Alleviation: An International Journal of Nutrition, Gender & Social Development, ISSN 2348-9340, Volume 12, Issue No 12 (2024): 1-15 © Arya PG College (College with Potential for Excellence Status by UGC) & Business Press India Publication, Delhi http://apcjournals.com, www.aryapgcollege.ac.in

From Policy to Progress: Evaluating India’s Poverty Alleviation Efforts

Rashmi Tuli
Assistant Professor, Department of Economics
Pt. Chiranji Lal Sharma Government College, Karnal
(Haryana), India
Email: rashmi.tuli1984@gmail.com

Abstract

Poverty remains a persistent socio-economic issue in India, despite significant policy interventions and economic growth. This paper evaluates key poverty alleviation programmes implemented in India over the past few decades, examining their effectiveness, coverage, and challenges. Using a combination of secondary data, government reports, and academic evaluations, the study has identified critical gaps in implementation, targeting, and outcomes. The paper concluded with policy recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future poverty alleviation strategies.

Keywords: Poverty Alleviation, Socio-Economic, Social Inequality, Absolute Poverty, Relative Poverty.

Introduction
Poverty alleviation has been an important aspect of India's development agenda since independence. Despite several measures, poverty continues to affect a large proportion of the population. According to the World Bank, approximately 10 per cent of India's population remains below the international poverty level of $2.15 per day (PPP). The Indian government has developed a number of projects aimed at reducing poverty, including job creation, rural development, education, and food security. Poverty is a key focus of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly the first objective, which seeks to eliminate extreme poverty and reduce all forms of poverty globally by 2030.
Poverty in India
Poverty in India is a multifaceted and deeply rooted issue that has persisted for decades, affecting millions of people across the country. It is typically defined as a state in which individuals or communities lack the financial resources to meet the basic necessities of life—such as food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare. However, in a broader sense, poverty also includes lack of access to opportunities, social exclusion, and the inability to live a life with dignity.
India, despite being one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, still struggles with widespread poverty. According to various government and independent surveys, a significant portion of the population continues to live below the poverty line (BPL), which is determined based on income levels required to sustain minimum nutritional needs and essential services. The poverty line in India is periodically reviewed and differs slightly between rural and urban areas, as the cost of living varies.
There are two major types of poverty in India: absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty refers to a condition where a person cannot meet the minimum requirements needed to sustain a basic standard of living. Relative poverty, on the other hand, refers to economic inequality in the society where certain groups have significantly lower income or resources compared to others.
Absolute Poverty: Absolute poverty is a circumstance in which persons are unable to achieve the minimum standards of living, such as having access to appropriate food, clean drinking water, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and education. It is measured against a fixed threshold — often known as the poverty line — which does not change based on the society or country being studied. In India, absolute poverty is typically measured using income or consumption-based thresholds. Historically, these thresholds were defined by calorie intake — for instance, the Tendulkar Committee (2009) recommended poverty lines based on per capita expenditure that ensured a daily intake of 2,100 calories in urban areas and 2,400 calories in rural areas.
The NITI Aayog and earlier the Planning Commission have published estimates of the percentage of the population living below the poverty line. According to the World Bank, the international absolute poverty line is currently set at $2.15 per day (PPP) as of 2022.
Relative Poverty: On the other hand, relative poverty is defined in terms of the financial situation of other members of society. It refers to a situation where an individual’s income or consumption is significantly lower than the average or median income of the population, resulting in an inability to maintain the standard of living that is considered acceptable by society. Relative poverty is more focused on inequality and social exclusion. In India, where economic disparities are stark, relative poverty is a growing concern. While absolute poverty may be declining, income and wealth inequalities are increasing, with a small percentage of the population controlling a disproportionately large share of the nation’s wealth.
Several factors contribute to poverty in India. One of the primary causes is unemployment and underemployment. Many people, particularly in rural areas, rely on seasonal agricultural work which does not guarantee stable income throughout the year. The lack of education and vocational training further limits their opportunities to secure better-paying jobs. Additionally, population growth puts extra pressure on available resources, leading to competition for jobs, housing, and basic amenities.
Social inequality is another critical factor. Discrimination based on caste, gender, and religion often results in marginalized groups having limited access to education, healthcare, and job prospects. Many people in these groups remain trapped in a cycle of poverty, unable to escape due to systemic barriers.
Urban poverty is also rising due to increasing migration from rural areas in search of better employment opportunities. Unfortunately, many migrants end up living in slums with poor sanitation, inadequate housing, and no access to clean water or education for their children.
Objectives of the Study
1) To evaluate the effectiveness of major poverty alleviation programmes in India.
2) To assess their impact on the socio-economic status of the targeted population.
3) To identify the challenges in implementation.
4) To provide policy recommendations for improving programme outcomes.
Methodology
This study relies on secondary data from government sources (NITI Aayog, Ministry of Rural Development), Evaluation reports from agencies like the planning commission, world bank, and academic institutions and comparative analysis of performance indicators like poverty ratio, employment rate, and access to basic services.
1. Measuring Absolute Poverty in India
i) The Tendulkar Committee (2009) uses consumption expenditures to calculate poverty lines.
ii) In recognition of growing living expenses, the Rangarajan Committee (2014) recommended a higher poverty threshold than Tendulkar.
iii) The National Family Health Surveys (NFHS) provide information on deprivations such access to healthcare, poor sanitation, and malnutrition.
2. Measuring Relative Poverty in India
i) Gini Coefficient: Astatistical measure of inequality commonly used to assess income or wealth inequality.
ii) Consumption Inequality: NSSO surveys provide data on consumption expenditure across income groups.
iii) Access to Social Infrastructure: Disparities in education, internet access, and urban-rural healthcare facilities reflect relative poverty
Results and Discussion
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) collaborated to produce the Multidimensional Poverty Index in 2010. MPI accounts for deprivations across three equally weighted variables, in contrast to traditional poverty metrics that are based just on income or consumption. Three indicators are used by the MPI: Health (Includes nutrition and child mortality) , Standard of living (Includes access to housing, cooking fuel, drinking water, sanitation, power, and other necessities to assess the degree of poverty) and Education ( Includes years of education and attendance at school).

