Ask a Teacher

Search



what are the main poverty eradication programmes implemented in India?
Poverty had declined substantially in 1980s. Proportion of people below poverty line declined from 54.9 % in 1973-74 to 36 % in 1993-94. However, recent estimates suggest that the projections on reduction of proportion and number of people below poverty line made in the Ninth Plan have not been realised in the first two years of the plan period.

This may be due to: sluggish agricultural growth which was also less well spread out; labour absorption did not increase hence slow down in growth of real wages; failure of poverty alleviation and watershed development schemes; continuance of certain policies that act against the interest of the poorest, especially tribals; inadequate reach of TPDS to the poorest in the northern and eastern states; fiscal crisis caused by the V Pay commission that led to reduced ability of the states to spend on social sectors; limited growth of rural non-farm sector; and poor governance.

Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) evaluation points: sub-critical investment; unviable projects; illiterate and unskilled beneficiaries with no experience in managing an enterprise; indifferent delivery of credit by banks, overcrowding of lending in certain projects such as dairy; under emphasis on activities like trading, service and even simple processing, poor targeting and selection of non-poor; rising indebtedness; scale of IRDP outstripped capacity of government and banks to absorb.

Integrated Rural Development Programme-Allied Programmes: TRYSEM not dovetailed with IRDP. Non-existent training centres, non-payment of stipend (Chhapra study). DWCRA did well in some states (AP, Kerala, Gujarat).

Sawarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (the successor to IRDP) aims at micro-enterprises with emphasis on cluster approach. It is a credit-cum-subsidy programme. Focus on self-help groups. In the past, subsidy orientation leads to corruption and distortion of objectives. Too early to evaluate.

Jawahar Rozgar Yojana evaluation points: inadequate employment (11 days as per concurrent evaluation); thin spread of resources; violation of material-labour norms; corruption (fudging of muster rolls). Projects were executed by contractors who sometimes hired outside labourers at lower wages. Positive aspects: durable community assets and empowerment of gram panchayats. Redesigned in April 1999 as Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana. Primary aim now rural infrastructure. Employment is secondary. Too early to evaluate.

Employment Assurance Scheme. Initially demand-driven. Funds went to better-off states. Evaluation by PEO: scheme is being executed through contractors in most of the States in violation of the central guidelines; the norm of 60:40 for wage and material is not maintained; the genuine muster rolls are not being maintained by the Gram Panchayats. Family cards have not been issued; the system of registration of job seekers with Gram Panchayats is not in vogue; Central norms of earmarking, 40 per cent of funds for watershed development and 20 per cent for minor irrigation, have not been followed.

From April 1999 restructured as the single wage employment scheme; became allocative; 30% of funds allocated to district reserved for areas suffering from endemic labour exodus/areas of distress. Need to shift focus only to backward areas; should not be a universal scheme.

NSAP. Well-targeted. Fewer leakages reported. Needs more resources.

Delivery mechanism. A major weakness in the implementation of poverty alleviation programmes has been the lack of adequate participation by the people for whom the programmes are meant. There should be emphasis on the role of PRIs and NGOs.

State Initiatives do better because of better ownership and flexibility in the design of programmes to suit local conditions. Examples: Gokul Gram Yojana, Apna Gaon Apna Kaam, Kudumshree.

Rural Housing : Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) became an Independent CSS from 1.1.1996. Free of cost houses are provided to below poverty line families. Unit cost is Rs.20,000 in plain and Rs.22,000 in hill/tribal areas. Updation of existing houses at a unit cost of Rs.10,000 is now permissible. A new component of credit-cum-subsidy has also been added. In any given village/block/district it would take a long time before all the families are covered. This is dividing the poor instead of helping them to organise into groups. Despite orders, gram sabhas are not active in deciding beneficiaries.

Land Reforms : Access to land is still critical for employment and income generation in rural areas.

Access to land is possible through liberalisation of leasing, but leasing-in should be limited to small and marginal farmers. In areas characterised by feudal/semi feudal modes of production, there is need to further strengthen the existing laws for security of tenure of the poor.

Alienation of tribal land continues unabated but needs to be arrested.

Gender inequality exists in both inheritance laws and land laws. Suitable Amendments are required to make inheritance laws to agricultural land more gender equal.


comments powered by Disqus