Free Why Growth Matters by Jagdish Bhagwati Page B

‘world economic system’” (p. 72).
    Beginning in the 1830s, cash crops saw a boom in Kerala. Europeans began establishing plantations to grow crops of interest to Europe and America. First came coffee; after its destruction by a leaf disease in 1880 came tea; and in the 1920s, cashews. Coconut, with its varied uses, turned into the most important crop, with trees springing up everywhere. Jeffrey (1992) quotes the Collector of Malabar in the mid-1930s as reporting to his superiors, “All but the poorest Malabar ryots [peasants] have their own compounds of fruit trees” (p. 73). Since coconut could not serve as a staple food, it had to be converted into money and money into food. This contributed in a big way to both the growth of trade as well as the conversion of Kerala into a cash economy. Jeffrey (1992) writes, “In this way, cash-oriented agriculture spread. Before about 1810, Kerala was, to be sure, part of a world market, but few Malayalis had to deal with it directly; but by the 1920s, few Malayalis could avoid it” (p. 73).
    The growth of commercial houses and estates created job opportunities for the educated, making education attractive. Cash crops also served as an excellent source of revenues to finance schools for the state as well as larger landowners. Prosperity brought by the spread of cash crops enabled civic organizations to raise funds to open schools as well—an important link of the early spread of education in Kerala to markets and globalization.
    The historic origin of preindependence success of Kerala therefore owes as little to the Kerala model as does its postindependence performance.
Myth 5.4: Despite high growth, Gujarat has performed poorly in health and education .
    This myth is the mirror image of the previous one, whereby rapid growth in Gujarat is alleged to have not translated into rapid progress in social indicators. The problem once again lies in inference on the basis of the levels rather than the progress achieved during the high-growth phase. Gujarat began with low social indicators but its progress has not been poor by any means. 13
    We have already alluded to the superior performance of Gujarat in raising literacy rates in our discussion of the Kerala model. We saw that when we take approximately the same starting level of literacy, as in Figure 5.7 , the gains made by Gujarat in three decades exceed those made by Kerala, Maharashtra, and the India-wide average. We may additionally note that when compared with these same entities, Gujarat made by far the largest percentage-point gains in literacy between 1951 and 2011.
    This comparison of the gains by Gujarat in literacy carries over to the key indicators of health. Figures 5.8 and 5.9 , which show the gains in life expectancy measured in the number of years and decline in infant mortality per 1,000 live births, respectively, illustrate this fact. We have comparable data on life expectancy beginning in 1970–1975 and ending in 2002–2006. The gains of Gujarat over this period at 15.3 years exceed those of Kerala, Maharashtra, and the India-wide average. The available data on infant mortality range from 1971 to 2009. During this period, Gujarat lowered its infant mortality rate by 96 per 1,000 live births relative to 74 for Maharashtra and 46 for Kerala.

    Figure 5.8. Additions to life expectancy in years: 1970–1975 to 2002–2006
    Source: See Figure 5.5

    Figure 5.9: Reductions in infant mortality per thousand live births: 1971–2009
    Source: See Figure 5.5

Chapter 6
Yet Other Myths
    ----
    W e have now seen that growth, poverty, inequality, education, and health are the key subjects on which critics have tried to mobilize opposition to reforms. But they have failed. So have turned to a potpourri of yet other myths. Chief among them are the following four.
Myth 6.1: Reforms have led to increased suicides by Indian farmers .
    A common activist objection to liberalization in general and