From Breadbaskets to Battlegrounds: India’s Polarised Prospect
Lulu Farshana M
Dr. Namrata
In India, the growing disparity
between rich and the poor is considerably more visible than it was during
British colonial rule. Economic inequality is marked by gaps in income, wealth
distribution, and access to resources, which fuels resentment and discontent
among various socioeconomic groups. This sense of discontent frequently
manifests as political polarisation, in which opposing factions align with
conflicting ideas and parties ends up in increasing societal differences. Inequality
and polarisation have historical connections to the potential for social
conflict. A highly unequal or polarized society may be more prone to conflicts,
highlighting the social implications of economic disparities. Politicians use
these disparities for electoral support, resulting in policies and rhetoric
that exacerbate economic inequities. In India, economic inequality and
political polarisation are deeply intertwined, exerting significant influence
on the nation's socio-political landscape. Thus, addressing economic inequality
is crucial for mitigating political polarisation and fostering a more inclusive
and stable democratic environment in India.
Key words: economic disparity,
income inequality, political polarisation, social conflict
Background
India, the world's largest democracy, has long been a nation of contrasts (Guha, 2017). From its bustling metropolises to its remote rural villages, the disparities in wealth and opportunity are striking. Over the past few decades, economic disparity in India has grown (Sharma & Vidyapith 2023), creating fertile ground for political polarisation (Thampi & Anand 2017). The vast and growing gap of political attitudes and identities among the public that undermine the pursuit of a common good (Levin et al., 2021). The upsurge is often compounded by the rise of ideologically divided masses and radical political parties. In recent decades, political polarisation has intensified globally and has been a disruptive force in societies across the world, from advanced countries including the US and those in Europe to the developing world such as India, Korea and Turkey etc (Moraes & Béjar 2023; Bou-Hamad & Yehya 2020). Understanding the connection between economic inequality and political polarisation is essential to address the root causes of this phenomenon and to seek sustainable solutions (Suhay, 2022; Church, 2020). The issue of political polarisation linked to economic disparities in India is critical due to its potential to undermine the nation’s democratic fabric and socio-economic stability (Schneider & Shevchuk, 2020).
India, beyond the
emerging economy also faces unique challenges where economic inequalities and
social stratifications can significantly influence political dynamics. To
examine the driving forces behind political polarisation, the current
well-developed scholarship has mainly examined factors such as the changes in
socio-demographic cleavages. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these
disparities (Zhao et al., 2023), disproportionately affecting the poorer
sections of society, leading to heightened frustration and alienation (Raphael &
Schneider, 2023). This economic distress has translated into deeper political
divides, as marginalized groups feel increasingly neglected by mainstream
political entities (Nandwani, 2023; Varghese,
2023). This situation calls for urgent and effective policy
interventions to address economic inequalities and foster inclusive
development, which are crucial for maintaining the stability and integrity of
India’s democracy.
Since the 1990s, there
has been a rise in both bipolarization and multidimensional polarisation, which
has widened inequality in tandem with rapid economic growth (Motiram &
Sarma, 2014). The liberalisation policies brought about considerable changes to
the Indian economy (Jayadev et al., 2007). Rapid economic growth was sparked by
these reforms, lifting millions out of poverty and fostering the emergence of a
growing middle class.
Economic disparities
and political polarisation have markedly intensified since the landslide
electoral victories in 2014 (Sahoo, 2020). The era has witnessed significant
economic growth, yet the benefits have disproportionately favoured the wealthy,
exacerbating income and wealth inequality. The advantages of this expansion,
nevertheless, have not been felt equally by everybody. The wealthiest 1% of
Indians own more than four times as much as the poorest 70% of the population (Himanshu,
2022). The World Inequality Report (2022) states that only 13% of the nation's
income is held by the poorest 50% of the population, while the top 10% owns 57%
of it. The fact that 53% of India's wealth is owned by the richest 1% of the
population, especially after the pandemic, serves as more evidence of this
widening wealth disparity. India currently has more billionaires per capita
than any other country in the world, with a sharp rise in income disparity that
has surpassed that of the United States, Brazil, and South Africa (Bharti et
al., 2024). The widening divide in India between the rich and the poor is even
more noticeable than it was during British colonial control (World Inequality
lab, 2024). Social and political divisions are exacerbated by such glaring
economic inequality between various economic classes, which is a major factor
contributing to political polarisation.
These results in
tensions between different social groups, central and state governments, and
supporters and dissenters of the ruling party. The permanence of coalition
politics in India can partly be explained by these economic disparities and
political polarisations. The deterioration of economic conditions is impacted
by political engagement in a way that goes beyond conventional institutional
bounds to include economic goals and concerns about inequality. It has been
typically examined from an economic perspective. However, it becomes more and
more politicized in recent decades, causing a wide range of detrimental
political consequences. Moreover, income inequality can lead to political
inequality by affecting preferences for redistribution, political
participation, and policy responsiveness, ultimately undermining democracy (Polacko,
2022). Growing inequality could undermine social mobility, induce violent conflicts,
and generate political tensions (Justino, 2004). At the same time, there is
widespread concern that the “vicious cycle of poverty” and rising income
inequality constitute an important cause of political polarisation that
threatens to divide and even destabilize a nation (Sen, 2018; Guha-Khasnobis &
Agarwal 2014; Sen & Himanshu 2004).
Moreover, the enduring
disparities in electoral participation between different socioeconomic groups
are partly explained by the mediating role of health, where poor health
resulting from socio-economic disadvantage demobilizes eligible voters,
limiting the political voice of the disadvantaged (Nelson, 2023). This
interplay between economic conditions, inequalities, and political engagement
underscores the complex relationship between economic disparities and political
participation in India. The privatization and globalization policies have
primarily benefited those with higher education, often accessible to the
already privileged sections of society, leaving the middle and lower classes
with dwindling opportunities for upward mobility. By fostering majoritarian
politics, intensified communal and ideological divisions. The rise in
majoritarian rhetoric and policies has often marginalized minority communities,
further polarising the political landscape.
Economic inequality causes individuals who feel left behind to become disillusioned, which in turn exacerbates political polarisation in a number of ways. Marginalised groups frequently feel abandoned by the political system because they experience long-term unemployment, inadequate healthcare, and inadequate education (Varghese, 2023). Voter dissatisfaction may take the form of apathy or, on the other hand, support for populist leaders who offer drastic reforms. People who are afraid about their financial situation frequently turn to their identity groups whether they are regional, religious, or caste-based for comfort (Bauernschuster et al., 2009). Political parties use these identities as a means of building voter bases, which exacerbates division (Huber & Suryanarayan, 2016). Economically disadvantaged groups, for example, might unite behind leaders who swear to defend their interests, while wealthier segments might back those who promise to uphold the status quo. Growth in the economy has been disproportionately concentrated in cities, widening the gap between them and rural areas (Anand & Thampi, 2016). Rural residents feel more and more isolated since they frequently lack access to basic infrastructure and employment possibilities. Political polarisation is largely a result of the urban-rural divide, as evidenced by the different political priorities and preferences of urban and rural voters.
Theoretical background
A comprehensive overview of various theoretical frameworks that
elucidate the relationship between economic disparity and political
polarization (Table 1). Political polarization, the increasing ideological
distance and hostility between different political groups, has been a growing
concern globally. Understanding the theoretical underpinnings can help in dissecting
how economic inequality influences political behaviour and societal divisions
(Figure 1).
|
Theoretical
Framework |
Key
Proponents |
Core
Concepts |
Relationship
between Economic Disparity and Political Polarization |
|
Relative
Deprivation Theory |
Ted
Robert Gurr |
Focuses
on the perception of inequality and deprivation relative to others. |
Economic
disparity leads to feelings of relative deprivation, which can foster
resentment and political polarization. |
|
Economic
Voting Theory |
Anthony
Downs, Douglas Hibbs |
Economic
self-interest and economic performance are the main factors that influence
voters' political decisions.. |
Increased
economic inequality can cause discontent with the current state of affairs,
which fuels polarisation as various groups push for reform. |
|
Social
Identity Theory |
Henri
Tajfel, John Turner |
Belonging
to a group gives people a sense of identity and self-worth.. |
Economic
inequality can intensify group identities (such as class and ethnicity),
increasing polarisation and the differences between in-groups and out-groups. |
|
Class
Conflict Theory |
Karl
Marx, Friedrich Engels |
There
are competing classes in society, especially between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat. |
Class
conflict is exacerbated by economic inequality, which fuels political
polarisation between the status quo's supporters and detractors. |
|
Modernization
Theory |
Seymour
Martin Lipset |
Social
structures and political institutions change as a result of economic
development and modernisation.. |
Development
might theoretically lessen polarisation by reducing economic gaps, but quick
changes can sometimes momentarily make polarisation worse. |
|
Elite
Theory |
C.
Wright Mills, Gaetano Mosca |
There
is a constrained ruling elite and the general populace in society. |
The
elite, who frequently profit from economic inequality, may utilise political
division as a tactic to hold onto power and control over resources. |
|
Social
Fragmentation Theory |
Robert
Putnam, Francis Fukuyama |
Social
dispersion brought on by economic inequality can erode trust and social
cohesiveness. |
As
various groups pursue their interests, growing economic disparity can cause
social bonds to deteriorate and political polarisation to increase. |
|
Rational
Choice Theory |
Gary
Becker, James Buchanan |
People
make decisions based on reasoned calculations in order to maximise their
gains.. |
Because
groups may make different logical decisions as a result of economic
inequality, political polarisation may result when they support policies that
serve their interests.. |
|
Resource
Mobilization Theory |
John
McCarthy, Mayer Zald |
Resources
become available and are mobilised to form social movements. |
Economic
inequality can fuel political movements by providing the complaints and
resources they need to get organised, which can polarise society.. |
Conceptual understanding from the theories
The analysis conducted
by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute underscores the growing
political polarisation in India, which has been further aggravated by the
amplification of economic inequities subsequent to the COVID-19 outbreak (Figure
2). V-Dem's reports indicate that India's political division has gotten more
extreme recently. The COVID-19 epidemic has exacerbated already-existing
economic disparities, which have contributed to this polarisation. Lower-income
groups have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic's economic
effects, which have also widened already-existing economic gaps. The economic
recession brought on by the pandemic resulted in a large number of job losses
and income reductions, especially for the most disadvantaged groups. The
public's discontent and mistrust of governmental institutions have been
exacerbated by this economic strain, further polarising the political
landscape. Disinformation and inflammatory rhetoric from political leaders
exacerbate the heightened partisan differences and social tensions that reflect
the rising polarisation. The results also indicate that these economic and
social differences pose serious threats to democracies like India. However,
when it comes to resolving these concerns, democratic institutions typically
outperform authoritarian regimes since they tend to guarantee greater public
health, economic growth, security, and the supply of public goods. Overall,
there is cause for concern regarding the relationship between political polarisation
and economic inequality in India, particularly in light of the recent pandemic.
Figure 2. Graph of
political polarisation (V-Dem, 2024)
Political polarisation
and income inequality in India reveals several significant insights and raises
important questions about the socio-political dynamics at play. The data shows
a clear trend where rising income inequality, as measured by the Gini
coefficient, is associated with increasing political polarisation (Figure 3).
Initially, from 2000 to 2013, political polarisation remained relatively low
and stable despite the steady rise in inequality. This period of political
stability might be attributed to various factors such as economic growth,
social policies, or a lack of significant political upheavals. Political
polarisation has sharply increased since 2013, albeit this could be attributed
to a combination of factors such as the long-term effects of inequality,
growing dissatisfaction across various socioeconomic groups, and possibly the
rise of more divisive political rhetoric and policies. Even while the Gini
coefficient has continued to climb, the variations in political polarisation
that have been seen since 2016 indicate that other factors may possibly be
influencing political dynamics. These could include significant political
developments, governmental transitions, choices made on public policy, or even
external factors like geopolitical tensions or economic crises. Though this
does not immediately translate into less polarisation, it may point to a
plateau in income inequality or to effective measures taken to address extreme
disparities. This illustrates the complex and gradual influence of economic
policies on political sentiments. the unmistakable factual link that has been
shown over a significant amount of time between growing political polarisation
and wealth disparity in India. In addition to emphasising patterns, this
research also shows the potential lag effect of economic disparities on political
dynamics, providing a unique longitudinal viewpoint. This analysis offers a
thorough overview extending over two decades, in contrast to many other studies
that concentrate only on short-term data or isolated instances. This insight into
how long-term economic patterns impact political landscapes.
Figure 3. Combined
graph of Political polarisation and Gini coefficient
New theories regarding
the connection between political behaviour and economic inequality may arise as
a result of the interconnectedness. One such argument, for example, is that
long-term economic inequality feeds the public's sense of disenfranchisement
and division, which feeds political polarisation. A different hypothesis would
investigate how policy choices and political discourse might either lessen or
exacerbate the impact of inequality on political divide. Moreover, the results
indicate that mitigating income inequality via equitable economic policies and
social justice campaigns may be crucial in diminishing political division and
thus fostering a more unified and steady community.
