Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By
Sukumar Nandi
Department of Economics
Ashutosh College
Calcutta.
1979.
CONTENTS
Introduction Page
Chapter 1: 1
Concept 2: 4
Poverty in India
Chapter 3: 20
Studies on Inequality
Chapter 4: 63
Chapter 5: 75
Notes 82
Bibliography 99
INTRODUCTION
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.
Measures of Inequality
for y1 ≥ y2 ≥ y3 ≥ ……. ≥ yn
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.
1956-57 1967-68
Fractile Group
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Poorest 5% 63 81
5-10 88 110
10-20 108 137
20-30 133 166
30-40 155 194
40-50 180 222
50-60 207 254
60-70 240 292
70-80 283 240
80-90 351 414
90-95 443 512
Richest 5% 731 723
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.
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 under-
nourishment, 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
land holdings; further, the degree of inequality is 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.
The NSS 26th round data81 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 Co-
operatives, 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.
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.
Where S(Z) is the set of the poor. This I* is called the “income
gap ratio.”
27. Bardhan (1970) and Minhas (1970) described in detail the use
of alternative price deflators.
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).
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, 105.3 for manufactures and
117.3 for all commodities.
Source: Office of the Economic Adviser to the Government of
India.
94. NSS, No. 215, 26th Round, July 1971 – September 1972: Table
on land-holding, All India, February, 1976.
98. Maharaj and Iyer (1977) as quoted in Sethi (1978), pp. 1307-
1316.
85. Popper, Karl [1952]: Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol.
II. London; Routledge & Kegan Paul.