Extent of Social Change in Family Quality of Life Index: Empirical Evidence from Selected States of India

Abstract

The present study finds family quality of life index (FQLI) for 14 states of India. The study used 55 family health indicators collected from National Family Health Survey (NFHS) for the period 2005–2006 and 2015–2016. The Wroclaw taxonomic technique is used to find the FQLI. Small improvement has been observed in FQLI (2015–2016) in comparison with FQLI (2005–2006). Out of the 14 states, Goa is ranked first and Bihar is ranked last in the FQLI for the period 2005–2006 and 2015–2016. The study confirmed the existence of interstate disparities in FQLI.

Keywords

Quality of life health indicators social sector programmes social change disparity India

Introduction

Social development is a multidimensional process that involves social and economic welfare of individuals (Estes, 1996; Jones, 1981; Kumar, 2017; Meinert & Kohn, 1987; Ohlan, 2013; Ray, 1989, 2008a, 2008b). It also involves major changes in social structures, reduction of inequality and eradication of absolute poverty. Development means shifting of society towards socio-economic development and spiritual satisfaction (Todaro, 1997). It is the promotion of a sustainable society that is worthy of human dignity by empowering marginalised groups to acquire their rightful place in the society (Bilance, 1997). Midgley (1995) defined social development as ‘a process of planned social change designed to promote the well-being of the population as a whole in combination with dynamic process of economic development’. Social development especially targets disparities among the human being, minimise them and maximise human welfare (Awan, Aslam, & Waqas, 2012). It aims to promote productive and healthy life for all the society and nature. The true purpose of development is to improve people’s lives (Ul Haq, 1995). Dubey (2000) pointed out that success of development strategy depends upon the fulfilment of minimum social conditions. He argued that India’s tragedy is the violation of the social contract embodied in the constitution. Economic growth in India widened the inequalities between those who have benefited from the uneven development process and those who have been left behind and marginalised by this process.

Development means creating economic opportunities through sustainable growth and making the opportunities available to all including the poor (World Bank, 2006a, 2006b). Development is all about freedoms to realise the full potential of every human life (HDR, 2016). Economic growth has to be sustained and transformed into meaningful development. The role of the state must be redefined to improve the living situations of the people. Strategic intervention is enviable to attain broader long-standing ideas of development (Nayyar, 2017). Mere growth in the production of goods and services and continuous increase in per capita income may not necessarily lead to an improvement in human development of a nation. In India, the focus of development planning has been changed from the economic growth to socio-economic inclusive growth (Twelfth Five-Year Plan, 2012–2017). Economic growth has to be accompanied by an improvement in the choices and quality of people life see, e.g., Dasgupta, 1993; Ghosh, 2008, 2013, 2016; Sen, 1985; UNDP, 1990). During the period 1980–2005, India failed to convert economic growth into well-being for its people, and its ongoing journey in development cannot be completed as long as poverty, scarcity and exclusion persist (Nayyar, 2006). In true sense, quality of life in any country can be accessed with the help of human development indicators such as education, health, sex ratio, etc.

Nowadays in India, the government is focusing more on core components of social development through its social sector schemes such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Janani Suraksha Yojana, etc. The planners in India have recognised the need to make growth ‘more inclusive’ so that the benefits of growth can reach to all people of the society (Twelfth Five-Year Plan, 2012–2017). Inclusive growth is the most efficient way to pull people out of the poverty. Inclusive growth allows people to benefit from economic growth (Chakrabarty, 2010). Notably, Indian economy witnessed a robust growth averaging around 8.1 per cent during 2005–2010 and at the same time observed worsening of income inequality as the Gini coefficient increased from 0.334 to 0.339 during the same period (Ghosh, 2013). The family quality of life in a region is mainly determined by the accessibility of safe drinking water, drainage facility for waste water, sanitation, availability of the fuel used for cooking purposes and availability of a separate kitchen (Das & Mistri, 2013). Unfortunately, a large section of India’s population is still deprived of these facilities. Ghosh (2016) studied the performance of Indian states over the period of 1971–2011 and found that average value of Quality of Growth Index (QGI) is higher in the post-reform period, suggesting that there has been an overall improvement in the quality of growth over time. But, even though the BIMARU states have raised their QGI, they have still lagged behind their peers due to lack of inclusion and industrialisation.

Importance of the social development is highlighted by the scholars (Kumar, 2017; Ohlan, 2013; Ray, 1989, 2008). Also, various studies showed that wide disparities exist in the level of socio-economic development in India (Cashin & Sahay, 1996; Das, Ghate, & Robertson, 2015; Ghate, 2008; Ghate & Wright, 2012; Kumari, 2014, 2016; Ohlan, 2013; Trivedi, 2003). Furthermore, wide disparities in health and education have been observed by many studies (Kumar, Kumar, & Rani, 2016; Murthy, 2011; Randive, San Sebastian, De Costa, & Lindholm, 2014; Ray, 2014). At present, India is performing on economic indicators like GDP growth rate but lacking in many social parameters such as low Human Development Index (HDI) value, low Social Progress Index (SPI) value, etc. as the gains of rapid growth have not reached all parts of the country in an equitable manner (Kumar, 2017).

Vital Social Statistics of India

Kerala had been the best performing state in human development. Wide variations have been observed in HDI values across India (Ghosh, 2013; IHDR, 2011). In India, overall literacy is 74.04 per cent in which male literacy is 82.14 per cent, whereas female literacy is 65.46 per cent (Census of India, 2011). This means that more than one-fourth of the country’s population is still illiterate. Kerala is the only state to have 100 per cent literacy. It is followed by Goa, Tripura, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra and Sikkim (Census of India, 2011). The lowest literacy rate is seen in the state of Bihar. In India, sex ratio has improved from 933 in 2001 to 943 in 2011 (Census of India, 2011). Though the sex ratio has gone through commendable signs of improvement in the past 10 years, there are still some states like Haryana having very low sex ratio. Haryana recorded the lowest sex ratio of 877 across India (Census of India, 2011). Sex ratio of the southern states is high when compared to northern states such as for Kerala, it is 1,084 and for Puducherry, it is 1,037 (Census of India, 2011). However, India has improved in many socio-economic indicators such as GDP per capita, literacy rate, sex ratio, HDI value, etc. but still needs to focus more on social development (Kumar, 2017).

Table 1.

Literacy Report Card of India

Census Year	Total Literacy	Male Literacy	Female Literacy	Gender Gap in Literacy
1991	52.21	64.13	39.29	24.84
2001	64.84	75.26	53.67	21.59
2011	74.04	82.14	65.46	16.68

Source: Census Reports, Government of India.

Table 2.

Health Statistics of India

Year	Crude Birth Rate (per 1,000 population)	Crude Death Rate (per 1,000 population)	Total Fertility Rate	Maternal Mortality Ratio (per 100,000 live births)		Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births)	Child Mortality Rate (0–4 years) (per 1,000 children)	Couple Protection Rate (%)	Male Life Expectancy at Birth (in years)	Female Life Expectancy at Birth (in years)
1991	29.5	9.8	3.6	398 SRS (1997–1998)		80	26.5	44.1	60.6	61.7 (1991–1996)
2001	25.4	8.4	3.1	301 (2001–2003)	66		19.3	45.6	61.8	63.5 (1999–2003)
Current Level	22.5 (2009)	7.3 (2009)	2.6 (2009)	212 SRS (2007–2009)	44 (2011)		14.1 (2009)	40.4 (2011)	64.6 (2006–2010)	67.7 (2006–2010)

Source: 1. Office of Registrar General of India.

2. Division of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

3. Sample Registration Survey (SRS) Based Abridged Life Tables (2003–2007 to 2006–2010).

Table 3.

Other Social Indicators in India

Year	Sex Ratio (female per 1,000male)	Child Sex Ratio (CSR) (female child per 1,000 male child)	HASDW (%)	Family Using Family Planning Method (%)	Births Assisted by a Doctor/Nurse/Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM)/ Other Health Personnel (%)	Children 12–23 months Fully Immunised (BCG, measles and 3 doses each of polio/DPT) (%)	Children Under 3 years Who Are Underweight (%)	Poverty Ratio (%) Based on Tendulkar Methodology	Gini Coeff- icients
1991	927	945	62.3	40.7 (NFHS-1)	33 (NFHS-1)	35.5(NFHS-1)	51.5(NFHS-1)	45.3(1993–1994)	30.1 (1993–1994)
2001	933	927	77.9	48.2 (NFHS-2)	42.4 (NFHS-2)	42(NFHS-2)	42.7(NFHS-2)	37.2(2004–2005)	34.6 (2004–2005)
2011	943 (2011)	919 (2011)	85.5 (2011)	56.3 (NFHS-3)	46.6 (NFHS-3)	43.5(NFHS-3)	40.4(NFHS-3)	21.9(2011–2012)	36.2(2009–2010)
NFHS-4 (2015–2016)	991	919		53.5	81.4	62	35.8*	n.a.	n.a.

Source: 1. Planning Commission, Government of India.

Note: *Represents children under 5 years, n.a. represents non-availability of data, HASDW represents number of household with safe drinking water.

2. Consumption Expenditure Survey, NSSO, India.

3. National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-3 and NFHS-4, India.

Table 1 depicts that literacy has significantly improved from 52.21 per cent to 74.04 per cent from 1991 to 2011. Male and female literacy has also made a considerable improvement over the period from 1991 to 2011. There is also a noteworthy improvement in gender gap (approximately 8%) in literacy during 1991–2011. This implies an optimistic and momentous change in education over the period of time. In addition, the health indicators have also shown significant improvements over the period of time in India. Table 2 encapsulates the health statistics of India.

Table 2 illustrates that crude birth rate (CBR) has significantly come down from 29.5 (1991) to 22.5 (2009) indicating a good sign for population control. Crude death rate (CDR) has declined from 9.8 (1991) to 7.3 (2009). Maternal and infant mortality rates have also declined over the period of time. Male and female life expectancy has also increased during the period from 1991 to 2006–2010. General conclusion may be drawn from Table 2 that India has performed in a better way over the period of time in most of the health indicators.

