India ranks 4th globally in income equality, shows World Bank data
NEW DELHI: India ranks fourth globally in income equality after the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Belarus, making it one of the most equal societies, latest World Bank data has shown.
"According to the latest World Bank data, India's Gini Index stands at 25.5. This places India among the most equal countries in the world in relative terms. India's score is much lower than China's 35.7 and far lower than the United States, which stands at 41.8. It is also more equal than every G7 and G20 country, many of which are considered advanced economies," said a govt note citing data from the multilateral agency.
It said that India falls into the "moderately low" inequality category, which includes Gini scores between 25 and 30, and is only a fraction away from joining the "low inequality" group, which includes countries like the Slovak Republic with a score of 24.1, Slovenia at 24.3, and Belarus at 24.4.
"Apart from these three, India has a better score than all of the other 167 countries for which the World Bank has released data," said the note from the social welfare department.
Globally, just 30 countries fall into the "moderately low" inequality category. including several European countries with strong welfare systems. These include Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Belgium. It also includes growing economies like Poland and wealthy nations like the United Arab Emirates.
"India's journey towards a more equal society is reflected in its Gini Index over the years. The index was measured at 28.8 in 2011, and reached 25.5 in 2022.
This steady shift shows that India has made consistent progress in combining economic growth with social equity," said the note.
Stating that India's strong standing on the Gini Index is not a coincidence, the note said it is closely linked to the country's sustained success in reducing poverty across both rural and urban regions..
According to a World Bank report, 171 million Indians have been lifted out of extreme poverty over the past decade.
The share of people living on less than 2.15 US dollars a day, which was the global threshold for extreme poverty till June 2025, fell sharply from 16.2% in 2011-12 to just 2.3% in 2022-23. Under World Bank's revised extreme poverty threshold of $3.00 per day, the 2022-23 poverty rate would be adjusted to 5.3%.
The Gini Index measures how equally income, wealth or consumption is distributed across households or individuals in a country. It ranges in value from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means perfect equality. A score of 100 means one person has all the income, wealth or consumption and others have none, hence absolute inequality. The higher the Gini Index the more unequal the country, the statement said detailing the ranking methodology.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
28 minutes ago
- Mint
Dollar Doubters Seed Historic Gains for Developing World Debt
(Bloomberg) -- US policy volatility has sent money managers scouring the world for alternatives, propelling local bonds from emerging-market countries to their best first half in 16 years. The surge in demand for fixed-income assets in EM currencies is largely the flip side of sinking confidence in the US dollar, which has tumbled almost 11% this year. That's its worst performance since the 1970s, and the losses are across the board, with the greenback falling against 19 of the 23 most-traded emerging-market currencies, and by at least 10% against 10 of them. The upshot is that an index of emerging-market local debt has returned more than 12% in the first half of the year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, beating hard-currency bonds, which were up 5.4% in the same period. The first-half gains were the strongest since at least 2009. 'I don't think anyone had this much dollar weakness on their bingo card,' said Edwin Gutierrez, head of emerging-market sovereign debt at Aberdeen Group Plc. 'We thought local-currency debt would outperform hard-currency, but not by the magnitude that it ended up.' The money is flowing in unprecedented amounts. EM-debt funds attracted more than $21 billion so far this year, Bank of America Corp. said on Wednesday, citing EPFR Global data. These funds drew inflows for each of the past 11 weeks and $3.1 billion in the week through July 2. Boosting the case further is the prospect of interest-rate cuts in developing countries, according to Lewis Jones, a debt manager at William Blair Investment Management in New York. 'We expect more capacity from emerging central banks to cut rates, and also the trend of a weaker dollar versus the euro to continue,' he said. 'For European investors it could look more attractive looking forward.' Latin American economies have handed investors some of their best returns, with Mexico's local bonds, known as Mbonos, generating a gain of 22%, while some of Brazil's government bonds have returned more than 29%. The Brazilian notes bounced following a sharp selloff late last year, while traders piled into bets that policymakers are done with their hiking cycle. 'We remain invested in Mexican bonos, the trade is not over for us,' said Adriana Cristea, senior investment manager at Pictet Asset Management, adding that the firm has positions in local bonds across emerging markets regions, from Latin America to EMEA and Asia. Improving economic fundamentals in some emerging markets may also bring new issuers to the market. Ghana, Africa's top gold producer, is planning to resume domestic bond sales later in 2025 after short-term borrowing costs fell to the lowest in three years. Easing tensions between Israel and Iran also boost the investment case for local debt from the developing world. Despite the rally, Aberdeen's Gutierrez isn't yet looking to take profits on positions in EM local debt. He said his main overweights are Colombia, the Philippines and South Africa. More broadly, investors favor Brazil, South Africa and Turkey, BofA's head of global emerging markets fixed-income strategy David Hauner wrote in a note on July 3 based on feedback from clients. 'It will be a multi-year process' of rethinking US exposure, said Brad Godfrey, co-head of emerging markets debt at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, who helps oversee $20.6 billion. 'It will be a relearning process for some people that hadn't been exposed to local in a while.' --With assistance from Selcuk Gokoluk and Srinivasan Sivabalan. More stories like this are available on
