ArticlePloS one2020
"Understanding growth convergence in India (1981-2010): Looking beyond the usual suspects".
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The literature on growth convergence has focused to a great extent on the role of initial incomes as a primary determinant of long-term growth outcomes. Expanded versions of growth models have used other explanators to unpack the growth process. In this paper we add to the literature in two significant ways: (a) we use socioeconomic variables that are sometimes overlooked in explaining growth (such as, political stability and political alliance, social heterogeneity, and demographic distribution), and (b) we demonstrate that earlier analyses may be overlooking the problem of normality and endogeneity in regression models (and we provide alternate methods like instrumental variable and distribution dynamics to control for these). In this paper we analyze the per capita income growth at the subnational level in India for the period 1981-82 to 2010-11 using an expanded growth framework. We find that initial incomes, the ratio of working age group to total population, political stability and alliance, and the extent of development expenditure play a positive and significant role in predicting growth. We also find that, contrary to popular belief, the presence of marginalized groups-namely Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-have not been a hindrance to growth of per capita incomes in states. Our findings on the influence of social institutions may have significant implications for a public policy of affirmative action in India. The results on the impact of development expenditure on growth is also important for states seeking to increase their growth rates through policy intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.