Sunday, April 26, 2026

India’s 30-Year Illusion: Growth for the Few, Stagnation for the Many

 

India’s 30-Year Illusion: Growth for the Few, Stagnation for the Many

A political economy critique of post-1991 India


Opening Hook

“1991 ke baad India ne liberalisation kiya —
par kis ko azaadi mili?”

Top 10% ko — capital, markets, assets.
Bottom 90% ko — inflation, insecurity, informal work.

Aur phir hum kehte hain:
India is growing.


Chart 1: Inequality Explosion (1991–2025)

Wealth Share Trend (approx, compiled from global inequality datasets):

Year Top 10% Wealth Share Bottom 50% Wealth Share
1991 ~45% ~20%
2010 ~60% ~15%
2023 ~70%+ ~13%

Reference:
World Inequality Database
www.wid.world

Interpretation:

  • Liberalisation accelerated inequality
  • Wealth creation happened, but concentrated

Conclusion:
Growth does not automatically mean distribution


Chart 2: Real Wage Stagnation vs GDP Growth

Trend:

Indicator Growth (1991–2025)
GDP ~6–7% avg
Real wages (informal sector) ~1–2% (often stagnant)
Agriculture income growth volatile / low

Reality:

  • GDP grew much faster than wages
  • Informal workforce (around 85–90%) saw minimal real income gains

This reflects hidden stagflation — growth without income mobility


Chart 3: Asset Inflation vs Real Economy

Asset Growth (2000–2025):

Asset Class Growth
Stock Market (Sensex) ~15–20x
Urban Real Estate ~8–12x
Median income ~2–3x

Interpretation:

  • Asset owners became significantly richer
  • Wage earners saw limited progress

India increasingly functions as an asset-driven economy rather than a work-driven one


The Structural Truth

India did not evolve into broad-based capitalism.
It moved toward concentrated capital structures.

  • Capital access remains uneven
  • Land markets lack transparency
  • Financial gains are concentrated

This is not fully competitive capitalism. It is selective accumulation.


Globalisation: The Unequal Contract

Post-1991 reforms aligned India with global financial institutions:

International Monetary Fund
www.imf.org

World Bank
www.worldbank.org

What was expected:

  • Growth
  • Jobs
  • Integration

What actually happened:

Sector Outcome
IT & Services Strong growth
Manufacturing Limited expansion
Agriculture Continued stress

Why this happened:

Globalisation tends to favour:

  • Capital-intensive sectors
  • High-skill employment
  • Urban regions

Not:

  • Labour-intensive industries
  • Rural economies

The “90% Lockdown” Idea

The statement that 90% of people have been in a “lockdown” since 1990 is metaphorical but meaningful.

Ground realities:

  • Limited job security
  • Low asset ownership
  • Restricted upward mobility

This reflects structural exclusion, not just poverty


The Indian Economic Duality

India today has two parallel realities:

Segment Characteristics
Asset-owning class Market-linked growth, wealth expansion
Wage-dependent class Income uncertainty, limited mobility

Same country, very different economic experiences.


Political Economy Constraints

Key concerns:

  • Land and real estate opacity
  • Concentrated financial power
  • Strong links between business and policy

Returns are not always driven purely by productivity, but also by access and positioning


Why This Model Continues

  1. GDP growth creates positive perception
  2. Asset price rise benefits influential groups
  3. Public discourse focuses on aggregate growth
  4. Labour voice remains fragmented

Emerging Risks

  • Consumption demand pressure
  • Youth employment concerns
  • Visible urban inequality
  • Persistent rural distress

Without broader inclusion, growth momentum may weaken.


Possible Structural Reset

1. Employment-focused growth

  • Manufacturing expansion
  • MSME strengthening

2. Asset market transparency

  • Real estate reforms
  • Financial oversight

3. Decentralised development

  • Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities
  • Rural value chains

4. Human capability development

  • Beyond degrees
  • Skills, judgment, civic awareness

Closing Reflection

India is not a poor country in aggregate terms.
It is a country with uneven distribution of opportunity and outcomes.


Final Line

1991 opened the doors —
but access has remained unequal.



No comments:

Post a Comment