Exclusion within the Excluded: The Economic Divide within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes
Author(s): ASHISH SINGH, KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR and ABHISHEK SINGH
Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, No. 42 (OCTOBER 17, 2015), pp. 32-37
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44004068
Accessed: 01-10-2024 06:06 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 122.161.240.56 on Tue, 01 Oct 2024 06:06:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Exclusion within the Excluded hierarchy. On the one hand, ses have
suffered from untouchability and social
exclusion (though physically being a
The Economic Divide within part of mainstream society) from histor-
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ical times. On the other, the case of sts
is that of physical isolation and exclusion
(but not of social stigma or social exclu-
sion). While ses can be found in almost
ASHISH SINGH, KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR, ABHISHEK SINGH all villages and urban centres in India,
sts are generally concentrated in a few
An investigation into the trends
geographical regions, which are relatively

in economic disparities physically inaccessible, such as hilly

within
Inequality
Inequalitysince
since ofIndian ofin indebate
independence.
debate Indian in thedevelopment
This
India the independence. development
has been the circlescircles
topic This areas and forests (Mutatkar 2005: 3). As
the Scheduled Castes and
debate on Indian inequality can be cate- such, there are separate provisions for
Scheduled Tribes for the past gorised into two types based on whether their welfare in the Constitution of
three decades (1983-2012) shows it focuses on "vertical inequalities," that India, which form the basis of targeted
that the economic disparity ratio is, inequality across classes based on in- development policies by the state to
come or consumption expenditure, or on raise the socio-economic status of these
has increased substantially for
"horizontal inequalities," which is noth- groups in absolute terms, as well as
both ses and sts. The increase is
ing but inequality between groups such relative to the rest of society (Mutatkar
much more in the case of the ses. as those between groups based on caste, 2005). The disparity (economic and
The economic inequality (Gini religion, gender, etc. Within horizontal social) between scheduled and non-
inequalities, the focus has been pre- scheduled groups has captured the im-
coefficient) has increased for both
dominantly on inequality (economic or agination of academicians, policymak-
ses and sts in urban India. In
social) between caste groups, that is, ers, thinkers, social reformers and civil
rural areas, it has increased for between scheduled groups (Scheduled society members alike, resulting in vast
the ses but has remained almost Castes and Scheduled Tribes [scs/sts]) literature on inequalities between the
the same for the sts. In the and non-scheduled groups (non-scs/ groups. Yet, there is hardly any litera-
sts). It is a known fact that the members ture on economic or social exclusion
post-economic reforms of the scs/sts have suffered from severe within the historically excluded sc and
period (1993-2012), there is discrimination - social exclusion in the st groups.

an unambiguous increase in case of ses, and physical exclusion in It is important to investigate the
the case of sts, since historical times exclusion within the excluded because,
inequality among both ses
(Deshpande 2011). first, it is well known that almost all
and sts, and in the interstate ses are a constitutionally declaredsocial groups formed on the basis of cer-
inequality within the ses and sts, collection of castes that suffered from tain identifiable social characteristics in
for both rural and urban areas. the practice of untouchability, whereas India follow or practise some or the
sts are identified on the basis of certain
other kind of exclusion (Santhakumar
criteria, such as primitive traits, distinct 2013); and, second, there has been de-
culture, geographical isolation and gen- mand or provisions in recent times for
eral backwardness (Mutatkar 2005). special treatment of certain castes within
However, the categories "Scheduled the scheduled groups for their economic
Caste" and "Scheduled Tribe" are no-and social upliftment. These castes
where defined in the Constitution of within the scheduled groups are claimed
India and comprise within them moreto have been lagging behind (compared
than four hundred castes and tribes,to the other castes within scheduled
with large cultural heterogeneity (Mu-
groups) in the economic and social de-
tatkar 2005: 3). The "untouchables," velopment process. An example of such a
Ashish Singh 0 [email protected] ) is
also called Ati-Shudras (or Avarna) his-
phenomenon can be seen in Bihar, where
with the SJM School of Management, Indian
Institute of Technology Bombay. Kaushalendra torically lay at the bottom of the Hindu
the state government has characterised
Kumar ( [email protected] ) and social hierarchy and were not consid- 21 sub-castes within the ses as "Maha-
Abhishek Singh ( [email protected] ) are ered a part of the Varna system. The dalits," and has launched the "Bihar Ma-
with the International Institute for Population
case of the tribais is slightly different hadalit
as Vikas Mission," making separate
Sciences, Mumbai.
provisions, including special economic
they were never part of the Hindu social

32 OCTOBER 17, 2015 VOL L NO 42 13321 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from 122.161.240.56 on Tue, 01 Oct 2024 06:06:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
packages for their socio-economic devel- of
of consumer expenditure data in the sts has incre
opment. The Mahadalits constitute 31% from
1999-2000 round was different from the 8.8% to 8
of the sc population in Bihar. Though other rounds. The main reason behind this
period.
The share
the decision to construct a separate is that the food consumption data was
ses and sts is sub
group of Mahadalits within the ses in collected from 7-day and 30-day recall
rural areas as com
Bihar is often considered to be a political periods from the same households, at the
In rural areas, the
decision aimed at winning votes, it is increased from 1
same time. This results in simultaneity
important to know whether such a deci- in
bias in the food consumption data (Datta urban areas it h
sion is economically justifiable. 2006). to 14.6%. On the o
We, therefore, in this article investi- tion of sts in rural areas has increased
To capture the economic inequalities
gate the exclusion within the excluded within the ses and sts, we have usedfrom
two 10.3% to 11.1%, and in urban areas
community (scheduled groups), that is, measures. The first one is the economic from 2.6% to 3.5%. Clearly, the propor-
the trends and patterns of economic dis- disparity ratio, that is, the ratio of monthlytion of sts in urban areas is very low.
parities within the ses and sts for the per capita consumption expenditure
past three decades (1983-2012). The (mpce) of the richest decile to the mpce 2.1 All India Trends
analysis has been performed at the all- of the poorest decile; and, the second The average mpce by consumption ex-
India level as well as for the 17 major measure is the Gini coefficient, which ispenditure deciles and the economic dis-
states of India. We use the nationally a commonly used measure of economicparity ratio across the social groups for
representative consumer expenditure inequality. We have computed economicboth rural and urban areas are presented
surveys conducted by the National disparity ratios and Gini coefficients in Table 2 (p 34). It can be seen from the
Sample Survey Office (nsso) of India separately for the ses and sts. The anal-table that the economic disparity ratio
for the investigation. ysis has been done, first for the all-India(the ratio of average mpce of the richest
The remainder of the article is organ- level (rural and urban separately), anddecile to the average mpce of the poorest
ised as follows. Section 1 presents a brief then for 17 major states of India. decile) has increased for both ses and sts
description of the data and the measures Also, for the state-level analysis, wein both rural and urban areas. In rural
used in the analysis. Section 2 presents have merged the states of Chhattisgarh, areas, the economic disparity ratio for ses
the main findings of the article, and Sec- Jharkhand and Uttarakhand (which has increased by 23%, whereas for sts it
tion 3 concludes the article along with were carved out from Madhya Pradesh, has increased by 12.5%. Also, in urban
some discussion of the main results. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, respectively, areas the economic disparity ratio for
in 2000) into Madhya Pradesh, Bihar ses has increased by 22.1%, whereas for
1 Data and Estimation
and Uttar Pradesh, respectively, for sts it has increased by 10%. Two addi-
comparison purposes.
We use unit-level consumption expendi- tional salient features that can be noted
ture data from five major (quinquennial) from the above results are that the eco-
2 Results
rounds - 1983-84, 1987-88, 1993-94, nomic disparity ratio has increased
The proportion of ses and sts in
2004-05 and 2011-12 - of the nationally the
more in ses as compared to the sts, and
representative National Consumer Ex-population is presented in Table
Indian that the
1. increase in economic disparity
penditure surveys conducted by theall-India level, the percentageratio
At the is higher in rural areas as com-
of ses
has re-
nsso for the analysis. These surveys increased from 16.8% in 1983-84 paredtoto urban India.
cord the socio-economic and demo- Another trend, which might be inter-
19% in 2011-12. However, the percentage
graphic characteristics, consumption esting, is that the increase in
Table 1: Composition of Total Population by Social Groups:
expenditure, and economic activityAll-India
for (Rural and Urban), 1983-84 to 2011-12 economic
(%) disparity ratio in ses is
each sampled household. Each house- similar to that of "others" in rural
hold's actual economic status has been Social groups - Rural areas, but higher than "others"
Scheduled Tribes (STs) 10.3 10.5 10.8 10.6 11.1
measured in terms of monthly and/or in urban areas. Whereas, the in-
Scheduled Castes (SCs) 18.0 18.8 21.1 20.9 20.8
yearly consumer expenditure on 12 food crease in economic disparity ratio
Others
items, consumer durables, medical care, in sts is lower than the "others"
Total
education and services. We have used in both rural and urban areas.
Social groups - Urban
the uniform reference period (30 days)
Scheduled Tribes (STs) 2.6 3.8 3.2 2.9 3.5 If we see the post-economic
consumption expenditure data so asScheduled
to Castes (SCs) 12.0 11.7 13.8 15.6 14.6 reforms period (1993-2012), then
compare the estimates over time. The
Others the increase in economic dispar-
details of the surveys can be obtained
Total ity ratio is enormous for ses in
Social groups - All-India both rural (33.8%) as well as
from the respective survey reports. We
Scheduled Tribes (STs) 8.8 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.9
could not include the survey round urban (20.3%) areas. However,
Scheduled Castes (SCs) 16.8 17.2 19.3 19.6 19.0
1999-2000 because the estimates are not the increase in economic dispar-
Others
comparable with the estimates of the
Total
ity ratio among sts is nil in rural
other rounds as the method of collection
Source: Authors' areas, but is substantial
computation based (26.1%)on NSSO

Economic & Political weekly IMI october 17, 2015 vol l no 42 33

This content downloaded from 122.161.240.56 on Tue, 01 Oct 2024 06:06:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
INSIGHT =

2.2 time,
in urban areas. At the same State-level
theTrends ratio has increased for nine states and
increase in economic disparity ratio has decreased or remained the same for
among "others" is 30.4% inRural
ruralAreas:
areas We now present eight
the states. It is interesting to note that
and 24.3% in urban areas. trends in the economic divide within the economic disparity ratio among the
The inequality estimates for all-India
the scheduled groups for the 17 majorrural ses has increased for all states ex-
(rural and urban) based on the Gini states of India. Table 4 (p 35) documents cept for Jammu and Kashmir during the
coefficient have been reported in the economic disparity ratios for ses andpost-economic reforms period. The same
Table 3. The inequality in urban areas sts for rural areas during 1983-2012. Itis, however, not true for the sts.
has increased substantially for both ses may be noted that for certain years and Table 5 (p 35) presents the estimates
(from 0.292 to 0.336; 15.1%) and sts for certain groups the sample sizes wereof inequality (Gini coefficient) for the
(from 0.316 to 0.370; 17.1%). Also, the not large enough to compute the esti-rural areas of the 17 states considered in
increase in inequality is more for both mates; in such cases the trends are fromthis study. It can be seen from the table
ses and sts compared to the "others" the earliest year to the recent year forthat the inequality among the rural ses
(14.2%). In rural areas, the inequality which data was sufficient for estimation.has increased in all the states except for
has increased for the ses (from 0.280 to It can be observed from the
Table 3: Inequality (Gini Coefficient) of Consumption
0.287), but has reduced marginally for table that the economic dispar-Expenditure among Social Groups: All-India (Rural and Urban),
the sts (from 0.276 to 0.273). ity ratio has increased among 1 983-84 to 201 1-12

If we see the post-economic reforms the ses in rural areas for all but
Social groups - Rural
period (1993-2012), there is unambigu- five states, namely, Jammu and Scheduled Tribes (STs) 0.276 0.279 0.267 0.271 0.273
ous increase in inequality among ses Kashmir, Karnataka, Madhya Scheduled Castes (SCs) 0.280 0.266 0.254 0.263 0.287
and sts for both rural and urban areas. Pradesh, Rajasthan and West Others
In fact, the increase in inequality in ru- Bengal. The states in which the Total
ral areas among both ses and sts during economic disparity ratio has Social groups - Urban
Scheduled Tribes (STs) 0.316 0.327 0.310 0.339 0.370
the post-economic reforms period is increased in rural areas include
Scheduled Castes (SCs) 0.292 0.293 0.303 0.317 0.336
much higher than during the whole pe- the poor states of Uttar Pradesh,
Others
riod of 1983-2012. The same is true for Bihar and Odisha. Coming to
Total
sts in urban areas too. the sts, the economic disparitySource: Authors' computation based on

Table 2: Average Monthly per Capita Consumption Expenditure (Rs,

across Social Groups: All-India (Rural and Urban), 1983-84 to 2011-1

All India - Rural

Deciles

Q1 (poorest)

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7 120 121 121 171 171 171 314 315 315 629 630 628 1,469 1,467 1,470
Q8 143 142 142 203 202 203 371 370 371 754 758 756 V761 1,767 1,773
Q9

Q10 303 319 321 440 448 473 963 811 854 2,076 1,965 2,038 4,127 4,854 4,845
Total

Economic Disparity Ratio (Q10/Q1) 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.2 8.1 6.8 6.9 9.2 8.2 8.4 8.1 9.1 9.0
All India - Urban
Deciles

Q1 (poorest)

02 61 60 61 88 88 88 162 162 162 313 315 315 714 721 711

Q3 71 72 72 103 103 103 189 189 190 371 369 370 837 834 839
Q4 82 82 82 117 117 117 216 216 216 423 422 420 962 962 965
Q5

Q6

Q7 121 121 121 172 171 172 315 317 316 631 630 631 1,485 1,477 1,471~
Q8 143 142 143 204 202 204 372 372 373 764 761 764 1,785 1,774 1,778
Q9

Q10

Total 139 129 176 202 185 256 381 343 481 858 759 1,116 1,941 1,816 2,523
Economic Disparity Ratio (Q10/Q1) 7.9 6.8 8.3 7.1 6.7 7.8 6.9 6.9 7.4 7.8 7.6 8.8 8.7 8.3 9.2
Source: Authors' computation based on NSSO data.

34 OCTOBER 17, 2015 vol L no 42 QSS9 Economic 8t Political weekly

This content downloaded from 122.161.240.56 on Tue, 01 Oct 2024 06:06:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, certain groups the sample sizes were not decreased for the remaining eight states.
Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka and large enough to compute the estimates. Also, it is interesting to note that the eco-
Rajasthan. However, the inequality among In these cases, the trends are from the nomic disparity ratio among the rural
the STs has decreased in 12 out of the 17 earliest year to the most recent year for ses has increased for all states, except for
states considered in the study. If the post- which data was sufficient for estimation. Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu during
economic reforms period is seen, then in- It can be observed from Table 6 that the the post-economic reforms period.
equality among the ses has increased in economic disparity ratio has increased Table 7 (p 36) presents the estimates of
all but the four states of Gujarat, Jammu among the ses in urban areas for all but inequality (Gini coefficient) for the urban
and Kashmir, Karnataka and Rajasthan. four states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, areas of the 17 states considered in this
Gujarat, Punjab and Rajasthan. The study. It can be seen from the table that the
Urban Areas: We now turn to the trends in states in which the economic disparity inequality among the urban ses has
the economic divide within the scheduled ratio has increased in urban areas in- increased in all the states except for three
groups in urban areas for the 17 states. clude the poorest states of Uttar Pradesh,
states, namely, Karnataka, Kerala and West
Table 6 (p 36) documents the economic Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and West
Bengal. Similarly, the inequality within the
disparity ratios for ses and sts in urban sts has increased in 13 out of the 17 states
Bengal. Coming to the sts, the economic
areas during 1983-2012. Once again, it disparity ratio has increased for nine considered in the study. The four states
may be noted that for certain years, for where it has decreased are the states of
states and is not available (Assam) or has
Table 4: Economic Disparity Ratio among Social Groups: By States - Rural, 1983-84 to 2011-12
1983-84

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Gujarat

Haryana

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu and Kashmir

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Odisha

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

All-India
Economic Disparity Ratio = Ratio of the average MPCE o
Source: Authors' computation based on NSSO data.

Table 5: Inequality (Gini Coefficient) of Consu

1983-84 1987-88 1993-94 2004-05 2011-12

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Gujarat

Haryana

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu and Kashmir

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Odisha

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

All-India
Source: Authors' computation based on NSSO data.

Economic & Political weekly QBQ october 17, 2015 vol l no 42 35

This content downloaded from 122.161.240.56 on Tue, 01 Oct 2024 06:06:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Assam, Bihar, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. areas. Interestingly, the interstate
and sts as compared to the "others."
If the post-economic reforms period is Between the ses and sts, interstate
inequality first increased, but then
seen, then inequality among the ses has inequality is more among the sts. decreased
It was among both the ses and sts
increased in all but the four states of also higher among the sts during 1983-84.
during the post-economic reforms period.
Haryana, Maharashtra, Odisha and West Also, the interstate inequality has in- if we take the whole post-
However,
creased among both ses and sts
Bengal. Similarly, inequality within the (also reforms period (1993-2012),
economic
urban sts has increased in all the states among "others") during the past then
three
interstate inequality has clearly
but Assam, Karnataka and Rajasthandecades. Further, the interstate inequality
increased among all the social groups.
during the post-economic reforms period. shows a continuous increase among both
Hirning next to urban India (Figure 3,
ses and sts during the post-economic
p 37), the interstate inequality has once
2.3 Interstate Trends
reforms period. again increased among all the social
Figure i (p 37) presents the interstateComing to rural areas, interstategroups during 1983-2012. The interstate
inequality (Figure 2, p 37) shows inequality
inequality (Gini coefficient) in consump- a sub- was highest among the sts in
tion expenditure within social groups
stantial increase among both ses and1983,sts
and so was the case during 2011-
(rural and urban) during 1983-2012. (also It
among "others") during 1983-2012.
12. Also, the interstate inequality is high-
can be seen from the table that the Between
inter- ses and sts, the interstate er among both the ses and sts com-
state inequality is higher among the ses is more among the ses in rural pared to "others" in urban India. If we
inequality
Table 6: Economic Disparity Ratio among Social Groups: By States- Urban, 1983-84 to 2011-12
1983-84 1987-88 1993-94 2004-05 2011-12

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Gujarat

Haryana

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu and Kashmir

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Odisha

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

All-India
Economic Disparity Ratio = Ratio of the average MPCE of
Source: Authors' computation based on NSSO data.

Table 7: Inequality (Gini Coefficient) of Consum

1983-84

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Gujarat

Haryana

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu and Kashmir

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra 0.303 0.232 0.251 0.240 0.315 0.368 0.308 0.347 0.294 0.352 0.298 0.412 0.367 0.333 0.365
Odisha 0.301 0.298 0.341 0.320 0.239 0.359 0.316 0.328 0.337 0.305 0.264 0.246 0.344 0.317 0.378
Punjab 0.107 0.296 0.388 0.379 0.264 0.371 0.327 0.269 0.266 0.329 0.310 0.337 0.394 0.317 0.377
Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu 0.337 0.237 0.343 0.278 0.279 0.276 0.216 0.234 0.287 0.319 0.278 0.322 0.309 0.357 0.416
Uttar Pradesh 0.425 0.299 0.345 0.260 0.258 0.282 0.414 0.329 0.399 0.379 0.261 0.333 0.417 0.664 0.356
West Bengal 0.222 0.257 0.258 0.205 0.356 0.326 0.210 0.265 0.315 0.235 0.316 0.358 0.295 0.222 0.455
All-India 0.316 0.292 0.344 0.327 0.293 0.352 0.310 0.303 0.344 0.339 0.317 0.379 0.370 0.336 0.393
Source: Authors' computation based on NSSO data.

36 October 17, 2015 vol L no 42 EB353 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from 122.161.240.56 on Tue, 01 Oct 2024 06:06:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Figure 1: Interstate Inequality (Gini Coefficient) in Consumption Expenditure within Social Groups: for the ses, but has remained almost the
All-India (1983-2012)
same for the sts during the past three
decades. However, if we just see the
post-economic reforms period (1993-
2012), there is unambiguous increase in
inequality among both the ses and sts,
for both rural and urban areas. Moreo-
ver, the interstate inequality within the
ses and sts has also gone up enormous-
ly in both rural and urban areas.
In a sense, our results also support
studies (Jayaraj and Subramanian 2013;
Suryanarayana 2008; Vakulabharanam
2010; Weisskopf 2011) which claim that
Figure 2: Interstate Inequality (Gini Coefficient) in Consumption Expenditure within Social Groups:
Rural India (1983-2012) economic growth post the economic re-
forms in India has hardly been inclusive.
Not only have the economic disparities
between social groups (Jayaraj and Sub-
ramanian 2013) increased during this
period, but the economic disparities
within the social groups (based on caste)
have gone up substantially.
Given the above, our study in a way
supports the Government of Bihar's initi-
ative of starting the "Bihar Mahadalit
Vikas Mission" for a sub-caste socially and
economically more backward within the
Figure 3: Interstate Inequality (Gini Coefficient) in Consumption Expenditure within Social Groups: sc category. We think it is time that other
Urban India (1983-2012) states of India consider this initiative of
the Bihar government seriously and make
separate provisions for the upliftment of
those sub-castes within the ses and sts
that are socially and economically behind
their peers within the scheduled groups.

references

Datta, K L (2006): "The Debate on the Pove

mates of 1999-2000," October, Workin
No 188, Indian Council for Research o
national Economic Relations, New Delh
Deshpande, Ashwini (2011): The Grammar
Economic Discrimination in Contem
India, New Delhi: Oxford University Pr
Jayaraj, D and S Subramanian (2013):
just see the post-economic reforms peri- decades. We have first performed the anal-
Inter-Group Inclusiveness of India's Con
od, then interstate inequality has in- ysis at the national level and then for 17 tion Expenditure Growth," Economic &
Weekly , Vol 48, No 10, pp 65-70.
creased among all the social groups, but major states of India.
Mutatkar, Rohit (2005): "Social Group D
the increase is highest among the sts. Our results indicate that the economic and Poverty in India," September, W
Paper Series No WP-2005-004, Indira
disparity ratio has increased substan-
Institute of Development Research, Mu
3 Conclusions
tially for both ses and sts in both rural
Santhakumar, V (2013): Economics in A
urban areas during the past 30-odd Easy Guide for Development Practitione
andunit-
We, perhaps, for the first time use
Delhi: Sage.
years.
level consumption expenditure data It has also increased for most of
from Suryanarayana, M H (2008): "What Is Exclusive
five major (quinquennial) rounds the 17 major states considered in this about 'Inclusive Growth'?," Economic & Politi-
- 1983-
cal Weekly, Vol 43, No 43, pp 93-101.
84, 1987-88, 1993-94, 2004-05 and study. Also, the increase is much more in
Vakulabharanam, V (2010): "Dòes Class Matter?
the case of ses than sts. Further, the Class Structure and Worsening Inequality in
2011-12 - of the nationally representative
India," Economic & Political Weekly , Vol 45,
National Consumer Expenditure surveys, economic inequality, as measured by the No 29, pp 67-76.
Gini coefficient, has increased for both
conducted by the nsso, to investigate the Weisskopf, Thomas E (2011): "Why Worry about
Inequality in the Booming Indian Economy?,"
increasing economic disparities within theses and sts in urban India. In rural areas Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 46, No 47,
the economic inequality has increased
ses and sts in India during the past three pp 41-51.

Economic & Political WEEKLY uuua OCTOBER 17, 2015 VOL L NO 42 37

This content downloaded from 122.161.240.56 on Tue, 01 Oct 2024 06:06:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms