metadata: authors: 0: author: Edochie,Ifeanyi Nzegwu
1: author: Freije-Rodriguez,Samuel
2: author: Lakner,Christoph
3: author: Moreno Herrera,Laura Liliana
4: author: Newhouse,David Locke
5: author: Sinha Roy,Sutirtha
6: author: Yonzan,Nishant
count: India
docna: 0: docna: What Do We Know about Poverty in India in
            2017/18 ?
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Inequality,Health Care Services Industry,Educational Sciences,Economic Services to the Urban Poor,Urban Partnerships & Poverty,Urban Poverty,Peri-Urban Communities,Labor & Employment Law
teratopic: Industry,Education,Poverty Reduction,Law and Development,Urban Development,Communities and Human Settlements
abstracts: cdata!: This paper nowcasts poverty in India,
            one of the countries with the largest population below the
            international poverty line of $1.90 per person per day.
            Because the latest official household survey dates back to
            2011/12, there is considerable uncertainty about recent
            poverty trends in the country. Applying a pass-through and
            survey-to-survey methodology, extreme poverty (at the $1.90
            poverty line) for India in 2017 is estimated at 10.4 percent
            with a confidence interval of [8.1, 11.3]. The urban and
            rural poverty rates are estimated at 7.2 and 12.0 percent,
            respectively. Across a wide range of publicly available data
            sources, the paper finds no evidence of an increase in
            poverty between 2011/12 and 2017/18.
geo_reg_key: 517198,517212,517191
repnme: repnme: What Do We Know about Poverty in India in
            2017/18 ?
display_title: What Do We Know about Poverty in
            India in 2017/18
listing_relative_url: /research/2022/02/33723549/know-poverty-india-201718
topicv3: Poverty m1326687 695,Education m1327048 470,Urban Poverty m1327411 710,Household Surveys m1504071 2761,Health m1504661 3480
publishtoextweb_dt: 2022-02-07T00:00:00Z
dois: 10.1596/1813-9450-9931
historic_topic: Industry,Education,Poverty Reduction,Law and Development,Urban Development,Communities and Human Settlements
origu: Off of Sr VP Dev Econ/Chief Econ (DECVP)
no_of_pages: 56
author_keys: 0: author_key: 1862778
1: author_key: 581164
2: author_key: 1206398
3: author_key: 1337572
4: author_key: 450079
5: author_key: 1312512
6: author_key: 1855473
model_extractions: Policy Research Working Paper 9931

# What Do We Know about Poverty in India in 2017/18?

_Ifeanyi Nzegwu Edochie Samuel Freije-Rodriguez Christoph Lakner Laura Moreno Herrera David Locke Newhouse Sutirtha Sinha Roy Nishant Yonzan_ Development Data Group & Poverty and Equity Global Practice February 2022
Policy Research Working Paper 9931

# **Abstract**

This paper nowcasts poverty in India, one of the countries with the largest population below the international poverty line of $1.90 per person per day. Because the latest official household survey dates back to 2011/12, there is considerable uncertainty about recent poverty trends in the country. Applying a pass-through and survey-to-survey methodology, extreme poverty (at the $1.90 poverty line) for India in 2017 is estimated at 10.4 percent with a confidence interval of [8.1, 11.3]. The urban and rural poverty rates are estimated at 7.2 and 12.0 percent, respectively. Across a wide range of publicly available data sources, the paper finds no evidence of an increase in poverty between 2011/12 and 2017/18.

This paper is a product of the Development Data Group, Development Economics and Poverty and the Equity Global Practice. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http:// www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors may be contacted at sfreijerodriguez@worldbank.org and clakner@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# **What Do We Know about Poverty in India in 2017/18?**

_Ifeanyi Nzegwu Edochie, Samuel Freije-Rodriguez, Christoph Lakner, Laura Moreno Herrera, David Locke Newhouse, Sutirtha Sinha Roy,_ _Nishant Yonzan_<sup>*</sup> JEL codes: I32, C53.

Keywords: poverty, survey-to-survey imputation, India.

> * Corresponding authors: Samuel Freije-Rodriguez (sfreijerodriguez@worldbank.org) and Christoph Lakner (clakner@worldbank.org). All authors are with the World Bank. Ifeanyi Nzegwu Edochie, Samuel Freije-Rodriguez, Laura Moreno Herrera, David Locke Newhouse and Sutirtha Sinha Roy are with the Poverty and Equity Global Practice. Christoph Lakner and Nishant Yonzan are with the Development Data Group. This is a background paper for the Poverty and Shared Prosperity Report 2020. The authors wish to thank Junaid K Ahmad, Benu Bidani, Maurizio Bussolo, Andrew Dabalen, Haishan Fu, Dean Jolliffe, Aart C. Kraay, Daniel Mahler, Ambar Narayan, Pedro Olinto, Carolina Sanchez-Paramo, Umar Serajuddin and Hans Timmer for helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks to Nobuo Yoshida, Shinya Takamatsu and Roy van der Weide for special comments and reviewing the econometric methods. Thanks go as well to members of the World Bank’s PovcalNet team and the Data for Goals team, with whom several consultation meetings took place. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the UK government through the Data and Evidence for Tackling Extreme Poverty (DEEP) Research Programme. The findings and interpretations in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its affiliated institutions, or its Executive Directors.
# **1. Introduction**

This paper describes several methods to estimate poverty in India in 2017. India is likely the country with the largest number of people living below the international poverty line of $1.90 and its latest publicly available household survey dates to 2011/12, giving rise to considerable uncertainty over the recent trend in global poverty. Because of the decision by the Government of India to withhold the most recent household survey (National Sample Survey 2017/18), we use a range of methods to derive a poverty estimate for India in 2017, which can be incorporated in the global poverty counts.<sup>1</sup> We focus on estimating poverty at the international poverty line of $1.90 (using 2011 purchasing power parities).<sup>2</sup> We use two main methodologies. The first method uses a survey-to-survey methodology to impute a consumption aggregate into the 2017/2018 Survey on Social Consumption (SCS) on Health. While this survey collects information on covariates that predict consumption, it does not collect a comprehensive consumption aggregate that could be used to measure poverty directly. Our approach is closely related to Newhouse and Vyas (2019) who impute consumption into the 2014/2015 National Sample Survey.<sup>3</sup> This approach builds on the small area estimation methods developed by Elbers et al. (2003), who impute a welfare aggregate into a census. More recently, Douidich et al. (2016) impute a consumption aggregate into a labor force survey to estimate quarterly poverty rates.

The second method assumes that household survey consumption follows the growth in national accounts, adjusted downward by a pass-through factor.<sup>4</sup> The adjustment factor accounts for the fact that survey growth is systematically lower than growth in national accounts, e.g. see Ravallion (2003), Deaton (2005), Pinkovskiy and Sala-i-Martin (2016), Lakner et al. (Forthcoming), Prydz et al. (Forthcoming). The pass-through factor is estimated using a machine-learning algorithm to account for systematic variation in pass-through rates between sub-samples of the data. We report

> 1 The government decided to indefinitely withhold the survey citing concerns over data quality. See Jha (2019)  and Press Information Bureau Government of India, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation issued on November 15, 2019.

> 2 We use the revised 2011 PPPs published in May 2020. Following the World Bank’s global poverty measures, we use different PPPs for urban and rural areas to account for spatial price differences (Atamanov, et al. 2020). Throughout the paper urban and rural poverty are estimated separately and aggregated to the national estimate using the population weights in the World Development Indicators (WDI).

> 3 Using the CES surveys collected in 2004/05, 2009/10 and 2011/12, which collect a consumption aggregate as well as covariates that are also present in the 2014/15 survey, Newhouse and Vyas (2019) estimate several models of household consumption per capita. These models are then used to project household consumption into the 2014/15 CES, which did not collect information on aggregate household consumption, and hence estimate poverty. This poverty estimate underpins the World Bank’s global poverty estimate for 2015, see Chen et al. (2018) and World Bank (2018). We use a different set of variables, and different training and target data sets, but a methodology similar to Newhouse and Vyas (2019).

> 4 This is similar to the way surveys are brought to a common reference year in the World Bank’s global poverty measures, see Chen and Ravallion  (2010), Prydz et al. (2019) and World Bank (2015).

2
a range of poverty estimates that reflect uncertainty in the estimated pass-through rate and the underlying national accounts growth rates, as well as allow for changes in inequality.

Under our preferred specification, using a pass-through rate of 0.67 applied to growth in Household Final Consumption Expenditure in national accounts between 2015 and 2017, we estimate a national extreme poverty rate (those living below the $1.90 poverty line) for 2017 of 10.4 percent.<sup>5</sup> Using a survey-to-survey estimation, the national poverty rate would be slightly smaller (9.9 percent), but its confidence interval, between [8.1, 11.3] percent, includes the estimates from the pass-through method.<sup>6</sup> Our estimates indicate a considerable decline in poverty since 2011/12, when poverty was estimated at 22.5 percent. Important caveats in the methodologies adopted, as well as some robustness checks to control for different assumptions, indicate that poverty rates could be higher than our preferred estimate. But we find no evidence that poverty has actually increased, or the mean declined, between 2011/12 and 2017/18, thus contradicting estimates that have been circulated in the press based on a leaked report on the 2017/18 survey (see Appendix for further details).

The paper discusses three sources of evidence about the evolution of poverty in India. Section 2 uses alternative survey data, from both public and private organizations, to provide descriptive statistics on household mean consumption. Section 3 describes the survey-to-survey imputation method, whiles section 4 describes the results from the pass-through method. Section 5 summarizes and concludes. The Appendix includes additional robustness checks and further details on the methods.

# **2. Available survey data for India**

The Consumption Expenditure Surveys (CES) by the National Statistics Office are the main source of poverty and inequality statistics in India. These surveys have also informed the World Bank’s poverty monitoring and are used to track progress towards the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 1, which is focused on ending poverty. The release of the 2017/18 round of the consumption expenditure survey was eagerly anticipated, given that the last available expenditure survey dates to 2011/12. As indicated above, the government decided to withhold these data and hence we explore alternative data sources to provide updated estimates of poverty in India.

Table 1 lists several recent household surveys, all of which are nationally representative and include estimates of household consumption. As indicated above, the CES is the official source for poverty estimation. It includes around 400 questions covering expenditures on a comprehensive

> 5 This estimate underpins the World Bank’s estimate of global poverty in 2017, as reported in World Bank (2020). Also see Castañeda Aguilar et al. (2020).

> 6 The interval for the pass-through method [10.0, 10.8], calculated utilizing the confidence interval of the 0.67 passthrough rate, is also within the confidence band of the survey-to-survey method.

3
array of goods and services.<sup>7</sup> The Survey on Social Consumption (SCS) on Health gathers basic information on health, and the role of public and private health providers. It started on a regular basis since 1995 and the most recent waves correspond to years 2004, 2014 and 2017/18. Similarly, the SCS on Education generates indicators on levels of education, school attendance and incentives received by students. The most recent waves were collected in 2007/08, 2014 (January to June) and 2017/18. In both SCSs, household consumption is captured through a single question on “usual monthly expenditures”. Finally, the Periodic Labor Force (PLB) Survey was launched by the NSO in April 2017. This is a continuous survey that collects information about employment and unemployment. Quarterly reports are produced, and only two annual reports have been produced so far: 2017/18 and 2018/19. As in the case of the SCS, it includes a single question on household consumption expenditure.

Two surveys collected by non-government agencies are also available. The India Human Development Survey (IHDS), compiled by several independent research institutions: The National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), the University of Maryland, Indiana University and the University of Michigan. It is a panel survey whose first wave was collected in 2005/06, its second in 2011/12 and the third is scheduled for 2023. In 2017, a subsample round was collected in only three states: Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand. Finally, the Consumer Pyramids (CP) data set is a continuous survey designed to measure household well-being in India, with a panel survey conducted three times per year since 2014. It is collected by the Center for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE), a private data collection agency.

Using these alternative surveys, the remainder of this section reports summary statistics on recent trends in living standards.

# **2.1. Official data sources**

The SCSs on Education and Health are nationally representative surveys with a sample size of around 65,000 households in the earlier years, and around 100,000 in 2017/18. These surveys include a question on usual household consumption that is not comparable to the more comprehensive consumption aggregates produced for poverty estimation in the CES. The SCSs on Health and Education both show higher average consumption in 2017/18 than in previous waves.<sup>8</sup> Mean household consumption per capita appears larger in the CES than in SCS, for both urban and rural areas, although it is difficult to draw comparisons since the surveys were fielded in

> 7 Differences in the recall period of these different items led to different consumption aggregates over time. The 2011/12 survey included three different definitions of the aggregate: the so-called Uniform Reference Period (URP), Mixed Reference Period (MRP) and the Modified Mixed Reference Period (MMRP). The 2017/18 survey only included the MMRP. For details on the consumption aggregates, see http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/KI-68th-HCE.pdf. Also see discussion in the Appendix. 8 We do not report the evolution of the consumption aggregate in the Periodic Labor Force Survey because there is no comparable survey before 2017. Comparing the PLFS (2017/18) and SCS Education (2014), Himanshu (2019) estimates that real consumption per capita declined by about 4 percent and 0.6 percent in rural and urban India, respectively.

4
different years and using different questionnaires to collect consumption expenditures. A direct comparison is only possible in 2004/05 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). For that year, the CES reports average consumption expenditures approximately 10 percent higher in rural areas, and 5 percent higher in urban areas, than in SCS. Average consumption does not capture all differences between the two surveys. Comparing the CES and SCS Health in 2004/05, shows that the consumption distributions in the two surveys are very close, with the SCS Health stochastically dominating the CES in the bottom of the distribution but the opposite is true above around $100 per month in 2011 PPP terms (Figure 3, top panels). The comparison of these surveys indicates that the consumption aggregate included in the CES surveys is systematically different than the consumption aggregate captured by the SCS Health and Education surveys. Hence, measures of poverty using the consumption aggregate from the SCS surveys cannot be compared to those using CES surveys.

On the other hand, SCS Health and Education surveys show higher average consumption in year 2017/18 than in previous vintages of the same survey (that is, years 2014 and 2007/08 for the Education survey, and 2014 and 2004/05 for the case of the Health survey). Going beyond the simple averages, a stochastic dominance analysis shows that the distribution of household consumption expenditures of the SCS Health 2017/18 survey is to the right of the distribution of the 2004/05 health survey (Figure 3, middle panels) and the same with respect to the 2014/15 health survey (Figure 3, bottom panels), for any poverty line below $300 per month. This could indicate that household consumption has increased for all those households at the bottom of the distribution and hence poverty is lower in 2017/18 than in previous years.

# **2.2. Non-official data sources**

The subsample of the IHDS survey that was collected in 2017 for three states (Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand) also shows an increase in mean consumption between 2011/12 and 2017. Real income, consumption and food expenditures grew at an annualized rate of 3.5 percent, 2.7 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. This is indicative because, historically, growth of consumption expenditure reported in the CES has been faster than in IHDS, although average consumption is higher in IHDS than in CES. For instance, between 2004/05 and 2011/12, the mean real consumption per capita in rural India had average annual growth of 3.3 percent in CES and 2.1 percent in IHDS, as well as 3.8 and 2.9 percent, respectively, in urban areas (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

The CP survey also shows an upward trend in average real consumption and incomes between 2014 and 2018, although it matters whether the comparison is carried out relative to 2014 or 2015. Comparing with respect to 2014, the growth incidence curves show positive consumption growth throughout the distribution with few exceptions (top panel of Figure 4). In contrast, if comparing with the respect to 2015, households below the 15<sup>th</sup> percentile experience a decline in real consumption in years 2016 and 2017, which then turns positive for all percentiles in 2018 (middle panel of Figure 4). This is because the bottom of the distribution grows very fast between 2014 and 2015 (bottom panel of Figure 4). The survey data collected by CMIE seems to indicate a 5
worsening of living conditions for the bottom 15 percent of the population in years 2016 and 2017 with respect to 2015, but improving conditions in year 2018.<sup>9</sup> The unavailability of CP data from 2011/12 prevents a direct comparisons of consumption growth between CP and CES surveys.<sup>10</sup>

# **3. Survey-to-survey imputation**

As described in the previous section, none of the alternative surveys are fully comparable to the CES of 2011/12. The IHDS uses the same measure of consumption as the official surveys but is not nationally representative in recent years. The SCSs are nationally representative and cover a long period but use a different welfare aggregate. The PLB and CP surveys measure a different welfare aggregate and cover a shorter period, preventing a meaningful assessment of the trend in poverty since 2011/12.

