Themain aim of new economic policy was to reduce poverty, increase employment and advancementof living condition of the poor, between 1972-73 and 1993-94 the continuingunemployment rate among rural and urban communities, between in 1972-73 2%,1993-94 2.8% in rural India, and between in 1973-74 4.5%, in 1993-94 6.5% inUrban India, their poverty is reflected by their earnings rather than by theirunemployment status (Jha, 2000). Majority ofpopulation is living in rural areas as per census data 2001 total populationwas 102.9 crores where rural population was 74.
3% as per census data 2011 totalpopulation is 121.0 crores where rural population is 83.3%, India’s overallliteracy rate in 2001 was 64.
- Thesis Statement
- Structure and Outline
- Voice and Grammar
8% where as in rural area it was 58.7 and in urbanareas it was 79.9 in 2011 total literacy is 74.0% where rural literacy is 68.
9%and urban is 85.0%. (Chandramouli, 2011) Economic reform in India was crateregional difference among state to state and rural to urban in terms ofsocio-economic development, the new economic reform policy have been tracked into Industrial part as effect of this economic reform would have wide regional disparityand changing in income distribution among states, this income difference create incomeinequality and poverty among sates and rural and urban, new economic reformmore urban based, this changes resulting many problems in urban-rural areas, InIndia after the 1991-92 the poverty dropt comparing to before 1991 (1993-94,& 1999-2000 period 1 & 2) in the1st period of economic reform the deference of poverty between urban& rural was little but in the second period it was big gap between ruraland urban, in the same period between the state also poverty and urbanization,rural problems pointed in out (N.R. Bhanumurthy and Arup Mitra, 2014)Table1. Growth in Real GDP (&) perannum S.L No Period Agriculture Industry GDP 1. 1950s 2.
7 5.6 3.6 2 1960s 2.5 6.3 4.0 3 1970s 1.
3 3.6 2.9 4 1980 4.4 5.9 5.6 5 1990s 3.2 5.7 5.
8 6 2000s 2.5 7.7 7.2 7 2011-12 to 2015-16 (NS) 1.7 5.5 6.5 NS: New Serieswith 2011-12 based The Above table clearly indicatethat growth of agriculture sector and industrial sector as we know theindustries are established in urban area where the employment and earnings& wages are high compare to the rural areas and agriculture sector wasgrowing slow which crated income inequality and poverty, in agriculture areafrom last year its coming down which is the main source of income for ruralIndia the above table indicates how the gapbetween the urban and rural communities in equal in India. Table2 Urban and rural literacy rate in India since 1991-2011 S.
L No Year Urban Literacy Rural Literacy Total Literacy Gap in Literacy 1. 1991 67.2% 36% 52.2% 31% 2. 2001 79.9% 58.7% 64.8 21% 3.
2011 85.0% 68.9 74.0 17% Source: Census of India. Ministry ofHome Affairs Government of India.
1991-2011data. Thetable no 2 shows that the literacy rate in India still we are not reached upthe expectation from 1991 to 2011 hug gap created between the urban and rural1991, 2001,2011, the gap was 31%,21%,17% respectively, Table 3 Poverty Line in 2011-12 Tendulka Committee Rangarajan Committee. Monthly Per Capita Monthly Per Household Per Year per House Hold Monthly Per Capita Monthly Per Household Per Year per House Hold Rural 860 4080 48,960 972 4860 58,320 Urban 1000 5000 60,000 1407 7035 84,420 Source:GOI 2009 – 2014 This table shows that, the incomeand expenses of people among rural and urban whereas rural people are earn lessand their expenses also very less compare to urban areas it shows thedistribution of income in India. Table 04: Poverty Ratio and Number of Poor: ExpertGroup ( Lakdawala) Method 2009 S.L NO Year Poverty Ratio % Rural Urban 1. 1973-74 56.
4 49.0 2. 1977-78 53.
1 45.2 3. 1983-84 45.7 40.8 4. 1987-88 39.
1 38.2 5. 1993-94 37.3 32.
4 6. 2004-05 28.3 25.7 7. 2011-12 (Dr. C Rangarajan Report Planning commotion chairman 2014) 30.9 26.4 Sources: Government of India,Planning Commotion Report 2009-2014.
Table 5 Poverty in 2016-17 Rural Poverty Urban Poverty Rural and Urban Combined Per Capita Per Month Rural Per Capita Per Month Urban 28.3 % 25.7 % 27.5 % 356.30 538.60 Source:Perspective planning Commission, Government of India New Delhi The above tables table number 04 %05 respectively shows that the poverty ratio among rural and urban communitiesafter economic reform also we are not achieve the equality in poverty andincome distribution in India.
Data base analysis between ruraland urban: Theabove tables from table number 1 to 5 are shows that, various factors whichaffect the poverty and income inequality among urban and rural people, in India.More than 70% of population is living in rural area. Rural people are moredepended on agriculture and related income, but economic reforms mostlyconcentered on urban areas and industries, which was marked in number ofdevelopment at the same time invisible pains also erupted, the above dataclearly shows that, the economic reform and post period of reform was effectedrural areas and their income which Cause poverty. Income inequality, slowgrowth of literacy, problem of rural employment, low quality of life many more problems were pointed out wherecompare to urban areas rural peoples were more effected by the economic reformin India. Due to economic reforms in Indiacreated vistas for urban development and industrialization. En numbers of jobopportunities have been created and new technologies have adopted. in mean timethe people from rural area used to migrate to urban area for seekinglivelihood, for doing so urban areas filled with huge population hence,different problems were raised in urban area. In other context rural areas wereaffected due to urban centered economic reform.
The rural economy beingneglected, even though, the rural sectors contribute more for Indian economy.The negligence created lack of innovative technologies in agriculture, downfallof agriculture market, diminishing value for domestic industries these are allcauses for unemployment in rural areas intern it led to poverty. PolicyImplication The Government of India made numberof policies and programmes to improve the agriculture sector but sill it is notup the level of expectation the economic reform was completely neglected areatherefor exclusively agriculture reform is necessary to meet the expectation of present andupcoming population in the country. Importance must be given to the agriculture sector in all future reformsbecause the agriculture sector will create many jobs; this sector also includesthe rural industrialization cottage industries homemade industries and overallrural development. This will be rise income of the formers and rural labours onsustainable form. There is one more urgent need to raise public investment inthe field of agriculture. Some important area need investment is irrigation,watershed development, rural infrastructure, housing, sanitation, employment;drinking water this will help the income equality among rural and urban.
With the agriculture reform we needto look after about good governance, the prime objective of the governmentshould be welfare of the natation not only the development of the nations thistwo concept are similar but this crate cap between the rural and urban and richand poor in the country, in future economic reform should be more people centerto enhance the capacity of the population and need is to enhance the socialempowerment in quality basis of the marginal groups of the society. This will be the economic growth of thenation and also it reduce the gap between rich and poor urban and rural povertyand income inequality will be reduce, through capacity building skilldevelopment crating job and business environment and helping rural people notonly in agriculture but also business industries trade etc., for this changesand development we need good governess with corruption less and selfishness. Conclusion: The pains and gains of the neweconomic reforms was pointed many changes and development in India. The economicreform was created remarkable changes in Indian economy.
Which was welcome, butsome of inequality created unknowingly that should be rectified through thefuture policy implications. The post economic reform period was not bad, withrespect to potential problems of growing. Economic reform has done better, it’svery clear there are policy improvement that can help future in managing incomeand development among rural and urban. The new reform must have long termvision of transforming country in to world economic power in coming days; also governmentshould give equal priority to urban and rural, poor and rich in the country.