POVERTY: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PHENOMENON

 

AUTHORED BY - YASHI PATNI & AMIT SINGH THAKUR

 

 

ABSTRACT

“Extreme poverty anywhere is a threat to human security everywhere”

• Kofi Annan, Seventh-General of the United Nations
•  

Poverty is not only an issue of economics but it s multidimensional phenomenon that brings out the lack of income as well as the basic capabilities to live a life with dignity. People who are living in poverty have to face a lot of severe obstacles that are physical, economic, cultural and even social. Poverty is actually that state in which lack of financial resources is been faced by the people and it also covers the essential that are needed for a person to survive. It means that the level of income is very low that the person cannot fulfill their basic needs. People who are facing it may not even have a house for living or food to eat or even no medication is been available. Every nation have their own threshold which shows that how many people are been living in poverty there.

 

The paper is going to cover the meaning of poverty. It will also have the challenges that are been faced by the people who are living in poverty. The paper will also cover the comparison among different countries and the problem faced by them. In this paper poverty will be read as a multi dimensional phenomenon and not only as a uni-dimensional phenomenon. For the better understating of the topic it will include the literature review which will cover the newspaper articles, books and other internet sources.

 

KEYWORDS: Poverty, Multidimensional, uni-dimensional, Absolute poverty, Relative poverty, financial resources. 

 

 

 

RESEARCH DESIGN

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The research for this paper is carried out by fulfilling the following objectives and ended it by a conclusive study.

• To analyze the causes of poverty
• To evaluate the measured of poverty reduction policies
• To analyze the challenges that poverty brings along.
• To evaluate poverty as a multi dimensional phenomenon

 

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The aim of this paper is to monitor that how poverty works as a multi dimensional phenomenon and how multi dimensional approach is more relevant than one dimensional and what are the major indicators to measure MPI?

 

RESEARCH METHADOLOGY

The present research paper is mainly a comparative, empirical and analytical study. The research is done through e- libraries which consisted of the primary sources. As the research paper is empirical the methods adopted are primary and secondary both and some of the historical analysis too as studying purely from experimental method doesn’t work here. The materials that are relevant have been collected from the secondary sources. The material was collected through prints, electronic media, books and articles.

 

CHAPTERISATION

CHAPTER I- Introduction

CHAPTER II- Literature Review

CHAPTER III- Analysis

CHAPTER IV- Comparative Analysis

CHAPTER V- Conclusion

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

Poverty is restricting people from excess of resources like health care, education and exclusion from services. Poverty is not only about money but when people are defied resources like food, water and shelter. This can even be extended to even transportation. Poverty is further classified as absolute poverty and relative property. Lack of wealth is not the only reason for existence of poverty globally. The opposite of poverty is “Justice” and “Sufficiency” and not only wealth.

 

According to mathematical scale poverty is like standing on a negative integer and the aim is to reach zero or neutral point and not reach a positive value. Positive integer refers to living a luxuries life whereas neutral state is surviving hardly. The opposite of being in poverty is not luxury or wealth.

 

Multidimensional poverty has gained eyesight of many social groups all over the world. It is now accepted that poverty is not only about lack of income. The focus is to end all forms of poverty. The topic that still remains debatable is which dimensions should be included other than income. Measurement of poverty should be done either through multidimensional index or multiple indicators is still a question.

 

Poverty is more than money or money like resources. It is about consequences that people face. Non monitory dimensions often become the cause of poverty. Multidimensional poverty includes limited financial resources, social exclusion, deprivation and less power but above characteristics focuses on lack of financial resources which gives rise to various types of poverty. Poverty is dynamic in many ways and people’s (scores) keeps on changing which each dimensions.

 

This reflects the experience of poverty faced by people where it does not supports estimate of poverty at any cost. The reason for this is as data is very difficult to collect and expenses too. Also it is lengthier than estimated that is extended period of time. This is the reason the definition of poverty was framed according to the data that was available with limitations but importance of practicality was not taken into account. Global and national trend should be monitored regularly and causes of poverty should be understood in a better way keeping in mind the crude indicators. Different groups have different view points towards poverty. Tradition and disciplines have a total contrasting view towards poverty. While for some people poverty is not able to meet basic needs or opportunities and absence of well being or denying people to their optimum capability. While for others poverty is distinct social experience which is a syndrome that consists structural and personal characteristic.

 

Different people have different viewpoints when it comes to multi dimensionality while some groups consider dimension as a component of poverty that can define the poverty. According to them if one section is erased the definition would be incomplete. While the other section treat these dimensions as the opposite of them and doesn’t consider that definition is incomplete that one section is removed. According to them there is a high correlation between dimensions of poverty which couldn’t have been possible if poverty was defined as aggregate of its component part. The issue remains debatable as to which dimensions should be included and what is the best possible way to select a particular dimensions.[1]

 

 

IMPORTANCE OF MULTI DIMENSIONAL POVERTY

Often when we define poverty we use one dimensional measure that is generally based on income. But if we want to capture the multiple dimensions of poverty then no single indicator would be able to predict or give correct measure of poverty.

 

Multi dimensional poverty takes into account various types of deprivations that are experienced by the poor people in their day to day life. This can be lack of education, poor health, compromising living standards, less power, work of poor quality, violence threat and residing in areas which are hazardous to their lives etc.

