a nut ritious meal to chi ldr en 1n pn ma ry
- ay -
sch ool s·,
Th e M ~i la Sm rid hi Yo jan a· to pro mo te the savings habit among. rur al wo me n;
(/)
lnd rra Ma hi.l a Yo jan a aim ed to·_ mo re ~ef fective empowerme~t of women.
(g) ~e - tem for foodgrains and oth er
ion -wi de Pub lic Dis trib utio n sys
In add itio n to abo ve, the nat am ped PD S operating in _1775 backward.
bee n stregth ene d, wit h Ute re~
essential commodities has 46 ·-blocks ,.-under the Employment As sur anc e
it is exp ect ed to be ext end ed in -24
blocks. Fu rth er, : ._
- . •. _~- -~- __ : _- . _ ,
Schem<g . 199 ~--1 996 . tha t th~re ·are sti ll tw o ma ny
·ob ser ved in IDA - in act ion
- Th e Wo rld Ba nk has .pov erty. eradication • has bee n m~ es t
bu t ach iev ed sig nif ica nt pro gres s_ i~
poor peo ple in Ind ia ~d ~i~ lan ~. !bu s, wit h eco ?om ic
e cou ntr ies of Eas t- As ia like !nd one sia:
compared to som ies· for em pow en~g the ~o ple are -to be designed.
ati ve dev elo pm ent stra teg
. reforms som e alt ern
. -