User:Dayanandjha/sandbox

POVERTY AND ITS IMPACT ON HUMAN SOCIETY Dr. Archana Verma*, Daya nand Jha, Gyanendra Singh, Sushma Shrivastava Institute of Management Studies, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (U.P.) Mail to:-dayanand.bu@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION

Disability is both a cause and consequence of poverty. Eliminating world poverty is unlikely to be achieved unless the rights and needs of people with disabilities are taken into account. More than three out of four of these live in a developing country. More often than not they are among the poorest of the poor. Recent World Bank estimates suggest they may account for as many as one in five of the world’s poorest. Disability limits access to education and employment, and leads to economic and social exclusion. Poor people with disabilities are caught in vicious cycle of poverty and disability, each being both a cause and a consequence of the other. A large proportion of disability is preventable. Achieving the international development targets for economic, social and human development will undoubtedly reduce the levels of disability in many poor countries. However, general improvements in living conditions will not be enough. Specific steps are still required, not only for prevention, but also to ensure that people with disabilities are able to participate fully in the development process, obtain a fair share of the benefits, and claim their rights as full and equal members of society. An integrated approach is required, linking prevention and rehabilitation with empowerment strategies and changes in attitudes. This paper assesses the significance of disability as a key development issue, and its importance in relation to poverty, human rights, and the achievement of internationally agreed development targets.

What is disability?

Defining disability is complex and controversial. Though arising from physical or intellectual impairment, disability has social implications as well as health ones. A full understanding of disability recognizes that it has a powerful human rights dimension and is often associated with social exclusion, and increased exposure and vulnerability to poverty. Disability is the outcome of complex interactions between the functional limitations arising from a person’s physical, intellectual, or mental condition and the social and physical environment. It has multiple dimensions and is far more than an individual health or medical problem. On this basis, the working definition of disability adopted in this paper is ‘long-term impairment leading to social and economic disadvantages, denial of rights, and limited opportunities to play an equal part in the life of the community’. The national Development Targets the national community is committed to an agreed set of development targets, aimed at significantly reducing poverty and accelerating the pace of economic, social and human development. These are summarized the national development targets are directly relevant to women, men and children with disabilities in poorer countries. Their needs and rights cannot be fully addressed unless the underlying causes of poverty are tackled, unless they are empowered to gain access to education, health services, a livelihood and participate fully in social life. Given the high proportion of people with disabilities among the poor, it is unlikely that these targets can be properly achieved without specific efforts to tackle disability.

Poverty: a cause and consequence Poverty is both a cause and consequence of disability. Poverty and disability reinforce each other, contributing to increased vulnerability and exclusion. The majority of people with disabilities find their situation affects their chances of going to school, working for a living, enjoying family life, and participating as equal’s in social life. It is estimated that only 2% of people with disabilities in developing countries have access to rehabilitation and appropriate basic services. Positive changes in the situation of people with disabilities are dependent on the actions of governments, and the empowerment of people with disabilities themselves. A strong national commitment to uphold the rights of people with disabilities is also an important element, and one which can be supported through development co-operation. A sharper focus on disability issues, paying attention to the rights of those directly affected and the diversity of their experience, will help achieve greater equality of rights and opportunities for people with disabilities and, in turn, will help ensure that the international development targets are achieved. The analysis set out in this paper suggests that a similar approach may be highly pertinent for work related to disability. These estimates have been revised as per the methodology recommended by the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor. The absolute number of the poor had, however, remained at the same level of around 320 million due to population growth. The decline in urban poverty ratio by about one third is very significant as it coincided with a period of rapid urbanization. Although there has been progress in reducing poverty at the macro level, there exist wide rural, urban and inter-State disparities.

