8/9/2019 A K Shiva Kumar

1/4

UNDP's Human Development Index: A Computation for Indian StatesAuthor(s): A. K. Shiva KumarSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 26, No. 41 (Oct. 12, 1991), pp. 2343-2345Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4398148

Accessed: 10/12/2009 11:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4398148?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4398148?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/9/2019 A K Shiva Kumar

2/4

U N D P ' s H u m a n Development I n d e xA Computation for Indian StatesA K Shiva Kum,An attempt to constructthe HumanDevelopmentIndex (HDI)for 17 Indianstates and to rankthesestates with the countriesforwhichthe HDI has been computed n the UNDP's HumanDevelopmentReport 1990.THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENTREPORT1990 of the UNDP argues for viewingdevelopmentnot merelyas an expansion of-income and wealth, but as a process ofenlargingpeoples capabilities. The Reportemphasises three elements of living stan-dards: ongevity, iteracy,and, what may becalled, a measure of necessary income.Longevity s an indicator f humandevelop-ment captures several aspects of welfare

because of its close correlationwith nutri-tion, health, andother importantbiologicaland social achievements.The relevanceofliteracy o humandevelopment, s of course,self-evident. The third element of humandevelopmentdiscussed in the Reporl is thecommandover resourcesneeded for a de-cent living, covering those aspects of livingwhichare not wellrepresented ylifeexpec-tancy or.literacy. In the absence of moreTABLE 1: CLASSIFICATIONF 130 COUNTRIESACCORDINGTOHDI, 1987

HDI Lowest HighestLow (HDI below 0.500) 44 countries including India 0.116 Niger 0.489 MoroccoMedium (HDI 0.500 to 0.799) 40 countries including 0.501 Egypt 0.790 AlbaniaChina, Sri LankaHigh (HDI above 0.800) 46 countries including 0.800 Malaysia 0.996 JapanCuba, Costa RicaSource From data in UNDP (1990).

specialised ndicatorsof thiscommandoverresources, practically seful ndicator s paecapita income.2 But incomes are onlymeansof good living and mustnot be con-fusedwith it.The Report akes helogarithmof percapita income to reflectthe conver-sion of income into good living.3 TheReportusesdata on lifeexpectancy,iteracy,and "income for a decent living standard"to construct a composite Human Develop-ment Index(HDI) for each country.4This note corfstructs the HDI for 17Indian states for which data are availableand ranks he ytatesalongwiththecountriesfor whichthe HDI for 1987has beencom-puted and presented n the Report.

CONSTRUCTION OF HDIIn order to construct the HDI, the firststepis to specifya minimumvalue the max-imumdeprivation ettoone) and a desirableor adequatevalue(no deprivationequal tozero) for life expectancy XX , literacy X2)

and the logarithm of real GDP percapita(XI). A life expectancy at birth of 78 years(which is the figure for Japan) has beentakenas the maximumvalue,and of 42 years(the figure for Afghanistan, EthiopiaandSierra Leone) as the minimumvalue. Thelowest value for adult literacy s 12percent(the rate in Somalia), and the maximum s100per cent. The minimum value of pur-chasing poweradjustedGDP percapita isZaire's 220(log value2.34).Theaverage f-TABLE 2: BASIC DATA REI ATIN( TO 17 INDIAN STATES

Females Life Expectancy 1981-86c Adult Literacy Rated(Percentage) Per Capita Income'1,000 Males Males Females Combined 1971 1981 1987 Per Capita Net State Real SDP1981 (Projected) Domestic Product at Per Capita

