National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development ... development and higher education of scheduled castes, other backward castes, senior .... Uttar Pradesh is the best performer in urban India in health ..... List of Annexures.
Final Report
Study on
Development of Indices for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) and Senior Citizens (Sponsored by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India)
National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development (formerly Institute of Applied Manpower Research), NITI Aayog, Government of India, Sector A7, Institutional Area, Narela, Delhi-110040
March, 2015
Study on
Development of Indices for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) and Senior Citizens (Sponsored by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India)
Dr. Santosh Mehrotra Dr. Jajati K. Parida Dr. Sanchita Bhattacharya Ms. Neha Kumra
National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development
NITI Aayog, Government of India
Acknowledgement
The Report titled Development of Indices for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Persons with disabilities (PWDs) and Senior Citizens is an outcome of immense hard work and team effort. The project has been sponsored by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. Our special thanks are extended to the Ministry for sponsoring this very important work. We are sincerely thankful to Shri Mukat Singh, Deputy Director General, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment for extending his cooperation in conducting the study. At the time of preparation of this report we were benefitted from our discussion with Dr. P. K. Saxena, Joint Director, who has prepared the concept note for the project. We are thankful to him. The entire process of preparation of the report involved consultation with domain experts. Our thanks are due to them. We thank all who are directly or indirectly involved in preparation of this report. We take the responsibility for any possible errors and omissions.
i
Preface The concept of human development emerged in the late 1980s. It was based on the conceptual foundation provided by Dr. Amartya Sen and Dr. Mahbub ul Haq which puts people at the centre of the development agenda, where economic growth and wealth are considered means to development and not an end by itself. The Human Development Index (HDI), first introduced in the 1990 Human Development Report (UNDP: 1990), was in response to the need for a measure that could better represent human achievements in several basic capabilities (what people can do and be) than income based indices of growth and development and could provide a credible alternative to them. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a response to the need for a measure that could better represent human achievements in several basic capabilities than income based indices of growth and development. The HDI was conceived to cover achievements in three basic dimensions ‐ longevity, education and living standard. Over a period of time, the detailed composition of each index in the HD family has been subject to change as methodological advances have been incorporated. It is against this background that at the instance of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the study was conducted to develop Indices for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Persons with disabilities (PwDs) and senior citizens. In the study, the indices for various categories are computed separately by taking a simple average of health, education and standard of living. For computing HDI for different categories, varying dimensions of these three variables are taken into account. The study is mainly based upon the secondary data from National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), National Family Health Survey (NFHS), etc. In addition, various reports/documents pertaining to income, health, education and finally human development aspects were examined. For identifying various issues pertaining to human development and higher education of scheduled castes, other backward castes, senior citizens and disabled population interviews and discussions were held with subject experts. ii
The practice of caste-based exclusion and discrimination involves failure of access and entitlements of socially disadvantaged groups in economic, civil, cultural and political rights. The marginalized population lags far behind than other sections in terms of primary and higher education, health, access to resources and urbanization. Several issues pertaining to development issues and labour market experiences of disabled population and senior citizens of India also need to be looked into. The study is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter gives an introduction of the concept of and approaches to human resource development. The second chapter reviews the existing literature and rationale for developing human resource development indicator (HDI) in Indian context. Chapter three discusses the methodology and data sources for the study. Chapter four discusses HDI for Scheduled Castes, Other backward Classes and other categories. HDI for senior citizens /elderly people is examined in chapter five. Higher education index for SCs, STs, OBCs and others category are discussed in chapter six. Seventh chapter deals with HDI of disabled/differently- abled people of the country. All this analysis has been conducted across major states and for different points of time 1999-00 and 2011-12. So a comparative review of the performance of major states of India in the context of human development for vulnerable sections of population is made possible over a decade. The report was prepared under the leadership of Dr. Santosh Mehrotra, by a team consisting of Dr. Sanchita Bhattacharya, Dr. Jajati K. Parida and Ms. Neha Kumra.
Dr. Santosh Mehrotra Director General
iii
Executive summary
The concept of human development emerged in the late 1980s. It was based on the conceptual foundation provided by Dr. Amartya Sen and Dr. Mahbub ul Haq which puts people at the centre of the development agenda, where economic growth and wealth are considered means to development and not an end by itself. The Human Development Index (HDI), first introduced in the 1990 Human Development Report (UNDP: 1990), was in response to the need for a measure that could better represent human achievements in several basic capabilities (what people can do and be) than income based indices of growth and development and could provide a credible alternative to them. The human development (HD) story of India is unique in its kind. Through the preparation of Human Development Reports (HDR), not only at national, but also at subnational level, India has decentralised and integrated the human development concept into its development agenda at national, state, as well as district and municipality level. The Human Development Reports use three indices to measure progress on human development. The first Human Development Report in 1990 introduced a new way of measuring development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite HDI. Over a period of time, the detailed composition of each index in the HD family has been subject to change as methodological advances have been incorporated. It is against this background that at the instance of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the study was conducted to develop Indices for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Persons with disabilities (PwDs) and senior citizens. In the study, the indices for various categories are computed separately by taking a simple average of health, education and standard of living. For computing HDI for different categories, varying dimensions of these three variables are taken into account. The sources of data used are National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), Central Statistical Organization (CSO) and National Family Health Survey (NFHS).
iv
HDI for different Scheduled Castes, Other backward Classes and other categories Regarding HDI among the major states, Kerala is the top performer for All and General category, Maharashtra being the top ranker for SC and Punjab for OBC in 2011-12. For rural India, Kerala is the best performer for All and General category, Himachal is at the top for SC and OBC in 2011-12. In 2011-12, among the major states, for urban India, Himachal performed the best for all categories; Karnataka scored the highest for SC, Tamil Nadu for OBC and Kerala for General category. Kerala’s position somewhat worsened for OBC category in rural as well as whole of India in terms of HDI ranking in 2011-12 compared to 1999-2000 period. For SC category, Kerala’s position worsened in HDI ranking in the country in 2011 -12 compared to 1999-2000. It merits mention that in 2011-12, for Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, the index for SC was higher than that of the General category. In the same year with the exception of Kerala and Haryana, all other states exhibited a better performance in human development for their OBC population than that of all categories.
HDI for Senior citizens/elderly population The HDI for Senior citizens/elderly population is computed by taking into account health, education and income components. The education index is calculated on the basis of literacy rate, the health index on the basis of labour force participation rate (a proxy for health for senior citizens), and income index on the basis of monthly per capita expenditure (inflation and inequality adjusted). HDI is calculated for 1999-00 and 2011-12. Participation rate in labour force signifies a better health condition for the elderly/ senior citizens, so labour force participation rate has been used as a proxy for health of senior citizens.
v
Regarding health dimension, Himachal Pradesh secures the first position for rural and for all areas. Uttar Pradesh is the best performer in urban India in health related aspects of senior citizens. In terms of income dimension for senior citizens, Kerala exhibits the best performance for the country. Punjab is the best performer for rural area and Karnataka for urban India. The education index for elderly shows that Kerala is the best performer for rural, urban and for the country as a whole. Regarding rural area, it is followed by Assam, while by West Bengal for urban all areas. It is found that over a period of time, there has been an improvement in HDI for senior citizens/elderly population both in rural and urban areas. In 1999-2000, the HDI for elderly population/senior citizens for all areas was 0.43, whereas for rural areas it was just below i.e., 0.38, but for urban area it was significantly high i.e. 0.61. During the period 1999-2000 to 2011-12, the HDI increased quite significantly. For all areas it increased to 0.56, whereas for rural area it remained just below i.e. 0.48, but for urban area it was significantly high i.e. 0.75. In 2011-12, Kerala appeared the best performer in terms of HDI. Himachal Pradesh had occupied the second rank in HDI for elderly rural India. Tamil Nadu is the next best performer after Kerala for urban as well as for rural and urban areas together. Index for Higher Education for Scheduled Castes, Other backward Classes and other categories To compute the index for higher education, (a) gross enrollment ratio at graduation and above level (both technical and general), and (b) relative share of graduates and above (both technical and general) in labour force are taken into consideration. The index is computed at two points of time 1999-00 and 2011-12 for SC, ST, OBC, General and for all categories of population. In rural India over the period of time, the scenario for higher education for all sections of population has improved quite reasonably. Rural Himachal is the top performer for SC and All categories. For OBC, Kerala is the best performer, whereas, Bihar performs the best for General category. Rural Haryana performs the best for ST category. Urban India shows that Himachal is the best performer in higher education for vi
OBC and ST category and Gujarat for SC. The Urban area of Tamil Nadu secures the first rank for General category and Haryana for all categories. It is found that among the major states of rural India Himachal Pradesh is the best performer in terms of improving higher education. In urban India, the best performance is exhibited by Haryana. The index for all categories has increased from .07 to 0.15 during the period 1999-00 to 2011-12, the index for general category being the highest at both point of time. The index for SC and ST are almost equal and that of OBC is higher than that of SC and ST. Among the states, Tamil Nadu performs the best for OBC, General and all categories. Haryana is the best performer for ST and Maharashtra for SC for the country taking rural and urban areas together.
Human Development Index for persons with disabilities The human development index for disabled persons is calculated taking health, education and income into consideration. Education index has been calculated on the basis of literacy rate for disabled population. Income index has been computed on the basis of monthly per capita expenditure (inflation and inequality adjusted) of disabled population. Health index is computed on the basis of infant mortality rate for all (a proxy for IMR for all in the absence of IMR for disabled population). A simple average of health, education and income is taken to compute HDI for disabled people of India. India has been able to promote human development for the disabled population over the years both in rural and urban areas. The respective index for the country as a whole increased from 0.19 in 1999-2000 to 0.25 in 2011-12. During the same period, the respective index for rural India increased from 0.16 to 0.21. On the other hand, during the same period the corresponding index for urban India increased from 0.30 to 0.34. For the disabled persons/differently-abled people, Kerala ranks first in human development ladder at both points of time. Kerala’s performance is the best in vii
rural, urban as well as for the country taking rural and urban areas together in 1999-00 and in 2011-12. Among the states, in 2011-12, Tamil Nadu was at the second position followed by Maharashtra. In rural India also Tamil Nadu occupied the second position in terms of human development for disabled people. In urban India, Himachal Pradesh ranked second. The distinction between consistently well performing states and the poor performing ones is evident. The poor performers in HDI have performed poor in health and education as well. In these poorly faring states, usually there is concentration of marginalized
and
disadvantaged social groups. These states lack resources,
infrastructure, basic health facilities, especially in their rural areas, perpetuate deprivation and inequalities for their inhabitants, in general and of backward communities, in particular. HDI ranking reflects performance in health, education and Income. Hence, the ranking in the HDI ladder has an impact on the policy of the state governments. To improve their ranking, the state governments could bring in policy changes to improve facilities for health and education, and subsequently improving opportunities for employment and income enhancements.
Summary HDI for Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes have been estimated as 0.30 and 0.35 respectively. HDI for All and General category are 0.35 and 0.48 respectively. The percentage changes in HDI over the decade are 39.5, 50.4, 47.3 and 61.9 for All, SC. OBC and General category respectively. The top ranking states are Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Haryana. The bottom ranking states are Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. HDI for elderly is .56. The top performers for elderly are Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, West Bengal and Maharashtra. The bottom ranking states are Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Bihar. The higher education index for ST, SC, OBC, General and All category are .10,.09,.14,.23 and .15 respectively. The top performing states are Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. At the bottom of the ladder are Assam, Orissa, Bihar, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. HDI for viii
disabled people is .25. The top performing states are Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh.
The bottom performing states are Uttar
Pradesh, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Gujarat.
Summary Table Group Index Type
Rank of States in 2011-12
% change in 1999- 2011-12 HDI Value 00
Human ALL Development SC OBC Index
GEN Higher Education Index
HDI Value
0.25 0.20 0.23 0.29
0.35 0.30 0.35 0.48
39.5 50.4 47.3 61.9
0.07 0.03 0.04 0.12
0.15 0.09 0.14 0.23
114.3 200 250 91.7
Human Rural Development Urban Index for Total Elderly
0.38 0.61 0.43
0.48 0.75 0.56
26.3 22.9 30.2
Rural Urban Total
0.16 0.30 0.19
0.21 0.34 0.25
31.3 13.3 31.6
Human Development Index for Disabled Persons
ALL SC OBC GEN
ix
Top Five
Bottom Five
Kerala Himachal Tamil Nadu Pradesh Maharashtra Haryana Tamil Nadu Kerala Andhra Pradesh Himachal Jammu Pradesh& Kashmir Kerala
Bihar Orissa Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Rajasthan Assam Orissa Bihar Gujarat Madhya Pradesh
Tamil Nadu Punjab West Bengal Maharashtra Kerala Tamil Nadu Maharashtra Jammu & Himachal Kashmir Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh Orissa Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh Bihar Uttar Pradesh Orissa Andhra Pradesh West Bengal Gujarat
Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7
Introduction Review of Literature Methodology The Present Scenario HDI for Senior citizens/elderly People Higher Education Index HDI for Persons with Disabilities Policy Notes References
Page Number 1 5 12 17 64 77 85 94 97
List of Tables Table 1.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table 4.13 Table 4.14 Table 4.15 Table 4.16 Table 4.17 Table 4.18 Table 4.19 Table 4.20 Table 4.21 Table 4.22 Table 4.23
Demography of Indian Aging Education Index in major states (rural+urban) of India 1999-2012 Rank of Education Index in major states (rural+urban) of India 1999-2012 2012 Education Index in major states of Rural India 1999-2012 Rank of Education Index in major states of Rural India 1999-2012 Education Index in major states of Urban India 1999-2012 Rank of Education Index in major states of Urban India 1999-2012 (Rural+urban) Literacy rate (age 7 and more) in major states, 19992012 Rural Literacy rate (age 7 and more) in major states, 1999-2012 Urban Literacy rate (age 7 and more) in major states, 1999-2012 Mean Years of Schooling (age 7 and more) in major states of India 1999-2012 (Rural+Urban) Mean Years of Schooling (age 7 and more) in major states of Rural India 1999-2012 Mean Years of Schooling (age 7 and more) in major states of Urban India 1999-2012 State-wise Health Index in Rural+Urban State-wise Rank of Health Index in Rural+Urban State-wise Health Index in Rural areas State-wise Rank of Health Index in Rural areas State-wise Health Index in Urban areas State-wise Rank of Health Index in Urban areas State-wise Infant Mortality Rate in Rural+Urban State-wise Infant Mortality Rate in Rural areas State-wise Infant Mortality Rate in Urban areas State-wise Income Index (Rural+Urban) State-wise Rank of Income Index (Rural+Urban) x
4 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 29 30 31 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 46 47
Table 4.24 Table 4.25 Table 4.26 Table 4.27 Table 4.28 Table 4.29 Table 4.30 Table 4.31 Table 4.32 Table 4.33 Table 4.34 Table 4.35 Table 4.36 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Table 5.11 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8
State-wise Income Index in Rural areas State-wise Rank of Income Index in Rural areas State-wise Income Index in Urban areas State-wise Rank of Income Index in Urban areas State-wise Human Development Index in Rural+Urban State-wise Rank of Human Development Index in Rural+Urban State-wise Human Development Index in Rural areas State-wise Human Development Index in Rural areas State-wise Human Development Index in Urban areas State-wise Rank of Human Development Index in Urban areas State-wise % change in Human Development Index in Rural+Urban State-wise % change in Human Development Index in Rural areas State-wise % change in Human Development Index in Urban areas State-wise literacy rate (age 60 & above) elderly population (in %) State-wise Education Index elderly population Rank of Education Index for elderly Population State-wise labour force participation rate of elderly population (age 60 State-wise Health Index of elderly population (age 60 and above) Rank of Health Index for elderly Population and above) Monthly per capita expenditure( Inequality Adjusted at 2000-01 prices Index for elderly Population Income Rank of Income Index for elderly Population ) for elderly population State-wise HDI elderly population (age 60 and above) Rank of HDI elderly Population State-wise Higher Education index (Rural+Urban), 1999-2012 State-wise Rank of Higher Education index (Rural+Urban), 1999State-wise Higher Education index (Rural), 1999-2012 2012 State-wise Rank of Higher Education index (Rural), 1999-2012 State-wise Higher Education index (Urban), 1999-2012 State-wise Rank of Higher Education index (Urban), 1999-2012 State-wise Education Index for disabled population State-wise Rank of education Index for Disabled persons State-wise health Index for disabled population State-wise rank of health Index for disabled population Income Index for Disabled Population Rank of Income Index for Disabled Population State-wise HDI for disabled population State-wise rank of HDI List of Annexures
Reference Annexure 1 Detailed Tables Annexure 2 Sample size
48 49 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 97-98 99-119 120-123
xi
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction: The concept of human development emerged in the late 1980s. The Human Development approach was based on the conceptual foundation provided by Dr. Amartya Sen and Dr. Mahbub ul Haq. The said approach puts people at the centre of the development agenda, where economic growth and wealth are considered means to development and not an end by itself. Human development approach starts with the idea that the purpose of development is to improve human lives by not only enhancing income but also expanding the range of things that a person can be and can do, such as be healthy and well nourished, be knowledgeable, and to participate in community life. So, development is about removing the obstacles to what a person can do in life, obstacles such as lack of income, illiteracy, ill health, lack of access to resources, or lack of civil and political freedoms. Sen expresses: “…the twin recognition that human beings can 1) fare far better, and 2) do much more to bring this about may sensibly be seen as the two central thesis of the human development approach.” The Human Development Index (HDI), first introduced in the 1990 Human Development Report (UNDP: 1990), was in response to the need for a measure that could better represent human achievements in several basic capabilities (what people can do and be) than income based indices of growth and development and could provide a credible alternative to them (Kelly, 1991, Anand and Sen, 1994). The consensus at that time was that the multi‐dimensional character of human development was neglected in the typical measures of economic development, mostly GDP and GNP. The Human Development Report has been prepared annually since then. These reports are translated into more than a dozen languages. National and regional HDRs are also being prepared. These reports are regionally and nationally/sub-nationally and carry the message of importance of human development approach to the regional and country level. In many countries HDRs have become an essential tool for national and sub1
national policy making. Around 700 regional and national/sub-national reports have been prepared in over 140 countries so far. These reports address various regional, national, and sub-national specific approaches to tackle the current development challenges of poverty reduction, education, health and HIV/AIDS, human rights and gender, environment and effects of climate change, economic reform, and globalization. The HDI was conceived to cover achievements in three basic dimensions ‐ longevity, education and living standard. To capture these three dimensions, the 2009 HDI (as in 2009 HDR) employs four indicators: life expectancy at birth; adult literacy
rate;
combined gross
enrolment
for primary, secondary, and tertiary
education; and GDP per capita in US$ adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity. The human development (HD) story of India is unique in its kind. Through the preparation of Human Development Reports (HDR), not only at national, but also at sub-national level, In d i a has decentralised and integrated the human development concept into its development agenda at national, state, as well as district and municipality level. More sub-national HDRs have been produced in India than in any other country.
At the regional level, human development is put into a regional
context. It provides policy advice and promotes partnerships for tackling the issues of highest relevance and exigency related to Human development in the region. The multi stake holder approach in preparing the HDRs has contributed to sensitisation of governments, civil society, academia, and the public on the human development issues and challenges at different levels. More HDRs have been produced in India than the total number of Global HDRs. The Government of India (GOI) and UNDP India worked together on HD for ten years (1999-2009) in the form of two projects - Capacity Building for Preparation of State Human Development Reports 1999-2005 and strengthening State Plans for Human Development 2004-2009. The
former
supported
State
governments in preparation of State level Human Development Reports, the latter went beyond the mere preparation of HDRs to integrating human development in 2
State and district planning processes including preparation of district level HDRs. Human Development Measurements The Human Development Reports use five indices to measure progress on human development. The first Human Development Report in 1990 introduced a new way of measuring development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index, the HDI. The components are measured by four variables: GDP per capita, (PPP USD), literary rates (%), combined gross enrollment ratio(%) and life expectancy at birth (years). The composite index results in a figure between 0 and 1 -1 indicates high level of human development and 0 being no level of human development. Countries are consequently given a specific rank on the basis of this index indicating their success in achieving HD, presented yearly in the Global HDRs. In
1995,
the
Gender-related Development Index
(GDI) and
Gender
Empowerment Measure (GEM) were added to the reports, as a response to the criticism that HDI did not capture gender inequalities. The GDI measures the same variables as the HDI, but calculates the components separately for women. The methodology used imposes a penalty for inequality, such that the GDI falls when the achievement levels of both women and men in a country diverge or when the disparity between their achievements increases. The greater the gender disparity, the lower a country’s GDI. In simple terms, GDI is the HDI adjusted for gender disparities. The Gender Empowerment Measure focuses on opportunities and captures gender inequality in three key areas: ‘Political participation and decision-making power’, ‘Economic participation
and decision-making power’ and ‘Power over economic
resources’. Recent policy Developments: National Policy on Senior Citizens 2011 The National Policy on Older Persons was announced by the Government of India in the year 1999. Subsequent international efforts made an impact on the implementation
3
of the National Policy on Older Persons. The central and state governments have framed policy and plans for the welfare of older persons. Because of financial and operational deficiencies some states have acted swiftly whereas some have lagged behind in implementing the policies. Pensions, travel concessions, income tax relief, medical benefit, extra interest on savings, security of older persons are provided through an integrated scheme of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. as well as Financial support is also provided for Old People Homes, Day Care Centres, Medical Vans, Help Lines etc. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment coordinates programmes to be undertaken by other Ministries in their relevant areas of support to older persons. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment piloted the legislation-“The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens‟ Act 2007 which is being promulgated by the States and Union Territories in stages. Demography of Indian Aging The large increase in human life expectancy over the years has resulted not only in a very substantial increase in the number of older persons but in a major shift in the age groups of 80 and above. According to United Nations 2002 report on the demographic profile, , the overall population in India will grow by 55% in the years 2000 -2050, whereas population of people in their 60 years and above will increase by 326% and those in the age group of 80+ by 700% - the fastest growing group. Table 1.1: Demography of Indian Aging Years
Total Population
80+ (millions)
2000
(millions) 1008
60+ (millio ns) 76
2050
1572
324
48
6
Source: World population Ageing: 1950-2050; Department of Economic and Social affairs, Population Division, United Nations, New York, 2002. 4
Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Literature Review Adjusting the HDI to National Contexts Globally, it is important to use standard indicators to calculate the HDI for crosscountry comparisons. At the national level, available sub-national data should guide the choice of indicators. Adjusting the HDI should not compromise data quality, especially during the process of disaggragation. The estimation of GDP and life expectancy/infant mortality at lower levels can be tricky, and needs to be done by experts. Milorad Kovacevic (2010) commented about the improvements in the construction of HDI indicators and made a review of HDI critiques. HDI has drawn critiques ever since its first publication.. Some critiques claim that it uses the wrong variables, and that it is not reflecting the human development idea accurately (Lind, 1992, Dasgupta and Weale, 1992, Srinivasan, 1994). The critiques can be summarized under two general areas, first, how to define human development and how to observe and measure its components and determinants, and second, how to aggregate the different indicators to obtain a commonly acceptable single index of human development in order to measure its improvement. Over time, the detailed composition of each index in the HD family has been subject to change as methodological advances have been incorporated. Recognizing and accepting the valid and valuable critiques, the HDI has been modified on different occasions. These changes included (Raworth and Stewart 2002) broadening the scope of the education component by adding another indicator (gross enrolment ratio) to increase variability since literacy data did not allow for differentiation at the top of the distribution. Also, modifications in normalization of component indicators were made by switching from relative maximum and minimum values to fixed goalposts to allow time‐series analysis.
5
Despite its many challenges and critiques, the HDI has been adopted as an analytical tool to measure development by various groups with very different missions and agendas, ranging from international organizations, government departments, academic researchers, to civil society, non‐government organizations and advocacy groups. Education indicator From the HD perspective both initial education at the early stages of a person’s life prior to entry into the world of work, as well as continuing education and expansion of knowledge throughout a person’s life should be equally important, as human development concerns the expansion of capabilities. The HDI relies on two indicators for the dimension of knowledge – adult literacy and gross enrollment ratio for school age children. The mean years of schooling of population are another possibility for assessing the education attainment of population. In spite of its limitations and the debates on the relative merits of one form of education over another, mean years of schooling has provided a robust measure for the input of education into the formation of human capital (Chiswick, 1997). Health indicator Health is central to human development. The most basic personal and societal decisions reflect the salient desire of everyone to live a long and healthy life. However, it is not always clear what are the determinants of longevity and one is even less sure how to achieve such a goal. Sen (1998) has emphasized the importance of
mortality data in
any
assessment of human well‐being because “mortality information has (1) intrinsic importance (since a longer life is valued in itself), (2) enabling significance (since being alive is a necessary condition for our capabilities), and (3) associative relevance (since many other valuable achievements relate negatively to mortality rates).”
6
Indicators derived from mortality rates provide a good picture of overall population health. These indicators include infant and child mortality (the probability of dying between birth and 1, and between 1 and 5 years of age, respectively), adult mortality (the probability of dying between 15 and 60 years of age) and overall life expectancy at birth. Income Indicator The third HDI component – standard of living, command over resources, or simply the income dimension, has been extensively criticized because it is very difficult to measure it. The HDI component of living standards has been measured by the per capita income. “Since any choice of weights should be open to questioning and debating in public discussions, it is crucial that the judgments that are implicit in such weighting be made as clear and comprehensible as possible and thus be open to public scrutiny”(Anand and Sen, 1997). One of major critiques about the HDI’s aggregation concerns the equal weights assigned to the three components. HDR 1991 (UNDP 1991: 88) justifies the equal weighting procedure by explaining that the three indices are equally important, so they deserve equal weights. Streeten (1994) echoes this line and defends use of a simple average stating that it is a good tool for focusing on decreasing gaps between countries, and that there is a political appeal to a simple method. Kelly (1991) recognizes that it is difficult to justify any set of weights but that testing the sensitivity of the HDI and ranking to alternative weights would have been useful. Wolff, Chong and Auffhammer (2009) have examined the consequences of data error in health, education and income statistics used to construct the Human Development Index (HDI). They identified three sources of data error which are due to (i) data updating, (ii) formula revisions and (iii) the use of thresholds to assign a country as ‘low’, ‘medium’, or ‘high’ developed. According to them, currently up to 45% of developing
countries
are
misclassified.
