Abstract
Among schemes for alleviating poverty, the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) is unparalleled in its size and spread. Its evaluation, therefore, has to take account of its size and the fact that it has been in operation for less than eight years.
What is disturbing is that the qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the Programme are at variance. Based on action research and careful analysis, Anil Gupta and Manu Shroff ("Rural Credit: How do the Poor See It?" Vikalpa October-December 1987) argued that the plight of the poor had not changed much because the Programme did not reflect an adequate understanding of the nature of poverty.
Commenting on that article, Inderjit Khanna counters their conclusion to provide figures on credit flows as well as official survey findings to show that beneficiaries have expressed satisfaction. Detailed research and analysis on both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the Programme at various levels are called for to reconcile these differences to identify the problems and devise better ways to reduce poverty
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.