indian economic development vs. environmental protection (april 2014 pf topic)

8/9/2019 Indian Economic Development vs. Environmental Protection (April 2014 PF Topic)

1/72

Resolved: Prioritizing economicdevelopment over environmental protectionis in the best interest of the people of India.

G O D W I N B R I E F S

APRIL 2014 PUBLIC FORUM BRIEF


2/72

GODWIN BRIEFS PF APRIL 1_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________GODWIN BRIEFS PF APRIL 1

Table of ContentsTable of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Affirmative Arguments ............................................................................................................................. 5

1. Povertyeconomic development reduces poverty. .......................................................................... 6

GDP Cure: GDP growth is the best antidote for poverty. ................................................................. 7

Chronic Poverty: Poverty becomes more costly and more difficult to escape over time, and musttherefore be prioritized. ..................................................................................................................... 8

Nutrition: Poverty harms nutrition, leading to severe health problems. ........................................... 9

Education and Health: Reducing poverty has significant educational and health benefits. ............ 10

General Poverty (Chart): A chart of what causes, maintains, and interrupts poverty in India. ....... 11

Income and Jobs: Increased income and jobs directly decreases poverty. ...................................... 12

Specific Solvency: Economic development solves poverty through infrastructure, publicinvestment, and credit availability. ................................................................................................. 13

Healthcare Access: There is a strong need for healthcare infrastructure to address poor healthcareaccess. ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Healthcare Access: There is a strong need for healthcare infrastructure to address poor healthcareaccess. ............................................................................................................................................. 15

Healthcare Access: Inequity to healthcare access is an enormous problem in India, contributing toepidemics and infant mortality among the poor. ............................................................................. 16

Healthcare Solvency: Income growth, subsidies reform, poverty reduction, and infrastructuredevelopment solve access problems. .............................................................................................. 17

Healthcare Solvency: Infrastructure and other aspects of economic development solve healthcareaccess problems. ............................................................................................................................. 18

Healthcare Prioritization: Development of infrastructure to fix the access problem must beprioritized. ....................................................................................................................................... 19

Blind Growth (Chart): Growing blindly in the same manner as always is not going to work, andtherefore real economic development is needed. ............................................................................ 20

Blind Growth: It is economic development, not economicgrowth, which is the topic of the debate;development solves and avoids the harms of blind growth. ........................................................... 21

Blind Growth: Development is the key to all of these impacts. ...................................................... 23

Infrastructure: Infrastructure solves poverty. .................................................................................. 24

Education: Education solves poverty. ............................................................................................. 25

.................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Negative Arguments ............................................................................................................................... 27

1. Climate Changethe threat of climate change forces India to focus on environmental protection. ............................................................................................................................................................ 28

Climate Change: India is disproportionately affected by climate change. ...................................... 29

Climate Change and Economics: India would benefit economically by prioritizing environmentalprotection. ....................................................................................................................................... 30

General Climate Change: India will be severely impacted by climate change. .............................. 31


3/72



Agriculture: Agriculture will be severely impacted by climate change. ......................................... 33

Water Security: Water security will be severely impacted by climate change. .............................. 34

Migration: Waves of migration to India will be occur as a result of climate change. .................... 35

Inequality: Inequality will devastate India because of climate change. .......................................... 36

Energy Security: Energy security will be severely impacted by climate change. ........................... 37

Malaria: Malaria epidemics will be made worse as a result of climate change. ............................. 38

Diarrhea: Diarrhea will be made worse in India as a result of climate change. .............................. 39

State Failure: India will struggle with state failure as a result of climate change. .......................... 41

Agriculture: Sorghum crop is extremely vulnerable to climate change. ......................................... 42

Water Security: Saltwater intrusions will increase as a result of climate change. .......................... 43

Energy Security: Energy security will be severely weakened due to climate change. ................... 44

Water Security and Glaciers: Loss of the Himalayan and Hindu Kush glaciers will reduceavailable water resources. ............................................................................................................... 45

Mumbai: Mumbai is at particular risk for flooding. ....................................................................... 46

Kolkata: Kolkata is at particular risk for flooding. ......................................................................... 47

Agriculture: Rice/wheat production is vulnerable to climate change. ............................................ 48

Energy Security: Sufficient energy supply is a prerequisite to development, and it is threatened byclimate change. ............................................................................................................................... 50

Childhood Stunting: Childhood growth is negatively affected by malnutrition due to climatechange. ............................................................................................................................................ 51

Malaria: Malaria epidemics span larger areas as a result of climate change. ................................. 52

Salinity: Salinity intrusion into freshwater compounds health risks. .............................................. 53

Migration: Waves of migration will result from climate-change related flooding. ........................ 54

Water Wars: Shortages from climate change will lead to wars over water access. ........................ 55

2. Biodiversitydestruction of biodiversity threatens extinction, directly threatening the lives of thepeople of India. ................................................................................................................................... 56

Indian Biodiversity: India is one of the mega biodiversity centers of the world. ........................... 57

Himalayan Biodiversity: The Himalayan biodiversity is especially significant. ............................ 58

Biodiversity Destruction: Indian biodiversity will be destroyed by climate change. ..................... 59

Habitat Destruction: Habitat destruction causes large losses of biodiversity. ................................ 61

Himalayan Deforestation: Habitat destruction in the Himalayas causes large losses of biodiversity. ........................................................................................................................................................ 62

Marine Biodiversity: Marine biodiversity in coastal ecosystems is being ravaged. ....................... 63

Western India: Biodiversity in western India is being severely undermined by development. ...... 64

Civilization and Wealth: Biodiversity is the basis of human civilization and wealth. .................... 65

Species Collapse: Many species will be driven extinct by climate change. ................................... 66

Extinction: Humans are so dependent on biodiversity that its loss means extinction. .................... 67

Natural Capital: The cost of a loss of biodiversity is natural capital. ............................................. 68

Try or Die: Biodiversity loss is try-or-die, as we must deal with it now, or risk losing it forever.. 69


4/72



Hotspots: Hotspots are the key to biodiversity. .............................................................................. 70

Hotspots: Hotspots are the key to life. ............................................................................................ 71


5/72



AffirmativeArguments




6/72



Affirmative Arguments


7/72



1. Povertyeconomic development reduces poverty.


8/72



GDP Cure: GDP growth is the best antidote for poverty.Aiyar 2012Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar is a research fellow at the Cato Institute with a special focus on India and Asia. His research interests includeeconomic change in developing countries, human rights and civil strife, political economy, energy, trade and industry. He is a prolific columnistand TV commentator in India, well-known for a popular weekly column titled Swaminomics in the Times of India. He has been called Indiasleading economic journalist by Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution. He has been the editor of Indias two biggest financial dailies, The

Economic Times and Financial Express, and was also the India correspondent of The Economist for two decades. He has frequently been aconsultant to the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. Swami spends part of the year in India and part in the USA. He holds a Mastersdegree in economics from Oxford University, UK.http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rapid-gdp-growthbest-antidote-poverty

Rapid GDP growth is the best antidote for poverty. That is the big message that comes blaring out

of the poverty data for 2009-10. Record GDP growth of 8.5% per year between 2004-05 and 2009-10

has reduced poverty at a record rate of 1.5 percentage points per year,

double the 0.7 percentage points per year in the preceding 11 years. There can be no betterrefutation of the leftist myth that fast growth has benefited only a small rich coterie while bypassing the poor. Unfortunately, the good news has been drowned out by quasi-illiterate screams from politicians and sections of the media

that the data has been fudged. The allegation is false. The data has not been fudged, and should be cause for celebration. The government has adopted the Tendulkar Committees poverty line, which is close to the World Bank poverty

line of $1.25 in purchasing power parity terms. Critics howl that the Indian poverty line is unrealistic, but the World Bankpoverty line has been accepted in global comparisons for decades. Chinas official poverty line after its 1978reforms was two-third of the World Bank poverty line. Nobody called it a fudge or said it was impossible to live on so little. China estimated that it reduced the number of poor people fr om 250 million in 1978 to 29 million in 2001, a

reduction of 221 million over 21 years. This was widely lauded, and Indian leftists complained that Indias poverty reduction was glacial in comparison. Not anymore. Based on the Tendulkar line,India has

reduced the number of poor by 52 million within five years. At this pace, India will in 21

years reduce the number of poor by 218 million , virtually matching Chinas performance of 221

million. Earlier, thanks to slower GDP growth, the absolute number of poor in India fell very little on

a consistent basis.But once Indias GDP growth accelerated to 8% per year, matching Chinas growth between 1978 and 2001, Indiareduced poverty as fast as China. Caveat: the poverty lines in India and China are not identical, so the comparison may not be exact. Still, the fact

remains that fast growth in both countries has been poverty-reducing. We can certainly criticise India(as Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze did

recently) for achievesing lessin most social indicators than not just China but even south Asian neighbours like Bangladesh.

Thanks to misdirected subsidies and a refusal to discipline corrupt, absentee staff,the Indian government has achieved less on the social side than Bangladesh, let alone China. Record GDP growth has produced record revenues

for the government to use in improving social sectors. Alas, it has funked all the fundamental reforms needed for improved service delivery, so

increased outlays do not produce correspondingly better outcomes. Indeed, economist Lant Pritchett calls India a flailing sta te. In

police, tax collection, education, health, power, water supplyin nearly

every routine servicethere is rampant absenteeism, indifference,

incompetence and corruption. In many parts of India, in many sectors, the everyday actions of the field-level agents of the statepolicemen, engineers, teachers, health workersare increasingly beyond the controlof the administration at the national or statelevel. Nevertheless, this should not divert attention from the big picture: record GDP growth in India has produced record poverty reduction, just as it did in China. This message has got totally lost in the debate over statistical fudging, for two reasons. First, the Planning Commission last year gave the Suprem e Court a poverty line estimate of roughly 32 a day . But the poverty data

released last week placed the poverty line at 28.62 a day. Many politicians and journalists including those of prestigious foreign newspapers jumped to the false conclusion that the government had revised the poverty line downward. Reading this torrent of criticism from my current perch in the US, I too was misled into thinking that the poverty line had been revised downward, and

repeated that error in my last Swaminomics column ( Poverty has truly fallen: its no statistical fudge, STOI, March 25, 2012). But the Planning Commission has clarified that the estimate of 32 a day given to the Supreme Court referred to 2011, whereas the 29.62 a day referred to 2009-10. The difference relates entirely to inflationthere has been no downward revision of the poverty

line. However, the government has indeed made a separate downward revisionof the poverty headcount ratio. Last year, Abhijit Sen and Montek Singh Ahluwalia of th e Planning Commission said the 2009-10 NSS survey showed 32% of the po pulation falling below the poverty line. This led to widespread mo ans that poverty was not falling fast enough despite record growth. Less

than a year later, the Planning Commission now says that the poverty ratio was actually 29.8%, implying a poverty decline much sharper th an provisionally estimated last year. The revision has converted a modest performance into a stellar on e. If the Planning Commission had simply waited for the f inald ata and not misled the public with its provisional estimate last year , the final data

would have carried greater credibility, and the sceptical public would h ave been more willing to celebrate the performance as s tellar. This mood will pass. Let us wait for the next survey data, for 2011-12. That willsurely sho w a substantialfurt her decline in poverty. Then we can really celebrate, with full conviction and no barbs about fudging.


9/72



Chronic Poverty: Poverty becomes more costly and more

difficult to escape over time, and must therefore be

prioritized.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration

published since 1955 is an internationally known journal.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1765936

Chronic poverty describes people(individuals, households, social groups, geographical areas and territories) who are poor for

significant periods of their lives, who may pass their poverty on to their children and for whom

finding exit routes from poverty is difficult. Large proportions of those who are poor in

India are stuck in poverty or are chronically poor. The very size of

problem, combined with the fact that many of them will

remain poor over time, makes this the most important development

issue facing the nation. There are several reasons why chronic poverty must be addressed as a priority. First, the Indian Constitution gives all those who are poor (andchronically poor) the right to benefit from growth and development. The unacceptably high levels of poverty and hunger that persist reflect a denial of this right. Second, it is likely that it will not be possible to meet national and

international goals and targets for the reduction of poverty and human development unless at least some of t he chronically poor are included more in th e process of development. What happens in India affects the extent to which the

world will meet it s goals, since India contains such a substantial proportion of the worlds poor. Third, what works in Indiawill be noticed and replicated elsewhere. Additionally, many of the chronically poor live in Indias

persistently poor statesstates that are often perceived as poorly performing.Social conflict may find easy recruits among the

chronically poor, who have less to lose by engaging in conflict and might be

mobilized by the politics of grievance. A few may even find better

opportunities in conflict situations, criminal behavior or illegal economicactivities.Security and law and order are a precondition for pro-poor development. Further, if the poverty of the poorest

is not addressed, it may become more intractable and costly later. Those left behind in a process ofdevelopment may resent this and may develop coping strategies that are negative for society as a whole. In addition, it may also t ake much more to lift them out of poverty, which may entail mortgaging future resources against present

neglect. Finally, and most importantly, there is a moral case to be made: the attention of I ndias elite and middle classes needs to be drawn back to this issue.


10/72



Nutrition: Poverty harms nutrition, leading to severe health

problems.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


Saith (2005) highlights a fundamental problem with using different procedures to estimate the food and non-food components of the PLB: While dietary requirements

are calculated on a scientific basis according to bodily needs, the non-food component of the poverty threshold is not calculated on a needs basis. Instead, the

procedure essentially identifies households whose expenditure on food exactly matches the cost of the food component in the poverty line basket, and then checks how

much such households actually spend on nonfood items. As such, there is no guarantee ofmeeting basic non-food needs. In 1973-74, the share of food in

total expenditure of the poverty line classwas 81% and 72% in rural and urban areas, respectively (Planning

Commission, 1979). This fell to is around 65% and 59%in 1999-00 (Sen, 2005): Thus, the reduction in the share of food is 16 per cent and 13 per

cent as compared to the shortfalls in ca lorie intake of 25 per cent and 15 per cent. Therefore, even if the poverty line classeswere to spend the

earlier fraction of their expenditure on food, they would yet fall short of the calorie norms, especially in rural

areas. Sen accepts the likelihood that the 1973 -74 proportion of expenditure to meet minimum non-

food requirements (especially rent and health care) is not sufficient , thereby

leading to a decrease in the income left available for food . For example, serious concerns have been

expressed regarding state budgetary allocations to and provisioning of health care (NRHM, 2005). Ill-health, and the need to

spend large amounts on health care, exacerbates the suffering of those who

are already poor and leads those who are non-poor into poverty.


11/72



Education and Health: Reducing poverty has significant

educational and health benefits.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


Many households around the poverty line had been vulnerable to shocks and influenced by enablers in moving above and below the line. Their entry or exit from

poverty cannot be said to be relatively permanent. These are transient poor and vulnerable households, excluded from chronic poverty calculations.

Children seem to be most impacted by the economic movements of a

household. All households that had exited poverty showed an improvement in childrens access

to education without them having to contribute to family income; the reverse was true for

households that entered poverty. Sanitation and access to health care are important

in entry, exit and persistence of poverty. Among households without access to sanitation

facilities, poor households formed a disproportionately large group. A total of 59% of households that had exited

poverty showed an increase in the score on migration. Linkages with the urban economy might be driving

the escape from poverty in rural India. Other factors for exit from poverty are enablers (like access to credit, favorableagro-climatic conditions, alternative asset base, etc.) and more secure livelihoods (in terms of reduced market risks or more days of work). Low literacy/educational

attainment is connected to persistence of poverty. A total of 89% of households that had remained poor showed no change in educational attainment status

(qualification of the most literate adult). Other factors for persistence are unsecure livelihoods and poor asset base of households. This indicates that self- and wage

employment programs will help chronically poor households. Shocks related to health and agro-climatic conditions are the most common reasons for entry into

poverty. Poor public health care delivery and inefficient implementation of women and child welfare programs are detrimental. Being non-poor

is associated with multidimensional wellness. Each parameter contributed almost equally between 5% and 10% to

the total score. For poor households, the contributions of each o f the parameters varied between 2% and 24%.


12/72



General Poverty (Chart): A chart of what causes, maintains,

and interrupts poverty in India.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


Drivers Maintainers Interrupters

Health shock Illiteracy/lack of skills Diversification of income

Sudden disability Disability/old age Intensive farming/crop diversification

Large social expenditure Social exclusion Off-farm work/new job

High interest borrowing Geography (remoteness) Urban linkages

Investment failure Drink/drug addiction Improved rural infrastructure

Loss of productive assets Poor health care facilities Kinship networks

Macro policy change Larger household size Asset accumulation

Loss of job Lack of job information Marketable skills/linkages

Social and class conflict Forced sale of assets Information network on job opportunities

Indebtedness Decrease in dependency

Bonded labor Increase in wages

Governance failure Access to credit


13/72



Income and Jobs: Increased income and jobs directly

decreases poverty.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


Reduction in poverty requires that the earnings of the poor increase. This could

occur through increased productivity, higher wages or transfers of income-generating assets or

incomes.If options for increasing income are either weak or absent, poverty will persist. When there are opportunities for

improvements in earnings, through access to decent work or skills, combined

with higher wages, transfer of income-generating assets or improvement in

the productivity of owned assets, and if the increase in earnings is significant,

the poor may escape from poverty. When shocks occur that lead to a decline in income levels, for instance crop failures, ill-health, disabling accidents or otherdisasters, the number of people who are poor will increase. Poverty dynamics recognize the existence of processes through which the poor either escape from poverty or fail to escape it and the non-poor either remain non-poor or

become poor. The drivers-maintainers-interrupters of poverty framework (Hulme et al., 2001) captures these processes rela ted to poverty dynamics.An important pathway out of

poverty is the ability of income earners to move out of low-income occupations into those that yield

higher incomes. Alternatively, existing occupations must yield higher incomes.As Chapter 2 noted, in both r ural and urban areas,the main occupation of those who are landless and poor is wage labor. Has there been any reduction in the proportion of labor dependent on such occupations? Meanwhile, if real wages increase over time, this may r aise the incomes

of landless wage earners. Is there evidence of these factors providing pathways out of poverty? We fir st examine the pattern of t he structure of employment over time in the Indian economy and the prospects these changes provide for

poverty reduction. Tables 3.1a and 3.1b present the findings of a series of sample surveys, conducted over a 10- year period from 1989-90 to 1998-99, which show the occupational distribution of households in urban and rural areas,

respectively. The data show a rise in the n umber of wage earner households in both urban and rural areas during the 1990s. In urban areas, there was a rise in the proportion of wage-earning households (households whose chief

earner is a daily wage earner) from 18.37% of the total in 1989-90 to 20.87% in 1998-99 (Table 3.1a). The proportion of salary-earning households increased by less than 1 percentage point. New job opportunities during this period

were relatively greater in the l ower-paying wage-earning job category. There was also an increase in th e number of petty shopkeeper households. It is clear that the r elatively less skilled and those without access to capital are forced to

find livelihoods at the bottom of t he pyramid of occupations. Landless workers who migrate from rural to urban areas are also likely to find jobs as wage earners in urban areas. Unless the

average earnings ofwage dependent households increase significantly, they will

continue to be vulnerable to poverty.


