http://elibrary.worldbank.org/deliver/5080.pdf?itemId=/conte...
It is excellent.
And here is the thrilling conclusion:
“China clearly scores well on the pro-poor growth side of the card, but neither Brazil nor India do; in Brazil’s case for lack of growth and in India’s case for lack of poverty-reducing growth. Brazil scores well on the social policies side, but China and India do not; in China’s case progress has been slow in implementing new social policies more relevant to the new market economy (despite historical advantages in this area, inherited from the past regime) and in India’s case the bigger problems are the extent of capture of the many existing policies by non-poor groups and the weak capabilities of the state for delivering better basic public services.”
The other indexes do not capture the true nature if income inequality in these modern times. Comparing the top 10% of income earners with the bottom 10% washes things out because the truly rich are a very small group. They are a mere fraction of the top 1%.
While its true that most european countries have slightly lower GINI, they also have a higher 10% ratio (highest to lowest) than India.
So it's pretty hard to argue from the actual statistics that inequality is the outstanding problem of India as it is often made out to be.
But it's perhaps true that the contrast is more visible in India than elsewhere - with slums next to high rises.
I think the reason for this is that growth is relatively narrowly focussed around a few metros, which then attracts a big influx of job seeking rural population. The other big countries never had such a big rural population to begin with.
When do you think is the Right Time to start that "optimization"?
Despite what embittered historians say, the rich and powerful learnt plenty of lessons from the French Revolution. The only reason why some people remain obstinate about it is that they can't really be bothered to see beyond their lifetimes.
I'm not convinced revolutions have much to do with income inequality, but rather the absolute level of poverty among the poor, the opportunities they have to improve their lot, and the input the average person has into the political process.