Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management StudiesXISS, Ranchi, Vol. 16, No.3, September 2018, pp. 7797-7811

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX: ENCAPSULATION OFINDICATORS OF WELL- BEING OF JHARKHAND

Shiv Kumar1

The main concern of this paper is to examine the transformation ofdevelopment efforts into the well-being of the society, with specialreference to Jharkhand State of India. Human development indifferent districts of Jharkhand has no parallel pace of developmentamong each other. Human Development Index (HDI) has a widermeaning than only an index for a region for development.The study highlights the indicators of human development,the level of development in various districts in a comparative wayand assesses the human development in different districts byallotting ranks through arithmetic calculation provided by theUNDP. This paper examines the major factors of HumanDevelopment Index like health index, education index and incomeindex. An attempt has been made to find out the trend of thehuman development index of Jharkhand State of India and also toprovide ranking on the basis of human development. The resultswill provide useful policy insights for a strategy seeking to promotehuman development through a distributive policy option forJharkhand State.

Keywords : Human Development Index; Health Index; EducationIndex; Income Index; Dimension Index

Introduction

Human development is all about human freedoms: freedom to realizethe full potential of every human life, not just of a few, nor of most, butof all lives in every corner of the world—now and in the future. Suchuniversalism gives the human development approach its uniqueness(UNDP, 2016). The Human Development Index is a statistical toolused to measure countries overall achievements in its social andeconomic dimensions (Mishra & Chaudhary, 2014). The index emergedin the first Human Development Report (HDR), published in 1990.The HDR is an independent report commissioned and published by theUnited Nations Development Programme. Ever since its publication,efforts have been made to devise and further refine the measures ofhuman development (McGillivray, 1991; McGillivray & White, 1994;Srinivasan, 1994; Streeten, 2000; Neumayer, 2001; Noorbakhsh, 1998a,1998b, 2002; Malhotra, 2006).

The HDI is a composite index aggregating three basic dimensionsinto a summary measure, which is published annually, using country

7797

1 Assistant Professor, P.G. Department of Geography, St. Xavier's College,Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001 (INDIA), Phone - 0651- 2214301 Extn. 122 (O),+91-9835757677 (M), E-mail - shivkr77@gmail.com

7798 Kumar

level information, in the Human Development Report. The motivationbehind the structure of the HDI was powerfully expressed in the 1990HDR in the following terms: “Human development is a process ofenlarging people’s choices. In principle, these choices can be infiniteand change over time. But at all levels of development, the threeessential ones are for people to lead a long and healthy life, to acquireknowledge and to have access to resources needed for a decentstandard of living. If these essential choices are not available,many other opportunities remain inaccessible” (UNDP, 1990). Thehuman development approach is closely related to the idea of humancapabilities proposed by Amartya Sen and developed further by Robeyns(2005). Ravallion (2014) concludes that inequality within a populationcan stall growth prospects in a country, backing up suggestion ofequitable distribution of wealth and resources to promote humandevelopment.

India has been characterized as a country with a low level ofHuman Development Index and there are basic variations in thelevels and trends of HDI in major states of India (Singariya, 2014).HDI provides a useful yardstick by which one can gauge thehuman development of a country relative to others, even thoughwithin-country variability is not accounted for (e.g., intra-countryinequity in income, living standards, health, etc.) (Adam, Kammas& Lapatinas, 2015; Blum, 2013). Various reports have been publishedat the National as well as State levels periodically to focus publicand policy attention on contemporary development issues. In addition,there has also been individual research focused on disparities ineconomic and human development across states in India (Chaudhuri,Chevrou-Severac & Marimoutou, 2007). Ranis (2004) has contrastedhuman development, as the ultimate goal of the developmentprocess, with economic growth, as an imperfect proxy for more generalwelfare, or as a means towards enhanced human development.Majumder (2005) tries to explore the trends, patterns and regionaldimensions of human development (HD) in India through constructionof alternate HD indices for the districts of India. The UNDP scorescorresponding to the three dimensions of human developmentare worked out with reference to international goalposts to facilitateranking of countries across the world. Suryanarayana, Agrawal andPrabhu (2011) follow the same procedure to examine the relativeranking of different Indian states in the global context. Joshi andMcgrath (2015) found Tamil Nadu’s more inclusive Developmentideology and higher —quality of public administration have broughtabout greater human development gains than in Gujarat. Mujeeb

Human DevelopmentIndex 7799

and Bassam (2017) attempted in their research paper with focuson the level of human development in Malappuram district throughconstructing HDI for the district. These attempts have provideduseful estimates of disparities in different dimensions of economic andhuman development.

The human development measures the mean achievements inthree basic indices as long and healthy life, access to knowledge andawareness, and decent standard of living and promotion in lifeexpectancy. These three dimensional indices are computed on somebasic parameters such as institutional delivery, facility of drinkingwater, utilization of sanitation and the total vaccination has been takenas the attributes of the health index, access to knowledge measured interms of adult literacy rate and gross enrolment ratios and finallyincome dimension measured in terms of per capita income. Lack ofenough attention to Human Development Index of Jharkhand motivatedthe author to conduct this research.

Objectives of the study

To study the level of development in various districts ofJharkhand.

To examine the inter-district variation in multipledimensions of human development index in Jharkhand.

To allot the rank to different districts of Jharkhand accordingto the development

To know the indicators of human development within Stateof Jharkhand which are more or less developed?

Study area

The total geographical area of the State is 79,714 Sq. Kms. with thespatial extent of approximately 21o 59’ to 25o 18’ North Latitude and83o 20’ to 87 o 57’ East Longitude. The state is land locked and sharesits boundaries with Bihar in the north, Odisha in the south, WestBengal in the east and Chhatisgarh and Uttar Pradesh in the west(Kumar, 2015). It comprises of the Chotanagpur Plateau, which formsa part of Deccan bio-geographic province. It is a hilly undulating plateaucharacterized predominantly by tropical forests and tribal settlements.This State is endowed with natural resources that need to be conservedand utilized in a sustainable manner for all-round development of theState in general and the marginalized tribal population in particular.The State of Jharkhand consists of 24 districts (Fig 1), 33 subdivisions,211 blocks and 3759 panchayats and 32620 villages.

According to the Census of India 2011, total population of thestate is 32,966,238 with a sex ratio of 947 and density of population is414 persons per sq. km. It has an intermingling population from variousethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds. The literacy rate,according to the 2011 Census, is 67.63 per cent, where Male and FemaleLiteracy are 78.45 and 56.21 per cent respectively.

Database and methodologyThe research described in this paper is based solely on secondary data.To provide ranking according to the development of the districts, dataof literacy, health and income have been used. The reference year forthe secondary data is 2011, and the data have been obtained particularlyfrom census publications and occasional papers published by the officeof the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi.Adult literacy rate and enrollment rate are taken from 2011 Census ofIndia. The data for per capita income is an estimated data of 2011-12by Central Statistical Organization (CSO). The per capita income ofthe year 2007-2008 was estimated by the method of base shifting forthe year 2011-2012. The source of safe drinking water, total vaccination,sanitation utilization and institutional delivery is Annual HealthSurvey, 2010-11.

Fig 1. Districts of Jharkhand

7800 Kumar

The calculation of Dimension index as per HDI formula:

(DI)Dimension IndexThe Dimension index is a simple average.For calculating Education Index:

X ; ( )

Y = ; ( )

DI = summation of DI

The dimension index for the literacy rate and enrollment ratio isgiven using the formula of UNDP provided for the HDI calculation.The literacy rate is given more importance than enrollment ratio. Theresults of literacy rate and enrollment ratio are 2/3 and 1/3 respectively.The results of the districts are then added. The value of the second lastcolumn is dimension index for the literacy indicator for the districts.On the basis of descending values the ranks are allotted to the districts.The dimension index itself is the value of development.

For calculating Health Index DI = summation of the dimensionindex

DI (a) DI /4 Here, equal onus provided for the four indicators(institutional delivery, total vaccination, drinking water facilities andsanitation utilization). Dimension index is taken out by the formulaeof HDI as mentioned above and the values in reference to HDI which is0 – 1 is calculated. According to the dimension index, the ranks areallotted to the districts of higher value in top and districts with lowervalue at the bottom. Based on observations the cartographic work hasbeen done.Result and discussionHuman Development Index of Jharkhand has been computed on thefollowing three dimension index :

Education Index Income Index Health Index

Education indexTable 1 shows the literacy indicators of the different districts ofJharkhand of the year 2011. There are two indicators to show theattainment of the literacy in HDI i.e. adult literacy rate and enrollmentratio. Both the indicators show a varied picture of the regions. There

Human DevelopmentIndex 7801

is seen great variations in literacy rate and enrollment ratio indicators.The highest literacy rate is in the Ranchi district with 77.13, followedby E. Singhbhum and Dhanbad. On the other side the lowest literacyrate is found in Pakur district with 50.17 literacy rate. Other twodistricts with literacy rate below 60 are Sahibganj (53.73) and Godda(57.68).Table–1. Literacy rate and enrollment ratio of Jharkhand

S. No. District Literacy Rate Enrollment Ratio1 E. Singhbhum 76.13 91.92 Dhanbad 75.71 903 Ranchi 77.13 92.74 Bokaro 73.48 93.85 Khunti 64.51 92.76 Ramgarh 73.9 93.57 Hazaribagh 70.48 93.58 Koderma 68.35 94.79 Lohardaga 68.29 91.610 Saraikela-Kharsawan 68.85 84.311 Garhwa 62.18 94.512 Palamu 65.5 9113 W.Singhbhum 59.54 84.314 Latehar 61.23 9115 Sahibganj 53.73 85.316 Deoghar 66.34 87.717 Simdega 67.59 90.418 Gumla 66.92 90.419 Jamtara 63.73 86.320 Dumka 62.54 86.321 Chatra 62.14 88.922 Godda 57.68 85.723 Pakur 50.17 77.124 Giridih 65.12 90

Source: Census of India, 2011

Table 1 also infers that the Koderma district has the highestenrollment ratio with 94.7. The lowest enrollment ratio is in the Pakurdistrict with 77.1. Districts with enrollment ratio above 90 are E.Singhbhum, Ranchi, Bokaro, Khunti, Ramgarh, Hazaribagh, Koderma,Lohardaga, Garhwa, Palamu, Latehar, Simdega and Gumla.

Table 2 shows dimension index and rank for the literacy indicatorsof the districts of Jharkhand. From Table 2 it is clear that, Ranchi hasthe highest level of development with 0.952 dimension index for theliteracy. E. Singhbhum and Ramgarh are in second and third positionwith dimension index 0.921 and 0.896 respectively. Bokaro, Dhanbad,Hazaribagh, Koderma, Lohardaga, Simdega and Gumla hold rank fromfourth to tenth position respectively. The least developed districts arePakur and Sahibganj.

7802 Kumar

Table-2. Districtwise Dimension Index and Rank for the literacyindicators of Jharkhand

Districts DI for X=ADI*2/3 DI for Y=GEI*1/3 DI =X+Y RankAdult Gross Education

Literacy Enrollment Index(ADI) Index (GEI)

E. Singhbhum 0.962 0.641 0.84 0.28 0.921 2Dhanbad 0.947 0.631 0.732 0.244 0.875 5Ranchi 1 0.666 0.886 0.286 0.952 1Bokaro 0.864 0.576 0.943 0.314 0.89 4Khunti 0.531 0.354 0.892 0.297 0.651 1 1Ramgarh 0.88 0.586 0.931 0.31 0.896 3Hazaribagh 0.753 0.502 0.931 0.31 0.812 6Koderma 0.674 0.449 1 0.333 0.782 7Lohardaga 0.672 0.448 0.823 0.274 0.722 8Saraikela- 0.692 0.461 0.409 0.136 0.597 1 6KharsawanGarhwa 0.445 0.296 0.988 0.329 0.625 1 3Palamu 0.568 0.378 0.789 0.263 0.641 1 2W. Singhbhum 0.347 0.231 0.409 0.136 0.367 2 1Latehar 0.41 0.273 0.789 0.263 0.536 1 7Sahibganj 0.132 0.088 0.465 0.155 0.243 2 3Deoghar 0.599 0.399 0.602 0.2 0.599 1 5Simdega 0.646 0.43 0.755 0.251 0.681 9Gumla 0.621 0.414 0.755 0.251 0.665 1 0Jamtara 0.502 0.334 0.522 0.174 0.508 1 9Dumka 0.458 0.305 0.522 0.174 0.479 2 0Chatra 0.443 0.295 0.67 0.223 0.518 1 8Godda 0.278 0.185 0.488 0.162 0.347 2 2Pakur 0 0 0 0 0 2 4Giridih 0.554 0.369 0.732 0.244 0.613 1 4

Source: Annual Health Survey, 2010-2011

Income indexFrom Table 3, it is clear that the per capita income is directlyproportional to the dimension index. The highest value of the districtsin dimension index has higher rank.

Dhanbad with dimension index 1 stands at the top of the list ineconomic index of the HDI. The second rank is of E. Singhbhum withdimension index 0.954, Pakur ranks third with dimension index 0.686.There is a yawning gap between second and third rank of 0.268. Ranchistands in the fourth place in the economic index of the HDI which isthe capital of the state. Garhwa district is in the 24th rank in theeconomic index.

Human DevelopmentIndex 7803

Table–3. Districtwise per capita income, Dimension Index andRank for Per Capita Income of Jharkhand

S. No. Districts Per Capita Income Income Index Rank(Rs.)

1 E. Singhbhum 32994 0.954 22 Dhanbad 33958 1 13 Ranchi 26992 0.674 44 Bokaro 25511 0.604 75 Khunti26992 0.674 46 Ramgarh 23421 0.507 107 Hazaribagh 23421 0.507 108 Koderma 22075 0.444 139 Lohardaga 16808 0.197 1810 Saraikela-Kharsawan 24639 0.564 811 Garhwa 12581 0 2412 Palamu15929 0.156 1913 W. Singhbhum 24639 0.564 814 Latehar 15929 0.133 2115 Sahibganj 26188 0.636 616 Deoghar 23091 0.491 1217 Simdega 16919 0.202 1618 Gumla 16919 0.202 1619 Jamtara 17452 0.227 1420 Dumka 17452 0.227 1421 Chatra 15141 0.119 2222 Godda 14697 0.098 2323 Pakur 27260 0.686 324 Giridih 15899 0.155 20

Source: Central Statistical Organization

Health IndexThe relationship between longevity and health were explained by thestudies of Robine, Saito and Jagger (2009), where they opined that ahealthy, robust people will live on average, longer than frail people,thus associating a positive relationship between longevity and health;and the research of Jaba, Balan and Robu (2014) who informed that theoutput of a healthy system is expressed either by longevity indicatorssuch as life expectancy at birth, life expectancy at age 65 years, healthylife expectancy, for total population by gender or by mortality. Table 4presents the data of attributes of social development of different districtsof Jharkhand. The institutional delivery, facility of drinking water,utilization of sanitation and the total vaccination has been taken as theattributes of the health index.

7804 Kumar

Table-4. Institutional delivery, total vaccination, drinkingwater facility and sanitation utilization of Jharkhand (in %)

S. No. Districts Institutional Total Drinking SanitationDelivery Vaccination Water Utilization

Facility1 E. Singhbhum 63 82.7 82.3 52.62 Dhanbad 46.9 60.2 81.2 47.13 Ranchi 52.3 76.4 60.7 44.94 Bokaro 48.9 79 70.2 44.15 Khunti 52.3 76.4 60.7 44.96 Ramgarh 44 76.4 40.4 26.37 Hazaribagh 44 76.4 40.4 17.18 Koderma 45.8 58.5 46.4 159 Lohardaga 38.6 82.5 52 13.9

10 Saraikela- 28 64.7 77.6 10.4Kharsawan

11 Garhwa 30.2 68 78.5 14.612 Palamu31 54.2 75.6 13.913 W. Singhbhum 28 64.7 77.6 14.614 Latehar 31 54.2 75.6 13.915 Sahibganj 22.8 54.9 75.9 14.616 Deoghar 32.1 40.6 55.6 1817 Simdega 25.6 71.5 38.5 16.718 Gumla 25.6 71.5 38.5 12.319 Jamtara 19.4 59.8 71.5 12.320 Dumka 19.4 59.8 71.5 10.121 Chatra 25.5 49 60 11.322 Godda 24.4 44.1 77.5 12.323 Pakur 20.8 45.7 84.5 10.624 Giridih 26.5 28 31.2 11.8

Source: Annual Health Survey, 2010-2011

From Table 5 it is clear that the institutional delivery is veryhighly developed in the districts of East Singhbhum with dimensionindex 1. Ranchi and Khunti districts have the DI above 0.75, otherdistricts with moderate level of development are Hazaribagh andRamgarh. On the other side the districts with low level of developmentin the institutional delivery are Jamtara, Dumka, Pakur, Sahibganj,Godda, Chatra, Simdega and Gumla.

The column of total vaccination reveals that E. Singhbhum,Lohardaga, Bokaro, Ranchi, Khunti, Ramgarh and Hazaribagh havehigh level of development while the districts with low level ofdevelopment are Giridih, Deoghar, Godda, Pakur and Chatra.

The data of sanitation utilization shows that the districts of E.Singhbhum, Dhanbad, Ranchi, Khunti, Bokaro and Ramgarh havehigh level of development. Districts like Dumka, Saraikela-Kharsawan,Pakur and Chatra have low level development in the field of sanitationutilization facility.

Human DevelopmentIndex 7805

Facility of drinking water is developed much in the districts ofPakur, E. Singhbhum, Dhanbad, Garhwa, W. Singhbhum, Saraikela-Kharsawan and Godda.

Overall the best developed districts in the category of institutionaldelivery, total vaccination, sanitation utilization and drinking waterare E. Singhbhum, Bokaro, Dhanbad and Ranchi in the first, second,third and fourth position respectively. The lowest development in thesefour categories is Giridih.

Table–5. Institutional delivery, total vaccination, drinkingwater facilities and sanitation utilization of JharkhandDistricts Institutional Total Sanitation Drinking DI = DI(a)= Rank

Delivery (D) Vaccination Utilization Water D+E+A+B DI /4(E) (A) (B)

E. Singhbhum 1 1 1 0.958 3.958 0.9895 1Dhanbad 0.63 0.59 0.87 0.938 3.028 0.757 3Ranchi 0.754 0.884 0.818 0.553 3.009 0.752 4Bokaro 0.676 0.932 0.8 0.731 3.139 0.784 2Khunti 0.754 0.884 0.818 0.553 3.009 0.752 4Ramgarh 0.564 0.884 0.381 0.172 2.001 0.50025 6Hazaribagh 0.564 0.884 0.164 0.172 1.784 0.446 10Koderma 0.605 0.557 0.115 0.285 1.562 0.3905 14Lohardaga 0.44 0.996 0.089 0.39 1.915 0.478 8Saraikela- 0.197 0.67 0.007 0.87 1.744 0.436 11KharsawanGarhwa 0.247 0.731 0.105 0.887 1.97 0.492 7Palamu 0.266 0.478 0.089 0.833 1.666 0.416 12W.Singhbhum 0.197 0.67 0.105 0.87 1.842 0.4605 9Latehar 0.266 0.478 0.089 0.833 1.666 0.416 12Sahibganj 0.077 0.491 0.105 0.838 1.511 0.377 15Deoghar 0.291 0.23 0.185 0.457 1.163 0.29 21Simdega 0.142 0.795 0.155 0.136 1.228 0.307 20Gumla 0.142 0.795 0.051 0.136 1.124 0.281 22Jamtara 0 0.581 0.051 0.756 1.388 0.347 16Dumka 0 0.581 0 0.756 1.337 0.334 18Chatra 0.139 0.383 0.028 0.54 1.09 0.272 23Godda 0.114 0.294 0.051 0.868 1.327 0.331 19Pakur 0.032 0.323 0.011 1 1.366 0.341 17Giridih 0.162 0 0.04 0 0.202 0.05 24

Human development indexTable 6 shows the dimension index of the three important indicators ofthe HDI i.e. Education Index, Income Index and Health Index. Thefifth column shows the sum of the indicators. The sixth column providesequal onus and dimension index for the districts. Last column is therank column which shows rank of different districts according to theirvalues. Higher the value, upper is the rank; lower the value, lower isthe rank (Fig 2).

7806 Kumar

It is clear from the Table 6 that the E. Singhbhum is mostdeveloped districts according to the HDI with total value of 0.954.Dhanbad (0.877) and Ranchi (0.792) are in the second and third positionrespectively. On the other hand Godda is the most backward districtin Jharkhand. Pakur, Chatra and Giridih with values 0.342, 0.303,0.272 hold rank 21st, 22nd and 23rd respectively.

From Table 6 and Fig 3 we come to know that three districts arehighly developed (>0.79-1) according to the HDI values. Six districtsare in medium developed (0.49-0.79) category whereas fifteen districtsare in lower category (<0.49) of development. (Fig 4)

Fig 3. Human development index of Jharkhand

Fig 2. District wise ranking of Human Development Index ofJharkhand

Human DevelopmentIndex 7807

The name of the districts belonging to different categories of HDIis mentioned below:a) High ( >0.79-1)

i. East Singhbhum ii. Dhanbad iii. Ranchib) Medium (0.49-0.79)

i. Bokaro ii. Khunti iii. Ramgarhiv. Hazaribagh v. Koderma vi. Saraikela-

Kharsawanc) Low ( <0.49)

i. Lohardaga ii. W. Singhbhum iii. Deoghariv. Sahibganj v. Palamu vi. Simdegavii. Gumla viii.Garhwa ix. Lateharx. Jamtara xi. Dumka xii. Pakurxiii.Chatra xiv. Giridih xv. Godda

Table 6. Human development index of Jharkhand

Districts Income Health Education DI=p+l+s HDI= DI HDIIndex (p) Index (l) Index (s) /3 Rank

E. Singhbhum 0.954 0.989 0.921 2.864 0.954 1Dhanbad 1 0.757 0.875 2.632 0.877 2Ranchi 0.674 0.752 0.952 2.378 0.792 3Bokaro 0.604 0.784 0.89 2.278 0.759 4Khunti 0.674 0.752 0.651 2.077 0.692 5Ramgarh 0.507 0.500 0.896 1.903 0.634 6Hazaribagh 0.507 0.446 0.812 1.765 0.588 7Koderma 0.444 0.390 0.782 1.616 0.538 8

Fig 4. Distribution of districts according to HDI

7808 Kumar

Saraikela- 0.564 0.436 0.597 1.597 0.532 9KharsawanLohardaga 0.197 0.478 0.722 1.397 0.465 1 0W. Singhbhum 0.564 0.460 0.367 1.391 0.463 1 1Deoghar 0.491 0.29 0.599 1.38 0.46 1 2Sahibganj 0.636 0.377 0.243 1.256 0.418 1 3Palamu 0.156 0.416 0.641 1.213 0.404 1 4Simdega 0.202 0.307 0.681 1.19 0.396 1 5Gumla 0.202 0.281 0.665 1.148 0.382 1 6Garhwa 0 0.492 0.625 1.117 0.372 1 7Latehar 0.133 0.416 0.536 1.085 0.361 1 8Jamtara 0.227 0.347 0.508 1.082 0.360 1 9Dumka 0.227 0.334 0.479 1.04 0.346 2 0Pakur 0.686 0.341 0 1.027 0.342 2 1Chatra 0.119 0.272 0.518 0.909 0.303 2 2Giridih 0.155 0.05 0.613 0.818 0.272 2 3Godda 0.098 0.331 0.347 0.776 0.258 2 4

SuggestionsJharkhand is a state with immense opportunities. These opportunitiescan be unlocked with a comprehensive reform process with followingelements:

a) Have an inclusive agenda of development where therequirements of the masses are at the forefront ofadministrative action. This includes employment and self-employment avenues, basic needs and requirements, andsafety and security.

b) Strengthen and make more efficient the ability of itsadministration to deliver a good environment for (i) livingand (ii) earning. This requires creating an economicecosystem that facilitates entrepreneurship for large,medium, small and micro enterprises; both in the organizedand unorganized domains.

c) Ensure a 360 degree monitoring of government actions; thisrequires monitoring within the government as also by outsideentities. The government and its senior functionaries needto be answerable to the people of the state.

ConclusionMore recently, the wider issue of development has received renewedemphasis with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), many ofwhich are directly human development related (Hak, Janouškova, &Moldan, 2016). The quality of human resource will always vary fromone region to another. The only way to develop the human resource isthrough the qualitative education, training programs, employmentopportunities, better medical facilities and knowledge which changes

Human DevelopmentIndex 7809

from time to time. The only way to develop the backward districts is toimplement strong and flexible development programs with monitoringand modifications from time to time. The HDI may be very usefulelement to focus the developmental picture of indicators of the districts.Problems like corruption, naxalism, and failure of programs, regionalimbalance and concentration of the development in limited pockets/area are pulling the state back. Importance should be given to thoseareas which are backward, it should also be remembered that the paceof development of those districts which are doing better should notstop. Thus, the regular assessment of the districts on the basis of HDIat regular intervals of time could be of immense importance for humandevelopment in the state.

REFERENCES

Adam, A., Kammas, P., & Lapatinas, A. (2015). Income inequality and the taxstructure: Evidence from developed and developing countries. Journal ofComparative Economics, 43(1), 138–154.

Blum, M. (2013). The influence of inequality on the standard of living: Worldwideanthropometric evidence from the 19th and 20th centuries, Economicsand Human Biology, 11(4), 436–452.

Census of India. (2011). Primary Census Abstract, Office of the Registrar General& Census Commissioner, New Delhi.

Chaudhuri, B., Chevrou-Severac, H., & Marimoutou, V. (2007). Regionaldisparities. In K. Basu (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Economics inIndia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press: 447–450.

Hak, T., Janouškova, S., & Moldan, B. (2016) Sustainable development goals: Aneed for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565–573.

Jaba, E., Balan, C. B., & Robu, I. O. (2014). The relationship between lifeexpectancy at birth and health expenditures estimated by a cross-countryand time series analysis. Emerging Markets Queries in Finance andBusiness, 15, 108-114.

Joshi, D. K., & Mcgrath, K. (2015). Political ideology, public policy and humandevelopment in India: Explaining the gap between Gujarat and Tamil Nadu.Journal of Contemporary Asia, 45(3), 465-489.

Kumar, S. (2015). General geography of Jharkhand. Ranchi: S.S. Publishers.Majumder, R. (2005). Human development in India: Regional pattern and policy

issues. Indian Journal of Applied Economics, 2(1).Malhotra, R. (2006). Towards implementing the right to development: A

framework for indicators and monitoring methods. In A. B. Andreassen &S. P. Marks (Eds.), Development as a Human Right (pp.203-26). HarvardUniversity Press: Cambridge.

Mcgillivray, M. (1991). The human development index: Yet another redundantcomposite development indicator? World Development, 19(10), 1461–68.

Mcgillivray, M., & White, H. (1994). Measuring development? The UNDP’s humandevelopment index. Journal of International Development, 5(2), 183–92.

Mishra, A. D., & Chaudhary, R.(2014). A comparative study of human developmentindex of selected Indian states. Abhinav, 3(2).

Mujeeb, R. A. P., & Bassam, K. (2017). Human development index (HDI): A studyof Malappuram district, Kerala, India. International Journal of AppliedResearch, 3(1), 42-43.

Neumayer, E. (2001). The human development index and sustainability – Aconstructive proposal. Ecological Economics, 39(2), 101–14.

7810 Kumar

Noorbakhsh, F. A. (1998a). Modified human development index. WorldDevelopment, 26(3), 517–32.

Noorbakhsh, F. A. (1998b). Human development index: Some technical issuesand alternative indices. Journal of International Development,10(5), 589–605.

Noorbakhsh, F.A. (2002). Human development and regional disparities in Iran: Apolicy model, Journal of International Development,14(2), 927–49.Ranis, G. (2004). Human Development and Economic Growth. DiscussionPaper No. 887. Department of Economics, Yale University EconomicGrowth Center, New Haven. Retrieved from https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/28375/1/dp040887.pdf

Ravallion, M. (2014). Income inequality in the developing world. Science, 344(6186),851–855. doi: 10.1126/science.1251875.

Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal ofHuman Development and Capabilities, 6(1), 93-114.

Robine, J. M., Saito, Y., & Jagger, C. (2009). The relationship between longevityand health life expectancy. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 10 (2), 5-14.

Singariya, M.R. (2014). Socioeconomic determinants of human development indexin India. Management and Administrative Sciences Review, 3(1), 69-84.

Srinivasan, T. N. (1994). Human development: A paradigm or reinvention of thewheel? American Economic Review, 84(2), 238–43.

Streeten, P. (2000). Looking ahead: Areas of future research in humandevelopment. Journal of Human Development, 1(1), 25–48.

Suryanarayana, M. H., Agrawal, A., & Prabhu, K. S. (2011). Inequality-adjustedhuman development index for India’s states. United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, India, New Delhi. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/inequality_adjusted_human_development_index_for_indias_state1.pdf

UNDP. (1990). Human development report 1990. New York: UNDP/OxfordUniversity Press..

UNDP. (2016). Human development report - Human development for everyone.New York: United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf

Human DevelopmentIndex 7811