PI Briefing | No. 40 | Kerala ends extreme poverty – Progressive International

Report on Kerala’s Eradication of Extreme Poverty and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

On November 1, 2025, the state of Kerala, India, officially announced it had become “extreme poverty-free,” achieving this milestone one year ahead of its projected schedule. This accomplishment, realized through the Extreme Poverty Eradication Project (EPEP), marks a significant step towards fulfilling key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty). The project utilized a highly localized and participatory methodology, identifying and creating micro-plans for 64,006 households to address specific deprivations. This report details the project’s framework, its historical context, and its direct contributions to multiple SDGs.

2.0 Project Methodology: The Extreme Poverty Eradication Project (EPEP)

The EPEP, initiated in 2021, was a comprehensive, community-driven initiative designed to ensure no one was left behind. Its implementation followed a structured, bottom-up approach:

1. Identification Phase: An exhaustive door-to-door survey was conducted by local self-governments and community organizations. A key partner in this phase was Kudumbashree, a women’s cooperative network with over four million members, underscoring a commitment to SDG 5 (Gender Equality).
2. Household Targeting: The survey identified 64,006 households, comprising approximately 103,000 individuals, living in conditions of extreme deprivation.
3. Micro-Planning: For each identified household, local assemblies drafted a specific micro-plan. This participatory process, aligning with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), detailed the precise interventions required.
4. Targeted Interventions: The micro-plans addressed a spectrum of needs directly linked to various SDGs, including:
   • Housing and land titles (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities)
   • Healthcare access (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being)
   • Employment opportunities (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth)
   • Pensions and social protections (SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities)

This model represents a shift from traditional top-down welfare schemes to a participatory framework that empowers local communities to determine their own development pathways.

3.0 Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Kerala’s achievement is a case study in the integrated implementation of the SDGs. The state’s long-term policies and the specific design of the EPEP have contributed to progress across numerous goals:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): The project’s primary objective was the complete eradication of extreme poverty, which has now been formally achieved.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The success builds upon foundational efforts like the universalization of the Public Distribution System, which aims to ensure food security for all.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The state’s historically low infant mortality rates and high life expectancy, supplemented by targeted healthcare interventions in the micro-plans, demonstrate a strong commitment to this goal.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): Kerala’s foundation of near-universal literacy was a critical enabler for the social and economic mobility of its population.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The central role of the Kudumbashree women’s network in the project’s implementation highlights the empowerment of women as agents of social change.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The initiative directly addresses inequality by targeting the most deprived households. This continues a historical trajectory that includes radical land reforms aimed at redistributing wealth and resources.

4.0 Historical Context and Broader Implications

The eradication of extreme poverty in Kerala is not an isolated event but the culmination of decades of sustained policy efforts. Key historical initiatives that laid the groundwork include:

• Land Reforms: Policies instituted in the late 1960s redistributed land to landless workers, fundamentally altering social and economic structures and contributing to reduced inequality (SDG 10).
• Universal Social Services: Long-term investments in public education and healthcare have resulted in some of the best social indicators in the Global South, including high literacy (SDG 4) and life expectancy (SDG 3).
• Decentralized Governance: A strong system of local self-government (panchayats) enabled the participatory and highly targeted approach of the EPEP, reflecting the principles of SDG 16.

5.0 Global and National Contrast

Kerala’s success provides a stark contrast to prevailing global and national trends. While India has the world’s largest population living in extreme poverty and faces record-high wealth inequality, Kerala has demonstrated a viable model for inclusive development. Globally, challenges in achieving the SDGs persist, with billions facing food insecurity, inadequate sanitation, and a lack of access to basic health services. The Kerala model, rooted in community participation and a long-term commitment to social welfare, offers a scalable and effective blueprint for other regions aiming to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article on Kerala’s achievement in eradicating extreme poverty touches upon several interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis reveals connections to the following goals:

• SDG 1: No Poverty – This is the central theme of the article, focusing on Kerala’s successful project to become “extreme poverty–free.”
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The article mentions the “universalization of the Public Distribution System” and the problem of malnourishment in other parts of India, linking poverty eradication to food security.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – The provision of healthcare is listed as a key intervention for the poor, and Kerala’s high life expectancy and low infant mortality rates are cited as long-term successes.
• SDG 4: Quality Education – The article highlights Kerala’s “near-universal literacy” as a foundational element of its social development, which contributes to breaking the cycle of poverty.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality – The significant role of Kudumbashree, a “women’s cooperative network,” in implementing the poverty eradication survey is a clear link to women’s participation and empowerment.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – Employment is identified as a specific intervention in the micro-plans for poor households, and joblessness is mentioned as a major issue elsewhere in India.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article contrasts Kerala’s success with the “record highs” of inequality in the rest of India, where “the richest 1% now own more than 70% of the wealth.”
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – The provision of housing is explicitly mentioned as one of the interventions in the micro-plans designed to lift households out of poverty.

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

Based on the article’s discussion of policies, interventions, and outcomes, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

SDG 1: No Poverty

• Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere. The article’s main announcement that Kerala is “extreme poverty–free” directly addresses this target, claiming to have achieved it ahead of schedule.
• Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all. The micro-plans mentioned in the article include “pensions, or access to social protections” as key interventions.
• 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. The article references Kerala’s history of “radical land reforms” that “redistributed it to landless workers” and the inclusion of “land titles” in the new micro-plans.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. The article mentions the “universalization of the Public Distribution System” as a foundational effort, which is a direct policy measure to achieve this target.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage. The inclusion of “healthcare” as a specific intervention in the micro-plans for the 64,006 identified households points directly to efforts to ensure universal access to health services.

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Target 4.6: By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy. The article cites Kerala’s “near-universal literacy” as a key social indicator and foundation for its development.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making. The article highlights the central role of “Kudumbashree, a women’s cooperative network with over four million members,” in leading the door-to-door survey, demonstrating women’s participation in public life.

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. “Employment” is listed as a specific intervention in the micro-plans, showing a direct effort to tackle joblessness among the poorest.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average. While not stating a rate, the entire project focuses on lifting the economic floor for the most deprived, and the article contrasts this with rising national inequality, implying a focus on this target.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services. The article explicitly states that “housing” was a required intervention detailed in the micro-plans for extremely poor households.

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

The article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

SDG 1: No Poverty

• Indicator for Target 1.1: The article provides a precise number of people identified as living in extreme poverty: “64,006 households, comprising roughly 103,000 individuals.” This serves as a direct measure equivalent to Indicator 1.1.1 (Proportion of population below the international poverty line), which has now been reduced to zero according to the announcement.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Indicators for Health Outcomes: The article explicitly mentions “one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Global South, and the highest life expectancy in India.” These are direct measures corresponding to Indicator 3.2.2 (Neonatal mortality rate) and a general measure of overall population health.

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Indicator for Target 4.6: The statement about Kerala achieving “near-universal literacy” is a direct reference to Indicator 4.6.1 (Proportion of population achieving at least a fixed level of proficiency in functional literacy).

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Indicator for Inequality: The article provides a stark indicator of wealth inequality in the rest of India: “the richest 1% now own more than 70% of the wealth.” This statistic is a measure related to wealth concentration and serves as a baseline against which Kerala’s more equitable model is compared.

Implied Indicators

• Social Protection Coverage (Target 1.3): The number of people receiving pensions and other social protections through the micro-plans would be an indicator.
• Land Ownership (Target 1.4): The number of landless households provided with land titles is an implied indicator.
• Housing Access (Target 11.1): The number of homeless families provided with housing through the project is an implied indicator.
• Women’s Participation (Target 5.5): The number of women actively involved in the poverty eradication project through networks like Kudumbashree (stated as having over four million members) serves as an indicator of women’s participation in public life.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: progressive.international