ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Poverty and Inequality: All-India and States, 1983-2005

With published data available from the 61st round (2004-05) of the National Sample Survey, analysis over the period 1983-2005 shows unambiguously that in spite of higher overall growth, the extent of decline in poverty in the post-reform period (1993-2005) has not been higher than in the pre-reform period (1983-1993). The second clear conclusion is that inequality has increased significantly in the post-reform period and seems to have slowed down the rate of poverty reduction. However, changes in poverty in the two sub-periods of the post-reform era, based on mixed reference period data from the NSS, suggest that the extent of decline in 1999-05 seems to have been higher than in 1993-2000, which is surprising given that the latter years witnessed slower growth in agriculture. This needs to be further investigated.

Poverty and Inequality: All-India and States, 1983-2005

With published data available from the 61st round (2004-05) of the National Sample Survey, analysis over the period 1983-2005 shows unambiguously that in spite of higher overall growth, the extent of decline in poverty in the post-reform period (1993-2005) has not been higher than in the pre-reform period (1983-1993). The second clear conclusion is that inequality has increased significantly in the post-reform period and seems to have slowed down the rate of poverty reduction. However, changes in poverty in the two sub-periods of the post-reform era, based on mixed reference period data from the NSS, suggest that the extent of decline in 1999-05 seems to have been higher than in 1993-2000, which is surprising given that the latter years witnessed slower growth in agriculture. This needs to be further investigated.

S MAHENDRA DEV, C RAVI

T
here has been an intense debate on the trends in poverty in the post-reform period as compared to the pre-reform period.1 The debate has not been conclusive because of the non-comparability of the 55th round (1999-2000) National Sample Survey (NSS) consumption data with earlier rounds. Till the 50th round (1993-94), NSS had a uniform reference period (URP) of 30 days for questions on food and non-food items. It is known that in the 55th round the NSS used a mixed reference period (MRP). The reference periods for 1999-2000 were changed from the uniform 30-day recall to both seven days and 30 days for food and intoxicants and only 365-day questions were asked for items of clothing, footwear, education, institutional medical expenses and durable goods. Based on non-comparable data, the official estimates show a 10 percentage point decline between 1993-94 and 1999-2000. On the other hand, individual researchers have made several adjustments to make the 1999-2000 data comparable with those of earlier rounds.2

The NSS has recently released 61st round data on consumer expenditure for 2004-05. Fortunately, this round provides results for a uniform reference period which can be compared with those of 1993-94. This enables us to compute comparable poverty estimates for 2004-05. The 61st round also gives MRP results for 2004-05 which are approximately comparable with 19992000 data.

This paper examines the trends in poverty and inequality in the pre- and post-reform periods.3 Published consumption data based on uniform MRPs for 1983, 1993-94 and 2004-05 were used for estimating all-India and state-specific poverty measures. For the MRP data, we made use of unit level data of 1993-94 and 1999-2000 and the published report for 2004-05. However, since the published report of the 61st round does not give expenditure distribution for the MRP at the state level, we have estimated the MRP poverty ratios using the Lorenz curve method based on URP distribution of persons and MRP per capita expenditures. This assumes that MRP expenditure levels are monotonic with URP levels for all observations. Since this is unlikely to hold strictly, this may marginally affect the poverty estimates of MRP at the all-India and state levels.4 Official poverty lines were used for all the years prior to 2004-05.5 The poverty lines for 2004-05 were derived using the state-specific consumer price index for agricultural labourers (CPIAL) and the consumer price index for industrial workers (CPIIW) for rural and urban areas, respectively (see Appendix Table A1). However, it should be noted that since the expert group method (1993) strictly requires reweighting the CPIAL and CPIIW components, our poverty lines may also differ from official poverty lines obtained by the expert group method. Specifically, the paper examines the following for all-India and 17 major states.

  • (a) Using the URP data, changes in poverty are examined for pre- (1983 to 1993-94) and post-reform (1993-94 to 2004-05) periods. Within the post-reform period, MRP data is used to look at changes in poverty in two periods, viz, 1993-94 to 1999-2000 and 1999-2000 to 2004-05.
  • (b) Removal of hard core poverty is becoming a problem in India. Therefore, we also look at changes in the very poor category for the above periods.
  • (c) Inequality is another important issue in the country. We examine trends in inequality measured by the Gini coefficient in consumption.
  • (d) We also look at sources of growth in poverty by decomposing poverty changes due to growth and distribution.
  • Himanshu (2007) examines trends in poverty and inequality using URPs for the years 1983, 1987-88, 1993-94 and 2004-05. We have not used 1987-88 data as it was a drought year. He has not made use of the MRP data for 1993-94, 1999-2000 and 2004-05 as the published data for 2004-05 does not provide MRP distribution. We have, on the other hand, estimated poverty ratios for 2004-05 by using MRP monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) for each size class of URP distribution. This method makes a reasonable assumption of monotonicity between URP and MRP distribution. Several checks with data showed that this assumption was reasonable. However, Himanshu uses the more direct method of estimating poverty for the years 1999-2000 and 2004-05 by using NSS employment-unemployment surveys. The trends based on our indirect method broadly agree with those of direct estimates for the period 1999-2000 to 2004-05. Apart from these two years we also estimated MRP-based poverty estimates for 1993-94. This enabled us to compare two sub-periods, viz,

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007 1993-2000 and 1999-2005 in the post-reform period. Another difference between our paper and that of Himanshu relates to estimates of annual changes in poverty and inequality. Apart from annual changes in percentage points per annum, we also normalised with base year values. The study indicates that there is no clearcut relationship between per capita MPCE and rate of decline in poverty or growth in MPCE. It is true that some of the high per capita MPCE states also recorded a lower decline in poverty in the post-reform period.

    Himanshu’s study also provides some indicators of well-being from other sources which are considered to be different from income poverty. It may be noted that employment and wages also reflect income poverty. Progress in non-income indicators of well-being such as health and education indicators take a much longer time than those of income poverty. However, states are converging more in education and health indicators as compared to that of income poverty.

    The paper is organised as follows. Section I examines changes in poverty and inequality at the all-India level. This section discusses changes in both the poor and very poor categories and inequality in both the pre- and post-reform periods. Section II looks at these trends for 17 major states. This section also deals with sources of changes in poverty. The last section provides conclusions.

    I Changes at All-India Level in Poverty Indicators

    One of the debates on poverty trends is whether the extent of decline is higher or lower in the post-reform period as compared to the pre-reform period. We examine the trends here in the headcount ratio, poverty gap, squared poverty gap index (FGT index), very poor category and, inequality measured by the Gini coefficient at the all-India level. The very poor are those who are below 75 per cent of the poverty lines. We also look at the trends in poverty and inequality for the two sub-periods in the post-reform period.

    The poverty ratios and rates of change given in Table 1 show that total (rural+urban) poverty declined by 8.9 percentage points in the pre-reform period and 7.8 percentage points in the postreform period. One can look at the annual changes in two ways. One way is to look at changes in percentage points per annum normalised for the length of the time. In our case, the length of time is 10.5 years for the period 1983 to 1993-94 and 11 years for the period 1993-94 to 2004-05. The second way is to further normalise these annual average changes with base year values.6 We use both these methods in the study for looking at changes in poverty and inequality. Total poverty declined at the rate of

    0.85 percentage points per annum in the pre-reform period, while the corresponding figure for the post-reform period was 0.70 percentage points per annum. From this one can say that the rate of decline in total poverty was slower in the post-reform period. However, if we normalise with the base year value, the extent of decline seems to be more or less the same in both periods.

    In the case of the very poor category, the ratio declined from

    24.8 per cent in 1983 to 15.5 per cent in 1993-94 and further to 10.3 per cent in 2004-05. In other words, we have about 10 per cent of the population who are hard core poor. The per annum changes normalised by the base year show that the rate of change was more or less similar in both the pre- and post-reform periods

    – marginally lower in the latter period.

    There are, however, differences between rural and urban areas regarding trends in poverty at the all-India level. The percentage points per annum reduction in rural areas were slightly lower in the post-reform period but when normalised with the base year, the rate of change was marginally higher. On the other hand, the percentage point decline in urban areas was much smaller in the period 1993-05 as compared to 1983-94. This holds true even when normalised with the base year although the gap is much narrower. As compared to rural areas, the rate of decline in urban areas was higher in the pre-reform and lower in the postreform periods (Table 1). This needs further investigation.

    Table 1: Percentage of Poor and Very Poor in Ruraland Urban Areas

    (Surveys of 30-Day Uniform Reference Period)

    Poverty Ratios Changes in Changes in Poverty
    (in Per Cent) Poverty (Per Annum
    (Percentage Points Changes as
    Per Annum) Percentage
    of Base Year)

    1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983-94 1993-05 1983-94 1993-05

    Rural
    Poor 45.76 37.26 29.18 -0.81 -0.73 -1.77 -1.97
    Very poor 25.52 15.38 9.64 -0.97 -0.52 -3.80 -3.38
    Urban
    Poor 42.27 32.56 26.02 -0.92 -0.59 -2.18 -1.81
    Very poor 22.45 16.00 12.00 -0.61 -0.36 -2.72 -2.25
    All
    Poor 44.93 36.02 28.27 -0.85 -0.70 -1.89 -1.94
    Very poor 24.79 15.54 10.32 -0.88 -0.48 -3.55 -3.09

    Source: Estimated from published data of NSS 43rd, 50th and 61st rounds of Consumer Expenditure Surveys. For 1983: Sarvekshana, Vol 13, No 2, October-December 1989; for 1993-94, NSSO Report 402, May 1996. For 2004-05, NSSO Report 508, December 2006.

    Table 2: Absolute Number of Poor and Very Poor in Rural and Urban Areas

    (in million) (Surveys of 30-Day Uniform Reference Period)

    1983 1993-94 2004-05
    Rural
    Poor 252.05 247.18 232.16
    Very poor 140.57 (55.8) 102.03 (41.3) 76.70 (33.1)
    Urban
    Poor 72.29 77.38 83.31
    Very poor 38.39 (53.1) 38.02 (49.1) 38.42 (46.1)
    All
    Poor 324.34 324.55 315.48
    Very poor 178.96 (55.2) 140.05 (43.2) 115.12 (36.5)

    Note: Figures in parenthesis refer to the percentage share of very poor to the poor.

    Source: Same as Table 1.

    Table 3: Poverty Gap, FGT and Gini for Rural and Urban Areas

    (Surveys of 30-Day Uniform Reference Period)

    Poverty and Changes Changes in Poverty
    Inequality (Percentage (Per Annum
    Points Changes as
    Per Annum) Percentage
    of Base Year)

    1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983-94 1993-05 1983-94 1993-05

    Rural
    Poverty gap 13.46 8.58 5.9 -0.46 -0.24 -3.45 -2.84
    FGT 5.27 2.55 1.47 -0.26 -0.10 -4.93 -3.92
    Gini 30.79 28.55 30.45 -0.21 0.17 -0.68 0.60
    Urban
    Poverty gap 11.95 8.37 5.76 -0.34 -0.24 -2.85 -2.87
    FGT 4.31 2.61 1.46 -0.16 -0.11 -3.71 -4.21
    Gini 34.06 34.31 37.51 0.02 0.29 0.01 0.85

    Source: Same as Table 1.

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007

    The absolute number of total poor in India declined to around

    315.5 million in 2004-05 from around 324 million in 1993-94

  • a decline of about nine million over 11 years (Table 2). There was a decline of 15 million in rural areas and an increase of about six million in urban areas during the same period. The number of very poor declined over time and it was about 115 million in 2004-05. These are hard core and chronic poor. The share of very poor in the total poor declined in both rural and urban areas
  • the fall in the share being greater in rural areas. It indicates that the share of poor around the poverty line has been increasing over time. However, the share of hard core and chronic poor is still quite high, around 37 per cent with an absolute number of more than 115 million.
  • We have also estimated the distribution sensitive measures of poverty such as the poverty gap index (PGI) and squared poverty gap (FGT) and Gini coefficient as a measure of inequality (see Appendix for methodology). These estimates are given in Table 3 for the pre- and post-reform periods. In contrast to the headcount ratio, the rate of decline in the distribution sensitive measures (poverty gap and FGT) in rural areas was slower in the postreform period as compared to the pre-reform period. In the urban areas also, the percentage point decline was slower in the postreform period. The decline for FGT when normalised with the base year seems to be higher in 1993-05 as compared to 1983-94.

    However, inequality in consumption represented by the Gini coefficient seems to have increased significantly for both rural and urban areas in the post-reform period – the rate of increase being much higher for the urban as compared to rural areas (Table 3).

    The adverse impact of the increase in inequality is reflected in the decomposition exercise undertaken at the all-India level for the post-reform period. We examine here the sources of growth in poverty by decomposing poverty changes due to growth and distribution7 (see Appendix for methodology). As shown in Table 4, growth was an important factor in reduction in poverty in the post-reform period. However, an adverse distribution (increase in Gini coefficient) seems to have halted the reduction in poverty at the all-India level. If the distribution had remained the same, poverty would have been reduced by an additional 2.8 percentage points in rural areas and 4.32 percentage points in urban areas in the post-reform period.

    So far we have examined the changes in poverty measures in the post-reform period as compared to the pre-reform period using the URP data on consumption. Now we look at the changes in two sub-periods in the post-reform period utilising the data of the MRP. These two sub-periods are: 1993-94 to 1999-2000 and 1999-2000 to 2004-05. The estimates given in Table 5 show that the rate of decline for total (rural+urban) poverty was higher in the second sub-period (1999-05) as compared to the first subperiod (1993-2000) in the post-reform period. The rate of decline in the second sub-period was 1.02 percentage points as compared to 0.69 percentage points in the first sub-period. This is true even if we normalise with initial values.

    The rate of decline was particularly high in rural areas in the second sub-period (1999-05) as compared to the first sub-period. This is true for both poor and very poor categories. In urban areas, the rate of decline was only marginally higher for the poor and marginally lower for very poor. The Gini coefficients presented in Table 6 reveal that there was a significant increase in inequality in urban areas between 1993-94 and 1999-2000. On the other hand, there is hardly any change in inequality between 1999-2000 and 2004-05 in both rural and urban areas. It looks like the second period (1999-05) of the post-reform period seems to be more pro-poor than that the first period (1993-2000), particularly in rural areas.

    What are the reasons for somewhat higher rate of reduction in the second period? As shown in Table 7, growth rates of both overall GDP and of agriculture were lower in the second period than the first period of the post-reform period. However, agricultural growth was much lower in the second period at 1.5 per cent per annum. In spite of low agricultural growth, poverty declined at 1 percentage point per annum in the sub-period 1999-05. Factors like lower inflation, higher employment growth,

    Table 4: Decomposition of Changes in Poverty: Growth and Distribution

    Headcount Percentage Decomposition of Change Ratio Change in in Poverty 1993-94/2004-05 (Percentage Points) 1993-94 2004-05 MPCE Gini Total Change Change Change Due to Due to Growth Inequality

    Rural 37.26 29.18 13.57 6.65 -8.08 -10.88 2.80 Urban 32.56 24.48 23.55 9.33 -8.08 -12.40 4.32

    Note: MPCE is monthly per capita expenditure. Source:Same as Table 1.

    Table 5: Percentage of Poor and Very Poor in Ruraland Urban Areas

    (Surveys of Mixed Reference Period)

    Poverty Ratios Changes in Changes in Poverty Poverty (Per Annum (Percentage Points Changes as Per Annum) Percentage of Base Year) 1993-94 1999-00 2004-05 1993-00 1999-05 1993-00 1999-05

    Rural
    Poor 31.6 27.5 21.86 -0.68 -1.13 -2.15 -4.10
    Very poor 11.0 8.68 5.62 -0.39 -0.61 -3.55 -7.03
    Urban
    Poor 28.51 24.33 20.68 -0.70 -0.73 -2.46 -3.00
    Very poor 12.72 9.87 8.13 -0.48 -0.35 -3.73 -3.55
    All
    Poor 30.79 26.62 21.52 -0.69 -1.02 -2.24 -3.83
    Very poor 11.45 9.01 6.34 -0.41 -0.53 -3.58 -5.93

    Source: Computed from unit level data for 1993-94 and 1999-2000 and from NSSO Report 508 for 2004-05.

    Table 6: Inequality (Gini Coefficient) for the Post-reform Period

    (Mixed Reference Period)

    Gini Coefficient (Per Cent) Compound Growth Rate in Gini Coefficient 1993-94 1999-00 2004-05 1993-00 1999-05

    Rural 25.84 26.30 26.89 0.29 0.44 Urban 31.83 34.63 35.02 1.4 0.2

    Source:Same as Table 5.

    Table 7: Trends in Macro Aggregates

    1993-2000 2000-05

    GDP 6.54 5.91 GDP (agrl) 3.28 1.51 WPI 5.25 5.08 WPI (primary) 6.42 3.45 WPI (food) 7.97 2.81 WPI (foodgrains) 9.00 0.97

    Source:Economic Survey 2005-06for GDP andMonthly Abstract of Statistics, CSO, September 2005.

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007 particularly in non-farm employment, could have been responsible for the faster decline in rural poverty in the second subperiod. There are no signs of a significant increase in inequalities in the second period as compared to the first period. As can be seen in Table 7, inflation for primary, food and foodgrains was much lower in the second period of the post-reform period.

    Trends in relative prices in Figure 1 shows that the relative price of foodgrains, and in the food and primary sectors increased significantly over 1994-95 to 1999-2000 and started declining drastically in the period 2000-05. This could be one of the reasons for the faster reduction in poverty in the second sub-period of the post-reform era.

    II State Level Changes in Poverty and Inequality

    We examine here changes in poor and very poor and inequality for 17 major states. As in the case of all-India, first, we look at the changes between pre- and post-reform periods. Next, we concentrate on the two sub-periods in the post-reform period. In general, the comparisons of changes in poverty and inequality across states are made in relation to all-India.

    Changes in Headcount Ratio of Poor

    The poverty ratios for total population (rural+urban) in major states show that it declined significantly in almost all the states since 1983 (Table 8).

    In spite of a reduction in poverty, some of the states are having very high poverty ratios for the total population. In 2004-05, it was more than 40 per cent in Orissa and Bihar and between 30 and 40 per cent in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and between 25 per cent and 30 per cent in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and West Bengal. It may be noted that Orissa’s poverty level (47 per cent) was almost six times that of Punjab (8 per cent) in 2004-05. Rural poverty is high in all these states except in Tamil Nadu. Urban poverty was 30 per cent or more in Bihar, MP, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and UP in 2004-05.

