This paper analyses poverty and calorific undernourishment in the Indian state of Gujarat,
where high and market-led industrial growth has resulted in rapid economic improvement.
The study is carried out through a combination of secondary and survey-based data. We
conclude that the neoliberal agenda of uncontrolled, outward-looking growth has not resulted
in significant reduction of poverty or malnourishment in rural areas. Furthermore, while land
ownership is officially used as a proxy for wealth distribution, class position appears a better
predictor of poverty status in the rural areas than landownership per se. At the policy level,
there is a need to revive the agrarian economy and create new non-agricultural assets, and
the primary focus in the state must shift to the distribution of created assets rather than a
single-minded focus on growth.
Keywords: growth, poverty, agriculture, inequality, nutrition, class, Gujarat, India
INTRODUCTION
The impact of growth on well-being is of primary relevance to any discussion on welfare and
development. In India, especially since the marked intensification in the economic liberalization
process in 1991, market-led economic growth has been viewed as the panacea to end all ills. State
controls and intervention have been drastically reduced in most fields of the economy. The
impact of these policies, especially their distributional aspects, has been a subject of great
controversy.
To study the impact of growth on well-being, it is first essential to arrive at clear measures
of poverty/well-being. Recent Indian literature has brought to light the shortcomings of an
income- (or expenditure-) based approach to estimating poverty, and has underlined the need
for more broad-based, multi-pronged poverty estimators (see the third section). The Indian
government has undertaken several rounds of below poverty line (BPL) surveys starting from
1992, with a view to putting such a broad-based approach into practice. However, the measures
used in these have yielded highly controversial results (see the second section). Moreover, none
of the poverty measures used in these surveys has so far taken into explicit account the link
between well-being and asset ownership, and thus, class location.
In this paper, I present the case of Gujarat, a state in which a market-led industrial growth
trajectory has resulted in tremendous economic progress. I offer an understanding of poverty
and undernutrition based on an analysis of rural economic classes, applying the labour
exploitation measure of class of Patnaik (1987) to a field survey of 179 households in two
districts of Gujarat. This analytical study indicates that class position is a better predictor of
Anita Dixit, Azim Premji Foundation, Bangalore, India. E-mail: anidixit@gmail.com
I thank Barbara Harriss-White, Utsa Patnaik,V.K. Ramachandran, Madhura Swaminathan and seminar audiences
at Jadavpur University, Kolkata University and the Indian Statistical Institute (Kolkata) for helpful discussions. I also
thank two anonymous referees for detailed and enlightening comments. The views expressed in this paper are my
own and not necessarily those of the Azim Premji Foundation.
2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Byres (1981, 407) defines class-in-itself as follows: men and women with a common relationship to the means
of production, a common relationship to the appropriation of surplus product, and a common relationship,
therefore, to one another: these relationships giving rise to an objectively given, common set of economic interests
vis--vis other classes (other interests). This is different from the concept of class-for-itself , which is hardly
applicable in the context of Gujarat, where agrarian struggle has never taken root.
E = X /Y =
( H i H o ) + (Lo L i )
,
F
where E is the labour exploitation index, Hi is the number of labour days hired in to work on own (or leased in)
land, Ho is the number of family labour days hired out to work on land owned by others, Lo is the number of
labour days worked on land leased out by the household, Li is the number of labour days worked on land leased
in by the household (with own or hired labour) and F is the number of family labour days worked on the
operational holding (Patnaik 1987).
7
The classes are defined as follows: landlord, E (no manual labour in self-employment); rich peasant,
E 1 (main earning through hired labour); middle peasant, 1 > E > 0 (earning through family labour
supplemented by hired labour); small peasant, 0 E > 1 (mainly self-employed but also hires out labour); poor
peasant: E 1 (mainly hires out labour); landless labourer: E (entirely hires out labour) (Patnaik 1987).
2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
As against this, Shah et al. (2010) argue that the state has undergone miraculously high growth in agriculture
from 2000 to 2007.This claim has been contested by Dinesh Kumar et al. (2010), who view the perceived miracle
as a mere recovery from an agricultural downturn in the previous years. Moreover, Dixit (2009a) has used a long
time series (19602006) to show that agricultural growth has been fluctuating: twenty out of the forty-five years
show negative growth, and even in the period from 2000 to 2006, every second year shows a downturn in
agricultural production.
Agriculture
Other industries
78.7
79.8
77.3
21.3
20.2
22.7
8.0
9.4
6.2
92.0
90.6
93.8
78.4
76.3
62.9
21.6
23.7
37.1
12.3
6.6
5.4
87.7
93.4
94.6
. . . [T]he activity status on which a person spent relatively longer time (major time criterion) during the 365
days preceding the date of survey is considered the principal usual activity status of the person.This categorization
would be conceptually similar to the main worker classification by the Census. The corresponding category for
the marginal worker from Census is the subsidiary status classification of the EUS (Himanshu 2007a, 2007b, 3).
28
32
38
43
50
61
(1973/74)
(1977/78)
(1983)
(1987/78)
(1993/94)
(2004/05)
India
46.35
41.76
29.8
28.67
22.18
19.1
56.44
53.07
45.61
39.06
37.27
28.3
Gujarat
India
1973/74
1977/78
1983
1987/88
1993/94
1999/00 (URP)
2004/05
n.a.
72
65.19
65.5
77.05
70
82
n.a.
78
74.5
85
74.5
88
87
Sources: Gujarat data: by construction of charts (see Patnaik 2007) based on Sarvekshana, January 1986,
and NSS Reports nos. 319, 353, 372, 374, 401, 405, 453, 454, 471, 508 and 513. India data: Patnaik
(2007, table 2).
n.a., Not available; URP, Uniform Reference Period.
In Table 3, I present the percentage of the population, in Gujarat as well as India, with
expenditure below that required to fulfil the Required Daily Allowance (RDA) of calories.10 In
calculating this population, I have used the method followed by Patnaik (2007).11,12 The
proportion of the population unable to purchase the required calorie allowance has actually
increased more rapidly for Gujarat than for the country as a whole. Over the period from
1977/78 to 2004/05, the percentage of the population unable to purchase 2,400 calories in
rural Gujarat has increased from 65.19 per cent to 88 per cent.
In response to the argument that the RDA itself has declined with change in lifestyles (Pacey
and Payne 1985), or that increased health and hygiene facilities enable better translation of a
given level of calorie intake into well-being (Dubey and Palmer-Jones 2005), I have calculated
the percentage of the population unable to purchase 2,200 calories and also 1,800 calories
10
I agree with a referees comment that There is no reason to believe that the proportion of the population
below the expenditure level at which (on the basis of the relationship between average calorie consumption in
each expenditure size-class and the average expenditure level in each expenditure-size class) the calorie norm is
observed to be met is also the proportion of the population below the calorie norm. It is possible that individuals
with expenditure levels that enable them to meet a particular calorie intake level may not actually reach that calorie
intake level. But, certainly, they cannot attain a calorie intake level above that which their MPCE level allows them.
Therefore, the relationship between average calorie intake and average MPCE size-class may be taken to indicate
an upper bound above which calorie intake by individuals in that MPCE size-class cannot move.
11
Patnaik (2007) has detailed a method to assess the percentage of the population with an intake of less than the
minimum calorie norms, which is repeated in summary form here for the sake of clarity. We start from the
Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE) distributions of rural and urban population provided in the various NSS
Reports on Consumption Expenditure. The cumulative frequency distribution of population can be presented in
the form of an ogive indicating the percentage of the population below specified MPCE levels.The NSS Reports
on Nutritional Intake give us the average daily calorie intake for each MPCE group. We can therefore plot the
average daily calorie intake against the average MPCE of each MPCE group drawn from the NSS Consumption
Expenditure Reports. We then have two diagrams, one indicating the percentage of the population below the
specified MPCE levels and the other indicating the relation between MPCE and calorie intake. Each of these
diagrams is prepared separately for the rural and the urban sectors, thus giving a set of four diagrams for each NSS
round. It then becomes possible, for each year, to find the MPCE corresponding to the RDA (2,400 calories in
case of rural areas and 2,100 calories in case of urban areas). From the ogive, we estimate the percentage of the
population below this minimum MPCE; that is, the percentage not availing themselves of the required daily
allowance of calories.
12
It is essential to note here that Patnaik (2007) has calculated poverty by defining the poverty line in every year
as the level of consumption expenditure in that year by which the calorific norm is realized. In keeping with Reddy
(2007), I do not attempt to privilege the direct method of poverty estimation (Patnaik 2007) over the indirect one
here. This paper does not deal with the issues surrounding the estimation of poverty at all whether via the
nutritional norm or otherwise; I have treated poverty and calorific undernutrition separately. I am simply borrowing
the method used by Patnaik (2007) to calculate the proportion of the population unable to attain the calorific minimum.
2,200 cal
1,800 cal
1977/78
1983
1987/88
1993/94
1999/00 (URP)
2004/05
60.5
24
57
34
73
38.5
63
34.5
76.5
33
78
47
(Table 4). The percentage of the population unable to purchase 1,800 calories increased
between 1977/78 and 2004/05, from 24 to 47 per cent, i.e. there has been almost a doubling
in percentage terms. In the last 11 years, i.e. between 1993/94 and 2004/05 there was an
increase in the percentage of the population unable to purchase even 1,800 calories in the rural
sector, from 34.5 to 47 per cent (i.e. 12.5 percentage points). Thus, not only has poverty
increased in rural areas, but the poor population is now more concentrated in the lower calorie
purchase classes.
Therefore, the estimation of the proportion of households unable to purchase the minimum
calories has increased substantially. Despite being one of the fastest-growing states in the
country, Gujarat has made slow progress in rural poverty alleviation, and growth has made no
dent at all in the capacity of households to purchase adequate calorific nutrition in the state.
In fact, in Gujarat, unlike at the all-India level, economic growth is negatively correlated with a
decline in calorific undernutrition (Dixit 2010). The state is a case of capitalist growth creating
poverty, as detailed in Harriss-White (2006).
Landless labourer
Poor peasant
Small peasant
Middle peasant
Rich peasant
All
Up to 0.5
0.51.0
1.02.5
2.55.0
510
10 and above
All
9
5
6
0
0
7
2
0
9
0
1
11
1
1
14
0
4
30
22
5
61
0
2
19
4
5
30
0
4
16
6
2
28
0
0
15
1
0
16
9
16
104
36
14
179
1
21
Economic class
Landless labourer
Poor peasant
Small peasant
Middle peasant
Rich peasant
All
Up to 0.5
0.51.0
1.02.5
2.55.0
510
10 and above
All
9
0
0
0
0
9
0
3
16
6
1
26
0
1
17
4
0
22
0
10
33
18
11
72
0
2
25
4
0
31
0
0
9
4
2
15
0
0
4
0
0
4
9
16
104
36
14
179
Landless labourer
Poor peasant
Small peasant
Middle peasant
Rich peasant
Up to 0.5
0.51.0
1.02.5
2.55.0
510
10 and above
All
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.34
0.36
0.21
0.00
0.61
0.70
0.70
0.00
0.00
1.72
1.53
1.67
1.47
0.00
2.83
3.62
4.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.64
8.48
7.49
0.00
0.00
12.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
2.58
2.37
2.32
Table 7. The average value and percentage of various asset groups by economic class
Class
Landless labourer
Poor peasant
Small peasant
Middle peasant
Rich peasant
All
Livestock
Tractors, wells
and/or tubewells
Other farm
machinery
Implements, buildings
and/or vehicles
All
1,719.09
(56.20)
18,426.66
(74.45)
23,304.46
(79.21)
40,552.22
(70.81)
57,392.85
(63.23)
27,704.18
(74.43)
0
(0)
0
(0)
9,669.90
(6.72)
14,194.44
(10.16)
48,928.57
(18.03)
12,245.81
(7.32)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
7,142.85
(1.34)
558.65
(0.10)
297.72
(43.79)
2,303.33
(25.54)
4,016.04
(14.05)
15,751.02
(19.02)
17,124.42
(17.37)
7,029.36
(18.12)
2,016.81
(100)
20,730.00
(100)
36,990.41
(100)
70,497.69
(100)
13,0588.71
(100)
47,538.02
(100)
100.0
50.0
50.96
41.7
28.6
100.0
62.5
56.7
50.0
35.7
100.0
75.0
73.0
61.1
42.9
Landless labourer
Poor peasant
Small peasant
Middle peasant
Rich peasant
Source: Primary survey data.
20
The poverty line for Gujarat calculated on the basis of the Expert Group methodology for the 55th NSS
Round (1999/00) for rural areas was Rs. 318.94, and that for the 61st Round was Rs. 353.93. However, the state
government in its estimates of rural poverty, as on 1 April 2000, based on the BPL census conducted in 1998, has
used Rs. 254 as the poverty line for rural areas. The BPL census conducted in 2002/03 was based on the proxy
means test with the thirteen criteria listed above. The estimated district-wise poverty figures based on these
thirteen criteria for 2002/03, as well as the BPL add-on list of 2007, are available at http://ses2002.guj.nic.in/
BPLNewList.aspx. However, the income level for the poverty line has not been changed.
0
Up to 0.5
0.51.0
1.02.5
2.55.0
510
10 and above
1,800 cal
PL = Rs. 4,104
2,000 cal
PL = Rs. 6,180
85.7
44.4
42.9
44.3
46.7
60.7
25.0
85.7
55.6
57.1
50.8
53.3
67.9
31.3
85.7
77.8
71.4
63.9
66.7
85.7
50.0
Expenditure-based PL
1,800 cal
2,000 cal
Source: Primary survey data.
** Significant at the 1 per cent level.
2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Correlation coefficients
Land ownership category
Economic class
-0.141
-0.135
-0.071
-0.209**
-0.201**
-0.227**