4.2 POVERTY ALLEVIATION During the fifties, poverty was the major factor responsible undernutrition in India.

The country recognized that the association between income poverty and undernutrition was mediated through several pathways (Figure 4.2.1). Income poverty might result in food insecurity and low dietary intake due to poor purchasing capacity and poor access to food stuffs; poor environmental hygiene resulting in repeated infections duration and severity of infections was not reduced because of lack of public sector health care for effective treatment of infections and low literacy hampering access to available services; Majority of the low income group population were unskilled labourers engaged in manual labour. Undernutrition had an adverse effect on work capacity and increased susceptibility to infections. Poor work output and absenteeism due to illness reduced their earning and purchasing power. Efforts were therefore directed towards cutting this mutually reinforcing linkage between poverty and undernutrition.

Figure 4.2.1: The vicious cycle of poverty and malnutrition

Income poverty

Low food intake

Frequent infections

Hard physical labour

Frequent pregnancies

Large families

Malnutrition

Direct loss in productivity from poor physical labour

Indirect loss in productivity from poor cognitive development and schooling

Loss in resources from increased health care costs of ill health

Source: Modified from Reference 4.2.3); Bhagwati and others (2004)

101

Definition of poverty India was the first country in the world to define poverty as the total percapita expenditure of the lowest expenditure class, which consumed 2400 kcal /day in rural and 2100 kcal/day in urban areas and attempt to provide comprehensive package of essential goods and services to people below the poverty line. Initially the poverty line was defined on the basis of NSS Household Consumption Expenditure data for 1973-74. The poverty lines, defined as the basket of goods and services, have not been changed subsequently in order to preserve intertemporal comparability, but the rupee value of the lines is regularly updated using the large sample consumer expenditure survey of the NSSO in order to reflect price increases that have taken place over the years. Time trends in poverty Time trends in poverty ratio computed by the Planning Commission on the basis of the quinquinial NSSO large sample survey is given in Figure 4.2.2. The NSSO released the result of the latest large sample survey data on household consumer expenditure (NSSO 61st Round), covering the period July 2004 to June 2005. From this data, two different consumption distributions for the year 2004-05 have been computed. The first one from the consumption data collected using 30-day recall period (also known as reference period) for all the items. The other distribution is obtained from the consumer expenditure data collected using 365-day recall period for five infrequently purchased non-food items, namely, clothing, footwear, durable goods, education and institutional medical expenses and 30-day recall period for the remaining items. These two consumption distributions have been termed as Uniform Recall Period (URP) consumption distribution and Mixed Recall Period (MRP) consumption distribution respectively. The Planning Commission, using the Expert Group methodology has estimated poverty in 2004-05 using both the distributions.There was a slow but steady decline in poverty during seventies and eighties. During the nineties there was a change in the methodology used for computation of poverty line. In order to eliminate possible Figure4.2.2: T etrendsinpovertyratio im differences in reported poverty 60 ratios due to the changed 50 methodology, the Approach 40 Paper to the Eleventh Plan 30 has computed and presented 20 the poverty ratios for 2004-05 10 according to both the 0 methodologies. These revised 1973-74 1983 1993-94 1999-00 04-05 data suggest that the decline S ource: R eference4.2.1 P overty ratio in poverty in the nineties is not P overty ratio(U Pm R ethod) as high as reported earlier.
Percentage

102

Poverty and percapita net national product Poverty reduction is one of the major objectives of 60 22500 economic growth. 20500 50 Economists recognise that 18500 16500 40 even when there is robust 14500 economic growth poverty 12500 30 10500 reduction may not always be 8500 20 fully achieved. Time trends in 6500 4500 10 percapita net national 2500 product and poverty ratio 500 0 over the last three decades 1973-74 1977-78 1983 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 04-05 Per capita net national product (Rs.) is shown in Figure 4.2.3. Percent Population belowpoverty line Source: Reference 4.2.1 , 4.2.2 Seventies and eighties witnessed a slow but sustained economic growth and slow reduction in poverty ratio. During the last ten years there has been a steep increase in the economic growth; however this has not resulted in a commensurate decline in poverty ratios (Approach paper to the Eleventh Plan) Interstate, urban rural differences in poverty There are large interstate and urban rural differentials in cost of goods and services. These are taken into account and state and urban and rural area specific poverty lines are defined. Rupee value of poverty line in different states in urban and rural areas in 2004-05 is shown in Figure 4.2.4. The importance of this adjustment can be gauged from the fact that the poverty lines for the states
Figure 4.2.4: Urban rural and state specfic poverty lines (Rs/pm) 700 Rupees/percapita /pm 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Jammu & Kashmir Chhattisgarh Jharkhand All-India * Himachal Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra Uttarakhand Gujarat Punjab Tamil Nadu Rajasthan Karnataka Haryana Orissa Bihar Kerala Delhi Goa Dadra & N. Haveli Assam West Bengal

