A REVIEW OF THE STUDIES ON POVERTY AND INEQUALITY IN INDIA

CONTENTS Introduction
Chapter 1: Concept of Poverty and Inequality Concept 2: Poverty in India Chapter 3: Studies on Inequality Chapter 4: Causes of Poverty and Inequality in India Chapter 5: Conclusion: The Anti-Poverty Programmes Notes Bibliography 82 99 75 63 20 4

Page
1

INTRODUCTION
Poverty and inequality are complex phenomena and their major discussions and consequent policy implications deserve the attention of all concerned. A critical review of the academic

research on these phenomena reveals a variety of perspectives. Major differences in this respect have characterized the discussions of the definition of poverty and its measurement on the one hand, and of the elaboration of the concept of inequality in the context of a developing economy on the other. Policy implications also differ in different studies, which is a natural outcome of the differences in approach. One of these approaches starts from the concept of subsistence level for defined with some standard norm of nutrition. A second approach has been to use income and expenditure data for constructing a poverty line below which poverty will be said to exist. In this approach data relating to per capita income or

expenditure are utilized to establish the concept of a poverty level. Broadly speaking, these two approaches distinguish the major studies on poverty so far undertaken in India. Measurement of economic inequality can be regarded as one aspect of the wider problem of securing social equity and justice. In a sense it is perhaps the most important aspect of the broader concept. of social Economic inequality prevents the realization of the goals equity and justice. Economic justice becomes an

important issue in the context of widespread poverty; the contrast becomes sharper when there exist small islands of affluence in an ocean of poverty. The studies on inequality in India generally use such standard measures as the Lorenz ratio though other more refined measure have also been used. Poverty and economic

inequality can be regarded as the twin aspects of the same problem. In India again the problem of poverty and inequality is

further aggravated by caste stratification which is a prominent feature of her social and community life over and above the economic stratification as commonly found in capitalist economies. The objective of this dissertation is very modest. It attempts to make a brief survey of the major studies on the measurement of poverty and inequality in India. At the outset the theoretical

position in respect of the concepts of poverty and inequality has been explained, and subsequently the various Indian studies on the two topics have been analysed. Thus the dissertation has been divided into five Chapters. In the first chapter, we review economic theory relevant to the concepts of poverty and inequality. In the second chapter we deal with different measures that have been evolved for the study of poverty in India. In the third Chapter we take a critical look at the studies made about economic inequality in India. The fourth chapter is devoted to an attempt to piece

together the factors which the different studies on poverty and inequality have shown to be the underlying causes of these

disturbing phenomena. In the last chapter we have made a brief survey of the programmes adopted in India to launch a direct attack on poverty in the rural areas.

CHAPTER-1
CONCEPT OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
An analysis of the Indian economic situation reveals two features: First, while the economy has attained a modest trend rate of growth, the problem of poverty perpetuates. Secondly, in our plan documents the problem of distribution has not been completely left out of discussions relating to production, and the possibility of conflict between growth and distribution has not been explicitly recognized.1 The essence of this argument in favour of this is as follows: A very slow rate of growth along with inequality in income distribution has perpetuated poverty in India. A large proportion of population has to live without even the most essential needs of daily life because total national income is too small relative to the size of population; and secondly, the distribution of this income is very uneven. This problem cannot be overcome if emphasis is not put simultaneously on economic growth and reduction of inequality. Even the highest attainable rate of growth cannot make a major impact on the problem of poverty in the foreseeable future if inequality is not reduced. There has been a clear recognition, from the First Five Year Plan onwards, of the need for special policies for the benefit of the poor. In fact, the justification of policies like land reforms,

subsidies to the village industries, economic assistance to the backward communities and so on is to be partly found in the recognition of their problem, while the problem is explicitly stated in the plan documents, there always appears to exist a gap between the formulation and execution of policies which could be regarded as intended primarily for the benefit of the poor. Indeed, the

attempt to identify the poor in operational terms has started only in recent years. At present the problem of poverty is being dealt with both unprofessional writing and in government policy documents and programmes with increasing frequency. Poverty is a complex

phenomenon and at least its major dimensions require considerable attention if the problem is to be properly comprehended. should, therefore, start with the basic question: What is poverty? A review of the academic research in the field and of government programmes dealing with this subject shows several perspectives which have characterised approaches to the definition of poverty. Three such perspectives can be clearly discerned from the literature. One such perspective to the definition of poverty uses income and expenditure data in order to establish a bench mark income figure below which poverty may be said to exist. 2 Thus a size distribution of incomes is constructed and per capita income data are widely used as a means of establishing the bench mark income figure. We can distinguish two aspects of the so-called size We

distribution of incomes. The first focuses attention on one end of the distribution, those with the lowest income or the poor,

choosing a more or less arbitrary bench-mark income figure. Here one can study the magnitude of poverty either in terms of the absolute number of the poor, or one can look at the different degrees of poverty within the group designated as the poor. second aspect comprises the degrees of inequality
3

The the

in

distribution of income and is concerned with the whole of the distribution. The degree of inequality is generally measured by the

Lorenz Curve or Gini Coefficient. While the first aspect deals with

the absolute poverty level, the second deals with poverty in its relative sense.4

The

first

approach

has

its

limitations-

incomprehensive

coverage, inaccuracy of measurement, inconsistency of definition and a failure to include all the sources other than income which support the consumption of people in the lower rung of the economic ladder. In the Indian context, measures of supporting resources such as ownership of land and other assets, income in kind and private gifts should be included and these are very difficult to compile on the part of the statistician. Thus, income figures are not accurate especially for the two extreme economic classes- the poor and the rich. While the poor are ill-equipped to provide

correct information required for proper income and expenditure studies, the rich are least inclined to reveal their true economic power. As a result, income and expenditure data tend to have a downward bias for both the groups: for the poor, lack of literacy and consciousness and the subsistence production system largely play their parts; for the rich, the reasons are completely differentlack of organization in the economy and steep progression in the direct tax laws include the rich to record their income on the lower side. The second perspective can be specified as a subsistence approach to the concept of poverty. People who cannot afford the But

minimum necessities for bare subsistence are defined as poor. how are we to define the required minimum level?

The minimum in

need is defined in terms of food consumption or more specifically, terms of nutritional requirements.

This is then converted into an

income level for a particular base year.5

But in a country of Indias size, with wide differences in geography, climate, habits and customs, nutritional requirements are found to vary across levels and patterns of living and diet. In such a situation, to develop an index of minimum needs it is necessary to take account of customary behavior. Therefore, such

a subsistence definition of nutritional requirements; it also depends on subjective consideration like preferences and prejudices. A third perspective to the definition of poverty is concerned with the degrees of differences of welfare among different group of people who can be designated as poor by the first two approaches mentioned in earlier paragraphs. This approach seeks to establish a measure of poverty by attaching appropriate weights, which vary inversely with the difference of income levels of the poor from the chosen poverty line.6 Thus from the first approach, we have an income threshold definition of poverty, while the second gives a multinational

definition of the same. But these approaches divide the population into poor and non-poor and cannot take into account the differences in the degree of intensity of poverty in the different income layers below the poverty line. the third approach. What lessons can be draw from the three approaches to the definition of poverty? One point which emerges is that these This weakness is sought to be removed in

approaches try to define poverty in the context of economic factors only and, again, these definitions are concerned with the people in the lower strata of the income scale. But the concept of poverty should be seen in the context of society as a whole. As society is better seen as a series of stratified income layers, poverty should be conceived in the light of how the lower strata fare as compared to the people in the upper layers of distribution. Moreover, poverty

means helplessness of the persons designated as poor as these people are at the lower end of a two-fold hierarchy of stratification along economic and social dimensions. In short, the poor are part of a set of stratification system within the society and they are ranked at the bottom of each hierarchy. The economic factors are significant in the sense that these constitute the most important dimensions of poverty; but these alone cannot fully describe the condition of the poor. Therefore, the definition of poverty should be broad-based, for it is only a proper identification of the poor that can determination of policies to solve the problem in a proper way.

Measures of Inequality
A variety of indices for the measurement of the degree of inequality are found in the literature on income distribution. These indices emphasis different aspects of the inequality phenomenon. Theoretically, these indices are not completely satisfactory;

sometimes, they exhibit contradictory tendencies in the distribution of income unless the latter adapts itself to a well defined family of distributions whose properties are completely known. Because of

the limitation inherent in all measures of inequality, one may adopt a more general approach to the problem by laying down that any measure of inequality should be concerned with the distribution of a size variable (x) relative to the mean (M) or any other typical value of x. This principle is recognized in all the known measures of inequality. These well-known empirical measures of inequality are

Lorenz Curve, the Gini Co-efficient, the Co-efficient of variation, the S.D. of logarithm etc. Before going into details about these

measures, we discuss the methodology regarding the measurement of inequality of income.

Conceptually, we can draw a distinction between the objective and the normative approaches to the measurement of inequality of income. As objective measurement, in itself, is not of interest and presupposes appraisal; the difference between the two approaches, in fact, emerges at the level at which normative considerations come up. Therefore, use of the word equality in the context of distribution of income necessarily involves normative judgement. This is so in both the situations. We may be interested in inequality in the distribution of income of a country at different points of time or, we may compare the inequality in the distribution of income of different countries at the same point of time. In the literature, we find two broad categories of the

measures of inequality. On set of measures try to quantify the size of inequality in some objective sense by using some statistical measures of relative variation of income. Such measures include

the variance, the co-efficient of variation, the Lorenz Curve, the Gini Co-efficient etc. On the other hand, there are indices that try to measure inequality in terms of some normative notion of social welfare- that is , when the level of income is given, a higher degree of inequality corresponds to a lower level of social welfare.7 We now discuss the measures of inequality. It would not be in

wrong if we discuss some measures briefly while concentrating on others which have been used widely in the literature on inequality income distribution in India.8 Long ago Pigou maintained that any transfer of income from the poor to the rich, ceteris paribus, should increase inequality and diminish welfare.
9

The common statistical measure of dispersionBut the dependence of

variance-does satisfy the Pigou condition.

variance on the mean income level makes its position weaker; since

one distribution with lower mean income level but greater relative variation around the mean registers smaller variance than another distribution with higher mean but smaller relative variation around the mean. To remove this weakness we take the square root of the variance and divide it by the mean to make it mean-independent. This is the co-efficient of variation. The Co-efficient of variation is sensitive to income transfer for all income levels. But sometimes it is desirable that we should attach lower importance to income transfers at the higher levels of income and greater importance to income transfer at the lower end of the income scale. This objective is fulfilled in another measureSince standard deviation is actual income levels, the

the standard deviation of logarithm. derived from the logarithm of

the

staggering effect of logarithm highlights the income transfers at the lower end of income distribution and minimises the effect of the transfer at the higher levels. This feature makes this measure attractive, but this creates difficulty for other reasons. The severe

contraction the income levels suffer-as they get higher and higherdenies this welfare measure its concavity to be a concave function of individual incomes, this measure can create difficulties.10 When we get interested about the share of different deciles of population from the lower end in the national income, we take recourse to the Lorenz Curve. This curve depicts the percentages of the population arranged in ascending order according to their positions of the income scale on the horizontal axis and the percentages of total income enjoyed by each of these groups are shown on the vertical axis. If everyone has the same income, the Lorenz Curve will by the diagonal, which is called equality line. The deviation of the Lorenz Curve from the line of absolute equality is an index of inequality. One distribution is unequivocally more

unequal than another only if the Lorenz Curve for the former lies below the Lorenz Curve for the latter throughout its range.

The advantage of the Lorenz Curve lies in its use of the arithmetic scale. It is, again, independent of any assumption about

the form of the distribution to which the observed data must conform. However, when the form of the distribution is known with by of are

certainty, the corresponding Lorenz Curve is uniquely determined the values of the distributional parameters. these parameters Lorenz Curves are For different values obtained which

completely non-overlapping.11 The use of Lorenz Curve as a means of measuring income inequality within the utilitarian framework has been justified in the literature. 12 It has been shown that if social welfare is additively

separable and if it is the sum of individuals-then the partial ordering of income distribution according to Lorenz Criterion is identical with the ordering implied by social welfare. This result holds irrespective of the form of the individual utility functions as long as they are concave. 13 Intuitively, one might expect that the equivalence of

partial orderings would hole for any symmetric social welfare function utilities.14 When the Lorenz Curves of two distributions intersect, there is ambiguity in comparison; that is, for comparative purposes, it is difficult to say which Lorenz Curve represents greater inequality. Gini introduced an analytical measure called the concentration ration or the Gini Coefficient, which is the ratio of the area which is quasi-concave and increasing in individual

between the equality line and the Lorenz Curve to the triangular region below the diagonal. It is defined as exactly one half of the

relative mean difference-this is the arithmetic average of the absolute values of differences between all parts of incomes. 1 G 2q2 m

y y | |
i j i 1 j1

Where m is the mean income of the poor, and q is the number of persons. After a bit of manipulation the formula reduces to G 1 1 yiq 1i q q 2m i 1 2
q
15

for y1 y2 y3 . yn Since the Gini Co-efficient takes note of differences between every pair of incomes, it is a direct measure of income inequality; it is also sensitive to transfer from the rich to the poor at every level. Gini Co-efficient is mean-independent, that is, it is invariant with respect to equi-proportionate change of incomes of all

individuals.

If the mean income of the distribution changes, while

there is no change in the inequality measure, the effect on the measure of absolute poverty is certain. It moves inversely with the changes in the mean income. But measure of inequality being mean-independent, changes in mean income introduce complex difficulties in measuring of poverty in a relative sense. In a society with higher to mean a income with inequality lower causes greater injustice This fact

compared

society

mean

income.

introduces ambiguity in the measurement of poverty in a relative sense.16

Since the Gini Co-efficient is an index of inequality, the negative of it can be treated as a welfare function. But this

function, being a linear function of income levels, is not a strictly concave group welfare function. As strict concavity is a desirable

criterion for a welfare function. Gini co-efficient is thought to be weak on this point. 17 But this measure takes into account any to the rich in appropriate
18

transfer of income from the poor

direction, and it is, though not strictly concave, is concave alright. Atkinson proposed a new measure of inequality I* 1 Y* m
19

by an index:

Where Y* is the level of income per head and m is the mean of the income distribution. If the level of income is equally distributed, Y* would give the same level of social welfare as the present

distribution. Moreover, in a separate measure,20 Atkinson introduced

distributional objective through an explicit parameter, say E, which represents the weight attached by the society to inequality in the distribution. When the society is indifferent regarding the income

distribution, the value of E becomes zero, and when the society is concerned only with the position of the lowest income group, the parameter becomes infinity. The index is:
n 1E 1 1E

I 1

i 1

Yi Y

fi

Where Y1 is the income of those in the 1-th income range, f1 is the proportion of the population with incomes in the 1-th range and Y the mean income. This index indicates the proportion of the

present total income that would be required to achieve this same level of social welfare as at present if income were equally

distributed. The measure is an index of the potential gains from redistribution.

The inadequacy of the index of income distribution as an index of the distribution of welfare has been pointed out by Bentozel. 21 In this view, it is the distribution of consumption which has a direct bearing on the distribution of welfare. welfare point of of view the or welfare-creating consumption in are From the of the these income

properties important; of

distribution properties

income be

should

represented

the

analysis

inequality. Bentzels new measure seems to fulfill this condition. The construction of this index is as follows: Assuming that a group of individuals have the same welfare function u(c), where c denotes the level of consumption and f(c) is the frequency function of the level of individual consumption, the aggregate welfare (w) can be written as W n

u(c)f(c) dc
0

Where n is the number of individuals. Suppose W* is the maximum aggregate of welfare that could the be obtained by a

redistribution

consumption

between

individuals. The

difference between W* and W can be interpreted as the total welfare loss caused by the inequality in the individual consumption measured by I ** 1 W W* by

The ratio W/W* has been called welfare efficiency of distribution Bentzel. But, in this analysis the precise relationship between

distribution of consumption brought out very clearly.

and distribution of welfare is not

Again, since the shape of the welfare

function u(c) is unknown, the definition of welfare efficiency of distribution is not useful for empirical analysis.22

Sens Measure
Sen has constructed a measure of poverty in an axiomatic framework.23 This measure takes into account the income

distribution among the people designated as poor, that is, people below the poverty line. If yj is the income level of individual j, the individuals may be numbered in a non-decreasing order of income, satisfying y1 y2 . yn If z is the poverty line and q is the number of people with income yi z, then for any person i q, there are exactly (q+1-i) people among the poor with at least as high a welfare level as person i. Let n be the total population. The poverty-measure P

can be written as 2 P (q 1)nz (z yi)(q 1 i)

This measure of poverty P is closely related to Gini Co-efficient, and Sen has established a correspondence between Gini Co-efficient and his poverty measure. Defining the head-count ratio H as the ratio of the number of people below the poverty line, Sen(1976) has the relation P = H [I*-(1-I*)G] Where G is the Gini Co-efficient and I* reveals the percentage of the mean shortfall of incomes of the poor from the poverty line. From this relation an important policy implication follows:
24

proved

The

aggregate welfare of the population can be increased by minimizing the inequality in the distribution of income. In any actual situation, the use of the measure P involves the specification of the welfare function. In such a choice, value

judgement

cannot

be

avoided.

Moreover,

this

measure

is

concerned with only a part of the income distribution. Our analysis of the different measure of inequality leads finally to the following points: First, the literature is full of

controversy regarding the practical relevance of the implicit welfare function, the shape of the welfare function and the question of ordering in the social welfare. Second, while descriptive measures like coefficient of variation, standard deviation of logarithm etc. lack motivation, purely normative measures seem to leave out of consideration several important characteristics of inequality.

Chapter-2
Poverty in India
The problem of poverty had attracted the attention of

economists even before independence 25 but as we are interested in the study of the post-independence period, we will not discuss this here. the After independence a vast literature on poverty has emerged, important of this being Dandekar and Rath(1971), Bardhan(1970,1973) and

most

Ojha(1970),

Minhas(1970),

Vaidyanathan(1974).

Most of these studies take 1960-61 as a

bench mark year for the purpose of comparison, and the data used by these studies cover periods upto 1968-69. These different

studies come to different conclusions both as regards the definition of the minimum standard of living and regarding the number of people below the different studies are four in number: (i)

differences in estimates of income and consumption; (ii) different concepts of adequate nutritional levels; (iii) differences regarding current price deflator to be used; and (iv) arbitrariness in the choice of some key conversion factors to overcome the lack of availability of appropriate disaggregated empirical data. Let us now explain these in turn. First, for the calculation of the size distribution of income and/or consumption most of these studies depend on the data yielded by the National Sample Surveys. But there is discrepancy between NSS data and national income statistics prepared by the C.S.O. It is alleged that NSS data underestimates consumption expenditure for the upper income classes,
26

which implies that the

measure of poverty will not be affected but the measure of inequality will be. Secondly, the concepts of a minimum adequate

level of nutrition and its purchasing power equivalent form the basis of all the studies that have tried to estimate the numbers of people living below the national poverty line. But different authorities give different estimates of nutritional requirements. Among these are:

PPD, Planning Commission(1974), Sukhatma (1971) and Gopalan, Sastri and Balasubramanian(1971). Thirdly, as most of the income

and consumption expenditure data are available initially at current prices, one has to deflate them to obtain real values for the purpose of inter-temporal comparisons. But the choice of a correct price deflator is difficult as different income groups possess different preference patterns, some buy commodities at ex-farm prices and some obtain commodities through exchange in kind. Again, prices

for the identical commodities vary region wise. Thus conclusions vary because the researchers use different price deflators. While Minhas(1970) and Dandekar and Rath(1971) use the national income deflator, Bardhan(1970) uses the official Agricultural Labour Consumer Price Index for deflating the values of consumption of the rural poor and the Official Working Class Consumer Price Index for deflating the consumption of the urban poor.
27

In this connection,

it will not be out of place to mention the nature of price movement of different commodities had in different our parts to of the India. unequal

Mahalanobis(1962)

drawn

attention

movement of the prices of cereals for different decile groups of the population in rural India.28 This was later corroborated by

extensive tabulation of NSS household budget data undertaken for the Government of India Committee on Distribution of Income and Levels of Living. Since cereals occupy a very important place in the consumer budget, specially for rural households, the above finding stresses the need of constructing inter-temporal consumer price indices separately for different fractile groups of population.

Fourthly, in different studies, conversion factors have been used to build up a complete picture from fragmented data. The assumption

in Dandekar and Rath(1971) is that the top 30 per cent of the population would have fared no worse in terms of consumption between 1960-61 and 1967-68 than the lower income groups. the other hand, Bardhan(1970) uses a conversion On

factor

appropriate to the bottom 50 per cent of the population for the derivation of an estimate of total expenditure from expenditure on food items. From these it follows that there cannot be a correct estimate that can be derived from the assumption that are made in the studies noted above. With these preliminary observations we will now turn to an analysis of the Studies on Indian Poverty.

In July, 1962 the Government of India set up a Study Group29 which recommended that a per capita annual consumption of Rs.240 at 1960-1961 prices should be considered as the nationally desirable minimum level of consumer expenditure. This excluded

expenditure on health and education, which was supposed to be provided free of cost by the state. This level of expenditure has often been taken as the poverty line and the proportion of people below this standard of consumption has been investigated by different economists. the keystone presented in for the This notice of poverty line again constitutes long term planning that is on It

the exercise in Planning

Commission

document Notes

Perspective of Development, India

1960-1961 to 1975-76.

cannot be ascertained whether any competent statistical authority arrived at this figure after careful consideration. In fact, how this

figure was reached remains up till now somewhat of a mystery to ordinary citizens. However, as this figure is important, we shall

examine in greater detail. First, this official poverty standard, being essentially an

absolute measure, is inadequate since this is based purely on

money income and ignores other aspects of deprivation. account is taken of poor quality housing, schools of health care which may be independent of low money income. Moreover, poverty may represents only one aspect of a more

No

general
30

powerlessness, an inability to influence ones environment.

Of

course, this aspect of poverty is neglected by almost all the poverty measure in use in India; such powerlessness on the part of the poor makes the problem of poverty doubly acute. We will turn to this aspect of the problem in the last section. Secondly, apart from methodological criticism, the presumption that the population would be provided education and health care free of cost by the State can be questioned. In fact, as nearly two-thirds of the population

remain illiterate, 31 and the government health programme has not yet been able to cover all the villages in the country, such an assumption simply ignores reality. As people are often forced to spend on medicine, inclusion of some expenditure on medicine in the consumer budget appears to be necessary and this makes the Rs.20 per month figure rather suspect. Thirdly, though the idea of

nutritional norm has been accepted regarding food items in private consumption expenditure, in respect of non-food items like clothing and housing no yardsticks have been worked out on any scientific basis. The minimum standard of living prescribed by the Study Group is necessarily the biological minimum diet has been carefully worked out by Sukhatme(1965).
32

He take into account various

recommendation of the Food and Agricultural Organisation [FAO] and the Nutrition Advisory Committee [NAC]. Again he has made specific allowances habits; for he India has in terms into of availabilities and

consumption

taken

account

different

requirements of persons in different age and sex groups and thus worked out two food baskets corresponding to a minimum concept

and a medium concept. The cost of the minimum food basket (per day) has been worked out as Rs.0.5238 at 1960-61 prices or Rs.15.71 per month at 1960-61 prices. As compared with

Sukhatmes estimate, the cost of a minimum diet prescribed by the FAO33 is Rs.18.26 at 1960-61 prices. Sometimes alternative standards have been defined in terms of

minimum Calorie requirements, as in Ojha (1970) and Dandekar and Rath (1971). They have taken 2250 Calories is met from food grain and considering the food grains intake per person in different expenditure brackets as given by NSS data they have estimated the proportion of population below the poverty line.34 On the basis of the recommendations of Dr. Patwardhan as mentioned in the Report of the Central Government Employees Pay Commission (1957-59), Bardhan (1973) has worked out the cost of the minimum diet recommended for an built in moderate activity. The diet consists of 15 0z. of cereals, 3 0z. of pulses, milk (4 0z) sugar and gur (1.5 0z), edible oils (1.25 0z), groundnut (1 0z) and vegetables (6 0z). These give 2100 calories and 55 grams of
35

protein per day. Because of non-availability of prices, Bardhan leaves out the last two items i.e., groundnut and vegetables. For the determination of the cost of this minimum diet Bardhan adjusts the NSS rural retail prices to take account of the lower prices for non-monetized consumption. First, the cost of this minimum diet

for adults is determined. Then he adjusts it by an adult-equivalent ratio to obtain the cost of the minimum diet for an average person. Then he blows it up by using food to non-food expenditure ratio of the relevant expenditure group of the rural population from NSS data, to get the estimated minimum level of living for rural India to be Rs.28 per capita per month in 1968-69 in current prices.

Bardhan (1973) has taken the food basket from the report of the Second Pay Commission and has used the rural retail prices from NSS estimates as is done by the Commission; but he has arrived at a much lower value. While in the former the cost of the minimum diet is Rs. 14.51 per month per adult unit, that is, Rs.11.61 per month per person basis, the corresponding figures in Bardhan are Rs.11.61 and Rs.9.61 respectively. The lower figures of Bardhan can be traced to the following two elements in his calculation: First, he has neglected vegetables and ground-nuts from the food baskets; and secondly, he has adjusted the NSS based average retail prices to take into account the consumption of home grown articles on the part of rural consumers. Regarding the second consideration Rudra (1974) has taken exception on two points.36 First, according to Rudra, the procedure adopted by

Bardhan (1973) is arbitrary, as he overlooks the fact that it is not only the home grown part that is evaluated in the NSS data in prices different from the average retail prices; the cash purchased part in NSS expenditure data is evaluated in actual prices paid by the consumers, and not by the average retail prices independently estimated and separately presented by the NSS. While the price average in the NSS expenditure data regarding cash purchases is a weighted average, the rural retail prices are simple averages. Secondly, Rudra points out that the blow-up factor (46%) is not correct. We have discussed the nature and inadequacy of the concept of an absolute poverty line in India. Let us now turn to the studies Indian poverty. Minhas (1970)37 has used the computations of Tewari on

(1968) 38 to derive the estimates of per capita private consumption expenditure, which are at 1960-61 prices. He has, then, applied

the NSS ratio of rural to urban consumption to obtain the estimates of rural average per Capita Consumption. These estimates of per capita overall consumption in rural area in 1960-61 prices, together with the percentage shares of different fractile groups of population in total consumption, derived from different NSS rounds, have been used to derive the average per Capita Consumption in 1960-61 prices of each fractile group of the population over several years. It will not be out of place if we reproduce here a table from Minhas:

Table: Average Per Capita Consumption by Fractile Groups at 1960-61 prices in 1956-57 and 1967-68: Rural India

1956-57 (Rs.) Fractile Group Poorest 5% 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-95 Richest 5% 63 88 108 133 155 180 207 240 283 351 443 731

1967-68 (Rs.)

81 110 137 166 194 222 254 292 240 414 512 723

Source: Minhas (1970) Table 2. Abridged

We see that the richest 5% of Indians could enjoy a per Capita Consumption level of about Rs.2 in 1960-61 prices per day in the years 1956-57 and 1967-68. Even this group cannot be termed as

rich by the world standard, though they are at the topmost income level in the villages of India. The poorest 30% or the people, and the other extreme, live a life beyond the description and analysis of the economists and nutrition experts. If the level of per Capita annual consumption expenditure of Rs.240 at 1960-61 prices is accepted as a bare minimum, the percentage of people in rural India below this poverty line was 65 in 1956-57 and 50.6 in 1967-68. But in Minhas estimate the absolute number of people below the poverty line in rural India remained almost same - 215 million in 1956-57 and 210 million in 1967-68. If, however, a level of Rs.200 at 1960-61 prices is taken as the minimum, the proportion of people below the poverty line would be 52.4 per cent in 1956-57 and 37.1 per cent in 1961. The steady decline in the proportion of people below the poverty line is, according to Minhas, largely explained by the growth of an average per Capita Consumption at a rate of 1.25 per cent per year over the period 1956-57 and 1967-68. As regards the identification of the rural poor Minhas be specified several classes to which most of them belong and these classes are: (a) Agriculture labour households without land, which formed 58 to 61 per cent of all agricultural labour household between 1956-57 and 1963-64. (b) (c) Other rural labour household without land. Agricultural labour household with land, which formed between 42 to 39 per cent of agricultural labour

households between 1956-57 and 1963-64.

(d)

Marginal farmers operating holdings below 5 acres in size.

According to the estimate of Minhas, the total number of people in agriculture labour households in 1960-61 was 66.5 million of which about 26.5 millions belonged to households who operated some land as well. The corresponding estimates for non-

agricultural rural labour were 15.8 and 6.8 millions respectively. Therefore, the total rural labour population in 1960-61 was

estimated to be 82.3 millions and of these 33.3 millions belonged to households who operated some land also. Minhas estimated that

about 79 per cent of the population of these households had a per capita annual level of consumption of less than Rs.200 at 1960-61 prices in the year 1956-57. percentage of poor among Minhas further stated that the the agricultural labour population in

declined to 75 in 1960-61, which corresponded to about 50 million absolute numbers.39

While Minhas is concerned with rural poverty only, Ojha (1970) deals with both rural and urban poverty for the year 196061 and only rural poverty for the year 1967-68. In his study Ojha accepts 2250 Calories as the barest minimum intake per capita per day for a representative Indian. He further assumes that people in urban areas derive 66 per cent of 2250 calories from food grains; for the people in rural areas that percentage is 80. he then

compares the actual food consumption in grams per head of rural and urban population using the NSS data [16 th round].41 This

means that to attain the nutritional minimum per capita daily consumption should be 518 grams in rural areas and 532 grams in urban areas. After some modifications of the estimates of food grains intake he finds that the average level of food grains intake per person was below the standard for expenditure levels up to Rs.15-12 per capita per month at 1960-61 prices. Regarding the

urban population the corresponding expenditure level for which deficiency in consumption existed was Rs.11-13 per capita per month at 1960-61 prices. On his basis Ojha finds that in 1960-61

about 51.8 per cent of rural population lived below the poverty line, and for the urban population the proportion of those considered as poor was only 7.6 per cent. Ojhas conclusion regarding poverty in the urban area is surprising because of the following reasons. First, the urban

households tend to spend a smaller percentage of their incomes on food grains, which Ojha has accepted in his calculation. But this again means that urban households derive a comparatively larger fraction of the required 2250 calories from food other than food grains gives greater calorie value compared to the same spent on items other than food grains, the minimum expenditure levels for the required 2250 calories should be higher in urban areas.
42

Secondly, since unit prices of food grains in urban areas are higher than in rural areas, expenditure in urban areas for food grains should be higher.
43

Though Ojha takes the nutritional norm for

urban are as 432 grams, which is 86 grams lower than the rural requirement of 518 grams (and this means that smaller volume of expenditure is involved), the urban people must procure additional calories from food items other than food grains, and again they are to purchase these at higher prices. These points seem to have been missed by Ojha and that is why his estimated poverty line for the urban area is as low as Rs.11-13 per Capita per month, and much lower than the figure estimated for the rural areas. From these it seems that the proportion of population in urban areas below the poverty line is much higher than the estimate of Ojha indicates.

Regarding the year 1967-68, Ojha calculates that about 70 per cent of rural households were living below the poverty line. Moreover, the degree of nutritional deficiency was higher for each expenditure level. Ojha does not consider the question of urban

poverty for the year 1967-68. The study of Dandekar and Rath (1971) has some important features which are as follows. 44 First, this study is extensive in the sense that it covers both rural and urban poverty condition for the relevant period. Secondly, in this study the authors have made a number of arbitrary adjustments to the NSS data. Thirdly, these authors also assume that a daily intake a 2250 Calories per adult person is the required minimum for subsistence, and this figure is derived from the estimate of Sukhatme (1971). Fourthly, these authors have not only analysed the nature of Indian poverty in greater detail, but they have also examined the feasibility of the Planning Commissions perspective regarding
45

the

reduction

of

poverty in India during the planning period.

In fact, a large part

of their study is devoted to prove that the Planning Commissions perspective appears to be completely out of line with the

performance of the economy in the past decade and is therefore unlikely to be realized. Moreover, Dandekar and Rath are critical about the NSS consumption expenditure data, which, according to them, do not reflect fully the pattern of inequality existing in the economy because of its downward bias regarding the consumer expenditure of the richer sections. However, we shall examine this point later on. The method followed by Dandekar and Rath is similar to that of Ojha (1970) but with difference that they have assumed that about 200 calories would be obtained per Capita per day from food

other than food grains.

Now according to Dandekar and Rath

(henceforth D - R), in rural area, the per Capita daily consumption of food grains and substitutes reaches 616 grams for households with per Capita monthly expenditure of Rs.170.8. If one gram of food grains, including substitute, gives 3.3 Calories, 2033 Calories per capita per day can be obtained with the consumption of 616 grams of food grains. Another 200 Calories are obtained by these households from the consumption of items like edible oil, ghee and butter, sugar and gur and a little of milk, meat and fish. Thus the total intake of food at this level seems to give about 2250 Calories per capita per day. It implies that, and annual per Capita

consumption expenditure of Rs.170 (at 1960-61 prices) is essential to give a diet adequate in respect of calories in 1960-61. Now D R find that about 33.12 per cent of rural population had their per Capita annual consumption expenditure below the stipulated

minimum i.e., Rs.170 at 1960-61 prices. Regarding urban consumption, D - R find from NSS data that urban households secure the minimum Calories requirement of 2250 at levels where their consumption of food grains and

substitutes reaches 490 grams per person per day. Again, while a rural household at Rs.170 per capita per annum spends 78.56 per cent on food, an urban household at Rs.271 per capita per annum spend only 70.26 per cent on food; again of this 70.26 per cent only 36.45 per cent goes on food grains and substitutes and the remaining 33.81 per cent is spent on other items of food. Finally, the prices of food grains which an urban household at an

expenditure level of Rs.271 per capita per annum pays are almost 25 per cent higher than the prices paid by a rural household at expenditure level of Rs.170 per capita per annum. Hence an annual per capita urban expenditure of Rs.271 is to be regarded as equivalent to an annual per capita rural expenditure of Rs.170.

Now D - R find that about 48.64 per cent on urban population in 1960-61 could not afford the diet consumed by the group with an annual per capita expenditure of Rs.271. Thus 48.64 per cent of urban population lived below the poverty line. According to D - R the NSS estimate of average per capita consumption in 1967-68 is an underestimate. What is unacceptable to them regarding the NSS estimate is that NSS estimate of rural per capita consumption estimate of Rs.239.8 (at 1960-61 prices) in the year 1967-68 is about 7 per cent lower than the corresponding NSS estimate in 1960-61; again, it is about 11 per cent lower than the consumption estimate for 1967-68 derived from the national income statistics. Using the national income deflator D - R find that the average per capita consumption of the lowest 5 per cent rural fractile group in 1967-68 is 94 per cent of that in 1960-61, whereas for the topmost 5 per cent fractile group the estimate of average per capita consumption is only 73 per cent of that in 196061. Now such a large differential decline in per capita consumption of the richest 5 per cent is not acceptable to D - R, as this goes against their a prior judgement that during the sixties there has been an obvious increase in inequality in the structure of the Indian rural economy. It is clear that the position taken by D - R rests on whether the NSS estimate of average per capita consumption is an under estimates or not. On this point Bardhan (1974)46 is of the view that the deflating of private consumer expenditure data by the national income deflator is improper. Bardhan cites the study of

Radhakrishnan, Srinivasan and Vaidyanathan

(1974) who have

worked out a general consumer price index on the basis of NSS weights for ten commodity groups and wholesale prices data issued by the office of the Economic Adviser to the Government of India. The Radhakrishnan, Srinivasan and Vaidyanathan (R-S-V) index is
47

178.1 in 1968-69 taking 1960-61 figure as 100, but for the same period national income deflator increases from 100 to 169.8. Now the R-S-V index is used, not only is the NSS estimate for per Capita real consumption for 1967-68 below that for 1960-61, but the official estimate for 1967-68 will also be lower than that for 1960-61. Thus Bardhan (1974) asserts that NSS estimate should if

not be discarded simply because it establishes a decline in the per Capita real Consumption during the sixties. But the observation of D-R regarding the increasing

under estimation of the consumption of the rich in NSS estimate is endorsed by Bardhan (1974) and other economists, satisfactory explanation of this is yet available. given by D-R is as follows: The NSS secures its estimates of consumer expenditures by interviewing a random sample of rural and urban households and inquiring from them about their consumer expenditure during the previous month. The limitations of this procedure are well known. For instance, a number of items of consumer expenditure, such as clothing and other consumer durables, which a household would purchase less frequently than once every month, are likely to be missed by this procedure and hence the expenditure on them is likely to be under-estimated. These are the items which are more important in the consumer expenditure of the rich than the poor and they become more important as the rich become richer. It is also known that the upper middle and the richer households, both in rural and urban areas, have become increasingly inaccessible to the NSS investigators who are after all class III government servants. But the relative infrequency of the purchase of some
48

though no

The explanation

consumer durables and articles of high consumption need not lead

to underestimation as the NSS is canvassed in a number of subrounds spread throughout the year and so the seasonality, if any, in the purchase of consumer durables should not lead to any bias. Moreover, in any given sub-round the random sampling procedure the survey will ensure that purchasers of cloth are of not

systematically excluded. Now R-S-V have shown that the estimates of consumption at current prices derived from National Income and the NSS data a are in close agreement for the period 1954-55 to 1963-64, the two series differ considerably. These but authors

thereafter

conclude that the relatively close agreement between the NSS and official series for some years does not necessarily indicate the absence of systematic bias in the two series and similarly the divergence between the two series for the later years of the sixties does not necessarily indicate the presence of such bias. But R-S-V have not given any explanation for the divergence of the two series from 1963-64 onwards. Turning now to other studies we find that the study of Vaidyanathan (1974a, 1974b) takes an income level of Rs.132 per year to denote poverty and finds that the proportion of rural population living below the poverty line is 15.7 per cent in 1960-61. Now the poverty line drawn by Vaidyanathan is much lower compared to the estimates of others and there is little surprise that the number of the poor will be considerably lower.49 However, Vaidyanathan (1974a) has presented the following estimate of the proportion of rural population with per Capita Consumption According

expenditure below Rs.20 per month at 1960-61 prices.

to NSS estimate, the percentage of people living below the poverty line was 59.5 in 1960-61; it increased to 67.8 in the year 1967-68. Again, according to official estimate, the respective percentages are

58.8 and 57.8, which shows that the level of poverty remained more or less same during the sixties, though the number of people below the poverty line increased. The study of Bardhan (1970, 1970a, 1973) uses NSS data for distribution of consumer expenditure, but uses a different minimum level of income of Rs.15.00 per month at 1960-61 prices and Rs.28.4 at 1968-69 prices for the two years respectively. Bardhan then argues that the national income deflator (which rose from 100 in 1960-61 to 170 in 1967-68) as used by Minhas (1970) and Dandekar and Rath (1971) is not an appropriate price index to use, as it does not accurately reflect the set of prices facing the poor consumer. 50 This is due to the following reasons. First, national income includes both investment and consumption goods and as such the national income deflator cannot be a suitable index for studying changes in consumption. Secondly, the national income

deflator covers the prices the prices of both agricultural and industrial commodities. The weight of the latter items in the budget of the poor is much lower than the national average and hence the national income deflator is very likely to have understated the rise in the prices paid by the rural poor. This is more so when the prices of agricultural commodities have risen at a much faster rate than the prices of manufactured items. For the above reasons, Bardhan uses an alternative deflator which is the agricultural labour consumer price index. This index is based on the Labour Bureau series of consumer price index number for agricultural labourers constructed on the basis of NSS rural retail prices and weighting diagrams obtained from the Second Agricultural Labour Enquiry. Bardhan finds that the number of the

rural poor increased from about 135 million in 1960-61 to 230 million in 1968-69, that is, the percentage of the rural population

living below the prescribed minimum increased from somewhat less than 38 per cent in 1960-61 to about 54 per cent in 1968-69. This result is in sharp contrast to the conclusion reached by Minhas (1970). It is contended that the high figure of population below the poverty line in 1968-69 may be traced to the consumer price index used by Bardhan.
51

But Bardhan has defended these indices by

computing several alternative indices and showing their agreement. The study of Bhatty (1974)
52

is concerned with the extent of

rural poverty in 1968-69. The object of his study is to present a measure of absolute poverty in terms of per capita income, which takes into account the inequality of income distribution among the poor. Moreover, Bhatty is interested about the incidence of poverty

in different regions of rural India and among different classes of the rural population. To avoid arbitrariness, Bhatty has set five poverty

levels, which, in terms of per capita annual income in 1968-69 prices are: Rs.180, Rs.240, Rs.300, Rs.360 and Rs.420. Since the

study is concerned with a single year, 1968-69, no comparison is undertaken regarding the change in poverty level of the country. Taking Rs.360 as the minimum per capita annual income, Bhattys study reveals that about 67.15 per cent of all rural households lived below the poverty line. If only agricultural labourer households are considered, then about 82.84 per cent of them live below the poverty line, whereas for the non-agricultural households this percentage is 69.7. Thus the incidence of poverty is most severe

among agricultural labourers. Bhatty has also tried to calculate for India the magnitude of Sens poverty measure P, the result of which is summarized in the following table:

Sens Poverty measure P for India, 1968-69

Poverty annum 180

line: 240

rupees 300

per 360

Capita

per

420

(i)

All occupation classes

0.101

0.188

0.279

0.363

0.435

(ii)

Cultivators

0.107

0.187

0.269

0.345

0.415

(iii) Agricultural labourers

0.098

0.220

0.336

0.440

0.521

(iv) Non-agricultural

0.171

0.155

0.251

0.344

0.425

workers

Source: Bhatty (1974) Tables 7-10, pp. 316-17

From the table we find that of the three occupational classes, agricultural labourers are the most deprived. Bhatty has also

analysed in detail the level of poverty in different states. He has identified the five poorest states in the country - Gujrat, Tamil

Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Orissa - and explained the region wise variations of poverty level. He shows that while the incidence of poverty among the agricultural labourers is the highest in Gujrat and the lowest in Punjab, the non-agricultural workers are worse off in Madhya Pradesh. According to Bhatty, the relative incidence of absolute poverty in the rural population of different states depends on many factors, such as, land-man ratio,

topography and quality of land, rainfall, irrigation, cropping pattern, rural institutional structure etc. Thus this study points to the fact that any study on poverty should be based on the diversity of

different regions and it is pointless measure of poverty for India as a whole.

to calculate any uniform

The importance of regional study for ascertaining the poverty level has been emphasized also by Panikar, whose study is based on condition in Kerala.53 The author is concerned with the question

of choice of a nutritional measure used by Dandekar and Rath and the Nutrition advisory Committee. Panikar establishes the fact that

D-R have overestimated the number of the poor in Kerala, as the minimum diet accepted by D-R is in fact the India average. Indira Rajaraman (1975) discusses the incidence of poverty in the Punjab between 1960-61 and 1970-71.54 In the year 1960-61,

the lowest two deciles of population accounted for 10.4 per cent of total consumption, while in the year 1970-71, they accounted for only 8.9 per cent of total consumption. Again, during the same period the share of the topmost decile increased from 23.2 per cent to 24.7 per cent. Taking a consumption level of Rs.16.36 at 196061 price, Rajaraman finds that about 18.4 per cent of total The

population of Punjab lived below that consumption level. poverty line for the year 1970-71 has been estimated at a

consumption level of Rs.33086 at current prices, and the author has shown that the percentage of the poor has increased from 18.4 to 23.3 in ten years. It is seen in this study that poverty is most intense among the agricultural workers, as about 22.6 per cent of households lived below the poverty line in 1960-61 and in the year 1970-71, this percentage went up to about 40.5. In this respect, Rajaramans study is consistent with those of Bhatty (1974) and Bardhan (1970).55 Like Bhatty, Rajaraman also finds that incidence of poverty among the cultivators is comparatively low. While the increased incidence of poverty among the agricultural

labour households is significant statistically, this is not the case with the cultivating households. In a different type of study based on the socio-economic survey data derived from the sample households distributed all over Bangalore City, Hanumappa (1978) has shown that 24.35 per cent of

all households can be considered as poor in the context of their monthly income.
56

But the study is mainly concerned with the

effect of family size and education on the pattern of income distribution and so we will not pursue it further. We now take up for consideration an important study based on Kerala which will explain the difference between the conclusions of D-R and Panikar.
57

In the study of D-R, Kerala is seen to have

the largest percentage of population below the poverty line, 90.75 per cent in rural areas and 88.89 per cent in urban areas. The study on poverty by Centre of Development Studies (1975) has prepared a balance sheet compiled for Kerala and then compares it with the NSS data used by D-R. It is revealed that part of the explanation for the high proportion of the poor, as given by D-R, is that the NSS has underestimated certain items of food such as banana, coconut and fish entering into the diets of these people and as a result the extent of main nutrition in Kerala has been somewhat exaggerated. Whereas the per capita per day calories intake is 1619 calories for all food items according to the food balance sheet of this study (1975). Thus, the study reveals that 48 per cent of the population in Kerala lived below the poverty line in 1960-61. But the important point which the study reveals is that per Capita Consumption of food does not depend on per capita income alone, so that while a low consumption of food may indicate undernourishment, it need not necessarily mean poverty. Moreover it is

shown that per capita consumption of food in a region depends on per capita production of food and the pattern of the distribution of holdings; further, the degree of inequality is land

negatively

correlated with increases in food consumption.

One conclusion of

this study is that the availability of food cannot be treated as a function of income and price alone, but it may depend also on physical factors such as output in the region and institutional factors such as distribution of land holdings. Further, the above study suggests that we require more through scrutiny of regional variations in diet patterns before we draw the poverty line by counting calories with the help of size distribution of consumption expenditure derived from NSS data. A lack of uniformity in the structure of poverty in India has been highlighted by Vaidyanathan (1974), D-R (1971), Bhatty (1974) and Bardhan (1973). Vaidyanathan finds that six States-

Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh - had a higher percentage of people below the poverty line than the national average in the year 1960-61. Again, the level of poverty is very much lower in Assam and Punjab. But in D-R study the intensity of rural poverty is greater than the All India average in eight States and these are: Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Assam, West Bengal, Orissa, and Bihar. Again, barring Rajasthan, U.P., Bihar, Jammu and

Kashmir and Assam, the other eleven States show a greater percentage of the poor living in urban areas compared to the All India average in 1960-61. While in Bhattys study a greater concentration of poverty is seen in four States (Gujrat, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh), Bardhans study reveals that higher levels of poverty have been registered in West Bengal, Bihar, Kerala and Orissa.

Such inter-state variations in the percentage of people below the poverty line underscores the importance of the study of poverty on a regional basis. One cal also infer a high degree of correlation between the incidence of poverty and the pattern of the production of cereals, as, state wise, poverty seems to be higher in the nonwheat zones stretching from eastern India to the Malabar Coast. While this is just a reflection based on the available data, such a hypothesis (i.e., incidence of poverty being highly correlated with the pattern of cereal production) requires further detailed

investigation for its acceptance. All the above-mentioned studies suffer from two general weakness, if any, in NSS data will render the studies inaccurate. NSS data are based on stratified random sampling and so the sample households must represent all the rural and urban

households in the country.

But, as definitions have changed to

some extent in different NSS rounds, doubts can be expressed regarding Moreover, the comparability the of NSS data in different give years.

samples from

same

universe

comparable

results, but when sampling is done at two different points of time, the Universe is bound to change. This is likely to be reinforced by planned economic development. Whether data from different

samples drawn at two separate points of time are comparable or not is a matter of considerable doubt. Secondly, though rural consumption in NSS data includes non-monetised consumption, the latter may be of two types commodities produced at home and commodities simply derived from nature. While the first category can be valued by using exfarm prices, the second category cannot be valued at all. It is our contention that the second category of commodities represents some sort of free good derived from nature which is unique in a

rural

agricultural

country

with

largely

disorganized

and

demonetized economy.

To an NSS investigator such commodities

are either not mentioned at all or, even when mentioned, are likely to be neglected because of their largely no-economic character. This is more so because of the existing studies that the per capita per day barest minimum consumption should be 2250 calories and a sizeable section of Indian population cannot afford it. But the number of such poor people is increasing, though percentage-wise the size of the poor may be falling. Should we say that a man may survive without the barest minimum consumption day after day? Accordingly, either the barest minimum has to be further lowered, or we should concede the fact that people derived their necessary calories from the consumption of commodities, only a fraction of which can be brought within the economic categories. While the first weakness is common to any method of induction in statistics i.e., any representative sample may lose its representative character with change in the universe, second

weakness points to the more fundamental fact that the economic categories used for the measurement of rural consumption should more broad-based so that the way of living of the rural poor be analysed in greater detail. be can

Chapter-3
Studies on Inequality
Wide disparity in the living standards of the Indian population in both rural and urban areas has attracted the attention of a number of economists who have tries to measure the change in the degree of inequality in the income distribution and that in

consumption expenditure.

Moreover, attempts have been male to

compare the degree of inequality existing in India with the same in other countries. A survey of the existing literature in this respect should be preceded by a discussion of the following points, as clarification of these points will facilitate the evaluation of the existing literature. First, it is difficult to compare the per capita income of a developing country like India with that of a developed country because of the limited scope of national income accounts in the former.58 Moreover, objection has been raised in the use of

exchange rates to convert all figures to a common standard and it is recognised that exchange rates may be poor guide to purchasing power. As the study of David (1972) suggests the true gap

regarding the real per capita income between the United the United States and other countries is only four-ninths of that indicated by exchange rate conversion.59 Secondly, while it is difficult to generalize about inter-country differences because of heterogeneities of different sorts - historical, physical and regional in addition to the purely economic, we can still arrive at some conclusion regarding the effect of growth on size distribution of income by shifting to inter-temporal comparisons.

This is as follows: Though inequality is generally low in the preindustrilisation stage, it tends to rise with the growth of towns and cities which emerge and flourish with capitalistic enterprise and growing commerce. Concentration of capital occurs with the growth of firms and urbanization increases regional disparity. But beyond this early phase it is difficult to generalize about the pattern of the change in the inequality-index as economic development proceeds. Kuznets maintains that the degree of inequality is lower in the developed economy compared to the less developed countries. Kuznets has been supported by others and these authors, after a careful scrutiny of the size-distribution of income of some countries, maintain that the distribution of income tends to be more equal, the longer and the more thoroughly the country has been exposed to the processes of social and economic transformation after the advent of industrialization.61 We may now turn our attention to the studies on inequality in India. The RBI Study (1962) gas two parts: in the first, the method of estimation and the average state of income distribution during the period 1953-54 to 1956-57 have been described; and in the second, changes in the income distribution from Period I (1953-54 to 1954-55) to Period II (1955-56 to 1956-57) has been analysed. This study was undertaken under the guidance of Ojha and Bhatt (1964). Taking the household as the income-receiving unit, it
60

attempts to present the pattern of income distribution in the households sector only, which comprises household, not-corporate business (including agriculture), and private collectives like The

temples, educational institutions and charitable foundations.

household sector is divided into three income groups: (i) low income group with annual income below or equal to Rs.3000, (ii) households with an annual income between Rs.3001 and Rs.25,000 and (iii) top income group with annual income above Rs.25,000.

The essence of the method of estimation used in the study is the integration of the income tax data with the consumer

expenditure data from the National Sample Survey (NSS). The integration is indirect as the study does not use either the actual expenditure given in the NSS data or the actual income for those with annual expenditure equal to or below Rs.3000. Again, the proportion of population and the size of the households in various expenditure expenditure brackets are used given for in the the NSS data First, on to consumer estimate

following:

independently from the population data (i) the distribution of rural and urban households between low income groups and high income groups, and (ii) the total number of households in the rural and urban areas separately. Secondly, to estimate independently from

the national income data the distribution of personal consumption expenditure between the rural and urban sectors and between low income and high income groups within each sector. The savings made and taxes paid are then added to derive personal disposable income and personal income respectively of the various income groups. Moreover, personal incomes accruing to households in the top income group are obtained directly from the income tax data on the assumption that each salary earner assessed to tax represents one household. Income tax data are also used in the estimation of personal income accruing to households in the high income nonsalary earners group both in urban and rural areas in so far they are obtained as residual magnitudes. The distribution of incomes

and households in this group is also done from income tax data. The independently estimated households and incomes are then put together to derive the pattern of income distribution.

The study reveals that for the period 1953-54 to 1956-57 the top decile accounts for 28 per cent of personal income, while the bottom decile obtains only 3 per cent. disposable income is only slightly lower personal income (0.340). the urban sector The Lorenz ratio for (0.335) than that for

Income distribution is more uneven in the rural sector; the urban sector

than in

concentration ratio for personal income is 0.40, while this ratio for the rural sector is only 0.31. Ojha and Bhatt (1964) then conclude as follows: Contrary to general impression, the degree of inequality in income distribution in India does not seem to be higher than in some of the advanced economies. This conclusion of the authors goes against the thesis of Kuznets and the empirical findings of Morgan (1953) and others. This view has been challenged by Ranadive (1965), Swamy (1965) and Mueller and Sarma (1965). Though the debate is primarily

concerned with the above conclusion of Ojha and Bhatt is primarily concerned with the above conclusion of Ojha and Bhatt rather than with the index of inequality as revealed in their study, this has cast some doubt on the basis on which the study of Ojha and Bhatt depends. According to Ranadive (1965), the RBI study is marred by a lack of appreciation of the need for an appropriate concept of personal income, an incorrect use of NSS data for deriving size distribution of household income and by what seems to be a methodological error which has resulted in over-estimation of households in the high income groups. A close scrutiny of the RBI study shows that the number of households in the high income group is over-estimated, which is revealed by the fact that the number of households in non-salary earners group is about six

times higher than the number of the corresponding group in the tax data. Again, according to Ranadive, the concept of income in the

study excludes some elements and so the personal disposable income in high income groups is likely to be underestimating. the under-estimation of income and/or over-estimation Thus of

households in the higher income groups might account for the sharp difference of this study with the thesis of Kuznets (1963) supported by some empirical studies. Mueller and Sarma (1965) have pointed out that the

assumption in the study of Ojha and Bhatt leads to a downward bias in income inequality and they have ignored an important body of data, which is a survey conducted by NCAER in 1960 with a stratified probability sample of 4400 families in 30 cities and towns all over India. 62 Mueller and Sarma have shown that NCAER income distribution is much more unequal than the OJha and Bhatt distribution. Moreover, the saving estimates in RBI study do not correspond with the NCAER estimate. Criticising the thesis of Ojha and Bhatt, Swamy (1965) also contends that the pattern of income distribution in India supports the thesis of Kuznets. Lydall (1960) assumes that Pareto Law of distribution63 holds in India. He then makes use of income-tax statistics of individuals and Hindu undivided families, and converts the NSS 10th round data from household being to a per-person by the basis, number the of income persons of in each that

household

divided

household. He further assumes that average number of persons covered by each tax assessment is about three. The result of his study is as follows. The top ten per cent of Indians account for 34 per cent of pre-tax income and 33 per cent of post-tax income in 1955-56. The corresponding figures for United Kingdom in 1954

are 30 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. But Lydall is cautious regarding any comparison of income distribution because coverage

of income-tax is much smaller in India compared to U.K. and the estimate of direct income distribution in India is absent. Since Lydalls study is based on income tax data, we do not get any reliable picture of the pattern of income distribution as a whole in the fifties. Mukherjee and Chatterjee (1967) have utilised NSS data and the national income estimates to indicate broadly the behavior pattern of income distribution. The premises of the study are as follows: (i) First, statements are made about the nation as a whole and hence reliance has been placed on national income and allied information which relate to the country as a whole. (ii) Secondly, the reference period is 1950-51 to 1965-66. Moreover, at attempt has been made to construct size distribution of income at constant prices.

The study reveals that

disparity of

private consumption

expenditure at current prices showed some reduction at the All India level during the period 1953-54 to 1961-62. But disparity of private consumption expenditure in real terms showed a large increase from the First to the Second Plan period and then maintained a high level. Again, the evidence is not conclusive on the movement of inequality in the distribution of personal income by size reckoned at current prices, but the overwhelming

suggestion is that there has been some increases in inequality after 1953-54 and also towards the end of the period. Moreover, there has been a marked increase in disparity in distribution of personal income by size reckoned in real terms throughout the period.

Mukherjee and Chatterjee implicitly assume that prices of cereals and non-cereals change in the same direction and also by the same proportion. While the first part of the assumption is generally true, the second part is not borne out by facts.
64

Again,

NSS data give changes in the prices in the prices of individual cereals as well as shift in the composition of cereals and this must be adjusted to get a proper index for deflating the consumption expenditure.65 Swamy (1967) has adjusted the NSS data for reference period biases and differences in valuation. He establishes that

inter-sectoral inequality is connected with the shift in the size distribution and the overall size distribution of income has little meaning unless it is examined along with the components of this distribution. According to Swamy about 85 per cent of the increase in inequality in the size distribution of consumer expenditure over the decade 1951-60 was due to structural shift in the economy and only about 15 per cent was due to intra-sectoral inequalities changes in inequality.66 Thus Swamy emphasises the importance of

the study of structural parameters, as a study of intra-sectoral inequalities alone would not truly indicate the changes in the size distribution of income for the country as a whole. The implication of Swamys study is that the process of industrialisation causes shifts in relative weights of different

sectors; and without radical changes in the institutions, inequality in the income distribution must inevitably rise over time. Neglect of this aspect, according to Swamy, is the principal cause why some income distribution studies show a decline in the disparity in the income distribution. Further, Swamy has estimated that inequality remained more or less stable in rural areas, but increased in urban areas, which is reinforced by the fact that the proportion of

population increased in urban areas over the period. the disparity between rural and urban areas.

This increased

Modifications tot the Ojha and Bhatt method have been suggested by Ranadive (1973) to allow for not dissaving by poorer income groups and for possible tax evasion in the top income groups. Ranadive adopts two extreme alternatives: (i) where

households with annual income less than Rs.2000 in the urban sector and with income less than Rs.720 in the rural sector are assumed to have zero net savings and all evaded tax payments are assumed to have zero net savings and all evaded tax payments are assumed to be fully reflected in consumption and/or savings, and (ii) where households with annual income less than Rs.3000 in the urban sector and with income less than Rs.1200 in the rural sector are assumed to have negative savings, which constitute 25 per cent of the total urban savings in the case of the former and 14 per cent of the total saving in the case of the former and 14 per cent of the total savings in the case of the latter. As for evaded tax payments, they are not reflected in consumption and/or savings, so that the estimated amount of tax evasion is added to the disposable income of the tax-paying classes. Now case (ii) should show higher

inequality than case (i) due to the assumptions relating to savings and tax evasion. Ranadives estimate shows that in the year 1961-62, the

bottom 20 per cent of population accounted for 7.6 to 7.8 per cent of total income, and top 20 per cent accounted for 45.5 to 46.7 per cent. The Lorenz ratio was between 0.351 and 0.367. The

assumption of Ranadive that in the savings group total saving is distributed in proportion to consumption expenditure has been questioned by Bardhan (1974).

Ahmed and Bhattacharya (1972) have tried to integrate the size distribution of consumer expenditure obtained from NSS data with the size distribution of income before tax, obtained from income tax data, to estimate the size distribution of per capita personal income in India in three different periods, 1956-57, 196061 and 1963-64. They have followed the technique developed by Lydall (1961) and their study is a more systematic and rigorous extension of the earlier attempt of Ahmed (1971). This approach is based on two assumptions: (i) income (before tax) equals

consumer expenditure in the lower ranges of per capita consumer expenditure, and (ii) the distribution of per capita personal income before tax is symptotically Paritian for high values of per capita income and has the same slope as the distribution of assesses by size of incomes before tax. The results of the study of Ahmed and Bhattacharya are as follows: For the first fit, where Pareto Curve is fitted to the size distribution of income before tax taking all income classes above Rs.20,000, the Lorenz Ratio is 0.418 for 1956-57, 0.379 for 196061 and 0.372 for 1963-64. Again, for the second fit, that is where Pareto Curve is fitted taking the last interval of income before tax as Rs.100,000 and above, the Lorenz ratio is 0.408 for 1956-57, 0.382 for 1960-61 and 0.361 for 1963-64. However, this result has been qualified by the authors with two points: First, considering the fact that price increases have been more sharp for the lower income groups than for the higher income groups, this decreases in the inequality in nominal income distribution may be more illusory than real. Secondly, this decline, the authors suspect, may be traced to the inherent weaknesses of the two sets of data. Bardhan (1974) points out that the first assumption of Ahmed and Bhattacharya rules out dissavings in the lower income brackets and so it leads to some understatement of inequality. Moreover,

considering the fact that the number of income tax assesses is not even 1 per cent of Indian population and rural rich are mostly beyond the net of income tax authority, the technique of fitting Pareto distribution in the Indian contest may very well distort the picture. On the basis of NSS data Vaidyanathan (1974) analyses interState variations in the levels of inequality. Vaidyanathan shows that data from the 18
th

and the 22

nd

rounds suggest a negative

association between the Lorenz Ratios of consumption and per capita consumption expenditure, though the coefficients are not statistically significant. The study further reveals that, in rural

India, greater inequality in the distribution of land is associated with more uneven distribution of consumption. Moreover, the pattern of land operation in determining the degree of consumption inequality. This result is quite consistent with a priori judgment; as land is the most important source of income in rural areas and as production structure is largely disorganized the holding of land gives important leverage to the owners who reap the advantages of a hierarchical society. Vaidyanathan calculates the changes in Lorenz ratios during the decade 1957-58 to 1967-68; for rural India the inequality index (LR) has decreased from 0.334 in 1957 to 0.203 in 1967-68. But the variations over the States are not uniform; while for Andhra Pradesh, Assam and Madhya Pradesh the decline is sharp(more do

than all-India average), other States like Punjab and West Bengal not show any significant decline.67 The regional variation of inequality in rural India has been analysed by Bhatty (1974) also. He has divided the rural

population (workers) into three categories- cultivators, agricultural labourers and non-agricultural workers. Then he presents the Gini

Coefficient of inequality in income distribution for India for 1968-69. Inequality is found to be highest in Gujrat followed by Uttar Pradesh, Mysore and Tamil Nadu; and it is lowest in Orissa followed by Assam, Bihar, Kerala and Rajasthan. Income distribution is most unequal among the cultivators, as Bhatty has shown, the LR is 0.493. Again, the degree of inequality is lowest among the agricultural labourers with LR 0.27; the

position of the non-agricultural workers lies in between the two with LR 0.377. But in Punjab-Haryana, the Gini coefficient for

agricultural labourers is higher than for bnon-agricultural workers and in Orissa, the index for agricultural labourers is above that for the cultivators. The study further reveals that the per capita

income of agricultural labourers has a strong positive association with the per capita income of the rural population, with coefficient of rank correlation +0.82, at 1 per cent level of significance; though inequality in their per capita income seems to be on the rise. Thus while the first result indicates that agricultural labourers can share in any general improvement in the health of the rural economy, this paves the way for rise in inequality in their incomes. As the study of Bhatty relates only to the year 1968-69, it fails to give any indication of the change of inequality in rural India. Again, the categorization of rural income classes as cultivators, agricultural workers and non-agricultural workers misses the point that the position of small cultivators is sharply different from that of the large land-owners. The high index of inequality among the

cultivators may be explained by this difference.

Chapter-4
Causes of Poverty and Inequality in India
In the Indian setting poverty has been usually discussed along with the question of inequality and it has even been

contended that poverty is both the cause and the consequence of inequality in income distribution. Again, inequality in income

distribution is the manifestation of the inequitable distribution of the means of production and the imperfections existing in the market structure. The whole issue has been complicated by the dual

nature 68 of the Indian economy and as such inequality should be analysed separately in the case of rural and urban areas. Behind the income inequality in the rural structure, there is often social inequality in the form of caste hierarchy, the existence of which contributes to the persistence of inequality by providing social sanction to the hierarchian structure.69 In the following paragraphs, first the issue of poverty and inequality in rural areas is discussed; then this discussion is integrated with the discussion of the urban sector to have a total view of poverty and inequality in the economy as a whole. On the question of inequality in rural India our attempt is mainly confined to post-independence period, though for the sake of continuity we have to go back beyond 1947. During this phase of Indian history, three types of factors will be discussed and they are: market forces, governmental measures and the impact of political decisions. To illustrate the impact of market forces on rural hierarchy in Orissa Bailey found (1957) that in early fifties land has been

marketed and the consequence was transfer of land from one caste to another. Similarly observation has been made by other
70

anthropologists studying villages in other parts of the country. Such transfer of land from the higher castes to the middle castes

has been described as a change from a system of cumulative inequalities to one of dispersed inequalities, or from a relatively closed to a relatively open system of stratification.71 But marketing of land does not necessarily indicate diminution of the skewness in the distribution of land holdings. There is reason to believe that in some areas land is passing from the hands of very small holders into those of middle and large proprietors. With the introduction of new technology, agriculture has been profitable to those who have both land and capital to invest in it. It is argued that the bias against the small peasants is built into the new technology by the very costly nature of the inputs, the role of indivisibles like tractors new and also by the Thus selective the strategy low

accompanying

the

technology.

relatively

profitability of smaller farms has induced transfer of land from the small farmers to the big ones, which increases the skewness in the distribution of land holding in the green revolution areas. What effect does the new agricultural strategy produce on the distribution of income? There is no positive finding on this issue. But logically one may proceed like this: Since the smaller holdings usually earn from many diverse sources, while the larger farm depends mainly on farm business income, one would expect a somewhat less skewed distribution in terms of household income, compared to the figures for land distribution. But distribution of farm assets has become more skewed over the years, which should enable the big farmers to retain their advantage over the smaller farms partly because of their greater creditworthiness and risk-

bearing capacity based on the high value of their assert holding, and partly because of the higher earning capacity from the

ownership of farm assets. We can study the impact of the new technology in greater detail. The production relations in the agrarian structure at present have a three-tier composition viz. owner-cultivator, tenant-

cultivator and landless farm labourer. This composition broadly embodies a dual system of farming - peasant and capitalist with two forms of farm production, which are family labour-based and hired-labour based respectively. While the capitalist farms

maximize profit-income and a part of their incomes is invested for the intensification output. The existence of a dual system of farming in Indian of production, the peasant farms maximise

agriculture indicates that the magnitude of wage labour and the institutional belonging to character the of land-labour farm relations of in production depend

capitalist

sector

agriculture

primarily on the size of land holdings, social status of the farmer and the nature of the technology being applied to agriculture. Similarly, regarding the peasant farm sector, the extent of use of family labour depends o0n the size of land holdings. The use of the new technology has affected the distribution of land in our rural economy. According to Divatia (1976) the share of the lowest 30 per cent of the rural households in the total rural assets has slipped from 2.5 per cent to 2 per cent and that of the top 30 per cent has increased from 79 per cent to 81.9 per cent during the sixties.72 Another study by Pathak, Ganapathy and

Sarma (1977) also brings cut the sharpening of inequality in rural areas. According to it, the highest decile group improved its share from 58.71 per cent to 61.79 per cent between 1961 and 1971.73 A

study by C. H. Shah reveals that despite the ceiling laws, the concentration of land ownership of land has not changed much in recent years and again, despite a marginal decline in the

concentration of land ownership, the concentration of assets has tended to increase.

74

These all point to the insignificant effect of

land reforms measures on the reduction of inequality in rural area.75 Just as the ceiling laws have failed to change the ownership pattern of land in rural areas, other Government measures since the middle of the sixties have also not been able to prevent the natural deterioration in the share of the poor in total asset holdings in the rural economy. On the contrary, measures like asset based advances, high support prices for rich farmers and provisions for highly subsidized inputs have brought about a shift in assets ownership leading to concentration of income in agriculture. The studies by Bardhan (1974), Saini (1976) and Shah (1976) have revealed this aspect of agricultural development in the country.
76

Sainis study is based on two wheat producing districts of Ferozepur in Punjab and Musaffarnagar in U.P., while Bardhan covers, apart from these two districts, some sample farms of Hooghly in West Bengal and Ahmednagar in Maharashtra. These studies reveal the

following: The agricultural development since the mid-sixties has led to a widening of income disparities between regions, between small and big farms and between land owners and landless

labourers. Moreover, some studies reveal that real wages of farm labourers have tended to decline even in Punjab, Haryana and Western U.P. since 1970-71.77 While the trend of development in agriculture has been going against the poor, the government has established some institutions and has taken up some programmes for the uplift of the small and

marginal farmers.

These are Small Farmers Development Agency

(SFDA), Agency for Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers (MFAL), Crash Scheme for Rural Employment, Drought Prone Area Programme and Integrated Tribal Development Projects. But these

solutions offered by the government suffer from the following weaknesses. First, there is a widely shared view that most of the benefits under the schemes have been diverted and appropriated by better-off farmers. 78 Secondly, it is now recognised that even in 1975-76, after the full implementation of these programmes, their coverage has been meager.
79

It has been contended that in the

absence of basic changes in the organisation of agriculture, such reformist measure will not redress rural poverty.80 But in our

opinion, such a contention does not do full justice to the role of these specialised agencies. Let us explain it in detail. The major limitation of the small farmer is the small size of his holding, which puts on him resource and system constraints. But the new technology in agriculture is resource-using, which involves larger use of current inputs as well as an expanded base of durable capital especially for irrigation. The resource position of

small and marginal farmers regarding long-term investment is extremely weak. Hence the small farmer has either to be content

with the meager investible resources or face the increased risks involved in using borrowed finance. The combined effect of all

these is severe capital rationing and increased economic disparity between small farmers and big farmers. The NSS 26 th round data 81 suggest that for every100 landless families, 37 had a milk animal. In the next class, cultivating less than 0.2 hectare, the situation is better: 3 out of 4 families had an animal. But, those cultivating above 20 hectares had 14 animals per households. This positive association of the number of animals

with the size of the cultivated holdings can be interpreted as a resources barrier for small and marginal farmers and landless labour. Hence agencies like SFDA have been advised to supply cattle to these families at subsidies rates. The agencies like SFDA and MFAL have viewed the problems of small farmers essentially as problem of resources - providing more credit, milk animals, improved seeds etc. They have the necessary organization - the extension agency, the Credit Cooperatives, the skilled personnel of agricultural department. But

the reason why they have not succeeded fully in their tasks is that the organisational wings work with a linear authority structure which results in a lack of cohesion within the organisation.

However, we will discuss this issue in the last Chapter again. The feeling is now wide-spread that government measures to reduce inequalities in the agrarian structure have been

unsuccessful. But the measures adopted have at least called in question the legitimacy of the existing inequalities and created new expectations about what is desirable and possible. One result of this has been organized political action to transform the agrarian hierarchy. Different political parties, peasant associations and other

organizations are now involved in the attempt to change the agrarian structure. completely government. known to different
82

Their approach to the rural conditions is from the approach adopted by the

Share-croppers in West Bengal, for example, are working under exploitative conditions and have

be

received little prosecution from the law. 83

The peasant associations

have tried to prevent eviction of share croppers through political pressure. However, it is difficult to assess the redistributive affects of the forces thus operating. Then land is forcibly seized by a party, it is not necessarily distributed to the landless poor. This

often transforms the conflict between the rich and the poor into a conflict between rival political parties. But for our present purposes we need not pursue it further.

Industrial Stagnation and Urban Poverty:

The landless growths of the industrial in sector rural have in India into very pattern and the

consequent urbanization have not been successful in absorbing the unemployed While of labourers the the areas helped the urban little of in employment. since the towns

ameliorating rural poverty, poverty in urban areas has deepened middle sixties. Moreover,

industrialization in India has not been on the desired lines. The stagnation in the industrial sector in recent years has been

explained in terms of perverse industrial development in a society where extreme income inequality has made for a shrinking demand base. According to Dasgupta (1975), in a capitalistic society

investment and production decisions are taken by the capitalist class, who are quite distinct from the class of labourers. The result is an unduly high premium on the production of luxury goods profitable to the capitalist and relative neglect of the mass

consumption goods required by the labourers. This has led to high rates of growth, but this is also associated with distortion in the pattern of production, consumption and distribution. Dasgupta

pleads for an end to the dichotomy that exists in the Capitalist system and substitution of the present economy based on luxury by one based on austerity. Bagchi (1970) considers inequality in the distribution of

income as the basic constraint on the industrial development in

India.

