Poverty and Inequality in India: Regional Disparities

  • Rakhee Bhattacharya
  • J. P. Bhattacharjee
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)


The fourth chapter has moved a step further from the state boundary and searched for smaller units with better homogeneity and has relied upon the National Sample Survey Office sub-state level data such as ‘region’. Region is a cluster of districts within a state according to homogeneity in agro-climatic features, geographical congruity, population densities and ecological similarities. Thus 87 regions across 28 states and 7 Union Territories of India have been taken into consideration to understand India’s cross-regional variations in levels of poverty and income inequality. It has relied upon two rounds of NSSO data on 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 to make a comparison between these two years. The authors have categorised the density of poverty with very high, high and low ranges with numerical qualification, with which three distinct categories of states––the 10 richest, the 12 middle income and the 13 low income group states––have emerged, where the indicators of poverty and inequality have huge variations. The intra-regional disparity within each of the 20 large states of India also shows wide unevenness. For example, the Vindhya region of Madhya Pradesh has a rural poverty ratio of 61.5 percent, whereas for its Malwa region the ratio is only 17.3 percent. Similarly, the Manipur hill region has an urban poverty ratio of 87.4 percent whereas its plain region shows a ratio of 45.1 percent. In terms of inequality, huge regional disparity exists within states like Kerala, whereas its southern region has a Gini coefficient of 0.413 and its northern region shows a coefficient of 0.364. Similarly, the northern Upper Ganga Plains region of Uttar Pradesh has a Gini value of 0.490 whereas its southern region has a value of 0.301. Apart from economic reasons, such situations also reflect long historical, institutional and policy related reasons. Based on such information, the policy process can focus on these specific gaps and ensure better outcome. Thus advanced states like, Kerala, Gujarat, and Karnataka need to pay attention on their intra-regional disparities by bringing more voice representation from poorer regions. While backward states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Manipur need to focus attention on overall development across all their regions.


Gini Coefficient Urban Sector Nicobar Island Rural Sector High Inequality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bhagwati, J., and A. Panagariya. 2012. India’s tryst with destiny: Debunking the myths that undermine progress and addressing new challenges, 25–26. Noida: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  2. Bhalla, S. 2011. Inclusion and growth in India: Some facts some conclusion. Asia Research Center Working Paper No. 39, London School of Economics and Political Science. Accessed 1 Dec 2012.
  3. Chandrasekhar, C. P., and J. Ghosh. 2004. The market that failed: A decade of neoliberal economic reforms in India. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Leftword Books.Google Scholar
  4. Dev, S. M., and C. Ravi. 2007. Poverty and inequality: all India and states, 1983–2005. Economic and Political Weekly 42 (6): 509–521.Google Scholar
  5. Dhongde, S. 2006. Decomposing spatial differences in poverty in India. In Spatial disparities in human development, ed. R. Kanbur, A. J. Venables, and G. Wan. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Accessed 12 July 2013.Google Scholar
  6. In election year, extra funds for Bihar, Bengal and Heartland states. Report, Hindustan Times, 1 March 2013.Google Scholar
  7. Krishna, P., and G. Sethupathy. 2012. Trade and inequality in India. In India’s reforms: How they produced inclusive growth, ed. J. Bhagwati and A. Panagariya, 247–278. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kundu, A., and K. Varghese. 2010. Regional inequality and inclusive growth in India under globalization: Identification of lagging states for strategic intervention. Oxfam India Working Paper Series, OIWPS-VI. Accessed 7 Jan 2013.
  9. Kurian, N. J. 2007. Widening economic and social disparities: implications for India. Indian Journal of Medical Research 126 (4): 347–380.Google Scholar
  10. Nayyar, G. 2008. Economic growth and regional inequality in India. Economic and Political Weekly 43 (6): 58–67.Google Scholar
  11. Panagariya, A. 2012. India on the growth turnpike: no state left behind. In India on the growth turnpike, ed. S. Kochhar. New Delhi: Academic Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Panagariya, A., P. Chakraborty, and G. M. Rao. 2014. State level reforms, growth, and development in Indian states. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Planning Commission. 2011. Faster, sustainable and more inclusive growth. An Approach to the 12th Five-Year Plan, Government of India. Accessed 24 Dec 2012.
  14. World Bank. 2006. India inclusive growth and service delivery: building on India’s success development policy review. Report No. 34580-IN, May 29, pp. 18–24. Accessed 30 Oct 2012.

Copyright information

© Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary StudiesRajiv Gandhi FoundationNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Survey Design and Research Division (SDRD), National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme ImplementationGovernment of IndiaKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations