*** A friend forwarded this to me. While I do not understand the statistical jargon, the overall picture painted is all too familiar . It also busts the popular myth among Delhi-defenders about how Delhi is not responsible - the states are -- for managing the disbursement of development funds, like some of us always knew.
cm > > > UNITED NATIONS MILLENNIUM CAMPAIGN (India) > > > INAUGURAL ADDRESS > > > > Millennium Development Goals: > > THE MAJOR LACUNA > > > Mani Shankar Aiyar, MP (Rajya Sabha) > > Former Union Minister of Panchayati Raj, 2004-06 > > > British Council, > > Kasturba Gandhi Marg, > > New Delhi – 110 001 > > > > 1730 hours Sunday, 12 September 2010 > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am truly grateful to the United Nations Millennium Campaign (India) for > giving a notorious sceptic like me the indubitable honour of inaugurating > this series of nation-wide presentations on the eight component elements of > the Millennium Development Goals adopted by Heads of Government at the United > Nations at the commencement of this millennium and dedicated to the > overarching aim of substantially ridding our planet of the scourge of poverty > within the first fifteen years of this new century. > > > We are now into ten years of the 15-year programme and the UN General > Assembly is scheduled to review, at its forthcoming annual session commencing > later this month, the progress made towards achieving the noble objectives of > the MDG. The Government of India, responsible for harbouring the largest > number in the world of the desperately poor, the poor, the marginally poor, > the vulnerable and the hungry, has, of course, been in the forefront of > informing the international community of our performance. Our MDG Country > Report was released by the Hon’ble Vice-President on 29 June 2010. > > > Goal no. 1 is the “eradication of extreme poverty and hunger”. The other > seven goals address other supporting dimensions of multi-dimensional poverty > such as universalising primary education; promoting gender equality; > drastically reducing child mortality; promoting maternal health; combating > deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS and malaria; ensuring environmental > sustainability; and forging a global partnership for development. This series > of lectures will range across the entire spectrum of MDGs. I propose in this > inaugural Address to concentrate on the major systemic lacuna which, I > believe, unless addressed with great urgency, will cripple all our endeavours > to even vaguely approximate to the achievement of the Millennium Development > Goals. > > > To set the stage for a discussion on this major systemic lacuna, let me > explore first the Indian performance and prospects in regard to the key > target prescribed by the MDG: the reduction by half of those living on less > than a dollar a day calculated at purchasing power price and also reducing by > half the proportion of people suffering from hunger. > > > The India Country Report says it is not “plausible” to estimate the number of > people surviving on under a dollar a day. This is because we are perhaps the > only country in the world to calculate poverty ratios in terms of reported > consumption expenditure rather than income earned. We also do not favour > categorising the poor into different brackets of consumption expenditure but > resort to a cut-off figure of Rs.12 per day in rural and Rs.17 per day in > urban areas, to then establish that in the thirty years from 1973-74 to > 2004-05 poverty has indeed diminished by half, from 55 to 27 per cent of our > population. > > > What proportion of those sprung from the poverty trap have gone just across > the Rs.12 threshold from a consumption expenditure of Rs. 11 a day thirty > years ago to Rs. 13 a day thirty years later is, alas, not revealed. Since we > do not categorise consumption beyond the singular National Poverty Line, > everyone is either BPL (Below Poverty Line) or APL (Above Poverty Line). In > consequence, the darwan standing outside the Reliance office is APL; so also > are the Ambanis within. Similarly, several hundred million households that > are vulnerable because the least illness or ill-fortune will plunge them back > below the official poverty line within weeks are classified as APL and only > the utterly destitute are classified as BPL. The figures are stark: over 47% > of our children under five years of age are from severely to moderately > malnourished, the tragic consequence of about 9 out 10 pregnant Indian women > suffering from moderate to severe anaemia. The severely malnourished and > anaemic are BPL; the moderately malnourished and anaemic are APL. Except in > the Arjun Sengupta Committee Report (August, 2007), official India does not > regard the vulnerable as poor. > > > Hence, so long as there is a reduction of those below an arbitrarily defined > National Poverty Line, we claim to be overcoming poverty. How arbitrary is > the National Poverty Line is revealed by the 2009 Tendulkar Committee report > which, simply by tweaking the rural poverty line from Rs. 12 a day to Rs. 15 > a day and urban poverty from Rs.17 a day to Rs. 19 a day, that is, by a mere > three rupees in rural and a derisory two rupees in urban India, says poverty > levels in our country are not 27 per cent, as hitherto officially maintained, > but nearer 37 per cent, thereby putting paid to the India Country Report > claim that poverty has been reduced by half over the past thirty years – > although what the MDG seeks is a reduction by half of extreme poverty and > hunger over the next fifteen years, that is from 2000 to 2015. > > > Thus, while, on the one hand, official India says we just do not maintain the > statistics that would enable us to show whether or not we have attained the > MDG of slashing by half those living on under a dollar a day, we also claim, > on the basis of a methodology discredited by none less than Dr. S. Tendulkar, > the Chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Council, that it took us thirty > years to slash notional poverty by half but we do not know whether we will do > so within the 15 year-period of the MDG because we just do not know the truth > about income poverty although we could tell you something about consumption > poverty. > > > However, while our Government continues to rely on consumption expenditure > reported in successive National Sample Surveys to estimate poverty and > prosperity in our country, the National Council of Applied Economic Research > (NCAER) has been undertaking since 1985 the yeoman task of estimating income > rather than expenditure levels. > > > Their task is hugely complicated by the fact that the total national income > which NCAER estimates by asking the large sample surveyed about their > respective incomes constitutes only 53% of the national income of India as > shown in our National Accounts. > > > Much of this under-reporting is accounted for by the rich of India, > households engaged in business and self-employed (Lawyers, Doctors, CAs, > etc.) who just do not reveal to either our tax authorities or even NCAER > surveyors what their true income is. Also, of course, the poor and vulnerable > think that under-reporting their incomes might fetch them benefits that > stating their true income might deprive them of. Nevertheless, bearing in > mind this caveat that we are talking of only about 53% of national income, > there is but one source of national income estimates – the NCAER under the > extraordinarily sincere and dedicated leadership of their chief statistician, > Dr. Rajesh Shukla, and Mr. Suman Bery, the wise and gentle Director-General > of NCAER. > > > NCAER have estimated is that if our economy grows at an average of 8.75 per > cent per annum over the next five years, 2010-2015, as projected by the > Planning Commission, then, by the terminal year of the MDG, 2015, the bottom > 20 per cent of our population would have added about Rs. 2000 per year to > their annual income while the top 20 per cent in urban India would have added > a whopping Rs. 75,000 – 37 times more than the poorest 20 per cent to their > annual income. > > > Please remember that the top 20% in NCAER’s quintile estimates comprise > Indians with an average annual income of Rs. 154,000: therefore, the modestly > well-off will probably see their annual incomes booming by 370 times more and > the phenomenally wealthy garnering 37,000 times more than the poorest Indians > making do with a rise of less than Rs.200 a month in their per capita income > over just the next five years! > > > Moreover, says the NCAER, while at present the top 20% secure 51% of our > national income, at 8.75% growth, their share will rise to 55% by 2015, while > the share of the bottom 20% will shrink from 6.1% to 5.5%. > > > In other words, the poorest of our poor are barely benefiting from > accelerated growth while the richer are getting obscenely richer. > > > This was reported to Government by NCAER on 31 July 2010, a month after the > release of our MDG Country Report. I am not privy to Government’s reaction > but I did ask Dr. Rajesh Shukla, NCAER’s outstanding chief statistician, to > share with me his projections of how the poorer would fare compared to the > better-off if, instead of the quintiles he had used in his presentation to > Government, that is, dividing the population into five segments of 20 per > cent each, he were to break this down into 20 segments of five per cent each. > While he is still working on such a projection, he was able to retrieve for > me from his raw data the position as it obtained in 2004-05. > > > This showed that the lowest income earners, those earning less than Rs.20 a > day and comprising 50% our population, secure only 19.6% of our national > income while the richest 5% secure nearly a quarter of our national income, > 23.8% (excluding the non-reported 45% of national income, the bulk of which > is the black money income of the rich and the richest) > > > The other deeply disturbing finding is that the poorer an Indian is, the more > entrapped in personal debt he is likely to be. Thus, the poorest 5%, earning > less than Rs.8 a day, consume Rs. 3590 a year against an income of Rs. 2145 a > year: their share of expenditure is 167% of income. As one goes up the scale, > income approximates to expenditure only at 15%. It remains as high as 79% for > the best off 5% segment of 50% of our