India 2039: An Affluent Society in One Generation


Edited by: Harinder S. Kohli & Anil Sood

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Part I: India's Promise, and Imperatives to Achieving it

    Part II: Moving to a Cohesive and Affluent Society

    Part III: Moving to a Globally Competitive Economy

    Part IV: Improving Governance

  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Figures, Tables, and Boxes

    • 121. A major structural shift in the world economy?
    • 122. Shifting contours of the world economy, 1500–2001
    • 143. Real U.S. GDP per capita, 1870–2006
    • 144. Real East Asia GNI per capita, 1965–2006
    • 165. World economic output, 1965–2039
    • 196. India's growth tracks other fast growers over comparable periods
    • 197. India is following in China's footsteps, 10 years later
    • 228. India's middle class could expand by well over one billion by 2039
    • 311. India must avoid the middle income trap
    • 401. Societal considerations have so far trumped the economic and the global
    • 412. Balancing society, economy and global citizenship
    • 711. Overall trends in rural and urban income poverty in India, 1983–2004/05
    • 722. The reported net worth of India's billionaires relative to India's GDP rose spectacularly—and fell
    • 723. By international standards India shifted from having low to high reported net worth of billionaires relative to GDP between 1996 and 2007
    • 734. Corporate investment in India shot up in 2000–06
    • 735. The distribution of the population across social groups in 2004/05
    • 766. Tamil Nadu's and Gujarat's income per capita climbed relative to Bihar, 1970/71 to 2006/07
    • 787. India lags Indonesia and China in secondary and tertiary enrolments
    • 808. No simple relationship between rents and economic growth: corruption in the mid-1980s and growth in 1990–2007
    • 819. A schematic representation of the relations between social and economic interests and the state
    • 8210. The share of total billionaire wealth by primary source of billionaire wealth, 1996–2008
    • 8711. Government effectiveness and national income: India in international perspective (2007)
    • 8812. Who has a growth problem? A longer term perspective on GDP per capita in India, Indonesia, Korea and Mexico between 1950 and 2004
    • 8913. Alternative long-term institutional scenarios for India
    • 9414. A contemporary view of Standard Oil's role in the United States circa 1900
    • 1031. As in China, urban population is on the rise in India
    • 1481. Secondary education gross enrolment ratios, selected countries, 2004
    • 1492. Gross enrolment ratio in higher education, selected countries, 2004
    • 1493. Student enrolment in higher education in India (2005/06)
    • 1494. Manufacturing firms offering in-service training
    • 1515. India's university system, 2007
    • 1516. Growth of higher education in India, 2002–07
    • 1527. Growth of PhD degrees in science and engineering in India, 1983–2004
    • 1538. Expansion required in Indian higher education, R&D and innovation from 2007 to 2039
    • 1559. Education and research are interdependent, selected countries, 2007
    • 15610. Education allocation in Indian Tenth and Eleventh Plans
    • 15811. Performance of major R&D networks in India in basic research: total papers, 1995–2007
    • 15812. Performance of major R&D networks in India in basic research: impact factor per paper, 1995–2007
    • 15813. Innovation outputs in various countries, 2003–06
    • 16114. R&D inputs in selected countries, 2006
    • 16915. Capacity of international links to national research and education networks
    • 1801. Developing countries are expected to increase their share of world energy consumption relative to industrial countries through 2030
    • 1802. The mix of energy sources will change, but oil will still be the most important in 2030
    • 1803. OPEC producers are expected to account for most of the increase in oil production through 2030
    • 1814. Major OPEC produces of oil supply are in the Middle East
    • 1815. Major non-OPEC producers of oil include several developing countries, 2005 and 2030
    • 1816. Energy-related carbon emissions are 48 gigatonnes higher by 2050 under the business-as-usual scenario than under the stabilization scenarios
    • 1827. Carbon productivity growth needs to be three times faster than the rise in labour productivity during the industrial revolution
    • 1938. U.S. and India's carbon emissions under business as usual and target path scenarios, 2005–50
    • 2321. Satisfaction with public services across citizens report cards
    • 181. From poverty to affluence in one generation
    • 232. India's changing values
    • 243. Achieving South Korea's social and economic indicators
    • 741. Household expenditure per capita of groups as a share of the national average (percent)
    • 752. Poverty incidence amongst scheduled tribes, scheduled castes and others
    • 763. The share of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes in professional and technical work
    • 794. On “bad” and “good” rents
    • 1071. Urban government expenditures and revenues per capita in India and comparable countries
    • 1142. Distribution of Indian cities, by population size and share of the total urban population, 1970–2039
    • 1153. Population of Indian cities with more than 750,000 people in 2005, 1970–2039
    • 1351. Key infrastructure indicators for India, China and Korea
    • 1362. Annual total cost by sector 2009–2039 (in million US$)
    • 1363. Annual cost by sector 2009–2039 (as % of GDP)
    • 1441. Key education, technology and innovation indicators, selected countries
    • 1452. Key milestones in higher education, technology and innovation for 2039—difficult but possible with the right leadership and timely and bold policy actions
    • 1453. India needs a paradigm shift in higher education, technology and innovation
    • 1604. Global competitiveness: Innovation Capacity Components Index
    • 1625. Global knowledge acquisition indicators, selected countries
    • 1851. Oil production and consumption by major OPEC producers, 2007 and 2030
    • 1882. Potential for improving the efficiency of power supply, India and selected countries
    • 1923. Comparison of energy demand forecasts (millions of tonnes of oil equivalent)
    • 1944. Energy mix under sustainable scenario
    • 1945. Estimated market value of carbon dioxide savings from India's pursuit of a sustainable energy scenario, 2010–50
    • 2231. Backing of cases pending in Indian courts, by level, 2008
    • 2262. Revenue and intergovernmental transfers, by government level, in India and comparable countries
    • 321. What is the middle income trap, and how did some East Asian countries avoid it?
    • 391. Historic nature of India's promising rise
    • 412. Tackling structural inequalities
    • 423. Creating functioning cities
    • 424. Improving the environment
    • 435. Overcoming infrastructure bottlenecks and creating a competitive edge
    • 446. Renewing the focus on education, technological development and innovation
    • 457. Launching a revolution in energy
    • 531. Immediate steps to transform the role, focus and effectiveness of government
    • 542. Judiciary, police and other internal security institutions
    • 553. Immediate steps to retool the civil service
    • 574. Immediate steps to focus on the long term
    • 585. Oligarchic or competitive capitalism?
    • 596. Immediate steps to support competitive markets and prevent capture of state organs
    • 597. Immediate steps by business community to inculcate a code of self-discipline and efficient behaviour
    • 608. Accountable government
    • 619. Immediate steps to improve implementation and enforce accountability
    • 6210. Immediate steps to reform political governance
    • 1101. Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
    • 1241. Water management
    • 1272. Looming threat from climate change
    • 1461. Agenda for transforming higher education, technology and innovation
    • 1472. New thrust in Indian education
    • 1503. The Skills Development Mission and employment potential in selected sectors
    • 1544. Creating a world-class university—India's universities of tomorrow
    • 1565. Balance between expansion and efficiency, inclusion and excellence
    • 1656. Factors that have made the Indian Institutes of Technology a global brand
    • 1667. Examples of bold, highly successful initiatives that need to be scaled up throughout India
    • 1678. U.S. system of higher education and research
    • 1689. Embracing India's global citizenship
    • 2081. Evidence of failure of governance of public services
    • 2102. The recent U.S. election—an example for India?
    • 2501. Performance of programs and projects
    • 2542. Delivery of public services
    • 2553. E-governance and IT-related services
    • 2564. Career path of a typical IAS officer


    India is currently the second most populous country and the eleventh largest economy in the world. For the past two decades, it has enjoyed the second highest growth rate—after China—amongst the large economies. And, as happened in China, India's growth rate has continued to accelerate. As a result, India is already a dramatically different country compared to what it was just a generation ago in terms of its per capita income, the self-confidence and ambitions of its people as well as India's position in the global community of nations. In recognition of these achievements and its rising global footprint, India is now an important participant in global forums such as the G-20 Summits. The question is what would India look like one generation from now.

    Many observers have declared that the 21st century will be Asia's century, partly based on their belief that India and China will sustain their recent high economic growth over the longer term. While there is a plethora of such statements as well as of studies of the Indian economy, until now there has not been any analytically rigorous, dispassionate and interdisciplinary study of India's long term social and economic future, and an analysis of what it will take India to replicate the past successes—during our own lifetimes—of countries such as Japan, Spain, Singapore, Ireland, Korea and, most recently, China. To fill this gap and building on ADB's own positive experience with the development of a vision of Asia in 2020, we commissioned the Centennial Group to prepare a long term vision of the Indian economy. That study forms the basis of this book. By sponsoring this analytic work, our objective is to provide a hopefully useful input to the country's deliberations of preparing its long term development strategy and a framework for supportive policy and institutional reforms.

    The book paints a bold and inspiring scenario of India becoming an affluent society by 2039, that is, within a generation from now. It makes a persuasive case as to why such a scenario could be plausible. Even more importantly, the book very appropriately and frankly assesses the many hurdles—political, social, policy and institutional—that the country must overcome to realize this vision and lift millions of Indians from relative poverty today to enjoy the fruits of a modern and inclusive affluent society within 30 years or so. Its agenda of inter-generational issues is central to India avoiding the middle income trap that so many other countries have fallen into. However, India can successfully tackle this trap only by addressing, and addressing urgently and head on, the various facets of governance highlighted in the book.

    India's future success is not only critical to more than one billion Indians but also to peoples elsewhere. Through its success, India would become a beacon of hope throughout the developing world, and greatly help achieve our dream of a world without poverty.

    I congratulate the authors for an excellent job.

    HaruhikoKuroda President Asian Development Bank


    Do we need yet another study on India? A valid question, given that there is no dearth of studies on India. Indeed, with the reports regularly produced by the plethora of committees and blue ribbon panels, multinational institutions, private financial institutions and think tanks, there is no shortage of analysis or recommendations.

    So, what makes this book different? First, while any number of reports on major issues bear on the future prospects of Indian society and economy, they are mostly vertical. They treat a topic in depth but on its own, with limited or no attempt to relate it to other equally important—and perhaps even more fundamental—related topics that have a bearing on possible solutions. This book tries to connect the dots between the key issues that in our view could decide the future of Indian society. Second, multigenerational issues have received rather short shrift in other studies and in the policy debate. This study takes a much longer 30-year perspective, with a corresponding emphasis on challenges that require long gestation to address. Third, the study offers a projection not of what will be but of what India's potential is.

    The point of departure is a perspective on where India could be in 30 years and the “promise” that holds for its people. If India maintains anything close to recent economic growth rates—which Japan, South Korea and now China have done in their long growth spurts—it could be one of the top three global economic powers. More important, its people could achieve the living standards of an affluent society.

    This is not a preordained state of affairs. But it can happen, and that “can happen” comes with a long list of imperatives. The study also presents the alternative scenario of an India caught in the “middle income trap” if these imperatives are not fulfilled.

    The study's other distinguishing features are:

    • It is put together by a highly experienced international team that has no institutional or policy agenda—private, multinational or civil.
    • During its preparation, the authors consulted widely with policymakers, private sector executives and political leaders at the center and in key states.
    • It combines path-breaking analytical work on the lessons from other middle income countries—such as Argentina, Brazil, China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico and the Philippines—with the best work that already exists on India on many topics.
    • It puts forth a framework that transcends the traditional ideological debates and gives equal priority to three overarching prerequisites for realizing the promise: maintaining social cohesion; continuously enhancing economic competitiveness; and achieving greater influence and shouldering more responsibility in global fora.
    • The study focuses on issues that require long lead times and conveys that success in addressing them will critically determine whether India can deliver on its promise.

    A final word on the recommendations and the tone of this study: In our recommendations we draw heavily on the experience of other countries. In doing so we are not oblivious to the fact that India's size, diversity, political system, culture and history make it different. Each country has its own claim to uniqueness. Uniqueness, however, is not a justification for inertia. So each country, while learning from the successes and failures of others, has to devise solutions and take actions that fit its particular circumstances.

    The tone of our study is candid and forthright. At the risk of giving unintended offense we deliberately want to provoke discussion and hopefully concordance among the major stakeholders on the complex set of multigenerational issues. This is particularly timely and urgent given the verdict of the electorate in the recent elections. A historic opportunity for bold and far sighted action could be easily frittered away if the momentum is not seized. If the study serves to engage civil society, the press and the private sector in a vigorous ongoing debate with the government—center, state and local—on the need to act decisively on significant multi generational issues, it will have served its purpose.

    Gautam S.Kaji Chairman, Centennial Group, Chairman, Advisory Board, Emerging Markets Forum


    This book is the result of a project of the Centennial Group, coordinated and managed by Harinder S. Kohli, under the overall guidance of Gautam Kaji.

    Harinder Kohli is also a co-editor of the book, together wth Anil Sood. Other members of the core team, in alphabetical order are: Richard Ackermann (water); Vinod K. Goel and R. A. Mashelkar (tertiary education, technology development and innovation); Bimal Jalan (role of the state and governance); Homi Kharas (evolution of global economy and India through 2039—the promise); Hossein Razavi (energy revolution); Inder Sud (livable cities and governance); C. M. Vasudev, Hariharan Ramachandran, and Vivek K. Agnihotri (civil service reform); and Michael Walton (tackling inequities and creating contestable markets). Harpaul Alberto Kohli provided data analysis and support. Yanbei Yao oversaw the logistics support.

    The book gained greatly from advice and counsel from members of the Advisory Group: Kemal Dervis, Bill Emmott, Rajat Gupta, Bimal Jalan, Caio Koch-Weser, Rajiv Lall, Johannes Linn, Bindu Lohani, Rajat Nag, Prabhakar Narvekar, Deepak Parekh, Andrew Sheng, Arun Shourie, and Vinod Thomas.

    The final product reflects valuable comments and critique offered by a large number of people within and outside India. For practical reasons, we can name only a few: Shankar Acharya, Surjit Bhalla, Manu Bhaskaran, Jack Boorman, Prem Garg, Ishrat Husain, Claudio Loser, Srinivasa Madhur, Keshub Mahindra, Jayant Menon, Nitin Paranjpe, Bruce Ross-Larson, V. Sundararajan, and Arvind Virmani.

    This book is based on a nine-volume study released at the Emerging Markets Forum meetings held in Mumbai and Delhi from June 23–26, 2009. The study was funded by a grant from the Asian Development Bank.

    The book itself is the result of a collaborative and joint effort of Harinder Kohli and Anil Sood with invaluable support from Aaron Szyf. They and other authors are obligated to Sunanda Ghosh, Rekha Natarajan, Sugata Ghosh and their collegues at Sage Publications for their support and encouragement and for publishing the book under a very tight time schedule.

    Finally, the authors are grateful for the inspiration and encouragement provided—and the insistence on intellectual rigor demanded—by Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission of India, and Mr. Haruhiko Kuroda, President of the Asian Development Bank.

  • Notes

    1. The main criteria used by the IMF's World Economic Outlook are income, diversification of exports, and integration into the global financial system. But there is no fixed formula.

    2. The founding members were France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and West Germany.

    3. Of course, a cross-country comparable system of national income accounts was not introduced until 1953, so the early years are very rough estimates.

    4. Mearsheimer (2001, p. 2) argues that “the overriding goal of each state is to maximize its share of world power, which means gaining power at the expense of other states.”

    5. The White House 2009.

    6. Elwell 2006.

    7. For example, Dani Rodrik.

    8. For example, Arvind Virmani.

    9. Virmani 2008.

    10. McKinsey Global Institute 2001.

    11. Oura 2007.

    12. Gupta 2008.

    13. Bhalla 2008.

    14. Farrell 2007. McKinsey's definition of the middle class is between $23,000 and $118,000, a somewhat narrower band than proposed here.

    15. The previous discussion has emphasized increasing returns to scale. This is perhaps best thought of in the model as the presence of Arrow “learning-by-doing” externalities, where catch-up total factor productivity growth depends on the level of output.

    16. Hawksworth and Cookson 2008; Wilson and Purushothaman 2003.

    17. See Aghion and Hewitt (1997) on why Europe converged with the United States after World War II, but more recently has faced slower total factor productivity growth.

    18. For transition economies, the criterion is 3.5 percent per capita growth or more between 1995 and 2005.

    19. This total factor productivity rate is consistent with the U.S. long-term labor productivity growth of 1.8 percent.

    20. Goldman Sachs first looked only at six developed countries and four BRIC countries, and then extended their analysis to a further 11 emerging economies. PricewaterhouseCoopers looked at 30 emerging economies.

    21. Indeed, in their 2007 update, Goldman Sachs analysts Poddar and Yi raised their sustainable growth forecast for India to 8 percent through 2020.

    22. Bhalla 2008

    1. The Commission on Growth and Development (2008), chaired by A. Michael Spence, identified 13 success stories including Botswana, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Malta, Oman, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand.

    2. Together, these factors are sometimes called “innovation capacity”. The ability for innovation to drive economic growth depends on factors that evolve over time. Complex university-business linkages, state support, flexible factor markets, connectivity, and other forces are thought to be important, but even EU countries have faced difficulties in understanding how to advance this agenda. The Lisbon process has yet to deliver significant results.

    3. Gill and Kharas 2007.

    4. Imbs and Wacziarg 2003.

    5. Kharas et al. 2008.

    6. Voynets n.d.

    1. World Bank 2008.

    1. Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, in collaboration with Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, has brought out a Digital Repository of 73 Reports of Commissions/Committees on Administration, covering a period from 1812 to 2004, on a CD.

    The author is grateful to Anusha Nath for excellent research assistance and to Rinku Murgai for sharing information from analysis of the National Sample Survey. This analysis has benefited from discussions with and comments from Homi Kharas, Harinder Kohli, Ashoka Mody, Pratap Banu Mehta, Inder Sud and Ashutosh Varshney and from presentations in the Institute of Economic and Social Change, Bangalore, in the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi, to the Indian Planning Commission and in the context of executive education of senior Indian Administrative Service officers in the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. All results from the National Sample Survey are calculated from the microdata from the 38th Round (1983), the 50th Round (1993/94), or the 61st Round (2004/05), from Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, National Sample Survey Organisation.

    1. Kharas 2009.

    2. Sud 2009a.

    3. This is all adjusted for price differences over time and between rural and urban areas.

    4. See articles in Deaton and Kozel (2005) for a review.

    5. Banerjee and Piketty 2005.

    6. Himanshu 2007.

    7. This is based on a range of sources as investigated by Forbes staff and is intended to capture all sources of an individual or families net worth.

    8. This measure is the ratio of a stock (net worth) to a flow (GDP), since there are no direct measures of total net worth. However, intertemporal and intercountry comparisons still carry information value; they would be strictly comparable only if national ratios of capital to income were constant.

    9. Damodaran 2008.

    10. Ahmed and Varshney 2007.

    11. Thorat 2007.

    12. Banerjee and Somanathan 2007.

    13. Gill and Kharas 2007.

    14. Chakravorty and Lall 2007.

    15. Panagariya (2008) is an articulate advocate of the burden of labour regulation thesis; Besley and Burgess (2004) have produced cross-state evidence consistent with this is by constructing an index of the restrictiveness of labor regulations across Indian states. However, this index has been criticized by Bhattacharjea (2008).

    16. ASER Institute 2008.

    17. Pritchett and Murgai 2007.

    18. See Kohli (2006a, b) and Panagariya (2008) for a selection of commentaries.

    19. Kohli 2006a, b.

    20. Ramaswamy 2006.

    21. Mehta forthcoming.

    22. Rajan 2008.

    23. Damodaran (2008) has documented the entry of new entrepreneurs from beyond the traditional families and castes associated with business activities.

    24. Ahmed and Varshney 2007.

    25. Chandra 2004.

    26. Pritchett 2008.

    27. Pande 2003.

    28. Somanathan 2007.

    29. Damodaran 2008.

    30. ASER Institute 2008; FOCUS Survey 2006; PROBE Team 1999.

    31. See Das (2004) for discussion of the latter case.

    32. Based on an in-depth study of three states, Sinha (2005) explores the contrast between the essentially cooperative relationship between business, state government, and union government of Gujarat, a more conflictive one between the West Bengal government and the other two actors, and a mixed relationship with the Tamil Nadu government.

    33. There is already a significant literature on the effects of this (see Besley et al. 2004 for one example).

    34. This is illustrated by the careful empirical study in Bertrand et al. (2008): the expenditure per capita of households of students who gained entry to the engineering school is much higher than the average for the same group in the population.

    35. Pritchett and Murgai 2007.

    36. De Ferranti et al. 2004.

    37. Kochhar et al. 2006.

    38. See Kaufmann et al. (2008). This is based on a compilation of a range of mainly subjective measures by investors and citizens.

    39. Rudolph and Rudolph 2008.

    40. Rudolph and Rudolph 2008.

    41. Kharas 2009.

    42. Kharas 2009.

    43. Documented for India in Bertrand et al. 2002.

    44. López Calva et al. 2009.

    45. See Del Villar (2009) and Noll (2009) for discussion.

    46. Evans's thesis of the nature and success of embedded “autonomy” in South Korea is developed in contrast to Brazil and India.

    47. Rajan and Zingales 2003.

    48. Bhattacharjea 2008.

    49. There has been a series of independent reports on financial sector reform; see in particular the report of the Rajan Committee (2008) on the need to combine efficiency-related reforms with greater financial inclusion.

    50. See Sud (2009a) for further discussion.

    51. Morck and Nakamura 2007.

    52. Robinson 2009.

    53. Robinson 2009.

    54. Loury 2002.

    55. Somanathan 2007.

    56. Rao and Sanyal 2008.

    57. Sud 2009b.

    58. Goel and Mashelkar this volume.

    59. Sud 2009b.

    1. World Bank 2006.

    2. Mehta 2005.

    3. Mehta 2005.

    4. United Nations Statistics Division,, accessed December 18, 2008.

    5. World Bank 2004.

    6. Second Administrative Reform Commission 2007.

    7. National Institute for Public Finance and Policy (2005), as reported in Second Administrative Reform Commission (2007).

    8. National Institute for Public Finance and Policy (1995), as reported in Second Administrative Reform Commission (2007).

    9. 3iNetwork 2006.

    10. The Delhi Capital Region, which has been by far the largest recipient of central funds, is one exception.

    11. Derived from data presented in World Bank (2004).

    12. National Institute for Public Finance and Policy 2007.

    13. Bagchi 1998; Bahl and Linn 1992; Mathur 2001; Ravindra and Rao 2002; World Bank 2004.

    14. Bahl 2003.

    15. The Planning Commission constituted a group to make an early assessment as an input for the Eleventh Plan, but the conclusions appear to be quite tentative, given that the program was still at an early stage.

    16. Second Administrative Reform Commission 2007.

    1. Haldea 20 0 8.

    2. Araujo et al. 2007.

    3. Araujo and Kohli 2008.

    The authors are grateful to all the experts and officials in the Indian academic and R&D community, government, private sector, and independent leaders and thinkers who provided great insights, candid advice, and useful information. The work has also benefited immensely from the valuable guidance and support of Harinder S. Kohli, Anil Sood, and the India 2039 Study Team. The authors are grateful to Varun Shiva Goel for assisting in research and preparation of the report. They also acknowledge assistance from K. Radahkrishnan and Yanbei Yao in data collection.

    1. Studies tracing the relationship between the stock of education and GDP find that a one-year increase in average education attainment raises output per capita 3–6 percentage points and the GDP growth rate about 1 percentage point (Dahlman 2008). The cumulative impact of a 1 percentage point increase in the rate of growth soon exceeds the one-time increase in output.

    2. This number masks many disparities—in 2004/05 the gross enrolment ratio in higher education was 19.0 percent for the urban population but 6.7 percent for the rural population, and 12.4 percent for men and 9.1 percent for women, contributing to the lower productivity levels in the informal sector and thus to large productivity dispersion.

    3. The number of children aged between 14–18 is estimated at 120 million in 2006. In 2005/06, enrolment was 132.1 million in primary education, 52.2 million in middle/upper primary, and 38.4 million in secondary and upper secondary education. The combined gross primary and secondary enrolment ratio was 39.9 percent. The dropout rate was 25.7 percent in primary school, 48.8 percent in middle/upper primary school, and 61.6 percent in secondary school.

    4. NASSCOM and McKinsey & Company 2005.

    5. Central universities are established by the central government; deemed universities are institutions that are awarded university status by the University Grants Commission; and institutes of national importance include Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, Indian Institute of Science, and the like.

    6. China's rapid expansion of higher education may eventually give it supremacy over India even in services, particularly in knowledge and knowledge-based industries. China's 1998 Higher Education Law facilitated large-scale expansion, consolidation, and quality improvement in higher education. The gross enrolment ratio in tertiary education rose from 2.9 percent in 1985 to 21.6 percent in 2006 and is expected to rise to 40 percent by 2020 and 55 percent by 2050. Enrolment in regular institutions of higher education rose from 3.2 million in 1997 to more than 9 million in 2002. China is also working to raise the level of some 100 of its universities to become world-class institutions and has already established 53 high-technology development zones to synergize the efforts of universities and business houses. There has also been an exceptional increase in governmental allocation for R&D, which rose more than 22-fold, from $660 million in 1978 to $14.6 billion in 2004, and more thereafter (Jha 2006).

    7. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Graduate School of Education 2005.

    8. Most public universities in Europe and the United States are large, with 10,000–75,000 students. In contrast, the University of Pune has only 7,500 students, and the Indian Institutes of Technology have 3,000–4,000 students. Universities in Australia, China, Singapore, and the United States have budgets of $1 billion and more compared with about $50 million for the Indian Institutes of Technology.

