| Literature DB >> 33196679 |
Abhishek Singhal1, Sohini Sahu1, Siddhartha Chattopadhyay2, Abhijit Mukherjee3, Soumendra N Bhanja4.
Abstract
Due to unavailability of consistent income data at the sub-state or district level in developing countries, it is difficult to generate consistent and reliable economic inequality estimates at the disaggregated level. To address this issue, this paper employs the association between night time lights and economic activities for India at the sub-state or district-level, and calculates regional income inequality using Gini coefficients. Additionally, we estimate the relationship between night time lights and socio-economic development for regions in India. We employ a newly available data on regional socio-economic development (Social Progress Index), as well as an index that represents institutional quality or governance. Robust to the choice of socio-economic development indicators, our findings indicate that regional inequality measured by night time lights follow the Kuznets curve pattern. This implies that starting from low levels of socio-economic development or quality of institutions, inequality rises as regional socio-economic factors or quality of institutions improve, and with subsequent progress in socio-economic factors or quality of institutions, regional inequality declines.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33196679 PMCID: PMC7668594 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241907
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1a. States of India. b. Districts of India. Source: Authors.
Fig 2Maps of satellite-based nightlight digital numbers at (a) New Delhi in 1992 and at (b) parts of Himalaya in 1992. Digital numbers within the marked area are used for further analyses. Source: Authors.
Fig 3Annual linear trend of satellite based nightlight for 7010 administrative blocks for 1992–2013.
Source: Authors.
Fig 4Scatter plot for gross district domestic product and night time lights for years 1999–2008.
Source: Authors.
OLS regression results for GDDP and NTL.
| Coefficient | Value |
|---|---|
| ln(NTL) | 0.53 |
| (0.01) | |
| ln(Population) | 0.87 |
| (0.01) | |
| Metro | 0.09 |
| (0.10) | |
| Sub-metro | 0.50 |
| (0.04) | |
| Capital | 0.15 |
| (0.03) | |
| Large City | 0.25 |
| (0.02) | |
| Snow | 0.30 |
| (0.03) | |
| Forest | 0.12 |
| (0.03) | |
| Constant | 10.64 |
| (0.14) | |
| 0.87 | |
| No. of Observations | 3819 |
Standard errors are in parenthesis.
Significance levels: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05
***p < 0.01
OLS regression results for GINI with GINI.
| Coefficient | Value |
|---|---|
| 0.20 | |
| (0.04) | |
| 0.21 | |
| (0.01) | |
| 0.13 | |
| No. of Observations | 89 |
Standard errors are in parenthesis.
Significance levels: * p<0.1, ** p<0.05
*** p<0.01
OLS regression results for GINI with GINI.
| Coefficient | Value |
|---|---|
| 0.33 | |
| (0.07) | |
| 0.25 | |
| 0.3471 | |
| No. of Observations | 60 |
Standard errors are in parenthesis.
Significance levels: * p<0.1, ** p<0.05
*** p<0.01
OLS regression results for GINI with SPI and SPI.
| Coefficient | Value |
|---|---|
| 0.0982 | |
| (0.0136) | |
| -0.001 | |
| (0.0001) | |
| -2.1558 | |
| (0.14) | |
| 0.3993 | |
| No. of Observations | 60 |
Standard errors are in parenthesis.
Significance levels: * p<0.1, ** p<0.05
*** p<0.01
OLS regression results for GINI with QGI and QGI.
| Coefficient | Value |
|---|---|
| 0.0729 | |
| (0.1071) | |
| -0.0008 | |
| (0.0001) | |
| -1.3230 | |
| (0.14) | |
| 0.3471 | |
| No. of Observations | 60 |
Standard errors are in parenthesis.
Significance levels: * p<0.1, ** p<0.05
*** p<0.01
Fig 5Trends between Gini and SPI; Gini and QGI.
Fig 6GiniNTL heat map for Indian states for 1999–2008.
Source: Authors.