And the conclusion?

#...It would appear that the planning and implementation of public policies seeking to advance collective wellbeing is more important than the scale or rate of economic growth...#

Or:

...Well-being of society is subservient to imperatives of profit assisted by political corruption!...

Your conclusions indicate to me that 'trickle down' generally doesn't work.Average income figures mean so little when the 1% of millionaires and billionaires take such gross amounts.
Governments world wide have not be good at reigning these hyper greedy types in. These are the world's true parasites. Even in Australia we see the same thing. Something needs to be done to ensure that these people at least pay their fair share of tax. A wealth tax is needed on top of this.

The myth that they worked hard for what they have is a nonsense. As an Australian owning my home and on superannuation and rent income of $45,000 (apparently this is a low income!) I can say I no longer have to work because money/ wealth makes money. There is nothing fair or equitable about it. Once people are billionaires, I think there is only one word for it - obscene.

Interesting article

There probably needs to be a clearer distinction between the absolute measures of wellbeing, which have unambiguously improved; and relative ones, which have not. It appears some of India's neighbours have achieved better welfare results with lower economic growth. That doesn't mean that economic growth is irrelevant to improving welfare – I very much doubt that India would have enjoyed the absolute improvements in welfare that it has without economic growth. But it does mean that other factors are also at play in determining how effectively growth translates into welfare benefits. That wouldn’t surprise any development economist, I think.