| |
|
|
Index of Poverty and Deprivation in the Context of Inclusive Growth |
|
K.L. Datta |
|
The efforts to separate the poor from the total population began through the poverty line constructed by a Working Group appointed by the Planning Commission in 1962. At present, the official estimates of poverty are derived from the poverty lines originally constructed for rural and urban areas by a Task Force in 1979. Since then, there have been two attempts by the Government, through the Expert Group 1993 and the Expert Group 2009, at revision. Both refrained from treading this area and accepted the Task Force poverty line instead. The Expert Group 1993 accepted both the rural and urban poverty lines. The Expert Group 2009 accepted the urban poverty line and based the rural poverty line on this. Tracing the methodology of poverty estimation, this paper points out the gaping holes in the methodology suggested by Prof. Tendulkar. In view of the changes in the consumption basket of the population, triggered by the rise in the living standards resulting from rapid economic growth and the growth-induced change in the socio-economic condition, the paper emphasizes the need for a revision of the poverty line. It suggests redefining poverty by emphasizing access to facilities that are able to provide a broader picture of deprivation in the society. For this, a new index, the index of poverty and deprivation (IPoD), is suggested, which can help formulate appropriate inclusive policies to tackle the problem of deprivation and can replace the quantitative index of poverty. IPoD can be derived from the lack of access to basic services such as education, health, water supply, and sanitation, besides food, clothing and shelter, which succinctly defines the concept of inclusive growth, espoused in the Eleventh Plan. The role of poverty incidence in the allocation of Central funds for poverty alleviation programmes among the states has waned in recent years. This renders the poverty estimates rooted in consumption in the present form superfluous in the planning for poverty alleviation. IPoD can substitute the poverty incidence in the matter of allocation of Central funds to the states. |
|