Kerala’s ‘eradication’ of extreme poverty is more managerial than transformative – The Indian Express

Analysis of Kerala’s Extreme Poverty Eradication Declaration in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Milestone in Poverty Alleviation

On November 1, 2025, the state of Kerala announced the complete eradication of extreme poverty, a declaration positioned as a landmark achievement in its welfare history. This announcement followed the implementation of the government’s Extreme Poverty Eradication Project (EPEP), initiated in 2021. The project identified and provided targeted support to approximately 64,000 families. While this represents a significant step towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal 1 (No Poverty), a detailed analysis of the project’s methodology and its broader implications raises critical questions regarding the scope and sustainability of this achievement in relation to the comprehensive 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Alignment with SDG 1 (No Poverty): A Critical Assessment

The EPEP’s success is primarily measured against Target 1.1 of the SDGs, which aims to eradicate extreme poverty. However, the project’s framework defines “extreme poverty” through a narrow set of indicators, focusing on the most acute forms of deprivation. This approach presents several challenges when evaluated against the broader mandate of SDG 1.

• Narrow Definition of Poverty: The EPEP identified beneficiaries based on the lack of secure income, housing, food, or healthcare. This definition excludes a significant population of the working poor, informal laborers, and other vulnerable groups who, while not destitute, live in precarious conditions.
• Focus on Target 1.1 vs. Target 1.2: The project’s success in addressing extreme poverty (Target 1.1) may obscure the ongoing challenge of reducing poverty in all its dimensions (Target 1.2). By declaring the state “poverty-free,” there is a risk of de-prioritizing policies aimed at the larger population living just above the defined extreme poverty line.
• Managerial vs. Transformative Approach: The methodology reduced poverty eradication to a checklist of interventions. Once a household received assistance, it was removed from the list. This technocratic approach contrasts with the SDG principle of addressing the root causes of poverty and ensuring long-term, sustainable upliftment.

The Challenge of Multidimensional Poverty and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The declaration of eradicating extreme poverty does not fully address the persistent structural issues that contravene SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). While Kerala has strong human development indicators, significant disparities remain.

1. Persistent Structural Inequalities: Issues such as landlessness among Dalit and Adivasi communities, the prevalence of insecure employment, and rising income inequality are not captured by the EPEP’s metrics. These factors are critical barriers to achieving Target 10.2 (promote social, economic, and political inclusion) and Target 10.3 (ensure equal opportunity).
2. Data Optimization over Redistribution: The focus on eliminating a statistically defined category of poverty risks shifting policy away from broader redistributive justice. The declaration may create a false perception that the work of social justice is complete, thereby masking the lived realities of inequality for many citizens.

Structural Deficiencies and Related SDGs

The report highlights that a narrow focus on poverty metrics overlooks interconnected development challenges central to other SDGs.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The dominance of the informal labor market remains a significant challenge. The declaration does not address the need for stable, decent employment as outlined in Target 8.5 (full and productive employment and decent work for all). The precarity faced by informal workers is a form of vulnerability that persists even if “extreme poverty” is officially eliminated.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

While the EPEP provided housing assistance, aligning with Target 11.1 (access to adequate, safe and affordable housing), the long-term sustainability for those living in fragile homes but not classified as “extremely poor” remains a concern. A holistic approach requires addressing the broader housing deficit and quality of living conditions.

Governance and Policy Implications for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The political act of declaring poverty eradicated has significant implications for governance and public policy, potentially undermining the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• The “Politics of Closure”: Declaring the problem “solved” can close the space for further policy dialogue and demands from marginalized groups. This administrative closure runs counter to the principles of responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making (Target 16.7).
• Shift in Policy Priorities: Such a declaration can alter budgetary allocations and policy priorities, shifting focus away from social protection and redistributive measures. This undermines the creation of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions (Target 16.6) committed to ongoing social justice.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The eradication of destitution for over 64,000 families is a commendable achievement. However, for this milestone to be truly aligned with the spirit of the Sustainable Development Goals, it must be viewed as a starting point, not a conclusion. The true measure of success lies not in eliminating names from a survey list but in building a society where dignity, opportunity, and resilience are universal.

To ensure progress towards the comprehensive 2030 Agenda, the following steps are recommended:

1. Adopt a Multidimensional Poverty Index: Move beyond narrow definitions to measure and address poverty in all its forms, in line with SDG 1.
2. Renew Focus on Reducing Inequality: Implement targeted policies to address structural inequalities related to land, assets, and employment, directly contributing to SDG 10.
3. Strengthen Social Protection and Decent Work: Prioritize the creation of decent employment opportunities and universal social safety nets to support vulnerable populations, advancing SDG 8.
4. Foster Participatory Governance: Maintain open channels for public dialogue and ensure that policymaking remains responsive to the needs of all marginalized communities, upholding the principles of SDG 16.

Analysis of SDGs in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  This is the central theme of the article. The entire text revolves around the declaration by the Kerala government of having eradicated “extreme poverty” through its Extreme Poverty Eradication Project (EPEP). The article critically examines the definition of poverty used and questions whether the state has truly achieved this goal, making SDG 1 the primary focus.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article argues that while the government claims to have eliminated extreme poverty, it has failed to address deeper structural issues of inequality. It explicitly mentions that “rising inequality has quietly eroded the state’s egalitarian ethos” and points to the persistent problems of “Landlessness… [haunting] Dalit and Adivasi communities.” The critique is that managing poverty statistics masks the underlying and growing inequality, directly connecting the discussion to SDG 10.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article highlights that the state’s definition of poverty overlooks the precarious nature of employment for many. It notes that “informal and insecure employment dominates the labour market” and that a family earning a small daily income through informal work would not be classified as poor. In its conclusion, it recommends that the state must “renew its focus on expanding decent employment,” linking the issue of poverty directly to the quality of work available to the population, which is the core of SDG 8.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 1 (No Poverty):
   • Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day. The article directly addresses this target through Kerala’s declaration of eradicating “extreme poverty.” It also references the “World Bank’s much-criticised poverty benchmark of around $2 a day” as a similar measure.
   • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. The article critiques Kerala’s narrow definition of poverty, which focuses only on the “most visible and irrefutable forms of deprivation” (lack of shelter, food, healthcare). It implicitly argues for a broader, multidimensional understanding of poverty, as referenced by the mention of “NITI Aayog’s multidimensional poverty index.”
   • Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property… The article points to the failure to address “Landlessness” among Dalit and Adivasi communities and calls for “equitable access to assets,” which directly relates to this target.
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The article’s concern that the “politics of closure” silences demands from “marginalised groups” and that landlessness persists for “Dalit and Adivasi communities” speaks directly to the challenge of ensuring social and economic inclusion for all.
   • Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality. The article advocates for “continued investment in redistributive measures” and “universal social protection” as necessary steps beyond the current poverty eradication claim, aligning with the policy focus of this target.
3. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value. The article criticizes the fact that families with “informal and insecure employment” are not considered poor and concludes by stating that a true test for Kerala is to “renew its focus on expanding decent employment.” This directly connects the poverty debate to the goal of achieving decent work for all.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For SDG 1 (No Poverty):
  • Number of “extremely poor” families: The article explicitly states that the EPEP identified “just over 64,000 families” as extremely poor. This count serves as the primary indicator for the government’s claim of success.
  • Poverty headcount/benchmark: The article mentions the “World Bank’s much-criticised poverty benchmark of around $2 a day” as a global indicator for extreme poverty.
  • Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI): The article refers to “NITI Aayog’s multidimensional poverty index,” implying that this is a more comprehensive indicator for measuring poverty beyond just income, which the author feels is more appropriate.
  • Access to basic services: The EPEP’s definition of extreme poverty included households that “lacked secure income, housing, food, or access to healthcare.” These four elements serve as a checklist-style indicator used in the project.
• For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
  • Asset ownership by social group: The article implies this indicator by repeatedly mentioning “Landlessness” that “continues to haunt Dalit and Adivasi communities.” Measuring the distribution of land and other assets across different social groups would be a relevant indicator of inequality.
• For SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
  • Proportion of informal employment: The article implies this as a key indicator by stating that “informal and insecure employment dominates the labour market.” A reduction in this proportion would indicate progress towards decent work.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: indianexpress.com