Social Progress Index: States of India - Report Findings

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