REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN TERMS OF SOCIAL INDICATORS AND POVERTY As we know that per capita income is not a sufficient indicator for the measurement of economic development and it does not have special features which the non-monetary or social indicators have. Therefore, there is a general consensus that per capita income must be accompanied by social indicators of development (e.g. life expectancy, mortality rates, literacy etc.) to be able to make an assessment of the level of development or to measure the level of development. Some of the social indicators taken up in the study are: Education: Literacy Gross Enrolment Ratio Health indicators: Life Expectancy at Birth (LEB) Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) Access to Safe Drinking Water In the present chapter inter-state variations in terms of Literacy Rate, Life Expectancy at Birth and other social indicators and poverty have been examined in the pre-reform and post-reform period. The chapter has been divided into two sections. The first section examines the regional disparity in terms of social indicators and second section examines the regional disparity in terms of poverty.
101 5.1 Literacy Rate in India Unequivocally education is an important factor for the rapid economic development of a country. This section discusses the literacy rate in India for 1981, 1991 and 2001 on the basis of census reports. Comparable data for all the states for other years was not available. As it clear from the table 5.1 that in 1981, 1991 and 2001, the overall literacy rate of the country was 43.57 percent, 52.21 percent and 66.4 percent respectively as shown in the table 5.1. Kerala was exceptional with the highest literacy rate throughout the period (78.85 in 1981, 89.81 in 1991 and 90.86 in 2001) and remained at top. The second most literate state was Maharashtra throughout the period. Lowest literacy rate was found in the states of Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar-Pradesh for the under the study. The other which remained at the bottom were Orissa and Madhya-Pradesh. In 2001, in the state of Rajasthan there was an impressive improvement in literacy rate from a low 38 percent in 1991 to 60 percent in 2001. States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Maharashtra are the leading states throughout the period followed by Punjab, Gujarat, West Bengal and Karnataka. While Bihar, Uttar-Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Assam continued to be lagging states in all the three census years. But overall performance of states in terms of literacy improved and is evident from declining trend in coefficient of variation over the period. Coefficient of variation has decreased from 41.44 percent in 1981 to 24.46 percent in 1991 and further to 14.83 percent in 2001 showing decreased regional disparity in the literacy levels during the study period. This is in accordance with Kuznets hypothesis. Thus, during the period of study, literacy rate among states has improved considerably. This led to reduction in interstate disparities in literacy rate due to increased investment in the education sector.
102 Table 5.1 Literacy rate in India: State-wise Literacy Rates (1981-2001) (In per cent) States 1981 1991 2001 Andhra Pradesh 35.66 44.08 60.47 Assam - 52.89 63.25 Bihar 32.32 37.49 47.00 Gujarat 44.92 61.29 69.14 Haryana 37.13 55.85 67.91 Karnataka 46.21 56.04 66.64 Kerala 78.85 89.81 90.86 Madhya Pradesh 38.63 44.67 63.74 Maharashtra 57.24 64.87 76.88 Orissa 33.62 49.09 63.08 Punjab 43.37 58.51 69.65 Rajasthan 30.11 38.55 60.41 Tamil Nadu 54.39 62.66 73.45 Uttar Pradesh 32.85 40.71 56.27 West Bengal 48.65 57.70 68.64 All India 43.57 52.21 64.64 Average 40.9 54.2 66.4 Standard deviation 16.9 13.2 9.8 Coefficient of variation (%) 41.4 24.4 14.8 Source: Office of the Registrar General, India. Note: Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh up to 2001 are included under Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya-Pradesh respectively. 5.2 Gross Enrolment Ratios Gross Enrolment Ratio refers to the number of students enrolled at different levels of education. Improvements in educational attainment are reflected in rising enrolment ratios at all levels. As is clear from the table 5.2 the
103 overall gross enrolment ratio of the country at primary, secondary and higher secondary level of education increased from 80.5, 41.9 and 25.5 in 1980-80 to 15.7, 27.4 and 24.3 by 2003-04 respectively. While there is improvement in enrollment at levels of education yet the performance is far from satisfactory. The enrollment ratio drops from 98 percent at the primary to 67 percent at the middle level and further to just 40 percent at the higher secondary level in 2003-04. This shows the high dropout rate from primary to secondary and secondary to higher level of education. In the year 1980-81 Kerala and Tamil-Nadu occupied the highest position in terms of enrolment of students in primary (I to V) and secondary level of education (VI to VII) followed by Maharashtra Punjab and West-Bengal. Uttar- Pradesh recorded high level of secondary education and ranked next after Kerala. Backward states such as Bihar, Orissa, Rajasthan and Madhya-Pradesh remained at the bottom with less than 70 percent of the relevant enrolled in primary education, less than 35 percent at the secondary level of education and less than 20 percent of the population enrolled in higher secondary classes (IX to XII). But the overall performance improved as shown by the decreasing coefficient of variation at all the levels of education For instance, disparity reduced from 21.2 percent in 1980-81 to 15.7 percent in 2003-04 at primary level of education, from 35.9 percent in 1980-81 to 27.4 percent in 2003-04 at secondary level of education and from 43.5 percent in 1980-81 to 24.3 percent in 2003-04 at higher secondary level of education. After analyzing the data it was also observed that number of students enrolled in higher secondary classes is less as compared to students enrolled in primary and secondary classes. This
S. No. Table 5.2 Gross Enrolment Ratios at different levels among states (1980-81 to 2003-04) States 1980-81 1990-91 2003-04 Primary classes I-V (6-11) Middle Classes VI-VIII (11-14) Higher Sec. Classes IX-XII (15-17) Primary Classes I-V (6-11 years) Middle Classes VI-VIII (11-14 years) Higher Sec. Classes IX- XII (15-17 years) Primary Classes I-V (6-11 years) Middle Classes VI-VIII (11-14 years) Higher Sec. Classes IX- XII (15-17 years) 1. Andhra Pradesh 74.5 32.3 18.7 108.95 54.03 4.00 87.72 64.86 44.61 2. Assam 871.0 40.0 19.1 99.55 52.35 32.66 88.16 63.65 40.83 3. Bihar 66.0 26.0 12.5 82.90 36.15 11.74 72.57 25.33 16.90 4. Gujarat 93.3 44.9 24.9 125.63 64.35 32.05 113.41 70.40 40.01 5. Haryana 70.5 47.2 22.9 86.76 65.23 29.00 75.25 65.51 45.53 6. Karnataka 86.6 37.7 20.7 108.99 58.19 29.82 108.91 76.20 41.66 7. Kerala 107.2 89.4 62.1 102.80 105.43 40.14 96.92 93.64 48.00 8. Madhya Pradesh 68.2 33.4 19.8 106.13 56.99 21.47 106.59 63.30 34.89 9. Maharashtra 103.7 50.9 26.7 125.54 78.62 34.48 107.60 87.55 53.86 10. Orissa 76.6 30.6 22.2 113.85 54.55 20.23 110.91 54.01 32.74 11. Punjab 100.4 59.1 30.5 96.39 74.73 37.43 73.45 60.06 39.03 12. Rajasthan 59.2 30.0 21.8 79.19 45.52 23.22 115.07 61.54 32.60 13. Tamil Nadu 112.8 56.3 26.2 133.95 95.75 37.01 116.51 100.41 56.85 14. Uttar Pradesh 62.5 38.7 32.1 133.51 72.59 30.28 94.75 48.64 37.93 15. West Bengal 93.9 45.3 25.5 113.87 94.69 27.33 107.33 64.28 32.61 All India 80.5 41.9 25.2 100.10 62.14 19.28 98.20 62.40 38.89 Average 83.11 44.12 25.70 103.6 65.4 26.15 98.3 66.6 39.8 Standard Deviation 17.65 15.88 11.18 18.12 20.41 9.725 15.5 18.3 9.71 Coefficient of Variation 21.23 35.99 43.50 17.49 31.19 37.24 15.7 27.4 24.3 Sources: Annual Reports (1993-94 and 2005-06). CV at all the three levels of education shows a reduction and is in accordance with Kuznet s hypothesis. 104
105 fact is attributed to many factors such as most of the students whose parents are living below the poverty line are not able to go school after completing their primary and secondary level of education because they are pressurized by their families to earn. In the table 5.2 Kuznet s hypothesis is proved as there is a reduction in CV at all the three levels of education. In the year 1990-91 the position has slightly changed. Tamil-Nadu, Maharashtra, Punjab and West-Bengal (except in higher secondary classes) had a large percentage of students in the relevant age group enrolled in primary, secondary and higher secondary levels of education. Gujarat s position had improved in terms of primary and higher secondary levels of education. On the other hand Bihar and Uttar-Pradesh (except in the higher secondary education) remained at the bottom in terms of all the levels of education. As is revealed from the table 5.2 Tamil-Nadu remained at a high position at primary and secondary level of education. Kerala and Maharashtra (except in primary level of education) also maintained their position having high level of enrolled students at the secondary and higher secondary level of education. On the other hand Rajasthan and Orissa had a large percentage of the relevant age group enrolled at primary level of education but on the other hand had a fewer percentage of the relevant age group enrolled at secondary and higher secondary level of education followed by Bihar, Uttar-Pradesh and Rajasthan. 5.3 Life Expectancy at Birth Life expectancy is considered as one of the most important indicator of health. Life expectancy at age one is calculated by the method applied by Morris D. Morris (1982). India has made a large progress in the health indicators. LEB has increased from 54 years in 1980 to 64.7 years in 2006. Macau (84 yrs.) has the highest life expectancy in the world according to human development report. Life expectancy seems to increase with rising national and per capita incomes through better food and nutrition available to the people. Rising incomes also ensure better health care, clean and healthy living conditions.
1 States 1981-85 1991-95 Table 5.3 State- wise Life Expectancy at Birth (LEB) (1981-2010) (In (years) 1993-97 1997-2001 1998-2002 1999-2003 2001-06 2006-10 Male Female Total Male Female Male Female Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Andhra Pradesh 58.4 61.8 61.2 63.5 62.4 61.9 64.4 62.0 64.6 63.5 62.2 64.8 62.79 65.00 65.4 69.4 Assam 51.9 55.7 56.6 57.1 56.7 57.6 57.8 57.7 58.1 57.9 57.8 58.3 58.96 60.87 61.6 62.8 Bihar 52.9 59.3 60.4 58.4 59.6 61.1 59.3 61.4 59.5 60.8 61.6 59.7 65.66 64.79 67.1 66.7 Gujarat 57.6 61.0 60.9 62.9 61.9 62.3 64.2 62.4 64.4 63.4 62.5 64.6 63.12 64.10 67.2 71.0 Haryana 60.3 63.4 63.7 64.6 64.1 64.6 65.2 64.7 65.4 65.2 65.0 65.6 64.64 69.30 67.9 69.8 Karnataka 60.7 62.5 61.6 64.9 63.3 62.6 66.0 62.8 66.2 64.5 62.9 66.4 62.43 66.44 66.5 71.1 Kerala 68.4 72.9 70.4 75.9 73.3 70.8 76.2 70.8 75.9 73.5 70.9 76.0 71.67 75.00 72.0 76.8 Madhya Pradesh 51.6 54.7 55.6 55.2 55.5 56.7 56.4 57.0 56.7 56.9 57.2 56.9 59.19 58.01 62.5 63.3 Maharashtra 60.7 64.8 64.1 66.6 65.5 64.8 67.3 65.0 67.4 66.2 65.2 67.6 66.75 69.76 67.9 71.3 Orissa 53.0 56.5 57.1 57.0 57.2 58.0 58.2 58.4 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.7 60.05 59.71 62.3 64.8 Punjab 63.1 67.2 66.7 68.8 67.7 67.2 69.3 67.4 69.5 68.5 67.6 69.6 69.78 72.00 68.7 71.6 Rajasthan 53.5 59.1 59.1 60.1 60.0 60.3 61.3 60.5 61.6 61.1 60.7 61.8 62.17 62.80 66.1 69.2 Tamil Nadu 56.9 63.3 63.2 65.1 64.1 64.1 66.1 64.2 66.3 65.2 64.3 66.5 67.00 69.75 67.6 70.6 Uttar Pradesh 50.0 56.8 58.2 56.9 57.6 59.2 58.1 59.4 58.5 59.1 59.6 58.7 63.54 64.09 64.0 64.4 West Bengal 57.4 62.1 62.2 63.6 62.8 63.2 64.6 63.3 64.8 63.9 63.5 65.0 66.08 69.34 68.2 70.9 Average 57.0 61.4 61.4 62.7 62.1 62.2 63.6 62.4 63.8 63.2 62.3 64.3 64.2 66.0 66.3 68.9 Standard deviation 5.04 4.77 3.94 5.48 4.67 3.77 5.27 3.71 51.4 4.39 3.22 5.07 3.66 4.75 2.78 3.80 Coefficient of 8.85 7.78 6.4 8.75 7.53 6.05 8.30 5.94 8.06 6.95 5.16 7.88 5.70 7.20 4.20 5.53 variation National Account Statistics. Office of the Register General of India. 2006-10 is the projected levels of Expectation of life at birth in India and major states. Created in 2001 Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal before 2001 are included in Madhya-Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar-Pradesh. 106
107 Consequently, in India with rise in incomes life expectancy has increased from 22.9 years in 1901-11 to 63.5 years in 1998-02 on the basis of recent estimates. In developed countries life expectancy is as high as eighty years. India has long way to go. On the basis of LEB, states can be categorized as developed, developing and underdeveloped. Kerala (71.6 years for male and 75 years for female) occupied the highest position and can be categorized as a developed state followed by Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. On the other hand, Assam followed by Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have had low life expectancy and can be categorized as underdeveloped and Karnataka and Tamil Nadu can be categorized as developing states. It is also revealed from the table 5.3 (data) that in terms of male and female life expectancy at birth, results are almost the same. LEB is highest in Kerala followed by Maharashtra, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Karnataka, Gujarat and West Bengal and it is lowest in Madhya Pradesh followed by Assam, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Bihar in all the periods. Backward states showed improvement in life expectancy and as a result inter-state disparities declined which is shown by the decreasing value of coefficient of variation. Compared to male life expectancy, variation is higher in female life expectancy as revealed by the highest value of coefficient of variation which reveals that among females, disparity is more as compared to males but it reduces subsequently as coefficient of variation reduced from 18.75 percent in 1993-97 to 5.53 percent during the period 2006 to 2010 due to improved health facilities or better availability of health infrastructure. Tamil Nadu (67.0 for males and 69.7 for females) and Karnataka (62.4 for males and 66.4 for females)
108 in 2006-10 are categorized as developing states having higher life expectancy. West Bengal has improved its life expectancy in 2001-06 as is increases from 57.4 years in 1981-85 to 70.9 years in 2006-10. Interstate inequalities in life expectancy have reduced. It is clear from the table that Coefficient of variation in LEB has reduced both for the population as a whole as well as at the disaggregated level of male and female population indicating that Kuznet s hypothesis is applicable in India with respect to LEB. 5.4 Infant Mortality Rate Infant mortality is defined as the number of deaths of infants per 1000 live births. It is an important social indicator reflecting, in some measure, the state of public health in the economy. In a developing country widespread prevalence of poverty, a rudimentary health infrastructure and illiterate and ill informed population prone to traditional behavior are factors that lead to a high Infant mortality. In India also Infant Mortality Rate is high at 53 (2008), with the lowest obtained in Kerala at 12 and highest in Orissa at 69, a difference of almost six times. Infant Mortality Rate for the period 1981-2008 is shown in table 5.4. Though the disparity between states in IMR is high, it has remained almost the same over the entire period for which data has been presented. This is also evident from the minor change in coefficient of variation over the period under review. The table 5.4 below shows that over the period 1981 to 2008, overall reduction in IMR has taken place over the period except in Haryana where IMR increased from 52 to 54. Reduction in IMR is highest in Kerala from 42 to 12 only. It is also the state where the IMR was lowest throughout the period. Reduction in IMR is also least in Andhra-Pradesh where it fell from 55 to 52.
1 Table 5.4 State-wise Infant Mortality Rate (1981-2008) (No per 1000) States 1981 1991 2001 2002 Male Female Person Male Female Person Person Female Male Male Female Person Andhra Pradesh 67 51 55 67 51 55 66 Na na 64 60 62 Assam 96 87 92 96 87 92 78 Na na 70 71 70 Bihar 62 89 75 62 89 75 67 Na na 56 66 61 Gujarat 74 82 78 74 82 78 64 Na na 55 66 60 Haryana 57 54 52 57 54 52 69 Na na 54 73 62 Karnataka 74 72 74 81 53 74 58 Na na 56 53 55 Kerala 45 41 42 45 41 42 16 Na na 9 12 10 Madhya Pradesh 131 136 133 131 136 133 97 Na na 81 88 85 Maharashtra 72 76 74 72 76 74 49 Na na 48 42 45 Orissa 129 111 125 129 111 125 98 Na na 95 79 87 Punjab 81 53 74 81 53 74 54 Na na 38 66 51 Rajasthan 94 79 87 94 79 87 83 Na na 75 80 78 Tamil Nadu 55 51 54 55 51 54 53 Na na 46 43 44 Uttar Pradesh 98 104 99 98 104 99 85 na na 76 84 80 West Bengal 75 51 62 75 51 62 53 na na 53 45 49 All India 74 79 77 79 74 77 71 na na 62 65 63 Average 80.6 75.8 78.4 81.1 74.5 78.4 66 na na 58.4 61.8 59.9 Standard deviation 25.0 26.8 25.8 25.0 27.4 25.8 20.9 na na 20.3 20.1 19.6 C.V (%) 31.0 35.3 32.9 30.8 36.8 32.9 31.7 na na 34.8 32.4 32.7 Contd 109
2 States 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Male Female Person Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Andhra 59 59 59 59 56 58 57 55 58 56 60 37 54 51 54 52 Pradesh Assam 69 65 67 66 66 69 68 67 68 67 68 41 66 62 65 64 Bihar 59 62 60 61 60 62 61 58 63 60 59 44 58 53 58 56 Gujarat 54 61 57 53 52 55 54 52 54 53 60 36 52 49 51 50 Haryana 54 65 59 61 51 70 60 57 58 57 60 44 55 51 57 54 Karnataka 51 52 52 49 48 51 50 46 50 48 52 35 47 44 46 45 Kerala 11 12 11 12 14 15 14 14 16 15 14 10 13 10 13 12 Madhya 77 86 82 79 72 79 76 72 77 74 77 50 72 68 72 70 Pradesh Maharashtra 32 54 42 36 34 37 36 35 36 35 41 24 34 33 33 33 Orissa 82 83 83 77 74 77 75 73 74 73 73 52 71 68 70 69 Punjab 46 52 49 45 41 48 44 39 50 44 47 35 43 39 43 41 Rajasthan 70 81 75 67 67 64 72 68 65 69 67 72 40 60 65 63 Tamil Nadu 44 43 41 41 35 39 37 36 37 37 38 31 35 30 33 31 Uttar 69 84 76 72 71 75 73 70 73 71 72 51 69 64 70 67 Pradesh West 45 46 46 40 38 39 38 37 40 38 39 29 37 34 37 35 Bengal All India 57 64 60 58 56 61 58 56 59 57 61 37 55 52 55 53 Average 54.8 60.3 52.2 54.5 51.7 56.4 54.0 51.7 54.8 53 55.4 37.2 51.4 47.7 51.1 49.4 Standard 18.2 19.3 18.7 17.8 17.0 18.3 17.6 17.0 17.1 16.8 17.1 11.0 16.7 16.3 16.9 16.6 deviation C.V (%) 33.2 32.0 32.7 32.7 32.9 32.4 32.6 32.8 31.1 31.8 30.9 29.7 32.5 34.1 33.1 33.71 Source: Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. 110
111 Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Karnataka have reducing their IMR. In 1981 and in 1991 their IMR was high. It was 74 in all the three states (Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Punjab), but subsequently it reduced to 33 in Maharashtra, 31 in Tamil Nadu and 41 in Punjab in 2008. Maharashtra s performance was noteworthy in this regard, having reached an IMR next to Kerala. Almost all the states succeeded in reducing IMR during the period. At the national level, the IMR (infant mortality rate) was 77 per thousand of live births in 1981 the figure reduced to71 in 2001 and 53 in 2008. In case of male-female infant mortality, results are almost the same. Table 5.4 also reveals the condition of interstate disparities in terms of male-female infant mortality. In case of male infant mortality, states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Assam have high infant mortality and remained backward. The position of Punjab and West Bengal has improved in the later post reform period and can be included in the list of states having low infant mortality. Disparity also prevailed in terms of female infant mortality and high in Bihar, Madhya-Pradesh, Assam and Uttar-Pradesh. On the other hand it is low in Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. Maharashtra has succeeded in reducing its female IMR (infant mortality rate). It can also be observed from the analysis that in 1981 in 10 of the fifteen states under study female IMR was lower than male IMR. By 2002 only six states had a lower female IMR and by 2008 all states except Maharashtra had a higher female IMR. In Maharashtra male and female literacy was the same. Thus, regional disparities in IMR remained almost the same. It can be seen from the analysis that coefficient of variation of IMR was almost constant and not much of a decline or increase in the tendency was observed. In 1980 coefficient of variation was 32.94 percent and it increased to 33.71 percent in 2008. Though coefficient of variation was significant it remained more or less the same throughout the period. This meant that
112 disparities in IMR did not get reduced and remained high throughout the period under study which shows poor health infrastructure in the less developed states along with an unsatisfactory health delivery system. A mixed picture is available here with respect to inequalities. Only with respect to the female population, CV has reduced from 35.3 to 33.1 while that for male population has risen from 31 to 34.1. For the population as a whole CV in IMR has increased from 32.9 to 33.7. thus Kuznet s hypothesis is disapproved as inequalities reflected in raised CVs in IMR. 5.5 Maternal Mortality Rate Another important indicator of health is Maternal Mortality Rate or MMR. Maternal Mortality Rate is defined as the maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in one year. In developing countries, prevalence of widespread poverty, poor nutrition, low quality of health care, lack of awareness of healthy living styles, low age of marriage and frequent pregnancies are some of the factors responsible for maternal deaths at the time of delivery or soon after. Maternal mortality is high in India but there are great variations between different states. Table 5.5 reveals interstate disparity in maternal mortality rate varying from 480 (2004-06) in Assam, the highest obtained to 95 in Kerala, the lowest among the states. In 1997-98 drastic reduction occurred in the maternal mortality rate of Gujarat which reduced to 29. States like Kerala (95), Tamil Nadu (111), Maharashtra (130), Haryana (186) and Gujarat (160) had lower maternal mortality because of implementation of various schemes which emphasized on institutional deliveries, presence of emergency obstetric assistance etc. while backward states such as Assam (480), Uttar Pradesh (440), Rajasthan (388), Bihar (312), Orissa (303) and Madhya Pradesh (335) had high maternal mortality. It is also shown from the table 5.5 that West Bengal has tremendously improved its position as its maternal mortality reduced from 561 in 1982-86 to141 in 2004-06. Astonishingly, the disparity among the states in
113 respect of maternal mortality has shown an increasing tendency in the immediate pre reform period as the value of coefficient of variation increased from 45.62 Table 5.5 Maternal Mortality Rate in Selected States in India (1982-86 to 2004-06) State 1982-86 1987-96 1997-98 1999-00 2001-03 2004-06 Andhra Pradesh 394 283 154 220 195 154 Assam 1068 984 401 398 490 480 Bihar 813 513 451 400 371 312 Gujarat 373 596 29 202 172 160 Haryana 494 472 105 176 162 186 Karnataka 439 480 195 266 228 213 Kerala 247 na 195 149 110 95 Madhya Pradesh 507 700 498 407 379 335 Maharashtra 439 380 135 169 149 130 Orissa 844 597 361 424 358 303 Punjab 207 na 196 177 178 192 Rajasthan 627 580 577 501 445 388 Tamil Nadu 372 195 76 167 134 111 Uttar Pradesh 920 737 707 539 517 440 West Bengal 561 458 264 218 194 141 INDIA 580 479 408 327 301 254 Average 553.6 465 309.6 294.2 272.1 242.6 Standard deviation 252.5 266.5 199.6 135.0 139.2 124.4 C.V (%) 45.6 57.3 64.5 45.9 51.1 51.2 Source: Statistical report, Registrar General of India Rate per 100,000 live births; Registrar general of India, Special Material Mortality in India, 2004-06 SPS Retrospective MMR Surveys SRS prospective household reports 1998 Health Information of India, 1998. na- not available
114 percent in 1982-86 to 64.5 percent in 1997-98 but it reduced in 1999-2000, 2001-03, and 2004-06 as shown by a lower degree of coefficient of variation. The overall coefficient of variation has increased from 45.62 percent in 1982-86 to 51.29 percent in 2004-06. In six of the fifteen sates taken up for the present study, MMR was more than 300, approximately four times more than Kerala having lowest maternal mortality- a high disparity indeed. The question that arises is that if one state can do it why not the others? It is clear from the table that Kuznet s hypothesis is disproved. 5.6 Access to Safe Drinking Water in Households in India It is restricted access to safe drinking water that affects large segments of the population in both rural and urban areas. Lack of availability of potable drinking water is responsible for a variety of waterborne diseases including diarrhea from which a large number of infants and children less than five years old die every year, deaths that are easily preventable. Due to insufficient safe drinking water in India every year 1.5 million children at the age group of five years and less than five years die. About 20 million people do not have safe drinking water in India and 37.7 million are affected by water borne diseases according to recent estimates. Safe drinking water is essential for living a healthy life. But around a billion people across the world lack access to safe drinking water and do not meet their basic needs. Infant Mortality Rate can be reduced if safe drinking water is provided to the population. Thus, it is clear that people in developing country like India need to have access to safe drinking water in sufficient quantity.
1 Table 5.6 State-wise Access to Safe Drinking Water in Households in India (1981-2001) (Tape/hand pump/tube well) States 1981 1991 2001 Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Andhra Pradesh 25.9 15.1 63.3 55.1 49.0 73.8 80.1 76.9 90.2 Assam Na Na Na 45.9 43.3 64.1 58.8 56.8 70.4 Bihar 37.6 33.8 65.4 58.8 56.5 73.4 86.6 86.1 91.2 Gujarat 52.4 36.2 86.8 69.8 60.0 87.2 84.1 76.9 95.4 Haryana 55.1 42.9 90.7 74.3 67.1 93.2 86.1 81.1 97.3 Karnataka 33.9 17.6 74.4 71.7 67.3 81.4 84.6 80.5 92.1 Kerala 12.2 6.3 39.7 18.9 12.2 38.7 23.4 16.9 42.8 Madhya Pradesh 20.2 8.1 66.7 53.4 45.6 79.4 68.4 61.5 88.6 Maharashtra 42.3 18.3 85.6 68.5 54.0 90.5 79.8 68.4 95.4 Orissa 14.6 9.5 51.3 39.1 35.3 62.8 64.2 62.9 72.3 Punjab 84.6 81.8 91.1 92.7 92.1 94.2 97.6 96.9 98.9 Rajasthan 27.1 13.0 78.7 59.0 50.6 86.5 68.2 60.4 93.5 Tamil Nadu 43.1 31.0 69.4 67.4 64.3 74.2 85.6 85.3 85.9 Uttar Pradesh 33.8 25.3 73.2 62.2 56.6 85.8 87.8 85.5 97.2 West Bengal 69.7 65.8 79.8 82.0 80.3 86.2 88.5 87.0 92.3 All India 38.2 26.5 75.1 62.3 55.5 81.4 77.9 73.2 90.0 Average 36.8 26.9 67.7 61.2 55.6 78.0 76.2 72.2 86.9 Standard deviation 22.3 22.7 23.5 17.9 18.7 14.5 18.0 19.2 14.7 C.V (%) 60.6 84.2 34.7 29.2 33.7 18.6 23.6 26.7 17.0 Source: Office of the Registrar General, India, Ministry of Home Affairs Na: Not available as no census was carried out in Assam during 1981. Created in 2001, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh for 1981 and 1991 are included under Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh respectively. 115
116 As is evident from the table 5.6 that Punjab households have a high level of safe drinking water facility followed by Haryana and West Bengal in both rural and urban areas. In 1981, Punjab is having high level of safe drinking water facility accompanied by West Bengal (69.7 percent), Haryana (55.1percent) and Gujarat (52.4 percent) in rural areas. In 1991 the position of state households having access to safe drinking water facility has not changed much such as Punjab (92.7 percent), West Bengal (82.0 percent), Haryana (74.3 percent) and Gujarat continued to be states having high level of safe drinking water facility. The position of Karnataka households has improved both in rural and urban areas. In 2001, in Uttar-Pradesh number of households having safe drinking water facility has increased followed by Bihar. In all the states under study improvements in access to safe water have occurred. However, almost 25 percent of the population of states still does not have access to safe water. This is significant in view of the fact that six decades of planned development have not been able to take care of this basic need of the people in the country. Disparity among states in terms of access to safe drinking water has reduced as shown by the decreasing value of coefficient of variation. It reduced from 60.6 percent in 1981 to 29.2 percent in 1991 and further to 23.6 percent in 2001, thus indicating that Kuznet s hypothesis is proved. Thus, it may be concluded that there are large disparities among the states in terms of social indicators. Kerala is exceptional with high literacy, high life expectancy, low maternal mortality, low infant mortality and large number of students enrolled in primary, secondary and higher secondary level of education followed by Tamil-Nadu and Maharashtra. While Assam, Uttar-Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Orissa and Madhya-Pradesh remained backward in terms of these social indicators.
117 5.7 Poverty Ratio Yet another indicator of development is the poverty ratio prevailing in the country. While absolute poverty declines with development, relative poverty is found to exist even in developed countries. It is poverty in the absolute sense that is a greater cause of concern, and whose prevalence is sought to be removed. Poverty in simple words is defined as a social phenomenon in which a section of the society is unable to fulfill even its basic necessities of life. Poverty demarcates the poor from the non-poor. It is identified as the minimum required consumption level of food, clothing, shelter, transport and healthcare. In the past poverty line was defined in terms per capita consumption expenditure at 1973-74 market prices but the expert group chaired by Suresh Tendulkar has reviewed the methodology for estimation of poverty and moved away from the calorie intake to adequacy of actual food expenditure near the poverty line to ensure aggregate nutrition. This committee also suggested that the poverty ratio at the all India level was actually 37.2 percent in 2004-05. Rural poverty was projected at 41.8 percent and urban at 25.7 percent by the committee, as against official estimates of 28.3 percent and 25.7 percent for rural and urban poverty respectively. Thus, a vast number of people in our country are living below the poverty line. Table 5.7 shows state-wise estimates of poverty in India. This is clear from table 5.7 that in 1980 s large proportion of population was living below the poverty line. In India there has been a significant and consistent progress in the reduction of poverty from an average of about 42 percent in 1983 to 25 percent by 2004-05 for the states under study. However, the reduction in the incidence of poverty is not uniform among states. A large number of persons are still living below the poverty line.
118 State/Union Territory Table 5.7 State Wise Poverty Estimates HCR (1983 to 2004) 1983-84 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-05 Andhra Pradesh 28.91 25.86 22.19 15.77 15.8 Assam 40.47 36.21 40.86 36.09 19.7 Bihar 62.22 52.13 54.96 42.60 41.4 Gujarat 32.79 31.54 24.21 14.07 16.8 Haryana 21.37 16.64 25.05 8.74 14.0 Karnataka 38.24 37.53 33.16 20.04 25.0 Kerala 40.42 31.79 25.43 12.72 15.0 Madhya Pradesh 49.78 43.07 42.52 37.43 38.3 Maharashtra 43.44 40.41 36.86 25.02 30.7 Orissa 65.29 55.58 48.56 47.15 46.4 Punjab 16.18 13.20 11.77 6.12 8.4 Rajasthan 34.46 35.15 27.41 15.28 22.1 Tamil Nadu 51.66 43.39 35.03 21.12 22.5 Uttar Pradesh 47.07 41.46 40.85 31.15 32.8 West Bengal 54.85 44.72 35.66 27.02 24.7 All India 44.48 38.86 35.97 26.10 27.5 Average 41.8 36.5 33.6 24.0 24.9 Standard deviation 13.9 11.6 11.1 12.5 10.9 C.V (%) 33.3 31.9 33.2 52.3 44.0 Source: Planning Commission (2002), National Human Development Report 2001, March, Planning Commission (latest) According to UNDP Human Development Report, 2003 (HRD 2003), India has the large number of poor among the countries of the world and is home to one fourth of the world s poor. There are large inter-state variations in the incidence of poverty but in states such as Punjab, Haryana, this incidence is much less for all the years from which data is given in the table. The table reveals that West Bengal and Kerala have experienced huge declines in the poverty ratio. In Kerala the poverty ratio declined from 40.42 percent in 1983 to 15.0 percent in 2004-05 while in West Bengal poverty ratio declined from 54.8
119 percent in 1983 to 24.7 percent in 2004-05. Although reduction in poverty has occurred, some states show a still high poverty ratio, such as 46 percent in Orissa and 41 percent in Bihar during 2004-05. It was between 30 percent and 40 percent in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and between Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and West Bengal. In 25-30 percent in 2004-05 poverty ratio in Orissa was almost six times that of Punjab. Poverty is mainly concentrated in four states of Orissa, Bihar, Madhya-Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Chart 5.1 State Wise Poverty Estimates Coefficient of variation 60 50 40 30 20 10 33.3 31.9 33.2 52.3 44 0 1983 1987-88 1993-94 1990-00 2004-05 Years In 2004-05 they were among the top five poorest states. In 1980 s the position of Assam was slightly better as compared to 90 s but by 2000 s its position has improved considerably. The reduction in poverty has not been equal among the states as shown by the high and varying value of coefficient of variation. The coefficients of variation of poverty for the study period are also shown in chart 5.1. The coefficient of variation of the state-wispercent in 1983 to 52.3 percent in 1999-2000 but it reduced poverty has increased from 33.3 subsequently to 44 percent in 2004-05 indicating reduced variation in the second
120 period of the post-reform due to implementation of various poverty alleviations schemes during this period. It is clear from the chart 5.1 that Kuznet s hypothesis is disproved. 5.8 Headcount Ratio Table 5.8, examines changes in the rural and urban poverty ratios and concentrate on the changes between pre reform and post reform periods. The poverty ratios in both the rural-urban areas declined in almost all the states since 1983 except in rural areas of Assam and Haryana. In rural areas of Assam poverty increased from 41.9 percent in 1983 to 44.4 percent in 1993-94 while in Haryana the increase was from about 21.8 percent to 26.6 percent during the same period. But in 2004-05 it reduced in almost all the states. In Kerala and West Bengal major reductions in rural poverty ratios was observed for the total population, especially in West-Bengal where it reduced from 61.5 percent in 1983 to 37.3 percent in 1993-94 and further to 28.49 percent in 2004-05. In some states like Madhya-Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil- Nadu and West-Bengal the immediate post- reform period witnessed greater reduction, while in states like Bihar, Uttar- Pradesh and Kerala, the performance was better in the longer term. But the reduction in disparity was not uniform as revealed by the increasing coefficient of variation in 2004-05. No doubt the value of coefficient of variation reduced in the early period of the post reform (1993-94) but it further increased in the second period of the post-reform period.
93 Table 5.8 Rural Urban Headcount Poverty Ratio by Major States (1983-2004) States Rural Urban All 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 Andhra Pradesh 27.31 16.64 10.85 37.49 37.63 25.41 29.75 22.30 14.80 Assam 41.92 44.43 23.05 23.07 10.19 3.83 40.03 40.46 20.46 Bihar 64.89 57.24 43.06 47.49 36.54 31.66 62.71 54.50 41.53 Gujarat 27.92 22.44 19.76 38.00 29.44 11.96 31.11 24.92 16.75 Haryana 21.77 26.62 13.41 25.47 17.54 15.06 22.59 24.26 13.92 Karnataka 37.51 30.24 23.73 42.88 39.67 33.40 39.08 33.25 27.15 Kerala 38.46 26.49 12.27 45.11 25.45 20.86 39.81 26.22 14.48 Madhya Pradesh 48.21 40.43 38.17 53.11 48.29 34.44 49.23 42.30 37.21 Maharashtra 45.04 37.66 30.36 39.69 34.74 29.42 43.13 36.50 29.95 Orissa 67.52 50.11 47.76 49.19 41.02 43.34 65.31 48.85 47.07 Punjab 14.30 13.72 9.55 23.52 11.83 5.57 16.88 13.14 8.12 Rajasthan 37.72 26.89 18.91 38.81 31.55 29.81 37.95 27.96 21.48 Tamil Nadu 56.22 32.99 22.96 47.94 38.92 34.06 53.48 35.20 28.31 Uttar Pradesh 46.38 42.33 34.06 49.47 36.15 30.29 46.94 41.08 33.25 West Bengal 61.56 37.35 28.49 31.50 23.24 18.50 53.60 33.45 25.67 All India 45.76 37.26 29.18 42.27 32.56 26.02 44.93 36.02 28.27 Average 42.4 33.7 25.0 39.5 30.8 24.5 42.1 33.6 25.3 Standard Deviation 15.7 12.1 11.8 9.81 11.1 11.4 13.6 10.8 11.1 C.V (%) 37.0 35.9 47.0 24.8 36.0 46.5 32.3 32.1 43.8 Source: Estimated from published data of NSS 43 rd, 50 th and 61 st rounds of Consumer Expenditure Surveys. For 1983, Sarvekshana, vol. 13, No. 2, October- December 1989l for 1993-94, NSSO Report 402, May 1996, for 2004-05, NSSO Report 508, December 2006. 121
122 The levels of inequality are higher in urban areas than rural areas as shown by the increasing value of coefficient of variation in the early post-reform period (1993-94) and in the later post reform period (2004-05). Coefficient of variation shows that inequality increased in urban areas significantly in the postreform period as compared to pre-reform period. In 2004-05, in Orissa and Bihar Poverty ratio was more than 40 percent, between 30 to 40 percent in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, and between 25 percent and 30 percent in Maharashtra, Tamil-Nadu, West-Bengal and Karnataka. In 2004-05, the rate of poverty in Orissa was almost six times that of Punjab. Rural poverty is high in all these states except Tamil-Nadu. In Bihar, Madhya-Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil-Nadu and Uttar-Pradesh urban poverty was 30 percent or more than 30 percent in 2004-05. But in some states such as Gujarat, Punjab and Kerala significant reduction was observed in urban poverty also during the post reform period and was 11.96 percent, 5.57 percent and 20.8 percent respectively in 2004-05. In the second period of post-reform (2004-05) level of decline in poverty is higher than the first period (1993-94). It is clear from the table that Kuznet s hypothesis is disproved as CV increases at all the levels. 5.9 Absolute Number of Poor Absolute number of poor persons on rural-urban basis is depicted statewise for the period 1983 to 2004-05 in Table 5.9. A study of the table 5.9 shows that the absolute number of rural poor increased in states such as Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Uttar-Pradesh in 1993-94 as compared to 1983 and in 2004-05 it increased in three states, viz,, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Uttar-Pradesh as compared to 1993-94. While the absolute number of urban poor increased in most of the states such as Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil-
123 Nadu and Uttar-Pradesh in the early Post reform period, in 2004-05 in some of these states such as Gujarat and Andhra-Pradesh, there was a reduction in poverty ratios. At the same time in some states like Assam, Punjab, Kerala and West- Bengal, there was a consistent reduction in the absolute number of the poor over the period. The number of poor for the total population (rural +urban) increased in seven states (Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya-Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar-Pradesh) in the early post- reform period as compared to pre- reform period and in 2004-05 it is getting concentrated in five states, viz, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar-Pradesh and Orissa their share being 65 percent of the total poor in 2004-05. These also happen to be the states with high populations. Increase in absolute numbers of the poor, rural as well as urban is better explained by normal increases in population in respective states. Increase in the urban poor is further explained by the process of urbanization and shift of population from rural to urban areas. Also failure of urban areas to provide jobs and the prevalence of under-employment has pushed more people to the category of urban poor. It may also be pointed out that a higher number of poor people may not reflect lower levels of development. For instance, the state like Maharashtra has greater number of poor people than Madhya-Pradesh, definitely a less developed state in all respects.
93 Table 5.9 Absolute Number of Poor in Selected States in India (1983-2004) ( In Millions) States Rural Urban All 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 Andhra Pradesh 11.75 8.43 6.33 5.08 7.04 5.52 16.82 15.47 11.85 Assam 7.21 9.31 5.72 0.44 0.28 0.15 7.65 9.59 5.87 Bihar 42.00 46.39 45.31 4.39 4.51 5.18 46.39 50.89 50.49 Gujarat 6.82 6.39 6.70 4.31 4.60 2.55 11.12 10.99 9.25 Haryana 2.33 3.51 2.17 0.78 0.81 1.10 3.11 4.32 3.27 Karnataka 10.36 9.75 8.67 4.88 5.99 6.67 15.24 15.74 15.34 Kerala 8.03 5.85 3.01 2.40 2.00 1.78 10.43 7.86 4.79 Madhya Pradesh 21.19 21.80 25.10 6.11 8.11 7.86 27.30 29.91 32.96 Maharashtra 19.26 19.08 17.97 9.40 11.68 13.68 28.65 30.76 31.65 Orissa 16.43 14.33 15.75 1.64 1.89 2.66 18.07 16.22 18.41 Punjab 1.82 2.04 1.61 1.16 0.79 0.53 2.97 2.82 2.14 Rajasthan 10.86 9.88 9.07 3.02 3.47 4.42 13.88 13.34 13.49 Tamil Nadu 18.89 11.93 7.83 7.96 8.34 10.80 26.85 20.26 18.62 Uttar Pradesh 44.62 50.57 51.39 10.60 10.95 12.54 55.22 61.51 63.92 West Bengal 26.15 19.40 17.58 4.82 4.62 4.50 30.98 24.02 22.08 All India 252.05 247.18 232.16 72.29 77.38 83.31 324.34 324.55 315.48 Average 16.5 15.9 14.9 4.46 5.00 5.32 20.9 20.9 20.2 Source: Estimated from published data of NSS 43 rd, 50 th and 61 st rounds of Consumer Expenditure Surveys. For 1983, Sarvekshana, vol. 13, No. 2, October- December 1989l for 1993-94, NSSO Report 402, May 1996, for 2004-05, NSSO Report 508, December 2006. 124
125 5.10 Percentage Distribution of Poor Persons In Table 5.10, estimates show increasing share of poverty in a few states and hence reveals disparity among the states as shown by the increasing value of coefficient of variation. Four states such as Bihar, Madhya-Pradesh, Orissa and Uttar-Pradesh account for 4.98 percent share in the rural poverty in 1983. This share has increased from 55 percent in 1993-94 and further to 61 percent in 2004-05. Similarly, the share of seven states (Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya- Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil-Nadu and Uttar-Pradesh) in urban poor increased from 61.6 percent in 1983 to 70 percent in 1993-94 and further to 76 percent in 2004-05. Poverty for the total population is getting concentrated in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Uttar-Pradesh. These states accounted for 65 percent of the total poor in 2004-05. In these states percentage of poor people in rural areas increased such as in case of Bihar it increased from 16.82 percent in 1983 to 20.11 percent in 2004-05 and in Uttar-Pradesh 22.8 percent of the rural poor lived in 2004-05 as compared to 17.8 percent in 1983. In the relatively more developed states of Maharashtra more people in urban areas were pushed to the category of poor people as is evident by the fact that 17 percent of the urban poor in 2004-05 are the residents in Maharashtra compared to 13.9 percent in 1983.
110 Table 5.10 Percentage Distribution of Poor Persons across the Major States in India (1983-2004) (In per cent) States Rural Urban All 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 Andhra Pradesh 4.70 3.49 2.81 7.54 9.35 6.89 5.31 4.89 3.88 Assam 2.89 3.86 2.54 0.66 0.37 0.80 2.41 3.03 1.92 Bihar 16.82 19.22 20.11 6.53 5.99 6.46 14.64 16.07 16.53 Gujarat 2.73 2.65 2.97 6.40 6.11 3.18 3.51 3.47 3.03 Haryana 0.93 1.45 0.96 1.16 1.08 1.37 0.98 1.37 1.07 Karnataka 4.15 4.04 3.85 7.25 7.96 8.32 4.81 4.97 5.02 Kerala 3.22 2.43 1.34 3.56 2.66 2.22 3.29 2.48 1.57 Madhya Pradesh 8.49 9.03 11.14 9.08 10.78 9.82 8.61 9.45 10.79 Maharashtra 7.71 7.91 7.97 13.97 15.52 17.08 9.04 9.71 10.36 Orissa 6.58 5.94 6.99 2.44 2.51 3.32 5.70 5.12 6.03 Punjab 0.73 0.84 0.71 1.72 1.05 0.66 0.94 0.89 0.70 Rajasthan 4.35 4.09 4.03 4.48 4.61 5.52 4.39 4.21 4.22 Tamil Nadu 7.56 4.94 3.47 11.83 11.08 13.48 8.47 6.40 6.10 Uttar Pradesh 17.87 20.95 22.80 15.75 14.55 15.56 17.42 19.43 20.93 West Bengal 10.47 8.04 7.80 7.17 6.13 5.62 9.77 7.59 7.23 All India 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Average 6.61 6.59 6.63 6.63 6.65 6.68 6.61 6.60 6.62 Standard Deviation 5.16 5.98 6.71 4.57 4.83 5.28 4.76 5.25 5.84 C.V (%) 78.0 90.7 101.2 68.9 72.6 79.0 72.0 79.5 88.2 Estimated from published data of NSS 43 rd, 50 th and 61 st rounds of Consumer Expenditure Surveys. For 1983, Sarvekshana, Vol. 13, No. 2, October- December 1989; for 1993-94, NSSO Report 402, May 199. For 2004-05, NSSO Report 506, December 2006. Increase in CV in percentage distribution of poor persons across states disproves Kuznet s hypothesis. Source: 126
127 Table 5.11 Percentage Distribution of Poor Persons across the Major States (1983-2004) (Forward and Backward group of States) (In percent) States 1983-84 1993-94 2004-05 Forward Group Andhra Pradesh 5.31 4.89 3.88 Gujarat 3.51 3.47 3.03 Haryana 0.98 1.37 1.07 Karnataka 4.81 4.97 5.02 Kerala 3.29 2.48 1.57 Maharashtra 9.04 9.71 10.36 Punjab 0.94 0.89 0.70 Tamil Nadu 8.47 6.40 6.10 Total for forward states 36.35 33.48 31.73 Backward Group Assam 2.41 4.89 3.88 Bihar 14.64 16.07 16.53 Madhya Pradesh 8.61 9.45 10.79 Orissa 5.70 5.12 6.03 Rajasthan 4.38 4.21 4.42 Uttar Pradesh 17.42 19.43 20.93 West Bengal 9.77 7.59 7.23 Total for backward states 62.93 66.76 65.81 Source: Taken from the table 5.10 5.11 Percentage Distribution of poor persons (forward and backward group of states) The states taken up for discussion in this study can broadly be divided into forward group and backward group on the basis of their percentage distribution of poor. The percentage distribution of poor in the forward group of states went down from 36 percent in 1983-84 to 31.7 percent in 2004-05. While in the backward group there was an increase in the same, from 63 percent to 66 percent during the
128 same period, although overall reduction in poverty ratios has taken place in all the states, the performance was uneven, the forward group performing better than the backward group. But in Maharashtra it is increasing from 9.04 percent in 1983-84 to 10.36 percent in 2004-05 because of migration of poor people from rural areas to Maharashtra. Forward group of states are those have low poverty ratios and backward group of states have high poverty ratios. As we have seen in the table 5.11 that the share of poor decline in the forward states since 1983-84, especially after 1993-94. It may be noted that the share of poor fall in the country during the post reform period. This in turn establishes the close relationship between poverty reduction and economic growth. While the share of poor in the backward states, has increased. All the states in this regard experienced considerable increase in the share of poor. It may note that the overall reduction has observed in the poverty ratios, in the nineties and an increase in the share in poverty does not imply increase in the number of poor. Thus, we can observe that by and large reduction is found in the group of states. Poverty declined in almost all the states in the pre reform and post reform period. But the reduction of poverty was not uniform as some of the states still have very high poverty ratios. Thus, that reduction in poverty has occurred, some states show a still high poverty ratio, such as 46 percent in Orissa and 41 percent in Bihar during 2004-05. It was between 30 percent and 40 percent in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and between 25-30 percent in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and West Bengal. In 2004-05 poverty ratio in Orissa was almost six times that of Punjab. Poverty is mainly concentrated in four states of Orissa, Bihar, Madhya-Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh