Choosing a Human Development Grant in a Sitamarhi Block
An administrative block in Sitamarhi reports the following. Of 4,000 households, 62% have at least one member working outside the district for part of the year, mostly in Punjab and Delhi. Among 1,200 young people aged 18–25, 21% are without any paid work and are not in education or training, but only 9% have any skill certificate. In the local primary health centre, 38% of children under five are stunted. MGNREGA provided an average of 42 days of work per household last year against the 100 days allowed. The block has one industrial training institute 40 km away and a leaky government school building. The district has received ₹5 crore under a 'human development' grant and the block officer must choose one main spending plan for the year: (a) a residential skill-training centre for 200 youth, (b) a nutrition and counselling programme for mothers and children, (c) a cash transfer of ₹2,000 per household, or (d) a new road to the block headquarters. Local politicians favour the road; a women's group demands the nutrition programme.
1. Using the data, distinguish between income poverty and capability deprivation in this block. Which of the four options addresses capability deprivation most directly, and why?
Read the worked answer
Income poverty is a shortfall in current income or consumption: the 62% migration figure and 42 days of MGNREGA work suggest weak local earning opportunities. Capability deprivation is a shortfall in what people can do and become - health, education, skills, information. The 38% stunting rate, 21% of youth not in work or education, and only 9% with a skill certificate are capability indicators.
Which option? The nutrition and counselling programme addresses capability most directly. Stunting in the first five years is largely irreversible and affects learning, adult productivity and health spending. Cash transfers raise current consumption but do not restore lost growth; the road is enabling infrastructure with a long lag; the skill centre is valuable but reaches only 200 youth and comes late for children already stunted.
Caveat. The best choice depends on the block's existing nutrition staff and whether the programme can actually deliver. A skill centre would be second because it converts youth capability into income. A transparent answer should state the criterion - irreversibility and long-run returns - not just the option.
2. The block's unemployment figure of 21% may understate the problem. Explain two reasons why measured unemployment can be low or misleading in a rural block like this.
Read the worked answer
1. The usual-status measure counts only active job-seekers. A person who works even one hour in the reference week, or does unpaid family work on the farm, is counted as employed. In this block many people do intermittent casual work or help on the family plot; they are employed but underemployed. The 21% figure therefore misses low-productivity and irregular work.
2. Discouraged and migrant workers drop out. People who have stopped looking for work are outside the labour force. The 62% of households with a migrant member also means the local unemployment rate excludes people who left to find work; their absence can make the local figure look better than the local job situation.
3. Women's work is undercounted. Much of women's work - livestock, kitchen gardens, unpaid family labour - is not reported as employment.
Implication. The 21% is a lower bound on the problem. A better picture needs underemployment, days worked, earnings and NEET data.
3. The officer wants a decision rule that is transparent. Propose two criteria she should use to compare the options, and show how the road and the skill centre would be judged against them.
Read the worked answer
Criterion 1 - targeting the most deprived. Does the spending reach the households with the worst capability outcomes? Nutrition reaches under-fives and mothers; the road reaches whoever can use it, often the better-connected.
Criterion 2 - cost per measurable outcome. Compare cost per child stunted avoided, per trainee placed in a job, per household reached. The road's benefits are real but hard to attribute; the skill centre's placement rate can be tracked; nutrition has measurable anthropometric outcomes.
Criterion 3 - irreversibility and timing. Stunting is irreversible; a road can be built next year. This favours nutrition now.
Applying them. The road scores low on targeting and high on visibility; it may be captured and has weak evidence on stunting or skills. The skill centre scores well on targeting youth but needs placement links and may cost more per person. The nutrition programme scores highest on irreversibility and targeting, but only if health staff and supply chains exist.
Transparent rule. Publish the criteria and the baseline data, and require the chosen programme to report outcomes after one year. That makes the trade-off open to challenge.