Moreover,
by
replicating
prior
development/macroeconomic studies, they found that key estimated parameters vary by up to 100% due to data error. 7
HDI in Indian context The practice of caste-based exclusion and discrimination involves failure of access and entitlements in economic, civil, cultural and political rights. A simple disaggregation by social groups in terms of education, health, access to resources and urbanization reveals the fact that the SCs and STs lag far behind other sections in India (Thorat, 2007). Thorat (2007) in his study has used a Disparity Ratio to estimate disparities in human development and human poverty and other related variables between SC and non SC/STs and between STs and non SC/STs. The study has suggested that during 1983-2000, the rate of improvement was not high enough to bridge the gap and bring the SCs and STs at par with non SCs/STs which had been the focus and objective of the government policies. In 2000, in spite of an improvement in the level of human development, the disparities between socially marginalized groups of the SCs and STs and the non SC/STs still persisted. It has been observed that the women belonging to marginalized groups suffer from triple deprivations arising out of lack of access to economic resources, as well as caste and gender discrimination. Mitra and Sambamoorthy (2006) in their paper report on the employment of persons with disabilities (PWDs) in India based on data from the 58th round of National Sample Survey, 2002. The study shows that the employment rate of persons with disabilities is relatively low compared to
that
of
the
all-India
working
age
population, with great variations across gender, the urban/rural sectors and states. A multivariate analysis suggests that employment among persons with disabilities is influenced more by individual and household characteristics than human capital. The findings of the study with respect to the employment rates of PWDs and the all-India population are consistent with the international experiences. A disadvantage of the data from schedule 26 of 58th round used in this paper is that it only covers PWDs, and makes it therefore impossible to compare the labour market experience of persons with and without disabilities at a given point in time. Census of India 2001 defined five types of disabilities:- (i) seeing, (ii) speech, (iii) hearing, (iv) movement, and (v) mental. The NSSO undertook a comprehensive 8
survey of disabled persons for the first time in its 36th round during the second half of 1981, the International Year of the Disabled Persons. After a gap of ten years, a second survey on the disabled was carried out in the 47th round during July-December 1991 at the request of Ministry of Social Welfare, Govt. of India. In these surveys, the objective was to provide the database regarding the incidence and prevalence of disability in the country and the basic framework of these surveys viz., the concepts, definitions and operational procedures were kept the same. Prior to 1981, NSS surveys were restricted to only the physically handicapped persons. Since NSS 36th round (1981) an extended definition was used to
cover all
persons with one or more of the three physical
disabilities – visual, communication (i.e. hearing and/ or speech) and loco-motor. The particulars of disability of the disabled persons, such as, the type of disability, degree of disability, cause, age at onset of disability, type of aid/appliance used, etc. were collected along with some socio- economic characteristics. Also, data on developmental milestones and behavioural pattern of all children of age 5-14 years were collected, regardless of whether they were physically handicapped or not. In the rounds of the NSS that collect employment data for large samples (e g, 55th round), PWDs are not identified. As a result, some issues that are essential to understanding the labour market experience of PWDs cannot be tackled with existing data. The third and the latest comprehensive survey on the disabled persons was carried out in the NSS 58th round (July-December 2002), where the coverage was extended to include mental disability also, keeping all other concepts, definitions and procedures for physical disability same as those of the 47th round. Among all working age persons with disability (PWD)s, only 37.6 per cent were employed in 2002 compared to 62.5 per cent for the all-India population in 1999-2000. University of Maryland and National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) conducted India Human Development Survey (IHDS) in 1,503 villages and 971 urban blocks in 33 states and union territories of India invoving 41,554 interviews (Figure AI.1 in Appendix I) This survey buildt on a prior survey conducted by 9
NCAER in 1993–4was unique as
it was designed to measure different dimensions of
human development, with a particular emphasis on understanding social inequalities. Incomes are not usually measured in India as well as in other developing countries. Instead, in these countries surveys measure consumption expenditures or counts of household assets as they are less volatile over timeand are considered more reliable measure. However, survey measures of consumption expenditures have their own problems (for example, respondent fatigue) and volatility (marriages, debts, and health crises can create unrepresentative spikes for some households). The IHDS measured consumption and household assets and made efforts to measure income. By measuring income and its sources, one can know the level of a household’s standard of living and how that level has been achieved. The Inequality adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) represents an index which explicitly accounts for inequalities. The IHDI is particularly critical in the Indian context because average indicators mask inequalities in human development attainments across India’s states. The discussion paper by Suryanarayana, Agrawal and Seeta Prabhu (2011) provide for the first time IHDI estimates for Indian states following the methodology proposed in the 2010 Human Development Report. The paper utilized data from different rounds of the National Sample Survey on appropriate variables. To facilitate a cross-country comparison, the indices were normalized with reference to the goalposts outlined in the HDR 2010. The paper estimated global HDIs across Indian states with reference to the same goalposts as the international ones. The authors suggested that human development outcomes alone, without measurement of inequalities, may significantly mask the performance of individual states. The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) is a large scale survey conducted in a representative sample of households. There have three rounds of survey since the first survey in 1992-93. The survey provides state and national level information for the country related to fertility, infant and child mortality, the practice of family planning, reproductive health, maternal and child health, nutrition, anaemia, utilization and quality of health and family planning services. 10
The District Level Household and Facility Survey is one of the largest ever demographic and health surveys carried out in India, with a sample size of about seven lakh households covering all districts of the country. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW), Government of India, initiated District Level Household and Facility Survey (DLHS) in 1997 to provide district level estimates on health indicators to assist policy makers and programme administrators in decentralized planning, monitoring and evaluation. The latest District Level Household and Facility Survey (DLHS-3, 200708) is third in the series preceded by DLHS-1 in 1998-99 and DLHS-2 in 2002-04. DLHS-3 like other two earlier rounds is designed to provide estimates on maternal and child health, family planning and other reproductive health services. The Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner through their Sample Registration System (SRS) publishes data for infant mortality rate. SRS is designed for reliable estimates of fertility and mortality indicators at State and National level separately for rural and urban areas. It is the only source for fertility and mortality data since 1969-70. The SRS is the largest demographic survey in the country covering about 1.4 million households and 7.01 million populations in 7597 sample units across 35 States/UTs.
11
Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY Data and Methodology Human Development Index is a quantitative measure of the achievement level of human well- being. It generally covers three basic aspects of human subsistence, i.e., Health, Knowledge/education and a decent standard of living. Three separate dimensions indices for health, education and living standards have been calculated to compute the composite index of human development. For calculation of health index we use infant mortality rate (reciprocal value has been used to get the achievement value). For education index, literacy rate and mean years of schooling have been used. And average monthly per capita expenditure (at 2000-01 prices) is used to compute the standard of living index. The infant mortality indicators have been computed from National Family Health Survey II and III for the year 1998-99 and 2005-06 (latest available data for the recent period). Literacy rate, mean years of schooling and average monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) have been computed using National Sample Survey data for 1999-2000 and 2011-12. To calculate the inflation adjusted real MPCE price indices (consumer price index of agricultural labour for rural area and consumer price indices of industrial workers for urban area) from Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) have been used. Inflation adjustment for the overall MPCE is made using statewise Gross Domestic Product Deflator data from Reserve Bank of India (RBI). To calculate HD Index, a separate index needs to be calculated for each dimension. The dimension indices are calculated using the minimum and maximum values of each the indicators separately. The formula used for the calculation of these indices is:
Dimension index
(Actual Value - Minimum value) (Maximum Value - Minimum value)
(1)
The performance of each dimension index is expressed as a value between 0 and 1. To construct composite indices (HDI) for different social groups e.g. Scheduled 12
Castes, Other backward Classes, and General caste separately a simple average of the three (Health, Education and Standard of Living) dimension indices is calculated as: Ij
I
ij
3
( 2)
j=SC, OBC and General Castes i=Health, education and standard of living Health Index The health index measures the relative achievement in health status of a group vis-à-vis other groups. Due to the unavailability of the other reliable health variable across social groups to measure the achievement aspect of the Health Index we have used Infant Mortality Rate (IMR). As the chosen variable reflects the deprivation aspect of the situation, to measure the achievement aspect we have used the reciprocal value of this variable. To compute the reciprocal value of IMR we have followed this procedure. First, identify the lowest value of the domain (here in this case lowest ‘Infant Mortality Rate’ in the caste state matrix). Then divide each value (of infant mortality rate) with that ‘lowest single value’ - the lowest value of the domain. The values in different shells of the new matrix will be the reciprocal figure of the respective cell of the original matrix.
Receprocal Health index
(Lowest single value of IMR) (Original respective value of IMR)
(3)
In this way values for all the states across all social groups is obtained. From these reciprocal values the real reciprocal health index can be calculated using formula (1). Under 5 mortality rate has not been used in the study as both IMR and under 5 mortality rate reflect the same thing. The existing literature also gives the evidence of using IMR only to compute health index (Thorat, 2007). Education Index The Education index measures the relative achievement of knowledge of a group vis-à-vis other groups. This is calculated with the help of two variables viz., adult 13
literacy rate and mean years of schooling. Literacy rate is measured as the proportion of literate population in the age group of 7 years and above to the total population of the same age group. Mean years of schooling is calculated for the age group of 7 years and above population after adjusting for dropouts (for age group 6 and 17 years). An index of each of these has been separately calculated The two (unit-less) numbers
as per the formula mentioned in (5).
are then added, with literacy having a weight of
1/3, and mean years of schooling having a weight of 2/3 respectively.
Education index
(Actual Value - Minimum value) (Maximum Value - Minimum value)
(4)
Standard of Living Index The Average Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure is used to capture the relative achievement of opportunities/capabilities in terms of purchasing power. The average monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) is computed from the unit level data on consumption expenditure survey obtained from the National Sample Survey for 1999-2000 and 2011-12. The real monthly per capita expenditure (at 2000-01 prices) is derived after adjusting for inflation. The Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labour (CPI-AL) and Consumer Price Index for Industrial Worker (CPI-IW) have been used to derive the real MPCE in rural and urban areas respectively. The state-wise Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Deflator is used to get the real value of the aggregate MPCE at the state level. The inflation adjusted MPCE value is further adjusted for inequality using GINI index i.e., MPCE is multiplied by (1- GINI index). And finally, MPCE index is calculated as follows:
MPCE index
(Actual Value - Minimum value) (Maximum Value - Minimum value)
14
(5)
Calculating HDI The HDI value can be obtained by a simple average of the above individual dimension indices.
HDI
(Health Index Education Index MPCE Index) 3
(6)
The scaling norms used in the calculation of the indices are as follows: Indicators Infant Mortality Rate Literacy rate (for age 7 & above) Adjusted Mean Years of Schooling Inequality adjusted Monthly per capita Expenditure (at 2000-01prices)
Minimum
Maximum
20 per 1000 0 0 Rs.200
--100 13 Rs.1800
HDI for Senior citizens/ elderly population The aforesaid HDI has been computed on the basis of education, health and income. The education index of elderly population is calculated on the basis of literacy rate. The health index for senior citizens/ elderly population has been calculated on the basis of labour force participation rate ( a proxy for health for senior citizens). Income index for elderly population has been calculated on the basis of monthly per capita expenditure (inflation and inequality adjusted). The HDI for elderly has been computed on the basis of simple average of health, education and income indices. Index for Higher Education: To compute the index, a simple average is calculated of the (a) gross enrollment ratio at graduation and above level (both technical and general) and (b) relative share of graduates and above (both technical and general) in labour force. The index for higher education is computed for SC, ST, OBC, and General and for All categories of population and at two points of time1999-00 and 2011-12.
15
HDI for Disabled people: HDI for disabled people/differently-abled are computed on the bases of Education, Health and income dimensions. Education index has been calculated on the basis of literacy rate for disabled population. Income index has been computed on the basis of monthly per capita expenditure (inflation and inequality adjusted) of disabled population. Health index is computed on the basis of infant mortality rate for all (a proxy for IMR for all in the absence of IMR for disabled population. A simple average of health, education and income is taken to compute HDI for disabled people of India. The index has been constructed for different states and for rural, urban and for rural + urban India (see Annexure 2).
16
Chapter 4 THE PRESENT SCENARIO The Present Scenario The Scenario of the country across the states and for different groups are discussed below for three dimensions of Human development Index: education, health and standard of living/ income. HDI for different Scheduled Castes, Other backward Classes and other categories Education Index (Rural+Urban) Education index is a resultant of the indices which are literacy rate and mean years of schooling. The education index for the country as a whole for All category was 0.46 in the year 2000. In 2000 Assam, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Tripura had an education index, higher than the national average. The corresponding index for SC category for all India was 0.37 and OBC category it was 0.42. Assam, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Tripura had education indices which were higher than the national average for SC category. The states like Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal had shown education indices higher than the national average for OBC category. The education index for all India in 2011-12 was 0.60 for All caste category, 0.51 for SC, 0.58 for OBC and 0.72 for general category. In West Bengal, the index for OBC is higher than that for All caste category. In Punjab and Orissa also the index for OBC is slightly higher than that of All category. Kerala topped the ladder for All, SC and OBC categories among the major states of India in 1999-2000 as well as in 2011-12. For General category, Tamil Nadu occupies the first rank in both points of time closely followed by Kerala. In 2011-12, in most of the states education index of SC population is lower than that of General category. The index for OBC and All is almost equal and that of General category is higher than all these three other categories. However, there are few exceptions. In Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir, except for the category of SC, education 17
index for all other three categories are equal. In Punjab and West Bengal the education index for General category is the same as that of OBC. In West Bengal, the respective index for SC is the same as that of All category. Table 4.1: Education Index in major states (rural+urban) of India 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
SC
2011-12
OBC GEN ALL SC
OBC
GEN ALL
Andhra Pradesh
0.31
0.34
0.55
0.39
0.48
0.54
0.71
0.56
Assam
0.52
0.54
0.52
0.52
0.66
0.67
0.66
0.66
Bihar
0.18
0.32
0.52
0.33
0.37
0.48
0.68
0.50
Gujarat
0.44
0.42
0.64
0.50
0.60
0.55
0.78
0.62
Haryana
0.36
0.46
0.61
0.51
0.56
0.62
0.76
0.67
Himachal Pradesh
0.51
0.59
0.60
0.58
0.65
0.73
0.76
0.72
Jammu & Kashmir
0.28
0.48
0.53
0.49
0.57
0.62
0.64
0.62
Karnataka
0.32
0.42
0.60
0.46
0.55
0.65
0.77
0.65
Kerala
0.62
0.68
0.80
0.71
0.74
0.82
0.91
0.83
Madhya Pradesh
0.32
0.40
0.62
0.39
0.48
0.57
0.80
0.56
Maharashtra
0.51
0.56
0.65
0.57
0.67
0.72
0.77
0.71
Orissa
0.32
0.42
0.56
0.39
0.47
0.58
0.72
0.55
Punjab
0.39
0.56
0.62
0.52
0.52
0.68
0.76
0.66
Rajasthan
0.30
0.34
0.50
0.38
0.44
0.51
0.71
0.52
Tamil Nadu
0.42
0.54
0.81
0.53
0.61
0.70
0.93
0.69
Tripura
0.51
0.57
0.60
0.57
0.60
0.70
0.70
0.64
Uttar Pradesh
0.29
0.35
0.55
0.41
0.44
0.49
0.69
0.52
West Bengal
0.38
0.54
0.51
0.47
0.52
0.63
0.61
0.58
All India
0.37
0.42
0.59
0.46
0.51
0.58
0.72
0.60
Source: Computed by IAMR From an analysis of the dimension of education it can be commented that Kerala is on the top followed by Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra for All categories in 201112. Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan have been placed at the bottom of the ladder for 18
SC population in 2011-12. There has not been much improvement in the educational scenario of these states for this socially disadvantaged group over the period 1999-12. In addition to these states, the states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh have not succeeded much in improving the education system much for their vulnerable sections over the same period. Table 4.2: Rank of Education Index in major states (rural+urban) of India 19992012 1999-2000 States
SC
2011-12
OBC
GEN
ALL
SC
OBC GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
15
18
14
17
14
16
13
15
Assam
2
7
16
6
3
7
17
6
Bihar
19
19
17
19
19
19
16
19
Gujarat
6
14
4
9
7
15
4
11
Haryana
11
10
7
8
9
11
7
5
Himachal Pradesh
5
2
8
2
4
2
9
2
Jammu & Kashmir
18
9
15
10
8
10
18
10
Karnataka
13
11
9
12
10
8
6
8
Kerala
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
Madhya Pradesh
12
15
6
15
15
14
3
14
Maharashtra
4
5
3
3
2
3
5
3
Orissa
14
12
12
16
16
13
10
16
Punjab
8
4
5
7
11
6
8
7
Rajasthan
16
17
19
18
17
17
12
18
Tamil Nadu
7
8
1
5
5
5
1
4
Tripura
3
3
10
4
6
4
14
9
Uttar Pradesh
17
16
13
14
18
18
15
17
West Bengal
9
6
18
11
12
9
19
13
Source: Computed by IAMR
19
Rural India The national average for education index for All category exclusively for rural India in 1999-2000 was 0.39, for SC the corresponding index was 0.31 and for OBC it was 0.38. An analysis of Rural India shows that Kerala ranked first closely followed by Himachal Pradesh and Assam in both the periods for All categories in 2011-12. For SC category, Rural Kerala ranks first and is followed by Rural Assam and Rural Himachal Table 4.3: Education Index in major states of Rural India 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
SC
OBC
2011-12
GEN ALL
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
0.26
0.28
0.44
0.30
0.42
0.46
0.59
0.47
Assam
0.49
0.52
0.47
0.49
0.64
0.65
0.64
0.65
Bihar
0.16
0.29
0.45
0.29
0.36
0.45
0.67
0.48
Gujarat
0.40
0.36
0.55
0.42
0.53
0.49
0.67
0.52
Haryana
0.36
0.43
0.53
0.46
0.55
0.57
0.67
0.61
Himachal Pradesh
0.50
0.59
0.57
0.55
0.64
0.74
0.73
0.70
Jammu & Kashmir
0.25
0.47
0.48
0.45
0.54
0.60
0.59
0.58
Karnataka
0.29
0.37
0.48
0.38
0.49
0.57
0.66
0.56
Kerala
0.61
0.66
0.79
0.69
0.72
0.81
0.89
0.82
Madhya Pradesh
0.29
0.36
0.50
0.33
0.44
0.53
0.70
0.50
Maharashtra
0.44
0.50
0.54
0.48
0.59
0.66
0.66
0.62
Orissa
0.32
0.39
0.50
0.35
0.46
0.57
0.67
0.52
Punjab
0.36
0.51
0.53
0.45
0.51
0.65
0.68
0.60
Rajasthan
0.25
0.30
0.39
0.31
0.42
0.47
0.60
0.46
Tamil Nadu
0.39
0.47
0.66
0.45
0.56
0.62
0.82
0.60
Tripura
0.50
0.56
0.57
0.54
0.58
0.68
0.64
0.61
Uttar Pradesh
0.27
0.33
0.48
0.36
0.42
0.47
0.62
0.48
West Bengal
0.37
0.53
0.44
0.41
0.49
0.60
0.53
0.52
All India
0.31
0.38
0.50
0.39
0.47
0.53
0.64
0.53
Source: Computed by IAMR
20
in 2011-12. In the same year for OBC category rural Himachal, Tripura and Maharashtra occupy second, third, and fourth position following Kerala which is at the top of the ladder. The education index for rural India in 2011-12 was 0.53 for All, 0.47 for SC, 0.53 for OBC and 0.64 for General category. Table 4.4: Rank of Education Index in major states of Rural India 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
SC
OBC
2011-12
GEN
ALL
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
15
18
17
17
15
17
17
17
Assam
4
5
14
4
2
6
12
3
Bihar
18
17
15
18
18
18
8
16
Gujarat
6
13
5
10
9
14
7
13
Haryana
10
10
7
6
7
11
9
6
Himachal Pradesh
3
2
4
2
3
2
3
2
Jammu & Kashmir
16
8
12
8
8
8
16
9
Karnataka
13
12
13
12
12
12
10
10
Kerala
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Madhya Pradesh
12
14
9
15
14
13
4
14
Maharashtra
5
7
6
5
4
4
11
4
Orissa
11
11
10
14
13
10
6
11
Punjab
9
6
8
7
10
5
5
8
Rajasthan
17
16
18
16
16
15
15
18
Tamil Nadu
7
9
2
9
6
7
2
7
Tripura
2
3
3
3
5
3
13
5
Uttar Pradesh
14
15
11
13
17
16
14
15
West Bengal
8
4
16
11
11
9
18
12
Source: Computed by IAMR It can be concluded from the above analysis that in rural India, the education index for OBC category is equal to that of the All category and that of General category is higher than other three categories. The index for SC category is the lowest among all the four categories. 21
Urban India The urban India showed an index for education for All category as 0.65, for SC category 0.49, for OBC 0.58 and 0.75 for general category in the year 1999-2000. In 2011-12, the respective indices rose to 0.76, 0.65, 0.72 and 0.85 respectively. Urban India has obviously shown a better position for all the categories of our discussion than rural India both in 1999-2000 and in 2011-2012. Table 4.5: Education Index in major states of Urban India 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
SC
OBC
GEN
2011-12 ALL SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
0.50
0.51
0.70
0.59
0.69
0.72
0.82
0.75
Assam
0.67
0.76
0.78
0.76
0.78
0.86
0.81
0.82
Bihar
0.35
0.51
0.77
0.58
0.57
0.68
0.80
0.70
Gujarat
0.53
0.56
0.76
0.67
0.70
0.67
0.85
0.77
Haryana
0.36
0.56
0.78
0.65
0.60
0.72
0.93
0.83
Himachal Pradesh
0.62
0.62
0.88
0.82
0.75
0.65
0.91
0.85
Jammu & Kashmir
0.44
0.60
0.69
0.67
0.67
0.76
0.77
0.76
Karnataka
0.49
0.61
0.80
0.69
0.73
0.80
0.88
0.81
Kerala
0.67
0.74
0.84
0.77
0.82
0.86
0.95
0.88
Madhya Pradesh
0.46
0.56
0.74
0.62
0.61
0.68
0.92
0.75
Maharashtra
0.63
0.68
0.75
0.72
0.76
0.82
0.87
0.83
Orissa
0.33
0.60
0.72
0.59
0.50
0.63
0.85
0.69
Punjab
0.47
0.65
0.79
0.66
0.57
0.71
0.86
0.76
Rajasthan
0.44
0.53
0.71
0.60
0.52
0.61
0.86
0.69
Tamil Nadu
0.55
0.65
0.87
0.67
0.73
0.81
0.98
0.80
Tripura
0.57
0.66
0.75
0.70
0.70
0.80
0.88
0.82
Uttar Pradesh
0.42
0.44
0.70
0.57
0.54
0.55
0.81
0.65
West Bengal
0.45
0.60
0.72
0.66
0.66
0.74
0.76
0.74
All India
0.49
0.58
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.72
0.85
0.76
Source: Computed by IAMR 22
Table 4.6: Rank of Education Index in major states of Urban India 1999-2012 1999-2000 OBC
GEN
2011-12
States
SC
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
8
16
17
16
Assam
2
1
7
Bihar
17
17
Gujarat
7
Haryana
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
9
10
13
12
3
2
1
15
5
8
17
14
12
16
15
13
9
8
7
14
12
9
16
14
6
12
13
9
3
4
Himachal Pradesh
4
7
1
1
4
15
5
2
Jammu & Kashmir
13
9
18
7
10
7
17
11
Karnataka
9
8
4
6
5
5
7
7
Kerala
1
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
Madhya Pradesh
11
12
12
13
12
13
4
13
Maharashtra
3
3
10
4
3
3
8
3
Orissa
18
10
14
15
18
16
11
16
Punjab
10
5
5
10
15
11
10
10
Rajasthan
14
15
15
14
17
17
9
17
Tamil Nadu
6
6
2
9
6
4
1
8
Tripura
5
4
11
5
8
6
6
6
Uttar Pradesh
15
18
16
18
16
18
14
18
West Bengal
12
11
13
11
11
8
18
14
Source: Computed by IAMR In urban India Kerala ranks first followed by Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Haryana and Assam in 2011-12 for All categories. For SC population also, in Urban India Kerala secures the first position based on education index in the same year Assam and Maharashtra secure second and third position respectively in 2011-12. For OBC, Assam ranks first, Kerala and Maharashtra rank second and third followed by Tamil Nadu in the same year. In urban India, the education index exhibits the same trend as that of rural India for different caste groups. The index for General category is higher than other groups and that of OBC is equal to that of All category. The index for the SC 23
category is the lowest. Education index reflects the combined effects of certain factors. Among these factors, literacy rate and mean years of schooling are crucial. According to the 55th round of NSS, among the major states, the percentage of literate population (age 7 and more) was the highest in Kerala (90.59%) followed by Himachal Pradesh (75.14%), Maharashtra (73.87 %) for all population for India (Rural and urban) in 1999-2000. For scheduled castes (SC) population also, the percent of literate population was the highest in Kerala (83.2%) followed by Assam (71.6%) and Himachal Pradesh (71.4%) in the same year. All these states exhibited the fact that more than 70 per cent of their SC population was literate. For other backward castes (OBCs), again Kerala (89.9%) ranked first among all major states in terms of literate population (7 years and above) followed by Himachal Pradesh (76.5%), Punjab(74.4%), West Bengal((74.3%), Assam (73.8%), Maharashtra (73.4%) and Tamil Nadu(73.3%). All these major states showed that more than 73 per cent of their OBC population was literate. According to 68th round of NSS, for the country as a whole (ural and urban), Kerala retains its rank of having the highest literate population (94.4%) for all population followed by Assam (85.7%),Maharashtra ( 83%), Himachal Pradesh(82.5%) and Tamil Nadu(81.1%) in 2011-12. In this year, the percentage of literate SC population is also the highest in Kerala (88.2%) followed by Assam and Maharashtra.
In these states more
than 80 per cent of SC population was literate. The literate OBC population is the highest for Kerala (94.4%) followed by Himachal Pradesh, Assam, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal. All these states show more than 80 per cent of literate population in OBC category in this year. From the analysis for rural and urban India it has been found that in Rural India, Kerala again ranked first (90%) in terms of literacy rate for all group followed by Himachal Pradesh (73.6%) in 1999-2000. For SC category, the percentage of literate population was more than 82 per cent (82.1%) in Kerala followed by HP (70.7%). In 24
Rural India, around 90 per cent of Kerala’s population was literate for OBC category followed by Himachal Pradesh and West Bengal. Table 4.7: (Rural+urban) Literacy rate (age 7 and more) in major states, 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
SC
2011-12
OBC
GEN
ALL
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
46.19 49.69
71.66
54.49
58.96 65.65
79.57
66.97
Assam
71.59 73.83
70.74
71.9
87.28 85.36
85.39
85.66
Bihar
26.61 45.08
65.53
45.52
54.17 65.02
83.33
66.5
Gujarat
65.35 62.25
81.06
68.83
75.4
74.71
88.03
77.49
Haryana
55.38 65.29
75.08
67.67
73.4
75.01
82.91
78.55
Himachal Pradesh
71.38 76.47
76.62
75.14
78.34 85.13
84.05
82.52
Jammu & Kashmir
41.05 65.7
65.44
62.59
71.67 76.59
73.56
73.42
Karnataka
45.21 59.36
74.92
61.34
69.84 77.23
84.48
76.75
Kerala
83.23 89.86
93.83
90.59
88.22 94.4
97.31
94.38
Madhya Pradesh
49.71 59.03
77.63
56.48
66.45 74.37
87.25
72.61
Maharashtra
68.26 73.36
80.97
73.87
80.39 83.96
86.84
83.03
Orissa
50.71 62.43
76.03
57.22
67
76.23
86.69
72.94
Punjab
55.92 74.37
76.01
68.22
69.28 81.35
84.69
78.47
Rajasthan
43.95 50.19
66.27
52.78
61.47 65.91
82.16
66.4
Tamil Nadu
60.14 73.31
91.98
71.41
75.88 82.35
94.22
81.05
Tripura
77.02 81.24
81.67
79.67
82.89 88.78
89.01
85.61
Uttar Pradesh
42.86 49.85
69.4
54.97
60.96 65.05
80.62
67.54
West Bengal
59.67 74.27
70.72
66.13
72.17 81.23
78.47
76.22
All India
50.92 59.45
74.71
62.02
67.84 73.49
83.74
74.71
Source: Computed by IAMR According to the NSS 68th round (2011-12) the percentage of rural literate population is the highest in Kerala (93.8%) for all category. More than 80 per cent rural population is literate in Kerala, Assam and Himachal Pradesh for All category. In rural India, the percentage of literacy for SC category is also the highest in Kerala (87.1%) which is followed by Assam (86.3%). Kerala also tops the list for OBC category in rural 25
India in terms of literacy percentage (93.9%). The rural areas of Himachal Pradesh, Assam and Maharashtra have attained more than 80 per cent literacy for OBC category. So, it is seen that for SC, OBC, General and All category in rural India Kerala secures the highest position in both points of time in terms of literacy rate. Table 4.8: Rural Literacy rate (age 7 and more) in major states, 1999-2012 States
1999-2000
2011-12
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
46.19
49.69
71.66
54.49
58.96
65.65
79.57
66.97
Assam
71.59
73.83
70.74
71.9
87.28
85.36
85.39
85.66
Bihar
26.61
45.08
65.53
45.52
54.17
65.02
83.33
66.5
Gujarat
65.35
62.25
81.06
68.83
75.4
74.71
88.03
77.49
Haryana
55.38
65.29
75.08
67.67
73.4
75.01
82.91
78.55
Himachal Pradesh
71.38
76.47
76.62
75.14
78.34
85.13
84.05
82.52
Jammu & Kashmir
41.05
65.7
65.44
62.59
71.67
76.59
73.56
73.42
Karnataka
45.21
59.36
74.92
61.34
69.84
77.23
84.48
76.75
Kerala
83.23
89.86
93.83
90.59
88.22
94.4
97.31
94.38
Madhya Pradesh
49.71
59.03
77.63
56.48
66.45
74.37
87.25
72.61
Maharashtra
68.26
73.36
80.97
73.87
80.39
83.96
86.84
83.03
Orissa
50.71
62.43
76.03
57.22
67
76.23
86.69
72.94
Punjab
55.92
74.37
76.01
68.22
69.28
81.35
84.69
78.47
Rajasthan
43.95
50.19
66.27
52.78
61.47
65.91
82.16
66.4
Tamil Nadu
60.14
73.31
91.98
71.41
75.88
82.35
94.22
81.05
Tripura
77.02
81.24
81.67
79.67
82.89
88.78
89.01
85.61
Uttar Pradesh
42.86
49.85
69.4
54.97
60.96
65.05
80.62
67.54
West Bengal
59.67
74.27
70.72
66.13
72.17
81.23
78.47
76.22
All India
50.92
59.45
74.71
62.02
67.84
73.49
83.74
74.71
Source: Computed by IAMR
26
Table 4.9: Urban Literacy rate (age 7 and more) in major states, 1999-2012 States
1999-2000
2011-12
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
67.1
68.4
82.7
74.7
75.6
81.4
87.6
83.0
Assam
80.7
87.2
89.0
87.6
92.4
94.1
92.2
93.0
Bihar
51.5
65.6
83.9
70.1
69.6
83.3
89.1
82.7
Gujarat
73.6
78.3
89.4
83.9
81.1
83.3
92.3
87.8
Haryana
53.4
76.5
86.7
77.4
72.9
82.7
92.5
87.1
Himachal Pradesh
80.5
80.1
93.9
90.3
90.5
79.2
93.2
90.9
Jammu & Kashmir
59.8
73.6
78.3
78.1
79.8
83.0
81.0
81.2
Karnataka
63.3
77.0
89.1
81.6
83.9
88.4
91.4
88.2
Kerala
88.9
92.6
95.6
93.7
92.8
95.7
97.2
95.9
Madhya Pradesh
63.3
74.8
85.7
77.4
77.5
83.2
93.1
85.3
Maharashtra
80.0
84.2
88.5
86.1
87.4
90.0
92.7
90.8
Orissa
49.9
81.3
85.1
76.7
70.5
83.4
92.4
83.5
Punjab
64.2
80.6
87.9
79.0
72.1
84.8
91.1
85.3
Rajasthan
61.0
69.7
82.9
74.3
69.5
75.6
90.6
79.7
Tamil Nadu
74.3
83.7
94.6
84.4
83.2
89.0
94.9
88.4
Tripura
78.4
79.7
89.7
86.5
88.7
91.7
95.9
92.9
Uttar Pradesh
59.9
60.4
80.4
70.3
70.0
69.6
87.0
76.4
West Bengal
64.6
82.3
86.8
81.9
83.6
88.0
88.6
87.6
All India
66.9
75.5
86.5
79.7
79.1
83.9
90.7
86.0
Source: Computed by IAMR In urban India, in 1999-2000, Kerala topped the list
in
terms of
percentage of literate population (93.7%) followed by Himachal Pradesh (90.3%), Assam (87.6%), Maharashtra (86.1%) for All category. The percentage of literate population was more than 80 per cent in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Karnataka for All category. The percentage of literate SC population was the highest in Kerala (88.9%) followed by Assam, Maharashtra and Himachal Pradesh. For OBC category more than 80 per cent literacy was achieved in Kerala, Assam, Himachal 27
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. Kerala secured the first position with a literacy rate for OBC category as 92.6. In urban India, the percentage of literate population remains the highest in Kerala (95.9%) followed by Assam (93%), Himachal Pradesh (90.9%) and Maharashtra (90.8%) for all category in 2011-12. The average percentage of literate population in urban India for all category is 86 according to the 68th round of NSS. An analysis of SC category shows that percentage of literates is the highest in Kerala (92.8%) closely followed by Assam (92.4%) and Himachal Pradesh (90.5%). All India average for SC category for urban India is 79 per cent. West Bengal, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu have achieved more than 80 per cent urban literacy for their SC category. The percentage of literate population for OBC category is the highest in urban Kerala (95.7%) followed by Assam (94.1%). The average for OBC category for urban India is 83.9 %. For OBC category, besides Kerala and Assam, Punjab, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu exhibit that the percentage of urban literates in these states is higher than that of the average for urban India Besides the percentage of literate population, mean years of schooling is the second most important factor affecting educational standard of a country. The scenarios of Mean years of schooling in rural, urban and for India (rural+urban) are depicted in table 4.10. The mean years of schooling has increased from 4.9 years to 6.9 years for All categories of population during the period 1999-2000 to 2011-12 for the country taking rural and urban areas together. The corresponding figure for SC population has increased from 4 years to 5.5 years during the same period and for OBC population the same has increased from 4.4 years to 6.6 years whereas for General category it increased from 6.6 years to 8.7 years during this ten year period. If we consider rural and urban areas of the country together, Kerala performs the best for All categories, SC and OBC population in both points of time.
28
Table 4.10: Mean Years of Schooling (age 7 and more) in major states of India 1999-2012 (Rural+Urban) 1999-2000 States
SC
OBC
2011-12
GEN
ALL SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
3.0
3.4
6.1
4.0
5.5
6.2
8.6
6.6
Assam
5.6
5.7
5.6
5.6
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.4
Bihar
1.7
3.2
5.8
3.5
3.7
5.1
7.9
5.4
Gujarat
4.4
4.1
7.2
5.4
6.8
5.9
9.6
7.0
Haryana
3.4
4.7
7.0
5.6
6.2
7.1
9.4
8.0
Himachal Pradesh
5.2
6.6
6.8
6.4
7.6
8.8
9.3
8.7
Jammu & Kashmir
2.7
5.1
6.1
5.5
6.4
7.0
7.7
7.3
Karnataka
3.3
4.4
6.8
5.0
6.1
7.7
9.5
7.6
Kerala
6.6
7.4
9.5
8.0
8.8
9.9
11.4
10.1
Madhya Pradesh
3.1
3.9
7.1
4.0
5.0
6.3
9.9
6.2
Maharashtra
5.5
6.1
7.4
6.4
7.8
8.6
9.4
8.5
Orissa
2.9
4.2
5.9
3.8
4.8
6.4
8.5
5.9
Punjab
3.9
6.1
7.2
5.7
5.7
8.0
9.3
7.7
Rajasthan
2.9
3.4
5.4
3.9
4.6
5.6
8.6
5.7
Tamil Nadu
4.2
5.7
9.8
5.7
7.0
8.4
12.1
8.1
Tripura
4.9
5.8
6.4
5.9
6.4
8.0
8.0
7.0
Uttar Pradesh
2.9
3.6
6.2
4.3
4.5
5.3
8.3
5.8
West Bengal
3.5
5.8
5.4
4.8
5.5
7.0
6.9
6.4
All India
4.0
4.4
6.6
4.9
5.5
6.6
8.7
6.9
Source: Computed by IAMR The mean years of schooling (age 7 years and above) for rural India for the year 1999-2000 was 4 for All categories of population , For SC population the corresponding figure was 3, for OBC it was 3.8 years and for General category it was 5.3 years. The rural areas of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Maharashtra,, Kerala, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Gujarat and Assam show that the mean years of schooling in these states for All category were either equivalent to that of the national 29
average or more than that. These states had also shown a better performance in rural literacy than other states for SC and OBC population in terms of mean years of schooling in the year 1999-2000 only with a few exceptions. Table 4.11: Mean Years of Schooling (age 7 and more) in major states of Rural India 1999-2012 1999-2000
2011-12
States
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
2.5
2.6
4.4
2.9
4.7
5.1
6.9
5.2
Assam
5.1
5.5
4.9
5.1
6.9
7.2
7.1
7.1
Bihar
1.5
2.9
4.8
3.0
3.5
4.7
7.7
5.1
Gujarat
3.9
3.4
5.8
4.3
5.7
5.0
7.9
5.6
Haryana
3.3
4.4
5.8
4.8
6.0
6.4
8.0
7.0
Himachal Pradesh
5.1
6.6
6.2
6.0
7.5
8.9
8.9
8.4
Jammu & Kashmir 2.4
5.0
5.4
5.0
5.9
6.8
7.0
6.7
Karnataka
2.9
3.7
5.1
3.9
5.3
6.4
7.9
6.3
Kerala
6.5
7.1
9.3
7.7
8.5
9.6
11.0
9.8
Madhya Pradesh
2.7
3.4
5.2
3.1
4.5
5.8
8.2
5.3
Maharashtra
4.6
5.3
5.8
5.1
6.6
7.6
7.6
7.0
Orissa
2.9
3.8
5.0
3.3
4.7
6.3
7.7
5.6
Punjab
3.5
5.4
5.8
4.8
5.5
7.6
8.0
6.8
Rajasthan
2.4
2.9
3.9
3.0
4.4
5.2
6.7
5.0
Tamil Nadu
3.9
4.8
7.4
4.6
6.2
7.0
9.9
6.8
Tripura
4.7
5.7
5.9
5.5
5.9
7.6
6.9
6.4
Uttar Pradesh
2.7
3.3
5.3
3.7
4.3
5.1
7.1
5.2
West Bengal
3.3
5.5
4.3
4.0
5.1
6.5
5.7
5.5
All India
3.0
3.8
5.3
4.0
5.0
5.9
7.3
5.9
Source: Computed by IAMR
30
The mean years of schooling has increased and reached a level of around 6 years (5.9 years) in 2011-12 compared to 4 years in 1999-2000 for All categories of population in rural India. The Mean years of schooling for India as a whole for SC category has increased to 5 years, for OBC the corresponding figure reached to almost 6 years (5.9 years) in 2011-12 in rural areas of the country whereas for General category it increased to 7.3 years. Table 4.12: Mean Years of Schooling (age 7 and more) in major states of Urban India, 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
SC
OBC GEN
2011-12 ALL
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
5.3
5.6
8.2
6.6
8.5
8.8
10.2
9.3
Assam
7.8
9.2
9.5
9.1
9.1
10.7
9.8
10.0
Bihar
3.6
5.7
9.6
6.9
6.7
7.9
9.9
8.2
Gujarat
5.6
5.8
9.0
7.6
8.4
7.6
10.6
9.3
Haryana
3.6
5.9
9.7
7.7
7.0
8.7
12.1
10.4
Himachal Pradesh
6.8
6.9
11.1
10.0
8.8
7.5
11.7
10.6
Jammu & Kashmir
4.7
6.9
8.4
8.0
7.9
9.4
9.7
9.5
Karnataka
5.4
6.9
9.9
8.2
8.8
9.9
11.1
10.0
Kerala
7.4
8.4
10.1
9.0
9.9
10.5
12.2
11.0
Madhya Pradesh
4.9
6.1
9.0
7.1
6.8
7.8
11.8
9.0
Maharashtra
7.0
7.9
8.9
8.5
9.1
10.1
10.9
10.3
Orissa
3.2
6.4
8.4
6.6
5.2
7.0
10.6
8.0
Punjab
5.0
7.4
9.7
7.8
6.5
8.4
10.9
9.3
Rajasthan
4.6
5.8
8.4
6.9
5.6
7.1
11.0
8.2
Tamil Nadu
5.9
7.2
10.8
7.6
8.7
10.0
12.9
9.9
Tripura
5.9
7.7
8.8
8.0
7.9
9.6
10.9
9.9
Uttar Pradesh
4.3
4.7
8.4
6.5
6.0
6.2
10.2
7.7
West Bengal
4.6
6.3
8.4
7.5
7.4
8.7
9.0
8.7
All India
5.2
6.4
9.1
7.6
7.6
8.6
10.6
9.3
Source: Computed by IAMR 31
Looking at the scenario of urban literacy, it is found that the mean years of schooling in urban India has increased from 7.6 to 9.3 for All categories during the period 1999-2000 to 2011-12. For SC population the mean years of schooling increased from 5.2 years to 7.6 years whereas for OBC it increased from 6.4 years to 8.6 years over the same period. The mean years of schooling for General category increased from 9.1 years to 10.6 years during this ten year period. The urban areas of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Maharashtra, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Assam and Gujarat have shown that their mean years of schooling are higher than the national average both in 1999-2000 and in 2011-12 for All categories of population. It has been found that urban Andhra Pradesh has exhibited improvement in mean years of schooling for their SC population during this 10 year period. For OBC population, in 2011-12, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir and Assam have performed well in educational development in their urban regions which is reflected through an increase in mean years of schooling. It may be mentioned here that the mean years of schooling in these states were higher than the national average in 1999-2000. Most of these states have retained their position in 201112. Kerala performed the best for All categories whereas Assam ranks first for SC and OBC category in terms of mean years of schooling in 2011-12. Concluding remarks: The factors which may affect the literacy rate, mean years of schooling and other related factors, favourably and thereby the education system of the country are public investment, especially at elementary level. The admission in private unaided schools is a high cost affair. So, despite many fold increase in public investment in primary education, a lot needs to be done for bringing an improvement in quality education and reducing the drop-out rates for disadvantaged and marginalized groups. There has been concentration of illiterate population in some states and the problem is more serious for some social groups. So, the state governments need to play a more proactive role in reducing the problem of illiteracy, which is more acute in rural areas and for certain sections of the community. Even the urban areas of states like Bihar, Rajasthan, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh depict a poor scenario of 32
education for the marginalized groups.
There has
been some improvement in the
performance level of urban Bihar and urban Haryana reflected from their ranking in education ladder during
the period 1999-00 to 2011-12. In addition to these states,
there has not been much changes in the respective positions in education index of rural Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat. In West Bengal the position of socially disadvantaged
group
has
worsened
There
has
been
some worsening in the
respective position of West Bengal in education index over the ten year period for socially disadvantaged groups. Poverty and lack of employment opportunity for adult members of families, seasonal character of agriculture leads to low level of literacy (age 7 and above), low mean years of schooling and higher drop- out rates in many states. Health Index: (Rural +Urban) Health Index for major states of India has been calculated for 1998-1999 and for 2005-06 on the basis of Infant Mortality Rate (IMR). The data sources and methodology for the index have been narrated discussed in the methodology section. In 1998-1999, on the basis of Health index, Kerala secures the first position for All categories followed by Himachal Pradesh for the country as a whole. In the same year, for SC category, Himachal gets the first rank followed by Tamil Nadu for India as a whole. For OBC, Kerala occupies the first position followed by Maharashtra and Himachal Pradesh in 1998-99. In 2005-06, Kerala gets the first rank followed by Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra for All category. In contrast to the period 1998-99, in 200506, there has been some deterioration in terms of Health index in the case of Himachal whereas Tamil Nadu exhibits certain improvement on Health front for All categories of the population. For SC population, data are not available for Kerala for the year 200506, Maharashtra exhibits the best performance in terms of Health followed by West Bengal and Himachal. Punjab becomes the best performer followed by Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu for OBC category in the same year whereas data were not available for Kerala for this year.
33
Table 4.13: State-wise Health Index in Rural+Urban 1998-99 State
All
SC
2005-06
OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
0.22
0.09
0.22
0.28
0.26
0.17
0.28
0.49
Assam
0.19
0.14
0.09
0.12
0.19
0.08
0.39
0.26
Bihar
0.16
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.20
0.24
0.19
0.26
Gujarat
0.23
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.27
0.31
0.29
0.45
Haryana
0.22
0.13
0.25
0.14
0.36
0.25
0.24
1.00
Himachal Pradesh
0.43
1.00
0.59
0.17
0.39
0.42
0.58
0.53
Jammu & Kashmir
0.24
0.20
0.23
0.13
0.28
0.13
0.33
0.46
Karnataka
0.29
0.16
0.24
0.21
0.30
0.22
0.32
0.46
Kerala
1.00
0.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
NA
NA
0.99
Madhya Pradesh
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.11
0.19
0.19
0.22
0.28
Maharashtra
0.35
0.29
0.74
0.18
0.36
0.99
0.31
0.52
Orissa
0.14
0.09
0.13
0.11
0.20
0.25
0.19
0.36
Punjab
0.24
0.22
0.13
0.17
0.32
0.35
1.00
0.43
Rajasthan
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.09
0.18
0.14
0.19
0.29
Tamil Nadu
0.35
0.73
0.28
0.05
0.42
0.37
0.42
Tripura
0.49
0.61
0.22
0.20
0.32
1.00
0.18
0.56
Uttar Pradesh
0.14
0.11
0.16
0.09
0.18
0.13
0.21
0.31
West Bengal
0.36
0.27
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.51
0.39
0.33
All India
0.19
0.14
0.18
0.14
0.23
0.21
0.23
0.37
Source: Computed by IAMR It is found that the health index of OBC population is higher than that of All category in many states barring a few. In almost all the states the health index of General category is higher than that of SC with the exception of Maharashtra and West Bengal. The probable reasons for this exception are that the IMR for General category is higher than the IMR of SC category in these two states. In the dimension of Health also, Kerala is the top performer followed by Tamil Nadu, Himachal and Maharashtra for All
34
Table 4.14: State-wise Rank of Health Index in Rural+Urban 1998-99 State
All
SC
OBC
Andhra Pradesh
11
15
9
Assam
13
11
Bihar
14
Gujarat
2005-06 GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
2
11
13
10
6
18
13
15
17
5
16
12
13
10
14
10
14
17
10
9
11
6
10
7
9
9
Haryana
12
13
5
11
5
8
11
1
Himachal Pradesh
3
1
3
9
3
4
2
4
Jammu & Kashmir
8
8
7
12
9
15
6
7
Karnataka
7
10
6
4
8
11
7
8
Kerala
1
7
1
1
1
Madhya Pradesh
18
18
17
15
16
12
12
15
Maharashtra
5
4
2
7
4
2
8
5
Orissa
15
16
16
14
13
9
15
11
Punjab
9
6
15
8
6
6
1
10
Rajasthan
17
17
14
17
18
14
16
14
Tamil Nadu
6
2
4
18
2
5
3
Tripura
2
3
8
5
7
1
17
3
Uttar Pradesh
16
14
10
16
17
16
13
13
West Bengal
4
5
12
3
12
3
4
12
2
Source: Computed by AMR category of India, urban and rural area taken together. The Health index for General category was the highest for Kerala in 1998-99, however, in 2005-06, Kerala occupied the second position in terms of Health index. In 1998-99, Andhra Pradesh occupied the second rank in health dimension and west Bengal the third. In 2005-06, Haryana ranked first improving its position from eleventh.
There has been some deterioration in the
ranking of Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal for general category so far as the performance in health sector is concerned. Andhra has worsened its ranking from second to sixth and West Bengal from third to twelfth for the same category in 2005-06. In 200535
06, Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra occupy the third and fourth position in terms of health index for General category.
Available data suggest that the poor performing
states are Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. In these states the scenario in health sector is bad for marginalized and socially disadvantaged groups.
Rural India A rural-urban analysis of data further shows that Kerela ranks on top among the major states. If we decompose the analysis into rural and urban areas of the country, it is found that in rural India, among the major states again Kerala gets the highest rank followed by Himachal Pradesh for All categories in 1998-99. In the same year, for SC category, rural Himachal has performed the best, followed by Gujarat. In 1998-99, for OBC, Kerala secures the first position followed by Maharashtra. In 2005-06, Kerala retained its first position, rural Tamil Nadu securing the second followed by rural Himachal for All categories of population.
For OBC
category, in the same year, Himachal performed the best followed by Jammu & Kashmir and Assam. For SC category, Himachal Pradesh was the best performer in rural India followed by West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Punjab among the major states of India.
36
Table 4.15: State-wise Health Index in Rural areas 1998-99 State
All
SC
2005-06 OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
0.21
0.07
0.25
0.21
0.23
0.15
0.51
0.34
Assam
0.17
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.18
0.09
0.82
0.21
Bihar
0.14
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.20
0.32
0.34
0.21
Gujarat
0.19
0.26
0.14
0.09
0.21
0.28
0.45
0.32
Haryana
0.18
0.10
0.19
0.08
0.30
0.26
0.37
0.66
Himachal Pradesh
0.38
1.00
0.57
0.11
0.37
0.57
1.00
0.40
Jammu & Kashmir
0.23
0.17
0.30
0.09
0.26
0.12
0.99
0.38
Karnataka
0.24
0.12
0.19
0.14
0.27
0.22
0.56
0.44
Kerala
1.00
0.15
1.00
1.00
1.00
Madhya Pradesh
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.17
Maharashtra
0.30
0.16
0.63
0.12
0.28
Orissa
0.12
0.07
0.10
0.08
0.19
0.35
Punjab
0.20
0.20
0.08
0.10
0.33
0.45
Rajasthan
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.05
0.18
0.17
0.32
Tamil Nadu
0.32
0.21
0.17
0.40
0.48
0.71
Tripura
0.50
0.45
0.17
0.18
0.30
1.00
0.28
0.53
Uttar Pradesh
0.11
0.08
0.13
0.05
0.18
0.16
0.37
0.25
West Bengal
0.29
0.25
0.06
0.14
0.24
0.49
0.50
0.27
All India
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.08
0.21
0.24
0.39
0.27
Source: Computed by IAMR
37
1.00 0.19
0.39
0.16
0.42
0.32
0.32
0.28 0.34 0.27
Table 4.16: State-wise Rank of Health Index in Rural areas 1998-99 State
All
SC
2005-06 OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
9
15
5
2
11
14
6
8
Assam
13
10
17
14
15
16
3
15
Bihar
14
11
13
10
13
7
13
16
Gujarat
11
3
10
12
12
8
8
9
Haryana
12
12
7
13
6
9
12
2
Himachal Pradesh
3
1
3
8
3
2
1
5
Jammu & Kashmir
8
6
4
11
9
15
2
6
Karnataka
7
9
8
6
8
10
5
4
Kerala
1
8
1
1
1
Madhya Pradesh
18
17
16
17
18
Maharashtra
5
7
2
7
7
Orissa
15
16
14
15
14
6
Punjab
10
5
15
9
4
5
Rajasthan
16
14
12
16
17
12
15
Tamil Nadu
4
6
4
2
4
4
Tripura
2
2
9
3
5
1
16
3
Uttar Pradesh
17
13
11
18
16
13
11
14
West Bengal
6
4
18
5
10
3
7
12
1 11
10
17
9
10
14
11 7 13
Source: Computed by IAMR
Urban India In urban India also Kerala occupied the first position followed by West Bengal and Himachal Pradesh in the year 1998-99 for All categories of population. In the same year, for SC category, Maharashtra was on top followed by Orissa and Himachal. For OBC category, urban Maharashtra was the front runner, Kerala occupied the second position and Haryana the third. In 2005-06, Himachal Pradesh was ranked first followed by Haryana and Kerala for All categories. Hence, it was found that urban 38
Haryana improved a lot, Himachal also improved further but Kerala’s position worsened somewhat so far as Health improvement in urban areas is concerned. In urban India , for SC category in the same year, Gujarat is the best performer followed by Karnataka and Haryana. In 2005-06, for OBC category, Maharashtra occupies the first position followed by Gujarat and Tamil Nadu in terms of development in health sector in urban areas. Table 4.17: State-wise Health Index in Urban areas 1998-99 State
All
Andhra Pradesh
0.25
Assam
0.26
Bihar
0.50
Gujarat
SC 0.24
2005-06 OBC
GEN
All
0.15
0.32
0.34
0.06
0.14
0.21
0.62
0.46
0.30
0.34
0.19
0.18
Haryana
0.40
0.37
Himachal Pradesh
0.87
Jammu & Kashmir
SC NA
OBC
GEN
0.46
0.88
0.54
0.18
0.49
0.22
0.15
0.39
0.88
0.41
0.43
1.00
0.87
0.68
0.62
0.23
0.95
0.68
0.76
0.77
0.30
1.00
1.00
0.21
0.23
0.31
0.08
0.17
0.42
Karnataka
0.44
0.42
0.38
0.27
0.33
Kerala
1.00
0.84
0.59
0.90
Madhya Pradesh
0.32
0.21
0.28
0.30
0.28
0.50
0.43
0.96
Maharashtra
0.49
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.46
0.56
1.00
0.95
Orissa
0.25
0.80
0.20
0.11
0.27
0.17
0.62
0.73
Punjab
0.37
0.29
0.31
0.32
0.28
0.37
0.64
0.64
Rajasthan
0.18
0.12
0.16
0.12
0.18
0.19
0.42
0.34
Tamil Nadu
0.45
0.55
0.44
0.16
0.40
0.41
0.81
Tripura
0.40
0.14
0.46
Uttar Pradesh
0.28
0.53
0.16
0.18
West Bengal
0.98
0.37
NA
NA
0.31
NA
NA
0.53
All India
0.36
0.37
0.31
0.24
0.29
0.35
0.53
0.68
NA
NA
NA 0.28
Source: Computed by IAMR
39
NA 0.98 NA
NA 0.15
NA
NA NA
0.12
0.73
0.58
0.51
NA
NA 0.38
1.00
NA 0.53 0.47
The performance of different states in Health related aspects measured by Health index is actually a reflection of IMR of different caste groups across the states of India. The states showing the least IMR is considered the best performer in Health sector. Hence, an analysis of IMR in rural , urban and for All India (rural +urban) is also made. Table 4.18: State-wise Rank of Health Index in Urban areas 1998-99 State
All
SC
2005-06 OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
15
12
14
4
9
-
8
5
Assam
14
-
16
15
16
5
13
13
Bihar
4
4
4
7
15
12
11
4
Gujarat
11
14
12
3
6
1
2
8
Haryana
9
9
3
10
2
3
4
-
Himachal Pradesh
3
3
8
1
1
9
-
-
Jammu & Kashmir
17
10
15
11
7
-
14
7
Karnataka
7
7
6
8
10
2
7
12
Kerala
1
-
2
2
3
-
-
1
Madhya Pradesh
12
13
10
6
12
6
9
2
Maharashtra
5
1
1
9
4
4
1
3
Orissa
16
2
11
17
14
11
6
6
Punjab
10
11
7
5
13
8
5
9
Rajasthan
18
15
13
16
18
10
10
15
Tamil Nadu
6
5
5
12
8
7
3
-
Tripura
8
-
-
14
5
-
-
10
Uttar Pradesh
13
6
9
13
17
13
12
14
West Bengal
2
8
-
-
11
-
-
11
Source: Computed by IAMR
40
Table 4.19: State-wise Infant Mortality Rate in Rural+Urban 1998-99 State
All
SC
2005-06
OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC GEN
Andhra Pradesh
59.2
101.4
58.2
29.1
50.0
75.6
47.2
39.2
Assam
66.7
73.2
119.3
62.1
69.0
137.1
34.4
69.6
Bihar
76.9
78.0
83.7
54.3
65.1
55.7
65.1
70.5
Gujarat
58.1
60.7
74.7
42.9
49.4
43.8
44.8
42.0
Haryana
60.2
79.0
51.2
55.4
37.5
53.9
54.1
19.6
Himachal Pradesh
33.1
12.2
23.2
45.5
34.6
32.8
23.3
35.9
Jammu & Kashmir
55.4
54.8
55.8
57.7
47.0
95.9
40.1
41.4
Karnataka
47.6
65.1
53.9
37.8
45.0
59.4
41.0
41.5
Kerala
14.8
53.6
14.1
8.5
14.0
NA
19.8
102.4
110.7
98.1
66.6
69.1
69.6
57.8
64.8
Maharashtra
39.4
39.6
18.9
43.4
37.4
14.3
42.0
37.0
Orissa
85.1
101.9
90.9
65.2
63.8
54.1
66.7
52.4
Punjab
55.9
51.2
90.4
45.1
41.4
39.1
13.7
43.7
Rajasthan
90.1
105.6
87.2
81.7
71.1
88.7
67.8
63.2
Tamil Nadu
39.5
16.5
46.1
130.4
32.3
37.1
31.4
0.0
Tripura
29.2
19.5
57.2
39.2
42.2
14.2
68.6
34.2
Uttar Pradesh
86.7
92.9
74.5
81.6
70.1
96.0
61.6
59.9
West Bengal
38.6
42.4
76.1
31.5
52.3
27.5
34.3
56.5
All India
67.2
74.7
68.5
55.4
56.9
63.6
54.9
50.8
Madhya Pradesh
NA
Health index has been calculated on the basis of infant mortality rate (IMR) across the states of India and for different categories. IMR for 1998-1999 has been calculated as 67.2, it decreased to 56.9 in 2005-6 for India for All categories. The IMR in 1998-99 for SC category was 74.7 and that of OBC category was 68.5. Rural India showed an IMR of 72.9 for All category population, 78 for SC category and 73.1 for OBC in 1998-99. In the same year, urban India showed the corresponding rate for All 41
category as 47.4, 60.1 for SC and 51.4 for OBC. Kerala showed the least IMR for All categories and for OBC for India in 1998-99 taking rural and urban areas together. In 1998-99, rural Kerala is also exhibiting the least IMR for All and for OBC category among all states. However, for SC category, Kerala have a much higher IMR for India taking rural and urban areas together (53.6) as well as for rural India (60.4). Himachal Pradesh showed the least IMR (12.2) for the country and Tamil Nadu showing the least (7.1) for rural India for SC category in the same year. Table 4.20: State-wise Infant Mortality Rate in Rural areas 1998-99 State
All
SC
2005-06 OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC GEN
Andhra Pradesh
57.3
103.9
45.1
27.3
57.7
104.2
46.7
48.8
Assam
66.9
79.9
114.0
61.5
70.9
155.6
29.4
75.0
Bihar
80.6
80.8
88.6
56.3
66.7
52.4
66.4
76.0
Gujarat
62.8
36.8
71.1
58.4
61.7
59.4
52.1
51.3
Haryana
65.6
83.5
57.3
60.3
45.1
62.5
62.5
25.8
Himachal Pradesh
34.2
10.6
21.6
49.2
36.9
30.3
24.4
41.8
Jammu & Kashmir
52.3
52.9
38.6
57.5
51.2
125.0
24.7
44.0
Karnataka
51.3
68.8
57.7
38.4
50.2
73.3
42.5
37.9
Kerala
14.1
60.4
12.7
6.1
14.1
116.3
115.3
110.7
86.8
77.5
Maharashtra
42.1
57.4
19.8
45.1
47.2
Orissa
87.3
108.6
92.8
61.9
67.3
47.6
Punjab
59.1
46.8
106.0
50.8
40.5
37.4
Rajasthan
91.1
98.0
86.6
84.0
72.8
91.4
71.1
60.8
Tamil Nadu
39.9
7.1
51.6
335.0
34.0
35.5
34.1
0.0
Tripura
27.1
22.7
61.4
31.4
44.8
17.5
79.4
31.7
Uttar Pradesh
91.9
97.9
76.6
87.9
71.9
95.3
62.3
64.7
West Bengal
43.3
38.4
126.1
38.0
55.8
34.7
47.6
60.1
All India
72.9
78.0
73.1
61.1
62.6
68.7
58.8
59.5
Madhya Pradesh
17.3 84.7
59.8
95.5
55.2
52.1
70.4
58.3 48.1
Source: IAMR computation using NFHS, second and third round unit data 42
For urban India, for All category, Kerala exhibits the lowest IMR (18) followed by West Bengal (18.3) in1998-99. Maharashtra shows the least IMR(17.2) followed by Kerala (20.3) in urban India for OBC category. For SC category, Maharashtra exhibits the least IMR (23.8) followed by Orissa (29.3) in the same year in urban India. Table 4.21: State-wise Infant Mortality Rate in Urban areas 1998-99 State
All
Andhra Pradesh
64.5
Assam
63.8
Bihar
34.8
Gujarat
SC 86.7
2005-06 OBC
GEN All
96.0
31.6
35.1
181.7
69.3
55.3
37.5
36.0
34.1
49.6
103.5
83.3
Haryana
43.2
60.2
Himachal Pradesh
20.7
Jammu & Kashmir
SC
OBC
GEN
48.1
27.8
31.3
111.1
48.4
52.8
98.0
56.7
27.8
25.5
28.5
17.2
26.5
35.7
27.1
43.0
13.2
25.0
30.3
0.0
30.4
53.4
10.7
12.5
74.1
70.0
70.8
159.4
58.5
29.2
Karnataka
39.5
53.6
42.6
37.0
36.2
Kerala
18.0
20.3
17.8
13.8
Madhya Pradesh
52.0
95.3
57.0
33.7
42.0
33.3
51.2
25.7
Maharashtra
35.2
23.8
17.2
41.1
26.3
30.3
23.3
25.9
Orissa
66.3
29.3
75.7
85.9
43.8
89.3
37.0
33.1
Punjab
46.2
73.6
52.1
32.0
43.0
44.1
35.7
37.6
Rajasthan
86.4
149.5
89.7
76.1
65.0
81.4
52.2
66.7
Tamil Nadu
38.7
41.7
37.4
59.4
30.1
39.9
28.6
0.0
Tripura
42.9
66.0
26.7
Uttar Pradesh
59.8
43.3
61.2
63.1
99.3
West Bengal
18.3
59.7
4.8
38.2
4.6
All India
47.4
60.1
41.8
40.9
47.3
56.7
51.4
17.5
0.0 153.8
33.3
39.0
46.5 24.6
44.4 58.0
44.9 42.8
Source: IAMR computation using NFHS, second and third round unit data
43
49.7
35.8
There has been considerable reduction in IMR for all India from 67.2 in 1998-99 to 56.9 in 2005-06 for All categories The corresponding rates for SC
and OBC
category decreased to 63.6 and 54.9 respectively in the same year. The IMR for Rural India also had some reduction compared to that in 1998-99. In 2005-06, IMR for rural India exhibited a rate of 62.6 for All, 68.7 for SC and 58.8 for OBC. The corresponding rates for All, SC and OBC for urban India reduced to 40.9, 47.3 and 42.8 respectively in the same year. In 2005-06, Kerala had the least IMR (14) for All category. West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh have a lower IMR than the national average in this year. For India (rural and urban), among all the major states, Maharashtra exhibits the lowest mortality rate (14.3) followed by West Bengal (27.5) for SC population in 200506. Punjab is having the lowest IMR (13.7) followed by Himachal Pradesh (23.3) for OBC category in the same year. Data for Kerala are not available for SC and OBC population for 2005-06. In 2005-06, IMR for rural India was the least for Kerala (14.1) followed by Tamil Nadu (34) and Himachal Pradesh (36.9) for All category. IMR for SC in rural India was the least in Himachal Pradesh (30.3). West Bengal and Tamil Nadu occupy second and third position in the same year. For OBC category rural Himachal and rural areas of Jammu and Kashmir occupy the first (24.4) and second position (24.7) in terms of IMR. Looking at the scenario of urban India, it has been found that among the major states, urban Himachal Pradesh was at the top (12.5) of the ladder having the least IMR followed by Haryana (13.2) and Kerala(13.8) in 2005-06 for All category. For OBC category, Maharashtra ranks first (23.3) followed by Gujarat (26.5) in urban India in the same year. Data for urban Kerala is unavailable for SC as well as OBC category for the year 2005-06. For SC category, Gujarat (17.2) and Karnataka (17.5) are having the least IMR among all the major states in urban India in 2005-06. Concluding remarks: Although there has been reduction in infant mortality rates in most of the states, lots of improvements need to be done in Health related issues. There is shortage of 44
skilled manpower like Doctors, Nurses, para-medicos in rural areas. There are shortages of Primary Health Care centres also. Many more government hospitals need to be built with facilities available at low cost so that vulnerable and weaker sections of the community can approach them. The immunization system should be more effective and handled with care. Pre- natal and child care should be available at low cost, especially to the poorer sections of the community who cannot avail the state of art facilities at private hospitals. Health facilities should be accompanied by other facilities like safe drinking water, sanitation facilities. Public expenditure on Health needs to be increased.
There are wide variations across states, caste groups and between rural and
urban areas in health care facilities. It reflects that State governments’ role is crucial in improving health care facilities for the marginalized and poor people.
It has been
found that scheduled castes suffer the most compared to other backward castes. General category people are better placed than SCs and OBCs. The condition is more precarious for the weaker sections of the community in rural areas than urban areas and in the poor states. Income Index: (Rural +Urban) The third component of HDI is income. Looking at the income dimension, it can be commented that in 2011-12, Kerala is the best performer for All category for the country. The next best performers for All category are Haryana and Punjab. It is also observed that Kerala has improved its rank from fourth to first during the period 1999-00 to 2011-12. Punjab has shifted from first to third rank during this period. Haryana regained its position from third to second during this ten year period.
In 1999-2000,
for SC category, Himachal Pradesh secures the first position followed by Punjab and Maharashtra. For OBC category, Punjab is at the top followed by Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. In 2011-12, for SC category, Gujarat occupies the first position upgrading its position from seventh in 1999-2000. Punjab and Himachal Pradesh occupy the second and third rank. For OBC, in the year 2011-12, Kerala is the top ranking state followed by Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh.
45
The income index across the caste groups shows that the income index for OBC is almost equal to that of the All category. The respective index for General is the highest among all the groups whereas the index for SC is the lowest. Except a few states we find the same trend for most of the states i.e, the income index for OBC being almost equal to that of the All category, SC shows a lower index than All and OBC and the respective index for General category is the highest among all the categories. However, in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Assam and Andhra Pradesh the income index for OBC is somewhat higher than All category. Table 4.22: State-wise Income Index (Rural+Urban) 1999-00 State
All
SC
OBC
2011-12 GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
0.11
0.09
0.11
0.20
0.23
0.21
0.24
0.52
Assam
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.16
Bihar
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.19
Gujarat
0.16
0.13
0.15
0.22
0.33
0.34
0.25
0.42
Haryana
0.20
0.13
0.16
0.28
0.40
0.21
0.31
0.48
Himachal Pradesh
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.21
0.35
0.31
0.35
0.45
Jammu & Kashmir
0.21
0.11
0.18
0.19
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.38
Karnataka
0.12
0.07
0.11
0.18
0.31
0.19
0.32
0.57
Kerala
0.18
0.13
0.16
0.22
0.45
0.27
0.42
0.72
Madhya Pradesh
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.21
0.15
0.13
0.17
0.31
Maharashtra
0.13
0.15
0.14
0.24
0.32
0.27
0.35
0.44
Orissa
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.20
Punjab
0.22
0.16
0.22
0.24
0.36
0.31
0.34
0.47
Rajasthan
0.14
0.12
0.15
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.26
0.36
Tamil Nadu
0.12
0.07
0.17
0.32
0.33
0.24
0.38
0.61
Tripura
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.13
0.33
0.29
0.39
0.31
Uttar Pradesh
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.14
0.22
0.11
0.12
0.34
West Bengal
0.09
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.24
0.16
0.22
0.24
All India
0.11
0.08
0.10
0.16
0.23
0.17
0.22
0.33
Source: Computed by IAMR 46
Kerala shows the best performance in terms of income dimension followed by Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh for All categories among the major states of India. The poor performers are Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh so far as income aspect is concerned for poor as well as general sections of the community. Table 4.23: State-wise Rank of Income Index (Rural+Urban) 1999-00 State
All
SC
OBC
Andhra Pradesh
12
10
12
Assam
15
11
Bihar
18
Gujarat
2011-12 All
SC
9
13
9
11
4
16
17
16
14
15
18
18
18
18
18
17
18
17
6
7
8
5
6
1
10
9
Haryana
3
6
6
2
2
10
8
5
Himachal Pradesh
5
1
3
8
4
3
4
7
Jammu & Kashmir
2
9
2
10
10
7
12
10
Karnataka
11
14
11
12
9
12
7
3
Kerala
4
5
5
6
1
6
1
1
Madhya Pradesh
16
16
15
7
15
15
14
14
Maharashtra
9
3
10
3
8
5
5
8
Orissa
17
17
17
16
17
18
17
16
Punjab
1
2
1
4
3
2
6
6
Rajasthan
8
8
9
11
11
11
9
11
Tamil Nadu
10
13
4
1
5
8
3
2
Tripura
7
4
7
14
7
4
2
13
Uttar Pradesh
14
15
14
13
14
16
16
12
West Bengal
13
12
13
15
12
13
13
15
Source: Computed by IAMR
47
GEN
OBC
GEN
Rural India The rural India shows that Haryana ranks first in 1999-2000, Kerala securing the second for All category. In 2011-12, Kerala becomes the top ranking state in terms of income followed by Punjab for All category, Haryana slides down to fifth position. For SC category, Himachal gets the first rank in 1999-2000 and it retains its position after the Table 4.24: State-wise Income Index in Rural areas 1999-00 State
All
SC
OBC
2011-12 GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.14
0.22
0.18
0.24
0.34
Assam
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.12
Bihar
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.12
0.14
Gujarat
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.15
0.24
0.23
0.18
0.31
Haryana
0.21
0.12
0.16
0.27
0.30
0.20
0.26
0.46
Himachal Pradesh
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.37
0.32
0.47
0.43
Jammu & Kashmir
0.15
0.08
0.19
0.18
0.30
0.26
0.28
0.23
Karnataka
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.17
0.15
0.17
0.22
Kerala
0.20
0.13
0.23
0.28
0.41
0.26
0.34
0.52
Madhya Pradesh
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.15
0.16
0.14
0.36
Maharashtra
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.20
0.16
0.22
0.20
Orissa
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.16
Punjab
0.19
0.13
0.17
0.24
0.39
0.22
0.31
0.55
Rajasthan
0.09
0.07
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.21
0.26
Tamil Nadu
0.10
0.04
0.09
0.16
0.20
0.16
0.21
0.23
Tripura
0.11
0.10
0.14
0.14
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.27
Uttar Pradesh
0.09
0.05
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.19
West Bengal
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.14
All India
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.15
0.13
0.16
0.20
Source: Computed by IAMR 48
decade. Punjab occupied the second rank for SC category in 1999-2000, it became the sixth rank holder in 2011-12 for the same category. For OBC category, Kerala was at the top in 1999-2000 it became the second ranking state in 2011-12 whereas Himachal becomes the first rank holder improving its position from fifth rank. Jammu & Kashmir was at the second position in 1999-2000; it slides down to fourth position for OBC category in 2011-12. Table 4.25: State-wise Rank of Income Index in Rural areas 1999-00 State
All
SC
OBC
Andhra Pradesh
13
14
14
Assam
14
10
Bihar
17
Gujarat
2011-12 GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
9
8
8
6
6
15
16
14
16
15
18
18
18
18
17
18
16
16
6
5
8
7
7
5
11
7
Haryana
1
4
4
2
5
7
5
3
Himachal Pradesh
4
1
5
6
3
1
1
4
Jammu & Kashmir
5
8
2
4
4
3
4
11
Karnataka
16
12
13
14
11
15
13
12
Kerala
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Madhya Pradesh
15
16
16
12
13
12
14
5
Maharashtra
12
11
10
13
10
13
8
13
Orissa
18
17
17
15
18
17
18
15
Punjab
3
2
3
3
2
6
3
1
Rajasthan
9
9
7
8
12
9
9
9
Tamil Nadu
8
15
11
5
9
11
10
10
Tripura
7
6
6
10
6
4
7
8
Uttar Pradesh
10
13
12
11
16
10
17
14
West Bengal
11
7
9
17
15
14
12
17
Source: Computed by IAMR In Rural West Bengal, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh the income index for OBC is higher than that of the All category. With the 49
exception of the aforesaid states the corresponding indices for OBC and All are almost the same in 2011-12 in other states. In the rural areas of Assam and Jammu & Kashmir, the income index for SC is higher than that of the General category. On the whole in Rural India, the income index for SC population is the lowest and that of General category is the highest. Urban India If we look at the scenario of urban India, we find that Himachal got the first rank followed by Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir for All category in 1999-2000. In 2011-12, Maharashtra became the top ranker followed by Haryana and Himachal in terms of income index. In 2011-12, urban Himachal secured the first position improving its rank from second in 1999-2000 for SC category. Jammu & Kashmir deteriorated in terms of income dimension for SC category and slid from first to eleventh position. Urban Maharashtra became the second ranking state in 2011-12 for SC category. For OBC category, Punjab was the top ranker in 1999-00, it became eleventh state in 201112. Haryana improved its ranking from fourth to first in terms of income for OBC category during the ten year period. Assam improved from seventh to second rank during the same period for OBC category. Jammu & Kashmir slid from second to seventh position during this ten year period for OBC category.
50
Table 4.26: State-wise Income Index in Urban areas 1999-00 State
All
SC
OBC
2011-12 GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
0.20
0.14
0.18
0.26
0.41
0.33
0.49
0.63
Assam
0.27
0.13
0.22
0.22
0.36
0.48
0.56
0.44
Bihar
0.13
0.09
0.11
0.25
0.20
0.16
0.19
0.28
Gujarat
0.26
0.15
0.19
0.28
0.41
0.46
0.35
0.48
Haryana
0.30
0.18
0.23
0.38
0.59
0.34
0.62
0.84
Himachal Pradesh
0.42
0.23
0.17
0.41
0.58
0.60
0.44
0.77
Jammu & Kashmir
0.30
0.23
0.26
0.37
0.46
0.32
0.44
0.64
Karnataka
0.23
0.13
0.22
0.29
0.51
0.36
0.54
0.73
Kerala
0.27
0.18
0.21
0.32
0.55
0.36
0.54
0.74
Madhya Pradesh
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.21
0.24
0.20
0.19
0.43
Maharashtra
0.27
0.19
0.21
0.27
0.60
0.53
0.43
0.71
Orissa
0.13
0.09
0.14
0.16
0.35
0.18
0.32
0.44
Punjab
0.29
0.15
0.27
0.32
0.47
0.33
0.41
0.49
Rajasthan
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.51
0.30
0.34
0.60
Tamil Nadu
0.23
0.15
0.23
0.40
0.48
0.47
0.55
0.98
Tripura
0.23
0.18
0.23
0.25
0.41
0.31
0.42
0.61
Uttar Pradesh
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.20
0.31
0.26
0.16
0.49
West Bengal
0.24
0.16
0.17
0.25
0.56
0.31
0.32
0.42
All India
0.20
0.14
0.17
0.26
0.42
0.30
0.37
0.54
Source: Computed by IAMR
As is expected urban India shows the highest income index for General, second for All, third for OBC and the lowest for SC category in 2011-12.
