Dalits - Chronically Poor

Poverty in India: SCs/STs are Stay Chronically Poor

Evidence from recent research

The concept of chronic poverty refers to a situation where people remain poor for much longer period of time and, many of them also pass their poverty to next generation.  They may have poor access to productive capital assets, employment, and possess lower human capability in terms of education and health status and face social and political marginality that keeps them poor over long period. Thus the chronic poverty is understood in terms of assets, capabilities and claims rather than monetary poverty alone (The Chronic Poverty Report 2004 –2005).These multiple interacting factors lead to the persistence of chronic poverty.

The recent research findings presented at the seminar on Chronic Poverty at Delhi organized by Chronic Poverty Research Centre India (Indian Institute of Public Administration) during 29-30 September 2005 reveals that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs), are worst suffers of this kind and stay chronically poor in rural areas.  

Persistent Poverty – Why do SCs/STs Stay Chronically Poor – a paper presented by   Prof. S.K. Thorat and M. Mahamallik found that though during 1980-2000, the incidence of rural poverty in terms of head count ratio declined, but simultaneously, there exist significant variations among the states in terms of the rate of change among different social groups. The rural poverty among the SCs and STs declined at a lower per annum rate as compared with All Indian average and also with Non SC/ST social group. Similarly the poverty also decline at a slower rate in most of the state for SCs and STs compare to other social group across all the States (the exception being HP, Kerala, and MP, wherein the rate of decline is similar for SC and Non-ST/SC).

The result shows that in 1983 the incidence of rural poverty among the SC turns out to be much higher than other groups -it being 58 % for SC and 46 % for others respectively, at All India level. The disparity was much higher for Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. The magnitude of poverty was about two and half and three time higher among the SC as compared with others in Punjab and Haryana respectively. The poverty among the SC was two time higher in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. By comparison the disparity in the poverty level of SC and others was relatively low in UP, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Assam. It was close to All India average of 1.6 in rest of the states.

In the case of ST and other group the poverty gap was still higher. In 1983 as against a poverty level of 37 % among others, the poverty turns out to as high as 64 % among the ST, almost seventy percent higher than other group. The disparity between ST and other was particularly high in Mizoram (6.5), followed by Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Karnataka. The disparity was relatively low in A.P. West Bengal, Bihar and Assam. In rest of the states it was close to national average of 1.7.

The regional analysis for the recent period of 1999-2000 is indicative of the concentration of poverty in some regions of India. The States of Bihar, Orissa, and MP turn out to be regions of high poverty, and with the exception of one or two States, the same group of States figure amongst the States with a high poverty for SC, ST and Non SC/ST. If all States with incidences of high poverty are clustered together then a group of five States namely, Bihar, Orissa, MP, UP and WB turn out to be pockets of high poverty in 1999-2000. It should also be mentioned that as far as incidences of high poverty is concerned, the same set of States constituted regions of high poverty in 1983-84 and 1993-94, although they interchanged their ranks between the fourth and the fifth position respectively. Thus, as far as the rural poverty is concerned a group of five States comprising of Bihar, Orissa, MP, UP, and WB figure among the major States in India with persistently high degree of poverty at over all level, and also among the different social groups during 1980’s, 1990’s, and early 2000.

The authors observed that among other factors the chronic poverty is caused by low economic growth, inequality, social exclusion, and failures of the state. Among these factors however, inequality and social exclusion are particularly critical for persistence of chronic poverty among socially marginalized groups. Evidence indicates that the quality of growth in terms of its distributional impact to a greater extent is determined by initial level of inequality. The economic growth with a high initial inequality is found to be less effective at reducing chronic poverty. In an ownership structure marked with high degree inequality the economic opportunities are narrow and the chronically poor experience few benefits from growth.

Further they made three inferences as far as inter-States variations in changes in rural poverty among SC and Non-ST/SC between 1983-2000, are:

Firstly, a set of identical States namely Orissa, MP, and Bihar, which also happen to be high poverty States, indicate a lower decline in rural poverty during 1983-2000 for all the social groups.

Secondly, another set of identical States (Kerala, AP, Gujarat, Punjab, and Rajasthan), indicate a high incidence of decline in rural poverty for SC and Non SC/ST. Incidentally, these are States with low to medium poverty ratios. Therefore, the low poverty States have performed much better as compared to high poverty States in terms of reduction in poverty during 1983-2000 in the case of SC and Non-ST/SC.

Thirdly, in the case of  ST the rural poverty  declined at a higher rate in the States of Mizoram, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Gujarat, and Manipur and these States are low poverty States. The pace of decline in high poverty States such as MP, Orrisa, Bihar, and Assam was slow. Therefore, for the ST too, the high poverty States seem to have performed badly in reducing rural poverty.

To summaries the results for Non-SCs/STs, it is clear that the factors such as cultivator capital assets per households, employment rate and agriculture wages are particularly important. Given the greater access to capital assets like agricultural land and other capital assets, it plays significant role in reducing the rural poverty of the Non-SCs/STs groups. For instance in 1993.94 the percentage of cultivator among the non sc/st was about 40 % as against 25 % among the SC. Similarly the availability of capital assets per household among Non-SCs/STs was Rs 134500/- as against Rs. 49189/- and Rs. 52660/-among the SCs and STs respectively. In 1999/2000 the percentage of cultivator among the Non-SCs/STs was about 47 % as against 27 % for SCs. Therefore variables associated with ownership of capital assets   such as agricultural worker (which include beside agriculture labor, also the cultivator), employment rate   and agricultural wages revealed significant poverty reducing impact in case Non-SCs/STs.

It may be mentioned that some factors which do not appear as predominantly as in the case of SC and ST have also acquired prominence for Non-SCs/STs. For instance, urbanization, diversification of employment in favor non-farm jobs, non-farm wages, and literacy, which have been important in the case of SC and ST, also figure prominently for the Non SC/ST group as important poverty reducing factors in some years.

But unlike SC/ST, in the case of Non SC/ST, ownership of capital assets, in terms of capital assets per household and percentage of cultivator are still the most important in reducing the incidence of rural poverty. Given the lack of access to fixed capital assets, particularly the agricultural land, they do not   figure prominently in the case of SC and ST.

These results have specific policy implications particularly for the poverty alleviation of SC and ST. The policy lessons relates to the development of agriculture as well as non-agricultural sector. Within the rural economy it calls for improvement in access of SC to agricultural land, and for improvement in agricultural wages. Since about three-fourths of the SC continue to be landless and near landless, the distribution of agriculture land will definitely serve as some sort of social security. But despite this, a overwhelming percentage of them will continue to depend on wage employment in agriculture.  At present about 65 percent of SC rural households are wage labourer and therefore policies of improvement of agriculture employment are essential. However, the availability of employment with living wage is also equally necessary. This calls for employment and wage policy to enhance agriculture employment and living wages. It is necessary to recognize that what is required is full employment round the year. At present the rural unemployment rate based on the usual principal status, and usual principle and subsidiary status are less than 1 percent, but those based on current and daily status are four to five times more, indicating severe underemployment. Therefore, the current weekly and daily status employment/unemployment rates appeared in the poverty regression in one or the other forms as a critical indicator in poverty reduction. Within agriculture sector, where about 55 percent SC households are engaged as wage labour household, a policy of expansion of reasonable full employment with living wages is critical minimum for poverty elevation.

Policy implications of the results for non-farm sector- rural and urban are more important than those for the agriculture sector, as during all the three periods under study, regression results clearly bring out the significant poverty reducing impact of higher level of urbanization, non-agricultural employment, and non- agricultural wages, and therefore a policy that can promote non-agriculture sector with employment potential and living wage earning is very necessary. The results also clearly bring out the poverty reducing impact of different levels of education. It implies that the ability to take advantage of employment opportunities outside agriculture in rural and non-farm sector will be critically determined by educational and skill development of the SC persons. The results thus, bring out the need of educational measures supporting post-primary school education and skill development of the SC population.

In the case of the ST, given their overwhelming dependence on rural economy, particularly agriculture and allied sector in rural area, higher rural employment along with agricultural wage rate become necessary. One of the advantages of the ST as a social group is their relatively better access to land. But none of the indicators of access to agricultural land show significant impact on rural poverty, presumably due to the low productivity from land. Therefore, concerted efforts are necessary to increase the productivity in agriculture through the introduction of better technology and other measures.

As observed before over time the factors like growing urbanization and non-farm employment have also become important for ST. But these positive processes are not sufficiently strong enough to reduce the overwhelming dependence of the tribal community on agriculture in rural areas. So sustained efforts are required to increase the participation of the ST in non-farm economic activities. In order to facilitate their participation in the non-farm sector, like in the case for the SC, policies of educational and skill improvement for the ST are particularly necessary.
 

Reviewed by S. Venkatesan