Poverty Scenario
MAHARASHTRA
1




POVERTY
Affront to Human Dignity
Cost to Economy & Polity
Create Vulnerability & Dependence
Consequences •
•
•
•
•

Non-inclusive growth
social unrest
instability
unproductive manpower
perpetuation of poverty
Solution
•
IRDP, SGSY, NRLM, ?, ?, ?
•
No more experimentation
POVERT / NRLM = PROSPERITY
•
For each village, every villager
2
‘POVERTY’ speaks for itself
P
-
Population
O - Occupation
V -
-
SC/ST/OBC.
-
Landless, Labor, Artisans, Marginal rain fed
farmers, Lowly Service provider.
Vulnerability -
infant mortality, early marriages, ill health,
Malnutrition, child labour.
E
- Education
-
Illiteracy, dropouts, unemployability.
R
- Resources
-
Credit, skills, tools, raw material,
livelihood access.
T -
Traditions
-
Superstitions, practices, taboos, Customs
Y -
Yield
-
Low productivity, No-growth,
peripheral market.
3
Maharashtra Salient Features


Salient Features
Area
:
Population (2001 Census)





Rural
Urban
Total
Rural Households
Rural Habitations


Villages
GPs
Average population of GP


1000 to 60000
5000 to 10000
Rainfall
3.08 lakh sq. km.
:
:
:
5.57 crore (57.7 million)
4.10 crore (41 million)
9.67 crore (96.7 million)
:
:
125 lakh (12.5 million)
98000
:
:
42500
27920
:
2000
:
:
389
1360
:
from 300 - 6000 mm
4
POVERTY STATISTICS


•
Rural BPL population :
:
Comprising of
45 lakh families
2.05 crore Villagers
ST
SC
NT/ND/VJ/SBC
OBC
Others
10.80 lakh (60 lakh population)
8.50 lakh (40 lakh population)
5.00 lakh (25 lakh population)
14.70 lakh (60 lakh population)
6.00 lakh (24 lakh population)
:
:
:
:
:
According to NSSO data Maharashtra should have around
1.75 Cr. Rural peolple (31% of rural population) & around 40
lakh rural families.
5
District wise position (2002) as per report of Human Develop0ment Commission
District
Per capita
Income
HDI
Rural BPL %
IMR
Maharashtra
54867
0.58
35.7
31
Mumbai
89343
1.00
--
--
1.00
--
Mumbai Urban
Thane
78531
0.82
45.0
30
Raigad
57074
0.70
29.7
26
Ratnagiri
45060
0.44
34.7
26
Sindhudurg
47183
0.60
39.1
25
Nashik
55841
0.51
40.4
28
Dhule
30869
0.36
53.6
27
Nandurbar
30516
0.28
73.0
40
Jalgaon
43184
0.50
43.3
41
Ahmednagar
47853
0.57
25.0
21
Pune
79968
0.76
19.5
26
Satara
47009
0.59
15.5
26
Sangli
46699
0.68
16.4
25
Solapur
45055
0.48
29.3
33
Kolhapur
55931
0.64
17.6
25
Aurangabad
49465
0.57
28.7
36
6
District wise position (2002) as per report of Human Development Commission
District
Per capita
Income
HDI
Rural BPL %
IMR
Jalna
32635
0.27
38.3
25
Parbhani
36161
0.43
33.2
27
Hingoli
29150
0.43
34.5
41
Beed
31672
0.47
26.0
33
Nanded
28853
0.37
30.6
36
Osmanabad
29155
0.38
32.8
24
Latur
28764
0.47
29.8
31
Buldhana
30165
0.41
44.5
38
Akola
36750
0.44
48.1
31
Washim
23628
0.36
43.1
25
Amravati
33710
0.50
49.6
35
Yavatmal
36979
0.22
45.5
44
Wardha
41757
0.49
41.1
31
Nagpur
60592
0.71
47.4
38
Bhandara
42037
0.46
51.0
29
Gondia
36986
0.46
57.9
33
Chandrapur
43456
0.41
47.5
44
Gadchiroli
24370
0.21
55.0
28
Maharashtra
54867
0.58
35.7
31
7
Percentage of poor by Regions in Maharashtra
Rural
Region
1993-94
1999-00
2004-05
Kokan (Excl. Mum)
15.2
18.4.
30
Western Mah (Excl. Anagar)
24.9
10.7
17.5
Khandesh (incl. A’nagar)
47.3
31.8
35.5
Marathwada
49.8
24.2
29
Amaravati Divn.
49.1
31.7
40
Nagpur Divn.
49.3
41.9
50
8
Skewed Poverty Distribution in the State

