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

24STATE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENTNATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001Human Development IndexState and sub-State levels. The other concern that had to be reflected in theindices relates to their amenability to inter-temporal and inter-spatialanalyses, as well as their sensitivity to tracking developmental changes atmore frequent interval of time. The latter implies, making use of suchindicators also that are sensitive to capturing changes, for instance, on anannual basis, as against using only those indicators that primarily capture theaccumulated attainments on each of the identified dimensions of well-beingthat is included in the summary measure. Such a consideration is importantwhen the objective is to have composite human development indices wherefrequent or yearly changes are not on account of changes only in the incomevariable. This is not the case with the UNDP’s HDI, which is presentedannually in the HDRs. In their case the yearly changes in the value of theindex is mostly on account of changes in the indicator on income per capita.The NHDR, like UNDP, also includes indicators that are sensitive totracking gradual but continuous changes in such aspects of well-being thathave conventionally been captured, largely, through the slow movingindicators like life expectancy at birth or even literacy rates.While taking note of the social valuation and development prioritiesof the country, the scaling and weighting of diverse indicators into acomposite index has been done keeping in view the objectives for which thecomposite indices are being built. In scaling the diverse indicators, the mainconsideration has been to make attainments on each of them comparable andat the same time ensuring that the selection of end points, i.e., the maximumand the minimum values on the scale for each indicator are such that theysupport inter-temporal comparison for a reasonable period of time startingfrom 1980. The issue of weights to combine the identified indicators on eachof the three dimensions of well-being can be debated. This Report hasadopted a predominantly normative approach, as against a purely empiricalbasis of deriving weights to club different indicators. Conceptually, there aregood reasons to suggest that different aspects of well-being have to be corealisablefor an individual to have aHuman Development Index and Income Across States — 1991 meaningful sense of well-being intoday’s context. It follows that6.0attainments on each aspect of wellbeingare equally important andhence should be equally weighted.5.0 Thus, in both HDI, as well as in HPIcomposite measures reflectinghealth, educational and economic4.0 attainments/deprivation have beenequally weighted. However, withinthe composite measure on3.0 educational, as well as on healthattainments, based on a sensitivityanalysis, indicators with somewhat2.0 distinct attributes have been clubbedusing unequal weights so as to reflectappropriately the country’s context,1.0 development priorities and thedesired policy focus. Accordingly, inHuman Development Index State Domestic Productcase of the composite index onhealth attainment, life expectancy0.650.600.550.500.450.400.350.30Per capita Net State Domestic Product (Rs. Thousand)