A dollar a day to keep poverty at bay

These need wider national debate and consensus.

Be that as it may, strategies on poverty alleviation also lack focus. Earlier this week, in an event organised by this newspaper in connection with the release of my book entitled The Politics of Change 8212; A Ringside View, there was an interesting question and answer session. Lord Meghnad Desai suggested that the best strategy was to send a dollar a day to all those whom we deem poor. Both K.V. Kamath and Mukesh Ambani agreed that technology now makes this possible and smart cards to achieve this end could be easily devised. While a technological solution is not in doubt, the suggestion raises concerns about appropriate poverty entitlements and the current plethora of schemes which directly or indirectly address poverty alleviation issues.

There is the flagship National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the closest approximation of a direct cash subsidy, which if properly implemented, could make a deep dent on the levels of debilitating poverty. There are a number of other schemes, like subsidised access to food grains through the public distribution system, a kerosene subsidy, concessional electricity, low water charges, fertiliser subsidy and a host of other cross-subsidy schemes designed to help the poor. They are all open-ended, with no sunset clause, and often overlap, irrespective of whether they have lost contemporary relevance.

The efficiency of public delivery systems in this country has deteriorated significantly. Field officers are ill-equipped to administer so many schemes, leading to inevitable complaints of unaddressed leakages and denial of benefits to intended beneficiaries. Pooling together all the poverty entitlements and administering them through a biometric smart card for which technological solutions are available is an experiment worth considering.

The problem is that administrative departments responsible for these cling on to them irrespective of how effective they have proved in achieving the intended objective. Add to it the wide variations in governance quality across states and the problem becomes more complex.

Many question whether we have a poverty strategy at all, and not just an idea of past practice that is tailored to the particular context with a realistic plan for execution. Strategy, after all, comes from the Greek word stratos meaning army and ago meaning leading implying a plan for leading the co-ordination of a large group of people toward a common end. This is the very opposite of the Indian challenge, given the multiplicity of governance, frequent changes in the schemes not merely their nomenclature, community groups and other interests involved in the design and execution of various poverty schemes.

So, what should be the key elements of a poverty strategy?

First, knowledge about ground realities. This is as much knowledge about the context of poverty as knowledge about the extent of poverty, or identification of poverty the subject of last week8217;s columns and the Patna Consensus. What is the quantity and quality of infrastructure, for example, or the availability of credit? Or the actual patterns of access to land, including the often hidden tenancy arrangements? And what is the scenario today, not the scenario several years ago? Having a current database, combining information on various features of the economic landscape, referenced and connected to the geographic landscape, is the first component of a strategy to alleviate poverty.

Second, priorities, capacity and the courage to define these priorities. Trying to do everything means effectively accomplishing nothing. Promising everything to everybody means that nobody really gains.

We know, for example, that rural roads are a priority. But which rural roads in particular would offer the highest returns? We need both the raw material data as well as the analytical capacity to process this data in order to prioritise.

Third, the dimension of prioritisation: over time. What kinds of public benefits do we want first?

Prioritisation has to be legitimate too, which means that it has to be somewhat consensus-based. There is a need to innovate and fashion schemes to suit local needs by creating better channels for panchayats to contribute to the anti-poverty strategy, as they have the best knowledge of the ground realities and the particular preferences of the smaller area they govern. They may not always use this knowledge for their best advantage, but this does not mean that their informational advantage should just be dismissed. It needs to be harnessed by paying more attention to systems of accountability.

Poverty strategy needs closer focus and co-ordination, moving away from past paradigms. It must seek the innovations which technology can now offer.