PowerPoint Presentation

Outcomes Of ReformGlobalisation in the world generated doubts regarding policies of liberalisationSuspicion about the performance of these policies in many developing countriesIs this true of India? Judging CriteriaEvery political leader want the growth of rate of GDP to accelerate Necessary requirement to transit from Indias current very low level of per capita income to consistent levelsTwo decades prior to 1980, Indias average economic growth rate was only 3.5%In the 1980s, when the reforms began, there was a substantial jump in the average growth rate to 5.8%Mixed pattern was observed after 19921992-1996: 6.7%1997-2001: 5.5%2002-2005: 6.7%Indias performance improved substantially in the second period and was better than all the other emerging market countries

Indias growth performance was disappointing only because the targets set were higher and not in comparison with the pastJudging CriteriaWas the growth process equally strong across all states?The short answer is that it was notSeveral states experienced accelerated growth but some accelerated much more than the averagePunjab and Haryana, actually experienced a deceleration of growth in the 1990s compared with the 1980sThe pre-reforms policy regime effectively controlled both private and public investmentWith the removal of such controls over investment, one would expect a reallocation of investment towards the better endowed states and the higher productivityState governments have worked actively to create a more investment friendly environment, and have been able to attract more investment. Eg. Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West BengalJudging CriteriaView is often expressed that liberalisation has done little for the poor, and may even have made things worseAbundance of data is accompanied by an even more generous endowment of economists keen to interpret it in different waysAs conventionally measured in terms of a fixed poverty line measured in real consumption per capita, has clearly declined from 45%in 1983 to 36% in 1993further to 26% in 19992 20% decline in 17 yearsThe decline in poverty was not as fast as the government had targeted, becausethe growth rate was also less than what was targetedgrowth in the agricultural sector, in particular, was well below target, indicating a sectorial policy failure which needs to be correctedJudging CriteriaThe perception remains sameReason could be that the definition of poverty used in various studies differs widely from that in peoples minds for the purpose of public debateThe extent of poverty based on a broader definition of poverty relating to the percentage of the population deprived of access to essential servicesMalnutrition among children below 5 years of age is as high as 47 per centIt is also possible that inadequate access to other essential services, School enrolment rates have increased to about 95 per cent, as many as 35 per cent of children do not complete primary schoolMore than 60 per cent of women give birth to children without the benefit of a skilled attendantImprovement is needed in other relevant indicators also to claim that progress is being made in poverty reduction. Judging CriteriaJudging CriteriaJudging Criteria