Monday, September 26, 2005

Applying the Equity Lens - IV

Excerpts from the World Development Report on Equity and Development (2006) [Link]. I was skimming through the report, and thought it's a good idea to bookmark, primarily for myself, a few of the several references to India. What prompted me to look at the report today was this Hindu article.

    Despite the great attention devoted to the question of a systematic relationship between overall inequality and growth at the country level, the body of evidence remains unconvincing. But there clearly are situations in which there is a strong presumption that reducing a specific inequality would promote better investment.

    One such example comes from Operation Barga, a tenancy reform in the Indian state of West Bengal in the late 1970s and 1980s. It has been known, at least since the work of the great Victorian economist Alfred Marshall, that sharecropping provides poor incentives and discourages effort. In such an environment, a government intervention that forces the landlords to give their sharecroppers a higher share of the output than the market would give them should increase effort and productivity. This is exactly what happened in West Bengal, India, when a Left Front government came to power in 1977. The tenant's share of output was set at a minimum of 75 percent as long as the tenant provided all inputs. In addition, the tenant was guaranteed a large measure of security of tenure, which may have encouraged him or her to undertake more long term investments on the land. Survey evidence shows a substantial increase in both the security of tenure and the share of output going to the sharecropper. The fact that the implementation of this reform was bureaucratically driven, and proceeded at different speeds in different areas, suggests the possibility of using variation in the implementation of the reform to evaluate its impact. The evidence suggests that there was a 62 percent increase in the productivity of the land.

12 Comments:

At 8:28 AM, Blogger Veena said...

Anand,

Thanks for the link and the excerpts. The report seems to have some mind-boggling amounts of info which will keep some of us occupied for days together!

 
At 10:27 AM, Blogger kuffir said...

'..that reducing a specific inequality would promote better investment.'
the strong presumption holds good to the extent that marginal utility of each addition to investment doesn't start diminishing- in particularly technology-starved india the incentive of increasing the sharecropper's share must have had a huge impact on the investments (and the appreciation in productivity must have been super normal in the initial years in 80s)made in the decade starting with the late seventies. does the report indicate that the levels of productivity increased through the 90s and 2000s too ?
i can see what you are getting at: that growth is unachievable without paying attention to equity. that the reforms are bad because they don't pay any attention to equity.
anand, this series of posts falls in line with your other posts wherein you expressed doubts about the role reforms played in india's recent growth.
in my view, equity( or the striving for it)should be a social/political goal of all societies which wish to lay claim to the term: civilised. but that goal cannot dictate the course of a developing country's economic policy -equity is a separate goal, to achieve which the use of economic intervention is only one of many tools (most of which are non-economic as your second post in the series indicates). and inequity is essentially an effect of deficiencies in several areas and it's reduction can't dominate the major economic policy logic of a developing country : growth, or rise in incomes.

 
At 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anand said...

Veena -- You'll find a lot of it very interesting. Parts of it indeed do echo the sentiments you expressed here some time ago:

"The overriding question of our times is not whether capitalism or socialism is the right way towards development and it's not whether we need government at all; the question is what kind of public-private partnerships do we need to what extent so that we can have a growing entrepreneurial economy within a welfare state which provides basic necessities for all its citizens."

Kuffir -- Thanks again. As I understand, what this report is trying to do is to ask those of us who are interested in related matters not to separate the issue of equity with that of growth. I may not be able to summarise it well, so please have a look at the report yourself. And I'm not getting at anything. I don't even claim that I support what the authors of this report say. I haven't read it carefully either. My hunch is that I might find enough there to disagree with too. I have skimmed through it, and I found parts of it very interesting. I also plan to look at it more carefully.

It's either a terrible misconception or a deliberate ploy on the part of those who applause anything that takes place in the name of free markets or economic liberalisation to caricature those who question some of the drastic policies as anti-reformists and license raj-ists. My own feelings on this debate tend to agree with what Amartya Sen has so succinctly put:

"The real debate on globalization is, ultimately, not about the efficiency of markets, nor about the importance of modern technology. The debate, rather, is about severe asymmetries of power."

Naturally, questions regarding equity interest me. There's no hidden agenda!

 
At 1:29 PM, Blogger kuffir said...

' the real debate on globalisation...'
the real debate in my view shouldn't be about globalisation. indians should debate whether by doing business with the world they stand to gain or lose. let's take the much 'caricatured' i.t. sector for instance : in the past one decade it has created more (direct) jobs in the three major south indian cities across three states than any major public sector investment in these states has done in the preceding four decades. let me summarise here some of the features of this growth 1. in all these states the sum of the wages of the personnel employed in the it/ites sectors is as high as a fifth(maybe more) of what all the state govt. employees together,in the state take home. consider the implications.2. these are decent, high-paying jobs (if you consider the average outside) which have in turn spawned 2-3 times more jobs in sectors that sell goods and services to these new middle class (in hyderabad, for instance,a 3km strech of road where you wouldn't have found a single tea-shop in its entire length now hosts around 3dozen restaurants offering cuisine from around the continents and polynesia) 3. almost all the revenues earned by the employers in this sector accrue from doing business with the world.4. this idea has caught on and now we see many second-rung cities getting onto the bandwagon- and there's enough business for everyone. 5. in another ten years this sector would probably displace govt., as the largest employer in these states.
6.this success can be replicated in other sectors too - that's the feeling of optimism pervading the three cities i mentioned above.7. this optimism is also shared by a lot of educated youth in the smaller towns because the majority of jobs in these major cities are being filled up by jobseekers from these smaller cities. 8. that in my view, is the trickle-down effect in 'fast-motion'.
if that is the effect reforms or more correctly lack of regulation can have on one sector think about what can be acxhieved in other sectors where we have competitive advantages.
' those who applause anything that takes place in the name of free markets or economic liberalisation to caricature those who question some of the drastic policies as anti-reformists and license raj-ists. '
like i said in my earlier comment , those who oppose reform(it's they who perrform the act of opposing,please note) do it on the grounds that it ignores equity. that in my view is an act of cowardice : don't hide behind the poor and the disadvantaged to further your own deluded political interests. the debate, i repeat, should essentially be on growth. put forward any alternative theories of growth that you might have to match the reformists' ideas. please note that no concrete growth alternative has been put forward until now by the votaries of 'equity'. what they offer is the same emotion-packed (with selective usage of stats to buttress their arguments)appeal we have been the target of since independence.
about drastic policies - i thought the idea of the reforms was to make as little policy as possible as opposed to what used to happen earlier.
those who harp on equity steadily reduce and render meaningless the govt's., efforts to effectively deal with inequity. where would it find the time and other resources to do so when most of its resources are squandered away in regulating business? and in giving(leaking) away funds meant for the poor to the layers of parasitical elements feeding on govt., largesse?
equity and growth should both be priorities for any govt., but the debate need/should not be held at the same forum.
as for amartya sen , i think he essentially voted for globalisation when he left india. ages ago.

 
At 1:43 PM, Blogger kuffir said...

'As I understand, what this report is trying to do is to ask those of us who are interested in related matters not to separate the issue of equity with that of growth.'
isn't equity an inalienable element of growth ? reforms is about releasing the state's capacities to render better justice and the citizen's ability to realize his fullest potential...unhindered.
i repeat, it's those who oppose reform, in the ultimate analysis, who put growth & equity in positions of conflict.

 
At 7:11 AM, Anonymous Anand said...

Kuffir,

1. The thrust of the report is that inequality is the biggest obstacle to economic success. It suggests that the pursuit of sustainable, long-term prosperity is inseparable from a broadening of economic opportunities and political voice to most or all of society.

2. Markets are not perfect, and there's scope for efficient redistribution schemes.

3. I'm not a great fan of growth if it's "jobless growth". While the IT sector has created jobs, that wasn't enough to compensate the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. In IT itself, it's not clear whether we can sustain this growth rate unless we "move up the value chain".

4. Whatever progress we have made is good. But this should also result in overall economic development. For this, there's a great need to have more social investment in empowerment programmes, including education. The state should not absolve itself of this responsibility.

5. There's a gathering crisis in our traditional sectors. Especially in the agricultural sector. We shouldn't be just seeing the glamour in selected sectors.

6. It's nobody's case that we will not benefit from doing business with the world. We will, and we should.

7. Growth needn't result in equity. Our kind of growth is one example. And growth without equity is not sustainable. Empowerment results in equity. It's perhaps no wonder that the World Bank report had to give examples of Kerala and West Bengal when it talked of equity.

 
At 1:46 PM, Blogger kuffir said...

let me approach the points you raised one by one :
'1. The thrust of the report is that inequality is the biggest obstacle to economic success. It suggests that the pursuit of sustainable, long-term prosperity is inseparable from a broadening of economic opportunities and political voice to most or all of society.'
it presumes doesn't suggest. equity by itself, i believe, is a kind of growth. but equity and growth are two distinct goals and the debate about the'reforms and growth' is being thwarted by digressions into what should rightfully be a separate debate on equity. equity is achieved through the application of social/political tools('political voice to most or all of society.'as you rightly point out)
more than economic ones - so why should 'economic' reforms be interpreted as the subverting of primarily social/political goals such as equity ? because that is how the political groups who oppose reforms want you to see it- as reforms being against equity.

'2. Markets are not perfect, and there's scope for efficient redistribution schemes'
democracy is not perfect- but that is all we have right now. one of the primary reasons why many thinking indians have veered around to the markets is precisely because the govt's 'redistribution' efforts have been totally inefficient in reaching the goals that they were supposed to achieve
a. progressive taxation which was supposed to limit the hoarding of resources achieved the exact opposite- it has built a parallel economy that rivals the legit one.b. poverty-alleviation schemes have lined the pockets of all who line the path between the poor and the promised manna( even if a single one them had succeded there wouldn't have been any need for the rest).c. even efforts such as the pds have achieved very limited success and haven't really helped in eliminating starvation - in fact, more trade is transacted on grain in the ration shops than in them.
reforms would help the state release itself from the stranglehold of attention-resource sucking institutions such as the public sector and a hundred other 'priorities' and focus on more imporatant goals such as equity, not less.
3. I'm not a great fan of growth if it's "jobless growth". While the IT sector has created jobs, that wasn't enough to compensate the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. In IT itself, it's not clear whether we can sustain this growth rate unless we "move up the value chain".
it's people like mr.praful bidwai who perceive i.t., to be glamorous and therefore ephemeral, not the many who realistically look at the lessons to be learnt from this growth. i repeat, the growth in i.t. is significant because it has created more jobs in the south in the past one decade than all the major investments in the public sector have done in the preceding four decades. to dismiss this a fluke/unsustainable phenomena is to not truly understand its roots - it is a.totally homegrown and hence has a strong foundation b. it is market-driven and hence adaptable c. it is world-oriented and hence more competitive than our much regulated manufacturing sector.
i am not a great fan of the term 'jobless growth'. reforms have created a whole new profile of jobs across services - this derisory term is not totally supported by facts.
the little reforms that were effected in manufacturing were too late to enable us to catch up with the asean countries and china. manufacturing in india was ripe for stagnation before reforms because of a steady decline in new investments in technology and the inflexibility of the regulatory framework. we have not lost jobs in manufacturing because of reforms - we lost them because the reforms in this sector were slower and half-hearted.
we have lost jobs in sectors in which we were not competitive- without reforms we would have had 'jobless stagnation'.
'5. There's a gathering crisis in our traditional sectors. Especially in the agricultural sector. We shouldn't be just seeing the glamour in selected sectors.'
there isn't a gathering but a festering crisis in the traditional sector. mr.p.sainath, who has long studied the 'crisis', right from the days when his column would share the same page as other 'glamorous' figures in blitz's last page, has done a creditable job of pointing out how the abandoning of certain old methods has led to this crisis. in my view, the crisis started gathering momentum when we stopped thinking of new methods such as the green revolution after being lulled into complacency by its success. but the sad thing is even the much beloved public sector banks don't seem too moved by the plight of the farmers. if only a little of the passion and resources that go into the protection of these banks were diverted towards the countryside ..!
the real crisis in the traditional sectors, in my view, started long ago when the govt mobilized most available resources towards the the building of huge behemoths that ruled the'commanding heights' of the economy.. and squeezed out all resources available to traditional craftsmen and trades in the countryside. agriculture is only the last 'craft' to face such a crisis. the solution to the crisis in rural india should start with the re-empowerment of those who lost their livelihood to state prioritized fields. that's the only way to ease pressure on land - not by promoting the idea of 'only agriculture' but by orienting-training people towards other sustaining occupations. reforms wouldn't necessarily displace more jobs in the villages than central planning has done. in the long run it would definitely help enhance the competitiveness of our agriculture. btw the examples of empowerment the report dileanates- aren't they a kind of reform?
'4. Whatever progress we have made is good. But this should also result in overall economic development. For this, there's a great need to have more social investment in empowerment programmes, including education. The state should not absolve itself of this responsibility.'
and...
'7.Growth needn't result in equity. Our kind of growth is one example. And growth without equity is not sustainable. Empowerment results in equity. It's perhaps no wonder that the World Bank report had to give examples of Kerala and West Bengal when it talked of equity.'
there we go again. when one talks of reform and growth, the debate immediately shifts to equity and empowerment.. and not until then. the usual focus of those who oppose reforms is on such important issues as the hike in epf/ppf interest rates and on stopping the sale of this or that 'navratna' or blocking the building of this or that airport.
reforms, in my view, i repeat are going to help the govt focus more on social investment and not less...why should reforms and growth be construed as a.anti-empowerment and b. pro-inequity ? not even in the largely market-driven economies such as the u.s., and many e.u. countries are education and other social goals considered less important. reforms would clear the much-cluttered agenda of the state and make it more accountable on issues of empowerment than less.
equity, as i said, is by itself a kind of growth. but it's not the whole of it. as you point out, it helps promote growth - but you are wrong, in my view, in concluding that reforms for growth negatively affect equity. these are goals that require the application of some common & some different but not divergent tools.
and may i add equity hasn't really suffered in the past one decade and a half of reforms- more legislation has been passed empowering women(even the efforts towards enacting a botched women's reservation bill are a positive sign) and the disadvantaged classes than in the two preceding decades.
to conclude, we don't have to choose between equity or growth. we can choose both and each would support the other.. because equity without growth is meaningless..
the citizens of kerala and bengal might have achieved a certain degree of equity but they go elsewhere to find growth.

 
At 7:06 AM, Anonymous Anand said...

1. When we talk of economic reforms, I guess we are talking about the post-1991 reforms in India. Several policies in this era have negatively affected the well-being of the poor. Dismantling of PDS, for instance. We subsidize food grain exports, we deny it to our people at affordable prices! Economics and politics cannot be put into watertight compartments.

2. Government schemes do not fail merely because of implementation faults. In many cases they fail because they are designed to fail. Or policy changes kill it. The PDS was successfully implemented in Kerala till the late 90's. Implementation wasn't a problem. This was badly hit later by the central govt changes in the food policy.

3. There's something called the "jobless growth", whether we like it or not. Have you checked the facts before you say "the term is not totally supported by facts"? Losing jobs because we were not competitive -- that's just half the truth. Competition is real competition only when there's a level playing field. We have signed so many treaties which do not offer that playing field. We should have continued to protect our non-competetive sectors till we made the sectors competetive. The reformists even signed some of these treaties even before the mandatory deadlines!

5. I'm glad Kuffir. My previous dialogues of this sort with others were forced to start on the premiss that Sainath and Dilip D'Souza are trash. Yes, those examples of empowerment are reforms too. I wholeheartedly support those reforms. I wish to see such measures replicated in other parts of our country.

4 & 7. Those who oppose reforms talk only about epf rates etc -- That's a wrong portrayal. They also oppose many many other things from privatisation of water to high taxation on gasoline products. The words 'reform' and 'growth' are not pro-inequity. Our way of going about it, is. Equity has suffered in the past one decade and a half of reforms. You do read those like Sainath, but don't quite trust them? My sources on matters like these are people like him. And I don't want to repeat what they say. I think they have done a good job in detailing how inequalities in our society have increased in the post 1991 period. I find those arguments convincing.

Equity without growth is meaningless, you say. Growth without equity is meaningless too as far as the millions who suffer are concerned. Bengal and Kerala: you've got any statistics? Check this article some time.

 
At 9:51 AM, Blogger kuffir said...

1.'We subsidize food grain exports, we deny it to our people at affordable prices!'
we don't subsidize foodgrain exports- we promote it.
the food policy has not been dismantled - there are still millions of tonnes of grains lying in fci godowns .these useless inventories are financed by the state and they are more efficiently distributed among the rats in those warehouses than among people. the offtake is low because there is no growth in rural india - not because the pds has been totally dismantled. and there is no growth in the country side because our policies are stratified in a time-warp.
2.'policies are designed to fail...implementation isn't a problem.' if the state has insidious intentions what makes you think it'll change itself and design better policy next time ? should we change the nature of our state ? and leave the implementing mechanism intact ? anand, let me tell you a dirty story.poor rainfall destroyed a paddy harvest in a small area in khammam district, a.p., last year and the affected farmers were promised that the govt. would acquire the grains at rs.250 per bag. the babus in charge of procuring demanded rs.50 per bag upfront as bribe. this from farmers, in an area infamous for peasants' suicides, shaken to their very soul by four years of continuous drought.
the policies are framed by juveniles with stars in their eyes and implemented by scavenging animals, and the press and the public get to know about their progress only after the govt., starts the process of scrapping the policy with as little fanfare as possible. this happens because the state has too many issues on its plate- we ask the impossible of the govt., and when it stumbles and falls, then ask for fresh policy.
the first elected a.p. govt in 1956 comprised of 20 departments..now it is composed of 200 departments and 106 corporations (including one to promote the craft of laundering).
do you think it is possible for any government to study,formulate and direct workable policy for each of these different functions and also perform the control tasks of monitoring, rectifying and auditing, reviewing policies made by all these departments and not lose sight of basic issues like the well-being of the people.
reform is about making the state shed its unnecesary appendages and become more efficient- so that the public can hold it accountable on the few, but very basic issues that are now on its plate.
3. yes there is a phenomena called jobless growth but it is wrongly applied in the context we are talking about.
the reform process did not kill the textile mills in bombay- that happened much before that. the reform process did not kill the jute mills in bengal- cheaper alternatives did that much before reforms. about treaties - one of the major industries supposed to be affected by the wto was the pharma sector - let me tell you something from my own knowledge about this sector. in the course of my work i regularly interact with top managers in this sector (in hyderabad, which is the bulk drugs capital of india )- and all of them were fully prepared and waiting with anticipation for the new patent regime _ it would give them better opportunities to legally enter the u.s. market now and not through circuitious routes... most of them have expanded their capacities and are preparing for expanding their domestic (the patents would apply to only 2-5% of drugs that still remain undiscovered) and international markets. the pharma sector has added several times more jobs in the last ten years than in the previous four decades.
one instance of loss of jobs occured in the small scale sector in the reform period..it's only the time of their demise that is related to reform..the seeds of their destruction were laid much earlier during the years of more rigid regulation- the restrictions imposed on technology imporst, the costs and delays and denial of timely finance- these were the major reasons why they failed. and one of worst infrastructures in the world. it's a miracle some of them survived- imagine, dr.reddy's laboratories (now among the top five pharma companies in the world) operated its first factory in patancheru near hyderabad without access to a telephone line for five years! i don't think it's irrelevant to add here that bhel had a whole township built for its employees quite close by. reforms did not kill jobs - regulation did. if you continue choose to ignore the addition of a high number of jobs in i.t., and other services....
'5.I'm glad Kuffir. My previous dialogues of this sort with others were forced to start on the premiss that Sainath and Dilip D'Souza are trash.'
i think i referred to only sainath's writings. mr.d'souza was not on my mind- and will not be when i talk about serious facts and issues..he's a good writer, that's it..
about sainath, i've been reading since i was wearing cheddis - abbas and later sainath stroked a lot of emotions..sainath is both a keen observer and a good raconteur..over the years my initial curiosity..and later admiration ..led to doubt, disbelief and now i read him knowing fully well that what i would get is truthful reporting on little known facts about certain major crisis..that affect us. the interpretation he puts on this fact is what i'd rather not swallow..i'd rather work on my own commonsense to get a better understanding of the facts. some might crudely try to categorize this as being on the opposite side.. i believe we live in the same country..and what he reports might be truthful..the prescriptions he implies represent old, old thinking.
'6.They also oppose many many other things from privatisation of water to high taxation on gasoline products. The words 'reform' and 'growth' are not pro-inequity.'
yes they do. the motley, incoherent group calling itself the 'left' in india still feels compelled to put up appearances of being close to grassroots issues- especially when confronted with the red rag of 'multi-nationals'. why can't the epf-beneficiaries take the same rate of interest as other citizens( bank depositors) of the country ? and why can't their votaries persuade the govt to utilize the money saved in lowering the petrol prices ?
equity has suffered ?
check the legislation passed by various state govts., and the centre empowering women and other disadvantaged sections..seats have been reserved for women in education ,in local bodies,..the backward classes have secured reservations in cental govt jobs..human rights commissions have been set up state and central levels..women have been given the right to inheritance in various states (pl., i am talking about non-kerala states here)..laws imposing fines and imprisonment on persons abusing people of the scheduled castes & tribes have been enacted.
i guess you wish to point to the fact that indians are eating less on an average than earlier...the stats are not so tight as to conclude unequivocally so.

