Introduction

Up to the early millennium, poverty remains to be the biggest problem of the world.
One-sixth of the global population or about one billion people live in an extreme
poverty. They struggle daily for survival. They suffered from lack of nutrition, health,
water and sanitation, shelter and other basic needs for survival. In order to end the
poverty, the 191 UN members signed the United Nations Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) in 2000. The first goal of the MDGs is to eradicate extreme poverty and
hunger. To achieve this goal, a target has been has to be set that is, to reduce by half
the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day by 2015. If the target can be
realized, there will be an opportunity to end the extreme poverty by 2025 (Sach, 2005:
25). It means that poverty is the greatest challenge of global society. The greatest
challenge to alleviate poverty can be reflected through the contemporary poverty
situation in Indonesia and India where a huge number of people lives below the
poverty line. Before the economic crisis hit Indonesia in 1997, the number of
poor people had significantly decreased. There was clearly a sharp reduction in both
urban and rural poverty from 1984 to 1996. The total poverty rate dropped from 56.7% in
1984 to 17.4% in 1996, a reduction of 39.3 percentage points in a twelve-year period. However,
the economic crisis has evidently reversed the achievement of poverty reduction.
Poverty in both urban and rural areas increased again from 1996 to 1999. The total
poverty rate in 1999was 27.0%, while urban and rural poverty rates were 16.3% and
33.9% respectively (Suryahadi et al.,2006).Although there was a debate on the
effectiveness of economic recovery, Central Bureau of Statistics(CBS) noted that the
poverty rate decreased during 1998 - 2005. By 2002, the poverty rates in both urban
and rural areas were the lowest since 1984. The national poverty rate was 9.8%; the
urban poverty rate was 4.2%; and the rural poverty rate was 14.2% (Suryahadi et al.,
2006). During the period of 2002-2004, the number of poor people dropped from
23.4% to 18.2% in 2002, 17.4% in 2003, and 16.66% in2004 (Bappenas, 2006).
However, during the last three years there has been no significant achievement in
reducing the number of poor people, and even since 2005 the number of the poor has
significantly increased (INFID,2007). By February 2005, CBS noted that the number
of poor people was 35.10 million (15.97%) out of 220 million total population. During
the period of 2005-2006, as released by CBS in September 2006, the national poverty
rate increased by 2.22%, from 15.97% in 2005 to 17.75% in 2006. By March 2006, the
number of the poor recorded to 39.05 million out of the 222 million total population (Kompas,
2September 2007). In achieving the first goal of the MDGs, the Government of
Indonesia plans to reduce the poverty level to 7.2% (Bappenas, 2006).In India,
according to the National Commission, the incidence of poverty has decreased on the
basis of household consumer expenditure surveys. Between the periods of 1973-74
and 1999-2000, the incidence of poverty expressed as a percentage of people below
the poverty line declined continuously from 54.9% to supposedly 26%. However, the
pace of reduction in poverty varied considerably during this period. Significant
progress was made in poverty reduction especially during 1980s. The number
of people below poverty line decreased from a high number of 328.9 million in the
1970s to 307.1 million towards the end of the 1980s. The percentage of population in
poverty decreased from 54.9% in the early 1970s to 39% during the second half of the
1980s. However, in the early 1990s, as a consequence of financial crisis in 1991, there
was a reversal in some of these gains as the number of people below poverty line
increased to 320 million. During the period of 1999-2000, according to the Planning
Commission, there was a substantial decrease in poverty in terms of the number of
the poor (down to260 million) and the poverty incidence (down to 26.1%) (Mehta & Shah,
2001).In regard to the first goal of MDGs, India aims to reduce the proportion of people
below poverty line from nearly 37.5% in 1990 to about 18.75% by 2015. As in 1999-
2000, the poverty headcount ratio is 26.1% with poverty gap ratio of 5.2%, the share
of poorest quintile in national consumption is 10.1%for rural sector and 7.9% for urban
sector and the prevalence of underweight children is of the order of 47% (Government
of India, 2006).In order to achieve the first goal of MDGs, it is broadly assumed that
NGOs have important roles. The role of NGOs in reducing poverty is not a new issue.
Especially since the post World War II, NGO involvement in poverty reduction has become
a mainstream. They have been engaged in relief, emergency or longer-term development
work or the mixture of all three. Although the evidence on NGO performance in poverty
alleviation is mixed, up to now, it is generally assumed that NGOs have the institutional
capacity to reduce poverty. It is also frequently argued that compared to the
government, NGOs have comparative advantages. As stated by van der Heijden, their
comparative advantages are: their ability to deliver emergency relief or development
services at low cost, to many people, in remote areas; their rapid, innovative and
flexible responses to emerging financial and technical assistance needs at the grass
roots level; their long-standing familiarity with social sector development and poverty
alleviation; their experience with small-scale development projects as well as with
those requiring a high degree of involvement by, and familiarity with, the concerned
target groups (as quoted by Riddell & Robison, 1995: 36).As part of their commitment
to realize the targets of MDGs in 2015, the NGOs have greater opportunity to increase
their roles in reducing poverty especially in the developing countries. The purpose of
this article is to describe and to analyze the roles of NGOs in alleviating poverty in
rural areas in two developing countries: Indonesia and India. In the two countries,
since their independence, NGOs have important contributions in increasing the
welfare of the poor people. Many NGOs have various activities to empower the poor
people. Following this introduction, the second part of this article explains the general
NGO approaches in the efforts to reduce poverty. Drawn from data gathering in the
two countries, the third part describes two cases of NGO work dealing with the poor.
To have a close picture on their works, the article describes two cases of NGO
programs in improving the living conditions of the poor. The fourth part is an analysis
of their successful performance in enhancing the quality of life of the poor. And in the
final part of this article, some conclusions will be drawn.

NGO Approaches in Poverty Reduction

What kind of strategies should be developed to alleviate poverty? At a macro level,
pro-poor growth combined with social development is now promoted by scholars,
especially economists. At a micro level, promotions of small scale enterprises and
microfinance including the Grameen Bank model have been recently referred to by
various agencies. In this context, it is worth referring to Jeffrey D. Sachss strategy for
alleviating poverty. According to Sachs (2005), a poverty trap must first be solved in
combating poverty. Although the poor have willingness to overcome their ill-being, they
are not able to do it by using their own resources. There are so many factors that trap
the poor until they are in powerless conditions, such as diseases, climate stress,
environmental degradation, physical isolation, and also extreme poverty itself. Sachs
states: The worlds poor know about the development ladder: they are tantalized by
images of affluence from halfway around the world. But they are not able to get a first
foothold on the ladder, and so cannot even begin the climb out of poverty (Sachs,
2005: 19-20).Essentially, the poor must be helped to exit from the poverty trap. If it
can be reached, there will be an opportunity to get a first foothold on the ladder
of development. In helping the poor to climb out of poverty, NGOs use two
approaches: supply-side and demand-side (Clark, 1995). In a similar sense, Fowler
(1997) identifies two types of NGO tasks: micro-tasks and macro-tasks. From the
supply-side or micro-tasks approach, NGOs provide various basic public services to
the poor. It is argued that especially in countries where government lack public
services, NGOs play a significant role in the direct provision of social and economic
services. In general, NGOs emerge and play the roles as service providers. Unlike the
supply-side approach where NGOs directly provide services to the people, the
demand-side NGOs play indirect roles. The demand-side role of NGOs can be seen
as being an articulator of the peoples voice. NGOs mobilize and clarify the demand
for services, from both the government and the market, so that the people are able to
achieve its development goals. In the context of service delivery, generally, NGOs
seek to improve the access of the people to the services provided by the state. NGOs
also engage in policy advocacy to influence public policies concerning the poor people.