OBJECTIVE

This paper examines the levels and changes in poverty indicators of the rural and urban population in India disaggregated by social and economic groups. The analysis is based on the comparable estimates of poverty on the mixed reference period computed from the unit record data for the 50th and the 55th rounds of the Consumer Expenditure Surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Organization. The issue is how far different social and economic groups shared the overall decline in poverty. The social groups most vulnerable to poverty have been identified to be the urban labor households and the rural labor households with both these groups having above average levels of poverty indicators in the rural and the urban population. Among the economic groups, the most vulnerable groups are the agricultural labour households (rural) and the casual labour households (urban) each having the highest levels of the poverty indicators in their respective population segments. In terms of changes in poverty, it is found that while the industrial labour and the agricultural labour (rural) and the casual labour (urban) households experienced declines in poverty on par with the total population, the rural labour household’s fared badly in both the segments. A further disaggregated analysis brings out the consequences for poverty of combined social and economic vulnerabilities. The paper also presents poverty indicators adjusted for between-(economic and social) group disparity and discusses the implications of the empirical results for the design of a strategy for poverty reduction. Our basic objective for raising this topic is to create and grape attention of the people those were not see poverty as the major issue they talk about the topic like industrialization, nuclear deal etc. I do not know the reason the person who may have the courage and knowledge about how to deal with such the big issue why they are not contributing or giving serious thought on this major problem. Most of the people see poverty is the problem but while presenting this problem I want to convey that massage that poverty is not a problem but is that part of society what want more attention of the government as well as the society, society is consist of us so I think that we do not see poor people as disease of society but we have to help them for the betterment of society as well as country.

HYPOTHISIS Poverty is not one demonstrational phenomenon it is multi- demonstrational. poverty is not control by only controlling single factor but various factor effecting poverty like education, government, policy ,woman status ,employment equity and human development Etc. and these problems were encountered effectively the poverty can come under control so in this research I would like to show that all the major aspects affect the status of poverty in a society .Together you and I will build the new society, a society in which each of us has the chance to grow, to achieve, to contribute, to create dignity for ourselves, and not for ourselves alone, but for others also; a society in which each of us has a stake, a share; and we will give back to our children what they deserve -a heritage of hope. More importantly, such a characterization shifts the focus away from quality of employment in general and productivity in particular towards quantity of employment in terms of number of days of employment.

ANALYSYS

While analyzing this project ewe come to know some fact that Is;-

What is poverty?

Poverty is where people have unreasonably low living standards compared with others; cannot afford to buy necessities, such as a refrigerator for example; and experience real deprivation and hardship in everyday life. “Internationally, people who lack food and shelter for minimal needs are said to be living in absolute poverty. Poverty in India, however, is generally relative poverty. People are considered to be poor if their living standards fall below an overall community standard, and they are unable to participate fully in ordinary activities of society.

Who is most likely to be poor?

There are high rates of poverty among unemployed people, sole parent families, people with disabilities, indigenous Indians and some groups of immigrants and refugees.

How is poverty measured?

Income poverty can be measured in different ways. It is often expressed in relation to a poverty line, a defined income level which is updated regularly. One well-known measure of poverty in India is the Below Poverty Line. It estimates the amount of money which families of different sizes need to cover essential needs. The Below poverty line represented a very basic living standard when it was devised. Other poverty lines in current use compare family income with the half-average income line or the half-median [or midpoint] income line. Each measure has advantages and dis-advantages, and slightly different methods of calculation (and updating) may produce somewhat different results. A recent study examined the trends using a range of poverty lines; all but one indicated that poverty rates in India did not decrease over the decade, in spite of the nation’s economic growth. While family cash income in relation to the poverty line can give an indication of living standards, other factors should ideally also be considered. Home ownership (or rental costs) and access to free or low-cost services such as health, education and transport also affect living standards.

How is wealth distributed?

As well as measuring family incomes, it is useful to consider the distribution of assets or wealth, which might offer some protection in the event of an income crisis such as sudden unemployment or prolonged illness. Wealth is very unequally shared in India. The top 10 per cent of wealth holders own 45 percent of household wealth, while the bottom 50 percent town only 7 per cent.

How does poverty affect children?

Poverty negatively affects the life chances and opportunities of children. !Children are vulnerable and dependent, and the effects and impacts of poverty can so easily stultify and distort their future lives by robbing them of opportunities to develop their potential) Around one in eight children live in poverty in India. Compared with most other industrialized countries, this rate is high.

What are some of the effects of poverty?

People living on low incomes report poor health and the incidence of illness at much higher rates than people on high incomes. This can be due to stress; crowded housing and poor nutrition. Poverty can also lead to homelessness. Both the shortage of low-cost private rental accommodation and continuing high levels of unemployment affect people’s ability to pay the rent. Members of families with low incomes often have limited educational opportunities, leading to much narrower employment options. It can also contribute to poor self-esteem and less participation in society. In this way poverty and social exclusion can affect successive generations.

What are community attitudes towards poverty?

Among country surveyed, most believe that no-one should be living in poverty in a country. Indeed if nothing is done, they believe that poverty will have a serious impact on the nation’s future. They are concerned that India may be following the United States’ ‘path of poverty and crime’. They strongly agree that we need to re-think attitudes towards poverty ‘if we are to remain the nation of the “fair go” ’.

Views about poverty

We need to re-think attitudes to remain the 'nation of the "fair go"' No-one should be living in poverty in a country like India If nothing is done poverty will adversely impact the future! Government income support payments do not 'create' poverty, they assist people in poverty .Circumstances such as broken relationships, losing a job, ill health and accidents, not having adequate skills or not living in the right place to find available work can happen to any one of us. "

Salary par month

It is view that the income par month of poor house hold was in between 1000 to 5000 Rs. The various combinations was stated in front of the respondent and question was asked about that and response was recorded

Role of government there are basically difference of thought among the people they were not sure that how and in what way the government is responding towards the problem. But they have the grate hope on it.

Reason for poverty

Illiteracy & physical disability were the main reason behind the problem but it is founded that some other factor were there as like government policy and socity e.t.c. Efforts were required by government

Some of efforts as like education, job related training proper policy making to tackle this major problem government has to promote self work group.

Areas for action

There are many opportunities for action by governments and the international community in support of people with disabilities. Some of these are outlined below.

Policy

Good policy is an important starting point, and there is considerable scope for dialogue, both between governments and with in the international community to help ensure that policies are developed which seek to uphold the rights of people with disabilities and promote actions consistent with the Standard Rules. Productive policy dialogue could be undertaken, for example, between governments and development agencies in the context of sector programme development, with a view to ensuring that appropriate legal and policy frameworks for the inclusion of persons with disabilities in employment, social service provision and education are developed. Areas for action and the role of development co-operation "The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's choices. In principle, these choices can be infinite and can change over time. People often value achievements that do not show up at all, or not immediately, in income or growth figures: greater access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services, more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physical violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms and sense of participation in community activities. The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives”. Education •	Education, in the present day context, is perhaps the single most important means for individuals to improve personal endowments, build capability levels, overcome constraints, and in the process enlarge their available set of opportunities and choices for a sustained improvement in well-being. The process of education and attainments thereof has an important impact on all aspects of life. Status of Women •	Women in India continue to be seen in the reproductive role i.e. homemakers and child bearers with men seen as providers. Identities and status linked to ability to bear children especially sons and because of low value attached since birth, health care and education even when available does not reach a large proportion of female population. •	Keeping in view, low participation of women in the decision making at policy and senior management levels and rate of violence against women, special efforts are being made to improve the situation. Efforts/Initiatives Undertaken by the State Government •	Programmes focusing on financial independence of rural women and their participation in the decision making at the household and the village level are also being implemented. State Government has provided a Sathin at each Gram Panchayat who helps to generate awareness among rural women about their social, economic and political rights. Also, to help women to participate in income generating activities various NGOs are being assisted under NORAD for undertaking training programmes for various vocations. •	Some of the new policy initiatives to improve the status of women in the state include – observing Maternal Child Health and Nutrition Day, Janani Suraksha Yojana, managing child nutrition, forming Self Help Groups (SHGs), encouraging community support, etc. •	However, there is need to further strengthen the existing programmes.

Monitoring of Poverty & Human Development

Poverty is not a one-dimensional phenomenon. It has, for the sake of simplicity, been defined in a particular way, namely, in terms of income. Income poverty measures; however, these do not tell us about how an economy has been able over time to build capacities and provide an enabling environment to its citizens for self-actualisation. In post World War II period, development was seen merely in terms of economic growth; countries with high rates of economic growth were seen to be rapidly developing, while little attention was paid to rising income inequality within and among countries. Policy makers assumed that effects of higher economic growth would trickle down to poor. Economic growth is necessary but not a sufficient condition for human progress. Governments need to actively focus on HD goals and direct and use their resources efficiently so that economic growth leads to empowerment of people and poverty alleviation. Human development is the process of enlarging people’s choices-not just choices among different detergents, television channels or car models but the choices that are created by expanding human capabilities and functioning’s-what people do and can do in their lives. At all levels of development a few capabilities are essential for human development, without which many choices in life would not be available. which bring out periodically certain macro estimates/ indicators covering areas such as poverty, consumption expenditure, employment and unemployment, demography and health, education, access to services etc. In addition to this, Government departments concerned also generate data on a regular basis with the regional disaggregates. There are also certain specific surveys undertaken either at the All India level or at the State level in certain critical areas. However, such data by and large are not available with the desired frequency and regional disaggregating. Moreover, this data becomes available with considerable time-lag.

1.2 Economic Groups or Household Types

In addition to social groups, NSS also makes possible disaggregating of the surveyed households according to economic groups, what the NSS reports describe as “household types”. These are classified on the basis of the reported major source of income or livelihood during the last year for the household as a whole. Five household types are distinguished for the rural households on the basis of ownership or lack of physical or human capital, namely, i. Self-employed in agriculture; ii. Self-employed in non-agriculture; iii. Rural agricultural labour; iv. Other (than agricultural) rural labour & urban labour; v. (residual) others. In the first two categories, deployment of land category (i) and non-agricultural physical or human capital assets category (ii) in the production process provide the major source of livelihood. The next two categories of households possess virtually no physical or human capital assets but subsist on the basis of their endowments of abundant manual labour which they supply to agricultural activities category (iii) or non-agricultural manufacturing or service activities on non-contractual casual basis category (iv). After accounting for self-employment household types (i) and (ii) and non-contractual casual employment types (iii) and (iv), the fifth residual category of "others" covers two types of earnings, namely (a) those households whose major source of income arises mostly from contractual employment with regular wages and salaries and (b) those who earn their living from non-labour assets without direct participation in gainful economic activity. The latter category of non-participatory earnings as distinct from participatory earnings in (a) as well as in types (i) to (iv) may include current returns from ownership of immovable assets (land or real estate) or from past financial investments, or receipts from public or private transfers (including pension and remittances).For the urban households, four categories of household types are distinguished, namely, 1. Self employed households; 2. Wage and salaried income households; 3. Casual labour households 4. (Residual) others. In this classification, the second and the third categories are well-defined and distinguished on the basis of (contractual or non-contractual casual) nature of hired employment and the major source of income earned there from by supplying labour. The first category is a heterogeneous aggregate ranging from high income professionals earning their incomes from high skills and education to the unskilled low productivity trading and personal services with meager physical or human capital. In the urban context, after accounting for self-employment and contractual as well as non-contractual paid employment in the first three categories, the fourth residual category of "others" is taken to include those households whose major source of income is derived from non-participatory earnings as described under (v)(b) for rural household type. With these prefatory background comments, we start by providing an overview across social groups and across household types on the basis of all-India size distribution and a uniform all-India poverty line applicable to all the social and economic categories of households.

2. Composition of Total and Poor Population across Social and Economic Groups

The composition of rural and urban total as well as poor population located in households classified alternatively according to social groups and household types discussed above along with the widely used headcount ratio (HCR) measure of poverty. Also indicated is the absolute size of the total population as well as poor population whose percentage composition is presented. In the subsequent discussion, whenever we refer to the share or poverty indicator of a given household type, it refers to the share or poverty indicator for the population located in that household type. The purpose is to avoid tedious repetition of the phrase 'population located in'. For instance, the share of self-employed households in total or poor rural population indicates the share of total or poor population located in self-employed households. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, level comparisons of poverty indicators across social, economic or social-cum-economic groups in the immediately following discussion are by reference to the estimates. Residual (non-manual, non self-employed) households were less than a tenth of total rural population. Within each of the two major groups of the self-employed and rural labour households, agricultural ones predictably dominated over the non-agricultural. This rise in population share is particularly marked in the case of population in agricultural labour households. In the rural context, this is mainly a reflection of the demographic pressure on land resulting in fragmentation of agricultural holdings and the consequent burgeoning of the virtually asset less agricultural labour population. These households possess little, if any, physical or human capital assets and depend for their livelihood on the irregular, fluctuating and uncertain casual labour employment tied mainly to seasonal agricultural activities and dependent on the vagaries of weather. The self-employed urban population reported the second highest (and above-average) headcount ratio. As noted earlier, the households engaged in low skilled, low productivity commodity production, personal services and petty trading services in the urban informal sector are most likely to account for the urban poor population among the self-employed households. Rural agricultural labour and urban casual labour households constitute the most vulnerable economically disadvantaged segments with the highest HCRs across household types in the rural and the urban population respectively. The former, i.e. the agricultural labour households, also account for the numerically dominant share of the rural poor population. In the urban poor population, the self-employed poor are numerically dominant. The lowest HCR is recorded by the (residual non-self-employed, non casual labour) other households in rural India and, by the regular wage-and salaried households in the urban population. Further, in both years the HCR for the urban casual labour households were higher than those for the agricultural and other rural labour households. In rural India, the categories, the self-employed in agriculture and the residual category of “others” recorded a near 20% decline in the absolute headcount. Aided by a 22 percent decline in HCR and a slightly less than average growth in population, the non-agricultural rural labour households recorded an over 15 per cent decline an absolute Headcount. In urban India, only one economic group - of regular wage/salaried workers - experienced a decline in absolute headcount. For this group, the percentage reduction in HCR was over 4 points lower than that for the total urban population.

Conclusions and Implications

In this section we bring together some of the key conclusions of our detailed analysis of poverty among social and economic groups in the all-India rural and urban population and sketch a few policy implications. Among the social groups, the urban and rural labor population report levels of poverty well above average on all the three indicators of prevalence, depth and severity of poverty in both years and in both the rural and the urban areas of the country. The Other labor too suffers from above average levels of poverty which are, nevertheless, lower than the poverty levels among the urban and the rural labor population. The double disadvantage, of being an asset less casual wage labour household in the socially disadvantaged social groups of the urban or the rural labor population, accentuates the prevalence, depth and severity of poverty. Thus, the agricultural labour households in the rural labor population have the highest headcount ratio (close to or above 60 percent) in both years in rural India. Given the rural and the urban poverty lines, rural poverty rates are, in general, higher than their comparable urban counterparts. Exceptions to this pattern are provided by the casual labour households in all the social groups and the self-employed among the urban labor and in the social group of “others”. In terms of the composition of the poor population, in rural India, the agricultural labour households accounted for 48 percent of the rural poor, with such households among the urban labour and rural labour population accounting for more than a quarter of the total poor population in rural India. In the same year, the casual labour households accounted for 31percent of the poor population in urban India. Both in rural India and among the urban population, the households with self-employment (in agricultural or non-agricultural activities) as the principal means of livelihood, accounted for close to or above 40 percent of the poor and are easily the (numerically) dominant group among the poor in urban India. Our more disaggregated analysis by various categories within each social group helped us pinpoint the rise in poverty in the asset less (casual) wage-labour dependent households among the rural labor population as the principal factor underlying a clearly “worse-than-average” Performance (in terms of poverty-reduction) and, therefore, also a clear worsening of the relative poverty situation of the rural labor population in rural India, and, even more so, in urban India. In contrast to the rural labor population, the urban labour households generally matched or even bettered the average rural/urban household in terms of percentage reduction in (all the three) poverty indicators. In a large measure, this was facilitated by a better-than-average performance of the agricultural labour households among them in rural India and of the regular wage/salary earner households among them in urban India. As regards relative between- (social-cum-economic) group disparity, it is considerably higher for the urban than the rural population. However, the very high values of the disparity index for the urban population reflect, to a considerable degree (as our estimates with a hypothetical equal-share exercise have shown), the effect of the very uneven distribution of the population across the 12 socio-economic groups. What implications do the foregoing results have for the design of a strategy for poverty reduction? One heartening feature of the above-stated results is that, not with standing their social and economic disadvantages, the urban labour households and the agricultural labour households and the double-disadvantaged group of agricultural labour households located among the urban labour population have experienced rates of reduction in all the three poverty indicators that have matched or bettered the poverty reduction experienced by the rural population on the average. The same is true for the urban labour, the casual labour households and the casual labour households in the urban labour population in urban India. This fact holds the important message that the benefits of growth have indeed been accessed by the socially and economically disadvantaged groups in India. So that one can and should pursue a growth-centred strategy for poverty reduction in India. The failure of the rural population and in particular the casual-wage-labour dependent households among them to experience commensurate rates of reduction in poverty would appear to be, in part at least, a reflection of the poverty outcomes in specific States where the rural population is concentrated. The second feature relevant to the design of anti-poverty policies and programmes is the sizeable share of the self-employed in the poor in India: 40percent in rural India and 44 percent in urban India where the self-employed are easily the (numerically) dominant group among the urban poor. At this point it is worth emphasizing a feature of the employment situation of the usual status (principal plus subsidiary status) workforce in self-employed households that tends to get submerged in general discussions about under-employment in the country. Male workers in these households are at work, on the average, for 344days in a year in rural India and for 349 days in the year in urban India. Even allowing for the fact that women workers work fewer days in the year (260 days in rural India and 282 days in urban India), usual status workers (males plus females) in self-employed households are at work for between 315 (in the case of self-employed in agricultural activities) and 321 days (for self-employed in nonagricultural) in a year in rural India, while in urban India they are at work for 337days out of the 365 days in the year. Characterization of this situation as one of under-employment is a serious is representation of the problem: Do we or should we, expect them to be at work on all 365 days in the year? More importantly, such a characterization shifts the focus away from quality of employment in general and productivity in particular towards quantity of employment in terms of number of days of employment. The central problem of poverty in the self-employed households is not that they are at work for only a few days in the year but that the returns to their labour input are too low. So that, the focus of policy should be more on raising the returns from the asset-base of the self-employed - chiefly land in rural India – and raising their skill profile – especially in urban India. In the rural context, this requires a strong push for growth in public investment in rural infrastructure including but not limited to irrigation, water conservation and management. In particular, it must be extended to cover rural roads, telecommunication network, and facilities for storage; preservation and transportation of perishable commodities like vegetables, fruits and flowers which have a considerable market both domestically and internationally. Given the parlous fiscal situation in virtually all States and the drain on the exchequer –both in the centre and the states – arising from “remunerative” procurement prices and a host of non-transparent input subsidies, the desired push for public investment in rural infrastructure will not be possible without a conscious effort at fiscal stabilization along with a shift in government spending from revenue to capital expenditures. From a longer-term perspective, expansion of social services in education, health, water and sanitation – would help improve the quality of rural human resources. This, in turn, would complement and contribute to rising productivity in, what would still remain, a largely agriculture-centered rural growth strategy. In the urban context, a central component of a strategy to combat poverty among the self-employed would be a conscious effort to raise their skill-profile so that they move up the productivity chain. Skill-development programmes have the further advantage that they can be consciously targeted towards the socially disadvantaged groups of the urban and the rural labor. Equally important, if not more so, we need to expand rapidly the market – both domestic and international – for the goods and services produced in the urban information sector. And hurdles, such as exclusive reservation for the small scale sector, would need to be removed. In the urban context, there is also the need to reduce the dichotomy between the formal and the informal sector by the alleviation of labour market inflexibility generated by labour laws that emphasize – perhaps overemphasize –job security, often at the expense of other facets of working conditions. What about the (casual) wage-labour-dependent households who are numerically the dominant group among the rural poor and account for close to a third of the urban poor? Admittedly, with work for 278 days (294 days in urban India) in the year, the (casual) wage-labour households are better candidates for policies and programmes aimed at raising their number of days in employment during the year. Further, safety nets, in the form of special employment programmes must continue. And, if, along with raising the number of days at work in a year the real wage rates can be held firm it would certainly reduce poverty among such households. Greater demand for wage labour at rising real wage rateswould requires rapid growth with rising labour productivity. For individual sectors, raising labour productivity requires a slower growth in the number of workers than the growth in value-added. Greater demand for labour would then have to come about by a faster growth of more labour-intensive sectors (apart from faster overall growth) rather than seeking to enhance the labour intensity of individual sectors. Overall, therefore, rapid growth must occupy centre-stage in any strategy for poverty reduction in India. a society in which each of us has the chance to grow, to achieve, to contribute, to create dignity for ourselves, and not for ourselves alone, but for others also; a society in which each of us has a stake, a share; and we will give back to our children what they deserve -a heritage of hope.

This Command Paper announces the Government’s new approach to national development. It has 8 strands.2

1. Refocus our national development efforts on the elimination of poverty and encouragement of economic growth which benefits the poor. We will do this through support for national sustainable development targets and policies which create sustainable livelihoods for poor people, promote human development and conserve the environment. 2. Work closely with other donors and development agencies to build partnerships with developing countries to strengthen the commitment to the elimination of poverty, and use our influence to help mobilize the political will to achieve the national development targets. 3. Pursue these targets in partnership with poorer countries that are also committed to them. 4. Ensure that the full range of Government policies affecting developing countries, including environment, trade, investment and agricultural policies, takes account of our sustainable development objective. 5. Give particular attention to human rights, transparent and accountable government and core labour standards, building on the Government’s ethical approach to national relations. 6. Use our resources proactively to promote political stability and social cohesion and to respond effectively to conflict. 7. Increase public understanding of our mutual dependence and the need for national development. 8. Provide the necessary resources for the development programme: the Government will start to reverse the decline in spending on development assistance.