印度扶贫政策报告（英译中）

　　原文：

　　During the period of its 10th five-year plan (2002-03 to 2006-07), India achieved impressive economic growth. Less impressive, however, was the extent to which that growth translated into poverty reduction and human development gains. By the mid-2000s, India still had 302 million people living below the poverty line, a malnutrition rate of 46 percent among children under four, and the highest number of illiterate people in the world. Furthermore, growth has been accompanied by rising inequality, and economic and human development achievement varies widely across states. As such, in developing the 11th five-year plan, the Government committed itself to a dual objective: increasing the pace of economic growth and making it more inclusive.

　　In October 2009, as the mid-point evaluation of the 11th five-year plan was taking place, the Gujarat Institute of Development Research held a national convention in Ahmedabad to discuss progress in realising inclusive growth. This policy brief draws on the papers presented at the conference and focuses on the three themes addressed at the convention: agriculture; employment; and governance.

　　Achieving inclusive growth: challenges and options

　　Agriculture

　　More than 60 percent of India’s workers are engaged in agriculture and related activities, giving the agriculture sector tremendous potential to impact poverty rates. This potential has been relatively unrealised in recent years, partly because agricultural productivity, which is key to the quantity and quality of employment in the sector, has grown very slowly. Declining productivity has left the agriculture sector unable to absorb surplus rural labour, and has kept agricultural wage rates low. Furthermore, even where agricultural productivity is rising, such as in Gujarat, it does not seem to have a poverty-reducing effect.

　　Challenges and options

　　Realising agriculture’s potential to contribute to inclusive growth will require a focus on productivity, with productivity increases expected to raise income levels for farm workers. The benefits of improved agricultural productivity should then spill over into the rural non-farm sector, particularly when accompanied by investments in rural infrastructure.

　　Lack of access to water, due to the vast exploitation of ground water during the green revolution, compounded by increasing industrial and household demand, poses a major challenge for the future sustainability of the sector. For example, at least 30 percent of the country’s irrigation potential remains unexploited – a promising area for future investment – and the use of watershed development in dry and semi-arid regions could have beneficial effects.3 In the case of Orissa, a state well-endowed with water resources but hindered by poor irrigation infrastructure, there is a need to find innovative ways to expand reliable irrigation systems. For example, Orissa’s state government has implemented a new water policy. The policy establishes Water User Associations (WUAs) that are charged with operation and maintenance (O&M) of infrastructure, and also provides for increased water tariffs and O&M financing. Early experience suggests that this partnership can work well if WUAs receive sufficient capacity development support and are provided with well-functioning infrastructure.

　　Though India has a reasonably advanced public and private seed sector, ‘Indian agriculture has not witnessed any major breakthrough in seed technology since the High Yield variety seeds of the Green revolution’.5 The ‘Gene Revolution’, which enabled production of genetically modified crops, has the potential to create crop seeds that ‘significantly outperform’6 earlier varieties. However, these seeds are often unaffordable to small farmers and most farmers are not aware of new seed technology. Developing better seeds, ensuring their affordability, and making farmers aware of their benefits, are therefore crucial to improved agricultural productivity.

　　Contract farming arrangements and agricultural value chains also have a poverty-reducing potential. Studies show that (a) food retail chain farmers tend to have higher profits than non-food retail chain farmers, and (b) large-scale farmers with significant asset bases tend to have greatest access to these chains.7 This was confirmed by an analysis of the ‘Reliance Fresh’ fresh food retail chain in Gujarat: in an area where two percent of farmers are large holders and 27 percent are marginal holders, 21 percent of the farmers associated with Reliance Fresh were large holders, while none were marginal holders.8 Studies analysing rice seed and Gherkin cultivation in Southern India report similar results.

　　In other areas, the incorporation of poor people into value chains has yielded significant results. For instance, female household workers are often able to access international and domestic garment embellishment chains,10 and there is evidence that smallholders were able to reap significant profits in the tea industry in West Bengal.

　　Employment

　　India’s employment performance has been fairly disappointing, especially in the context of a growing working-age population. Most notably, growth in the secondary and tertiary sectors is failing to create jobs, threfore limiting the poverty reduction effects of growth.12 Where employment has been created, it has tended to be informal ‘self-employment’, either by own-account or unpaid family workers. Even in the formal sector, there is a trend toward shorter contracts and more casual arrangements.13 Furthermore, the global financial crisis resulted in substantial income declines in the informal economy, limited commercial credit availability, and significantly reduced demand for Indian exports, leading to job losses in the formal sector. For example, as early as November 2008, more than 300,000 jobs had been lost in the gems and jewelry sector alone.

　　Challenges and options

　　Employment generation could make a tremendous contribution to more inclusive growth if the poor were able to access higher-reward jobs in the manufacturing and service sectors, or to engage more productively in the informal sector. This would require higher skill levels among workers and increased demand for labour on the part of potential employers. Though Government has few relevant policy levers with which to influence private sector demand, there is potential for the establishment of appropriate skills-training programs. In the 11th five-year plan, the Government commits itself to increasing the number of industrial training institutes and centres – 500 of which will become ‘Centres of Excellence’ linked to industry – by a factor of ten. The Government will provide skills training relevant to both industry and service and agriculture and rural employment, and plans to increase the skilled portion of the workforce from its current five percent to 50 percent.

　　The Government can also create employment opportunities for the most vulnerable, as it has done through the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). The NREGA guarantees a minimum of 100 days of employment to rural households, and relies on self-selection as a targeting mechanism. This scheme is particularly appropriate in the context of the increased vulnerability in the wake of the financial crisis. The successes of NREGA should not be understated: in 2007-08, 1,437 million person-days of employment were created in 330 districts. This can be compared to the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (NREGA’s predecessor) and the National Food for Work Programme: implemented in every district, these programmes produced 1,116 million person days15.

　　However, the NREG programme has been criticised on a number of points, especially regarding high costs and ‘leakages’. Looking at the experience of NREG in West Bengal, it appears that there is insufficient capacity among the Panchayati Raj Institutions charged with implementing the program; lower-than-required participation of women; delayed payments; and inadequate information dissemination, which can result in low demand for NREG employment.16 If the program is to fully realise its inclusive-growth potential, a key challenge for government will be to address these issues.

　　Governance

　　Despite the 10th five-year plan’s focus on achieving good governance, a number of issues remain to be addressed. In particular, there is a disconnect between the elite and the poor, a leadership deficit, and a technocratic model of governance that is led by higher-earning classes and shaped by their particular experience and views.17 There are widespread protests to these failings, both among those who accept the general structure of the system but would like greater inclusion, and among those who reject the system entirely, such as the Naxalites.

　　Challenges and options

　　To date, the Government’s reaction to widespread demands for greater transparency and inclusivity has involved increasing bureaucratisation and, in some cases, reliance on security services. This has particularly been the case with regards to the Naxalite movement. A more effective and sustainable approach would be to take steps to bridge the gap between the elite technocrats and the poor, who are in large part passive recipients of Government policy, and to improve the information flow between the two groups. To do so, the Government could build on a number of recent initiatives, including certain forms of e-governance, social audits, media watch, and ‘judiciary for good governance’.

　　A deeper, more complete shift to a rights-based approach (RBA) to poverty reduction, if properly designed and implemented, could go a long way toward achieving governance and poverty-reduction goals and promoting inclusive growth. The experience with the recently-established Forest Right Act (FRA) offers an instructive lesson in RBA implementation. The FRA was designed to grant members of tribal groups legal rights to land that they have been using for years, and upon which their livelihoods depend.

　　In Andhra Pradesh, some progress has been made with respect to the implementation of the FRA, but the act has faced a number of operational difficulties.18 Chief among these is inadequate awareness on the part of potential beneficiaries. Surveys suggest that villagers are often unable to attend relevant meetings because they are otherwise engaged in daily activities and because the meetings are held too far away (at Panchayat level rather than Hamlet level). As a result, potential claimants lack crucial information related to the eligibility of claims, the deadlines for submitting claim forms, and the appropriate means of obtaining the necessary proof to submit claims. As noted above, participation in NREG programmes has also been hindered by lack of awareness. This suggests that the success of a rights-based approach will depend in large part on the extent to which targeted beneficiaries are aware of their rights and understand how to claim them.

　　Conclusion

　　India is facing significant challenges in its effort to achieve more inclusive economic growth. These include low productivity growth in agriculture, economic growth that has failed to translate into employment creation and a system of governance that does give sufficient voice to the poor and marginalised. In the agricultural sector, tackling these obstacles will require innovation in the agriculture and economic arenas, particularly with regard to seed development, irrigation systems, contract farming, skills training, and measures to increase the inclusivity and transparency of government. In particular, a move towards a rights-based approach to poverty reduction holds considerable promise, but needs to be accompanied by efforts to ensure that members of the targeted population understand their rights and are able to claim them.

　　译文：

　　印度在第十个五年计划期间(2002-03至2006-07)实现了令人瞩目的经济增长。但是在将经济增长转化为减贫效果和人道发展成果方面，印度交出的答卷却成绩平平。截止2000年年中，印度仍有3020万人生活在贫困线以下，四岁以下儿童营养不足率高达46%，印度的文盲人数高居世界首位。 并且，经济的增长还拉大了社会差距，印度各邦间的经济增长和人道发展水平相差悬殊。因此，在制定第十一个五年计划时，印度政府表示将努力实现双重目标，即在加快经济增速的同时扩大经济增长的惠及面，让更多人享受到经济增长的成果。

　　第十一个五年计划的中期评估于2009年10月举行，与此同时，古吉拉特发展研究学院在艾哈迈达巴德召开了一次全国性会议，探讨印度在实现普惠型经济增长方面所取得的进展。与会者在该次会议上所提出的报告内容，为本政策概要所采纳，本政策概要将重点论述该次会议所探讨的三项主题：农业、就业、治理。

　　实现普惠型增长：挑战与选择

　　农业

　　由于百分之六十以上的印度工人从事农业以及与农业相关的活动，因此，农业部门在帮助降低贫困率方面具有巨大潜力。但相对而言，最近几年里这一潜力并未能得到实现。部分原因在于，农业生产率的提高速度非常缓慢，而农业生产率对于农业部门就业的数量和质量起到关键性作用。农业生产率下降，导致农业部门无法吸收农村剩余劳动力，农业工人的工资水平因此一直处于较低水平。此外，即使在一些农业生产率获得提高的地区，例如古吉拉特，农业生产率的提高似乎也并未产生减少贫困的效果。

　　挑战与选择

　　要实现农业部门的潜力，让农业部门为普惠型增长做出贡献，就需要强调生产率的作用，因为生产率的增长将提高农场工人的收入水平。农业生产率增长所带来的成效还会溢出到农村地区的非农场部门，如果同期再对农村基础建设进行投入，则这种溢出效果将更加为明显。印度在绿色革命期间利用了大量地下水资源，由此导致供水紧缺，与此同时，工业和家庭用水需求却日趋增长，为农业部门未来可持续发展提出重大挑战。例如，印度至少百分之三十以上的水利潜能尚未得到开发(这将是未来一个很有前途的投资领域)，在干旱和半干旱地区建造分水岭，将会显现出良好的成效。以奥利沙邦为例，虽然该邦具有丰富的水利资源，但薄弱的水利基础设施却阻碍了当地的发展，当地需要寻找新方法来扩建一批质量过关的水利系统。例如，奥利沙邦政府已实施了一项全新的水利政策。根据该政策规定，奥利沙邦将设立多个水用户协会(简称WUA)，水用户协会负有运营和维护基础设施的责任，同时，该政策还对水费价格的提高以及基础设施的运营维护做出规定。先前经验显示，如果 水用户协会(简称WUA)能够在产能开发方面获得足够的支持，并且能够获得完善的基础设施，这样的合作将会进展顺利。

　　虽然印度拥有较为发达的公有和私有种子部门，但自从绿色革命推出高产种子品种之后，印度农业在种子技术领域未有任何重大突破。基因革命实现了转基因作物的生产，有望制造出显著超越原有种子品种的作物种子。但这些种子常常超出小型农场主的购买力，并且绝大多数农民并不了解新型种子技术。因此，开发质量更优的、价格可为农民所承受的种子，帮助农民了解种子的优势，将对农业生产率的提高起到关键性作用。

　　与此同时，订单农业和农业价值链同样有望帮助降低贫困率。调查显示，(1)处于食品零售链上的农民，其所获得的利润，往往高于处于食品零售链之外的农民，(2)拥有雄厚资产基础的大型农场主，往往最有机会接触到食品零售链。研究人员分析了古吉拉特的一个名为Reliance Fresh生鲜食品零售链，分析结果印证了上述观点：在古吉拉特农民中，百分之二为大地主，百分之二十七为拥有零星土地的小农，但在于Reliance Fresh生鲜食品零售链有往来的农民众，百分之二十一为大地主，没有一个小农。研究人员在对印度南部的大米种子以及小黄瓜种植的展开调查后，也得出类似的结论。

　　在其他地区，把贫困人群纳入价值链中的做法，也取得显著成效。例如，很多家庭妇女有机会与为国际国内服装饰品生产链条工作，有证据显示，小农能够从西孟加拉邦的茶叶产业获得不菲的利润。

　　就业

　　印度在就业方面的表现一直令人失望，而适龄工作人口的日益增长愈发加剧了这一情形。最明显的问题是第二产业和第三产业的增长未能制造出更多的工作岗位，因而抑制了增长所带来的减贫效应。而增长所创造的工作岗位，多为个体经营者或无报酬家属工从事的非正规自谋职业。即使在正规部门，就业机会也开始向短期合同或者更加临时的合作方向发展。不仅如此，全球金融危机致使非正规部门收入下降，限制商业信贷的发放数额，大大降低印度出口产品的市场需求，导致正规部门工作岗位的流失。例如，2008年11月初，仅珠宝业一个部门就减少了三十万个工作岗位。

　　挑战与选择

　　如果贫困人群能在制造业或服务业获得高薪工作，或者能在非正规部门实现更高的生产率，那么，创造就业机会对于扩大经济增长的惠及面，将起到巨大的推动作用。 要创造更多就业机会，工人的技能水平需要得到提高，而潜在雇主对劳动力的需求也需进一步增加。虽然印度政府基本上没有相应政策工具来提高私有部门的需求，但在未来有望举办适当的技能培训活动。在 第十一个五年计划中，政府承诺将把工业培训学院及中心的数量提高到原有数量的10倍，其中500所工业培训学院将成为与产业挂钩的顶尖技术中心。政府将提供与工业、服务业、农业和农村就业相关的各种培训，并计划将劳动人口中掌握技能的人数比例从现有的百分之五提高至百分之五十。

　　不仅如此，政府还能够为最为弱势的人们创造就业机会，印度政府已经通过《国家农村就业保障法案》为农村弱势群体创造就业机会。《国家农村就业保障法案》保障农村家庭至少获得100天就业上岗时间，该法案通过自选择机制确定帮扶对象。在金融危机刚刚结束之际，农村就业状况雪上加霜，此时推出这一计划尤为恰当。《国家农村就业保障法案》取得的了不可低估的成绩：在2007-2008年期间，330个县共创造了14.37亿个工作日。 我们可将这一数据与Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana 计划 (《国家农村就业保障法案》的前身)以及《全国以工换粮计划》进行比较， 上述两项计划在印度每个县实行，共创造11.16亿个工作日。

　　不过，《国家农村就业保障法案》在不少问题上也遭到批评，该项计划的高成本和实施中的泄损更是遭到指责。 回顾《国家农村就业保障法案》在西孟加拉邦的实施过程，从表面看，负责实施计划的各所潘查亚特(Panchayati Raj)机构普遍存在产能不足的问题，计划参与者中的女性比例低于指标要求，薪资支付存在拖延现象，与此同时，信息传播不够充分，而这有可能降低人们对《国家农村就业保障法案》就业机会的需求。要充分实现《国家农村就业保障法案》促进普惠型增长的作用，政府所面临的一个关键挑战便是为上述问题找到解决方案。

　　治理

　　虽然印度早在第十个五年计划中已经强调了实现良好治理的重要性，但目前印度仍然存在一系列有待解决的问题。精英与贫民之间出现断层，领导人才匮乏不足，在技术精英治理模式下，高收入阶层占据主导地位，高收入阶层的经验与观点决定治理走向，这些都是目前存在的突出问题。 这些不足之处受到人们的广泛抗议，抗议之声不仅来自那些大致接受体制状况但要求扩大经济增长惠及面的人们，也来自那些彻底排斥体制的人们，如纳萨尔派成员。

　　挑战与选择

　　面对人们普遍提出的提高透明度、扩大惠及面的要求，到目前为止，印度政府所做出的应对包括，加强官僚化管理，并在某些情况下诉诸治安力量。特别在纳萨尔派运动中，情况尤其如此。对于政府而言，采取措施，缩小技术精英统治阶层与穷人之间的差距(绝大多数穷人其实都是政府政策的被动接受者)，促进这两个群体之间的信息流通，才是更为有效的可持续应对方法。在此过程中，政府可借助于新近推出的一些行动计划，例如某些形式的电子政府、社会审计、媒体观察、以及加强司法改善治理等等。

　　如果印度政府能够更加深入、全面地将其减贫模式转变为从权利出发的减贫模式，并且 从权利出发的减贫模式本身设计合理，并得到有效的实施， 那么这种减贫模式的转变将能发挥长效作用，帮助实现治理和减贫目标，促进惠及型增长。近期制定的《林权法》的有关实践，就从权利出发的减贫模式的实施，上了启发性的一课。印度政府制定《林权法》的目的在于，对于部落群体成员使用多年并且赖以谋生的土地，政府将向他们授予该些土地的法律权力。 在安得拉邦，《林权法》的实施已取得一定进展，但该法案仍然存在一些操作上的难题。其中一个主要问题在于法案的潜在受益者对于法案缺乏足够的认识。 调查显示，由于村民需要从事其他日常活动，并且开会地点过于遥远(会议通常为村务委员会一级会议，而非小村一级会议)，村民常常无法出席有关会议。因此，潜在申请人往往缺乏有关申请资格、申请表递交期限、通过何种适当途径获取递交申请所需的必要证据等事项的关键信息。如前所述，认识的缺乏同样也阻碍了人们对于 国家农村就业保障计划的参与。 这说明，从权利出发的减贫模式是否能够成功，在很大程度上取决于受益对象是否认识到自身的权利，是否了解如何去主张实现这些权利。

　　结论

　　为实现更加普惠型的经济增长，印度正为此付出努力，也遇到了一系列重大问题。这些问题包括农业生产率增长缓慢、经济增长未能创造出更多就业机会、治理体制未能充分倾听穷人和弱势群体的声音。在农业部门，解决这些问题需要在农业和经济领域引进革新，尤其是以下方面：种子制造、水利系统、合约农业、技能培训、以及如何采取措施提高政府政策惠及面和透明度。特别需要强调的是，政府如能将减贫模式转变为从权利出发的减贫模式，将大大促进未来减贫工作，但在转向从权利出发的减贫模式时，政府还需要努力确保扶贫对象理解自身权利，并且能够主张这些权利。