Article

Poverty in Millennial Asia

1–28

Multidimensional © 2020 Association of

Asia Scholars
Reprints and permissions:
Perspective: Policy in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/0976399620953396
Insights from Selected journals.sagepub.com/home/mla

North Indian Districts

P. K. Mishra 1, Sandeep Kumar1, Mohd. Arif1,

Atta-Ula Niyazi1 and Kiranpreet Kaur1

Abstract
This article examined the multidimensional aspects of poverty in selected North
Indian districts using the Alkire–Foster counting method of estimating poverty
incidence and intensity. Whereas more than half of the sample households are
found to be vulnerable to poverty, about a quarter of households are observed
to be in the grip of poverty in these districts. Among the dimensions of depriva-
tions, education, standard of living and economic and social security are critical
in contributing to multidimensional poverty and vulnerability. In these dimen-
sions, people are mostly deprived of fuel for cooking, sanitation, ownership
assets, informal jobs and social security measures. Therefore, the policymakers
ought to be proactive in understanding the socio-economic structure of these
districts to formulate inclusive distributive policies as appropriate area wise.
However, policies such as urbanization, promotion of technical/vocational edu-
cation, initiation of micro and small entrepreneurial activities completing and
supplementing to farm activities and introducing measures of social protection
can help people come out of the tragedies of poverty.

Keywords
Multidimensional poverty, Alkire–Foster method, North Indian districts

1
Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, Punjab, India.

Corresponding author:
P. K. Mishra, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, Punjab 151001, India.
E-mail: pkmishra1974@gmail.com
2 Millennial Asia

I. Introduction
People are both beneficiaries and drivers of development, in both developed and
less developed economies (UNDP, 2010). Hence, it is essential to ensure an ena-
bling environment in which they can live long, healthy, creative and with all
dignity (UNDP, 1990). However, this objective is often eroded due to the persis-
tence of poverty and inequality in societies. Particularly, poverty is that social
malady which prohibits people from commanding over resources and thus, delimit
their freedom of making optimal choices (Gordon, 2005; Kapila, 2009). Although
poverty is commonly considered as a shortfall in income or consumption with
reference to a threshold, called the poverty line, it is a multidimensional phenom-
enon in a broader perspective. Poverty is multidimensional as it counts for multi-
ple deprivations in well-being such as health, education and standard of living.
Because of its pervasive nature, it affects men, women and children of all ages
across geographic regions and ethnic groups. It is so insidious that it brings into
grip both rich and poor. It is income or consumption which may classify someone
as rich or poor, but what if somebody is having a handsome income while regu-
larly ailing, and what if somebody is having regular flows of income while diffi-
culty in attaining standard educational degrees. In all these cases, the individual is
termed multidimensionally poor, but not income poor. Perhaps the former is more
dangerous as it creates several humps in a way towards societal optimality in
production, consumption and distribution.
This multidimensional poverty makes people underprivileged in decision-
making, getting quality and decent works, and limits their social participation,
thereby increasing the chances of them being subject to exploitations and violence
of varying degrees (World Bank, 2011). Precisely, multidimensional poverty is
one of the reasons behind the social exclusion of masses in an emerging market
economy like India. Probably, this may be one of the factors why poverty allevia-
tion programmes in the country are not yet able to uplift people from the hell of
income and/or consumption deprivations. Recent day’s observation of Indian
societies reveals that a bulge of the working-age population becomes immediately
vulnerable to poverty owing to their weak resilience to socio-economic and
natural shocks. The recent outbreak of coronavirus pandemic is one of the novel
examples to consider.
Therefore, the concept of poverty should be viewed in a multidimensional
perspective, if the policymakers would like to see a developed society where
people not only enjoying long and healthy lives but are socially participative, safe
and secured against the shock of any kinds. Policy architects ought to work for
removing policy impotency by understanding real ground-level dimensions and
indicators in which people are mostly deprived and hence poor and vulnerable. In
this direction and in continuation to several extant studies at the international,
national, regional and local levels, this research work is an exploratory attempt to
present the extent of multidimensional aspects of poverty in selected districts of
North India while drawing out certain key policy insights. Adding two additional
dimensions such as economic and social security to the conventional country-
level basket of health, education and standard of living dimensions, this exploratory
Mishra et al. 3

exercise found the poverty (multidimensional) headcount as 24.75 per cent and
vulnerability (near poverty) as 53.21 per cent in selected North Indian districts.
Additionally, it found the use of unhealthy fuel for cooking, lack of improved
sanitation facilities, lack of ownership of household amenities, engagements in
informal jobs and lack of health insurance as the major indicators of deprivations
of well-being in these districts. Thus, this article can be an eye-opener for those
who are working on instilling a decent socio-economic order in society.
In the remaining of the article, Section II reviews relevant literature to give a
theoretical and empirical justification for the study; Section III briefly summarizes
the materials and methodology used in the research work; Section IV examines
the primary data from various angles to generate policy insights; and Section V
concludes while pointing out the desired policy milestones.

II. Literature Review

Much before the role of human capital in the process of economic growth and
development was emphasized by Lucas (1988), Romer (1986, 1990) and Rebelo
(1991), the literature cites poverty as an important impediment of development
(Nurkse, 1953). However, the nature and measurement of poverty have always
been a moot point in the literature. Since the introduction of the concept of poverty
in the arena of economics by Booth (1892) and Rowntree (1901), it has consist-
ently been interpreted in terms of monetary (income or consumption) depriva-
tions. Later, it has been realized that income alone can miss a lot—health,
education and standard of living (Kolm, 1977; Mancero & Villatoro, 2013;
Piachaud, 1987; Sen, 1993; Townsend, 1993). Thus, intellectuals started interpret-
ing poverty as a multidimensional phenomenon as it embraces multiple human
deprivations that people suffer throughout their lives. From the rudimentary
appearance in the works of Lenoir (1974), Townsend (1979, 1993), Sen (1993),
UNDP (1997), Tsui (2002), Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003) till its basic
form in Alkire and Foster (2007), the concept has been passed through several
debates, criticisms and refinements. Finally, the concept of multidimensional
poverty got international recognition with the publication of Multidimensional
Poverty Index (MPI) for over 100 countries in the United Nations Development
Programme’s (UNDP’s) Human Development Report 2010 based on the poverty
measurement approaches suggested by Alkire and Santos (2010). Since then, the
concept has evolved with several modifications and improvements to reach the
form in which it has appeared in the UNDP-OPHI Global MPI Report 2019.
An improved methodology of measuring poverty in the multidimensional per-
spective was suggested by Alkire and Foster (2011a). It sums up a plurality of
imperfectly overlapping deprivation indicators into a consistent parametric class
of MPI based on the Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) concept of poverty measure-
ment. It has become very popular for its ability to decompose the deprivations for
population subgroups. For this purpose, we have also used this methodology in
this study. In the multidimensional perspective, people face deprivations in their
daily lives in nutrition, child mortality, years of schooling, school attendance,
4 Millennial Asia

cooking fuel, sanitation, drinking water, electricity, housing and asset ownership,
which restrict them from living a normal decent life (Alkire et al., 2017). So, this
method recognizes human deprivations in health, education and standard of living
dimensions. The fundamental logic is: ‘since growth can’t reduce poverty to the
desired level, policy attention needs to focus on health and education’ (Bhagwati
& Panagariya, 2012). While health is an enabling factor and education is a signal-
ling device of ability or productivity, standard of living is the basis of decent
living and source of social acceptance (Dotter & Klasen, 2014). Hence, the meas-
ures of multidimensional poverty include people who may not be income poor,
but face deprivations in other areas of their lives (Alkire & Foster, 2011b). Even
USA, a high-income country, has been registered to have multidimensional
poverty, the deprivation index being 15.40 per cent in 2017 (Glassman, 2019).
At the global level, the apparent motives behind choosing health, education
and standard of living dimensions of well-being for poverty measurement include
the availability of country-level data and ease of interpretability of results. The
measurement of multidimensional poverty simply does not ignore income, but it
does so because the standard of living is a reflection of income. Thus, the concept
of multidimensional poverty complements the concept of monetary poverty.
Although additional dimensions can be included in the measurement of multidi-
mensional poverty at the regional/national/state/district levels, there is no una-
nimity about which dimensions should be appropriately included. For instance,
Santos and Villatoro (2018) constructed MPI for Latin American region by taking
into consideration 13 indicators in 5 dimensions of well-being—housing (housing
materials, overcrowding, housing tenure), basic services (improved water sources,
improved sanitation, access to clean energy), living standard (monetary resources,
durable goods), education (adult schooling achievement, children’s school attend-
ance, children’s schooling gap) and employment and social protection (health
insurance, social security or pension). In the Indian context, Das (2018) con-
sidered 9 indicators in 3 dimensions of well-being for analysing multidimensional
poverty—education (years of schooling, school attendance), food and nutrition
(food security, nutritional security) and living conditions (electricity, cooking
fuel, own house, own land, assets). In a state-level study in India, Banerjee et al.
(2017) included 10 indicators in 3 dimensions—health (nutrition, mortality), edu-
cation (school attendance, years of school) and standard of living (water supply,
sanitation, electricity, assets, main floor material, cooking fuel). In another state-
level study, Tripathi and Yenneti (2019) used 9 indicators in 3 dimensions—
income (MPCE), education (highest educational attainment in the household) and
standard of living (employment, agricultural land, irrigated land, source of light-
ing, cooking fuels, dwelling unit, ration card).
Regarding the nature of multidimensional poverty, Burchi et al. (2019) mention
the existence of poverty traps, the predominance of rural poverty and feminiza-
tion of poverty at the global level. Aguilar and Sumner (2019) reveal the
predominance of such poverty in agrarian-rural households, and mainly deprivations
are in terms of undernutrition and lack of access to sanitation and clean water.
Santos and Villatoro (2018) state the presence of wide disparities in multidimensional
poverty between rural and urban areas, particularly in living standard and housing
Mishra et al. 5

dimensions. The World Bank Report (2018) on poverty and shared prosperity states
the prevalence of deprivations in access to adequate sanitation, which is more than
income deprivation. Martinez and Perales (2017) state concentration of deprivations
in health, education and material resources. And large-sized households are poverty-
prone (Bautista, 2018). Goli et al. (2019) found that the primary human deprivations
under multidimensional poverty include health and education. According to Giné-
Garriga and Pérez-Foguest (2018), the key deprivations causing multidimen-
sional poverty are sanitation and hygiene. Moreover, such deprivations in various
dimensions of well-being overlap, making people more vulnerable during global
pandemics such as the coronavirus disease outbreak. In this context, Alkire et al.
(2020) predict that the deprivations in safe drinking water, nutrition and clean
cooking fuel can put 5.7 billion people (60 million in India) at risk of multidimen-
sional poverty across the globe due to coronavirus disease. Diwakar (2020) further
adds that the limited access to water, sanitation, healthcare, school closures and
constraints on livelihoods can impact the ability of households adversely and put
people living at or near the poverty line at risk of new or deepened poverty.
The global MPI report 2018 shows that India is home to the largest number of
multidimensionally poor people (364 million), but their spatial distribution is
skewed (inequality among the poor is 0.014). In the Indian context, Bhuiya et al.
(2007) found health, education, housing and clothing as significant contributors to
multidimensional poverty; Alkire and Seth (2015) found housing, electricity, safe
drinking water and sanitation as significant determinants of multidimensional
poverty; Bhat (2013) found health, education, housing, sanitation and electricity
as the significant determinants of multidimensional poverty in Jammu and
Kashmir (J&K); Mishra and Shukla (2015) observed that rural multidimensional
poverty predominates J&K; Dehury and Mohanty (2017) found health, sanitation,
drinking water and cooking fuel as the significant contributors to multidimensional
poverty; Mohanty et al. (2017) observed that health shocks to households are the
main reasons behind multidimensional poverty; Banerjee et al. (2017) state that
the major reason behind the concentration of multidimensional poverty in rural
India is urban-biased policies of the government. In a district-level study, Mehta
(2003) identified illiteracy, infant mortality, low levels of agricultural productivity
and poor infrastructure as the primary causes of persistent deprivation leading to
multidimensional poverty at the district level in India. In a village-level study,
Unjum and Mishra (2018) observed that the deprivations in the form of low level
of schooling, malnutrition, use of traditional fuel for cooking, bad sanitation
facilities and informal employment mainly contribute to multidimensional poverty
in Kashmir. Therefore, the incidence and intensity of multidimensional poverty
can be reduced by improving the level of education (Berenger & Verdier-
Chouchane, 2007), housing and income-generating employment standards (Bibi,
2004), and also by improving the level of nutritional intakes, safe drinking water
supply, sanitation, hygiene and cooking fuel (Alkire & Seth, 2015; Dehury &
Mohanty, 2017; Giné-Garriga & Pérez-Foguet, 2018; Unjum & Mishra, 2018).
It is inferred from the review of relevant studies that (a) there is a dearth of
research works on multidimensional poverty at the district level in India; (b) there
is no consensus in the consideration of dimensions and indicators of well-being;
6 Millennial Asia

and (c) there is a wide spatial disparity in the causes of such poverty. At this
crossroad, this article is an attempt to examine the multidimensional aspects of
poverty in selected North Indian districts (see next section for details).

III. Materials and Methods

This article intends to draw policy insights from the analysis of multidimensional
aspects of poverty in selected North Indian districts. The study adopted a quantita-
tive survey design based on multi-purpose non-proportional purposive sampling.
In designing the study, we have purposively chosen three North Indian territories,
namely J&K, Punjab and Rajasthan. This selection comprises three crucial types
of topography—J&K (mountainous), Punjab (fertile and alluvial plain) and
Rajasthan (sandy and dry). In these three North Indian states, we have chosen
seven districts based on convenience—one from J&K (Rajouri district), two
from Punjab (Bathinda and Mansa) and four from Rajasthan (Bikaner, Churu,
Ganganagar and Hanumangarh). The development status of these districts is pre-
sented in Table 1. It is revealed that deprivations are present in both income and
non-income indicators irrespective of the level of human development in the
selected districts of North India. This justifies the inclusion of these districts in the
study of multidimensional poverty.
From these North Indian districts, 28 villages (see Table 2 for names of
villages) have been selected purposively, and from each village, a fixed number of
households were conveniently selected for survey (60 households from each
village in Rajouri, 80 households from each village in Mansa, 50 households from
each village in Bathinda and 50 households from each village in Rajasthan). Then
the primary data were collected by administering a structured household-level
socio-economic survey schedule, comprising items on health, education, standard
of living, economic and social security dimensions of well-being, on 1,620 sample
households during the period from July 2019 to October 2019. Table 2 depicts a
brief account of this survey.
Then the Alkire–Foster Method was used after augmenting it by including
economic and social security dimensions, to analyse multidimensional aspects of
poverty in these sample villages (Alkire & Foster, 2011a, 2011b). In this method,
we have used 15 indicators in a framework of 5 dimensions of well-being (see
Table 3 for details). Each of these five dimensions is assigned a weight of 1/5,
which is equally distributed among the indicators within the same dimension; for
example, the education dimension is given a weight of 1/5, and each of its two
indicators is assigned a weight of 1/10 (years of schooling 1/10 and child school
attendance 1/10).
Then we have calculated the incidence as well as the intensity of poverty in a
multidimensional perspective in the selected North Indian villages. And, on the
basis of these results, we have constructed the MPI for each village. The following
formulae have been used for the purpose: q
Incidence of multidimensional poverty: H = n
Table 1.  Development Status of Selected North Indian Districts

J&K Punjab Rajasthan

Selected Indicators Rajouri Bathinda Mansa Bikaner Churu Ganganagar Hanumangarh
Per capita income at current 14,569 112,387 108,781 95,281 65,398 117,506 107,244
prices of 2016–2017 (`)
Average literacy rate (%) 68.17 68.28 61.83 65.13 66.75 69.64 67.13
Coverage of full immunization of 44.50 92.60 91.90 56.00 57.40 79.90 62.10
children (%)
Vitamin A supplement to children 61.80 71.50 59.70 26.90 34.60 59.20 45.60
(%)
HH access to electricity (%) 94.30 99.50 99.80 91.50 95.30 94.10 94.80
HH access to safe drinking water 66.40 96.70 98.40 86.20 83.60 92.10 96.60
(%)
HH access to toilet facilities (%) 39.60 85.00 75.00 64.80 73.30 73.40 55.20
HH access to clean fuel for 32.60 62.70 40.60 39.70 30.30 39.60 25.10
cooking (%)
Labour force participation 50.24 44.07 47.83 40.36 39.85 44.87 40.13
rate (%)
Urbanization rate (%) 8.14 36.00 21.00 33.90 28.30 27.20 19.70
HDI 0.450 0.674 0.633 0.779 0.606 0.809 0.761
USIPI District Development Index 0.390 0.530 0.450 0.360 0.340 0.420 0.380
Source: Compiled from Economic Survey of J&K (2017), Punjab (2019–2020), Rajasthan (2019–2020); Census of India District-wise Reports (2011); National Family Health
Survey-4 (2015–2016); Periodic Labour Force Survey (2017–2018); Human Development Reports (2007); Kaul (2016); USIPI District Development and Diversity Index
Report for India and Major States, Shariff (2015).
8 Millennial Asia

Table 2.  Brief Account of Primary Survey

No. of Sample
North Indian States Selected Districts Sample Villages Households
J&K Rajouri Khyore, Khablan, Nadian, 420
Rehean, Ghalian, Kalar and
Nah
Punjab Bathinda Ramniwas, Harnam Singh 400
Wala, Bandi, Gurusar Joga,
Kamalu, Karamgarh Sattran,
Adampura and Nathana
Mansa Aklia, Kot Dharmu, Gehle, 400
Ranghrial and Ahlupur
Rajasthan Bikaner Siyasar Chaugan and 17 Kyd 400
Churu Thailasar and Jaswantpura
Ganganagar Dungarsinghpura and
Takhranwali
Hanumangarh 6 BGP-A and Birkali
Total no. of sample households 1,620
Source: The authors.

Table 3.  Dimensions and Indicators of Multidimensional Poverty

Dimensions Indicators Household is Considered Deprived if…

Education Years of schooling No household member has completed
5 years of schooling.
Child school Any school-aged child is not attending
attendance school up to the age at which they would
complete class 8.
Health Child mortality Any child has died in the family in the last
one year.
Nutrition Any adult or child for whom there is
nutritional information is malnourished.
Standard of living Electricity The household has no electricity.
Improved sanitation The household’s sanitation facility is not
improved.
or it is improved but shared with other
households.
Improved drinking The household does not have access to
water improved drinking water or safe drinking
water is more than a 30-min walk from
home, roundtrip.
Flooring The household has a dirt, sand or dung
floor.
(Table 3 continued)
Mishra et al. 9

(Table 3 continued)

Dimensions Indicators Household is Considered Deprived if…

Cooking fuel The household cooks with dung, wood,
coal or charcoal
Assets ownership The household does not own more than
one radio, TV, telephone, bike, motorbike
or refrigerator and does not own a car or
truck.
Land holding The household does not own any hectare
of agricultural land.
Economic Employment No household member is employed in the
formal sector.
Indebtedness No household member is having any debt.
Social security Health insurance No household member has private or
public sector health insurance.
Old age pension No household member is enrolled for
government pension plan or receives
pension from the government.
Source: The authors.

where H is the percentage of households which are multidimensionally poor,

called incidence of multidimensional poverty, q is the total number of
multidimensionally poor households and n is the total number of households
under consideration.
q
1
Intensity of multidimensional poverty: A = q | c i
i=1
where A is the average percentage of dimensions in which
q
households are
deprived, called intensity of multidimensional poverty, | c i is the sum of the
i=1
proportion of total weighted deprivation that each household suffers and q is the
total number of multidimensionally poor households.

Multidimensional Poverty Index: MPI = H × A

On the basis of the MPI, we have classified the households into four categories:
(a) if 0 < MPI < 0.20, the household is multidimensionally not poor; (b) if 0.20 ≤
MPI < 0.33, the household is vulnerable to multidimensional poverty; (c) if 0.33
≤ MPI < 0.50, the household is under multidimensional poverty; and (d) if 0.50 ≤
MPI ≤ 1, the household is under severe multidimensional poverty. Also, the
taxonomy of the North Indian villages (see Table 4) is created on the basis of their
MPI in terms of a fractile classification from the assumed distribution of the mean
of MPI (Mishra, 2018; Narain et al., 2007). This taxonomy is significant in iden-
tifying the priority areas/regions for policy interventions for lifting people out of
miseries of multidimensional poverty.
In the next step, we have analysed the deprivation structure of people under such
multidimensional poverty. Then we have obtained the headcount ratio per
10 Millennial Asia

Table 4.  Taxonomy of Pattern of MPI in North Indian Villages

Criteria of Taxonomy Category of MPI Villages

MPI less than or equal to mean – S.D.
MPI in between mean – S.D. and mean
MPI in between mean and mean + S.D.
MPI greater than or equal to mean + S.D.
Source: The authors.
Low level of multidimensional poverty
Low-middle level of multidimensional
poverty
High-middle level of multidimensional
poverty
High level of multidimensional poverty

indicator under multidimensional poverty using the Alkire–Foster counting

method. The following formula is used for calculating the deprivation structure
under multidimensional poverty: q
Households deprived in each dimension = = | c iG /MPI.
1
Hs i = 1
It is expressed as a percentage where Hs is the total of household sizes in the
q
village, | c i is the sum of the proportion of total weighted deprivation that each
i=1
household suffers and MPI is the Multidimensional Poverty Index.
In this exercise, we could know the contribution of each dimension to multidi-
mensional poverty. Also, this exercise helped us in identifying the specific indica-
tors in which people are mostly deprived and thus, multidimensionally poor.
Finally, we have made result-specific policy recommendations for the eradication
of such poverty from the selected districts of North India.

IV. Results and Discussion

At the outset, the mean distributions of the socio-economic characteristics of
sample households in the sample villages of North Indian districts are calculated
and are summarized in Table 5. The key observations are:
1. The average household size in sample villages centres around four, a fair
household size, which does not make out the argument that bigger house-
hold size and poverty are positively correlated.
2. The average age of head of the household is around 50 years, a fairly pro-
ductive age, which also does not imply that poverty is due to the higher age
of head of the household.
3. The average year of schooling is around 6 years, which is short enough to
imply that the deprivation in educational attainments might be the impor-
tant indicator of multidimensional poverty in sample areas.
4. The average size of agricultural landholding is 1.115 ha in sample villages
(with an outlier of 4.840 ha, the mean land holding of Harnam Singh Wala
Table 5.  Mean Distribution of Household Characteristics in North Indian Districts

Selected North Sample Age of HH Years of Agriculture Land

Indian Districts Sample Villages Size HH Size Head (years) Schooling Holding (hectare) MPHI (`) MPCE (`)
Khyore 60 4 54 10 0.577 5272.78 1669.34
Khablam 60 5 55 8 0.546 4079.31 973.48
Nadian 60 4 55 7 0.588 6473.33 1850.72
Rajouri (J&K) Rehean 60 5 52 10 0.651 3740.64 1385.90
Ghalian 60 4 53 8 0.523 3086.67 1809.58
Kalar 60 4 53 10 0.651 4320.72 1724.09
Nah 60 4 50 10 0.581 3731.81 1736.33
Ramniwas 50 4 53 5 0.932 4389.21 5961.97
Karamgarh 50 5 52 5 0.887 3886.11 5838.02
Sattran
Bandi 50 4 51 6 6.232 4209.14 3699.05
Bathinda Nathana 50 4 53 6 0.761 3338.43 3118.85
(Punjab) Gurusar Joga 50 4 52 7 0.968 4114.33 2999.44
Adampura 50 5 52 6 1.287 3286.36 2970.21
Kamalu 50 4 51 6 0.664 4445.59 4031.82
Harnam Singh 50 4 49 7 4.840 3475.83 3144.39
Wala
Aklia 80 4 50 6 0.737 5053.26 4676.88
Kot Dharmu 80 5 56 5 0.766 3703.86 3046.52
Mansa (Punjab) Gehle 80 4 48 4 0.633 3545.93 3312.33
Ranghrial 80 4 51 4 0.568 3116.64 2955.07
Ahlupur 80 5 48 5 0.465 3356.98 2862.49

(Table 5 continued)
(Table 5 continued)

Selected North Sample Age of HH Years of Agriculture Land

Indian Districts Sample Villages Size HH Size Head (years) Schooling Holding (hectare) MPHI (`) MPCE (`)
Bikaner Siyasar Chaugan 50 3 49 5 1.091 6078.52 4643.17
(Rajasthan) 17 Kyd 50 3 47 4 0.478 3681.45 3410.71
Churu Thailasar 50 3 44 4 1.085 5279.66 3233.07
(Rajasthan) Jaswantpura 50 4 50 6 1.085 3647.00 2778.63
Ganganagar Dungarsinghpura 50 3 44 4 1.058 5379.67 4227.32
(Rajasthan) Takhranwali 50 4 46 7 0.923 3805.50 2614.16
Hanumangarh 6 BGP-A 50 3 48 4 0.835 3759.33 2262.71
(Rajasthan) Birkali 50 4 47 4 0.835 3170.95 2123.66
Source: Authors’ calculation from Field Survey Data, 2019.
Note: HH—Household; MPHI: monthly per capita household income; and MPCE: monthly per capita household consumption expenditure.
Mishra et al. 13

village in the Bathinda district of Punjab) infers that the households in

these areas are marginal or small farmers. This characteristic is also indica-
tive of multidimensional poverty in North Indian districts.
5. The average values of monthly per capita household income and consump-
tion expenditure are `4,122.46 and `3,037.85 (`137.41 and `101.26 per
day income and consumption, respectively), which indicate that house-
holds in the sample villages are less deprived in the monetary dimensions.
This is because the World Bank international income poverty line (US$1.90)
equivalent was `133.76 at average exchange rate in 2019 (US$1 = `70.40
as per exchnagerates.org.uk).
In supplement to these household characteristics, it has been observed during the
primary survey that the households in the sample villages are not developed to the
desired level. Therefore, we investigated out the deprivations of these households
in other dimensions including health, education, standard of living, economic and
social security and the outcomes are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. The key
observations are:
1. The poverty headcount ratio is highest in the Kalar village of Rajouri dis-
trict of J&K and lowest in the Nadian village of the same district. The
poverty intensity is highest in the Jaswantpura village of Churu district of
Rajasthan and lowest in the Kot Dharmu village of Mansa district of
Punjab.
2. MPI is highest for the Kalar village of Rajouri in J&K and lowest for the
Nadian village of the same district.
3. In North Indian villages, about 24.75 per cent of households are multidi-
mensionally poor/severely poor. It means that these many households are
having deprivations in at least 33.33 per cent of the indicators of
well-being.
4. In North Indian villages, about 53.21 per cent of households are vulnerable
to multidimensional poverty. It means that these many households are not
currently poor, but likely to fall into poverty in future. It indicates that these
many households are having deprivations in at least 20.00 per cent but less
than 33.33 per cent of the indicators of well-being.
5. Multidimensional poverty is fairly high in the Rehean village of Rajouri
district of J&K; Nathana and Harnam Singh Wala villages of Bathinda dis-
trict of Punjab; and 17 Kyd village of Bikaner and 6 BGP-A village of
Hanumangarh districts of Rajasthan.
6. Multidimensional poverty is at high level in the Kalar village of Rajouri
district in J&K; Gurusar Joga village of Bathinda district and Kot Dharmu,
Ranghrial and Ahlupur villages of Mansa district in Punjab; and Siyasar
Chaugan of Bikaner district in Rajasthan.
7. On comparison of the number of multidimensionally vulnerable house-
holds across the North Indian districts, we found that the highest number of
vulnerable households is present in Bathinda district followed by Rajouri,
Mansa, Churu and Ganganagar. And, the highest number of multidimen-
sionally households is located in the Mansa district followed by Bathinda,
Table 6.  Extent of Multidimensional Poverty in North Indian Districts

Selected North Indian Headcount Poverty

Districts Sample Villages Not Poor (%) Vulnerable (%) Poor (%) Severely Poor (%) Ratio (%) Intensity (%) MPI
Rajouri (J&K) Khyore 19 (31.67) 38 (63.33) 3 (5.00) 0 (0.00) 5.06 37.38 0.019
Khablam 21 (35.00) 32 (53.33) 7 (11.67) 0 (0.00) 11.95 39.06 0.047
Nadian 27 (45.00) 31 (51.67) 2 (3.33) 0 (0.00) 2.34 40.71 0.010
Rehean 14 (23.33) 27 (45.00) 19 (31.67) 0 (0.00) 31.36 37.68 0.118
Ghalian 14 (23.33) 37 (61.67) 9 (15.00) 0 (0.00) 14.23 38.89 0.055
Kalar 6 (10.00) 25 (41.67) 28 (46.67) 1 (1.67) 48.77 39.84 0.194
Nah 24 (40.00) 28 (46.67) 8 (13.33) 0 (0.00) 12.45 38.18 0.048
Bathinda (Punjab) Ramniwas 16 (32.00) 23 (46.00) 11 (22.00) 0 (0.00) 20.83 34.22 0.075
Karamgarh 14 (28.00) 26 (52.00) 9 (18.00) 1 (2.00) 20.33 40.38 0.082
Sattran
Bandi 13 (26.00) 28 (56.00) 8 (16.00) 1 (2.00) 15.20 38.34 0.058
Nathana 2 (4.00) 36 (72.00) 12 (24.00) 0 (0.00) 22.89 41.46 0.095
Gurusar Joga 7 (14.00) 24 (48.00) 17 (34.00) 2 (4.00) 38.28 40.04 0.153
Adampura 6 (12.00) 36 (72.00) 7 (14.00) 1 (2.00) 13.08 39.40 0.052
Kamalu 1 (2.00) 39 (78.00) 10 (20.00) 0 (0.00) 18.88 38.46 0.073
Harnam Singh 5 (10.00) 26 (52.00) 18 (36.00) 1 (2.00) 34.34 38.11 0.131
Wala
Mansa (Punjab) Aklia 31 (38.85) 33 (41.25) 16 (20.00) 0 (0.00) 20.52 38.51 0.079
Kot Dharmu 14 (17.50) 39 (48.75) 24 (30.00) 3 (3.75) 34.97 32.14 0.137
Gehle 10 (12.50) 53 (66.25) 16 (20.00) 1 (1.25) 18.18 40.89 0.074

