Isnt it important to look at these issues at the state level. For example,
Kerala as I recall is more progressive in many respects than some other
states.
By the way I do not think that citing growth statistics is just baiting
leftists. It is a standard but exceedingly dubious measure of progress used
by many economists left and right. John Warnock uses it in his article to
show that Mexico has not progressed under neoliberal policies but he at
least adds a number of other measures as well. Of course he is a sociologist
not an economist !
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 10:04 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:10226] Re: Re: Re: Re: What is going on?
> >Brad DeLong wrote:
> >
> >>Rates of growth of GDP per capita, India:
> >>
> >>1950-1980 1.1% per year
> >>1980-1990 3.3% per year
> >>1990-2000 4.2% per year
> >>
> >>At the pace of the last decade, India's real productivity is
> >>doubling every seventeen years (compared to a doubling time of 65
> >>years before 1980).
> >
> >Any evidence on how this growth has been distributed? Are the bottom
> >20-40% any better off, or is it mainly captured by a thin urban
> >middle class and the IT sector?
> >
> >Doug
>
> Average life expectancy in India is 63 years, 44% of Indians over 15
> are illiterate, 53% of Indians under 5 are malnourished. India's
> poverty rate appears to have held constant over the decade of the
> 1990s. But I don't see how anything is going to push India's poverty
> rate down until education improves.
>
> So the answer to your question is that the bottom 20-40% aren't
> better off not (much, if any). On the other hand, India's middle
> class--the 50th to the 90th percentile--are still very poor by U.S.
> standards, and their incomes have grown remarkably.
>
> Brad DeLong
>
