Urban Middle Class Estimates in Pakistan

[RiazHaq]

62 million people fall below poverty line in Pakistan

By: Ramzan Chandio | Published: October 31, 2009

KARACHI - The 62 million population of country has fallen below poverty line in FY09.
The State Bank of Pakistan in its annual report of economy of the county for last fiscal unveiled that World Bank’s task force on food security has estimated that the Head Count Ratio (HCR) regarding poverty increased in Pakistan to 33.8 per cent in FY08 and 36.1 per cent in FY09, indicating that 62 million population of the country might have fallen below poverty line in FY09.

SBP quoting the interim report of the Panel of Economists constituted by the government and Planning Commission, pointed out that as many as 10 million more people were expected to fall into the poverty trap. The interim report ‘Economic Stabilisation with a Human Face’ states that headcount ratio in the country may have risen by 3.5 percentage points in FY08 from 22.3 percent in FY06. Going ahead, a further rise is expected in FY09 by additional 2.7 percentage points. This brings the headcount ratio figures in the country at 28.5 per cent in FY09, SBP maintains.

The central bank pointed out that recent data suggests that between 2005 and 2009, more than 12 to 14 million people are expected to have slipped into poverty. Considering these figures, it is estimated that poverty may have risen between 30 to 35pc in FY09. SBP predicted that the global economic crisis, decline in manufacturing sector in the country and closure of industries due to power crisis is likely to push more people in poverty.

62 million people fall below poverty line | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

Do you want yet more distraction from middle class to obfuscate and obscure the reality in India?

Well, here's some more "food" for thought for you:

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India now has 100 million more people living below the poverty line than in 2004, according to official estimates released on Sunday.

The poverty rate has risen to 37.2 percent of the population from 27.5 percent in 2004, a change that will require the Congress-ruled government to spend more money on the poor.

The new estimate comes weeks after Sonia Gandhi, head of the Congress party, asked the government to revise a Food Security Bill to include more women, children and destitutes.

"The Planning Commission has accepted the report on poverty figures," Abhijit Sen, a member of the Planning Commission told Reuters, referring to the new poverty estimate report submitted by a government panel last December.

India now has 410 million people living below the U.N. estimated poverty line of $1.25 a day, 100 million more than was estimated earlier, officials said.

India calculates how much of its population is living below the poverty line by checking whether families can afford one square meal a day that meets minimum nutrition needs.

It was not immediately clear how much more the federal government would have to spend on the poor, as that would depend on the Food Security Bill when it is presented to the government after the necessary changes, officials say.

India's Planning Commission will meet the food and expenditure secretaries next week to estimate the cost aspects of the bill, government officials said.

A third of the world's poor are believed to be in India, living on less than $2 per day, worse than in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, experts say.

100 million more Indians now living in poverty | Top News | Reuters

http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/09/undp-reports-pakistan-poverty-declined.html

 

[TATA]

Do you want yet more distraction from middle class to obfuscate and obscure the reality in India?

Well, here's some more "food" for thought for you:

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India now has 100 million more people living below the poverty line than in 2004, according to official estimates released on Sunday.

The poverty rate has risen to 37.2 percent of the population from 27.5 percent in 2004, a change that will require the Congress-ruled government to spend more money on the poor.

The new estimate comes weeks after Sonia Gandhi, head of the Congress party, asked the government to revise a Food Security Bill to include more women, children and destitutes.

"The Planning Commission has accepted the report on poverty figures," Abhijit Sen, a member of the Planning Commission told Reuters, referring to the new poverty estimate report submitted by a government panel last December.

India now has 410 million people living below the U.N. estimated poverty line of $1.25 a day, 100 million more than was estimated earlier, officials said.

India calculates how much of its population is living below the poverty line by checking whether families can afford one square meal a day that meets minimum nutrition needs.

It was not immediately clear how much more the federal government would have to spend on the poor, as that would depend on the Food Security Bill when it is presented to the government after the necessary changes, officials say.