51
Table 4.27: State-wise Rank of Income Index in Urban areas 1999-00 State
All
2011-12
SC
OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
13
12
12
10
11
10
6
8
Assam
7
14
7
15
14
3
2
15
Bihar
18
18
18
12
18
18
16
18
Gujarat
8
9
11
8
13
5
12
13
Haryana
2
4
5
3
2
8
1
2
Himachal Pradesh
1
2
13
1
3
1
8
3
Jammu & Kashmir
3
1
2
4
10
11
7
7
Karnataka
12
13
6
7
6
6
4
5
Kerala
5
5
9
6
5
7
5
4
Madhya Pradesh
16
16
16
16
17
16
17
16
Maharashtra
6
3
8
9
1
2
9
6
Orissa
17
17
15
18
15
17
14
14
Punjab
4
10
1
5
9
9
11
12
Rajasthan
14
11
10
13
7
14
13
10
Tamil Nadu
11
8
4
2
8
4
3
1
Tripura
10
6
3
14
12
13
10
9
Uttar Pradesh
15
15
17
17
16
15
18
11
West Bengal
9
7
14
11
4
12
15
17
Source: Computed by IAMR
Concluding remarks: One of the most crucial indicators of wellbeing of an individual is his income which is translated into average monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE). In India, acute discrepancies in economic wellbeing/standard of living are observed for certain social groups. It is observed that low standard of living and poverty are more acute in rural areas and in certain states. There has not been changes in the relative positions of states like Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal and Uttar 52
Pradesh in income ladder even for the upper sections of the society during the period 1999-00 to 2011-12 period. Marked differences have been observed in the standard of living of rural and urban population. The income index shows that scheduled castes are the poorest ones compared to other backward castes. With the exception of few states, in all other states, general category people enjoy much higher living standard than scheduled castes and other backward castes. However, convergence has been observed in the living standard of other backward classes with rest of the population. To enhance income and thereby the living standard of people, the aspect of employability of people needs to be looked into. More employment opportunity in nonfarm sector should be created to reduce burden in agriculture and to tackle the aspect of negative or nil productivity in farm sector. Skill training and education are the most effective routes to enhance employability of people in non -farm sector. Convergence and integration of schemes and programmes are required to increase their effectiveness. HDI index: (Rural and Urban) Among the major states of India, Kerala occupied the top rank followed by Tripura and Himachal Pradesh for All category in 1999-2000. In 2011-12, Kerala retained its first position, Himachal the second and Tamil Nadu the third for All category. For SC category, Maharashtra becomes the top performer followed by Tripura and Himachal Pradesh in 2011-12. There has been some worsening of the position of Kerala in terms of human development during the ten year period for SC category. During the period 1999-00 to 2011-12, for the same category the position of Kerala slid from fourth to ninth For OBC category, Kerala was at the top followed by Maharashtra and Himachal Pradesh in 1999-2000.
Punjab, Himachal Pradesh a n d
Tamil Nadu become the first, second and third ranking states in 2011-12 for OBC category. For OBC, Kerala’s position slides down from first to seventh and that of Maharashtra from second to fourth during the period 1999-00 to 2011-12. For general category, Kerala ranks first followed by Haryana, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra.
53
Table 4.28: State-wise Human Development Index in Rural+Urban State
1999-00 All
SC
2011-12
OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
0.24
0.16
0.22
0.34
0.35
0.29
0.35
0.57
Assam
0.27
0.25
0.24
0.25
0.33
0.30
0.40
0.36
Bihar
0.18
0.11
0.17
0.25
0.27
0.24
0.26
0.38
Gujarat
0.30
0.25
0.24
0.35
0.41
0.42
0.36
0.55
Haryana
0.31
0.21
0.29
0.34
0.48
0.34
0.39
0.75
Himachal Pradesh
0.40
0.56
0.45
0.33
0.49
0.46
0.56
0.58
Jammu & Kashmir
0.31
0.20
0.30
0.28
0.39
0.32
0.39
0.49
Karnataka
0.29
0.19
0.26
0.33
0.42
0.32
0.43
0.60
Kerala
0.63
0.32
0.61
0.67
0.76
0.34
0.41
0.87
Madhya Pradesh
0.19
0.15
0.20
0.31
0.30
0.27
0.32
0.46
Maharashtra
0.35
0.32
0.48
0.36
0.47
0.64
0.46
0.57
Orissa
0.20
0.15
0.21
0.26
0.29
0.27
0.30
0.43
Punjab
0.33
0.25
0.30
0.34
0.45
0.40
0.67
0.55
Rajasthan
0.22
0.17
0.21
0.26
0.31
0.26
0.32
0.46
Tamil Nadu
0.33
0.41
0.33
0.39
0.48
0.41
0.50
0.51
Tripura
0.40
0.42
0.32
0.31
0.43
0.63
0.42
0.52
Uttar Pradesh
0.21
0.15
0.20
0.26
0.31
0.23
0.27
0.45
West Bengal
0.31
0.24
0.27
0.30
0.36
0.40
0.41
0.39
All India
0.25
0.20
0.23
0.29
0.35
0.30
0.35
0.48
Source: Computed by IAMR The index shows that Gujarat, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tripura perform better for their SC population than All in the same year. It is also worthy to note that Maharashtra and West Bengal have shown a higher human development index for their SC population than General category in 2011-12. At the lowest end of the HDI ladder for SC category are Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan whereas for OBC category the poorest performing states are Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa. Bihar, Assam and West Bengal are at the bottom of HDI ladder for General category and Bihar, Orissa and 54
Madhya Pradesh are placed at the bottom end for All category. The HDI for All is equal to that of OBC as scheduled tribe (ST) category is also included in All. The HDI for general category is the highest among all other categories. Table 4.29: State-wise Rank of Human Development Index in Rural+Urban State
1999-00 All
SC
2011-12 OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
13
14
13
6
12
13
13
6
Assam
12
7
12
18
13
12
9
18
Bihar
18
18
18
17
18
17
18
17
Gujarat
10
8
11
4
9
4
12
8
Haryana
8
10
8
7
4
8
11
2
Himachal Pradesh
3
1
3
9
2
3
2
4
Jammu & Kashmir
7
11
7
13
10
11
10
11
Karnataka
11
12
10
8
8
10
5
3
Kerala
1
4
1
1
1
9
7
1
Madhya Pradesh
17
15
17
10
16
15
14
12
Maharashtra
4
5
2
3
5
1
4
5
Orissa
16
16
15
15
17
14
16
15
Punjab
6
6
6
5
6
6
1
7
Rajasthan
14
13
14
16
14
16
15
13
Tamil Nadu
5
3
4
2
3
5
3
10
Tripura
2
2
5
11
7
2
6
9
Uttar Pradesh
15
17
16
14
15
18
17
14
West Bengal
9
9
9
12
11
7
8
16
Source: Computed by IAMR
55
Rural India On the basis of HDI ranking for rural areas it has been found that Kerala secures the first rank for All, OBC and General category in 1999-2000. Kerala retained its position for All category in 2011-12 whereas for OBC category, Himachal becomes the first ranking state. For SC category, Himachal Pradesh is the top performer in 1999-00 and Tripura in 2011-12. Himachal and Punjab are the second and third ranking states in terms of HDI ranking for All category in 2011-12. Himachal and Tamil Nadu come next to Tripura for SC category in rural India in 2011-12. For OBC category, Jammu & Kashmir and Assam secure second and third position in HDI ranking in 201112. Table 4.30: State-wise Human Development Index in Rural areas 1999-00 State
All
SC
2011-12 OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
0.19
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.30
0.25
0.40
0.42
Assam
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.32
0.29
0.54
0.33
Bihar
0.16
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.26
0.25
0.31
0.34
Gujarat
0.24
0.26
0.21
0.26
0.32
0.35
0.37
0.43
Haryana
0.28
0.19
0.26
0.29
0.40
0.34
0.40
0.60
Himachal Pradesh
0.36
0.55
0.44
0.28
0.48
0.51
0.74
0.52
Jammu & Kashmir
0.28
0.17
0.32
0.25
0.38
0.30
0.62
0.40
Karnataka
0.22
0.16
0.21
0.24
0.33
0.28
0.43
0.44
Kerala
0.63
0.30
0.63
0.69
0.74
0.33
0.38
0.80
Madhya Pradesh
0.15
0.13
0.17
0.22
0.27
0.26
0.35
0.41
Maharashtra
0.29
0.22
0.41
0.25
0.37
0.25
0.43
0.39
Orissa
0.17
0.14
0.18
0.22
0.27
0.30
0.33
0.37
Punjab
0.28
0.23
0.26
0.29
0.44
0.39
0.32
0.52
Rajasthan
0.17
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.26
0.25
0.34
0.37
Tamil Nadu
0.29
0.14
0.26
0.33
0.40
0.40
0.51
0.35
Tripura
0.38
0.35
0.29
0.29
0.38
0.60
0.40
0.48
Uttar Pradesh
0.19
0.13
0.18
0.22
0.26
0.25
0.32
0.35
West Bengal
0.26
0.23
0.23
0.21
0.29
0.38
0.42
0.31
All India
0.21
0.16
0.20
0.23
0.30
0.28
0.36
0.37
Source: Computed by IAMR 56
Table 4.31: State-wise Rank of Human Development Index in Rural areas State
1999-00
2011-12
All
SC
OBC
All
SC
Andhra Pradesh
13
17
13
GEN 8
12
17
OBC 8
GEN 8
Assam
11
7
10
16
11
11
3
17
Bihar
17
18
18
17
18
15
18
16
Gujarat
10
4
12
7
10
6
12
7
Haryana
7
9
6
3
5
7
9
2
Himachal Pradesh
3
1
2
6
2
2
1
4
Jammu & Kashmir
8
10
4
10
7
9
2
10
Karnataka
12
11
11
11
9
12
6
6
Kerala
1
3
1
1
1
8
11
1
Madhya Pradesh
18
16
17
14
15
13
13
9
Maharashtra
5
8
3
9
8
18
5
11
Orissa
16
13
16
13
14
10
15
13
Punjab
6
6
7
5
3
4
16
3
Rajasthan
15
15
15
18
16
14
14
12
Tamil Nadu
4
12
8
2
4
3
4
15
Tripura
2
2
5
4
6
1
10
5
Uttar Pradesh
14
14
14
12
17
16
17
14
West Bengal
9
5
9
15
13
5
7
18
Source: Computed by IAMR
Rural India shows that in 2011-12, except Kerala and Punjab in the cases of all other states Human Development Index is higher for OBC category than All categories of population. The Human development index of SC is higher than that of General category index in rural areas of Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal in the same year.
57
Urban India Urban India shows that in 2011-12, urban Himachal is at the top of HDI ladder maintaining its position in 1999-2000 for All category. Haryana secures the second rank in 2011-12 for All category. Gujarat and Maharashtra secure the first rank for SC and OBC category in terms of HDI in 2011-12. It is found that Gujarat upgraded its position from twelth to first and Maharashtra maintained its position for SC and OBC categories respectively during this ten year period. In 1999-2000, the position for the SC was held by Maharashtra. Maharashtra became the third ranking state in 2011-12 for the SC category. Table 4.32: State-wise Human Development Index in Urban areas Stat e Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All India
All
1999-00 SC OBC
GEN
2011-12 All SC
OBC
GEN
0.35
0.29
0.28
0.43
0.50
0.34
0.56
0.78
0.43
0.27
0.35
0.38
0.46
0.60
0.53
0.58
0.40
0.35
0.36
0.44
0.37
0.30
0.42
0.66
0.42
0.29
0.31
0.48
0.53
0.72
0.63
0.67
0.45
0.31
0.47
0.47
0.79
0.54
0.70
0.59
0.70
0.54
0.36
0.77
0.81
0.52
0.36
0.56
0.40
0.33
0.31
0.41
0.55
0.33
0.44
0.71
0.45
0.35
0.41
0.46
0.55
0.69
0.64
0.71
0.68
0.28
0.59
0.58
0.78
0.39
0.47
0.90
0.37
0.26
0.33
0.42
0.42
0.44
0.43
0.77
0.50
0.60
0.63
0.42
0.63
0.61
0.75
0.84
0.32
0.41
0.31
0.33
0.44
0.28
0.52
0.67
0.44
0.30
0.41
0.48
0.50
0.43
0.59
0.67
0.33
0.23
0.30
0.36
0.46
0.34
0.46
0.60
0.45
0.42
0.44
0.48
0.56
0.54
0.72
0.65
0.44
0.25
0.30
0.38
0.56
0.34
0.41
0.68
0.33
0.36
0.28
0.35
0.38
0.32
0.36
0.59
0.63
0.33
0.26
0.33
0.54
0.32
0.35
0.57
0.41
0.33
0.35
0.42
0.49
0.43
0.54
0.69
Source: Computed by IAMR
58
In urban India, Assam, Gujarat show a better performance in terms of human development for their SC category than General category in 2011-12. It has been found that with the exception of Haryana, Himachal, Jammu & Kashmir, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal other states of urban India exhibit that their performance is better for their OBC population than All category in the same year. Table 4.33: State-wise Rank of Human Development Index in Urban areas 1999-00
State All
SC
2011-12 OBC
GEN
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
15
13
16
9
12
11
7
3
Assam
10
15
9
14
13
4
8
16
Bihar
12
6
8
8
18
17
14
11
Gujarat
11
12
13
3
10
1
5
9
Haryana
6
10
3
6
2
5
3
15
Himachal Pradesh
1
2
7
1
1
7
17
18
Jammu & Kashmir
13
9
11
12
8
14
12
5
Karnataka
5
7
6
7
7
2
4
6
Kerala
2
14
2
2
3
10
10
1
Madhya Pradesh
14
16
10
11
16
8
13
4
Maharashtra
4
1
1
10
4
3
1
2
Orissa
18
4
12
17
15
18
9
8
Punjab
9
11
5
4
11
9
6
10
Rajasthan
17
18
14
15
14
13
11
13
Tamil Nadu
7
3
4
5
5
6
2
12
Tripura
8
17
15
13
6
12
15
7
Uttar Pradesh
16
5
17
16
17
16
16
14
West Bengal
3
8
18
18
9
15
18
17
Source: Computed by IAMR
59
The percentage change in HDI between 1999-00 and 2011-12 is depicted in following tables. The table shows that in the country there has been a 39.5 per cent increase in HDI value for All, 50.4 per cent increase for SC, 47.3 per cent increase for OBC and 61.9 per cent increase for General category population over the ten year period. The percentage changes in HDI in rural and urban areas of several states (especially the poorer ones) for certain categories have been large because they have improved in different dimensions over the ten year period. Table 4.34: State-wise % change in Human Development Index in Rural+Urban 1999-00 to 2011-12 Stat e Andhra Pradesh
All
SC
OBC
GEN
47.4
73.2
59.0
67.1
Assam
22.7
19.8
71.4
48.1
Bihar
47.1
108.1
52.1
53.4
Gujarat
36.5
66.6
49.1
58.7
Haryana
53.5
64.1
34.5
118.7
Himachal Pradesh
22.9
-17.5
22.4
78.2
Jammu & Kashmir
23.6
60.4
33.0
72.7
Karnataka
44.6
72.3
67.9
82.2
Kerala
20.1
6.0
-32.7
29.5
Madhya Pradesh
54.9
72.0
62.2
47.2
Maharashtra
32.4
103.6
-3.2
61.7
Orissa
47.3
73.6
43.7
65.8
Punjab
37.2
56.2
123.5
61.1
Rajasthan
43.6
53.6
51.9
78.4
Tamil Nadu
44.4
0.2
52.4
31.5
Tripura
6.1
49.4
34.5
68.3
Uttar Pradesh
45.2
49.0
36.4
73.2
West Bengal
16.1
64.5
55.7
31.9
All India
39.5
50.4
47.3
61.9
Source: Computed by IAMR 60
Table 4.35: State-wise % change in Human Development Index in Rural areas 1999-00 to 2011-12 State
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
56.7
97.9
101.5
62.9
Assam
32.4
31.3
143.6
56.5
Bihar
67.7
166.8
108.0
70.2
Gujarat
32.7
32.6
80.6
65.6
Haryana
42.7
77.9
52.6
103.0
Himachal Pradesh
31.9
-7.3
67.9
86.6
Jammu & Kashmir
37.4
80.5
93.8
60.1
Karnataka
50.5
82.8
104.3
87.2
Kerala
17.6
11.3
-39.2
16.7
Madhya Pradesh
77.7
102.9
114.3
87.4
Maharashtra
27.4
13.4
6.1
54.6
Orissa
61.9
116.7
86.8
70.6
Punjab
55.4
71.2
25.6
80.3
Rajasthan
54.1
93.2
87.0
90.8
Tamil Nadu
38.5
176.5
98.6
5.7
Tripura
-0.3
73.6
35.8
63.9
Uttar Pradesh
40.7
88.7
77.5
62.6
West Bengal
11.9
62.3
85.1
46.6
All India
44.7
75.1
83.1
63.0
Source: Computed by IAMR
61
Table 4.36: State-wise % change in Human Development Index in Urban areas 1999-00 to 2011-12 State
All
SC
OBC
GEN
Andhra Pradesh
44.1
15.9
98.2
81.4
Assam
8.1
123.2
53.0
52.0
Bihar
-7.8
-16.5
17.0
48.6
Gujarat
25.9
145.6
103.6
38.7
Haryana
74.6
76.4
49.3
26.4
Himachal Pradesh
15.6
-3.3
-0.4
-26.9
Jammu & Kashmir
35.9
1.1
39.7
74.6
Karnataka
21.8
99.3
58.1
54.9
Kerala
14.2
37.8
-21.6
53.9
Madhya Pradesh
16.1
67.8
32.9
83.0
Maharashtra
27.0
1.6
19.0
98.8
Orissa
34.9
-30.4
67.2
105.6
Punjab
14.5
39.7
43.3
39.3
Rajasthan
39.7
43.0
53.6
67.3
Tamil Nadu
24.9
28.8
63.9
36.8
Tripura
26.1
35.7
36.5
77.5
Uttar Pradesh
14.9
-11.7
30.2
68.9
West Bengal
-13.9
-1.6
37.1
74.7
All India
21.0
29.2
51.9
64.8
Source: Computed by IAMR
Rural areas of the country show a higher percentage increase in HDI for marginalized groups than the respective categories in urban India. This indicates progress in human development for the disadvantaged sections in rural India during the decade.
62
Concluding remarks: HDI ranking reflects performance in health, education and Income. Hence, the ranking in the HDI ladder has an impact on the policy of the state governments. To improve their ranking, the state governments can bring in policy changes in the constituents like health, education and income. It can be concluded that in HDI ranking in India, among the major states, Kerala is the top performing state for All and General category, Maharashtra being the top ranker for SC and Punjab for OBC in 2011-12. For rural India also, Kerala is the best performer for All and General category, Maharashtra and Punjab are at the top for SC and OBC respectively in 2011-12. In 2011-12, among the major states, for urban India, Himachal performed the best for all category, Gujarat scored the highest for SC, Maharashtra for OBC and Kerala for General category. Kerala’s position somewhat worsened for OBC category in rural as well as whole of India in terms of HDI ranking in
2011-12 compared to1999-2000
period. For SC category, Kerala’s position worsened in HDI ranking in the country in 2011-12 compared to 1999-00. It needs to be mentioned here that for Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tripura the index for SC is higher t h a n that of the General category. In the same year with the exception of Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala and Haryana all other states exhibit a better performance in human development for their OBC population than that of All category. The distinction between consistently well performing states and the poor performing ones is evident. The poor performers in HDI have performed poor in health and education as well. In these poorly faring states, usually there is concentration of marginalized
and
disadvantaged social
groups.
These
states
lack
resources,
infrastructure, basic health facilities, especially in their rural areas, perpetuate deprivation and inequalities for their inhabitants, in general and of backward communities, in particular.
63
Chapter 5 HDI FOR SENIOR CITIZENS/ ELDERLY PEOPLE Index for Senior citizens/ Elderly population Health, education and income constitute the components of HDI for elderly population of India. In 2011-12, the HDI for elderly population/ senior citizens for rural areas in India has been estimated as .48 whereas for urban areas it has been estimated as .75. The corresponding index for rural and urban areas together has been estimated as .56. The corresponding indices for 1999-2000 were .38, .61 and .43 respectively. In 2011-12,
Kerala has been the best performer
in terms of human development for
senior citizens. Himachal has occupied the second rank in HDI for elder rural India. Tamil Nadu is the next best performer after Kerala for urban as well as for rural and urban areas together. In health dimension, Himachal Pradesh secures the first position for rural and for rural and urban areas of India, taken together. Uttar Pradesh is the best performer in urban India in health related aspects of senior citizens. In terms of income dimension for senior citizens, Kerala exhibits the best performance for the country. Punjab is the best performer for rural and Karnataka for urban India. Kerala is the best performer in terms of education index for elderly. This is reflected in rural, urban and for the country as a whole. Kerala is followed by Assam in rural India and West Bengal for urban and for rural and urban areas taken together. The education index of elderly population, calculated on the basis of literacy rate is presented below:
64
Table 5.1: State-wise literacy rate (age 60 & above) elderly population (in %) 1999-00 State
Rural
Urban
2011-12 Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
16.0
45.6
22.9
17.0
57.7
26.0
Assam
33.1
69.0
37.4
46.6
80.0
51.9
Bihar
21.5
48.2
24.8
32.5
59.9
35.6
Gujarat
26.4
57.2
35.6
25.6
72.4
45.5
Haryana
16.4
41.7
21.9
26.8
63.2
40.2
Himachal Pradesh
25.1
56.3
27.4
32.1
71.3
35.6
Jammu & Kashmir
13.5
41.2
19.4
26.3
53.5
33.9
Karnataka
21.4
50.6
29.2
24.6
60.5
37.4
Kerala
61.6
69.8
63.7
76.7
84.4
78.9
Madhya Pradesh
16.9
48.2
23.5
33.4
55.3
38.1
Maharashtra
24.7
56.3
34.5
34.3
69.4
47.6
Orissa
23.9
45.9
26.4
40.9
54.7
42.6
Punjab
19.9
45.5
26.6
32.9
73.1
45.9
Rajasthan
12.1
41.6
18.1
21.2
56.9
29.0
Sikkim
19.0
42.6
21.0
23.3
5.5
22.5
Tamil Nadu
28.6
57.1
38.7
32.1
65.5
46.5
Tripura
40.4
58.2
43.3
35.0
82.0
45.4
Uttar Pradesh
19.0
40.2
22.2
26.8
56.6
32.8
West Bengal
35.2
71.6
45.9
38.7
82.7
54.9
23.74
53.44
30.68
31.8
67.3
42.3
All India Source: Computed by IAMR
65
Table 5.2: State-wise Education Index elderly population State
1999-00
2011-12
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
0.16
0.46
0.23
0.17
0.58
0.26
Assam
0.33
0.69
0.37
0.47
0.80
0.52
Bihar
0.22
0.48
0.25
0.33
0.60
0.36
Gujarat
0.26
0.57
0.36
0.26
0.72
0.45
Haryana
0.16
0.42
0.22
0.27
0.63
0.40
Himachal Pradesh
0.25
0.56
0.27
0.32
0.71
0.36
Jammu & Kashmir
0.14
0.41
0.19
0.26
0.53
0.34
Karnataka
0.21
0.51
0.29
0.25
0.61
0.37
Kerala
0.62
0.70
0.64
0.77
0.84
0.79
Madhya Pradesh
0.17
0.48
0.24
0.33
0.55
0.38
Maharashtra
0.25
0.56
0.34
0.34
0.69
0.48
Orissa
0.24
0.46
0.26
0.41
0.55
0.43
Punjab
0.20
0.46
0.27
0.33
0.73
0.46
Rajasthan
0.12
0.42
0.18
0.21
0.57
0.29
Tamil Nadu
0.29
0.57
0.39
0.32
0.65
0.47
Tripura
0.40
0.58
0.43
0.35
0.82
0.45
Uttar Pradesh
0.19
0.40
0.22
0.27
0.57
0.33
West Bengal
0.35
0.72
0.46
0.39
0.83
0.55
All India
0.24
0.53
0.31
0.32
0.67
0.42
Source: Computed by IAMR
66
Table 5.3: Rank of Education Index for elderly Population State
1999-00
2011-12
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
16
13
14
18
13
18
Assam
4
3
5
2
4
3
Bihar
10
10
12
9
12
13
Gujarat
6
5
6
15
6
7
Haryana
15
15
16
12
10
10
Himachal Pradesh
7
8
9
10
7
14
Jammu & Kashmir
17
17
17
14
18
15
Karnataka
11
9
8
16
11
12
Kerala
1
2
1
1
1
1
Madhya Pradesh
14
11
13
7
16
11
Maharashtra
8
7
7
6
8
4
Orissa
9
12
11
3
17
9
Punjab
12
14
10
8
5
6
Rajasthan
18
16
18
17
14
17
Tamil Nadu
5
6
4
11
9
5
Tripura
2
4
3
5
3
8
Uttar Pradesh
13
18
15
13
15
16
West Bengal
3
1
2
4
2
2
Source: Computed by IAMR
The health index for senior citizens/ elderly population has been calculated on the basis of labour force participation rate( a proxy for health for senior citizens).
67
Table 5.4: State-wise labour force participation rate of elderly population (age 60 and above) State
1999-00 Rural
Urban
2011-12 Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
39.7
22.6
35.7
48.8
17.2
41.8
Assam
30.9
22.0
29.9
31.5
18.5
29.5
Bihar
46.3
29.1
44.1
54.0
23.6
50.6
Gujarat
39.0
20.4
33.5
48.8
19.6
36.4
Haryana
24.9
25.9
25.1
33.4
9.9
24.8
Himachal Pradesh
60.1
24.1
57.4
59.2
16.3
55.4
Jammu & Kashmir
57.8
19.5
49.7
42.3
21.9
36.6
Karnataka
42.0
18.5
35.7
50.3
24.2
41.0
Kerala
34.9
30.5
33.8
42.8
24.0
37.5
Madhya Pradesh
49.7
27.1
45.0
42.3
22.8
38.1
Maharashtra
46.2
22.9
38.9
47.6
14.8
35.2
Orissa
39.3
22.8
37.4
45.9
31.0
44.1
Punjab
40.4
26.0
36.6
32.7
24.7
30.1
Rajasthan
42.9
20.0
38.2
52.0
20.0
45.0
Sikkim
48.4
19.6
46.0
51.7
3.7
49.5
Tamil Nadu
46.2
25.8
39.0
48.4
27.1
39.2
Tripura
35.3
21.0
32.9
41.8
14.3
35.7
Uttar Pradesh
45.8
27.2
43.0
51.0
34.2
47.6
West Bengal
28.8
18.8
25.8
43.3
19.7
34.6
All India
42.4
23.8
38.1
47.1
22.1
39.7
Source: Computed by IAMR
68
Table 5.5: State-wise Health Index of elderly population (age 60 and above)
State
1998-99
2005-06
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
0.40
0.23
0.36
0.49
0.17
0.42
Assam
0.31
0.22
0.30
0.32
0.18
0.29
Bihar
0.46
0.29
0.44
0.54
0.24
0.51
Gujarat
0.39
0.20
0.33
0.49
0.20
0.36
Haryana
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.33
0.10
0.25
Himachal Pradesh
0.60
0.24
0.57
0.59
0.16
0.55
Jammu & Kashmir
0.58
0.20
0.50
0.42
0.22
0.37
Karnataka
0.42
0.19
0.36
0.50
0.24
0.41
Kerala
0.35
0.30
0.34
0.43
0.24
0.38
Madhya Pradesh
0.50
0.27
0.45
0.42
0.23
0.38
Maharashtra
0.46
0.23
0.39
0.48
0.15
0.35
Orissa
0.39
0.23
0.37
0.46
0.31
0.44
Punjab
0.40
0.26
0.37
0.33
0.25
0.30
Rajasthan
0.43
0.20
0.38
0.52
0.20
0.45
Tamil Nadu
0.46
0.26
0.39
0.48
0.27
0.39
Tripura
0.35
0.21
0.33
0.42
0.14
0.36
Uttar Pradesh
0.46
0.27
0.43
0.51
0.34
0.48
West Bengal
0.29
0.19
0.26
0.43
0.20
0.35
All India
0.42
0.24
0.38
0.47
0.22
0.40
Source: Computed by IAMR
69
Table 5.6: Rank of Health Index for elderly Population 1998-99
State
2005-06
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
11
11
11
6
14
6
Assam
16
12
16
18
13
17
Bihar
4
2
4
2
7
2
Gujarat
13
14
14
7
12
12
Haryana
18
6
18
16
18
18
Himachal Pradesh
1
8
1
1
15
1
Jammu & Kashmir
2
16
2
14
9
11
Karnataka
9
18
12
5
5
7
Kerala
15
1
13
12
6
10
Madhya Pradesh
3
4
3
13
8
9
Maharashtra
6
9
7
9
16
14
Orissa
12
10
9
10
2
5
Punjab
10
5
10
17
4
16
Rajasthan
8
15
8
3
10
4
Tamil Nadu
5
7
6
8
3
8
Tripura
14
13
15
15
17
13
Uttar Pradesh
7
3
5
4
1
3
West Bengal
17
17
17
11
11
15
Source: Computed by IAMR
Income index for elderly population has been calculated on the basis of monthly per capita expenditure (inflation and inequality adjusted) and is presented below:
70
Table 5.7: Monthly per capita expenditure (Inequality Adjusted at 2000-01 prices) for elderly population State
1999-00 Rural
Urban
2011-12 Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra pradesh
253
390
292
576
1153
696
Assam
237
403
263
421
967
449
Bihar
217
378
229
467
465
517
Gujarat
313
488
320
620
1009
700
Haryana
399
371
410
549
1341
742
Himachal pradesh
391
582
398
897
1110
614
Jammu & kashmir
334
618
441
693
931
681
Karnataka
227
453
307
485
1386
814
Kerala
424
462
426
875
1110
1085
Madhya pradesh
231
339
250
419
464
413
Maharashtra
264
624
365
479
1186
690
Orissa
209
323
232
376
560
349
Punjab
407
350
393
907
1156
843
Rajasthan
295
395
291
629
893
592
Tamil Nadu
271
485
369
486
798
671
Tripura
302
482
350
567
1308
812
Uttar Pradesh
248
344
277
446
802
503
West Bengal
240
527
347
432
1293
733
All India
261
427
302
481
950
599
Source: Computed by IAMR
71
Table 5.8: Income Index for elderly Population State
1999-00 Rural
Urban
Andhra Pradesh
0.033
0.119
Assam
0.023
Bihar
2011-12 Total
Rural
Urban
0.057
0.235
0.596
0.310
0.127
0.039
0.138
0.479
0.156
0.011
0.111
0.018
0.167
0.166
0.198
Gujarat
0.070
0.180
0.075
0.262
0.505
0.312
Haryana
0.124
0.107
0.131
0.218
0.713
0.339
Himachal Pradesh
0.119
0.239
0.124
0.436
0.569
0.259
Jammu & Kashmir
0.084
0.261
0.151
0.308
0.457
0.301
Karnataka
0.017
0.158
0.067
0.178
0.741
0.384
Kerala
0.140
0.164
0.141
0.422
0.569
0.553
Madhya Pradesh
0.019
0.087
0.032
0.137
0.165
0.133
Maharashtra
0.040
0.265
0.103
0.175
0.616
0.306
Orissa
0.006
0.077
0.020
0.110
0.225
0.093
Punjab
0.129
0.094
0.121
0.442
0.597
0.402
Rajasthan
0.060
0.122
0.057
0.268
0.433
0.245
Tamil Nadu
0.045
0.178
0.106
0.179
0.373
0.295
Tripura
0.064
0.176
0.093
0.229
0.692
0.382
Uttar Pradesh
0.030
0.090
0.048
0.153
0.376
0.189
West Bengal
0.025
0.205
0.092
0.145
0.683
0.333
All India
0.038
0.142
0.064
0.175
0.469
0.249
Source: Computed by IAMR
72
Total
Table 5.9: Rank of Income Index for elderly Population State
1999-00
2011-12
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
11
12
12
7
7
8
Assam
14
10
15
16
11
16
Bihar
17
13
18
13
17
14
Gujarat
6
5
10
6
10
7
Haryana
3
14
3
9
2
5
Himachal Pradesh
4
3
4
2
9
12
Jammu & Kashmir
5
2
1
4
12
10
Karnataka
16
9
11
11
1
3
Kerala
1
8
2
3
8
1
Madhya Pradesh
15
17
16
17
18
17
Maharashtra
10
1
7
12
5
9
Orissa
18
18
17
18
16
18
Punjab
2
15
5
1
6
2
Rajasthan
8
11
13
5
13
13
Tamil Nadu
9
6
6
10
15
11
Tripura
7
7
8
8
3
4
Uttar Pradesh
12
16
14
14
14
15
West Bengal
13
4
9
15
4
6
Source: Computed by IAMR The tables for human development index for senior citizens/ elderly population of India and the ranking of different states are presented below:
73
Table 5.10: State-wise HDI elderly population (age 60 and above) State
1999-00 Rural Urban
2011-12 Total
Rural Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
0.20
0.27
0.21
0.30
0.45
0.33
Assam
0.22
0.35
0.24
0.31
0.49
0.32
Bihar
0.23
0.29
0.24
0.34
0.33
0.35
Gujarat
0.24
0.32
0.26
0.34
0.48
0.38
Haryana
0.18
0.26
0.20
0.27
0.48
0.33
Himachal Pradesh
0.32
0.35
0.32
0.45
0.48
0.39
Jammu & Kashmir
0.27
0.29
0.28
0.33
0.40
0.34
Karnataka
0.22
0.28
0.24
0.31
0.53
0.39
Kerala
0.37
0.39
0.37
0.54
0.55
0.57
Madhya Pradesh
0.23
0.28
0.24
0.30
0.32
0.30
Maharashtra
0.25
0.35
0.28
0.33
0.49
0.38
Orissa
0.21
0.25
0.22
0.33
0.36
0.32
Punjab
0.24
0.27
0.25
0.37
0.53
0.39
Rajasthan
0.20
0.25
0.21
0.33
0.40
0.33
Tamil Nadu
0.26
0.34
0.29
0.33
0.43
0.38
Tripura
0.27
0.32
0.29
0.33
0.55
0.40
Uttar Pradesh
0.23
0.25
0.23
0.31
0.43
0.33
West Bengal
0.22
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.57
0.41
All India
0.23
0.30
0.25
0.32
0.45
0.36
Source: Computed by IAMR
74
Table 5.11: Rank of HDI elderly Population State
1999-00
2011-12
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
17
14
17
18
13
15
Assam
8
4
8
6
9
11
Bihar
11
12
15
11
17
14
Gujarat
6
7
7
8
11
7
Haryana
13
17
13
15
5
8
Himachal Pradesh
2
5
5
2
10
10
Jammu & Kashmir
10
9
9
4
15
13
Karnataka
14
10
11
16
3
6
Kerala
1
1
1
1
1
1
Madhya Pradesh
16
13
14
14
18
18
Maharashtra
9
3
6
9
8
5
Orissa
12
16
16
10
16
17
Punjab
7
15
10
3
4
3
Rajasthan
18
18
18
12
14
16
Tamil Nadu
4
6
2
5
2
2
Tripura
3
8
4
13
12
12
Uttar Pradesh
15
11
12
17
6
9
West Bengal
5
2
3
7
7
4
Source: Computed by IAMR
75
Concluding Remarks: The human development index for elderly people has showed an increase over the years in rural, urban and for the country taking rural and urban areas together. In India, the literacy rate for elderly people is low. The income and thereby the standard of living of elderly people may be increased if the participation rate of senior citizens/ elderly people in the labour force can be improved.
In income and education, Kerala
has performed the best for elderly population whereas for health Himachal Pradesh showed the best performance.
76
Chapter 6 HIGHER EDUCATION INDEX Index for Higher Education for Scheduled Castes, Other backward Classes and other categories: Index for higher education for rural, urban and of rural+urban areas of the country across different states are computed. To compute the index, (a) gross enrollment ratio at graduation and above level(both technical and general) and (b) relative share of graduates and above (both technical and general) in labour force are taken into consideration. The index is computed for SC, ST, OBC, General and for All categories of population and at two points of time like other indices of this study. The ranks of the states are also given in the table depicted below: The index for All category for the country has increased from .07 to .15 during the period 1999-00 to 2011-12, the index for general category being the highest at both point of time. The index for SC and ST are almost equal and that of OBC is higher than that of SC and ST.
77
State-wise Higher Education index and Rank of the states Table 6.1: State-wise Higher Education index (Rural+Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
ST
SC
2011-12
OBC GEN ALL
ST
SC
OBC GEN ALL
Andhra Pradesh
0.012 0.034 0.039 0.142 0.062 0.165 0.095 0.180 0.285 0.187
Assam
0.039 0.056 0.050 0.073 0.061 0.087 0.129 0.108 0.084 0.096
Bihar
0.026 0.015 0.034 0.132 0.050 0.014 0.035 0.093 0.276 0.120
Gujarat
0.024 0.051 0.024 0.120 0.068 0.101 0.132 0.077 0.176 0.125
Haryana
0.000 0.020 0.041 0.104 0.068 0.304 0.064 0.172 0.226 0.180
Himachal Pradesh
0.085 0.037 0.063 0.093 0.077 0.205 0.130 0.137 0.224 0.186
Jammu & Kashmir
0.024 0.020 0.067 0.070 0.062 0.163 0.100 0.094 0.215 0.184
Karnataka
0.029 0.031 0.032 0.114 0.060 0.151 0.095 0.161 0.262 0.174
Kerala
0.073 0.049 0.081 0.188 0.114 0.080 0.130 0.166 0.292 0.191
Madhya Pradesh
0.050 0.029 0.036 0.158 0.060 0.057 0.068 0.105 0.310 0.125
Maharashtra
0.042 0.068 0.070 0.125 0.093 0.107 0.141 0.160 0.221 0.178
Orissa
0.018 0.026 0.040 0.114 0.050 0.031 0.067 0.112 0.272 0.118
Punjab
0.047 0.028 0.064 0.104 0.068 0.000 0.038 0.127 0.201 0.131
Rajasthan
0.022 0.032 0.024 0.106 0.052 0.118 0.091 0.120 0.265 0.141
Tamil Nadu
0.027 0.033 0.073 0.297 0.078 0.015 0.121 0.211 0.518 0.195
Tripura
0.030 0.030 0.034 0.076 0.052 0.050 0.034 0.075 0.126 0.073
Uttar Pradesh
0.048 0.028 0.030 0.136 0.065 0.276 0.051 0.107 0.286 0.133
West Bengal
0.018 0.028 0.054 0.076 0.058 0.053 0.067 0.145 0.156 0.126
All India
0.034 0.032 0.044 0.124 0.068 0.096 0.086 0.139 0.232 0.152
Source: Computed by IAMR
78
Table 6.2: State-wise Rank of Higher Education index (Rural+Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
ST SC OBC
2011-12
GEN
ALL ST SC OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
17
6
11
4
10
4
9
2
5
3
Assam
7
2
8
17
11
10
5
12
18
17
Bihar
11
18
14
6
18
17
17
16
6
15
Gujarat
12
3
17
8
7
9
2
17
15
14
Haryana
18
16
9
12
6
1
14
3
10
6
Himachal Pradesh
1
5
6
14
4
3
3
8
11
4
Jammu & Kashmir
13
17
4
18
9
5
7
15
13
5
Karnataka
9
9
15
10
12
6
8
5
9
8
Kerala
2
4
1
2
1
11
4
4
3
2
Madhya Pradesh
3
11
12
3
13
12
11
14
2
13
Maharashtra
6
1
3
7
2
8
1
6
12
7
Orissa
15
15
10
9
17
15
12
11
7
16
Punjab
5
14
5
13
5
18
16
9
14
11
Rajasthan
14
8
18
11
16
7
10
10
8
9
Tamil Nadu
10
7
2
1
3
16
6
1
1
1
Tripura
8
10
13
15
15
14
18
18
17
18
Uttar Pradesh
4
13
16
5
8
2
15
13
4
10
West Bengal
16
12
7
16
14
13
13
7
16
12
Source: Computed by IAMR
Tamil Nadu performs the best for OBC, General and All category . Haryana is the best performer for ST and Maharashtra for SC for the country taking rural and urban areas together.
79
Table 6.3: State-wise Higher Education index (Rural), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
2011-12
ST
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
ST
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
0.004
0.018
0.015
0.048
0.022
0.138
0.076
0.134
0.186
0.129
Assam
0.037
0.035
0.041
0.045
0.042
0.053
0.110
0.084
0.062
0.072
Bihar
0.011
0.012
0.018
0.069
0.025
0.005
0.033
0.072
0.256
0.102
Gujarat
0.019
0.038
0.009
0.053
0.030
0.081
0.055
0.045
0.111
0.068
Haryana
0.000
0.018
0.036
0.054
0.040
0.222
0.058
0.147
0.114
0.107
Himachal Pradesh
0.056
0.030
0.062
0.066
0.058
0.124
0.134
0.123
0.208
0.166
Jammu & Kashmir
0.026
0.012
0.062
0.035
0.035
0.155
0.091
0.083
0.162
0.143
Karnataka
0.014
0.016
0.013
0.040
0.022
0.126
0.070
0.115
0.149
0.112
Kerala
0.082
0.045
0.060
0.163
0.094
0.059
0.103
0.147
0.222
0.157
Madhya Pradesh
0.047
0.015
0.021
0.057
0.031
0.042
0.047
0.053
0.193
0.067
Maharashtra
0.021
0.040
0.045
0.058
0.046
0.096
0.096
0.098
0.110
0.101
Orissa
0.009
0.023
0.032
0.075
0.034
0.024
0.062
0.111
0.150
0.085
Punjab
0.025
0.019
0.043
0.052
0.036
0.000
0.023
0.115
0.166
0.097
Rajasthan
0.014
0.018
0.011
0.040
0.021
0.105
0.079
0.084
0.114
0.092
Tamil Nadu
0.014
0.022
0.044
0.165
0.040
0.002
0.058
0.129
0.358
0.115
Tripura
0.005
0.025
0.020
0.052
0.034
0.008
0.004
0.044
0.078
0.031
Uttar Pradesh
0.028
0.024
0.024
0.081
0.041
0.077
0.044
0.078
0.181
0.086
West Bengal
0.013
0.022
0.043
0.031
0.028
0.008
0.040
0.141
0.073
0.066
All India
0.024
0.022
0.026
0.059
0.035
0.071
0.059
0.093
0.140
0.094
Source: Computed by IAMR
The rural India has improved the scenario for higher education for all sections of population over the years. Rural Himachal is the top performer for SC and All category. For OBC , Kerala is the best performer whereas Bihar performs the best for General category. Rural Haryana performs the best for ST category.
80
Table 6.4: State-wise Rank of Higher Education index (Rural), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
ST
SC
2011-12
OBC GEN ALL ST
SC
OBC GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
17
12
15
13
17
3
7
4
6
4
Assam
4
4
8
14
4
11
2
11
18
14
Bihar
14
18
14
5
15
16
16
15
2
8
Gujarat
9
3
18
10
13
8
12
17
14
15
Haryana
18
13
9
9
7
1
11
2
12
7
Himachal Pradesh
2
5
2
6
2
5
1
6
4
1
Jammu & Kashmir
6
17
1
17
9
2
5
13
9
3
Karnataka
10
15
16
16
16
4
8
7
11
6
Kerala
1
1
3
2
1
10
3
1
3
2
Madhya Pradesh
3
16
12
8
12
12
13
16
5
16
Maharashtra
8
2
4
7
3
7
4
10
15
9
Orissa
15
8
10
4
11
13
9
9
10
13
Punjab
7
11
6
11
8
18
17
8
8
10
Rajasthan
11
14
17
15
18
6
6
12
13
11
Tamil Nadu
12
10
5
1
6
17
10
5
1
5
Tripura
16
6
13
12
10
14
18
18
16
18
Uttar Pradesh
5
7
11
3
5
9
14
14
7
12
West Bengal
13
9
7
18
14
15
15
3
17
17
Source: Computed by IAMR
81
The index for urban India is much higher than rural India for all sections of population.
Table 6.5: State-wise Higher Education index (Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
ST
2011-12
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
ST
SC
OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
0.073
0.105
0.111
0.276
0.175
0.413
0.204
0.304
0.401
0.331
Assam
0.114
0.164
0.195
0.231
0.213
0.504
0.233
0.331
0.232
0.271
Bihar
0.178
0.056
0.150
0.371
0.219
0.139
0.069
0.232
0.458
0.267
Gujarat
0.062
0.082
0.073
0.220
0.158
0.218
0.242
0.136
0.206
0.185
Haryana
0.000
0.027
0.057
0.216
0.145
0.326
0.096
0.235
0.516
0.376
Himachal Pradesh
0.776
0.134
0.070
0.380
0.315
0.555
0.097
0.380
0.337
0.306
Jammu & Kashmir
0.000
0.081
0.125
0.238
0.217
0.269
0.131
0.223
0.376
0.332
Karnataka
0.103
0.104
0.095
0.240
0.168
0.274
0.197
0.275
0.410
0.315
Kerala
0.023
0.071
0.131
0.262
0.169
0.162
0.210
0.234
0.465
0.300
Madhya Pradesh
0.092
0.083
0.106
0.267
0.169
0.321
0.134
0.245
0.477
0.312
Maharashtra
0.176
0.115
0.127
0.201
0.174
0.146
0.220
0.271
0.339
0.293
Orissa
0.138
0.041
0.089
0.221
0.140
0.187
0.095
0.131
0.526
0.282
Punjab
0.070
0.051
0.099
0.198
0.135
0.000
0.080
0.140
0.248
0.187
Rajasthan
0.172
0.074
0.087
0.241
0.164
0.298
0.127
0.236
0.438
0.290
Tamil Nadu
0.082
0.089
0.125
0.357
0.157
0.098
0.201
0.310
0.624
0.298
Tripura
0.203
0.066
0.161
0.192
0.160
0.228
0.141
0.193
0.282
0.286
Uttar Pradesh
0.157
0.051
0.059
0.259
0.155
0.155
0.096
0.192
0.443
0.275
West Bengal
0.083
0.056
0.096
0.205
0.164
0.256
0.182
0.163
0.299
0.268
All India
0.123
0.077
0.106
0.245
0.170
0.271
0.174
0.253
0.357
0.286
Source: Computed by IAMR
Urban India shows that Himachal is the best performer in higher education for OBC and ST category and Gujarat for SC. Tamil Nadu secures the first rank in case of urban areas for General Category and Haryana for All category.
82
Table 6.6: State-wise Rank of Higher Education index (Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
ST SC OBC
2011-12
GEN
ALL ST SC OBC
GEN
ALL
Andhra Pradesh
13
4
8
4
5
3
5
4
10
3
Assam
8
1
1
11
4
2
2
2
17
14
Bihar
3
14
3
2
2
16
18
11
6
16
Gujarat
15
8
15
13
13
11
1
17
18
18
Haryana
17
18
18
14
16
4
15
9
3
1
Himachal Pradesh
1
2
16
1
1
1
13
1
13
6
Jammu & Kashmir
17
9
6
10
3
8
11
12
11
2
Karnataka
9
5
12
9
9
7
7
5
9
4
Kerala
16
11
4
6
8
13
4
10
5
7
Madhya Pradesh
10
7
9
5
7
5
10
7
4
5
Maharashtra
4
3
5
16
6
15
3
6
12
9
Orissa
7
17
13
12
17
12
16
18
2
12
Punjab
14
15
10
17
18
18
17
16
16
17
Rajasthan
5
10
14
8
10
6
12
8
8
10
Tamil Nadu
12
6
7
3
14
17
6
3
1
8
Tripura
2
12
2
18
12
10
9
13
15
11
Uttar Pradesh
6
16
17
7
15
14
14
14
7
13
West Bengal
11
13
11
15
11
9
8
15
14
15
Source: Computed by IAMR
83
Concluding remarks: It is found that among the major states of rural India Himachal Pradesh is the best performer in terms of improving higher education. In urban India the best performance is exhibited by Haryana whereas Tamil Nadu is the best performer for the country. The gross enrolment ratio at higher education level is quite low (26.9) for the country. The ratio is much low for rural India compared to the urban areas. The infrastructure facilities and the sanitation facilities in rural India need to be improved to encourage higher education. The admission costs etc. needs to be reduced to increase enrolment ratio in higher education.
84
Chapter 7 HDI FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Index for Disabled persons: The human development index for disabled persons of India is calculated taking health, education and income into consideration. The education index for disabled population is depicted below: Education Index: Table 7.1: State-wise Education Index for disabled population State
1999-00
2011-12
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
0.22
0.38
0.26
0.17
0.16
0.16
Assam
0.28
0.40
0.30
0.45
0.31
0.42
Bihar
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.37
0.63
0.39
Gujarat
0.18
0.62
0.32
0.21
0.43
0.29
Haryana
0.26
0.42
0.32
0.21
0.16
0.19
Himachal Pradesh
0.30
0.42
0.31
0.32
0.50
0.33
Jammu & Kashmir
0.09
0.39
0.15
0.43
0.35
0.41
Karnataka
0.25
0.57
0.31
0.33
0.43
0.37
Kerala
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.72
0.64
0.70
Madhya Pradesh
0.28
0.43
0.32
0.43
0.52
0.45
Maharashtra
0.30
0.46
0.36
0.35
0.58
0.46
Orissa
0.23
0.58
0.27
0.24
0.34
0.25
Punjab
0.27
0.25
0.26
0.29
0.57
0.38
Rajasthan
0.21
0.29
0.23
0.43
0.29
0.38
Tamil Nadu
0.40
0.52
0.43
0.39
0.59
0.49
Tripura
0.32
0.48
0.38
0.26
0.91
0.34
Uttar Pradesh
0.21
0.24
0.22
0.08
0.49
0.16
West Bengal
0.24
0.51
0.29
0.18
0.47
0.27
All India
0.28
0.45
0.32
0.31
0.50
0.37
Source: Computed by IAMR 85
Table 7.2: State-wise Rank of education Index for Disabled persons State
1999-00
2011-12
Rural 14
Urban 14
Total 15
Rural 17
Urban 18
Total 17
Assam
7
12
10
2
15
5
Bihar
6
16
12
7
3
7
Gujarat
17
1
6
14
12
13
Haryana
10
10
7
15
17
16
Himachal Pradesh
4
11
9
10
8
12
Jammu & Kashmir
18
13
18
4
13
6
Karnataka
11
4
8
9
11
10
Kerala
1
2
1
1
2
1
Madhya Pradesh
8
9
5
3
7
4
Maharashtra
5
8
4
8
5
3
Orissa
13
3
13
13
14
15
Punjab
9
17
14
11
6
9
Rajasthan
15
15
16
5
16
8
Tamil Nadu
2
5
2
6
4
2
Tripura
3
7
3
12
1
11
Uttar Pradesh
16
18
17
18
9
18
West Bengal
12
6
11
16
10
14
Andhra Pradesh
Source: Computed by IAMR
86
Health Index: Table 7.3: State-wise health Index for disabled population State
1998-99 Rural Urban
Total
2005-06 Rural Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
0.21
0.25
0.22
0.23
0.34
0.26
Assam
0.17
0.26
0.19
0.18
0.21
0.19
Bihar
0.14
0.50
0.16
0.20
0.22
0.20
Gujarat
0.19
0.34
0.23
0.21
0.43
0.27
Haryana
0.18
0.40
0.22
0.30
0.95
0.36
Himachal Pradesh
0.38
0.87
0.43
0.37
1.00
0.39
Jammu & Kashmir
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.26
0.42
0.28
Karnataka
0.24
0.44
0.29
0.27
0.33
0.30
Kerala
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
1.00
Madhya Pradesh
0.08
0.32
0.11
0.17
0.28
0.19
Maharashtra
0.30
0.49
0.35
0.28
0.46
0.36
Orissa
0.12
0.25
0.14
0.19
0.27
0.20
Punjab
0.20
0.37
0.24
0.33
0.28
0.32
Rajasthan
0.11
0.18
0.13
0.18
0.18
0.18
Tamil Nadu
0.32
0.45
0.35
0.40
0.40
0.42
Tripura
0.50
0.40
0.49
0.30
0.46
0.32
Uttar Pradesh
0.11
0.28
0.14
0.18
0.18
0.18
West Bengal
0.29
0.98
0.36
0.24
0.31
0.25
All India
0.15
0.36
0.19
0.21
0.29
0.23
Source: Computed by IAMR
87
Table 7.4: State-wise rank of health Index for disabled population State
1998-99 Rural Urban
Total
2005-06 Rural Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
9
15
11
11
9
11
Assam
13
14
13
15
16
15
Bihar
14
4
14
13
15
14
Gujarat
11
11
10
12
6
10
Haryana
12
9
12
6
2
5
Himachal Pradesh
3
3
3
3
1
3
Jammu & Kashmir
8
17
8
9
7
9
Karnataka
7
7
7
8
10
8
Kerala
1
1
1
1
3
1
Madhya Pradesh
18
12
18
18
12
16
Maharashtra
5
5
5
7
4
4
Orissa
15
16
15
14
14
13
Punjab
10
10
9
4
13
6
Rajasthan
16
18
17
17
18
18
Tamil Nadu
4
6
6
2
8
2
Tripura
2
8
2
5
5
7
Uttar Pradesh
17
13
16
16
17
17
West Bengal
6
2
4
10
11
12
Source: Computed by IAMR
88
Income index: Table 7.5: Income Index for Disabled Population State
1999-00
2011-12
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.15
0.32
0.17
Assam
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.12
0.33
0.15
Bihar
0.05
0.08
0.03
0.06
0.25
0.11
Gujarat
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.23
0.19
0.13
Haryana
0.13
0.10
0.12
0.22
0.33
0.23
Himachal Pradesh
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.16
0.43
0.19
Jammu & Kashmir
0.08
0.13
0.10
0.23
0.42
0.22
Karnataka
0.04
0.14
0.07
0.13
0.22
0.18
Kerala
0.07
0.12
0.11
0.24
0.97
0.33
Madhya Pradesh
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.09
0.17
0.08
Maharashtra
0.02
0.10
0.07
0.11
0.30
0.23
Orissa
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.13
0.08
Punjab
0.09
0.10
0.12
0.20
0.35
0.18
Rajasthan
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.25
0.20
Tamil Nadu
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.20
0.41
0.20
Tripura
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.24
0.53
0.31
Uttar Pradesh
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.12
0.11
0.13
West Bengal
0.02
0.12
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.16
All India
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.12
0.24
0.16
Source: Computed by IAMR
89
Table 7.6: Rank of Income Index for Disabled Population State
1999-00
2011-12
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
11
15
12
9
9
11
Assam
18
16
17
11
7
13
Bihar
10
12
16
18
12
16
Gujarat
3
5
9
3
15
14
Haryana
1
8
2
5
8
4
Himachal Pradesh
4
11
6
8
3
8
Jammu & Kashmir
6
2
4
4
4
5
Karnataka
12
1
8
10
13
9
Kerala
7
3
3
2
1
1
Madhya Pradesh
14
14
14
17
16
18
Maharashtra
15
6
10
13
10
3
Orissa
17
18
18
15
17
17
Punjab
2
7
1
7
6
10
Rajasthan
8
10
7
16
11
6
Tamil Nadu
13
13
15
6
5
7
Tripura
5
9
5
1
2
2
Uttar Pradesh
9
17
13
12
18
15
West Bengal
16
4
11
14
14
12
Source: Computed by IAMR Human Development Index for Disabled population: India has been able to promote human development for the disabled population of India over the years both in rural and urban areas. The respective indices for rural India increased from .16 in 1999-00 to .21 in 2011-12. In the same period the corresponding index for urban India increased from .30 to .34. The
respective index for the country
taking rural and urban areas together increased from .19 to .25 over the period. 90
Table 7.7: State-wise HDI for disabled population State
1999-00
2011-12
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
0.16
0.23
0.18
0.18
0.27
0.20
Assam
0.16
0.24
0.17
0.25
0.28
0.25
Bihar
0.16
0.29
0.16
0.21
0.37
0.23
sGujarat
0.15
0.35
0.21
0.22
0.35
0.23
Haryana
0.19
0.30
0.22
0.24
0.48
0.26
Himachal Pradesh
0.26
0.45
0.27
0.28
0.64
0.30
Jammu & Kashmir
0.14
0.25
0.17
0.31
0.40
0.30
Karnataka
0.18
0.38
0.22
0.24
0.33
0.28
Kerala
0.56
0.58
0.57
0.65
0.84
0.68
Madhya Pradesh
0.13
0.28
0.16
0.23
0.33
0.24
Maharashtra
0.21
0.35
0.26
0.25
0.45
0.35
Orissa
0.12
0.28
0.14
0.18
0.25
0.18
Punjab
0.19
0.24
0.21
0.27
0.40
0.29
Rajasthan
0.13
0.18
0.15
0.23
0.24
0.25
Tamil Nadu
0.25
0.35
0.27
0.33
0.47
0.37
Tripura
0.30
0.32
0.32
0.27
0.63
0.32
Uttar Pradesh
0.13
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.26
0.16
West Bengal
0.19
0.54
0.24
0.17
0.33
0.23
All India
0.16
0.30
0.19
0.21
0.34
0.25
Source: Computed by IAMR
91
Table 7.8: State-wise rank of HDI 1999-00
State
2011-12
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
10
16
11
15
15
16
Assam
11
15
12
7
14
11
Bihar
12
10
14
14
9
13
Gujarat
13
5
10
13
10
14
Haryana
6
9
8
9
4
9
Himachal Pradesh
3
3
4
4
2
6
Jammu & Kashmir
14
13
13
3
8
5
Karnataka
9
4
7
10
11
8
Kerala
1
1
1
1
1
1
Madhya Pradesh
15
12
15
12
13
12
Maharashtra
5
6
5
8
6
3
Orissa
18
11
17
16
17
17
Punjab
7
14
9
5
7
7
Rajasthan
16
17
16
11
18
10
Tamil Nadu
4
7
3
2
5
2
Tripura
2
8
2
6
3
4
Uttar Pradesh
17
18
18
18
16
18
West Bengal
8
2
6
17
12
15
Source: Computed by IAMR
92
Concluding remarks: For the disabled persons/differently-abled people, Kerala ranks first in human development ladder at both points of time. Kerala’s performance is the best in rural, urban as well as for the country taking rural and urban areas together in 1999-00 and in 2011-12. In 2011-12, Tamil Nadu secures the second position and Maharashtra the third in the country. In rural India also Tamil Nadu occupies the second position in terms of human development for disabled people. In urban India, Himachal Pradesh ranks second. The human development for disabled people is remarkably low compared to other categories due to several factors like low literacy rate, lack of health facilities revealed from their low health index. The low income is also one of the most important contributory factors for poor development of differently-abled population of India. The situation in rural India is obviously worse than the situation prevailed in urban areas of the country because of lack of infrastructural facilities.
93
Policy Note The major findings of this study indicates that both income and education indices are playing important role in improving human development of SC and OBC in India. In contrast, health index is the major factor constraint of HDI growth. The performance on account of health outcomes indicates gaps in the health system of the country. Improving the health conditions of the population requires investments in health infrastructure and human resources (IHDR, 2011). The expenditure (public and private) on health has been abysmally low in India, hovering around 4 per cent of GDP. In the case of Brazil and South Africa, health expenditure accounts for over 8 per cent of GDP. In China, the share of healthcare expenditure to GDP is 5.2 per cent, but the share of public expenditure in total healthcare expenditure is 56 per cent compared to 31 per cent in India. The higher proportion of private expenditure on health results from the high out-of-pocket expenditure (86% of total private expenditure) on health that the private households have to incur. High out-of-pocket expenditure on health, especially by those belonging to the poorer sections of the society often pushes them below the poverty line. Low public expenditure on health also reflects gaps in health infrastructure, both physical as well as human resources. Health infrastructure indicates the quality of healthcare delivery and in turn affects the health outcomes. Despite National Rural Health Mission and increases in public expenditure in health, not much increase has been seen in the number of Sub-Centres (from 1,42,655 in 2004 to 1,48,124 in 2011), Primary Health Centres (23,109 in 2004 to 23,887 in 2011) and Community Health Centres (3,222 in 2004 to 4,809 in 2011).1 Compared to 36 hospital beds per 10,000 persons in China, India has 9 hospital beds per 10,000 persons. The severe shortage of health infrastructure can be determined from the fact that the average population served per government hospital is 98,970. It is as high as 4,51,325 in case of Bihar, 2,29,118 in Uttar Pradesh, 1,94,863 in Assam, 1,78,243 in Andhra Pradesh, 1,59,721 in Haryana, 1,55,470 in Madhya Pradesh, and 1,39,676 in West Bengal. Average population served per government hospital bed is 1512, but is over 5000 in case of Bihar and Jharkhand and over 3500 in Uttar Pradesh and Assam. Availability of skilled human resources is also an important prerequisite for an effective health service delivery. One of the major shortcomings of our public health system has been the failure to provide adequate human resources in public health system. Number of 1
National Health Profiles, 2005 and 2011
94
allopathic doctors possessing recognized medical qualifications (under Medical Council of India Act) and registered with state medical councils increased from 6,56,111 in 2005 to 9,21,877 in 2011 (an increase of 40 per cent). There has also been an improvement in the average population served per government allopathic doctors from 15,980 in 2005 to 12,005 in 2011. However, the increase in doctors in PHCs in rural areas has only been 20 per cent in the past 7 years. This needs to be contrasted with an almost 50 per cent increase in female health workers or ANMs between 2005 and 2011. In 2008, the government launched its flagship health insurance scheme for the poor. The Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) combines technology with incentives to provide in-patient insurance coverage up to an annual sum of Rs 30,000 for eligible enrolled households. The RSBY is implemented through insurance companies with premiums subsidized by Union and State governments to the extent of 75% and 25% respectively. The RSBY covers approximately 17% of the households in the country. This is a very low coverage given that 50-60% of the country’s population is vulnerable to poverty. Further, as the RSBY doesn’t cover the consultations out of hospitalization, it’s utility in bringing down out-of-pocket expenditure of households on health remains low. It is found, using nationally representative data, that 3.5% of the population fall below the poverty line and 5% households suffer catastrophic health expenditures (Shahrawat and Rao, 2012). The poverty deepening impact of Out-of-pocket (OOP) payments was at a maximum in people below the poverty line in comparison with those above it (Rs 10.45 versus Rs 1.50 respectively). Medicines constitute the main share (72%) of total OOP payments. This share reaches 82% for out-patient care, compared with 42% for in-patient care. It is also found that removing OOP payments for in-patient care leads to a negligible fall in the poverty headcount ratio and poverty gap. A broader coverage of benefits, to include medicines and out-patient care for the poor and near-poor (i.e. those just above the poverty line), is necessary to achieve significant protection from impoverishment (Shahrawat and Rao, 2012). Another study finds that the impact of RSBY on financial risk protection in India’s health care is questionable (Selvaraj and Karan, 2012). An examination of the poorer sections of households in intervention districts of the RSBY, Rajiv Aarogyasri of Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu Health Insurance schemes, finds that they experienced a rise in real per capita healthcare expenditure, particularly on hospitalisation, and an increase in catastrophic 95
headcount – a conclusive proof that RSBY and other state government-based interventions failed to provide financial risk protection. Thus, an argument is made for a policy to achieve universal health coverage of the population, moving away from the current trend of piecemeal, fragmented approaches, and to provide a thrust to free primary health care.
96
References Anand, P. and A. K. Sen (1994) “Human Development Index: Methodology and Measurement”, HDR Occasional Papers. Anand, S., and A. K. Sen (1997) “Concepts of human development and poverty: A multidimensional
perspective”,
Human
Development
Papers,
Human
Development Report Office (UNDP), New York. Chiswick, B.R.(1997) “Interpreting the coefficient of schooling in the human capital earnings function”, Working Paper of the Human Development Department, World Bank. Dasgupta, P. and M. Weale (1992) “On Measuring the Quality of Life”, World Development, Vol. 20, No. 1. Hendrik W. H., C. Howard and A. Maximilian (2009) “Human Development Index: Are Developing Countries Misclassified?”, paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association 2009 AAEA&ACCI Joint Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 26-26, 2009. IAMR (2011), “India Human Development Report”, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission, Government of India Kelley, A. (1991) “The Human Development Index: Handle with Care", Population and Development Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 315-324. Kovacevic M. (2010) “Review of HDI Critiques and Potential Improvements”, Human Development Research paper 2010/33, UNDP. Lind, N.C. (1992) “Some thoughts on the human development index”, Social Indicators Research 27: pp. 89-101. Mehrotra, Santosh, Neha Kumra, and Ankita Gandhi (2014), The Fragmented Social Protection System in India: Five Key Rights but two missing, IAMR Occasional Paper No. 3 Mitra S. and U. Sambamoorthi (2006) “Employment of Persons with Disabilities: Evidence from the National Sample Survey” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 3 pp. 199-203. Raworth, K. and D. Stewart (2002) “Critiques of the Human Development Index: A 97
Review”, in Fukuda, Parr and Kumar (eds.) Readings in Human Development, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2003. Selvaraj Sakthivel and Anup K Karan (2012), Why Publicly Financed Health Insurance Schemes are Ineffective in Providing Financial Risk Protection, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLVII, No. 11 Shahrawat, Renu and Krishna D Rao (2012), Insured yet vulnerable: out-of-pocket payments and India’s poor, Health Policy and Planning, 27: 213-221 Streeten, P. (1994) “Human Development: Means and Ends.” American Economic Review, 84(2): pp. 232- 237. Thorat, S. (2007) “Human Poverty and Socially Disadvantaged Groups in India”, Discussion Paper -18, January, 2007, HDRC, UNDP, India. UNDP (2010) “Human Development in India: Analysis to Action October 2010”, Publication based on reports from partner State governments; compiled and edited by Pia Lindstrom, United Nations Development Programme, India.
98
Annexure 1: Detailed Tables Table 1: State-wise Gross Enrollment ratio at higher education (Rural+urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
ST
SC
2011-12
OBC GEN ALL ST
SC
OBC GEN ALL
Andhra Pradesh
1.9
6.6
7.2
22.6
11.0
38.1
19.5
39.5
46.6
37.7
Assam
8.6
11.2
9.4
11.4
10.5
19.1
26.0
19.3
12.0
16.5
Bihar
3.3
2.3
4.4
16.0
6.7
1.4
3.0
19.3
46.5
22.7
Gujarat
5.2
11.7
4.4
19.6
12.0
22.9
24.8
15.7
28.0
22.8
4.1
8.7
15.4
11.1
91.3
15.6
30.2
28.8
27.5
9.2
16.2
19.0
16.6
48.2
27.1
34.1
43.5
38.2
4.2
8.2
11.3
10.0
37.8
23.6
23.3
42.0
37.6
5.4
6.8
5.3
16.4
9.5
29.6
18.5
26.1
38.2
28.5
Kerala
15.3
11.1
17.9
38.7
23.9
12.5
29.6
30.4
48.3
33.7
Madhya Pradesh
13.4
5.6
6.6
23.0
11.4
12.1
14.1
20.2
44.0
22.1
Maharashtra
8.6
14.3
14.0
19.4
16.3
25.2
27.2
28.2
29.0
28.2
Orissa
4.1
5.9
6.3
18.3
9.3
4.8
14.0
25.2
41.5
21.3
5.6
12.9
17.5
12.0
7.7
26.5
37.1
25.2
Haryana Himachal Pradesh
17.7
Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka
Punjab Rajasthan
4.4
6.4
4.3
16.6
9.0
27.3
19.1
27.0
42.0
28.4
Tamil Nadu
3.0
6.7
14.6
41.0
14.4
2.4
27.0
40.5
78.3
37.9
Tripura
4.6
4.8
3.7
9.7
6.9
12.7
0.7
6.9
17.3
10.7
Uttar Pradesh
3.5
4.8
5.1
19.4
10.1
68.7
10.1
19.7
42.0
22.6
West Bengal
3.5
4.0
6.4
8.5
6.9
13.3
14.8
27.3
23.0
21.1
All India
7.3
6.2
8.0
18.3
11.4
21.0
17.5
26.6
34.3
26.9
Source: Calculated by IAMR
99
Table 2: State-wise Rank of Gross Enrollment ratio at higher education (Rural+urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000
States ST Andhra Pradesh Assam
SC OBC GEN ALL ST 15
5
Bihar
13
8
9
3
6 15
2
16
7
Haryana
NA
Himachal Pradesh
1
Jammu & Kashmir
NA
Karnataka
6
6
Kerala
2
4
Madhya Pradesh
3
11
Maharashtra
4
1 10
Punjab
NA
Rajasthan
9
Tamil Nadu Tripura
16
7
5
2
15
8
4
12
12
8
7
16
13
18
17
17
15 17
Uttar Pradesh
11
13
14
West Bengal
12
17
11
5
9
6
8
1
11
5
2
3
3
3
12
5
7
12
12
13
6
10
10
13
1
3
7
14
13
7
3
9
14 6
11
6
100
NA 15
16
18 4 15
11 9
6
1
7
4 11
6 5
5
6
14
12
2 13
17
14 13
11
8
10
15
12
10
16
9
9
8
8
7
16
4
1
1
2
12
18
18
15
14
7
17 11
18
2 15
4 17
Source: Calculated by IAMR
8
4
ALL 3
14
16
1 18
3
5
1
17
2
10
10
14
8
2
5
3
4 10
8
10
SC OBC GEN
15
14
1
10
9
5
13
9 14
4
18
Gujarat
Orissa
2011-12
2 11
12
7
17 9
18 13
16
16
Table 3: State-wise Gross Enrollment ratio at higher education (Rural), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
ST
SC
2011-12
OBC GEN ALL ST
SC
OBC
GEN ALL
Andhra Pradesh
0.3
3.8
2.6
7.5
3.7
35.0
16.2
35.2
37.7
31.1
Assam
8.3
7.5
8.1
8.3
8.2
13.7
24.9
14.7
8.8
12.8
Bihar
1.2
1.8
2.0
6.8
2.9
1.4
2.8
14.8
45.9
19.6
Gujarat
4.2
9.2
1.6
9.5
5.8
18.9
12.2
8.4
20.6
13.6
3.8
8.2
10.5
8.2
66.5
14.8
26.7
12.9
16.8
7.4
16.6
14.5
13.2
27.8
26.9
31.1
46.2
36.7
2.1
7.0
5.6
5.2
36.9
22.2
21.0
36.4
33.2
2.9
2.9
2.2
6.0
3.5
33.5
16.5
22.8
24.9
22.5
Kerala
17.6
10.4
12.6
34.1
19.6
5.7
24.4
29.8
42.3
31.2
Madhya Pradesh
13.3
2.3
3.9
9.5
7.0
10.8
9.2
11.3
35.2
14.1
Maharashtra
4.0
8.7
9.6
10.9
9.2
23.3
21.5
21.1
19.4
20.7
Orissa
2.2
5.0
5.9
14.5
7.1
3.5
13.5
27.2
20.0
17.2
3.5
10.6
10.9
7.5
5.3
23.8
36.1
20.9
Haryana Himachal Pradesh
11.4
Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka
Punjab Rajasthan
2.7
3.4
1.4
7.4
3.8
24.9
17.0
19.7
16.7
20.0
Tamil Nadu
0.2
4.1
9.6
36.5
8.5
0.3
12.1
29.2
71.6
26.0
Tripura
1.4
4.7
2.1
7.5
5.2
1.5
0.7
2.4
14.5
4.7
Uttar Pradesh
2.7
4.3
3.9
12.6
6.7
14.4
10.2
14.5
32.4
16.2
West Bengal
2.8
3.7
4.7
4.0
3.9
1.0
9.3
29.4
12.2
12.5
All India
5.7
4.1
4.8
9.9
6.3
17.0
12.9
19.8
24.5
19.3
Source: Calculated by IAMR
101
Table 4: State-wise Rank of Gross Enrollment ratio at higher education (Rural), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
ST
2011-12
SC OBC GEN ALL ST
SC OBC GEN ALL
Andhra Pradesh
14
11
13
13
16
3
8
1
5
4
Assam
4
4
7
11
5
10
2
14
18
16
Bihar
13
18
16
15
18
15
17
13
3
10
Gujarat
5
2
17
10
11
8
11
17
11
15
Haryana
#N/A
10
6
8
6
1
9
7
16
12
Himachal Pradesh
3
5
1
4
2
5
1
2
2
1
Jammu & Kashmir
#N/A
17
8
17
12
2
4
11
6
2
Karnataka
7
15
14
16
17
4
7
9
10
6
Kerala
1
1
2
2
1
12
3
3
4
3
Madhya Pradesh
2
16
12
9
9
11
15
16
8
14
Maharashtra
6
3
4
6
3
7
5
10
13
8
Orissa
11
6
9
3
8
13
10
6
12
11
Punjab
#N/A
13
3
7
7
#N/A
16
8
7
7
Rajasthan
9
14
18
14
15
6
6
12
14
9
Tamil Nadu
15
9
5
1
4
17
12
5
1
5
Tripura
12
7
15
12
13
14
18
18
15
18
Uttar Pradesh
10
8
11
5
10
9
13
15
9
13
West Bengal
8
12
10
18
14
16
14
4
17
17
Source: Calculated by IAMR
102
Table 5: State-wise Gross Enrollment ratio at higher education (Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 ST
SC
2011-12
OBC GEN ALL ST
SC
OBC GEN ALL
AndhraStates Pradesh
10.0
16.9
18.9
38.7
26.7
55.7
30.2
44.8
51.2
46.2
Assam
22.4
27.8
32.7
31.0
30.3
96.3
29.5
64.0
29.5
40.7
Bihar
19.3
8.9
21.1
48.0
30.1
1.8
5.4
41.1
50.7
40.1
Gujarat
12.9
15.9
12.3
31.7
24.2
37.5
33.3
27.8
30.0
30.1
4.9
9.9
25.5
18.1
97.8
19.7
35.6
68.3
53.4
30.8
9.2
57.4
50.2
113.5
27.8
91.3
37.1
42.9
19.1
22.9
37.1
34.6
44.3
27.3
55.3
59.6
53.8
16.2
24.0
13.3
29.5
22.8
17.1
26.5
33.2
49.5
39.0
2.8
15.0
29.8
52.3
35.3
45.5
41.2
32.0
56.7
39.1
Madhya Pradesh
14.3
17.0
17.0
35.1
24.5
42.6
27.0
37.1
52.3
40.9
Maharashtra
31.1
21.9
21.9
26.7
25.3
30.2
34.7
38.6
37.0
36.8
Orissa
23.3
10.6
8.2
28.3
19.0
39.2
15.8
13.0
90.1
42.2
11.1
16.0
26.5
19.9
15.0
28.9
38.1
31.3
Haryana Himachal Pradesh
128.0
Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka Kerala
Punjab Rajasthan
27.7
14.7
15.2
31.1
23.8
49.8
23.2
46.2
64.5
47.4
Tamil Nadu
14.1
17.6
22.5
42.7
24.9
21.2
42.4
51.6
87.5
50.2
Tripura
29.2
5.0
15.7
21.8
16.9
39.0
0.5
22.6
27.1
39.8
Uttar Pradesh
7.9
7.9
9.2
33.7
20.7
23.2
9.8
32.9
52.6
37.7
West Bengal
10.0
5.7
13.0
22.7
18.1
56.6
36.8
21.3
40.1
38.8
All India
18.7
14.2
17.6
32.0
24.2
44.1
29.7
39.9
44.7
40.7
Source: Calculated by IAMR
103
Table 6: State-wise Rank of Gross Enrollment ratio at higher education (Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 ST States Andhra Pradesh
2011-12
SC OBC GEN ALL ST
SC OBC GEN ALL
13
8
7
5
6
5
6
6
9
5
Assam
6
2
1
11
4
3
7
2
17
9
Bihar
7
14
6
3
5
17
17
7
10
10
11
9
14
9
10
12
5
15
16
18
#N/A
18
15
16
17
2
13
10
3
2
1
1
16
1
1
1
8
1
14
6
#N/A
5
3
6
3
8
9
3
5
1
8
3
12
12
12
16
11
11
11
13
15
10
2
2
2
7
2
13
6
12
Madhya Pradesh
9
7
8
7
9
9
10
9
8
8
Maharashtra
2
4
5
14
7
13
4
8
15
16
Orissa
5
13
18
13
15
10
14
18
1
7
Punjab
#N/A
12
9
15
14
#N/A
15
14
13
17
4
11
11
10
11
6
12
5
4
4
10
6
4
4
8
15
1
4
2
3
3
17
10
18
18
11
18
16
18
11
Uttar Pradesh
14
15
17
8
13
14
16
12
7
15
West Bengal
12
16
13
17
16
4
3
17
12
14
Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka Kerala
Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Tripura
Source: Calculated by IAMR
104
Table 7: State-wise Relative share of graduates and above (both general & technical education) in labour force (Rural+Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
2011-12
ST
SC
Andhra Pradesh
1.2
2.3
2.9
13.3
5.2
7.6
6.0
9.7
25.9
12.2
Assam
2.0
3.8
3.7
7.0
5.1
4.6
8.5
8.7
8.9
8.1
Bihar
3.1
1.4
3.8
15.8
5.4
1.8
5.1
5.8
24.3
8.9
Gujarat
1.3
2.5
1.9
10.9
5.5
5.0
9.9
4.9
16.6
9.8
1.3
2.4
10.6
6.3
2.3
14.2
26.0
17.7
Haryana
OBC GEN ALL ST
SC
OBC GEN ALL
Himachal Pradesh
5.2
1.3
1.7
5.9
4.4
8.9
8.0
4.7
15.9
11.7
Jammu & Kashmir
4.7
1.3
7.9
6.4
5.8
7.3
4.2
3.2
15.0
11.6
Karnataka
2.2
1.7
2.9
11.8
5.7
10.4
6.6
14.8
27.0
15.9
Kerala
4.3
2.4
4.3
11.9
6.9
7.7
6.3
12.9
26.2
15.8
Madhya Pradesh
1.1
2.0
2.7
16.3
4.3
3.4
4.2
7.6
32.7
10.4
Maharashtra
2.7
4.1
4.6
12.2
7.8
4.6
10.1
13.1
25.0
16.8
Orissa
0.9
1.3
3.8
10.6
3.8
3.0
4.1
5.6
26.7
9.3
Punjab
9.4
1.8
4.2
9.1
5.7
2.4
7.8
15.4
9.4
Rajasthan
1.5
2.1
2.0
10.1
4.4
5.3
5.4
6.1
24.9
9.2
Tamil Nadu
3.5
2.2
4.8
32.1
6.1
1.3
6.3
15.1
51.4
13.7
Tripura
2.9
2.9
4.3
8.8
5.9
1.5
6.4
10.4
13.6
7.4
Uttar Pradesh
7.2
2.4
2.7
14.2
6.3
9.3
3.4
8.2
29.2
11.6
West Bengal
1.2
3.0
6.5
9.6
7.1
1.8
3.6
10.8
15.9
11.1
All India
1.9
2.3
3.5
12.7
6.1
5.2
5.4
10.1
23.5
12.5
Source: Calculated by IAMR
105
Table 8: State-wise Rank of Relative share of graduates and above (both general & technical education) in labour force (Rural+Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 ST
SC
2011-12
OBC GEN ALL ST
SC
OBC GEN ALL
AndhraStates Pradesh
15
8
12
5
13
5
9
8
8
6
Assam
11
2
10
16
14
9
3
9
18
17
Bihar
7
14
9
3
12
11
14
11
16
13
5
17
9
11
2
16
12
12
15
15
10
5
18
3
7
1
Gujarat Haryana
NA
13 8 NA
Himachal Pradesh
3
17
18
18
15
3
4
17
14
7
Jammu & Kashmir
4
18
1
17
8
6
13
18
16
8
10
13
11
8
9
1
5
2
4
3
5
7
5
7
3
4
7
5
6
4
16
11
13
2
17
11
12
12
2
11
9
1
4
6
1
10
1
4
9
2
Orissa
17
16
8
11
18
12
14
15
5
14
Punjab Rajasthan
1 12
12 10
7 16
14 12
10 16
NA AA 7
17 10
11 13
15 10
13 15
Tamil Nadu
6
9
3
1
6
16
8
1
1
5
Tripura
8
4
6
15
7
15
6
7
17
18
Uttar Pradesh
2
6
14
4
4
16
10
3
9
West Bengal
14
3
2
13
2
15
6
13
10
Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra
Source: Calculated by IAMR
106
2 14
Table 9: State-wise Relative share of graduates and above (both general & technical education) in labour force (Rural), 1999-2012 1999-2000 States
ST
SC
2011-12
OBC GEN ALL ST
SC
OBC GEN ALL
Andhra Pradesh
0.5
1.1
1.2
4.6
1.8
4.2
4.4
3.4
12.1
5.1
Assam
1.8
2.0
2.9
3.4
2.8
1.6
5.4
7.1
6.5
5.8
Bihar
1.3
1.2
2.4
9.2
3.1
4.8
4.6
20.7
7.4
Gujarat
1.0
1.4
0.7
4.3
2.1
2.9
3.4
8.3
4.6
1.1
1.8
3.7
2.5
1.6
11.6
14.2
10.2
Haryana
3.5
Himachal Pradesh
3.5
1.0
1.4
3.5
2.7
6.3
8.9
3.8
10.8
8.8
Jammu & Kashmir
5.2
1.0
7.8
3.3
3.6
6.4
3.3
2.5
8.1
6.6
Karnataka
0.8
1.3
1.1
4.0
2.0
2.8
3.1
7.8
13.1
7.4
Kerala
4.6
2.0
3.5
9.9
5.7
7.9
4.3
9.6
16.2
10.7
Madhya Pradesh
0.6
1.4
1.5
5.1
1.6
1.2
3.2
3.0
15.1
4.0
Maharashtra
1.5
2.2
2.6
4.3
3.0
3.7
4.8
5.5
9.1
6.4
Orissa
0.3
1.3
2.5
5.4
2.0
2.4
3.3
4.1
16.6
5.5
Punjab
5.0
1.4
1.6
3.2
2.3
1.1
7.1
9.2
5.4
Rajasthan
0.9
1.4
1.2
3.2
1.7
4.3
4.5
3.7
11.6
5.0
Tamil Nadu
2.6
1.6
2.3
8.6
2.3
0.2
3.6
6.3
23.9
5.7
Tripura
0.1
1.8
2.5
5.3
3.4
0.7
0.4
7.2
6.0
3.1
Uttar Pradesh
3.8
2.0
2.1
7.8
3.7
5.9
2.0
6.0
14.5
6.3
West Bengal
0.7
2.0
5.5
3.6
3.1
0.8
1.8
8.5
6.6
4.8
All India
1.0
1.6
2.0
5.2
2.7
2.9
3.2
5.3
11.7
6.0
Source: Calculated by IAMR
107
Table 10: State-wise Rank of Relative share of graduates and above (both general & technical education) in labour force (Rural), 1999-2012 1999-2000 ST Andhra Pradesh States
2011-12
SC OBC GEN ALL ST SC OBC GEN ALL 15 15 15 8 16 6 6 15 9 13
Assam
7
4
4
15
8
11
2
7
17
9
Bihar
9
14
8
2
5
#N/A
4
11
2
5
10
9
18
9
13
8
13
16
14
16
#N/A
16
11
12
10
#N/A
16
1
7
2
Himachal Pradesh
5
18
14
14
9
3
1
13
11
3
Jammu & Kashmir
1
17
1
16
3
2
10
18
15
6
12
13
17
11
15
9
12
4
8
4
3
5
3
1
1
1
7
2
4
1
14
11
13
7
18
12
11
17
5
17
8
1
5
10
7
7
3
10
13
7
Orissa
16
12
7
5
14
10
9
12
3
11
Punjab
2
8
12
18
12
#N/A
17
6
12
12
11
10
16
17
17
5
5
14
10
14
6
7
9
3
11
15
8
8
1
10
17
6
6
6
4
14
18
5
18
18
Uttar Pradesh
4
2
10
4
2
4
14
9
6
8
West Bengal
13
3
2
13
6
13
15
3
16
15
Gujarat Haryana
Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra
Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Tripura
Source: Calculated by IAMR
108
Table 11: State-wise Relative share of gragduates and above (general education) in labour force (Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 ST
SC
2011-12
OBC GEN ALL ST
SC
OBC GEN ALL
Andhra Pradesh States
8.0
9.7
9.7
29.3
17.2
45.5
20.6
30.9
46.0
35.4
Assam
7.8
14.3
17.3
25.5
22.4
36.7
26.8
23.4
26.7
27.0
Bihar
22.7
5.3
15.9
42.2
23.6
26.5
10.2
19.0
57.8
26.7
3.8
5.8
6.3
23.0
15.5
18.5
26.1
8.7
21.1
16.9
2.2
4.8
26.3
16.9
6.0
23.2
57.6
39.7
6.2
7.9
37.7
29.6
35.4
0.8
15.1
42.8
32.7
3.4
9.7
22.9
20.3
24.4
8.0
7.7
35.5
30.5
Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh
69.8
Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka
9.9
4.8
10.1
28.3
18.4
43.3
21.8
32.8
49.0
37.0
Kerala
2.8
4.2
6.4
17.4
10.3
2.0
14.5
25.6
55.2
33.9
Madhya Pradesh
8.9
5.3
9.9
30.0
17.5
35.9
8.8
24.2
60.6
35.1
Maharashtra
14.5
8.3
10.8
22.4
17.9
9.0
20.9
28.5
43.1
34.1
Orissa
12.2
1.1
12.3
25.3
15.4
11.2
8.4
17.5
45.1
28.3
Punjab
13.9
2.8
9.1
22.0
13.7
6.0
8.7
24.2
16.5
Rajasthan
15.9
4.9
7.4
27.5
17.0
26.4
9.9
16.5
44.5
26.4
7.0
6.1
9.9
42.9
14.7
5.4
12.0
27.7
66.6
26.1
Tripura
21.2
9.9
21.7
24.0
20.6
19.5
27.9
23.6
38.3
30.6
Uttar Pradesh
26.1
4.9
5.7
29.4
17.3
15.6
12.7
16.5
53.5
29.8
West Bengal
10.0
7.5
10.5
25.9
20.8
13.5
11.8
18.4
33.0
27.8
All India
12.2
6.0
9.4
27.8
17.9
24.9
14.9
24.0
41.6
30.1
Tamil Nadu
Source: Calculated by IAMR
109
Table 12: State-wise Rank of Relative share of graduates and above (both general & technical education) in labour force (Urban), 1999-2012 1999-2000 ST
2011-12
SC OBC GEN ALL ST
SC OBC GEN ALL
Andhra Pradesh States
12
3
11
6
11
1
6
2
8
3
Assam
13
1
2
11
3
3
2
8
16
13
Bihar
3
9
3
2
2
6
11
10
3
14
15
8
16
14
14
10
3
16
18
17
#N/A
17
18
9
13
#N/A
16
9
4
1
1
6
13
3
1
5
18
15
12
7
#N/A
15
10
15
6
8
15
18
14
9
Karnataka
10
13
7
7
7
2
4
1
7
2
Kerala
16
14
15
18
18
16
7
5
5
6
Madhya Pradesh
11
10
8
4
9
4
13
6
2
4
Maharashtra
6
4
5
16
8
14
5
3
11
5
Orissa
8
18
4
12
15
13
14
12
9
11
Punjab
7
16
12
17
17
#N/A
17
17
17
18
Rajasthan
5
11
14
8
12
7
12
13
10
15
14
7
9
1
16
15
9
4
1
16
Tripura
4
2
1
13
5
9
1
7
13
8
Uttar Pradesh
2
12
17
5
10
11
8
14
6
10
West Bengal
9
5
6
10
4
12
10
11
15
12
Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir
Tamil Nadu
Source: Calculated by IAMR
110
Table 13: State-wise Real MPCE (Inequality Adjusted at 2000-01 prices) State
1999-00 Rural Urban
2011-12 Total
Rural Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
274
311
294
525
925
573
Assam
201
293
228
457
937
526
Bihar
282
346
238
305
753
422
Gujarat
375
418
336
704
623
478
Haryana
481
393
454
694
937
698
Himachal Pradesh
372
360
368
541
1173
603
Jammu & Kashmir
360
484
410
698
1141
683
Karnataka
261
492
338
476
693
600
Kerala
334
461
432
722
2439
942
Madhya Pradesh
235
334
254
370
577
350
Maharashtra
228
412
334
431
866
701
Orissa
210
179
214
394
461
352
Punjab
380
411
458
628
989
592
Rajasthan
296
364
340
375
763
640
Tamil Nadu
252
336
253
630
1126
635
Tripura
361
369
395
725
1404
898
Uttar Pradesh
293
248
272
450
415
468
West Bengal
223
457
330
401
646
551
All India
251
364
284
442
727
542
Source: Calculated by IAMR
111
Table 14: Rank of State by Real MPCE State
1999-00 Rural Urban
2011-12 Total
Rural Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
11
15
12
9
9
11
Assam
18
16
17
11
7
13
Bihar
10
12
16
18
12
16
Gujarat
3
5
9
3
15
14
Haryana
1
8
2
5
8
4
Himachal Pradesh
4
11
6
8
3
8
Jammu & Kashmir
6
2
4
4
4
5
12
1
8
10
13
9
7
3
3
2
1
1
Madhya Pradesh
14
14
14
17
16
18
Maharashtra
15
6
10
13
10
3
Orissa
17
18
18
15
17
17
Punjab
2
7
1
7
6
10
Rajasthan
8
10
7
16
11
6
13
13
15
6
5
7
Tripura
5
9
5
1
2
2
Uttar Pradesh
9
17
13
12
18
15
West Bengal
16
4
11
14
14
12
Karnataka Kerala
Tamil Nadu
Source: Calculated by IAMR
112
Table 15: State-wise literacy rate (age 7 & above) for disabled population (in %) State
1999-00 Rural
Urban
2011-12 Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
21.7
37.6
25.7
16.6
15.8
16.4
Assam
28.4
39.5
30.1
44.8
30.6
41.5
Bihar
28.6
28.7
28.6
37.0
63.3
38.7
Gujarat
17.9
61.7
31.8
21.5
43.0
29.1
Haryana
26.2
42.0
31.5
20.5
15.8
19.4
Himachal Pradesh
30.0
41.8
30.8
31.9
50.1
32.8
Jammu & Kashmir
8.9
38.5
15.5
42.9
35.4
40.8
Karnataka
25.2
56.5
30.9
33.0
43.3
36.6
Kerala
61.1
60.9
61.0
71.8
64.3
69.8
Madhya Pradesh
28.0
43.2
31.8
42.9
52.0
45.0
Maharashtra
29.6
45.7
35.7
34.6
57.9
45.9
Orissa
23.1
58.4
26.8
24.1
34.1
25.4
Punjab
26.9
24.6
26.3
28.9
57.3
37.7
Rajasthan
21.4
29.0
23.4
42.7
28.9
38.0
Tamil Nadu
39.6
51.9
43.3
39.5
59.2
48.7
Tripura
32.0
48.1
38.3
26.0
91.5
33.7
Uttar Pradesh
21.1
24.1
21.7
8.2
48.5
16.0
West Bengal
24.1
51.1
29.2
18.4
47.1
26.6
All India
28.0
44.6
32.2
30.9
49.9
37.0
Source: Calculated by IAMR
113
Table 16: Rank of States on literacy rate State Andhra Pradesh
1999-00 Rural
Urban
2011-12 Total
Rural
Urban
Total
14
14
15
17
18
17
Assam
7
12
10
2
15
5
Bihar
6
16
12
7
3
7
Gujarat
17
1
6
14
12
13
Haryana
10
10
7
15
17
16
Himachal Pradesh
4
11
9
10
8
12
Jammu & Kashmir
18
13
18
4
13
6
Karnataka
11
4
8
9
11
10
Kerala
1
2
1
1
2
1
Madhya Pradesh
8
9
5
3
7
4
Maharashtra
5
8
4
8
5
3
Orissa
13
3
13
13
14
15
Punjab
9
17
14
11
6
9
15
15
16
5
16
8
Tamil Nadu
2
5
2
6
4
2
Tripura
3
7
3
12
1
11
Uttar Pradesh
16
18
17
18
9
18
West Bengal
12
6
11
16
10
14
Rajasthan
Source: Calculated by IAMR
114
Table 17: State-wise Infant Mortality rate for disabled population (per 1000) State
1998-99 Rural
Urban
2005-06 Total
Rural Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
57.3
64.5
59.2
57.7
35.1
50.0
Assam
66.9
63.8
66.7
70.9
55.3
69.0
Bihar
80.6
34.8
76.9
66.7
52.8
65.1
Gujarat
62.8
49.6
58.1
61.7
28.5
49.4
Haryana
65.6
43.2
60.2
45.1
13.2
37.5
Himachal Pradesh
34.2
20.7
33.1
36.9
12.5
34.6
Jammu & Kashmir
52.3
70.0
55.4
51.2
29.2
47.0
Karnataka
51.3
39.5
47.6
50.2
36.2
45.0
Kerala
14.1
18.0
14.8
14.1
13.8
14.0
116.3
52.0
102.4
77.5
42.0
69.1
Maharashtra
42.1
35.2
39.4
47.2
26.3
37.4
Orissa
87.3
66.3
85.1
67.3
43.8
63.8
Punjab
59.1
46.2
55.9
40.5
43.0
41.4
Rajasthan
91.1
86.4
90.1
72.8
65.0
71.1
Tamil Nadu
39.9
38.7
39.5
34.0
30.1
32.3
Tripura
27.1
42.9
29.2
44.8
26.7
42.2
Uttar Pradesh
91.9
59.8
86.7
71.9
63.1
70.1
West Bengal
43.3
18.3
38.6
55.8
38.2
52.3
All India
72.9
47.4
67.2
62.6
40.9
56.9
Madhya Pradesh
Source: Calculated by IAMR
115
Table 18: State-wise Rank of Infant Mortality rate for disabled population State
1998-99
2005-06
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
Andhra Pradesh
10
4
8
8
10
8
Assam
6
5
6
4
3
4
Bihar
5
15
5
6
4
5
Gujarat
8
8
9
7
13
9
Haryana
7
10
7
13
17
14
Himachal Pradesh
16
16
16
16
18
16
Jammu & Kashmir
11
2
11
10
12
10
Karnataka
12
12
12
11
9
11
Kerala
18
18
18
18
16
18
Madhya Pradesh
1
7
1
1
7
3
Maharashtra
14
14
14
12
15
15
Orissa
4
3
4
5
5
6
Punjab
9
9
10
15
6
13
Rajasthan
3
1
2
2
1
1
Tamil Nadu
15
13
13
17
11
17
Tripura
17
11
17
14
14
12
Uttar Pradesh
2
6
3
3
2
2
West Bengal
13
17
15
9
8
7
Source: Calculated by IAMR
116
Table 19: State-wise Monthly Per capita Income in Rural areas (2000-01 prices) inequality adjusted
State All 315 Andhra Pradesh 300 Assam 269 Bihar 389 Gujarat 529 Haryana 443 Himachal Pradesh 438 Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All India
SC
1999-00 OBC
GEN
2011-12 SC OBC
All
GEN
276 306 242 386 387 431 331
308 303 272 383 458 441 502
419 312 293 446 634 457 482
552 418 385 577 672 784 687
489 422 340 569 515 705 615
583 420 387 491 610 946 641
748 396 428 695 943 885 566
274 518 284 322 257 507
288 415 257 299 252 415
327 568 299 348 277 480
338 648 357 355 318 587
478 853 439 513 356 818
434 619 452 449 344 552
464 749 430 547 370 702
549 1031 778 516 456 1084
347 357 375 340 339 321
310 271 353 283 336 293
403 340 429 335 358 323
424 459 418 388 298 367
443 523 581 400 402 442
474 460 576 471 445 404
541 533 562 385 480 448
609 571 636 510 422 524
Source: Calculated by IAMR
117
Table 20: State-wise Monthly Per capita Income in urban areas (2000-01 prices) inequality adjusted
State Andhra Pradesh Assam
All 522 630
1999-00 SC OBC 426 490 411 547
Bihar 406 343 615 446 Gujarat Haryana 685 496 Himachal Pradesh 872 571 Jammu & Kashmir 680 574 Karnataka 567 416 Kerala 638 489 Madhya Pradesh 442 363 Maharashtra 637 499 Orissa 408 346 Punjab 658 444 Rajasthan 515 434 Tamil Nadu 572 447 Tripura 574 487 Uttar Pradesh 445 396 577 457 West Bengal All India 527 429 Source: Calculated by IAMR
372 504 567 479 620 559 529 420 530 425 635 524 571 576 381 472 473
118
GEN 617 553
All 851 775
602 646 805 863 785 663 705 535 638 455 714 596 834 595 515 607 616
523 849 1146 1132 941 1023 1081 591 1152 759 955 1016 973 850 700 1103 867
2011-12 SC OBC 726 987 965 1091 457 943 738 1167 711 776 772 514 1044 490 731 678 956 696 608 697 674
508 758 1193 902 904 1066 1064 501 888 715 855 745 1085 875 463 704 789
GEN 1215 896 653 967 1539 1434 1227 1375 1378 886 1342 898 987 1153 1764 1181 987 874 1069
Table 21: State-wise Monthly Per capita Income in Rural+Urban areas (2000-01 prices) inequality adjusted 1999-00 State All SC OBC 376 343 372 Andhra Pradesh Assam 343 336 330 Bihar 288 255 289 457 407 447 Gujarat Haryana 525 410 450 Himachal Pradesh 494 472 476 Jammu & Kashmir 529 382 491 Karnataka 389 314 376 Kerala 496 415 462 Madhya Pradesh 319 292 334 Maharashtra 406 447 417 Orissa 290 277 309 Punjab 546 451 549 Rajasthan 428 388 436 Tamil Nadu 391 318 475 Tripura 452 435 449 Uttar Pradesh 350 294 343 352 319 354 West Bengal All India 374 327 364 Source: Calculated by IAMR
GEN 516 353 327 560 643 532 511 484 556 536 584 365 584 489 708 415 421 400 449
119
All 576 424 379 731 839 759 613 695 913 445 719 382 773 583 734 725 558 577 563
2011-12 SC OBC 531 584 444 455 358 373 747 602 530 696 699 767 601 582 497 717 633 871 416 470 637 764 338 389 704 751 502 608 589 808 668 816 381 393 451 558 477 551
GEN 1037 462 502 879 970 927 805 1115 1353 689 896 521 954 780 1170 695 747 576 735
Annexure 2: Sample sizes Table 1: Sample size for the calculation of Health Index Name of the states ANDHRA PRADESH ASSAM BIHAR GUJARAT HARYANA HIMACHAL PRADESH JAMMU & KASHMIR KARNATAKA KERALA MADHYA PRADESH MAHARASTRA ORISSA PUNJAB RAJASTHAN TAMIL NADU TRIPURA UTTAR PRADESH WEST BENGAL ALL India
SC 148 83 424 131 177 124 92 157 39 296 146 217 209 395 222 51 576 193 3,925
NFHS_1998-99 NFHS_200506 OBC GEN Total SC OBC GEN Total 308 210 710 265 744 656 1,791 57 400 670 146 195 364 902 985 335 1,856 306 1,035 358 1,709 201 328 831 211 513 380 1,242 175 346 699 257 186 490 941 112 318 556 198 117 449 794 96 496 703 108 114 219 543 294 311 809 296 961 218 1,682 202 217 462 81 254 353 708 755 347 1,822 448 921 497 2,294 198 688 1,130 364 635 1,092 2,331 324 252 984 250 352 391 1,347 114 271 594 368 93 525 1,022 449 837 2,005 334 689 283 1,517 638 21 889 390 914 26 1,336 35 79 211 95 102 171 460 748 1,269 2,658 1,317 2,638 1,317 5,325 36 516 791 386 44 1,039 1,590 6,001 8,127 21,142 6,929 12,735 11,586 37,468
120
Table 2: Sample size for Calculation of Education and Income Indices NSS_199900 SC OBC GEN 6,059 16,098 14,370 ANDHRA PRADESH 2,198 4,225 11,960 ASSAM 8,640 25,684 12,979 BIHAR 2,847 7,072 12,717 GUJARAT 1,700 2,840 5,627 HARYANA 7,349 HIMACHAL PRADESH 2,313 1,143 9,953 JAMMU & KASHMIR 1,445 1,450 3,630 9,216 10,860 KARNATAKA 1,729 11,917 7,581 KERALA 6,547 18,223 11,878 MADHYA PRADESH 5,544 10,531 24,225 MAHARASTRA 4,164 6,302 6,771 ORISSA 6,682 2,712 10,755 PUNJAB 4,735 9,104 11,611 RAJASTHAN 6,119 24,167 3,539 TAMIL NADU 1,623 1,394 3,549 TRIPURA 16,256 33,180 31,756 UTTAR PRADESH 8,895 2,574 24,302 WEST BENGAL 94,575 197,086 239,460 ALL India Name of the states
121
Total 53,380 30,765 70,445 35,617 13,949 15,510 17,540 34,859 29,457 61,784 61,260 29,486 27,855 39,496 46,484 578 112,523 51,217 819,013
SC 4,265 1,910 3,558 1,165 2,735 1,995 1,409 2,775 1,340 3,140 4,748 3,289 4,723 3,683 4,239 1,434 10,032 6,374 69,873
NSS_201112 OBC GEN 12,941 7,115 3,945 7,305 14,393 5,322 6,576 5,438 3,580 6,180 1,384 4,393 1,801 12,876 10,030 4,298 11,724 4,745 9,681 5,277 12,482 15,644 6,127 4,588 2,319 7,307 9,698 4,510 19,143 660 1,270 2,234 26,541 12,484 2,662 15,487 180,575 144,882
Total 25,658 15,803 23,508 15,710 12,623 8,612 17,691 18,092 17,957 21,869 35,364 17,149 14,380 20,172 24,281 7,197 49,513 25,521 456,999
Table 3: Sample size for Disabled population Name of the states ANDHRA PRADESH ASSAM BIHAR GUJARAT HARYANA HIMACHAL PRADESH
NSS_1999-00 383 166 216 275 77 92
JAMMU & KASHMIR KARNATAKA KERALA MADHYA PRADESH MAHARASTRA ORISSA PUNJAB RAJASTHAN TAMIL NADU TRIPURA UTTAR PRADESH WEST BENGAL ALL India
130 226 339 385 476 228 277 219 483 51 477 555 5,347
122
NSS_2011-12 298 205 156 123 103 86 279 376 439 238 616 265 230 195 513 73 295 470 5,523
Table 3: Sample size for Elderly Population Name of the states ANDHRA PRADESH ASSAM BIHAR GUJARAT HARYANA HIMACHAL PRADESH JAMMU & KASHMIR KARNATAKA KERALA MADHYA PRADESH MAHARASTRA ORISSA PUNJAB RAJASTHAN TAMIL NADU TRIPURA UTTAR PRADESH WEST BENGAL ALL India
NSS_1999-00 NSS_2011-12 2,230 3,804 938 1,675 1,537 4,148 1,313 2,712 1,077 1,088 957 1,332 1,451 1,232 1,611 2,682 2,527 3,250 1,637 4,130 3,477 4,832 1,626 2,296 1,414 2,521 1,598 2,683 2,615 3,977 588 578 3,800 8,075 2,457 3,590 38,028 59,003
123