Future research and the development of policies targeted at tackling political and economic issues in concert may build on this integrated approach. Future projections show that unless substantial efforts are taken to address the underlying causes of inequality, political polarisation may either stay high or even worsen if income disparity keeps rising. Polarisation may be lessened by policies that support social fairness, equitable resource allocation, and inclusive economic growth. Political stability also depends on encouraging political discourse and minimising divisive speech. It would be essential to comprehend and deal with the interaction of political and economic elements in order to guarantee a more cohesive and stable socio-political climate in India. Between the years 2000 and 2022. Political polarisation and the Gini coefficient show an increasing trend over this time. Up until about 2005, political polarisation was comparatively constant. Then, it started to climb dramatically, peaked around 2015, then slightly declined before rising once more by 2022. Simultaneously, the Gini coefficient exhibits a consistent upward trend, signifying a growth in income disparity. The concurrent increase in both measures raises the possibility of a link and shows that the widening political gulf may be exacerbated by rising income disparity. This association highlights how crucial it is to solve economic inequality in order to perhaps lessen political division.
Notable Cases and Key
Incidents
A
detailed chronological examination of significant incidents and policy
developments in India (Table 2) reveals the complex connection between economic
inequality and political polarisation. Covers the early 1990s to the present, highlights
notable events that have had a substantial impact on the country's economic and
political environments. The narrative begins with 1991's historic economic
liberalisation, which heralded a new age of rapid economic growth, increasing
foreign direct investment (FDI), and job creation. This time marked the
creation of a wealthy elite and intensified the urban-rural split, setting the
framework for future socioeconomic inequities. The Babri Masjid demolition in
1992 stands as a critical juncture, religious polarisation is rising and
impacting the political discourse, with long-term consequences for community
ties and political alignment (Chandhoke
& Priyadarshi, 2009).
As India transitioned
into the 2000s, the IT and service industry boom highlighted the country's
economic dynamism, resulting in significant wealth creation in metropolitan
areas. However, this growth revealed differences between geographies and social
groupings. Concurrently, substantial governmental interventions, such as the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and the implementation of
reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), attempted to redress some of these
discrepancies. Despite these efforts, events such as the Gujarat riots and the
anti-corruption campaign highlight the persistent conflict between economic
advancement and social fairness (Jaffrelot, 2015). Following
2014, a new government emerged with promises of economic reforms, most notably
the "Make in India" initiative and the controversial demonetisation
policy of 2016. These measures, while intended to stimulate economic growth,
generated political polarisation and arguments about their efficacy and goal (Mahmood, 2017).
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) implementation serves as an example of the
challenges associated with striking a balance between economic changes and
regional disparities. However, its effect on economic inequality has come under
fire because, notwithstanding exemptions for necessities, the regressive nature
of the tax system unfairly impacts lower-income people (Mukherjee, 2020). This
discrepancy deepens ideological rifts, escalating political polarisation and
marginalised groups' sense of economic unfairness. Regional inequities have
been exacerbated by the GST's implementation issues, such as the costs placed
on small enterprises to comply with the law. This has led to heated discussions
between political ideologies that support decentralised versus centralised
fiscal policies. As a result, the GST has not only changed the economic
landscape of India but also the socio-political landscape, intensifying
ideological and economic divisions.
Recent
years have seen substantial social movements and legal advancements that
intersect with economic and political challenges. Farmers' rallies against
controversial agriculture policies, as well as Dalit protests (Bharat Bandh),
underscore the continuous battle for economic equity and social justice. The
repeal of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic, highlight the complexities of governmental decisions and
their broader socioeconomic consequences. Recent developments from 2022 and
2023, including ethnic unrest in Manipur and the Supreme Court's decision on
the SC/ST Atrocities Act. These events demonstrate the ongoing impact of
economic and social inequities on political polarisation, illustrating both
their permanence and change in modern India. Caste plays a significant role in
economic inequality, with lower caste groups such as Dalits facing structural
disadvantages. This issue has been highlighted by movements such as the Bhim
Army's action in Uttar Pradesh and the Dalit marches in Maharashtra in 2018
against caste-based violence and prejudice. Political polarisation arises as a result of caste-based economic
imbalances, when marginalised groups mobilise against legislation and political
parties they believe will perpetuate their economic and social enslavement. The
rise of Dalit political movements, as well as their support for social justice
and economic redistribution parties, demonstrate how caste-based economic
inequities aggravate political polarisation (Weiner, 2001;
Jaffrelot, 2015).
Farmer Protests and the Agrarian Crisis (2020–2021) Protests erupted across the country in 2020 in response to three agriculture bills passed by the Indian government that were perceived to promote large corporations over local farms. For more than a year, farmers, largely from Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, occupied Delhi's borders and demanded that the rules be lifted. This episode highlights how long-standing issues such as low crop prices, debt, and insufficient support may cause economic hardship for farmers (Kumar, 2021; 2024). The protests' widespread support from opposition parties has created a visible political schism between the incumbent government and its opponents. The agricultural crisis exposed the link between political division and economic grievances. This overview gives a nuanced viewpoint on how economic policies, social disparities, and political polarisation overlap and grow over time.
Table 2. Key incidents and policy developments connect economic
inequality and polarisation in India.
|
Year |
Event/Case |
Economic
Impact |
Political
Impact |
|
1991 |
Economic
Liberalization Begins |
Rapid economic
growth, increasing FDI and employment creation. |
The rise of an
affluent elite has deepened the urban-rural gap. |
|
1992 |
Babri Masjid
Demolition and Subsequent Riots |
Economic
disruption due to the communal conflicts. |
Increased
religious polarisation, emergence of Hindutva politics. |
|
2000-2010 |
IT and Service
Sector Boom |
Creating new
wealth in urban areas and IT hubs. |
Political
power transfers towards metropolitan regions; the middle class emerges as a
crucial voter base. |
|
2002 |
Gujarat Riots |
Economic
losses in impacted towns, and long-term distrust affecting local economies |
Political
consolidation of Gujarat Governmet, polarisation along religious lines |
|
2005 |
NREGA
(National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) |
Ensured
economic security for rural populations |
Political
mobilization of rural poor |
|
2006 |
OBC
Reservations in Educational Institutions |
Increased
access to education for backward classes |
Political
polarisation over reservation policy has a tremendous impact on student
politics. |
|
2014 |
General Election |
Promises of
economic reforms, "Make in India" initiative |
Strong
mandate, polarisation based on economic promises, and development of Hindutva
politics. |
|
2016 |
Demonetization |
Disruptions in
the informal sector, cash shortages |
Political
polarisation, dispute on economic efficacy, and intention. |
|
2017 |
Implementation
of GST (Goods and Services Tax) |
Simplification
of tax structure, compliance costs |
Mixed
reactions, economic differences among states, and political disagreement |
|
2018-2019 |
Farmer
Protests |
Highlighted
agrarian distress |
Political
mobilization of farmers, impact on 2019 elections |
|
2018 |
Dalit Protests
(Bharat Bandh) |
Highlighted
economic and social issues faced by Dalits |
Political
mobilisation of Dalit communities, challenging government. |
|
2019 |
Abrogation of
Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir |
Economic
uncertainty in Jammu and Kashmir, impact on tourism and businesses |
Political
polarisation, heightened tension in Jammu and Kashmir, national debate on
autonomy and security |
|
2020 |
COVID-19
Pandemic |
Economic
contraction, job losses, migrant crisis |
Political
debates about crisis management and polarisation over lockdown tactics. |
|
2020-2021 |
Farmers'
Protest against Farm Bills |
Perceived
threat to small farmers' incomes |
Large-scale
demonstrations, political coalitions, and polarisation over agricultural
reforms |
|
2020 |
Delhi Riots |
Economic
losses in affected areas, impact on local businesses |
Increased
communal tensions, political discussions on law and order, and religious
polarisation |
|
2022 |
Anti-Muslim
Riots in Karnataka |
Economic
impact on affected communities and disruption in local businesses |
Increased
communal polarisation, political disagreements regarding state and national
government responses |
|
2022 |
Release of the
film "The Kashmir Files" |
Increased
interest in Kashmir-related tourism, disagreement over the film's
representation of historical events. |
Political and
communal polarisation, impact on the discourse about Kashmir |
|
2023 |
Manipur Ethnic
Violence |
Severe
economic upheaval, population displacement, and effects on local economies |
Increased
ethnic and political polarisation, leading to examination of state and
federal government actions. |
|
2023 |
Supreme Court
Verdict on SC/ST Atrocities Act |
Potential
effects on social and economic protections for marginalised communities |
Political
reactions surrounding the preservation of Dalit and tribal populations, and
their impact on upcoming elections |
Conclusion
The
central thesis posited that growing economic disparities significantly
contribute to the intensifying political divide, with marginalized groups
seeking greater representation and wealthy strata consolidating their
influence. The analysis revealed that regions with higher levels of economic
inequality tend to exhibit more pronounced political polarisation, driven by
socio-economic grievances and competing interests. This phenomenon is primarily
driven by the disenfranchised segments of the population rallying behind
populist leaders who promise economic reforms and social justice, while the
affluent segments support policies that favour economic liberalization and
growth, leading to a polarised political landscape.
The
broader implications of these insight are profound for Indian society and
politics. The growing divide poses a significant challenge to India's
democratic fabric, as it undermines social cohesion and effective governance.
Political polarisation fuelled by economic inequality can lead to policy
gridlock, where crucial reforms are stalled due to partisan conflicts. This not
only hampers economic development but also exacerbates social tensions, making
it difficult to address pressing issues such as poverty, healthcare, and
education. To mitigate these effects, it is imperative for policymakers to
implement measures that promote economic inclusivity and equitable growth.
Strategies such as progressive taxation, which can help to reduce income inequality, are essential.
Additionally, substantial investments in education and healthcare can empower
the economically disadvantaged, providing them with better opportunities and
reducing the socio-economic divide. Strengthening social safety nets, such as
unemployment benefits and food security programs, can also play a crucial role
in alleviating economic distress and fostering social stability.
Furthermore, bridging the gap between wealthy and marginalised places can be achieved by tackling regional economic imbalances through focused development projects. To promote more equitable and inclusive economic growth, undeveloped regions can benefit from the establishment of special economic zones (SEZs), which can boost local economies, provide employment, and lessen the burden of migration on urban centres. Future studies should examine how the media contributes to political polarisation, considering its enormous impact on voter sentiment and election results. Further understanding of the causal links between political behaviour and economic inequality may come by examining the effects of regional economic policy on local political dynamics. Longitudinal studies examining the long-term effects of economic policies on political polarisation would be particularly valuable in understanding these dynamics over time. In sum, addressing economic inequality is not only crucial for economic justice but also for ensuring a more harmonious and less polarized political landscape in India. This emphasises how crucial it is to launch coordinated policy initiatives to close the economic gap in order to promote social cohesiveness and democratic stability. Addressing these discrepancies through well-informed policy interventions would be crucial to securing a more egalitarian and politically peaceful future as India grows and changes. Economic inclusion will open the door to a more robust and resilient democracy that can meet the needs and ambitions of all of its people.
References
Appendix
|
Year |
Political polarization |
Political polarization CI
(Low) |
Political polarization CI
(High) |
|
2000 |
2.087 |
1.658 |
2.415 |
|
2001 |
2.481 |
2.107 |
2.838 |
|
2002 |
2.283 |
1.913 |
2.648 |
|
2003 |
2.08 |
1.677 |
2.43 |
|
2004 |
2.08 |
1.677 |
2.43 |
|
2005 |
1.892 |
1.591 |
2.178 |
|
2006 |
1.892 |
1.591 |
2.178 |
|
2007 |
1.892 |
1.591 |
2.178 |
|
2008 |
1.892 |
1.591 |
2.178 |
|
2009 |
1.892 |
1.591 |
2.178 |
|
2010 |
2.066 |
1.798 |
2.355 |
|
2011 |
2.066 |
1.798 |
2.355 |
|
2012 |
2.138 |
1.867 |
2.432 |
|
2013 |
2.343 |
2.084 |
2.664 |
|
2014 |
3.467 |
3.225 |
3.753 |
|
2015 |
3.581 |
3.394 |
3.882 |
|
2016 |
3.657 |
3.506 |
3.932 |
|
2017 |
3.631 |
3.446 |
3.875 |
|
2018 |
3.642 |
3.485 |
3.914 |
|
2019 |
3.642 |
3.485 |
3.914 |
|
2020 |
3.459 |
3.25 |
3.752 |
|
2021 |
3.467 |
3.206 |
3.727 |
|
2022 |
3.462 |
3.223 |
3.739 |
|
2023 |
3.745 |
3.631 |
3.983 |