Journal of Quantitative Economics

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 305–312 | Cite as

A Very Simple Money-Metric Welfare Indicator for India Based on the Quintile Income Statistic

Notes and Short Articles
First Online:

Abstract

Kaushik Basu’s work on what he has called ‘the quintile income statistic’, and more recently, an ‘index of shared prosperity’, moves away from the standard practice of identifying an economy’s welfare with its mean per capita income to a more poverty-focused indicator that concentrates attention on the average income of the poorest 20 % of a country’s population. This indicator, arguably, furnishes a more directly and purely income-related assessment of poverty than do indices based on the standard ‘identification-cum-aggregation’ approach to measuring poverty. The latter entail the computation of a headcount ratio of the population below a ‘poverty line’, which is subject to alternative arbitrary specifications that can cause vast divergences in calculated magnitudes and trends. In this brief note we advance an extremely simple quintile-income related indicator of welfare which may be of interest and use for national and international agencies in tracking an aspect of money-metric poverty.

Keywords

Income Means Ends Quintile income statistic Welfare indicator India 

JEL Classification

C43 D31 D63 I32 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Basu, K. 2001. On the goals of development. In Frontiers of development economics: the future in perspective, ed. G.M. Meier and J.E.Stiglitz. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Basu, K. 2006. Globalization, poverty, and inequality: what is the relationship? What can be done? World Development 34(8): 1361–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu, K. 2013. Shared prosperity and the mitigation of poverty: In Practice and in precept. World Bank research working paper, No. 670. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  4. Himanshu, 2007. Recent trends in poverty and inequality: some preliminary results. Economic and Political Weekly 42(5): 497–508.Google Scholar
  5. Mahendra Dev, S., and C. Ravi. 2007. Poverty and inequality: all-India and states. Economic and Political Weekly 42(5): 497–508.Google Scholar
  6. Planning Commission. 1993. Report of the expert group on estimation of proportion and number of poor. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
  7. Planning Commission. 2009. Report of the expert group to review the methodology for estimation of poverty. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
  8. Planning Commission. 2014. Report of the expert group to review the methodology for measurement of poverty. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
  9. Reddy, S.G. 2007. The Great Indian poverty debate. Development 50(2): 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Reddy, S.G., and T. Pogge. 2010. How not to count the poor. In Debates on the measurement of global poverty, ed. S. Anand, P. Segal, and J.E. Stiglitz. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Sen, A.K. 1976. Real national income. Review of Economic Studies 43(1): 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sen, A.K. 1983. Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers 35(2): 153–169.Google Scholar
  13. Sen, A.K. 1985. Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Sen, A. 2001. Consumer expenditure, distribution and poverty: implications of the NSS \(55{{\rm th}}\) round. In Macroscan: an alternative economics webcentre. http://www.macroscan.org/anl/jan01/Abhijit_Sen.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2012.
  15. Subramanian, S. 2009. A practical proposal for simplifying the measurement of income poverty. In Arguments for a better world: essays in honour of Amartya Sen. Ethics, welfare, and measurement, 1st ed, ed. K. Basu, and R. Kanbur. Clarendon: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Subramanian, S., and D. Jayaraj. 2013. The evolution of consumption and wealth inequality in India: a quantitative assessment. Journal of Globalization and Development 4(2): 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sundaram, K., and S.D. Tendulkar. 2003. Poverty has declined in the 1990s: a resolution of comparability problems in NSS consumer expenditure data. Economic and Political Weekly 38(4): 327–337.Google Scholar
  18. The World Bank. 2015. The global monitoring report 2014/2015: ending poverty and sharing prosperity. http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-report. Accessed 3 March 2015.

Copyright information

© The Indian Econometric Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Madras Institute of Development StudiesChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations