Human development & social inclusion

UNDP HDR 2011?s (released on November 2) rank for India across countries remains the same in 2011 and 2010 (i.e., 134) if the same 187 countries were ranked in both years (although it appears India?s rank has slipped from 119 in 2010 to 134 in 2011, but that is only because of the addition of 18 new tiny countries in the global rankings).

However, in fact, India?s comparative international performance suggests that, among the BRIC nations, India?s improvement in the last decade (2000-2011) has been better than Brazil, China and Russia, marking a 19% growth in HDI. That is, India is

not just growing faster but also moving faster in terms of human development compared to other emerging market economies.

Unlike the global report, IHDR 2011 estimates HDI?s income index using monthly per capita consumption expenditure as a proxy for income because of a lack of state-wise data on income per capita. This is the main reason for the IHDR 2011 estimate of HDI being different from that of the global report.

The use of consumption expenditure, which is only a proportion of income, lowers the absolute value of the income index. Also, consumption expenditure, as estimated from the NSS, is an underestimate of the actual private consumption expenditure estimated by National Accounts Statistics. Accordingly, if the income index is computed using the net domestic product per capita, then the increase in HDI according to IHDR 2011 is over 30% and not 21% over the eight-year period.

States like Kerala, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Goa and Punjab continue to do well. These are states that perform better on health and education outcomes and this gets reflected in their economic growth as a result of a feedback loop process. IHDR 2011 argues that there are synergies in the form of feedback loops, operating in terms of both inputs and outputs in the development process. Key human development outcomes are

also key inputs that feed back into the income growth and human development process. Kerala and Himachal Pradesh are examples of the operation of the feedback loops.

However, at the other end of the spectrum are states like Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, which have shown tremendous improvement in HDI and its component indices, over time. This pace of improvement has led to a convergence across states, despite low absolute levels in human development outcomes, still.

Interestingly, even for these relatively poorer states, it is the improvements in the education index (literacy rate and mean years of schooling) that pull up their performances in the HDI. This is particularly true in the case of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand. High improvements in the income index in states like Orissa, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand are also worth a mention. No doubt that these relatively backward states are now catching up.

India has a unique demographic profile with large social inequalities. The interesting finding of IHDR 2011 is that the historically excluded social and religious groups in the country are now converging with the national average across various human development indicators.

IHDR 2011 shows that the historically marginalised sections of society are largely concentrated in precisely those states that appear at the bottom end in HDI rankings. Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh?together account for 47% of all scheduled castes, 52% of all scheduled tribes and 43% of Muslims in the country.

IHDR 2011 assesses whether the poorer states perform poorly in human development because of a high concentration of these marginalised groups; or is it the lack of resources and services infrastructure in these states that constrain their development?

It is heartening to note that these very states have been growing faster over time, thus reducing inter-state variations in HDI over time. Also, the good news is that even the SCs, STs, OBCs and Muslims are sharing a part of this improvement. But the low absolute values of various HD indicators of these groups are also noticeable. The pace of convergence across states and across social groups can be increased if the low absolute values for these sections of society are addressed.

Social policy not only impacts social outcomes for all groups. The result of some of the social mobilisations and good governance practices may be seen in case of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh. This results in good performance of the state for all its social and religious groups. For instance, SCs and OBCs in Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala are better off even than the upper castes in

Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh in terms of various health outcome indicators. Similarly, SCs in Delhi and Kerala have higher literacy rates than the upper castes in Bihar and Rajasthan.

Thus, we are indeed moving towards social inclusion, but the pace of this movement is clearly in the hands of the policymakers?both at the Centre and the states.

* Institute of Applied Manpower Research, India Human Development Report 2011?Towards

Social Inclusion, Oxford

University Press

Santosh Mehrotra is director-

general, and Ankita Gandhi is

research officer, Institute of

Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission