poverty among tribals in india 02... · poverty among tribals in india: variations and...

POVERTY AMONG TRIBALS IN INDIA:VARIATIONS AND VULNERABILITIES

Gobinda C Pal*

1. INTRODUCTION

Historically, the Scheduled Tribes (STs) or tribals in India have been the victims of exclusion and marginalisation. Recognising their special needs and interests, the Constitution of India provides various legislative safeguards to protect their social and economic rights. In recent past, the legislation for institutional reform also provides a legal framework to strengthen self-governance among tribals and their control over institutions and functionaries in the social sectors. Moreover, as a part of the progressive policies and special dispensation for tribals, the national government continues to implement a number of special Integrated Tribal Development Programmes (ITDPs) to help improve their living conditions. In addition to general poverty alleviation programmes, a host of specific schemes have also been implemented to provide tribals assistance for improving their economic life. Importantly, the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) aims to reduce poverty among tribals through the creation of productive assets and livelihood opportunities, besides providing for social, physical and financial security against all types of exploitation and oppression.

Along with the special programmes initiated by both national and state governments, several locally driven interventions by civil society organisations and international agencies aim to contribute towards the livelihood of many tribal communities. In recent times, the thrust of the Eleventh and Twelfth Five Year Plans on social inclusion through the provision of improved livelihood opportunities further accounts for a special focus on the promotion of the economic interests of the tribals. As a part of the post-2015 development agenda, the Government of India, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and its underlying principles, lays an emphasis on development with equity and sustainability (UNESCAP, 2015), while the eradication of poverty remains a critical aspect of development planning.

* Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, New Delhi.Contact: [email protected]; [email protected]

92 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL INCLUSION STUDIES

The fact is that although tribals are compared with other excluded groups, the basic processes leading to their deprivation ostensibly vary from those affecting other communities. There is considerable evidence to suggest that tribals continue to encounter more deeply embedded economic deprivation than other social groups. While highlighting the persistent inter-group differences with regard to poverty, various studies point specifically to the higher incidence of poverty among tribals as compared to other groups (Sengupta, Kannan & Raveendran, 2008). The unrelenting impoverished conditions of tribals are attributed to different factors such as deprivation in terms of lack of access to productive income-earning assets (Thorat and Mahamallik, 2007); non-utilisation of available resources such as land and common property resources (Gang, Sen, & Yun, 2008); and lack of education, and equal opportunities (Borooah, 2005). It is argued that “tribals have been victims of social exclusion not simply because of the historical exclusion and marginalisation and geographical isolation; but recent dispossession of their traditional habitation and rights to resources, and erosion of their autonomy because of other development interventions” (Gill, Bhattacharya & Bhattacharya, 2015); and consequently, their livelihood is adversely affected by the loss of access to resources (Das, Hall, Kapoor & Nikitin, 2011). Although the development concept is often used to solve the poverty problem in the tribal areas, displacement due to development destroys the traditional livelihoods of the tribal people, resulting in a denial of their access to resources and making them more vulnerable to poverty. PahruPou (2013) remarks, “Although [the] dominant development paradigm is considered as an essential part of enhancing economic growth, its experience of today is of anti-poor”.

The above discussion indicates that while on the one hand, there are extensive State provisions to safeguard the rights of the tribals and ensure better living conditions for them; on the other hand, the livelihood options of tribals significantly decline due to elimination of the traditional occupations. In view of the recognition that the period after the 1990s has seen high economic growth (IHD, 2014), contributing to an increase in per capita income, the critical question to be addressed is: “What has been the poverty situation of tribals over the years?” Although there are studies that assess the disparities in poverty across social groups, the tribals have been excluded from most detailed analyses. It must be stressed that a significant proportion of tribals, and more than that of any other social groups, reside in remote rural areas, and that their living conditions need special attention as these issues fail to become part of any national debate or public discourse. Further, recent literature on poverty among tribals also reiterates the fact that the incidence of poverty must be seen in the context of certain characteristics specific to tribals.

Against the above backdrop, this paper seeks to examine the poverty situation of tribals from an ‘out-group’ perspective. The question of special focus has been: “How far tribals vis-à-vis the rest of the population (or non-tribals) share the overall patterns

POVERTY AMONG TRIBALS IN INDIA 93

and trends in the poverty?” The paper also discusses the incidence of poverty among tribals in relation to their land-holdings, level of education and household occupation types. Special attention has been paid to addressing tribal issues under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules while considering variations in poverty among tribals and non-tribals in the tribal-concentrated states of the Central-tribal and North-eastern regions, which have been divided according to the area-based approach. While the Central-tribal region accounts for a majority of the tribal population, who reside mostly away from mainstream society and are among the most marginalised groups; the tribals in the North-eastern region have been isolated from the development process mainly due to their geographical and cultural isolation. The Central-tribal region includes states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Maharashtra and Rajasthan in the mid-region; Gujarat in the west, Jharkhand and West Bengal in the east, and Andhra Pradesh in the south. The North-eastern region, on the other hand, includes states like Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura.

This paper uses the household level data collected by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) since the mid-1990s from its three rounds—the 50th (1993-94), 61st (2004-05) and 68th (2011-12). The incidence of poverty is measured in terms of the proportion of the poor, referred to as the Head Count Ratio (HCR), extracted from the unit level data. Data are segregated across groups (tribals and non-tribals), areas (rural and urban) and regions (Central-tribal and North-eastern). The analysis deals with the incidence of poverty at the all-India level as well as the level of states that are populated by tribals in the two regions. It also focuses on variations in the poverty levels of tribals and non-tribals using household characteristics such as size of land holdings, level of education, and household occupation type. In addition to the analysis based on the poverty ratio, a simple logistic regression has been carried out to examine the differential effects of the household characteristics on poverty among tribals and non-tribals.

2. POVERTY AMONG TRIBALS: PATTERNS AND TRENDS

The following question has been addressed in this section: “How have tribals fared with regard to poverty over the past two decades as compared to the rest of the population?” Table 1 presents the poverty ratio for tribals and non-tribals at three different points of time. The data reveals that the overall incidence of poverty has been reduced by more than half over the period from 1993-94 to 2011-12. There has been a more rapid decline in poverty since 2004-05. At the aggregate level, the decline in the poverty has been from 45.7 per cent in 1993-94 to 37.7 per cent in 2004-05 to 22 per cent in 2011-12. This pattern has reportedly also been observed using different official poverty lines (Panagariya and More, 2013; Thorat and Dubey, 2013). A faster decline in the poverty between 2004-05 and 2011-12 is mainly attributed to the higher rate of economic growth during this period.


Table 1: Incidence of Poverty between Tribals and Non-tribalsYear→

Group↓

1993-94 2004-05 2011-12

Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

Tribals 65.9 41.1 63.7 62.3 35.5 60.0 45.3 24.1 43.0Non-tribals 48.4 31.6 43.9 39.4 25.4 35.6 22.9 13.3 20.0Total 50.3 31.9 45.7 41.8 25.7 37.7 25.4 13.7 22.0

Source: 50th, 61st and 68th Rounds, NSSO, Government of India.

The decline in the poverty rate over the last two decades has, however, not been uniform across groups (tribals and non-tribals) and areas (rural and urban). Expectedly, the incidence of poverty in rural areas has been higher than in urban areas. In 2011-12, it was about two times higher despite the decrease in the rural–urban poverty gap over the years. Data on the overall incidence of poverty among tribals indicates that poverty declined from 63.7 per cent in 1993-94 to 60 per cent in 2004-05 to 43 per cent in 2011-12. The corresponding figures for non-tribals were 43.9, 35.6 and 20 per cent, respectively. The rate of decline in poverty among the tribals thus indicates that the pace of poverty reduction for them has been consistently lower than that for non-tribals.

Another critical issue is that the disparities in poverty between tribals and non-tribals have increased marginally over time. Despite the considerable decline in the poverty rate among tribals, in 2011-12, the incidence of poverty among tribals was still more than two times higher than that among non-tribals. There is a difference of 23 percentage points between tribals and non-tribals. The poverty rate among tribals is also about two times higher than the national average. A World Bank (2011) study points out that as far as the distribution of the tribal population across wealth quintiles is concerned, in 2004-05, almost half the tribal population belonged to the lowest quintile. Similarly, Das et al. (2011) argue that tribals, who comprise about 8 per cent of India’s total population, account for one-fourth of the population living in the poorest wealth quintile.

Although the incidence of poverty in both rural and urban areas has been higher for tribals than for the rest of population, it has been acute in rural areas. In 2011-12, the poverty rate for tribals in rural areas was 45.3 per cent as compared to 22.9 per cent for non-tribals. As Das et al. (2011) remark, “Even by the standards of a poverty line that has been debated a lot for the lower threshold point of poverty, in 2011-12, almost half of the tribal population in rural areas remained poor.” The rate of decline in rural poverty among tribals was considerably lower between 1993-94 and 2004-05 as compared to the corresponding decline for non-tribals. It may be noted that the data across different social groups such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and others show the lowest decline in rural poverty for tribals during the same period. The gap in the poverty rate between tribals and non-tribals is lower in urban areas as compared to rural areas. In 2011-12, the difference between tribals and non-tribals in urban areas was two times lower than that observed in rural areas. The rural–urban differences in the poverty rate have also been consistently higher for tribals at the three points of time.


