CONCEPT OF POVERTY

People who fail to reach a certain minimum level of consumption standard

are generally regarded as poor. The planning commission has adopted the
definition provided by the ‘Task force on projections of minimum needs and
Effective consumption demand’ according to which, a person is below the
poverty line if his daily consumption of calories is less than 2400 in rural
areas and 2100 in urban areas.

CAUSES OF POVERTY

 Economic backwardness or stagnation :It is characteristic of the

countryside of a developing country like INDIA where majority of the

population lives. Agriculture is the main occupation of the rural poor
and contributes one-third of the NDP. Yet the income it provides to
agriculture workers is substantially below average and almost at the
subsistence level. This includes many factors such as small size of
land holdings, inadequate irrigation facilities, lack of enough financial
resources needed for investment for ensuring development and raising
productivity. Thus, productivity in small farms is generally low
resulting in very low levels of returns. The condition of landless
agricultural labourer is worse. The economic condition of persons
engaged in non- agricultural activities in the rural sector is equally
dismal.

 Political stakes :These are also equally responsible for wide spread

poverty in the economy. But whereas these interests can be countered

 by following the right type of policies, social factors responsible for
promoting poverty are more subtle and are interwoven in the web of
society itself. Inhibitions and handicaps arising from caste and
religion are hard to overcome and require considerable effort by way
of propaganda and education through mass media, re- orientation of
education system.

OTHER FACTORS

 Family size and family composition

 Poor levels of education and skills

 Lack of motivation and will

 The feudalistic system

 Review of poverty removal by Indian government

 Integrated Rural development programme(IRDP):

The IRDP started since the sixth plan, and aimed at an all round
development of the target group to lift it above the poverty line. The
target group consisted of the poorest among the poor in rural areas.
Under the programme, subsidies were provided to the identified
families so as to enable them to acquire an income generating asset. It,
through a programme of asset endowment, aimed to provide self-
employment in a variety of activities like sericulture, animal
husbandry, weaving & handicrafts. The programme of the IRDP has
now been merged with swarna jayanti gram swarozgar yojana.

 Scheme for providing self employment to educated unemployed

youth:
This scheme aimed at providing self employment to about 2 to 2.5
lakh educated unemployed youth through industry, service and
business routes in each year. The schemes provides for loan up to Rs
25000 at concessional rate of interest of 10% per annum in the
centrally backward districts and 12% per annum in other districts.

 Jawahar Rojgar Yojana:

The JRY had been formulated by merging together two wage

employment programmes that had been in operation earlier i.e. NREP
AND RLEGP. The main objectives of the JRY were
a) generation of additional gainful employment for the unemployed
and underemployed in rural areas.
 b) Creation of productive community assets for the benefit of priority
groups.
c) Improvement in the overall quality of life in the rural areas.
This programme was renamed as JAWAHAR GRAM SAMMRIDHI
YOJANA and in APRIL 2002 it merged with Sampoorna Grameen rozgar
yojana.

 Nehru Rozgar Yojana:

The NRY is the urban counterpart of the JRY. It aims at creating one
million jobs annually. It wil create opportunities for self employment
as well as generate wage employment. The target group will be the
urban poor living below the poverty line. This programme was later
merged with Swarn Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana.

 The programme of development of women and children in rural

areas (DWCRA):
The DWCRA aims to improve the socio economic status of the poor
women in rural areas through creation of group of women for income
generating activities on a self sustaining basis.

 The Employment assurance scheme (EAS):

The EAS was started in 1993 and later universalized so asto make it
applicable to all rural blocks of the country. It aimed at providing 100
days of unskilled manual work up to two members of the family in the
age group 18-60 years normally residing in villages in the lean
agriculture season . Since April 2002 it has been merged with
Sampooran Gramin Rozgar Yojana.
 OTHER POVERTY REMOVAL AND EMPLOYMENT
GENERATION PROGRAMMES

 The Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana.

 Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojana.
 The Swarna Jayanti Gram Rozgar Yojana.
 National social assistance programme.

 Indira awas yojana

 Food for Work Programme.
 Some steps taken by other countries for eradication of poverty

One of the steps was taken by Mohammed Yunus of Bangladesh. He started

the Grameen foundation. The origin of Grameen Bank can be traced back to
1976 when Professor Muhammad Yunus, Head of the Rural Economics
Program at the University of Chittagong, launched an action research project
to examine the possibility of designing a credit delivery system to provide
banking services targeted at the rural poor. Grameen Foundation's mission is
to enable the poor, especially the poorest, to create a world without poverty.
With tiny loans, financial services and technology, they help the poor, mostly
women; start self-sustaining businesses to escape poverty. Founded in 1997
by a group of friends who were inspired by the work of Grameen Bank in
Bangladesh, the global network of 55 microfinance institution (MFI)
partners, including Growth Guarantee partners, has touched more than 34
million people in 24 countries. The partners has reached till now 6.8 million
clients, and in addition, they introduced technology initiatives (Mifos and
Village Phone) in Cameroon, Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda, bringing their
total country outreach to 28.

Islamic funding
Indonesia has come out in support of an initiative by the Islamic
Development Bank (IDB) to establish a fund aimed at promoting solidarity
and cooperation among Islamic countries in line with poverty alleviation
movements. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono met with the president
of the IDB, Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al Madani, at the State Palace. They
discussed the idea of establishing the Islamic Solidarity Fund for
Development (ISFD), which was proposed during an Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting in 1991.

Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati said after the meeting the ISFD was
a fund collected by OIC member countries and the IDB to be disbursed for
poverty alleviation programs in Islamic countries.

"As of now, we have collected US$2.6 billion, with $1.6 billion from OIC
members and the remaining from the IDB. We have targeted to collect $10
billion," she said.

"We will invest the money and use the profit to finance poverty alleviation
programs, such as through public-private partnerships in micro-financing
and other activities that are aimed at improving the economy."

She said other initiatives would include delivering technical assistance

through vocational training, in a move to develop working skills and create
more job opportunities.

The meeting was also attended by the former president of Sudan, Abdel
Rahman Swar Al Dahab, IDB regional office director Ahmed S. Hariri, an
adviser to the IDB president, Mansour bin Fetten, and former Indonesian
president B.J. Habibie.

"President Yudhoyono said he fully supported the idea and would discuss it
with other OIC members in the upcoming summit in Senegal," Sri Mulyani
said. She said it would require the commitment and contributions from all
OIC members, and that it would take years to completely realize the idea.
 POVERTY OF SOME OTHER COUNTRIES:

Apart from INDIA there are some other countries suffering from poverty or
has suffered from poverty. Lets take the case of the country ZIMBABWE.

