The Evolution of Consumption and Wealth Inequality in India: A Quantitative Assessment

Subramanian, S.; Jayaraj, D.

doi:10.1515/jgd-2013-0018

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, absolute inequality, as captured by the Standard Deviation and the Absolute Gini, has increased dramatically and unabated throughout the period analysed. Like these absolute measures, our centrist inequality indicators, the Krtscha measure and the intermediate Gini recently advanced by Subramanian and Jayaraj (), also register a very pronounced increase in inequality over the decades.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…Furthermore, the Absolute Gini

true(A G true)

is given by:

A G true(bold-italicx true) = \overset{x}{true} G true(bold-italicx true),

while various possible intermediate Gini coefficients can be entertained. We use a version recently advanced by Subramanian and Jayaraj (),

I G

, which is given simply by the product of the relative and absolute Gini coefficients:

I G true(bold-italicx true) = G true(bold-italicx true) \cdot \overset{x}{true} G true(bold-italicx true) .

…”

Section: Inequality Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Global Inequality: Relatively Lower, Absolutely Higher

Niño‐Zarazúa

Roope

Tarp³

2016

Review of Income and Wealth

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper measures trends in global interpersonal inequality during 1975-2010 using data from the most recent version of the World Income Inequality Database (WIID). The picture that emerges using absolute, and even centrist measures of inequality, is very different from the results obtained using standard relative inequality measures such as the Gini coefficient or Coefficient of Variation. Relative global inequality has declined substantially over the decades. In contrast, absolute inequality, as captured by the Standard Deviation and Absolute Gini, has increased considerably and unabated. Like these absolute measures, our centrist inequality indicators, the Krtscha measure and an intermediate Gini, also register a pronounced increase in global inequality, albeit, in the case of the latter, with a decline during 2005 to 2010. A critical question posed by our findings is whether increased levels of inequality according to absolute and centrist measures are inevitable at today s per capita income levels. Our analysis suggests that it is not possible for absolute inequality to return to 1975 levels without further convergence in mean incomes among countries. Inequality, as captured by centrist measures such as the Krtscha, could return to 1975 levels, at today s domestic and global per capita income levels, but this would require quite dramatic structural reforms to reduce domestic inequality levels in most countries.JEL Codes: D31, D63, E01, O15

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…Furthermore, the Absolute Gini

true(A G true)

is given by:

A G true(bold-italicx true) = \overset{x}{true} G true(bold-italicx true),

while various possible intermediate Gini coefficients can be entertained. We use a version recently advanced by Subramanian and Jayaraj (),

I G

, which is given simply by the product of the relative and absolute Gini coefficients:

I G true(bold-italicx true) = G true(bold-italicx true) \cdot \overset{x}{true} G true(bold-italicx true) .

…”

Section: Inequality Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Inequality: Relatively Lower, Absolutely Higher

Niño‐Zarazúa

Roope

Tarp³

2016

Review of Income and Wealth

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Household income: It is represented by the proportion of per capita non-food expenditures to total consumption expenditures. This proportion captures the variation in the non-food expenditure, which is more likely to capture the inequality rather than a simple nominal food expenditure, where the variation is relatively less across households (Basole & Basu, 2015;Ravallion, 2014;Subramanian & Jayaraj, 2013). Considering the hill region as the benchmark category, two locational dummies have been incorporated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Household’s Choice of Fuel for Cooking in Developing Countries: Evidence from Nepal

Giri

Goswami

2018

Journal of Development Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the Nepal Living Standard Survey (NLSS) data, this article identifies the determinants of household's choice of energy for the purpose of cooking and verifies the energy ladder hypothesis (ELH). A multinomial logit model (MNL) is applied to fulfil this objective. It has been found that cleaner energy is more likely to be used in households where the head of the family has a higher level of education and a higher level of income, whereas larger households and households with higher proportion of dependent members, older person or female as head of the family and rural households are less likely to use cleaner energy. Households located in a place far from markets also do not choose cleaner energy. Further, the likelihood of using cleaner energy in the mountain and Terai regions is less than that in the hilly region. This article applies an ordered logit to the same set of data and confirms the robustness of the results. Suitable policy measures have been suggested to enable a transition towards cleaner sources of energy instead of inferior sources in Nepal.

show abstract

“…Apart from the problem of data, there is a problem of conceptual adequacy in addressing the issue of inequality. It is pertinent to note that the Ahluwalia-Bhalla diagnosis of roughly unchanging-over-time inequality is largely a function of the sort of inequality measure employed: the standard Gini coefficient is a wholly relative measure of inequality, and we advocate a more plural approach to inequality assessment, one which finds space for both absolute and intermediate measures of inequality (see also Jayaraj and Subramanian 2012;Subramanian and Jayaraj 2013). A particularly useful intermediate measure of inequality is the Krtscha (1994) measure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Growth and inequality in the distribution of India’s consumption expenditure, 1983 to 2009-10

Subramanian¹,

Jayaraj²

2015

WIDER Working Paper

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper undertakes an assessment of the evolution of inequality in the distribution of consumption expenditure in India over the last quarter-century, from 1983 to 2009-10, employing data available in the quinquennial 'thick' surveys of the National Sample Survey Office. We find that plausible adjustments to the data, along with an emphasis on 'centrist' rather than 'rightist' or 'leftist' inequality measures, lead to a picture of inequality in the distribution of consumption expenditure widening over time, which is at odds with the impression of more or less unchanging inequality conveyed in some of the literature available on the subject in India.

show abstract

The Evolution of Consumption and Wealth Inequality in India: A Quantitative Assessment

Cited by 19 publications

References 16 publications

Global Inequality: Relatively Lower, Absolutely Higher

Global Inequality: Relatively Lower, Absolutely Higher

Determinants of Household’s Choice of Fuel for Cooking in Developing Countries: Evidence from Nepal

Growth and inequality in the distribution of India’s consumption expenditure, 1983 to 2009-10

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About