population and does not significantly > taper off till we have reached three-quarters of our population. It is only > the richest five per cent of our population whose percentile savings at 37% > approximates the national savings rate. It is this high level of personal > indebtedness of the poor, combined with easy access to corporate debt for the > rich, that necessitates our regarding not only the utterly destitute as poor > but also the vulnerable as poor. > > > These are, of course, figures relating to five years ago. I am willing to bet > that when the 2009-10 figures come in, and later the figures for the terminal > year of MDG, 2015, are compiled, income : consumption ratios for the poor > would have worsened while the Pareto extrapolation would show the richest 1% > to be way ahead of even the next 4% on every scale of earning, spending and > saving. > > > One telling indicator of the skewing of income and the distortion of wealth > distribution is that of Forbes Indiaof 4 December 2009 which proudly > announced that the 100 richest Indians owned between them assets equal to a > quarter of our Gross Domestic Product, supplemented by the very recent Asian > Development Bank finding that only 0.00009 per cent of Indians earn more than > Rs.10,000 a month. NCAER’s Dr. Rajesh Shukla doubts that this is accurate but > concedes that no more than 1.5% Indians earn more than Rs. 10, 000 a month. > And this in the same India that boasts some of the richest persons in the > world and the fourth largest number of dollar billionaires with combined > assets second only to that of US billionaires. > > > We seem to be replacing land-based feudalism with stock-market based > feudalism! Accelerated growth is not so much a tide that raises all boats as > a tsunami that raises all yachts! > > > The skewed outcome of the reforms process on income and wealth distribution > was underscored by the Arjun Sengupta Committee report tabled in Parliament > in 2007, three years ago. Basing himself on the same National Sample Survey > reports that all of Government uses, Dr. Sengupta came up with the shocking > statistic that 77% of our people – approximately 836 million Indians - live > on less than Rs. 20 a day! > > > To put in perspective the consumption figure of Rs. 20 per day per person, > please consider that the minimum wage prescribed by the Government of India > under the National Rural Employment Act is Rs.100 a day, with the caveat that > only one member of a given household can secure NREGA employment on any given > day. This means that for a household of five persons, the per capita earning > under NREGA would amount to Dr. Sengupta’s cut-off figure of Rs. 20 a day. > Thus, nearly eight Indians out of ten are eking out a living at less than the > prescribed minimum rate for lifting mud under our proudest programme of > poverty eradication and hunger elimination. > > > The very model of economic growth we have adopted thus militates against any > significant achievement in any reasonable period of time in eliminating > poverty and, therefore, huger by the accelerated growth process on its own. > GDP, the favoured figure of the establishment, might rise and rise and rise, > challenging China’s before this decade is out, but little of this will impact > on income levels for one half to three –quarters of our people while hugely > disproportionately raising not only the income and wealth, but also > inevitably the political influence, of the richest of our rich – and thus the > immense danger of crony capitalism undermining popular democracy. > > > Hence the imperative necessity of compensating for the failure to raise money > incomes of the poor and vulnerable by launching a massive programme of > reaching to them public goods such as subsided food for food security and > subsidised energy for energy security, along with public services like > potable drinking water and elementary sanitation; primary and secondary > education; dispensaries and primary health centres; and other basic minimum > services. > > > The core of our official self-assessment of attaining the key target of the > MDG – the halving of extreme poverty and hunger - is that we have launched > the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme named after none less than > the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi. Yet, the Ministry of Rural > Development, which is the Ministry in charge of implementing MNREGA, admits > that even in Tripura, the state that scores highest in proving households > with the full 100 days of employment guaranteed under the Act, it is no more > than 36.6% of all entitled households. Far more upsetting is that in the most > poverty-stricken States of India the share drops to a mere 14% in Uttar > Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and to 8% or less in Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and > Bihar and even further below 6% in Orissa and Uttaranchal. Many of these > States are precisely those most seriously afflicted with “Left-Wing > Extremism”, as the Ministry of Home Affairs archly describes the > Naxalite/Maoist menace. In Manipur, the state most infected by insurgency and > for the longest time running to several decades, it is utterly shocking to > find that only 0.02% of eligible Manipur households were afforded 100 days of > employment under NREGA. In other words, this much-lauded key Flagship > Programme under Bharat Nirman, which we are proudly trumpeting to the world > through our Country Report, is barely eroding extreme poverty in the most > poverty-stricken parts of India. > > > Even more distressing is the revelation in a written answer to my Unstarred > Rajya Sabha Question no.1011 answered by the Minister of State for Rural > Development on 3 August 2010 that the unemployment allowance that is > statutorily required to be paid in lieu of failing to provide employment > asked for has been paid to exactly one person in Kerala for 32 days of the > last one thousand days and more; and no more than 1574 persons in Madhya > Pradesh at the other end of the spectrum; and that in about three-quarters of > the States and Union Territories of our extremely poor country with > widespread unemployment and under-employment, not one single person has been > paid a khota paisa of unemployment allowance in the last four years since the > launch of the programme. > > > Since MNREGA, as the Government itself claims, is far and away the most > important single instrument we have devised for both poverty eradication and > hunger elimination, the pathetic performance of this key programme for the > attainment of the key MDG goal in the country with the largest number of the > extremely poor in the world makes one despair of the present system of > delivering development ever attaining the much-desired Millennium Development > Goals. > > > How utterly bereft we are of a solution to poverty and hunger is dramatically > illustrated by the findings of the UN Human Development Index. This index > reflects per capita incomes of different segments of the population through > the prism of several other parameters of poverty, including education, health > and gender equality – key components of the MDG. > > > In 1994, India stood at 134 on the UN HDI. 15 years later, in 2009, India > continues to be stagnant at the same position of 134. Formally asked what > accounted for this stagnation, the Minister of Panchayati Raj replied to an > unstarred Question no. 976 posed by me on the 3rd August 2010 that the > Ministry had not undertaken any detailed study to analyse the reasons for > this stagnation but helpfully added that we had at least risen from position > 138 in 1998 back to 134! > > > Every other study of poverty in India, in relation to poverty elsewhere, > bears out the UN HDI, indeed, even suggests that the UN might be > over-estimating India’s achievements in the multiple dimensions of poverty > eradication. A recent report from the Oxford Institute of Multi-Dimensional > Poverty, endorsed by the UNDP, places most Indian states, and the most > populous among them, well below the poorest of sub-Saharan African countries > on multiple parameters of poverty, thus underlining the fact that extreme > inequalities of income and wealth among households is compounded by extreme > inequalities in different regions of the country and across the urban-rural > divide. > > > This very disturbing performance in poverty eradication is not because the > Central Government is stinting on spending on social sector and anti-poverty > programmes. On the contrary, such spending, including on the much-flaunted > Bharat Nirman programmes, have risen by at least 15 times over the last 15 > years. Government has been more than generous in pouring miraculously > increased revenues into exponentially increased spending on MDG-related > Central and Centrally-Sponsored schemes. I estimate that such spending has > increased from about Rs. 7500 crore in 1994 to over Rs.1,35,000 crore in the > current fiscal. So, there is no lack of resources being deployed on inclusive > growth for the poor and vulnerable - but, tragically, outcomes bear no > relationship to outlays. We are as unstinting in resource allocation as we > are unsuccessful in attaining the purposes for which we are spending quite > humungous sums on battling all MDG dimensions of poverty and hunger, from > income to employment, education, health, gender equality, environment and > global partnerships. What then has gone so desperately wrong? > > > What has gone wrong is that we have failed to fully, or even significantly, > absorb the penetrating perception of one of the brightest but least > understood Prime Ministers of India who 25 years ago observed that 85 paise > in the rupee of all public expenditure on public services and public goods is > leached in administrative expenses by a colonial system of delivering > development through the bureaucracy instead of funnelling functions, finances > and functionaries to democratically elected institutions of local > self-government that can then undertake the task of delivering development to > themselves instead of remaining hapless recipients of a patrician system that > absorbs 85% of budgetary outlays on administrative expenses and reaches a > mere 15% to the intended beneficiaries. (Incidentally, a recent Planning > Commission estimate has shown Rajiv Gandhi to be utterly wrong: it is not 85 > paise but 83 paise that