|
|
By: Hari Sud
June 04, 2006
Views
expressed here are author’s own and not of this website. Full disclaimer
is at the bottom.
Feedback
Related Articles:
Biased Indian Media: Anti Hindu Secular Reporting Exposed
B Shantanu
Indian Media, Artistic freedom & Paintings
V Sundaram
Western media thrives on Indian poverty
Hari Sud
Media war in the offing
S R Ramanujan
Media”s Disgusting Double Standards
Shachi Rairikar
Fake Historians & Sold Media
Shachi Rairikar
Indian polity and the media need to honestly introspect
Brig (Retd) VRP
Sarathy
The In-effectiveness of The Indian Media
Hiren Shah
The Source of Bias against
Hindus - Part II
George Thundiparambil
The Source of Bias against Hindus - Part I
George Thundiparambil
Main culprits in anti Indian slanderous exercise
Lachman Sippy
Media suffer from "dhimmi" disorder
Shankar SharanCareers in India’s political systems have been made or lost on one slogan
– Vanish Poverty (Garibi Hatao). This slogan has been the buzzword of the
ruling political party, since 1950. Irony is that the slogan makers were,
very poor economic managers. From 1950 to 1998, India could boast of one
or two achievements only i.e. food self-sufficiency and a bit of improved
services to the village folks. In contrast, India failed on every other
front. Economy slugged at a low 3.5% growth rate, enemies surrounded India
from all sides and population multiplied from 400 million in 1947 to 950
million in 1998. These additional mouths have to be fed, housed and
provided economic means to make a living. Without that, civil disorder
will be, the order of the day. Lucky for India, a new political party took
control in 1998 and decided to redress all the above grievances. First and
foremost on their mind was to accelerate economic growth. This they began
by making friends with US. The latter is the prime mover of all economic
activities in the world. Also the new leaders had a model in front of
them. Chinese had befriended US twenty years earlier and had gained a
tremendous economic advantage. India had to do the same. In addition the
economy had to be opened up for foreign competition and investment. Once
this was achieved over five years, economy accelerated to 8% growth. Then
the primary task before new government's) was to work hard to redress rich
and poor imbalance. Gains on economic front have to be felt by the poor
also. For this entrepreneurship has to be encouraged at all levels. Skill
base of the private sector becomes very useful. To harness private sector
energies, they have to be allowed to retain some of the gains of
prosperity. It is they, not the governments, who will pass on the benefits
to the less fortunate. Governments in their capacity as overall mangers
have to ensure that the poor get the benefits of economic gains.
Before we discuss rich-poor income gap, we have to understand it and then
quantify poverty. This subject is the favorite of economist’s worldwide.
Huge amount of literature and studies have been conducted and advice
offered. Much of it is academic in nature. Some simple concepts on the
subject are discussed below.
How has the Poverty Curve Moved in last 50 Years?
There are many ways to measure poverty. Western economists prefer GDP and
per capita income as a measure. GDP of less developed countries suffer a
currency conversion disadvantage hence another measure – Purchase Power
Parity (PPP) has been coined to recalculate GDP. Then again, GDP does not
show what segment of the society is poor. It is a measure of overall
prosperity of the nation. Indian politicians have their own formula for
measuring poverty. They define poverty as lack of three meals a day,
enough clothing and shelter. This is hard to quantify measure still harder
to compare your performance with others. Hence, Western economic
measurement technique has been adopted. One such measure is called GINI
coefficient (Index). It measures economic inequality in a country, with
zero implying perfect equality and 1 indicating perfect inequality.
Wealthy nations with high standard of living in the West, should have a
value close to Zero and poor countries have close to One (It is usual to
multiply the coefficient by 100 to get more manageable number). This
index, more or less, measures income distribution in a country. In 2005,
India had a GINI Index of 37.8, indicating significant inequalities in
income distribution. If this index for India increases in next ten years
then it means that India has done a miserable job in income
re-distribution. Fortunately it is at about same level for a number of
years. That means 8% economic growth has provided equal relief to the poor
and also made a few more millionaires. The same index for Brazil is 60.
