POVERTY IN INDIA

A PROJECT REPORT ON
AN ANALYSIS OF POVERTY IN INDIA DURING POST
INDEPENDENCE PERIOD
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
award of the degree of
BACHELOR OF ARTS
In
ECONOMICS
(CBCSS)
Submitted by
ABY VARGHESE BABU : 15015171008
VRINDA VENU : 15015171007
THANJI : 15015171006
KIRTHI SHAJI : 15015171004
EXAM CODE : 15015601
COURSE CODE : EC 1645
Under the Guidance of
Mr. ANISHKUMAR A S
(Assistant Professor, Dept. of Economics)
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
MAR IVANIOS COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE
KALLUMALA 690110
FEBRUARY 2018

MAR IVANIOS COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE
KALLUMALA , MAVELIKARA
(Affiliated to Kerala University)
DEPRTEMENT OF ECONOMICS
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that project report entitled “AN ANALYSIS OF POVERTY IN
INDIA DURING POST INDEPENDENCE PERIOD " is a bonafied record of
the project done by ABY VARGHESE BABU ( REG. NO 15015171008) Under
my supervision and guidance , in partial fulfilment for the award of Degree of
Bachelor of Arts in Economics from University of Kerala .
Anish Kumar A. S Thomas George
Project Guide Head of the Department
Assistant Professor Professor
Dept. of Economics Dept. of Economics
Internal examiner External examiner

III
ACKNOWLDEGEMENT
We deem it a pleasure to acknowledge our sense of gratitude to our project guide Mr.
AnishKumar A S, Assistant Professor Dept. of Economics under whom we carried out the
project work. His incisive and objective guidance and timely advice encouraged us with constant
flow of energy to continue the work.
We wish to reciprocate in full measure the kindness shown by Prof. Thomas George, Head of
the Department of Economics who inspired us with his valuable suggestions in successfully
completing the project work.
We shall remain grateful to Dr. KC Mathai Principal, Mar Ivanios College of Arts & Science
for providing us a strong academic atmosphere by enforcing strict discipline to do the project
work with utmost concentration and dedication.
Finally we must say that no height is ever achieved without some sacrifices made at some end
and it is here where we owe our special debt to our parents and friends for showing their
generous love and care throughout the entire period of time.
ABY VARGHESE BABU
REG. NO 15015171008

IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE NUMBER
LIST OF TABLES V
LIST OF FIGURES VI
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.
1 INTRODUCTION 1-4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5-10
3 METHODOLOGY 11
4 CONCEPTS AND THEORIES RELATED TO POVERTY 12-17
5 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS 18-41
6 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 42-45
7 REFERENCES 46-47

V
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
NO.
TITLE PAGE NO.
5.1 Poverty estimates by P D Ojha 18
5.2 Poverty estimates by P K Bardan 18
5.3 Poverty estimates by B S Minhas 19
5.4 Poverty estimates by M Ahluwalia 19
5.5 Poverty estimates by Dandekar and Rath 19
5.6 Poverty estimates by Seventh Finance Commission 20
5.7 Poverty estimates by V M Dandekar 20
5.8 Poverty estimates by World Bank 20
5.9 Poverty estimates by Minhas , Jain and Tendulkar 20
5.10 Poverty estimates by Planning Commission 21
5.11 Poverty estimates by Expert group 21
5.12 Poverty estimates by NSSO 21
5.13 Poverty estimates by using Lakdawala methodology 22
5.14 Poverty estimates by using the Tendulkar Methodology 22
5.15 Poverty estimates by using the Rangarajan Methodology 22
5.16 Final Table. 23

VI
LIST OF FIGURES
TABLE
NO.
TITLE PAGE NO.
5.1 Graphical representation of estimates of Rural and Urban
poverties in India
24

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Poverty is a plague as it is prevalent in almost all countries in the world and it has many Faces
and dimensions. Therefore it is difficult to define the concept poverty in precise. Poverty is
always defined according to the conventions of society in which it occurs. But in The recent
years, the concept of poverty has been refined and made more comprehensive. The New World
requires better and more scientific ways to assess the concept of poverty in the society. Now its
multidimensional aspect is recognized and uses a multidisciplinary approach to assess poverty.
Poverty is not simply a social phenomenon but also include economic, political, historical,
geographical and cultural aspects.
Various attempts have been made by societies to define poverty. In human terms poverty means
little to eat and wear, and in economic terms the poverty means the inability to attain a minimum
standard of living. It is natural to view poverty as the failure to meet the Basic requirements to
maintain a minimum standard of living. This minimum standard of Living may vary from society
to society. While biological requirement and nutritional norms Provide the most elementary
concept of a minimum standard of living, modern Understanding of poverty requires other
factors such as school enrolment, infant mortality, Immunization, malnutrition, women
empowerment, overall standard of living, asset holding etc.
Two scholars, Saheen Rafi khan and Damian Killen, put the conditions of the poor in a nutshell:
Poverty is hunger. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not being
able to go to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is fear for the future. Having food
once in a day. Poverty is losing a child to illness. Brought about by unclear water.Poverty is
powerlessness . Lack of representation and freedom.
In India, the definition of the poverty line emphasizes a minimum level of living rather than a
reasonable level of living. This attitude is borne out of realization that it would not be possible to
provide millions of people even the minimum basic needs for some decades; therefore, to talk
about a reasonable level of living or good life may appear to be wishful thinking at the present

2
stage. Thus political considerations enter the definitions of poverty because programs of
alleviating poverty may become prohibitive as the vision of a good life widens.
While addressing the Constituent Assembly in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru had said "This
achievement (Independence) is but a step , an opening of opportunity , to the great triumphs
and achievements that await us.... the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and
inequality of opportunity. "
However we need to know where we stand today. Poverty is not only a challenge for India , as
more than one fifth of the world's poor live in India alone; but also for the world , where more
than 260 million people are not able to meet their basic needs.
The deprivation of a significant section of society of minimum basic needs in the face of a
luxurious life for the elite classes makes poverty more glaring. More than 65 years have passed
since we attained political independence; still most of the people lead a sub-human life, while a
microscopic minority lives in excessive luxury.
Even Gandhi’s hopes have not been fulfilled. In spite of our Plans, “GaribiHatao” – oriented
programs”, Green Revolution, etc., we have created only a few islands of prosperity in an ocean
of poverty. In our cities, we are able to see skyscrapers and palatial buildings side by side with
the ramshackle houses and huts of the poor. We are able to see a direct correlation between those
getting poorer and those getting richer.
But, in spite of overwhelming odds, by adopting planned development we have doubled our
agricultural production and established and enlarged our industry. We have built a great network
of dams and canals, powerhouses and steel mills and machine-building plants. We have
increased the area of irrigation by millions of acres. This has involved vast investment and has
helped to reduce poverty by providing employment to lakhs of people and providing more food,
clothing and better housing.
But the question arises why is it that the plans in India failed to eliminate even degradation, not
to speak of removing poverty. This was due to the fact that the planners assumed that the

3
“growth plus” strategy aiming at increase of national income, and supplemented by policies of
progressive taxation and public expenditure, would lead to a rise in the level of living of the
poor. But the production-oriented approach of planning, without altering the mode of production,
resulted in the appropriation of the gains of development by the owners of the instruments of
production – the richer class.
No programme for removal of poverty can succeed in an economy plagued by inflation and
plagued by inflation and spiralling prices. Inflation, by its very nature, accentuates inequalities,
eats into the income of the poor classes and thus leads to deterioration in their economic
condition. A poverty eradication programme, therefore, must mop up surpluses with the elite
classes (landlords, money-lenders and capitalists). Since the bulk of the surpluses exist in the
form of black money, it is necessary to adopt radical measures to unearth black money so that
resources are not diverted to luxurious consumption.
The problem is one of providing employment and raising the productivity of low-level
employment. In this connection, the basic issue is to make employment the focus of planning;
the policies of production have to be woven round this central objective.
Indiscriminate mechanization will result in much smaller increases of employment in
comparison with the amount of investment undertaken. The factors proposed by the country’s
political leaders and by many academies to lead the country out of stark poverty are: higher
investment, improved health and spread of education. But these are in turn influenced by poverty
to a great extent and cannot be expected to eradicate it.

4
OBJECTIVES
 To study about basic concepts about poverty and to identify about different measures
using for measurement of poverty.
 To analysis various trends of Rural , Urban , Total Poverty since independence by
comparing datas published by different poverty estimation committeesand Organisations
 To find out major causes of poverty in India and its effects.
 To understand about different government measures to alleviate poverty in India and
their limitations.
 Suggest some measures to eradicate poverty from India.

5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Several studies have been conducted in Indiato finding about the extent of poverty in India.
Important ones are given below
Dandekar and Rath (1971) estimated poverty in terms of consumer expenditure needed a diet
adequate at least inform of calories, they adopted 2250 calories per person per day as the norm
for their study. According to them, the consumer expenditure necessary to obtain the minimum
nutritional standard was an amount of Rs. 14.16 per capita per month at 1960-61 prices for rural
India. Based on this norm, 30.92 percent of the rural population lies below the poverty line in
1961-62, in India.
Bhrdhan (1974)adopted the poverty line of Rs 15 at 1960-61 all India rural prices as The
minimum level of living, and also estimate poverty for 1967-68 period, taking Rs. 29.90 as
minimum requirement and find that in 1960-61 about 38% of rural Indians and in 1967 – 68, 53
percent of rural Indians are below poverty line.
Vaidyanathan (1974) adopted Rs. 21.44 as rural poverty in India at 1960-61.prices. To His
estimate the rural poverty in India is 15.65percent.
Bhatty (1974)measured the incidence of poverty for the year 1968-69. He selected Poverty lines
in terms of Percapita income instead of Percapita consumer expenditure. He Made use of the
income distribution data collected by National Council of Applied Economic Research
(NCAER) for 1968-69. In order to overcome arbitrariness in using a single poverty line, Bhatty
made use of five poverty lines namely Rs. 180, Rs 240 Rs. 300, Rs. 360 and Rs. 420. percapita
per annum at 1968-69 prices or its percapita monthly equivalent Rs. 15, Rs. 20, Rs. 25, Rs. 30
and Rs. 35. His results show that the poverty levels vary corresponding to different income
levels. The corresponding rural poverty is 21.95 percent, 39.55 percent, 55.87percent, 69.70
percent, and 78.70 percent corresponding to monthly percapita income.

6
Ahluwalia’s (1978) “estimates shows a fluctuating trend in the incidence of poverty over time.
Rural poverty in India declined from 53.4 percent in 1957-58 to 42 percent in 1960-61. Then it
started rising from 42.3 percent to 57.9 percent during 1961-62 to 1967-68 and then declined to
47.6 percent in 1973-74.
Mahendra Dev (1988) estimated the poverty lines for the reference years by making Use of the
estimates derived by Bardhan (1974) for the year (1960-61). He adjusted the Poverty lines by the
Consumer Price Index of Agricultural Labourers (CPIAL) for the Reference years. He found that
the percentage of rural Indian population living below the Poverty line was continuously
declining from 46.4 percent in 1964-65 to 44.78 percent in 1972-73 and from 40.45 percent in
1977-78 to 33.20 percent in 1983-84.
Till 1979, the approach to estimate poverty was traditional i.e. lack of income. It was later
decided to measure poverty precisely as starvation i.e. in terms of how much people eat. This
approach was first of all adopted by the YK Alagh Committee’s recommendation in 1979
whereby, the people consuming less than 2100 calories in the urban areas or less than 2400
calories in the rural areas are poor. The logic behind the discrimination between rural and urban
areas was that the rural people do more physical work. Moreover, an implicit assumption was
that the states would take care of the health and education of the people. Thus, YK Alagh
eventually defined the first poverty line in India.
The Planning Commission (1981 and 1985) measured the extent of rural poverty for 4 Years
taking Rs 77 (at 1979-80 prices) percapita per month as the poverty line. In 1977-78, about 51.2
percent of rural population was poor as against 54.1 percent in 1972-73. It comes down to 40.4
percent in 1983-84. The Planning Commission calculates the poverty ratio on the basis of
quinquennial Consumer Expenditure Surveys conducted by NSSO. The Planning Commission’s
estimates of the poverty ratio for 1987-88 indicated further decline in the incidence of poverty to
33.4 percent in 1987-88.

7
Criticising the Planning Commission’s earlier estimates, Minhas, Jain and Tendulkar(1991)
measured the incidence of poverty by using correct procedure for three years 1970- 71, 1983 and
1987-88. They converted the poverty norms to prices prevailing in the year for which NSS
consumer expenditure data are available. They worked out State Specific Cost of Living Indices.
Then, applying these indices, they calculated State Specific Poverty norms for 1970-71, 1983
and 1987-88. The poverty norms for rural India were Rs. 33.01, Rs 93.16 and Rs. 122.63 for the
years considered respectively. Corresponding to these poverty lines, the percentage of population
below poverty lines were 57.3, 49.02 and 44.88 for the corresponding years.
Rohini Nayyar (1991) measured the poverty line for 13 years period from 1960-61 to 1983-84
and estimated the incidence of rural poverty. Her calculations are based on actual Consumption
data by broad category. She made use of the calorie norm of 2200 to arrive at the poverty line.
To her estimates rural poverty fluctuates over the years.
Kakwani and Subba Rao (1992) attempted a study on rural poverty for the period 1973-86. They
used relative price levels in the rural areas to arrive at the poverty lines. Using the price relatives
and consumer price indices for agricultural labourers they worked out the State Specific Poverty
Lines at the current prices for the years 1973-74, 1977-78, 1983 and 1986 – 87. According to
their estimates the rural poverty continuously declined.
Till as recently as 2011, the official poverty lines were based entirely on the recommendations of
the Lakdawala Committee of 1993. This poverty line was set such that anyone above them would
be able to afford 2400 and 2100 calories worth of consumption in rural and urban areas
respectively in addition to clothing and shelter. These calorie consumptions were derived
from YK Alagh committee only.
According to the Lakdawala Committee, a poor is one who cannot meet these average energy
requirements. However, Lakdawala formula was different in the following respects in
comparison to the previous models:
 In the earlier estimates, both health and education were excluded because they were expected to
be provided by the states.

8
 This committee defined poverty line on the basis of household per
capita consumptionexpenditure. The committee used CPI-IL (Consumer Price Index for
Industrial Labourers) and CPI- AL (Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers) for
estimation of the poverty line.
 The method of calculating poverty included first estimating the per capita household
expenditure at which the average energy norm is met, and then, with that expenditure as the
poverty line, defining as poor as all persons who live in households with per capita
expenditures below the estimated value.
The fallout of the Lakdawala formula was that number of people below the poverty line got
almost double. The number of people below the poverty line was 16 per cent of the population in
1993-94. Under the Lakdawala calculation, it became 36.3 per cent.
Tendulkar and Jain (1995) estimated the incidence of poverty for 12 years from 1970- 71 to
1992. They estimated the poverty lines for various years taking the Planning Commission’s all
India poverty line of monthly percapita total expenditure of Rs. 49.09 at 1973-74 prices. Urban
Poverty profile of the different authors are given in the Appendix, Even though the earlier
estimates of Planning Commission is based on this calorie Norms which is criticised because of
methodological defects and it cannot consider the other basic items like health, education etc.
Therefore Planning Commission appointed an Expert Committee, under Suresh
Tendulkarin2008and reported its recommendations in November 2009. The committee
suggested a formula based on Consumption Expenditure for identifying BPL families. His
recommendations are more scientific and there is some novelty in the measurement because
Tendulkar committee uses a broad definition of poverty including expenditure for food,
education, health etc., and uses consumer expenditure taking Mixed Recall Period as against
Uniform Recall Period. According the committee the monthly consumption expenditure to
measure poverty line is Rs. 446.68 per person per month in rural areas and Rs. 578.8 per person
per month in urban areas. To their report India’s poverty is 37.2 percent (2004-05) as against the
Planning Commission’s estimates of 27.5 percent in 2004-05 calculated on the basis of
Dandekar- Rath formula based on calorie intake.

9
Planning Commission estimates India’s poverty both on the basis of Uniform Recall Period
(Uniform Recall Period took consumption in which the consumer expenditure data for all items
are collected from 30- day recall period.) and Mixed Recall Period (Mixed Recall Period took
consumption in which the consumer expenditure data for five non-food items, namely, clothing,
footwear, durable goods, education and institutional medical expenses are collected from 365-
day recall period and the consumption data for the remaining items are collected from30-day
recall period.). It consider Cost of Living as the basis of poverty.
In opposition toTendulkar committee, Dr. N.C. Saxena committee was appointed by
Rural Development Ministry in August 2008. This committee argued for a New BPL criterion,
which suggests automatic inclusion of socially excluded groups and automatically exclusion of
those who are relatively well-off. The committee recommended a new methodology of Score
Based Ranking and put forwarded that Rs. 700 per month per rural person and Rs. 1000 per
month per urban person to maintain 2400 and 2100 calorie intake for a day. The committee
estimates that India’s poverty is 49.1 percent in 2004-05.
According to Arjun Sengupta committee appointed by National Commission forEnterprisesin
the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) India’s poverty are 77 percent. The Committee uses the same
data of NSSO and takes the norm of Rs. 20 per day per person to measure the poverty line.
Based on World Bank’s estimates (2005), 41.6 percent of Indians fall below the International
Poverty Line this of $ 1.25 per day (PPP). In nominal terms Rs. 21.69 per day in urban area and
Rs. 14.3/day in the rural area. They estimate 456 million Indians lived in Poverty. World Bank’s
new International Poverty Line is based on $ 2 per day.
Abbijith Sen found out that if we took calorie norm even then the poverty is much Higher i.e.; in
urban 80 percent and in rural 64 percent of the Indians are lived below poverty line. This
estimate is also very higher than official estimate. The Planning commission has updated the
poverty lines and poverty ratios for the Year 2009-10 as per the recommendations of the
Tendulkar Committee using NSS 66 thrond (2009-10) data from the Household Consumer
Expenditure Survey. It has estimated that the poverty lines at all India level as an MPCE of Rs.

10
672.80 for rural and Rs. 859.60 for urban in 2009-10. Based on these cut-offs, the percentage of
people living below the poverty line in the country has declined from 37.2 % in 2004-05 to 29.8
% in 2009-10.
C Rangrajan Committee to review the Methodology for Measurement of Poverty presented its
Report to the Union Planning Minister Rao Inderjit Singh in the first week of July 2014. The
report retained consumption expenditure estimates of NSSO as the basis for determining poverty.
On the basis of this, it pegged the total number of poor in India at 363 million or 29.6 percent of
the population. This is higher than 269.8 million poor people or 21.9 percent pegged by the
Suresh Tendulkar committee.

11
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
In order to understand the methodology used to complete this project, this chapter is included in
order to clarify how an effective methodological philosophy can to contribute the successful
production. This chapter also serves the purpose of justifying and authenticating the research
procedure employed in order to meet the set objectives and answers the main research question
of this project.
The study contains only secondary data. Secondary data collection tools includes articles from
newspapers, books, journals, websites and various study reports published by committees
appointed by government of India and other organisations.
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
 The study is confined only to the secondary data.
 Limited time period and possibility of errors transcription.
 Secondary data fails to provide entire details of data.
 Future trends may vary.

12
CHAPTER 4
CONCEPTS AND THEORIES RELATED TO POVERTY
 THE CONCEPT OF POVERTY
The World Bank organization describes poverty in this way: “poverty is hunger. Poverty is
lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access
to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future,
living one day at a time”. In Economics there are two important classification of poverty;
Absolute Poverty’ and ‘Relative Poverty’.
Two concepts of poverty are popularly used by the statistical Agencies and researchers
throughout the world. They are Absolute Poverty and Relative Poverty.
 NATURE OF POVERTY
Poverty is a plague affecting all parts of the world and it has many faces and dimensions. One of
the most important and most common manifestations of poverty is the denial of access to the
basic necessities of human existence.
 ABSOLUTE POVERTY
According to oxford dictionary of sociology (1994) “absolute poverty refers to a state in which
individual lacks resource necessary for subsistence” . Absolute poverty is a situation in which
there is a lack of a Minimum set of resources required to maintain ―a minimum Standard of
living or the minimum resources for survival.

13
 RELATIVE POVERTY
According to Oxford dictionary of sociology (1994) ‘Relative poverty refers to individuals or
groups lack of resources when compared with that other members of the society’.
As the term indicates it is a relative or comparative measure. It compares an individual‘s life
situation in relation to the others in The population. It relates the living conditions, income levels
and Consumption standards of one group of population to the others.
More generally, the concept of poverty is used to refer to 'absolute' poverty. While inequalities
of income are related to the ' relative' poverty.
 POVERTY LINE
The poverty line is a pragmatic solution to distinguish wealth from poverty. It is generally
defined as the income level below which people are considered poor and above people who do
not feel poor. It must be kept in mind how the term ''poverty line'' is not quite the right
boundary between the poor and non-poor people.It is sometimes argued that the notion of a
poverty line implies a distinct “turning point”, or in some other literatures ‘‘cut-off point’’ in
the well-being functions.
The poverty line in India is defined as ‘the level of private consumption expenditure, which
ensures a food basket that would supply the required amount of calories’. Actually in India the
Planning Commission estimates the poverty on the basis of Calorie intake. By considering age,
sex, activity etc., Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) proposes 2400 calorie intake for
the rural person per day and 2100 calorie per person per day in urban. The calorie requirements
in the rural areas is higher because people engaged in heavy work more in rural areas than in
urban areas. Since people living in rural areas engage themselves in more physical work, calorie
requirements in rural areas are considered to be higher than urban areas. The monetary
expenditure per capita needed for buying these calorie requirements in terms of food grains etc.

14
is revised periodically taking into consideration the rise in prices. On the basis of these
calculations, for the year 2000, the poverty line for a person was fixed at Rs 328 per month for
the rural areas and Rs 454 for the urban areas. In this way in the year 2000, a family of five
members living in rural areas and earning less than about Rs 1,640 per month will be below the
poverty line. A similar family in the urban areas would need a minimum of Rs 2,270 per month
to meet their basic requirements. The poverty line is estimated periodically (normally every five
years) by conducting sample surveys. These surveys are carried out by the National Sample
Survey Organisation (NSSO).
 SOCIAL EXCLUSION
According to this concept, poverty must be seen in terms of the poor having to live only in a
poor surrounding with other poor people, excluded from enjoying social equality of better-off
people in better surroundings. Social exclusion can be both a cause as well as a consequence of
poverty in the usual sense. Broadly, it is a process through which individuals or groups are
excluded from facilities, benefits and opportunities that others (their “betters”) enjoy.
 IMPORTANT TYPES OF POVERTIES IN INDIA
 Urban
This particular type of poverty is only for metropolitan areas with populations over 50,000.
Overcrowding, violence, noise, and poor community help programmes make it even more
difficult for people suffering of this type of poverty to get out of it.
 Rural
Like Urban Poverty , rural poverty occurs only in specific area types. These areas are
nonmetropolitan with populations below 50,000. The low population limits services available for
people struggling financially, and a lack of job opportunities only compounds the problem

15
 VICIOUS CIRCLE OF POVERTY
The people in the less developed countries have low per capita income. Having low income their
rate of savings is low. When savings are small in a country, investment will also be low. Low
investment leads to low productivity. With low productivity level, the income is bound to be low.
People as such remain poor. In the way vicious circle of poverty completes. Summing up, we can
say that less developed countries are poor because they do not have sufficient capital resources
for investment. Capital has a central position for economic development. A financially poor
country is trapped in its own poverty. A country can get rid of from poverty if its rate of capital
formation increases than the rate of population growth. So capital formation is the key to
economic development by demand and supply of capital.
 MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY
Theoretically, the concept of poverty can vary from extreme want of necessitiesresulting in
debility due to malnutrition to falling short of having comfortable means.Different measures of
poverty have been developed by professional economists,among these the more important are as
follows:
 HEAD COUNT RATIO
The Head count ratio (HCR) is the proportion of a population that exists, or lives, below the '
poverty line’. The head count index (P0) measures the proportion of the population that is poor.
It is popular because it is easy to understand and measure .But it doesn’t indicate how poor the
poor are. The poverty gap index (P1) measures the extent to which individuals fall below the
poverty line as a propotion of the poverty line . The sum of these poverty gaps gives the
minimum cost of eliminating poverty, if transfers were perfectly targeted. The measure
doesn’treflect changes in inequality among the poor.

16
 POVERTY GAP
Poverty gap measures the total amount of income necessary toraise the people who are below the
poverty line to that line. Poverty gap captures the depth of poverty. The poverty gap adjusts the
poverty ratio with the difference between the per capita consumption of the poor and the poverty
line expressed as a percentage of the poverty line. This is, the therefore a measure of the
magnitude of the effort that would be required to shift the consumption of all persons below the
poverty line to the level of the poverty line.
 SQUARED POVERTY GAP
It is composed of not only the poverty ratio and the poverty gap ratio, but it also captures the
consumption distribution of the pooras measured by the coefficient sf variation. This measure
explicitly takes intoaccount the higher intensity of efforts that are required to address the
peoplewho are progressively further below the poverty norm in order to bring themout of
poverty.
 OTHER MEASURES
Other measures of poverty, per i.e.,include Foster-Greer-Thornback measure, Sen Index, etc.
We summarise below the various measures of poverty.
Let Z -, represent the poverty line,
M - The number of the poor, i.e., the individuals with consumer expenditure lessthan Z
Xp - The average consumer expenditure of the poor

17
CVP- The coefficient of variation of consumer expenditure among the poor
GP- The Gini coefficient of consumer expenditure among the poor
N - The total population. Then,
 Head-Count-ratio (H):
 Poverty-gap-ratio (R) :
𝒁−𝑿𝒑
𝒁
 Poverty-Gap-index (PGI) : .R
 Foster-Greer-Theobecke measure (FGT) : [𝐑 + − 𝐑 𝐂𝐕𝐏
 Sen Index: [𝑹 + − 𝑹 𝑮𝑷]

18
CHAPTER 5
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
In this chapter firstly we are analysing various trends of rural, urban total poverties in India
based on secondary data’s published by different committees and organisations
 Poverty estimates by P D Ojha
Table 5 .1
Year Proportion of Rural
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
Proportion of Poor –
All India (%)
1960-61 51.6 7.6 44.0
1967-68 70.0
Source :Manorama year book 2013
 Poverty estimates by P K Bardan
Table 5.2
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1960-61 38.0
1967-68 53.0
1968-69 55 41.0
Source: Manorama year book 2013

19
 Poverty estimates by B S Minhas
Table 5.3
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1956-57 65
1963-64 57.8
1967-68 50.6
1969-70 50.6
Source:Manorama year book 2013
 Poverty estimates by M Ahluwalia
Table 5.4
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1956-57 54.1
1963-64 44.5
1967-68 56.5
1973-74 46.1
 Poverty estimates by Dandekar and Rath
Table 5.5
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1960-61 40 50 41
1969-70 40 50 41

20
 Poverty estimates by Seventh Finance Commission
Table 5.6
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1970-71 53 51 52
 Poverty estimates by V M Dandekar
Table 5.7
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1971-72 46.0
1977-78 49.5
1983-84 44.4
 Poverty estimates by World Bank
Table 5.8
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1982-83 44.9 36.4 42.5
1987-88 41.7 33.6 39.6
 Poverty estimates by Minhas , Jain and Tendulkar
Table 5.9
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1987-88 44.88 36.52 42.46
1982-83 49.02 38.33 42.70
Source:Dutt and Sundaram (2016) Indian Economy

21
 Poverty estimates by Planning Commission
Table 5.10
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1979-80 50.70 40 48.40
1996-97 30.6 25.6 29.2
2009-10 33.8 20.9 29.8
2011-12 25.7 13.7 21.9
Source :planning commision
 Poverty estimates by Expert group
Table 5.11
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1992-93 39.1 40.2 40.2
 Poverty estimates by NSSO
Table 5.12
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1999-2000 27.1 23.6 26.1
Source:Manorama year book 2013

22
 Poverty estimates by using Lakdawala methodology
Table 5.13
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1973-74 56.44 49.23 54.93
1977-78 53 47.40 51.81
1982-83 45.6 41.25 44.76
1987-88 39.06 40.12 39.34
1993-94 37.30 32.40 36
2004-05 28.30 25.70 27.50
Source:GOI 2007
 Poverty estimates by using the Tendulkar Methodology
Table 5.14
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
1993-94 50.1 31.81 43.5
2004-05 41.8 25.7 37.2
Source: GOI 2009
 Poverty estimates by using the Rangarajan Methodology
Table 5.15
poverty (%)
Proportion of Urban
Poverty(%)
All India (%)
2009-10 39.6 35.1 38.2
2011-12 30.9 26.4 29.5
Source: GOI 2014

23
We can make single table by concluding tables of different poverty estimation committee
findings. For getting more precise values we taking mean of different rural , urban , total
poverty rates by different committees atsame time period .
Table 5.16
poverty (%)
proportion of urban
poverty (%)
total poverty In India
(%)
1956-57 65
1960-61 43.2 28.8 42.5
1963-64 51.15
1967-68 57.53
1968-69 55 41
1969-70 45.3 50 41
1970-71 53 51 52
1971-72 46
1973-74 51.25 49.23 54.93
1977-78 51.25 47.40 51.81
1979-80 50.70 40 48.40
1982-83 46.96 37.37 42.5
1983-84 45 41.25 44.76
1987-88 41.97 38.32 41.55
1992-93 39.1 40.2 40.2
1993-94 43.7 32.11 39.75
1996-97 30.6 25.6 29.2
1999-2000 27.1 23.6 26.1
2004-05 35.05 25.07 32.35
2009-10 36.7 28 34
2011-12 28.3 28.3 25.7

24
From table 5.16 we can make graph of showing various rural and urban poverties of different
years .
That is represented below in fig 5.1
Graphical representation of estimates of Rural and Urban poverties in India
Fig 5.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1956-57
1960-61
1963-64
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1973-74
1977-78
1979-80
1982-83
1983-84
1987-88
1992-93
1993-94
1996-97
1999-2000
2004-05
2009-10
2011-12
Proportion of Rural poverty (%)
proportion of urban poverty
(%)

25
By analyzing Table 5.16 we could see different trends of Rural poverty in different years
Mainly 1) Increasing trend of rural poverty 2) Decreasing trend of rural poverty 3) No change
Increasing trend of rural poverty
Year gap Changes of Rural poverty
( in % )
1960-61 - 1963-64 43.2 - 51.15
1963-64 - 1967-68 51.5 - 57.25
1969-70 - 1970-71 45.3 - 53.0
1971-72 - 1973-74 46 - 51.25
1992-93 - 1993-94 39.1 - 43.7
1999-2000 - 2004-05 27.1 - 35.05
2004-05 - 2009-10 35.05 - 36.7
Decreasing trend of rural poverty
( in % )
1956-57 - 1960-61 65 - 43.2
1967-68 - 1968-69 57.53 - 55
1968-69 - 1969-70 55 - 45.3
1970-71 - 1971-72 53 - 46
1979-80 - 1982-83 50.7 - 46.96
1983-84 - 1987-88 46.96 - 45
1987-88 - 1992-93 41.7 - 39.1
1993-94 - 1996-97 43.7 - 30.6
1996-97 - 1999-2000 30.6 - 27.1
2009-10 - 2011-12 36.7 - 28.3
No Change
( in % )
1973-74 - 1977-78 51.25 - 51.25

26
By analyzing Table 5.16 we could notice different trends of Urban poverty in different years
Mainly 1) Increasing trend of Urban poverty 2) Decreasing trend of Urban poverty
Increasing trend of Urban poverty
Year gap Changes of Urban poverty
( in % )
1960-61 - 1968-69 28.8 - 41
1968-69 - 1969-70 41 - 50
1969-70 - 1970-71 50 - 51
1987-88 - 1992- 93 33.6 - 40.2
2004-05 - 2009-10 25.07 - 28
Decreasing trend of Urban poverty
Year gap Changes of Urban poverty
( in % )
1970-71 - 1973-74 51 - 49.23
1973-74 - 1977-78 49.23 - 47.40
1979-80 - 1982-83 40 - 37.37
1983-84 - 1987-88 41.25 - 38.32
1992-1993 - 1993-94 40.2 - 32.11
1993-94 - 1996-97 32.11 - 25.6
1996-97 - 1999-2000 25.6 - 23.6
2009-10 - 2011-12 28 - 20.25
By analyzing Table 5.16 we can notice different trends of Total poverty in different years
Mainly 1) Increasing trend of Total poverty 2) Decreasing trend of Total poverty
Increasing trend of Total poverty
Year gap Changes of Total poverty
( in % )
1969-70 - 1970-71 41 - 52
1970-71 - 1971-72 52 - 54.93
1983-84 - 1987-88 42.5 - 44.76
1999-2000 - 2004-05 26.1 - 32.35
2004-05 - 2009-10 32.35 - 34

27
Decreasing trend of Total poverty
Year gap Changes of Total poverty
( in % )
1956-57 - 1969-70 42.5 - 41
1973-74 - 1977-78 54.95 - 51.81
1979-80 - 1982-83 48.40 - 42.5
1983-84 - 1987-88 44.76 - 41.55
1992-1993 - 1993-94 40.2 - 39.75
1993-94 - 1996-97 39.75 - 29.2
1996-97 - 1999-2000 29.2 - 26.1
2009-10 - 2011-12 34 - 25.7
From above tables we we could understand different trends of poverties and its depth among
Indian population .
Secondly in this chapter we are trying to analyze major causes behind poverty in India
MAJOR CAUSES OF POVERTY IN INDIA (ECONOMIC, SOCIAL,
GEOGRAPHICAL, ENVIORNMENTAL AND CLIMATIC CAUSES)
 ECONOMIC CAUSES OF POVERTY
1. Slow Economic growth and development
A country that has slow economic growth due to bad governmental policies causes widespread
poverty. Stagnant or slow paced economic development also leads to poverty.
2. Increasing unemployment: The population to jobs ratio if unbalanced can cause
unemployment between masses and is a leading cause of poverty. Increased and uncontrolled
population in any country is the biggest threat of unemployment related poverty.
3. Decreased Agricultural Output: This can be due to unpredictable weather patterns.
Decreased agricultural output leads to some serious inflation issues. No country can be
economically balanced without the aid of a strong agricultural backbone. Yearly agricultural
produce governs a major part of a country`s economy and needs to be in surplus to keep poverty
at bay.

28
4. Under-developed infrastructure: Infrastructural development also drives the economic
growth and hence determines the poverty situation of any place.
5. Inadequate industrialization in certain areas: Industries provide employment opportunities
to the locals of the place. Concentration of industries in any one state or place sure escalates the
employment in that particular place but, the deprived areas face acute poverty. Areas having
inadequate industrialization causes poverty since employment opportunities become limited in
the said area. Industries also offer well salaried jobs when compared to small time jobs.
 SOCIAL CAUSES OF POVERTY
1. Social evils like untouchability: Untouchability is an unfair social norm in some of the
backward parts of a country that limit people of certain lower castes from their democratic rights.
They are shunned from the society and pushed towards poverty. There are not allowed to venture
into the general employment opportunities and are forced to do meagre jobs.
2. Unethical abuse of power: When power is abused, it has a biased outlook and never helps the
Downtrodden and poor. A corrupt government would always want to keep the poor section of the
society a status quo to exercise more control on the masses. This is another major cause of
poverty in corrupt countries.
3. Widespread ignorance and illiteracy: Illiteracy is another major cause of poverty.
Uneducated people are unable to tap their complete potential and hence their earning sources get
limited. They are unable to compete with the educated counter-parts of the competitive society
and hence remain in poverty. Illiteracy also is a reason for ignorance in people. They are
unaware of all the possible opportunities any modern society has to offer and spend their life in
ignorance.

