Sustainable development goals are not being taken seriously. Anti-poverty schemes are not backed by funds or commitment
India is a signatory to the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and is committed to achieving them. SDG1 aims to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere” by 2030. It is true that poverty has declined in India. However, it is also true that an extremely large proportion of Indians suffers income poverty.
Additionally, lack of access to assets, vocational education and marketable skills combined with high levels of malnutrition and ill health lead to deprivation in multiple dimensions. The Tendulkar Committee estimated that 269.3 million Indians were poor in 2011-12 based on a poverty line of just ₹27.2 per person per day in rural and ₹33.3 per person per day in urban areas.
The Tendulkar Committee estimated that only 22 per cent of India’s population was in poverty in 2011-12. The Rangarajan Committee used higher poverty lines (₹32.4 and ₹46.9 per person per day for rural and urban areas, respectively) and arrived at a poverty ratio of 29.5 per cent (362.99 million) for 2011-12. Official estimates of poverty are not available after this year.
Policy response
A long list of programmes and schemes are being implemented to address poverty. The NITI Aayog is the nodal agency for monitoring progress towards achieving all the SDGs and has mapped programmes and Ministries for this purpose. However, whether we view the programmes individually or collectively, they remain inadequate for moving even the conservative estimate of 269.3 million Indians above the poverty line. A few programmes are briefly reviewed below to illustrate this.
MGNREGA
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) guarantees 100 days of work in a financial year to a rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled labour. However, MGNREGA is not designed to provide work that generates adequate annual income for a household to cross the poverty line. Data on the MoRD website show that on average, in 2017-18, only 45.77 days of work were provided per household. Further, only 5.78 per cent households received the guaranteed 100 days of work.
A survey conducted by NSS in 2011-12 shows that as many as one-fifth (19 per cent) of rural persons above 18 years of age who had registered for a MGNREGA job card sought, but did not get, MGNREGA work. One explanation is that resources allocated to anti-poverty programmes are inadequate and States curtail targets according to fund availability. There are other explanations too.
Meanwhile, it is important to note that more than one-third of workers in rural areas and one-sixth of workers in urban areas depend on casual labour for their livelihood. If they get work, they earn some money that day. Wages are exploitatively low. During one of many interviews with women in villages and slums to understand the nature of their work, a 42-year-old casual labourer said: “We work so hard but the return is so low that we are not able to meet our household expenses.”
National Social Assistance Programme
Article 41 of the Constitution of India requires that:
“The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want”.
However, the Centre’s provisioning for old age pension for those who are poor and are between 60 and 79 years of age is a paltry ₹200 per person per month. The expectation is that States will add to this. The problem is that there are substantial differences in the amount that different States contribute. So if I live in Madhya Pradesh I will receive only ₹275 as old age pension if I am eligible for it because the State government contributes only an additional ₹75 to the ₹200 provided by the Centre. However, if I live in Andhra Pradesh my pension will be ₹1000 because the AP government adds ₹800 to the amount provided by the Centre.
Further, some of those who are eligible do not receive old age pensions due to lack of funds or incomplete paper work. There is no accountability for ensuring that programmes automatically reach all those for whom they are meant. The National Old Age Pension scheme seeks to ameliorate distress. However, the level at which the pension is set is inadequate and will not enable an end to poverty.
Assistance to disabled persons for purchase of fitting devices: Financial assistance for purchase of aids is provided only if own income or income of parents/guardians is below ₹20,000 per month. Support for such aids is limited to ₹10,000. For devices that cost up to ₹20,000 only half the amount will be paid by the Centre after fulfilment of various conditions. While the scheme is important and enabling, support under it is limited and conditional. The problems with disability pension of ₹300 provided by the Centre are similar to those discussed for old age pensions above. Besides, in the absence of education, skills and work, the support provided will hardly make a dent on poverty.
National Rural Livelihoods Mission: This is a scheme with a lot of promise. However, its reach is as yet very limited both geographically and with regard to number of households that have been mobilised to form self help groups.
While more than a score schemes seek to address SDG1, they do not either individually or collectively, commit to providing a minimum level of subsistence to households. Achievement of SDG1 requires a systematic, time bound plan that identifies people in poverty and the challenges they face — such as lack of decent work with fair wages; absence of quality healthcare and limited insurance packages; poor education; and inadequate assets.
The writer is former professor of economics, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi
