Banking - Yojana

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Generated by PDFKit.NET Evaluation Human Development Index for India-Combined States/UTs 1981 1981 1991 1991 2001 2001 Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Andhra Pradesh 0.298 9 0.377 9 0.416 10 Assam 0.272 10 0.348 10 0.386 14 Bihar 0.237 15 0.308 15 0.367 15 Gujarat 0.360 4 0.431 6 0.479 6 Haryana 0.360 5 0.443 5 0.509 5 Karnataka 0.346 6 0.412 7 0.478 7 Kerala 0.500 1 0.591 1 0.638 1 Madhya Pradesh 0.245 14 0.328 13 0.394 12 Maharashtra 0.363 3 0.452 4 0.523 4 Orissa 0.267 11 0.345 12 0.404 11 Punjab 0.411 2 0.475 2 0.537 2 Rajasthan 0.256 12 0.347 11 0.424 9 Tamil Nadu 0.343 7 0.466 3 0.531 3 Uttar Pradesh 0.255 13 0.314 14 0.388 13 West Bengal 0.305 8 0.404 8 0.472 8 All India 0.302 0.381 0.472 Note: The HID for 2001 has been estimated only fora few selected states for which some data, including the Census 2001, was available. The assumptions that have been made for HDI 2001 are indicated in the Technical Appendix. Source: National Human Development Report 2001. cent in the 1980s and by around three per cent a year in the 1990s. Kerala con"tinuesto be at the top in many of the indicators, showing a high quality of life; Tamil Nadu, Maharash tra and Rajasthan are among those making good progress over the period measures. Bihar is invariablyat the bottom of everylist; its progress over the 90s is even less than its inching forward in the 80s. The report reveals that progress has been better in urban areas, compared to rural India. But the urban- rural gap has lessened, though still significant. And its progress over the 90s is even less than in the 80s. The report reveals that progress has been better in urban areas, compared to rural India. But the urban-rural gap has lessened, though still significant. As a rule, the smaller states and administrations have done better. Inter state differences on the human poverty index are striking. Declines are encouraging in 24 Click here to unlock PDFKit.NET Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal, Mizoram, Himachal, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra,Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa. But marginal in Bihar, UP and Rajasthan. The more striking aspect of the report which has received wide media attention is the inter state disparity.The fact that Bihar's HDI of0.367in 2001iswaybelowKerala's 0.638 and Tamil Nadu's 0.531.This inter-regional divide is not new and has been in existence for several decades with southern and western regions ahead of eastern and northern ones in terms of a range of economic and social indicators. In fact, this century-old regional patterns of development has hardly changed, and ifthere issome change it is at the margins, like in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The report, however does not explain whysome stateshave lagged behind and why some have forged ahead. The pointer towards "governance" also fails to give any details about this regional disparity. In this context, the HRD report in coming years should study in detail about the emerging inter-regional imbalances for this may be the biggest challenge for development policy and national politics in coming years. On the whole, gender disparities have declined, gender equality has a good correlation with female literacy.In general, women in South India are better off than those in the Gangetic plain. • The HRD report finds that corruption is endemic to Indian society and manifests itself in poor governance, so much so that it has almost become an accepted reality and a way of life. It says that the procedures, laws and regulations that breed and hamper efficiency willhave to go. The perverse system of incentives in public life which makes corruption a high-return-low risk activityneeds to be addressed. It stresses that merely shrinking the economic role of the State through deregulation, liberalization and privatization is not necessarily the solution to the problem. Prevalent institutional arrangements have to be reviewed and changes made where those vested with power are also made accountable, their functioning made more transparen t and subjected to socialaudit, with a view to minimize discretionary decisions. Between 1993-94and 2001, all the states have felt the impact of. economic reforms which has meant deregulation and liberalization. But deregulation has not been able to attract a much higher amount of investment than before because of corruption and poor governance. As a result, distressing levels of poverty have remained in pockets. Fifty per cent of the population in Tamil Nadu live below the poverty (Contd. on page 43) YOJANAJuly 2002
Generated by PDFKit.NET Evaluation • • New Health Policy Focuses on PriDlary Sector THE NATIONAL Health Policy, announced . recently aims at reviving the ailing health system and increasing the primary health seCtor outlay to ensure a more equitable access to health services across the social and geographical expanse of the country. The government plans to increase its contribution to the health sector from 0.9 per cent of the GDP at present to 2 per cent over the next eight years. By 2010, the policy envisages an increase in aggregate expendi ture on the health sector from 5.2 per cent to 6 per cent. It has also been recommended to the states to increase expenditure from 5.5 per cent to 7 per cent of their budget by 2005 and further to 8 per cent by 2010. ' According to NHP, 55 per cent of the outlay would be for the primary sector and 35 per cen t and 10 per cent for the secondary and tertiary sectors respectively. While releasing the revised health policy, Union Health and Family Welfare Minister Dr C P Sushma Chandra Prices of various essential drugs and formulations have gone up. This becomes the biggest challenge for the successful implementation of the new health policy, which the health authorities 'in the country should be paying more attention to in the coming years. Ms. Sushma Chandra is a freelance journalist. Thakur, said the last policy was formulated in 1983 and since then the health scene has changed dramatically requiring a more exhaustive approach. So the policy envisages the setting up of an organized urban primary health structure to meet increased needs. It suggests a two-tiered structure, with the primary health centre providing the first tier and a second tier of a government general hospital. For improvement of the public health infrastructure it suggessts reyival of the primary health system by providing essential drugs; levying of user charges for certain secondary and tertiary public health care services for those who can afford to pay, expanding the pool of medical practitioners and simplification of the recruitment procedures for contract employment. For funding and upgrading existing government medical and dental colleges, it has suggested setting up of a Medical Grants Commission. Even the curriculum should be modified to make it more need-b~sed, the policy has stressed. It has also suggested specialization in public health, which has been. a neglected area, both for medical doctors and non-medical graduates from allied fields. To boost medical research, it has suggested that government-funded medical research be increased to a level of one per cent of the total health spending by 2005 and up to 2 per cent by 2010 .. It laments the fact that in our country, where the aggregate annual health expenditure is of the order of Rs. 80,000 crore, the expenditure in 1998-99 on research, both public and private sectors, was only Rs. 1,150 crore. It would be reasonable to infer that with such low research expenditure, it is virtually impossible to make any dramatic break-through within the country, by way of new molecules and vaccines; also without a minimal back-up of applied and operational research, it would be difficult to assess whether the health expenditure in the country is being incurred through optimal applications and appropriate public health strategies. YOJANAJuly 2002 25 Click here to unlock PDFKit.NET
Page 1 and 2: Generated by PDFKit.NET Evaluation
Page 23: Generated by PDFKit.NET Evaluation
Page 27 and 28: \ , Generated by PDFKit.NET Evaluat
Page 31 and 32: ). ') Generated by PDFKit.NET Evalu
Page 37 and 38: ) .r Generated by PDFKit.NET Evalua
Page 41 and 42: '. Generated by PDFKit.NET Evaluati

Banking - Yojana

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?