Fluent Essays

Two questions. Each answer should be 600 words each. I have attached all the readings which the questions asked to refer. Please read the readings. No outside references is allowed.   No Plagiarism.Assignment #3 Write a 600 (approximately) word essay on each of the following questions. (1) After independence, a stated goal of India’s economic policy was to end poverty and hunger. Yet very little was, in fact, accomplished. Bardhan in The Political Economy of Development in India attributes some of this failure to the pressure of three elite classes for resources. Kohli calls India a “fragmented multi-class state.” Based on the readings and class notes, what are these elites? How did they impact development policy? (2) Bhagwati argues that “growth matters” and that economic reform, globalization and trade openness have led to economic growth in India, the development of a middle class and reduced poverty. But Dreze and Sen’s book Uncertain Glory point to continuing problems in India. Using data from class notes and Dreze and Sen, how does India fare in recent years in measures of social well-being? How does India compare with other countries? Has growth mattered, as Bhagwati states?DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES DP12409 INDIAN INCOME INEQUALITY, 1922-2014: FROM BRITISH RAJ TO BILLIONAIRE RAJ ? Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty ECONOMIC HISTORY and PUBLIC ECONOMICS ISSN 0265-8003 INDIAN INCOME INEQUALITY, 1922-2014: FROM BRITISH RAJ TO BILLIONAIRE RAJ ? Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty Discussion Paper DP12409 Published 31 October 2017 Submitted 31 October 2017 Centre for Economic Policy Research 33 Great Sutton Street, London EC1V 0DX, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7183 8801 www.cepr.org This Discussion Paper is issued under the auspices of the Centre’s research programme in ECONOMIC HISTORY and PUBLIC ECONOMICS. Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of the Centre for Economic Policy Research. Research disseminated by CEPR may include views on policy, but the Centre itself takes no institutional policy positions. The Centre for Economic Policy Research was established in 1983 as an educational charity, to promote independent analysis and public discussion of open economies and the relations among them. It is pluralist and non-partisan, bringing economic research to bear on the analysis of medium- and long-run policy questions. These Discussion Papers often represent preliminary or incomplete work, circulated to encourage discussion and comment. Citation and use of such a paper should take account of its provisional character. Copyright: Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty INDIAN INCOME INEQUALITY, 1922-2014: FROM BRITISH RAJ TO BILLIONAIRE RAJ ? Abstract We combine household surveys and national accounts, as well as recently released tax data in a systematic way to track the dynamics of Indian income inequality from 1922 to 2014. According to our benchmark estimates, the share of national income accruing to the top 1\% income earners is now at its highest level since the creation of the Indian Income tax in 1922. The top 1\% of earners captured less than 21\% of total income in the late 1930s, before dropping to 6\% in the early 1980s and rising to 22\% today. Over the 1951-1980 period, the bottom 50\% group captured 28\% of total growth and incomes of this group grew faster than the average, while the top 0.1\% incomes decreased. Over the 1980-2014 period, the situation was reversed; the top 0.1\% of earners captured a higher share of total growth than the bottom 50\% (12\% vs. 11\%), while the top 1\% received a higher share of total growth than the middle 40\% (29\% vs. 23\%). These findings suggest that much can be done to promote more inclusive growth in India. Our results also appear to be robust to a range of alternative assumptions seeking to address data limitations. Most importantly, we stress the need for more democratic transparency on income and wealth statistics to avoid another black decade similar to the 2000s, during which India entered the digital age but stopped publishing tax statistics. Such data sources are key to track the long run evolution of inequality and toRunning head: POST-INDEPENCE INDIAN ECONOMY 1 POST-INDEPENDENCE INDIAN ECONOMY 8 Post-Independence Indian Economy Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Post-Independence Indian Economy Question One To date, India is yet to alleviate poverty and suffering in spite of its enormous potential; however, the menace of the condition has taken a toll on its population and continues to threaten the wellbeing of its citizens. Immediately after independence, the citizens were hoping of economic upliftment having been in the financial hardships during the period of colonization. Poor standards of living, child death, bad infrastructure, acute unemployment levels, and homelessness were the red flags that showed how poverty had crept on their land over time. Leaders and other policymakers made political promises, electoral manifestos, and periodic financial plans, but many of these policies only existed on papers (Bardhan, 1984). India still lags in financial and economic prosperity and much blame is on some few aristocrats believed to have had much greater control over the countries crucial resources. On independence, India accustomed itself into dominant proprietary categories that comprised of wealthy farmers, the class of landlords, and the professionals. Theses aristocrat societies led to a massive failure of the political economy development of India because of the much control they had on critical resources. Firstly, the class of landlords made it hard for the progress of the political economy of India. The local landlords were known to be dominant both socially and economically. They consistently frustrated the implementation of certain reforms that were meant to help the less fortunate in India because of their selfish gains and class factor. Moreover, they worked together with their counterparts, wealthy farmers, and continuously ignored the essential elements that could be implemented for a deep economic and social-political empowerment of everyone. As such, they cultivated in-depth divisions in the political and social systems such that voting was based on convenience and not a leadership of integrity (Bardhan, 1984). Moreover, the perennial economic hardship that continued to be experienced in India neither rooted itself in farming activities or land property ownership, but it’s with the fact that the majority of the citizens were unable to access necessary job opportunities because the public sector was controlled by the bureaucrats who were dominant and exploit upon the commoners. Consequently, there was the unfair allocation of subsidies, which was determined by the bureaucrats that gave a blind eye to the poor man’s problems. Hence, it has been just a fist and bullets fights of the rich against the poor. Secondly, the learned individuals in both the military and the civilian duties, as well as the white-collar workers, massively participated in economic dwarfness of the country. India for a long time had powerful bureaucrati