Several reports in the past few months have sounded the alarm about growing income and wealth inequality in India. The statistics cited are not wrong, but they are incomplete — and they have produced sensational, but misleading, news stories.
For example, an article based on Oxfam’s recent “Inequality Kills” report notes: “India has the third-highest number of billionaires in the world.” The story points out that India has 142 billionaires, but ignores that India has 1.4 billion people. Only one in 10 million Indians is a billionaire, whereas such “billionaire density” is eight in Russia, three in Brazil, more than four in China, and 22 in the US. Likewise, while “India has more billionaires than France, Sweden and Switzerland combined,” in terms of billionaire density, these three countries together have 18 times more billionaires than India.
It should come as no surprise that rich countries have more billionaires relative to their populations than poor countries do. For a more accurate comparison, consider billionaire density in middle-income countries. Relative to the world’s top 20 middle-income economies, India ranks quite low. Countries like Brazil, Malaysia and Thailand have a far greater number of billionaires relative to their size.
Oxfam is not the only organization to point out India’s wealth gap. In December last year, the World Inequality Report 2022, the flagship publication of the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics, included India among the world’s most unequal countries. This research, coordinated by leading economists, fueled sensational headlines — “Poor Country with Affluent Elite, India Is Going Nowhere,” or, even worse, “How Hindu Nationalism Enables India’s Slide into Inequality” — that turned the topic into a domestic political issue.
To be sure, income and wealth inequality have increased in India in recent years. According to the World Inequality Report, the richest 10 percent of Indians account for 57.1 percent of all income, compared with only 13.2 percent for the poorest half. Wealth inequality is more pronounced. The poorest half of the Indian population possesses just 5.9 percent of the country’s total wealth, whereas the richest 10 percent controls 64.7 percent.
However, do these figures really support the claim that India is one of the world’s most unequal countries?
Although India’s poorest half holds a small percentage of the country’s total wealth, its members are still better off than their peers in most countries. Whereas India ranks 67th among the world’s 100 largest economies in terms of income earned by the poorest 50 percent, it ranks 17th in terms of the percentage of wealth held by the poorest half.
In any case, statistics that compare the top 10 percent and bottom 50 percent, while easy to comprehend, are not the only measures of inequality. Calculated from the World Inequality Report data, India’s Gini coefficient — a widely used indicator that ranges from 0, indicating perfect equality, to 1, for perfect inequality — is 0.6 for income inequality and 0.7 for wealth inequality. Compared with the largest 100 economies of the world, India lies in the middle for wealth inequality and among the top 20 for income inequality.
On balance, India is no paragon of egalitarianism, but nor is it one of the world’s most unequal countries.
A more fundamental question is whether India should continue to focus on economic growth to reduce poverty, even if it increases inequality. The answer, according to the Indian government’s 2020-2021 economic survey is, unsurprisingly, an unqualified yes. The government is betting that a rising tide lifts all boats, and the facts seem to support this maxim.
In the decade from 2006 to 2016, the Indian economy averaged 7.6 percent annual growth — one of the fastest 10-year expansions in the country’s history. Concurrent with that growth was an increase in inequality: The share of income going to the richest 10 percent increased from 47.8 percent to 57.1 percent, while the share of the poorest half declined from 16.1 percent to 13.1 percent. However, over the same period, the number of people living in multidimensional poverty — a broad measure covering health, education and standard of living — decreased from 642 million to 370 million.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic reversed some of these gains, a recent working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that income inequality in India declined. Richer Indians experienced a steeper drop in income than poorer ones, as their businesses were most affected by the economic downturn. Demand for the kind of service-sector jobs held by wealthier Indians fell sharply. The IMF forecasts 24 percent growth for the Indian economy in 2021-2023, which one hopes will reduce poverty and inequality.
The relationship between economic growth, poverty and inequality is complex, and the forces that influence it in richer countries might not be at play in India. Economic growth has lifted more than 250 million Indians out of poverty in a relatively short time. As a result, inequality has increased — but not to levels that should trigger alarm bells.
Amit Tyagi is chief risk officer of Zand. The views expressed in this commentary are solely of the author.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS