Varying findings of different Committee Reports, an Absolute lack of consensus and The Dependence of poverty alleviation schemes on BPL Estimates makes its Calculation process Extremely crucial. And now, Despite Accepting that 37% of India could be in The BPL category, The Government has failed to notify this.
After a prolonged dilemma over the number of persons falling below poverty line (BPL), the Planning Commission accepted the Suresh Tendulkar Committee report on the scale of poverty in India and found the recommendation regarding a higher number of people being covered under BPL schemes reasonable. Amid confusion and differences over the number of persons falling below poverty line obstructing the proposed legislation on food security in India, the Planning Commission decided to go with the BPL figures contained in the Tendulkar Committee report. With this, the number of people under BPL would rise to 37.2% of the total population (from around 27% earlier) a figure crucial to determine the extent of beneficiaries of government subsidies and the food security bill. However, despite the government having accepted the report in 2010, it is yet to notify the new poverty estimation, which will make the Tendulkar committee figures, though pegged as an underestimate, applicable to all Central government schemes.
The number of BPL people is determined at the national and state-levels by the Planning Commission through large sample survey of consumer expenditure carried out by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), often referred to as available data‘. Going by government definition, BPL is an economic benchmark and poverty threshold used by the government to indicate economic disadvantage and identify individuals and households in need of government assistance and aid. It is determined by using various parameters which vary from state to state and within states as well. But taking into account the Government‘s consistency in providing varying figures about the extent of poverty in India, it is difficult to arrive at an exact figure. The government adopts various measures to reduce poverty – through subsidised kerosene and cheaper grain for the poor population. With the government counting on these schemes to eradicate poverty in India, and the extent of these schemes dependent on the BPL numbers, it becomes increasingly important to adopt a correct methodology to arrive at a realistic figure that can actually serve in the interest of the most vulnerable classes of society where the benefits of government schemes are most required. In the absence of a uniform statistical measure of poverty, it is obvious that the government programmes for poverty alleviation will not prove meaningful.
Uncertainty within the government over actual BPL figures is evident from the varying estimates that different government-appointed committees have tabled. Report of the Saxena Committee, constituted by the Ministry of Rural Development, says that 49.1 % of the population in the country is living below poverty line, and at least 23% of the poor do not possess a ration card, leave aside a BPL card. “The exclusion errors from BPL lists frequently reflect the powerlessness of the most vulnerable and are a direct function of their weak political bargaining power and our inability to include them in state programmes in the last 60 years is a severe indictment of public policy and its implementation,” the Saxena committee has observed.
The latest poverty ratios released by Planning Commission based on 61st round of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in 2004-5 estimated that 28.3% households in the rural areas were living below poverty line. In contrast to this figure for the same period, the Arjun Sen Gupta Committee constituted by the government for gauging poverty in the unorganised sector the country revealed that more than 77% of people are forced to live on Rs.20 or less per day, which is insufficient even for bare minimum requirements. The panel estimates the number of poor on basis of the National Sample Survey Office’s sample survey of expenditure and fixes state-wise number of poor. Baffled by the different poverty figures, the government has now asked all ministries to only use the planning commission’s figure of 27% in all its communications henceforth.
In line with the government instructions, the Planning Commission has now decided to maintain the state-wise number of BPL families (which decide the extent of schemes run by the state governments) as per NSSO data available, against the usual practice of state governments calculating these numbers. While the rationale behind the decision is still skewed, the Commission is further learnt to have issued a sealing to state governments that the number of BPL families should not exceed a certain estimate. The Parliament’s standing committee on Finance, headed by former Finance minister Yashwant Sinha has sent a serious note to the commission objecting the government’s move. The committee has also said that the number of BPL families should be decided by the state governments as it is primarily their job. Expressing apprehensions over differences between the Centre and states over population of Below Poverty Line (BPL) families and discrepancies in the existing BPL lists, Sinha has also cautioned the government against rolling out the proposed food guarantee law without resolving all the issues related to BPL population in the country. While urging the government to sort out all the issues relating to poverty criteria, estimation, identification and targeting before finalising the Food Security Bill, the Committee underlined that it was “concerned about the efficacy of the proposed Food Security Bill when the criteria of identification of the poor remains nebulous”. The standing committee has also noted that various expert groups have indicated different aspects of poverty based on different assumptions and context.
The number of BPL people is determined at the national and state-levels by the Planning Commission through large sample survey of consumer expenditure carried out by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), often referred to as available data‘. Going by government definition, BPL is an economic benchmark and poverty threshold used by the government to indicate economic disadvantage and identify individuals and households in need of government assistance and aid. It is determined by using various parameters which vary from state to state and within states as well. But taking into account the Government‘s consistency in providing varying figures about the extent of poverty in India, it is difficult to arrive at an exact figure. The government adopts various measures to reduce poverty – through subsidised kerosene and cheaper grain for the poor population. With the government counting on these schemes to eradicate poverty in India, and the extent of these schemes dependent on the BPL numbers, it becomes increasingly important to adopt a correct methodology to arrive at a realistic figure that can actually serve in the interest of the most vulnerable classes of society where the benefits of government schemes are most required. In the absence of a uniform statistical measure of poverty, it is obvious that the government programmes for poverty alleviation will not prove meaningful.
Uncertainty within the government over actual BPL figures is evident from the varying estimates that different government-appointed committees have tabled. Report of the Saxena Committee, constituted by the Ministry of Rural Development, says that 49.1 % of the population in the country is living below poverty line, and at least 23% of the poor do not possess a ration card, leave aside a BPL card. “The exclusion errors from BPL lists frequently reflect the powerlessness of the most vulnerable and are a direct function of their weak political bargaining power and our inability to include them in state programmes in the last 60 years is a severe indictment of public policy and its implementation,” the Saxena committee has observed.
The latest poverty ratios released by Planning Commission based on 61st round of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in 2004-5 estimated that 28.3% households in the rural areas were living below poverty line. In contrast to this figure for the same period, the Arjun Sen Gupta Committee constituted by the government for gauging poverty in the unorganised sector the country revealed that more than 77% of people are forced to live on Rs.20 or less per day, which is insufficient even for bare minimum requirements. The panel estimates the number of poor on basis of the National Sample Survey Office’s sample survey of expenditure and fixes state-wise number of poor. Baffled by the different poverty figures, the government has now asked all ministries to only use the planning commission’s figure of 27% in all its communications henceforth.
In line with the government instructions, the Planning Commission has now decided to maintain the state-wise number of BPL families (which decide the extent of schemes run by the state governments) as per NSSO data available, against the usual practice of state governments calculating these numbers. While the rationale behind the decision is still skewed, the Commission is further learnt to have issued a sealing to state governments that the number of BPL families should not exceed a certain estimate. The Parliament’s standing committee on Finance, headed by former Finance minister Yashwant Sinha has sent a serious note to the commission objecting the government’s move. The committee has also said that the number of BPL families should be decided by the state governments as it is primarily their job. Expressing apprehensions over differences between the Centre and states over population of Below Poverty Line (BPL) families and discrepancies in the existing BPL lists, Sinha has also cautioned the government against rolling out the proposed food guarantee law without resolving all the issues related to BPL population in the country. While urging the government to sort out all the issues relating to poverty criteria, estimation, identification and targeting before finalising the Food Security Bill, the Committee underlined that it was “concerned about the efficacy of the proposed Food Security Bill when the criteria of identification of the poor remains nebulous”. The standing committee has also noted that various expert groups have indicated different aspects of poverty based on different assumptions and context.
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age WomanIIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
IIPM Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri on Internet Hooliganism
Arindam Chaudhuri: We need Hazare's leadership
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age WomanIIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
IIPM Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri on Internet Hooliganism
Arindam Chaudhuri: We need Hazare's leadership
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
