2. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2699426
2
ABSTRACT
Livelihoods of the Urban Poor: Case of Varanasi City In Uttar Pradesh In India
Researcher: Arun Keshav Supervisor: Prof. J. B. Komaraiah
Introduction: India is urbanising fast, it is estimated that close to 2050; more people
in India, would live in urban areas than in rural areas. In face of rapid urbanisation,
problem of urban poverty and its alleviation becomes even more important than ever.
Over dependence on cash economy, called commoditisation, is one of the
characteristics of urban poverty different from rural poverty, which deepens the
vulnerability of the urban poor. They hardly have any option to produce and need to
buy almost everything for their sustenance. In this backdrop, the livelihoods of urban
poor become very important. Understanding and strengthening their livelihoods could
go down a long way in adding resilience to urban poor households and thus
addressing urban poverty. Based on this, the work focuses on the issue of
“Livelihoods of the Urban Poor”. The context chosen for study is Varanasi City, in
the state of Uttar Pradesh in India”. Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state of India
and has the second largest share of urban population in the country; while Varanasi
City is one among the fast growing urban centres of India, with population range of 1
to 5 Million.
Purpose of Study: This study thus attempts to understand and analyse the livelihoods
of urban poor in the city of Varanasi, through looking into: livelihood activities
undertaken by the urban poor households; possessions of the urban poor households
(their asset; both tangible and intangible)? What threatens their assets and thus their
livelihoods (vulnerabilities)? Are there any conscious, long-term actions undertaken
by them to improve their capability (livelihood Strategies)? What can be done to
improve or strengthen their livelihoods?
Research Methodology: The field research method was applied to look into these
aspects of livelihoods of the urban poor. Choice of this method gave the opportunity
to observe and interact with the urban poor directly in their natural settings. This was
of utmost importance for understanding the inherent complexities linked with their
lives and livelihoods.
3. 3
A sample of eighty urban poor households was drawn, largely from three large slums
of the Varanasi city which are Nagwa Basti; Pasianagali Lahartara; and Shivpurwa;
and from other poverty pockets. The selections were made through non-probability
purposive sampling and snow-ball sampling methods. Apart from the sample
households selected for study, fifteen key informants and five focus groups were also
selected for the study.
The tools selected for data collection included: Semi-structured schedules for
conducting in-depth household interviews; Key Informant Interview (KII) and Focus
Group Discussion (FGD). These tools were supplemented by other participatory tools
like participant observations and transect-walk.
Cross sectional data was collected, through intensive field work, using selected tools,
spread along three months. Data collected from different tools was to help triangulate
the data, for increased validity and reliability. The large qualitative data thus collected
of intensive household interviews; Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group
Discussions were transcribed from audio recording to text format. In addition,
detailed field notes of participant observations and reflective notes prepared formed
the larger part of the data. After familiarisation, the data was broken down and
indexed to identified, four themes, which were: Livelihood activities undertaken by
urban poor households; assets possessed by urban poor households; Vulnerabilities of
urban poor households and Livelihood strategies of urban poor households. Next,
these indexed data was studied, summarised and synthesised thematically based on
which the results were inferred. Also, relevant case studies have been developed to
support these inferred results.
Findings:
Livelihood activities of urban poor: This study suggests that most of the urban poor,
work as unorganised workers. These unorganised workers could further be sub-
categorised into three categories which are: wage-workers, working mainly as casual
labourers or temporary workers like as construction workers; as waiters or helpers
with caterers; as domestic helps; as drivers; in shops etc., typically earning maximum
up to Rs. 200 to Rs. 350 per day; the second sub-category being Self-employed;
working mainly as rickshaw pullers, as street vendors, as petty shop owners, putting
up mobile food stalls, as rag-pickers, as cobblers etc.; and the third sub-category being
4. 4
Home-worker mainly engaged in making of nylon ropes, food packaging, mala-
making, tailoring etc. The biggest problem encountered by the urban poor workers is
that of erratic-income.
Assets possessed by urban poor households: The study looked in the assets of the
urban poor households to find that; the Human Capital is the most important asset
possessed by them, as through this asset they ensure their livelihoods, in by either
directly employing or selling their labour. Further, case studies developed of field data
identifies two behavioural factors, intrinsic to individuals, which can either increase
or decrease the returns on human capital (contribution by the study). These factors are
achievement-motivation, which can increase the return on human capital and
addiction, mainly alcoholism and addiction to drugs like marijuana or hemp, in the
given context, which can diminish the returns on human capital.
Looking into the physical assets, the study finds that Mobile Phone, is one asset
which the urban poor possess (contribution by the study) in the sample studied about
97% of the households had a mobile phone, though it was a low cost hand set and not
a smart phone, still mobile phones, with innovative low-cost pre-paid recharge
schemes from service providers, have penetrated deep enough to reach to the urban
poor holds. The study looks at mobile phones as one of the most potential productive
asset in the hands of the poor; which has the potential to lower the vulnerability of the
urban poor by proper, in-time, information dissemination and increased connectivity.
Other important Physical asset identified is house. In context of Varanasi city, it was
observed that being native residents of the city most of the urban poor households
possessed house of their own (sample statistics reveal 87%). Though the houses were
too small and cramped, with too many members accommodating in a single room
house, and without much of basic amenities; still it reduces the vulnerability of urban
poor households in many ways, like by saving rents, giving option to do productive
activity working as a home-worker, giving identity which can help them access
governmental programmes better, get loan from MFIs etc.
This study highlights that though, the importance of tangible assets have been well
recognised. The importance of intangible assets and their contributions to the
livelihoods of urban poor needs further recognisation. In urban context, the intangible
assets like intra-household relations, commitment-sincerity-sensibility of the female
5. 5
lead of household – an asset (new finding made under study) and social relations play
a very important role in improving the livelihoods of urban poor households.
There is an overwhelming evidence from the field observations that the Commitment
sincerity and sensibility of the female-lead (wife of male household head or women
head of family) of household towards her children and family is one of the strongest
binding forces which binds a poor household as a unit, and is an asset for an urban
poor household, while her sensibility towards handling relations inside and outside
her family helps to build intra-household relations and social relations for the
household. This has been shown through case studies. Observed to be one of the most
consistent assets with any poor household where female lead is present. This vital
intangible asset of urban poor households has not been acknowledged in the literature.
Next, the Intra-household relations have been identified as one of the most critical
assets in urban context. A household with good intra-household relations are more
cohesive. Working in unison they achieve synergy and leverage better returns of their
assets. This is supported by cases presented. Further the study identifies that though as
compared to the rural, the urban settlements are rather socially fragmented
nonetheless, social relations still is one of the biggest assets of the urban poor. It is
this safety net on which they fall upon at time of crisis and also draw security to
reduce their vulnerabilities to several risks. The importance of Social-relations as an
asset has been conceptualised through a visualised model in which a social ecosystem
exists for an individual, who is the central entity in the model, and this individual in
her social ecosystem, co-exists, interacts, draws and gives to her ecosystem entities
namely her family, friends and relatives, neighbours and community, employers and
society at large.
Vulnerabilities of urban poor: This study suggests that the understanding of
vulnerabilities of urban poor depends has two dimensions; one is internal and another
is external. The internal dimension is that of lower internal capacity of the household
which depends on the quality and quantity of assets that the household possesses.
While, the external dimension is that of, external factors, which are out of control of
house hold (risks and shocks), which in turn affect the assets of the household.
Based on field observations the external risk and shock leading to increased
vulnerability for households have been profiled into three different categories which
6. 6
are: Shocks faced by the Urban Poor Households; Exposure to systemic inefficiencies
leading to increased vulnerability and Impacts of risks not managed effectively
making households vulnerable to other risks and shocks. Also a household level Risk
Management Cycle has been conceptualised; which can be broadly divided into two
cyclic halves: One ex-ante (before impact of risk/shock) and ex-post (after impact of
risk). Activities undertaken to manage ex-ante risk could be termed livelihood
strategy, from livelihood’s perspective, which can either mitigate or prevent the
impact of risk. While ex-post risk management could be termed coping mechanism.
Livelihood strategy of urban poor households: An alternate definition for livelihood
strategy has been worked out, which defines livelihoods strategy as “Expanding
Human Capability, choosing different set of activities”.
This study concludes that: Investing in its Human Capital is a definite livelihood
strategy being adopted by the urban poor households.
Three aspects looked into were family size, Vaccination of young children and
sending children to school. It was revealed that the urban poor households are
increasingly: limiting their family sizes, vaccinating their young children and sending
children to schools.
Conclusion and Recommendations: This study concludes that identification levers
to alleviate poverty could be very contextual, and hence any urban poverty alleviation
programme should definitely take in to account the contextual requirements based on
proper study. Some of the levers for alleviating urban poverty as recommended are:
Three fold approach is required:
− Skill improvement
− Access to organised jobs in Government as well as private sector.
− Strengthening the facilities for better returns for poor who are self
employed.
Mere skill improvement would not, in its own, be adequate to improve upon
the condition of the urban poor. Access to organised sector jobs and better
facilities for self employment is required. This also includes interventions to
improve the terms of trade for poor self employed.
7. 7
− Facilitate acquiring on new skills, using poor friendly approach, for Wage
improvement. Eg. Opening up of Mason’s Training Centre.
− Providing spring board facility for self employed and small enterprises
Recognising the services of poor self-employed
Providing access to cash credit to these self employed and home-
workers through collateral free cash credit card
Intervention to improve the terms of trade for the poor self
employed. Due to reasons like lack of organisation and
marginalisation their terms of trade is too poor to help them come
out of poverty.
− Improving access to formal job markets
By providing coaching facilities to get govt. jobs, organised private
jobs. Instead of opening up of coaching centres, providing loans
/reimbursing coaching expenditure receipts
Providing motivation training to adolescent and youths
Interaction with successful people with similar background.
Achievement Motivation (AM) Training could be integrated with skill
training courses.
Financial Capital Strengthening
− Promoting daily collection saving schemes through door to door
collections through MFIs/ Regional Rural Banks/ Scheduled Commercial
Banks
− Starting erratic saving schemes, through mobile vans in same line as
mobile ATMs. Time and location of such vans identified and regular.
Working like a mobile bank.
− Giving consumption loans (many of requirements of the poor live
marriages, health issues, death in family, birth in family etc. creates
8. 8
requirement of immediate cash, which when unavailable they take loans
from money lenders and get into poverty trap).
Giving productive assets (like cycle cart, rickshaw, sewing machines, computers,
mobile phones etc.) in loan by hypothecating the asset itself.
Risk Mitigation through effective low cost housing schemes and shemes related to
health insurance.
Facilitating improvement of Household relationship
− De-addiction centres
− Family counseling centre
− Sensitisation about laws related to domestic violence.
Protecting Land and houses of the poor
− Some regulation to stop the process of sale of their land and house under
lure or pressure, owing in increasing real estate prices.
National level urban poverty alleviation programmes should have two broad
components: one general component implementable at all places and another
contextual component to be decided by local implementation agencies as per the
contextual requirements. As many of the levers to alleviate urban poverty could
be very contextual in nature.
*****
9. 9
ARUN KESHAV
Summary
• 10+ years of working experience indifferent areas related to Livelihoods,
Entrepreneurship Development and Disaster Risk Management.
• Experience in Training and capacity building, Research, Project Management etc.
• Experience in action research and report development.
• Experience of working closely with Governments at district and state levels, contributed towards
their capacity enhancement and policy improvement.
Education
Enrolled in PhD programme in Economics from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi in March 2011
Master of Business Economics
Devi AhilyaVishwavidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India.
1998 – 2000; First class with Distinction
Bachelor of Science (Honours)
Chemistry (Honours) Physics, Mathematics; Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha, India
Work Experience
Organisation From To Designation
Independent Consultant
Jan 2010 Nov 2010 Consultant
UN Volunteers, UNDP, India July 2007 Dec 2009
Project Officer,
UEVRP under GOI- UNDP, Disaster
Risk Management Programme
Entrepreneurship Development
Institute of India
May 2004
Jan’ 2007 Project Officer
Janhit Vikas Samiti, Nawada, Bihar March
2003
March
2004
Project Manager, “Rural Industries
Programme” sponsored by SIDBI
Assignments Handled
Entrepreneurship Development Programmes (EDPs): 25
Workshops: 10
Consultancy Assignments: 8
Personal Details
Father’s Name: Dr. Giridhar Jha Sex: Male Nationality: Indian
Present Address: D- 64/52; G-12, Sant Raghuvar Nagar,Madhopur,
Sigra , Varanasi- 221010, Uttar Pradesh, India
Mobile: +91-9621119315
E mail:arun.keshav@gmail.com
