Sustainability and comprehensive wealth accounting: the case of India


The criterion of non-declining comprehensive wealth per capita used to determine sustainability of economic growth indicates that growth in most countries is weakly sustainable, as decline in natural capital is more than offset by increase in anthropogenic capital. This paper examines the sustainability of economic growth in India by estimating the trend in comprehensive wealth during 1975–2013, utilizing recent remote sensing native forest cover data in order to obtain more accurate valuation of natural capital. This is the first study to construct wealth estimates for a period spanning four decades, apart from adopting hybrid methodology for estimating certain wealth components such as subsoil assets. We find that the composition of India’s wealth is biased toward produced capital, although given the large working-age population, India holds immense potential for human capital building. The quality of natural capital is also deteriorating due to increasing carbon emissions and particulate pollution. Although we find that growth in India is weakly sustainable, it is based on the assumption of perfect substitutability of different capital forms, which is questionable. Loss of natural forests and accompanying native biodiversity raises serious concerns of the threat it poses to future generations. Our sensitivity analysis based on variation in the discount rate also suggests cautious use of natural resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Alternatively, endogenous technological and institutional changes can be modeled in an economy’s total factor productivity growth and subsumed in comprehensive investment (Arrow et al. 2012: 326–327). Indeed, the spectrum of institutional capital is wide and difficult to measure: including formal institutions as well as informal social norms, culture and customs (MOSPI 2013: 6).

  2. 2.

    Empirical evidence based on used asset prices or resale prices shows that for most assets, a geometric pattern of depreciation is most appropriate (Fraumeni 1997).

  3. 3.

    depreciation rate of 5% is widely used (e.g., World Bank 26, 2011).

  4. 4.

    aluing human capital through the proxy of annual compensation of employees is appealing and has been used in UNU-IHDP and UNEP (2012, 2014) and IWR (2018). It may be noted that using annual per capita GDP, which is highly correlated to annual compensation of employees, gives similar results.

  5. 5.

    We have not estimated pastureland wealth separately. Implicit is the assumption that the shadow price of cropland is the same as that of pastureland. Unlike cropland, rents from products accruing from pastureland cannot be directly linked to the pastureland area used for production (UNU-IHDP and UNEP 2012, 2014; Managi 2018a, b).

  6. 6.

    When the economy is on the optimal extraction path, the quantity extracted decreases overtime and T estimated thus may be understated. But, as we find in the present study, quantity extracted has an increasing trend for various subsoil assets. In such a scenario, T estimated using the above method is biased upwards. To account for overstated T, we assume it to be lower than the estimated values in our empirical work.

  7. 7.

    Under the UNFC system, reserves are classified as proved, probable, feasibility and pre-feasibility. The ‘remaining resources’ are further classified as measured, indicated, inferred and reconnaissance.

  8. 8.

    While carbon storage is a one-time value which comes from standing timber, carbon sequestration is the service delivered by forests by storing carbon annually (Verma et al 2013).

  9. 9.

    Moderately dense forests are chosen to estimate PHB as they constitute approximately 45–50% of total forest cover in India as per the official reports of the Forest Survey of India, State of Forest Reports, 2003–2015. We did not select open forests/scrub or very dense forests to estimate PHB since application of such per hectare benefits to total forest area might bias the results toward very low or very high values.

  10. 10.

    Select forest types are Tropical Wet Evergreen Forests, North-East and Western Ghats, Tropical Semi Evergreen Forests, North-East and Western Ghats, Tropical Moist Deciduous Forests, Littoral and Swamp Forests, Tropical Dry Deciduous Forests, Tropical Thorn Forests, Tropical and Subtropical Dry Evergreen Forests, Subtropical Pine/Broadleaved Hill Forests, Montane and Moist Temperate Forests, Sub Alpine and Dry Temperate Forest, which accounts for 96% of total forest cover in 2013 (data obtained from Reddy et al. 2015b).

  11. 11.

    “Measuring the Wealth of Nations”, NCAER 6th C D Deshmukh memorial lecture by Sir Partha Dasgupta, February 9, 2018.


  1. Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L. H., Mumford, K. J., & Oleson, K. (2012). Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environment and Development Economics, 17, 317–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Batra, R. K., & Chand, S. K. (2011). India’s coal reserves are vastly overstated: Is anyone listening?. Policy Brief, The Energy and Resource Institute.

  3. Berlemann, M., & Wesselhoft, J. (2014). Estimating aggregate capital stocks using the perpetual inventory method: A survey of previous implementations and new empirical evidence for 103 Countries. Review of Economics, 65, 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Card, D. (1999). The causal effect of education on earnings. In Ashenfelter, O., & Card, D. (Eds.) Handbook of labor economics, vol. 3A: 1801–1863.

  5. Dasgupta, P. (2007). Nature and the economy. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dasgupta, P., & Gupta, S. (2010). Investment Data and Sustainability Measures for India. In P. B. Nayak, B. Goldar, & P. Agrawal (Eds.), India’s economy and growth: Essays in honour of V K R V Rao. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fraumeni, B. M. (1997). The measurement of depreciation in the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts. Survey of Current Business.

