What's new

Poverty in India Declining?

Skull-Buster

BANNED
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
291
Reaction score
0
Grim reality of India's poverty dip

parshit Kurmi, a daily-wage labourer in Delhi since 1991, was puzzled when he was told that the government’s latest estimate had found poverty levels were coming down. For the past 16 years, Kurmi’s life has been uncertain as he struggles to survive. “In Delhi, I earn more, but am poorer because I spend cash on everything,” he says. The government has a different take. According to the new poverty index, Kurmi is neither poor in Delhi nor in his native Chhattisgarh. Unsurprisingly, government statistics don’t cut any ice with him. “Since 1991, I have been hearing that poverty has gone down. But in the village most people have become poorer,” he says.

The new poverty line for rural India is Rs 356 a month and Rs 538 a month for urban India. Those spending less are categorised poor. This means Kurmi’s daily bus fare suffices to keep him above the poverty line. “Most people in a village spend Rs 356 a month. So, who are the poor? Poverty in my state has not reduced,” Kurmi argues. Despite the low base fixed by the government, a large chunk of population is still below the poverty line. (see table: Thin trickle). And poor residents in the poorest states, like Chhattisgarh, will continue to be poor for a long time.

The current estimate shows that even while poverty is lessening, it is becoming more chronic in states with a history of poverty: the poorest cannot move out of the poverty trap. India had 301.7 million ‘poor’ people in 2005, using urp figures, according to the new estimate. Of these, 72 per cent were in rural areas. More than 57 per cent were concentrated in five states: Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. Uttar Pradesh had the largest number of poor with 59 million below the poverty line. In Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh poverty has increased during 1993-2005 while in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa the number of rural poor has increased. Orissa has the largest percentage of poor (46.4) followed by Bihar (41.4), Chhattisgarh (40.4), Madhya Pradesh (38.3 per cent) and Maharashtra (30.7). As in earlier estimates, the south has shown improvement

www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070430&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=1
 
.
skull have u checked whether the figures mentioned in the article you quoted where actual or not?

Dont just paste articles and dissapear, you need to pen in your views too.
 
.
the figures are correct and the article is very realistic. this is what is actually happening. while more and more people in india are coming to the streets, official figures say that poverty is declining. this is because of the extremely low poverty line set by the indian govt.

the poverty line set by the indian govt is very unrealistic. look at this quote from the article:

"This means Kurmi’s daily bus fare suffices to keep him above the poverty line."
 
.
skull have u checked whether the figures mentioned in the article you quoted where actual or not?

Dont just paste articles and dissapear, you need to pen in your views too.

From where he needs to check the figures, from Indian department of economics or from some of member ?

In poor countries like India these studies are not done by governments or any agencies, it is mostly a random survays carried out by certain groups and considered to be true.

But these figures are no different from the other reports already posted on this forum in several threads.
 
.
From where he needs to check the figures, from Indian department of economics or from some of member ?

In poor countries like India these studies are not done by governments or any agencies, it is mostly a random survays carried out by certain groups and considered to be true.

But these figures are no different from the other reports already posted on this forum in several threads.

right bro....the figures are absolutely right and the article is an eye opener. this article shows the ground realities and how indian govt has been playing around with numbers and keeping the indian public in a dellusion.
 
.
I was right about your education, cant understand the word 'scare-mongering', you will study that when you turn 16-17

lol...this Masters in Economics is pretty uneducated. its funny how u twist the topics and change the direction of threads...as it is...traditional indian hypocricy...if u have any facts to post then do so or else waste your time on other threads. lol now i can understand how u got those 2800 posts...
 
.
India's Biotech Industry Emerging As World Innovator, Collaborator, Competitor

India's health biotech firms are emerging as a major global player, with growing means and know-how to produce innovative as well as generic drugs and vaccines at costs small relative to those of giant Western firms, according to ground-breaking Canadian research published April 9.

The budding of an innovative Indian biotech sector holds major implications for the global industry and for improving both health and prosperity in the developing world.

"India is innovating its way out of poverty," says co-author Peter A. Singer, MD, of the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health (University Health Network and University of Toronto). "With a massive and increasingly well-educated workforce, India is poised to revolutionize biotechnology just as it did the information technology industry.

"India's biotech sector is like a baby elephant - when it matures, it will occupy a lot of space. The biotech industry is globalizing rapidly and the impact of India's market entry and contribution to improving world health is potentially huge."

However, Singer and co-authors Abdallah S. Daar, MD, Sarah E. Frew, PhD, Monali Ray, Rahim Rezaie and Stephen M. Sammut, MBA, warn that the allure of world market profits may divert much needed Indian research attention away from treatments for specific developing country illnesses, unlikely to be created by Western-based firms. "India needs to take steps to avert this outcome," they say.

Published April 9 by Nature Biotechnology, the authors say their study of 21 home-grown firms sheds unprecedented public light on India's private sector biotech efforts and reports "a sector preparing not only for future growth but also, in some cases, for developing innovative products for global markets."

It is the first known "detailed, independent, publicly available research" revealing product development capabilities and strategies used by India's private firms to survive and grow amid developing country challenges.

It also recommends ways India and others in the developing world can help domestic biotech firms succeed.

The paper helps set the stage for a Toronto conference May 2-4 at which 20 to 30 North American biotech firms will convene with more than 25 similar firms from India, China, Brazil and Africa - thought to be the biggest-ever assembly of emerging market biotech companies. The goal: to encourage more biotech success and innovation in developing countries and North-South as well as South-South partnerships to address pressing global health problems.

Impacts on drug prices already felt

According to the paper: "The global market for ... generic biopharmaceuticals is expected to increase significantly in the next few years as several 'blockbuster' drugs lose patent protection. Indian companies appear well positioned to leverage their cost-effective manufacturing capabilities to corner some of this market share and compete on a global scale."

The paper says the 1997 launch of hepatitis B vaccine Shanvac-B, developed by Shantha Biotechnics of Hyperabad, helped cause a 30-fold domestic price reduction - from about $15 for a comparable imported product to roughly $0.50 - and credits Shantha's innovative, efficient manufacturing process and well as subsequent local competition.

Shantha today supplies nearly 40% of the UN Children's Fund's (UNICEF) global Hep-B vaccine supplies, distributed in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Says Dr. Singer: "Think about the impact on health of supplying all that vaccine to UNICEF at those prices."

Shantha also priced its recombinant interferon alpha (IFN-á) product Shanferon at about $6.50, undercutting the previous market price for a comparable imported drug by 75%.

The Serum Institute of India (Pune), meanwhile, has become the country's largest domestic vaccine supplier and exporter, its products reaching 138 countries. The company claims to be the world's largest measles vaccine manufacturer and, through UNICEF and the Pan American Health Organization, helps immunize half the world's children against several diseases.

Other examples of a surging Indian health biotech industry: New Delhi-based Panacea Biotec supplies oral polio vaccine to the Indian government and to UNICEF, while the Biocon firm of Bangalore developed a proprietary process for manufacturing human recombinant insulin.

Even before Biocon's product (Insugen) entered the domestic market, international competitors reduced the Indian price of their products by nearly 40%, the paper says. Biocon priced its product even lower still and says Insugen remains India's most affordable human recombinant insulin product.

"If the above trend continues, the cost of biopharmaceuticals produced by both domestic and overseas suppliers will continue to decrease as more domestic companies manufacture these products locally," according to the paper.

It says many Indian firms are scaling up to manufacture such drugs as insulin and interferon, their facilities "refurbished or built in accordance with the standards of international regulatory agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMEA) and the World Health Organization (WHO), to facilitate access to international markets not only for biogenerics but also novel protein products currently in their pipelines."

"Indian companies are likely to accelerate the development of products for sale in US and European markets, particularly the biogenerics for which they have developed significant manufacturing capacity," the paper says.

Indian firms are actively pursuing drugs to combat many medical problems, including tuberculosis, encephalitis, malaria, rotavirus, rabies, avian flu, Hepatitus-B, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, cholera, HIV-HCV, tetanus, meningitis, measles and anemia. Other strong areas of interest include combination tests for various medical conditions, as well as antivirals and nutriceuticals.

It adds that India's domestic firms increasingly need to offer salaries competitive with Western firms to retain talented personnel, potentially impacting the domestic labor pool and research strategies. This trends "may put further pressure on margins of domestic products, and may push companies to shift focus to higher-margin products and services for Western markets."

North-South collaborations

The paper says some Indian firms use services contracts with overseas firms to fund their operations, develop commercialization capabilities and access valuable international technology and expertise. Services provided include R&D, clinical trials and manufacturing. Bharat Biotech International, for example, is the first developing country firm to manufacture a foreign proprietary vaccine product. It is contracted by the U.S. Wyeth Company to produce its Haemophilis B (Hib) vaccine.

Multi-national corporations increasingly conduct clinical trials in India and rely on Indian contract research organizations to manage these trials. A Bangalore firm, Clinigene, is the first in India with a lab certified by the College of American Pathologists, conducting trials for Merck and Pfizer (USA), AstraZeneca (UK) and others.

Notes co-author Abdallah Daar, MD, of the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health: "It will be vital to the industry that Indian companies expanding their capabilities in clinical trials management pay close attention not only to good clinical practice guidelines, but also to bioethical principles, to provide a high level of care and protect the rights of patients."

R&D alliances between Indian and Western companies have just begun and may be affected by assumptions - correct or incorrect - about the expertise and competence of workers at Indian firms, the paper says.

The paper notes too that major Western pharmaceutical firms, such as Novartis, have recently created their own research facilities in India.

Indian biotech at crossroads

Indian biotech is "at a crossroads," the authors say, and requires support to maintain it's original domestic public service orientation.

"It must not only address the significant health needs of its domestic population, but also position itself to take advantage of the often more profitable global marketplace. The country's health biotech companies operate in close proximity to the shocking disparities in health that plague our globe today. Although these firms are uniquely suited to address these needs, they require financial and political support before they will commit to doing so."

India's health system is being hit with a 'double burden' of communicable and non-communicable diseases, as basic care improves and the country's middle class grows, according to the paper.

In 2003, 5.1 million Indians had HIV/AIDS, over 3 million had tuberculosis and 1.8 million had malaria. Approximately 32 million Indians were diabetic in 2000, a number expected to reach 80 million by 2030.

The WHO predicts that by 2015 nearly twice as many deaths across all ages in India will be due to chronic diseases than the combined toll of communicable diseases, maternal and prenatal conditions, and nutritional deficiencies.

"Historically, Indian companies have been the principal providers of medicines and vaccines for the Indian population, enabled by domestic talent and patent laws that protected processes but not products," the paper says.

Revisions to India's intellectual property regime, effective Jan. 1, 2005, offering patent protection for products as well as processes, have encourged innovative domestic private sector research programs, the researchers found.

In general, Indian firms are at a relatively early stage in their innovative R&D programs and have "yet to produce a truly innovative health product with the stamp 'Made in India'," the authors say.

However, "it isn't a question of if but when drug product breakthroughs will start arriving from India," says co-author Sarah Frew.

She says many Indian biotech companies were founded with the purpose of addressing specific local health needs.

"These were often non-innovative products developed with an innovative process and several companies interviewed had success with this business model - both in terms of generating profits and in addressing local needs," she says.

"Global health authorities want to take advantage of the capabilities of these firms to develop products as well as the social responsibility mandate on which these firms were founded to encourage them to develop products for so-called 'neglected diseases.'

"We argue that yes, the capabilities are there, but if these companies are not provided political and financial commitments to develop products for these diseases, they too will redirect their focus to developed markets to stay alive."

The paper suggests India's government consider identifying a few priority disease areas and create a dedicated fund for commercialization of products related to them.

Barriers to development

Indian biotech executives cite acute risk-aversion among Indian bankers and investors as a barrier to innovation. Says one official: "Early-stage funding for a company that wants to do pure research and go to the market six or seven years later does not exist. There is no money for such a business plan."

Other barriers to growth identified:

* A poorly coordinated patchwork of Indian regulatory agencies and a slow, confusing approval process that delays health product commercialization;

* A lack of expertise among officials in dealing with biologicals;

* A shortage of advanced training programs and scarcity of qualified personnel;

* The high cost of distribution in rural areas;

* Little entrepreneurial ambition among Indian academics in the biotech sector (resident or returning Indian scientists founded only 4 of 21 firms surveyed).

The paper says the Indian government is ramping up funding and fiscal initiatives significantly to help grow its biotech sector. The Department of Biotechnology's budget quadrupled in six years, from about $30 to $120 million between 1999 and 2005. And the government has promised to nearly double its science budget - from 1.1% of gross domestic product in 2005 to 2% by 2007.

Fiscal incentives include relaxed price controls for drugs, removal of foreign ownership limits, subsidies on capital expenses and tax holidays for R&D spending.

Other lessons learned

Many start-up firms entered via vaccine markets for which significant local expertise existed and competition from abroad was limited.

Many resourcefully explored various financing opportunities from both domestic and international sources. Often they grew without surrendering much equity, adopting a hybrid business model whereby early revenues were reinvested to expand product and/or service portfolios and relying on project-specific financing from external governmental and nongovernmental agencies.

Successful firms also established and maintained collaborations and partnerships with public and private organizations in India and abroad, establishing global presence through joint ventures with foreign firms or by setting up their own subsidiaries abroad

Finally, several Indian firms are becoming more competitive by patenting products and technologies globally.

"Most people think only of information technologies as the driver behind India's economic emergence but a lot of innovative research is underway in biotech and other life sciences as well," says Dr. Daar. "This study documents for the first time what is happening at the individual biotech company level."

Recommendations for biotech development in India

* Harmonize the pharmaceutical regulatory system into one regulatory agency and ensure adequate training for regulatory personnel.

* Increase training programs in advanced biotech;

* Ensure translation of initiatives in the draft Biotech Strategy into policies that increase effective collaborations between public and private institutions and encourage academic scientists to pursue entrepreneurial ventures to commercialize research.

* Create a favorable and enabling financial environment for enterprise creation and private sector development, including support of early-stage research and product development.

* Identify national priorities for public health and use a targeted funding approach to ensure development of products and services that address local health needs.

* Improve public health infrastructure and/or give incentives to private firms to develop innovative distribution strategies.

Excerts from Pakistani Newspapers

Learning from India and China

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz was in India early April attending a SAARC summit; he is now in China. With India he “postponed” the expansion of trade relations; with China he has gone to request more economic involvement. India is next door to Pakistan but hostile; China is also next door but Pakistan’s best friend. Both India and China have populations of over a billion people each. The economies of both are growing at record rates. They are expanding trade relations with each other too.

Mr Aziz signed a large number of treaties with China during his visit. But of course, much will depend on how he is able to create the right conditions for Chinese investment and expertise in Pakistan. China is the only country keen enough at the official level to come and invest in Pakistan. It is no surprise, therefore, that they have been targeted by militants or terrorists, twice in Balochistan and once in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The came into the copper project in Balochistan at Saindak but were chased away a long time ago. Now they are back.

Mr Aziz met the Chinese President Hu Jintao and thanked him and the people of China for initiating joint mega projects in Pakistan, such as Gwadar, Chashma Power Plant, Saindak, and Karakoram Highway. Pakistan’s demand list was for ten nuclear power plants after Chashma but the Chinese have so far not acceded to it in deference to their partners in the Nuclear Club. Pakistan in return is home to cheap Chinese goods, a fact of which Mr Aziz boasted in New Delhi while refusing to open up trade with India. Presumably he was suggesting that India too could benefit from Pakistan’s market if it settled its political disputes with Islamabad first.

Pakistan too is growing at a good rate and Mr Aziz should be complimented on it, but there are certain areas that should worry him. The world no longer compares Pakistan with India which is now moving into the league where China finds itself. Mr Aziz knows this and yet he shows no public signs of breaking the mould of Pakistan’s stunted reflex on trade. He said nothing new that could break the monotony of yore when he told the Indian Prime Minister Mr Manmohan Singh that India should first sort out the Kashmir problem.

In China, Mr Aziz seems completely transformed. He says all the right things. He knows China is the fourth largest economy in the world and is growing at 9 percent annually. It is buying up commodities at such speed that a sucking sound is produced in the steel and oil markets at the global level. It has built an infrastructure to astound the world and is going out and buying up oil wells to secure its energy supply for a future where Pakistan and others will look around helplessly. It has disputes with India of a territorial nature but has set them aside to become its important two-way trade and investment partner, India being the investor.

India has democracy tied to its ankle like a steel ball burnished with anachronistic communist parties that hug state-owned enterprises and want everything subsidised. But India, led by a man of economics, has been realistic rather than “high-principled” with China. It has forgotten its revisionism with Beijing over territory it thinks China has grabbed forcibly and has instead plumped for trade. India’s high growth rate is not coming from a narrow curve restricted to computer electronics. It is on the way of reducing its poverty levels like China where millions have already come out of it. On the other hand, Mr Shaukat Aziz’s Pakistan has still not taken off after a measure of stabilisation.

What Pakistan needs badly is foreign investment despite its bad infrastructure that it shares with India; and despite the fact that it has a bad law and order situation, political instability and creeping anarchism known as Talibanisation. Not much foreign investment in the manufacturing sector is coming in, barring some Arab money in the service sector because it can’t be parked anywhere else. In fact some Pakistani investment is going out to the UAE where stable conditions of a market economy are available. Mr Aziz knows that Pakistan could lose its newly gained momentum unless he takes some radical steps.

Mr Aziz simply has to learn from India and China if original thinking is banned in Pakistan. Devaluation is staring us in the face because of the yawning trade deficit and overvalued rupee. He knows that if he can’t get money injected into Pakistan quickly enough Pakistan’s growth will falter. On top of that Pakistan could become politically dysfunctional if the next year or so is not managed with wisdom. If the idea is to thwart any move forward with India on trade and investment till the elections are here and over, it is a wrong idea.

The judiciary, badly treated by the prime minister, is taking revenge on the economy by blocking privatisation, which is one way of getting someone to bring in some money. Given these circumstances, Mr Aziz should have taken off his various masks, come into his own, and agreed with India to embark on a new trade and investment relationship without asking India to cough up Kashmir first. The people of Pakistan would have loved it. If Bangladesh can receive $2 billion in investment from just one Indian corporation Tata, why can’t Pakistan?

At the beginning of the new millennium a new kind of urgency faces the states of South Asia. These states have struggled with democracy since the mid-20th century but can’t seem to make out what it is all about. A message from China and the East says if you have your economy running right you can learn democracy at leisure. Becoming politically dysfunctional is not as dangerous as becoming economically dysfunctional. For Mr Aziz there are two models, that of China, which he views with feelings of friendship, and the other of India, which he regards through someone else’s spectacles. Both models have much to teach Pakistan. *
 
.
World poverty reduced by growth in India and China
Larry Elliott in Washington
Monday April 16, 2007
The Guardian

Spectacular growth in China and India has pushed the number of people around the world living on less than a dollar a day below the 1 billion level, but masks entrenched poverty in Africa and Latin America, the World Bank said yesterday.

Reporting an 80-million drop in extreme poverty in the two years to 2004, the Bank said the improvement was entirely due to the rapid expansion in Asia's two most populous countries.

It said that since 1990, there had been a 260 million drop in the number of people living on less than a dollar a day, but this was more than accounted for by the 300 million taken out of extreme poverty in China.

In sub-Saharan Africa, extreme poverty had risen by 60 million, the Bank said, adding that there were now serious doubts about the region's ability to meet the United Nations goal of halving the number of people in poverty by 2015.

"The Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of poor people is still within reach at the worldwide level, with a projected decline from 29% to 10% between 1990 and 2015," the Bank said in its annual report, World Development Indicators.

"But many countries will most likely not reach it, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, where average poverty rates remain above 40%, raising concerns of widening inequalities between regions."

The Bank's data shows that the number of people in extreme poverty has fallen from 1.489 billion in 1981 to 986 million in 2004. Excluding China, however, there has been no improvement: the total rose from 855 million in 1981 to 857 million in 2004. Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa both have more people living on less than a dollar a day than they did at the start of the 1980s.

The report found that in the past decade growth has not always guaranteed a reduction in poverty, with poor people failing to reap the fruits of economic expansion due to a lack of job opportunities, limited education or bad health.

"Growth is essential to reducing poverty," said the Bank's chief economist, François Bourguignon. "The world development indicators go beyond growth and poverty rates to ask how income is distributed, whether health care and education are improving, and to assess the business climate. These factors all affect the quality of people's lives."
 
.
World Bank: Povery in South Asia could fall dramatically as region continues to grow

TOKYO: Poverty in South Asia, the region with the world's largest concentration of poor people, could fall dramatically within a generation if the current pace of economic growth continues, the World Bank said Wednesday.

The region's economies have grown strongly in recent years, led by India, which has posted growth rates of up to 9 percent in the last year, compared with 5 or 6 percent on average in the last 10 to 15 years, said John A. Roome, the bank's operations director for South Asia.

South Asia has been also successful in significantly reducing the number of poor people, Roome said. About 150 million people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 10 to 15 years, he said at a press conference.

"These positive trends give us a lot of optimism," Roome said. "If certain key challenges can be addressed, poverty can be significantly reduced, if not eliminated, within a generation."

Roome did not elaborate on the bank's projections for reducing poverty, but bank said in its January report that the proportion of people living in extreme poverty — defined as those living on less than US$1 a day — should fall by at least by one-half between 1990 and 2015.

Today in Business
U.S. economic growth slows to its weakest pace in 4 yearsProgress is seen on trade legislationBunny-eared, the $175 children's laptop nears rollout in developing world
The challenges include sustaining and accelerating the rates of growth in the region, which covers Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Governments must also address the rising inequality, and tackle malnutrition and infant mortality, Roome said, in Tokyo with other World Bank officials for annual consultations with the Japanese government and businesses.

The bank said in the January report on eliminating poverty that South Asia also needs to improve infrastructure, citing daily power outages in Bangladesh and Nepal and impassable rural roads in the impoverished state of Bihar in India. It also called for improvement in the investment climate by reducing the red-tape required to start a business.
 
.
Plan B Budget For Eradicating Poverty And Stabilizing Population

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Apr. 3 -/E-Wire/-- "Many countries that have experienced rapid population growth for several decades are showing signs of demographic fatigue," writes Lester Brown, President of Earth Policy Institute, in Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. Countries struggling with the simultaneous challenge of educating growing numbers of children, creating jobs for swelling ranks of young job seekers, and dealing with the environmental effects of population growth are stretched to the limit. When a major new threat arises-such as the HIV epidemic-governments often cannot cope. (See report.)


Problems routinely managed in industrial societies are becoming full-scale humanitarian crises in developing ones. In the absence of a concerted effort by national governments and the international community to accelerate the shift to smaller families, events in many countries could spiral out of control, leading to more death and to spreading political instability and economic decline. There is an alternative to this bleak prospect, and that is to help countries that want to slow their population growth to do so quickly.


In an increasingly integrated world, eradicating poverty and stabilizing population are national security issues. Slowing population growth helps eradicate poverty and its distressing symptoms, and eradicating poverty helps slow population growth. With time running out, the urgency of moving simultaneously on both fronts is clear.


The U.N. Millennium Development Goals include cutting the number of people living in poverty in half by 2015, cutting the number who are hungry in half, achieving universal primary school education, providing access to safe drinking water for all, and reversing the spread of infectious diseases, especially HIV and malaria. Closely related to these are the goals of reducing maternal mortality by three fourths and under-five child mortality by two thirds.


While goals for cutting poverty in half by 2015 appear to be running slightly ahead of schedule, mainly due to successes in China and India, those for halving the number of hungry are not. The number of children with a primary school education appears to be increasing substantially, however, largely on the strength of progress in India. And mortality of children under five fell from 15 million in 1980 to 11 million in 2003 and is expected to continue falling.


The steps needed to eradicate poverty and accelerate the shift to smaller families are clear. They include filling several funding gaps, including those needed to reach universal primary education to fight infectious diseases, such as AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria to provide reproductive health care and to contain the HIV epidemic. Collectively, the initiatives discussed are estimated to cost $68 billion a year in addition to what is already being spent. (See table.)


The heaviest investments in this effort center on education and health, which are central to both human capital development and population stabilization. Education includes both universal primary education and a global campaign to eradicate adult illiteracy. Health care includes the basic interventions involved in controlling infectious diseases, beginning with childhood vaccinations. Adopting the basic health care program outlined in the 2001 Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health to the World Health Organization would save an estimated 8 million lives per year by 2010. These are the keys to breaking out of the poverty trap.


For the first time in history we have the technologies and financial resources to eradicate poverty. Industrial-country investments in education, health, and school lunches are in a sense a humanitarian response to the plight of the world's poorest countries. But more fundamentally, they are investments that will shape the world in which our children will live.
 
.
This forum is not the place to discuss personal matters. Stick to the topic!

Adux and Skull-Buster.

If someone is going off topic simply report.

Thanks.
 
.
Oh wow. Posting a bunch of articles is always the way to go for these indians. All these articles say that india WILL do this in the next this and that many years. What we're saying is it actually HAPPENING? There's a difference between the two. Try to follow what the topic is about rather than mass-posting articles that don't got anything to do with the topic.
 
.
“India is innovating its way out of poverty,"

“Reporting an 80-million drop in extreme poverty in the two years to 2004, the Bank said the improvement was entirely due to the rapid expansion in Asia's two most populous countries.”

“About 150 million people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 10 to 15 years”

The above sentences clearly specify what is happening(including World Bank) and not what is going to happen. The original article at the beginning of the thread has got nothing more than polling few individual cases and arriving at a grim picture. Well!! I'll anytime take World Bank report over a cheap 2 cents sensational article.
 
.
You might as well quote what indian government considers poverty rate and what they consider below poverty rate. If you apply the actual poverty rates to India ($1/day), you're looking at a poverty rate in the scope of 40 - 70%. Also might point out that those figures you're quoting there are from a combination of countries, not just india. And you can call it a cheap 2 cent article whenever you want. It doesn't change anything and it only shows that you can only talk crap about the article to dismiss it rather than countering it.
 
.
You might as well quote what indian government considers poverty rate and what they consider below poverty rate. If you apply the actual poverty rates to India ($1/day), you're looking at a poverty rate in the scope of 40 - 70%.

I believe that World Bank officials are atleast smart enough to understand if what can constitute for an official poverty line. This is the reason why this ($1/day) poverty figures does not hold any water. BTW, Could you tell me where did you get that figure of 40-70%(its a huge bracket). Here, Let me give you the link to actual figures.

Population bellow income poverty line (%) $1 a day 1990-2003 - 34.7
Population bellow income poverty line (%) National Poverty line 1990-2002 - 28.6


Way below your mark of 70%. Also, the figures are for the year 2003. With over 9% growthrate, you can very well imagine where the actual figures would stand by now.

Also might point out that those figures you're quoting there are from a combination of countries, not just india.

If you read carefully, the article speaks in good length about India with only a passing references to other South Asian countries and you want me to believe that it is convineantly ignoring India while talking about poverty reduction in SA countries. Don't kid yourself, please!!!

And you can call it a cheap 2 cent article whenever you want. It doesn't change anything and it only shows that you can only talk crap about the article to dismiss it rather than countering it.

All that your "million dollar" report does is quote one man's grievances, magnify them & project them on national level. Quite a research!!! Well!! I'll still go by "$0.02" World Bank report.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom