Professional Documents
Culture Documents
=
m
i
i
z
y z
n
PG
( )
2
1
1
=
|
.
|
\
|
=
m
i
i
z
y z
n
SPG
m= no. of poor population, n = total population,
z= poverty line, yi =income of i-th person
Alternative Poverty Measures
Head Count Ratio (HCR): proportion of total
population that falls below poverty threshold
income or expenditure. Based on either national PL
or dollar-a-day PL.
Poverty Gap Index (PGI): unlike HCR, it gives us a
sense of how poor the poor are. It is equivalent to
income gap below PL per head of total population,
and expressed as a percentage of the poverty line.
Squared Poverty Gap index (SPG): Adds the
dimension of inequality among the poor to the
poverty gap index. For a given value of the PGI,
population with greater dispersion of income
among poor indicates a higher value for the SPG.
Monotonicity Axiom: Not satisfied by HCR
Transfer Axiom: Not satisfied by HCR and PGI
Incidence of poverty affected by two factors:
(1)Growth in average income (2)Distribution.
Poverty reduction fast when average income rises
and inequality falls.
Fluctuations in poverty incidence till early 1970s
primarily due to slow per capita income growth.
Incidence of poverty started to fall after mid-1970s
when there was marked acceleration in per capita
GDP growth rate to above 3 per cent.
Lorenz curve: a curve that represents relationship between
cumulative proportion of income and cumulative proportion
of population in income distribution by size, beginning with
the lowest income group.
If perfect income equality, Lorenz curve coincides with 45-
degree line.
Gini coefficient: a commonly used measure of inequality;
ratio of area between Lorenz curve and 45-degree line,
expressed as a percentage of area under 45-degree line.
If perfect equality, Gini coefficient takes value 0
If perfect inequality, equals 1.
Internationally, Gini coeff. normallyranges between 0.25 & 0.7
) (
1
1
=
+ =
m
i
i i i
QC QC P L
From Household income/expenditure Survey
Compute data on each households income/expenditure
Rank the families from lowest income to highest income.
% of Pop.
(Pi)
% of Inc. Cumulative
% of Pop.
Cummulative
% of Income
(QCi)
10 3.3 10 3.5
10 5.3 20 8.6
20 13.3 40 21.9
20 17.0 60 38.9
20 22.7 80 61.6
10 14.6 90 76.2
10 23.8 100 100
Lorenz Curve
Cumulative % of Population
Cumulative
% of Income
X=Area of the hatched region
Gini coefficient = [X/50]100
Average Annual Growth Rates: Real GDP
1951-2 to
1980-81
1981-82
to 1990-
91
1991-92
to 1999-
2000
2000-01
to 2006-
07
2002-03 to
2006-07
(Tenth Plan
Period)
Agriculture
2.6 3.8 3.0 2.5
2.2
Industry
5.3 7.0 5.7 7.8
9.1
Service
4.6 6.7 7.9 8.5
9.4
GDP (total)
3.6 5.6 5.8 6.9
7.6
Per Capita GDP
1.4 3.4 3.6 5.2
6.0
Neglect of agriculture after economic reforms even as
overall economic growth accelerated
Average Annual Growth Rate in Per Capita GSDP
Arranged by 1993-94 Per Capita GSDP
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
P
u
n
j
a
b
M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a
H
a
r
y
a
n
a
G
u
j
a
r
a
t
T
a
m
i
l
N
a
d
u
H
i
m
a
c
h
a
l
P
r
a
d
e
s
h
K
e
r
a
l
a
K
a
r
n
a
t
a
k
a
A
n
d
h
r
a
P
r
a
d
e
s
h
J
a
m
m
u
a
n
d
K
a
s
h
m
i
r
W
e
s
t
B
e
n
g
a
l
M
a
d
h
y
a
P
r
a
d
e
s
h
R
a
j
a
s
t
h
a
n
A
s
s
a
m
U
t
t
a
r
P
r
a
d
e
s
h
O
r
i
s
s
a
B
i
h
a
r
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Per capita Income 1993-94 Growth Rate 1993-2004
Coefficient of Variation in Per Capita GSDP
among 16 Major States
0.3100
0.3200
0.3300
0.3400
0.3500
0.3600
0.3700
0.3800
0.3900
0.4000
1993-
94
1994-
95
1995-
96
1996-
97
1997-
98
1998-
99
1999-
00
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
States
Urban MPCE as % of Rural MPCE
1993-94 2004-05
Andhra Pradesh 141.5 173.9
Assam 177.9 194.8
Bihar 142.9 166.9
Chhatishgarh 180.6 232.9
Gujarat 149.8 187.1
Haryana 123.1 132.3
Himachal Pradesh 212.8 174.2
Jharkhand 190.7 232.0
Karnataka 157.2 203.3
Kerala 126.7 127.4
Madhya Pradesh 155.7 205.9
Maharashtra 194.1 202.1
Orissa 183.2 189.7
Punjab 118.0 156.6
Rajasthan 132.0 163.1
Tamil Nadu 149.0 179.4
Uttar Pradesh 141.2 151.2
Uttaranchal 166.7 158.5
West Bengal 169.9 200.0
All India 163.0 188.2
Urban-Rural Differences in Mean Consumption Expenditure
Factors affecting Poverty
Poverty depends on per capita household income
which in turn affected by employment, wage rate,
land productivity, industrialisation, expansion of
service sector and other general growth and
distribution factors
Special role of
per capita agricultural income
Employment and real wage rate
Inflation rate and relative food prices
Government expenditure
Per capita development expenditure
Social sector expenditure
Indian growth process since 1950s more or less
distribution neutral till 1980s.
Importance of a critical minimum steady growth in per
capita income for poverty reduction.
Inequality increased in recent years after reforms.
Income elasticity of poverty has fallen.
A given growth will be associated with more limited gains
for the poor
Higher growth might more than compensate the adverse
effect if fall in elasticity is small.
Reasons for weak participation of poor: limited access to
education, land, credit; low agrl growth, underdeveloped
infrastructure such as irrigation, roads, electricity in
poorer states
Demographic Dividend
AS fertility drops, ratio of workers to non-
workers rises.
Provides an window of opportunity provided
potential workers acquire skills and find
productive employment
About a fourth of poverty reduction could be
attributed to demographic factors in India
Right economic policies critical, otherwise the
scenario could turn out to be demographic
liability
Dividend for 2-3 decades only since proportion
of older population would eventually increase
increasing dependency ratio again
Long term scenario for Poverty
Long term growth prospects fairly optimistic: India likely to
continue among the fasted growing economies, BRIC to
dominate world economy
India might surpass Japan and Germany in terms of total
size of the economy, yet its per capita income would be less
than world average for a long time
Poverty could be reduced faster provided inequality is under
control, labour intensive activities must grow, removal of
rigidities in land and labour market critical for reallocation
of resources
Government can afford to devote more resources for poverty
removal programmes: wage employment (NREGA) or self
employment type (SJSY).
Thank You