Talk:Economy of India/Archive 2

Page name
I was a little unsure on this title page, so I moved it to Pamri's user page. I hope Pamri doesn't mind. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  10:35, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Inaccurate
The infobox rates India 6th in terms of GDP (PPP) This is not true. The CIA ranking includes "World" and "European Union" as a whole in the top places. So, India's actual rank is 4th. I am unable to correct the infobox.
 * Thank. Someone has fixed it by editing Economy of India infobox. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Move
Does anyone have any objections/issues if I replace the main article with the current rewrite by tonight? I will move the main article under this talk page. pamri 12:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Great work there. One thing left there is the lead intro. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I will put the lead text later once 3/4th of the page is done. Does anyone have an idea why the auto-numbering goes for a toss, when I use it inside images? See the image under Economy_of_India. BTW, Is the inline referencing system that I am using acceptable? Thanks.

pamri 12:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have moved it, so others can work on it. pamri 16:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Adding back the old lead text for now. The older article is at User:Pamri/Economy of India oldpamri 16:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Really good work Pamri! After you have finished, put it up in WP:Peer review tp get some more ideas. The History of India has been extended by a week as the INCoW, all issues are not resolved. Once I finish with that, I'll help you with this page. I don't use the auto numbering, so cant really tell. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  08:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, Found out the solution. Sorry, my bad. pamri 13:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Intro issues
I've a couple of issues with the current intro.
 * The first line should have the text of the title per MOS
 * It is heavily weighted towards the recent history

-- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Did some minor fixing. As I said above, I will rewrite the whole lead text, when atleast 3/4th's of the article gets done, so we get a clear idea what to summarize. pamri 10:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:57, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just realised the economic overview at the CIA page is quite good and we can probably use it now/even later after removing/toning down some current information/stats. I wonder, why anyone didn't do this earlier. The lead text of Economy of Ireland also comes from the CIA factbook and despite the lead being too current made it through FA. pamri 13:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp moves in
I'm bringing my heavy artillery to push this page toward FA status. Any objections ;) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good to see you back. Maybe we can try to finish it off in a day or two. BTW, can you list the current images you prefer to have & the images we need to have or charts we need to create. I favour Charts/Maps, since we are avoiding any statistics in most of the sections and it will also give an additional perspective on a topic, since creating seperate articles is not going to happen overnight. pamri 15:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nichalp's push is a major shot in the arm. I'm sure this article'll become an FA. I'll chip in on monday for final copyediting. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 15:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Shall I dump the statistics,etc. here, so Nichalp/anyone can work on the charts. I am not sure I will be free after Monday, hence the try bit, but if you all can pitch, it should happen I guess. I will try to finish as much as text as possible by 'morrow. pamri 16:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Let me know that has to be done. World you also mail me (@gmail ; ID is same as here) the source files of the charts you have made? I would like to enhance it. I'll meanwhile pass it through the Peer Review. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  10:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

empty sections
Some sections are still empty. I plan to put it through the peer review after those are completed. Any chance of them being completed today? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Will not be possible today. I will work on the empty sections offline tonight and try to finish the sections plus will redo the images tommorrow. pamri 15:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Minor POV issues
The lead section reads more like World Bank's and modern economists' POV. Though, I'm personally in favour of privatisation etc, I'm slightly worried that we treat them to be the ideal state when we say "needed initiatives". We should try and refer other POVs like that of traditional socialist welfare economists too. Also, I'm not totally convinced about the huge population being termed as the root of all evils. We should cite references for this. Has some work been done regarding the positive effects of this population? For example, the abundance of cheap labour both in the manufacturing and service sectors is one enabler for the current growth, isn't it? Of course, if references are not available, let us not worry too much as the wiki will take over once we go for peer review and FAC. :-) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good points Sundar. Since the lead is copied from the CIA factbook without any fact-checking, it obviously is POV, which will be corrected. The population bit is also overplayed in the lead, since its effect is also covered in the other sections as well. The positive effects of the population are the huge educated middle class, which helped the boom in consumer goods in late 1990's and the cheap labour that you mentioned. pamri 05:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Rewrote this as well. Have moved info about Mumbai down. Is this Ok? pamri 06:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * The rewrite is good as also the moving of Mumbai to another section. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Poverty line
The more I read the article, the more interesting bits of information I get.

