This time around, theyve been joined by worthies like the suave legal eagle Kapil Sibal who, after having held jobs like the countrys science minister is now in charge of telecom and IT. The poverty line used by the government, from BJPs former finance minister Yashwant Sinha to Kapil Sibal, they say is false, fake, untrue. While Sibals trashing of the poverty line is aimed at perhaps justifying his leaders ultra-expensive Food Security Bill, Sinha is suggesting the government has kept a lower poverty line to jazz up its record in poverty reduction.
It is unfortunate Sinha forgets his government used even lower poverty lines to show how poverty reduction had increased in its tenureBJPs lower poverty line showed 27.5% of people to be poor in FY05 and this was later hiked to 37.2% when the Tendulkar poverty lines were introduced by the UPA. In any case, with over 90% of the countrys 270 million poor living in rural areas, what bananas cost in Gulmohar Park, or Jor Bagh for that matter, is immaterialalso, about 40% of the poors cereals come from vastly subsidised PDS shops. What is equally shocking is that few have bothered to keep in mind that Indias poverty line is the same as that used by agencies such as the World Bankat $1.25 PPP dollars a day, this is the same as Tendulkars.
Equally worrying is that none are concerned about the fact that, if the Tendulkar poverty line is R872 per month, India needs government subsidies of R2,80,000 crore per year to have zero povertyassuming, incorrectly, that the poor earn absolutely nothingyet we have 270 million poor persons Maybe the spending isnt doing much to remove poverty since we spent R2,30,000 crore on subsidies in FY14, and the amount has been growing, from 1.2% of GDP in FY01 to 2.6% in FY13.
The question gets even more evocative when we increase the poverty line to take into account, say, the cost of bananas in Gulmohar Park. In any case, there can be no doubt, just measuring poverty in terms of what food people can eat is outdated. Poverty levels need to be measured in terms of access to education, to health facilities, to drinking water
Lets say we double the poverty line to R21,000 per year, so where do we get the money to help them not be poor Presumably the government cant afford to double its annual spend to R5,65,000 crorethe levels of theft in the system havent really improvedso what do we do
How does someone get R21,000 per year or R1,05,000 for a family of 5 Short of more jobsand between FY10 and FY12, NSS data suggests 14 million new jobs got createdthere is no other solution, not even better targeting of subsidies. An interesting proposal, in this context, is that of the textiles industry which, thanks to rigid labour laws, remains in the unorganised sector and so loses out on global market share to countries like Bangladesh as big buyers prefer to deal with large organised sector suppliers. Textiles and readymade garments is a seasonal industry and so cannot afford to keep workers on its rolls the full year, something the law requires for the organised sector. So, the industry proposed a double MGNREGAa minimum of 200 days of employment each year and at R200 per daywhich the government turned down. Had this been done, each family would have ended up earning R80,000 per year assuming 2 persons were employed, or 8 times the current Tendulkar poverty line! Keep in mind while evaluating the proposal that while MGNREGA produces just 1% of all jobs in the country, textiles contributes to around 8-9% and could very easily increase this further with the required flexibility.
The growth versus dole debate gets even more sterile when you look at the essential characteristics of the poor. According to analysis by Institute for Human Developments visiting professor Rajesh Shukla, Indias foremost expert on income demographics, just 2% of the poorest 20% are salaried while 63% are labourersthe figures are 46% and 4% for the richest fifth of the population. The cure, then, is to get more people to graduate from being labourers to being salariedthat means more industrialisation, more services. Just 7% of the poor are graduates as compared to 53% for the richest fifththat means more education is required, not more food security. Just 3% of the poor are employed in the modern services sector as compared to 35% for the richonce again, this means more education and ways to increase the spread of the services sector. Slice it any way you like, the only thing that can help remove poverty is more jobs.