Nutritional Norms and the Measurement of Poverty

Jaya Mehta

Since 1991, the information on poverty trends has been a matter of great concern to the policy makers as well as independent scholars. A confirmation is required that the accelerated growth rate in the decade of 90s has indeed improved the living standard of even lower rungs of the society. The poverty estimates for the year 2004-5 released by the Planning Commission on 21 March 2007 gave a cause for celebration!

The 61st round of NSSO provides two different consumption distributions for the year 2004-5. One set of data is based on 30-day recall period for all the items. The other set is obtained with reference to 365-day recall period for five infrequently purchased non-food items, namely, clothing, footwear, durable goods, education and institutional medical expenses and 30-day recall period for the remaining items. These two consumption distributions have been termed as Uniform Recall Period (URP) consumption distribution and Mixed Recall Period (MRP) consumption distribution respectively. The Planning Commission has used the Expert Group methodology to estimate poverty in 2004-05 separately for the two sets. The URP-consumption distribution data yields a poverty ratio of 28.3 percent in the rural areas, 25.7 percent in the urban areas and 27.5 percent for the country as a whole. The corresponding figures obtained from the MRP-consumption distribution data are 21.8 percent in the rural areas, 21.7 percent in the urban areas and 21.8 percent for the country as a whole.

The poverty estimates in 2004-05 based on URP consumption distribution (27.5 percent) is comparable with the poverty estimates of the year 1993-94. The poverty ratio in 1993-94 was 36 percent. The poverty estimates in 2004-05 based on MRP consumption (21.8 percent) is roughly (but not strictly) comparable with the poverty estimates of 1999-2000, which was 26.1 percent. The debate on the ‘poverty trend’ is now preoccupied with the comparability and non-comparability of URP and MRP estimates and the difference in the rate of decline during the period 93-94 to 99-2000 and 99-2000 to 2004-05 (Himanshu 2007, Mahendra Dev, C. Ravi, 2007). In general, the official experts and a section of independent scholars agree that poverty has not just declined; it is now within manageable limits.

However, the level of well-being that is reflected in the dramatically reduced poverty estimates of 21.8 percent or even 27.5 percent should also be supported by other indicators of well-being obtained from other independent information base. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

We refer to the recently released National Family Health Survey for the year 2005-06 (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2007). According to this pan-India survey, 47 per cent of India’s under-three kids are underweight, 39 per cent are stunted, 19 per cent are severely malnourished and 79 per cent are anaemic. More than 6,000 Indian children below five years die everyday due to malnourishment or lack of basic micronutrients like Vitamin A, iron, iodine, zinc or folic acid. India hosts 57 million – or more than a third – of the world’s 146 million undernourished children Anaemia is also disturbingly common among adults. Among the women, its prevalence has increased over the past seven years from 52% to 56%. Similarly, one third of the adult married women in the country are underweight. The experts tell us that India should be worried. It is going to be difficult for India to use its human resources to develop the nation without making improvements on its health front.

The indicators in area of education, employment and housing present an equally stark picture.

Under the situation, is it correct to feel complacent that poverty has come down within manageable limits and the country requires only a few more years of accelerated growth? We feel that such an ostrich-like attitude will be disastrous. There is, in fact, an urgent need to review the poverty estimates and the methodology adopted by the planning commission to arrive at these estimates. Unless the magnitude and the character of the problem are correctly assessed, no worthwhile policy prescription can be presented.

Official Poverty Lines and the Nutritional Status of the Corresponding Expenditure Groups in Rural India

In the last few years, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the poverty estimates provided by the Planning Commission do not conform to the definition of poverty line which was given by the Task Force (1979) (Mehta, 2000, Mehta, 2004, Patnaik, 2006). The Task Force defined the poverty line for the year 1973-4 as the average expenditure of the expenditure group, which can afford per capita per diem intake of 2400 Kcal in rural India and 2100 Kcal in urban India. This definition was also accepted by the Expert Committee (1993) and has not been officially modified till date.

As recommended by the Expert Committee, the Planning Commission has been updating the rural and urban poverty lines for the year 1973-74 according to the state specific consumer price indices of agricultural labour households and industrial workers’ households respectively. The poverty lines obtained in this manner, have corresponded to progressively reduced calorie intakes over the years. The rural poverty line of 1983 corresponded to 2200 Kcal, that of 1993-94 to 1968 Kcal, 1999-2000 to 1868 Kcal. For the year 2004-5, the rural poverty line of Rs. 356.30 corresponds to per capita per diem intake of only 1800 Kcal which is 800 Kcal short of the nutritional norms fixed in 1973-4.