Figure 4.2.3: Tim trends in per capita net national product and percent e population belowpovertyline

Rural

Urban

Source: Reference 4.2.6

103

Year
1993-94

Table 4.2.1: Percentage of People living below Poverty Line Rural Urban SCs STs All-Population SCs STs All-Population
32.4 (1.00) 23.7 (1.00)

48.1 51.9 37.3 49.5 41.1 (1.29) (1.39) (1.00) (1.53) (1.27) 36.3 45.9 27.1 38.5 34.8 1999-00 (1.34) (1.69) (1.00) (1.63) (1.47) NOTE: Figures in brackets are the ratios of SC and ST population below the poverty line to the total Population below the poverty line. Source: Reference 4.2.7

with the highest prices are 43% and 57% higher for rural and urban areas respectively than those of the states with the lowest prices. In all states except rural Assam the rupee value of poverty line is lower as compared to urban areas; the urban and rural differences are higher in Mahrashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and relatively lower in Bihar, West Bengal, Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Both in urban and in rural areas higher percentage of people belonging to SC and ST are below the poverty line as compared to all the population (Table 4.2.1). During the nineties there was some reduction in poverty in all the groups but the difference between groups has not decreased. In fact the disparity between ST and rural population had widened during the nineties. There are wide interstates differences in terms of poverty reduction over time. Trends in poverty in top five and bottom five states during the nineties are shown in Figure 4.2.5. In 1983 more than 50 % of the population in Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu were living below the poverty line. By 2000 In West Bengal and Tamil Nadu the poverty ratios declined by half but Orissa and Bihar continue to be the poorest states with nearly half of their population being below poverty line. J&K, Himachal, Haryana, Andhra, Punjab and Maharashtra are the other states which have Figure 4.2.5: Percentage of population in poverty in states during 1999-2000 achieved significant in com parison to 1973-74 decline in prevalence of ( Bottomfive & top five states) 70 poverty. The difference in 60 rates of decline in poverty has resulted in widening 50 of the gap between 40 states; for instance 30 poverty ratio in Orissa is 20 eight times higher than 10 the poverty ratio in Punjab. The differences 0 in poverty ratios between states may have to be considered while assessing factors Source: Reference 4.2.9 1973-74 1999-2000 responsible for the interstate differences in dietary intake and nutritional status.
Percent Chandigarh Goa HP Bihar Madhya Pradesh Punjab All India Assam Sikkim Orissa J&K

104

47500 42500 37500 32500 27500 22500 17500 12500 7500 2500

Figure 4.2.6: Interstate differences in per capita net state product and poverty line (19992000)

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Bihar

rupees

Chandigarh

Maharashtra

Meghalaya

Haryana

Manipur

Pondicherry

Arunachal

Tamil Nadu

Andaman &

Karnataka

Rajasthan

Nagaland

Mizoram

Himachal

Madhya

Gujarat

Andhra

Tripura

Delhi

Punjab

Kerala

Goa

Uttar

Per capita net state product at current prices (Rupees) Source: Reference 4.2.2

% Population below poverty line

Poverty and percapita net state product Data on per capita state net product and poverty ratio for the states in 2000 and 2005 are given in figure 4.2.6 and figure 4.2.7. Analysis of the data on interstate differences in net state product and poverty ratios provides several interesting findings. The top five major states with low and high percapita state net product and poverty ratios were similar at both the time points. Both in 2000 and 2005, most of the states with high net state product had low poverty ratio and vice versa. However there are exceptions like J&K where poverty ratios are low inspite of low per capita net state product. Maharashtra has relatively high poverty ratios in spite of high per capita net state product. Thus state per capita income is an important but not the only determinant of poverty rates in the state. Large interdistrict disparities in development may account for relatively high poverty ratio in states like Maharashtra inspite of high per capita net state product. Poverty and energy intake
Figure 4.2.7: Interstate differences in poverty ratio and per capita net state product 40000 32500 Rupees 25000 17500 10000 2500 Meghalaya Assam Madhya Pradesh Manipur Maharashtra Uttaranchal Arunachal Pradesh West Bengal Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Bihar Uttar Pradesh Jharkhand Kerala Himachal Pradesh Gujarat Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Haryana Tripura Punjab Orissa J&K Sikkim 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Jammu &

Assam

Sikkim

Orissa

West

Source: Reference 4.2.1 , 4.2.2 Per capita net state product at current prices % population below poverty line 04-05

105

Energy intake has been used as the major factor for determining the poverty line in India. It is therefore Figure 4.2.8: Tim e trends in poverty ratio and per logical to explore the capita energy intake- All India current relationship 2300 60 between these two 2250 50 parameters. Data on time 2200 2150 40 trends in poverty ratio and 2100 energy consumption 30 2050 computed from NSSO 2000 20 consumer expenditure 1950 10 1900 survey is given in Figure 1850 0 4.2.8. Contrary to the 1973-74 1983 1993-94 1999-00 04-05 expectations the decline in Poverty ratio poverty is not So urce: Reference 4.2.1, 4.2.2 , 4.2.6 , 4.2.9 Poverty ratio (URP method) associated with an Rural Energy Intake UrbanEnergy Intake increase in the energy intake. Over this time period the food grain were readily available and accessible to all and prices have been quite low especially for the below poverty line families. Therefore the decline in energy intake cannot be due to problems in access or affordability of the food. Perhaps the major factor responsible for the decline is the reduction in energy requirements due to changes in the life style among the population. Interstate differences in poverty and energy intake Interstate differences in poverty ratio and energy intake in rural and urban areas from NSSO consumption expenditure surveys and INP survey are shown in Figure4.2.9, Figure 4.2.10 and Figure 4.2.11. In most of the states both poverty ratios and energy intake were lower in urban areas. In some states such as Mahrashtra there were substantial differences in the urban-rural poverty ratios as well as energy intake. In states like Punjab, Himachal and J&K poverty ratios were low and energy consumption was high. However in other states with low poverty ratios such as such as Goa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat energy intake was also low. At the other end of the poverty spectrum were states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chattisgarh and UP where in spite of high poverty levels energy intake was high. This is most probably because substantial proportions of the population in these states are still engaged manual work for livelihood and require higher energy intake. These data suggest in majority of the population poverty and economic constraints are not the major factors affecting energy intake; energy requirement mostly related to occupational and household chores continues to be an important factor determining energy intake among poorer segments of the population.
kcal %

106

kcal
kcal 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

500
500 0

Source: Reference 4.2.1, 4.2.6

Source: Reference 4.2.1 & 4.2.6

Figure 4.2.9: Interstate diference in poverty and Energy intake (CU/diem ) in rural areas

Figure 4.2.10: Interstate differences in poverty and energy intake (CU/diem ) in urban areas

107
Energy Intake % Population below poverty line

Goa Maharashtra Sikkim Meghalaya Karnataka Tamil Nadu Madhya Pradesh Gujarat Andhra Pradesh West Bengal ALL Haryana Delhi Kerala Chhatisgarh Tripura Rajasthan Assam Orissa Uttar Pradesh Punjab Manipur Arunachal Pradesh Uttranchal Bihar Chandigarh Jammu & Kashmir Himachal Pradesh Mizoram Nagaland Jharkhand
Goa Tripura Karnataka Tamil Nadu Meghalaya Sikkim Gujarat Madhya Pradesh Delhi Maharashtra Chhatisgarh Jharkhand Andhra Pradesh Chandigarh Nagaland Orissa Assam ALL West Bengal Kerala Bihar Uttranchal Rajasthan Haryana Uttar Pradesh Punjab Manipur Arunachal Jammu & Kashmir Himachal Mizoram

Energy Intake % Population below poverty line 0 5 15 10 20 25 30 % 40 35 45 50

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 %

Figure4.2.11: Interstate differences in poverty ratio and Energy intake 3000 2500 2000 kcal 1500 1000 500 0 Meghalaya Maharashtra Chandigarh Andhra Pradesh Bihar Nagaland Tripura Himachal Pradesh Haryana Tamil Nadu Arunachal Pradesh Assam Mizoram Kerala Madhya Pradesh Gujarat Karnataka Rajasthan Manipur Goa Delhi Punjab Orissa Sikkim 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Source: Reference 4.2.9

Energy Intake (INP, 1995-96) % Population below poverty line

Available data from NSSO indicate that over the last three decades there has been substantial change in 2424 101 2457 117 the food preferences of the AP 2258 94 1481 71 population. These changes Assam Bihar 2252 94 2605 124 have some cost implications 2197 92 2069 99 and could result in changes Gujarat Haryana 2311 96 1526 73 in the amount spent per 2714 113 2277 108 calorie energy. The NSS HP Karnataka 2304 96 2682 128 Household Consumption 1456 61 2004 95 Expenditure data for 1999- Kerala MP 2584 108 2360 112 2000 indicates that the 2326 97 2451 117 actual calorie intake of the Maharashtra Orissa 2507 104 2720 130 poverty-line class in every 2266 94 2183 104 state and in both rural and Punjab Rajasthan 3016 126 2561 122 urban areas is significantly 2215 92 2050 98 below the calorie norm TN UP 2266 94 2027 97 (except in urban Orissa). 2633 110 2089 99 However data from NSSO WB clearly shows that the actual Source:; Reference 4.2.8 , Pranab Sens article cost per calorie consumed varies widely between different income groups in every state and in both the rural and urban areas. NSSO data suggest that in each state there does exist a food basket which is actually consumed by a large class of people and which yields much higher calories per rupee spent on food and that if the poverty-line class were to consume this particular basket, it would be able to meet the calorie norms with its actual expenditure on food (Table 4.2.2). These data suggest that the apparent low energy consumption is not so much the result of a lack of income or purchasing power, but of the choice of a food basket by the BPL population.

Table4.2.2: Potential Calorie Intake of Poverty-line Class Rural Urban Percentage Percentag Calories Calories State of Norm e of Norm per day per day (2100) (2400)

108

There is also an ongoing debate whether in addition time has come change from only energy to a basket of foodstuffs essential for balanced diet such as cereals, pulses and vegetables in the definition of the essential cost of food for defining the poverty line. Poverty and nutritional status Time trends in poverty and nutritional status of preschool children and adults during the last three decades is shown in Figure 4.2.12 & 4.2.13. The eighties and early nineties witnessed a relatively slow but steady decline in poverty and undernutrition in children. The decline in undernutrition rate in children during this period mainly was due to improved access to health care rather than increase in dietary intake. During the last decade the reduction in both poverty and undernutrition in children has been relatively slower. The slow reduction in undernutrition might be due to the fact that there has not been any improvement in infant and young child feeding practices, deterioration in intrafamily distribution of food and caring practices for preschool children. All these are unrelated to either income or poverty and can be improved only through persistent behavioral change communication. Recognizing the potential linkages between child undernutrition and human development UN have included child under nutrition as one of the indices for computation of. Human Poverty Index for measuring deprivation for developing countries. Human poverty index is a composite index which takes into account the probability at birth of not surviving to age of 40, adult literacy rates, and population without sustained access to improved water source and children under weight for age. Data presented above indicates that in India undernutrition exists even in the absence of socioeconomic deprivation. It is essential to investigate in depth the relationship between indices for assessment of
F u 4 .1 : T etre d inp v rtyra a dP v le c o u d rn tritio ig re .2 2 im n s o e tio n re a n e f n e u n inc ild n -5 ) h re (1 y 6 0 5 0 4 0 % 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 7 's 0 8 0's 9 0's 00 0 5 %P p la nb lo p ve lin o u tio e w o rty e %P p la nb lo p ve lin (U Pm th d) o u tio e w o rty e R e o U d rw ig t ne e h 5 0 4 0 3 0 8 0 7 0 6 0

F u 4 .1 :T etre d inp v rtyra a dp v le c o u d rn tritio ig re .2 3 im n s o e tio n re a n e f n e u n a o ga u mn d lts 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 7 's 0 8 's 0 9 's 0 0 0 0 5 % o u tio b lo p v rtylin Pp la n e w o e e % o u tio b lo p v rtylin (U Pmth d Pp la n e w o e e R e o ) Mle a F mle ea Su e Rfe n e4 .1 4 .9 o rc : e re c .2 , .2 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0

S u : R fe n 4 .1 4 .9 o rce e re ce .2 , .2

109

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Punjab

Figure 4.2.14: Interstate differences in poverty and nutritional status of children under 3 years

