robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)
>Neils51 m (remove extraneous definite article, typo(s) fixed: well being → well-being, 1993-94 → 1993–94, ’s → 's (5), 2004-05 → 2004–05 (3)) |
(robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Indian benchmark}} | |||
{{Other uses|Poverty threshold}} | {{Other uses|Poverty threshold}} | ||
{{Use Indian English|date=February 2017}} | {{Use Indian English|date=February 2017}} | ||
| Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
Internationally, an income of less than ₹150 per day per head of [[purchasing power parity]] is defined as [[extreme poverty]]. By this estimate, about 12.4% of Indians are extremely poor. Income-based poverty lines consider the bare minimum income to provide basic food requirements; it does not account for other essentials such as health care and education.<ref name=pewb2010>[http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND Poverty and Equity - India] The World Bank (2012)</ref> | Internationally, an income of less than ₹150 per day per head of [[purchasing power parity]] is defined as [[extreme poverty]]. By this estimate, about 12.4% of Indians are extremely poor. Income-based poverty lines consider the bare minimum income to provide basic food requirements; it does not account for other essentials such as health care and education.<ref name=pewb2010>[http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND Poverty and Equity - India] The World Bank (2012)</ref> | ||
==Current method of | ==Current method of population== | ||
Criteria are different for the rural and urban areas. In its [[Tenth Five-Year Plan (India)|Tenth Five-Year Plan]], the degree of deprivation is measured with the help of parameters with scores given from 0–4, with 13 parameters. Families with 17 marks or less (formerly 15 marks or less) out of a maximum 52 marks have been classified as BPL. Poverty line solely depends on the per capita income in India rather than level of prices.<ref name="pbplanning">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbplanning.gov.in/pdf/BPL16-3-07.pdf |title=Sub |access-date=2012-10-08}}</ref><ref name="priasoft">{{cite web|url=http://priasoft1.tn.nic.in/rdwebsite/Central_Schemes/linkfiles/go_rd_150_06_pg251.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2009-02-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721174857/http://priasoft1.tn.nic.in/rdwebsite/Central_Schemes/linkfiles/go_rd_150_06_pg251.pdf |archive-date=21 July 2011 |df=dmy }}</ref> | Criteria are different for the rural and urban areas. In its [[Tenth Five-Year Plan (India)|Tenth Five-Year Plan]], the degree of deprivation is measured with the help of parameters with scores given from 0–4, with 13 parameters. Families with 17 marks or less (formerly 15 marks or less) out of a maximum 52 marks have been classified as BPL. Poverty line solely depends on the per capita income in India rather than level of prices.<ref name="pbplanning">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbplanning.gov.in/pdf/BPL16-3-07.pdf |title=Sub |access-date=2012-10-08}}</ref><ref name="priasoft">{{cite web|url=http://priasoft1.tn.nic.in/rdwebsite/Central_Schemes/linkfiles/go_rd_150_06_pg251.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2009-02-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721174857/http://priasoft1.tn.nic.in/rdwebsite/Central_Schemes/linkfiles/go_rd_150_06_pg251.pdf |archive-date=21 July 2011 |df=dmy }}</ref> | ||
| Line 86: | Line 87: | ||
further action for finalisation of Below Poverty Line List for rural areas of this state as per the procedure laid down by Government of India.<ref name = "priasoft"/> | further action for finalisation of Below Poverty Line List for rural areas of this state as per the procedure laid down by Government of India.<ref name = "priasoft"/> | ||
== BPL Beneficiaries == | == [https://creatorweb.in/%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%B2-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%80-2018-bpl-list-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82-%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE/ BPL] Beneficiaries == | ||
Certain groups, specifically those under Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), suffer from exclusion in the poverty debates. While the National Sample Survey (NSS) data showed a decline in overall poverty from 36% in 1993–94 to 28% in 2004–05, the numbers told a different story for areas with tribal populations. The 2004-05 NSS also showed that “the average consumption of Adivasis (ST) was a mere 70% of the average, and that of Dalits (SC) less than 80% of the average.” This census also showed that STs and SCs make up a large proportion of India's poor. The government's programmes for these groups tend to be executed not as strongly and also tend to progress very slowly. STs and SCs also suffer from displacement, caste-based violence and discrimination in education and employment. States hold the power to make special arrangements for these groups through “reserved seats” in educational institutions and special grants and scholarships. In addition, certain “income generation programs” along with financial organizations that provide coaching in “entrepreneurial skills” do exist for these groups.<ref name=":3">de Haan, Arjan. Rescuing Exclusion from the Poverty Debate. Vol. 517. International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University (ISS), 2011, <nowiki>https://repub.eur.nl/pub/22626</nowiki>.</ref> A certain number of government jobs are set aside for these minority groups as well. A study found that in an area where member of SC/ST groups are assigned roles of leadership, more funds are allocated towards welfare programs. In other words, political representation of the poor makes a huge impact on allocation of resources.<ref>Chin, Aimee, and Nishith Prakash. “The Redistributive Effects of Political Reservation for Minorities: Evidence from India.” The National Bureau of Economics , Journal of Development Economics, 2011, www.nber.org/papers/w16509.pdf.</ref> | Certain groups, specifically those under Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), suffer from exclusion in the poverty debates. While the National Sample Survey (NSS) data showed a decline in overall poverty from 36% in 1993–94 to 28% in 2004–05, the numbers told a different story for areas with tribal populations. The 2004-05 NSS also showed that “the average consumption of Adivasis (ST) was a mere 70% of the average, and that of Dalits (SC) less than 80% of the average.” This census also showed that STs and SCs make up a large proportion of India's poor. The government's programmes for these groups tend to be executed not as strongly and also tend to progress very slowly. STs and SCs also suffer from displacement, caste-based violence and discrimination in education and employment. States hold the power to make special arrangements for these groups through “reserved seats” in educational institutions and special grants and scholarships. In addition, certain “income generation programs” along with financial organizations that provide coaching in “entrepreneurial skills” do exist for these groups.<ref name=":3">de Haan, Arjan. Rescuing Exclusion from the Poverty Debate. Vol. 517. International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University (ISS), 2011, <nowiki>https://repub.eur.nl/pub/22626</nowiki>.</ref> A certain number of government jobs are set aside for these minority groups as well. A study found that in an area where member of SC/ST groups are assigned roles of leadership, more funds are allocated towards welfare programs. In other words, political representation of the poor makes a huge impact on allocation of resources.<ref>Chin, Aimee, and Nishith Prakash. “The Redistributive Effects of Political Reservation for Minorities: Evidence from India.” The National Bureau of Economics , Journal of Development Economics, 2011, www.nber.org/papers/w16509.pdf.</ref> | ||