3. inclusive growth

Download 3. Inclusive Growth

Post on 24-Jan-2016

9 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

DFBADBRTW

TRANSCRIPT

  • Notes

    www.iasscore.in

    1

    GS S

    CO

    RE

    Reports and Committees

    1. India Human Development Report, 2011

    The recently released Human Development Report, 2011 with the theme Towards Social Inclusion haspraised the efforts of poorer States like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in making the development process moresocially inclusive through improving the lot of their marginalized Dalits and Tribals. However it haslamented the richer and developed States like Gujarat wherein the process has not been socially inclusive.

    The highlights of the Report are as follows:

    The overall Human Development Index (HDI) for the country has improved through the last decade, withthe inequality gap between States narrowing down. In the last decade the HDI increased by 21 per centfrom 0.387 in 1999-2000 to 0.467 in 2007- 08.

    The HDI list has been topped by Kerala with highest education, health and consumption expenditureindex. It is followed by Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Goa.

    Chhattisgarh, Orissa, MP, UP, Jharkhand & Assam have an HDI below the national average of 0.467. MPhas the lowest HDI value and thus is at the bottom.

    In some poorer States like Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, MP, Chhattisgarh, Orissa & Assam the quantum ofimprovement in HDI has been higher than the national average of 21 per cent.

    The overall increase in HDI is attributed to 28.5 per cent increase in education index across the country.It ranges from 0.92 for Kerala to 0.41 in case of Bihar. The improvement in the education index was thegreatest in States like UP, Rajasthan & MP. However, according to the Report, India is also home tomore than one-third of the global world illiterates wherein the percentage of illiterates from SC, ST andMuslim minority community are very high. Among SC/ST, more than 50 per cent of women are illiterates.

    The improvement in health index has been slow. It has improved by 13.2 per cent in the last decade. Thehighest growth in the health improvement has been noted in Goa (72%) followed by Chhattisgarh (22%).In Delhi the growth rate is a meager 4 per cent. Further there exists wide inter-State variation in the healthindex. It ranges from 0.82 in Kerala to 0.41 in Assam.

    The prevailing condition of sanitation is threatening according to the report. Though half of the populationhad access to sanitation in 2008 still there exists wide inter-State variation. In the States of MP, Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand, Orissa, Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand, still 75 per cent of the population does not haveaccess to sanitation.

    The most serious challenge arises on the nutrition front. Though Madhya Pradesh still is numero uno inmalnutrition and undernutrition, more concern arises from the increase in malnutrition in the richer anddeveloped States like Gujarat. The State with 69.7% kids up to 5 being anaemic and 44.6% suffering frommalnutrition, proves that high growth was no guarantor of improvement in health.

    It is the robust infrastructure in Kerala, Delhi and Goa that has contributed to the overall improvementin HDI, whereas it is the poor condition of infrastructure in poorer States that has kept these States poor.

    33 INCLUSIVE GROWTH

  • Notes

    www.iasscore.in

    2

    GS S

    CO

    RE

    There has been impressive growth in teledensity overtime from 22 per cent in 2008 to 66 per cent in2010 on account of increase in urban tele-density. Besides, the report also highlights that 75 per cent ofpopulation have access to electricity.

    The report prepared by the Delhi-based Institute of Applied Manpower Research for the PlanningCommission focuses on income, education, health, literacy, nutrition and sanitation in the country.

    2. Tendulkar Committee Report on Poverty Estimation

    The Planning Commission constituted an Expert Group in December 2005 under the chairmanship ofProfessor Suresh D. Tendulkar to review the methodology for estimation of poverty. The Expert Groupsubmitted its report in December 2009.

    While acknowledging the multidimensional nature of poverty, the Expert Group recommended movingaway from anchoring poverty lines to the calorie-intake norm to adopting MRP based estimates ofconsumption expenditure as the basis for future poverty lines and MRP equivalent of the urban povertyline basket (PLB) corresponding to 25.7 per cent urban headcount ratio as the new reference PLB for ruralareas.

    On the basis of the above methodology, the all-India rural poverty headcount ratio for 2004-05 wasestimated at 41.8 per cent, urban at 25.7 per cent, and all-India at 37.2 per cent. It may, however, bementioned that the Tendulkar Committees estimates are not strictly comparable to the official povertyestimates because of different methodologies.

    As has been indicated in the Mid Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Five Year Plan, the revised poverty linesfor 2004-05 as recommended by the Tendulkar Committee have been accepted by the Planning Commission.

    The Tendulkar Committee has specifically pointed out that the upward revision in the percentage of ruralpoverty in 2004-05, resulting from the application of a new rural poverty line should not be interpretedas implying that the extent of poverty has increased over time. These estimates, as reported by theCommittee, clearly show that whether we use the old method or the new, the percentage of BPL populationhas declined by about the same magnitude.

    3. Saxena Committee Report on Conducting bPL Census in Rural Areas

    An Expert Group headed by Dr N.C. Saxena was constituted by the Ministry of Rural Development torecommend a suitable methodology for identification of BPL families in rural areas.

    The committee observed that the national poverty line at Rs. 356 per capita per month in rural areas andRs. 539 per capita per month in urban areas at 2004-05 prices permitted both rural and urban people toconsume about 1820 k calories as against the desired norm of 2400/2100 k calories. Hence a largenumber of the rural poor got left out of the BPL status benefits as in order to consume the desired normof 2400/ 2100 k calorie.

    Thus, the committee recommended that the cut-off line for determining BPL status should be around Rs.700 in rural areas and Rs. 1000 in urban areas.

    The committee recommended that the percentage of people entitled to BPL status should be revisedupwards to at least 50 percent though the calorie norm of 2400 would require it to be 80 percent.

    The committee also recommended doing away with score-based ranking of rural households followed forthe BPL census 2002 and has recommended automatic exclusion of some privileged sections and automaticinclusion of certain deprived and vulnerable sections of society, and a survey for the remaining populationto rank them on a scale of 10.

  • Notes

    www.iasscore.in

    3

    GS S

    CO

    RE

    Automatic Exclusion: Households that fulfill any of the following conditions will not be surveyed forBPL census:

    1. Families who own double the land of the district average of agricultural land per agricultural householdif partially or wholly irrigated (three times if completely un-irrigated).

    2. Families that have three or four-wheeled motorized vehicles, such as, jeeps or SUVs.

    3. Families that have at least one mechanized farm equipment, such as, tractors, power tillers, threshersor harvesters.

    4. Families that have any person who is drawing a salary of over Rs. 10,000 per month in a non-government/ private organization or is employed in government on a regular basis with pensionaryor equivalent benefits.

    5. Income tax payers.

    Automatic Inclusion: The following would be compulsorily included in the BPL list:

    1. Designated primitive tribal groups.

    2. Designated most discriminated against SC groups, called Maha Dalit groups.

    3. Single women-headed households.

    4. Households with a disabled person as breadwinner.

    5. Households headed by a minor.

    6. Destitute households which are dependent predominantly on alms for survival.

    7. Homeless households.

    8. Households that have a bonded labourer as member.

    4. S.r. Hashim Committee for Identification of bPL Families in Urban Areas

    The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (HUPA) is the nodal Ministry for issue ofguidelines to identify BPL families in urban areas. Till now, no uniform methodology was being followedby the States/UTs to identify the urban poor.

    An Expert Group under the Chairmanship of Professor S.R. Hashim has been constituted by the PlanningCommission in May 2010 to recommend the methodology for identification of BPL families in urbanareas in the context of the 12th Five Year Plan.

    The expert group submitted an interim report this month recommending that poverty in urban areas beidentified through specific vulnerabilities in residential, occupational and social categories. It said that:

    1. Those people who are homeless, live in temporary houses where usage of dwelling space is susceptibleto insecurity of tenure and is affected by lack of access to basic services should be consideredresidentially vulnerable.

    2. People unemployed for a significant proportion of time or with irregular employment or whose workis subject to unsanitary or hazardous conditions or has no stability of payment for services shouldbe regarded occupationally vulnerable.

    3. Households headed by women or minors or where the elderly are dependent on the head of household

  • Notes

    www.iasscore.in

    4

    GS S

    CO

    RE

    or where the level of literacy is low or members are disabled or chronically ill should be consideredsocially vulnerable.

    The expert group is yet to finalise the d