Disclaimer: We do not sell, advertise, or facilitate the sale of any books or physical products.
India's GDP growth rate improved significantly, rising from 3.5% during 1950–51 to 1979–80, to 5.5% in 1980–81 to 2000–01, and further to 7% in 2001–02 to 2009–10.
This period also witnessed a significant decline in poverty. However, the benefits of economic growth did not reach all sections equally. Inequality increased in both income and non-income aspects, indicating that only a small section of the population benefited, while a large segment continued to face low wages, limited access to social services, and poor social mobility.
Monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) for the poor in 1973–74 was Rs 35.10, whereas it was Rs 76.30 for the non-poor. This shows that the poor consumed about 57% less than the non-poor.
In 2004–05, the MPCE was Rs 284.80 for the poor and Rs 666.90 for the non-poor, showing a reduced but still significant consumption gap of 42.7%.
The Gini Coefficient of consumption expenditure was 0.2758 in rural areas and 0.3013 in urban areas during 1973–74. In 2004–05, the Gini coefficient was 0.25 for rural areas and 0.35 for urban areas, indicating a rise in inequality in urban regions.
Rural MPCE as a percentage of urban MPCE declined from 74.9% in 1973–74 to 61.4% in 1993–94 and further to 56.0% in 2004–05, showing a widening rural-urban divide.
Rural poor's MPCE as a percentage of rural non-poor was 46.0% in 1973–74, 46.8% in 1999–2000, and 42.7% in 2004–05.
Urban poor's MPCE as a percentage of urban non-poor declined from 42.3% in 1973–74 to 35.8% in 1999–2000, and further to 32.3% in 2004–05, showing a growing gap within urban populations as well.
The inequality in poverty rate is also visible among the sections belonging to different social categories. The percentage point difference in poverty among population belonging to different social categories is significant. In rural areas, the difference of poverty rates between ST and Non-SC/ST in 2004-05 was 22 percentage points. This difference has not been reduced much since 1983.
On the other hand, the difference in percentage point between SC and Non-SC/ST is 14.4 percentage points. In urban areas, the difference between SC and Non-SC/ST is 18.2 percentage points. For ST, the difference is 11.6.
The per capita Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) of major states shows a clear-cut inequality. States like Haryana, Maharashtra, and Punjab marked good progress in terms of per capita NSDP. On the other hand, states like Bihar and Orissa lagged behind the developed states.
In 1993-94, Punjab, Maharashtra, and Haryana had a per capita NSDP of Rs. 12710, Rs. 12183, and Rs. 11079 respectively. In contrast, Bihar had a per capita NSDP of Rs. 3037, almost one-fourth of Maharashtra and Punjab. Hence, across both time periods, the per capita NSDP among states reflects great inequality.
The growth rate of per capita NSDP during 1993-94 – 1999-00 shows that high-growth states included Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu. Poor-performing states included Assam, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, and Chhattisgarh.
During 1999–2008, well-performing states included Uttarakhand, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, and Gujarat. Low-performing states were Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh.
States like Bihar, Orissa, and Uttarakhand showed significant progress between the two periods. Bihar improved from 1.3% to 5.4%, Orissa from 2.7% to 6.3%, and Uttarakhand from 0.9% to 7.1% compound annual growth rate.
The per capita Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) shows a marked inequality in India. The comparison of developed states like Punjab, Haryana, and Maharashtra with Bihar reveals persistent and growing disparities.
In 1990-91, Punjab, Haryana, and Maharashtra had per capita GSDP that was 3.0, 2.7, and 2.7 times higher than Bihar respectively. By 1995-96, these ratios had risen to 5.1, 4.7, and 5.3.
In 2005-06, the gap peaked with Punjab at 6.1, Haryana at 6.8, and Maharashtra at 6.3 times higher than Bihar. This reflects a significant widening of interstate economic inequality during the reform period.
The hierarchical structure remained unchanged—with Punjab, Haryana, and Maharashtra consistently at the top, and Bihar and Orissa at the bottom.
Income share of the top 1% of consumer expenditure was seven times the average consumption expenditure in 2004-05, reflecting a high level of inequality.
Source: National Account Statistics, MOSPI
Inequality in dimensions beyond income: Health, education, and asset distribution show significant disparities. For example, 5% of children are severely underweight among the richest 20% of households, whereas this figure is 28% for the poorest 20%.
Unequal land distribution: Land ownership, a vital economic asset, is heavily concentrated, especially in South Asian countries where income inequality is already high.
Access to public services: Disparities are also evident in clean water, health facilities, sanitation, electricity, and education.
Child nutrition inequality: According to National Family Health Survey data, 32.7% of rural children and 45.6% of urban children are underweight, indicating a 12.9 percentage point difference.
Impact of maternal education: 52% of children with illiterate mothers are underweight, compared to only 17.9% with mothers who completed 12 years of education.
Wealth-based inequality in nutrition: 56.6% of children from the lowest wealth quintile are underweight versus 19.7% from the highest quintile.
Infant Mortality Rate (IMR): IMR is 100 per 1,000 for the poorest households and 34 per 1,000 for the richest. By education, it is 95 for illiterate mothers versus 30 for mothers with 12 years of education.
Institutional deliveries: Only 12.7% of women from the lowest quintile deliver in health institutions compared to 83.7% from the highest quintile.
Maternal care access: In urban areas, 90.7% of women receive antenatal care versus 72.2% in rural areas. Similarly, 73.8% of urban women and 42.8% of rural women have three or more visits.
Vaccination disparities: Only 26.1% of children with illiterate mothers are fully vaccinated compared to 75.2% of those with educated mothers. Coverage is 24.4% in the lowest quintile versus 71.0% in the highest quintile.
Basic amenities access: Sanitation, electricity, and asset ownership show wide gaps between rural and urban areas.
State-wise inequality: The infant mortality rate dropped to 47 in 2010 from 57 in 2006. However, it ranged from 44 in states like UP and Chhattisgarh to just 13 in Kerala.
Institutional delivery trend: Health facility births rose from 33.6% in 1998–99 to 38.7%. Kerala had a rate of 99.3% in 2005–06 compared to 4.4% in 1992–93.
Influence of maternal education: Institutional deliveries are only 19.8% among children with illiterate mothers compared to 80.6% among those whose mothers had 10+ years of schooling.
Neglect of agriculture: Public policy has relatively ignored the agriculture sector, despite its central role in determining the living standards of the majority of India's population.
Low rural investment: Deficiencies in public investment in rural economy and agriculture have constrained productivity and contributed to persistent inequalities.
Deterioration of governance: Public ethics, institutions, and administration have weakened, leading to significant leakages in public spending.
Ineffective service delivery: Lack of accountability among government officials has caused failures in implementing critical public services such as measles immunisation and child nutrition programmes, especially in rural areas.
Please login to comment and rate.
‹ ›