ECONOMIC WELL BEING AND ECONOMIC WELL BEING AND DEPRIVATIONS DEPRIVATIONS

Policy Perspective in the India ContextPolicy Perspective in the India Context

R. RadhakrishanaR. RadhakrishanaHonorary ProfessorHonorary Professor

Centre for Economic and Social StudiesCentre for Economic and Social Studies

HyderabadHyderabad

ISID Foundation Day Lecture

Thursday 1st May, 2008

INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT4, Institutional Area, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110 070Telephone: +91 11 2689 1111; Fax: +91 11 2612 2448

Email: info@isid.org.in; Website: http://isidev.nic.in or http://isid.org.in

ISID

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

MAIN THEME:MAIN THEME: Wellbeing and deprivationsWellbeing and deprivationsSUB- THEMESSUB- THEMESEconomic WelfareEconomic Welfare Social Welfare indexSocial Welfare index InequalityInequality Rural- Urban disparityRural- Urban disparityINCOME POVERTYINCOME POVERTY Statistical AnalysisStatistical Analysis Structural AnalysisStructural AnalysisNUTRITIONAL STATUSNUTRITIONAL STATUS Food Energy IntakeFood Energy Intake Child MalnutritionChild Malnutrition Adult malnutritionAdult malnutritionCHRONIC POVERTYCHRONIC POVERTY IncidenceIncidence

QUESTIONS ADDRESSEDQUESTIONS ADDRESSED

i). Is there perceptible improvement in thei). Is there perceptible improvement in the

economic welfare over the past three economic welfare over the past three decades?decades?

Could it have been better?Could it have been better? ii) How are growth and poverty related? Is ii) How are growth and poverty related? Is

growthgrowth

pro-poor?pro-poor? iii) Is poverty becoming social and geographicaliii) Is poverty becoming social and geographical

phenomenon?phenomenon? iv). What are the deep drivers of malnutrition iv). What are the deep drivers of malnutrition

andand

chronic poverty?chronic poverty?

Measurement of Economic WelfareMeasurement of Economic Welfare Social welfare functionSocial welfare function Per capita real expenditurePer capita real expenditureMeasurement of Income PovertyMeasurement of Income Poverty Measurement of pro-poor growthMeasurement of pro-poor growth HCR, PGR, FGTHCR, PGR, FGT Decomposition of poverty reduction Decomposition of poverty reduction

between 1983 and 1994-95between 1983 and 1994-95Measurement of Malnutrition Measurement of Malnutrition Calorie intakeCalorie intake Micro-nutrientsMicro-nutrients Child Malnutrition (underweight, stunted, Child Malnutrition (underweight, stunted,

wasted)wasted) Chronic Energy deficiency (body mass Chronic Energy deficiency (body mass

index)index)

Trends in Economic WelfareTrends in Economic Welfare Per capita rural expenditure increased at an Per capita rural expenditure increased at an

annual rate of 1.35 per cent in rural areas annual rate of 1.35 per cent in rural areas and 2.17 per cent in urban areas during and 2.17 per cent in urban areas during 1970-20051970-2005

The trend is marked by fluctuations. The trend is marked by fluctuations. Attributable to agricultural cycles and Attributable to agricultural cycles and market volatility market volatility

Rural-urban disparity widened since the Rural-urban disparity widened since the mid-ninetiesmid-nineties

There has been significant trend increase in There has been significant trend increase in urban inequality. urban inequality.

Widening rural-urban inequality as well as Widening rural-urban inequality as well as worsening urban inequality might have worsening urban inequality might have adversely affected the over all economic adversely affected the over all economic welfare.welfare.

Figure-1: Trends in Economic Welfare based on Atkinson's Welfare Index (ε =2)

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

1970

-71

1972

-73

1973

-74

1977

-78

1983

1986

-87

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1992

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2003

2004

-05

Year

Atk

inso

n's

Wel

fare

Ind

ex

Rural (1993-94=100)

Urban (1993-94=100)

Figure-2: Trends in Inequality

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Atkinson Index (Rural)

Atkinson Index (Urban)

Rural-Urban Inequality Index

Note: Rural-Urban Inequality is defined as (1- Rural MPCE/Urban MPCE)*100.

Source: Updated version of Radhakrishna and Ravi, 2004a

Trends in Atkinson’s Welfare Index

RURAL URBAN ε ε

Year

0 2 3 0 2 3 1970-71 372.94 292.41 263.87 552.01 399.58 352.32 1972-73 369.21 284.20 256.38 561.99 403.56 358.31 1973-74 386.18 304.07 275.48 533.23 399.48 359.43 1977-78 402.30 308.99 277.02 522.58 412.50 368.51 1983 454.86 348.20 313.02 685.30 489.40 432.64 1986-87 478.15 371.36 336.18 765.54 544.41 478.69 1987-88 490.05 381.71 347.61 742.89 530.59 472.06 1988-89 503.88 394.22 359.72 744.70 545.80 484.42 1989-90 520.35 416.84 380.99 789.29 564.17 502.74 1990-91 497.11 399.77 365.51 778.26 565.29 501.11 1992 503.07 388.70 352.48 820.62 568.88 499.90 1993-94 524.23 411.74 375.72 841.86 594.80 524.67 1994-95 514.08 398.11 364.99 853.18 575.28 506.35 1995-96 513.49 402.22 368.07 913.80 617.51 542.83 1999-00 569.94 460.98 423.93 1010.60 708.47 624.01 2000-01 567.63 463.50 427.14 1049.94 730.97 642.19 2001-02 562.89 445.14 404.77 1052.32 743.12 652.40 2003 577.07 463.71 426.93 1070.40 751.55 661.43 2004-05 556.50 433.61 396.88 1051.18 709.28 619.18

Annual Compound Growth Rate

1970-2005 1.35 (18.08)

1.43 (15.12)

1.49 (14.83)

2.24 (21.02)

2.00 (23.20)

1.95 (22.91)

Note: The Atkinson welfare measures are derived using decile group wise monthly per capita expenditure at 1993-94 Prices. Figures in the parentheses are t-ratios. Source: Updated version of Radhakrishna and Ravi (2004a).

Atkinson’s Inequality Index

RURAL URBAN ε ε

Year

0.5 2.0 3.0 0.5 2.0 3.0 1970-71 6.18 21.59 29.25 8.17 27.61 36.18 1972-73 6.97 23.02 30.56 8.92 28.19 36.24 1973-74 6.18 21.26 28.67 7.77 25.08 32.59 1977-78 6.78 23.20 31.14 5.51 21.06 29.48 1983 7.00 23.45 31.18 8.99 28.59 36.87 1986-87 6.68 22.33 29.69 8.68 28.89 37.47 1987-88 6.79 22.11 29.07 9.19 28.58 36.46 1988-89 6.68 21.76 28.61 8.05 26.71 34.95 1989-90 5.79 19.89 26.78 9.28 28.52 36.30 1990-91 5.65 19.58 26.47 8.46 27.36 35.61 1992 6.91 22.74 29.94 9.85 30.68 39.08 1993-94 6.54 21.46 28.33 9.30 29.35 37.68 1994-95 7.27 22.56 29.00 11.03 32.57 40.65 1995-96 6.75 21.67 28.32 10.92 32.42 40.60 1999-00 5.65 19.12 25.62 9.51 29.90 38.25 2000-01 5.35 18.34 24.75 9.68 30.38 38.84 2001-02 6.12 20.92 28.09 9.07 29.38 38.00 2003 5.94 19.64 26.02 9.41 29.79 38.21 2004-05 6.98 22.08 28.68 10.61 32.53 41.10

Annual Compound Growth Rate -0.21 -0.32 -0.37 0.88 0.62 0.51 1970-2005

(-1.03) (-2.28) (-3.14) (3.17) (3.53) (3.81) Note: Figures in the parentheses are t-ratios. Source: Updated version of Radhakrishna and Ravi (2004a).

Welfare Effect of Food PriceWelfare Effect of Food Price Increase in cereal price would hurt Increase in cereal price would hurt

the poor the most and would the poor the most and would aggregate inequality.aggregate inequality.

Welfare effect of cereal price is larger Welfare effect of cereal price is larger in magnitude in rural areas than the in magnitude in rural areas than the urban areas.urban areas.

Welfare effect of non-cereal food Welfare effect of non-cereal food price is larger than that of cereal price is larger than that of cereal price.price.

There is justification for stabilization There is justification for stabilization of cereal and non- cereal food pricesof cereal and non- cereal food prices

Effect of 10 Percent increase in Commodity Price on Money Metric value by Decile Groups

(Percentage change) Price of

Cereals Non-Cereal

Food Non -food

Cereals Non-Cereal

Food Non -food

Decile Group

Rural Urban I -3.66 -3.06 -6.72 -3.28 -2.66 -3.61 -6.27 -3.73 II -3.35 -3.30 -6.65 -3.35 -2.34 -3.81 -6.15 -3.85 III -3.09 -3.46 -6.55 -3.45 -2.14 -4.01 -6.15 -3.85 IV -2.84 -3.49 -6.33 -3.67 -1.88 -3.91 -5.78 -4.22 V -2.63 -3.59 -6.22 -3.78 -1.63 -3.82 -5.45 -4.55 VI -2.45 -3.67 -6.12 -3.88 -1.52 -4.19 -5.71 -4.29 VII -2.20 -3.77 -5.97 -4.03 -1.30 -3.86 -5.16 -4.84 VIII -1.95 -3.65 -5.60 -4.40 -1.10 -3.57 -4.67 -5.33 IX -1.69 -3.51 -5.20 -4.80 -0.91 -3.29 -4.20 -5.80 X -1.13 -3.23 -4.36 -5.64 -0.53 -2.75 -3.28 -6.72

Note: The price effects are estimated using the money metric utility measures. The nominal incomes are assumed to be unaffected by commodity price change. Source: Radhakrishna and Ravi (2004a).

Effect of 10 Percent increase in Commodity Prices on Social Welfare and Inequality

(Percentage change) Price of

Cereals Non- Cereal food

Food Non-food

Cereals Non-Cereal food

Food Non-food

Rural Urban

ε

Inequality 0.5 3.34 0.09 3.35 -3.02 1.99 1.35 3.36 -3.34 1.5 3.18 -0.12 2.96 -2.66 1.88 0.99 2.87 -2.87 2 3.08 -0.22 2.77 -2.49 1.82 0.83 2.64 -2.63 2.5 2.98 -0.30 2.59 -2.33 1.74 0.69 2.42 -2.42 3 2.88 -0.36 2.43 -2.19 1.67 0.57 2.23 -2.23 Social Welfare 0 -2.16 -3.48 -5.55 -3.74 -1.23 -3.46 -4.65 -4.56 0.5 -2.33 -3.48 -5.72 -3.59 -1.42 -3.59 -4.96 -4.26 1.5 -2.66 -3.46 -6.00 -3.33 -1.78 -3.74 -5.46 -3.75 2 -2.80 -3.43 -6.11 -3.23 -1.93 -3.77 -5.64 -3.58 2.5 -2.93 -3.40 -6.19 -3.15 -2.06 -3.78 -5.77 -3.44 3 -3.04 -3.37 -6.27 -3.08 -2.17 -3.78 -5.87 -3.35

Note: 1) Social welfare and inequality measures are estimated from Atkinson’s social welfare function with individual money metric utilities as arguments. The price effects are estimated by reevaluating money metric utility levels by increasing each price separately and computing the social welfare and inequality. The nominal incomes are assumed to be constant.

2) The price effects are estimated using the money metric utility measures. The nominal incomes are assumed to be unaffected by commodity price change.

Source: Radhakrishna and Ravi (2004a).

Trends in Poverty: 1970-2005Trends in Poverty: 1970-2005 HCR declined at on annual rate of 2.5% HCR declined at on annual rate of 2.5%

in rural areas and 2.9% urban areas in rural areas and 2.9% urban areas during 1970-2005during 1970-2005

The decline in severity of poverty in The decline in severity of poverty in faster than the extent of povertyfaster than the extent of poverty

Urban areas performed better in Urban areas performed better in poverty reduction during 1990-2005poverty reduction during 1990-2005

Growth process could hardly lift 23 Growth process could hardly lift 23 million persons out of poverty over two million persons out of poverty over two decades (1983-2005) and left about 300 decades (1983-2005) and left about 300 million persons in povertymillion persons in poverty

Contd..Contd.. Share of rural areas in All India poor Share of rural areas in All India poor

was 74% in 2004-05was 74% in 2004-05 There has been a slow process of There has been a slow process of

urbanization of poverty. urbanization of poverty. In rural areas absolute number of poor In rural areas absolute number of poor

declined by 31 million between 1983 declined by 31 million between 1983 and 2004-2005 and in contrast; it and 2004-2005 and in contrast; it increased by 8 million in urban areasincreased by 8 million in urban areas

Growth elasticity of poverty in Growth elasticity of poverty in estimated to be in the range of -0.86 estimated to be in the range of -0.86 to -0.77to -0.77

Trends in HCR, PGR and FGT

RURAL URBAN Year HCR PGR FGT HCR PGR FGT

1970-71 57.45 18.10 7.34 52.63 17.03 6.95 1972-73 58.11 18.65 7.70 50.17 16.03 6.48 1973-74 53.45 16.24 6.37 50.76 15.51 6.03 1977-78 54.89 17.55 7.25 54.99 18.35 7.79 1983 46.86 13.35 4.90 43.92 12.88 4.77 1986-87 42.33 11.29 3.90 38.54 11.02 3.88 1987-88 40.66 10.09 3.22 40.04 11.24 3.89 1988-89 37.66 8.99 2.75 37.63 10.13 3.37 1989-90 33.40 7.51 2.16 36.40 9.65 3.14 1990-91 36.66 8.72 2.67 35.35 9.47 3.16 1992 40.25 9.70 2.99 35.06 9.34 3.03 1993-94 34.88 7.82 2.25 32.52 8.36 2.60 1994-95 40.04 8.93 2.54 35.44 9.39 3.00 1995-96 38.68 8.60 2.44 31.00 7.56 2.17 1999-00 27.39 5.34 1.31 23.18 5.02 1.18 2000-01 26.35 5.07 1.21 21.70 4.71 1.06 2001-02 26.48 5.67 1.51 20.69 4.57 1.05 2003 23.22 4.23 0.92 19.19 4.12 0.89 2004-05 28.32 5.66 1.39 24.47 5.76 1.46

Annual Compounded Growth Rate

1970-05 -2.50 (-11.55)

- 4.14 (-13.01)

-5.83 (-14.35)

-2.91 (-11.27)

-4.16 (11.67)

-6.03 (-11.09)

Note: Figures in the parentheses are t-ratios. Source: Updated version of Radhakrishna and Ravi (2004).

What do recent data reveal?What do recent data reveal? There is no acceleration in the pace of poverty There is no acceleration in the pace of poverty

reduction in the states with high levels of reduction in the states with high levels of poverty poverty

The performance of Bihar Madhya Pradesh, The performance of Bihar Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh in poverty reduction Orissa and Uttar Pradesh in poverty reduction has been worsthas been worst

The share of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh , Orissa and The share of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh , Orissa and Uttar Pradesh in All India poor increased from Uttar Pradesh in All India poor increased from 46% in 1983 to 55% in 2004-0546% in 1983 to 55% in 2004-05

Between 1983 and 2004-2005, absolute number Between 1983 and 2004-2005, absolute number of poor increased by 6.5 million in UP, 6.3 of poor increased by 6.5 million in UP, 6.3 million in MP and 3.5 million in Maharastra, it million in MP and 3.5 million in Maharastra, it declined by 11.9 million in Tamil Nadu, 9.8 declined by 11.9 million in Tamil Nadu, 9.8 million in West Bengal and 5.5 million in Keralamillion in West Bengal and 5.5 million in Kerala

Contd…Contd… Despite high growth, poverty Despite high growth, poverty

reduction has been slow in reduction has been slow in Maharastra and Karnataka Maharastra and Karnataka

Inter state inequality in the Inter state inequality in the incidence of poverty worsened incidence of poverty worsened between 1993-94 and 2004-05between 1993-94 and 2004-05

The worsening inequality in the The worsening inequality in the poverty incidence could be due to poverty incidence could be due to worsening inter-state disparities in worsening inter-state disparities in per capita GSDP.per capita GSDP.

Inter-State Variations in Poverty incidence

Rural Urban All India 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05 1983 1993-94 2004-05

C.V (%) 41 36 54 32 46 55 37 34 51

Share of States in All India Poor

Rural Urban All India North - western states 2.5 3.5 2.2 3.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 3.2 2.3

Southern states 19.6 15.2 11.2 30.1 31.2 27.2 21.9 19.0 15.4 Bihar, MP, Orissa and UP 49.8 54.6 61.2 33.9 34.4 36.9 46.4 49.8 54.8

Ranking of States on Growth Rate of per capita GSDP and Growth Poverty Reduction : 1983-20042005 Sl. No

Ranking of states on per capita GSDP growth rate

Growth Rate

Ranking of states on growth rate of poverty reduction

Growth Rate in Poverty

Reduction 1 Karnataka (1) Jammu & Kashmir (1) 2 Tamil Nadu (2) Kerala (2) 3 Gujarat (3) Tamil Nadu (3) 4 Maharastra (4) West Bengal (4) 5 West Bengal (5) Assam (5) 6 Kerala (6)

> 4%

Punjab (6) 7 Andhra Pradesh (7) Andhra Pradesh (7)

> 3 %

8 Himachal Pradesh ( (8) Gujarat (8) 9 Rajasthan (9) Rajasthan (9) 10 Haryana (10)

3 - 4% Himachal Pradesh (10) 11 Punjab (11) Karnataka (11) Haryana (12) 12 Orrissa (12)

2 % - 3 %

13 Madhya Pradesh (13) Bihar (13) 14 Uttar Pradesh (14) Uttar Pradesh (14) 15 Bihar (15) Orissa (15) 16 Jammu & Kashmir (16) Maharastra (16) 17 Assam (17)

< 3%

Madhya Pradesh (17)

< 2 %

Growth and Poverty Elasticity

Implicit Elasticity

Per capita SDP Growth Low Medium High

Low < 2.6

MP, Orrissa UP Assam, Bihar, J & K

Medium 2.6 < 4.0

Himachal Pradesh Haryana, Rajasthan

Punjab

High 4.0 and above

Karnataka, Maharastra

Andhra Pradesh Gujarath Tamil Nadu West Bengal

Kerala

Note: Absolute value of elasticity less than 0.6 is considered as low and greater than 1.0 as high Source: Ravi, CESS

Figure-3: All India and State-wise Incidence of Poverty(RURAL+URBAN)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Incid

en

ce o

f P

ove

rty (

%)

1983

1993-94

2004-05

Measurement of Pro-Poor GrowthMeasurement of Pro-Poor Growth Growth is defined as pro-poor if poverty falls more Growth is defined as pro-poor if poverty falls more

than it would have if growth were distribution than it would have if growth were distribution neutralneutral