The official definition of poverty in India is: consumption of goods worth below INR 49 per person per month in the rural areas, and INR 57 in the urban areas at 1973-74 prices.

Is INR 49, a fixed sum or is that adjusted for inflation annually? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Those figures were defined in 1973-74 in the Report of The Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, which basically says consumer expenditure of Rs.49.09 per capita per month was associated with a calorie intake of 2400 per capita per day in rural areas and Rs.56.64 per capita per month with a calorie intake of 2100 per day in urban areas. All other estimations usually use this as the base and account for inflation using various methods. The NSSO 1999-2000 estimates, for instance put it at Rs.211.30 for rural areas & Rs.454.11 for urban areas. Some links:

pamri 09:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.tgfworld.org/Deccan.htm
 * http://www.infochangeindia.org/PovertyIbp.jsp
 * http://www.wakeupcall.org/administration_in_india/poverty_line.php - gives world bank & offical govt estimate.


 * Thanks for the info Pamri. IMO, INR 49 is ridiculously low in today's purchasing power rates. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Pasting the current section. have rewritten the first para. will do the rest later.: ''The official definition of poverty in India is: consumption of goods worth below INR 49 per person per month in the rural areas, and INR 57 in the urban areas at 1973-74 prices. The government of India conducts, through the National Sample Survey (NSS) and directed by the Planning Commission, annual surveys of the consumption expenditure of Indian households. Every five-years, a five times larger sample size (approximately 125,000 households) is used.

''26.1% of the population was below the poverty line in 1999-2000, down from 51.3% in 1977-78. About 70% of the poor are estimated to be in the rural areas, one primary category being the landless farmer. While the major reason is the population growth rate being more than the economic growth rate, it is also true that the benefits of the growth in economy have not trickled down to the poorest.

''Since the early 1960's, successive governments have implemented various schemes, under planning, to alleviate poverty. These have met with partial success. The Food for Work Programme, which in 1980 evolved into the National Rural Employment Programme was an early attempt to use the unemployed to generate productive assets. In 1983, the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme was started to combat the problem while helping build the rural infrastructure. In 1989, these two programmes were merged for better effectiveness into a single programme named Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, renamed as Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana in 1999.'' pamri 17:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is the section OK now? I have changed the cause from a macro-economic viewpoint to microeconomic in nautre and have removed the official definition bit. pamri 06:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perfect now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Headings
There's no need to spell out "pre colonial economy" etc. Pre colonial will do. Its mentioned in the WP:MoS. Similarly there should be no capitalisation of text in the heading after the first letter. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  14:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Once the two remaining headings are complete, I'll copyedit the page and add some more images. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

More matter
I think we also have to dwell on the functions of the RBI, SEBI and the stock markets and the Indian budget. A para on that? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. can come under government & politics. I think, we need atleast 3 more images: some thing related to GDP, foreign trade (composition or region-wise breakup?) & agriculture is compulsory.

pamri 18:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I took out these images today. What images do you suggest for GDP and foreign trade? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Will a picture of a dam do just incase there are no images for agriculture? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:14, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK here's Sundar's image: Image:EttayapuramDryField.jpg =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

This site has some updated figures on India's trading partners. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  18:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * For agriculture, the current photo seems good enough. For gdp, a chart showing growth rate should be enough, I guess. A good source for the data are the penn tables or the rbi handbook. pamri 03:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Great work
great work, folks. Thumbs up to the people who worked on this article. It has indeed turned into a high quality article. --H P Nadig 19:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Consistency check
We need to check if all the statistics used multiple times are consistent, with each other, the graphs and charts,captions,etc., Of course, we still need to correct some glaringly obvious errors and ommisisons, especially in the demographics & employment sections. pamri 17:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, If you find any inconsistencies, replace the figure with the one in the infobox. pamri 17:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure if average growth rate since 94 (intro) and real growth rate (infobox) should be the same -shuri 17:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mentioning. Both are different. Real growth rate is the annual GDP, adjusted for inflation and expressed as a percent, whereas average GDP, obviously, is the average of GDP for n no. of years. If you want a formula,here you go (warning: M$ word format) Average growth rate is not referenced and probably came from the old article. I will find a reference for it and ensure that both are in the intro as well as infobox.

pamri 17:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sticking with real gdp figures. pamri 12:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

FDI Table
I created a table for FDI inflows from this data, but couldn't find a way to add the title or a footnote without distorting the table. The safe bet option would be to convert it into a image/pie chart/bar chart if we can't add those two/if looks too unwieldly. pamri 08:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, found a simple solution. Looks Ok, i guess. pamri 08:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, their site has a Surfing Agreement. pamri 09:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Remaining tasks
Pending tasks: BTW, how many days should an article remain on Peer review? pamri 12:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite demographics & employment. possibly merge?
 * Nothing on infrastructure
 * Check for consistency
 * Compare with other FA's: Economy of Africa & Economy of Ireland
 * Another Map for regional imbalance.
 * Any other tasks?

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  18:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Max 30 days on peer review.
 * Wanted more info on the stock markets, SEBI, RBI and the Indian rupee.
 * What does this mean:  Thus, there is a private sector with regulation (which has decreased since liberalisation) being the only government intervention and...


 * The original sentence read: Thus, there is a private sector with regulation being the only government intervention, and a public sector... meaning just that government only regulates this sector, while it controls the other one. Some editor has later noted the decrease in regulation within the brackets. Personally I think this addition, while providing insight, makes the sentence lose its continuity. Saksham 22:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

India's pre-colonial wealth
''Akbar's Mughal empire in 1600 had a revenue of £ 17.5 million. In contrast, the entire treasury of Great Britain in 1800 totalled to £ 16 million.'' Can a reference be added for this statement, although I seriously disagree on comparing 17th century India with 19th century Britain during the Industrial revolution. pamri 04:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * This message was put up in the Bombay Times in August last year. circa 17th. I had added it in the Mughal Empire article then. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Images
Can we put this image under the Rupee section? If we can get maps for the demographics and regional imbalance sections, the article would become perfect, I think. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a 1000 rupee note on the Indian rupee page would be better. I've also asked Pamri to draw a chart on the Rupee vs $ & pound. The tidel park image can come under the service section. I'll also be uploading an image to put under the exports section. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I want to put this image somewhere in the article. Any suggestions? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  11:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can go in the infrastructure section, when its done.

pamri 12:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Size of the article
Has the size of the article (49KB) gone out of hand or is it manageable? pamri 12:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * The actual size is 37kb. References, table syntax are not counted. The effective page length is the matter from the intro to the =see also= section. I had concerns too, but none of the sections can be really summarised further since the topics are disparate. However it shouldn't exceed 40kb.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Peer review
An interesting suggestion has been made in the peer review regarding India's expors and imports. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  12:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, saw it. Added BoP to the infotable and working on a para as well. I will try to add as much on the remaining topics, but can someone please move & organise the see also to &#123;{Economy of India related topics}} and the references. pamri 13:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll format the references correctly, but I'll need full access to the page to avoid edit conflicts. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll format the references correctly right at the end, just before the article is nominated. It would be better if we tied up loose ends first before overhauling the system. =Nichalp   «Talk»=


 * You can add &#123;{inuse}} and do it now if you want, since I won't be working on it for 1/2 hours. I have included both BoP and external asssistance in the same para, since they are closely related, but it seems to have vanished. pamri 14:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know, but would prefer to do it when its less volatile ie. after all sections are completed and no further additions suggested.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Inflation
I want to expand the rupee section by a paragraph or two. Talk: about inflation, floating rupee and interest rates. This site had some info but I couldn't make much sense of it. 


 * Ok, I will do it later. pamri 14:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Demographics in Infobox
Unemployment rate is quoted as 9.2. Economic Survey 03-04 (pdf) quotes 7.32% in 1999-2000. Hence this figure was written in the text of the article, where it remains. Is it a dicrepancy or are there different metrics to measure unemployment? On a more minor note, here it says the labor force in agriculture has dropped to 57%, lending more personnel to services. Infobox says 60%. Is it an approximation for easy referral? Saksham 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the agricultural figure in the infobox, since 57% is the latest, while the 9.2% unemployment figure can stay, since it is 2004 figure. The 7.32% will stay in the article, since the rural & urban growth rates are derived from that. Most of the figures in the infobox are from the CIA factbook and they don't state where the data comes from. pamri 03:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's okay, but it still leaves two issues. One, it seems inconsistent to use one figure in the infobox and a different one in the text, especially when they disagree to this extent. Secondly, it is not clear as to what te "correct" figure is. Perhaps the question s whether we believe CIA factbook or te Economic survey. Saksham 14:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, updated with the ES figure. pamri 14:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Corruption
Is corruption a socio-economic issue? It has been here almost from the beginning of the article, but now I feel its kind of not in the whole tone/flow of the article. Saksham 20:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a socio-economic issue. I will add some figures stating its impact on investment,etc., Will it be ok, then?

pamri 03:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose. Saksham 14:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If by statistics you mean the amount of money lost to the exchequer or something, then I wonder how much would that amount to. I followed the link of the reference, but it didn't make much sense to me. Am I the only one? Saksham 19:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats not the reference. Thats just a govt. circular detailing implementation of the RtI act. This is the reference.

in use
I'm taking a short break. This is what I've done: User:Nichalp/sandbox. I've not finished as yet. Still a few loose ends to tie up, so please do not edit. Thanks  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've finished the inline notation. THe notes section are still giving me problems. It needs to be sorted out. Two images also have vanished. Whew. That took a long time! =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Great work!! I basically had the same problems in the notes section with &#123;{ref}} & &#123;{note}}. Why don't we switch to manual referencing &#123;{mn}} & &#123;{mnb}}? It is easy to order & doesn't get screwed up when used with images. pamri 11:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Maps
Created 2 maps: pamri 09:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Per capita NSDP in India (1997-98).png - can go under regional imbalance
 * Image:Human_Development_Index_for_Indian_states_in_2001.png - can go under population

Tying up loose ends
Some things that need to be completed:
 * Expand the rupee section
 * Address PR concerns on the caption and the sections.
 * Use the mnb in the =notes=; avoid the term note
 * remove dashes from =notes=
 * Add some more links to the external links section
 * expand see also
 * cross check the infobox

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  18:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC) 10:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Done both. Ping here, if it isn't ok. pamri 17:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

feedback on IRC
This is the feeback I got at #economics at irc.undernet.org (Thanks to teralaser for perusing it.) pamri 16:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Things left out:
 * Microcredit
 * Mention non-PPP GDP(GDP 477.3$bn 12th biggest) ("The Economist Pocket World in Figures", 2004 Edition, ISBN 1 86197 555 - 4 p.24) (gives a balanced picture)
 * Mention tax benefits, SEZ offered to companies/sectors (added in image caption to avoid another para..hehe)
 * Add note to FDI table on why more FDI's come from Mauritius

Dam picture
Its overlapping with some text, perhaps due to the Chidamabaram picture. Could someone format it more properly? Saksham 10:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. But a weird "hacked by ..." message has appeared in more than one places! Saksham 10:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

NOC >> FAC
Green flag is up from my side. Pamri, its now up to you to archive the peer review and feature it on the very auspicious 15 Aug. You deserve all the credit for this mammoth task. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  19:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)