A narrow focus

The recent National Sample Survey (NSS) economic census of rural households would have been an elating experience for all concerned, given the fall in rural poverty levels it reflects. That is, had it not been for the uncomfortable feeling that with beneficiaries of government subsidisation getting more stringently shortlisted, the cost of living index (used for this survey), has to capture contemporary relevant trends better than it is currently doing. This is absolutely essential, if the benefits of the Centre's self-employment and poverty alleviation schemes are to reach the actual targeted segments, and all of them, which is what the survey is meant for.

No one would challenge the current survey's findings signalling a perceptible fall in poverty levels, especially in states like Maharashtra and Gujarat, and union territories like Daman and Diu. Even a cursory glance at the rising rural disposable incomes and consumer spending, largely a result of the success of the Food for Work and Employment Guarantee Scheme in the case of Maharashtra, would testify to that. The survey is also important in that it sends out a message to all states about the virtues of good administration-one cannot explain away the success of Daman and Diu as a result of their being either directly-administered union territories, industrial tax shelters, or, even their small, manageable size. Dadra and Nagar Haveli, also in the same category, have fared poorly.

But the typical lacuna in such studies--and the NSS one is no exception--is that they merely provide a monolithic picture of a state instead of going ahead to also capture qualitative regional and temporal nuances. This lapse can be eliminated only by taking into account factors such as price variations across a single state (for example, Rs 1200 cannot be a uniform BPL cut-off point all over Maharashtra) and changing baskets of consumption as in the case of Giffen's goods. The survey also needs to take into account dispersion levels rather than concentration of facilities such as drinking water, infrastructure facilities and education as well, given the fact that the very concept of poverty and basic needs have undergone a change.

Unfortunately, such studies continue with the anachronistic trend of according too much weightage to factors such as nutrition, which is better satisfied everywhere today than it was five years ago. People are no longer considered as living above BPL if its only their nutritional needs that have been fully met.

The other need is to insist on all states submitting their reports on time so that plan fund allocation can be better--only eight states have done it so far. What can be a meaningful social security exercise should not be allowed to degenerate into statistical sophistry.

Top

Printer-friendly page