Sl. No

Particulars Percentage Points

RURAL 1 Actual poverty reduction during 1993/ 94-2004/ 05 7.99 2 Poverty reduction had there been no change in rural-

urban disparity and in rural inequality 13.1

3 Contribution of rural inequality to poverty reduction - 2.80 4 Contribution of rural – urban disparity - 3.05

Sl. No

Particulars Percentage Points

URBAN

1 Actual poverty reduction 8.08

2 Poverty reduction had there been no change in urban inequality and rural-urban disparity

9.69

3 Contribution of urban inequality to poverty reduction - 4.12 4 Contribution of rural- urban disparity + 3.30

All India Poverty Reduction: 1993-94 to 2004-2005 Percentage points

Actual Poverty Reduction : 8.12

Poverty Reduction had there been no change in inequality and urbanization rate

12.18

Contribution of worsened rural –urban disparity to poverty reduction increase in poverty

- 1.18

Contribution of worsened rural inequality and urban inequality to poverty reduction

- 3.33

Contribution of change in urbanization rate 0.10

Source: Ravi, CESS

Distribution of poor belonging to social groups across states 2004-05

Social Groups

STATES

SC UP (26%), Bihar (17%), West Bengal (8.7%), Maharastra (6.4%), Madhya Pradesh (6.4%)

ST MP (20%), Orissa (18%), Maharastra (12%), Chattisgarh (10 %), Jarkand ( 9.5 %), Rajasthan ( 6.5%), Gujarat ( 6.3 %)

OBC UP (29 %), Bihar (19%), MP ( 6.7%), Tamil Nadu ( 6%)

OC West Bengal (28 %), UP ( 15 %), Maharastra ( 11 %), Assam (9.8 %) Bihar ( 9.8 %)

Figures in the parenthesis are states share in all India rural poor belonging to a social group

Social Composition of Rural Poor: 2004-2005

SC ST OBC OC All ALL INDIA 27.7 23.1 39.4 16.0 100 STATES Punjab 64.2 1.3 25.0 9.6 100 Haryana 55.0 0.0 33.4 11.6 100 Himachal Pradesh 51.0 7.6 51.0 28.5 100 Bihar 34.1 0.5 34.1 11.3 100 Uttar Pradesh 30.1 6.5 19.4 44.1 100 Utaranchal 34.8 0.8 34.8 10.1 100 West Bengal 29.4 12.3 4.4 53.8 100 Rajasthan 32.3 28.5 32.0 7.1 100 Madhya Pradesh 21.4 41.0 31.9 5.7 100 Orissa 11.4 47.4 37.4 3.8 100 Jarkhand 18.7 41.5 31.1 8.7 100 Maharastra 16.2 35.0 39.7 9.1 100 Kerala 22.5 25.9 29.1 22.6 100 Bihar 18.3 5.8 61.0 14.9 100

Poverty by occupational groups: 2004-2005 RURAL

Incidence % Distribution of Poor

Agricultural labour 44.1 39.2 Other labour 32.7 12.2 Self-employed in agriculture 21.4 30.2 Self employed in non-agriculture 23.8 14.0 Others 14.35 4.4 All 28.0 100.0

URBAN Incidence % Distribution of

Poor Self employed 27.1 45.2 Regular wage/ salary earning 16.3 25.0 Casual labour 58.1 26.4 Others 15.0 3.4 All 25.8 100.0

FOOD INTAKEFOOD INTAKE The per capita cereal expenditure at constant The per capita cereal expenditure at constant

prices declined in both rural and urban areasprices declined in both rural and urban areas Per capita food expenditure stagnated during Per capita food expenditure stagnated during

1990-2005; if this persists, it may lead to 1990-2005; if this persists, it may lead to demand deficiency for food products.demand deficiency for food products.

Per capita calorie intake leveled off at about Per capita calorie intake leveled off at about 2150 k.cal/day in both rural and urban areas.2150 k.cal/day in both rural and urban areas.

In the case of bottom 30 per cent of the In the case of bottom 30 per cent of the population, calorie intake is low at 1600-1700 population, calorie intake is low at 1600-1700 k.cal/dayk.cal/day

What is worse, intra-family distribution of food What is worse, intra-family distribution of food is inequitable in the poor households.is inequitable in the poor households.

79 per cent of children aged 6-35 months are 79 per cent of children aged 6-35 months are anemicanemic

58 per cent of pregnant women are anemic58 per cent of pregnant women are anemic

Annual Growth Rates of Total Expenditure, Food Expenditure and Cereal Expenditure at 1993-94 Prices

(Per cent per annum) Bottom 30% Middle 40% Top 30% All classes

Rural Per capita cereal expenditure 1970-1990 0.05 -0.49 -1.19 -0.60 1990-2005 -1.33 -1.85 -1.57 -1.63 Per capita food expenditure 1970-1990 1.21 0.89 0.70 0.84 1990-2005 0.02 -0.19 0.03 -0.06 Per capita total expenditure 1970-1990 1.89 1.66 1.81 1.77 1990-2005 1.31 1.12 0.93 1.08

Urban Per capital cereal expenditure 1970-1990 0.12 -0.28 -0.07 -0.11 1990-2005 -0.93 -0.87 -0.56 -0.78

Per capita food expenditure 1970-1990 1.23 1.13 0.35 0.97 1990—2005 0.40 0.30 0.27 0.30

Per capita total expenditure 1970-1990 1.87 2.00 2.25 2.11 1990-2005 2.13 2.45 2.50 2.44 * Includes NSS 55th round Source: Ravi (2007).

Average Per Capita Calorie Intake and its Growth Rates in India Calorie Intake (K. Cal./ day) Expenditure

Classes 1972-73 1977-78 1993-94 1999-2000

Annual Growth Rate (%) 1972-2000

Rural Bottom 30% 1504 1630 1678 1696 0.6 Middle 40% 2170 2296 2119 2116 -0.1 Top 30% 3161 3190 2672 2646 -0.8 All groups 2268 2364 2152 2149 -0.3 Urban Bottom 30% 1579 1701 1701 1715 0.4 Middle 40% 2154 2154 2438 2136 -0.0 Top 30% 2572 2979 2405 2622 0.1 All groups 2107 2379 2071 2156 0.1 Source: Radhakrishna et al 2004.

NNMB data show that in rural areas, the NNMB data show that in rural areas, the incidence of child malnutrition declined slowly incidence of child malnutrition declined slowly from 61.5% in 1975-79 to 47.7% in 2000-01from 61.5% in 1975-79 to 47.7% in 2000-01

NFHS data show that child malnutrition (too NFHS data show that child malnutrition (too thin for age) declined form 52% in 1992-93 to thin for age) declined form 52% in 1992-93 to 47% in 1998-99 and further to 46% in 2005-47% in 1998-99 and further to 46% in 2005-20062006

The lowest incidence of child malnutrition is The lowest incidence of child malnutrition is not in the richest states but in the middle not in the richest states but in the middle income states with progressive social policyincome states with progressive social policy

NNMB data show that 37.4% of rural adult NNMB data show that 37.4% of rural adult males and 39.4% rural of adult females males and 39.4% rural of adult females suffered from chronic energy deficiency in suffered from chronic energy deficiency in 2000-012000-01

Inter-state variations reveal weak correlation Inter-state variations reveal weak correlation between food energy intake and nutritional between food energy intake and nutritional statusstatus

Levels of education, health care, access to safe Levels of education, health care, access to safe drinking water, environmental sanitation and drinking water, environmental sanitation and personal hygiene intervene between food personal hygiene intervene between food intake and nutritional statusintake and nutritional status

The probability of a child falling into The probability of a child falling into malnutrition decreases with improvement in malnutrition decreases with improvement in mother’s nutritional status, mothers education, mother’s nutritional status, mothers education, and household income and increases with and household income and increases with household size.household size.

North-eastern states other than Assam and North-eastern states other than Assam and Tripura performed better. Some of them Tripura performed better. Some of them outperformed Keralaoutperformed Kerala

Figure-5: Incidence of Malnutrition Among Children In Selected States and All India(RURAL+URBAN)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Bihar Chattisgarh Gujarat All India Maharashtra HimachalPradesh

Tamil Nadu Kerala Punjab

States

% o

f U

nd

ewei

gh

t C

hild

ren

(0-

3 y

rs)

1998-99

2005-06

The percentage of chronic poor households The percentage of chronic poor households is estimated to be about 14% in both rural is estimated to be about 14% in both rural and urban areasand urban areas

The percentage of chronic poor was higher The percentage of chronic poor was higher in West Bengal, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh in West Bengal, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar in Rural areas.and Bihar in Rural areas.

In urban areas, the incidence of chronic In urban areas, the incidence of chronic poverty was higher in Orissa, Bihar, poverty was higher in Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar PradeshMadhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh

Among social groups, CP was higher for Among social groups, CP was higher for scheduled castesscheduled castes

Among occupational groups, CP was Among occupational groups, CP was higher for rural and urban casual labour higher for rural and urban casual labour and urban self employed householdsand urban self employed households

Incidence of chronic and extreme chronic poverty State

Chronic Poverty

% of poor households with at least one stunted child to all households with at least one child

Chronic Poverty % of poor households with at least one CED

woman to all households with at least one woman

Rural Urban All Rural Urban All Andhra Pradesh 5.37 10.04 6.02 4.51 8.96 5.71 Assam 19.04 4.28 17.24 11.47 1.25 8.97 Bihar 21.50 29.82 22.06 19.27 13.41 18.68 Goa 0.00 13.45 4.57 0.00 2.07 0.81 Gujarat 5.59 8.80 6.70 7.16 5.37 6.37 Haryana 4.94 14.51 6.77 2.98 2.92 2.97 Himachal Pradesh 7.28 4.84 6.78 3.18 0.94 2.54 Jammu & Kashmir 2.70 2.78 2.70 1.70 0.47 1.33 Karnataka 8.84 17.45 11.14 7.61 8.47 7.91 Kerala 4.01 4.35 3.98 3.42 3.73 3.52 Madhya Pradesh 22.37 26.25 23.08 16.22 15.05 15.91 Maharashtra 14.80 13.36 13.99 12.27 7.69 9.51 Manipur 8.62 2.50 7.10 4.47 0.00 3.03 Meghalaya 1.84 0.00 1.68 1.17 0.00 0.93 Mizoram 0.20 0.00 0.10 1.18 0.00 0.52 Nagaland 0.35 0.00 0.29 0.32 0.00 0.25 Orissa 26.69 30.50 27.28 27.47 20.91 26.15 Punjab 6.24 2.86 5.38 2.09 1.18 1.76 Rajasthan 7.04 14.12 8.23 4.45 7.41 5.15 Sikkim 17.30 28.13 17.83 3.07 2.16 2.95 Tamil Nadu 9.98 18.61 13.61 7.42 6.05 6.79 West Bengal 26.83 14.17 23.80 19.07 6.01 13.18 Uttar Pradesh 18.69 22.94 19.35 13.42 9.92 12.66 New Delhi 0.00 4.71 4.10 0.00 12.90 1.76 Arunachal Pradesh 13.09 5.56 12.32 2.48 0.73 2.25 Tripura 7.51 14.29 7.63 7.15 1.65 6.16 All India 13.81 13.97 13.84 10.22 6.30 8.96 Source: Computed from NSS 55th Round and NFHS-2 Data (Radhakrishna et al 2007).

ThanksThanks