If we look at the state level statistics, we come across cases where the official poverty lines correspond to nutritional intakes which are ridiculously low. For instance, the rural poverty line for the state of Kerala is Rs. 431. It corresponds to per capita per diem calorie intake of 1496 Kcal. Similarly, in Tamilnadu, the rural poverty line corresponds to an intake of 1532 Kcal. It appears that development in the era of globalisation entails a rapid decline in the food requirements of people. The more developed is the state; the less is the requirement for food (See table1)!

Table 1: State Wise Official Poverty Lines and Corresponding Calorie Intakes in Rural India

No.	State	Official Poverty Lines	Poverty ratio	Calorie Intake Per
No.	State	Official Poverty Lines	Poverty ratio	Capita /	Consumer Unit
1.	Andhra Pradesh	292.95	11.2	1608	2010
2.	Assam	387.64	22.3	1805	2207
3.	Bihar	354.36	42.1	1912	2365
4.	Chhattisgarh	322.41	40.8	1844	2284
5.	Gujarat	353.93	19.1	1624	2020
6.	Haryana	414.76	13.6	1750	2197
7.	Himachal Pradesh	394.28	10.7	1848	2324
8.	Jharkhand	366.56	46.3	2016	2503
9.	Karnataka	324.17	20.8	1654	2038
10.	Kerala	430.12	13.2	1496	1917
11.	Madhya Pradesh	327.78	36.9	1830	2273
12.	Maharashtra	362.25	29.6	1634	2010
13.	Orissa	325.79	46.8	2059	2537
14.	Punjab	410.38	9.1	1772	2172
15.	Rajasthan	374.57	18.7	1871	2354
16.	Tamilnadu	351.86	22.8	1532	1913
17.	Uttar Pradesh	365.84	33.4	2009	2505
18.	Uttaranchal	478.02	40.8	2066	2580
19.	West Bengal	382.82	28.6	1881	2328
	ALL INDIA	356.3	28.3	1800	23

Source: (1) Planning Commission Press release on Poverty Estimates, Poverty Estimates For 2004-05, 21st March, 2007, (2) Nutritional Intake In India, 2004-2005, NSSO 61st Round, Report No. 513.

Poverty lines and poverty ratios anchored to the nutritional norms
On the other hand, if the poverty lines are determined on the basis of minimum nutritional intakes as specified by the Task Force (1979), the corresponding poverty ratios are very far from the official estimates. The report No. 513 on Nutritional Intake gives per capita and per consumer unit nutritional intakes for 12 MPCE (Monthly Per Capita Consumer Expenditure) classes. A consumer unit is equivalent to a 'standard' male aged 20-39 years and doing sedentary work. The nutritional requirements of a consumer unit in Indian condition are fixed as 2700 Kcal per day. Per capita nutritional norms are derived by assigning number of consumer units to the household members according to age sex specifications.

Table (2) gives the approximate poverty lines and approximate poverty ratios for rural India, based on the fulfillment of a minimum calorie intake of 2700 Kcal per consumer unit. We have chosen the consumer unit intake of 2700 Kcal as the norm instead of per capita intake of 2400 Kcal. This would take care of demographic variations across states and across MPCE classes.

Note: We identified the expenditure groups where the per consumer unit per diem intake was closest to 2700 Kcal. The average calorie consumption in the identified group was not exactly 2700 Kcal. Our estimates are based on the following adjustments and approximations:

(A) In the cases where identified group's average consumption was less than 2700 Kcal, the upper end point of the identified expenditure range was taken as the poverty line. The cases where average calorie consumption was more than 2700 Kcal, the poverty line was taken as the average aggregate expenditure of the identified expenditure group.

(B) The poverty ratio was computed by adding the percentage population of all the expenditure groups below the poverty line. The cases where identified group had an intake below 2700 Kcal, the entire population of this group was included in the poverty group. If the calorie intake of the identified group was above 2700 Kcal, then half the population of this group was included in the poverty group.

For reasons best known to them, many scholars including the Expert Committee members chose not to take cognisance of this anomaly, where the official poverty lines completely fail to anchor themselves to any nutritional norms. As can be seen from Table 1 and Table 2, the difference in the two categories of poverty estimates is too large to ignore.

Table 2: Poverty Line and Poverty Ratios anchored to Nutritional Norms (Consumer Unit)

No.	States	Consumer Unit Calorie Intake	Corresponding Expenditure Group	Corresponding Poverty Line in Rs.	Corresponding Poverty Ratio
1.	Andhra Pradesh	2600	580-690	690	76.8
2.	Assam	2561	510-580	580	64.3
3.	Bihar	2709	410-455	432.37	59
4.	Chhattisgarh	2719	455-510	478.6	78
5.	Gujarat	2617	690-890	890	86.9
6.	Haryana	2617	580-690	690	53.3
7.	H.P.	2677	510-580	580	40.9
8.	Jharkhand	2679	455-510	510	77.8
9.	Karnataka	2655	580-690	690	87.4
10.	Kerala	2755	890-1155	1005.98	69.3
11.	Madhya Pradesh	2494	455-510	510	75.1
12.	Maharashtra	2543	510-580	580	68.5
13.	Orissa	2748	410-455	429.06	70.5
14.	Punjab	2568	580-690	690	49.2
15.	Rajasthan	2689	510-580	580	64.2
16.	Tamilnadu	2636	690-890	890	89.2
17.	Uttar Pradesh	2724	455-510	482.2	59.1
18.	Uttaranchal	2642	510-580	580	72.8
19.	West Bengal	2608	510-580	580	68.4
	ALL INDIA	2665	510-580	580	70.0

Source: (1) Nutritional Intake in India, 2004-2005, NSSO 61st Round, Report No. 513, (2) Level and Pattern of Consumer Expenditure, 2004-05, NSSO 61st Round, Report No.508.

Poverty Lines and Ratios for the Southern States

If we look at the Table-l and Table-2, we find that the southern states stand out as different from others. In our common perception, the southern states are relatively more developed and better managed to providing public services to the people be it health, education or the Public Distribution System This perception agrees with comparatively much lower poverty ratios of the southern states given in the official statistics. As against this the poverty ratios obtained on the basis of nutritional requirements are exceptionally high (Mahendra Dev, 2005). We try to look for the possible explanations:

Table 3: Official and Alternative Poverty Statistics

No.	States	Official Poverty		Alternative Poverty
		Line	Ratio	Line	Ratio
1.	AP	292.95	11.2	690	76.8
2.	Tamilnadu	351.86	22.8	890	89.2
3.	Karnataka	324.17	20.8	690	87.4
4.	Kerala	430.12	13.2	1006	69.3

Source: See Table-1 & Table-2

Table 4: Per 1000 break-up of persons by MPCE class

MPCE Class (Rs)	Number per 1000 of persons
State	A.P.	Tamilnadu	Karnataka	Kerala	Bihar
0 – 235	39	21	27	13	62
235 – 270	36	41	42	11	87
270 – 320	80	90	128	17	151
320 – 365	92	108	124	29	159
365 – 410	92	104	135	41	129
410 – 455	93	104	127	48	104
455 – 510	108	109	106	62	103
510 – 580	110	100	99	92	86
580 – 690	118	115	86	121	57
690 – 890	122	100	68	191	41
890 – 1155	61	54	28	137	14
1155 & more	50	54	29	238	7
all classes	1000	1000	1000	1000	1000

Source: Level and Pattern of Consumer Expenditure, 2004-05. NSSO 61st Round, Report No. 508

Andhra Pradesh

Rural Andhra Pradesh is not rich. The average per capita per month expenditure is Rs.585.55, which is only slightly higher than the national average of Rs. 558.78. The official poverty ratio which is 11.2 is exceptionally low. This is not indicative of fewer people in the lower expenditure groups. The low poverty ratio is obtained because the official poverty line is very low. Rs.292.95 corresponds to the third lowest expenditure group. As already mentioned at this level, the calorie intake is low. This is attributed to the lower consumption of cereals. However, it does not mean that per capita expenditure on non-cereal food items and non-food items are relatively greater. In fact expenditure on every item is pathetically small. For instance, expenditure on Milk and Milk products is only Rs. 12.47 per capita per month. This would mean less than a litre of milk for the whole month. This amount is less than what is spent by the poverty line expenditure group in Bihar, which is one of the poorest states. In the non-food items, the only substantial expenditure is on fuel and light. Even this is less than what is spent by the poverty line expenditure group in Bihar. In short, the low calorie intake at the official poverty line cannot be justified by saying that people in Andhra Pradesh choose to spend relatively more on non-food and non-cereal food items. This may be the case at a higher expenditure level but not at the level of official line.

The poverty ratio obtained on the basis of nutritional intake turns out to be very high because at the higher end, the increase in the expenditure on food and cereals is very gradual. As a result, the nutritional requirement of 2700 kcal per consumer unit is not fulfilled till the 10th expenditure group. It is possible to have an alternative approximation and not adhere strictly to the norm of 2700 Kcal. The poverty ratio can be lowered by 10 per cent, by excluding the 10th expenditure group. However, at the poverty line of Rs. 690.00, not only the calorie intake is adequate, but consumption of other non-food and non-cereal items is also somewhat respectable. For instance, expenditure on milk and milk products is Rs. 52.55. This will enable a person to consume around 4 litres of milk per month. It is possible to spend money on education, conveyance, medicines, and even on entertainment (Rs.12 per month) for this consumer group.

Tamilnadu

The case of Tamilnadu is more or less same as Andhra. Here also the official poverty line is extremely low. It enables no reasonable expenditure on non-cereal food, education, medicine, conveyance etc. Like Andhra Pradesh, in Tamilnadu also, poverty ratio can be reduced by 10 per cent, if nutritional norms of 2700 Kcal per consumer unit is not strictly adhered to.

Karnataka

Karnataka is a poor state. The average per capita per month expenditure is less than the national average. As one can see from Table-4, the population is mostly concentrated at the lower expenditure groups. The official poverty ratio is small because the official poverty line is low like in the case of Andhra Pradesh. Unlike AP and Tamilnadu, the nutritional intake increases rapidly with the increase in expenditure. The alternative poverty line for Karnataka is same as that in AP, i.e. Rs.690.00. However, poverty ratio is much higher because more people are concentrated in the lower expenditure groups.

Kerala

The case of Kerala is different. There are very few people in the lower expenditure group as can be seen from Table-4. Even though official poverty line corresponds to the 6th expenditure group, the official poverty ratio is quite low. Like AP and Tamilnadu, In Kerala also the nutritional intake increases very slowly at the higher end, therefore, poverty line anchored to the nutritional norms is very high belonging to the 11th expenditure group. Like AP & Tamilnadu, here also the poverty ratio can be lowered considerably if the norm of 2700 Kcal per consumer unit is not strictly adhered to. Incidentally, the poverty line of Kerala at Rs.1006 per capita per month ensures a consumption level, which ideally should become the norm for fixing the poverty line. For instance, the expenditure on milk and milk products in this group is Rs. 83.00 per month, which would mean nearly 250 grams of milk per capita per day. Similarly, expenditure on education, medical bills, conveyance, etc. corresponds to a decent living.

Conclusion

We find that poverty lines of different states, even when anchored to a common minimum nutritional norm, correspond to widely varying levels of living. Therefore, such poverty ratios of different states are not comparable. It should be clear that the poverty lines and poverty ratios given in Table-2 are not being presented as alternative estimates to official statistics. The only purpose of computing these figures is to point out how vacuous the official estimates are. The entire exercise has been carried out to stress upon the official experts the need to thoroughly review the methodology used in deriving poverty estimates. As already mentioned, unless the magnitude and detailed profile of poverty group population is rigorously obtained, no meaningful policy initiative can be taken to alleviate the poverty in India.

References

1. Himanshu, Recent Trends in Poverty and Inequality: Some Preliminary Results, EPW, February 10, 2007.

2. S. Mahendra Dev, C. Ravi, Poverty and Inequality: All India and States, 1983-2005, EPW, February 10, 2007.

3. S. Mahendra Dev, Calorie Norms in Poverty, EPW, February 19th, 2005.

4. Jaya Mehta, ‘Poverty Statistics: Bermicide’s Feast’, Economic and Political Weekly, July 1, 2000.

5. Jaya Mehta, ‘Poverty in India’, Alternative Economic Survey 2003-4, Rainbow Publishers, New Delhi 2004

6. Utsa Patnaik, Poverty and Neo Liberalism in India, Rao Bahadur Kale Memorial Lecture delivered at Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune, February 3, 2006.

7. National Family Health Survey, India. http://www.nfhsindia.org/

Click here to return to the September 2007 index.