The Super Poor India!
As per the latest claim of India’s Planning Commission in July 2013, there are about269 million (or 22 percent) people under the poverty line, as against 407 million in 2004-05.The more comprehensive Multidimensional Poverty Index 2013 report estimates poverty at 53.7 percent (or 650 million poor people) in India.
While there can never be agreement on poverty numbers, compare these numbers with the European Union and US populations of 500 million and 310 million, respectively. These are huge numbers, by any standard.
On the World Bank’s extreme poverty line of 1.25 dollars a day, there are roughly 500 million extreme poor in South Asia – most of it in India. The only other comparable pocket of poverty is the sub Saharan Africa, with 400 million people in extreme poverty.
Nature of Indian Poverty
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) is a good tool to analyze the nature of Indian poverty. It is published since 2006 and it ranks countries based on three equally weighted indicators:
(1) proportion of undernourished population,
(2) proportion of underweight children under five, and
(3) mortality rate of children under the age of five.
The index number varies between 0 and 100. The higher the score, the worst the food/nourishment related poverty of the country. The GHI puts countries in the 5 categories based on their index score: Low hunger (score below 5), moderate hunger (5 – 10), serious hunger (10 – 20), alarming hunger (20 – 30) and extremely alarming hunger (above 30).
India’s hunger index value was 22.9 in 2012, placing it in the “alarming hunger” category. Even the best performing state, Punjab, falls in the “serious hunger” category with a GHI score of 13.6 and the tail end is occupied by MP with GHI of 30.9.
An analysis of past data reveals that the situation has been more or less same for last 20 years. Therefore, the economic reforms and liberalization which started since 1990 did practically nothing for the poor. Clearly, it has been mere corporate-led GDP growth unaccompanied by development for the masses.
High Prevalence of Child Under-Nutrition
The major reason of India’s bad performance on GHI is high prevalence of underweight children. Since 1990 the proportion of underweight children has only fallen from 60% to 43% and the under-five mortality rate from 12% to 7%.
Despite improvements since 1990, because of large population India is still home to over 40% of the world’s underweight children (Pakistan 5 percent) and about a third stunted children (whose height is low for their age). Even the neighboring Nepal and Sri Lanka as well as Sudan and North Korea did better than India. In the neighboring region, only Bangladesh (ranked 68th) has comparable high levels of underweight children.
Understanding Poverty: Comparing the “Basic Needs” and the “Capability” ApproachesThe One-dimensional Poverty Concept is Inadequate
The concept of poverty needs a clear and practical definition; it is still very much an ill-defined concept. It often finds company with the terms such as deprivation, shortages, backwardness, disempowerment, lack of development, lack of well-being, poor quality of life, human suffering, and so on. But what exactly it means to be poor?
The traditional idea of poverty associates it with lack of sufficient money, so it tries to measure poverty in terms of shortage of income. Taking forward the logic, the efforts for poverty removal then revolve around eliminating unemployment which is connected with the economic processes. It is a one-dimensional approach focused on income or lack of it.
Poverty researchers, in their efforts to quantify poverty, came up with the clearly tangible idea of headcounts of the poor so that some number can be attached with poverty. This gave birth to the concept of monetary poverty lines – people with income below the poverty line came to be labeled poor.
Modern research demands concepts that can be converted into explicitly measurable parameters. That certainly lead to simplification (often oversimplification) of the concept on the paper, but the complexity of human life stays as it is.
The truth is, the poor live deprived of most of these essentials of life at the same time. So, no single dimensional parameter can ever satisfactorily describe the state of poverty. Human well-being is a complex issue and is affected by many factors – both material and non-material. In fact, people's well being depends upon a plethora of factors that can be psychological, social, cultural, political and environmental. Any oversimplified measure can provide convenience but can’t ever present the complete picture. It helps to the keep this fact in mind.
The one-dimensional income poverty measure has been the favorite of policymakers to judge the impact of various policies on the lower section of the society in a general way. The World Bank still follows the $1.25-a-day “extreme poverty” line; it used to be $1-a-day until 2008. Needless to say it will remain favorite of those who see “money” as the central theme of human life. However, money or income alone can't be a good proxy of people's well being which depends upon inputs from several dimensions.
Poverty is Inherently Multidimensional
Given the presence of multiple deprivations in the life of a poor, it certainly makes sense to explore the status of his well-being in terms of various shortages. If done at the individual level it would provide a microscopic matrix of individual shortages (which can be correlated with different incapacities). It must also be emphasized that not all shortages (or incapacities) can be traced back to lack of income. There are non-monetary factors such as social, political and policy related which affect people’s lives, apart from the economic aspects which also depend on the state policies and socio-political environment.
An ideal anti-poverty framework would try to eliminate all these shortages (and the associated incapacities). While ideal solutions are rarely possible, it would still be better to target as many deprivations as possible compared with the standard prescription of tackling poverty through reducing unemployment (Anyway, who is going to hire people with very low skills or in poor health and pay them enough so that they can lead good life?). It would be a more direct, more realistic, more positive and proactive anti-poverty framework.
We shall discuss two approaches here that view poverty as a state of multiple deprivations. One is the basic needs approach (BNA) which views poverty as “deprivation of consumption” and the other is the capability approach (CA) in which poverty is seen as “deprivation of opportunities.”
1. The Basic Needs Approach (BNA)
This basic needs approach (BNA) is simple. It identifies a bundle of basic minimum requirements of human life including such as food, shelter, clothing, clean water, sanitation, and so on. So, people whose minimum requirements are not met are considered poor. This is the most popular idea behind state's welfare programs which are designed so that people's basic minimum needs (as prescribed) are met. Such a package guarantees subsistence to those struggling to survive. Once subsistence is assured, the poor are in better shape to improve their lives further. The ease of implementation is the core strength of this approach. Different bundles can be created for different regions or groups of people. It is thus quite flexible.
While it provides considerable flexibility to the policymakers, this approach is criticized for arbitrariness. "Experts" and bureaucrats at the top generally decide what and how much people 'need', assuming that all people have exactly the same needs, which is questionable. In reality, people value different needs differently. So, it is essentially a paternalistic approach indifferent to individuals’ preferences. Ideally, the bundle of consumption should be assessed at the individual level in terms of what people want (need). Being an input (consumption) based approach and it fails to connect poverty with people’s values and aspirations and the end result (well-being).
Origin of the BNA
In the early 1970s the idea that satisfaction of basic needs should be the primary objective of development emerged from work on employment at the International Labor Organization (ILO). Contrary to popular belief, an analysis of data on employment conditions in developing countries revealed that economic growth and employment generation do not necessarily guarantee freedom from poverty. In fact, many hard-working people remained unable to meet their basic human needs – health, food, education, etc.
In 1977, the idea of meeting basic needs as the goal of development policy was formally introduced for the first time in a report on Employment, Growth and Basic Needs by the ILO. The idea gained policy influence when it was picked up by the then World Bank President Robert McNamara, who set up a special commission, led by Paul Streeten, to work explicitly on basic needs. The commission’s work was published in 1981, which became known as the basic needs approach.
This approach aims to provide the opportunities for the full physical, mental and social development of people. Although it aims to provide conditions for comprehensive fulfillment of human life (material, social, cultural and political), in operational terms it primarily focuses on the minimum requirements for a decent life – health, nutrition and literacy – and the goods and services needed to realize it, such as shelter, sanitation, food, health services, safe water, primary education, housing and related infrastructures.
Although the basic needs approach appealed the aid agencies due to its simplicity of implementation, it remained neglected during the 1980s and saw revival in the early 1990s, particularly with the creation of the Human Development Report and the Human Development Index in 1990.
2. The Capabilities Approach (CA)
The capability approach aims to empower people through developing their capabilities so that they can look after themselves. It is basically a development approach and connects the problem of poverty with the broader issue of human development. It emerged in the 1980s and provided the theoretical foundation to the UNDP’s annual Human Development Reports started in 1990. It primarily concentrates on the capabilities of people and their enhancements so that they become capable of leading the life they value. Thus, the capability approach encourages not the welfare programs, but empowerment initiatives. It firmly believes that “people are responsible for their own lives” and should have the opportunities to do so. It is clearly a people-focused approach.
The 1998 Nobel laureate Prof. Amartya Sen has been the pioneer of the capability approach. He worked extensively on this approach during the 1980s and 1990s which stimulated considerable interest across the world. His theory essentially consists of two indispensible elements: functionings (what people are capable of doing or being) and freedom. So, development now means creating an enabling atmosphere so that people can achieve valuable functionings and have the freedom to pursue what they value.
Functionings, Freedom and Capabilities
The functionings are defined as “the various things a person may value doing or being.” Functionings are more directly related to living conditions; they are different aspects of living conditions. It is not limited to material things only. People certainly need commodities and facilities to live in comfort but their lives have dimensions which are emotional, social and political also. Functionings include working, resting, being literate, being healthy, being part of a community, being respected, and so on. Goods and resources are important because they enable functionings. For example, having a bike enable the functioning of mobility or an Internet connection enables the functioning of connectivity, and so on. Of course, how efficiently you make use of the bike or the Internet facility depends upon you. Therefore, not all persons will have the same functionings from the same commodities or facilities. Recognition of this individual diversity is an important feature of the capability approach.
Another crucial element of the capability approach is freedom which brings the capabilities into picture. It refers to the ability to choose and prioritize different functionings – or freedom to choose the way of life. In other words, capability reflects people’s freedom to lead one type of life or another. Thus, any discussion on capabilities must include freedom. It is the capabilities that pull the living standards upward. In simple terms, the capabilities are “people's ability to do things taking everything into account, including external constraints as well as internal limitations.” Thus, the capabilities are closely related to the idea of opportunities.
