Remember when you didnt used to Like MPI because India was lower than Pakistan?
Yeah because the years were like what 8 years apart? Now they are 3 years apart...more than twice as relevant.
If the average person in Pakistan was doing better than the average Indian....your infant mortality wouldn't be as behind as it is compared to India's as just one example. Such things get taken into account in the MPI.
GINI for 2016 is 63 for India which makes it one of the most unequal countries in the world for wealth distribution.
Based on tax data? You realise the other countries Gini data dont do that?....given that is done on consumption sampling....not tax bracket income analysis (which would be highly skewed towards the wealthy in the first place given the progressive tax structure).
If we are to compare Gini for tax data,
every country has to do the same...not compare ones Gini tax data to anothers Gini PPP consumption etc....and certainly not assume Gini of consumption can be correlated verbatim to Gini of wealth (using whatever few data threads are available for that in the world, average them out and then apply them adhoc to every country).
Credit Suisse literally admits that. One really needs to think just a little bit if it makes sense that resource rich Iran + Kazakhstan (with the commensurate much higher GDP per capitas too) would have a median wealth lower than India and Pakistan....because of the same limited Gini correlation. Do you know even which year the Gini consumption curves applied were from?...and if they can be argued to be stagnant and thus relevant to current years?
You have to read the fine print and postscripts of such reports before you use this stuff willy nilly.
Not to mention the inherent problem of post processing data...the more stages its removed from the original data stream (and been filtered and gone though more sets of analysis), the less the quality of the result. Hence why GDP is lot better than stuff you derive from GDP....and stuff you derive further from those derivations.
There is a reason why median wealth (with ad-hoc style use of outdated Gini consumption curves) figures zilch in sociodevelopment indices like HDI, but GDP per capita (specifically PPP) does. There is simply more relevant quality data still present in the number at high enough level....because it was largely directly sampled and not subject to n^x quality losses. You can read up the papers of the Pakistani economist who made the HDI for more on this.
