My recollection suggests that pci growth just barely 1-2%. True standard of
living? Well, from such a low base imagine the impavt of such measly growth
rate. This does not even account for the distributive dimension, although I
must admit it was not so bad then. The joke was in India everybody got to
share poverty.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor Currently
Comparative International Development Senior Visiting Research Fellow
University of Washington Asia Research Institute
1900 Commerce Street National University of Singapore
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA 469 A Tower Block
Phone: (253) 692-4462 Bukit Timah Road #10-01
Fax : (253) 692-5718 Singapore 259770
http://tinyurl.com/yhjzrm Ph: (65) 6516 8785
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Jim Devine wrote:
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:00:50 -0700
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: PEN-L list <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [PEN-L] "Hindu" rate of growth [was: funny!]
but what was _per capita_ growth of GDP? what about the growth of the
true standard of living, corrected for the effects of external costs
and the like?
On 9/18/07, Anthony D'Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On an unrelated note, Indian growth rate per annum averaged and actually pretty much
revolved around 3.5% from roughly the 1960s to late 1970s. It was famously dubbed the
"Hindu rate of growth."<
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