 
At 10:12 AM, Blogger kuffir said...

i had to leave the page to go read the article you linked to.
my take on bengal is that we would require several days of posting to adequately cover the subject. moreover, communist stats are the most devious of man's creations... and interpretations based on them ....
about kerala..around 5.5 million of the working population is in the gulf ..and around an equal number elsewhere in the world and india(around quarter
million in hyderabad itself )..that would make it around a third of the working population(or more ) of kerala.
if 'equity'(of the left variety) had brought in growth, such a disproportionate number wouldn't be outside, would they ?
have you read any of 'solzhenitsyn' btw ?
this is it . next time, maybe we can discuss bengal..

 
At 12:51 AM, Anonymous Anand said...

1. Okay, so there is no growth in rural india, where three fourths of our population live. That wasn't the case before the reforms, right? And what are the 'reformists' going to do about it? "Some" people will have to be left behind when a country makes progress?

2. Redistribution programmes can be implemented with success if the potential beneficiaries are aware of their rights. "Right to information act" is a step in the right direction.

Why didn't that reformist CM do anything about cutting down unnecessary govt spendings? 200 depts and all that.

3. Wrongly applied? Well, post-91 years saw the slowest rate of growth of rural employment since 1947!

Let me also give some more "communist stats" on your favourite field IT. We are projected to have 2 million IT jobs in the next decade. During this time our labour pool is going to grow to 520 million. i.e., IT will give jobs to less than 0.4% of the labour pool. That, hoping that the present growth continues unabated.

4. Yes, you referred only to Sainath. I was talking about my previous experiences with this sort of dialogues.

5. Okay, so the Left is incoherent. I assume one day they ask for higher EPF rates, another day they ask for cut in interest rates!

Yes, all those legislations are passed. Some of them have played a pro-equity role too. But those legislations didn't come as gifts from anybody. The pro-equity voices had to fight for it relentlessly. "Right to employment" is a pro-equity move too. Today you are against it, and I support it. Years later, perhaps you might casually include that too in your list of pro-equity bills passed, in another comment, somewhere else!

Lastly, your stats are quite interesting. Last time I heard about this stuff, Keralites in the Gulf numbered around 1.5 million. I'll be happy if you could provide any link. 2,50,000 Keralites in Hyderabad? That's news to me.

In any case, here's something that I saw regarding inter-state migration in India. Kerala's share as a percentage of the total migrants in India is 3.63. Just for comparison, the figure for Andhra is 4.6, Karnataka -- 5.35, Tamil Nadu -- 5.49, and Maharashtra -- 6.64.

 
At 8:53 AM, Blogger kuffir said...

1. there is no rural growth because there is no growth in agriculture. the productivity growth of the green revolution era has gone down because growth is not static..the technology and the ideas had run their course what was needed was fresh thinking. this failure to find new ideas for the future stated in 80s..ironically, because that decade witnessed a lot of growth and nobody paid any attention falling water tables, the advent of consumerism..and of general complacency. don't blame the nineties for what should have been done in the eighties....and the reformists haven't actually touched agriculture significantly until now..
2.thanks for asking..he actually did plan cut staff by around 1.5 lakhs..he closed a number of money-sucking corporations..he froze recruitment in most departments except health and education..the public needs to be prpared for at least a decade and a half for this kind of a drive..that was also one of the reasons why he lost power.
3.you haven't read my post fully ( at least the part on i.t.) i said the sum of take home pay of all it/ites employees is now almost one-fifth(or more) of the take home of govt(the largest employer in those states) in the southern states..meaning they are now second largest collective spenders in those states..that disposable surplus is what is creating the extra jobs in the major southern cities. and through linkages elsewhere. btw i don't like i.t., either..
5. the pro-equity bills i mentioned, you will notice, are all non-economic (or not directly) in nature. i didn't include any of the so-called pro-equity economic legislation because i don't think any of them can be classified as pro-equity in th true sense of the word..i will leave it at that..
about keralites..actually there are 4 lakh keralites in hyderabad at last count(around 2002)..i was giving you a back-of-envelope figure for working population..in the interim the figure could have risen ,..the influx of new migrants to hyderabad has grown very sharply over the last one decade..there's also a sizable population in vizag.
about the link, i wish i could give you any link..my sources were news reports on tv and print.
and i am talking about total migration and not just inerstate migration..what is is the total interstate migration anyway ?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home