Table 3 shows that sex ratio has improved from 927 in 1991 to 991 in 2015–2016. But child sex ratio has declined from 945 in 1991 to 919 in 2015–2016, posing serious concern for India. Number of household with safe drinking water (HASDW) has increased from 62.3 per cent households in 1991 to 85.5 per cent households in 2011. A significant increase (National Family Health Survey [NFHS]-1 to NFHS-3) can be seen in percentage of family using family planning method in India. But, there is a decline in percentage of family using family planning method from NFHS-3 to NFHS-4 which is in fact not good for controlling the population growth rate. Table 3 also reports that 81.4 per cent births are assisted by doctors/nurse/ANM or other health personnel in 2015–2016 when compared to 33 per cent in 1991. There is also a positive immunisation trends for children (12–23 months). Moreover, Table 3 reveals that poverty ratio has decreased from 45.3 in 1993–1994 to 21.9 in 2011–2012, implying that poverty has reduced in India after economic reforms in absolute terms. Furthermore, the Gini coefficient has increased from 30.1 in 1993–1994 to 36.2 in 2009–2010 which means that income inequality has increased in India after economic reforms (Table 3). It is clear from the above discussion that India has improved in many social indicators, but more needs to be done in other indicators such as child health, health awareness, reduction of income inequality, etc. Besides these, health sector reforms will have to be based on accumulated experience, and there is need to redefine the responsibility of the states towards the general public (Qadeer, 2000). In India, sound and comprehensive education policies for primary, secondary and higher education are required for overall development of the society (Tilak, 2007).

Globally, India achieved an HDI of 0.609 (130th rank) out of 188 countries in 2015, whereas China’s rank is at 40th position out of 188 countries (HDR, 2015). India (index score 53.06) is ranked at 101st position out of 133 countries in social progress and placed under low social progress countries. Other developing countries such as China (index score 59.07) ranked 92nd, Sri Lanka (index score 60.10) ranked 88th and Brazil (index score 70.89) ranked 42nd and performed in a better way when compared to India (Social Progress Imperative, 2015). In Gender Inequality Index (2015), India is ranked 130th, while China’s rank is at 40th position out of 188 countries. As per Global Hunger Report (2016), India has improved its index value from 38.2 (2000) to 28.5 (2016). Though India has improved its value, it is still in serious zone and ranked at 97th position out of 118 countries. Even Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are in better position and ranked at 90th and 84th place (GHR, 2016). The main reasons behind the poor performance of India are endemic poverty, unemployment, lack of sanitation, lack of safe drinking water and lack of effective healthcare (GHR, 2016).

It is apparent from the above discussion that India is facing a tough time in some of the social indicators as explained above. This implies that an incident of high economic growth in the recent past in India does not necessarily ensure desirable social outcomes. To overcome these problems, the Government of India has started many social sector programmes such as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM)/Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY), National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Mid-Day Meal (MDM) Scheme, ‘Swachh Bharat Abhiyan’. But more needs to be done by the government as the current social situation in India is not welcoming (Kumar, 2017).

Rationale and Objectives of the Study

Measurement of social progress of the society is important to know the root cause of the progress or backwardness in the society. So far, the quality of family life is not measured in true sense in India as most of the studies focused on disparities in socio-economic development in India (Kumar, 2017; Ohlan, 2013). It is important to quantify the quality of life so that proper programmes could be initiated by the government. Keeping in view the above facts, the present study is an attempt to measure the social progress through quality of family life in selected states of India. The present study is unique in the field of social development as it includes 55 family health indicators from NFHS-3 (2005–2006) and NFHS-4 (2015–2016) of India. This study incorporates broader aspect of family health of the society considering indicators related to education, health, social awareness, basic facilities, women empowerment, etc. in India. The present study ranks the states on the basis of selected social indicators and tries to find the social change in selected states of India. The finding of the study could be used by the governments for formulation and implementation of social sector programmes.

Methodology

Choices of the Indicators Representing the Quality of Family Life

Quality of life can be quantified on the basis of social indicators if chosen carefully. Social indicators are simple indexes of social conditions and changes therein over time for various segments of a population. Social conditions are meant both the external and the internal frameworks of human existence in a given society (Land, 1975). Social conditions vary widely from region to region and from time to time. Therefore, choice of the social indicators representing quality of life is critical task, and it is suggested that indicators should be chosen by considering all ethical, economic and social norms of the society. The economic measures of quality of life reflect a somewhat narrow focus and do not cover whole aspects of quality of life such as levels of crime, the subjective well-being of citizens and human rights (Diener, 1995). In order to measure the quality of life of nation, other indexes such as HDI, physical quality of life index (PQLI), SPI, etc. could be used. But different measures lead to different conclusions about the quality of life of a nation. Each measure has different indicators, and there is no method for deciding on the correct set of indicators. People can disagree about what indicators to include, and there is no procedure for resolving such disagreements (Diener, 1995). Other scholars (e.g. Chakravarty, 1976; Kumari, 2016; Ohlan, 2013; Rao, 1975; Ray, 1989, 2008) used different set of indicators for measuring the social development. As Rao (1975) suggested 64 social indicators for measuring socio-economic development in India, Chakravarty (1976) has suggested relevant indicators of social development such as education, employment, health and nutrition, distribution of income, housing, consumption, etc. Ray (1989, 2008) suggested 13, 5 and 10 social indicators for measuring the social development. Ohlan (2013) suggested 43 social development indicators for measuring the socio-economic development in India. Social Progress Index (2014) measured social progress directly, independent of economic development. The index considered 54 indicators of social and environmental outcomes for measuring social progress of a country. Past studies suggested that the selection of indicators depends on the availability of the data and demography of the country. Measurement of quality of family life is important for formulation of development plans in a country. Keeping in view the above discussion, the present study used 55 social indicators representing family quality of life for finding the family quality of life index (FQLI) for selected states (on the basis of availability of data) of India. All the indicators are taken from NFHS-3 and NFHS-4, India. List of FQLI indicators is as follows:

