India is suddenly in the news for all the wrong reasons. It is now hitting the headlines as one of the most unequal countries in the world, whether one measures inequality on the basis of income or wealth.
So how unequal is India? As the economist Branko Milanovic says: “The question is simple, the answer is not.” Based on the new India Human Development Survey (IHDS), which provides data on income inequality for the first time, India scores a level of income equality lower than Russia, the United States, China and Brazil, and more egalitarian than only South Africa.
According to a report by the Johannesburg-based company New World Wealth, India is the second-most unequal country globally, with millionaires controlling 54% of its wealth. With a total individual wealth of $5,600 billion, it’s among the 10 richest countries in the world – and yet the average Indian is relatively poor.
Compare this with Japan, the most equal country in the world, where according to the report millionaires control only 22% of total wealth.
In India, the richest 1% own 53% of the country’s wealth, according to the latest data from Credit Suisse. The richest 5% own 68.6%, while the top 10% have 76.3%. At the other end of the pyramid, the poorer half jostles for a mere 4.1% of national wealth.
What’s more, things are getting better for the rich. The Credit Suisse data shows that India’s richest 1% owned just 36.8% of the country’s wealth in 2000, while the share of the top 10% was 65.9%. Since then they have steadily increased their share of the pie. The share of the top 1% now exceeds 50%.
This is far ahead of the United States, where the richest 1% own 37.3% of total wealth. But India’s finest still have a long way to go before they match Russia, where the top 1% own a stupendous 70.3% of the country’s wealth.
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Umm...a picture might send a wrong message..not sure you want that
Have an amazing night ❤️
The correct answer would be, Self Efficacy.
He is a good soccer player and has practiced kicking the ball daily for many hours. Juan has what Bandura would call high Self Efficacy in sports performance.
Explanation:
Albert Bandura is a psychologist, who is a Canadian American. His contribution of social science in psychology is highly recognized.
According to Albert Bandura, when a person believes that he has the ability and capacity to execute behaviors that are required to produce certain performance achievements and attainments, this is called as self efficacy.
In self efficacy, a person has control over his behaviors, motivations and social environment.
So Juan belief that he can kick the soccer ball where ever he wants to kick, is his self efficacy.
Learn more about Self Efficacy at:
brainly.com/question/10575222
#LearnWithBrainly
They flourished. Venice was one of the cities that grew so much with the sale of silk. Europe as a whole grew very rich.
Answer:
Confucius and Taoism were coexisted in Chinese society for a long time. while advocated religious philosophies people tend to think them as same but there are crucial differences. while Confucius has entrusted the task of social issues, Taoism lays more stress on individual unfolding the meaning of life. Both religions have a vital role to play in Chinese society.