Growth and inequality in the distribution of India’s consumption expenditure, 1983 to 2009-10

Subramanian, S.; Jayaraj, D.

doi:10.35188/unu-wider/2015/910-7

Cited by 25 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One way of thinking of this measure is as being equal to the variance divided by the mean. Equivalently, and of particular interest here, as noted by Subramanian and Jayaraj (), it can be expressed as the product of a well‐known relative inequality measure, the coefficient of variation

(C V)

, and a well‐known absolute measure, the standard deviation ( SD ). The standard deviation is also unit consistent (Zheng ).…”

Section: Inequality Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are though signs that this is beginning to change. A number of prominent studies, notably Ravallion (), Subramanian and Jayaraj (), Atkinson and Brandolini () and Bosmans et al (), have recently emphasised the importance of avoiding unnecessarily restricting the discourse on inequality to relative inequality alone. The growing international debate in political and popular fora about the rising gap between the rich and the poor seems to support this view.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Global Inequality: Relatively Lower, Absolutely Higher

Niño‐Zarazúa

Roope

Tarp³

2016

Review of Income and Wealth

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper measures trends in global interpersonal inequality during 1975-2010 using data from the most recent version of the World Income Inequality Database (WIID). The picture that emerges using absolute, and even centrist measures of inequality, is very different from the results obtained using standard relative inequality measures such as the Gini coefficient or Coefficient of Variation. Relative global inequality has declined substantially over the decades. In contrast, absolute inequality, as captured by the Standard Deviation and Absolute Gini, has increased considerably and unabated. Like these absolute measures, our centrist inequality indicators, the Krtscha measure and an intermediate Gini, also register a pronounced increase in global inequality, albeit, in the case of the latter, with a decline during 2005 to 2010. A critical question posed by our findings is whether increased levels of inequality according to absolute and centrist measures are inevitable at today s per capita income levels. Our analysis suggests that it is not possible for absolute inequality to return to 1975 levels without further convergence in mean incomes among countries. Inequality, as captured by centrist measures such as the Krtscha, could return to 1975 levels, at today s domestic and global per capita income levels, but this would require quite dramatic structural reforms to reduce domestic inequality levels in most countries.JEL Codes: D31, D63, E01, O15

show abstract

(C V)

, and a well‐known absolute measure, the standard deviation ( SD ). The standard deviation is also unit consistent (Zheng ).…”

Section: Inequality Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Inequality: Relatively Lower, Absolutely Higher

Niño‐Zarazúa

Roope

Tarp³

2016

Review of Income and Wealth

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a well-known difficulty with the 1999-2000 survey, and the deficiencies of the survey have been particularly clearly documented in Abhijit Sen (2001). Subramanian and Jayaraj (2014) also carries an account of this problem. In view of the fact that the issue has been dealt with comprehensively elsewhere (as indicated in the references just furnished), it will not be discussed further in the present paper 1 .…”

Section: Data: a Very Brief Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Money-Metric Poverty, Welfare, Growth, and Inequality in India: 198332011/12

Subramanian

Jayaraj

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the record of poverty and inequality in India over the last thirty or so years, the general scholarly view seems to be that there have been substantial declines in money-metric poverty, that there has been no significant overtime increase in inequality, and that the growth in per capita consumption expenditure has not been marked by any discernible evidence of non-inclusiveness. It is argued in this paper that inferences of this nature are largely a consequence of the particular approaches to the measurement of poverty, inequality and inclusiveness that have been generally adopted in the literature. Alternative, and arguably more plausible, protocols of measurement suggest a picture of money-metric deprivation and disparity in India which shares little in common with the product of received wisdom on the subject.

show abstract

“…While used infrequently, there have been growing analyses of the implications of such measures (e.g. Atkinson and Brandolini, 2010;Bosmans et al, 2014;Ravallion, 2003;Subramanian and Jayaraj, 2015). Preference for 'relative' measures vis-a-vis 'absolute' measures is normative.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%