faVPLOYMENT AJSTt) LIVING STANDARDS S§ poverty in the last decade and a half. Resolution of the contradiction requires either that agricultural income have been substantially better dtetri* buted or that non-agriculture has been able to provide incomes to the poor and that the dynamics of such non-agricultural growth is not impeded by a stagnant agriculture. No one seriously claims a significant improvement in the income distribution within agriculture. But some proponents of the official view do believe in the existence of the second process—i.e. a trickle down of the undoubted increases in overall fton-agrictAtliral iticoAi6§ t6 tfifc poor through increased employed in unorganised non-agriculture. They thus seek to explain the 'evidence' of reduced poverty as obtained from NSS consumer surveys by the evidence of a fall in the share of agriculture as obtained from NSS employment-unemployment surveys. The results noted itf this note tend to shed doubt not only on the claim that poverty w leclin-ing but also on the mechanism supposed to ttake this possible in th6 context of a stagnant agriculture. In order to be sceptical about the official view that poverty is declining siecidariy, one does not need to doubt the evidence from NSS consumer survey^ ^bat poverty was less in 1983-84 than in 1977-78 which in tuol was less than in 1972-73—the only years on which NSS consumer surveys Jkave been conducted since they became quinquennial. A look at table 3 would show that incomes per worker increased between these dates for the entire unorganised sector and in those of its segments—the wage-employed and agriculture—where the poor are largely located. Yet, the same teble shorn that there is no evidence that incomes per worker have shown any increasing trend in these segments. Moreover^ the data presented here suggests thai unorganised non-agriculture is likely to be more responsive to growth in demand from agriculture than to growth in the organised sectors, and that much of the shift of workers to non-agriculture may be a result ®f marginalisation due to stagnant labour demand in agriculture rather than an indication of positive developments. These, undoubtedly tentative^ co^i elusions suggest that the poor can have little hope from the policy of tow growth of employment and high growth of wa^ges aod prodnptivflEy in organised sectors which has characterised recent Indian develbpmept^ More" over, despite plenty of lip-service to the contrary, Indian policy-makers seem disinclined to place adequate emphasis either on agricultural growth or to rural reform.