India Gap Analysis February 2013 · 2013-09-18 · 1 India Gap Analysis Strategic Planning &...
Transcript of India Gap Analysis February 2013 · 2013-09-18 · 1 India Gap Analysis Strategic Planning &...
1
India Gap Analysis
Strategic Planning & Analysis Division
E&E Bureau
USAID
February 2013
Summary. India’s development profile is very skewed: progress in governing justly & democratically is
comparable to that found in Latin America and the Caribbean, while progress in investing in people (i.e.,
health, education, per capita income, and gender equality) is comparable to that found in Sub‐Saharan
Africa. While India’s economic reforms generally lag by Asian standards, progress in these reforms has
been steady albeit slow in recent years. While India is among the Asian leaders in democracy and
governance, trends over time show minor erosion in these reforms since 2006, primarily stemming from
backsliding in rule of law and in anti‐corruption efforts. India’s economic growth has consistently
surpassed the Asian average in recent years, ranging from a very robust average annual rate of 6% to
10% from 2005 to 2012. Health and education indicators lag considerably in India, though are generally
improving. Substantial gender inequalities exist across many dimensions in India, from the social to the
political to the economic. India’s hunger challenges are substantial and progress over the medium term
(i.e., since the mid‐1990s) has not been evident by at least one broad measure (IFPRI’s Global Hunger
Index).
Introduction. This abridged analysis updates and draws from a September 2011 gap analysis of India as
well as a more recent (January 2013) region‐wide analysis of Asia done for USAID’s Regional
Development Mission in Asia (RDMA). The methodology is that of Europe and Eurasia Bureau’s
Monitoring Country Progress (MCP) system. The core of the MCP system consists of five indices: (1)
economic reforms; (2) governing justly and democratically; (3) economic performance; (4) investing in
people; and (5) peace and security. In constructing these indices, we draw on readily available public
data and standardize the metrics to a 1 to 5 scale in which a 5 represents the most advanced standards
worldwide. The data are presented in a series of charts, and the analysis first takes stock of India’s
overall development profile, followed by trends in economic reforms, democratic reforms, economic
performance, and investing in people.
Highlights of the Findings.
India’s development profile is unique to Asia and to other parts of the world (Figures 1 and 2).
India is far more advanced in governing justly & democratically than in any of the other MCP
dimensions, while it lags the most in investing in people.
India’s progress in governing justly & democratically is comparable to that found in Latin
America and the Caribbean, while its level of advancement in investing in people (i.e., health,
education, per capita income, and gender equality) is comparable to that found in Sub‐Saharan
Africa (Figure 2). Its development profile, in other words, is very skewed.
2
India and China, the two economic and demographic giants in Asia, have widely contrasting
development profiles (Figure 3). India’s most advanced sector, governing justly and
democratically, is China’s least advanced sector. China’s most advanced sector, investing in
people, is India’s least advanced sector. Both China and India lag considerably in peace and
security, a particularly unsettling observation given their dominance in the region. In 2009,
India and China represented almost 75% of economic production in Asia; that proportion is likely
larger today (Figure 4).
Only two Asian countries (of the twenty‐five country group) lag more than India in investing in
people: Bangladesh and Papua New Guinea (Figure 5). Only seven Asian countries trail India in
economic reforms: Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Timor‐Leste, Maldives, and the
Marshall Islands (Figure 6). In contrast, only a handful of Asian countries are more advanced
than India in governing justly and democratically: Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and three
Pacific Islands, Samoa, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (Figures 6‐7).
Relative to the Asian average, many development gaps exist in India (Figures 8‐9). The largest
gaps include the business environment and budget balance (in economic reforms), literacy rate,
health expenditures, environmental health, per capita income, and gender equality (in investing
in people), uneven development, energy security, foreign direct investment, size and
composition of the export sector, and environmental sustainability (in economic performance),
and four of the five dimensions in peace and security, namely, counter‐terrorism, combatting
transnational crime, conflict mitigation, and stabilization operations & security sector reforms.
In governing justly and democratically, anti‐corruption efforts are lagging considerably, in India
as well as throughout Asia.
While economic reforms in India generally lag by Asian standards and are average for South Asia
standards, progress in economic reforms in India has been steady albeit slow in recent years
(Figure 10). Much of this has been driven by notable advances in trade liberalization since 2005
(Figure 11). India’s business environment (which is one component of the economic reform
index) lags considerably; the poorest environment for business among the five countries of
South Asia (Figure 12). The business environment indicator primarily measures government
regulations and intrusiveness towards enterprises.
While India is among the Asian leaders in democracy and governance and the leader within
South Asia, trends over time show minor erosion overall in governing justly and democratically
in India since 2006 (Figure 13). The erosion has primarily stemmed from backsliding in rule of
law and in anti‐corruption efforts. Figure 14 shows this backsliding through 2009; more recent
data for 2010 and 2011 show a continuation of this erosion in rule of law and anti‐corruption in
India. In contrast India’s “partly free” and vibrant media has made advances over the medium
term (i.e., since 2003), though there has also been some erosion of those gains according to the
most recent Freedom House data of 2010 and 2011. In most countries in Asia, the political
environment for a free press is more problematic than are the economic and legal environments
(Figure 15). This is true in India; moreover, it has been the political environment aspect of
media that has been regressing in India in recent years.
3
Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index shows India ranking 96 out of 183
countries in the perception of corruption, comparable to that found in Liberia, Albania, and
Burkina‐Faso (Figure 17). India’s score (close to a “3” out of “10”) is worse than its rank on this
measure. This is another way of saying that there is a very large gap between the magnitude of
the corruption problem in the most advanced OECD countries (and a handful of other countries,
including Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Brunei), and most of the countries in the
developing world, including India.
Economic performance in Asia, as measured by economic growth, has consistently surpassed
global standards in recent years; prior, during, and after the global economic crisis (Figure 18).
For most of those years, at least from 2005 up until 2012, economic growth in India’s economy
consistently surpassed the Asian average, ranging from a very robust average annual rate of 6%
to 10% (Figure 19).
While China’s annual economic growth has consistently surpassed India’s growth since at least
2005, the pattern of economic growth in both countries has been quite similar (Figure 19). Both
witnessed higher economic growth prior to the global economic crisis than after the crisis; both
experienced a slow‐down in growth during the 2008‐2009 crisis, though at rates that were
nevertheless still very high by any standard; both have had the slowest annual average growth
rate in recent years in the most recent year, namely in 2012.
With the salient exception of the Maldives, other countries in South Asia, alongside India, were
relatively immune to the global economic crisis; i.e., all experienced robust economic growth
during the global crisis (Figure 20).
With the exception of the Maldives, the countries of South Asia, including India, receive
relatively low amounts of foreign direct investments (FDI) as a percent of GDP, and have small
export sectors as a percentage of GDP (Figures 21‐24). These economies are less exposed to
the harmful effects during a global economic crisis, though also less able to reap the gains from
the global economy during better times. Nevertheless, both FDI and exports as a percent of
GDP have been gradually increasing in India. In addition while high‐technology goods exports
from India are small relative to total exports, less that 5%, high technology service exports from
India are very large compared to some other high performing Asian economies (Figures 25 and
26).
Investments in research and development as well as access to computer technology are very
low in India (Figures 27‐30). There are 136 researchers for every million people in India; in China
its closer to 1,200 (Figure 27). Research and development expenditures in India are about 0.7%
of GDP; in China, it is twice that amount, 1.5% of GDP (Figure 28). The proportion of households
with computers and internet access in India is strikingly small, perhaps five percent (Figure 30).
This proportion is close to that found in Laos or Bangladesh; in China, around 22% of the
households have internet access and 35% of households have computers. More than 15% of the
Asian population in 2010 had fixed internet subscriptions; it is closer to 3% in India (Figure 29).
Investing in people (health and education). While life expectancy has been increasing in India
as it has elsewhere in South Asia, it remains the lowest in India at 65 years (Figure 31). It also
ranges widely across the states of India, likely ranging from less than 60 years to close 75 years
4
(Figure 32 provides estimates in an earlier time period, 2002‐2006). India’s under‐five mortality
rate continues to fall in recent years, as elsewhere in South Asia, though India’s rate remains the
highest in the region at roughly 60 deaths per 1,000 live births (Figure 33).
Education also lags in India, and gender disparities in India’s education system are substantial.
The female youth literacy rate in India, less than 75%, is among the lowest in Asia, perhaps only
lower in Papua New Guinea (Figure 34). Male youth literacy rate in India is also low by Asian
standards; at around 88% it is comparable to that found in Nepal, Laos, or Cambodia. Overall
literacy rates in India are lower still (than youth literacy rates) (Figure 35); the gender gap is also
larger for the total population of India; in 2008 only half of the females were literate vs. 75% of
the males. The literacy rate among rural females in India is likely much lower still; perhaps
between 30‐40% today (Figure 36 provides estimates of illiteracy rates by gender and rural vs.
urban in India through 2005).
Substantial gender inequalities exist in India in dimensions other than in education as well,
including in health, political empowerment, and economic participation (Figure 37), the three
dimensions included in the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index.
Finally, Figures 38‐42 draw on collaborative work with colleagues from USAID’s Bureau for Food
Security, focused on developing criteria for transitioning countries out of the USG Feed the
Future (FTF) program. This dataset and analysis suggest that: (1) while India may be food
independent at least by Asian standards (i.e., revenues from India’s total exports well exceed
the cost of food imports), agricultural productivity in India is very low (Figure 38); (2) India’s
hunger challenge (as measured by IFPRI’s Global Hunger Index which combines under‐five
mortality rate, the prevalence of underweight children and the proportion of undernourished in
the total population) is “alarming” and among the most significant throughout Asia, and much
higher than other countries with comparable levels of per capita income (such as Vietnam and
the Philippines) (Figure 39); (3) India’s level of hunger and poverty are comparable to some of
the worst performers on those dimensions among the twenty focus countries of the FTF
program (Figure 40); (4) India’s rural sector enabling environment (a measure from the
International Fund for Agricultural Development which includes, among other dimensions, the
capacity of the rural poor and their organizations and access of the rural population to
productive natural resources and financial services) lags significantly; ranking roughly in the
middle of the twenty country FTF focus group (Figure 41); and (5) India’s hunger challenge, in
contrast to trends in the large majority of the FTF focus countries, has not improved since 1996,
according to IFPRI’s Global Hunger Index (Figure 42).
India Gap Analysis
Europe & Eurasia Bureau
Strategic Planning and Analysis Division
February 2013
Development Profile of India vs. Asia
USAID/EE, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp . The Asia average consists of 23 countries.
India
Asia
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Economic Reforms Governing Justly andDemocratically
Investing in People Peace and Security
Figure 1
Development Profile of India vs. OECD, Latin America, and Sub‐Saharan Africa
USAID/EE, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp
Figure 2
India
OECD
Sub‐Saharan Africa
LAC
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Economic Reforms Governing Justly andDemocratically
Investing in People Peace and Security
Updated
Development Profile of India vs. China
USAID/EE, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp
China
India
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Economic Reforms Governing Justly andDemocratically
Investing in People Peace and Security
Figure 3
Population and Income in Developing Asia in 2009
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011). Other Asia includes Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Sri Lanka. Income is in GDP (constant 2005 PPP$).
IncomePopulation
Figure 4
Bangladesh5%
China38%
Hong Kong0%
India33%
Indonesia7%
Malaysia1%
Other Asia3%
Pakistan5%
Philippines3%
S. Korea1%
Singapore0%
Thailand2%
Vietnam2%
Bangladesh1%
China50%
Hong Kong SAR, China2%
India21%
Indonesia5%
Thailand 3%
Malaysia2%
Other Asia1%
Pakistan3%
Philippines2% Singapore
1%
Thailand3%
Vietnam1%
Figure 5: Investing in People and Economic Reforms in Asia in 2011
Investing in People
Economic Reforms
Burma
Cambodia
Lao PDR
Thailand
Vietnam
Brunei
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Bangladesh
China
India
Korea, Rep
Maldives
Mongolia
MicronesiaNepal
PNG
Samoa
Sri Lanka
Timor‐Leste
ASIA
OECD
SS Africa
LAC
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
USAID/E&E, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp
Southeast Asia
South Asia
East Asia
Pacific Islands
Lao PDR
Cambodia
Burma
Thailand
Vietnam
Brunei
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Bangladesh
China
Hong Kong
India
Korea, Rep
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Mongolia
MicronesiaNepal
PNG SamoaSri Lanka
Timor‐Leste
ASIA
OECD
Sub‐Saharan Africa
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Economic Reforms and Governing Justly & Democratically in Asia in 2011
EconomicReforms
Governing Justly and Democratically
Southeast Asia
South Asia
East Asia
Pacific Islands
USAID/E&E, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp
Figure 6
Peace & Security
Governing Justly & Democratically
Figure 7: Peace & Security and Governing Justly & Democratically in Asia in 2011
USAID/E&E, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp
Burma
Cambodia
Lao PDR
Thailand
Vietnam
Brunei
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Bangladesh
China
Hong Kong
IndiaKorea, DR
Korea, Rep
Maldives
Marshall Isl
MongoliaMicronesia
NepalPNG
Samoa
Sri Lanka
Timor‐Leste ASIA
OECD
SS Africa
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Southeast Asia
South Asia
East Asia
Pacific Islands
Updated
Figure 8: India, 2011‐2012Economic Reforms
Investing in People
Governing Justly and Democratically
USAID/E&E, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp
Asia average
Political Rights, 4.3
Civil Liberties, 3.7
Media Freedom,
3.6
Rule of Law, 2.8
Anti‐Corruption,
2.0 1
2
3
4
5
Under‐5 Mortality, 3.7
Life Expectancy,
3.3
Health Expenditure,
1.1
Environ‐mental
Health, 1.3Literacy Rate, 1.7
Education Expenditure,
2.7
Per CapitaIncome, 1.5
Gender Equality, 2.2
1
2
3
4
5
Business Environment,
2.0
Regulatory Quality, 2.6
Government Effectiveness,
2.7
Budget Balance, 1.5
Trade Liberalization,
3.3 1
2
3
4
5
Economic Performance Peace and Security
Figure 9: India, 2011‐2012
USAID/E&E, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp
Asia average
Per Capita GDP Growth, 4.2
Macrostability, 3.7
FDI, 1.7
Exports, 2.3
Energy Security, 2.1
Uneven Development,
1.4
Environmental Sustainability,
2.1
Domestic Credit, 3.0
1
2
3
4
5Counter‐terrorism,
1.4
Combating weapons of
mass destruction,
3.0
Stabilization operations and defense reform, 1.8
Transnational crime, 2.0
Conflict mitigation,
2.0
1
2
3
4
5
Economic Reforms in South Asia
USAID/E&E, MCP Global. Five indicators comprise economic reforms: business environment, regulatory quality; government effectiveness; budget balance; and trade liberalization.
Figure 10
Bangladesh
Maldives
IndiaNepal
Sri Lanka
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Economic Reforms in India
Figure 11
USAID/E&E, MCP Global.
Business Environment
Regulatory Quality
Trade Liberalization
Budget Balance
Government Effectiveness
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Business Environment in South Asia
Calculated from World Bank Doing Business (various years).
Figure 12
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Bangladesh
India
Maldives
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Governing Justly & Democratically in South Asia
USAID/E&E, MCP Global. Drawn from Freedom House, Freedom in the World and Freedom of the Press; and the World Bank, Governance Matters, various years.
Figure 13
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Bangladesh
India
Maldives
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Governing Justly & Democratically in India
Figure 14
USAID/E&E, MCP Global. Drawn from Freedom House, Freedom in the World and Freedom of the Press; and the World Bank, Governance Matters, various years.
Political Rights
Civil Liberties
Media Freedom
Rule of Law
Corruption
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Free
Partly Free
Not Free
Freedom of the Press in Asia
Countries are given a total score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) on the basis of a set of 23 methodology questions divided into three subcategories. Assigning numerical points allows for comparative analysis among the countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of trends over time. The degree to which each country permits the free flow of news and information determines the classification of its media as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” Countries scoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having “Free” media; 31 to 60, “Partly Free” media; and 61 to 100, “Not Free” media. Freedom House, Freedom of the Press (2011‐2012).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Korea, Dem
. Rep.
Burm
a
China
Lao PDR
Vietnam
Brunei
Sri Lanka
Singapore
Cam
bodia
Malaysia
Thailand
Nep
al
Bangladesh
Maldives
Indonesia
Philippines
India
Mongolia
Timor‐Leste
Hong Kong
Korea, Rep.
Samoa
Papua New
Guinea
Micronesia
Marshall Islands
Economic environment
Political environment
Legal evironment
Figure 15
Free
Partly Free
Not Free
Freedom on the Net in Asia
Countries are given a total score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) on the basis of a set of 23 methodology questions divided into three subcategories. Assigning numerical points allows for comparative analysis among the countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of trends over time. The degree to which each country permits the free flow of news and information determines the classification of its media as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” Countries scoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having “Free” media; 31 to 60, “Partly Free” media; and 61 to 100, “Not Free” media. Freedom House, Freedom on the Net (2011‐2012).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Violation of user rights
Limits on content
Obstacles to access
Figure 16
Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index, 2011. Scores are based from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean).
The Perception of Corruption in 2011Figure 17
SingaporeHong KongSouth KoreaBruneiMalaysiaSamoa
ChinaThailandSri LankaIndiaIndonesiaVietnam
MongoliaBangladeshPhilippinesMaldivesTimor LesteLaos
NepalPapua New GuineaCambodiaBurmaNorth Korea
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Vietnam
North Korea
Singapore
Brunei
New Zealand
Taiwan
Tanzania
Iraq
India
Updated
Economic Growth and Contraction in Asia and the World
IMF, World Economic Outlook (October 2012).
%
Asia
World
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 18
Economic Growth in India vs. China and Asia
IMF, World Economic Outlook (October 2012)
%
Figure 19
India
China
Asia
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Updated
Economic Growth and Contraction in South Asia
% change
IMF, World Economic Outlook (October 2012).
Figure 20
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Bangladesh
India
Maldives
Nepal
Sri Lanka
% GDP, 5 year A
verage
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011).
Figure 21
0.10.4
1.11.5 1.5 1.7 1.7
2.2 2.32.8 3.0 3.0 3.1
3.7
4.75.0
6.06.3
7.4 7.6
8.9
11.9
13.5
24.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
5yr Avg (01‐05) 5yr Avg (05‐09)
FDI % GDP(2001‐05 vs 2005‐09)
Foreign Direct Investment in South Asia(percent of GDP),
% of GDP
Figure 22
World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2012.
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Bangladesh
India
Maldives
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Export Share of GDP % of GDP
(3‐Year average, 2009‐2011)
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2012).
Figure 23
10 12 1316
20 22 23 24.027 27 29
32 3235
4551 52
55 5659.0
62
72 74 76 76.079
97
107
214 214
0
50
100
150
200
% of GDP
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011).
Export Share of GDP of Large Countries(100 Million People or More, 1995‐2009)
Bangladesh
India
Pakistan
China
Indonesia
United States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 24
0.08 0.16 0.41 0.47 0.68 0.78 1.22.64 2.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
High‐Tech Exports(as a percentage of total exports)
percentage
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2012).
Figure 25
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011).
High Technology Exports in India and Elsewhere in Asia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Philippines Singapore Malaysia China Hong Kong India
High Technology Goods Exports IT Services Exports% of Total Exports
Figure 26
Research and Development ResearchersPer Million People
World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2012.
Figure 27
78 90 96 136
316 365
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
Research and Development Expenditures(% of GDP)
World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2012.
Figure 28
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
%
Fixed Internet Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants
International Telecommunication Union/ICT Indicators Database, June 2012.
Hong Kong
India
Korea, Rep.
Maldives
Asia
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Figure 29
Proportion of Households with Computers and Internet Access
Based on most recent year available (2009‐2011). International Telecommunication Union/ICT Indicators Database, June 2012.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 Computer
Internet access
Prop
ortio
n of hou
seho
lds
Figure 30
Figure 31
Life Expectancy in South Asia
World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2012.
years
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Bangladesh
India
Maldives
Nepal
Sri Lanka
50
55
60
65
70
75
Years
Life Expectancy in India’s States(1989‐1993 vs 2002‐2006)
Total 1989‐1993 Total 2002‐2006
Source : Sample Registration System, Office of the Registrar General, India, Ministry of Home Affairs.
Figure 32
Figure 33
Under‐5 Mortality in South Asia
World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2012.
Per 1000 live births
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Bangladesh
India
Maldives
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Figure 34
Youth Literacy Rate in 2009‐2010 by Gender
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2012), and UNICEF At‐a‐glance statistics (2012).
Percentage of population aged 15‐24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Male
Female
60
6467
71
75
8285
92 93 94 95 95 95 96 97 97 97
100 100 100100 100
50
56
40
45
51
63
71
89
94
90 89 9089
92 91
98
92
99 99 99
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
MALE FEMALE
Literacy Rate in 2008 by GenderPercent Aged 15 and Above
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011). 2006 data for India, Indonesia and Maldives ; 2005 data for Bhutan and Thailand.
Figure 35
Illiteracy in India by Gender and Rural vs. Urban
Rural Male
Rural Female
Urban Male
Urban Female
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1983 1988 1994 2000 2005
Figure 36
% of Population
Gender Inequalities in India vs. Other Countries
0
50
100
150
200
250
India Thailand Korea OECD
Gender Inequalities in Health
0
5
10
15
20
25
India Thailand Korea OEDC
Political Empowerment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
India Thailand Korea OEDC
Female Male
Economic Participation
Figure 37
UNDP, Human Development Report (2010).
Labor Force Participation Rate (%)
% Female in ParliamentMaternal
Mortality Rate (per 100000)
India
Indonesia
Thailand
YemenBangladesh
Nepal
Pakistan
Kyrgyzstan
Cambodia
China
Fiji
KazakhstanMalaysia
Mongolia
Philippines
Sri Lanka
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Food Security in Asia and the World
Total Exports/ Food Imports
Agricultural Productivity(Value Added per Worker)
Independent & Efficient
Dependent &Inefficient
Dependent & Efficient
Independent &Inefficient
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011).Greater Efficiency
Greater
Indep
enden
ce
U.S. (49,511,19.1)
Germany (31,658, 18)
France(58,070,12.4)
Korea (19,104,26.1)
Singapore (49,867,48.9)
Figure 38
Global Hunger and Per Capita Income in Asia
International Food Policy research (IFPRI), Global Hunger Index (2012), and World Bank, World Development Indicators (2012)..
BangladeshCambodia
China
India
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nepal
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Timor Leste
Vietnam
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
GNI P
PP
Global Hunger Index
Moderate Serious AlarmingLow
Figure 39
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Ethiopia
Ghana
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Kenya
Liberia
Malawi
Mozambique
MaliNepal
Nicaragua
Rwanda
Senegal
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Vietnam
Peru
Nigeria
India
Brazil5
10
15
20
25
30
0102030405060708090100
Hunger
Percentage of Population living on less than $1.25 /day
International Food Policy Research (IFPRI), 2011 Global Hunger Index (October 2011), and World Bank, PovcalNet (2012).
Hunger and Poverty in the Feed The Future Focus Countries vs. others (in red)
IV. Higher Hunger;Higher Poverty
Lower Hunger
Lower Poverty
II. Lower Hunger;Higher Poverty
III. Higher Hunger;Lower Poverty
I. Lower Hunger;Lower Poverty
Figure 40
HondurasGhana
Nicaragua
SenegalGuatemala
UgandaTajikistan
Malawi
Kenya MaliNepalCambodia
TanzaniaRwanda
LiberiaMozambique
Zambia
Bangladesh
Haiti
Ethiopia
Vietnam
Peru
Nigeria
India
Brazil5
10
15
20
25
30
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Hunger
Rural Sector Enabling Environment
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rural Sector Performance Assessment (2012), and IFPRI, 2011 Global Hunger Index (October 2011).
Hunger and the Rural Sector Enabling Environment in the FTF Focus Countries vs. others
Lower Hunger
Better Enabling Environment
I. Lower Hunger;Better Environment
IV. Higher Hunger;Poorer Environment
III. Higher Hunger;Better Environment
II. Lower Hunger;Poorer Environment
Figure 41
Peru
Nigeria
Vietnam
Brazil
India
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1990 1996 2001 2011
Reduction in Hunger among Select Countries
IFPRI, 2011 Global Hunger Index (October 2011).
Lower Hunger
Figure 42