When highly correlated indicators like education, basic amenities, health services are going in the positive direction for Gujarat, how is this human development parameter of infant mortality rate going another wayIJ It is imperative that economists search for an answer
The question of development in Gujarat has always been contested, more so in recent times, due to persuasive arguments proffered by proponents of inimical ideological camps. While conceding that the per capita income of Gujarat indeed stands tall, these academicians leave no stone unturned to convince the masses that Gujarat has an abysmal record on human development. A careful and unbiased study needs to be undertaken to expose the alleged backwardness of human development in Gujarat is a stark reality or a myth created by certain intellectuals. We also need to keep in mind that the measurement of any progress or backwardness is always relative and can only be realised in a comparative analysis between Gujarat and its peer States.
The per capita income conceals a lot of information regarding the real state of development and/or human development in an economy is an established proposition. Therefore, we need to take into account other factors like access to basic amenities, which are drinking water, electricity, roadways/transport, education, sanitation, health and other parameters like infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rate, etc. let us first start a comparative study of Gujarat and the adjacent States to find an answer to this question: Where does Gujarat actually standIJ We can begin with the issue of basic amenities, which while constituting a very significant component in human development upholds human dignity and safety.
Access to water: The 2011 census report showed that 90.30% households of Gujarat had access to safe drinking water, while its developed neighbouring State of Maharashtra had just 83.40% households having the same, while Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh both had just 78%. The important point to note here is that the access to water in rural areas of Gujarat is far better than its neighbouring States. This is approximately 85% in Gujarat while Maharashtra, Rajasthan and MP have just around 73%.
Access to electricity: The 2011 census report showed that 90.40% households of Gujarat had electricity in their houses, while the same for Maharashtra was 83.94% and approximately 67% for both Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.
Access to toilet: A latrine in every household is very crucial for hygiene. It offers safety, privacy and dignity for women and men, and it can be understood as a social indicator in many other aspects of public health. The same 2011 census shows that the percentage of the number of households in Gujarat without its own latrine facility is 43%, while the same for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan stands at 47%, 71% and 65% respectively.
Health facilities and expenditure: The per person health expenditure in 2011 with reference to the population census of 2011 is Rs 503.7 in Gujarat, while the same for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan stands at Rs 416.67, Rs 301.01 and Rs 542.18 respectively. Here one important point to be noted is that the reason behind this indicator to be higher in Rajasthan is attributable to two factors: the low population density in the State, and the distribution of free generic medicines by the Rajasthan Government during this period. But if we look at the same per person health expenditure in 2013 with reference to the population census of 2011 (though it should be normalised with the 2013 population, but by assuming that population trend will continue to be same in the State we can at least have some idea on the trend), this number goes up for Gujarat to Rs 768.63, while the same for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan comes at Rs 596.62, Rs 501.9 and Rs 570.5 respectively.
The yardstick for calculating burden on the health infrastructure is the average population served per government hospital bed. If we look at this criterion for Gujarat, we find that average population served per government hospital bed is 313, while the same for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan are 1,654, 2,490 and 2,640 respectively. This indicates that population pressure on the government hospitals is very low in Gujarat compared to any of its neighbouring States. It may also indicate that the availability of hospital is far better in Gujarat than that in its neighbouring States.
literacy rate, enrolment ratio and schools: The census of 2011 proves that the literacy rate of Gujarat has increased from 69.14% in 2001 to 79.31% in 2011. This increase in the literacy rate is 14.7%, which is higher than that of its neighbouring States of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, where this increase has been 7.8%, 10.8% and 10.9% respectively.
If we look at the dropout rate in Gujarat, it is 2.7 per cent, while the same for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan stands at 3.1, 6.5 and 11.4 respectively (source: Cohort 2007-08). The other criterion for determining the condition of school education could be the relative proportion of rural elementary schools (primary and upper primary) with inadequate number of rooms. There are around 3.64% schools in Maharashtra which do not even have a single room, while the same number for Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat comes to 1.05, 2.21% and 0.95% respectively. In a similar way, the proportion of schools which are being run in just one room in Maharashtra is 6.75%, while the same for Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat is 3.68, 3.21% and 2.72% respectively (source: DISE statistics NUEPA 2010).
Housing and the Scheduled Castes: The 2011 census shows that the proportion of households having Kachchi Chhatt or roof of grass/thatch/bamboo/wood/ mud/polythene/plastic is 1.9% in Gujarat, while the same for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan stands at 6.7%, 10.2% and 14.1% respectively.
If we look at the Scheduled Caste households by the types of their structures, the proportion of permanent households of the SC is 81.9% in Gujarat, while the same for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan comes to 64.82%, 39.32% and 65.37% respectively.
Death rate and infant mortality rate: The death rate is 6.7 per thousand in Gujarat, while the same for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan is 6.3, 8.2 and 6.7 per cent respectively. A look at infant mortality rate shows that it is 41 per thousand live births in Gujarat, while the same for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan is 25, 59 and 52 respectively.
The comparative analysis above shows that Gujarat outshines its three neighbouring States (including Maharashtra) in terms of access to water, electricity, sanitation, decadal increase in literacy rate, enrolment ratio, infrastructure in primary schools, houses with kachchi roof, permanently structured households occupied by Scheduled Castes, health facilities, health expenditure by government per person.
This raises a question about Gujarat where health expenditure per person is not only highest but is far high in comparison to its neighbouring States, and where average population served per government hospital bed is not only lowest but almost one-fifth of the respective figure from its neighbouring States. The surprising thing is that Gujarat’s death rate does not match with its infant mortality rate. Maharashtra has a death rate of 6.3 per thousand and its infant mortality rate is just 25 per thousand, while the same death rate for Gujarat is 6.7 per thousand but its infant mortality rate is 41. Surely this anomaly has to be accounted for.
This could be understood in the context of data collection. The data which all academicians work with have three main sources: various census reports, sample surveys and data submitted by various government offices. As opposed to government data and census reports, sample surveys have limited authenticity since their findings cannot always be universally applicable as the process of sample selection can be biased and is determined by subjective approaches. The gap between census reports and sample surveys therefore raises serious questions about the anomalies which abound here: in spite of census reports showing a very developed state of public healthcare in the State, sample surveys have shown that Gujarat has a high infant mortality rate.
All the data which show better standing of Gujarat in all the indicators except infant mortality rate are either census data or the facts collected from various reports of central government. However, the infant mortality rate data has been collected through sample surveys. This might raise questions on how samples are selected and collected. The sample surveys on poverty in Gujarat and India as a whole have run into controversy as selection prejudice on the part of selectors and political interference have allegedly been instrumental behind the data collection.
Samples can be manipulated on purpose (unlike census data) to the extent of suiting the requirement of desired results. If that is not the case, surely this anomaly would constitute a socio-economic puzzle. When highly correlated indicators like education, basic amenities, health services are going in the positive direction for Gujarat, how is this human development parameter of infant mortality rate going another wayIJ It is imperative that economists belonging to both camps (hostile and sympathetic towards the present Gujarat Government) search for an answer.
(The writer teaches Economics at Delhi University )