Key Highlights of NITI Aayogs Occassional Paper on

Eliminating Poverty: Creating Jobs and Strengthening Social Programs

The paper considers two broad issues: how should India measure poverty and what
should be the strategy for its elimination.
Measuring Poverty

Conventionally, poverty is measured by defining a threshold level of expenditure

(or income) required to purchase goods and services necessary to satisfy basic needs
at the minimal socially acceptable level. This threshold level of expenditure is called
the poverty line and the proportion of population living below it is called the
poverty ratio.

Poverty line and the poverty ratio have three potential uses: identification of poor;
the allocation of expenditures on anti-poverty programs across regions; and
measuring and tracking poverty over time and across regions.

In India, identification of poor is done by the State Governments based on

information from Below Poverty Line (BPL) censuses of which the latest is the
Socio-Economic Caste Census 2011 (SECC 2011). Allocation of expenditures on
anti-poverty programs can also be done using instruments other than the poverty
ratio. For example, the expenditure on the provision of housing across states
can be done according to the proportion of households without house in the
state. Universal programs such as those under the Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNAREGA) and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
(SSA) are available to all making the question of allocation moot.

This leaves tracking poverty over time and space as the principal objective
behind measurement of poverty. The current official measures of poverty are
based on the Tendulkar Poverty Line. But this line has been controversial with
many observers criticizing it as being too low. The controversies led the previous
government to appoint the Rangarajan Committee, which recommended higher
rural and urban poverty lines.

Going forward, we can consider four options for tracking the poor: (i) Continue
with the Tendulkar poverty line; (ii) Switch to the Rangarajan or other higher rural and
urban poverty lines; (iii) Track progress over time of the bottom 30% of the population;
or (iv) Track progress along specific components of poverty such as nutrition, housing,
drinking water, sanitation, electricity and connectivity.

While options (iii) and (iv) can complement the measurement of poverty using a
poverty line, they cannot substitute for it. Tracking reduction in poverty requires
a direct measure of poverty. In turn, this requires us to choose between (i) and
(ii).

The main criticism of the Tendulkar line (also applicable to the $1.25 line adopted
by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals) has been that it is too
low. The counterargument, however, is that if our objective is to assess whether
we are making progress in bringing households out of extreme poverty, it makes
sense to set the poverty line at a level that allows households to get two square
meals a day and other basic necessities of life. It is the households below this
bare subsistence level whose welfare should concern us the most and whose
progress we must monitor. Put differently, if we set the poverty line at too high a
level, we would be tracking how many people who had already achieved a
certain level of comfort have been made yet further comfortable. It will tell us
little about what is happening to households in abject poverty.

The key source of public dissatisfaction with the Tendulkar line was that it would
deprive many households in need of government assistance from such assistance by
classifying them as above poverty line (APL) households. But as just noted, poverty
line is not the basis of identification of the poor in India. Instead, it is the BPL
Census. This fact weakens the case against the Tendulkar line.

At the same time, it must be recognized that judgments on what represents a basic
necessity of life would vary from person to person and this is what makes the choice of
a poverty line difficult. Therefore, the final decision on this question needs to be
informed by further deliberations that pay adequate attention to the fact that the
objective behind an official poverty line is to track progress in combating extreme
poverty and not identification of the poor for purposes of distributing government
benefits.

Strategy for Combating Poverty

The strategy for combating poverty must rest on two legs: sustained rapid growth
that is also employment intensive and making anti-poverty programs effective.

Employment-intensive Sustained Rapid Growth

Sustained rapid growth works through two channels: first, by creating jobs that
pay steadily rising real wages, it directly dents poverty and, second, it leads to
growth in government revenues which in turn allow the expansion of social
expenditures at faster pace.

The poor predominantly reside in rural areas where incomes critically depend on
agricultural growth. Therefore, this paper endorses and briefly reiterates the
recommendations of the NITI Aayog occasional paper based on the deliberations
of the Taskforce on Agricultural Development.

These recommendations relate to raising productivity in agriculture, giving

remunerative prices to farmers, need for second green revolution in rain fed
areas in general and eastern India in particular, helping small & marginal farmers
by reforming tenancy laws, and bringing quick relief to farmers in times of natural
disasters.

But given that historically agriculture has not grown in India at rates exceeding 5
per cent per annum on a sustained basis while industry and services have seen
much higher growth rates, in the longer run, the benefits of growth can be share
more equally only by creating gainful employment in the latter sectors. India
needs acceleration in the growth of organized labour-intensive sectors such as
apparel, footwear, food processing, electronic and electrical appliances, other
light manufactures, construction and retail trade.

Among other things, the paper suggests that this can be achieved through the
creation of a handful of Coastal Economic Zones (CEZs) that can provide the
focal point for the location of employment-intensive industries allowing them to
exploit the economies of scale and agglomeration. With a business-friendly
ecosystem, these zones can serve as magnets for the export-oriented largescale firms in employment-intensive activities that are currently exiting China in
response to high and rising wages and declining size of labour force there. The
presence of these highly efficient large-scale firms will also spawn highly efficient
small and medium firms.

Making Anti-poverty Programs More Effective

Making anti-poverty programs such as the Public Distribution System (PDS),

Midday Meal Scheme, MGNREGA and Housing for All more effective represents
the second leg of the strategy to eliminate abject poverty. The paper provides
numerous specific suggestions on how each of these important programs can be
made more effective.

For example, keeping in view the fact that poor households lag the most in the
consumption of protein-rich items such as milk and eggs, it may make sense to
offer them option between cash and in-kind transfers under the PDS. This may
be then complemented by an information drive on the importance of a proteinrich diet. This would encourage households to opt for cash and use it to shift in
favour of a protein-rich diet.

Likewise, MGNREGA can be made more effective by allowing it to impart skills.

This would also pave the way for many workers to exit the program. Relaxing
the proportion of expenditure on materials and allowing the use of contractors in
the materials component would greatly improve the quality of assets produced.
During peak season, farmers may be permitted to hire MGNREGA workers by
paying 75% of the wages with the balance paid by MGNREGA wage funds. This
would lead to more productive use of labour while also spreading MGNREGA
wages over more workdays.

Jan Dhan Yojana, Aadhaar, Mobile (JAM) trinity could play a vital role in
widening the reach of Government to the vulnerable sections. Jan Dhan bank
accounts under Prime Ministers Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY), biometric identity
cards under Aadhar and accessibility to the accounts through mobile phones
promise to revolutionize the anti-poverty programmes by replacing the current
cumbersome and leaky distribution of benefits under various schemes by the
Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT).

With the Aadhar account permitting aggregation of the information, this would
give the government an excellent database to assess the total volume of benefits
accruing to each household. In turn, this information can eventually pave the way
for replacing myriad schemes with consolidated cash transfers except in cases in
which there are other compelling reasons to continue with in-kind transfers.
Therefore, we must rapidly expand the use of JAM trinity.

Each Gram Panchayat may be asked to identify five poorest families in the
village and endeavour to lift them out of poverty. Panchayat may ensure that
these families get all government benefits. A modest cash transfer for a prespecified time period may top these benefits. The eventual effort should be to
ensure that the families become capable of earning and sustaining abovepoverty level income within five to seven years.

[The above are highlights of the paper Eliminating Poverty: Creating Jobs and Strengthening Social
Programs, based on the work of the Task Force on Eliminating Poverty constituted by the NITI
Aayog, Government of India in March 2015.
The paper does not represent the views of either the Government of India or the NITI Aayog. It
concentrates on a subset of important initiatives that would contribute to rapid elimination of poverty
and does not try to be exhaustive.]

*****