14/72



Specific Solvency: Economic development solves poverty

through infrastructure, public investment, and credit

availability.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


What is the inference of this pathology of poverty two decades after the economic reforms began? The policyshift has been of less consequence for agricultural

states and households, as well as for urban enterprises in the unorganized sector. It has not beenso influential in regions with

insufficient infrastructure to carry forward the growth impact to reduce poverty.It has also been least helpful

for socially marginalized groups and in spatially remote areas. As such, it appears there may be a need toreorient established policies and programs

through grassroots social action and a challenge to established politics and social forces, to prioritize three dimensions: 1.

Diversification and the development of physical andsocial infrastructure to raise agricultural productivity ; 2.

Public investment in less developed and remote areas where poverty

is concentrated ; 3. Fiscal reforms and a reduction in inessential expenditure

to enable greater access to institutional credit .


15/72



Healthcare Access: There is a strong need for healthcare

infrastructure to address poor healthcare access.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


High health care-related costs owing to the onset of a long illness can lead to

entry into poverty, and also worsen the situation of those already poor. Ill-health

creates immense stress, even among those who are financially secure. Most households in India do not have medical insurance,

and sell invaluable assets and additionally borrow money to try and save family members who

suffer from serious illness. The importance of publicly available, good quality

health care to enable greater access to health services cannot be

overestimated in preventing the non-poor from entering poverty or reducing

the suffering of those below the poverty line (Mehta, 2009). It is now generally accepted that Indias achievementsin the field of health leave much to be desired and the burden of disease among the Indian population remains high (Bajpai et al., 2009). The authors note that

illness and death from infectious diseases such as malaria and TB are re-

emerging as epidemics that can be prevented and/or treated cost effectively

with primary health care services under the government health system. However, the

extensive public primary health care infrastructure is

inadequateand grosslyunderutilizedowing to its dismal

quality (ibid). Further, [] in most public health centers which provide primary healthcare services, drugs andequipments are missing or in short supply, there is shortage of staff and the system is characterized

by endemic absenteeism on the part of medical personnel due to lack of control and oversight. Thereare wide disparities on health-related indicators, between rural and urban areas, between better and poorer performing states and between better -off and more

vulnerable sections of society. Health care centers in many villages are non-functional, ill-equipped and inadequately manned. The rural system has

been described as wasteful and inefficient and delivering very low quality health services [] far

less than the guidelines laid down by the government(Bajpai et al., 2009). Health and health care access is also highly inequitable

(Duggal, 2009). Private health care facilities are used extensively in India (Desai et al., 2010). Kurian (2010) points out that the major weakness of

the system is the absence of an accessible basic doctor and the fact that 70% of primaryhealth care is provided by unqualified practitioners in the private sector. Over

80% of health expenditure in India is private (ibid). Baru (2006) explains that the growth of private sector in provisioning of health care was f acilitated by fiscal constraintson government budgets, leading to cuts in public expenditure in the social sectors and increasing the space for private sector growth. Meanwhile, private sector growth has also been enabled through growth of the pharmaceutical and

medical equipment industries and their search for markets for their products. Using data for two districts for Andhra Pradesh, Baru (1993) found the number of private institutions at the secondary level of care was skewed in favor of

the developed districts rather than the poorer ones. Private secondary and tertiary levels of care were confined largely to urban areas and rural areas where there was agrarian prosperity.


16/72



Healthcare Access: There is a strong need for healthcare

infrastructure to address poor healthcare access.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


High health care-related costs owing to the onset of a long illness can lead to

entry into poverty, and also worsen the situation of those already poor. Ill-health

creates immense stress, even among those who are financially secure. Most households in India do not have medical insurance,

and sell invaluable assets and additionally borrow money to try and save family members who

suffer from serious illness. The importance of publicly available, good quality

health care to enable greater access to health services cannot be

overestimated in preventing the non-poor from entering poverty or reducing

the suffering of those below the poverty line (Mehta, 2009). It is now generally accepted that Indias achievementsin the field of health leave much to be desired and the burden of disease among the In dian population remains high (Bajpai et al., 2009). The authors note that

illness and death from infectious diseases such as malaria and TB are re-

emerging as epidemics that can be prevented and/or treated cost effectively

with primary health care services under the government health system. However, the

extensive public primary health care infrastructure is

inadequateand grosslyunderutilizedowing to its dismal

quality (ibid). Further, [] in most public health centers which provide primary healthcare services, drugs andequipments are missing or in short supply, there is shortage of staff and the system is characterized

by endemic absenteeism on the part of medical personnel due to lack of control and oversight. Thereare wide disparities on health-related indicators, between rural and urban areas, between better and poorer performing states and between better -off and more

vulnerable sections of society. Health care centers in many villages are non-functional, ill-equipped and inadequately manned. The rural system has

been described as wasteful and inefficient and delivering very low quality health services [] far

less than the guidelines laid down by the government(Bajpai et al., 2009). Health and health care access is also highly inequitab le

(Duggal, 2009). Private health care facilities are used extensively in India (Desai et al., 2010). Kurian (2010) points out that the major weakness of

the system is the absence of an accessible basic doctor and the fact that 70% of primaryhealth care is provided by unqualified practitioners in the private sector. Over

80% of health expenditure in India is private (ibid). Baru (2006) explains that the growth of private sector in provisioning of health care was facilitated by fiscal constraintson government budgets, leading to cuts in public expenditure in the social sectors and increasing the space for private sector growth. Meanwhile, private sector growth has also been enabled through growth of the pharmaceutical and

medical equipment industries and their search for markets for their products. Using data for two districts for Andhra Pradesh, Baru (1993) found the number of private institutions at the secondary level of care was skewed in favor of

the developed districts rather than the poorer ones. Private secondary and tertiary levels of care were confined largely to urban areas and rural areas where there was agrarian prosperity.


17/72



Healthcare Access: Inequity to healthcare access is an

enormous problem in India, contributing to epidemics and

infant mortality among the poor.Barajan, Selvaraj, and Subramanian 2011The Lancetis a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world's oldest and best known general medical journals, and has

been described as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. Balarajan and Selvaraj are both from the Harvard School of PublicHealth. Subramanian is from the Public Health Foundation of India in New Delhi.http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/science/article/pii/S0140673610618946

In India, individuals with the greatest need for health care have the greatest

diculty in accessing health services and are least likely to have their health

needs met. 3235 We conceptualize access as the ability to receive a specific number of services, of specified quality, subject to a specified constraint of inconvenience and cost,36 with use of selected healthservices as a proxy for access. To show the persisting inequities in h ealth care in India, we focus on access to maternal and child health services since the disease burden relating to communicable, maternal, and perinatal disorders can

be partly addressed by access to these services. Use of preventive services such as antenatal care and

immunizations remains suboptimum, with much variation in their use by gender, socioeconomic status, and location. In200506, national immunization coverage was 44%.10 Immunization coverage varies by household wealth and education, with absolute a nd relative inequalities

generally showing reduction with time (figure 4).10 Inequalities exist by caste eg, in 200506, immunization coverage among scheduled tribes and scheduledcastes was 31.3% and 39.7%, respectively, compared with 53.8% among other castes,10 and absolute inequalities between these castes increased with time.1012 Coverage remains higher in urban areas (58%) than in rural areas

(39%),10 although absolute and relative urban-rural differences have decreased with time.1012 The absolute gender gap has increased from 26% in 199293 to 38% in 200506.10,11 Similar patterns in inequalities have been noted

for antenatal care coverage (webappendix p 1). In 200506, 77% of Indian women received some form of antenatal care during their pregnancies in the 5 years before the survey, although only 52% had three or more visits.10 Overall,

coverage of antenatal care has improved with time. Inequalities by wealth, education, and urban or rural

residence , persist , however, even though absolute and relative inequalities have decreased with time. Differences between states are substantial in both the number of antenatal visits and the typeof services provided during these visits. Inadequate access to appropriate maternal health services remains an important determinant of maternal mortality. Although the proportion of deliveries in institutions has increased with time,

only 387% of women in India report giving birth in a health facility for their most recent birth in 200506.10Women in the richest quintile were six times more

likely to deliver in an institution than were those in the poorest quintile(webappendix p 2). Although this relative

difference in inequality has decreased with time, the absolute di

erence in the proportion of delivery in an institutionbetween the poorest and richest quintiles has increased from 65% in 199293 to 70% in 200506.10,11Among scheduled tribes, delivery in an institution was 171% in 199899 and only 177% in 200506.11,12 Rates of admission to hospital also vary by gender, wealth, and urban or rural residence.37 Some of this variation might be

due to differences in actual and perceived need and health-seeking behavior; indeed, evidence suggests that gender inequalities exist in untreated morbidity, and illness is probably under-reported among women.33 Although poor

individuals are more likely to seek care in the public sector than in the private sector, rich people use a greater share of public services, and are more likely to use tertiary care and hospital-based services.27 Rich individuals are also

more likely to be admitted to hospital than are poor people and have longer inpatient stays in h ospitals in the public sector.38 Analysis of the 52nd round (199596) of the National Sample Survey39 of health services in the public

sector showed a more equitable distribution of services for preventive care (immunization and antenatal visits) than did most of those for curative care.


18/72



Healthcare Solvency: Income growth, subsidies reform,

poverty reduction, and infrastructure development solve

access problems.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


Inequity in use of public health subsidies is clear, since only 10% of public health subsidies accrue to the poorest 20% of

the population, whereas over three times as much (31%) accrues to the richest 20%(Mahal, 2002). This

could owe to problems such as distance from medical facilities and the

opportunity cost of accessing public health facilities in terms of forgone

incomes facing the rural poor if they seek health care. Income growth,infrastructure development that improves access to

hospital care and improved quality of health care and

accountability of providers would help improve the

allocation of subsidies (ibid). Maharashtra, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu have the mostegalitarian distribution of public health subsidies. In contrast, in Bihar, Rajasthan, Or issa, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, between 37% and

50% of health-related subsidies accrue to the richest 20% of the population (ibid). Not ing that those who need care are not seeking carebecause they cannot afford it, and therefore may not be seeking care when they need it the most(Iyerand Sen, 2001), Baru (2006) argues that at the state level this calls for a rational use of available resources and also for a policy that will strengthen public

provisioning and regulate the private sector.


19/72



Healthcare Solvency: Infrastructure and other aspects of

economic development solve healthcare access problems.Barajan, Selvaraj, and Subramanian 2011The Lancetis a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world's oldest and best known general medical journals, and has

been described as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. Balarajan and Selvaraj are both from the Harvard School of Public

Health. Subramanian is from the Public Health Foundation of India in New Delhi.http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/science/article/pii/S0140673610618946

E

cient allocation of resources between primary, secondary, and tertiary care, and geographical

regions is crucial to ensure the availability of appropriate and adequately resourced health services.22In India, this challenge is compounded by low public financing with substantial variation between states.41 Indias total expenditure on health was estimated to be 413% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 200809, of which the public expenditure on health was estimated to be 110%.42 Private expenditures on health have remained high during the previous decade,43 with India

having one of the highest proportions of household out-of-pocket health expenditures in the world 711% in 200405. Per person expenditures disbursed by the central government to states are fairly similar, irrespective of the different capabilities and health needs of the states.44 Expenditures on health di ffer by a factor of seven between the major stateseg, public expenditure per

person in 200405 was estimated to be INR93 in Bihar compared with INR630 in H imachalPradesh.42 Besides interstate variations, a greater proportion of resources are given to u rban-based services and curative services, with 292% of public expenditures (both centraland state) allocated to urban allopathic services compared with 118% of public expenditures allocated torural

allopathic services in 200405.42 This imbalance in allocation is worsened by a bias in the private secto r towards curative services, which tend to be pro vided in wealthy urban areas. The curative services are mainly provided in the private sector, and evidence from national household surveys shows that the private sector in the previou s two decades has become the main provider of

inpatient care.45 Physical access is a major barrier to preventive and curative health

services for Indias(>70%) rural population. The number of beds in

government hospitals in urban areas is more than twice that in rural areas, 46

and the rapid development of the private sector in urban areas has resulted in an unplanned andunequal geographical distribution of services.47 Although the concentration of facilities in urban areas might encourage economies of

scale, the distribution of services is an important factor that affects equity in health care, mainly because many vulnerable groups

tend to be clustered in areas where services are scarce. In 2008, an estimated 11 289 governmenthospitals had 49 4 510 beds, with regional variation ranging from 533 people per bed in a government hospital in Arunachal Pradesh to 5494 in Jharkhand.46

Since distance to facilities is a key determinant for access, 48,49 outreach

programs or good transport, roads, and communication networks are

important to reach disadvantaged and physically isolated groups , such as the scheduled tribes.Distance remains a greater barrier for women than for men.50 Furthermore, physical access of services does not assure their use since the costs associated with seeking care also preclude uptake, even when services are available. India

needs sustainable, high-quality human resources for health with a variety of skills and who are adequately distributed in all states, particularly in rural areas.51 India has more than 1 million rural practiti oners, many of whom are not

formally trained or licensed.52 Another challenge to assurance of equity in health care is that the most disadvantaged individuals are more likely to receive treatment from l ess qualified providers. Quality is defined by the use of

several criteria, such as safety, effectiveness, timeliness, and patient focus, and it can broadly be divided into service and clini cal quality.22 In India, quality in health care is not well understood, with insufficient evidence to infer how

it affects equity.53 Adequate regulation of the public and private sectors has been difficult to achieve. Despite the complex regulatory framework, with an extensive set of legal regulations, such as the Indian Penal Code, the Indian