THE REASONS FOR POVERTY INCREASE IN ZIMBABWE

Poverty in Zimbabwe increased unambiguously during the first half of

the 1990s. This text sheds light on the sources of this increase using several
analytical techniques. The changes in standard descriptive statistics are
examined first. Then changes in the entire distribution of well-being are
examined using nonparametric methods, and the results show a broad-based
decline in wellbeing.
Using density-reweighting techniques, shifts in well-being are then
decomposed. The decompositions suggest that declines in well-being
between 1990 and 1995 derive from general declines in returns on assets;
however, the declines would have been greater had significant investments
in human and physical assets not been made by families. Regression-based
decompositions follow up these findings and examine the role changes in
returns to specific household assets have played in increasing poverty. The
results indicate that the increase in poverty is primarily the result of declines
in returns to human assets.
The results also call into question the efficacy of the Economic structural
Adjustment Program as it was implemented during the early 1990s. As of
1995, the Zimbabwean economy was not creating the types and quantities of
jobs needed to reward continued investments in human capital. In rural
areas, the two droughts that the country suffered between 1990 and 1995 had
major short-term impacts on poverty, and ownership of physical assets has
not yet recovered to pre-1991 levels. However, declining returns on human
and physical assets in rural areas would have raised poverty levels even
without drought conditions.
Serious structural changes to the economy are needed to create labor market
conditions conducive to long-term, broad-based growth.
HOW UNITED STATES SUFERRED FROM POVERTY AND WHAT
MEASURES THEY TOOK TO COME OUT OF POVERTY?

The most common measure of poverty in the United States is the

"poverty line set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty
as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by
members of mainstream society. The official threshold is adjusted for
inflation using the consumer price index. Poverty in the United States is
cyclical in nature with roughly 12% to 17% living below the federal poverty
line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty
line at some point within a 10 year time span. Most Americans (58.5%) will
spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25
and 75. While there remains some controversy over whether the official
poverty threshold over- or understates poverty, the United States has some of
the highest absolute and relative pre- and post-transfer poverty rates in the
developed world. Overall, the U.S. ranks 12th on the Human Development
Index
Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished. In 2006
the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the
industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors and 30% of African American
minors living below the poverty threshold. Moreover, the standard of living
for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than other developed
nations except the United Kingdom, which has the lowest standard of living
for impoverished children in the developed world. According to a 2008
report released by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire,
on average, rates of child poverty are persistently higher in rural parts of the
country relative to suburban areas and share similar rates with many central
cities.
 Measures of poverty

Measures of poverty can be either absolute or relative.

The official measure of poverty

Percent and
number below
the poverty
threshold.

The poverty rate for selected age groups. Those under the age of 18 are most
likely to fall below the poverty threshold.
People who experience homelessness make poverty more visible in the
United States.
There are two basic versions of the federal poverty measure: the poverty
thresholds (which are the primary version) and the poverty guidelines. The
Census Bureau issues the poverty thresholds, which are generally used for
statistical purposes—for example, to estimate the number of people in
poverty nationwide each year and classify them by type of residence, race,
and other social, economic, and demographic characteristics. The
Department of Health and Human Services issues the poverty guidelines for
administrative purposes—for instance, to determine whether a person or
family is eligible for assistance through various federal programs.[12]
Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in
absolute terms.

When the Johnson administration declared "war on poverty" in 1964, it

chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold
below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the
resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient
income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.
The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure
of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the
Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune
moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that
Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did
not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer
whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed
United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the
Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary
purposes in May 1965.
The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget)
adopted Orshansky's definition for statistical use in all Executive
departments in 1965. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or
thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head,
number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The
economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans
designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition
of poverty.

The Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons

spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families,
poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan.
Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-
person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA
poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan.
Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for
non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm
thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels.
In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate
thresholds for "farm" and "female-householder" families were eliminated.
The largest family size category became "nine persons or more."
Apart from these changes, the U.S. government's approach to measuring
poverty has remained static for the past forty year.

Recent poverty rate and guidelines

The official poverty rate in the U.S. increased for four consecutive years,
from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004, then declined
somewhat to 12.3% in 2006. This means that 36.5 million people (approx 1
in 8 Americans) were below the official poverty thresholds in 2006,
compared to 31.1 million in 2000[14], and that there was an increase of 4.9
million poor from 2000 to 2006 while the total population grew by 17.5
million. [15] The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from
16.2% to 17.8% from 2000 to 2004 and had dropped to 17.4% in 2005 and
2006. [16] The 2007-2008 poverty threshold was measured according to the
HHS Poverty Guidelines[17] which are illustrated in the table below.

48 Contiguous States and

Persons in Family Unit Alaska Hawaii
D.C.
$13,00
1 $10,400 $11,960
0
$17,50
2 $14,000 $16,100
0
$22,00
3 $17,600 $20,240
0
$26,50
4 $21,200 $24,380
0
$31,00
5 $24,800 $28,520
0
$35,50
6 $28,400 $32,660
0
$40,00
7 $32,000 $36,800
0
$44,50
8 $35,600 $40,940
0
For each additional person,
$3,600 $4,500 $4,140
add
 Relative measures of poverty

Another way of looking at poverty is in relative terms. "Relative poverty"

can be defined as having significantly less access to income and wealth than
other members of society. Therefore, the relative poverty rate can directly be
linked to income inequality. When the standard of living among those in
more financially advantageous positions rises while that of those considered
poor stagnates, the relative poverty rate will reflect such growing income
inequality and increase. Conversely, the poverty rate can decrease, with low
income people coming to have less wealth and income if wealthier people's
wealth is reduced by a larger percentage than theirs. In 1959, a family at the
poverty line had an income that was 42.64% of the median income. Thus, a
poor family in 1999 had relatively less income and therefore relatively less
purchasing power than wealthier members of society in 1959, and, therefore,
"poverty" had increased. But, because this is a relative measure, this is not
saying that a family in 1999 with the same amount of wealth and income as
a family from 1959 had less purchasing power than the 1959 family.
In the EU, "relative poverty" is defined as an income below 60% of the
national median equalized disposable income after social transfers for a
comparable household. In Germany, for example, the official relative
poverty line for a single adult person in 2003 was 938 euros per month
(11,256 euros/year, $12,382 PPP. West Germany 974 euros/month, 11,688
euros/year, $12,857 PPP). For a family of four with two children below 14
years the poverty line was 1969.8 euros per month ($2,167 PPP) or 23,640
euros ($26,004 PPP) per year. According to Eurostat the percentage of
people in Germany living at risk of poverty (relative poverty) in 2004 was
16% (official national rate 13.5% in 2003). Additional definitions for
poverty in Germany are "poverty" (50% median) and "strict poverty" (40%
median, national rate 1.9% in 2003). Generally the percentage for "relative
poverty" is much higher than the quota for "strict poverty". The U.S concept
is best comparable to "strict poverty". By European standards the official
(relative) poverty rate in the United States would be significantly higher than
it is by the U.S. measure. A research paper from the OECD calculates the
relative poverty rate for the United States at 16% for 50% median of
disposable income and nearly 24% for 60% of median disposable income
(OECD average: 11% for 50% median, 16% for 60% median).
The income distribution and relative poverty.Although the relative approach
theoretically differs largely from the Orshansky definition, crucial variables
of both poverty definitions are more similar than often thought. First, the so-
called standardization of income in both approaches is very similar. To make
incomes comparable among households of different sizes, equivalence scales
are used to standardize household income to the level of a single person
household. In Europe, the modified OECD equivalence scale is used, which
takes the combined value of 1 for the head of household, 0.5 for each
additional household member older than 14 years and 0.3 for children. When
compared to the US Census poverty lines, which is based on a defined
basket of goods, for the most prevalent household types both standardization
methods show to be very similar.

Secondly, if the of the poverty threshold in Western-European countries is

not always higher than the Orshansky threshold for a single person family.
The actual Orchinsky poverty line for single person households in the US
($9645 in 2004) is very comparable to the relative poverty line in many
Western-European countries (Belgium 2004: €9315), while price levels are
also similar. The reason why relative poverty measurement causes high
poverty levels in the US, as demonstrated by Förster[18], is caused by
distributional effects rather than real differences in wellbeing among EU-
countries and the USA. The median household income is much higher in the
US than in Europe due to the wealth of the middle classes in the US, from
which the poverty line is derived. Although the paradigm of relative poverty
is most valuable, this comparison of poverty lines show that the higher
prevalence of relative poverty levels in the US are not an indicator of a more
severe poverty problem but an indicator of larger inequalities between rich
middle classes and the low-income households. It is therefore not correct to
state that the US income distribution is characterised by a large proportion of
households in poverty; it is characterized by relatively large income
inequality but also high levels of prosperity of the middle classes. The 2007
poverty threshold for a three member family is 17,070.
 Poverty and demographics

In addition to family status, race/ethnicity and age also correlate with

poverty in America. Although data regarding race and poverty are more
extensively published and cross tabulated the family status correlation is by
far the strongest.

Poverty and family status

According to the US Census, in 2007 5.8% of all people in married families

lived in poverty, [19] as did 26.6% of all persons in single parent households
and 19.1% of all persons living alone.

By race/ethnicity and family status.

Among married families: 5.8% of all people including
5.4% of white persons,
8.3% of black persons, and
14.9% of Hispanic persons (of any race) were in poverty.
Among single parent families: 26.6% of all persons, including
30% of white persons,
44% of black persons, and
33% of Hispanic persons (of any race) were in poverty.
Among unrelated individuals and people living alone: 19.1% of all persons,
including
18% of white persons
27.9% of black persons and
27% of Hispanic persons of any race lived in poverty.

Poverty and race

The US Census declared that in 2007 - 12.5% of all people, including
- 10.5% white people
- 24.5% black people
- 21.5% all Hispanic people of any race, lived in poverty.
Poverty and age
The US Census declared that in 2007
- 12.5% of all people including
- 18% of all people under age 18
- 10.9% of all people 19-64, and
- 9.7% of all people ages 65 and older, lived in poverty
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
uses a different measure for poverty and declared in 2008 that child poverty
in the US is 20% and poverty among the elderly is 23%.

Human poverty index

The United Nations Development Programme, uses the human poverty

index in order to assess the development with regards to poverty among
OECD countries. The index takes the likelihood of a child not surviving to
age 60, functional illiteracy rate, long-term unemployment and the
population living on less than 50% of the median national income into
account. While the United States has the second lowest long-term
unemployment rate in the developed world, it has the highest percentage of
children who are not likely to live to age 60 and persons living on less than
50% of the national median income and the third highest percentage of
adults lacking functional literacy skills.

Ranking Country H Probabili People Long-term Populatio

PI- ty at birth lacking unemployme n below
2 of not function nt (%) 50%
surviving al of
to age 60 literacy median
(%) skills income
(%) (%)
1 Sweden 6.5 7.2 7.5 1.0 6.5
2 Norway 7.0 8.4 7.9 0.4 6.4
3 Netherland 8.2 8.7 10.5 2.5 7.3
s
4 Finland 8.2 9.7 10.4 2.1 5.4
5 Denmark 8.4 10.4 9.6 1.3 -
6 Germany 1 8.8 14.4 5.0 8.3
 0.3
7 Switzerlan 1 7.8 15.9 1.6 7.6
d 0.7
8 Canada 1 8.1 14.6 0.7 11.4
0.9
9 Luxembou 1 9.7 - 1.2 6.0
rg 1.1
10 France 1 9.8 - 4.3 8.0
1.4
11 Japan 1 7.1 - 1.5 11.8
1.7
12 Belgium 1 9.4 18.4 4.3 8.0
2.4
13 Spain 1 8.7 - 3.0 14.3
2.6
14 Australia 1 7.7 17.0 0.9 14.3
2.8
15 United 1 8.7 21.8 1.1 12.4
Kingdom 4.8
16 United 1 11.8 20.0 0.6 17.0
States 5.4
17 Ireland 1 8.7 22.6 1.5 16.5
6.1
18 Italy 2 7.8 47.0 4.0 12.7
9.9

Other international comparisons

Country Absolute poverty rate Relative poverty
(threshold set at 40% of U.S. median rate[5]
household income)[4]
Pre-transfer Post-transfer Pre- Post-
transfer transfer
Sweden 23.7 5.8 14.8 4.8
Norway 09.2 1.7 12.4 4.0
Netherlands 22.1 7.3 18.5 11.5
Finland 11.9 3.7 12.4 3.1
Denmark 26.4 5.9 17.4 4.8
Germany 15.2 4.3 9.7 5.1
Switzerland 12.5 3.8 10.9 9.1
Canada 22.5 6.5 17.1 11.9
France 36.1 9.8 21.8 6.1
Belgium 26.8 6.0 19.5 4.1
Australia 23.3 11.9 16.2 9.2
United 16.8 8.7 16.4 8.2
Kingdom
United States 21.0 11.7 17.2 15.1
Italy 30.7 14.3 19.7 9.1

Food security

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout

the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough
food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining
households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The
prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7% in 2001 to 11.1% in 2002,
and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3% to 3.5%.

Factors of poverty

There are numerous factors related to poverty in the United States.

Sociological factors:

People experiencing homelessness living in cardboard boxes in Los Angeles,

California.
Some poverty in the United States is the result of social institutions which
contribute to and sustain poverty. [41] Some claim that poverty is also the
product of deindustrialization. As the U.S. shifts from a manufacturing,
industrial society to a service-oriented, high-tech society, many of the blue-
collar jobs that required little education but paid well are disappearing or
being outsourced. Rural areas, such as Appalachia, suffer losses of mining
jobs.

Other factors:

Tax levels Cross-country data shows an inverse correlation between tax

levels as a share of GDP and child poverty.
Limited job opportunities appear to exist for significant subgroups of some
races and ethnic groups. This is reflected by the low-income nature of large
sections of the economy, as divided along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all
children in the United States live in poverty, but 46% of African American
children and 40% of Latino children live in poverty.

The Heritage Foundation speculates that illegal immigration increases job

competition among low wage earners, both native and foreign born.
Additionally many first generation immigrants, namely those without a high
school diploma, are also living in poverty themselves.

Controversy:

There has been significant disagreement about poverty in the United States;
particularly over how poverty ought to be defined. Using radically different
definitions, two major groups of advocates dispute whether or not more
resources are needed to help lessen poverty. Liberals consistently claim that
more resources are needed to alleviate poverty. Conservatives often argue
that the condition of the poor does not presently require more resources but
rather an allocation that encourages a temporary dependence upon the
American social safety net.
Much of the debate about poverty focuses on statistical measures of poverty
and the clash between advocates and opponents of welfare programs and
government regulation of the free market. Since measures can be either
absolute or relative, it is possible that advocates for the different sides of this
debate are basing their arguments on different ways of measuring poverty. It
is often claimed that poverty is understated, yet there are some who also
believe it is overstated; thus the accuracy of the current poverty threshold
guidelines is subject to debate and considerable concern.
In a 2003 editorial in The Washington Times, Bruce Bartlett wrote, "In a
supplementary report that got no press attention, the Census Bureau looked
at some of these new necessities and their ownership by the poor. It turns out
many poor people today own appliances that were considered luxuries when
I grew up, and some that would still be considered luxuries today. For
example, 91 percent of those in the lowest 10 percent of households -- all
officially poor -- own color TVs, 74 percent own microwave ovens, 55
percent own VCRs, 47 percent own clothes dryers, 42 percent own stereos,
23 percent own dishwashers, 21 percent own computers and 19 percent own
garbage disposals. When I grew up in the 1950s, only the wealthy owned
color TVs, clothes dryers, stereos, dishwashers and disposals. These were all
considered luxuries. We got by with black-and-white TVs, hanging our wet
clothes on a line to dry, washing dishes by hand and throwing our potato
peels in a pail instead of down the drain. So did most other middle-class
families. Not even the wealthiest people owned microwave ovens, VCRs or
computers."

However, as noted in "EU versus USA", only 11% of those in the general
UK population own a dishwasher, and the penetration rate of microwave
ovens in the EU is generally well under 30%. The report goes on to note that
46% of poor households in the US own their own home, and 30% have two
or more cars, and 63% have cable or satellite TV.
Concerns regarding accuracy
In recent years, there have been a number of concerns raised about the
official U.S. poverty measure. In 1995, the National Research Council's
Committee on National Statistics convened a panel on measuring poverty.
The findings of the panel were that "the official poverty measure in the
United States is flawed and does not adequately inform policy-makers or the
public about who is poor and who is not poor."
The panel was chaired by Robert Michael, former Dean of the Harris School
of the University of Chicago. According to Michael, the official U.S. poverty
measure "has not kept pace with far-reaching changes in society and the
economy." The panel proposed a model based on disposable income:

“According to the panel's recommended measure, income would include, in

addition to money received, the value of non-cash benefits such as food
stamps, school lunches and public housing that can be used to satisfy basic
needs. The new measure also would subtract from gross income certain
expenses that cannot be used for these basic needs, such as income taxes,
child-support payments, medical costs, health-insurance premiums and
work-related expenses, including child care.”

Understating poverty

Many sociologists and government officials have argued that poverty in the
United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living
in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold. A
recent NPR report states that as much as 30% of Americans have trouble
making ends meet and other advocates have made supporting claims that the
rate of actual poverty in the US is far higher than that calculated by using the
poverty threshold. While the poverty threshold is updated for inflation every
year, the basket of goods used to determine what constitutes being deprived
of a socially acceptable miniumum standard of living has not been updated
since 1955. As a result, the current poverty line only takes goods into
account that were common more than 50 years ago, updating their cost using
the Consumer Price Index. Mollie Orshansky, who devised the original
goods basket and methodology to measure poverty, used by the U.S.
government, in 1963-65, updated the goods basket in 2000, finding that the
actual poverty threshold, i.e. the point where a person is excluded from the
nation's prevailing consumption patterns, is at roughly 170% of the official
poverty threshold. According to John Schwarzt, a political scientist at the
University of Arizona,
The official poverty line today is essentially what it takes in today's dollars,
adjusted for inflation, to purchase the same poverty-line level of living that
was appropriate to a half century ago, in 1955, for that year furnished the
basic data for the formula for the very first poverty measure. Updated
thereafter only for inflation, the poverty line lost all connection over time
with current consumption patterns of the average family. Quite a few
families then didn't have their own private telephone, or a car, or even a
mixer in their kitchen.The official poverty line has thus been allowed to fall
substantially below a socially decent minimum, even though its intention
was to measure such a minimum.
The issue of understating poverty is especially pressing in states with both a
high cost of living and a high poverty rate such as California where the
median home price in May 2006 was determined to be $564,430. With half
of all homes being priced above the half million dollar mark and prices in
urban areas such as San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles being higher
than the state average, it is almost impossible for not just the poor but also
lower middle class worker to afford decent housing, and no possibility of
home ownership. In the Monterey area, where the low-pay industry of
agriculture is the largest sector in the economy and the majority of the
population lacks a college education the median home price was determined
to be $723,790, requiring an upper middle class income which only roughly
20% of all households in the county boast. Such fluctuations in local
markets are however not considered in the Federal poverty threshold and
thus leave many who live in poverty-like conditions out of the total number
of households classified as poor.

Overstating poverty

The federal poverty line also excludes income other than cash income,
especially welfare benefits. Thus, if food stamps and public housing were
successfully raising the standard of living for poverty stricken individuals,
then the poverty line figures would not shift since they do not consider the
income equivalents of such entitlements.
A 1993 study of low income single mothers titled Making Ends Meet, by
Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, showed that
the mothers spent more than their reported incomes because they could not
"make ends meet" without such expenditures. According to Edin, they made
up the difference through contributions from family members, absent
boyfriends, off-the-book jobs, and church charity.
According to Edin: "No one avoided the unnecessary expenditures, such as
the occasional trip to the Dairy Queen, or a pair of stylish new sneakers for
the son who might otherwise sell drugs to get them, or the Cable TV
subscription for the kids home alone and you are afraid they will be out on
the street if they are not watching TV."
Moreover, Swedish free market think tank Timbro point out that lower-
income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger
houses than many middle-income Western Europeans.

Fighting poverty

There have been many governmental and nongovernmental efforts to make

an impact on poverty and its effects. These range in scope from
neighborhood efforts to campaigns with a national focus. They target
specific groups affected by poverty such as children, people who are autistic,
immigrants, or people who are homeless. Efforts to alleviate poverty use a
disparate set of methods, such as advocacy, education, social work,
legislation, direct service or charity, and community organizing.
Recent debates have centered on the need for policies that focus on both
"income poverty" and "asset poverty." Advocates for the approach argue that
traditional governmental poverty policies focus solely on supplementing the
income of the poor, through programs such as AFCD and Food Stamps.
These programs do little, if anything, to help the poor build assets and begin
to lift themselves out of poverty. Some have proposed creating a government
matched savings plan (similar to the private 401K) system to provide a
savings incentive to poor and lower-income individuals and families.

Negative income tax

- From 1968 to 1979 a massive social experiment was undertaken in the
U.S.: The Negative Income Tax Experiments of the 1970s in the USA .The
four experiments were in:
Urban areas in New Jersey and Pennsylvania from 1968-1972 (1300
families).
Rural areas in Iowa and North Carolina from 1969-1973 (800 families).
Gary, Indiana from 1971-1974 (1800 families).
Seattle and Denver, from 1970-1978 (4800 families).

Campaign to Reduce Poverty in the United States

Catholic Charities USA released the : "Campaign to Reduce Poverty in

America" based on its paper Poverty in America: A Threat to the Common
Good in January 2007.

From Poverty to Prosperity

In April 2007 The Center for American Progress, a think tank, released a
report : "From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in
Half". It recommended 12 steps to cut poverty in half by 2017, including
raising the minimum wage, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and
promoting unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act.
[edit] Marriage
Citing data from the U.S. Census Bureau in a 2005 editorial, economist
Walter E. Williams of George Mason University wrote that the poverty rate
among single-parent black families was 39.5%, while it was only among
married-couple black families. Among white families, the comparable rates
were 26.4% and 6%.

China’s economic growth and poverty reduction (1978-2002)

China’s economy has entered the take-off stage since 1978─the average
growth rate of per capita GDP has been up to 8.1%.China’s economy has
been developed very rapidly. The growth of China’s income per capita is
much faster than that of any other region in the world. According to
China’s national poverty line, rural poverty population has dropped from
250 million in 1978 to 28.2 million in 2002, decreasing by 88.7%. Poverty
population has averagely decreased by 9.24 million per year. According to
the international poverty line, which is that cost of living per capita per day
is below $1; the World Bank estimates that China’s rural poverty
population has dropped from 280 million in 1990 to 124 million in 1997,
decreasing by 55.7%. Poverty population has averagely decreased 22.29
million per year. These different estimations demonstrate that China is the
country with the largest population and has the largest poverty population,
making unprecedented achievements in poverty reduction.

Why can China decrease poverty population by a large

margin?
The main reasons are as follows:

 The continuous high economic growth is the basis of poverty

reduction.
 The average per capita growth rate of GDP of China is 8.1% in the
Period of 1978-2002 which is the period lasting for the longest time
with the highest growth rate of GDP per capita and the largest
population who benefit from it. This corresponds to doubling per
capita GDP every 8.6 years, 5.4 times of global GDP per capita
growth rate in the same period (1.5%). According to the estimation
made by the World Bank, it took Britain 58 years to double its per
capita income (1780-1838), America 47 years (1839-1886), Japan 34
years (1885-1919), South Korea 11 years (1966-1977). In China, the
annual growth rate of rural population’s consumption level is 5.6%;
the annual growth rate of per capita net income of farmers is 7.2%,
corresponding to doubling their per capita income every 9.7 years,
which is the major reason leading to China’s great poverty reduction
in rural areas. In 1978 nearly 100% peasant household whose per
capita net income was below 500 yuan; in 1985 the percentage was
77.7%; in 1990 it was 35%; and in 2001 only 2.5%. In 1985 the
percentage of peasant households whose per capita net income was
less than 1000 yuan is 97.69%, while in 2001 the ratio has been
down to only 13.22% , which shows that the extremely poor and the
poor have been sharply decreased.

 A Great deal of rural labor force transfers to non-agricultural

industries.

More and more people are employed in village and township

enterprises. The number has increased from 28.27 million in 1978 to
130.86 million in 2001, accounting for 26.7% of total rural work
 force, compared with the original ratio 9.2%. In addition, in 2001
38.16 million people work in private rural enterprises or are self-
employed, accounting for 7.7% of total rural employees. The total of
the above two ratios is 34.4%, exceeding 1/3 of total rural employed
population.

 Speeding up urbanization.

China has experienced the largest population removing in the world

since the policy of reform and open-up was carried out. This includes
population transference, referring to moving from the place where one
originally lives. In China’s case, it refers to transferring one’s household
register or transforming from agricultural population to non-agricultural
population, directly recruiting personnel for employment from rural areas,
such as graduates of junior college, technical secondary school,
demobilized servicemen, professional personnel, etc.

Population flowing, refers to that the living place remains the same, but
the person himself (or herself) has left the place and stridden across a given
administrative region, temporarily stayed there, and engaged himself in
various activities. The activity of rural labors going to cities for work
belongs to the type of population flowing. In the period of 1982-2000,
206,750,000 people have moved from rural to urban areas, equal to 45.0%
of total urban population in the same period , and 84.6% of newly-
increased rural population. In the same period, 109,600,000 rural labors
move to cities, equal to 45.8% of total town labor force and 94.3% of
newly-increased town labor force. From the above we can see that the
scales of moving population and labor force are enlarging rapidly. In the
1980s, moving population is 8,140,000 and moving labor force is
4,010,000, while in the 1990s, the number is 14,140,000 and 7,750,000
respectively. Some are agricultural population who transform to non-
agricultural population and majority others are rural laborers who go to
cities for work. The wage income has become one of the most important
sources of framer’s income. The ratio of wage income accounting for their
total income has been up to 30.4% in 2001 from 13.2% in 1985, which
shows that peasants have partly enjoyed the benefits brought by
urbanization and non-agricultural industries.

 Implementing export-oriented open-up policies.

China’s export volume has increased rapidly since the policy of

reform and open-up has been carried out, especially the export of
labor-intensive products has increased very rapidly, which plays an
important role in expanding employment and poverty reduction. The
export volume of 2002 is 325.6 billion dollar, increasing by 32 times
than that of 1978. The proportion of export volume accounting for
GDP has increased rapidly from 4.6% in 1978 to 23.0% in 2001. In
addition, China draws foreign investment actively and takes an
active part in economic globalization, which is also a way to large
poverty reduction; especially the foreign economy in Guangdong
and Zhejiang attracts large quantities of surplus agricultural labor
force in different areas. The flowing labor force of Guangdong
accounts for 39% of that of the whole country.

 Human capital has been obviously improved.

The level of people’s education and health condition has been

greatly improved since reform, which is useful to human capital
 accumulation and plays an important role on improving people’s
living standard and poverty reduction. Average educational years of
people above 15 years old has been increased to 7.11 years in 2000
from 4.64 years in 1982. The illiterate population has decreased
largely, the ratio of which has decreased from 22.8% in 1982 to 6.7%
in 2002; the absolutely illiterate population has decreased to
84,920,000 from 231,770,000, of which rural illiterate and
semiliterate population has obviously decreased. Infant mortality rate
has decreased from 37.61% in 1982 to 28.38% in 2000.

The average life expectancy has increased to 71.40 years in 2000

from 67.77 years in 1981. The above demonstrates the important
progress in the area of education and medical care, and the
complementary relationship between economic and social progress.

 Anti-poverty actions adopted by the government.

China’s government made political commitment to reducing

poverty in early 1980s and reflected poverty reduction goals and
plans in the national economic plans. With the development of the
economy ,the central government’s willingness to aid the poor
become stronger and stronger, the input of aiding is also increasing .
In order to protect the benefits of the farmers, the government
adjusted agricultural policies to increase and loosen the price of
agricultural products step by step. As a result, the purchase prices of
agricultural products have greatly increased in the 1980s and the
middle of the 1990s. In 1996, the price index of agricultural products
is 5.5 times as much as that in 1978. The average growth rate per
year is 9.9%. In the corresponding period, the retail price index of
 rural industrial products is 2.9 times and 6.1 times respectively. The
growth rate of farmers’ actual earnings per year (the price index
growth rate of agricultural products minus that of industrial
Products) is 3.8%.

Some interesting facts related to poverty

 At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.

 More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries

where income differentials are widening.

 The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5

percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-
quarters of world income.

 According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to

poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on
earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world.
 Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more
invisible in death.

 Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are

estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account
for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.If
current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of
halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30
million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia
and sub-Saharan Africa

 Based on enrolment data, about 72 million children of primary school

age in the developing world were not in school in 2005; 57 per cent of
them were girls. And these are regarded as optimisitic numbers.

 Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book
or sign their names.

 Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons
was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it
didn’t happen.

 Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the
world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS,
with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million
cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90
percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80
percent of malaria victims worldwide.

Survival for children Worldwide

• 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5

(same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and
Italy)
• 1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking
water and adequate sanitation

Health of children Worldwide

 • 2.2 million children die each year because they are not
immunized
• 15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the
total children population in Germany or United Kingdom)

1. Rural areas account for three in every four people living on less than
US$1 a day and a similar share of the world population suffering
from malnutrition. However, urbanization is not synonymous with
human progress. Urban slum growth is outpacing urban growth by a
wide margin

2. Approximately half the world’s population now live in cities and towns. In
2005, one out of three urban dwellers (approximately 1 billion people) was
living in slum conditions.

3. In developing countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on

biomass—fuelwood, charcoal and animal dung—to meet their energy needs
for cooking. In sub-Saharan Africa, over 80 percent of the population
depends on traditional biomass for cooking, as do over half of the
populations of India and China

4. Indoor air pollution resulting from the use of solid fuels [by poorer
segments of society] is a major killer. It claims the lives of 1.5 million
people each year, more than half of them below the age of five: that is 4000
deaths a day. To put this number in context, it exceeds total deaths from
malaria and rivals the number of deaths from tuberculosis.

5. In 2005, the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total
private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%:
The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted
for 59% of all the consumption:

6. 1.6 billion people — a quarter of humanity — live without electricity:

Breaking that down further:

Number of people living without electricity

Region Millions without electricity
South Asia 706
Sub-Saharan Africa 547
East Asia 224
Other 101
7. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7
richest people combined.

8. World gross domestic product (world population approximately 6.5 billion)

in 2006 was $48.2 trillion in 2006.

• The world’s wealthiest countries (approximately 1 billion people)

accounted for $36.6 trillion dollars (76%).
• The world’s billionaires — just 497 people (approximately
0.000008% of the world’s population) — were worth $3.5 trillion
(over 7% of world GDP). Low income countries (2.4 billion people)
accounted for just $1.6 trillion of GDP (3.3%)

• Middle income countries (3 billion people) made up the rest of GDP

at just over $10 trillion (20.7%).

• The world’s low income countries (2.4 billion people) account for just
2.4% of world exports.The total wealth of the top 8.3 million people
around the world “rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving
them control of nearly a quarter of the world’s financial assets.”

9. For every $1 in aid a developing country receives, over $25 is spent on debt
repayment.

10.51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations.

11.The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of
any industrialized nation.

12.The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being
extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor
received any of the money.

13.In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times
the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.

14.An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and
poorest countries was about:

• 3 to 1 in 1820
• 11 to 1 in 1913
 • 35 to 1 in 1950
• 44 to 1 in 1973
• 72 to 1 in 1992

15.“Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still

chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and
the Pacific.

16.For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years
[of the current form of globalization, from 1980 - 2000] have shown a very
clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades [1960
- 1980]. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal
groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of
the period (1960 or 1980). Among the findings:

• Growth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced

and across the board for all groups or countries.
• Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4
out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest
group (life expectancy 69-76 years).
• Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality
was also considerably slower during the period of globalization
(1980-1998) than over the previous two decades.
• Education and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the
period of globalization.

17.A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water,
and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.

18.Consider the global priorities in spending in 1998

Global Priority $U.S. Billions

Cosmetics in the United States 8
Ice cream in Europe 11
Perfumes in Europe and the United States 12
Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17
Business entertainment in Japan 35
Cigarettes in Europe 50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105
Narcotics drugs in the world 400
Military spending in the world 780
19. And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve
universal access to basic social services in all developing countries:

Global Priority $U.S. Billions

Basic education for all 6
Water and sanitation for all 9
Reproductive health for all women 12
Basic health and nutrition 13

Notes and Sources

1. Sources:
o Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, The developing world is
poorer than we thought, but no less successful in the fight
against poverty, World Bank, August 2008
o For the 95% on $10 a day, see Martin Ravallion, Shaohua Chen
and Prem Sangraula, Dollar a day revisited, World Bank, May
2008. They note that 95% of developing country population
lived on less than $10 a day. Using 2005 population numbers,
this is equivalent to just under 79.7% of world population, and
does not include populations living on less than $10 a day from
industrialized nations.

This figure is based on purchasing power parity (PPP), which

basically suggests that prices of goods in countries tend to equate
under floating exchange rates and therefore people would be able to
purchase the same quantity of goods in any country for a given sum of
money. That is, the notion that a dollar should buy the same amount in
all countries. Hence if a poor person in a poor country living on a
dollar a day moved to the U.S. with no changes to their income, they
would still be living on a dollar a day.

The new poverty line of $1.25 a day was recently announced by the
World Bank (in 2008). For many years before that it had been $1 a
day. But the $1 a day used then would be $1.45 a day now if just
inflation was accounted for.
The new figures from the World Bank therefore confirm concerns that
poverty has not been reduced by as much as was hoped, although it
certainly has dropped since 1981.

However, it appears that much of the poverty reduction in the last

couple of decades almost exclusively comes from China:

o China’s poverty rate fell from 85% to 15.9%, or by over 600

million people
o China accounts for nearly all the world’s reduction in
poverty
o Excluding China, poverty fell only by around 10%

The use of the poverty line of $1 a day had long come under criticism
for seeming arbitrary and using poor quality and limited data thus
risking an underestimate of poverty. The $1.25 a day level is
accompanied with some additional explanations and reasoning,
including that it is a common level found amongst the poorest
countries, and that $2.50 represents a typical poverty level amongst
many more developing countries.
The $10 dollar a day figure above is close to poverty levels in the US,
so is provided here to give a more global perspective to these
numbers, although the World Bank has felt it is not a meaningful
number for the poorest because they are unfortunately unlikely to
reach that level any time soon.

Reasons for poverty in India

No. Earnings of diffrent types of employees in India Converted into
Rs./month
1. Average cost of employee* in Air-India Rs. 53,000
2. Average cost of employee* in MARUTI UDYOG Rs. 24,000
3. Average cost of employee* in the MUMBAI Rs. 16,000
MUNICIPAL CORP.
4. Minimum starting salary in the FIRE Dept. in Mumbai Rs. 7,000
5. Average earning of an Indian - US$ 440 per year or Rs. 1,727
about (This is based on a GDP of US$ 440 billion and
1 billion people)
6. Minimum earning required, as per WORLD BANK, to Rs. 1,410
live at above poverty line, for underdeveloped
countries like India, China etc, about US$ 1.0 per day
or US$ 30 per month
7. MINIMUM WAGES, as per Government of India, for Rs. 1,250
all the States, about Rs. 40 to 60 per day per person,
average about Rs. 50 per day. For 25 days per month
8. POVERTY LINE definition, as per Government of Rs. 300
India, see below for explanation, at Rs. 10 per day, per
person, approx.
Other related & relevant data In millions,
people
9. Number of people, in India, who are below poverty About 300
line million (30 Cr.)
10. Number of people, in India, who work in the organized About 19
Public Sector, i.e. with the Central and State govt. million (1.9.)
11. Number of people, in India, who work in the organized About 8 million
Private Sector (0.8 Cr.)
12. Number of people, in India, who work in the About 320
unorganized Sector million (32 Cr.)
13. Number of people, in India, who are unemployed About 300
approximately million (30 Cr.)
14. Number of JOBS which need to be created every year, About 10
to fulfill the aspirations of the people of India million/yr. (1
Cr.)
15. Number of people BORN every year in India (China is About 27
only 10 million per yea million/yr. (2.7
Cr.)
16. Number of people, in India, who are below 35 years of About 700
Causes of poverty in India

Rural life in rajasthan

Slum shacks and a rubbish-laden river, with a child in the middle, in the
Indian Himalayas.

In summary, the official poverty rates recorded by NSS :

Year Round Poverty Rate (%) Poverty Reduction per year(%)

1977-78 32 51.3

1983 38 44.5 1.3

1987-88 43 38.9 1.2

1993-94 50 36.0 0.5

1999-00 55 26.9 7.4

2004-05 61 27.5 0.8

History of attempts to alleviate poverty

Since the early 1950s, government has initiated, sustained, and refined
various planning schemes to help the poor attain self sufficiency in food
production. Probably the most important initiative has been the supply of
basic commodities, particularly food at controlled prices, available
throughout the country as poor spend about 80 percent of their income on
foodOutlook for poverty alleviation

Eradication of poverty in India is generally only considered to be a long-

term goal. Poverty alleviation is expected to make better progress in the next
50 years than in the past, as a trickle-down effect of the growing middle
class. Increasing stress on education, reservation of seats in government jobs
and the increasing empowerment of women and the economically weaker
sections of society, are also expected to contribute to the alleviation of
poverty. It is incorrect to say that all poverty reduction programmes have
failed. The growth of the middle class (which was virtually non-existent
when India became a free nation in August 1947) indicates that economic
prosperity has indeed been very impressive in India, but the distribution of
wealth is not at all even.

After the liberalization process and moving away from the socialist model,
India is adding 60-70 million people to its middle class every year. Analysts
such as the founder of "Forecasting International", Marvin J. Cetron writes
that an estimated 390 million Indians now belong to the middle class; one-
third of them have emerged from poverty in the last ten years. At the current
rate of growth, a majority of Indians will be middle-class by 2025. Literacy
rates have risen from 52 percent to 65 percent during the initial decade of
liberalization (1991-2001).[ Controversy over extent of poverty reduction
While total overall poverty in India has declined, the extent of poverty
reduction is often debated. While there is a consensus that there has not been
increase in poverty between 1993-94 and 2004-05, the picture is not so clear
if one considers other non-pecuniary dimensions (such as health, education,
crime and access to infrastructure). With the rapid economic growth that
India is experiencing, it is likely that a significant fraction of the rural
population will continue to migrate toward cities, making the issue of urban
poverty more significant in the long run [26].

Economist Pravin Visaria has defended the validity of many of the statistics
that demonstrated the reduction in overall poverty in India, as well as the
declaration made by India's former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha that
poverty in India has reduced significantly. He insisted that the 1999-2000
survey was well designed and supervised and felt that just because they did
not appear to fit preconceived notions about poverty in India, they should
not be dismissed outright[27]. Nicholas Stern, vice president of the World
Bank, has published defenses of the poverty reduction statistics. He argues
that increasing globalization and investment opportunities have contributed
significantly to the reduction of poverty in the country. India, together with
China, have shown the clearest trends of globalization with the accelerated
rise in per-capita income.[28].

A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the

Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million
people, lived on less than 20 rupees per day (USD 0.50 nominal, USD 2.0 in
PPP), with most working in "informal labour sector with no job or social
security, living in abject poverty."[29][30]

A study by the McKinsey Global Institute found that in 1985, 93% of the
Indian population lived on a household income of less than 90,000 rupees a
year, or about a dollar per person per day; by 2005 that proportion had been
cut nearly in half, to 54%. More than 103 million people have moved out of
desperate poverty in the course of one generation in urban and rural areas as
well. They project that if India can achieve 7.3% annual growth over the
next 20 years, 465 million more people will be spared a life of extreme
deprivation. Contrary to popular perceptions, rural India has benefited from
this growth: extreme rural poverty has declined from 94% in 1985 to 61% in
2005, and they project that it will drop to 26% by 2025. Report concludes
that India's economic reforms and the increased growth that has resulted
have been the most successful anti-poverty programmes in the country.
In New Delhi, a woman wields Women washing clothes in ditch
pickaxe on a footpath alongside main road in Mumbai
maintenance project while her
husband takes a break and
her baby sleeps

Slums adjoining the railway A beggar in India, it shows the high

tracks at Bandra station in level of poverty in India.
mumbai

IS SOCIAL SECURITY A SOLUTION- A US

T he term "social security" originally described

any program intended to help people with limited financial resources.

These people can include the poor, the physically disabled, the mentally ill

and the elderly. European trade guilds had the first such programs, with

government sponsored "poor laws" coming later.

The Great Depression of the 1930s brought into sharp focus the need for a

comprehensive system to provide enough money to the poor and elderly so

that they could live independently. Millions of Americans had no job or

couldn't earn enough money to feed their families. In 1932, Franklin

Roosevelt was sworn in as President with the Depression in full swing. He

proposed an idea known as social insurance. This idea would eventually

develop into the Social Security system of today

Over the decades, the U.S. government has adjusted the SSA retirement-

assistance system to cope with changes in the population and the economic

situation. Among other changes, families of workers were made eligible to

receive payments; cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, were added so

that Social Security benefits could increase along with inflation without

requiring a major act of Congress; and disability provisions were added to

the program.

A modern Social Security card showing the placeholder name of Jane Doe.
 Social Security in the United States currently refers to the federal Old Age,

Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.

The original Social Security Act and the current version of the Act, as

amended encompass several social welfare or social insurance programs.

The larger and better known initiatives of the program are:

• Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance

• Unemployment benefits

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

• Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)

Tax deposits are formally entrusted to Federal Old-Age and Survivors

Insurance.

EVALUATION OF THE POPULATION POLICY

The population policy can be evaluated in terms of failures and
achievements of the policy. The population policy of the government has
failed to a certain extent to control the growth of population, and to improve
the quality of population. However there are certain achievements that can
be credited to this policy.

Limitations/ Failures:-
 • Overemphasis on contraceptives:
There has been too much emphasis on the use of contraceptives to control
population. There is high growth of population especially among the poorer
sections of the society both in rural and urban areas. Mr. B.R.Sen asserts
that the major cause of our population problem is poverty. Therefore, if
population problem is to be solved, then special attention must be given to
poverty eradication measures, particularly in rural areas.
Attention must be given to health care with a special focus on reducing
infant morality, and also on education.
States such as Kerela and Goa, where there is high level of literacy and
better health care, the population growth is on decline as compared to other
states. Therefore the highly populated States need to learn from the
experience of low growth population States.

• Lack of Political will:

There has been lack of political will to take hard decisions relating to
population control. For instance, the Government could have implemented
disincentives such as debarring from government jobs, or in contesting
elections etc., to those persons who have only two children.

• Low Plan Outlay:

The government of India had allocated low outlay for family welfare
programmes. For instance, it was below 2% of the total plan outlay during
the ninth plan. In order to control the rapid growth of population, the plan
outlay could have been higher at around 3%.
• Problem of Literacy:
The problem of female literacy, especially in the highly populated states
like Bihar, UP, and Rajasthan is responsible for the high birth rate.
Apart from low literacy, there exist social and religious conditions, which
do not discourage the growth of population.
• Poor Coordination:
Poor coordination between the central government and the state
governments as far as the implementation of the family welfare
programmes. Even at the local level there has been poor monitoring of
family welfare programmes by the state government. As a result, there has
been poor implementation of family welfare schemes by government
authorities.
• Poor Implementations of Campaigns:
There has been poor implementation of family welfare Campaigns in
rural areas, especially in highly backward areas, where a good number of
poor people live and have large size families.

Achievements:
The objectives of population policy is not just to control the rapid growth
of population, but also to improve the quality of life of the people in terms
of improvement in literacy, and life expectancy. The following are the
achievements of population policies, adopted since independence in India

• Fall in Birth Rate:

birth rate has come down from 40/1000 in 1951 to 25.4/1000 in 2001
• Fall in Death Rate:
 The death rate has come down from 27/1000 in 1951 to 8.4/1000 in 2001
• Decline in Growth Rate of Population:
The growth rate of population has come down from 2.2% in 1971 to
1.7% in 2001.
• Small Family Concept:
The small family concept is being adopted by a good number of
families, especially among the middle class and upper class. The family
planning programmes have created awareness of the importance of small-
size families, especially in urban areas. In urban area, the dual career
couples adopt the DISK or the DINK concepts.
• Improvement in Literacy:
The literacy level has increased from 18% in 1951 to 65% in 2001. This
has resulted in low birth rates, especially in the middle class and upper
class families.
• Decline in Infant Mortality Rate:
Better medical facilities and awareness have resulted in low infant
mortality rates from 146/1000 in 1951 to 64/1000 in 2001.

• Improvement in Life Expectancy:

The population policy has also resulted in improvement in life
expectancy from 32 years in 1951 to 65 years in 2001 due to better health
and medical care.
• Decline in Total Fertility Rate:
The total fertility rate refers to the average number of children born per
woman. The total fertility rate has declined from about 6 in 1951 to 3 in
2001.
• Increase in Couple Protection Rate:
The percentage of couples effectively protected in reproductive age
group has significantly gone up from 10.4% in 1971 to 48.2% in 1999.

Conclusion:

Although some progress is being made to contain population, yet the

result are not very satisfactory, and India’s population is growing at an
alarming rate. The government has to take serious and sincere measures to
contain population growth in order to bring about social and economic
development in the country.
Poverty is restriction and as such, it is the greatest injustice you can
perpetrate upon yourself.