India Gap Analysis February 2013 · 2013-09-18 · 1 India Gap Analysis Strategic Planning & Analysis Division E&E Bureau USAID February 2013 Summary. India’s development profile

1

India Gap Analysis

Strategic Planning & Analysis Division

E&E Bureau

USAID

February 2013

Summary. India’s development profile is very skewed: progress in governing justly & democratically is

comparable to that found in Latin America and the Caribbean, while progress in investing in people (i.e.,

health, education, per capita income, and gender equality) is comparable to that found in Sub‐Saharan

Africa. While India’s economic reforms generally lag by Asian standards, progress in these reforms has

been steady albeit slow in recent years. While India is among the Asian leaders in democracy and

governance, trends over time show minor erosion in these reforms since 2006, primarily stemming from

backsliding in rule of law and in anti‐corruption efforts. India’s economic growth has consistently

surpassed the Asian average in recent years, ranging from a very robust average annual rate of 6% to

10% from 2005 to 2012. Health and education indicators lag considerably in India, though are generally

improving. Substantial gender inequalities exist across many dimensions in India, from the social to the

political to the economic. India’s hunger challenges are substantial and progress over the medium term

(i.e., since the mid‐1990s) has not been evident by at least one broad measure (IFPRI’s Global Hunger

Index).

Introduction. This abridged analysis updates and draws from a September 2011 gap analysis of India as

well as a more recent (January 2013) region‐wide analysis of Asia done for USAID’s Regional

Development Mission in Asia (RDMA). The methodology is that of Europe and Eurasia Bureau’s

Monitoring Country Progress (MCP) system. The core of the MCP system consists of five indices: (1)

economic reforms; (2) governing justly and democratically; (3) economic performance; (4) investing in

people; and (5) peace and security. In constructing these indices, we draw on readily available public

data and standardize the metrics to a 1 to 5 scale in which a 5 represents the most advanced standards

worldwide. The data are presented in a series of charts, and the analysis first takes stock of India’s

overall development profile, followed by trends in economic reforms, democratic reforms, economic

performance, and investing in people.

Highlights of the Findings.

India’s development profile is unique to Asia and to other parts of the world (Figures 1 and 2).

India is far more advanced in governing justly & democratically than in any of the other MCP

dimensions, while it lags the most in investing in people.

India’s progress in governing justly & democratically is comparable to that found in Latin

America and the Caribbean, while its level of advancement in investing in people (i.e., health,

education, per capita income, and gender equality) is comparable to that found in Sub‐Saharan

Africa (Figure 2). Its development profile, in other words, is very skewed.

2

India and China, the two economic and demographic giants in Asia, have widely contrasting

development profiles (Figure 3). India’s most advanced sector, governing justly and

democratically, is China’s least advanced sector. China’s most advanced sector, investing in

people, is India’s least advanced sector. Both China and India lag considerably in peace and

security, a particularly unsettling observation given their dominance in the region. In 2009,

India and China represented almost 75% of economic production in Asia; that proportion is likely

larger today (Figure 4).

Only two Asian countries (of the twenty‐five country group) lag more than India in investing in

people: Bangladesh and Papua New Guinea (Figure 5). Only seven Asian countries trail India in

economic reforms: Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Timor‐Leste, Maldives, and the

Marshall Islands (Figure 6). In contrast, only a handful of Asian countries are more advanced

than India in governing justly and democratically: Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and three

Pacific Islands, Samoa, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (Figures 6‐7).

Relative to the Asian average, many development gaps exist in India (Figures 8‐9). The largest

gaps include the business environment and budget balance (in economic reforms), literacy rate,

health expenditures, environmental health, per capita income, and gender equality (in investing

in people), uneven development, energy security, foreign direct investment, size and

composition of the export sector, and environmental sustainability (in economic performance),

and four of the five dimensions in peace and security, namely, counter‐terrorism, combatting

transnational crime, conflict mitigation, and stabilization operations & security sector reforms.

In governing justly and democratically, anti‐corruption efforts are lagging considerably, in India

as well as throughout Asia.

While economic reforms in India generally lag by Asian standards and are average for South Asia

standards, progress in economic reforms in India has been steady albeit slow in recent years

(Figure 10). Much of this has been driven by notable advances in trade liberalization since 2005

(Figure 11). India’s business environment (which is one component of the economic reform

index) lags considerably; the poorest environment for business among the five countries of

South Asia (Figure 12). The business environment indicator primarily measures government

regulations and intrusiveness towards enterprises.

While India is among the Asian leaders in democracy and governance and the leader within

South Asia, trends over time show minor erosion overall in governing justly and democratically

in India since 2006 (Figure 13). The erosion has primarily stemmed from backsliding in rule of

law and in anti‐corruption efforts. Figure 14 shows this backsliding through 2009; more recent

data for 2010 and 2011 show a continuation of this erosion in rule of law and anti‐corruption in

India. In contrast India’s “partly free” and vibrant media has made advances over the medium

term (i.e., since 2003), though there has also been some erosion of those gains according to the

most recent Freedom House data of 2010 and 2011. In most countries in Asia, the political

environment for a free press is more problematic than are the economic and legal environments

(Figure 15). This is true in India; moreover, it has been the political environment aspect of

media that has been regressing in India in recent years.

3

Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index shows India ranking 96 out of 183

countries in the perception of corruption, comparable to that found in Liberia, Albania, and

Burkina‐Faso (Figure 17). India’s score (close to a “3” out of “10”) is worse than its rank on this

measure. This is another way of saying that there is a very large gap between the magnitude of

the corruption problem in the most advanced OECD countries (and a handful of other countries,

including Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Brunei), and most of the countries in the

developing world, including India.

Economic performance in Asia, as measured by economic growth, has consistently surpassed

global standards in recent years; prior, during, and after the global economic crisis (Figure 18).

For most of those years, at least from 2005 up until 2012, economic growth in India’s economy

consistently surpassed the Asian average, ranging from a very robust average annual rate of 6%

to 10% (Figure 19).

While China’s annual economic growth has consistently surpassed India’s growth since at least

2005, the pattern of economic growth in both countries has been quite similar (Figure 19). Both

witnessed higher economic growth prior to the global economic crisis than after the crisis; both

experienced a slow‐down in growth during the 2008‐2009 crisis, though at rates that were

nevertheless still very high by any standard; both have had the slowest annual average growth

rate in recent years in the most recent year, namely in 2012.

With the salient exception of the Maldives, other countries in South Asia, alongside India, were

relatively immune to the global economic crisis; i.e., all experienced robust economic growth

during the global crisis (Figure 20).

With the exception of the Maldives, the countries of South Asia, including India, receive

relatively low amounts of foreign direct investments (FDI) as a percent of GDP, and have small

export sectors as a percentage of GDP (Figures 21‐24). These economies are less exposed to

the harmful effects during a global economic crisis, though also less able to reap the gains from

the global economy during better times. Nevertheless, both FDI and exports as a percent of

GDP have been gradually increasing in India. In addition while high‐technology goods exports

from India are small relative to total exports, less that 5%, high technology service exports from

India are very large compared to some other high performing Asian economies (Figures 25 and

26).

Investments in research and development as well as access to computer technology are very

low in India (Figures 27‐30). There are 136 researchers for every million people in India; in China

its closer to 1,200 (Figure 27). Research and development expenditures in India are about 0.7%

of GDP; in China, it is twice that amount, 1.5% of GDP (Figure 28). The proportion of households

with computers and internet access in India is strikingly small, perhaps five percent (Figure 30).

This proportion is close to that found in Laos or Bangladesh; in China, around 22% of the

households have internet access and 35% of households have computers. More than 15% of the

Asian population in 2010 had fixed internet subscriptions; it is closer to 3% in India (Figure 29).

Investing in people (health and education). While life expectancy has been increasing in India

as it has elsewhere in South Asia, it remains the lowest in India at 65 years (Figure 31). It also

ranges widely across the states of India, likely ranging from less than 60 years to close 75 years

4

(Figure 32 provides estimates in an earlier time period, 2002‐2006). India’s under‐five mortality

rate continues to fall in recent years, as elsewhere in South Asia, though India’s rate remains the

highest in the region at roughly 60 deaths per 1,000 live births (Figure 33).

Education also lags in India, and gender disparities in India’s education system are substantial.

