A somewhat old but still massively relevant article by Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen in Outlook on India's socio-economic performance since 1990.
The point of the article is that both the "massive success" (GDP growth) and the "massive failure" (poor social outcomes) of Indian economy since 1990 are true. To see the second point, they give stats on India's performance in South Asia (it has deteriorated, relatively, even below Nepal and Bangladesh and is only above Pakistan).
The key point they make is to distinguish between "unaimed opulence" and "growth-mediated development" (as introduced in their 1989 book, Hunger and Public Action, one of the best books I have ever read).
Unaimed opulence (they give the example of Brazil before Lula) is concentrating on economic growth without complementing social programs. It is in large part (they give exceptions in TN for example) what has happenned in India, with an extremely miserly spending on health and education.
Growth-mediated social programs would use the extra revenue generated by high growth (India has 4 times more revenue than 1990) in an active way, as Brazil has done after Lula came to power.
This is not just a theoretical difference, it requires politics of confronting power, like the biscuit lobby in Mid Day Meal program and corporate power in India.
As an aside, the Mid Day Meal program by itself has reduced effective poverty by a significant amount, so it is important to preserve it.
The whole article is worth a read.
The point of the article is that both the "massive success" (GDP growth) and the "massive failure" (poor social outcomes) of Indian economy since 1990 are true. To see the second point, they give stats on India's performance in South Asia (it has deteriorated, relatively, even below Nepal and Bangladesh and is only above Pakistan).
The key point they make is to distinguish between "unaimed opulence" and "growth-mediated development" (as introduced in their 1989 book, Hunger and Public Action, one of the best books I have ever read).
Unaimed opulence (they give the example of Brazil before Lula) is concentrating on economic growth without complementing social programs. It is in large part (they give exceptions in TN for example) what has happenned in India, with an extremely miserly spending on health and education.
Growth-mediated social programs would use the extra revenue generated by high growth (India has 4 times more revenue than 1990) in an active way, as Brazil has done after Lula came to power.
This is not just a theoretical difference, it requires politics of confronting power, like the biscuit lobby in Mid Day Meal program and corporate power in India.
As an aside, the Mid Day Meal program by itself has reduced effective poverty by a significant amount, so it is important to preserve it.
The whole article is worth a read.
