Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f102762df67-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f102762df67-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f102762df67-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 13741,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 21 March, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3018736.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 13864,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 13741,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Inequality,Poverty&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 13741,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 21 March, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3018736.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 13864,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 13741
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Inequality,Poverty&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&#039;-K Balchand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&#039;-K Balchand</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify"><em>Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion<br /></em><br />Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.<br /><br />Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.<br /><br />He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.<br /><br />Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.<br /><br />Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.<br /><br />As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).<br /><br />Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.<br /><br />Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.<br /><br />Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.<br /><br />Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.<br /><br />He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.<br /><br />As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.<br /><br />Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee's recommendations.<br /><br />Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.<br /><br />Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.<br /><br />The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission's affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.<br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f102762df67-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f102762df67-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f102762df67-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 13741,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 21 March, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3018736.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 13864,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 13741,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Inequality,Poverty&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 13741,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 21 March, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3018736.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 13864,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 13741
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Inequality,Poverty&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&#039;-K Balchand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&#039;-K Balchand</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify"><em>Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion<br /></em><br />Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.<br /><br />Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.<br /><br />He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.<br /><br />Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.<br /><br />Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.<br /><br />As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).<br /><br />Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.<br /><br />Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.<br /><br />Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.<br /><br />Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.<br /><br />He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.<br /><br />As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.<br /><br />Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee's recommendations.<br /><br />Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.<br /><br />Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.<br /><br />The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission's affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.<br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f102762df67-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f102762df67-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f102762df67-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f102762df67-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 13741,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 21 March, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3018736.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 13864,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 13741,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Inequality,Poverty&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 13741,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 21 March, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3018736.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 13864,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 13741
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&amp;#039;-K Balchand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Inequality,Poverty&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee&#039;s recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission&#039;s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&#039;-K Balchand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&#039;-K Balchand</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify"><em>Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion<br /></em><br />Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.<br /><br />Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.<br /><br />He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.<br /><br />Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.<br /><br />Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.<br /><br />As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).<br /><br />Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.<br /><br />Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.<br /><br />Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.<br /><br />Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.<br /><br />He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.<br /><br />As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.<br /><br />Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee's recommendations.<br /><br />Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.<br /><br />Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.<br /><br />The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission's affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.<br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 13741,
		'title' => '‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty'-K Balchand',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
<em>Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion<br />
</em><br />
Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.<br />
<br />
Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.<br />
<br />
He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.<br />
<br />
Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.<br />
<br />
Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.<br />
<br />
As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).<br />
<br />
Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.<br />
<br />
Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.<br />
<br />
Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.<br />
<br />
Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).<br />
<br />
Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.<br />
<br />
He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.<br />
<br />
As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.<br />
<br />
Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee's recommendations.<br />
<br />
Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.<br />
<br />
Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.<br />
<br />
The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.<br />
<br />
Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission's affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.<br />
<br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 21 March, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3018736.ece',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 13864,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 13741,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&#039;-K Balchand',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Inequality,Poverty',
	'metaDesc' => '

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with...',
	'disp' => '<br /><div align="justify"><em>Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion<br /></em><br />Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.<br /><br />Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.<br /><br />He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.<br /><br />Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.<br /><br />Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.<br /><br />As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).<br /><br />Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.<br /><br />Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.<br /><br />Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.<br /><br />Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.<br /><br />He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.<br /><br />As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.<br /><br />Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee's recommendations.<br /><br />Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.<br /><br />Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.<br /><br />The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission's affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.<br /><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 13741,
	'title' => '‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&#039;-K Balchand',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
<em>Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion<br />
</em><br />
Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.<br />
<br />
Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.<br />
<br />
He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.<br />
<br />
Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.<br />
<br />
Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.<br />
<br />
As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).<br />
<br />
Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.<br />
<br />
Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.<br />
<br />
Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.<br />
<br />
Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).<br />
<br />
Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.<br />
<br />
He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.<br />
<br />
As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.<br />
<br />
Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee's recommendations.<br />
<br />
Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.<br />
<br />
Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.<br />
<br />
The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.<br />
<br />
Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission's affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.<br />
<br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 21 March, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3018736.ece',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'inequality-has-gone-up-notwithstanding-dip-in-poverty039-k-balchand-13864',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 13864,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 13741
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty&#039;-K Balchand'
$metaKeywords = 'Inequality,Poverty'
$metaDesc = '

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion

Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with...'
$disp = '<br /><div align="justify"><em>Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion<br /></em><br />Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income.<br /><br />Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas.<br /><br />He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation.<br /><br />Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion.<br /><br />Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37.<br /><br />As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person).<br /><br />Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.<br /><br />Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh.<br /><br />Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.<br /><br />Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31).<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend.<br /><br />He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China.<br /><br />As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement.<br /><br />Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee's recommendations.<br /><br />Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group.<br /><br />Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year.<br /><br />The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6.<br /><br />Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission's affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.<br /><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

‘Inequality has gone up, notwithstanding dip in poverty'-K Balchand

Montek Singh says he is willing to revise poverty estimates on the basis of expert opinion Though the incidence of poverty has come down over five years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is a startling fact that inequality has increased, with fewer people controlling income. Union Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia admitted on Tuesday that income distribution was not at the desired level and inequality increased in both rural and urban areas. He denied any political motive behind the release of the data when Parliament was in session, or with an eye on the 2014 Lok Sabha polls or changing the number of beneficiaries of the proposed food security legislation. Admitting that the poverty line fixed by the Tendulkar Committee was criticised on the ground that it underestimated the scale of population that needed special assistance, Mr. Ahluwalia said he was willing to revise it on the basis of expert opinion. Under the Gini Coefficient used, there was a marginal increase in inequality in rural areas from 0.27 per cent during 2004-05 to 0.28 per cent during 2009-10. This meant money was concentrated in a fewer hands. In urban areas, where money had already been with fewer people, the situation deteriorated more sharply, from 0.35 to 0.37. As per the index ranged on a scale from zero to 1, the ideal situation is zero, indicating perfect equality. But 1 means maximal inequality (all wealth cornered by one person). Inequality rose sharply in rural areas of even a well-off State like Punjab (0.26 to 0.29), Kerala (0.29 to 0.35), Bihar (0.19 to 0.22) and Madhya Pradesh (0.24 to 0.28) and Assam (0.18 to 0.22). There was no change in Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. Inequality came down in the rural areas of Goa, Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana and Chhattisgarh. Unlike the mixed trend in rural areas, the picture in the urban areas was more horrific. Except in Chhattisgarh, Goa and Tamil Nadu, inequality rose in all other States: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Inequality rose rather sharply in urban Kerala (0.35 to 0.40), Uttar Pradesh (0.34 to 0.40), Himachal Pradesh (0.26 to 0.35), Odisha (0.33 to 0.38), Punjab (0.32 to 0.36), Delhi (0.32 to 0.35) and Jammu and Kashmir (0.24 to 0.31). Mr. Ahluwalia said the data did not reveal the causes for the increase; it would have to be studied separately. Nor would it be proper to say that the government programmes had failed because the conditions had to be studied. But he admitted to the need for tweaking the programmes and working out ways of reversing the trend. He pointed out that inequality had risen more sharply in Brazil and China. As for the impact of the current poverty estimates on deciding the beneficiaries of government programmes, he said the objective was not to influence the number of beneficiaries to be covered by the proposed legislation for food entitlement. Stressing that the government did not limit the numbers to the below poverty line (BPL) and pegged it at 46 per cent of the priority sector, Mr. Ahluwalia stressed the need to appreciate the progress made. But it was very unlikely that the government would change the number in the wake of the new poverty estimates based on the Tendulkar Committee's recommendations. Asked why the Planning Commission sought to divide poverty into various categories, including religion, Mr. Ahluwalia explained that it was for a better understanding of the impact of government programmes on each group. Holding 2009 as a drought year, which normally tends to increase poverty, the Planning Commission has called for another larger survey for 2011-12. Half the data has been collected, and the task will be completed by June and the report released next year. The Planning Commission has projected the cut-off poverty line on a monthly expenditure of Rs.760 in rural areas, against Rs.672.8 estimated in the 2009-10 survey. On a daily basis, this will mean an expenditure of Rs. 25.33 against Rs. 22.42. And in urban areas, it is Rs. 968.5 in 2011-12 as against Rs. 859.6, which means a per-day expense of Rs. 32.25 will keep one out of the BPL list against the current Rs.28.6. Mr. Ahluwalia said the figures were almost the same as Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 furnished in the Planning Commission's affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the beneficiaries under the food entitlement legislation.