urban poverty in india essay

Poverty in India Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on poverty in india.

Poverty refers to a situation in which a person remain underprivileged from the basic necessities of life. In addition, the person does not have an inadequate supply of food, shelter, and clothes. In India, most of the people who are suffering from poverty cannot afford to pay for a single meal a day. Also, they sleep on the roadside; wear dirty old clothes. In addition, they do not get proper healthy and nutritious food, neither medicine nor any other necessary thing.

Causes of Poverty

The rate of poverty in India is increasing because of the increase in the urban population. The rural people are migrating to cities to find better employment. Most of these people find an underpaid job or an activity that pays only for their food. Most importantly, around crores of urban people are below the poverty line and many of the people are on the borderline of poverty.

Besides, a huge number of people live in low-lying areas or slums. These people are mostly illiterate and in spite of efforts their condition remains the same and there is no satisfactory result.

Furthermore, there are many reasons that we can say are the major cause of poverty in India. These causes include corruption, growing population, poor agriculture , the wide gap of rich and poor, old customs, illiteracy, unemployment and few more. A large section of people are engaged in an agricultural activity but the activity pays very less in comparison to the work done by employees.

Also, more population needs more food, houses and money and in the lack of these facilities the poverty grows very quickly. In addition, being extra poor and extra rich also widens the gap between the rich and poor.

Moreover, the rich are growing richer and the poor are getting poorer creating an economic gap that is difficult to fill up.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Effects of Poverty

It affects people living in a lot of ways. Also, it has various effects that include illiteracy, reduced nutrition and diet, poor housing, child labor, unemployment , poor hygiene and lifestyle, and feminization of poverty, etc. Besides, this poor people cannot afford a healthy and balanced diet, nice clothes, proper education , a stable and clean house, etc. because all these facilities require money and they don’t even have money to feed two meals a day then how can they afford to pay for these facilities.

The Solutions for Ending Poverty

For solving the problem of poverty it is necessary for us to act quickly and correctly. Some of the ways of solving these problems are to provide proper facilities to farmers . So, that they can make agriculture profitable and do not migrate to cities in search of employment.

Also, illiterate people should be given the required training so that they can live a better life. To check the rising population, family planning should be followed. Besides, measures should be taken to end corruption, so that we can deal with the gap between rich and poor.

In conclusion, poverty is not the problem of a person but of the whole nation. Also, it should be deal with on an urgent basis by the implementation of effective measures. In addition, eradication of poverty has become necessary for the sustainable and inclusive growth of people, society, country, and economy .

FAQs about Poverty in India Essay

Q.1 List some ways to end poverty in India. A.1 Some ways to end poverty in India are:

• Develop a national poverty reduction plan
• Equal access to healthcare and education
• Sanitation facility
• Food, water, shelter, and clothing facility
• Enhance economic growth with targeted action

Q.2 Which is the poorest state in India? A.2 Chhattisgarh is the poorest state of the country.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Urban Poverty

Last updated on December 25, 2023 by ClearIAS Team

Urban poverty is complex and multidimensional and it extends beyond the deficiency of income or consumption. Urbanization has added newer problems like urban slums blossoming in congested cities. Is the weight of the world’s enormous poverty problem, historically a predominantly rural concern, shifting to urban areas? Is urbanization good or bad from the point of view of fighting poverty? Read here to know more.

The developing world is becoming more urban. Some observers see this as the unwelcome precursor to new poverty problems, such as urban slums blossoming in congested cities.

Yet others see it as a force for poverty reduction, as economies shift gradually out of agriculture to more remunerative activities, such as better-paid jobs in other sectors.

Is the weight of the world’s enormous poverty problem, historically a predominantly rural concern, shifting to urban areas?

Table of Contents

Urban poverty, in contrast to rural poverty, is complex and multifaceted, going beyond a lack of resources for consumption or income.

Its many facets are related to the vulnerability of the poor due to their lack of access to land and housing, physical infrastructure and services, sources of income and work, health and education facilities, and social security networks, as well as their lack of voice and empowerment.

In most developing nations, urbanization has been accompanied by slums and shelter deprivation, informality, worsening of living conditions, and increasing risks due to climate change and exclusionary urban forms.

According to the UN-HABITAT , Asia has 60% of the world’s total slum population, and much more live in slum-like conditions in areas that are officially designated as non-slums.

• Working poverty and informality are high in Asian cities and towns.
• Recent years have witnessed, almost universally, increasing urban inequalities and stagnating consumption shares of lower-percentile households.

Causes of urban poverty

Rural-Urban Migration: Large-scale migration from rural to urban areas in search of better livelihood causes overcrowding in the cities.

• Rapid urbanization acts as a pull for the rural poor, but they, unfortunately, become part of the urban poor when they migrate.

Lack of opportunities: The lack of opportunities and skills training for most of the working-age population is a major problem.

• A shortage of adequate investment in quality education and basic services like health, sanitation, waste management, and skill training has had its consequences.
• It has led to generations of malnourished, uneducated, unaware, and unskilled or semi-skilled people who find it difficult to find decent-paying jobs.

Lack of affordable housing: People are unable to afford nominal housing hence they settle wherever they can. As the numbers increase, these develop into a community of slum dwellers.

• This further complicates the procedure of accessing basic services like electricity, water, sanitation, etc. as the authorities and public utilities can only serve those registered on paper.

Economy: The ups and downs in the economic conditions of a nation also add to urban poverty.

• The plight of lower-income people in metropolitan areas is made worse by a sharp increase in the cost of food and other necessities.

Urbanization: Sometimes, urbanization affects regions at the edges of big cities, often benefiting them because they become more connected to municipal life.

• The fast pace of urban life becomes too expensive for the villagers, they don’t have the skill sets required for higher-paying jobs so find themselves pushed into the informal economy to survive.

Also read: Urbanization: Problems and Remedies

Issues of the urban poor

• Overcrowding is a major factor in informal settlements. There is often just one bathroom for many people in each illegal building.
• A lack of awareness of personal hygiene practices pushes families further into the waiting arms of diseases and infections.
• The low income of these communities means that standard medical help is often a far-fetched dream, not to mention unaffordable.
• Education is inaccessible to most of the children in the urban slums. Even if they start school, they usually drop out due to financial constraints.
• There is always the fear of eviction as they are occupying the lands illegally.

Urban poverty in India

In India, the causes of urban poverty can be linked to the lack of infrastructure in rural areas, forcing inhabitants of these regions to seek out work in India’s mega-cities.

• As more and more people make this migration, the space left to accommodate them becomes less and less.
• Urban development can’t keep up with the growing numbers of informal settlers and no one wants to be held accountable for the slums or their residents.

The nature of urban poverty poses distinct challenges for housing, water, sanitation, health, education, social security, livelihoods, and the special needs of vulnerable groups such as women, children, and aging.

The issue of urban poverty was recognized over two decades ago in India and the reports then proposed solutions to urban poverty including greater equity in the provision of basic services, targeted subsidies for vulnerable sections of the population, and special government assistance to strengthen the economic bases of small and medium towns.

Government efforts to alleviate urban poverty

Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana – National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NULM)

• The Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs (MoHUA) is implementing DAY-NULM, in statutory towns to reduce poverty and vulnerability of urban poor households.
• The aim is to enable them to access gainful self-employment and skilled wage employment opportunities, to improve their livelihoods on a sustainable basis, through building strong grassroots-level institutions for the urban poor.
• The mission also aims at providing shelters equipped with essential services to the urban homeless.
• The mission also addresses the livelihood concerns of the urban street vendors by facilitating access to suitable spaces, institutional credit, social security, etc.

Other major schemes for urban poverty alleviation are:

• Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation
• Jal Jeevan Mission Urban has been designed to provide universal coverage of water supply to all households.
• Light House Projects is an initiative of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs
• Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)
• Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Housing for All – Urban)
• Scheme to Augment City Buses & Urban Green Mobility
• Self-Employment Programme of urban poor
• Towns of Export Excellence

Also read: Economic and Social Development – Sustainable Development, Poverty, Inclusion, Demographics, Social Sector Initiatives, etc.

Way forward

The poor are gravitating to towns and cities, but more rapid poverty reduction will probably require a faster pace of urbanization, not a slower one, and development policymakers will need to facilitate this process, not hinder it.

Because slum communities are not recognized by the government, the majority of aid and benefits do not reach residents.

Urban poverty is significantly impacted by the lack of adequate social security programs for informal employees. New methods of urban planning and efficient government are so urgently needed.

Priority should be given to providing the slum regions with essential services such as clean water, sanitary facilities, and electricity.

India is taking the right step in promoting small and medium-scale industries (MSME) in rural areas, as well as promoting other income-generating opportunities. However, more investment into satisfying the demand for more jobs, equal pay, and more career and movement opportunities in the tertiary or agriculture sector, could ease the increasing pressure on urban infrastructure services.

Read:  PM SVANidhi Scheme

-Article written by Swathi Satish

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2025 (Online)

₹95000 ₹59000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2026 (Online)

₹115000 ₹69000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2027 (Online)

₹125000 ₹79000

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

Advertisement

I.  Introduction

Ii.  the expenditure surveys, iii.  nsso versus nas expenditure estimates, iv.  the official poverty lines, v.  controversies regarding poverty lines 3, vi.  poverty at the national level, vii.  poverty in the states: rural and urban, viii.  poverty in the states by social group, ix.  poverty in the states by religious group, x.  inequality, xi.  concluding remarks, a comprehensive analysis of poverty in india.

• Cite Icon Cite
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Search Site

Arvind Panagariya , Megha Mukim; A Comprehensive Analysis of Poverty in India. Asian Development Review 2014; 31 (1): 1–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/ADEV_a_00021

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of poverty in India. It shows that regardless of which of the two official poverty lines we use, we see a steady decline in poverty in all states and for all social and religious groups. Accelerated growth between fiscal years 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 also led to an accelerated decline in poverty rates. Moreover, the decline in poverty rates during these years has been sharper for the socially disadvantaged groups relative to upper caste groups so that we now observe a narrowing of the gap in the poverty rates between the two sets of social groups. The paper also provides a discussion of the recent controversies in India regarding the choice of poverty lines.

This paper provides comprehensive up-to-date estimates of poverty by social and religious groups in the rural and urban areas of the largest 17 states in India. The specific measure of poverty reported in the paper is the poverty rate or headcount ratio (HCR), which is the proportion of the population with expenditure or income below a pre-specified level referred to as the poverty line. In the context of most developing countries, the poverty line usually relates to a pre-specified basket of goods presumed to be necessary for above-subsistence existence.

In so far as prices vary across states and between rural and urban regions within the same state, the poverty line also varies in nominal rupees across states and between urban and rural regions within the same state. 1 Similarly, since prices rise over time due to inflation, the poverty line in nominal rupees in a given location is also adjusted upwards over time.

The original official poverty estimates in India, provided by the Planning Commission, were based on the Lakdawala poverty lines, so named after Professor D. T. Lakdawala who headed a 1993 expert group that recommended these lines. Recommendations of a 2009 expert committee headed by Professor Suresh Tendulkar led to an upward adjustment in the rural poverty line relative to its Lakdawala counterpart. Therefore, while the official estimates for earlier years were based on the lines and methodology recommended by the expert group headed by Lakdawala, those for more recent years were based on the line and methodology recommended by the Tendulkar Committee. Official estimates based on both methodologies exist for only two years, 1993–1994 and 2004–2005. These estimates are provided for the overall population, for rural and urban regions of each state, and for the country as a whole. The Planning Commission does not provide estimates by social or religious groups.

In this paper, we provide estimates using Lakdawala and Tendulkar lines for different social and religious groups in rural and urban areas in all major states and at the national level. Our estimates based on Lakdawala lines are computed for all years beginning in 1983 for which large or “thick” expenditure surveys have been conducted. Estimates based on the Tendulkar line and methodology are provided for the three latest large expenditure surveys, 1993–1994, 2004–2005, and 2009–2010.

Our objective in writing the paper is twofold. First, much confusion has arisen in the policy debates in India around certain issues regarding poverty in the country—for instance, whether or not growth has helped the poor (if yes, how much and over which time period) and whether growth is leaving certain social or religious groups behind. We hope that by providing poverty estimates for various time periods, social groups, religious groups, states, and urban and rural areas, this paper will help ensure that future policy debates are based on fact. Second, researchers interested in explaining how various policy measures impact poverty might find it useful to have the poverty lines and the associated poverty estimates for various social and religious groups and across India's largest states in rural and urban areas readily available in one place.

The literature on poverty in India is vast and many of the contributions or references to the contributions can be found in Srinivasan and Bardhan ( 1974 , 1988 ), Fields ( 1980 ), Tendulkar ( 1998 ), Deaton and Drèze ( 2002 ), Bhalla ( 2002 ), and Deaton and Kozel ( 2005 ). Panagariya ( 2008 ) provides a comprehensive treatment of the subject until the mid-2000s including the debates on whether or not poverty had declined in the post-reform era and whether or not reforms had been behind the acceleration in growth rates and the decline in poverty. Finally, several of the contributions in Bhagwati and Panagariya ( 2012a , 2012b ) analyze various aspects of poverty in India using the expenditures surveys up to 2004–2005. In particular, Cain, Hasan, and Mitra ( 2012 ) study the impact of openness on poverty; Mukim and Panagariya ( 2012 ) document the decline in poverty across social groups; Dehejia and Panagariya ( 2012 ) provide evidence on the growth in entrepreneurship in services sectors among the socially disadvantaged groups; and Hnatkovska and Lahiri ( 2012 ) provide evidence on and reasons for narrowing wage inequality between the socially disadvantaged groups and the upper castes.

To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically and comprehensively exploit the expenditure survey conducted in 2009–2010. This is important because growth was 2–3 percentage points higher between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 surveys than between any other prior surveys. As such, we are able to study the differential impact accelerated growth has had on poverty alleviation both directly, through improved employment and wage prospects for the poor, and indirectly, through the large-scale redistribution program known as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which enhanced revenues made possible. In addition, ours is also the first paper to comprehensively analyze poverty across religious groups. In studying the progress in combating poverty across social groups, the paper complements our previous work, Mukim and Panagariya ( 2012 ).

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II , we discuss the history and design of the expenditure surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), which form the backbone of all poverty analysis in India. In Section III , we discuss the rising discrepancy between average expenditures as reported by the NSSO surveys and by the National Accounts Statistics (NAS) of the Central Statistical Office (CSO). In Section IV , we describe in detail the evolution of official poverty lines in India, while in Section V we discuss some recent controversies regarding the level of the official poverty line. In Sections VI to Section IX , we present the poverty estimates. In Section X , we discuss inequality over time in rural and urban areas of the 17 states. In Section XI , we offer our conclusions.

The main source of data for estimating poverty in India is the expenditure survey conducted by the NSSO. India is perhaps the only developing country that began conducting such surveys on a regular basis as early as 1950–1951. The surveys have been conducted at least once a year since 1950–1951. However, the sample had been too small to permit reliable estimates of poverty at the level of the state until 1973–1974. A decision was made in the early 1970s to replace the smaller annual surveys by large-size expenditure (and employment–unemployment) surveys to be conducted every 5 years.

This decision led to the birth of “thick” quinquennial (5-yearly) surveys. Accordingly, the following 8 rounds of large-size surveys have been conducted: 27 (1973–1974), 32 (1978), 38 (1983), 43 (1987–1988), 50 (1993–1994), 55 (1999–2000), 61 (2004–2005), and 66 (2009–2010). Starting from the 42nd round in 1986–1987, a smaller expenditure survey was reintroduced. This was conducted annually except during the years in which the quinquennial survey was to take place. Therefore, with the exception of the 65th and 67th rounds in 2008–2009 and 2010–2011, respectively, an expenditure survey exists for each year beginning 1986–1987.

While the NSSO collects the data and produces reports providing information on monthly per-capita expenditures, it is the Planning Commission that computes the poverty lines and provides official estimates of poverty. The official estimates are strictly limited to quinquennial surveys. While they cover rural, urban, and total populations in different states and at the national level, estimates are not provided for specific social or religious groups. These can be calculated selectively for specific groups or specific years by researchers. With rare exceptions, discussions and debates on poverty have been framed around the quinquennial surveys even though the other survey samples are large enough to allow reliable estimates at the national level.

For each household interviewed, the survey collects data on the quantity of and expenditure on a large number of items purchased. For items such as education and health services, where quantity cannot be meaningfully defined, only expenditure data are collected. The list of items is elaborate. For example, the 66th round collected data on 142 items under the food category; 15 items under energy; 28 items under clothing, bedding, and footwear; 19 items under educational and medical expenses; 51 items under durable goods; and 89 in the other items category.

It turns out that household responses vary systematically according to the length of the reference period to which the expenditures are related. For example, a household could be asked about its expenditures on durable goods during the preceding 30 days or the preceding year. When the information provided in the first case is converted into annual expenditures, it is found to be systematically lower than when the survey directly asks households to report their annual spending. Therefore, estimates of poverty vary depending on the reference period chosen in the questionnaire.

Most quinquennial surveys have collected information on certain categories of relatively infrequently purchased items including clothing and consumer durables on the basis of both 30-day and 365-day reference periods. For other categories, including all food and fuel and consumer services, they have used a 30-day reference period. The data allow us to estimate two alternative measures of monthly per-capita expenditures that refer to the following: (i) a uniform reference period (URP) where all expenditure data used to estimate monthly per-capita expenditure are based on the 30-day reference period, and (ii) a mixed reference period (MRP) where expenditure data used to estimate the monthly per-capita expenditure are based on the 365-day reference period in the case of clothing and consumer durables and the 30-day reference period in the case of other items.

With rare exceptions, monthly per-capita expenditure associated with the MRP turns out to be higher than that associated with the URP. The Planning Commission's original estimate of poverty that employed the Lakdawala poverty lines had relied on the URP monthly per-capita expenditures. At some time prior to the Tendulkar Committee report, however, the Planning Commission decided to shift to the MRP estimates. Therefore, while recommending revisions that led to an upward adjustment in the rural poverty line, the Tendulkar Committee also shifted to the MRP monthly per-capita expenditures in its poverty calculations. Therefore, the revised poverty estimates available for 1993–1994, 2004–2005, and 2009–2010 are based on the Tendulkar lines and the MRP estimates of monthly per-capita expenditures.

We note an important feature of the NSSO expenditure surveys at the outset. The average monthly per-capita expenditure based on the surveys falls well short of the average private consumption expenditure separately available from the NAS of the CSO. Moreover, the proportionate shortfall has been progressively rising over successive surveys. These two observations hold regardless of whether we use the URP or MRP estimate of monthly per-capita expenditure available from the NSSO. Figure 1 graphically depicts this phenomenon in the case of URP monthly per-capita expenditure, which is more readily available for all quinquennial surveys since 1983.

NSSO Household Total URP Expenditure Estimate as % of NAS Total Private Consumption Expenditure

Precisely what explains the gap between the NSSO and NAS expenditures has important implications for poverty estimates. For example, if the gap in any given year is uniformly distributed across all expenditure classes as Bhalla ( 2002 ) assumes in his work, true expenditure in 2009–2010 is uniformly more than twice of what the survey finds. This would imply that many individuals currently classified as falling below the poverty line are actually above it. Moreover, a recognition that the proportionate gap between NSSO and NAS private expenditures has been rising over time implies that the poverty ratio is being overestimated by progressively larger margins over time. At the other extreme, if the gap between NSSO and NAS expenditures is explained entirely by underreporting of the expenditures by households classified as non-poor, poverty levels will not be biased upwards.

There are good reasons to believe, however, that the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. The survey underrepresents wealthy consumers. For instance, it is unlikely that any of the billionaires, or most of the millionaires, are covered by the survey. Likewise, the total absence of error among households below the poverty line is highly unlikely. For example, recall that the expenditures on durables are systematically underreported for the 30-day reference period relative to that for 365-day reference period. Thus, in all probability, households classified as poor account for part of the gap so that there is some overestimation of the poverty ratio at any given poverty line. 2

The 1993 expert group headed by Lakdawala defined all-India rural and urban poverty lines in terms of per-capita total consumption expenditure at 1973–1974 market prices. The underlying consumption baskets were anchored to the per-capita calorie norms of 2,400 and 2,100 in rural and urban areas, respectively. The rural and urban poverty line baskets were based on different underlying baskets, which meant that the two poverty lines represented different levels of real expenditures.

State-level rural poverty lines were derived from the national rural poverty line by adjusting the latter for price differences between national and state-level consumer price indices for agricultural laborers. Likewise, state-level urban poverty lines were derived from the national urban poverty line by adjusting the latter for price differences between the national and state-level consumer price indices for industrial laborers. National and state-level rural poverty lines were adjusted over time by applying the national and state-level price indices for agricultural workers, respectively. Urban poverty lines were adjusted similarly over time.

Lakdawala lines served as the official poverty lines until 2004–2005. The Planning Commission applied them to URP-based expenditures in the quinquennial surveys to calculate official poverty ratios. Criticisms of these estimates on various grounds led the Planning Commission to appoint an expert group under the chairmanship of Suresh Tendulkar in December 2005 with the directive to recommend appropriate changes in methodology for computing poverty estimates. The group submitted its report in 2009.

In its report, the Tendulkar committee noted three deficiencies of the Lakdawala poverty lines (Government of India 2009 ). First, the poverty line baskets remained tied to consumption patterns observed in 1973–1974. But more than 3 decades later, these baskets had shifted, even for the poor. Second, the consumer price index for agricultural workers understated the true price increase. This meant that over time the upward adjustment in the rural poverty lines was less than necessary so that the estimated poverty ratios understated rural poverty. Finally, the assumption underlying Lakdawala lines that health and education would be largely provided by the government did not hold any longer. Private expenditures on these services had risen considerably, even for the poor. This change was not adequately reflected in the Lakdawala poverty lines.

To remedy these deficiencies, the Tendulkar committee began by noting that the NSSO had already decided to shift from URP-based expenditures to MRP-based expenditures to measure poverty. With this in view, the committee's first step was to situate the revised poverty lines in terms of MRP expenditures in some generally acceptable aspect of the existing practice. To this end, it observed that since the nationwide urban poverty ratio of 25.7%, calculated from URP-based expenditures in the 2004–2005 survey, was broadly accepted as a good approximation of prevailing urban poverty, the revised urban poverty line could be anchored to yield this same estimate using MRP-based per-capita consumption expenditure from the 2004–2005 survey. This decision led to MRP-based per-capita expenditure of the individual at the 25.7 percentile in the national distribution of per-capita MRP expenditures becoming the national urban poverty line.

The Tendulkar committee further argued that the consumption basket associated with the national urban poverty line also be accepted as the rural poverty line consumption basket. This implied the translation of the new urban poverty line using the appropriate price index to obtain the nationwide rural poverty line. Under this approach, rural and urban poverty lines became fully aligned. Applying MRP-based expenditures, the new rural poverty line yielded a rural poverty ratio of 41.8% in 2004–2005 compared with 28.3% under the old methodology.

It is important to note that even though the method of pegging the national urban poverty line in the manner done by the Tendulkar committee left the national urban poverty in 2004–2005 originally measured at the Lakdawala urban poverty line unchanged, it did impact state-level urban poverty estimates. The methodology required that the state-level rural and urban poverty lines be derived from the national urban poverty line by applying the appropriate price indices derived from the price information within the sample surveys. In some cases, the state-level shift was sufficiently large to significantly alter the estimate of urban poverty. For example, Lakdawala urban poverty line in Gujarat in 2004–2005 was Rs541.16 per-capita per month. The corresponding Tendulkar line turned out to be Rs659.18. This change led the urban poverty estimate in 2004–2005 to jump from 13.3% based on the Lakdawala line to 20.1% based on the Tendulkar line.

An important final point concerns the treatment of health and education spending by the Tendulkar Committee in recommending the revised poverty lines. On this issue, it is best to directly quote the Tendulkar Committee report (Government of India 2009 , p. 2):

Even while moving away from the calorie norms, the proposed poverty lines have been validated by checking the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education, and health by comparing them with normative expenditures consistent with nutritional, educational, and health outcomes. Actual private expenditures reported by households near the new poverty lines on these items were found to be adequate at the all-India level in both the rural and the urban areas and for most of the states. It may be noted that while the new poverty lines have been arrived at after assessing the adequacy of private household expenditure on education and health, the earlier calorie-anchored poverty lines did not explicitly account for these. The proposed poverty lines are in that sense broader in scope.

We address here the two rounds of controversies over the poverty line that broke out in the media in September 2011 and March 2012. The first round of controversy began with the Planning Commission filing an affidavit with the Supreme Court stating that the poverty line at the time had been on average Rs32 and Rs26 per person per day in urban and rural India, respectively. Being based on the Tendulkar methodology, these lines were actually higher than the Lakdawala lines on which the official poverty estimates had been based until 2004–2005. However, the media and civil society groups pounced on the Planning Commission for diluting the poverty lines so as to inflate poverty reduction numbers and to deprive many potential beneficiaries of entitlements. For its part, the Planning Commission did a poor job of explaining to the public precisely what it had done and why.

The controversy resurfaced in March 2012 when the Planning Commission released the poverty estimates based on the 2009–2010 expenditure survey. The Planning Commission reported that these estimates were based on average poverty lines of Rs28.26 and Rs22.2 per person per day in urban and rural areas, respectively. Comparing these lines to those previously reported to the Supreme Court, the media once again accused the Planning Commission of lowering the poverty lines. 4 The truth of the matter was that whereas the poverty lines reported to the Supreme Court were meant to reflect the price level prevailing in mid-2011, those underlying poverty estimates for 2009–2010 were based on the mid-point of 2009–2010. The latter poverty lines were lower because the price level at the mid-point of 2009–2010 was lower than that in mid-2011. In real terms, the two sets of poverty lines were identical.

While there was no basis to the accusations that the Planning Commission had lowered the poverty lines, the issue of whether the poverty lines remain excessively low despite having been raised does require further examination. In addressing this issue, it is important to be clear about the objectives behind the poverty line.

Potentially, there are two main objectives behind poverty lines: to track the progress made in combating poverty and to identify the poor towards whom redistribution programs can be directed. The level of the poverty line must be evaluated separately against each objective. In principle, we may want separate poverty lines for the two objectives.

With regard to the first objective, the poverty line should be set at a level that allows us to track the progress made in helping the truly destitute or those living in abject poverty, often referred to as extreme poverty. Much of the media debate during the two episodes focused on what could or could not be bought with the poverty-line expenditure. 5 There was no mention of the basket of goods that was used by the Tendulkar Committee to define the poverty line.

In Annex E of its report (Government of India 2009 ), the Tendulkar Committee gave a detailed itemized list of the expenditures of those “around poverty line class for urban areas in all India.” Unfortunately, it did not report the corresponding quantities purchased of various commodities. In this paper, we now compute these quantities from unit-level data where feasible and report them in Table 1 for a household consisting of five members. 6 Our implicit per-person expenditures on individual items are within Rs3 of their corresponding expenditures reported in Annex E of the report of the Tendulkar Committee.

Source: Authors’ calculations using unit-level data (supplied by Rahul).

We report quantities wherever the relevant data are available. In the survey, the quantities are not always reported in weights. For example, lemons and oranges are reported in numbers and not in kilograms. In these cases, we have converted the quantities into kilograms using the appropriate conversion factors. The main point to note is that while the quantities associated with the poverty line basket may not permit a comfortable existence, including a balanced diet, they allow above-subsistence existence. The consumption of cereals and pulses at 50.9 kilograms (kg) and 3.5 kg compared with 48 kg and 5.5 kg, respectively, for the mean consumption of the top 30% of the population. Likewise, the consumption of edible oils and vegetables at 2.7 kg and 23.9 kg for the poor compared with 4.5 kg and 35.5 kg, respectively, for the top 30% of the population. 7 This comparison shows that, at least in terms of the provision of two square meals a day, the poverty line consumption basket is compatible with above-subsistence level consumption.

We reiterate our point as follows. In 2009–2010, the urban poverty line in Delhi was Rs1,040.3 per person per month (Rs34.2 per day). For a family of five, this amount would translate to Rs5,201.5 per month. Assuming that each family member consumes 10 kg per month of cereal and 1 kg per month of pulses and the prices of the two grains are Rs15 and Rs80 per kilogram, respectively, the total expenditure on grain would be Rs1,150. 8 This would leave Rs4,051.5 for milk, edible oils, fuel, clothing, rent, education, health, and other expenditures. While this amount may not allow a fully balanced diet, comfortable living, and access to good education and health, it is consistent with an above-subsistence level of existence. Additionally, if we take into account access to public education and health, and subsidized grain and fuel from the public distribution system, the poverty line is scarcely out of line with the one that would allow exit from extreme poverty.

But what about the role of the poverty line in identifying the poor for purposes of redistribution? Ideally, this exercise should be carried out at the local level in light of resources available for redistribution, since the poor must ultimately be identified locally. Nevertheless, if the national poverty line is used to identify the poor, could we still defend the Tendulkar line as adequate? We argue in the affirmative.

Going by the urban and rural population weights of 0.298 and 0.702 implicit in the population projections for 1 January 2010, the average countrywide per-capita MRP expenditure during 2009–2010 amounts to Rs40.2 per person per day. Therefore, going by the expenditure survey data, equal distribution across the entire country would allow barely Rs40.2 per person per day in expenditures. Raising the poverty line significantly above the current level must confront this limit with regard to the scope for redistribution.

It could be argued that this discussion is based on data in the expenditure survey, which underestimates true expenditures. The scope for redistribution might be significantly greater if we go by expenditures as measured in the NAS. The response to this criticism is that the surveys underestimate not just the average national expenditure but also the expenditures of those identified as poor. Depending on the extent of this underestimation, the need for redistribution itself would be overestimated.

Even so, it is useful to test the limits of redistribution by considering the average expenditure according to the NAS. The total private final consumption expenditure at current prices in 2009–2010 was Rs37,959.01 billion. Applying the population figure of 1.174 billion as of 1 January 2010 in the NSSO 2009–2010 expenditure survey, this total annual expenditure translates to daily spending of Rs88.58 per person. This figure includes certain items such as imputed rent on owner-occupied housing and expenditures other than those by households such as the spending of civil society groups, which would not be available for redistribution. Thus, per-capita expenditures achievable through equal distribution, even when we consider the expenditures as per the NAS, is likely to be modest.

To appreciate further the folly of setting too high a poverty line for the purpose of identifying the poor, recall that the national average poverty line was Rs22.2 per person per day in rural areas and Rs28.26 in urban areas in 2009–2010. Going by the expenditure estimates for different spending classes in Government of India ( 2011a ), raising these lines to just Rs33.3 and Rs45.4, respectively, would place 70% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population in poverty in 2009–2010. If we went a little further and set the rural poverty line at Rs39 per day and the urban poverty line at Rs81 per day in 2009–2010, we would place 80% of the population in each region below the poverty line. Will the fate of the destitute not be compromised if the meager tax revenues available for redistribution were thinly spread on this much larger population?

Before we turn to reporting the poverty estimates, we should clarify that while we have defended the current poverty line in India for both purposes—tracking abject poverty and redistribution—in general, we believe a case exists for two separate poverty lines to satisfy the two objectives. The poverty line to track abject poverty must be drawn independently of the availability of revenues for redistribution purposes and should be uniform nationally. The poverty line for redistribution purposes would in general differ from this line and, indeed, vary in different jurisdictions of the same nation depending on the availability of revenues. This should be evident from the fact that redistribution remains an issue even in countries that have entirely eradicated abject poverty. 9

Official poverty estimates are available at the national and state levels for the entire population, but not by social or religious groups, for all years during which the NSSO conducted quinquennial surveys. These years include 1973–1974, 1977–1978, 1983, 1987–1988, 1993–1994, 2004–2005, and 2009–2010, but not 1999–2000, as that year's survey became noncomparable to other quinquennial surveys due to a change in sample design. The Planning Commission has published poverty ratios for the first six of these surveys based on the Lakdawala lines and for the last three based on the Tendulkar lines. These ratios were estimated for rural and urban areas at the national and state levels.

In this paper, we provide comparable poverty rates for all of the last five quinquennial surveys including 2009–2010 derived from Lakdawala lines. For this purpose, we update the 2004–2005 Lakdawala lines to 2009–2010 using the price indices implicit in the official Tendulkar lines for 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 at the national and state levels. We provide estimates categorized by social as well as religious groups for all quinquennial surveys beginning in 1983 based on the Lakdawala lines and for the years relating to the last three such surveys based on the Tendulkar lines at the national and state levels.

While we focus mainly on the evolution of poverty since 1983 in this paper, it is useful to begin with a brief look at the poverty profile in the early years. This is done in Figure 2 using the estimates in Datt ( 1998 ) for years 1951–1952 to 1973–1974. The key message of the graph is that the poverty ratio hovered between 50% and 60% with a mildly rising trend.

The Poverty Ratio in India, 1951–1952 to 1973–1974 (%)

This is not surprising, as India had been extremely poor at independence. Unlike economies such as Taipei, China; the Republic of Korea; Singapore; and Hong Kong, China, the country then grew very slowly. Growth in per-capita income during these years had been a mere 1.5% per year. Such low growth coupled with a very low starting per-capita income meant at best limited scope for achieving poverty reduction even through redistribution. As argued above, even today, after more than 2 decades of almost 5% growth in per-capita income, the scope for redistribution remains limited. 10

We are now in a position to provide the poverty rates for the major social groups based on the quinquennial expenditure surveys beginning 1983. The social groups identified in the surveys are scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST), other backward castes (OBC), and the rest, which we refer to as forward castes (FC). In addition, we define the nonscheduled castes as consisting of the OBC, and FC. The NSSO began identifying the OBC beginning 1999–2000. Since we are excluding this particular survey due to its lack of comparability with other surveys, the OBC as a separate group begins appearing in our estimates from 2004–2005 only.

In Table 2 , we provide the poverty rates based on the Lakdawala lines in rural and urban areas and at the national level. Four features of this table are worthy of note. First, poverty rates have continuously declined for every single social group in both the rural and urban areas. Contrary to common claims, growth has been steadily helping the poor from every broad social group escape poverty rather than leaving the socially disadvantaged behind.

FC = forward castes, NS = non-scheduled, OBC = other backward castes, SC = scheduled castes, ST = scheduled tribes.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Second, the rates in rural India have consistently been the highest for the ST followed by the SC, OBC, and FC in that order. This pattern also holds in urban areas but with some exceptions. In particular, in some years, poverty rates of scheduled tribes are lower than that of scheduled castes, but this is not of great significance since more than 90% of the scheduled tribe population live in rural areas.

Third, with growth accelerating to above 8% beginning 2003–2004, poverty reduction between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 has also accelerated. The percentage point reduction during this period has been larger than during any other 5-year period. Most importantly, the acceleration has been the greatest for the ST and SC in that order so that at last, the gap in poverty rates between the scheduled and nonscheduled groups has declined significantly.

Finally, while the rural poverty rates were slightly higher than the urban poverty rates for all groups in 1983, the order switched for one or more groups in several of the subsequent years. Indeed, in 2009–2010, the urban rates turned out to be uniformly higher for every single group. This largely reflects progressive misalignment of the rural and urban poverty lines with the former becoming lower than the latter. It was this misalignment that led the Tendulkar Committee to revise the rural poverty line and realign it to the higher, urban line.

Table 3 reports the poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar lines. Recall that the Tendulkar line holds the urban poverty ratio at 25.7% in 2004–2005 when measuring poverty at MRP expenditures. Our urban poverty ratio in Table 3 reproduces this estimate within 0.1 of a percentage point.

The steady decline in poverty rates for the various social groups in rural as well as urban areas, which we noted based on the Lakdawala lines in Table 2 , remains valid at the Tendulkar lines. Moreover, rural poverty ratios turn out to be higher than their urban counterparts for each group in each year. As in Table 2 , the decline had been sharpest during the high-growth period between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010.

Finally and most importantly, the largest percentage-point decline between these years in rural and urban areas combined had been for the ST followed by the SC, OBC, and FC in that order. Given that scheduled tribes also had the highest poverty rates followed by scheduled castes and other backward castes in 2004–2005, the pattern implies that the socially disadvantaged groups have achieved significant catching up with the better-off groups. This is a major break with past trends.

Next, we report the national poverty rates by religious groups. In Table 4 , we show the poverty rates based on Lakdawala lines of rural and urban India and of the country taken as a whole. Three observations follow. First, at the aggregate level (rural plus urban), poverty rates show a steady decline for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jains, and Sikhs. Poverty among the Buddhists also consistently declined except for 1983 and 1987–1988. With one exception (Muslims in rural India between 1987–1988 and 1993–1994), the pattern of declining poverty rates between any two successive surveys also extends to the rural and urban poverty rates in the case of the two largest religious communities, Hindus and Muslims.

Second, going by the poverty rates in 2009–2010 in rural and urban areas combined, Jains have the lowest poverty rates followed by Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists. Prosperity among Jains and Sikhs is well known, but not the lower level of poverty among Christians relative to Hindus. Also interesting is the relatively small gap of just 5.8 percentage points between poverty rates among Hindus and Muslims.

Finally, the impact of accelerated growth on poverty between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 that we observed across social groups can also be seen across religious groups. Once again, we see a sharper decline in the poverty rate for the largest minority, the Muslims, relative to Hindus who form the majority of the population.

This broad pattern holds when we consider poverty rates by religious groups based on the Tendulkar line, as seen in Table 5 . Jains have the lowest poverty rates followed by Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists. With one exception (Sikhs in rural India between 1993–1994 and 2004–2005), poverty had declined steadily for all religious groups in rural as well as urban India. The only difference is that the decline in poverty among Muslims in rural and urban areas combined between the periods 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 had not been as sharp as that estimated from the Lakdawala lines. As a result, we do not see a narrowing of the difference in poverty between Hindus and Muslims. We do see a narrowing of the difference in urban poverty but this gain is neutralized by the opposite movement in the rural areas due to a very sharp decline in poverty among Hindus, perhaps due to the rapid decline in poverty among scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

Before we turn to poverty estimates by state, we should note that in this paper, we largely confine ourselves to reporting the extent of poverty measured based on the two poverty lines. Other than occasional references to the determinants of poverty such as growth and caste composition, we make no systematic effort to identify them. Evidently, many factors influence the decline in poverty. For instance, the acceleration in growth between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 also led to increased revenue that made it possible for the government to introduce the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme under which one adult member of each rural household is guaranteed 100 days per year of employment at a pre-specified wage. The employment guarantee scheme may well have been a factor in the recent acceleration in poverty reduction.

In a similar vein, rural–urban migration may also impact the speed of decline of poverty. Once again, rapid growth, which inevitably concentrates disproportionately in urban areas, may lead to some acceleration in rural-to-urban migration. If, in addition, the rural poor migrate in proportionately larger numbers in search of jobs, poverty ratios could fall in both rural and urban areas. In the rural areas, the ratio could fall because proportionately more numerous poor than in the existing rural population migrate. In the urban areas, the decline may result from these individuals being gainfully employed at wages exceeding the urban poverty line. Migration may also reinforce the reduction in rural poverty by generating extra rural income through remittances. Evidence suggests that this effect may have been particularly important in the state of Kerala.

We now turn to the progress made in poverty alleviation in different states. Though our focus in this paper is on poverty by social and religious groups, we first consider poverty at the aggregate level in rural and urban areas. India has 28 states and 7 union territories. To keep the analysis manageable, we limit ourselves to the 17 largest states. 11 Together, these states account for 95% of the total population. We exclude all seven union territories including Delhi; the smallest six of the seven northeastern states (retaining only Assam); and the states of Sikkim, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttaranchal. Going by the expenditure survey of 2009–2010, each of the included states has a population exceeding 20 million while each of the excluded states has a population less than 10 million. Among the union territories, only Delhi has a population exceeding 10 million.

A.  Rural and Urban Populations

We begin by presenting the total population in each of the 17 largest states and the distribution between rural and urban areas as revealed by the NSSO expenditure survey of 2009–2010 (Table 6 ). 12 The population totals in the expenditure survey are lower than the corresponding population projections by the registrar general and census commissioner of India (2006) as well as those implied by Census 2011. 13 Our choice is dictated by the principle that poverty estimates should be evaluated with reference to the population underlying the survey design instead of those suggested by external sources. For example, the urban poverty estimate in Kerala in 2009–2010 must be related to the urban population in the state covered by the expenditure survey in 2009–2010 instead of projections based on the censuses in 2001 and 2011. 14

As shown in Table 6 , 27% of the national population lived in urban areas, while the remaining 73% resided in rural areas in 2009–2010. This composition understates the true share of the urban population, revealed to be 31.2% in the 2011 census. The table shows 10 states having populations of more than 50 million (60 million according to the 2011 census). We will refer to these 10 states as the “large” states. They account for a little more than three-fourths of the total population of India. At the other extreme, eleven “small” states (excluded from our analysis and therefore not shown in Table 6 ) have populations of less than ten million (13 million according to the Census 2011) each. The remaining seven states, which we call “medium-size” states, have populations ranging from 36 million in Orissa to 22 million in Chhattisgarh (42 million in Orissa to 25.4 million in Chhattisgarh, according to the 2011 census).

Among the large states, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Karnataka, in that order, are the most urbanized with a rate of urbanization of 35% or higher. Bihar is the least urbanized among the large states, with an urbanization rate of just 10%. Among the medium-size states, only Punjab has an urban population of 35%. The rest have urbanization rates of 30% or less. Assam and Orissa, with an urban population of just 10% and 14%, respectively, are the least urbanized medium-size states.

B.  Rural and Urban Poverty

We now turn to the estimates of rural and urban poverty in the 17 largest states. To conserve space, we confine ourselves to presenting the estimates based on the Tendulkar line. We report the estimates based on the Lakdawala lines in the Appendix. Recall that the estimates derived from the Tendulkar line are available for 3 years: 1993–1994, 2004–2005, and 2009–2010. Disregarding 1973–1974 and 1977–1978, which are outside the scope of our paper, estimates based on the Lakdawala lines are available for an additional 2 years: 1983 and 1987–1988.

Table 7 reports the poverty estimates with the states arranged in descending order of their populations. Several observations follow. First, taken as a whole, poverty fell in each of the 17 states between 1993–1994 and 2009–2010. When we disaggregate rural and urban areas within each state, we still find a decline in poverty in all states in each region over this period. Indeed, if we take the 10 largest states, which account for three-fourths of India's population, every state except Madhya Pradesh experienced a consistent decline in both rural and urban poverty. The reduction in poverty with rising incomes is a steady and nationwide phenomenon and not driven by the gains made in a few specific states or certain rural or urban areas of a given state.

Second, acceleration in poverty reduction in percentage points per year during the highest growth period (2004–2005 to 2009–2010) over that in 1993–1994 to 2004–2005 can be observed in 13 out of the total 17 states. The exceptions are Uttar Pradesh and Bihar among the large states and Assam and Haryana among medium-size states. Of these, Uttar Pradesh and Assam had experienced at best modest acceleration in gross state domestic product (GSDP) during the second period while Haryana had already achieved a relatively low level of poverty by 2004–2005. The most surprising had been the negligible decline in poverty in Bihar between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010, as GSDP in this state had grown at double-digit rates during this period.

Finally, among the large states, Tamil Nadu had the lowest poverty ratio followed by Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh—all of them from the south—made the largest percentage-point improvements in poverty reduction among the large states between 1993–1994 and 2009–2010. Among the medium-size states, Kerala and Haryana had the lowest poverty rates while Orissa and Jharkhand made the largest percentage-point gains during 1993–1994 to 2009–2010.

It is useful to relate poverty levels to per-capita spending. In Table 8 , we present per-capita expenditures in current rupees in the 17 states in the 3 years for which we have poverty ratios, with the states ranked in descending order of population. Ideally, we should have the MRP expenditures for all 3 years, but since they are available for only the last 2 years, we report the URP expenditures for 1993–1994. Several observations follow from a comparison of Tables 7 and 8 .

MRP = mixed reference period, URP = uniform reference period.

First, high per-capita expenditures are associated with low poverty ratios. Consider, for example, rural poverty in 2009–2010. Kerala, Punjab, and Haryana, in that order, have the highest rural per-capita expenditures. They also have the lowest poverty ratios, in the same order. At the other extreme, Chhattisgarh and Bihar have the lowest rural per-capita expenditures and also the highest rural poverty ratios. More broadly, the top nine states by rural per-capita expenditure are also the top nine states in terms of low poverty ratios. A similar pattern can also be found for urban per-capita expenditures and urban poverty. Once again, Kerala ranks at the top and Bihar at the bottom in terms of each indicator. Figure 3 offers a graphical representation of the relationship in rural and urban India in 2009–2010 using state level data.

Poverty and Per-capita MRP Expenditure in Rural and Urban Areas in Indian States, 2009–2010

One state that stands out in terms of low poverty ratios despite a relatively modest ranking in terms of per-capita expenditure is Tamil Nadu. It ranked eighth in terms of rural per-capita expenditure but fourth in terms of rural poverty in 2009–2010. In terms of urban poverty, it did even better, ranking a close second despite its ninth rank in urban per-capita expenditure. Gujarat also did very well in terms of urban poverty, ranking third in spite of the seventh rank in urban per-capita expenditure.

Finally, there is widespread belief that Kerala achieved the lowest rate of poverty despite its low per-capita income through more effective redistribution. Table 8 entirely repudiates this thesis. In 1993–1994, Kerala already had the lowest rural and urban poverty ratios and enjoyed the second highest rural per-capita expenditure and third highest urban per-capita expenditure among the 17 states. Moreover, in terms of percentage-point reduction in poverty, all other southern states dominate Kerala. For example, between 1993–1994 and 2004–2005, Tamil Nadu achieved a 27.4 percentage-point reduction in poverty compared to just 19.3 for Kerala. We may also add that Kerala experienced very high inequality of expenditures. In 2009–2010, the Gini coefficient associated with spending in the state was by far the highest among all states in rural as well as urban areas.

In this section we decompose population and poverty by social group. As previously mentioned, the expenditure surveys traditionally identified the social group of the households using a three-way classification: scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and nonscheduled castes. However, beginning with the 1999–2000 survey, the last category had been further subdivided into other backward castes and the rest, the latter sometimes referred to as forward castes, a label that we use in this paper.

We begin by describing the shares of the four social groups in the total population of the 17 states.

A.  Population Distribution by Social Group within the States

Table 9 reports the shares of various social groups in the 17 largest states according to the expenditure survey of 2009–2010. We continue to rank the states according to population from the largest to the smallest.

Source: Authors’ calculations from the NSSO expenditure survey conducted in 2009–2010.

Nationally, the Scheduled Tribes constitute 9% of the total population of India according to the expenditure survey of 2009–2010. In past surveys and the Census 2001, this proportion was 8%. The scheduled castes form 20% of the total population according to the NSSO expenditure surveys, though the Census 2001 placed this proportion at 16%. The OBC are not identified as a separate group in the censuses so that their proportion can be obtained from the NSSO surveys only. The figure has varied from 36% to 42% across the three quinquennial expenditure surveys since the OBC began to be recorded as a separate group.

The scheduled tribes are more unevenly divided across states than the remaining social groups. In so far as these groups had been very poor at independence and happened to be outside the mainstream of the economy, ceteris paribus, states with high proportions of ST population may be at a disadvantage in combating poverty. From this perspective, the four southern states enjoy a clear advantage: Kerala and Tamil Nadu have virtually no tribal populations while Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have proportionately smaller tribal populations (5% and 9% of the total, respectively) than some of the northern states which had high concentrations.

Among the large states, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Rajasthan have proportionately the largest concentrations of ST populations. The ST constitute 20%, 17%, and 14% of their respective populations. Some of the medium-size states, of course, have proportionately even larger concentrations. These include Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Orissa with the ST forming 30%, 29%, and 22% of their populations, respectively.

Since the traditional exclusion of the SC has meant they began with a very high incidence of abject poverty and low levels of literacy, states with high proportions of these groups also face an uphill task in combating poverty. Even so, since the SC populations are not physically isolated from the mainstream of the economy, there is greater potential for the benefits of growth reaching them than the ST. This is illustrated, for example, by the emergence of some rupee millionaires among the SC but not the ST during the recent high-growth phase (Dehejia and Panagariya 2012 ).

Once again, at 9%, Kerala has proportionately the smallest SC population among the 17 states listed in Table 9 . Among the largest 10 states, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh have the highest concentrations. Among the medium-size states, Punjab, Haryana, and Orissa in that order have proportionately the largest SC populations.

The SC and ST populations together account for as much as 40% and 35%, respectively, of the total state population in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. At the other extreme, in Kerala, these groups together account for only 10% of the population. These differences mean that, ceteris paribus, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan face a significantly more difficult battle in terms of combating poverty than Kerala.

The ST populations also differ from the SC in that they are far more heavily concentrated in rural areas than in urban areas. Table 10 illustrates this point. In 2009–2010, 89% of the ST population was classified as rural. The corresponding figure was 80% for the SC, 75% for the OBC, and 60% for FC.

An implication of the small ST population in the urban areas in all states and in both rural and urban areas in a large number of states is that the random selection of households results in a relatively small number of ST households being sampled. The problem is especially severe in many of the smallest states where the total sample size is small in the first place. A small sample translates into a large error in the associated estimate of the poverty ratio. We will present the poverty estimates in all states and regions as long as a positive group is sampled. Nevertheless, we caution the reader on the possibility of errors in Table 11 that may be associated with the number of ST households in the 2009–2010 survey.

B.  Poverty by Social Group

We now turn to poverty estimates by social groups. We present statewide poverty ratios based on the Tendulkar line for the ST, SC, and nonscheduled castes in Table 12 . We present the ratios for the OBC and FC in Table 13 . As before, we arrange the states from the largest to the smallest according to population. Separate rural and urban poverty estimates derived from the Tendulkar lines and Lakdawala lines are relegated to the Appendix.

NS = non-scheduled, SC = scheduled castes, ST = scheduled tribes.

FC = forward castes, OBC = other backward castes.

With one exception, Chhattisgarh, the poverty ratio declines for each group in each state between 1993–1994 and 2009–1010. There is little doubt that rising incomes have helped all social groups nearly everywhere. In the vast majority of the states, we also observe acceleration in the decline in poverty between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 compared to between 1993–94 and 2004–2005. Reassuringly, the decline in ST poverty among scheduled tribes and scheduled castes and SC poverty has sped up recently with the gap in poverty rates between these groups and the nonscheduled castes narrowing.

The negative relationship between poverty ratios and per-capita expenditures that we depicted in Figure 3 can also be observed for the social groups taken separately. Using rural poverty estimates by social group in the Appendix, we show this relationship between SC poverty and per capita rural expenditures in the left panel of Figure 4 and that between the ST poverty and per capita rural expenditures in the right panel. Figure 4 closely resembles Figure 3 . The fit in the right panel is poorer than that in the left panel as well as those in Figure 3 . This is partially because the ST are often outside the mainstream of the economy and therefore less responsive to rising per-capita incomes. This factor is presumably exacerbated by the fact that the number of observations in the case of the ST has been reduced to 11 due to the number of ST households in the sample dropping to below 100 in six of the 17 states.

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Poverty Rates and Per-capita MRP Expenditures in Rural Areas, 2009–2010

For years 2004–2005 and 2009–2010, we disaggregate the nonscheduled castes into the OBC and FC. The resulting poverty estimates are provided in Table 13 . Taking the estimates in Tables 12 and 13 , one can see that on average poverty rates are at their highest for the ST followed by SC, OBC, and FC in that order. At the level of individual states, ranking of the poverty rates of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is not clear-cut, but with rare exceptions, poverty rates of these two groups exceed systematically those of other backward castes, which in turn exceed rates of forward castes.

An interesting feature of the poverty rates of forward castes is their low level in all but a handful of the states. For example, in 2009–2010, the statistic computed to just 3.9% in Punjab, 5.9% in Kerala, 6.5% in Haryana, 6.9% in Tamil Nadu, and 10.5% even in Rajasthan. In 14 out of the largest 17 states, it fell below 25%. The states with low FC poverty rates generally also have low OBC poverty rates making the proportion of the SC and ST population the key determinant of the statewide rate.

This point is best illustrated by a comparison of poverty rates of Punjab and Kerala. Poverty rates for the nonscheduled caste population in 2009–2010 was 7.3% in Punjab and 10.4% in Kerala, while those for scheduled castes stood at 29.2% and 27.4%, respectively, in the two states. But since scheduled castes constitute 39% of the population in Punjab but only 9% in Kerala, statewide poverty rate turned out to be 15.8% in the former and 12% in the latter.

The caste composition also helps explain the differences in poverty rates between Maharashtra and Gujarat on the one hand and Kerala on the other. In 2009–2010, statewide poverty rates were 24.8% and 23.2%, respectively, in the former and 12% in the latter (Table 10 ). In part, the differences follow from the significantly higher per-capita expenditures in Kerala, as seen from Table 11 . 15 But Maharashtra and Gujarat also face a steeper uphill task in combating poverty on account of significantly higher proportions of the scheduled tribe and scheduled caste populations. These groups account for 17% and 11%, respectively, of the total population in Gujarat, and 10% and 15% in Maharashtra. In comparison, only 1% of the population comprises scheduled tribes in Kerala, while just 9% comprise scheduled castes (Table 9 ).

Finally, we turn to poverty estimates by religious group in the states. India is home to many different religious communities including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and Zoroastrians. Additionally, tribes follow their own religious practices. Though tribal religions often have some affinity with Hinduism, many are independent in their own right.

Table 14 provides the composition of population by religious group as well as the rural–urban split of each religious group based on the expenditure survey of 2009–2010. Hindus comprise 82% of the population, Muslims 12.8%, Christians 2.3%, Sikhs 1.7%, Jains 0.3%, and Zoroastrians 0.016%. The remaining comprises just 0.3%.

Together, Hindus and Muslims account for almost 95% of India's total population. With 34% of the population in urban areas compared with 26% in the case of Hindus, Muslims are more urbanized than Hindus. Among the other communities, Jains and Zoroastrians are largely an urban phenomenon. Moreover, while Muslims can be found in virtually all parts of India, other smaller minority communities tend to be geographically concentrated. Sikhs cluster principally in Punjab, Christians in Kerala and adjoining southern states, Zoroastrians in Maharashtra and Gujarat, and Jains in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu.

Given their small shares in the total population and their geographical concentration, random sampling of households in the expenditure surveys yields less than 100 observations for minority religious communities other than Muslims in the vast majority of the states. Indeed, as Table 15 indicates, only 13 out of the 17 largest states had a sufficiently large number of households even for Muslims to allow poverty to be reliably estimated. Orissa, Haryana, Punjab, and Chhattisgarh each had fewer than 100 Muslim households in the survey. Thus, we attempt poverty estimates by religious groups in the states separately for Hindus and Muslims only. We do provide estimates for the catch-all “other” category but caution that, in many cases, these estimates are based on less than 100 observations and therefore subject to large statistical errors.

As before, we present the estimates for statewide poverty of the religious groups using the Tendulkar line, placing the more detailed estimates for rural and urban areas and estimates based on the Lakdawala lines in the Appendix. Table 15 reports the estimates for Hindus, Muslims, and other minority religion groups for the years 1993–1994, 2004–2005, and 2009–2010.

Religious groups replicate the broad pattern seen in the context of poverty by social group. Poverty has fallen in every single state between 1993–1994 and 2009–2010 for Hindus as well as for Muslims, though the change is not always monotonic. While the level of poverty in 2009–2010 is higher for Muslims than Hindus in the majority of the states, the reverse is true in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka. An anomaly is the marginal increase in the poverty rate between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 in Bihar for Hindus and in Gujarat for Muslims. The observation is particularly surprising since we simultaneously observe a significant decline in poverty during the same period for Muslims in Bihar and for Hindus in Gujarat. Interestingly, as documented in the Appendix, poverty rates for both Hindus and Muslims decline in both states based on the Lakdawala lines between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010.

Although the focus of this paper is on poverty, we find it useful to briefly report the evolution of inequality at the state and national levels in rural and urban areas. At the outset, it is important to note that the issue of inequality is complex partly because it can be measured in numerous ways. 16 The potential list of measures is almost endless, and there is no guarantee that these different measures will move in the same direction. Therefore, it is quite easy to show simultaneously that inequality has risen as well as fallen depending on the choice of measure.

In this paper, we use one measure of overall inequality based on the same expenditure survey data we used to report poverty measures in the previous sections: specifically, the Gini coefficient of household expenditures in rural and urban areas in the 17 states and in India as a whole using URP expenditures in 1983, 1993–1994, 1999–2000, 2004–2005, and 2009–2010. Table 17 and Table 18 report the Gini coefficient in rural and urban areas, respectively. As before, we arrange the states in descending order of population size.

Source: Planning Commission website (accessed 4 February 2013).

An immediate observation from Tables 17 and 18 is that, with rare exceptions, rural inequality tends to be lower than urban inequality. At the national level in 2009–2010, the Gini coefficient was 0.291 in rural areas and 0.382 in urban areas. These values reflect a difference of 9 percentage points. This is not surprising. The vast majority of the villagers are small farmers or wage laborers. As a result, variation in their incomes and therefore expenditures are not large. In contrast, cities serve as home to much of the industry and formal sector services as well as to a large informal sector which attracts migrant workers. This results in greater variation in incomes and expenditures.

The tables show no clear trend in the Gini in rural areas but do show a tendency for it to rise in urban areas. At the national level, rural Gini fell between 1983 and 1999–2000, rose between 1999–2000 and 2004–2005, and fell again between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010, with a small net decline over the entire period. In contrast, the urban Gini has climbed steadily.

This is hardly surprising since rapid growth, which can produce increased inequality, is concentrated in urban areas. In the Indian case, a dualism of sorts exists within urban areas. Output growth has been concentrated in the formal sector, while employment has been disproportionately concentrated in the informal sector. Unlike the Republic of Korea and Taipei, China in the 1960s and 1970s and the People's Republic of China more recently, employment in the formal sector has not grown in India due to the poor performance of labor-intensive sectors. Growth in India has been concentrated in skilled labor and capital-intensive sectors.

The data do not support the hypothesis that high levels of poverty reflect high levels of inequality. At least in the Indian case, the two outcomes are at best unrelated and at worst negatively associated. For example, at the national level, rural inequality has remained more or less unchanged and urban inequality has risen, while both rural and urban poverty have steadily and significantly declined over time.

Looking at a cross section of the data, Kerala offers the most dramatic example. In 2009–2010, it had the lowest levels of rural and urban poverty and by far the highest rural and urban Gini coefficients. At the other extreme, Bihar had the second lowest rural Gini coefficient but the highest rural poverty ratio during the same period.

At a more aggregate level, the left panel in Figure 5 plots the rural Gini against the rural poverty ratio, while the right panel plots the urban Gini against the urban poverty ratio. The exponential trend line has a negative slope in each case, though the fit is poor. In other words, there is no evidence of a positive relationship between poverty and inequality, but there is some evidence of a negative relationship.

Gini Coefficients and Poverty Ratios in Rural and Urban Areas in Indian States, 2009–2010

In this paper, we have provided a comprehensive analysis of poverty in India along six different dimensions: across time, across states, between rural and urban areas, across social and religious groups, and based on two different poverty lines (Lakdawala and Tendulkar). To keep the exposition manageable, we have concentrated on estimates based on the Tendulkar line except when we discuss poverty at the national level. In the latter case, we report estimates in rural and urban India derived from both the Lakdawala and Tendulkar lines. Our detailed estimates by social and religious groups, by rural and urban areas, and by state based on both the Lakdawala and Tendulkar lines are provided in the Appendix.

The following are some of the key conclusions of the paper. First, poverty has declined between 1993–1994 and 2009–2010 along every dimension. Indeed, poverty has fallen for every social and religious group in every state and in rural and urban areas, separately as well as jointly. Estimates based on the Lakdawala line show that the decline can be observed steadily since 1983 for all social and religious groups in all 17 large states.

Second, acceleration in growth rates between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 has been accompanied by acceleration in poverty reduction. Poverty rates have fallen rapidly for all major social and religious groups at the national level. This phenomenon also holds true for most states across various social and religious groups.

Third, for the first time, poverty reduction between 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 has been larger for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes than the upper caste groups. Thus, the gap in poverty rates between the socially disadvantaged and upper caste groups has narrowed over time. This pattern provides clear evidence to refute the claim that reforms and growth have failed to help the socially disadvantaged or that they are leaving these groups behind. A continuation of this trend, bolstered by further reforms and higher growth rates, would help eliminate the difference in poverty rates between the historically disadvantaged and the privileged.

Fourth, interstate comparisons reveal that the states with large scheduled castes and scheduled tribe populations face a steeper climb in combating poverty. The point is most forcefully brought out by a comparison of Punjab and Kerala. When we compare poverty rates in 2009–2010 by social group, the two states have very similar poverty rates. But because the poverty rates for the scheduled castes are higher than those for the nonscheduled castes in both states and the scheduled castes account for a much larger proportion of the population, the aggregate poverty rate in Punjab turns out to be significantly higher.

Finally, we find that in the case of India, there is no robust relationship between inequality and poverty. Indeed, to the extent that such a relationship exists, this would suggest that more unequal states enjoy lower levels of poverty. Kerala offers the most dramatic example. It has had one of the highest Gini coefficients for rural as well as urban areas and also one of the lowest poverty ratios for both regions. In 2009–2010, its Gini coefficients were by far the highest among the large states in both rural and urban areas, while its poverty ratios were the smallest.

Given space limitations, we have deliberately limited ourselves to providing one specific indicator of poverty—the headcount ratio—in different states and for different social and religious groups based on the two official poverty lines. There are at least two broad complementary directions in which the work in this paper can be extended.

First, it may be desirable for certain purposes to estimate alternative indicators of poverty such as the poverty gap or its close cousin, the Foster-Greer-Thorbecke index. Such an index allows one to gauge the resources needed to bring all those below the poverty line to a level above it. In a similar vein, we have focused on progress in combating poverty among social and religious groups that are more vulnerable. Alternatively, we could focus on a different dimension of vulnerability such as male-headed versus female-headed households and evaluate the progress in combating poverty among female-headed households.

The second direction in which the work of this paper could be extended is towards explaining the determinants of poverty. Within this broad category, we have left many questions unanswered. For instance, it would be useful to separate the contributions of growth and redistribution policies in explaining the decline in poverty. Likewise, we may want to know what role, if any, rural-to-urban migration may have played—directly as well as through remittances. Similarly, we might ask what role the division of population among various social and religious groups plays in determining the progress in combating poverty. Finally, we might also wish to study the role that education plays in bringing down poverty. The recent work by Hnatkovska and Lahiri ( 2012 ) shows that education has indeed been pivotal in bridging the wage gap between scheduled castes and scheduled tribes on the one hand and nonscheduled castes on the other. This suggests an important role for education in eradicating poverty.

a Calculated by adjusting the 2004–2005 lines using the index implicit in the official Tendulkar lines for 2004–2005 and 2009–2010.

Source: Planning Commission, Government of India, Data Tables.

SC = scheduled castes, ST = scheduled tribes, URP = uniform reference period.

a Delhi is 95% urban. The SC and ST estimates in this case are based on too few households and therefore subject to substantial sampling errors.

FC = forward castes, NC = nonscheduled castes, OBC = other backward castes.

a Only 5% of Delhi by population is rural. SC and ST estimates in this case are based on too few households and therefore subject to substantial sampling errors.

FC = forward castes, NS = nonscheduled castes, OBC = other backward castes, URP = uniform reference period.

MRP = mixed reference period, SC = scheduled castes, ST = scheduled tribes.

Source: Authors’ calculations

FC = forward castes, MRP = mixed reference period, NS = nonscheduled castes, OBC = other backward castes.

URP = uniform reference period.

MRP = mixed reference period.

The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and not of the World Bank. We thank an anonymous referee, P. V. Srinivasan, and participants of the first 2013 Asian Development Review conference held on 25–26 March 2013 at the Asian Development Bank headquarters in Manila, Philippines.

Prices could vary not just between urban and rural regions within a state but also across subregions within rural and subregions within urban regions of a state. Therefore, in principle, we could envision many different poverty lines within rural and within urban regions in each state. To keep the analysis manageable, we do not make such finer distinctions in the paper.

We do not go into the sources of underestimation of expenditures in NSSO surveys. These are analyzed in detail in Government of India ( 2008 ). According to the report (Government of India 2008 , p. 56), “The NSS estimates suffer from difference in coverage, underreporting, recall lapse in case of nonfood items or for the items which are less frequently consumed and increase in nonresponse particularly from affluent section of population. It is suspected that the household expenditure on durables is not fully captured in the NSS estimates, as the expensive durables are purchased more by the relatively affluent households, which do not respond accurately to the NSS surveys.” Two items, imputed rentals of owner-occupied dwellings and financial intermediation services indirectly measured, which are included in the NAS estimate, are incorporated into the NSSO expenditure surveys. But these account for only 7–9 percentage points of the discrepancy.

This section is partially based on Panagariya ( 2011 ).

See, for example, the report by the NDTV entitled “Planning Commission further lowers poverty line to Rs28 per day.” Available: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/planning-commission-further-lowers-poverty-line-to-rs-28-per-day-187729

For instance, one commentator argued in a heated television debate that since bananas in Jor Bagh (an upmarket part of Delhi) cost Rs60 a dozen, an individual could barely afford two bananas per meal per day at poverty line expenditure of Rs32 per person per day.

We thank Rahul Ahluwalia for supplying us with Table 1 . The expenditures in the table represent the average of the urban decile class including the urban poverty line. Since the urban poverty line is at 25.7% of the population, the table takes the average over those between the 20th and 30th percentile of the urban population.

The consumption figures for the top 30% of the population are from Ganesh-Kumar et al. ( 2012 ).

These amounts of cereal and pulses equal or exceed their mean consumption levels according to the 2004–2005 NSSO expenditure survey.

Recently, Panagariya ( 2013 ) has suggested that if political pressures necessitate shifting up the poverty line, the government should opt for two poverty lines in India—the Tendulkar line, which allows it to track those in extreme poverty, and a higher one that is politically more acceptable in view of the rising aspirations of the people.

The issue is discussed at length in Bhagwati and Panagariya ( 2013 ).

Although Delhi has its own elected legislature and chief minister, it remains a union territory. For example, central home ministry has the effective control of the Delhi police through the lieutenant governor who is the de jure head of the Delhi government and appointed by the Government of India.

Our absolute totals for rural and urban areas of the states and India in Table 6 match those in Tables 1A-R and 1A-U, respectively, in Government of India ( 2011b ).

The Planning Commission derives the absolute number of poor from poverty ratios using census-based population projections. Therefore, the population figure underlying the absolute number of poor estimated by the Planning Commission are higher than those in Table 6 , which are based on the expenditure survey of 2009–2010.

This distinction is a substantive one in the case of states in which the censuses reveal the degree of urbanization to be very different from that underlying the design of the expenditure surveys. For example, the expenditure survey of 2009–2010 places the urban population in Kerala at 26% of the total in 2009–2010, but the census in 2011 finds the rate of urbanization in the state to be 47.7%.

This is true in spite of significantly higher per-capita GSDP in Maharashtra presumably due to large remittances flowing into Kerala. According to the Government of India ( 2011a ), one in every three households in both rural and urban Kerala reports at least one member of the household living abroad.

For instance, inequality could be measured as the ratio of the top 10% to bottom 10% of the population, the ratio of rural to urban per-capita incomes, the ratio of skilled to unskilled wages (or formal and informal sector wages), and through the Gini coefficient (nationally or across states).

Email alerts

Affiliations.

• Online ISSN 1996-7241
• Print ISSN 0116-1105

A product of The MIT Press

Mit press direct.

• About MIT Press Direct

Information

• Accessibility
• For Authors
• For Customers
• For Librarians
• Direct to Open
• Open Access
• Media Inquiries
• Rights and Permissions
• For Advertisers
• About the MIT Press
• The MIT Press Reader
• MIT Press Blog
• Seasonal Catalogs
• MIT Press Home
• Give to the MIT Press
• Direct Service Desk
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Statement
• Crossref Member
• COUNTER Member  
• The MIT Press colophon is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Poverty in India Essay for Students in English

Essay on Poverty In India

People living in poverty do not have enough money for basic necessities such as food and shelter. An example of poverty is the state a person is in when he is homeless and does not have enough money. The rate of poverty in India is increasing because of the population in the urban areas. Most importantly, crores of peoples are below the poverty line and most of the people are on the borderline of poverty. Poverty in India is seen mainly in the rural areas because of the uneducated and unemployed and increased population. Many people do not afford to get proper foods for their daily life and even they don’t have their own homes, they sleep on the footpath or road, more populations need more food, money, and for staying houses but due to lack of this poverty grows very quickly, thus in addition rich are growing richer and the poor becoming more poorer which becomes difficult to fill the gap. Poverty has many effects like it reduces poor housing, illiteracy, increase the rate of child labour and unemployment, poor hygiene hence these poor people can not afford a balanced diet, nice clothes, well education etc. reason only because they don’t have much money to afford this. Poverty can be controlled by giving them proper education and also providing the proper facilities to the farmers so that those farmers get more profitable and do not migrate to cities in search of employment. Also, the illiterate people should get proper education to make their life better. Family planning is also essential for coming out of poverty. Poverty in our country is from ancient times. Even earlier times the poor people were not given the place that rich people used to get even if they were not allowed to enter religious places. Main causes of poverty are like unemployment, lack of education, poor utilization of resources, corruption and poor government policy.

How You Can Improve or Solve Poverty in India?

Poverty can be solved by improving food security by providing three meals a day and making them healthy and providing houses for those people at low cost and giving them proper education and facilities so that they can earn well and take care of their family and live a peaceful life. Awareness on population so that once the population is under control, the economy of the country will improve and move towards development and decrease in the poverty line. Poverty is becoming a complex problem for the people and for the government. How to overcome this, in India the poverty is high compared to other countries because the growth rate of per capita income per person is very low.

With lack of job opportunities many people move as a rickshaw puller, construction workers, domestic servants etc, with irregular small incomes hence they live in slum areas. Also, lack of land resources has been one of the major causes of poverty in India, even the small farmers of our country lead to poverty because they cultivate but do not get proper money in terms of profit and leads to poverty.

Population of India

The population has been increasing in India at a rapid speed, India’s population in 1991 was around 84.3 crores where was poverty at a high rate but now the current population of our country is around 130 crores whereas the population is almost doubled in last three decades but still not enough done for controlling the poverty in our country. Due to an increase in population, there is more unemployment, hence poverty is just the reflection of unemployment. More capital is required for making industry, giving proper transport facilities and other projects, hence the deficiency of its country is still underdeveloped and causes more poverty. Lack of skilled labor also leads to poverty because less-skilled labor have insufficient industrial education and training. Lack of infrastructure means that transport and communication have not been properly developed so that the farmers are not getting fertilizers for cultivation on time and industries do not get power supply and raw materials on time and thus end products are not marketed properly and not reachable on time. Because of poverty sometimes we don’t get those things for what we actually are. Hence to come out of poverty our government has to be more serious and also the citizens should take equal responsibilities. Remove the poverty from country governments has started many steps, in last 2-3 years we have seen that they become more serious by bringing GST in the action, demonetization so because of GST all the businessman can pay full tax and which will help to develop the country and the poverty ratio can be reduced. Steps of demonetization were taken so that black money can be utilized for the poor people and poverty can be reduced. We can overcome poverty by following all the guidelines of the government and can be free from poverty.

India's Poverty Factors

One of the biggest problems of poverty in India is the country's rapid population growth. As a result, there is a high rate of illiteracy, poor health-care facilities, and a lack of financial resources. Furthermore, the high population growth rate has an impact on individual income, making individual income much lower. By 2026, India's population is predicted to surpass 1.5 billion, making it the world's largest country. However, Economic growth is not rising at the same rate as the rest of the world. This indicates a labor shortage. About 20 million new jobs will be required to accommodate this big population. If such a vast number of people are poor, the number of poor will keep rising.

How Much Research is Important for Students to Write Good Essays?

The students must realize that brainstorming and a mind map of the essay will take them in the direction of their research. With the advent of the internet, the days are numbered for students who rely on a well-tipped encyclopedia from the school library as their only authoritative source for their story. If there is any real problem for our readers today is reducing their resources to a manageable number. At this stage, it is important to:

Make sure the research material is directly related to the essay work

Record detailed sources of information that they will use in their story

Communicate in person by asking questions and challenging their own bias

Identify the main points that will be highlighted in the story

Gather ideas, arguments, and opinions together

Identify the major issue they will discuss in their case.

Once these stages have been completed by the student, the student will be ready to make his points in a logical order and prepare an essay.

Therefore, the topic discussed on this page is poverty and poverty is not a human problem but a national one. Also, it should be addressed immediately with the implementation of effective measures. In addition, the eradication of poverty has been a prerequisite for sustainable and inclusive growth for individuals, communities, the country and the economy.

Paragraph Tips on Essay Writing

Each paragraph should focus on one main idea

The Paragraphs should follow a logical sequence, students should collect similar ideas together to avoid collisions

Paragraphs should be stated consistently, learners should be able to choose which line to reverse or skip.

Transition words and similar phrases, as a result, should instead be used to provide flow and provide a bridge between Paragraphs.

General Structure of an Essay

Introduction: Give the reader the essence of the essay. It sets out the broader argument that the story will make and informs the reader of the author's general opinion and method of questioning.

Body Paragraphs: These are the ‘flesh’ of the essay and outline the point made in the introduction by a point with supporting evidence.

Conclusion: Usually the conclusion will repeat the middle argument while providing a summary of the main reasons supporting the story even before linking everything back to the first question.

FAQs on Poverty in India Essay for Students in English

1. What are the Causes of Poverty in India?

The cause of poverty is very obvious in a country like India. The people in India are very careless about the population growth and due to which there is a lot of hassle and unnecessary elevation in population growth rate. This is automatically leading to poverty as there are fewer resources and more people to be served in each state in India. Various causes affect poverty:

Unemployment.

The intensity of population.

The high rate of inflation.

Lack of skilled labor

2. What are the Types of Poverty?

Although there are only two main types of poverty existing in India we will be learning all of them as mentioned in the following lines. The two main classifications of poverty are relative poverty and absolute poverty and both of them emphasize income and consumption. Sometimes, poverty cannot be blamed or associated with economic problems but also it must be associated with society and politics.

There are six types of poverty which are listed below:

Situational poverty.

Generation poverty.

Absolute poverty.

Relative poverty.

Urban poverty.

Rural poverty.

3. How to Reduce the Poverty Line in India?

India is a country that has been under the radar of poverty for centuries. The people of India are making efforts to take themselves out of the poverty line but there are a lot of hindrances. The lack of resources and limited alternatives have thrown the rural and urban residents below the poverty line making life unhealthy and miserable for them. 

Here are some measures listed below

Provide food, shelter and clothes facilities to poor people.

Encourage them for education either male or female. 

Give employment.

4. Why choose Vedantu for referring to the Poverty in India essay for students in English?

Students should refer to Vedantu for downloading as these solutions will be filling you with the basic knowledge of writing essays. There are loads of vocabulary words and phrases which will enable the students to write high-class essays. The Vedantu website provides 100% authentic content which will lead to additional accuracy of the student’s essay. Basic concepts of writing an essay are available free of cost on the Vedantu website. Avoid problems and enjoy hassle-free preparation with the help of Vedantu.

5. Why refer to Vedantu for studying the Poverty in India Essay for Students in English?

Vedantu not only provides comprehensive and detailed knowledge to the students but also imparts the ability to study on their own without any hassle to the students. The concept of Poverty in India Essay for Students in English is so beautifully explained in the Vedantu website that anyone who is reading the content and the rules will understand in one instance whatever that person is searching for. The students must know how to write good essays from a very young age and hence the experts at Vedantu are fulfilling that request of the students.

• Get involved
• View Summary of Chapters pdf (1.1 MB)
• Factsheet on 'India: Urban Poverty Report 2009'

India: Urban Poverty Report 2009

February 20, 2013.

The report analyses the impact of globalization, development strategies, urbanization trends, migration, changing economic structures, and the pattern of infrastructure investment - on the urban poor.

Urban India has a high incidence of poverty despite being hailed as an engine of growth and instrument of globalization. Eighty-one million people subsist in urban areas on incomes that are below the poverty line. The pace of urbanization in India is set to increase, and with it, urban poverty and urban slums. However, public policy measures for urban India have lacked focus and proper allocation of funds. There is thus an urgent need at the national level to document the key issues in urban poverty, to assess the tasks at hand, and plan for the future.

The India: Urban Poverty Report 2009 identifies the problems faced by the poor and focuses on the systemic changes that are needed. It looks at the process of globalization and the development strategy in the country, and asks why the poor exist in urban India and how they are being physically and economically absorbed into the system. It analyses the processes of urbanization, migration, changes in the economic structure, and the pattern of infrastructural investment, highlighting how these impact on the well-being of the poor.

The central concerns of this report include:

trends and patterns of migration; dynamics of urban land and capital market; marginalization of the poor to the urban periphery; changes in urban governance; gender dimensions of urban poverty; unorganized workforce and the informal sector; provision of and access to basic services and amenities indicating quality of life; and appalling conditions in slums.

The essays present both the challenges as well as some of the innovative solutions that are being tried out in different parts of the country. With a focus on the goal of inclusive cities in India, this report will be an important contribution to the re-evaluation of existing policies and programmes to redress urban poverty. Combining data with case studies, it will be useful for policymakers, civil society organizations, urban planners, and researchers in the fields of urbanization and development studies.

UNDP India Press Release on India’s first report on urban poverty launched

How to order a priced copy or for more information, please visit: http://www.oup.co.in/search_detail.php?id=144933

Document Type

Regions and countries, related publications, publications, trans employment mela report 2023.

This is an impact report of the Transgender Employment Mela - a one of its kind opportunity to enable members of the Transgender community get employed with Cor...

Japan and UNDP in Asia and the Pacific: Investing togethe...

The Government of Japan has been a longstanding and key partner of UNDP in Asia and the Pacific region. This report provides a snapshot of results achieved toge...

Global Infrastructure Resilience: Capturing the Resilienc...

Infrastructure resilience is a critical global challenge. In lower income countries, a huge and widening infrastructure deficit conspires against social and eco...

Dry Ration Distribution to Sex Workers During COVID-19 Pa...

The report is related to the distribution of dry rations to sex workers in India during the COVID 19 pandemic. The report showcases how National AIDS Control Or...

Urban Employment Programmes- Review, Framework, and Recom...

This study proposes an actionable framework to guide government stakeholders (state or national) that are either at the ideation stage or the early stages of im...

Accelerating the SDGs through digital public infrastructu...

The world is approaching the midpoint implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, but only 12% of the targets are on track. Digital public in...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Escaping and Falling into Poverty in India Today

Amit thorat.

Jawaharlal Nehru University

Reeve Vanneman

University of Maryland, U.S.A

Sonalde Desai

Amaresh dubey.

The study examines the dynamic nature of movements into and out of poverty over a period when poverty has fallen substantially in India. The analysis identifies people who escaped poverty and those who fell into it over the period 2005 to 2012. The analysis identifies people who escaped poverty and those who fell into it over the period 2005 to 2012. Using panel data from the India Human Development Survey for 2005 and 2012, we find that the risks of marginalized communities such as Dalits and Adivasis of falling into or remaining in poverty were higher than those for more privileged groups. Some, but not all of these higher risks are explained by educational, financial, and social disadvantages of these groups in 2005. Results from a logistic regression show that some factors that help people escape poverty differ from those that push people into it and that the strength of their effects varies.

Introduction

The Indian economy has grown by leaps and bounds over the last two decades of its liberalized journey. The world economic crisis notwithstanding, both rural and urban poverty fell substantially over this time period although some debate remains over the magnitude of this fall. Official estimates show a decline from a high of 37% in 1993–94 to 22% in 2011–12, a decline of 15 percentage points 1 .

Though everyone agrees poverty rates have fallen over time, we are less certain about who are the people who have risen out of poverty most rapidly and what advantages they enjoyed that might have helped explain their upward mobility. Moreover, despite the overall decline in net poverty rates, many others have newly fallen into poverty but have been almost forgotten in academic and policy discourse ( Krishna 2010 ).

Poverty analysis in India has largely depended upon cross sectional data, relying on the ‘thick’ quinquennial and the ‘thin’ annual consumption expenditure surveys by the NSSO. Though highly useful for a continuous monitoring of national progress, these cross-sectional surveys do not allow for examining the dynamics of household outcomes. The lack of national panel data has prevented us from asking what household characteristics increase the odds of exiting or entering poverty? How does occupational diversification affect the risks of poverty? Are historical caste disadvantages reproduced in recent poverty dynamics? The completion of the second wave of the India Human Development Survey () presents a unique opportunity to observe the movements into and out of poverty by Indian households across the country during a rapidly changing economy. We find that traditional caste and religious differences remain a major impediment for escaping poverty and an equally strong risk for falling into poverty. In contrast, educational attainment and a salaried position offer protection against the danger of falling into poverty but somewhat less help in escaping once there. Urban location offers similar protections against falling into poverty but almost no advantage in escaping poverty after holding constant the educational and occupational advantages typical of urban households.

Background and motivation

Contemporary poverty in India has always been underpinned by the age-old divisions of caste and religious differences. Patterns of poverty and underdevelopment show consistent intergroup differences over time, even during phases of growth and development. India’s class differentials have historically mirrored the traditional caste differentials. Brahmins and other forward castes have been the traditional decision makers through their ownership of land and capital, while Dalits (Scheduled Castes) have more often worked as landless labourers. Indigenous tribal groups ( Adivasis ), often set apart geographically and socially from the rest of India, have typically been the poorest of the poor.

Despite aggressive affirmative action policies by the Government of India and despite substantial improvements in incomes among all Indians, poverty continues to be concentrated among these most traditionally disadvantaged groups. A recent report based on the 2004–2005 India Human Development Survey ( Desai et al. 2010 ) found that while Forward Caste Hindus experienced a 12% poverty rate, Dalit poverty was more than two and half times as high (32%) and a crippling 50% of Adivasis were poor. Intermediate castes (OBCs – Other Backward Classes) had, not surprisingly, intermediate levels of poverty (23%). Comparable estimates of poverty ( Thorat & Dubey, 2012 ) based on data from National Sample Survey also show similar inter group differences. While the head count ratio (HCR) for the Dalits and Adivasis were as high as 32% and 30%, they are only 17% for the Forward caste Hindus.

Religious differences in poverty are more complex owing to different levels of urbanization, education, and non-agricultural employment. Nevertheless, 31% of minority Muslims were poor, a rate not much different from Dalits (IHDS, 2005). Other minority religious groups, Jains, Sikhs, and to a lesser extent Christians, have been relatively prosperous; together their 2005 poverty rate was only 12%, about the same as Forward Caste Hindus.

Panel literature and analysis

Poverty analyses in India have depended largely on the cross sectional National Sample Surveys (NSS) consumption expenditure data collected every five years 2 by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Panel data analysis has been less common; what has been available has used mostly selected rural samples from NCAER ( Mehta and Bhide 2003 ) and from ICRISAT, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics ( Singh and Binswanger 1993 ; Gaiha and Imai 2004 ). The last available year from ICRISAT is 2008 and from NCAER, 1998–99. Lacking sufficient panel data, others ( Krishna 2010 , Hattlebakk 2014 ) have developed retrospective methods for inquiring about transitions into and out of poverty.

Social Background

These earlier panel analyses of rural poverty persistence confirmed that the most disadvantaged groups also realized the lowest rates of escape from poverty. The evidence is clearest for Adivasis, while Dalits and especially OBCs occasionally show escape rates more similar to forward castes. For example, Mehta and Bhide (2003) studying 3139 rural households found that while 63% of “Upper Caste” households who were poor in 1970–71 were no longer poor a decade later, only 37% of Dalits and, even fewer, 30%, of Adivasis had managed to escape poverty during that time. Escape rates for OBC households, 43%, fell between these two extremes. Dhamija and Bhide (2013) extended the analysis of the same NCAER data to 1998–99 and also found that both Dalits and Adivasis were less likely to escape poverty, although the coefficient estimating the log odds of escape for Adivasis, −1.18, was over twice that for Dalits, −0.56 (2013: 692).

Krishna (2003) using retrospective accounts for 6,376 Rajasthan households found that while 45% of previously poor Upper Caste households had escaped poverty a generation later, 42% of poor OBC households, 33% of Dalit households, and only 31% of Adivasi households had been able to escape. Using similar methods with 2245 Gujarat households, Krishna et al (2005) found escape rates of 22% for “General” Hindu households, 18%, for Dalits, and 15% for Adivasis. More surprisingly, the lowest rates of escape in Gujarat were found among poor OBC households, only 12% of whom escaped poverty. Hattlebakk (2014) using a similar retrospective method with 754 households in two Orissa districts found similar rates of escape for poor OBCs (50%) and Dalits (58%) but much lower for poor Adivasis (17%). Unfortunately, the sample size of poor forward castes was too small to estimate escape rates.

The analyses most similar to what we report here were calculated by Krishna and Shariff (2011) using income, not expenditure data, from a national panel of 13,593 rural households interviewed in 1993–94 and 2004–05. They found the familiar hierarchy of escapes associated with higher caste status: Dalits and Adivasis (46%), OBCs (53%), and forward castes (60%). Interestingly, in a multivariate state fixed effects regression controlling for other household characteristics, these caste differences proved to be not statistically significant. Their results do not indicate so much a lack of caste differences in escaping poverty but rather that a reasonably comprehensive set of intervening variables can explain much of why caste status is related to escapes from poverty.

There has been less research attention to caste differences in falling into poverty, despite widespread acknowledgement that poverty rates are a product of both escapes and descents. Bhide and Methta (2008) using the NCAER data found evidence for higher rates for Adivasis falling into severe poverty and for Dalits falling into moderate poverty. Dhamija and Bhide (2013) , analyzing the same data in a multivariate model, found only non-significant caste differences after controlling for other household and area characteristics. The retrospective methods in smaller state-specific samples generally find higher descent rates for disadvantaged castes than for forward castes although the differences among the disadvantaged castes varies from one location to another. Krishna and Shariff’s all-India data found large caste differences for falling into poverty with 43% of non-poor Adivasis and Dalits falling into poverty a decade later, 36% of OBCs and 23% of forward castes.

Religious differences have usually been smaller. Mehta and Bhide (2003) found 48% of poor Hindus had escaped poverty compared to 40% of poor Muslims. Krishna and Shariff found only 45% of Muslims escaped poverty between 1994 and 2005, comparable to the low rates for Dalits and Adivasis (46%). And 39% of nonpoor Muslims fell into poverty during this period, only slightly less than for Dalits and Adivasis (43%) and well below the higher caste risk (23%).

Economic and Educational Background

A review of the existing panel data literature on India as well as other countries suggests that in rural areas, households that escaped poverty over time, were those that managed to increase their land holding or to use existing land more intensively either by increasing irrigation or crop diversification, found off-farm work, increased skill or education, acquired more assets, or reduced family size. At the same time those households that fell into poverty were the ones that lost land or operational area, experienced cropping shocks, increased family size, did not accumulate wealth, did not reduce liabilities, had members who fell ill, suffered a natural calamity, belonged to lower caste, were landless, mostly less educated and could not easily change occupation ( Adelman, Subbarao and Vashishtha, 1985 ; Baulch and McCulloch 2002 ; Gaiha 1989 ).

The panel studies reviewed above, while suggestive, have various limitations: all are rural, several are based on small or local samples, and poverty definitions vary widely from one study to another and rarely conform to the standard NSS definition. This study will use a nationally representative panel data of 38,853 households for India, the India Human Development Survey ( Desai et al., 2010 ), fielded in two waves, 2004–05 and 2011–12. This is the only nationally representative panel that has collected data on household incomes and consumption expenditures, and also includes data on many other socio-economic indicators that might protect households from poverty.

We concentrate on the prior characteristics of households that would predispose them to escape from or descend into poverty, particularly the socio-religious profile of these households. We also try to identify the economic and social resources households have to resist poverty: the household’s main source of income, level of education, land ownership, social and financial capital, and household composition. For caste and religion, we first report reduced form differences in exits and entrances and then use lagged logistic regressions to investigate the conditional effects of household characteristics in exposing households to risks of falling into poverty or chances of escaping it. We are also interested in understanding how much of the caste and community disadvantages are explained by these household characteristics.

When considering poverty transitions, we need to take account not only of the levels of income and its determinants, but also the steadiness of that income. Steadiness and high levels are easily conflated because they often (but not always) co-occur. Salaried positions in India usually pay better than wage labour, but their advantage in poverty transitions stems also from the greater steadiness of that income as compared to hourly wages. Households with steady incomes avoid the poverty transitions that come from more volatile income sources. Cross-sectional analyses of poverty that miss the churning of exits from and entrances into poverty also miss the importance of steady incomes for protecting households from poverty.

Household characteristics that are relatively enduring properties should be especially important in protecting against falling into poverty: capital of all types – financial, physical, human, and social – can buffer a household against the risks of falling into poverty during bad years. Agricultural capital might seem to be an exception to that benefit because of the inherent volatility of agricultural production due to weather and climatic conditions. But even in agriculture, landowners are better protected from falling into poverty than are agricultural labourers who are the first to suffer from failed crops. Perhaps, more importantly, irrigation can buffer the consequences of rainfall failures and protect cultivators from falling into poverty.

Bank accounts can also provide protection against the volatility of Indian incomes; they not only can hold savings to smooth consumption spending, they can provide better access to credit. Access to banking continues to expand in India, but at the time of the first IHDS survey only a third of Indian households had an account, making this a potentially important difference for families avoiding falling into poverty. And while access to future borrowing may provide a means for households to maintain their living standards, current debt may also create a risk for falling further behind. The retrospective studies described above frequently identify debts as a common path into household poverty.

Human capital, because it remains with a worker through good times and bad, can act also as insurance against descents into poverty just as physical capital can. A college degree or a secondary school diploma remains a credential workers take with them from position to position.

Finally, social capital, like financial and human capital, can be a household resource that may help protect households from falling into poverty during bad times or help efforts to rise out of poverty after setbacks. Memberships in formal organizations, especially micro-credit societies, can provide specifically economic assistance for upward mobility; and more general informal contacts with local influentials can provide the social safety nets that protect against sudden descents or that extend a hand up when trying to recover from a setback.

Of course, the steadiness of income, the buffer of a stock of capital, or the credential that protects employment is not as much assistance if that income hasn’t been sufficient to prevent poverty in the first place. A steady but poverty level income is poor consolation. For this reason, we expect these predictors of steady income to be more important as protection against falling into poverty than assistance in escaping poverty.

Data Source

IHDS began as a multi-topic panel study of 41,554 households from 33 states and union territories across 1503 villages and 971 urban neighbourhoods. The survey was designed to be nationally representative at its inception. In 2011–12, all of the 2004–5 households as well as any households separating from the root household but residing in the same area were selected for re-interviews.

Comparison of IHDS data with other reputable data sources such as the Census, National Sample Surveys (NSS) and National Family Health Survey (NFHS) shows that the IHDS compares well with these sources on common items ( Desai et al. 2010 ). For example, the NSS estimates poverty rate to be 37 per cent in 2004–5 and 22 percent in 2011–12; IHDS estimates are similar at 38 percent in 2004–5 and 21 percent in 2011–12.

IHDS2 reinterviewed 83 percent of the original IHDS1 households that housed 85 percent of the Indian population -- 92 per cent of households in rural areas and 76 per cent in urban areas. Attrition was lower among larger, rural households, especially those who owned agricultural land. Attrition was also slightly higher for the non-poor, 13 percent, than for the poor, 9 percent. These differences raise the question of a possible selection bias in our results since we can analyse poverty transitions only for households interviewed in both surveys. Appendix Table 2 presents results from a probit analysis of attrition from which we calculated the inverse Mills’ ratio included in all the analyses of poverty transitions.

Appendix Table A2

Probit analysis of attrition between survey waves.

The IHDS panel collected data on household consumption expenditures using an abridged schedule, similar to the one used by the NSS for their Employment Survey. We convert reported consumption of 47 different items (slightly revised to 52 items in 2012) to monthly per capita consumption expenditures. Head count poverty ratios have been calculated using per capita household consumption and the official poverty line (Tendulkar Committee poverty lines 3 ).

These poverty line have been used by the Planning Commission, Government of India for estimating poverty ratios. (2009, see also Himanshu 2010 ). While the Planning Commission acknowledged the multi-dimensionality of poverty, it maintained the historical reliance on survey consumption data but revised the Rupee cutoff values away from a calorie criterion towards a broader basket of food, health, and education expenditures.

Our analysis compares the poverty status of a household in 2012 (round two) to its status in 2005 (round one). For poor households in round one, we investigate whether they escaped poverty or remained poor; for non-poor households, we investigate whether they fell into poverty or remained non-poor. Thus our dependent variable is the poor or non-poor statuses of a household in round two given that the household was non-poor or poor in round one. For new household splits in round two, we trace back their poverty status to the origin household in round one.

We investigate round one household characteristics, focusing especially on caste and religion. In the multivariate models, we add highest adult education in the household, main source of income, land owned, irrigated land or not, household composition, social networks, and state dummies (see means in Appendix Table 1 ).

Descriptive Statistics

Source: Authors’ calculations from the Indian Human Development Survey.

Note: Observations have been weighted according to weights in the file to reflect the 2011 Indian population.

• Caste – We divide all households into four groups, Adivasis (Scheduled Tribes), Dalits (Scheduled Castes), OBCs (Other Backward Classes) and Forward Castes (all others). We use this fourfold classification for both Hindu and non-Hindu households because in other analyses not reported here we find that the differences between self-reported caste groups among Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and others largely parallel those among Hindus.
• Religion– We include four groups: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians, and all others which includes Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, Tribals, others, and none (not reporting any religious affiliations)
• Highest Educated Adult – This variable gives the highest level of education attained by any adult aged 21 or over in the household; for the few households with no adult, we used the education of the person designated as the household head. We divide years of educational attainment into six groups.
• Main Income Source – IHDS collected detailed income data from over 50 possible sources. We group these into eight major sources (farm, agricultural wage labour, non-agricultural labour, regular salaried, self employment, family business, property or pension income, remittances, and government benefits) and classify the household according to the source of the largest income share.
• Land Class – We first divide households into those who do and do not own agricultural land, and then for those with land, we calculate the logarithm of hectares owned. In order to avoid missing values, non-landed households are assigned a low value on landsize (0.1 hectares), thus constraining the landed/landless dummy coefficient to compare nonlandowners with very small landowners and reserving the analysis of land size only to households with some land. We also included a dummy variable for whether any of the household’s land was irrigated.
• Bank account – An “eligible woman” in the household, an ever-married woman 15–49, was asked whether the household had a bank account and whether her name was on the account. Approximately 1 in 6 households did not include an eligible woman so the survey has no information on whether the household had a bank account or not. This information is important enough that we tested the role of bank accounts for these eligible woman households, substituting the mean (0.36) for missing data and adding a dummy variable to identify the households with missing data. 4
• Member of credit/savings group – IHDS asked whether a household was a member of any of nine different types of organizations; we focus on membership in a “credit/savings group”.
• Debts – Households were asked to report how much they currently owed others, from which we calculated a simple dichotomy of any debt versus no debt.
• Social Networks – This variable captures whether a household is acquainted with a government official, a teacher or school staff, or a medical official.
• Household structure – Household size is the total number of persons in the household and the dependency ratio is the number of non-working household members per working members of the household.
• We also included 21 state dummies to control for the wide range of regional differences in levels of and changes in poverty. We collapse several smaller states with small survey samples into regional groups, narrowing the number of states from 31 to 22.

We begin by reporting simple cross-tabulations of poverty rates, exits, and entrances by caste, religion, and other background variables. We compare groups using simple percentage differences, but as will be quickly apparent, those statistics can be misleading when groups are starting at such different levels of poverty.

The more analytic part of the paper uses a dynamic logistic regression model that takes as the dependent variable the poverty status (0/1) of households in time t (the 2012 IHDS survey) separately for households who were poor or nonpoor at time period t −1 , factoring in a range of control.

• Y t =Poverty status in current period.
• Y t −1 = Poverty status in initial time period.
• X t −1 = Set of controls in initial time period (social group, education etc.)
• λ t−1 = Inverse Mills’ ratio
• ε t = Error term

The logistic regressions have the advantage of comparing groups by their log odds of escaping or entering poverty, comparisons that are not so closely determined by their initial poverty levels, as are percentages differences. For example, a group with a 20% poverty head count ratio that fell to 10% experienced the same change in log odds as a group that began with a 50% poverty rate that fell to 31%. Although the former group changed by only 10 percentage points, its poverty rate was cut in half; while the latter group had a 19 percentage point change but its poverty rate was reduced by only 38%.

All analyses are weighted by the sample weights in the IHDS2 files to reflect the national population. We also correct the standard errors to account for clustering into the 2435 primary sampling units.

Robustness checks

Our main analyses use the conventional Indian measure of household poverty that is based on consumption expenditures per capita using a poverty line drawn by the Tendulkar Commission. There are many other possible ways of identifying Indian poverty, and it is possible that our results would differ with different poverty definitions. We re-compute the analysis for some although certainly not all of these possibilities. Instead of adjusting for household size by using a per capita measure of consumption, we also use an “equivalenced” measure that divides total household consumption by the square root of the number of persons in the household – an adjustment more common in poverty measures in high-income countries. We also construct a measure of “severe poverty” with a cutoff at 80 percent of the official line and a measure of “near poverty” with a cutoff at 125 percent of the poverty line. Finally, we take advantage of the wide range of economic indicators available in the IHDS by using household income and household assets as measures of economic standing, drawing the poverty lines at a level to identify an equivalent percentage of the population as with the more conventional consumption measure.

Descriptive statistics

Poverty decline.

As with other data sources, we find that the head count ratio fell substantially over time from a high of 38 percent in 2004/05 to 21 percent in 2011/12, a drop of 17 percentage points. The decline was pervasive: all groups showed declining poverty over this period, although not always by equal amounts. By one measure, more poverty reduction happened in rural areas, which saw a 17 percentage point fall from 42 percent to 25 percent, as compared to 15 points in urban areas from 28 percent to 13 percent. However, the urban rate fell by more than half while the rural rate fell by slightly less than half so by that metric urban areas did better. The simplest overall summary is that poverty fell substantially in both rural and urban areas although the urban advantage was maintained.

A comparison across caste groups also shows substantial drops for all groups but the largest percentage point fall for Adivasis (23 points, see Figure 1 ). Dalits and those from other backward classes (OBC) experienced similar percentage drops of 18 to 20 points while Forward castes experienced only a 12 percentage point drop. The most vulnerable groups have had larger percentage point declines than the better-off groups, though these reductions are from very high poverty levels in the first round. So, while Forward castes and OBCs have had poverty rates fall almost in half, for Adivasis poverty declined by only a little over a third. And despite the major reductions, poverty levels are still very high for the Adivasis. Similarly, despite significant reductions for OBCs and Dalits, the caste differentials persist.

Poverty Incidence in 2005 and 2012 across Social Groups (IHDS).

We find that Muslims have done well, registering a 21percentage point reduction, 4 percentage points more than the Hindus. Close behind are the other minority religions and the Hindus with 16 and 17 percentage point reduction. Sikhs and Christians together show low reductions; this is not unexpected as these are already low poverty communities.

Escaping and Falling into Poverty

Nationally, escaping poverty among the previously poor was far more likely than falling into poverty among the previously non-poor. That difference was an important reason for the decline in poverty over the seven years. Of the 38 percent of the population who were poor in 2005, 25 percent had escaped by 2012, almost two-thirds of the previously poor. Slightly offsetting this, only 8 percent of the population newly fell into poverty, only a little over one eighth of the 62 percent of the population who had been non-poor. These panel results demonstrate substantial churning over time among the poor. Most households who were poor in 2005 had left poverty by 2012; some of this may be quite transient poverty, however, there remains much persistent poverty as well. The majority (61 percent) of poor households in wave two had also been poor in wave one. The growing prosperity pulled many households out of poverty but also left an unfortunate minority who benefited little from the economic growth. Altogether, 13 percent of all Indians were poor in both surveys.

In what follows, we focus on the escape rates of those who were previously poor, and the descent rates of those who were previously non-poor. These rates provide a better comparison of caste and other differences in the relative chances of poverty transitions than do the total population percentages that are more strongly determined by the initial, often very different, poverty rates.

Escape and descent rates are similar for rural and urban India, although urban areas enjoy an advantage of higher rates of escape and lower rates of falling into poverty. In urban India 71 percent of the poor in 2004–05 escaped poverty by 2011–12, whereas only 64 percent of the rural poor escaped poverty over the same period. At the same time about 16 percent of the rural nonpoor in 2004–05 had fallen into poverty by 2011–12, as compared to only 8 percent in urban areas.

The share of those escaping poverty varies even more significantly across social groups ( Figure 2 ). Escaping poverty is closely tied to traditional privilege. The largest shares are from amongst the Forward Castes (73 percent of the previously poor had become nonpoor by 2012) followed by the OBCs with 70 percent escaping poverty. The Dalit poor fared less at 63 percent escaping over seven years. But by far the most disadvantaged were the Adivasi poor among whom only 48 percent managed to leave poverty between the two surveys.

Percent of those Escaping & Falling into Poverty in 2011/12 compared to 2004/05, by Social Groups (All India, IHDS)

The risk of becoming newly poor follows the same pattern of immiseration across social groups. Among Adivasis who were not poor in 2005, 24 percent had become poor by 2012. Dalits follow next with 19 percent of the previously nonpoor falling into poverty. But only 14 percent of nonpoor OBCs had become poor between the two surveys, and an even lower 9 percent for Forward castes.

Thus, despite the fact that poverty incidence has fallen substantially and large numbers have managed to escape it, the handicap of historic exclusion and continued marginalisation is still felt by the most disadvantaged groups; fewer amongst them are able to lift themselves out of poverty and more of them risk falling back into it. Some of the differences among social groups and between rural and urban residents probably reflects the fact that non-poor Dalits and non-poor rural residents may be closer to the poverty line than others and thus have a higher risk of falling back below that line. In the multivariate analyses, we can control for those differences.

Lagged Logistic Regression

Large segments of the Indian population have moved out of poverty, but which household characteristics enabled them to escape poverty or put them at risk of falling into poverty? We run two lagged logistic regressions to tease out some of these effects. First, we measure the odds of a person who was poor in wave one becoming non-poor in wave two, given demographic, economic and social characteristics of the household in wave one. Then we measure the odds of a person becoming poor in wave two given that the person was not poor in wave one. We proceed stepwise for each equation, first calculating a reduced form model to investigate variations across caste and religion and between urban and rural areas. These models also control for the household’s economic distance from the poverty line, state fixed effects, and a selection effect based on attrition between the two surveys. Then we add controls for social background and economic resources that may explain the group and rural-urban differences: highest adult education, main income source, bank and credit resources, landholding, irrigation, social capital, dependency ratio, and household size.

Urban/rural differences

Table-1 gives the odds ratios of escaping and falling into poverty in wave two, separately for those who were poor and nonpoor in wave one. For the social group characteristics reported in the reduced form models, the results are similar to the bivariate results reported above with some interesting exceptions.

Regressions of 2004–5 to 2009–10 poverty transitions, on 2004–5 characteristics.

Source: Authors’ analysis of India Human Development Surveys.

First, urban households’ advantages noted above are found only for the risk of newly falling into poverty. Among the nonpoor in 2005, urban residents had less than two-thirds the odds of becoming poor in the second wave as did rural residents of the same expenditure level, living in the same state. The volatility of rural incomes is clearly reflected in this difference, but the non-significant difference for escaping poverty suggests also that urban poverty may be as persistent as rural poverty.

Rural residents’ higher risk of falling into poverty is more than explained by their disadvantages in education, income sources, and other resources. In the full model with all these controls, urban residents have almost twice the risk of falling into poverty as equivalent rural residents.

And their chances of escaping poverty are only about half that for similar rural residents. As we will see below, urban residents’ greater human, social, and financial capital cushions them from poverty transitions; except for these advantages, their poverty transitions would be even higher than for rural residents.

Social groups and religion

Caste differences also follow the bivariate results reported above, but unlike the rural-urban differences, the regression results show that caste differences are quite similar for falling into and escaping poverty. The enormous handicap of Adivasis is shown well in these coefficients. Adivasis had just 40 percent of the odds that Forward Castes had of escaping poverty. At the same time, they were two and a half times as likely as Forward Castes to newly fall into poverty. Surprisingly little of these higher risks are explained by Adivasis’ lower educational, social, and economic resources. In the full model, Adivasis still had 49 percent of the odds of equivalent Forward Castes of escaping poverty and 1.7 times the risk of newly falling into poverty.

Dalits also were disadvantaged both in escaping and avoiding poverty between the two surveys. They had just 64 percent of the chance that Forward Castes had of escaping poverty and were two times as likely to fall into poverty; not as disadvantaged as Adivasis, but still substantially more at risk than Forward Castes or even OBCs. Interestingly, most of the Dalit disadvantage can be explained by their lower resources included in the full model. Their lower odds of escaping poverty rise from 64 before controls to a non-significant 88 percent after; and their higher risk for newly falling into poverty drops from 2.0 times to a non-significant 1.1 times after controls. The smaller risks after controls may be an optimistic result; to the extent these social and economic resources are subject to policy interventions or to Dalits’ own efforts, we can expect their higher poverty rates to eventually disappear.

OBCs were not very different from Forward Castes: they were not significantly different from the Forward Caste odds of escaping poverty. Their odds of falling into poverty are 1.24 times the odds for Forward Caste,, a difference that is entirely explained by their lower resources.

Muslim disadvantages in poverty transitions are somewhat different. As shown in the reduced form models of Table 1 , Muslims have slightly lower odds of escaping poverty and slightly higher risks of falling into poverty than Forward Caste Hindus. Their relative disadvantages are most similar to the relative risks facing OBCs. But their position looks quite different after controls for their 2005 resources are included in the full model. Compared to Forward Caste Hindus in a similar educational, social, and economic position, their odds of escaping poverty are 0.789 times the odds for Forward Castes, while their chances of falling into poverty are 1.407 times that for Forward Castes. That is, controls for their resources shows Muslims to be more, not less, vulnerable to poverty transitions.

Resources: Education

Education is the quintessential human capital credential and provides strong and consistent protection against falling into poverty. A household with a college graduate is 0.56 times as likely to fall into poverty than an equivalent illiterate household (i.e., illiterate households are over two times as likely to fall into poverty as a household with a college graduate). Even for households who were poor in 2005, those with higher education were able to escape more often, but the education effect on avoiding poverty is larger and extends further down the schooling ladder than the education effect on escaping poverty. As Table 1 shows, difference between educated and illiterate households in escaping poverty is statistically significant only when an adult household member has a college degree, in contrast, even completion of primary education significantly reduces the odds of falling into poverty and this effect increases at higher levels of education. Compared to illiterate households, the odds of escaping poverty are 0.814, 0.618 and 0.435 respectively for households with 5–9 grades of education, 10–11 grades and college degree respectively.

More education is also part of the reason why urban residents escape poverty more often than rural residents and why Forward Castes escape more often than Dalits. None of these differences are completely explained by education. Logistic regressions controlling only for education (not shown) suggest that substantial differences would remain even if the groups had equal education. But educational differences are perhaps the most susceptible to policy intervention among the resources we study so their importance in reducing (although not eliminating) age-old social disadvantages should not be understated.

Income sources

Part of the reason education provides protection against poverty is that it may provide entrance to stable jobs. Employees with a regular monthly salary have lower odds of falling into poverty than all other households. These salaried jobs have the dual advantage of paying well and paying steadily. Only 20% percent of salaried households were in poverty to begin with in 2005. And the chances of the other 80% percent entering poverty after seven years were among the smallest for any type of household.

