IND151
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,170
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
India land of abject poverty
- Thread starter idune
- Start date
- Status
IND151
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,170
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
IND151
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,170
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
i have been to other defence forums ,all of them discuss defence issues in a serious manner.
with this kind of hate being spewed here, this forum is in serious danger of losing its credibility
however , i must admit it does give entertainment in form of sparring battles between people of various nations
Last edited:
Indiannn
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 0
All those who doubt India's growth.
'India has more rich people than poor now'
NEW DELHI: For the first time ever, the number of high-income households in India has exceeded the number of low-income, the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) has estimated.
In its report, "How India Earns, Spends and Saves", released on Saturday, the NCAER estimated that despite the economic slowdown of the last three years, the number of high-income households should have reached 46.7 million by March 2010, exceeding the 41 million households counted as low-incomes.
If true, this would be a remarkable turnaround within just a decade. It started with just 13.8 million households described as high-income, or earning more than Rs 1.8 lakh per annum at 2001-02 prices. Meanwhile, 65.2 million households were classified as low-income or earning less than Rs 45,000 per year. The NCAER estimated that middle-income households, or those earning between Rs 45,000 and Rs 1.8 lakh per annum, rose sharply from 109.2 million to 140.7 million in the decade.
A new report says that the slowdown in the growth in the last three years of the decade had the maximum impact on middle income households. Though in absolute terms the number of middleclass households grew from 135.9 million in 2007-08 to 140.7 million by 2009-10, in percentage terms it fell marginally from 62% of all households to 61.6% in the same period.
Interestingly, the slowdown did not impact the expansion in the number of high-income households, which grew from 16.8% to 20.5% of all households in the last two years. The fall in the number of low-income households was also sharp, from 21.1% to 17.9% during the period.
NCAER, in the report also estimated the number of families having income between Rs 2 lakh and Rs 10 lakh per annum, which is close to the World Bank definition of middle class, at 28.4 million by 2009-10. The number of such middle-class households was 4.5 million in 1995-96 and 10.7 million in 2001-02. The report said that two-thirds of the Indian middle class is to be found in urban India and that trend has continued in the last 15 years also. India has one of the highest savings rates in the world, with savings constituting an estimated 36% of the GDP.
************************************************
Most of the India is growing rapidly,with poverty being eradicated rapidly.
Yes some states like Bihar,Uttar Pradesh,MP and Andhra Pradesh have a notable amount of poverty.But underlining India as a land of abject poverty is completely out of sense,specially when it comes from a Bangladeshi
'India has more rich people than poor now'
NEW DELHI: For the first time ever, the number of high-income households in India has exceeded the number of low-income, the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) has estimated.
In its report, "How India Earns, Spends and Saves", released on Saturday, the NCAER estimated that despite the economic slowdown of the last three years, the number of high-income households should have reached 46.7 million by March 2010, exceeding the 41 million households counted as low-incomes.
If true, this would be a remarkable turnaround within just a decade. It started with just 13.8 million households described as high-income, or earning more than Rs 1.8 lakh per annum at 2001-02 prices. Meanwhile, 65.2 million households were classified as low-income or earning less than Rs 45,000 per year. The NCAER estimated that middle-income households, or those earning between Rs 45,000 and Rs 1.8 lakh per annum, rose sharply from 109.2 million to 140.7 million in the decade.
A new report says that the slowdown in the growth in the last three years of the decade had the maximum impact on middle income households. Though in absolute terms the number of middleclass households grew from 135.9 million in 2007-08 to 140.7 million by 2009-10, in percentage terms it fell marginally from 62% of all households to 61.6% in the same period.
Interestingly, the slowdown did not impact the expansion in the number of high-income households, which grew from 16.8% to 20.5% of all households in the last two years. The fall in the number of low-income households was also sharp, from 21.1% to 17.9% during the period.
NCAER, in the report also estimated the number of families having income between Rs 2 lakh and Rs 10 lakh per annum, which is close to the World Bank definition of middle class, at 28.4 million by 2009-10. The number of such middle-class households was 4.5 million in 1995-96 and 10.7 million in 2001-02. The report said that two-thirds of the Indian middle class is to be found in urban India and that trend has continued in the last 15 years also. India has one of the highest savings rates in the world, with savings constituting an estimated 36% of the GDP.
************************************************
Most of the India is growing rapidly,with poverty being eradicated rapidly.
Yes some states like Bihar,Uttar Pradesh,MP and Andhra Pradesh have a notable amount of poverty.But underlining India as a land of abject poverty is completely out of sense,specially when it comes from a Bangladeshi
Rather, we should thank idune or Omar for spending so much time on reearching on India. Though it is a different thing whether they spend one fraction of their time for their own countries.
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
India’s growth fails to reduce poverty; ranks 119, China 89
Tuesday, November 09, 2010 08:00 IST
India has failed to make any significant improvement in its poverty figures, with over 400 million – more than the total in the poorest African nations – still struck in poverty, the Human Development Report 2010 said, listing India at the 119th position on the Human Development Index. Though India has jumped one position during the last five years, it continues to have high absolute poverty of people living below $1.25 per day along with high incidence of multidimensionality which is characterized by lack of access to health, education and living standards.
“Eight Indian states with poverty as acute as the 26 poorest African countries are home to 421 million multidimensionally poor people, more than the 410 million people living in those African countries combined,” says the report issued by the UN Development Programme.
At present about 1.75 billion people live in multi-dimensional poverty and 1.44 billion live below absolute poverty in the world. While Norway, Australia and New Zealand lead the the world in HDI achievement, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe figure at the bottom of the pile among 169 countries in HDI – a composite national measure for health, education, and income.
In sharp contrast, China moved up the HDI ladder by 8 positions to occupy the 89th rank in the world during the last five years. China is now estimated to have 16% of its population living below $1.25 a day and 12% of the people caught in multidimensional poverty.
Since its inception in 1990, the UNDP’s Human Development Report has become a barometer to judge how countries are performing in improving the social, economic and political well-being of their population.
– Agencies
Food & Beverage News: Top Stories - India’s growth fails to reduce poverty; ranks 119, China 89
India should stop comparing itself to China and start comparing itself to Africa.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010 08:00 IST
India has failed to make any significant improvement in its poverty figures, with over 400 million – more than the total in the poorest African nations – still struck in poverty, the Human Development Report 2010 said, listing India at the 119th position on the Human Development Index. Though India has jumped one position during the last five years, it continues to have high absolute poverty of people living below $1.25 per day along with high incidence of multidimensionality which is characterized by lack of access to health, education and living standards.
“Eight Indian states with poverty as acute as the 26 poorest African countries are home to 421 million multidimensionally poor people, more than the 410 million people living in those African countries combined,” says the report issued by the UN Development Programme.
At present about 1.75 billion people live in multi-dimensional poverty and 1.44 billion live below absolute poverty in the world. While Norway, Australia and New Zealand lead the the world in HDI achievement, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe figure at the bottom of the pile among 169 countries in HDI – a composite national measure for health, education, and income.
In sharp contrast, China moved up the HDI ladder by 8 positions to occupy the 89th rank in the world during the last five years. China is now estimated to have 16% of its population living below $1.25 a day and 12% of the people caught in multidimensional poverty.
Since its inception in 1990, the UNDP’s Human Development Report has become a barometer to judge how countries are performing in improving the social, economic and political well-being of their population.
– Agencies
Food & Beverage News: Top Stories - India’s growth fails to reduce poverty; ranks 119, China 89
India should stop comparing itself to China and start comparing itself to Africa.
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
If India doesn't 'need' aid, why do foreign governments still give it?
Although India is an economic powerhouse, focused foreign aid still has a vital role in its development and its application could be a blueprint for the future
Priyanka Sharma, 5, passes a stack of used plastic containers, scavenged from a nearby political rally, to her sister Priya, left, in New Delhi, India. Photograph: Gurinder Osan/AP
Aid to India has been in the news a lot recently. India is growing so fast that it will be the second-largest economy in the world (after China) in a few decades. It has a space programme, a nuclear programme, and even an aid programme. So why do rich countries still give India aid? Fair question. But rather than an anomaly, is aid to India actually a blueprint for aid programmes of the future?
Every year, almost 2 million Indian children can't get enough food or basic healthcare and die before their fifth birthday. Around 10% of Indians (about 120 million people) drink dangerously dirty water, while 400 million are without electricity. The international community needs to work to support poverty reduction and green growth in India, and there is a very long list of ways of doing that. Aid will play only a minor part in this support but, despite what some will tell you, it still has a role.
The main criticism of aid to India is that India doesn't need it. But that is exactly the reason why it can work well. The trouble with aid is that when it becomes too important to a country (too much, for too long), it stops supporting the process of development and starts to delay it. It can undermine the ability and accountability of the state, because the state gets its money, policy and legitimacy from elsewhere. This is most obvious in the pernicious practice of "policy conditionality", where countries have to do what donors say to get their money.
Because of this, it is often those countries that need aid least that can use it best. Aid has been irrelevant to India's GDP for many years, contributing well under 1%. But it can play a catalytic role to support change and progress when it is invested wisely, without undermining ownership and institutional development.
There are three ways that aid should be spent in India. Firstly, in support of big infrastructure projects. This will mostly be in the form of concessional loans from the World Bank and other regional development banks, which count as aid but will end in the next few years as India "graduates" from being a low-income country and so stops being eligible.
The second way is through the work of big international efforts to support development, particularly in the areas of health, water and resilience to climate change. One of the great things about being alive in this era is that noble international initiatives exist to help all human beings, regardless of which country they are in. These attempts, mostly led by the UN and supported by other funds such as the GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation and the Global Fund, are a work in progress, with failures to learn from as well as successes. But those successes have been fairly spectacular in some places, and need to be scaled up.
We also need to develop new ways for the international community to unite to fight poverty and promote clean development. We need to invest in health and climate change technology, and support knowledge-sharing between rich, middle-income and poor countries.
Thirdly, some rich countries should continue to contribute bilaterally. Donor government aid agencies have acted a little like NGOs in India, only with more money and more access to the top decision-makers. Their money is small fry even for Indian states, let alone for the central government, so lesson-learning and knowledge-sharing are at least as important as the financial investments themselves. The work they do on the ground, and the money they invest, allow innovative ideas to be applied, increasing the pool of knowledge and experience in breaking through difficult problems of extreme poverty.
NGOs and government aid agencies can connect various sectors of society, including civil society, thinktanks and the private sector. For all the important work it does, the UN can find it hard (for political reasons) to challenge host governments, meaning that bilateral donors and NGOs have an important role to play. Crucially, they work within clear policy guidelines set by the Indian government, rather than placing their own policy conditions, so they build rather than undermine national and regional government capacity and accountability.
There are far more important things than aid for poverty reduction in India, and I would not fight to keep it at today's levels. However, the majority of poor people now live in middle-income countries. The world needs to find a new way to support those countries to tackle poverty quickly and effectively.
The way the international community provides aid to India is a hint towards a new global aid compact, in which the old top-down donor-recipient relationships are replaced by respectful collaboration between sovereign countries: a state strong enough to say no, but wise enough to accept advice, support and appropriate financing.
If India doesn't 'need' aid, why do foreign governments still give it? | Global development | guardian.co.uk
Although India is an economic powerhouse, focused foreign aid still has a vital role in its development and its application could be a blueprint for the future
Priyanka Sharma, 5, passes a stack of used plastic containers, scavenged from a nearby political rally, to her sister Priya, left, in New Delhi, India. Photograph: Gurinder Osan/AP
Aid to India has been in the news a lot recently. India is growing so fast that it will be the second-largest economy in the world (after China) in a few decades. It has a space programme, a nuclear programme, and even an aid programme. So why do rich countries still give India aid? Fair question. But rather than an anomaly, is aid to India actually a blueprint for aid programmes of the future?
Every year, almost 2 million Indian children can't get enough food or basic healthcare and die before their fifth birthday. Around 10% of Indians (about 120 million people) drink dangerously dirty water, while 400 million are without electricity. The international community needs to work to support poverty reduction and green growth in India, and there is a very long list of ways of doing that. Aid will play only a minor part in this support but, despite what some will tell you, it still has a role.
The main criticism of aid to India is that India doesn't need it. But that is exactly the reason why it can work well. The trouble with aid is that when it becomes too important to a country (too much, for too long), it stops supporting the process of development and starts to delay it. It can undermine the ability and accountability of the state, because the state gets its money, policy and legitimacy from elsewhere. This is most obvious in the pernicious practice of "policy conditionality", where countries have to do what donors say to get their money.
Because of this, it is often those countries that need aid least that can use it best. Aid has been irrelevant to India's GDP for many years, contributing well under 1%. But it can play a catalytic role to support change and progress when it is invested wisely, without undermining ownership and institutional development.
There are three ways that aid should be spent in India. Firstly, in support of big infrastructure projects. This will mostly be in the form of concessional loans from the World Bank and other regional development banks, which count as aid but will end in the next few years as India "graduates" from being a low-income country and so stops being eligible.
The second way is through the work of big international efforts to support development, particularly in the areas of health, water and resilience to climate change. One of the great things about being alive in this era is that noble international initiatives exist to help all human beings, regardless of which country they are in. These attempts, mostly led by the UN and supported by other funds such as the GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation and the Global Fund, are a work in progress, with failures to learn from as well as successes. But those successes have been fairly spectacular in some places, and need to be scaled up.
We also need to develop new ways for the international community to unite to fight poverty and promote clean development. We need to invest in health and climate change technology, and support knowledge-sharing between rich, middle-income and poor countries.
Thirdly, some rich countries should continue to contribute bilaterally. Donor government aid agencies have acted a little like NGOs in India, only with more money and more access to the top decision-makers. Their money is small fry even for Indian states, let alone for the central government, so lesson-learning and knowledge-sharing are at least as important as the financial investments themselves. The work they do on the ground, and the money they invest, allow innovative ideas to be applied, increasing the pool of knowledge and experience in breaking through difficult problems of extreme poverty.
NGOs and government aid agencies can connect various sectors of society, including civil society, thinktanks and the private sector. For all the important work it does, the UN can find it hard (for political reasons) to challenge host governments, meaning that bilateral donors and NGOs have an important role to play. Crucially, they work within clear policy guidelines set by the Indian government, rather than placing their own policy conditions, so they build rather than undermine national and regional government capacity and accountability.
There are far more important things than aid for poverty reduction in India, and I would not fight to keep it at today's levels. However, the majority of poor people now live in middle-income countries. The world needs to find a new way to support those countries to tackle poverty quickly and effectively.
The way the international community provides aid to India is a hint towards a new global aid compact, in which the old top-down donor-recipient relationships are replaced by respectful collaboration between sovereign countries: a state strong enough to say no, but wise enough to accept advice, support and appropriate financing.
If India doesn't 'need' aid, why do foreign governments still give it? | Global development | guardian.co.uk
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
Indians feel poverty is biggest problem for India
Indians believe that war and terrorism, global warming, pollution and over-population are the biggest problems facing the world. In contrast, people living in the United States and Britain, which are facing economic slowdown, feel that economic situation is a major global challenge.
The findings were revealed on Tuesday by Sir Robert Worcester, founder of Mori, while launching Kings College Londons Global Index of Fear.
The survey by Ipsos-Mori in eight countries Australia, Brazil, China, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa UK and US were asked what they felt were the two or three challenges that face the world and what they felt were the two or three greatest challenges facing their own country.
Global warming and war & terrorism were identified as joint greatest challenges facing the world. Global warming is a huge concern for China as 67 per cent respondents from there identified this as the biggest issue facing the world, Sir Robert said here on Tuesday. However, the United States (62 per cent) and the UK (60 per cent) have identified war and terrorism as the biggest global challenge, he said, adding that it was strange that developed countries like the United States, UK, and Australia had put global warming low on their list of challenges.
In India, 56 per cent believe war & terrorism is the biggest problem in the world, followed by global warming (53 per cent) and over-population and pollution were joint third with 29 per cent each. Poverty came a close fourth with 28 per cent for Indians.
When questioned about challenges facing their own countries, the respondents in the survey chose the economy, poverty and over-population as their major problems. Americans (82 per cent) were the most worried about their economy and the Indians (18 per cent) were the least concerned, Sir Robert said, adding that BRIC citizens did not worry about their national economies. For Indians, poverty (45 per cent), over-population (42 per cent) and war & terrorism (40 per cent) were the biggest problems facing India at present.
The concerns of people changed in different contexts: In global context global warming was the biggest challenge, but this dropped to the fourth place on the list of national problems. War and terrorism dropped from second place in the global context to fifth on the national context, Sir Robert revealed. The global index of fear has been created by the Kings College London for its fundraising campaign, World Questions Kings Answers, which aims to raise £500 million over the next five years. The prestigious institution, which has launched India, China and Brazil Institutes, aims to build close ties with the growing economies.
Indians feel poverty is biggest problem for India | Deccan Chronicle | 2010-11-03
Indians believe that war and terrorism, global warming, pollution and over-population are the biggest problems facing the world. In contrast, people living in the United States and Britain, which are facing economic slowdown, feel that economic situation is a major global challenge.
The findings were revealed on Tuesday by Sir Robert Worcester, founder of Mori, while launching Kings College Londons Global Index of Fear.
The survey by Ipsos-Mori in eight countries Australia, Brazil, China, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa UK and US were asked what they felt were the two or three challenges that face the world and what they felt were the two or three greatest challenges facing their own country.
Global warming and war & terrorism were identified as joint greatest challenges facing the world. Global warming is a huge concern for China as 67 per cent respondents from there identified this as the biggest issue facing the world, Sir Robert said here on Tuesday. However, the United States (62 per cent) and the UK (60 per cent) have identified war and terrorism as the biggest global challenge, he said, adding that it was strange that developed countries like the United States, UK, and Australia had put global warming low on their list of challenges.
In India, 56 per cent believe war & terrorism is the biggest problem in the world, followed by global warming (53 per cent) and over-population and pollution were joint third with 29 per cent each. Poverty came a close fourth with 28 per cent for Indians.
When questioned about challenges facing their own countries, the respondents in the survey chose the economy, poverty and over-population as their major problems. Americans (82 per cent) were the most worried about their economy and the Indians (18 per cent) were the least concerned, Sir Robert said, adding that BRIC citizens did not worry about their national economies. For Indians, poverty (45 per cent), over-population (42 per cent) and war & terrorism (40 per cent) were the biggest problems facing India at present.
The concerns of people changed in different contexts: In global context global warming was the biggest challenge, but this dropped to the fourth place on the list of national problems. War and terrorism dropped from second place in the global context to fifth on the national context, Sir Robert revealed. The global index of fear has been created by the Kings College London for its fundraising campaign, World Questions Kings Answers, which aims to raise £500 million over the next five years. The prestigious institution, which has launched India, China and Brazil Institutes, aims to build close ties with the growing economies.
Indians feel poverty is biggest problem for India | Deccan Chronicle | 2010-11-03
SpArK
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 22,519
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
^^^
Its better to have poverty alone rather than having all the combinations..
Btwn which European country are u from?
Searching google with keywords for poverty seems to be the only daily activity of urs.. be more creative.. dont u u get tired doing it all the time u logged into this forum???
Its better to have poverty alone rather than having all the combinations..
Btwn which European country are u from?
Searching google with keywords for poverty seems to be the only daily activity of urs.. be more creative.. dont u u get tired doing it all the time u logged into this forum???
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
India behind Lanka, Maldives in HDI
India is ranked 119th among 169 countries in the latest edition of the Human Development Index (HDI), well below comparable emerging economies and even behind poorer neighbours such as Sri Lanka and the Maldives.
The HDI, released annually by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), measures human development based on indicators such as health, education and income.
Norway, Australia, New Zealand, the US and Ireland lead the index, while emerging economies such as Russia (69th), Brazil (73rd) and China (89th) score well above India.
In value terms, India moved to 0.519 from 0.512 last year. But its rank remains unchanged under a revised method of calculating the index.
On the Gender Inequality Index, which was launched this year, India is ranked 122nd out of 138 countries, based on 2008 data.
The report says 27% of adult women in India have a secondary or higher level of education, compared with 50% of men.
For every 100,000 live births, 450 women in India die from pregnancy-related causes, while the adolescent fertility rate is 68 births per 1,000 live births. Female participation in the labour market in India is 36% compared with 85% for men.
Replacing the Human Poverty Index, UNDP has introduced the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), which identifies multiple deprivations in the same households in terms of education, health and standard of living.
In India, 55% of the population already suffers multiple deprivations, while another 16% is vulnerable to it.
The report says Delhis rate of multi-dimensional poverty is close to that of Iraq and Vietnam, while that of Bihar is similar to that of Sierra Leone and Guinea.
About a third of other Indian households are multi-dimensionally poor, with an MPI just below that of Honduras.
While India stands at 10 in the top 10 movers in HDI in terms of improvement in income, it does not figure in the top 10 movers list on health and education.
N.R. Bhanumurthy, professor at the think-tank National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, said Indias poor HDI rank reflected a skewed development focus.
Our policies have been concentrating more on economic growth, neglecting the social sectors. That is why the 11th Five-Year Plan (2007-12) tried to bring in the concept of inclusive growth.
The policies are now in place, however, they have not been implemented whole heartedly. That is why our ranking is so poor, he said.
The HDI report holds that current consumption and production patterns worldwide are not environmentally sustainable in the long term.
By mid-century, the adverse effects of climate change on grain yields will push prices upmore than doubling the price of wheatwith massive repercussions.
In a worst case scenario, by 2050, per capita consumption of cereals falls by a fifth, leaving 25 million additional children malnourished, with South Asia the worst affected, says the report.
India behind Lanka, Maldives in HDI - Home - livemint.com
India is ranked 119th among 169 countries in the latest edition of the Human Development Index (HDI), well below comparable emerging economies and even behind poorer neighbours such as Sri Lanka and the Maldives.
The HDI, released annually by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), measures human development based on indicators such as health, education and income.
Norway, Australia, New Zealand, the US and Ireland lead the index, while emerging economies such as Russia (69th), Brazil (73rd) and China (89th) score well above India.
In value terms, India moved to 0.519 from 0.512 last year. But its rank remains unchanged under a revised method of calculating the index.
On the Gender Inequality Index, which was launched this year, India is ranked 122nd out of 138 countries, based on 2008 data.
The report says 27% of adult women in India have a secondary or higher level of education, compared with 50% of men.
For every 100,000 live births, 450 women in India die from pregnancy-related causes, while the adolescent fertility rate is 68 births per 1,000 live births. Female participation in the labour market in India is 36% compared with 85% for men.
Replacing the Human Poverty Index, UNDP has introduced the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), which identifies multiple deprivations in the same households in terms of education, health and standard of living.
In India, 55% of the population already suffers multiple deprivations, while another 16% is vulnerable to it.
The report says Delhis rate of multi-dimensional poverty is close to that of Iraq and Vietnam, while that of Bihar is similar to that of Sierra Leone and Guinea.
About a third of other Indian households are multi-dimensionally poor, with an MPI just below that of Honduras.
While India stands at 10 in the top 10 movers in HDI in terms of improvement in income, it does not figure in the top 10 movers list on health and education.
N.R. Bhanumurthy, professor at the think-tank National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, said Indias poor HDI rank reflected a skewed development focus.
Our policies have been concentrating more on economic growth, neglecting the social sectors. That is why the 11th Five-Year Plan (2007-12) tried to bring in the concept of inclusive growth.
The policies are now in place, however, they have not been implemented whole heartedly. That is why our ranking is so poor, he said.
The HDI report holds that current consumption and production patterns worldwide are not environmentally sustainable in the long term.
By mid-century, the adverse effects of climate change on grain yields will push prices upmore than doubling the price of wheatwith massive repercussions.
In a worst case scenario, by 2050, per capita consumption of cereals falls by a fifth, leaving 25 million additional children malnourished, with South Asia the worst affected, says the report.
India behind Lanka, Maldives in HDI - Home - livemint.com
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
These countries went through wars against the superpower and as a result had their country finished and had to built their country from scratch. What's india's excuse?
SpArK
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 22,519
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
Pakistan ranks 141 out of 182 countries.Below India and the stated countries..
Who is more poorer now??
Pakistan Human Development Index 2010 ? Pro-Pakistan
- Status
Similar threads