The female youth literacy rate in India, less than 75%, is among the lowest in Asia, perhaps only

lower in Papua New Guinea (Figure 34). Male youth literacy rate in India is also low by Asian

standards; at around 88% it is comparable to that found in Nepal, Laos, or Cambodia. Overall

literacy rates in India are lower still (than youth literacy rates) (Figure 35); the gender gap is also

larger for the total population of India; in 2008 only half of the females were literate vs. 75% of

the males. The literacy rate among rural females in India is likely much lower still; perhaps

between 30‐40% today (Figure 36 provides estimates of illiteracy rates by gender and rural vs.

urban in India through 2005).

Substantial gender inequalities exist in India in dimensions other than in education as well,

including in health, political empowerment, and economic participation (Figure 37), the three

dimensions included in the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index.

Finally, Figures 38‐42 draw on collaborative work with colleagues from USAID’s Bureau for Food

Security, focused on developing criteria for transitioning countries out of the USG Feed the

Future (FTF) program. This dataset and analysis suggest that: (1) while India may be food

independent at least by Asian standards (i.e., revenues from India’s total exports well exceed

the cost of food imports), agricultural productivity in India is very low (Figure 38); (2) India’s

hunger challenge (as measured by IFPRI’s Global Hunger Index which combines under‐five

mortality rate, the prevalence of underweight children and the proportion of undernourished in

the total population) is “alarming” and among the most significant throughout Asia, and much

higher than other countries with comparable levels of per capita income (such as Vietnam and

the Philippines) (Figure 39); (3) India’s level of hunger and poverty are comparable to some of

the worst performers on those dimensions among the twenty focus countries of the FTF

program (Figure 40); (4) India’s rural sector enabling environment (a measure from the

International Fund for Agricultural Development which includes, among other dimensions, the

capacity of the rural poor and their organizations and access of the rural population to

productive natural resources and financial services) lags significantly; ranking roughly in the

middle of the twenty country FTF focus group (Figure 41); and (5) India’s hunger challenge, in

contrast to trends in the large majority of the FTF focus countries, has not improved since 1996,

according to IFPRI’s Global Hunger Index (Figure 42).

India Gap Analysis

Europe & Eurasia Bureau

Strategic Planning and Analysis Division

February 2013

[email protected]

Development Profile of India vs. Asia

USAID/EE, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp . The Asia average consists of 23 countries.

India

Asia

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Economic Reforms Governing Justly andDemocratically

Investing in People Peace and Security

Figure 1

Development Profile of India vs. OECD, Latin America, and Sub‐Saharan Africa

USAID/EE, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp

Figure 2

India

OECD

Sub‐Saharan Africa

LAC

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5



Updated

Development Profile of India vs. China

USAID/EE, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp

China

India

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5



Figure 3

Population and Income in Developing Asia in 2009

World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011). Other Asia includes Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Sri Lanka. Income is in GDP (constant 2005 PPP$).

IncomePopulation

Figure 4

Bangladesh5%

China38%

Hong Kong0%

India33%

Indonesia7%

Malaysia1%

Other Asia3%

Pakistan5%

Philippines3%

S. Korea1%

Singapore0%

Thailand2%

Vietnam2%

Bangladesh1%

China50%

Hong Kong SAR, China2%

India21%

Indonesia5%

Thailand 3%

Malaysia2%

Other Asia1%

Pakistan3%

Philippines2% Singapore

1%

Thailand3%

Vietnam1%

Figure 5: Investing in People and Economic Reforms in Asia in 2011

Investing in People

Economic Reforms

Burma

Cambodia

Lao PDR

Thailand

Vietnam

Brunei

Indonesia

Malaysia

Philippines

Singapore

Bangladesh

China

India

Korea, Rep

Maldives

Mongolia

MicronesiaNepal

PNG

Samoa

Sri Lanka

Timor‐Leste

ASIA

OECD

SS Africa

LAC

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

USAID/E&E, MCP Global http://bit.ly/usaidmcp

Southeast Asia

South Asia

East Asia

Pacific Islands

Lao PDR

Cambodia

Burma

Thailand

Vietnam

Brunei

Indonesia

Malaysia

Philippines

Singapore

Bangladesh

China

Hong Kong

India

Korea, Rep

Maldives

Marshall Islands

Mongolia

MicronesiaNepal

PNG SamoaSri Lanka

Timor‐Leste

ASIA

OECD

Sub‐Saharan Africa

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Economic Reforms and Governing Justly & Democratically in Asia in 2011

EconomicReforms

Governing Justly and Democratically

Southeast Asia

South Asia

East Asia

Pacific Islands


Figure 6

Peace & Security

Governing Justly & Democratically

Figure 7: Peace & Security and Governing Justly & Democratically in Asia in 2011


Burma

Cambodia

Lao PDR

Thailand

Vietnam

Brunei

Indonesia

Malaysia

Philippines

Singapore

Bangladesh

China

Hong Kong

IndiaKorea, DR

Korea, Rep

Maldives

Marshall Isl

MongoliaMicronesia

NepalPNG

Samoa

Sri Lanka

Timor‐Leste ASIA

OECD

SS Africa

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Southeast Asia

South Asia

East Asia

Pacific Islands

Updated

Figure 8: India, 2011‐2012Economic Reforms

Investing in People

Governing Justly and Democratically


Asia average

Political Rights, 4.3

Civil Liberties, 3.7

Media Freedom,

3.6

Rule of Law, 2.8

Anti‐Corruption,

2.0 1

2

3

4

5

Under‐5 Mortality, 3.7

Life Expectancy,

3.3

Health Expenditure,

1.1

Environ‐mental

Health, 1.3Literacy Rate, 1.7

Education Expenditure,

2.7

Per CapitaIncome, 1.5

Gender Equality, 2.2

1

2

3

4

5

Business Environment,

2.0

Regulatory Quality, 2.6

Government Effectiveness,

2.7

Budget Balance, 1.5

Trade Liberalization,

3.3 1

2

3

4

5

Economic Performance Peace and Security

Figure 9: India, 2011‐2012


Asia average

Per Capita GDP Growth, 4.2

Macrostability, 3.7

FDI, 1.7

Exports, 2.3

Energy Security, 2.1

Uneven Development,

1.4

Environmental Sustainability,

2.1

Domestic Credit, 3.0

1

2

3

4

5Counter‐terrorism,

1.4

Combating weapons of

mass destruction,

3.0

Stabilization operations and defense reform, 1.8

Transnational crime, 2.0

Conflict mitigation,

2.0

1

2

3

4

5

Economic Reforms in South Asia

USAID/E&E, MCP Global. Five indicators comprise economic reforms: business environment, regulatory quality; government effectiveness; budget balance; and trade liberalization.

Figure 10

Bangladesh

Maldives

IndiaNepal

Sri Lanka

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Economic Reforms in India

Figure 11

USAID/E&E, MCP Global.

Business Environment

Regulatory Quality

Trade Liberalization

Budget Balance

Government Effectiveness

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Business Environment in South Asia

Calculated from World Bank Doing Business (various years).

Figure 12

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Bangladesh

India

Maldives

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Governing Justly & Democratically in South Asia

USAID/E&E, MCP Global. Drawn from Freedom House, Freedom in the World and Freedom of the Press; and the World Bank, Governance Matters, various years.

Figure 13

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Bangladesh

India

Maldives

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Governing Justly & Democratically in India

Figure 14

USAID/E&E, MCP Global. Drawn from Freedom House, Freedom in the World and Freedom of the Press; and the World Bank, Governance Matters, various years.

Political Rights

Civil Liberties

Media Freedom

Rule of Law

Corruption

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Free

Partly Free

Not Free

Freedom of the Press in Asia

Countries are given a total score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) on the basis of a set of 23 methodology questions divided into three subcategories. Assigning numerical points allows for comparative analysis among the countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of trends over time. The degree to which each country permits the free flow of news and information determines the classification of its media as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” Countries scoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having “Free” media; 31 to 60, “Partly Free” media; and 61 to 100, “Not Free” media. Freedom House, Freedom of the Press (2011‐2012).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Korea, Dem

. Rep.

Burm

a

China

Lao PDR

Vietnam

Brunei

Sri Lanka

Singapore

Cam

bodia

Malaysia

Thailand

Nep

al

Bangladesh

Maldives

Indonesia

Philippines

India

Mongolia

Timor‐Leste

Hong Kong

Korea, Rep.

Samoa

Papua New

Guinea

Micronesia

Marshall Islands

Economic environment

Political environment

Legal evironment

Figure 15

Free

Partly Free

Not Free

Freedom on the Net in Asia

Countries are given a total score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) on the basis of a set of 23 methodology questions divided into three subcategories. Assigning numerical points allows for comparative analysis among the countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of trends over time. The degree to which each country permits the free flow of news and information determines the classification of its media as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” Countries scoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having “Free” media; 31 to 60, “Partly Free” media; and 61 to 100, “Not Free” media. Freedom House, Freedom on the Net (2011‐2012).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Violation of user rights

Limits on content

Obstacles to access

Figure 16

Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index, 2011. Scores are based from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean).

The Perception of Corruption in 2011Figure 17

SingaporeHong KongSouth KoreaBruneiMalaysiaSamoa

ChinaThailandSri LankaIndiaIndonesiaVietnam

MongoliaBangladeshPhilippinesMaldivesTimor LesteLaos

NepalPapua New GuineaCambodiaBurmaNorth Korea

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Vietnam

North Korea

Singapore

Brunei

New Zealand

Taiwan

Tanzania

Iraq

India

Updated

Economic Growth and Contraction in Asia and the World

IMF, World Economic Outlook (October 2012).

%

Asia

World

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 18

Economic Growth in India vs. China and Asia

IMF, World Economic Outlook (October 2012)

%

Figure 19

India

China

Asia

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Updated

Economic Growth and Contraction in South Asia

% change

IMF, World Economic Outlook (October 2012).

Figure 20

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Bangladesh

India

Maldives

Nepal

Sri Lanka

% GDP, 5 year A

verage

World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011).

Figure 21

0.10.4

1.11.5 1.5 1.7 1.7

2.2 2.32.8 3.0 3.0 3.1

3.7

4.75.0

6.06.3

7.4 7.6

8.9

11.9

13.5

24.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

5yr Avg (01‐05) 5yr Avg (05‐09)

FDI % GDP(2001‐05 vs 2005‐09)

Foreign Direct Investment in South Asia(percent of GDP),

% of GDP

Figure 22

World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2012.

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Bangladesh

India

Maldives

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Export Share of GDP % of GDP

(3‐Year average, 2009‐2011)


Figure 23

10 12 1316

20 22 23 24.027 27 29

32 3235

4551 52

55 5659.0

62

72 74 76 76.079

97

107

214 214

0

50

100

150

200

% of GDP


Export Share of GDP of Large Countries(100 Million People or More, 1995‐2009)

Bangladesh

India

Pakistan

China

Indonesia

United States

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 24

0.08 0.16 0.41 0.47 0.68 0.78 1.22.64 2.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

High‐Tech Exports(as a percentage of total exports)

percentage


Figure 25


High Technology Exports in India and Elsewhere in Asia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Philippines Singapore Malaysia China Hong Kong India

High Technology Goods Exports IT Services Exports% of Total Exports

Figure 26

Research and Development ResearchersPer Million People


Figure 27

78 90 96 136

316 365

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

Research and Development Expenditures(% of GDP)


Figure 28

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

%

Fixed Internet Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants

International Telecommunication Union/ICT Indicators Database, June 2012.

Hong Kong

India

Korea, Rep.

Maldives

Asia

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 29

Proportion of Households with Computers and Internet Access

Based on most recent year available (2009‐2011). International Telecommunication Union/ICT Indicators Database, June 2012.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 Computer

Internet access

Prop

ortio

n of hou

seho

lds

Figure 30

Figure 31

Life Expectancy in South Asia


years

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Bangladesh

India

Maldives

Nepal

Sri Lanka

50

55

60

65

70

75

Years

Life Expectancy in India’s States(1989‐1993 vs 2002‐2006)

Total 1989‐1993 Total 2002‐2006

Source : Sample Registration System, Office of the Registrar General, India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

Figure 32

Figure 33

Under‐5 Mortality in South Asia


Per 1000 live births

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Bangladesh

India

Maldives

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Figure 34

Youth Literacy Rate in 2009‐2010 by Gender

World Bank, World Development Indicators (2012), and UNICEF At‐a‐glance statistics (2012).

Percentage of population aged 15‐24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Male

Female

60

6467

71

75

8285

92 93 94 95 95 95 96 97 97 97

100 100 100100 100

50

56

40

45

51

63

71

89

94

90 89 9089

92 91

98

92

99 99 99

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MALE FEMALE

Literacy Rate in 2008 by GenderPercent Aged 15 and Above

World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011). 2006 data for India, Indonesia and Maldives ; 2005 data for Bhutan and Thailand.

Figure 35

Illiteracy in India by Gender and Rural vs. Urban

Rural Male

Rural Female

Urban Male

Urban Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1983 1988 1994 2000 2005

Figure 36

% of Population

Gender Inequalities in India vs. Other Countries

0

50

100

150

200

250

India Thailand Korea OECD

Gender Inequalities in Health

0

5

10

15

20

25

India Thailand Korea OEDC

Political Empowerment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

India Thailand Korea OEDC

Female Male

Economic Participation

Figure 37

UNDP, Human Development Report (2010).

Labor Force Participation Rate (%)

% Female in ParliamentMaternal

Mortality Rate (per 100000)

India

Indonesia

Thailand

YemenBangladesh

Nepal

Pakistan

Kyrgyzstan

Cambodia

China

Fiji

KazakhstanMalaysia

Mongolia

Philippines

Sri Lanka

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Food Security in Asia and the World

Total Exports/ Food Imports

Agricultural Productivity(Value Added per Worker)

Independent & Efficient

Dependent &Inefficient

Dependent & Efficient

Independent &Inefficient

World Bank, World Development Indicators (2011).Greater Efficiency

Greater

Indep

enden

ce

U.S. (49,511,19.1)

Germany (31,658, 18)

France(58,070,12.4)

Korea (19,104,26.1)

Singapore (49,867,48.9)

Figure 38

Global Hunger and Per Capita Income in Asia

International Food Policy research (IFPRI), Global Hunger Index (2012), and World Bank, World Development Indicators (2012)..

BangladeshCambodia

China

India

Indonesia

Lao PDR

Malaysia

Mongolia

Nepal

Philippines

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Timor Leste

Vietnam

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

GNI P

PP

Global Hunger Index

Moderate Serious AlarmingLow

Figure 39

Bangladesh

Cambodia

Ethiopia

Ghana

Guatemala

Haiti

Honduras

Kenya

Liberia

Malawi

Mozambique

MaliNepal

Nicaragua

Rwanda

Senegal

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Uganda

Zambia

Vietnam

Peru

Nigeria

India

Brazil5

10

15

20

25

30

0102030405060708090100

Hunger

Percentage of Population living on less than $1.25 /day

International Food Policy Research (IFPRI), 2011 Global Hunger Index (October 2011), and World Bank, PovcalNet (2012).

Hunger and Poverty in the Feed The Future Focus Countries vs. others (in red)

IV. Higher Hunger;Higher Poverty

Lower Hunger

Lower Poverty

II. Lower Hunger;Higher Poverty

III. Higher Hunger;Lower Poverty

I. Lower Hunger;Lower Poverty

Figure 40

HondurasGhana

Nicaragua

SenegalGuatemala

UgandaTajikistan

Malawi

Kenya MaliNepalCambodia

TanzaniaRwanda

LiberiaMozambique

Zambia

Bangladesh

Haiti

Ethiopia

Vietnam

Peru

Nigeria

India

Brazil5

10

15

20

25

30

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Hunger

Rural Sector Enabling Environment

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rural Sector Performance Assessment (2012), and IFPRI, 2011 Global Hunger Index (October 2011).

Hunger and the Rural Sector Enabling Environment in the FTF Focus Countries vs. others

Lower Hunger

Better Enabling Environment

I. Lower Hunger;Better Environment

IV. Higher Hunger;Poorer Environment

III. Higher Hunger;Better Environment

II. Lower Hunger;Poorer Environment

Figure 41

Peru

Nigeria

Vietnam

Brazil

India

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1990 1996 2001 2011

Reduction in Hunger among Select Countries

IFPRI, 2011 Global Hunger Index (October 2011).

Lower Hunger

Figure 42

Documents

India Gap Analysis February 2013 · 2013-09-18 · 1 India Gap Analysis Strategic Planning & Analysis Division E&E Bureau USAID February 2013 Summary. India’s development profile