Poverty Reduction Knowledge Portal

Foreword

Daleep Mukarji

When I started the Rural Unit for Health and Social Affairs (RUHSA) in 1977, the guiding philosophy was simple: “Health is both a means and a measure of poverty.” In practical terms, it meant that health and poverty are inseparably linked. Shortly after RUHSA began, I invited Rajaratnam Abel (Abel) to take over the health component while I focused on the economic side of poverty. Our medical background had taught us that health interventions cannot be sustained without simultaneous economic development. RUHSA became the testing ground for this hypothesis.

During my years there, I had the privilege of introducing several initiatives—floriculture, water for drinking and agriculture, vocational training for educated unemployed youth, broiler poultry, and cattle crossbreeding. When I left RUHSA, Abel was entrusted with continuing this leadership.

I never imagined that the wider institutional leadership would have the depth of understanding to support this experiment, because a programme of RUHSA’s scale required significant resources. Fortunately, Abel received full support to continue the work, and RUHSA eventually became a model worth emulating.

Between the two of us, God has given us different skills. I was given the gift of public speaking, which helped promote RUHSA in its early years. Abel was given the gift of documenting and writing scientifically. Along with the RUHSA team and visiting professionals, he published over seventy scientific articles, many in internationally referenced journals. Later, he authored two books—the first describing RUHSA’s programme inputs, and the second analysing their impact on reducing poverty.

I am delighted that he can now link up with ChatGPT and bring this RUHSA experience into the field of Artificial Intelligence, allowing a much wider audience to learn and apply the principles and strategies of poverty reduction globally. If applied, these insights can help the poor and reduce poverty worldwide.

About the Author

Rajaratnam Abel has spent more than four decades in public health, community development, and poverty reduction, beginning with his years at the Rural Unit for Health and Social Affairs (RUHSA). His work has taken him into villages, self-help groups, and development organisations across India. The lessons drawn in this portal come from those lived experiences — shaped not by theory, but by walking alongside the poor and learning from them.

Preface

This portal is the fruit of decades of work in poverty reduction, but it is not mine alone. It is shaped by the experiences of communities, colleagues, and organisations who walked this journey with me. It is also the outcome of God’s wisdom and guidance. Without His leading, none of this would have been possible. To Him belongs all the glory.

As I look back, I see both the progress made and the work still unfinished. It would be easy to take pride in what has been done, but I am reminded instead to remain humble. This portal is not about achievements but about service — service to the poor, and through them, to God.

Why This Portal

Why another publication on poverty reduction? The answer is clear: because poverty persists, and the voices of the poor are often ignored. Over time, economics shifted away from poverty, focusing instead on growth and markets. This portal challenges that shift, refocusing attention on poverty reduction as the central concern.

It is not a textbook. It is not a policy manual. It is a living record of practice, reflection, and faith. It brings together experiences from RUHSA, stories from communities, and insights from wider debates. Its aim is simple: to share knowledge that can be used, adapted, and built upon — so that poverty is not studied at a distance but confronted with compassion and courage.

Introduction: Called, Sent, and Guided

It was the last day of my medical education at Christian Medical College, Vellore. I had studied for seven years and was about to embark on my first posting in a small village in the foothills of Nepal. Sleep eluded me that night. At midnight, I felt God calling me to the rooftop of the Men’s Interns Quarters.

Standing there, overlooking the quiet Katpadi Road, I surrendered my life to Jesus. I did not know the path ahead, only that I was to follow Him wherever He led. The very next day, I began a three-day train journey to Nepal, unsure of when I would return or what lay ahead. That rooftop decision set the course of my life.

Starting from a thirty-bed hospital in Nepal, to hospital-based clinical work in Ranchi, Pune, and Krishna District of Andhra, to decades with RUHSA in Tamil Nadu, God led me step by step. Each turn, including disappointments such as a denied US visa, revealed His plan in ways I only understood later. Alongside me, my wife Jolly became both partner and colleague, building data systems that gave RUHSA’s work credibility and permanence.

What I learned in those years is simple: every intervention must touch lives at scale not just individuals. A doctor can treat patients one by one, but poverty reduction requires transforming systems so that thousands — even millions — can benefit. Today, with the help of this portal and the reach of technology, I pray that these lessons can serve not only in Tamil Nadu but across the world. To God belongs all the glory.

Part I: The Problem

Why Poverty Reduction Disappeared from Mainstream Economics

For much of the twentieth century, poverty reduction was not at the centre of economics. The subject was not ignored entirely, but it was treated as secondary. It was an afterthought to growth, trade, supply and demand and free markets. The mainstream of the profession concerned itself with abstract theories and elegant models, while the lives of the poor were pushed to the margins.

The Illusion of Growth as a Cure

One reason was the assumption that growth alone would solve poverty. If national income increased, it was believed, benefits would “trickle down” to everyone.

Initially, this seemed plausible. Rising GDP in industrialised countries after the Second World War coincided with improvements in welfare. But when this logic was applied across the developing world, it faltered. Growth often came at the expense of inequality, leaving millions still trapped in poverty. Yet economists clung to the promise of growth as the universal cure.

Overconfidence in Markets

Another reason was the faith placed in free markets. Thinkers like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek championed minimal government, arguing that the “invisible hand” introduced by Adam Smith would allocate resources efficiently. This line of thinking became dominant in the 1980s and 1990s, shaping structural adjustment programs and global trade rules. But for the poor, the results were harsh: cuts in social spending, reduced subsidies, and exposure to global markets without protection. Economics became more about efficiency than equity, and more about markets than people.

The Rise of Abstract Models

At the same time, economics grew increasingly mathematical. Models of perfect competition, rational agents, and self-correcting markets were elegant on paper but far removed from village life in Tamil Nadu or tribal areas in Gujarat and Jharkhand. Realities like hunger, malnutrition, lack of access to health care, and the daily struggles of the poor did not fit neatly into equations. As the discipline sought precision, it lost relevance.

Marginal Voices

This does not mean there were no voices for the poor. Amartya Sen broadened the understanding of poverty as capability deprivation. He was part of the team that introduced the Human Development Index. John Kenneth Galbraith spoke of the indifference of economists to mass poverty. Paulo Freire, though not an economist, reminded us that development must be participatory and liberating. But these voices were marginal compared to the dominant orthodoxy of markets, growth, and abstraction.

The Cost of Neglect

The result was that millions of poor people were left outside the frame. Policies shaped by economic advice often bypassed their realities. Aid and development programs, guided by top-down models, rarely engaged with grassroots experiences. The failure was not only technical but moral: economics lost sight of its responsibility to serve people, especially the poorest.

This is the problem that gives rise to our portal. If mainstream economics has sidelined poverty, then we must bring it back to the centre. And we must do so not by theory alone, but by grounding knowledge in lived experience. The next chapters turn to RUHSA and other community experiences — not as footnotes to economic theory, but as the heart of what poverty reduction really means.

Part II The Practice

Drinking Water Access

Clean and safe drinking water is one of the most essential requirements of daily living. When this vital need is met, the poor become responsive to other economic interventions. When RUHSA was established in the late 1970s, there was little emphasis on clean water. People did not know the link between contaminated water and diarrhoea. This was a common cause of death among children then. Very often, water would be contaminated with cholera germs as people practised open defecation.

The common source of drinking water in those days was open wells. Some families had to walk long distances to fetch drinking water from the few wells that served an entire village. There were inadequate efforts made to keep these sources of water clean, which were often contaminated and unsafe. Meeting this need early on in the programme gave confidence to the poorest to be prepared for the changes that were to come.

Working with World Vision of India (WVI), RUHSA introduced over one hundred India Mark II borewells across the block. WVI expected a small contribution from the community for these borewells. Initially, wealthier neighbourhoods captured these borewells by paying the required contribution early. Later, these were directed to poorer hamlets, ensuring access to safe water for those most in need.

Equity in Access

Water scarcity often sharpens inequality. RUHSA’s approach tried to reverse this. By prioritising poor and marginalised communities, borewells and irrigation schemes became not only technical fixes but also tools of justice. Families who had long suffered the burden of carrying water from distant sources now had taps within reach.

Lessons Learned

By meeting an essential right at the beginning of a programme, the poorest tend to participate more actively in the larger development process. While community contribution, even by the poorest, is important, efforts must be made to ensure that richer community members do not hijack services meant for the poorest. Not every organisation may be fortunate to have an institution like WVI, providing 100 borewells. Even within small budgets, providing small funds for borewells in needy areas would contribute towards effective community participation.

Part II: The Practice

Community Decision-Making by the Poorest

Poverty reduction is not only about programs and projects — it is about power. Who makes the decisions that shape a community? Too often, the poorest are the most affected by policies but the least heard in discussions. RUHSA’s experience showed that unless the poorest of the poor themselves participate in decision-making, interventions risk missing their mark.

The Missing Voices

In many village meetings, the voices of the wealthier and more powerful dominated. The poorest — landless labourers, widows, marginalised castes — were present but silent. Even when government policies mandated participation, real influence rarely flowed down to the bottom. Decisions about resource allocation, priorities, and leadership were shaped from above.

Creating Space for the Poorest

RUHSA sought to involve the poorest to participate in decision-making for their own development. Representatives of the poorest were invited to our campus to decide how we should use the money available for their own development. In the first round, they rejected all except one among what we as staff thought was good for them. They chose only goats as appropriate for them. In the second round, they went one step further and requested help to replace thatched roofs, which needed replacement every three years. We agreed on both of the above. In the third round, they were hesitant and apologetic to make an even costlier request. Instead of replacing a leaking thatched roof, they wanted to know if we were prepared for an even more costly tiled roof. We said the cost is high, and the number of beneficiaries would come down. They reasoned that a thatched roof would last only three years. On the other hand, a tiled roof would last thirty years. Their reasoning won, and we gave them tiled roofs. This is the power of decision-making by the poorest. We always treated them as honoured guests and provided a sumptuous meal after the meetings. If safe drinking water was considered the first priority, when invited to decide their needs, the poorest reluctantly chose a stable roof as their first priority.

Women in Leadership

Legally, one-third of elected positions in local governance were reserved for women. In practice, many of these seats were controlled by male relatives. RUHSA worked to challenge this by equipping women with the skills and knowledge to exercise leadership themselves. Progress was uneven and slow, but the presence of active women leaders began to change community dynamics.

Breaking Dependency

Participation in decision-making also meant breaking dependency on outside “experts.” Instead of waiting for government officers or consultants to decide for them, communities were encouraged to set their own priorities. This shift was not easy — decades of paternalism had left many people believing they had little to contribute. Yet when given the chance, communities often identified practical, effective solutions overlooked by outsiders. They cleaned the dirty streets. They organised integrated camps with professionals to help the physically challenged individuals get all the documentation required to obtain available government resources.

Lessons Learned

True poverty reduction requires more than delivering services. It requires shifting power so that the poor have a say in the choices that affect their lives. Empowerment is not charity; it is justice. When the poorest take part in decision-making, development becomes more relevant, more sustainable, and more humane.

Part II: The Practice

Self-Help Groups and Women’s Empowerment

When poverty is examined from the ground, one truth emerges clearly: women are central. They are often the first to feel the pinch of hunger, the ones who stretch small incomes to cover household needs, and the ones who hold communities together. It was natural, therefore, that one of RUHSA’s most significant interventions in poverty reduction began with women. However, for more than a decade, we experienced repeated failure, in spite of investing heavily in this area. It changed when we brought in the concept of Self Help Groups, introduced by The International Fund for Agricultural Development in Rome.

The Rise of Self-Help Groups

The concept of self-help groups (SHGs) grew in India as a way of pooling small savings to create larger collective resources. At RUHSA, these groups became not only financial tools but also spaces of solidarity. Women, many of them poor and marginalised, came together to save a few rupees each week. Over time, these savings allowed them to access credit from their own group savings without turning to moneylenders.

More than Money

But SHGs were never only about money. They became forums where women gained confidence, where they spoke out in public, and where decisions once left to men could now be shared. In villages where women had been silent, SHGs gave them a collective voice. They could recover defaulted loans by members. Formal and structured training sessions were often woven into group meetings, making them centres of empowerment as well as financial activity.

Breaking Barriers

The changes were not always easy. Resistance came from within households, where husbands or elders sometimes objected to women stepping out. Yet the visible benefits — loans for school fees, capital for small enterprises, emergency funds for health expenses — made it hard to deny the value of SHGs. Over time, through gentle prodding by RUHSA staff, men themselves began to acknowledge the contribution made by the SHGs and supported them.

Measurable Impact

The results could be seen both in numbers and in lives. Households that once relied on informal debt saw their dependency decline. Small businesses were started, such as tailoring, petty shops, goat rearing, milk processing. Each created incremental improvements. Just as important, women reported feeling more respected, more able to participate in community decisions, and more secure in times of crisis. Banks recognised the power of the SHGs and their creditworthiness and made bank credit readily available.

In 2002, when there was a major earthquake in the state of Gujarat, the SHGs in one village quickly raised money to give to the affected people. A team of SHG women visited the actual site and distributed their donations to the affected families.

Another three SHGs from one village got together and seized a unique opportunity provided by the government to manage their milk parlour inside the busy Christian Medical College Hospital campus. RUHSA facilitated in helping them employ an educated accountant. Together, they have grown over two decades. Their wages have increased tenfold. While those who work get their wages, all of the members in the three groups get a share of the profit, in addition to the festival gifts twice a year.

Lessons Learned

SHGs at RUHSA showed that poverty reduction is not only about resources but also about relationships. A few rupees saved each week could not transform entire economies, but it could transform lives by giving women agency. When women are empowered, families and communities follow. The power of organised women contributes to the sustainability of all development programmes in the community.

Part II: The Practice

Entrepreneurship and Youth Skills

Poverty is not only about lack of money — it is also about lack of opportunity. Many young people in rural areas complete their schooling with few options for further study or meaningful work. Too often, they remain underemployed in agriculture, migrate to cities for insecure labour, or drift into despair. At RUHSA, we saw that if poverty was to be reduced in a lasting way, young people needed skills and opportunities to stand on their own feet.

Training for Livelihoods

One of RUHSA’s early initiatives was to identify practical skills that could generate income locally. Tailoring, carpentry, driving, electrical repair, automobile repair mechanisms, radio and television repair, and computer literacy became pathways for young men and women to gain employable skills. Training was often short-term but intensive and skill-oriented, focused on immediate applicability rather than on long academic preparation.

Impact of Skill Development

All students were placed in companies in their respective trades during the last month to gain practical experience. This impact could be best seen in the work of a few of the youth who completed the training in automobile mechanism.

One set of students was posted in the government transport department, operating many buses. The few regular mechanics were happy to get cheap labour out of these students. These students accepted this as an opportunity and added to their application skills. The officers observed the capabilities of these students. Later, when the time for selecting new drivers came, some of these students were selected. Then the officials knew the value of this training. Normally, if there was a bus breakdown during service, the driver would call for a tow truck to pull the bus to the shed. But if it were a bus operated by one of our students, he had the knowledge and skills to make minor repairs and drive the bus back to the shed without a tow truck. This skill was taken note of by the managers, and more students got selected later.

Building Entrepreneurs

The vision extended beyond jobs to entrepreneurship. Young people were encouraged to start small enterprises of their own, sometimes supported by loans from the government banks. Petty shops, repair workshops, and service centres began to spring up. The income was modest, but the sense of ownership and dignity was significant.

Addressing Barriers

Challenges were real. Some youths lacked capital. Others faced scepticism from families who preferred the stability of agricultural work. Still others struggled with limited markets for their products. Yet persistence, combined with RUHSA’s training and follow-up support, helped many to succeed.

Impact on Families and Communities

The ripple effects went beyond individual earnings. When a young person gained skills and work, entire families benefited. Better, private schools could be selected for their children. School fees could be paid on time, food security improved, and migration pressures lessened. Youth who had once felt powerless began to see themselves as contributors to community development.

Lessons Learned

The RUHSA experience showed that skills training and entrepreneurship are not luxuries — they are essential strategies for poverty reduction. Investing in young people builds resilience not only for individuals but also for communities. The poor are not merely labourers for others; with opportunity, they become innovators and job creators in their own right.

Part II: The Practice

Water, Agriculture, and Rural Livelihoods

In K.V. Kuppam block, water and agriculture shaped every aspect of rural life. Livelihoods rose and fell with the monsoon, and the poorest families felt each failure first and most severely. RUHSA’s work in poverty reduction had to begin with this reality: water determined the boundaries of opportunity.

Water: The First Constraint

K.V. Kuppam is drought-prone. Each passing year pushed farmers to dig deeper wells in pursuit of a falling water table. Those who could afford borewells gambled with heavy loans; those who could not were left with wilting crops and shrinking options. Competition for water sometimes strained community relationships, while debt tightened its grip on families hoping for just one good harvest.

Water scarcity shaped not only agriculture but nutrition, migration, health, and long-term resilience.

Working with Nature

From the outset, RUHSA promoted farming practices that respected the land’s limitations. Soil conservation, contour bunding, dryland agriculture, water harvesting, and diversified planting were introduced to help farmers absorb the shocks of erratic rainfall. These practices did not guarantee abundance, but they reduced vulnerability and helped households survive difficult seasons.

Watershed Development: Recharging the Land

Recognising that individual efforts could not overcome a landscape-level crisis, RUHSA launched watershed development in Thuthithangal village between 1983 and 1987. The project introduced:

contour bunds,
check dams,
percolation pits,
water-harvesting structures.

These interventions slowed runoff, replenished groundwater, and improved soil moisture. Their benefits emerged gradually—but once they did, they reshaped the possibilities of farming. Fields retained moisture longer, wells revived, and droughts, though still feared, caused less devastation.

Changing Cropping Patterns

Crops such as paddy, sugarcane, and bananas demanded more water than the land could spare. Persisting with them pushed families into debt. RUHSA encouraged farmers to shift to crops better suited to a dry region, especially those offering reliable income with minimal irrigation needs.

🌼 Jasmine: A Pro-Poor, Labour-Rich Crop

Among the alternative crops RUHSA promoted, jasmine proved exceptional. It required far less water than traditional crops, yet offered a reliable market and—most importantly—generated daily income, something rare in dryland agriculture. Jasmine was labour-intensive and perfectly suited for the poorest. Women, widows, schoolgirls, and older people found steady work in plucking buds each morning. As cultivation expanded, the labour demand grew so rapidly that it saturated the workforce in the first village, prompting farmers in neighbouring villages to adopt jasmine as well. This natural expansion—driven not by external promotion but by the pull of labour demand—created thousands of workdays each year. Over time, the income from jasmine became so significant that some families were able to build pucca, sturdy concrete houses, a clear sign of upward movement in a traditionally fragile rural economy.

Value addition through garland-making further increased opportunities. Women could string flowers at home, adding skill-based income to the value chain and multiplying the benefits within the community. Jasmine’s steady cash flow helped families manage household expenses, avoid debt, and handle emergencies with dignity. Though market prices fluctuated, the crop consistently strengthened household resilience. Jasmine emerged as one of the most effective pro-poor livelihood interventions, showing how a crop suited to local ecology can spread organically, raise incomes substantially, and reduce poverty by distributing earnings widely across labouring households.

Building Knowledge and Confidence

Sustainable change required more than technical advice. RUHSA invested heavily in farmer education:

improved agricultural practices,
simple bookkeeping and financial literacy,
cooperative approaches,
planning based on rainfall forecasts,
understanding markets and price cycles.

Farmers gradually began to see themselves not as passive victims of climate but as managers of productive enterprises. Knowledge restored confidence, and confidence led to better decisions.

Mechanisation and Social Change

Mechanisation brought its own challenges. In the early years, the region’s strong communist influence opposed tractors and threshers, viewing them as threats to labour. RUHSA stepped back.

But change came from an unexpected direction. Through family planning, household sizes shrank. Through vocational training, youths pursued non-farm work. Suddenly, there were too few labourers to manage farms traditionally.

Mechanisation, once resisted, became essential. Tractors, tillers, threshers, and later harvesters spread naturally as the social and demographic landscape shifted.

Impact on Poverty Reduction

The combined effect of these interventions was transformative:

diversified crops protected families from crushing debt,
watershed improvements revived groundwater,
daily-income crops strengthened household cash flow,
mechanisation reduced labour bottlenecks,
farmer education enabled better decisions,
youth migration became a choice, not a compulsion.

Livelihoods grew more resilient, and poverty receded gradually but unmistakably.

Lessons Learned

RUHSA’s experience makes one point clear: any meaningful effort to reduce rural poverty must place water and agriculture at the centre.

Water security strengthens agriculture.
Sustainable agriculture stabilises livelihoods.
Stable livelihoods reduce poverty.
And with knowledge and collective action, even drought-prone communities can build dignity and resilience.

Water and agriculture are not separate stories.
Together, they form the foundation upon which rural prosperity—and hope—can be built.

Part II: The Practice

Dairy and Livelihoods: Linking Technology to Rural Prosperity

This chapter explores how a targeted cattle breeding programme transformed rural livelihoods. It highlights the power of combining technical innovation, community participation, and enterprise development to create lasting economic impact — illustrating key principles of effective poverty reduction.

Introduction

One of the most significant livelihood interventions in rural development emerged from a simple but powerful idea — improving the productivity of local cattle. Traditionally, most village cows in the region were low milk yielders, providing barely enough for family consumption. This limited not only household nutrition but also income opportunities.

The turning point came with the introduction of a cattle breeding programme that crossed local cows with high-yielding varieties using imported (donated) bull semen provided through Heifer Project International. The process was carefully managed by Village Veterinary Guides, trained by RUHSA within the community to provide animal health services and assist with breeding through artificial insemination. This community-led approach ensured sustainability, trust, and rapid adoption.

From Innovation to Income

As improved breeds began producing milk several times higher than before, the results were transformative — and unexpected. Within a few years, villages experienced a surplus of milk, far beyond what households could consume or local vendors could sell, or even the government dairy could collect. What could have become a problem — a glut — instead became an opportunity.

Local entrepreneurs recognised the potential in this abundance. They began to process excess milk by evaporating it to a solid base, using it as a raw material for producing traditional Indian sweets and milk-based products. This innovation generated multiple layers of economic activity:

Farmers earned higher incomes from milk sales.
Labourers found new opportunities in milking, transport, and processing.
Entrepreneurs developed small-scale dairy processing units, turning a potential surplus into a profitable enterprise.

Linking Practice to Theory

This dairy intervention exemplifies principles discussed in earlier chapters:

Institutional support amplifies impact: Training local intermediaries, like the Village Veterinary Guides, ensured knowledge transfer and sustained adoption — reflecting the comparative insights between institutional business support strategies and microfinance-only.
Evidence-based interventions matter: The program’s success relied on carefully monitoring milk yields and matching production with market opportunities, underscoring the research-focused approaches discussed previously.
Integrated livelihoods create multiplier effects: Beyond higher household income, the intervention generated employment, new businesses, and market linkages — demonstrating the ecosystem impact emphasised throughout the portal.

Broader Implications for Poverty Reduction

This experience shows that poverty reduction is most effective when interventions address the entire economic ecosystem rather than a single problem. By combining technology transfer, skill development, and enterprise creation, the dairy programme moved beyond subsistence and created lasting opportunity.

The story of this dairy initiative illustrates that true poverty reduction comes from empowering people to create and manage value, not merely from providing aid. It is in such integrated, participatory, and knowledge-driven approaches that rural transformation takes root and endures.

Part II: The Practice

Poultry and Livelihoods: From Government Failure to Private Enterprise Success

Introduction

Early efforts to improve rural livelihoods through poultry often met with unforeseen challenges. A government programme had introduced 200-layer birds to selected farmers, aiming to generate a steady supply of eggs and income. Unfortunately, the initiative failed: many birds did not lay eggs daily, and there was no effective marketing system to sell the produce. Farmers were left with empty poultry sheds and outstanding bank loans, while service providers struggled to manage the programme sustainably.

From Layers to Broilers: Practical Adaptation

Learning from this failure, the programme shifted focus to 200-bird broiler units. Unlike layers, broilers could be sold in one or two batches at eight weeks, providing farmers with a lump-sum income rather than daily sales. This change had immediate benefits:

Farmers were able to repay bank loans that had accumulated during the earlier layer programme.
The approach was easier for service providers to manage, since marketing fewer, larger batches required less ongoing coordination.

This shift illustrates a central principle in poverty reduction: interventions must align with the practical realities and capacities of farmers, and solutions need to be economically viable, scalable, and manageable.

Scaling and Private Enterprise

Once the programme demonstrated success, private entrepreneurs entered the sector, establishing larger units of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and even 5,000 birds, depending on their available capital. The initial RUHSA-supported units handled up to 25,000 birds, but over time, independent farmers expanded their operations dramatically. By the time of my retirement, the local poultry industry was managing approximately 600,000 birds, exporting 10,000 birds daily — a stark contrast to the initial 100 birds sold daily under the early programme.

This trajectory underscores two critical lessons for poverty reduction and rural development:

Pilot programs can fail, but iterative adaptation and learning lead to success.
Sustainable market solutions often emerge when private enterprise complements community initiatives, creating opportunities that scale beyond the initial intervention.

Broader Implications for Poverty Reduction

The poultry experience shows how practical problem-solving, gradual scaling, and market-oriented approaches can transform rural livelihoods. Small interventions, carefully adapted to context, can evolve into self-sustaining, large-scale economic systems, benefiting hundreds of households and providing employment across production, processing, and distribution.

Just as with dairy and cattle interventions, this story highlights the importance of combining technical knowledge, entrepreneurial support, and local capacity backed by an institution to generate lasting impact on poverty and livelihoods.

Part II: The Practice

Health and Catastrophic Expenditure

For poor families, ill health is not just a medical crisis — it could be an economic disaster. A single hospitalisation can wipe out years of savings, push families into debt, or force them to sell land and assets. At RUHSA, we saw again and again how health and poverty were inseparable. To reduce poverty, we had to reduce the burden of catastrophic health expenditure.

The Vicious Cycle of Illness and Debt

When illness struck, poor families had few choices. Private care was costly, but public facilities were often distant, overcrowded, or under-equipped. Many turned to moneylenders to meet immediate medical expenses, falling into debt that they could not repay. Many coped by moving to less costly housing, changing children from private to government schools, with some skipping health care completely. Poverty increased vulnerability to illness, and illness deepened poverty — a vicious cycle.

Accessible Rural Health Care

RUHSA’s model sought to break this cycle by bringing accessible, affordable, and quality health services closer to the people. The rural hospital at RUHSA Campus, backed by sixteen weekly peripheral clinics, along with community health workers in the villages, provided primary and secondary care without the costs and delays of referral to distant centres. Preventive care — immunisations, antenatal services, health education — reduced the incidence of severe illness. Both primary and secondary health care were heavily subsidised so that no poor patient was denied the needed health care.

Maternal and Child Health

Special focus was given to mothers and children, who bore the greatest risks. Trained birth attendants, along with the health team of the weekly mobile clinics, improved antenatal coverage. Later, government incentives for institutional delivery, backed by supplying mobile phones to health workers, sharply reduced maternal mortality. Immunisation and nutrition programmes cut child deaths. These were not only health successes but also poverty reduction measures, sparing families the economic devastation of losing a breadwinner or child.

Lessons Learned

The experience confirmed that health is both a cause and a consequence of poverty. Health is both a means and a measure of development. Reducing catastrophic expenditure requires more than treating disease; it requires preventive care, accessible facilities, and safety nets that protect families from financial ruin. Poverty reduction cannot succeed without health security at its core.

Part II: The Practice

Environment-Friendly Approaches

If sustainability is about the future, then protecting the environment is one of the most sustainable contributions any development any organisation can make. At RUHSA, our work taught us that poverty reduction cannot be separated from environmental care. Drought, deforestation, poor sanitation, and overuse of natural resources all deepened the suffering of the poor. Our interventions were modest, but they revealed the close link between environment and poverty.

Water Quantity and Quality

K.V. Kuppam is a drought-prone area. Each cycle of drought drove farmers to dig deeper wells, steadily depleting groundwater. RUHSA promoted water-saving crops such as jasmine, mango, and mulberry to replace water-hungry sugarcane, bananas, and paddy. Livestock like dairy cattle and poultry also provided income without the same dependence on irrigation.

On drinking water, ignorance was widespread at the start. Families often drank from open wells and lakes. With World Vision of India’s support, over one hundred borewells were introduced across the block. Over time, safe water became accessible for poorer households, reducing waterborne diseases and freeing women and children from the burden of fetching water from distant sources.

Forests and Trees

The barren hills along K.V. Kuppam’s northern boundary symbolised the challenge. RUHSA promoted social and agroforestry: supplying seedlings of teak, jackfruit, bamboo, and subabul, and mobilising communities to protect saplings. Watershed projects, like the one in Thuthithangal (1983–87), combined contour bunding, check dams, and tree planting to conserve soil and water. Slowly, patches of green began to return. The government took responsibility in this area. Now, most hills that were barren then are now covered with dense greenery of trees.

Sanitation and Hygiene

Latrines proved a tougher challenge. Even when toilets were constructed, many families preferred open defecation. Some used the new structures as storage for firewood. Behaviour change required more than infrastructure — it required shifts in attitudes, which proved slow. To this day, sanitation remains one of the least successful areas of intervention.

Fuel and Energy

Firewood was the dominant cooking fuel, contributing to deforestation. RUHSA introduced individual household biogas plants using cattle dung, reducing dependence on wood and improving indoor air quality. Though adoption was uneven, families who used biogas valued its convenience, cost, and health benefits.

Biodiversity

Monoculture, especially eucalyptus plantations, posed risks to soil and water. RUHSA emphasised planting a variety of species, anticipating the later global emphasis on biodiversity. With growing demand for herbal medicine, biodiversity conservation took on added significance.

Population Pressure

Finally, population growth placed relentless pressure on resources. Family planning programs, particularly tubectomy, slowed growth rates. Over time, stabilisation of population levels promised to ease the strain on land and water.

Lessons Learned

RUHSA’s environmental work underscored that poverty and ecology are intertwined. Families cannot rise out of poverty if their natural resource base is destroyed. Equally, environmental protection cannot succeed unless the poor see tangible benefits for their lives. True sustainability requires joining the fight against poverty with the care of creation.

Part II: The Practice

RUHSA and the Millennium Development Goals

When the United Nations launched the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, it offered the world a common framework for measuring progress in reducing poverty, improving health, and advancing education. At RUHSA, we had already been working on these issues for decades. Although the MDGs were not in place when RUHSA began in 1977, our experience coincided with the MDG era. We realised that much of our data could be mapped against these global goals, offering both local evidence and global relevance.

Collecting the Data

Gathering reliable data was never easy. Some indicators, such as immunisation coverage and nutrition status, came from routine records collected by trained field staff. Others required special studies. Maternal mortality, one of the most difficult statistics to obtain, was studied by a student from Emory University and later published. Teams from the University of South Australia conducted representative surveys to fill the gaps in information, especially on purchasing power parity (PPP). Despite the challenges, we were able to document progress in most of the MDG areas.

Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger

Using PPP at $1 per day, poverty in our service area fell dramatically from nearly 90% in 1978 to 43% in 2004. Nutrition also improved: underweight children declined from 44.6% in 1982 to 17.2% in 2001, and stunting reduced by almost half. These numbers reflected tangible improvement in livelihoods and food security.

Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education

While RUHSA did not directly run schools, just as development inputs contributed towards improvements in health, it also contributed towards improving education. Additionally, successful family planning programmes also reduced the number of children in each family, encouraging the education of fewer children. Girls, once left behind, began to outperform boys in completing primary school. Literacy gaps narrowed, and families increasingly valued education.

Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women

SHGs and other interventions created spaces for women’s participation. By law, one-third of local elected seats were reserved for women, though often exercised by male relatives. Yet women gradually found their voice, especially through collective action.

Goal 4 & 5: Reduce Child Mortality and Improve Maternal Health

Child mortality declined steeply with effective immunisation. Maternal mortality remained harder to reduce, requiring higher-level interventions, but antenatal care and institutional deliveries expanded steadily, especially after RUHSA’s priority for safe delivery care. The government’s focus on this area also reduced maternal mortality.

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Other Diseases

RUHSA’s contribution was primarily educational — raising awareness of HIV/AIDS, promoting condom use, and supporting rehabilitation. Malaria was not a significant issue in our area, but tuberculosis control, in partnership with the government, achieved high treatment completion rates. We managed to eliminate kala azar in a distant tribal population of Jharkhand.

Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability

Drinking water supply reached nearly universal coverage, but sanitation lagged. Even when latrines were constructed, many families did not use them. Electricity spread widely, but reliance on firewood and crop residues for fuel remained high. In a small way, individual household biogas plants were constructed.

Goal 8: Develop Global Partnerships

RUHSA’s partnerships were modest but meaningful. Links with Bishopston in the UK and with the University of South Australia provided both solidarity and technical exchange.

Lessons Learned

The RUHSA experience with MDGs showed both the possibilities and limitations of global frameworks. Local progress was real and measurable, but the MDGs themselves were not widely known among frontline workers or communities. Without grassroots involvement, such global goals risk remaining abstract.

Our conclusion was clear: poverty reduction frameworks must not only be set from above but also informed from below. RUHSA’s story illustrates what is possible when local practice meets global aspiration.

Part III Microcredit, Microfinance, and the Institutional Approach

Introductory Note

This section of the Poverty Reduction Knowledge Portal explores two major approaches that have shaped global efforts to reduce poverty through financial inclusion. The first — the Self-Help Group (SHG) model — builds community institutions that combine credit with capacity-building and social solidarity. The second — the microfinance-only model — expands access to credit and financial services for the poor.

By comparing these two, this portal begins to outline a structured framework for comparative research, identifying how the presence or absence of local institutions determines whether finance becomes a tool for short-term access or for long-term transformation.

Section 1. The SHG–Microcredit Model: A Productivity-Enhancing Institution

Self Help Groups (SHGs) began as small, voluntary collectives of poor women who pooled their savings and used that shared fund to solve shared problems. While the idea looks simple, it became one of India’s most important institutional innovations in poverty reduction.

At its core, the SHG model is not a credit scheme. Credit is only one of its instruments. The model functions as a local economic institution, built slowly through social organisation, financial discipline, and trust. Credit follows that institution, not the other way around.

1.1 How an SHG is Formed

An SHG usually begins with about 15 to 20 women from similar economic backgrounds. They open a bank account, register themselves, and establish rules of functioning. Over time, savings accumulate into a common fund, which is lent internally at modest interest.

Five operational pillars sustain this system:

Regular meetings
Regular savings
Internal lending
On-time repayment
Proper bookkeeping

These create the minimum order needed for a functioning local economic institution.

1.2 What SHGs Actually Do

The scope of an SHG extends far beyond lending. They:

Strengthen financial habits
Help members plan and manage household cash flow
Offer peer support for micro-enterprises
Improve confidence, negotiation, and public-speaking skills
Provide a platform for training and community action

Over time, many SHGs evolve into social support institutions. They step in during illness, funerals, school admissions, domestic disputes, and community emergencies. These are not formal responsibilities, but they emerge naturally as trust deepens.

1.3 A Steady Pattern of Sustainability

One of the strongest arguments for the SHG model is its durability. Groups that are properly formed and trained tend to remain active for decades. In many regions, SHGs created 15 to 25 years ago continue to operate smoothly.

Some of the SHGs established during my time at RUHSA still run their own micro-enterprises, federations, and community institutions twenty years later. Their longevity shows that SHGs are not short-term projects but community-owned institutions that outlast any external facilitator.

1.4 Why SHG Microcredit Improves Productivity

Because the SHG model builds institutions and skills, loans behave differently:

Borrowers invest in activities that generate reliable income.
Revolving funds grow stronger with each repayment cycle.
Members receive guidance and peer support.
Productivity rises because credit is embedded in training and discipline.

This combination of credit + institution-building + social solidarity is what sets the SHG model apart from microfinance-only interventions.

1.5 Who Built the System

The SHG movement in India owes much to MYRADA, under the leadership of Aloysius P. Fernandez, who is widely regarded as the pioneer of the model. MYRADA trained many organisations, including RUHSA in Tamil Nadu, as they began forming SHGs. NABARD, the Reserve Bank of India, and IFAD played vital roles in shaping national policy and scaling the approach.

Beyond India, institution-based models flourished elsewhere. In Indonesia, Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI) integrated microcredit within a strong, state-backed framework. Across Africa, initiatives such as the Kenya Women Finance Trust (KWFT) and CARE’s Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) adopted similar community-based approaches.

These experiences confirm that credit becomes transformative only when anchored in capable institutions.

1.6 A Natural Contrast with Microfinance-Only Models

The SHG approach deserves to be understood on its own terms because it is fundamentally different from the microfinance-only model that later became globally popular.

SHGs build institutions, strengthen financial discipline, expand women’s roles, and support both economic and social needs. Microfinance-only interventions, in contrast, focus almost entirely on providing credit and recovering loans.

The difference is not merely one of method but of purpose. One builds productivity and community strength; the other delivers financial access.

The next section examines these differences more closely.

Section 2. The Microfinance-Only Model: Expanding Access Without Institutions

As SHGs evolved in India as community-based financial institutions, another approach gained global prominence — microfinance. Unlike SHGs, which emerged from social organisation, microfinance grew from the idea of extending formal credit to those previously excluded from the banking system.

Its main promise was access: to give the poor collateral-free loans, safe savings options, and a doorway to financial services previously available only to the better-off. In that sense, microfinance marked an important step towards financial inclusion.

2.1 What Microfinance Set Out to Do

Microfinance aimed to bridge the gap between formal banking and the informal moneylender. It offered small, collateral-free loans — usually to women — to start micro-enterprises, meet consumption needs, or handle emergencies. Many institutions also provided savings, insurance, and remittance services.

Its greatest strength lay in scale and efficiency. Credit was delivered quickly, repayment systems were standardised, and institutions could reach millions of households with minimal administrative costs. Over time, high repayment rates and visible expansion drew international attention.

In this sense, microfinance became one of the largest global movements for financial inclusion. It gave the poor something long denied to them — access to credit and financial services without collateral.

2.2 The Limits of Access

However, access alone does not automatically translate into poverty reduction. Credit can be a useful tool, but its impact depends on how it is used and the support systems that accompany it.

Because most MFIs focused solely on credit delivery, they seldom offered training, enterprise development, or guidance in financial management. As a result, loans were often used for short-term consumption or to manage cash flow, rather than for long-term productivity.

Where SHGs built local institutions that fostered collective discipline and learning, MFIs generally operated as financial service providers — efficient, but not embedded in the community.

2.3 What the Evidence Shows

Evaluations of microfinance have produced a nuanced picture. Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) by researchers such as Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, and studies by Attanasio, Augsburg, Crépon, Tarozzi, and Angelucci, found that:

Some borrowers expanded small businesses, but the scale of change was limited.
Impacts on poverty, education, and health were modest or negligible.
Women’s empowerment improved in a few cases but did not show consistent gains.

The overall conclusion was cautious: microcredit improves financial access but does not, by itself, lift people out of poverty.

2.4 Emerging Concerns

Alongside these findings, several challenges surfaced as microfinance expanded:

High interest rates that were hard for poor households to sustain.
Multiple borrowing across different MFIs, leading to over-indebtedness.
Pressure for repayment in the absence of income-generating opportunities.
Low transparency in financial operations of some institutions.
A shift from developmental to commercial priorities as some MFIs became for-profit entities.

