Mathur Ritika Passi

have significantly high PHCRs. In fact,
both rural and urban PGRs of these
underperformers have risen from 2004-05
to 2011-12. According to UNDP, around
31% of Muslims, 52% of SC persons,
and 80% of the Nomadic and De-notified
Tribe populations live below the poverty
line, as compared to the national average
of 21.9%. 25
This also stands true for non-income
factors—in terms of land ownership, tribal
and marginalised groups have been the
biggest victims of displacement. While they
constitute only 9% of India’s population,
tribal communities have accounted for
over 40% of displaced persons due to land
acquisition for development projects. 26
While shedding light on issues of
inequality, these disparities provide an
excellent opportunity for the sharing
of best or most effective practices (by
more successful states/groups) in the
implementation of policies. Such a process
will require credible data that is segmented
by different levels of governance and
social/religious groups to track statistical
progress and ensure effective targeting of
poverty reduction efforts.
and food security, assumes additional
financial resources for poverty alleviation
ranging from 1-4.4% of GDP over the
next few years. 28 A large portion of this
increased funding is required for health
sector expenditures, but the most recent
budget (2015-16) saw a year-on-year 17%
decline in the healthcare budget, which is a
worrying sign. 29
Where will this additional finance
requirement come from? One of the
main avenues for mobilising resources is
taxation. According to the World Bank,
India’s tax-GDP ratio is a dismal 96th
among 102 countries, and has only declined
in recent years. 30 While raising incomes is
one way of bringing in higher tax revenues,
TO ENSURE FRUITFUL SYNERGY
INSTEAD OF DESTRUCTIVE
INTERFERENCE AMONG
GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
WITH SIMILAR OBJECTIVES AND
OVERLAPPING DIRECTIVES, SPECIAL
ATTENTION NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO
INTERDISCIPLINARY PLATFORMS.
While data collection systems are in
place—the decadal census, the national
sample surveys and surveys conducted by
various ministries/departments—they have
not been mandated to focus exclusively
on monitoring the SDGs. Progress on
the MDGs was monitored on the basis
of available datasets and this practice is
expected to continue for the SDGs. Thus,
the monitoring system for SDGs faces the
same challenges as its predecessor—nonavailability
of data at the sub-state level,
non-availability of annually updated data
and incomplete coverage of the specified
targets. 27 If existing data collection
mechanisms are leveraged to address this
lacuna, it would not require significant
overhaul or investment.
The financing of statistical monitoring
systems aside, concerns remain over the
availability of funds to provide a credible
level of basic social services to the poor in
India. The social protection floor proposed
by the International Labour Organization,
which encompasses aspects of livelihood
such as income, healthcare, education
this situation requires a review of current
policies governing tax administration,
exemptions and compliance in the nation.
The Kelkar Committee under the Ministry
of Finance is a starting point, which in
2012 submitted several recommendations
of measures to both widen and deepen
India’s tax base. 31 Apart from making
taxation more effective, the dire need for
funding could be met to some extent by
consolidating various government welfare
programmes—this would reduce overlap,
allowing funds distributed across several
initiatives to be focused on specific factors
contributing to multidimensional poverty
reduction.
The divergence between economic growth
and basic human development in India’s
growth story highlights the need for a
multidimensional approach to poverty
reduction that streamlines various existing
poverty-related government programmes.
For India, internalising the targets under
SDG 1 could be the key to finding a
method in the madness.
23