Zacharias Vakulabharanam New Orleans 2008

8/17/2019 Zacharias Vakulabharanam New Orleans 2008

1/18

Caste and Wealth Inequality in

India

Vamsi Vakulabharanam

Queen’s College, CUNY

Ajit a!harias

"e#y $!onomi!s Institute

U%&$ &anel at the A''A (eeting, Ne) *rleans +anuary ,

-../


2/18

Introdu!tion

0 Caste is a 1ersistent determinant o2 1o)er,inequality and 1o#erty 34eteille, -..56

7u1ta -..890 :)o grou1s o2 studies

; $#iden!e o2 !aste di22erentials in !onsum1tion,edu!ation, de#elo1ment indi!es et! 3e6 ?asan and (ehta, -..89

; *a@a!a4linder ty1e de!om1osition 3e


3/18

&ur1ose

0 $@amine )ealth inequality in relation to

!aste di#isions

0 Yithaki de!om1osition or AN*7i

3Yithaki, >DD6 Eri!k et al< -..9

0 Withingrou1 and 4et)een7rou1

Inequality

0 *#erla11ing strati2i!ation


4/18

=ata

0 AllIndia =ebt and In#estment 'ur#ey,

>DD>D- and -..-.F 3Number o2

householdsG H5,... and >F,...9

0 Wealth J Assets ; "iabilities

0 Unit o2 analysisG ?ousehold adjusted 2or

sie

0 (easure o2 )ealthG &er !a1ita )ealth


5/18

Caste 7rou1s

1991 2002

'!heduled Castes 3'C9 '!heduled Castes 3'C9

'!heduled :ribes 3':9 '!heduled :ribes 3':9

$#eryone else 3*C9 $#eryone else 3*C9

*ther 4a!k)ard Classes

3*4C9

?indu Eor)ard Castes 3EC9

Non?indus 3N?9


6/18

Wealth by Caste, >DD> and -..-

3in -..8 %s< 3’...99

Mean Median

Share in

Populati

on Mean Median

Share in

Populati

on Mean Median

Urban ST 38.5 19.5 0.7 67.1 20.8 0.7 74% 6%

Urban SC 31.1 16.1 3.1 46.0 22.6 3.8 48% 40%

Urban OC 88.4 33.1 20.6 123.4 47.1 20.9 40% 42%

Rural ST 24.6 15.8 8.0 34.1 19.0 7.3 39% 21%Rural SC 23.3 13.0 15.3 30.9 18.0 15.9 33% 39%

Rural OC 58.8 31.1 52.2 77.6 38.9 51.4 32% 25%

All 55.7 24.9 100.0 75.3 32.0 100.0 35% 28%

1991 2002 Percent change


7/18

Caste ?ierar!hy in Wealth, -..- 3%atio o2

medians6 %ural 'CJ>9

Urban ?indu EC

%ural EC F

%ural *4C >H

%ural ': >


8/18

&er!entile Cuto22s by Caste, -..- 3in -..8

%s< 3’...99

-200

-175

-150

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Percentiles

T h o u s a n d s o f

R s

Urban ST

Urban SC

Urban OBC

Urban FC

Urban NH

Rural ST

Rural SC

Rural OBC

Rural FC

Rural NH


9/18

=e!om1osition o2 Inequality

• Yitzhaki(1994) Journal of Econometrics

b r G I I = +

• Gini as the sum of between-grouine!ualit" an# $ine!ualit" remain#er%

• &etween- grou ine!ualit" e'ress the

aerage amount of ine!ualit" that e'istsbetween grous

• he remain#er is a function of ine!ualit"within each grou an# the e'tent to which

each grou*s wealth oerlas with other


10/18

=e!om1osition o2 the K%emainderL

r i i i I s O G= ∑

• he share of each class in wealth are theweights (s

i)

• Gi in#icates within-class ine!ualit"

• Oi in#icates the e'tent to which the well-

being of a class oerlas with the oerall#istribution

. -i

O< ≤


11/18

=e!om1osition o2 *#erla11ing

!o# 3 , 3 99

!o# 3 , 3 99

i i j ji

j i

i ji

ji

i i

O p p O

y F yO

y F y

≠

= +

=

∑

ji ijO O≠


12/18

Within and 4et)eenCaste

Inequality

Schee ! Schee !! Schee ! Schee !!

O"erall #ini 0.648 0.655 0.655 100.0 100.0 100.0

$ithin group 0.595 0.599 0.572 91.9 91.4 87.4

%et&een group 0.053 0.056 0.083 8.1 8.6 12.6

2002#ini points Percentage shares

20021991 1991


13/18

WithinCaste Inequality and

*#erla11ing

Pop'

share

$ealth

share #ini O"erlap

Pop'

share

$ealth

share #ini O"erlap

Urban ST 0.007 0.005 0.628 1.049 0.007 0.006 0.725 1.137Urban SC 0.031 0.017 0.627 1.056 0.038 0.023 0.632 1.051

Urban OC 0.206 0.327 0.700 0.993 0.209 0.342 0.683 0.966

Urban O%C 0.090 0.102 0.677 1.016

Urban (C 0.085 0.190 0.648 0.840

Urban )* 0.034 0.050 0.713 1.054

Rural ST 0.080 0.035 0.526 0.913 0.073 0.033 0.568 0.969

Rural SC 0.153 0.064 0.573 0.973 0.159 0.065 0.557 0.947Rural OC 0.522 0.551 0.595 0.918 0.514 0.530 0.609 0.929

Rural O%C 0.313 0.258 0.580 0.932

Rural (C 0.141 0.197 0.563 0.791

Rural )* 0.060 0.075 0.734 1.095

All 1 1 0.648 1 1 1 0.655 1

1991 2002


14/18

(atri@ o2 *#erla11ing, -..-

Urban

ST

Urban

SC

Urban

OBC

Urban

FC

Urban

NH

Rural

ST

Rural

SC

Rural

OBC

Rural

FC

Rural

NH

Urban ST 1 1.045 1.107 1.131 1.052 1.065 1.042 1.193 1.266 1.051

Urban SC 0.938 1 1.009 0.928 0.933 1.051 1.032 1.119 1.111 0.963

Urban OBC 0.881 0.916 1 1.062 0.951 0.905 0.885 1.068 1.179 0.928

Urban FC 0.716 0.722 0.842 1 0.827 0.681 0.662 0.866 1.037 0.776

Urban NH 0.915 0.944 1.041 1.133 1 0.928 0.906 1.100 1.230 0.970

Rural ST 0.855 0.925 0.918 0.809 0.842 1 0.977 1.040 1.000 0.879

Rural SC 0.852 0.924 0.889 0.739 0.812 1.021 1 1.017 0.934 0.868

Rural OBC 0.794 0.849 0.908 0.903 0.838 0.851 0.831 1 1.070 0.826

Rural FC 0.654 0.678 0.792 0.903 0.750 0.625 0.608 0.836 1 0.697

Rural NH 0.937 0.973 1.075 1.163 1.029 0.971 0.945 1.148 1.277 1


15/18

(atri@ o2 %anks, -..-

Urban

ST

Urban

SC

Urban

O%C

Urban

(C

Urban

)*

Rural

ST

Rural

SC

Rural

O%C

Rural

(C

Rural

)*

Urban ST 0.5 0.502 0.419 0.298 0.417 0.522 0.536 0.410 0.301 0.448

Urban SC 0.498 0.5 0.410 0.282 0.409 0.526 0.541 0.402 0.283 0.445

Urban O% 0.581 0.590 0.5 0.362 0.492 0.622 0.634 0.502 0.381 0.531

Urban (C 0.701 0.718 0.638 0.5 0.619 0.748 0.758 0.653 0.544 0.656

Urban )* 0.582 0.590 0.508 0.381 0.5 0.616 0.628 0.509 0.400 0.534

Rural ST 0.478 0.473 0.378 0.251 0.383 0.5 0.517 0.361 0.237 0.423

Rural SC 0.463 0.459 0.366 0.242 0.371 0.483 0.5 0.348 0.227 0.409

Rural O%C 0.590 0.598 0.497 0.347 0.491 0.639 0.652 0.5 0.363 0.538

Rural (C 0.699 0.717 0.618 0.456 0.600 0.763 0.773 0.637 0.5 0.650

Rural )* 0.551 0.555 0.469 0.344 0.466 0.576 0.591 0.461 0.350 0.5


16/18

Con!lusion

0 A#erage minority 1erson 3'C or ':9 has a

substantial )ealth disad#antage

0 Among the nonminority, the a#erage

2or)ard !aste ?indu is the !lear leader

0 :he a#erage *4C and Non?indu are

noti!eably ahead o2 the minorities, but still2ar behind 2or)ard !aste ?indus


17/18

Con!lusion

0 =e!om1osition analysisG

; 4et)een!aste inequality )as >F 1er!ent o2 o#erall

)ealth inequality in -..- ; Eor)ard !aste ?indus had 2airly lo) degree o2

o#erla11ing, es1e!ially, )ith the minorities

; *ther !astes had mu!h higher degrees o2 o#erla11ing

; %ural minorities 3'C and ':9 are mu!h !loser to ea!hother in their distributions than to any other grou1s


18/18

Con!lusion

0 Urban ':, Urban N?, %ural N?, and Urban

'C &olaried distributionsMM

0 'har1 jum1 in inequality )ithin the ':

0 :he question o2 Kreser#ationsL 31ositi#e

dis!rimination9

Zacharias Vakulabharanam New Orleans 2008

Documents

Transcript of Zacharias Vakulabharanam New Orleans 2008