The Wire
39 minutes ago
- The Wire
No, India Is Not the Fourth Most Equal Country. Here's the Real Data
Today, several major Indian newspapers – including The Hindu, Business Standard, The Times of India and The Indian Express – carried a story claiming that India is the fourth most equal country in the world, attributing the finding to a recent World Bank report. This is incorrect: India ranks not four but 176 out of the 216 countries, as of 2019. Let's unpack how this serious misrepresentation came to be. This claim is based on a Press Information Bureau (PIB) release, which gravely misreads a World Bank brief. Unfortunately, multiple media houses ran with the story without any fact-checking or data scrutiny. Here's what the the World Bank Brief says: 'India's consumption-based Gini index improved from 28.8 in 2011–12 to 25.5 in 2022–23, though inequality may be underestimated due to data limitations. In contrast, the World Inequality Database shows income inequality rising from a Gini of 52 in 2004 to 62 in 2023. Wage disparity remains high, with the median earnings of the top 10 percent being 13 times higher than the bottom 10 percent in 2023–24.' The PIB picks out the 25.5 figure – which measures consumption inequality – and uses it to compare India to other equal countries whose rankings are based on income inequality. This is a basic and critical statistical error. Note, the consumption inequality as an index is usually lower than income inequality for countries. This is because the rich save a large part of their income, so consumption, as unequal as it is, at least looks more equal than income. So, when the PIB compares India's consumption Gini of 25.5 with other countries' income Ginis, it's comparing apples to oranges. In fact, the World Bank brief also does not make any such comparisons based on these numbers since they are not comparable, even though PIB seems to claim it does. A fair comparison would either be to compare India's income inequality with other countries' income Ginis, or compare India's consumption inequality with other countries' consumption Ginis – which the World Bank brief does not provide. Screenshot from PIB, where it says 'India Achieves Greater Income Inequality', with a figure right below saying 'Consumption-based Gini Index'. India's Gini index for income inequality, comparable with other countries, is 61 (in 2019 and 2023), according to the world inequality database, and as also stated in the World Bank brief. This inequality has been consistently increasing since the 1990s, placing India as a highly unequal country (the higher the index, higher the inequality). Ranking countries based on how equal they are in terms of the income Gini, we find that India is ranked 176 out of a total of 216 countries in 2019, while its rank was 115 in 2009 – thereby becoming much more unequal, relative to other countries, over time. The wealth inequality Gini index as per the world inequality database for India is even higher, at 75 in 2023 (and 74 in 2019). India's comparison with a few selected countries. India is among the most unequal in the world, alongside Brazil, South Africa. Source: World Inequality Database Let's turn our attention towards comparable consumption inequality figures. First, the World Bank does not compare India's consumption Gini index with any other country. Worse still, the World Bank brief explicitly cautions that India's consumption inequality may be underestimated due to data limitations; specifically it notes 'International poverty estimates for India are derived from the 2011-12 Consumption Expenditure Survey (CES) and the 2022-23 Household Consumption Expenditure Survey, using the modified mixed reference period and a spatially and intertemporally deflated welfare aggregate. Changes in questionnaire design, survey implementation, and sampling in the 2022-23 survey represent improvements but present challenges for making comparisons over time. Moreover, sampling and data limitations suggest that consumption inequality may be underestimated.' And those limitations are substantial. The survey methodology for the 2022-23 Household Consumption Expenditure Survey underwent considerable changes from the earlier 2011-12 CES, making direct comparisons unreliable. This has been widely discussed by Indian economists and statisticians. To make some reasonable comparisons of consumption inequality, we can look at inequality in per capita calorie intake, which also reflects food consumption disparities. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations and processed by Our World in Data, we find that India ranked 102nd out of 185 countries in 2019 – a worse position than in 2009, when it ranked 82nd. So, by this measure too, India's relative performance has deteriorated over the past decade. Whichever way one looks at the data, the picture is clear: India is a highly unequal country, and inequality is worsening. The intervention needed for a massive redistribution, including taxing the rich, is urgent. Misreporting this reality is not just misleading – it can be dangerous. When trusted national media outlets reproduce statistical errors without scrutiny, they obscure urgent issues facing the country and downplay the lived realities of millions that we collectively need to address.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Why a tariff standoff with the EU could hurt the US more than it helps
As Trump threatens steep tariffs on European goods, economists warn that the trade standoff could end up hurting the US economy more than helping it. Higher prices, disrupted supply chains and retaliatory EU tariffs could strain American consumers and businesses ahead of a fragile economic recovery. read more As the world watches, President Donald Trump is poised to escalate a brewing trade battle with America's largest trading partner, the European Union, a move economists warn could ultimately backfire on the United States more than it benefits it. Having already slapped a 20% import duty on EU goods in April, Trump temporarily scaled it back to 10% in response to market jitters and to leave room for negotiations. But with a July 9 deadline looming and frustration mounting over the EU's trade stance, the president has now threatened to hike tariffs on European exports to an eye-watering 50%. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If enforced, that could make a wide array of goods from French cheese and Italian leather to German electronics and Spanish medicines significantly more expensive in US stores. The EU has signalled it is ready to retaliate with tariffs on hundreds of American products, including beef, auto parts, aircraft and even beer potentially dragging both economies into a protracted and damaging trade war. The stakes are high in transatlantic trade The United States and the European Union together account for the world's most significant commercial relationship, with bilateral trade in goods and services reaching €1.7 trillion ($2 trillion) in 2024 or about €4.6 billion per day, according to Eurostat. Europe is a major buyer of U.S. crude oil, pharmaceuticals, aircraft, and cars, while the U.S. imports high volumes of European cars, chemicals, wine, and medical devices. While Trump has fixated on the EU's €198 billion ($233 billion) surplus in goods, U.S. dominance in services such as cloud computing and legal consulting helps offset that imbalance, bringing the real trade deficit down to roughly €50 billion ($59 billion). But Trump's focus on goods, and his calls for 'fair' trade, have prompted a sharp shift in tone from prior administrations which typically kept tariffs low 1.47% on EU imports to the US and 1.35% in reverse and engaged in more collaborative trade talks. US consumers and businesses may pay the price Raising tariffs may appeal to Trump's base as a show of economic strength, but analysts warn the fallout will likely be felt at home and soon. Higher import costs almost always translate into higher retail prices for consumers, especially for goods with few domestic substitutes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD European luxury carmakers like Mercedes-Benz, which assembles some vehicles in Alabama, say they can cushion some of the blow for now. But across the board, auto prices and the cost of consumer goods are expected to climb if tariffs rise sharply. Makers of spirits like Italy's Campari Group have hinted they may absorb or adjust prices based on market conditions, but warn that long-term uncertainty could harm competitiveness. 'This kind of tariff escalation could squeeze US households at a time when inflation remains a sensitive political issue,' warned Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg Bank as reported by AP. Meanwhile, US manufacturers that rely on imported parts could also suffer, with ripple effects through supply chains and job markets. Though Trump argues that restricting foreign imports will fuel a revival in domestic manufacturing, most analysts say such a shift would take years, if it materialises at all. Trade tensions mask deeper issues Trump has also taken aim at deeper policy issues including EU food safety rules that restrict products like chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef and Europe's value-added tax (VAT), which ranges from 17% to 27%. But economists argue VAT systems are trade-neutral and aren't typically negotiated in trade deals. The EU, for its part, insists its consumer and environmental regulations are non-negotiable. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The EU cannot rewrite its internal market rules just to satisfy US complaints that often reflect misunderstandings about how Europe operates,' Schmieding said. Could the US economy take a bigger hit? A failure to reach a deal could be more economically painful for the US than the EU. A review by Brussels-based think tank Bruegel estimates that in the event of tariffs rising to 25%, US GDP could shrink by 0.7%, while the EU's economy would lose around 0.3%. Some multinational companies, like luxury giant LVMH, have floated the idea of shifting more production to the U.S. to avoid tariffs, but warn that such decisions are costly and may ultimately depend on whether a deal is reached. With a tight deadline ahead, both sides may opt for a temporary framework that averts the worst-case scenario. Still, many in Europe believe the U.S. may back down from the most extreme tariff threats not out of goodwill but because of domestic economic realities. 'Trump may claim victory by rolling back some of the harsher threats,' said Schmieding. 'But if tariffs remain high, it's the American consumer who will bear the brunt.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
