Urban Poverty in India

The county’s urban poor, according to the Planning Commission’s estimates, number 80 million and constitute 25.70 per cent of the urban population. The dynamics of urban poverty are very different and the problems the urban poor face are also different from that faced by their rural counterparts who at 220 million form 28.3 per cent of rural population. Though the urban poor have better access to employment and income, these are often irregular and are mostly in the informal sector. The other key determinants of urban poverty are the levels of access to basic facilities, namely, housing, sanitation and drinking water and services such as healthcare and education.

It is significant that poverty alleviation programmes in India have had a marked rural bias, evident from the decrease in absolute numbers of the rural poor from 261 million in 1973-74 to 220 million in 2004-05. This is in contrast to the rise in the numbers of the urban poor from 60 million to 80 million over the same period. Addressing urban poverty alleviation through the rural prism runs the risk of coming up with partial solutions, such as those based on self-employment schemes. Lack of access to housing and public utilities that causes urban poverty more than factors related to employment and income, so the strategies should differ from those for the rural poor.

Given the fair measure of success the ongoing National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) has achieved, it is only appropriate that the 42nd Indian Labour Conference held recently, should have recommended the launching of a similar scheme for the urban poor. But replicating the NREGS will not yield the same results because urban realities differ. The success of the NREGS is set against the rural-specific milieu characterized by poorer educational attainment levels, lower levels of economically active population, declining employment opportunities in the agriculture sector and a shift towards the tertiary sector as a job provider. The demographic and economic differences that exist between rural and urban India call for a modification of the NREGS pattern in devising as urban employment guarantee scheme.

Again, the National Sample Survey (NSS) data for 2005-06 point to a pronounced difference in the educational attainment levels of those in the 15-plus age group. While 42 per cent of the urban population completed secondary education, this proportion is a mere 16 per cent in rural India. Urban India, also has a higher working age population at 65 per cent, compared with 58 per cent in rural areas. The causes of unemployment in rural and urban areas differ, and so do the possible avenues of employment.

Naturally therefore, a national urban employment guarantee scheme should improve upon the current prototype, which hinges on creating jobs largely through public works such as construction and road maintenance. India’s long experience of employment generation programmes has lessons to offer. The lack of comprehensive planning, improper targeting of beneficiaries, and leakages in implementation are some of the major deficiencies. An employment scheme for urban India should go beyond the present scope of public works projects, and address urban demands. For instance, urban renewal and restoration projects that build on the conceptual framework of rural public works but are in tune with urban necessities merit consideration. An important requirement for a successful scheme is the involvement of local bodies, since they are closer to the problem. Empowering local bodies to create jobs in education, healthcare and other public services such as construction of roads, buildings, water and sanitation projects will cater to the varied requirements of urban job seekers and serve as an efficient starting point. However, wage employment schemes supported by government can only offer transitional solutions. The government should simultaneously address skills-shortage and create the environment necessary for fostering economic development. A social security system for all unorganized workers, therefore, is a priority. Improving the conditions of housing for the urban poor is another area for urgent action. The larger aim of poverty reduction programmes should be to ensure that the vulnerable are not impoverished because of the pressure of urban living.

Meanwhile, the Centre has decided to revise the cost of a dwelling unit provided under the Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) to Rs 1 lakh from Rs 80,000. The Centre also decided on certain modifications in the guidelines for the Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rojgar Yojana (Golden Jubilee Urban Employment Scheme) based on the recommendations of the third party evaluation of the scheme. From now, there would be no more educational qualification criteria for the beneficiaries under the urban self employment programme. For group enterprises set up by urban poor women, the subsidy would be now 35 per cent of the project cost or a maximum of Rs 60,000 per member. The minimum number of members required to form a women’s group would also be lower at five instead of 10 and the revolving fund entitlement per member would be enhanced to Rs 2000. The component for skill training has also been restructured to ensure that quality training was provided, with the involvement of reputed institutions such as Indian Institute of Technologies (IITs), National Institute of Technologies (NITS) and Polytechnics.

(By HK Goswami. Published in Assam Tribune, 8 June 2009).