Research: Antyodaya Anna Yojana

[Introduction] [Survey Questionnaires] [Survey Guidelines] [Findings] Findings

The summary findings reported below are taken from an article published in The Hindu in July 2002, which is available here. The article is also available in pdf format. More detailed findings will be made available in due course.

The nature of destitution

• Even in prosperous villages some households live in conditions of extreme poverty and hunger, surviving on a variety of informal activities such as gathering food from the village commons, making baskets, and selling minor forest produce.
• Destitute households keep a low profile and are often socially invisible.
• Social security arrangements are needed because destitute households cannot rely on spontaneous community support.

The Antyodaya programme is reaching destitute households

• Of the 450 Antyodaya households living in the sample villages, a large majority turned out to be very poor.
• Nearly two thirds of these households are constrained to skip meals from time to time.
• More than half do not own a single blanket or quilt.
• Only 2 per cent of the sample households lived in economic conditions described by the field investigators as “better than average”, compared with other households in the village.

Reliability and timeliness of food distribution

• The average Antyodaya household obtained close to 75 per cent of its full entitlement since the programme began (in Andhra Pradesh most sample households received their full quota).
• 85 per cent of the respondents described the grain they received under the Antyodaya programme as “average” or “good”.
• Antyodaya households were occasionally charged more than the official issue price. The extent of overcharging was about 13 per cent on average.
• However, in Jharkhand, many Antyodaya households were deprived of their entitlements by powerful PDS dealers.

Shortcomings and the way forward

The survey suggests that the approach underlying the Antyodaya programme of food-based social security for destitute households is reasonably sound. However, the coverage of the programme is quite small – about 5 per cent of the rural population. The article makes a strong case for a major expansion of the programme. Detailed recommendations for improvement of the programme have been made in a separate affidavit submitted by PUCL to the Supreme Court on 1 August 2002.