National Human Development Report: 2001 - Indira Gandhi Institute ...

NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 133P 3 : Composite indicator on economic deprivation.P 2 = ( ed 1 * 0.35 ) + ( ed 2 * 0.65 )where ed 1 is illiteracy rate for the population in the agegroup 7 years and above, and ed 2 is proportion of childrenin the age group 6-18 years not enrolled in the schools.P 3 = 1 / 4 * ∑ i ( P 3i )where i goes from 1 to 4, such that:P 31 : Proportion of population below the poverty line;P 32 : Proportion of population not receiving medicalattention at birth. This indicator has beensubstituted in the alternate HPI for 1991 byproportion of children, in the age group 12 to 23months, not fully vaccinated;P 33 : Proportion of population living in kutcha houses;P 34 : Proportion of population without access to basicamenities, including the access to safe drinkingwater, sanitation, and electricity. For 1981 a simpleaverage has been taken of the population nothaving access to any of these amenitiesindividually. Whereas for 1991, in the alternateHPI the cross tabulation of population not havingaccess to any of these amenities has been used.Gender Equality Index The methodology forconstructing the GEI is the same as that of HDI. Thepoint of departure involves expressing the index as aproportion of attainment level for females to that ofmales. Secondly, in estimating the index, the economicattainments for males and females have been captured bytaking the respective worker-population ratio, unlike theuse of per-capita monthly expenditure as in the HDI.This has been done, primarily, to avoid taking a recourseto apportioning consumption or income, between malesand females at the household or at an individual level,using criteria that could always be debated. Educationaland health attainments have been captured using thesame set of indicators as in the case of HDI.Constructing Development RadarsThe different indicators included in the developmentradars have been scaled and normalised to take a valueon a scale ranging from 0 to 5. As a result, on eachindicator including the IMR and poverty ratio, wherethe reciprocal of the indicator has been used, the scaledleast achievement corresponds to 0 whereas the bestachievement is closer to 5. In undertaking the saidscaling procedure, desirable norms had to be adopted forthe chosen indicators. In some cases the norms are selfselecting,as for instance, is the case with access to safedrinking water or literacy rate and in some others like percapita consumption expenditure or even infant mortalityrate, there is an element of value judgment. In case of theinflation adjusted per capita consumption expenditure(at 1983 prices) the maximum has been pegged at Rs.500per capita per month. For poverty ratio the minimum hasbeen kept at 5 per cent such that it corresponds to avalue of 5 on a scale of 0-5 on the radar. In all other casesthe scaling norms are as per the following table.Scaling Norms for HDIIndicator Minimum MaximumConsumption Expenditure Rs.65 Rs.325(per capita per month)Literacy Rate for 7+ years 0 100Adjusted intensity of formaleducation (Estimated) 0 7Life expectancy at age one 50 years 80 yearsInfant mortality rate 20 per 1000 —Assumptions for Filling Data GapsThe primary source of data for the Report is the Censusof India. It has been supplemented mainly by data fromNSSO and NFHS. For sake of completeness and with aview to have core indices for all States and UTs, data inrespect of some indicators, especially life expectancy atage one and IMR have been estimated for small Statesand UTs. In this case the Census data has been used inconjunction with data from SRS, RGI. The principleadopted is that of physical contiguity or similarity insocio-economic or demographic profile of thepopulation. Thus, for some indicators, where required,data for the North-Eastern States has been generated byusing data from Assam; for Chandigarh the data hasbeen taken from either urban Punjab or Delhi; Goa’sdata has been repeated for Daman & Diu; TamilNadu’s/Kerala’s data has been used for Pondicherry/Lakshwadeep; Tamil Nadu’s data has also been used forAndaman & Nicobar; Gujarat’s data has been used forDadra & Nagar Haveli; Himachal Pradesh’s data hasbeen used for Jammu & Kashmir; and Maharashtra’s datahas been used for Goa. For Jammu & Kashmir andAssam intrapolation has been done to generate data forthe years when Census was not held. In case of IMR for1991 the rural-urban breakup was not available fromCensus. In general, the SRS based rural-urbanproportions for 1991 were, therefore, used to derive therural and urban figures corresponding to the combinedIMR figures of Census 1991.