Maharashtra is :
Rich state
-
Nationally

Poor state
-
Locally
Mumbai, Coop Processing & Dairy movement, 58% service sector
contribution to GSDP, lower(12%) agri. Sector contribution but from
cash crops creates a perception of affluence

But 58% rural population still generates their livelihood from agriculture

Majority of them from low end ari. Activities & labor
9
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
• Area
:
3390 sq.km. (1% of state area)
• Population
:
2.30 crore (54% of urban
& 24% of state population)
• Per Capita income
:
Rs.85000 (54867- State Avg.)
• HDI
:
0.91 (0.58)
• G S D P proportion :
45%
10
 8 Contagious Municipal Corporations .
• Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivli, Ulhasnagar, Bhiwandi,
Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar, Navi-Mumbai.
• Ambernath & Badlapur on the verge of becoming municipal
corporations
• 9 other Municipalities, 55 Villages
25 k.m. from the periphery of Mumbai Metropolitan Region
the Tribal Area of thane District starts








Shahapur, Jawhar, Mokhada, Vada, Talasari, Dahanu.
Hard core Tribal area
Miles away from Development
90% BPL Families (45% of these rural population)
HDI much below State Average (0.23)
No market access (except warli paintings)
Malnutrition
Agriculture, labour, minor forest produce collection
11
Poverty relevant Areas - Maharashtra

12 Districts under Panchayat Extension to Schedule Area (PESA)





Spread over whole state
49 PESA Intermediate Panchayats
5000 PESA GPs
Tribal Population : 86 lakh (16% of Rural Population – 9% of total population)
4 Districts are Minority dominated
 Hingoli, Parbhani, Buldhana, Washim
 Minority population : State - 15.6% (4 Districts - 35%)
6 Districts affected by LWE (Naxalism)

Gadchiroli, Gondia, Nanded, Yavatmal, Chandrapur, Bhandara.
25 Districts & 172 Blocks have HDI below state Avg. 27 Dist. Have
PCI below state Avg.
12
- PESA Districts in Maharashtra
- LWE affected districts in Maharashtra
14
- Minority Dominated Dist. in Maharashtra
15
- Districts having PCI above State Avg.
16
17
Diversity in Poverty- Examples

According to UNDP/GOI Maharashtra is Ranked 4th (HDI-0.523) only
after Kerala, Punjab, Hariyana.

State reproduced & declared its First District wise HDI report in 2002
based on

PCI, Education, IMR.

It is 0.58 for state as a whole (Taking Mumbai HDI as 1)

26 Districts have HDI below state Avg.
 Gadchiroli HDI-0.21, Yavatmal-0.22 taking Mumbai HDI as 1
 State has gone a step further
 Block wise HDI computed
 172 blocks have HDI below state Avg.
18
Diversity in Poverty- Examples
 PUNE
 Most developed district (19.5% BPL)

Having 3 tribal talukas - Junnar, Ambegaon and Khed

Hilly areas of Maval & Mulshi

Rainshadow areas of Indapur & Daund

Proximity to Mumbai Market

Coop Movement, High Industrilisation has some trickle down effects
in Hilly & Tribal areas.



