Search

The workfare scheme, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), and the direct food subsidy programme, the Targeted Public Distribution Scheme (TPDS), represent two social safety nets instituted in India as anti-poverty measures. This paper examines whether from the point of view of individual households the two programmes are substitutes or complements, as this will shed light on the appropriateness of the design of the two programmes. Based on primary household data collected for the Indian states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh (MP), we show that, in Rajasthan, a large percentage of households consider TPDS and NREGS programmes to be substitutes for each other, while in MP the households often perceive the two programmes as complements. Thus it appears that the two programmes are better designed in MP since an incentive for participation in one programme has desirable side effects on participation in the other. Correlates of participation in the two states are identified and the paper advances several policy conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

As part of the structural adjustment programme the Government of India, in 1997, introduced the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) with the objective of targeting the food subsidies to the poor and reducing fiscal deficit. While the universal Public Distribution System (PDS) had several limitations, the Targeted PDS has only worsened the problem of 'adequate access to food' for the poor. This article examines the limitations of income targeting based on the official poverty line under the TPDS. The article argues that the TPDS has worked counter-productively to the policy objective of reaching the poor. As per the National Sample Survey (1999-2000) and the National Family Health Survey (1998-9), a significant proportion of the poor and food insecure suffer from severe malnutrition and calorific deprivation. With a large section of the population falling out of the TPDS the article suggests policy alternatives to ensure better 'access to food' for the poor and vulnerable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]