In line of this approach, NGOs have developed various strategies to influence the
process of public policy making and to control the implementation of development
programs or projects. This is also an area into which NGOs have been moving during the
1990s when they revised and re-strategized to move away from direct service delivery and
prioritized policy advocacy and lobbying (Hulme, 2001: 136-142).Clark (1995) identifies
some potential NGO contributions by employing the demand-side approach as follows: Such
NGOs assist citizens in finding out about activities of the government and others which
might affect them; they use advocacy and political influence to hold local officials
accountable for activities (or inactivity) which are damaging to the poor; they help
communities mobilize and form societies to express their concerns, and help guard
against reprisals; they construct fora in which officials can consult people about
development plans and listen to alternatives presented by the people; and they help
ensure that individuals disadvantaged by government decisions receive just
compensation, negotiates with affected parties (Clark, 1995: 345).These two
approaches are not mutually exclusive. In the recent trends, NGOs combine the two
approaches for increasing their efficacy to reduce poverty. In practice, NGOs can
function on both the supply and the demand sides and even forge the linkages
between the two sides. The latter is emphasized by Fowler (1997) by arguing that it is
necessary for NGOs to make a linkage between micro-tasks consisting of provision of
goods, of social and of financial services, capacity building, process facilitation, and
fostering linkages, and macro-tasks consisting of policy advocacy, lobbying, public
education and mobilization, monitoring compliance, and reconciliation and mediation
(Fowler,1997: 12-16).

Disasters have increased in number over the past century from under 100 natural
disasters reported annually before 1975 to over 450disasters reported in 2000 (See
graph below).
This only takes into account natural disasters and is partly a factor of better reporting
overtime. However, a rise in population numbers, increased urbanization, building in
more risk prone areas, and climate change are all contributing to the increased number
of disasters. Depending on an affected households vulnerability and the systems put
in place to protect these populations, hazards can quickly cause a household to spiral
down into new levels of destitution (Boudreau, 2009).Overall, a greater proportion of
the population double what it was the previous decade is now exposed to hazards,
transforming hazards into disasters (DFID, 2006). A disaster as defined by ISDR (the
most common set of DRR definitions) is:
A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing
widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the
ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. A disaster
is a function of the risk process. It results from the combination of hazards, conditions
of vulnerability and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce the potential negative
consequences of risk. Disaster risk is a global concern, but not all areas or populations
experience an equal threat from hazards. Disasters are highly concentrated in poorer
countries with weaker governance, in low and low-middle income countries with rapid
economic growth, and where the exposure of people and assets is growing faster than
risk-reducing capacities are being strengthened (UN, 2009; ISDR, 2004; Twigg,
2007). The poor are particularly vulnerable to disasters given their already low income
and depleted asset base, and therefore can ill afford to suffer increasing
unemployment, crop and livestock losses, and lower wages or higher prices,
especially on food items. Small-island nations (such as Andamans, the Maldives, etc)
as well as land-locked developing countries are identified as having the greatest
economic vulnerability to hazards; the amount of loss Is seen as a function of
decreased resilience (UN, 2009). Urban populations are becoming increasingly more
vulnerable to the impact of a hazard given the rush of growth in large and mid-sized
cities, causing an increase in shantytowns and slums in areas that are highly prone to
landslides, flooding, and other hazards (UNDP, 2004). On the other hand, the state is
known for two important industrial activities. First, handloom and specialized textile-
printing, and second, nature-historical tourism on the other. These two sub-sectors
need special emphasis through comprehensive approach for cluster based
development. Adding a special thrust of ecological conservation may hold special
promise. It is imperative that promotion of traditional textiles and tourism is attained
with a view to create employment/income opportunities for the local communities.
These aspects are often missed out in the race of reaching out to large number of
buyers/tourists from all over the world, with thrust on standardized or certified
products/services to cater to high end market. The need however is to balance the
sectors in such a manner that these activities may also retain their roots in local
producers/entrepreneurs and buyers/customers. A similar approach may apply to
mineral based industries though much of the resources have been already lost out to
Chhatisgarh. Overall the industry-mining sector maybe accorded relatively limited
space in the context of poverty reduction in the state.
Health and Education:
India has a dubious distinction of having the lowest expectation of life at birth in India
which indicates that the health of the people of India is amongst the poorest in the
country. It also reflects a comparatively high infant and child mortality rates for the
state. According to the Sample Registration System, the expectation of life at birth in
India was around 58 years during the period 2002-06 which was 5.5 years less than
the expectation of life at birth for India as a whole (Government of India, 2008). The
situation was radically different about 30 years ago, during 1971-75, when the
expectation of life at birth in India was 47.6 years which was higher than the
expectation of life at birth in Assam, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh (Government of India,
1984). If the trend in the expectation of life at birth is a reflection of the progress in
health and well- being of the people, then the increase in the expectation of life at birth
suggests that improvements in health and well-being of the people of India have been
the slowest amongst the major states of India during the 30 years between 1971-75
through 2002-06. Obviously, poverty of health remains a major challenge in India. The
persistence of poor health and well-being of the people of the state, incidentally, has
important implications for other dimensions of poverty and hence for poverty reduction
efforts.

The Government of India has drafted the State Health Policy quite some time back.
This policy still remains at the draft stage. It aims at addressing the issues of physical
access; effectiveness and affordability of that may still remain a questionable
proposition. It is however suggested that India Health Policy should focus on creating
opportunities for the people of the state to adopt positive health seeking behaviour by
making informed choices to ensure healthy life style for themselves, their family
members and to build and sustain a healthy environment in which they live, work and
play. It should be directed to achieve the following.
1) To increase the number of years of healthy life of the people of the state;
2) ensure lasting improvements in the health-related quality of life of the people of the
state which reflects a personal sense of physical and mental health and ability to react
to physical and social environments; and
3) eliminate health related inequalities or disparities across different segments of the
population. To achieve the above goals, the action points are summarised in section
7 in bullets points. On Education front the state has performed relatively better through
its massive efforts for raising the literacy level from 45 to 64 during 1991 and 2001.
This seems to have been attained by expanding the network of primary schools and
adult literacy centres. This involved massive recruitment of para-professionals
(Shiksha Karmis) to teach in the schools. Initially a good move, the policy of para-
professionals seems to have created major stumbling blocks in the delivery of
educational services for the last five years. The situation is very grimas it arose out of
what may be called a quick fix solution for spearheading the drive for enhancing
literacy levels in the state. The para-professionals have more or less stopped attending
to the schools in the wake of their pending demand - a salary hike and/or regularization
of their services. What is in fact strange about this grim scenario is that no one in the
villages, including the Panchayats and Shiksha Samitis, have formal platforms for
voicing their demands for education in their respective villages. The situation needs
immediate solution if the goal of universal primary education is to be met. The recent
developments in the wake of Right to Education may help finding some solution to the
basic problem of having the teachers to teach; the other issues of quality of education
and facilities at the schools thus may get relegated to secondary concerns at this
stage.
This perhaps suggests a need to re-think over the entire issue of educational system,
which may essentially require participation of the parents and community rather than
involvement of the private sector for creating a parallel system for schooling and
coaching classes that may create further divisions between the poor and the rest.
Another key concern that has emerged is the quality of education. The available
evidence suggests that in terms of the quality of education, India ranks the lowest
amongst the states and Union Territories of the country, although the state has done
relatively better in improving the infrastructure and facilities. In this context, they need
to revise their approach for teacher recruitment and teacher development. The state
also needs to focus on higher and technical education also as the only way to develop
human resources is through higher and technical education only. The state record in
this context remains far from satisfactory. Privatisation of higher and technical
education in the state has resulted in mushrooming of a large number of private
institutions with grossly inadequate infrastructure and facilities and very little focus on
research that contributes to improving the productivity of social and economic
production system. State investment in the higher and technical education sector
needs to be increased. At the same time regulatory mechanism for ensuring the quality
and relevance of technical and higher education needs to be put in place.