    9. Each Indian Institute of Science Education and Research has been allocated 5 billion rupees ($120 million). Each will have 200 faculty and 2,000 students (500 PhDs), with an annual intake of 200 undergraduate and 200 graduate students, offering BS degrees and integrated five-year MS/PhD programs. The Indian Institute of Science Education and Research at Pune has so far attracted 80 percent of its faculty from nonresident Indians returning to India. A new campus is under construction inside the campus of the National Chemical Laboratory. Within five years, the two institutions will be producing some 1,000 science and engineering PhDs.

    10. The Eleventh Plan envisages an outlay of 2.74 trillion rupees ($60 billion) for education—an increase from 7.7 percent to 19.3 percent of the total. Around 50 percent of the education outlay is for elementary education and literacy, 20 percent for secondary education, and 30 percent for higher education, including technical education (Indian Planning Commission 2008). During the Tenth Plan the share of private unaided higher education institutions increased from 42.6 percent in 2001 to 63.2 percent in 2006 (Indian Planning Commission 2002). Their share of enrolments also increased, from 32.9 percent to 51.5 percent. This trend is likely to continue in the Eleventh Plan and therefore, about half of incremental enrolment targeted for higher education is likely to come from private providers.

    11. Dutz 2007.

    12. Murthy 2008.

    13. Murthy 2008.

    14. In pre-liberalized (pre-1991) India, the private sector was protected through high tariff barriers. Indian industry responded with import substitution applying reverse engineering. Industry developed several products that were “first to India” in pesticides, drugs, and pharmaceuticals, auto industry, and other sectors. Taking advantage of the fact that before January 1, 2005, when the Indian patent laws came into compliance with the Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights agreement, the Indian drug industry used its skills in process chemistry and engineering to create a strong base producing generic drugs, which were among the cheapest in the world.

    15. Management Today 2007.

    16. Indian Planning Commission 2002, 2008.

    17. Dutz 2007.

    18. For example, the idea of increasing R&D expenses to 2 percent was first presented by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (in 1989), formally announced by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in the Indian Science Congress (in 2000), and by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (in 2007) (Ramachandran 2007). Yet during the period 1989–2008 (20 years), India's R&D expenditures never exceeded 1 percent.

    19. On December 13, 2008, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced plans to launch an integrated knowledge network that would have nodes at all major institutions of higher education and learning for carrying out interdisciplinary dialogue. While a step in right direction, India needs more, including a national research and education network. As the Prime Minister said, India needs to leverage its technology strengths.

    20. For example, the University of Pune system has some 423 affiliated colleges, more than 200 institutions with more than 400,000 students, but only 7,500 on campus, one-third of them foreign students.

    21. The latest effort was made by the Indian Institute of Management Ahmadabad Review Committee (September 2008), but in December 2008, the institution's board, in an unprecedented move, rejected the review committee's report.

    22. Dar et al. 2006.

    23. Wessner 2006

    24. Lakshman 2006.

    25. UNESCO 2008.

    26. Böhm et al. 2004, p. 4.

    27. In the United States, a significant percentage of all PhD recipients are reported to be non-U.S. citizens: 41 percent of graduate students in sciences and 51 percent in engineering are from other countries, and half of all international students studying in United States are at the graduate level (Jha 2006). Students come from many countries, the major ones being China, India, Japan, and South Korea.

    28. Dutz 2007.

    29. Dutz 2007.

    1. IEA 2008.

    2. EIA 2008.

    3. Lorenz et al. 2008.

    4. ERI 2006.

    5. Indian Planning Commission 2006.

    6. IEA 2008.

    7. India deliberated the topic of energy security while preparing its energy policy. It defined energy security as the ability “to supply lifeline energy to all citizens as well as meeting their effective demand for safe and convenient energy to satisfy various needs at affordable costs at all times with a prescribed confidence level considering shocks and disruptions that can be reasonably expected” (see Indian Planning Commission 2006).

    8. The Iran–Pakistan–India project was conceptualized in 1989 and has gone through many negotiation cycles. The pipeline would be 2,775 kilometers long and would be supplied from the South Pars field in the Persian Gulf. The initial annual capacity of the pipeline would be 22 bcm of natural gas, with capacity eventually reaching 55 bcm. It would cost $7.5 billion. The latest negotiations indicate a construction start date in 2009 and a completion date of September 2012. The deal encountered a setback in July 2006 when Iran demanded a price of $7.20 per million Btu against India's offer of $4.20. The long-stalled talks were revived in April 2008 when the Iranian president visited India and Pakistan.

    9. There are no accurate estimates of India's technical and nontechnical losses. The gains from loss reduction pertain to technical losses. Half of transmission and distribution losses are assumed to be technical.

    10. The typical nuclear fuel cycle starts with refined uranium ore, composed mainly of uranium 238 (U-238). U-238 is not fissile—the process by which the nucleus of the atom splits, releasing tremendous quantities of energy. Uranium ore normally contains very small percentages of U-235, which is fissile. When a U-235 atom splits, it releases a spread of high-energy neutrons. If one of these neutrons collides with another U-235 atom, it can cause the atom to split, releasing more neutrons. This chain reaction could create an explosive power for a nuclear bomb or the meltdown of a nuclear reactor. Since there is too little U-235 in mined uranium ore, the ore needs to be “enriched” to around 3–5 percent U-235 for nuclear fuel (and 85 percent for a nuclear weapon). Once a sufficient proportion of U-235 is achieved, the ore is made into fuel suitable for a reactor. While U-235 is necessary for fission, U-238 is “fertile,” which means that it can transmute into other fissile elements in a process called “breeding.” In this process, when an atom of U-238 absorbs a neutron, such as one thrown out by a nearby splitting U-235 atom, it can transmute into U-239, then quickly into neptunium-239 and then to plutonium-239 (PU-239). PU-239, like U-235, is fissile and can maintain a chain reaction. The spent fuel can be reprocessed. The problem is that many reactors are not optimized for burning plutonium, and as a consequence, large quantities of PU-239 remain as a waste by-product in spent fuel rods. This means that much of the spent fuel—highly radioactive—becomes waste that needs to be stored for a very long time. This waste PU-239 also represents the greatest weapons proliferation threat because of the possibility that some of the waste could fall into the wrong hands.

    11. IEA 2008.

    12. The Solar American Initiative, a program of the U.S. Department of Energy, has a goal of bringing solar to grid parity by 2015. Photovoltaic electricity cost is expected to drop from 35 cents a kilowatt hour to 10 cents a kilowatt hour within this timeframe. The IEA also projects that the cost of solar photovoltaic and concentrated solar power will decline substantially and become economically viable before 2020. Furthermore, IEA's assessment indicates that while most solar capacity is being installed in industrial countries, future solar capacity will be concentrated in countries like those in the Middle East and North Africa, where there is abundance of strong solar resources.

    13. IEA 2008.

    14. Indian Planning Commission 2006.

    15. IEA 2008.

    16. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international environment treaty declared at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The parties agreed to recognize “common but differentiated responsibilities,” with greater responsibility of industrial countries (called Annex 1 countries) for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the near term. The treaty includes provisions for updates, called “protocols”. The principal update is the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997. Most industrial countries and some Central European economies in transition (called Annex B countries) agreed to legally binding reductions of 6–8 percent below 1990 levels in greenhouse gas emissions over 2008–12, defined as the first emissions budget period. The United States would be required to reduce its emissions by an average of 7 percent below 1990 levels. The administration of President George W. Bush explicitly rejected the protocol in 2001. Since then, a series of meetings have helped resolve many practical issues, such as agreement on a flexible mechanism, which provides for emissions trading instruments such as the Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism, which allow industrial countries to fund emission reduction activities in developing countries as an alternative to domestic emission reduction. At the latest meeting, held in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2007, agreement was reached on a timetable for negotiating the post-2012 framework or successor to the Kyoto Protocol. At the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen, in December 2009, negotiations are expected to lead to an ambitious global climate agreement for the period after the commitment under the Kyoto Protocol expires, in 2012. At a meeting in July 2008 in Japan, the G-8 leaders agreed on a 50 percent emission reduction target by 2050 but asked that other major economies, such as India and China, also limit emissions. It is therefore expected that the Kyoto Protocol's reliance on industrial countries for the major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions might not hold in the next round of negotiations.

    17. India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It carried out its first nuclear test in May 1974 and subsequently became subject to a nuclear trade embargo, which the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) imposes on countries that are not signatories of the NPT and conduct nuclear activity. After more than 30 years of embargo, a U.S.–India agreement was signed in March 2006 that would allow India to buy nuclear technology and nuclear fuel from the United States as long as India separates its military and civilian nuclear facilities and agrees to supervision by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The agreement has cleared the Indian parliament. IAEA also approved the deal by signing a nuclear safeguards agreement with India in August 2008. The agreement to allow nuclear fuel and technology exports to India for its civilian use was also cleared by the 45-member NSG and would need to go to the U.S. Congress for approval. However, critics say that implementation of the U.S.–India nuclear cooperation agreement will be a breach of the NPT, thus undermining international nonproliferation efforts. The international community hopes that India will eventually sign the NPT.

    18. See, for example, Dean (2006).

    19. See, for example, IEA (2008); Madan (2006); Taylor et al. (2008); Indian Planning Commission (2006).

    20. In June 2008 the Prime Minister announced a climate change plan with a vision of making India's economic development energy efficient, placing solar power at center stage and pooling India's scientific, technical and managerial talents, and financial resources to develop solar energy. However, the plan makes no commitment to reducing carbon emissions.

    1. Transparency International India 2005, 2008.

    2. Chhokar 2008.

    3. The Economist 2008.

    4. The Economist 2008.

    5. Such litigation by bureaucrats also contributes to the judicial backlog.

    6. The high court judges blamed poor governance by unaccountable civil servants as a leading cause of litigation. They estimated that as much as 50 percent of their caseload would disappear if civil servants performed the job that they are supposed to perform and took citizen grievances seriously.

    7. While such direction by the Supreme Court is often applauded by the public, it raises the disturbing possibility of judicial overreach into matters that should essentially lie under the purview of the executive. It is hoped that better governance would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for excessive judicial intervention in public policy, freeing up judicial resources for adjudicating the laws.

    8. Sud 2009.

    9. A more extensive description of these initiatives can be found in Government of India, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (2008), and World Bank (2006).

    10. Transparency International India 2005.

    11. A recent amendment to the Criminal Court Procedure allows plea bargaining in cases in which punishment is up to seven years of imprisonment. Plea bargaining has not been used much because prosecutors, lawyers and judges are still unsure about how to apply the concept and defence lawyers often advise the accused to go forward with the trial knowing that the process is likely to take years and conviction is never a certainty.

    1. For a detailed exposition of the concerns relating to internal security and possible state interventions see Government of India (2008a). The government has announced an ambitious unique identification project that would assign a unique identification number to each resident of the country. The Unique Identification Authority of India has been constituted as an attached office of the Indian Planning Commission to eliminate the multiple identification mechanisms prevalent across various government departments.

    2. Kaufmann et al. 1999.

    3. Government of India 2008b, p. iv.

    4. Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, in collaboration with Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, has brought out a Digital Repository of 73 Reports of Commissions/Committees on Administration, covering a period from 1812 to 2004, on a CD.

    5. See

    6. Shourie 2004.

    7. Arora and Goyal 1995, p. 320.

    8. Arora and Goyal 1995, p. 319.

    9. The small car project of an Indian MNC withdrew its production facility from West Bengal and relocated in Gujarat.

    10. Sabharwal 2006.

    11. The world over, court management and case-flow management are recognized as specialized skills that need to be adopted by the judiciary.

    12. A Police Act Drafting Committee was set up by the Government of India in 2005. This Committee has made many recommendations for granting functional autonomy to the police while vesting the authority to lay down policies and guidelines to the state governments.

    13. Government of India, Department of Administrative Reforms, Civil Service Day 2009, Panel Discussion, Theme Papers.

    14. Government of India 2008b, p. v.

    15. Government of India 2008c, pp. 154–55, 162.

    16. Government of India 2008c, pp. VIII–IX.

    17. Government of India 2008c:160–62, 166–68.

    18. Centre for Public Policy 2008.

    19. Government of India, Department of Information Technology n.d.

    20. Arora 2008.

    21. Agnihotri 2003; see also Tandon, Agnihotri et al. 2001.

    22. These awards are conferred on the selected individuals on 21 April every year, which is designated as the Civil Services Day. A complementary initiative taken by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public grievances is documentation and dissemination of good governance practices, including a World Bank Project on ‘Capacity Building for Good Governance’ (Government of India 2008c, 149–52, 162, 168–70).

    23. Government of India 2008b, p. 326–35.

    24. Government of India, Second Administrative Reforms Commission 2008b.

    25. Government of India 2007, p. 315–19.

    26. Government of India 2007, p. 324–26.

    27. They have also contributed to a rising trend of blatant corruption. India was ranked 74th most corrupt country among 180 countries surveyed for Corruption Perception Index, 2008 by Transparency International.

    28. See Panagariya (2008) for a review of issues relating to privatization and regulation of these sectors.

    29. Section 60.

    30. High Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law. 2000.

    31. Competition Commission of India 2004.

    32. There as some exceptions. For instance, Peru's competition law does not prohibit anticompetitive mergers, and Mexico's competition law has no provisions on abuse of dominance (Chakravarthi 2001).

    33. Bhattacharjea 2008, p. 609.

    34. Chaudhury et al. 2006.

    35. Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 2006.

    36. Government of India, Task Force on Public-Private Partnership constituted by the Planning Commission on 25 May 2006.

    37. Jogdand 2000, p. 11.

    38. Act 33 of 2008.


    Aghion, Philippe and PeterHowitt. 1997. Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Aghion, Philippe and PeterHowitt. 2008. “Indian Economic Growth 1950–2008: Facts & Beliefs, Puzzles & Policies.”New Delhi: Oxus Research & Investments.
    Bosworth, Barry P. and Susan M.Collins. 2006. “Accounting for Growth: Comparing China and India,” NBER Working Paper No. 12943. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research.
    Centennial Group. 2009. Centennial Group in-house database, June 2009. Washington, D.C.
    Elwell, Craig. 2006. “Long-Term Growth of the US Economy: Significance, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.
    Farrell, Diana. 2007. “Next Big Spenders: India's Middle Class.”Business Week, May 19.
    Gupta, Anil. 2008. “The Future of India-China Trade.”The Economic Times, January 14.
    Hawksworth, John, and GordonCookson. 2008. “The World in 2050: Beyond the BRICs: A Broader Look at Emerging Market Growth Prospects.” PriceWaterhouseCoopers, New York.
    International Monetary Fund. 2006. World Economic Outlook, September 2006: Asia Rising: Patterns of Economic Development and Growth. Washington, D.C.: World Economic and Financial Surveys.
    Maddison, Angus. 2009. “Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1–2006 ad” (Last update March 2009, horizontal file, copyright Angus Maddison).
    McKinsey Global Institute. 2001. “India: The Growth Imperative.”New York: McKinsey Global Institute.
    Mearsheimer, John. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
    Oura, Hiroko. 2007. “Wild or Tamed: India's Potential Growth.” IMF Working Paper WP/07/224. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
    Poddar, Tushar and EvaYi. 2007. “India's Rising Growth Potential,” Global Economics Paper No. 152. New York: Goldman Sachs Global Research Centres.
    Rodrik, Dani and ArvindSubramanian. 2004. “Why India Can Grow at 7 Percent a Year or More: Projections and Reflections,” IMF Working Paper WP/04/118. Washington: International Monetary Fund.
    PovCal database [, accessed December 2008].
    The Brookings Institution. Forthcoming. The Four Speed World. Wolfersohn Center for Deveopment, The Brookings Institution.
    The White House. 2009. Economic Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
    Virmani, Arvind. 2008. “India Has 9 per cent Medium-Term Growth Potential: Chief Economic Adviser.” October 1.
    Wilson, Dominic, and RoopaPurushothaman. 2003. “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050.” Global Economics Paper 99. Goldman Sachs, New York.
    World Bank. 2009. World Development Indicators database [, accessed January 2009].
    World Values Survey. Various years. Available online at
    Commission on Growth and Development. 2008. The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Growth and Development.
    Centennial Group. 2009. Centennial Group in-house database, June 2009, Washington, D.C.
    Gill, Indermit, and HomiKharas. 2007. An East Asian Renaissance: Ideas for Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Imbs, Jean and RomainWacziarg. 2003. “Stages of Diversification.”American Economic Review93 (1): 63–86.
    Kharas, Homi, DannyLeipziger, WilliamMaloney, R.Thillaintathan, and HeikoHesse. 2008. Chilean Growth through East Asian Eyes. Working Paper 31. Washington, D.C.: Commission Growth and Development.
    Maddison, Angus. 2006. “Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1–2006 ad (copyright Angus Maddison, accessed January 2006).
    World Bank. 2009. World Development Indicators database [, accessed January 2009].
    IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2009. IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2009, Washington, D.C.
    World Bank. 2008. World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Ahmed, Sadiq and AshutoshVarshney. 2007. Battles Half Won: Political Economy of India's Growth and Economic Policy since Independence. Working Paper 15. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Growth and Development.
    ASER Institute. 2008. The Annual Status of Education Report. New Delhi: The ASER Institute.
    Banerjee, Abhijit and ThomasPiketty. 2005. “Are the Rich Growing Richer? Evidence from Indian Tax Data.” In Deaton and Kozel, eds, The Great Indian Poverty Debate. New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.
    Banerjee, Abhijit and RohiniSomanathan. 2007. “The Political Economy of Public Goods: Some Evidence from India.”Journal of Development Economics82(2): 287–314.
    Bertrand, Marianne, RemaHanna, and SendhilMullainathan. 2008. “Affirmative Action: Evidence from College Admissions in India.” NBER Working Paper 13926. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
    Bertrand, Marianne, ParasMehta, and SendhilMullainathan. 2002. “Ferreting Out Tunnelling: An Application to Indian Business Groups.”Quarterly Journal of Economics117 (1): 121–48.
    Besley, Timothy and RobinBurgess. 2004. “Can Labour Regulation Hinder Economic Performance? Evidence from India.”Quarterly Journal of Economics119 (1): 91–134.
    Besley, Timothy, RohiniPande, and VijayendraRao. 2004. “The Politics of Public Good Provision: Evidence From Indian Local Governments.”Journal of the European Economic Association2 (2–3): 416–26.
    Bhattacharjea, Aditya. 2008. “India's New Competition Law: A Comparative Assessment.”Journal of Competition Law and Economics4 (3): 609–38.
    Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices. 2008. Penn World Tables, version 6. 2. [, accessed March 2008].
    Central Statistical Organisation. Available online at, accessed August 2008.
    Chakravorty, Sanjoy, and SomikLall. 2007. Made in India—The Economic Geography and Political Economy of Industrialization. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Chandra, Kanchan. 2004. Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Headcounts in India. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Damodaran, Harish. 2008. India's New Capitalists—Caste, Business and Industry in a Modern Nation. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
    Das, Veena. 2004. “The Signature of the State: The Paradox of Illegibility.” In VeenaDas and DeborahPoole, eds, Anthropology in the Margins of the State. Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series.
    Deaton, Angus and ValerieKozel. 2005. The Great Indian Poverty Debate. New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.
    De Ferranti, David, GuillermoPerry, FranciscoFerreira and MichaelWalton. 2004. Inequality in Latin America: Breaking with History?Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Del Villar, Rafael. 2009. “Competition and Equity in Telecommunications.” In SantiagoLevy and MichaelWalton, eds, No Growth without Equity? Inequality, Interests and Competition in Mexico. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
    Evans, Peter1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    FOCUS Survey. 2006. Focus on Children under Six. New Delhi: Citizen's Initiative for the Rights of Children under Six. 2008. Available online at, accessed December 15, 2008.
    Gill, Indermit and HomiKharas. 2007. An East Asian Renaissance: Ideas for Economic Growth. Washington DC: The World Bank.
    Guha, Ramachandra. 2007. “Adivasis, Naxalites and Indian Democracy.”Economic and Political Weekly August 11–18, 42(32): 3305–12.
    Himanshu. 2007. “Recent Trends in Poverty and Inequality: Some Preliminary Results.”Economic and Political Weekly, February 10–16, 42(6): 497–508.
    International Country Risk Services. 2008. Political Risk Services. [, accessed March 2008.
    Kaufmann, Daniel, AartKray, and MassimoMastruzzi. 2008. “Governance Matters VII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996–2007.” Policy Research Working Paper 4654. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Kharas, Homi. 2009. The Promise: Makings of a Determined Marathoner. India 2039 Policy Paper 1. Washington, D.C.: Centennial Group.
    Kochhar, Kalpana, UtsavKumar, RaghuramRajan, ArvindSubramanian, and IoannisTokatlidis. 2006. “India's Pattern of Development: What Happened, What Follows.” Working Paper WP/06/22. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
    Kohli, Atul. 2006a. “Politics of Economic Growth in India, 1980–2005.”Economic and Political Weekly41 (13): 1251–59.
    Kohli, Atul. 2006b. “Politics of Economic Growth in India, 1980–2005.”Economic and Political Weekly41 (14): 1361–70.
    López, Calva, LuisFelipe, IsabelGuerrero, and MichaelWalton. 2009. “The Inequality Trap and its Links to Low Growth.” In SantiagoLevy and MichaelWalton, eds., No Growth without Equity? Inequality, Interests and Competition in Mexico. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
    Loury, Glenn. 2002. The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    Morck, Randall and MasaoNakamura. 2007. “Business Groups and the Big Push: Meiji Japan's Mass Privatization and Subsequent Growth.” NBER Working Paper 13171. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
    Morck, Randall and MasaoNakamura. Forthcoming. “Citizenship and Accountability: The Case of India.” In AnisDani and AshutoshVarshney, eds, Citizenship, Governance, and Social Policy in the Developing World. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Noll, Roger. 2009. “Priorities for Telecommunications Reform in Mexico.” In SantiagoLevy and MichaelWalton, eds, No Growth without Equity? Inequality, Interests and Competition in Mexico. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
    Panagariya, Arvind. 2008. India: The Emerging Giant. New York and New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Pande, Rohini. 2003. “Can Mandated Political Representation Increase Policy Influence for Disadvantaged Minorities? Theory and Evidence from India.”The American Economic Review, 93 (4): 1132–51.
    Pritchett, Lant. 2008. “Is India a Flailing State? Detours on the Four Lane Highway to Modernization.”Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.
    Pritchett, Lant and RinkuMurgai. 2007. “Teacher Compensation: Can Decentralization to Local Bodies Take India from Perfect Storm Through Troubled Waters to Clear Sailing?” In SumanBery, Barry P.Bosworth, and ArvindPanagariya, eds, India Policy Forum 2006–07, Vol. 3, pp. 123–68. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
    PROBE Team. 1999. The Public Report on Basic Education. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Rajan, Raghuram. 2008. “Is There a Threat of Oligarchy in India?” Speech to the Bombay Chamber of Commerce on its Founders Day celebration, September 10, Bombay, India.
    Rajan Committee. 2008. A Hundred Small Steps: Report of the Committee on Financial Sector Reforms. New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India.
    Rajan, Raghuram and LuigiZingales. 2003. Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists: Unleashing the Power of Financial Markets to create Wealth and Spread Opportunity. New York: Crown Business.
    Ramaswamy, K. V.2006. “State of Competition in the Indian Manufacturing Sector.” In Pradeep S.Mehta, ed., Towards a Functional Competition Policy for India. New Delhi: Academic Foundation.
    Rao, Vijayendra and ParomitaSanyal. 2008. “Dignity through Discourse: Poverty and the Culture of Deliberation in Indian Village Democracies.”Washington, D.C., and Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn: World Bank.
    Robinson, James. 2009. “The Political Economy of Equality and Growth in Mexico: Lessons from the History of the United States.” In SantiagoLevy and MichaelWalton, eds, No Growth without Equity? Inequality, Interests and Competition in Mexico. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
    Rudolph, Lloyd and Susanne HoeberRudolph. 2008 (1987). “State Formation in India: Building and Wasting Assets.” In Explaining Indian Democracy: A Fifty-Year Perspective, 1956–2006. Volume II. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Sachar Committee. 2006. Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India: A Report. Prime Minister's High Level Committee, Cabinet Secretariat. New Delhi: Government of India.
    Sinha, Aseem. 2005. The Regional Roots of Development Politics in India: A Divided Leviathan. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Somanathan, Rohini. 2007. “The Demand for Disadvantage.” Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Agence Française de Développement/European Development Research Network conference, October, Paris.
    Sud, Inder. 2009a. Governance for a Modern Society: Combining Smarter Government Decentralization and Accountability to People. India 2039 Policy Paper 6. Washington, D.C.: Centennial Group.
    Sud, Inder. 2009b. Urbanization and Public Services: Creating Functioning Cities for Sustaining Growth. India 2039 Policy Paper 3. Washington, D.C.: Centennial Group.
    Thorat, Sukhadeo. 2007. Human Poverty and Socially Disadvantaged Groups in India. New Delhi: United Nations Development Programme.
    Varshney, Ashutosh. 2002. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven: Yale University Press; and Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Walton, Michael. Forthcoming. “The Political Economy of India's Malnutrition Puzzle.”Institute of Development Studies Bulletin.
    World Bank. 1998. World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    World Bank. 2005. India: Re-energizing the Agricultural Sector to Sustain Growth and Reduce Poverty. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    World Bank. 2008. World Development Indicators 2008. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
    World Bank Institute. Governance Indicators. Available online at, accessed March 2008.
    3iNetwork. 2006. India Infrastructure Report 2006—Urban Infrastructure. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Bagchi, Amresh. 1998. “Reforming the Property Tax: Need for a New Direction.” Working Paper 98/1. New Delhi: National Institute for Public Finance and Policy.
    Bahl, Roy. 2003. The Property Tax in Developing Countries: Where Are We in 2002. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.
    Bahl, Roy and JohannesLinn. 1992. Urban Finance in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Mathur, Om Prakash. 2001. Approach to State-Municipal Fiscal Relations: Options and Perspectives. New Delhi: National Institute for Public Finance and Policy.
    Mehta, Arun C.2005. Elementary Education in India: Progress Towards UEE: Analytical Report 2005–06. New Delhi: National Institute for Education Policy and Administration and Department of Elementary Education and Literacy.
    International Monetary Fund. Various years. Government Finance Statistics National Institute for Public Finance and Policy. 2005. Redefining State-Municipal Fiscal Relations: Options and Perspectives for the State Finance Commission. New Delhi: National Institute for Public Finance and Policy.
    National Institute for Public Finance and Policy. 2007. India Urban Report. New Delhi: National Institute for Public Finance and Policy.
    National Sample Survey Organization. 1990. “National Sample Surveys (NSS).”New Delhi: National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme.
    Ravindra, D. A. and VasanthRao. 2002. Property Reform in India. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
    Second Administrative Reform Commission. 2007. Local Governance, Sixth Report. New Delhi: Government of India.
    United Nations. 2008. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision. New York: United Nations. [, accessed October 29, 2008].
    United Nations Population Division. 2009. “World Population Estimates and Prospects Report,”New York, January 2009.
    World Bank. 2004. India Urban Finance and Governance Review. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    World Bank. 2005. Brazil: Inputs for a Strategy for Cities. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    World Bank. 2006. India Water Supply and Sanitation: Bridging the Gap between Infrastructure and Services. Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Background Paper. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Amarasinghe, U.A., T.Shah, H.Turral, and B.K.Anand. 2007. “India's Water Future to 2025–2050: Business-as-usual Scenario and Deviations,” IWMI Research Report 123, p. 47. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
    IWMI (International Water Management Institute). 2006. India's Water Futures to 2025/2050—Issues and Scenarios. Sri Lanka: IWMI.
    Planning Commission. 2007. “Ground Water Management and Ownership—Report of the Expert Group,” September 2007. New Delhi, India: Government of India, Planning Commission.
    Shah, Tushaar. 2007. “Co-management of Electricity and Groundwater: Gujarat's Jyotigram Yojana,” Regional Workshop, Hyderabad, August 29.
    Shah, Tushaar and ShilpVerma. 2008. “Co-management of Electricity and Groundwater: An Assessment of Gujarat's Jyotigram Scheme.”Economic & Political Weekly. February 16, pp. 59–66.
    Araujo, Armando, LuisAvella, HarinderKohli, and RichardScurfeld. 2007. “Political Economy of Infrastructure Reforms in India for Japan Bank for International Cooperation.” Centennial Group Study, Washington D.C.
    Centennial Group. 2007. “Challenges in Introducing Public Private Partnerships in India.” Unpublished report, October. Washington D.C.: Japan Bank for International Cooperation.
    Centennial Group. 2009. “India's Infrastructure Investment Requirements during 2009–2039,” Background study by Armando Araujo and Harinder Kohli, unpublished, Washington D.C., January.
    Haldea, Gajendra. 2008. “Infrastructure at Crossroads,” Unpublished manuscript. New Delhi.
    Böhm, Anthony, MarceloFollari, AndrewHewett, SarahJones, NeilKemp, DenisMeares, DavidPearce, and KevinVan Cauter. 2004. Vision 2020: Forecasting International Student Mobility. London: British Council.
    China National Bureau of Statistics. 2007. China Statistical Yearbook 2007. Beijing: China National Bureau of Statistics.
    Dahlman, Carl. 2008. “Innovation Strategies of the BRICKS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Korea—Different Strategies, Different Results.” OECD–World Bank Conference on Innovation and Sustainable Growth in a Globalized, Paris, November 18.
    Dar, Amit, Kin BingWu, AlanAbrahart, S.A.A.Alvi, PremaClarke, SangeetaGoyal, VenitaKaul, AshishNarain, DeepaSankar, YevgeniyaSavchenko, HongTan, and AnujaUtz. 2006. “Skill Development in India: The Vocational Education and Training System.”Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Human Development Unit.
    Dutz, Mark. 2007. Unleashing India's Innovation: Toward Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    IANS (Indo-Asian News Service). 2008. “Nandan Nilekani Confident of Changing India with Ideas.” November 25.
    India Department of Heavy Industries. 2006. Automotive Mission Plan 2006–2016. New Delhi: Government of India, Department of Heavy Industries.
    Indian National Assessment and Accreditation Council. Available online at
    Indian National Assessment and Accreditation Council. 2008. “Recommendations, Engineering Education.” Report of a Working Group on Engineering Education, Sam Pitroda, Chairman. New Delhi.
    Indian Planning Commission. 2002. Tenth Five-Year Plan: 2002–07. Delhi: Controller of Publication, Department of Publication, Civil Lines. [].
    Indian Planning Commission. 2008. Eleventh Five-Year Plan: 2007–12. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. [].
    India, Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change. 2008. National Action Plan on Climate Change. New Delhi: Office of the Prime Minister. [].
    Jha, C. S.2006. “Higher Education in India: Restructuring for Increased Innovation.” World Bank, South Asia Region, Finance and Private Sector Development, Washington, DC.
    Lakshman, Nandini. 2006. “Will Foreign Universities Come to India?”Business Week, October 9.
    Management Today. 2007. “Global Innovation Index”. London: Management Today. [].
    MHRD (Ministry of Human Resource Development). 2007. Annual Report. New Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development.
    Murthy, N. R. Narayana. 2008. “Why Do We Need World-class Educational Institutions and How Do We Create Them?” Lecture at the Platinum Jubilee Celebrations of the University Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai, October 1.
    NASSCOM and McKinsey & Company. 2005. Extending India's Leadership in the Global IT and BPO Industries. New Delhi: NASSCOM.
    Ramachandran, R.2007. “Obstacle Race.”Frontline24 (1): 126–30.
    Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Graduate School of Education. 2005. Academic Ranking of World Universities. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Graduate School of Education. [].
    Summers, Lawrence. 2006. Speech at the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry Education Summit, New Delhi, March 23.
    UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 2008. World Education Indicators database. Paris: United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [].
    University Grants Commission. Available online at
    WEF (World Economic Forum). 2008. Global Competitiveness Report 2008–09. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
    Wessner, Charles W., ed. 2006. Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academies.
    World Bank. 2008a. Key Knowledge Economy Resources. World Bank, Washington, D.C. [].
    World Bank. 2008b. Public Expenditure Database, Education Statistics. Summary Education Profile. World Bank, Washington, D.C. [].
    Zakaria, Fareed. 2008. The Post-American World. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
    Adelman, A. and G.Watkins. 2008. “Reserve Prices and Mineral Resource Theory.”Energy Journal29 (Special Issue to Acknowledge the Contribution of Campbell Watkins to Energy Economics): 1–16.
    BP (British Petroleum). 2008. “BP Statistical Review of World Energy.”London: British Petroleum.
    Dean, Tim. 2006. “New Age Nuclear.”Cosmos Magazine Issue no. 8, April.
    EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2008. Annual Energy Outlook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
    ERI (Energy Resources Institute of India). 2006. “India's Energy Growth.” Presentation to the Executive Management Training, Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, June 16, 2006.
    ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program). 2008. “Study of Equipment Prices in the Power Sector.”Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2008. Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Energy Agency.
    Indian Planning Commission. 2006. Report of the Expert Committee on Integrated Energy Policy. New Delhi: Government of India.
    Kemp, A. G. and A. S.Kasim. 2008. “A Least-Cost Optimization Model of CO2 Capture Applied to Major Power Plants within the EU-ETS Framework.”Energy Journal29 (Special Issue to Acknowledge the Contribution of Campbell Watkins to Energy Economics): 99–134.
    Lorenz, Peter, DickonPinner, and ThomasSeitz. 2008. “The Economics of Solar Power.”McKinsey Quarterly, June, pp. 1–38.
    Madan, Tanvi. 2006. “Energy Security Series: India.”Washington, D.C.: Brookings Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution.
    Mao, Jiaxiong. 2008. “Status and Development of China's Electric Power.” Paper presented at the Asia Clean Energy Forum, Manila, June 2–6.
    McKinsey and Co.2008. The Carbon Productivity Challenge: Curbing Climate Change and Sustaining Economic Growth. New York: McKinsey Global Institute.
    NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory)2007. “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants.”Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
    OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). 2008. World Oil Outlook. Vienna: Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.
    Taylor, Robert P., ChandrasekarGovindarajalu, JeremyLevin, Anke S.Meyer, and William A.Ward. 2008. Financing Energy Efficiency: Lessons from Brazil, China, India, and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Chhokar, Jagdeep S.2008. “Criminals in Elections.”The Tribune, New Delhi, India, November 23.
    The Economist. 2008. “Battling the Babu Raj.”London, U.K., March 6.
    Sud, Inder. 2009. Urbanization and Public Services: Creating Functioning Cities for Sustaining Growth. India 2039 Policy Paper 3. Washington, D.C.: Centennial Group.
    Supreme Court of India. 2008. Court News. July–September. [, accessed February–May 2008].
    Transparency International India. 2005. India Corruption Study 2005. New Delhi: Transparency International India.
    Transparency International India. 2008. India Corruption Study 2007. New Delhi: Transparency International India.
    World Bank. 2006. Reforming Public Service in India—Drawing Lessons from Successes. Report 35041-IN. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Agnihotri, V. K.2003. Effective and Responsive Administration. New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.
    Arora, D.2008. Citizen's Charters in India: Formulation, Implementation and Evaluation. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public Administration.
    Arora, R. K.2008. Ethics in Governance: Innovations, Issues and Instrumentalities. Jaipur: Aalekh Publishers.
    Arora, Ramesh K. and RajniGoyal. 1995. Indian Public Administration—Institutions and Issues. Wishwa Prakashan.
    Bhattacharjea, Aditya. 2008. “India's New Competition Law: A Comparative Assessment.”Journal of Competition Law & Economics4 (3): 609.
    Centre for Public Policy. 2008. Right to Information Act—Revisiting the Act. New Delhi: Centre for Public Policy.
    Chakravarthi, S.2001. “New Indian Competition Law on the Anvil.”Corporate Law Adviser42 (1): 8–23.
    Chaudhury, N., J.Hammer, M.Kremer, K.Muralidharan, and H.Rogers. 2006. “Missing in Action: Teacher and Health Care Worker Absence in Developing Countries.”Journal of Economic Perspectives20 (1): 91–116.
    Competition Commission of India. 2004. Activities and Progress. New Delhi: Competition Commission of India.
    Government of India, Department of Information Technology. u.d. Status Note on NeGP.
    Government of India, High Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law. 2000. “Executive Summary.” “Report of the High Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law.”New Delhi: High Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law [, accessed May 2000].
    Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 2006. “Report of the Working Group on Health Care Financing Including Health Insurance for the 11th Five Year Plan.”New Delhi: Government of India.
    Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. 2008. Annual Report 2008–09. New Delhi: Government of India.
    Government of India, Second Administrative Reforms Commission. 2007. “Public Order.” Fifth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission. New Delhi: Government of India.
    Government of India, Second Administrative Reforms Commission. 2008a. “Combating Terrorism: Protecting by Righteousness.” Tenth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission. New Delhi: Government of India.
    Government of India, Second Administrative Reforms Commission. 2008b. “Refurbishing of Personnel Administration.” Tenth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission. New Delhi: Government of India.
    Government of India, Task Force on Public-Private Partnership. u.d. “Draft Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Public-Private Partnership for the 11th Plan.”New Delhi: Government of India.
    Jogdand, P. G., ed. 2000. New Economic Policy and Dalits. New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
    KaufmannD, A.Kraay, and P.Zoido-Lobatón. 1999. “Governance Matters.” Policy Research Working Paper 2196. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    Panagariya, A.2008. India: The Emerging Giant. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Sabharwal, Shri Y.K.2006. “Justice Sobhag Mal Jain Memorial Lecture on Delayed Justice.” July 25, New Delhi.
    Shourie, A.2004. Governance and the Sclerosis That Set In. New Delhi: Rupa.
    Tandon, B. B., V. K.Agnihotri, and H.Ramachandran. 2001. “Globalization and Decentralization—Emerging Issues from the Indian Experience.”International Review of Administrative Sciences67 (3): 505–23.

    About the Editors and Contributors


    Harinder S. Kohli is the Founding Director and Chief Executive of the Emerging Markets Forum as well as President and CEO of Centennial Group, both based in Washington, D.C. He is also the Editor of Global Journal of Emerging Markets Economies and serves as Vice Chairman of the institution-wide Advisory Group of Asian Institute of Technology (Thailand). Prior to starting his current ventures, he served for some 25 years in various senior managerial positions at the World Bank. He has published two other books, and written extensively on emergence of Asia and other emerging market economies, financial development, and private capital flows, and on infrastructure. He is working on the long-term economic prospects of Latin America.

    Anil Sood, in his 30-year career at the World Bank, occupied many senior positions including Vice President, Strategy and Resource Management, and Special Advisor to the Managing Directors. He has since advised chief executives and senior management of a number of development organizations including the African Development Bank, the Islamic Development Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, and the United Nations Economic Commission of Africa, on matters of strategy and development effectiveness.


    Richard Ackermann served for seven years as the World Bank's South Asia Director for Social Development and Environment. He holds degrees from the California Institute of Technology and the London School of Economics.

    Vivek K. Agnihotri is currently Secretary General Rajya Sabha (upper house of Indian Parliament), retired as Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. During his career of over 37 years as a civil servant, he spent more than a decade dealing with personnel matters as a trainer and as head of the Department of Administrative Reforms. He holds a PhD degree in public policy from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.

    Vinod K. Goel, a former World Bank official, is Head of Global Knowledge and Innovation Practice at the Centennial Group, and consultant for the World Bank and other international organizations. He is a leading expert on private and financial sectors issues and is well-known in the international community for his pioneering work on higher education, technology, and innovation, including publishing books on the subject. He has a PhD and MBA from Cornell University, USA and Masters of Technology from the National Dairy Research Institute, India.

    Bimal Jalan is an Honorary Fellow of National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) and Chairman of Public Interest Foundation, Delhi. Formerly, he was Governor of Reserve Bank of India, Member of Parliament, Chairman of NCAER, Executive Director of the World Bank, and Chairman of Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister.

    Homi Kharas is a Senior Fellow at the Wolfensohn Center for Development at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Kharas is also a member of the Working Group for the Commission on Growth and Development, chaired by Michael Spence, a nonresident Fellow of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Development Centre, and a member of the National Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of Malaysia. His research interests are now focused on global trends, Asian growth and development, and international aid for the poorest countries.

    R. A. Mashelkar is President of the Global Research Alliance, a network of public research institutions globally. He is Chairman of the National Innovation Foundation and the Reliance Innovation Council.

    He serves on the boards of several companies and educational and research organizations. He served for 11 years as the Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society (U.K.), Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Science (U.S.), and Foreign Fellow of the National Academy of Engineering (U.S.). He has played a key role in shaping India's science and technology (S&T) policies. He lectures widely and consults for national and international organizations on innovation and restructuring public research and development (R&D) institutions worldwide. He has more than 50 awards and medals including the Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan, two of India's highest civilian honors.

    Hariharan Ramachandran is currently Professor at University of Delhi. He has earlier been Director, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, New Delhi and Executive Director, National Research and Resource Centre, LBS National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. He has authored/edited eight books and published over 50 articles in national and international journals.

    Hossein Razavi is the former Director of the Energy and Infrastructure Department of the World Bank. During his 25-year tenure at the World Bank he served a number of managerial and professional positions including the Chief of Oil and Gas Division, and the Director of The Private Sector Development Department. Dr Razavi is well-known in the international financial community for his pioneering work on structuring financial vehicles suitable to the energy sector. His book on Energy Finance was published by Pennwell Books, first in 1996, and a new edition in 2007. He holds an MS in engineering and a PhD in economics, and serves on the editorial boards of the Energy Journal and Energy Economics.

    Inder Sud has over 35 years of experience in international development. He has held several senior positions at the World Bank, in country economic and sector operations, policy, and finance. He currently consults for a number of multilateral and bilateral organizations, developing country governments and private foundations, and teaches at The George Washington University and Duke University.

    C. M. Vasudev has worked as a civil servant in the Indian Administrative Service for nearly 40 years. During his career he held several key positions in the state government of Uttar Pradesh and the Government of India. In the Ministry of Finance he worked as Secretary in the Departments of Economic Affairs, Public Expenditure, and Banking and spearheaded economic reforms in different sectors, specially, in fiscal and financial sectors. He has also worked as Executive Director at the World Bank where he chaired the Bank's Committee on Development Effectiveness.

    Michael Walton is Senior Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi, and Adjunct Lecturer in International Development at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is also the VKRV Rao Chair Professor for 2008 and 2009 in the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore. From 1980–2004, Michael Walton worked at the World Bank, where his positions included Chief Economist for East Asia and the Pacific (1995–97) and Director for Poverty Reduction (1997–2000). He is co-editor of Culture and Public Action (Stanford University Press, 2004), co-director of the World Bank's World Development Report 2005/06 on Equity and Development, and has a co-edited a volume on equity and growth in Mexico. Michael Walton studied at Oxford University.

Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website