A bottom-up approach

Census figures on deprivation call for improved delivery system

Last week, the government published the first set of results from the Socio-economic and Caste Census (SECC) conducted in 2011. This was the first time after 1932 that a caste census was undertaken, but, even after a four-year gap, the results of the 2011 census on this attribute has not yet been published. Instead, the authorities have opted to put out data on various parameters of economic well-being in rural India. The aggregate numbers, as widely reported, paint a dismal picture of the state of India's villages. The contrasts and comparisons which will show which parts of the country are better off will have to wait until the district-level data are fully revealed; so far, data for only 281 out of the country's 640 districts are available. Nevertheless, this database provides the strongest foundations so far for the central and state governments to comprehend the nature of deprivation in different parts of the country. This is the starting point for an understanding of its causes, and targeted and focused programmes for its amelioration.

The stark headline from the data is that almost half of the country's 180 million rural households are "deprived", as indicated by the absence of one or more of 14 attributes. This is a significantly higher number than is suggested by the traditional poverty estimates, which come in at about 30 per cent for rural India. As might be expected, the proportion of deprived households is significantly higher for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe households. About 56 per cent of all households own no land at all and this is clearly reflected in their sources of livelihood. About half of all households list manual, casual labour as their primary source of income. The rather depressing list of parameters goes on. It can be reasonably concluded that governments at all levels have their work cut out for them.

The real question is: what exactly do they need to work on? The general sense of disillusionment with centrally sponsored schemes and other top-down approaches to welfare will be further confirmed by the census numbers. The push towards devolution reflected in the Fourteenth Finance Commission recommendations also puts the burden of effective delivery squarely on lower levels of government. There are, then, two aspects of the welfare aspiration that need to be reconciled. The SECC gives governments an effective handle on one aspect. When data for all the 640 districts are available, each jurisdiction can obtain answers to basic questions about what is needed, which social group requires special focus and so on. These answers have to be translated into specific interventions, which facilitate both appropriate livelihood opportunities and effective welfare schemes.

The other aspect of the challenge is the capacity that will be needed in various levels of government to take full advantage of the policy guidance provided by the SECC. In many ways, the differentials across states in welfare outcomes are a reflection of the differences in institutional mechanisms and state capacity. In the absence of a concerted effort to narrow the gaps in these, SECC or not, the differences in outcomes will inevitably widen. The sooner governments bring evidence and capacity together, the better.