X1: Population (female) age 6 years and above who ever attended school (%)

X2: Sex ratio of the total population (females per 1,000 males)

X3: Sex ratio at birth for children born in the last 5 years (females per 1,000 males)

X4: Children under age 5 years whose birth was registered (%)

X5: Households with electricity (%)

X6: Households with an improved drinking water source (%)

X7: Households using improved sanitation facility (%)

X8: Households using clean fuel for cooking (%)

X9: Households using iodised salt (%)

X10: Households with any usual member covered by a health scheme or health insurance (%)

X11: Women who are literate (%)

X12: Men who are literate (%)

X13: Women age 20–24 years married before age 18 years (%)

X14: Men age 25–29 years married before age 21 years (%)

X15: Total fertility rate (children per woman)

X16: Infant mortality rate (IMR)

X17: Under-five mortality rate (U5MR)

X18: Any modern method of family planning (%)

X19: Women using pill for family planning (%)

X20: Women using condom for family planning (%)

X21: Mothers who had antenatal check-up in the first trimester (%)

X22: Mothers who had at least four antenatal care visits (%)

X23: Mothers whose last birth was protected against neonatal tetanus (%)

X24: Mothers who consumed iron folic acid for 100 days or more when they were pregnant (%)

X25: Mothers who had full antenatal care (%)

X26: Mothers who received financial assistance under Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) for births delivered in an institution (%)

X27: Children born at home who were taken to a health facility for check-up within 24 hours of birth (%)

X28: Institutional births (%)

X29: Institutional births in public facility (%)

X30: Home delivery conducted by skilled health personnel (out of total deliveries) (%)

X31: Births assisted by doctor/nurse/Lady Health Visitor (LHV)/ANM/other health personnel (%)

X32: Children age 12–23 months fully immunised (BCG, measles and three doses each of polio and DPT) (%)

X33: Children under age 6 months exclusively breastfed (%)

X34: Children under 5 years who are stunted (height-for-age) (%)

X35: Children under 5 years who are wasted (weight-for-height) (%)

X36: Children under 5 years who are severely wasted (weight-for-height) (%)

X37: Children under 5 years who are underweight (weight-for-age) (%)

X38: Women whose body mass index (BMI) is below normal (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) 14 (%)

X39: Men whose BMI is below normal (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) (%)

X40: Women who are overweight or obese (BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m²)14 (%)

X41: Men who are overweight or obese (BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m²) (%)

X42: Children age 6–59 months who are anaemic (<11.0 g/dl) (%)

X43: All women age 15–49 years who are anaemic (%)

X44: Men age 15–49 years who are anaemic (<13.0 g/dl) (%)

X45: Women who have comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS (%)

X46: Men who have comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS (%)

X47: Women who know that consistent condom use can reduce the chances of getting HIV/AIDS (%)

X48: Men who know that consistent condom use can reduce the chances of getting HIV/AIDS (%)

X49: Currently married women who usually participate in household decisions (%)

X50: Ever-married women who have ever experienced spousal violence (%)

X51: Women having a bank or savings account that they themselves use (%)

X52: Women who use any kind of tobacco (%)

X53: Men who use any kind of tobacco (%)

X54: Women who consume alcohol (%)

X55: Men who consume alcohol (%)

Method for Family Quality of Life Index

Several methods, such as principal component analysis, aggregation method, multiple factor analysis, ratio index, monetary index and ranking method, are available for construction of composite index. Though these methods are important for construction of composite index, most of these methods are having their own limitations. The present study used the Wroclaw taxonomic technique for construction of FQLI because each indicator in the present study is equally important to quantify the quality of life. This method (Florek et al., 1952) is an important technique to determine the pattern of development and considered very useful in development planning. Gostowski (1970) found this method more valid as it takes into account dispersion among indicators. According to this method:

Let [X_ij] is the data matrix, where ith represents state, and jth represents indicator,

where i = 1, 2, 3,……, n (no. of states) and

j = 1, 2, 3,…….., k (no. of indicators)

[Z_ij] is the matrix of standardised indicators and is given as:

Z_{i j} = \frac{X_{i j} - {\overset{}{X}}_{j}}{σ_{j}}

{\overset{}{X}}_{j} = \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{N} X_{i j}}{N}

SD = σ_{j} = {(\sum_{i = 1}^{N} {(X_{i j} - {\overset{}{X}}_{j})}^{2})}^{\frac{1}{2}}

P_{i j} = {(Z_{i j} - Z_{0 j})}^{2}

where Z_0j is the optimal value of each indicator from [Z_ij].

