Poverty levels in India remain extremely high despite the swift economic growth of the past two-and-a-half decades. Here, Indians are seen living in slums near the Reay Road railway station in Mumbai. Dhiraj Singh / Bloomberg
Poverty levels in India remain extremely high despite the swift economic growth of the past two-and-a-half decades. Here, Indians are seen living in slums near the Reay Road railway station in Mumbai. Dhiraj Singh / Bloomberg
Poverty levels in India remain extremely high despite the swift economic growth of the past two-and-a-half decades. Here, Indians are seen living in slums near the Reay Road railway station in Mumbai. Dhiraj Singh / Bloomberg
Poverty levels in India remain extremely high despite the swift economic growth of the past two-and-a-half decades. Here, Indians are seen living in slums near the Reay Road railway station in Mumbai.

India may have worst income inequality levels for almost a century


  • English
  • Arabic

Income inequality in India may be at its highest level since 1922, according to a new research paper, with the top 1 per cent of earners making 22 per cent of all income — a ratio that has risen rapidly over the last three decades.

India Income Inequality, 1922-2014: From British Raj to Billionaire Raj?, published last week by French economists Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty, is based on the latest income tax data.

Mr Piketty is known for his 2013 best-selling book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which argues for reform to reduce income inequality around the world. He was dubbed a "rock-star economist" by the Financial Times. Mr Chancel is the co-director of the World Inequality Lab and of the World Wealth and Income Database at the Paris School of Economics.

"According to our benchmark estimates, the share of national income accruing to the top 1 per cent income earners is now at its highest level since the creation of the Indian income tax in 1922," said the report.

“The top 1 per cent of earners captured less than 21 per cent of total income in the late 1930s, before dropping to six per cent in the early 1980s and rising to 22 per cent today."

_______________

Read more:

_______________

The trend matches the circumstances of India’s economy, which was brought under strict state control in 1947 when the country became independent. The process of liberalising the economy only began slowly in the mid-1980s before picking up pace the following decade.

The metrics that track inequality followed economic reforms closely. In the 1990s, for instance, there were no Indians on Forbes’ annual list of billionaires; today there are 101.

Other indices have also confirmed the rising inequality in India. A 2016 study by two Indian economists of the data collected by the state’s National Sample Survey Office showed that the richest 1 per cent of Indians hold 28 per cent of all the wealth in the country. In 1991, it was just 11 per cent.

Another report, by the investment bank Credit Suisse, says the richest 1 per cent hold as much as 58 per cent of India’s wealth.

India’s Gini coefficient — which measures income distribution in a country - rose from 45 in 1990 to 51.4 last year, indicating a growing gap between rich and poor. China’s Gini coefficient rose over the same time period as well, from 33 to 53.

How the national income share of the top 10 per cent of the Indian population compares with that of the middle 40 per cent, according to a new report by French economists Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty.
How the national income share of the top 10 per cent of the Indian population compares with that of the middle 40 per cent, according to a new report by French economists Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty.

“In some larger countries [such as China and India], spatial disparities, in particular between rural and urban areas, explain much of the increase” in the coefficient, a report by the International Monetary Fund said last year.

The economists argue that "Shining India" - the name given to the past two-and-a-half decades of swift economic growth - has mostly benefited the wealthiest 10 per cent of India’s population. The middle 40 per cent were, in terms of capturing their share of national wealth, better off between 1951 and 1980, they said.

“India in fact comes out as a country with one of the highest increases in top 1 per cent income share concentration over the past 30 years,” according to the report by Mr Chancel and Mr Piketty.

James Crabtree, a fellow at Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, confirmed Mr Chancel and Mr Piketty’s observation that liberalising the economy triggered a drastic divergence in incomes and wealth.

"India's economic reopening to globalisation has been a big factor in rising inequality, as has rapid urbanisation, and an economy that rewards the highly skilled," Mr Crabtree, the author of an upcoming book,The Billionaire Raj, about Indian's political economy, told The National.

“India's government hasn't done enough to counteract these factors — for instance, by ensuring the wealthy pay their taxes, or by investing in basic social services like schools and hospitals, to help people at the bottom.”

The widening gap in economic status has been accompanied by a gap in opinions about how to tackle it.

One school of economic thought believes that developing countries, such as India, should focus primarily on economic growth and worry about inequality at a later stage.

According to the theories of Simon Kuznets, first published in the 1950s and 1960s, the forces of an open market in a developing economy will naturally first widen and then decrease wealth inequality.

Another school of thought, championed by the Nobel-winning economist Amartya Sen, holds that India has not done enough for its wide, deep base of poor people, and that its policies ought to focus more on human development than pure growth.

Mr Crabtree believes that India’s growing inequality is a “big problem” and that economic growth and human development can be pursued simultaneously.

“Countries in east Asia that managed to escape poverty and become prosperous almost always did so while staying much more equal than India is now,” he said. “The risk is that India's situation will worsen as it grows richer over the coming decades, making it much harder to reverse later, as countries like Brazil and South Africa have discovered.”

Mercer, the investment consulting arm of US services company Marsh & McLennan, expects its wealth division to at least double its assets under management (AUM) in the Middle East as wealth in the region continues to grow despite economic headwinds, a company official said.

Mercer Wealth, which globally has $160 billion in AUM, plans to boost its AUM in the region to $2-$3bn in the next 2-3 years from the present $1bn, said Yasir AbuShaban, a Dubai-based principal with Mercer Wealth.

Within the next two to three years, we are looking at reaching $2 to $3 billion as a conservative estimate and we do see an opportunity to do so,” said Mr AbuShaban.

Mercer does not directly make investments, but allocates clients’ money they have discretion to, to professional asset managers. They also provide advice to clients.

“We have buying power. We can negotiate on their (client’s) behalf with asset managers to provide them lower fees than they otherwise would have to get on their own,” he added.

Mercer Wealth’s clients include sovereign wealth funds, family offices, and insurance companies among others.

From its office in Dubai, Mercer also looks after Africa, India and Turkey, where they also see opportunity for growth.

Wealth creation in Middle East and Africa (MEA) grew 8.5 per cent to $8.1 trillion last year from $7.5tn in 2015, higher than last year’s global average of 6 per cent and the second-highest growth in a region after Asia-Pacific which grew 9.9 per cent, according to consultancy Boston Consulting Group (BCG). In the region, where wealth grew just 1.9 per cent in 2015 compared with 2014, a pickup in oil prices has helped in wealth generation.

BCG is forecasting MEA wealth will rise to $12tn by 2021, growing at an annual average of 8 per cent.

Drivers of wealth generation in the region will be split evenly between new wealth creation and growth of performance of existing assets, according to BCG.

Another general trend in the region is clients’ looking for a comprehensive approach to investing, according to Mr AbuShaban.

“Institutional investors or some of the families are seeing a slowdown in the available capital they have to invest and in that sense they are looking at optimizing the way they manage their portfolios and making sure they are not investing haphazardly and different parts of their investment are working together,” said Mr AbuShaban.

Some clients also have a higher appetite for risk, given the low interest-rate environment that does not provide enough yield for some institutional investors. These clients are keen to invest in illiquid assets, such as private equity and infrastructure.

“What we have seen is a desire for higher returns in what has been a low-return environment specifically in various fixed income or bonds,” he said.

“In this environment, we have seen a de facto increase in the risk that clients are taking in things like illiquid investments, private equity investments, infrastructure and private debt, those kind of investments were higher illiquidity results in incrementally higher returns.”

The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, one of the largest sovereign wealth funds, said in its 2016 report that has gradually increased its exposure in direct private equity and private credit transactions, mainly in Asian markets and especially in China and India. The authority’s private equity department focused on structured equities owing to “their defensive characteristics.”

Key facilities
  • Olympic-size swimming pool with a split bulkhead for multi-use configurations, including water polo and 50m/25m training lanes
  • Premier League-standard football pitch
  • 400m Olympic running track
  • NBA-spec basketball court with auditorium
  • 600-seat auditorium
  • Spaces for historical and cultural exploration
  • An elevated football field that doubles as a helipad
  • Specialist robotics and science laboratories
  • AR and VR-enabled learning centres
  • Disruption Lab and Research Centre for developing entrepreneurial skills
RESULTS

5pm: Wathba Stallions Cup – Maiden (PA) Dh70,000 (Dirt) 1,400m
Winner: Yas Xmnsor, Sean Kirrane (jockey), Khalifa Al Neyadi (trainer)

5.30pm: Falaj Hazza – Handicap (PA) Dh70,000 (D) 1,600m
Winner: Arim W’Rsan, Dane O’Neill, Jaci Wickham

6pm: Al Basrah – Maiden (PA) Dh70,000 (D) 1,800m
Winner: Kalifano De Ghazal, Abdul Aziz Al Balushi, Helal Al Alawi

6.30pm: Oud Al Touba – Handicap (PA) Dh70,000 (D) 1,800m
Winner: Pharitz Oubai, Sean Kirrane, Ibrahim Al Hadhrami

7pm: Sieh bin Amaar – Conditions (PA) Dh80,000 (D) 1,800m
Winner: Oxord, Richard Mullen, Abdalla Al Hammadi

7.30pm: Jebel Hafeet – Conditions (PA) Dh85,000 (D) 2,000m
Winner: AF Ramz, Sean Kirrane, Khalifa Al Neyadi

8pm: Al Saad – Handicap (TB) Dh70,000 (D) 2,000m
Winner: Sea Skimmer, Gabriele Malune, Kareem Ramadan

AUSTRALIA%20SQUAD
%3Cp%3EPat%20Cummins%20(capt)%2C%20Scott%20Boland%2C%20Alex%20Carey%2C%20Cameron%20Green%2C%20Marcus%20Harris%2C%20Josh%20Hazlewood%2C%20Travis%20Head%2C%20Josh%20Inglis%2C%20Usman%20Khawaja%2C%20Marnus%20Labuschagne%2C%20Nathan%20Lyon%2C%20Mitchell%20Marsh%2C%20Todd%20Murphy%2C%20Matthew%20Renshaw%2C%20Steve%20Smith%2C%20Mitchell%20Starc%2C%20David%20Warner%3C%2Fp%3E%0A
Desert Warrior

Starring: Anthony Mackie, Aiysha Hart, Ben Kingsley

Director: Rupert Wyatt

Rating: 3/5

Countries recognising Palestine

France, UK, Canada, Australia, Portugal, Belgium, Malta, Luxembourg, San Marino and Andorra

 

HEADLINE HERE
  • I would recommend writing out the text in the body 
  • And then copy into this box
  • It can be as long as you link
  • But I recommend you use the bullet point function (see red square)
  • Or try to keep the word count down
  • Be wary of other embeds lengthy fact boxes could crash into 
  • That's about it
Tamkeen's offering
  • Option 1: 70% in year 1, 50% in year 2, 30% in year 3
  • Option 2: 50% across three years
  • Option 3: 30% across five years