The Unorganized Sector and Urban Poverty: a Policy Analysis
The Unorganized Sector and Urban Poverty: A Policy Analysis
Manas Kumar Mallik( & Dr. C. Aruna(
Abstract
The construction of poverty line should be on the basis of socially accepted minimum standard of living. Poverty abounds both in the rural and urban sectors of the economy. The nature of poverty in rural sector is intense and manifest amongst the peasant-cultivators with very small holdings and landless labourers. Poverty in urban areas is an extension of rural poverty where migrant’s workers feature prominently amongst the poor who are unemployed, underemployed or employed in various low productivity occupations such as porter age, street peddling, etc., or employed in jobs either with in secure employment or with very low real wages. Orissa remains India’s poorest state with 47.2 per cent (about million people) of its population, constituting almost 7per cent of India’s poor living below the poverty line (BPL) against the national average of 26.1 per cent (GOI 2001). The impact of changing urban policies on the conditions and status of workers in unorganized/informal sector begins with the analysis of model of urbanization, urban policies, profile of urban workers, their education and skill levels and problems faced by informal sector. It is pointed out that the current model of urbanization has less space and resources for the urban poor. The social security and working conditions of the workers are important aspects and the account of the National Commission for enterprises in unorganized sector has suggested addressing these issues. Skill is a form of security and it improves employability of the workers. A system of skill training for urban areas will be a useful way forward in promoting employment opportunities amongst the urban workers. This paper attempts to analyse the various urban poverty alleviation policies of the State of Orissa and attempts at a review of the impact of various programmes by the Government through an
Manas Kumar Mallik( & Dr. C. Aruna(
Abstract
The construction of poverty line should be on the basis of socially accepted minimum standard of living. Poverty abounds both in the rural and urban sectors of the economy. The nature of poverty in rural sector is intense and manifest amongst the peasant-cultivators with very small holdings and landless labourers. Poverty in urban areas is an extension of rural poverty where migrant’s workers feature prominently amongst the poor who are unemployed, underemployed or employed in various low productivity occupations such as porter age, street peddling, etc., or employed in jobs either with in secure employment or with very low real wages. Orissa remains India’s poorest state with 47.2 per cent (about million people) of its population, constituting almost 7per cent of India’s poor living below the poverty line (BPL) against the national average of 26.1 per cent (GOI 2001). The impact of changing urban policies on the conditions and status of workers in unorganized/informal sector begins with the analysis of model of urbanization, urban policies, profile of urban workers, their education and skill levels and problems faced by informal sector. It is pointed out that the current model of urbanization has less space and resources for the urban poor. The social security and working conditions of the workers are important aspects and the account of the National Commission for enterprises in unorganized sector has suggested addressing these issues. Skill is a form of security and it improves employability of the workers. A system of skill training for urban areas will be a useful way forward in promoting employment opportunities amongst the urban workers. This paper attempts to analyse the various urban poverty alleviation policies of the State of Orissa and attempts at a review of the impact of various programmes by the Government through an
References: 1. Dev, S. M., Antony, P., Gayathri, V. and Mamgain, R. P. 2001. ‘Towards a Holistic Perspective of Social Security’ in Mahendra Dev et al (Ed.) Social and Economic Security in India. New Delhi: Institute for Human Development. 2. Dreze, J. and Sen, A. 1989. Hunger and Public Action, Oxford: Clarenton Press. 3. ILO. 1984. Introduction to Social Security. Geneva: International Labor Office. 4. Mitra, A. 1992. Growth and Poverty The Urban Legend, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 27, (13) pp. 659-665. 5. Rein, M. 1970. ‘Problems of Definition and Measurements of Poverty’, in Peter Townsend (Ed.) The Concept of Poverty, London: Heinemann, p-40. 6. Supriti, S., Barnhardt, M. and Ramanathan, R. 2002. Urban Poverty Alleviation in India : A General Assessment and a Particular Perspective, Bangalore: Ramanathan Foundation. 7. Tendulkar, S. D. 1988. Economic Growth apd Poverty, Working Paper No. 88/02, Delhi School of Economics. 8. World Bank. 1999. India: Towards Rural Development & Poverty Reduction, Volume 1: Summary, Report No. 18921-IN, Rural Development Sector Unit, South Area Region, Washington, D.C. 9. Townsend, P. 1971. Poverty in the United Kingdom, A Study of Household Resources and Standards of Living, New York: Penguin. 10. http://www.hotnhitnews.com/Orissa_between_Poverty_and_Declarations.htm (browsed on 13 March 2010) 11 [3] http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/sep/pov-upairev.htm (21.03.2010) [4] Hadded,Ruel and Garret(1999) and Ravalion M (2002) [5] Social Security Bill 2008 and Migrant workers by, Umi Daniel [6] Census of India, 1991: 64. [7] CIIMcKinsey Report ‘Made in India: the next big manufacturing export story’ (October 2004) [8] GOI/Planning Commission 2002b:26. [9] Rajasekhar, D. and G. Sreedhar (2002). Changing Face of Beedi Industry in Karnataka, Economic andPolitical Weekly, September 2002. [10] D Rajasekhar, Suchitra J. Y., Madheswaran S. and G. K. Karanth(2004) : AT TIMES WHEN LIMBS MAY FAIL: SOCIAL SECURITY FOR UNORGANIZED WORKERS IN KARNATAKA [11] Unemployed as percentage of labour force.; Source: NSSO - 43rd Round Survey.