REPORT FINDINGS - Social Progress

REPORT FINDINGS

2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 1

REPORT FINDINGS

2 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017

PREFACE

In 2014 Institute for Competitiveness, India joined hands with Social Progress Imperative to lay the foundation for their initiative Social Progress India. The objective was to provide the leaders, businesses, and changemakers in the country with an actionable tool to advance social progress for India’s citizens. It was conceived on the understanding that despite the economic progress that India has made during the last few years, quality of life of its citizens registered only slight enhancements (based on Global Social Progress scores). There are many who live without the provision of essential public services like health, education; almost 30 percent of the rural population have no access to electricity (World Bank, 2014); still, 35 percent of judicial trials take more than three years to complete, and in some cases, they get dragged to more than ten years (NCRB: Crime in India, 2015). These facts indicated the pressing need for a measurement model that can equip change-makers to make social progress more integral to the national performance, which the Social Progress Index provided.

A multi-stage iterative process was followed to reach the most accurate framework of Social Progress Index for the states of India.

The first stage involved interaction with the Social Progress Imperative to gain an understanding of Social Progress Index concept, principles, and methodology. The team at Social Progress Imperative conducted training sessions to guide through the idea and methodology of the Social Progress Index.

The second stage involved identifying a possible set of indicators that met the Social Progress Index criteria. Numerous publicly available indicators that reflect the real lived experience of people were considered.

The third step involved engagement with key experts and stakeholders to solicit feedback and validation. Among those who provided valuable feedback was

the team of experts at NITI Aayog whose contribution was invaluable for the Index creation.

The team conducted four presentations of their work at NITI Aayog under the chairmanship of Bibek Debroy and Amitabh Kant. The first interaction involved presenting the broad concept of the Social Progress Index for Indian states, cities and districts and how it can help the government track policy impact, assess Sustainable Development Goals, and set priority areas for investment and development. The feedback helped to improve the framework and led to the creation of the preliminary version of the Social Progress Index for Indian states. The second interaction added the longitudinal aspect to the study. It was realized that it would be more illuminating to measure social progress over time, as such a study will help to analyse whether the developments of states on social indicators are heading in the right direction or not. The third interaction with the experts in women development, health and education sectors, led to the restructuring of the Index after which the Institute for Competitiveness, India developed the final index for Indian states.

Institute for Competitiveness, India along with Professor Michael E Porter and Michael Green launched the discussion paper for the Social Progress Index: States of India during the India’s National Competitiveness Forum 2017 with the purpose to invite feedback and comments from national leaders as well as the public. Declaring about this Professor Porter said, “India is set to create a social progress index (SPI) that will mirror the track record of individual states on various counts which is likely to emerge as a tool for accountability in governance and politics.”

The final interaction with NITI Aayog, after addressing the concerns raised in the consultation period revolved around how to ensure the results are used to make real improvements in people’s lives.

The Institute is thankful to everyone who has contributed to this effort. We could never hope to

REPORT FINDINGS


name all those who have helped us, but we would like to highlight the following individuals for their contributions. Thanks to Bibek Debroy whose knowledge and expertise has guided us in our journey, Amitabh Kant for his guidance and suggestions about national priorities and Yogesh Suri without whose tireless efforts this report would not have seen the light of day.

We are thankful to Bibek Debroy, David Cruickshank, Scott Stern, Michael Green and Nitya Khemka for providing their valuable contributions to the report.

Many thanks to the team at Social Progress Imperative for their strategic inputs to develop engagement strategy; their insights and technical inputs on indicators.

REPORT FINDINGS


ABOUT INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS

Institute for Competitiveness, India is the Indian knot in the global network of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School. Institute for Competitiveness, India is an international initiative centered in India, dedicated to enlarging and purposeful disseminating of the body of research and knowledge on competition and strategy, as pioneered over the last 25 years by Professor Michael Porter of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School. Institute for Competitiveness, India conducts & supports indigenous research; offers academic & executive courses; provides advisory services to the Corporate & the Governments. The institute studies competition and its implications for company strategy; the competitiveness of nations, regions & cities and thus generate guidelines for businesses and those in governance; and suggests & provides solutions for socio-economic problems.

ABOUT SOCIAL PROGRESS IMPERATIVE

The Social Progress Imperative’s mission is to improve the lives of people around the world, particularly the least well off, by advancing global social progress by: providing a robust, holistic and innovative measurement tool—the Social Progress Index; fostering research and knowledge-sharing on social progress; and equipping leaders and change-makers in business, government and civil society with new tools to guide policies and programs. From the EU to India to Brazil and beyond, the Social Progress Imperative has catalysed the formation of local action networks that bring together government, businesses, academia, and civil society organizations committed to using the Social Progress Index as a tool to transform societies and improve people’s lives.

For further information, please contact Neera Vohra: [email protected]

SOCIAL PROGRESS INDIA

Social Progress India (SPI) is a presentation of Institute for Competitiveness and Social Progress Imperative. SPI produces the Social Progress Index that is a holistic and robust measurement framework for national, social & environmental performance that can be used by leaders in government, business and civil society at the country level as a tool to benchmark success, improve policy, and catalyse action.

REPORT FINDINGS


MAKING SOCIAL PROGRESS MORE INTEGRAL TO THE INDIAN DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

The report analyses the social progress of twenty-eight Indian states and one Union Territory (Delhi) for the period 2005–2016 by applying the Social Progress Index framework.

The results will enable the policymakers and businesses to evaluate and benchmark performance on different social indicators, identify priority areas for improvement and establish the best practices that can be scaled and emulated.

TABLE OF CONTENTSWHY WE MEASURE SOCIAL PROGRESS 12

THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX 20

SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX, STATES OF INDIA: RESULTS 25

SOCIAL PROGRESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:DEMYSTIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP 41

SOCIAL PROGRESS OVER TIME 47

LEARNINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 112

CONCLUSION 116

REFERENCES 118

REPORT FINDINGS


THE UNENVIABLE TASK OF QUANTIFYING REGIONAL PERFORMANCEBibek DebroyChairman, Economic Advisory Council – Prime Minister & Member, NITI Aayog

There is divergence and heterogeneity across India’s States. There is divergence within India’s States too, between districts, blocks and villages. This is obvious, but is often not appreciated. States and districts are administrative boundaries. Neither development, nor deprivation, necessarily follows these boundaries. The reasons behind development, or its lack, can be multiple. Sources of growth also vary across regions. Despite heterogeneity within States, a natural focus is performance across States. The thrust of policy change is now often at the level of States. There is a Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution and this sets out a Union List, a Concurrent List and a State List. If one draws a distinction between product markets and factor markets, most reforms in factor markets, now contemplated (land, labour, natural resources) and debated, are in the State domain. However, while sources of growth and development will continue to be explored, it is also important to measure State performance. What is it that one is trying to improve? How will that be measured?

That requires data and quantification. What variables will be included? Will one use subjective responses to questionnaires? Will one use objective data, shorn of subjectivity? Will data be collected through sample surveys, or will one use existing sources? If existing sources are going to be used, will that be data in some sense is vetted by Union government agencies, for sake of comparability across States? Or will one use State-level data too? There can be considerable debate on both inclusion and exclusion of variables, depending on the focus of the study. For instance, a study on the investment attractiveness of a State is unlikely to choose variables

a study on human development would. Often variables one wishes to include can’t be included because of lack of data. After agreeing on variables and sources of data, there arise questions on grouping of data. Will these be aggregated under different heads? What weights will be used for aggregation? How does one choose these weights? Will one use statistical tools like principal components to generate weights or should one use equal weights, the latter being easier to explain? After scores or index values under each of these heads, should there be an aggregate score for each State, so that one can track a State’s performance over time, as well as in comparison with other States? Should one rank States? Wil that ranking be done on absolute values of the score, or increments to the score? Often, relatively backward States perform far better on increments, but because of the legacy of backwardness, the absolute difference between a relatively backward State and a more advanced State remains. Alternatively, since ranks are often not that robust to choice of weights, should one simply group States into some clusters? These days, there are several studies on inter-State performance, each answering these questions differently.

In many respects, the present Social Progress Index (SPI) is different. It is much more comprehensive than most inter-State studies. It links progress to the SDGs (sustainable development goals). Conceptually, it has the important distinction of dividing the variables into three heads of basic human needs, foundations of well-being and opportunity. No study can ever be completely shorn of subjectivity. However, SPI has evolved after a considerable amount of debate and discussion. The results, and one hopes the study continues to be repeated every year, don’t really have any big surprises for those familiar with State-level performance. Very high social progress, high social progress, medium social progress and low

REPORT FINDINGS


social progress States are more or less where you would expect them to be. There is always an inherent problem in undertaking such studies. If rankings are in conformity with what one expects a priori, people say – why was a study needed to tell us this? And if rankings are not in conformity with what one expects a prior, people say – there must be something wrong in the study. The explanation of the ranks always lies in the variables, the weights and the aggregation process. There is also value addition because this study examines the correlation between SPI and standard measures of economic development.

At some point, those interested in inter-State progress need to ask questions about the efficiency

of public expenditure. The social sector is one where there cannot be abdication by the Union government or the State government. Public expenditure can mean both public provisioning and public financing. Imparting greater efficiency also requires decentralization and fiscal devolution, with an elimination of administrative hierarchies that reduce benefits to the eventual beneficiary. There are several initiatives that the Union government, and State governments, have taken to improve efficiency. While that’s outside the purview of the present SPI, one knows States where such attempts have been made and future versions of this SPI should be able to answer whether these attempts have led to SPI improvements. After all, that is the objective.

REPORT FINDINGS


CHARTING INDIA’S SOCIAL PROGRESSScott Stern,MIT and NBERAdvisory Board Member, Social Progress Imperative

Discussions of development often focus exclusively on traditional economic measures of success like the level and growth of GDP and employment. These measures are invaluable for economists and policymakers alike as they provide a useful guide to the level and growth of economic activity, and engagement by individuals with paid employment. But, GDP was never intended to measure overall quality of life; as such, it should be no revelation that GDP does not adequately reflect quality of life. Yet too often economic measures have become the primary and exclusive basis for action and investment, and the sole metric for success; overreliance on these measures can lead to flawed policy choices that do not respond to people’s actual needs.

Inclusive development will only be possible when economic measures are no longer used as the sole proxies for the essential elements of a good society like clean water, shelter, health, literacy, and inclusion. By developing a measure of social progress that is distinct from traditional measures of economic activity, it is possible to chart a new path that offers equal and shared attention to the role of policy and action on both economic prosperity and social progress.

The Social Progress Index supplements measures of economic success by directly measuring social and environmental outcomes. The Index is a tool that provides actionable data about the strength and weaknesses of each community, improving the capacity of governments and businesses to respond to people’s needs and ensure economic growth is accompanied by societal improvement.

The Social Progress Index also provides disparate stakeholders with a common language to share

their perspectives and expertise. By bringing together a variety of perspectives around a holistic assessment of societal performance, it moves the conversation beyond traditional metrics and towards a comprehensive portrait of development. While there is indeed a strong positive relationship between the level of economic development and the realized level of social progress, an economically successful society is not necessarily one that provides for its people’s basic needs and gives them the foundation or opportunities to flourish and prosper. The Social Progress Index can provide insight into the relationship between economic performance and social progress, and help diagnosis whether economic dynamism is also helping to address social challenges, or whether such progress may mask more troubling element of social performance.

Measurement makes it possible to develop a consensus on what the most pressing issues are and have a constructive conversation across traditional boundaries. It allows people to move past their preconceptions and work collaboratively towards solutions.

When done carefully and with thought and rigor, measurement allows us to name things for what they actually are, and through that unite disparate stakeholders and spark collective action. It concretizes debates, grounding them in an empirical foundation that provides a solid basis to move from discussing challenges to actually addressing them.

By bringing this powerful tool to India with the Social Progress Index, States of India, Amit Kapoor and the team at the Institute for Competitiveness, India have taken a critical step towards ensuring that one of the world’s fastest-growing economies matches its economic development with social progress.

REPORT FINDINGS


The Index highlights those states that are maximizing their resources and delivering the highest possible quality of life to their people, providing lessons that can be gleaned by leaders elsewhere. But there are still areas for improvement in every state. Federal and state governments now have an empirical basis for action that highlights the areas that demand investment and policies that require reassessment, while businesses can now accurately prioritize how to undertake shared value initiatives that both can help create a basis for societal well-being and corporate sustainability.

This Index is enabling a constructive social progress agenda that moves beyond a single agency, a single level of government, or a single entity and allows different stakeholders to coordinate and prioritize their activities in order to create real change around the issues that are most vital and most important for the country.

The potential impact of this ambitious and insightful initiative is difficult to overstate. India is home to

one-sixth of the world’s people. Identifying and synthesizing the key challenges to the achievement of social progress, on a granular basis and with empirical care, offers the prospect of strengthening fragile communities and transforming the quality of lives for millions. Going forward, the Index can guide more responsive policies and new multi-sectoral collaborations. As the Institute for Competitiveness, India activates the next phase of this effort -- measuring social progress on the district and city levels -- the utility, actionability, and transformational potential of this tool will only increase.

While economic growth is incredibly important, social progress must stand by as an equal partner in the quest for inclusive development. By recognizing that measuring economic and social development separately and contrasting them provides new and sharp insights into each, India is charting a path that regions and countries, at every level of development, can and should follow.

REPORT FINDINGS


KEY FINDINGS FROM THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX: STATES OF INDIA

SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX RESULTS

The Social Progress Index: States of India includes 28 states and one union territory (Delhi) and a measure of India’s average level of social progress by weighting each region’s score by population and summing across all regions. Overall, India scores 54.90 on the Social Progress Index. Breaking down this average across dimensions and components of social progress, there is wide variation in state performances.

SOCIAL PROGRESS RANKINGS

India’s states’ scores range from 68 to 44. The results show that while there are considerable differences between states, there are no significant over- or underperforming outliers and that given the range of scores, there is immense scope for improvement for even the best performing states.

SOCIAL PROGRESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

By separating the measurement of social performance from economic performance, the Social Progress Index makes it possible to examine the relationship between economic development and social progress. Understanding this relationship is also the next frontier in understanding economic development because societal constraints and deficits clearly retard economic development. (Porter, Stern, & Green, 2017)

Despite the overall correlation between economic progress and social progress, the variability of performance among states with comparable levels of GDP per capita is considerable. The evidence

supports the conclusion that economic measures cannot be the sole driving force of inclusive growth: it is important to focus on the social aspects as well.

BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE

Comparing state’s performance on the Social Progress Index to a peer group of other states with similar GDP per capita provides a strategic approach to social development and offers insights into social progress that are not revealed by looking at absolute performance alone. The relative analysis of states is also important as a rich state may do well on absolute social progress, yet under-perform relative to peers of similar income; a poor state may achieve only modest levels of social progress, yet perform far better than its peers with similar resource constraints.

The results show that only one state, Kerala outperforms its economic peers - its social progress scores are higher than expected. The model of Kerala is always exemplified as evidence that investing more in social infrastructure can boost the productivity of people and thereby growth (Kapoor & Yadav, 2016), which shows up in results as well. On the other hand, fifteen states, a mix of all income groups, underperform relative to their peers.

SOCIAL PROGRESS OVERTIME

We find that social progress at the country level is improving. In 2016, the social progress scores are 57.03, registering an increase of approximately 8 points since 2005. Average performance is better on components of Basic Human Needs and worse on components of Opportunity reflecting that creating a

REPORT FINDINGS


society with equal opportunity for all still remains an elusive goal for most of the states.

All states have improved since 2005, which is encouraging. The group of states that have registered

the highest improvement are the states which were in the Very Low Social Progress tier in 2005 (Tripura, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, and Bihar).

REPORT FINDINGS


CHAPTER 1

WHY WE MEASURE SOCIAL PROGRESS

MAKING SOCIAL PROGRESS MORE INTEGRAL TO THE INDIAN DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

The Indian economy has undergone a major overhaul in the past few decades. It has successfully transformed from a poverty-struck, slow-growing, low-income economy to one of the world’s fastest-growing economies.

A country that was admonished for its Hindu1 rate of growth has grown at an average annual rate of 6.5 percent for almost thirty-five years, and the per capita income at constant prices has increased four times during the same period. The strong growth potential led to the growth of FDI inflows at three times the

1 The Hindu rate of growth refers to the low annual growth rate of the planned economy of India before the liberalisations of 1991.

REPORT FINDINGS


world average in the last decade. Apart from this, the fiscal deficit is decreasing, and inflation is modest.

While the economic successes of the country are remarkable, the prevalent social conditions appear to be in a dismal state. India still lags in the provision of essential public services such as health, education, and sanitation.

The public healthcare system of a country that has successfully established itself as a cost-effective manufacturer of medicines and as a growing destination for medical tourism faces numerous challenges. The infant mortality rate for India, which stands at 37.9, is not only higher than the world average but also than its low-income neighbours Nepal and Bangladesh. A baby born is India is nearly 1.2 times as likely to die during the first year of life as one born in Nepal.

Undernourishment, although declining, is still a critical issue with India accounting for three out of every ten stunted children in the world (SyamRoy, 2016). Around 7 percent of the households fall below poverty line each year as a result of health shocks and out-of-pocket expenditures on health. (Mor, Dhar, & Venkateswaran, 2017)

Education in India, both school level, and higher education, suffers from challenges concerning not only quality but also quantity. According to All India Survey of Higher Education (2015-16), the gross enrolment ratio for higher education stands at 24.5 percent, implying that 76 percent of the students lack access to higher education and are being deprived of the opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills. Their relevance and usefulness to the market is further weakened by the limited cooperation between industry and academic institutions.

That is not to say that wellbeing has not improved at all. On the contrary, myriad positive changes spread across different aspects of life occurred since India’s independence. Laudable economic growth has

helped the country to advance its social parameters. The poverty headcount is reduced from 47.8 % (1990) to 21.9 % (2011–12) due to higher social investments in poverty reduction programs; considerable progress has been made in universalization of primary education with the current youth literacy rate at 90% (World Bank, 2015); the focus on maternal and child care has led to substantial improvements in mortality rates across the country.

These changes have been truly transformative in some areas but the country will be unable to seize the opportunities without addressing the challenges—education, health, safety and security of its citizens, environmental degradation—that it faces today. Thus, in addition to economic reforms, it is important that policies focused directly towards social issues gain a prominent position on the national agenda. To achieve this, a measurement model that can equip change-makers to make social progress more integral to the national performance is needed.

Social Progress Index, a tool developed to provide a robust and comprehensive measure of societal progress based on social and environmental indicators, offers such a framework. It can help leaders and policymakers to formulate strategies for inclusive growth and prioritize public investment; businesses to identify key focus areas for supporting social progress through CSR; and civil society organizations to advocate for and deliver social progress.

By separating the measurement of social progress from economic performance, the Social Progress Index also helps to empirically unpack the relationship between the two concepts and hence offers citizens a better picture of how their country is performing. It helps inform our understanding of how economic development drives social progress and vice versa, a question deliberated by policymakers and researchers alike for decades. A better understanding of this relationship can help policymakers to make strategic choices that can lead to inclusive growth.

REPORT FINDINGS


CAPTURING THE SPIRIT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an ambitious commitment by the world’s leaders to improve the wellbeing of the world’s citizens and ensure environmental sustainability by 2030. One hundred and sixty-nine targets grouped in 17 goals set out a universal and an unprecedented agenda which embraces economic, environmental and social aspects of the wellbeing of societies.

However, it also poses a difficult challenge of defining and measuring success. With 17 goals, 169 targets and 230 indicators the SDGs might perhaps be difficult to grasp, understand, and of course, difficult to measure. According to the Expert Group on SDG Indicators hardly one third of the indicators can be measured. Therefore, a framework which can allow anyone to capture the totality of the SDGs—improved wellbeing and advanced environmental sustainability—while not dwelling on the individual details of every indicator is the need. A framework that can be understood and used by everyone—policymakers, businesses, civil society and the general public.

The Social Progress Index offers such a well suited rapid-assessment approach to help capture the spirit of the SDGs. Unlike the SDGs, which are by

THE BEYOND GDP DEBATE

The world was in the midst of the upheaval of the Great Depression when the idea of National Income Accounting was proposed by Simon Kuznets. National income accounting (the best-known system of which is gross domestic product – GDP), was developed to provide a window to the economic performance of a region, at a time when the world faced economic realities very different from those of today. The aim was to move away from a rudimentary set of data to a uniform set of national accounts, a purpose that GDP served well. Its use as a global measure of progress was further strengthened at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 and since then has become the de facto language of countries’ progress worldwide (Costanza, Hart, Posner, & Talberth, 2009). For the last several decades, the predominant focus of all countries has been on maximizing growth rates and economic performance with the underlying belief that such gains will trickle down to societies’ and people’s welfare. There is no denying that economic growth has helped nations to develop and has lifted millions out of poverty. However, it is now widely accepted that focus on the economic scorecard does not bring prosperity to all realms of societies’ wellbeing.The trade-off between the twin objectives of development process, i.e., economic growth and social progress, has long

been a ubiquitous debate. However, it is increasingly being challenged by the notion that although important, economic growth is not sufficient for achieving the welfare of societies. It may, or may not, lead to social progress. In the countries that have seen consistent GDP growth, the fundamental question surfaces whether the sole focus on economic performance is the correct approach to drive and assess prosperity. There is also perhaps a mismatch between how governments define and measure progress and citizens’ perception. In people’s everyday lives, success is about living long and healthy lives, while feeling safe, and having freedom to make life choices without restrictions. This is yet another piece of evidence that a model of development based solely on economic performance is incomplete.Nations across the world need to focus on fulfilling the needs of their citizens, i.e., providing them with adequate food, addressing security concerns, developing a public healthcare system, and building a society that is free from biases. For such an approach to inclusive development, the world needs a measurement model that moves beyond the idea of GDP, a framework that can equip leaders and change makers to make social progress more integral to national performance.

REPORT FINDINGS


definition a list of goals rather a conceptual model, the Social Progress Index has been designed and tested over a number years to provide an aggregate assessment of performance. Having a general framework that can be aggregated in a single number that can be tracked over time is useful as it can enhance public understanding and engagement. There is a strong coherence between the SDGs and the Social Progress Index (Figure 3). It can, therefore, support SDG implementation playing a complementary role to the official monitoring systems that are being put in place. It may be instrumental for the nation as a whole as well as individual states and territories in achieving their SDGs targets.

NutritionandBasicMedicalCare

WaterandSanitation

ShelterPersonalSafety

PersonalRights

PersonalFreedomandChoice

Inclusion

AccesstoAdvancedEducation

AccesstoBasicKnowledge

AccesstoInformation

HealthandWellness

Environ-mentalQuality

THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX SUPPORTING INDIA’S 2030 AGENDA

Michael GreenMichael Green, CEO, Social Progress Imperative

“There is no cause greater than shaping a world in which every life that enters it can look to a future of security, opportunity and dignity; and, where we leave our environment in better shape for the next generation. And, no cause that is more challenging.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s words at the United Nations in 2015 at the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals capture well the promise and the enormity of the SDGs.

The SDGs are an ambitious commitment by the world’s leaders to improve the wellbeing of all people and ensure environmental sustainability by 2030. They represent an unprecedented universal agenda that embraces economic, environmental

and social aspects of the progress of societies – an agenda that is people- and planet-centered and applies to all countries, irrespective of their levels of wealth. And the challenge of achieving these goals will stand or fall on how well India, with its population of 1.3 billion people and growing, can cut a path of sustainable, inclusive economic growth. For example, one of the principal targets under Goal 6 is to provide adequate sanitation for all when today barely 40% of Indians have access to a toilet.

It is also clear that economic growth, the engine behind much of the success in achieving such significant reductions in extreme poverty under Millennium Development Goal 1, will not get us there alone. When the SDGs were launched in 2015, the global consulting firm Deloitte conducted a study using Social Progress Index data to forecast whether the SDGs could be achieved. The findings

REPORT FINDINGS


were stark and clear: even based on optimistic projections for economic growth, on current trends the world would fall well short of achieving the Goals. Yet, the researchers also found that if there is a productivity revolution in the social sector the SDGs could be achieved. Business as usual will not got us to the SDGs. But if government, business and civil society can step up and scale the solutions that work, a step change in human wellbeing is within our grasp by 2030.

The Social Progress Index for India has a critical role to play in driving the productivity revolution to get is to the SDGs.

The Implementation Challenge

As a complex set of goals and targets, the SDGs intrinsically pose numerous challenges to world leaders, businesses and civil society organizations alike. While these challenges are perhaps overshadowed by the historic ambition of the goals, they nevertheless present significant risks for the implementation – and, consequently, achievement – of the SDGs.

How can the SDGs be translated into specific actions for the states, cities, districts, and communities of India? How will various actors and initiatives align around 17 different goals? What does success look like? How are the goals measured and understood in different parts of this vast, diverse country?

While there is not a simple answer to these questions, the Social Progress Index tackles many of the challenges. It is a proven tool that helps countries, regions, cities and communities achieve the goals. Sitting alongside economic indicators as a core benchmark for national performance, the Index provides a systematic, empirical foundation that can inform the 2030 Agenda. The Social Progress Index represents the first comprehensive framework for measuring social progress that is

independent of, and complimentary to, traditional economic indicators.

It is certainly important that an official monitoring and performance tracking system is established and followed. However, the Social Progress Index, also offers a well suited rapid-assessment approach to help facilitate the understanding, engagement and implementation of the SDGs.

Currently, the Social Progress Index measures 16 out of 17 goals and reflects 131 out of 169 targets in one simple framework, which makes the implementation, visualization and actionability of the SDGs a tangible reality for social innovators all over the world (Figure 1).

The Social Progress Index addresses four challenges for SDG implementation:

Eliminating silos: The Social Progress Index facilitates cross-sectoral stakeholder engagement, which will be critical to achieving the SDGs. Thanks to its comprehensive framework, which can be easily understood by diverse stakeholders accustomed to seeing problems through different lenses, the index represents a shared foundation for collective impact projects.

Localizing implementation: The Social Progress Index is a flexible tool that can be adapted to any level of geography and any sector, from communities to metropoles to public institutions to local businesses. This ensures that development initiatives, including SDG implementation, account for and address local needs and challenges.

The Measurement Challenge: According to the latest communication by the Expert Group on SDG Indicators, barely a third of the 200+ indicators can currently be measured in a rigorous manner for a majority of countries. The Social Progress Index uses 50 indicators drawn from official UN data but

REPORT FINDINGS


also from globally respected research institutions and polling organizations. This flexibility on data sources allows the Social Progress Index to provide a comprehensive estimate of SDG performance even where the formal indicators do not yet exist and customize them for the local context.

The Aggregation Challenge: Unlike the Sustainable Development Goals, which are by definition a list of goals rather a conceptual model, the Social Progress Index has been designed and tested over a number years to provide an aggregate assessment of country performance. Because it was designed as a composite indicator, the Index can provide a snapshot of a country’s overall progress towards the SDGs in a way that the goals themselves, with their wide array of unweighted indicators, cannot.

Many governments have committed to earmark spending according to the SDGs. However, an increase in government spending may not lead to an

improvement in people’s lives. The Social Progress Index measures outcomes, not inputs, in order to more accurately measure life as everyday people experience it. What really matters is whether people have adequate shelter or live long and healthy lives, not how much money the government allocates for housing or healthcare. In the context of the SDGs, this means that the Index captures real progress towards the goals rather than the effort expended to achieve them.

Social Progress Indexes allow for the selection of indicators in alignment with SDGs for specific contexts and regions. Each index becomes a customized tool for social change that captures what really matters to local people. This Social Progress Index for India can therefore be a powerful tool for state governments, working with business and civil society to, manage progress towards achievement of the SDGs by 2030.

Figure 1 / SDGs and Social Progress Index

Source: Social Progress Imperative (2017)

REPORT FINDINGS


FACILITATING CSR INVESTMENTS

The idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not new to the Indian companies. Previously, CSR in India was seen as a philanthropic activity. It was an action that was performed by many businesses, but the impact was not measured. However, as the idea gained momentum globally, many companies started reporting their activities.

The Companies Act in 2013 formally introduced Corporate Social Responsibility guidelines which made it mandatory for companies having net worth of Rs 500 crore or more or turnover of Rs 1000 crore or more or net profit of Rs 5 crore or more to spend at

least 2 percent of their average net profits. (Ministry of Corporate Affairs)

While some of the companies responded positively to the measure, statistics indicate that more than 50 percent of the firms fail to comply. The primary reason that stands out for non-compliance with the law is the unawareness regarding which areas to invest in. The Social Progress Index address that challenge by bringing out insights about the needs of the people in different regions.

It can thus be helpful for the companies to identify key focus areas where investments can be made (Figure 2).

Figure 2 / CSR and Social Progress Index

Source: Authors

REPORT FINDINGS


BEYOND PHILANTHROPY: HOW BUSINESS CAN HAVE A GREATER IMPACT IN SOCIETY

David Cruickshank, Global Chairman, Deloitte

India is now the fastest growing major economy however performance in social welfare still lags behind its economic success. By 2020, India is forecast to be the youngest country in the world with a median age of 29, and its population is predicted to exceed China’s by 2030. This is even more pertinent given the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda – a set of 17 Goals that countries will use to mobilise efforts to end all forms of poverty, fight inequalities and tackle climate change, while ensuring that no one is left behind. India’s role in the 2030 Agenda could not be more critical.

To support this ambitious agenda, the demographic growth and for business to succeed in India, it will need to deepen its commitment to sustainable development and work in conjunction with civil society and government to utilise its skills, innovation and resources to shorten the gap between economic and social performance.

The Indian government has recognised the responsibility of business to advance social progress in the 2013 Companies Act, which requires that companies with a net worth of Rs 500 crore or more, or turnover of Rs 1,000 crore or more, or a net profit of Rs 5 crore or more, contribute 2% of their net profit to charity. Four years later the Companies Act has had some impressive results. Indian companies’ charitable spending has increased seven-fold to Rs 25,000 crore and the Act has helped bring CSR to the attention of company executives. For all of the good driven by the Companies Act, it does not render all socially responsible investment equal. And we shouldn’t

measure the societal impact of business just by charitable donations alone.

To make meaningful impact, business must first understand the challenges that communities face in order to best direct their efforts. To enable this the Institute for Competitiveness has worked in conjunction with the Social Progress Imperative to develop a State level Social Progress Index for India to measure the things that matter most to people. The Index uses over 50 societal and environmental outcome indicators, ranging from measuring the number of women in Panchyati Raj Institutions to assessing power deficits, to map the social and environmental status of Indian States. It will provide insight into the most pressing needs of communities and serve as a road map to guide investments, resources and collaborations.

For the last four years, Deloitte has partnered with the Social Progress Imperative to measure what matters to countries, regions and communities and understand how to achieve inclusive growth that benefits all citizens. The India State Index provides a holistic approach towards measuring social developments which will help India to make social progress more integral to the policymaking process and drive collaboration between government, business, and civil society organisations. This is an important step forward as India works toward achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

If businesses seek to be make a difference, and to be judged by more than just financial results, tools like the India State Index can help guide where and how best to effect change. In doing so companies can build a reputation, and a business, that will last and have a greater impact on society.

REPORT FINDINGS


CHAPTER 2

THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEXThe Social Progress Index focuses on what matters to societies and people by giving them the tools to better understand and seize opportunities and building blocks to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, and create the conditions to reach their full potential.

It was developed in collaboration with a team of scholars led by Professor Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School. National and city leaders across Latin America, and the European Commission’s Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, are using the index for agenda setting, policymaking, and prioritizing how to mobilize resources and measure impact.

FRAMEWORK OF THE INDEX

Guided by a group of academic and policy experts, the Social Progress Index follows a conceptual framework that defines social progress as well as its key elements. In this context, social progress is defined as the “capacity of a society to meet the basic human needs of its citizens, establish the building blocks that allow citizens and communities to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, and create the conditions for all individuals to reach their full potential.”

The framework outlines three broad categories of social progress, referred to as dimensions, emerging from the above definition of social progress:

REPORT FINDINGS


● Basic Human Needs;● Foundations of Wellbeing; and● Opportunity.

Each of these dimensions is further broken down into four underlying components (see Figure 3).

The most important step in designing the index is to select the appropriate indicator set that represents the components under each dimension. Apart from the criterion that the data should be publicly available, principles of the index guide the choice of a relevant set of indicators. The set of unique design principles that allow an exclusive analysis of social progress and help the Index stand out from other indices are:

● including social and environmental indicators only; ● measuring outcomes, not inputs2; ● relevant to all societies; ● an actionable tool to drive change.

The Index represents the first comprehensive framework for measuring social progress that

is independent of economic performance. As a complement to traditional measures of economic performance, such as income, the Social Progress Index provides a better understanding of the relationship between economic gain and social progress. In contrast, other indices such as the Human Development Index combine economic and social indicators. Our objective is to utilize a clear yet rigorous methodology that isolates the non-economic dimensions of social performance.

The Index offers a systematic, empirical foundation for governments, businesses, civil society and communities to prioritise social and environmental issues, and benchmark performance against other countries, regions, cities and communities to inform and drive public policies, investments, and business and community decisions.

Detailed methodology is presented at Methodology Report, Social Progress Index, States of India, available on the Social Progress Index India website.

2 The index does not consider input indicators, such as spending on a particular policy area, such as education, or healthcare.

3 While the Social Progress Index: States of India adopts the same framework as the Global Social Progress Index, there is a slight difference in the name of the Tolerance and Inclusion component. The Social Progress Index: States of India only uses the term Inclusion as it is more con-textualized to local circumstances. However, the conceptual basis of the component, i.e. the underlying question, whether “no one is excluded from the opportunity to be a contributing member of society?” remains the same.

Figure 3 / Social Progress Index Framework3

Source: Porter, Scott & Green, 2017

REPORT FINDINGS


SOCIAL PROGRESS IN INDIA – A TALE OF 2 STATES

Dr Nitya Mohan KhemkaAffiliated Lecturer, Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge

India is amongst the fastest growing regions in the world, with an aggregate GDP in excess of USD 3 trillion and a population in excess of 1.3 billion. At the same time it has significant deficits in human development—37% of the world’s poor and nearly half of the world’s malnourished children come from the region. These ironies and contradictions make it imperative to focus on not only economic growth but also on rapidly improving its social parameters.

The Social Progress Index (SPI) emphasises what matters to individuals, governments and societies by reflecting the social and environmental progress of a region. By providing a robust and integrated framework, it enables people to measure the building blocks of basic human needs, wellbeing and opportunities required for human flourishing. In doing so, it goes way beyond conventional methods of measuring progress (such as GDP and HDI) and provides an actionable tool that can help policymakers and practitioners implement plans that can drive rapid social progress.

Implementing the SPI in India gives us the unique opportunity of moving beyond the historic obsession with economic growth to a more nuanced understanding of issues that really matter to individuals and communities. SPI can be used as a common language to bring together government, business and civil society around a new vision of what their communities could be. By highlighting specific social challenges, the SPI can help catalyse policy decisions, guide CSR investments and serve as a monitoring mechanism for SDGs.

Since India is a federation of states, the SPI can also be a critical tool for measuring performance

and prioritizing action at the subnational level. The SPI can help measure both the states’ absolute performance and well as highlight their relative progress, by comparing states at a similar level of per capita income.

Applying the Social Progress Index framework to Indian states reveals significant differences in patterns and attainments of social indicators across India. Firstly, states with high levels of social progress are not necessarily high performers on all dimensions of social progress. Similarly, states with flagging levels of social progress do not have uniformly waning levels of social and environmental attainments across the board. This level of granularity in the data helps us identify the most pressing issues that require attention in individual states.

Secondly, while all Indian states have made significant headway with respect to social progress over the last eleven years, what is striking is the wide variations between individual states. Further, the average SPI scores are clustered between 48 and 57 for the period 2005-2016, indicating there is considerable room for improvement across Indian states.

Thirdly, the data indicates that while economic performance is directly related to social progress, it does not provide a complete picture. Indeed, states with high economic prosperity have been lagging behind significantly with respect to social progress. This divergence between social and economic progress highlights the need for states in India to prioritize key social and environmental policies.

This brings us to the example of two states in India, Gujarat and Kerala, which present an interesting paradox for us to consider.

REPORT FINDINGS


Gujarat is one of the high growth states in the country. Gujarat’s Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) was at US$ 120.91 billion over 2014-15 (see graph 1 below). The state is one of the most industrially developed states and contributes to about a quarter to India’s goods exports.

Source: Open Government Data Platform India, 2017a

On the other hand, Kerala’s Net State Domestic product (NSDP) was at US$ 59.70 billion over 2014-15 (see graph 2 below).

Source: Open Government Data Platform India, 2017b

Yet, although Kerala’s NSDP is way below that of Gujarat, it achieves the highest score on social progress (67.75) amongst the Indian states in 2016 (See graph 3 below), about 10 percentage points over that of Gujarat. This indicates that economic performance cannot be the sole driving factor and that for growth to be inclusive, we need to think of the dimensions of basic human needs, foundations of wellbeing and availability of opportunities for human development.

Source: ICI 2017

The comparison of Gujarat and Karnataka through the lens of the SPI reveals important insights. While it is true that historical and cultural factors have an impact on the social indicators in each region, a comparative study between the two states becomes useful for isolating specific features that contribute to high social progress in some regions. Kerala has devolved significantly more responsibilities and resources to its Panchayats than have other states in India. It has implemented systematic grassroots level planning through the People’s Planning Campaign. Kerala’s other achievements—such as a high rate of literacy (especially among women), a vibrant civil society and successful land reforms—

Graph 1 / Gujarat’s Net State Domestic Product

Graph 2 / Kerala’s Net State Domestic Product

Graph 3 / Gujarat and Kerala’s Social Progress Index

REPORT FINDINGS


have had a substantial effect on social progress. These mechanisms have provided safeguards to the marginalised and lead to higher levels of social indicators. Although Gujarat outperforms in terms of economic indicators, investigating the link between economic prosperity and social progress enables us to examine if growth is translating into improved

social and environmental performance. Clearly, the experiences borne out by Kerala and Gujarat, as revealed by the SPI data, can offer important insights, in terms of both policy and practice, on the Indian experience, which with its typology of states can be representative of other developing countries.

REPORT FINDINGS


CHAPTER 3

SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX: STATES OF INDIA - RESULTSThe Social Progress Index, States of India framework represents the first ever concept for measuring societal performance comprehensively, and independently of economic indicators. As such, the framework is a significant contribution to the policy debate as well as scholarly research of measuring quality of life.

Based on extensive research and consultation with relevant stakeholders, the Social Progress Index: States of India applies a framework for measuring social progress, as presented in Figure 4. It includes 54 indicators which are based on publically available sources of public authorities.

While not ideal, and greatly limited by data availability, the framework should be seen as an initial effort to contribute to measuring the quality of life of India’s citizens. The framework can be utilized as a mapping dashboard of public expenditures, civil society engagement and private sector investment. It can also be used as a tool to organize and structure strategic planning, as well as monitoring and evaluation.

COUNTRY-LEVEL ANALYSIS

The consolidation of the state-level results4 helps in assessing India’s national performance across

REPORT FINDINGS


Figure 4 / Social Progress Index, States of India Indicator Framework

Source: Authors

all aspects of social progress. This provides an opportunity to identify components that are more advanced than others, which can help inform nationwide policies, strategies, and actions.

Overall, on a scale 0-100 (0 worst case scenario, 100 best case scenario) the country scores 54.90 on the Social Progress Index. Breaking down this average across dimensions and components, we find that there is wide variation in the country’s performance across different facets of social progress (Figure 5). At the dimension level, the country scores highest at 63.06 on Basic Human Needs, followed by 52.34

on Foundations of Wellbeing, and lowest at 49.31 on Opportunity.

Basic Human Needs capture the aspects of social progress that are vital for human survival. Closer analysis of the four components that form the dimension—Nutrition & Basic Medical Care, Shelter, Water & Sanitation, and Personal Safety—reveals that three of them score above the national average, while Nutrition & Basic Medical Care seems to be lagging. At the component level, the country performs best on Water & Sanitation (84.37). This reflects important progress in an area that has been a focus of the

4 A measure of the country’s average level of social progress is developed by weighting each state’s score by population and summing across all states. The results different to the Global Social Progress

REPORT FINDINGS


Sustainable Development Goals as well as the Indian Government. Nutrition & Basic Medical Care (44.64) seems to be the greatest challenge that the nation needs to address. The high levels of mortality and low levels of children’s nutrition are issues that need immediate attention.

Foundations of Wellbeing encompasses the services that help citizens in improving their quality of life. Among the four components that form the dimension—Access to Basic Knowledge, Access to Information & Communication, Health & Wellness, and Environmental Quality—the scores are lowest in Access to Information & Communication (35.41). This is due to low access to television and the internet in the country.

The states perform best on Health & Wellness (68.89), but the analysis also reveals that obesity is a growing issue in India. Out of 29 regions under study, 11 have average obesity rates of more than 20%. The nation needs to address this concern soon.

Opportunity encompasses Personal Rights, Personal Freedom and Choice, Inclusion, and Access to Advanced Education. The lowest performing area is Access to Advanced Education (37.25). The advanced education ecosystem in India has a lot of challenges that are clearly reflected by the low average scores. The gross enrolment ratio in higher education is not only less than that of developed economies (with the exception of the USA) but also than developing economies like China. The best performance in the dimension is achieved by the states in securing the freedom of citizens (67.12).

STATE-LEVEL ANALYSIS

India’s states’ scores range from a high of 68.09 to a low of 44.89 (see Table 1). The results show that while there are considerable differences between states, there are no significant over- or underperforming outliers and that given the range of scores, there is immense scope for improvement for even the best-performing states.

010

203040506070

8090

SocialP

rogr

essIn

dex

BasicHu

man

Nee

ds

Nut

ritio

n&B

asicM

edicalC

are

Wat

er&

San

itatio

n

Shelte

r

Pers

onal

Saf

ety

Foun

datio

nso

fwel

lbeing

Acce

ssto

Kno

wledg

e

Acce

ssto

Info

rmat

ion

&Co

mm

unicat

ion

Hea

lth&

Wel

lnes

s

Enviro

nmen

talQ

ualit

y

Opp

ortu

nity

Pers

onal

Right

s

Pers

onal

Fre

edom

&C

hoice

Inclus

ion

Acce

ssto

Adv

ance

dEd

ucat

ion

Figure 5 / Country Level Analysis

Source: Authors

REPORT FINDINGS


Table 1 / Social Progress Index, States of India: Scores and Tiers

Source: Authors

Very High Social Progress Value High Social Progress ValueKerala 68.09 Delhi 60.17

Himachal Pradesh 65.39 Karnataka 59.72

Tamil Nadu 65.34 Maharashtra 57.88

Uttarakhand 64.23 Haryana 57.37

Goa 63.39 Nagaland 56.76

Mizoram 62.89 Chhattisgarh 56.69

Sikkim 62.72 Gujarat 56.65

Punjab 62.18

Middle Social Progress Value Low Social Progress ValueAndhra Pradesh 56.13 Tripura 53.22

Manipur 55.50 Rajasthan 52.31

Jammu & Kashmir 55.41 Odisha 51.64

Arunachal Pradesh 55.24 Uttar Pradesh 50.96

Madhya Pradesh 55.03 Assam 48.53

West Bengal 54.37 Jharkhand 47.80

Meghalaya 53.51 Bihar 44.89

The states are grouped on the basis of median and quartile scores into the above mentioned four tiers (see Table 2), where,

● 62.18 is the third quartile of scores● 56.64 is the second quartile i.e. the median● 53.51 is the first quartile

VERY HIGH SOCIAL PROGRESS

Eight states that form the first tier of the social progress register strong performance across all the components. The overall scores of the Very High

Social Progress states are clustered around 65. The average score of the group is significantly better in Basic Human Needs compared to Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity.

Table 2 / Tiers of Social Progress

Source: Authors

Tier Scores

Very High Social Progress More than or equal to 62.18

High Social Progress Between 56.64 and 62.17

Middle Social Progress Between 53.51 and 56.63

Low Social Progress Less than 53.51

Social Progress Index Basic Human Needs Foundations of Wellbeing

Opportunity

64.0 71 61 60

REPORT FINDINGS


Tamil Nadu has one of the most balanced development models in the country. The state has not only shown advancements in economic growth over the years but the social indicators have also improved. The policies in the state have focused on almost all the areas ranging from healthcare, education, economy. These correct policy choices clubbed with successful implementation have led to these results. Tamil Nadu’s outstanding performance can be attributed to the public services that are provided by the state. The

universal nature of the public systems helps in better social outcomes than most of other regions. The appropriate policies focusing with the right amount of expenditure in priority areas along with strong implementation of the schemes has led Tamil Nadu on this path of inclusive development.

The model of Kerala has always been held up as evidence that investing more in social infrastructure can boost the productivity of people and thereby growth, which shows up in the results as well. The model of development can be termed as a “human development-led” growth which has taken place due to systematic state investments in social sectors like education and health over a long period of time.

The performance of Mizoram, a middle-income state, is notable. The region is seen as a special territory even after six decades of independence, due to the security concerns it faces. Consequently, the economic growth trajectory of this region has been different than the rest of the country. Despite being rich in natural resources, economic growth has been slow. Amidst all these issues the state has managed to

provide its citizens with living standards comparable to those of high-income states. The findings indicate the strength of social capital.

HIGH SOCIAL PROGRESS

Seven states are clubbed under the High Social Progress tier whose average scores are lower than the first tier by 6 points at the overall level.

This tier is formed by a mix of three income category states. Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana and Maharashtra belong to Very High-Income category, Karnataka and Nagaland lie in High Income category and Chhattisgarh belongs to Middle Income category. These performance of this tier is commendable in Water and Sanitation where five out of seven states have scores higher than 90.

It is however surprising to note that the average scores for Foundations of Wellbeing for this tier are lower than average scores for “Middle Social Progress” tier. This difference is mainly attributed to the area of environmental quality. The average scores of this tier in the component are 32 while the average scores of the next tier for the same component are 57.

MIDDLE SOCIAL PROGRESS

Seven states – Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya and West Bengal form this tier of social progress.


Opportunity

58 67 54 53

The top performers on social progress reveal that there are several ways to achieve world-class social progress.

REPORT FINDINGS


Inclusion of high – income states, like Andhra Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, in the tier of Middle Social Progress reflects that social progress not only depends on the economic development but also on the use of revenues generated by economic expansion. It thus becomes important for regions to chalk out strategies focussed towards addressing the real needs of the citizens.

In this tier, West Bengal’s progress in some of the components is notable. The state’s approach towards handling safety and security concerns drive these results. The high performance of state in Personal Safety is driven by government’s effort to modernize the state police force, setting up women police stations and focus on coastal security. Apart from Personal Safety, it scores well on Water & Sanitation and Access to Basic Knowledge as well. The major component driving down the results of the state is Access to Information & Communication. The state has very low number of Internet subscribers along with low access to television. If the concerns highlighted by these findings are addressed, citizens can enjoy a better standard of living.

LOW SOCIAL PROGRESS

The seven states in this group are a mix of low and middle-income groups.

The most striking results are those of Uttar Pradesh, whose scores vary from 93 to 25 at the component level. The performance of the state on Water and Sanitation is commendable, which is largely due to the fact that it has the most sufficient drinking water facility, has high rates of fully covered rural habitations, and low prevalence of typhoid and diarrhoea. Nevertheless, some sanitation issues need to be addressed as the state registers rural sanitation

coverage of just 41%. It set up a Water and Sanitation Support Organisation in 2010 to ensure that this basic need is met. It performs fairly well on Health & Wellness and Environmental Quality, but Nutrition & Basic Medical Care is one area that the government of Uttar Pradesh needs to focus on. The prevalence of anaemia is high in Uttar Pradesh, and the IMR and MMR are amongst one of the highest in India.

A better picture of the level of progress is ascertained by analysing the dimension- and component-level scores of the Social Progress Index, States of India presented in Table 3 (next page).


Opportunity

55 61 57 47

A COUNTRY’S LEVEL OF SOCIAL PROGRESS IS THE RESULT OF CUMULATIVE INCREMENTAL CHOICES ITS GOVERNMENTS, COMMUNITIES, CITIZENS, AND BUSINESSES MAKE ABOUT HOW TO INVEST LIMITED RESOURCES.


Opportunity

50 56 49 44

REPORT FINDINGS


DIMEN

SION

DIMEN

SION

DIMEN

SION

States

BasicHu

man

Needs

Nutrition&

BasicMedical

Care

Water&

Sanitatio

nShelter

Person

al

Safety

Foun

datio

ns

ofwellbeing

Accessto

Kn

owledge

Accessto

Inform

ation&

Communication

Health&

Wellness

Environm

ental

Quality

Opportunity

Person

al

Rights

Person

al

Freedo

m&

Choice

Inclusion

Accessto

Ad

vanced

Education

Andh

raPradesh

68.0

48.6

74.1

76.8

72.3

50.3

61.6

40.5

55.7

43.6

50.1

66.6

53.1

42.5

38.1

Arun

achalPradesh

57.4

56.8

71.6

55.5

45.8

61.6

70.3

29.2

73.1

73.7

46.7

50.9

64.9

44.2

26.9

Assam

52.2

47.9

84.4

34.4

42.2

54.7

71.5

17.8

73.5

55.9

38.7

28.6

70.7

31.7

23.5

Bihar

52.7

34.6

81.3

34.6

60.4

47.2

55.4

16.1

72.2

45.3

34.7

32.6

61.4

33.0

11.9

Chhattisgarh

63.2

44.7

90.1

58.7

59.2

52.0

79.0

30.6

58.9

39.4

54.9

63.9

78.9

48.0

28.8

Delhi

62.9

51.5

90.2

77.9

32.1

60.3

85.2

76.8

69.7

9.3

57.3

47.4

79.1

60.9

42.0

Goa

76.6

62.8

95.1

81.5

67.1

55.4

91.2

45.4

58.0

27.1

58.2

41.2

68.4

68.2

54.9

Gujarat

73.3

43.6

92.6

77.1

79.8

49.4

61.6

44.2

67.4

24.5

47.2

52.6

63.7

32.6

39.9

Haryana

64.2

43.1

90.8

70.0

53.0

53.2

63.8

43.6

75.1

30.5

54.6

54.3

79.0

38.0

47.2

HimachalPradesh

68.1

53.9

64.2

83.2

71.0

62.7

79.8

52.6

70.5

48.0

65.4

56.2

84.4

56.0

64.8

JammuandKashmir

61.2

58.9

65.0

57.8

63.1

56.2

53.2

34.7

80.9

55.9

48.9

55.8

72.5

32.4

34.8

Jharkhand

56.1

32.1

86.1

48.7

57.4

47.0

62.4

28.8

75.7

21.1

40.3

37.9

65.1

40.8

17.5

Karnataka

65.6

48.6

75.5

71.1

67.4

56.0

75.3

45.4

63.2

40.1

57.5

58.8

53.2

59.1

59.1

Kerala

73.8

74.7

79.6

75.8

65.0

65.4

87.3

54.7

63.0

56.7

65.1

60.7

87.5

58.8

53.4

MadhyaPradesh

59.1

29.8

85.1

61.6

60.1

54.0

66.8

33.2

70.9

44.9

52.0

56.0

70.3

41.6

40.0

Maharashtra

70.7

54.0

90.0

72.7

66.3

54.3

74.3

46.6

66.1

30.3

48.6

41.4

59.6

46.4

46.9

Manipur

65.9

76.2

64.3

60.8

62.2

57.9

76.1

31.0

69.9

54.5

42.7

33.0

63.4

32.5

42.1

Meghalaya

52.6

48.2

48.2

57.4

56.7

61.8

77.2

26.8

77.3

66.0

46.1

37.5

65.7

44.5

36.6

Mizoram

71.0

71.4

79.2

71.4

62.0

61.3

78.3

33.9

69.0

64.1

56.3

71.5

71.5

49.4

33.0

Nagaland

66.6

73.1

65.3

55.3

72.5

55.6

75.4

28.0

71.6

47.3

48.1

61.1

66.7

30.7

34.0

Odisha

55.4

45.2

80.9

41.4

54.3

51.0

71.8

21.1

69.0

42.1

48.5

42.8

75.6

42.1

33.5

Punjab

68.6

57.5

86.7

62.7

67.5

59.1

67.7

56.8

72.5

39.5

58.8

66.8

74.6

41.6

52.2

Rajasthan

59.1

36.4

76.4

60.9

62.7

42.8

44.4

31.9

79.2

15.8

55.0

59.9

71.8

44.0

44.1

Sikkim

69.9

60.6

67.2

72.2

79.5

59.2

72.3

38.3

61.6

64.4

59.1

72.9

66.8

54.4

42.4

TamilNadu

76.3

62.2

91.3

79.2

72.3

58.8

75.1

54.7

61.2

44.4

60.9

73.2

61.7

55.1

53.8

Tripura

60.3

57.0

69.1

55.9

59.2

55.6

78.5

30.7

75.1

37.9

43.8

43.0

69.8

39.9

22.5

UttarPradesh

57.9

31.5

93.3

37.4

69.5

47.4

54.4

25.6

71.9

37.7

47.5

37.4

71.6

46.3

34.8

Uttarakhand

67.6

44.8

78.1

76.2

71.2

66.4

78.6

47.9

82.0

57.2

58.7

66.0

72.6

43.1

53.1

WestB

engal

62.5

53.3

77.0

51.3

68.3

58.0

74.5

28.0

70.0

59.6

42.6

35.8

70.5

43.4

20.8

SOCIALPRO

GRESSIN

DEX,STA

TESOFINDIA:DIM

ENSIONANDCO

MPO

NEN

TSCORES

COMPO

NEN

TCO

MPO

NEN

TCO

MPO

NEN

T

Tabl

e 3

/ Sco

res

Soci

al P

rogr

ess

Inde

x, S

tate

s of

Indi

a

Sour

ce: A

utho

rs

REPORT FINDINGS


The developments in medical care reflect high variations across different regions in the country, leading to a lower average absolute score for the country. The absolute scores range from high twenties to high seventies.

The central region of the country comprising Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh shows immense scope for improvement. The high rates of Maternal Mortality Rate, Infant Mortality Rate and high prevalence of anaemia among children leads to low scores. Kerala, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur are among the best performers. Manipur has the lowest infant mortality rate, lowest anaemic children as well as low percentage of underweight children. Despite the low level of income in Manipur its absolute scores are better than the rest of the states depicting the power of social investments made by the government. These states can inform strategies for other states.

NUTRITION & BASIC MEDICAL CARE

The category of Over performers does not include any of the Very High-Income States. Most of these states have low levels of child and maternal mortality, have sufficient nutritional facilities so strong scores are expected in this area and are not relative strengths. Manipur, a low-income state is the highest over performer. The state shows commendable performance especially in tacking underweight and anaemia issues among children. The under performers include a mix of all income category states. Gujarat and Haryana, two very high-income states under perform compared to their economic peers mainly in areas of infant mortality and underweight children.

REPORT FINDINGS


The continuous focus on Water and Sanitation, globally as well as by the Indian government, clearly reflect in the results of this component. The absolute performance of almost all the states is above average, except Meghalaya.

The best performing states include Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh etc. The performance of Uttar Pradesh – A low Social Progress State is surprising. The state has the highest area (rural and urban both) having sufficient drinking water facility, has high rates of fully covered rural habitations and low prevalence of typhoid and diarrhoea, that drive these results. Although sanitation facilities are of concern to the people of Uttar Pradesh as the state registers a rural sanitation coverage of just 41%. The state set up a Water and Sanitation Support Organisation in 2010 to ensure that this basic need of the people is met.

WATER & SANITATION

On a relative basis, no state out performs its economic peers and therefore there is no appropriate role model for low scoring states in this area.

The group of underperformers formed by a mix of all income category states. It includes very high income state like Sikkim, high income states such as Nagaland, Meghalaya – the largest underperformer that belongs to middle income category and Manipur a low income state. But it is dominated by high and middle-income states.

These results show that performance in this component should not be taken for granted among states of middle and high income by leaders and policymakers. There is still a lot to be done in providing safe access to water and sanitation to the citizens.

REPORT FINDINGS


The safety and security of citizens is of prime concern to every government irrespective of the income category which shows up in the assessment of personal safety across states. Just 10 percent of the state’s score less than 50.

Delhi, the capital city not only scores the lowest in this area but also registers the highest amount of underperformance. The crime rate in the region has been of concern since a long time. Numerous efforts have been taken up the government such as identifying crime prone areas, employing emergency response vehicles etc. to improve the plight of its citizens. These efforts have led to an increase in the scores from last two years but there is still a lot to be done.

The three overperformers – Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim and Gujarat register over performance by only a small margin.

PERSONAL SAFETY

REPORT FINDINGS


On an absolute basis, one of the highest variation is observed among the states in this category. The difference in scores of the best and the worst performing state is more than 60 points.

The scores have improved rapidly in the last few years. The diffusion of mobile telephones especially in the remote areas and the increasing access to internet has led to the advancements. However, the absolute scores are still very low.

The states with high scores in this area – Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu etc are mainly very high and high-income states and the low-income states like Bihar and Assam have low scores.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION

On a relative basis, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Kerala over-perform their economic peers. Under performance is observed by a total of fourteen states. All the seven north-eastern states fall in the category of underperformers in this area. The low scores and under performance relative to economic peers is mainly due to the low quality of services in the north-eastern region which is due to the poor tele-density and poor broadband penetration. The low computer penetration and computer literacy further adds to the problem. Although, a lot of steps have been taken by the concerned ministry which has led to improvements since 2005 but findings suggest there is still a large scope for improvement.

A clear variation across income categories and geography both is observed in access to communications.

REPORT FINDINGS


On an absolute basis, the highest variation is observed among states in this area. The scores vary from 73 to 9.

Environmental Quality is a particularly challenging component for high and very high-income states with nearly half of them underperforming on this component. This suggests that the environmental challenges because of economic development may outweigh the benefits for these states.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

The only over performer – Arunachal Pradesh, a high-income state has fewer water withdrawals and the land quality is better than most of its peers. Delhi is the worst performing state on this component both on an absolute level and relative to its economic peers. The water withdrawals rate is one of the highest in the country, and land degradation levels is also high. Relative to its economic peers, it under-performs on all indicators in the component.

REPORT FINDINGS


On an absolute basis, the scores of states are between 28 to 73. Some of the best performers include high and very high-income states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim etc and worst performers mainly include low income states like Assam, Bihar etc. The area is linked to economic development but the relationship levels off as the income level rises. At the lower levels of income, a marginal increase in income will lead to large advancements in scores of Personal Rights.

On a relative basis, all the high-income states perform within the expected range of scores.

The states that have registered strength relative to their economic peers include – Tamil Nadu, Sikkim, and Mizoram. On the other hand, Manipur, Delhi, Goa, Tripura, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Meghalaya lag behind their peers.

PERSONAL RIGHTS

Manipur, whose performance is on the overall social progress is decent is the largest underperformer in this area. The state registers the highest underperformance of the indicator judiciary. While on an average, 63 percent of the trials conclude within three years this number stands at 29 for Manipur. The government should look into the problem and help its citizens by ensuring timely trials. Setting up fast-track courts etc might serve as a solution.

REPORT FINDINGS


Personal Freedom and Choice is the component that experience least variability in scores that range from 61 to 87. It is also one of the two components where no state scores less than 50. Strong performance on this component does not require large investments of economic resources so it is an area where states at every income level could excel.

Personal Freedom and Choice has the largest number of over-performers. While these states are commendable for outperforming their economic peers, most are not suitable role models for all the indicators in the component. All the four states have a relative weakness in one or more indicators, most frequently Early Marriages.

PERSONAL FREEDOM & CHOICE

REPORT FINDINGS


Absolute results show that only six states namely, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Sikkim, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu register scores above fifty. The low scores of all the other regions reflect that creating an inclusive society still remains an elusive goal for most regions. And people face discrimination across states of all regions and incomes.

The comparison of states with their economic peers reveal that barring one state – Goa, no other state overperforms. However, then also it is not an appropriate role model for its peers as it registers weakness in some indicators of this area like insurance, women in panchayati raj institutions etc.

Among underperformers, 72 percent of the states belong to either middle or low-income category.

INCLUSION

REPORT FINDINGS


On an absolute basis, the scores for most of the states lie below 50 reflecting that the country’s higher education ecosystem is in urgent need of intervention.

The issues can be categorised into three groups: inclusivity, quality, and future readiness. The issues in inclusivity are highlighted by the low gross enrolment ratios in India which are indicative of a large group of students who don’t enter the education system and hence leading to questioning the readiness of youth for industries. The aspect of quality of education and curriculum is also put to the test by the low employability of students graduating out of universities. The third aspect relates to the use of technology platforms for increasing access to affordable education with low internet penetration; developing world-class institutions which are still a challenge. While the world is moving towards robotics, artificial intelligence and re-skilling their workforce, India doesn’t seem to take actual cognisance of this. These issues reflect the need for a radical transformation in higher education.

ACCESS TO ADVANCED EDUCATION

Although the absolute performance of the states highlights that higher education is a nationwide issue there are two states whose performance is better than their economic peers – Goa and Himachal Pradesh. The underperforming states includes a mix of states from all peer groups.

REPORT FINDINGS


"THE LINKAGES BETWEEN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SOCIAL PROGRESS LACK CLARITY AS TILL DATE, NOT MUCH FOCUS HAS BEEN LAID ON MEASURING SOCIAL PROGRESS. SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX ALLOWS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN ANALYSIS OF HOW SOCIAL PROGRESS IS CORRELATED WITH MEASURES OF ECONOMIC SUCCESS, BY MEASURING SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEPENDENT OF GDP”

CHAPTER 4

SOCIAL PROGRESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: DEMYSTIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP

The linkages between the means and ends of the development process have always been disputable. The dominant view, supported by most leaders, is that economic growth leads to the development of societies and so nations should focus on maximizing economic gains leading to higher GDP growth. However, this view is increasingly being challenged by the notion that economic growth, although necessary, is not sufficient for development. It may or may not lead to social progress.

The limitation of economic growth to transform the lives of people around the world is gaining more

REPORT FINDINGS


and more attention. Still, sufficient evidence exists to present the positive side of the economic story as well. There are countries where economic growth has helped the government to invest more and more in advancing the living standards of its citizens. For instance, Norway, a country with high levels of per capita income, has managed to provide its citizens with better social ecosystem than other parts of the world. The question, therefore, is when economic growth helps in transforming the life of individuals and when it fails to do so. These linkages lack clarity to date, as not much focus has been laid on measuring social progress.

One of the primary objectives of the Social Progress Index, States of India is to provide an understanding of the relationship between social and economic progress. The Social Progress Index allows, for the first time, an analysis of the relationship between social progress and measures of economic success.

By measuring social progress independently of economic indicators, it provides empirical evidence of the relationship of the two and helps in understanding whether economic performance is being transformed into social progress or not.

Figure 6 shows that economic performance is not the whole story and should not be the ultimate goal. While there is a relationship between economic development and social progress, the relationship is not a direct one. For any level of economic development, there are states performing better and states performing worse on social progress.

This provides us with three key findings:

First, there is a positive and strong relationship between NSDP (Net State Domestic Product4) per capita and the Social Progress Index. For instance, Bihar with a per capita NSDP of 15,506 scores 44.89

Figure 6 / Social Progress and Economic Development

Source: Authors

0K 10K 20K 30K 40K 50K 60K 70K 80K 90K 100K 110K 120K 130K 140K

NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Scores

Uttar PradeshMaharashtra

Bihar

Andhra Pradesh

Tamil Nadu

Rajasthan

Karnataka

Gujarat

Kerala

Jharkhand

DelhiGoaMizoram

Social Progress Index

Measure NamesSocial Progress Index

6,10,5..5,00,00,0..

10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

NSDP vs. Social Progress Index. Color shows details about Social Progress Index. Size shows Population (According to census2011). The marks are labeled by States.

4 The estimate of net state domestic product is arrived at by deducting the consumption of fixed capital from the gross state domestic product for each sector.

REPORT FINDINGS


on the Social Progress Index, States of India. On the other hand, Goa with NSDP per capita of 137,401 has a Social Progress Index score of 63.39. At an aggregate level, a one percent increase in NSDP per capita is associated with a 0.08-point increase in Social Progress Index score5.

Second, the relationship between social progress and NSDP (economic development) is not linear. At lower levels of income, a small change in NSDP leads to great advancements in social progress scores. However, as income levels rise, the rate of change slows.

Third, despite the correlation between NSDP per capita and the Social Progress Index, a considerable amount of variability in social progress is observed among states with comparable levels of NSDP per capita. Hence, economic performance alone does not fully explain social progress. This fact, which was

empirically established by the global Social Progress Index, holds true for the Indian states as well.

● Chhattisgarh attains a higher social progress score (56.69) than Rajasthan with a NSDP per capita (28,373) lower than the latter. Rajasthan, with a per capita NSDP of 31,836, scores 52.31 on social progress.● Manipur and Maharashtra have a difference of two points on social progress when the former belongs to the category of low-income states while Maharashtra has one of the highest per capita incomes in the country. ● Despite not achieving the highest NSDP levels, Kerala achieves the highest score on social progress, while Goa and Delhi, the richest states (measured by NSDP), perform worse.

The evidence supports the conclusion that economic measures cannot be the sole driving force of inclusive

Figure 7 / Dimension-Level Relationship

Source: Authors


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Scores

Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

Maharashtra

Bihar

Bihar

West Bengal

Telangana

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Gujarat

Gujarat

Kerala

Assam

Delhi

Delhi

Meghalaya

Manipur

Manipur

Nagaland

Goa

Goa

Goa

Sikkim

Sikkim

Basic Human Needs, Foundations of wellbeing, Opportunity

Measure NamesBasic Human NeedsFoundations of wellbeingOpportunity

6,10,5..5,00,00,0..

10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

NSDP vs. Basic Human Needs, Foundations of wellbeing and Opportunity. Color shows details about Basic Human Needs,Foundations of wellbeing and Opportunity. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.

5 The model has an R-squared value of 0.54 i.e. only 54% of the changes in social progress can be explained by the NSDP per capita.

REPORT FINDINGS


growth: it is important to focus on the social aspects as well. The Social Progress Index, States of India provides the tools to assess, track, and monitor social progress in order to better understand states’ performance and identify and emulate best practices that can inform national as well as state-level policies.

SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX AND INCOME: DIMENSION-LEVEL RELATIONSHIP

The relationship between social progress and economic development can be further examined at the dimension level to understand better how different aspects of social progress vary with economic development (see Figure 7).

Again, a logarithmic model is established for Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing, and Opportunity. The model predicts that NSDP per capita explains 52%, 19% and 40% of the variation in Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity scores respectively.

In real terms, this means that a small improvement in NSDP per capita yields higher gains in achieving basic human needs for all.

Foundations of Wellbeing has the least correlation with NSDP per capita. The likely reason being that two

of the four components in this Dimension, Health and Wellness and Environmental quality, have either no or even a negative relationship with NSDP per capita.

Opportunity also shows a significant relationship with the per capita NSDP. This is perhaps surprising, since many aspects of Opportunity, such as rights and freedoms, do not necessarily require substantial economic resources but rather sound norms and policies. It could have been the case that economic advancements have led to strong institutions which led to substantial increases in Opportunity scores.

SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX AND INCOME: COMPONENT-LEVEL RELATIONSHIP

The component level scores can be used to further data-driven insights on the relationship between economic performance and different aspects of social progress. Such analysis can be instrumental in informing public policies as well as private investments and civil society interventions.

QUICK WINS

Overall, we can identify components that improve significantly with each additional unit of economic development (Figure 8). For example, Shelter and

Figure 8 / Quick Wins

Source: Authors


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Scores

Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

Bihar

West Bengal

Andhra Pradesh Telangana

Madhya PradeshRajasthan

Gujarat

Odisha

Kerala

Jharkhand

Assam

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Himachal Pradesh

TripuraManipur

Goa

Mizoram

Shelter6,10,5..

5,00,00,0..10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

Measure NamesShelter

NSDP vs. Shelter. Color shows details about Shelter. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeledby States.


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Scores

Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

Bihar

Andhra Pradesh

Tamil Nadu

Rajasthan

Karnataka

Gujarat

Odisha

Kerala

Assam

Punjab

Delhi

Jammu & Kashmir

Tripura

Nagaland

Goa

Sikkim

Access to Information & Communication

Measure NamesAccess to Information & Communication

6,10,5..5,00,00,0..

10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

NSDP vs. Access to Information & Communication. Color shows details about Access to Information & Communication. Sizeshows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.

REPORT FINDINGS


Figure 9 / Hard Problems

Source: Authors


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Scores Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

Bihar Andhra Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh

Tamil Nadu

Rajasthan

Karnataka

Gujarat

Odisha

Kerala

Assam

Punjab Haryana

Delhi

Jammu & Kashmir

TripuraManipur

Goa

Sikkim

Access to Knowledge

Measure NamesAccess to Knowledge

6,10,5..5,00,00,0..

10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

NSDP vs. Access to Knowledge. Color shows details about Access to Knowledge. Size shows Population (According to census2011). The marks are labeled by States.


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Scores Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

BiharWest Bengal

Andhra Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh

Tamil Nadu

Rajasthan

Karnataka

Gujarat

Odisha

Kerala

Assam

Chhattisgarh

Haryana

DelhiTripura Goa

Arunachal Pradesh

Mizoram Sikkim

Personal Rights

Measure NamesPersonal Rights

6,10,5..5,00,00,0..

10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

NSDP vs. Personal Rights. Color shows details about Personal Rights. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). Themarks are labeled by States.

0K 20K 40K 60K 80K 100K 120K 140K

NSDP

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Scores

Maharashtra

Bihar

West Bengal

Telangana

Karnataka

Gujarat

Odisha

Jharkhand

Assam

Punjab

Delhi

Uttarakhand

Himachal Pradesh

Manipur

Nagaland

Goa

Arunachal Pradesh

Mizoram

Sikkim

Access to Advanced Education6,10,5..

5,00,00,0..10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

Measure NamesAccess to Advanced Education

NSDP vs. Access to Advanced Education. Color shows details about Access toAdvanced Education. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). Themarks are labeled by States.


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Scores

Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

Bihar

Telangana

Tamil Nadu

Karnataka

Gujarat

Odisha

Kerala

Jharkhand

Assam

PunjabHaryana

Delhi

Jammu & Kashmir

Nagaland

Goa

Sikkim

Inclusion

Measure NamesInclusion

6,10,5..5,00,00,0..

10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

NSDP vs. Inclusion. Color shows details about Inclusion. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks arelabeled by States.

Access to Information & Communications show drastic improvements at relatively lower levels of economic performance.

HARD PROBLEMS

Access to Basic Knowledge, Personal Rights, Inclusion, and Access to Advanced Education depict the most complicated relationship with economic development. There are components that show developments with GDP per capita, but their relationship is highly variable (Figure 9). For instance, although the improvements in GDP levels can help to increase access to education, these advancements are not as easily transformed into tangible increases in the welfare of citizens. There

might be an array of reasons, including that such improvements take a long time to materialize, and rather than being a direct function of the wellbeing of the economy, they are also a result of coherent and sound long-term policies.

TOUGHEST CHALLENGES

However, we can also see that many areas of the wellbeing of societies pose much greater challenges (Figure 10). Many components show very little, or even negative relationship with economic development. These are the hardest problems to solve, and economic performance cannot be the only answer. These include Water & Sanitation, Personal Safety,

REPORT FINDINGS



NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Scores

Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

Bihar

Tamil NaduGujarat

OdishaKerala

JharkhandAssamPunjab

Delhi

Jammu & Kashmir

Uttarakhand

Tripura

Meghalaya

Manipur

Goa

Arunachal Pradesh

Sikkim

Water & Sanitation6,10,5..

5,00,00,0..10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

Measure NamesWater & Sanitation

NSDP vs. Water & Sanitation. Color shows details about Water & Sanitation. Size shows Population (According to census 2011).The marks are labeled by States.

Figure 10 / Toughest Challenges

Source: Authors


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Scores


Bihar

Andhra PradeshTelangana Tamil Nadu

Rajasthan

OdishaJharkhand

Assam

Haryana

Delhi

UttarakhandGoa

Arunachal Pradesh

Sikkim

Personal Safety

Measure NamesPersonal Safety

6,10,5..5,00,00,0..

