Spatial and Social Inequalities in Human Development: India in the ...

Recommendations

Info

Uttar Pradesh 80.8 78.2 20 16.9Bihar 86.1 82.4 30.3 31Sikkim 40.6 15.9 8.2 4.8Arunachal Pradesh 52.7 47.3 13 10.5Nagaland 35.4 30.8 5.9 5.4Manipur 22.5 14 4.7 4.2Mizoram 20.3 15.4 2 1.5Tripura 22.1 18.5 3 2.1Meghalaya 59.9 46.1 8.4 4.3Assam 40.4 40.4 5.4 6.3West Bengal 73.1 53.3 15.2 15Jharkhand 93.4 92.4 33.3 32.8Odisha 92.3 85.9 40.3 35.2Chhattisgarh 94.8 85.5 47.4 39.8Madhya Pradesh 91.1 86.9 32.3 25.8Gujarat 78.3 67 19.5 12.3Maharashtra 81.8 62 41.9 28.7Andhra Pradesh 81.9 67.8 21.9 13.9Karnataka 82.6 71.6 24.8 15.1Goa 51.8 29.1 30.8 14.7Kerala 18.7 6.8 8 2.6Tamil Nadu 85.6 76.8 35.7 24.9Puducherry UT 78.6 61 35 18All India 78.1 69.3 26.3 18.6C V (%) 38.01 50.02 61.54 72.27CV ( Excluding Delhi & Goa) 37.51 48.25 64.22 73.86Access to Basic AmenitiesSanitation and other civic amenities in a state would have a positive effect on health of thepeople, particularly the children. An attempt has therefore been made to determine to analysethe access of the households to latrine and drinking water facilities at the state level and acrosssocial groups.The percentage of households having electricity connection has gone up significantly both inrural and urban areas (Table 7). The increase is higher in the former which has reduced the ruralurban inequality over the past decade. The inter-state inequality too has recorded a noticeablereduction, the decline in coefficient of variation being higher in rural than urban areas. Thiswould be considered a positive step towards inclusive growth in the country. Unfortunately, thesame cannot be said regarding water supply and sanitation facilities. The reduction in the25
percentage of households not having safe drinking water facility (Table 8) and toilet (Table 9)within the premise is much less than that of households not having electricity. Furthermore, theinterstate inequality has gone up significantly in case of both water as well as sanitationfacilities. It is a matter of anxiety that the level of income of the states determine the access totoilet facilities and safe drinking water, the correlations being 0.72 and 0.43 respectively. Thisshould be a matter of serious concern since not having access to these basic amenities in theeconomically backward states would have a direct bearing on the health status of the familymembers, particularly the infant mortality rates.4. Inequalities and Inequality across Social, Religious and Gender GroupsConsumption ExpenditureThe discussion on the growth scenario will be incomplete without considering the fact that thebenefits do not accrue uniformly also across socio-religious categories. The historicallyunderprivileged scheduled caste and scheduled tribe population are often noted as recordingslower improvement over time in multiple economic and social dimensions. The sharpening ofinequalities across the states, as discussed above, would also affect these socio-economicgroups differently. Furthermore, the deprivation of Muslims and discrimination against them inlabour market and certain social spheres is also a matter of serious policy concern. The PrimeMinister’s High Level Committee (Sachar Committee 2006), probing into this aspect has shownthat the gaps in economic wellbeing between Muslims and the average population are veryhigh, more so in case of urban areas and women than for rural areas and men. Variousprograms of the government including that of the Reserve Bank of India under the PrimeMinister’s 15-point programme have not made much impact on their conditions.Given the differential access to labour and capital market of different castes and communities,an attempt is made here to analyse the trends and pattern per capita consumption expenditure- a summary measure of economic wellbeing - to assess the magnitude inter group inequality inthe country. Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists are India’s prominent minoritycommunities, accounting for 140 million or about 18 per cent of the country’s billion-pluspopulation. Muslims constitute about 75 per cent of this minority population. Following theclassification system adopted by the Sachar Committee, Hindus have been placed in 3categories – SCs, STs and Others for the analysis in this section. However, for comparability withother sections, figures for total SCs and STs have also been computed. Other religious groups(ORG) include all non Hindu religious groups except Muslims but include non-Hindu SC & STpopulation that are very small. The people in the first five categories thus add up to the totalpopulation with no overlap between any two categories.26
Page 1 and 2: Spatial and Social Inequalities in
Page 3 and 4: Spatial and Social Inequalities in
Page 5 and 6: QatarHungaryBarbadosPolandChileLith
Page 7 and 8: NorwayGermanySwitzerlandHong Kong,
Page 9 and 10: KiribatiKyrgyzstanNamibiaIraqTimor-
Page 11 and 12: Andhra PradeshAssamBiharChhattisgar
Page 13 and 14: Table 3: Average, Standard Deviatio
Page 16 and 17: 7793.697.594.293.610698.3124.1124.9
Page 18 and 19: Graph 9: Persons below the poverty
Page 20 and 21: Table 4: Percentage of children out
Page 22 and 23: The infant mortality rates (IMR), u
Page 24 and 25: Delhi NCT 85.5 97.8 93.4 99.1Rajast
Page 28 and 29: Table 10: Per capita consumption ex
Page 30 and 31: 16001400120010008006004002000Graph
Page 32 and 33: with that of other Hindus or total
Page 34 and 35: enroll at that level, instead of go
Page 36 and 37: emains very high in 2008-09. A simi
Page 38 and 39: Source: NSS unit level dataTable 17
Page 40 and 41: and goes well below the average fig
Page 42 and 43: earnings than a male in a similar j
Page 44 and 45: Registrar General (2008): SRS Bulle

Spatial and Social Inequalities in Human Development: India in the ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?