Poverty, Liberalization and India

Zainab pointed out this exciting discussion sparked by rediff articles written by Dilip and Yazad. I agree with Yazad that one needs real indicators to discuss the effect of economic reforms in India. The three measures suggested by him are per capita income, Human Development Index, and the Index of Economic Freedom. I don't have any trouble with the first two, but the third one seems quite subjective, and reflects the priorities and perspectives of the Heritage Foundation. Never the less, I would agree that economic conditions are definitely better in India today than they were in 1990.
So the question would be whether we can do better going ahead? As Dilip points out, the fact that average income level is Rs. 12000 a year in 1994 Rupees, when so many of us are making so much more, indicates two things: 1. In absolute numbers there are a large number of people still living in poverty (29%) as noted here. 2. Even though poverty rates may have reduced since 1990, large inequality still persists and in fact may have grown since 1990. The second point, though, is less important than the first one in my opinion for the time being.
This is a very healthy dialogue, and I look forward to more on this topic in the future.

UPDATE (05/12): Nanopolitan has more. See also this IHT piece: Help the Poor Help Themselves.

Comments

[Yazad]

Anup,

Regarding Economic Freedom, I prefer the Economic Freedom of the World Report brought out by the Fraser Institute and others.

However, I find your objection to the Heritage Report puzzling. Does every publication reflect "the priorities and perspectives" of the publisher?

[APB]

I object specifically to the Heritage Foundation because they have a very specific partisan agenda, unlike the World bank or the UNDP. I don't know enough about the Fraser Institute, but I think that it suffers similarly. If the IMF publishes an index of Economic Freedom, for example, I think that it may be a useful tool.

[Saheli]

I can't speak to all the economic numbers, but I thought the second column was a powerful answer to a good point made by the first: people tend not to believe numbers as much as what they see, but they also tend to see what they expect to see.

I don't really see how getting the government out of people's lives is necessarily going to do the trick. Getting bad government out of people's lives and making good government a reality seems like a more practical prescription. Why is it that (from here, anyway) Indian civil society seems so disconnected from good government?

[APB]

Saheli, you may have noticed that Yazad actually runs an organization aimed at increasing public accountability in civic government in Bombay.

My perception is that civil society in Bombay has until recently been restricted to privileged members of the society. There are many grass roots organizations, but their energies have been spent on ensuring basic quality of services in the city.

[christian louboutin]

haha...It is so useful imformation for us to read...gogo..