Growth to pro poor growth a requirement of indian economy

Growth to Pro-poor Growth: A requirement of Indian Economy By Manish Kumar Singh1 Abstract Poverty is a wicked phenomenon for the society and its reduction has always remained a central objective among the policymakers It is evident from various available literatures and researches that economic growth has been used as a major instrument to reduce poverty India, in the recent few years has been growing at a remarkable rate accompanied with reduction in poverty, but it is a major issue of concern among the policymakers that whether these growth rates are increasing the inequality, whether this growth is pro-poor or not? This paper examined the impact of growth and inequality on poverty reduction and estimating the pro-poor growth index and poverty equivalent growth rate for the rural and urban India using the CES 1993-94 (50th round), CES 2004-05 (61st round) and CES 2011-12 (68th round) data set The result indicates that poverty rate has highly declined in 2004-05 to 2011-12 as compared to 1993-94 to 2004-05for both rural and urban India Growth has contributed more proportionately in poverty reduction in both periods Despite, being very high, economic growth lacks the features of pro-poor growth Therefore, the need of pro-poor growth should be strongly considered by the policymakers Keywords: Poverty, Growth, Pro-Poor Growth, Growth Effect, Inequality Effect, Pro-Poor Growth Index, Poverty Equivalent Growth Rate Introduction Poverty is intrinsically a detrimental phenomenon for the entire society It is known and generally assumed, the poverty is not a problem of the poor alone but it is something that creates problems for the others as well.2 Though poverty has been targeted even before Economic reform (1991) in India by policymakers and it is still prevailing, eradicating it remains an unfinished business even into the 21st century Therefore, policy concerns of poverty reduction remains at the heart of the development discourse In the academic domain with the various research and development policies of the past 50 years, it is clear that the economic growth is used as the most effective instrument to pull people out of the poverty trap Economic growth acts as the major tool to reduce poverty and to improve the people‟s standard of living in developing countries, but it seems that similar rates of growth lead to a diversified impact on poverty under different conditions The magnitude of poverty reduction by the means of economic growth depends on the degree of participation of the poor in the growth process and the number of benefits they received from Senior Research Fellow, Department of Economics, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India Email id manishk.singh4@bhu.ac.in See Semasinghe, W M (2015), Public Welfare Policies and Multidimensional Poverty in Sri Lanka: An Application of Capability Approach Page | the growth process Thus, pace and the pattern of growth, both are important in the context of poverty reduction India is growing at an unprecedented rate accompanied with poverty reduction over the last few years, but it is a major issue of concern among the policymakers that whether these growth rates are increasing the inequality, benefitting the disadvantaged groups or not, Whether the poor are able to get more benefits from the growth process of India? etc Keeping all these in mind, the major aim of India‟s Eleventh Plan (2007-12) was inclusive growth to deal with these inequalities and to promote the overall well-being.3 Inclusive growth is more than broad-based growth The economic growth means a high level of output or income, while inclusive growth aims at providing benefits of growth to every section of the society To achieve inclusive growth, there are two possible options; either focus on the process that the actual growth included many people who participated in that growth or focus on the outcomes of the growth process (Klasen, 2010) The eleventh plan adopted inclusive growth strategy but the inclusiveness was difficult to assess because of the three reasons which may be summarised as (a) it is multidimensional in nature, (b) the data on inclusiveness can be found only after a time lag, and (c) its impact may not be visible immediately (Oommen, 2011), therefore, growth performance is more logical to assess despite remaining an uncomplicated process Inclusive growth is hard to define or capture (Ranieri & Ramos, 2013), but the identification of more features will help in the specification of the meaning and concept of inclusive growth Inclusive growth has an indirect relationship with pro-poor growth because the ultimate aim of both these concepts is to reduce poverty and inequality The distinction can be drawn between these two on the grounds that, the pro-poor growth is concerned with the people below the poverty line, whereas inclusive growth focuses on each and every section of the society Therefore, the former can be characterized as specific and the latter as general (Klasen, 2010) The debate on pro-poor growth originated from the arguments of Chenery and Ahluwalia in the 1970s in their paper entitled “Redistribution with Growth” (Chenery, Ahluwalia, Jolly, Bell, & Duloy, 1979) This model criticizes the trickle-down hypothesis, which claims that growth itself would reduce poverty While this term was never defined at that time, it came to Planning Commission, Government of India, 2008 Page | be known as pro-poor during the 1990s Pro-poor growth can be defined as the growth which provides better opportunities to the poor in order to uplift their economic conditions (IMF, UN, OECD, World Bank;2000, and OECD;2001), which is similar to trickle-down Kakwani (2004) defined the pro-poor growth which is considered in this study as growth is pro-poor which benefits the poor proportionately more than the non-poor With this, the focus shifted to the extent of income gains of the poor from growth Various studies analyse pro-poor growth and growth-poverty relation Forbes (2000), (Deininger & Squire, 1998), Anand and Kanbur (1993) examined the relationship between growth and inequality is mixed According to (Dollar & Kraay, 2000), the correlation between economic growth and poverty reduction is positive Brock & Durlauf (2000), Bourguignon (2000) observed that the cross country analysis tends to be inconclusive on the growth-poverty relation According to Thorat & Dubey (2012), if we compare the period of 2004-05 and 2009-10 with 1993-94 and 2004-05, then it can be seen that the growth was more poverty reducing during 2004-05 and 2009-10.4 Although poverty reduction is beneficial for some groups as compared to others, the adverse effects of inequality, specifically on the urban sector, have also been evident (Bhanumurthy & Mitra, 2004) argued that growth/mean effect dominates in both periods (1983-93 and 1993-2000) over the inequality effect and the population shift effect The growth effect, which is beneficial for poverty reduction, seems as gone up in the reform period Mishra (2015) provided empirical illustrations with Indian data for 2004–05 and 2009–10, which shows that reduction in poverty (more in rural areas), has occurred due to growth in total income Inequality has led to a reduction in poverty in rural areas and an increase in urban areas Apparently, the literature available on the given issue show that the combined study of decomposition of poverty, pro-poor growth and how much growth is required to make growth pro-poor should be taken into account with current data set (current round of CES) In this study, author attempts to the decomposition of poverty into growth effect and inequality effect Study also attempts to find the answer of the questions like, what is the distribution of growth benefit among the poor and non-poor, and how much, the poor‟s are benefited from the growth must be considered as pro-poor National Statistical Commission (NSC) in its 32nd Meeting held on 23-24 April 2010, considered the use of the 2009-10 NSSO quinquennial survey as the base year for both the price indices as well as revision of the national income estimates and felt that, being a non-normal year, may pose problems; hence, it was desirable to repeat the survey once again in respect of consumer expenditure issues Page | Including section (the introduction), this paper is organized in four sections Section provides us the technical framework, where author has discussed the methodology of decomposition of poverty into growth and inequality effect, pro-poor growth index and poverty equivalent growth rate Section describes the empirical results and discussion, and section is conclusion and suggestions Technical Framework This part deals with the methodical issues As per the requirement of the study, first we decompose the poverty in the context of growth and inequality, after that, computed the propoor growth index and poverty equivalent growth rate Regarding this several studies have been pursued to decompose the poverty Datt & Ravallion, (1992) and Kakwani, (1993) have shown that poverty can be decomposed into a component due to change in mean income (constant inequality) and a component due to the change in inequality (mean income constant) Kakwani & Pernia, (2000) explain the concept of pro-poor growth and introduced the pro-poor growth index They argued that it‟s a major departure from the “trickle-down effect” phenomena Kakwani, Khandker, & Son, (2004) have been proposed a method of poverty equivalent growth rate Recently, Mazumdar & Son, (2001), Son, (2003) and Mishra, (2015) have been introducing a new poverty decomposition method including population shift effect without any residual term Let the change in poverty between two periods j and k be ΔPjk and the incidence of poverty be P = P(z, μ, L(p)) Where, P is a poverty measure that is fully characterized by the poverty line income (z), the mean income or expenditure (μ), and the Lorenz ratio (L(p)) The change in poverty can be defined as ΔPjk= f (Gjk,Ijk) Where Gjk (growth effect) denote change in poverty due to change in the mean income when inequality is not changed and Ijk (inequality effect) denote change in poverty due to change inequality when income is not change Kakwani (2000) attempted to propose a method and defined the mean and inequality effect as Page | Gjk= ½ [Ln [P (z, μk,Lj(p))] – Ln[P (z, μj, Lj(p))+ Ln [P (z, μk, Lk(p))] – Ln[P (z, μj, Lk(p))]] ……… (1) and Ijk= ½ [Ln [θ (z, μj,Lk(p))] – Ln[θ (z, μj, Lj(p))]+ Ln [θ (z, μk, Lk(p))] – Ln[θ (z, μk, Lj(p))]] ……… (2) It‟s noted that poverty line (z) will be same in both period Hence the decomposition of poverty can be written as Pjk= Gjk+ Ijk … (3) Pro-poor Growth Index (PPGI) Pro-poor growth index (PPGI) shows the relationship between total poverty reduction and poverty reduction those results from a distribution natural growth Suppose that there is a positive growth rate of gjk per cent between period‟s j and k, and then poverty elasticity can be defined as η = Pjk/ gjk This is the proportional change in total poverty when there is a positive growth rate Likewise, we may define ηg= Gjk/ gjk ηI= Ijk/ gjk Where ηg is the proportional change in poverty when the growth rate is positive, given the relative inequality does not change, ηI is the proportional change in poverty when inequality changes, but, there is no change in mean income Thus, we can write η = ηg+ ηI …… (4) The above equation (4) shows that the proportional change in poverty brought out by positive growth rate in economy, which is summation of the two factors: ηg which is the income effect of growth on poverty and ηI, which is the inequality effect on poverty due to the change in inequality Then, we can write the index of pro-poor growth (φ) φ = η / ηg φ will be greater than if ηI< 0, which means that growth is strictly pro-poor If < φ < 1, it means that ηI> but poverty still declines due to growth This situation may be generally characterized as trickle-down If φ < 0, economic growth in fact badly hurts the poor and leads to increase in poverty Page | Poverty Equivalent Growth Rate (PEGR) Pro-poor growth estimate is the derivation of the idea of poverty equivalent growth rate (PEGR), which not only includes the magnitude of growth, but also the amount of benefits received by the poor from the growth It can be seen that, proportional poverty reduction is monotonically increasing function of the PEGR which implies that greater PEGR leads to a larger proportional reduction in poverty Thus, maximization of PEGR means maximum poverty reduction PEGR = Where, = Or PEGR = The PEGR is derived by multiplying PPGI by the growth rate of mean income Growth is pro-poor (anti-poor) if the PEGR is greater (less) than the mean income growth rate If the PEGR lies between and the mean income growth rate, then growth is accompanied by an increasing inequality wherein poverty still declines This situation may be characterized as a trickle-down process when the poor receive proportionally less of the benefits of growth than the non-poor Data: The basic data set has used in this study is the NSSO unit record data on consumption expenditure survey (CES) This study is covering the period CES 1993-94 (50th round), CES 2004-05 (61st round) and CES 2011-12 (68th round) on mixed recall period.5 NSSO CES data report consumption expenditure of the households in nominal rupees We have converted the nominal expenditure in real expenditure at constant (2011-12) prices The price deflator that we used to convert the household expenditure at constant prices is the implicit price deflator derived from the poverty line of India for rural and urban areas separately Poverty line of India is Rs.816 (MPCE) for Rural and Rs.1000 (MPCE) for Urban (Planning Commission, Government of India- 2011), which is estimated by the methodology of Tendulkar committee through MPCE mix recall period MPCE estimations of this study have been calculated by using the deflated MPCE data CES 1993-93 (50th round) reported every estimation on URP so verification of the MRP estimation see; Himanshu (2007), Recent Trends in Poverty and Inequality : Some Preliminary Results Page | Empirical Results and Discussion Table shows the indicators of living standard of India from 1993-94 to 2011-12 This post reform study is further divided into three time periods 1993-94, 2004-05 and 2011-12 Present table provides the estimate of Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (MPCE), Head Count Ratio, Poverty Gap, Severity of Poverty and Index of Inequality of Rural and Urban India It is evident from the given table that the Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure has been increased for both Rural and Urban areas In case of rural areas, it has increased from Rs.936.20 of 1993-94 to Rs.1058.03 in 2004-05 and further to Rs.1287.17 in 2011-12 Similar trend can be seen in the case of Urban India MPCE has risen from Rs.1579.80 of 1993-94 to Rs.1908.42 in 2004-05 and further stood at Rs.2477.02 in 2011-12 Head Count Ratio, which is the indicator of poverty, has been declining in the post reform period for both Rural and Urban areas It was 49.93 and 31.52 in 1993-94 for Rural and Urban respectively and reduced to 25.73 and 13.68 in 2011-12 for both Rural and Urban areas respectively TABLE- Indicators of Living Standard of India, 1993-94, 2004-05 & 2011-12 1993-94 2004-05 2011-12 Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban MPCE 936.20 1579.80 1058.03 1908.42 1287.17 2477.02 HCR 49.93 31.52 41.83 25.74 25.73 13.68 Poverty Gap 12.72 7.57 9.63 6.07 5.04 2.70 Severity of Poverty 4.52 2.65 3.15 2.04 1.49 0.79 GINI 0.260 0.320 0.280 0.364 0.287 0.376 Source: Author‟s own calculation, Data Source: NSSO 50th, 61st and 68th round unit record Figure- MPCE for Rural and Urban India Rural Urban 2477.02 936.2 1993-34 Rural 49.93 Urban 41.83 1908.42 1579.8 Figure- HCR for Rural and Urban India 31.52 25.74 1287.17 1058.03 2004-05 25.73 13.68 2011-12 1993-34 2004-05 2011-12 Source: Author‟s own calculation, Data Source: NSSO 50th, 61st and 68th round unit record Page | Above table-1 and figure- 1&2 indicates almost all positive indications of growth in terms of increment in MPCE and decline in HCR, Poverty gap and severity of poverty though inequality has been increased since 1993-94 to 2011-12, which represents the unequal distribution of growth Overall picture depicts an increase in growth followed by decline in poverty and increment in inequality So this will be necessary to examine that, which factors are affecting poverty positively or negatively Growth in MPCE (mean income) always helps in declining the poverty if the growth rate is positive But sometime increase in inequality also reduces the poverty Chen & Ravallion (2001) Therefore author decomposed the poverty into growth and inequality effect which is being shown in next table Table shows the Total change in Poverty and Decomposition of Poverty into growth effect and inequality effect of India from 1993-94 to 2004-05 and 2004-05 to 2011-12 The data on total change in poverty represents that there has been a significant reduction in poverty in the second period as compare to the first period for both rural and urban areas The Decomposition analysis is done to assess the impact of growth and inequality on poverty reduction Negative sign of growth effect explains the negative relationship between growth and poverty reduction whereas the positive sign of redistribution effect signifies increment in poverty with increase in inequality Rural poverty in first period has decreased by 8.09 percent that has explained by growth effect by decline of poverty 11.54 percent while poverty has increased with increase of redistribution effect by 3.44 percent In same period decline in urban poverty is of 5.78 that has been jointly explained by growth and redistribution effect by decline of 12.43 percent and increase of 6.65 percent respectively Second period indicates relatively high decline in poverty as compare to the first period with the change of 16.10 percent in rural and 12.24 percent in urban Subsequently, that has explained by growth effect with the reduction in poverty by 16.85 percent in rural and 13.40 in urban while redistribution effect explains it with increment of 0.75 percent in rural area and 1.15 percent in urban area Moreover, Table-2 and Figure-3 & depicts the impact of growth and inequality on poverty along with the total change in poverty Overall impact can be easily determined by total change in poverty which has been declined in both periods and it shows that reduction in poverty of both areas (higher in rural and lower in urban) due to growth in MPCE (Mishra, 2015) Inequality has bad impact on poor people especially after the economic reform period (1993-94 to 2004-05) Page | TABLE- Total change in poverty and Decomposition of Change in Poverty of India, 1993-94 to 2004-05 & 2004-05 to 2011-12 Period Total change in Poverty Explained by Growth Redistribution Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban 1993-94 to 2004-05 -8.09 -5.78 -11.54 -12.43 3.44 6.65 2004-05 to 2011-12 -16.10 -12.24 -16.85 -13.40 0.75 1.15 Source: Author‟s own calculation, Data Source: NSSO 50th, 61st and 68th round unit record Figure- Total change in HCR, Growth Effect (GE) and Redistribution effect (RE) of Rural India Total change in HCR 3.44 GE RE Figure- Total change in HCR, Growth Effect (GE) and Redistribution effect (RE) of Urban India Total change in HCR 6.65 GE RE 0.75 1993-94 to 2004-05 2004-05 to 2011-12 1.15 1993-94 to 2004-05 -8.09 2004-05 to 2011-12 -5.78 -11.54 -12.24 -16.1 -16.85 -12.43 -13.4 Source: Author‟s own calculation, Data Source: NSSO 50th, 61st and 68th round unit record Therefore, the data represents that growth effect is inversely related to poverty reduction and redistribution effect has a positive relationship with poverty All in all impact on poverty in rural as well as in urban has gone through the same direction (i.e decline in poverty) Growth effect on poverty is appreciable in both periods Here question that emerges, is this growth process pro-poor or anti pro-poor? And to examine this problem author has estimated the propoor growth index, results are as below Table represents the Pro-Poor Growth Index for the periods of 1993-94 to 2004-05 and 2004-05 to 2011-12 In the first period, PPGI is very higher in the rural areas (0.71) as compared to the urban areas (0.46) for the head count ratio, but in the second period it seems Page | like similar PPGI in rural areas is 0.92 and 0.90 in urban areas that means fluctuation in PPGI is higher in the first period and very less in the second period between rural and urban India TABLE- Pro-Poor Growth Index for India, 1993-94 to 2004-05 & 2004-05 to 2011-12 Pro-Poor Growth Index (PPGI) Period Head-Count Ratio Poverty Gap Severity of Poverty 1993-94 to 2004-05 Rural 0.71 Urban 0.46 2004-05 to 2011-12 0.92 0.90 Rural 0.60 0.77 th st Urban 0.34 Rural 0.59 Urban 0.33 0.77 0.72 0.75 th Source: Author‟s own calculation, Data Source: NSSO 50 , 61 and 68 round unit record All measurement indices are less than one that shows decline in poverty by the growth but denies characteristics of pro poor growth, that is, it should be more than one in case of propoor growth Moreover, data provides a satisfactory result in terms of the impact of growth on poverty because if these indices have value less than zero, it represents undesirable result of bad impact of growth on poverty Scenario has improved since 1993-94 to 2004-05 to 2004-05 to 2011-12 with all indices representing an improvement and moving towards But a large variation can be easily observed among all indices Headcount ratio is very near towards the pro poor growth while other indices are far from pro-poor growth From the perspective of relatively less appreciable index in present study, „severity of poverty‟ is representing a wide gap to reap pro poor growth A long path will have to be step up for achieving pro poor growth The figures in the above table show that the index is approaching to one but, it is still less than one, representing poverty reducing nature of growth but not Propoor absolutely Hence now problem is that, how much growth is more needed for poor people to makes it pro-poor growth For solving this issue author measure the poverty equivalent growth rate (PEGR) which discussed below Table represents the mean income growth rate along with PEGR from 1993-94 to 2004-05 and 2004-05 to 2011-12 Growth is pro poor if PEGR is greater than mean income growth rate otherwise growth is not pro poor Secondly, if PEGR lies between zero and mean growth rate, growth rate is accompanied by increasing inequality with decline in poverty and this situation can be characterized as the trickle-down process, in which the poor receive proportionally less benefits of the growth process than the non-poor In 1993-94 to 2004-05 period actual growth rate is 13.01 in rural and 20.84 in urban while their respective PEGR has 9.26 (H-C ratio), 7.88 (poverty gap), 7.70 (severity of poverty) in rural and 9.61 (H-C ratio), Page | 10 7.18 (poverty gap), 7.01 (severity of poverty) in urban area In second period actual growth rate is 21.65 for rural and 29.79 for urban where PPGI is 20.01 in rural area and 26.74 in urban area (H-C ratio) Similarly it is less in both other indices as compare to mean growth rate TABLE- Poverty Equivalent Growth Rates for India, 1993-94 to 2004-05 & 2004-05 to 2011-12 Poverty Equivalent Growth Rate (PEGR) Actual Growth Rate Head-Count Ratio Poverty Gap Severity of Poverty Period 1993-94 to 2004-05 2004-05 to 2011-12 Rural 13.01 Urban 20.84 Rural 9.26 Urban 9.61 Rural Urban Rural 7.88 7.18 7.70 Urban 7.01 21.65 29.79 20.01 26.74 16.79 22.35 23.05 15.73 Source: Author‟s own calculation, Data Source: NSSO 50th, 61st and 68th round unit record 35 Figure- Gap Between Actual Growth Rate and Poverty Equivalent Growth Rate 30 25 20 15 10 1993-94 to 2004-05 AGR(Rural) PEGR(Rural) 2004-05 to 2011-12 AGR(Urban) PEGR(Urban) Source: Author‟s own calculation, Data Source: NSSO 50th, 61st and 68th round unit record Above Table- and Figure- represents that in the first period gap between actual growth rate and PEGR (H-C ration) is very high in urban area (11.23 per cent) as compared to rural area (5.75) In the second period difference between the actual growth rate (ACR) and PPGI has been declining in the rural area (1.64) and urban area (4.05) Overall, in both periods all indices of PPGI have low values as compared to the actual growth rate in both rural and urban areas that denies the actual growth rate to be pro poor After the introduction of economic reforms in India in the early 1990s, India started growing at a slower pace It gained momentum in the mid-2000s and it is presently attaining a Page | 11 remarkable growth in MPCE The rate of poverty reduction has also escalated, and it is quite appreciable Nevertheless, it is a great matter of concern that the growth rate is accompanied with increasing inequality Weisskopf, (2011), Chance & Piketty, (2017) and Dang & Lanjouw, (2018) The trends of inequality are devised by the patterns of income mobility Although, income mobility has been increasing, the large numeric which contributed in the termination of poverty in the recent years remains assailable and the poor have become largely long-term poor Besides the one-off effect on poverty from a pure redistribution effect, the long run impact of the improvements in distribution of income will be the increase in the growth elasticity of poverty Kapoor, (2013) In addition to this, the intergenerational mobility is low, and it does not provide any sign of rising, which means the percolation of inequalities of opportunity.6 Dealing with these inequalities would not only raise social justice but it could also provoke inequality-deadening inclusive growth This could be likely done through increasing the level of education specifically amongst the poor It is evident from the empirical analysis that the reduction of poverty has become a very difficult task to achieve due to the rising inequality Therefore, attainment of pro-poor growth eventually becomes an important goal to achieve in a country like India where the benefits of the growth process are not fairly enjoyed by the poor Moreover, if India fails in achieving the pro-poor growth then, it will become more difficult to address the problem of poverty and the poor will not be benefitted via growth alone Dang & Lanjouw, (2018) Conclusion In this paper, author assessed the impact of growth and inequality on changes in rural and urban poverty on India during the periods of 1993-94 to 2004-05 and 2004-05 to 2011-12 The author in his analysis found out that the indicators of growth and poverty have shown the positive results during the period 1993-2012 Although, certain fluctuations can be observed in the first period 1993-94 to 2004-05 as compared to the second period 2004-05 to 2011-12 But, there has been a continuous increase in inequality There has been significant reduction in poverty due to the high growth rate of MPCE in the second period as compared to the first one Change in rural poverty is also greater than the change in urban poverty in the second period Redistribution effect is also lower in the rural area as against the urban area in the See Inequality of what? Inequality between whom? Huminity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries Page | 12 second period Therefore, we can say that, the result of the comparison of two sub periods is in the favour of the latter one because of greater reduction in poverty, high growth of MPCE smaller effect of inequality PPGI has increased in the second period but, it is still less than one which means that the growth lacks the characteristics of pro-poor growth For growth to be pro-poor, PEGR should be greater than the mean income growth rate or actual growth rate But, the result of the study shows that PEGR is less than the mean income growth rate It clearly implies that, although the growth is poverty reducing, it is accompanied with the inequality which is acting as a barrier in the process of turning the growth to pro-poor growth Therefore, the focus of the policymakers should be on finding the solution of increasing inequality and making the growth, pro-poor so that, the poor will be able to get maximum benefits from the growth process The new research should help in the progress of healthy debates on the topic what more can be done to depart from growth to pro-poor growth in India References Anand, S., & Kanbur, S M (1993) The Kuznets process and the inequality - development relationship * Journal of Development Economics, 40, 25–52 Bhanumurthy, N R., & Mitra, A (2004) Economic Growth , Poverty , and Inequality in Indian States in the Pre-reform and Reform Periods Asian Development Review, 21(2), 79–99 Bourguignon, F (2000) Can Redistribution Accelerate Growth and Development ?, (March) Brock, W A., & Durlauf, S N (2000) GROWTH ECONOMICS AND REALITY Chance, l L., & Piketty, T (2017) Indian income inequality, 1922-2015: From British Raj to Billionaire Raj WID.World Working Paper Series, (July) Retrieved from http://wid.world/document/chancelpiketty2017widworld/ Chen, S., & Ravallion, M (2001) HOW DID THE WORLD‟S POOREST FARE IN THE 1990s? Review of Income and Wealth, (3), 283–300 Chenery, H., Ahluwalia, M S., Jolly, R., Bell, C L G., & Duloy, J H (1979) Redistribution With Growth Economist (United Kingdom) Dang, H.-A., & Lanjouw, P (2018) Why inequality in India is on the rise WIDER Working Paper Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/indiaatlse/2013/03/27/why-inequality-inindia-is-on-the-rise/ Datt, G., & Ravallion, M (1992) Growth and Redistribution Components of Changes in Poverty Measures A Decomposition with Applications to Brazil and India in the 1980s Page | 13 Deininger, K., & Squire, L (1998) New ways of looking at old issues : inequality and growth Journal of Development Economics, 57 Dollar, D., & Kraay, A (2000) Growth Is Good for the Poor Development Reseach Group, the World Bank Forbes, K J (2000) A Reassessment of the Relationship Between Inequality and Growth American Economic Review, 90(4), 869–887 https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.869 Himanshu (2007) Recent Trends in Poverty and Inequality : Some Preliminary Results Economic and Political Weekly, (February 2007) https://doi.org/10.2307/4419235 IMF, UN, OECD, & Bank, W (2000) A Better World for All Inequality of what? Inequality between whom? (n.d.) Huminity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries Kakwani, N (1993) POVERTY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH APPLICATION TO C~TE D‟IVOIRE Review of Income and Wealth, (2) Kakwani, N., Khandker, S., & Son, H H (2004) PRO-POOR GROWTH: CONCEPTS AND MEASUREMENT WITH COUNTRY CASE STUDIES Kakwani, N., & Pernia, E M (2000) What is pro-poor growth? Asian Development Review, 18(1), 1–16 Kapoor, R (2013) Inequality Matters Economic & Political Weekly, xlviII(2) https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt19b9mpw.53 Klasen, S (2010) ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series Measuring and Monitoring Inclusive Growth : Multiple Definitions , Open Questions , and Some Constructive Proposals Measuring and Monitoring Inclusive Growth :, (12) Mazumdar, D., & Son, H H (2001) Vulnerable Groups and the Labor Market in Thailand, (October) Mishra, S (2015) DECOMPOSING POVERTY CHANGE: DECIPHERING CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION AND BEYOND Review of Income and Wealth, (4), 799–811 https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12155 Oommen, M A (2011) On the Issue of „Inclusive Growth.‟ Economic & Political Weekly, xlvi(29), 158–159 Ranieri, R., & Ramos, R A (2013) INCLUSIVE GROWTH : BUILDING UP A CONCEPT Son, H H (2003) A NEW POVERTY DECOMPOSITION Hyun Thorat, S., & Dubey, A (2012) Has Growth Been Socially Inclusive during 1993-94 – 200910? Economic & Political Weekly, xlvii(10), 43–54 Weisskopf, T E (2011) Why Worry about Inequality in the Booming Indian Economy? Economic and Political Weekly, XLVI(47), 41–51 Page | 14 ... rural area (1.64) and urban area (4.05) Overall, in both periods all indices of PPGI have low values as compared to the actual growth rate in both rural and urban areas that denies the actual growth. .. improvement and moving towards But a large variation can be easily observed among all indices Headcount ratio is very near towards the pro poor growth while other indices are far from pro- poor growth. .. urban areas Apparently, the literature available on the given issue show that the combined study of decomposition of poverty, pro- poor growth and how much growth is required to make growth pro- poor