SPECIAL ARTICLE
How Inclusive Is India’s Reform(ed) Growth? M H Suryanarayana, Mousumi Das
Given the contemporary public concern about the worsening relative deprivation of the masses and the need for appropriate policies to address the social cost of the reform programme, the Government of India has declared its commitment to the aam aadmi and the poorest of the poor. This paper examines how far the government has been successful in realising its objective of inclusive growth. As evidence of outcomes, it examines the National Sample Survey data on household consumption distribution in terms of relative distributional measures across social groups at different levels of regional aggregation by rural and urban sector. The estimates from four different NSS rounds for the agricultural years 1993-94, 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12 throw up a profile of exclusion of the poor involving exclusionary growth of the better-off in the economy as a whole. At the national level, disparities across social groups have increased involving a widening of the average consumption shortfall of the scheduled tribes, a decline for the scheduled castes, marginal decline for the Other Backward Classes and an increase in the excess of average consumption of Other Social Groups with respect to the overall median. Similar analyses at the level of major states, by sector, corroborate in general the findings at the national level of an era of exclusionary growth confined to the better-off sections.
Tables 5 and 6 referred to in these pages have been posted on the EPW website along with this article. M H Suryanarayana (
[email protected]) teaches at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai and Mousumi Das is a research scholar at IGIDR.
44
1 Introduction
E
ver since the inception of the era of economic reform, the Government of India (GOI) has claimed to have made conscious efforts to protect the interests of the deprived by pursuing “Adjustment with a Human Face”. It has already completed its Eleventh Five-Year Plan: Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth (GOI 2006) and has continued with a similar pursuit in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan: Faster, More Inclusive and Sustainable Growth (GOI 2013b). The general public perception about worsening economic plight of the masses has led the government to declare its commitment to the aam aadmi (common man) in general and the “poorest of the poor” in particular.1 Its policy response has been to provide for a variety of rights-based programmes under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Right to Education and recently the National Food Security Act. So it would be worthwhile to examine how far the “poorest of the poor” have benefited from “inclusive growth”. This paper examines if economic growth since economic reform began has been inclusive. The study is organised as follows: Section 2 sets out the concept, methodology and the database. Section 3 presents estimates and results based on the relevant National Sample Survey (NSS) data for all-India (rural and urban combined). Section 4 discusses the results for rural and urban India. Section 5 touches upon major results at the state level.2 The final section summarises the paper. 2 Concept and Methodology
To verify if economic growth since the inception of the economic reform era has been inclusive, ideally one would need a clear articulation of the official policy framework and concepts. In spite of all the claims about sound economic policy formulation in the era of reform, the government does not have a well-defined policy framework at least on issues related to deprivation.3 For instance, even the Eleventh Five-Year Plan did not have a well-articulated concept of “inclusive growth” (Suryanarayana 2008). The Plan reviews status of food security of the poor and recommends polices without any method and evidence (ibid: 2011b). The government has a Food Security Act without a concept and norm (ibid: 2013b). In pursuit of inclusiveness, the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, inter alia, had allocated 25% of the total central budget plan provision to rural development programmes, which covered the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act also (GOI 2013c).4 The Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2012-2017) provides multiple perspectives of inclusiveness in terms of poverty reduction, group equality, regional balance, inequality reduction, empowerment february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
and employment generation (GoI 2013b). It lists the achievements of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan in terms of conventional development outcome evaluation indicators such as the gross domestic product (GDP) growth, poverty reduction, growth of real consumption, unemployment, real wages, immunisation rate and school enrolment rates. However some of these indicators like growth in per capita GDP and per capita real consumption, and incidence of poverty do not provide unambiguous information on issues related to inclusiveness for conceptual and methodological reasons as detailed in Suryanarayana (2000, 2008, 2009 and 2011a). In fact, successive expert groups appointed by the GoI have looked into issues like defining the minimum norm for the poverty line, the suitable information base required for estimating poverty, and an appropriate estimator for the price index to adjust the poverty line for changes in prices. As an alternative option to surmount such issues, this paper examines inclusive outcomes in terms of some relative distributional measures based on estimates of per capita nominal consumption distribution as proposed in Suryanarayana (2008). To be sustainable, an inclusive growth process should encompass three dimensions of the economy: participation in production (employment), income generation and consumption expenditure. Per capita net national product (at constant prices) of the Indian economy grew at a compound annual rate of 4.31% between 1993-94 and 2004-05, 7.02% between 2004-05 and 2009-10 and 5.92% between 2009-10 and 2011-12.5 How about the inclusive profiles of the other two dimensions? For lack of comprehensive up-to-date data on all the three dimensions, this section presents evidence in the form of reduced form estimates of outcomes for the income and expenditure dimensions, that is, (i) elasticity of mean consumption with respect to mean income (η); (ii) elasticity of median consumption with respect to mean income for the different subperiods under review; and (iii) the “Inclusive Coefficient” (ψ) (ibid: 2008). These measures are as follows: (i) Elasticity of mean consumption with reference to mean income (η) would indicate if economic growth is really broadbased and inclusive. If growth in income were restricted to the rich only, mean consumption would not increase at a rate corresponding to the average income growth rate because marginal propensity to consume is less than one. Hence, η would be less than unity. Elasticity of mean consumption with reference to mean ∂μc /μc income (η) = , ∂μy /μy where µc and µy stand for mean consumption and mean income respectively. (ii) Elasticity of median consumption with reference to mean consumption (ε) where
(ε) =
∂ξ50 /ξ50 ∂μc /μc
. A value of ε > 1 would suggest broad-based
growth. This would further corroborate the findings based on estimates of η; and Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
(iii) “Inclusive Coefficient” (IC) (ψ) may be defined as follows: δξ.50
∫ψ = 1 – 2 ∫(x)dx 0
where 0 < δ < 1 and ξ.50 such that ξ.50
∫ƒ (x)dx =
0
∞ 1 = ∫ƒ (x)dx 2 ξ.50
where f(x) is the density function of the variable concerned and 0 < ψ < 1. In this study, we assign 0.6 as the value for δ. Inclusive coefficient for consumption distribution (ψ) measures the proportion of bottom half of the population in the mainstream, where mainstream is measured as income interval in excess of 60% of the median.6 This inclusive measure could be used for a homogeneous social group. For a heterogeneous society, inclusion profiles would vary across population subgroups or social groups like the scheduled tribes (STs), the scheduled castes (SCs), the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and the residual group “Others” (Other Social Groups (OSGs))7 as in India. Hence, one may capture such heterogeneity in the extent of inclusion across social groups by distinguishing between mainstream (all social groups inclusive) median and social group specific median. Accordingly, one could distinguish between mainstream (IC-M) and subgroup (social group) specific (IC-M) inclusiveness (ibid: 2008). They will measure the extent of inclusion of the poorest of any given social group in the mainstream progress vis-á-vis its own progress, respectively. For further verification of this issue, one may work out the Foster-Greer-Thorebecke (1984) class of deprivation measures corresponding to 60% of the mainstream median as well as social-group specific median. FGT0 (0.6 mainstream median) indicates if the poorest of the poor from a given social group has experienced growth at the same pace as the mainstream. FGT0 (0.6 social-group median) would indicate if its economic status has improved at the same pace as the average of the social group. The percentage will remain constant if the pace of improvement of the poorest is the same, will decrease if it is better and increase if it is worse than that of the reference median. This study is based on the NSS estimates of household consumption distribution for different social groups for 17 major states from the 50th, 61st, 66th and 68th rounds. These rounds pertain to the following agricultural years (AYs): (i) July 1993June 1994 (50th round); (ii) July 2004-June 2005 (61st round); (iii) July 2009-June 2010 (66th round); and (iv) July 2011June 2012 (68th round). It may be noted that AY 2009-10 was a drought year, which has to be kept in mind while interpreting estimates for the rural sector.8 The NSS estimates used in this study pertain to a uniform reference period (URP) to facilitate comparison over different quinquennial rounds from the 50th round onwards and also in the long-run context including rounds from the previous decades.9 The choice of social groups is governed by data availability. The groups considered are exhaustive: the STs, the SCs, the OBCs and the OSGs. The NSS started providing information by 45
SPECIAL ARTICLE
this fourfold classification only from the 61st round. Hence, estimates for OSGs for 1993-94 would be OBC inclusive. Therefore, estimates of parameters for the OBCs and the OSGs are comparable from only the 61st round. 3 Inclusive Growth: An All-India Perspective
Some qualifying observations are in order. The estimates of income by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) in its National Accounts Statistics (NAS) refer to the financial year and those for consumption are from the NSS corresponding to the agricultural year. In addition to the differences in period, other factors like concept, design and methods of estimation render their direct comparison difficult. Hence, the estimates of elasticity of mean consumption with respect to per capita net national income are presented to indicate some macro summary profiles. In order to avoid issues related to price index numbers, elasticity estimates are worked out using income and consumption data at current prices. Hence, the discussion below refers to estimates of income and consumption expenditure at current prices (Table 1). Table 1: Measures of Inclusiveness – A Macro Profile (All-India Rural and Urban Sectors Combined) Measure/Variable 1993-94
Per capita net national product (PCNNP) (Rs at current prices) (financial year) 8,106 (CAGR) - PCNNP (%) Monthly mean per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) 325.18 Monthly median per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) 258.60 Excess of mean over median per capita consumption (%) 25.75 CAGR: mean consumption (%) CAGR: median consumption (%) Elasticity of mean consumption with reference to PCNNP (η) Elasticity of median consumption with reference to mean consumption (ε) Inclusive coefficient (ψ) 0.748 FGT0 (0.6 mainstream median) (%)
12.60
Agricultural Year 2004-05 2009-10
24,143 10.43
46,249 13.88
2011-12
61,564 15.38
683.81 1,159.92 1,599.04 507.57
850.75 1,173.38
34.72 6.99 6.32
36.34 11.15 10.88
36.28 17.41 17.44
0.67
0.80
1.13
0.90 0.740
0.98 0.736
1.00 0.711
13.00
13.20
14.40
(a) The NAS estimates of per capita net national product at current prices are from GoI (2013a). (b) The NSS estimates of consumption are from unit record data for the corresponding rounds. (c) CAGR = Compound annual growth rate. (d) FGT0 (0.6 mainstream median) refers to the FGT class of poverty measure corresponding to the specification of the poverty aversion parameter at zero. This reduces to the headcount ratio below 60% of the median of the mainstream (total) population.
(i) CSO estimates of per capita income (at current prices) in India increased at an annual average rate of 10.43% between financial year (FY) 1993-94 and FY 2004-05. However, the corresponding increase in the NSS estimate of (mean) per capita consumer expenditure was not equi-proportionate. It grew at an annual average rate of 6.99% implying an elasticity coefficient of 0.67. NSS median consumption also did not increase to the same extent; the growth in median consumption was 6.32% per annum. Elasticity of median consumption with respect to mean consumption, as a result, turned out to be 0.90. In other words, the country did not realise the benefits of growth at all in terms of progressive welfare gains. This is reflected in the estimate of mean relative to that of median 46
consumption; the percentage difference increased from 26% to 35%. All these parameters clearly indicate that the poor have not benefited as much as the rich. (ii) Annual growth rate of per capita income between FY 2004-05 and FY 2009-10 increased to 13.88% per annum. Meanwhile, mean (median) consumption increased at 11.15 (10.88)% only implying an income elasticity coefficient of 0.80 for mean consumption and mean consumption elasticity of 0.98 for median consumption. The percentage difference of mean consumption with respect to median increased marginally by one point. (iii) Between FY 2009-10 and FY 2011-12, per capita income growth in India increased to 15.38% while the corresponding growth in both mean and median consumption was almost the same (17.41% and 17.44% respectively) implying corresponding elasticity estimates of 1.13 and 1.00 respectively. The percentage difference between mean and median consumption remained the same. (iv) The coefficient of inclusiveness, however, declined from 0.748 to 0.740, 0.736 and 0.711 from the 50th round onwards. This would mean that the level of living of the poorest has not increased commensurate with the median. (v) This is corroborated by estimates of FGT0 measure of poverty with reference to 60% of mainstream median, which has increased since the 50th round (AY 1993-94).10 The preceding results would mean the following: With growth in per capita income, both mean and median consumption have increased, though at a lower rate till 2009-10 and higher rate thereafter. Between mean and median consumption, the former has generally increased at a higher rate than the latter. This would mean that the richer income groups have experienced higher increases in income and consumption than the poorer ones. This is all the more confirmed by estimates of (i) the coefficient of inclusiveness which has declined; and (ii) the proportion of population below 60% of the mainstream median, which has increased during the reform era. This finding could be verified further by examining disaggregate distributional profiles in terms of the estimates of averages and inclusive coefficients across social groups at the national level (Table 2, p 47). The salient results are as follows: (i) The STs are the poorest followed by the SCs, OBCs and OSGs, respectively. In other words, OSGs constitute the best-off social group. This is further confirmed by estimates of FGT0 below 60% of the mainstream median. FGT0 was almost one-third for the STs, less than 20% for the SCs, less than 15% for the OBCs and less than 10% for the OSGs. (ii) Both mean and median consumption of the four social groups increased and their respective growth rates also increased during successive periods under review. (iii) Median consumption levels of the STs and the SCs fell short of the mainstream median. The shortfall increased in general for the STs and declined for the SCs. The median consumption of the OBCs fell marginally short of the mainstream median in its neighbourhood. (iv) Median consumption of the OSGs exceeded that of the mainstream and the divergence increased during the reform period. february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE Table 2: Measures of Inclusiveness – A Macro Profile across Social Groups (All-India Rural and Urban Sectors Combined) Survey Period 1993-94
Agricultural Year 2004-05 2009-10
STs Monthly mean per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) 247.40 463.25 Monthly median per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) 207.75 380.2 Shortfall from the mainstream median (%) 24.48 33.50 CAGR: mean consumption (%) 5.87 CAGR: median consumption (%) 5.65 Elasticity of ST mean consumption with reference to PCNNP (η) 0.56 Elasticity of ST median consumption with reference to ST mean consumption (ε) 0.96 Inclusive coefficient – mainstream 0.532 0.384 Inclusive coefficient – subgroup 0.795 0.766 23.40 30.80 FGT0 (0.6 mainstream median) (%) SCs Monthly mean per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) 257.28 532.08 Monthly median per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) 219.28 434.05 Shortfall from the mainstream median (%) 17.93 16.94 CAGR: mean consumption (%) 6.83 CAGR: median consumption (%) 6.40 Elasticity of mean consumption with reference to PCNNP (η) 0.65 Elasticity of median consumption with reference to SC mean consumption (ε) 0.94 Inclusive coefficient – mainstream 0.604 0.629 Inclusive coefficient – subgroup 0.798 0.81 19.80 18.60 FGT0 (0.6 mainstream median) (%) OBCs Monthly mean per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) 625.9 Monthly median per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) - 492.67 Shortfall from the mainstream median (%) 3.02 CAGR: mean consumption (%) CAGR: median consumption (%) Elasticity of mean consumption with reference to PCNNP (η) Elasticity of median consumption with reference to mean consumption (ε) Inclusive coefficient – mainstream 0.754 Inclusive coefficient – subgroup 0.783 12.30 FGT0 (0.6 mainstream median) (%) OSGs Monthly mean per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) 353.14 919.09 Monthly median per capita consumption (Rs at current prices) 278.93 655.14 Shortfall from the mainstream median (%) (-)7.29 (-)22.52 CAGR: mean consumption (%) 9.08 CAGR: median consumption (%) 8.07 Elasticity of mean consumption with reference to PCNNP (η) Elasticity of median consumption with reference to OSG mean consumption (ε) Inclusive coefficient – mainstream 0.814 0.890 Inclusive coefficient – subgroup 0.745 0.678 9.30 5.50 FGT0 (0.6 mainstream median) (%)
2011-12
854.47 1,087.52 689.75 23.34 13.03 12.65
886.33 32.39 12.82 13.36
0.94
0.83
0.97 0.512 0.752 24.40
1.04 0.382 0.754 30.90
887.44 1,278.24 739.12 1,017.75 15.10 15.29 10.77 20.02 11.23 17.34 0.78
1.30
1.04 0.609 0.781 19.50
0.87 0.599 0.755 20.10
1,064.5 1,488.79 832.44 2.20 11.21 11.06
1,155.4 1.56 18.26 17.81
0.81
1.19
0.99 0.745 0.77 12.70
0.98 0.729 0.744 13.50
1,578.70 2,154.42 1,101.67 1,504.67 (-)22.78 (-)22.02 11.43 16.82 10.95 16.87 0.82
1.09
0.96 0.879 0.666 6.00
1.00 0.866 0.653 6.70
(a) CAGR = compound annual growth rate. (b) NSS does not provide information for the OBCs separately for the 50th round; hence estimates are not available for the OBCs for 1993-94. Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
(v) Consistent with the preceding two features, mainstream inclusiveness is lower than the subgroup one for the STs, SCs and the OBCs and vice versa for the OSGs.11 (vi) Elasticity of mean consumption with respect to per capita national income, and that of median consumption with respect to mean consumption, though was less than one initially, improved over the period for all social groups except the SCs; and (vii) Subgroup as well as mainstream inclusiveness in general has decreased for the STs, SCs, and the OBCs. This would mean that the poorer sections of these social groups have not caught up with the better off either in their respective social groups or in the mainstream (all social groups inclusive). As regards the OSGs, their mainstream inclusiveness increased while subgroup one decreased. This would imply an improvement in the lot of the OSGs poor vis-à-vis the mainstream median but not with respect to their own median. Accordingly, we find that the proportion of the OSGs population less than 60% of the mainstream median decreased from 9.30% to 6.70% between 1993-94 and 2011-12 while that with reference to the OSGs median increased from 12.80% to 17.40% between the same two years.12 All these results corroborate the findings, based on macro estimates, of an era of exclusive growth of the better-off OSGs sections. 4 Inclusiveness: Rural/Urban All-India
Rural India: The standard of living of the rural population in general increased by similar percentages in the mean and median measures between successive rounds. The percentage growth rate in the mean (median) estimate was as follows: 6.44 (6.12) between 1993-94 (50th) and 2004-05 (61st) rounds, 10.67 (10.92) between 2004-05 (61st) and 2009-10 (66th) rounds and 17.41 (16.33) between 2009-10 (66st) and 2011-12 (68th) rounds, respectively.13 However, corresponding increases in the levels of living of the different social groups were not uniform.14 As a result, intergroup disparities have increased. Average consumption levels of the STs and the SCs fell short of the mainstream median while those of the OBCs and the OSGs exceeded the median (Table 3, p 48). The shortfall in consumption increased for the STs, declined for the SCs while the excess of the OBCs and the OSGs increased (Table 3). Thus, the OBCs and the OSGs seem to be in the rural mainstream growth process while the SCs and STs have been left out. Consistent with the inter-group disparity profiles, the extent of mainstream inclusiveness is less than the subgroup one for the STs and SCs and vice versa for the OBCs and the OSGs in rural all-India. Extent of mainstream inclusiveness is less for the STs than for the SCs, which is less than that for the OBCs, which in turn is less than that for the OSGs. While inclusiveness, mainstream as well as subgroup declined for the SCs, STs and the OBCs during the new millennium, mainstream (subgroup) inclusiveness increased (decreased) for the OSGs in rural India. The latter feature would suggest a growth process confined only to the richer sections of the 47
SPECIAL ARTICLE Table 3: Average Levels of Living and Disparities across Social Groups – All-India Survey Period
Agricultural Year Mean 1993-94
2004-05
2009-10
Median 2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
All-India rural STs 234.38 426.29 764.86 980.83 202.00 366.50 SCs 238.91 474.72 789.93 1127.16 209.72 406.33 OBCs - 556.73 924.07 1282.75 - 457.88 OSGs 302.09 685.31 1135.42 1552.41 253.24 547.60 All 281.42 558.84 927.79 1278.95 237.10 455.80 Percentage shortfall with respect to MPCE of OSGs STs - 37.80 32.64 36.82 20.23 33.07 SCs - 30.73 30.43 27.39 17.19 25.80 OBCs - 18.76 18.61 17.37 - 16.39 OSGs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Percentage shortfall with respect to MPCE (mainstream) STs 16.72 23.72 17.56 23.31 14.80 19.59 SCs 15.10 15.05 14.86 11.87 11.55 10.85 OBCs 0.38 0.40 (-)0.30 - (-)0.46 OSGs (-)7.34 (-)22.63 (-)22.38 (-)21.38 (-)6.81 (-)20.14 All-India urban STs 380.55 857.47 1609.92 1940.94 312.68 721.20 SCs 342.18 758.38 1275.49 1815.80 281.93 610.83 OBCs - 870.93 1487.55 2046.24 - 685.67 OSGs 480.28 1306.10 2245.72 3014.93 374.77 992.83 All 457.95 1052.33 1785.90 2399.21 358.60 792.25 Percentage shortfall with respect to MPCE of OSGs STs - 34.35 28.31 35.62 16.57 27.36 SCs - 41.94 43.20 39.77 24.77 38.48 OBCs - 33.32 33.76 32.13 - 30.94 OSGs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Percentage shortfall with respect to MPCE (mainstream) STs 16.90 18.52 9.85 19.10 12.81 8.97 SCs 25.28 27.93 28.58 24.32 21.38 22.90 OBCs 17.24 16.71 14.71 - 13.45 OSGs (-)4.88 (-)24.11 (-)25.75 (-)25.66 (-)4.51 (-)25.32
2009-10
2011-12
664.00 687.70 770.14 896.50 765.17
848.17 938.00 1054.36 1210.00 1035.50
25.93 23.29 14.09 0.00
29.90 22.48 12.86 0.00
13.22 18.09 10.12 9.42 (-)0.65 (-)1.82 (-)17.16 (-)16.85 1236.13 1019.25 1143.80 1640.12 1307.20
1508.17 1457.20 1581.00 2157.20 1758.00
24.63 37.86 30.26 0.00
30.09 32.45 26.71 0.00
5.44 14.21 22.03 17.11 12.50 10.07 (-)25.47 (-)22.71
Source: Authors’ estimates based on the NSS unit record data.
OSGs. In general, there was a decline in the extent of inclusiveness for all social groups together during the new millennium (Table 4). Urban India: Average urban monthly consumer expenditure, however measured, increased by similar percentages between successive NSS rounds: The compound annual growth rate in the mean (median) estimates were 7.86% (7.47%) between the Table 4: Mainstream and Subgroup Inclusiveness – Rural and Urban India Survey Period
Agricultural Year Rural Urban 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 2011-12 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 2011-12
Inclusive coefficient – mainstream All groups 0.788 0.793 0.782 STs 0.632 0.523 0.607 SCs 0.682 0.726 0.699 OBCs - 0.820 0.804 OSGs 0.842 0.911 0.896 Inclusive coefficient – subgroup All groups 0.788 0.793 0.782 STs 0.804 0.792 0.778 SCs 0.815 0.841 0.819 OBCs - 0.818 0.797 OSGs 0.785 0.776 0.779
0.768 0.695 0.625 0.509 0.571 0.449 0.686 0.452 0.386 0.797 - 0.543 0.91 0.734 0.781
0.621 0.448 0.413 0.536 0.784
0.629 0.412 0.449 0.561 0.784
0.768 0.695 0.625 0.777 0.722 0.548 0.798 0.748 0.731 0.785 - 0.707 0.772 0.686 0.590
0.621 0.514 0.707 0.684 0.593
0.629 0.562 0.59 0.678 0.622
Source: Authors’ estimates based on the NSS unit record data.
48
50th and 61st rounds, 11.16% (10.53%) between the 61st and 66th rounds and 15.91% (15.97%) between the 66th and 68th rounds, respectively.15 The results on inter-group disparities are slightly different for urban India. In urban India, OBCs too fall outside the mainstream though the shortfall declined over time (Table 3). In general, the disparity as measured by percentage shortfall in consumption was pronounced in the urban than in the rural sector for the SCs, the STs and the OBCs at the level of the nation as a whole. The extent of mainstream inclusiveness is less than that of the subgroup for the STs, SCs and the OBCs and vice versa for the OSGs. Unlike rural India, mainstream inclusiveness is less for the SCs than for the STs. The profile of change is also different with no consistent pattern for any. In general, extent of mainstream inclusiveness decreased for the STs and increased for the SCs, OBCs and the OSGs while the general profile is one of reduction in the subgroup inclusiveness for all the four social groups combined during the new millennium (Table 4). In general, the preceding features for rural and urban sectors paint a picture of exclusion of the poorest, the SCs and the STs in particular, in realising the benefits of the growth process equi-proportionately. 5 A Plural Perspective on the Federation 5.1 Interstate Inclusiveness
The preceding discussion has focused on issues related to inclusiveness of the individual citizen in the national context. This section would begin with an analysis at the state level by rural and urban sectors with a focus on regional inclusiveness, that is, how far different states have been integrated into the national mainstream in terms of rural/urban mean and median per capita consumption levels (Table 5, web).16 This issue may be examined from two different perspectives, viz, inclusiveness in terms of (i) rural/urban average per capita consumption level relative to the national one; and (ii) growth rates in rural/urban average per capita consumption. (1) One measure for examining state inclusiveness could be state average relative to 60% of the mainstream national average. In general, none of the states had a rural/urban mean (median) consumption level less than 60% of the corresponding national average. Nominal average per capita consumption has increased in all states. Hence, tendency towards inclusiveness in levels may be verified in terms of σ-convergence: (a) The range between minimum and maximum rural mean (median) per capita consumption increased from Rs 215 (169) to Rs 1,630 (926) between 1993-94 and 2011-12. The poorest states were Bihar or Odisha while the best-off states were Haryana, Kerala or Punjab depending upon the measure of average and year under review. The finding on increasing disparity between the poorest and richest is corroborated by estimates of: (i) coefficient of variation, which increased from 17.59% to 30.78% for mean; and (ii) index of dispersion,17 which increased from 17.63% to 32.98% for rural mean per capita consumption across major states between 1993-94 and 2011-12. february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
(b) For the urban sector, the range increased from Rs 176.3 (156.3) to 1,844.7 (1,102.8) for mean (median) consumption. Bihar or Uttar Pradesh turns out to be the poorest state and Gujarat/Haryana/Kerala/Maharashtra/Punjab come out as the richest depending upon the measure and year. The estimates of coefficient of variation and index of dispersion confirm increasing divergence in levels of consumption across states in the urban sector. The coefficient of variation increased from 11.40% to 18.60% and the index of dispersion increased from 15.00% to 28.32% for urban mean per capita consumption across states between the terminal years under review. Thus, there was divergence in levels of per capita consumption. (2) The broad profile of change in per capita consumption during the three sub-periods across states tallies with the one observed at the national level. However, the extent of improvement in each sub-period varied perceptibly across states and over time. The range between the lowest and highest annual growth in mean (median) per capita consumption increased from 3.88 (2.75) percentage points between 1993-94 and 200405, to 4.05 (5.67) percentage points between 2004-05 and 200910 and to 21.82 (10.71) percentage points between 2009-10 and 2011-12 in the rural sector. The corresponding estimates for the urban sector were 3.22 (3.52), 7.83 (6.04) and 23.64 (20.17) percentage points, respectively. This clearly brings out that the growth and distributional experience across states in India was increasingly uneven during the reform period. (3) Accordingly, we find that growth has not led to reduced disparities. The laggards have not been able to keep up even with the average. In the rural sector, percentage shortfall of mean (median) consumption of the poorest state from the corresponding national average increased from 22.44 (18.01) to 31.17 (27.40) between 1993-94 and 2011-12. The best-off state exceeded the national average by an increasing margin; the percentage margin for mean (median) estimates increased from 53.84 (53.28) to 96.25 (62.11). As regards the urban sector, percentage shortfall of mean (median) consumption of the poorest state from the corresponding national average increased from 22.92 (21.63) to 41.29 (31.71) between the same two years. The positive margin for the best-off state increased from 15.57 (21.97) to 35.60 (31.02). (4) Bihar and Gujarat are the two states which have received wide public attention in recent months: (a) Rural undivided-Bihar (Jharkhand inclusive) had the second lowest median per capita consumption, which fell short of the national median by 17.39% in 1993-94. Comparable estimates of median consumption shortfall for Bihar are 16.67% in 2004-05, 18.69% in 2009-10 and 13.62% in 2011-12, which show some improvement in the last year. Rural Gujarat’s median per capita consumption exceeded the national average by 15.23%, 11.60%, 11.26% and 17.29% respectively in the corresponding years. (b) Urban undivided-Bihar (Jharkhand inclusive) had the lowest median consumption level during 1993-94; it fell short of the national consumption level by 21.63%. Even after its division, Bihar had the lowest rank in 2004-05 and 2009-10. Comparable estimates of shortfall are 31.62%, 35.40% and 31.13% Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
in the three years after partition. Urban Gujarat had the maximum median per capita consumption across states in 2004-05 and 2009-10. It exceeded the national level by 4.78%, 17.75%, 17.55% and 14.32% respectively in the four years under review. 5.1.2 Intra-state Inclusiveness
Given the increasing divergence in the consumption levels and growth experience of different major states, it would be imperative to examine how inclusive was their own individual growth experience. Estimates of inclusive coefficients do not display a consistent pattern across rounds. This could be because, inter alia, NSS distributional data from the 61st round (AY 2004-05) is not robust (Suryanarayana 2011c) and the period corresponding to the 66th round (AY 2009-10) is a drought year. Hence, we rely largely on a comparison between estimates for the terminal years. Such a comparison shows an increase in inclusiveness in the rural sector of the states of Gujarat, Karnataka and Maharashtra. As regards the urban sector, the extent of inclusiveness increased in Maharashtra and Rajasthan (Table 6, web; columns on inclusive coefficient for all social groups by rural and urban sectors). For rural Bihar, comparable estimates show a decline in the inclusive coefficient from 0.901 (2004-05) to 0.842 (2009-10) and an improvement to 0.864 (2011-12). In rural Table 7: Incidence of Deprivation: Mainstream vs Subgroup Profiles – Bihar and Gujarat State
Rural sector STs Bihar Gujarat SCs Bihar Gujarat OBCs Bihar Gujarat OSGs Bihar Gujarat All Bihar Gujarat Urban sector STs Bihar Gujarat SCs Bihar Gujarat OBCs Bihar Gujarat OSGs Bihar Gujarat All Bihar Gujarat
Agricultural Year Population below 60% of Mainstream Population below 60% of Subgroup Median (%) Median (%) 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 2011-12 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 2011-12
14.94
21.00
17.20 13.49
8.79
13.00
8.06
3.83
12.09 17.67
8.50 10.00
16.06 8.14 11.38 14.33
7.42 10.77
1.00 5.50
6.15 11.38
3.31 6.55
-
4.50 10.00
6.69 5.87
7.06 4.14
-
5.50 7.00
6.52 5.75
7.37 4.14
-
1.00 1.50
1.39 0.87
3.96 0.13
-
7.00 11.50
9.25 4.98
8.97 7.69
6.68 9.08
4.93 10.30
7.92 8.41
6.81 6.63
-
-
-
-
12.53
24.00
23.33
39.19
7.32
14.50
12.12
6.32
22.61 23.66
37.50 18.00
29.02 24.48 47.04 12.93
10.36 11.47
4.50 12.50
9.35 13.97 11.46 10.60
- 11.00 - 25.50
17.86 18.72 29.13 18.94
-
6.50 5.00
11.57 15.42 13.29 12.67
11.79 23.00 11.86 15.00
9.86 16.79 16.69 15.63
9.96 10.30
7.00 7.50
11.70 11.87
12.59 14.17
5.44 9.31
6.63 8.33
16.31 17.15 19.46 13.54
-
-
-
-
49
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Gujarat, there was a continuous progress in inclusiveness from 0.794 to 0.832 and 0.867 in those three years. Urban Bihar registered a decline in inclusiveness from 0.748 (200405) to 0.674 (2009-10) and later to 0.657 (2011-12). However, the profile for urban Gujarat is different with corresponding estimates of 0.717, 0.611 and 0.729. The estimates of the percentage of population below 60% of the median mirror such fluctuations (Table 7, p 49). 5.2 State-Level Profile of Social Groups One important factor to be kept in mind while examining the results at the state level is that the profiles of the economic status of different social groups could differ from the one obtained at the national level. This is because of heterogeneity in size and economic environment. There is virtually no ST population in some states like Bihar, Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh; it is just about 1% of the total population in Kerala and Tamil Nadu (GOI 2011: 25). While the STs are the poorest followed by the SCs at the national level, one finds the reverse order in rural and urban Andhra Pradesh. Some broad relative consumption profiles of different social groups across states are discussed below. 5.2.1 Rural Sector
Relative Levels of Living: There is no consistent profile for estimated percentage shortfall in consumption with reference to the state-specific mainstream for different social groups across the four years under review. The shortfalls in general were less than 40% of the state-specific mainstream median. A comparison between estimates for the terminal years shows a decline in shortfall for the STs in Andhra Pradesh and Assam only, for the SCs in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu only, and for the OBCs in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Punjab only. In fact, the median consumption levels of the OBCs exceeded the mainstream average by a perceptible percentage in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. On the other hand, OSGs in general enjoyed a standard of
living better than the mainstream in all states; their median consumption fell short of the mainstream only in Assam (Table 5). Bihar: Shortfall in median consumption of the SCs from that of the mainstream declined marginally, median consumption of the OBCs fluctuated around that of the mainstream, OSGs exceeded the mainstream median by a substantial margin and the margin declined in Bihar after partition (since 2004-05). Gujarat: Consumption shortfall from its mainstream median increased for the STs, declined marginally for the SCs, and declined perceptibly for the OBCs since 1993-94; consumption levels of the OSGs exceeded the Gujarat mainstream by 5% in 1993-94, which increased to more than 30% in the remaining three years. Inclusive Coefficient: The estimates of the extent of inclusiveness do not show a consistent profile for different social groups across states. This is particularly so for the STs. What do erratic fluctuations in inclusive coefficients in an era of increase in nominal consumption imply? For instance, the mainstream inclusive coefficient for the STs in rural Odisha was 0.625 in 1993-94, 0.500 in 2004-05, 0.361 in 2009-10 and 0.607 in 2011-12. This implies that the percentage of SC population in Odisha with consumption less than 60 of the mainstream median per capita consumption was 18.74, 25.00, 31.93 and 19.65, respectively in the corresponding years. Thus, there was no stability in the distribution of benefits of increase in consumption among the poorest of the poor among the STs. A similar profile is found for the SCs and OBCs also. For the STs, a perceptible profile of improvement in mainstream inclusiveness can be found since 2004-05 only in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat; it declined during the same period in Madhya Pradesh. Mainstream inclusiveness of the SCs increased in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan since 1993-94 and in Assam since 2004-05. It declined in Kerala since 1993-94. It increased in 2004-05 and decreased thereafter in Gujarat. Mainstream inclusiveness of the OBCs improved in the states of Gujarat, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab and Rajasthan and declined in Bihar and Haryana during the years under review. As regards the OSGs, comparable estimates for post-2004-05 show a sustained improvement in mainstream
REVISITING SECULARISATION December 14, 2013 Reassessing Secularism and Secularisation in South Asia – Humeira Iqtidar, Tanika Sarkar Secularisation and Partition Emergencies: Deep Diplomacy in South Asia – Joya Chatterji Defining Self and Other: Bangladesh’s Secular Aspirations and Its Writing of Islam – Samia Huq Desecularisation as an Instituted Process: National Identity and Religious Difference in Pakistan – Sadia Saeed Secularising the ‘Secular’: Monumentalisation of the Taj Mahal in Postcolonial India – Hilal Ahmed Reimagining Secularism: Respect, Domination and Principled Distance – Rajeev Bhargava Languages of Secularity – Sudipta Kaviraj Secularism and Secularisation: A Bibliographical Essay – Mohita Bhatia For copies write to: Circulation Manager, Economic and Political Weekly, 320-321, A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. email:
[email protected] 50
february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
inclusiveness in the states of Assam, Gujarat, Punjab and West Bengal; among them, Assam and West Bengal experienced sustained improvement in subgroup inclusiveness as well. The estimates show a sustained decline in mainstream inclusiveness of the OSGs in Bihar since 2004-05 (Table 6). Bihar: Mainstream inclusiveness was less than the subgroup inclusiveness for the SCs and both fluctuated since 2004-05. The percentage of SC population living below 60% of the mainstream (SC social group) median were 8.50 (1.00), 16.06 (6.15) and 8.14 (3.31) in the last three years under review. As regards the OBCs, both mainstream and subgroup inclusiveness declined. Mainstream inclusiveness was greater than the subgroup one for the OSGs and both declined since 2004-05. Gujarat: Mainstream inclusiveness was less than the subgroup one for the STs, both of which declined in 2004-05 and improved successively thereafter. Mainstream inclusiveness improved in 2004-05 and declined thereafter for the SCs; there was no such pattern regarding their subgroup inclusiveness. Mainstream inclusiveness was less than the subgroup one for the OBCs but registered continuous improvement since 2004-05. Mainstream inclusiveness of the OSGs improved successively since 2004-05; their subgroup inclusiveness was less than the mainstream one and it increased in 2009-10 and declined in 2011-12. 5.2.2 Urban Sector
Relative Levels of Living: The estimates of shortfall in median consumption of the STs do not reveal any pattern at all. This could be due to their limited presence particularly in the urban sector of major states. Almost similar is the profile of the estimates of shortfall for the SCs. Between terminal years, the shortfall in consumption increased in Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Odisha, Punjab and West Bengal. It decreased in the remaining states. As regards the OBCs, the shortfall in general declined across majority of the states. Kerala and Punjab are the only two states where the shortfall increased in a sustained manner. As regards OSGs, their average consumption exceeded that of the mainstream in all the states. However, there was no consistent pattern in the changes in this margin (Table 5). Bihar: The percentage shortfall of median consumption from that of the mainstream declined for the SCs and OBCs; consumption of the OSGs exceeded the mainstream one and the margin declined since 2004-05. Gujarat: The consumption shortfall of the STs and SCs were unstable and that of the OBCs declined since 2004-05. The OSGs’ consumption exceeded the mainstream one and the margin fluctuated over time. Inclusive Coefficient: As regards the urban profile, the inclusive coefficient estimates change quite erratically for both STs and the SCs implying instability in the distribution of benefits of growth among the poor. There was a decline in mainstream inclusiveness of the SCs in Punjab only. Mainstream inclusiveness of the OBCs improved in Assam and declined in Tamil Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
Nadu. Mainstream inclusiveness of the OSGs improved since 2004-05 only in Maharashtra and Punjab and declined in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh. Bihar: (i) Mainstream inclusiveness of the SCs was less than half of the subgroup inclusiveness; while the former improved, the latter declined since 2004-05. Since the mainstream median is more than the SC median, these two results would imply that the relatively less poor have benefited more than the poorer SCs in Bihar. This is amplified by the fact that the proportion of SC population below 60% of the mainstream median declined from 37.50% in 2004-05 to 29.02% in 2009-10 and 24.48% in 2011-12 while the corresponding proportion below 60% of SC median increased from 4.50% to 9.35% and 13.97%, respectively. This has happened in spite of a decline in the median consumption shortfall of the SCs; (ii) Mainstream inclusiveness was less than the subgroup one for the OBCs and both declined since 2004-05. OSGs experienced an improvement between 2004-05 and 2009-10 and a decline in 2011-12 in both mainstream and subgroup inclusiveness. Gujarat: Mainstream inclusiveness of the STs declined, of the SCs was highly unstable, and fluctuated for the OBCs and the OSGs. While subgroup inclusiveness fluctuated for the STs, OBCs and the OSGs since 1993-94, it improved for the SCs since 2004-05. To sum up the discussion, a comparison between Bihar and Gujarat’s success in ensuring inclusiveness may be made in terms of the estimates of the percentage of population less than 60% of their respective mainstream median. (i) The percentages increased for the SCs, and declined for the STs, OBCs and OSGs and hence, the total population in rural Gujarat since 2004-05. 18 This would mean that barring the SCs, the poorest in all other social groups have experienced increases in consumption at a rate better than the mainstream median in Gujarat. However, as regards rural Bihar, the number was unstable but declined for the SCs and steadily increased for the OBCs and the OSGs. Finally, the estimates for the OBCs, OSGs and the total population in Gujarat were less than the corresponding numbers for Bihar in 2011-12. This would mean that the consumption levels of the poorest have not increased at the same rate as the median in rural Bihar, but Gujarat has done better in this respect. (ii) Similar estimates for the urban sector show an increase in the proportion in Bihar since 1993-94 while that for Gujarat, though unstable, declined in 2011-12 and was less than the corresponding estimate for Bihar. In other words, Gujarat seems to have done relatively better than Bihar in the inclusiveness of the poorest in the growth process in the urban sector. 6 Conclusion
This paper has examined inclusive outcomes in terms of some relative distributional measures based on estimates of per capita nominal consumption distribution as proposed in Suryanarayana (2008) using NSS data for 17 major states from 1993-94 to 2011-12. The different measures used for comparison are the elasticity of mean consumption with reference to per capita income, elasticity of median consumption with reference to mean consumption, inclusive coefficient and the FGT index 51
SPECIAL ARTICLE
computed with respect to 60% of the median. At the all-India level we find that the relatively deprived social groups, STs and SCs, have been left out of the growth process and the OSGs perform the best. The same conclusion holds for both the rural and urban sectors at the all-India level with a decline in the extent of exclusive growth of the latter over time. An analysis across states and social groups show that the growth process was uneven during the reform period. Of the
Notes 1 As repeated by Shashi Tharoor (currently union minister of state for human resources development) in several debates and presentations: “So India’s challenges are enormous. Our growth was never only about per capita income figures. It was always a means to an end. And the ends we cared about were the uplift of the weakest sections of our society, the expansion of employment possibilities for them, the provision of decent health care and clean drinking water. Those ends remain. Whether we grow by 9%, as we once did, or by just over 6%, as we did last year, our fundamental commitment must still be to the bottom 25% of our society” (see for instance, Tharoor 2009). 2 The empirical illustration is based on the NSS estimates of per capita household consumer expenditure (unit record data) for 17 major states of the Indian union. For this purpose, a major state is defined as one with a population of more than 20 million as per the 2001 population census. 3 One good piece of evidence for government’s poor understanding of concepts and issues is its Economic Survey (2012-13) (Suryanarayana 2013a). 4 The MGNREGA generated more than 12 billion man days of work during 2006-07 to 2011-12 of which the STs and the SCs accounted for 55% (GoI 2013c: 286). The Twelfth Five-Year Plan provides a list of programmes and their achievements as a part of strategy on inclusiveness of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (ibid: 286). 5 These are authors’ estimates based on per capita net national product at 2004-05 prices reported in GoI (2013a: A-3). 6 Suryanarayana (2008) shows that the inclusive coefficient for all-India (rural and urban combined) was 0.74 in 2004-05, which would imply that 13% of the population had a consumption level less than 60% of the median. As shown below, mainstream inclusiveness for the STs was as low as 0.382 in 2011-12 (Table 2), which would imply that 31% of the ST population had consumption less than 60% of the median of the total population. Given the government’s commitment to bottom 25% of the population, the reference fraction (60%) of the median to define the inclusive coefficient would be ideal to verify the effectiveness of inclusive policies. It may be noted that estimates of inclusive coefficients presented in this paper are not strictly comparable with those in Suryanarayana (2008) since the current exercise is carried out by dropping households with missing information on its social group. 7 The terms scheduled tribes and scheduled castes refer to historically disadvantaged people in India recognised as such in the Indian Constitution. The shares of the STs, SCs, OBCs and the OSGs in the total Indian population in 2004-05 were 8.63%, 19.59%, 40.94% and 30.80%, respectively (GoI 2007: 3). 8 In 2004-05, 64.3% of the all-India rural population depended upon agriculture; about 42% of the urban population belonged to
52
deprived social groups, the OBCs are found to perform the best across almost all states and sectors. The post-reform growth has not led to a relative betterment of the deprived sections of the society. Bihar and Gujarat, the focus states, retain their position at the lower and higher ends of the growth trajectory with the latter witnessing better inclusive growth. Our findings, in general, suggest that inclusiveness of the poorest in the Indian mainstream growth process is still a forlorn hope.
regular wage/salary-earning households (GoI 2007: 3). 9 A comparison between mixed reference period – MRP and URP-based data sets from the NSS 68th round show that estimates of MRP-based mean consumption exceed URP-based ones by 0.64% and 3.24% for the rural and urban total populations, respectively at the all-India level; corresponding percentages for median consumption are 3.62 and 6.12, respectively. Such percentage differences at select percentiles are as follows: Estimates of Per Capita Consumption: MRP vs URP (NSS 68th Round) Percentile All-India Rural (%) MRP URP % diff
1 5 10 25 50 75 90 95 99
424.65 554.54 639.10 808.58 1072.97 1495.92 2089.73 2652.04 4361.08
MRP
All-India Urban URP % diff
400.00 6.16 578.05 554.00 4.34 525.80 5.47 770.75 726.20 6.13 598.63 6.76 908.93 861.00 5.57 772.20 4.71 1254.87 1191.50 5.32 1035.50 3.62 1865.60 1758.00 6.12 1447.93 3.31 2869.45 2717.25 5.60 2053.67 1.76 4511.92 4278.50 5.46 2626.50 0.97 6283.09 6014.40 4.47 4804.00 (-)9.22 11358.83 12312.67 (-)7.75
Source: Authors’ computations based on NSS unit record data for the NSS 68th round.
10
11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18
Percentages differ perceptibly across social groups and between sectors. Consistent with this profile, estimates of the inclusive coefficients vary across social groups and sectors; for instance, MRP-based mainstream inclusive coefficient is even less than the URP-based one for the STs in both rural and urban India. This would mean that reference period affects estimates for different economic and social groups differentially and hence, findings on distributional profiles based on these two data sets would differ with respect to both aggregate and disaggregate features. We have computed FGT1 as well as FGT2 measures, which indicate worsening of both depth and severity of deprivation of the population below 60% of the median. Subgroup refers to social group as against mainstream which is all-social-groups-inclusive. As per authors’ computations. Estimates based on Table 3. Estimates of percentage increase in the average consumption of different social groups are not reported here to save space; however, they are available from the authors. Estimates based on Table 3. Ideally this analysis should begin with reference to income inclusiveness. However, given that the information base of this study is limited to the NSS estimates of household consumption, the exercise here is restricted to consumption analysis only. Index of dispersion is given by the ratio on the inter-quartile range to the median. The STs and SCs together account for 16.63%
of the total population in Bihar and 21.85% in Gujarat (GoI 2011).
References Foster, J, J Greer and E Thorbecke (1984): “A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures”, Econometrica, 52(3): 761-66. Government of India (2006): Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to the 11th Five Year Plan (New Delhi: Planning Commission). – (2007): Household Consumer Expenditure Among Socio-Economic Groups: 2004-2005, NSS 61st Round (July 2004-June 2005), Report No 514(61/1.0/7), National Sample Survey Organisation (New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation). – (2011): Selected Socio-Economic Statistics: India, 2011, Central Statistical Office (New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation). – (2013a): Economic Survey 2012-2013 (New Delhi: Ministry of Finance). – (2013b): Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2012-2017): Faster, More Inclusive and Sustainable Growth, Volume I (New Delhi: Sage Publications). – (2013c): Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2012-2017): Economic Sectors, Volume II (New Delhi: Sage Publications). Surynarayana, M H (2000): “How Real Is the Secular Decline in Rural Poverty?” Economic & Political Weekly, XXXV(25): 2129-39. – (2008): “What Is Exclusive About ‘Inclusive Growth’?” Economic & Political Weekly, XLIII(43): 91-101. – (2009): “Nutritional Norms for Poverty: Issues and Implications”, concept paper prepared for the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty, http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/eg_poverty.htm – (2011a): “Expert Group on Poverty: Confusion Worse Confounded”, Economic & Political Weekly, XLVI(46): 36-39. – (2011b): “Food Security: Beyond the Eleventh Plan Fiction” in D M Nachane (ed.), India Development Report 2011 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press). – (2011c): “Policies for the Poor: Verifying the Information Base”, Journal of Quantitative Economics, Vol 25, No 1, pp 73-88. – (2013a): “Economic Survey 2012-13: A Comedy of Errors?”, www.eSocialSciences.org/currentaffairs – (2013b): “The Pursuit of Food Security in India: Policies sans Concept and Commitment?”, One Pager, No 207 (Brasília: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth). Tharoor, Shashi (2009): Address by Minister of State for External Affairs, Shri Shashi Tharoor at Indian Oil 50th Anniversary Conference in Delhi, viewed on 20 September 2013 (http:// tharoor.in/speeches/address-by-minister-ofstate-for-external-affairs-shri-shashi-tharoorat-indian-oil-50th-anniversary-conference-indelhi).
february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
332.14
226.83
213.19
247.03
202.07
202.00
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
292.5
251.27
356.25
395.53
348.18
273.36
397.95
312.68
Maharashtra
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
All-India
281.93
292.17
235.75
262.45
281.42
322.63
309.54
318.61
264.75
352.62
-
264.96
345.13
-
319.78
229.06
285.58
299.78
192.75
209.6
238.88
293.86
194.38
191.25
374.77
383.99
331.4
354.44
371.08
471.2
357.33
445.05
344.35
385.74
-
372.78
418.45
-
394.4
297.3
385.9
326.32
253.24
253.6
247.75
249.33
305.64
408.67
209.11
242.13
242.07
334.18
-
246.63
346.9
-
286.85
206
241
255.17
358.60
368.56
316.85
338.28
358.25
437.38
335.45
411.43
326.46
384.48
-
351.06
394.96
-
375.73
281.05
382.71
322.03
237.1
240.7
232.63
237.42
279.92
363.43
194.4
225.45
213.33
325.33
-
232.8
313
-
273.22
195.88
241.83
239.71
All
721.2
640.938
623.571
1,021.02
848.857
704.667
425.5
748.65
607.1
2,267.25
496.4
507.01
1,198.56
712.75
751.875
392.45
759
520.5
366.5
406.14
421.67
435.13
434.92
578.67
250.07
331.83
305.63
438.25
351.03
395.67
1,087.5
310
422.71
348.75
547.14
360.83
STs
610.83
603.033
512.975
594.433
525
678.25
399.4
729.958
461.429
630.667
466.12
595.58
607
491
817.917
376.583
699.875
647.625
406.33
462.13
385.75
411.33
454.33
552.13
326.5
384.65
350.33
584.32
337.33
371.25
517.8
371.6
463.27
320.86
478.33
435.5
SCs
685.67
730.667
567.517
810.625
665.4
839.75
541.375
800.8
534.6
841.46
692
679.333
677.5
523.03
671.8
495.25
786.25
700.25
457.88
525.5
440.33
495.4
548.29
655.83
366.33
468.67
401
723.8
399.83
424.42
636.11
367.16
481.64
390.83
525.09
488.1
2004-05 OBCs
992.83
940.44
794.8
1,554.03
935.333
1,221.8
747.083
981.071
875
1,303.42
1,147
1,009.36
1,090.2
1,016.63
1,086.05
824.286
942.667
883.31
547.6
484.55
513.79
694.36
581.33
902.06
430.1
539.72
508.3
890.15
414.85
464
858
391.69
698.94
467.58
497.67
598.25
OSGs
792.25
833.059
636.5
819.369
708.208
929.3
579.5
864
641.9
903.117
807.333
763.675
871.4
698.25
932.88
541.75
899.4
748.35
455.80
474.81
437
469.63
515.14
693.42
335
459.08
377.33
744.58
378.5
425.55
673.71
345.33
508.67
379.83
514.71
488.88
All
1,228.5
687.7
735.5
613.5
721.8
819
964.78
558.5
794.25
669.33
940.5
617.6
619.67
868.43
512
857.17
526.2
731.8
843.6
SCs
681 1,027.6
865.57
1,076.4
857.1
1,154
914.8
915.4
844.4
1,070.5
989.92
1,026.2
773.2
1,236.13 1,019.25
1,130.33
3,097.25
2,450.33
1,416.22
4,176.17
742.5
1,327.33 1,223.86
940
1,570.5
781.73
1,108.75
754.5
1,198.55 1,033.33
1279.2
1,772.78
995.17 1,070.75
1,182.25
664
720
594
796.75
801.2
1167
440
726.5
531.25
891
582.86
667.14
1,128.33
524.83
713.57
614.25
772.75
681.75
STs
Agricultural Year
1,143.8
1,126.8
853.75
1,298
1,044
1,311
949
1,352.8
946.86
1,375.6
900.67
1,353
1,322.67
1,010
1,210
777.2
1,167.75
1,312.83
770.14
744.5
693.42
838.33
926.25
1,174.14
676.75
841.36
698.57
1,185.75
687
729.75
1,082.14
658.5
847.73
614.5
837.33
846.67
2009-10 OBCs
1,640.12
1,440
1,371.31
2,553.25
1,557.4
1,782
1,321.25
1,807.75
1,524.8
2,085.25
1,664.83
1,671.62
2,014.25
1,309.43
1,857
1,168.83
1,458
1,622.2
896.5
767.5
826.25
1,062.5
1,032.08
1,614.2
726
994
764
1,517.25
857
768
1,503.67
600
1,129.5
770.43
673
1,008.8
OSGs
1,439.8
2,858
1,024.5
1,704
1,095.33
2,775.5
1,255.71
1,347.36
3,143
951
1,331
1,475.75
1,607.5
1,585.5
848.17
758.4
1,042.14
901.25
1,021
1,766
591.8
853.5
736.8
1,218
708
945.6
1,759.75
674
983.2
762.13
917.2
1,071
STs
1,307.2
1,508.17
1,248.17 1,008.83
1,019.12 2,234.67
1,331 2,036.83
1,206.17
1,452.25
962.6
1,535.75
1,096.56
1,515.2
1,076.17
1,413.75
1,390.5
1,123
1,536.6
844.5
1,283.17
1,403.5
765.17
751.5
693.42
817
897
1,205.6
600.2
847.88
669.33
1,221.6
642.6
7,00.5
1,163.43
563.5
851.36
622.14
734.83
862.2
All
1,457.2
1,340
1,052.43
1731.5
1,490.2
1,509.8
978.82
1,681.33
1,076.86
1,901.8
1,076.5
1,561
1,736.5
876.5
1,794
1,042.67
1,467.67
1,640.4
938
933.83
804.67
1,117.8
1,133.5
1,343.43
696
1,186
838.5
1,404.75
779.75
990.8
1,277
699.67
1,120.89
765
993.5
1,198.8
SCs
1,581
1,677.25
1,063.8
1,913.6
1,575.67
1,833.25
1,235.6
1,910
1,265.33
1,763
1,276.63
1,760.67
1,907.2
1,104.6
1,768.5
1,141.17
1,488.6
1,964.2
1,054.36
1,032.33
874.5
1,259.5
1,310
1,761.25
847.5
1,226
972.29
1,608.5
832.5
1,135
1,482.56
772.2
1,210.67
904
919
1,287.33
2011-12 OBCs
2,157.2
1,862.4
1,777
3,030.5
2,174.17
2,415.5
1,636.5
2,254.14
1,779.2
3,001.67
1,822
2,729.6
2,761.2
2,070.25
2,323.44
1,532.8
1,617.08
2,151.75
1,210
1,032.29
1,107.7
1,771
1,477.4
2,198.4
979
1,331.5
1,092.67
1,998.2
918
974.33
1,914.25
1,345.5
1,601.4
1,020.67
895.6
1,423.33
OSGs
1,758
1,734.5
1,200.56
1,905.2
1,706
2,128.5
1,319.33
1,993.5
1,340.6
1,962.17
1,431.75
1,905.67
2,303.4
1,168.2
2,009.8
1,210.75
1,581.25
2,013.75
1,035.5
979.25
891.6
1,221
1,244.83
1,647.29
751.75
1,191.75
899.67
1,671.56
785.33
1,048.33
1,678.67
726.5
1,214.5
894.5
915.6
1,282
All
The estimates of consumption for Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh from the NSS 50th round (1993-94) are not comparable with those for the subsequent rounds. The former pertain to undivided Bihar, undivided Madhya Pradesh and undivided Uttar Pradesh respectively. Bihar was divided on 15 November 2000 to form a new state called Jharkhand; Madhya Pradesh was divided on 1 November 2000 to create Chhattisgarh; and Uttar Pradesh was divided on 9 November 2000 to form a new state of Uttarakhand. Hence, estimates of consumption for Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are available from the 61st round (2004-05) only. Source: Authors’ estimates based on the NSS unit record data.
274.97
Madhya Pradesh
-
Jharkhand
489.5
255.25
Karnataka
Kerala
338.99
-
Haryana
Chhattisgarh
322
275.08
Bihar
Gujarat
413.17
Assam
Urban sector Andhra Pradesh
297.78
209.72
159.49
Odisha
All-India
229.52
192.37
202.4
180.49
Maharashtra
278.72
-
191.8
Madhya Pradesh
-
Jharkhand
316.47
212.35
Karnataka
241.29
-
246.48
175.1
239.18
202.8
1993-94 SCs OSGs
Kerala
244.29
-
Haryana
Chhattisgarh
239.5
172.77
Bihar
Gujarat
249.25
214.17
STs
Assam
Rural sector Andhra Pradesh
State
Table 5: Estimates of Monthly Median Per Capita Consumption by Sector: Major States
SPECIAL ARTICLE
1
SPECIAL ARTICLE Table 6: Inclusive Coefficients (Mainstream and Subgroup) by Sector: Major States State STs IC-M
Rural sector Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Chhattisgarh Haryana Karnataka Jharkhand Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All-India
0.682 0.977 0.701 0.645 0.515 0.617 0.685 0.625 0.604 0.885 0.632
IC-S
0.806 0.977 0.824 0.794 0.515 0.801 0.869 0.857 0.859 0.953 0.804
Agricultural Year 1993-94 SCs OSGs IC-M IC-S IC-M IC-S
0.690 0.962 0.758 0.647 0.552 0.547 0.577 0.828 0.630 0.846 0.659 0.659 0.693 0.597 0.821 0.682
0.857 0.962 0.852 0.785 0.840 0.806 0.816 0.861 0.779 0.846 0.888 0.815 0.822 0.834 0.880 0.815
State IC-M
SCs IC-S
0.560 0.757 0.949 0.930 0.656 0.839 0.684 0.824 0.908 0.911 0.596 0.656 0.559 0.859 0.703 0.851 0.361 0.810 0.806 0.904 0.789 0.912 0.607 0.778
State
2
0.814 0.916 0.866 0.818 0.752 0.779 0.751 0.797 0.759 0.835 0.825 0.798 0.776 0.776 0.869 0.788
Agricultural Year 2004-05 OBCs IC-S IC-M IC-S
SCs
IC-M
IC-S
IC-M
0.430 0.940 0.580 0.728 0.950 0.819 0.650 0.430 0.500 0.710 0.750 0.523
0.780 0.900 0.740 0.796 0.970 0.901 0.900 0.850 0.860 0.920 0.910 0.792
0.690 0.810 0.830 0.800 0.902 0.520 0.840 0.772 0.530 0.750 0.640 0.780 0.700 0.770 0.810 0.760 0.880 0.726
0.830 0.880 0.980 0.890 0.870 0.820 0.970 0.926 0.840 0.800 0.820 0.810 0.950 0.870 0.890 0.890 0.900 0.841
0.830 0.870 0.910 0.800 0.871 0.740 0.900 0.939 0.690 0.880 0.860 0.900 0.790 0.900 0.860 0.840 0.870 0.82
IC-M
IC-S
IC-M
0.733 0.861 0.679 0.773 0.785 0.376 0.856 0.508 0.601 0.808 0.727 0.792 0.661 0.774 0.717 0.755 0.845 0.699
0.738 0.861 0.877 0.773 0.832 0.789 0.932 0.759 0.665 0.808 0.775 0.839 0.917 0.848 0.869 0.903 0.870 0.819
0.788 0.943 0.866 0.883 0.907 0.650 0.822 0.727 0.828 0.799 0.898 0.900 0.789 0.921 0.830 0.872 0.945 0.804
OSGs IC-M
IC-S
All IC
0.931 0.883 0.972 0.983 0.699 0.937 0.966 0.854 0.698 0.815 0.851 0.865 0.976 0.948 0.963 0.853 0.896
0.803 0.929 0.815 0.900 0.699 0.850 0.901 0.655 0.119 0.775 0.746 0.708 0.855 0.924 0.723 0.877 0.831 0.779
0.792 0.908 0.842 0.832 0.794 0.680 0.870 0.733 0.821 0.743 0.829 0.747 0.802 0.874 0.805 0.857 0.853 0.782
IC-S
0.796 0.880 0.870 0.885 0.771 0.789 0.795 0.736 0.712 0.765 0.899 0.840 0.827 0.906 0.815 0.872 0.945 0.797
SCs IC-S
0.833 0.749 -
0.771 0.854 -
0.527 0.224 0.571
0.814 0.782 0.722
IC-M
0.638 0.621 0.548 0.527 0.643 0.311 0.549 0.523 0.336 0.678 0.542 0.451 0.451 0.432 0.403 0.452
OSGs
0.830 0.840 0.890 0.860 0.831 0.820 0.900 0.920 0.710 0.840 0.840 0.830 0.840 0.870 0.810 0.830 0.810 0.818
IC-M
IC-S
All IC
0.920 0.820 0.980 0.970 0.930 0.960 0.889 0.840 0.950 0.860 0.950 0.950 0.970 0.780 0.910 0.840 0.911
0.780 0.870 0.860 0.770 0.830 0.930 0.828 0.710 0.850 0.760 0.850 0.830 0.890 0.490 0.800 0.820 0.776
0.790 0.853 0.901 0.794 0.829 0.753 0.911 0.876 0.700 0.808 0.771 0.788 0.811 0.856 0.846 0.836 0.844 0.793
Agricultural Year 2011-12
OBCs
STs
SCs
IC-M
IC-S
IC-M
0.565 0.929 0.730 0.828 0.831 0.537 0.334 0.607 0.352 0.615 0.509
0.770 0.929 0.923 0.878 0.909 0.741 0.671 0.915 0.604 0.836 0.777
OBCs IC-S
IC-S
IC-M
IC-S
All IC
0.862 0.815 0.853 0.917 0.860 0.805 0.911 0.810 0.900 0.793 0.824 0.867 0.759 0.887 0.824 0.849 0.814 0.785
0.892 0.926 0.921 0.997 0.910 0.953 0.798 0.895 0.933 0.931 0.973 0.978 0.962 0.980 0.938 0.905 0.91
0.842 0.945 0.821 0.846 0.843 0.982 0.664 0.695 0.854 0.841 0.842 0.799 0.925 0.634 0.839 0.862 0.772
0.814 0.904 0.864 0.867 0.835 0.706 0.915 0.736 0.917 0.746 0.798 0.834 0.827 0.798 0.824 0.834 0.860 0.768
IC-M
0.735 0.786 0.863 0.989 0.888 0.831 0.837 0.934 0.859 0.713 0.869 0.917 0.704 0.849 0.880 0.435 0.753 0.642 0.769 0.851 0.941 0.509 0.782 0.768 0.914 0.914 0.919 0.721 0.775 0.844 0.827 0.827 0.831 0.811 0.872 0.930 0.673 0.886 0.884 0.820 0.863 0.918 0.808 0.855 0.838 0.767 0.862 0.836 0.829 0.853 0.863 0.686 0.798 0.797
Agricultural Year 1993-94 STs IC-M
Urban sector Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Chhattisgarh Haryana Karnataka Jharkhand Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All-India
0.823 0.900 0.881 0.839 0.757 0.813 0.758 0.796 0.741 0.878 0.862 0.819 0.777 0.765 0.850 0.785
STs
Agricultural Year 2009-10 STs
Rural sector Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Chhattisgarh Haryana Karnataka Kerala Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All-India
0.865 0.899 0.909 0.892 0.847 0.864 0.775 0.886 0.802 0.926 0.935 0.887 0.808 0.834 0.892 0.842
All IC
OSGs
Agricultural Year 2004-05 OSGs
IC-S
IC-M
IC-S
0.733 0.856 0.793 0.771 0.806 0.648 0.689 0.797 0.593 0.725 0.863 0.873 0.763 0.835 0.719 0.748
0.767 0.777 0.801 0.794 0.796 0.714 0.732 0.803 0.701 0.775 0.757 0.785 0.785 0.723 0.758 0.734
0.756 0.777 0.764 0.763 0.725 0.636 0.728 0.751 0.628 0.702 0.793 0.703 0.739 0.675 0.701 0.686
All IC
0.746 0.769 0.766 0.763 0.770 0.654 0.723 0.735 0.630 0.696 0.738 0.726 0.741 0.685 0.699 0.695
STs
SCs
IC-M
IC-S
IC-M
IC-S
IC-M
OBCs IC-S
IC-M
IC-S
All IC
0.380 0.520 0.369 0.029 0.460 0.380 0.449
0.840 0.710 0.366 0.832 0.480 0.720 0.548
0.570 0.270 0.250 0.640 0.232 0.330 0.380 0.360 0.340 0.450 0.340 0.400 0.440 0.390 0.480 0.310 0.386
0.850 0.850 0.910 0.750 0.728 0.680 0.660 0.810 0.780 0.580 0.740 0.920 0.860 0.840 0.800 0.790 0.731
0.740 0.510 0.780 0.490 0.456 0.540 0.590 0.576 0.570 0.570 0.620 0.590 0.660 0.710 0.710 0.620 0.543
0.810 0.680 0.870 0.900 0.858 0.750 0.690 0.724 0.630 0.800 0.680 0.700 0.760 0.770 0.720 0.740 0.707
0.770 0.720 0.860 0.850 0.824 0.880 0.830 0.790 0.860 0.920 0.680 0.830 0.830 0.890 0.880 0.840 0.670 0.781
0.630 0.700 0.540 0.700 0.513 0.730 0.570 0.586 0.600 0.670 0.570 0.560 0.650 0.580 0.590 0.630 0.570 0.59
0.714 0.594 0.748 0.717 0.525 0.693 0.667 0.526 0.633 0.673 0.620 0.650 0.684 0.724 0.680 0.690 0.592 0.625
february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
OSGs
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE Table 6: Inclusive Coefficients (Mainstream and Subgroup) by Sector: Major States (Continued) State
Agricultural Year 2009-10 STs
Urban sector Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Chhattisgarh Haryana Karnataka Kerala Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All-India
SCs
Agricultural Year 2011-12
OBCs
OSGs
All
IC-M
IC-S
IC-M
IC-S
IC-M
IC-S
IC-M
IC-S
0.488 0.533 0.504 0.5483 0.331 0.56 0.448
0.692 0.758 0.651 0.613 0.53 0.858 0.514
0.641 0.465 0.42 0.059 0.513 0.18 0.42 0.256 0.326 0.327 0.362 0.511 0.359 0.626 0.391 0.566 0.378 0.413
0.727 0.749 0.813 0.771 0.651 0.94 0.628 0.81 0.639 0.637 0.624 0.745 0.833 0.736 0.749 0.762 0.711 0.707
0.612 0.775 0.643 0.417 0.519 0.653 0.62 0.52 0.518 0.556 0.503 0.718 0.528 0.618 0.687 0.575 0.4 0.536
0.709 0.807 0.769 0.734 0.613 0.716 0.642 0.627 0.686 0.722 0.685 0.725 0.614 0.838 0.72 0.768 0.548 0.684
0.713 0.597 0.891 0.814 0.800 0.877 0.606 0.835 0.882 0.875 0.734 0.933 0.85 0.914 0.969 0.783 0.703 0.784
0.589 0.457 0.803 0.666 0.681 0.603 0.479 0.612 0.592 0.628 0.615 0.581 0.706 0.649 0.729 0.58 0.586 0.593
IC
STs IC-M
0.657 0.597 0.688 0.674 0.794 0.611 0.216 0.621 0.616 0.577 0.588 0.622 0.498 0.633 0.462 0.606 0.749 0.355 0.655 0.734 0.664 0.66 0.615 0.621 0.412
SCs
OBCs
IC-S
IC-M
IC-S
0.688 0.794 0.874 0.731 0.841 0.759 0.562
0.422 0.447 0.511 0.741 0.251 0.406 0.702 0.257 0.482 0.587 0.519 0.318 0.579 0.582 0.609 0.508 0.449
0.726 0.493 0.721 0.788 0.587 0.595 0.702 0.796 0.854 0.747 0.839 0.796 0.792 0.723 0.798 0.813 0.59
IC-M
OSGs IC-S
0.72 0.745 0.828 0.873 0.626 0.692 0.621 0.747 0.183 0.672 0.451 0.686 0.612 0.672 0.59 0.709 0.573 0.671 0.709 0.758 0.684 0.723 0.617 0.634 0.576 0.691 0.714 0.784 0.67 0.666 0.677 0.829 0.647 0.654 0.561 0.678
All
IC-M
IC-S
IC
0.764 0.627 0.868 0.834 0.645 0.779 0.749 0.891 0.923 0.779 0.799 0.877 0.862 0.908 0.903 0.867 0.631 0.784
0.681 0.603 0.664 0.687 0.521 0.603 0.489 0.489 0.724 0.587 0.708 0.667 0.78 0.734 0.583 0.588 0.57 0.622
0.699 0.635 0.657 0.729 0.618 0.615 0.607 0.671 0.637 0.681 0.717 0.695 0.675 0.75 0.667 0.736 0.594 0.629
IC estimates have not been reported for states where the corresponding population share of the Social Group concerned is less than 5%. Source: Authors’ estimates based on the NSS unit record data.
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
february 8, 2014
vol xlIX no 6
3
