Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

  • Dear Richard Happy to go

    Dear Richard Happy to go through your study and observations. It is big YES that the benefit is not reaching the needy. This needs to be seen in two ways as: @ Mapping the BPL @ Benefit reaching the BPL Mapping the BPL: The tag of poor has become opportunity for the people to grab it mostly by the one who never need it. This happens due to the inadequate measures followed in mapping. Once, these measures were made transparent then the target groups can be mapped. Benefit reaching the BPL: Yes, it is the fact that GO is spending very high (365%) for the benefit of Rs.1. No words to justify this wide gap?????? Based on the issues related with: @ High cost of reaching the people, @ poor identification & @ poor remains poor moving toward the conditional cash transfer (CCT), though looks better, still it needs to be seen what happens at the ground. As per the estimates of 2007-08, if every identified family gets an amount of Rs.2140/- per month which is expected more than the income limit fixed for the BPL, certainly it will improves the situation of the groups and moves forward with development. This needs critical study by adopting villages in different regions. This support with the creation of better livelihood opportunities matching to the challenges, skills, needs and living circumstances of the target groups alone can work for their sustainable development with quality of life (QOL). I am with the people and making efforts in building their capacities for better livelihood opportunities. The rural people are facing several challenges in respect of opportunities matching to their local resources, their skills and needs and poor price for their products. We are seeing and reading all these challenges but still nothing is moving in the real sense to chage the crises / challenges. Understanding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the area and the people,still chances are bright to move forward with sustainable development. I will be happy to share more on this to make an action plan with the sole intention of seeing the brightness in the eyes of the targeted people. Looking forward for better networking and thus to reach the people with sustainable solutions... with thanks

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
  • Thanks for bringing some

    Thanks for bringing some light to this complex issue. Who are the poor exactly?

    But maybe it does not have to be complicated. The more the 80-90% of the non-wealthy classes have to spend, the more they will spend and this will create jobs.

    However. An expanding economy using existing models deteriorates the environment, as other articles on this site point out.

    A sufficiently hefty fee on emissions, raised until business practices change, would both encourage "green" employment AND stop deterioration.

    the fee from the polluters should find its way back to everyone. if this were added to the minimum you can earn before paying taxes it becomes fair at the same time. read more in our white paper on our site
    http://tssef.se/?p=189

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
  • And cash to tools. Current

    And cash to tools. Current BPL people can be lifted above and poverty line itself can be lifted much above than only 2300 calories of food a day may be by 3 times in a year if government charges Rs 3 lac crore extra each year for cooking fuel , urban water, and food merely by abolishing food, fuel and urban water subsidy and provides earning tools of Rs 3 lac crore a year to 30 crore lowest income working population needed to sell transport and sells of food and goods, wash cloths and utensils, cleaning equipments , plumbing , carpentry, electrical, masonry, agricultural, solar food dryers processers or any other thinkable tools by which a person can earn. Food fuel and water subsidy will not be needed than as fuel and water are freely available as solar energy and rain water and as poorest will become part of food supply chain will get ample of food at reasonable prices. Rich who are enjoying a lot on fuel, water and even BPL food subsidy will bear the burden easily for this noble cause looking at their yearly spending of 10 lac crore on mobiles, auto mobiles and other luxuries and some useless items.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
  • This cash transfer theory

    This cash transfer theory goes against the government's own defence on food inflation. It has been said that more funds under NREGA increased purchasing power of poors. So you pay the money on one hand and on the other, raise prices of foodgrains beyond the reach of the poor!!!

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
Scroll To Top