First: The income generation orientation of poverty alleviation programmes does not recognise the importance of increased flow of social inputs through family welfare, nutrition, social security and minimum needs programmes in alleviating conditions of poverty on a long-term basis. Second: The programmes have done little for disabled, sick and socially handicapped individuals who cannot participate in normal economic activities. The strategy for poverty alleviation has also failed to do justice to women in intra-family distributions. Third: Income and employment-oriented poverty alleviation programmes put additional income in the hands of the poor which they can use for buying food.
But these programmes do not ensure that the poor can really manage to get adequate food all the year round for the family with the increased income. Fourth: The household approach focused around self-employment enterprises or wage-employment guarantees is not correct in the state of continuing demographic pressures and increasing number of small size of farm holding. Fifth: The poverty line crossing criterion, for evaluating the success of the poverty alleviation programmes, is insensitive to the income changes occurring below poverty line. Sixth: Many rural poor depend on natural resources for their livelihood. However, the practices of using these resources are no longer viable and as a result they are fast deteriorating. The government should have taken into consideration the implications of this environmental decay which unfortunately was not taken care of in the past. Seventh: The government has failed to make necessary changes in anti-poor laws and policies.
These laws and policies harm particularly the tribes who depend on non-timber forest products for their subsistence and cash income. Finally, the poverty alleviation programmes often ignore the consequences of the earning activities of the poor in terms of occupational health hazards and adverse ecological consequences.