However, for the 20% percent of salaried households already in poverty in 2005, their salaried positions were not nearly as good a benefit for escaping poverty by 2012. Poor salaried households were not significantly more likely to exit poverty than were poor cultivating households. For the poor, a steady salary may also mean steady poverty. The salaried advantage is a low frequency of initial poverty because of higher than average incomes and low risk of falling into poverty because of the steadiness of incomes, but a steady salary is not much comfort if a household is already at a poverty level.

There are surprisingly few differences among other sources of income in households’ odds of transitioning into or out of poverty once initial economic and social levels are held constant. Cultivators appear to have no more or no less chance of falling into or escaping from poverty than do business households or those depending on wage labour. Wage labour households are more likely to start out poor, but holding constant that initial level, they are no less likely than equivalent cultivating or business households to escape poverty – nor no more likely to fall into poverty if starting as non-poor. Nor are households primarily receiving remittances, government benefits, or property income very different, although our samples of those households are especially small so any conclusions about their transitions must be especially tentative.

Among cultivators, there is some evidence that larger landowners may have been better off due to their asset stability; the more land owned the lower the risks of falling into poverty and the greater the chances of escaping poverty. But more importantly, access to irrigation reduced subsequent poverty risks for cultivators, as they are not dependant on seasonal rains for their water needs. As Table 1 shows, landowners with irrigation are 0.651 times as likely to fall into poverty as compared to those landowners who depend on seasonal rains. Irrigation was even helpful for cultivators escaping poverty, increasing their odds to 1.277 times the odds of more rain-dependent cultivators.

As would be expected, bank accounts help prevent falls into consumption poverty and are significant also for rising out of poverty. The expansion of banking across India offers a major opportunity to reduce the volatility of poverty transitions. Membership in a credit society appears less successful in smoothing out consumption volatility in order to avoid poverty. The IHDS results also confirm the importance of debt as a source of falling into poverty: Nonpoor households who report having some debt in 2004–5 have a 26 percent greater chance of having fallen into poverty seven years later; debts did not lower or raise the chances of poor households escaping poverty between the two surveys.

Household Structure

Larger households have less chance of falling into poverty and more chance of escaping poverty once there. More people may mean more labour resources for the future and a greater flexibility to utilize all household resources. Similarly, a higher dependency ratio in 2005 also raises the chances of escaping poverty or not falling into poverty in the next seven years. This may seem counter-intuitive at first since cross sectionaly, the fewer household members who work, the more likely the household is to be in poverty. But some of these dependents in 2005 can later enter the labour force, especially young men who finish their education, thus enabling the household to escape poverty or to avoid falling back into poverty. And young women may finish their schooling and marry out of the household thus raising the per capita consumption levels. Measurement issues may play a role in the household size relationship since the poverty line is drawn on the basis of consumption per capita, so that larger households have a larger denominator. But, as we see in the robustness checks, poverty measures with lower penalties for household size also show larger households had higher rates of transition out of poverty and less chance of falling into poverty.

Selection effects and distance from the poverty line

Not surprisingly, the further above the poverty line a household is, the lower its risk of falling into poverty seven years later. And poor households closest to the poverty line are the ones most likely to escape poverty. Some of this beneficial effect can be attributed to other characteristics of those households, higher in per capita consumption: they tend to be better educated, more likely to have a salaried job, and more likely to own irrigated land. But the remaining importance of absolute levels of per capita consumption reminds us that the poor and the nonpoor are not discrete categories but necessarily somewhat arbitrary lines drawn in a consumption continuum. Controlling for the a household position on this continuum is nevertheless important since other differences, for instance, between Dalit and Forward Caste households, are often more a result of the fact that poor Dalit households are much poorer than the poor Forward Caste households. It is as much their greater poverty than their Dalit status that holds them back from escaping poverty or increases their risks of falling back into poverty.

The probability of a household being re-interviewed is positively related to a higher risk of falling into poverty or not escaping poverty. Re-interviewed households are in some ways similar to households at greater risk. This may be somewhat surprising since poverty in 2004–5 is correlated with attrition between the two surveys. Re-interviewed households have much in common with the measured social and economic characteristics of households at less risk of falling into poverty. Larger rural households with more land were more often re-interviewed in 2011–12; households with less property ties to their villages and neighbourhoods were more likely to have left after seven years. The positive association between likelihood of attrition and escapes from poverty only appears after these other factors are held constant. The types of households who were not found – who had migrated out of their original villages or urban neighbourhoods – resembled households who improved their economic position over the next seven years. This resemblance may also suggest that unmeasured characteristics of households who improved may be similar to the unmeasured characteristics of households who left their original homes to make a better life somewhere else. In any case, the results show some evidence of selection effects that temper our results somewhat because out-migrants are not included in the sample.

Poverty definitions have long been an intense focus of debate both internationally ( Atkinson, forthcoming ) and in India ( Deaton and Kozel 2005 ). For our analysis of transitions into and out of poverty, the important question is whether different definitions would yield different conclusions. Our robustness checks vary assumptions about economies of scale, about where to draw the poverty line, and about which economic dimension (consumption, income, or assets) is used to define poverty. Results for each of these measures are reported in Appendix Table 3 . For the most part, the main conclusions described above are not affected by the choice of poverty measure. For example, salaried employment protects against falls into severe poverty or into near poverty; whether consumption, income, or assets are used to rank households; and whether household size is adjusted to a per capita measure or less drastically to an “equivalenced” measure using the square root of household size. Nor do any of these alternative poverty measures reveal much effect of salaried employment on the odds of escaping poverty once there.

Appendix T3.a

Logistic Regression using Alternate Poverty Measures

Some exceptions to the main patterns are understandable. For example, having a bank account protects against falls into consumption poverty or into asset poverty, but not so clearly against falls into income poverty. Also, poverty status between the two surveys is more stable when poverty is measured in terms of household assets rather than household consumption: using asset poverty, only 4 percent of Indians became newly poor between the two surveys and only 19 percent left poverty. The corresponding percentages for consumption poverty were 7 percent and 29 percent.

Our IHDS results reaffirm the conclusions that poverty has indeed fallen substantially over this seven-year period. In addition, they enable us to quantify the household transitions both out of but also into poverty despite the overall trend. We find that the majority (65%) of households who were poor in 2005 had escaped poverty by 2012. This is a remarkable achievement that documents how even the poor shared economic prosperity during these times.

Their successes were only partially offset by the 14% of the non-poor who fell into poverty during this period. These newly poor, however, raise the issue of transient poverty. Not all the poor have always been poor, and public policy responses to the transient poor may need to be quite different from policies for the long-term poor ( Krishna 2007 ). Nevertheless, long-term poverty remains a problem. Despite the fact that most of the 2005 poor had escaped poverty by 2012, most of the households who were poor in 2012 had also been poor in 2005.

Falling into poverty versus Exiting from poverty

A household’s level of human and physical capital is more important in explaining who avoids falling into poverty than explaining which poor households escape poverty. Not surprisingly, more education reduces not only levels of poverty but also especially new entrances into poverty. Higher education also enhances exits from poverty but at a lower rate than reducing new entrants. While neither entering nor remaining in poverty is common among the best educated, education reduces poverty more because it reduces falls into poverty rather than helping families escape. The best educated never experience poverty at all. Or, to observe from the other end, illiteracy both raises the risk of falling into poverty and reduces the chances of escaping, but the effect on falling into poverty is much greater than the effect on remaining in poverty. As a consequence, the illiterate are especially vulnerable to spells of poverty.

Salaried employment reduces poverty in much the same way. Households with a salary income have a steady and reliable source of support that cushions them against economic misfortune. They rarely fall into poverty although on the rare instance when that happens, they are little more likely to emerge quickly than are farmers or business owners.

Irrigated land protects farmers in much the same way as higher education or a salaried income protects all households. Farmers with irrigation are less likely to fall into poverty than small farmers without irrigation, but for the minority who have become poor, these assets are somewhat helpful in escaping poverty.

Rural areas also have higher poverty rates primarily because rural households are more likely to fall into poverty. An agricultural base induces dependency on the fluctuations of seasonal weather patterns, and these fluctuations drive rural households into poverty more frequently than urban households. These fluctuations may be increasing in frequency, such as fluctuations in the Indian monsoon rains, and could be a manifestation of global climate change. However, rural households escape poverty at rates not much different than urban households; in fact in the reduced form model the rural-urban difference is not statistically significant. So, rural poverty is disproportionately a problem of higher risks of falling into poverty. This higher risk is explained by the opportunities available to rural households: less educated, less of a chance for salaried jobs, fewer bank accounts; these and other differences are important enough that in the full model comparing urban and rural households with equivalent characteristics, it is the urban residents who have a higher risk of falling into poverty.

These background factors in 2005 are somewhat better at predicting which households avoid falling into poverty than identifying households who escape from poverty. For the most part, the measures that predict exiting poverty, also predict not falling into poverty, but the odds are generally lower and sometimes not statistically significant. The caste variables are a partial exception to these stronger effects on entrances than exits. Our analysis shows that while Dalits and Adivasis have experienced major movements out of poverty, they still lag behind OBCs and Forward Castes in both rates of exit from poverty and avoiding new falls into poverty. Dalits and especially Adivasis suffer from the worst of both worlds: they have lower rates of escape and higher rates of entry. Much of the disadvantage for Dalits can be explained by their lower levels of human capital, especially their lower education, the lack of salaried employment, and their smaller households. But these same factors do not explain as much of the Adivasi disadvantage. Adivasis remain at a higher risk of poverty – both entries and lack of exits – than equivalent Forward Caste Hindus. They suffer equally from the risks of falling into transient poverty and of remaining there, permanently poor.

Further research

The availability of panel data greatly expands our ability to understand the dynamics of poverty. In this paper, we have concentrated on the prior characteristics of households who escape or fall into poverty. The results help answer the question of who is most at risk of falling into poverty and who has the best prospects of escaping poverty. Many other questions can be asked of these panel data that are beyond the scope of the current paper. One fruitful area for exploration would be to investigate the intervening events between the two surveys that distinguish households who escaped poverty from those who remained; and households who fell into poverty from those who avoided that fate (e.g, Bane and Ellwood 1986 ). Household divisions, deaths and illnesses, new sources of income are among the many events that may propel households out of or into poverty.

Our analyses have also concentrated on the household characteristics that predict entrances into and exits from poverty, but households’ poverty transitions also depend on economic and social factors beyond the borders of the household itself. Transportation connections to employment, climate patterns, industry structure, and civil unrest are examples of the many contextual forces that need to be studied. Differences in public policies and in the implementation of those policies are especially important for poverty transitions. Other research using the IHDS data has shown that participation in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Program may have played a useful role in reducing poverty ( Desai, Vashistha, and Joshi 2015 ).

It is also important to acknowledge that many regressors included in our analyses are endogenous, thus, the observed correlation between these regre ssors and poverty dynamics may well be spurious. For example, many caste associations set up banks, scholarship and hostels for students and food distribution programs. Thus, caste membership may determine education, bank accounts as well as household food consumption ( Desai and Dubey 2011 ). This argues for caution in interpreting these results and re-examining this evidence with panel data that has more than two rounds to better understand the dynamic nature of regressors along with the poverty dynamics.

Transient and Chronic Poverty

A growing literature on the dynamics of poverty has focused more on the questions of chronic poverty and poverty traps than on the questions of entries and exits that we have emphasized ( Shepherd and Mehta 2006 ; Glauben et al., 2012 ; Naschold 2012 ). While analyses of poverty durations are an obvious advance over earlier research that could look only at a single moment of poverty, we believe that identifying which households exit or enter into poverty offers a useful, more dynamic, alternative to earlier work on poverty durations. The characteristics of households who remain poor over the two IHDS waves identify the factors that raise the risk of chronic poverty. Similarly, the characteristics of nonpoor households who subsequently fall into poverty identify who is most at risk of transient poverty.

We also believe that the past poverty literature often pays insufficient attention to transient poverty, as if falling into poverty was less worrisome than remaining in poverty. Is it really worse for one household to be poor for two years than for two households to be poor for a year? Certainly, few have asked the poor themselves which experience is worse (although see Davis 2007 ). One can imagine that under some circumstances, transient poverty might be more distressing for previously nonpoor households than is persistent poverty for the long-term poor. Anirudh Krishna has been especially insistent that we should not neglect falling into poverty: “Falling into poverty is frequent, traumatic, frequently irreversible, and therefore serious enough to merit separate policy attention” ( Krishna 2007 : 1951).

Nor has there been enough research on the consequences of transient versus persistent poverty, for the children being raised in those households, for the physical and mental health of all the household members, or for the marriage bonds that hold nuclear households together or for the filial and fraternal bonds that hold together more extended households (but see Benzeval and Judge 2001 , Baevrea and Kravdal 2013). The sometimes too casual dismissal of transient poverty in the research literature (“being poor at a few moments in time” Barrett and Carter 2013) seems to suggest that poverty consequences must accumulate over time making persistent poverty more of the problem, but that is a largely unexamined assumption. Until we have better data on these consequences, a more balanced approach between new entries into poverty and the inability to escape poverty would leave us in a better position for future understanding.

Poverty research in India has enjoyed a long and distinguished history. We are ready to move to the next stage by better investigating the dynamics of entries and exits into poverty. Poverty is always a misfortune, but because different types of poverty may have different causes and consequences, we need to move beyond more static investigations or even analyses of trends based on repeated cross-sections.

This first look at IHDS panel data suggests that traditional social and economic disadvantage are reproduced in both types of poverty transitions: Dalits and Adivasis are more susceptible both to entry into and lack of escape from poverty than are Forward Castes or even OBCs. But other characteristics prove more important for one type of transition than another. Salaried work and more education are especially important for avoiding falls into poverty but they have less or even no role in predicting escapes from poverty. Our results demonstrate each of these possible relationships and thus reinforce the need to explore poverty dynamics more fully.

Appendix T3. b

• The study examines all India panel data for 2005 & 2012.
• It identifies people who escaped or fell into poverty over this period.
• Dalits and Adivasis face higher risk of falling into poverty then the rest
• Regression shows factors helping escape & falling are different from each other

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our colleagues at the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), New Delhi, and especially the IHDS team there for helpful comments, throughout the preparation of this paper. An earlier version of the paper was presented at Jawaharlal Nehru University where we received several useful suggestions. We are also grateful for several useful ideas from World Development reviewers. Our data are from the India Human Development Surveys, 2005 and 2012. These surveys were jointly organized by researchers at the University of Maryland and NCAER. The data collection was funded by grants R01HD041455, R01HD046166, and R01HD061408 from the National Institutes of Health and by a supplementary grant from the Ford Foundation. Data management was funded by the UK government as part of its Knowledge Partnership Program (KPP) and analysis was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

1 These estimates are based on the ‘thick’ rounds of Consumption Expenditure Survey for 2004/05 and 2011/12 conducted by the National Sample Survey Organisation. Planning Commission of India Press Release

2 NSS - Consumption Expenditure Data is a large countrywide sample survey conducted every 5 years and collects household level information on rupee expenditure on consumed items. This household consumption expenditure is then used as a proxy for the household’s monthly income.

3 The Government of India appointed a committee under the chairmanship of the Suresh Tendulkar. The Committee reviewed the existing methodology of estimating poverty in India and recommended new poverty lines for the rural and urban areas. ( GOI, 2009 ). For details of methodology, click link to online the report ( Tendulkar Committee Report Online )

4 Thus, the coefficient for having a bank account reflects the importance of banks only for the 82 percent of households with eligible women; we cannot test whether the estimate would be different in other households. The value of the substituted mean, 0.36, has no effect on this coefficient but determines the size of the eligible woman dummy coefficient.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Amit Thorat, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Reeve Vanneman, University of Maryland, U.S.A.

Sonalde Desai, University of Maryland, U.S.A.

Amaresh Dubey, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

• Aldeman Irma, Subbarao K, Vashishtha Prem. Some dynamic aspects of rural poverty in India. Economic and Political Weekly. 1985; 20 (39):A103–A116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Atkinson Tony, et al. Commission on Global Poverty: Report on Measuring Poverty. Washington DC: World Bank; (forthcoming) [ Google Scholar ]
• Baevrea Kare, Kravdal Oystein. The effects of earlier income variation on mortality: An analysis of Norwegian register data. Population Studies. 2014; 68 (1):81–94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bane Mary Jo, Ellwood David T. Slipping into and out of poverty: The dynamics of spells. Journal of Human Resources. 1986; 21 (1):1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baulch Bob, McCulloch Neil. Being poor and becoming poor: Poverty status and poverty transitions in rural Pakistan. Journal of Asian and African Studies. 2002; 37 (2):168–185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benzeval Michaela, Judge Ken. Income and health: the time dimension. Social science & medicine. 2001; 52 (9):1371–1390. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhide Shashanka, Mehta Aasha Kapur. Economic growth and poverty dynamics. Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper. 2008; 120 [ Google Scholar ]
• Binswanger Hans P, Singh RP. Intergenerational Transmission of Wealth in India’s Semi-Arid Tropics. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1994; 49 (1):46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis Peter. Working paper. 84. London: Chronic Poverty Research Centre; 2007. Discussions among the poor: Exploring poverty dynamics with focus groups in Bangladesh. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deaton Angus, Kozel Valerie. Data and Dogma: The Great Indian Poverty Debate. World Bank Research Observer. 2005; 20 (2):177–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Desai Sonalde, Dubey Amaresh. Caste in 21 st Century India: Competing Narratives. Economic and Political Weekly. 2011; 46 (11):40–49. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Desai Sonalde B, Dubey Amaresh, Joshi Brij Lal, Sen Mitali, Shariff Abusaleh, Vanneman Reeve. Human Development in India: Challenges for a Society in Transition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Desai Sonalde, Vashishtha Prem, Joshi Omkar. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Catalyst for Rural Transformation. New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Research; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dhamija Nidhi, Bhide Shashanka. Poverty in rural India: variations in factors influencing dynamics of chronic poverty. Journal of International Development. 2013; 25 (5):674–695. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaiha Raghav. Are the chronically poor also the poorest in rural India? Development and Change. 1989; 20 (2):295–322. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaiha Raghav, Imai Katsushi. Vulnerability, shocks and persistence of poverty: estimates for semi–arid rural South India. Oxford Development Studies. 2004; 32 (2):261–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaiha Raghav, Deolalikar Anil B. Persistent, expected and innate poverty: estimates for semi-arid rural South India, 1975—1984. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 1993; 17 (4):409–421. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glauben Thomas, Herzfeld Thomas, Rozelle Scott, Wang Xiaobing. Persistent poverty in rural China: Where, why, and how to escape? World Development. 2012; 40 (4):784–795. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatlebakk Magnus. Poverty dynamics in rural Orissa: Transitions in assets and occupations over generations. Journal of Development Studies. 2014; 50 (6):877–893. [ Google Scholar ]
• Himanshu. Planning Commission, Report on Construction of Tendulkar Poverty Lines. 2010 http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/himanshu.pdf .
• India Human Development Survey. 2016 http://ihds.info/IHDS-II .
• Krishna Anirudh. Falling into Poverty: Other Side of Poverty Reduction. Economic and Political Weekly. 2003; 38 (6):533–542. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krishna Anirudh. For reducing poverty faster: Target reasons before people. World development. 2007; 35 (11):1947–1960. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krishna Anirudh. One Illness Away: Why People Become Poor and How They Escape Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krishna Anirudh, Shariff Abusaleh. The irrelevance of national strategies? Rural poverty dynamics in states and regions of India, 1993–2005. World Development. 2011; 39 (4):533–549. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krishna Anirudh, Kapila Mahesh, Porwal Mahendra, Singh Virpal. Why growth is not enough: Household poverty dynamics in Northeast Gujarat, India. Journal of Development Studies. 2005; 41 (7):1163–1192. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCulloch Neil, Baulch Bob. Simulating the impact of policy upon chronic and transitory poverty in rural Pakistan. The Journal of Development Studies. 2000; 36 (6):100–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehta Aasha Kapur, Shepherd Andrew. Chronic poverty and development policy in India. Sage; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehta Aasha Kapur, Bhide Shashanka. Issues in Chronic Poverty: Panel Data based Analysis. Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper. 2003 [ Google Scholar ]
• Naschold Felix. “The poor stay poor”: Household asset poverty traps in rural semi-arid India. World Development. 2012; 40 (10):2033–2043. [ Google Scholar ]
• Planning Commission. Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty. Government of India; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shepherd Andrew, Mehta Aasha Kapur. Chronic Poverty in India. In: Mehta Aasha Kapur, Shepherd Andrew., editors. Chronic Poverty and Development Policy in India. New Delhi: Sage; 2006. pp. 23–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh Rajendra Pal, Binswanger Hans P. Income growth in poor dryland areas of India’s semi-arid tropics. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1993; 48 (1):51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorat Sukhadeo, Dubey Amaresh. Has growth been socially inclusive during 1993–94–2009–10. Economic and Political Weekly. 2012; 47 (10):43–53. [ Google Scholar ]

India eliminates extreme poverty

Subscribe to the sustainable development bulletin, surjit s. bhalla and surjit s. bhalla former executive director for india, bangladesh, sri lanka and bhutan - international monetary fund @surjitbhalla karan bhasin karan bhasin graduate assistant - university at albany, suny @karanbhasin95.

March 1, 2024

• Data now confirms that India has eliminated extreme poverty.
• India should now graduate to a higher poverty line, which would provide an opportunity to redefine existing social protection programs in order to give greater support to the genuine poor.

India has just released its official consumption expenditure data for 2022-23, providing the first official survey-based poverty estimates for India in over ten years. The previous official survey was conducted from 2011-12, and the absence of up-to-date data for India has added considerable uncertainty to global poverty headcount ratios.

Before presenting the results, a quick methodological note is in order. India has two different methods for estimating consumption expenditures: the Uniform Recall Period (URP) and the more accurate Modified Mixed Recall Period (MMRP). The URP method asks households questions on their consumption expenditures over a uniform recall period of 30 days. The MMRP asks household consumer expenditure on perishables (for example, fruits, vegetables, eggs) for the last 7 days, durable goods for the last 365 days, and expenditure on all other items for the last 30 days. India officially shifted to the MMRP, the standard in other countries, beginning with the 2022-23 survey, though it previously experimented with both methods.

Comparable poverty estimates for India are available for the period 1977-78 to 2011-12 using the URP method and from 2011-12 to 2022-23 using the MMRP method for the purchasing power parity (PPP)$ 1.9 (international extreme poverty) and PPP$ 3.2 poverty lines (recommended line by the World Bank for lower middle-income countries such as India).

What do the data show?

Growth : Real per capita consumption growth of 2.9% per annum (pa) since 2011-12; rural growth at 3.1% pa was significantly higher than urban growth of 2.6%.

Inequality : An unprecedented decline in both urban and rural inequality. The urban Gini (x100) declined from 36.7 to 31.9; the rural Gini declined from 28.7 to 27.0. In the annals of inequality analysis, this decline is unheard of, and especially in the context of high per capita growth. We offer some explanations below on why this may have happened, but more work will be required to fully explore the issue.

Poverty : High growth and large decline in inequality have combined to eliminate poverty in India for the PPP$ 1.9 poverty line. (Here we use the PPP$ 1.9 line [2011 prices] rather than the PPP$ 2.15 line at 2017 prices because the former closely corresponds to the official India Tendulkar poverty line.) The Headcount Poverty Ratio (HCR) for the 2011 PPP$ 1.9 poverty line has declined from 12.2 per cent in 2011-12 to 2 per cent in 2022-23, equivalent to 0.93 percentage points (ppt) per year. Rural poverty stood at 2.5% while urban poverty was down to 1%. For the PPP$ 3.2 line, HCR declined from 53.6% to 20.8% (almost 3 ppt per year). Note that these estimates do not take into account the free food (wheat and rice) supplied by the government to approximately two-thirds of the population, nor utilization of public health and education.

The data show a strikingly lower number of poor people in India, at both thresholds, than those estimated by the World Bank. That institution relied on the Consumer Pyramids Household Survey, a privately provided data source, to derive poverty numbers of 10% (at $1.90) and 45% (at $3.20) in 2020, despite well-known problems with that data explained by Bhalla, Bhasin and Virmani (2022) .

Time for a higher poverty line

In the chart below, we show India’s HCR for both the 1.9$PPP and the 3.2$PPP from 1977-78. The change in slope of the HCR for the higher 3.2$ poverty line reveals the extent of inclusive growth experienced in India over the last decade.

Poverty HCR (2011 PPP 1.9$)

Poverty hcr (2011 ppp 3.2$).

Given the near elimination of extreme poverty, we outlined the need for India to transition to a higher poverty line in an earlier article . The decline in HCR for both the poverty lines illustrates this point, as we can see not much decline can occur at the lower poverty line. Incidentally, the decline in HCR at the higher poverty line is remarkable given that in the past it took 30 years for India to witness a similar decline in poverty levels as now witnessed over 11 years.

How and why the results

The relatively higher consumption growth in rural areas should not come as a surprise given the strong policy thrust on redistribution through a wide variety of publicly funded programs. These include a national mission for construction of toilets and attempts to ensure universal access to electricity, modern cooking fuel, and more recently, piped water. As an example, rural access to piped water in India as of 15 th August 2019 was 16.8%  and at present it is 74.7%. The reduced sickness from accessing safe water may have helped families earn more income. Similarly, under the Aspirational District Program , 112 districts of the country were identified as having the lowest development indicators. These districts were targeted by government policies with an explicit focus on improving their performance in development.

Key takeaways

Official data now confirms that India has eliminated extreme poverty, as commonly defined in international comparisons. This is an encouraging development with positive implications for global poverty headcount rates. This also means that time has come for India to graduate to a higher poverty line much like other countries. The transition to a higher poverty line provides an opportunity to redefine existing social protection programs particularly with the objective of better identification of intended beneficiaries and providing greater support to the genuine poor.

Emerging Markets & Developing Economies Sustainable Development Goals

Global Economy and Development

Asia & the Pacific India

Center for Sustainable Development

Sam Boocker, Alexander Conner, David Wessel

April 25, 2024

Robin Brooks

Nasrin Siddiqa, Atenea Rosado-Viurques

April 23, 2024

Urban Poverty: Trends, Assessment, and Inclusive Planning as a Solution

• Conference paper
• First Online: 20 December 2016
• Cite this conference paper

• Mayank Mausom 5 &
• Ankita Choudhary 5  

Part of the book series: Springer Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering ((STICEE))

1381 Accesses

2 Citations

Poverty in India has been a historic problem, its people being suppressed by rulers and foreign occupants for centuries, depriving them of basic rights. Poverty in India escalated and reached its peak in 1920s. Though, it has in the past remained majorly a rural problem, the trend seems to be shifting now due to migration of people into the urban areas. In the face of the fact of its emergent stature as an economy powerhouse in the world, and even almost seven decades after independence and sensitive self-governance, India has a whopping 65,494,604 of its people living in substandard conditions in slums (notified, recognized as well as identified slums) in its urban areas. This shows a decadal growth rate of 25.1 % from 2001 (Census of India 2011).

Poverty is generally understood in terms of deprivations – human, material, education, dignity, and basic rights, etc., as well as exclusions – political and social. Our country equates poverty to material deprivation and defines it in terms of level of incomes and consumptions – calorific intake. As per McKinsey report 2010, 75 % of urban population in India belongs to the bottom income segment and earns less than an average of Rs. 80, which implies that 254 million out of 341 million urban population fall in this category.

The paper looks into the causes of urban poverty and this colossal socioeconomic divide between the poorest and the rich. This paper also investigates into the various dimensions and characteristic of urban poverty like socioeconomic, demographical, and spatial aspects. The paper concludes by advocating pro-poor inclusive planning as a solution to this disparity and pitches for provision of basic physical and social infrastructures for the urban poor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

“Inclusive Urban Planning Empowering Poor Through Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies” by B.C.Dutta.

World Bank (2011).

Acharya S (1989) Agricultural wages in India: a disaggregated analysis. Indian J Agric Econ 44(2)

Google Scholar  

Baker JL.:Urban poverty: a global view. World Bank urban paper series

Balakrishna S, Rangacharyulu SV (eds) (1999) Poverty decline and human development factors in some states. NIRD, Hyderabad

Bansal SP. Inclusive planning initiatives in Delhi Master Plan, for improved access to basic infrastructure

Bhalla S (2000) Behind poverty: the qualitative deterioration of employment prospects for rural Indians

Bhowmick S. Bihar & Punjab could be India’s new dark states. IndiaSpend Data Journalism Report

Chandy L (2011) Two trends in global poverty. Brookings

Chelliah RJ, Sudershan R (1999) Poverty and beyond. Social Science Press, New Delhi

Dutta BC (2010) Inclusive urban planning empowering poor through urban poverty reduction strategies. NTCP Congress

MOHUPA (2013) Inclusive urban planning: state of the urban poverty report. Oxford

World Bank – World Development Indicators

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Architecture & Planning, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India

Mayank Mausom & Ankita Choudhary

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mayank Mausom .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Fumihiko Seta

RCG School of Infrastructure Design & Management and Department of Architecture and Regional Planning, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

Arindam Biswas

School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Mausom, M., Choudhary, A. (2017). Urban Poverty: Trends, Assessment, and Inclusive Planning as a Solution. In: Seta, F., Sen, J., Biswas, A., Khare, A. (eds) From Poverty, Inequality to Smart City. Springer Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2141-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2141-1_2

Published : 20 December 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-2139-8

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-2141-1

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Poverty in India Essay for Students and Childern

Poverty in India Essay: Poverty is when you lack basic necessities like food, shelter, and clothing. Check Poverty in India Essay in 800, 500 and 250 words

October 10, 2023

Table of Contents

Poverty in India Essay: Poverty means not having enough money to afford basic things like a home, healthcare, and education. It’s a tough situation where people struggle to meet their basic needs because they lack money. This essay explains what poverty is, why it happens, and what is being done to fight it in India. It’s helpful for students who want to write good essays and do well in exams.

Poverty in India Essay 800 Words

Below we are covering Poverty in India Essay in 800 Words.

Poverty is the condition where a person lacks enough money to meet their basic needs, such as food and shelter. In India, poverty is becoming more widespread, particularly in urban areas due to the increasing population. Many people live on the brink of poverty, especially in rural regions, where there are numerous uneducated and unemployed individuals.

People in poverty struggle to afford proper food and often have no homes, forcing them to sleep on streets or sidewalks. This situation leads to a growing demand for food, money, and shelter, but unfortunately, poverty continues to increase due to the scarcity of these resources. This wealth gap between the rich and the poor widens, making it challenging to reduce poverty. The consequences of poverty are numerous and include inadequate housing, illiteracy, a rise in child labor and unemployment, and poor hygiene.

Because of these challenges, impoverished individuals cannot afford nutritious meals, decent clothing, or a quality education simply because they lack the necessary funds.

Understanding Poverty in India

Poverty in India is a complex issue with various dimensions. It is not merely about inadequate income but encompasses a lack of access to basic necessities such as food, clean water, education, healthcare, and sanitation. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) highlights the multi-dimensional nature of poverty in India.

Causes of Poverty

India’s population growth, while considered a demographic dividend in certain aspects, has placed substantial pressure on the country’s resources and infrastructure, creating formidable challenges in ensuring adequate provisions for all its citizens. Economic inequality exacerbates the issue, with a considerable portion of the population enjoying substantial economic prosperity while a significant majority grapples with financial instability.

Moreover, the prevalence of unemployment and underemployment, particularly in the informal sector, exacerbates poverty levels by limiting income-earning opportunities for a substantial portion of the population. Additionally, the scarcity of accessible quality education further perpetuates the cycle of poverty, as it constrains individuals’ capacity to secure well-paying jobs and break free from the clutches of economic hardship.

Inadequate healthcare infrastructure and a lack of affordable healthcare services compound these issues, contributing to the persistence of poverty, as health-related problems often result in both reduced income and heightened expenses. Furthermore, the pronounced disparities between rural and urban areas, encompassing disparities in infrastructure, educational access, and employment prospects, significantly contribute to the prevalence of poverty in rural regions, deepening the rural-urban divide and amplifying socioeconomic disparities across the nation.

The Problems Poverty Creates

Malnutrition is a pressing concern intricately linked with poverty in India. This dire situation often results in inadequate nutrition, thereby precipitating issues like stunted growth and developmental impediments, with children being especially vulnerable to its detrimental effects.

Furthermore, the adverse impact of poverty is acutely felt in the realm of education, where limited access to quality learning opportunities becomes a pervasive impediment. This restriction not only hampers personal growth but also undermines the potential for professional advancement, perpetuating the cycle of poverty for many individuals.

Moreover, the challenges posed by subpar healthcare infrastructure and unsatisfactory sanitation conditions disproportionately afflict impoverished communities. This unfortunate reality translates into elevated morbidity and mortality rates, compounding the already dire circumstances of those living in poverty.

Additionally, poverty acts as a catalyst for social inequality, further accentuating the divide between the privileged and the marginalized. This growing chasm between the haves and the have-nots not only fosters disparities in wealth and access but also engenders social unrest and instability, posing a formidable challenge to societal harmony.

Furthermore, poverty in India has a regrettably enduring quality, often taking on the form of generational poverty. This means that the limited access to opportunities for improvement faced by one generation frequently extends its grip to the next, creating a cycle of impoverishment that is difficult to break, unless comprehensive measures are undertaken to address its underlying causes.

Also Check – Durga Puja Essay

Solutions to Remove Poverty

Investment in education and skill development initiatives holds the potential to empower individuals, equipping them with the knowledge and capabilities needed to access improved employment prospects and elevate their socioeconomic status.

Moreover, the government’s commitment to job creation, particularly in rural regions, through targeted initiatives can play a pivotal role in mitigating the pervasive challenges of unemployment and underemployment, offering hope to those seeking livelihood opportunities.

Furthermore, the expansion of social safety net programs, encompassing essential provisions such as food subsidies, healthcare access, and unemployment benefits, can serve as a critical safety cushion for marginalized and economically vulnerable populations, ameliorating their struggles and enhancing their overall well-being.

In addition, fostering rural development via dedicated efforts geared toward enhancing infrastructure, which includes the provision of clean water and sanitation facilities, can bridge the rural-urban gap by improving living conditions and boosting economic opportunities in traditionally underserved areas.

Similarly, instituting policies that prioritize progressive taxation and advocate for equitable wealth distribution is essential in addressing the issue of economic inequality, effectively reducing the wealth gap and promoting a fairer, more just society.

Lastly, the promotion of women’s empowerment, through the facilitation of educational and employment opportunities, stands as a potent strategy to combat poverty. This approach not only enhances women’s personal and financial autonomy but also contributes significantly to overall poverty reduction efforts.

Poverty in India is a big problem that has been around for a long time, and it causes many problems. To solve it, we need to use different ways and ideas. India has made progress, but we need to keep working hard, have good leadership, and make fair rules to help many people escape poverty and make society fairer. It’s not just the right thing to do; it’s also essential for India’s future growth and peace.

Poverty in India Essay 500 Words

Below we are covering Poverty in India Essay in 500 Words.

Poverty remains a daunting challenge in India, despite its remarkable economic growth. This essay explores the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to poverty in India essay in 500 words.

Causes of Poverty 

Several factors contribute to the persistence of poverty in India. Population growth, often considered a demographic dividend, exerts immense pressure on resources and infrastructure. Economic inequality widens the gap between the rich and poor, while unemployment and underemployment limit income opportunities. Inadequate access to quality education restricts job prospects, especially in rural areas. Additionally, the lack of affordable healthcare services amplifies the financial burden on impoverished individuals. Rural-urban disparities in infrastructure and opportunities further deepen the problem.

Consequences of Poverty 

Poverty in India manifests in various detrimental ways. Malnutrition is a pressing concern, particularly affecting children, leading to stunted growth and developmental challenges. Limited access to quality education hampers personal growth and economic mobility. Subpar healthcare infrastructure and sanitation conditions result in higher morbidity and mortality rates among impoverished communities. Social inequality widens, fostering disparities in wealth and access while fueling social unrest. The intergenerational nature of poverty perpetuates its grip, making it challenging to break free from its cycle.

Solutions to Remove Poverty 

Addressing poverty in India requires a multifaceted approach. Investment in education and skill development initiatives can empower individuals, enabling them to access better job opportunities and improve their socioeconomic status. The government’s commitment to job creation, particularly in rural areas, is vital for alleviating unemployment and underemployment.

Expanding social safety net programs, including food subsidies, healthcare access, and unemployment benefits, serves as a critical safety cushion for marginalized populations. Rural development efforts, including infrastructure improvements, can bridge the rural-urban gap and enhance economic opportunities in underserved areas.

Implementing policies that promote progressive taxation and equitable wealth distribution can reduce economic inequality and foster a fairer society. Additionally, empowering women through education and employment contributes significantly to poverty reduction efforts.

Conclusion 

Poverty in India remains a persistent challenge, but it is not insurmountable. Addressing poverty requires a concerted effort, including investment in education, job creation, social safety nets, rural development, and equitable policies. By tackling poverty comprehensively, India can work toward a fairer and more prosperous future for all its citizens.

Poverty in India Essay 250 Words

Below we are covering Poverty in India Essay in 250 Words.

Poverty is an enduring issue in India, coexisting alongside its economic growth. It signifies the inability to access basic necessities due to financial constraints. This Poverty in India Essay in 250 word covering poverty causes, consequences, and solutions.

Population Growth: Rapid population growth strains resources, making it hard to provide for all.

Economic Inequality: Uneven wealth distribution widens the gap between rich and poor.

Unemployment: High unemployment and underemployment rates limit income opportunities.

Education Gap: Limited access to quality education restricts job prospects, particularly in rural areas.

Healthcare Access: Lack of affordable healthcare leads to reduced income and increased expenses.

R ural-Urban Disparities: Disparities in infrastructure, education, and jobs deepen poverty.

Consequences

Malnutrition: Particularly among children, leading to stunted growth and developmental challenges.

Limited Education: Restricts personal growth and economic mobility.

Health Issues: Subpar healthcare and sanitation lead to higher morbidity and mortality.

Social Inequality: Amplifies wealth and access disparities, potentially leading to social unrest.

Education and Skills: Invest in education and vocational training to enhance employability.

Job Creation: Government-led job initiatives, especially in rural areas, can reduce unemployment.

Social Safety Nets: Expand food subsidies and healthcare access for marginalized populations.

Rural Development: Bridge the rural-urban gap through development and infrastructure investments.

Equitable Policies: Implement progressive taxation and wealth distribution policies.

Women’s Empowerment: Promote women’s education and employment for poverty reduction.

Poverty persists in India despite economic growth. Its causes include population growth, economic inequality, unemployment, limited education, healthcare access, and rural-urban disparities. Consequences range from malnutrition to social inequality. Poverty need not be a permanent feature of India’s landscape, and determined efforts can lead to a brighter and more inclusive future.

Poverty in India Essay FAQs

Poverty in India refers to a condition where individuals lack the financial means to meet basic necessities like food, shelter, education, and healthcare.

Urban poverty in India is increasing due to the rising population in cities, which strains resources and job opportunities, leading to more people living on the brink of poverty.

Consequences of poverty in India include inadequate housing, illiteracy, child labor, unemployment, poor hygiene, malnutrition, and a widening wealth gap.

The MPI, developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), measures poverty in India by considering various dimensions, including income, access to food, clean water, education, healthcare, and sanitation.

Causes of poverty in India include population growth, economic inequality, unemployment, limited access to quality education, inadequate healthcare infrastructure, and rural-urban disparities.

Heat Release Rate Formula – Definition, Formula, Solved Examples

Proper Nouns, Definition, Rules And Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

.st1{display:none} Related Articles

• Nagaland Board Result 2024 To be Announced Tomorrow Afternoon April 26
• Five Things to Consider before Picking a Stream
• CBSE Class 11 Chemistry Notes Chapter 9 Hydrogen PDF Download
• CBSE Class 11 Chemistry Notes Chapter 8 Redox Reactions
• CBSE Class 11 Chemistry Notes Chapter 1 Some Basic Concepts of Chemistry
• CBSE Class 11 Chemistry Notes Download Chapter Wise PDF
• HPBOSE 12th Result 2024 To be Announced on April 29 2024 @hpbose.org
• CBSE Class 11 Physics Notes Chapter 12 Thermodynamics
• CBSE Class 11 Physics Notes Chapter 11 Thermal Properties of Matter
• MP Board 10th 12th Topper List 2024 Out Stream Wise List

Essay on Poverty in India: Causes, Effects and Solutions

Poverty in India

Introduction: Poverty refers to a situation when people are deprived of basic necessities of life. It is often characterized by inadequacy of food, shelter and clothes. In other words, poverty refers to a state of privation where there is a lack of essential needs for subsistence.

India is one of the poorest countries in the world. Many Indian people do not get two meals a day. They do not have good houses to live in. Their children do not get proper schooling.

Poor people are the depressed and deprived class. They do not get proper nutrition and diet. Their conditions have not sufficiently improved even long after over 65 years of our Independence.

Poverty in urban India: Just like most of the growing and developing countries, there has been continuous increase in Urban population.

• Poor people migrate from rural areas to cities and towns in search of employment/financial activity.
• The income of more than 8 crore urban people is estimated to fall below poverty line (BPL).
• In addition to this, there are around 4.5 crore urban people whose income level is on borderline of poverty level.
• A income of urban poors is highly unstable. A large number of them are either casual workers or self-employed.
• Banks and Financial institutions are reluctant to provide them loan because of the unstable income.
• Five states that constitutes around 40% of all urban poor people of India are Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Odisha, and Madhya Pradesh.
• Around 35% of the total population of the four metro cities (Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai) consists of slum population.
• A large portion of people living in slums are illiterate.
• The initiatives taken to deal with the problem of urban poverty has not yielded the desired results.

Poverty in rural India: It is said that rural India is the heart of India. In reality, the life of people living in rural areas is marked with severe poverty. Inspite of all the efforts, the condition of poor villagers is far from satisfactory. The report on Socio-economic and Caste Census (2011) reveal the following facts:

• SCST: Of all the rural households, around 18.46 percent belongs to scheduled castes, and around 10.97 belongs to scheduled Tribes.
• Major source of income: Manual causal labour jobs and cultivation are the major sources of income for rural people. Nearly 51 percent of all households are economically engaged in manual casual labour and nearly 30 percent of them is engaged in cultivation.
• Deprived: Around 48.5 percent of rural households are deprived according to the census.
• Assets: Only 11.04 percent of families own a refrigerator while there is a vehicle (including two-wheeler, boat, etc. )in around 29.69 percent of the rural houses.
• Income Tax: Only 4.58 percent of rural households pay income tax.
• Land ownership: Around 56 percent of village households doesn’t own a land.
• Size of rural houses: The houses of around 54 percent rural families consists of either one or two-rooms. Out of them, around 13 percent lives in a one-room house.

Also read: Short essay on Poverty in Indian Villages

Causes of poverty

The growing population inflates the problem of poor techniques used in Agriculture. Further, there is unequal distribution of wealth. As a result, the poor people are often exploited by the wealthy community. The most important causes of Poverty in India are poor agriculture, growing Population, gap between rich and poor, corruption and black money.

Poor agriculture: India is mainly an agricultural country. About 80% people of our country depend on agriculture. But our agriculture is in a bad way. Farmers are poor and uneducated. They do not know the modern methods of farming. They have no good facilities of irrigation. They do not get seeds and fertilizers in time. Thus, the yield is poor. Agriculture is not profitable today. We face the shortage of food. We have to import it. So, poor agriculture is one of the causes of India’s poverty.

Growing population: Our population is growing rapidly. But our resources are limited. The growth in population creates problems for us. Today, our population is 1.20 billion; tomorrow we will be 1.21 billion and so on. We need more food, more houses, and more hospitals for them. So we have no money to spend on development projects. The ever-growing rate of population must be checked. If not, we may not be able to remove India’s poverty.

Gap between the rich and the poor: The widening gap between the rich and the poor is also responsible for India’s poverty. The rich are growing richer. The poor are growing poorer. This economic gap between the two must be reduced. Our social system should be changed. The poor people must get all help to reap the fruits of Independence.

Corruption and black-money: There are corruptions in every walk of life. There is inefficiency in offices. People have become selfish. They neglect the national interests. Black money causes the problem of rising prices. Some people have all the privileges. But many others are suffering. Black money affects our economy. It causes poverty.

Also read: Causes of Rural and Urban Poverty in India

Effects of poverty

• Illiteracy: Poor people constitutes greater share of illiterate population. Education becomes extremely difficult when people are deprived of basic necessities of life.
• Child Labor: In India, a large number of young boys and girls are engaged in child labour. Also read, article on Poverty and Child labour in India.
• Nutrition and diet: Poverty is the leading cause of insufficient diet and inadequate nutrition. The resources of poor people are very limited, and its effect can be seen in their diet.
• Poor living condition and Housing problems: The don’t get proper living conditions. They have to fight the hardship of poverty to secure food, clothes and shelter. A large number of poor families live in houses with one room only.
• Unemployment: Poor people move from villages to towns and form one town to another in search of employment/work. Since, they are mostly illiterate and un-skilled, there are very few employment opportunities open for them. Due to unemployment, many poor people are forced to live an unfulfilled life.
• Hygiene and sanitation: These people have little knowledge about hygiene and proper sanitation system. They are not aware of the harmful consequences of not maintaining proper hygiene. The government is taking initiatives to make available clean and safe water, and proper sanitation system to them.
• Feminization of poverty: Women are the worst victims of poverty. Poverty effects greater number of women then men. The total of poor women outnumbers the total population of poor men. The causes include low income, gender-inequality, etc. They are deprived of proper-diet, medicines and health treatment.
• Social tensions: Poverty is often characterized with income disparity and unequal distribution of national wealth between the rich and the poor. Concentration of wealth in the hands of few rich people lead to social disturbances and revolts. Fair or even distribution of wealth leads an overall improvement in general standard of living of people.

We have to solve this problem of India’s poverty.

• Farmers must get all facilities for irrigation.
• They should be trained and educated.
• Agriculture must be made profitable.
• The ever-rising population should be checked.
• Family planning schemes should be introduced.
• More and more industries should be set up to meet the needs of our country.
• Corruption must end. Our offices should work efficiently.

These are some of the ways  by which our poverty can be removed.

Also read: How to Stop Poverty in India

Poverty is a national problem and it must be solved on a war footing. The government is taking a number of steps to mitigate poverty. Eradication of poverty would ensure a sustainable and inclusive growth of economy and society. We all should do everything possible and within our limits to help alleviate poverty from our country.

Also read: Complete Essay on Poverty in India

Drainage System of Harappan Civilization (Indus Valley)

Essay on Water Pollution

Social Stratification: 12 Major Characteristics of Social Stratification

Remembering Dr. Vikram Sarabhai: A Visionary Pioneer of India’s Space Journey

Exploring the Advantages and Disadvantages of Tourism

Emperor Akbar: Architect of Harmony and Conquest

Adolf Hitler: A Dark Journey Through History

The promise in India’s National Quantum Mission

Tracking SDG progress the Bhopal way

India as a Quad-led biomanufacturing hub

Bare New World

What is financial independence and how can you achieve it?

Comments are closed.

Welcome, Login to your account.

Recover your password.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Your Article Library

Essay on the conditions of the urban poor in india.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Essay on the conditions of Urban Poor in India!

More and more people are migrating to urban areas either for employment or for education. Numbers of poor in urban areas are increasing fast. But only skilled persons in urban areas are having good living standard. Unskilled labourers are in the worst condition. They may not have regular job or work. Casually employed persons have to change work or find new work after sometime.

Image Courtesy : abhinavnirman.in/wp-content/uploads/101_1476.JPG

In urban areas, poor have to live in outskirts or slum areas. They are not having good houses to live in. The areas in which they live are not having well sanitation facilities. In rural areas, the sanitation is not well-maintained but then too, vast space help to dispose waste properly.

In matters of houses – habitation, the rural poor have large space to live in, while the urban poor have to live only in small houses. In urban areas, no proper light and air is available in houses. Density is more in urban areas in comparison to rural areas. So, urban poor have to face problems of unhealthy house-facilities.

Rural poor are having access to clean atmosphere in their natural environment. But their urban counterparts have to face pollution problems. Air, water and soil are polluted in urban areas. The noise pollution is another problem for urban poor.

Health of urban poor is always at risk. While rural poor, though not having more money to spend, but they are not facing much health problems. Urban poor are more prone to epidemics like dengue, malaria, cholera etc.

Social problems in rural poor are less grave than their urban counterpart. Urban poor are not having as good social cohesion as that of the rural poor.

They are more exposed to ill-habits like drinking, drugs, gambling etc. Other social evils also easily crept in the lives of urban poor.

Mental health is always at risk for urban poor as their life is more tense than that of the rural poor. More work and less rest, no social atmosphere, feeling of being backward etc. can make them mentally disturbed, in most cases.

Thus, it seems that rural poor are having better life than urban poor.

Related Articles:

• Rural and Urban Problems in India
• Poor Performance of Public Enterprises in India | Essay

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Compititive exams CTET, State TET, KVS, DSSSB, CUCET

Essay on Poverty in india 100, 200, 300, 500 words

Essay on poverty in india.

Essay on Poverty in India : Poverty is one of the major challenges that India has been grappling with for many decades. Despite the significant economic growth that India has seen in recent years, a large proportion of its population continues to live in abject poverty. Poverty is not just an economic issue but a social and cultural issue which affects the lives of people in many ways. In this essay, we will examine the causes and consequences of poverty in India and some of the measures taken to remove it.

1. lack of access to basic resources

2. unequal distribution of wealth., 3. lack of access to education, 4. overcome the issues of poverty, 5. significant challenge, affects of poverty, how to reduce it, essay on poverty in india 500 words, causes of poverty:, consequences of poverty:, essay on poverty in india 200 words, essay on poverty in india 100 words, causes of poverty in india.

Poverty in India is a complex issue for many reasons. One of the primary causes of poverty is lack of access to basic resources such as food, clean water, health care, and education. India is a country with a high population density, and a large proportion of its population lives in rural areas where access to these basic resources is limited. Additionally, India has a high rate of illiteracy and unemployment, which further adds to the problem of poverty.

Another important reason for poverty in India is the unequal distribution of wealth. A small fraction of the population has access to wealth and resources, while a vast majority live in poverty. This inequality is mainly due to historical and social factors that have led to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.

The consequences of poverty in India are serious and far-reaching. Poverty leads to malnutrition, disease and premature death, especially among children. It also results in lack of access to education, which perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Poverty also leads to social exclusion and discrimination, which further marginalises vulnerable communities.

To overcome the issue of poverty in India, the government has implemented several measures. One of the most important measures is the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA), which guarantees 100 days of employment to rural households. The government has also implemented various poverty alleviation programs such as the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM), Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) and Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY).

However, despite these measures, poverty remains a significant challenge in India. More investment is needed in basic resources such as education, health care and infrastructure. The government needs to address the issue of income inequality by implementing policies that promote equitable distribution of resources. Additionally, greater awareness and social action is needed to address the cultural and social factors that perpetuate poverty.

Conclusion : poverty in India is a complex and multidimensional issue that requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders. While the government has taken several measures to address poverty, more investment is needed in basic resources and policies that promote equitable distribution of wealth. Additionally, greater awareness and social action is needed to address the cultural and social factors that perpetuate poverty. Only through a concerted effort can India tackle the issue of poverty and achieve a more equitable and just society.

Definitely! Poverty in India is a vast and multidimensional problem affecting various aspects of people’s lives. Here are some additional facts and information on poverty in India:

1.Poverty rate: According to the World Bank, more than 134 million people in India live below the poverty line, which is defined as living on less than $1.90 per day. The poverty rate in India has decreased over the years, but it remains a significant challenge, especially in rural areas.

2. Rural-urban divide: Poverty in India is concentrated in rural areas, where access to basic resources is limited. According to a report by the National Sample Survey Office, rural poverty in India is twice that of urban poverty.

3. Education and Poverty: Education is an important factor in reducing poverty, as it helps individuals acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to secure better jobs and improve their standard of living. However, India has a high rate of illiteracy, which perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

4. Health and poverty: Poverty in India is associated with poor health outcomes, especially among children. Malnutrition is a widespread problem, with 34% of children under the age of five being underweight. Lack of access to clean water and sanitation also leads to the spread of diseases such as diarrhoea, cholera and typhoid.

5. Women and poverty: Women are more likely to live in poverty than men in India, mainly due to cultural and social factors that limit their access to education, health care and employment opportunities.

6. Social Safety Net: The Government of India has implemented various social safety net programs to address poverty, such as the Public Distribution System (PDS), which provides subsidized food grains to low-income households.

However, these programs have been criticized for their inefficiency and corruption.

7. Sustainable Development Goals: India is committed to achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality and promote sustainable development. To achieve these goals, the government has implemented various initiatives such as the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, which aims to provide access to clean water and sanitation.

In short, poverty in India is a vast and complex issue that requires a multi-pronged approach to address it. While progress has been made, more needs to be done to achieve a more equitable and just society

Alleviating poverty in India requires a concerted effort by various stakeholders including the government, civil society organisations, the private sector and individuals. Here are some measures that can help reduce poverty in India:

1.Investment in basic resources: Investment in basic resources such as education, health care, water and sanitation is necessary to reduce poverty. Ensuring that all citizens have access to these resources will help break the cycle of poverty.

2. Promotion of employment opportunities: Creating employment opportunities especially in rural areas will help in reducing poverty. The government can implement policies that promote the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the primary sources of employment in India.

3. Promoting Entrepreneurship: Encouraging entrepreneurship can help reduce poverty by creating more employment opportunities and promoting economic growth. The government can provide support to entrepreneurs through funding, training and other resources.

4. Promoting gender equality: Promoting gender equality will help reduce poverty, as women are more likely to live in poverty than men. The government can implement policies that promote women’s education, employment and participation in decision making.

5. Strengthening social safety net: The government may strengthen social safety net programs such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and the Public Distribution System (PDS) to ensure that benefits reach the intended beneficiaries.

6. Strengthening Governance: Corruption and inefficiency in governance are major barriers to poverty reduction. Government can strengthen governance by implementing policies that promote transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

7. Promote sustainable development: Promoting sustainable development can help reduce poverty in the long run. The government can implement policies that promote sustainable agriculture, renewable energy and environmental protection.

In conclusion, reducing poverty in India requires a multi-pronged approach involving various stakeholders. Ensuring access to basic resources, promoting employment and entrepreneurship, promoting gender equality, strengthening social safety nets, strengthening governance and promoting sustainable development are some of the measures that can do help reduce poverty in India.

Poverty in India is a widespread issue that affects a significant portion of the population. Despite economic growth in recent years, a large proportion of the population still lives in poverty, with inadequate access to basic necessities such as food, shelter and health care. Poverty in India is a complex problem caused by various factors such as caste discrimination, lack of education, unemployment and inadequate infrastructure.

Caste discrimination is one of the major causes of poverty in India. The caste system has existed in India for centuries and is deeply rooted in the social fabric of the country. People from lower castes are often discriminated against and denied access to basic resources and opportunities. This often leads to a cycle of poverty that is difficult to break.

Lack of education is another factor that contributes to poverty in India. Without access to education, people are unable to acquire the skills necessary to secure well-paying jobs. This keeps them stuck in low paying jobs with little hope of upward mobility. Apart from this, lack of education also leads to lack of awareness about basic health and hygiene practices, which leads to more diseases.

Unemployment is also an important contributor to poverty in India. Despite the government’s efforts to create jobs, the unemployment rate remains high, especially among the youth. This leads to a reduction in income, making it difficult for people to afford basic needs such as food, shelter and health care.

Inadequate infrastructure is another factor that increases poverty in India. Poor road network, inadequate health facilities and lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities are some of the basic infrastructure problems that affect people living in poverty. These problems make it difficult for people to access basic necessities and increase their vulnerability to diseases and other health problems.

Poverty in India is a complex problem that requires a multidimensional solution. Addressing issues such as caste discrimination, lack of education, unemployment and inadequate infrastructure can go a long way in reducing poverty in India. Additionally, the government needs to focus on creating more jobs and providing a better social safety net for those living in poverty. Only by adopting a comprehensive approach to reducing poverty can India hope to lift its citizens out of poverty and move towards a better future and their vulnerability to diseases and other health problems.

In conclusion, poverty in India is a complex problem that requires a multi-pronged solution. Addressing issues such as caste discrimination, lack of education, unemployment and inadequate infrastructure can go a long way in reducing poverty in India. The government needs to focus on creating more jobs and providing a better social safety net for those living in poverty. Only by adopting a comprehensive approach to poverty reduction can India hope to lift its citizens out of poverty and move towards a better future.

Essay on Poverty in India 300 words

Introduction:

Poverty is a multifaceted issue that has plagued India for centuries. Despite remarkable economic growth and development in recent decades, a significant portion of India’s population continues to grapple with poverty. This essay aims to shed light on the persistent problem of poverty in India, its causes, consequences, and potential solutions.

• Income Inequality: Income inequality is a major driver of poverty in India. The rich-poor divide is stark, with a small elite accumulating enormous wealth while a large section of the population struggles to make ends meet.
• Unemployment: High levels of unemployment, particularly in rural areas, contribute to poverty. Lack of access to quality education and skills training perpetuates this problem.
• Agricultural Dependence: A significant portion of the Indian population relies on agriculture for their livelihoods. Fluctuating crop yields, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of modern farming techniques make agriculture a precarious source of income.
• Social Factors: Caste-based discrimination and social exclusion continue to marginalize certain groups, making it difficult for them to escape the cycle of poverty.
• Healthcare: Poverty leads to inadequate access to healthcare, resulting in higher mortality rates and increased susceptibility to diseases.
• Education: Impoverished families often cannot afford education for their children, perpetuating a cycle of illiteracy and limited opportunities.
• Malnutrition: Poverty contributes to malnutrition, affecting physical and cognitive development, particularly in children.
• Crime and Social Unrest: High levels of poverty can foster crime and social unrest, as individuals may resort to illegal means for survival.
• Education and Skill Development: Investing in quality education and skill development programs can empower individuals to break free from the cycle of poverty.
• Rural Development: Improving infrastructure, agricultural techniques, and providing alternative livelihood options in rural areas can alleviate poverty.
• Social Welfare Programs: Expanding and improving social welfare programs, such as food subsidies, healthcare access, and direct cash transfers, can provide immediate relief to those in need.
• Reducing Income Inequality: Implementing progressive taxation and wealth redistribution policies can help bridge the income gap.
• Addressing Social Discrimination: Stricter enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and promoting social inclusion can reduce the impact of caste-based discrimination.

Conclusion:

Poverty remains a formidable challenge in India, affecting millions of people across the country. To eradicate poverty, it is essential to address its root causes, including income inequality, lack of education, and unemployment. A multi-pronged approach that combines economic development with social welfare programs and efforts to reduce discrimination is crucial to uplift the impoverished sections of society. Only through sustained efforts can India hope to overcome the scourge of poverty and provide a better future for all its citizens.

India, a country known for its rich cultural heritage and economic potential, also grapples with a severe and persistent issue – poverty. With a population of over 1.3 billion, India is home to one-third of the world’s poor. Poverty in India is a complex problem that has deep-rooted causes and far-reaching consequences.

One of the primary causes of poverty in India is the vast income inequality. While India has witnessed significant economic growth over the past few decades, this growth has not been inclusive. A small section of the population has reaped the benefits of economic progress, leaving a large majority of people behind. This inequality is exacerbated by factors such as lack of access to education, healthcare and job opportunities, especially in rural areas.

Furthermore, India’s high population density and limited resources make poverty a persistent challenge. The lack of basic infrastructure, inadequate sanitation facilities and unreliable access to clean drinking water further perpetuate poverty cycles.

Poverty in India has multifaceted consequences, affecting not only the economic well-being of individuals but also their health, education and overall quality of life. It also hinders the country’s overall development and social progress.

Addressing poverty in India requires a comprehensive approach that includes equitable economic policies, improved access to education and healthcare, rural development initiatives and social safety nets. Empowering marginalized communities, investing in skill development and promoting job creation can help break the cycle of poverty.

In conclusion, poverty remains a pressing issue in India, impacting millions of lives. It is essential for the government, civil society and international organizations to work collaboratively to address the root causes of poverty and uplift the disadvantaged populations, ensuring a brighter and more equitable future for all Indians.

Poverty in India remains a pressing issue with multifaceted challenges. Despite economic growth, a significant portion of the population still lives below the poverty line. Factors contributing to this include unequal distribution of wealth, limited access to quality education and healthcare, and a lack of employment opportunities, especially in rural areas. Additionally, social disparities, such as caste and gender discrimination, exacerbate the problem. Addressing poverty requires comprehensive strategies encompassing economic reforms, social programs, and inclusive development initiatives. By tackling these root causes, India can strive towards a more equitable society, improving the lives of millions and fostering sustainable growth.

Discover related topics:-

i. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development important MCQs

ii. Essay on World Earth Day | essay on save earth

iii. Renewable Energy Resources : types and availability

iv. 10 Analysis of Amendments to the Indian Constitution

v. Digital currency : Types Characteristics free PDF

Social sharing ⬇️

Related Posts

Essay on jallianwala bagh massacre 13 april 1919, essay on vaisakhi festival celebration, essay on rabindranath tagore free pdf, essay on world earth day | essay on save earth, essay on internet free pdf | paragraph on internet, importance of literacy essay 1800 words free pdf, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Schemes for Urban Poor

Urban Development is a State subject. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs assists the States / Union Territories (UTs) through its Missions / Schemes in urban areas- Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation 2.0 (AMRUT 2.0), Smart Cities Mission, Swachh Bharat Mission-Urban 2.0 (SBM-U 2.0), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U), Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NULM), PM Street Vendor’s AtmaNirbhar Nidhi (PM SVANidhi) and schemes under urban transport.

Ministry is implementing a Centrally Sponsored Scheme namely "Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NULM)" in the statutory towns of the country, to reduce poverty and vulnerability of urban poor households on a sustainable basis. Mission, inter-alia, aims to enabling urban poor to access gainful self-employment and skilled wage employment opportunities. Also, financial assistance is provided to individuals/groups / Self Help Groups (SHGs) of urban poor for setting up gainful self-employment ventures or micro-enterprises. Since 2014-15 till 30th November 2022, more than 13 lakh urban poor have been imparted skill training to enhance their employability, out of which more than 6.78 lakh skill trained have been placed under self and /or wage employment. Loans with the provision of interest subvention have been disbursed to more than 7.8 lakh beneficiaries for self-employment through individual or group micro-enterprises. More than 7.8 lakh Self-Help Groups have been formed, more than 5.36 lakh SHGs have been assisted with Revolving fund and 7.17 lakh loans have been disbursed under SHG bank Linkage Programme for taking up activities for improving incomes. Street Vendor Survey has been completed in 3,307 cities and towns, more than 49.93 lakh street vendors identified and more than 28.06 lakh street vendors have been provided ID Cards.  2,457 Shelters for Urban Homeless have been sanctioned under the Scheme and 1788 are operational.

Ministry is also implementing PM Street Vendor's AtmaNirbhar Nidhi (PM SVANidhi) Scheme since June 01, 2020, to facilitate micro-credit to street vendors in urban areas so that they can restart their businesses which were adversely affected during the Covid-19 pandemic. Under this scheme street vendors may avail a working capital loan of up to Rs. 10,000 followed by loans of Rs 20,000 and Rs. 50,000 in the second and third tranches respectively, on repayment of earlier tranche.  As on 08.12.2022, over 38 lakh loans amounting to Rs. 4405 cr. have been disbursed to street vendors across the country.    

Swachh Bharat Mission-Urban (SBM-U) was launched on 2.10.2014 and continued till 30.9.2021 with the objectives of (i) achieving 100% Open Defecation Free (ODF) status in all States and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) (ii) 100% scientific processing of all the municipal waste in the country and (iii) behavior change through Jan Andolan in all statutory towns. The outlay for the Mission was Rs.62,009 crores including  Government of India share of Rs. 14,623 crores. The Mission achieved significant levels of success against the declared objectives of the Mission, with massive engagement of citizens across all categories of societies. Under SBM-U, the individual households not having access to toilet were identified and 62,79,304 units of Individual House Hold Latrines (IHHL) were completed against the target of 58,99,637 IHHL Units.

Further, Atal Mission for Rejuvenation & Urban Transformation (AMRUT) 2.0 Mission aims to make cities ‘water secure’ and provide functional water tap connections to all households in all statutory towns across the country. It also targets universal coverage of sewerage & septage management in 500 AMRUT cities. Both AMRUT & AMRUT 2.0 are reducing the strain on urban poor through provision of basic amenities. The Mission through provision of tap connections is mitigating the hardships & reduces burden of poor. Improved sewerage & septage facilities reduce the disease load, health risks, enhancing the quality of their lives.

This information was given by the Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs, Shri Kaushal Kishore in a written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha today.