While life expectancy at birth has increased overall across the country, there is still considerable disparity between states. For example, states like Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan still have life expectancy below what Kerala had in 1982. To be sure, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar have increased their life expectancy by 12-13 years.The overall ranking of states has not undergone much change over the years. There is a good case to be made for convergence of LE between states as the range has reduced from 17 years (Uttar Pradesh-50 to Kerala-67 ) to 12 years (Assam-63 to Kerala-75).
Source: Economic Survey of India, 2016-17
Infant Mortality Ratio (IMR):
Uttar Pradesh has reduced its IMR from close to 150 to less than 50. Similarly, MP, Orissa, Bihar have shown significant improvements. Lower IMR, an indicator of better health system in the state also result in higher levels of per capita income by improving labour productivity.
Source: Economic Survey of India, 2016-17
So, the convergence is again visible with a reduction in range of IMR from 100 (Uttar Pradesh-150 to Kerala-50) to 40 (Madhya Pradesh-53 to Kerala-13). However, at least 8 states still have IMR more than what Kerala had in 1982.
Total Fertility Rate:
Source: Economic Survey of India, 2016-17
TFR has also reduced significantly across over this three decade period. In fact, 12 states have reached levels of fertility that are below the replacement rate (2.1). The relative survival chances of girls are lower in areas of high fertility. So, a lower fertility rate means a better chance of survival of the girl child. There is also a convergence seen here in the reduction of the range of TFR from 3 (5.8-Uttar Pradesh to 2.8-Kerala) to 2.2 (3.2-Uttar Pradesh to 1-West Bengal).
Human Development Index(HDI):
The top five ranks in HDI are occupied by Kerala, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Goa and Punjab. At the other end of the spectrum are Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. This dispersion relates to the economic indicators like per-capita GDP and investments as we find that the former set of states have favourable and have in fact consolidated their economic standing vis-a-vis the latter set of states.
While India as a whole has reduced poverty, in terms of headcount, by more than half, this reduction has been highly uneven. We can see this unequal reduction in the period 1973-2000, like Goa (90%), Gujarat (70%), Kerala (78%), Jammu & Kashmir (91%), Punjab (78%), Haryana (75%), Andhra Pradesh (67%) reduced poverty at a much faster rate than others like Arunachal Pradesh (35%), Assam (29%), Bihar (31%), Maharashtra (53%), Madhya Pradesh (39%), Orissa (28%), Nagaland (35%), Uttar Pradesh (45%).
Data source: Department of Planning, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
We also find that the states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa which initially had the most headcount poverty continue to do so, although in lesser number. Incidentally, these states also find themselves lower down the ladder in terms of per-capita GDP. On the other hand, states with a relatively higher growth rate and income like Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab also have low headcount poverty. Interestingly, some states like Karnataka and West Bengal have reduced poverty only moderately while showing significant growth in per-capita GDP.
A committee under by the Planning Commission was set up in 1997 to identify 100 most backward and poorest districts in the country. It found that 74 of the 100 poorest districts come in the region of erstwhile united UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh (labelled as BIMARU states).
Connectivity of these districts with the rest of the economy are grossly inadequate, in terms of transport i.e. roads & railway networks, and access to banks. This deters the private sector, making development largely dependent on public funds, which are sparse. Floods have been a regular feature in Bihar, UP, and Orissa, further contributing to their backwardness. (Debroy & Bhandari, 2003)
Headcount below poverty line is not an ideal measure of poverty because people thin buffer, not counted in BPL may find themselves back into poverty with shocks like disease, bad farm produce etc. Also, there are problems of inclusion when relatively well-off counted themselves into BPL population. However, it cannot be ignored given the sheer population below the designated poverty line.
Literacy Rate:
Literacy is important because of its many positive externalities in terms of health, economic and social mobility. The literacy rate has increased across all states, rich and poor irrespective of their starting point, to almost 70% in 2011. However, disparities within states remain with rural areas still falling behind urban regions. According to the 2001 census data, the top 10 districts in terms of literacy of persons, male and female, belonged mostly to Kerala and Mizoram. On the other hand, the bottom 10 districts belonged to Bihar, UP, Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh. This reflects the nature of educational priorities of fiscal policies in the states.
Data source: Planning Commission, Govt. of India
At a district level, Singh et al (2014) find that road connectivity mattered more for growth in initially poorer districts, and literacy mattered more in initially richer districts in terms of their economic value. This suggests that demand for skilled labor is more in richer districts while demand for unskilled labor is more in poorer regions.
Male-Female Literacy Gap:
While Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and West Bengal reduced their female literacy gap, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar saw an increase in this gap. In fact, Rajasthan has the highest literacy gap in the country at 32 percentage points. All the north-eastern and southern states showed a decrease in literacy gap as can be seen in the plot above. In fact, Kerala decreased the gap to a single digit number, attaining highest female literacy in the country.
Data source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Gujarat
Rural-Urban Divide of Inequality:
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat followed by Punjab, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal have maintained a higher percentage of urban population than Bihar, Assam, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh etc.
Gini coefficient in size distribution of per capita consumption expenditure (1959-2003)
Source: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, 2006
The urban inequality in consumption is always, though varyingly, larger than rural inequality. While there is a noticeable decrease in consumption inequality in rural areas, there does not seem to be any noticeable long-term change in urban inequality. Urban growth too has polarised around a few big industrial centres and the problem of finding productive employment in the backward states, particularly in their backward districts, has become far more serious. Migration of unskilled labor is also a big factor in increasing urban inequality.
While consumption expenditure has certainly increased in all states, difference in urban-rural mean consumption has diverged. Except for Bihar and Maharashtra, where the Urban-Rural Mean Consumption ratio has slightly decreased, all states have witnessed an increase in this ratio post-reform, with the national average of the difference increasing from 67% to 87%. (IGIDR, 2006)
Changing Economy and Politics 