Inter-State Disparities in the Reduction of Multidimensional Deprivations in India

Abstract

The higher economic growth in the post-reform period has increased the standard of living of the people. At the same time, it widened the inter-state inequality. It was argued that the increasing inequality might lead to social disarticulation and hinder growth. Thus, a discussion on growing inter-state inequality became a policy debate in recent years to achieve inclusive growth. In this backdrop, this article analyses trends in the inter-state inequality with regards to multidimensional deprivations (MD) in the domains of education, health and poverty during the post-reform period in India. It also assesses whether levels of deprivation among the Indian states are converging/diverging over a period of time. Weighted coefficient of variation and Theil entropy measures were used to assess the inter-state inequality and β-convergence estimates were used to test whether there is convergence/divergence among the Indian states with regards to reduction in MD over time. The analysis found that the inter-state disparity in MD has increased during the post-reform period in India; the levels of deprivation among the better off states declined over time, while most of the backward states could not do so due to their high initial level deprivations.

Keywords

Multidimensional deprivation Indian states growth disparity performance convergence

Introduction

Research on regional disparities in India assumes high significance. This is also because inequalities or disparities are believed to create a greater threat to the socio, economic and political harmony of the country. Inappropriate economic policies, skewed distribution of private investments (both domestic and foreign), improper access to social and physical infrastructure and technology due to faulty institutions had increased inequality by favouring more developed regions (Ahluwalia, 2000; Kalirajan & Takahiro, 2002; Kundu & Varghese, 2010; Rao, Shand & Kalirajan, 1999). Also, the economic policies such as agglomeration, scale economies and cumulative causation leads to movement of labour and capital from rural to urban areas and thereby increases regional disparities (Kalra & Thakur, 2015). It made the underlying processes exclusionary, unjust and unsustainable (Basole & Basu, 2015). If inequality cumulates over a period of time, it would have a substantial impact on the standard of living of the people (Mallick, 2014). Thus, a balanced regional development is essential for national integration, economic viability, political stability and poverty reduction in India. Thus, in recent years, the reduction of regional inequality becomes a prime objective of national plans. Inclusive development became the core objective of the 12th Five Year Plan, where more emphasis was given for the improvement of the well-being of those sections of people who were ignored in the process of achieving higher economic growth.

The growing inter-state inequality has become a growing debate among the academia over the last two decades to examine the levels and causes of the inter-state inequality (Cherodian & Thirlwall, 2013; Nayyar, 2008; Radhakrishna, 2015, 2016; Rao et al., 1999; Singh, Bhandari, Chen, & Khare, 2003). The analysis is mostly centred on income and economic growth (Agarwalla & Pangotra, 2011). The discussion on the inter-state inequality with regards to other dimensions such as education, health and poverty is a recent phenomenon (Radhakrishna, Ravi, & Reddy, 2013). There is a consensus that even though attainment of minimum income for a happy life is nearly achieved, deprivation lies in many other forms (Radhakrishna, 2017; World Bank, 2016; UNDP, 2015). Thus, there is a need to emphasise non-income deprivations by focussing on most deprived regions.

With this background, the objective of this article is twofold. First, it analyses the levels of multidimensional deprivation (MD) in domains of education, health and poverty among the major Indian states in the post-reform period and assesses the trend of inter-state disparity. Second, an examination has been made to understand whether there is a convergence/divergence among the Indian states with regards to reduction of MD.

Data and Methodology

The incidence of MD among the Indian states has been analysed for the years 2004–2005 and 2015–2016. The MD includes education, health and poverty dimensions of human well-being. The indicators of the educational dimension include: (a) adult illiteracy rate (D-1) and (b) people between 5–29 years who are currently not attending any educational institutions (D-2). Health indicators include: (a) Chronic Energy Deficiency (CED) among women between 15–59 years (D-3); (b) per cent of women between 15–59 years suffering from anaemia (D-4); (c) prevalence of stunting among children under 5 years (D-5); (d) per cent of children under five years suffering from anaemia (D-6); (e) under-five mortality (D-7) and (f) low birth weight (D-8). Poverty indicator includes Head Count Ratio (HCR) (D-9). The data on education indicators are drawn from the National Sample Survey Office (61st and 71st Rounds) reports, health indicators from the National Family Health Survey (3 and 4) and HCR from the Planning Commission reports. The data on education indicators are for the years 2004–2005 and 2014, health indicators for the years 2005–2006 and 2015–2016 and HCR for the years 2004–2005 and 2011–2012. To maintain consistency in the analysis, the data for 2005–2006 are treated as equivalent to 2004–2005 data, and data for 2011 and 2014 are treated as equivalent to 2015–2016 data. The analysis assesses performance/progress in the reduction of the deprivation between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016. The analysis has been carried out by considering 20 major Indian states. The other north-eastern states except Assam and union territories are excluded due to their lowest share in the total population and national income.

The method for computation of the multidimensional deprivation index (MDI) and its education, health and poverty components is as follows: states are ranked on individual indicators in an ascending order having rank 1 for low deprivation to 20 for high deprivation. The ranks of individual indicators of education and health components are aggregated and ranked by Borda rule to rank states on education and health deprivations. Finally, ranking of states on MDI is done by aggregating the ranks of education, health and poverty components and ranked by Borda rule.

Incidence of MDs

Table 1 shows the ranking of states on the MDI and its education, health and poverty components. The five low multidimensional deprived states in 2004–2005 were Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir, in that order. Both Kerala’s and Himachal Pradesh’s low MD was due to their lowest deprivation in all the three dimensions. While Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir had lower health and poverty deprivations, Tamil Nadu was better in terms of low educational and health deprivations. On the other hand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha were highly deprived states placed at the bottom. A higher deprivation in Bihar and Jharkhand was due to higher educational, health and poverty deprivations. Uttar Pradesh had high educational and health deprivations. Madhya Pradesh had high health and poverty deprivations. Odisha also had high poverty deprivation, which dominants its lower deprivation on education and health.

Table 1.

Ranking of States on MDI and its Components Across the Indian States

S.No.	State	Education		Health		Poverty		MDI
S.No.	State	2004– 2005	2015– 2016	2004– 2005	2015– 2016	2004– 2005	2015– 2016	2004– 2005	2015– 2016
1	Andhra Pradesh	16	16	9	11	7	4	13	10
2	Assam	5	6	13	8	12	16	11	9
3	Bihar	20	20	20	17	19	18	20	19
4	Chhattisgarh	12	13	16	10	18	20	15	14
5	Gujarat	7	9	11	16	8	10	8	13
6	Haryana	8	11	13	14	5	6	8	10
7	Himachal Pradesh	2	2	4	5	3	2	2	2
8	Jammu & Kashmir	12	10	3	2	3	5	5	5
9	Jharkhand	18	17	17	19	16	19	18	19
10	Karnataka	11	8	6	6	10	13	10	8
11	Kerala	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
12	Madhya Pradesh	15	15	19	20	17	15	18	18
13	Maharashtra	4	5	7	7	14	11	6	7
14	Odisha	14	14	13	13	20	17	16	16
15	Punjab	6	7	5	4	2	3	4	3
16	Rajasthan	19	19	11	15	12	9	14	14
17	Tamil Nadu	3	4	2	3	6	8	3	4
18	Uttar Pradesh	17	18	18	17	15	14	17	17
19	Uttarakhand	8	3	8	12	9	7	6	6
20	West Bengal	10	11	10	9	11	12	12	12

Source: The author.

Note: Rank 1 means low deprivation and rank 20 means high deprivation. MDI: Multidimensional Deprivation Index.

Between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016, all states had a decline of deprivation levels of individual indicators in absolute term. Some of the low multidimensional deprived states in 2004–2005 such as Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Jammu & Kashmir remained the same position in 2015–2016. Some of the high initial deprived states such as Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan and West Bengal also remained the same position. While the relative position of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Assam, Punjab, Chhattisgarh and Bihar had improved over time, the relative position of Gujarat, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Jharkhand had worsened. It implies that the progress of backward states is not adequate to shift them to a higher position by reducing their initial deprivation levels. Both Bihar and Jharkhand could not able to reduce deprivations in all three dimensions. Madhya Pradesh could not reduce health deprivations and Odisha failed to reduce poverty. Uttar Pradesh still had high education and health-related deprivations. While lower decline in MDI in these progressive states is obvious, a higher decline in deprivation in some of the backward states is noteworthy. The study is in conformity with Radhakrishna (2019, p. 137) that MD was high among the poorer states. No improvement in deprivation levels of some backward states is a matter of concern. Indicator wise, list of top five states that showed increasing/declining in incidence between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016 is shown in Annexure 1.

Performance in Reduction of Deprivations

Table 2 shows the ranking of states on performance in reduction of deprivations between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016. The performance has been assessed by constructing Kakwani Index (1993). Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand were the top six better performing states in reducing the MD between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016. Better performance of Jammu & Kashmir was due to the improvement in education and health components, particularly of current attendance rate, and reducing CED and anaemia among women and low birth weight. Kerala performed best in the reduction of poverty and health deprivations, which out-weighted its low performance in the reduction of educational deprivation. Its low performance on educational dimension was due to lower performance in the reduction of the adult illiteracy rate, although it performed well in improving the current attendance rate. Both Andhra Pradesh and Punjab performed well in poverty reduction, which out-weighted the worst performance in the reduction of educational and health-related deprivations. They perform worst in reducing diseases related deprivations and also the prevalence of anaemia among women and children. Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand performed well in the reduction of education and poverty deprivations. But these performed badly in the reduction of most of the health-related deprivations, particularly reduction of stunting and anaemia among children.

Table 2.

Ranking of States on Performance (Kakwani Index) in the Reduction of Deprivations between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016

S.No.	State	D-1	D-2	D-3	D-4	D-5	D-6	D-7	D-8	Education comp.	Health comp.	Poverty comp.	MDI
1	Andhra Pradesh	9	10	7	11	4	7	9	14	7	7	3	3
2	Assam	8	13	17	1	13	1	10	8	8	5	20	11
3	Bihar	13	17	15	8	18	9	11	2	17	11	15	17
4	Chhattisgarh	11	15	11	4	7	3	14	1	15	2	18	13
5	Gujarat	16	16	20	14	12	15	13	12	18	18	11	19
6	Haryana	18	18	5	17	8	19	17	6	20	13	8	15
7	Himachal Pradesh	2	3	6	19	2	18	20	9	2	15	2	5
8	Jammu & Kashmir	6	4	2	2	5	5	15	3	3	1	7	1
9	Jharkhand	5	9	19	10	20	20	5	5	6	17	19	16
10	Karnataka	7	6	9	6	15	13	4	15	5	10	14	8
11	Kerala	20	1	1	18	1	2	1	17	8	2	1	1
12	Madhya Pradesh	10	14	14	9	17	16	12	18	12	18	16	18
13	Maharashtra	17	12	12	12	9	8	6	13	16	9	10	13
14	Odisha	3	8	13	5	11	4	3	20	4	8	13	7
15	Punjab	15	7	3	20	3	10	8	4	10	4	4	4
16	Rajasthan	4	19	18	7	19	12	7	10	11	14	9	12
17	Tamil Nadu	19	5	4	15	14	6	16	16	12	12	6	9
18	Uttar Pradesh	12	20	16	16	16	11	19	11	18	20	17	20
19	Uttarakhand	1	2	10	3	10	17	18	19	1	16	5	6
20	West Bengal	14	11	8	13	6	14	2	7	14	5	12	10

Source: The author.

Notes: Kakwani Index has been calculated by {In(I_2004/05 – I_min) – In(I_2015/16 – I_min)}/In(I_max – I_min). I_2004/05 and I_2015/16 are the values of each indicator in 2004–2005 and 2015–2016, respectively. I_max and I_min are the maximum and minimum values of each indicators as shown in Annexure 2. States are ranked on these performance indicators having rank 1 for better performance to 20 for worst performance. The ranks for performance in the reduction of each of education and health components are arrived by aggregating ranks of their individual performance and ranked by the use of Borda rule. The rank for performance in the reduction of MDI is derived by considering rankings of educational, health and poverty components. Rank 1 means best performance to rank 20 means worst performance.

Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand were the worst performed states in the reduction of MD. Uttar Pradesh had poor performance in the reduction of education, health and poverty deprivations. It failed badly to improve current attendance rate, reduce anaemia among women and under-five mortality rate. Though, Gujarat performed well in reducing poverty, it performed poor in the reduction of education and health-related deprivations, particularly of adult illiteracy rate, people currently not attending any educational institutions, CED among women and anaemia among children. Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand had the worst performance in poverty reduction. Both Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh also performed badly in reducing health deprivation, whereas Bihar failed in reducing education deprivations. However, Jharkhand performed well in reducing education deprivation, particularly of the adult illiteracy rate. It also reduced the under-five mortality rate and low birth weight. Bihar also reduced the low birth weight, anaemia among women and children but had the worst performance in improving the current attendance rate and stunting among children. Madhya Pradesh was better in reducing anaemia among women, though its performance in reducing low birth weight, stunting and anaemia among children was worst. It implies that better performance of some of the states is due to their higher base, and on the other hand, low performed states due to their low base could not able to perform better and remained at the bottom. In other words, performance is self-perpetuating.

Table 3 shows the relationship between performance in the reduction of HCR and performance in the reduction of combined educational and health deprivations between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016. It shows a weak association between them. Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir were performed well in reducing HCR as well as reducing combined educational and health deprivations. Assam and Chhattisgarh had worse performance in poverty reduction but performed well in the reduction of health and education deprivations. Haryana, Bihar and Gujarat had the modest performance in reducing HCR but had the worst performance in the reduction of their educational and health deprivations. Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh were unable to reduce both poverty and combined health and educational deprivations. It implies that some of the forward states could not be able to perform well in improving education and health deprivation, whereas some of the poorer states can be able to reduce their educational and health-related deprivations.

Table 3.

Cross-Tabulation of the Performance in Poverty Reduction and Performance in the Reduction of Combined Education and Health Deprivations During 2004–2005 and 2015–2016

Performance in Poverty reduction (2005–2016)	Performance in Reduction of education and health deprivations (2005–2016)
Performance in Poverty reduction (2005–2016)	Best	Good	Moderate	Worse
Best	Kerala, Andhra Pradesh	Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand
Good	Jammu & Kashmir		Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Maharashtra	Haryana
Moderate	Odisha,	Karnataka	West Bengal	Bihar, Gujarat
Worse	Assam	Chhattisgarh	Jharkhand	Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh

Source: The author.

Note: Rank correlation 0.306, p < 0.095.

The cross-tabulation of per capita (GSDP) growth and performance in the reduction of MD also show a weak but significant negative association (Table 4). It is to be noted that studies had found a significant positive association between per capita GSDP growth and poverty reduction (Radhakrishna, 2019, p. 131). It implies the fact that high growth states also did not give adequate attention to the improvement of education and the health status of their citizens. Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Bihar and Gujarat were high growth states. Among these, only Uttarakhand and Tamil Nadu could perform well in reducing MDs. But Bihar and Gujarat could not able to reduce MDs. Except Madhya Pradesh, other modest growing states such as Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Haryana could able to reduce MDs. The striking fact is that low growth states such as Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab performed best in reducing MDs. Their achievements may be due to the effective implementation of various public policies meant for socioeconomic and human development. Odisha, Karnataka and West Bengal also performed best in the reduction of the MD, despite they had a lower growth rate. Last, it is evidenced that poorer states like Assam, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh could neither achieve higher economic growth nor performed well in reducing the MD. Thus, higher attention needs to be given to these states in central plans for the improvement of the socioeconomic and health characteristics of their citizens.

Table 4.

Cross-Tabulation of the Growth of GSDP Per Capita and Performance in the Reduction of MDs, 2004–2005 and 2015–2016

Growth of GSDP per Capita	Performance in the Reduction of MDs
Growth of GSDP per Capita	Best	Good	Moderate	Worse
High	–	Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu	Maharashtra	Bihar, Gujarat
Moderate	Himachal Pradesh	–	Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Haryana	Madhya Pradesh
Low	Kerala, Andhra Pradesh	Odisha, Karnataka	–	Jharkhand
Very low	Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab	West Bengal	Assam	Uttar Pradesh

Source: The author.

Note: Rank correlation −0.346, p < 0.067. GSDP: Gross State Domestic Product. MDs: Multidimensional Deprivation.

Inter-state Disparity and Convergence

Table 5 gives the evidence of the inter-state disparity with regards to education, health and poverty-related indicators in 2004–2005 and 2015–2016. It shows that: a) inter-state disparities with regards to HCR, people between 5–29 years currently not attending any educational institutions, CED among women, children suffering from anaemia, stunting among children and under-five mortality rate have badly worsened; whereas b) inter-state disparity with regards to adult illiteracy rate (15+), women suffering from anaemia and low birth weight have been reduced.

In 2004–2005, some of the educationally highly deprived states were Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh. The lowest deprivation of Kerala is attributable to convergence of social changes with physical access to educational services. By 2015–2016, most of the states, including backward states, experienced an improvement in the adult literacy rate and current attendance rate. But the relative position of backward states such as Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Rajasthan did not improve much. Geographical barriers, slower diversification of the rural economy, higher poverty, low economic development and a very slow pace of human transition were mainly responsible for it. On the other hand, the pace of decline in deprivation levels among the initially low deprived states such as Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Assam, Gujarat and Haryana was low. Only Uttarakhand was able to reduce its deprivation. This implies that the backward states due to better performance were able to catch the leading states, whereas the initially low deprived states could not reduce their deprivation levels further. As a result, the inter-state variation in 2015–2016 was relatively less than the year 2004–2005.

Between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016, there was a significant decline in the inter-state inequality with regards to women suffering from anaemia and low birth weight due to a faster decline in the incidence among the backward states. It could be due to lunching of the National Rural Health Mission. Many of the forward states like Kerala, Haryana, Punjab, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu experienced a higher level of deprivation between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016. Though these states were rich as well as well-developed in many dimensions, they were unable to reduce disease-related deprivations. On the other hand, the inter-state disparity with regards to CED among women, stunting and anaemia among children and under-five mortality rates was still high. Not only backwards states but also some of the forward states experienced these problems in 2004–2005. By 2015–2016, most of the states showed a declining trend. The higher decline in Kerala and Punjab could be due to the access to better public health care services, higher female literacy rate and life expectancy, more female employment in non-agricultural sector and flow of remittances from abroad, which helped women for their self-development with the spread of better education and health care facilities. In fact, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have achieved the target of National Health Policy 2017 to reduce the under-five mortality target by 2025 (NITI Aayog, 2018). Kerala also established adequate number of public health institutions in both rural and urban areas. It has a long history of good governance with adequate emphasis on health sector, which helped in increasing the minimum age of marriage, reducing the average number of children per family and adopting improved family planning methods. But many backward states had high under-five mortality rate and malnourishment among children. Their public health care system was not very effective in terms of adequate immunisation, promoting healthy practice of breast feeding, proper use of the oral rehydration solution and preventives and care seeking behaviour (Planning Commission, 2013). As a result, these states could not progress well between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016, which widened the inter-state disparity.

In 2004–2005, the poorer states were Odisha, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh, whereas Kerala, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Haryana were the richest. The higher poverty in east and central regions was mainly due to their low economic growth, followed by the predominantly rural agrarian society, failing democratic system, poor governance, criminalisation of politics and the politicisation of crimes. Institutional challenges, centre-state conflicts along with active of Maoist groups were also responsible to it (Mehta, Shepherd, Bhide, Shah, & Kumar, 2011). Radical land reforms, spread of education and health care, decentralisation, pension schemes, public distribution system, Kudumbashree and Plan schemes played a major role in the reduction of poverty in Kerala (Government of Kerala, 2017). Higher agricultural growth was responsible for lower poverty in Punjab and Haryana.

By 2015–2016, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab with a higher decline in HCR were able to maintain a higher position. Except these, Andhra Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir also were able to shift to a higher position by reducing their HCR. These states have low rural-urban disparity in per capita expenditure, higher agricultural wage rate and low gender disparity in the wage rate (Radhakrishna, 2019, p. 466).

The rate of decline of HCR between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016 in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand was very low. As such they remained at the bottom position in 2015–2016. Despite higher decline in HCR, both Odisha and Bihar also remained at a lower position. It was mentioned that the rapid demographic growth, low economic growth, inability to adopt strong anti-poverty programmes and lower capacity to mobilise resources from market and institutions were some of the reasons for their backwardness (Kundu & Varghese, 2010). Further, these states lack quality infrastructure and have high revenue deficit, higher dependency on market borrowings and central transfers, inappropriate organisations and institutions (Radhakrishna, 2019, p. 157). As a result, despite ample opportunities created through decentralisation and devolution of power and responsibilities, these states were not able to initiate development policies on their own.

The analysis suggests that higher inequality with regards to poverty had widened the inter-state inequality with regards to MD in India. As such the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog (2018) had suggested that national policy makers need to give more attention to poorer states to achieve inclusive development.

The convergence of the Indian states with regards to education, health and poverty is tested in Table 6. Dependent variables are the percentage change in levels of deprivation between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016, whereas independent variables are their initial level of deprivation. The results are in conformity with the outcomes in Table 5, except that of children suffering from anaemia. It shows that there is a convergence among the states with regards to the adult illiteracy rate, women and children suffering from anaemia and low birth weight. On the other hand, there is divergence with regards to current attendance rate, CED among women, stunting among children, under-five mortality rate and HCR. However, stunting and anaemia among children and under-five mortality rates are not statistically significant. It suggests that some of the economically weaker states are taking some steps towards reducing education and health-related deprivations.

Table 5.

Inter-State Disparity in Deprivation Levels, 2004–2005 and 2015–2016

Indicator	Abbr.	CV		E(0)		E(1)		E(2)
Indicator	Abbr.	2004– 2005	2015– 2016	2004– 2005	2015– 2016	2004– 2005	2015– 2016	2004– 2005	2015– 2016
Adult Illiteracy rate (15+)	D-1	27.67	22.29	0.013	0.016	0.077	0.040	0.038	0.025
Persons between 5–29 years currently not attending any educational institution	D-2	47.83	54.25	0.148	0.263	0.129	0.139	0.114	0.147
CED among women	D-4	17.07	24.04	0.005	0.016	0.028	0.049	0.015	0.029
Women suffering from anaemia	D-5	14.96	12.54	0.011	0.005	0.013	0.011	0.011	0.008
Stunting among children under 5 years	D-6	16.89	19.14	0.042	0.041	−0.009	−0.001	0.014	0.018
Children suffering from anaemia	D-7	9.68	14.58	0.017	0.021	−0.007	0.003	0.005	0.011
Under-five mortality	D-8	30.47	37.54	0.120	0.120	0.000	0.048	0.046	0.070
Low birth weight	D-9	18.05	14.38	−0.042	0.004	0.072	0.017	0.016	0.010
Poverty	D-10	25.47	43.31	0.016	0.094	0.048	0.112	0.032	0.094

Source: The author.

Notes: CED: Chronic Energy Deficiency.

Table 6.

Absolute β-Convergence Among the Indian States with Regards to Education, Health and Poverty Indicators

Components	a	β	R²	F
Adult Illiteracy rate (15+) per 1000	0.006	−0.0007^***	0.490	17.32^***
Adult Illiteracy rate (15+) per 1000	(0.006)	(0.0002)
Currently not attending, per 1000 (5–29 years)	−0.064^***	0.0008^***	0.353	9.84^***
Currently not attending, per 1000 (5–29 years)	(0.004)	(0.0003)
CED among women	−0.053^***	0.0005^**	0.299	7.67^**
CED among women	(0.007)	(0.0002)
% of women suffering from anaemia	0.049^***	−0.0010^***	0.381	11.09^***
% of women suffering from anaemia	(0.016)	(0.0003)
Height-for-age (stunting), 0–5 years	−0.022^**	0.0001	0.006	0.11
Height-for-age (stunting), 0–5 years	(0.008)	(0.0002)
% of children suffering from anaemia	−0.012	−0.0001	0.001	0.02
% of children suffering from anaemia	(0.024)	(0.0004)
Under-five mortality (%)	−0.031^***	0.00001	0.001	0.01
Under-five mortality (%)	(0.007)	(0.0001)
Low birth weight (%)	0.018	−0.002^**	0.298	7.63^**
Low birth weight (%)	(0.013)	(0.001)
Poverty	−0.073^***	0.0009^***	0.362	10.20^***
Poverty	(0.010)	(0.0003)

Source: The author.

Notes: df: 19, ^*** significant at 1 per cent level. Figures in parenthesis are standard error. CED: Chronic Energy Deficiency.

By considering various socioeconomic and other indicators, there was a significant evidence of convergence among the Indian states with regards to percentage of women suffering from anaemia, prevalence of stunting and anaemia among children, under-five mortality rate and low birth weight (Table 7). The initially highly deprived states, due to various interventions, were able to reduce their deprivation levels, whereas the low initial deprived states had already reached low deprivation levels, and it is very difficult to reduce their deprivations levels further. On the other hand, states are not showing any significant convergence/divergence with regards to the adult illiteracy rate, current attendance rate, CED among women and HCR.

Table 7.

Conditional β-Convergence of Educational, Health and Poverty Indicators Between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016

Independent Variable	Adult Illiteracy Rate	Currently not Attending, per 1000 (5–29 Years)	CED Among Women	% of Women Suffering from Anaemia	Height-for-Age (Stunting), 0–5 Years	% of Children Suffering from Anaemia	Under-five Mortality (%)	Low Birth Weight (%)	Poverty
Adult Illiteracy rate (15+) per 1000, 2004–2005	0.0002
Adult Illiteracy rate (15+) per 1000, 2004–2005	(0.0003)
Currently not attending per 1000 (5–29 years), 2004–2005		0.0001
Currently not attending per 1000 (5–29 years), 2004–2005		(0.0004)
CED among women, 2005–2006			0.0003
CED among women, 2005–2006			(0.0003)
% of women suffering from anaemia, 2005–2006				−0.0006^*
% of women suffering from anaemia, 2005–2006				(0.0004)
Stunting (0–5 years), 2005–2006					−0.0003^*
Stunting (0–5 years), 2005–2006					(0.0002)
% of children suffering from anaemia, 2005–2006						−0.0010^*
% of children suffering from anaemia, 2005–2006						(0.0005)
Under-five mortality, 2005–2006							−0.0003^**
Under-five mortality, 2005–2006							(0.0001)
Low birth weight, 2005–2006								–0.0018^**
Low birth weight, 2005–2006								(0.0006)
Poverty, 2004–2005									0.0002
Poverty, 2004–2005									(0.0003)
Ln GSDP, 2004–2005	−0.0137^**		−0.0084	0.0170^*	−0.0151^***
Ln GSDP, 2004–2005	(0.0053)		(0.0058)	(0.0097)	(0.0037)
State expenditure as a % of GSDP, 2004–2005	0.0003	−0.0010^***	−0.0003	−0.0006		−0.0007			–0.0012^**
State expenditure as a % of GSDP, 2004–2005	(0.0003)	(0.0003)	(0.0002)	(0.0004)		(0.0005)			(0.0005)
% of State expenditure on Social Sector, 2005–2006		−0.0007^**			0.0004^**
% of State expenditure on Social Sector, 2005–2006		(0.0003)			(0.0002)
Contribution of Agriculture to State GSDP, 2004–2005	−0.0007^*			0.0014^**		0.0014^*	0.0008^**	0.0006	-0.0008
Contribution of Agriculture to State GSDP, 2004–2005	(0.0003)			(0.0006)		(0.0007)	(0.0004)	(0.0005)	(0.0006)
Rate of urbanisation, 2004–2005					0.0004^***	0.0006^*			–0.0007^**
Rate of urbanisation, 2004–2005					(0.0001)	(0.0004)			(0.0004)
Male literacy rate, 2001	0.0008^**	−0.0009^**						0.0011^**	−0.0015^**
Male literacy rate, 2001	(0.0004)	(0.0004)						(0.0004)	(0.0005)
% Of female workers in non-agriculture, 2001	0.0006^***	−0.0003^***		−0.0002		−0.0006^**	−0.0005^**	−0.0003^*
% Of female workers in non-agriculture, 2001	(0.0002)	(0.0001)		(0.0002)		(0.0003)	(0.0002)	(0.0002)
(Constant)	0.0433	0.0677	0.0499	−0.1481	0.1236^***	0.0368	−0.0127	−0.0643^**	0.1271^*
(Constant)	(0.0535)	(0.0434)	(0.0686)	(0.1137)	(0.0408)	(0.0371)	(0.0101)	(0.0308)	(0.0653)
R²	0.780	0.709	0.400	0.591	0.628	0.299	0.425	0.585	0.635
F	7.666^***	6.816^***	3.555^**	4.053^**	6.333^***	1.197	3.947^**	5.292^***	4.873^***

Source: The author.

Notes: Dependent variables: percentage growth rate of education, health and poverty indicators between 2004–2005 and 2015–2016. Figures in parenthesis are standard errors, ^*** significant at 1 per cent level,^** significant at 05 per cent level, ^* significant at 10 per cent level.

Among the explanatory variables, the initially high GSDP per capita states were able to reduce the adult illiteracy rate and stunting among children significantly. But these states experienced an increased anaemia level among women. Further, GSDP was not a significant determinant in reducing most of the education, health and poverty-related deprivations. This implies that economic growth is not helping the Indian states to reduce poverty and spend more for the development of education and health. In other words, growth is not going in a proper direction. The states have to divert more of their resources for social development and poverty reduction.

This can also be well proved with the fact that the share of states’ expenditure on GSDP, though reduced poverty and improved current attendance rate, failed to reduce other education and health-related deprivations. In other words, expenditure incurred by the states increased the purchasing power of the people and thereby increased the consumption demand. However, it was not sufficient to meet the educational and health expenditure. Similarly, the state expenditure on social sector also failed to reduce education, health- and poverty-related deprivations.

The base year value of the contribution of agriculture to state GSDP significantly reduced the adult illiteracy rate but unable to reduce anaemia among women and children and under-five mortality rate. In other words, the agricultural dependent states were suffered from health-related deprivations. However, it plays a critical role in the reduction of HCR though the coefficient is not statistically significant.

The rate of urbanisation has a significant impact on poverty reduction. But the worrisome picture is that some of the health problems such as stunting and anaemia among children are more prevalent in urban areas than the rural areas. Also, urbanisation was not able to improve the education of its citizens. The male literacy rate had a significant contribution to the reduction of HCR and the improvement of the current attendance rate, but could not able to reduce the problems of low birth weight and adult illiteracy rate. Similarly, the percentage of female workers in non-agriculture could able to reduce some of the health-related deprivations like low birth weight, under-five mortality rate, the prevalence of anaemia among children and improve current attendance rate. It is a fact that development of a region highly depends on the quality of its human resources. In 2004–2005, the share of female employment in non-agriculture was high in Kerala, Punjab, West Bengal, Assam, Haryana, Gujarat and Jammu & Kashmir. These are the forward states with lowest deprivations with regards to some of the education, health and poverty indicators. It implies that the high prosperity of a region can be achieved by investing more in human capital and creating more non-farm employment opportunities for women.

Conclusion

The analysis suggests that the inter-state disparity with regards to MD has increased during the post-reform period in India. While the levels of deprivation among the forward states declined over a period of time, the backward states could not do so due to their initially high-level deprivations. Only a few backward states performed better in the reduction of multiple deprivations. But their relative position has not improved much over a period of time. Priority should be given for a speedy decline of HCR in the backward states. Emphasis should also be given for the improvement of the health conditions of the Indian citizens. It requires more public expenditure for social sector development, steps to improve agricultural productivity, promotion of non-agricultural wage employment, better access to various services such as credit and development of local level institutions to improve service delivery system.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Annexure 1

Table A1.

Top Five States Showing Increasing or Decreasing the Incidence of Deprivation Between 2005–2015

S.No.	Components	Abbr.	Five States Showing Increasing/Decreasing Incidence in Between 2005–2015
S.No.	Components	Abbr.	Decline	Increase
1	Adult Illiteracy rate (15+)	D-1	Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, Rajasthan	Kerala
2	Currently not attending, per 1000 (5–29 years)	D-2	Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan
3	CED among women	D-3	Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Odisha, West Bengal
4	% Of women suffering from anaemia	D-4	Assam, Chhattisgarh, Jammu & Kashmir, Odisha, Uttarakhand	Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh
5	Height-for-age (stunting), 0–5 years	D-5	Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal
6	% Of children suffering from anaemia	D-6	Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jammu & Kashmir, Odisha
7	Under-five mortality (%)	D-7	Assam, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan
8	Low birth weight (%)	D-8	Bihar, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, West Bengal	Odisha, Uttarakhand
9	Poverty	D-9	Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Odisha, Uttarakhand

Source: The author.

Annexure 2

Table A2.

Minimum and Maximum Values Used for Standardisation of Indicators

Indicator	D-1	D-2	D-3	D-4	D-5	D-6	D-7	D-8	D-9
Max. value	53.0	40.0	50.0	70.0	57.0	80.0	97.0	33.0	58.0
Min. value	9.0	0.0	9.0	30.0	19.0	35.0	6.0	12.0	6.0

Source: The author.

References

Agarwalla

, & Pangotra

(2011). Regional income disparities in India and test for convergence–1980 to 2006. Ahmedabad, India: Indian Institute of Management.

Ahluwalia

M. S.

(2000). Economic performance of states in post-reforms period. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(19), 1637–1648.

Basole

, & Basu

(2015). Non-food expenditures and consumption inequality in India. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.

Cherodian

, & Thirlwall

(2013). Regional disparities in per capita income in India: Convergence or divergence? (School of Economics Discussion Papers No. 1313).

Government of Kerala (2017). Economic review 2016. Thiruvananthapuram, India: State Planning Board.

Kakwani

(1993). Performance in living standards: An introduction comparison. Journal of Development Economics, 93, 41.

Kalirajan

, & Takahiro

(2002). Institutions and interregional inequalities in India: Finding a link using Hayami’s thesis and convergence hypothesis. The Indian Economic Journal, 49(4), 47–59.

Kalra

, & Thakur

(2015). Development patterns in India: Spatial convergence or divergence? GeoJournal, 80, 15–31.

Kundu

, & Varghese

(2010). Regional inequality and ‘inclusive growth’ in India under globalization: Identification of lagging states for strategic intervention. New Delhi, India: Oxfam India.

10.

Mallick

(2014). Regional convergence of economic growth during post-reform period in India. The Singapore Economic Review, 59(2), 1–18.

11.

Mehta

A. K.

, Shepherd

, Bhide

, Shah

, & Kumar

(2011). India chronic poverty report: Towards solutions and new compacts in a dynamic context. New Delhi, India: Indian Institute of Public Administration.

12.

Nayyar

(2008). Economic growth and regional inequality in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(6), 58–67.

13.

NITI Aayog (2018). Healthy states, progressive India. New Delhi, India: Governmnent of India.

14.

Planning Commission (2013). 12th five year plan: Social sector. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

15.

Radhakrishna

(2015). Well-being, inequality, poverty and pathways out of poverty in India. Economic & Political Weekly, 50(41), 59–71.

16.

Radhakrishna

(2016). Performance of Indian economy in the post reform period:Grwoth, inequality and well-being. Tirupati, India: Indian Economic Association.

17.

Radhakrishna

(2017). India’s development in post-reform period: Pathways for inclusiveness. Presidential Address Delivered at 18th Annual Conference of Indian Association of Social Science Institutions, Guntur.

18.

Radhakrishna

(2019). Essays on growth, poverty and wellbeing. New Delhi, India: Academic Foundation.

19.

Radhakrishna

, Ravi

, & Reddy

B. S.

(2013). Assessment of well-being in multidimensional perspective in post reform India. Indian Economic Review, 48(1), 129–166.

20.

Rao

M. G.

, Shand

, & Kalirajan

(1999). Convergence of incomes across Indian States: A divergent view. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(13), 769–778.

21.

Singh

, Bhandari

, Chen

, & Khare

(2003). Regional inequality in India: A fresh look. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(11), 1069–1073.

22.

UNDP (2015). Human development report 2015. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.

23.

World Bank (2016). World development indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.