Human Development Index (HDI) of India

Although it is not possible to have a flawless quantitative measure of human development, the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has developed a composite index, now known

as the Human Development Index (HDI).

It includes (i) longevity of life, (ii) knowledge base, and (iii) a decent material standard of living.

To keep the index simple, only a limited number of variables are included. Initially, life

expectancy was chosen as an index of longevity, adult literacy as an index of knowledge and per

capita Gross National Product adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) as an index of decent

life. These variables are expressed in different units. Therefore, a methodology was evolved to

construct a composite index rather than several indices.

In India, three sets of indicators have been selected for preparing the Human Development

Report. Among them, a core set of composite indices presents the state of human development

for the society as a whole. Besides, Gender Equality Index has been estimated to reflect the

relative attainments of women, and the Human Poverty Index to evaluate the state of deprivation

in the society.

Several other variables have gradually been added to the above sets of indicators. Among them,

health indicators related to longevity are birth rate, death rate with special reference to infant

mortality, nutrition, and life expectancy at birth.

Social indicators include literacy particularly female literacy, enrolment of school-going

children, drop out ratio, and pupil-teacher ratio. Economic indicators are related to wages,

income, and employment. Per Capita Gross Domestic Product, incidences of poverty and

employment opportunity is also favoured indicators in this group. They are converted into a

composite index to present the holistic picture of the Human Development.

Computing the HDI:

To construct the Index, fixed minimum and maximum values have been established for each of

the indicators:

i. Life expectancy at birth: 25 years and 85 years;

ii. General literacy rate: 0 per cent and 100 per cent;

iii. Real GDP per capita (PPP$); PPP$ 100 and PPP$ 40,000.

Individual Indices are computed first on the basis of a given formula. HDI is a simple average of

these three indices and is derived by dividing the sum of these three indices by 3.

With normalization of the values of the variables that make up the HDI, its value ranges from 0

to 1. The HDI value for a country or a region shows the distance that it has to travel to reach the

maximum possible value of 1 and also allows inter-country comparisons.

HDI of India:

As compared to the pre-independence days India has done well in development in general. As

per Human Development Reports (HDRs) published annually by the UNDP, India has

consistently improved on human development front and is grouped among the countries with

‘medium human development’.

According to Human Development Report 2005, India ranked 127 (same rank as in the previous

two years) out of 177 countries (Table 15.1). Even though India did not improve her rank, the

report applauds its state policies for promoting political, social and religious aspects.

Among South Asian countries, India ranks third after Maldives (84) and Sri Lanka (93). Pakistan

Nepal and Bangladesh are worse than India. Their ranks are 135,136 and 139 respectively (Table

15.1). Globally, Norway, Iceland and Australia are the top three performers when it comes to
 giving their citizens good quality of life. Burkima Faso and Sierra Leone Niger have worst

human development indices.

Table 15.1 Global Position of India with respect to Human Development:

Country Human Life Adult GDR Population

Development literacy per below
Index (HDI) expectancy (%) capital poverty line
rank (US $) (%)
(years)

Norway 1 19 A — 37,670 —

Iceland 2 80.7 — 31,243 —

Australia 3 80.3 — 29,632 —

Sri Lanka 93 74.0 90.4 3,778 25.0

India 127 63.3 61.0 2,892 28.5

Pakistan 135 63.0 48.7 2,097 32.6

Nepal 136 61.6 48.6 1,420 42.0

Bangladesh 139 62.8 41.1 — 49.8

Sierra Leone 176 40.8 29.6 548 68.0

Niger 177 44.4 14.4 835 63.0

India’s Human Development Index (HDI) improved from 0.545 in 1997 to 0.595 in 2002, Her

HDI rank also improved from 132 in 1997 to 127 in 2002. With respect to Gender Development

Index (GDI), India improved from 0.525 in 1997 to 0.572 in 2002. Her GDI rank also improved

from 112 in 1997 to 103 in 2002 out of 144 countries (Table 15.2).
 Country Human HDI Rank Gender GDI Ran
development development index
index (HDI) (GDI)

1997 2002 1997 2002

Norway 0.927 0.956 2 1

Australia 0.922 0.846 7 3

Sri Lanka 0.721 0.740 90 96

China 0.701 0.745 98 94

Indonesia 0.681 0.692 105 111

India 0.545 0.595 132 127

Pakistan 0.508 0.497 138 142

Bangladesh 0.440 0.509 150 138

Nepal 0.463 0.504 144 140

Mozambique 0.341 0.354 169 171

Niger 0.298 0.292 173 176

Table 15.2 India’s Global Position on Human and Gender Development:

In spite of all these developments, India still lags behind developed and evens the developing

countries so far as human development is concerned. Not only developed countries but some of
the developing countries such as Sri Lanka and Indonesia are much better than India with respect

to HDI. India’s gender development index (GDI) is also lower than that of Sri Lanka, China and

Indonesia.

Some of the principal indicators used for calculating Human Development Index (HDI) are

briefly discussed below:

Health Indicators:

Health in a major component of human development. It is measured in terms of birth rate, death
rate (with special reference to infant mortality rate), nutrition, and life expectancy at birth.

Crude death rate is defined as the number of deaths per thousand populations in a particular year.

It declined rapidly from 25.1 per thousand in 1951 to 12.5 per thousand in 1981 and to 8.1 per

thousand in 2002. Decline in infant mortality rate (number of deaths of children under one year

of age per thousand live births) was less than half in 2002 of what it was in 1951. Child (0-4

years) mortality rate declined from 57.3 per thousand in 1972 to 19.3 in 2001. It means risk of

death has declined at each stage of life. Certainly it is a definite improvement in health.

The Crude birth rate (defined as the number of births per thousand populations in a particular

year) has also declined from 40.8 per thousand in 1951 to 33.9 per thousand in 1981 and 25 per

thousand in 2002. But the decline in birth rate has been much slower than that of the death rate.

For example, death rate declined by 17 points between 1951 and 2002 while birth rate declined

by 14.2 points only during the same period. It is worth mentioning that birth rate has always been

higher than the death rate which results in rapid increase in population. Similarly, total fertility

rate (number of children born to a woman during child-bearing age) also reduced from 6 children

in 1951 to 3.1 children in 2001.

Life Expectancy:
SI. Parameter 1951 1981 1991 Current
No. level

1. Crude Birth Rate (Per 10p0 40.8 33.9 29.5 25.0(2002)

Population)

2. Crude Death Rate (Per 25.1 12.5 9.8 8.1 (2002)

1000 Population)

3. Total Fertility Rate (TFR) 6.0 4.5 3.6 3.1 (2001)

(Per woman)

4. Maternal Mortality Rate NA NA 437 407(1998)

(MMR) (per 100,000 live
births) (1992-

93

NFHS

5. Infant Mortality Rate 146 110 80 63 (2002)

(IMR) (Per 1000 live
births) (1951-61)

6. Child (0-4 years) Mortality 57.3 (1972) 41.2 26.5 19.3 (2001)
Rate per 1000 children

7. Couple protection Rate 10.4(1971) 22.8 44.1 48.2(1998-

(Per cent) 99)

NFHS

8. Life Expectancy at Birth 37.2 54.1 59.7 63.9(2001

Male ^06)

Female 36.2 54.7 (1991 66.9(2001

-95) -06)
60.9
(1991
-95)
 Life expectancy has gone up with the decline in vital rates such as birth, death and fertility rates.

In the year 1951, it was only 37.2 years for males and 36.2 years for females. The corresponding

figures increased to 63.9 and 66.9 years respectively in 2001 – 06 (Table 15.3). The increase in

life expectancy has been more conspicuous in females than in males. It was lower than males in

1951 which became higher in 1981 and still continues to be higher.

Table 15.3 Selected Health Indicators:

(Person years)

1951 1981 2003 (Period/source)

SC/PHC/CHC 725 57,363 1,63,196 (March 2002-

RHS**)

Dispensaries and 9,209 23,555 38,031 (January 1, 2002 –

Hospitals (all) CBHI***)

Beds (Private and 1,17,198 5,69,495 9,14,543 (January 1, 2002-

Public) CBHI)

Nursing Personnel 18,054 1,43,887 8,36,000 (2004)

Doctors (Modem 61,800 2,68,700 6,25,131 (2004, MCI @)

System)

Malaria (Cases in 75 2.7 0.91 (September 2004)

million)

Leprosy (Cases/10,000 38.1 57.3 2.4 (March 2004)

population)

Polio (no. of cases) 29,709 22.5 214 (December 31,2003)

This major breakthrough is attributed to increased food security and expansion of medical

facilities. For example, per capita, per day availability of cereals and pulses was 394.9 gm in

1951 which rose 417 gm in 2001. Trends on health care in shown in Table 15.4.

Table 15.4 Time Trends (1951-2003) in Health Care:

Although considerable progress has been made in socio-demographic parameters over the last

two decades, the country continues to lag behind several other countries in the region . The Tenth

Five Year Plan targeted a reduction in Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) to 45 per 1000 by 2007 and

28 per 1,000 by 2012; reduction in Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) to 2 per 1000 live births by

2007 and 1 per 1000 live birth by 2012 and reduction of decadal growth rate of population

between 2001- 2011 to 16.2 per cent.

The National Population Policy, 2000 aims at achieving net replacement levels of total fertility

rate by 2010 through vigorous implementation of inter-sectoral operational strategies. The long

term objective is to achieve population stabilization by 2005.