10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

NSDP vs. Personal Safety. Color shows details about Personal Safety. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). Themarks are labeled by States.


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Scores


Bihar

West Bengal

Telangana

Madhya Pradesh

Rajasthan

Karnataka

Gujarat

Kerala

Jharkhand

Assam

PunjabChhattisgarh

Haryana

Delhi

Jammu & Kashmir

Himachal Pradesh

Meghalaya

Manipur

Goa

Arunachal Pradesh

Sikkim

Environmental Quality6,10,5..

5,00,00,0..10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

Measure NamesEnvironmental Quality

NSDP vs. Environmental Quality. Color shows details about Environmental Quality. Size shows Population (According to census2011). The marks are labeled by States.


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Scores

Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

Bihar

West Bengal

Andhra Pradesh

Tamil NaduKarnataka

Gujarat

Chhattisgarh

Haryana

Delhi

Jammu & Kashmir UttarakhandTripura

GoaSikkim

Health & Wellness

Measure NamesHealth & Wellness

6,10,5..5,00,00,0..

10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

NSDP vs. Health & Wellness. Color shows details about Health & Wellness. Size shows Population (According to census 2011).The marks are labeled by States.


NSDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Scores

Uttar Pradesh

MaharashtraBihar

Andhra Pradesh

Madhya PradeshTamil Nadu

Rajasthan

Karnataka

Gujarat

Kerala

Jharkhand

Haryana Delhi

Uttarakhand

Himachal Pradesh

GoaSikkim

Personal Freedom & Choice6,10,5..

5,00,00,0..10,00,00,0..15,00,00,0..19,98,12,3..

Measure NamesPersonal Freedom & Choice

NSDP vs. Personal Freedom & Choice. Color shows details about Personal Freedom & Choice. Size shows Population (Accordingto census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.

Health & Wellness, Environmental Quality, and Personal Freedom & Choice.

While these initial findings provide a lot of new insights, further research into each will be essential to better understand the causal links and interdependencies.

Institute for Competitiveness, India invites all interested researchers to use the Social Progress Index, States of India data and results to conduct research and exploration, and to build a new repository of expertise and knowledge which will help to advance social progress in India and elsewhere.

REPORT FINDINGS


CHAPTER 4

SOCIAL PROGRESS OVER TIMEThe yearly Social Progress Index, apart from ranking states on different facets of quality of life, helps to identify relative strength and weakness that facilitates benchmarking. However, it is more illuminating to measure social progress over time, as such a study helps analyse whether the developments of states on social and environmental indicators are heading in the right direction or not. It is also essential for adjusting policies, as well as public and private investments.

In this chapter, we present the results of our evaluation of social progress overtime i.e. 2005-2016. The lack of data availability across the eleven-year period does not allow for calculation of the Social Progress Index for each year as the statistical properties do not meet the necessary quality standards. We thus utilize

the 2016 framework to calculate the scores for 2005 and 2016 by applying Principal Component Analysis. We then calculate the scores for 2006-2015, by using the weights derived from the Principal Component Analysis.

This analysis is a critical step in examining the impact of different policies and investments.

OVERALL SOCIAL PROGRESS IS ADVANCING

We find that social progress at the country level is improving (Figure 11). In 2016, the average social progress score is 57.03, registering an increase of approximately 8 points. Average performance is better on components of Basic Human Needs and

REPORT FINDINGS


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 8

SOCIALPROGRESS INDEX

Figure 11 / Social Progress Index Over Time

Source: Authors

worse on components of Opportunity (Figure 15, 16 and 17), reflecting that creating a society with equal opportunity for all still remains an elusive goal for most of the states.

At the state level, (Figure 12), all the states have improved since 2005, which is encouraging. The group of states that have registered the highest improvement are the Very Low Social Progress states in 2005 (which includes Tripura, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Jharkhand and Bihar). On an average, each state has enhanced social progress by 9.6 point over a 10-year period.

Among the advanced (in terms of social progress) states, the average improvement is 7. 5 points, though Delhi has improved by just 3.5 points. The issues of safety of women and child labour, which have been highlighted in the last few years, need to be tackled by the capital region to improve the wellbeing of its citizens.

VARYING TRENDS BY COMPONENT

Assessment over time shows that all three dimensions of social progress have improved since 2005, however some more than others. Opportunity (Figure 15) registered the highest increase in scores, followed by smaller, but nonetheless important improvements in Basic Human Needs (Figure 13), and Foundations of Wellbeing (Figure 14). However, Opportunity still lags behind Basic Human Needs and Foundations of Wellbeing in 2016, where Basic Human Needs was the best scoring dimension, followed by Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity.

While the Social Progress Index can show trends and patters of improvements, or deterioration, further research is essential to understand the underlying causes.

Examining progress over time on the component level, three patterns stand out:

REPORT FINDINGS


● Significant improvement

Seven components across the framework have registered high improvement in scores, ranging between 12 to 22 points. These components include Personal Freedom & Choice, Inclusion, Access to Advanced Education, Nutrition & Basic Medical Care, Access to Basic Knowledge, Access to Information & Communication and Shelter. It is evident from the list, that components are not representative of only one area of social progress, and that improvements have been registered across the spectrum of people’s lives.

● Lagging behind

Several components registered decline in scores. While the decline is not as remarkable as the increase

of scores in previous cases, it is still significant as it poses threats to advancing social progress and leaving no one behind. These components include Personal Safety, Health & Wellness, Environmental Quality and Personal Rights. Personal Safety declined by 5.4 points and Environmental Quality declined by 3.3 points. Health & Wellness and Personal Rights show marginal decline of 1.5 and 1.9 respectively.

● Stagnation

Third, Water & Sanitation is the only component that has registered a marginal increase of 1.5 point during the eleven-year period. While the component score is high compared to other areas of social progress, there is still room for improvement, especially in rural areas.

Figure 12 / State Scores Over Time

Source: Authors

REPORT FINDINGS


Figure 13 / Trend - Basic Human Needs

Source: Authors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 8

BASICHUMANNEEDS

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

NUTRITION&BASICMEDICALCARE

0102030405060708090

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

WATER&SANITATION

0102030405060708090

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

SHELTER

0102030405060708090

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

PERSONALSAFETY

REPORT FINDINGS


Figure 14 / Trend - Foundations of Wellbeing

Source: Authors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 8

FOUNDATIONSOFWELLBEING

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

HEALTH&WELLNESS

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

ACCESSTOINFORMATION&COMMUNICATION

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

ACCESSTOBASICKNOWLEDGE

REPORT FINDINGS


Figure 15 / Trend - Opportunity

Source: Authors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 8

OPPORTUNITY

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

ACCESSTOADVANCEDEDUCATION

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

INCLUSION

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

PERSONALFREEDOM&CHOICE

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

PERSONALRIGHTS

REPORT FINDINGS


THE DUAL HEALTH CRISES

The analysis of basic medical care and health outcomes reveal that the two nutritional extremes, obesity and undernourishment, persist in India simultaneously.

The scores for Nutrition & Basic Medical Care, which analyses undernourishment, have improved drastically over the last few years. On the other hand, the average scores for Health & Wellness, which aims to capture lifestyle issues, reveal a negative trend. This decline is attributed to the growing problem of obesity in the country. (Figure 17). The likely cause of obesity is the sedentary lifestyle accompanied by rapid urbanisation.

At the state level, as expected, obesity is prominent among high and very high-income states and most low-income states have undernourished children.

This is illustrated in Figure 16, which plots underweight children against average obesity. With the exception of Manipur, all low-income states have low obesity and high underweight populations.

Various government programs have focused on improving the plight of undernourished children and mortality levels in the country. These initiatives have helped the country in making impressive gains over the past few years, but there is still a lot of room for improvement for some states like Bihar and Jharkhand, among others.

Figure 17 / Change in Obesity rate 2005-2015

Figure 16 / Underweight & Obesity

Source: Authors

20 10 0 10 20 30

AndhraPradeshArunachalPradesh

AssamBihar

ChhattisgarhDelhiGoa

GujaratHaryana

HimachalPradeshJammu&Kashmir

JharkhandKarnataka

KeralaMadhyaPradesh

MaharashtraManipur

MeghalayaMizoramNagalandOdishaPunjab

RajasthanSikkim

TamilNaduTripura

UttarPradeshUttarakhandWestBengal

MaleObesityFemaleObesity

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers

Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC)

Gross Enrolment Ratio(Secondary)

Corruption

Improved source of water

Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary)

Literacy Rate

Anaemia

Road Accidents

Rural Sanitation Coverage

IMR

Obesity Male

Obesity Female

Early Marriages

Gross Enrolment Ratio (HigherEducation)

Internet Subscribers

Child labour

Black bars represent India average.

ANDHRA PRADESH 16/29

Performance Scorecards

Comparative Analysis Focus Areas

Population 84580777 GDP per capita 81397 Growth Rate 7.16

Geographical Area 1,62,968 Income group High Income Unemployment (per 1000)

39

Basic Profile

Health and Wellness 55.73

Crimes against women 83.12Murder Crimes 79.21Road Deaths 42.02Violent Crimes 77.5

Diarrhea 84.52Drinking water covered habit.. 60.42Improved water source 53.25Rural Sanitation 60Typhoid 86.23

Children under 5 years who a.. 46.83Children under 5 years with a.. 24.87Infant Mortality Rate 46.05Maternal Mortality Rate 87.17

Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Mizoram, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Tripura, West Bengal,Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, Nagaland, Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir

Basic Human Needs 67.96 Foundations ofWellbeing 50.35

Electricity 91.3Housing Shortages 97.85Power Deficit 87.56Pucca Houses 59.46

Drop out rates 86.91Gender parity 86.49Gross secondary enrolment 58.81Literacy 29.79Net primary enrolment 55.05

Internet 18.52News 9.61Phone 86.08TV 54.68

Forest cover 5.38Land Degradation 79.2Renewable energy 30Water withdrawals 55

Human Trafficking 89.13Judiciary 77.45Property Rights 45.6

Child Labour 78.83Corruption 3.9Early Marriage 49.85Family Planning 86.87

Child Sex Ratio 69.8Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. 23.62Financial Inclusion - Women 63.61Insurance 20.72Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. 70.82Women in Panchyati Raj Inst.. 16.47

HIV 70.05Leprosy 83.06Life expectancy at 60 47.2Obesity Female 5.61Obesity Male 4.26Respiratory infections 89.77Suicides 76.28

Andhra PradeshSocial Progress Index 56.13

OverperformingPerforming within expected rangeUnderperforming

Key

Colleges (UGC) 42.24Female Graduates 53.26Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. 45.85Technical Institutes 16.33

Score Score

Nutrition and Basic MedicalCare 48.6

Water and Sanitation 74...

Shelter 76.83

Personal Safety 72...

Access to Basic Knowledge 61.59

Access to Information andCommunications 40.47

Environmental Quality 43.61

Personal Rights 66.55

Opportunity 50.07

Personal Freedom and Choice 53.08

Inclusion 42.53

Access to Advanced Education 38.14

Score

Social Progress Index:States of India

REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100

Nutrition & BasicMedical Care

Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge

Access to Information& Communication

Health & Wellness

EnvironmentalQuality

Personal Rights

Personal Freedom &Choice

Inclusion

Access to AdvancedEducation

ANDHRA PRADESH

Andhra Pradesh 2016 Andhra Pradesh 2005

Historic Trends

Biggest Movers Status Quoists

Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.

REPORT FINDINGS


ARUNACHAL PRADESH 17/29


Basic Profile




Children under 5 years who a.. 67.5Children under 5 years with a.. 35Infant Mortality Rate 56.58Maternal Mortality Rate 71.8

Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: West Bengal, Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir,Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, ..





Forest cover 6.82Land Degradation 97.33Renewable energy 80Water withdrawals 99.92





Arunachal PradeshSocial Progress Index 55.24


Key


Score Score

Nutrition and Basic MedicalCare 56...

Water and Sanitation 71.6

Shelter 55.46






Opportunity 46.72


Inclusion 44.19


Score


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Literacy Rate

Phone Subscribers

Electricity

HH in pucca houses

Road Accidents

Judiciary

Television

Violent Crimes

Rural Habitations


Early Marriages

Family Planning

Obesity Male

Life Expectancy at 60

Drop out Rates

Insurance

Crime against women

Murder Crimes




Geographical Area 83,743 Income group High Income Unemployment (per 1000)

89

REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Arunachal Pradesh 2016 Arunachal Pradesh 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value


Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secon..


Rural Habitations

Phone Subscribers

IMR

Road Accidents

Violent Crimes

Electricity

HH in pucca houses

Early Marriages

Insurance

Underweight

Television


MMR

Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe..


Property Rights

Crime against women

Drop out Rates

Human Traficking

Murder Crimes


ASSAM 27/29



Geographical Area 78,438 Income group Low Income Unemployment (per 1000)

61


Basic Profile


Crimes against women 53.59Murder Crimes 58.42Road Deaths 40Violent Crimes 21.5



Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Manipur, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Arunach..






Human Trafficking 0Judiciary 60.51Property Rights 13.6

Child Labour 88.53Corruption 76.62Early Marriage 50Family Planning 60.34



AssamSocial Progress Index 48.53


Key


Score Score



Shelter 34.4






Opportunity 38.65


Inclusion 31.75


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


ASSAM

Assam 2016 Assam 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value



Phone Subscribers

Anaemia

Rural Habitations

Road Accidents

Underweight

IMR

Early Marriages

HH in pucca houses

Violent Crimes

Judiciary

Female Graduates

MMR

Family Planning




Electricity

Drop out Rates

Television

Property Rights


Insurance

Murder Crimes


BIHAR 29/29



Geographical Area 94,163 Income group Low Income Unemployment (per 1000)

60


Basic Profile



Diarrhea 94.83Drinking water covered habit.. 50Improved water source 96.92Rural Sanitation 40Typhoid 83.62


Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh,Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Arunachal Prad..








Child Sex Ratio 67.82Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. 7.07Financial Inclusion - Women 20.52Insurance 2.46Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. 73.07Women in Panchyati Raj Inst.. 100


BiharSocial Progress Index 44.89

Performing within expected rangeUnderperforming

Key


Score Score



Shelter 34.62






Opportunity 34.71


Inclusion 32.96


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


BIHAR

Bihar 2016 Bihar 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers


Literacy Rate

IMR

HH in pucca houses

Underweight

Television



MMR



Crime against women

Murder Crimes


CHHATTISGARH 12/29



Geographical Area 1,35,191 Income group Middle Income Unemployment (per 1000)

19


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Odisha,Rajasthan, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Meghala..









