| Abstract: | This paper argues for a shift of emphasis from larger outlays on two major anti-poverty schemes - the rural public works (RPW) and integrated rural development (IRDP) programmes - to improvements in their design and implementation. Enhanced outlays do not matter much, as they tend to be mistargeted. More specifically, based on National Sample Survey data for 1987-88, neither RPW nor IRDP covered a large segment of the rural poor, while among their beneficiaries the shares of the (relatively) well-off were not negligible. However, the RPW was more effective in excluding the non-poor rather than attracting the poor. There has been a progressive weakening of targeting in both schemes as leakages to the non-poor rose. More of the poor are likely to benefit from RPW if the wage rate is lowered (relative to the agricultural wage), if a combination of piece and time rates is used and if wages in kind are discontinued. On the other hand, in the context of IRDP, there is a need to eliminate the interest subsidy, place greater emphasis on the reduction of transaction costs and to vest rights of land in women. Given the key role of the Village Panchayat in poverty alleviation, it is imperative that it is accountable to the village community. But above all, benefits to the poor from anti-poverty programmes depend ultimately on whether they have the collective strength to affirm their interests. |
