Social Sector Spending: An Inter-State Comparison

Submitted by

Md. Azharuddin Khan

 Abstract
The objective of this paper is to examine whether varying level of social sector
expenditure had impact on the social development by comparing the selected states
like, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, after reform
period. I have chosen these states on the basis of per capita NSDP ranking (2012-13)
where Maharashtra has ranking 1 and Bihar has ranking 17. Andhra Pradesh, Kerala,
Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu have 7, 5, 10 and 4 ranking respectively. To examine the
trends in social sector expenditures, I have considered social sector expenditure (in
billion) and social sector expenditure as a proportion of aggregate expenditure (in per
cent). This social sector expenditure further divided in Revenue Expenditure and
Capital expenditure. Revenue expenditure consists mainly of salaries, while capital
expenditure results in infrastructure development. Here I have found that the
proportion of revenue expenditure on social sector is more than the proportion of
capital expenditure and in case of capital expenditure, the major part of it spends on
health sector. Further we have examined the trend in expenditure on health and
education as ratio to aggregate expenditure. Finally since the human development is
a sine qua non for any society that desires to achieve growth with equity and survive
under the complex challenges of a dynamic world, I have necessarily consider the HDI
scores and ranks for 1996 and 2006 of these states and differences in these periods.
These score and rank of HDI are the simple average of three dimension indices such
as ‘A long and healthy life’, ‘Knowledge’ and ‘A decent standard of living’.
On the other side I have consider social indicator, particularly health and education
(because they are being the two crucial segments that attract significant share of
public expenditure on social sector) in order to examine the impact on social sector
development,. For each social indicator three dimensions has been include such as,
literacy rate, gross enrollment ratio at school level and drop-out rates at school level
are for education, and infant mortality rate, maternal mortality ratio and life
expectancy at birth are for health. The study shows that social sector expenditure has
a significant effect on the human resource as literacy rate, gross enrollment ratio and
life expectancy are showing the increasing trend and drop-out ratio, IMR and MMR
are showing decreasing trend. The proposed paper also tries to suggest some policy
prescriptions for further improvement in social development in these regions.

Introduction

Indian economy grew at a comparatively low rate of growth of 3.5 per cent from
1950 to 1980. The plethora of procedures, permits, bureaucratic controls and
protectionist policies created under import substitution strategy (ISS) along with
other factors landed us into the economic crisis of 1991 which was reflected in
macroeconomic mismanagement of the economy judged from such parameters as
high fiscal deficit, high balance of payments deficit, double digit inflation, low forex
reserves, etc. In order to solve this crisis the stabilization and structural adjustment
programme (SAP)/economic reforms has introduced. The post reform period aimed at
sustainable economic and social development, which has finally culminated in the
shape of millennium development goal (after the UN Millennium Development
Summit -2000), by setting out various developmental goals influencing the well-being
of people.

Education and health sector goal have been recognized as vital components of the
Millennium Development goals. These two sectors are the crucial segments of the
social sector that attract significant public expenditure with strong elements of
subsidy. Government expenditure on social sector assumes importance in India for at
least two reasons. The first is that the magnitude of deprivation in the country is too
large to be left to market forces alone to tackle. Secondly a higher proportion of the
poor utilizes government services as compared to richer households. The role of
public policy is supported on the premise that expansion of health care, education
and social security can directly improve the quality of life, increase productivity of
workforce, lead to higher growth and social development.

The World Development Report 2003 also notes that one of the initiatives to
promote sustainable development in a dynamic world is to empower underprivileged
sections of population by increasing their access to education and health. In the quest
to improving quality of life and sustainable economic development, reduction in
inequality, poverty and unemployment, human development has assumed as
increasing importance. UNDP (2008) affirms that human development is a sine qua
non for any society that desires to achieve growth with equity and survive under the
complex challenges of a dynamic world.

Development of the people, by the people and for the people will lead to the all
round development of the society. The main theme of 1996 Human

Development Report was: "Human development is the end - economic growth a

means." The Report argues that economic growth, if not properly managed, can be
jobless, voiceless, ruthless, rootless and futureless, and thus detrimental to human
development. The ultimate objective of planned development is to ensure human
well-being. The development of human resources contributes to sustained growth
and productive employment. After the UN Millennium Development Summit (2000),
the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) became the most widely accepted
yardstick of development efforts by Governments. Improvement in human capital
requires higher investments in the social sector. The Millennium Development Goals
relating to the social sector include achieving universal education, attaining gender
equality, reducing Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR).

When the government introduced the stabilization and structural adjustment

measures in 1991 the main objective of the country was to transform the economic
growth into commensurate improvement in social development. In last two decades
since economic reform, Indian economy has experienced a higher growth rate than in
previous two decades. But this gain has not seems to be translated into
commensurate improvement in social indicators, particularly health and education.
One possible reason for this disconnection between the economic growth and social
development is the level of expenditure in social sector in different Indian states.
Another possible reason could be corruption that might have been deprived the
underprivileged sections of the population.

Literature Review

There are very few number of literatures dealing with issues related to social
sector expenditure and social development. Some show trend in social sector
expenditure and some shows it attainment too.
One important finding in earlier studies has been that on an average, social
expenditure as a percentage of NSDP ranged between 6.49 and 7.7 over the period.
The percentage decreased in 11 out of 15States during post reform period. It is seen
that percentage expenditure was comparatively low in high income States like
Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana. Share of social sector in total expenditure
was less than the UNDP recommended 40% in all most all States and ranged between
24 and 34 percent on an average.

In per capita terns social expenditure has increased significantly in all States between
1980-8 1 and 2003-04 and the increase was more than 100 per cent in seven States.
The States that witnessed such increases comprised of both high and low income
States. Education claimed a major share in total social sector and on an average it was
about fifty per cent of the total social expenditure. It is also seen that while health
sector experienced drastic cut in its share in total social expenditure in the post
reform period, education expenditure was relatively protected. [Trend in social sector
expenditure- An inter-state comparison by Mercy W.J Department of Economics, Dr. John Matthai
Centre, University of Calicut, 2007]

Another study has been done regards social sector expenditure in a RBI occasional
paper in 2003 which argues that recognizing the role of human capital formation and
the need for social spending, the study, covering a sample of 15 non-special category
states, examines the level and effectiveness of social sector expenditure in the field of
education and health over the period 1985-86 to 2000-01. Empirical findings establish
that public spending on education has been productive, though it has been more at
the primary than at the secondary level of education. The relationship is stronger for
poorer than non-poorer states. Female education
is instrumental in enhancing both primary and secondary enrolments. The
relationship between public spending and health outcome turns out to be weaker,
though it is indicative more of inadequate than ineffective health expenditure.
Infrastructure availability seems to have a significant influence in reducing infant
mortality. State spending has played a less important role in case of health than
education in narrowing down the gender and rural-urban disparties. [Social sector
expenditure and attainment; An analysis of Indian states by Balbir Kaur and Sangita Misra, Reserve
Bank of India Occasional Papers Vol. 24, Nos. 1 and 2, Summer and Monsoon 2003]

In a review paper during the regime of policy reform it has tried to study the
performance of social sector, particularly during the structural adjustment
programme. For the purpose an effort is made to evaluate the public expenditure
patterns and assess the capacity of the sector to respond to reforms in terms
of the relationship between per capita public expenditure and the outcome. The
major thrust of investigation is to find as to what leads the sector to perform better in
some states than in others. The sector has been defined to include basic needs like
education, health and social security. In India, like in any other country, the pursued
social sector policy depended on the approach to development adopted in the overall
economic planning. The problems faced by the social sector over the years to produce
required outcome under a particular approach to development across countries,
therefore, need to be summarized to suggest remedies for the sector's development
in India. [Public Spending and Outcome of Social Services in India: A Review during the Regime of
Policy Reforms
By Basanta K. Pradhan, Kamala Kanta Tripathy, Raji Rajan at National Council of Applied Economic
Research September 2000.]

In a weekly magazine Seema Joshi(28 Jan 2006) has tried to demonstrate the impact
of economic reform on social sector expenditure in India and argues that the
economic crisis of 1990s was precipitated mainly by the growth of public expenditure
in the 1980s. An attempt was made to resolve this crisis through the introduction of
stabilization and structural adjustment programmes. One of the important planks of
the stabilization measures was the compression of public expenditure. This has
brought to the forefront the issue of “transitional social costs” of stabilization. This
paper attempts to analyze the social. It is well recognized that social infrastructure is
as critical as physical infrastructure in the development of human resources. Given
the importance of the social sector in India’s context, it is very relevant and useful to
examine the impact of economic
reform on social sector expenditures after more than a decade’s experience with
reforms. Such an attempt has been made in this paper by analyzing the expenditures
incurred by the central and state governments on social sector during the pre-reform
and post reform period. [Impact of Economic Reform on Social Sector Expenditure by Seema
Joshi, Economic and Political Weekly January 28, 2006.]

Trend in Social Sector Expenditure

Trends in levels of state wise social sector expenditures in 6 major States

over a period of two decades ranging from 1990-91 to 2011-12 is studied to have a
clear understanding of the States' efforts for social development. It may be noted that
the figures comprise of both revenue and capital expenditures. Apart from total social
sector expenditures, percentage expenditures on education and health have been
examined separately as they constitute a major share of the social sector
expenditure. Trends in expenditure on each category namely, social, education and
health sectors are analyzed in terms of total expenditure (in billion), expenditure to
aggregate disbursement (in per cent), state wise revenue and capital expenditure,
expenditure on education and public health and family welfare as a ratio to aggregate
expenditure and in terms of per capita expenditure on health and education.

State wise total social sector expenditure

Social sector expenditure is presented in table 1. As observe from the table that except AP,
Rajasthan and Maharashtra all three states has ups and down trend in social expenditure but only
up to 2003-04. After that these states such as Bihar, Kerala and TN is also shown an increasing trend
like other three states. From the chart we can clearly say that Maharashtra has the highest and AP
has a lowest trend in social sector expenditure. The average social expenditure registered is highest
in Maharashtra (26129.33) and lowest in Kerala (7888).
 Table-1. Social sector 9expenditure(in crore)
Years/ 1990- 1995- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- Mean
States 91 96 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

AP 2740 5510 8830 10000 10900 11180 13400 13800 14900 18700 24500 31400 30280 39100 45400 18709.33

BR 2380 3800 8340 7410 5780 6470 7020 6120 8660 11100 13800 16300 17870 19400 24050 10566.67

KL 1480 2690 5430 5240 4930 6340 5920 7340 7520 7190 9010 10860 12030 13600 18740 7888

MH 3790 8360 12800 15400 15500 15700 18900 20400 24300 28300 29700 36500 47360 53800 61130 26129.33

RJ 1870 3910 6380 7220 7730 8030 9230 9840 10920 12600 14700 19400 21580 22800 27850 12270.67

TN 2980 5140 8860 9620 9190 9660 11600 13600 14300 16900 20000 26900 29350 36500 41900 17100

Social sector exp.(in crore)

250000

200000 TN

150000 RJ
MH
100000
KL
50000
BR
0
AP
1990-91
1995-96
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12

Social sector expenditure to aggregate disbursement in major states

 Table 2 presents State-wise figures of social expenditure as a percentage of total
expenditure. As observed from the table, only Bihar has increasing trend in social expenditure in the
first half of 90’s and rest of the states has shown a decreasing trend. In the second half of 90’s the
percentage of social expenditure in AP, Bihar and Kerala has increased but states like Maharashtra,
Rajasthan and TN has shown decreasing trend in percentage expenditure in social sector. In this
decade TN has shown highest share of total expenditure (45.1%) in 1990-91 whereas Maharashtra
has shown the lowest share (33.6%) in 1999-00. In the next decade the trend in the social
expenditure as a share of aggregate expenditure is not uniform like the trend in last decade.

Table 2. Social expenditure to the aggregate expenditure(in per cent)

Years/ 1990- 1995- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- Mean
States 91 96 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

AP 41.7 38.5 38.8 35.6 35 32.5 33.3 29.3 30.8 32.9 32.7 38.9 35.6 38.9 39.2 35.58

BR 38.3 40.3 42.7 43.7 38.9 36.4 36.7 30.5 38.4 41 43.8 43.9 41.8 38.2 40 39.64

KL 43.7 38.9 42.1 39.9 37.6 37.4 30 36.2 35.6 31 31.4 33.4 33.6 33.4 34.8 35.93

MH 35.2 39.1 33.6 36.6 36.4 33.3 30.9 28.1 35.3 37.3 37 36.8 40.3 41.4 41.1 36.16

RJ 39.5 35.9 39.2 41.3 40.7 37.3 35.7 34.1 40.1 39.5 38.9 45.2 44.3 42.4 42.6 39.78

TN 45.1 41.1 39.2 39.4 37 32 34.3 32.6 36.9 33.1 35.9 39.7 40.3 40.2 38.3 37.67

Chart 2. Social sector expenditure to aggregate disbursement(per cent)

50

40

30 AP
BR
20
KL
10
MH
0 RJ
TN

Table 3. Per capita social expenditure

Years/ 1990- 1995- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011-
States 91 96 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

AP 361.82 727.61 1166 1321 1439 1476 1770 1822 1968 2469 3235 4146 3999 5163 5995.2
BR 287.17 458.5 1101 894.1 697.4 780.7 847 738.4 1045 1339 1665 1967 2156 2341 2901.8
KL 464.84 844.89 1705 1646 15484 1991 1859 2305 2362 2258 2830 3411 3778 4272 5885.9
MH 391.72 864.06 1323 1592 1602 1623 1953 2108 2512 2925 3070 3773 4895 5561 6318.2
RJ 331.13 692.36 1130 1278 1369 1422 1634 1742 1934 2231 2603 3435 3821 4037 4931.5
TN 479.79 827.55 1426 1549 1480 1555 1868 2190 2302 2721 3220 4331 4725 5877 6746

Chart 3.
8000
7000 per capita social expenditure
6000
5000 AP
4000 BR
3000 KL
2000 MH
1000
RJ
0
TN
 Table 4. Social expenditure on education- As ratio to aggregate expenditure (in percent)
Years/ 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011-
States 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

AP 13.3 12.5 11.7 11.6 9.8 11.1 10.8 9 9 10 12.5 13

BR 23.7 20.7 18.4 18.9 15.8 19.6 19.7 17.6 18.5 18.1 16.3 17
KL 20 19 17.6 15.7 16.2 16.6 17.1 15.9 16.7 16.8 17 17.7
MH 22.3 22.1 18.9 15.5 14 15.7 16.4 17.2 17 19.1 20.8 20.2
RJ 18.8 18.2 15.5 14.1 13.8 17.2 15.6 14.6 17.9 19 19.1 17.8
TN 18 17.3 13.8 12.6 11.2 13.6 12.2 12.7 13.1 15.2 15.2 14.3

Table 5. Expenditure on public health- As a ratio of aggregate expenditure (in percent)

Years/ 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011-
States 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

AP 4.7 4.4 4 3.7 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.1 4.4
BR 5.9 4.9 4.2 3.8 3.1 4.5 4.2 4.4 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.5
KL 5.3 5.8 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 4.5 4.8 4.8 5.1 5.4
MH 3.9 4.3 3.7 3.2 2.7 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.6
RJ 5.2 5.2 4.2 4 3.7 4.4 4.1 4 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.1
TN 4.9 4.9 4.1 3.8 3.2 4.2 3.3 3.3 3.7 4.8 4.8 4

Table 6. Revenue Expenditure

States/ Years AP BR KL MH RJ TN

Education Health Education Health Education Health Education Health Education Health Education Health

2000-01 373,881 101,332 400,688 71,426 262,023 58,170 940,842 141,784 324,281 73,185 439,600 97,168
2001-02 379,420 104,163 303,340 52,757 247,100 62,678 938,198 158,177 343,098 76,769 429,287 96,663
2002-03 402,574 109,117 318,100 56,447 296,757 66,630 893,709 150,433 331,054 74,885 414,533 94,997
2003-04 464,969 123,251 354,693 53,958 314,604 77,297 937,741 173,983 375,332 81,505 463,743 109,351
2004-05 459,276 118,478 314,223 50,446 325,418 78,395 1,018,416 174,581 395,009 89,293 459,728 111,130
2005-06 533,753 127,787 439,396 76,023 345,686 83,708 1,076,183 198,710 465,199 97,956 501,256 110,790
2006-07 603,561 149,447 525,255 84,782 391,709 98,005 1,231,649 197,532 491,734 107,990 606,110 130,972
2007-08 660,483 204,240 549,599 99,675 452,903 108,966 1,364,163 239,537 542,315 117,869 684,575 144,223
2008-09 7,16,837 2,38,613 6,70,591 1,02,878 5,40,333 1,35,008 16,44,681 2,75,729 7,65,284 1,68,289 8,80,415 1,89,506
2009-10 843,704 280,052 741,622 117,339 597,976 145,618 2,220,782 328,336 921,219 190,584 1,071,113 252,050
 2010-11 1,253,105 344,920 810,057 125,557 684,777 174,885 2,694,347 398,417 1,018,170 204,744 1,346,576 339,558
2011-12 1,493,416 419,305 1,015,728 150,378 942,474 247,378 2,987,881 448,407 1,158,571 251,199 1,526,584 353,902

Table 7. Capital Expenditure

States/ AP BR KL MH RJ TN
Years
Education Health Education Health Education Health Education Health Education Health Education Health

2000-01 149 4,794 539 NA 3,303 1,883 1,183 3,891 4,347 1,752 1,367 2,689
2001-02 7,684 5,331 4,282 1,357 1,881 2,659 593 5,093 2,454 1,263 693 3,522
2002-03 144 3,347 7,898 409 1,865 4,437 431 9,608 1,932 1,403 1,359 4,834
2003-04 500 1,097 6,043 2,880 2,441 3,273 840 17,932 3,189 3,241 5,722 6,675
2004-05 579 1,510 1,759 2,194 2,589 2,937 589 9,364 2,464 2,959 6,675 4,779
2005-06 3,296 549 2,914 13,791 4,071 5,704 1,230 9,050 4,242 6,564 26,051 24,498
2006-07 7,788 662 10,644 16,813 3,628 2,986 11,246 7,623 5,551 6,733 17,894 10,157
2007-08 12,624 4,303 5,727 24,555 3,423 4,665 14,982 8,812 7,129 9,568 22,225 7,416
2008-09 7,919 2,952 17,651 9,721 3,107 4,456 38,710 34,000 5,649 2,409 9,977 12,409
2009-10 4,235 3,985 33,396 12,052 4,948 6,265 17,683 21,559 6,655 2,773 36,158 35,317
2010-11 5,364 1,743 14,375 16,498 8,560 9,880 13,990 18,255 5,453 3,613 35,847 32,472
2011-12 12,054 7,333 5,640 32,105 7,952 11,765 15,482 40,506 7,829 9,674 37,442 17,542

Education
Table 8. State-wise Literacy rate
States/Years 1991 2001 %age 2001 2011 %age
increase
increase
Andhra Pradesh 44.08 60.47 16.39 60.47 67.0 6.53

Bihar 37.49 47.00 9.51 47.00 61.8 14.8

Kerala 89.81 90.86 1.05 90.86 94.0 3.14

Maharashtra 64.87 76.88 12.01 76.88 82.3 5.42

Rajasthan 38.55 60.41 21.86 60.41 66.1 5.69

Tamil Nadu 62.66 73.45 10.79 73.45 80.1 6.65

 Literacy rate
100
Andhra Pradesh
80
Bihar
60
40 Kerala

20 Maharashtra

0 Rajasthan
1991 2001 %age 2001 2011 %age Tamil Nadu
increase increase

Table 9. Gross Enrolment Ratio (in Classes I-VIII)

Classes I-VIII (6-13 yrs)

States/Years

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Andhra 88.3 88.9 90.15 92.0 86.9

Pradesh
Bihar 82.6 86.9 93.72 102.9 87.8
Kerala 95.2 95.8 97.86 96.2 90.9
Maharashtra 95.2 97.8 98.18 100.0 98.3
Rajasthan 104.4 104.9 104.63 99.3 94.3
Tamil Nadu 114.8 114.1 114.20 112.0 111.7
 Gross enrollment ratio
140
Gross Enrolment Ratio (in Classes I-
120 VIII)
(in Per cent) Classes I-VIII (6-13 yrs)
States/Years 2007-08
100
Gross Enrolment Ratio (in Classes I-
VIII)
80
Axis Title

(in Per cent) Classes I-VIII (6-13 yrs)

States/Years 2008-0
60
Gross Enrolment Ratio (in Classes I-
VIII)
40 (in Per cent) Classes I-VIII (6-13 yrs)
States/Years 2009-10
20 Gross Enrolment Ratio (in Classes I-
VIII)
0 (in Per cent) Classes I-VIII (6-13 yrs)
States/Years 2010-11
Gross Enrolment Ratio (in Classes I-
VIII)
(in Per cent) Classes I-VIII (6-13 yrs)
Axis Title States/Years 2011-12

Table 10. Drop-out Rates (in Classes I-X)

States/Years 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Mean

AP 69.09 60.7 53.36 46.2 61.4

58.15
BR 89.47 74.4 77.56 62.2 50.8
70.886
KL 9.3 NA NA NA NA
9.3
MH 47.71 43.7 40.54 38.2 71.1
48.25
RJ 73.26 71.7 71.64 68.5 57.4
68.5
TN 35.04 39.9 34.06 25.9 49.6
36.9
 Health

Table 11. Infant mortality rate

Years/ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Mean
States
AP 65 66 62 59 59 57 56 54 52 49 46 43 55.66
BR 62 62 61 60 61 61 60 58 56 52 48 44 57.08
KL 14 11 10 11 12 14 15 13 12 12 13 12 12.41
MH 48 45 45 42 36 36 35 34 33 31 28 25 36.5
RJ 79 80 78 75 67 68 67 65 63 59 55 52 67.33
TN 51 49 44 43 41 37 37 35 31 28 24 22 36.83

90 Infant mortality rate

80
70
AP
60
BR
50
KL
40
MH
30
RJ
20
TN
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Mean

Table 12. Maternal mortality rate

Years/ 1997-98 1999-00 2001-03 2004-06 2007-09 2010-12 Mean

States
AP
197 220 195 154 134 110 168.333
BR
531 400 371 312 261 219 349
KL
150 149 110 95 81 66 108.5
MH
166 169 149 130 104 87 134.167
RJ
508 501 445 388 318 255 402.5
TN
131 167 134 111 97 90 121.667
 600 Maternal mortality rate

500
AP
400
BR

300 KL
MH
200
RJ
100 TN

0
1997-98 1999-00 2001-03 2004-06 2007-09 2010-12

Table 13. Life expectancy at birth

Years/ 2006-10 2007-11 2008-12 2009-13 Mean

States

AP 65.8 66.3 67 67.9 66.75

BR 65.8 66.3 67.2 67.7 66.75
KL 74.2 74.4 74.7 74.8 74.525
MH 69.9 70.3 70.8 71.3 70.575
RJ 66.5 66.8 67.2 67.5 67
TN 68.9 69.4 69.8 70.2 69.575

76 Life expectancy at birth

74
72
70 2006-10

68 2007-11

66 2008-12

64 2009-13

62
60
AP BR KL MH RJ TN
 Human Development Index, Score and Rank

Table 14. Dimension-wise HDI Scores and Score Differences 1996 and 2006

Years/ 1996 2006 Score

States Differences
HI EdI YI HDI HI EdI YI HDI
(2006-
1996)
AP 0.525 0.363 0.668 0.519 0.588 0.434 0.733 0.585 0.066
BR 0.48 0.317 0.494 0.43 0.542 0.403 0.575 0.507 0.077
KL 0.835 0.679 0.695 0.736 0.836 0.697 0.758 0.764 0.028
MH 0.835 0.679 0.695 0.736 0.836 0.697 0.758 0.764 0.06
RJ 0.425 0.342 0.647 0.472 0.527 0.415 0.681 0.541 0.069
TN 0.59 0.482 0.695 0.589 0.682 0.566 0.75 0.666 0.077
Note: HI is the Index of ‘A long and healthy life’ based on Infant Mortality Rate and Life Expectancy at age 1; EdI is the Index of ‘Knowledge’ based on 7+ Literacy Rate
and Mean Years of Education for 15+ age group; YI is the Index of ‘A decent standard of living’ based on Earned Income and HDI is the ‘Human Development Index’.

0.9 HDI scores(Dimension wise)

0.8
0.7
AP
0.6
0.5 BR
0.4 KL
0.3 MH
0.2
RJ
0.1
TN
0
HI EdI YI HDI HI EdI YI HDI
1996 2006
Table 15.
HDI Ranks and Rank Differences for States - 1996 and 2006
States Rank Rank Rank Differences
1996 2006 1996-2006
AP 27 28 -1
BR 35 35 0
KL 1 2 -1
MH 9 11 -2
RJ 29 31 -2
TN 15 16 -1

40 HDI rank and rank difference

35
30 Rank 1996
25
20 Rank 2006
15
10 Rank Differences
5 1996-2006

0
-5 AP BR KL MH RJ TN