The Political Economy of the BRICS Countries. Группа авторов
F. G. Silveira and A. Campos (2016). “Poverty Profile: The rural North and Northeast of Brazil,” Working Paper No. 138, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG), UNDP, Brasilia.
Srinivasan, T. N. (2000). Eight Lectures on Indian Economic Reforms, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Stewart, F. (2001). “Horizontal inequality: A neglected dimension of development”, in 5th UNU-WIDER Annual Lecture, Helsinki.
Stewart, F. (2010). “Horizontal inequalities as a cause of conflict: a review of CRISE findings”, No.1, January 2010, Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, Oxford.
Subramanian, S. (2012). The Poverty Line, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Subramanian, S. (2014). “The poverty line: Getting it wrong again…again,” Economic and Political Weekly, 49(47).
Subramanian, S. and D. Jayaraj (2013). “The evolution of consumption and wealth inequality in India: A quantitative assessment”, Journal of Globalization and Development, 4(2): 253–281.
Suryanarayana, M. H. and M. Das (2014). “How inclusive is India’s reform(ed) growth?” Economic and Political Weekly, XLIX(6): 44–52.
The Economist (2012). “Race in Brazil: Affirming a divide,” The Economist, January 28, 2012.
Thomas, J. J. (2014). “The demographic challenge and employment growth in India,” Economic and Political Weekly, 49(6): 15–17.
Vakulabharanam, V. (2010). “Does class matter? Class structure and worsening inequality in India,” Economic and Political Weekly, 45(29): 67–76.
Vakulabharanam, V. (2014) “Rising inequality in India: The role of class and global capitalist dynamics,” Presented at the conference Religious Pluralism, Cultural Differences, Social and Institutional Stability: What can we learn from India, at Sapienza, University Di Roma,
Vakulabharanam, V. and S. Motiram (2012). “Understanding poverty and inequality in urban India since reforms: Bringing quantitative and qualitative approaches together,” Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(47–48): 44–52.
*This is a revised version of a paper presented at the conference: Political Economy of Emerging Market Countries: The Challenges of Developing More Humane Societies organized by Niehaus Center for Globalization and
1India attained independence from British colonial rule in 1947. For an overview of India’s planned development, see Chakravarty (1987).
2On these reforms and their impact, see, e.g. Bhadhuri and Nayyar (1996), Joshi and Little (1996), Srinivasan (2000), and Dreze and Sen (1995, 2013).
3For an analysis of Indian growth since independence and a discussion of these issues, see Balakrishnan (2010).
4See Nagaraj (2015) and the ensuing debate in the pages of the Economic and Political Weekly.
5There is a lack of reliable income data on India, although recently (in 2004–2005 and 2011–2012) the India Human Development Survey conducted by National Council for Applied Economic Research and University of Maryland collected data on incomes.
6In a departure from past practice, a large survey was conducted in 2011–2012, just two years after the previous one.
7Before data from the 61st round was released, several studies attempted to make the data from the 55th round comparable to data from previous rounds. See, e.g. Himanshu and Sen (2004a, 2004b) and the references therein.
8The difference in wages has increased from Rs. 900 to 1800.
9L(0.5)
10For a discussion of debates and controversies on Indian poverty, see Subramanian (2012, 2014), Vakulabharanam and Motiram (2012), and the references therein.
11Technically, this is an instance of first order stochastic dominance.
12Prior to 1999–2000 (55th Round), the NSS surveys did not enumerate OBCs separately, but combined them with the Others. So, it is only possible to examine the inequality between scheduled and non-scheduled groups.
13Rural households are divided into five types based upon their main source of livelihood, Self-employed in agriculture, Self-employed in Non-agriculture, Agricultural Laborers, Other Laborers, and Others (a residual category).
14This decomposition is similar to one based upon the single-parameter entropy family of indices discussed above, except for an overlapping component in addition to the between and within components.
15On the reducing gap in illiteracy, see Nagarajan (2013). Motiram and Sarma (2014) present differences in average consumptions.
16I will draw upon Ferreira de Souza (2012) and Fausto and Fausto (2014, Chapter 10).
17Fausto and Fausto (2014) divide Brazilian history prior to 1985 into the following phases: 1500–1822, 1822–1889, 1889–1930, 1930–1945, 1945–1964, and 1964–1984. On the contrary, Skidmore (1996) divides it into eight phases: 1500–1750, 1750–1830, 1830–1870, 1870–1910, 1910–1945, 1945–1964, and 1964–1985.
18These figures are from the Statistical Appendix of the latest World Economic Outlook of the International Monetary Fund (IMF, 2016, Table A4).
19Cornia (2015) discusses the colonial origins of high inequality in Latin America and shows that Latin American inequality has grown since the nineteenth century.
20“1. Agricultural households are defined as any household in which at least one member is employed in the agricultural sector, and 67 per cent or more of the household income comes from agricultural activities. 2. Pluriactive households are defined as those in which at least one member is employed in the agricultural sector, but less than 67 percent of the household income is derived from agriculture. 3. Non-agricultural rural households are defined as households located in areas officially designated as rural, but without any household members working in agriculture. 4. Non-agricultural urban households are defined as those located in official urban areas, without any household members working in agriculture” (Soares et al. 2006, p. 3).
21For details of jobs created since 1993–1994 in various sectors, see Thomas (2014).
22See Papola and Pais (2007) and Papola (2013) for an extensive discussion of labor regulations and their reform.
23See Kotwal et al. (2011) for a detailed discussion.
24See Mishra and Ray (2011), and Vakulabharanam and Motiram (2012) for a discussion of this issue.
25Kakwani et al. (2010) have also highlighted the crucial role that social policies have played in protecting the poor from adverse shocks and delivering pro-poor growth.
26For a recent survey of conceptualizations of the Indian state, see Nagaraj and Motiram (2017).
27The comparison with developed countries is even starker: US — 8.5%, UK — 8.0%, and Norway — 8.1%. These figures are taken from the Economic Survey of India, Government of India (2013). Also see Kohli (2002) and Dreze and Sen (2013).
CHAPTER 6
Sustainable Development and BRICS: