This Economic Times editorial says that India’s poverty rate is down from 38% in 1998 to 24% now. The ET says that this finally proves that reforms haven’t hurt the poor and have actually benefitted from them.

The editorial then goes on to temper its enthusiasm. It points out that the fall is probably because of lower food prices than because of reforms.
I don’t understand how the current set of reforms could have benefitted the poor. The poor will benefit when they get better employment. They will get better employment when it is easier to set up industries. I haven’t seen evidence that there has been an increase in employment or that more industries are being set up.

If anything reforms should have led to a reduction in employment. It is still tough to sack workers in established industries, but import of goods is easier. These two things put together mean that industries are closing down rather than becoming more efficient. It is still difficult to set up new industries because there are still are restrictions like reservations for small-scale industries. (Those small-scale industries, of course, can neither grow nor become more efficient)

So why haven’t the reforms hurt the poor?

(Just to clarify, I support reforms wholehe?rtedly. I want them to move faster.)