(Table 6 continued)
(Table 6 continued)
Ranghrial 13 (16.25) 40 (50.00) 22 (27.50) 5 (6.25) 31.93 42.86 0.137
Ahlupur 10 (12.50) 39 (48.75) 29 (36.25) 2 (2.50) 38.98 40.29 0.157
Bikaner (Rajasthan) Siyasar Chaugan 13 (26.00) 14 (28.00) 14 (28.00) 9 (18.00) 37.72 43.54 0.164
17 Kyd 10 (20.00) 19 (38.00) 15 (30.00) 6 (12.00) 26 .58 45.54 0.121
Churu (Rajasthan) Thailasar 12 (24.00) 29 (58.00) 8 (16.00) 1 (2.00) 9.94 42.50 0.042
Jaswantpura 15 (30.00) 32 (64.00) 2 (4.00) 1 (2.00) 2.46 48.00 0.012
Ganganagar (Rajasthan) Dungarsinghpura 6 (12.00) 31 (62.00) 12 (24.00) 1 (2.00) 18.01 40.54 0.073
Takhranwali 12 (24.00) 29 (58.00) 7 (14.00) 2 (4.00) 9.44 45.71 0.043
Hanumangarh 6 BGP-A 7 (14.00) 23 (46.00) 19 (38.00) 1 (2.00) 32.73 39.87 0.130
(Rajasthan)
Birkali 15 (30.00) 25 (50.00) 9 (18.00) 1 (2.00) 10.17 45.87 0.047
Source: Authors’ calculation from Field Survey Data, 2019.
16 Millennial Asia

Table 7.  Taxonomy of MPI Villages in North Indian Districts

Criteria of Taxonomy Villages in Different Districts/States

Low level of multidimensional poverty
(MPI ≤ Mean – S.D.)
Low-middle level of multidimensional
poverty (Mean – S.D. < MPI < Mean)
High-middle level of multidimensional
poverty (Mean < MPI < Mean + S.D.)
High level of multidimensional poverty
(MPI ≥ Mean + S.D.)
Source: The authors.
1. J&K—Rajouri—Khyore, Nadian
2. Rajasthan—Churu—Jaswantpura
1. J&K—Rajouri—Khablam, Ghalian,
Nah
2. Punjab—Bathinda—Ramniwas,
Karamgarh Sattran, Bandi,
Adampura, Kamalu
3. Punjab—Mansa—Aklia, Gehle
4. Rajasthan—Churu—Thailasar
5. Rajasthan—Ganganagar—
Dungarsinghpura,Takhranwali
6. Rajasthan—Hanumangarh—Birkali
1. J&K—Rajouri—Rehean
2. Punjab—Bathinda—Nathana, Harnam
Singh Wala
3. Rajasthan—Bikaner—17 Kyd
4. Rajasthan—Hanumangarh—6 BGP-A
1. J&K—Rajouri—Kalar
2. Punjab—Bathinda—Gurusar Joga
3. Punjab—Mansa—Kot Dharmu,
Ranghrial, Ahlupur
4. Rajasthan—Bikaner—Siyasar Chaugan

Rajouri, Bikaner and Hanumangarh. Therefore, we observe that the prob-

lem of vulnerability to poverty is prominent in sample districts in contrast
to the problems of multidimensional poverty. This finding has implications
that the households in these regions are likely to fall into poverty in unfa-
vourable circumstances; for example, the unprecedented outbreak of coro-
navirus pandemic and its adversities are likely to increase the number of
poor households in the sample districts. Although another study following
the end of pandemic can reveal the fact, the policy circle should keep in
focus the development strategies for these districts. However, it is essential
to identify the indicators in which masses are vulnerable, and this aspect
has been left for further research.
Having known the extent of multidimensional poverty in the North Indian
districts, we have calculated the contribution of each dimension of well-being to
multidimensional poverty in these districts, and the results are presented in
Table 8. The key observations are:
1. In the health dimension, Nah village (24.39%) in Rajouri district is most
deprived followed by Ghalian village (20.00%) in the same district.
Table 8.  Deprivation Structure in North Indian Districts

Households Deprived in Each Dimension (%)

Selected North Indian Districts Sample Villages Health Education Standard of Living Economic Social Security
Khyore 11.15 0.00 19.75 26.75 42.36
Khablam 10.97 5.85 18.81 21.94 42.42
Nadian 12.28 0.00 14.04 24.56 49.12
Rajouri (J&K) Rehean 13.86 0.00 19.21 25.36 41.58
Ghalian 20.00 0.00 15.71 25.71 38.57
Kalar 15.40 1.05 21.75 21.72 40.07
Nah 24.39 1.81 17.81 19.87 36.13
Ramniwas 0.00 4.29 17.18 47.85 30.67
Karamgarh Sattran 7.08 4.04 20.65 32.85 35.38
Bandi 5.05 11.78 22.60 31.97 28.61
Nathana 5.24 6.82 11.39 41.42 35.13
Bathinda (Punjab)
Gurusar Joga 1.25 4.68 22.75 34.66 36.84
Adampura 3.27 8.19 17.31 38.48 32.45
Kamalu 7.03 2.11 14.26 38.65 37.95
Harnam Singh Wala 5.40 6.17 22.82 39.75 25.85
Aklia 0.00 0.73 19.54 39.13 40.60
Kot Dharmu 2.84 2.27 21.94 38.58 34.42
Mansa (Punjab) Gehle 11.35 2.46 19.36 26.61 36.23
Ranghrial 15.25 2.46 19.36 26.61 36.23
Ahlupur 5.14 3.25 22.16 34.07 35.44
(Table 8 continued)
(Table 8 continued)

Households Deprived in Each Dimension (%)

Selected North Indian Districts Sample Villages Health Education Standard of Living Economic Social Security
Siyasar Chaugan 3.28 16.77 19.06 32.81 28.07
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
17 Kyd 1.57 29.80 15.83 29.80 23.00
Thailasar 0.00 38.24 14.71 23.53 23.53
Churu (Rajasthan)
Jaswantpura 0.00 41.67 16.67 20.83 20.83
Dungarsinghpura 1.70 17.86 14.09 28.07 38.27
Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
Takhranwali 0.00 41.18 12.50 24.45 21.88
6 BGP-A 0.00 17.65 15.93 41.34 25.08
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
Birkali 0.00 43.60 12.80 21.80 21.80
Source: Authors’ calculation from Field Survey Data, 2019.
Mishra et al. 19

2. In the education dimension, Birkali village (43.60%) in Hanumangarh dis-

trict is most deprived followed by Jaswantpura (41.67%) in Churu district
and Takhranwali (41.18%) villages in Ganganagar district.
3. In the standard of living dimension, Harnam Singh Wala village (22.82%)
in Bathinda district is most deprived followed by Gurusar Joga (22.75%) in
Bathinda, Bandi (22.60%) in Bathinda, Ahlupur (22.16%) in Mansa, Kot
Dharmu (21.94%) in Mansa, Kalar (21.75%) in Rajouri and Karamgarh
Sattran (20.65%) in Bathinda district.
4. In the economic dimension, Ramniwas village (47.85%) in Bathinda dis-
trict is the most deprived followed by Nathana (41.42%) in Bathinda and 6
BGP-A (41.34%) in Hanumangarh district.
5. In the social security dimension, Nadian village (49.12%) in Rajouri dis-
trict is most deprived followed by Khablam (42.42%) in Rajouri, Khyore
(42.36%) in Rajouri, Rehean (41.58% in Rajouri), Aklia (40.60%) in
Mansa and Kalar (40.07%) in Rajouri district.

It follows from the above discussion that the households in the sample villages of
North Indian districts are multidimensionally poor due the deprivations mostly in
education, standard of living, economic and social security dimensions. In these
dimensions, interventions are required to reduce the level of such deprivations.
However, such policy intervention requires the identification of the specific indi-
cators in which deprivations are relatively higher. The outcomes of such explora-
tive analyses are summarized in Tables 9–11.
In 28 sample villages of North Indian districts, a total of 6,646 number of
individuals live in 1,620 surveyed households. Of these, the number of individuals
deprived in the indicators of health and education dimensions are revealed from
the following points (see Table 9):
1. In the ‘nutrition’ indicator, a total of 365 individuals are deprived (5.49%)
of which, 73 are in Kalar village of Rajouri district followed by 69 in
Ranghrial village of Mansa district and 47 in the Rehean village of Rajouri
district. Furthermore, a total of 198 individuals are deprived in this indica-
tor in the Rajouri district (1.98%) followed by 102 in the Mansa district
(1.53%).
2. In the ‘child mortality’ indicator, only 55 individuals are deprived, of which
44 are located in the Mansa district.
3. In the ‘years of schooling’ indicator, a total of 205 individuals are deprived
(3.08%), of which 137 individuals are in the sample districts of Rajasthan,
Bikaner counting the highest 50.
4. In the ‘school attendance’ indicator, a total of 211 individuals are deprived
(3.17%), of which 129 individuals are in the sample districts of Rajasthan,
Bikaner counting the highest 53.

In the multidimensional perspective of poverty, the standard of living dimension

keeps a wide significance as it complements to the monetary measure of unidi-
mensional poverty. The following are the key observations on deprivation pattern
in this dimension (see Table 10):
20 Millennial Asia

Table 9.  Number of Individuals Deprived in Health and Education Indicators

Health Dimension Education Dimension

Selected North Child Years of School
Indian Districts Sample Villages Nutrition Mortality Schooling Attendance
Khyore 5 0 0 0
Khablam 15 0 6 2
Nadian 3 0 0 0
Rajouri (J&K) Rehean 47 0 0 0
Ghalian 28 0 0 0
Kalar 73 0 0 5
Nah 27 0 0 2
Ramniwas 0 0 2 5
Karamgarh 14 0 8 0
Sattran
Bandi 6 0 4 10
Bathinda Nathana 10 0 10 3
(Punjab) Gurusar Joga 4 0 6 9
Adampura 4 0 4 6
Kamalu 7 3 0 3
Harnam Singh 9 5 12 4
Wala
Aklia 0 0 2 0
Kot Dharmu 0 15 0 6
Mansa (Punjab) Gehle 22 4 7 7
Ranghrial 69 6 5 7
Ahlupur 11 19 6 13
Bikaner Siyasar Chaugan 9 0 23 23
(Rajasthan) 17 Kyd 0 3 27 30
Churu Thailasar 0 0 16 10
(Rajasthan) Jaswantpura 0 0 5 5
Ganganagar Dungarsinghpura 2 0 12 9
(Rajasthan) Takhranwali 0 0 17 15
Hanumangarh 6 BGP-A 0 0 19 19
(Rajasthan) Birkali 0 0 18 18
Total 365 55 209 211
Source: Authors’ calculation from Field Survey Data, 2019.

1. In the ‘cooking fuel’ indicator, a total of 658 individuals (9.90%) are

deprived in the sample villages of North Indian districts. The highest dep-
rivations are observed in Ranghrial and Ahlupur villages of Mansa district
of Punjab (1.49%). Overall, the deprivation rate in Mansa district is highest
in the use of healthy cooking fuel.
Table 10.  Number of Individuals Deprived in Standard of Living Indicators

Selected North Indian Drinking Asset Ag. Land

Districts Sample Villages Cooking Fuel Sanitation Water Electricity Housing Ownership Holdings
Khyore 0 7 5 0 7 12 0
Khablam 5 16 0 4 28 135 2
Nadian 0 3 3 0 0 6 0
Rajouri (J&K) Rehean 9 190 23 15 9 82 0
Ghalian 9 18 0 0 14 36 0
Kalar 14 114 33 28 9 102 61
Nah 7 7 0 0 22 29 4
Ramniwas 45 0 0 0 0 45 8
Karamgarh 6 28 13 31 4 49 12
Sattran
Bandi 15 18 7 0 8 31 15
Nathana 0 0 0 0 17 46 13
Bathinda (Punjab)
Gurusar Joga 57 43 23 4 26 80 20
Adampura 22 22 13 68 8 0 3
Kamalu 0 0 0 0 16 37 18
Harnam Singh 39 37 16 3 17 68 27
Wala
Aklia 29 29 16 7 16 71 19
Kot Dharmu 6 109 49 0 37 128 34
Mansa (Punjab) Gehle 48 39 11 0 20 0 29
Ranghrial 99 57 66 0 57 0 52
Ahlupur 99 73 25 13 43 145 55
(Table 10 continued)
(Table 10 continued)

Selected North Indian Drinking Asset Ag. Land

Districts Sample Villages Cooking Fuel Sanitation Water Electricity Housing Ownership Holdings
Bikaner (Rajasthan) Siyasar Chaugan 45 10 22 7 17 63 19
17 Kyd 30 5 0 0 5 42 24
Thailasar 7 0 0 1 3 16 8
Churu (Rajasthan)
Jaswantpura 3 0 0 1 0 5 5
Dungarsinghpura 10 0 0 1 1 29 17
Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
Takhranwali 7 2 0 1 0 17 7
Hanumangarh 6 BGP-A 42 0 0 0 7 54 17
(Rajasthan) Birkali 5 0 0 0 3 18 11
Total 658 827 325 184 394 1,346 480
Source: Authors’ calculation from Field Survey Data, 2019.
Mishra et al. 23

2. In the ‘sanitation’ indicator, a total of 827 individuals are deprived in the

selected districts of North India (12.44%). Such deprivation is highest in
the Rehean village (2.86%) in Rajouri district followed by Kalar village
(1.72%) in Rajouri and Kot Dharmu village (1.64%) in Mansa district.
Overall, the deprivation rate in Rajouri district is highest in terms of
unhealthy sanitation.
3. In the ‘drinking water’ indicator of standard of living, a total of 325 indi-
viduals (4.89%) are deprived of not getting safe drinking water facilities.
Of this, only Mansa district has 167 individuals who are deprived of this
indicator.
4. In the ‘electricity’ indicator, a total of 184 individuals (2.77%) are deprived
of not getting fair advantages of electricity supply. Of this, Adampura vil-
lage of Bathinda district has 68 individuals who are deprived of the uses of
electricity.
5. In the ‘housing’ indicator, a total of 394 individuals (5.93%) are deprived
in selected North Indian districts for not having good housing facilities.
This problem is visible in the sample villages of Rajouri, Bathinda and
Mansa districts.
6. The largest number of individuals (1,346 or 20.25%) are deprived in the
‘asset ownership’ indicator of the standard of living dimension. This prob-
lem spreads over all the districts, of which the Rajouri district is the most
deprived (6.05%).
7. In the ‘agricultural land holding’ indicator, a total of 480 individuals are
deprived in selected districts of North India (7.22%). This problem is high-
est in the Mansa district followed by Bathinda district of Punjab. Rajasthan
also shows the presence of such deprivation.
The economic and social security dimensions of well-being are critical for
ensuring capability and empowerment of individuals. Hence, deprivations in
these dimensions can push individuals into the miseries of multidimensional
poverty. The key observations on the deprivations in the indicators of these
dimensions are as follows (see Table 11):
1. In the ‘employment’ indicator, a total of 1,391 individuals (20.93%) are
deprived in the selected North Indian districts. The deprivation for not
being employed in the formal sector is highest in the Mansa district fol-
lowed by Bathinda, Rajouri and selected districts of Rajasthan.
2. In the ‘indebtedness’ indicator of economic dimension, a total of 516 indi-
viduals (7.76%) are deprived in the selected districts. This kind of depriva-
tion is highest in Mansa district followed by Bathinda and Bikaner
districts.
3. In the ‘health insurance’ indicator of social security dimension, a total of
1,436 individuals (21.61%) are deprived in the selected districts. The dis-
advantage of not having health insurance is highest in the Mansa district
followed by Bathinda, Rajouri and Bikaner districts.
4. In the ‘old age pension’ indicator of social security dimension, a total of
607 individuals (9.13%) are deprived in selected districts. Such deprivation
24 Millennial Asia

Table 11.  Number of Individuals Deprived in Economic and Social Security Indicators

Social Security
Selected Economic Dimension Dimension
North Indian Health Old Age
Districts Sample Villages Employment Indebtedness Insurance Pension
Khyore 12 0 12 7
Khablam 30 0 35 23
Nadian 6 0 6 6
Rajouri (J&K) Rehean 86 0 90 51
Ghalian 36 0 36 18
Kalar 103 0 117 71
Nah 22 0 29 11
Ramniwas 43 35 35 15
Karamgarh 49 16 49 21
Sattran
Bandi 31 7 31 3
Bathinda Nathana 46 33 46 21
(Punjab) Gurusar Joga 69 42 80 38
Adampura 31 16 31 9
Kamalu 37 18 37 17
Harnam Singh 68 35 63 4
Wala
Aklia 71 36 71 40
Kot Dharmu 135 69 115 67
Mansa
Gehle 56 13 56 22
(Punjab)
Ranghrial 104 26 114 63
Ahlupur 130 69 139 68
Bikaner Siyasar Chaugan 49 41 63 14
(Rajasthan) 17 Kyd 38 19 42 2
Churu Thailasar 16 0 16 0
(Rajasthan) Jaswantpura 5 0 5 0
Ganganagar Dungarsinghpura 29 4 29 16
(Rajasthan) Takhranwali 17 2 17 0
Hanumangarh 6 BGP-A 54 35 54 0
(Rajasthan) Birkali 18 0 18 0
Total 1,391 516 1,436 607
Source: Authors’ calculation from Field Survey Data, 2019.

is highest in the Mansa district followed by Rajouri and Bathinda

districts.
5. It is observed that the multidimensional deprivation is more on counts of
social security (health insurance indicator) and economic (employment
Mishra et al. 25

indicator) dimensions. Since a large deprivation count is seen for not being
employed in the formal sector, the immediate implication is unstable
income and insecure job profile. Such a distorted economic status forces
people to leave their health security unattended, thereby challenging vari-
ous aspects of their social security. Furthermore, the challenges of social
security of people make them vulnerable to deprivations in health, educa-
tion and living standards, which adversely affect the capacity to work, save
and invest. Therefore, people become the victims of the vicious circle of
poverty. Therefore, policy intervention is warranted to break this vicious
circle. At this point in time, we can put forward two policy stances—first,
it is essential to ensure the strict implementation of the minimum wage
policy in the informal sector and, second, it is required to look at the effec-
tive implementation of the existing social security measures.

V. Conclusions
It is often argued that unidimensional monetary perspective of poverty does
not capture many aspects of human deprivations, and therefore, the concept
of poverty should be studied in the multidimensional perspective. Since monetary
poverty does not capture many deprivations, policy interventions for alleviating
poverty from society is often seen as a futile exercise. This entails formation and
implementation of efficient inclusive distributive policies to come out of the clutches
of multidimensional poverty. By examining different aspects of multidimensional
poverty in selected North Indian districts, this article found that the households in
the sample villages of these are multidimensionally poor primarily because of the
deprivations in education, standard of living and economic and social security
dimensions. Further decomposing these dimensions, we found that these house-
holds mostly deprived because of lack of access to clean fuel for cooking, non-
availability of improved sanitation facilities, lack of ownership of household
amenities for a decent living, underproductive engagements in informal jobs and
lack of access to health insurance. The districts of Punjab and Rajasthan under the
study are basically agrarian, and that of J&K is both horticulture- and tourism-
dependent. Most importantly Indian agriculture, on average, is characterized by
lower productivity, underemployment and lower labour wages. Hence, the house-
holds depending mainly on agriculture are unable to cope with poverty. Furthermore,
the households of Rajouri district depending on horticulture and tourism are also
facing many difficulties in managing poverty due to unfavourable topography and
continuing rebellious activities. The solution lies in promoting non-farm activities,
without substituting rather complementing and supplementing farm activities,
through the implementation of micro and small entrepreneurial projects. However,
this requires the urbanization of these districts. The data reveal that these states
are poorly urbanized. Promoting urbanization can enable optimal use of labour pro-
ductivities in non-farm activities and help to lift masses from the bottom of the
pyramid. Moreover, a radical transformation in education is essential for promoting
26 Millennial Asia

urbanization and non-farm activities. The desired skill formation can be ensured
through the promotion of technical and vocation education starting from the school
level. Here comes the question of affordability for such education, and the govern-
ment can bridge the gap by advancing subsidized education and/or by providing
returnable financial assistance, study loans, etc. In everything, households in multi-
dimensional poverty are required to be effectively covered under the schemes and
programmes of food and social securities. This can help the beneficiaries to fight
against their vulnerabilities and useful for leading sustainable livelihoods. Overall,
integrated village development programmes can go a long way in rescuing poor
from the vicious circle of poverty. Despite the elegancy of the outcomes, this article
is limited in purposefully selecting the sample units, and not determining the statis-
tical significance of factors responsible for multidimensional poverty by using
regression estimations.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

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

ORCID iD
P. K. Mishra https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5564-5787

References
Aguilar, G. R., & Sumner, A. (2019). Who are the world’s poor? A new profile of global
multidimensional poverty (Working Paper No. 499). Center for Global Development.
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2007, revised in 2008). Counting and multidimensional poverty
measurement (OPHI Working Paper No. 7). University of Oxford.
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011a). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement.
Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), 476–487.
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011b). Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional
poverty measurement. Journal of Economic Inequality, 9(2), 289–314.
Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for
developing countries (OPHI Working Paper Series #38). Oxford University.
Alkire, S., & Seth, S. (2015). Multidimensional poverty reduction in India between 1999
and 2006: Where and how? World Development, 72(C), 93–108.
Alkire, S., Roche, J. M., & Vaz, A. (2017). Changes over time in multidimensional poverty:
Methodology and results for 34 countries. World Development, 94(C), 232–249.
Alkire, S., Dirksen, J., Nogales, R., & Oldiges, C. (2020). Multidimensional poverty and
COVID-19 risk factors: A rapid overview of interlinked deprivations across 5.7 billion
people (OPHI Briefing 53). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.
University of Oxford.
Banerjee, A., Chaudhuri, B., Montier, E., & Roy, A. (2017). Multidimensional poverty
index—A state level analysis of India (Working Paper No. 5). Nopoor.
Mishra et al. 27

Bautista, C. C. (2018). Explaining multidimensional poverty: A household-level analysis,

Asian Economic Papers, 17(3), 183–210.
Berenger, V., & Verdier-Chouchane, A. (2007). Multidimensional measures of well-being:
Standard of living and quality of life across countries. World Development, 35(7),
1259–1276.
Bhagwati, J., & Panagariya, A. (2012). India’s tryst with destiny. Collins Business.
Bhat, S. A. (2013). Multidimensional aspects of poverty among schedule tribes of Kashmir:
A case study of District Anantnag (PhD thesis). University of Kashmir.
Bhuiya, A., Mahmood, S. S., Rana, A. M., Wahed, T., Ahmed, S. M., & Chowdary, A. R.
(2007). A multidimensional approach to measure poverty in rural Bangladesh. Journal
of Health Population and Nutrition, 25(2), 134–145.
Bibi, S. (2004). Comparing multidimensional poverty between Egypt & Tunisia (Cahier de
recherché/Working Paper No. 4-16). University of Oxford.
Booth, C. (1892). Life and labour of the people of London (Vol. 1). Macmillan.
Bourguignon, F., & Chakravarty, S. (2003). The measurement of multidimensional poverty.
Journal of Economic Inequality, 1(1), 25–49.
Burchi, F., Malerba, D., Rippin, N., & Montenegro, C. E. (2019). Comparing global
trends in multidimensional and income poverty and assessing horizontal inequalities
(Discussion Paper). Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik.
Das, P. (2018). Multidimensional poverty measurement in India: Exploring tools and their
application to assess poverty and deprivation. Report Prepared under UGC Major
Research Projects. Department of Economics with Rural Development, Vidyasagar
University.
Dehury, B., & Mohanty, S. K. (2017). Multidimensional poverty, household environment
and short-term morbidity in India. Genus, 73(3), 1–23.
Diwakar, V. (2020). From pandemics to poverty: Hotspots of vulnerability in times of
crisis. Emerging Analysis and Ideas. Overseas Development Institute.
Dotter, C., & Klasen, S. (2014, August 24–30). The concept of relative multidimensional
poverty: An illustration using Indian DHS data. Paper presented in IARIW 33rd
General Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Giné-Garriga, R., & Pérez-Foguet, A. (2018). Measuring sanitation poverty: A multidi-
mensional measure to assess delivery of sanitation and hygiene services at the house-
hold level (Working Paper No. 116). Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative.
Glassman, B. (2019). Multidimensional Deprivation in the United States: 2017, American
Community Survey Report, ACS-40, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.
Goli, S., Maurya, N. K., Moradhvaj, & Bhandari, P. (2019). Regional differentials in
multidimensional poverty in Nepal: Rethinking dimensions and method of computation.
SAGE Open, 9(1), 2158244019837458.
Gordon, D. (2005). Indicators of poverty and hunger. Expert Group Meeting on Youth
Development Indicators, United Nations Headquarters.
Kapila, U. (2009). India’s economic development since 1947. Academic Foundation.
Kaul, A. (2016). Human development index in Jammu Region: A review. Shrinkhla Ek
Shodhparak Vaicharik Patrika, 3(9), 40–43.
Kolm, S. C. (1977). Multi-dimensional egalitarianism. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
91(1), 1–13.
Lenoir, R. (1974). Excluded: A French on ten. Editions de Seuil.
Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanic of economic development. Journal of Monetary
Economics, 22(1), 3–42.
28 Millennial Asia

Mancero, X., & Villatoro, P. (2013). The multidimensional measurement of poverty. Twelfth
Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Statistical Conference of the Americas
(pp. 1–11). United Nations ECLAC.
Martinez, A., & Perales, F. (2017). The dynamics of multidimensional poverty in
contemporary Australia. Social Indicator Research, 130(2), 479–496.
Mehta, A. K. (2003). Multidimensional poverty in India: District level estimates (CPRC-
IIPA Working Paper No. 9, pp. 339–358). Chronic Poverty Research Centre.
Mishra, P. K. (2018). Taxonomy of socio-economic development across Indian states.
Journal of Economic and Social Development, 14(2), 49–57.
Mishra, U. S. & Shukla, V. (2015). Welfare comparisons with multidimensional well-being
indicators: An Indian Illustration (Working Paper No. 462). CDS.
Mohanty, S. K., Agrawal, N. K., Mahapatra, B., Choudhury, D., Tuladhar, S., & Holmgren,
E. V. (2017). Multidimensional poverty and catastrophic health spending in the
mountainous regions of Myanmar, Nepal and India. International Journal for Equity
in Health, 16, 1–13.
Narain, P., Sharma, S. D., Rai, S. C., & Bhatia, V. K. (2007). Statistical evaluation of
socio-economic development of different states in India. Journal of Indian Society of
Agricultural Statistics, 61(3), 328–335.
Nurkse, R. (1953). Problems of capital formation in underdeveloped countries (p. 163).
Oxford University Press.
Piachaud, D. (1987). Problems in the definition and measurement of poverty. Journal of
Social Policy, 16(2), 147–164.
Rebelo, S. (1991). Long-run policy analysis and long-run growth. The Journal of Political
Economy, IC, 500–521.
Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy,
94(5), 1002–1037.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy,
98(5), S71–S102.
Rowntree, B. S. (1901). Poverty: A study of town life. Macmillan.
Santos, M. E. & Villatoro, P. (2018). A multidimensional poverty index for Latin America.
Review of Income and Wealth, 64(1), 52–82.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality
of life (pp. 9–29). Clarendon Press.
Shariff, A. (2015). District development and diversity index: Report for India and major
states (USIPI Occasional Paper No. 6). US-India Policy Institute.
Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. Penguin Books.
Townsend, P. (1993). The international analysis of poverty. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Tripathi, S., & Yenneti, K. (2019). Measurement of multidimensional poverty in India:
A state level analysis (MPRA Paper No. 96952). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.
de/96952/
Tsui, K. Y. (2002). Multidimensional poverty indices, Social Choice and Welfare, 19(1),
69–93.
UNDP. (1990). Human development report. Oxford University Press.
UNDP. (1997). Human development report 1997. Oxford University Press.
UNDP. (2010). Human development report 2010: The real wealth of nations: Pathways to
human development. Palgrave Macmillan.
Unjum, I., & Mishra, P. K. (2018). Multidimensional poverty in Kashmir: A comparative
study of four districts. Journal of Economic Policy and Research, 12(2), 132–143.
World Bank. (2011). Homepage, poverty and inequality analysis. Data, National Poverty
Lines. World Bank.