KARNATAKA - of Planning Commission

Human Development in KarnatakaThe average of percapita GDP, per capitaconsumption and povertyhave been used forcomputing the incomeindex. As a result, theHDIs computed by thedifferent states are notstrictly comparable.Himachal Pradesh (2002), Maharashtra (2002),Rajasthan (2002), Assam (2003), West Bengal(2004), Punjab (2004), Nagaland (2004), Orissa(2004) and Gujarat (2004) also brought out StateHuman Development Reports.The states may have followed the UNDPmethodology but there is little uniformity anda lot of experimentation in application. Somestates have used literacy rates in combinationwith mean years of schooling or the enrolmentratio in the 6-14 years age group, while othersused the combined enrolment ratios of primaryand secondary schools in combination withadult literacy rates/literacy rates for computingthe educational status index. For literacy ratesor adult literacy rates and enrolment ratios, theminimum and maximum values used were 0and 100. However, Madhya Pradesh in its fi rstHDR used 80 as the maximum value (target) forliteracy. As far as the health index is concerned,some states used (1–IMR) index and othersused an index of life expectancy at birth (LEB)for health status. There is also considerablevariation in the method used for computation ofLEB, and thus, the same year of reference wasnot used in computation of the HDI for 2001by various states. There has been much diversityin the adoption of UNDP’s methodology withregard to the income index and minima andmaxima values by states. Some states haveused the methodology of the 1994 HDR whileothers have used the 1999 HDR methodology.Similarly, a few states used the highestper capita GDP and the lowest (or incomepoverty) per capita GDP prevailing in the statesin the reference year as end points in the scale,instead of the maximum and minimum valuesused in UNDP HDRs. The West Bengal HDRhas used completely different measures forcomputing the income index. The average of percapita GDP, per capita consumption and povertyhave been used for computing the income index.As a result, the HDIs computed by the differentstates are not strictly comparable.Another important factor to be noted is thatno SHDR, after 2001, has used NHDR 2001methodology due to non-availability of data forthe variables used in computing the HDI and theGDI (or GEI). One of the objectives of the NHDR2001 was to help states in the preparation oftheir HDRs. It has been noted earlier that dataconstraints were one of the major reasons cited forchanging the variables and end points of the scalesin the computation of the HDI (or GDI/GEI) in theNHDR. However, ironically, states have found itdiffi cult to obtain reliable data for computation ofthe HDI based on the NHDR.Karnataka Human DevelopmentReport 2005: MethodologyWhile preparing this HDR, the question of themethodology most appropriate for our purposeswas carefully analysed. While both the NHDR andthe UNDP methodologies had certain shortcomingsthat highlighted our own data constraints, wefound we would encounter more data problemsif we used NHDR methodology. Computation oflife expectancy at age 1, for instance, posed someproblems because the age group data releasedby the 2001 census could not be used for agesmoothening or graduation of age data on accountof certain distortions in data and also becausesingle year age population data was not available.Similarly, computation of per capita consumptionfor districts based on pooling of NSS data wasnot free from errors. The inadequate samplesize for some districts meant that the estimatesgave a distorted picture for districts, not only inKarnataka, but in other states as well. With regardto educational indicators, using literacy along withintensity of schooling raised some conceptualproblems since it could result in double countingin the age group 6-18 years. It was thus diffi cultfor this Report to adopt the NHDR methodology,useful as it is in so many ways.Computation of HDI fordistrictsThe HDI for districts is computed on the basisof the methodology used in UNDP HDR 1999,details of which are given in the TechnicalNote. Due to the non-availability of data onadult literacy rates for 2001, literacy rates for7 years plus, the combined gross enrolmentratios of primary and secondary level education(class I-XII) have been substituted. Hence, there is14