Floriculture. Vegetable, Onion
Still few individual villages with rampant poverty
Though Comparatively less than state poverty Avg.(35%)
19



NASHIK
Industrially developed district.
Winery of Maharashtra,

Agriculture, Horticulture growth, Onion

Has substantial tribal population

BPL Family - 41%


Benefits not gone to the tribals to the desired extent
Poverty lives with plenty
20

AHEMEDNAGAR

Maximum Sugar Factories in any district of the State

Tribal Area in Akola Tahsil

Avg. district poverty - 25%


Most of the District is in rain shadow area


Tribal poverty - 50%
Excellent water shade development practices
High % of BPL IN

Rainshadow area where water guzzling crops not taken

Tribal area where dam is situated, Benefits not accrued to Tribals
21

NAGPUR

Second Capital



BPL – 48%
Tribal population in one Taluka
Benefits by Psuedo tribals.
 NANDURBAR, GADCHIROLI are fully PESA Districts
BPL
HDI
PCI
Nandurbar
73%
0.28
30516
Gadchiroli
55%
0.21
24370
State Average
35%
0.58
54867
22
Agriculture related Poverty issues

Western Maharashtra
 Less average holding, more production



particularly, sugarcane growth
but also poor talukas like Radhanagari (Kolhapur), Maan/Khatav (Satara).
Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg
 Horticultural development through EGS

Below Poverty Line percentage is below state average (30%)

Tribal and Scheduled Caste population insignificant

Non tribals, non scheduled caste could take EGS benefits
 But textile workers from Mumbai remigrated to these areas

Created some adverse social & economic effects aggreivating poverty
23

JALGAON, DHULE

Banana, Grapes are main cash crops
 Mostly by non- tribals


BPL population not benefited significantly

Jalgaon BPL % – 43%
Dhule separated from fully tribal district – Nandurbar

Dhule BPL
–
53%

Nandurbar BPL
–
73%
24

VIDARBHA

Asset Poverty
 More holding, less production
 Cause of suicides (?)

Entrepreneurial poverty
 No advantage taken of EGS Programmes

Productivity poverty
 Below average cotton production
 Nation – State – Vidarbha - Yavatmal
 Skill Poverty
 Textile Industry should be prominant source of livelihood
 other textile developed areas
 Bhiwandi, Malegaon, Ichalkaranji, Solapur, Paithan, Yevala
25
Minor Forest Produce
Raw material available but skills are also equally raw
 Bamboo and Tendu
 State Monopoly

 Not included in MFP
 Tribals involved in collection only
 No processing activities in the hands of tribals

Bidi & paper Industry in private hands

Gadchiroli, Chandrapur, Gondia, Bhandara, Nagpur, Yavatmal.
 Annual realisation – Rs. 1000 crore for Bamboo + Tendu

Processing would multiply many fold value addition

Ownership of other 32 MFP legally transferred to community through Panchayats

No visible effect on poverty eradication in above districts
26
Industrial Production

26% GSDP generated from Industry

BPLs have hardly any share in Industrial production

Mostly in agro based Industries through co-op. sector

Micro-Enterprise activities by village artisans are also not
much, though a lot of scope exists

Need to develop supply chain involving BPL MicroEntrepreneurs
27
Service Sector

52% SGDP generated from service sector

However share of BPLs is confined to low value, bottom
level services

Organised efforts to create demand-supply chain not very
much successful under SGSY

Skill honing, linkage with demand side failed to take of
barring certain sectors

Garment, Beauty Parlor, Midday Meal supply, computersation,
domestic servant provisioning are certain sectors which can
claim moderate success
28
Way Forward

How to ensure inclusive & broad based growth







Providing scope for BPLs to get due share
Strong organisational set up of the poor, for the poor,
by the poor
Processes needs to be followed faithfully
Identification of the poor
Dedicated & sensitive manpower to deal with the task
Role of credit institutions is most crucial
Skill development & capacity building arrangements is a
key factor
29
Percentage of Rural Poor in Maharashtra and India
Maharashtra
India
Rural
Rural
1973-74
57.7
56.4
1983
45.2
45.7
1993-94
37.9
37.3
1999-00
23.7
27.1
30
Head count Ratio of Poverty By Social Groups, Maharashtra
1999-2000 (%)
Indicator
ST
SC
OBC
Others
Total
Poverty Ratio (HCR)
44.20
31.64
21.89
12.78
23.22
Population Share
16.63
13.01
30.27
40.10
100.00
Contribution to total
HCR
31.66
17.73
28.54
22.07
100.00
31