In the absence of a comprehensive welfare aggregate covering the period after 2011/12, we use the survey-to-survey imputation methodology originally proposed by Elbers et al. (2003). We closely follow Newhouse and Vyas (2019), who apply this method to India over an earlier period. This method consists of imputing consumption into a survey without consumption data, based on the relationship between consumption and other household characteristics from a survey with consumption data. With the imputed consumption expenditure in the target survey, it is then possible to estimate poverty. A prerequisite for this method is that the two surveys involved in the exercise have a comparable set of explanatory variables. Here we use the Health SCS 2017/18 that includes a series of demographic, economic and locational characteristics that are also included in the previous rounds of the CES. A comparison of the available CES and SCS Health surveys is included in the Appendix.

## **3.1. Empirical Methodology**

This method predicts the conditional distribution of per capita expenditure, ych, for household, h, within cluster, c, of the target data set that is missing actual consumption data (in our case the SCS Health 2017/18). The model is estimated in two steps. The first step is to develop an empirical model that predicts the log of per capita household consumption, ln(ych) from the source (or training) data set, the CES 2011/12 in this case. We adopt a log linear specification relating per capita consumption expenditure to household and district level variables as follows:

> 9 The underlying causes of this evolution are still subject to study. Regarding changes in inequality, Chodrow-Reich et al. (2020) and Chanda and Cook (2019), find a negative short-term impact of the demonetization introduced in November 2016 among the poorest groups, which then dissipates after several months.

> 10 The urban to rural population in CP’s sample is distributed by a ratio of 7 to 3; in contrast, India’s aggregate urban to rural population is distributed by a ratio of 3 to 7. The estimates of consumption reported in this paper are weighted to correct for the oversampling. Moreover, we exclude expenditures on monthly installments, premiums and pocket monies from CP’s consumption aggregate in order to make it as close as possible to CES’ basket of items.

6
T T ln(ych) = E[ln(ych)|xch] + μch = xchβ+ μch (1)

where the error term μ follows a normal distribution with mean zero and constant variance, μ~N(0, σ<sup>2</sup> ). This assumption is later relaxed. The set of possible explanatory variables are those common to both training and target data sources, as in Table A.1 and Table A.2 in the Appendix.

We deviate from Newhouse and Vyas (2019) by only including the most recent CES round (2011/12) as training data and excluding the previous rounds in 2004/05 and 2009/10. That paper showed that including a linear time trend substantially improved the accuracy of the prediction when predicting poverty rates in 2004/05 using data from 2009/10 and 2011/12. This suggested that a linear time trend would also give accurate estimates for a projection three years ahead, from 2011/12 to 2014/15. However, validation tests undertaken with the data used in this paper indicated that including a linear time trend, in a model estimated using data from 2009/10 and 2011/12, greatly overpredicted poverty in 2004/05. This is due to a key difference between the data used in this paper and the one used by Newhouse and Vyas (2019), namely the availability of data on some service expenditure items in the latter (see Appendix for further details). Because the real value of these expenditures grew substantially over time, they moderated the estimated impact of the time trend variable and generated a more accurate back-cast of poverty in 2004/05. Because the data considered in this study do not contain data on any expenditure items, relying on a linear time trend to nowcast poverty becomes riskier. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that the prediction from 2011/12 to 2017/18 spans seven years, which is much longer than the three-year gap when projecting from 2011/12 to 2014/15. We therefore assume that the coefficients remain unchanged between 2011/12 and 2017/18. We recognize that this likely understates the extent to which poverty has changed, because it holds the estimated coefficients from 2011 constant, including the intercept.

T Similar to Newhouse and Vyas (2019), the xch vector in equation 1 consists of an intercept as well as household and district level demographic variables, labor market indicators as well as districtlevel rainfall shocks. We include several additional variables, not present in the data used by Newhouse and Vyas (2019) to compensate for the absence of the service expenditure variables in the SCS Health 2017/18. These additional variables include characteristics of the household head such as gender, marital status, and, as explained in the Appendix, the type of cooking fuel.

T In order to choose the explanatory variables to be included in the xch vector, we consider two shrinkage or regularization methods: the least absolute shrinkage selection operator (LASSO) regression method and the Stepwise regression algorithm. Both methods reduce the number of predictors to be included in the final specification of the model, with the aim of reducing the variance of the projections at the cost of a negligible increase in the bias of the coefficients. The LASSO algorithm (Tibshirani 1996), solves the residual error minimization problem of the linear T model in a manner that only a subset xch of all the xch potential variables are chosen in the final model used for projections. On the other hand, there are several ways to carry out stepwise regressions. The forward selection starts with no variables and tests each additional variable using 7
a simple OLS method while the backward elimination starts with all the candidate variables and then deletes each variable that falls below a p-value threshold. We use the backward elimination process while setting the p-value threshold to 0.05. This is chosen over the forward elimination approach because forward elimination depends on the order in which variables are chosen.<sup>11</sup> T Having chosen the set of candidate explanatory variables xch, equation 1 is originally estimated using ordinary least squares. The regressions are weighted using the sampling weights within the surveys. To allow for the possibility of intra-cluster correlations of household expenditures, the random disturbance term is defined as follows: T where η and ε are assumed independent, uncorrelated with xch and as having different data generating processes. These two components of the error term are assumed to have mean zero and 2 2 variances ση and σε,c, which indicates that the latter is permitted to be heteroskedastic and vary across households in a given cluster, while the former is assumed to be a constant. Clusters are defined as districts, the lowest level of spatial disaggregation that can be matched between CES 2011/12 and SCS Health 2017/18.<sup>12</sup> Our approach allows for the possibility of normal or nonnormal heteroskedastic error terms. The variance-covariance matrix of the error term is computed using the methods described in Nguyen et al. (2018).

Given the structure of the errors in equation 2, an OLS estimation of model 1 would underestimate uncertainty. Therefore, in the second step, the model is re-estimated using Generalized Least Squares (GLS) to control for the heterogeneity in the cluster specific errors, so: Using a Monte Carlo approach, 100 samples from the training data are drawn to obtain 100 values of the coefficients β̂GLS and of the error components η̂C and ε̂ch (the latter based on assumptions about their distribution and estimates of their variances σ̂η2 and σ̂ε,c2 from previous stages).13 Using R these estimates and explanatory variables from the target survey, xch, we obtain 100 imputed values of per capita household consumption for household h in cluster c:

> 11 For an introduction to variable selection and regularization methods in general, and of the LASSO and Stepwise selection methods in particular, see chapter 6 of James et al. (2013).

> 12 Having a smaller number of clusters reduces the likelihood of heteroskedasticity in the cluster component of μch. 13 See Nguyen et al. (2018) and Newhouse and Vyas (2019) for more details on the distributional assumptions.

8
Poverty rates are calculated for each of the 100 imputations and then averaged across imputations. The standard errors of the poverty estimates are computed following Rubin (2004). All estimates are carried out using version 2 of the Stata SAE package, developed by Nguyen et al. (2018).

In summary, we apply parameters from a model derived using CES 2011/12 to data from the SCS Health survey for 2017/18 to predict Indian poverty rates in 2017/18. We test the robustness of the model specification by varying the variable selection algorithm and the functional form of the rainfall shocks.<sup>14</sup> We test two different functional forms for the rainfall shock which is defined as the quarterly deviation of each district’s rainfall from the historical average (between 1981 and 2018). The first functional form of this variable uses the shock and its square. The alternative specification is a simple linear regression on a spline variable created at the 25<sup>th</sup> , 50<sup>th</sup> and 75<sup>th</sup> percentile points of the rainfall shock distribution (i.e. a dummy variable that indicates whether the household lives in a district where the rainfall shock falls in any of the four quartiles of the distribution of rainfall shocks). As previously mentioned, the framework may assume normality or allow for non-normality in the error terms. Our analysis allows for non-normality which is more flexible. All models are estimated for rural and urban areas separately. We run four model specifications, two using LASSO and two using Stepwise selection, where rainfall is specified either as a spline or a quadratic function.