What is ultimately important is that people have the freedoms (capabilities) to lead the kind of lives they want to lead, to do what they want to do and be the person they want to be. The freedom here also includes freedom to participate in the social and political activities and express opinions, criticize and influence policies, and so on. Therefore, the CA considers all aspects of human life, not just the material (consumption) side only.
Therefore, the scope of the capability approach is comprehensive and inclusive of everything that affects people’s lives; it includes economic aspects but doesn't overemphasize them at the cost of others. In other words, the capability approach treats people as human being and refrains from probing their well-being through mechanical measures like income, mortality, literacy, or other such parameters because they only point to people’s functionings, not the level of freedom (capabilities) they have.
Consequences of Following the Capability Approach
It also means that people’s inputs are essential when it comes to decisions about their lives; their values and choices must be respected. It does not happen meaningfully when a few “experts” at the top decide what people at the bottom need. Therefore, the development initiatives will follow more humanistic and more deliberative strategies – in fact, a continuous public dialogue is needed at all levels in order to sustain the capacity approach. Further, the capability growth requires more than material input (It also needs institutional, social, political and cultural inputs) at various levels.
Unlike the basic needs approach, it does not prescribe a standard package of goods and services for the people but focuses on individuals’ capacity building and expanding their freedom so that they can make their own choices about how they want to live. So, the capability approach is certainly far more positive and empowering; it distinguishes between materialistic and functional achievements. In simple terms, it does not view development as merely expansion of material possessions, but as the expansion of capabilities.
Although not considered strictly a capabilities approach, the 1997 and 2007 Human Development Reports of the UNDP have underscored the importance of freedom in the anti-poverty programs which can be rephrased as follows:
“People whose lives are blighted by poverty, ill-health or illiteracy are not in any meaningful sense free to lead the lives that they value. Similarly people who are denied the civil and political rights are also deprived of the freedom to influence decisions that affect their lives.
Poverty can be seen as a state of “low human development” or of lack of capabilities. Thus, poverty removal implies the enlargement of choices, such as the opportunities to lead a long, healthy, creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity, self-respect and the respect of others.”
Key Features of the Basic Needs and Capability Approach
SDG APPROACH
GOAL 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere
- eradicate extreme poverty measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day
- By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions
- Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all,
- ensure that all men and women have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance
- build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters
- Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions
- Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions
The Human Development (HD) Approach
In order to understand poverty in this approach, we have to first understand what human development is. Poverty is just the opposite – shortages in human development. The HD idea revolves around the basic theme: “People are the real wealth of a nation.” The basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to live long, healthy and creative life – as stated in the firstHuman Development Report (HDR)published in 1990.
It was also developed in the 1980s after noting that handing over economic growth to market forces alone and curtailing the role of government in the economic activities led to increased poverty. It combines the elements of the basic needs and capability approaches and defines the human development as a process of enlarging people’s choices. The most critical choices relate to leading a long and healthy life, to be educated and to enjoy a decent standard of living. Other choices include political freedom, guaranteed human rights and self-respect.
A key aspect of HD is that it sees people as ends, not means; incomes and resources are taken as means, not ends. In practice, it focuses on the “basic needs” type goods and services but also give importance to other issues such as freedom, environment and society. It is open ended, and considers everything that may affect human potential, so that different societies can focus on what is important for them. It accords widening human choices.
In terms of advantages, it goes beyond the “basic” of the Bangladesh approach. It also goes beyond physical conditions and material needs to institutional and political elements. It simplifies the concept of capability approach to include “choices” and “freedom”. It has become the rallying point for all those seeking human-focused and humane alternatives of the usual “economic growth” as development.
As a further step, the HD initiative also came up with an alternate measure of development in the form of the human development index (HDI) which combines life expectancy, literacy and adjusted income. The HDI is an important milestone in trying to measure human well-being in terms other than per capita GDP or income.
Since the first HDR in 1990, every year a different human development theme is picked up for the report and the global scenario is presented. These reports have greatly impacted the national policies and provide fresh perspective to look at poverty. It has brought into focus the importance of issues like women empowerment and literacy, income inequalities, inclusive growth, social exclusion etc as major impediment to human development.
In 2010, a multidimensional poverty index (MPI) was launched that analyses poverty through a set of 10 indicators. It has been adopted as an effective policy-making tool by many countries around the world. The World Bank should also adopt a similar ideology, in place of its $1.25 a day poverty line, and undertake global poverty eradication at a much more comprehensive level.
Critique of the World Bank's $1.25 Poverty Line
According to Lant Pritchett, an ex-World Bank economist, “It is a "successful failure" and has done more harms than good. It has been a failure in terms of achieving the objectives of improving human well-being in the world. It has put the focus on philanthropy more than long-term development and has thus failed to promote prosperous economies. Even if the benchmarks of $1.50 or $2 are used, they are still very low.”
Question: Why doesn't the World Bank work on its $2-a-day poverty line and operate on a greater scale?
It can't claim lack of funds looking at the trillion dollar war budgets of its donor nations.
TYPES OF POVERTY:
1.Absolute Poverty
“The absolute poverty is defined by reference to the actual needs of the poor and not by reference to the expenditure of those who are not poor. A family is poor if it cannot afford to eat.” – Keith Joseph, 1979
--The Traditional Concept of Poverty
Poverty is commonly associated with lack of income - you don’t expect a poor to have money. This is the traditional way to look at poverty. Seen in money terms, the logical question is: how much income would make a poor non-poor? However, “income” itself is no less problematic a concept than “poverty” and is closely related with other resources such as assets and access to public services besides earnings from employment. People are considered poor when they are deprived of income and other resources required to obtain basic things of life – food, shelter, material goods and services – that enable them the opportunity to live without hardships and play the role, meet obligations and participate in the family and social processes.
When poverty is seen from the “subsistence” perspective the nutritional or food aspect takes priority, although allowances are made for clothing, fuel and other items. This gave rise to the concept of subsistence poverty line – people with income below the poverty line are poor; in fact, they are extremely poor. This idea was actively applied by the colonial powers in their colonies for setting wages and framing development plans. It suited them perfectly well because the colonized people were only meant to “work” that needed replenishment of their energies through some minimum food intake.
The Word Bank’s $1.25-a-day benchmark of extreme poverty is a widely used poverty line. On this yardstick, an estimated 1.2 billion people in the world were found to live in extreme poverty in 2010.
However, such as a “subsistence” poverty line is criticized because it considers mainly the physical needs of people. People are not simply “entities” needing replenishment of physical energy needed to work; they are also social and cultural beings and have to perform other roles as parents, neighbors, friends, partners, and citizens.
--Basic Needs Approach
In the 1970s, a somewhat wider concept of poverty emerged in the form of the “basic needs.” It added two elements in the “subsistence” model. First, it included the minimum consumption needs – adequate food, shelter, clothing and some other essentials of a household. And second, it added services provided by the state or community such as safe water, sanitation, public transport, medical and education facilities etc. It, thus, established at least some basic framework for community development. Like the subsistence approach, it also sees the poor as passive numbers whose needs are to be met through polices designed by the “experts.” However, the ease of its implementation makes its attractive to policymakers. It played a prominent role in the developmental plans fostered by the international agencies such as the UN’s.
Both these approaches consider poverty in absolute terms and limit themselves to material and physical needs only. Although it is easier to restrict the poverty perspective to material and physical needs, people’s lives have other dimensions that extend into the realm of social, political, cultural and rights. It helps to keep in mind that human lives can’t be simplified to the level of policies that the government can plan. Certainly, the complexities of development programs increase as more dimensions are added; besides, it also brings the issue of quantification and measurement that policymakers like to avoid. In this sense the income poverty lines are the simplest, though they tell nothing about the nature of shortages poor people live with.
2.Definition of Relative Poverty in Europe
“Relative poverty is when some people’s way of life and income is so much worse than the general standard of living in the country or region in which they live that they struggle to live a normal life and to participate in ordinary economic, social and cultural activities.”– European Anti Poverty Network (EAPN)
The EU’s Relative Poverty Standard
"People falling below 60% of median income are considered to be at-risk-of poverty."
Relative Poverty
The philosophical foundation of relative poverty is provided by Karl Marx, “Our needs and enjoyments spring from society; we measure them, therefore by society and not by the objects of their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.”
People are poor if they live with "resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities." – Peter Townsend, a leading authority on UK poverty
People are “relatively poor” when their average resources or average living standard falls below the society average, which provides the reference mark. Thus, a person is considered relatively poor if his resources are seriously below the society average. Moving to relative poverty is in fact a shift from the “needs” to “wants” – people are poor if they “want” to live like others but can’t. Now the measure is “the deficit in the living standard”, compared with the society average. The philosophy of relative poverty is common in the developed nations, since they have progressed beyond the point where people are no more struggling for basic survival needs.
Relative poverty is also seen as inequality. It will be always present in any society, no matter how much it progresses. Certain sections of the society will always perform less than others. So, relative poverty can never be eliminated and it remains the same if there is a general decline in prosperity across the society. However, if there is more equal distribution of income relative poverty falls.
3.Capability Poverty
The capability approach of Amartya Sen expresses poverty in terms of deprivation of people’s capabilities – referring to what we can or cannot do, can or cannot be. It sees income, resources and public facilities as mere means to achieve or expand human capabilities. In laymen’s language, Sen’s approach aims to make people more capable in terms of their skills, physical and mental abilities.
Expanding capabilities increase well-being and shrinking capabilities decrease well-being. The set of capabilities needed to escape poverty is rather limited. Thecapability poverty is typically lack of capabilities related to satisfying basic needs of food, nutrition, health, shelter, etc. In the capability approach, expansion of people’s capabilities is the prime goal – income and resources and facilities have no meaning unless they enhance human capabilities. Consider this simple example.
Having access to a bike can enable the capability of mobility, if a person uses it properly. However, mere ownership of the bike doesn’t tell what the person can do with it; a handicapped person may not be able to use the bike. Therefore, the important point is not the commodity or its features, but the ability to use it.
As mentioned above, when Adam Smith argued that leather shoes became social necessity in order to avoid shame in the public, he was referring the capability of avoiding public shame. As societies get richer and richer, the commodities required to “avoid shame” also increase. Being poor in such societies mean lacking the capability to “avoid shame” because the poor lacks the capability to “afford” all those commodities. There is certainly a strong psychological component here because the “needs” are dictated by social customs (and people’s degree of obeisance). This is not the case in the context of basic needs; for example, the poor lack the capability to be well nourished, or to move about freely, or to live in a good shelter, or to be free from diseases. But there are no social custom motivating people to take care of such needs.
OR
Why India has Twin Personality
Urbanization is Not Development
Hunger Map of India
Why Economic Growth did not Convert into Development?
This is the question Nobel prize winner economists Amartya Sen and his coauthor Jean Drèze tried to answer in their recent book on the Indian economy, An Uncertain Glory.
As Sen and Drèze point out, despite the rapid economic growth, India has fallen behind its neighbors on the social indicators, except perhaps Pakistan. For instance, in 1990 the life expectancy was the same in India and in Bangladesh but today it is four years higher in Bangladesh (69 years) than India (65 years). Similarly, child mortality in 1990 was about 20 per cent higher in Bangladesh than India, but in 2011 it is 25 percent lower than India.
About one third population does not have electricity, compared to 1 percent in China and half of Indian homes remain without toilets. Each year more children (1.7 million under the age of five) die in India from easily preventable diseases like diarrhea than anywhere else in the world. Of those who do survive, 48 per cent are stunted due to lack of nutrients. Child malnutrition in India is higher than in Eritrea.
Immunization of young children is the most basic health measure that a government can provide, but in India only 43.5 per cent of children are completely immunized, compared to 73.1 per cent in Bangladesh. In sub-Saharan Africa, only eight out of 25 countries have immunization figures as bad as India’s.
About a quarter of the Indian population still remains effectively illiterate. India’s adult literacy is not quite the lowest in the world but, at 65 per cent, it is the same as in Malawi and Sudan. Adult literacy in China, by comparison, is 91 per cent.
Reasons Why India is So Poor
1. Social Inequality Leading to Exclusion and Marginalization
Societies cannot progress if certain sections of people are left-out simply because they happen to be from the “wrong” class, caste, ethnic group, race or sex. If the virus of color and race based discrimination has damaged the social set up of many countries in the West, the bacteria of “caste” division has undermined the cohesive social fabric of India. Lower caste people have traditionally been excluded from the mainstream society, governed by the so called upper caste communities. They have historically lived isolated in the periphery of the villages and townships and subsisted doing only those tasks considered “unfit” for the other castes. Their un-touchability can be considered the worst form of rejection by the mainstream society.
While considerable change has taken place in people’s attitude since 1947, but the “lower caste” communities are still not satisfactorily absorbed in the mainstream society. Rural India (where 70% of the population lives) is still quite “caste conscious” compared with the urban society where education and financial well-being has largely erased the caste divisions. Mahatma Gandhi tried to remove the social stigma of un-touchability by coining the label "Harijan" (god's people) for them but with only partial success. The official label for about 170 million unfortunate lower caste people is Scheduled Caste (SC).
Another segment of society that is still very much detached from the mainstream is the tribal community forming 8% of the population. These tribal people (called Scheduled Tribe (ST)) have historically lived in secluded areas such as forests. The Colonial British designated their habitations as "excluded areas" not as any special privilege but for convenience of the colonial policies. Unfortunately, the free governments after 1947 never bothered to assimilate them into rest of the mainstream society and the tribal communities continued to remain isolated and “barely governed.” As a result, besides the poverty of the tribal communities, their backward due to lack of governance of their areas also gave rise to armed Maoist movement. It, ideologically, wants to establish communist state based on Mao’s principles through gun battle. Popularly called Naxals, these Maoists now pose the biggest internal security threat for the country.
Beside the SCs and STs, there are several other communities designated “Other Backward Classes” or simply OBC – they may or may not be Hindus. Their socioeconomic plight is also similar to SCs and STs. The list of OBCs is dynamic and every now and then the government edits it (mostly for political reasons); there is significant confusion about their exact proportion. However, most experts agree OBCs to be in the range 25 – 35% of the population.
Why this issue of marginalization is important can be guessed from the statistics: Indian population consists of roughly 16% SC, 8% ST, and 35% OBC. Hence, combined together they form 60 – 65 percent India's population! So, the population of the so-called forward or upper class is less than one-third, but who by and large control everything.
The policy of reservation in government jobs for the backward communities has certainly helped them to rise up to some extent. But it is limited to the small fraction of the backward communities that somehow managed to do well and gain education.
2. Illiteracy
High level of illiteracy, particularly in the rural areas and among women, has been a crucial factor not only in perpetuating economic backwardness but also for high population growth. The persistence of high illiteracy has created a situation where poverty and population are feeding each other. It is well established that female literacy plays an important role in the well-being of the family in many ways. When women are educated, they not only contribute economically but also raise healthier kids and keep the family size small. Early marriage of girls and early child bearing is closely related with their low literacy; it feeds poverty.
In 2010 only 26.6% women above 25 years found to have received secondary education, as opposed to 50.4% men. In comparison, in China 54.8% women and 70.4% men had secondary education; in the US, this figure was 94.7% for women and 94.3% for men.
3. Population
While the growth rate of population has decreased significantly over the decades and India's population is currently growing annually at the rate of about 1.5 percent. It is largely driven by population momentum (large base of people in the fertile age); not because people want large families. Around 18 million people are added to population each year. However, not that many people are lifted out of poverty every year. Early marriage of girls and lack of awareness about reproductive healthcare, particularly in the rural areas, are major factors behind current population growth. Population is clearly a factor contributing to, and sustaining, high levels of poverty. But the Chinese population control through one-child model would be a bad example to follow for the democratic India. (Dark Side of One Child Policy of China)
4. Gender Inequality
Gender equality is both a core concern and an essential part of human development. Indian social fabric is highly patriarchal which has left women significantly exploited and discriminated. If caste based biases work only outside home in the open society, the discrimination against women operates both in and out of homes. Not only men always get preference in every walk of life, women have always been restricted in freedom.
Their weak status, particularly in the rural areas, is at the root of most chronic problems. It is their lack of awareness or access to family planning tools and early marriage of girls and their early child bearing, which ultimately have led to high population; lack of awareness of health issues related to pregnancy and child upbringing has resulted in high mortality rate, under-nutrition and malnutritionamong children; lower education and lack of freedom has resulted in low participation in societal processes. All these factors are enough to feed and sustain poverty.
The gender inequality is especially tragic not only because it excludes women from participation in democratic and social processes, but also because it gravely imperils the life prospects of future generations. The extent of gender discrimination can be measured through the Gender Inequality Index (GII), which captures the loss in a country’s progress due to gender inequality in three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment and labor market participation.
On the GII 2012, India was ranked at 132 position among 148 countries. According to the report, all countries in South Asia, with the exception of Afghanistan, were better places for women than India – with Sri Lanka (75th) topping them all; Nepal ranked 102nd and Bangladesh 111th. India ranks low partly because of its skewed sex ratio, with only 914 females every 1000 males.
5. Unequal Distribution of Wealth
India happens to be a rich country inhabited by very poor people. – Dr Manmohan Singh
Unfortunately, since departure of the colonial British in 1947 all economic development has taken place in the cities when the majority of the population lives in the countryside. Thus, the rural India has always remained neglected. Another peculiarity is the land holding pattern in India: most land has traditionally been under the control of a few landlords, leaving the vast majority landless. This lopsided land ownership can be traced back to the "Zamindari" system started by the colonial British. Handful zamindars became legal owners of vast tracts of land and all others had to work for them to survive. This rent seeking exploitative system has since kept a vast majority of people in the rural India poor. Land reforms were debated noisily after independence but implementation lacked honest political will, despite the famous "Bhoodan Andolan" of Vinoba Bhave. Unfortunately, land reforms are no more an issue of public debates at present. All talks of poverty removal appear to center only around economic reforms, imitating the unsuitable Western capitalism.
6. Faulty Economic Reforms
The so called economic liberalization and market reforms started in the 1990s are nothing but an attempt to replicate the Western capitalism that promotes "trickle down" economy. It serves to make the rich richer and expand the economy. If the poor which form the majority in India gain anything, it more by default than design.
It is a bad model for a populous country like India which has a large fraction of population that lives disconnected from the mainstream economy. The vast majority of the poor of the country are from the socially disadvantaged sections like the SCs/STs and OBCs. Due to their marginalization and seclusion, practically nothing trickles down to them.
Given the huge population base and poverty, India needs an "employmentcentric" economy – a lot of micro, small and medium business units. Only they can employ the huge base of unskilled or semi-skilled people. Large high-tech industrial units don't generate many jobs and certainly can't employ unskilled or low skilled people whose numbers run well beyond 350 million. According to the NSSO survey, the size of India's workforce is around 450 million. Of which only about 30 million work in the formal or organized sector. The government recognizes only about 70 million as unemployed or underemployed. Thus, there are 350 million unrecognized by the government as unemployed. Government surveys list them as "self employed" but they barely survive and live chronically in poverty. Who are these "self employed" people, more in numbers than the population of United States, and how do they survive?
They milk the cows, become seasonal farm workers, run small shops or sell on the roadsides, make incense sticks, match sticks and bidis, drive manual or auto rickshaws, work as domestic help, work as unaccounted contract workers on daily wages, work as gardeners and watchmen, or work as plumbers, carpenters or shoe repairers and so on. They have no safety net such as pension or healthcare benefits enjoyed by the regular employees and hence, are the most vulnerable. They are also the first victim of natural calamities, now becoming more frequent due to climate mess up. [It is fair to assume that most casualties due to abrupt climatic events are of the poor. Of course, nothing changes for better after their death-toll makes headline news.]
Jobless Economic Growth
The Indian economy created fewer than 3 million job between 2005 and 2010 !! Considering population growth of 18 million every year, around 10 million new jobs are needed per year!!! The current "follow West" economists of India haven't the slightest idea about what type of economic reforms India and its poor people really need. Their thinking stops at inviting "foreign direct investments" and vision fails to go beyond air conditioned corporate houses of the rich and wealthy.
I really wonder why Indian rulers don't look at the neighboring Himalayan kingdom Bhutan which rejected GDP as measure of progress long ago and follows "gross national happiness" - a sustainable model of development that considers many things other than economic growth. Even the UN is showing interest in it.
7. Corruption
Corruption and leakages in government schemes are widespread in India. Late Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi had famously admitted that only about 15% money actually reaches the ultimate beneficiaries. Even if we discard this figure as highly pessimistic and assume that say 30-35% of the welfare funds actually reach the designated beneficiaries, the rest is siphoned off by people connected to the implementing government machinery. This is a common way for the people with connections to the politicians and government bodies to acquire wealth – of course at the cost of the poor who generally have no voice or ability to assert. Another common form of corruption in schemes designed for the poor is inclusion of non-BPL people with political connections in the list of beneficiaries. The end result is that the eligible poor are denied the benefits. Poor service delivery of government programs is a norm rather than exception in India.
How India was "colonized" is reflected in this "brilliant" thinking of a British Official
8. The Colonial Rule
"A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today." – Jawaharlal Nehru, First Prime Minister of India
The colonial British rule laid the foundation for a long term and chronic poverty in India after they departed. This is what Nehru is saying in different set of words. The tiny state of Kerala in the southern India fortunately saw the least damaging influence of the British exploiters (there are many reasons for that) and is at present a unique model (in the world) of improvement in the quality of life through social and human development. It is something unthinkable for a Western brain which has been taught to see economic growth alone as "development."
It was the traditional historic prosperity of India that attracted invaders from various parts of the world in the last 2000 years. Prior to the British, India had been ruled by the foreigners like the Kushanas, Turko-Afghans and Mughals. All of them gradually got assimilated into the Indian society and culture. They not only became absorbed in India but also protected and promoted Indian society, culture and economy.None of them systematically drained India’s wealth or resources to make another country prosperous. Revenue collected or wealth acquired by them was spent within India. Whether spent on the public or for personal luxury of the ruling elite, the wealth remained within the country. Thus, India remained prosperous even in the Mughal era until the East India Company started acquiring "diwani" (right to collect revenue) around 1760. It was the beginning of the legal "loot." The colonial rule was all about robbing India to enrich Britain; other unfortunate colonized States were also bled to make Britain prosperous.
The Battle of Plasssey in June 1757 marked the beginning of British dominance (and also the beginning of end of the Mughal Empire): when a small force of the East India Company's professional troops, defeated and killed the ruling Nawab of Bengal, Siraju-ud-daula. The outcome of the battle marked a significant turning point in the history of Indian subcontinent. It allowed the English East India Company foothold on the Indian soil, from which to undertake its future expansionist ventures within and around India. Soon, after the Battle of Buxar it acquired the "diwani" in Bengal and in 1765 its rights expanded to Bihar and Orissa.
Unlike their predecessors the British, however, consciously remained in India as foreign occupiers until their departure in 1947. They remained isolated from the Indian society and culture and formed a separate class of their own within India. The only reason for their presence in India (and in other occupied regions) was to secure raw materials for British industries and other goods for the comforts of their citizens. The vast population in India also provided market for goods manufactured back home. They subordinated Indian economy to the British trade and industry. Their economic policies actively favored non-Indians or made things difficult for Indian businessmen. As occupiers, they used Indian wealth to pay for all their expansionist ventures and territory building both inside and outside India.
Moreover, the British policies forcibly disbanded community grain banks and promoted replacement of food crops for local consumption to cash crops like cotton, opium, tea and grains for export to feed the animals in England. This change in the cropping pattern left Indian farmers vulnerable to famines. There are documentary evidence to suggest the colonial rulers chose to ignore the famine affected people. It is estimated that during the two centuries of colonial rule, famines and the resulting epidemics caused over 30 million deaths. The most recent Bengal Famine of 1943-44 led to about 1.5 million deaths from starvation; 3.5 million if deaths from epidemics are also included.
In his masterpiece "Poverty and un-British Rule in India" Dadabhai Naoroji(popularly labeled as "The Grand Old Man of India" and "The Father of Indian Nationalism" ) also categorically blamed "the drain of wealth" for the poverty in India.
