Social Sector Reforms in India

Since 1990s India is being projected as a nation shining and rising but that does not reflects the true image. There is still a lot needs to be done as we still are a country where more than 100000 villages dont have telecommunication networks, where a quarter of population lives below poverty line constituting one third of the worlds poor population and where more than 70% countrymen live in deprived rural areas. Though the economic reforms of 1990s helped in stimulating growth, the people who benefitted most were already well to do urban people. On the basis of expectancy of life, access to education and standard of living as compared to countries having a lower or equal GDP, India is rated very low by UNDP. India has the worlds largest illiterate and HIV infected populations. Bihar and Orissa seems to encapsulate all of Indias woes a poverty rate greater than 40%; utter corruption; a deeply rooted caste system; and 75% of its villages without primary schools, health care, and electricity. Social sector development by the government has a significant importance, because it satisfies social wants of the people and enables social welfare maximization of the society as a whole. If India is to achieve continued economic growth and define herself as a world power, social and economic reforms must occur in tandem. Despite a variety of approaches, programmes and schemes to alleviate poverty; hunger, malnourishment, illiteracy and lack of basic amenities continue to be a common feature in many parts of India. Though the policy towards poverty alleviation has evolved in a progressive manner, over the last five and a half decades, it has not undergone any radical transformation. There are three major areas of concern which prevent their successful implementation of these programmes. Firstly, due to unequal distribution of land and other assets, the benefits from direct poverty alleviation programmes have been appropriated by the non-poor. Secondly, compared to the magnitude of poverty, the amount of resources allocated for these programmes is not sufficient. Third, these programmes depend mainly on government and bank officials for their implementation. Since such officials are ill motivated, inadequately trained, corruption prone and vulnerable to pressure from a variety of local elites, the resources are inefficiently used and wasted. There is also non-participation of local level institutions in programme implementation.