1.

iii

iSOCIAL iREPORT

ON

POVERTY iIN iINDIA

Submitted iin ipartial ifulfilment iof ithe irequirements ifor ithe iaward iof ithe idegree iof

to

Chhatrapati iSahu iJi iMaharaj iUniversity, iKanpur i

Under ithe iGuidance iof Submitted by ANKUSH JHA

Miss iPalak bajpai i i i i i i i i i i i i Roll No 2330077 i

Session i2023-2024
 PSIT iCollege iof iHigher iEducation, iKanpur

DECLARATION

I hereby declare 1that the Project Report entitled “POVERTY IN INDIA” submitted to
PSIT College of Higher1Education, Kanpur in partial fulfillment1of Degree of Bachelor
of Business1Administration is the original work conducted by me. The information and
data given in the1report is authentic to the1best of my knowledge.

This Project Report is not1being submitted to1any other University for award of any
other1Degree, Diploma and1Fellowship.

Place: Kanpur ANKUSH JHA

Date: 11/04/24 Roll No: 23070001800

 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project Work entitled “POVERTY IN INDIA” is a bon
ANKUSH JHA (Roll No: 23070001800) BBA-II Semester and has been done under my
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of BBA Degree from CSJM University

This report neither full nor in part has been submitted before for awarding of any Degree/D
from this university or any other university. I am pleased to say that the performance
during the period survey work was extremely satisfactory.

Ms. Palak bajpa

Ms. Garima Gupta (Assistant Professo
(HOD) (Project Guide)

Date: 11-04-2024
Place: Kanpur
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I iundertook ithis iproject iwork, ias ia ipart iof iSocial iReport iof imy iBBA- iII iSemes

iI ihave itried ito iapply imy ibest iof iknowledge iand iexperience, igained iduring ithe ir

iand istudy iabout ithis itopic. iHowever isocial iresearch iis igenerally iquite icomplex ia

consuming iprocess. iIt irequires ia isystematic istudy, iinsight ivision iand iprofessional

iduring ithe iresearch. iMoreover, ithe iresearcher ialways ifeels ithe ineed, ithe ihelp iand

iwishes iof ithe ipeople inear iyou, iwho ihave iconsiderable iexperience iand iidea.

I iwould ilike ito iextend imy isincere ithanks iand igratitude ito imy imentor Ms.palak ba

iwould ilike ito itake ithe iopportunity ito iextend imy isincere ithanks iand igratitude ito

iparents ifor ibeing ia isource iof iinspiration iand iproviding itime iand ifreedom ito icre

isocial ireport.
 TABLE iOF iCONTENT

 INTRODUCTION

 THE iPROBLEM iOF iPOVERTY

 POVERTY iIN iINDIA

 POVERTY iIN iUTTAR iPRADESH i

 POVERTY iINDEX i

 OBJECTIVE iOF iSTUDY

 SIGNIFICANCE iOF Istudy

 FINDINGS

 CONCLUSION

 REFRENCES
 CHAPTER- i1

INTRODUCTION
iON
POVERTY i

WHAT iIS iTHE iMEANING iOF iPOVERTY?

Poverty1 irefers ito ia isituation iwhen ipeople iare ideprived iof isufficient ifood, ishelter

iand iother ibasic i1necessities iof ilife. iWhen ia ibig iportion iof ithe isufficient ifood,

ishelter iand iother ibasic i1necessities iof ilife. iWhen ia ibig iportion iof ithe ipopulation

iis ideprived iof ithe iminimum iliving1 istandard iand isurvives ionly ion ithe isurvival

ilevel, ithen iit iis isaid ithat ipoverty iis iwidely1 ispread iin ithe ipopulation.
iIt iis ionly iin ithe i1second ihalf iof i20th icentury ithat ipoverty iand ithe ipoor ihave

igained iour iconcern iand iobligation.1 iAfter ia ilong ineglect iof ithe ipoor iduring ithe

iBritish irule, ithe imeasures iadopted iafter i1independence isignify ithe irecognition iof

ipoverty iand ithe isocial iresponsibility ifor ialleviating iit.1 iHow idid ithis ihappen?

iWhat ihave iwe idone? iHow ifar ihave iwe isucceeded?1 iBefore iattempting ito

ianswer ithese iquestions,1 ilet ius ifirst idiscuss ithe iconcept iof ipoverty.

FACTS iON iPOVERTY iIN iINDIA?

Tribal, iDalits iand ilabor1 iclass iincluding ifarm iworkers iin ivillages iand icasual

iworkers iin icities iare istill ivery ipoor i1and imake ithe ipoorest iclass iin iIndia. i60%

iof ithe ipoor istill ireside iin ithe istates iof iBihar, iJharkhand, iOdisha, iMadhya
iPradesh, iChhattisgarh, iUttar iPradesh iand iUttarakhand. i1The ireason ifor ithese

istates ito ibe iin ithe icategory iof ithe ipoor istates iis ithat i85% iof itribal ipeople ilive

ithere.1 iAccording ito iGlobal iHunger iIndex i(GHI) ireport i2012, iby ithe

iInternational iFood iResearch1 iInstitute, iIndia iranks i97th iin iglobal ihunger iindex. i

iIndia iat ipresent, ihas ia igreater ishare iof ipoor1 iaround ithe iworld. i30 iyears iago,

iIndia iwas ione-fifth iof ithe iworld’s ipoor ibut inow iit iis1 ihome ito ione- ithird iof

ipoor ipeople. iThis imeans iwe inow ihave ia ilarger ishare iof ipoor iin iIndia i1than i30

iyears iago, i6.5 icrore iIndians ilive iin iextreme ipoverty, iabout i4.9% iof ithe

ipopulation1. iAbout i41.6 iIndians iescape ipoverty ievery isecond. iIndia iis ion itrack

ito ieradicate iextreme1 ipoverty iby i2030.

The iWorld iBank iOrganization idescribes ipoverty iin ithis iway:

Poverty iis ihunger. iPoverty iis ilack iof ishelter. iPoverty iis ibeing isick iand inot ibeing

iable ito isee ia idoctor. iPoverty iis inot ihaving iaccess1 ito ischool iand inot iknowing

ihow ito iread. iPoverty iis inot ihaving ia ijob, iis ifear ifor i1the ifuture, iliving ione iday

iat ia itime.

Poverty ihas imany ifaces, ichanging ifrom iplace ito i1place iand iacross itime, iand ihas
ibeen idescribed iin imany iways. i iMost ioften, ipoverty i1is ia isituation ipeople iwant
ito iescape. iSo, ipoverty iis ia icall ito iaction i-- ifor i1the ipoor iand ithe iwealthy ialike
i-- ia icall ito ichange ithe iworld iso ithat imany imore1 imay ihave ienough ito ieat,
iadequate ishelter, iaccess ito ieducation iand ihealth, i1protection ifrom iviolence, iand ia
ivoice iin iwhat ihappens iin itheir icommunities1.”
In iaddition ito ia ilack iof imoney, ipoverty iis iabout1 inot ibeing iable ito iparticipate
iin irecreational iactivities; inot ibeing iable ito isend i1children ion ia iday itrip iwith
itheir ischoolmates ior ito ia ibirthday iparty; inot ibeing i1able ito ipay ifor imedications
ifor ian iillness. i iThese iare iall icosts iof ibeing ipoor. i1Those ipeople iwho iare ibarely
iable ito ipay ifor ifood iand ishelter isimply ican’t iconsider1 ithese iother iexpenses. i
iWhen ipeople iare iexcluded iwithin ia isociety, iwhen ithey1 iare inot iwell ieducated
iand iwhen ithey ihave ia ihigher iincidence iof iillness, ithere1 iare inegative
iconsequences ifor isociety. i iWe iall ipay ithe iprice ifor ipoverty. i iThe1 iincreased
icost ion ithe ihealth isystem, ithe ijustice isystem iand iother isystems ithat i1provide
isupports ito ithose iliving iin ipoverty ihas ian iimpact ion iour i1economy.

CHAPTER- i2

The iProblem iof iPoverty

Poverty ientails imore ithan ithe ilack iof iincome1 iand iproductive iresources ito iensure

isustainable ilivelihoods. iIts imanifestations iinclude1 ihunger iand imalnutrition,

ilimited iaccess ito ieducation iand iother ibasic iservices, isocial1 idiscrimination iand

iexclusion ias iwell ias ithe ilack iof iparticipation iin i1decision-making.

Absolute ipoverty iwas idefined1 ias: iA icondition icharacterized iby isevere

ideprivation iof ibasic ihuman ineeds, iincluding ifood,1 isafe idrinking iwater, isanitation

ifacilities, ihealth, ishelter, ieducation iand iinformation. iIt1 idepends inot ionly ion

iincome ibut ialso ion iaccess ito iservices.

Relative ip ioverty idescribes icircumstances1 iin iwhich ipeople icannot iafford iactively

ito iparticipate iin isociety iand ibenefit ifrom ithe i1activities iand iexperiences ithat

imost ipeople itake ifor igranted. iIt iis iconventionally idefined1 ias i40, i50 ior i60

ipercent iof inational imedian idisposable i1income.

Situational ipoverty i1is igenerally icaused iby ia isudden icrisis ior iloss iand iis ioften

itemporary. iEvents icausing1 isituational ipoverty iinclude ienvironmental idisasters,

idivorce, ior isevere ihealth i1problems. iGenerational ipoverty ioccurs iin ifamilies

iwhere iat ileast itwo igenerations ihave i1been iborn iinto ipoverty.