1970-71 Prices (Rupees) 19871980-81 1986-87 (PPP S)Andhra Pradesh 975 56.1 60.0 58.0 28.3 32.5 35.3 647 758 983Assama 901 52.7 52.0 52.4 36.4 43.6 48.5 558 605 785Bihar 946 55.2 52.9 54.1 23.5 29.4 33.6 441 482 625Gujarat 942 55.3 58.3 56.8 42.0 48.3 52.5 904 860 1,116Haryana 870 61.4 59.6 60.6 29.7 39.2 46.2 1,060 1,233 1,600Himachal Pradesh 973 56.6 32.3 43.6 52.2 711 855 1,109Jammu andKashmir 892 56.8 21.1 29.9 36.9 642 684 887Karnataka 963 60.2 61.1 60.6 35.9 43.0 48.0 687 799 1,037Kerala 1,032 65.2 69.9 67.6 69.1 78.1 84.1 621 639 829Madhya Pradesh 941 53.2 51.5 52.4 26.6 35.6 42.4 516 583 756Maharashtra 937 59.9 60.7 60.2 44.9 51.8 56.5 957 1,039 1,348Orissa 981 54.1 51.9 53.0 31.0 38.7 44.2 477 535 694Punjab 879 64.3 64.3 64.3 35.2 42.6 47.7 1,354 1,652 2,143Rajasthan 919 54.8 55.4 55.1 22.0 28.2 32.7 535 666 8641kmil Nadu 977 58.3 57.9 58.1 42.9 50.4 55.4 584 828 1,074Uttar Pradesh 885 51.1 46.9 4&1 24.5 30.8 35.3 519 607 787West Bengal 911 57.0 56.3 5b 40.5 48.1 53.3 797 860 1,116India 933 55.6 56.4 56.0 34.0 40.8 45.5 698 812 1,053Notes andSource. a Assam's population figure for 1981 s an official projection obtained from Government of India (1987). The national growthrate in adult literacy between 1971 and 1981 has been used to project Assam's adult literacy rates for 1981 and 1987.b Figures on sex ratios are from the Census of Indi4,1981.c Projections of life expectancy for inales and females for a1lstates except Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmirare based on the 'Reportof the ExpertCommittee on PopulWtionProjections' and quoted in Governmentof India (1989). Figuresof life expectancyin Himachal Pradeshand Jammu and Kashmir are based on the gains in life expectancytecoacEd between 1970-75 and 1976-80 given in Office of the RegistrarGeneral (1985).d Rates of adult literacy have been computed from the Census of India, 1971 and 1981.c Figuresof real per capita SDP for the statesare from Directoratesof Economics and Statistics, and are quoted in Government of India (1989).

_conomic ndnPdti1 Wek1y October12, 191 2343

8/9/2019 A K Shiva Kumar

3/4

ficial povertyline in nine industrial coun-tries, $4,861(log value 3.68) has been takena desirable upper value.The deprivation indicator,I.- for the jlhcountry with respect to the i'P variable isthen defined as:(maxXV, - Xd(max X - min Xij)

A simple averageof three ndicators s thentaken:Ij is l /3

Thefinalstep s to measure heas one minusthe average deprivation, ndex.-(HDI)j = (I- I)The Reporthas calculated the HDI in 1987for 130 countries and grouped them asshown in Table 1.The HDI for 17 Indian states has beenconstructed for 1987 using the samemethodologyas in theReport.Itwouldhavebeen useful to calculate the HDI for the,smaller tatesand union territoriesn India.However he absenceof disaggregateddataon healthand life expectancy or the unionderritoriesand for the states of north-eastIndiaprevents hecomputationof the HDIfor. these regions. The selected states arethose forwhichdata.onthe three ndicatorsare available as shown in Table 2. Thefollowing procedureshavebeenadoptedforestimating hevaluesof lifeexpectancy,dultliteracy and per capita incomres or 1987:Life expectancy at birth: The report on the

expertcommitteeon populationprojectionsgives projectionsof the life expectancy ornales andfemales n different tatesof Indiafor 1981-86.These lifeexpectancy igures or

1981-86have been weightedby the 1981sexratios to arrive at an estimate of the com-bined life expectancy figure for each state.Adult literacy rate: The figures on adultliteracy or 1971and 1981are available romthe Census of India. The annual growthrates n adult literacy atesbetween 1971and1981have been used as the basis to projectadult liter,acy ates for 1987 for each state.For Assam, where the Census was not con-ducted in 1981, he averagenational growthrate in literacy between 1971and 1981 hasbeen used for making the projections.Per capitaGDP: According o the HuimlanDevelopment Report,India'sreal GDP percapita (in PPP $) for 1987 was $1,053.Thevalueof each state'srealGDP per capitahasbeen estimated as follows:(1)Foreach state, Kn,the ratio of-the per

capita net state domesticproductmeasuredat constant pricesto the national per capitaincome at constant prices in 1987has beencomputed.(2) India's eal per capitaGDP (in PPP $)estimatedat $1,053for 1987has been multi-plied by K for each state to arrive at anestimate of?the level of the state'sreal percapita GDP.The basic data used for arriving at theestimatesof thethree ndicators or 1987arepresented n Table2. Table3 shows the com-putationof HDIs for the 17Indianstates.The HDI index for Indiaas a whole is0.439,placingit ip the categoryof low HDI coun-tries. The diversity within India is con-spicuous. The HDI ranges from a low of0.292 in Uttar Pradesh o a high of 0.651 inKerala.Only four Indian states out of the

TABI F 4: RANKING OF 17 INDIAN STATES BY HDI, 1987HDI Per Capita Net State Domestic Productat 1970-71 PricesRs Rank

Low HDII Uttar Pradesh 0.292 607 52 Bihar 0.306 482 13 Madhya Pradesh 0.344 583 34 Rajasthan 0.347 666 75 Orissa 0.348 535 26 Assam 0.372 605 47 Jammu and Kashmir 0.381 684 88 Andhra Pradesh 0.397 758 99 Himachal Pradesh 0.462 455 1210 Gujarat 0.465 860 1311 West Bengal 0.467 860 13.12 Karnataka 0.475 799 1013 Tamil Nadu 0.483 828 11Medium HDI14 Haryana 0.514 1,233 1615 Maharashtra 0.532 1,039 1516 Punjab 0.586 1,652 1717 Kerala 0.651 639 6

TABLE3: HUMiAN Dt-,VLt.0PI\uLN'l INI)D\ IOR 17 IND)IAN SINoS, 1987Life Adult Real SDP Per Capita Deprivation Human SDP HDI RankExpect- Literacy (PPP S) Lite Adult North Average Develop- Per Capita Minusancy Rate Actual Log Expect- Literacy Minimum of the ment Rank SDP Rankat Birth (Per Cent) anlcy Purchasing Three Index 1987Power

I Uttar Pradesh 49.1 35.3 787 2.90 0.80 0.74 0.59 0.708 0.292 5 42 Bihar 54.1 33.6 625 2.80 0.66 0.76 0.66 0.694 0.306 1 -13 Madhya Pradesh 52.4 42.4 756 2.88 0.71 0.66 0.60 0.656 0.344 3 04 Rajasthan 55.1 32.7 864 2.94 0.64 0.77 0.56 0.653 0.347 7 35 Orissa 53.0 44.2 694 2.84 0.69 0.64 0.63 0.652 0.348 2 -36 Assam' 52.4 48.5 785 2.89 0.71 0.59 0.59 0.628 0.372 4 -27 Jammuu andKashmir 56.8 36.9 887 2.95 0.59 0.72 0.55 0.619 0.381 8 18 Andhra Pradesh 58.0 35.3 983 2.99 0.56 0.74 0.51 0.603 0.397 9 19 Himachal Pradesh 56.6 52.2 1,109 3.05 0.60 0.55 0.47 0.538 0.462 12 310 Gujarat 56.8 52.5 1,116 3.05 0.59 0.54 0.47 0.535 0.465 13 311 West Bengal 56.6 53.3 1,116 3.05 0.59 0.53 0.47 0.533 0.467 13 212 Karnataka 60.6 48.0 1,037 3.02 0.49 0.59 0.50 0.525 0.475 10 -213 Tamil Nadu 58.1 55.4 1,074 3.03 0.56 0.51 0.49 0.517 0.483 11 -214 Haryana 60.6 46.2 1,600 3.20 0.49 0.61 0.36 0.486 0.514 16 215 Maharashtra 60.2 56.5 1,348 3.13 0.50 0.50 0.41 0.468 0.532 15 016 Punjab 64.3 47.7 2,143 3.33 0.38 0.60 0.26 0.414 0.586 17 117 Kerala 67.6 84.1 829 2.92 0.30 0.18 0.57 0.349 0.651 6 -11

234 Economic and Political Weekly October 12, 1991

8/9/2019 A K Shiva Kumar

4/4

TABLE5: HDI OF 17 INDIAN STATES AND OF COUNTRIES N'Low' AND 'MEDIUM' CATEGORIES

Country HDI Country HDILowHDI 40 Kampuchea, Dem 0.4711 Niger 0.116 41 Cameroon 0.4742 Mali 0.143 Karnataka 0.4753 Burkina Faso 0.150 42 Kenya 0.4814 Sierra Leone 0.150 43 Zambia 0.481

S Chad 0.157 Tamil Nadu 0.483*6 Guinea 0.162 44 Morocco 0.4897 Somalia 0.200 Medium HDI8 Mauritania 0.208 45 Egypt 0.5019 Afghanistan 0.212 46 Lao PDR 0.50610 Benin 0.224 Haryana 0.51411 Burundi 0.235 47 Gabon 0.52512 Bhutan 0.236 Maharashtra 0.53213 Mozambiqtie 0.239 48 Oman 0.53514 Malawi 0.250 49 Bolivia 0.54815 Sudan 0.255 50 Myanmar 0.56116 Central African Republic 0.258 51 Honduras 0.56317 Nepal 0.273 52 Zimbabwe 0.57618 Senegal 0.274 53 Lesotho 0.58019 Ethiopia 0.282 Punjab 0.586

Uttar Pradashi 0.292 54 Indonesia 0.59120' Zaire 0.294 55 GuaternaI4 0.59221 Rwanda 0.304 56 Viet Nam 0.60822 Angola 0.304 57 Algeria 0.609Bihar 0.306 ~~~58ostswana 0.646Bihar 0.306, 59 El Salvador 0.65123 Bangladesh 0.318 Kerala 0.65124 Nigeria 0.322 60 Tunisia 0.65725 Yemen Arab Repuelic 0.328 61 Iran, Islamic Republic 0.66026 Liberia 0.333 62 Syrian Arab Republic 0.69127 Togo 0.337 63 Dominican Republic 0.699Madhya Pradesh 0.344 64 Saudi Arabia 0.702Rajasthan 0.347 65 Philippines 0.714Orissa 0.348 66 China 0.71628 Uganaa 0.354 67 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0.71929 Haiti 0.356 68 South Africa 0.73130 Ghana R0.369 69 Lebanon 0.73531 Yemen, PDR 0.369 70 Mongolia 0.737Assam 0.372 71 Nicaragua 0.743Jammu andKashoir 0.381 72 Turkey 0.75132 Cote d'lvoire 0.393 73 Jordan 0.75233 Congo 0.395 74 Peru 0.753Andhra Pradesh 0.397 75 Ecuador 0.75834 Namibia 0.414 76 Iraq 0.75935 Tanzania 0.413 77 United Arab Emirates 0.78236 Pakistan 0.423 78 Thailand 0.78337 India 0.439 79 Paraguay 0.78438 Madagascar )0.440 80 Brazil 0.784Himachal Pradesh 0.462 81 Mauritius 0.788

Gujaral 0.465 82 Korea, Dem Republic 0.789West Bengal 0.467 83 Sri Lanka 0.78939 Papua New Guinea 0).471 84 Albania 0.790Source: Table I, Human Development Ilndcx,UNDP Report; and from Table 4 of this note.17, Haryana,. Maharashtra, Punjab andKerala, adan HDI in the mediumcategory.Rankingthe states of Indiaalong with thecountriesranked ntheReport makestoraninteresting comparison.

