to have implications for the socio-political dynamics of a country. In the 1970s and 1980s, Brazil was seen as a case of ‘un-aimed opulence’, the consequence of which was accentuating inequality in income and wealth. Since 1988 when Brazil made the transition to a regime of democratic governance, a number of radical pro-poor measures have been undertaken, which have had visible impacts on the overall inequality as well as inequality between the racial groups. In India, by contrast, overall inequality has increased in the past two decades, and recent evidence suggests that the degree of inequality in the space of income and wealth is no less in India than that in China and the Latin American high inequality countries. Brazil’s transition from ‘un-aimed opulence’ to a more inclusive approach based on active social policies can be a lesson for India which is clearly faltering on the task of making the growth process inclusive.
There are some similarities among the three countries — India, China, and Brazil — in their policies over the last 15 years, notably in the importance attached to macroeconomic stability, especially bringing inflation under control. But there are some big differences too, such as in the role played by policies directly aimed at redistributing incomes. When one looks more closely at their histories and policy regimes, Brazil and India seem to have more in common with each other than with China, particularly when we consider the more recent phase of constitutional democracy in Brazil. However, at the risk of sounding cliché, one can say that each of these countries has something to teach the others. And other developing countries that have been less successful against reducing inequality and deprivation can learn from both the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches taken by the BRICS countries.
References
Anand, S. (1983). Inequality and Poverty in Malaysia: Measurement and Decomposition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality: What Can Be Done? Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Beteille, A. (ed.) (1983). Equality and Inequality: Theory and Practice, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Beteille, A. (2012). “India’s Destiny Not Caste in Stone”, The Hindu, February 21, 2012. Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/indias-destiny-not-caste-in-stone/article2913662.ece.
Bucciferro, J. R. (2017). “Racial inequality in Brazil from independence to the present”, in L. Bértola and J. Williamson (eds.), Has Latin American Inequality Changed Direction? Cham: Springer.
Cornia, G. A. (2015). “Income inequality in Latin America”, UNU-WIDER Working Paper, 2015/020.
Deshpande, A. (2000). “Does caste still define disparity? A look at inequality in Kerala, India”, The American Economic Review, 90(2): Papers and Proceedings of the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, May, 2000, pp. 322–325.
Dev, S. M. (2016). “The Problem of Inequality”, Malcolm Adiseshiah Memorial Lecture.
Dreze, J. and A. Sen (1995). India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elbers, C., P. Lanjouw, J. Mistiaen and B. Ozler (2008). “Re-interpreting sub-group inequality decompositions”, Journal of Economic Inequality, 6(3): 1569–1721.
Marteleto, L. J. (2012). “Educational inequality by race in Brazil, 1982-2007: Structural changes and shifts in racial classification”, Demography, 49: 337–358.
Milanovic, B. (2016). Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mitra, A. and D. Ray (2014). “Implications of an economic theory of conflict: Hindu–Muslim violence in India”, Journal of Political Economy, 122(4): 719–765.
Mutatkar, R. (2005). “Social Group Disparities and Poverty in India”, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Working Paper Series No. WP-20005-004.
Panagariya, A. and V. More (2013). “Poverty by Social, Religious & Economic Groups in India and its Large States: 1993–94 to 2011–12”, Working Paper No. 2013-02, Columbia University, Program on Indian Economic Policies, USA.
Ray Chaudhury, A. (2014). Horizontal Inequality: Concept, Measurement and Determinants, PhD thesis, University of Calcutta.
Reddy, S. G. and A. Jayadev (2011). “Inequalities between groups: Theory and empirics”, World Development, 39(2): 159–173.
Sen, A. (1980). “Equality of what?”, in S. M. McMurrin (ed.), Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, F., G. Brown and L. Mancini (2005). “Why Horizontal Inequalities Matter: Some Implications for Measurement”, CRISE Working Paper No. 19, June.
Stiglitz, J. (2013). The Price of Inequality. London: Penguin Books.
Subramanian, S. (2011). “Inter-group disparities in the distributional analysis of human development: concepts, measurement, and illustrative applications”, Review of Black Political Economy, 38: 27–52.
1To name a few, Stiglitz (2013), Piketty (2014), Atkinson (2015) and Milanovic (2016).
2Cornia (2015) observes that between 2002 and 2010 inequality fell, although to a different extent and with different timing, in all the Latin American countries except Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
3Here they have taken only rural India, which held roughly three-fourths of India’s population at the beginning of this millennium.
CHAPTER 5
Inequality and Poverty in India and Brazil Since the 1990s: A Comparative Analysis*
Sripad Motiram
Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA
Introduction
This chapter deals with inequality and poverty in India and Brazil in roughly the past two-and-half decades. Apart from being members of the BRICS group that is playing an important role in the world today, there are two other similarities between these countries that make their comparison interesting. First, as described below, both India and Brazil underwent cataclysmic changes during the past two to three decades which have radically restructured their economies and societies. Second, both India and Brazil are complex and diverse societies that are characterized by disparities on several dimensions. Following Stewart (2001), it has become customary to distinguish between vertical (interpersonal) and horizontal (group-based) inequalities. Studies on interpersonal inequality have mostly focused on income or consumption, whereas those on horizontal inequality (which is essentially multi-dimensional), have focused on both income and non-income dimensions (Stewart, 2001, 2010). Despite its importance, horizontal inequality has been relatively under-researched, although the situation has been rectified to a certain extent in recent times. Interpersonal and class-based inequalities are important in both countries. In addition, caste-based and ethno-racial inequalities are important in India and Brazil, respectively. This chapter is motivated by the idea that a comparative analysis