Generational ipoverty iis ia i1term iapplied ito ifamilies iwho ihave iexperienced ipoverty

ifor iat ileast itwo igenerations. iIt ican i1affect ievery iaspect iof ia iperson's ilife:

iphysical, isocial, i

emotional iand imental. iHere's i1what iwe iknow iabout ichildren iborn iinto ipoverty:

iThey ithink iit's itheir ifault: iThey ifeel i1great ishame.

 CHAPTER- i3

POVERTY iIN iINDIA: i iFROM iVILLAGES iTO iSLUM-

More ithan i800 imillion ipeople i1in iIndia iare iconsidered ipoor. iMost iof ithem ilive

iin ithe icountryside iand ikeep1afloat iwith1 iodd ijobs. iThe ilack iof iemployment

iwhich iprovides ia ilivable iwage iin irural iareas iis idriving1 imany iIndians iinto

irapidly igrowing imetropolitan iareas isuch ias iBombay, iDelhi, iBangalore ior1

iCalcutta. iThere, imost iof ithem iexpect ia ilife iof ipoverty iand idespair iin ithe imega-

slums i1made iup iof imillions iof icorrugated iironworks, iwithout isufficient idrinking

iwater isupply, i1without igarbage idisposal iand iin imany icases iwithout

ielectricity.1The ipoor ihygiene iconditions1 iare ithe icause iof idiseases isuch ias

icholera, ityphus iand idysentery, iin iwhich iespecially1 ichildren isuffer iand idie.

Poverty iin iIndia iimpacts ichildren, ifamilies iand i1individuals iin ia ivariety iof

idifferent iways ithrough:

 High iinfant imortality

 Malnutrition

 Child ilabor

 Lack iof ieducation

 Child imarriage

 HIV i/ iAIDS

The ihigh iinfant imortality

1.4 imillion ichildren idie ieach iyear iin iIndia1 ibefore itheir ififth ibirthday. iIn

iaddition ito iNigeria, iPakistan, ithe iDemocratic iRepublic1 iof ithe iCongo iand

iChina, iIndia iis ione iof ithe icountries iwith ithe ihighest ichild imortality1

irates. iPneumonia, imalaria iand idiarrheal idiseases ias iwell ias ichronic

imalnutrition i1are ithe imost ifrequent icauses iof i1death.

Malnutrition–not ieven ia ibowl iof irice ia iday

India iis ione1 iof ithe iworld’s itop icountries iwhen iit icomes ito imalnutrition:

iMore ithan i2001 imillion ipeople idon’t ihave isufficient iaccess ito ifood,

iincluding i61 imillion i1children. i7.8 imillion iinfants iwere ifound ito ihave ia

ibirth iweight iof iless ithan i2.5 ikilograms1 i- ialarming ifigures ifor ia icountry

icommonly ireferred ito ias ithe iemerging i1market.

Child ilabor i- ino itime ito iplay iand ilearn

Although i11child ilabor ifor ichildren iunder ithe iage iof i14 iin iIndia iis

iprohibited iby ilaw, iaccording1 ito iofficial ifigures, i12.5 imillion ichildren

ibetween ithe iages iof i5 iand i14 iare iworking. iAid iagencies iassume ithat iin

ireality, ithere iare imany imore iestimating ithat i651 imillion ichildren ibetween

i6 iand i14 iyears ido inot igo ito ischool. iInstead, iin iorder ito i1secure isurvival,

iit iis ibelieved ithat iIndian ichildren icontribute ito ithe ilivelihood iof i1their
ifamilies; ithey iwork iin ithe ifield, iin ifactories, iin iquarries, iin iprivate

ihouseholds1 iand iin iprostitution.

Lack iof ieducation i- ino iopportunities iwithout ieducation

According ito iUNICEF1, iabout i25% iof ichildren iin iIndia ihave ino iaccess ito

ieducation. iThe inumber i1of ichildren iexcluded ifrom ischool iis ihigher

iamong igirls ithan iboys. iAlthough iwomen1 iand imen iare itreated iequally

iunder iIndian ilaw, igirls iand iwomen, iespecially iin ithe1 ilower isocial icaste,

iare iconsidered iinferior iand iare ioppressed iby itheir ifathers, ibrothers1 iand

ihusbands. iWithout ieducation, ithe ichance iof ifinding ia iliving iwage ifrom

iemployment1 iin iIndia iis ivirtually ihopeless.

Child imarriage i- ithe iearly iend iof ichildhood

In ispite iof ibanning iminors ifrom imarrying iin i12006, iit iis istill iwidespread

iin imany iregions iof iIndia. iThe imain i1leaders iin ithis i1practice iare iyoung

igirls, iwho iare istill ichildren ithemselves iand ibecome imothers itoo iearly.

iMany iof ithem idie iat ibirth. iAccording ito ian iinvestigation1 iby ithe

imedical1 ijournal iThe iLancet, i44.5% iof igirls iare istill imarried iin iIndia

ibefore ithey iare iof1 ilegal iage.

HIV i/ iAIDS i- ia itaboo iin iIndian isociety

2.7 imillion iIndians iare iinfected iwith ithe iHIV ivirus; iabout i220,000 iof

ithem iare ichildren, iwith ithe itendency irising. iThe ilack iof i1education iand

ithe ilack iof icondoms imean ithat ithe ivirus iis ispreading ifaster i1and ifaster

iand imore iand imore ipeople iare idying iof iAIDS i- iespecially iin ithe islums

i1of ithe igrowing icities. iMore iand imore ichildren iare iliving1 ithere ias iso-

called iAIDS1 iorphans, ioften ibeing iinfected iwith ithe ivirus1 ias iwell.

SOS iChildren's iVillages i- ifighting ipoverty iin iIndia

Since i1963, ithe iSOS iChildren's iVillages ihave ibeen iinvolved iin iIndia. iIn ia

itotal iof i41 iSOS iChildren's iVillages1 iacross ithe ivast icountry, iaround

i18,000 ichildren iand iyoung ipeople ifind ia inew ihome1 i- ithe imajority iof

ithem iare igirls. iIn ithe inine iSOS iVocational iTraining iCenters, iover1 i1,300

iyoung ipeople iare icompleting ia iqualified ivocational itraining. iMedical1 iand

ipsychological ihelp iis iavailable ito ineedy ifamilies iin ithe i34 iSOS iSocial

i1Centers iand ithe itwo iSOS iMedical iCenters. iThe iSOS iChildren's iVillages

iis iworking itogether1 iwith iother iaid iorganizations iand ithe ipopulation1 ito

ifight ipoverty iin iIndia.

Sponsor ia iChild iin iIndia

 SOS irelies ion ithe ikindness iand igenerosity iof iCanadians ito ibe iable ito

iprovide ia ihome ifor ithe imost i1vulnerable ichildren iof iIndia.

sponsor ia ichild iin iIndia1 iand ihelp iprovide ian iorphaned i1or iabandoned

ichild iwith:

For ijust i$36/month iyou ican isponsor ia ichild iin iIndia iand1 ihelp iprovide ian

iorphaned ior iabandoned ichild iwith:

 A isafe iand i1nurturing ihome

 A iloving1 iSOS imothers

 Quality ieducation

 Healthcare

 Nutritious ifood

 Clothing iand itoys

 All ithe ithings inecessary ifor ia ibright ifuture.

POVERTY iIN iINDIA

India iis ia ideveloping1 ination. iAlthough iits ieconomy iis igrowing, ipoverty iis istill

ia imajor ichallenge. iHowever,1 ipoverty iis ion ithe idecline iin iIndia. iAccording ito

ian iInternational iMonetary iFund ipaper,1 iextreme ipoverty, idefined iby ithe iWorld

iBank ias iliving ion iUS$1.9 ior iless iin ipurchasing ipower1 iparity i(PPP) iterms, iin

iIndia iwas ias ilow ias i0.8% iin i2019 iand ithe icountry imanaged ito ikeep1 iit iat ithat

ilevel iin i2020 idespite ithe iunprecedented iCovid-19 ioutbreak. iAccording ito iUnited1

iNations iDevelopment iProgram iadministrator iAchim iSteiner, iIndia ilifted i271

imillion1 ipeople iout iof iextreme ipoverty iin ia i10-year itime iperiod ifrom i2005–

2006 ito i2015–2016. iA i20201 istudy ifrom ithe iWorld iEconomic iForum ifound

i"Some i220 imillion iIndians isustained ion1 ian iexpenditure ilevel iof iless ithan iRs

i32 i/ iday—the ipoverty iline ifor irural iIndia—by ithe1 ilast iheadcount iof ithe ipoor

iin iIndia iin i2013.

The iWorld iBank ihas ibeen irevising iits i1definition iand ibenchmarks ito imeasure

ipoverty isince i1990–1991, iwith ia i$0.2 iper iday i1income ion ipurchasing ipower

iparity ibasis ias ithe idefinition iin iuse ifrom i2005 ito i2013. iSome1 isemi-economic

iand inon-economic iindices ihave ialso ibeen iproposed ito imeasure ipoverty1 iin iIndia.

iFor iexample, iin iorder ito idetermine iwhether ia iperson iis ipoor, ithe iMulti-

dimensional1 iPoverty iIndex iplaces ia i13% iweight ion ithe inumber iof iyears ithat

iperson ispent iin ischool1 ior iengaged iin ieducation iand ia i6.25% iweight ion ithe

ifinancial icondition1 iof ithat iperson.

The idifferent idefinitions iand iunderlying ismall isample isurveys iused ito idetermine

ipoverty iin iIndia ihave iresulted iin iwidely1 ivarying iestimates iof ipoverty ifrom ithe

i1950s ito i2010s. iIn i2019, ithe iIndian igovernment1 istated ithat i6.7of iits ipopulation

iis ibelow iits iofficial ipoverty ilimit. iBased ion i2019's1 iPPPs iInternational

iComparison iProgram, iaccording ito ithe iUnited iNations iMillennium1 iDevelopment

iGoals i(MDG) iprogramme, i80 imillion ipeople iout iof i1.2 ibillion iIndians,1 iroughly

iequal ito i6.7% iof iIndia's ipopulation, ilived ibelow ithe ipoverty iline iof i$1.25 iin1

i2018–19.

From ithe ilate i19th icentury ithrough1 ithe iearly i20th icentury, iunder ithe iBritish

iRaj, ipoverty iin iIndia iintensified, ipeaking iin ithe1 i1920s. iFamines iand idiseases

ikilled imillions iin imultiple ivicious icycles ithroughout i1the i19th iand iearly i20th

icenturies. iAfter iIndia igained i

its iindependence iin i1947, imass ideaths1 ifrom ifamines iwere iprevented. iSince

i1991, irapid ieconomic igrowth ihas iled ito ia isharp ireduction iin iextreme ipoverty iin

iIndia.

CHAPTER- i4

POVERTY iIN iUTTAR iPRADESH

The ireport ianalyzes ipoverty iincidence iin iIndia iand iin iparticular, iin iUttar iPradesh

i(UP), iand idefines iits ipoverty ilevels, itrends, iand ivulnerability. iWhile iUP ionce

iappeared ipositioned ito ibe ithe ipace-setter ifor iIndia's ieconomic, iand isocial
idevelopment iin ilight iof iits irich ipotential iin ihuman, iand inatural iresources,

ieconomic igrowth ifaltered iin ithe i1990s. i iThe ireport idocuments ipoverty ialong ia

inumber iof idimensions, ii.e., imaterial iand ihuman ideprivation, iwhere ipoverty, iif

imeasured iin iterms iof imaterial ideprivation, iis ihigh, iand iprogress iat ireducing iit,

ihas ibeen iuneven iover ithe ipast itwo idecades. iStatistics iregarding ihuman

ideprivation, ireveal iaverages, ie.g., iin iliteracy iwell ibelow ithe iall-India iaverage,

ilikewise iin ifemale iliteracy, iwhile imortality irates iindicate ia imuch ihigher iratio

ithan iin ithe icountry ias ia iwhole. i

CHAPTER- i6

Poverty iindex

Bihar, iJharkhand, iand iUttar iPradesh ihave ibeen inamed ithe ipoorest istates iin iIndia.

Bihar i-51.91%

Jharkhand-42.16%
UttarPradesh-37.79%

MadhyaPradesh-36.65%

Meghalaya-32.67%

Assam-32.67%

Chhattisgarh-29.91%

Rajasthan-29.46%

Odisha-29.35%

WestBengal-27.36%

Nagaland-25.23%

CHAPTER- i7

OBJECTIVE iOF iSTUDY

 To istudy ithe ipopulation ishared iby iBelow iPoverty iLine iat iState iLevel iin

iIndia.

 To istudy ithe icomparative iof imonthly iper icapita iin irural, iIndia iand i
 To istudy ithe icomparative iof imonthly iper icapita iat istate ilevel iin iurban,

iIndia ito idigest ithe ipoverty iscenario iin iIndia.

 To istudy ithe ilife iof iUttar iPradesh ipeople ithat ihow ithey iare isurviving iin

ithis iscenario.

 To ibring iin ilight ithat iwhat ican ibe idone ito ireduce ipoverty iin iUttar

iPradesh i

 How igovernment iwill ibring ithe ichange iin ireducing ithe ipoverty.

 To imake ipeople iunderstand ihow ithey ican iimprove itheir iconditions.

CHAPTER- i8

SIGNIFICANCE iOF iSTUDY

 You ineed ito istudy ihow ipoverty ihappens iand iyou ineed ito ilearn ifrom ithe

imistakes iof iothers.

 This iis ihow iyou iend ithe icycle iof ipoverty.

 Teaching ithat ithere iare ibetter ichoices ithat ican ibe imade iin ilife iare

iimportant.

 You idon't ihave ito iperpetuate ithe icycle iof ipoverty.

 Things ican ichange.

 To iensure ithat iwe ican ireach iout ito ipeople ias iwe iwill ibe iaware iof iits

icauses,effects iand ithus imaking iour icountry ideveloped

Dada iBhai iNaoroji ithrough ihis ibook, i“Poverty iand iBritish iRule iin iIndia”

imade ithe iearliest iestimation iof ipoverty iline i(₹16 ito i₹35 iper icapita iper

iyear).

The ipoverty iline iproposed iby ihim iwas ibased ion ithe icost iof ia isubsistence

ior iminimum ibasic idiet i(rice ior iflour, idal, imutton, ivegetables, ighee,

ivegetable ioil, iand isalt).

National iPlanning iCommittee’s i(1938) ipoverty iline i(ranging ifrom i₹15 ito

i₹20 iper icapita iper imonth) iwas ialso ibased ion ia iminimum istandard iof

iliving iperspective iin iwhich inutritional irequirements iwere iimplicit.

In i1938, ithe iNational iPlanning iCommittee iwas iset iup iby iSubhash

iChandra iBose iunder ithe ichairmanship iof iJawaharlal iNehru ifor ithe

ipurpose iof idrawing iup ian ieconomic iplan iwith ithe ifundamental iaim ito

iensure ian iadequate istandard iof iliving ifor ithe imasses.

The iBombay iPlan i(1944) iproponents ihad isuggested ia ipoverty iline iof i₹75

iper icapita iper iyear.

The iBombay iPlan iwas ia iset iof ia iproposal iof ia ismall igroup iof iinfluential

ibusiness ileaders iin iBombay ifor ithe idevelopment iof ithe ipost-independence

ieconomy iof iIndia.

Post-Independence iPoverty iEstimation

Planning iCommission iExpert iGroup i(1962), iworking igroup iconstituted iby

ithe iPlanning iCommission iformulated ithe iseparate ipoverty ilines ifor irural

iand iurban iareas i(₹20 iand i₹25 iper icapita iper iyear irespectively).

VM iDandekar iand iN iRath i(1971), imade ithe ifirst isystematic iassessment iof

ipoverty iin iIndia, ibased ion iNational iSample iSurvey i(NSS) idata.

Unlike iprevious ischolars iwho ihad iconsidered isubsistence iliving ior ibasic

iminimum ineeds icriteria ias ithe imeasure iof ipoverty iline, iVM iDandekar

iand iN iRath iwere iof ithe iview ithat ipoverty iline imust ibe iderived ifrom ithe

iexpenditure ithat iwas iadequate ito iprovide i2250 icalories iper iday iin iboth

irural iand iurban iareas.

Expenditure ibased iPoverty iline iestimation, igenerated ia idebate ion iminimum

icalorie iconsumption inorms.

Alagh iCommittee i(1979): iTask iforce iconstituted iby ithe iPlanning

iCommission iunder ithe ichairmanship iof iYK iAlagh, iconstructed ia ipoverty

iline ifor irural iand iurban iareas ion ithe ibasis iof inutritional irequirements iand

irelated iconsumption iexpenditure.

Poverty iestimates ifor isubsequent iyears iwere ito ibe icalculated iby iadjusting

ithe iprice ilevel ifor iinflation.

Lakdawala iCommittee i(1993): i

Task iForce ichaired iby iDT iLakdawala, ibased ion ithe iassumption ithat ithe

ibasket iof igoods iand iservices iused ito icalculate iConsumer iPrice iIndex-

Industrial iWorkers i(CPI-IW) iand iConsumer iPrice iIndex- iAgricultural

iLabors i(CPI-AL) ireflect ithe iconsumption ipatterns iof ithe ipoor, imade ithe

ifollowing isuggestions:

Consumption iexpenditure ishould ibe icalculated ibased ion icalorie

iconsumption ias iearlier.

State ispecific ipoverty ilines ishould ibe iconstructed iand ithese ishould ibe

iupdated iusing ithe iCPI-IW iin iurban iareas iand iCPI-AL iin irural iareas.

Discontinuation iof iscaling iof ipoverty iestimates ibased ion iNational iAccounts

iStatistics.
Tendulkar iCommittee i(2009)

Expert igroup iconstituted iby ithe iPlanning iCommission iand, ichaired iby

iSuresh iTendulkar, iwas iconstituted ito ireview imethodology ifor ipoverty

iestimation iand ito iaddress ithe ifollowing ishortcomings iof ithe iprevious

imethods:

Obsolete iConsumption iPattern: iConsumption ipatterns iwere ilinked ito ithe

i1973-74 ipoverty iline ibaskets i(PLBs) iof igoods iand iservices, iwhereas ithere

iwere isignificant ichanges iin ithe iconsumption ipatterns iof ithe ipoor isince

ithat itime, iwhich iwere inot ireflected iin ithe ipoverty iestimates.

Inflation iAdjustment:

iThere iwere iissues iwith ithe iadjustment iof iprices ifor iinflation, iboth

ispatially i(across iregions) iand itemporally i(across itime).

Health iand iEducation iExpenditure: iEarlier ipoverty ilines iassumed ithat

ihealth iand ieducation iwould ibe iprovided iby ithe istate iand iformulated

ipoverty ilines iaccordingly.

Recommendations

Shift ifrom iCalorie iConsumption ibased iPoverty iEstimation: iIt ibased iits

icalculations ion ithe iconsumption iof ithe iitems ilike icereal, ipulses, imilk,

iedible ioil, inon-vegetarian iitems, ivegetables, ifresh ifruits, idry ifruits, isugar,

isalt i& ispices, iother ifood, iintoxicants, ifuel, iclothing, ifootwear, ieducation,
imedical i(non-institutional iand iinstitutional), ientertainment, ipersonal i& itoilet

igoods.

Uniform iPoverty iline iBasket: i

Unlike iAlagh icommittee i(which irelied ion iseparate iPLB ifor irural iand

iurban iareas), iTendulkar iCommittee icomputed inew ipoverty ilines ifor irural

iand iurban iareas iof ieach istate ibased ion ithe iuniform ipoverty iline ibasket

iand ifound ithat iall iIndia ipoverty iline i(2004-05) iwas:

₹446.68 iper icapita iper imonth iin irural iareas

₹578.80 iper icapita iper imonth iin iurban iareas

Private iExpenditure: iIncorporation iof iprivate iexpenditure ion ihealth iand

ieducation iwhile iestimating ipoverty.

Price iAdjustment iProcedure: i

The iCommittee ialso irecommended ia inew imethod iof iupdating ipoverty

ilines, iadjusting ifor ichanges iin iprices iand ipatterns iof iconsumption i(to

icorrect ispatial iand itemporal iissues iwith iprice iadjustment), iusing ithe

iconsumption ibasket iof ipeople iclose ito ithe ipoverty iline.

Mixed iReference iPeriod:

 iThe iCommittee irecommended iusing iMixed iReference iPeriod ibased

iestimates, ias iopposed ito iUniform iReference iPeriod ibased iestimates ithat

iwere iused iin iearlier imethods ifor iestimating ipoverty.

Tendulkar icommittee icomputed ipoverty ilines ifor i2004-05 iat ia ilevel ithat

iwas iequivalent, iin iPurchasing iPower iParity i(PPP) iterms ito iRs i33 iper

iday.

Purchasing iPower iParity: iThe iPPP imodel irefers ito ia imethod iused ito iwork

iout ithe imoney ithat iwould ibe ineeded ito ipurchase ithe isame igoods iand

iservices iin itwo icountries.

Rangarajan iCommittee

The icommittee iwas iset iup iin ithe ibackdrop iof inational ioutrage iover ithe

iPlanning iCommission’s isuggested ipoverty iline iof i₹22 ia iday ifor irural

iareas.

Objectives

To ireview iinternational ipoverty iestimation imethods iand iindicate iwhether

ibased ion ithese, ia iparticular imethod ifor iempirical ipoverty iestimation ican

ibe ideveloped iin iIndia.

To irecommend ihow ithese iestimates iof ipoverty ican ibe ilinked ito ieligibility

iand ientitlements iunder ithe ivarious ischemes iof ithe iGovernment iof iIndia.

Recommendations-
Methodology iUsed: i

The iRangarajan icommittee iestimation iis ibased ion ian iindependent ilarge

isurvey iof ihouseholds iby iCenter ifor iMonitoring iIndian iEconomy i(CMIE).

It ihas ialso iused idifferent imethodology iwherein ia ihousehold iis iconsidered

ipoor iif iit iis iunable ito isave.

Normative iand iBehavioral ilevel: iPoverty iline ishould ibe ibased ion:

Normative ilevel iof iadequate inutrition: iIdeal iand idesirable ilevel iof

inutrition.

Behavioral idetermination iof inon-food iexpenses: iWhat ipeople iuse ior

iconsume ias iper igeneral ibehavior.

Nutritional iRequirement: iFor inormative ilevels iof iadequate inutrition i–

iaverage irequirements iof icalories, iproteins iand ifats ibased ion iIndian

iCouncil iof iMedical iResearch i(ICMR) inorms, idifferentiated iby iage, igender

iand iactivity ifor iall-India irural iand iurban iregions iis iconsidered:

Calories: i2090 ikcal iin iurban iareas iand i2155 iKcal iin irural iareas.

Protein: iFor irural iareas i48 igm iand ifor iurban iareas i50 igm.

Fat: iFor iurban iareas i28 igm iand ifor irural iareas i26 igm.

Poverty iThreshold: iPersons ispending ibelow i₹47 ia iday iin icities iand i₹32

iin ivillages ibe iconsidered ipoor.

Based ion ithis imethodology, iRangarajan icommittee iestimated ithat ithe

inumber iof ipoor iwere i19% ihigher iin irural iareas iand i41% imore iin iurban

iareas ithan iwhat iwas iestimated iusing iTendulkar icommittee iformula.

Modified iMixed ireference iperiod:

iInstead iof iMixed ireference iPeriod i(MRP) iit irecommended iModified

iMixed iReference iPeriod i(MMRP) iin iwhich ireference iperiods ifor idifferent

iitems iwere itaken ias:

365-days ifor iclothing, ifootwear, ieducation, iinstitutional imedical icare, iand

idurable igoods.

7-days ifor iedible ioil, iegg, ifish iand imeat, ivegetables, ifruits, ispices,

ibeverages, irefreshments, iprocessed ifood, ipan, itobacco iand iintoxicants

30-days ifor ithe iremaining ifood iitems, ifuel iand ilight, imiscellaneous igoods

iand iservices iincluding inon-institutional imedical; irents iand itaxes.

Criticism: iRangarajan icommittee imissed ithe iopportunity ito igo ibeyond ithe

iexpenditure-based ipoverty irates iand iexamine ithe ipossibility iof ia iwider

imulti-dimensional iview iof ideprivation.

CHAPTER- i10
 FINDINGS

iMAIN iFINDINGS

iWhat iis ipoverty, iwhy imeasure iit iand ihow ihas iit ibeen idone?

A ilimited inumber iof istudies iwere ifound iin ipublished iliterature, iwhich
imeasure ipoverty iin ifishery icommunities; iall iare irecent iwith imost iwritten
isince i2000 i(see ibibliography ifor ithis, iand iother, isections). iThere iis
ihowever ia imore isubstantial ivolume iof iliterature iat ia imore igeneral ilevel
idealing iwith ipoverty, ihow iit ihas ibeen imeasured iin ithe irural idevelopment
icontext, iand idiscussions iof ithe ivalidity iof idifferent iapproaches. iThis ibody
iof iwork iprovides iinformation ithat ican icertainly ibe iuseful iin iinforming ithe
imeasurement iof ipoverty iin ifishing icommunities.

Until irecently iin ifisheries, iit ihas ibeen ia icommon iassumption ithat ii) ismall-
scale ifishers iare ipoor i(Smith, i1979 iand iWorld iBank, i1982 iin iBéné iet ial.
i2000) iand ithat iii) idevelopment iinitiatives iin ismall-scale ifisheries iset iin
iplace iby igovernments, idonors iand iNGOs iwould iimplicitly icontribute ito
ithe ireduction iof ithis ipoverty. iThe iissue iof ipoverty iand ithe ireduction iof
ipoverty iin imany icases ihas ionly irecently ibecome ian iexplicit iobjective
i(pers icomm., iGillet, i2002).

Why iis ipoverty iimportant? iThe iinterest iof ithe iinternational idevelopment
icommunity iin ipoverty iwas irenewed iafter ithe ipublication iof ithe i1990
iWorld iDevelopment iReport, istimulating ithe iinternational iprioritization iof
ipoverty ireduction i(Moser, i1998). iThis icommitment iis ievident iin ithe
iagreement iof ithe iInternational iDevelopment iTargets, iwhich iarose ifrom iUN
iconferences iin ithe iearly i1990s. iAn iunderstanding iof ipoverty iis irequired
iat itwo ilevels. iFirstly, ito ibe iable ito imeasure iprogress itowards ithese
iambitious itargets, ipoverty ineeds ito ibe imeasured. iThis ihas ilead ito ia
iconsiderable ievolution iin ithe iprofessional iunderstanding iof ipoverty, iwhat
iit iis, iwho iis iaffected iand ihow iit ican ibe imost iappropriately imeasured.
iSecondly, ito ibe iable ito ihelp ithe ipoor ibreak ithe ipoverty icycle, ione ineeds
ito iunderstand ithe ipoverty icycle, iwho iit iaffects, iwhy iand iwhat
iopportunities ican ibe iused ito iplan iinterventions ito iimprove itheir iconditions
i(Pittaluga, iet ial., i2001 iconf). iThe iFAO ihas ibegun ito iconsider ipoverty ias
ia iresult iof iindications ithat ialthough icomplex, ithere iare ilinks ibetween
ipoverty iand ithe idegradation iof inatural iresources i(Bellamy, i1995; iReardon
iand iVosti, i1995; iWillman i2001 iconf.) iand ithat ito iachieve itheir imandate
iof isustainable idevelopment, iboth inatural iresource iand ipoverty iissues ineed
ito ibe iaddressed.

Poverty ihas ibeen imeasured iusing ia irange iof iindicators, iand idetailed
idescriptions iand icritiques iof itheir irelevance iare iwell idebated iin ithe
iliterature i(Thorpe, i2001 iconf.; iChambers, i1989). iFigure i1 iattempts ito
iillustrate ithe ievolution iof ipoverty iindicators ishowing ithe ishift ifrom
isimplified istatistical/economic iindicators ibased ion inutritional iinputs,
iincome iand iconsumption iwithin ithe ihousehold, ithrough ian iapproach
ilooking iat ibasic ineed irequirements i("the ideprivation iof imaterial
irequirements ifor iminimally iacceptable ifulfilment iof ihuman ineeds,
iincluding ifood" i(Cox iet ial., i1998)
The irelevance iof ilinear ipoverty iindicators iis iquestioned iby imany iof ithe
iarticles iwe ihave ireviewed. iIt iis iargued ithat ieconometric iterms iare itoo
inarrow, iand ioversimplify ipoverty i(Chambers, i1989; iCox iet ial., i1998;
iBebbington, i1999; iWorld iBank, i1999). iIt idoes inot, ifor iexample iallow
ielements iof iwell-being ior iill-being iout iof ithe icash ieconomy ito ibe
iincluded. i(Carnagie iand iGoldman, i2001). iThe iconcept iof ipoverty ihas
iwide iimplications, iwhich imust ibe iaddressed iin iorder ito iunderstand ilinks
ibetween irural ipoverty iand ilivelihood isustainability i(Bebbington, i1999).
iThe iuse iof iparticipatory iapproaches iin idevelopment iwith itarget
icommunities iis iresulting iin ia ichange iin ithe iway iprofessionals idefine
ipoverty. iIt iis ithe isubject iof iextensive idiscussion ithat icannot ibe ideveloped
ihere. iSome iexamples iof ipoverty idefinitions ibased ion, ior iinfluenced iby,
iperceptions iof ithe ipoor. iThis iillustrates ithat iwhen ithe ipoor iare iasked ito
idefine ipoverty, imany iof itheir icriteria iare ibased ion iassets, irather ithan
iincome, isome iof iwhich iare iintangible iand iat ibest idifficult ito iquantify.
iNaryan iet ial. i(2000) ireport ifive ikey ielements ithat icontribute ito ithe
iconcept iof ipoverty iaccording ito ithe ipoor. iThese iare:

1. iPoverty iis imultidimensional iand icomplex.

2. iIt iis ia ilack iof ithe iassets ineeded ifor iwellbeing.
3. iIt iincludes ipsychological iaspects.
4. iIt iis ian iabsence iof ibasic iinfrastructure.
5. iIt ifocuses ion iassets iand ivulnerability ito irisk, inot iincome.

How ipoverty iis idefined, iaffects iwhat ishould ibe imeasured, iand ihow, ias
iwell ias ithe iability ito iidentify ipoverty ireduction imeasures i(Gillet, ipers
icom., i2002). iThis ihas ibrought iabout ia irealization ithat inew iapproaches iare
ineeded ito icope iwith ithis imore isophisticated iunderstanding, iin ia imove ito
inarrow ithe igap ibetween iprevious iprofessional idefinitions iand ilocal
iperceptions. iThe imain iideas iand ithemes irelevant ito imeasuring ipoverty
ifrom ia imultidimensional iperspective iare:

1. iQuantitative, iqualitative ior iboth? iThe isubjective ivs. ithe iobjective

iapproaches ito ipoverty iare iconsidered ito ibe ipolarized i(Moser, i1998,
iBebbington, i1999). iWhat iis irealistic? iQuantitative iindicators igive ian
iinsight ias ito ithe iscale iof ithe iproblem; ithe iqualitative iindictors iare imore
iadept iat iaddressing iwhy ipeople iare ipoor. iAddressing imulti idimensionality
iis itime iconsuming, iand iimposes ipractical irestrictions. iThe iappropriateness
iof ihow iand iwhat ito imeasure idepends ion iwhat ithe iinformation iis ineeded
ifor, iby iwhom, iat iwhat iscale iand ithe iresources iavailable i(Thorpe, iconf
i2001). iA istudy ilooking iat iresults iof iqualitative i(participatory ipoverty
iassessments) iand iquantitative ipoverty iassessments i(Household iSurveys) iin
iUganda ishowed ithat ithese imethods iare ineither icontradictory inor
icomplementary ias ithey istand i(McGee, i2000). iThe iuse iof iSL iapproaches
iallows ispace ifor icreating iopportunity ifor ilinkages iin ifuture iwork.

2. iThe iuse iof iparticipatory iapproaches iis ivital iin iallowing ithe iinclusion iof
iqualitative iindicators, iand iconsiders ithe irange iof iassets ipeople ihave, iand
itheir iability ito iaccess ithese iassets ias ia ibasis iof ianalysis.

3. iTriangulation iis ian iessential iprocess iin ithe icollection iof iqualitative
iinformation.

4. iThe iapplication iof ian iasset-based iframework i(Reardon iand iVosti, i1995),
iMoser i(1998) idescribe iframeworks islightly idifferent ifrom ithe iSL
iframework isupported iby iDFID. iRecognizing ithat ipeople ihave ia irange iof
idifferent iassets ithat ithey imanage ito icreate itheir ilivelihood istrategy iis ian
iimportant istep iin irecognizing ithe icomplexities iand idynamics iof ipoverty
i(Moser, i1998)

5. iBebbington i(1999) iemphasizes ithe iimportance iof iaccess ito iassets ias ia
imeans ifor ithe ipoor ito ibuild isustainable iand ipoverty ialleviating
ilivelihoods. iIn iaddition, iit iis ithe iproportion iof idifferent itypes iof iassets,
inot ijust ithe iamount iof iassets ian iindividual ior ihousehold ihas iaccess ito,
ithat iaffects ipoverty.

6. iAssets iare iperceived iby ithe ipoor ias imaking ivisible ione's ipoverty istatus.
iNeeding ito iask ifor ihelp iis ia isocial isign iof ipoverty, inot ibeing iable ito
iread iis ianother. iSimilarly ithe ilack iof iaccess ito iphysical ior inatural iassets
iis ia isign iof ipoverty i(Cox iet ial., i1998).

7. iThe inon-poor iare inot inecessarily ithe ileast ivulnerable i(Moser, i1998).
iThose iwho iare ieconomically iunstable ican ieasily ifall ibelow ithe isubsistence
iborder iline iif iconditions ideteriorate i(Jazairy iet ial., i1992 iin iCox,
iFarrington iand iGilling, i1998).

8. iDescribing icommunities ias ipoor iand inon-poor iis ian iover isimplification.
iDifferent itypes iof ipoverty iexist iboth iwithin iand ibetween icommunities
i(Béné iet ial., i2000; iGillet, ipers icomm., i2002). iIn istudies iwhich
idisaggregate iby isocio-professional igroups ior igender iin ifisheries, ior iother
irural isectors, ithese igroups iare ialso iheterogeneous, iwith ipoorer iand iless
ipoor iindividuals ior ihouseholds iundertaking isimilar iactivities. iIt iis ithe
idifferences ibetween ithese ipeople iand ihow ithey idevise ia istrategy ito
isurvive ithat iis iimportant. iThe iSLA iis ia iholistic, idynamic, ipeople-centered,
isustainable iapproach iwhich ilays ithe iframework ion iwhich idifferent
imethodologies iare ibeing ideveloped ito iaddress ithese iquestions. iThese
iapproaches iare ibeing ideveloped iacross ithe idevelopment isector iin ian
iattempt ito ilook iat iwho iis ipoor iand ihow itheir ineeds ican ibe iaddressed
ibased ion istrengths iand iopportunities.

2.2.2 iApplied imethods iused iin irural idevelopment

Participatory iPoverty iAssessments i(as iused iby ithe iWorld iBank) iuse
itrained ifield iteams ito iapply iparticipatory iapproaches. iThe iteams iuse
igroups, ifocus igroups, ikey iinformants iand iother itools, iwhich iare
itriangulated ito iincrease ivalidity. iSuch imethods iaim ito iunderstand ipoverty,
ihow ipeople ideal iwith ipoverty, itrends iand idimensions, iand ithe iimpact iof
ipolicy i(UPPA, iUganda, i1999). iIn ithe icase iof iUganda, ithe iPPAs iwere
iuseful iin iidentifying ithe itypes iof ipolicy ithat icould iinfluence ithe ifactors
ithat iwill iallow ithe ipoor ito imove iout iof ipoverty i(McGee, i2000).

Wellbeing ianalysis iuses iPRA itechniques ito ihelp ivillage iparticipants

icategories ipoverty ilevels ibased ion itheir iassets, ihunger iperiod, iincome, iand
ithe iamount ithey ispent ifor ian iannual ifestival. iThis iallowed ithe ioriginal
itarget igroup ito ibe idesegregated iinto i4 isub-groups ifor iresource iallocation
ipurposes iand ireduced iexclusion iin ia irural imicro icredit iproject i(Kar,
i2001). iAn iimportant inote ifrom ithis iexample iis ithat ithe ipoorest itended ito
ibe irisk iaverse iand ithe imost idifficult igroup ito iassist.

Poverty iMapping iallows ithe ilocation iof iidentified ideterminants iof ipoverty.
iIt ican ibe iused ifrom ia iglobal ito ia imicro ilevel. iA irange iof imethodologies
ican ifeed iinto ipoverty imaps idepending ion ithe iobjectives iof ithe iexercise,
idefinition iof ipoverty, ilimits ion ithe idata, ianalytical icapacities iand icosts.
iThe iextent ito iwhich ithese imaps imeasure ithe ibroader iaspects iof ipoverty
idepends ion iwhich imethods iare iapplied. iParticipatory iapproaches isolicit
iself-generated idefinitions iof ipoverty, ithe ideterminants iof iwhich ican ibe
iuncovered iusing ithe ilivelihoods iapproach i(Davies, iforthcoming). iDavies
ihighlights ithe iimportance iof iconsidering ibias iand ipotential ierrors iin ithe
idata ias ilimitations iof ipoverty imapping. iThe irobustness iof ithe ifinal ioutput
i(including istatistical ierror) ishould ibe iscrutinized, ias ithe iattractive iand
iclear ipresentation iof iinformation iin ithe imaps ican ieasily ibe imisleading.

Wealth iRanking iis iused ias ipart iof ia iparticipatory ior ilivelihoods ianalysis
i(Khanya iwww, iCarnagie iand iGoldman, i2001; iODG, i2001). iThis iis ia
imethod itaken ifrom ithe iPRA irepertoire ito idesegregate ithe igiven
icommunity iaccording ito iwealth/poverty icriteria, iwhich iare idefined iby ithe
iparticipants. iIt iis ia ivery iquick icategorization, iand idoes inot ilead ito
iunderstanding ithe ibroader iaspects iof ipoverty.

Poverty iProfiling ican ibe iexecuted iat ithe inational, iwaterbody, ior
icommunity ilevel. iNational ilevel iprofiles ihave ibeen iundertaken iin icountries
ipreparing iPRSPs iin iline iwith iWorld iBank iand iIMF irequirements
i(www.worldbank.org/poverty). iPoverty iprofiles iuse isecondary idata iand
iparticipatory imethods ito iunderstand iwho ithe ipoor iare, iwhy ithey iare ipoor,
ihow imany ipoor ithere iare, iand iwhere ithey iare iconcentrated.

2.2.3 iExamples iof imethodologies iand ifindings iof istudies iin ismall-scale
ifishing icommunities

For ieach ireference ibelow, ia ishort isummary iof ithe imethods iused iand ithe
ikey ifindings iare igiven. iFrom ithe idocumentation iavailable iand
iconversations iwith iexperts iin ithe ifield, iit iis ievident ithat ithere ihas ibeen ia
irecent iupsurge iin ithe iamount iof iwork iundertaken ito imeasure ipoverty iin
ifishing iand iaquatic iresource idependent icommunities. iMuch iof ithe
idocumentation ion isuch iwork iis inot iyet iavailable.
An ianalysis iof ipoverty iand iaquatic iresource iuse i- ifocusing iespecially ion
ithe ilivelihoods iof ithe ipoor iin iCambodia. iDIFD-SEA iAquatic iResource
iManagement iProgramme.2000.

Methods: iThe iprogramme iused ia imix iof i(i) iquantitative idata, iHDI,
iincome-based ipoverty ilines ibased ion ithe icost iof iproviding iminimum
icalories iand iper icapita iconsumption, inational iand iregional ilevel icensus
idata iand iother isecondary iliterature. iIn iparticular ithe iarticle idescribes ithe
idevelopment iof ia icountry ispecific iHDI ibased ion ieconomic iand isocial
iindicators, ia ibroader iindicator ithan ithe istandard iHDI. i(ii) iKey iinformant
iinterviews. iThe ianalysis iis ibased iprimarily ion ieconomic idata.

Findings: iThe imethod iidentified iwho ithe irural ipoor iare, idefined ion ithe
ibasis iof ithe ipoverty iline iand iindicating idifferences ibetween iregions. iLarge
iprovincial idifferences iwere ifound iin ihuman iand isocial iindicators. iThe
iimportance iof ismall-scale iinland ifisheries ifor ithe irural ipoor iis
iemphasized, iespecially ithe ipoor iaquatic iresource iusers iincluding ithe
isubsistence iaquatic iresource icollection iactivities iof ithe ilandless. iFish iwere
ihighly isignificant ias ia isource iof idietary iprotein iin ithe idiet iof ithe irural
ipoor. iKey iissues iidentified ito iorientate ichange iwere: iaccess irights ito
ifisheries i(varied iaccording ito ithe iscale iof ifishing); icommunication
idifficulties ibetween ithe ipoor iand isupporting iagencies; iand iinsufficient
itechnical iknowledge ito isupport isubsistence ifishers.

Poverty iand iaquatic iresources iin iVietnam: ian iassessment iof ithe irole iand
ipotential iof iaquatic iresource imanagement iin ipoor ipeople's ilivelihoods.
iDIFD-SEA iAquatic iResource iManagement iProgramme.2000.

Methods: iInvolved isecondary idata icollection ifor i7 iregions iand ia ivalidation

iworkshop. iIt iaimed ito idefine idifferent idimensions iof ipoverty, iand iareas
iof ihigh ipoverty iof iaquatic iresource idependent ipeople, ito ibe iused ito
itarget ilivelihoods ianalyses. iThere iwas iinsufficient iinformation ito iachieve
ithe iaims iusing ithe isecondary iinformation.

Findings: iInformation iwas iavailable ion iaquatic iresources iand ion ipoverty,
ibut iwas inot ilinked itogether. iInformation iwas iparticularly ilacking ion
isubsistence ior i"wild" ifisheries ithat iare iof iimportance ito ithe ipoor.
iRegional ireports iidentified isome iareas ibased ion iofficial ipoverty
iassessments, ibut ino iinformation ias ito ithe icauses iof ipoverty ior iwhere
ithere iis ia ihigh idependence ion iaquatic iresources.
Evaluating ilivelihood istrategies iand ithe irole iof iinland ifisheries iin irural
idevelopment iand ipoverty ialleviation: iThe icase iof ithe iYaéré iFloodplain iin
iNorth iCameroon i(Béné, iC., iMindjimba, iK., iBelal, iE., iJolley, iT., i2000.)

Methods: iThe istudy iused iparticipatory iwealth iranking iin i21 ivillages. iThe
istructure iof ithe iapproach iused isemi-structured igroup iinterviews iwith ikey
ipeople, iparticipatory imapping iof ithe inatural iand iphysical iresources, iand
iconstruction iof ia iseasonal icalendar. iThe icriteria ifor iwealth iwere idefined
iby ithe irespondents

Findings: iBetween i2 iand i3 igroups iwere iidentified, idepending ion ithe

ivillage. iIncome iwas inot ia imajor icriterion, iand iherd isize iwas ithe imost
isited imeasure ias iit iacts ias ia ifund ibank iin itimes iof idifficulty.

Access irights iand iownership iof irights ito ithe iwater ibodies iwas inot icited
ias ia icause iof idifferentiation iof iwealth i(it iis inoted iby ianthropologists ithat
ithe iethnic imajority iin ithe iarea, ithe iMousgoum ihave ia irather iegalitarian
iculture). iThe ipoorest igroups ihave ithe ihighest idependence ion ithe ifishery
iand itherefore ithe iequitable iaccess ito ithe iwater ibody iis icritical ifor ithe
ipoor iin ian iarea iwhere iagricultural iland iis iscarce. iThe inumber iof idifferent
iactivities iin ipoorer ihouseholds iwas ifound ito ibe isignificantly ihigher ithan
iin iricher ihouseholds.

Livelihood iand iPoverty iBaseline, iIntegrated iLake iManagement iProject,

iUganda. iSeptember i2001.

Methods: iQuestionnaires iwere idesigned ion ithe iSL iapproach, itranslated iinto
ithe iappropriate ilanguage iand iadministered iby itrained ifacilitators. iEvery
i5th ihouse iwas isampled ion ia iwalk-through iof ithe iparish. iA itarget iwas iset
ito isample i20% iof ithe iparish. iData iwas ianalyzed iusing iMicrosoft iExcel.
iThe isecond imethod iwas iwealth iranking ibased ion iphysical, ihuman iand
ifinancial iassets i(including iqualitative iindicators). iHow iquestionnaires iare
idelivered iwas iseen ito ibe icritical ito ithe ioutcome.

Findings: iA iclear idemarcation iof iwealth igroups iwas idifficult ias ithe
icommunities iare icomposed iof ia icontinuous ispectrum iof ilivelihood
istatuses.

The iaverage inumber iof idependents iincreases iwith ithe iwealth igroup
i(raising ithe iquestion: iif igroups iwith ihigh ilevels iof idependents iare
itargeted iwill imore ipeople ibe ireached?)
The imajority iof ithe ipoorest iwealth igroup iwere inot iborn iin ithe iparish
i(i.e., iare inonresident), ihowever ihelping isuch igroups iis isensitive.

Female-headed ihouseholds iwere idisproportionately irepresented iin ipoorer

iwealth igroups iand ithe ipoorer iwealth igroups ihave iless iopportunity ito
idiversify ilivelihoods.

Handbook ifor iLivelihoods iAnalysis iand iPRA. iSTREAM i- iSupport ito

iRegional iAquatic iResource iManagement. i2002. iNACA, iDFID, iFAO, iVSO
ilearning iand icommunication iinitiative.

Methods: iA iSL iframework iwas iused ias ia ibasis ifor ianalysis. iWithin ithe
iframework, isecondary idata isources i(national, iregional istatistics, ireports iand
iindicators), isample isurveys iand iexisting iPRA itools iare iused ito icollect ithe
iinformation. iThis iprovides ithe iopportunity ifor ithe ipoor ito iexpress itheir
iown iperceptions, iremain iat ithe icenter iof ithe iinvestigation iand ibe
iinvolved. iThe iSL iframework iremoves isectoral iconstraints. iThe imethod
iaims ito iunderstand ipoor ilivelihoods iof iaquatic iresource iusers iand ithe irole
iof iaquatic iresource imanagement iin itheir ilivelihoods.

Pilot iusage iof ithe ilivelihoods ianalysis ihas ibeen iundertaken iin i7
iVietnamese ivillages, iwith iaims ifor ireplication iat ia ilarger iscale.

Expected ifindings: iThe imain icontribution ito ihousehold iincome; iconstraints

ito iaccessing iassets; idifferent irisk ifactors iof isocial igroups iin ithe ivillages;
iand ithe iability iand iconstraints ion io iexercising iindividual iand igroup
ichoice.

Methods: iThe imethods ifor ithese ipoverty iprofiles iare ibased ion ithe iSL
iframework, iand iuse ithe iSL iapproach. iThis ienables ithe imethodology ito ibe
iflexible iand iadaptable ito idifferent iobjectives, idepending ion ithe iobjectives,
itime, icountry iand ithe itype iof icommunity. iIt ican ialso ibe iadapted ito ilook
iat ia inational ilevel iprofile, iat ithe ilevel iof ia iparticular iwater ibody, ior iat
ithe icommunity ilevel.

The imethodology ihas i4 imain icomponents, i(i) ia isecondary idata ireview

i(makes iuse iof iexisting iprofiles, iquantitative idata, igovernment ior iagency
ireports) i(ii) iparticipatory ibrainstorming isessions iusing imultidisciplinary ikey
iresource ipeople iat ithe iappropriate iadministrative ilevel i(iii) irefining iof
ilivelihood igroups iwith ihomogeneous ifocus igroups iof itarget ibeneficiaries
iidentified iin istep iii, iand i(iv) ivalidation iof ithe ifindings iin ithe ifield.
Existing iparticipatory iapproaches iand imethods iare iused iin icomponents iii i-
iiv. iThe irole iof ifacilitation iin ithe ibrainstorming iand iin ithe ifocus, igroups
iis iessential ito igain ithe iadded ibenefit iof igroup idynamics.

Findings: iThe imain icauses iof ivulnerability ito ipoverty iare iidentified iby ithe
iparticipants; iwho ithe ipoor iare iand iwho iare ithe imost ivulnerable ito
ipoverty; ithe ilocation iof ithe ipoor ithrough imapping iand iusing iquantitative
idata isupported iby ithe iparticipatory iwork; ihow imany ipeople iare ipoor.

Further iwork iis ineeded ion ithe iquantification iof ithe icapital iassets, ithe
iweighting iof imacro iand imicro ivariables ion ipoverty iand idevelopment iin
ithe iunderstanding iof ipoverty iand ivulnerability. iThe istructure iand
ipresentation iof ithe iinformation ineeds ifurther idevelopment ito ienable iit ito
ibe iinformative ito ipolicy imakers, iand icommunities.

2.3 iPOLICY iIMPLICATIONS

Development iof irealistic iparticipatory ipoverty imeasurement imethodologies
iin ithe ismall-scale ifisheries isector i(although inot iexclusively) iis ia irequired
ipre-cursor ito imore ieffective ipolicy iformulation. iDifficulties iin idefining
ipoverty iwill iaffect ithe isuccess iof imeasurement iand ipoverty ireduction
ipolicies i(Baulch, i1996 iin iSporton, i1998). iBaulch iand iMcCulloch i(1998)
idescribe ia ihigh iturnover iof ipoverty iin irural iPakistan isuggesting ithat
ipolicies ishould ibe ideveloped ito itry iand iincrease ithe iexit irate ifrom
ipoverty iand iat ithe isame itime ireduce ithe ientry irate.

The ilevel iof ipolicy idevelopment iin iinland ifisheries iis ivery ilow iand ioften
iignored i(Béné iet ial, i2000), ihowever, iinland ifisheries iare iimportant ito ithe
ipoor iparticularly iin iareas iof iinundation iwhere iagricultural iland iis iscarce.
iThis ihigh idependence ion iinland ifisheries imeans ithat ipolicy ichange iwill
ihave ia iproportionately ilarger ieffect ion ithe ipoorest i(Béné iet ial, i2000). iIt
imust ibe iclear iwho ithese ipeople iare.

Differences iin ilong- iand ishort-term ipoverty ihave ibig ipolicy iimplications.
iShort iterm itemporary ior iseasonal ipoverty imight irequire isafety inets ior
iaccess ito icredit. iLong iterm ichronic ipoverty irequires imore ifundamental
ipolicy iadaptations iin ieducation ifor iexample i(Sporton, i1998)

Policy imust ibe isensitive ito igender iissues iin iresource iallocation iand iasset
icontrol iand ithe ireported ifeminizations iof ipoverty i(Sporton, i1998). iIt imust
irecognize ithe ieconomic iand inon-economic iroles iof iwomen iin ithe
ihousehold iand ithe idiffering iperceptions iof ipoverty iheld iby imen iand
iwomen.
Without iunderstanding ithe iintra icommunity iheterogeneity iof ipoverty
idifferences ithere iis ia idanger ithat ipoverty ialleviation ipolicies icould ihave
iunintended inegative iimpacts ion isome igroups i(Béné iet ial., i2000).

2.4 iRESEARCH iIMPLICATIONS

Vulnerability iis ia iseparate iissue ito ipoverty i(Chambers, i1989, iCorcoran,
i2001), iand ione ithat iis ilinked ito ithe iasset-base iof ithe ihousehold ior
iindividual. iIt irefers ito idefenselessness, iinsecurity iand iexposure ito irisk,
ishocks iand istresses. iMany iof ithese ifactors ican ibe iseen iin ithe idefinitions
iof ipoverty. iMore iresearch ineeds ito igo iinto iidentifying iindicators ifor
ivulnerability. iIf ipoverty ireduction iis ithe ipriority iof igovernments iand iaid
iagencies, ithen ireducing ithe ivulnerability iof ipeople ito ifall iinto ipoverty
imust ibe ione iimportant ielement iof ithis itask. iAs iinferred iin ithe iUgandan
iLake iManagement iProject, iis iit iappropriate ito iassist ithe ivulnerable irather
ithan ithe ipoorest, iin iorder ito ireach ithe ilargest inumber iof ipeople? i(Also ia
idevelopment iand ipolicy iissue).

Development iof ia iflexible imethodology iis irequired ithat iwill iallow ifor isite
ispecific ivariations iin ithe iperceptions iand irelevant icomponents iof ipoverty
ias iseen iby ithose iwho iare ipoor. iMethods imust imake ithe ibest iuse iof
iexisting iinformation iand ireflect ithe imulti-dimensional, isite ispecific iand
idynamic inature iof ipoverty ithat iis inow ibeing iconceptualized ias ia iresult iof
iworking iin ipartnership iwith itarget ibeneficiaries.
Better iunderstanding iis irequired iabout ithe itype iof ipoverty iprevalent iin
ismall-scale ifisheries icommunities? iWhat iare ithe iproportions iof ipeople iin
itransitional iand ichronic ipoverty iin ifisheries? iThese idifferences ialso ineed
ito ibe idistinguished iin ipoverty imeasurement. iHow iare idifferent imembers
iof ithe icommunity iand ithe ihousehold iaffected? iWhere iis ithe ibalance
ibetween ihaving ienough iinformation iand imaking itimely idecisions?

More iresearch iis inecessary ito ibe iable ito iascertain ithe imost isignificant
icontributing ifactors ito ipoverty iin ithe ifisheries icommunities, iand iwhat itype
iof iintervention i(not inecessarily iin ithe ifisheries isector) iis inecessary ito
ialleviate ithis ipoverty.
 CHAPTER- i11

CONCLUSION

Poverty ihas ibecome ia igreat iissue iin iour iworld. iThough imany iorganizations ihave

ibeen icreated ito ifind isolutions ifor ithis imatter inobody icould inot isave iour iworld

icompletely ifrom ipoverty. iThe imost icommon ifact iwhich iwe ican irealize iwhen iwe

iconsider ion iinformation iabout ipoverty iis ithat ipoverty iis imostly ioccurring iin

ideveloping icountries. iWhat iare ithe ireasons icaused ifor ipoverty imostly? iAccording

ito ithe iBorgen iProject, ireasons ifor ipoverty iare iHistory, iWar iand iPolitical

iinstability, iNational iDebts, iDiscrimination iand isocial iinequality iand ivulnerability

ito inatural idisasters. iPoverty iis ithe isignificant ilack iof imoney ior ipoorness. iPrecise

idefinitions iof ipoverty iare icontroversial; iaccording ito ione idefinition, ipoverty iis

ihaving iso ilittle imoney ithat ione icannot ipay ifor ibasic inecessities, isuch ias ifood

iand ishelter. iSociologists istudy ithe ieffects iof ipoverty ias iwell ias iwho ilives iin

ipoverty iand iwhy. iMany isurveys ihave ibeen idone iin iorder ito icalculate ithe

iaccurate inumber iof ipeople iwho iare isuffering ifrom ithe ipoverty. iAccording ito ithe

iGlobal iFinance iMagazine ipoorest icountries iin ithe iworld iare iCentral iAfrican

iRepublic, iCongo, iDem. iRep, iMalawi, iLiberia, iBurundi, iNiger, iMozambique iand

iEritrea. iThere iare imany iorganizations isuch ias iCARE, iOxfam, iONE, iThe ihunger

iProject iworking ito istop ipoverty. iSome iof ithese iare inon-profit, istrategic

iorganizations icommitted ito ithe isustainable iend iof ipoverty iand iworld ihunger.
The iWorld iBank idata ihas ipublished idata ion iabsolute ipoverty ifor i1981 ionward,

ibut iresearchers ihave itried ito ireconstruct iinformation iof ithe iliving istandards iof

ithe imore idistant ipast. iThe imost icited ipaper iwas iwritten iby iBourguignon iand

iMorrison iin iwhich ithe itwo iauthors ireconstructed imeasures iof ipoverty ias ifar

iback ias i1820. iWe ican irealize ithat ithe inumber iof ipoor ipeople iin ithe ipresent ihas

idecreased ilittle ithan ithe inumbers iin iearly i‘90.

What iare ithe ieffects iof ipoverty ifor iour iworld? iDo iyou iknow ithat iover i21,000

ichildren idie ievery iday iaround ithe iworld idue ito iillnesses, iconflicts iin ithe iworld

iand iother idifferent ireasons? iMost iof ithese iare icaused iby ipoverty.

As ia iyoung istudent, iI iwould ilike ito isuggest isome ifactors iwhich iwould ibe

ihelpful iin iour ijourney ito ireduce ipoverty. iBasically, iwe ihave ito itake inecessary

isteps ito ireduce ithe ipopulation iin iour iworld. iNatural iresources idon’t iincrease

iaccording ito ithe ipopulation iwhich iis iincreasing iat ia ihigh ispeed. iWhen iwe

iconsider ithe ifamilies iin ipoor icountries, ithey ihave iat ileast isix ior iseven ikids. iBut

ithose ikids ido inot ihave ia iproper ihealth ior ithe iparents icannot iprovide iproper

ieducation ifor ithem. iAnd ialso, ithose iparents icannot iprovide igood ifoods ifilled

iwith isuitable inutrients ito itheir ikids idue ito ilack iof iwealth. iBecause iof ithat itheir

ihealthiness idecreases iby ia iconsiderable iamount. iThe idevelopment iof itheir ibrains
ibecomes iinsufficient iand idue ito ithat itheir iability ito iget ia iproper ieducation

idecrease.

So, itaking inecessary isteps ito idevelop ihealth iand ieducation isectors iin ithese

icountries iis ia igood iway ito ireduce ipoverty. iSo ifirstly, iwe ihave ito idevelop

iservices ifor ipregnant iwomen iof ithose icountries iand iprovide ithem igood ifoods

ifilled iwith iproper inutrients ito ikeep ithe ibabies iin igood ihealth. iAnd ithen ithe ikids

iwill ibe iin igood ihealth iand itheir ibrains iwill ibe iin ia ibetter icondition ito iget ia

iproper ieducation. iDeveloping ithe ieducation isectors iof ithose icountries iwith ithe

ihelp iof icharity iservices iand ithe igovernments iof ideveloped icountries iis ialso ia

igood istep ito idevelop ieducation isystems iin ithose icountries. iWhen iwe itake ia

ilook iat ithe isituation iof ieducation iin ia inumber iof iAfrican icountries iaffected iby

ipoverty iwe isee: ilanguage ibarriers; ia ilack iof iproper ifacilities; iand imilitary

iconflicts.

Increasing ithe inumber iof iorganizations iwhich iare iworking ito ireduce ipoverty iby

ieducating ipeople iof ideveloped icountries ito ibe iorganized iand ito itake iactions

irelated ito ithis imatter iis ialso ianother isuggestion iof imine. i
FUTURE iDIRECTIONS

Sustainable iLivelihood iCreation: iAt iEnd iPoverty iin iIndia, isustainable ilivelihood

icreation iprovides iequal iopportunities ito ithose iwho iare iless iprivileged. iThe

iorganization ihelps iindividuals icreate isustainable, iindependent ilivelihoods iwith

ilimited ireliance ion iexternal iresources. iThe iinterventions ithat iEnd iPoverty iin

iIndia iimplemented iinclude isustainable ifarming, idairy ifarming idevelopment,

iwomen’s ieconomic iempowerment iand ia iskills itraining iand ivocational ieducation

iprogram. iRecent iaccomplishments iinclude iplanting i5,759 isaplings iin iIndia ias ipart

iof ithe isustainable ifarming iintervention ibetween i2019 iand i2020, ibringing ithe

itotal iof iplanted isaplings ito i41,579 isince ithe iprogram ibegan.

Girls’ iEducation: iEducation iis ia iconstitutional iright iin iIndia, ibut ifemale iliteracy

ioften ilags ibehind ithat iof imen. iFor iexample, iin iTijara, iRajasthan ithe iliteracy irate

iamong ifemales iis ionly i38.88% iin icomparison ito i75.01% iamong imales. iOne iof

ithe imost inotable iprograms ithat iEnd iPoverty istarted iis ithe iKishori iShiksha
iProgram i(KSP), iwhich iis ia ione-year, iintensive i“catch-up” ieducation iprogram ifor

iadolescent igirls iwho iare ino ilonger iin ischool. iAs ipart iof ithe iKSP iProgram, iEnd

iPoverty iin iIndia ihelped i304 inew istudents ienroll iin ischool iand i126 igirls iwere

iable ito icomplete itheir iliteracy iclasses. iKSP itrains ilocal iwomen iin icourse

idelivery, iteaching imethods iand irecord ikeeping. iThe iorganization ithen isupplies

iboth iteachers iand istudents iwith ilearning imaterials.

Rural iDevelopment: iThe i2011 icensus iillustrated ithat i68.84% iof iIndia’s ipopulation

ilived iin irural ivillages. iOver ithe ilast ifew idecades, ivarious igroups ihave iworked

ito ialleviate iexisting iissues iin irural icommunities, iincluding iEnd iPoverty iin iIndia.

iUnder iits irural idevelopment iprogram iin iTijara, ithe iorganization icreated ithe

iVillage iDevelopment iGroup i(VDG). iIt iwill iact ias icoordinators iaccessing

igovernment iplans, isupporting irural idevelopment iand imaking irequests ibased ion

ithe ineeds iof itheir ivillage iand itracking ithe irequests ithrough ithe ivarious ilevels iof

igovernment iuntil ithey ireach icompletion. iEnd iPoverty iparticipates iin iVDG’s

imeetings iand iprovides ihelp iin ithe ipreparation iand iprocessing iof idocuments iand

idecisions. iAccomplishments iinclude iopening i147 inew ibank iaccounts, iinstalling i45

ihand ipumps iand iproviding i160 ifamilies ithroughout i19 ivillages iwith isolar-

powered iLED ilight ipanels.

Civil iSociety iDevelopment iProgram: iIn iIndian iculture, ithe iidea iof icivil isociety

iorganization iis ideeply iimportant iand ihas ibeen ia imajor ireason ifor ithe iincrease iin

iNGOs. iCivil isociety iorganizations ihave icontributed ito ithe iwell-being iof imany

icommunities iin iIndia. iHowever, iEnd iPoverty ihas ifound ithat imany iof ithem istill

istruggle iwith ibasic iissues isuch ias ia ilack iof ifunding, istructured iplanning iand
irecognition. iThese iissues iwere ithe icatalyst ifor iEnd iPoverty ito icreate iits iN/Core

iprogram, iwhich ihelps iearly-stage inonprofits ithat ifocus ion ipoverty ireduction.

iMentors iof ithe iN/Core iprogram iwork iwith ithe iheads iof ithe inew inonprofits ito

ispeed iup itheir iprogress iand ihelp ithem icreate iadaptable imodels ifor ieconomic

idevelopment.

End iPoverty iin iIndia’s iwork iis iimportant iand ihas ihelped isignificantly ito ireduce

ipoverty, ibut iit ihas imore iwork ito ido. iThe iorganization ihopes ithat iits ifour

iprograms iwill imake ia isignificant idifference iand iprovide iindividuals iwith ithe

iopportunity ito ilive ibetter ilives.

 Reference

 Anand, iI. iand iA. iThampi i(2016), i“ iecent iTrends iin iWealth

iInequality iin iIndia”, iEconomic iand iPolitical iWeekly, iVol.51, iNo.50

 Datt, iGaurav, iMartin iavallion iand iinku iMurugai“Growth, iUrbani

iation iand iPoverty ieduction iin iIndia” iPolicy iesearch iWorking iPaper

i7568, iWorld iBank, iWashington iDC

 Deaton, iAngus i(2013). iGreat iEscape: iHealth, iWealth iand ithe

iOrigins iof iInequality. iUSA: iPrinceton iUniversity iPress.

 eaton, iA. iand iJ. ire ie i(2014). i“Squaring ithe iPoverty iCircle”, iThe

iHindu, i25 iJuly.

 Dev, iS. iMahendra i(2005). i“Calorie iNorms iand iPoverty”, iEconomic

iand iPolitical iWeekly i40(8).

 EPW i(2014). i“ iangarajan’s iMeasure iof iPoverty”, iEditorial,

iEconomic iand iPolitical iWeekly i31, i2 iAugust.

 GoI i(1979). iReport iof ithe iTask iForce ion iProjection iof iMinimum

iNeeds iand iEffective iConsumption iDemands. iChaired iby iY.K.

iAlagh. iPlanning iCommission, iGovernment iof iIndia.

 Himanshu i(2015), i“Inequality iin iIndia”, iSeminar, iNo. i672, iAugust,

i2015

 Meenakshi, iJ.V. iand iBrinda iViswanathan i i(2013). i“Estimation iof

iCalorie iNorms iand iMeasurement iof iFood iIntake: iSome

iImplications ifor ithe iMagnitudes iof ithe iPrevalence iof inutrition iin

iIndia”, iIndian iEconomic iReview i(Special iIssue ion i“Perspectives ion

iEconomic iDevelopment iand iPolicy) iXLVIII: i167-88.

Aadhakrishna, i. i(2015), i“Well-being, iinequality, iPoverty iand

iPathways iout iof ipoverty iin iIndia”, iEconomic iand iPolitical iWeekly,

iVol.50, iNo.41