<$BlogRSDURL$>
Return to Main Page | Ragout: All India, All the Time
Ragout
A Spicy Stew of Economics, Politics, Data, Food, Carpentry, etc.
 
Saturday, May 08, 2004

All India, All the Time


Labor Blogger Nathan Newman, who's gotten me off on an all India, all the time kick, has responded on his blog. He posts a very interesting article from Economist article saying basically that one of the poorest Indian states (Bihar) has a corrupt government. Newman highlights a section of the article claiming that wages are falling for migrant agricultural workers in a few states, due to mechanization. Presumably, Newman isn't really opposed to the mechanization of agriculture, so I remain puzzled as to what any of this has to do with globalization.

In his comments section, Newman more or less backs off from his earlier claims about "global pressure to lower wages," or at least doesn't defend it. He writes, "I agree that average wages can rise, yet many workers still see their wages fall. It's the unevenness of growth that is the issue." The Economist article suggests that the obvious response to uneven growth in India is to increase public investment and to fight corruption in India's poorer states. This makes sense to me, while blaming globalization for the mechanization of agriculture makes no sense at all.

Since one of the self-imposed mandates of this blog is to talk about data, I should mention that the Economist's evidence that wages are falling for agricultural workers in Punjab is anecdotal: a few migrant workers say so. As I've noted, the evidence on the other side consists of careful surveys that show rapidly falling poverty in Punjab, and India as a whole. Why shouldn't we trust the migrant workers? One obvious reason is that their experience might not be typical. Another is that there's no time period attached to their reports. It may well be that agricultural wages are down this year, after having risen rapidly for decades. And the agricultural workers may well respond by moving into higher-wage sectors next year, perhaps into construction.

Overall, the real issue is Newman's repeated claims that rising average wages rising in India mask ominous trends for many workers. But the fact is that poverty is falling rapidly in India. And this is poverty by India's definition, which means roughly a dollar a day. Specifically, India defines poverty as a level of expenditure "sufficient to provide an average daily intake of 2,400 calories per person in rural areas and 2,100 calories per person in urban areas, plus a small allocation for basic nonfood items." So this is really a big deal, and spouting boilerplate denouncements of "globalization" in response to India's tremendous success is, at best, just plain ignorant.
 
|










































Number 1 in Ragout Economics!

ARCHIVES
March 2004 / April 2004 / May 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 /

LINKS
First Team
Angry Bear
Atrios
Crooked Timber
Brad DeLong
Econbrowser
Economist's View
Freakonomics
Mark Kleiman
Nathan Newman
Political Animal
Max Sawicky
Brian Setser
Sock Thief
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Matthew Yglesias

Second Opinion
Stephen Bainbridge
Marginal Revolution
Andrew Samwick
The Volokh Conspiracy

Third Way
Fafblog
NewDonkey

Fourth Estate
Economic Reporting Review
New York Times
Slate
Washington Post

Fifth Republic
Ceteris-Paribus
Econoclaste
Le Figaro
Le Monde

Sixth Sense
Deltoid
The Intersection
In the Pipeline
What's New

Politics & Polls
Daily Kos
Donkey Rising
Electoral Vote Predictor
MyDD
PollingReport
PollKatz
Rasmussen Tracking Polls

Other
Art Sucks
Enzo Titolo
L’esprit d’escalier
A Level Gaze
Approximately Perfect


EMAIL
ragoutchef at yahoo dot com

[ATOM]

Powered by Blogger