1. MDGs and Targets – Summary of progress achieved by India
MDG 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger
Target 1: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the Per- ∎ Off-track The newly appointed committee
centage of Population below the National Poverty should come up with a new poverty line. The
Line country is required to achieve a HCR level of
23.9% by 2015 against the current projection of
26.72%.
Target 2: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the pro- ∎ Severely off-track. From an estimated 52% in
portion of people who suffer from hunger. 1990, the proportion of underweight children be-
low 3 years is required to be reduced to 26% by
2015. At the current rate of decline 33% of chil-
dren will be underweight, missing the target by
seven percentage points.
MDG 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education
Target 3: Ensure that by 2015 children every- On-track India is likely to achieve 100% Net
where, boys and girls alike, will be able to com- Enrolment Ratio for girls and boys ahead of 2015.
plete a full course of primary education. The proportion of students starting Grade I who
reach Grade V rose from 62% in 1999 to 81% by
2002 and declined thereafter to 73% in 2004. It
dipped to 72% in 2007-08 though improved to 76
percent in 2008-09. According to the trend exhib-
ited during 1991 - 2001, India is likely to attain
100% Youth literacy by 2015. The NSS estimates
for the year 2007-08 shows 93% and 83% youth
literacy in urban and rural areas, respectively.
MDG 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
Target 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primary On-track The ratio of literate women to men in
and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and the age group 15-24 years stood at 0.88 in 2007-
in all levels of education no later than 2015. 08. Parity, in the ratio, is expected by 2015. The
share of women in wage employment in rural areas
was 19.6% and in urban areas, 17.6% in 2009-10.
Parity in labour market participation is unlikely
given the socio-cultural situation that is male dom-
inated.
1

2. MDG 4: Reduce Child Mortality
Target 5: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and ∎ Off-track The under 5 mortality rate target by
2015, the under-five Mortality Rate 2015 is 42 per thousand live births. India is likely
to attain 52 by 2015, missing the target by 10 per-
centage points. With the present improved trend,
the national estimate of Infant Mortality Rate is
likely to be 44 against the MDG target of 27 in
2015.
MDG 5: Improve Maternal Health
Target 6: Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 ∎ Off-track Based on the trend, India is likely to
and 2015, the Maternal Mortality Ratio. witness a MMR of 139 per 100,000 live births by
2015, falling short by 30 points. With the rate
of increase in deliveries by skilled personnel, the
likely rate by 2015 is 62%, far short of universal
coverage.
MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other Diseases
Target 7: Have halted by 2015 and begun to re- On-track The adult prevalence was 0.26 and
verse the spread of HIV/AIDS 0.38 percent among women and men, respectively,
in 2008, and 0.25 percent and 0.36 percent in
2009, respectively. Among pregnant women 15-
24 years, the prevalence of HIV has declined from
0.86% in 2004 to 0.48% in 2008.
Target 8: Have halted by 2015 and begun to re-
verse the incidence of malaria and other major dis- ∎ Off-track Total malaria cases have declined
eases from 2.08 million to 1.6 million and TB cases have
declined from 1.0 to 0.83 million cases, between
2001 and 2010. The prevalence of all forms of TB
has been brought down from 338/100,000 popu-
lation in 1990 to 256/100,000 population in 2010
and TB mortality in the country has reduced from
over 42/100,000 population in 1990 to 26/100,000
population in 2010 as per the WHO global report
2011. Repeat population surveys conducted by
Tuberculosis Research Centre indicate an annual
decline in prevalence of the disease by 12%.
2

3. MDG 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
Target 9: Integrate the Principles of Sustain- On-track There is an increase in forest cover
able Development into Country Policies and Pro- of about 1128 sq. km between 2007 and 2011.
grammes and Reverse the loss of Environmental 668 Protected Areas have been established, ex-
Resources tending over 161,221.57 sq. kms. The country
is on track in increasing the protection network
for arresting the diversity losses and for main-
taining ecological balance. Energy Intensity, the
amount of energy consumed for generating one
unit of Gross Domestic Product at constant prices,
at 1999-2000 prices, increased from 0.128 KWh
in 1970-71 to 0.165 KWh in 1985-86, and reduced
to 0.122 KWh, at 2004-05 prices, in 2009-10.
Target 10: Halve, by 2015, the Proportion of Peo- Early for drinking water; ∎ off-track for
ple without Sustainable Access to Safe Drinking sanitation The proportion of households without
Water and Basic Sanitation access to safe drinking water sources in 1990,
around 34% reduced to the order of 17% in 2007-
08. A reduction in the proportion of households
without any sanitation to about 43% by 2015 is
anticipated missing the target by 5 percentage
points.
Target 11: By 2020, to have achieved a significant The pattern is not statistically discernible
improvement in the lives of at least 100 million
slum dwellers.
MDG 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development
Target 18: In co-operation with the Private Sector, On-track The Internet subscriber base in-
make available the benefits of new technologies, creased 97 fold from 0.21 million in 1999 to 20.33
especially Information and Communication million in 2011. 346.67 million wireless sub-
scribers subscribe to data services, as reported by
wireless service providers.
Already achieved by 2015
Expected to meet the 2015 target
∎ Off track: Expected to meet target, after 2015
Off track: Regressing/no progress
3

4. Goal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$1.25 per day poverty
Underweight children
Primary enrolment
Reaching last grade
Primary completion
Gender primary
Gender secondary
Gender tertiary
Under-5 mortality
Infant mortality
Maternal mortality
Skilled birth attendance
Antenatal care (≥ 1 visit)
HIV prevalence
TB incidence
TB prevalence
Forest cover
Protected area
ODP substance consumption
Safe drinking water
Basic sanitation
CO2 emissions
4
Bangladesh ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎
China ∎ ∎
India ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎
Indonesia ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎
Already achieved by 2015 Expected to meet the 2015 target
∎ Off track: Expected to meet target, after 2015 Off track: Regressing/no progress
Source: Accelerating Equitable Achievement of the MDGs. Closing Gaps in Health and Nutrition Outcomes.
UNESCAP, ADB and UNDP (authors). Asia-pacific regional MDG Report 2011/12 in collab. with UNFPA, UNICEF & WHO.
Table 1: On and off track for the MDGs

5. A Poverty
Despite India’s [. . . ] recent rapid economic growth and the presence of safety nets,
hunger and malnutrition are still ever present in India, at ratios higher than in most
Sub-Saharan countries. At least 200 million adults in the country suffer from seasonal
energy stress. Nearly 20 percent of preschool children in the country suffer from acute
malnutrition.4 This latter figure is one of the highest rates in the world. The World
Health Organisation considers a 15 per cent acute malnutrition rate to be the emergency
threshold, even in humanitarian crises; by this standard, India as a whole is in a state
of constant nutritional emergency, year in and year out. At least two states, Madhya
Pradesh and Jharkhand, have acute malnutrition rates exceeding twice that threshold.’’1
The bulk of the poor live in rural areas. The poor have low skills, are poorly ed-
ucated, live in regions where soil fertility is low and connectivity with urban centers
is limited. The poor are often minorities that suffer from discrimination, neglect and
social isolation. The poor have limited stocks of physical assets, low levels of sav-
ings and are vulnerable to the vicissitudes of nature and to illness, both of which can
be devastating to those who have little to begin with. Some major factors responsible
for chronic poverty in rural areas – limited education and skill, low income, limited
capital and availability of social services, lack of capital and low savings – are to be
considered.
Five modalities that are used to assist the poor: cash transfers, universal food sub-
sidies, rationed food subsidies, public works and social funds.2
A.1 Measures
The World Bank began using the dollar a day threshold as a definition of poverty in
1990. The World Bank gathered national poverty line data from 75 national estimates
in 2008 and averaged the bottom fifteen, thirteen sub-Saharan African countries, Nepal
and Tajikistan, to arrive at $1.25 a day, as a revised poverty line.
To show depth of poverty and absolute level of poverty, IFPRI proposed represent-
ing poverty incidence measured in purchasing parity terms in three groups, subjacent
poor with incomes between $0.81 and $1.08 per day, the medial poor with incomes
between $0.81 and $0.54 and the ultra poor with incomes below $0.54. The further
income is below the poverty line, the greater the depth of poverty experienced.
1 Devereux, Stephen; Vaitla, Bapu; Hauenstein Swan, Samuel (2008): Seasons of Hunger. Fighting
Cycles of Starvation among the World’s Rural Poor. London, Britain: Pluto Press.
2 Dowling, John Malcolm; Yap, Chin-Fang (2009): Chronic Poverty in Asia. Causes, Consequences and
Policies. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
3 Asian Development Bank (2008). Asian Development Outlook. Manila: ADB. and Bauer, A, R Hasan,
R Magsombol and G Wan (2008). The World Bank’s New Poverty Data: Implications for the Asian Devel-
opment Bank. ADB Sustainable Development, Working Paper Series No. 2. Manila: ADB.
4 IFPRI (2007). The World’s Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger.
Washington, DC: IFPRI.
5 Chronic Poverty Research Center (CPRC) (2008). Annex E, The Chronic Poverty Report 2008–09.
Chronic Poverty Research Centre, University of Manchester.; Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2008).
Asian Development Outlook. Manila: ADB
6 IFPRI (2007). The World’s Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger.
Washington, DC: IFPRI.
5

6. People in Poverty(million)
Head Count Ratio
Country
Bangladesh 0.51 75.
Cambodia 0.40 5.6
China (rural) 0.25 200.
China 0.16 210.
India (rural) 0.44 342.
Indonesia (rural) 0.25 27.
Lao PDR 0.35 2.
Nepal 0.55 14.8
Pakistan 0.22 35.
Philippines 0.22 19.
Vietnam 0.23 19.
Source: ADB, 2008.3
Table 2: Head Count Ratio and population estimates in Asia.
A.2 Targeted Public Distribution System
The Public Distribution System in India is the largest provider of food assistance in
the world, and the vehicle for this assistance is the Public Distribution System (PDS).
The PDS buys grains and other staple foods from farmers across the country and sells
them back to poor families at heavily subsidised prices; for the poorest of the poor,
[prices in Andhra Pradesh in 2008, for example,] were around 2 Rupees (about 4c) per
kilogram7 . The price is held constant regardless of season.
The PDS has its roots in the years just before India’s independence, particularly
in the aftermath of the disastrous Bengal famine of 1943. Following independence in
1947, a network of fair price shops began to be created across the country, private-run
but government supplied outlets for subsidised sales of grains and staple foods to the
public.
With the expansion of the PDS came mounting costs and leakage of food to graft,
non-poor families, and middlemen involved in procurement, transport, storage and
sales. In response, the system was changed in 1997 to a targeted approach, wherein
only families identified as having incomes below the poverty line–pink card families–
were offered the heavily subsidised selling price. Above the poverty line–white card–
7 Hindu Business Line Bureau (2008).
6

7. Subjacent Poor
Medial Poor
Rural Poor
Ultra Poor
Country
Bangladesh 27.5 22.9 4.8 55.2
India 22.1 13.2 1.8 37.1
Pakistan 9.5 3.0 0.3 12.8
Sri Lanka 3.8 1.2 0.2 6.8
Vietnam 19.8 12.0 3.3 35.1
Source: IFPRI, 2007.4
Table 3: Incidence of rural poverty by depth of poverty – Head Count Ratio (%).
Country Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Proportion Poor Number Poor
Low estimate High estimate $1.25/day $1.25/day (million)
China 0.15 0.25 0.25 200
Indonesia 0.15 0.25 0.25 27
Philippines 0.30 0.40 0.22 19
Vietnam 0.35 0.45 0.20 19
Bangladesh 0.20 0.30 0.50 75
India 0.25 0.35 0.44 342
Nepal 0.50 0.60 0.55 15
Pakistan 0.25 0.35 0.22 35
Source: Chronic Poverty Research Centre, 2008 and ADB, 20085 .
Table 4: Poor and Chronically Poor in East Asia and South Asia.
families were sold the grain at cost.8 The policy change proved to be controversial,
and of questionable effectiveness. Accurately distinguishing poor from non-poor fam-
ilies is difficult in any country, but in India, where that distinction has to be made
for several hundred million families, the task is enormous.9 Exclusion of many poor
families was inevitable: a government-commissioned evaluation of the targeted PDS
concluded in 2001 that less than three in five poor households were actually reached
by the scheme. The leakage problems also persisted; 58 per cent of subsidized food
grains issued from the Central Pool did not reach the target families because of identifi-
cation errors, non-transparent operation and unethical practices in the implementation
of TPDS.10 In addition, the food subsidy extends only to staple foods but not to fruits,
8 Singh, S. (2006). Food Security-Effectiveness of the Public Distribution System in India. Master degree
thesis, University of Ljubljana.
9 Patnaik, U. (2005). Theorizing Food Security and Poverty in the Era of Economic Reforms. Second
Freedom from Hunger lecture, Centre for Environment & Food Security.www.mfcindia.org/utsa.pdf.
10 Government of India (2005). Performance Evaluation of Targeted Public Distribution System. Pro-
7

8. Country Subjacent Medial Ultra All Rural
Hungry Hungrt Hungry Hungry
Bangladesh 30.9 (27.5) 12.8 (22.9) 4.8 (15.9) 59.6 (55.2)
India 28.9 (22.1) 12.1 (13.2) 1.8 (17.1) 37.1 (58.1)
Pakistan 21.8 (9.5) 9.9 (3.0) 16.5 (0.3) 12.8 (48.2)
Sri Lanka 23.4 (3.8) 10.9 (1.2) 24.3 (0.2) 6.8 (58.6)
Source: IFPRI 2007 (percentages in brackets)6 .
Table 5: Incidence of Rural Hunger by Food Energy Deficiency–Head Count Ratio (%)
vegetables and other key components of a diverse diet, thus improving the quantity of
food accessed by the poor but not necessarily the quality. The final irony is that the
costs for the targeted PDS proved to be even higher than for the earlier programme.
A.3 NREGA
The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 guarantees 100 days of employ-
ment in a year, to adults willing to do unskilled manual work. It has been implemented
in all rural districts since April 2008.
The scheme was evaluated by the Institute of Applied Manpower Research, to as-
sess the benefits and deficiencies of the scheme, operational bottlenecks, efficacy of
social audit and the impact of the scheme on targeted beneficiaries. This was done
through surveys in 20 districts across 16 states.
Information collected covered, household details, manner of job card registration,
issuance of job cards, registration and application for work, impact on wages, income,
and quality of life and impact on out migration.
The survey found 52.3 percent of households had unskilled labourers. Twelve per-
cent were agricultural peasants dependent on seasonal agricultural work. Twenty per-
cent were engaged in agricultural activity for themselves. Very few were involved
in petty businesses. The impact on expenditure on food items by beneficiaries was
estimated as a proxy of improved nutritional outcomes and improving food security.
Beneficiaries were grouped by those spending less than 500 Rupees a month, between
five hundred and seven hundred a month and those spending more than eight hundred
a month. The survey found that membership shifted from 23.5, 27 and 49.5 percent
to 15.5, 28 and 56.5 percent, respectively.11 It is not apparent whether a control group
was identified by the evaluators, though the short duration since implementation, coin-
ciding with the evaluation period suggests that the impact is likely to be significantly
attributable to the conditional cash transfer scheme.
gramme Evaluation Organisation, Planning Commission. New Delhi, Government of India.
11 http://planningcommission.gov.in/reports/genrep/rep_NREGA.pdf
8