Page 158 - ES 2020-21_Volume-1-2 [28-01-21]
P. 158

Inequality and Growth: Conflict or Convergence?  141


             4.21  Using a panel  of 21 states  for 4 years, 1993-94, 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12, the
             relationship between economic growth and poverty is analysed (Table 1) .  The variables used
                                                                                   5
             in the regression are as defined in Box 3.

                                    Table 1: Impact of Economic Growth on Poverty

              Dependent  variable  is  log   Rural+Urban             Rural                 Urban
              of Head Count Ratio:

              Ln (Real NSDP per capita)  -0.453***    -0.711*  -0.448***   -0.650*  -0.445***    -0.623*
                                            (-4.76)   (-2.47)    (-3.78)   (-2.16)     (-4.86)   (-2.28)
              Ln(Real Government Welfare             -0.149**             -0.144**             -0.176***
              expenditure per BPL family)             (-3.54)              (-3.29)               (-4.42)
              Inflation rate (in  percent)            -0.0014             -0.00145              -0.00157
                                                      (-0.52)              (-0.51)               (-0.61)
              Rich to poor ratio of MPCE              0.595*               0.618*                 0.406
                                                       (2.23)               (2.22)                 (1.6)
              Literacy rate  percent (in 1991)       -0.00232             -0.00604              0.00491
                                                      (-0.17)              (-0.43)                (0.38)
              Life expectancy at                      0.0281               0.0482                -0.0178
              birth-years (in 1991)                    (0.69)               (1.13)               (-0.46)
              Gini for land                            -3.385               -4.972                0.595
              distribution (in 1991)                  (-1.01)              (-1.42)                (0.19)
              State Fixed Effects           Yes        Yes        Yes       Yes        Yes        Yes
              R-squared                     0.27       0.38      0.19       0.31      0.28       0.44
              N                             84         63         84         63        84         63
             t-statistics in parentheses; * p<0.05, **p<0.01, *** p<0.001

               Box 3: Sources and definitions of variables used in panel regressions in Table 1

               •  The fraction of population below the poverty line, measured in terms of headcount ratio (POVR),
                  estimated by Tendulkar Committee for 2011-12 (erstwhile Planning Commission) is used as the
                  dependent variable.
               •  For income, real per capita Net State Domestic Product (PCY) at 2011-12 prices is sourced from
                  Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
               •  Consumer Price Index for Agriculture Labour (base = 1986-87) sourced from Labour Bureau is
                  taken as measure of inflation rate (INF).
               •  Cumulative average of social sector expenditure (EXP) by states per below poverty line person
                  for the years 1993-94, 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12 is sourced from Reserve Bank of India
                  reports on Handbook of Statistics on State Government Finances and State Finances: A Study of
                  State Budgets. Cumulative average captures the accumulated effect of public sector expenditure
                  on poverty better compared to the expenditure in a particular year.


             5 Based on availability of data, 21 major states were covered, excluding Union Territories, North Eastern States
             except Tripura, Goa and Jammu & Kashmir. Because of the issues of comparability, as the design of the 55th round
             1999-2000 questionnaire was different from that in earlier rounds, estimates of poverty for 1999-2000 are not used
             in the analysis.
   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163