B5gv9

land by the HIV households, even as
savings in these forms are positive in the
case of non-HIV households. Another
very important feature of the savings
pattern of HIV households is that the
bulk of savings are kept in the form of
cash/bank deposits, i.e. the most liquid
form of savings. The non-HIV households
allocate a larger share of their savings
to other financial assets, which are
relatively illiquid. The asset position of
HIV households is weaker compared
to non-HIV households and across all
income groups, HIV households spend
more on house rent than non-HIV
households.
One of the methods of coping with the
financial burden/loss of income due
to the infection could be liquidation
of assets or borrowings. Interestingly,
almost 43 percent of the HIV households
had either borrowed or liquidated assets
for this purpose, from the time when a
member of the household was detected
to be HIV-positive. The average amount
generated due to this has been estimated
at Rs. 24,558. The percentage of such
households, however, was very high for
the lowest income group (56%), going
down with the level of income of the
households.
In the last one year, nearly 46 percent
of HIV households had borrowed as
compared to around 27 percent of
non-HIV households. The percentage
of households that borrowed is higher
in the case of HIV households at all
levels of income. Many of the relatively
poor households are dependent on
borrowings to meet their consumption
needs. The combination of greater need
for borrowings and possible dependence
on non-formal sources of funds can
wreak havoc on the economy of these
households.
The head count of poverty ratio from the
sample data has been estimated in order
to see the difference between non-HIV
and HIV households in the sample. The
head count ratio for HIV households is
higher than the head count ratio among
non-HIV households. However, this is
mainly because of the higher ratio of
poor population among HIV households
in rural areas. A striking feature is the
contrast seen in terms of rate of savings
between poor HIV and poor non-HIV
households. The former group has a very
high negative rate of savings while the
same is positive for the latter. Clearly, the
poor among HIV households are under
a greater burden of trying to meet their
consumption expenditure.
In terms of consumption, it is seen
that the head count ratio of poverty is
lower in the case of HIV households
in urban areas, even though the same
level of income poverty for both HIV
and non-HIV households in urban areas
had been observed. The reason must
lie in greater emphasis placed by HIV
households on consumption and this
is linked with the negative savings rate
seen in the case of poor HIV households.
Despite greater focus on consumption
by poor HIV households, their per capita
consumption expenditure turns out to be
lower than that of non-HIV households.
This is just the opposite of households
above the poverty line, where the per
capita expenditure of HIV households is
higher than its counterpart. This suggests
that the poor are put under unbearable
stress due to HIV and AIDS, including
the HIV negative household members.
The irony that the HIV households face
is twofold: not only are they pushed
into poverty due to HIV and AIDS, but
they are also required to spend more in
order to sustain themselves for a longer
period.
In the last one
year, nearly 46
percent of HIV
households had
borrowed as
compared to
around 27 percent
of non-HIV
households
Executive Summary
xxiii