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Maharashtra

Karnataka

Haryana

Kerala

Delhi

Rajasthan

Andhra Pradesh

West Bengal

Uttar Pradesh

Bihar

Tamil Nadu

Source: Reference 4.2.1 , 4.2.3 , 4.2.5

Underweight % population below poverty line 04-05

undernutrition in children and poverty and deprivation in India. Interstate differences in poverty and nutritional status Inter state differences poverty and undernutrition in preschool children and women in shown in Figure 4.2.14 and Figure 4.2.15. States with high poverty have higher undernutrition rates as compared to states with low poverty ratio. None of the states with high poverty have low under nutrition rates and vice versa. It would thus appear that unlike the relationship between per capita income and poverty and poverty and energy intake, there is a much greater concordance between poverty and nutritional status at the state level. This is perhaps because poor people have a poor energy balance (more energy expenditure as compared to energy intake) due to heavy manual work, high morbidity due to infections (because they live in areas with poor environmental sanitation and lack of access to safe drinking water) and more severe and prolonged infections (due to poor access to health care). These data emphasize the need for focus on programmes aimed at reducing poverty and simultaneously programmes aimed at providing access to all essential goods and services to the poor in order to achieve sustained improvement in nutritional status of the population.
Figure 4.2.15: Interstate difference in poverty and nutritional status among women 50 40 30 20 10 0 Haryana Maharashtra Kerala Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Delhi Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Madhya Pradesh Punjab Karnataka Rajasthan Orissa Tamil Nadu Assam Bihar 50 40 30 20 10 0

Madhya Pradesh

Gujarat

Assam

Orissa

Source: Reference 4.2.1 , 4.2.5

BMI <18.5 kg/m2 % population below poverty line 04-05

110

F i g ur e 4 . 2 . 16 : I n t e r st a t e d i f f e r e n c e s i n po v e r t y r a t i o a n d st a t e sp e c i f i c p ov e r t y r e d uc t i o n g oa l f o r 10 t h pl a n
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Source: Reference 4.2.1 , 4.2.9

Tenth Plan Goal % population below poverty line 04-05

The ambitious national goal of 8 % GDP growth during Tenth Five Year Plan was not achieved, but the Tenth Plan witnessed the highest ever GDP growth till now. The Approach paper to the Eleventh Plan indicates that the country expects to surpass this and achieve a 10% GDP growth during the next five years. State specific Tenth Plan goals for poverty reduction (by 2007) and the poverty ratios (in 2005) are given in Figure 4.2.16. It is noteworthy that two states that have achieved the goals set for 2007 by 2005 are Bihar and Assam. All other states are yet to achieve the goals. It is surprising that states, which are doing well in terms of state GDP growth such as Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu have not been able to achieve goals, set for reduction in poverty. Taking note of this the Approach paper to the Eleventh Plan has laid a major emphasis not only on accelerating the economic growth but also on achieving inclusive growth which results in reduction in economic disparities, greater employment opportunities, reduction in poverty and improved access to essential goods and services to all. Such a focus could result significant reduction both in poverty and undernutrition. References
4.2.1 Approach Paper Eleventh Five Year Plan 2007-2012: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/appdraft.pdf; last accessed on 24/09/07 4.2.2 Economic Survey of India 2006-07: http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2006-07/esmain.htm; last accessed on 24/09/07 4.2.3 Indias Undernourished Children: A Call For Reform and Action, World Bank Report: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/HEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/Resources/281 627-1095698140167/IndiaUndernourishedChildrenFinal.pdf; last accessed on 24/09/07 4.2.4 Indian Nutrition Profile - Interstate differences in energy intake: DWCD, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GoI, 1998 4.2.5 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3): http://mohfw.nic.in/nfhsfactsheet.htm; last accessed on 24/09/07 4.2.6 National Sample Survey Organisation: http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_nsso_rept_pubn.htm; last accessed on 24/09/07 4.2.7 Poverty Estimates for 2004-05: http://planningcommission.gov.in/news/prmar07.pdf; last accessed on 24/09/07 4.2.8 Poverty-Undernutrition Linkages, NFI Bulletin, January, 2005: http://nutritionfoundationofindia.res.in/archives.asp?archiveid=210: last accessed on 24/09/07 4.2.9 Tenth Five Year Plan 2002-2007: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html; last accessed on 24/09/07

111