#dnaEdit: Poverty matters

It is a matter of common sense that poverty figures need to be revised from time to time. Therefore, the figures that the Rangarajan Committee has come up with for the number of people below the poverty line in rural and urban areas should not come as a surprise. The latest figures show that there are now 363 million people or 29.6 per cent of the population that is poor. The previous figure as calculated by the Suresh Tendulkar Committee and used by the Planning Commission was 269.8 million people — or 21.9 per cent based on 2004-05 prices. The Tendulkar committee figure was considered low and the Rangarajan Committee was set up to review it.

The question is whether the latest figure is a mere correction of the Tendulkar committee conclusions which were made in 2009, or is it the case that in the period between 2004-05 and 2011-12, poverty levels have increased. This would not in any way negate the earlier conclusions but it does throw a critical light on the anti-poverty measures taken up by the two United Progressive Alliance (UPA) governments in the seven years from 2004-05. It could be argued that the poverty lines will continue to evolve, and the new figures reflect the new criteria, which should be made explicit.  The Planning Commission had indicated that the Rangarajan Committee will have access to the 68th National Sample Survey based on Household Consumer Expenditure Survey. It is natural that rising inflation and falling growth rates of the last five years and more should have an impact on poverty levels. 

It will be too simplistic to argue that the number of poor people has increased and that is the catastrophe. It makes for good political rhetoric but is of little use either to the poor or to the governments which will need to evolve policies to tackle the issue of poverty. The BJP and its NDA partners are sure to criticise the UPA’s misguided and ineffective anti-poverty measures. The Congress and the UPA may be on the back foot for the moment, but it is not a very useful exercise. 

The general argument has been that since economic liberalisation of 1991, the poverty levels have steadily gone down because overall growth levels in these years have shown remarkable improvement. By the same token, it will have to be conceded that when growth is affected, the people most under stress would be the poor. In the years of low growth it will be natural that those who were marginally above the poverty levels will be the first to fall below the poverty line. This should force policy-makers to consider ways and means of protecting the poor people in times of economic stress. The government’s welfare measures, akin to the sops it is found to give to industrialists and farmers in similar circumstances, should be geared to help the poor battling economic distress. A bailout plan for industry and agriculture should also be directed to the poor. The package doled out to the other segments of the economy does not automatically take care of the poor because industry and agriculture take governmental help but do not save jobs because it is not passed on. The Rangarajan Committee figures should be seen in the specific context of post-2008 global financial meltdown. It would also be useful to examine whether programmes like MNREGA  have been helpful to the poor when they needed it the most.