Poverty alleviation has been a central focus of India's development agenda since independence. Over the decades, the Indian government has implemented a multitude of programs aimed at reducing poverty and improving the socio-economic conditions of its citizens. These initiatives have evolved in response to changing economic landscapes, demographic shifts, and emerging challenges. This comprehensive overview delves into the major poverty alleviation programs in India, examining their objectives, implementation strategies, achievements, and the challenges they face.
To address poverty, the Indian government has implemented various schemes and programs which are aimed to provide employment, affordable housing, food security, and financial assistance to the poor. Non-governmental organizations and international bodies have also played a crucial role in poverty alleviation. These schemes and programs are as follows:
1) The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)
Enacted in 2005, MGNREGA is a landmark legislation that provides a legal guarantee of at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The primary objective is to enhance livelihood security in rural areas while creating durable assets such as roads, canals, and ponds. Employment under MGNREGA is a legal right. If work is not provided within 15 days of application, the applicant is entitled to an unemployment allowance. At least one-third of the beneficiaries are women, promoting gender equality and empowerment. The program is implemented by Gram Panchayats, ensuring local participation and accountability. Despite its successes, MGNREGA faces challenges such as delayed wage payments, corruption, and inadequate planning at the local level. Ensuring timely fund allocation and strengthening monitoring mechanisms are essential for its effectiveness.
1) Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)
Launched in 2015, PMAY aims to provide affordable housing to the urban and rural poor by 2022. The scheme has two components: PMAY Urban (PMAY-U) and PMAY Gram (PMAY-G). PMAY-Urban (PMAY-U) focuses on the urban poor, including slum dwellers, by providing central assistance to implementing agencies through states and union territories for constructing houses. PMAY-Gramin (PMAY-G) focuses on providing pucca houses with basic amenities to the rural poor. The scheme emphasizes the use of local materials and eco-friendly technologies. The scheme has significantly contributed to improving living standards and reducing homelessness. PMAY faces challenges such as land acquisition issues, delays in fund disbursement, and ensuring the quality of construction. Addressing these challenges requires coordinated efforts between central and state governments.
3) National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP)
Launched in 1995, NSAP is a welfare program that provides cash help to the elderly, widows, and people with disabilities who live below the poverty level. The system has played an important role in creating a safety net for the most vulnerable members of society, maintaining a basic degree of financial stability. The scheme faces issues such as inadequate pension amounts,
delays in payments, and exclusion errors. Enhancing the efficiency of delivery mechanisms and increasing the pension amounts are necessary steps forward.
4) Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Antyodaya Yojana (DAY)
Launched in 2014, DAY aims to alleviate urban and rural poverty through skill development and self-employment opportunities. The scheme has two components namely National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM) that focuses on organizing urban poor into self-help groups, providing skill training, and facilitating access to credit for self-employment and National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) that targets the rural poor, especially women, by promoting self-help groups and federations, providing skill training, and enabling access to financial services. DAY has been successful in mobilizing millions of women into self-help groups, enhancing their income-generating capacities, and promoting financial inclusion. The scheme faces challenges such as varying implementation capacities across states, limited market linkages, and the need for continuous skill upgradation. Strengthening institutional support and fostering public-private partnerships can enhance its impact.
1) Public Distribution System (PDS) and Food Security
The PDS is a government-managed food security system that distributes subsidized food grains to the poor. The National Food Security Act (NFSA), which was passed in 2013, seeks to give subsidized food grains to around two-thirds of India's population.The NFSA identifies priority households and provides them with 5 kg of food grains per person per month at subsidized rates. The PDS has played a vital role in ensuring food security, especially during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, by providing essential food supplies to the vulnerable. Despite reforms, issues like exclusion errors, quality of food grains, and inefficiencies in the supply chain persist. Continuous monitoring and technological interventions are necessary to enhance its effectiveness.
Other Notable Schemes
1) Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY): Launched in 2014, PMJDY seeks to promote financial inclusion among the impoverished by granting universal access to banking facilities.
2) Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY): Initiated in 2016, PMUY provides LPG connections to women from below poverty line households, promoting clean cooking fuel usage.
3) Saubhagya Scheme: Launched in 2017, the scheme aims to achieve universal household electrification, improving the quality of life in rural areas.
4) Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM): Launched in 2014, SBM focuses on eliminating open defecation and promoting cleanliness, contributing to improved health outcomes.
Challenges in Poverty Related Schemes
India's multifaceted approach to poverty alleviation encompasses a range of programs targeting various dimensions of poverty, including employment, housing, social security, skill development, and basic services. While these initiatives have yielded significant progress, challenges such as implementation gaps, resource constraints, and systemic inefficiencies remain. Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort involving policy reforms, capacity building, technological integration, and community participation. A holistic and inclusive strategy is essential to achieve the goal of eradicating poverty and ensuring sustainable development for all.
India, despite being one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, continues to grapple with widespread poverty. Since independence, successive governments have launched numerous poverty alleviation programmes aimed at improving the standard of living for the underprivileged. However, the persistent high levels of poverty suggest that these initiatives have largely failed to achieve their intended objectives. This failure can be attributed to a combination of factors as follows:
1) Poor Implementation and Planning
One of the foremost reasons for the failure of these programmes is the lack of proper planning and implementation. Often, schemes were launched without adequate groundwork or understanding of local needs. The top-down approach adopted by policymakers failed to account for regional diversities, cultural contexts, and ground realities. As a result, the programmes lacked local relevance and failed to generate the desired impact. Moreover, the frequent changes in policies and lack of continuity in government schemes have undermined long-term goals. Each new government has tended to introduce new programmes rather than strengthening and improving existing ones, leading to duplication of efforts and wastage of resources.
2) Corruption and Leakages
Corruption has been a significant impediment in the effective execution of poverty alleviation schemes. A substantial portion of funds allocated for these programmes is often siphoned off by intermediaries, leaving the intended beneficiaries with little or no support. Ghost beneficiaries, inflated bills, fake job cards under MGNREGA, and misappropriation of funds are common instances that highlight the deep-rooted corruption in the system. The Public Distribution System (PDS) was designed to deliver subsidized food grains to the needy, is a classic example of a well-intentioned programme marred by corruption and inefficiency. Leakages in the system, black marketing, and diversion of supplies have rendered the scheme ineffective in many regions.
3) Bureaucratic Inefficiencies
The bureaucratic machinery responsible for executing these programmes is often inefficient and unaccountable. Delay in disbursal of funds, lack of coordination between departments, inadequate monitoring mechanisms, and poor infrastructure are some of the challenges that plague the implementation process. The absence of a robust grievance redressal system further alienates the poor from accessing these services.
4) Inadequate Targeting and Coverage
Most poverty alleviation programmes suffer from poor targeting. The identification of beneficiaries is often flawed, resulting in the exclusion of deserving candidates and inclusion of the non-poor. This misidentification not only undermines the credibility of the programmes but also leads to skewed outcomes. Furthermore, many schemes fail to cover the urban poor adequately. The focus has predominantly been on rural poverty, neglecting the growing number of poor people in urban areas who face different sets of challenges, such as lack of housing, sanitation, and access to quality education and healthcare.
5) Political Interference and Vote-Bank Politics
Political interference and the use of poverty alleviation programmes for electoral gains have also contributed to their failure. Instead of being designed and implemented based on objective criteria and needs assessment, these programmes are often tailored to serve political interests. Distribution of benefits is sometimes influenced by caste, religion, or political affiliation, which distorts the intended purpose of the schemes.
6) Lack of Integration and Holistic Approach
Poverty is a multi-dimensional issue that requires a comprehensive and integrated approach. However, most poverty alleviation programmes in India operate in silos and address only specific aspects such as employment or food security. There is a lack of convergence among various schemes, which limits their effectiveness. For instance, employment generation schemes without adequate support for skill development or education do not lead to sustainable outcomes. An integrated approach that combines livelihood opportunities, education, healthcare, housing, and social security is essential for meaningful poverty reduction. Unfortunately, the fragmented nature of the existing schemes hampers such an approach.
7) Socio-Cultural Barriers
Socio-cultural factors such as caste discrimination, gender inequality, and social exclusion also play a critical role in the failure of poverty alleviation programmes. Marginalized communities often face multiple layers of discrimination that prevent them from accessing the benefits of these programmes. Social stigma, lack of mobility, and patriarchal norms further restrict their participation and empowerment.
Ground Realities
Several ground-level studies and reports have highlighted the discrepancies between policy promises and actual outcomes. For example, the MGNREGA, which guarantees 100 days of wage employment, has often failed to provide the mandated number of workdays. In many cases, wages are delayed, and the quality of assets created is substandard. Similarly, in urban areas, schemes like the National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM) have not reached the majority of urban poor due to bureaucratic hurdles and lack of awareness.
Recommendations for Improvement
To enhance the effectiveness of poverty alleviation programmes, several steps need to be taken:
1) Decentralized Planning
Empowering local governments and communities to design and implement programmes based on local needs and conditions can improve relevance and effectiveness.
2) Transparency and Accountability
Strengthening transparency through digital platforms, social audits, and independent evaluations can help reduce corruption and improve service delivery.
3) Better Targeting
Using data-driven approaches and technology for accurate identification of beneficiaries can minimize exclusion and inclusion errors.
4) Capacity Building
Training and capacity building of implementing agencies, along with increased awareness among beneficiaries, can enhance participation and outcomes.
5) Convergence of Schemes
Integrating various schemes and adopting a holistic approach that addresses multiple dimensions of poverty can lead to sustainable development.
6) Political Will and Good Governance
Ensuring that poverty alleviation remains a priority beyond electoral rhetoric requires strong political will and good governance practices.
7) Focus on Urban Poverty
Expanding the scope and coverage of urban poverty programmes to address the unique challenges of urban poor is essential.
8) Addressing Social Inequalities
Special efforts must be made to include marginalized groups and address the structural inequalities that perpetuate poverty.
Conclusion
The failure of poverty alleviation programmes in India is a complex issue rooted in systemic inefficiencies, socio-political dynamics, and structural inequalities. While the intent behind these programmes is commendable, their execution leaves much to be desired. A reimagined approach that emphasizes participatory planning, transparency, inclusivity, and integration is crucial for making a real difference in the lives of the poor. Only then can India hope to transform its economic growth into equitable and inclusive development.
References
1) Dreze J and Khera R (2017) Recent Social Policy Initiatives in India. Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800699or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2800699.
2) Ravallion M (2016) The Economics of Poverty: History, Measurement, and Policy. England: Oxford University Press.
3) Sachs JD (2005) The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin Press.
4) Sen A (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press. England: Oxford University Press.
5) Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living. Oakland: University of California Press.
6) https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.html.
7) https://microdata.gov.in › Home › Central Data Catalog
8) https://www.niti.gov.in › verticals › rural-development.
9) https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/income-inequality.html.
10) https://www.worldbank.org › publication › poverty-and-.