(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
December 27, 2009
More Indians Are “Poor” Now
C P Chandrasekhar
THE incidence of poverty, we are now being officially told, is much higher than the government has been claiming thus far. The Suresh Tendulkar committee, set up by the Planning Commission, has argued that a little more than 37 per cent of Indians live in poverty as compared with the officially estimated 27.5 per cent. The new figure is bound to further stretch the tiresome debate on poverty, in which the issues involved have been clear for some time now. However, the government, which is yet to formally announce acceptance of the new figures and the new method of poverty estimation, does not seem too displeased with the report. In all likelihood, the report’s recommendations would be accepted. Thus, from a political economy perspective, the more interesting question relates to the motivation behind the government’s decision to consider revising its poverty estimates, especially since it has been maximising the political mileage it gets from the decline in poverty incidence indicated by estimates based on the current methodology.
A favourable answer would attribute the revision to the recognition that the earlier method was delivering faulty figures. In the never-ending dispute on the extent of poverty in the country, it has been increasingly accepted that the official estimates were erring on the lower side. There were indeed a few who used the National Accounts Statistics to argue that the National Sample Survey figures on expenditure tended to underestimate consumption and overestimate poverty in the country. But they were an unrecognised minority. For the rest, the problem was that the NSS figures on calorific intake per person, on which poverty estimates were ostensibly anchored, pointed to a significantly higher proportion of poverty than the estimates obtained by adjusting for inflation a set of 1973-74 nominal expenditure figures that were seen as adequate to deliver an average per capita per day calorie intake of 2400 calories in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas. Some analysts attempted to explain away the low calorific intake of those seen as being above the “poverty line” by arguing that the actually needed nutritional requirements and changing consumption desires were responsible for the divergence.
However, these attempts at obfuscating the issue were challenged by the fact that the nominal expenditure of those who were seen as being at or below the poverty line was embarrassingly low in the rural areas, where it stood at Rs 356.30 per month or around Rs 12 per day in 2004-05. What is more, the National Commission on Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector pointed out that, going by the consumer expenditure data, 78 per cent of Indians were forced to manage with Rs 20 or less per day — an expenditure figure which to many was low enough to identify three fourths of the population as living in poverty.
Whether the Tendulkar committee was expressly set up to deal with this anomaly or not, it was clear from the outset that it could not go with the low figures of poverty incidence that the government had been citing routinely for the last decade or more. But the committee was walking a tight rope, since the options in terms of method and sources of data were indeed limited. If it opted for a method which used the direct calorie intake figures available from the NSS reports on consumer expenditure, the proportion of the population below the poverty line would have risen sharply at least in some states, inviting criticism from those who would use the sheer size of the increase to question its validity. On the other hand, if it anchored its estimates on the 1973-74 poverty lines and merely played with the conventionally used price indices, it would be stuck with embarrassingly low poverty incidence estimates.
Given these circumstances, the committee has chosen a clever route to a compromise figure. It has accepted the currently prevailing nominal poverty line figure for urban areas on two grounds. First, that it permits in practice a calorific intake per person of around 1775 calories, which though below the 2100 calories urban norm, is close to the FAO calorific norm of 1800. And, second, that the nominal poverty line permits in addition to this a reasonable degree of expenditure on education and health and allows for a better definition of an above-poverty consumption basket.
Having thus defended the nominal 2004-05 poverty line for urban areas, the committee has decided to use this nominal figure as the anchor for estimating a rural poverty line. This it does by arriving at a purchasing power parity (PPP) equivalent of this figure for rural areas, or a nominal expenditure figure that would allow the same basket to be consumed in rural areas after taking account of rural-urban price differentials. The net result of these exercises is a new set of poverty lines for 2004-05 — Rs 446.68 for rural areas and Rs 578.80 for urban areas per capita per month — and a new set of poverty incidence figures that are more or less the same for 2004-05 in urban areas but higher at 41.8 per cent as compared with 28.3 per cent in rural areas.
These figures sound more “reasonable” in terms of magnitude, even though they are derived from an ostensibly “estimated” but unanchored nominal poverty line for urban areas for 2004-05. But what accounts for the fact that the government is accepting them without much protest?
explanation seems to lie outside the issue
of methodology of estimation. Poverty incidence figures matter now not
because they reveal how many are marginalised in an
In fact, a report prepared by former Planning Commission member N C Saxena at the behest of the rural development ministry argued that the proportion of the population below the poverty line should be closer to 50 per cent, without specifying a clear method to arrive at that figure. This arbitrariness was obviously discomfiting. It also opened doors to poverty incidence figures that would require budgetary outlays for targeted schemes that would trouble a fiscally conservative government.
Thus, since it has managed to legitimise targeting, a method that delivers a middling poverty figure suits the government. Especially because “even though the suggested new methodology gives a higher estimate of rural headcount ratio at the all-India level for 2004-05, the extent of poverty reduction in comparable percentage point decline between 1993-94 and 2004-05 is not different from that inferred using the old methodology.” This also deals with the embarrassment of those who have to compute and put out poverty incidence figures. The result is a cosy convergence in the views of the Tendulkar committee and the government in which the poor are by no means left any better.