2 weeks ago


districts, 16 (55

districts, 16 (55 percent) were technically efficient as they had relative efficiency score of 1.00 and, therefore, lie on the efficiency frontier (see Appendix 4.7 for details). The remaining 13 (45 percent) districts were technically inefficient with scores ranging from 0.66 (Ramanathapuram district) to 0.98 (Dindigul district). These scores indicate that districts like Ramanathapuram and Dindigul could reduce their current inputs by 34 percent and 2 percent, respectively, without altering the current level of output. However, this has to be qualified because the inefficiency of the districts like Ramanathapuram, Sivagangai or Nilgiris might be more due to some exogenous variables like poor infrastructure or socio economic factors or the hilly and geographic nature than the nature of the health care system. The average Technical Efficiency score among the inefficient districts was 85 percent, which means that the technically inefficient hospitals could reduce their resource use by 15 percent to maintain their current output levels. 4.5 Safe Drinking Water Table 4.9 indicates availability of safe drinking water and percent of households connected with electricity. The availability of safe drinking water is lowest in Ramanathapuram, Kanniyakumari, Thiruvallur and the Nilgiris. Percent of households with least connectivity of electricity show that districts like Thiruvallur, Nagapattinam, Pudukkottai, and Ariyalur are the districts requiring highest attention. Corresponding data for all districts are given in Appendix Table 4.8. Table 4.9: Index of Districts with Safe Drinking Water and Electricity Connection Districts % Households using Safe Drinking Water Districts % Households Connected with Electricity % Households using Safe Drinking Water Index Value % Households Electrified Ramanathapuram 52.2 0.500 Thiruvarur 64.8 0.639 Kanniyakumari 56.2 0.541 Nagapattinam 64.9 0.640 Thiruvallur 70.4 0.691 Pudukkottai 65.0 0.641 The Nilgiris 74.4 0.733 Ariyalur 65.7 0.649 Sivagangai 75.6 0.746 Ramanathapuram 66.1 0.652 Pudukkottai 78.7 0.778 Dindigul 69.1 0.683 Dharmapuri 79.7 0.712 Dharmapuri 71.5 0.708 Namakkal 80.6 0.798 Sivagangai 71.8 0.711 Kanchipuram 81.2 0.804 Thanjavur 71.9 0.712 Salem 82.1 0.813 The Nilgiris 73.0 0.723 Source: Ranking and mapping of districts, International Institute of Population Sciences (2006), Bombay. Note: Districts are based on 2001 Census. Data for all districts are given in Table 4.7. Index Value 84

4.6 Incidence of Poverty: District Profile Census of households below poverty line (BPL) was launched in States and Union Territories in 1992. Data from BPL Census have been used variously by the Government for poverty alleviation programmes. The Expert Group for the purpose of BPL Census 2002 has laid down the methodology for the identification of households below poverty line. At present BPL enumeration in the states is based on this. While BPL Census (2002) was an improvement over the 1997 BPL Census, it also suffers from some infirmities. Sundaram (2003) observes that three of the four criticisms of the 1997 BPL Census are equally applicable for the 2002 BPL Census. First, there is the absence of provision for inclusion of persons who became poor after finalisation of the BPL list. Second, the absence of poverty lines for all States and Union Territories comes back via the upper limit given by Planning Commission’s estimate of head count ratio. Third, adoption of ‘uniform criteria for all the rural areas throughout the country’ is very much present through the newly prescribed centrally determined uniform list of thirteen indicators. The fourth criticism of exclusion of visibly non-poor does result in dropping of the exclusion criterion but at a cost of increasing the coverage of the census many fold. Many of the rural poverty alleviation programmes are administered on the basis of enumeration of the population below poverty line (BPL), which has been discussed earlier. The last such survey was taken in 2002. Based on this, if we look at the percentage of BPL population in a district to total rural population in that district (Table 4.10), then the largest district poverty head count ratio is shown for Ramanathapuram at close to 60 percent followed by Madurai at 42.8 percent. Perambalur with a BPL head count ratio of 39.5 percent is third followed by Krishnagiri at 37 percent and Kanchipuram and Sivagangai at 35 percent each. Another way of looking at BPL population is to take the number of persons below poverty line in a district to total number of BPL persons in all districts in Tamil Nadu. This gives the share of BPL population in a district to total BPL population in all districts. A poverty alleviation programme needs to be directed towards those districts where the absolute numbers of poor are larger. The share of BPL population in total population indicates this kind of priority because it is the product of share of rural population of a district in total rural population in all districts and the share of head count ratio of BPL population in the total population of the concerned state. 85

World Comparative Economic And Social Data
Police Stations - Tamil Nadu Police
N u m b e r o f S c h o o l s - DISE
Census 2011 population of Latur district
PDF: 1.0MB - Population Reference Bureau