There is a widespread impression among the Indian intelligentsia, foreign scholars, and residents of developed/rich countries that India’s economic growth has not reduced poverty, that globalisation has worsened poverty and/or income distribution, and that there are hundreds of millions of hungry people in India. These arguments are buttressed by recourse to India’s ranking on several social indicators. Esoteric debates about the comparability of survey data and gaps between NSS and NAS add to the confusion and allow ideologues to believe and assert whatever information suits the argument. What are the basic facts about poverty, income distributions, and hunger at an aggregate level? This paper reviews the available data and debates on this subject and comes to a commonsense view. It then tries to link some of the outcomes to the policy framework and programmes of the government. The paper finds that India’s poverty ratio of around 22 percent in 1999-2000 is in line with that observed in countries at similar levels of per capita income. The ratio is relatively high because India is a relatively poor/ low-income country, i.e., with low average income. 90 percent of the countries in the world have a higher per capita (average) income than India. The number of the poor is very high because India’s population is very large, the second-highest in the world. India’s income distribution as measured by the Gini co-efficient is better than three-fourths of the countries of the world. The consumption share of the poorest 10 percent of the population is the sixth best in the world. Where India has failed as a nation is in improving its basic social indicators like literacy and mortality rates. Much of the failure is a legacy of the three decades of Indian socialism (till 1979-80). The rate of improvement of most indicators has accelerated during the market period (starting in 1980-81). The gap between its level and that of global benchmarks is still wide and its global ranking on most of these social parameters remains very poor. This is the result of government failure. The improvement in social indicators has not kept pace with economic growth and poverty decline, and this has led to increasing interstate disparities in growth and poverty.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Contact details of provider: Postal: Quaid-i-Azam University Campus, P.O.Box 1091, Islamabad-44000 Phone: (92)(51)9206610 Fax: (92)(51)9210886 Email: Web page: http://www.pide.org.pk More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Irfan Shakeel).
Find related papers by JEL classification: I3 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare and Poverty I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Angus Deaton & Jean Dreze, 2002.
"Poverty and Inequality in India: A Re-Examination,"
Working Papers
184, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Research Program in Development Studies..
[Downloadable!]
Other versions:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)