[Reader-list] RTF (Right to Food) Articles - 2

[Murali V]

Let every one of our politicians give 10% of their black money earned
illegally, and we will very few SAMRI DEVOs.
Murali V

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> *Ending destitution *
>
> By Jean Dreze
>
> * Food transfers to the destitute are a good way of using the surplus grain
> stocks. *
>
>  SAMRI DEVI is a 70-year-old widow who lives in Kusumatand, an impoverished
> hamlet in Palamau district, Jharkhand. Her son, Bhageshwar Bhuiya, suffers
> from TB and is unable to work. Her daughter-in-law has taken leave of this
> world. So the burden of looking after Bhageshwar and his seven children
> rests on Samri Devi's frail shoulders. She feeds the family, somehow, by
> gleaning leftover rice from a local rice mill, collecting wild foods and
> begging from time to time. The children are severely undernourished and
> none
> of them goes to school. Except for one cooking pot and a few rags, Samri
> Devi's family owns absolutely nothing — not even a blanket or a pair of
> chappals.
>
> Samri Devi's is one among millions of households in rural India that might
> be described as "destitute". These households typically have no able-bodied
> adult member and no regular source of income. They survive by doing a
> variety of informal activities such as gathering food from the village
> commons, making baskets, selling minor forest produce and keeping the odd
> goat.
>
> We met Samri Devi during a recent survey of destitution in five States
> (Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh),
> conducted by researchers from the Centre for Development Economics and the
> Centre for Equity Studies. We were shocked to find that even in prosperous
> villages some households lived in conditions of extreme poverty and hunger.
> A casual visitor is unlikely to notice them, as destitute households keep a
> low profile and are often socially invisible. But if you look for them, you
> will find them, quietly struggling to earn their next meal or patiently
> starving in a dark mud hut. From this, one point is clear: destitute
> households cannot rely on spontaneous community support. Social security
> arrangements are needed.
>
> As things stand, however, destitute households are beyond the pale of most
> development programmes and welfare schemes. They are unable to participate
> in rural employment programmes, if available. Getting a bank loan is for
> most of them beyond the realm of possibility. Even "self-help groups" tend
> to shun them. Some destitute households are able to take advantage of
> pension schemes such as those meant for widows and the aged, but the
> coverage of these schemes is very limited and the formalities involved
> often
> end up excluding the poorest of the poor.
>
> In this sea of neglect, an island of hope has recently emerged — the
> Antyodaya Anna Yojana. This programme, introduced in early 2001 (despite
> predictable objections from the Finance Ministry), is addressed to the
> poorest of the poor, as identified by gram panchayats and gram sabhas.
> Antyodaya households have special ration cards and are entitled to 35 kg of
> grain a month at highly subsidised prices (Rs. 2 a kg for wheat and Rs. 3 a
> kg for rice).
>
> The survey mentioned earlier indicates that the programme is doing well, in
> sharp contrast with other components of the public distribution system
> (PDS). First and foremost, the selection of Antyodaya households appears to
> be quite fair: among the 450 Antyodaya households living in the sample
> villages, a large majority turned out to be very poor. Nearly two thirds of
> these households are constrained to skip meals from time to time. More than
> half do not own a single blanket or quilt. Only two per cent of the sample
> households lived in economic conditions described by the field
> investigators
> as "better than average", compared with other households in the village. In
> other words, the community-based selection procedure is working. Antyodaya
> also seems to be reasonably successful in terms of the timely and effective
> distribution of food rations. This is particularly so in Andhra Pradesh,
> where most of the sample households had received their full quota every
> month since the programme was initiated. Taking the five sample States
> together, we estimated that the average Antyodaya household obtained close
> to 75 per cent of its full entitlement since the programme began. Regarding
> the quality of grain received, 85 per cent of the respondents described it
> as "average" or "good". And while the prices charged to the Antyodaya
> households were occasionally higher than the official issue prices, the
> extent of overcharging is not very large — about 13 per cent on average.
>
> This is not to say that the programme is flawless. In some areas
> (particularly in Jharkhand), we found that many Antyodaya households had
> been deprived of their entitlements, as ration-shop dealers took advantage
> of their powerlessness. Yet, the experience so far strongly suggests that
> these failures can be addressed and that the basic approach underlying the
> Antyodaya programme is quite sound.
>
> The main limitation of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana, seen as a social security
> programme, is its restricted coverage (less than 5 per cent of the rural
> population). But there is absolutely no difficulty in expanding and
> consolidating it. Today, it absorbs less than three million tonnes of food
> per year — a trivial proportion of the country's aggregate food stocks of
> 65
> million tonnes. An expanded programme of Antyodaya-style social security
> for
> the destitute, covering (say) 10 per cent of the rural population with
> enhanced entitlements of 10 kg of grain per person a month, would require
> about eight million tonnes of grain per year. This is a small price to pay
> for protecting the rural population from extreme poverty.
>
> It is useful to see the case for a major expansion of the Antyodaya
> programme in the context of the "problem" of ballooning food stocks in the
> country. The needs and rights of destitute households should of course be
> the primary consideration, but as it happens, there are also independent
> reasons why food transfers to the destitute are a good way of using the
> surplus grain stocks. First, the overhead costs of these food transfers are
> low. This is a crucial consideration, because overhead costs have been the
> main stumbling block in the way of other constructive uses of food stocks,
> such as mid-day meals and food-for-work programmes. Second, food transfers
> to the destitute also have the advantage of boosting the aggregate
> consumption of foodgrains. Indeed, since there is widespread hunger among
> destitute households, most of the food given to them translates into
> additional consumption. In contrast, food transfers made under programmes
> such as school meals or food-for-work create little additional demand for
> foodgrains, as they substitute to a large extent for food that would
> otherwise be bought in the market. This, too, is a crucial point, because
> in
> the absence of additional demand the only long-term solution to the problem
> of ballooning food stocks (short of exporting them) is to reduce
> procurement
> prices, something that is unlikely to happen in the near future.
>
> In short, there is an overwhelming case for introducing a large programme
> of
> food-based social security for the destitute. The Antyodaya experience
> shows
> that this approach is feasible. A permanent programme along the same lines
> is likely to work even better, as eligible households learn to claim their
> entitlements. It would go a long way towards ending the extreme insecurity
> and deprivation that ruin the lives of destitute households in rural India.
> In addition, this is an economically attractive way of reducing the
> country's bloated food stocks. There is little reason for hesitation.
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>