The optimal value will be either the maximum value or minimum value of the indicator, depending on the direction of the impact of an indicator on the level of development.

Composite index (D_i) is given as:

D_{i} = \frac{C_{i}}{c}

C_{i} = {[\sum_{j = 1}^{K} \frac{P_{i}}{{CV}_{j}}]}^{\frac{1}{2}}

where C_i is the development pattern

CV_j is the coefficient of variation of the jth indicator in X_ij

where $c = \overset{}{C} + 3 σ C_{i}$

\bar{C} = \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{n} C_{i}}{n}

σ C_{i} = {(\sum_{i = 1}^{n} {(C_{i} - \overset{}{C})}^{2})}^{\frac{1}{2}}

where 0 < D_i < 1

The state having value of D_i nearer to 0 is the most developed state.

Different Stages of Development

The different stages of development are defined as follows:

Low developed (stage I) = composite index ³ (mean + SD)

Low middle level developed (stage II) = mean < composite index < (mean + SD)

High middle level (stage III) = mean - SD < composite index < (mean)

Highly developed (stage IV) = composite index £ (mean - SD)

Results and Discussion

Goa (0.379) is ranked first followed by Tripura (0.481) (Table 4). Goa and Manipur are in Stage IV of development. Manipur followed by Sikkim, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Uttarakhand are placed in Stage III of development. Tamil Nadu followed by Karnataka, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Haryana and Meghalaya are placed in Stage II of development. Bihar is ranked last with index value 0.896. Bihar and Madhya Pradesh are placed in Stage I of development. Table 4 illustrates wide disparities in FQLI for different states. Goa and Bihar FQLI difference is 0.517 confirmed the existence of large interstate disparities.

Table 4.

FQLI based on NFHS-4 for Selected States in India

States	FQLI (D)	Rank	Social Development Stage
Goa	0.379	1	IV
Tripura	0.481	2	IV
Manipur	0.509	3	III
Sikkim	0.541	4	III
Maharashtra	0.544	5	III
West Bengal	0.555	6	III
Uttarakhand	0.569	7	III
Tamil Nadu	0.626	8	II
Karnataka	0.632	9	II
Assam	0.632	10	II
Andhra Pradesh	0.649	11	II
Telangana	0.716	12	II
Haryana	0.724	13	II
Meghalaya	0.733	14	II
Madhya Pradesh	0.759	15	I
Bihar	0.896	16	I

Source: The authors.

Critical Analysis of Family Quality Indicators of Goa and Bihar

Goa is on the top and Bihar is on the bottom in FQLI (NFHS-4). Now, the question arises that why there is huge difference in FQLI (NFHS-4) in these states. Fundamental answer is that Bihar is lacking in many social indicators when compared to Goa as depicted in Table 5.

Table 5.

Performance of Goa and Bihar in Selected Family Quality Indicators

Family Quality Indicator	Goa	Bihar
Household with electricity (%)	99.8	58.6
House using improved sanitation facility	78.3	25.2
Households using clean fuel for cooking (%)	84.1	17.8
Women literacy (%)	89	49.6
Men literacy (%)	94.7	77.8
Women age 20–24 years married before age 18 years (%)	9.8	39.1
Men age 25–29 years married before age 21 years (%)	10.6	40
Infant mortality rate (IMR)	13	48
Under-five mortality rate (U5MR)	13	58
Mothers who had at least four antenatal care visits (%)	89	14.4
Mothers who consumed iron folic acid for 100 days or more when they were pregnant (%)	67.4	9.7
Mothers who had full antenatal care (%)	63.4	3.3
Births assisted by doctor/nurse/LHV/ANM/other health personnel (%)	97.5	70
Children age 12–23 months fully immunised (BCG, measles and three doses each of polio and DPT) (%)	88.4	61.7
Children under 5 years who are stunted (height-for-age) (%)	20.1	48.3
Children under 5 years who are underweight (weight-for-age) (%)	23.8	43.9
Women whose body mass index (BMI) is below normal (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) (%)	14.7	30.4
Men whose BMI is below normal (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) (%)	10.8	25.4
All women age 15–49 years who are anaemic (%)	31.3	60.3
Currently married women who usually participate in household decisions (%)	93.8	75.2
Ever-married women who have ever experienced spousal violence (%)	12.9	43.2

Source: National Family Health Survey-4, India.

As per NFHS-4, 99.8 per cent of households are accessible with electricity in Goa, whereas in Bihar it is only 58.6 per cent. In Goa, 78.3 per cent of households are using improved sanitation facility, but in Bihar it is recorded only 25.2 per cent. Only 17.8 per cent of households are using clean fuel for cooking in Bihar, while in Goa it is about 84.1 per cent. In addition, men and women literacy in Goa is 94.7 per cent and 89 per cent, whereas in Bihar it is 77.8 per cent and 49.6 per cent, respectively. In Goa, about 9.8 per cent of women (age 20–24 years) are married before age 18 years, while in Bihar, 39.1 per cent of women (age 20–24 years) are married before age 18 years. About 40 per cent of men (age 25–29 years) are married before age 21 years in Bihar. Moreover, in health indicators, infant mortality rate and under-five mortality rate are very high in Bihar when compared to Goa. Furthermore, only 3.3 per cent of mothers had full antenatal care in Bihar, whereas in case of Goa it is about 63.4 per cent. Child health parameters are also very poor in Bihar as about 48.3 per cent of children (under 5 years) are stunted. Approximately, 43.9 per cent of children (under 5 years) are underweight and around 60 per cent of women (age 15–49 year) are anaemic in Bihar. Bihar is on the bottom side in FQLI (Table 4), and this is because of the poor performance of the state in most of the social indicators as exposed in Table 5. Thus, states like Bihar need special attention by the policymakers to achieve overall social development in the country.

Comparative Analysis of FQLI (NFHS-3) and FQLI (NFHS-4) for Selected States in India

To compare the FQLI (NFHS-3) and FQLI (NFHS-4) for selected states of India, the study also computes the FQLI for NFHS-3 by considering all the above indicators (55), excluding the one indicator, that is, X26 (as not applicable for NFHS-3) by applying the same methodology as described above. The results of NFHS-3 (excluding Tamil Nadu and Telangana as they are united at that time) are reported in Table 6.

Table 6 exhibits that Goa is ranked first followed by Sikkim. Bihar is ranked last in FQLI (NFHS-3). Table 6 shows that Sikkim was at second position in FQLI (NFHS-3) but declined by two positions, that is, now at fourth position in FQLI (NFHS-4), showing the poor performance of the state in the indicators under considerations. Tripura has jumped four positions in FQLI (NFHS-4) when compared to FQLI (NFHS-3), showing outstanding performance during the period between NFHS-3 and NFHS-4. Similarly, Haryana is at 11th position in FQLI (NFHS-4), losing one position when compared to FQLI (NFHS-3). Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar are ranked last and showing no deviation in their positions. Table 6 illustrates that coefficient of variation of FQLI (NFHS-3 and NFHS-4) has declined from 23.36 to 21.60 demonstrating a small decrease in interstate variations.

Table 6.

FQLI (NFHS-3 and NFHS-4) for Selected States of India and Their Corresponding Ranks

	FQLI NFHS-3				FQLI NFHS-4
	D	States	Rank		D	States	Rank
	0.398	Goa	1		0.379	Goa	1
	0.485	Manipur	2		0.481	Tripura	2
	0.493	Tamil Nadu	3		0.509	Manipur	3
	0.499	Maharashtra	4		0.541	Sikkim	4
	0.509	Sikkim	5		0.544	Maharashtra	5
	0.571	Uttarakhand	6		0.555	West Bengal	6
	0.586	Karnataka	7		0.569	Uttarakhand	7
	0.592	Tripura	8		0.626	Tamil Nadu	8
	0.602	West Bengal	9		0.632	Karnataka	9
	0.673	Haryana	10		0.633	Assam	10
	0.694	Assam	11		0.724	Haryana	11
	0.788	Meghalaya	12		0.733	Meghalaya	12
	0.795	Madhya Pradesh	13		0.759	Madhya Pradesh	13
	0.913	Bihar	14		0.896	Bihar	14
Mean	0.614			Mean	0.613
CV	23.36			CV	21.60

Source: The authors.

Social Change in Family Quality of Life Index Based on NFHS-4 and NFHS-3 for Selected States in India

To assess the social change, we need to find the difference between the mean values of different states of India. As per Table 6, the mean value of NFHS-3 is found to be 0.614, whereas the mean value of NFHS-4 is 0.613. The social change is found to be 0.001 which means that family quality of life has slightly increased in India over a period of 10 years. Eight states out of 14 show a positive sign in social change, meaning thereby they have improved when compared to the previous results of NFHS-3 (see Table 7). These states are Goa, Uttarakhand, Tripura, West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar in FQLI. Other states under consideration found negative sign of social change. This implies that the performance of these six states, namely Manipur, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Karnataka and Haryana declined when compared to NFHS-3 results.

In NFHS-4, most of the states’ index scores, except Goa and Tripura, are more than 0.500 which is a matter of series concern for policymakers because it indicates low social development. It is matter of serious concern for some of the states, like Haryana, which are performing well in economic indicators like per capita income (Economic Survey of Haryana, 2017–2018) but lacking in social indicators like sex ratio. In addition, Stage II and Stage I states in FQLI (NFHS-4) need to take serious steps regarding social sector programmes at root level.

Table 7.

Social Change in Family Quality of Life Index

States	Change	Position
Goa	0.02	Favourable
Manipur	-0.025	Unfavourable
Tamil Nadu	-0.133	Unfavourable
Maharashtra	-0.045	Unfavourable
Sikkim	-0.032	Unfavourable
Uttarakhand	0.002	Favourable
Karnataka	-0.046	Unfavourable
Tripura	0.111	Favourable
West Bengal	0.047	Favourable
Haryana	-0.051	Unfavourable
Assam	0.061	Favourable
Meghalaya	0.054	Favourable
Madhya Pradesh	0.035	Favourable
Bihar	0.017	Favourable

Source: The authors.

Note: Change= FQLI (NFHS-3) - FQLI (NFHS-4).

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

Quality of life is actually a function of socio-economic development. Merely development in economic indicators is not sufficient for quality of life of the people of a country, both social and economic development need to be taken care by the government. The Indian economy witnessed a robust growth averaging around 8 per cent during 2005–2012. Yet, the Gini coefficient increased from 0.334 to 0.339 during the same period, reflecting a worsening of income inequality. Moreover, in human development, India has a long way to go as it is still in the medium human development category (Economic Survey, 2015). Results of the study confirmed the existence of wide interstate disparities in quality of life in India. Some states, like Goa and Tripura, are in a better position, whereas Bihar, MP and Haryana are in poor position in quality of family life. The study found that Goa has the maximum, and Bihar has the minimum FQLI in both NFHS-3 and NFHS-4. The results of the study also revealed that interstate disparities came down by some point over the period of time. Further, overall social development has slightly improved in the selected states of India. Eight out of fourteen states reported positive social change, namely Goa, Uttarakhand, Tripura, West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. Results of the study reported an alarming sign for the some of the states, like Haryana, which are performing well in economic indicators, but on social front, they are lacking in many family quality parameters such as sex ratio, child sex ratio, etc.

Although several schemes have been launched to improve the quality of life in India (schemes such as digital India, e-governance, SSA, MDM Scheme, ‘Swachh Bharat Abhiyan’, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao), still more needs to be done, and more emphasis is required on improving governance and service delivery systems in order to ensure that the targeted groups of people benefit from the schemes implemented by both the central and state governments. The ultimate challenge is the delivery mechanism. In India, the outlays for the different schemes have not often translated fully into outcomes owing to the poor delivery mechanism. This suggests that the government should make serious efforts to ensure inclusive growth in India. More needs to be done for less developed states like Bihar in almost all areas of social development. Further, the study has brought out important implications for policymakers that there is an urgent need to enforce more social sector programmes for the poor states such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, etc. which will finally help in improving the overall social status of the country.

Limitation of the Study

More indicators could be incorporated to find FQLI. Also, more states could be included for better generalisation of the results for India.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Naresh Kumar

References

Awan

M. S.

Aslam

M. A.

Waqas

(2012). Social development disparities among districts of Punjab (MPRA Paper No. 36846). Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36846/

Bilance

(1997). A world in balance–Bilance stands for social development (Policy Paper). Oegstgeest, Netherlands.

Cashin

Sahay

(1996). Internal migration, center-state grants, and economic growth in the states of India. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers , 43(1), 123–171.

Census of India. (2011). Retrieved from www.censusindia.gov.in

Chakrabarty

K. C.

(2010). Inclusive growth: Role of financial sector . Bhubaneswar, India: National Finance Conclave.

Chakravarty

(1976). Social and demographic statistics: Framework for the integration of social and demographic statistics in developing countries. United Nations Economic and Social Council , E/C N, 3.

Das

Mistri

(2013). Household quality of living in Indian states: Analysis of 2011 census. Environment and Urbanization Asia , 4(1), 151–171.

Dasgupta

(1993). An inquiry into well-being and destitution . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Das

Ghate

Robertson

P. E.

(2015). Remoteness, urbanization, and India’s unbalanced growth. World Development , 66, 572–587.

10.

Diener

(1995). A value based index for measuring national quality of life. Social Indicators Research , 36(2), 107–127.

11.

Dubey

(2000). India: Outstanding achievements and dismal failures. Internationale Politik Und Gesellschaft , Part 1, 42–53. Retrieved from https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ipg/ipg-2000-1/artdubey.pdf

12.

Economic Survey of Haryana. (2017–2018). Department of Economic and Statistical Analysis, Government of Haryana. Retrieved from http://web1.hry.nic.in/budget/Esurvey.pdf

13.

Estes

R. J.

(1996). Social development trends in Asia, 1970–1994: The challenges of a new century. Social Indicators Research , 37(2), 119–148.

14.

Florek

Łukaszewicz

Perkal

Steinhaus

H. I.

Zubrzycki

(1952). Taksonomia. Wrocławska, Przegla˛d Antropologiczny, Poznan´, XVII. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000019/001919EB.pdf

15.

Gender Inequality Index. (2015). Human development report, United Nations Development Programme. New York, NY.

16.

Ghate

(2008). Understanding divergence in India: A political economy approach. Journal of Economic Policy Reform , 11(1), 1–9.

17.

Ghate

Wright

(2012). The V-factor: Distribution, timing and correlates of the great Indian growth turnaround. Journal of Development Economics , 99(1), 58–67.

18.

Ghosh

(2008). Economic reforms, growth and regional divergence in India. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research , 2(3), 265–285.

19.

Ghosh

(2013). Liberalization, growth and regional disparities in India . Springer Science & Business Media. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-0981-2

20.

Ghosh

(2016). A quality of growth index: Evidence from Indian states. South Asia Economic Journal , 17(1), 133–148.

21.

GHR. (2016). Global hunger report 2016 . Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2499/9780896292260

22.

Global Hunger Report. (2016). Global hunger index: Getting to zero hunger, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Germany: Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2499/9780896292260

23.

Gostowski

(1970). The use of taxonomic measures in target setting based on international comparisons. Quality & Quantity , 4(2), 355–363.

24.

HDR. (2015). United Nations Development Programme. Human development report 2015 . New York.

25.

HDR. (2016). United Nations Development Programme. Human development report 2016 . New York.

26.

IHDR (India Human Development Report). (2011). Towards social inclusion. Institute of applied manpower research, Government of India . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

27.

Jones

J. F.

(1981). Can we teach social development in a social work curriculum? International Social Work , 24(4), 29–31.

28.

Kumar

(2017). Measurement of social development: Evidence from India. International Journal of Social Economics , 44(9), 1211–1230.

29.

Kumar

Rani

(2016). Gender disparity in literacy: Districts level evidence from selected states of India. Educational Quest , 7(3), 243.

30.

Kumari

(2014). Growing regional disparity in Uttar Pradesh: Inter-district analysis. Artha Vijnana , 56(3), 339–360.

31.

Kumari

(2016). Regional disparity in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar: A disaggregated level analysis. Journal of Social and Economic Development , 18(1–2), 121–146.

32.

Land

K. C.

(1975). Theories, models and indicators of social change. International Social Science Journal , 27(1), 7–37.

33.

Meinert

Kohn

(1987). Toward operationalization of social development concepts. Social Development Issues , 10(3), 4–18.

34.

Midgley

(1995). Social development: The developmental perspective in social welfare . London, UK: SAGE Publications.

35.

Murthy

M. S. R.

(2011). Child mortality transition among children born to adolescent mothers in India: A study based on national family health survey (NFHS) data. Journal of Human Ecology , 34(2), 101–106.

36.

Nayyar

(2006). India’s unfinished journey transforming growth into development. Modern Asian Studies , 40(3), 797–832.

37.

Nayyar

(2017). Economic liberalization: Then and now. Economic and Political Weekly , 52(2), 41–48.

38.

NFHS-3. (2005–2006). National family health survey . Government of India. Retrieved from http://rchiips.org/nfhs/

39.

NFHS-4. (2015–2016). National family health survey . Government of India. Retrieved from http://rchiips.org/nfhs/

40.

Ohlan

(2013). Pattern of regional disparities in socio-economic development in India: District level analysis. Social Indicators Research , 114(3), 841–873.

41.

Qadeer

(2000). Health care systems in transition III. India, Part 1. The Indian Experience. Journal of Public Health Medicine , 22(1), 25–32.

42.

Randive

San Sebastian

De Costa

Lindholm

(2014). Inequalities in institutional delivery uptake and maternal mortality reduction in the context of cash incentive program, Janani Suraksha Yojana: Results from nine states in India. Social Science & Medicine , 123, 1–6. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.042

43.

Ray

A. K.

(1989). On the measurement of certain aspects of social development. Social Indicators Research , 21(1), 35–92.

44.

Ray

A. K.

(2008a). India’s social development in a decade of reforms: 1990-91/1999-2000. Social Indicators Research , 87(3), 409–425.

45.

Ray

A. K.

(2008). Measurement of social development: an international comparison. Social Indicators Research , 86(1), 1–46.

46.

Ray

A. K.

(2008). India’s social development in a decade of reforms: 1990–91/1999–2000. Social indicators research , 87(3), 409–425.

47.

Rao

M. V. S.

(1975). Socio-economic Indicators for Development Planning. International Social Science Journal , 27(1), 121–149.

48.

Ray

A. K.

(2008b). Measurement of social development: An international comparison. Social Indicators Research , 86(1), 1–46.

49.

Ray

(2014). An index of maternal and child healthcare status in India: Measuring inter-and intra-state variations from capability perspectives. Social Indicators Research , 117(1), 195–207.

50.

Social Progress Index. (2014). Social progress index report. Washington, DC: Social Progress Imperative.

51.

Sen

A. K.

(1985). Commodities and capabilities . Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

52.

Social Progress Imperative. (2015). Social progress index report, 2015 . Washington, DC.

53.

SRS Based Abridged Life Tables (2003–2007 to 2006–2010). Retrieved from http://www.censusindia.gov.in/vital_statistics/SRS_Based/Introduction.pdf

54.

Tilak

J. B.

(2007). Post-elementary education, poverty and development in India. International Journal of Educational Development , 27(4), 435–445.

55.

Todaro

M. P.

(1997). Economic development (6th ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

56.

Trivedi

(2003). Regional Convergence and Catch-up in India between 1960 and 1992 . UK: Nuffield College.

57.

Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017). New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India.

58.

Haq M.

(1995). Reflections on human development . New York, USA: Oxford university Press.

59.

UNDP. (1990). Human development report, 1990 . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

60.

World Bank. (2006a). India inclusive growth and service delivery: Building on India’s success. Development Policy Review Report No. 34580-IN , Washington, DC.

61.

World Bank. (2006b). World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development. Washington, DC.