SPECIAL ARTICLE

Poverty across Social and Religious Groups

in Uttar Pradesh
An Interregional Analysis
Akarsh Arora, S P Singh

The article is an attempt at a comprehensive

understanding of regional as well as disaggregated
(district-wise) patterns of poverty prevailing among
social and religious groups in Uttar Pradesh by using unit
level records of the 61st (200405) and 68th (201112)
rounds of NSSOs Consumption Expenditure Survey. It
identifies the critical regions in UP, where poverty among
social and religious groups is unfairly distributed.
Estimates reveal that though poverty in the state
reduced by 11.50% points between 200405 and
201112, it remained quite high among Scheduled
Castes (40.87%) and Muslims (34.88%), particularly in
the central, southern and eastern regions of the state.
The study also attempts to gauge the causes for the
unequal distribution of poverty among social and
religious groups in the state and goes on to suggest that
region specific and group specific development
programmes may be more effective in alleviating
poverty among social and religious groups.

The first author is thankful to the Ministry of Human Resource Development for providing a financial grant in the form of a research fellowship
to carry out the research work. Both authors are thankful to an anonymous referee for comments and helpful suggestions.
Akarsh Arora (akarsh08061988@gmail.com) is a doctoral candidate at
the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of
Technology, Roorkee; S P Singh (singhfhs@iitr.ac.in) teaches economics
at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of
Technology, Roorkee.

100

xtensive research has been conducted in recent years to

evaluate poverty and inequality across regions and
across social and religious groups (SRGs). However, most
of these studies have been based on national or state level
estimates. A close examination reveals that there is a dearth of
studies based on regional and district level statistics, particularly for measuring poverty and inequality in Uttar Pradesh
(UP). Also, earlier studies could not include Other Backward
Classes (OBCs) as a separate category due to unavailability
of classified data from the earlier National Sample Survey
Office (NSSO) rounds.
This study is an attempt to identify critical regions, where
the incidence of poverty among SRGs was unfairly distributed
in UP during 200405 (61st NSSO round) and 201112 (68th
NSSO round). The rationale behind evaluating such critical regions is that a society is considered better off when poverty is
spread evenly across population groups rather than concentrated among a few subsets of the population. Additionally, an
attempt has been made to gauge the causes for such unequal
distribution of poverty among SRGs in the state.
A number of studies have been conducted on the subject, but
most of them have a discourse at an aggregate level (Dev and Ravi
2007, 2008; Himanshu 2007). Furthermore, studies particular to
SRGs are few in number (GOI 2011; Mutatkar 2005; Sundaram and
Tendulkar 2003; Thorat and Dubey 2012). Most of them reveal
that the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are
comparatively more vulnerable and impoverished, although they
have been showing progress along with other groups over time.
Several studies also highlight the causes of poverty among
SRGs. Sundaram and Tendulkar (2003) state that assetless
casual wage labour households (particularly the SCs and STs)
are doubly disadvantaged (economically as well socially).
Mutatkar (2005) emphasises that the STs and SCs have been
historically marginalised, and they remain concentrated in the
lower quintiles of the economy. Social disparities in living
standards are the result of differences in returns to education
and land along with levels of physical and human capital.
Thorat and Dubey (2012) show that the growth in consumption expenditure of agricultural households during 200510
remained pro-poor for marginalised farmers but not for the
SCs, particularly in rural areas.
Some studies also confirm that there has been an improvement in the living standards and well-being of Muslims along
DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

with the SCs and STs at an aggregate level. The India Human
Development Report 2011 (GOI 2011) for example, highlights
that poverty across social groups has reduced over time, yet it
is quite perceptible. Rural poverty among Muslims is below
aggregate, while it is greater in urban areas. Even though the
consumption expenditure among SCs, STs, and Muslims has
been rising over time, its distribution remains an issue of concern, particularly for the SCs. The report suggests that reduction in poverty was brought about by reduction in unemployment rates (rural and urban) and therefore cited as, the rising tide was lifting all boats. However, the access index of
asset ownership shows that the SCs and Muslims are not able
to enjoy the peaks. Notably, it highlights that poorer states1
account for more than 50% of the SCs, STs and Muslims of the
entire country, and there exists a bidirectional relationship
between the poorness of states and large proportions of the
excluded SRGs. Such coexistence emerged from the fact that
in these states, various affirmative actions initiated by the
government had largely excluded the most needy sections
of society.
Nevertheless, a few studies have evaluated the socio-economic
condition of SRGs in UP (Diwakar 2009; Kapur et al 2010; Kozel
and Parker 2003; Ojha 2007). Some of them have pointed out
that social and religious rigidities in the state play a vital role
in the impoverishment and social vulnerability, as class and
caste coincide in the contemporary social reality of UP. However, they argue that the most excluded and impecunious
population subgroups (SCs/STs and Muslims) have shown an
improvement in their living standards and well-being. Kapur
et al (2010: 4247) observe that since 1990, there have been
major changes in the grooming, eating, and ceremonial consumption patterns of Dalits, signalling a higher social status,
erosion of caste discrimination, and change in agricultural
relations. They have also reported that almost no Dalit worked
as a bonded labourer, and there has been a significant occupational diversification among Dalits. Their study has considered
the rise of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), market-oriented reforms, exposure to media, and technological changes in agriculture as the potential factors behind improvement in the socioeconomic status of Dalits in UP. However, the study is confined
to only two development blocks (one each from western and
eastern regions), and, therefore, may not reflect the changes
that have taken place across the regions.
Based on three field studies, Kozel and Parker (2003) have
identified lack of access to landholdings, education and skills,
social networks and stable employment, and insecure land
tenure as the primary factors causing poverty among Dalits in
UP. The deeply entrenched exclusion and social marginalisation (low caste status) is cited as the main reason for the persistence of poverty among them. On the other hand, Ojha
(2007) shows that across social groups, incidence as well as
reduction in poverty was the highest among SCs during 199899
and 200405.
In general, some ways of escaping from poverty are finding
a private job through migration to cities/towns, starting of
petty trade/business, diversification of farming by inclusion of
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

animal husbandry and dairying, casual work in the informal

sector, shift from traditional to high value crops, and a government job. Likewise, reasons for falling into poverty are,
unbearable expenditure on illness, beyond-the-capacity expenditure on marriages and other social ceremonies, loss of job,
downfall of business and other reasons, including successive
crop failure and migration of the key worker of the household.
Furthermore, small size of landholding, low capital base and
unemployment or underemployment are identified as three
key factors for chronic poverty.
One of the World Bank (2010) studies stated that social
exclusion has reduced, particularly among SCs in UP. Overrepresented in the farm sector, the SCs benefited from
increasing agricultural wages. Also, those SC households who
entered the labour market were educationally better qualified
than before, enabling them to opt for self-employment and
non-farm occupations. Furthermore, it has been observed that
the scope and reach of the social safety net programmes implemented by the UP government was limited (Ajwad 2007).
Against this backdrop, the present study seeks to examine
the profile of poverty across regions and among SRGs in UP.
The paper proceeds by presenting the underlying objectives of
the study in Section 1. Section 2 describes the methodology and
its limitations, followed by outcomes of the study by portraying
poverty incidence across regions and districts and among SRGs
during 200405 and 201112 in Section 3. The study also identifies the factors responsible for poverty among SRGs in Section 4
and ends the discussion with conclusions and policy implications.
1 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are as follows: (i) to identify critical

regions and districts in rural and urban areas of UP, where
poverty is severely concentrated; (ii) to evaluate the regional
pattern of poverty among SRGs in rural and urban areas of UP;
(iii) to identify the factors underlying poverty among SRGs in
rural and urban areas of UP.
2 Methodology and Its Limitations

The present study uses unit level records of the 61st (200405)
and 68th (201112) rounds of NSSOs Consumption Expenditure
Survey (CES) to define poverty in terms of headcount ratio
(HCR). The HCR measures poverty as a proportion of households living below the poverty line (BPL). In India, the poverty
line is defined as the critical threshold of monthly per capita
consumption expenditure (MPCE) that is considered necessary
for subsistence level of living. It is the reference poverty line
basket (PLB) of household goods and services consumed by
those households at the borderline separating the poor from
the non-poor (GOI 2009: 1). Any household consuming less than
the prescribed amount of PLB is treated as poor. Until recently,
the poverty line was estimated by expert committees constituted by the Planning Commission of India, from time to time.
For 200405, the Tendulkar Committee provided a poverty
line for each state. However, for 201112, the Planning Commission updated the poverty estimates as per the methodology recommended by the Tendulkar Committee (GOI 2013).
101

SPECIAL ARTICLE

of these, the population subgroups STs

and Others have been excluded, as
their sample size was negligible in UP.
However, overall poverty in the state is
Saharanpur
estimated by clubbing all categories of
Muzaffarnagar Bijnor
social or religious groups.
Baghpat Meerut
This study selects UP for three reasons.
Ghaziabad
Moradabad Rampur
J P Nagar
First,
it is one of the most impoverished
Bareilly Pilibhit
G B Nagar Bulandshahr
states
in India (Kozel and Parker 2003).
Kheri
Budaun
Shahjahanpur
Aligarh
According to the Planning Commissions
Shravasti
Mathura Hathras Etah Farrukhabad
figures (GOI 2009, 2013), it can be estiSitapur Bahraich Balrampur
Hardoi
Siddharthnagar Maharajganj
Firozabad Mainpuri
mated that the state held the highest
Gonda
Agra
Kannauj
S K Nagar
Lucknow Barabanki
Kushinagar
Legend region
proportion of the total BPL population of
Etawah
Basti
Faizabad
Gorakhpur
Auraiya
Western region
Unnao
Ambedkar Nagar
the country during 200405 (17.94%)
Kanpur Dehat Kanpur
Deoria
Central region
Raebareli Sultanpur
Jalaun
and 201112 (22.17%), respectively.
Mau
Azamgarh
Southern region
Ballia
Fatehpur Pratapgarh
Eastern region
Also, the state has the highest proporJaunpur
Jhansi Hamirpur
Ghazipur
Kaushambi S R Nagar Varanasi
Banda
BPL Population (%)
Mahoba
tion of SC (20.5%), Muslim (22.34%)
Allahabad
Chitrakoot
Chandauli
Rural UP: 200405
Mirzapur
and rural population2 (18.6%) of India.
10%20%
Lalitpur
20%30%
Second, with the emergence of the BSP,
Sonbhadra
30%40%
the state has witnessed a resurgence of
40%50%
the Dalit movement with a clear politi50%60%
cal agenda to capture the state power for
Source: Compiled from NSSO 61st round CES data, GoI, 200405.
bringing socio-economic changes in
their lives. Third, the state is large and
Figure 2: District-wise Mapping of Poverty in Rural UP, 201112
divided into four economic regions
western, central, southern and eastern.
These regions differ significantly in
Saharanpur
terms of various socio-economic developMuzaffarnagar Bijnor
ment indicators. In order to capture the
Baghpat Meerut
disaggregated poverty profile, 70 disGhaziabad J P Nagar Moradabad Rampur
tricts of the state have been classified
Bareilly Pilibhit
G B Nagar Bulandshahr
under these four regions. The western
Kheri
Budaun
Shahjahanpur
region comprises 26 districts; the central
Aligarh
Shravasti
Mathura Hathras Etah
region consists of 10 districts, including
Bahraich
Farrukhabad
Balrampur
Sitapur
Hardoi
Siddharthnagar Maharajganj
Firozabad Mainpuri
the capital of the state (Lucknow) and
Gonda
Kannauj
Agra
S K Nagar
Barabanki
Legend region
the main financial centre (Kanpur); the
Lucknow
Kushinagar
Etawah
Basti
Gorakhpur
Faizabad
Auraiya
Western region
Unnao
southern region, basically called the
Deoria
Ambedkar Nagar
Kanpur Dehat Kanpur
Central region
Raebareli Sultanpur
Bundelkhand region, embraces seven
Jalaun
Southern region
Azamgarh Mau
Ballia
Pratapgarh
Fatehpur
Eastern region
districts; and the eastern region includes
Hamirpur
Jaunpur
Jhansi
Ghazipur
BPL Population (%)
Banda
Kaushambi S R Nagar
27 districts. The geographical location
Varanasi
Mahoba
Rural UP: 201112
Chitrakoot Allahabad
Chandauli
of districts along with their respective
10%20%
Mirzapur
20%30%
regions is depicted in Figures 1, 2, and
Lalitpur
Sonbhadra
30%40%
Figures 3 and 4 (p 103).
40%50%
As mentioned above, one of the
50%60%
prime objectives of the study is to find
out those districts where poverty is
Source: Compiled from NSSO 68th round CES data, GoI, 201112.
alarming. Initially, the target was to
For the rural and urban areas of UP, it was estimated at evaluate the district level poverty among SRGs, but it was
Rs 435.14 and Rs 532.12, respectively for 200405. This found that bifurcation of sample households across districts
amount was increased to Rs 768 for rural and Rs 941 for urban and among SRGs provided a relatively small sample size, which
areas in 201112. Since district-wise poverty line is not estimated possibly would affect the reliability of HCR. Nevertheless,
by the Planning Commission, we have considered the state- there are two major difficulties while assessing poverty trends
wise poverty line to estimate the district-wise HCR.
at the district level. The first pertains to the availability of unit
The 61st and 68th NSSO rounds classify social groups into level data that can capture disaggregate poverty trends
four population subgroupsSTs, SCs, OBCs and upper castes unbiasedly. It is only from the 61st round (carried out during
and religious groups into Hindus, Muslims and Others. Out July 2004June 2005) that sampling design defined rural and
Figure 1: District-wise Mapping of Poverty in Rural UP, 200405

102

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE
Figure 3: District-wise Mapping of Poverty in Urban UP, 200405

Saharanpur
Muzaffarnagar Bijnor
Baghpat Meerut
Ghaziabad
Moradabad Rampur
J P Nagar
Bareilly Pilibhit
G B Nagar Bulandshahr
Budaun

Aligarh

Kheri
Shahjahanpur

Shravasti
Bahraich
Farrukhabad
Balrampur
Sitapur
Hardoi
Siddharthnagar Maharajganj
Firozabad Mainpuri
Gonda
Agra
Kannauj
S K Nagar Kushinagar
Legend region
Lucknow Barabanki
Basti
Etawah
Gorakhpur
Faizabad
Western region
Auraiya
Unnao
Ambedkar Nagar Deoria
Kanpur Dehat
Central region
Kanpur Raebareli Sultanpur
Jalaun
Southern region
Azamgarh Mau
Ballia
Fatehpur Pratapgarh
Eastern region
Jaunpur
Jhansi Hamirpur
Ghazipur
BPL Population (%)
Banda Kaushambi S R Nagar Varanasi
Mahoba
Rural UP: 200405
Chitrakoot Allahabad
Chandauli
Before 10%
Mirzapur
10%20%
Lalitpur
20%30%
Sonbhadra
30%40%
40%50%
Above 50%
Etah

Mathura Hathras

Source: Compiled from NSSO 61st round CES data, GoI, 200405.

Figure 4: District-wise Mapping of Poverty in Urban UP, 201112

adequacy of actual private expenditure

per capita near the poverty lines on food,
education and health by comparing them
with normative expenditures consistent
with nutritional, educational and health
outcomes (GOI 2009: 2).
This paper, therefore, estimates poverty
in UP, starting from the 61st NSS round
(200405). To examine the factors determining the unequal distribution of poverty
among SRGs in rural and urban areas in the
state during 200405 and 201112, a surveybased binary logistic regression has been
used. The parameters of the logistic regression have been estimated by modelling the
BPL variable (1 if the household is BPL, 0
otherwise) on selected set of explanatory
variables, such as household size, land
possessed (in hectares),3 age of the head,
regions, religious groups, social groups,
gender of the head, educational level of the
head and household type. The estimates of
the model have been expressed in terms of
percentage change in odds.
3 Poverty Profile in Uttar Pradesh

Saharanpur

3.1 Regional Pattern of Poverty

Muzaffarnagar Bijnor

The four regions of UP (western, central,

southern and eastern) differ widely. On
economic grounds, the western region is
Kheri
Budaun
highly productive in the agricultural and
Shahjahanpur
Aligarh
Shravasti
Bahraich
Mathura Hathras EtahFarrukhabad
industrial sector,4 whereas the central reBalrampur
Sitapur
Hardoi
Siddharthnagar
Firozabad Mainpuri
gion has experienced an industrial decline
Maharajganj
Gonda
Agra
Kannauj
S K Nagar Kushinagar
Legend region
Lucknow Barabanki
in recent years (GOI and UNDP 2008). The
Basti
Etawah
Faizabad
Gorakhpur
Western region
Auraiya
Unnao
Ambedkar Nagar Deoria
western and eastern regions possessed the
Dehat
Kanpur
Kanpur
Central region
Raebareli Sultanpur
Jalaun
Southern region
highest and the lowest per capita net doAzamgarhMau
Ballia
Fatehpur Pratapgarh
Eastern region
Jaunpur
Jhansi Hamirpur
mestic product (NDP) at current as well as at
Ghazipur
BPL Population (%)
Banda Kaushambi S R Nagar Varanasi
Rural UP: 200405
Mahoba
Allahabad
constant prices during 201011, respectively,
Chitrakoot
Chandauli
Before 10%
Mirzapur
whereas the southern region had higher per
10%20%
Lalitpur
20%30%
capita NDP than both eastern and central
Sonbhadra
30%40%
regions (basically due to its lower popula40%50%
Above 50%
tion density). Also, the western region
(54.34%) and the eastern region (26.28%)
Source: Compiled from NSSO 68th round of CES data, GoI, 201112.
have the highest and the lowest crediturban parts of the districts as strata for selection of sample deposit ratio, respectively. As per the 2011 Census, the eastern
region is the most populated region of the state (39.95%), folvillages and urban blocks, respectively.
The second problem is associated with the base of MPCE that lowed by the western (37.20%), central (18.01%) and southern
has been used as a reference period to estimate the poverty regions (18.01%). However, on the urbanisation front, the westline. Prior to 200405, the poverty line was defined on the ba- ern region holds the highest urban population (31.36%) and
sis of MPCE using the uniform reference period (URP). The Plan- the eastern region (12.21%) the lowest.
Table 1 (p 104) shows that in both the survey years, the incining Commission, on the recommendation of the Tendulkar
Committee, decided to adopt consumption expenditure based dence of poverty in rural areas is higher than that in urban areas;
on a mixed reference period (MRP). The poverty line based on however, the percentage point difference between the two arthe URP considered only calorie norms, but adoption of the eas has declined significantly from 8.65% points in 200405 to
MRP made this poverty line broader in scope, as it included the 4.23% points in 201112. This indicates that poverty reduction
Baghpat Meerut
Rampur
Ghaziabad
J P Nagar Moradabad
Pilibhit
Bareilly
G B Nagar Bulandshahr

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

103

SPECIAL ARTICLE

in the state was faster in rural areas (12.31% points) than in urban
areas (7.89% points) during the seven-year period (200512).
Across the four regions, the western region experiences the
lowest incidence of poverty in both rural and urban areas, excluding urban poverty during 200405. On the other hand,
the central region witnessed a sudden increase in poverty, and
from being a region with a low incidence of poverty in 200405,
it became the most impoverished region during 201112.
Table 1: Regional Pattern of Poverty in Uttar Pradesh
Regions

Rural
Urban
Overall
200405 201112 Change 200405 201112 Change 200405 201112 Change

Western
Central
Southern
Eastern
Total

33.56
37.53
44.66
51.94
42.71

19.18
42.17
30.22
34.57
30.40

-(2.05)
(0.66)
-(2.06)
-(2.48)
-(1.76)

33.86 21.22 -(1.81) 33.64 19.76 -(1.98)

23.92 30.23 (0.90) 34.37 39.21 (0.69)
48.22 26.88 -(3.05) 45.43 29.47 -(2.28)
41.27 33.18 -(1.16) 50.78 34.39 -(2.34)
34.06 26.17 -(1.13) 41.01 29.50 -(1.64)

Figures of change are in percentage points per annum.

Source: Calculated from NSSO 61st and 68th rounds CES data, Government of India,
200405 and 201112.

However, some encouraging poverty trends have also been

witnessed with the reduction of interregional disparity (at
least at the rural level). Kohli (1987: 212) argues that if somehow, the eastern half of the state could be made more like the
western half, poverty problem would be ameliorated. It has
been found that both rural and urban poverty remained the
lowest in the western region in both the survey years (excluding urban poverty in 200405). However, the highest rate of
decline in rural poverty has been observed in the eastern
region (2.48% per annum). Moreover, exceptionally high poverty
reduction in the southern region (rural2.06% and urban3.05%
per annum) is somewhat surprising, given that, historically, it
has been the most impoverished.
The district level poverty has been illustrated by rural and urban
areas being mapped separately (refer Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4).
Before that, a brief overview of performance by districts shall
not be out of place. As per the Uttar Pradesh State Development Report (GOI 2007b), districts in the western region,
specifically those located near the National Capital Region
(NCR) are comparatively more productive, whereas districts
clustered in the north-central area of UP are the worst performers (World Bank 2010).
Moreover, the Annual Plan of the Government of Uttar
Pradesh (201314) has reported 15 districts with the lowest
composite index of development, out of which 13 are in the
eastern region (Mau, Jaunpur, Ballia, Bahraich, Ghazipur,
Deoria, Maharajganj, Shrawasti, Azamgarh, Balarampur,
Mirzapur, Kushi Nagar and S K Nagar), one is in the central region
(Hardoi) and one in the southern region (Lalitpur). The
regional profile of poverty reveals that rural poverty is highly
perpetuating. However, disaggregated poverty depicts that
urban areas of UP have a large number of critically high HCR
districts (HCR greater than 60%) as compared to their rural
counterparts in both the survey periods. Besides, on an average, a
significant number of critically high HCR districts were concentrated only in two regions (eastern region, followed by the
central region) during 201112.
A total number of 12 such districts (three in rural and nine in
urban areas) have been identified in the study. Out of these,
104

five districts are located in the central region (Unnao and

Fatehpur in rural, and Kheri, Hardoi and Barabanki in urban
areas), five in the eastern region (Basti in rural, and Kaushambi,
Ambedkar Nagar, S R Nagar and Mirzapur in urban areas),
and rest of the two districts are in the urban areas of the western
region (Rampur) and one in the southern region (Chitrakoot).
While analysing both the survey periods, it was found that except
Kaushambi and Ambedkar Nagar, all the districts witnessed a
sudden rise in poverty during 200512. It has been found that
65% the high HCR districts (HCR 40%60%) are situated in the
central and eastern regions. This foregrounds the grim poverty
scenario prevailing across the central and eastern regions of UP.
3.2 Poverty among SRGs

This section examines the poverty profile among SRGs across

the four regions of UP. Before that, some existing social notions
should be reiterated. Earlier studies claim that the majority of
upper caste households are better equipped with resources and
have higher living standards as compared to other social groups.
However, some studies reveal that socially excluded groups (SCs,
OBCs and Muslims) are also performing better and, therefore,
there is reduction of overall poverty in the state. In this respect,
Jeffrey et al (2008: 1368) rightly state that:
There are elites among Muslims and Dalits in UP countryside and a
substantial stratum of wealthy Muslims in many UP towns and cities.
But rural households among Muslims, Dalits and Most Backward
Class (poorer castes within the OBC Category) typically possess little or no agricultural land and work in exploitative, poorly paid, and
insecure conditions.

Looking at the poverty profile of different SRGs in UP in

Table 2, it can be seen that across social groups the incidence
of poverty was consistently high among SCs, followed by OBCs
in both urban and rural areas during 200405 and 201112.
Across religious groups, Muslim households are comparatively
poorer in rural as well as in urban areas. However, in both
areas, poverty among Muslims declined slightly faster than
that among Hindus.
Table 2: Incidence of Poverty by Social and Religious Groups in Uttar Pradesh
(Percentage)
Regions

Years
SCs

Rural

Urban

Overall

200405
201112
Change
200405
201112
Change
200405
201112
Change

56.6
41.11
-(2.21)
44.24
39.14
-(0.73)
55.12
40.87
-(2.04)

Social Groups
OBCs
Upper Castes

42.18
30.72
-(1.64)
42.73
32.31
-(1.49)
42.28
31.04
-(1.61)

26.01
12.47
-(1.93)
20.85
12.77
-(1.15)
24.26
12.58
-(1.67)

Religious Groups
Hindus
Muslims

41.96
29.83
-(1.73)
27.54
21.34
-(0.89)
39.64
28.37
-(1.61)

46.85
34.00
-(1.84)
48.43
36.35
-(1.73)
47.40
34.88
-(1.79)

Figures of change are in percentage points per annum.

Source: Calculated from NSSO 61st and 68th rounds CES data, Government of India,
200405 and 201112.

Appreciatively, inter-group difference in poverty has narrowed down over the period due to high (or at least equal)
poverty reduction per annum amongst the most excluded SRGs
(SCs2.04% points; OBCs 1.61% point; and Muslims1.79%). In
fact, the performance of SC (rural), OBC (urban) and Muslim
(rural and urban) households should be appreciated, as they
DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

have enhanced the pace of poverty reduction in the state. central region and the urban eastern region have emerged as
Although there has been a significant decline in the level of pov- critically high HCR regions, wherein more than 60% of Muslim
erty among SCs and Muslims, the incidence of poverty among and SC households were found below the poverty line during
these groups is still high. This may be due to the fact that the 201112. Second, socially advantaged groups (upper castes) are
majority of Muslims and SCs in the state have remained impov- performing well in backward regions (southern region), while
erished over a long period of time, which in turn perpetuates socially disadvantaged groups (SCs and Muslims) are doing
chronic poverty among them (Kozel and Parker 2003; Ojha well in developed regions (western region). Third, the incre2007). Likewise, the World Bank (2010) pointed out that though ment in rural and urban poverty in the central region is attriSCs in UP experienced upward mobility similar to upper castes, buted to the high increment of poverty among OBCs in rural
their starting point was lower than upper castes. Therefore, a areas and SCs in urban areas in the region. Moreover, three
high proportion of SCs continue to live in chronic poverty.
population subgroups of the urban southern regionSCs,
Undoubtedly, factors responsible for the impoverishment OBCs and Hindushave also reduced the pace of poverty
and discrimination of SCs are deeply embedded in history. reduction in that region. In the context of these observations,
According to Pai (2002, 2004), the social and political power- it is suggested that to increase the pace of poverty alleviation
lessness of Dalits in UP remains the root cause of their poverty in the state, these high poverty regions along with their
and deprivation and further leads to economic inequalities in impoverished population subgroups should be targeted first
the form of skewed distribution of land and income. Certain eco- with strategic planning and development.
nomic factors have also been responsible for the high incidence
of poverty among them. A decline in casual wages, particularly 4 Determinants of Poverty among SRGs in Uttar Pradesh
in the urban areas of the eastern region (World Bank 2010), This section examines the factors determining the poverty
possession of lesser and poor quality of land and human capital status among SRGs in general by modelling logistic regression
(Kozel and Parker 2003), and illiteracy among women (Mehrotra on certain set of explanatory variables (discussed earlier). In
2006) have been primarily responsible for making SC house- order to highlight the effect of change in place of residence,
holds more vulnerable as compared to other castes in UP. Some two separate regressions have been carried out, each for rural
other factors like improvident habits, thriftlessness and mis- and urban areas (refer, Appendix Tables A1 and A2, p 109).
management have also been responsible for their impoverish- The following deductions have emerged from the regression
ment (GOUP 201314: 247). It is, therefore, suggested that such exercise which have been discussed separately for each
a state of affairs can be made better if they practise self-control, significant explanatory variable.
saving, soberness, and self-sufficiency. These ethical practices
would make them capable of utilising various development Household Size: It is assumed that as the size of a household
schemes appropriately, resulting in their upward mobility.
increases, the burden upon the pools of resources will increase,
A World Bank (2010) study has highlighted some specific thereby reducing the chances of moving out of poverty, provided
factors such as increasing political mobilisation, growth in no child labour is allowed. Therefore, the hypothesis is that
agricultural wages, increase in labour force participation larger the household size, lower would be the ability of a
towards self-employment, regular salary work, improvements household to move out of poverty and vice versa. Positive signs
in the education level and empowerment have led to some along with statistically significant coefficients of household
improvement in the conditions of SCs. Further, diversification size in regression analysis confirm this hypothesis. However,
within households, strategy of male migration and casual likelihoods of being poor vary among SRGs, as addition of
wage employment towards non-farm sector (Ojha 2007) even one more household member leads to a significant
among SCs, and international remit- Table 3: Region-wise Incidence of Poverty by Social and Religious Groups
(Percentage)
Western
Central
Southern
Eastern
tances received by Muslims from Groups
61st
68th Change 61st
68th Change
61st
68th
Change 61st
68th
Change
West Asia (World Bank 2010) have Rural Uttar Pradesh
enhanced the livelihood of these two SCs
44.8
26.5 -(2.63) 71.4 49.8 -(3.09) 47.4 45.4 -(0.27) 68.9 47.5 -(3.06)
subgroups in UP.
OBCs
32.1
20.1 -(1.71) 36.7 43.3 (0.94) 43.2 29.1 -(2.01) 51.2 34.1 -(2.44)
19.9
8.6 -(1.61) 36.9 24.2 -(1.81) 20.7 4.75 -(2.27) 32.0 11.6 -(2.91)
Table 3 shows that across social Upper castes
30.5
17.9 -(1.80) 42.8 38.9 -(0.56) 39.1 29.9 -(1.31) 51.9 34.8 -(2.44)
groups, the lowest level of poverty Hindus
42.0
24.4 -(2.51) 83.1 63.6 -(2.79) 45.0 39.0 -(0.86) 51.4 33.1 -(2.61)
was experienced by upper castes, fol- Muslims
Overall
33.5
19.1 -(2.06) 37.5 42.1 (0.66) 44.6 30.2 -(2.06) 51.9 34.5 -(2.49)
lowed by OBCs and SCs in all the four
Urban Uttar Pradesh
regions and in both urban and rural SCs
44.8
30.1 -(2.10) 40.9 52.1 (1.59) 31.8 38.3 (0.93) 63.1 60.8 -(0.33)
areas of UP during 201112. However, OBCs
42.7
26.7 -(2.29) 57.2 37.1 -(2.89) 29.0 33.5 (0.64) 47.0 37.3 -(1.39)
across religious groups, Muslims were Upper castes
22.1
11.0 -(1.59) 37.6 19.3 -(2.61) 17.5 4.3 -(1.89) 19.2 9.6 -(1.37)
found to be comparatively poorer in Hindus
25.2
17.2 -(1.14) 42.6 19.2 -(3.34) 18.8 26.7 (1.11) 37.2 30.0 -(1.03)
all the regions of UP (except in the Muslims
49.2
29.7 -(2.80) 67.0 45,0 -(3.14) 38.9 36.2 -(0.37) 50.1 40.8 -(1.33)
Overall
33.8
21.2 -(1.81) 23.9 30.2 (0.90) 48.2 26.8 -(3.04) 41.2 33.1 -(1.16)
eastern region) during 201112.
61st and 68th rounds represent estimates for 200405 and 201112, respectively.
Three more observations can be (1)
(2) Figures representing change are in percentage points per annum.
made from Table 3. First, the rural Source: Calculated from NSSO 61st and 68th rounds CES data, GoI 200405 and 201112.
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

105

SPECIAL ARTICLE

increase in such likelihoods among them; this was more

pronounced among SCs and Muslims in rural areas and Hindus
in urban areas during 201112.
Land Possessed by the Rural Households (in Hectares): Access
to landholding has a significant impact on the livelihood of rural
households, particularly as the amount of land possessed or
cultivated by them reflects their socio-economic status to a great
extent. Usually, there is a positive association between size of land
possessed and the average MPCE in the rural sector (GOI 2007a).
Thus, an increase in the size of landholding would help in
reducing poverty. However, there may be cases where uneven
distribution of landholdings leads to unfair distribution of poverty among various SRGs in UP. Table 4 reveals that as the size of
landholding increases (particularly after 0.004 hectares), the
incidence of poverty across all the SRGs decreases. However,
the SCs and Muslims are the most disadvantaged among SRGs
in this respect. Notably, even the large landholders (2.014.00
hectares) among SC households witnessed a significant increase
in incidence of poverty during the study period.
On the other hand, the regression estimates do not reveal a
significant association between the likelihood of being poor and
size of landholding among SCs and Muslims in rural UP during
201112. However, for the rest of SRGs, such a relationship is
found to be strong. Along with inter-group differences, uneven

distribution of landholdings has also contributed towards interregional disparity in poverty. According to Diwakar (2009),
as the size of landholdings increased, poverty declined in all
the regions, except in the eastern and southern regions, primarily because of the fact that even the large landholders
there were also trapped in poverty.
Age of Household Head: A study conducted by the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2002) states that as the age of
household head increases, the productivity of work along with
experience increases; there is a surge in capital accumulation,
and more labour is available due to less involvement in childcare or children are older, and this in turn reduces the chances
of being poor. The negative regression coefficients reveal the
same. However, increase in the age of household head results
in a marginal decline in likelihoods of being poor among SRGs,
but this applies more to rural households.

Regions: This variable describes the location of households in

order to identify the geographic determinants of poverty, keeping
other factors constant. Besides incidence of poverty (refer Section 3.2), the regression analysis also confirms that the central
region was the most impoverished region amongst all SRGs
(excluding urban OBCs) during 201112 in both urban and rural
Table 4: Incidence of Poverty among SRGs by Land Ownership in Uttar Pradesh
(Percentage) areas. Furthermore, it was found that
Groups
Social Groups
Religious Groups
UP
during 200512, Muslim (rural) and SC
SCs
OBCs
Upper Castes
Hindus
Muslims
(rural and urban) households in the
61st
68th
61st
68th
61st
68th
61st
68th
61st
68th
61st
68th
eastern region witnessed a significant
.001.004
54.3
43.2 46.5 40.0 42.2
20.6
48 36.1
50.6 45.8 48.7
38.7
increase in poverty as compared to
.005.400
62.0
41.9 52.7 36.6 32.0 22.3 52.9 37.2
53.7 35.0 53.1
36.6
.411.00
52.1
39.3 41.3 27.8 30.1
10.2 41.5 26.7
42.7 29.2 41.7
26.9
households in the western region.
1.012.00
2.014.00
>4.01

41.5
30.6
(**)

25.5
64.0
(**)

32.7
18.2
10

19.3
14.8
12.2

24.3
9.1
11.4

8.6
0.7
0.2

32.4
16.2
8.3

16.5
19.0
1.3

26.6
8.0
(**)

26.9
2.4
(**)

(1) (**) are excluded because of small sample size.

(2) Sample size of households having land less than .001 hectare is marginal, so their classification is excluded.
(3) 61st and 68th represent estimates for 200405 and 201112, respectively.
Source: Calculated from NSSO 61st and 68th rounds CES data, GoI 200405 and 201112.

Table 5: Poverty Incidence by General Education Level of the Household Head in UP

Levels of Education
SCs
61st

Rural households
Not literate
Without formal
schooling
Below primary
Primary to middle
Sec to higher sec
Graduate and above
Urban households
Not literate
Without formal
schooling
Below primary
Primary to middle
Sec to higher sec
Graduate and above

60.33

68th

Social Groups
OBCs
61st
68th

Upper Castes
61st
68th

Religious Groups
Hindus
Muslims
61st
68th
61st
68th

43.23 50.50 37.52 38.59 21.17 52.36 37.41 50.89 38.71

49.28
(**) (**) (**) 23.92 (**)
(**) (**) 29.88 34.15
58.48 39.51 45.37 41.18 25.07 11.72 44.81 37.35 40.60 31.01
51.00 44.73 37.33 27.46 24.08 12.22 36.33 29.34 46.54 29.70
46.78 19.51 24.90 15.49 15.00 3.26 24.61 12.35 31.18 18.05
49.13 33.72 10.62 8.74 18.92 8.01 20.43 10.68
(**) 15.33
57.96

61.86 63.62 44.56 54.84 34.41 56.08 49.12 63.24 42.82

(**)
63.73
44.34
26.77
15.53

(**) 49.32 (**) 15.5 (**) 13.13 59.17 45.59

53.85 52.3 40.89 39.20 17.82 46.96 29.91 56.09
28.70 38.11 31.93 24.39 17.04 35.65 25.18 34.46
19.44 19.96 15.18 10.14 9.99 16.64 12.21 15.24
2.88 8.16 10.26 2.54 0.87 3.93 3.22 12.95

31.9
15.5
12.2

17.5
18.0
4.9

Religion and Social Groups: Along

with declining poverty incidence (refer
Section 3.2), the regression coefficients also depict that there is no significant difference in the likelihood of
(Percentage) being poor, not only in rural but also in
UP
urban areas, across the two major reli61st
68th
gious groups. Furthermore, across social
groups, the SCs and OBCs have witnessed
52.17 37.56
a high reduction in poverty incidence
32.31 48.08 over the years, yet a larger proportion
43.85 36.16 among these social groups is consum37.50 29.33 ing below the socially acceptable thresh25.15 12.76 old levels. And because of such high
20.15 10.82 incidence of poverty among SCs and
OBCs, the estimated coefficients reveal
60.35 45.47
a significant increase in the likelihood
36.05 43.6 of them being poor in comparison to
51.01 38.94 upper castes.

36.17
56.83
32.60 34.62 27.28
19.55 16.16 13.33
4.45 4.75
3.4

(1) 61st and 68th represent estimates for 200405 and 201112, respectively.
( 2) (**) are excluded because of small sample size.
Source: Calculated from NSSO 61st and 68th rounds CES data, GoI 200405 and 201112.

106

DECEMBER 26, 2015

Educational Level of Household

Head: Education in the form of human
capital is the second most valuable asset
of the poor besides land. Table 5 shows
vol l no 52

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

that during 200512 in UP, the high incidence of poverty

among illiterates, irrespective of their caste and religion, was
prevalent. Nevertheless, an increment in the literacy level of
household head (setting aside the literate without formal
schooling) decreases the prevalence of poverty among all the
SRGs (except SC and Hindu households in rural areas).
Likewise, regression estimates reveal the same (particularly
after the primary to middle level) with Muslims in rural areas
being the exception. Notably, even the graduate and above
SC household heads suffer from comparatively higher levels of
poverty, followed by Muslims in rural UP.
Occupation of the Household (Household Type): Table 6 draws
four conclusive facts regarding household type and poverty.
First, the casual labourers in each category of SRGs, in both urban
and rural areas, suffer from the highest incidence of poverty.
Along with high levels of poverty, the occupation pattern points
towards predominance of casual non-agricultural labour in rural
and casual labour in urban areas during the surveyed years.
This shift towards casualisation of workforce should not be
welcomed because of the prevalence of low average daily wages.
Second, for any given category of occupation, SC households
experienced the highest incidence of poverty in both urban
and rural areas (excluding regular wage/salary earning category
among Muslims) during 201112. Third, across SRGs, the prevalence of poverty has declined in every occupational category,
except for the SCs (urban) in regular wage/salary earner and
others category. Fourth, across categories, the highest decline
in rural poverty has been observed among self-employed nonagricultural SC labourers and agricultural labourers among
other categories of SRGs. However, in urban areas, it has

declined highly among self-employed Muslim and SCs, casual

labourers among Hindus and upper castes, and others category
of labourers among OBCs. Finally, the regression estimates reveal that Hindu, SC and OBC households have witnessed a significant reduction in poverty likelihoods when they are employed as self-employed non-agricultural labourers, followed
by self-employed agricultural labourers as compared to casual
agricultural labourers in rural areas.
Other Factors: Recent studies on poverty highlights three
other factors, such as extensive healthcare expenditure, deplorable condition of amenities, and remittances (internal and
external) that are essentially responsible for influencing the
likelihood of being poor. The former two would probably affect
the livelihood negatively, whereas migration to avail better
earning opportunities (remittance) may provide a route to
escape from poverty.
5 Conclusions and Policy Implications

The present study has tried to build a comprehensive understanding of regional as well as disaggregated (district-wise)
patterns of poverty incidence prevailing among SRGs in one of
the most populated and impoverished states of India, UP, by using
unit level records of the 61st (200405) and 68th (201112)
rounds of NSSOs CES. The incidence of poverty has been examined
by taking three mutually exclusive stratifications on the basis
of regions (western, central, southern and eastern), religious
groups (Hindus and Muslims) and social groups (SCs, OBCs
and upper castes). Although poverty among the socially
excluded sections of society witnessed a sharp reduction during the period of study, yet a large chunk of poor households
amongst them are waiting for upliftTable 6: Incidence of Poverty by Occupation of Households in UP
(Percentage)
ment, particularly in the central and
HH Type
Social Groups
Religious Groups
UP
SCs
OBCs
Upper Castes
Hindus
Muslims
eastern regions of the state. Hopefully,
61st
68th
61st
68th
61st
68th
61st
68th
61st
68th
61st
68th
this exercise will help the policymakRural household types
SE Agri
47.02 34.34 36.45 25.35 22.36 8.43 34.56 23.16 37.42 24.22 34.77 23.22 ers to identify critical regions with
(32.5) (29.0) (53.1) (49.2) (58.8) (58.3) (51.7) (47.2) (29.0) (28.8) (48.6) (44.5) respect to the socially excluded and
SE Non-agri
55.37 33.14 47.76 28.7 24.36 13.03 43.85 27.02 50.08 30.03 45.61 27.62 marginalised sections so that overall
(17.6) (15.1) (19.5) (18.0) (16.1) (13.3) (15.6) (14.5) (35.8) (27.6) (18.3) (16.5)
poverty in the state may be reduced
RW/SE*
(---) 21.94 (---) 20.01 (---) 14.7 (---) 15.45 (---) 40.49 (---) 18.02
(4.5)
(4.3)
(8.3)
(5.4)
(3.8)
(5.2) more evenly in future.
The major conclusions of this study
AL
68.46 55.39 65.34 43.33 54.13 14.86 66.7 49.08 62.08 32.63 65.95 47.54
(25.6) (19.1) (11.2) (8.8) (6.6) (3.2) (14.0) (11.6) (15.9)
(7.1) (14.2) (11.0) are as follows:
NAL
66.68 47.23 52.97 50.63 53.59 41.66 60.71 46.79 54.28 54.03 59.77 48.39 (i) Overall poverty in the state has
(17.9) (28.8) (7.2) (13.8) (4.3) (8.6) (9.9) (16.2) (8.3) (23.9) (9.6) (17.3)
declined; however, in the central and
Others
31.5 29.23 25.1 27.01 24.49 5.73 23.47 23.95 36.58 19.08 26.08 22.7
(6.4) (3.5) (8.9) (5.9) (14.2) (8.3) (8.9) (5.1) (10.9) (8.7) (9.2) (5.6) eastern regions, high incidence of
poverty remains an issue of concern.
Urban household types
SE
55.11 34.45 46.75 33.19 19.46 13.89 30.33 22.36 48.6 33.62 37.19 26.5 Disaggregated poverty estimates also
(36.8) (30.0) (52.6) (50.3) (44.2) (43.8) (41.6) (41.4) (60.0) (52.7) (46.8) (44.8)
reveal that maximum numbers of high
RW/SE
22.58 26.66 23.1 22.54 15.9 6.29 15.32 10.91 38.43 34.68 19.58 15.68
poverty districts are located in the
(36.5) (35.4) (28.5) (23.9) (42.1) (40.1) (41.4) (37.1) (19.7) (20.6) (35.5) (32.3)
CL
73.78 57.45 64.22 46.85 71.1 40.72 71.88 48.6 62.65
49.9 68.17 49.16 central and eastern regions of the state.
(18.8) (29.8) (11.1) (15.6) (4.2) (5.8) (8.3) (11.8) (12.1) (18.3) (9.2) (13.5) (ii) From being a low poverty region
Others
11.55 46.46 41.26 19.05 18.35 13.35 19.5 17.32 50.34 23.58 28.33 18.38 in 200405, the central region be(8.0) (4.8) (7.8) (10.1) (9.4) (10.3) (8.7) (9.7) (8.2) (8.4) (8.5) (9.4)
came the most impoverished in UP
(1) SE-Self-employed; RW/SE- Regular Wage/Salary Earner; (N)AL-(Non)Agricultural Labour; CL- Casual Labourer.
during 201112 due to a sudden in(2) 61st and 68th represents estimates for 200405 and 201112, respectively.
(3) *RW/SE classification among rural households was introduced in the 68th round.
crease in poverty in the rural and urban
(4) Figures in parentheses represent population proportions.
areas of the region.
Source: Calculated from NSSO 61st and 68th rounds CES data, GoI 200405 and 201112.
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

107

SPECIAL ARTICLE

(iii) Across religious groups, it has been found that Muslims

are relatively poorer in comparison to Hindus. However, there
are no differences as far as decline in poverty rate is concerned
among the two communities. Across social groups, the SCs,
followed by the OBCs, are comparatively poorer than upper
caste households. Nevertheless, the highest decline in poverty
has been observed among SCs and OBCs. Fortunately, the high
decline in poverty among socially excluded and marginalised
groups (SCs, OBCs and Muslims) signifies a reduction in intergroup differences in poverty.
(iv) An analysis of the interregional pattern of poverty brings
out three important observations: (a) the rural central region
and the urban eastern region have emerged as critically high
HCR regions, wherein more than 60% of Muslim and SC households were found below the poverty line during 201112;
(b) the socially advantaged groups (upper castes) are performing well in the backward southern region, while the socially
disadvantaged groups (SCs and Muslims) are doing well in the
developed western region; (c) and lastly the increment in
rural and urban poverty in the central region is attributed to
the increment in poverty among the OBCs in rural and SCs in
urban areas. Moreover, the three population subgroupsSCs,
OBCs and Hindusin the urban areas of southern region also
reduce the pace of poverty reduction in that region.
(v) An examination of interregional poverty among SRGs shows
that SC and Muslim households are the most impoverished
population subgroups across all regions in general, but particularly in the central and eastern regions of the state. Furthermore,
disaggregated analysis brings out 12 critical districtsfive are
Notes
1

2
3

It includes Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh,

Odisha, Rajasthan, UP, Chhattisgarh, and West
Bengal.
Figures based on the 2011 Census.
Since access to land is one of the important
means to move out from poverty in rural areas,
this variable is considered only for the rural
households.
The western and southern regions have the
highest and lowest gross value of agriculture
output per hectare of gross cropped area at
current price (200910), total number of registered factories per lakh of population (200809),
and number of persons engaged in registered
factories per lakh of population (200809),
respectively.

References
Ajwad, Mohamed (2007): Performance of Social
Safety Net Programs in Uttar Pradesh, Social
Protection, World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper No 714.
Dev, S Mahendra and C Ravi (2007): Poverty and
Inequality: All-India and States, 19832005,
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 42, No 6,
pp 50921.
(2008): Revising Estimates of Poverty, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 43, No 10, pp 810.
Diwakar, D M (2009): Intra-Regional Disparities,
Inequality and Poverty in Uttar Pradesh,
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 44, Nos 2627,
pp 26473.
FAO and UNDP (2002): Gender Differences in the
Transitional Economy of Viet Nam, Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO), Bangkok.

108

located in the central region (Unnao and Fatehpur in rural, and

Kheri, Hardoi and Barabanki in urban areas), five in the east
region (Basti in rural, and Kaushambi, Ambedkar Nagar,
S R Nagar and Mirzapur in urban areas), one in the western region (Rampur in urban areas), and one in the southern region
(Chitrakoot in urban areas)which foregrounds the grim poverty
scenario prevailing across the central and eastern regions of UP.
(vi) An attempt has also been made to find out the factors
affecting poverty status among the most impoverished SRGs
(SCs and Muslims) by modelling logistic regression for both
rural and urban areas of the state. Both the groups (SCs and
Muslims) are poor more or less due to illiteracy, casualisation
of work force and the sudden increase in poverty in the central
region in general and low self-employment in agricultural
occupations, large household size, marginal landholdings and
backwardness of the rural eastern region in particular.
(vii) The two most unfortunate facts observed among SCs are
that even the large landholders are highly poor, and for any
given category of occupation, they experienced the highest
poverty in both rural and urban areas (excluding regular wage/
salary earning category among Muslims) during 201112.
This kind of heterogeneity across the regions and amongst
SRGs demands region-specific and group-specific development
programmes for alleviating overall poverty in the state. Also,
poverty alleviation policies should focus on development of
education and self-employment in general, and promote family
planning and improve the quality of education in particular
amongst rural households, with special emphasis on SC and
Muslim households.

GOI (2007a): Household Consumer Expenditure

across Socio-Economic Groups: 200405,
Report No 514, National Sample Survey Organisation, New Delhi: Government of India.
(2007b): Uttar Pradesh: State Development Report (Volumes I and II), State Plan Division,
Planning Commission, New Delhi.
(2009): Report of the Expert Group to Review
the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty,
Planning Commission, New Delhi.
(2011): India Human Development Report
(IHDR) 2011Towards Social Inclusion, Institute
of Applied Manpower Research, New Delhi.
(2013): Press Note on Poverty Estimates,
201112, Planning Commission, New Delhi.
Government of India and United Nations Development Programme (2008): Human Development
Report 2006: Uttar Pradesh, Planning Commission, New Delhi.
GoUP (Government of Uttar Pradesh) (201314):
Annual Plan of Uttar Pradesh, State Planning
Commission, http://planning.up.nic.in/spc/
annual%20plan%202013-2014/Annual%20
Plan%202013-14, viewed on 26 March 2014.
Himanshu (2007): Recent Trends in Poverty and
Inequality: Some Preliminary Results, Economic
& Political Weekly, Vol 42, No 6, pp 497508.
Jeffrey, C, P Jeffery and R Jeffery (2008): Dalit
Revolution? New Politicians in Uttar Pradesh,
India, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol 67,
No 4, pp 136596.
Kapur, D, C B Prasad, L Pritchett and D S Babu
(2010): Rethinking Inequality: Dalits in Uttar
Pradesh in the Market Reform Era, Economic
& Political Weekly, Vol 45, No 35, pp 3949.
Kohli, A (1987): The State and Poverty in India: The

Politics of Reforms, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, pp 188222.
Kozel, Valerie and Barbara Parker (2003): A Profile
and Diagnostic of Poverty in Uttar Pradesh,
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 38, No 04,
pp 385403.
Mehrotra, Santosh (2006): Well-Being and Caste
in Uttar Pradesh: Why UP Is Not Like Tamil
Nadu, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 40,
No 40, pp 426171.
Mutatkar, R (2005): Social Group Disparities and
Poverty in India, Indira Gandhi Institute of
Development Research, Working Paper Series
No WP-2005004.
Ojha, R K (2007): Poverty Dynamics in Rural Uttar
Pradesh, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 42,
No 16, pp 145358.
Pai, Sudha (2002): Dalit Assertion and the Unfinished Democratic Revolution: The Bahujan
Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh, New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
(2004): Dalit Question and Political Response:
Comparative Study of Uttar Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh, Economic & Political Weekly,
Vol 39, No 11, pp 114150.
Sundaram, K and S D Tendulkar (2003): Poverty
among Social and Economic Groups in India
in 1990s, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 38,
No 50, pp 526376.
Thorat, S and A Dubey (2012): Has Growth Been
Socially Inclusive during 199394200910?,
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 47, No 10,
pp 4353.
World Bank (2010): IndiaLiving Conditions and
Human Development in Uttar Pradesh: A
Regional Perspective, Report No 43573-IN,
Washington DC: World Bank.

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE
Appendix Table A1: Estimates of Logistic Regression to Identify the Cause of Poverty among SRGs in Rural Uttar Pradesh during 200405 and 201112
Variables

Rural UP

Hindus

61st

68th

61st

68th

61st

Muslims
68th

Household size

38.5***

36.9***

39.1***

36.9***

36.2***

Land

-57.6***

-42.4***

-57.4***

-45.5***

-60.5***

Age

-1.7***

-1.7***

-1.7***

-1.6***

-2.1***

38.3***

241.8***

Regions: Western (reference)

Central
Southern
Eastern
Religion: Muslims (reference)
Hindus

36.3***

307.5***
251.4***

292.2*** 223.8*** 1166.9*** 1029.8

146***

159.8***

166.9***

3.7

-13.1

Social group: Upper castes (reference)

SCs
125.2***
OBCs

57.5***

Gender: Male (reference)

Female

-2.2*

311.3***

145.4***

(---)

(---)

25.8

40.1***
-26.1

919.2***

56.7**

SCs
61st

OBCs
68th

42.9***

44.4***

61st

68th

40*** 37.8***

-55.6***

-19.3

-62.4*** -48***

-1.6***

-1.3

-1.5*** -1.4**

13.1

288.4***

485.4***

200.4*** 178.2***

(---)

(---)

5.4

Upper Castes
61st
68th

31.3***
-2.5***

58.4*** 292.3*** 28.5

581.6***

208.3*** 209.1*** 282.6*** 500.8***

178

243.7*** 128.8*** 120.3***

76.7

1670.2***

49.4***

0.5

146***

-54.6*** -57.7**

186.4*** 253.1***

59.5

-89.8**

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

90.1***

108.4*** 157.9***

-16.1

25.3

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

-13.1

33.7

-42.8

-12

-1.4

-2.4

44.7

-13.6

-73.3

177.5

-7.9

5.1

21

91.1

-67.8*** 242.1

-71.9*** -30.7

-69.2**

-28**

-2.1

-26.8**

13.5

-26.3

-47.2

-36.8

1.4

-20.8

14.8

-36.1

Primary to middle

-37.9***

-26.7**

-38.4***

-19.4

-21.6

-45.8

-38.5***

6.8

-38.2*** -30.7*

-28.5

Sec to higher sec

-59.4***

-66.9***

-59.3*** -65.4***

-35.8

-66.8**

-46**

-70.7*** -62.7***

Diploma

-96.7***

Graduate and above

-62.1***

(---)

-80.5

-12

28.5

Household type: AL (reference)

SEA

-3.7***

159.2***

General education: Not literate (reference)

Without schooling
-69***
Below primary

27.6***

-41.5*** -64.5***

-96.2***

-74.9*** -14.1

-57.9***

-73.4** 2778.8***

-51**

-40.1
-56.1*
-84.5***

-96.1***

-68.7***

-58.9***

-56.4**

-85***

-75*** -33.3

-86.7*

-45.1***

-41***

-46.8***

-41.1**

-39.6

-18.6

-38.6**

-61.1*** -50.0***

-23.1

-48.1*

57.9

SENA

-56.4***

-55.4***

-59.4***

-57.1***

-41.8**

-31.6

-51.1*

-68.1*** -55.6***

-44.1**

-70.8***

-5.6

RWSE

(---)

-26.1

(---)

-50.4

(---)

2004.3**

(---)

43.9

(---)

82

-80.5***

(---)

NAL

-39.8***

-1.3

-40.8***

-9.4

-39.7

96.2

-29.8**

-29.8

-52.8***

26

-17

132.1

Others #

-59.0***

-37.1

-60.6***

-40.5

-53.6*

39.4

-54.6**

-48.8

-67.4***

-29.8

-39.4

19.1

(1) ***, **, * show significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
(2) 61st and 68th represent for 200405 and 201112, respectively.
Source: Calculated from NSSO 61st and 68th rounds CES data, GoI 200405 and 201112.

Appendix Table A2: Estimates of Logistic Regression to Identify the Cause of Poverty among SRGs in Urban Uttar Pradesh during 200405 and 201112
Variables

Urban UP
61st

Hindus
68th

Household Size

41.8***

40.8***

Age

-1.4**

-1.1

Regions: Western (reference)

Central
Southern
Eastern
Religion: Muslims (reference)
Hindus
Social group: Upper castes (reference)
SCs
OBCs
Gender: Male (reference)
Female

61st

40.3***

68th

61st

Muslims
68th

SCs
61st

OBCs
68th

61st

68th

Upper Castes
61st
68th

59.6***

48.2***

29.9***

63.8***

77.1***

39.4*** 38.4***

40.3***

37.5***

-1

-2.3

-2.3*

-0.3

-1.7

-2.3

-1.2*

-1.1

-1.1

-0.2

-1.8

140.7**

-12.8

143***

-24

101.8**

115.1***

125***

84.3*

115.4**
183.2***

23

136.4***

26.1

9.9

-12.8

(---)

159.8*** -22.8

638.1***

49.2

176.8*

-23

108.7**

169.1**

150.6**

351.8***

9.5

1.1

64.4*

147.1*

447.6***

6.2

118.5***

2.3

51.5

(---)

(---)

648.7***

-70

9.4

-2.1

3.9

-41.1

551.5**

85.5**

163.9***

180.8***

-66

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

43.4**

48.1*

46.8

67.8**

53.7*

15.3

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

(---)

38.9

6.9

52.1

10.1

51.2

14.6

30.5

222.6*

71.1

-4.8

-13

-0.1

General education: Not literate (reference)

Without schooling
-69.3***

105.5**

(---)

10.1

289.4*** 115.2

-27.3

-54.8

142.7

-74.5*** -60.6

814.6**

-56.4

-68.8**

63.9

-78.7*

-91.6**

-20.9

-14.8

-16.6

-53.8**

-21.4

107.5

-10.8

-59.5*

-34.9

10.1

-36.2

-56.8

Primary to middle

-58.3***

-45.6***

-48.8**

-52.1***

-68.7*** -37.7

-41.1

-85.6*** -57.6*** -34.3*

Sec to higher sec

-80.4***

-78.2***

-74.3***

-80.9***

-85.4***

Diploma

-79.4

-75.4

-65.9

Graduate and above

-92.6***

-92.9***

-92.1***

-93.3***

-86.9***

-12.4

65.7

-34.3

-35.8

48

38

-71.6

59.2

-21.1

-8

52.8

102.5

393***

59

-3.9

210.2

217.2

-51.6

245.2**

69.5

272

543.8**

-11.7

62.5

78

-78.4*

-79.9

152*

-37.9

27

336.1*

Below primary

Household type: RWSE (reference)

SE

19.7

CL

183.5***

others

40.3

9.9

17

-97.1

-79*** -53.5
5
-93.1***

(---)
-85***

-71.3*** -54.2*

(---)

-83.4*** -77.4*** -85.1***

-75.2***

(---)

-38.6

-61.5

-98.1***

-93.5*** -80.4*** -94.4***

(---)

-91.2**

-98***

(1) ***, **, * show significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
(2) 61st and 68th represent for 200405 and 201112, respectively.
Source: Calculated from NSSO 61st and 68th rounds CES data, GoI 200405 and 201112.
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

109