goes into administrative expenses!) > > > A quarter century after Rajiv Gandhi made this profound observation, and then > assured Constitutional sanctity and sanction for Panchayat Raj Institutions > to put local development in the charge of elected local authorities > responsible to local communities through Gram and Ward Sabhas, we continue > with hundreds of mutually insulated administrative silos to deliver > development to the same set of beneficiaries. We are so far from attaining > participative development through participative governance principally > because each of the line Ministries of the Central Government jealously > preserve their respective fiefdoms and State governments – except in a few > States – fail to genuinely empower institutions of local self-government. > That is the root systemic cause of outlays bearing no relation to outcomes. > Until and unless the Union Government shows the same determined political > will that Rajiv Gandhi displayed in prioritising and pushing through his > Constitutional amendments, there is no hope – I repeat, no hope whatsoever – > of increased Government revenues promoted by the accelerated growth process > and reflected in exponentially increased budget outlays on public services > and public goods translating into a tangible improvement in the multiple > parameters of poverty alleviation and eventual eradication. > > > The major lacuna in the strategy for MDG is that it ignores or assumes away > the crucial delivery aspect of poverty and hunger eradication. While most > countries in the world, developed and developing, emphasise devolution or > decentralisation as the way forward, notwithstanding the 73rd and 74th > amendments to our Constitution, much of our commitment to devolution remains > a paper commitment floundering on the rocks of the Constitutional point that > local self-government is a State not a Central responsibility. > > > Yet, with the overwhelming share of budgetary allocations for inclusive > growth coming from the Central Government, which lays down elaborate > guidelines for the spending of its money, we seem in Delhi to be strangely > inhibited about so designing our Central and Centrally-Sponsored programmes > for poverty eradication and grassroots development as to conform to the > Constitutional imperative of Panchayat Raj. Thus, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan > relies on registered societies, not panchayats responsible to gram sabhas, to > deliver primary education; the National Rural Health Mission on its own > Asha-based structures, and not democratically elected and democratically > responsible panchayats and gram sabhas, to deliver basic health and > reductions in infant and maternal mortality; the Integrated Child Development > Scheme to Government-appointed “volunteers”, not elected community-based > institutions to deliver child and maternal nutrition; and forest officers and > policemen, not Panchayat Raj Institutions governed by the Panchayats > (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, to deliver their entitlements and > ordinary justice to the tribals. These are but a few illustrations. I could > extend the list to cover all of the hundreds of Centrally-Sponsored Schemes > on which our budget outlays are being squandered with virtually no impact on > participative human development at the grassroots. We will never get > Inclusive Growth without Inclusive Governance – an observation made by none > less than the Prime Minister himself in January 2009, yet almost entirely > ignored in the mid-term review of the Eleventh Plan which boasts that the > Plan is dedicated to the over-arching goal of Inclusive Growth. > > > To come to the present, neither the Integrated Action Plan on the anvil for > the Left-Wing Extremist Affected Areas, nor the draft Food Security Bill > currently under discussion, rely on the panchayats for delivery: both assume > the bureaucracy will do the job although over 63 years of Independence and > post-coonial development, the bureaucratic delivery machine has proved itself > to not only be hopelessly inefficient but also self-serving, corrupt and > inhuman. Until and unless we replace delivered development with participative > development, until and unless we axe development on development by the poor, > for the poor and of the poor, will any element of the MDG be attained. > > > Let me illustrate from the NCAER report, “How India Earns, Spends and Saves”, > the Bible, Quran Sharif and Gita of our economic reforms brigade. > > > Tables 2.25 and 2.26 at pages 40-41 of the Report show that the single most > important determinant of income levels for households is the level of > education of the head of the household. When the head of a poor rural > household moves from illiteracy to primary, 5th class education, an 18% > increase is recorded in the household’s income; when education levels go up > to matric, 10th class levels, average household income soars by 48%; on > reaching the higher secondary, 12th class level, the increment is of the > order of a massive 113%; and nearly doubles to 223% in a household being > headed by a graduate. In short, much more significant than GDP growth for > livelihood security for the poor is village-level education graduating to the > block and district levels. > > > In Kerala, all primary schools fall under the administrative supervision and > control of the village panchayat; secondary and higher secondary schools > under the control ad supervision of the intermediate panchayats; and all > district colleges under the district panchayats. Kerala’s educational > attainments are, therefore the envy of the rest of India. But instead of > learning from the Kerala experience, the educational programmes of the > Ministry of Human Resource Development rely entirely on bureaucratically > appointed registered societies and the State government bureaucracy to > deliver primary and secondary education. In consequence, the returns in terms > of well-educated youth is as nothing compared to the thousands and thousands > of crore being increased every year on education. Outcomes nowhere near match > outlays. The tragic loss is that the one instrument which could deliver more > livelihood security than GDP growth alone ever could falls by the way-side as > reflected in drop-out rates and the quality of education collapsing even as > the quantity of education, measured by school buildings and other such > physical infrastructure, is apparently, but hardly tangibly, increasing > education opportunities for the poor and the vulnerable. > > > Gwatkin and others in their 2007 Word Bank-sponsored India Country Report on > Health, Nutrition and Population showed, albeit on the basis of statistical > information that was a decade earlier, the intimate relationship between > income poverty in different quintiles of the population and access to health > and nutrition. Rajiv Gandhi had intuitively understood this a decade before > Gwatkin and his colleagues; and Mahatma Gandhi had, of course, instinctively > understood this long before we became independent: he knew there could be no > Poorna Swaraj before we have Gram Swaraj. > > > Why not then panchayat-based delivery for primary education, primary health > and other basic minimum services? If we will not learn from the Kerala > experience, would we at least learn from China – where all such delivery of > public goods and services is concentrated in their local government bodies > and with such spectacular outcomes? > > > Our Millennium Development Goals will not be reached even by the end of the > present century, leave alone 2015, and perhaps not even then, until and > unless there is a systemic revolution in our approach to poverty eradication. > The path to middle-class prosperity lay through their Empowerment in our > democratic institutions in Parliament and the State assemblies which > dismantled land-based feudalism and placed political power in the hands of > the small land-holders, the professionals and the emerging businessmen, > securing for the then emerging middle classes their Entitlements to basic > goods and services. Nehruvian socialism gave our nascent middle class world > standards of education almost for free in our Central Unversities and IITs > and world standards of health in our Medical Institutes in Delhi, Chandigarh > and Puducherry. Securing Entitlements though Empowerment, our middle classes > are now stunning the world through their Enrichment. Empowerment, > Entitlement, Enrichment, E-E-E – and we are the flavour of the month at > Davos. But that has been the route only for a tiny fraction of our > population. Why not the same E-e-E route, Empowerment to Entitlements to > Enrichment for all our peoples? If democracy in Delhi and the state capitals > led to entitlements of education and health leading in turn to enrichment for > the middle classes, why not empower the poor and the vulnerable in their > villages and bastis through democratic institutions of local self-government > to ensure them self-access to their entitlements of basic education, health > and other public services, leading, as it has already done for our middle > classes, to enrichment for all Indians? Then alone will Indians prosper even > as India prospers. > > > The alternative is the spread of the Naxal revolt from the jungles of central > India to the heart of our towns and cities. MDG is not only about saving our > economy; MDG is more crucially about protecting our political stability, > nurturing our democracy and securing the survival of India as a nation into > the 22nd century. Can we, will we rise to the challenge? The next lectures in > this series will chart the path to the future. I hope the foundations I have > tried to lay, of grassroots development through grassroots democracy, will > find resonance in the remaining lectures of this series and in how the UN > Millennium Initiative reverberates at the UN General Assembly later this > month. > > _____________________________ > > __._,_.___ > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic > Messages in this topic (1) > RECENT ACTIVITY: > Visit Your Group > MARKETPLACE > Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new > interests. > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get > the Yahoo! Toolbar now. > Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > . > > __,_._,___ > > _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