These challenges do not negate microfinance’s importance but show the difficulty of translating access into empowerment.

2.5 Towards a Balanced Understanding

Microfinance deserves credit for bringing the poor into the formal financial system — an achievement of historical importance. For millions, it replaced the moneylender with a safer, more structured source of credit.

Yet the evidence suggests that financial inclusion is necessary but not sufficient for poverty reduction. Without parallel investment in skills, markets, and institutions, credit alone cannot transform livelihoods.

Microfinance offers a starting point, not a destination. It opens the financial door, but real progress comes when credit is paired with capability — as the SHG model demonstrates.

Section 3. Integrating Lessons: From Credit to Capability

The contrast between the SHG–microcredit and microfinance-only models reveals a deeper truth about poverty reduction: it is not money but institutions that make credit work.

3.1 The Core Insight

Credit is the spark; institutions are the engine.
Financial access gives opportunity; social organisation gives sustainability.
The most successful models combine both — financial discipline with community ownership.

3.2 Why Institutions Matter

Institutions bring:

Trust – ensuring credit circulates productively.
Discipline – transforming small savings into reliable capital.
Continuity – sustaining impact long after external support ends.
Social purpose – addressing education, health, and empowerment beyond finance.

3.3 The Way Forward

Experiences from India, Africa, and Southeast Asia all point in the same direction: poverty reduction succeeds when finance serves as a tool within an institutional framework.

Credit expands opportunity, but capability — built through knowledge, organisation, and solidarity — turns that opportunity into lasting change.

Concluding Note

The analysis presented here goes beyond identifying differences between SHG microcredit and microfinance-only models. It establishes the conceptual and practical framework for the comparative research that will be taken up in Part IV of this portal.

The findings so far provide definite guidelines for how such research should proceed — systematically examining how each model performs across contexts, using clear indicators of productivity, inclusion, sustainability, empowerment and poverty reduction.

Part IV will describe how this research can be designed: what variables should be compared, how evidence from field experiences (including RUHSA, MYRADA, and others) can be combined with quantitative data, and how patterns can be tested for validity.

In this way, the Poverty Reduction Knowledge Portal moves from documenting experience to defining an evidence-based methodology for understanding what truly works in reducing poverty — and why.

Part IV: The Wider World

Education: The NSM Hostel Model

Education is often called the great equaliser, but for poor rural children, it is also the great divider. Schools exist, but many children — especially girls — are unable to attend regularly or complete their studies. Distance, poverty, and lack of support at home push them out long before they reach their potential. At RUHSA, education was not our primary mandate, but we could not ignore its role in poverty reduction.

I had the privilege of serving on the Board of Navjeevan Seva Mandal (NSM). Among other services, NSM provided education for children living in underserved areas. The NSM Hostel Model became one of our most significant contributions in this area.

The Challenge of Rural Education

Government schools provided basic access, but dropout rates were high. Many children from poor families were expected to work in the fields, care for siblings, or contribute to household chores. Distances made access difficult. Girls in particular faced cultural and economic barriers that kept them from completing even primary education. Literacy gaps between boys and girls were stark.

The Hostel Model

To bridge this gap, the NSM Hostel was established to provide a safe, supportive environment for children from poor families to continue their schooling. Hostels were set up in nearby towns with good government schools. By offering food, accommodation, and mentoring, the hostel removed the daily obstacles of distance and household labour. Children could focus on learning from these government schools without the distractions and pressures that pulled them out of school.

Equal Opportunity for Girls

The hostel placed special emphasis on girls’ education. Families were more willing to allow daughters to study when they knew they would be cared for in a supervised and safe environment. Over time, the literacy rate for girls caught up with and even surpassed that of boys in some age groups. Girls who might otherwise have remained illiterate completed primary school and moved into higher levels of education.

Ripple Effects

Education had ripple effects beyond the individual child. Families began to see the value of schooling when daughters and sons brought home books, certificates, and new skills. Educated youth became role models, inspiring others in their villages. Over time, the perception that “education is not for us” began to change. Over time, girls especially took up the challenge of going to distant places and utilised opportunities to study and come up in life. Many of the successful children, when they established their own homes, began to support other similar children from similar situations.

Lessons Learned

The NSM Hostel Model proved that targeted support can break cycles of exclusion. Education is not only about classrooms; it is about creating conditions in which poor children can learn, persist, and succeed. By giving children the chance to study, we were giving families and communities a chance to rise out of poverty.

Part IV: The Wider World

Tamil Nadu in Global Perspective

Much of India’s development story is told by comparing one state to another. Tamil Nadu is often praised in contrast to less developed states, as though success can only be measured against failure. But such comparisons are limited. Tamil Nadu deserves to be assessed not only within India but alongside nations that have faced similar challenges and achieved similar progress.

Beyond Indian Benchmarks

Tamil Nadu has long stood out for its advances in education, health, and social development. Female literacy rose steadily, fertility rates declined, and child survival improved faster than in most other Indian states. Industrial growth and urbanisation created jobs and opportunities. Yet to understand the scale of its achievement, we must look beyond India’s borders.

Comparisons with Asia

Placed beside countries like Thailand and Malaysia, Tamil Nadu shows striking parallels. Like them, it combined investments in human development with industrial growth. Both Thailand and Tamil Nadu saw rapid declines in fertility and gains in life expectancy in the same decades. In manufacturing, Tamil Nadu’s automotive and textile sectors resemble the industrial strategies of Southeast Asian nations.

Comparisons with Southern Europe

At the same time, Tamil Nadu’s trajectory can be fruitfully compared with Southern European countries like Portugal and Greece. These nations emerged from poverty in the mid-twentieth century with a strong emphasis on social protection and state-led development. Tamil Nadu’s mix of welfare programs — noon-meal schemes, subsidised food distribution, and affirmative action—mirrors such efforts, adapted to local realities.

Learning from and Contributing to the World

By placing Tamil Nadu in a global perspective, two things become clear. First, poverty reduction here is not an isolated story but part of a wider movement in the Global South where human development and economic growth reinforced one another. Second, Tamil Nadu has lessons to share. Its public distribution system, for instance, has few parallels in scale and effectiveness.

Lessons Learned

Tamil Nadu’s development cannot be reduced to a story of “better than Bihar.” It belongs in the company of regions and nations that faced similar challenges and overcame them through deliberate social and economic investments. Recognising this shifts the frame: Tamil Nadu is not just an Indian outlier — it is part of a global conversation on poverty reduction, human dignity, and inclusive growth.

Part IV: The Wider World

From MDGs to SDGs

When the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) came to an end in 2015, the world took a step forward with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs were broader, covering not only poverty, health, and education but also climate change, inequality, peace, and partnerships. In many ways, they were more ambitious — aiming not just to halve poverty, but to end it in all its forms everywhere by 2030.

Continuity and Change

For those of us who had worked within the MDG framework, the SDGs felt both familiar and new. Familiar, because they retained the emphasis on measurable targets, time-bound commitments, and shared global responsibility. New, because they expanded into areas that had previously been left out: sustainability, gender equity beyond education, and the interlinkages between economic growth, environment, and justice.

The Grassroots Gap

Yet one concern persisted. Just as with the MDGs, awareness of the SDGs was limited at the grassroots. Field workers, local organisations, and communities who could have contributed most were rarely consulted or informed. Without their participation, global goals risked becoming top-down exercises, driven by consultants and policymakers far removed from daily realities.

Lessons from RUHSA

Our experience at RUHSA illustrated what global frameworks often miss: the knowledge and resilience of poor communities themselves. We had learned that progress is possible, measurable, and real — but it depends on trust, participation, and long-term commitment. These are not things that appear easily in international reports.

Questions for the Future

The SDGs raise important questions. Will the global community find ways to listen to grassroots implementers? Will space be created for voices from villages, small towns, and local organisations? Will the same international consultants continue to dominate? Will data collection once again be shaped by what is easy to measure, rather than what truly reflects change in people’s lives?

Lessons Learned

The SDGs are a valuable global commitment. But if they are to succeed where the MDGs fell short, they must bridge the gap between lofty targets and lived realities. Poverty reduction is not only about what is decided in New York or Geneva — it is about what happens in K.V. Kuppam, in Tamil Nadu, and in thousands of communities like them across the world. Unless the poor are participants, not just subjects, the promise of the SDGs will remain unfulfilled.

Part IV: The Wider World

Organisation Models for Poverty Reduction

Poverty is never reduced by individuals alone. It is reduced when people come together — in communities, in cooperatives, and through organisations committed to change. Across India and beyond, organisations have developed models that demonstrate how poverty reduction can be practical, sustainable, and rooted in people’s participation.

RUHSA as a Model

RUHSA itself is one such model: a community-based approach combining health, livelihoods, education, and empowerment. It worked because it engaged directly with people’s realities, collected data to measure progress, and built long-term trust with communities. Its lessons show how institutions anchored in practice can become engines of poverty reduction.

Navjeevan Seva Mandal (NSM)

Navjeevan Seva Mandal (NSM) is another example. Based extensively in Gujarat, Jharkhand, and Tamil Nadu, NSM worked to transform education for children from poor families. Through hostels, mentoring, and support for rural students, NSM created pathways out of poverty by giving young people the chance to complete their schooling. Education, combined with community engagement, proved to be one of the most powerful levers for breaking cycles of deprivation.

Other Models

Across India, many other organisations — small and large — have shown creativity in addressing poverty:

SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s Association) in Gujarat, organising women in the informal sector for rights and livelihoods.

MYRADA in Karnataka, pioneering self-help groups as a vehicle for women’s empowerment.

BRAC in Bangladesh, now the world’s largest NGO, is demonstrating how large-scale interventions can still be rooted in local realities.

Countless smaller NGOs working quietly in villages, slums, and tribal areas are rarely written about, but are making lasting changes.

Shared Characteristics

Though diverse, effective organisations share some characteristics:

Community Participation – programs are not imposed but shaped by the people themselves.

Integration – addressing not just one need (like credit or education) but the interwoven causes of poverty.

Sustainability – building systems that last beyond external funding.

Empowerment – ensuring the poor gain voice, dignity, and control over their lives.

Lessons Learned

The lesson is simple: poverty reduction requires institutions. Not institutions that are distant and bureaucratic, but those that are close to the ground, rooted in communities, and willing to walk with the poor. These institutions become the bridges between people’s struggles and broader systems of support. Without them, poverty reduction remains a slogan. With them, it becomes a lived reality.

Part IV: The Wider World

Research on Poverty Reduction Strategies

Introduction

Understanding what works in reducing poverty is central to designing effective development interventions. Research should go beyond ideology or charity, focusing instead on strategies that enhance human capability, dignity, and sustainable livelihoods. This chapter examines how research can evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of different poverty reduction approaches and provides a framework for comparing strategies systematically.

Evaluating Strategies: Key Considerations

Research on poverty reduction should systematically examine each approach along several dimensions:

Effectiveness– the impact on household income, enterprise resilience, and overall well-being.
Efficiency– resources, cost, and time required to achieve results.
Contextual Applicability– the conditions under which the strategy works best (rural vs urban, cultural or infrastructural factors).
Scalability– potential for expansion without loss of effectiveness.

Common approaches include:

Microfinance– small-scale credit for income-generating activities.
Institutional business support– financial assistance combined with mentoring, training, and market access.
Skill-building, education, and health-linked programs– building human capabilities.
Infrastructure projects– enhancing access to markets and services.

Each approach has strengths and limitations. Systematic research allows policymakers and practitioners to identify what works, under what circumstances, and at what cost, providing a foundation for more effective poverty reduction interventions.

Comparative Analysis: Institutional Business Support vs Microfinance-Only

A particularly relevant comparison in research is between institutional business support approaches such as that of RUHSA, which may or may not include microfinance as a component, vs microfinance-only approaches.

Institutional Business Support Approaches:

Focuses on both interventions to increase income as well as decrease unwanted expenditure of poor families.
Combines community organisation with structured guidance, mentoring, skill-building, and market linkages.
Strengths: addresses multiple constraints, often leading to sustainable income growth, resilient enterprises, and broader community impact.
Limitations: higher initial investment and organisational complexity.

Microfinance-Only Approaches:

Provide direct credit to households to pursue self-employment.
Strengths: accessible, rapid deployment, and immediate financial inclusion.
Limitations: vulnerability to market risks, limited skill development, and potential over-indebtedness.

By systematically comparing these approaches along effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, contextual suitability, and scalability, research can reveal which strategies achieve better outcomes under specific conditions and highlight opportunities for integrated or hybrid models.

Conclusion and Comparative Framework

The following table summarises the key dimensions for comparing microfinance-only and institutional business support approaches, providing a concise framework for research and practical application.

Elements	Institutional Business Support	Microfinance only
Primary Focus	Community organisation, skill-building, economic interventions and market linkages	Small-scale loans for self-employment and income generation
Effectiveness	Greater long-term income growth, business resilience, and community impact	Immediate financial inclusion, incremental income growth
Efficiency	Higher upfront cost and coordination effort	Low entry barrier, rapid deployment
Sustainability	Higher; addresses multiple constraints simultaneously	Moderate; dependent on market conditions and borrower skills
Contextual Suitability	Works in contexts needing comprehensive support and guidance	Works in areas with entrepreneurial potential but limited resources
Scalability	Relatively easy to scale, but risks over-indebtedness	Relatively easy to scale, but risks over-indebtedness
Key Strengths	Integrated institutional support, multi-dimensional impact	Accessibility, rapid deployment
Key Limitations	Requires higher investment, complex coordination	Risk of over-indebtedness, limited skills development

This framework emphasises the value of evidence-driven research in guiding poverty reduction strategies. Evaluate individual approaches and conduct comparative analyses to provide actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to maximise impact, sustainability, and human development outcomes.

Part IV Books and the Struggle Against Poverty

Ideas matter. The way poverty is understood shapes the way it is addressed. Over the decades, many books have tried to grapple with poverty — some grounded in real-life struggles, others abstract and distant. Looking back, these writings reveal both the richness of debate and the limits of mainstream thought.

Voices Grounded in Reality

Some authors wrote from the ground up. Amartya Sen reframed poverty as the deprivation of basic capabilities, not merely low income. Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee pioneered randomised trials that tested what actually worked for the poor. John Kenneth Galbraith, long before them, reminded economists that affluence on one side of the world coexisted with mass poverty on the other. These voices, though not always dominant, offered approaches rooted in lived experience and practical relevance.

Broader Voices, Limited Direct Impact

Other authors brought poverty into global conversation, but from a more distant vantage. Jeffrey Sachs, for example, argued for bold international investments to end poverty. Joseph Stiglitz exposed how globalisation and inequality hurt the poor. Paul Krugman and others highlighted the failures of market fundamentalism. These perspectives broadened understanding but often remained at the level of policy and international advocacy, with less direct connection to grassroots realities.

Radical and Alternative Visions

Still others challenged not only economics but the very nature of development. Paulo Freire, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, saw education as liberation for the poor. E.F. Schumacher, in Small Is Beautiful, argued for human-scale economics that served people rather than systems. Ha-Joon Chang exposed how rich countries “kicked away the ladder” after using protectionist policies to build their wealth, leaving poor countries trapped by free-market orthodoxy.

Lessons from Asia

Books like Joe Studwell’s How Asia Works demonstrated how land reform, industrial policy, and financial discipline lifted millions out of poverty in East Asia. These insights resonate with Tamil Nadu’s story, showing that poverty reduction depends as much on structural choices as on individual effort.

Lessons Learned

Taken together, these books remind us that poverty reduction is both intellectual and practical. Theories matter, but without grounding in real lives, they remain incomplete. The struggle against poverty cannot be left to economists alone, nor to practitioners alone. It must be a dialogue — between ideas and experience, between books and villages, between scholars and the poor themselves.

Part V: The Way Forward

Part V Re-centring Economics on Poverty Reduction

Economics was never meant to be only about markets, trade, or growth. At its heart, it is about people — how they live, what choices they have, and whether their basic needs are met. Yet over time, mainstream economics drifted away from this foundation. Poverty was treated as a side issue, while elegant models of growth and efficiency dominated. To move forward, we must bring poverty reduction back to the very centre of economics.

The Moral Compass of Economics

An economy that grows while leaving millions hungry is not successful. A market that functions efficiently while excluding the poor is not just. Economics needs a moral compass — one that recognises that human dignity is as important as productivity, and that justice is as important as efficiency. Poverty reduction provides that compass.

Learning from Practice

Theories alone cannot guide us. RUHSA’s experience, along with that of other organisations, shows that real poverty reduction is possible when interventions are grounded in people’s lives. Access to health care, education, livelihoods, and empowerment are not side issues but central pillars of economic well-being. Economists must learn from such grassroots practice and let it inform policy and theory.

Reshaping Priorities

Re-centring economics on poverty reduction means asking different questions:

Not just How fast is the economy growing? But who is benefiting from growth?

Not just Is the market efficient? But is it fair?

Not just What is the return on investment? But what is the return on human dignity?

A Broader Vision

This shift requires courage — from scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. It means valuing insights from villages as much as from universities, recognising that the poor are not passive recipients but active participants in shaping their future. It means acknowledging that reducing poverty is not charity but justice, not optional but essential.

Lessons Learned

If economics is to serve humanity, it must once again put poverty reduction at its core. Growth, trade, and markets all have their place, but they must be measured by how they affect the poor. To re-centre economics is to restore its true purpose: building societies where every person has the chance to live with dignity.

Part V: The Way Forward

Conclusion: Returning Poverty Reduction to the Centre

This portal has brought together stories, reflections, and lessons from decades of practice. From the rooftops of Vellore to the villages of K.V. Kuppam, from self-help groups to dairy farms, from global debates on economics to grassroots organisations, one truth stands out: poverty reduction is not an optional add-on to development — it is the heart of it.

What We Have Seen

We have seen how poverty reduction disappeared from mainstream economics, sidelined by theories of growth and efficiency. We have seen how practice — in RUHSA and in other organisations — kept the flame alive, proving that real change is possible when communities participate and institutions listen. We have placed Tamil Nadu in a global perspective and examined the voices of economists and thinkers who tried, in different ways, to put the poor back into the conversation.

What We Must Do

Now we face a choice. We can continue along the path of abstract models and top-down policies, or we can re-centre economics and development on the lived realities of the poor. Re-centring means recognising that the measure of success is not GDP growth but whether the hungry are fed, the sick are treated, the children are educated, and the excluded are empowered.

Generate Ideas for Poverty Reduction

While I never studied economics, I was impressed by a simple equation presented by Robert Solow, given here:

Y=F (A, K, e L).

Output Y is a function or product of physical capital K, human capital e L and ideas or productivity A. I would like to emphasise A, which is ideas. Poverty reduction, as in any intervention, requires creative ideas for successful results. Three or four ideas introduced by RUHSA brought about the significant changes. Even more creative ideas are needed for continued poverty reduction on a global scale.

A Call for Participation

This is not work for one person, one organisation, or one government. It is a collective journey. Practitioners, academics, economists, policymakers, communities, and the poor themselves must come together to shape the future. This portal is one step in that journey — a place to gather knowledge, spark dialogue, and inspire action.

Giving Glory Where It Belongs

For me personally, this work is not mine alone. It is the outcome of God’s guidance, provision, and faithfulness over many decades. Without His leading and wisdom, none of this would have been possible. As we look to the future, I give all glory to God, and I pray that this portal will be used to serve the poor, to promote justice, and to bring hope.

Glossary (Shared Understanding)

The language of poverty reduction can sometimes feel technical or abstract. To keep this portal clear and accessible, here are some key terms explained in simple words:

Empowerment – Giving people the confidence, skills, and opportunities to make decisions about their own lives.

Inclusion – Ensuring that no group is left out of development processes.

Sustainable Development – Meeting today’s needs without destroying the ability of future generations to meet theirs.

Community Participation – Involving people directly in decision-making that affects their lives.

Catastrophic Health Expenditure – When medical costs are so high that they push families into debt, forcing them to decrease their living standards.

Livelihood Security – Having stable and reliable income, food, and resources that allow families to live with dignity.

Capability Approach – Amartya Sen’s idea that poverty is not just low income but the inability to live the life one values.

Self-Help Group (SHG) – Small groups of women pooling savings, providing loans, and supporting one another socially and economically.

Grassroots – The village or community level where real life is lived and change begins.

Biodiversity – The variety of plants, animals, and microorganisms in an ecosystem. Protecting it sustains food security and livelihoods.

Trickle-Down Economics – The belief that benefits given to the wealthy will eventually reach the poor — an idea that rarely worked in practice.

Structural Adjustment – Economic reforms in the 1980s–90s that often harmed the poor by cutting social spending and opening markets too quickly.

Participatory Development – Approaches that involve communities at every stage of development, recognising them as active partners.

Glossary of Tags and Key Concepts

This glossary explains key ideas and tags used throughout the Poverty Reduction Knowledge Portal.
It helps readers understand the economic and institutional themes that connect the different parts of the series.

🌍 Core Themes

#PovertyReduction
Practical and sustainable ways to lift people out of poverty by linking income growth with human development and institutional strength.

#DevelopmentEconomics
Economic theory applied to real-world development — exploring how policies, markets, and behaviour affect poverty outcomes.

#InstitutionBuilding
The process of creating and strengthening local and national organisations that make development programmes effective and sustainable.

#HumanDevelopment
Expanding people’s capabilities and freedoms beyond income — focusing on health, education, and dignity.

#SustainableLivelihoods
Approaches that help the poor earn and maintain stable incomes through environmentally sound and socially supportive activities.

#FinancialInclusion
Ensuring low-income households and small enterprises can access and use affordable, responsible financial services.

#CapabilityApproach
Based on Amartya Sen’s framework — emphasising what people are able to do and be, not just what they earn.

💰 Finance and Institution-Building

#SelfHelpGroups
Community groups, often of women, combining savings, microcredit, and mutual support to promote discipline and empowerment.

#Microcredit
Small loans provided to individuals or groups with limited access to banks — usually part of a broader institutional or group process.

#Microfinance
A wider set of financial services (credit, savings, insurance, remittance) offered to low-income populations to enhance financial inclusion.

#WomenEmpowerment
Processes that give women greater access to resources, decision-making, and leadership roles — key outcomes of SHG activity.

#CommunityInstitutions
Grassroots organisations such as cooperatives, SHGs, or federations that provide economic and social stability within communities.

#MYRADA
An Indian NGO that pioneered the SHG concept under Aloysius P. Fernandez and influenced national poverty-reduction policy.

#RuralDevelopment
Efforts to improve the economic and social well-being of rural populations through livelihoods, infrastructure, and institutions.

#BRI
Bank Rakyat Indonesia — an early model of state-supported microcredit integrated into a national banking framework.

#KWFT
Kenya Women Finance Trust — one of Africa’s leading examples of institution-based microfinance serving women entrepreneurs.

#FinancialAccess
The ability of individuals and small enterprises to obtain suitable financial products that meet their needs responsibly and sustainably.

📘 How to Use This Page

The same tags appear at the end of each post in the Poverty Reduction Knowledge Portal.
They help readers navigate related topics and explore recurring themes across the series.Return to the latest article:
Part III – Microcredit, Microfinance, and the Institutional Approach

The Poverty Reduction Knowledge Portal builds a shared understanding of poverty reduction. Explore the Glossary to learn how each concept connects to real-world practice.

Dr. Rajaratnam Abel, MBBS, MPH, PhD, is a public health expert and development professional focused on linking health, poverty reduction, and development economics through institution-building and evidence-based practice.

Share this: