Skip Navigation



The World Bank Research Observer Advance Access published online on August 11, 2005
The World Bank Research Observer, doi:10.1093/wbro/lki009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/2/177    most recent
lki009v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Deaton, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kozel, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org.

Article

Data and Dogma: The Great Indian Poverty Debate

Angus Deaton 1* and Valerie Kozel 2*

1 Dwight D. Eisenhower Professor of International Affairs and Professor of Economics in the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University
2 Senior economist in the Social Protection Network at the World Bank

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Angus Deaton, E-mail: deaton{at}princeton.edu
Valerie Kozel, E-mail: vkozel{at}worldbank.org


  Abstract

What happened to poverty in India in the 1990s has been fiercely debated, both politically and statistically. The debate has run parallel to the wider debate about globalization and poverty in the 1990s and is also an important part of that debate. The economic reforms of the early 1990s in India were followed by rates of economic growth that were high by historical standards. The effects on poverty remain controversial, however. The official numbers published by the government of India, showing an acceleration in the rate of poverty reduction from 36 percent of the population in 1993/94 to 26 percent in 1999/2000, have been challenged for showing both too little and too much poverty reduction. The various claims have often been frankly political, but there are also many important statistical issues. The debate, reviewed in this article, provides an excellent example of how politics and statistics interact in an important, largely domestic debate. Although there is no consensus on what happened to poverty in India in the 1990s, there is good evidence both that poverty fell and that the official estimates of poverty reduction are too optimistic, particularly for rural India. The issues covered in this article, although concerned with the measurement of poverty in India, have wide international relevance--discrepancies between surveys and national accounts, the effects of questionnaire design, reporting periods, survey nonresponse, repair of imperfect data, choice of poverty lines, and interplay between statistics and politics.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 WORLD BANK ECON REVHome page
D. Stifel and L. Christiaensen
Tracking Poverty Over Time in the Absence of Comparable Consumption Data
World Bank Econ. Rev., June 19, 2007; (2007) lhm010v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 OXF REV ECON POLICYHome page
V. Bhaskar and B. Gupta
India's development in the era of growth
Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy, June 1, 2007; 23(2): 135 - 142.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 WORLD BANK RES OBSHome page
L. Pritchett
Who is Not Poor? Dreaming of a World Truly Free of Poverty
World Bank Res. Obs., March 1, 2006; 21(1): 1 - 23.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.