Are we still a developing nation?

Following the historic landing of Chandrayan-3 on the lunar surface, the British media offered an expected response. Drenched in colonial undertones, the controversial remarks of one of the leading anchors were: “As a rule, if you can afford to fire a rocket at the dark side of the moon, you shouldn’t be coming to us with your hand out for foreign aid.”

Separately, in earlier news, the US government objected to the special benefits known as the Special and Differential Treatment, which are granted to nations such as China and India owing to their self-elected status as developing countries, at the World Trade Organisation.

These unrelated events compel one to pause and mull over the longstanding question: who qualifies as poor?

While understanding poverty as an economic construct is both desirable and inevitable, a parochial interpretation of the said concept would result in reactions akin to those of the British media vis-à-vis the Chandrayan-3 mission. Analysing the ‘different brands of poverty,’ therefore, can help answer the question raised above and in turn provide cogent solutions to deal with the issue of poverty at large. In this light, time poverty and access-based poverty serve as crucial examples that demonstrate the numerous hues of poverty.
As an illustration, in my hometown, Lucknow, the metro commenced its operations in the year 2017–18. Although the metro plan was aimed at improving infrastructure, mobility, and providing seasonal employment to blue-collar workers, it did not address the question of ‘time poverty’. Barabanki, the bordering district of Lucknow that serves as the hub of blue-collar workers (and thereby contributes heavily to commute traffic), is still accessible only by road. While there are talks of building a metro corridor in and around the state capital, presently there is no provision to treat the issue of significant commute time. Labourers whose monthly income is directly proportional to the number of part-time jobs undertaken are the worst affected by the time lost during commute. Time poverty is further compounded by ‘rural poverty’ extant in such areas. This highlights that despite their constant hard work, their struggle to rise up the social and economic ladder persists. Additionally, time poverty also obstructs the potential of such individuals to upskill for their economic betterment. Hence, evidence-based policymaking that accounts for the interplay of different types of poverty becomes indispensable.

Moreover, ‘poverty of access’ can be countered by inclusive capitalism, which envisages that social protection measures be undertaken hand in hand with the goal of economic growth. To give an example, while India is experiencing an upward shift in focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) compliance, the legal landscape requires an overhaul. With one of the major pitfalls of urban poverty being a lack of social protection for migrant/contract labourers, it is critical to ensure their protection via ESG compliance. However, while certain labour and environmental legislations are in place, they are inadequate to tend to issues like upskilling contract labourers through induction training, regulating their working hours and overtime, providing housing and sanitation, etc. Since ESG compliance continues to be perceived merely as a liability-reduction measure as opposed to a Samaritan duty to be undertaken by corporations in their capacity as social actors, an overhaul in the legal landscape could be beneficial. This can be accompanied by formulating a plan to provide ‘ESG training’ to the management of corporations. Such measures would help lend much-needed emphasis to ‘access-based poverty’. Hence, an informed strategy catering to different stakeholders that also accounts for the concomitant impact of different types of poverty on the policies so devised is necessary.

Evaluating the Indian populace through the multi-pronged lens of poverty, it is evident that a lot more needs to be done for poverty alleviation. Although nearly 415 million Indian citizens transitioned out of multidimensional poverty, the diatribe against India for appropriating its status as a ‘developing country’ is unwarranted.

(The writer is a corporate lawyer)