REPORT FINDINGS
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 1
REPORT FINDINGS
PREFACE In 2014 Institute for Competitiveness, India joined hands with Social Progress Imperative to lay the foundation for their initiative Social Progress India. The objective was to provide the leaders, businesses, and changemakers in the country with an actionable tool to advance social progress for India’s citizens. It was conceived on the understanding that despite the economic progress that India has made during the last few years, quality of life of its citizens registered only slight enhancements (based on Global Social Progress scores). There are many who live without the provision of essential public services like health, education; almost 30 percent of the rural population have no access to electricity (World Bank, 2014); still, 35 percent of judicial trials take more than three years to complete, and in some cases, they get dragged to more than ten years (NCRB: Crime in India, 2015). These facts indicated the pressing need for a measurement model that can equip change-makers to make social progress more integral to the national performance, which the Social Progress Index provided. A multi-stage iterative process was followed to reach the most accurate framework of Social Progress Index for the states of India. The first stage involved interaction with the Social Progress Imperative to gain an understanding of Social Progress Index concept, principles, and methodology. The team at Social Progress Imperative conducted training sessions to guide through the idea and methodology of the Social Progress Index. The second stage involved identifying a possible set of indicators that met the Social Progress Index criteria. Numerous publicly available indicators that reflect the real lived experience of people were considered. The third step involved engagement with key experts and stakeholders to solicit feedback and validation. Among those who provided valuable feedback was
2 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
the team of experts at NITI Aayog whose contribution was invaluable for the Index creation. The team conducted four presentations of their work at NITI Aayog under the chairmanship of Bibek Debroy and Amitabh Kant. The first interaction involved presenting the broad concept of the Social Progress Index for Indian states, cities and districts and how it can help the government track policy impact, assess Sustainable Development Goals, and set priority areas for investment and development. The feedback helped to improve the framework and led to the creation of the preliminary version of the Social Progress Index for Indian states. The second interaction added the longitudinal aspect to the study. It was realized that it would be more illuminating to measure social progress over time, as such a study will help to analyse whether the developments of states on social indicators are heading in the right direction or not. The third interaction with the experts in women development, health and education sectors, led to the restructuring of the Index after which the Institute for Competitiveness, India developed the final index for Indian states. Institute for Competitiveness, India along with Professor Michael E Porter and Michael Green launched the discussion paper for the Social Progress Index: States of India during the India’s National Competitiveness Forum 2017 with the purpose to invite feedback and comments from national leaders as well as the public. Declaring about this Professor Porter said, “India is set to create a social progress index (SPI) that will mirror the track record of individual states on various counts which is likely to emerge as a tool for accountability in governance and politics.” The final interaction with NITI Aayog, after addressing the concerns raised in the consultation period revolved around how to ensure the results are used to make real improvements in people’s lives. The Institute is thankful to everyone who has contributed to this effort. We could never hope to
REPORT FINDINGS
name all those who have helped us, but we would like to highlight the following individuals for their contributions. Thanks to Bibek Debroy whose knowledge and expertise has guided us in our journey, Amitabh Kant for his guidance and suggestions about national priorities and Yogesh Suri without whose tireless efforts this report would not have seen the light of day.
We are thankful to Bibek Debroy, David Cruickshank, Scott Stern, Michael Green and Nitya Khemka for providing their valuable contributions to the report. Many thanks to the team at Social Progress Imperative for their strategic inputs to develop engagement strategy; their insights and technical inputs on indicators.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 3
REPORT FINDINGS
ABOUT INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDIA
Institute for Competitiveness, India is the Indian knot in the global network of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School. Institute for Competitiveness, India is an international initiative centered in India, dedicated to enlarging and purposeful disseminating of the body of research and knowledge on competition and strategy, as pioneered over the last 25 years by Professor Michael Porter of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School. Institute for Competitiveness, India conducts & supports indigenous research; offers academic & executive courses; provides advisory services to the Corporate & the Governments. The institute studies competition and its implications for company strategy; the competitiveness of nations, regions & cities and thus generate guidelines for businesses and those in governance; and suggests & provides solutions for socio-economic problems.
Social Progress India (SPI) is a presentation of Institute for Competitiveness and Social Progress Imperative. SPI produces the Social Progress Index that is a holistic and robust measurement framework for national, social & environmental performance that can be used by leaders in government, business and civil society at the country level as a tool to benchmark success, improve policy, and catalyse action.
ABOUT SOCIAL PROGRESS IMPERATIVE The Social Progress Imperative’s mission is to improve the lives of people around the world, particularly the least well off, by advancing global social progress by: providing a robust, holistic and innovative measurement tool—the Social Progress Index; fostering research and knowledge-sharing on social progress; and equipping leaders and changemakers in business, government and civil society with new tools to guide policies and programs. From the EU to India to Brazil and beyond, the Social Progress Imperative has catalysed the formation of local action networks that bring together government, businesses, academia, and civil society organizations committed to using the Social Progress Index as a tool to transform societies and improve people’s lives. For further information, please contact Neera Vohra: neera.vohra@competitiveness.in
4 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
MAKING SOCIAL PROGRESS MORE INTEGRAL TO THE INDIAN DEVELOPMENT AGENDA The report analyses the social progress of twenty-eight Indian states and one Union Territory (Delhi) for the period 2005–2016 by applying the Social Progress Index framework. The results will enable the policymakers and businesses to evaluate and benchmark performance on different social indicators, identify priority areas for improvement and establish the best practices that can be scaled and emulated.
TABLE OF CONTENTS WHY WE MEASURE SOCIAL PROGRESS THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX
12
20
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX, STATES OF INDIA: RESULTS
25
SOCIAL PROGRESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: DEMYSTIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP 41 SOCIAL PROGRESS OVER TIME
47
LEARNINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
112
CONCLUSION 116 REFERENCES 118
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 5
REPORT FINDINGS
THE UNENVIABLE TASK OF QUANTIFYING REGIONAL PERFORMANCE Bibek Debroy Chairman, Economic Advisory Council – Prime Minister & Member, NITI Aayog There is divergence and heterogeneity across India’s States. There is divergence within India’s States too, between districts, blocks and villages. This is obvious, but is often not appreciated. States and districts are administrative boundaries. Neither development, nor deprivation, necessarily follows these boundaries. The reasons behind development, or its lack, can be multiple. Sources of growth also vary across regions. Despite heterogeneity within States, a natural focus is performance across States. The thrust of policy change is now often at the level of States. There is a Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution and this sets out a Union List, a Concurrent List and a State List. If one draws a distinction between product markets and factor markets, most reforms in factor markets, now contemplated (land, labour, natural resources) and debated, are in the State domain. However, while sources of growth and development will continue to be explored, it is also important to measure State performance. What is it that one is trying to improve? How will that be measured? That requires data and quantification. What variables will be included? Will one use subjective responses to questionnaires? Will one use objective data, shorn of subjectivity? Will data be collected through sample surveys, or will one use existing sources? If existing sources are going to be used, will that be data in some sense is vetted by Union government agencies, for sake of comparability across States? Or will one use State-level data too? There can be considerable debate on both inclusion and exclusion of variables, depending on the focus of the study. For instance, a study on the investment attractiveness of a State is unlikely to choose variables
6 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
a study on human development would. Often variables one wishes to include can’t be included because of lack of data. After agreeing on variables and sources of data, there arise questions on grouping of data. Will these be aggregated under different heads? What weights will be used for aggregation? How does one choose these weights? Will one use statistical tools like principal components to generate weights or should one use equal weights, the latter being easier to explain? After scores or index values under each of these heads, should there be an aggregate score for each State, so that one can track a State’s performance over time, as well as in comparison with other States? Should one rank States? Wil that ranking be done on absolute values of the score, or increments to the score? Often, relatively backward States perform far better on increments, but because of the legacy of backwardness, the absolute difference between a relatively backward State and a more advanced State remains. Alternatively, since ranks are often not that robust to choice of weights, should one simply group States into some clusters? These days, there are several studies on inter-State performance, each answering these questions differently. In many respects, the present Social Progress Index (SPI) is different. It is much more comprehensive than most inter-State studies. It links progress to the SDGs (sustainable development goals). Conceptually, it has the important distinction of dividing the variables into three heads of basic human needs, foundations of well-being and opportunity. No study can ever be completely shorn of subjectivity. However, SPI has evolved after a considerable amount of debate and discussion. The results, and one hopes the study continues to be repeated every year, don’t really have any big surprises for those familiar with Statelevel performance. Very high social progress, high social progress, medium social progress and low
REPORT FINDINGS
social progress States are more or less where you would expect them to be. There is always an inherent problem in undertaking such studies. If rankings are in conformity with what one expects a priori, people say – why was a study needed to tell us this? And if rankings are not in conformity with what one expects a prior, people say – there must be something wrong in the study. The explanation of the ranks always lies in the variables, the weights and the aggregation process. There is also value addition because this study examines the correlation between SPI and standard measures of economic development. At some point, those interested in inter-State progress need to ask questions about the efficiency
of public expenditure. The social sector is one where there cannot be abdication by the Union government or the State government. Public expenditure can mean both public provisioning and public financing. Imparting greater efficiency also requires decentralization and fiscal devolution, with an elimination of administrative hierarchies that reduce benefits to the eventual beneficiary. There are several initiatives that the Union government, and State governments, have taken to improve efficiency. While that’s outside the purview of the present SPI, one knows States where such attempts have been made and future versions of this SPI should be able to answer whether these attempts have led to SPI improvements. After all, that is the objective.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 7
REPORT FINDINGS
CHARTING INDIA’S SOCIAL PROGRESS Scott Stern, MIT and NBER Advisory Board Member, Social Progress Imperative Discussions of development often focus exclusively on traditional economic measures of success like the level and growth of GDP and employment. These measures are invaluable for economists and policymakers alike as they provide a useful guide to the level and growth of economic activity, and engagement by individuals with paid employment. But, GDP was never intended to measure overall quality of life; as such, it should be no revelation that GDP does not adequately reflect quality of life. Yet too often economic measures have become the primary and exclusive basis for action and investment, and the sole metric for success; overreliance on these measures can lead to flawed policy choices that do not respond to people’s actual needs. Inclusive development will only be possible when economic measures are no longer used as the sole proxies for the essential elements of a good society like clean water, shelter, health, literacy, and inclusion. By developing a measure of social progress that is distinct from traditional measures of economic activity, it is possible to chart a new path that offers equal and shared attention to the role of policy and action on both economic prosperity and social progress. The Social Progress Index supplements measures of economic success by directly measuring social and environmental outcomes. The Index is a tool that provides actionable data about the strength and weaknesses of each community, improving the capacity of governments and businesses to respond to people’s needs and ensure economic growth is accompanied by societal improvement. The Social Progress Index also provides disparate stakeholders with a common language to share
8 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
their perspectives and expertise. By bringing together a variety of perspectives around a holistic assessment of societal performance, it moves the conversation beyond traditional metrics and towards a comprehensive portrait of development. While there is indeed a strong positive relationship between the level of economic development and the realized level of social progress, an economically successful society is not necessarily one that provides for its people’s basic needs and gives them the foundation or opportunities to flourish and prosper. The Social Progress Index can provide insight into the relationship between economic performance and social progress, and help diagnosis whether economic dynamism is also helping to address social challenges, or whether such progress may mask more troubling element of social performance. Measurement makes it possible to develop a consensus on what the most pressing issues are and have a constructive conversation across traditional boundaries. It allows people to move past their preconceptions and work collaboratively towards solutions. When done carefully and with thought and rigor, measurement allows us to name things for what they actually are, and through that unite disparate stakeholders and spark collective action. It concretizes debates, grounding them in an empirical foundation that provides a solid basis to move from discussing challenges to actually addressing them. By bringing this powerful tool to India with the Social Progress Index, States of India, Amit Kapoor and the team at the Institute for Competitiveness, India have taken a critical step towards ensuring that one of the world’s fastest-growing economies matches its economic development with social progress.
REPORT FINDINGS
The Index highlights those states that are maximizing their resources and delivering the highest possible quality of life to their people, providing lessons that can be gleaned by leaders elsewhere. But there are still areas for improvement in every state. Federal and state governments now have an empirical basis for action that highlights the areas that demand investment and policies that require reassessment, while businesses can now accurately prioritize how to undertake shared value initiatives that both can help create a basis for societal well-being and corporate sustainability.
one-sixth of the world’s people. Identifying and synthesizing the key challenges to the achievement of social progress, on a granular basis and with empirical care, offers the prospect of strengthening fragile communities and transforming the quality of lives for millions. Going forward, the Index can guide more responsive policies and new multi-sectoral collaborations. As the Institute for Competitiveness, India activates the next phase of this effort -- measuring social progress on the district and city levels -- the utility, actionability, and transformational potential of this tool will only increase.
This Index is enabling a constructive social progress agenda that moves beyond a single agency, a single level of government, or a single entity and allows different stakeholders to coordinate and prioritize their activities in order to create real change around the issues that are most vital and most important for the country.
While economic growth is incredibly important, social progress must stand by as an equal partner in the quest for inclusive development. By recognizing that measuring economic and social development separately and contrasting them provides new and sharp insights into each, India is charting a path that regions and countries, at every level of development, can and should follow.
The potential impact of this ambitious and insightful initiative is difficult to overstate. India is home to
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 9
REPORT FINDINGS
KEY FINDINGS FROM THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX: STATES OF INDIA SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX RESULTS The Social Progress Index: States of India includes 28 states and one union territory (Delhi) and a measure of India’s average level of social progress by weighting each region’s score by population and summing across all regions. Overall, India scores 54.90 on the Social Progress Index. Breaking down this average across dimensions and components of social progress, there is wide variation in state performances.
SOCIAL PROGRESS RANKINGS India’s states’ scores range from 68 to 44. The results show that while there are considerable differences between states, there are no significant over- or underperforming outliers and that given the range of scores, there is immense scope for improvement for even the best performing states.
SOCIAL PROGRESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT By separating the measurement of social performance from economic performance, the Social Progress Index makes it possible to examine the relationship between economic development and social progress. Understanding this relationship is also the next frontier in understanding economic development because societal constraints and deficits clearly retard economic development. (Porter, Stern, & Green, 2017) Despite the overall correlation between economic progress and social progress, the variability of performance among states with comparable levels of GDP per capita is considerable. The evidence
10 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
supports the conclusion that economic measures cannot be the sole driving force of inclusive growth: it is important to focus on the social aspects as well.
BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE Comparing state’s performance on the Social Progress Index to a peer group of other states with similar GDP per capita provides a strategic approach to social development and offers insights into social progress that are not revealed by looking at absolute performance alone. The relative analysis of states is also important as a rich state may do well on absolute social progress, yet under-perform relative to peers of similar income; a poor state may achieve only modest levels of social progress, yet perform far better than its peers with similar resource constraints. The results show that only one state, Kerala outperforms its economic peers - its social progress scores are higher than expected. The model of Kerala is always exemplified as evidence that investing more in social infrastructure can boost the productivity of people and thereby growth (Kapoor & Yadav, 2016), which shows up in results as well. On the other hand, fifteen states, a mix of all income groups, underperform relative to their peers.
SOCIAL PROGRESS OVERTIME We find that social progress at the country level is improving. In 2016, the social progress scores are 57.03, registering an increase of approximately 8 points since 2005. Average performance is better on components of Basic Human Needs and worse on components of Opportunity reflecting that creating a
REPORT FINDINGS
society with equal opportunity for all still remains an elusive goal for most of the states. All states have improved since 2005, which is encouraging. The group of states that have registered
the highest improvement are the states which were in the Very Low Social Progress tier in 2005 (Tripura, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, and Bihar).
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 11
REPORT FINDINGS
CHAPTER 1
WHY WE MEASURE SOCIAL PROGRESS MAKING SOCIAL PROGRESS MORE INTEGRAL A country that was admonished for its Hindu1 rate of TO THE INDIAN DEVELOPMENT AGENDA growth has grown at an average annual rate of 6.5 The Indian economy has undergone a major overhaul in the past few decades. It has successfully transformed from a poverty-struck, slow-growing, low-income economy to one of the world’s fastestgrowing economies.
percent for almost thirty-five years, and the per capita income at constant prices has increased four times during the same period. The strong growth potential led to the growth of FDI inflows at three times the
1 The Hindu rate of growth refers to the low annual growth rate of the planned economy of India before the liberalisations of 1991.
12 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
world average in the last decade. Apart from this, the fiscal deficit is decreasing, and inflation is modest. While the economic successes of the country are remarkable, the prevalent social conditions appear to be in a dismal state. India still lags in the provision of essential public services such as health, education, and sanitation. The public healthcare system of a country that has successfully established itself as a cost-effective manufacturer of medicines and as a growing destination for medical tourism faces numerous challenges. The infant mortality rate for India, which stands at 37.9, is not only higher than the world average but also than its low-income neighbours Nepal and Bangladesh. A baby born is India is nearly 1.2 times as likely to die during the first year of life as one born in Nepal. Undernourishment, although declining, is still a critical issue with India accounting for three out of every ten stunted children in the world (SyamRoy, 2016). Around 7 percent of the households fall below poverty line each year as a result of health shocks and out-of-pocket expenditures on health. (Mor, Dhar, & Venkateswaran, 2017) Education in India, both school level, and higher education, suffers from challenges concerning not only quality but also quantity. According to All India Survey of Higher Education (2015-16), the gross enrolment ratio for higher education stands at 24.5 percent, implying that 76 percent of the students lack access to higher education and are being deprived of the opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills. Their relevance and usefulness to the market is further weakened by the limited cooperation between industry and academic institutions. That is not to say that wellbeing has not improved at all. On the contrary, myriad positive changes spread across different aspects of life occurred since India’s independence. Laudable economic growth has
helped the country to advance its social parameters. The poverty headcount is reduced from 47.8 % (1990) to 21.9 % (2011–12) due to higher social investments in poverty reduction programs; considerable progress has been made in universalization of primary education with the current youth literacy rate at 90% (World Bank, 2015); the focus on maternal and child care has led to substantial improvements in mortality rates across the country. These changes have been truly transformative in some areas but the country will be unable to seize the opportunities without addressing the challenges— education, health, safety and security of its citizens, environmental degradation—that it faces today. Thus, in addition to economic reforms, it is important that policies focused directly towards social issues gain a prominent position on the national agenda. To achieve this, a measurement model that can equip changemakers to make social progress more integral to the national performance is needed. Social Progress Index, a tool developed to provide a robust and comprehensive measure of societal progress based on social and environmental indicators, offers such a framework. It can help leaders and policymakers to formulate strategies for inclusive growth and prioritize public investment; businesses to identify key focus areas for supporting social progress through CSR; and civil society organizations to advocate for and deliver social progress. By separating the measurement of social progress from economic performance, the Social Progress Index also helps to empirically unpack the relationship between the two concepts and hence offers citizens a better picture of how their country is performing. It helps inform our understanding of how economic development drives social progress and vice versa, a question deliberated by policymakers and researchers alike for decades. A better understanding of this relationship can help policymakers to make strategic choices that can lead to inclusive growth.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 13
REPORT FINDINGS
THE BEYOND GDP DEBATE The world was in the midst of the upheaval of the Great Depression when the idea of National Income Accounting was proposed by Simon Kuznets. National income accounting (the best-known system of which is gross domestic product – GDP), was developed to provide a window to the economic performance of a region, at a time when the world faced economic realities very different from those of today. The aim was to move away from a rudimentary set of data to a uniform set of national accounts, a purpose that GDP served well. Its use as a global measure of progress was further strengthened at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 and since then has become the de facto language of countries’ progress worldwide (Costanza, Hart, Posner, & Talberth, 2009). For the last several decades, the predominant focus of all countries has been on maximizing growth rates and economic performance with the underlying belief that such gains will trickle down to societies’ and people’s welfare. There is no denying that economic growth has helped nations to develop and has lifted millions out of poverty. However, it is now widely accepted that focus on the economic scorecard does not bring prosperity to all realms of societies’ wellbeing. The trade-off between the twin objectives of development process, i.e., economic growth and social progress, has long
been a ubiquitous debate. However, it is increasingly being challenged by the notion that although important, economic growth is not sufficient for achieving the welfare of societies. It may, or may not, lead to social progress. In the countries that have seen consistent GDP growth, the fundamental question surfaces whether the sole focus on economic performance is the correct approach to drive and assess prosperity. There is also perhaps a mismatch between how governments define and measure progress and citizens’ perception. In people’s everyday lives, success is about living long and healthy lives, while feeling safe, and having freedom to make life choices without restrictions. This is yet another piece of evidence that a model of development based solely on economic performance is incomplete. Nations across the world need to focus on fulfilling the needs of their citizens, i.e., providing them with adequate food, addressing security concerns, developing a public healthcare system, and building a society that is free from biases. For such an approach to inclusive development, the world needs a measurement model that moves beyond the idea of GDP, a framework that can equip leaders and change makers to make social progress more integral to national performance.
14 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
CAPTURING THE SPIRIT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an ambitious commitment by the world’s leaders to improve the wellbeing of the world’s citizens and ensure environmental sustainability by 2030. One hundred and sixty-nine targets grouped in 17 goals set out a universal and an unprecedented agenda which embraces economic, environmental and social aspects of the wellbeing of societies. However, it also poses a difficult challenge of defining and measuring success. With 17 goals, 169 targets and 230 indicators the SDGs might perhaps be difficult to grasp, understand, and of course, difficult to measure. According to the Expert Group on SDG Indicators hardly one third of the indicators can be measured. Therefore, a framework which can allow anyone to capture the totality of the SDGs—improved wellbeing and advanced environmental sustainability—while not dwelling on the individual details of every indicator is the need. A framework that can be understood and used by everyone—policymakers, businesses, civil society and the general public. The Social Progress Index offers such a well suited rapidassessment approach to help capture the spirit of the SDGs. Unlike the SDGs, which are by
REPORT FINDINGS
definition a list of goals rather a conceptual model, the Social Progress Index has been designed and tested over a number years to provide an aggregate assessment of performance. Having a general framework that can be aggregated in a single number that can be tracked over time is useful as it can enhance public understanding and engagement. There is a strong coherence between the SDGs and the Social Progress Index (Figure 3). It can, therefore, support SDG implementation playing a complementary role to the official monitoring systems that are being put in place. It may be instrumental for the nation as a whole as well as individual states and territories in achieving their SDGs targets.
Health and Wellness
Nutrition Environ- and Basic Medical mental Medical Water and Care Quality Care Sanitation
Access to Access to Information Access to Basic Knowledge Access to Advanced Education
Shelter Personal Safety
Personal Personal Rights Rights Freedom Freedom Inclusion and Choice Inclusion and Choice
THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX SUPPORTING INDIA’S 2030 AGENDA Michael Green Michael Green, CEO, Social Progress Imperative “There is no cause greater than shaping a world in which every life that enters it can look to a future of security, opportunity and dignity; and, where we leave our environment in better shape for the next generation. And, no cause that is more challenging.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s words at the United Nations in 2015 at the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals capture well the promise and the enormity of the SDGs. The SDGs are an ambitious commitment by the world’s leaders to improve the wellbeing of all people and ensure environmental sustainability by 2030. They represent an unprecedented universal agenda that embraces economic, environmental
and social aspects of the progress of societies – an agenda that is people- and planet-centered and applies to all countries, irrespective of their levels of wealth. And the challenge of achieving these goals will stand or fall on how well India, with its population of 1.3 billion people and growing, can cut a path of sustainable, inclusive economic growth. For example, one of the principal targets under Goal 6 is to provide adequate sanitation for all when today barely 40% of Indians have access to a toilet. It is also clear that economic growth, the engine behind much of the success in achieving such significant reductions in extreme poverty under Millennium Development Goal 1, will not get us there alone. When the SDGs were launched in 2015, the global consulting firm Deloitte conducted a study using Social Progress Index data to forecast whether the SDGs could be achieved. The findings
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
15
REPORT FINDINGS
were stark and clear: even based on optimistic projections for economic growth, on current trends the world would fall well short of achieving the Goals. Yet, the researchers also found that if there is a productivity revolution in the social sector the SDGs could be achieved. Business as usual will not got us to the SDGs. But if government, business and civil society can step up and scale the solutions that work, a step change in human wellbeing is within our grasp by 2030. The Social Progress Index for India has a critical role to play in driving the productivity revolution to get is to the SDGs.
The Implementation Challenge As a complex set of goals and targets, the SDGs intrinsically pose numerous challenges to world leaders, businesses and civil society organizations alike. While these challenges are perhaps overshadowed by the historic ambition of the goals, they nevertheless present significant risks for the implementation – and, consequently, achievement – of the SDGs. How can the SDGs be translated into specific actions for the states, cities, districts, and communities of India? How will various actors and initiatives align around 17 different goals? What does success look like? How are the goals measured and understood in different parts of this vast, diverse country? While there is not a simple answer to these questions, the Social Progress Index tackles many of the challenges. It is a proven tool that helps countries, regions, cities and communities achieve the goals. Sitting alongside economic indicators as a core benchmark for national performance, the Index provides a systematic, empirical foundation that can inform the 2030 Agenda. The Social Progress Index represents the first comprehensive framework for measuring social progress that is
16 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
independent of, and complimentary to, traditional economic indicators. It is certainly important that an official monitoring and performance tracking system is established and followed. However, the Social Progress Index, also offers a well suited rapid-assessment approach to help facilitate the understanding, engagement and implementation of the SDGs. Currently, the Social Progress Index measures 16 out of 17 goals and reflects 131 out of 169 targets in one simple framework, which makes the implementation, visualization and actionability of the SDGs a tangible reality for social innovators all over the world (Figure 1). The Social Progress Index addresses challenges for SDG implementation:
four
Eliminating silos: The Social Progress Index facilitates cross-sectoral stakeholder engagement, which will be critical to achieving the SDGs. Thanks to its comprehensive framework, which can be easily understood by diverse stakeholders accustomed to seeing problems through different lenses, the index represents a shared foundation for collective impact projects. Localizing implementation: The Social Progress Index is a flexible tool that can be adapted to any level of geography and any sector, from communities to metropoles to public institutions to local businesses. This ensures that development initiatives, including SDG implementation, account for and address local needs and challenges. The Measurement Challenge: According to the latest communication by the Expert Group on SDG Indicators, barely a third of the 200+ indicators can currently be measured in a rigorous manner for a majority of countries. The Social Progress Index uses 50 indicators drawn from official UN data but
REPORT FINDINGS
also from globally respected research institutions and polling organizations. This flexibility on data sources allows the Social Progress Index to provide a comprehensive estimate of SDG performance even where the formal indicators do not yet exist and customize them for the local context. The Aggregation Challenge: Unlike the Sustainable Development Goals, which are by definition a list of goals rather a conceptual model, the Social Progress Index has been designed and tested over a number years to provide an aggregate assessment of country performance. Because it was designed as a composite indicator, the Index can provide a snapshot of a country’s overall progress towards the SDGs in a way that the goals themselves, with their wide array of unweighted indicators, cannot. Many governments have committed to earmark spending according to the SDGs. However, an increase in government spending may not lead to an
Figure 1 /
improvement in people’s lives. The Social Progress Index measures outcomes, not inputs, in order to more accurately measure life as everyday people experience it. What really matters is whether people have adequate shelter or live long and healthy lives, not how much money the government allocates for housing or healthcare. In the context of the SDGs, this means that the Index captures real progress towards the goals rather than the effort expended to achieve them. Social Progress Indexes allow for the selection of indicators in alignment with SDGs for specific contexts and regions. Each index becomes a customized tool for social change that captures what really matters to local people. This Social Progress Index for India can therefore be a powerful tool for state governments, working with business and civil society to, manage progress towards achievement of the SDGs by 2030.
SDGs and Social Progress Index
Source: Social Progress Imperative (2017)
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 17
REPORT FINDINGS
FACILITATING CSR INVESTMENTS The idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not new to the Indian companies. Previously, CSR in India was seen as a philanthropic activity. It was an action that was performed by many businesses, but the impact was not measured. However, as the idea gained momentum globally, many companies started reporting their activities. The Companies Act in 2013 formally introduced Corporate Social Responsibility guidelines which made it mandatory for companies having net worth of Rs 500 crore or more or turnover of Rs 1000 crore or more or net profit of Rs 5 crore or more to spend at Figure 2 /
least 2 percent of their average net profits. (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) While some of the companies responded positively to the measure, statistics indicate that more than 50 percent of the firms fail to comply. The primary reason that stands out for non-compliance with the law is the unawareness regarding which areas to invest in. The Social Progress Index address that challenge by bringing out insights about the needs of the people in different regions. It can thus be helpful for the companies to identify key focus areas where investments can be made (Figure 2).
CSR and Social Progress Index
Source: Authors
18 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
BEYOND PHILANTHROPY: HOW BUSINESS CAN HAVE A GREATER IMPACT IN SOCIETY David Cruickshank, Global Chairman, Deloitte
measure the societal impact of business just by charitable donations alone.
India is now the fastest growing major economy however performance in social welfare still lags behind its economic success. By 2020, India is forecast to be the youngest country in the world with a median age of 29, and its population is predicted to exceed China’s by 2030. This is even more pertinent given the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda – a set of 17 Goals that countries will use to mobilise efforts to end all forms of poverty, fight inequalities and tackle climate change, while ensuring that no one is left behind. India’s role in the 2030 Agenda could not be more critical.
To make meaningful impact, business must first understand the challenges that communities face in order to best direct their efforts. To enable this the Institute for Competitiveness has worked in conjunction with the Social Progress Imperative to develop a State level Social Progress Index for India to measure the things that matter most to people. The Index uses over 50 societal and environmental outcome indicators, ranging from measuring the number of women in Panchyati Raj Institutions to assessing power deficits, to map the social and environmental status of Indian States. It will provide insight into the most pressing needs of communities and serve as a road map to guide investments, resources and collaborations.
To support this ambitious agenda, the demographic growth and for business to succeed in India, it will need to deepen its commitment to sustainable development and work in conjunction with civil society and government to utilise its skills, innovation and resources to shorten the gap between economic and social performance. The Indian government has recognised the responsibility of business to advance social progress in the 2013 Companies Act, which requires that companies with a net worth of Rs 500 crore or more, or turnover of Rs 1,000 crore or more, or a net profit of Rs 5 crore or more, contribute 2% of their net profit to charity. Four years later the Companies Act has had some impressive results. Indian companies’ charitable spending has increased seven-fold to Rs 25,000 crore and the Act has helped bring CSR to the attention of company executives. For all of the good driven by the Companies Act, it does not render all socially responsible investment equal. And we shouldn’t
For the last four years, Deloitte has partnered with the Social Progress Imperative to measure what matters to countries, regions and communities and understand how to achieve inclusive growth that benefits all citizens. The India State Index provides a holistic approach towards measuring social developments which will help India to make social progress more integral to the policymaking process and drive collaboration between government, business, and civil society organisations. This is an important step forward as India works toward achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. If businesses seek to be make a difference, and to be judged by more than just financial results, tools like the India State Index can help guide where and how best to effect change. In doing so companies can build a reputation, and a business, that will last and have a greater impact on society.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 19
REPORT FINDINGS
CHAPTER 2
THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX The Social Progress Index focuses on what matters to societies and people by giving them the tools to better understand and seize opportunities and building blocks to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, and create the conditions to reach their full potential. It was developed in collaboration with a team of scholars led by Professor Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School. National and city leaders across Latin America, and the European Commission’s Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, are using the index for agenda setting, policymaking, and prioritizing how to mobilize resources and measure impact.
20 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
FRAMEWORK OF THE INDEX Guided by a group of academic and policy experts, the Social Progress Index follows a conceptual framework that defines social progress as well as its key elements. In this context, social progress is defined as the “capacity of a society to meet the basic human needs of its citizens, establish the building blocks that allow citizens and communities to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, and create the conditions for all individuals to reach their full potential.” The framework outlines three broad categories of social progress, referred to as dimensions, emerging from the above definition of social progress:
REPORT FINDINGS
● Basic Human Needs; ● Foundations of Wellbeing; and ● Opportunity. Each of these dimensions is further broken down into four underlying components (see Figure 3). The most important step in designing the index is to select the appropriate indicator set that represents the components under each dimension. Apart from the criterion that the data should be publicly available, principles of the index guide the choice of a relevant set of indicators. The set of unique design principles that allow an exclusive analysis of social progress and help the Index stand out from other indices are: ● including social and environmental indicators only; ● measuring outcomes, not inputs2; ● relevant to all societies; ● an actionable tool to drive change. The Index represents the first comprehensive framework for measuring social progress that Figure 3 /
is independent of economic performance. As a complement to traditional measures of economic performance, such as income, the Social Progress Index provides a better understanding of the relationship between economic gain and social progress. In contrast, other indices such as the Human Development Index combine economic and social indicators. Our objective is to utilize a clear yet rigorous methodology that isolates the non-economic dimensions of social performance. The Index offers a systematic, empirical foundation for governments, businesses, civil society and communities to prioritise social and environmental issues, and benchmark performance against other countries, regions, cities and communities to inform and drive public policies, investments, and business and community decisions. Detailed methodology is presented at Methodology Report, Social Progress Index, States of India, available on the Social Progress Index India website.
Social Progress Index Framework3
Source: Porter, Scott & Green, 2017 2 The index does not consider input indicators, such as spending on a particular policy area, such as education, or healthcare. 3 While the Social Progress Index: States of India adopts the same framework as the Global Social Progress Index, there is a slight difference in the name of the Tolerance and Inclusion component. The Social Progress Index: States of India only uses the term Inclusion as it is more contextualized to local circumstances. However, the conceptual basis of the component, i.e. the underlying question, whether “no one is excluded from the opportunity to be a contributing member of society?” remains the same.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 21
REPORT FINDINGS
SOCIAL PROGRESS IN INDIA – A TALE OF 2 STATES Dr Nitya Mohan Khemka Affiliated Lecturer, Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge India is amongst the fastest growing regions in the world, with an aggregate GDP in excess of USD 3 trillion and a population in excess of 1.3 billion. At the same time it has significant deficits in human development—37% of the world’s poor and nearly half of the world’s malnourished children come from the region. These ironies and contradictions make it imperative to focus on not only economic growth but also on rapidly improving its social parameters. The Social Progress Index (SPI) emphasises what matters to individuals, governments and societies by reflecting the social and environmental progress of a region. By providing a robust and integrated framework, it enables people to measure the building blocks of basic human needs, wellbeing and opportunities required for human flourishing. In doing so, it goes way beyond conventional methods of measuring progress (such as GDP and HDI) and provides an actionable tool that can help policymakers and practitioners implement plans that can drive rapid social progress. Implementing the SPI in India gives us the unique opportunity of moving beyond the historic obsession with economic growth to a more nuanced understanding of issues that really matter to individuals and communities. SPI can be used as a common language to bring together government, business and civil society around a new vision of what their communities could be. By highlighting specific social challenges, the SPI can help catalyse policy decisions, guide CSR investments and serve as a monitoring mechanism for SDGs. Since India is a federation of states, the SPI can also be a critical tool for measuring performance
22 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
and prioritizing action at the subnational level. The SPI can help measure both the states’ absolute performance and well as highlight their relative progress, by comparing states at a similar level of per capita income. Applying the Social Progress Index framework to Indian states reveals significant differences in patterns and attainments of social indicators across India. Firstly, states with high levels of social progress are not necessarily high performers on all dimensions of social progress. Similarly, states with flagging levels of social progress do not have uniformly waning levels of social and environmental attainments across the board. This level of granularity in the data helps us identify the most pressing issues that require attention in individual states. Secondly, while all Indian states have made significant headway with respect to social progress over the last eleven years, what is striking is the wide variations between individual states. Further, the average SPI scores are clustered between 48 and 57 for the period 2005-2016, indicating there is considerable room for improvement across Indian states. Thirdly, the data indicates that while economic performance is directly related to social progress, it does not provide a complete picture. Indeed, states with high economic prosperity have been lagging behind significantly with respect to social progress. This divergence between social and economic progress highlights the need for states in India to prioritize key social and environmental policies. This brings us to the example of two states in India, Gujarat and Kerala, which present an interesting paradox for us to consider.
REPORT FINDINGS
Gujarat is one of the high growth states in the country. Gujarat’s Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) was at US$ 120.91 billion over 2014-15 (see graph 1 below). The state is one of the most industrially developed states and contributes to about a quarter to India’s goods exports. Graph 1 /
Gujarat’s Net State Domestic Product
Yet, although Kerala’s NSDP is way below that of Gujarat, it achieves the highest score on social progress (67.75) amongst the Indian states in 2016 (See graph 3 below), about 10 percentage points over that of Gujarat. This indicates that economic performance cannot be the sole driving factor and that for growth to be inclusive, we need to think of the dimensions of basic human needs, foundations of wellbeing and availability of opportunities for human development. Graph 3 /
Gujarat and Kerala’s Social Progress Index
Source: Open Government Data Platform India, 2017a On the other hand, Kerala’s Net State Domestic product (NSDP) was at US$ 59.70 billion over 201415 (see graph 2 below).
Graph 2 /
Kerala’s Net State Domestic Product
Source: Open Government Data Platform India, 2017b
Source: ICI 2017 The comparison of Gujarat and Karnataka through the lens of the SPI reveals important insights. While it is true that historical and cultural factors have an impact on the social indicators in each region, a comparative study between the two states becomes useful for isolating specific features that contribute to high social progress in some regions. Kerala has devolved significantly more responsibilities and resources to its Panchayats than have other states in India. It has implemented systematic grassroots level planning through the People’s Planning Campaign. Kerala’s other achievements—such as a high rate of literacy (especially among women), a vibrant civil society and successful land reforms—
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 23
REPORT FINDINGS
have had a substantial effect on social progress. These mechanisms have provided safeguards to the marginalised and lead to higher levels of social indicators. Although Gujarat outperforms in terms of economic indicators, investigating the link between economic prosperity and social progress enables us to examine if growth is translating into improved
24 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
social and environmental performance. Clearly, the experiences borne out by Kerala and Gujarat, as revealed by the SPI data, can offer important insights, in terms of both policy and practice, on the Indian experience, which with its typology of states can be representative of other developing countries.
REPORT FINDINGS
CHAPTER 3
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX: STATES OF INDIA - RESULTS The Social Progress Index, States of India framework represents the first ever concept for measuring societal performance comprehensively, and independently of economic indicators. As such, the framework is a significant contribution to the policy debate as well as scholarly research of measuring quality of life. Based on extensive research and consultation with relevant stakeholders, the Social Progress Index: States of India applies a framework for measuring social progress, as presented in Figure 4. It includes 54 indicators which are based on publically available sources of public authorities.
While not ideal, and greatly limited by data availability, the framework should be seen as an initial effort to contribute to measuring the quality of life of India’s citizens. The framework can be utilized as a mapping dashboard of public expenditures, civil society engagement and private sector investment. It can also be used as a tool to organize and structure strategic planning, as well as monitoring and evaluation.
COUNTRY-LEVEL ANALYSIS The consolidation of the state-level results4 helps in assessing India’s national performance across
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 25
REPORT FINDINGS
Figure 4 /
Social Progress Index, States of India Indicator Framework
Source: Authors all aspects of social progress. This provides an opportunity to identify components that are more advanced than others, which can help inform nationwide policies, strategies, and actions. Overall, on a scale 0-100 (0 worst case scenario, 100 best case scenario) the country scores 54.90 on the Social Progress Index. Breaking down this average across dimensions and components, we find that there is wide variation in the country’s performance across different facets of social progress (Figure 5). At the dimension level, the country scores highest at 63.06 on Basic Human Needs, followed by 52.34
on Foundations of Wellbeing, and lowest at 49.31 on Opportunity. Basic Human Needs capture the aspects of social progress that are vital for human survival. Closer analysis of the four components that form the dimension—Nutrition & Basic Medical Care, Shelter, Water & Sanitation, and Personal Safety—reveals that three of them score above the national average, while Nutrition & Basic Medical Care seems to be lagging. At the component level, the country performs best on Water & Sanitation (84.37). This reflects important progress in an area that has been a focus of the
4 A measure of the country’s average level of social progress is developed by weighting each state’s score by population and summing across all states. The results different to the Global Social Progress
26 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
Figure 5 /
Country Level Analysis
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
Access to Advanced Education
Inclusion
Personal Freedom & Choice
Personal Rights
Opportunity
Environmental Quality
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Access to Knowledge
Foundations of wellbeing
Personal Safety
Shelter
Water & Sanitation
Nutrition & Basic Medical Care
Social Progress Index
0
Basic Human Needs
10
Source: Authors Sustainable Development Goals as well as the Indian Government. Nutrition & Basic Medical Care (44.64) seems to be the greatest challenge that the nation needs to address. The high levels of mortality and low levels of children’s nutrition are issues that need immediate attention. Foundations of Wellbeing encompasses the services that help citizens in improving their quality of life. Among the four components that form the dimension—Access to Basic Knowledge, Access to Information & Communication, Health & Wellness, and Environmental Quality—the scores are lowest in Access to Information & Communication (35.41). This is due to low access to television and the internet in the country. The states perform best on Health & Wellness (68.89), but the analysis also reveals that obesity is a growing issue in India. Out of 29 regions under study, 11 have average obesity rates of more than 20%. The nation needs to address this concern soon.
Opportunity encompasses Personal Rights, Personal Freedom and Choice, Inclusion, and Access to Advanced Education. The lowest performing area is Access to Advanced Education (37.25). The advanced education ecosystem in India has a lot of challenges that are clearly reflected by the low average scores. The gross enrolment ratio in higher education is not only less than that of developed economies (with the exception of the USA) but also than developing economies like China. The best performance in the dimension is achieved by the states in securing the freedom of citizens (67.12).
STATE-LEVEL ANALYSIS India’s states’ scores range from a high of 68.09 to a low of 44.89 (see Table 1). The results show that while there are considerable differences between states, there are no significant over- or underperforming outliers and that given the range of scores, there is immense scope for improvement for even the bestperforming states.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 27
REPORT FINDINGS
Table 1 /
Social Progress Index, States of India: Scores and Tiers
Very High Social Progress Value
High Social Progress
Value
Kerala
68.09
Delhi
60.17
Himachal Pradesh
65.39
Karnataka
59.72
Tamil Nadu
65.34
Maharashtra
57.88
Uttarakhand
64.23
Haryana
57.37
Goa
63.39
Nagaland
56.76
Mizoram
62.89
Chhattisgarh
56.69
Sikkim
62.72
Gujarat
56.65
Punjab
62.18
Middle Social Progress
Value
Low Social Progress
Value
Andhra Pradesh
56.13
Tripura
53.22
Manipur
55.50
Rajasthan
52.31
Jammu & Kashmir
55.41
Odisha
51.64
Arunachal Pradesh
55.24
Uttar Pradesh
50.96
Madhya Pradesh
55.03
Assam
48.53
West Bengal
54.37
Jharkhand
47.80
Meghalaya
53.51
Bihar
44.89
Source: Authors The states are grouped on the basis of median and quartile scores into the above mentioned four tiers (see Table 2), where, Table 2 /
● 62.18 is the third quartile of scores ● 56.64 is the second quartile i.e. the median ● 53.51 is the first quartile
Tiers of Social Progress Tier
Scores
Very High Social Progress
More than or equal to 62.18
High Social Progress
Between 56.64 and 62.17
Middle Social Progress
Between 53.51 and 56.63
Low Social Progress
Less than 53.51
Source: Authors
VERY HIGH SOCIAL PROGRESS Eight states that form the first tier of the social progress register strong performance across all the components. The overall scores of the Very High
Social Progress states are clustered around 65. The average score of the group is significantly better in Basic Human Needs compared to Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity.
Social Progress Index
Basic Human Needs
Foundations of Wellbeing
Opportunity
64.0
71
61
60
28 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
The top performers on social progress reveal that there are several ways to achieve world-class social progress. Tamil Nadu has one of the most balanced development models in the country. The state has not only shown advancements in economic growth over the years but the social indicators have also improved. The policies in the state have focused on almost all the areas ranging from healthcare, education, economy. These correct policy choices clubbed with successful implementation have led to these results. Tamil Nadu’s outstanding performance can be attributed to the public services that are provided by the state. The
provide its citizens with living standards comparable to those of high-income states. The findings indicate the strength of social capital.
HIGH SOCIAL PROGRESS Seven states are clubbed under the High Social Progress tier whose average scores are lower than the first tier by 6 points at the overall level.
Social Progress Index
Basic Human Needs
Foundations of Wellbeing
Opportunity
58
67
54
53
universal nature of the public systems helps in better social outcomes than most of other regions. The appropriate policies focusing with the right amount of expenditure in priority areas along with strong implementation of the schemes has led Tamil Nadu on this path of inclusive development. The model of Kerala has always been held up as evidence that investing more in social infrastructure can boost the productivity of people and thereby growth, which shows up in the results as well. The model of development can be termed as a “human development-led” growth which has taken place due to systematic state investments in social sectors like education and health over a long period of time. The performance of Mizoram, a middle-income state, is notable. The region is seen as a special territory even after six decades of independence, due to the security concerns it faces. Consequently, the economic growth trajectory of this region has been different than the rest of the country. Despite being rich in natural resources, economic growth has been slow. Amidst all these issues the state has managed to
This tier is formed by a mix of three income category states. Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana and Maharashtra belong to Very High-Income category, Karnataka and Nagaland lie in High Income category and Chhattisgarh belongs to Middle Income category. These performance of this tier is commendable in Water and Sanitation where five out of seven states have scores higher than 90. It is however surprising to note that the average scores for Foundations of Wellbeing for this tier are lower than average scores for “Middle Social Progress” tier. This difference is mainly attributed to the area of environmental quality. The average scores of this tier in the component are 32 while the average scores of the next tier for the same component are 57.
MIDDLE SOCIAL PROGRESS Seven states – Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya and West Bengal form this tier of social progress.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 29
REPORT FINDINGS
Social Progress Index
Basic Human Needs
Foundations of Wellbeing
Opportunity
55
61
57
47
Inclusion of high – income states, like Andhra Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, in the tier of Middle Social Progress reflects that social progress not only depends on the economic development but also on the use of revenues generated by economic expansion. It thus becomes important for regions to chalk out strategies focussed towards addressing the real needs of the citizens. In this tier, West Bengal’s progress in some of the components is notable. The state’s approach towards handling safety and security concerns drive these results. The high performance of state in Personal Safety is driven by government’s effort to modernize the state police force, setting up women police stations and focus on coastal security. Apart from Personal Safety, it scores well on Water & Sanitation and Access to Basic Knowledge as well. The major component driving down the results of the state is Access to Information & Communication. The state has very low number of Internet subscribers along with low access to television. If the concerns highlighted by these findings are addressed, citizens can enjoy a better standard of living.
LOW SOCIAL PROGRESS The seven states in this group are a mix of low and middle-income groups.
The most striking results are those of Uttar Pradesh, whose scores vary from 93 to 25 at the component level. The performance of the state on Water and Sanitation is commendable, which is largely due to the fact that it has the most sufficient drinking water facility, has high rates of fully covered rural habitations, and low prevalence of typhoid and diarrhoea. Nevertheless, some sanitation issues need to be addressed as the state registers rural sanitation A COUNTRY’ S LEV EL OF SO CI A L PR OGR ESS IS THE R ESULT OF CUMU L AT I V E INCREMENTAL CHOICES ITS GOVERNMENTS, COMMUNITIES, CITIZENS, A ND BUSI N E SSE S MA KE A BOUT HOW TO INV EST L I M I T E D R ESOUR CES. coverage of just 41%. It set up a Water and Sanitation Support Organisation in 2010 to ensure that this basic need is met. It performs fairly well on Health & Wellness and Environmental Quality, but Nutrition & Basic Medical Care is one area that the government of Uttar Pradesh needs to focus on. The prevalence of anaemia is high in Uttar Pradesh, and the IMR and MMR are amongst one of the highest in India. A better picture of the level of progress is ascertained by analysing the dimension- and component-level scores of the Social Progress Index, States of India presented in Table 3 (next page).
Social Progress Index
Basic Human Needs
Foundations of Wellbeing
Opportunity
50
56
49
44
30 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
Source: Authors
West Bengal
Uttarakhand
Uttar Pradesh
Tripura
Tamil Nadu
Sikkim
Rajasthan
Punjab
Odisha
Nagaland
Mizoram
Meghalaya
Manipur
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Kerala
Karnataka
Jharkhand
Jammu and Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Haryana
Gujarat
Goa
Delhi
Chhattisgarh
Bihar
Assam
Arunachal Pradesh
62.5
67.6
57.9
60.3
76.3
69.9
59.1
68.6
55.4
66.6
71.0
52.6
65.9
70.7
59.1
73.8
65.6
56.1
61.2
68.1
64.2
73.3
76.6
62.9
63.2
52.7
52.2
57.4
68.0
53.3
44.8
31.5
57.0
62.2
60.6
36.4
57.5
45.2
73.1
71.4
48.2
76.2
54.0
29.8
74.7
48.6
32.1
58.9
53.9
43.1
43.6
62.8
51.5
44.7
34.6
47.9
56.8
48.6
77.0
78.1
93.3
69.1
91.3
67.2
76.4
86.7
80.9
65.3
79.2
48.2
64.3
90.0
85.1
79.6
75.5
86.1
65.0
64.2
90.8
92.6
95.1
90.2
90.1
81.3
84.4
71.6
74.1
Shelter
COMPONENT
Nutrition & Basic Human Basic Medical Water & Needs Care Sanitation
DIMENSION
51.3
76.2
37.4
55.9
79.2
72.2
60.9
62.7
41.4
55.3
71.4
57.4
60.8
72.7
61.6
75.8
71.1
48.7
57.8
83.2
70.0
77.1
81.5
77.9
58.7
34.6
34.4
55.5
76.8
68.3
71.2
69.5
59.2
72.3
79.5
62.7
67.5
54.3
72.5
62.0
56.7
62.2
66.3
60.1
65.0
67.4
57.4
63.1
71.0
53.0
79.8
67.1
32.1
59.2
60.4
42.2
45.8
72.3
Personal Safety
58.0
66.4
47.4
55.6
58.8
59.2
42.8
59.1
51.0
55.6
61.3
61.8
57.9
54.3
54.0
65.4
56.0
47.0
56.2
62.7
53.2
49.4
55.4
60.3
52.0
47.2
54.7
61.6
50.3
74.5
78.6
54.4
78.5
75.1
72.3
44.4
67.7
71.8
75.4
78.3
77.2
76.1
74.3
66.8
87.3
75.3
62.4
53.2
79.8
63.8
61.6
91.2
85.2
79.0
55.4
71.5
70.3
61.6
Foundations Access to of wellbeing Knowledge
28.0
47.9
25.6
30.7
54.7
38.3
31.9
56.8
21.1
28.0
33.9
26.8
31.0
46.6
33.2
54.7
45.4
28.8
34.7
52.6
43.6
44.2
45.4
76.8
30.6
16.1
17.8
29.2
40.5
70.0
82.0
71.9
75.1
61.2
61.6
79.2
72.5
69.0
71.6
69.0
77.3
69.9
66.1
70.9
63.0
63.2
75.7
80.9
70.5
75.1
67.4
58.0
69.7
58.9
72.2
73.5
73.1
55.7
Access to Information & Health & Communication Wellness
DIMENSION
59.6
57.2
37.7
37.9
44.4
64.4
15.8
39.5
42.1
47.3
64.1
66.0
54.5
30.3
44.9
56.7
40.1
21.1
55.9
48.0
30.5
24.5
27.1
9.3
39.4
45.3
55.9
73.7
43.6
42.6
58.7
47.5
43.8
60.9
59.1
55.0
58.8
48.5
48.1
56.3
46.1
42.7
48.6
52.0
65.1
57.5
40.3
48.9
65.4
54.6
47.2
58.2
57.3
54.9
34.7
38.7
46.7
50.1
35.8
66.0
37.4
43.0
73.2
72.9
59.9
66.8
42.8
61.1
71.5
37.5
33.0
41.4
56.0
60.7
58.8
37.9
55.8
56.2
54.3
52.6
41.2
47.4
63.9
32.6
28.6
50.9
66.6
Environmental Personal Quality Opportunity Rights
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX, STATES OF INDIA: DIMENSION AND COMPONENT SCORES DIMENSION COMPONENT
Scores Social Progress Index, States of India
Andhra Pradesh
States
Table 3 /
70.5
72.6
71.6
69.8
61.7
66.8
71.8
74.6
75.6
66.7
71.5
65.7
63.4
59.6
70.3
87.5
53.2
65.1
72.5
84.4
79.0
63.7
68.4
79.1
78.9
61.4
70.7
64.9
53.1
Personal Freedom & Choice Inclusion
COMPONENT
43.4
43.1
46.3
39.9
55.1
54.4
44.0
41.6
42.1
30.7
49.4
44.5
32.5
46.4
41.6
58.8
59.1
40.8
32.4
56.0
38.0
32.6
68.2
60.9
48.0
33.0
31.7
44.2
42.5
20.8
53.1
34.8
22.5
53.8
42.4
44.1
52.2
33.5
34.0
33.0
36.6
42.1
46.9
40.0
53.4
59.1
17.5
34.8
64.8
47.2
39.9
54.9
42.0
28.8
11.9
23.5
26.9
38.1
Access to Advanced Education
REPORT FINDINGS
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 31
REPORT FINDINGS
NUTRITION & BASIC MEDICAL CARE The developments in medical care reflect high variations across different regions in the country, leading to a lower average absolute score for the country. The absolute scores range from high twenties to high seventies. The central region of the country comprising Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh shows immense scope for improvement. The high rates of Maternal Mortality Rate, Infant Mortality Rate and high prevalence of anaemia among children leads to low scores. Kerala, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur are among the best performers. Manipur has the lowest infant mortality rate, lowest anaemic children as well as low percentage of underweight children. Despite the low level of income in Manipur its absolute scores are better than the rest of the states depicting the power of social investments made by the government. These states can inform strategies for other states.
The category of Over performers does not include any of the Very High-Income States. Most of these states have low levels of child and maternal mortality, have sufficient nutritional facilities so strong scores are expected in this area and are not relative strengths. Manipur, a low-income state is the highest over performer. The state shows commendable performance especially in tacking underweight and anaemia issues among children. The under performers include a mix of all income category states. Gujarat and Haryana, two very high-income states under perform compared to their economic peers mainly in areas of infant mortality and underweight children.
32 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
WATER & SANITATION The continuous focus on Water and Sanitation, globally as well as by the Indian government, clearly reflect in the results of this component. The absolute performance of almost all the states is above average, except Meghalaya. The best performing states include Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh etc. The performance of Uttar Pradesh – A low Social Progress State is surprising. The state has the highest area (rural and urban both) having sufficient drinking water facility, has high rates of fully covered rural habitations and low prevalence of typhoid and diarrhoea, that drive these results. Although sanitation facilities are of concern to the people of Uttar Pradesh as the state registers a rural sanitation coverage of just 41%. The state set up a Water and Sanitation Support Organisation in 2010 to ensure that this basic need of the people is met. On a relative basis, no state out performs its economic peers and therefore there is no appropriate role model for low scoring states in this area. The group of underperformers formed by a mix of all income category states. It includes very high income state like Sikkim, high income states such as Nagaland, Meghalaya – the largest underperformer that belongs to middle income category and Manipur a low income state. But it is dominated by high and middle-income states. These results show that performance in this component should not be taken for granted among states of middle and high income by leaders and policymakers. There is still a lot to be done in providing safe access to water and sanitation to the citizens.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 33
REPORT FINDINGS
PERSONAL SAFETY The safety and security of citizens is of prime concern to every government irrespective of the income category which shows up in the assessment of personal safety across states. Just 10 percent of the state’s score less than 50. Delhi, the capital city not only scores the lowest in this area but also registers the highest amount of underperformance. The crime rate in the region has been of concern since a long time. Numerous efforts have been taken up the government such as identifying crime prone areas, employing emergency response vehicles etc. to improve the plight of its citizens. These efforts have led to an increase in the scores from last two years but there is still a lot to be done. The three overperformers – Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim and Gujarat register over performance by only a small margin.
34 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
ACCESS TO INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION On an absolute basis, one of the highest variation is observed among the states in this category. The difference in scores of the best and the worst performing state is more than 60 points. The scores have improved rapidly in the last few years. The diffusion of mobile telephones especially in the remote areas and the increasing access to internet has led to the advancements. However, the absolute scores are still very low. The states with high scores in this area – Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu etc are mainly very high and high-income states and the lowincome states like Bihar and Assam have low scores. On a relative basis, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Kerala over-perform their economic peers. Under performance is observed by a total of fourteen states. All the seven north-eastern states fall in the category of underperformers in this area. The low scores and under performance relative to economic peers is mainly due to the low quality of services in the north-eastern region which is due to the poor tele-density and poor broadband penetration. The low computer penetration and computer literacy further adds to the problem. Although, a lot of steps have been taken by the concerned ministry which has led to improvements since 2005 but findings suggest there is still a large scope for improvement. A clear variation across income categories and geography both is observed in access to communications.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 35
REPORT FINDINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY On an absolute basis, the highest variation is observed among states in this area. The scores vary from 73 to 9. Environmental Quality is a particularly challenging component for high and very high-income states with nearly half of them underperforming on this component. This suggests that the environmental challenges because of economic development may outweigh the benefits for these states.
The only over performer – Arunachal Pradesh, a high-income state has fewer water withdrawals and the land quality is better than most of its peers. Delhi is the worst performing state on this component both on an absolute level and relative to its economic peers. The water withdrawals rate is one of the highest in the country, and land degradation levels is also high. Relative to its economic peers, it under-performs on all indicators in the component.
36 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
PERSONAL RIGHTS On an absolute basis, the scores of states are between 28 to 73. Some of the best performers include high and very high-income states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim etc and worst performers mainly include low income states like Assam, Bihar etc. The area is linked to economic development but the relationship levels off as the income level rises. At the lower levels of income, a marginal increase in income will lead to large advancements in scores of Personal Rights. On a relative basis, all the high-income states perform within the expected range of scores. The states that have registered strength relative to their economic peers include – Tamil Nadu, Sikkim, and Mizoram. On the other hand, Manipur, Delhi, Goa, Tripura, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Meghalaya lag behind their peers.
Manipur, whose performance is on the overall social progress is decent is the largest underperformer in this area. The state registers the highest underperformance of the indicator judiciary. While on an average, 63 percent of the trials conclude within three years this number stands at 29 for Manipur. The government should look into the problem and help its citizens by ensuring timely trials. Setting up fast-track courts etc might serve as a solution.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 37
REPORT FINDINGS
PERSONAL FREEDOM & CHOICE Personal Freedom and Choice is the component that experience least variability in scores that range from 61 to 87. It is also one of the two components where no state scores less than 50. Strong performance on this component does not require large investments of economic resources so it is an area where states at every income level could excel. Personal Freedom and Choice has the largest number of over-performers. While these states are commendable for outperforming their economic peers, most are not suitable role models for all the indicators in the component. All the four states have a relative weakness in one or more indicators, most frequently Early Marriages.
38 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
INCLUSION Absolute results show that only six states namely, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Sikkim, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu register scores above fifty. The low scores of all the other regions reflect that creating an inclusive society still remains an elusive goal for most regions. And people face discrimination across states of all regions and incomes. The comparison of states with their economic peers reveal that barring one state – Goa, no other state overperforms. However, then also it is not an appropriate role model for its peers as it registers weakness in some indicators of this area like insurance, women in panchayati raj institutions etc. Among underperformers, 72 percent of the states belong to either middle or low-income category.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 39
REPORT FINDINGS
ACCESS TO ADVANCED EDUCATION On an absolute basis, the scores for most of the states lie below 50 reflecting that the country’s higher education ecosystem is in urgent need of intervention. The issues can be categorised into three groups: inclusivity, quality, and future readiness. The issues in inclusivity are highlighted by the low gross enrolment ratios in India which are indicative of a large group of students who don’t enter the education system and hence leading to questioning the readiness of youth for industries. The aspect of quality of education and curriculum is also put to the test by the low employability of students graduating out of universities. The third aspect relates to the use of technology platforms for increasing access to affordable education with low internet penetration; developing world-class institutions which are still a challenge. While the world is moving towards robotics, artificial intelligence and re-skilling their workforce, India doesn’t seem to take actual cognisance of this. These issues reflect the need for a radical transformation in higher education.
Although the absolute performance of the states highlights that higher education is a nationwide issue there are two states whose performance is better than their economic peers – Goa and Himachal Pradesh. The underperforming states includes a mix of states from all peer groups.
40 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
CHAPTER 4
SOCIAL PROGRESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: DEMYSTIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP " T H E L I N K AG E S BE T W E E N E C ONOMIC GR OW T H AN D S O C IAL PRO G RE S S LACK C L AR I T Y AS T ILL DAT E , NOT MUC H FOCUS HAS B E E N L AID O N ME AS URING SOCIA L P R OG R E S S . S O C IAL PRO G RE S S INDEX A L LOW S , F O R T HE FIRST T IME , AN ANA LYSIS OF H OW S O CIAL PRO G RE S S IS C O RR ELATED W I T H ME AS U RE S O F E C O NO MIC S UCCESS, BY ME AS URING S O C IAL PROGR ESS I NDE P E NDE N T O F G D P”
The linkages between the means and ends of the development process have always been disputable. The dominant view, supported by most leaders, is that economic growth leads to the development of societies and so nations should focus on maximizing economic gains leading to higher GDP growth. However, this view is increasingly being challenged by the notion that economic growth, although necessary, is not sufficient for development. It may or may not lead to social progress. The limitation of economic growth to transform the lives of people around the world is gaining more
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 41
REPORT FINDINGS
Figure 6 /
Social Progress and Economic Development
Social Progress Index 70
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
Mizoram
60
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Uttar Pradesh
Goa Maharashtra
Delhi
Gujarat
50
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3.. Measure Names Social Progress Index
Rajasthan
Scores
Jharkhand Bihar
40
30
20
10 0 0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
140K
NSDP NSDP vs. Social Progress Index. Color shows details about Social Progress Index. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
Source: Authors and more attention. Still, sufficient evidence exists to present the positive side of the economic story as well. There are countries where economic growth has helped the government to invest more and more in advancing the living standards of its citizens. For instance, Norway, a country with high levels of per capita income, has managed to provide its citizens with better social ecosystem than other parts of the world. The question, therefore, is when economic growth helps in transforming the life of individuals and when it fails to do so. These linkages lack clarity to date, as not much focus has been laid on measuring social progress.
By measuring social progress independently of economic indicators, it provides empirical evidence of the relationship of the two and helps in understanding whether economic performance is being transformed into social progress or not.
One of the primary objectives of the Social Progress Index, States of India is to provide an understanding of the relationship between social and economic progress. The Social Progress Index allows, for the first time, an analysis of the relationship between social progress and measures of economic success.
This provides us with three key findings:
Figure 6 shows that economic performance is not the whole story and should not be the ultimate goal. While there is a relationship between economic development and social progress, the relationship is not a direct one. For any level of economic development, there are states performing better and states performing worse on social progress.
First, there is a positive and strong relationship between NSDP (Net State Domestic Product4) per capita and the Social Progress Index. For instance, Bihar with a per capita NSDP of 15,506 scores 44.89
4 The estimate of net state domestic product is arrived at by deducting the consumption of ďŹ xed capital from the gross state domestic product for each sector.
42 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
REPORT FINDINGS
on the Social Progress Index, States of India. On the other hand, Goa with NSDP per capita of 137,401 has a Social Progress Index score of 63.39. At an aggregate level, a one percent increase in NSDP per capita is associated with a 0.08-point increase in Social Progress Index score5.
empirically established by the global Social Progress Index, holds true for the Indian states as well. ● Chhattisgarh attains a higher social progress score (56.69) than Rajasthan with a NSDP per capita (28,373) lower than the latter. Rajasthan, with a per capita NSDP of 31,836, scores 52.31 on social progress. ● Manipur and Maharashtra have a difference of two points on social progress when the former belongs to the category of low-income states while Maharashtra has one of the highest per capita incomes in the country. ● Despite not achieving the highest NSDP levels, Kerala achieves the highest score on social progress, while Goa and Delhi, the richest states (measured by NSDP), perform worse.
Second, the relationship between social progress and NSDP (economic development) is not linear. At lower levels of income, a small change in NSDP leads to great advancements in social progress scores. However, as income levels rise, the rate of change slows. Third, despite the correlation between NSDP per capita and the Social Progress Index, a considerable amount of variability in social progress is observed among states with comparable levels of NSDP per capita. Hence, economic performance alone does not fully explain social progress. This fact, which was
Figure 7 /
The evidence supports the conclusion that economic measures cannot be the sole driving force of inclusive
Dimension-Level Relationship
Basic Human Needs, Foundations of wellbeing, Opportunity Tamil Nadu
80
Goa
Kerala 70
60
Manipur Uttar Pradesh
Nagaland Meghalaya
Manipur
40
Maharashtra Sikkim Delhi
Bihar
50 Scores
Telangana
Tamil Nadu
Gujarat
Goa
Sikkim
Delhi
Goa
Maharashtra
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3.. Measure Names Basic Human Needs Foundations of wellbeing Opportunity
Gujarat
West Bengal
Assam Bihar
30
20
10 0 0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
140K
NSDP NSDP vs. Basic Human Needs, Foundations of wellbeing and Opportunity. Color shows details about Basic Human Needs, Foundations of wellbeing and Opportunity. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
Source: Authors 5 The model has an R-squared value of 0.54 i.e. only 54% of the changes in social progress can be explained by the NSDP per capita.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
43
REPORT FINDINGS
growth: it is important to focus on the social aspects as well. The Social Progress Index, States of India provides the tools to assess, track, and monitor social progress in order to better understand states’ performance and identify and emulate best practices that can inform national as well as state-level policies.
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX AND INCOME: DIMENSION-LEVEL RELATIONSHIP The relationship between social progress and economic development can be further examined at the dimension level to understand better how different aspects of social progress vary with economic development (see Figure 7).
of the four components in this Dimension, Health and Wellness and Environmental quality, have either no or even a negative relationship with NSDP per capita. Opportunity also shows a significant relationship with the per capita NSDP. This is perhaps surprising, since many aspects of Opportunity, such as rights and freedoms, do not necessarily require substantial economic resources but rather sound norms and policies. It could have been the case that economic advancements have led to strong institutions which led to substantial increases in Opportunity scores.
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX AND INCOME: COMPONENT-LEVEL RELATIONSHIP
Again, a logarithmic model is established for Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing, and Opportunity. The model predicts that NSDP per capita explains 52%, 19% and 40% of the variation in Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity scores respectively.
The component level scores can be used to further data-driven insights on the relationship between economic performance and different aspects of social progress. Such analysis can be instrumental in informing public policies as well as private investments and civil society interventions.
In real terms, this means that a small improvement in NSDP per capita yields higher gains in achieving basic human needs for all.
QUICK WINS
Foundations of Wellbeing has the least correlation with NSDP per capita. The likely reason being that two
Quick Wins
Figure 8 /
Access to Information & Communication
Shelter Himachal Pradesh
80
Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra
Scores
Chhattisgarh Jharkhand Odisha Uttar Pradesh
40
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3..
Delhi 70
60
Measure Names Shelter
Tripura
West Bengal
50
80
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3..
Tamil Nadu
Karnataka
Maharashtra
Goa
Gujarat
40
30
Measure Names Access to Information & Communication
Kerala Punjab
50 Scores
Rajasthan
Manipur
Delhi
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh 60
Goa
Gujarat
Telangana
Mizoram
70
Jammu & Kashmir Andhra Pradesh
Sikkim
Rajasthan Tripura
Uttar Pradesh
Nagaland
Bihar Assam
30
Overall, we can identify components that improve significantly with each additional unit of economic development (Figure 8). For example, Shelter and
Odisha
20 Bihar
10
20
Assam
0
10
0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
140K
NSDP
0 0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
140K
NSDP NSDP vs. Shelter. Color shows details about Shelter. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
Source: Authors
44 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
NSDP vs. Access to Information & Communication. Color shows details about Access to Information & Communication. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
REPORT FINDINGS
Access to Information & Communications show drastic improvements at relatively lower levels of economic performance.
might be an array of reasons, including that such improvements take a long time to materialize, and rather than being a direct function of the wellbeing of the economy, they are also a result of coherent and sound long-term policies.
HARD PROBLEMS Access to Basic Knowledge, Personal Rights, Inclusion, and Access to Advanced Education depict the most complicated relationship with economic development. There are components that show developments with GDP per capita, but their relationship is highly variable (Figure 9). For instance, although the improvements in GDP levels can help to increase access to education, these advancements are not as easily transformed into tangible increases in the welfare of citizens. There Figure 9 /
Personal Rights
90
Goa
Manipur Odisha Assam
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Chhattisgarh 60
Rajasthan
50
40
Measure Names Personal Rights
Haryana Gujarat Delhi
Odisha
Uttar Pradesh
Tripura
Goa
Maharashtra
West Bengal
30
30
Kerala
Karnataka
Arunachal Pradesh
Gujarat
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3..
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Andhra Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
40
Mizoram
70
Scores
Uttar Pradesh
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3.. Measure Names Access to Knowledge
Haryana
Andhra Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar 50
Delhi
Maharashtra Sikkim
Punjab
60 Scores
Kerala Tamil Nadu
Tripura
70
However, we can also see that many areas of the wellbeing of societies pose much greater challenges (Figure 10). Many components show very little, or even negative relationship with economic development. These are the hardest problems to solve, and economic performance cannot be the only answer. These include Water & Sanitation, Personal Safety,
Hard Problems
Access to Knowledge
80
TOUGHEST CHALLENGES
Bihar
Assam
20
20 10
10 0
0 0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
NSDP NSDP vs. Access to Knowledge. Color shows details about Access to Knowledge. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
Access to Advanced Education 65 60 Karnataka Punjab
45
Scores
40
Manipur
Telangana
Goa
Uttarakhand
Maharashtra Sikkim
Delhi
Gujarat
35 OdishaMizoram
30
Assam
20
Nagaland
10
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
140K
Goa 60
Kerala
Karnataka 50
Measure Names Access to Advanced Education
Telangana
Measure Names Inclusion
Sikkim
Maharashtra
Odisha
40
Delhi
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3..
Punjab
Jharkhand
Jammu & Kashmir Bihar Assam
Nagaland
Haryana Gujarat
20
10
West Bengal
0 0K
Jharkhand
15
30K
70
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3..
30
Arunachal Pradesh
25
20K
NSDP
Scores
50
10K
NSDP vs. Personal Rights. Color shows details about Personal Rights. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
Inclusion
Himachal Pradesh
55
0K
140K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
140K
NSDP NSDP vs. Inclusion. Color shows details about Inclusion. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
Bihar
5 0 0K
20K
40K
60K
80K
100K
120K
140K
NSDP NSDP vs. Access to Advanced Education. Color shows details about Access to Advanced Education. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
Source: Authors
2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
45
REPORT FINDINGS
Health & Wellness, Environmental Quality, and Personal Freedom & Choice.
Institute for Competitiveness, India invites all interested researchers to use the Social Progress Index, States of India data and results to conduct research and exploration, and to build a new repository of expertise and knowledge which will help to advance social progress in India and elsewhere.
While these initial findings provide a lot of new insights, further research into each will be essential to better understand the causal links and interdependencies.
Figure 10 /
Toughest Challenges Personal Safety
Water & Sanitation Uttar Pradesh
100 90 80
Delhi
Maharashtra
Punjab
Kerala Uttarakhand
Arunachal Pradesh
80
Sikkim
Andhra Pradesh Telangana
70
Tamil Nadu Uttarakhand
Uttar Pradesh
Measure Names Water & Sanitation
Tripura
60
Jharkhand Odisha
Scores
50
50 Meghalaya
Goa
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Bihar
Sikkim
Manipur Jammu & Kashmir
60 Scores
Jharkhand
Bihar Odisha
70
Goa
Tamil Nadu
Assam
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3..
Gujarat
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3.. Measure Names Personal Safety
Haryana
Arunachal Pradesh 40
Assam
40
30
30 20
20
10
10
0 0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
0
140K
0K
NSDP
Meghalaya 60
Jammu & Kashmir
Manipur Madhya Pradesh Bihar Uttar Pradesh
80
Kerala
Uttar Pradesh
Haryana
Maharashtra
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
140K
Delhi
Haryana Uttarakhand
Jharkhand Bihar
Gujarat
Tamil Nadu
Karnataka Andhra Pradesh
50
Goa
Sikkim
Maharashtra
40
0 0K
40K
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3..
10
Delhi
30K
80K
20
0 20K
70K
30
Gujarat
Rajasthan
10K
Rajasthan
Madhya Pradesh
60
Goa
0K
60K
Kerala
Himachal Pradesh
Jharkhand
10
50K
Himachal Pradesh
70
Measure Names Environmental Quality
Telangana Karnataka Punjab Chhattisgarh
30
20
40K
90
Scores
Scores
Sikkim
West Bengal
40
30K
Personal Freedom & Choice 6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3..
Arunachal Pradesh
50
20K
NSDP vs. Personal Safety. Color shows details about Personal Safety. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
Environmental Quality
Assam
10K
NSDP
NSDP vs. Water & Sanitation. Color shows details about Water & Sanitation. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
70
Delhi
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
140K
60K
70K
80K
Health & Wellness Jammu & Kashmir Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal 60
Scores
Haryana Gujarat
Karnataka Chhattisgarh Andhra Pradesh
50
6,10,5.. 5,00,00,0.. 10,00,00,0.. 15,00,00,0.. 19,98,12,3..
Uttarakhand Tripura
Bihar
70
Delhi
Maharashtra
Tamil Nadu
Measure Names Health & Wellness
Sikkim
Goa
40 30 20 10 0 0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
100K
110K
120K
130K
140K
NSDP vs. Personal Freedom & Choice. Color shows details about Personal Freedom & Choice. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
NSDP vs. Environmental Quality. Color shows details about Environmental Quality. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
80
90K
NSDP
NSDP
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
100K
110K
120K
130K
140K
NSDP NSDP vs. Health & Wellness. Color shows details about Health & Wellness. Size shows Population (According to census 2011). The marks are labeled by States.
Source: Authors 46 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
Measure Names Personal Freedom & Choice
REPORT FINDINGS
CHAPTER 4
SOCIAL PROGRESS OVER TIME The yearly Social Progress Index, apart from ranking states on different facets of quality of life, helps to identify relative strength and weakness that facilitates benchmarking. However, it is more illuminating to measure social progress over time, as such a study helps analyse whether the developments of states on social and environmental indicators are heading in the right direction or not. It is also essential for adjusting policies, as well as public and private investments.
the 2016 framework to calculate the scores for 2005 and 2016 by applying Principal Component Analysis. We then calculate the scores for 2006-2015, by using the weights derived from the Principal Component Analysis.
In this chapter, we present the results of our evaluation of social progress overtime i.e. 2005-2016. The lack of data availability across the eleven-year period does not allow for calculation of the Social Progress Index for each year as the statistical properties do not meet the necessary quality standards. We thus utilize
OVERALL SOCIAL PROGRESS IS ADVANCING
This analysis is a critical step in examining the impact of different policies and investments.
We find that social progress at the country level is improving (Figure 11). In 2016, the average social progress score is 57.03, registering an increase of approximately 8 points. Average performance is better on components of Basic Human Needs and 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 47
REPORT FINDINGS
worse on components of Opportunity (Figure 15, 16 and 17), reflecting that creating a society with equal opportunity for all still remains an elusive goal for most of the states. At the state level, (Figure 12), all the states have improved since 2005, which is encouraging. The group of states that have registered the highest improvement are the Very Low Social Progress states in 2005 (which includes Tripura, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Jharkhand and Bihar). On an average, each state has enhanced social progress by 9.6 point over a 10-year period. Among the advanced (in terms of social progress) states, the average improvement is 7. 5 points, though Delhi has improved by just 3.5 points. The issues of safety of women and child labour, which have been highlighted in the last few years, need to be tackled by the capital region to improve the wellbeing of its citizens.
Figure 11 /
VARYING TRENDS BY COMPONENT Assessment over time shows that all three dimensions of social progress have improved since 2005, however some more than others. Opportunity (Figure 15) registered the highest increase in scores, followed by smaller, but nonetheless important improvements in Basic Human Needs (Figure 13), and Foundations of Wellbeing (Figure 14). However, Opportunity still lags behind Basic Human Needs and Foundations of Wellbeing in 2016, where Basic Human Needs was the best scoring dimension, followed by Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity. While the Social Progress Index can show trends and patters of improvements, or deterioration, further research is essential to understand the underlying causes. Examining progress over time on the component level, three patterns stand out:
Social Progress Index Over Time
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2004
2006
2008
2010
Source: Authors
48 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
2012
2014
2016
2018
REPORT FINDINGS
● Significant improvement Seven components across the framework have registered high improvement in scores, ranging between 12 to 22 points. These components include Personal Freedom & Choice, Inclusion, Access to Advanced Education, Nutrition & Basic Medical Care, Access to Basic Knowledge, Access to Information & Communication and Shelter. It is evident from the list, that components are not representative of only one area of social progress, and that improvements have been registered across the spectrum of people’s lives. ● Lagging behind Several components registered decline in scores. While the decline is not as remarkable as the increase Figure 12 /
of scores in previous cases, it is still significant as it poses threats to advancing social progress and leaving no one behind. These components include Personal Safety, Health & Wellness, Environmental Quality and Personal Rights. Personal Safety declined by 5.4 points and Environmental Quality declined by 3.3 points. Health & Wellness and Personal Rights show marginal decline of 1.5 and 1.9 respectively. ● Stagnation Third, Water & Sanitation is the only component that has registered a marginal increase of 1.5 point during the eleven-year period. While the component score is high compared to other areas of social progress, there is still room for improvement, especially in rural areas.
State Scores Over Time
Source: Authors
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 49
REPORT FINDINGS
Figure 13 /
Trend - Basic Human Needs
BASIC HUMAN NEEDS 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2010
2018
2016
2015
2014
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
PERSONAL SAFETY
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
SHELTER
2011
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
20
2010
40
2009
60
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2008
80
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2016
WATER & SANITATION
100
0
2014
2007
NUTRITION & BASIC MEDICAL CARE
2012
2006
2008
2005
2006
Source: Authors 50 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0 2004
REPORT FINDINGS
Figure 14 /
Trend - Foundations of Wellbeing
FOUNDATIONS OF WELLBEING 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2010
2012
2014
ACCESS TO BASIC KNOWLEDGE
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2009
2010
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2005
2016
2015
2014
0 2013
20
0 2012
40
20 2011
60
40
2010
80
60
2009
100
80
2008
100
2006
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACCESS TO INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION
2007
2008
2006
2005
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
0
2011
0
2010
20 2009
40
20 2008
60
40
2007
80
60
2006
80
2005
100
2006
2018
HEALTH & WELLNESS
100
2005
2016
2008
2008
2007
2006
2007
0 2004
Source: Authors
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
51
REPORT FINDINGS
Figure 15 /
Trend - Opportunity
OPPORTUNITY 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2010
2012
INCLUSION
2018
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
0
2010
20
0
2009
40
20 2008
60
40
2007
80
60
2006
100
80
2005
100
PERSONAL RIGHTS
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
Source: Authors 52 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
0
2005
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
20 2005
0
2016
ACCESS TO ADVANCED EDUCATION
2008
PERSONAL FREEDOM & CHOICE
2014
2007
2008
2006
2006
2005
0 2004
REPORT FINDINGS
THE DUAL HEALTH CRISES
Figure 17 /
The analysis of basic medical care and health outcomes reveal that the two nutritional extremes, obesity and undernourishment, persist in India simultaneously. The scores for Nutrition & Basic Medical Care, which analyses undernourishment, have improved drastically over the last few years. On the other hand, the average scores for Health & Wellness, which aims to capture lifestyle issues, reveal a negative trend. This decline is attributed to the growing problem of obesity in the country. (Figure 17). The likely cause of obesity is the sedentary lifestyle accompanied by rapid urbanisation. At the state level, as expected, obesity is prominent among high and very high-income states and most low-income states have undernourished children. This is illustrated in Figure 16, which plots underweight children against average obesity. With the exception of Manipur, all low-income states have low obesity and high underweight populations.
Change in Obesity rate 2005-2015
Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand Karnatak a Kerala Madhy a Pradesh Maharashtra Man ipur Meghal aya Mizoram Nagaland Odisha Pun jab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Ben gal
Various government programs have focused on improving the plight of undernourished children and 20 mortality levels in the country. These initiatives have helped the country in making impressive gains over the past few years, but there is still a lot of room for improvement for some states like Bihar and Source: Authors Jharkhand, among others. Figure 16 /
Male Obesity Female Obesity
10
0
10
20
30
Underweight & Obesity
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 53
REPORT FINDINGS
ANDHRA PRADESH
16/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
84580777
GDP per capita
81397
Growth Rate
7.16
Geographical Area
1,62,968
Income group
High Income
Unemployment 39 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Andhra Pradesh Score Basic Human Needs
67.96
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
48.6
Children under 5 years who a.. 46.83 Children under 5 years with a.. 24.87 Infant Mortality Rate
46.05
Maternal Mortality Rate
87.17
Water and Sanitation
74...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
84.52 60.42 53.25 60 86.23
Shelter
76.83
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
91.3 97.85 87.56 59.46
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
72... 83.12 79.21 42.02 77.5
Social Progress Index
56.13
Foundations of Wellbeing
50.35
Opportunity
61.59
Personal Rights
66.55
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
89.13 77.45 45.6
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
50.07
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
86.91 86.49 58.81 29.79 55.05
Access to Information and Communications
40.47
Internet News Phone TV
18.52 9.61 86.08 54.68
Health and Wellness
55.73
Inclusion
42.53
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
70.05 83.06 47.2 5.61 4.26 89.77 76.28
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
69.8 23.62 63.61 20.72 70.82 16.47
Environmental Quality
43.61
Access to Advanced Education
38.14
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
5.38 79.2 30 55
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
42.24 53.26 45.85 16.33
53.08
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
78.83 3.9 49.85 86.87
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Mizoram, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Tripura, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, Nagaland, Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secondary) Corruption Improved source of water Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary) Literacy Rate Anaemia Road Accidents Rural Sanitation Coverage IMR Obesity Male Obesity Female Early Marriages Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Internet Subscribers Child labour
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
54 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
ANDHRA PRADESH Andhra Pradesh 2016 Andhra Pradesh 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
55
REPORT FINDINGS
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
17/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
1383727
GDP per capita
85468
Growth Rate
8.91
Geographical Area
83,743
Income group
High Income
Unemployment 89 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Arunachal Pradesh Score Basic Human Needs
57.41
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
56...
Children under 5 years who a.. 67.5 Children under 5 years with a.. 35 Infant Mortality Rate
56.58
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
71.6
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
91.04 24.47 78.6 60 79.63
Shelter
55.46
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
61.76 96.9 76.62 35.44
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
45... 51.48 56.44 44.4 33.5
Social Progress Index
55.24
Foundations of Wellbeing
61.58
Opportunity
70.27
Personal Rights
50.91
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
95.65 37.24 41.5
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
46.72
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
37.61 94.59 82.56 53.19 79.67
Access to Information and Communications
29.23
Internet News Phone TV
16.78 3.76 65.89 35.2
Health and Wellness
73.11
Inclusion
44.19
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
86.8 91.11 41.74 53.14 46.56 95.36 97.56
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
86.14 16.3 53.13 3.74 95.51 57.41
Environmental Quality
73.7
Access to Advanced Education
26.9
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
6.82 97.33 80 99.92
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
21.58 44.53 38.41 7.67
64.88
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
86.66 59.74 63.96 39.66
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: West Bengal, Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir, Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, ..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Literacy Rate Phone Subscribers Electricity HH in pucca houses Road Accidents Judiciary Television Violent Crimes Rural Habitations Internet Subscribers Early Marriages Family Planning Obesity Male Life Expectancy at 60 Drop out Rates Insurance Crime against women Murder Crimes
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
56 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
ARUNACHAL PRADESH Arunachal Pradesh 2016 Arunachal Pradesh 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 57
REPORT FINDINGS
ASSAM
27/29
Basic Profile Population
31205576
GDP per capita
44263
Growth Rate
7.5
Geographical Area
78,438
Income group
Low Income
Unemployment 61 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Assam Score Basic Human Needs
52.22
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
47...
Children under 5 years who a.. 50.33 Children under 5 years with a.. 54.23 Infant Mortality Rate
27.63
Maternal Mortality Rate
60.04
Water and Sanitation
84...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
98.16 53.38 72.26 60 99.15
Shelter
34.4
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
29.88 98.72 66.92 9.8
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
42... 53.59 58.42 40 21.5
Social Progress Index
48.53
Foundations of Wellbeing
54.7
Opportunity
71.51
Personal Rights
28.64
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
0 60.51 13.6
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
38.65
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
74.32 75.68 62.31 68.09 79.67
Access to Information and Communications
17.84
Internet News Phone TV
9.57 3.02 42.35 20.24
Health and Wellness
73.52
Inclusion
31.75
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
91.88 90.28 12.93 71.62 71.8 99.26 95.79
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
81.19 8.83 41.04 9.84 58.22 33.79
Environmental Quality
55.91
Access to Advanced Education
23.52
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.22 86.75 40 86
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
19.44 59.21 20.87 1.5
70.71
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
88.53 76.62 50 60.34
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Manipur, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Arunach..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Improved source of water Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secon.. Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Rural Habitations Phone Subscribers IMR Road Accidents Violent Crimes Electricity HH in pucca houses Early Marriages Insurance Underweight Television Internet Subscribers MMR Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe.. Life Expectancy at 60 Property Rights Crime against women Drop out Rates Human Traficking Murder Crimes
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
58 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
ASSAM Assam 2016 Assam 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 59
REPORT FINDINGS
BIHAR
29/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
104099452
GDP per capita
31199
Growth Rate
9.12
Geographical Area
94,163
Income group
Low Income
Unemployment 60 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Bihar Score Basic Human Needs
52.73
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
34...
Children under 5 years who a.. 26.83 Children under 5 years with a.. 18.59 Infant Mortality Rate
43.42
Maternal Mortality Rate
57.62
Water and Sanitation
81...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
94.83 50 96.92 40 83.62
Shelter
34.62
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
6.8 98.37 90.05 14.23
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
60... 91.14 69.31 41.43 42.17
Social Progress Index
44.89
Foundations of Wellbeing
47.24
Opportunity
55.35
Personal Rights
32.56
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
91.3 21.21 14.2
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
34.71
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
37.12 64.86 63.62 27.66 89.94
Access to Information and Communications
16.15
Internet News Phone TV
6.37 2.76 59.52 5.94
Health and Wellness
72.17
Inclusion
32.96
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
83.25 66.67 29.13 76.57 72.79 94.87 99.77
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
67.82 7.07 20.52 2.46 73.07 100
Environmental Quality
45.3
Access to Advanced Education
11.92
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
27.85 89.3 10 56
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
1.09 19.77 13.43 13.46
61.4
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
87.36 66.23 40.03 40.78
Key
Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Arunachal Prad..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secon.. Phone Subscribers Anaemia Rural Habitations Road Accidents Underweight IMR Early Marriages HH in pucca houses Violent Crimes Judiciary Female Graduates MMR Family Planning Rural Sanitation Coverage Internet Subscribers Life Expectancy at 60 Electricity Drop out Rates Television Property Rights Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe.. Insurance Murder Crimes
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
60 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
BIHAR Bihar 2016 Bihar 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 61
REPORT FINDINGS
CHHATTISGARH
12/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
25545198
GDP per capita
58547
Growth Rate
4.99
Geographical Area
1,35,191
Income group
Middle Income
Unemployment 19 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Chhattisgarh Score Basic Human Needs
63.19
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
44...
Children under 5 years who a.. 37.17 Children under 5 years with a.. 46.67 Infant Mortality Rate
38.16
Maternal Mortality Rate
60.78
Water and Sanitation
90...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
95.67 93.37 84.76 40 92.07
Shelter
58.74
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
72.46 98.04 88.31 28.32
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
59... 48.52 64.36 73.21 53.83
Social Progress Index
56.69
Foundations of Wellbeing
51.96
Opportunity
78.98
Personal Rights
63.94
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
93.48 74.17 40.2
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
54.93
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
82.96 94.59 86.43 48.94 89.29
Access to Information and Communications
30.57
Internet News Phone TV
17.27 8.98 81.96 24.42
Health and Wellness
58.87
Inclusion
48.03
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
74.11 40.83 0 75.91 80.66 94.98 82.27
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
84.65 13.65 47.41 44.06 67.2 100
Environmental Quality
39.41
Access to Advanced Education
28.81
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
6.94 76.28 10 65
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
37.72 54.63 16.29 12.23
78.94
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
90.82 83.12 67.33 68.99
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Odisha, Rajasthan, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Meghala..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers
Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC)
Literacy Rate
IMR
HH in pucca houses
Underweight
Television
Internet Subscribers
Rural Sanitation Coverage
MMR
Life Expectancy at 60 Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Crime against women
Murder Crimes
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
62 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
CHHATTISGARH Chhattisgarh 2016 Chhattisgarh 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 63
REPORT FINDINGS
DELHI
9/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
16787941
GDP per capita
219979
Growth Rate
7.84
Geographical Area
1,490
Income group
Very High
Unemployment (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Delhi Score Basic Human Needs
62.92
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
51...
Children under 5 years who a.. 55 Children under 5 years with a.. 19.74 Infant Mortality Rate
67.11
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
90...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
93.37 98.3 75.51 100 90.65
Shelter
77.86
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
99 95.83 96.77 54.09
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
32... 0 73.27 64.4 0
Social Progress Index
60.17
Foundations of Wellbeing
60.25
Opportunity
85.22
Personal Rights
47.38
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
91.3 56.62 17.5
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
57.34
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
80.78 81.08 100 76.6 88.95
Access to Information and Communications
76.82
Internet News Phone TV
100 0.77 100 86.8
Health and Wellness
69.68
Inclusion
60.92
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
79.7 79.72 83.2 0 33.44 92.75 95.77
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
36.14 41.14 61.56 81.12 73.24 83.31
Environmental Quality
9.28
Access to Advanced Education
41.96
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
14.43 12.15 10 0
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
13.97 82.41 71.41 8.26
79.1
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
93.26 79.22 80.06 55.87
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Goa, Sikkim, Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Violent Crimes
Improved source of water
Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC)
Anaemia
Land Degradation
Obesity Female
Obesity Male
Crime against women
Property Rights
Family Planning
Murder Crimes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
64 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
DELHI Delhi 2016 Delhi 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 65
REPORT FINDINGS
GOA
5/29
Basic Profile Population
1458545
GDP per capita
224138
Growth Rate
7.71
Geographical Area
3,702
Income group
Very High
Unemployment 96 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Goa Score Basic Human Needs
76.61
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
62.8
Children under 5 years who a.. 60.33 Children under 5 years with a.. 38.08 Infant Mortality Rate
86.84
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
95...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
89.23 99.32 93.66 100 97.55
Shelter
81.45
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
96.54 94.12 94.03 67.92
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
67.1 60.34 84.16 57.02 63.67
Social Progress Index
63.39
Foundations of Wellbeing
55.42
Opportunity
91.19
Personal Rights
41.15
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
67.39 50.53 19.8
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
58.15
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
96.01 97.3 100 72.34 95.11
Access to Information and Communications
45.36
Internet News Phone TV
17.27 5.49 81.96 79.21
Health and Wellness
58.01
Inclusion
68.19
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
87.31 93.06 41.74 4.62 7.21 83.35 73.51
Child Sex Ratio Family Planning Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
71.29 51.12 100 81.43 18.98 73.24 10.75
Environmental Quality
27.1
Access to Advanced Education
54.9
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.24 24.43 10 72
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
71.18 98.61 41.66 18.98
68.35
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
74.14 59.74 84.97 51.12
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Delhi, Sikkim, Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Insurance Judiciary Land Degradation Respiratory Infections Obesity Female Obesity Male Internet Subscribers Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Property Rights Life Expectancy at 60 Family Planning Crime against women Child labour Human Traficking
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
66 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
GOA Goa 2016 Goa 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 67
REPORT FINDINGS
GUJARAT
13/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
60439692
GDP per capita
106831
Growth Rate
8.76
Geographical Area
1,96,024
Income group
Very High
Unemployment 9 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Gujarat Score Basic Human Needs
73.29
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
43...
Children under 5 years who a.. 34.5 Children under 5 years with a.. 19.74 Infant Mortality Rate
50
Maternal Mortality Rate
82.34
Water and Sanitation
92...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
91.82 99.89 84.42 60 96.95
Shelter
77.09
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
89.3 97.66 98.01 56.11
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
79... 92.83 82.18 63.69 78.5
Social Progress Index
56.65
Foundations of Wellbeing
49.43
Opportunity
61.64
Personal Rights
52.61
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
98.02 64.06 20
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
47.21
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
96.95 43.24 56.49 51.06 73.01
Access to Information and Communications
44.16
Internet News Phone TV
24.9 11.75 100 49.17
Health and Wellness
67.44
Inclusion
32.64
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
74.62 73.33 55.52 36.96 49.51 92.59 87.6
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
45.54 20.96 44.49 10.15 64.43 14.22
Environmental Quality
24.48
Access to Advanced Education
39.93
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.98 24.2 30 33
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
52.5 70.34 27.16 16.98
63.66
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
83.07 51.95 61.81 52.51
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Punjab, Tripura, Karnataka
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary) Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Literacy Rate Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secondary) Anaemia Land Degradation Rural Sanitation Coverage Underweight IMR Corruption Insurance Early Marriages Obesity Female Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Property Rights Family Planning Child labour
0
10
20
30
40
50
Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
68 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
GUJARAT Gujarat 2016 Gujarat 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 69
REPORT FINDINGS
HARYANA
14/29
Basic Profile Population
25351462
GDP per capita
133427
Growth Rate
6.97
Geographical Area
44,212
Income group
Very High
Unemployment 47 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Haryana Score Basic Human Needs
64.22
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
43...
Children under 5 years who a.. 51 Children under 5 years with a.. 8.08 Infant Mortality Rate
44.74
Maternal Mortality Rate
78.44
Water and Sanitation
90...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
92.35 92.46 85.79 80 92.61
Shelter
69.97
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
89.41 97.63 100 37.85
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
53... 63.71 63.37 51.31 37.5
Social Progress Index
57.37
Foundations of Wellbeing
53.25
Opportunity
63.81
Personal Rights
54.31
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
78.26 61.02 36.5
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
54.64
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
94.69 43.24 73.46 53.19 64.18
Access to Information and Communications
43.61
Internet News Phone TV
19.02 6.21 90.18 64.69
Health and Wellness
75.11
Inclusion
37.99
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
91.37 92.78 59.44 45.87 48.52 84.11 94.25
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
17.82 33.59 41.25 19.16 73.24 31.82
Environmental Quality
30.47
Access to Advanced Education
47.22
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
2.91 88.88 20 0
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
65.95 72.97 42.04 16.23
79.04
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
91.61 75.32 71.63 74.02
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Nagaland, Punjab, Tripura
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secondary) Literacy Rate Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary) Anaemia Insurance HH in pucca houses IMR Road Accidents Violent Crimes Internet Subscribers Underweight Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Crime against women Murder Crimes Human Traficking
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
70 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
HARYANA Haryana 2016 Haryana 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 71
REPORT FINDINGS
HIMACHAL PRADESH
2/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
6864602
GDP per capita
92300
Growth Rate
6.24
Geographical Area
55,673
Income group
High
Unemployment 106 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Himachal Pradesh Score Basic Human Needs
68.07
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
53...
Children under 5 years who a.. 64.67 Children under 5 years with a.. 31.15 Infant Mortality Rate
52.63
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
64...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
50 71.97 91.27 80 55.61
Shelter
83.17
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
96.43 99.17 100 62.95
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
70... 70.04 85.15 53.45 70.5
Social Progress Index
65.39
Foundations of Wellbeing
62.72
Opportunity
79.79
Personal Rights
56.24
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
97.2 54.18 38.1
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
65.37
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
98.15 72.97 100 61.7 72.42
Access to Information and Communications
52.6
Internet News Phone TV
35.71 4.34 100 71.84
Health and Wellness
70.54
Inclusion
56.03
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
97.97 94.17 79.91 20.79 41.97 21.06 94.94
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
54.95 42.82 66.31 2.92 90.5 100
Environmental Quality
47.95
Access to Advanced Education
64.81
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.33 37.65 100 29
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
76.06 80.73 46.81 58.71
84.42
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
90.12 96.1 86.81 56.15
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Kerala, Nagaland, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Tripura, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Respiratory Infections
Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary)
Judiciary
Anaemia
Land Degradation
IMR
Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education)
Obesity Female
Obesity Male
Family Planning
Insurance
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
72 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
140
160
180
200
220
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
HIMACHAL PRADESH Himachal Pradesh 2016 Himachal Pradesh 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 73
REPORT FINDINGS
JAMMU & KASHMIR
18/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
12541302
GDP per capita
58593
Growth Rate
5.63
Geographical Area
2,22,236
Income group
Middle
Unemployment 72 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Jammu & Kashmir Score Basic Human Needs
61.19
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
58...
Children under 5 years who a.. 72.33 Children under 5 years with a.. 44.49 Infant Mortality Rate
48.68
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
65...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
59.78 45.87 81.51 60 71.34
Shelter
57.8
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
83.39 98.52 50.25 38.39
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
63... 78.9 89.11 24.4 53.33
Social Progress Index
55.41
Foundations of Wellbeing
56.17
Opportunity
53.18
Personal Rights
55.79
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
99.82 52.03 37.7
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
48.86
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
74.07 56.76 44.18 42.55 55.05
Access to Information and Communications
34.69
Internet News Phone TV
17.92 9.67 70.19 46.09
Health and Wellness
80.92
Inclusion
32.36
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
96.45 95.28 100 19.14 46.89 78.66 99.31
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
31.68 24 57.13 1.87 7.11 83.31
Environmental Quality
55.88
Access to Advanced Education
34.85
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.23 48.01 80 79
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
38.83 64.85 38.41 5.19
72.46
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
92.68 42.86 86.66 65.64
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Meghalaya, Odisha, Manipur, Assam
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers Literacy Rate Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary) Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secon.. Road Accidents Respiratory Infections Judiciary Rural Habitations HH in pucca houses Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Rural Sanitation Coverage Corruption IMR Land Degradation Obesity Female Internet Subscribers Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe.. Obesity Male MMR Insurance Drop out Rates
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
74 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
JAMMU & KASHMIR Jammu & Kashmir 2016 Jammu & Kashmir 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 75
REPORT FINDINGS
JHARKHAND
28/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
32988134
GDP per capita
46131
Growth Rate
8.91
Geographical Area
79,714
Income group
Low
Unemployment 77 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Jharkhand Score Basic Human Needs
56.1
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
32...
Children under 5 years who a.. 20.33 Children under 5 years with a.. 10.38 Infant Mortality Rate
50
Maternal Mortality Rate
57.62
Water and Sanitation
86...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
97.64 92.78 61.99 20 93.5
Shelter
48.71
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
39.58 97.27 95.27 24.03
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
57... 72.57 54.46 43.81 57.5
Social Progress Index
47.8
Foundations of Wellbeing
46.98
Opportunity
62.4
Personal Rights
37.9
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
89.13 26.46 23.3
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
40.33
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
70.33 70.27 55.68 34.04 93.57
Access to Information and Communications
28.79
Internet News Phone TV
17.27 7.04 81.96 19.47
Health and Wellness
75.67
Inclusion
40.84
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
90.36 81.67 21.68 81.19 77.7 97.59 99.21
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
74.26 12.65 40.71 3.43 78.42 100
Environmental Quality
21.08
Access to Advanced Education
17.47
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
14.07 0 10 68
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
3.98 43.75 14.38 10.9
65.11
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
91.05 68.83 41.72 48.6
Key
Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Odisha, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Meghalaya
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers Improved source of water Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secon.. Anaemia Literacy Rate Land Degradation Underweight Road Accidents Electricity HH in pucca houses Early Marriages IMR Judiciary Internet Subscribers Television Property Rights MMR Family Planning Life Expectancy at 60 Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe.. Rural Sanitation Coverage Insurance Drop out Rates Murder Crimes
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
76 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
JHARKHAND Jharkhand 2016 Jharkhand 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 77
REPORT FINDINGS
KARNATAKA
10/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
61095297
GDP per capita
84709
Growth Rate
7.15
Geographical Area
1,91,791
Income group
High
Unemployment 15 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Karnataka Score Basic Human Needs
65.64
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
48.6
Children under 5 years who a.. 41.33 Children under 5 years with a.. 21.92 Infant Mortality Rate
57.89
Maternal Mortality Rate
84.94
Water and Sanitation
75.5
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
86.86 27.31 81.68 60 90.77
Shelter
71.06
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
89.52 97.61 88.81 46.44
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
67... 91.98 75.25 49.52 54
Social Progress Index
59.72
Foundations of Wellbeing
55.98
Opportunity
75.25
Personal Rights
58.8
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
83.29 67.53 38.9
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
57.54
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
87.78 86.49 71.78 48.94 91.02
Access to Information and Communications
45.37
Internet News Phone TV
27.35 4.04 100 56
Health and Wellness
63.22
Inclusion
59.08
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
73.1 87.78 39.15 38.28 41.64 86.76 75.13
Child Sex Ratio Family Planning Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
74.26 70.95 28.96 56.16 95.55 70.48 67.8
Environmental Quality
40.08
Access to Advanced Education
59.05
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
6.7 47.46 60 36
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
92.07 64.3 38.6 45.37
53.22
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
81.58 0 64.42 70.95
Key
Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Tripura, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secondary) Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Corruption Literacy Rate Anaemia Rural Sanitation Coverage Road Accidents Rural Habitations Land Degradation Underweight Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Obesity Female Early Marriages Obesity Male Life Expectancy at 60 Child labour
0
10
20
30
40
50
Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
78 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
KARNATAKA Karnataka 2016 Karnataka 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 79
REPORT FINDINGS
KERALA
1/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
33406061
GDP per capita
103820
Growth Rate
6.27
Geographical Area
38,863
Income group
High
Unemployment 125 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Kerala Score Basic Human Needs
73.78
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
74...
Children under 5 years who a.. 73.17 Children under 5 years with a.. 54.36 Infant Mortality Rate
84.21
Maternal Mortality Rate
93.87
Water and Sanitation
79...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
88.21 14.8 90.24 100 99.58
Shelter
75.83
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
93.76 97.69 89.05 54.77
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
64... 70.89 91.09 55.83 44
Social Progress Index
68.09
Foundations of Wellbeing
65.42
Opportunity
87.32
Personal Rights
60.7
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
90.46 82.29 26.5
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
65.08
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
99.67 75.68 100 87.23 75.16
Access to Information and Communications
54.7
Internet News Phone TV
35.01 12.44 100 74.48
Health and Wellness
62.97
Inclusion
58.76
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
98.48 93.33 80.49 8.25 20.66 34.22 66.32
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
82.18 36.15 68.25 35.31 72.55 100
Environmental Quality
56.68
Access to Advanced Education
53.37
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
18.61 85.84 60 53
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
52 100 40.32 29.6
87.47
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
96.72 94.81 88.34 61.73
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Nagaland, Punjab, Maharashtra, Tripura, Karnataka
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary)
Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC)
Obesity Female
Obesity Male
Rural Habitations
Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education)
Property Rights
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
80 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
KERALA Kerala 2016 Kerala 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 81
REPORT FINDINGS
MADHYA PRADESH
19/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
72626809
GDP per capita
51798
Growth Rate
9.48
Geographical Area
3,08,245
Income group
Low
Unemployment 43 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Madhya Pradesh Score Basic Human Needs
59.14
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
29...
Children under 5 years who a.. 28.67 Children under 5 years with a.. 11.67 Infant Mortality Rate
26.32
Maternal Mortality Rate
60.78
Water and Sanitation
85...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
89.64 99.69 73.8 20 86.65
Shelter
61.59
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
63.32 97.84 99 35.97
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
60... 49.79 70.3 70.71 52.17
Social Progress Index
55.03
Foundations of Wellbeing
53.98
Opportunity
66.84
Personal Rights
56
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
97.88 66.93 25.6
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
51.98
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
74.86 51.35 100 40.43 76.28
Access to Information and Communications
33.25
Internet News Phone TV
17.06 15.32 88.21 25.3
Health and Wellness
70.91
Inclusion
41.57
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
92.89 79.17 15.85 70.3 78.36 92.51 87.79
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
59.41 12.29 32.29 21.63 85.5 100
Environmental Quality
44.94
Access to Advanced Education
40.03
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
6.51 82.11 40 43
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
69.54 57.86 26.21 13.75
70.33
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
86.21 70.13 53.99 66.2
Key
Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Jharkhand, Manipur, Assam, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary) Improved source of water Literacy Rate Anaemia Electricity IMR HH in pucca houses Underweight Television Early Marriages Violent Crimes Internet Subscribers Property Rights MMR Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe.. Rural Sanitation Coverage Life Expectancy at 60 Crime against women Murder Crimes
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
82 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
MADHYA PRADESH Madhya Pradesh 2016 Madhya Pradesh 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 83
REPORT FINDINGS
MAHARASHTRA
11/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
112374333
GDP per capita
114392
Growth Rate
7.28
Geographical Area
3,07,713
Income group
Very High
Unemployment 21 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Maharashtra Score Basic Human Needs
70.74
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
54...
Children under 5 years who a.. 40 Children under 5 years with a.. 31.03 Infant Mortality Rate
67.11
Maternal Mortality Rate
90.33
Water and Sanitation
90...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
94.37 85.46 85.45 60 94.61
Shelter
72.67
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
82.05 97.53 95.77 51.81
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
66... 69.2 79.21 74.64 47.83
Social Progress Index
57.88
Foundations of Wellbeing
54.32
Opportunity
74.3
Personal Rights
41.42
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
91.3 54.55 5.1
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
48.58
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
96.01 59.46 83.1 63.83 76.91
Access to Information and Communications
46.61
Internet News Phone TV
30.95 9.52 100 52.48
Health and Wellness
66.1
Inclusion
46.36
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
79.7 69.72 58.7 37.95 36.07 96.44 82.43
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
47.52 17.56 40.93 45.57 74.79 99.66
Environmental Quality
30.29
Access to Advanced Education
46.9
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.15 34.87 30 47
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
71.66 69.68 41.46 13.46
59.64
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
80.4 25.97 61.5 72.91
Key
Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Haryana, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Punjab, Tripura
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary) Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Judiciary Corruption Anaemia Land Degradation Rural Sanitation Coverage Underweight Violent Crimes Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Early Marriages Obesity Male Obesity Female Property Rights Child labour
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
84 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
MAHARASHTRA Maharashtra 2016 Maharashtra 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 85
REPORT FINDINGS
MANIPUR
20/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
2855794
GDP per capita
41573
Growth Rate
6.21
Geographical Area
22,327
Income group
Low
Unemployment 57 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Manipur Score Basic Human Needs
65.88
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
76...
Children under 5 years who a.. 77 Children under 5 years with a.. 69.36 Infant Mortality Rate
86.84
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
64...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
89.73 70.9 0 60 76.74
Shelter
60.83
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
64.77 96 93.28 38.39
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
62... 84.81 69.31 43.33 51.5
Social Progress Index
55.5
Foundations of Wellbeing
57.89
Opportunity
76.14
Personal Rights
32.99
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
100 17.56 14.3
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
42.73
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
59.42 78.38 88.35 72.34 79.67
Access to Information and Communications
31.03
Internet News Phone TV
16.78 2.94 65.89 42.13
Health and Wellness
69.93
Inclusion
32.49
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
69.54 97.78 41.74 29.37 49.18 95.8 100
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
68.32 4.73 29.59 2.37 64.61 92.53
Environmental Quality
54.45
Access to Advanced Education
42.1
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
5.39 60.92 50 98.98
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
41.28 69.51 62.25 4.09
63.36
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
84.18 59.74 79.91 15.92
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Assam, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Bihar, Arunachal Pr..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Phone Subscribers Electricity HH in pucca houses Rural Sanitation Coverage Road Accidents Television Improved source of water Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Family Planning Judiciary Violent Crimes Internet Subscribers Obesity Female Property Rights Drop out Rates Insurance Murder Crimes Child labour
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
86 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
MANIPUR Manipur 2016 Manipur 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 87
REPORT FINDINGS
MEGHALAYA
21/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
2966889
GDP per capita
61548
Growth Rate
9.76
Geographical Area
22,429
Income group
Middle
Unemployment 48 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Meghalaya Score Basic Human Needs
52.62
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
48...
Children under 5 years who a.. 51.67 Children under 5 years with a.. 38.46 Infant Mortality Rate
35.53
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
48...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
39.38 0 45.03 60 81.06
Shelter
57.4
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
56.41 98.56 98.01 30.34
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
56... 71.31 46.53 58.21 54
Social Progress Index
53.51
Foundations of Wellbeing
61.82
Opportunity
77.2
Personal Rights
37.53
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
84.78 47.59 5.3
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
46.1
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
58.27 59.46 78.59 91.49 95.37
Access to Information and Communications
26.8
Internet News Phone TV
16.78 3.07 65.89 27.06
Health and Wellness
77.32
Inclusion
44.51
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
86.8 97.5 41.74 74.92 80.98 58.62 97.4
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
85.15 16.15 50.76 2.18 87.05 83.31
Environmental Quality
65.96
Access to Advanced Education
36.63
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.48 68.02 80 99.92
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
28.18 96.41 28.88 3.91
65.73
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
80.21 59.74 74.69 40.78
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Trip..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secondary) Phone Subscribers Improved source of water Electricity Judiciary IMR HH in pucca houses Television Underweight Internet Subscribers Family Planning Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Life Expectancy at 60 Rural Habitations Drop out Rates Insurance Murder Crimes Property Rights Child labour
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
88 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
MEGHALAYA Meghalaya 2016 Meghalaya 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 89
REPORT FINDINGS
MIZORAM
6/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
1097206
GDP per capita
76120
Growth Rate
7.78
Geographical Area
21,081
Income group
Middle
Unemployment 30 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Mizoram Score Basic Human Needs
71.02
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
71...
Children under 5 years who a.. 80.17 Children under 5 years with a.. 77.31 Infant Mortality Rate
53.95
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
79.2
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
87.32 52.05 85.45 80 84.3
Shelter
71.42
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
82.39 97.4 94.53 49.4
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
62... 52.32 66.34 51.43 72
Social Progress Index
62.89
Foundations of Wellbeing
61.32
Opportunity
78.29
Personal Rights
71.46
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
100 98.5 32.9
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
56.34
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
0.78 86.49 100 93.62 92.65
Access to Information and Communications
33.87
Internet News Phone TV
16.78 5.26 65.89 50.61
Health and Wellness
69.02
Inclusion
49.35
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
65.48 95.56 41.74 45.54 45.25 90.59 95.16
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
85.15 25.33 54 1.2 97.58 83.31
Environmental Quality
64.09
Access to Advanced Education
33.04
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
6.2 87.11 60 96.48
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
34.87 70.64 34.41 1.16
71.52
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
90.36 59.74 83.44 44.41
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Andhra Pradesh, Meghalaya, West Bengal, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Punjab, Nagaland, Rajasthan, Jammu & Ka..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers
Rural Habitations
Road Accidents
IMR
Internet Subscribers
Drop out Rates
Obesity Male
Family Planning
Life Expectancy at 60
Crime against women
Insurance
Murder Crimes
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
90 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
MIZORAM Mizoram 2016 Mizoram 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 91
REPORT FINDINGS
NAGALAND
15/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
1978502
GDP per capita
77529
Growth Rate
6.52
Geographical Area
16,579
Income group
High
Unemployment 85 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Nagaland Score Basic Human Needs
66.57
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
73...
Children under 5 years who a.. 72 Children under 5 years with a.. 72.31 Infant Mortality Rate
76.32
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
65...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
89.22 29.61 66.78 80 64.67
Shelter
55.33
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
79.49 84.84 78.61 36.11
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
72... 86.92 78.22 37.86 78.83
Social Progress Index
56.76
Foundations of Wellbeing
55.61
Opportunity
75.45
Personal Rights
61.11
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
93.48 90.2 18.8
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
48.12
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
70.91 89.19 52.27 85.11 76.73
Access to Information and Communications
28.01
Internet News Phone TV
16.78 2.62 65.89 31.68
Health and Wellness
71.63
Inclusion
30.69
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
55.33 86.11 41.74 61.72 68.2 93.1 100
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
71.78 10.37 34.02 0 41.99 83.31
Environmental Quality
47.34
Access to Advanced Education
33.96
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
0.73 31.21 60 93.87
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
46.92 71.89 18.58 7.12
66.7
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
81.39 59.74 79.6 37.99
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Punjab, Tripura, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Mizoram, Kerala, Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Improved source of water Phone Subscribers Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secondary) Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) HH in pucca houses Road Accidents Land Degradation Rural Habitations Television Internet Subscribers Family Planning Property Rights Life Expectancy at 60 Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Drop out Rates Child labour Insurance
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
92 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
NAGALAND Nagaland 2016 Nagaland 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 93
REPORT FINDINGS
ODISHA
24/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
41974218
GDP per capita
52559
Growth Rate
1.82
Geographical Area
1,55,707
Income group
Low
Unemployment 50 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Odisha Score Basic Human Needs
55.44
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
45...
Children under 5 years who a.. 42.67 Children under 5 years with a.. 42.82 Infant Mortality Rate
30.26
Maternal Mortality Rate
70.26
Water and Sanitation
80...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
82.49 75.23 80.82 40 86.97
Shelter
41.38
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
36.45 98.6 98.26 5.37
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
54... 54.43 65.35 58.21 42.17
Social Progress Index
51.64
Foundations of Wellbeing
50.98
Opportunity
71.76
Personal Rights
42.83
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
93.48 28.22 31.4
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
48.5
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
85.35 91.89 65.71 40.43 85.58
Access to Information and Communications
21.08
Internet News Phone TV
7.43 9.59 56.84 19.36
Health and Wellness
69
Inclusion
42.07
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
84.26 72.78 34.19 60.73 57.7 82.15 96.93
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
70.79 17.58 52.7 15.1 58.74 83.31
Environmental Quality
42.07
Access to Advanced Education
33.52
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
16.58 50.62 30 72
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
36.14 51.12 22.2 27.47
75.57
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
91.14 75.32 67.33 62.01
Key
Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Manipur, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secon.. Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Literacy Rate Phone Subscribers IMR Respiratory Infections Insurance Electricity Judiciary Violent Crimes Underweight Land Degradation HH in pucca houses Television Rural Sanitation Coverage Internet Subscribers Life Expectancy at 60 Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe.. MMR Family Planning Murder Crimes
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
94 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
ODISHA Odisha 2016 Odisha 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 95
REPORT FINDINGS
PUNJAB
8/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
27743338
GDP per capita
92638
Growth Rate
5.73
Geographical Area
50,362
Income group
High
Unemployment 60 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Punjab Score Basic Human Needs
68.61
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
57...
Children under 5 years who a.. 64 Children under 5 years with a.. 27.44 Infant Mortality Rate
63.16
Maternal Mortality Rate
83.27
Water and Sanitation
86...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
93.98 55.27 98.46 80 92.2
Shelter
62.7
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
96.21 97.99 67.41 32.75
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
67... 71.73 76.24 44.4 71.5
Social Progress Index
62.18
Foundations of Wellbeing
59.14
Opportunity
67.7
Personal Rights
66.82
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
93.48 64.18 56.2
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
58.8
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
91.81 48.65 78.24 53.19 76.97
Access to Information and Communications
56.84
Internet News Phone TV
40.6 5 100 80.86
Health and Wellness
72.51
Inclusion
41.58
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
81.22 94.17 84.36 11.88 22.95 91.74 95.14
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
23.76 43.81 55.51 3.68 73.24 23.89
Environmental Quality
39.52
Access to Advanced Education
52.17
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
8.67 95.84 40 0
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
55.36 100 38.41 24.31
74.63
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
85.21 45.45 88.34 82.68
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Nagaland, Tripura, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Mizoram, Kerala, Uttarakhand, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secondary) Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary)
Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC)
Literacy Rate
Rural Habitations
Anaemia
HH in pucca houses
Road Accidents
Corruption
Obesity Female
Obesity Male Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Insurance
Child labour
0
10
20
30
40
50
Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
96 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
PUNJAB Punjab 2016 Punjab 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 97
REPORT FINDINGS
RAJASTHAN
25/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
68548437
GDP per capita
65974
Growth Rate
4.79
Geographical Area
3,42,239
Income group
Middle
Unemployment 71 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Rajasthan Score Basic Human Needs
59.11
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
36...
Children under 5 years who a.. 38.83 Children under 5 years with a.. 22.69 Infant Mortality Rate
35.53
Maternal Mortality Rate
53.16
Water and Sanitation
76.4
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
90.33 34.52 75.17 40 92.39
Shelter
60.94
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
63.21 97.6 100 34.23
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
62... 55.7 78.22 47.38 64
Social Progress Index
52.31
Foundations of Wellbeing
42.84
Opportunity
44.45
Personal Rights
59.91
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
95.65 48.87 52.5
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
54.96
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
67.2 16.22 59.74 27.66 64.08
Access to Information and Communications
31.89
Internet News Phone TV
13.67 9.71 83.82 31.35
Health and Wellness
79.21
Inclusion
43.99
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
83.76 95.28 55.85 68.65 70.82 84.1 94.93
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
44.55 14.95 54.86 14.81 74.27 100
Environmental Quality
15.82
Access to Advanced Education
44.13
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.22 8.81 40 0
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
61.24 44.08 26.4 45.34
71.84
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
87.54 81.82 45.71 65.64
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Manipur, ..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers Improved source of water Gross Enrolment Ratio (SC) Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary) Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secon.. Electricity Literacy Rate Land Degradation Anaemia Judiciary HH in pucca houses IMR Insurance Rural Habitations Road Accidents Television Underweight Rural Sanitation Coverage Early Marriages MMR Internet Subscribers Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe.. Crime against women Drop out Rates Child labour
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
98 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
RAJASTHAN Rajasthan 2016 Rajasthan 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 99
REPORT FINDINGS
SIKKIM
7/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
610577
GDP per capita
176491
Growth Rate
7.87
Geographical Area
7,096
Income group
Very High
Unemployment 181 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Sikkim Score Basic Human Needs
69.86
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
60...
Children under 5 years who a.. 76.33 Children under 5 years with a.. 29.36 Infant Mortality Rate
68.42
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
67...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
40.21 22.34 95.89 100 92.68
Shelter
72.18
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
91.64 97.66 100 41.61
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
79... 92.83 74.26 73.57 78.17
Social Progress Index
62.72
Foundations of Wellbeing
59.17
Opportunity
72.35
Personal Rights
72.95
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
100 100 35.1
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
59.14
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
85.19 37.84 100 74.47 67.3
Access to Information and Communications
38.3
Internet News Phone TV
16.78 28.48 65.89 50.17
Health and Wellness
61.62
Inclusion
54.43
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
90.36 93.61 41.74 27.06 0 50.72 100
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
78.71 39.68 60.58 0.07 97.76 83.31
Environmental Quality
64.4
Access to Advanced Education
42.37
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.15 83.91 80 74
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
48.72 72.06 44.9 11.89
66.8
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
82.26 59.74 77.76 39.39
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Punjab, Delhi
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Respiratory Infections
Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary)
Phone Subscribers
Anaemia
Obesity Male
Rural Habitations Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Internet Subscribers
Obesity Female
Family Planning
Life Expectancy at 60
Child labour
Insurance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
100 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
90
100
110
120
130
140
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
SIKKIM Sikkim 2016 Sikkim 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 101
REPORT FINDINGS
TAMILNADU
3/29
Basic Profile Population
72147030
GDP per capita
112664
Growth Rate
7.29
Geographical Area
1,30,058
Income group
Very High
Unemployment 42 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Tamil Nadu Score Basic Human Needs
76.26
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
62...
Children under 5 years who a.. 60.33 Children under 5 years with a.. 35 Infant Mortality Rate
72.37
Maternal Mortality Rate
90.71
Water and Sanitation
91...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
96.48 88.73 83.9 40 97.73
Shelter
79.21
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
92.64 97.52 96.27 60
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
72... 94.94 75.25 44.17 70.83
Social Progress Index
65.34
Foundations of Wellbeing
58.84
Opportunity
75.11
Personal Rights
73.18
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
82.61 76.68 65.4
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
60.92
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
83.29 67.57 89.77 59.57 81.28
Access to Information and Communications
54.66
Internet News Phone TV
29.41 5.27 100 85.7
Health and Wellness
61.17
Inclusion
55.07
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
81.73 89.17 45.67 13.2 21.64 90.43 76.37
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
71.78 24.89 75.16 46.9 100 24.24
Environmental Quality
44.43
Access to Advanced Education
53.77
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
10.17 82.79 50 23
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
52.5 77.9 74.27 18.38
61.67
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
89.53 11.69 75.92 71.79
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Haryana, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Punjab, Tripura, Karnataka
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Corruption
Road Accidents
Rural Sanitation Coverage
Obesity Female
Obesity Male
Human Traficking
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
102 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
45
50
55
60
65
70
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
TAMIL NADU Tamil Nadu 2016
Tamil Nadu 2005
Nutrition & Basic… 100 Access to… Water & Sanitation 80 60 Inclusion Shelter 40 20 Personal Freedom… Personal Safety 0 Personal Rights
Access to…
Environmental…
Access to…
Health & Wellness
Biggest Movers
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 103
REPORT FINDINGS
TRIPURA
23/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
3673917
GDP per capita
69705
Growth Rate
9.23
Geographical Area
10,486
Income group
Middle
Unemployment 197 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Tripura Score Basic Human Needs
60.29
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
56...
Children under 5 years who a.. 59.83 Children under 5 years with a.. 38.08 Infant Mortality Rate
63.16
Maternal Mortality Rate
71.8
Water and Sanitation
69...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
78.88 37.58 78.25 60 74.73
Shelter
55.89
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
64.77 98.83 64.68 38.52
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
59... 51.48 62.38 55.12 64.67
Social Progress Index
53.22
Foundations of Wellbeing
55.56
Opportunity
78.5
Personal Rights
43.02
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
91.3 62.71 1.5
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
43.82
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
90.86 59.46 100 68.09 79.67
Access to Information and Communications
30.69
Internet News Phone TV
16.78 5.16 65.89 39.38
Health and Wellness
75.15
Inclusion
39.94
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
90.36 95 41.74 62.38 61.97 85.07 91.32
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
78.71 17.56 55.94 3.21 82.73 29.35
Environmental Quality
37.9
Access to Advanced Education
22.5
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
2.84 39.56 20 93
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
13.52 55.81 20.1 6.16
69.82
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
94.17 59.74 50.61 70.11
Key
Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Karnataka, Punjab, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers
Electricity
HH in pucca houses
Rural Habitations
Television
Land Degradation
Early Marriages
Internet Subscribers
Life Expectancy at 60 Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education) Crime against women
Insurance
Murder Crimes
Property Rights
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
104 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
TRIPURA Tripura_2016 Tripura_2005 Social Progress Index 100 Opportunity Basic Human Needs 80 Environmental Nutrition & Basic 60 Quality Medical Care 40 20 Health & Wellness Water & Sanitation 0 Access to Information & Communication
Shelter
Access to Knowledge
Personal Safety Foundations of wellbeing
Biggest Movers
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 105
REPORT FINDINGS
UTTARAKHAND
4/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
10086292
GDP per capita
103716
Growth Rate
8.43
Geographical Area
53,483
Income group
High
Unemployment 70 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Uttarakhand Score Basic Human Needs
67.57
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
44...
Children under 5 years who a.. 55.67 Children under 5 years with a.. 23.33 Infant Mortality Rate
55.26
Maternal Mortality Rate
46.65
Water and Sanitation
78...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
91.22 45.9 87.84 60 82.08
Shelter
76.21
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
85.51 97.73 100 55.44
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
71... 76.79 82.18 57.98 65.83
Social Progress Index
64.23
Foundations of Wellbeing
66.42
Opportunity
78.59
Personal Rights
66.04
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
93.48 71.36 47.8
Score
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
58.7
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
95.23 91.89 75.98 59.57 76.42
Access to Information and Communications
47.94
Internet News Phone TV
17.27 48.92 81.96 58.2
Health and Wellness
81.99
Inclusion
43.09
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
81.22 93.06 89.35 47.85 56.07 92.48 98.56
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
45.54 11.46 55.18 8.16 80.66 100
Environmental Quality
57.15
Access to Advanced Education
53.11
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.39 82.43 80 43
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
62.88 80.69 55.39 21.67
72.55
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
89.67 59.74 78.68 56.7
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Nagaland, Punjab, Maharashtra, Tripura, Karnataka
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Phone Subscribers
Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secondary)
Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary)
Anaemia
Rural Habitations
Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher Education)
MMR
Internet Subscribers
Insurance
Family Planning
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
106 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
UTTARAKHAND Uttarakhand 2016 Uttarakhand 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 107
REPORT FINDINGS
UTTAR PRADESH
26/29
Basic ProďŹ le Population
199812341
GDP per capita
36250
Growth Rate
4.95
Geographical Area
2,40,928
Income group
Low
Unemployment 74 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
Uttar Pradesh Score Basic Human Needs
57.93
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
31...
Children under 5 years who a.. 34.17 Children under 5 years with a.. 18.97 Infant Mortality Rate
30.26
Maternal Mortality Rate
46.65
Water and Sanitation
93.3
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
96.35 99.24 93.84 40 92.97
Shelter
37.38
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
29.54 97.81 57.71 23.22
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
69... 87.34 78.22 38.21 68.67
Social Progress Index
50.96
Foundations of Wellbeing
47.41
Opportunity
54.4
Personal Rights
37.39
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
99.56 6.35 35.3
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
47.53
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
57.7 70.27 45.76 29.79 76.81
Access to Information and Communications
25.62
Internet News Phone TV
7.14 14.92 64.71 26.51
Health and Wellness
71.9
Inclusion
46.32
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
89.85 80 19.55 60.73 73.11 97.08 98.74
Child Sex Ratio Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
51.49 37.36 50.97 8.54 89.64 49.44
Environmental Quality
37.73
Access to Advanced Education
34.83
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
7.48 90.79 20 26
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
40.32 55.84 30.97 17.32
71.58
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
85.73 75.32 67.48 49.44
Key
Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Bihar, Assam, Manipur, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Arunachal Prad..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Net Enrolment Ratio (Primary) Phone Subscribers Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secon.. Literacy Rate Anaemia IMR Road Accidents HH in pucca houses Underweight Electricity Television MMR Insurance Rural Sanitation Coverage Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe.. Judiciary Internet Subscribers Family Planning Life Expectancy at 60 Drop out Rates
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
108 2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
UTTAR PRADESH Uttar Pradesh 2016 Uttar Pradesh 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 109
REPORT FINDINGS
WEST BENGAL
22/29
Basic Profile Population
91276115
GDP per capita
70059
Growth Rate
6.91
Geographical Area
88,752
Income group
Middle
Unemployment 49 (per 1000)
Performance Scorecards Social Progress Index: States of India
West Bengal Score Basic Human Needs
62.46
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care
53...
Children under 5 years who a.. 47.5 Children under 5 years with a.. 30.51 Infant Mortality Rate
57.89
Maternal Mortality Rate
87.73
Water and Sanitation
76...
Diarrhea Drinking water covered habit.. Improved water source Rural Sanitation Typhoid
79.65 30.58 90.75 60 93.84
Shelter
51.3
Electricity Housing Shortages Power Deficit Pucca Houses
49.28 97.92 99.25 20.67
Personal Safety
Crimes against women Murder Crimes Road Deaths Violent Crimes
68... 89.03 77.23 65.6 47.17
Social Progress Index
54.37
Foundations of Wellbeing
58.04
Opportunity
74.54
Personal Rights
35.82
Human Trafficking Judiciary Property Rights
74.16 37.01 16
Access to Basic Knowledge
Score
Score
42.62
Drop out rates Gender parity Gross secondary enrolment Literacy Net primary enrolment
74.07 97.3 72.35 48.94 85.4
Access to Information and Communications
28.04
Internet News Phone TV
13.25 2.97 75.44 28.82
Health and Wellness
69.96
Inclusion
43.42
HIV Leprosy Life expectancy at 60 Obesity Female Obesity Male Respiratory infections Suicides
90.36 70.83 39.65 49.5 67.54 88.87 90.34
Child Sex Ratio Family Planning Financial Inclusion - Bank Br.. Financial Inclusion - Women Insurance Scheduled Tribe Enrolment, .. Women in Panchyati Raj Inst..
78.22 79.05 11.73 38.98 54.5 83.77 41.57
Environmental Quality
59.61
Access to Advanced Education
20.76
Forest cover Land Degradation Renewable energy Water withdrawals
100 71.67 20 60
Colleges (UGC) Female Graduates Gross Enrolment Ratio - Hig.. Technical Institutes
9.12 56.83 21.44 1.8
70.47
Child Labour Corruption Early Marriage Family Planning
89.09 72.73 37.58 79.05
Key
Overperforming Performing within expected range Underperforming
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 10 states of similar GDP per capita: Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Mizoram, Jammu & Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh..
Comparative Analysis
Personal Freedom and Choice
Focus Areas Gross Enrolment Ratio (Secon.. Phone Subscribers Literacy Rate Electricity Anaemia Judiciary Rural Sanitation Coverage Rural Habitations HH in pucca houses Early Marriages Television Violent Crimes Underweight Internet Subscribers Life Expectancy at 60 Gross Enrolment Ratio (Highe.. Property Rights Drop out Rates Child labour Human Traficking
0
10
20
30
40
50 Indicator Value
Black bars represent India average.
110 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
60
70
80
90
100
REPORT FINDINGS
Historic Trends
WEST BENGAL West Bengal 2016 West Bengal 2005 Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Advanced 100 Water & Sanitation Education 80 60 Shelter Inclusion 40 20 Personal Freedom & Personal Safety 0 Choice Personal Rights Environmental Quality
Biggest Movers
Access to Knowledge
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Status Quoists
Notes: Focus areas include indicators where state value is worse than the country average.
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 111
REPORT FINDINGS
LEARNINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS states as the performance is not similar on all aspects of social progress. Some of the states may serve as role models for other states in certain aspects of social progress but they need to learn from other states while tacking their own challenges.
The Social Progress Index helps in identifying and prioritizing issues by measuring both a state’s absolute performance as well as its performance relative to states at a similar level of per capita income. These absolute and relative results enable states to not only assess their own areas of strengths and weaknesses, but also to identify other states that may serve as role models.
AT ANY GIVEN LEVEL OF SOCIAL PROGRESS, STATES CAN LEARN FROM THEIR PEERS AND IMPROVE THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF THEIR CITIZENS AS THE PERFORMANCE OF STATES IS NOT NECESSARILY SIMILAR ON ALL FACETS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS.
1. The top-ranking states Goa, Tamil Nadu, Kerala show that high levels of social progress are possible, but achieving comparable levels of performance is not within reach for all states. Figure 18 puts this in perspective. The scores of the three top ranking states are similar on the overall index but vary significantly across the 12 components. Kerala clearly outperforms both Goa and Tamil Nadu on individual freedom over life choices while Goa sets an example for Kerala by providing better water and sanitation facilities to its citizens.
The methodology of the Social Progress Index not only provides us with an overall social progress scores but also helps us to identify areas that should be regional priorities by providing scores for every dimension and component. These scores reflect that there lies immense scope of improvement for all the
2. This holds true not only for best performers but also for low performing states. Uttar Pradesh, one of the lowest performers on social progress is also among the best performer on Water & Sanitation. Water facilities in Uttar Pradesh are among the best in the country. The state has the highest percentage
The main learnings from the index are:
Figure 18 /
Comparing Best Performers
Goa
112 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
Access to Advanced Education
Inclusion
Pers onal Freedom & Choice
Pers onal Rights
Environmental Quality
Health & Wellnes s
Access to Information & Communication
Access to Knowledge
Pers onal Safety
Shelter
Water & Sanitation
Nutrition & Basic Medical Care
Social Progress Index
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
REPORT FINDINGS
Figure 19 /
Uttar Pradesh’s Performance
of households with improved drinking water facility, high rates of fully covered rural water habitations, and low prevalence of typhoid and diarrhoea that drive these results. On the other hand, it faces serious challenges in providing access to basic medical care to its children and also in securing personal rights of its citizens. It thus becomes important for states to identify the issues and prioritize their development agendas accordingly. The data show areas for prioritization and improvement for all states. By tracking social progress over time, change-makers can hold themselves accountable to achieve meaningful goals and improve quality of life for the widest possible set of individuals. THE GREATEST IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN IN AREAS WHERE SOCIAL PROGRESS MOST OFTEN ACCOMPANIES ECONOMIC PROSPERITY, WHEREAS THE AREAS WHERE PERFORMANCE HAS DECLINED OR STAGNATED ARE THOSE WHERE THIS CORRELATION IS WEAKEST. The overall level of social progress has improved but the advancements differ significantly across
Access to Advanced Edu cation
Inclusion
Personal Freedom & Choice
Personal Rights
Environmental Quality
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Access to Knowledge
Personal Safety
Shelter
Water & Sanitation
Social Progress Index
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Nutrition & Basic Medical Care
Uttar Pradesh
components. While the country has experienced great improvements in form of access to information & communication and inclusion; environmental quality and health & wellness have eroded. It is observed that the advancements are mainly in areas that are highly correlated with economic development. Figure 19 demonstrates this fact. It plots the relationship between change in scores over the eleven-year period and the correlation of scores with per capita GDP. The relationship is positive and significant at the five percent level. The areas like Access to Information & Communication, Inclusion that have a strong relationship with per capita GDP are the ones that have improved the most and the aspects of social progress that have very little or negative relationship with economic development are the ones eroding. However, there are certain outliers like Personal Freedom & Choice to this trend. It includes indicators like early marriages, family planning, etc. Government has focussed directly on eradicating child marriages through various programs and policies. This includes National Plan of Action for children 2005 that
2017 Social Progress Index | Š Social Progress India 2017
113
REPORT FINDINGS
Figure 20 /
Relationship between change in scores and the correlation of scores with per capita GDP 25
y = 19.193x + 3.2094 R² = 0.4797
Personal Freedom & Choice Inclusion
20
Access to Information & Communication
Access to Advanced Education
15
Change in Scores
Nutrition & Basic Medical Care Access to Knowledge
10
Shelter
5 Health & Wellness
-0.400
Water & Sanitation
0 0.000
-0.200
0.200
-5 Personal Safety
Environmental Quality
-10
0.600
0.800
Correlation
focussed on eradicating child marriages, National Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health Strategy that advocated for delaying the age of marriage, various commissions that chalked out plans for addressing social behaviour that perpetrates child marriages. Apart from these various indirect schemes, Figure 21 /
0.400
Personal Rights
like providing financial and economic incentives for girls are also put in place. Other aspects that restrict personal freedom like corruption are also targeted. This direct focus on addressing the issue has led to substantial improvements in scores.
Country Level Analysis
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
114 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
Access to Advanced Education
Inclusion
Personal Freedom & Choice
Personal Rights
Opportunity
Environmental Quality
Health & Wellness
Access to Information & Communication
Access to Knowledge
Foundations of wellbeing
Personal Safety
Shelter
Water & Sanitation
Nutrition & Basic Medical Care
Social Progress Index
0
Basic Human Needs
10
REPORT FINDINGS
This suggests that states should now focus on policies directly targeting social issues. STATE AND COUNTRY SPECIFIC ISSUES The components can be classified in two broad categories – State-Specific Issues and CountrySpecific Issues. There are certain components on which all the states demonstrate low performance, which are grouped under Country-Specific Issues as the national as well as state governments have to work out a plan of action for improving performance. On the other hand, there are certain components on which variation is registered across states, which are grouped under State-Specific Issues as only the relevant state governments have to chalk out a plan of action to drive improvements. Country-Specific Issues: Environmental Quality, Inclusion, Access to Information & Communication and Access to Advanced Education. The figure below helps in identifying the national issues. State-Specific Issues: Water & Sanitation, Shelter, Health & Wellness, Personal Rights, Personal Freedom & Choice, Access to Basic Knowledge, Personal Safety, Nutrition & Basic Medical Care. Nutrition and
Table 4 /
Basic Medical Care scores are mainly low in low – income states where the prevalence of underweight and anaemia among children is very high. On the other hand, Heath & Wellness is a major cause of concern among the “Very High and High Income” groups due to growing obesity. STATES AT A RELATIVELY LOW LEVEL OF SOCIAL PROGRESS CAN IMPROVE MORE RAPIDLY SINCE THEY BOTH HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT AND CAN ALSO DRAW ON LESSONS AND APPROACHES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED ELSEWHERE. All the states have improved on Social Progress since 2005 but the group of states that have experienced the highest improvements belong to “Very Low Social Progress” tier in 2005. These states include Tripura, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Jharkhand and Bihar. The average improvement in social progress in these states is by 9.6 point. This reflects upon the fact that as states keep on moving up on social progress it becomes more and more difficult to improve further. On the other hand, states that are at lower levels of social progress improve rapidly by learning from their peers.
Average Improvement
Social Progress Tier
Average Improvement
Very High Social Progress
7.56
High Social Progress
8.60
Middle Social Progress
8.69
Low Social Progress
9.69
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 115
REPORT FINDINGS
CONCLUSION The Social Progress Index, based exclusively on indicators of social and environmental outcomes, offers a revealing picture of states’ levels of development that is independent of traditional economic measures. States achieve very different overall levels of social progress and widely varying patterns of social progress by dimensions and components. A state’s level of social progress is the result of cumulative incremental choices its governments, communities, citizens, and businesses make about how to invest limited resources and how to integrate and work with each other. In general terms, the Index reveals that high-income states tend to achieve higher social progress than low-income states. Yet this relationship is neither simple nor linear. States at all levels of development can use this data to assess their performance and set priorities for improvement. Most states will be able to identify areas of relative strength, which represent social
116 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
progress foundations upon which they can build. However, every state exhibits areas for improvement and the Social Progress Index allows a strategic approach to social development that identifies areas for prioritization and investment. While the index provides invaluable new insights into the performance of India’s society, intrinsically, it cannot be considered the be-all end-all. The Index should be approached as a discussion starter, one that is essential to address India’s most pressing challenges, one that is not perfect, and will benefit from constructive feedback from scholars and policymakers alike. The Institute for Competitiveness, India invites all interested parties to use the Social Progress Index, States of India data and results to conduct research and exploration, and to build a new repository of expertise and knowledge which will help to advance social progress in India and elsewhere.
REPORT FINDINGS
REFERENCES World Bank (2015). Retrieved from: https://data. worldbank.org/ Costanza, R., Hart, M., Posner, S., & Talberth, J. (2009). Beyond GDP: The Need for New Measures of Progress. THE PARDEE PAPERS. ICI (2017). Discussion Paper: Social Progress Index: States of India. Kapoor, A., & Yadav, C. (2016). Business Standard. Retrieved from http://www.business-standard.com/ article/news-ians/jayalalithaa-presented-indiaalternate-model-of-development-column-activevoice-116121300201_1.html Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (n.d.). MCA. Retrieved from http://www.mca.gov.in/SearchableActs/ Section135.htm Mor, N., Dhar, D., & Venkateswaran, S. (2017). Healthcare in India: A Fork in the Road. In R. Mohan, India Transformed. Penguin Random House India. Open Government Data Platform India (2017a) Gujarat NSDP. Retrieved from: https://data.gov.in/ Open Government Data Platform India (2017b) Kerala NSDP. Retrieved from: https://data.gov.in/ Porter, M. E., Stern, S., & Green, M. (2017). Social Progress Index 2017. Social Progress Imperative. SyamRoy, B. (2016). India's Journey Towards Sustainable Population. Springer International Publishing. Social Progress Imperative (2017). Social Progress Showcased at the Center of Global Goals Week. Retrieved from: http://www.socialprogressimperative. org/global-goals-week-2017/
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 117
REPORT FINDINGS
CONTRIBUTORS
AUTHOR
Bibek Debroy
Amit Kapoor
Chairman, Economic Advisory Council – Prime Minister Member, NITI Aayog
Scott Stern
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Honorary Chairman, Institute for Competitiveness
CO-AUTHORS
David Cruickshank Global Chairman, Deloitte
Michael Green
CEO, Social Progress Imperative
Manisha Kapoor
Senior Researcher, Institute for Competitiveness
Nitya Mohan Khemka
Lecturer, Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge
118 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017
Petra Krylova
Senior Analyst, Social Progress Imperative
REPORT FINDINGS
2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017 119
REPORT FINDINGS
120 2017 Social Progress Index | © Social Progress India 2017