|
Urban
Poverty: India Report 2009
Story
Dr Saraswati Raju Photograph Prasad
Despite
being projected as engines of growth,
towns and cities in India have a high
incidence of poverty. However, the
poverty rates vary significantly across
states as also across urban centres.
A
large part of urban growth in the
less developed countries has historically
been linked with stagnation and
volatility of agriculture and an absence
of nonfarm diversification in the
agrarian economy. India is no exception
to this phenomenon. This, in turn,
has led to out migration of the poor
from backward rural areas and their
absorption within the urban informal
economy. The primary concern in urbanisation-related
policies has therefore been finding
a solution for these out migrating
regions. Although restricting poor
migrants to cities may have economic
and political repercussions, there
is no denial that rural-urban exodus
has created serious stress at urban
destinations in terms of rising slum
population and access to basic amenities
etc.
Existing evidences show that the rate
of migration has slowed down over
the years. Moreover, the better off
and relatively more skilled seem to
migrate with the unskilled peasantry
left behind, warranting migration
to be studied in the context of both,
sending and receiving regions.
Migration as a process must also be
seen as one of opening up of opportunities
in cities and towns even as such opportunities
are increasingly being appropriated
by socially and economically privileged
sections of population. It may be
argued that urban vibrancy be used
as an instrument to help reduce poverty
and urbanisation and rural-urban migration
must be an integral part of any development
strategy in order to meet one of the
most important millennium development
goals (MDG) i.e., poverty reduction.
Despite their being projected as engines
of growth and instruments of globalisation,
towns and cities in India have high
incidence of poverty. However, the
poverty rates vary significantly across
states as also across the size class
of urban centres. Contrary to popular
belief, the metropolises and Class
I cities which customarily receive
a larger share of the migrants report
significant decline in the level of
poverty, much more than in small towns.
Migration and urbanisation in India
must be placed within the context
of emergence of global cities with
national and international market
linkages. Influenced by macroeconomic
factors at the national and global
levels, they are no longer strongly
linked with the developments in the
rural economy or with the rural poverty
or deprivation as is the case in other
developing countries. Instead, the
growth of industries and businesses
in a few large global cities attract
the inflow of capital from outside
the region or country, as also investment
by local entrepreneurs. The changing
nature of pull factors have brought
in a large number of skilled and semi-skilled
personnel from small towns and rural
areas into these cities. Consequently,
the demographic and economic growth
in the smaller cities and towns has
gone down drastically in recent years.
It would be wrong and dangerous to
let the process of urbanisation and
migration be planned around a few
mega-cities despite their lower levels
of poverty, better resource mobilisation,
global funds and other institutional
resources. Smaller towns lack these
and yet they need attention if poverty
issues are to be addressed effectively.
It is in this background that the
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty
Alleviation, Government of India,
and UNDP sponsored a research study
aimed at bringing out a report on
urban poverty. The research has since
been published by Oxford University
Press as ‘India: Urban Poverty Report
2009’. It brings together inputs from
eminent researchers, academics and
civil society representatives.
Some of the important points that
the report make are as follows:
l Urban growth, economic development,
and the incidence of poverty across
states and size categories are interlinked.
The conventional wisdom that in-migration
into urban areas occurs due to the
push factors operating in the rural
economy requires rethinking as it
is the changing perspective of the
urban elite, administration, judiciary,
and civil society organisations towards
immigrants and slum populations that
seem to be leading to exclusionary
practices.
l Interconnected is the issue of the
extent to which migration is poverty
induced or can be attributed to the
globalising processes. Migrants faring
better than non migrants in terms
of their consumption expenditures
or employment characteristics suggest
that mobility linked opportunities
are grabbed by better off sections
of the population. The failure of
the small and medium towns to attract
migrants, despite policy statements
and programmatic interventions by
the government to strengthen their
economic and infrastructure base has
been identified as a major problem
intercepting the process of balanced
urbanisation.
l Urban poverty has to be seen in
the context of the growing importance
of the unorganised workforce in the
country. Given the profile of urban
workers who are mostly in the informal
sector as casual and self employed,
the importance of education and skill
in poverty reduction has to be adequately
understood for poverty alleviation
programmes. Drawing upon city case
studies, the Report highlights the
heterogeneity of the self employed
and the insecurity faced by a large
section among them to showcase the
marginalisation of the urban poor
in the new policy regime.
l In addition to proper training,
skill formation and development of
entrepreneurship traits, particularly
for the underprivileged and marginalised
sections of the urban population,
reducing the mismatch between available
skills and demands of the market,
liabilities can be converted into
assets. The Report argues for development
of skills among the prospective entrepreneurs
for increasing the profitability and
sustainability of their businesses.
This is not merely viable but also
replicable, and an effective tool
for poverty alleviation.
l The credit flows from formal financial
institutions to urban centres have
increased steadily since the 1970s,
but they are concentrated in big cities
and large sized credit brackets while
the ‘low income-asset holding’ segments
have been bypassed despite overall
expansion in financial intermediation.
Since urban poverty manifests multiple
negative experiences, it would be
appropriate to design micro-finance
systems around multiple objectives
and integrate them with the existing
service delivery structures in the
public sector and with community based
system.
l Poverty concerns have to see the
gender dimensions of urban centres
closely as opportunities available
to them are framed within the societal
codes, which restrict their access
to productive resources. For example,
the incidence of poverty is observed
to be high in case of female-headed
households. Given this and other employment
related issues, the Report proposes
for the restructuring and modifications
in future poverty alleviation programmes
that are gender sensitive and pro-gender.
l The issue of denial of housing and
basic amenities to the urban poor
within the larger framework of social
security needs attention. Increased
privatisation of housing and basic
services will reduce their availability
to the poor, endangering the long
term social sustainability of cities.
l Cities are increasingly becoming
hostile to poor migrant as informal
as well as formal institutional structure
makes urban spaces scarce, manifested
through an ongoing trend towards slum
evictions in different cities. Based
on a critical examination of the pro-poor
programmes and schemes including the
recent initiatives of Jawaharlal Nehru
National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM),
the Report makes a case for tenure
regularisation, backed by the strengthening
of infrastructure and the provision
of socio-economic inputs through a
participatory approach.
l The urban poor including the marginalised
castes and women have dismal access
to education and health services,
particularly so in large cities. The
state sponsored programmes have remained
ineffective because of strong powerful
transnational business interests that
are re-directing policy priorities.
The big bang approach by which functions,
powers, and responsibilities were
transferred from the state governments
to the elected local bodies in one
sweep, as was done in Kerala has proved
to be more successful, compared to
the experience of other states where
devolution has been incremental and
sporadic.
l Two landmark urban initiatives -
the 74th Constitutional Amendment
Act and the JNNURM seem to rest on
the assumption that an institutional
framework designed to empower local
governments helps inclusive growth
and can serve the interests of the
poor. Although these two mark a departure
from the earlier programmes of poverty
alleviation, there is scepticism regarding
their success in bringing in the functional
and financial reforms at the grassroots
level that are the key motivations
for launching the initiatives.
l Large cities have the problem of
elite capture and marginalisation
of the poor. Decentralised governance
has not really been successful which
has led to middle class activism through
resident welfare associations. As
they become partners in the development
process, cities are being ‘sanitised’
with the policing of public spaces.
The very mechanism of the functioning
of these civil societies is likely
to legitimise disparity and strengthen
the process of segmentation and exclusionary
urban growth.
l Urban homeless – the most vulnerable
group does not get captured in the
official statistics and remain outside
major interventions. Law and bureaucracy
make those at the margins of survival
strategies such as cycle rickshaw
pullers and street vendors even more
prone to poverty through archaic regulations.
Initiatives such as the National Policy
for Street Vendors or the model legislation
for street vendors are largely ineffective
due to the absence of political will
to back the implementation machinery.
The author is Professor, Centre for
the Study of Regional Development,
JNU, New Delhi
|