 

 The reason why a multidimensional measure of poverty is must because it has the ability to capture a range of indicators that consider or incorporate the complexity associated with these phenomena and which can help in forming policies for the future to reduce poverty and deprivation in a country where poverty resides. As the purpose of measure and context xan vary from country to country the different indicators available can be selected according to the needs and priorities of a particular nation and then limiting it to that nations region, districts, provinces etc. [2]

 

Poverty is attracting a lot of attention among various developing countries as it a serious problem. The issue that remains much debated in India during the recent years is the estimation of poverty. While many studies in India focused on poverty but there analysis was based on uni dimensional approach where they referred to only a single cause of poverty focusing on equivalent income or consumption. The studies also focused on the need to divide the population into poor and non poor by forming a poverty line. This uni dimensional approach gives understanding of poverty from a partial perspective and the agenda remains unfocused. Poverty reductions programs are often ineffective. Different aspects of deprivation are not captured through uni dimensional approach and also lead to other difficulties like income measurement as income is reduced based on uni dimensional poverty results. Single monitory indicator limits the measurement of poverty and lowers the need for multidimensional approach to analysis of poverty which expands the gap between uni dimensional and multi dimensional instances.

 

The five years plan since 1980s saw India grow economically at over 5% on an average. Compared to neighboring countries the Gross national income is on a much higher side but growth is not as inclusive as of neighbors. Growth is measured as reducing the proportionate income or upgrading key social indicators. The national poverty line and world’s bank poverty line has seen a fall of one percent point per year in an average from last many years. Still comparing to countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal the reduction is much slower.[3]

 

 

HOW TO MEASURE POVERTY

To measure poverty we need a composite index which looks at multiple dimensions. Multiple deprivations could be due to less income but it is not mandatory that basic needs are deprived because of income. Poverty also means deprivations of areas like heath, education and society. Thus for proper analysis multi dimensional approach would be more practical. Multi dimensional poverty index captures multiple deprivations that poor people experience and differs from the traditional approach of measuring poverty through income. MPI shows the reason for being poor and cause by analyzing living standard, education and health. Acute multidimensional poverty is indicated by MPI through two indices: Incidence of poverty (H) or poor people’s percentage and average of poor people deprivations also known as intensity of poverty (A). Incidence and intensities product is the MPI. Multi dimensional aspects of poverty as gained attention of many researchers and economists. United Nations development program (UNDP) and Oxford poverty and human development initiative (OPHI) applauded the approach and released MPI ranking for more than hundred countries. MPI captures many more indicators than human development index which gives it a slight edge. HDI takes macro approach and measures at country level while MPI begins at household level which is then accumulated to the country level. This helps in utilizing the available information efficiently and minimul information lose. SDGs aim is to eliminate poverty which can be done only if poor people are identified and road map is lead as to how these people existed poverty. The MPI helps n identifying who are poor and methods to reduce poverty.

MPI helps countries in identifying loop holes in policy interventions. The MPI also shows how multi dimensional poverty composition can vary from region to region, areas, caste and so on with proper implications.

 

The coming sections will focus on how MPI’s multi dimensional approach is more relevant than one dimensional and what are the major indicators to measure MPI.

 

This paper will highlight the multidimensional aspects rather than one dimensional measures.

The major indicators that were used in the paper to measure MPI are standard of living, education, health and income. [4]

 

CHALLENGES THAT POVERTY BRINGS ALONG

HEALTH RELATED RAMIFICATIONS

Poverty and low-income status bring along a variety of adverse health outcomes, including shorter life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality, and higher death rates for the leading causes of death. These effects are transfused via individual- and broader-level mechanisms. For individuals, poverty precludes the resources used to ward off risks and take up healthy practices.[5]

 

 “Poverty also affects the built environment (i.e., the human-made physical parts of the places where people live, work, and play, including buildings, open spaces, and infrastructure), services, culture, and reputation of communities, all of which have independent effects on health outcomes”. Geographical areas also matter in the sense that there are often dramatic changes in health care delivery and health related consequences that too in proximity that is between communities that are only a few miles apart.

 

“According to World Health Organization estimates, poverty-related diseases account for 45 percent of the disease burden in the poorest countries. Nearly, all of these deaths are either preventable or treatable with existing medicines. For example, tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS make up nearly 18 percent of the disease burden in the poorest nations. Tuberculosis and malaria can both be prevented and treated, and education is crucial for the prevention of HIV/AIDS”.

 

Hence, there is an urgent need to ensure that irrespective of somebody’s place of residence, gender, economic status, caste, creed, religion, race or any other attribute of identification they should be provided with the best health care. Health is a factor that can solely lead to a better mental and physical state. It is rightly said that “Health is wealth”.

 

This even more strongly puts forward a point that if a person is already in poverty then he is already in dearth of economic wealth. Furthermore, if he is devoid of good and healthy condition then this crevasse of wealth deepens to the next level since now, they are also devoid of the capacity or capability to further their economic status. This is because their physical and mental health are not in a decent state to operate or be motivated to pursue what is necessary.

 

Escalates Crime

In the first instance, it might seem that crime is a cause of poverty and not vice versa. However, poverty can render people pessimistic and desperate enough to engage in criminal activities. For instance, a study done by the “Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime found that, even after controlling for the effects of a range of other factors such as substance misuse and poor family functioning that can influence violent behaviour, ‘poverty had a significant and direct effect on young people’s likelihood to engage in violence at age 15.’ Individuals growing up in communities with high levels of deprivation were significantly more likely to engage in violent activities”. [6]

 

Ironically, the people belonging to the lower strata of socioeconomic status in the society were more likely to become violent or commit a crime despite the fact that they apparently belong to a class of people that are generally presumed to be ‘harmless’ since they ostensibly have ‘no power’ as such.

 

The effect on working memory

 “Working memory is the ability ‘to hold information in mind and mentally work with, while this information is not accessible by a sensory apparatus at that moment’ (Diamond, 2013, p. 142)”. Most of the research on working memory and poverty has been conducted on children, showing that living in poverty can cause significantly worse effects on the working memory.

 

Attention

“Attention is the ability to select and focus on relevant information in the environment, while ignoring other information of lesser task-related importance (Kastner and Pinsk, 2004; Lui and Tannock, 2007). The effect of poverty on attention has been examined in a series of experiments conducted in both simulated (e.g., by inducing resource restriction and a sense of poverty in games; Shah et al., 2012; Mani et al., 2013), as well as in real-world environments (e.g., in pre- and post-harvest measures of cognitive functions of Indian farmers”.

 

According to Shah et al. (2012), people devoid of enough resources and who were not that actively involved in playing sports/games, were easily fatigued, and took comparatively longer to decide. They also scored lesser on the attention test vis-à-vis the controls’ test. They observed, therefore, that the dearth of any kind of resource can lead to an unbridled degree of involvement with a task.

 There is a need to further understand this in the sense of financial outcomes of not being able to focus where it is quintessential to do so and rather mustering and directing undivided attention inevitably to the grave necessities of life. This statement implies that when a person is in extreme poverty, they are forced to focus on issues like basic economic stability to fulfil their necessities. This leads to an attentional neglect towards other significant and attention worthy essentials like mental health, physical health, etc.

 

Furthermore, in the smothered feeling that encompasses them due to poverty makes them take unheeded decisions like borrowing money in an unsecured manner at high interest rates, consuming adulterated or low-quality food, being gullible to faulty investment schemes, etc. which leads them to sink even deeper into the morass of poverty.

Limited Access to Education

Poor children typically attend schools with inadequate facilities and receive the kind of education that hardly provides them with the tools to further their studies or seek employment, thereby restricting them and their children to poverty, which becomes a vicious cycle of poverty across generations. Additionally, geography can dictate if they even get to attend school. For instance, while a poor child in the U.S. can still attend school, a poor child in a rural area of Bangladesh might not have that opportunity. Distance, lack of transportation and financial resources often make it very difficult for poor children in developing nations to get an education.

 

Why use a multidimensional approach?

There can be a lot missing from monetary poverty initiatives. Studies have shown that there is a misunderstanding between monetary and non-monetary poverty initiatives. In most cases, not all people in income are multidimensionally disadvantaged and not all people in income are multidimensional poor. Monetary and non-monetary poverty initiatives are essential to better communicate policies aimed at addressing vulnerable populations' needs and deprivations.

Not often does economic development decrease income or poverty.

Several studies have shown that economic growth may not have a direct effect on other disadvantages such as children's hunger or infant mortality.

 

Poor people call themselves multidimensional in their view of poverty. Participatory exercises show that disadvantaged people describe poor health, nutrition, lack of proper health and clean water, social isolation, poor education, poor housing conditions, crime, disgrace, discapacity and much more. Read for instance the participatory process for identifying El Salvador's dimensions and indicators.

The more political knowledge on poverty is available, the better trained politicians can reduce it.

For instance, an area where most people are deprived of education needs a plan to reduce poverty from an area where most people are deprived of their housing.

For additional purposes, some techniques for the multidimensional calculation may be used such as the Alkire-Foster process.

Besides measures of poverty and well-being, it is possible to adapt the Alkire-Foster approach to target programmes and conditional cash transfers or to track programme's results. [7]

CHAPTER-II

LITERATURE REVIEW

BOOK-1

POVERTY RESEARCH AND MEASUREMENT

BY- ROBERT WALKER

The chapter of this book discusses about the different concepts of poverty which also included multidimensional poverty and also explains what is poverty globally in brief. it basically emphasized on the construction of the poverty politically and what are the ideological measures of some of the basis of poverty. The book as a whole from which the chapter is been taken focused on the poverty that has one dimension. The core that is absolute of poverty is argument that is been said by Amartya Sen and also helps in exploring how this can implicate in the poverty’s dynamics.[8]

 

BOOK-2

ON THE MULTIDIMANTIONALITY OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

BY- S.P. JENKINS & J. MICKLEWRIGHT

In this book the author argues that poverty must be considered as a multidimensional phenomenon and then for identifying the population that analysis of latent class must be used on the basis of the income that is low, materialistic deprivations and then making difficulties in the perceived meet in the Ireland first and after that around the European Union. It was then concluded that disadvantage of the dimensions is more additive when compared with the condition of the underlying of the common manifestation and also that in Europe the multi deprivation to an extent is very limited. The indicators of the suitability were been chosen and considered too and to that extent that the promised made by the multidimensional initial review were been lived up.[9]

 

BOOK-3

MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO POVERTY

BY- WAGLE & UDAYA

To combine the ideas of economic well being of people the book focuses on the conceptualisation and operationalisation of multidimensional poverty index model. This shows that though economic well being, social inclusion and capability are seperate but yet all are related dimensionally. A particular section which the might pose difficulty for readers is the technical section on operationalisation which can be cut out by them as it introduces structural equation modelling and also uses matrix algebra. Pages 84-5 gives the summary of the technique also which can be read. This approach is not through data but by theoretical approach which drives the analysis. The debatable point here can be that whether unifying so many sub-concepts as dimensions is logical or not. The basic model that is being used was tested in two countries that were Nepal and United States which were different but yet related in many ways. But the diagrams that were generated through computers widens the gap between the two countries.[10]

 

BOOK- 4

POVERTY AND CHILDHOOD WELLBEING

BY- M. TOMLINSON & R. WALKER

This is the most weird chapter of the book as it questions the existence of different forms of poverty that are characterised through individual scores measuring different dimensions and argues whether they might have different consequences and whether they are amenable to policy response that are targeted. The author took example of Britain where forms of child wellbeing though different but are associated with some focused dimensions of household poverty. The analysis done was suggestive which should have been definitive and the associations that were identified were not casual. The policy actions which were taken from statistical models does not form the policy experiment. In every else chapter the analysts focused on investigating multidimensional poverty’s dynamics by finding ways how poverty experienced by people could be changed over time.[11]

 

ARTICLES

ARTICLE-1

CONCEPT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE

BY- ANAND S. & SEN A.

In this paper the authors focused on highlighting the importance of multidimensional approach and not just measuring poverty based on income. The human poverty index introduction was justified by the rigorous contribution procedure that was done by the author. While some consider human poverty index to be at an aggregate country level but it is one of the very first examples of multidimensional poverty. The measurement was carried out through a technical procedure which is also mentioned in this paper.[12]

 

ARTICLE-2

MEASURING ACUTE POVERTY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD: ROBUSTNESS AND SCOPE OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX

BY- ALKIRE S. & SANTOSH M.E.

The article focuses on providing insights about the multidimensional poverty’s index, it’s influence and usage. The article along with importance also highlights with some facts that why it is considered important. The head count ratio methodology’s justification is given with some proof of it’s robust technique. Not only the importance the author also describes MPI’s contribution, MPI’s failure and along with it what is the scope of further development.[13]

 

ARTICLE -3

MULTI-POVERTY IN CAMEROON- A STRUCTURE EQUATION MODELING APPROACH

BY- NINGAYE, ALEXI & VIRGINIE

This article is best for supplementary readers as it’s not very easy to follow. Perhaps the strong point of this article is that it aims to discover the various nature of multidimensional poverty by using a tool known as structural equation modelling as it was mentioned in the previous reading but only considering the development in the context. The article mentions five different dimensions of poverty out of which lack of accessibility to healthcare services is considered as the most important factor of poverty be it at any level of poverty. It also identifies how it’s importance differes from region to region between urban and rural areas. The article mentions how different poverty dimensions are co-related. The author proves this through statistical simulation and shows how effectiveness can be improved drastically when one exploits targeting interventions regionally. According to the choice of the reader they might skip section 3 and 4 and focus more on Section 5.[14]

ARTICLE-4

MASHUP INDICES OF DEVELOPMENT

BY- M. RAVALLION

The working paper focuses on multidimensionality in which multidimensional poverty index was a critical example. Although the author acknowledges that poverty is not unidimensional but he is sceptical that value added from multidimensional indicators go well with series of unidimensional ones. For the reader they should know while reading that this is polemical piece that covers This eclectically and doesn’t come to conclusion that all indicators of multidimensional poverty are flaws. The author focuses to provide theoretical approach and findings and clear thinkings regarding poverty. [15]

 

CHAPTER-III

ANALYSIS

Poverty index: dimensions and indicators multidimensional

MPI identifies how three core aspects – wellness, education, and living standards – are left behind, with ten indicators. Individually deprived persons are classified as multidimensional poor with a minimum of a third of these weighted measures.

There indicators:

Food and food

Mortality of children

School years

Access to school

Cuisine Health care for fuel Water to drink Electronic power Activities for housing

 

Poverty index multidimensional: main findings (Globally)

In 75 countries, Eastern, Central and South Asia, Europe, Latin America, Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific have been observed. It essentially offers an extensive overview of global developments in five billion people in multidimensional poverty.

 

65 out of 75 countries surveyed have lowered their MPI value, and the number of people living in poverty has decreased by 50 nations, according to the report. According to the report, approximately 273 million people in India migrated out of multidimensional poverty. In addition, three South Asian countries – India, Bangladesh, and Nepal – have decreased their MPI value amongst the 16 quickest countries.

 

Around 1,3 billion people continue to suffer from multidimensional poverty; children have higher rates of multidimensional poverty: half of the 644 million people living in multidimensional poverty are children under the age of 18. In comparison to one in six adults, one in three children is bad.

 

About 84,3 percent of people living in Sub-Saharan Africa with multidimensional poverty (558 million) and South Asia (530 million).

 

In middle-income countries 67 percent of citizens are multidimensionally poor with a range of 0 to 57 percent national incidence of multidimensional poverty and 0 to 91 percent nationwide. Each multidimensional poor person is left behind in a critical mass of indicators. Like 803 million multidimensionally poor people, there are 476 million out-of-school children at home in a household where someone is undernourished, etc. The study showed that 65 of 75 countries decreased their multidimensional poverty rate substantially between 2000 and 2019. Around 107 million people are 60 or older in multidimensional poverty. The study found that in 5.5 and 10.5 years four nations, namely India, Armenia, Nicaragua and North Macedonia, decreased their MPI by half or more. Between 2010 and 2014, 70 million people left multidimensional poverty in China and between 2014 and 2019 the number in Bangladesh decreased by 19 million.

 

India Scenario Multidimensional Poverty Index

Between 2005-06 and 2016-2017 at least 271 million people have been taken from multidimensional poverty estimated by the Indian Sustainable Development Goals Voluntary National Review (VNR) (SDG). The estimates provided are based on the 2019 Multidimensional Poverty Index, published in July 2019. According to the global MPI, more than 640 million Indian citizens in 2005-2006 experienced multidisciplinary poverty. By 2016-2017 there were approximately 369,55 million people living under poverty.

 

Indian poverty

55,1% of the population in India lived under multidimensional poverty in 2005-2006, down from 27,9% in 2015-16.

The number of people living under extreme multidynamic poverty rose to 43.9% in 2015-2016, compared to 8.8% of the population.

 

As per the report, in India, as of 2018 37.7 crore people had lived in multidimensional poverty.

As of 2016, the number of individuals without nutrition in India was 21.2 percent. About 26,2% of people had cooking fuel deprived. Those who had lost sanitation and potable water were respectively 24.6% and 6.2%. Electricity and housing deficient individuals are at 8,6% and 23,6% per year.

 

Let us inform you that the study also shows how multidimensional poverty and immunisation correlate. In addition, as an indication of how well countries provide regular immunisation, the proportion of children receiving three doses of Diptheria, Tetanu and Pertussis (DTP3) vaccine was used.

 

According to the report, 60 percent were non-vaccinated children in ten countries. Roughly 40% of non-DTP3 immunised children lived in four countries, namely India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia. The report states that, while high levels of immunisation are obtained, populated developing nations may contribute significantly to many unvaccinated children. About 2,6 million children in India have been "sub-vaccinated."

 

How does the COVID-19 pandemic influence?

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly great implications for progress. According to the report, the average level of poverty is 3 to 10 years because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Sustainable development objectives (SDG)

The key purpose of the SDGs is to end all forms of poverty everywhere by 2030 – Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

 

The index is concerned with calculating and tracking progress to SDG 1. The Commission also provides policy makers with information in response to the Target 12 decision, which is 'a minimum reduction of 50% in all of the nationally-defined proportion of men, women and children of every age living in poverty' [16]

CHAPTER- IV

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Southern African COMPARATIVE Study

Origin of ethics and existing ethics Their present societies were influenced by major social factors in both India and South Africa. These factors contributed to the poverty in the two countries and also influenced their response to poverty reduction. In the past, significant parts of the populations of both nations have been vulnerable to poverty. 5 This section is focused on World Bank data (2018). Educational, health and economic opportunities impact Education, wellness and economic opportunities are important fields that can be affected by poverty. However, inadequate services and low access can also contribute greatly to poverty in these groups.

 

Literacy

Education has the potential to elevate people from poverty. Education and training correctly provide children with the assets they can take advantage of, make a living and enter the workforce 16 Bank of the World (2018). 109 enhance their life quality. In their education systems, both India and South Africa invest fairly. Adjusted net entry rate for children from 1990 to 2015 in primary education. 17 Because of the sharp rise in Indian registration rate between 2002 and 2007, South Africa had a higher registration than India until 2005, and then India surpassed South Africa. The enrollment rate in India increased by 13 percentage points over that period. In the period between 2007 and 2013, the enrollment rate in India stabilised at around 96.6%, while South Africa hit its all-time high by 94.1% in 1999 and then declined moderately over the next 16 years, reaching 87.6% by 2015. Statistically, the third largest factor in elevating people from poverty in India is improved education. 18 While it does occur in both countries, teacher lack of education in India with some of World's highest rates contributes significantly to poor education. 19 This absence obstructs schooling in both countries and robs many of the experience required to escape poverty. The risk of poverty has proved to be reduced by primary education and literacy. 20 Those who have better access are less prone to extreme poverty.

 

Health
Health may have a major effect on poverty as well. The poor are likely to stay those who are not safe enough to get a life or a job. If adequate health coverage are not readily accessible, health care costs can quickly lead to poverty. Health quality has an impact on life expectancy and the quality of life experienced by individuals. As previously covered, their life expectancy has improved considerably in both India and South Africa. Both suffer from severe disease and malnutrition problems. The number of deaths from communicable diseases, maternal conditions, prenatal conditions, or nutritional conditions in both countries. The number of deaths in both countries have been reduced, but from 2000 to 2005 the percentage has risen as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in South Africa. In 2015, 43.7 percent of South Africa's deaths were still too high and their productivity and people were damaged. The cost of medical treatment can also lead to people living in poverty. In 2011, the health care costs in India dropped to below the $1.90 poverty line by 51.9 million people, (4.2% of the total population of India). Healthcare is a vital commodity and the high prices hold people in poverty in this case. In South Africa, this problem still exists, but is much less severe. The healthcare costs pushed 229,000 people (0.4% of the total population of South Africa) below the poverty line in 2010.

 

Economic chance

Economic opportunities, strongly affected by economic conditions, often affect people's desire to escape poverty. As previously mentioned, both India and South Africa have seen a per capita increase in GDP. A per capita increase in GDP usually leads to improved quality of life. In any nation, jobs are the key source of economic chance. Employment availability, conditions and salary also decide the well-being and poverty of its citizens. The unemployment situation in India and South Africa is very different. In 2012, India had an extremely low unemployment rate of 2.7 percent. South Africa, by comparison, had a 24.7 percent unemployment rate the same year. 23 This is a big difference, but there's no end to the comparison. In India, people with basic education are much more likely to have jobs than those with advanced education. 16.6% of people with advanced education were unemployed in 2012, while only 4.2% of people with basic education were unemployed. 24 This means that much of the available employment is lowly qualified and advanced training does not help secure a job, while the salaries of advanced training employees are much higher than low-skilled workers. In South Africa, the reverse is true. In 2012, 10.1% of the unemployed were in advanced education, and 33.4% of those in fundamental learning were unemployed. 25 This shows an overall lack of employment and opportunities that do not provide a way out of poverty for people. Statistical proof for the prevention of poverty is access to work. In 2005, only 20% of the people employed in India were poor, far lower than the rest of the region. The costs involved in the launch of a company are another study of the economic opportunities. Strong progress is being made both in India and in South Africa. In this statistic both nations saw enormous declines. This means that now people have a lot more chance to start a company or enter a business to escape poverty and to improve the economy. A 2017 study showed that entrepreneurship in India, especially rural areas, reduced poverty.

 

Targeted measures to reduce poverty

Both India and South Africa have tried to reduce poverty in full, each with different outcomes. The programmes used both reflect various types of programmes against poverty and overlap with many ethical principles. The three forms of poverty control programmes characterise Barrientos et al. (2016). The two most widely used in South Africa and India are revenue transfers involving the direct exchange of cash or commodities and organised poverty alleviation programmes. This section analyses poverty-reduction initiatives in these groups unique to India and South Africa, both in terms of their efficacy and ethics. PDS is a big income transfer programme that is used in India. PDS is the public distribution system. The PDS has existed and evolved over time since the 1970s. The programme aims to enhance food safety. To ensure that their requisite caloric intake is met the beneficiaries are offered under the market prices of wheat, rice, sugar, edible oils, kerosene and soft cake. The PDS is not functioning perfectly. It also causes the poor to pay rates higher than the market rate and only partially helps the poor. In the 1998 study several poor Indians, in spite of these problems, claimed that for their well-being the PDS was necessary. While not a financial exchange, the PDS is the reduction of poverty by transfers of income due to the simple and incomplete service that it provides. This programme, by striving to balance the playing field for its beneficiaries to access required food items, takes an equitable approach to ethnic standards. Integrated poverty reduction schemes in both nations are much more frequent than transfers of wealth. The steps taken to alleviate poverty have been taken by both South Africa and India in various ways. India continues to use several different programmes, whereas South Africa has broader programmes. Both countries' systems strive to take the ethical path either as justice or as a general good. In this effort to promote public jobs, India's NREGS can be contrasted to South Africa's EPW. Indeed, PDS and GEAR are uniquely common to all nations. In comparison A common factor in both systems is the failure to accomplish their objectives entirely and the corruption that they are subjected to. Data on the effectiveness of initiatives to reduce poverty in both countries in general was inconclusive. While some have helped disadvantaged people, economic growth and increased GDP can be more specifically related to poverty reduction. [17]

 

 

CHINA AND INDIA

Chinese and Indigenous people

For at least two factors, the current debate and action to redefine the poverty lines between China and India is important.

 

First, it indicates a political transition from the 'trickledown' economy to the concept of inclusive or pro-poor growth, emphasising pure and simple growth.

 

Second, the two countries have in theory increasing the amount of individuals qualifying for social security programmes by lifting the official lines of poverty.

 

If social protection programmes are successful in promoting poverty exit in the two countries, that may lead, though less progress is being made in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the rest of East and South Asia, to a substantial decrease in world poverty. In this phase, however, both giants face major challenges.

 

Making growth more inclusive

India and China in particular, experienced rapid economic growth with a median growth rate of 6% and 10% respectively during the 1980-2010 period. In 1980, the GNI per capita based on acquisition power parity (PPP), in India and China, was US$430 and US$250. In the two countries, this has led to growth in gross national revenues per capita (GNI). By 2010, this was raised respectively to 3,560 dollars and 7,570 dollars.

 

China's high growth rates are largely explained by the high rise in gross capital in the last 30 years, which fluctuated by an average of 38 per cent as a percentage of GDP compared with 24 per cent in India – though in recent years the investment space between the two countries has slowed.

 

A substantial part of China's domestic investment, about 20 percent of GDP, has been invested in infrastructure projects almost ten times higher than in India. The accelerated rate of transition of the Chinese economy from agricultural to manufacturing has been facilitated. In India, the shift has been to the offshore service sector of information technology (IT), with conventional agriculture still involving 60% of workforce.

 

 

Economic growth is a crucial prerequisite for an increase in per capita income, but it is not enough to guarantee that poverty is steadily reduced. The connection between economic growth and poverty reduction, for example, is far from linear in China, with high economic output episodes in the 1990s followed by a rise in the rate of poverty. India, which has been experiencing the highest economic growth since the late 1990's, has decelerated the pace of poverty reduction.

 

This underlines the need for more equitable growth of public intervention. Indeed, policies that maximise growth can only trick the poor if they are followed by redistribution of income, opportunities for jobs, human capital investment, and social security for the most disadvantaged groups in societies. They are well understood now.

 

Addressing increasing disparities

Spatial disparities are especially apparent in China, with the economic development of western and inner rural communities significantly less so than that of the eastern coastal provinces. The UN-WIDER World Income Inequality database shows that, amid growing inequities in urban areas, mainly due to non-registered migration from rural to urban areas, Gini coefficients in China that calculate income inequality ranging from zero to "great," to one for max. desquality, have been consistently higher in rural areas than in urban areas.

 

This, along with the fact that Gini's national coefficients are above both rural and urban Ginis, suggests that the gap between rural and urban areas is driving the country's rising inequalities. In India, the Ginis in urban areas have been steadily higher and the rural-urban gap has also increased over the last two decades.

 

There is more to do with income transfer with fiscal policies. Tax rates are low in China and India, with most indirect tax revenues. The lower percentage of state income, oscillating about 20%, is also reflected in this. This is in contrast to the OECD countries' average of 50 percent. In both countries, tax structures would remain restricted to optimising redistributive policy—and in large measure would also limit these countries' ability in coming years to address severe deprivation.

 

Generation of jobs

In terms of job creation, China and India also face serious challenges. Rising unemployment is a driving factor in China's urban poverty incidence, aggravated by market based structural reforms and significant migration flows from rural to urban unskilled jobs. Migrant workers face exclusion from formal jobs and state benefits as well as social-protection schemes such as accommodation, health and education subsidies.

 

But, with other emerging markets, including India, vying vigorously for a share, China's capacity to continue to capture a growing share of global consumer goods markets has become increasingly limited. In addition, in view of the huge, unqualified workers who remain poor and disconnected from the booming economy, it is not clear to which extent the rising IT industry in India will be able to catalyse sustainable development.

 

Provision of public service

China and India have progressed significantly in the delivery of public service, which is linked to the poverty reduction observed in both countries. The latest Human Development Report (2011) shows that China and India have averaged 1.73% and 1.51% annually, respectively, Human Development Index (HDI).

 

But there are also problems. In rural China, for example, access to health care is primarily a consequence of out-of-pocket costs, which consume a large proportion of household costs among poor households. The quality of public services, which are very poor in line with international standards, is seriously concerned in India.

 

We also observed that both health and education indices in India fell short of countries with a comparable per capita income when the HDI is dismissed by its components. There is a great deal of evidence of schools without books and teachers and health centres without physicians and medicines. It also demonstrates how important it is that public spending in the social areas be increased in order to enhance health and education accessibility and quality and, eventually, to reduce poverty.

 

Social defence reinforcement

Social security is also extremely divided in both countries. In China the Minimum Living Subsidies Scheme was implemented in 1997 (also known as Di Bao) to help poor, urban unemployed, who suffered from structural reforms on the economy. The programme, as excluded from those not registered with the Department of Civil Affairs, remains restricted. These are mainly rural migrant workers, as mentioned earlier, who migrate to the city to search for livelihoods.

In the mid-2000's, the Di Bao was slowly expanded to include nearly 42 million rural citizens in rural areas, but the scale of the transfers would not reduce incentives for migration to the cities. Rural Di Bao and the urban Di Bao cover almost 150 million people, the second largest social security scheme in the world, just behind the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS).

 

The NREGS guarantees unemployed, non-skilled workers with almost 48 million households or around 240 million individuals a year's 100 days wage jobs. Indeed, India has a dynamic but incomplete social security scheme. This includes categorical and medium-tested pensions for age and handicap, and income transfers for education and public access to health care, unemployment schemes like the NREGS, which are auto-selected to identify the beneficiaries — except those who are unable to become part of the system due to handicap, sickness and age. The programmes are often spread unevenly throughout the world, with several countries and communities not yet reached.

 

More coordination and the organisation build up are obviously necessary but social security is only supported by development, redistributive policies, better provision of public services and job opportunities, but at the same time a continuous process of poverty reduction will be established. The reduction of poverty at global level would be important in so far as the two countries are able to overcome those challenges.

 

We are hopeful about the redefinition of poverty lines, but the final results have yet to be seen.[18]

 

CHAPTER-V

CONCLUSION

In recent years, India's poverty estimate has been widely discussed. However, most studies in India tended to concentrate on poverty at times and their analytical methods were generally restricted uniformly. Many facets of deprivation cannot be captured. These limits of unilateral poverty measures are also exacerbated by more technological income measurement difficulties, in particular in developing countries, which reduce the importance of uni-dimensional income-based poverty. The long and august history of measuring monetary poverty in India must be complemented by multi-dimensional poverty measurement instruments that capture a common distribution of poverty across the population. Monetary poverty assessment is based on monthly consumption expenses per capita and multidimensional poverty estimates are based on three dimensions: schooling, food, nutrition and living conditions. We have considered nine indicators in these three dimensions of multidimensional poverty, such as education, school presence, food security, food safety, power, cooking fuel, own house, own land and property.

 

‘Poverty is indeed something that makes a person devoid of all powers and hence, the people who have it need to rise up to the occasion to make sure that the ones in dearth of it are uplifted. The poor all around the globe are void of basic necessities of life. They do not have a healthy environment, food, potable water, secure employment in an organised sector, civil and social rights like the right to represent themselves with the best of professionalism. It is like they are perpetuating in a system of stunted growth. They are living with hollow or ostentatious rights. They do have it all and can exercise them if they want to but the most significant question that is quintessential to be posed is when they can’t even fulfil their needs how can they achieve what they want? This is why poverty leads the poor into a viscous circle which has the same end as its beginning. They keep getting entrapped. They start by making efforts to fulfil their basic necessities without having the necessities, enough, to make an effort. It is a responsibility of all governments collectively and organisation around the globe to make sure that at least the basic necessities are fulfilled and in fulfilling those they do not cut a slack. The reason is that this slack can further bring them a step lower than they were.

 

“This can lead to bringing them down to being hopeless when they already feel helpless”

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES

S. Anand & A. Sen, Concept of human development and poverty: A multidimensional perspective, united nation development program (1997)

S. Alkire & M.E. Santosh, measuring acute poverty in the developing world: robustness and scope of multidimensional poverty index, World Development ,59, 251-274

P. Ningaye, Alexi& Virginie, Mult-poverty in Cameroon: A structural equation modeling approach, Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 159-181

M. Ravallion, Mashup Indices of Development, world bank (2010)

Tongjin Zhang &Yuan Zhang, poverty reduction in India and China: A comparative study, World Scientific (VOL 65)

Jakob Dirksen, which are the dimensions and indicators most commonly used to measure multidimensional poverty around the world, MPPN (Dec 4, 2020) 

Monica Pinilla Roncancio, should disability be included in a multidimensional poverty measure, MPPN (Dec 2, 2020)

 

BOOKS

ROBERT WALKER, POVERTY RESEARCH AND MEASURMENT, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS (2014)

S.P. JENKINS & J. MICKLEWRIGHT, ON THE MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS(2007)

UDAYA R WAGLE, MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH OF POVERTY, SRINGER (2007)  

M. TOMLINSON & R. WALKER, POVERTY AND CHILDHOOD WELLBEING, CHILD POVERTY ACTION GROUP(2009)

MARIA EMMA SANTOS, MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS, OXFORD (2015)

 

INTERNET SOURCES

https://ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/#:~:text=Multidimensional%20poverty%20encompasses%20the%20various,are%20environmentally%20hazardous%2C%20among%20others.

https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/global-multidimensional-poverty-index-1595327032-1

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/full/10.1142/S0217590820440026

https://www.american.edu/cas/economics/ejournal/upload/usuka_accessible.pdf

https://unu.edu/publications/articles/redefining-poverty-in-china-and-india.html

https://gsdrc.org/professional-dev/multidimensional-poverty/

http://inet.vidyasagar.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2242/2/UGC%20MRP%20Final%20Report_Pinaki%20Das.pdf

file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/wp2021-1-MPI-India.pdf

https://www.aafp.org/home.html

https://borgenproject.org/worst-consequences-of-poverty/

https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/global-multidimensional-poverty-index-1595327032-1 Poverty is increasingly being understood as a multidimensional phenomenon. Other than income-consumption, which has been extensively studied in the past, health, education, shelter, and social involvement are among the most important dimensions of poverty. The present study attempts to develop a simple tool to measure poverty in its multidimensionality where it views poverty as an inadequate fulfillment of basic needs, such as food, clothing, shelter, health, education, and social involvement. The scale score ranges between 72 and 24 and is constructed in such a way that the score increases with increasing level of poverty. Using various techniques, the study evaluates the poverty-measurement tool and provides evidence for its reliability and validity by administering it in various areas of rural Bangladesh. The reliability coefficients, such as test-retest coefficient (0.85) and Cronbach's alpha (0.80) of the tool, were satisfactorily high. Based on the socioeconomic status defined by the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) exercise, the level of poverty identified by the scale was 33% in Chakaria, 26% in Matlab, and 32% in other rural areas of the country. The validity of these results was tested against some traditional methods of identifying the poor, and the association of the scores with that of the traditional indicators, such as ownership of land and occupation, asset index (r=0.72), and the wealth ranking obtained from the PRA exercise, was consistent. A statistically significant inverse relationship of the poverty scores with the socioeconomic status was observed in all cases. The scale also allowed the absolute level of poverty to be measured, and in the present study, the highest percentage of absolute poor was found in terms of health (44.2% in Chakaria, 36.4% in Matlab, and 39.1% in other rural areas), followed by social exclusion (35.7% in Chakaria, 28.5% in Matlab, and 22.3% in other rural areas), clothing (6.2% in Chakaria, 8.3% in Matlab, and 20% in other rural areas), education (14.7% in Chakaria, 8% in Matlab, and 16.8% in other rural areas), food (7.8% in Chakaria, 2.9% in Matlab and 3% in other rural areas), and shelter (0.8% in Chakaria, 1.4% in Matlab, and 3.7% in other rural areas). This instrument will also prove itself invaluable in assessing the individual effects of poverty-alleviation programmes or policies on all these different dimensions.

Key words: Asset index, Clothing, Education, Food, Health, Participatory rural appraisal, Poverty, Poverty measurement, Reliability, Shelter, Social exclusion, Validity, Chakaria, Matlab, Bangladesh

 

 

---

[1] Robert Walker, Multidimensional poverty, GSDRC (October, 2015) https://gsdrc.org/professional-dev/multidimensional-poverty/

[2]Policy-A Multidimensional Approach, OPHI https://ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/#:~:text=Multidimensional%20poverty%20encompasses%20the%20various,are%20environmentally%20hazardous%2C%20among%20others

[3] Dr. Pinaki Das, Multidimensional poverty measurement in India: Exploring Tools and Their Applications to Assess Poverty and Deprivation, DEPARMENT OF ECONOMICS WITH RULAR DEVELOPMENT, http://inet.vidyasagar.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2242/2/UGC%20MRP%20Final%20Report_Pinaki%20Das.pdf

[4] Venugopal Mothkoor and Nina Badgaiyan, Estimates of multidimensional poverty for India using NSSO-71 and -75, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY WORLD INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICE RESEARCH (January, 2021)      file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/wp2021-1-MPI-India.pdf

[5] Poverty and Health, The family Medicine Perspective, AAFP Foundation, https://www.aafp.org/home.html

[6] The Worst consequences of poverty, The Borgen Project, https://borgenproject.org/worst-consequences-of-poverty/ 

[7] Policy- A Multidimensional Approach, OPHI, https://ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/#:~:text=Multidimensional%20poverty%20encompasses%20the%20various,are%20environmentally%20hazardous%2C%20among%20others

[8] ROBERT WALKER, POVERTY RESEARCH AND MEASURMENT, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS (2014)

[9] S.P. JENKINS & J. MICKLEWRIGHT, ON THE MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS(2007)

[10] WAGLE & UDAYA, MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH OF POVERTY, SRINGER (2007)

[11] M. TOMLINSON & R. WALKER, POVERTY AND CHILDHOOD WELLBEING, CHILD POVERTY ACTION GROUP(2009)

[12] S. Anand & A. Sen, Concept of human development and poverty: A multidimensional perspective, united nation development program (1997)

[13] S. Alkire & M.E. Santosh, measuring acute poverty in the developing world: robustness and scope of multidimensional poverty index, World Development ,59, 251-274

[14] P. Ningaye, Alexi& Virginie, Mult-poverty in Cameroon: A structural equation modeling approach, Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 159-181

[15] M. Ravallion, Mashup Indices of Development, world bank (2010)

[16] Shikha Goyal, Global Multidimensional Index 2020, jagran josh(july21, 2020), https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/global-multidimensional-poverty-index-1595327032-1

[17] Karl Usuka, An analysis of the determinants of Poverty in India and South Africa, Global Majority Journal Vol.10 (dec 2019), https://www.american.edu/cas/economics/ejournal/upload/usuka_accessible.pdf

[18] Miguel Nino Zarazua & Tony Addison, Redefining Poverty in India and China, UNU(oct4, 2012), https://unu.edu/publications/articles/redefining-poverty-in-china-and-india.html