[Reader-list] IHRD Report'11 - A Flawed Analysis

[A. Mani]

From:  People's Democracy
November 13, 2011



India Human Development Report 2011

A Flawed Analysis



Archana Prasad



The India Human Development Report, 2011 (IHDR)was released on
October 21, 2011 on the eve of the meeting of the National Development
Council. This report, a joint effort of the Planning Commission and
the Institute of Manpower Research, is widely interpreted in the media
as a positive one with few worrying factors. One of the main arguments
lauding the report is that the degree of social inclusiveness of
development policies has increased in the post reforms era. Reports
claim that the trends in the human development index (HDI) elaborated
upon in the HDR showed that vulnerable social groups especially the
scheduled castes (SCs), scheduled tribes (STs) and Muslims are
"catching up" with the rest of the people as far as social indicators
like health, education and income levels are concerned. However this
interpretation of the IHDR is based on a selective reading and ignores
the contradictory evidence presented in the report. Further, such an
interpretation is also laced with a pre-neoliberal reforms ideology as
it attempts to show that economic reforms lead to more socially
inclusive development. Hence it is necessary to understand the nature
of the evidence presented in the IHDR.



HDI & ITS

METHODOLOGY

The HDI methodology was developed by the UNDP from the 1990s onwards.
Its main aim was to develop a criterea by which the overall
development of nations and the well being of their people could be
measured. The variables used to measure the HDI are access to basic
amenities and income level; access to education and knowledge and
access to health. Assessment of overall development is based on the
measurement of indicators and their compilation into broad aggregate
indexs in order to provide a comprehensive assessment. While such
indices have been seen as a significant advance over "the growth is
equal to development" model; several concerns have also been expressed
vis-a-vis this method. Amongst other shortcomings, one of the main
concerns emphasised that such an index does not throw enough light on
the social and economic inequities and their impact on access to
social and economic infrastructure. Hence the comparison between
different social groups is not always valid as subjective factors
impacting on social and economic status were disregarded in such an
index. Hence issues of quality, language, infrastructure, distance and
pedagogy having a major impact on educational status are largely
disregarded. Similarly in the health sector emerging issues of
availability of doctors, medicines, distance, location and other
cultural barriers are ignored.  This has led to an inappropriate
comparison between social groups. Another major issue raised with
regard to the HDI methodology is that it did not look at access to
socio-economic infrastructure as a question of rights. Therefore it
has depoliticised the question of access and presented it in a manner
that has ignored the causal factors that should be structured into any
social comparison. The current IHDR has attempted to address some of
these issues by refining its methodology and taking into account the
index of income inequality that has been calculated by using the
2007-08 NSSO data. It also attempts to pose questions in a socially
sensitive manner by asking whether different social groups like the
SCs, STs and Muslims are excluded from the developmental process;
whether India is experiencing  inclusive growth in the true sense and
whether the flagship programmes of government were addressing issues
of social inclusion.



TENOUS CONCLUSIONS

INADEQUATE EVIDENCE

While answering these questions the general and the oft quoted
hypothesis reached by the report is that the development of socially
vulnerable groups is fast converging with the development of the rest
of the society, thus leading to more inclusive growth. However the
evidence presented in the report does not provide a basis for this
sweeping conclusion as is evident from  the analysis made from the
very beginning. In its preface, the report states that: "poorer states
namely Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal account for 56 per cent of the
SC and 55 per cent of the ST population of the entire country.
Further, 58 per cent of the Muslim population is concentrated in these
states. There is a two way relationship here; poorer states are so
because there is a large proportion of excluded social groups (who are
generally poorer) living there; conversely in the poorer states
different developmental programmes do not reach the targeted
populations..". The rest of the report describes how some of these
states are performing vis-a-vis different variables and assumes that
rise in the index of poorer states will result in a positive
development for "socially excluded people".