The consumption models explain between 34 and 45 percent of the variance of the dependent variable, which is slightly lower than Newhouse and Vyas (2019). The explanatory variables vary across models because of the use of different variable selection algorithms (i.e. LASSO and stepwise), but sign and significance of the demographic variables do not vary notably across specifications. A full description of the econometric results of these four specifications is shown in the Appendix.

# **3.2. Poverty Imputation Results**

We present the poverty rates that result from the imputation exercise explained in the previous section, and from equation 4 above, in Table 2. The poverty rates from the imputed consumption do not vary significantly across models. In fact, the confidence intervals overlap for all models, in national, urban and rural estimates. The point estimates for the national poverty rate in 2017/18 range from 8.47 percent in model 4 to 8.75 percent in model 2. Point estimates for rural poverty vary from 8.38 percent in model 3 to 9.14 percent in model 4, while urban poverty rates are between 6.85 percent in model 4 and 9.18 percent in model 3. There is no a-priori reason to prefer one model to another, although it seems unlikely that poverty rates in urban and rural India have equaled -as in model 1- or even reversed -as in model 3. Hence models 2 and 4 seem more plausible, which result in poverty being higher in rural than urban areas. In this section, we report

> 14 Rainfall shocks are the most important predictor of the change in household welfare in Newhouse and Vyas (2019).

9
further robustness checks to select a preferred model and argue that none of these models is completely satisfactory.

# _Validation Checks_

To validate the results of the survey-to-survey imputation, we use the CES 2011/12 as training data to project poverty rates backward and compare them against the poverty rates observed in Health SCS 2014/15, and CES 2009/10 and CES 2004/05.<sup>15</sup> Table 3 compares the poverty estimates observed in CES 2009/10 and CES 2004/05 to predicted poverty rates based on the consumption model estimated on the CES 2011/12 as training data and CES 2009/10 and CES 2004/05 as target data. In both cases, predicted poverty based on our model is considerably lower than observed poverty. In 2009/10, our estimates hardly vary across models with national poverty rates between 17.23 and 17.65 percent, although the differences are somewhat larger for urban areas (13.04 to 15.65 percent). In all cases, predicted poverty rates are substantially lower than the poverty rates observed in the 2009/2010 survey (31.7 percent nationally) (see Table 3 middle panel). In 2004/05, the predicted national poverty rates range from 28.40 percent to 30.38 percent, which are up to 10 percentage points lower than the observed poverty rate (38.9 percent). The difference is wider in rural areas, whereas some of our estimates for urban areas overlap with the 95 percent confidence interval of the observed poverty rates (see Table 3 top panel).

In 2014/15, we compare the poverty rates that we predict using our four models against the poverty rates predicted by Newhouse and Vyas (2019) (see Table 3 bottom panel). Since the CES 2014/15 does not include actual consumption data, we rely on the estimates by Newhouse and Vyas (2019). In our prediction, we use the Health SCS 2014/15 applied to a consumption model estimated over CES 2011/12. In this comparison, we thus compare predictions across different surveys, while the earlier backcasts compared actual and predicted poverty in the same survey (various rounds of the CES). The 2014/15 CES and SCS, both official nationally representative surveys, show broadly similar socio-economic indicators (Tables 2 and 3). Across all four models, our national poverty estimates (between 16.8 and 20.93 percent) are consistently higher than the estimates from Newhouse and Vyas (2019) (14.6 percent), although the confidence intervals for our estimates in models 2 and 4 would include Newhouse and Vyas’ estimates. These differences are mostly driven by rural areas, while for urban areas models 1, 2 and 4 are not very different from Newhouse and Vyas (2019). There is thus an interesting contrast between the three validation tests: While our model underpredicts poverty in 2004/05 and 2009/10, it overpredicts in 2014/15. Again, this is likely because coefficients estimated using 2011 data are applied to earlier data, while in reality the coefficients may vary over time.

> 15 For an overview of these kinds of validation methods, see James et al. (2013). Similarly, microsimulation exercises are validated by “back-casting” reforms that occurred in the past, for example see Figari et al. (2015).

10
The inability of any of our models to replicate poverty rates in years 2004/05, 2009/10 and 2014/15 raises concerns whether this method correctly forecasts poverty in 2017/18.<sup>16</sup> This contrast with Newhouse and Vyas (2019) who validate their model by replicating poverty rates in rural areas in 2004/05.<sup>17</sup> Given these limitations, we explore another method to project poverty rates for India in the absence of survey data.

# **4. Pass-through method**

While we should expect that the growth of consumption in national accounts is positively correlated with growth of mean consumption measured from surveys, a substantial literature has found that growth in national accounts does not pass-through one-to-one to household surveys. The difference between these two growth rates is referred to as a pass-through rate. More precisely, and following Ravallion (2003), the pass-through rate is the coefficient estimate β in the regression of the growth in the survey mean, gsurvey, on the growth in national accounts, gNAS: where _i_ is a growth spell between two survey years, and the residual, ui, has mean zero. gsurvey is the growth rate of the survey welfare aggregate, here measured as household income or consumption expenditure per capita. gNAS is the real growth rate in national accounts, for which we consider either Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita or Household Final Consumption Expenditure (HFCE) per capita. The pass-through rate, β, captures the rate of growth in consumption that is passed through from national accounts to surveys. If β= 1, then mean consumption in the survey grows at the same rate as consumption in national accounts. Typically, the literature finds β< 1 (see more details below), which implies that mean consumption in the survey grows slower than the growth in national accounts.

The literature has discussed several channels for why there are systematic differences in growth of consumption as measured in national accounts and in the survey microdata; for example, see Ravallion (2003), Deaton (2005) and Pinkovskiy and Sala-i-Martin (2016).<sup>18</sup> First, there are

> 16 The S2S method has been used to generate plausible poverty estimates in other contexts and has often been successfully validated. Any imputation model is forced to make strong assumptions, such as the stability of the consumption model over six years (from 2011/12 to 2017/18) in our case. The availability of additional variables could also improve the predictive performance of our model. In some specifications, we successfully validate the 2014/15 estimates, as well as the 2004/05 estimates in urban areas, but do not accurately backcast the large decline in rural poverty between 2011/12 and 2004/05. This is likely because the estimated parameters, including the intercept term, is fixed at the estimated 2011/12 levels. Including a linear time trend in the model would greatly overestimate the decline in poverty between 2004/05 and 2011/12 in both urban and rural areas. This suggests that incorporating data on expenditures of particular services, which was possible when projecting into 2014/15 (Newhouse and Vyas 2019) but not into 2017/18, helps the linear time trend model perform much better at backcasting.

> 17 They fail to replicate poverty rates for urban areas in 2004/05, and make no reference to attempts to replicate 2009/10.

> 18 For a general discussion around the differences between household survey data and the data from national accounts, as well as potential adjustments for such differences, among others see Altimir (1987), Bourguignon (2015), and Prydz et al. (Forthcoming).

11
methodological differences between how consumption is measured across the two sources of data. For example, consumption in national accounts, HFCE, is often derived as a residual from GDP. Second, even if they followed the same methodologies, the two series do not have the same scope. In addition to the consumption from households that is captured in the surveys, HFCE includes consumption from non-profit institutions (such as charities, religious organizations, trade unions, and political parties), consumption of financial service intermediaries, and imputed rents for housing (Datt and Ravallion 2002).

For India in particular, researchers have documented a third source of differences. They have noted that the gap between the two sources of data was small during the 1950s and 1960s, but the divergence between the series has grown since. For instance, Kulsehrestha and Kar (2005) note that the gap between the two sources of consumption data was 5 percent (with mean consumption from surveys being lower than that from national accounts) for fiscal year 1957/58, however, this gap had grown to 38 percent by 1993/94. The authors also note that the source of the increase in the discrepancy between consumption in national accounts and consumption in surveys are nonfood items. Similarly, Mukherjee and Chatterjhee (1974) find small differences between the two sources of data in the decade leading up to 1963/64, with consumption in surveys on average lower than consumption in national accounts. They also note that the surveys record a lower share of non-food items relative to national accounts. For food items the difference in consumption between the national accounts and surveys has been relatively small (Kulsehrestha and Kar (2005), Sundaram and Tendulkar (2003), Minhas (1988)).

Following the recommendations of the UN System of National Accounts starting in 1993, the CSO in India added a new item to consumption in national accounts, financial intermediation services indirectly measured (FISIM). FISIM is a measure of the value of financial intermediation. It is calculated as the difference between the interest paid by borrowers to banks and the interest received by lenders from banks. Deaton and Kozel (2005) find that the value of FISIM in consumption in national accounts was close to zero percent in 1983/84, but its share had increased to 2.5 percent by 1993/94. They attribute a quarter of the gap in the two series to FISIM. Datt and Ravallion (2002) similarly finds that the discrepancies between national accounts and surveys increase when using the post-1993 definition of consumption in national accounts relative to the pre-1993 definition. They find that consumption in national accounts grew 0.55 percentage points faster annually than the consumption in surveys between 1972 and 1997, while using the newer series, they find a difference of 0.74 percentage points for the same period. While FISIM has added to the discrepancy in the value of consumption between surveys and national accounts, it is less likely to directly affect the living standards of the poor. Hence, when calculating welfare of the poor, it would be ideal to discount the effect of these variables which make consumption larger in national accounts relative to surveys.

12
# **4.1. Methodology**

The pass-through rate is estimated using equation 5 above. Following Ravallion (2003), the regression is estimated without an intercept. Improving on the earlier literature, we only include growth spells between household survey rounds that are comparable in order to focus on real changes between two survey rounds and ignore any spurious changes. Survey comparability is assessed according to various characteristics, including the method of sampling, the questionnaire design, the methodology used in the construction of welfare aggregates and the price deflation used over time and space.<sup>19</sup> We use the growth in per capita HFCE as opposed to growth in per capita GDP, as HFCE aims to capture household private consumption in national accounts, and so it is, in principle, more aligned with the consumption captured in surveys than GDP (Ravallion (2003), Deaton (2005)). Similarly, to derive reference-year estimates in the absence of a new household survey, PovcalNet uses HFCE over GDP in most countries, including India (Prydz, et al. (2019)).<sup>20</sup> A crucial question is how to define the relevant sample of survey growth spells. The existing literature has partitioned the sample along various dimensions, for instance by income level, level of inequality or by geographic regions. See, for example, Birdsall et al. (2014), Chen and Ravallion (2010), Chandy et al. (2013) and Corral, et al. (2020). Given that different choices of partitioning variables yield different pass-through rates, a systematic approach of partitioning the data is necessary.

To that end, we follow an approach that is identical to the machine learning algorithm used in Lakner et al. (forthcoming).<sup>21</sup> Here, we use per capita HFCE growth instead of per capita GDP growth as the main independent variable. The partitioning algorithm, referred to as model-based recursive partitioning (MOB), takes equation 1 as the starting point and subsequently adds various input variables interacted with the growth in per capita HFCE, gNAS. Each interaction is added one at a time. For each interaction a Wald test is conducted to determine whether the coefficients on these interactions are statistically significant (at the 5 percent significance level). The input variables are geographical region, a dummy for whether consumption or income is used in the survey, mean consumption, median consumption, the Gini index, population, per capita GDP, and the year of the survey.<sup>22</sup> When a significant interaction is found, the sample is partitioned using that input variable as a splitting variable and the algorithm is applied on each of the sub-samples separately. Splits are only made if at least 10 observations will be in each subsample. For non-

> 19 The precise assessment of comparability is country-dependent, compiled from the World Bank’s economists who are in close dialogue with national data producers and have intimate knowledge of the survey design and methodology. More details on the comparability metadata can be found in Atamanov et al. (2019). The comparability data set can be accessed here: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/node/506801.

> 20 The exception is Sub-Saharan Africa, where GDP per capita is preferred.

> 21 The algorithm is a variant of Classification and Regression Tree (CART), pioneered by Breiman, et al. (1984).

> 22 We consider two regional definitions. First, the standard World Bank regions, in which all countries are classified according to geography. Second, the regions used by PovcalNet, where most high-income countries form a separate region.

13
binary interacting variables, all possible splits are tried out and the split with the greatest rejection of equality of the passthrough rates is chosen.

Our source for growth in per capita HFCE and per capita GDP is the World Development Indicators (WDI). We use surveys reported in PovcalNet to calculate growth in survey means. Growth between any two consecutive surveys for a country is referred to as a survey spell. Our main sample consists of a total of 1,671 survey spells if the per capita GDP aggregate is used, and 1,511 spells if per capita HFCE is used. After accounting for survey comparability, 1,429 of 1,671 spells remain when per capita GDP is used and 1,323 of 1,511 spells for per capita HFCE.

# **4.2. Results**

Figure A.1 shows the results of the MOB algorithm. There is significant evidence in favor of the welfare measure in the survey (income or consumption) being relevant for passthrough rates. Using the per capita HFCE growth rates, the MOB algorithm suggests that no other variable besides this yields a significantly different pass-through rate.<sup>23</sup> Table 4 reports the pass-through estimates for each sub-sample in Figure A.1. Observations using income-based surveys have a pass-through rate of 1.00 with a 95 percent confidence interval between 0.89 and 1.12, while observations using consumption-based surveys have a passthrough rate of 0.66 with a 95 percent confidence interval between 0.58 and 0.75.<sup>24</sup> With a p-value of 0.024, we can reject that the coefficients are identical for these two subgroups at a 5 percent significance level.

Given the results from MOB and the fact that the CES are consumption-based surveys, we use the consumption-based partition as the sample to calculate a pass-through rate for India. Our preferred estimate of the pass-through rate thus uses the global sample of comparable consumption survey spells in combination with per capita HFCE growth. There are 471 spells in this sample, and the regression using this sample yields a pass-through rate of 0.67 with a 95 percent confidence interval between [0.59, 0.75].<sup>25</sup> While it is impossible to know the true pass-through rate for India over this period, 95 percent of pass-through rates using global consumption-specific survey spells with the per capita HFCE aggregate will fall within this confidence interval. As determined by the

> 23 As noted above, Lakner et al. (Forthcoming) use per capita GDP growth as their main dependent variable (as opposed to per capita HFCE growth used here). They find that in addition to partition by data type, further partitions by median income, level of inequality, and geographic regions yield significantly different pass-through rates when using income-based surveys. However, similar to what we find, they find that within the sample of consumption surveys, there are no further significant splits.

> 24 Lakner et al. (Forthcoming), using per capita GDP growth rate, calculate a slightly higher pass-through rate of 0.72 for global consumption-specific comparable survey spells.

> 25 Table A.5, which is further discussed in the Appendix, compares the estimate from the global consumption-specific comparable sample with estimates using various alternative samples. The difference in the pass-through estimate between the MOB of 0.66, reported in Table 4, and the 0.67 estimate reported here and in Table A.5, is due to the difference in sample size – 457 observations in the former and 471 in the latter. The MOB is more taxing on the data as we use several variables to check for partitioning and there might be missing values in some cases. In this paper, we have used the MOB primarily as a method to confirm the partitions. In what follows, we use 0.67 with a confidence interval of [0.59, 0.75] as the pass-through rate of the preferred sample.

14
MOB methodology, further partitioning of the global sample into geographic regions is not necessary. When estimating the poverty rate for India, in addition to the poverty derived from the 0.67 pass-through rate, we also present a range of poverty estimates derived using the 95 percent confidence band for the 0.67 pass-through rate.

Our preferred pass-through rate of 0.67 is in line with the broader literature on India. Sen (2000) finds that the ratio of survey mean to consumption in national accounts to be between 0.6 and 0.7 for the period 1972 to 1997. For the same period, Datt and Ravallion (2002) find that the ratio between the survey mean and consumption in national accounts to be between 0.575 and 0.645 – depending upon, as discussed above, which national accounts series (new or old) one uses. Ravallion (2003) estimates this ratio for 1997 in India to be 0.55. The author also finds that, using 22 survey spells of South Asian countries in the 1980s and 1990s, β=0.525.<sup>26</sup> Deaton and Kozel (2005) estimate the ratio between the two sources to be “currently around” 0.667. The implied pass-through estimate for fiscal year 2014/15 using the poverty rates from the survey-to-survey estimation by Newhouse and Vyas (2018) is around 0.65.<sup>27</sup> The ratio of survey mean to per capita HFCE using all available CES surveys for India is 0.751, and this ratio using comparable spells is 0.765.<sup>28</sup>

# **4.3. Concerns over National Accounts growth rates**

There have been recent debates around the soundness of the official GDP growth rates. A. Subramanian (2019) argues that the official GDP growth for the 2011-2016 period might have been overestimated by as much as 2.5 percentage points due to methodological changes that the Central Statistics Office (CSO) undertook in 2011. According to A. Subramanian (2019), the CSO switched the calculation of national statistics from a volume-based index to a value-based system of accounting. Value-based accounting is sensitive to price fluctuations, and hence a double pricediscounting is generally recommended for these indexes. However, the CSO adopted a single deflation in prices of national statistics.<sup>29</sup>

> 26 Ravallion (2003) finds a pass-through rate of 0.752 with a standard error of 0.563 when employing a regression as in equation (5) but with a non-zero intercept; the author finds a pass-through rate of 0.525 with a standard error of 0.258 on a regression setting the intercept equal to zero. For the global sample consisting of 142 spells, setting the intercept to zero the author finds a pass-through rate of 0.499.

> 27 For a detailed discussion on the survey-to-survey methodology see the sub-section above. The national pass-through rate in India for the period 2012-2015 is 0.65. The 0.65 national pass-through rate is calculated as the populationweighted average of the rural pass-through rate (0.699) and urban pass-through rate (0.551). The rural and urban passthrough rates are calibrated using the poverty estimates from Newhouse and Vyas (2018) for 2014/15 (for more details, see Chen et al. (2018)).

> 28 The available CES surveys for India are 1977/78, 1983, 1987/88, 1993/94, 2004/05, 2009/10, and 2011/12, of which 1993/94, 2004/05, 2009/10, and 2011/12 surveys are comparable. Using per capita GDP growth instead of per capita HFCE growth yields pass-throughs of 0.639 for the full sample and 0.768 for the comparable spells.

> 29 Sengupta (2016) provides similar arguments that highlight the measurement issues created by the choice of accounting methods used by the CSO.

15
Citing this, Subramanian argues that the official GDP growth rates have been overestimated by 1.1 percentage points when India is compared with other middle-income countries and by 2.5 percentage points when all countries are included in the comparison. This finding has been refuted by Goyal and Kumar (2019) who defend the official statistics citing methodological and data issues in A. Subramanian (2019).

The estimate of poverty we calculate using the pass-through rate is sensitive to the growth in consumption in national accounts. Any downward adjustment of growth, as the one suggested by A. Subramanian (2019), would lead to an increase in poverty. Hence, we also present poverty estimates adjusting growth downward by 1.1 and 2.5 percentage points. It is important to note that A. Subramanian’s (2019) findings are for the period 2011-2016 and for the GDP growth rate, while our application of the downward adjustment is for the period 2016-2018 and for the growth in per capita HFCE.<sup>30</sup>

# **4.4. Poverty rate estimates**

Table 5 reports poverty estimates for 2017 using our preferred pass-through rate, as well as a passthrough rate of 1, applied to various national accounts growth rates. These poverty estimates assume that growth is distribution-neutral, i.e. all observations in the survey are scaled up by the same growth rate, similar to the standard extrapolation methods that underpin the World Bank’s global poverty numbers (see Prydz et al. (2019)). In all cases, we line up the 2011/12 CES microdata to 2015 using urban/rural-specific growth rates. These growth rates are derived using the implied pass-through rates calibrated from the poverty estimates reported in Newhouse and Vyas (2019).<sup>31</sup> The national poverty estimates are calculated as the weighted sum of the rural and urban poverty rates using the population weights in WDI in the relevant year.<sup>32</sup> The estimates reported in Table 5 use the various pass-through rates after 2015.

In the first row of panel A, we report estimates of poverty derived from the growth in per capita HFCE as reported in WDI using a 0.67 pass-through rate and a range of estimates derived from the 95 percent confidence interval of the 0.67 pass-through rate. In addition, we also report the estimates from applying the raw growth in per capital HFCE (that is, using a pass-through of 1). A higher pass-through implies faster growth in survey consumption and thus a lower poverty rate. The national poverty rate derived from using a 0.67 pass-through is 10.39 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval of [9.97, 10.80], while the national poverty rate derived using a pass-through

> 30 The average ratio between per capita HFCE and per capita GDP for the years 2011-2018 is 0.560 with a standard deviation of 0.003. For the years 2011-2018, the average annual per capita HFCE growth rate was 6.1 percent, and the average annual per capita GDP growth rate was 5.6 percent for the same period. Source: WDI, World Bank. 31 A detailed discussion of estimating poverty rates for the years 2012-2015 in India can be found in Chen et al. (2018). 32 This accounts for changes in rural/urban population shares since the last survey. PovcalNet applies the same methodology to calculate national poverty rates for all countries that have rural/urban surveys, namely China, India and Indonesia. The rural/urban population shares implied by the survey weights may be different from shares in WDI.

16
of 1 is 8.84 percent.<sup>33</sup> The latter estimate translates to 118 million living under extreme poverty in India in 2017, while the 0.67 pass-through yields 139 million people living under extreme poverty. The confidence band around the 0.67 pass-through suggests that between 134 million and 145 million live in poverty in the nation. Using the 0.67 pass-through, the rural poverty rate is estimated to be 12.02 percent (with a 95 percent confidence interval between [11.52, 12.44]) and the urban poverty rate is estimated to be 7.17 percent (with a 95 percent confidence interval between [6.92, 7.55]).<sup>34</sup> In rows 2 and 3 of Table 5, we report estimates derived by reducing the official HFCE growth rate by 1.1 and 2.5 percentage points respectively, using the estimates provided by A. Subramanian (2019). The 0.67 pass-through rate yields a national poverty rate between 10.97 percent and 11.75 percent (or between 147 million and 157 million people) depending on the growth adjustment used. If we allow for the uncertainty around the pass-through rate, the national poverty rate could be as high as 12.09 percent, which would imply 162 million living under extreme poverty in 2017. Similarly, the rural poverty rate could be between 13.04 percent and 13.93 percent (which implies between 116 million and 124 million poor) and the urban poverty rate could be between 8.03 percent and 8.47 percent (which implies between 36 million and 37 million poor).

Since the annual per capita GDP growth rates are similar to the annual per capita HFCE growth rates, the poverty rates derived using these two growth rates are fairly similar. The set of estimates employing the growth in per capita GDP are reported in panel B of Table 5.

Figure 5 presents the trends in national poverty for the years 2012 to 2018. These trends are reported for two series presented in Table 5– namely, (a) the trend using official per capita HFCE growth with the 0.67 pass-through rate and the 95 percent confidence interval (see row 1 of Table 2, panel A); and (b) the trend applying a downward adjustment of 2.5 percentage points to the per capita HFCE growth rate with a 0.67 pass-through rate. As highlighted in the figure, the changes in growth rates matter for the poverty rates. A downward adjustment of 2.5 percentage points of growth rates increases the national poverty rate by 1.4 percentage points, which translates to 18 million more people pushed into extreme poverty.

# **5. Summary and Conclusion**

This paper is an attempt to provide up-to-date information on poverty in India in the absence of regular data from the Consumption Expenditure Survey (CES). Most of the alternative data sources

> 33 Note that the 95% confidence interval is symmetric around the pass-through rate. However, when the pass-through rate and its 95% interval is mapped into the poverty rates, the confidence band around the poverty estimates are not symmetric. This is because the poverty estimates depend on the density around the poverty line.

> 34 Using the South Asia consumption-specific pass-through rate of 0.652 Table A.5 with a 95% confidence interval of [0.307, 0.998] yields a national poverty rate of 10.49 percent (with 95% confidence interval between [8.84, 12.43]), a rural poverty rate of 12.13 percent (with 95% confidence interval between [10.21, 14.28]), and an urban poverty rate of 7.23 percent (with 95% confidence interval between [6.13, 8.77]).

17
indicate an increase in average household consumption per capita, although most of them are either not fully comparable to the official CES, or do not cover a period long enough, or a geographical coverage wide enough, to assess the evolution of household consumption and, more precisely, poverty rates. We then adopt two methods to estimate poverty in 2017/18. First, we use a surveyto-survey methodology to impute consumption into the Social Consumption Survey for Health 2017/18 using a model estimated on the CES 2011/12. Our method builds on Newhouse and Vyas (2019), adding explanatory variables such as household energy consumption and demographic household characteristics, and modifying the functional form of the rainfall shock, but not including a time trend. Second, we project the CES 2011/12 forward using national accounts growth rates combined with a pass-through factor that adjusts for the difference between growth in national accounts and household surveys. Borrowing from Lakner et al. (forthcoming), we use a machine learning algorithm to estimate the pass-through rate and allow for changes in inequality.

Using the survey-to-survey method, we estimate a national poverty rate (at the international poverty line of $1.90 per person per day) of 9.9 percent in 2017, with a 95 percent confidence interval of between 8.1 and 11.3.<sup>35</sup> With the preferred pass-through rate of 0.67, we obtain a national poverty rate of 10.4 percent in 2017, with a confidence interval between 10.0 and 10.8. Despite using very different data sources and methods, the estimated poverty rates are strikingly similar with overlapping confidence intervals. Within urban and rural areas, the differences are somewhat larger, but the confidence intervals again overlap, and there is no evidence that one method is systematically biased in one direction. Using the survey-to-survey method, rural poverty is estimated at 10.5 percent [8.8, 12.0], some 1.5 percentage points lower than the result of the pass-through exercise (12.0 percent, [11.5, 12.4]). In contrast, at 8.5 percent [6.8, 10.1] urban poverty is higher using the survey-to-survey method compared to 7.2 percent [6.9, 7.6] with the pass-through.

Our results are robust to changes in the model used in the survey-to-survey method, plausible alternative pass-through rates and varying the starting year of the pass-through exercise (see Appendix). They are also consistent with the trends using alternative surveys over the same period, which show growth in average household consumption, and in some cases welfare gains across the entire income distribution.

However, neither approach is without limitations. On the one hand, the survey-to-survey method takes advantage of the variation in the survey data to capture changes in the distribution of welfare. But if the imputation is done between periods too far apart, it may fail to capture important changes in the behavior of markets, since the parameters of the consumption model are assumed fixed for a long period of time. Hence, important structural changes in the Indian economy between 2011

> 35 The survey-to-survey estimates refer to 2017/18, the period of fieldwork for the Health SCS. To compare with the results of the pass-through method, these estimates have been brought back to 2017 using growth in HFCE per capita, following the method described in Chen et al. (2018) for the 2014/15 (Newhouse and Vyas 2019) estimates. The text refers to the results from the preferred model (model 2 in Table A.3).

18
and 2017 may not be captured by these imputation techniques. In general, this method is more appropriate to estimate poverty for small geographic areas that have no representative samples (e.g. the seminal work by Elbers et al. (2003)), or over short time periods (e.g. Douidich, et al. (2016)).

On the other hand, the pass-through approach assumes that national accounts HFCE growth is accurate and that growth is distribution neutral. Both these assumptions have been the subject of recent debate in India. A. Subramanian (2019) has argued that India’s GDP growth from official sources is overstated, although Goyal and Kumar (2019) have disputed his findings. Regarding changes in inequality, Chanda and Cook (2019) and Chodrow-Reich et al. (2020) find a negative short-term impact of the demonetization introduced in November 2016 among the poorest groups, which dissipates after several months. Lahiri (2020), meanwhile, reports a decline in unemployment shortly after demonetization, which may hide an important decline in labor force participation (also see Vyas (2018)).

The poverty rates estimated for 2017 using the pass-through method would be higher if we allow for increasing inequality, for which there is some supportive evidence in the literature cited above as well as the CMIE data between 2016 and 2017. Assuming a 1 percent annual increase in the Gini index between 2015 and 2017 would lead to a poverty rate of 11.3 percent in 2017, a number still within the confidence interval of the survey-to-survey imputation. If the Gini index were to rise 2 percent per year, the poverty rate would climb to 12.4 percent (compared to 10.4 percent with distribution neutrality) in 2017. If the underlying national accounts growth (in terms of either GDP or HFCE) is reduced by 1.1 or 2.5 percentage points for the period 2015-2017, while assuming distribution-neutrality, we estimate a national poverty rate of 11.0 and 11.8 percent, respectively.

All these estimates are subject to strong assumptions; therefore, considerable uncertainty remains about poverty in India in 2017 and the trend in recent years, and this uncertainty can only be resolved if new survey data become available. Using leaked summary statistics of the withheld 2017/18 household survey, S. Subramanian (2019) estimates that poverty increased significantly between 2011/12 and 2017/18. Himanshu (2019) also finds a decline in average consumption using alternative recent survey data. In contrast, Bhalla and Bhasin (2020) claim that poverty declined significantly between 2011/12 and 2017/18. One additional complication is that different welfare aggregates give very different estimates of poverty levels and potentially also the trend. Using the data from the leaked report, similarly to S. Subramanian, we estimate a level of poverty (15.6 percent in 2017) that is still higher than all the estimates using our regular methods.<sup>36</sup> However, leaked data that cannot be verified are not an acceptable source of information for reliable poverty

> 36 As we explain in more detail in the Appendix (also see Section 2), this is explained by the different consumption aggregates being used. Our main analysis uses the URP aggregate which has been used historically in India and which gives higher levels of poverty than the MMRP aggregate, that is used in the leaked estimates. In other words, projecting a decline in the URP aggregate or an increase in the MMRP aggregate results in levels of poverty that are not too different. This of course does not answer the important question over the direction of poverty in recent years.

19
estimates. Furthermore, the quality concerns over the 2017/18 survey require further investigation. Across a wide range of publicly available data sources, the paper finds no evidence of an increase in poverty between 2011/12 and 2017/18.

The lack of publicly available data creates doubts among the general public, obstructs scientific debate, and hinders the implementation of sound, empirically based development policies. The imputation methods adopted in this paper are more appropriate to extrapolate poverty across shorter periods when data are not available, or for geographic areas where survey data is not appropriate. They are imperfect substitutes for actual data on standards of living. There is no alternative to timely, quality assured, and transparent data for poverty measurement and for the design and monitoring of anti-poverty policies.

20
# **6. Tables**

_Table 1._ Main characteristics of selected household surveys in India

|**Survey name**|**Administering**<br>**agency**|**Number of**<br>**questions**<br>**about**<br>**consumption**|**Welfare**<br>**aggregate**|**Survey time**|**Description**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Consumption<br>Expenditure survey<br>(CES)2017/18|NSSO,<br>Government of<br>India|~ 400|MMRP|July 2017 to<br>June 2018|Withheld due to data quality concerns|
|Consumption<br>Expenditure survey<br>(CES)2011/12|NSSO,<br>Government of<br>India|~ 400|MMRP, MRP,<br>URP|July 2011 to<br>June 2012|Last available official consumption<br>survey round|
|Survey on social<br>consumption<br>(Social<br>Consumption<br>2017/18)|NSSO,<br>Government of<br>India|1|Usual monthly<br>consumption<br>expenditure of<br>the household|July 2017 to<br>June 2018|Education and health specific survey.<br>Sample: 113,823 households|
|Survey on social<br>consumption<br>(Social<br>Consumption<br>2014)|NSSO,<br>Government of<br>India|1|Usual monthly<br>consumption<br>expenditure of<br>the household|January to<br>July 2014|Education and health specific survey.<br>Sample: 65,932 households|
|Periodic Labor<br>Force Survey (PLFS)|NSSO,<br>Government of<br>India|1|Usual monthly<br>consumption<br>expenditure of<br>the household|July 2017 to<br>June 2018|Starts in 2017-18 to replace<br>employment-unemployment surveys.<br>Cross-sectional in rural areas and panel<br>in urban areas. Sample: ~56,000<br>households|
|India Human<br>Development<br>Survey (IHDS)|NCAER &<br>University of<br>Maryland,<br>Indiana<br>University and<br>University of<br>Michigan|52|MRP|Two and half<br>rounds: 2004,<br>2011 and<br>subsample<br>round in<br>2017|Household panel containing income and<br>expenditure questions. Sample: ~<br>41,500 households|
|Consumer<br>Pyramids (CP)|CMIE, private<br>data collection<br>agency|~ 80|Consumption<br>recall over last<br>three months|Starts in 2014<br>(and every<br>quarter since)|Starts in 2014. Household level panel<br>with three-monthly period recall.<br>Sample: ~174,000 households|

_Table 2._ Estimated poverty rate in 2017/18 ($1.90 per day poverty line) using survey-to-survey imputation methods, comparing different models

|**Sector**|**Model 1**|**Model 2**|**Model 3**|**Model 4**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|National|8.70|8.75|8.61|8.47|
||[ 7.51, 9.90]|[7.32,10.19]|[7.37, 9.86]|[7.19, 9.76]|
|Rural|8.92|9.03|8.38|9.14|
||[7.36,10.48]|[7.18,10.88]|[ 6.80, 9.96]|[7.38, 10.9]|
|Urban|8.18|8.08|9.18|6.85|
||[6.34,10.01]|[6.07,10.09]|[7.43,10.94]|[5.50,8.19]|

21
_Table 3._ Back-casting comparison of poverty rates ($1.90 per day poverty line) from survey-tosurvey methods and actual estimates

||**Model 1**|**Model 2**|**Model 3**|**Model 4**|**Actual**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Panel A: 2004/05**||||||
|National|29.88|28.64|30.38|28.4|38.90|
||[27.16,32.61]|[25.68,31.60]|[27.53,33.24]|[25.62,31.18]|[38.1,39.7]|
|Rural|32.57|31.52|33.03|32.22|43.40|
||[28.97,36.18]|[27.83,35.21]|[29.38,36.67]|[28.69,35.75]|[42.6,44.2]|
|Urban|21.97|20.16|22.6|17.15|25.40|
||[18.88,25.05]|[16.83,23.49]|[19.31,25.90]|[14.75,19.54]|[24.2,26.6]|
|**Panel B: 2009/10**||||||
|National|17.49|17.65|17.51|17.23|31.70|
||[15.37,19.61]|[15.4,19.89]|[15.58,19.44]|[15.25,19.22]|[30.9,32.5]|
|Rural|18.38|18.39|18.39|18.79|36.10|
||[15.53,21.22]|[15.49,21.29]|[15.83,20.95]|[16.12,21.45]|[35.1,37.1]|
|Urban|15.09|15.65|15.14|13.04|19.80|
||[12.76,17.41]|[12.88,18.41]|[12.87,17.41]|[11.09,14.99]|[18.8,20.8]|
|**Panel C: 2014/15**||||||
|National|19.49|17.04|20.93|16.8|14.61|
||[16.74,22.23]|[13.84,20.23]|[18.05,23.81]|[13.99,19.61]|[13.04,16.78]|
|Rural|22.18|19.52|21.95|20.17|16.81|
||[18.56,25.79]|[15.38,23.66]|[18.25,25.66]|[16.36,23.97]|[15.24,18.38]|
|Urban|13.13|11.16|18.52|8.85|10.01|
||[9.98,16.27]|[8.10,14.22]|[15.09,21.95]|[6.82,10.88]|[8.44,11.58]|

_Note_ : Actual estimates in 2014/15 are estimates from Newhouse and Vyas (2019). Actuals in 2004/05 and 2009/10 are authors' estimates using data from NSS0. 95 percent confidence intervals in square brackets.

_Table 4._ Estimated pass-through rates for MOB sub-samples

|**Survey Type**|**Comparability Pass-through**|**95% CI**|**_N_**|
|---|---|---|---|
|Income|1<br>1.003|[.890, 1.12]|841|
|Consumption|1<br>0.661|[.576,.746]|457|

_Note_ : This table reports the pass-through estimates (estimate of coefficient β in equation 1) and their 95 percent confidence intervals for the sub-samples in Figure A.1. The sample size ( _N_ ) is the number of comparable survey spells that can be included in the MOB estimation.

22
_Table 5._ Poverty estimates ($1.90 per day poverty line) for 2017 using pass-through method _Note_ : This table reports poverty rates for the $1.90 international poverty line in 2017. The 95 percent confidence interval for the 0.67 pass-through rate is [0.59, 0.75]. Panel A reports results using per capita HFCE growth and panel B reports results using per capita GDP growth.

23
# **7. Figures**

_Figure 1._ Mean household per capita consumption expenditure in Rural India, across surveys <!-- Start of picture text --> 130<br>120<br>117.0<br>110<br>100<br>93.9<br>96.1<br>90 87.3<br>86.9<br>80.0 80.3<br>80<br>74.7 79.2<br>70<br>68.7 62.9<br>60<br>50<br>2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017<br>CES SCS health SCS education IHDS<br>2011 USD PPP per month<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Note_ : CES refers to Consumption Expenditure Surveys, SCS Health and Education to the Surveys on Social Consumption and IHDS to India Human Development Survey. Consumption expenditures are in 2011 USD PPP using price deflators as in Atamanov et al. (2020).

_Figure 2._ Mean household per capita consumption expenditure in Urban India, across surveys <!-- Start of picture text --> 160<br>152.0<br>150.3<br>150<br>143.7 147.7<br>140<br>131.4<br>130 127.1 128.4<br>125.0<br>120<br>111.0<br>110<br>106.6<br>100 98.8<br>90<br>80<br>2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017<br>CES SCS health SCS education IHDS<br>2011 USD PPP per month<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Note_ : CES refers to Consumption Expenditure Surveys, SCS Health and Education to the Surveys on Social Consumption and IHDS to India Human Development Survey. Consumption expenditures are in 2011 USD PPP using price deflators as in Atamanov et al. (2020).

24
<!-- Start of picture text --> 1 — ——— .<br>5 8<br>3<br>a<br>g 6<br>5|<br>oe414 |<br>€ |<br>oOo<br>a24 |<br>/<br>ot<br>0 200 Expenditure400 (PPP 2011)600 800 1000<br>HE «sNss 2004 =) Health 2004<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> 03<br>02<br>01<br>0<br>-01<br>-02<br>0 200 400 600 800 1000<br>E:Xpendituredit (PPP 2011 )<br>Confidence interval =(95 % —— Estimated difference<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> 1 — _ : , 0 _. .<br>&<br>a | “<br>5ge) 8 (~|]<br>i)©|| ||<br>s5 4 | |<br>I]| ~2<br>a 2 {|<br>0+d “3<br>0 200 400 600 800 4004 0 200 400 600 800 100<br>Expenditure (PPP 2011) Expenditure (PPP 2011) (PPP 2011) 2011)<br>Gs Health 2004 «=EN Health 2017 Confidence interval (95%) |———————— Estimated difference<br>1 -7 ::0<br>8<br>-.05<br>6<br>4<br>}<br>0 -15<br>0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000<br>Expenditure (PPP 2011) Expenditure (PPP 2011)<br>GE Health 2014 «=Ns Health 2017 Confidence interval (95 %) %) ——— Estimated difference<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> 0 _. .<br>“<br>~2<br>“3<br>0 200 400 600 800 100<br>Expenditure (PPP 2011) (PPP 2011) 2011)<br>Confidence interval (95%) |———————— Estimated difference<br>0<br>-.05<br>-15<br>0 200 400 600 800 1000<br>Expenditure (PPP 2011)<br>Confidence interval (95 %) %) ——— Estimated difference<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> relative to 2014<br>10%<br>8%<br>6%<br>4%<br>2%<br>0% J...<br>“ FPARSHAARRHARARRKRRRSSSSSRARRARSSSSSTRKRRESKES SRR<br>-2%<br>4%<br>—y2015 —y2016 —y2017 —y2018<br>relative to 2015<br>8%<br>6%<br>4%<br>2%<br>0%<br>“ees SSB HARSARRARARRKHRRSSHLSCSARARASSSSSRFRKRRSSKSSSARRRS<br>-2%<br>4%<br>-6%<br>-8%<br>-10%<br>—y2016 —y2017 —y2018<br>Year-to-Year Change<br>20%<br>15%<br>Os<br>10%<br>5%<br>. TMH OSS T | ISIN NK AA RR oo) MRR SS HSS RRARRASSSESBSRRKRR SS BS DAS g<br>-5%<br>-10%<br>-15%<br>-20%<br>—2015 —2016 —2017 —2018<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> 24<br>22<br>20<br>18<br>< 16<br>gi ae<br>£ ~ ~~~<br>g 10 _ =|<br>a8<br>6<br>4<br>2<br>0<br>2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018<br>—@-— Estimate with official HFCE/capita growth and 0.67 pass-through<br>--#-- Estimate with HFCE/capita minus 2.5pp growth and 0.67 pass-through<br><!-- End of picture text -->