SEARCHING FOR INCLUSION IN ECONOMIC GROWTH IN INDIA

Abhijit Mukhopadhyay Rakhi Singh Saranya Elizebeth Saji According to a recent report published by Goldman Sachs, India is projected to be the third largest economy in the world by 2050. Some may disagree with the exuberance showed by such reports but it remains a fact that in spite of recent recessionary trends in world, India along with China showed some of the better growth rates in GDP in the last few years. As we can see from the following table India has coped well with recession in 2008-09 and Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation estimated the growth rate for 2009-10 to be 7.4 per cent. On top of that, International Monetary Fund (IMF) expects Indian GDP to grow at 8.0 per cent in 2010-11. Annual growth rate of real GDP at factor cost (in percentage)
* Figures are based on new series at 2004-05 prices Source: Economic Survey, 2009-10

2005-06 9.5

2006-07 9.7

2007-08 9.2

2008-09 6.7

However, for a developing country like India the healthy growth rates in GDP in the past few years have also brought in apprehension about the spread in the growth. In simple words, now when India is having more or less sustained growth in GDP, concerns are raised from different quarters about the benefit of this growth reaching all sections of the society. Unless the benefit reaches all sections of the society there is always a possibility of social, political and economic unrest. The multilateral funding agencies like IMF, ADB (Asian Development Bank) have also shown their concern for the same. As a result, the term inclusive growth is often used in economic and policy discussions now-a-days. Indian government has also emphasised the need of poverty reduction and an inclusive growth strategy in Indian economy. The term inclusive growth is often used interchangeably with other terms like broad based growth, shared growth and pro-poor growth. According to a note prepared by World Bank, Rapid and sustained poverty reduction requires inclusive growth that allows people to contribute to and benefit from economic growth. i Though traditionally in economics the analysis of poverty and growth have been done separately, now some economists are arguing that inclusive growth has linkages with both the pace and pattern of economic growth, particularly in a country like India. A Commission on Growth and Development (2008) instituted by World Bank defines inclusiveness as a concept that encompasses equity, equality of opportunity, and protection in market and employment transition. In other words, it emphasises the idea of equality of opportunity in terms of access to markets, resources and unbiased regulatory environment for business and individuals. The Commission also considered systematic inequality of opportunity toxic as it will derail the growth process through political channels or conflict. There are two different perspectives which had been often proposed to address the issue of inclusive 1

growth one is short term and the other is long term. In the short run the government can use income redistribution schemes to absorb negative impacts on the poor of policies intended to jump start growth. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) is one such good example of income redistribution scheme undertaken by the government. However, in the long run there is no other alternative than generating productive and meaningful employment to make economic growth inclusive. In a vastly populated country like India, it becomes very fundamental to address the issue of employment while incorporating the element of inclusion in economic growth. Then there is also a gap in defining statistical measures of inclusive growth in absolute term and a relative term. In relative term, it is said that the poorer section of the society should grow at a faster rate than the overall growth rate. Under the absolute definition, growth is considered to be pro-poor as long as poor people benefit in absolute terms, as reflected in some agreed measure of poverty. Realistically poverty reduction in absolute terms seems to be a better idea. This can be shown by a hypothetical example, a country growing at 3 per cent with the poor (say, bottom 20 per cent of the population in terms of income) growing at 2 per cent will be shown as a better performing economy as per relative definition of inclusive growth. A country growing at 8 per cent with the poor growing at 4 per cent will be considered badly performing compared to the first country if we consider the relative definition of inclusive growth. However, if we consider absolute benefit achieved for the poor then second country's poor would be growing at a faster rate, 1 per cent more, than the first country. In spite of remarkable escape and a disappointing monsoon India has managed to grow close to 7 per cent in 2009-10. However, in the last 15 years or so economic growth brought inequality across urban and rural areas, across states, and across rich and poor. Following diagram is based on figures derived by S. Subramanian of the Madras Institute of Development Studies. The diagram shows how the bottom 20 per cent of the population is lagging behind in terms of per capita income in the face of rising food inflation. The progress of Indian poor is described by Subramanian as modestly plodding climb out of considerable income deprivation.

Source: On deaf ears: Does India's government pay any heed to its economic advisers?, The Economist, March 4 th 2010.

Chief Economic Advisor of Indian Government, Kaushik Basu suggested that for growth to be inclusive it is not enough that the income of the bottom 20 per cent rise at the same percentage rate as the average. Instead, they should get an equal absolute share of the income the economy adds. If the economy grows by $100 billion in a year, the poorest fifth should get $20 billion. That is a high bar indeed. Certainly, it would be impolitic for the government to hold itself to such a demanding standard. But as Mr Basu noted... the advisors objectives are not always quite the same as the governments.ii So it is pretty evident that though there is a consensus to include entire population in the growth process, still there is a lack of consensus on how to achieve such inclusive growth. Following table gives us an idea about overall progress in poverty reduction in India. Total poverty has come down from 54.9 per cent in 1973-74 to 26.1 per cent in 1999-2000. Same trend can be seen in rural poverty which has come down from 56.4 per cent in 1973-74 to 27.1 per cent in 1999-2000, and in urban poverty which decreased from 49.0 per cent in 1973-74 to 23.6 per cent in 1999-2000. The new estimates are given in two different series one is comparable with 1993-94 estimates and other with 1999-2000. However, whichever estimate we take one can see that the reduction in poverty has slowed down around 2000-2005. This is precisely the time when Indian GDP started to go up but poverty reduction could not keep pace with that trend in GDP. And this is the problem which we discussed till now. Poverty Ratio (in terms of % to total population) Year 1973-74 1977-78 1983 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-051 (URP) 2004-052 (MRP)
1 2

Rural 56.4 53.1 45.6 39.1 37.3 27.1 28.3 21.8

Urban 49.0 45.2 40.8 38.2 32.4 23.6 25.7 21.7

Total 54.9 51.3 44.5 38.9 36.0 26.1 27.5 21.8

Comparable with 1993-94 estimates, URP = Uniform reference period Comparable with 1999-2000 estimates, MRP = Mixed reference period

Source: Planning Commission Estimates

Now if we check comparative performance of the states in terms of reduction in percentage population below poverty lines, over the years, then there are 5 representative states which have performed better than other states. If we look at the data both in terms of poverty reduction during the period between 1973-74 and 2004-05 and in terms of lower percentage of population below poverty line as on 2004-05, then these are the states those have fared better compared to many other states in the country. One interesting point to note is that just like all-India figures these states also experienced less amount of poverty reduction during the period between 2000 and 2005, compared to the period between 1994 and 2000. This trend possibly shows slight neglect on the part of the 3

government as far as poverty reduction is concerned. Some of the better performing states in terms of percentage of population below poverty line 1973-74 1983 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-05 (URP) 2004-05 (MRP) Andhra Pradesh Haryana Kerala Mizoram 48.86 35.36 59.79 50.32 28.91 22.19 21.37 25.05 40.42 25.43 36.00 25.66 24.24 25.17 15.77 8.74 12.72 19.47 3.48 15.80 14.00 15.00 12.60 5.40 11.10 9.90 11.40 9.50 4.20

Jammu and Kashmir 40.83

Source: Planning Commission Estimates Similarly we found out states which have done poorly both in terms of population below poverty line and in terms of poverty reduction. Interestingly the figures comparable to 1993-94 data (URP) show that percentage population below poverty line has actually increased in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Here also there is a distinct declining trend in poverty reduction after year 2000. Some of the poor performing states in terms of percentage of population below poverty line 1973-74 1983 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-05 (URP) 2004-05 (MRP) Bihar 61.91 62.22 54.96 42.60 41.40 32.50 Orissa 66.18 65.29 48.56 47.15 46.40 39.90 Madhya 61.78 49.78 42.52 37.43 38.30 32.40 Pradesh Maharashtra 53.24 43.44 36.86 25.02 30.70 25.52 Uttar 57.07 47.07 40.85 31.15 32.80 25.50 Pradesh
Source: Planning Commission Estimates

When we talk about inequality in Economics, it is often measured by gini coefficient. This is a statistical measure or ratio by which inequality in a distribution is shown. If the value of the coefficient is zero or closer to zero then it implies equal or closer to equal distribution. Similarly, if it is one or closer to one then it implies maximum inequality or closer to maximum inequality possible in the distribution. The following table shows gini coefficients at all-India and state level both for rural and urban areas, starting from 1973-74. The coefficients depict the telling story of inequality in India. In stark contrast to rising growth rates in Indian economy, gini coefficients did not decline as one would expect them to. The rural gini coefficient for India was 0.28 in 1973-74, and by 2004-05 it is up to 0.30 by URP figures and almost the same at 0.25 by MRP figure. Similarly, the urban gini coefficient was 0.30 in 1973-74, and it went up to 0.37 (URP) and 0.35 (MRP) in 2004-05. This shows that by any yardstick inequality has gone up in urban India. One reason can be the urban-centric development and more people migrating towards urban development nucleus from peripheral rural areas. Even if that is the case, it is not desirable as far as the concept of inclusive growth is concerned. The rural areas should also develop as much as the urban areas. If we see the data closely then we may find several categories. There are states like Assam where 4

urban inequality has gone down but rural inequality remains almost the same. We also have states like Bihar where urban inequality has gone down substantially but rural inequality has increased. States like Gujarat and Haryana are showing growing inequality both in rural and urban sector. States including West Bengal, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh all showing either very marginal improvement or deteriorating equality in income distribution. The philosophy behind economic growth relates to a trickle down effect to the bottom. In simple words, it means that if the economy grows at a faster rate then initially fewer people may benefit from it but in the longer run through spending and prosperity of these people economic activities in the entire economy will pick up and finally the benefit will start getting transferred to other sections at the bottom of the society. Since it is not happening then it is now been argued that the government has to spend money under various social sector schemes to redistribute and make a more favourable and equal income distribution in the country. And hence the need to have inclusive growth through social sector spending is justified. The idea on the part of the government is not to disturb the process of economic growth by ensuring smooth functioning of the economy but simultaneously the government has to be actively involved into correcting the income distribution through social sector spending. After almost 20 years of the initiation of liberalisation, this policy possibly needs a review since the inequality shown by the gini coefficients are not showing very encouraging trends all over India. Gini coefficients for India and states
State India Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Jharkhand Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Chhatisgarh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh Uttaranchal West Bengal 1973-74 Rural Urban 0.28 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.29 0.24 0.22 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.24 0.30 0.25 0.31 0.27 0.22 0.29 0.37 0.27 0.33 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.29 0.32 1983 Rural Urban 0.30 0.33 0.29 0.31 0.19 0.25 0.26 0.30 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.22 0.30 0.33 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.30 0.31 0.24 0.33 0.37 0.29 0.33 0.29 0.32 0.30 0.35 0.31 0.33 1993-94 Rural Urban 0.28 0.34 0.29 0.32 0.18 0.29 0.22 0.31 0.24 0.30 0.28 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.28 0.30 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.43 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.34 0.32 0.33 1999-2000 Rural Urban 0.26 0.34 0.24 0.31 0.20 0.31 0.21 0.32 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.17 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.38 0.33 0.34 2004-05 (URP) Rural Urban 0.30 0.37 0.29 0.37 0.19 0.32 0.20 0.33 0.22 0.35 0.27 0.31 0.32 0.36 0.30 0.24 0.26 0.34 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.32 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.32 0.24 0.36 0.40 0.39 0.43 0.37 0.35 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.37 0.32 0.38 2004-05(MRP) Rural Urban 0.25 0.35 0.24 0.34 0.17 0.30 0.17 0.31 0.20 0.33 0.25 0.32 0.31 0.36 0.26 0.20 0.23 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.36

Delhi 0.15 0.35 0.29 Source: Planning Commission Estimates

0.33

0.24

0.21

0.29

0.34

0.26

0.33

0.24

0.32

Another aspect of inclusive growth can get reflected in human development indicators. Till now growth and human development are not going together in case of Indian economy. India has been ranked quite lower on Human Development Indices, despite high economic growth. Human Development Accounting proposed a systematic examination of an exhaustive set of information about how human beings in each society live and what substantive freedoms they enjoy. Human Development Index (HDI) of UNDP is a composite measure of human development covering health, education as well as income. UNDP's 2010 Human Development Report (HDP) classifies India among one of the fastest growing economies in the world, but it classifies India in the medium human development category, ranking it 119 out of around 170 countries and areas. It scores above average among South Asian countries, but below average among other medium human development countries, such as China, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Chief economic advisor Kaushik Basu in Finance Ministry said, Its bad news for India on social indicators. Despite high economic growth, the life expectancy in India is 64 years compared to its neighbours. The ultimate development should be human development and not just economic growth.iii India is among top 10 performers in income growth but multi-dimensional poverty, gender gaps and rising inequality have been identified as the region's biggest challenges in Human Development Report 2010. UNDP Human Development Report 2010 divides the countries under four categories, viz. (a) very high human development, (b) high human development, (c) medium human development and (d) low human development. Norway, Australia, New Zealand, United States and Ireland are the top five countries in terms of human development with human development index (HDI) at around 0.9. These countries belong to very high human development category. Bahamas, Lithuania, Chile, Argentina and Kuwait are top five countries in high human development category with HDI over 0.77. India figures in almost at the bottom of medium human development category with an HDI of 0.519.iv To show the contrast we have only taken that portion of human development table which shows some of the medium human development category. India ranks a low 119 in the list for more than 170 countries. The table shows that there are even some economies with less per capita income than India like Cape Verde, Nikaragua, Vietnam, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Guana, Micronesia, Uzbekistan and Moldova, which rank above in HDI compared to India. Many economists feel that poor performance in human development indicators often leads to unsustainability of economic growth process. An improvement in human development is one of the essential cornerstones of long term economic growth. Many of the East Asian economies, in fact, instituted widespread human development even before the initiation of economic reform. Singapore is the best example of this model of development with an impressive HDI of 0.846. So in spite of good economic growth rates in the past few years India as a country has miles to go to achieve substantial human development. This also shows the lack of inclusiveness in economic growth.

Inequality brings in hardship for the sections at the bottom of the society. Rising growth rates did not bring in corresponding benefit to all sections of population in India. On the contrary, last 15 years' growth story has brought ineqality in income distribution. Earlier analysis of gini co-efficients conclusively proves that in rural areas inequality has increased and in some states even in urban areas inequality has gone up. An observation of poverty ratios also corroborates the fact that poverty reduction in the last 10 to 15 years at all levels is less than the same for the decade in 1980s. To make matters worse, India also experienced double-digit inflation in most parts of the year 2010. Following diagrams give us some idea about how inflationary pressure took away some shine off the good performance in economic growth. Primary articles, particularly the food items, showed almost 20 per cent inflation in some parts of the year. As we all know inflation hits the poor the hardest. If a poor person's food bill goes up by almost 20 per cent or 1/5 th of his or her earlier budget then subsistence becomes a difficult task. Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 16.22 14.86 14.86 13.33 13.91 13.73 11.25 9.88 9.82 2009 10.45 9.63 8.03 8.70 8.63 9.29 11.89 11.72 11.64 11.49 13.51 14.97 2008 5.51 5.47 7.87 7.81 7.75 7.69 8.33 9.02 9.77 10.45 10.45 9.70
*Thetableabovedisplaysthemonthlyaverage. Source:http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/InflationCPI.aspx?Symbol=INR

The table above (along with the following diagrams) shows the continuous double digit rise in price level, starting from October 2008. Recent figures in August and September 2010 show some kind of a reversal in that trend. Usually inflation is calculated on a point to point basis, which means August 2010 figures are compared with August 2009 figures to derive the growth rate in price level. Then 7

statistically there may be scepticism because in any case 2009 prices were high and then lower inflation figures in August and September may be partly explained by the higher base figures in 2009. In any case, given already existing inequality in income distribution double digit inflation always brings in acceleration in that existing inequality. And that is precisely why the issue of inclusion has to be addressed properly. Possibly that is why the main theme of 11 th Plan Documents has been kept as inclusive growth.

Source: Macroeconomic and Monetary Developments, Nov 1, 2010, RBI

To make the point about inequality stronger we can also look into the changes in per capita food availability (per annum) in India, over the years. Following table shows that per capita food availability per annum was 144.1 kg in 1951, which subsequently went up to 171.1 kg in 1961, 186.2 kg in 1991. This figure is significant because economic reform started in the year 1991-92. After 1991 one can see wide fluctuations in the value of per capita foodgrain availability and this trend continues even today. And the worst part is it went down from 1991 figure of 186.2 kg to 151.9 kg in 2001, went up a bit to 180.4 kg in 2002 but then once again slid back to 154.2 kg in 2005. Some marginal improvements can be seen in per capita availability of foodgrain per annum at the end of the decade and it is standing at 162.1 kg in 2009. However, a simple comparison of these data shows us that per capita availability of foodgrains is not only less than 1991 availability but also it is less than the availability in 1961. In a way, as a nation 8

we have gone back to the 1950s level as far as per capita availability of foodgrains is concerned. This statistical fact cannot be denied and this calls for some action as well. With a growth rate of 8 to 9 per cent in the country's GDP India cannot afford to ignore the population which still remains outside the purview of the benefit accrued by this economic growth. May be that is why theme of inclusive growth becomes much stronger in this context. PerCapitaNetAvailabilityofFoodgrains(perannum)inIndia (inkgsperyear) Years 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 1992 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Rice 58.0 73.4 70.3 72.2 80.9 79.2 80.3 74.2 74.3 69.5 83.5 66.2 71.3 64.7 72.3 70.8 64.0 68.8 Wheat 24.0 28.9 37.8 47.3 60.0 57.9 63.0 59.2 58.4 49.6 60.8 65.8 59.2 56.3 56.3 57.6 53.0 56.5 Other cereals 40.0 43.6 44.3 32.8 29.2 21.5 23.7 23.1 21.5 20.5 23.1 17.1 25.3 21.7 22.1 20.3 19.7 23.3 Cereals 122.0 145.9 152.4 152.3 171.0 158.6 167.0 156.7 154.3 141.0 167.4 149.1 155.8 142.7 150.7 148.7 143.9 148.6 Gram 8.2 11.0 7.3 4.9 4.9 3.7 5.4 5.3 3.9 2.9 3.9 3.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.3 3.9 4.7 Pulses 22.1 25.2 18.7 13.7 15.2 12.5 13.8 13.3 11.6 10.9 12.9 10.6 13.1 11.5 11.8 12.9 15.3 13.5 Foodgrains 144.1 171.1 171.1 166.0 186.2 171.1 180.8 170.0 165.9 151.9 180.4 159.7 168.9 154.2 162.5 161.6 159.2 162.1

Notes: 1ThenetavailabilityoffoodgrainsisestimatedtobeGrossProduction()seed,feed&wastage,()exports(+) imports,(+/)changeinstocks. 2Thenetavailabilityoffoodgrainsdividedbythepopulationestimatesforaparticularyearindicatepercapita availabilityoffoodgrainsintermsofkg/year.Netavailability,thusworkedoutfurtherdividedbythenumberofdaysin ayeari.e.,365daysgivesusnetavailabilityoffoodgrainsintermsofgrams/day. 3Figuresinrespectofpercapitanetavailabilitygivenabovearenotstrictlyrepresentativeofactuallevelof consumptioninthecountryespeciallyastheydonottakeintoaccountanychangeinstocksinpossessionoftraders, producersandconsumers. 4Forcalculationofpercapitanetavailabilitythefiguresofnetimportsfrom1981to1994arebasedonimportsand exportsonGovernmentofIndiaaccountonly.Netimportsfrom1995ownwardsarethetotalexportsandimports(on Governmentaswellasprivateaccounts) 5Cerealsincluderice,wheatandothercereals 6Pulsesincludeallkharifandrabipulses 7Foodgrainsincluderice,wheat,othercerealsandallpulses Source:AgriculturalStatisticsataGlance,2010,DirectorateofEconomicsandStatistics,DepartmentofAgriculture andCooperation.

Spending in social sector can be one part of this inclusive growth strategy. Providing basic facilities like health, education and housing can be the least that can be done to usher in inclusiveness. As emphasised earlier in this paper, a more important part is to develop some redistributive strategies in income distribution. NREGA is a good beginning in that direction but it needs to be extended to the 9

urban areas as well. More such creation of employment opportunities will create more inclusive space in the growth process. However, only organised sectors in our economy including services and IT sector are not capable to tackle the issue of unemployment fully. There comes the utility of various self-employment or selfhelp schemes, but these schemes can only be successful in generating employment if micro financing is available. The financial system including banks has to first identify these sectors that need support. Financial inclusion should be considered as the medium through which inclusive growth can be reached. Financial inclusion should be ideally treated as an integral strategy to achieve inclusive growth. Financial inclusion is encouraged mainly by the introduction of Self Help Groups and Kisan Credit Cards for providing credit to farmers. From 2005 onwards, Financial Inclusion was explicitly made as policy objective and thrust was on providing safe facility of savings through No Frills accounts. However, the high operating costs in remote areas and the small size of the transactions act as a constraint towards extending these services further. Extending credit to the underprivileged section in the rural and urban areas will enable us to attain the twin objectives of growth and poverty alleviation. But to achieve this, the government should provide a less perspective environment in which banks are free to pursue the innovations necessary to reach low income consumers. Needless to say, at least initially no private financial entities will venture into this territory and government has to share the burden of becoming initiator of such financial inclusion. Financial service providers should learn more about the consumers and new business models to reach them. Inclusive Growth seems to depend to a considerable extent on the success with which the credit delivery system extends its support to this process of generating employment, and in effect correct the prevailing income distribution in the country. All the measures mentioned are necessary, and merely making Inclusive Growth as the main objective in the 11th Five Year Plan is not sufficient.

10

References: 1. Debraj Ray (2010), Uneven Growth: A framework of Research in Development Economics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol 24, No 3.

2. Elena Ianchovina and Susanna Lundstrom (2009),What is inclusive growth, World Bank (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDEBTDEPT/Resources/4689801218567884549/WhatIsInclusiveGrowth20081230.pdf) 3. The Economist (2010), On deaf ears: Does India's government pay any heed to its economic advisers? March 4th issue.

4. Ifzal Ali and Hyun Hwa Son (2007), Measuring Inclusive Growth, Asian Development Review, Vol 24, No 1, pp 11-31. 5. N A Mujumdar (2007), Inclusive Growth - Development Perspectives in Indian Economy, Academic Foundation. 6. S. Mahendra Dev (2008), Inclusive Growth In India - Agriculture , Poverty and Human Development, Oxford University Press. 7. S. Narayan (2008), India's Economy:- Constraints to Inclusive Growth, Asian Journal of Public Affairs, Vol 2, No. 1. 8. UNDP (2010), Human Development Report.

11

What is Inclusive Growth? Note prepared by Elena Ianchovina (PRMED) and Susanna Lundstrom (PRMED) with input from Leonardo Garrido (PRMED), World Bank. The note was requested by donors supporting the Diagnostic Facility for Shared Growth. PRMED is the Economic Policy and Debt Department within the World Bank's Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) network. ii On deaf ears: Does India's government pay any heed to its economic advisers? The Economist, March 4th 2010. iii http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?700073 iv Human Development Report, 2010, UNDP