Opinions about Jawaharlal Nehru’s
contribution to modern India differ sharply. It’s true that his legacy, for
good or for bad, goes far beyond what can be captured by the bare bones of
economic analysis. Nevertheless, for a nation steeped in abject poverty, what
matters most are economic growth and a better standard of living for its
people. How did India under Nehru compare in terms of growth with other
countries? The accompanying chart compares India’s gross domestic product (GDP)
growth per capita in 1990 international dollars over 1947-64, when Nehru was
prime minister, with that of several other nations over the same period.
The
data are taken from economic historian Angus Maddison’s time series on world
GDP. photo The numbers show the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) for real
GDP growth per capita for India was lower than for capitalist economies like
Japan, South Korea and the US.
That is unsurprising. What may not be so well
known is that it was also lower than communist countries like China or the
former USSR. Between 1947 and 1964, the CAGR for Japan’s GDP per capita was a
sizzling 7.9%, for the USSR 4.4% and for India 1.68%. Also, India’s record was
worse than the Philippines or Malaysia. Even dirt-poor Burma (now Myanmar)
clocked a CAGR of 3.16% between 1950 and 1964. What about poverty reduction?
Gaurav Dutt and Martin Ravallion, poverty researchers from the World Bank,
wrote in an article in the Economic and Political Weekly in 2010, “There was
little sign of sustained progress against poverty until the mid-1970s.” There
are, however, two silver linings.
One is that India under the British had a
pathetic per capita GDP CAGR of 0.07% between 1900 and 1947. The second is the
Indian per capita growth rate was better than Pakistan’s, which had a CAGR of
1.18% between 1950 and 1964. But that is unlikely to have been much consolation
for India’s impoverished masses.
MUNTAZIR ALAM
PGDM 3RD SEM
COMMENT-
For a nation steeped in abject
poverty, what matters most are economic growth and a better standard of living
for its people.
No comments:
Post a Comment