| |
 |
|
 |
| |
| Why rural people are poor cousins of urbanites? |
|
Abstract: While the GDP from agriculture has more than quadrupled(at 1999-2000 prices), from Rs. 108374 crore in 1950-51 to Rs. 4,85,937 crore in 2006-07, the increase per worker is only about 75% higher in real terms than in 1950 compared to 400% higher increase in overall real percapita GDP. |
At an average rate of population growth of 2.1% during the period 1950-51 to 2004-05, per capita income of agricultural workforce was virtually stagnant at 0.5% per annum, compared to whopping increase in per capita industry sector workforce income at 4.7% per annum.
|
While increase in per capita agri workforce income during the five year period ending FY 2010 was only about 1.2% per annum, Per capita industry workforce income was 5.6% and that of services workforce 8.6%. This has resulted in wide variation between incomes of agri workforce and non- agri workforce.
|
“All the resources in the village, human and natural, are used to create wealth, which does not remain in the village to benefit its own people, but reaches urban centres leading to their prosperity.”
|
Policymakers are found wanting on grasping the processes that contribute to poverty. Increasingly, as economists unabashedly declare and politicians reluctantly admit, any move to eradicate poverty is driven by growth of the economy, its GDP. |
How to connect this growth with poverty alleviation should be the overriding concern of our policymakers. The processes on the ground that keep the poor, poor, need to be examined more closely. Can we look at the patterns of production , consumption, transportation of goods and services in rural India from the point of view of the villager? At the local level, if we observe how wealth is created, where it reaches and whom it benefits, we may be able to identify ways to reduce the extent of impoverishment. |
If we take the village as a unit, not a geographical one but an economic one, it has a pool of resources, both human and natural. This essentially comprises agricultural land, trees, people, water, agricultural produce, wood, minerals, animals , milk, meat, animal skin and metal. This is the collective village property. Out of this wealth is created that translates into a slew of products and services, food grain, fodder, milk, leather, wood, metal, cotton to name a few, varying, of course, from region to region. |
The logical flow of this wealth to the end-user is what determines who stays poor and who benefits in the rural scenario. Much of what has been generated in the villages finds its way into the markets, which are invariably in urban centres or, at any rate, not in the villages. All the resources in the village, human and natural, are used to create wealth, which does not remain in the village to benefit its own people, but reaches urban centres leading to their prosperity. Much of what the rural population needs in terms of daily use is now available only in the markets, leaving them with no option but to go chasing the very goods they have been creating. |
This can help us discern why poverty eradication as a goal still remains so elusive. Why the growth in the economy or the whole edifice of government’s policies, its slew of programmes, reforms and measures does not lead to a significant progress in poverty alleviation. ET 8 Oct 2010, Karnaram Poonar & Sujatha Raghavan |
| Krsr/article/151010 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