29
4. Overpopulated places: Over population in any place increases competition in the
employment sector. As a result, poverty creeps in, in any overpopulated place since competition
increases and opportunities decreases.
5. Practicing caste-system: Caste system segregates people (based on their job) in a society and
does not allow them to venture outside their caste to seek employment. For example, a lower
caste person will not be allowed to become a businessman or a trader. This system makes the
poor get poorer and the rich get richer. This unbalanced and unfair system is another leading
cause of poverty.
 GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS
1. Density of population: Area population density also determines the poverty graph of the
place. Densely populated places see a red when it comes to poverty.
2. Selective fertility of land: The fertility of soil is not the same in every region of a country and
varies from place to place. While the fertile areas have blessed agricultural produce, the unfertile
lands are pushed towards poverty naturally.
3. Uneven distribution of fertile land: Geographically, fertile lands are distributed in an uneven
fashion and this is also a primary cause of poverty in naturally unfertile lands. Fertile lands
provide agricultural employment to the local people and they do not have to strive for job
opportunities to earn a living. Unfertile lands completely deprive the natives from the
agricultural sector and take away this employment scope, which is one of the most sought after
choice of employed among the uneducated villagers.
4. Variable farm output: Farm output varies from season to season and year by year. A good
year will lead to substantial produce while droughts and other natural calamities can limit the
output at times. This variability also causes poverty in trying times.
5. Differential rural and urban poverty: rural and urban poverty differ at many levels. The
difference in rural and urban lifestyle has different effects in their poverty scenario. For example:

30
Survival of the poor is more sustainable in rural areas than in urban areas due to high cost of
living in the latter scenario.
 ENVIORNMENTAL AND CLIMATIC FACTORS
1. Flooding of lands: Natural calamities like floods can completely destroy farmlands and
adversely affect the agricultural produce. This will lead to uncalled for poverty situations that a
country can seldom tackle.
2. Long spells of drought: Another climatic adversity that causes poverty is drought. Long
spells of drought harms farmlands and the overall agricultural output. Droughts are a permanent
cause of poverty in most nations.
3. Lack of seasonal rainfall: Any abnormalities with the seasonal rainfall also can cause some
serious poverty problems. Agricultural produce gets disturbed due to the absence of the predicted
rainfall and hence causes inflation related poverty.
 OTHER CAUSES
1. Lack of proper education: Education is obviously essential for a growing economy, but
relevant education is even more important. For example, rural population should be given more
of technical and vocational education than bookish knowledge. This will help them land
technical jobs easily and abolish poverty among the masses.
2. Increasing competition: A society that has a raised qualification standard faces increased
competition in the job acquisition front. This also leads to increased competition and resultant
poverty even among the educated population. This can also be said as a side-effect of increased
education standards, especially in cities.
3. More demand and less supply: The demand-supply relationship has to be balanced to
achieve a poverty free nation. The key to a balanced demand-supply state is population control.

31
There is no escaping from the population management, is you are looking for a poverty free
nation.
4. Lack of adaptable nature of the rural population: Rural population usually have a
backward mind set and refuse to adapt with modernization. This does little to help them change
their economic conditions and eliminate poverty. Open mindedness and adaptability of the
population at large is an important quality to remove poverty from its very roots.
5. Mass migration to cities: It is important to limit over-crowding of the cities. This is only
possible by stopping the mass migration of the villagers to cities. Most rural people leave their
village and migrate to cities in search of bigger employment scopes. If the government can
develop the rural areas sufficiently and provide good employment as well as educational
opportunities to the rural population, they will remain content and stay put in their villages. This
will reduce the urban poverty index and keep the population of cities in control as well.
Thirdly in this chapter we are analyzing several effects of poverty in India
 EFFECTS OF POVERTY IN INDIA
1. Illiteracy: Poor people constitutes greater share of illiterate population. Education becomes
extremely difficult when people are deprived of basic necessities of life.
2. Child Labour: In India, a large number of young boys and girls are engaged in child labour.
3. Nutrition and diet: Poverty is the leading cause of insufficient diet and inadequate nutrition.
The resources of poor people are very limited, and its effect can be seen in their diet.
4. Poor living condition and Housing problems: The don’t get proper living conditions. They
have to fight the hardship of poverty to secure food, clothes and shelter. A large number of poor
families live in houses with one room only.

32
5. Unemployment: Poor people move from villages to towns and form one town to another in
search of employment/work. Since, they are mostly illiterate and un-skilled, there is very few
employment opportunities open for them. Due to unemployment, many poor people are forced to
live an unfulfilled life.
6. Hygiene and sanitation: These people have little knowledge about hygiene and proper
sanitation system. They are not aware of the harmful consequences of not maintaining proper
hygiene. The government is taking initiatives to make available clean and safe water, and proper
sanitation system to them.
7. Feminization of poverty: Women are the worst victims of poverty. Poverty effects greater
number of women than men. The total of poor women outnumbers the total population of poor
men. The causes include low income, gender-inequality, etc. They are deprived of proper-diet,
medicines and health treatment.
8. Social tensions: Poverty is often characterized with income disparity and unequal distribution
of national wealth between the rich and the poor. Concentration of wealth in the hands of few
rich people leads to social disturbances and revolts. Fair or even distribution of wealth leads an
overall improvement in general standard of living of people
Fourthly and finally we are analyzing about major poverty alleviation programmes
implemented by govt. of India and checking about its limitations
GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY IN INDIA
Poverty eradication is one of the major objectives of planned Economic development. Economic
growth has always been recognized as an important among various factors contributing to
Poverty alleviation. It is now recognized that it is not the rate of Growth but the composition of
growth which determines the pace of the "trickle down" effect of growth.

33
The poverty alleviation programmes in India can be categorized based on whether it is targeted
for rural areas or urban areas. Most of the programmes are designed to target rural poverty as
prevalence of poverty is high in rural areas. Also targeting poverty is challenging in rural areas
due to various geographic and infrastructure limitations. The programmes can be mainly
grouped into 1) Wage employment programmes, 2) Self-employment programmes, 3) Food
security programmes, 4) Social security programmes and 5) Urban poverty
alleviationprogrammes. The five year plans immediately after independence tried to focus on
poverty alleviation through sectoral programmes. The first five-year plan focused on agricultural
production as a way of addressing poverty while second and third plans focused on massive state
led investments for employment generation in public sector. While these policies did some
policy generation, they did not have enough strength to affect a sweeping effect.
The main poverty alleviation programmes implemented by government of India since 1947 are
listed below.
1) MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYEMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEME (MGNREGA)
It was launched on February 2, 2005. The Act provides 100 days assured employment every year
To every rural household. One-third of the proposed jobs would be reserved for women. The
central government will also establish National Employment Guarantee Funds. Similarly, state
Governments will establish State Employment Guarantee Funds for implementation of the
scheme. Under the programme, if an applicant is not provided employment within 15 days s/he
will be entitled to a daily unemployment allowance.
Salient features of MGNREGA are:
I. Right based framework
II. Time bound guarantee of employment
III. Labour intensive work
IV. Women empowerment
V. Transparency and accountability
VI. Adequate funding by central government

34
2) SWARNAJAYANTI GRAM SWAROZGAR YOJANA (SGSY)
SGSY, launched in April 1999, aims at bringing the assisted poor families (Swarozgaris) above
the poverty line by organizing them into Self Help Groups (SHGs) through a mix of Bank credit
and Government subsidy.
3) NATIONAL RURAL LIVELIHOOD MISSON (NRLM)
The SGSY has now been restructured as the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM). The
NRLM aims at reducing poverty by enabling poor households to access gainful Self-employment
And skilled wage employment opportunities.
4) SAMPOORNA GRAMEEN ROZGAR GRAMEEN YOJANA (SGRY):Sept.2001
The objective of SGRY is to provide additional wage employment along with food security,
creation of durable Community, social and economic assets and infrastructure Development in
the rural areas. The schemes of Jawahar Gram SamridhiYojana (JGSY) and Employment
Assurance Scheme (EAS) have been fully integrated with SGRY. SGRY programme in many
districts has been included in National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) during
2006-07 and 2007-08. Since April 2008, SGRY programme is part of National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS).
5) PRADHAN MANTRI GRAMODAYA YOJANA (PMGY)
PMGY launched in 2000-01 envisages allocation of Additional Central Assistance (ACA) to the
States and UTs for selected basic services such as primary health, primary education, rural
shelter, rural drinking water, nutrition and rural electrification.

35
6) PRADHAN MANTRI GRAM SADAK YOJANA (PMGSY) :Dec.2000
It is a 100 percent centrally sponsored scheme. It is a Programme to provide road connectivity
through good all weather Roads to all the eligible unconnected rural inhabitants. 1,42,750 kms.
Of road works had been completed till December 2007 and an Expenditure of Rs. 27,382 crore
has been incurred.
7) ANTYODAYA ANNA YOJANA :Dec. 2000
It provides food grains at a highly subsidized rate of Rs. 2 per Kg for wheat and Rs. 3 per kg for
rice to the poor families under the Targeted Public Distribution System. Initially 25 kgs of food
grains was made available to each family per month. This quantity has been increased to 35 kgs
with effect from April 2002.
8) SWARNA JAYANTI SHAHARI ROZGAR YOJANA (SJSRY) :1997 Revised in April
2009
The Urban Self Employment Programme and the Urban Wage Employment Programme are the
two special components of the SJSRY, which ,in December 1997, substituted for various extant
programmers implemented for urban poverty alleviation. SJSRY is funded on a 75:25 basis
between the Centre and the States.
9) INDIRA AWAAS YOJANA (lAY) :1999-2000.
It aims at providing dwelling units, free of cost, to the Poor families of the Scheduled Castes
(SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), freed bonded labourers and also the non-SC/ST persons below
the poverty line in the rural areas. Up to December 2006, About 153 1akh houses had been
constructed or upgraded with an Expenditure of Rs. 29,246 crore.

36
10) ANNAPURNA YOJANA :2000.
It aims at providing food security to meet the Requirements of those senior citizens who, though
eligible for pensions under the National Old Age Pension Scheme are not Getting the same. Food
grains are provided at a subsidized rate. It is a 100 percent centrally sponsored scheme.
11) VALMIKI AMBEDKAR AWAS YOJANA (VAMBAY) :Dec. 2001
It seeks to improve the conditions of the urban slum dwellers living below the poverty line that
does not possess adequate shelter. The primary objective of this scheme is to facilitate
construction and upgradation of dwelling units for the slum dwellers. A Component of the
scheme is to provide a healthy environment through community toilets.
12) NATIONAL FOOD FOR WORKS PROGRAMME (NFFWP) :Nov.2004
This programme is open to all rural poor who are in need of Wage employment and desire to do
manual unskilled work. It is implemented as a 100 per cent centrally sponsored scheme and the
food grains are provided to the states free of cost.
13) RURAL EMPLOYEMENT GENERATION PROGRAMME (REGP)
It was launched in 1995 with the objective of creating Self-employment opportunities in the rural
areas and small towns. Since the inception up to March 2004, 1.86 lakh projects have been
financed and 22.75 lakh job opportunities have been created.

37
14) JAWAHAR ROZGAR YOJNA/JAWAHAR GRAM SAMRIDDHI YOJANA
JRY was launched as Centrally Sponsored Scheme on 1st April, 1989 by merging National Rural
Employment Programme (NREP) and Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme
(RLEGP). Its main objective was generation of additional gainful employment for the
unemployed and under-employed people in rural areas through the creation of rural economic
infrastructure, community and social assets with the aim of improving the quality of life of the
rural poor.
15) MILLION WELL SCHEME (MWS):
Million wells scheme was launched on 1st January 1996. The main aim of this scheme was to
increase the irrigation facilities and assist in the development of the land of the marginal farmers
belonging to SC/ST castes. In 1999, this scheme was merged with Swaran Jayanti Gram
Swarozgar Yojana.
16) NATIONAL MATERNITY BENEFIT SCHEME
This scheme provides maternity benefit of Rs 300 for expectant mothers per pregnancy up to the
first two live births. This scheme was expected to benefit 46 lakh women each year. This
programme involves an expenditure of Rs 867 crore in full year. An outlay of Rs 515 crore was
provided during 1995-96 and a sum of Rs 725 crore was provided for the above three
components of NSAP in 1999-2000 budget.
17) NATIONAL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME
Launched on 15th August, 1995 as a 100 per cent Centrally Sponsored Scheme with the
objective of providing social assistance benefit to poor households affected by old age, death of
primary breadwinner or need for maternity care. The programme supplements the efforts of the
State Governments with the objective of ensuring minimum level of well-being.
.

38
18) DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAYA GRAMEEN KAUSHALYA YOJANA(DDU GKY)
DDU GKY is a youth employment scheme launched on 25 sep 2014. It aims at training 10 lakh
rural youths for jobs in three years. Ministry for rural development is in charge of implementing
this programme.
19) PRIME MINISTER’S ROZGAR YOJANA (PMRY):
PMRY started in 1993 with the objective of making available self-employment opportunities to
the educated unemployed youth by assisting them in setting up any economically viable activity.
While the REGP is implemented in the rural areas and small towns (population up to 20,000) for
setting up village industries without any cap on income, educational qualification or age of the
beneficiary, PMRY is meant for educated unemployed youth with family income of up to Rs.40,
000 per annum, in both urban and rural areas, for engaging in any economically viable activity.
20) PROVISION OF URBAN AMENITIES IN RURAL AREAS (PURA):
Holistic and accelerated development of compact areas around a potential growth centre in a
Gram Panchayat (or a group of Gram Panchayat) through Public Private Partnership (PPP)
framework for providing livelihood opportunities and urban amenities to improve the quality of
life in rural areas.
21) DROUGHT PRONE AREAS PROGRAMME (DPAP):
The basic objective of the programme is to minimise the adverse effects of drought on
production of crops and livestock and productivity of land, water and human resources ultimately
leading to drought proofing of the affected areas. The programme also aims to promote overall
economic development and improving the socio-economic conditions of the resource poor and
disadvantaged sections inhabiting the programme areas.

39
 LIMITATIONS OF POVERTY ALLEVIATION PROGRAMMES
The poverty alleviation programmes in India have been criticized on following grounds:
1) Failed to Provide Employment
Various schemes of poverty Alleviation has failed to provide employment. Our employment
Programmes have not realized their potential.
2) Failure with respect to Disabled
The poverty alleviation Programmes have failed to do justice to disabled who cannot participate
in normal economic activities and to women.
3) Meagre Government Spending
The spending by the central Government on all poverty alleviation programmes amount to
About to 6 to 7 percent of total government of India's budgetary Expenditure or 1 percent of
GDP. This spending of central government on poverty eradication programmes is considered to
be very meagre (less).
4) Ignore Consequences of Activities
The poverty alleviation Schemes also ignore consequences of earning activities of the Poor in
terms of health hazards and pollution problems.
5) Lack of Adequate Income
Income and employment-oriented Poverty alleviation programmes did not provide adequate
Income to meet even adequate food requirements.

40
6) Inadequate Self-employment Programmes
The self-employment and wage employment guarantee programmes May not be justified with
increasing population pressures.
7) Other Factors
Lack of political will, unequal distribution of Income and administrative inefficiency are also
responsible for the poor performance of the various schemes. On account of above reasons the
impact of the poverty Alleviation programmes have been very modest in scale and very
ineffective. A proper growth strategy will create more jobs Opportunities in the rural areas; it
will give more importance to Accumulation of human capital by the poor by addressing the
Inefficiencies and inequalities in the health and education sector.

