Chairman,
There is need for further reflection on methods of counting the poor. The perception as to what is poverty and who is to be counted as poor is very much rooted in the overall social and economic environment. All through 17th and 18th centuries in England, those who lived at subsistence level were not counted as poor, for, that was the normal state of existence. Perceptions changed after industrial revolution. The concept of welfare state started taking roots. Miserable conditions of masses became a subject of political discourse. Attempts were made to understand the extent and depth of poverty. Dadabhai Naoroji was a pioneer in this pursuit in India in later 19th Century. After Independence, a Group setup by Planning Commission recommended a level of minimum expenditure for living. Scholars independently and Working Groups set up by Planning Commission further refined the concept of poverty line using NSS data. But the poverty lines so evolved have somehow always appeared to be inadequate. It is argued in this paper that the standard for a minimum level of living cannot be fixed once for all. With the passage of time, rising income and changing compulsions of living, even the concept of ‘minimum ’has to change. There is need to look at alternative ways of counting the poor. Instead of ensuring the inadequacy of food alone, one may need to look at the need for housing, nature and quality of work and social vulnerabilities. This approach is illustrated with an exercise on urban poverty, indicating the type of data to be collected through Socio-Economic Caste Census. The paper concludes that multiple dimensions of poverty must be considered, and that there cannot be a long-term indicator of poverty or a long term comparison of estimates of poverty.
