Income Inequality in India: An Empirical Analysis of Changing Paradigms
top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Economics and Business

Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2775-9237 (Online)

asian institute research, jeb, journal of economics and business, economics journal, accunting journal, business journal, managemet journal
asian institute research, jeb, journal of economics and business, economics journal, accunting journal, business journal, managemet journal
asian institute research, jeb, journal of economics and business, economics journal, accunting journal, business journal, managemet journal
asian institute research, jeb, journal of economics and business, economics journal, accunting journal, business journal, managemet journal
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 08 August 2023

Income Inequality in India: An Empirical Analysis of Changing Paradigms

Naveen, N. M. P. Verma

Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Lucknow, India

asian institute research, jeb, journal of economics and business, economics journal, accunting journal, business journal, management journal

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1992.06.03.524

Pages: 108-124

Keywords: Colonial India, Five Year Plan, Income Inequality, National Income, Planned Economy, Post-reform Period

Abstract

In this paper we have analysed economic inequality in India more specifically expressed in terms of income inequality in an empirical and historical frame. The period to which the analysis belongs is predominantly consists of the two phases, first the colonial period and second the post-independent era. The analysis for post independent India is presented in two phases, the planned economy period from 1950 to 1990 and the post reform economic policy regime from 1991 to 2020. We have presented in most precise and in brief the estimates of some of the most notable quantitative enquiries through empirical trends and patterns. We have also presented broad interpretations concerning the predominance of institutional and technical factors that govern and prolong the status of economic affluence in a society in congruence to specifically distinct historical phases signifying the primacy of these factors in determining the scope of production and exchange in the economy. The inferences drawn on the basis of the estimates of income distribution available at our disposal reflect high income inequality during much of the colonial period. Amidst the limitations, concerning the availability and the robustness of data, we find that self-determination in form of political freedom has the potential to generate and maintain conditions for greater economic equality which we observe during planned economic development in India. However this potential is limited by state of technology and optimized by institutional development concerning public goods within the broad purview of modern welfare state.

References

  1. Ahluwalia, M. S. (1976). Inequality, Poverty and Development. Journal of Development Economics, 3(4), 307-342.

  2. Ahluwalia, M. S. (2011). Prospects and Policy Challenges in the Twelfth Plan. Economic and Political weekly, 88-105.

  3. Alvaredo, F., Bergeron, A., & Cassan, G. (2017). Income Concentration in British India, 1885–1946. Journal of Development Economics, 127, 459-469.

  4. Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2017). Global Inequality Dynamics: New Findings from WID. world. American Economic Review, 107(5), 404-409.

  5. Anand, I., & Thampi, A. (2016). Recent Trends in Wealth Inequality In India. Economic and Political Weekly, 59-67.

  6. Atkinson, A. B., Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2011). Top Incomes in the Long Run of History. Journal of economic literature, 49(1), 3-71.

  7. Banerjee, A., & Piketty, T. (2005). Top Indian Incomes, 1922–2000. The World Bank Economic Review, 19(1), 1-20.

  8. Banerjee, A., Gethin, A., & Piketty, T. (2019). Growing Cleavages in India? Evidence from the changing structure of electorates, 1962–2014.

  9. Bardhan, P. (2007). Poverty and Inequality in China and India: Elusive Link with Globalisation. Economic and Political Weekly, 3849-3852.

  10. Beteille, A. (2003). Poverty and Inequality. Economic and Political Weekly, 4455-4463.

  11. Chancel, L., & Piketty, T. (2019). Indian Income Inequality, 1922-2015: From British Raj to Billionaire Raj?. Review of Income and Wealth, 65, S33-S62.

  12. Dixon, R., & Suk, J. (2018). Liberal Constitutionalism and Economic Inequality. U. Chi. L. Rev., 85, 369.

  13. Engberg-Pedersen, L. (2013). Development Goals Post 2015: Reduce Inequality. Copenhagen: DIIS.

  14. Himanshu, H. (2019). Inequality in India: A Review of Levels and Trends. WIDER Working Paper 2019/42, United nations University.

  15. Institute for Competiveness, State of Inequality in India Report, 2021. https://competitiveness.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Report_on_State_of_Inequality-in_India_Web_Version.pdf

  16. Kohli, A. (2006): “Politics of Economic Growth in India, 1980-2005: Part I: The 1980s,” Economic and Political Weekly, 1251–1259.

  17. Kumar, R. (2019). The Evolution of Wealth-Income Ratios in India 1860-2012.

  18. Kundu, A., & Mohanan, P. C. (2009, April). Employment and Inequality Outcomes in India. In Joint Seminar on Employment and Inequality, organized by the Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Directorate and Development Centre, Paris (Vol. 8, pp. 1-43).

  19. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.

  20. Maddison, A. (1971), Class Structure and Economic Growth: India and Pakistan Since the Moghuls, Allen and Unwin, London.

  21. Maddison, A. (2001). The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, Development Centre Studies, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development. (p. 27).

  22. Milanovic, Branko, Peter H. Lindert, and Jeffrey G. Williamson. "Measuring Ancient Inequality." (2007).

  23. Milanovic, B., Lindert, P. H., & Williamson, J. G. (2011). Pre-industrial Inequality. The Economic Journal, 121(551), 255-272.

  24. Oxfam India, 2023. Survival of the Richest: The India Story. Oxfam. https://d1ns4ht6ytuzzo.cloudfront.net/oxfamdata/oxfamdatapublic/202301/India%20Supplement%202023_digital.pdf?kz3wav0jbhJdvkJ.fK1rj1k1_5ap9FhQ

  25. Pal, P., & Ghosh, J. (2007). Inequality in India: A Survey of Recent Trends. Flat World, Big Gaps: Economic Liberalization, Globalization, Poverty and Inequality. UN Publications, New York.

  26. Palma, José Gabriel, 2011.“Homogeneous Middles vs. Heterogeneous Tails, and the End of the ‘Inverted-U’: It’s all about the Share of the Rich”. in Development and Change, Vol. 42, No. 1, 87-153.

  27. Paris School of Economics, World Inequality Lab, WID.world. (2023). https://wid.world/wid-world/

  28. Paris School of Economics, World Inequality Lab, WID.world. (2023).https://wid.world/data/#countrytimeseries/sptinc_p90p100_z;sptinc_p0p50_z;sptinc_p50p90_z/IN/1820/2021/eu/k/p/yearly/s

  29. Paris School of Economics, World Inequality Lab, WID.world. (2023). https://wid.world/data/#countrytimeseries/gptinc_p0p100_z/IN/1951/2021/eu/k/p/yearly/g

  30. Paris School of Economics, World Inequality Lab, World Inequality Report (2022), p. 10 of the report

  31. and p. 19 of section, Country Sheet, Russia.

  32. https://wir2022.wid.world/www-site/uploads/2023/03/D_FINAL_WIL_RIM_RAPPORT_2303.pdf

  33. Paris School of Economics, World Inequality Lab, World Inequality Report (2022), p. 37

  34. Roy, T. (2014). Geography or Politics? Regional Inequality in Colonial India. European Review of Economic History, 18(3), 324-348.

  35. Roy, T. (2018). Inequality in Colonial India. Economic History Working Papers, 286, London School of Economics.

  36. Stein, B. (1999). Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India. Oxford University Press.

  37. Sundrum, R. M. (1974). Aspects of Economic Inequality in Developing Countries. The Bangladesh Economic Review, 2(1), 445-468.

  38. Zagha, R. (2013). India's Inequality: An Uneasy Reconciliation with Economic Growth. Current History, 112(753), 137-145.

bottom of page