  8. Gadgil, M. (2018) Sacred groves: An ancient tradition of nature conservation, Scientific American, 1.

  9. Gadgil, M., & Vartak, V. D. (1976). The sacred groves of western ghats. Economic Botany, 30(2), 152–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gundimeda, H. (2001). Accounting for the forest resources in the national accounts in India. Environmental & Resource Economics, 19(1), 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gundimeda, H. (2017). Green national accounting framework for India: Summary of the report of Partha Dasgupta committee. In P. Mukhopadhyay, N. Nawn, & K. Das (Eds.), Global change, ecosystems, sustainability (pp. 34–37). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gundimeda, H., & Atkinson, G. (2006). Accounting for India’s forest wealth. Ecological Economics, 59(4), 462–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamilton, K. (2012). Comments on Arrow et al., Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environment and Development Economics, 17, 356–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hartwick, J. M. (1977). Intergenerational equity and investing rents from exhaustible resources. American Economic Review, 66, 972–974.

    Google Scholar 

  15. IWR. (2018). In S. Managi & P. Kumar (Eds.), Inclusive wealth report: Measuring progress towards sustainability. United Nations Environment Programme, Routledge.

  16. Kumar, S. (2012). Comprehensive wealth and sustainable development in India. Journal of Income and Wealth, 34(2), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lange, G. M., Wodon, Q., & Carey, K. (2018). The changing wealth of nations 2018: Building a sustainable future. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Larson, D., Crego, A., Butzer, R., & Mundlak, Y. (2000). A new database on investment and capital for agriculture and manufacturing. The World Bank Economic Review, 14(2), 371–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lavy, V., Ebenstein, A., Roth, S. (2014). The impact of short term exposure to ambient air pollution on cognitive performance and human capital formation. In National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 20648.

  20. Managi, S. (2018a). Accounting for the inclusive wealth of nations. In S. Managi & P. Kumar (Eds.), Inclusive wealth report 2018 (pp. 3–52). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Managi, S. (2018b). More on natural wealth of nations and regions. In S. Managi & P. Kumar (Eds.), Inclusive wealth report 2018 (pp. 77–113). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. MOSPI. (2013). Green National Accounts in India: A framework, In A report by an expert group convened by national statistical organization, MOSPI, Government of India.

  23. Pearce, D. W., & Atkinson, G. D. (1998). The concept of sustainable development: An evaluation of its usefulness ten years after Brundtland. In CSERGE working paper 98-02.

  24. Puyravaud, J. P., Davidar, P., & Laurance, W. F. (2010). Cryptic destruction of India’s native forests. Conservation Letters, 3, 390–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ravindranath, N. H., Srivastava, N., Murthy, I. K., Malaviya, S., Munsi, M., & Sharma, N. (2012). Deforestation and forest degradation in India: Implications for REDD+. Current Science, 102(8), 1117.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Reddy, C. S., Jha, C. S., Dadhwal, V. K., et al. (2015a). Quantification and monitoring of deforestation in India over eight decades. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25, 93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Reddy, C., Sudhakar, C. S., Jha, P. G. Diwakar, & Dadhwal, V. K. (2015b). Nationwide classification of forest types of India using remote sensing and GIS. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187, 777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sapci, O., & Shogren, J. F. (2018). Environmental quality, human capital and growth. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(2), 184–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sawhney, A. (2009). Questioning the sustainability of India’s economic growth. In M. Agarwal (Ed.), India’s economic future: Education (pp. 247–274). Oxford, New Delhi: Social Sciences Press-Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Solow, R. M. (1986). On the intergenerational allocation of natural resources. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 88, No. 1, Growth and Distribution: Intergenerational Problems, pp. 141–149.

  31. Solow, R. (2012). A few comments on ‘Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environment and Development Economics, 17, 354–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. State of Forest Report (various years), Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India.

  33. System of National Accounts. (1993). Prepared under the auspices of the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on National Accounts, Commission of the European Communities—Eurostat, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations, World Bank.

  34. System of National Accounts. (2008). European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations and World Bank, New York.

  35. UNU-IHDP and UNEP. (2012). Inclusive Wealth Report 2012. Measuring progress toward sustainability. United Nations University’s International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and the United Nations Environment Programme, Cambridge University Press.

  36. UNU-IHDP and UNEP. (2014). Inclusive Wealth Report 2014. Measuring progress toward sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Verma M., Negandhi D., Wahal, A. K., Kumar, R. (2013). Revision of rates of NPV applicable for different class/category of forests. Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India.

  38. World Bank. (2006). Where is the wealth of nations?. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  39. World Bank. (2011). The changing wealth of nations: Measuring sustainable development in the New Millennium. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  40. World Bank. (2013). India: Diagnostic Assessment of Select Environmental Challenges: An Analysis of Physical and Monetary Losses of Environmental Health and Natural Resources, Volume 1, Disaster Management and Climate Change Unit, Sustainable Development Department, South Asian Region, The World Bank.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aparna Sawhney.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

We would like to thank the five anonymous referees for their useful comments on our earlier draft. We would also like to thank participants at the 13th Annual International Conference on Economic Growth and Development, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi, December 2017, for their observations and suggestions on an earlier version of the paper.



See Tables 12, 13, 14, and 15.

Table 12 Comparison of comprehensive wealth estimates of India with selected studies
Table 13 Data appendix
Table 14 Sensitivity analysis (wealth per capita in US$ and other figures in billion US$, all at 2004–2005 prices)
Table 15 Sensitivity analysis (figures in US$ at 2004–2005 prices)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agarwal, P., Sawhney, A. Sustainability and comprehensive wealth accounting: the case of India. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 3762–3786 (2021).

Download citation


  • India
  • Comprehensive wealth
  • Weak sustainability
  • Natural capital
  • Natural forests

JEL Classification

  • Q56
  • Q01