Regional Estimates of Poverty and Inequality in India, 1993-2012 - Rajesh K. Chauha+2015

Soc Indic Res
DOI 10.1007/s11205-015-1006-6
Regional Estimates of Poverty and Inequality in India,

1993–2012
Rajesh K. Chauhan1 • Sanjay K. Mohanty2,3 •

S V Subramanian6,7 • Jajati K Parida4 • Balakrushna Padhi5
Accepted: 8 June 2015

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Using three quinquennial rounds of consumption expenditure data over two
decades (1993–2012), this paper estimates the extent of money metric poverty and
inequality in regions of India. Regions are made comparable, and the poverty head count
ratio and the poverty gap ratio for 81 regions are derived using the state specific poverty
lines as recommended by the Planning Commission of India. The gini index, rich–poor
ratio and regression analyses are used to understand the extent of economic inequality in
regions of India. Results indicate that though the extent of poverty has declined, economic
& Rajesh K. Chauhan

rajesh_kumar_chauhan@hotmail.com
Sanjay K. Mohanty
sanjayiips@yahoo.co.in; smohanty@hsph.harvard.edu
S V Subramanian
svsubram@hsph.harvard.edu
Jajati K Parida
jajatieco@gmail.com
Balakrushna Padhi
padhi.balakrushna5@gmail.com
1
Population Research Centre, Department of Economics, University of Lucknow,
Lucknow 226 007, UP, India
2
Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Cambridge 02138, MA, USA
3
Department of Fertility Studies, International Institute for Population Sciences, Govandi Station
Road, Deonar, Mumbai 400088, India
4
National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development, NITI Aayog, Govt. of India,
New Delhi, India
5
Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
6
Population Health and Geography, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H.
Chan School of Public Health, Boston 02115, MA, USA
7
Population Health and Geography, Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies,
Cambridge 02138, MA, USA
123
R. K. Chauhan et al.
inequality has increased in regions of India. During 1993–2012, the poverty head count
ratio had decreased in 70 regions, increased in seven regions and remained similar in four
regions of India. The southern regions of Odisha and southern regions of Chhattisgarh are
reeling under high persistent poverty. The spread in poverty head count ratio among
regions has increased from 0.38 in 1993–1994 to 0.64 in 2011–2012 confirming divergence
in regional poverty in India. The pattern is similar with respect to poverty gap ratio.
Regions of Tripura and Sikkim had highest improvements in poverty level. On contrast to
poverty estimates, the gini index has decreased in 20 regions and increased in 61 regions.
Likewise, 57 regions have recorded increase in rich–poor ratio. The rich–poor ratio was
higher in developed regions and lower in less developed regions. Based on these findings,
we suggest that regions with persistently high poverty be accorded priority in poverty
alleviation program and explore the factors leading to increasing economic inequality.
Keywords Poverty Inequality Head count ratio Gini index Rich–poor ratio
Regions India
1 Introduction
Estimates of poverty and inequality are routinely monitored at global, national and local
level. While the World Bank provides the comparable estimates of poverty across coun-
tries, the national governments use varying methods to estimate poverty. These include the
estimation of money-metric poverty using per capita income, per capita consumption
expenditure, asset ownership etc. Despite differences in methodology, evidences support
reduction of poverty across countries. The global estimates on poverty suggests that the
poverty level had declined in all six regions1 across developing countries and developing
countries are said to have achieved the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) target of
reduction in poverty. The poverty head count ratio, measured by $1.25 a day in 2005
prices, has declined from 43 % in 1990 to 21 % by 2010 in developing countries with
fastest decline in East Asia (World Bank 2014).
Though poverty has been declining, evidences suggests diverse pattern of inequality
across and among countries. In literature, the Kuznets curve that suggests increasing
inequality (inverted U shaped curve of inequality) along with economic development
(Kuznets 1955) is often used to explain the pattern of inequality. However, the Kuznets
curve does not have universal appeal (Galbraith 2012). Recent trends of gini index (a
measure of inequality) in 130 countries suggests diversified pattern; the rising inequality
(continuously rising/U-shaped curve) in 65 countries, falling inequality in 51 countries
(continuously falling or inverted U-shape) and no trend in 14 countries (United Nations
2013). The European countries had shown lower inequality within countries and higher
inequality across countries (Galbraith and Chowdhury 2007) while income and wage
inequality in USA during 1913–1998 was of U shaped curve (Piketty and Saez 2003).
These studies suggest that the Kuznets hypotheses may not necessarily hold true for all
countries and over time. Among developing countries, inequality in China and Brazil are
often referred. While poverty in China had reduced from 60 % in 1990 to 13 % by 2008,
1
East Asia, South Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, East Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and
North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.
123
Regional Estimates of Poverty and Inequality in India, 1993–2012
inequality seems to have increased. The gini index varies widely across countries; 0.53 in
Brazil, 0.41 in United States of America and 0.37 in China (World Bank 2015).
The global agenda of reduction in poverty and inequality is contingent on India’s
progress in reduction of poverty as India is home to one-third of World poor. Also,
reduction of poverty and inequality is a priority agenda and routinely featured in India’s
plan documents. The trends in official estimates of poverty suggests reduction in poverty
level (also known as money-metric poverty) from 44 % in 1993–1994 to 22 % by
2011–2012 (Planning Commission, Government of India 2013), similar to trends of
developing countries. However, the decline in poverty estimates conceals large disparities
among regions and districts of India. Evidence also suggests increasing economic
inequality within and among states of India (Himannshu and Sen 2014). Disaggregated
analyses at the regional level is a beginning step in understanding the spatial pattern of
poverty and inequality in India.
1.1 Official Poverty Estimates in India
The Planning Commission, Government of India estimates the poverty in India (referred as
money metric poverty) using the consumption expenditure data (Schedule 1.0) collected by
the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). These estimates are widely used among
planners, policy makers, national and local government, international organizations, aca-
demia and researchers for all practical purposes. The system of estimating poverty based
on consumption expenditure basing household surveys assumed to be pioneered by India
accord reasonably good reputation for poverty estimation (Deaton and Kozel 2004). Till
recently, the per-capita consumption expenditure of 1973–1974 (rupees 49.09 in rural and
rupees 56.64 in urban areas) was used as a base and updated to price index to obtain
poverty lines in subsequent years. The Government of India had accepted the recom-
mendations of Tendulkar Committee to re-estimate poverty lines (Planning Commission,
Government of India 2009) and the committee recommended use of intrinsic price indices
for adjusting the price changes over the time for update and upkeep of state specific
poverty lines in India. The methodology prescribed also suggested of using mixed recall
period (MRP), i.e. 30 days recall period for items frequently consumed and 365 days for
items consumed less frequently (clothing-bedding, footwear, medical institutional, edu-
cation and consumer durables). The committee provided with MRP based state specific
poverty lines for 1993–1994 and 2004–2005 and the Planning Commission revised the
poverty lines for 2011–2012. The state specific poverty lines have been provided for 28
states and two union territories (UTs) for three time periods for rural and urban areas
separately. For remaining five UTs, the poverty lines of neighbouring states are recom-
mended; for Andaman and Nicobar Islands line of Tamil Nadu, for Chandigarh line of
urban Punjab, for Dadra and Nagar Haveli line of Maharashtra, for Daman and Diu line of
Goa and for Lakshadweep line of Kerala were used.
1.2 Review of Literature
Numerous studies have provided disaggregated estimates of poverty and inequality using
the consumption expenditure data across states, among social groups and by selected
attributes in India (Thorat 2010; Sundaram and Tendulkar 2003; Kannan and Raveendran
2011; Ahluwalia 1978; Chelliah and Shanmugam 2007). Sundaram et al. (1988) estimated
rural poverty in 56 regions of India for 1972–1973. They found higher inter-regional
inequalities compared to intra-regional inequalities among the poor contrary to intra
123
regional inequality being higher compared to inter-regional for overall rural population.
Jha and Sharma (2003) found no change in ranking of rural poverty for 1987–1988,
1993–1994 and 1999–2000 and observed that inequality have persisted over time. Kannan
and Raveendran (2011) using 1993–1994 and 2004–2005 data demonstrate that social
divide was more prominent compared to state specific divide in poverty. Thorat (2010)
examined the propensity of being poor or falling poor for different social groups i.e.
scheduled caste (SC), scheduled tribe (ST), other backward class (OBC) and others and by
religious groups in India. Sundaram and Tendulkar (2003) found a similar decline in
poverty among the scheduled caste, agricultural labour (rural) and casual labour (urban)
households while the scheduled tribe households fared badly between 1993–1994 and
1999–2000. Sen and Palmer-Jones (2001) found divergence between poverty estimates
derived from official poverty line and those directly from calorie consumption and sug-
gested that credibility of data may be enhanced by incorporating subjective or in-depth
methods. Guruswamy and Abraham (2006) proposed a minimum needs based poverty line
and estimated it using data from 55th round of National Sample Survey (NSS). Gan-
gopadhyay and Singh (2013) suggested that the approach by Jensen and Miller (2010) may
successfully be used for estimating poverty lines by use of staple calorie share in food
share and come-up with comparable estimates of head count ratio of poverty to estimates
by Tendulkar committee for 2004–2005. Basu and Das (2014) observed calorie con-
sumption puzzle may be seen, as a result, of a budget squeeze for food items in the long
run. World Bank (2011) acknowledged steady progress in reducing consumption poverty
but found that inequality which was on southward path until 1980s is headed north again
and concluded that improving human development outcomes for the poor remains a key
challenge for India. Himannshu (2007) also indicated poverty decline in Indian states
during 1993–2005. Panagariya and Mukim (2014) illustrate that choice of poverty lines
does not dispute the poverty decline during 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 and found nar-
rowing gap in poverty incidence between social groups. Murgai et al. (2003) estimated the
district level poverty by pooling the state and central sample for districts of Karnataka
because the central sample was not adequate. The pooling state and central sample data of
61st round by Chauhan (2008) found higher standard errors of poverty estimates; nearly
half of the districts were very high even after pooling. Chaudhuri and Gupta (2009)
estimated the poverty for districts of India using the consumption expenditure data of
2004–2005. However, large sampling error for some districts of India were observed e.g.
Relative Standard Error (RSE) for rural monthly per capita consumption expenditure
(MPCE) for one-thirds of districts was beyond 10 % and for nearly 60 % districts urban
MPCE similar RSE prevailed (Chaudhuri and Gupta 2009).
Sen (1997) highlights the need to involve individual well being and economic freedom
as a locus shift from income inequality to economic equality. Literature on economic
inequality in India is relatively less compared to poverty but gaining increasing attention.
Deaton and Dreze (2002) found widening disparities and increasing economic inequality in
regions of India. Pathak and Mishra (2011) compared the estimates of poverty and
inequality using alternative methods for social class and regions of India for 2004–2005.
Highlighting the importance of state and region level factors Bhandari and Khare (2002)
used level of economic activity (five variables) for 78 NSS regions to understand the
change in economic activity during 1992–1999 and identified that broadly western regions
gained and eastern region lost the ground. To understand growth story better authors
stressed need for more studies on lower levels of aggregations with statistical rigor. Earlier
Sastry (2003) examines RSEs for 55th round data and explains feasibility of reliable
estimates of MPCE for most of the districts. Using convergence regression for prominent
123
variables Singh et al. (2003, 2013) portray picture of regional inequality of for 59 NSS
regions and were able to identify low performing regions belonging mainly to poorer
states. Dubey (2009) demonstrate by using poverty analysis for five Indian states that intra-
state disparities require similar attention that inter state receive. Rahman and Rao (2004)
presented re-examination of gender equity and suggested increase in opportunities for
women and investment in rural infrastructure can improve women’s agency in India.
Besides estimates of poverty and inequality, studies also suggest alternative measures of
poverty and inequality. Mukhopadhyay (2011) demonstrated that the squared poverty gap
is efficient index to measure under-nutrition and allows decomposition as well. Sen (1976)
presents relative poverty measurement through ordinal approach of welfare comparisons
and stresses its simplicity and less data requirements. Joe et al. (2009) display that child
malnutrition is linked to income, mother’s nutritional status and their education and
advocates behavioural interventions to reduce it.
2 Aim and Rationale
The aim of this paper is to provide the comparable estimate of poverty and inequality in
regions of India over last two decades. The unit data from three quinquennial rounds of
consumption expenditure survey; 1993–1994, 2004–2005 and 2011–2012 are used in the
analysis. The extent of money-metric poverty is estimated using the poverty head count
ratio and poverty gap ratio and inequality is measured using the gini index and rich–poor
ratio (ratio of richest to the poorest consumption quintile). The official state specific
poverty lines adopted by the Planning Commission; Government of India are used in
estimating the poverty headcount ratio. The comparable estimates are provided for 81
regions of India to the extent possible for rural and urban areas as well otherwise for
overall areas. Given the volume of work, we limit the analyses of this paper on estimation
and trends in regional level on a comparable basis.
We have carried out this exercise with following rationales. First, the estimates of
poverty are often carried out at state level that conceals large disparities within the
administrative regions in the country. The sample size at regional level is sufficient to
provide robust estimate of poverty in regions of India. Though regions are homogeneous
within, the regional pattern of development and disparity is stark in India. There are only
few studies that estimated poverty in regions of India (Sundaram et al. 1988; Jha and
Sharma 2003; Kijima and Lanjouw 2003; Jha et al. 2010) though a large number of studies
have examined the poverty and inequality at state level and among social groups, there are
limited number of studies that provide estimates of poverty and inequality in regions and
districts of India. Second, the sub-national analyses i.e. by regions would identify the
backward regions that need particular attention for alleviation of poverty and reduction of
inequality in the population. The NSSO classified regions by taking agro-climatic char-
acteristic into account and these regions are homogeneous with respect to economic
activity. Third, the state is the unit for policy while district is the unit for administrative
control. Regions in India are generally spread up to eight districts and these are similar
culturally with respect to dialect, customs and other cultural practices. Fourth, there has
been growing concern that inequality has increased over time though the poverty level
declined across socio-economic groups and space. Fifth, studies on poverty and inequality
are often carried out independently. But it may so happen that both poverty and inequality
are working in same direction or in opposite direction. Though some attempts have been
123
made on inequality at state level, no attempt has been made at regional level. Hence, it is
necessary to understand the trends for multiple uses. This study will contribute to literature
by providing trends in poverty and economic inequality in regions of India.
3 Data and Methods
We have used the unit data of consumption expenditure (Schedule 1.0) three quinquennial
rounds; 1993–1994, 2004–2005 and 2011–2012 and the cut-off point as used by Planning
Commission to estimate the trends of poverty and inequality in regions of India. All three
rounds are comparable and the household consumption expenditures are estimated based on
MRP. The number of question on consumption expenditure were 416 in 1993–1994, 340 in
2004–2005 and 346 in 2012. The detailed questionnaire, sampling and the finding are
available in respective report (National Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry of Statistics
and Programme Implementation, Government of India 1996, 2006, 2014). The unit data are
organised in several blocks and we have mainly used data from blocks 1, 3, 4 and 12. The
monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) is the key variable in deriving the estimates and we
have validated our estimates of MPCE with published results of 50th round (Chaudhury
2007), and for 61st and 68th rounds with NSSO reports (National Sample Survey Organi-
sation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India 2006,
2014). In addition to household consumption expenditure, we have used the percentage of
labourer households, percentage of SC population, percentage of ST population, percentage
of Muslim population and percentage of households using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for
cooking and households electrified in the analyses. We have also tabulated the average
household size and female literacy for each of the regions. Besides using the unit data, a cross
sectional panel data file was prepared for three periods of time keeping region as the unit.
Since we do not have information on regional estimates of domestic product, we used the state
domestic product per capita (SDPP) at uniform base (2004) and constant prices. The SDPP
data were taken from the reserve bank of India’s website (www.rbi.org.in) and to bring
1993–1994 SDDP data at uniform base of 2004–2005 price deflator based on Wholesale Price
Index (WPI) was used.
3.1 Comparability of NSS Regions 1993–2012
One of the daunting tasks in estimating the regional poverty and inequality is the compara-
bility of regions over time. This is because either new regions are added, or some regions were
combined or in few cases changed the boundary of the region within the state. We make
regions comparable by taking both backward (the 68th round as a base) and forward (50th
round as base) approach. However in cases where boundary of regions had changed, the
district was reorganised over time to make regions comparable. In case new regions were
created after 1993, the estimates of the new region in earlier period were kept same as that of
the parent region from which it was created. In case geographic location of regions has
changed, the district was considered to make the estimates comparable. A similar exercise
was carried out by Murthie et al. (2001) and limited till 1993–1994. Appendix 1 presents the
detailed arrangement of regions in three time periods. There were 78 regions each during 50th
and 61st rounds and 88 regions during 68th round. There has been the reorganisation, a new
creation by vertical division and recreation of regions by shifting the constituent districts.
Utmost care is taken to keep comparability among the regional structures of the three rounds.
123
Among 35 states and UTs; six UTs (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra
and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry) and nine smaller states
(Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand
and Delhi) comprised of a single region each during three rounds (the period 1993–2012).
Among the rest of the twenty states, seven states namely Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, MP,
Maharashtra, Manipur and Tamil Nadu did not experience any change in boundaries of
regions during three rounds. For the six states of Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Himachal
Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal there were vertical division
of regions over time and parent region’s estimates for the earlier round were repeated
against the newly created regions of 68th round. In this way, the comparable regional
structures were maintained for regions falling in the above mentioned 28 states. For the rest
seven states namely Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh
there has been a reorganisation of regions in such a way that regional structures were not
comparable across the time period. The stratum formation for urban areas during 50th
round of the survey was done at the region level thus keeping those regions as domains of
estimation. Thus, reorganisation of districts over time would not make them comparable if
regions of 68 round were to be taken as a reference. Though backward comparability of
68th round regional structures was not possible but forward comparability of 50 round
regional structure was possible for six out of seven such states excluding Gujarat. For these
six states of Assam, Bihar, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, regional structure
of 50th round was kept as a reference. For 61st and 68th rounds the change in design,
making district as a domain of estimation, enabled us to generate equivalent regions to that
of 50th round by pooling constituent districts. Gujarat presented a unique challenge, except
Saurashtra, remaining four regions of state experienced massive boundary change during
three rounds. In 50th round seven districts were partly included in more than one region.
Districts of Panch Mahals, Vadodara, Bharuch, Surat and Valsad were concurrently present
in two regions namely Eastern and Plains Southern. Likewise, district Mehsana was part of
two regions of Plains Northern and Dry Area and district Sabar Kantha was included in
regions of Plains Northern and Eastern regions. Later in 61st round these seven districts
were assigned in totality to particular regions of the state. These four regions could not be
made comparable except pooling them, and thus, we did new regional classification for
Gujarat by having two comparable regions namely ‘‘Saurashtra’’ and ‘‘Gujarat excluding
Saurashtra’’. Thus, total of 82 regions was formed, and survey could not be conducted for
‘‘Laddakh’’ region of Jammu and Kashmir in 50th and 61st rounds thus could not be
included. Hence technically and spatially comparable estimates of various quantities were
generated and presented for 81 regions of India and each of the regions are comparable
over time. Appendix 1 presents the detailed description of regions during the three rounds.
3.2 Methods
We have computed the poverty head count ratio (HCR), poverty gap ratio (PGR), the Gini
index (GI) and the rich poor ratio (RPR) for each of the regions at three periods of time.
The state specific poverty line as recommended by Tendulkar Committee is used to
demarcate poor and non-poor. While the head count ratio provides the percentage of
population living below the poverty line and measures the incidence of poverty, the
poverty gap ratio measures the depth of poverty. The Gini index is used to measure the
extent of inequality in the population. Though we are aware of the more advanced methods
of inequality analysis such as Atkinson (1970) alternative method for measuring income
inequality and Ogwang’s (2014) regression based approach to decompose gini index into
123
within-group, between-group and interaction components, we prefer use gini index to

generate comparable descriptive statistics and to align with the scope of paper. We have
also estimated the MPCE quintile separately for rural and urban areas and then derived
combined MPCE quintiles. The ratio of richest and poorest MPCE quintile (termed as rich–
poor ratio) is used to measure the rich–poor gap across the regions. It may be mentioned
that each of the four indicators is not affected by price changes and thus are comparable
over time. The multiple regression analyses are carried out to understand the determinants
of poverty headcount ratio, poverty gap and inequality. A brief description of these
measures as used in literature (Litchfield 1999) and in this paper is given below:
Head count ratio (HCR) Poverty head count ratio also known as prevalence or incidence of
poverty is fraction in the total population living below the poverty line. We have used
Foster et al. (1984) index for measuring HCR which takes the following form:
q
HCR ¼ ð1Þ
N
where number whose q is the number of population whose consumption expenditures are
below state specific poverty line; N is the total number of population.
Poverty gap The intensity of poverty reflected in the extent to which the expenditure of the
poor lies below the poverty line. It is measured as
1 X
q

PGR ¼ Zp Yi =Zp ð2Þ
N i¼1
where Zp denotes the poverty line and Yi is the per capita consumption expenditure of
the ith individual below poverty line.
Gini index It measures inequality in the distribution of monthly per capita expenditure.
Gini coefficients is defined as
1 X N X N
Yi Yj
GI ¼ ð3Þ
2N 2 Y i¼1 j¼1
where Y is the mean expenditure of the households and Yi and Yj denote the expen-
ditures of ith and jth households respectively.
Rich–Poor Ratio It is the ratio of mean MPCE of richest quintile (top 20 % population) to
mean MPCE of poorest quintile (bottom 20 % population) in the population.
Ytop 20 %
RPR ¼ ð4Þ
Ybottom 20 %
where Y denotes the mean expenditure of the group of households
Rank of regions The rank of regions has been computed in a way that region with lowest
value of average monthly per capita expenditure is assigned rank 1 and with highest 81.
Thus track rank of regions upon average MPCE among all regions of India irrespective
of state they belong have been generated. A lower rank indicates lower incidence of
poverty and a higher rank indicates higher incidence of poverty.
123
4 Results
Table 1 presents the key indicators for regions of India. The number of regions has
increased from 78 in 1993–1994 to 88 by 2011–2012 while the mean population size has
increased from 10.65 million to 12.60 million during this period. The share of SC and
Muslim population has increased while that of ST population has remained similar. The
mean household size has declined from 4.8 to 4.4 during this period. The percentage of
labourer households has increased marginally over time. However, there has been record
increase in LPG coverage and electrification during the same period. The MPCE has
increased by 68.78 % over time (at constant price of 1993–1994) indicating that the living
standard has improved over time.
4.1 Regional Estimates of Poverty and Inequality in India, 1993–2012
Appendix 2 provides the state and regional estimates of the percentage of the population
living below poverty line, i.e. HCR by rural, urban and combined for 1993–1994,
2004–2005 and 2011–2012. The regions are arranged within each state for better pre-
sentation and benefit of readers. Maps 1 and 2 presents the percentage of HCR and gini
index (combined i.e. rural and urban taken together) for regions of India. An unique code is
assigned to each region in Maps 1 and 2 and Appendix 2. The overall rank is provided for
combined poverty estimates for all three period. We briefly describe the state pattern in
poverty ratio before discussing regional trends.
The percentage of population living below the poverty line in India has declined from
45.7 % in 1993–1994 to 22.0 % by 2011–2012. The decline in poverty was faster in urban
areas compared to rural areas; declined from 50.2 into 25.4 % in rural and from 31.9 to
13.7 % in urban India. There has been a persistent decline in poverty across the states
during 1993–2012 with varying degrees; 13 states/UTs registered a decline of over 60 %
and more followed by 11 states with decline of 40–60 %; seven states had 20–40 %
decline, two states with a moderate decline up to 20 % percent and remaining two states
registered increase in poverty level. A very high decline, over 25 points, was observed for
seven states; Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Dadra Nagar Haveli, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka,
Manipur and Tamil Nadu. Similarly high decline of poverty HCR (20–25 % points) was
observed for 10 states of Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jharkhand, Kerala, Maharashtra,
Meghalaya, Odisha, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Uttarakhand. Poverty increased for the state of
Mizoram and Union Territory of Chandigarh during this period. In 1993–94, among all
states and UTs, the highest HCR of 69 % was observed for the UT of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli followed by Manipur (65 %) and Jharkhand (61 %) and it was the minimum in the
UTs of Andaman and Nicobar Iceland (4 %) and Lakshadweep (10 %). By 2011–2012, the
highest HCRs were observed in the states of Chhattisgarh (45 %) followed by UT of
Dadara Nagar Haveli (43 %) and Jharkhand (41 %) and lowest for the UTs of Andaman
and Nicobar Islands (1 %), Lakshadweep (1.7 %) and Daman and Diu (4.9 %).
The variation in estimates of poverty at regional level is higher than the variation at
state level. Among all the regions, 34 regions experienced a decline of 60 % or more
followed by 21 regions with a decline of 40–60 %, 19 regions with decline 20–40 %, 3
regions with moderate decline up to 20 % and remaining four regions experienced an
increase in poverty HCR over this period. A very high decline (more than) 25 points was
observed for 31 regions and high decline (20–25 points) was observed for 16 regions
followed by moderate decline (\20 points) in 30 regions. The significant reduction in
123
123
Table 1 Key indicators in regions of India, 1993–2012
Indicators Combined Rural Urban
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
Mean population size (millions) 10.65 13.15 12.60 8.01 9.83 9.00 2.64 3.32 3.60
Sex ratio (F/1000 M) 934 942 933 943 953 944 907 909 906
% Scheduled castes 19.3 19.6 19.0 21.1 20.9 20.8 13.8 15.6 14.6
% Scheduled tribes 8.9 8.6 8.9 10.8 10.6 11.1 3.2 2.9 3.5
% Muslims 11.2 12.4 13.6 9.9 11.1 12.4 15.3 16.2 16.8
% Household having agricultural labourer 31.5 30.4 27.4 38.2 37.5 33.0 13.1 11.5 13.5
% Households using LPG gas 9.3 21.8 30.1 1.9 8.5 13.9 29.6 57.2 70.6
% Households electrified 49.3 65.1 78.4 37.1 54.8 71.2 82.8 92.4 96.3
Mean household size 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.1
Mean MPCE at 1993–1994 prices (SD) 330 (1.56) 380 (4.27) 557 (11.55) 286 (1.45) 309 (3.36) 441 (7.3) 464 (3.93) 591 (11.44) 848 (32.82)
No of regions 74 78 88 74 78 88 74 78 88
No of states 32 35 35 32 35 35 32 35 35
poverty HCR was observed in Costal Southern Andhra Pradesh (91 %), Jhelam Valley of
Jammu and Kashmir (88.9 %), Inland North Western Andhra Pradesh (86.1 %) and Inland
Southern Karnataka (84.8 %).
Figure 1 provides the mapping of regions in poverty estimates in India for 1993–2012.
A persistent decline in poverty HCR between 1993–1994 and 2004–2005 followed by
decline during 2004–2005 to 2011–2012 has been observed in 58 regions. In one region
namely Mizoram there was slight increase in poverty HCR. In 1993–1994 a total of 31
regions had poverty HCR in 50–80 % bracket; in 2011–2012 two of these regions came
down to below 20 % level followed by 15 regions had HCR 20–35 %, 12 had 35–50 % and
only two regions with poverty level of more than 50 % had similar poverty level. These
two regions are Southern region of Odisha and Southern Chhattisgarh. On the other hand,
more and more regions are entering the green zone with lower level of poverty by
2011–2012. Looking at concentration of poverty it may be observed that regions falling in
demographically backward states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhaya Pradesh, Jharkhand,
Chhattisgarh and Odisha continue to have high rates of poverty HCR over the period of
time. Over the time most of the regions falling in northern, western and southern parts of
country are below the median levels of HCR (\35 %).
In 1993–1994, while the estimated poverty was maximum in the southern region of
Odisha (77 %) it was the minimum (4 %) in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. By
2004–2005, the estimated poverty remain maximum in southern region of Odisha and
minimum in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. By 2011–2012 the poverty level was highest in
Southern Odisha (58.5 %) followed by Southern Chhattisgarh (55.3 %), South Madhya
Pradesh (49.8 %), Hills region of Maninpur (46.8 %) and South Western Madhya Pradesh
(43.2 %). Lowest poverty level was observed in Andaman and Nicobar Islands followed by
Lakshadweep, Costal Southern Andhra Pradesh, Mountainous region of Jammu and
Kashmir and UT of Daman and Diu.
Fig. 1 Percentage of population living below poverty line in regions of India, 1993–2012
123
The coefficient of variation of HCR has increased over time; from 0.74 in 1993–1994 to
0.88 by 2004–2005 and 1.57 by 2011–2012. This indicates that the poverty level among the
regions has widened in last two decades. The rank order correlations of the poverty level in
regions of India in 1993–1994 and 2004–2005 was 0.75, and that of 2004–2005 and
2011–2012 was 0.79 It suggests that ranks were maintained to a great extent despite
poverty decline charactering vertical declines during the period of 18 years. Rural areas
had higher order rank correlations compared to urban areas in both the comparisons.
Table 2 presents the mean of poverty level, poverty gap, gini index and rich poor ratio
by categories and change during 1993–2012 in each category. In 1993–1994, the mean
poverty level in 14 regions was 65 % and by 2011–2012 no region had poverty levels
beyond 60 %. In the same time, there were 9 regions with mean poverty level of 17 % in
1993–1994, and it has declined to 11 % by 2011–2012. Similarly nine other regions with
Table 2 Poverty reduction in regions of India, 1993–2012

Poverty and No of Percentage HCR, gap (mean) and gini Absolute decline Percentage
inequality regions during decline during
measures 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–2012 1993–2012
Poverty HCR
\20 % 9 16.9 15.7 10.9 6.0 35.5
20–30 % 9 28.9 25.4 23.6 5.3 18.3
30–40 % 17 35.2 34.1 35.3 -0.1 -0.2
40–50 % 15 45.0 46.6 45.1 -0.1 -0.2
50–60 % 17 54.8 53.3 57.5 -2.7 -5.0
60%? 14 65.2 66.2 0.0 65.2 100.0
Total 81 45.7 37.8 22.0 23.6 51.8
Poverty gap ratio
\3 % 7 2.9 2.4 1.5 1.4 48.2
3–6 % 9 4.3 4.7 4.2 0.1 1.4
6–9 % 22 7.4 7.2 7.3 0.2 2.2
9–12 % 16 10.6 10.8 10.8 -0.3 -2.4
12 %? 27 15.7 14.3 13.0 2.7 17.3
Total 81 11.2 8.4 4.0 7.2 64.1
Gini index
\0.20 6 0.221 0.179 0.196 0.025 11.3
0.20–0.25 24 0.262 0.260 0.265 -0.003 -1.1
0.25–0.30 38 0.291 0.288 0.315 -0.024 -8.2
0.30–0.35 11 0.367 0.357 0.350 0.017 4.6
0.35? 2 0.368 0.388 0.402 -0.034 -9.2
Total 81 0.300 0.347 0.359 -0.059 -19.7
Rich–poor ratio
1.80–2.80 14 2.570 2.650 2.690 -0.120 -4.7
2.81–3.80 50 3.400 3.350 3.400 0.000 0.0
3.81–4.80 14 4.100 4.280 4.200 -0.100 -2.4
4.81–5.80 3 5.170 5.280 5.270 -0.100 -1.9
5.81–6.80 0 6.570 6.250 -6.250 –
Total 81 3.550 3.990 4.080 -0.530 -14.9
123
mean poverty HCR of 29 % in 1993–1994 were at 24 % in 2011–2012. With respect to the

absolute decline, the reduction was 6 points and 5.3 points basis in those regions with
lower poverty level. In general there has been downward shift in poverty levels and decline
is visible in with lower poverty and regions with a highest level of poverty. Similarly the
decline in poverty gap ratio is visible in all categories except one. The pattern is not similar
in case of gini index. In case of poverty gap ratio, the mean PGR was 15.7 % among
categories with PGR of 12 %? and declined to 13.0 by 2011–2012. In case of gini index,
the mean level has increased from 0.300 to 0.359. For 64 regions this increase is between
two to nine percent. Similarly rich poor ratio has increased from 3.517 in 1993–1994 to
3.994 in 2011–2012. The forward shift in regions is visible and highest category of
5.81–6.80 emerged after 2004–2005.
4.2 Poverty Gap Ratio in Regions of India, 1993–2012
Appendix 3 presents the poverty gap ratio, gini index and the rich–poor ratio for each
region within the states for all three period. For India, the depth of poverty was at 11.2 %
during 1993–1994 and has declined to 8.4 % in 2004–2005 and 4.0 % in 2011–2012.
Among the states and UTs, the highest depth of poverty was observed for Bihar, Dadra
Nagar Haveli, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh as they kept fea-
turing among top ten states during three periods under consideration following this Aru-
nachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Manipur featured twice among top ten
states. There were eight states and UTs which has shown a decline in poverty gap ratio
(PGR) above national average. The highest declines were observed for Maharashtra (10.8
points), Karnataka (10 points) and Tamil Nadu (9.6 points) during 1993–2012. Eleven
states and UTs had PGR more than that of national level (4.0 %) in 2011–2012. Among the
regions, Inland Central region of Maharashtra had highest depth of 24.2 % in 1993–1994
followed by Southern Odisha (23 %) and South West Madhya Pradesh (22.9 %). In
2004–2005, the region with the highest depth of 29.1 % was noticed for Southern Odisha
with an increase from 1993–1994 followed by Northern Odisha (19.1 %) and Eastern
Maharashtra (17.6). In 2011–2012, Southern Madhya Pradesh had highest depth of 13.1 %
followed by Southern Chhattisgarh (12.9 %) and Southern region of Odisha (12.9 %).
Rank correlations between the pairs of ranks of the region on PGR during 1993–1994 and
2004–2005 was 0.734 and 0.727 during 2004–2005 and 2011–2012. This is indicative that
rank has not changed a lot and poverty gap has also reduced with time. Among the 81
regions, 15 regions had shown a high decline (10 % points or more) followed by 36
showing a moderate decline (5–10 points), 26 showing a mild decline (\5 points) while as
four regions registered an increase in poverty depth.
4.3 Gini Index in Regions of India, 1993–2012
Appendix 3 provides the trends in two measures of inequality namely, the gini index and
the rich–poor ratio for states and regions of India over three period of time. Figure 2 also
provides the map of gini index in regions of India. These measures are derived from the
monthly per capita consumption expenditure. In general we observed that though poverty
has declined in most of the states, the economic inequality has increased. Chandigarh had
highest gini coefficient of 0.361 in 1993–1994 followed by Maharashtra (0.348) and NCT
of Delhi (0.324). In 2004–2005 Dadra and Nagar Haveli became the state/UT with the
highest inequality (0.386) followed by Chandigarh (0.381) and Maharashtra (0.381). In
123
Fig. 2 Inequality in MPCE (gini coefficients) in regions of India, 1993–2012
2011–2012 Chandigarh had the highest value (0.391) followed by Karnataka (0.388),
Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (0.379) and Kerala (0.379).
While 16 states/UTs have shown successive increase in gini coefficients during
1993–2004 and 2005–2012; for the former period 32 states/UTs registered increase and for
a later period 19 states/UTs gini coefficients increased. During the period 1993–2012
states/UTs of Daman and Diu, Meghalaya and Pondicherry exhibited decline in inequality
and remaining 32 registered an increase. The mean MPCE at constant price and the gini
index has increased for most of the regions suggesting increasing economic inequality in
the population. During 1993–2012, there were 64 of the 81 regions recorded increase in the
gini index while 17 regions had shown a decline in the gini index. In 1993–1994, among
the regions, the highest inequality was in Chandigarh (0.361) followed by Costal Northern
Tamil Nadu (0.359) and Southern Madhya Pradesh (0.342). Regions with the least
inequality were Himalayan Region of West Bengal and Plains and Hill regions of Manipur.
In 2004–2005, the regions with the highest inequality were coastal northern Tamil Nadu,
Costal Maharashtra and Dadra and Nagar Haveli while as with least were in Hills of Assam
and two regions of Manipur. The highest inequality in 2011–2012 were observed for Inland
Southern Karnataka (0.409), Costal Maharastra (0.401) and Central Madhya Pradesh
(0.393) while the lowest for the hills both the regions of Manipur and Daman and Diu. For
17 of regions there has been a decline in inequality with maximum of 20 % for South
Western Madhya Pradesh, 19 % for Inland North Eastern Andhra Pradesh, and 18 % in
Inland Central Maharashtra. More than three-fourths of regions displayed an increase in
inequality during 18 years.
4.4 Rich–Poor Ratio in Regions of India, 1993–2012
The rich–poor ratio (RPR) for all India was 3.52 in 1993–1994, 3.94 in 2004–2005 and
3.99 in 2011–2012 suggesting widening gap among richest and poorest consumption
123
groups. In 1993–1994, the RPR was highest for NCT of Delhi (5.15) followed by
Chandigarh (5.05) and Tamil Nadu (4.19). It was lowest for the north-eastern states of
Manipur (2.05), Mizoram (2.31) and Nagaland (2.42). In 2004–2005, the states with
highest RPR were Chandigarh (6.23), Kerala (5.34) and DN Haveli (5.09) and lowest were
Manipur (2.06) followed by Meghalaya (2.30) and UT of Lakshadweep (2.64). In
2011–2012, Chandigarh again featured as a state/UT with highest RPR with value being as
high as 6.53 followed by NCT of Delhi (5.84) and Kerala (5.39). Among the regions, in
1993–1994, the RPR was highest in NCT of Delhi, Chandigarh, coastal northern regions of
Tamil Nadu followed by inland central region of Maharashtra and Southern Madhya
Pradesh. It was low in plain and hill regions of Manipur and Assam. By 2011–2012, the
highest RPR was in Chandigarh (6.53) followed by Southern Kerala (6.11) and NCT of
Delhi (5.84) and lowest in Northern Chhattisgarh (2.28), Daman and Diu (2.46) and Sikkim
(2.49). There has been a decline in RPR for 22 regions and an increase for 58 regions and it
remained unchanged for one region. The highest decline was observed for Inland Central
Region of Maharashtra (30 %) followed by South Western Madhya Pradesh (24 %) and
Meghalaya (22 %). In general we observed that those regions that are developing faster,
the rich–poor ratio is also widening. On the other-hand, in the under-developed regions the
rich poor ratio tends to be low irrespective of the state.
4.5 Poverty, Gini Index and Consumption Expenditure in Regions of India
Before undertaking multivariate analyses we plot the gini index and MPCE (logarithm)
over three point of time (Fig. 3). We found with increase in economic well being, the gini
index has also increased. Also with time, both the MPCE and gini index moved rightward.
This is indicative that both economic well being and the gini index have increased over
time.
We have also plotted the gini index against the poverty gap ratio in regions of India
(Fig. 4). We found decline in poverty gap level over time but increasing inequality in
67 33
.4
44
39 79 31 13
36
17 40 33 44 13
17 67 55
31 1
67 80
79 22 36 13 22
49 70 20 7
41 1
48 15 45 29 35 72 59 48 70
39
14
16
15 64 464173 73 19 455 61
58 47 16 3
2 44 20 35 55
39 80 68 81 45 61 46 60 2 45 25 26
6 5833 69 79
Gini coefficient
57 4080
25 49
24 76
.3
42 30 48
29 70 4336
64 1
74 23 19
41 38 4769
64 815 72 7475 246953
73 78 78 45 65 56 52
76 31 6 63
3
60
30
29 17 38 59 6532 37 59
58 4256 46 2 3 6 40 72 62
68 2024
25
9 66
19 68
21
37
57 75 30
34 43 71 65
497434 76
43 35
78 8 23
6322
32 777
34 27
47 26 23
75 18
56 125774 38
16
15
14 421432
28
27 61 71 60 37 54
9 71 26
12 81 77
8 66 62 63 526253 66 5
12 11 21 18
8 10 54
11 11 21 28
9 52 51 28
.2
18
27 53 50
54
77 10
51 50
10 50
51
.1
5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Ln(MPCE)
1993-94 2004-05 2011-12
Fitted 1993-94 Fitted 2004-05 Fitted 2011-12
Fig. 3 Scatter plot of gini index and MPCE(ln) in regions of India, 1993–2012
123
33 67
.4 44
36 39
79 31 4433 13 17
1 55 13 67 31
40 17
22 36 13 22 79
80 67
70 7 20 49
1 41
70
55 59 72 48 354
5 29
73 15
73 48 46 39 64
4 61 55 44 20 19 4114
16
15
16
26 25 45 35 2 60 3
2 61
46 39 58 47
76 68 81
45 80
79 58 633
40 69 57
Gini coefficient
80 25
24
48 42
.3
1 19 43 36 23 49 64
70 30
29
69 53 74
72 5
4 7 47
24 81 69 38 41
3 6 56 6575 76 52 45 78 64
37 68 63
6059 32 6519 59
31 72 62 20 3856
2568
24 6 3
2 58
73
78 30 46
29 17
37
26 21 23 47 77 66 9 40 35
27 43 78 8 7 76 30 71 75 65 42 34 49 57
32 63
23 34 22 43 34 74
75
18 71 60 74
37 61 4238 16
15
14 57
54
566 52 62 53 26 77 63 71981432 28
27 12 56
1821 66 62 12 81 12
54 11 10 8
28 21 11 11
18 2852 9
.2
50 51
53 27
54
10 77
50 51
10 50
51
.1
0 20 40 60 80
Poverty HCR
1993-94 2004-05 2011-12
Fitted 1993-94 Fitted 2004-05 Fitted 2011-12
Fig. 4 Scatter plot of gini index and poverty (HCR) in regions of India, 1993–2012
regions of India. The pattern from both the figures suggests increasing income level,
reduction in poverty and increasing inequality over time.
4.6 Association of Poverty and Inequality with Selected Developmental

Indicators in Regions of India, 2011–2012
To understand the association of selected indicators in regions of India, we have computed

the correlation of poverty HCR, poverty gap ratio, gini index, rich poor ratio, percentage of
scheduled caste population, percentage schedule tribe population, percentage of Muslim
population, percentage of households labourers, percentage of households using LPG gas,
the percentage of households using electricity for lighting, young dependency ratio, old
dependency ratio, percent persons literates, percent females literates and mean household
size for 2011–2012 data. We found that the correlation coefficient of poverty HCR is
positive with young dependency ratio, proportion of ST population and mean household
size and negative for household using LPG and electricity, overall and female literacy and
old dependency ratio. The poverty HCR is negatively associated with rich poor ratio and
gini index indicating that the inequality is low where poverty is high. The coefficients for
rural areas were of similarly associated to poverty HCR and with minor variations in urban
areas. The patterns are also similar with respect to poverty gap ratios. Gini index was
positively correlated with rich poor ratio. Gini index was also positively associated with
increase in household using LPG and electricity, and old dependency ratio. It was nega-
tively associated with mean household size, household being labourer and proportion of ST
population. Rich poor ratio also display the similar correlation coefficients as done with
Gini index, with young dependency ratio also being negatively associated (Table 3).
123
Table 3 Correlation coefficient of selected indicators in regions of India, 2011–2012
Sector Combined Rural Urban
Poverty Poverty Gini Rich poor Poverty Poverty Gini Rich poor Poverty Poverty Gini Rich poor
HCR gap index ratio HCR gap index ratio HCR gap index ratio
Poverty HCR 1 1 1
Poverty gap 0.969* 1 0.951* 1 0.975* 1
Gini index -0.189 -0.091 1 -0.313* -0.262* 1 -0.233* -0.208 1
Rich–poor ratio -0.261* -0.165 0.930* 1 -0.067 0.085 0.296* 1 0.026 -0.004 0.095 1
% SC population -0.131 -0.149 0.164 0.206 -0.217 -0.239* -0.101 0.062 0.019 -0.017 -0.004 0.170
% ST population 0.390* 0.403* -0.244* -0.337* 0.449* 0.472* -0.123 -0.140 0.023 0.011 -0.015 -0.177
% Muslim population -0.188 -0.204 -0.125 -0.106 -0.189 -0.199 0.032 -0.201 0.018 0.031 0.145 0.011
% HH being labour -0.269* -0.288* -0.317* -0.221* -0.424* -0.344* 0.152 -0.072 0.013 -0.03 0.036 0.286*
% HH using LPG for -0.613* -0.550* 0.322* 0.4341* -0.496* -0.416* 0.227* 0.175 -0.549* -0.563* 0.015 -0.149
cooking
% HH using electricity -0.605* -0.530* 0.252* 0.2875* -0.522* -0.411* 0.298* 0.255* -0.426* -0.400* 0.031 -0.242*
for lighting
Young dependency ratio 0.591* 0.546* -0.209 -0.277* 0.516* 0.456* -0.207 -0.232* 0.584* 0.589* -0.117 -0.087
Old dependency ratio -0.359* -0.359* 0.279* 0.321* -0.309* -0.308* 0.206 0.534* -0.152 -0.108 0.038 -0.065
% Persons literates -0.376* -0.375* 0.089 0.145 -0.306* -0.297* 0.328* 0.014 -0.302* -0.256* -0.022 -0.163
% Females literates -0.383* -0.385* 0.098 0.159 -0.308* -0.300* 0.324* 0.039 -0.339* -0.285* 0.006 -0.142
Mean household size 0.372* 0.310* -0.325* -0.302* 0.297* 0.224* -0.195 -0.198 0.451* 0.406* -0.057 -0.140
* Significance level of 95 %
123
4.7 Factors Affecting Poverty and Inequality in Regions of India
To understand the intervening indicators of poverty HCR, poverty gap, Gini index and
Rich poor ratio the ordinary regressions analyses were carried out for regions of India. We
have pooled the data for generating the estimates for three period of time to generate a
sufficient number of cases and capture the role of time in explaining poverty variation. The
set of independent variables are percent Muslim population, percent scheduled caste
population and percent scheduled tribe population in the regions, percent labourer
households (agriculture and other in rural areas and casual in urban areas) and use of
electricity for lighting, average household size, female literacy and the SDPP. These
variables were used after series of tests of multi-colinearity by observing the correlation
matrix and variance inflation factors (VIFs). We first regressed poverty HCR and gini
index across time (Table 4) followed by other explanatory variables (Table 5). In both the
models place of residence has been used as an indicator variable thus rural and urban
estimates have been used. Table 4 presents the beta coefficients and t statistics for poverty
head could ratio for three rounds taken together. We found that the coefficient of poverty
HCR was -7.10 in 2004–2005 and -18.77 in 2011–2012. In other words, poverty level in
2004–2005 has declined by 7 % and by 2011–2012 by 19 % compared to 1993–1994 level.
Both the coefficients are significant indicating that poverty has declined over time. The
pattern is similar in case of poverty gap ratio; showing significant decline over time. In
case of gini index and rich poor ratio, the regression coefficients are positive indicate that
inequality have increased over time. On average the gini index in 2004–2005 was 2.5 %
higher than 1993–1994 level and 2.9 % higher in 2011–2012. Similarly rich poor ratio in
2004–2005 was 50 % higher than 1993–1994 and 53 % higher in 2011–2012. All four
measures are significant over time.
Poverty is positively and significantly related to labourer households, household size,
percent ST population and in urban areas while as it is negatively related to percent
Muslim population, percent households using electricity, percent SC population, female
literacy and SDPP. All the coefficients were statistically significant at 99 % level of
significance except for household size and proportion ST population which were significant
at 95 %. For the time periods of 2004–2005 and 2011–2012 the direction of coefficients is
positive but only coefficient for 2004–2005 is moderately significant.
The variables those are significant in explaining poverty HCR are SDPP, household
size, young and old dependency ratio, labourer households, households having electricity
and Muslim population. All the coefficients are in expected direction. The coefficient of
SDPP indicates that 10 % increase in SDPP would lead to 4.6 % decline in poverty. With
increase in household size of one, the level of HCR would like to increase by 2.4 %.
Similarly, 10 % increase in labourer households would lead to 2.4 % increase in HCR.
Though time was a significant predictor in base model (Table 4), it is not so in full model.
All these variables explain 57 % variation in the poverty across regions. Results are similar
for poverty gap ratio. The significant variables are urban residence, old dependency ratio,
labourer households, percentage of households with electricity, percentage Muslims and
percent females literate. These variables explain 52 % variation in poverty gap ratio. In
case of gini index the variables those are significant are rounds, urban residence, SDPP,
and schedule tribe population. These variables explain only 37 % of variation in the model.
For rich poor ratio the significant variables were time, urban residence, old dependency
ratio, proportion labourer households and mean household size. Except mean household
size other coefficients were positive.
123
Table 4 Result of regression equation of poverty HCR, poverty gap ratio and the gini index over time, 1993–2012
Independent variables Dependent variables
Poverty HCR Poverty gap ratio Gini index Rich poor ratio
Regression coefficients t values Regression coefficients t values Regression coefficients t values Regression coefficients t values
2004 -7.10 -3.90 -2.15 -4.09 0.025 3.80 0.501 3.93

2012 -18.77 -10.31 -5.33 -10.12 0.029 4.39 0.526 4.12
Constant 38.46 29.88 9.08 24.4 0.256 55.34 3.517 39.01
R2 0.18 0.17 0.04 0.04
Number of cases 486 486 486 486
123
Table 5 Result of regression coefficient with poverty HCR, poverty gap ratio and gini index in regions of India, 1993–2012
123
Independent variables Dependent variables
Poverty HCR Poverty gap ratio Gini index Rich–poor ratio
Regression t values Regression t values Regression t values Regression t values

coefficients coefficients coefficients coefficients
Time
2004–2005 2.582 1.77 0.400 0.90 0.014 2.42 0.511 4.68
2011–2012 1.974 1.08 0.293 0.52 0.004 0.51 0.500 3.64
Urban (dummy–rural) 4.719 2.58 2.865 5.13 0.058 7.86 1.575 11.50
State domestic product per capita (SDPP) in -4.555 -2.47 -0.373 -0.66 0.018 2.38 0.010 0.07
log form
Household size 2.376 1.94 0.404 1.08 -0.001 -0.29 -0.350 -3.81
Old dependency ratio 0.026 0.91 0.020 2.31 0.000 0.00 0.008 3.76
Percentage labourer households 0.237 4.76 0.093 6.10 0.000 -0.38 0.011 2.92
Percentage households having electricity -0.279 -7.85 -0.082 -7.55 0.000 0.23 -0.002 -0.65
Percentage scheduled caste -0.198 -2.81 -0.054 -2.48 0.000 -0.93 0.000 -0.06
Percentage scheduled tribe 0.068 2.35 0.030 3.43 0.000 -2.69 -0.002 -1.14
Percentage Muslims -0.135 -3.62 -0.027 -2.38 0.000 0.44 0.000 -0.08
Percentage females literate -0.273 -7.27 -0.096 -8.41 0.000 1.35 -0.005 -1.61
Constant 93.852 4.70 15.525 2.55 0.066 0.82 3.873 2.59
Adjusted R2 0.569 0.515 0.370 0.443
Number of cases 486 486 486 486
5 Conclusion
In last two decades, India has experienced sustained economic growth and reduction in
money-metric poverty across states and among socio-economic groups. However, the
economic inequality is said to have increased over time and across states. Though there has
been increasing interest in estimating poverty and inequality in India, there are a limited
number of studies that provides trends in estimates of poverty and inequality at sub-
national level. Estimating poverty and inequality at sub-national level is useful for national
and state government, academia and international organisations. The first step in this
direction is to document the extent of poverty and inequality and than explore the deter-
minants of poverty and inequality. We have analysed the unit level data of consumption
expenditure of NSSO and made comparable estimates of poverty and inequality in regions
of India. We have estimated the incidence of poverty (poverty HCR) and the depth of
poverty (poverty gap ratio) to understand the change in poverty in regions of India. Two
measures of inequality, namely, the gini index and the rich–poor ratio are also computed to
depict the pattern of inequality in regions of India. These estimates are comparable over
time as we have used the uniform methodology and made regions comparable by making
backward and forward approach. We have following findings.
First, our results indicate a significant reduction in poverty level in regions of India.
While the poverty head count ratio has decreased in 74 regions, it has remained same in four
regions and has moderately increased in three regions. While some regions have spectacular
reduction in poverty level, the southern regions of Orissa and Chhattisgarh continued to
have higher incidence of poverty. Second, regional disparity in poverty level has increased
suggesting divergence in poverty level in regions of India. The spread of poverty head count
ratio among regions has increased from 0.38 to 0.64 in study period. Third, not only the
poverty level varies among regions in India, it is also higher within the states of India. The
poverty level in Eastern Maharashtra is about four times that of coastal Maharashtra. Fourth,
reduction in poverty is not accompanied with a reduction in inequality. In most of the
regions, economic inequality, measured by gini index and rich–poor ratio has increased in
over time. The inequality is more in developed region and low in under-developed regions.
5.1 Limitations
We acknowledge few limitations owing the measurement issues of poverty and inequality
and the size and volume of work. The official estimation of poverty use consumption
expenditure data using a fixed basket of goods and services, fixed threshold limit and the
use of price index. This is beyond our scope as these are implicit in the data set. Second, we
confined the analyses to a trend analyses and emphasize on documenting the extent of
poverty and inequality. We could not explore the reasons of such change and determinants
owing to volume of work. The next step is possibly to supplement the reasons of decline or
increase and a detailed multilevel analyses on poverty and inequality in India. Despite
these limitations, this is the first ever study that provides the comparable estimates of
trends in poverty and inequality in regions of India.
Appendix 1
See Table 6.
123
123
Table 6 Comparison of NSS regions in 50, 61 and 68 rounds
S. no. State/UT Number of Matching status to 68 Remark on comparison Treatment Basis of Number
regions round regions regional of
classification resultant
50 61 68 Matched Unmatched followed regions
1 Andaman 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
and
Nicobar
Islands
2 Andhra 4 4 5 5 0 Costal region of 50/61 was divided Estimates of costal region for 55/61 68 2
Pradesh into 2 regions during 68 round— were repeated for two regions of 68
Costal Northern and Costal
Southern
Inland Northern region of 50/61 was Estimates of Inland Northern region 68 2
also divided into 2 regions Inland for 55/61 were repeated for two
North Western and Inland North regions of 68
Eastern
South-Western and Inland Southern Pooled estimates for 55/61 were 68 1
region of 50/61 were pooled generated and used against
together to form new region Inland estimates of single region of 68
Southern during 68 round round
3 Arunachal 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
Pradesh
Table 6 continued
4 Assam 3 3 4 0 4 The composition of all the three Since design of 50th round had urban 50 3
regions namely Plain Western, Plain stratum formation at the region
Eastern and Hills for 50 and 61 level. But keeping regions of 61 or
rounds got altered by reshuffling of 68 round as reference would mean
districts. In 50th round districts of reorganizing within the regions of
Dhemaji, Karimgang and 50 round which will not be
Hailakandi were in Plain western technically viable. On the other
region and in 61st round they were hand in 61 and 68 rounds sample
included in Plain Eastern region. were drawn at the district level so
Likewise districts of Bongaigaon, reorganizing them to the equivalent
Barpeta, Sonitpur and Nalbari of of 50th round would not be a
plain eastern and district Kokrajhar challenge. Newly created districts in
of Hill region were included in Plain 68 round frame were mapped
western in 61 round. While through their parent districts/regions
comparing 61 and 68 round it is and were allotted accordingly. Thus
found that some districts of Plains regions of 50 round were kept as
Eastern and hill region in 61 round reference

were reorganised into two distinct
regions namely Catcher Plains and
Central Brahamputra Plains in 68
round. Thus regions kept
reorganising during three periods
5 Bihar 2 2 2 0 2 State was divided and bifurcated state For technical reasons of comparability 50 2
of Bihar had two regions Central regions of 50th rounds were kept as
and Northern regions. Between reference
50/61 and 66 rounds there were two
districts Begusarai and Khagaria
were moved from central region to
Northern region
6 Chandigarh 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
123
Table 6 continued
123
7 Chhattisgarh 1 1 3 3 0 One region namely Chhattisgarh of For new regions of 68 round estimates 68 3
50/61 round was vertically divided of parent region from 55/61 were
into three regions namely Northern repeated
Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Basin and
Southern Chhattisgarh
8 Dadra and 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
Nagar
Haveli
9 Daman and 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
Diu
10 Goa 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
11 Gujarat 5 5 5 0 5 In 50th round seven districts were Thus these four regions can not be New 2
partly included in more than one made comparable with other rounds
region. Districts of Panch Mahals, as in 50th round parts of the districts
Vadodara, Bharuch, Surat and were present in each of these
Valsad were concurrently present in rounds. Saurastra was the only
two regions namely Eastern and region which was comparable. We
Plains Southern. Likewise Mehsana kept Saurashtra and rest of Gujarat
was part of two regions of Plains as another region at the place of 5
Northern and Dry Area and District regions
Sabar Kantha was included in
regions of Plains Northern and
Eastern regions. Later these seven
districts were included in totality
like other regions of India in 61
round. Saurashtra region was kept as
it is between the periods except few
new districts were added vertically
in 68 round
Table 6 continued
12 Haryana 2 2 2 2 0 No change – 68 2
13 Himachal 1 1 2 2 0 One region of HP in 50/61 was One estimate of 50/61 was repeated 68 2
Pradesh vertically divided into two regions for the two regions of 68
of Central and ‘Trans Himalayan
and Southern’ in 68 round
14 Jammu & 3 3 4 4 0 Out of three regions Mountainous, For new regions of 68 round estimates 68 4
Kashmir Outer Hills and Jhelam Valley of of parent region from 55/61 were
50/61 round first two were intact in repeated
68th round. The third one got
vertically divided into two regions
of Jhelam Valley and Laddakh
15 Jharkhand 1 1 2 1 0 Southern region of Bihar became state Estimates of one region Southern/ 68 2
of Jharkhand in 61 round and in 68 Jharkhand from 50/61 round were
round it was further divided into two repeated for two regions of 68
regions Ranchi Plateau and
Hazaribagh Plateau
16 Karnataka 4 4 4 4 0 No change – 68 4
17 Kerala 2 2 2 2 0 No change – 68 2
18 Lakshadweep 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
19 Madhya 6 6 6 6 0 Out of seven regions six were intact in Six were included as it is 68 6
Pradesh all the rounds and seventh became
separate state of Chhattisgarh
20 Maharashtra 6 6 6 6 0 No change – 68 6
21 Manipur 2 2 2 2 0 No change – 68 2
22 Meghalaya 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
23 Mizoram 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
24 Nagaland 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
123
Table 6 continued
123
25 NCT of 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
Delhi
26 Odisha 3 3 3 0 3 Three regions of Costal, Northern and Thus all the regions experienced an 50 3
Southern experienced a change in alteration in their composition over
composition from 61 to 68 rounds. time. Thus for reasons of
Districts of Ganjam and Gajapati comparability regions of 50th round
were in Costal region for 50/61 were kept for reference
rounds and were included in
Southern region for 68 round.
Likewise districts Sonapur and
Balangir switched positions from
Northern to Southern region
27 Pondicherry 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
28 Punjab 2 2 2 0 2 District Ludhiana switched position Thus regional reference of 50th round 50 2
from Northern region in 50/61 to was kept
Southern region in 68
29 Rajasthan 4 4 5 2 3 Districts of Ganganagar, Thus regional reference of 50th round 50 4
Hanumangarh, Churu and Nagaur of was kept
western region and Jhunjhunu and
Sikar of North eastern region were
later included in Northern region
30 Sikkim 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
31 Tamil Nadu 4 4 4 4 0 No change – 68 4
32 Tripura 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
Table 6 continued
33 Uttar Pradesh 4 4 5 1 4 There were 5 regions of Uttar Pradesh Thus composition of Western, Central 50 4
during 50 round and in 61 round and Eastern regions was changed in
Himalayan region was broadly time period under consideration. So
become state of Uttarakhand except regional classification of 50 round
for two districts of Bareilly and after excluding Himalayan region
Hardwar which switched their was kept as reference with
positions between Western and consideration that Bareilly fell in
Himalayan regions between 55 and UP so was included and Hardwar
61 rounds. In 68 round western does not fall in UP so was excluded
region was reorganised into two
regions of Northern Upper Plain and
Southern Upper Plain. Kheri District
of Central region in 50/61 round
was included in Southern Upper
Ganga region in 68 round. Likewise
Sonebhadra was in Western region
in 50th round and was included in

Eastern region in 61/68 round
34 Uttarakhand 1 1 1 1 0 No change – 68 1
35 West Bengal 4 4 5 5 0 Region central Plains of 50/61 round For two regions of 68 round estimates 68 5
was vertically divided into Central of parent region of 50/61 were
Plains and Southern Plains in 68 repeated
round and rest three remained
unchanged
Total regions 78 78 88 65 23 82
123
Appendix 2
See Table 7.
123
Table 7 Trends in estimates of poverty head count ratio in regions of India (1993–2012)
Combined HCR Ranks among regions Rural HCR Urban HCR

Change
State Regions
1993-2012
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
India 45.7 37.8 22.0 50.2 41.9 25.4 31.9 25.6 13.7 23.7
1. Andaman & Nicobar Islands 1. Andaman & Nicobar Islands 4.0 2.3 1.0 1 1 1 4.8 4.3 1.6 2.0 0.8 0.0 3.0
2.Andhra Pardesh 44.9 29.9 11.0 48.2 32.3 5.8 35.3 22.7 9.3 33.9
2. Coastal Northern 47.7 22.2 13.4 47 20 33 50.2 23.6 15.9 40.8 18.3 7.1 34.3
3. Coastal Southern 47.7 22.2 4.1 46 19 3 50.2 23.6 4.3 40.8 18.3 3.5 43.6
4. Inland North Western 41.7 31.0 5.8 37 36 8 46.6 34.4 8.8 27.7 20.9 3.0 35.9
5. Inland North Eastern 41.7 31.0 8.3 38 37 16 46.6 34.4 8.8 27.7 20.9 6.6 33.4
6. Inland Southern 44.1 46.0 15.8 41 57 37 46.7 48.2 16.2 36.8 38.6 14.7 28.3
3. Arunachal Pradesh 7. Arunachal Pradesh 56.0 31.9 35.3 63 40 67 60.5 33.2 38.9 22.6 21.1 20.3 20.7
4. Assam 52.5 35.2 33.9 55.3 36.6 20.6 27.8 21.8 32.5 18.6
8. Plains Eastern 44.7 34.6 30.7 43 48 58 47.5 35.9 31.9 21.5 21.3 21.0 14.0
9. Plains Western 57.3 34.1 32.7 64 45 62 60.1 35.5 34.2 32.8 21.2 19.8 24.6
10. Hills 52.0 56.2 41.2 57 73 74 55.5 58.1 43.2 13.7 36.7 23.8 10.8
5. Bihar 60.8 54.6 34.4 62.5 55.7 31.2 44.8 43.7 34.1 26.4
11. Northern 65.2 53.4 31.8 72 69 59 65.9 53.7 31.8 55.6 45.3 31.7 33.4
12. Central 54.7 56.3 37.5 60 74 68 57.4 58.7 38.6 38.1 43.1 31.0 17.2
6. Chandigarh 13.Chandigarh 14.8 12.7 20.8 4 8 46 30.7 29.4 1.6 12.4 10.7 22.3 -6.0
7. Chhattisgarh 51.3 51.0 44.6 56.1 55.1 24.0 28.4 28.4 40.2 6.7
14. Northern Chhattisgarh 51.3 51.0 35.2 55 64 66 56.1 55.1 38.9 28.4 28.4 2.2 16.1
15. Mahanadi Basin 51.3 51.0 38.7 56 66 71 56.1 55.1 43.5 28.4 28.4 23.6 12.6
16. Southern Chhattisgarh 51.3 51.0 55.3 54 65 80 56.1 55.1 56.7 28.4 28.4 45.4 -4.0
8. Dadra Nagar Haveli 17. DN Haveli 69.2 58.1 42.9 79 77 76 71.9 63.6 62.6 34.7 16.8 15.4 26.3
9. Daman & Diu 18. Daman & Diu 17.9 6.6 4.9 8 4 5 20.1 2.4 0.0 14.6 14.4 12.6 13.0
10. Goa 19. Goa 21.3 25.9 5.4 11 26 6 25.5 28.1 6.8 15.5 22.2 4.1 15.9
11. Gujarat 38.4 32.5 21.5 43.3 39.1 10.2 28.2 19.8 17.0 16.9
20. Gujarat excl Saurashtra 40.2 36.4 19.0 36 50 42 46.3 45.0 24.8 26.9 18.9 10.3 21.2
Table 7 continued

Change
State Regions
1993-2012
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
India 45.7 37.8 22.0 50.2 41.9 25.4 31.9 25.6 13.7 23.7
21. Saurashtra 32.5 18.7 9.3 22 16 21 32.9 16.4 8.6 31.7 22.5 10.1 23.2
12. Haryana 36.0 24.2 11.6 40.1 24.8 10.3 24.2 22.4 11.2 24.4
22. Eastern 38.8 21.5 9.4 35 18 23 44.7 23.0 9.5 24.8 18.2 9.2 29.4
23. Western 31.3 29.0 14.6 19 33 34 33.4 27.8 14.6 22.5 33.9 14.5 16.7
13. Himachal Pradesh 35.0 23.0 8.5 36.9 25.0 4.3 13.6 4.6 8.0 26.5
24. Central 35.0 23.0 9.3 26 21 22 36.9 25.0 9.5 13.6 4.6 6.6 25.7
25. Trans Himalayan & Southern 35.0 23.0 6.4 27 22 11 36.9 25.0 7.1 13.6 4.6 3.3 28.6
14. Jammu & Kashmir 26.7 12.6 11.5 32.6 14.3 7.2 6.9 6.5 10.6 15.2
26. Mountainous 19.7 4.9 4.3 9 2 4 24.0 5.0 3.7 7.0 4.7 5.6 15.4
27. Outer Hills 50.6 32.1 24.8 52 42 51 58.9 34.8 26.2 6.8 11.3 10.8 25.8
28. Jhelum Valley 50.6 14.2 5.6 51 9 7 58.9 15.6 5.0 6.8 8.0 7.5 45.0
15. Jharkhand 61.1 47.3 40.8 65.8 51.9 24.8 41.8 23.8 37.5 20.3
29. Ranchi Plateau 61.1 47.3 34.8 68 59 65 65.8 51.9 38.9 41.8 23.8 21.3 26.3
30. Hazaribagh Plateau 61.1 47.3 39.6 69 58 73 65.8 51.9 42.1 41.8 23.8 28.4 21.5
16. Karnataka 50.3 33.9 24.5 56.7 37.5 15.3 34.3 25.7 21.2 25.8
31. Coastal & Ghats 25.1 29.4 12.1 13 34 31 29.9 27.0 12.7 9.0 38.2 10.5 13.0
32. Inland Eastern 35.9 18.4 17.7 30 15 38 37.9 17.8 16.9 28.5 20.5 20.2 18.2
33. Inland Southern 46.1 18.9 7.0 44 17 13 59.1 27.5 11.9 25.1 7.9 2.5 39.1
34. Inland Northern 61.2 49.8 34.2 70 61 63 64.6 49.6 34.3 50.5 50.4 33.9 27.0
17. Kerala 31.6 19.3 9.2 34.0 19.6 5.0 24.2 18.5 8.1 22.4
35. Northern 35.3 30.2 10.8 28 35 28 37.7 30.0 12.0 27.3 30.9 7.2 24.5
36. Southern 29.2 12.1 6.0 15 7 9 31.6 12.3 6.9 22.4 11.6 3.4 23.2
18. Lakshadweep 37. Lakshadweep 10.1 5.1 1.7 2 3 2 3.6 0.0 0.0 16.4 10.5 3.4 8.4
19. Madhya Pradesh 44.7 49.2 35.7 49.0 53.6 21.0 32.1 35.1 32.0 9.0
38. Vindhya 44.0 54.9 42.5 40 71 75 46.1 59.7 43.9 31.0 28.3 35.0 1.5
39. Central 55.8 56.0 21.1 62 72 47 63.8 64.5 20.2 38.7 36.6 22.5 34.7
40. Malwa 33.8 38.2 15.6 24 52 36 36.3 42.1 19.2 28.5 28.6 7.4 18.2
41. South 49.4 59.9 49.8 50 78 79 56.8 64.5 57.7 30.7 39.6 24.1 -0.4
42. South Western 68.4 50.1 43.2 78 62 77 74.0 53.2 47.2 43.0 39.0 28.1 25.2
43. Northern 27.7 41.3 26.1 14 53 53 27.4 40.1 25.7 28.5 44.5 27.4 1.6
123
Table 7 continued

Change
123
State Regions
1993-2012
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
India 45.7 37.8 22.0 50.2 41.9 25.4 31.9 25.6 13.7 23.7
20. Maharashtra 48.6 38.9 24.2 59.3 47.9 9.1 30.5 25.6 17.3 24.4
44. Coastal 17.3 17.7 9.2 6 14 20 33.9 44.0 35.4 9.9 7.9 1.9 8.1
45. Inland Western 42.9 27.5 9.4 39 27 24 46.4 27.1 10.2 34.3 28.2 8.1 33.5
46. Inland Northern 63.3 51.9 28.7 71 68 55 68.6 54.9 33.4 48.9 44.8 20.5 34.6
47. Inland Central 68.3 61.3 22.0 77 79 49 70.9 61.7 22.4 59.4 60.3 21.1 46.3
48. Inland Eastern 65.7 49.7 25.6 75 60 52 72.8 54.3 28.4 52.6 41.2 20.3 40.1
49. Eastern 66.5 56.5 32.7 76 76 61 70.4 63.2 37.7 44.0 31.4 11.6 33.8
21. Manipur 65.5 38.0 38.8 64.8 39.1 32.4 67.3 34.5 37.1 26.7
50. Plains 65.3 27.8 31.9 73 28 60 63.9 24.5 32.6 68.1 33.6 30.9 33.4
51. Hills 65.7 56.4 46.8 74 75 78 66.2 56.6 45.9 61.3 51.4 91.7 18.9
22. Meghalaya 52. Meghalaya 36.0 15.4 11.8 33 11 30 38.0 14.0 12.5 23.6 24.7 9.3 24.2
23. Mizoram 53. Mizoram 13.4 17.1 22.0 3 13 48 16.6 23.0 35.4 6.5 7.9 6.4 -8.6
24. Nagaland 54. Nagaland 20.6 8.3 18.7 10 5 40 20.1 10.0 19.9 22.1 4.3 16.5 1.9
25. NCT of Delhi 55. Delhi 15.8 11.2 10.1 5 6 27 16.2 0.0 12.9 15.7 11.7 9.8 5.7
26. Odisha 59.5 57.7 35.7 63.2 60.8 17.3 34.5 37.8 32.9 23.8
56. Coastal 58.0 43.6 20.3 66 55 44 60.2 44.6 22.1 42.5 37.4 12.0 37.7
57. Southern 76.6 78.0 58.5 81 81 81 80.8 80.7 60.5 40.8 46.4 37.7 18.1
58. Northern 52.9 66.1 37.7 58 80 69 57.9 71.6 40.8 22.9 36.1 20.1 15.2
27. Pondicherry 59. Pondicherry 24.9 14.5 10.0 12 10 25 25.6 22.9 17.1 24.5 9.9 6.3 14.9
28. Punjab 22.4 21.0 7.7 20.4 22.1 9.2 27.4 18.5 8.2 14.7
60. Northern 17.4 15.7 8.9 7 12 19 14.6 15.7 7.8 23.3 15.9 10.5 8.5
61. Southern 29.6 28.4 7.4 16 30 15 27.8 29.9 7.5 34.9 24.1 7.0 22.2
29. Rajasthan 38.4 34.5 16.1 40.9 35.8 10.7 30.0 29.7 14.8 22.3
62. Western 35.9 37.7 13.3 32 51 32 40.0 40.4 14.5 22.1 27.5 9.0 22.6
63. North-Eastern 31.7 28.9 8.8 20 32 17 31.0 27.3 8.5 33.7 33.2 9.5 22.9
64. Southern 58.7 50.3 38.5 67 63 70 62.8 55.0 42.2 26.5 20.5 4.8 20.2
65. South-Eastern 47.2 28.6 20.4 45 31 45 49.8 29.6 19.2 38.0 23.8 24.6 26.8
30. Sikkim 66. Sikkim 32.0 31.1 8.8 21 38 18 33.0 31.8 9.9 20.4 26.0 3.7 23.2
31. Tamil Nadu 45.0 30.7 15.8 51.2 37.5 6.6 33.7 19.7 11.7 29.2
67. Coastal Northern 49.0 31.2 18.2 49 39 39 60.7 45.4 30.3 32.6 16.0 7.5 30.8
Table 7 continued

Change
State Regions
1993-2012
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
1993-94
2004-05
2011-12
India 45.7 37.8 22.0 50.2 41.9 25.4 31.9 25.6 13.7 23.7
68. Coastal 35.8 23.7 6.6 29 24 12 36.7 26.3 7.8 32.7 15.6 3.3 29.2
69. Southern 50.9 34.1 10.0 53 46 26 55.3 37.6 13.0 42.3 28.0 6.1 40.9
70. Inland 38.6 31.9 7.4 34 41 14 44.7 38.4 7.7 26.9 20.9 6.9 31.2
32. Tripura 71. Tripura 33.2 41.4 14.9 23 54 35 34.4 44.5 16.2 25.4 22.5 7.4 18.3
33. Uttar Pradesh 48.6 41.1 30.4 51.0 42.8 26.2 38.4 34.1 29.5 18.2
72. Western 35.9 33.8 20.1 31 44 43 36.6 33.7 19.8 33.8 33.9 21.1 15.8
73. Central 54.0 34.4 39.2 59 47 72 58.7 37.5 42.2 36.7 23.9 30.2 14.8
74. Eastern 55.6 51.2 34.3 61 67 64 57.9 52.4 34.4 39.8 41.6 33.8 21.3
75. Southern 70.1 45.4 29.5 80 56 57 68.4 44.7 30.2 76.4 48.2 26.9 40.6
34. Uttarakhand 76. Uttarakhand 33.8 32.6 11.4 25 43 29 37.0 34.5 11.7 20.0 26.3 10.5 22.4
35. West Bengal 40.0 34.9 22.5 42.6 38.2 14.7 31.3 24.5 20.4 17.5
77. Himalayan 57.7 28.3 24.1 65 29 50 59.4 27.8 25.7 44.5 32.2 16.1 33.6
78. Eastern Plains 48.0 54.5 29.3 48 70 56 48.5 56.0 28.2 44.5 44.6 37.6 18.7
79. Southern Plains 29.8 23.7 6.0 18 23 10 32.2 26.5 7.4 26.2 19.7 4.6 23.8
80. Central Plains 29.8 23.7 18.9 17 25 41 32.2 26.5 18.5 26.2 19.7 19.7 10.9
81. Western Plains 44.6 36.1 27.9 42 49 54 44.0 36.8 28.5 50.9 28.4 23.2 16.7
123
Appendix 3
See Table 8.
123
Table 8 Trends in estimates of inequality in regions of India, 1993–2012
State Region Poverty gap ratio (combined) Gini index of MPCE (combined) Rich–poor ratio of MPCE combined
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
India 11.2 8.4 4.0 0.300 0.347 0.359 3.52 3.94 3.99
1. Andaman and 1. Andaman and 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.301 0.373 0.345 3.83 4.66 4.41
Nicobar Islands Nicobar Islands
2. Andhra Pradesh 10.5 6.4 1.4 0.281 0.329 0.304 3.65 4.20 3.76
2. Coastal Northern 11.7 4.9 2.4 0.272 0.319 0.318 3.60 4.22 4.33
3. Coastal Southern 11.7 4.9 0.4 0.272 0.319 0.286 3.60 4.22 3.55
4. Inland North Western 9.2 6.0 0.7 0.292 0.341 0.329 3.71 4.27 3.96
5. Inland North Eastern 9.2 6.0 1.2 0.292 0.341 0.237 3.71 4.27 2.96
6. Inland Southern 10.5 10.7 2.3 0.272 0.309 0.285 3.63 3.97 3.78
3. Arunachal Pradesh 7. Arunachal Pradesh 15.5 7.1 8.8 0.297 0.263 0.353 3.90 3.56 5.23
4. Assam 10.7 6.9 5.6 0.211 0.235 0.263 2.52 2.85 3.12
8. Plains Eastern 8.6 7.2 4.9 0.219 0.233 0.261 2.62 2.87 3.16
9. Plains Western 12.2 6.4 5.9 0.205 0.241 0.268 2.49 2.92 3.17
10. Hills 8.2 7.0 7.0 0.178 0.150 0.219 2.14 1.84 2.56
5. Bihar 15.5 12.6 6.3 0.223 0.223 0.225 2.89 2.79 2.87
11. Northern 17.0 12.3 5.4 0.213 0.210 0.223 2.83 2.73 2.88
12. Central 13.4 13.0 7.6 0.231 0.240 0.226 2.97 2.88 2.85
6. Chandigarh 13. Chandigarh 2.9 2.8 3.9 0.361 0.381 0.391 5.05 6.23 6.53
7. Chhattisgarh 11.3 12.7 8.2 0.245 0.330 0.326 2.88 4.17 3.90
Table 8 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
14. Northern 11.3 12.7 5.5 0.245 0.330 0.241 2.88 4.17 2.28
Chhattisgarh
15. Mahanadi Basin 11.3 12.7 7.9 0.245 0.330 0.336 2.88 4.17 4.18
16. Southern 11.3 12.7 12.9 0.245 0.330 0.324 2.88 4.17 4.07
Chhattisgarh
8. Dadra Nagar Haveli 17. DN Haveli 20.4 16.5 11.0 0.277 0.386 0.379 3.37 5.09 4.16
9. Daman and Diu 18. Daman and Diu 2.8 1.0 0.9 0.227 0.253 0.204 2.76 2.84 2.46
10. Goa 19. Goa 4.8 5.1 0.7 0.274 0.328 0.297 3.79 4.61 3.97
11. Gujarat 9.2 7.5 2.6 0.261 0.329 0.311 3.28 3.93 3.59
20. Gujarat excl 10.1 8.8 3.0 0.276 0.354 0.321 3.47 4.32 3.66
Saurashtra
21. Saurashtra 6.4 2.9 1.0 0.209 0.229 0.268 2.74 2.82 3.36
12. Haryana 8.3 4.8 2.0 0.276 0.339 0.333 3.64 4.60 4.59
22. Eastern 8.9 4.2 1.6 0.259 0.364 0.361 3.38 5.27 4.94
23. Western 7.3 5.8 2.6 0.298 0.255 0.265 4.04 3.28 3.83
13. Himachal Pradesh 6.9 3.9 1.0 0.275 0.305 0.305 3.55 3.92 3.87
24. Central 6.9 3.9 1.3 0.275 0.305 0.290 3.55 3.92 3.82
25. Trans Himalayan 6.9 3.9 0.7 0.275 0.305 0.315 3.55 3.92 3.93
and Southern
14. Jammu and 4.8 1.8 1.7 0.247 0.245 0.281 2.64 2.80 3.31
Kashmir
26. Mountainous 2.9 0.9 0.7 0.238 0.264 0.316 2.65 3.21 4.56
27. Outer Hills 11.6 4.6 4.4 0.242 0.192 0.261 2.62 2.15 3.18
28. Jhelum Valley 11.6 1.8 0.7 0.242 0.207 0.208 2.62 2.57 2.64
15. Jharkhand 15.5 10.4 6.5 0.277 0.300 0.303 3.22 3.36 3.30
29. Ranchi Plateau 15.5 10.4 6.5 0.277 0.300 0.336 3.22 3.36 3.64
123
Table 8 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
123
30. Hazaribagh Plateau 15.5 10.4 6.4 0.277 0.300 0.266 3.22 3.36 3.03
16. Karnataka 13.2 6.4 3.2 0.287 0.354 0.388 3.47 3.79 4.37
31. Coastal and Ghats 4.8 6.9 1.2 0.277 0.373 0.390 3.33 5.37 5.44
32. Inland Eastern 7.4 2.3 2.2 0.239 0.258 0.278 3.02 3.07 3.25
33. Inland Southern 11.7 2.9 0.9 0.305 0.386 0.409 3.69 4.28 5.37
34. Inland Northern 17.0 10.0 5.5 0.264 0.260 0.257 3.46 3.12 3.19
17. Kerala 7.3 4.2 1.4 0.288 0.366 0.379 4.02 5.34 5.39
35. Northern 8.2 6.9 1.9 0.265 0.336 0.318 3.68 4.92 4.31
36. Southern 6.7 2.4 1.0 0.298 0.362 0.391 4.23 5.56 6.11
18. Lakshadweep 37. Lakshadweep 1.7 1.9 0.2 0.246 0.267 0.278 3.06 2.64 3.27
19. Madhya Pradesh 11.5 11.6 7.2 0.297 0.326 0.330 3.66 3.85 3.96
38. Vindhya 9.7 13.2 10.8 0.243 0.290 0.277 3.10 3.39 3.64
39. Central 14.3 15.5 3.5 0.315 0.333 0.393 3.93 4.09 5.61
40. Malwa 7.7 8.7 3.4 0.268 0.381 0.307 3.46 5.15 3.87
41. South 13.6 15.5 13.1 0.342 0.289 0.328 4.39 3.25 4.05
42. South Western 22.9 10.0 8.9 0.304 0.269 0.244 3.85 3.09 2.93
43. Northern 5.3 8.2 4.2 0.264 0.261 0.301 3.45 3.27 3.57
20. Maharashtra 14.0 9.7 3.2 0.348 0.381 0.371 3.86 4.47 4.40
44. Coastal 3.3 4.2 2.8 0.322 0.386 0.401 4.06 5.07 5.33
45. Inland Western 10.1 4.6 1.1 0.285 0.311 0.314 3.64 4.08 3.94
46. Inland Northern 18.4 14.6 5.5 0.274 0.331 0.315 3.39 4.35 4.11
47. Inland Central 24.2 16.9 2.8 0.323 0.294 0.264 4.57 3.86 3.20
48. Inland Eastern 19.7 12.4 4.8 0.299 0.336 0.336 3.77 4.32 4.40
49. Eastern 19.7 17.6 6.7 0.262 0.355 0.303 3.09 4.43 3.63
21. Manipur 13.0 5.6 6.5 0.151 0.161 0.200 2.05 2.06 2.57
Table 8 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
50. Plains 12.3 3.7 5.4 0.147 0.158 0.196 2.03 2.15 2.58
51. Hills 14.5 9.0 8.6 0.157 0.129 0.200 2.10 1.87 2.56
22. Meghalaya 52. Meghalaya 6.1 1.6 1.6 0.285 0.204 0.234 3.35 2.30 2.61
23. Mizoram 53. Mizoram 2.4 2.5 4.3 0.193 0.235 0.294 2.31 2.72 3.40
24. Nagaland 54. Nagaland 3.2 0.9 3.1 0.186 0.243 0.222 2.42 2.74 2.75
25. NCT of Delhi 55. Delhi 3.6 1.8 1.6 0.324 0.332 0.376 5.15 4.92 5.84
26. Odisha 15.1 16.3 6.4 0.263 0.306 0.299 3.13 3.65 3.48
56. Coastal 13.2 9.4 3.4 0.244 0.271 0.286 3.02 3.46 3.44
57. Southern 23.0 29.1 12.9 0.266 0.307 0.247 3.08 3.81 3.00
58. Northern 13.4 19.1 7.4 0.274 0.320 0.309 3.31 3.88 3.73
27. Pondicherry 59. Pondicherry 4.8 2.3 1.8 0.279 0.333 0.277 3.58 4.43 3.76
28. Punjab 4.1 3.6 1.3 0.251 0.318 0.302 3.29 4.21 4.08
60. Northern 3.0 2.2 1.5 0.248 0.313 0.280 3.27 4.18 3.78
61. Southern 5.8 5.5 1.1 0.247 0.316 0.328 3.32 4.26 4.48
29. Rajasthan 8.4 6.7 2.8 0.252 0.269 0.273 3.19 3.28 3.28
62. Western 6.6 7.7 2.4 0.231 0.271 0.236 2.91 3.42 2.86
63. North-Eastern 6.7 5.2 1.6 0.236 0.255 0.280 3.16 3.17 3.56
64. Southern 14.8 10.9 8.2 0.330 0.287 0.299 3.98 3.29 3.29
65. South-Eastern 12.2 5.3 3.9 0.261 0.284 0.277 3.47 3.34 3.46
30. Sikkim 66. Sikkim 5.6 5.4 0.9 0.229 0.268 0.237 2.79 3.26 2.49
31. Tamil Nadu 11.5 6.1 1.9 0.318 0.364 0.336 4.19 4.53 4.38
68. Coastal 8.0 3.6 0.9 0.271 0.309 0.275 3.64 3.70 3.50
69. Southern 13.5 6.6 1.3 0.290 0.307 0.294 3.85 3.89 3.89
123
70. Inland 7.9 6.9 0.9 0.299 0.352 0.340 3.84 4.64 4.64
Table 8 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
123
32. Tripura 71. Tripura 7.7 8.8 2.1 0.237 0.265 0.252 3.17 3.13 3.00
33. Uttar Pradesh 12.4 8.9 5.6 0.275 0.297 0.324 3.50 3.70 4.16
72. Western 8.0 6.3 3.2 0.276 0.294 0.332 3.73 3.76 4.45
73. Central 15.6 8.0 7.9 0.280 0.334 0.332 3.64 4.34 4.18
74. Eastern 14.0 11.8 6.8 0.248 0.259 0.295 3.18 3.30 3.88
75. Southern 21.3 11.1 6.5 0.254 0.266 0.288 3.36 3.42 3.36
34. Uttarakhand 76. Uttarakhand 6.1 5.5 1.3 0.265 0.282 0.308 3.17 3.47 3.89
35. West Bengal 8.3 7.3 3.4 0.296 0.339 0.347 3.56 4.05 4.00
77. Himalayan 11.0 5.3 3.3 0.176 0.236 0.261 2.19 2.91 2.90
78. Eastern Plains 10.6 12.4 5.1 0.283 0.280 0.256 3.64 3.36 3.13
79. Southern Plains 6.4 4.2 0.7 0.313 0.360 0.389 3.98 4.60 4.88
80. Central Plains 6.4 4.2 3.2 0.313 0.360 0.304 3.98 4.60 3.89
81. Western Plains 8.6 8.2 5.2 0.232 0.289 0.312 2.99 3.93 4.08
Appendix 4
See Table 9.
Table 9 Sample households and coefficient of variation in NSS 50, 61 and 68 rounds in regions of India
State Region Sample households Coefficient of variation of poverty HCR (%)
1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010
India 115,354 123,356 100,855 0.74 0.88 1.57

1. Andaman and Nicobar Islands 1. Andaman and Nicobar Islands 899 518 560 26.56 49.10 84.52
2. Andhra Pradesh 8552 8341 6892 2.45 3.45 8.81
2. Coastal Northern 3685 3477 1504 3.79 6.28 16.05
3. Coastal Southern 3685* 3477* 1248 3.79 6.28 26.25
4. Inland North Western 3392 3444 1844 4.13 5.41 18.35
5. Inland North Eastern 3392* 3444* 1056 4.13 5.41 23.91
6. Inland Southern 1475 1420 1240 5.02 5.53 15.59
3. Arunachal Pradesh 7. Arunachal Pradesh 1304 1987 1641 7.42 9.25 9.70
4. Assam 4079 4180 3448 3.66 5.45 6.00

8. Plains Eastern 1549 2220 1376 6.25 7.51 9.52
9. Plains Western 2330 1720 1728 4.34 8.71 8.78
10. Hills 200 240 344 17.05 13.43 13.15
5. Bihar 5752 4571 34,542 1.87 2.41 4.95
11. Northern 3693 3293 2464 2.23 3.42 7.24
12. Central 2968 2459 2107 3.19 3.31 6.40
6. Chandigarh 13. Chandigarh 230 360 305 24.09 26.91 27.19
7. Chhattisgarh 2125 2796 2232 4.26 4.28 6.23
14. Northern Chhattisgarh 2125 2796 288 4.26 4.28 21.03
123
Table 9 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010
123
15. Mahanadi Basin 2125* 2796* 1624 4.26 4.28 7.34
16. Southern Chhattisgarh 2125* 2796* 320 4.26 4.28 13.13
8. Dadra Nagar Haveli 17. DN Haveli 318 240 192 9.80 15.24 17.08
9. Daman and Diu 18. Daman and Diu 160 160 128 29.04 54.02 39.07
10. Goa 19. Goa 359 398 444 16.94 17.74 33.52
11. Gujarat 4591 4245 3424 4.63 5.42 9.13
20. Gujarat excl Saurashtra 3441 3174 2560 5.20 5.69 9.81
21. Saurashtra 1150 1071 864 9.65 12.20 22.69
12. Haryana 2720 2620 9242 6.00 6.52 14.73
22. Eastern 1097 1760 1692 7.64 9.23 17.50
23. Western 640 960 928 8.90 8.46 23.80
13. Himachal Pradesh 2275 2543 2041 5.88 6.49 15.89
24. Central 2275 2543 1054 5.88 6.49 19.81
25. Trans Himalayan and Southern 2275* 2543* 987 5.88 6.49 26.33
14. Jammu and Kashmir 1348 2391 2713 9.14 11.59 11.48
26. Mountainous 1058 919 799 12.18 24.50 28.05
27. Outer Hills 290 260 312 10.14 21.31 13.91
28. Jhelum Valley 290 1212 1602 10.14 12.72 18.61
15. Jharkhand 2473 3399 2747 3.35 3.95 6.05
29. Ranchi Plateau 2473 3399 1211 3.35 3.95 10.41
30. Hazaribagh Plateau 2473* 3399* 1536 3.35 3.95 7.24
16. Karnataka 5086 5097 4070 2.96 4.33 7.66
31. Coastal and Ghats 489 440 383 15.42 19.30 30.53
32. Inland Eastern 530 540 464 10.58 15.87 22.21
33. Inland Southern 1858 1840 1403 5.47 9.27 23.77

Table 9 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010
34. Inland Northern 2209 2277 1820 3.28 4.43 7.42

17. Kerala 4385 4960 4452 3.89 5.64 9.46
35. Northern 1836 2060 1879 5.65 6.17 12.66
36. Southern 2549 2900 2573 5.27 9.16 13.68
18. Lakshadweep 37. Lakshadweep 310 179 183 29.64 44.02 54.29
19. Madhya Pradesh 6421 5913 4697 3.04 2.89 4.95
38. Vindhya 1072 1080 798 6.94 5.24 8.87
39. Central 900 800 668 6.68 5.93 13.04
40. Malwa 1482 1353 1099 7.95 8.39 17.16
41. South 1105 1040 856 6.58 5.36 8.36
42. South Western 752 760 604 4.96 8.47 11.71
43. Northern 1110 880 672 9.34 7.88 14.46
20. Maharashtra 9968 10,007 7995 2.28 2.73 5.60
44. Coastal 3087 2635 1926 9.42 9.62 16.67
45. Inland Western 2404 2397 1945 4.71 6.32 16.34

46. Inland Northern 1025 1157 959 4.15 5.76 12.13
47. Inland Central 1335 1599 1344 3.19 4.28 10.90
48. Inland Eastern 1587 1635 1341 3.17 5.23 10.47
49. Eastern 530 584 480 6.12 7.67 14.79
21. Manipur 1699 3157 2558 3.89 5.46 5.90
50. Plains 1209 1960 1886 4.29 7.84 6.39
51. Hills 490 1197 672 8.06 6.62 10.22
22. Meghalaya 52. Meghalaya 1595 1596 1272 9.03 11.89 16.70
23. Mizoram 53. Mizoram 1427 1912 1528 24.38 12.69 12.09
123
24. Nagaland 54. Nagaland 700 1280 1024 16.49 16.73 12.45
Table 9 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010
123
25. Delhi 55. Delhi 1046 1122 901 32.38 17.72 28.26
26. Odisha 4375 5013 4030 2.73 2.72 5.14
56. Coastal 2150 2258 1695 4.29 5.09 10.11
57. Southern 758 1000 896 3.43 3.83 5.60
58. Northern 1467 1755 1439 5.12 3.43 7.67
27. Pondicherry 59. Pondicherry 390 720 576 17.81 21.92 23.70
28. Punjab 3993 4278 3115 5.09 5.53 11.07
60. Northern 2345 2457 1748 8.32 8.45 14.58
61. Southern 1648 1821 1367 5.87 6.66 16.76
29. Rajasthan 4896 5171 4136 3.72 3.87 8.70
62. Western 1573 1830 1436 5.96 5.09 18.04
63. North-Eastern 2216 2022 1676 5.99 7.00 12.47
64. Southern 520 640 480 7.68 8.66 12.96
65. South-Eastern 587 679 544 9.23 13.64 19.69
30. Sikkim 66. Sikkim 640 1120 768 13.18 8.78 24.10
31. Tamil Nadu 7943 8276 6638 2.91 3.43 7.84
67. Coastal Northern 2690 2639 1982 5.53 6.20 11.01
68. Coastal 1340 1479 1248 6.66 8.26 21.24
69. Southern 2047 2160 1784 4.49 5.40 15.36
70. Inland 1866 1998 1624 5.65 7.41 17.47
32. Tripura 71. Tripura 2090 2320 1856 8.51 4.63 12.46
33. Uttar Pradesh 12,863 11,173 8993 1.87 2.19 3.40
72. Western 4984 4026 3475 3.99 4.63 7.17
73. Central 2478 1994 1504 3.95 5.32 5.80
74. Eastern 4801 4474 3310 2.51 2.66 4.90

Table 9 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010
75. Southern 600 679 704 4.36 9.39 14.23

34. Uttarakhand 76. Uttarakhand 598 2195 1779 10.63 6.18 14.83
35. West Bengal 7818 7837 6326 2.78 3.18 5.59
77. Himalayan 680 700 608 6.40 12.48 16.17
78. Eastern Plains 1720 1980 1568 4.15 3.71 9.14
79. Southern Plains 4098 3859 1662 5.01 6.42 17.21
80. Central Plains 4098* 3859* 1344 5.01 6.42 11.71
81. Western Plains 1320 1298 1144 5.65 6.84 10.29
* Estimates/sample size repeated for seven regions in 50/61 rounds owing to vertical division of these regions during later period, details provided in Appendix 1
123
Appendix 5
See Table 10.
123
Table 10 Coefficient of variation of gini index, poverty gap ratio and rich poor ratio in NSS 50, 61 and 68 rounds in regions of India
State Region Coefficient of variation of PGR (%) Coefficient of variation of GI (%) Coefficient of variation of RPR (%)
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
India 1.07 1.21 2.15 0.51 0.50 0.57 2.24 2.36 2.83
1. Andaman and 1. Andaman and 31.37 54.80 72.16 3.13 8.69 4.44 17.41 29.79 25.60
Nicobar Islands Nicobar Islands
2. Andhra Pradesh 3.48 4.61 11.75 1.14 1.75 1.83 6.77 7.91 8.11
3. Coastal Southern 5.19 8.84 30.96 1.90 2.47 3.42 9.49 11.37 18.45
4. Inland North Western 6.20 7.12 24.66 1.74 3.22 4.06 12.23 13.76 16.57
5. Inland North Eastern 6.20 7.12 26.06 1.74 3.22 4.00 12.23 13.76 19.31
6. Inland Southern 7.11 7.45 19.22 2.31 2.95 3.08 13.97 17.29 19.23
3. Arunachal Pradesh 7. Arunachal Pradesh 12.76 13.32 12.15 3.14 2.92 2.08 30.60 22.77 21.20
4. Assam 5.69 6.98 8.10 1.83 2.50 2.94 11.55 11.86 13.50
8. Plains Eastern 10.72 9.76 11.10 3.32 3.82 5.53 19.39 16.63 21.02
9. Plains Western 6.57 10.04 12.43 2.16 3.08 3.37 14.97 17.68 19.25
10. Hills 19.65 23.69 19.55 6.30 7.06 6.54 45.90 41.43 37.44
5. Bihar 3.18 3.31 6.50 1.28 2.04 2.45 7.85 9.05 11.88
11. Northern 3.92 4.76 9.67 1.80 1.63 3.15 10.78 11.12 16.75
12. Central 5.26 4.43 8.47 1.84 3.82 3.88 11.45 14.88 15.37
6. Chandigarh 13. Chandigarh 24.70 34.31 35.66 6.46 4.49 5.32 53.97 43.10 46.69
7. Chhattisgarh 6.24 6.63 9.57 2.21 2.99 3.58 12.76 13.77 16.31
Table 10 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
14. Northern 6.24 6.63 34.57 2.21 2.99 6.79 12.76 13.77 41.11
Chhattisgarh
15. Mahanadi Basin 6.24 6.63 11.33 2.21 2.99 4.16 12.76 13.77 18.73
16. Southern 6.24 6.63 19.73 2.21 2.99 8.32 12.76 13.77 46.50
Chhattisgarh
8. Dadra Nagar Haveli 17. DN Haveli 13.60 21.46 27.16 5.02 4.82 7.67 45.95 41.46 45.17
9. Daman and Diu 18. Daman and Diu 51.42 46.76 32.02 7.54 11.35 10.31 39.21 44.63 55.63
10. Goa 19. Goa 24.27 21.39 39.04 4.49 6.57 9.08 25.65 27.65 29.70
11. Gujarat 6.24 7.42 11.82 1.47 2.01 2.10 10.45 11.03 12.26
20. Gujarat excl 6.87 7.70 12.58 1.60 2.18 2.30 12.41 13.06 14.24
Saurashtra
21. Saurashtra 12.93 14.14 26.36 3.06 3.59 5.11 18.97 18.87 23.63
12. Haryana 8.32 8.51 17.54 2.75 7.31 2.84 15.19 22.30 16.94
22. Eastern 10.49 11.96 23.37 2.45 8.44 3.24 18.25 29.17 21.22
23. Western 13.31 11.47 25.76 5.19 2.89 4.31 25.85 15.76 24.84
13. Himachal Pradesh 9.64 8.74 18.95 2.30 2.53 2.56 14.36 11.62 13.89
24. Central 9.64 8.74 22.43 2.30 2.53 3.59 14.36 11.62 18.49
25. Trans Himalayan 9.64 8.74 34.67 2.30 2.53 3.60 14.36 11.62 20.87
and Southern
14. Jammu and 14.79 16.74 14.66 4.94 2.36 2.67 17.66 11.44 10.65
Kashmir
26. Mountainous 18.53 31.72 31.19 6.17 3.68 5.21 20.60 19.14 19.44
27. Outer Hills 17.31 37.70 17.68 5.47 7.84 4.76 28.92 37.24 22.13
28. Jhelum Valley 17.31 17.79 24.48 5.47 2.85 3.40 28.92 14.67 15.49
15. Jharkhand 5.25 5.58 7.96 1.87 2.69 3.42 13.76 12.11 14.57
29. Ranchi Plateau 5.25 5.58 12.82 1.87 2.69 4.67 13.76 12.11 24.23
123
Table 10 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
123
30. Hazaribagh Plateau 5.25 5.58 10.02 1.87 2.69 4.59 13.76 12.11 17.26
16. Karnataka 4.48 6.25 9.19 1.19 2.05 3.38 8.59 10.87 19.39
31. Coastal and Ghats 21.44 23.43 32.47 4.64 5.67 6.14 23.95 41.66 28.87
32. Inland Eastern 17.40 18.44 23.67 4.02 4.10 10.09 22.69 22.82 36.76
33. Inland Southern 7.29 11.31 30.52 1.75 2.70 3.90 13.89 17.44 33.50
34. Inland Northern 5.47 7.08 9.42 1.88 3.77 3.68 14.25 16.17 15.82
17. Kerala 5.23 8.00 12.95 1.72 1.73 2.07 8.11 8.32 8.39
35. Northern 8.24 9.44 17.85 2.52 3.27 3.23 12.83 12.97 12.74
36. Southern 6.64 12.50 17.72 2.24 2.14 2.63 10.41 10.59 10.86
18. Lakshadweep 37. Lakshadweep 41.43 51.10 61.99 6.51 7.52 7.77 39.15 48.43 38.65
19. Madhya Pradesh 4.42 4.12 7.31 4.30 2.03 2.45 9.31 10.20 10.54
38. Vindhya 9.28 7.31 12.83 2.85 3.33 5.69 18.14 19.57 24.54
39. Central 9.44 8.13 15.44 4.62 4.22 6.57 28.18 21.50 28.76
40. Malwa 12.39 10.80 30.26 5.51 3.41 4.75 16.97 23.84 20.43
41. South 9.46 9.48 11.63 17.15 4.09 3.24 26.70 21.31 24.13
42. South Western 7.80 11.45 16.87 3.00 6.48 5.12 24.01 25.45 25.68
43. Northern 12.99 11.45 21.06 2.89 5.52 5.94 17.83 24.72 26.46
20. Maharashtra 3.30 3.94 8.87 0.88 0.99 1.95 6.98 7.38 9.28
44. Coastal 12.67 14.51 25.85 1.44 1.80 3.19 13.51 14.70 18.55
45. Inland Western 7.07 8.51 16.30 2.07 2.29 4.42 13.43 13.17 17.40
46. Inland Northern 7.33 9.76 19.07 2.75 2.86 4.76 20.02 22.59 22.42
47. Inland Central 5.22 6.07 13.28 3.88 3.29 4.09 17.38 17.97 17.13
48. Inland Eastern 4.51 6.77 14.12 2.18 3.27 5.35 15.22 16.28 20.01
49. Eastern 9.24 11.35 22.47 3.80 3.90 7.46 29.19 28.83 29.75
21. Manipur 6.34 7.43 7.98 2.14 2.16 2.76 16.88 13.90 13.67
Table 10 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
50. Plains 7.08 11.07 8.57 2.77 2.84 3.40 19.54 17.70 13.90
51. Hills 12.07 9.61 13.48 3.12 3.17 5.16 32.93 21.19 30.23
22. Meghalaya 52. Meghalaya 11.54 15.40 24.38 21.12 3.66 2.99 27.22 18.28 18.27
23. Mizoram 53. Mizoram 36.13 18.37 23.20 2.55 1.99 2.73 22.49 14.89 15.36
24. Nagaland 54. Nagaland 21.29 24.29 17.69 3.42 3.05 3.33 29.75 16.64 19.20
25. NCT of Delhi 55. Delhi 34.67 19.35 33.82 3.09 3.41 4.73 35.88 23.67 27.23
26. Odisha 4.16 4.07 7.05 1.55 1.80 2.27 10.08 10.31 11.75
56. Coastal 5.93 7.26 12.49 2.16 3.03 3.63 14.33 15.82 17.65
57. Southern 7.17 5.98 9.29 4.06 3.14 4.59 24.35 23.54 22.01
58. Northern 7.78 5.08 11.53 2.63 2.93 3.29 17.27 15.62 19.26
27. Pondicherry 59. Pondicherry 24.31 26.14 30.40 5.18 4.13 4.90 28.62 22.50 23.99
28. Punjab 6.90 7.31 16.25 1.49 1.98 2.61 10.06 9.64 10.83
60. Northern 12.01 11.16 21.22 2.01 2.70 2.57 13.88 12.66 13.77
61. Southern 7.61 8.71 24.84 2.19 2.90 4.48 13.52 14.59 17.09
29. Rajasthan 5.41 5.46 12.64 3.80 2.12 2.29 8.79 9.65 10.03
62. Western 8.27 7.94 29.71 2.20 3.30 3.29 13.11 13.65 17.67
63. North-Eastern 8.07 8.81 17.37 2.00 3.73 3.69 13.35 16.45 14.78
64. Southern 11.31 12.28 18.03 25.70 4.36 4.26 35.77 23.57 28.60
65. South-Eastern 12.37 23.41 28.32 4.98 6.09 6.17 21.56 30.18 28.26
30. Sikkim 66. Sikkim 16.60 11.84 28.25 3.10 3.73 3.83 24.39 20.53 20.78
31. Tamil Nadu 4.24 4.64 11.42 2.06 1.57 1.81 10.09 7.99 9.42
68. Coastal 9.88 10.34 29.15 2.64 3.31 2.80 16.28 16.27 17.47
69. Southern 7.65 7.38 19.48 7.58 3.04 4.68 17.52 13.41 17.24
123
70. Inland 7.87 9.50 22.43 3.32 2.52 4.11 14.69 15.21 19.74
Table 10 continued
1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012
123
32. Tripura 71. Tripura 11.19 6.58 15.10 2.14 2.91 2.56 17.40 13.53 16.12
33. Uttar Pradesh 2.61 2.91 4.55 0.97 2.05 2.08 6.10 7.13 8.26
72. Western 5.63 5.66 9.16 1.56 3.80 3.11 10.17 12.61 14.29
73. Central 5.69 6.78 8.97 2.31 4.14 5.17 14.57 17.12 17.61
74. Eastern 3.41 3.91 6.25 1.47 2.29 3.63 9.08 8.52 11.63
75. Southern 7.17 12.56 21.31 5.07 6.78 10.78 25.27 24.97 30.91
34. Uttarakhand 76. Uttarakhand 13.00 7.62 17.28 4.38 2.89 4.47 23.02 14.84 20.64
35. West Bengal 3.91 4.23 7.45 3.30 1.90 1.87 8.20 7.77 8.65
77. Himalayan 8.90 18.21 31.72 3.17 3.86 3.94 21.59 23.36 27.27
78. Eastern Plains 6.42 5.29 11.13 14.14 3.70 3.73 19.55 13.47 18.11
79. Southern Plains 7.21 7.97 25.02 1.83 2.60 3.02 11.25 11.68 15.84
80. Central Plains 7.21 7.97 13.41 1.83 2.60 2.96 11.25 11.68 16.24
81. Western Plains 7.86 9.26 14.35 2.98 3.71 5.74 15.89 17.25 21.19
References
Ahluwalia, M. S. (1978). Rural poverty and agricultural performance in India. Journal of Development
Studies, 14(3), 298–323.
Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 244–263.
Basu, D., & Das, D. (2014). Poverty–hunger divergence in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(2),
22–24.
Bhandari, L., & Khare, A. (2002). The geography of post-1991 Indian economy. Global Business Review,
3(2), 321–340.
Chaudhuri, S., & Gupta, N. (2009). Levels of living and poverty patterns: A district-wise analysis for India.
Economic and Political Weekly, 44(9), 94–110.
Chaudhury, P. (2007). Alternative reference periods in measuring household consumption: The implications
for poverty estimation. In Processing of ‘National Seminar on the Survey Results of NSS 61st Round’
organized at New Delhi during October 29–30, 2007 (p. 231).
Chauhan, R. K. (2008). Gains and challenges in pooling state and central sample NSS data: Case of Uttar
Pradesh for 61st (2004–2005) Round. In Proceedings of National Seminar on NSS 61st Round Survey
Results. NSSO: New Delhi.
Chelliah, R. J., & Shanmugam, K. R. (2007). Strategy for poverty reduction and narrowing regional
disparities. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(34), 3475–3481.
Deaton, A., & Dreze, J. (2002). Poverty and inequality in India: A re-examination. Economic and Political
Weekly, 37(36), 3729–3748.
Deaton, A., & Kozel, V. (2004). Data and dogma: The great Indian poverty debate. New Delhi: Macmillan.
Dubey, A. (2009). Intra-state disparities in Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Orissa and Punjab. Economic and
Political Weekly, 44(26/27), 224–230.
Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica,
52(3), 761–766.
Galbraith, J. K. (2012). ‘‘Pay inequality and world development’’ in inequality and instability. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Galbraith, J. K., & Chowdhury, D. R. (2007). The European Wage Structure, 1980–2005: How much
flexibility do we have? Austin: UTIP Working Paper No. 41.
Gangopadhyay, K., & Singh, K. (2013). Extent of poverty in India: A different dimension. Economic and
Political Weekly, 48(6), 75–83.
Guruswamy, M., & Abraham, R. J. (2006). Redefining poverty: A new poverty line for a New India. New
Delhi: Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Himannshu. (2007). Recent trends in poverty and inequality: Some preliminary results. Economic and
Himannshu, & Sen, K. (2014). Revisiting the Great Indian poverty debate: Measurement, patterns, and
determinants, BWPI Working Paper 203, Brooks World Poverty Institute, The University of
Manchester.
Jensen, R. & Miller, N. (2010). A revealed preference approach to measuring hunger and undernutrition.
NBER Working Paper No. 16555.
Jha, R., Gaiha, R., & Sharma, A. (2010). Mean consumption, poverty and inequality in rural India in the
60th round of the National Sample Survey. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 45(5), 485–503.
Jha, R., & Sharma, A. (2003). Spatial distribution of rural poverty. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(47),
4985–4993.
Joe, W., Mishra, U. S., & Navaneetham, K. (2009). Inequalities in childhood malnutrition in India: Some
evidence on group disparities. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary
Journal for People-Centered Development, 10(3), 417–439.
Kannan, K. P., & Raveendran, G. (2011). India’s common people: The regional profile. Economic and
Kijima, Y. & Lanjouw, P. (2003). Poverty in India during the 1990s: A regional perspective. World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper 3141. Washington DC: World Bank.
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and economic inequality. American Economic Review, XLV, 45(1),
1–28.
Litchfield, J. A. (1999). Inequality: Methods and tools, Text for World Bank’s Web Site on Inequality,
Poverty, and Socio-economic Performance. http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/inequal/index.htm.
November 04, 2014.
Mukhopadhyay, S. (2011). Using the mean of squared deprivation gaps to measure undernutrition and
related socioeconomic inequalities. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Dis-
ciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development, 12(4), 535–556.
123
Murgai, R., Suryanaryana, M. H., & Zaidi, S. (2003). Measuring poverty in Karnataka: The regional
dimension. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(4), 404–408.
Murthi, M., Srinivasan, P., & Subramanian, S. V. (2001). Linking Indian census with National Sample
Surveys. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(9), 783–792.
National Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government
of India. (1996). Level and pattern of consumer expenditure, 5th Quinquennial Survey (1993–1994).
Report No. 402: New Delhi.
of India. (2006). Level and Pattern of Consumer Expenditure, 2004–2005 NSS 61st Round (July 2004–
June 2005). Report No. 508(61/1.0/1): New Delhi.
of India. (2014). Level and Pattern of Consumer Expenditure, 2011–2012 NSS 68th Round (July 2011–
June 2012). Report No. 555(68/1.0/1): New Delhi.
Ogwang, T. (2014). A convenient method of decomposing the gini index by population subgroups. Journal
of Official Statistics, 30(1), 91–105.
Panagariya, A., & Mukim, M. (2014). A comprehensive analysis of poverty in India. Asian Development
Review, 31(1), 1–52.
Pathak, D. C., & Mishra, S. (2011). Poverty estimates in India: Old and new methods, 2004–05 WP-2011-
015. IGIDR: Mumbai.
Piketty, T. & Saez, E. (2003). Income inequality in the United States, 1913–1998. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 118(1), 1–39.
Planning Commission, Government of India. (2009). Report of the expert group to review the methodology
for estimation of poverty. New Delhi: Government of India.
Planning Commission, Government of India. (2013). Press notes on poverty estimates, 2011–12. New Delhi.
Rahman, L., & Rao, V. (2004). The determinants of gender equity in India: Examining Dyson and Moore’s
thesis with new data. Population and Development Review, 30(2), 239–268.
Reserve Bank of India. (2014). http://www.rbi.org.in/home.aspx. Accessed on June 22, 2014.
Sastry, N. S. (2003). District level poverty estimates—Feasibility of using NSS household consumer
expenditure survey data. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(4), 409–412.
Sen, A. K. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44(2), 219–231.
Sen, A. K. (1997). From income inequality to economics inequality. Southern Economic Journal, 64(2),
384–401.
Sen, K., & Palmer-Jones, R. (2001). On India’s poverty puzzles and statistics of poverty. Economic and
Singh, N., Bhandari, L., Chen, A., & Khare, A. (2003). Regional inequality in India: A fresh look. Economic
and Political Weekly, 38(11), 1069–1073.
Singh, N., Kendall, J., Jain, R. K. & Chander, J. (2013). Regional inequality in India in the 1990s: A further
look. Department of Economics, UCSC, UC Santa Cruz, Working Paper. Available at SSRN: http://
ssrn.com/abstract=2394310.
Sundaram, K., Jain, L. R., & Tendulkar, S. D. (1988). Dimensions of rural poverty: An inter-regional profile.
Economic and Political Weekly, 23(45–47), 2395–2408.
Sundaram, K., & Tendulkar, S. D. (2003). Poverty among social and economic groups in India in 1990s.
Economic and Political Weekly, 38(50), 5263–5267.
Thorat, A. (2010). Ethnicity, caste and religion: Implications for poverty outcomes. Economic and Political
Weekly, 45(51), 47–53.
United Nations. (2013). Inequality matters, Report of the World Social Situation 2013. Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, ST/ESA/345, New York.
World Bank. (2011). Perspectives on poverty in India: Stylized facts from survey data. Report No-57428:
Washington, DC.
World Bank. (2014). http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview. Accessed on June 22, 2014.
World Bank. (2015). http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx. Accessed on February 22, 2015.
123

Regional Estimates of Poverty and Inequality in India, 1993-2012 - Rajesh K. Chauha+2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Estimates of Poverty and Inequality in India, 1993-2012 - Rajesh K. Chauha+2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soc Indic Res

Regional Estimates of Poverty and Inequality in India,

Rajesh K. Chauhan1 • Sanjay K. Mohanty2,3 •

Accepted: 8 June 2015

& Rajesh K. Chauhan

1.1 Official Poverty Estimates in India

1.2 Review of Literature

2 Aim and Rationale

3 Data and Methods

3.1 Comparability of NSS Regions 1993–2012

within-group, between-group and interaction components, we prefer use gini index to

4.1 Regional Estimates of Poverty and Inequality in India, 1993–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

Table 2 Poverty reduction in regions of India, 1993–2012

mean poverty HCR of 29 % in 1993–1994 were at 24 % in 2011–2012. With respect to the

4.2 Poverty Gap Ratio in Regions of India, 1993–2012

4.3 Gini Index in Regions of India, 1993–2012

Fig. 2 Inequality in MPCE (gini coefficients) in regions of India, 1993–2012

4.4 Rich–Poor Ratio in Regions of India, 1993–2012

4.5 Poverty, Gini Index and Consumption Expenditure in Regions of India

4.6 Association of Poverty and Inequality with Selected Developmental

To understand the association of selected indicators in regions of India, we have computed

4.7 Factors Affecting Poverty and Inequality in Regions of India

2004 -7.10 -3.90 -2.15 -4.09 0.025 3.80 0.501 3.93

Number of cases 486 486 486 486

Poverty HCR Poverty gap ratio Gini index Rich–poor ratio

Regression t values Regression t values Regression t values Regression t values

Eastern and hill region in 61 round reference

in 50th round and was included in

Combined HCR Ranks among regions Rural HCR Urban HCR

Combined HCR Ranks among regions Rural HCR Urban HCR

Combined HCR Ranks among regions Rural HCR Urban HCR

Combined HCR Ranks among regions Rural HCR Urban HCR

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010

India 115,354 123,356 100,855 0.74 0.88 1.57

4. Assam 4079 4180 3448 3.66 5.45 6.00

State Region Sample households Coefficient of variation of poverty HCR (%)

1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010

33. Inland Southern 1858 1840 1403 5.47 9.27 23.77

State Region Sample households Coefficient of variation of poverty HCR (%)

1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010

34. Inland Northern 2209 2277 1820 3.28 4.43 7.42

45. Inland Western 2404 2397 1945 4.71 6.32 16.34

State Region Sample households Coefficient of variation of poverty HCR (%)

1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010

74. Eastern 4801 4474 3310 2.51 2.66 4.90

State Region Sample households Coefficient of variation of poverty HCR (%)

1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010 1993–1994 2004–2005 2009–2010

75. Southern 600 679 704 4.36 9.39 14.23

See Table 10.

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012 1993–1994 2004–2005 2011–2012

You might also like