A Good Short Account of British Exploitation of India
Amartya Sen’s Concept of Development and Poverty
Development means Expansion of Freedom
"The success of a society is to be evaluated primarily by the freedoms that members of the society enjoy." – Amartya Sen
According to 1998 Nobel prize winner, Amartya Sen, freedom is the primary goal of development; freedom is also the principal means of development. It is “the enhancement of freedoms that allow people to lead lives that they have reason to live”. Development is the process of expanding human freedom. It also means the removal of major sources of lack of freedoms such as poverty, all types of discrimination and inequalities, neglect of public facilities, lack of economic opportunities, social exclusion, state policies that limit freedom and so on.
He asserts that development is enhanced by democracy and the promotion of human rights – notably freedom of the press, speech, and assembly – because they foster clean, honest and accountable governance. Citing data he claims that “no famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy”. This is because democratic governments “have to win elections and face public criticism, and have strong incentive to undertake measures to avert famines and other catastrophes”.
Particularly in the context of poor nations, many people view freedom counterproductive to both political stability and development and recommend restrictions and authoritative rule. However, Sen takes an entirely opposing view. He sees the rapid transformation of East Asian economies as resulting from the “social opportunities” provided by governments in the form of schooling, basic health care, basic land reform, and micro-credit. As a result of development, many economies such as Taiwan and Thailand became more democratic.
Amartya Sen sees political liberties essential for sustainable development and points to the breakdown of former Soviet Union. In the same vein, he compared the development strategies of India and China and argued that democratic India holds promise for a long term and sustainable growth.
In his book Development as Freedom, Sen prescribed five types of freedoms that “tend to contribute to the general capability of a person to live more freely.” They are interdependent and interconnected. Indeed these interconnections are central to a fuller understanding of the instrumental role of freedom. These freedoms are
Political Freedoms: They essentially include functioning democracy, freedom to scrutinize and criticize actions of authorities, freedom and expression and speech, presence of free press
Economic Facilities: such as People’s opportunity to have and use economic resources or entitlements
Social opportunities: They include people’s ability to access health and education services, opportunities to participate in social processes and activities
Transparency guarantees: This concerns transparency in the functioning of authorities so that people can trust the information they receive and the system
Protective Security: This pertains to social protections of the vulnerable people so that they don’t fall into abject deprivation
Expanding these freedoms constitute not only the means, but also the end in development. The state must play its role in supporting freedoms by providing infrastructure and easy access to public services, social safety nets, good macroeconomic policies, and environmental protection.
Challenges in applying the Capability approach
Difficulty in translating the capability approach into practice is either due to the emphasis on value judgments with high informational requirement or its multidimensional nature.
In the Capability approach the units of evaluations are not opulence (utilities, goods and resources) but functionings (doings and beings). People attach varying importance to different functionings; some functionings can be essential and important, others can be trivial and valueless. But, ideally, it is their freedom.
A person’s freedom to live the way one would like has intrinsic value – it constitutes a person’s being. It means not only the achieved functionings are valuable but also the individuals’ capability to choose and discriminate among different possible living. Emphasis on freedom or capabilities also brings out the point that not any choice counts; only those that reflect on expansion of valuable choices which will be different for different individuals.
In ‘Development as Freedom’, Sen argues that “People have to be seen in this perspective, as being actively involved in shaping their own destiny (given the opportunity). They are not mere passive recipients of the benefits of the development programs.” This aspect emphasizes the role of individual’s initiative and their social effectiveness.
Now the question is: how to put the capability approach into practice if the capability is a possibility (exercised or not) and not an actuality?
Since the capabilities denote potential opportunities they are not directly observable. Thus, the assessment of capabilities has to proceed primarily on the basis of observing the actual functionings; it can be supplemented by other information. It should work because the valuation of actual functionings is one way of assessing how a person values his options. A practical way is to combine the information from income data with social functionings. This should easily work at the macro level and not much difference is expected between the capability approach and other approaches that also explore development in terms of non income variables.
However, at the micro level the significant differences are expected where the capability approach (CA) allows people to express their ‘power of discrimination’ about what is good life for them.
Conclusion
Evolved in the 1980s, Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach brings together a range of ideas typically excluded (or inadequately formulated) in the traditional discourse on development and progress. The core focus in this approach is on what individuals are capable of doing (or able to do) and on freedom of choices. This approach puts focus on functional capabilities such as the ability to participate in economic processes and political activities or on having the ability to live long, rather than having mere access to resources or utilities. Poverty is seen as deprivation of basic capabilities. People may lack capabilities due to many reasons such as lack of knowledge, lack of financial resources, social exclusion, and government policies. None of these can be satisfactorily measured in economic terms alone.
Development is seen as expansion of people’s freedom which creates an enabling atmosphere for building capabilities. Policymakers should ideally aim at creating 'enabling' environments in which people's capabilities can be enhanced and their range of choices expanded. It necessarily involves identifying factors that prevent such enabling environments and contribute to the persistence denial of different types of freedoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment