The Persistence of Poverty in India: Culture or System?

[Titanium100]

The Persistence of Poverty in India: Culture or System?​

Once Economic Energies Are Unshackled, Religion or Culture Cannot Stand in the Way for Long

the recent death of Mother Teresa drew the world’s attention to the dire poverty of Calcutta and of India in general. Mother Teresa ministered to the poorest of a very poor country where asceticism, antimaterialism, and fatalism are integral to the majority religion, Hinduism. For those who follow these beliefs, any effort toward changing the material state of the poor is futile. To them wealth, not poverty, is surprising.

Will India’s poor ever prosper? A focus on the dominant religion and culture portends a rather pessimistic future. Those who generally discount the influence of religion and culture in modern societies maintain that India’s poverty is the result of its political and economic system. Representative democracy with a largely illiterate population has allowed operators of the political system to amass wealth for themselves. The reign of Nehruvian socialism, more popularly known as the “license-permit-quota raj,” has left little room for private initiative and enterprise. The Hindu rate of growth has been the outcome. That would be the outcome, it is argued, under such a system in any culture.

What is responsible for India’s poverty—the culture or the politico-economic system? (Religion in a broader sense is assumed to define the culture, and so the terms are used interchangeably.) Those working to alleviate India’s poverty need to answer the question. They need to decide where to focus their energies. But first some elaboration on culture, economics, and politics.

The Persistence of Poverty in India: Culture or System?

The recent death of Mother Teresa drew the world’s attention to the dire poverty of Calcutta and of India in general. Mother Teresa ministered to the poorest

fee.org

 

[Titanium100]

The situation in India is irreversible.. People tend to get deluded by India's reserve etc etc but the situation is so dire that elite has given up on it.. India is a case of extremes you have a small tiny group that is 00.1% holding about 85% of wealth with 15% to the remaining.

95% of the country lives below the bread-line world's largest poverty. It is irreversible


Heck the poverty is so great in India that the socalled middle class in India is actully the poor.

------------

India’s middle class is actually the world’s poor​

Virtually the entire discussion among economists on defining the middle class in “emerging economies” pertains to levels of consumption expenditure or income. No doubt, income is a relevant indicator, but not when taken in isolation.

None of them attempt to base the definition on the concerned section’s relation to the means of production, and its place in the social organisation of labour. Thus, we are left with a motley conglomeration of people linked only by (very broad) income group, but with little else to connect them in social terms.

The problem with such a definition is that it gives us very little useful information about the nature of the society.

These studies acknowledge that there is no generally accepted definition of the middle class. So each sets about devising its own definition. Broadly, they adopt one of two methods. A few define the middle class in relative terms—a class standing midway between the top and the bottom; most define it in absolute terms—as possessing a particular standard of living, as measured by income or wealth.

To define the middle class in relative terms, i.e., in relation to the rich and the poor, we start with the median consumption level. (If the population were arranged according to their level of consumption, from the highest to the lowest, the “median” would be the person in the middle, with an equal number of persons on either side.)

From the Government’s National Sample Surveys (NSS) of consumption, one can locate the median consumption level. A World Bank study did just this to arrive at what it called India’s “middle class.” Its startling finding was, in the bank’s words, that, “India’s middle class lives barely or not far above India’s poverty line, and below international poverty lines, especially in the rural areas.”

A large number of officially “non-poor” people in India are clustered just above the official poverty line, so that even a small increase in the poverty line adds large numbers to the figure of the poor.

Moreover, as the World Bank noted (pdf), not only did people move out of poverty during any given period, but others also moved back into it, for various reasons such as illness. A large section of those officially deemed “non-poor” belonged to the same social group as the officially poor.

If we were to define India’s “middle class” in relative terms, it would be difficult to separate it from the poor.

Using the IHDS 2005, Reeve Vanneman and Amaresh Dubey defined middle-income households (pdf) in relative terms, as those whose income is above half and below twice the all-India median. Their data place the median per capita income for 2004 at Rs5,708, or Rs15.64 per day. This is lower than the lower of the World Bank’s two international poverty lines. Three-fourths of the population would fall under the higher of the two World Bank lines.

Vanneman and Dubey define individuals in households below half the median as poor, and those in households with income higher than twice the median as affluent. By this definition, the middle income group consist of the middle 60% of households, because 18% of individuals are in households with less than half the median income (i.e., are defined as “relatively poor”) and 22% are in households with more than twice the median income (i.e., are defined as “relatively affluent”).

India’s middle class is actually the world’s poor

It is difficult to separate India’s "middle class" from its poor.

qz.com

 

[Titanium100]

A country in dept crisis doesn't mean poverty example Greece defaulted but remained the same.. What it means is that the official gov't is in debt not the civilians and the national reserve belongs to the gov't not civilian property... It is minor stuff and reversible but what is irreversible is India's situation for them it is the opposite the gov't is not in ridiculously large dept but is facing the world's largest poverty on it's civilians.. In India you have true poverty and it will take India atleast 100 years to only reach Uzbekistan level forget others

 

[Titanium100]

80% of Mumbai is a slum (Where in the world have you seen a country's biggest city being 80% slum) You won't find that in any country

 

[-=virus=-]

a 25 year old article, seriously ?

 

[Titanium100]

a 25 year old article, seriously ?

The Article have been reposted several times by the publisher because he got something right back then

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

The situation in India is irreversible.. People tend to get deluded by India's reserve etc etc but the situation is so dire that elite has given up on it.. India is a case of extremes you have a small tiny group that is 00.1% holding about 85% of wealth with 15% to the remaining.

95% of the country lives below the bread-line world's largest poverty. It is irreversible


Heck the poverty is so great in India that the socalled middle class in India is actully the poor.

------------

India’s middle class is actually the world’s poor​

Virtually the entire discussion among economists on defining the middle class in “emerging economies” pertains to levels of consumption expenditure or income. No doubt, income is a relevant indicator, but not when taken in isolation.

None of them attempt to base the definition on the concerned section’s relation to the means of production, and its place in the social organisation of labour. Thus, we are left with a motley conglomeration of people linked only by (very broad) income group, but with little else to connect them in social terms.

The problem with such a definition is that it gives us very little useful information about the nature of the society.

These studies acknowledge that there is no generally accepted definition of the middle class. So each sets about devising its own definition. Broadly, they adopt one of two methods. A few define the middle class in relative terms—a class standing midway between the top and the bottom; most define it in absolute terms—as possessing a particular standard of living, as measured by income or wealth.

To define the middle class in relative terms, i.e., in relation to the rich and the poor, we start with the median consumption level. (If the population were arranged according to their level of consumption, from the highest to the lowest, the “median” would be the person in the middle, with an equal number of persons on either side.)

From the Government’s National Sample Surveys (NSS) of consumption, one can locate the median consumption level. A World Bank study did just this to arrive at what it called India’s “middle class.” Its startling finding was, in the bank’s words, that, “India’s middle class lives barely or not far above India’s poverty line, and below international poverty lines, especially in the rural areas.”

A large number of officially “non-poor” people in India are clustered just above the official poverty line, so that even a small increase in the poverty line adds large numbers to the figure of the poor.

Moreover, as the World Bank noted (pdf), not only did people move out of poverty during any given period, but others also moved back into it, for various reasons such as illness. A large section of those officially deemed “non-poor” belonged to the same social group as the officially poor.

If we were to define India’s “middle class” in relative terms, it would be difficult to separate it from the poor.

Using the IHDS 2005, Reeve Vanneman and Amaresh Dubey defined middle-income households (pdf) in relative terms, as those whose income is above half and below twice the all-India median. Their data place the median per capita income for 2004 at Rs5,708, or Rs15.64 per day. This is lower than the lower of the World Bank’s two international poverty lines. Three-fourths of the population would fall under the higher of the two World Bank lines.

Vanneman and Dubey define individuals in households below half the median as poor, and those in households with income higher than twice the median as affluent. By this definition, the middle income group consist of the middle 60% of households, because 18% of individuals are in households with less than half the median income (i.e., are defined as “relatively poor”) and 22% are in households with more than twice the median income (i.e., are defined as “relatively affluent”).

India’s middle class is actually the world’s poor

It is difficult to separate India’s "middle class" from its poor.

qz.com

95% of the country lives below the bread-line world's largest poverty. It is irreversible

From where did you get this data?

Are you referring pakistani status here?

 

[Titanium100]

 

[Abdulaziz Al-Karimi]

95% of the country lives below the bread-line world's largest poverty. It is irreversible

From where did you get this data?

Are you referring pakistani status here?

India nobody can be compared to India when it comes to poverty and not even in the same league. Pakistani civilians and private economy is stabile and has been that for long time because they have approached the economy differently.

Look at Bangladesh. Seriously Bangladesh should be a study case of how to exit poverty in regards to India. Bangladesh has done ridiculous amount of development and moved the right direction.

But imho the Indian elites never really cared about it's civilians and this is what it comes down to really because nothing else can explain India's civilian population limpo.

India is more of a dog eat dog world main while Bangladesh despite the corruption there is certain level of love towards their country and fellow Bengal's

 

[CallSignMaverick]

The Persistence of Poverty in India: Culture or System?​

Once Economic Energies Are Unshackled, Religion or Culture Cannot Stand in the Way for Long

the recent death of Mother Teresa drew the world’s attention to the dire poverty of Calcutta and of India in general. Mother Teresa ministered to the poorest of a very poor country where asceticism, antimaterialism, and fatalism are integral to the majority religion, Hinduism. For those who follow these beliefs, any effort toward changing the material state of the poor is futile. To them wealth, not poverty, is surprising.

Will India’s poor ever prosper? A focus on the dominant religion and culture portends a rather pessimistic future. Those who generally discount the influence of religion and culture in modern societies maintain that India’s poverty is the result of its political and economic system. Representative democracy with a largely illiterate population has allowed operators of the political system to amass wealth for themselves. The reign of Nehruvian socialism, more popularly known as the “license-permit-quota raj,” has left little room for private initiative and enterprise. The Hindu rate of growth has been the outcome. That would be the outcome, it is argued, under such a system in any culture.

What is responsible for India’s poverty—the culture or the politico-economic system? (Religion in a broader sense is assumed to define the culture, and so the terms are used interchangeably.) Those working to alleviate India’s poverty need to answer the question. They need to decide where to focus their energies. But first some elaboration on culture, economics, and politics.

The Persistence of Poverty in India: Culture or System?

The recent death of Mother Teresa drew the world’s attention to the dire poverty of Calcutta and of India in general. Mother Teresa ministered to the poorest

fee.org

Thats a 25 years old article

95% of the country lives below the bread-line world's largest poverty. It is irreversible

I'll recommend you to quit whatever you sniff, smoke, swallow or inject.

 

[CallSignMaverick]

A country in dept crisis doesn't mean poverty example Greece defaulted but remained the same.. What it means is that the official gov't is in debt not the civilians and the national reserve belongs to the gov't not civilian property... It is minor stuff and reversible but what is irreversible is India's situation for them it is the opposite the gov't is not in ridiculously large dept but is facing the world's largest poverty on it's civilians.. In India you have true poverty and it will take India atleast 100 years to only reach Uzbekistan level forget others

Infrastructure laid decades back barely changes, it is basic common sense. If I live in a lavish 5BHK house I built using the money I made by my business will still remain the same if my business gets bust and now I'm working for a salaried job.

Uzbekistan being a part of Soviet Union had a lot of Soviet influence in infra building which still is present.
And they just export minerals to make money.

80% of Mumbai is a slum (Where in the world have you seen a country's biggest city being 80% slum) You won't find that in any country

80% of what? Slums in Mumbai are a problem since the colonial times due to the way the city was built. Ultra high real estate prices and Mumbai being Island have limited its expansion.

Even then the slums are being reduced by redevelopment.

 

[Titanium100]

India nobody can be compared to India when it comes to poverty and not even in the same league. Pakistani civilians and private economy is stabile and has been that for long time because they have approached the economy differently.

Look at Bangladesh. Seriously Bangladesh should be a study case of how to exit poverty in regards to India. Bangladesh has done ridiculous amount of development and moved the right direction.

But imho the Indian elites never really cared about it's civilians and this is what it comes down to really because nothing else can explain India's civilian population limpo.

India is more of a dog eat dog world main while Bangladesh despite the corruption there is certain level of love towards their country and fellow Bengal'sn

I have said this many times it comes down to loving the country but indian elites and indians hate india majority of the time

 

[CallSignMaverick]

What do you mean by this? Stop being emotional

It just means that stop making things up

 

[Azadkashmir]

indian rulers will not use the budget to rebuild houses and bring water through pipes.
instead they will hoard the money or buy expensive car or buy military weopons to parade.

 

[CallSignMaverick]

indian rulers will not use the budget to rebuild houses and bring water through pipes.
instead they will hoard the money or buy expensive car or buy military weopons to parade.

Thats applicable more to pakistan than India.
Our defence expenditure as %age of GDP is also lower.