Contract Act, and the Law of Torts, effective enforcement and implementation remain difficult.54,55Quality is aected by high rates of absenteeism among

health workers (>40% in some studies), restrictions in opening hours, insu

cient availability of

drugs and other supplies, poor-quality work environments, and inadequate provider training and

knowledge.38,51,5659 In urban centers, individuals who are poor are more likely to visit private crucial to ensure the availability of appropriate and

adequately resourced health services.22 In India, this challenge is compounded by low public financing with substantial

variation between states.41 Indias totalexpenditure on health was estimated to be 413% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 200809, of which the public expenditure on health was estimated to be 110%.42 Private expenditureson health have remained high during the previous decade,43 with India having oneof the highest proportions of household out-of-pocket health expenditures in the world 711% in 200405. Per person expenditures disbursed by the central government to states are fairly similar, irrespective of th e different capabilities and health needs of the states.44 Expenditures on health di ffer by a factor of seven between the major stateseg, public expenditure per person in

200405 was estimated to be INR93 in Bihar compared with INR630 in HimachalPradesh.42 Besides interstate variations, a greater pr oportion of resources are given to urban -based services and curative services, with 292% of public expenditures (both centraland state) allocated to urban allopathic services compared with 118% of public expenditures allocated to ruralallopathic

services in 200405.42 This imbalance in allocation is worsened by a bias in the pr ivate sector towards curative services, which tend to be provided in wealthy urban areas. The curative services are mainly provided in the private sector, and evidence fro m nationalh ousehold surveys shows that the private sector in the pr evious two decades has become the main provider of inpatient

care.45 Physicalaccess is a major barrier to preventive and curative health services for Indias (>70%) ruralpopulation.The number of beds in government hospitals in urban

areas is more than twice that in rural areas,46 andthe rapiddevelopment of the private sector in urbanareas has resultedin anunplannedandunequal geographical distributionof services.47 Althoughthe concentrationof facilities in urbanareas might encourage economies of scale,the distributionofservices is animportant factor that affects equityinhealth care,mainlybecause manyvulnerable groups tendto be clusteredin areas where services are scarce.In 2008,anestimated11 289 government hospitals had49 4 510 beds, withregional variationrangingfrom533 people per bed inagovernment hospital in Arunachal Pradeshto 5494 in Jharkhand.46 Since distance to facilities is akey determinant for access,48,49 outreachprograms or goodtransport,roads, andcommunicationnetworks are important to reachdisadvantagedandphysicallyi solated groups,suchas the

scheduledtribes.Distance remains agreater barrier for womenthanfor men.50 Furthermore,physical access of services does not assure their use since the costs associatedwithseeking care also preclude uptake,evenwhenservices are available.Indianeeds sustainable,high-qualityhumanresources for health withavariety of skills andwho are adequatelydistributedin all states,particularlyin rural areas.51 Indiahas more than1 million rural practitioners,many of whomare not formallytrained or licensed.52 Another challenge to assurance of equityinhealth care is that the

most disadvantagedindividuals are more likelyto receive treatment fromless qualifiedproviders.Qualityis definedbyt he use of several criteria,suchass afety,effectiveness,timeliness,andpatient focus,andit canbroadly be dividedinto service andclinical quality.22 InIndia,qualityin healthcare is not well understood,withinsufficient evidence to infer howit affects equity.53 Adequate regulationof the public andprivate sectors has been difficult to achieve.Despite the complexregulatoryframework,withanextensive set of legal regulations,suchas the IndianPenal Code,

the IndianContract Act,andthe Lawof Torts,effective enforcement andimplementationremaindifficult.54,55 Qualityis affectedbyhighrates of absenteeismamonghealthworkers (>40%insome studies),restrictions inopeninghours,insufficient availabilityof drugs andot her supplies,poor-qualityworkenvironments,andinadequate provider trainingandknowledge.38,51,5659 Inurban centers,individuals who are poor are more likelyto visit private andpublic providers who are not sufficientlycompetent.


20/72



Healthcare Prioritization: Development of infrastructure to

fix the access problem must be prioritized.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


It is increasingly recognized that poorer populations bear the brunt of health disadvantages

and are beleagueredwith ill health whether it be their efforts for child

survival or anxieties pertaining to child nutrition (Joe et al., 2008). Examining spatial and temporaldimensions of health outcomes, Agrawal (2010) finds that the impressive rate of growth of economic output is not accompanied by s imilar achievements in health; the

rate of decline of IMR decelerated during the late 1990s. Further, the majority of infant deaths are concentrated

insome ofthe poorer states of the country. Sen et al. (2007) highlight the interplay of systematic hierarchies and systemic failuresin determining health outcomes for poor women. Us ing empirical evidence and insights based on data collected from 1,920 households in 60 vill ages in two sub-

districts of Koppal, they find the more insecure the households economic status, the greaterthe chance that

health-seeking will be rationed within the household, and this is borne disproportionately by girls

and women. Based on a survey of 5,759 individuals in 1,024 households in 100 hamlets in rural Udaipur in collaboration with Seva Mandirand Vidya

Bhavan, Banerjeeet al. (2003) conclude that the quality of the public service is abysmal and unregulated

and private providers who are often unqualified provide the bulk of health care in the area. Householdsin the sample were poor: average per capita household expenditure was Rs 470 per month and more than 40% were living in BPL households. The authors found that

51% of men and 56% of women were anemic. There was also evidence of respiratory difficulties. A

third of adults reported cold symptoms in the previous 30 days, 12% saying the condition was

serious; 33% fever; 42% body ache; 23% fatigue; 14% problems with vision; 42% headaches;

33% back aches; 23% upper abdominal pain; 11% chest pains; and 11% weight loss.Micro studies

frequently capture such high levels of morbidity far higher than those reported in NSS data. Such morbidity and malnutritionincidence, combined with high levels of poverty, calls for urgent and priority

commitment and allocation of substantial resources to the health sector. Instead, as

Srinivasan et al. (2007) show using data from three NFHS rounds, the pace of interventions to address maternal and child

health has slowed, with a dampening of the full immunizationprogram during 1998-99 to 2005-06. In view of high rates of malnutrition and infantmortality, this is cause for serious concern.


21/72



Blind Growth (Chart): Growing blindly in the same manner

as always is not going to work, and therefore real economic

development is needed.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


Promises Contradictions

Higher growth in GDP and higher export

earnings

Poverty and market-related uncertainties and

displacement

Releases the constraints of capital investment Underinvested areas of economy and society

Improved access to better technology Underemployment and unemployment

Higher prices (thereby income) in exportmarkets

Inequitable sharing between capital and labor

Urban growth and reduced pressure on natural

resources

Urban congestion, pollution and lack of

amenities for the poorFood security through intensive farming and

trade liberalization

Lack of sustainability of natural resource use;

price fluctuation and speculation

Increased employment with better earnings in

organizedsector through labormarketflexibility

Uncertain security under cyclical and other

fluctuations in global markets

Reduced poverty through increased expenditure

on safety nets and social protection measures

Access to means of production and employment

and institutional support for operationalization

of socialsafety nets yet to find a legitimate

space in the economyhence a political voice

in national and international fora


22/72



Blind Growth: It is economic development, not economic

growth, which is the topic of the debate; development solves

and avoids the harms of blind growth.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


As we have seen, India has experienced impressive growth over a sustained period of time, and yet a

number of development challenges remain, particularly in relation to the persistence of poverty in

the country.As such, development discourse in India, like elsewhere, has started

moving away from a central focus on higher economic growth per se to

consider broader-based development that could also address the challenge of

reducing chronic poverty within a reasonable period of time. 2 The focus on growthsinclusiveness in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan is a testimony to the shift that has taken place recently in the countrys policy arena. G rowing concerns about the current

pattern of growth as the core strategy for poverty reduction are a result of a number of processes, socioeconomic and political, that

have dampened the prospects of prosperity and wellbeing of a large segment of the population.

These include the inability of a significant proportion of the labor force to find

productive employment; the widening gap between the formal and informal

segments of the economy and across society; severe food inflation over an

extended period of time ; and massive disruption of the (natural) resource base that supports the livelihoods of the poor across the different agro-ecological regions. There is growing realization that the positive impacts of the upturn in growth may be less than its adverse impacts. Meanwhile,recent globalfinancial, food and climate-related crises have worsened the fate of the millions of chronically poor and of the common people. The wonderfulstory of economic growth is not quite a fairy tale. And everybo dy does not live happily after that. It is essential to recognize that economic growth in independent India was respectable during the first phase between 1950 and 1980,and was impressive during 1980 and after. However, the growth was not transformed into development (Nayyar, 2008). Sustaining the pace of economic growth, and ensuring this growth can ad dress thehitherto intractable challenges of underemployment and development -induced displacement, appears to be a tallo rder. The goal of attaining a sustained high rate of economic growth by

continuing with the same set of reform pol icies has come under severe scrutiny from academia, civil society and those who have borne the b runt of the adverse impacts of economic progress in the country.It has been amply argued that economic

growth in a globalizing world economy may still not be self-perpetuating, being driven by certain

structural factors that go beyond emerging global markets, competition and flow of capital.3 It is thusimperative to recognize that growth is important, as it is cumulative, but should not be reduced to simple ar ithmetic, as there is nothing automatic about it. At the same

time, much of poverty is structurally constructed, so analyses and understandings of the poverty phenomenon should not be tre ated as analogous to studying the

poor.4 More of the same type of growth is not likely to bring about a higher

rate of growth; even if it does, such growth is not necessarily going to hasten

poverty reductionand may in fact increase it in some parts of the country

for some time to come. Critics of the neoliberal growth paradigm have even questioned the empirical robustness of the link between tradeliberalization, growth and poverty reduction (Bardhan, 2007; Stiglitz, 2010). The issue arising in some develop ing economies with large populations is not that there is

poverty in spite of moderate to high economic growth, but that this poverty is often created by the very nature of the economic

growth itself. It has also been recognized that more of the same type of growth is socially and politically untenable. It thus becomes all the more pertinent toask What kind of growth? For whom? and At what cost? rather than How much growth?5 On yet another plane, a number of parallel discourses are increasingly

propagating an agenda for an alternative approach, including climate change and ecological sustainability;

decentralized democracy and citizenship; gender equity; labor standards and

decent jobs; and global political institutions/ governance, including trade


23/72



regimes.6 All these have given rise t o not only a search for a new lifestyle but also new macro as well as institutional economics for growth and poverty reduction (Harris and Goodwin, 2010; Harriss, 2007), althoughthese tend to move in parallel r ather than seeking convergence and integration within a holistic framework. The quest, therefore, has to be for an alternative approach to economic growth that deviates from mainstream assumptions,

which envisage self-sustaining growth through endogenous technological progress, with trade expansion and market competition as the major mechanisms to propel growth across countries.


24/72



Blind Growth: Development is the key to all of these

impacts.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


Chronic poverty is fundamentally economic in characterinsecure employment,

not enough of it, exploitatively low wages, low returns to limited assets and

vulnerability to asset and savings erosion in the face of shocks such as ill-

health. Serious challenges in translating growth into development result from

an absence of employment opportunities; limited sustainability of natural

resources and access to food; and regional disparities. As Chapter 7 argued, these are closely linked to and embedded in the structure ofgrowth itself. Employment elasticity of output is extremely low, both in aggregate terms a nd especially in agriculture. The g lobal financial crisis and slowdown has demonstrated the shakiness of growth, leading to a loss of jobs, wage cuts and i nsecure livelihoods for workers in the small and

unorganized sector of the economy. The focus on output growth in India is based on inten sive use and degradation of natural resources that are already in a fragile stat e, such as land, water, forests, minerals a nd marine resources, and also on i ncreased pollution. The solution is to minimize the

environmental load of production in different sectors and al so to compensate for the use of re sources through conservation and regeneration, so as to preserve the stock of natural capital, which holds the k ey to future growth. This report makes a clear case for identifying and shifting to a

pattern of growth that reaches a larger proportion of the poor, including the chronically poor, even if this pattern involves a slightly lower rate of growth.Reaching more of the poor means generating

more employment for those who can work; developing a more environmentally sustainable pattern

of growth, including meeting the climate change challenge; and a more careful and strategic

approach to integration with the global market, including a stronger domestic market orientation.

To achieve these ends, significant progress is needed in revitalizing

infrastructure (including health infrastructure), markets, institutions and

service delivery; and enhancing government investment (in addition toallocating funds) in the poorest regions and states. As noted above, infrastructure is vita l in connecting poor

people to labor and other markets, at both village and regional level. Markets, including labor markets, will function more effectively where infrastructure investment

is higher.


25/72



Infrastructure: Infrastructure solves poverty.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


The factors known to promote escape from rural povertyinfrastructure (especially at village level), urban proximity, acquiring extra land and education are all

highly affected by policy. The role of rural infrastructure in poverty reduction cannot be overemphasized.

Better infrastructure promotes the shift from low-productivity casual labor

in agriculture to more productive casual work in the nonfarm sector. It is

also a key to higher wages and assists in improving literacy rates and school

attendance. Thus, the poverty reduction payoff to investment in rural

infrastructure in backward poor states is likely to be high . Creating physical infrastructure at village l evel, for example to preventpost-harvest spoilage losses and promote greater connectedness to urban areas, remains a clear priority. Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana and Pradhan Mantri Adarsh Gram Yojana in rural areas, and Jawaharlal Nehru National

Urban Renewal Mission for urban infrastructure and integrated development of slums, are initiatives in this direction that need closer evaluation and monitoring to make them relevant for the poor and for women.


26/72



Education: Education solves poverty.Indian Institute of Public Administration 2011The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a premier public policy school for public administration studies and one of the majorsocial science resources in India. IIPA has published over 400 books, monographs and reports. The Indian Journal of Public Administration


The association between education levels and income poverty is strong.

Illiteracy and income poverty are correlated strongly, and education beyond

primary school is associated strongly with not being poor. Which way causation runs may be

debatable, but panel data evidence suggests having a higher level of education is a ticket to

greater material prosperity. Education is also a portable asset, and thus useful for migration. It is not subject toerosion in the way that material assets or savings are, and is therefore more secure once acquired. However, the barriers to moving far enough through the system to

make a real difference to the long-term status of a poor household are significant. These mean the demand for education is suppressed unnaturally: demandfrom the poorest households needs stimulating as much as supply and quality of education need

investment.Midday meal schemes, scholarships for disadvantaged groups and conditional cash transfers can all make a big difference. The priority in

education is nevertheless to improve the quality o f basic education. This will mean that fewer children remain

illiterate and that post-primary education does not have to compensate for

the failures of the primary level. The right to education should help in this direction, since it specifies basic qualities to whicheducation providers must adhere. Finding ways of helping the children of poor households to continue through post-pr imary education to complete the full nine years

of education allowed for in the Right to Education Act will be the next priority.


27/72



NegativeArguments




28/72



Negative Arguments


29/72



1. Climate Changethe threat of climate change forces India to

focus on environmental protection.


30/72



Climate Change: India is disproportionately affected by

climate change.Mattoo and Subramanian 2013The research department is the World Bank's principal research unitwithin the Development Economics Vice Presidency (DEC). Unlikeoperations and network departments, which also undertake research, its mandate includes research that may be cross-country and across sectors,

and reach beyond specific regional units or sector boards. Our experts are often cited by the media, the academic community, and other partiesinterested in international development. Our researchers also provides cross-support to Bank operations, to help ensure that the Bank's policyadvice is firmly grounded on current knowledge. With nine programs, it produces the majority of the Banks research and enjoys a highinternational profile. The work of our researchers appear in academic journals, the World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, books,

blogs, and special publications such as the Policy Research Reports.http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/05/13/000158349_20130513085415/Rendered/PDF/wps6440.pdf

Narrative matter. Not just for creating and sustaining nationhood, as Isaiah Berlin famously argued, but also, critically, in international

negotiations. In the climate change talks, the old narrative must give way to a new one. In our view, the key shift will have to come

fromthe DEEs, with China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia proactively leading the charge for action on climate

change. But is this credible or plausible? We believe it is, for two reasons. First, it is increasingly recognized that

the stakes in the near to medium term are much greater for the developing

countries than for todaysrich countries. They are either in or much closer to the

tropics, where rising average temperatures will more quickly reduce agricultural productivity.

They have much higher population densities, and therefore much narrower margins for survival as

natural systems, especially water, come under stress. And they have much lower per capita

incomes, making it harder to cope with coming disruptions by making major infrastructure

investments such as building sea walls or extending irrigation systems.William R. Cline (2007) estimates the

costs for agriculture. In the event of a 2.5 percent temperature increase Indiaslong-

term agricultural productivity will decline by about 38 percent, as compared

with a U.S. decline of 6 percent. Overall, India and sub-Saharan Africa will suffer losses of

as much as 4 to 5 percent of their GDP from a 2.5 percent temperature

increase, compared with less than 0.5 percent of GDP for the United States

and Japan.


31/72



Climate Change and Economics: India would benefit

economically by prioritizing environmental protection.Mattoo and Subramanian 2013The research department is the World Bank's principal research unitwithin the Development Economics Vice Presidency (DEC). Unlikeoperations and network departments, which also undertake research, its mandate includes research that may be cross-country and across sectors,

and reach beyond specific regional units or sector boards. Our experts are often cited by the media, the academic community, and other partiesinterested in international development. Our researchers also provides cross-support to Bank operations, to help ensure that the Bank's policyadvice is firmly grounded on current knowledge. With nine programs, it produces the majority of the Banks research and enjoys a highinternational profile. The work of our researchers appear in academic journals, the World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, books,

blogs, and special publications such as the Policy Research Reports.http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/05/13/000158349_20130513085415/Rendered/PDF/wps6440.pdf

More recently, William Nordhaus (2011) has calculated the social cost of carbon in terms of the change in long-run consumption due to an additional unit of

emissions. He estimates that this social cost is significantly greater for China, India, and other developing countries than it is for the United States or Europe. For

example,the social cost of carbonfor China is about three times that of the United States and nearly four times that of Europe.For Indiaitis

about two times that of the United States and three times that of Europe. These greater costs

for China and India result from these countriesgreater growth prospects, which

would be negatively affected by climate change, and their greater

vulnerability to damage from climate change. Hamilton(2011) captures the relative

benefits and costs of mitigation for developing and industrial countries well. Using one of the

standard integrated assessment models(IAMs,) he finds that the mean benefit-cost ratio for developing

countries to do their efficient share of mitigation is 3.8, while this ratio if they finance all mitigation (including that in OECD

countries) is still 2.7. For OECD countries the mean benefit/cost ratio for financing all mitigation(including that in

developing countries) is an unattractive 0.5. Setting ethics and politics aside, the stark bottom line is that it is strongly in the 23

interest of developing countries to mitigate climate change -- much more so

than is the case for OECD countries. 15 Indeed, the alarming prospect for the DEEs is not that they will be asked tocontribute too much but that the rich countries might ask too little. The rich countries, reluctant to cut emissions, may opt to interpret inaction by the DEEs as

justification for attempting to adapt to climate change instead of taking aggressive actions to avert it. If the rich make this strategic choice, the consequence could be

catastrophic for all parties. As t

indian economic development vs. environmental protection (april 2014 pf topic)

Documents