There is also a measurement problem with industrialization: extremely poor farmers with no income made all their own stuff. With industrialization, they left the farms, moved to the cities, got paid a little more, and had to buy their stuff instead of making it. They made more money, the GDP went up, but in reality they were worse off.
this econometric exercise does not identify a bias in poverty statistics. the residuals from a panel regression of life expectancy on poverty rates can reveal which places have worse changes in health outcomes than would be expected based on changes in their poverty levels. but there is no reason to think that the relationship between poverty rates and health is stable or strong enough to merit interpreting this as a bias.
consider the literature on health and recessions. many studies find mixed evidence of recessions on health outcomes. people are definitely poorer during recessions. it would be a mistake to infer that we are mis-measuring recessions because health outcomes don't decline enough.
it is entirely possible for extreme poverty to decline while levels of malnutrition remain elevated (though note that according to the link you cite, rates of stunting are declining over time in india). extreme poverty is an ad hoc definition of poverty (1$ a day in 1996 prices) but more moderate forms of poverty are also strongly associated with child malnutrition that leads to stunting. it is difficult to feed a child to reach full height at 2$ a day or 5$ a day, but going from 1$ a day to 2$ a day is still a decline in poverty.
I'm not sure the neoliberal counterrevolution took place in India...And only muted in Europe.
(Although many European progressive middle class citizens ((who currently show a remarkable - for 'progressives' - preference for censorship and shadow banning btw)) seem to believe the Rhinelandic model ceased to exist decades ago. But i guess they think that because they don't look at gov share in gdp, and they don't open Piketty's website and search for graphs of their country's income pre and post taxation).
I am absolutely *not* an expert but I believe this issue is known and I assume people play along because ... they hope to stay relevant in countries that are important.
There is also a measurement problem with industrialization: extremely poor farmers with no income made all their own stuff. With industrialization, they left the farms, moved to the cities, got paid a little more, and had to buy their stuff instead of making it. They made more money, the GDP went up, but in reality they were worse off.
this econometric exercise does not identify a bias in poverty statistics. the residuals from a panel regression of life expectancy on poverty rates can reveal which places have worse changes in health outcomes than would be expected based on changes in their poverty levels. but there is no reason to think that the relationship between poverty rates and health is stable or strong enough to merit interpreting this as a bias.
consider the literature on health and recessions. many studies find mixed evidence of recessions on health outcomes. people are definitely poorer during recessions. it would be a mistake to infer that we are mis-measuring recessions because health outcomes don't decline enough.
it is entirely possible for extreme poverty to decline while levels of malnutrition remain elevated (though note that according to the link you cite, rates of stunting are declining over time in india). extreme poverty is an ad hoc definition of poverty (1$ a day in 1996 prices) but more moderate forms of poverty are also strongly associated with child malnutrition that leads to stunting. it is difficult to feed a child to reach full height at 2$ a day or 5$ a day, but going from 1$ a day to 2$ a day is still a decline in poverty.
I'm not sure the neoliberal counterrevolution took place in India...And only muted in Europe.
(Although many European progressive middle class citizens ((who currently show a remarkable - for 'progressives' - preference for censorship and shadow banning btw)) seem to believe the Rhinelandic model ceased to exist decades ago. But i guess they think that because they don't look at gov share in gdp, and they don't open Piketty's website and search for graphs of their country's income pre and post taxation).
Did not Dick Armey say "You tell me who did the study, and I'll tell you what results they got."?
Speaking of nutrition during China's '59-'61 famine, Amartya Sen said, "Even China's worst years were better than India's best".
One reason for that is that Mao had spent 22 years feeding huge armies on the march, under fire so, despite what we hear, nobody starved to death.
India clearly lacks this self-organizing capability and a capacity for self-reflection and correction so evident in East Asians.
Everybody is being polite. India will remain irrelevant.
https://twitter.com/roadscholarz/status/1645406453753159682?s=19
I am absolutely *not* an expert but I believe this issue is known and I assume people play along because ... they hope to stay relevant in countries that are important.