India's Planning Commission will meet the food and expenditure secretaries next week to estimate the cost aspects of the bill, government officials said.

A third of the world's poor are believed to be in India, living on less than $2 per day, worse than in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, experts say.

100 million more Indians now living in poverty | Top News | Reuters

1. this is dine dalebratly to help poor as congress govt wanna help poor by givng more facilities, food, enmployment to reach them.

2. now pakistan and India both has equal % of poor.

 

[TATA]

No one denies there is poverty and malnutrition in Pakistan, it's just that it's less severe than in India.

If you really want to distract from the discussion on middle class size, let's have at it. Here's some "food" for thought for you:

In IFPRI's most recent global hunger report, India still ranks at 65, worse than Pakistan at 58, and much worse than China at 5.

The first India State Hunger Index (Ishi) report in 2008 found that Madhya Pradesh had the most severe level of hunger in India, comparable to Chad and Ethiopia. Four states — Punjab, Kerala, Haryana and Assam — fell in the 'serious' category. Gujarat, 13th on the Indian list is below Haiti, ranked 69. The authors said India's poor performance was primarily due to its relatively high levels of child malnutrition and under-nourishment resulting from calorie deficient diets.

Haq's Musings: Right to Food in India, Pakistan and China

I'm on the topic only the post was to show u the mirror that ur govt is saying that poverty is raising in tens of millions still ur are dreaming about big middle class. U should stop talking big, based on cherry picking and twisted facts.

 

[Raghu]

Urban Middle Class Estimates in Pakistan

RiazHaq ,

so whats is the estimate of middle class Pakistan who earns more than 3000$ per year??

If 60% Pakistan lives below 2$ a day...

what percentage lives between 2$ to 10$ a day

and what percentage lives above 10$ a day/3000$ per year and are the middle class of Pakistan??

From that u can deduct the absolute number of middle class pakistanis...and never quote silly numbers like 30 to 35 million Pakistanis earning more than 10,000$ per year.

 

[RiazHaq]

RiazHaq ,

so whats is the estimate of middle class Pakistan who earns more than 3000$ per year??

If 60% Pakistan lives below 2$ a day...

what percentage lives between 2$ to 10$ a day

and what percentage lives above 10$ a day/3000$ per year and are the middle class of Pakistan??

From that u can deduct the absolute number of middle class pakistanis...and never quote silly numbers like 30 to 35 million Pakistanis earning more than 10,000$ per year.

I can only go by published data from credible sources.

And the only income data that I have seen is about the population under $2 a day or $730 a year (60%, according to HDR 2009) and population around $10,000 a year (about 20%, according to Standard Chartered and SBP governor).

What I deduce from it is that close to 20% of Pakistan's population lies between $730 a year and $10,000 a year, many of whom could fit Birdsall's definition of middle class being $10 or higher a day.

What I also know from HDR 2009 is that 75.8% of Indians live below $2 a day or $730 a year, and only 5% of India's live above $10 a day or $ 3,650 a year. That leaves 19% of Indian between $2 a day and $10 a day none of whom belong in the middle class as per Birdsall.

In addition to the above data, published Gini coefficient data suggests that India has a bigger rich-poor gap than Pakistan.

 

[Skeptic]

I can only go by published data from credible sources.

And the only income data that I have seen is about the population under $2 a day or $730 a year (60%, according to HDR 2009) and population around $10,000 a year (about 20%, according to Standard Chartered and SBP governor).

What I deduce from it that close to 20% of the population lies between $730 a year and $10,000 a year, many of whom could fit Birdsall's definition of middle class being $10 or higher a day.

What I also know from HDR 2009 is that 75.8% of Indians live below $2 a day or $730 a year, and only 5% of India's live above $10 a day or $ 3,650 a year. That leaves 19% of Indian between $2 a day and $10 a day none of whom belong in the middle class as per Birdsall.

In addition to the above data, Gini coefficient data suggests that India has a bigger rich-poor gap than Pakistan.

I have my biggest concern against numbers posted for Pakistan. How did you arrive at the 20% figure for Pakistan??

The survey mentions that top 30 million or top 20% have average income of $10000. How can you conclude that all these people have their incomes over $3650. This would include top 5% which hold a very very large piece of pie. All this proves is there are people earning more than $10000 in Pakistan, their exact or approximate number is more than 5% has not been proven and can not even be deduced from mentioned data.

< RANT>
Please describe your method. And also according to her methods China has middle class of 3% that would be 30 million people. So please start a thread stating bigger middle class in Pakistan than China.
</RANT>

 

[RiazHaq]

I have my biggest concern against numbers posted for Pakistan. How did you arrive at the 20% figure for Pakistan??

The survey mentions that top 30 million or top 20% have average income of $10000. How can you conclude that all these people have their incomes over $3650. This would include top 5% which hold a very very large piece of pie. All this proves is there are people earning more than $10000 in Pakistan, their exact or approximate number is more than 5% has not been proven and can not even be deduced from mentioned data.

< RANT>
Please describe your method. And also according to her methods China has middle class of 3% that would be 30 million people. So please start a thread stating bigger middle class in Pakistan than China.
</RANT>

Since you are a skeptic, I don't expect that any explanation I offer will ever suffice for you.

I suggest you do your own research to understand the rich-poor gap, Gini index, income distribution by quintiles in South Asia to come to your own conclusion.

Don't forget to count the number of zillionaires in India (49?) vs Pakistan (just one) on the Forbes list when you do your research.

 

[TechLahore]

^^ I have refrained from pointing this out in numerous other threads where the "India has a zillion billionaires" argument is delivered rather predictably, but let me just go ahead and say it anyway... Pakistan is NOT accurately or completely covered by Forbes or Fortune when it comes to counting the number of Billionaires. I know for a FACT that there are several billionaires - *excluding* questionable ones, such as Zardari and the Sharif brothers - in Pakistan.

Just one documented indication of how far off Forbes is in their accounting of Pakistani wealth is given below... while Bloomberg quoted Mian Mansha as having wealth in the $4B neighbourhood, Forbes reported only $1B.

"Mansha, who estimates his fortune at about $4 billion, says the world’s economic woes are making companies cheaper for people like him who have money to spend. He added to his purse in May by selling 20 percent of MCB Bank to Malaysia’s Malayan Banking Bhd. for $907 million. That gives him about $1 billion for takeovers in the next 12 months."


Pakistan?s Richest Man Defies Terrorism to Expand Bank Empire - Bloomberg.com

Pakistan certainly doesn't have 49 billionaires, but it has far, far more than one. Forbes doesn't list them... now that is another matter altogether.

 

[RiazHaq]

^^ I have refrained from pointing this out in numerous other threads where the "India has a zillion billionaires" argument is delivered rather predictably, but let me just go ahead and say it anyway... Pakistan is NOT accurately or completely covered by Forbes or Fortune when it comes to counting the number of Billionaires. I know for a FACT that there are several billionaires - *excluding* questionable ones, such as Zardari and the Sharif brothers - in Pakistan.

Just one documented indication of how far off Forbes is in their accounting of Pakistani wealth is given below... while Bloomberg quoted Mian Mansha as having wealth in the $4B neighbourhood, Forbes reported only $1B.

"Mansha, who estimates his fortune at about $4 billion, says the world’s economic woes are making companies cheaper for people like him who have money to spend. He added to his purse in May by selling 20 percent of MCB Bank to Malaysia’s Malayan Banking Bhd. for $907 million. That gives him about $1 billion for takeovers in the next 12 months."


Pakistan?s Richest Man Defies Terrorism to Expand Bank Empire - Bloomberg.com

Pakistan certainly doesn't have 49 billionaires, but it has far, far more than one. Forbes doesn't list them... now that is another matter altogether.

My point is to emphasize that Pakistan's income distribution is less inequitable than India's. Counting billionaires is an indicator of the severity of inequitable income distribution in poor nations of South Asia that have high levels of hunger, malnutrition and overall deprivation in terms of basic needs.

Pakistan-
lowest 10%: 3.9%
highest 10%: 26.5%

India-
lowest 10%: 3.6%
highest 10%: 31.1%


Human Development Report 2009 - Income/expenditure share of the richest 10% of the population (%)

 

[TechLahore]

^Yes, I realize that... it's just something I keep seeing over and over as a point scoring competition, and I know the Forbes research on Pakistan is crap as far as the rich list goes, so I just wanted to get it off my chest.

 

[deepak75]

It seems to me that there is a deliberate attempt by some members to try and confuse the readers here by bringing up all sorts of frivolous arguments to detract from the main focus of my post.

Let me try and simplify it for those of you who want to seriously learn and understand the differences in income levels of various classes, poor, middle and upper, in India and Pakistan.

Sir, as my first girlfriend would have said: you are choo chweet. I do not want to upset you either. So just to check what has been frivolous in my responses let us try to see the "main focus" of your original post again.

Pakistan is more urbanized with a larger middle class than India as percent of population. In 2007, Standard Chartered Bank analysts and SBP estimated there were 30 to 35 million Pakistanis earning an average of $10,000 a year. Of these, about 17 million are in the upper and upper middle class, according to a recent report.

As to India's much hyped middle class, a new report by Nancy Birdsall of Center for Global Development says it is a myth.........rant...

According to development economist Lant Pritchett, fewer than 25&#37; of people in the richest quintile in India complete 9 grades of school.......rant.....

Haq's Musings: Urbanization in Pakistan Highest in South Asia

DAWN.COM | Columnists | The rise of Mehran man

India has no middle class? - India - The Times of India

Sir you drop terms like "As per what SBP Chairman said", " more than 30 - 35 Million are earning more than USD 10,000 in 2007", "Pakistan has a healthy middle class". Amongst other rants about how India has no middle class and Mr. Pritchett has declared that India is a country of 9th graders..... etc. etc. etc. etc.

And you put some sources which I used to prove that everything you have put as the "main focus" of your post is nothing but BS!!!!!

We just did thumb rule numbers on your GDP basis your claims and I am sure that Adam Smith would be turning in his grave about how he could miss out on such a classic economy case like Pakistan of your claims where a mere factor income of a percentile of the Labour of the population can go more than then the total GDP and hence making the other factor incomes = Capital + Land + Labour income of the balance of the population in negative!!!!!!! His soul must have been banished from heaven by now I am sure for missing out on such a simple phenomenon which Riaz Haq is able to just decipher with a stroke on the keyboard which he is doing while going about his morning business!!!!

Now when the "main focus" of your article has been blown to bits, you then resort to childish complaining, for which, if my first or even current girlfriend will find out, will admonish me for so badly tearing apart the argument of a person who was "choo chweet" that he expected to take the whole forum for a ride with his droppings (I mean the numbers please....)

But I had promised to my professors that I will always provide service with a smile and I am about to do that for the "new main focus" of your thread as per below:

Regardless of the source of (UN, CIA, etc) any credible data, the following facts are generally accepted by almost all economists of various shades and nationalities.

1. India has a much bigger percentage of its population living on less than $2 a day than Pakistan.

Human Development Report 2009 - Population living below $2 a day (%)

2. India has much bigger disparities in income and consumption than Pakistan as measured by Gini coefficient.

Inequalities stark in US cities - US - World - The Times of India

If you do not agree with the above two points, then we have nothing more to talk about.

But if you do agree, then it naturally follows that Pakistan should have a bigger percentage of its population than India that qualifies as middle class.

Okay so let us see you new scientific hypothesis that "if we agree that the Gini index is lower for Pakistan then Pakistan should have a bigger percentage of its population than India that qualifies as a middle class".

You have also quoted that CIA factbook data is your benchmark of credibility. So let us look at it from CIA factbook data and see how this hypotheis stands the test.

List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay so I agree Sir that Gini index is lower for Pakistan than that for India. But while I agree with this, we also have to consider that per CIA factbook, the Gini index of the following countries amongst others is higher than the Gini index of Pakistan (I am just naming a few): European Union, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, Singapore, USA, Hong Kong (SAR) & Brazil ( as I highlighted these are just a few of the countries along with India that have their gini index higher than that of Pakistan as per CIA factbook data).

So does that now mean that the Pakistan has a greater middle class than that of EU, Netherlands, South Korea, Italy, Spain Canada, New Zealand, Japan Singapore, USA etc.?

Sir, what person with a sane mind and any idea about statistics just pick up a number and start using it without understanding the context and the objective that the number and its method of calculation represent?

The you will say that I am "destroying the main new focus" of your funny argument and I am misleading the readers.

Have you any idea what does Gini index represent? It represents the income inequality amongst other human representative parameters such as infant mortality, income distribution, child malnutrition amongst other socio economic factors.

Even Techlahore who does not claim any of your amusings rights got it correct in a simple manner. He says that there more billionaires in Pakistan then Forbes cares or is able to identify and while he knows that it will make an adverse impact on the gini index score of Pakistan but he "wanted to get it off his chest".

The lack of transparency in your system about real incomes is also reflected by the fact that your tax revenue is non-existent for the size of your population. That is why even Secretary Clinton stated to your press last year that U.S cannot keep on funding your country, and that you have to, at some point of time start collecting your taxes. But that is the dichotomy of your elite class and the mispresentation of their income makes sure that your tax revenue collections are abysmal to say the least.

Skeptic already put some data of the tax revenue collections of Pakistan for your kind consideration on that subject. I hope that you read it. It is very relevant for anyone who is even thinking about using the Gini index score of Pakistan as any benchmark to claim and prove a hypothesis as it has a relevant relationship with the income distribution and hence income equality/inequality in Pakistan.

My humble request to you Sir. Please stop this malafide practice of spreading misinformation. I find most of the members create a high quality of discussion on this forum and I have been delighted to interact with at least a couple during my first few days of being a member here.

This forum deserves better. If you want to pursue your own agenda of furthering the popularity of your domain then please do it on forums where the members do not care about the kind of discourse that they are indulging in.

 

[deepak75]

I am not sure where you get your numbers from to claim 25&#37; of Indians belong in the middle class. It just doesn't make any sense at all when you look at the widely published UN data that is considered more credible.

The fact is that 75.6% of Indians (vs 60% of Pakistanis) live on less than $2 a day, according to HDR 2009.

That leaves 24.4% at or above $2 a day. Are they all middle class? Is that your definition of middle class in India?

Human Development Report 2009 - Population living below $2 a day (%)

http://www.ncaer.org/downloads/PPT/TheGreatIndianMarket.pdf

This is where I get my information from, which is a credible applied economic research body from which the WB, IMF, leading organization, consultants like McKinsey pick up their data about the future strategies of operating in the Indian market.

Go to page 8 and you will find that at least 32.25 Million households representing about 176 Million people in India in 2009-10 are in the income bracket of over 200,000 INR = USD 4550 absolute = USD 16140 PPP 2005.

Additional at least 75.30 Million households representing about 413 million people in India in 2009-10 are earning at least more than INR 90,000 = USD 2050 Absolute = USD 7200 PPP 2005.

Also if you visit page 5, you will find that 18.55 Mn Households own a car in India in 2009-10 and 57.2 Million Households own a motor cycle. These alone are double the total number of Households in Pakistan and I did not even start discussing this research with you.

Now please stop wasting our time on this forum. Thanks.

 

[RiazHaq]

http://www.ncaer.org/downloads/PPT/TheGreatIndianMarket.pdf

This is where I get my information from, which is a credible applied economic research body from which the WB, IMF, leading organization, consultants like McKinsey pick up their data about the future strategies of operating in the Indian market.

Go to page 8 and you will find that at least 32.25 Million households representing about 176 Million people in India in 2009-10 are in the income bracket of over 200,000 INR = USD 4550 absolute = USD 16140 PPP 2005.

Additional at least 75.30 Million households representing about 413 million people in India in 2009-10 are earning at least more than INR 90,000 = USD 2050 Absolute = USD 7200 PPP 2005.

Also if you visit page 5, you will find that 18.55 Mn Households own a car in India in 2009-10 and 57.2 Million Households own a motor cycle. These alone are double the total number of Households in Pakistan and I did not even start discussing this research with you.

Now please stop wasting our time on this forum. Thanks.

Your NCAER data conflicts with the UNDP HDR 2009 data that says 76&#37; of Indians live on less than $2 a day. Your NCAER data suggests that the entire population of about 400 million Indians at or above $2 a day is middle class, a definition that holds no water.

Middle class is defined differently by India than the UN and World Bank. Here's something from Rama Bijapurkar that might help you understand the debate:

While consultants and companies advise investing in India based on the current and projected size of the &#8220;middle class&#8221;, the bogey of the definition and sizing of the middle class hasn't gone away yet and adds to the unease. The World Bank defines middle class as having between $10 and $20 purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita per day, which is a lot narrower than the NCAER definition of households income between Rs. 2-10 lakh ($4,000 to $21,000 at 2001-02 prices) annually; which is what McKinsey Global Institute uses in its Bird of Gold book. Chris Butel of IIMS-Dataworks suggests sensibly that the middle class are those that have their own personal transport (car or 2-wheeler), own entertainment as in a TV set, sound system and their own communication (phone). Some of us suggest that the middle class are those who are literally in the middle i.e., have approximately between the 33rd and 66th percentile of income. Expectedly the numbers swing wildly from 50 million to 200 / 230 / 300 million. What's more, the nagging worry persists that the middle class being defined by most of these income bands is actually India's upper class.

Ramabijapurkar

 

[Skeptic]

My point is to emphasize that Pakistan's income distribution is less inequitable than India's. Counting billionaires is an indicator of the severity of inequitable income distribution in poor nations of South Asia that have high levels of hunger, malnutrition and overall deprivation in terms of basic needs.

Pakistan-
lowest 10%: 3.9%
highest 10%: 26.5%

India-
lowest 10%: 3.6%
highest 10%: 31.1%


Human Development Report 2009 - Income/expenditure share of the richest 10% of the population (%)

Please take note that
1. these statistics are represented by comparing the Expenditure Data for both India and Pakistan and not Income.
2. Expenses of Indian top 10/20% richest will be generally higher due to expenses on Booze alone (A major difference from Pakistan)
3. Pakistan had a Gini of 68 in 2006 and 30.2 in 2008, with such discrepancy, we can expect something does not fit in - Translates to there is a flaw in the argument.

Your NCAER data conflicts with the UNDP HDR 2009 data that says 76% of Indians live on less than $2 a day. Your NCAER data suggests that the entire population of about 400 million Indians at or above $2 a day is middle class, a definition that holds no water.

Well simply because the data has been taken for Household and not on per capita basis - which is a debatable topic - whether middle class should at all be defined by per capita income or based on household income. This might also be the reason why China has a bigger middle class (One Child Policy) than India (Bigger Families). A person making Rs. 20,000 per month living with his widowed mother, 2 kids and a wife in his ancestral house (standard in subcontinent) will be well below the Middle class mark as per the definition formulated by Birdsall, while if you ask generally if a person makes 20,000 per month - which class should he belong to - answer invariably will be middle class. And this is 20,000 INR which will be equal to almost 37 - 38K Pakistani Rupee.

So the debate should much rather be about definition itself. While you have not been able to completely establish that there is such a huge number of Pakistanis (30-35 million) making the cut as per this definition. There is lesser likelihood of that happening in Pakistan - with larger families and lesser number of employed females - making a double income families and more likely to be included in middle class.

For a family of 7 to be above middle class as per the defenition the sole breadwinner should be making in excess of $27000 (PPP Terms) and 6.3 Lakhs annually. If you think you have that many people making more than 6.3 Lakhs anually - Good luck to you.

FYI:
Average Family Size India: 4.8 (Source)
Average Family Size Pakistan: 7.5 ( Source )
Female Employment India: 42% (Source)
Female Employment Pakistan: 16% (Source)

 

[RiazHaq]

Please take note that
1. these statistics are represented by comparing the Expenditure Data for both India and Pakistan and not Income.
2. Expenses of Indian top 10/20&#37; richest will be generally higher due to expenses on Booze alone (A major difference from Pakistan)
3. Pakistan had a Gini of 68 in 2006 and 30.2 in 2008, with such discrepancy, we can expect something does not fit in - Translates to there is a flaw in the argument.


Well simply because the data has been taken for Household and not on per capita basis - which is a debatable topic - whether middle class should at all be defined by per capita income or based on household income. This might also be the reason why China has a bigger middle class (One Child Policy) than India (Bigger Families). A person making Rs. 20,000 per month living with his widowed mother, 2 kids and a wife in his ancestral house (standard in subcontinent) will be well below the Middle class mark as per the definition formulated by Birdsall, while if you ask generally if a person makes 20,000 per month - which class should he belong to - answer invariably will be middle class. And this is 20,000 INR which will be equal to almost 37 - 38K Pakistani Rupee.

So the debate should much rather be about definition itself. While you have not been able to completely establish that there is such a huge number of Pakistanis (30-35 million) making the cut as per this definition. There is lesser likelihood of that happening in Pakistan - with larger families and lesser number of employed females - making a double income families and more likely to be included in middle class.

For a family of 7 to be above middle class as per the defenition the sole breadwinner should be making in excess of $27000 (PPP Terms) and 6.3 Lakhs annually. If you think you have that many people making more than 6.3 Lakhs anually - Good luck to you.

FYI:
Average Family Size India: 4.8 (Source)
Average Family Size Pakistan: 7.5 ( Source )
Female Employment India: 42% (Source)
Female Employment Pakistan: 16% (Source)

It seems to me that the only answer acceptable to you is that India has a huge middle class and Pakistan has none.

The only problem is I have cited lots of data to show that India has a very tiny middle class, if any.

You keep talking about NCAER, which is part of the "India Shining" hype that has been joined by the PR folks in India who ran campaigns like "India Everywhere" at WEF in Davos, Switzerland.

The fact is that India has a very small pool of less than 25% (vs 40% in Pakistan) of the population that lives on $2 a day or more from which the middle class can emerge.

India's 25% population represents less than 300 million people, while the propagandists claim that India's middle class is much larger than that. It makes no sense to classify anyone at or near $2 a day as middle class. With $2 a day, they can barely make ends meet.

Going by the World Bank definition of at least $10 a day to be called middle class and excluding the top 5% as Birdsall suggests, the size of India's middle class is exactly ZERO. You'd have to pick a much looser definition such as anyone owning a bike in India to have a middle class bigger than zero.


Let me quote Ram Bijapurkar again for your benefit:

While consultants and companies advise investing in India based on the current and projected size of the &#8220;middle class&#8221;, the bogey of the definition and sizing of the middle class hasn't gone away yet and adds to the unease. The World Bank defines middle class as having between $10 and $20 purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita per day, which is a lot narrower than the NCAER definition of households income between Rs. 2-10 lakh ($4,000 to $21,000 at 2001-02 prices) annually; which is what McKinsey Global Institute uses in its Bird of Gold book. Chris Butel of IIMS-Dataworks suggests sensibly that the middle class are those that have their own personal transport (car or 2-wheeler), own entertainment as in a TV set, sound system and their own communication (phone). Some of us suggest that the middle class are those who are literally in the middle i.e., have approximately between the 33rd and 66th percentile of income. Expectedly the numbers swing wildly from 50 million to 200 / 230 / 300 million. What's more, the nagging worry persists that the middle class being defined by most of these income bands is actually India's upper class.

Ramabijapurkar