People's Democracy

Robbery In The Name Of BPL - II

Brinda Karat

THE INFAMOUS 1999-2000 POVERTY ESTIMATES

HAVING “weathered” the storm created by the differences in poverty estimates through the formula of “adjusted shares” the next wave of the magic wand of the Planning Commission was the poverty estimates it made in 1999-2000. Using the data of the 55th round of the National Sample Survey of 1999-2000 it declared that the BPL population was down by a whopping 10 per cent to 26.1 per cent. For rural areas the percentage worked out to a reduction from 37.27 per cent to 27 per cent which was an unprecedented decrease.

A wave of opposition and criticism followed the release of these incredible figures. Economists pointed out that since the methodology used in the two surveys was different, the poverty figures were “contaminated.” Abhijit Sen was among those who first critiqued the data pointing out the gaps which occurred due to the different methodologies, in particular because of changes in the reference period for consumption of different items, based on recall. Utsa Patnaik showed that the calculations based on indirect estimates actually lowered the minimum calorie content in the consumption basket, and that using the actual calorie consumption alone would yield much higher estimates of poverty. The CPI(M) had strongly protested and argued that when all the other indicators such as per capita availability of foodgrains, malnutrition, growing joblessness etc. showed the opposite, clearly the so-called poverty decrease was a statistical manipulation to showcase neo-liberal policies. Commenting on the survey results and the Planning Commission estimates the Standing Committee on Food, Civil Supplies and Public Distribution in its 24th report commented “The Committee notes that when the modalities for both the surveys are not the same the government should not compare these two figures and should not claim a reduction in poverty levels in the country. The Committee therefore desires that the data released by NSS should not be taken into account to give a wrong picture of the poverty situation in the country which in turn can negatively affect the poverty alleviation programme.” Several state governments also objected. 

ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT

Once again the arbitrary nature of the entire BPL definition exercise was highlighted by the official response to the uproar over the faulty poverty estimates of the Planning Commission. The Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) set up a committee with representatives of the Planning Commission and others to decide a way to meet the objections of the states. It was decided to “arrange” another poverty estimate as far as allocations of foodgrains and rural development schemes are concerned. The committee calculated that in real numbers the 1999-2000 poverty estimates of 27 per cent on the latest population projections in rural India translated into 386.48 lakh families. Since this was not acceptable to the states, the method devised was to go back to the 37 per cent rural poverty estimates of 1993-94 but without taking into account the increased population during this period. The use of old population figures to decide upon government programmes for existing populations is clearly questionable and unjust. However through this method a “middle path” was found. It translated into an actual figure of 488.05 lakh families which was higher then the Planning Commission estimates by around 100 lakhs thus meeting the criticism. This was then divided into the “adjusted shares of states” mentioned earlier. 

Thus whereas the 1999-2000 poverty estimate for Andhra Pradesh was 11. 62 lakh families, the “adjusted share” formula on the 1993-94 estimates brought it up to 27.52 lakh families and the allocation of funds increased. For West Bengal it was the opposite. The 1999-2000 poverty number was at 36 lakh families, but according to the adjusted share it was brought down to 34.9 lakh families and its share in funds was therefore to be reduced. For Tripura the poverty estimate was 2.5 lakh families and the adjusted share was 1.9 lakh families and therefore funds were to be cut. Since the basis of both calculations were questioned, states were also given the right to use the “higher figure”. Thus West Bengal could choose the 36 lakh family figure to get more funds while Andhra Pradesh was free to choose the adjusted share figure. While this may have, to an extent, covered the problems of the states as far as funds for poverty alleviation is concerned, this entire process by the Planning Commission is highly dubious, starting with a wrong base and continuing with ad hoc calculations, arrangements and adjustments which have more to do with the obsession to keep funds for programmes under control, rather than to understand the nature and extent of poverty as it exists in the country today. 

BPL CENSUS BY MoRD

Since 1992 the MoRD has been conducting a census, known as the BPL census timed with the five year plans. The ministry funds the poverty census which is conducted through field surveys by the respective state governments. Unlike the Sample Surveys used by the Planning Commission to estimate poverty, the MoRD census is a house to house census with a hundred per cent coverage of all households. The methodology and questionnaire is decided by the ministry. However the three censuses are not comparable because the ministry has changed the methodology for each census.

In 1992 when the first time a BPL census was conducted, an income criterion of around 11,000 rupees per annum was used to identify a BPL family. After the census the MoRD announced that according to its census 52 per cent of rural households qualified as being below the set poverty line. In 1997 at the time of the second census for the Ninth Five Year Plan, the Planning Commission intervened to change the criteria from an income based one to an expenditure-cum-exclusion based one because it felt, as explained by an official in the rural development ministry, that the “figures were too high.” The new questionnaire excluded those families who owned even one of a list of five exclusion criteria which included land, pucca house, annual income of any resident member being 20,000 rupees, durable items like a TV set or ownership of a farm implement like a power tiller. Thus if a family owned a TV and did not own any of the other items, and had an income lower than the declared poverty line, the family was still excluded from the BPL list regardless of any other factor. 

According to the 1997 census using the new criteria the BPL families constituted 41.05 per cent of the rural population. However even this was considered too high. The Planning Commission held that there was too much “fluctuation” between the Planning Commission estimates and those of the MoRD. At its suggestion an “Expert Group” was then set up by the MoRD, which suggested a third method rejecting the earlier two methods. This was based on a schedule with 13 parameters with four sets of answers which carry points. Each family is given a score, with the maximum score at 52. Families with the lowest score are identified as the poorest. However the way the questions were framed tells its own story. For example on the issue of food security a family gets 0 only if it eats “less than one square meal a day.” But a family which eats twice a day even if it “faces occasional shortages” gets a high score of 3. Another question relates to sanitation. The Expert Committee clearly forgot that the ministry through its own programme of total sanitation subsidises BPL families to build their own latrines. In the schedule, a family that owns “a private latrine” gets the highest score of 4 and on this count will be considered non-poor. Shockingly a family where both the male and female may work gets a high score of 4. There are many other such examples which will give a higher score and will not reflect actual poverty status. On the basis of this questionable schedule, a village level ranking of households is done. Thus for each village there will be a list of which family is more poor than the other. 

PROBLEMS WITH MoRD METHOD

There are at least three major problems with the way the ministry data is to be used These are made clear in the circular of the MoRD to all state governments issued in September 2002 on the subject of the 2002 BPL census. The first problem is that whereas the same schedule was to be used in all states, the cut-off score to determine which families below that score would be considered BPL was not fixed at an all-India level but was left for the states to decide. According to the MoRD instructions, “The states may be allowed flexibility to decide the cut-off scores for identifying and sub-categorising of the households into ‘very poor’, ‘poor’, ‘not-so-poor’ and ‘non-poor’. The cut-off scores may be uniform for an entire state or could vary from district to district, block to block and village to village keeping in view the ground realities. This would allow for regional variations.” Thus the ministry had clearly given up any effort to set a uniform measure of poverty at an all-India level through the BPL Census. Within the state it is quite likely that subjective considerations may have influenced decisions of what is to be the “cut-off” score. It has also left the scope for misusing cut-off scores as a political weapon to victimise a particular village or block or district for not voting or behaving in a manner acceptable to the Party which happens to be in power in the state. Also more powerful interests in a particular village or block may prevail upon the authorities to give scores to families in that area in a manner so as to make more funds available to them. All these are real possibilities which severely impair the credibility of the MoRD BPL method. In any case it is clear that MoRD’s BPL Census 2002 was only meant to rank households in any village according to the schedule. 

WHY NO CUT-OFF ? 

The reason for the MoRD diffidence in determining a cut-off is also clear. The lack of cut-off is the crucial factor that will enable the wholly unscientific linking between the unsatisfactory schedule based census of the MoRD with the equally questionable poverty estimates of the Planning Commission. In September 2002, the Economic Advisor to the MoRD sent a circular to all states that while “the states may be allowed some flexibility to decide the cut-off scores…. [they] may identify the BPL households for targeting under different programmes of the government in such a way that the total number of persons identified in a state/UT does not exceed the number of persons living below the poverty line in that state/UT estimated by the Planning Commission for the year 1999-2000 by more than 10 per cent of the Planning Commission’s estimate for the rural sector… The states/UTs may develop their own mechanism to ensure that the total number of persons in the BPL category is well within the prescribed limit.” This was slightly modified by another circular issued by the Planning Commission which said that the prescribed limit should include the numbers of BPL through the “adjusted share formula, whichever is higher.” In other words, the states are supposed to be satisfied by the extra 10 per cent leeway they are allowed over and above the Planning Commission estimates or the adjusted share, but they do not have the right to demand allocations on the basis of a realistic appraisal of the number of poor in their states based on the findings of the census.

An absurd situation is created by the absence of any uniform cut-off score to determine poverty. There is a range of differing cut-off scores across India from 20 in Bihar, 16 in Madhya Pradesh, 14 in Karnataka, 13 in Rajasthan, all presumably determined by the numbers of poor “prescribed” by the Planning Commission. Maharashtra has no cut-off but has divided the numbers “allotted” by the Planning Commission equally among districts. Most other states have not yet decided but they all know that regardless of their own assessments, they cannot cross the Planning Commission’s iron lakshman rekha.

If this utterly irrational, unscientific and unjust “linking” has escaped public attention, it maybe because the BPL 2002 survey was in cold storage due to the earlier Supreme Court stay order. A fresh BPL census is to be conducted in 2007 to coincide with the Eleventh Five Year Plan. The Planning Commission has also set up a committee to revisit the methodology of poverty estimation. This is therefore an appropriate time for all those interested in the welfare and rights of the poor to campaign on issues of BPL estimates and identification and question the unscientific links between the Planning Commission estimates with those of the MoRD for the identification of the poor and allocation of funds. (Concluded)