41
RESULT AND FINDINGS
 Poverty is a plague affecting all parts of the world and it has many faces and dimensions.
One of the most important and most common manifestations of poverty is the denial of
access to the basic necessities of human existence.
 Rural poverty in India showing increasing , decreasing, & no change trend at various
years . And urban and total poverty showing only increasing and decreasing trend. But
Overall different kinds of poverties showing a declining tendency.
 There are various economic, social, geographical, environmental, climatic&Other factors
caused poverty in India
 Poverty caused different serious effectsLike illiteracy , child labour , nutrition and diets ,
poor living condition and housing problem , unemployment , hygiene and sanitation ,
feminisation of poverty , social tensions among Indian population
 In India factors such as land reforms, spread of education and health care, pension
schemes, different poverty alleviation programmes have all played an effective role in
reducing poverty ratios. Thats why,
 Rural poverties showing an average declining rate of 1.78 % from 1956-57 to 2011-2012
year gap.
 Urban poverty showing an average declining rate of 0.131% from 1960-61 to 2011-2012
year gap.
 Total poverty showing an average declining rate of 1. 12 % from 1960-1961 to 2011-
2012 year gap.

42
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
Poverty is defined in terms of income, expenditure and nutritional value (calorie intake). Poverty
is more of social marginalisation of an individual, household or group in the community or
society rather than inadequacy of income to fulfil the basic needs. The goal of poverty alleviation
programme should aim merely at the increasing of the income level of individual, household or
group but generally marginalised in the development process of the country. The country cannot
claim economic growth when sections of the people are marginalised to the periphery of the
society. Poverty, therefore, is a complex phenomenon of many 77 dimensions but not merely the
economic dimension. So, the government should provide better development programme
facilities, so that people living below poverty line can improve their livelihood. It also suggests
that Poverty alleviation programmes should also take up the issue of poverty from the social and
economic perspectives. Impact assessment offers potential as the tools for lowering poverty,
increasing energy and for renewing the field of development cooperation. More analytical
assessment can be employed to support worldwide local democracy in the face of the globalized
corporate power. Such assessment can be used to measure and promote substantial, sustainable
gains of the poor in terms of money and power. Resent works on impact indicators at the micro
and macro levels especially in the areas of local economic development, gendered development
and institutional capacity building can be consolidated and extended in the service of impact
assessment. This can also be used to strengthen the design methods to place full control or at
least shared control in the hands of citizens at the best in the evaluation of development
interventions and more especially in poverty alleviation assessments.

43
SUGGESTIONS
Measures
Poverty is a tragedy not only for the individuals but also for the economy at large. As aResult of
this the remedial measures to poverty is emphasized. From the experiences of theEconomy we
can suggest the following to alleviate poverty.
1. Rapid Economic Growth
Fast economic growth is a necessary condition for poverty alleviation programme for
the following reasons: It changes the low income agricultural set up, helps to strengthen the
redistributive activities of the government, made a radical change in production and
Distribution process, create more employment opportunities etc. Even there is the possibility of
trickledown effect to economic growth.
2. Accelerate agricultural growth
No doubt that when there is agricultural growth it reduces the burden of poverty
Because majority of poor are lived with agriculture sector. So steps should be taken to solve the
problems of small and marginal farmers.
3. Accelerate industrial growth
The industrial development will create more income and employment opportunities to
The people. Through this the depth of poverty can be reduced.

44
4. Development of small- scale and cottage industries
In Indian economy small- scale and cottage industries have played a crucial role. This
Sector which being labour intensive, create more employment opportunities and help in the
removal of poverty.
5. Land reforms
Land reforms as poverty alleviation measures aimed to break the old feudal socioeconomic
Structure of land ownership. It aims to eliminate exploitation by providing security
Of tenure and regulation of rent. It also aims to bring direct contact between the state and the
tiller and give social economic status of the landless by distributive measures.
6. Better Public Distributive System
Poverty can be reduced if people are ensured with essential commodities at fair
prices. Therefore the government should establish a wide network of fair price shops to
Provide the essential commodities.
7. Control Population
Unless the population is not reduced, the additions to wealth production will be eaten
Up by the fresh torrent of babies. Therefore the planners should aim at the family planning
Measures to bring down the birth in the country.
8. Provision of Common Services and social Security
The government should spend for the provision of free common services like primary
Education, medical aid, potable drinking water, housing and other facilities to the people. This
will increase their real consumption and make them feel better off hence reduce the poverty.

45
9. Improve the Status of the Women
Gender equality can help to reduce poverty and encourage growth in variety of ways.
Women are provided with direct access to institutional credit, direct membership in
Cooperatives, setting up of women organization etc.
10. Good Administrative Setup
Above all the success of any programme primarily depends on the effective working of
The administrative machinery.

46
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
 AmartyaSen, (1977), “Poverty and Employment Development” in Charan D. Wadhva(ecL),
Some problems of India Economic Policy, New Delhi .
 Brahmananda, P.R. (1989), “Conflict Poverty and Unemployment: Is There a Between Policies to
Tackle the Two”, in Sinha, R.K, (Ed), Economic Development Planning and Policy in India, 1989
 Chadha, G K (1994), “Employment Earnings and Poverty: A Study of Rural India and Indonesia
”, Sage Publications New Delhi.
 Dandekar V. M (1996), Indian Economy 1947-92, Population, Poverty and Employment:
Sage Publication, Volume II, New Delhi.
 . Dandekar.V.M and Rath Nilakanth (1971), Poverty in India- 1: Dimensions and Trends.
EPW, Special Article. New Delhi3 Economic Survey, (2011-12) Government of India,
New Delhi.4. Government of India (2010-11), Economic Survey.
 Desai, GM (1986), “Trends in Rural Poverty in India: An Interpretation of Dharam Narain” in JW
Mellor and GM Desai (eds), Agriculture Change and Rural Poverty in India: Variations on a
Theme by Dharm Narian, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
 Guarav Dutt , Aswani Mahajan 1 january (2016) Indian Economy .
 Guhan .S. & Banbara Harriss (1992), “Poverty in India-Research and Policy”, Oxford University
Press, Bombay.
 Harry Johnson (1966), “Unemployment and Poverty in Leo Fisherman”, (Ed). Poverty amid
Affluence, Yale University Press, New Haven .
 Himanshu, Recent Trends in Poverty, EPW, Special Article, February 10, 2007
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
 http://www.important/india.com
 http://www.planningcommission.nic.in
 Joshi, Seema (2004), ‘Tertiary Sector- Driven Growth in India - Impact on Employment
and Poverty’.

47
 Kakwani N & Subba Rao K (1992), “Rural poverty in India 1973-86”, in Kadokodi, G.K
and Murthy, GV.S.N. (ed), Poverty in India: Data Base issues, Vikas publishing house,
New Delhi.
 Kurian. C.T. (1978), “Poverty, Planning and Social Transformations”, Allied Publisher Private
Ltd, New Delhi.
 . NSSO’s 66th Round of Poverty estimation .
 Papola TS (1993), “Anti-poverty and Special Employment Programmes in India: their Role and
Effectiveness under the Structural Adjustment Programme”, Working paper No. 40, World
Employment Programme Research, ILO, November .
 . Sen, Abhijit, & Himanshu (2003), “Poverty and Inequality in India: Getting Closer to the
Truth”, Proceedings, Centre for Economics Studies and Planning, Jawarharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi.
 Sundaram K (2007), “Employment and Poverty in India, 2000-2005”, Economic and Political
Weekly, July 28, Vol. XL11 (30), PP.3121-3132
 Sundaram K and Tendulkar SD (2003), “Poverty among social and economic Groups in India in
the 1990’s”, working paper no. 118, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of
Economics, New Delhi.

POVERTY IN INDIA

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a POVERTY IN INDIA

Semelhante a POVERTY IN INDIA (20)

Último

Último (20)

POVERTY IN INDIA