INTRODUCTION TO ABHIJIT BANERJEE:

Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee is an Indian-American economist. Abhijit Banerjee is currently the Ford Foundation International Professor of Economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Abhijit Banerjee, along with Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer, was awarded the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics for developing an experimental approach to alleviating global poverty. Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee was born on 21 February 1961 in Mumbai to a Bengali father and a Marathi mother. His father was a professor of economics at Presidency College, Kolkata and his mother was a professor at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Kolkata. Abhijit Banerjee did his schooling at South Point School, Kolkata. He was a 'Brilliant' but 'quiet' student from the beginning. He completed his B.Sc. (Hons.) in Economics from Presidency College in 1981 and his M.A. in Economics from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi in 1983. For further studies, he joined Harvard University, USA and completed his Ph. D. in 1988. Later, he taught economics at Princeton University (1988 to 1992), Harvard University (1991 to 1993) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (since 1993). He has also been awarded the first Infosys Prize in 2009. He is also associated with the World Bank and the Government of India as an honorary advisor¹.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

1.To know the Abhijit Banerjee thought’s regarding poverty.

2.To understand the hindrances to breaking the vicious circle of poverty.

3.To know the thoughts of Abhijeet Banerjee regarding poverty alleviation.

METHODOLOGY:

A huge amount of methodology is required to prepare a research paper like with qualitative and quantitative methods used in research. For the study, data has been collected from secondary source such as various books, research paper, articles and websites.

Abhijit Banerjee's thoughts on poverty:

Poverty is a pervasive problem in the global context and creates many hindrances to development, especially in developing countries. According to the world bank, almost 8.5 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty. While in India, according to survey report 2011-12(planning commission), 21.9 per cent of total population lives in below poverty line². In ‘Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty (2011)’, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo have provided a compelling critique of traditional poverty alleviation approaches. The books challenge the prevailing assumptions about poverty and offer a fresh perspective on addressing global poverty. By information obtained through randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it has been demonstrated that the decision made by the poor in terms of actual choices shape their economic situation³. In their book 'Poor Economics' Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo have discussed how a rigorous scientific approach can be used to eradicate poverty by collecting qualitative and quantitative information about poverty and focusing on specific questions related to the life of poor people.

The vicious circle of poverty:

According to Abhijit Banerjee, poverty lines were set in most countries to define poverty in terms of hunger. Poverty was defined as 'A person who cannot afford to eat enough food’ based on the cost of a certain amount of food and accommodation. It is believed that hunger and poverty are closely linked. One of the root causes of the vicious circle of poverty is hunger because the poor cannot earn enough to eat, resulting in reduced productivity. As a result, the poor remain poor. The vicious circle of poverty causes the poor to fall further into poverty while the rich become richer. The gap between the rich and the poor widens.

Problems related to the vicious circle of poverty:

1. People do not spend all their income on food: One of the assumptions underlying the theory of the vicious circle of poverty is that poor people eat as much food as they can afford and that if the poor were given a little more to eat, they would break out of the vicious circle. According to Abhijit Banerjee, this is not the case in reality. He studied the poor in 18 different countries and found that the rural poor spend 76 to 79 per cent of their income on food, while the urban poor spend 53 to 74 per cent of their income on food. A study of the very poor in Udaipur, India, found that they could have increased their food spending by up to 33 per cent, but they would have had to give up on alcohol, tobacco and festival.

2. People are not aware of nutritional value: Studies of poor people in Indonesia, the Philippines and India have shown that poor people are not very conscious about eating nutritious food themselves and feeding their children. They do not know much about nutritional value. Until very recently, scientists did not know much about the nutritional value of micronutrients. Even in America, many people are not aware of this. It is also not easy to know about the nutritional value from personal experience. Although iodine intake benefits children, it is not clearly noticeable. Also, it takes many years to know whether it has actually benefited or not. Therefore, poor people choose their food based on taste rather than cheapness or nutritional value.

3. Along with food, many other things are important: Along with food, many other things are important in the lives of the poor, so they have to spend on such things along with food. In developing countries, poor people spend a lot on things like marriage, dowry, and festival. A study in South Africa showed that when the main earner of their family dies, people spend 40 per cent of their family's annual income on his funeral. The study, which was conducted in Morocco, Mexico and India, showed that the homes of the very poor had T.V., D.V.D., Satellite T.V., Mobile and household appliances. According to Abhijit Banerjee, it is not because of social pressure that the poor spend on these items, but because these items are important from their point of view. The poor do not spend less on luxuries and increase their spending on necessities. They often do the exact opposite.

4. The real issue is not the quantity of food but its nutritional value.: According to Abhijit Banerjee, even the poorest of the poor do not get trapped in the vicious circle of poverty due to hunger. The real issue is not the quantity of food but the quality and nutritional value of food. The same can be said in the case of Pak Salvin In Indonesia. He was not trapped in the vicious circle of poverty because of hunger, but because his job was going away and he was no longer old enough to be hired as a helper at a construction site. This had trapped him in the vicious circle of poverty. At the same time, he was very mentally exhausted⁴.

Abhijit Banerjee has explained the scientific approach to breaking vicious circle of poverty. It is seen that special emphasis has been given to increasing food availability by providing financial assistance to the poor in the poverty alleviation programmes. Various schemes have been implemented in India for poverty alleviation and their aim is to provide financial assistance to the poor. But according to Abhijit Banerjee, governments and international organizations need to make fundamental changes in food policies. Because even with financial assistance, the poor are less likely to spend on nutritious food. In this regard, investments related to the health of young children and pregnant women can be more useful. Just as children in Kenya are routinely given deworming tablets in schools, In Colombia, nutritious powder is sprinkled on kindergarten children's meals. families in Mexico are given free nutritious food, countries like Uganda and Mozambique have started cultivating sweeter and more nutritious potatoes. Some countries, including India, have started using iron and iodized salt. Although these measures can be more effective in breaking the circle of poverty, food availability is often considered the foundation of food policy.

Vicious circle of health:

The vicious circle of health can be at the root of many vicious circles. Due to illness, a worker cannot attend his work. His income decreases drastically. The expenditure on illness increases to a large extent. Due to this, the financial condition of the family becomes miserable. Due to illness, a student remains absent from school. As a result, his academic performance deteriorates. If a baby is born in an unhealthy environment, the baby experiences illness as soon as it is born. In each of these cases, the potential for poverty is highlighted. According to Jeffrey Sachs, the world's poorest people and some countries are trapped in a vicious circle of health-focused poverty. One of the most frustrating things about it is health care. Health workers say that things that are easy to do are difficult.

Problems related to the vicious circle of health:

Poor people are trapped in a vicious circle of health. Although they can be freed with the power of money, many problems arise in it.

1. Effective techniques are not adopted: Although some techniques are affordable for the poorest of the poor, they are not adopted Breastfeeding a baby does not cost anything. According to the World Health Organization, á mother should breastfeed for the first six months of a baby's life. But in reality, this has not been seen. Only 40 per cent of babies benefit from it. Providing clean water from a tap to every household and maintaining good hygiene can go a long way in breaking the vicious circle of health, However, a survey in Zambia found that 98 per cent of Zambians know that they use chlorine to purify water. It costs only 800 Kwacha ($0.18) to buy enough chlorine for a month for an average family. While, in Zambia only 10 per cent people use chlorine to purify water.

2. People do not adopt affordable solutions: Poor people are not willing to spend on clean water, mosquito nets, deworming tablets, nutritious powder. This does not mean that they are not aware of their health. The available data on the poor in 18 countries shows that poor people spend a large share of their income on health. In South Africa, 75 per cent of people are concerned about their health, a much higher rate than in the United States. In India, poor people spend 5 per cent on health. Poor people do not adopt simple, affordable hygiene measures to improve their health, they resort to other useless and in fact, harmful practices.

3. Apathy of health workers: In the context of health, disease prevention measures can be very effective. But people do not adopt these preventive measures. The reason is the absence of government employees and the apathy of government health workers. A visit to one hundred health centers in India at different times showed that a total of 56 per cent of the time, the health centers were closed. Nurses were missing 88 percent of the time. In 2002-03, the World Bank conducted a health survey in countries such as Bangladesh, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Uganda, and Peru. It found that the rate of absenteeism of doctors and nurses was 35 per cent. At the same time, these health workers do not give enough time to examine patients, do not ask many questions to patients, treat only on the basis of patients' requests, and rarely refer patients for further Test. The government health service is not functioning properly since people avoid taking advantage of it.

4. With full confidence in the use of health facilities: Even those who support a free market in health facilities explain the need for subsidized rates in terms of health. Because the benefits of such health facilities are greater. A child who uses a mosquito net not only remains safe from the flu, but other children are also less likely to be infected by it. But if people believe that cheap health facilities are ineffective, the loss is even greater. However, a survey of people who have purchased mosquito nets showed that 90 per cent of those who have purchased mosquito nets use them. There was also no difference in the use of mosquito nets between those who bought mosquito nets and those who were given free mosquito nets. In short, the use of healthcare facilities provided by the government is not related to price, but to trust in healthcare facilities.

5. Lack of understanding of the importance of health facilities: Although most diseases are self-limiting, people believe that they are cured by going to the doctor and taking antibiotics. On the contrary, no patient feels that they are cured without seeking treatment. As a result, the tendency to take medicine unnecessarily increases. The experience of vaccination is different. It is difficult to link vaccination and protection from disease. It is difficult to link vaccination with protection from disease. A child who has been vaccinated against measles does not get measles, and children who come into contact with him are also less likely to get measles. Also, poor people do not get the remaining vaccines because they do not understand that they have to be vaccinated in stages. For these various reasons, poor people are not ready to trust these good health services. As a result, it becomes difficult to break out of the circle of health stigma⁵.

According to Abhijit Banerjee, the same provision that is made in rich countries to help people make good health decisions should be made in poor countries. For example, free chlorine pumps should be made available near water sources. To encourage people to vaccinate their children, vaccinated children should receive something in the form of a reward. Free deworming medicines and vitamin powder should be made available to students in schools. The poor should be provided with sufficient information about the potential health benefits. For example, children who do not get sick regularly go to school and earn more as adults. It is necessary to ensure that the poor have access to the medicines they need and that they do not get hold of medicines that are harmful if taken unnecessarily. The sale of antibiotics and potent drugs should be controlled. At the same time, it is necessary to make people aware of public health issues. Merely providing information is not enough.

Education system available to the poor:

There may be disagreement on whether the poor should be given financial assistance or not. But there is no reason to disagree on whether the government should intervene in the education of the poor. Because getting an education is always better than being uneducated. But the quality of the education system available to the poor is very poor and the perceptions of the poor regarding education are very wrong. Research by ‘Pratham’, an organization focused on education, found that 35 per cent of children in India between the ages of 7 to 14 could not read even a simple paragraph. 60 per cent of children could not even read a simple story, and 30 per cent of children could not even do simple division. Children in private schools learn more than those in government schools, but that doesn't mean that private schools are inherently better. Children who study in private schools and those who benefit from improvements in government schools can perform equally well. In terms of education, providing quality education is becoming increasingly rare.

1. Prejudicial Attitude: Teachers' prejudiced attitude towards students has a negative impact on their behavior and speech towards students. It has a negative impact on education as a whole. In this context, an experiment was conducted. Some teachers were asked to grade an exam. In this, the teacher and the students were not familiar with each other. But half of the teachers were told the names of the students. The teachers gave significantly lower marks to the students whose names could be identified as belonging those caste supposed to be lower. Interestingly, the teachers who did this, were themselves from the caste supposed to be lower.

2. Parents' attitude towards education: Poor people, without considering the individual abilities of their children, focus on the education of the child who is most capable in their opinion. They spend on the education of one child instead of spending on the education of all. From their point of view, spending on all the children in the family is not affordable. In this context, Abhijit Banerjee says that there is no reason why education and the non-existent vicious circle of poverty should be correlated. Parents try to break out of the non-existent vicious circle of poverty by focusing on the so-called benefits of education, and on the contrary, they create such a vicious circle. Banerjee says that schools should have a focus on educating children. They says that school should not expect a certain type of child to come to them. We should create an education system to teach every child⁴.

Huge amount is being spent on poverty alleviation programme in developing countries through government and NGO. In India, huge amount has been spent on poverty alleviation programme since planning era started. N. A. Naik and C. M. Tiwari, in their research paper ‘Rural Poverty in India- A study of socio-Economic Political Factors’ have stated that poverty alleviation requires a large amount of money, it is difficult to solve the problem of poverty without the help of rich country². S. B. Yadav and Renu Mittal, in their research paper ‘Poverty Alleviation Through Microfinance in India: Empirical Evidence’ have explained that microfinance is important catalyst for the poverty alleviation⁶. Poverty eradication requires effective implementation of health and social welfare schemes, expansion of transportation and communication facilities and to implement government schemes at door level⁷. Therefore, poverty alleviation requires huge amount of money. But Abhijit Banerjee has expressed a slightly different views in this regard. Breaking the vicious circle of poverty and health does not necessarily require huge expenditure. Clean and pure chlorinated water, nutritious food for children, pensions, social security payments, use of iron and iodized salt, vaccination, use of mosquito nets, use of chlorine powder to make water drinkable, use of ORS to prevent dehydration, these measures can be magical.

CONCLUSION:

Poor people are trapped in poverty circle and do not easily escape it because poor people do not spend all their income on food and what is spent is not necessarily on nutritious food because they do not know much about nutritional value. At the same time, along with food, other things are important in the life of poor so they have to spend on such things. E.g. Wedding, dowry. festival, T.V., D.V.D., Satellite T.V., Mobile and household goods. Poor people are not trapped in the vicious circle of poverty due to hunger. The real issue is not the quantity of food but the quality and nutritional value of food. Poor people are seen trapped in the vicious circle of health. Vicious circle of health can be at the root of many vicious circle. At the same time, the quality of education available to the poor is very poor. In order to make the life of the poor easier, information about the benefits of vaccination, what benefits primary education brings to a child, how much fertilizer should be used in agriculture, what causes HIV, what are the responsibilities of our elected leaders, etc., is useful. This information should be given through films, plays and T.V. programs. It is necessary to promote the use of clean, pure chlorinated water by the poor, nutritious food for children, pension, social security payments, use of iron and iodized salt, etc. because this definitely makes the life of the poor bearable. Some markets like health insurance and savings account are not available to the poor. Therefore, it is necessary to make these markets available to the poor. According to Abhijit Banerjee, effective work can be done to eliminate poverty by making administrative and policy changes without changing the political system. But it is necessary to make people's thoughts positive. Abhijit Banerjee says that we do not have any magic wand to eliminate poverty but the above small measures can definitely be effective in making the life of the poor easier. Abhijit Banerjee has presented very insightful ideas on poverty alleviation in his book ‘Poor Economics’. That is why Amartya Sen has said about this book that it is ‘A marvelously insightful book by two outstanding researchers on the real nature of poverty’.

REFERENCES:

1. Abhijit Banerjee. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/money/Abhijit- Banerjee

2. Naik NA, Tiwari CM. Rural Poverty in India- A study of Socio-Economic Political Factors. International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Science. 2023 Jan-Mar; 11(1): 53-56

3. Kumar N. Poor Economics of Abhijit Banerjee: A Critical Review. International Journal of Humanities and Arts. 2025 Nov 17; 7(2): 606-609

4. Kahate A. Economics of Poverty (Marathi Edition of Poor Economics by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo). Pune: Manovikas Prakashan; 2021; P. 13-257

5. Banerjee A.V., Duflo E. Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. New York: Public Affairs; 2011; p. 1-320.

6. Yadav SB, Mittal R. Poverty Alleviation Through Microfinance in India: Empirical Evidences. Research Journal Humanities and Social Science. 2016; Oct-Dec; 7(4): 259-267

7. Naik NA, Tiwari CM. Poverty in India, Rural and Urban Poverty, An Over View. International Journal of Advances in Social Science. 2023 Jan-Mar; 11(1): 56-58

Received on 25.04.2026 Revised on 21.05.2026

Accepted on 12.06.2026 Published on 17.08.2026

Available online from August 22, 2026

Int. J. of Reviews and Res. in Social Sci. 2026; 14(3):133-137.

DOI: 10.52711/2454-2687.2026.00023

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.