The first section deals with  asset employment, asset ownership and
poverty. Based on NSS figures the IHDR states that rural and urban
poverty has declined significantly between 2004-2005. Rural poverty
declined from 28.3 per cent to 14.9 per cent, urban poverty has
declined from 25.7 to 14.5 per cent. It is well known that these
figures are suspect and poverty estimation has been much debated, the
IHDR itself acknowledges that the number of poor people does not seem
to have declined. Further it admits that if the methodology of the
Tendulkar Committee is used then the percentage of poor people in the
country remains at 32 per cent, a figure considered quite conservative
by most critics of poverty estimates. It further acknowledges that the
rate of decline of poverty amongst the SC, ST and Muslims is much
slower than all India rate of decline of poverty thereby negating the
main argument about declining inequities. As far as employment is
concerned the IHDR argues for a declining rate of unemployment amongst
all social groups. The rise in employment has taken place largely in
the non-agricultural sector, but these figures do not tell the whole
story. The rise in employment amongst the SC and ST is discussed only
in terms of current daily status and does not reflect the subsidiary
and casual nature of the labour that these social groups are
performing. Recent studies show that SC and ST people are largely
turning to migrant casual labour and the women labourers are
increasing in the workforce. This also reflects the severe
displacement and agrarian distress that has impacted on the life of
these social groups. Hence the analysis of the IHDR is misleading in
this respect and does not reflect the declining work status of the SC
and ST people.



In its analysis of nutrition and right to food, the IHDR is quick to
point out that trends in malnutrition are worrisome and that the
situation does not seem to have drastically improved since the last
HDR in 2001. The food intake in rural India is far less that 2400 kcal
per day and in urban India it is less than the required intake of 2100
kcal per day. Nearly half of India's children are malnutritioned and
the level of malnutrition is severe in 12 of the 17 states covered by
the IHDR. Even states like Gujarat with "high growth rates" have high
rates of malnutrition and aenemia in women. The report also points out
that "socially marginalised groups (SC and ST) living in rural areas
of Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh
have child malnutrition rates which are well above the national
average of 46 per cent. The female malnutrition rate is  also much
higher than the national average. This conclusion once again points to
divergence rather than converging trends between socially vulnerable
groups and the rest of the population. Further it is surprising that
the state of nutrition in the country has not been linked to the
failure of the targeted public distribution system, even as in other
areas such as education and basic amenities the improvements are
attributed to flagship programmes that as the Pradhan Mantri Grameen
Sadak Yojana, or Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.



One of the areas that the IHDR acknowledges as a sector where much has
been acheived is education. It claims that poorer states have done
especially well as far as this sector is concerned and enrollment
rates have gone up even amongst the SC, ST and Muslims, even though
the gender gap remains alarming. It attributes this acheivement to the
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and the Right to Education Act. However
the limitations of the implementation of this Act and the SSA are well
known and the increase in numbers does not necessarily reflect the
inequities that exist in the quality of education amongst different
social groups and regions. Several studies have shown that even though
enrollment numbers may have increased, the quality of education in
tribal areas leaves much to be desired. Further social discrimination
between dalit and other students; and between rich and poor students
is rampant in schools showing how the social divide has crystallised
rather than eroded under the current development paradigm.  Thus even
while the IHDR makes mention of the question of quality education, it
does not state what bearing this factor may have on the nature of
inequities in the educational system.



In the above context, it is only correct to state that the overall
conclusion and interpretation of the IHDR is not supported by the
limited evidence presented in the report. A more detailed look at the
report suggests that inequities in every sector may be growing rather
than decreasing as suggested by many media reports. Thus any talk of
convergence in developmental trends of SC, ST, Muslims and the rest of
the population shows that human development is illussionary even in
states with high economic growth. Hence any talk of declining
inequalities on the basis of the interpretation of the IHDR is
motivated to justify the flawed neo-liberal socio-economic policies of
the present government and make a case for more exploitative economic
reforms.


______________________________________________________


Best

A. Mani










-- 
A. Mani
CU, ASL, CLC,  AMS, CMS
http://www.logicamani.co.cc