India as a whole ranks 37th in termsofHDI. Among the Asian countries, it has ahigher HDI than Afghanistan, Bhutan,Nepal and Bangladesh,but its HDI is muchlowerthan Sri Lanka,Thailand, China andPhilippines. f India'sHDI is comparedwiththose of Africancountries, India has done

better thanSomalia, Ethiopia, NigeriaandUganda,but not as wellas Botswana,Zim-babwe, Zambiaand Egypt. If we compareIndia'sHDI with those ot developingcoun-tries n LatinAtjerica, we lind that withtheexception of Haiti, all other countries inLatin America have a higher HDI thanIndia.Therewereonly 19countrieswitha lowerHDI than UttarPradesh, he statewith thelowest HDI in India. Uttar Pradeshwith anHDI of 0.292 lies between Ethiopia and

Zaire, anked19thand 20th respectively. heHDIs for Bihar,Rajasthan,MadhyaPradeshand Orissa are in the same region asBangladesh, Nigeria, Uganda, Haiti, andG'hana. Kerala, the state with the highestHDI in India,comes betweenBotswanaandTunisia,ranked58th and 60th in the worldrespectively.Kerala's chievements reexcep-tional giventhat the levelof humandevelop-ment has been achieved despite low percapita ncomes.While 101countrieshadpercapita incomes that were higher thanKerala's, herewereonly 51countriesin theworld with a higher life expectancyand 53countries with a higheradult literacy hanthe levels achievedin Kerala.

Notes[1am grateful to Lincoln Chen, T N KrishnanV K Ramachandran, and Amartya Sen forcomments.]i UNDP [19901.On the concept of capabilitiesee Sen 11985]and Dreze and Sen [1989]2 "The third key component of humanievelopment-command over resourcesneeded for a decent living-is perhaps themost difficult to measuresimply. It requiresdata on access to land, credit, income andother resources. But given the scarcedata onmany of these variables,we must for the timebeing make the best use of an income in-dicator", [UNDP, 1990, p 121.3 "Afurtherconsideration is that the indicatorshould reflect the diminishing returns totransforming income into human capa-bilities. In other words, people do not needexcessive financial resources to ensure a de-cent living. This aspect was taken into ac-count by using the logarithm of real GNPper capita for the income indicator"[UNDP,1990, p 121.4 The HDI is not conceptually or statisticallyequivalent to the PhysicalQuality of Life In-dex (PQLI). The PQLI treats developmentas achieved well-being. The focus of theReport is on socioeconomic development,with development viewed not as an expan-sion of commodities and wealth, but as thewidening of human choices. For a furtherdiscussion on the differences, see UNDP119901,Technical Notes No 1.

Referenct sDreze, Jean and Sen, Amariva (1989) 'Hunger

and Public Action, C arendon Press,Oxford.Government of India (1987), Health Informa-lion of India, 1987 (Ministry of Health andFamily Welfare, New Delhi).-(1989), Family WelfareProgramme in India:YearBook 1987, (Ministry of Health andFamily Welfare, New Delhi).Office of RegistrarGeneral 1985),SRSAbridg-ed Life-Tables 1976-80 (Occasional PapersNo I of 1985,Census of India, New Delhi).Sen, Amartya (1985), Commodities andCapabilities, North-Holland, Amsterdam.United Nations Development Programme(1990), Humnan Development Report 1990,Oxford University Press, New York.

Economic and Political Weekly October 12, 1991 2345