- Indonesian military plane crash death toll rises to 74
- Eurogroup turned down Greek bailout extension, says Finnish FinMin Alexander Stubb
- Disappointment creeping in over Modi govt's reform pace: Moody's
- Dholpur Palace: Congress' fresh document says it's a govt property
- Greece will not pay IMF debt on Tuesday: Finance minister
Greater economic growth, not more subsidy, has resulted in poverty falling like never before
Given how poverty levels have fallen sharply, from 37.2 per cent of the population in 2004-05 to 21.9 per cent in 2011-12, the question is whether this is due to rising economic growth or a more sprawling subsidy regime. Since the government plans to bring in the Food Security Bill, it is easy to guess what it believes, or calculates, to be the way forward. The fact that the proportion of the GDP being spent on subsidies has also gone up during this period suggests that the growth-versus-dole impact is not entirely clear.
Dissect the numbers a little, however, and the picture looks different. For one, poverty reduction increased in the high-growth years — even intuitively, the fact that high-growth states have less poor people suggests that growth is the big differentiator. Between 1994 and 2004-05, when the economy grew at an average of 6.1 per cent a year, poverty levels fell 0.74 percentage points per year. Between 2004-05 and 2009-10, when GDP growth picked up to 8.7 per cent per year, poverty levels fell by an average of 1.48 percentage points each year, or at double the pace. Expenditure on subsidies, however, rose by a smaller amount, from around 1.3 per cent of the GDP in the 1994-05 period to 1.7 per cent in the 2005-2010 period. The food subsidy, which is the critical one, remained more or less constant as a proportion of the GDP during this period.