    Figure 1: Trends in Relative Prices (WPI)

    1.25 1.2 1.15 1.1 1.05 1 0.95 0.9

    1994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-20002000-012001-022002-032003-042004-052005-06

    Primary

    Food

    Foodgrains

    Source: Monthly Abstract of Statistics, CSO, September 2005.

    The absolute number of poor is given in Table 8. The number of rural poor increased in three states, viz, MP, Orissa and UP in 2004-05 as compared to 1993-94. On the other hand, the number of urban poor increased in eight states (Table 9). The number of poor for the total population (rural+urban) rose in MP, Maharashtra, Orissa and UP.

    Our estimates in Table 10 reveal increasing concentration of poor in a few states.8 A group of four states comprising Bihar, MP, Orissa and UP had a share of 49.8 per cent in the rural poor of the country in 1983. This share increased to 55 per cent in 1993-94 and further to 61 per cent in 2004-05. Similarly, the share of seven states (Bihar, Karnataka, MP, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and UP) in urban poor rose from 61.6 per cent in 1983 to 70 per cent in 1993-94 and to 76 per cent in 2004-05. Poverty for total population (rural+urban) is getting concentrated

    Table 8: Headcount Ratio by Major States

    States Rural Urban All
    1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05
    Andhra Pradesh 27.31 16.64 10.85 37.49 37.63 25.41 29.75 22.30 14.80
    Assam 41.92 44.43 23.05 23.07 10.19 3.83 40.03 40.46 20.46
    Bihar 64.89 57.24 43.06 47.49 36.54 31.66 62.71 54.50 41.53
    Gujarat 27.92 22.44 19.76 38 29.44 11.96 31.11 24.92 16.75
    Haryana 21.77 26.62 13.41 25.47 17.54 15.06 22.59 24.26 13.92
    Himachal Pradesh 17.77 29.27 12.50 16.01 8.26 3.87 17.63 27.37 11.61
    Jammu and Kashmir 25.23 19.73 4.81 17.48 7.38 4.81 23.57 16.75 4.81
    Karnataka 37.51 30.24 23.73 42.88 39.67 33.4 39.08 33.25 27.15
    Kerala 38.46 26.49 12.27 45.11 25.45 20.86 39.81 26.22 14.48
    Madhya Pradesh 48.21 40.43 38.17 53.11 48.29 34.44 49.23 42.30 37.21
    Maharashtra 45.04 37.66 30.36 39.69 34.74 29.42 43.13 36.50 29.95
    Orissa 67.52 50.11 47.76 49.19 41.02 43.34 65.31 48.85 47.07
    Punjab 14.3 13.72 9.55 23.52 11.83 5.57 16.88 13.14 8.12
    Rajasthan 37.72 26.89 18.91 38.81 31.55 29.81 37.95 27.96 21.48
    Tamil Nadu 56.22 32.99 22.96 47.94 38.92 34.06 53.48 35.20 28.31
    Uttar Pradesh 46.38 42.33 34.06 49.47 36.15 30.29 46.94 41.08 33.25
    West Bengal 61.56 37.35 28.49 31.5 23.24 18.5 53.60 33.45 25.67
    All-India 45.76 37.26 29.18 42.27 32.56 26.02 44.93 36.02 28.27

    Note 2: Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh include the reorganised states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal respectively. Source: Same as Table 1.

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007 in five states, viz, Bihar, MP, Maharashtra, Orissa and UP – their share being 65 per cent of the total poor in 2004-05.

    Has Poverty Declined Faster in Major Statesin the Post-Reform Period?

    Here we examine the changes in poverty using two methods. These are: (a) percentage points per annum and, (b) percentage points per annum as per cent of base year values. Decline of percentage points per annum in total (rural+urban) poverty was higher for nine states (Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J and K, Kerala, Punjab and UP) in the post-reform period as compared to the pre-reform period (Table 11). The decline in rural poverty was also higher for all these states (except Gujarat). In the case of urban poverty, the rate of decline was higher only in four states, viz, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and MP.

    If we consider percentage points per annum as per cent of initial values, the rate of decline for total poverty (rural+urban) was more than 1 per cent higher for five states (Assam, Gujarat, Haryana, J and K and Punjab) while it was more than 1 per cent lower for Orissa, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal in the post-reform period compared to the pre-reform period (Table 12). More or less similar trends can be seen in the rate of change for rural poverty. Regarding urban poverty, the rate of decline was more than 1 per cent higher in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, MP while the rate was more than 1 per cent lower in seven states. In other words, there was a slowdown in more states for urban poverty than rural poverty in the post-reform period as compared to prereform period.

    Changes in Very Poor Category

    The percentage of very poor in the total population declined in all the states since 1983 – the only exception being Orissa between 1993-94 and 2004-05 (Table 13). However, the percentage of very poor is higher than the all-India figure in Bihar, MP, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and UP. The level for very poor in Orissa was two and half times higher than that of the all-India figure.

    Similar to the category of poor, the poverty of very poor is concentrated in a few states (Table 14). The share of five states (Bihar, MP, Maharashtra, Orissa and UP) in the total very

    Table 9: Absolute Number of Poor

    (Millions)

    States Rural Urban All
    1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05
    Andhra Pradesh 11.75 8.43 6.33 5.08 7.04 5.52 16.82 15.47 11.85
    Assam 7.21 9.31 5.72 0.44 0.28 0.15 7.65 9.59 5.87
    Bihar 42.00 46.39 45.31 4.39 4.51 5.18 46.39 50.89 50.49
    Gujarat 6.82 6.39 6.70 4.31 4.60 2.55 11.12 10.99 9.25
    Haryana 2.33 3.51 2.17 0.78 0.81 1.10 3.11 4.32 3.27
    Himachal Pradesh 0.74 1.45 0.73 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.79 1.49 0.76
    Jammu and Kashmir 1.27 1.26 0.40 0.24 0.15 0.14 1.51 1.41 0.54
    Karnataka 10.36 9.75 8.67 4.88 5.99 6.67 15.24 15.74 15.34
    Kerala 8.03 5.85 3.01 2.40 2.00 1.78 10.43 7.86 4.79
    Madhya Pradesh 21.19 21.80 25.10 6.11 8.11 7.86 27.30 29.91 32.96
    Maharashtra 19.26 19.08 17.97 9.40 11.68 13.68 28.65 30.76 31.65
    Orissa 16.43 14.33 15.75 1.64 1.89 2.66 18.07 16.22 18.41
    Punjab 1.82 2.04 1.61 1.16 0.79 0.53 2.97 2.82 2.14
    Rajasthan 10.86 9.88 9.07 3.02 3.47 4.42 13.88 13.34 13.49
    Tamil Nadu 18.89 11.93 7.83 7.96 8.34 10.80 26.85 20.26 18.62
    Uttar Pradesh 44.62 50.57 51.39 10.60 10.95 12.54 55.22 61.51 63.92
    West Bengal 26.15 19.40 17.58 4.82 4.62 4.50 30.98 24.02 22.08
    All India 252.05 247.18 232.16 72.29 77.38 83.31 324.34 324.55 315.48
    Source:Same as Table 1.
    Table 10: Percentage Distribution of Poor Persons across the Major States (in per cent)
    States Rural Urban All
    1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05
    Andhra Pradesh 4.70 3.49 2.81 7.54 9.35 6.89 5.31 4.89 3.88
    Assam 2.89 3.86 2.54 0.66 0.37 0.18 2.41 3.03 1.92
    Bihar 16.82 19.22 20.11 6.53 5.99 6.46 14.64 16.07 16.53
    Gujarat 2.73 2.65 2.97 6.40 6.11 3.18 3.51 3.47 3.03
    Haryana 0.93 1.45 0.96 1.16 1.08 1.37 0.98 1.37 1.07
    Himachal Pradesh 0.30 0.60 0.32 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.25 0.47 0.25
    Jammu and Kashmir 0.51 0.52 0.18 0.36 0.20 0.17 0.48 0.45 0.18
    Karnataka 4.15 4.04 3.85 7.25 7.96 8.32 4.81 4.97 5.02
    Kerala 3.22 2.43 1.34 3.56 2.66 2.22 3.29 2.48 1.57
    Madhya Pradesh 8.49 9.03 11.14 9.08 10.78 9.82 8.61 9.45 10.79
    Maharashtra 7.71 7.91 7.97 13.97 15.52 17.08 9.04 9.71 10.36
    Orissa 6.58 5.94 6.99 2.44 2.51 3.32 5.70 5.12 6.03
    Punjab 0.73 0.84 0.71 1.72 1.05 0.66 0.94 0.89 0.70
    Rajasthan 4.35 4.09 4.03 4.48 4.61 5.52 4.38 4.21 4.42
    Tamil Nadu 7.56 4.94 3.47 11.83 11.08 13.48 8.47 6.40 6.10
    Uttar Pradesh 17.87 20.95 22.80 15.75 14.55 15.66 17.42 19.43 20.93
    West Bengal 10.47 8.04 7.80 7.17 6.13 5.62 9.77 7.59 7.23
    All-India 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
    Source:Same as Table 1.
    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007 513

    poor increased from 57.5 per cent in 1983 to 66.8 per cent in 1993-94 and to 70.6 per cent in 2004-05. Similarly, the share of eight states, viz, Bihar, Karanataka, MP, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal) for the very poor in urban areas rose from 75 per cent in 1983 to 78 per cent in 1993-94 and to 85.4 per cent in 2004-05.

    Changes in Poverty in Post-Reform Period UsingMixed Reference Data

    One can examine the changes in poverty for three time points (1993-94, 1999-2000 and 2004-05) in the post-reform period by using the MRP data. The levels of rural poverty based on the mixed reference period show that the levels were higher than all-India for Assam, Bihar, MP, Orissa, UP and West Bengal in 1993-94 and 1999-2000 (Table 15). The same situation continued in 2004-05 except that Assam recorded a much lower level and Maharashtra showed a slightly lower level compared to all-India. The gap between West Bengal and all-India got reduced over time. The comparisons for rural poverty hold for total poverty levels also. In the case of urban poverty, eight states (AP, Bihar, Karnataka, MP, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and UP) showed higher levels than all-India in 1993-94. More or less the same situation holds for 2004-05 except that Rajasthan also showed a higher level than the all-India figure.

    We have seen above that the rate of decline in poverty for all-India was higher in the sub-period 1999-2005 as compared to the sub-period 1993-2000. The evidence at the state level is mixed. The percentage points per annum decline of rural poverty was higher in seven states (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, MP, Orissa, UP and West Bengal) in the second period as compared to the first period (Table 16). In the rest of the states, it was lower in the second period. The same situation more or less holds when we standardise percentage points per annum with initial values (Table 17).

    In urban areas, the percentage points per annum decline was higher in states such as Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Kerala, MP, Orissa and UP in the second period. Punjab joins this list when we normalise with initial values (Table 17).

    Changes in Inequality in Major States

    Compound growth rates in inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient show that inequality either increased or the rate of decline was slower in 13 out of 17 states in the post-reform period as compared to the pre-reform period. In 10 out of 13 states, inequality increased in rural areas between 1993-94 and 2004-05. The levels of inequality are higher in urban than rural areas in all the states (Table 19). The compound annual growth rate shows that inequality in urban areas increased significantly in 15 states in the post-reform period as compared to the prereform period.

    There are significant differences in the growth rates of monthly per capita expenditure in the two periods across states. The growth rate in MPCE was higher in 10 states in rural areas and 11 states in urban areas in the post-reform period as compared to the prereform period (Table 20). The growth rate in MPCE for poorer states like Orissa and Madhya Pradesh declined in the post-reform period.

    One of the concerns in the post-reform period relates to the widening disparities between rural and urban areas. Rural MPCE as per cent of urban MPCE declined from 66 per cent in 1983 to 61 per cent in 1993-94 and to 56 per cent in 2004-05 at the all-India level (Table 19). This percentage declined in a majority of the states in 2004-05 as compared to 1993-94 and 1983. The levels in 2004-05 reveal that the lowest and highest percentages were recorded by MP (45 per cent) and Kerala (91 per cent), respectively. In states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and West Bengal, this percentage was less than 55 per cent.

    Decomposition of Headcount Ratio into Growthand Distribution: Major States

    We have noted above that adverse distribution in the postreform period was responsible for the slower decline in poverty at the all-India level. We examine here the sources of changes in poverty at the state level. Here we concentrate on the post-reform period. Decomposition results for rural areas are given in Table 21. It shows that the inequality component

    Table 11: Change in Percentage of Poor

    (Percentage Points per Annum)

    Rural Urban All 1983-94 1993-05 1983-94 1993-05 1983-94 1993-05

    Andhra Pradesh -1.02 -0.53 0.01 -1.11 -0.71 -0.68 Assam 0.24 -1.94 -1.23 -0.58 0.04 -1.82 Bihar -0.73 -1.29 -1.04 -0.44 -0.78 -1.18 Gujarat -0.52 -0.24 -0.82 -1.59 -0.59 -0.74 Haryana 0.46 -1.20 -0.76 -0.23 0.16 -0.94 Himachal Pradesh 1.10 -1.52 -0.74 -0.40 0.93 -1.43 Jammu and Kashmir -0.52 -1.36 -0.96 -0.23 -0.65 -1.09 Karnataka -0.69 -0.59 -0.31 -0.57 -0.56 -0.55 Kerala -1.14 -1.29 -1.87 -0.42 -1.29 -1.07 Madhya Pradesh -0.74 -0.21 -0.46 -1.26 -0.66 -0.46 Maharashtra -0.70 -0.66 -0.47 -0.48 -0.63 -0.60 Orissa -1.66 -0.21 -0.78 0.21 -1.57 -0.16 Punjab -0.06 -0.38 -1.11 -0.57 -0.36 -0.46 Rajasthan -1.03 -0.73 -0.69 -0.16 -0.95 -0.59 Tamil Nadu -2.21 -0.91 -0.86 -0.44 -1.74 -0.63 Uttar Pradesh -0.39 -0.75 -1.27 -0.53 -0.56 -0.71 West Bengal -2.31 -0.81 -0.79 -0.43 -1.92 -0.71 All-India -0.81 -0.73 -0.92 -0.59 -0.85 -0.70

    Source:Same as Table 1.

    Table 12: Average Annual Change in Proportion of Poor

    (as a Percentage of Base Year Proportion)

    Rural Urban All 1983-94 1993-05 1983-94 1993-05 1983-94 1993-05

    Andhra Pradesh -3.72 -3.16 0.04 -2.95 -2.39 -3.06 Assam 0.57 -4.37 -5.32 -5.67 0.10 -4.49 Bihar -1.12 -2.25 -2.20 -1.21 -1.25 -2.16 Gujarat -1.87 -1.09 -2.15 -5.40 -1.90 -2.98 Haryana 2.12 -4.51 -2.97 -1.29 0.70 -3.87 Himachal Pradesh 6.16 -5.21 -4.61 -4.83 5.26 -5.23 Jammu and Kashmir -2.08 -6.87 -5.50 -3.17 -2.76 -6.48 Karnataka -1.85 -1.96 -0.71 -1.44 -1.42 -1.67 Kerala -2.96 -4.88 -4.15 -1.64 -3.25 -4.07 Madhya Pradesh -1.54 -0.51 -0.86 -2.61 -1.34 -1.09 Maharashtra -1.56 -1.76 -1.19 -1.39 -1.47 -1.63 Orissa -2.46 -0.43 -1.58 0.51 -2.40 -0.33 Punjab -0.39 -2.76 -4.73 -4.81 -2.11 -3.47 Rajasthan -2.73 -2.70 -1.78 -0.50 -2.51 -2.11 Tamil Nadu -3.94 -2.76 -1.79 -1.14 -3.26 -1.78 Uttar Pradesh -0.83 -1.78 -2.56 -1.47 -1.19 -1.73 West Bengal -3.75 -2.16 -2.50 -1.85 -3.58 -2.11 All-India -1.77 -1.97 -2.19 -1.83 -1.89 -1.96

    Source:Same as Table 1.

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007

    (in per cent)

    Table 13: Headcount Ratio by Major States

    States Rural Urban All
    1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05
    Andhra Pradesh 10.98 4.11 2.80 17.62 19.55 9.86 12.57 8.27 4.72
    Assam 14.24 13.52 4.96 6.36 1.21 0.53 13.45 12.09 4.36
    Bihar 39.53 28.29 14.65 26.34 18.1 15.66 37.88 26.94 14.79
    Gujarat 9.53 5.75 5.04 15.71 11.08 2.72 11.49 7.64 4.14
    Haryana 8.74 9.62 2.91 10.31 5.01 4.94 9.09 8.42 3.54
    Himachal Pradesh 6.76 9.03 1.95 7.02 0.92 1.07 6.78 8.30 1.86
    Jammu and Kashmir 6.41 4.07 0.64 5.01 0.99 0.55 6.11 3.33 0.62
    Karnataka 18.36 10.76 3.83 24.95 22.62 18.76 20.28 14.54 9.10
    Kerala 18.54 9.31 3.91 25.43 9.5 8.66 19.94 9.36 5.13
    Madhya Pradesh 26.50 17.59 14.72 29.87 26.09 18.04 27.20 19.61 15.58
    Maharashtra 23.29 16.85 11.25 22.49 19.95 14.8 23.00 18.09 12.81
    Orissa 43.63 23.27 25.16 27.21 23.67 27.63 41.65 23.33 25.55
    Punjab 5.08 2.06 1.04 10.61 2.07 0.51 6.62 2.06 0.85
    Rajasthan 22.87 8.25 3.39 18.93 13.96 12.02 22.03 9.57 5.43
    Tamil Nadu 34.89 12.68 5.04 27.13 19.7 17.97 32.32 15.29 11.27
    Uttar Pradesh 24.33 19.93 11.14 27.72 18.58 13.92 24.95 19.66 11.74
    West Bengal 39.26 11.30 7.41 14.43 9.53 6.57 32.68 10.81 7.17
    All-India 25.52 15.38 9.64 22.45 16.00 12.00 24.79 15.54 10.32

    Note: Very poor are those who are below 75 per cent of poverty line. Source: Same as Table 1.

    Table 14: Percentage Distribution of Very Poor Persons across the Major States

    (in per cent)

    States 1983 Rural 1993-94 2004-05 1983 Urban 1993-94 2004-05 1983 All 1993-94 2004-05
    Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All states 3.45 1.79 18.70 1.70 0.68 0.21 0.24 3.71 2.83 8.51 7.28 7.76 0.47 4.81 8.57 17.11 12.19 100.00 2.10 2.85 23.10 1.65 1.28 0.45 0.26 3.50 2.07 9.55 8.60 6.71 0.31 3.05 4.62 23.99 5.91 100.00 2.25 1.70 21.26 2.36 0.65 0.16 0.07 1.93 1.32 13.35 9.18 11.44 0.24 2.24 2.37 23.17 6.30 100.00 6.69 0.34 6.84 4.99 0.89 0.07 0.19 7.96 3.79 9.64 14.94 2.55 1.47 4.13 12.64 16.66 6.20 100.00 9.71 0.09 5.93 4.59 0.62 0.01 0.05 9.07 1.98 11.63 17.81 2.90 0.37 4.08 11.20 14.94 5.03 100.00 5.68 0.05 6.78 1.54 0.95 0.02 0.04 9.92 1.96 10.91 18.23 4.49 0.13 4.72 15.09 15.26 4.23 100.00 4.12 1.49 16.25 2.38 0.72 0.18 0.23 4.59 3.03 8.75 8.86 6.68 0.68 4.67 9.41 17.01 10.95 100.00 4.19 2.09 18.38 2.46 1.10 0.33 0.20 5.03 2.05 10.13 11.13 5.66 0.32 3.33 6.43 21.50 5.67 100.00 3.42 1.14 16.30 2.08 0.75 0.11 0.06 4.66 1.54 12.52 12.28 9.06 0.20 3.09 6.72 20.47 5.60 100.00
    Source:Same as Table 1.
    Table 15: Headcount Ratios (Mixed Reference Surveys) (in per cent)
    States 1993-94 Rural 1999-00 2004-05 1993-94 Urban 1999-00 2004-05 1993-94 All 1999-00 2004-05
    AP Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All-India 12.42 36.38 51.49 16.85 21.25 21.59 13.46 22.68 21.6 33.06 30.53 46.43 9.05 19.69 28.08 37.34 35.47 31.6 11.28 40.38 44.11 12.81 8.01 8.42 3.61 17.52 9.6 37.31 23.43 48.73 6.2 13.46 20.82 31.48 33.3 27.5 6.9 16.5 33.7 13.8 8.0 6.7 2.0 13.1 6.6 29.6 22.4 40.7 5.4 13.2 16.3 25.2 22.6 21.9 34.0 6.8 31.14 23.57 13.24 4.87 5.0 35.05 23.99 43.44 30.81 38.74 8.77 26.25 35.13 31.99 20.47 28.51 27.91 10.36 35.7 15.94 10.25 3.12 1.27 25.34 20.27 38.27 27.49 43.06 5.73 21.63 21.7 32.57 16.49 24.33 19.1 2.6 27.8 8.9 12.0 1.8 3.0 27.8 16.1 32.9 24.6 39.5 3.7 24.5 28.6 25.7 16.0 20.68 18.24 32.95 48.80 19.23 19.17 20.08 11.42 26.63 22.23 35.53 30.64 45.36 8.96 21.20 30.70 36.26 31.32 30.79 15.78 36.60 42.99 13.97 8.65 7.91 3.03 20.16 12.37 37.55 25.14 47.89 6.04 15.37 21.20 31.71 28.60 26.62 10.17 14.64 32.94 11.93 9.26 6.18 2.29 18.30 9.08 30.42 23.37 40.50 4.78 15.89 22.24 25.28 20.70 21.52
    Source:Same as Table 5.
    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007 515

    (col 8, Table 21) was positive in 13 states. In other words, the Figure 2 provides the percentage decline in poverty and rate growth impact on poverty is reduced by adverse distribution in of growth in MPCE. It shows that there is a positive relationship these 13 states. The adverse distribution impact seems to be higher between these two variables. In other words, wherever growth in Kerala, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal. in MPCE is high, the per cent decline in poverty is also high. For example, without change in inequality, poverty would have Figure 2 also gives actual per cent decline in HCR and the assumed declined by 5.6 percentage points more in Gujarat. per cent decline in poverty without changes in inequality. The

    In the remaining four states (Bihar, Karnataka, MP and Rajasthan), differences in these ratios indicate the adverse impact of districhanges in inequality have a positive impact on poverty reduction. bution. The difference between these two estimates seems to be In Bihar and MP, the change in inequality seems to be negligible. the highest for Kerala. An increase in growth is important in these two states. In the urban areas, the positive relationship between growth

    The impact of distribution on reduction in poverty is much more in MPCE and decline in poverty seems to be weaker than that adverse in urban areas. In all the states except Himachal Pradesh for rural poverty (Figure 3). In many states with a high growth and J and K, the increase in inequality has slowed the rate of in MPCE the decline in poverty is slow (Figure 3). The difference reduction in poverty in the post-reform period for urban areas in actual percentage decline in poverty and decline without (Table 22). Without changes in inequality urban poverty would changes in inequality is very high in urban areas. In other words, have declined by more than 5 percentage points in many states poverty would have declined much higher without changes in in the post-reform period. inequality in urban areas.

    Table 16: Change in Proportion of Poor Table 18: Gini Ratio of Consumption Expenditure in Rural Areas

    (Mixed Reference Surveys) Rural Compound Growth Rate

    (Percentage Points per Annum)

    (Per Cent PA) Rural Urban All States 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983-94 1993-2005 1993-2000 1999-05 1993-20001999-051993-2000 1999-05

    Andhra Pradesh 29.66 28.93 29.40 -0.24 0.15 Andhra Pradesh -0.19 -0.88 -1.02 -1.77 -0.41 -1.12 Assam 20.15 17.92 19.94 -1.11 0.98 Assam 0.67 -4.77 0.59 -1.56 0.61 -4.39 Bihar 26.31 22.51 21.27 -1.47 -0.51 Bihar -1.23 -2.07 0.76 -1.58 -0.97 -2.01 Gujarat 26.95 24.04 27.15 -1.08 1.11 Gujarat -0.67 0.20 -1.27 -1.40 -0.88 -0.41 Haryana 28.53 31.33 33.94 0.90 0.73 Haryana -2.21 0.00 -0.50 0.35 -1.75 0.12

    Himachal Pradesh 28.15 28.43 30.99 0.09 0.79 Himachal Pradesh -2.20 -0.35 -0.29 -0.26 -2.03 -0.35

    Jammu and Kashmir 22.86 24.30 24.78 0.58 0.18

    Jammu and Kashmir -1.64 -0.31 -0.62 0.35 -1.40 -0.15

    Karnataka 31.08 26.97 26.54 -1.34 -0.15

    Karnataka -0.86 -0.88 -1.62 0.49 -1.08 -0.37

    Kerala 32.02 30.14 38.19 -0.57 2.18

    Kerala -2.00 -0.59 -0.62 -0.83 -1.64 -0.66

    Madhya Pradesh 29.85 27.97 27.68 -0.62 -0.09

    Madhya Pradesh 0.71 -1.55 -0.86 -1.08 0.34 -1.43

    Maharashtra 29.09 30.64 31.13 0.50 0.14

    Maharashtra -1.18 -0.21 -0.55 -0.58 -0.92 -0.35

    Orissa 27.17 24.66 28.50 -0.92 1.32

    Orissa 0.38 -1.61 0.72 -0.70 0.42 -1.48

    Punjab 29.31 28.30 29.55 -0.33 0.39

    Punjab -0.48 -0.16 -0.51 -0.41 -0.49 -0.25 Rajasthan -1.04 -0.05 -0.77 0.58 -0.97 0.10

    Rajasthan 38.18 26.52 25.06 -3.41 -0.51 Tamil Nadu 39.23 31.20 32.09 -2.16 0.26 Uttar Pradesh -0.98 -1.26 0.10 -1.37 -0.76 -1.29 Uttar Pradesh 29.15 28.13 29.00 -0.34 0.28 West Bengal -0.36 -2.15 -0.66 -0.10 -0.45 -1.58 West Bengal 30.14 25.41 27.29 -1.61 0.65 All-India -0.68 -1.13 -0.70 -0.73 -0.69 -1.02 All-India 30.79 28.55 30.45 -0.72 0.59

    Tamil Nadu -1.21 -0.90 -2.24 1.38 -1.58 0.21

    Source:Same as Table 5. Source:Same as Table 1.

    Table 17: Average Annual Change in Proportion of Poor asTable 19: Gini Ratio of Consumption Expenditure Percentage to Base Year Proportion in Urban Areas

    (Mixed Reference Surveys) Urban Compound Growth Rate(in per cent)

    (Per Cent PA) Rural Urban All States 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983-94 1993-05 1993-2000 1999-05 1993-20001999-051993-2000 1999-05

    Andhra Pradesh 33.25 32.31 37.43 -0.27 1.35 Andhra Pradesh -1.53 -7.89 -3.00 -6.34 -2.25 -7.10 Assam 26.36 28.77 32.07 0.84 0.99 Assam 1.84 -11.81 8.68 -15.10 1.85 -11.99 Bihar 30.64 31.08 34.12 0.14 0.85 Bihar -2.39 -4.69 2.44 -4.43 -1.99 -4.68 Gujarat 28.58 29.08 30.98 0.17 0.58 Gujarat -3.98 1.56 -5.39 -8.78 -4.57 -2.93 Haryana 35.40 28.32 36.37 -2.10 2.30 Haryana -10.35 0.00 -3.78 3.41 -9.13 1.39

    Himachal Pradesh 37.83 46.00 32.51 1.88 -3.11 Himachal Pradesh -10.19 -4.16 -5.95 -8.33 -10.11 -4.42

    Jammu and Kashmir 24.93 28.83 25.18 1.39 -1.22

    Jammu and Kashmir -12.18 -8.59 -12.40 27.56 -12.26 -4.95

    Karnataka 34.46 31.84 36.83 -0.75 1.33

    Karnataka -3.79 -5.02 -4.62 1.93 -4.06 -1.84

    Kerala 39.03 34.29 40.96 -1.23 1.63

    Kerala -9.26 -6.15 -2.58 -4.09 -7.38 -5.34

    Madhya Pradesh 30.27 33.00 40.59 0.83 1.90

    Madhya Pradesh 2.15 -4.15 -1.98 -2.82 -0.96 -3.81

    Maharashtra 34.86 35.69 37.77 0.22 0.52

    Maharashtra -3.87 -0.90 -1.79 -2.11 -3.00 -1.39

    Orissa 29.24 30.67 35.31 0.46 1.29

    Orissa 0.82 -3.30 1.86 -1.63 0.93 -3.09

    Punjab 34.53 28.02 40.17 -1.97 3.33

    Punjab -5.30 -2.58 -5.82 -7.16 -5.47 -4.14 Rajasthan 33.76 29.31 37.15 -1.34 2.18

    Rajasthan -5.28 -0.37 -2.93 2.68 -4.58 0.65 Tamil Nadu -4.30 -4.32 -6.38 6.35 -5.15 0.99

    Tamil Nadu 35.32 34.74 35.84 -0.16 0.28 Uttar Pradesh -2.62 -4.00 0.31 -4.21 -2.10 -4.07 Uttar Pradesh 31.78 32.60 36.64 0.24 1.07 West Bengal -1.01 -6.46 -3.22 -0.61 -1.44 -5.52 West Bengal 33.78 33.77 38.33 0.00 1.16 All-India -2.15 -4.10 -2.46 -3.00 -2.24 -3.83 All-India 34.06 34.31 37.51 0.07 0.81

    Source:Same as Table 1. Source:Same as Table 1.

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007

    Figure 2: Decline in HCR and Growth in MPCE in Rural Areas

    Percentage Decline in HCR (1993-05)

    90.00

    80.00

    70.00

    60.00

    50.00

    40.00

    30.00

    20.00

    10.00

    0.00

    J& K HAR HP KER ASS BIHTN WB AP PU N UP MAH GU J ORI RAJ KAR MPJ$K HAR HP KER ASS BIH TN WB AP PU N UP MAH GUJ OR I RAJ KAR MP -Without change in inequality .Actual

    0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Percentage change in MPCE (1993-05)

    Figure 3: Decline in HCR and Growth in MPCE in Urban Areas

    PUN GUJ MP HA R AP KER ASS KAR WB BIHUP RA J MA HTN J& K OR I -H P PU N GU J MP HA RKAR KER AP ASS WB BIH UP RA J MA H TN J& K OR I -H P -2 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 10 0.00 -5.0 0 0.00 5 .00 10.00 1 5.00 2 0.00 25 .0 0 30.00 3 5.00 4 0.00 45 .0 0 Percentage change in MPCE (1993-05) Percentage Decline in HCR (1993-05) -Without change in inequality .Actual

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007

    Inflation is one of the important factors that adversely affects income and Gini elasticities. It shows that growth is more important the poor. The average annual inflation rates presented in Table 23 in these states than distribution policies. These states are already show that inflation in rural areas was around 8.3 per cent during having lower Gini elasticities. Of course, simultaneous policies 1983-94 period and 8.1 per cent during 1993-2000 period. But, of achieving growth with equity are always better in all the states. it drastically declined to 1.90 per cent in the period 2000-05. The same changes can be seen in all the states. The period III 2000-05 has witnessed very low inflation rates in most of the

    Conclusions

    states in India.

    Figure 6 provides interesting results on the relationship of This paper examines poverty and inequality during the period income and Gini elasticities with the levels of head count ratios. 1983 to 2004-05. Using the uniform reference period data on It shows that the states such as Jand K, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, consumer expenditure, we looked at the changes in the pre-Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana which have low (1983-94) and post-reform (1993-2005) periods. Next, using the poverty ratios had high income and Gini elasticities. The policy mixed reference period data, we examined changes in two subimplication is that growth alone would not be sufficient for periods (1993-2000 and 1999-05). The major conclusions of the reduction in poverty and policies that reduce inequality are also paper are: important in these states. On the other hand, states such as Bihar, Conclusions at all-India level: (1) The total (rural+urban) poverty Orissa, UP and MP which have high poverty ratios have low ratio based on URP declined by 0.85 percentage points per annum

    Table 20: Growth Rates and Rural Urban Differences in Table 22: Decomposition of Headcount Ratio for Rural AreasMonthly Per Capita Expenditure

    Headcount Per Cent Change in Decomposition of Annual Compound Growth Percentage of Rural Ratio (1993-94-2004-05) Change in Poverty Rate of MPCE MPCE to States 1993-94 2004-05 MPCE Gini Total Growth Inequality Rural Urban Urban MPCE Andhra Pradesh 37.63 25.41 31.12 15.85 -12.22 -17.68 5.46

    States 1983-94 1994-05 1983-94 1994-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 Assam 10.19 3.83 28.27 11.47 -6.35 -8.73 2.38 Andhra Pradesh 1.02 1.09 0.02 2.49 63.61 70.66 60.74 Bihar 36.54 31.94 18.68 9.79 -4.59 -10.55 5.96 Assam -0.26 2.00 2.84 2.29 78.71 56.29 54.56 Gujarat 29.44 11.96 41.02 6.53 -17.48 -20.68 3.20 Bihar 0.62 1.23 1.61 1.57 69.10 61.84 59.61 Haryana 17.54 15.06 24.76 28.43 -2.49 -11.19 8.70 Gujarat 0.39 1.02 1.32 3.17 74.07 66.78 52.93 Himachal Haryana 0.01 2.18 0.12 2.03 82.25 81.24 82.60 Pradesh 8.26 3.87 -0.78 -29.33 -4.39 0.26 -4.65 Himachal Pradesh -1.02 2.51 1.98 -0.07 64.85 46.94 62.13 Jammu and Jammu and Kashmir 0.91 2.36 2.92 0.47 83.73 67.08 82.34 Kashmir 7.38 4.81 5.34 -12.66 -2.56 -1.87 -0.69 Karnataka 0.21 0.43 0.10 1.90 62.96 63.66 54.29 Karnataka 39.67 33.40 22.98 15.67 -6.27 -12.16 5.90 Kerala 0.86 3.80 1.71 2.45 87.05 79.06 91.34 Kerala 25.45 20.86 30.48 19.45 -4.59 -14.97 10.38 Madhya Pradesh 0.72 0.26 0.86 3.17 62.92 61.76 45.10 Madhya Pradesh 48.29 34.44 40.96 22.99 -13.84 -23.55 9.71 Maharashtra 1.09 1.00 0.90 1.17 50.66 51.46 50.51 Maharashtra 34.74 29.42 13.71 5.83 -5.32 -7.32 2.00 Orissa 2.02 0.72 1.15 0.40 50.16 54.60 56.51 Orissa 41.02 43.34 4.54 15.13 2.32 -2.69 5.01 Punjab -0.31 1.07 0.88 3.26 96.44 84.78 66.94 Punjab 11.83 5.57 42.37 43.36 -6.26 -15.25 9.00 Rajasthan -0.54 0.49 0.43 1.51 84.26 75.90 67.86 Rajasthan 31.55 29.81 17.98 26.75 -1.74 -11.28 9.53 Tamil Nadu 2.34 1.21 1.04 1.03 58.90 66.99 68.27 Tamil Nadu 38.92 34.06 11.96 3.17 -4.86 -7.53 2.67 Uttar Pradesh 0.36 1.03 1.81 1.60 82.63 70.40 66.15 Uttar Pradesh 36.15 30.29 19.08 12.40 -5.86 -11.11 5.25 West Bengal 2.70 1.09 1.68 1.95 53.36 58.79 53.58 West Bengal 23.24 18.50 23.63 13.50 -4.74 -10.59 5.84 All-India 0.83 1.16 1.43 1.94 65.82 61.44 56.47 All-India 32.56 24.48 23.55 9.33 -8.08 -12.40 4.32

    Source:Same as Table 1. Source:Same as Table 1.

    Table 21: Decomposition of Headcount Ratio for Rural Areas Table 23: Average Annual Inflation Rates

    Headcount Per Cent Change in Decomposition of Rural (CPIAL) Urban (CPIIW) Ratio (1993-94-2004-05) Change in HCR State 1983-94 1994-2000 2000-05 1983-94 1994-2000 2000-05 States 1993-94 2004-05 MPCE Gini Total Growth Inequality

    Andhra Pradesh 8.00 8.29 2.21 9.58 8.64 2.94 Andhra Pradesh 16.64 10.85 12.72 1.62 -5.78 -6.77 0.98 Assam 8.52 7.86 1.45 7.70 8.37 2.12 Assam 44.43 23.05 24.33 11.27 -21.38 -23.87 2.49 Bihar 7.69 7.81 1.34 7.48 8.06 3.74 Bihar 57.24 43.06 14.42 -5.51 -13.70 -13.58 -0.12 Gujarat 8.81 7.90 2.19 8.75 8.11 1.75 Gujarat 22.44 19.76 11.76 12.94 -2.68 -8.24 5.56 Haryana 9.68 7.60 2.63 9.10 8.45 3.49 Haryana 26.62 13.41 26.84 8.33 -13.20 -15.65 2.45 Himachal Himachal Pradesh 29.27 12.50 31.31 9.00 -16.78 -20.32 3.55 Pradesh 9.68 7.83 1.98 9.04 8.78 2.51 Jammu and Jammu and

    Kashmir 19.73 4.81 29.30 1.98 -14.92 -15.11 0.18 Kashmir 9.68 7.83 1.44 9.31 8.78 2.51 Karnataka 30.24 23.73 4.88 -1.59 -6.51 -4.55 -1.96 Karnataka 7.98 8.80 1.64 9.20 9.12 3.29 Kerala 26.49 12.27 50.76 26.71 -14.22 -23.25 9.04 Kerala 8.93 7.43 2.29 8.20 9.25 3.33 Madhya Pradesh 40.43 38.17 2.94 -1.04 -3.33 -3.21 -0.12 Madhya Pradesh 8.30 8.29 0.79 9.46 7.21 1.04 Maharashtra 37.66 30.36 11.61 1.60 -7.30 -8.82 1.52 Maharashtra 7.84 8.53 2.68 9.52 8.62 3.02 Orissa 50.11 47.76 8.19 15.57 -2.35 -6.97 4.62 Orissa 5.90 8.92 0.09 8.65 8.00 2.55 Punjab 13.72 9.55 12.42 4.42 -4.17 -6.72 2.54 Punjab 9.68 7.59 2.32 9.16 7.35 3.57 Rajasthan 26.89 18.91 5.47 -5.51 -7.98 -4.53 -3.45 Rajasthan 9.88 8.08 1.74 9.01 8.80 3.01 Tamil Nadu 32.99 22.96 14.11 2.85 -10.03 -11.41 1.38 Tamil Nadu 7.05 7.75 2.80 8.98 8.19 6.53 Uttar Pradesh 42.33 34.06 11.90 3.08 -7.30 -9.16 1.86 Uttar Pradesh 9.29 7.94 2.11 8.46 8.25 2.99 West Bengal 37.35 28.49 12.67 7.40 -8.85 -12.17 3.32 West Bengal 6.92 8.64 1.71 8.42 8.74 3.00 All-India 37.26 29.18 13.57 6.65 -8.08 -10.88 2.80 All-India 8.26 8.05 1.90 8.67 8.31 2.87

    Source:Same as Table 1. Source: Monthly Abstract of Statistics, CSO, September 2005.

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007

    Gini Elasticity

    Figure 4: Income and Gini Elasticity of Poverty andOrissa and UP had a share of 49.8 per cent in the rural poor

    Poverty Levels (2004-05)

    of the country in 1983. This share increased to 55 per cent in 1993-94 and further to 61 per cent in 2004-05. A similar con

    5.00 PUN KARcentration of the very poor can be seen in a few states of India.

    4.00

    AP

    3.00

    2.00

    We have examined rates of change for the post-reform period

    as compared to the pre-reform period based on URP data and

    RAJ

    GUJ MAHthe two sub-periods in the post-reform period at the state level.

    ORI

    BIH GU J UPKER HP TN HAR WB AP MP BIH J&k ASS

    As expected, these results show substantial variations in rates of

    1.00

    0.00

    change across states.

    I

    (7) Compound growth rates in Gini coefficient for the total

    0

    .. ...

    0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00

    (rural + urban) shows that inequality either increased or the

    -1.00 -2.00

    Income Elasticity

    -3.00 -4.00

    (8) One of the concerns in the post-reform relates to the widening

    Headcount Ratio (2004-05)5.00

    disparities between rural and urban areas. Rural MPCE as per cent of urban MPCE declined from 66 per cent in 1983

    rate of decline was slower in 13 out of 17 states in the post

    UP +MP +BIH+KER HP+ +PUN+J &K +ASS +TN +MAH +WB

    +IORI

    reform period as compared to the pre-reform period. Gini

    coefficient in urban areas increased in 15 states during the

    +RJ+KAR

    +AP +GUJ

    same period.

    +PUN

    in the pre-reform period (1983-94) and 0.70 percentage points in the post-reform period (1994-05). However, if we normalise with base year values, the extent of reduction in total poverty is almost the same in both the periods. One can conclude that the rate of decline in poverty is not higher in the post-reform period as compared to the pre-reform period. This is also true for rural poverty. On the other hand, the rate of decline in urban poverty was slower in the post-reform period. In the case of the very poor category, the ratio declined over time but the rate of reduction was not higher in the post-reform period. The percentage of very poor was around 10 per cent at the all-India level. This is the chronic poor category.

  • (2) In the case of MRP estimates for two sub-periods, the rate of decline in the second period (1999-05) was higher (1.02 percentage points) as compared to the first period (0.69 percentage points). This is true even if we normalise with initial values. It looks like the second period of the post-reform period seems to be more pro-poor than that in the first period particularly in rural areas.
  • (3) The absolute number of total poor in India declined to around
  • 315.5 million in 2004-05 from around 324 million in 1993-94

    – a decline of about nine million over 11 years. The number of very poor declined over time and it was about 115 million in 2004-05.

  • (4) The distributive sensitive indicators such as poverty gap and FGT measures show that the rate of decline in rural areas was lower in the post-reform (1993-05) as compared to the prereform periods (1983-94). In urban areas, the rate of reduction in terms of percentage points per annum normalised with base values for poverty gap was more or less the same in both the periods.
  • (5) Inequality in consumption has increased significantly for both rural and urban areas in the post-reform period – the rate of increase being much higher for urban as compared to rural areas. Our estimates of decomposition of poverty into growth and distribution show that the increase in inequality has reduced the rate of decline in poverty in the post-reform period. Conclusions at state level: (6) Poverty declined in almost all the states in the pre- and post-reform periods. In spite of the reduction in poverty, some of the states are having very high poverty ratios. Our estimates reveal increasing concentration of poor in a few states. A group of four states comprising Bihar, MP,
  • to 61 per cent in 1993-94 and to 56 per cent in 2004-05 at the all-India level. This percentage declined for majority of the states over time.

  • (9) Decomposition results for rural areas show that the inequality component was positive in 13 states. In other words, the growth impact on poverty is reduced by adverse distribution in these 13 states.
  • (10) There seems to be a positive relationship between the rate of decline in poverty and rate of growth in MPCE. In the urban areas, the positive relationship between growth in MPCE and decline in poverty seems to be weaker than that for rural poverty.
  • (11) We have examined the relationship of income and Gini elasticities with the levels of head count ratios. It shows that the states which have low poverty ratios had high income and Gini elasticities. The policy implication is that growth alone would not be sufficient for reduction in poverty and policies that reduce inequality are also important in these states. On the other hand, states such as Bihar, Orissa, UP and MP which have high poverty ratios show low income and Gini elasticities. It shows that growth is more important in these states than distribution policies.
  • To conclude, the extent of decline in the post-reform period in poverty is not higher compared to the pre-reform period in spite of higher overall growth. Apart from other factors, an increase in inequality seems to have slowed down the rate of reduction in the post-reform period. However, changes in two sub-periods of the post-reform period are interesting. Assuming that the MRP data are comparable, the extent of decline in the second period (1999-05) seems to be higher than the first period (1993-2000) of the post-reform period. This result is surprising given that the second period witnessed the lowest growth in agriculture. Factors such as low relative food prices, higher growth in employment, particularly in the non-farm sector, might have been responsible for higher reduction in poverty during the 1999-05 period. This needs to be further investigated. However, there are two unambiguous conclusions. One is that there is no evidence of a higher rate of decline in poverty in the post-reform period as a whole as compared to the pre-reform period. Second, inequality increased significantly in the post-reform period as compared to the earlier decade. Higher inclusive growth that increases agriculture and non-farm sector growth, and a reduction in regional, rural-urban and social disparities are important for

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007 a faster reduction in poverty. Human development is equally important for poverty alleviation. Therefore, policies that increase growth and equity have to be followed simultaneously. Low relative food prices seem to be another important variable that reduces income poverty. In this context, the recent increase in food prices is a concern for the poor and very poor. There is also a need for focused intervention on the 115 million hard core poor.

    AppendixMethodology for State-Specific Poverty Lines

    All the state specific poverty measures, viz, the percentage of very poor (VP), headcount ratio (HCR), poverty gap ratio (PGR), FGT index and the Gini index of inequality are estimated Lorenz curve [Kakwani 1980, Ravallion and Datt 1991]. Given the poverty line (z) and Lorenz curve (7), these measures are given by

    VP = α Hβ (1–H)γ [β/H – γ/1–H] = 1–z’/μ

    where z’= 0.75*z

    HCR = α Hβ (1–H)γ [β/H – γ/1–H] = 1–z/μ

    PGR = H – (μ/z)L(H)

    FGT = (1–μ/z) [2 PG – (1–μ/Z)H]

  • + α2 (μ/Z)2 [β2 B(H,2β–1, 2γ+1)–2βγ B(H, 2β, 2γ)
  • + α2 B(H, 2β–1, 2γ–1)],
  • k r−1S−1

    where B(k,r,s) = x (1 − x) dp

    0

    Methodology for Decomposition of Poverty

    Poverty at a given point of time t depends on the mean income μ, its distribution L and poverty line z. Change in poverty between two periods ΔP can be decomposed into growth effect ΔPμ and distribution effect ΔPL.

    ΔP = P(zt, μt, Lt))– P(zt0 μt0 Lt0) = ΔPμ + ΔPL

    where ΔPμ is change in poverty due to change in mean income keeping distribution constant (income effect) and ΔPL is change in poverty due to change in distribution keeping income level constant (distribution effect). There are different ways of estimating ΔPμ and ΔPL [see, Datt and Ravallion 1992, Jain and Tendulkar 1990]. Dropping Z (as we measure μin constant

    prices) we define the growth effect as ΔPμ = [(P(μt, L0)– P(μ0 L0)) + (P(μt, Lt)– P(μ0 Lt))]/2 And the inequality effect as ΔPL = [(P(μt, Lt)– P(μt L0)) + (P(μ0, Lt)– P(μ0 L0))]/2 The decomposition here is exact and does not leave any

    residual.

    lli

    Email: profmahendra@yahoo.co.in

    Notes

    [We are grateful to Abhijit Sen, C H Hanumantha Rao and T N Srinivasan for useful comments. Usual disclaimers apply.]

    1 Poverty estimates at the national and state levels are useful for comparison and policy purposes at the macro level. There has been a debate about the use of the poverty line for estimating poverty ratios. Some studies have questioned the expert group’s [GoI 1993] method of estimating poverty ratios [for example, see Ray and Lancaster 2005; Palmer-Jones and Sen 2001; Patnaik 2004]. Some of these studies advocated that one should use the poverty line which reflects the consumption of 2,400 kcal in rural areas. Dev (2005) questions the credibility of the poverty estimates using 2,400 kcal per day (i e, fixed calorie norm). There are also some comments that NSS estimates of poverty are much lower than the below poverty line (BPL) estimates of different state governments and other estimates based on people’s perceptions. It may be noted that one has to distinguish between the national estimates for macro purposes and the BPL estimates for the purposes of identifying the poor. Clearly there is a need to revisit the methodology in estimating poverty lines. The official poverty line may not be capturing the cost of basic necessities particularly non-food components such as health, education, shelter etc. There is a need to have a comprehensive view on the poverty line by including expenditures on non-food components apart from costs of food.

    2 See Deaton and Dreze (2002), Sundaram and Tendulkar (2003), Sen and Himanshu (2004). For more on the 1990s debate on poverty, see Deaton and Kozel (2005).

    3 We have used the terms “pre-reform” and “post-reform” periods to denote two periods 1983-94 and 1993-2005, respectively. It is true that reforms partially started in the mid-1980s. But, it is well known that full-scale reforms started only in 1991. The policies in the first few years were more related to stabilisation measures. Therefore, it is justified to call the post1993-94 years as the post-reform period. It may, however, be noted that we have not undertaken any in-depth analysis of the process of reforms and its impact on poverty in this paper. We have only used the terms to denote the two periods as “before” and “after” reforms.

    Table A1: All-India and State-wise Poverty Lines

    State 1983 Rural 1993-94 1999-2000 Urban 2004-05 1983 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-05
    Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All-India 72.66 98.32 97.48 83.29 88.57 88.57 88.57 83.31 99.35 83.59 88.24 106.28 88.57 80.24 96.15 83.85 105.55 89.45 163.02 262.94 232.05 365.43 212.16 333.07 202.11 318.94 233.79 362.81 233.79 367.45 233.79 367.45 186.63 309.59 243.84 374.79 193.10 311.34 194.94 318.63 194.03 323.92 233.79 362.68 215.89 344.03 196.53 307.64 213.01 336.88 213.01 350.17 205.84 327.56 293.33 106.43 278.14 457.40 528.79 392.77 97.51 212.42 343.99 382.06 355.92 111.80 238.49 379.78 456.35 355.38 123.22 297.22 474.41 517.51 413.10 103.48 258.23 420.20 498.93 405.26 102.26 253.61 420.20 475.71 394.75 99.62 253.61 420.20 475.71 335.88 120.19 302.89 511.44 601.40 419.74 122.64 280.54 477.06 562.02 323.86 122.82 317.16 481.65 507.29 363.70 126.47 328.56 539.71 626.25 325.46 124.81 298.22 473.12 536.68 406.67 101.03 253.61 388.15 462.52 375.10 113.55 280.85 465.92 540.30 353.23 120.30 296.63 475.60 652.62 373.91 110.23 258.65 416.29 482.41 381.18 105.91 247.53 409.22 474.42 359.89 117.50 281.35 454.11 523.18
    520 Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007

    In this paper, the terms “trends” and “changes” are used interchangeably. Deaton, Angus and Valerie Kozel (2005) (eds): The Great Indian Poverty The term “trend” in a statistical sense refers to the trend based on time Debate, Macmillan, New Delhi.

    series data. In this paper, we have not used time series data. Trend in the paper refers to “changes” over two points or three points of time. It may also be noted that we are comparing only three years and since there could be idiosyncratic aspects in each of the three years, it would be difficult to say anything one way or the other about long-term trends. This limitation has to be kept in mind while interpreting the results. We are grateful to T N Srinivasan for pointing out the above two aspects.

    4 We have estimated poverty estimates for few states using this methodology for the year 1993-94 and found them to be very close to those estimated based actual MRP distributions.

    5 The expert group method defines “poverty line in terms of a certain consumption expenditure with which the households, on an average consumed food which met the calorie norm together with such nonfood items as they chose. In this method the poverty line is updated over time to allow only for changes in prices with reference to the consumption basket associated with the poverty line in the base year” [GoI 1993:9].

    6 Sundaram and Tendulkar (2003) use this method of average annual changes in poverty as a percentage of base year values.

    7 See Jain and Tendulkar 1990; Datt and Ravallion 1992 for decomposition of changes in poverty.

    8 See Radhakrishna and Ray for a profile of poverty up to 1999-2000.

    References

    Datt, Gaurav and Martin Ravallion (1992): ‘Growth and Redistribution Components of Changes in Poverty Measure: A Decomposition with Application to Brazil and India in the 1980s’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol 38, pp 275-95.

    Deaton, Angus and Jean Dreze (2002): ‘Poverty and Inequality in India: A Reexamination’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 37, No 36.

    Dev, S Mahendra (2005): ‘Calorie Norms and Poverty’, Economic and Political Weekly, February 19, Vol 40, No 8, pp 789-92.

    GoI (1993): ‘Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor’, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission, New Delhi.

    Himanshu (2007): ‘Recent Trends in Poverty and Inequality: Some Preliminary Results’, Economic and Political Weekly (this issue).

    Jain, L R and S D Tendulkar (1990): ‘Role of Growth and Distribution in the Observed Change in Headcount Ratio Measure of Poverty: A Decomposition Exercise for India’, Indian Economic Review, Vol XXV, No 2, pp 165-205.

    Kakwani, N (1980): ‘Welfare Measures: An International Comparison’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol 8, pp 21-45.

    Palmer-Jones, R and K Sen (2001): ‘On India’s Poverty Puzzles and the Statistics of Poverty’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 26, No 3.

    Patnaik, Utsa (2004): ‘The Republic of Hunger’, Social Scientist, September-October, Vol 32, Nos 9-10, pp 9-35.

    Radhakrishna, R and S Ray (2005): (eds) Handbook of Poverty: Perspectives, Policies and Programmes, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

    Ravallion, M and G Datt (1991): Growth and Redistribution Components of Changes in Poverty Measures, LSMS Working Paper No 83, World Bank, Washington DC.

    Ray, R and G Lancaster (2005): ‘On Setting the Poverty Line Based on Estimated Nutrient Prices: Condition of Socially Disadvantaged Groups during the Reform Period’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XL, No 1, January 1.

    Sen, Abhijit and Himanshu (2004): ‘Poverty and Inequality in India-I’, Economic and Political Weekly,Vol 39, No 38.

    Sundaram, K and S D Tendulkar (2003): ‘Poverty in India in the 1990s: Revised Estimates’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 38, No 46, November 15.

    REVIEW OF AGRICULTURE December 30, 2006 Status of Agriculture in India: Trends and Prospects – Archana S Mathur, Surajit Das, Subhalakshmi Sircar Sustaining Agricultural Trade: Policy and Impact – Dhanmanjiri Sathe, R S Deshpande Cross-Validation of Production and Consumption Data of Fruits and Vegetables – Jatinder S Bedi Integrated Land and Water Use: A Case Study of Punjab – A S Bhullar, R S Sidhu Organic Cotton Supply Chains and Small Producers: Governance, Participation and Strategies – Sukhpal Singh Contract Farming through Agribusiness Firms and State Corporation: A Case Study in Punjab – Parmod Kumar Food Security, Agrarian Crisis and Rural Livelihoods: Implications for Women – Maithreyi Krishnaraj For copies write to Circulation Manager Economic and Political Weekly Hitkari House, 284, Shahid Bhagatsingh Road, Mumbai 400 001 email: circulation@epw.org.in ���������������������������

    Economic and Political Weekly February 10, 2007

    Dear Reader,

    To continue reading, become a subscriber.

    Explore our attractive subscription offers.

    Click here

    Back to Top