Inequality in income distribution is aggravated by the

process of growth for it is the private sector which owns the means of production and thus appropriates the increments in income. The Government is unable to exercise effective control over the

allocation of resources between (i) consumption and saving and (ii) essential and non-essential consumption. While the former is reflected in the failure to mobilise domestic resources for

investment, the latter is revealed by the excessive importance of luxury goods in industrial production. It is not possible for the government to maintain a high rate of investment in the face of the unequal income distribution and the demand pattern generated by it. While Bagchi puts emphasis on the overall inequality in income distribution, Mitra (1977) argues that the redistribution of income in favour of agriculture and against industry is a major factor responsible for the deceleration in industrial development since 1965-66. He has suggested that the shifting terms of trade have been instrumental in reducing the real incomes of the majority of the population in both the urban areas and the countryside. An increase in food grain prices squeezed the non-food expenditure of the urban as well as the rural poor, thus reducing the demand for manufactured products. The result is the diminution of the demand
84

for mass consumption goods.

But a question remains. What

about the demand of the rural rich who, according to Mitra, have accumulated agricultural sector. It remains a puzzle and perhaps a change in the preference pattern of the rich in rural areas can generate demand for the manufactured items. One interesting aspect of the pattern of consumer

expenditure has been revealed in the study of Sau (1974), who, on the basis of NSS data, has shown that the percentage of per capita

consumer expenditure spent on industrial goods declined over the period 1952-53 to 1964-65. He further finds that the decline is much more pronounced in the case of the poorer sections of the population.85 Demand for manufactured goods may be constrained by stagnation in the agricultural sector, which has been emphasized by Raj (1976). He has found that regions characterised by moderately

high and stable rates of agricultural growth have also experienced high growth rates in industrilisation. Moreover, according to Raj, if agricultural output does not grow rapidly enough, or even if it does grow a little faster but the increases in output are realized mainly in the larger farms, this is likely to take place only alongside further accentuation in the inequalities of income and wealth. The logical conclusion of this process is a pattern of industrial development based on high rates of growth of demand for luxury and semiluxury products which may well come to be regarded as the only way of maintaining a high rate of growth of output in this sector. The constraints perverse and the industrial development of exports creates cannot its own the

opportunity

solve

problems of inadequate demand, which has been shown by Raj (1976) and Bagchi [(1975; 1977)].
86

Moreover, with the start of

the seventies the growth in agricultural sector began to slow down for want of necessary institutional changes and this circumscribed industrial growth in more than one way. Food priced began to rise and necessary raw materials became scarce, which diminished the support to industry. As the inter-sectoral terms of trade shifted in favour of agriculture, and the support from the principal source of industrial growth waned in course of time, industry faced a more unfavorable situation for growth. The situation worsened with a

positive deceleration in the growth of public expenditure in India

helped redistribution of income against the poor. 87

Even this, the

coupled with a wide arrangement of subsidies, could not alleviate ills surrounding the industrial sector of the country. The question of distribution has assumed importance in the

perspective of overall stagnation in industrial sector and the slowing down of the growth of agricultural production. In this context the comment of Leontieff (1973) on the economic performance of China is worth mentioning. 88 According to Leontieff, in China, in spite of very poor per capita income compared to developed countries in the west, basic human needs absorb a fraction of the material costs needed to satisfy the demands of the high and middle-income groups in our industrilised, prosperous society, and general living conditions for the average Chinese are decidedly better than those of disadvantaged Americans at the bottom rung of our economic ladder. Though Leontieff compares Chinese economy with its

western counterpart, the question of fair distribution becomes important in his discussion. In contrast, the production structure in Indian industry has been oriented to elitist consumption and the percentage of income going to non-productive consumption is also high compared to even developed countries.
89

This explains two

things simultaneously. First, it implies lower quantum of savings to be realized for investment. Secondly, it perpetuates inequality in

income distribution. Such a situation is hardly conducive to the eradication of poverty in a developing country.

Chapter-5
Conclusion: The Anti-Poverty Programmes
In the concluding section we make a brief survey of the programmes adopted in India to launch a direct attack on poverty the rural areas. programmes Here, at we restrict our discussion to the different levels of government, thus in

initiated

excluding programmes sponsored by voluntary organisations, some individuals and political parties. We feel that the present discussion in

will be sufficient to enable us to bring out the basic issues involved all rural development programmes.

Regarding the programmes, three types of approaches can be distinguished according to the nature of the sponsoring authorities and these will be taken up in turn. The first approach is concerned with the programmes taken up by the Central Government and these are integrated with the overall planning process in the country. The second approach covers some programmes sponsored The third

by some state governments at the regional level.

approach is related with such programmes as are initiated at the official level by individual officers of the government. The Fifth Five Year Plan aimed at eradication of poverty along with reduction of inequality.90 The major instrument of the

programme, as delineated in the Plan document and subsequent policy announcement, was the generation of employment

opportunities. This was based on two policy approaches and these were: (i) improvements of the value and productivity of the existing assets of the households, and (ii) transfer of assets to poorer

households.

Since the removal of poverty means increase in the

income of the households to a certain minimum level and since the average daily wage in the rural areas is not high enough, were oriented to supplement this
91

policies

wage income by income from Hence the necessity for

assets through increase in productivity.

special programmes was felt to improve productivity of the existing assets of the weaker sections and to improve the level of assets through transfer of such assets in their favour. Rural assets are of two kinds: land and non-land assets. Regarding land, it was expected that land reforms would augment the size of holding of the marginal farmers. The productivity of these holding was to be raised by increased provisions of

agricultural inputs at concessional rates.

Regarding the formation

and improvement of non-land assets some special programmes were initiated in rural areas, viz. Small Farmers Development Agency [SFDA], Scheme for Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers [MFAL], Crash Scheme for Rural Employment [CSRE] etc. The SFDA and MFAL Schemes, which were initiated towards the end of 1969-70 started functioning effectively from 1971-72. In both the cases, the sanctioned amount could not be utilised fully and in 1971-72, only a very small percentage of total allocation could be utilized. 92 The CSRE was announced towards the end of

1970-71 and by November, 1971 employment generation was to the extent of 87.6 lakh man-days at the cost of Rs.3.1Crores.
93

Though the full impact of these programmes on the rural poor is yet to be assessed, some observations are in order regarding the potentialities of the programmes. The benefit of any asset improvement programme can accrue only to those who have the particular asset in question. Whether we consider households which operate no land or only land holdings

in the size classes above zero but below 1025 acres, the number of cows and she-buffaloes per 100 households who operate either zero land or only holdings or less than 0.5 acres and between 30-40 per cent of the households who operate holdings of between 0.5 and 1.24 acres, have no cows or she-buffaloes.94 Obviously, they cannot benefit from any programme for improving the breed of milch cattle and realize the income thereof. The problem of the extreme inadequacy of the asset bas has restricted the usefulness of the poverty eradication programme. This has induced the policy makers to adopt the second issue, i.e., the programme of asset transfer to the poor households in rural India. Under the SFDA, the MFAL and such other programmes distribution of milch animals and other animals such as pigs, sheep, goat etc. has been taken up. These programmes do not actually contemplate transfer of these assets to the poor households. They only provide a subsidy and that is at the rate of 25 per cent for small farmers and 33.33 per cent for marginal farmers. This

subsidy is not payable directly to the potential beneficiary to acquire the assets. Hence, the subsidy will become available only It is reported to those who have access to institutional credit. But in the rural structure institutional credit plays the minimum role. that in the case of all rural households whose assets are less than Rs.1,000, less than 3 per cent reported any borrowing from institutional sources. Such households constituted nearly 20 per cent of all rural households.
95

In this perspective programmes of

assets transfer can be expected to have only a limited effect on the income level of the poor in rural areas. This analysis suggests that, in the context of orgainsed experiment to uplift the condition of the poor, programmes for actual transfer of assets are a pre-requisite for using asset

improvement and fuller utilisation of labour power as mechanism creating an income earning potential. Only under

for

these

conditions can the poor be expected to raise their income and consumption level above the poverty line. The overall poverty situation in the country has led to the adoption of some other programmes at micro-levels in different regions of the country apart from the centrally planned ones as described above. This leads us to the programmes covered by the second approach. In the middle of 1960s, some agricultural

programmes were launched in some states, which were associated with the New Strategy in agriculture, viz., Rural Works Programme [RWP], Intensive Agricultural District Programme [IADP], In July 1969, the

Integrated Area Development Scheme [IAD] etc.

Maharashtra Government introduced a Pilot Employment Guarantee Scheme in some IAD blocks. The objective was to guarantee Though well-

employment to agricultural labourers who needed it.

conceived and meticulously formulated, these schemes suffered from a big gap between programmes planning and execution. Moreover, the organisational weakness of the programme had caused diversion of funds to the benefit of large farmers; whereas special programme for the benefit of agricultural labourers

remained on paper only.96 The third approach to the problem of poverty covers those programmes which were initiated by the bureaucrats. These were isolated micro-experiments. An analysis of these will reveal some The the

important characteristics of Indian socio-economic structure. District Collector of Warangal (Andhra Pradesh) helped

formation of a Co-operative by the today tappers. This was an attempt to prevent the powerful zamindar of the region who appropriated the surplus by coercively purchasing the monopoly tapping rights from the government and then by reselling this right

at higher rent to the individual tappers.97 help of the Collector, they could

When the tappers their income

formed the Co-operative and obtained the tapping rights with the increases

considerably.

Similar experiments were conducted by the District

Collector of Nellore, who induced the peasants in the region to adopt joint Co-operative farming by forming Co-operative

societies.98 Both Warangal and Nellore, to follow Popper, 99 were

experiments in piecemeal social engineering, at least in the fact that the basic thinking was done by the basic thinking was done by the elite bureaucracy. Once initiated, it was imperative that the

involvement of people in the region should be total. Only then would they be in a position to sustain the movement. It is high time that we make a close scrutiny of the three types of programmes described above. All these programmes are

at the micro-level, as these are meant for solving the problem of poverty and these arouse the consciousness of the people regarding the surrounding economic environment. But overall economic

development demands the linking up of all such micro-programmes, which is an essential task before the country. There are many ways in which macro changes initiated at the Centre can influence social conditions at the village level. Changes in the planning procedures, investment allocation towards the development of a new social and economic structure, generation of employment opportunities etc., influence the conditions of existence at the grassroots level. The different micro programmes which recognise absolute poverty and aim at reducing such poverty suffer from two major deficiencies. First, these programmes are based on the view that poverty can be removed by some piecemeal methods. But the roots of poverty lie in the skewed distribution of ownership of the

means of production. This aspect of the problem has generally been overlooked in the micro programmes. It has to be recognised that some change in the structures of the distribution of assets is required for any success in the poverty removal programmes. Secondly, these programmes are etilist in character in the sense that these are imposed on the rural economy by the urban elite groups or the government. The participation of the poor in these programmes is minimal. Unless the poor themselves are mobilized for the effective implementation of these programmes, one essential requirement of the success of such programmes will be lacking.

NOTES
1. Fourth-Five-Year Plan - A Draft Outline, p.36. Planning Commission, Government of India. Draft Fifth-Five-Year Plan 1974-79, Vol.1, p.6. According to the Draft: The existence of poverty is incompatible with the vision of an

advanced, prosperous, democratic, egalitarian and just society implied in the concept of a socialist pattern of

development. (p.6). 2. See Bardhan (1970), Dandekar and Rath (1971), Minhas (1970), Ojha (1970) and Vaidyanathan (1974). 3. 4. See Sen (1973. 1976). On the concepts of poverty in absolute and relative senses, there exists a large literature, see Townsend (1970), Rowntree (1941), Rein (1970), Smolonsky (1966) and Titmuss (1962). Fowntree defines poverty in absolute sense as follows: My primary poverty line represented the minimum sum on whic physical efficiency could be maintained. It was a standard of bare subsistence rather than living, (pp. 102-103). Again, Townsend defines poverty very broadly as inequalities the distribution of five resources, including income, capital assets, occupational fringe benefits, current public services and current private services. He suggests that needs which are unmet, can be defined satisfactorily only in terms relative to the society in which they are found. He does not accept the distinction between in

absolute and relative poverty or between basic and cultural

needs, because he argues that the needs which are believed to be basic or absolute can be shown to be relative. Here, he suggests that Poverty must be regarded as a general form of relative deprivation which is the effect of the maldistribution of resources, and that section of the population whose resources are so depressed from the mean as to be deprived of enjoying the benefits and participating in the activities which are

customary in that society can by said to be in poverty. 5. 6. 7. P.P.D., Planning Commission (1974). Sen (1973), (1976). Such normative approach to the measurement of income distribution has been developed by Atkinson (1970), Tinbergen (1970) and Bentzel (1970). 8. 9. For detailed analysis see Sen (1973), pp. 24-46. Pifou (1912), p. 24.

10. Sen (1973), p. 29. 11. Roy, Chakraborti and Laha (1959). 12. Atkinson (1970): Vol.2. 13. A welfare function is concave if the weighted average of social welfare levels from two income distribution x1 and x2 is less than or equal to the social welfare of the weighted average of the two distributions, when same weights are used; that is [t.f(x1) + (l-t) f (x2)] For any t, A welfare function is quasi-concave when the minimum of the two social welfare levels from x1 and x2 respectively is less f[tx1 + (l-t)x2]

than or equal to the social welfare of the weighted average of the two distribution. When the weak inequality ( by strict inequality ( that is Min [f(x1), f(x2)] For any t, See Sen (1973), p. 52. 14. Dasgupta, Sen and Starrett: (1973), pp. 180-187. These authors have generalized the result of Atkinson (1970) in situations where size of population varies in two countries. See again, Sen (1973), pp. 48-50. 15. Sen (1976). 16. Atkinson (1970). 17. See Atkinson (1970), Newbery (1970), Dasgupta, Sen and Starret (1973). Atkinson points out certain in egalitarian features of Gini Coefficient and Newbery (1970) buttresses the criticism by demonstrating that the Gini ordering over income distribution is not implied by any additive social welfare function when the individual utility function is strictly concave. Dasgupta, Sen and Starret (1973) demonstrate that the Gini ranking cannot be reflected by any group welfare function if it is strictly quasiconcave on individual incomes. Moreover, they maintain that the problem with the Gini Co-efficient is that the marginal social rate of substitution between income accruing to f[tx1 + (l-t)x2] ) is replaced

), the function is strictly quasi-concave,

individual (j-l) is simply j/(j-l), and is thus independent of the actual income differences between them. As a measure of inequality this feature may well be unpalatable to some.

18. See Sen (1973), p.34. 19. Atkinson (1970), Atkinson (1975). 20. A value of the Index I, say 0.12, means that the same level of social welfare could be reached with only 88 per cent [i.e. 1.00 - 0.12 = 0.88] of the present total income. Alternatively, the gain from redistribution to bring about equality would be equivalent to raising total income by 12 per cent. 21. Bentzel (1970). 22. Iyenger (1978), p. 297. 23. Sen (1973), (1976). 24. Sen (1976). The income gap g1 of any individual I is the difference between the poverty line z and his income yi gi = z - yi The poverty gap measure is normalized by Sen into a perperson percentage gap I*

Where S(Z) is the set of the poor. This I* is called the income gap ratio. 25. Dadabhai Naoroji read a paper Poverty in India in 1876

before the Bombay Branch of East India Association in which he worked out the per capita output of India. Naroji, D. (1888), Rao, V.K.R.V. (1939), Ganguly (1965), Maddision (1970), Marx (1943) and Dharampal (1971). Maddison was critical about the Indian authors position on

Poverty during the British rule. He questioned the claim of some Indian nationalist historians that the Moghul period was a golden age. He quoted Abdul Fazl to show the example of But the contrary view was

poverty in Orissa and Bengal. provided by Dharampal (1971).

26. Bardhan (1974) and Dandekar and Rath (1971). Some studies [Kansal (1968), Radhakrishnan, Srinivasan and Vaidyanathan (1974)] have compared for selected items the NSS consumption estimates for individual commodities and commodity flow estimates from official output data. There are significant differences of coverage, differences in classification and differences in valuation between the two sets of figures. 27. Bardhan (1970) and Minhas (1970) described in detail the use of alternative price deflators. 28. Mahalanobis, P.C. (1962). 29. Mahalanobis, Op.cit. 30. Atkinson (1970), p. 191. 31. R.B.I. Bulletin, Supplement, October 1977. Percentage of literacy in India was 33.8 in 1971 (Census). 32. Sukhatme (1965). 33. F.A.O. (1973). 34. Consumption of food grains increases from the poorest to the relatively better-off expenditure brackets and this occurs much more rapidly in rural areas than in the urban areas.

Table: Per Capita Daily Consumption of Food Grains and substitutes at Consumption Levels below the average: (1960-61)

Monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) 0-8 8 - 11 11 - 13 13 - 15 15 - 18 18 - 21 21 - 24 24 - 28 Table abridged

Per Capita Daily Consumption of Food grains and substitutes (grams) Rural 356 480 560 616 625 675 705 690 Urban 332 377 388 412 418 445 485 506

Source: Dandekar and Rath (1971): p.6.

The per capita daily consumption of food grains and substitutes in rural area reaches 616 grams for households with per capita monthly expenditure of Rs.13-15. If one gram of food grains and substitute gives 3.3 Calories, then 2033 Calories can be obtained from 616 grams of food grains. According to the

estimate of Dandekar and Rath, this takes up nearly 60 per

cent of total consumption expenditure of these households. They spend another 20 per cent on other items of food which together give another 200 calories per day. Thus the entire food at this level gives about 2250 calories per capita per day. Thus in 1960-61, a monthly expenditure of Rs.13-15 was essential to give a diet adequate at least in respect of calories.

As the urban households spend less on food than their rural counterpart, they derive proportionately more calories from

food other than food grains and substitutes. The NSS data suggest that the urban household secure the minimum calories

requirement of 2250 at levels where their consumption of food grains and substitute reaches 490 grams per person per day. 35. Bardhan (1973) Table: Cost of Minimum diet for the month for an Individual Consuming the items as in Column (1) on Daily Basis Daily Cost of Diet over a month 1968-69 (Rs.) (2) 15 0z. 3 0z. 4 0z 1.5 0z 1.25 0z Total: Source: Bardhan (1973) 10.80 3.35 3.16 2.06 5.06 24.43 1960-61 (Rs.) (3) 5.20 1.51 1.58 0.72 2.86 11.87

(1) Cereals Pulses Milk Gur Edible oil

Assuming that an average person is usually equal to 0.81 adult unit, the minimum diet for an average person in rural India costs Rs.19.79 per month in 1968-69 and Rs.9.61 per month in 1960-61. From NSS data it is seen that in 1960-61 total per capita expenditure for the expenditure group which has roughly an amount of food expenditure equal to the minimum diet above was 46 per cent above that on cereals, pulses, milk, sugar and gur and edible oil taken together; in 12968-69 the former was 42 per cent above the latter. As proper norms for

non-food

items

are

not available,

these percentages are

used to obtain the blown-up estimates of per capita expenditure bases on the cost of minimum diet. Thus the estimated rural minimum level of living was Rs.14.00 in 1960-61 and Rs.28.00 in 1968-69.

36. Rudra, A. in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974). 37. Minhas, B. (1970). 38. Tewari, S.G. (1968). 39. The estimated of Minhas is based on data from Second and Third Agricultural Labour Enquiry conducted in the 11th, 12th and 18th rounds of NSS. The numbers of 1960-61 are based on crude guess work and rough interpolation. [Minhas (1970): Appendix] 40. Ojha, P.D. (1970). 41. NSS, 16th round, July 1960 to Aug. 1961. 42. Data from NSS, 13th round, covering the period September 1957 to May 1958 suggest that the per capita intake of calories for the lowest 20 per cent of Indian population is about 40 per cent less than the All India average. The corresponding

percentage for protein is 38 per cent less, for fat 58 per cent less (roughly). The study of Chatterjee, Sarkar and Paul

(1971) reveals that the concentration Co-efficient for calories was 0.175 for the above period, for protein it was 0.187 and for fat 0.288. 43. We find from NSS 18th round (February 1963 to January 1964) data that urban price level was, on the whole, 15 per cent above the rural price level for the general population. This differential is 11 or 12 per cent for cereals and cereals substitute, 14 per cent for other food items, 13 per cent for all food items and nearly 26 per cent for the non-food items.

Chatterjee and Bhattacharya in Bardhan and Srinivasan (des) (1974). 44. Dandekar and Rath - (1971). 45. Fourth Five-Year Plan, 1969-70. 46. Bardhan, P.K. in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974). 47. Radhakrishnan, Srinivasan and Vaidyananthan in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974). 48. Rudra, A. in Rao, C.R. (ed): (1974), p. 138. The underestimation in the NSS estimate of the consumption pattern of the poorer section of the population than the average consumption pattern. This is seen in the lower in the lower figures for the estimates of the consumption items of the rich. Estimates of the purchases of gadgets and other durable consumer goods based on the NSS data are seen to be underestimates when compared with the corresponding supply figures based on production and import statistics. income distribution is highly skewed, the As the is

probability

extremely high that the upper tail area representing the richer sections of the population will remain unrepresented in the sample. 49. Vaidyananthan, A. (1974a) in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) Vaidyanathan (1974b) in Mitra, A. (ed) (1974). 50. Bardhan, P.K. (1970), (1971) and (1973). 51. Mukherjee and others (1974). 52. Bhatty, I.Z. in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974).

53. Panikar, P.G.K. (1972). 54. Rajaraman, Indira (1975). 55. Bardhan, P.K. (1970a) Bardhan finds that the green revolution has brought prosperity in Punjab but that is true only for a handsome few i.e., big Punjab but that is true only for a handsome few i.e., big peasants. It is seen that technological improvement in

agriculture has not been associated with diminution of rural poverty as inequality in income distribution perpetuates. Mitra, A. (1977), p.144. 56. Hanumappa, H.G. (1978). 57. Centre of Development Studies, (1975). 58. Kuznets, S. (1966) There exists a downward bias in the estimation of National income as production for own consumption is not properly represented. Kuznets makes an approximate estimate of the extent of exaggeration in the national income accounts in the developed country. Assuming that the net missing output in the developing country would be a quarter of the total product of the agricultural sector, and this, in turn, represents about 40 per cent of output in such countries, Kuznets concludes that their telative per capita income should be raised by roughly one-tenth. 59. David, P.A. (1972) and Usher, D. (1966), pp. 10-11 as cited in Thirlwall (1972), p.26. It is held that the exchange rates do not adequately represent goods and services which are not exchanged internationally, even if these reflect the relative prices of goods entering into See

foreign trade. In fact, real income per head in developing countries is much higher compared with America than is suggested by estimates obtained simply by converting per capital-incomes into dollars at the official exchange rate (Usher 1966). 60. Kuznets (1963). 61. Morgan (1953). Morgan shows greater inequality in Ceylon and Puerto-Rico than in USA and UK. He generalizes his conclusion as follows:

that it will be found . that income distribution in under-developed economies, by size, by occupations and by national groups, is more unequal than in developed economies. The persisting cause is immobility in the wildest sense: High incomes, and surplus in general, are less subject to erosion in a traditional than in a commercial industrial society. 62. NCAER (1962). 63. Here the implication is that the cumulative frequency

distribution of incomes, when drawn on double-logarithmic paper, follows the path of a reasonably straight line for income above the mode. 64. The index number of wholesale prices in 1959 was 128.4 for food articles (1953-100), 121.0 for industrial raw materials, 118.2 for semi-manufactures, 117.3 for all commodities. Source: Office of the Economic Adviser to the Government of India. 65. Vaidyanathan, A. in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974). 105.3 for manufactures and

66. This is shown in the table below (Swamy, 1967). Sources of Increase in inequality in the Size Distribution: All India 1951-52 - 1959-60

Source 1. Intra-Sectoral Inequalilty Rural Urban 2. 3. 0.00 15.40

Percentage Share 15.40

Inter-Sectoral Inequality Sectoral Weights

47.50 37.10 100 Total Increase

67. Vaidyanathan (1974), Table 13. For each year, three estimates are given; two for sub-samples and one is the combined estimates of the two. combined estimates are considered. 68. In the literature dealing with the duality of the developing countries with a modern exchange sector and an indigenous subsistence sector it is assumed that supply of labour in the subsistence sector is unlimited with wage rate often below the subsistence level. Thus a decrease in the number of workers as a result of migration to modern sector would not lower the average product of labour and might even raise it. See, for example, Lewis, A (1954), Dixit, A. (1970), (1971), Fei, J.C.H. and Ranis, G. (1964) (1966) and Jorgenson (1967). 69. Betielle, A. (1969), Gough, E.K. (1955). 70. Betielle (1965). 71. Betielle (1966). 72. Divatia, V.V. (1976), p.20. Here the

73. Pathak, Ganapathy and Sarma (1977). According to these authors: The basic pattern of asset-holding ... has not undergone any significant change as judged by the assets distribution on June 30,1971. If it all, the share of top asset-holding has registered varying increases in most of the states resulting in marginally higher magnitudes of oveall inequality (p.517). 74. Shah, C.H. (1976), p.76. 75. A number of studies have supported this view; viz, Hanumantha Rao (1976), and Laxminarayan and Tyagi (1976). 76. Saini, G.R. (1976), pp. A.17-22 Bardhan, P.K. (1974), pp. 301-307. 77. Rao, C.H.H. (1975). 78. Dantwala, M.L. (1976), pp.49-50. 79. Economic Survey, 1975-76, p.8. 80. Shettty, S.L. (1973), p.210. 81. NSS (1976), p.53. 82. Introduction by Almond in Almond and Coleman (eds) (1960). 83. Bau, S.K. and Bhattacharyya, S.K. (1963). 84. Mitra, A. (1977), p. 144. 85. Sau, R. (1974), pp. 144. 86. Bagchi, A.K. (1975), pp. 157-164.

Bagchi (1977), pp. 219-224. 87. Gupta, A.P. (1977). 88. Leontief, W. (1973), p. 78. 89. Mukherjee (1969). This study reveals that, in India, the share of wages and salaries were lower than poorest countries covered by Kuznets (1959), while the share of the unincorporated business enterprises is considerably higher. The share of income from asset is higher than the average for poorer countries, (pp.266-67). 90. Draft Fifth Five Year Plan: Part I, p.32. 91. NSS 25th Round Survey of the weaker section of rural

population (1970-71) give the daily wage at Rs.2.03 per person at 1970-71 prices. 92. Economic Survey, 1971-72, pp. 19-22. Margin, July 1975. 93. Ibid, pp.23-24. 94. NSS, No. 215, 26 th Round, July 1971 - September 1972: Table on land-holding, All India, February, 1976. 95. R.B.I. - All India Debt and Investment Survey 1971-72:

Statistical Tables Relating to Cash Dues outstanding against rural households as on 30th June, 1971 (1976). 96. Page, V.S. (1970), pp. 160-166. Jakhade and Joshi (1970). Gaikward (1971) quoted in Dantwala: p.53.

97. V. Rajan: 1978. 98. Maharaj and Iyer (1977) as quoted in Sethi (1978), pp. 13071316. 99. Popper, Karl: Open Society and its Enemies, Vol.II (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1952).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

Andelman and Thorbecke (eds) (1966) - The Theory and Design Hopkins. of Economic Development, Baltimore, John

2.

Ahmed,

M.

and

Bhattacharya,

N.

(1972)

Size

Distribution of per Capita Personal Income in India: 195657, 1960-61 1963-64 in Economic and Political Weekly, Special Number, Vol.vii. 3. Almpnd, Gabreil A. and Coleman, James S. (eds) (1960) The Ploitics of the Developing Areas, Princeton, N.J. 4. Atkinson, A.B. (1970) On the Measurement of

Inequality in Journal of Economic Theory, Vol.2. 5. Atkinson, A.B. (1975) - The Economics of Inequality;

London, Oxford University Press. 6. Bardhan, P.K. (1970) - On the Minimum Level of Living of the Rural Poor in Indian Economic Review, April. 7. Bardhan, P.K. (1973) - Incidence of Poverty in Rural India in Economic and Political Weekly, Annual Number, Feb. 8. Bardhan, P.K. (1971) - On the Minimum Level of Living and the Rural Poor: A Further Note, in Indian Econ. Review, April.

9.

Bardhan (1970) - The Green Revolution and Agricultural Labourers in Economic and Political Weekly, July.

10.

Bardhan, P.K. (1974) - Inequqlity of Farm Incomes: A Study of Four Districts in Economics and Political Annual Number, Feb. Weekly,

11.

Bardhan, P.K. and Srinivasan, T.N. (eds) (1974) - Poverty and Income Distribution in India; Calcutta, Stastical

Publishing Society. 12. Bardhan, P.K. (1974a) - Pattern of Income Distribution in India: A R view in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974). 13. Bagchi, A.K. - Long-term Constraints on Indias Industrial Growth, 1951-1968 in Robinson and Kidron (eds) (1970). 14. Bagchi, P.K. (1975) - Some Characteristics of Industrial growth in India in Econ. And Pol. Weekly, Annual Number. 15. Bagchi, P.K. (1977) Export-led Growth and Import

Substituting Industrialisation in Econ. and Pol. Weekly, Annual Number. 16. Betcille, A. (1965) - Caste, Class and Power: Changing

Pattern of Stratification in a Tanjore Village; Berkeley. 17. Betcille, A. (1966) Closed and Open Social Stratification in India in European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 7. 18. Betcille, A. (1969) Ideas and Interest: Some Conceptual Problems in the Study of Social Stratification in Rural India in International Social Science Journal, Vol.21, No.2.

19.

Baily,

F.G.

(1957)

Caste

and

Economic

Frontier;

Mancherster.

20.

Basu, S.K. and Bhattacharya, S.K. (1963) - land Reforms in West Bengal; Calcutta.

21.

Bhatty, I.Z. (1974) - Inequality and Poverty in Rural India in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds).

22.

Baran, P.A. (1957) - The Political Economy of Growth; New York, Monthly Review Press.

23.

Bentzel 16.

(1970)

The

Social

Significance

of

Income

Distribution Statistics; in IARIW Income and Wealth Series

24.

Centre of the Development Studies, Trivandrum - United Nations, New York (1975) - Poverty, Unemployment and Development Policy - A Case Study of Selected Issues with reference to Kerala.

25.

Chatterjee, G.S. and Bhattacharya, N. - On Disparities in Per Capita Households Consumption in India in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974).

26.

Chatterjee, G.S., Sarkar, D. and Paul, G. - (1971- A Note on the Variation in the Dietary Levels of Households in Rural India, in Economic Affairs, No. 14, October.

27.

Dasgupta, Sen and Starrett - Notes on the Measurement of Inequality in Journal of Economic Theory, 6. 1973.

28.

Dandekar

and

Rath,

N.

(1971)

Poverty

in

India;

Bombay, Indian School of Political Economy.

29.

Dalton, H. - (1920) - The Measurement of Inequality of Incomes, in Economic Journal, Vol.30.

30.

David, P.A. (1972) - Just How Misleading Are Official Exchange Rate Conversion in Economic Hournal, Vol. 82.

31.

Dharampal Delhi.

(1971) -

Indian Science

and Technology,

Some Contemporary European Accounts; Impex India,

32.

Dixit, A. (1970) - Growth Patterns in a Dual Economy, in Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 22, No. 2.

33.

Dixit, A. (1971) - Short-Run Equilibrium and Shadow Prices in the Dual Economy in Oxford Economic Papers, Vol.23, No. 3.

34.

Divatia,

V.V.

(1976)

Inequalities

in

the

Asset

Distribution of Rural Households in Reserve Bank Staff Occasional Papers, June, Vol.1, Issue No. 1. 35. Dasgupta, A.K. (1975) - The Economics of Austerity,

Delhi, Oxford University Press. 36. Dantwala, M.L. (1976) - Agricultural Policy in India since Independence in Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, October - December 37. Dutt, R.C. (1950) - Economic History of India in the Victoria Age, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. 38. F.A.O. - Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, January, 1973.

39.

Fei, J,C.H. and Ranis, G. (1964) - Development of the Labour Surplus Economy, Homewood, III. Irwin.

40.

Fei, J.C.H. and Ranis, G. (1966) - Agrarianism, Dualism and Economic in Adelman and Thorbecke (eds) (1966).

41.

Gaikwad, V.R.(1971) - Small Farmers: State Policy and Programme Implementation, National Institute of

Community Development, Hyderabad, March. 42. Gini, C. (1955): Memorie Di methodoligia Statistica, Vol. 1, Roma 2 nd Eu. 43. Ganguly, B.N. (1965) - Dadabhai Naoroji and the Drain Theory, Bombay, Asia Publishing House. 44. Gough, E. Kathleen (1955): The Social Structure of a Tanjore Village in Marritt, M. (ed) (1955). 45. 46. Govt. of India - Economic Survey 1975-76, 1971-72. Fupta, Anand P. (1977): Who Benefits From Central and Political Weekly,

Government Expenditure in Econ. Annual Number, Feb. 47. Govt. Scheme of Maharashtra: for Integrated and

Area

Development Labourers,

Small-holders

Agricultural

1966; Supplementary Pamphlet, 1967, 1970. 48. Hanumappa, H.G. (1978) - Income Distribution in Urban Areas: A Case Study of Bangalore in Econ. and Political Weekly, April 15.

49.

Iyenger, N.S. (1978) - Size Distribution and Consumption and Income in a Survey of Research in Economics, Vol. VIII: ICSSR.

50.

Jorgenson, D.W. (1967) - Surplus Agricultural Labour and the Development of a Dual Economy in Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 19.

51.

Jakhade, V.M. and Joshi, D.A (1970): An Ad-hoc Survey Report on the Working of Pilot Integrated Area

Development (PIAD) Scheme in Sangli District - in R.B.I. Bulletin, No. 1, January. 52. Kravis, I.B. (1965) - Measure of Inequality, Various U.S. Distributions, 1950 in The Structure of Income. 53. Kuznets, Simon (1963) - Distribution of Income by Size in Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. xi, No.2, January. 54. Kuznets, Simon (1965) Inequalities in the size

Distribution in Economic Growth and Structure; Norton, New York. 55. Kuznets, Simon (1966) - Modern Economic Growth; Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 56. Kurien, C.T. (1973) poverty, Planning and Social

Transformation; Bombay Allied Publishers. 57. Laxminarayan and Tyagi Agricultural October. Holding in (1976) Econ. Some Aspects of Political Weekly,

and

58.

Leontieff, W. (1973) - Socialism in China: On the Theory and Practice of promising no more than you Deliver in the Atlantic Monthly, Boston, Mass. Vol. 231, No.3, March.

59.

Lewis, A. (1954) - Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour in Manchester School of Economics and Social Studies, May.

60.

Lydall, H.F. (1960) - The Inequality of Indian Incomes in Economic Weekly, Special Number, June.

61.

Maharaj

and

Iyer (1977):

Joint

Farming

co-operative

Scociety in Nellore: A New Strategy for Rural Development (mimeo): National Labour Institute. 62. 63. Marritt, M. (ed) (1955) - village India; Chicago. Mitra, A. (1977) - Terms of Trade and Class Relations; London, Frank Case. 64. Mitra, A. (ed) 1974) - Economic Theory and Planning; Oxford University Press. 65. Marx, K. (1943) - Articles on India; Bombay, Peoples Pub. House. 66. Maddison, Augus (1970) Historical Origin of India

Poverty in Banca Nationale del Lavoro Quarterly Review (Rome), March). 67. Minhas, B. (1970) - Rural Poverty, Land Redistribution and Development in Indian Econ. Review, April, Vol. V, (New Series), No.1.

68.

Mahalanobis, P.C.

(1962) - A Preliminary Note on the

Consumption of Cereals in India I Bulletin of International Statistical Institute, No. 39(4). 69. Morgan, Theorove - (1953) - Distribution of Incomes in Ceylon, Puerto-Rico, the United States and the United Kingdom in Economic Journal, December. 70. Mukherjee (1969) National On India: Trends and

Struture. Statistical Publishing Society, Calcutta. 71. Mukherjee, M. and Chatterjee, G.S. (1967) - Trends in Distrihution of National Income 1950-51 to 1965-66: in Econ. and Political Weekly, July 15. 72. Murdyal, D. (1870) - The Challenge of World Poverty; Allen Lane the Penguin Press. 73. Naroji, D. (1888) - Poverty in India; London, Winckworth Fougler and co., The Aldine Pree. 74. Newbery, Vol. 2. 75. 76. 77. NCAER - Urban Income and Saving; New Delhi 1962. NCAER - Margin, July, 1975. National Sample Survey-Reports on Land Holding, All India 26th round No. 215 (July 1971 to September 1972). 78. _ _ _ Reports on Consumer Expenditure, 16 rounds.
th

D.M.G.

(1970)

Theorem

on

the

Measurement of Inequality in Journal of Economic Theory,

and 18 th

79.

_ _ _ Survey of the Weaker Section of Rural Population (1970-71): 25 th Round.

80.

Ojha, P.D.

(1970) - A configuration of Indian Poverty:

Inequality and Levels of Living; RBI Bulleting, January. 81. Ojha, P.D. and Bhatt (1964) pattern of Income

Distribution in Under-developed Economy: A Case Study of India in American Econ. Review, September. 82. Page, V.S. (1970): Supplementary Pamphlet II, A Small Note: Government of Maharashtra, pp. 160-166. 83. Panikar, Econ. 84. P.G.K. (1972) Economics of Nutrition in

and Political Weekly, February.

Planning Commission: Draft Fifth Five Year plan (197479).

85.

Popper, Karl [1952]: Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. II. London; Routledge & Kegan Paul.

86.

Pathak, Ganapathy and Sarma (1977) - Shifts in the Pattern of Asset Holdings of Rural Households, 1961-62 to 1971-72 in Econ. and Political Weekly, March.

87.

Planning

Commission,

PPD

(1974)

Perspective

of

Development 1961-1976: Implications for Planning for a Minimum Level of Living: in Srinivasan & Bardhan (1974). 88. Ranadive, K.R. (1978) Income Distribution: The

Unsolved Puzzle: Bombay, Oxford Unviserity Press. 89. Ranadive, K.R. (1965) - The Equality of Incomes in

India in Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Economics and Statistics, No. 7, May.

90.

Ranadive, K.R. (1973) - Distribution of Income - Trend Since Planning, Paper presented to ISI Seminar on Income Distribution, February.

91.

Rao,

C.H.

Hanumantha in

(1976)

Changes of

in

the

Structural Distribution of Land Ownership and Use (since Independence) Indian Journal Agricultural

Economics, October-December. 92. Rao, C.H. Hamumantha (1975) - Technological Change and Distribution of Gains in Indian Agricultural; Delhi, Macmillan. 93. Rao, C.R. (ed) (1974) - Data Base of Indian Economy, Vol. 1, Calcutta, Statistical Publishing Society. 94. Rao, V.K.R.V. Income Limilted. 95. Radhakrishnan, Srinivasan and Vaidyanathan (1974) (1939) - An Essay on Indias London, George Allen national Unwin

1925-29;

and

Data on Distribution of Consumption expenditure: An evaluation, in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974). 96. Rajaraman, Indira (1975) Poverty, Inequality and

Economic Growth: Rural Punjab, 1960-61 - 1970-71 in Journal of Development Studies, Vol. II, No. (1975). 97. Rawls, J. (1973) - A Theory of Justice, London, Oxford University Press. 98. Robbins, L. (1963) - Equality as a Social Objective in politics and Economics, London, Macmillan. 4, July

99.

Robinson, E.A.G. and Kidron, M. (eds) (1970) - Economic Development in South Asia, London, Macmillan.

100. Rajan, V.: (1978): Interim Report of the ICSSR Project on the Tappers Cooperative Societies, Warangal District. 101. Raj, K.N. (1976) - Growth and Stagnation in Indian Industrial Development in Economic and Political Weekly, Annual Number, February. 102. Rudra, Ashok (1974) - NSS Estimate on Consumption expenditure in Rao, C.R. (ed) (1974). 103. Rudra, Ashok (1974) - Minimum Level of Living Statistical Examination in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974). 104. Rowntree, B.S. (1941) - Poverty and Progress: A Second Social Survey of York; London, Longmans Green. 105. Reserve Bank of India - R.B.I. Bulletin, September 1963, Sept. 1962. 106. Reserve Bank of India - All India Debt. And Investment Survey 1971-72: Statistical Tables Relating to Cash Dues Outstanding against Rural Households as on 1971. 107. Saini, G.R. (1976) Green Revolution and the 30th June, - A

Distribution of Farm Incomes in Econ. and Political Weekly (Rev. of Agriculture) March.

108. Sau,

R.

(1974)

Some

Aspects

of

Inter-Sectoral

Resource Flows in Econ. and Political Weekly, Special Number, August. 109. Schillar, B.R. (1970) - The Economics of Poverty and discrimaination, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. 110. Sen, A.K. (1974) - On Economic Inequality; Delhi, Oxford University Press. 111. Sen, A.K. (1973) Poverty, Inequality and

Unemployment in Econ. and Political Weekly, Special Number. 112. Sen, A.K. (1976) - Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to

Measurement in Econometrics, Vol. 44, No. 2. 113. Sheshinaki, E. (1972) - Relation between a Social Welfare Function and the Gini Index of Inequality in Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. A. 114. Shah, C.H. (1976) - Growth and Inequality in Agriculture in Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, OctoberDecember. 115. Sukhatme, P.V. (1965) - Feeding Indias Growing Millions; Bombay, Asia Publishing House. 116. Swamy, Subramanian (1967) - Distribution of Income in India in Econ. and Political Weekly, Annual Number, February. 117. Swamy, Subramanian (1965) - Comment in American Economic Review, December.

118. Shetty, S.L. Indian

(1978) - Structural Retrogression in the since the Mid-Sixties in Econ. and

Economy

Political Weekly, Annual Number. 119. Sethi, H. (1973) - Alternative Development Strategies: A look at some Micro Experiments: in E.P.W. Special Number, August. 120. Thirlllwall, A.P. special (1972) - Growth and Development; with to developing economics; London,

reference

Macmillan. 121. Tewari, S.G. (1968) - Some Aspects of Economics Growth in India: 1950-51 to 1964-65, Paper presented at the

sixth Indian Conference on National Income, May. 122. Theil, H. (1967) - Economics and Information Theory; Amsterdam, North-Holland. 123. Tinbergen, J. (1970) - A Positive and Normative Theory of Income Distribution in Review of Income and Wealth, Vol. 16, No. 3. 124. Townsend, P. (1970) (ed) - The Concept of Poverty;

London, Heinemann. 125. Townsend, P. (1970a) - Measures and Explanations of Poverty in High Income and Low Income countries: The Problems of Operationalizing the Concepts of

Development, Class and Poverty in Townsend (1970). 126. Titmuss, R. (1962) Income Distribution and Social

Change; London, Allen and Unwin.

127. Usher, D. - Rich and Poor Countries, Eaton Paper No. 9 (London Institute of Economic Affairs, 1966). 128. United Nations (1954) - Economic Survey of Asia and the Far East, 1953. 129. Vaidyanathan, A. (1970a) - Some Aspects of Inequalities in Living Standards in Srininvasan (eds) (1974). 130. Vaidyanathan, A. (1974b) Inequalities in Living Rural India in Bardhan and

Standards in Rural India in Bardhan and Srinivasan (eds) (1974). 131. Vaidyanathan, A. (1974c) - On the New Economics of Poverty in Mitra, A. (ed), (1974). 132. Yntema, D.B. (1933) - Measures of the Inequality in the Personal Distribution of Wealth and Income in Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 28. 133. Gopalan, Sastri and Bala Subramanian (1971) - The

Nutritive value of Indian Foods; Indian Council of Medical Research; Hyderabad.