HIV 74.11Leprosy 40.83Life expectancy at 60 0Obesity Female 75.91Obesity Male 80.66Respiratory infections 94.98Suicides 82.27

ChhattisgarhSocial Progress Index 56.69


Key


Score Score



Shelter 58.74






Opportunity 54.93


Inclusion 48.03


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh 2016 Chhattisgarh 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Violent Crimes



Anaemia

Land Degradation

Obesity Female

Obesity Male

Crime against women

Property Rights

Family Planning

Murder Crimes


DELHI 9/29



Geographical Area 1,490 Income group Very High Unemployment (per 1000)


Basic Profile


Crimes against women 0Murder Crimes 73.27Road Deaths 64.4Violent Crimes 0


Children under 5 years who a.. 55Children under 5 years with a.. 19.74Infant Mortality Rate 67.11Maternal Mortality Rate 71.8

Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Goa, Sikkim, Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu,Uttarakhand, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland


Electricity 99Housing Shortages 95.83Power Deficit 96.77Pucca Houses 54.09

Drop out rates 80.78Gender parity 81.08Gross secondary enrolment 100Literacy 76.6Net primary enrolment 88.95

Internet 100News 0.77Phone 100TV 86.8





HIV 79.7Leprosy 79.72Life expectancy at 60 83.2Obesity Female 0Obesity Male 33.44Respiratory infections 92.75Suicides 95.77

DelhiSocial Progress Index 60.17


Key


Score Score



Shelter 77.86






Opportunity 57.34


Inclusion 60.92


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


DELHI

Delhi 2016 Delhi 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers


Insurance

Judiciary

Land Degradation

Respiratory Infections

Obesity Female

Obesity Male



Property Rights


Family Planning

Crime against women

Child labour

Human Traficking


GOA 5/29




96


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Delhi, Sikkim, Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu,Uttarakhand, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland








Child Sex Ratio 71.29Family Planning 51.12Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. 100Financial Inclusion - Women 81.43Insurance 18.98Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. 73.24Women in Panchyati Raj Inst.. 10.75


GoaSocial Progress Index 63.39


Key


Score Score



Shelter 81.45

Personal Safety 67.1





Opportunity 58.15


Inclusion 68.19


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


GOA

Goa 2016 Goa 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Indicator Value



Literacy Rate


Anaemia

Land Degradation


Underweight

IMR

Corruption

Insurance

Early Marriages

Obesity Female


Property Rights

Family Planning

Child labour


GUJARAT 13/29



Geographical Area 1,96,024 Income group Very High Unemployment (per 1000)

9


Basic Profile




Children under 5 years who a.. 34.5Children under 5 years with a.. 19.74Infant Mortality Rate 50Maternal Mortality Rate 82.34

Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra,Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Punjab, Tripura, Karnataka




Internet 24.9News 11.75Phone 100TV 49.17


Human Trafficking 98.02Judiciary 64.06Property Rights 20




GujaratSocial Progress Index 56.65


Key


Score Score



Shelter 77.09






Opportunity 47.21


Inclusion 32.64


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


GUJARAT

Gujarat 2016 Gujarat 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers



Literacy Rate


Anaemia

Insurance

HH in pucca houses

IMR

Road Accidents

Violent Crimes


Underweight


Crime against women

Murder Crimes

Human Traficking


HARYANA 14/29




47


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala,Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Nagaland, Punjab, Tripura


Electricity 89.41Housing Shortages 97.63Power Deficit 100Pucca Houses 37.85








HaryanaSocial Progress Index 57.37


Key


Score Score



Shelter 69.97






Opportunity 54.64


Inclusion 37.99


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


HARYANA

Haryana 2016 Haryana 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Indicator Value



Judiciary

Anaemia

Land Degradation

IMR


Obesity Female

Obesity Male

Family Planning

Insurance


HIMACHAL PRADESH 2/29



Geographical Area 55,673 Income group High Unemployment (per 1000)

106


Basic Profile



Diarrhea 50Drinking water covered habit.. 71.97Improved water source 91.27Rural Sanitation 80Typhoid 55.61


Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Kerala, Nagaland, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Tripura, Tamil Nadu,Karnataka, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana










Himachal PradeshSocial Progress Index 65.39


Key


Score Score



Shelter 83.17






Opportunity 65.37


Inclusion 56.03


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


HIMACHAL PRADESH

Himachal Pradesh 2016 Himachal Pradesh 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers

Literacy Rate



Road Accidents


Judiciary

Rural Habitations

HH in pucca houses



Corruption

IMR

Land Degradation

Obesity Female



Obesity Male

MMR

Insurance

Drop out Rates


JAMMU & KASHMIR 18/29



Geographical Area 2,22,236 Income group Middle Unemployment (per 1000)

72


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh,Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Meghalaya, Odisha, Manipur, Assam








Child Sex Ratio 31.68Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. 24Financial Inclusion - Women 57.13Insurance 1.87Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. 7.11Women in Panchyati Raj Inst.. 83.31

HIV 96.45Leprosy 95.28Life expectancy at 60 100Obesity Female 19.14Obesity Male 46.89Respiratory infections 78.66Suicides 99.31

Jammu & KashmirSocial Progress Index 55.41


Key


Score Score



Shelter 57.8






Opportunity 48.86


Inclusion 32.36


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


JAMMU & KASHMIR

Jammu & Kashmir 2016 Jammu & Kashmir 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers



Anaemia

Literacy Rate

Land Degradation

Underweight

Road Accidents

Electricity

HH in pucca houses

Early Marriages

IMR

Judiciary


Television

Property Rights

MMR

Family Planning




Insurance

Drop out Rates

Murder Crimes


JHARKHAND 28/29



Geographical Area 79,714 Income group Low Unemployment (per 1000)

77


Basic Profile




Children under 5 years who a.. 20.33Children under 5 years with a.. 10.38Infant Mortality Rate 50Maternal Mortality Rate 57.62

Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan,Odisha, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Meghalaya





Forest cover 14.07Land Degradation 0Renewable energy 10Water withdrawals 68





JharkhandSocial Progress Index 47.8


Key


Score Score



Shelter 48.71






Opportunity 40.33


Inclusion 40.84


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


JHARKHAND

Jharkhand 2016 Jharkhand 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Indicator Value



Corruption

Literacy Rate

Anaemia


Road Accidents

Rural Habitations

Land Degradation

Underweight


Obesity Female

Early Marriages

Obesity Male


Child labour


KARNATAKA 10/29



Geographical Area 1,91,791 Income group High Unemployment (per 1000)

15


Basic Profile


Crimes against women 91.98Murder Crimes 75.25Road Deaths 49.52Violent Crimes 54



Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Tripura, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram,Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala




Internet 27.35News 4.04Phone 100TV 56



Child Labour 81.58Corruption 0Early Marriage 64.42Family Planning 70.95

Child Sex Ratio 74.26Family Planning 70.95Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. 28.96Financial Inclusion - Women 56.16Insurance 95.55Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. 70.48Women in Panchyati Raj Inst.. 67.8


KarnatakaSocial Progress Index 59.72


Key


Score Score



Shelter 71.06






Opportunity 57.54


Inclusion 59.08


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


KARNATAKA

Karnataka 2016 Karnataka 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Indicator Value



Obesity Female

Obesity Male

Rural Habitations


Property Rights


KERALA 1/29




125


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh,Haryana, Nagaland, Punjab, Maharashtra, Tripura, Karnataka










KeralaSocial Progress Index 68.09


Key

Colleges (UGC) 52Female Graduates 100Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. 40.32Technical Institutes 29.6

Score Score



Shelter 75.83






Opportunity 65.08


Inclusion 58.76


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


KERALA

Kerala 2016 Kerala 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers



Literacy Rate

Anaemia

Electricity

IMR

HH in pucca houses

Underweight

Television

Early Marriages

Violent Crimes


Property Rights

MMR




Crime against women

Murder Crimes


MADHYA PRADESH 19/29



Geographical Area 3,08,245 Income group Low Unemployment (per 1000)

43


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Jharkhand, Manipur, Assam, Jammu &Kashmir, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal










Madhya PradeshSocial Progress Index 55.03


Key


Score Score



Shelter 61.59





Personal Rights 56

Opportunity 51.98


Inclusion 41.57


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


MADHYA PRADESH

Madhya Pradesh 2016 Madhya Pradesh 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Indicator Value



Judiciary

Corruption

Anaemia

Land Degradation


Underweight

Violent Crimes


Early Marriages

Obesity Male

Obesity Female

Property Rights

Child labour


MAHARASHTRA 11/29




21


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Haryana, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Sikkim,Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Punjab, Tripura










MaharashtraSocial Progress Index 57.88


Key


Score Score



Shelter 72.67






Opportunity 48.58


Inclusion 46.36


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


MAHARASHTRA

Maharashtra 2016 Maharashtra 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value


Phone Subscribers

Electricity

HH in pucca houses


Road Accidents

Television



Family Planning

Judiciary

Violent Crimes


Obesity Female

Property Rights

Drop out Rates

Insurance

Murder Crimes

Child labour


MANIPUR 20/29



Geographical Area 22,327 Income group Low Unemployment (per 1000)

57


Basic Profile



Diarrhea 89.73Drinking water covered habit.. 70.9Improved water source 0Rural Sanitation 60Typhoid 76.74


Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Assam, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, UttarPradesh, Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Bihar, Arunachal Pr..


Electricity 64.77Housing Shortages 96Power Deficit 93.28Pucca Houses 38.39







HIV 69.54Leprosy 97.78Life expectancy at 60 41.74Obesity Female 29.37Obesity Male 49.18Respiratory infections 95.8Suicides 100

ManipurSocial Progress Index 55.5


Key


Score Score



Shelter 60.83






Opportunity 42.73


Inclusion 32.49


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


MANIPUR

Manipur 2016 Manipur 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value


Phone Subscribers


Electricity

Judiciary

IMR

HH in pucca houses

Television

Underweight


Family Planning



Rural Habitations

Drop out Rates

Insurance

Murder Crimes

Property Rights

Child labour


MEGHALAYA 21/29



Geographical Area 22,429 Income group Middle Unemployment (per 1000)

48


Basic Profile



Diarrhea 39.38Drinking water covered habit.. 0Improved water source 45.03Rural Sanitation 60Typhoid 81.06


Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh,Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Trip..










MeghalayaSocial Progress Index 53.51


Key


Score Score



Shelter 57.4






Opportunity 46.1


Inclusion 44.51


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


MEGHALAYA

Meghalaya 2016 Meghalaya 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers

Rural Habitations

Road Accidents

IMR


Drop out Rates

Obesity Male

Family Planning


Crime against women

Insurance

Murder Crimes


MIZORAM 6/29




30


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Andhra Pradesh, Meghalaya, West Bengal, Karnataka,Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Punjab, Nagaland, Rajasthan, Jammu & Ka..








Child Sex Ratio 85.15Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. 25.33Financial Inclusion - Women 54Insurance 1.2Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. 97.58Women in Panchyati Raj Inst.. 83.31


MizoramSocial Progress Index 62.89


Key


Score Score



Shelter 71.42






Opportunity 56.34


Inclusion 49.35


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


MIZORAM

Mizoram 2016 Mizoram 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value


Phone Subscribers



HH in pucca houses

Road Accidents

Land Degradation

Rural Habitations

Television


Family Planning

Property Rights



Drop out Rates

Child labour

Insurance


NAGALAND 15/29




85


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Punjab, Tripura, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, AndhraPradesh, Mizoram, Kerala, Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya








Child Sex Ratio 71.78Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. 10.37Financial Inclusion - Women 34.02Insurance 0Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. 41.99Women in Panchyati Raj Inst.. 83.31

HIV 55.33Leprosy 86.11Life expectancy at 60 41.74Obesity Female 61.72Obesity Male 68.2Respiratory infections 93.1Suicides 100

NagalandSocial Progress Index 56.76


Key


Score Score



Shelter 55.33






Opportunity 48.12


Inclusion 30.69


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


NAGALAND

Nagaland 2016 Nagaland 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value



Literacy Rate

Phone Subscribers

IMR


Insurance

Electricity

Judiciary

Violent Crimes

Underweight

Land Degradation

HH in pucca houses

Television





MMR

Family Planning

Murder Crimes


ODISHA 24/29




50


Basic Profile

Health and Wellness 69




Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Manipur, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,Uttar Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh










OdishaSocial Progress Index 51.64


Key


Score Score



Shelter 41.38






Opportunity 48.5


Inclusion 42.07


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


ODISHA

Odisha 2016 Odisha 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Indicator Value




Literacy Rate

Rural Habitations

Anaemia

HH in pucca houses

Road Accidents

Corruption

Obesity Female

Obesity Male


Insurance

Child labour


PUNJAB 8/29




60


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Nagaland, Tripura, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, AndhraPradesh, Mizoram, Kerala, Uttarakhand, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu




Internet 40.6News 5Phone 100TV 80.86






PunjabSocial Progress Index 62.18


Key

Colleges (UGC) 55.36Female Graduates 100Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. 38.41Technical Institutes 24.31

Score Score



Shelter 62.7






Opportunity 58.8


Inclusion 41.58


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


PUNJAB

Punjab 2016 Punjab 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers





Electricity

Literacy Rate

Land Degradation

Anaemia

Judiciary

HH in pucca houses

IMR

Insurance

Rural Habitations

Road Accidents

Television

Underweight


Early Marriages

MMR



Crime against women

Drop out Rates

Child labour


RAJASTHAN 25/29



Geographical Area 3,42,239 Income group Middle Unemployment (per 1000)

71


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, ArunachalPradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Manipur, ..










RajasthanSocial Progress Index 52.31


Key


Score Score



Shelter 60.94






Opportunity 54.96


Inclusion 43.99


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


RAJASTHAN

Rajasthan 2016 Rajasthan 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Indicator Value



Phone Subscribers

Anaemia

Obesity Male

Rural Habitations



Obesity Female

Family Planning


Child labour

Insurance


SIKKIM 7/29




181


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand,Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Punjab, Delhi






Human Trafficking 100Judiciary 100Property Rights 35.1



HIV 90.36Leprosy 93.61Life expectancy at 60 41.74Obesity Female 27.06Obesity Male 0Respiratory infections 50.72Suicides 100

SikkimSocial Progress Index 62.72


Key


Score Score



Shelter 72.18






Opportunity 59.14


Inclusion 54.43


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


SIKKIM

Sikkim 2016 Sikkim 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Indicator Value

Corruption

Road Accidents


Obesity Female

Obesity Male

Human Traficking


TAMILNADU 3/29




42


Basic Profile




Children under 5 years who a.. 60.33Children under 5 years with a.. 35Infant Mortality Rate 72.37Maternal Mortality Rate 90.71

Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Haryana, Maharashtra,Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Punjab, Tripura, Karnataka


Electricity 92.64Housing Shortages 97.52Power Deficit 96.27Pucca Houses 60






Child Sex Ratio 71.78Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. 24.89Financial Inclusion - Women 75.16Insurance 46.9Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. 100Women in Panchyati Raj Inst.. 24.24


Tamil NaduSocial Progress Index 65.34


Key


Score Score



Shelter 79.21






Opportunity 60.92


Inclusion 55.07


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100Nutrition&Basic…

Water&Sanitation

Shelter

PersonalSafety

Accessto…

Accessto…

Health&Wellness

Environmental…

PersonalRights

PersonalFreedom…

Inclusion

Accessto…

TAMILNADUTamilNadu2016 TamilNadu2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers

Electricity

HH in pucca houses

Rural Habitations

Television

Land Degradation

Early Marriages




Crime against women

Insurance

Murder Crimes

Property Rights


TRIPURA 23/29




197


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Karnataka, Punjab, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Mizoram,Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala









HIV 90.36Leprosy 95Life expectancy at 60 41.74Obesity Female 62.38Obesity Male 61.97Respiratory infections 85.07Suicides 91.32

TripuraSocial Progress Index 53.22


Key


Score Score



Shelter 55.89






Opportunity 43.82


Inclusion 39.94


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100

Social ProgressIndex

Basic Human Needs


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Foundations ofwellbeing

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Opportunity

TRIPURA

Tripura_2016 Tripura_2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value

Phone Subscribers



Anaemia

Rural Habitations


MMR


Insurance

Family Planning


UTTARAKHAND 4/29




70


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana,Nagaland, Punjab, Maharashtra, Tripura, Karnataka










UttarakhandSocial Progress Index 64.23


Key


Score Score



Shelter 76.21






Opportunity 58.7


Inclusion 43.09


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand 2016 Uttarakhand 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value


Phone Subscribers


Literacy Rate

Anaemia

IMR

Road Accidents

HH in pucca houses

Underweight

Electricity

Television

MMR

Insurance



Judiciary


Family Planning


Drop out Rates


UTTAR PRADESH 26/29




74


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Bihar, Assam, Manipur, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh,Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Arunachal Prad..









HIV 89.85Leprosy 80Life expectancy at 60 19.55Obesity Female 60.73Obesity Male 73.11Respiratory infections 97.08Suicides 98.74

Uttar PradeshSocial Progress Index 50.96


Key


Score Score



Shelter 37.38






Opportunity 47.53


Inclusion 46.32


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


UTTAR PRADESH

Uttar Pradesh 2016 Uttar Pradesh 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indicator Value


Phone Subscribers

Literacy Rate

Electricity

Anaemia

Judiciary


Rural Habitations

HH in pucca houses

Early Marriages

Television

Violent Crimes

Underweight




Property Rights

Drop out Rates

Child labour

Human Traficking


WEST BENGAL 22/29




49


Basic Profile





Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDPper capita: Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Mizoram, Jammu& Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh..





Forest cover 100Land Degradation 71.67Renewable energy 20Water withdrawals 60

Human Trafficking 74.16Judiciary 37.01Property Rights 16


Child Sex Ratio 78.22Family Planning 79.05Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. 11.73Financial Inclusion - Women 38.98Insurance 54.5Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. 83.77Women in Panchyati Raj Inst.. 41.57


West BengalSocial Progress Index 54.37


Key


Score Score



Shelter 51.3






Opportunity 42.62


Inclusion 43.42


Score


REPORT FINDINGS


020406080

100


Water & Sanitation

Shelter

Personal Safety

Access to Knowledge


Health & Wellness


Personal Rights


Inclusion


WEST BENGAL

West Bengal 2016 West Bengal 2005



Historic Trends

REPORT FINDINGS


LEARNINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe Social Progress Index helps in identifying and prioritizing issues by measuring both a state’s absolute performance as well as its performance relative to states at a similar level of per capita income. These absolute and relative results enable states to not only assess their own areas of strengths and weaknesses, but also to identify other states that may serve as role models.

The main learnings from the index are:

AT ANY GIVEN LEVEL OF SOCIAL PROGRESS, STATES CAN LEARN FROM THEIR PEERS AND IMPROVE THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF THEIR CITIZENS AS THE PERFORMANCE OF STATES IS NOT NECESSARILY SIMILAR ON ALL FACETS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS.

The methodology of the Social Progress Index not only provides us with an overall social progress scores but also helps us to identify areas that should be regional priorities by providing scores for every dimension and component. These scores reflect that there lies immense scope of improvement for all the

states as the performance is not similar on all aspects of social progress. Some of the states may serve as role models for other states in certain aspects of social progress but they need to learn from other states while tacking their own challenges.

1. The top-ranking states Goa, Tamil Nadu, Kerala show that high levels of social progress are possible, but achieving comparable levels of performance is not within reach for all states. Figure 18 puts this in perspective. The scores of the three top ranking states are similar on the overall index but vary significantly across the 12 components. Kerala clearly outperforms both Goa and Tamil Nadu on individual freedom over life choices while Goa sets an example for Kerala by providing better water and sanitation facilities to its citizens.

2. This holds true not only for best performers but also for low performing states. Uttar Pradesh, one of the lowest performers on social progress is also among the best performer on Water & Sanitation. Water facilities in Uttar Pradesh are among the best in the country. The state has the highest percentage

0102030405060708090

100

SocialPro

gres

sInde

x

Nut

rition&Bas

icM

edicalCar

e

Water

&San

itatio

n

Shelte

r

Person

alSafety

Acce

ssto

Kno

wledg

e

Acce

ssto

Info

rmation&

Commun

icat

ion

Hea

lth&

Wellnes

s

Enviro

nmen

talQ

uality

Person

alRight

s

Person

alFreed

om&

Cho

ice

Inclus

ion

Acce

ssto

Adv

ance

dEd

ucation

Goa Kerala TamilNadu

Figure 18 / Comparing Best Performers

REPORT FINDINGS


of households with improved drinking water facility, high rates of fully covered rural water habitations, and low prevalence of typhoid and diarrhoea that drive these results. On the other hand, it faces serious challenges in providing access to basic medical care to its children and also in securing personal rights of its citizens.

It thus becomes important for states to identify the issues and prioritize their development agendas accordingly. The data show areas for prioritization and improvement for all states. By tracking social progress over time, change-makers can hold themselves accountable to achieve meaningful goals and improve quality of life for the widest possible set of individuals.

THE GREATEST IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN IN AREAS WHERE SOCIAL PROGRESS MOST OFTEN ACCOMPANIES ECONOMIC PROSPERITY, WHEREAS THE AREAS WHERE PERFORMANCE HAS DECLINED OR STAGNATED ARE THOSE WHERE THIS CORRELATION IS WEAKEST.

The overall level of social progress has improved but the advancements differ significantly across

components. While the country has experienced great improvements in form of access to information & communication and inclusion; environmental quality and health & wellness have eroded.

It is observed that the advancements are mainly in areas that are highly correlated with economic development. Figure 19 demonstrates this fact. It plots the relationship between change in scores over the eleven-year period and the correlation of scores with per capita GDP. The relationship is positive and significant at the five percent level. The areas like Access to Information & Communication, Inclusion that have a strong relationship with per capita GDP are the ones that have improved the most and the aspects of social progress that have very little or negative relationship with economic development are the ones eroding.

However, there are certain outliers like Personal Freedom & Choice to this trend. It includes indicators like early marriages, family planning, etc. Government has focussed directly on eradicating child marriages through various programs and policies. This includes National Plan of Action for children 2005 that

0102030405060708090100

SocialProgressIndex

Nutrition&Basic

MedicalCare

Water&

Sanitatio

n

Shelter

Person

alSafety

AccesstoKn

owledge

AccesstoInform

ation

&Com

mun

ication

Health

&W

ellness

Environm

entalQuality

Person

alRights

Person

alFreedom

&

Choice Inclusion

AccesstoAd

vanced

Education

Uttar Pradesh

Figure 19 / Uttar Pradesh’s Performance

REPORT FINDINGS


focussed on eradicating child marriages, National Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health Strategy that advocated for delaying the age of marriage, various commissions that chalked out plans for addressing social behaviour that perpetrates child marriages. Apart from these various indirect schemes,

like providing financial and economic incentives for girls are also put in place. Other aspects that restrict personal freedom like corruption are also targeted.

This direct focus on addressing the issue has led to substantial improvements in scores.

Nutrition&BasicMedicalCare

Water&Sanitation

Shelter

PersonalSafety

AccesstoKnowledge

AccesstoInformation&Communication

Health&Wellness


PersonalRights

PersonalFreedom&Choice

Inclusion

AccesstoAdvancedEducationy=19.193x+3.2094

R²=0.4797

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

-0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800

ChangeinScores

Correlation

010

203040506070

8090

SocialP

rogr

essIn

dex

BasicHu

man

Nee

ds

Nut

ritio

n&B

asicM

edicalC

are

Wat

er&

San

itatio

n

Shelte

r

Pers

onal

Saf

ety

Foun

datio

nso

fwel

lbeing

Acce

ssto

Kno

wledg

e

Acce

ssto

Info

rmat

ion

&Co

mm

unicat

ion

Hea

lth&

Wel

lnes

s

Enviro

nmen

talQ

ualit

y

Opp

ortu

nity

Pers

onal

Right

s

Pers

onal

Fre

edom

&C

hoice

Inclus

ion

Acce

ssto

Adv

ance

dEd

ucat

ion

Figure 20 / Relationship between change in scores and the correlation of scores with per capita GDP

Figure 21 / Country Level Analysis

REPORT FINDINGS


This suggests that states should now focus on policies directly targeting social issues.

STATE AND COUNTRY SPECIFIC ISSUES

The components can be classified in two broad categories – State-Specific Issues and Country-Specific Issues. There are certain components on which all the states demonstrate low performance, which are grouped under Country-Specific Issues as the national as well as state governments have to work out a plan of action for improving performance. On the other hand, there are certain components on which variation is registered across states, which are grouped under State-Specific Issues as only the relevant state governments have to chalk out a plan of action to drive improvements.

Country-Specific Issues: Environmental Quality, Inclusion, Access to Information & Communication and Access to Advanced Education. The figure below helps in identifying the national issues.

State-Specific Issues: Water & Sanitation, Shelter, Health & Wellness, Personal Rights, Personal Freedom & Choice, Access to Basic Knowledge, Personal Safety, Nutrition & Basic Medical Care. Nutrition and

Basic Medical Care scores are mainly low in low – income states where the prevalence of underweight and anaemia among children is very high. On the other hand, Heath & Wellness is a major cause of concern among the “Very High and High Income” groups due to growing obesity.

STATES AT A RELATIVELY LOW LEVEL OF SOCIAL PROGRESS CAN IMPROVE MORE RAPIDLY SINCE THEY BOTH HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT AND CAN ALSO DRAW ON LESSONS AND APPROACHES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED ELSEWHERE.

All the states have improved on Social Progress since 2005 but the group of states that have experienced the highest improvements belong to “Very Low Social Progress” tier in 2005. These states include Tripura, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Jharkhand and Bihar. The average improvement in social progress in these states is by 9.6 point.

This reflects upon the fact that as states keep on moving up on social progress it becomes more and more difficult to improve further. On the other hand, states that are at lower levels of social progress improve rapidly by learning from their peers.

Social Progress Tier Average ImprovementVery High Social Progress 7.56

High Social Progress 8.60

Middle Social Progress 8.69

Low Social Progress 9.69

Table 4 / Average Improvement

REPORT FINDINGS


CONCLUSIONThe Social Progress Index, based exclusively on indicators of social and environmental outcomes, offers a revealing picture of states’ levels of development that is independent of traditional economic measures. States achieve very different overall levels of social progress and widely varying patterns of social progress by dimensions and components. A state’s level of social progress is the result of cumulative incremental choices its governments, communities, citizens, and businesses make about how to invest limited resources and how to integrate and work with each other. In general terms, the Index reveals that high-income states tend to achieve higher social progress than low-income states. Yet this relationship is neither simple nor linear.

States at all levels of development can use this data to assess their performance and set priorities for improvement. Most states will be able to identify areas of relative strength, which represent social

progress foundations upon which they can build. However, every state exhibits areas for improvement and the Social Progress Index allows a strategic approach to social development that identifies areas for prioritization and investment.

While the index provides invaluable new insights into the performance of India’s society, intrinsically, it cannot be considered the be-all end-all. The Index should be approached as a discussion starter, one that is essential to address India’s most pressing challenges, one that is not perfect, and will benefit from constructive feedback from scholars and policymakers alike. The Institute for Competitiveness, India invites all interested parties to use the Social Progress Index, States of India data and results to conduct research and exploration, and to build a new repository of expertise and knowledge which will help to advance social progress in India and elsewhere.

REPORT FINDINGS


REFERENCESWorld Bank (2015). Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/

Costanza, R., Hart, M., Posner, S., & Talberth, J. (2009). Beyond GDP: The Need for New Measures of Progress. THE PARDEE PAPERS.

ICI (2017). Discussion Paper: Social Progress Index: States of India.

Kapoor, A., & Yadav, C. (2016). Business Standard. Retrieved from http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/jayalalithaa-presented-india-alternate-model-of-development-column-active-voice-116121300201_1.html

Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (n.d.). MCA. Retrieved from http://www.mca.gov.in/SearchableActs/Section135.htm

Mor, N., Dhar, D., & Venkateswaran, S. (2017). Healthcare in India: A Fork in the Road. In R. Mohan, India Transformed. Penguin Random House India.

Open Government Data Platform India (2017a) Gujarat NSDP. Retrieved from: https://data.gov.in/

Open Government Data Platform India (2017b) Kerala NSDP. Retrieved from: https://data.gov.in/

Porter, M. E., Stern, S., & Green, M. (2017). Social Progress Index 2017. Social Progress Imperative.

SyamRoy, B. (2016). India's Journey Towards Sustainable Population. Springer International Publishing.

Social Progress Imperative (2017). Social Progress Showcased at the Center of Global Goals Week. Retrieved from: http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/global-goals-week-2017/

REPORT FINDINGS


CONTRIBUTORS

Bibek DebroyChairman, Economic Advisory Council – Prime MinisterMember, NITI Aayog

Scott SternMassachusetts Institute of Technology

David CruickshankGlobal Chairman, Deloitte

Nitya Mohan KhemkaLecturer, Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge

Michael GreenCEO, Social Progress Imperative

CO-AUTHORS

AUTHOR

Manisha KapoorSenior Researcher, Institute for Competitiveness

Petra KrylovaSenior Analyst, Social Prog-ress Imperative

Amit KapoorHonorary Chairman, Institute for Competitiveness

REPORT FINDINGS


REPORT FINDINGS


Documents

REPORT FINDINGS - Social Progress