dna edit: Growth, but of what kind?

The debate over the food security bill last year generated a substantial amount of dialogue about various growth models with prominent economists lining up on various sides. This is to the good.

The more informed public debate there is about various avenues to achieve growth — and, for that matter, how exactly to define the term — the better. Recently released data on infant morality rates (IMR) — one of the most significant indicators of health and development — culled from the sample registration system survey conducted by the census office in 2012 highlights just why this is so.

The dichotomy between growth figures and human development indices in various parts of the country is well known by now. What the data does is present a more granular image, showing that state growth figures can be misleading even on an intra-state level. Thus, at one end of the spectrum, Madhya Pradesh, with the highest IMR in the country of 60 deaths before the first year per 1,000 live births, has a much lower IMR of 46 in its south west. At the other end, Maharashtra — which has an IMR of 30, well below the national IMR of 42 — suffers an IMR of 51 in the Vidarbha region.

IMR statistics are far from the only data illuminating the debate between the trickle-down economic model and the human development-focused one. Sex ratios, for instance, throw up some knotty issues. With 918 women per 1,000 men, for instance, Gujarat — a state headlining growth stories — is below the national average of 940 as per the 2011 census. Worse, the trend is one of decline; the 2001 census showed a child sex ratio of 921. Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh — wealthy states all — with ratios of 877, 893 and 818 respectively add more data points.

Almost a quarter of a century ago, the first UN human development report was an explicit rebuttal to Reaganomics, showing that wealth neither mapped exactly to human wellbeing, nor encompassed it entirely. In 2010, it further expanded on the idea, adding an inequality-adjusted human development index to the report — this time, showing the importance of median growth rather than the mean growth figures that tend to grab headlines. This is particularly pertinent to India given where it finds itself on its growth trajectory as of now. Income inequality has doubled in the country from the 1990s with the top 10 per cent of wage earners making 12 times more than the bottom 10 per cent. Even through the middle of the distribution, there are wide disparities. Given this, it is difficult to argue that trickle-down economics is most efficient way forward; a rapid growth at the top end of the spectrum might result in impressive GDP figures, but unequal distribution is bound to result in human development discrepancies.

It is no one’s case that overall growth does not reduce poverty, of course. And it would be dangerously reductive to argue that proponents of trickle-down economics don’t care about the poor or that those focusing on human development don’t care about growth as partisans on both sides often do. But with the country going into election mode and the economy figuring heavily on political agendas, a healthy debate on priorities and focuses is a must.