The Extent, Nature and Distribution of Child Poverty in India

Abstract

Despite a long history, research on poverty has only relatively recently examined the issue of child poverty as a distinct topic of concern. This article examines how child poverty and well-being are now conceptualized, defined and measured, and presents a portrait of child poverty in India by social and cultural groups, and by geographic area. In December 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted a definition of child poverty which noted that children living in poverty were deprived of (among other things) nutrition, water and sanitation facilities, access to basic health care services, shelter and education. The definition noted that while poverty hurts every human being ‘it is most threatening and harmful to children, leaving them unable to enjoy their rights, to reach their full potential and to participate as full members of the society’. Researchers have developed age-specific and gender-sensitive indicators of deprivation which conform to the UN definition of child poverty and which can be used to examine the extent and nature of child poverty in low and middle-income countries. These new methods have ‘transformed the way UNICEF and many of its partners both understood and measured the poverty suffered by children’ (UNICEF, 2009). This article uses these methods and presents results of child poverty in India based on nationally representative household survey data for India.

Child Poverty and Gender and Location Disparities in Zimbabwe: A Multidimensional Deprivation Approach

“…In Table , I summarized these results by clarifying that all 14 items were “good” measures (i.e., valid, reliable, and additive). These findings align with many existing studies of this nature (Gordon & Nandy, ; Gordon et al, ; Hallerod et al, ; UNICEF–Zimbabwe, ). However, unlike in these existing studies, I performed my analyses using non‐income external validators.…”

“…Until the last 20–30 years, child poverty was viewed in terms of overall income poverty (Abdu & Delamonica, ). To a large extent, this view is still pervasive in present times (Gordon & Nandy, ). Income (child) poverty measures basically look at the living standards and well‐being of the families in which children live and from the perspective of carers (Gordon & Nandy, ).…”

“…This definition aligns with that of absolute poverty adopted by UNGA earlier on at the 1995 World Summit for Social Development (see note 1). UNGA's () definition remains the most globally recognized description of absolute poverty to date (Gordon & Nandy, ). Further, both the foregoing definitions of absolute poverty and child poverty are in conformity with an earlier position of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (), which stipulates that, for the fulfillment of human rights,

a minimum core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights is incumbent upon every member state party.

…”

“…Similarly, the few non‐income child poverty studies available are fraught with their own unique gaps and limitations. Accordingly, valid and reliable measures are urgently needed to address these knowledge gaps so as to institute appropriate responses (Gordon & Nandy, ). The first five years of life are the most crucial, as this is when children develop their psychosocial and cognitive skills, and learn to think of and communicate and connect with others (Boivin & Hertzman, ).…”

“…As depicted in Tables and , I operationalize my idealized taxonomy using global standards like, for example, UNICEF's core indicators and those used in similar studies (e.g., Gordon & Nandy, , Gordon and Nandy, ; Gordon et al, ; Hallerod et al, ; Nandy, Irving, Gordon, Subramanian, & Davey‐Smith, ; Nandy & Miranda, ; Nandy & Pomati, ; UNICEF–Zimbabwe, ). Where available, such as for water and sanitation (ZIMSTAT, ; ZIMSTAT & ICF International, ), I use official national standards.…”