Data shows that the poverty rates among tribals in rural areas for the years 1993-94, 2004-05 and 2011-12 were 65.9 per cent, 62.3 per cent and 45.3 per cent, respectively. The corresponding figures for tribals in urban areas were 41.1 per cent, 35.5 per cent and 24.1 per cent, respectively.

The average annual changes in the poverty rate among tribals over a period of two decades show a decline of 2.2 per cent as compared to a corresponding decline of 4.3 per cent among non-tribals (Graph 1). The annual decline in the poverty rate of tribals has been lower than that of non-tribals in both rural and urban areas. Expectedly, the annual changes in the poverty rate among tribals and non-tribals show considerably higher decline between 2004-05 and 2011-12 as compared to the earlier decade. The annual decline in the poverty rate of tribals was only 0.5 per cent between 1993-94 and 2004-05 whereas it went up to 4.6 per cent between 2004-05 and 2011-12. The corresponding figures for non-tribals were 1.9 per cent and 7.9 per cent, respectively. The higher annual decline in the poverty rate between 2004-05 and 2011-12 has been observed in both rural and urban areas.

Graph 1: Per Annum Changes in the Incidence of Poverty among Tribals and Non-tribals at Three Points of Time

Source: 50th, 61stand 68th Rounds, NSSO, Government of India.

In the context of the rural–urban differences in the poverty rate, it is argued that despite the attainment of a higher economic growth between 2004-05 and 2011-12, there has been no significant impact on the issue of poverty among the tribals and non-tribals in urban areas as compared to rural areas. Data shows that the decline in the poverty rate between 2004-05 and 2011-12 for both tribals and non-tribals was lower in urban areas (11.4 per cent and 12.1 per cent, respectively) as compared to rural areas (17 per cent and 16.5 per cent, respectively). Thorat and Dubey (2013), while decomposing the change in the poverty ratio into growth and distribution effects for the two periods of time, argue that “for the tribals in urban areas, the distributional effects work against the growth effect on poverty in both the periods, but the adverse distribution effect has been larger in the second period, leading to a lower reduction in poverty”. Further, if we look at the period between 1993-94 and 2011-12, the decline in rural poverty for tribals


is not that as striking as that for non-tribals. Moreover, the higher decline in the rural poverty rate among tribals between 2004-05 and 2011-12 may not reflect an impressive picture if we examine the higher poverty levels among tribals during the earlier period as compared to that for any other social groups. Thorat and Dubey (2013) argue that “given the higher poverty level among the tribals at the initial stage compared to the rest of population, the faster rate of decline in the later period is a natural outcome.” According to Kannan (2011), the higher poverty reduction in the late 2000s across all social groups as compared to the previous decade, more so for the socially disadvantaged groups such as tribals, can be attributed to policies and specific intervention programmes arising out of political exigencies.

3. POVERTY IN CENTRAL-TRIBAL AND NORTH-EASTERN REGIONS

The disparities in the poverty rates of tribals and non-tribals across states with a high concentration of tribal population appear relatively uneven. Table 2 presents variations in the poverty rates across states in the Central-tribal and North-eastern regions. The latest official data reveals that the poverty rate among tribals in the majority states of the Central-tribal region is significantly higher than the national poverty rate (43 per cent). The states that have distinctively higher poverty rates than the national average are Odisha (62.5 per cent), followed by Bihar (55.6 per cent), Maharashtra (54.4 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (53.4 per cent), Chhattisgarh (51.1 per cent), Jharkhand (49.7 per cent), and West Bengal (49.4 per cent). On the other hand, tribals in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Rajasthan have lower poverty rates than the national average.

Table 2: Poverty Rate among Tribals and Non-tribals in the States of the Central-tribal and North-eastern Regions, 2011-12

Region State Tribals Non-tribals Total

Cen

tral

-tri

bal

Reg

ion

Andhra Pradesh 23.1 8.3 9.3Bihar 55.6 33.7 34.1Chhattisgarh 51.1 34.7 40.2Gujarat 35.9 12.8 17.0Jharkhand 49.7 33.4 37.5Karnataka 31.5 20.5 21.2Madhya Pradesh 53.4 25.6 32.0Maharashtra 54.4 13.7 17.3Odisha 62.5 24.9 32.9Rajasthan 40.3 10.2 14.8West Bengal 49.4 18.9 20.4

Nor

th-e

aste

rn

Reg

ion

Arunachal Pradesh 33.4 39.7 35.3Assam 32.4 32.5 32.5Manipur 42.9 34.1 37.1Meghalaya 12.5 5.2 11.8Mizoram 20.4 49.0 22.0Nagaland 18.6 20.7 18.7Sikkim 7.6 9.7 8.8Tripura 25.1 8.8 14.9

Source: 68th Round, NSSO, Government of India.


A similar observation is also made by Thorat (2010) while analysing the incidence of poverty at the state level for social groups in relation to the social composition of the population. He points that states like Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and West Bengal in the Central-tribal region, which together account for nearly 50 per cent of the tribal population, show high poverty rates for the tribals. On the other hand, states like Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh with high tribal population densities show relatively lower poverty rates.

As compared to the states in the Central-tribal region, tribals in the North-eastern states exhibit considerably lower levels of poverty. Barring Manipur, tribals in the other North-eastern states have significantly lower poverty rates than the national average. This rate is the lowest in Sikkim (7.6 per cent), followed by Meghalaya (12.5 per cent), Nagaland (18.6 per cent) and Mizoram (20.6 per cent). The average poverty rate among tribals in the Central-tribal region is 46.1 per cent whereas the corresponding figure is 24.1 per cent in the North-eastern region (Graph 2). The non-tribals expectedly show lower levels of inequality than the tribals. The average poverty rate among non-tribals in the Central-tribal region is 21.5 per cent as compared to 25 per cent in the North-eastern region.

Graph 2: Average Poverty Rate of Tribals and Non-tribals in the States of the Central-tribal and North-eastern Regions, 2011-12


The gaps in the poverty rates of tribals and non-tribals in the states of the two regions vary widely (Graph 3). The poverty rate among tribals in all the states of the Central-tribal region is considerably higher than that among non-tribals. It is the highest in Maharashtra (40.7 per cent), followed by Odisha (37.6 per cent), West Bengal (30.5 per cent) and Rajasthan (30.1 per cent) whereas it is the lowest in Karnataka (11 per cent) followed by Andhra Pradesh (14.8 per cent), Chhattisgarh (16.4 per cent) and Jharkhand (16.3 per cent). In the North-eastern region, except in the states of Mizoram and Tripura, the gap is minimal in the other states. Interestingly, the poverty rate among tribals, particularly


in Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram, is lower than that among non-tribals. However, the notable aspect is that in the state of Mizoram, the poverty rate among non-tribals is significantly higher than that among tribals. Similarly, in other states like Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Sikkim, the poverty levels are higher among the non-tribals than among their tribal counterparts. Data reveals that the rural–urban disparity in the poverty rates among tribals is quite striking in the states of the Central-tribal region. On an average, the disparity is about 20 per cent in the Central-tribal region whereas it is 13 per cent in the North-eastern region. In contrast, the rural–urban disparity in the poverty rate among non-tribals is significantly higher in the North-eastern region (20 per cent) than in the Central-tribal region (8 per cent).

Graph 3: Gaps in the Poverty Levels of Tribals and Non-tribals in the States of the Central-tribal and North-eastern Regions, 2011-12


Data at different points of time indicates that both rural and urban poverty for tribals declined substantially in almost all the states between 1993-94 and 2011-12. However, the decline was lower for the non-tribals in the states with a higher concentration of the tribal population. Dubey (2009) points to another important regional issue. He reports that there has been a lower incidence of poverty in the districts that have tribals as the largest population group. This may be attributed to “The direct consequence of the prevalence of a higher mean per capita consumption in these districts coupled with lower levels of inequality”. He remarks, “Given that districts located in the North-eastern region have experienced significant growth in mean consumption and it is higher for tribals, the level of poverty in these districts is substantially lower compared to the districts with sizeable tribal population but located in major states in Central-tribal region.” He, therefore, argues that “The tribal-dominated group of districts has benefited most from the economic growth in the country.”


4. POVERTY BY LAND-HOLDINGS, EDUCATION AND OCCUPATIONGiven the overall scenario with regard to the poverty rates for tribals and non-tribals, and the changes occurring over the last two decades, the important question is, “Does the poverty level vary depending on household characteristics?” This section examines the variations in the poverty rate by the size of land-holdings, level of education and household occupation type. Given that ownership of land-holdings among tribals is predominantly a rural phenomenon, the analysis focuses only on rural poverty (Table 3). The data clearly points to lower poverty rate with an increase in the size of land-holdings for both tribals and non-tribals. Tribal households without land exhibit higher poverty levels as compared to non-tribal households even with smaller sizes of land-holdings. Tribals with marginal, small and semi-medium-sized land-holdings, however, do not exhibit much difference in their poverty levels, but the poverty level is considerably reduced with the ownership of medium and large-sized land-holdings.

It is important to note that as compared to tribals, non-tribals with similar land-holdings have considerably lower poverty levels. Among the non-tribals, those who have no land exhibit poverty levels that are 20 percentage points lower than those of their tribal counterparts. The non-tribals with small, semi-medium and medium-sized land-holdings also exhibit considerably lower poverty levels than tribals. The differences between tribals and non-tribals in poverty levels appear quite high particularly in the case of small and medium-sized land-holdings. This indicates that poverty levels are likely to intensify for tribals in the rural areas, who have limited livelihood opportunities and lack land-holdings.

Table 3: Poverty Rate by Land-holdings in Rural Areas, 2011-12

Size of Land-holdings Tribals Non-tribals

Landless 52.4 30.9Marginal 47.2 24.8Small 42.5 18.8Semi-medium 40.8 13.1Medium 26.1 11.0Large 8.8 5.1


The poverty rate also varies by the level of education (Table 4). The attainment of higher levels of education helps to substantially reduce poverty. Although the incidence of a better-educated household head is not as pronounced among tribals in rural areas as it is among the rest of the rural population, the attainment of education up to the secondary level and beyond, has a definite poverty-reducing effect for tribals, particularly in urban areas. In rural areas, only higher education yields a better return for tribals. For non-tribals, a secondary level of education has higher poverty-reducing effects in


both rural and urban areas as compared to that for tribals, particularly in rural areas. The data thus indicates that similar educational attainments have differential effects on the poverty levels of tribals and non-tribals in rural areas, but in urban areas, the effect of secondary and higher education is found to be quite similar for both tribals and non-tribals.

Table 4: Poverty Rate by Level of Education, 2011-12

Education LevelRural Urban Total

Tribals Non-tribals

Tribals Non-tribals

Tribals Non-tribals

Non-literate 50.7 29.5 39.8 24.7 50.0 28.5

Below Primary 49.4 26.5 35.2 19.4 48.2 24.8

Primary 44.0 21.8 27.9 15.4 42.4 20.0

Middle 39.8 17.9 19.5 12.3 37.1 16.2

Secondary 27.4 11.9 10.1 6.8 23.8 9.8

Graduate and above 11.6 5.8 1.8 1.9 6.8 3.2


It is a fact that employment and poverty are the two inter-related indicators of development. There is an overlap between poverty and poor quality of employment, and most of the poor are the working poor. Data on the extent of poverty among different types of household occupations reveals that in rural areas, tribals with regular wage, self-employment and salaried employment have lower poverty rates as compared to casual labourers. More than half of the causal labourers among tribals are poor in both the rural and urban areas (Table 5). Causal labourers in the rural agricultural sector exhibit the highest poverty levels (59.7 per cent). In rural areas, the tribals who are self-employed in the agricultural sector are also more vulnerable to poverty than their counterparts in the non-agricultural sector. The self-employed in the non-agricultural sector in urban areas also exhibit lower poverty levels. Expectedly, tribals with regular salaried jobs exhibit the lowest poverty rates in both rural and urban areas. The extent of poverty is lowest at 9 per cent among those with regular salaried employment in urban areas whereas it is 20.8 per cent in rural areas.

Besides all these specific occupation types, the tribals in rural areas who are engaged in other types of work also exhibit considerably higher poverty rates. In contrast, tribals engaged in ‘other’ work in urban areas exhibit notably lower poverty rates. Although a similar pattern is observed in the poverty rates across household occupation types for tribals and non-tribals, the poverty level under each household occupation category is considerably lower for non-tribals as compared to that for tribals. This suggests that non-tribals are perhaps engaged in work bringing higher remunerations.


Table 5: Poverty by Household Occupation Type, 2011-12

Area Household Occupation Type Tribals Non-tribals DifferenceR

ural

Self-employed in the Agricultural Sector 42.2 19.4 22.8Self-employed in the Non-agricultural Sector 28.3 18.1 10.2Regular Salaried (Wage Earnings) 20.8 10.0 10.8Casual Labour in the Agricultural Sector 59.7 36.7 23.0Casual Labour in the Non-Agricultural Sector 54.5 29.8 24.7Others 44.3 16.1 28.2

Urb

an

Self-employed in the Non-agricultural Sector 25.9 14.5 11.4Regular Salaried (Wage Earnings) 9.1 6.8 2.3Casual Labour in the Non-agricultural Sector 55.7 31.5 24.2Others 12.9 8.0 4.9


Further, the difference in the poverty rates between tribals and non-tribals in relation to the household occupation types is considerably higher in rural areas. As can be seen from Table 5, the difference in favour of non-tribals in rural areas is 23 per cent for casual labour in agricultural work, 24.7 per cent for casual labour in non-agricultural work, 22.8 per cent for self-employment in the agricultural sector, 11 per cent for regular wage earnings, and 28.2 per cent for other work. On the other hand, in urban areas, the corresponding difference is 24.2 per cent for casual labour in non-agricultural work similar to that of rural areas, 11.4 per cent for self-employment in non-agricultural work, 2.3 per cent for regular wage earnings, and 4.9 per cent for other work. The results suggest that casual labour has greater effects on the poverty levels of tribals than that of non-tribals in both rural and urban areas. In urban areas, this mostly captures the tribal migrant labourers. Rural agricultural labour is also associated with higher poverty levels among tribals, perhaps because they have access to land offering less subsistence.

The results thus indicate that the poverty level among tribals is considerably higher than that among non-tribals despite the fact that they have similar land-holdings, education levels and household occupations. This suggests that tribals are at a higher risk of being poor. What is the likelihood of tribals being poor as compared to non-tribals? What are the factors that are likely to enhance or reduce the risks of the tribals being poor? These questions are discussed in the following section.

5. POVERTY AMONG TRIBALS AND NON-TRIBALS: RISK FACTORS

In this section, an attempt has been made to use logistic regression analysis in order to understand the likelihood of tribals versus non-tribals being poor, in general; and across land-holdings, levels of education and household occupation types, in particular. The odds ratio reveals that the likelihood of tribals being poor is 84 per cent higher as compared to that for non-tribals. The results for the overall population indicates that the


likelihood of being poor for anyone is 30 per cent less in case of ownership of small and medium-sized land-holdings as compared to the landless. The likelihood of being poor is reduced by 62 per cent in the case of those owning medium-sized land-holdings, and by 73 per cent in the case of those owning large-sized land-holdings.

The levels of education also have differential poverty-reducing effects. As compared to the non-literate, those who have attained education up to the primary education, are 26 per cent less likely to be poor than those without this level of education. Similarly, the chance of being poor is 47 per cent less in the case of those having attained a middle level of education, 60 per cent less in the case of those with secondary level of education, and 70 per cent less in the case of those having attained higher secondary level of education. Importantly, the likelihood of being poor is only 16 per cent for those who have attained education up to the level of graduation and above. As far as the major source of household earning is concerned, the likelihood of a causal labourer being poor is 89 per cent higher than others whereas it is 50 per cent lower for regular wage earners as compared to the self-employed. Those who do not pursue any economic activities but have a regular earning from ‘other’ sources, are also 31 per cent less likely to be poor as compared to the self-employed.

What is the likelihood of tribals being poor by the size of land-holdings, education level, and household occupation type? The results of the logistic regression analysis for tribals (Table 6) reveal that land ownership has a strong poverty-reducing effect for tribals. As compared to the landless households, the impact of small and semi-medium land-holdings on poverty is not so significant. However, the likelihood of tribals being poor is reduced by 38 per cent with the ownership of medium-sized land-holdings and by 67 per cent with ownership of large-sized land-holdings.

Table 6: Logistic Regression Showing the Impact of Land-holdings, Education Level, and Household Occupation Type on the Poverty Rate of Tribals

Independent Variable

Reference Group

Explanatory Group Odds Ratio

Standard Error

z

Size of Land-holdings

Landless and Marginal

Small and Semi-medium 1.06 .03 2.33**Medium .62 .03 -9.66*Large .35 .05 -6.74*

Education Level Non-Illiterate

Up to Primary .69 .02 -16.35*Middle .49 .02 -24.13*Secondary .40 .01 -24.72*Higher Secondary .33 .02 -23.53*Diploma .22 .05 -7.08*Graduate and Above .18 .01 -22.93*

Household Occupation Type

Self-Employ-ment

Regular Wage Earning .33 .01 -39.35*Causal labour 2.14 .05 30.93*Others .67 .04 -7.42*

Constant .63 .01 -21.58*

Source: Based on 68th Round, NSSO data, Government of India; * p >.01, ** p> .05.


The odds ratio on the poverty of tribals by education level indicates that the tribals who have attained education up to the primary level have a 31 per cent less chance of being poor as compared to non-literates. The likelihood of being poor is significantly reduced for tribals with higher levels of education. As compared to non-literates, the chance of tribals who have acquired education up to the secondary and higher secondary levels, being poor, is less by 60 per cent and 67 per cent, respectively. Similarly, tribals who have acquired a diploma are 78 per cent less likely to be poor. Further, the likelihood of being poor is reduced by 82 per cent in the case of those who have acquired a graduate degree and above.

As far as the effect of the source of household earnings on poverty is concerned, tribal casual labourers are the worst affected by poverty. They are two times more likely to be poor as compared to the self-employed. In contrast, the likelihood of being poor is 67 per cent less for regular wage earners as compared to the self-employed. Tribals who are not engaged in economic activities but have regular earnings from ‘other’ sources are also 33 per cent less likely to be poor.

Table 7: Logistic Regression Showing the Impact of Land-holdings, Education Level, and Household Occupation Type on the Poverty of Non-tribals

Independent Variable

Reference Group

Explanatory Group Odds Ratio

Standard Error

Z

Size of Land-holdings

Landless and Marginal

Small and Semi-medium .59 .03 -34.47*Medium .31 .03 -32.51*Large .26 .05 -17.49*

Education Level

Non-illiterate

Up to Primary .76 .02 -26.89*Middle .54 .02 -44.73*Secondary .39 .01 -55.92*Higher Secondary .29 .02 -57.34*Diploma .14 .05 -21.23*Graduate and Above .15 .01 -61.84*

Household Occupation Type

Self-employ-ment

Regular Wage Earning .56 .01 -44.86*Causal Labour 1.85 .05 59.79*Others .69 .04 -15.83*

Constant .36 .01 -115.17*

Source: Based on 68th Round NSSO data, Government of India; * p > .01.

The results of the logistic regression analysis for non-tribals (Table 7) indicate that as compared to tribals, the likelihood of non-tribals being poor is always less despite their sharing of other similar household characteristics. There are some factors which put tribals at higher risk of being poor than non-tribals. As compared to the landless households, non-tribals with small and semi-medium sized land-holdings have a 41 per cent less chance of being poor. However, in the case of tribals, these findings do not have a significant impact. Similarly, medium and large-sized land-holdings have a larger poverty-reducing impact for non-tribals than for tribals. Non-tribals with medium


and large-sized land-holdings are less likely to be poor by 69 per cent and 74 per cent, respectively, as compared to the landless.

Education appears to have similar effects on the poverty of tribals and non-tribals. However, among non-tribals, those who have a diploma are less likely to be poor than tribals with similar level of education. As compared to the self-employed, regular wage earnings have a lower poverty-reducing effect for non-tribals (44 per cent) than tribals (67 per cent). Although causal labour increases the likelihood of being poor for both tribals and non-tribals, it has a greater effect than self-employment on tribals. There is no difference in the poverty levels of tribals and non-tribals who are not engaged in any economic activities, but still have regular earnings from other sources. The results thus suggest that among the household characteristics, the size of land-holdings and household occupation types, in particular, have a differential impact on poverty among both tribals and non-tribals.

6. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

This paper attempts to draw attention on some critical issues regarding the poverty levels of tribals in India in the discourse of group inequality. There has been a focus on disparities in the poverty levels between tribals and the rest of the population, trends in poverty level over two decades, variations in poverty levels by regions (categorised on the basis of concentration of tribal populations and location of states), household characteristics, and factors having significant poverty-reducing effects for both tribals and non-tribals. The results show that the overall incidence of poverty has declined by half over the last two decades, and there has been a faster decline in poverty since the mid-2000s. However, the poverty situation of tribals as compared to that of non-tribals, particularly in rural areas, is still far from being ameliorated. The poverty rate for tribals has declined more slowly than for non-tribals despite the long run implementation of various national development programmes in tribal areas, specific State interventions in the tribal habitats, increased autonomy in local governance in tribal areas through specific legislation, and importantly, faster economic growth in the last decade. It may be noted that the present poverty levels of tribals are closer to those suffered by the general population two decades ago.

The decline in the poverty rate has also not been similar for tribals and non-tribals in the rural and urban areas. Although there has been a decrease in the rural–urban poverty gap, the incidence of poverty in rural areas still remains significantly higher than that in urban areas. A matter of concern is that the annual decline in the poverty of tribals over the last two decades has been lower as compared to that of non-tribals in both rural and urban areas. Although a higher decline in rural poverty among tribals has been observed after the mid-2000s, it has not been impressive in view of the higher poverty levels of tribals during the earlier period as compared to the poverty levels of other social groups.


Consequently, the disparities between tribals and non-tribals have increased marginally over the last two decades. Other studies also indicate that a substantial proportion of the tribal population still belongs to the lowest wealth quintile.

The decline in the poverty level of tribals has been slower than that of non-tribals, particularly in the major states with a higher concentration of the tribal population. Even in the identified Schedule areas, tribals are among the most impoverished. The results suggest that the incidence of poverty among tribals and non-tribals in the states with a high concentration of the tribal population in the Central-tribal and North-eastern regions varies widely. Tribals in the states of the Central-tribal region have considerably lower levels of poverty as compared to their counterparts in the North-eastern region. The non-tribals suffer from lower inequalities on the poverty level than their tribal counterparts in these two regions. Moreover, the poverty level of tribals in all the states of the Central-tribal region is considerably higher than that of non-tribals. However, the gap between tribals and non-tribals in the North-eastern region is quite less. States like Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim witness even lower poverty rates among tribals than among non-tribals. The rural–urban disparity in the poverty rate of tribals is quite striking in the Central-tribal region whereas it is significantly higher for non-tribals in the North-eastern region. Another important regional variation is the prevalence of a lower poverty level in the districts that have tribals as the largest population group. The level of poverty in such districts located in the North-eastern region is substantially lower as compared to that in the districts with sizeable tribal populations but which are located in the states of the Central-tribal region.

The poverty levels of tribals and non-tribals are also significantly affected by household characteristics such as land-holdings, education levels and household occupation types. The size of the land-holdings has a strong poverty-reducing effect for tribals. A smaller sized land-holdings does not have a visible impact on the poverty of tribals, but ownership of medium and large sized land-holdings substantially reduces the likelihood of being poor. Tribals who have attained education above the secondary level have a lower chance of being poor. Even diploma holders have a lower chance of being poor than those who have acquired education only up to the school level. Among household occupation types, causal labourers are the worst affected by poverty as compared to the self-employed and regular wage earners. However, as compared to tribals, non-tribals with smaller land-holdings, education up to the diploma level, and regular wage earnings have lower chances of being poor.

The analysis thus re-affirms the existence of large disparities in the incidence of poverty between tribals and the rest of the population. This is likely to have more exclusionary effects on the tribal population. The India Chronic Poverty Report (Mehta, Shepherd, Bhidem, Shah & Kumar, 2011), while examining the programmes and schemes aimed at poverty alleviation for specific groups and the reasons as to why they have not


succeeded to the desired extent, emphasises an understanding of the “factors that cause entry into poverty, those that contribute to persistence of poverty, and those that can help in rising out of poverty”, as they are related to group identities and other household characteristics. Given the persistent economic inequality between the tribals and the rest of the population, there is a need to focus on implementing the rights-based approach to development and alternative approaches to reduce the vulnerability of tribals to a descent into poverty.

REFERENCES

Borooah, V. K. (2005). Caste, inequality and poverty in India. Review of Development Economics, 9(3), 399–414.

Das, M. B., Hall, G., Kapoor, S., & Nikitin, D. (2011). Indigenous peoples, poverty and development. Country Brief, No. 4. New Delhi: World Bank.

Dubey, A. (2009). Poverty and under-nutrition among scheduled tribes in India: A disaggregated analysis. IGIDR Proceedings/Project Reports Series. Mumbai: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research.

Gang, I. N., Sen, K., & Yun, M. (2008). Poverty in rural India: Caste and tribe. Review of Income and Wealth, 54(1), 50-70.

Gill, K., Bhattacharya, R., & Bhattacharya, S. (2015). The political economy of capitalism, development and resistance: The state and Adivasis of India. New Delhi: Oxfam India.

IHD (2014). India labour and employment report 2014: Highlights. New Delhi: Institute for Human Development and Academic Foundation.

Kannan, K. P. (2011, December). How inclusive is inclusive growth in India? Paper presented at the international expert workshop on Inclusive growth: From policy to reality. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Dalit Studies and Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Mehta, A. K., Shepherd, A., Bhidem, S., Shah, A., & Kumar, A. (2011). India chronic poverty report: Towards solutions and new compacts in a dynamic context. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public Administration.

Pahru Pou, Z. K. (2013). Development and poverty among tribal people in India. The Sangai Express, 8 April, Retrived from http://www.thesangaiexpress.com/25210-development-and-poverty-among-tribal-people-in-india/

Panagariya, A., & More, V. (2013). Poverty by social, religious and economic groups in India and its largest states, 1993-94 to 2011-12. Working Paper, No. 2013-02. Program on Indian Economic Policies: Columbia University.

Sengupta, A., Kannan, K. P., & Raveendran, G. (2008). India’s common people: Who are they, how many are they and how do they live? Economic & Political Weekly, 43(10), 49-63.


Thorat, A. (2010). Ethnicity, caste and religion: Implications for poverty outcomes. Economic & Political Weekly, 45(51), 47-53.

Thorat, S., & Mahamallik, M. (2007). Human development and the status of social groups in Gujarat. IIDS Working Paper Series, Vol. I, No. 6. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Dalit Studies.

Thorat, S., & Dubey, A. (2013). How inclusive has growth been in India during 1993-94 – 2009-10: Implications for XII plan strategy? New Delhi: United Nations Development Programme.

UNESCAP (2015, February). India and the MDGs: Towards a sustainable future for all. United Nations’ Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: United Nations Country Team-India.

World Bank (2011). Poverty and social exclusion in India. Washington DC: World Bank.

---------------------------------

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are due to Sukhadeo Thorat, Chairman, Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) for his comments on the draft paper and to Ajaya K. Naik, Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies (IIDS) for his academic support.

poverty among tribals in india 02... · poverty among tribals in india: variations and...

Documents