The latter indicates that there is a huge income disparity in the country.
This leads to one conclusion that if high economic growth is accompanied
by high GINI index then poverty reduction via economic progress has been
entirely lost. This is true about Brazil.
The above Index is not the best measure of poverty and income mal
distribution. Consider this – relatively poor countries of Eastern Europe
have a GINI index close 25, but US has an index of 45. That means, income
in Eastern Europe (formerly Communist ruled) is well distributed and in US
it is not so well distributed. Does it mean that, that poverty has been
vanished from Eastern Europe? Not true. It only indicates that low income
there is well distributed, with no high-income millionaires/billionaires.
At 45, the GINI Index does not state well about US. It only indicates that
there are very many billionaires in US. Looking at the prosperity in US
and opportunities for everybody, this concept is failing to clarify the
discrepancy. Hence let us look for other means to study and quantify
poverty.
A number of studies undertaken in last 50 years have tried to explain
income disparity in multiple segments of a society in almost all the
countries. These concepts are again hard to follow just like the GINI
index above. Interestingly, there is an Australian study, which simplifies
this concept. It divides a nation e.g. India into five income groups. Then
it plots these income groups against incomes. Superimposed on this chart
are the Word Bank’s one dollar a day (extreme poverty in 1986 dollar
value) and two dollars a day poverty lines. A graph for every ten years
starting from 1970 is plotted. The resulting chart gives a little better
understanding of poverty. The Chart below shows that in 1970 & 1980, about
40% of the total population in India was below the $1 level. But there is
a dramatic shift by the time 1998 rolls in. This percentage decreases to
about 20%.
Income Distribution – India
Reference: Australian Government, Treasury reports on Poverty, inequality
and Distribution of Income in G20.
The above also shows a definite shift in the incomes towards higher
numbers. In fact poverty reduction has made a definite progress in last 20
years. A similar graph for 2005 (unavailable) will show a movement to the
right indicating smaller segment below the poverty line and a bigger size
of the middle-income group. This fact is evident in India as the
middle-income group is making its presence felt.
The same graph as above plotted from available data for China shows
similar results. Note that statistics is not the best-kept science in
China and available data for China for 1970 and 1980 is confusing. Still
let us plot it and see, what it tells us.
Income Distribution - China
Chinese chart is very similar to India’s chart. One glaring difference is
that the Chinese chart (1998) has much bigger inverted bell with a flat
top, indicating that a big percentage of people have graduated from $1 and
$2 a day income to higher income bracket in last 20 years. The forgoing is
evident from all reports emanating from China. There is a large population
base of 200-300 million on the East Coast, which has distinctly better
life style than the rest. They have to thank the Foreign Direct Investment
for it.
Hence, both China and India have made enormous progress against poverty.
If extreme poverty as per World Bank (in 1986 dollars) is defined as $1 a
day, then shift of the graph towards right and its flattening as seen in
1998 graph for both China and India is a good sign. It would appear that
still about 15 to 20% of the population is below the poverty line in 1998.
One wonders where do the skeptics in the Western media get their figure of
350-400 million people in India below the poverty line.
Changes in India with Economic Progress
These changes are evident as you pass thru rural as well as urban India.
Slums are cohabitated with high-rise buildings in the cities. Even slums
have a significant population of well to do residents except that they
have not moved out. Rural India, although still poor, is much better off
today than any time in the past. Thatched roofs have given way to slate or
cement roofs. One-room hovel residents are dwindling rapidly. Roads and
transport has reached the remotest corner. Electricity and clean water,
barring a few exceptions is almost everywhere. Schools and medical
dispensaries are every 3 miles. Prior to that it was always 10 miles for a
primary school and 30 miles for a hospital. All the forgoing is a social
change achieved with economic progress. This author hails from a remotest
village in Himachal Pradesh. All the forgoing is clearly visible as the
author observed during his visit last January. Much of this social change
has been induced with self-help. Governments have lent a hand, but
government efforts are always slow and cumbersome. Hence people have
forced the change on themselves.
Have the Government Poverty Reduction Schemes worked in the Past
Too many schemes have been implemented to reduce poverty in the past 50
years. None have worked. Bulk of the money is lost in bad management and
other significant portion is lost in the bureaucratic hassle. Only scheme,
which seem to work in the rural areas is upgrading of the agriculture and
general availability of education. Both have provided a stable environment
for progress. The urban areas have not done very well. The slum population
has multiplied and crime rate has increased. Slum dwellers even if they
could afford better living are unable to move out because housing and
other facilities are too expensive. Few poverty reduction schemes
specifically tailored for the urban areas are successful. Newer of the new
schemes – National Employment Guarantees Scheme has been initiated
recently. It guarantees employment of 100 days for anybody willing to
work, especially in the rural areas. As a matter of fact it was an act of
Parliament, which created this scheme in 2005. Funding of this scheme is
75% Central Government and rest from the State Government. In order to
make it work, a huge civil bureaucracy is needed, which in itself will eat
away the funds allocated. Hence apart from minor benefits here and there,
especially during failure of the rains, success of this venture is
unlikely. True impact on rural economy and poverty reduction will be when
the agriculture is made even more productive. Current production of 2.5
tons of grain from a hectare is high as compared to twenty years back. But
it is low compared to US and European standards. A 50% improvement in this
sector with better water management, improved seeds and other agricultural
inputs will go a long way to change the face of rural India. With higher
agricultural productivity, poverty in villages will be a thing of the
past.
Targeted poverty reduction programs in urban areas with development of
infrastructure like sanitary & waste management, housing, and urban
renewal investment etc. have a significant poverty reduction component.
Each of these provides meaningful employment together with cleaning up of
the cities. These schemes are low on government priority. Hence poverty in
urban areas will stick around for a little bit longer.
Conclusions
A figure of 350 to 400 million poverty stricken people in India is false.
It is figure on which Western media and vested political circles thrive.
They only wish to foul mouth India’s achievements. The figure is half or
even third of that. One point, which needs to be borne in mind is that
when the country attains 8% a year growth, income redistribution must go
hand in hand. Otherwise the benefits of the national growth to the poor
are lost and inequalities become more apparent. Government schemes on
poverty reduction other than infrastructure upgrade in rural and urban
areas never work. In urban areas industrial activity is already providing
significant employment. This in itself provides the biggest push to the
poverty reduction. Governments have to help to upgrade the lot of poor
with more employment, housing and slums clearance etc.
Hari Sud
Send your views to author
Do you wish to reach our readers?
submit
your guest column
Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and not of this
website. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this
article. This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy,
completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice or
any other information in the article. Our readers are free to forward this
page URL to anyone. This column may NOT be transmitted or distributed by
others in any manner whatsoever (other than forwarding or web listing page
URL) without the prior permission from
us and the author. |
Previous articles by:
Hari Sud
N-Deal: Plan B if the Deal Fails
Vanishing Poverty and Slums in India
US Legislative Process: Indo-US N-Deal
N-deal: Economic, Political and Techno...
Clash of Two Aggressive Religions
Shangri-la At the Foot of Himalayas
Russia, Upcoming World Power
Emerging Shia Power in
Iraq
Indo-US Nuke impass:
Chanakaya options?
China Misusing
Relationship with US, Europe
Pak Policy in Peril
after the Quake
Euro: Reference for
World Monetary Transa...
Are We Getting an
Accurate Picture of China?
Auto Parts Export
Potential from India
India as Petroleum
Products Export Hub
All articles by:
Hari Sud |