Interrelationship Between Poverty, Growth, and Inequality in India: A Spatial Approach

  • Sandip SarkarEmail author
  • Samarjit Das


The paper studies on the mechanism of poverty, growth, and inequality in India, in a spatial framework. A balanced panel data set, from five consecutive National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) rounds, has been constructed. The state regions are NSSO stratum and are combinations of different districts of a state of India. We consider a parametric approach that considers not only growth and inequality but also their interactions in the poverty estimation equation. Since the state regions used for this analysis are based on fixed boundaries, and constitution of India allows free movement of citizens, we have also controlled different kinds of spatial dependencies in the model. It has been observed that as a result of increment of poverty of a region, the neighboring state regions’ poverty also increases. This is possible due to migration. Our empirical findings also suggest a possible higher number of migrants which are belonging to the class of richer poor. We find as a result of growth poverty reduces but increases due to economic inequality. The policy variables play an important role in the poverty estimation equation and the signs of the coefficient are also appropriate. Several spatially transformed variables that has been incorporated in the poverty estimation equation are found to be statistically significant.


Poverty Growth Inequality Spatial approach India 



We sincerely acknowledge one anonymous referee for comments on an earlier version of this paper. We also acknowledge Manoranjan Pal and Sattwik Santra for helpful comments. This paper is a part of PhD thesis of Sandip Sarkar awarded by the Indian Statistical Institute in 2015. The usual disclaimer applies.


  1. Adams, R. (2004). Economic growth, inequality and poverty: Estimating the growth elasticity of poverty. World Development, 32, 1989–2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin, L. (2009). Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Bourguignon, F. (2003). The growth elasticity of poverty reduction: Explaining heterogeneity across countries and time periods. In T. Eicher & S. Turnovsky (Eds.), Inequality and growth: Theory and policy implications (pp. 3–26). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chambers, D., & Dhongde, S. (2011). A non-parametric measure of poverty elasticity. Review of Income and Wealth, 57, 683–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Du, Y., Park, A., & Wang, S. (2005). Migration and rural poverty in china. Journal of Comparative Economics, 33, 688–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foster, J. E., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica, 52, 761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gundlach, E., de Navarro, P. J., & Weisert, N. (2004). Education is good for the poor: A note on dollar and kraay. In A. Shorrocks & R. van der Hoeven (Eds.), Inequality and growth: Theory and policy implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirway, I. (2003). Identification of bpl households for poverty alleviation programmes. Economic and Political Weekly, 38, 4803–4038.Google Scholar
  10. Kalwij, A., & Verschoor, A. (2007). Not by growth alone: The role of the distribution of income in regional diversity in poverty reduction. European Economic Review, 51, 805–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pradhan, J. (1993). Drought in kalahandi-the real story. Economic and Political Weekly, 28.Google Scholar
  12. Ram, R. (2007). Roles of income and equality in poverty reduction: Recent cross-country evidence. Journal of International Development, 19, 919–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ravallion, M., & Datt, G. (1998). Why have some indian states done better than others at reducing rural poverty? Economica, 65, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ravallion, M., & Datt, G. (2002). Why has economic growth been more pro-poor in some states of india than others? Journal of Development Economics, 68, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sen, A. K. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44, 219–231.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith, K. R. (1993). Fuel combustion, air pollution exposure, and health: The situation in developing countries. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 18, 529–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sung, Y. J., & Khagram, S. (2005). A comparative study of inequality and corruption. American Sociological Review, 70, 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zaman, K., & Khilji, B. A. (2013). The relationship between growth-inequality-poverty triangle and pro-poor growth policies in pakistan: The twin disappointments. Economic Modelling, 30, 375–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Studies in Social SciencesKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Indian Statistical InstituteKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations