Critique of Gender Development Index: Towards an Alternative

Author(s): Indira Hirway and Darshini Mahadevia

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 31, No. 43 (Oct. 26, 1996), pp. WS87-WS96
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4404713
Accessed: 06-04-2015 16:59 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political
Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Critique

of

Gender

Development Index

Towardsan Alternative
Indira Hirway
Darshini Mahadevia
Holding the Gender Development Index (GDI) and the Gender EmpowermentMeasure (GEM) devised by the UNDP
to be unsatisfactory, the authors present an alternative conceptual framework for measuring gender development
in the south at the individual and societal levels and compute their Gender Development Measure (GDM) for 15
major states in India.
THE Human Development Index (HDI),
propounded by the United Nations
DevelopmentProgramme(UNDP) in 1990,
has rekindled the debate on what is
development and, within it, what is human
development.The 1995HumanDevelopment
Report (HDR) introduced the concept of
GenderDevelopment Index (GDI), arguing
human
that without engendering
development is endangered [UNDP 1995].
In the 1995 HDR the concept of Gender
EmpowermentMeasure(GEM)hasalsobeen
added. The debate on women/gender and
development was at centre stage in the
internationalarenain 1995 because of UN's
FourthInternationalConference of Women
at Beijing as well as UN's Social Summit
Conferenceat Copenhagen in March 1995.
These events have generateddebates among
researchers, policy-makers, planners and
grassrootsactivists on development,human
developmentand gender development. The
initiativeof the UNDP in introducingHDR
in 1990 therefore is laudable, not only
because human development is important,
but also because the concern for human
well-being was lost in the overzealous pursuitof theeconomic growthparadigmduring
the 1980s.
An importantfall-out of the HDRs is that
many nations have become conscious of
their social sector policies. Within many
countries, regional and community level
HDIs have also been computed under the
momentumgeneratedby the HDRs. In the
process, many questions, especially from
thedevelopingcountrieshavearisenwhether
the HDI/GDI,as conceptuallydefinedby the
UNDP, is adequateand even appropriatein
meetingtheirownsocial developmentneeds.
A feminist critique is also emerging on the
appropriatenessof the GDI. A concern has
emerged whether the GDI as a concept
adequatelyand appropriatelyrepresentsthe
development needs of women raised at
international forums after the first UN
conference in Mexico on woman and
development. It is therefore pertinent that
a criticalassessment of the concept of HDI/
GDI; as propounded by UNDP, is made
from the perspective of gender equity. At
the same time, it is equally important to

Economic and Political Weekly

develop a new framework for measuring

gender equity in the development process.
This paper attempts to do both. Section
I presents the concept of GDI/GEM of the
UNDP. Section II presents a critical
assessment of these concepts. Section III
presents an alternative measure, namely,
GenderDevelopmentMeasure(GDM),while
Section IV computesGDM for the 15 major
states in India.

Measuring Human and

Gender Development
Although UNDP's HDRs have brought
thefocus on thehumanaspectof development
in the recent years, the concern for human
or social development is not new. Even in
the pre-industrialerathe rulersmadespecial
efforts to providefacilities andamenitiesfor
the welfare of the populace. The present
concern for human development has,
however, originated in the traditions of a
welfare state, in the post-war industrial
economies. In the absence of economic
growthgetting automaticallytranslatedinto
human well-being, a need was felt for the
state to intervene for the well-being of the
low income groups [Galtung and Wirak
1977].Thesocial/humandevelopmentaspect
became the watch-dog of the mainstream
development process. In the 1990s, human
development has emerged as an important
development goal in itself.
Historically, various concepts and
measuresof social and humandevelopment
have emerged. These are:
(1) Social statistics, social accounting and
social reporting primarily referring to the
systematic collection of data on the issues
relating to social concerns and presenting
them in the form of social accounts and
social reports or as social indicators
[Henderson1974, Land 1971, OECD 1976].
(2) Level of Living (LOL),Living Standards
and State of Welfare Index. The LOL and
living standardsreferto levels of satisfaction
of the needs of a population,while State of
Welfare (SOW) index measuresthe level of
welfare (using output indicators) of a
population [Drewnowski 1974, Oscar and
Juan 1980].

(3) Quality of Life (QOL) refers to the life

people enjoy in the contextof environmental
pollution, deterioratingsafety and security
anddeclining living standards[Szalai 1980].
Itrefersto subjectiveorqualitativeperception
of people regardingthe objective conditions
of theirown life [Henderson1974;Dattaand
Agarwal 1980] or subjective.needsassessed
in the context of Maslowian Hierarchyof
Needs [Sethi 1992].
(4) Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI)
was propoundedby Morris D Morris and
measuresthe conditions of the world's poor
in terms of LEB (life expectancy at birth),
IMR (Infant Mortality) and basic literacy
[Morris anidMcAlpin 1982].
(5) A few more indices thatattemptto focus
on thepositiveaspectsof humandevelopment
while overcomingthe lacunaeof theconcept
of GDP need mentionhere.The firstis Social
Progress Index (SPI), a concept that refers
to social progress defined at the individual
level in three plausible units [Desai 1994].
Thethreecomponentsof theSPl arelongevity
or potentiallife time, consumptionof private
goods and access to public goods such as
clean water,sanitation,safety,transport,etc.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO) has developed a concept termed as
WorldConferenceon AgrarianReformsand
Rural Development (WCARRD) focusing
on the concernof the developing economies
[Dey-Abbas andGaiha 1994]; This concept
has 11 core indicators relating to poverty
alleviation and 37 supplementaryindicators
for monitoring progress in achieving
WCARRD goals of growth.
The third concept is Genuine Progress
Indicator(GPI), which has been developed
by a group called 'RedefiningProgress'. It
measures 'genuine' progress and includes
more than 20 aspects of our economic life
that the GDP ignores [Cobb, Halstead and
Rowe 1995]. The value of activitiesthatadd
to humanprogressareaddedandthosewhich
reduce progress are subtracted from the
measure.The latter set of activities include
crime,defence expenditure,degradationand
depletion of resources, contributions of
household economy, voluntary work, etc.
The GPI is a measure which is still in the
process of being finalised.

October 26, 1996

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WS-87

The UNDP's HDI/GDI and GEM are the

latest additions to the measures of social/
human development series. The HDI/GDI
measurehas drawnmore attentionthan the
other measuresfor several reasons. Firstly,
these indices have been presentedby a UN
body, namely, the UNDP and have been
calculatedformorethan 175 countriesin the
world every year since 1990. All these
countriesarerankedas pertheirperformance
in humandevelopmentevery year.The more
importantreason,however, for the attention
receivedby theHDI/GDIis, unliketheearlier
concepts, it defines humandevelopment as
a process (of widening choices) and not
merely as a stock of achievements.It, therefore, is a dynamicconcept with implications
for development process or a development
model. Also, with it culminated the era of
the development paradigm that stressed
only economicgrowth.The HDI/GDIrecommends a human centred development
paradigmwherehumandevelopmentis seen
as the ultimategoal of development and not
a byproduct of economic growth.
Eachof theHDRssince 1990 hasdiscussed
different aspects of the human centred
development paradigm. For example, the
1990 HDR argued that poverty alleviation
andhumandevelopmentgo together[UNDP
1990]. The 1991 HDR discussed the role of
political commitment towards human
development and thus need for allocating
financial resources for the same [UNDP
19911.The 1992 HDR presenteda strategy
for raising the access of developing
economies to global markets[UNDP 1992].
The role of people and their organisations
in achieving human development was
stressed in the 1993 HDR [UNDP 1993].
The 1994HDR arguedfor betternorth-south
co-operation for achieving human
development, urging the north to invest in
the south for this purpose [UNDP 1994].
The 1995 HDR discussed the importanceof
engendering human development [UNDP
1995]. The 1996 HDR has argued for
developing stronger linkages between the
economic growth and human development
[UNDP 1996].
In spite of UNDP covering the varied
dimensions of human/genderdevelopment,
the HDI, the GDI and the GEM as concepts
are not satisfactory. In this paper we are
primarilyinterestedin the concepts of GDI
and GEM. Before we elaborate our
dissatisfactionwith these concepts, these are
described here in brief.
The UNDP defines human development
as "a processof increasingpeople's choices
andformationof humancapabilitiesthrough
investing in people" [UNDP 1990]. The
HDI is a composite index of three basic
components,namely,longevity measuredin
life expectancyatbirth,knowledgemeasured
in literacyrateandmean years of schooling,
and access to resources measured in per

WS-88

capita income adjustedfor the Purchasing

Power Parity (PPP).
The GDI measures the achievements of
women with respectto the same capabilities
while taking note of inequality in the
achievements between men and women.
That is, GDI is simply HDI discounted or
adjusted downwards for gender inequality
[UNDP 1995]. The discountingis done with
respect to aversion to gender inequality a
society can have. Mediumgender aversion
is accepted by the HDR 1995 and is
represented in the index by the concept
termedas epsilon, which takes the value of
2 in the calculationof the GDI. The GEM
examines whether women actively
participatein the economic andpolitical life
and in the decision-making as men. Four
indicators - the percentage of seats in
parliamentheld by women, the percentage
of women as administratorsand managers,
the percentage of women as professionals
and technical workers, and the percentage
of income sharedby women - are used for
constructingthe GEM [UNDP 1995]. While
GDI is expected to focus on expansion of
capabilities,GEM is concernedwith the use
of these capabilitiesto take advantageof the
opportunitiesin life.

II
Critique of GDI
The HDRs havebeen quiteforthrightwith
respectto thelacunaeof humandevelopment
and now the gender development concept.
It is accepted that human development, as
a process of expandingchoices, has no limit
oroptimumpoint."Inprinciplethesechoices
can be infinite andchangeover time [UNDP
1993:104]. It is also accepted that "the
concept of human development is broader
than the measure of humandevelopment...
it will never perfectly capture human
development" [UNDP 1993:104]. In the
context of the GDI, the 1995 HDR
acknowledges that other dimensions of
gender inequality such as community life
and decision making, consumption of
resources within the family, dignity and
personal security, are important but not
representedby theGDI [UNDP 1995]. Also,
GEM as a measure of empowermentdoes
not include householdandcommunitylevel
empowermentaspects,which arecriticalfor
gender equality. However, beyond these
omissions, the GDI has serious limitations
withrespectto theideologicalunderpinnings;
overemphasis on income as a measure of
welfare; omission of structuraldimensions
such as poverty, inequality and patriarchy
crucial for the expansion of choices available for the deevelopment of women's
capabilitiesin the countriesof the southand
choice of variables. The feminist theory of
'exclusion' is relevantin the critical assessment of the GDI.

UNDERPINNINGS
IDEOLOGICAL

Though human and gender development

is abroadanddynamiccorrcept,the selection
of variablesfor the formulationof HDI and
GDI is too narrow. Measuring human and
gender development in three simple
individual characteristicsafter elaborately
discussing the various aspects of a humancentreddevelopmentparadigmhaveresulted
in the trivialisationof the concepts [DAWN
1995]. The HDI and GDI measures do not
reflect the new humancentreddevelopment
paradigmas presentedin HDRs. Themeasure
selected to representthe concepts overlook
the accepted understanding that human
capabilities include much more than the
freedomto live long, abilityto readandwrite
and access to goods and services.
Multidimensionalview of society andhuman
TABLE l: LIST OF VARIABLES CONSIDEREDFOR

GDM CONSTRUCTING

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

Per capita income of women (per capita

women's SDP)
Life expectancy at birth (LEB), female
Maternal mortality rate (MMR)
Infant mortality rate, female
Morbidity rate per 1000, female
Per cent households using polluting fuels
Per cent households (rural) using wood as
domestic fuel
Natural Growth Rate
Total fertility rate (TFR)
Literacy rate, female
Retention rate after class VIII, female
Non-enrollment rate, female
Per cent population houseless and liVing in
institutions and katcha houses
Per cent households with access to safe
drinking water
Per cent households with access to toilet
Per cent households with access to
electricity
Per cent households not having access to
either of the three facilitates
Female workforce participation rate
(WFPR), Main + Marginal
Female WFPR, Main
Per cent non-farm employment, female
Per cent women employed in the organised
sector
No of rapes per lakh of female population
No of accidental deaths per lakh of female
population
No of suicides committed by women per
lakh of female population
No of dowry deaths per lakh of female
population
No of unnaturaldeaths per lakh of female
population
Per cent women voting in parliamentary
elections
Per cent women voting in the state assembly
elections
Per cent women contested in the
parliamentary elections
Per cent women elected in the parliamentary
elections
Per cent women contested in the state
assembly elections
Percent women elected in the stateassembly
elections
Female to male ratio (FMR)

Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October 26, 1996

advance, in economic, social, cultural,

political,environmentalandspiritualspheres
[Goulet 1992] have been proposedby many
critical of the reductionist approach to
developmentadoptedas a dominantmodel.
The HDI andthe GDI as measuresoverlook
all these wisdoms.
Also, the variable selection only reflects
theachievementswith respectto thepersonal
capabilities and their private returnsto the
individuals.Forexample,thereis an implicit
belief that high 'returnsto education' lead
to improvementin productivity(efficiency
related argument) and expansion of real
opportunities to participate in economic
activities [Dreze and Sen 1995:vii]. This
'economism', which is the basis of forming
HDI/GDI,is expectedto, eventually,increase
the GDP. As explained by Dreze and Sen
(1995:37), the recent growth theory
emphasises the importanceof direct human
agency in economic growth,over andabove
the contribution of physical capital
accumulation.
This human development approach to
growthis basedon the experience of the east
Asian economies. But the experience of
SouthKorea,HongKong,Singapore,Taiwan
and post-reform China, which gained
tremendous advantage after liberalisation
andglobalisingtheireconomies, shows that,
besides investing in education and health
care,extensivelandreformswerealso carried
out under a determined government
leadership.The HDI/GDIdoes not,however,
talkaboutlandreformsforenhancinghuman
capabilities. Thus, in the selection of the
variables,the HDI/GDI as a measure is not
far from the human resource development
approachfor enhancing productivitylevels
in any economy.
Good health, good education and control
over resourceswill maximise the country's
GDP in the given structureof the national
and internationaleconomy. The revival of
the world economy through better human
and gender development within the given
(unequal)north-southstructureof the global
economy dominated by the north and the
MNCs and the TNCs of the north will not
bring aboutgenderjustice, social justice or
equity. The given global system will
perpetuateandeven enhance inequalities of
all types, including gender inequalities. At
the national level, improved productive
capabilities through higher HDI/GDI will
not ensure a better deal to women. Thus,
human and gender development measured
withoutanyreferenceto thestructuralaspects
of development not only does not ensure
justice, butit also supportsandpromotesthe
northern model of developmnent which
promotesstructuraladjustmentprogramme
(SAP) as a preconditionfor the development
of the poor countries of the south. Such an
ideological underpinningof the HDI/GDI
was, perhaps,not aimed at by the UNDP,

Economic and Political Weekly

but it has crept in quietly. The new models

of development demanding equitable,
participatory, holistic and sustainable
development as well as genderjustice are
not reflectedin the measuresof the HDI and
the GDI.

Education as an important aspect of

women's developmenthas been acceptedin
all the four approaches- welfare,efficiency,
equality and empowerment - within the
gender theory. However, it is realised that
women's education alone cannot empower
them to change gender relations within
ONINCOME
OVEREMPHASIS
patriarchalsociety and the given economic
The HDI and the GDI both give one-third order. The strategic gender need is the
weightage to income irrespective of its relieving or sharingthe burdenof the social
composition anddistribution.By now many reproductionsectorthatwomen solely carry
criticismshavebeenlevelled atuse of income on their shoulders. This will release
as a measureof welfare. In short,the income tremendous potential of women towards
is not a satisfactory measure of welfare as achieving gender development. The other
well as capabilities because: (a) income importantdimension in women's life is fear
increases with many unnecessaryeconomic of violence againstthem duringall stages of
activities, which are negative for human/ theirlife. Neitherincome, noreducationnor
genderdevelopmentas militaryexpenditures; better health can remove this fear or make
(b) income from other negative activities the families and society share their burden
such as crime, unrest and drugs and of social reproduction. What is requiredis
expenditureon diseases are also included; doing away with the structurallimitationsof
(c) income increases with the depletion thepatriarchal
systemimposedon thewomen.
causedby thoughtlessexploitationof natural
The structural limitations imposed by
resourcesandpassingon thecostsof pollution patriarchyon women's developmentarevery
to the society; and (d) income does not well known now. The UN Convention on
include unpaid family work, voluntary the Elimination of Discrimination against
services etc.
Women (CEDAW) adoptedin 1979 as well
The much appreciatedhuman values of as ForwardLookingStrategies(FLS)adopted
caring and sharing, altruism, which do not at the Nairobi Conferencein 1985 accepted
generateincome but are most importantfor thatwomen's empowermentneedsignificant
human development are discounted by structural changes to shake patriarchy.
income. This is importantin case of the Neither the GDI nor the GEM reflect any
women in the developing countrieswho are of these. InshorttheGDI andGEMmeasures
involved in unpaidactivities for the welfare under the framework of the existing
of thehouseholds.By theinclusionof income developmentparadigm,whichfeministshave
as a measureof human/genderdevelopment, criticised as being a top-down and market
those involved in damaging activities and dominated model imposed by the north on
thusearninghigherincomecanbe considered the south cannot really reflect the
more developed than those involved in development and empowerment achieved
altruisticactivities and not earningincome. by the women of the south.
Also, in the traditionalruralsystems, access
SELECrION
OFVARIABLES
ANDINDICATORS
to resources, for example basic needs such
as water,fuel andnutritionalfood, is ensured
The variables selected for computing the
by customary practices and not income. HDI, the GDI and the GEM are individual
Thesetraditionalnon-monetarysystemshave
TABLE 2: VARIABLE CONSIDEREDFOR GDM - II
met the needs of the ruralpoor households
and more so of women. Thus, although, 1 Percentage of talukas of the state under
DPAP and DDP programmes.
income does reflect control of a person on
Percentageof area underwaste lands.
resources to an extent, it cannot be given 23
Percentageof area underforests.
one-third weightage in the constructionof 4
Percentage of forest area under degraded
the HDI/GDI.
forests.
5
Percentage of villages with an all weather
AND PATRIARCHY
POVERTY,INEQUALITY

Two of the major concerns of the south

are poverty and inequality, which are-not
reflected in the human/genderdevelopment
measures.These two aspectsarealso critical
for ensuring human/gender development.
Percapitaincomedoes notadequatelyreflect
the incidence of poverty and deprivation
prevailing in these countries. Nor does it
depict the widespread exploitative
inequalitiesthatexisthere. Any development
measure that does not pay any attentionto
these aspectswill not be properlymeasuring
the human/gender development in the
countries of the south.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

approachroad.
Percentage of villages with electricity.
Percentageof villages with.afairpriceshop.
Percentage of villages with some medical
facilities.
Area/populationserved by a post office.
Percentage of women as members of cooperatives.
Incidence of rapes per lakh women
population.
Incidence of murders and attempted
murders in the state.
Gini coefficient ownership of land holding
in the state.
Range coefficient of variation of the
distributionof per capitabankcreditacross
districts in the state.

October 26, 1996

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WS-89

level variables reflecting individual level

achievementsonly. They do not reflect any
macroor structuralvariables,which arealso
crucialin enlargingopportunitiesandchoices
for people, including women. Also, the
individual level variables selected by the
UNDP are too few. Inclusion of only three
variables, namely, income, health and
knowledge lea0e out quite a few other
variables crucial even for individual level
development. For example, freedom and
libertywhichdo notnecessarilyhavepositive
and significant association with literacy
[Dasgupta and Weale 1992] are important
variablesforhumanandgenderdevelopment.
In the same way, housing, employment,
safety and security are also important
variables, specially for women.
There are problems with regard to the
selection of indicatorsas well. For example,
health (of women) cannot be adequately
reflected in LEB (life expectancy at birth)
aloneas LEBdoes notmeasureall the critical
dimensions of women's health during her
life cycle. Instead or along with it, IMR-F
(Infant Mortality Rate of Females), MMR
(MaternalMortalityRate) and incidence of
morbidityshouldbe used.All threeindicators
reflect the current dynamics and have
immediate policy implications.
The UNDP justifies the selection of LEB
on thegroundsthatthisvariablediscriminates
amongcountries,includingtheindustrialised
countries and therefore, as a universal
variable, it is a good variable. It is also
arguedthatlife expectancy is an averagefor
the entire group and not an individual
character.It therefore reflects the position
of the entiregroup. Also, its varianceacross
individuals within a country is likely to be
muchsmallerthansay thatof income. Inthis
sense it is a steady variable. However, we
believe thatit is too generala measure. With
the advances in medical sciences, the lifespan has increased. Also, with the
immunisation programmes, the IMR has
declined which has increased the LEB. It
hidestheproblemsof thevulnerablesections,
such as children and young mothers and
ignores chronic diseases and the quality of
life dimension.
In the case of gender development, LEB
is perhaps a redundant variable because
biologically, more females are expected to
be born than males, more female children
are expected to survive than male children
andfemales areexpected to live longer lives
thanmales,if societypermitsthat.The female
of the species is biologically stronger than
the male. Thus in most countries, women
live longer than men, unless there is strong
discriminationagainst women. Though the
GDI takes care of this aspect by assigning
a higher goal-post to female LEB, it does
notremaina validindicatorto expressgender
inequity.Instead,age specific mortalityrates,
which*continue to remain high in most

WS-90

developing countries, and morbidity rates

are more relevant to capturegender equity
in development.
Literacy rate is a weak indicator of
computingtheknowledgeindex becausethe
definition of literacy seems to change from
country to country. The inclusion of
combinedenrollmentrates,which represent
the flow situationimportantfor monitoring
achievements in education, is definitely a
positive development. Nubler (1992) has
argued that educational attainmentin the
1990s should also include vocational
educationandacquisitionof skills. However
reliable dataon this are not availableacross
countries.
There is some kind of mixing up of
capability and achievement indicators in
forming the HDI/GDI. While LEB is an
achievement, literacy and knowledge are
achievements as well as capabilities. Per
capita income is a capability as it reflects
per capita control over resourcesbut is also
an achievementindicatorwhich was till now
usedformeasuringdevelopmentandgrowth.
In other words, HDI/GDI indicate both
achievement as well as capabilities of the
humanbeings. Capabilitiesreferto enabling

conditionsandtheseshouldincludestructural
andmacroconditionsfavouringwomen. For
example, independentaccess of women to
land [Agarwal
1995], favourable
environmentfor humanrights as described
underCEDAW,basicamenitiesandfacilities
for women, community and institutional
efforts [Stewart 1996] are some of such
variables. Somehow there is no place for
these variables in the HDI or the GDI.

III
Towards an Alternative
The conceptual lacunae in the GDI from
the perspective of the developing countries
and the feminists discussed above suggest
a need for evolving an alternativeconcept
and measure of gender development. This
new measure should (a) represent the
concerns of poor women in the south,
(b) measure gender development in a
comprehensive way, and (c) be useful in
drawing policies for gender development.
We have termedthis new conceptas Gender
DevelopmentMeasure(GDM)to distinguish
it from the UNDP's GDI. We presentthis
concept below.

TABLE 3: SELECTEDVARIABLES AND WEIGHTAGESGIVEN FOR CONSTRUCTINGGDM -

Component

Selected Variables

1
1
2
3
Educationalattainment I
2
3
Housing Status
I
Income
Health Status

Employment
diversification
Empowerment

Per capita share of earned income of women in SDP

Life expectancy at birth or maternalmortalityrate
Incidence of morbidity
Per cent households using polluting fuels
Literacyrate (+7)
Retentionrate after class VIII
Per cent girls not-enrolledin age 6-11 years
Per cent households having no access to either
individual water, or toilet or electricity

100
40
40
20
33.33
33.33
33.33
100

I Per cent of women employed in non-farmsector

I Incidence of rapes per lakh populationof women
2 Incidence of unnaturaldeaths (dowry, suicides and murder)
of women per lakh populationof women
3 Per cent women voting in the parliamentelections
4 Per cent women voting in the state assembly elections

TABLE 4: SELECTEDVARIABLES AND WEIGHTAGESGIVEN FOR CONSTRUCTINGGDM -

Component

Environmentand ecology
Communitylevel basic
facilities
Institutionalparticipation
Social environment
Inequalities

Weightage within
ComponentIndex
(Per Cent)

Selected Variables

50
50

I Per cent villages with all weather approachroad

I Membersin credit co-operatives per
1000 population
I Incidence of rapes per lakh populationof women
2 Incidence.of murdersand attempted
murdersper lakh population
I Concentrationrationof land ownership
2 Range coefficient of variationof per capita bank
credit across districts

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

25
25
25

Weightage within
Component Index
(Per Cent)

1 Per cent talukasunderDDP and

DPAP programmes
2 Per cent state area underwastelands

Economic and Political Weekly

100
25

100
100
50
50
50
50

October 26, 1996

We have seen above that human/gender

development is reflected in, not only the
individual level characteristics,but also in
the macro and structuralcharacteristicsof
a society. That is, the choices available to
women for achieving their potential are
enlargednot merelyby theirindividuallevel
achievementsbut also by favourable structural and macro level achievements of the
society. We therefore propose a two-level

empowerment.Women's incomes in thelow

income households are critical in keeping
the families above the poverty line, which
itself hasa spin-offeffectin termsof women's
development. With their income, women
can also purchaselaboursaving devices, so
necessaryfor alleviatingwomen's drudgery
at the household level, which is generally
not in theagendaof anyfamilyunlesswomen
pushesfor it. Women's income in the family
GDM: GDM-I which measures individual
thereforereflects her controlover resources
level gender development and GDM-II
to a considerableextent, thoughnot fully as
which measures macro level gender dev- women often do not have control over their
elopment. The components of the GDM-I
own earned income.
and GDM-II, variablesconsidered for each
The per capita income of women is
of thecomponents,rationalefor the selection calculated for the 15 states by estimating
of variablesamongthe largerset of variables women's sharein the statedomesticproduct
availableandempiricalexerciseof construct- (SDP) with the use of WFPR and maleion of the GDM-I and GDM-II for the 15
female wage ratio of agriculture labour.
states of India to demonstratethe validity Agriculture wage rates have been used
of ourconceptarediscussed at lengthbelow. becausethey aremorerelevantin thecontext
of majority of women workers who work
GENDER
DEVELOPMENT
MEASURE-I
in the agriculturalsector.This methodleaves
We proposethatthe GDM - I include the out the unpaid and unaccounted work of
following components and variables:
women. (By inclusion of these activities in
(1) Income Component Represented by WFPR,it does not takeus anywherein terms
Per CapitaIncome:Per capita income indi- of women's ability to access goods and
cates the capabilityof individualsto access services.) Also, the consumptionof the free
goodsandservices.Forwomen,remunerative goods and services are not accountedin the
employment,as againstpredominantunpaid income component. In the overall index,
employment,is away towardstheirvisibility, unlike the GDI, the income componentgets
social recognition, development and a low weightage.

(2) Educational AttainmentComponent:

Educational attainment reflects the
knowledge status of an individual,which is
a goal as well as an enabling condition of
human/genderdevelopment.Educationcan
and has been proved to expand choices and
opportunities in life. For women in the
developing countries, educationis a means
to empowerment. Since much has been
writtenon women's educationandits impact
on fertilityrates,IMRandsurvivalof female
child [Dreze and Sen 1995], we are not
elaborating on these points here.
Educationalattainmentof women for the
selected statescan be measuredby two stock
variables, namely, the literacy rate and
average years of schooling and two flow
variables,namely, the retentionrateof girls
in school at variouslevels andthepercentage
of never enrolled girls between 6-11 years.
The average years of schooling is more
usefulthantheliteracyrateas a stockvariable,
because the definition of literacy is very
vague andits qualitytendsto varyfromstate
to state. Also, the choices available to the
individuals tend to expand with the rising
number of years of schooling.
(3) Health Status Component:The third
importantdimensionof genderdevelopment
is the health status of women. Good health
is not only an achievement in life but also
an enabling condition for enjoying better

TABLE5: VARIABLES FOR CONSTRUCTING

GDM - I

State

Per
LEB MMR Morbi- Per Cent
Capita (1988- (1982dity
HHS
SDP
91) 86) Per Rates
Using
1991-92
Lakh (Per 000) Pollution
Live
Fuiels
Births)

X1
AndhraPradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Kamataka
Kerala
MadhyaPradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
UttarPradesh
West Bengal
India
Sources: Xl
X2, X6
X3
X4
X5, X7, X9
X8
XlO
XI1, X12
X 13, X 14

1515
1003
633
1722
608
1411
573
1036
2405
777
569
1003
1087
518
431
1295

X2

X3

62.33 402
55.23 1028
57.00 813
61.49 355
61.97 435
63.61 415
73.80 234
54.71 535
64.30 393
55.15 778
65.30 435
58.69 938
60.80 319
49.64 931
59.53 551
59.4
555

X4

X5

123.86
79.08
97.77
85.70
78.21
108.96
184.71
117.04
72.49
222.43
126.79
132.41
77.53
105.10
87.75
108.18

85.70
92.61
97.05
68.69
80.78
80.84
93.34
90.21
66.00
95.02
72.98
87.92
82.16
80.35
91.01
84.10

Liter- Retent- Non- Per Cent Non- Rapes Unnatu- Per Cent Per Cent
Farm
(Per
ral
Women Women
acy ion Rate Enroll- HHS
Rate
ment Having Employ- Lakh Death of Voting in Voting in
after
1991 Class VIII Rate Neither ment
Pop) Women Parlia- Assembly
ment Elections
Sanitation, 1991
1991
1991
(Av of
(Av of
Electricity
Individual
1977, 1980 1974-75/
Water
1984)
1977-78
1991
and
1979-80)
X8
X9
X1O
XIl
X12
X13
X6
X7
X14
32.70
43.00
22.90
48.60
40.50
44.30
86.20
28.90
52.30
34.70
50.40
20.40
51.30
25.30
46.60
39.30

33.54
28.20
17.27
33.54
67.95
30.28
99.43
45.85
43.70
40.96
57.22
27.66
58.80
52.37
56.04
43.22

21.31
13.84
32.79
8.49
1.34
25.33
0.00
49.38
18.69
26.53
10.36
42.67
7.71
45.50
26.71
29.00

26.12
34.75
36.80
15.00
10.23
15.03
34.19
31.19
13.42
47.58
2.25
32.65
15.25
23.65
12.01
24.54

17.29
37.06
9.11
24.33
28.32
24.59
58.41
11.52
17.24
19.08
66.92
12.44
25.29
16.00
45.91
21.19

2.03
4.52
2.13
1.52
1.96
0.76
1.42
8.13
2.38
2.01
0.67
3.83
1.15
2.18
1.44
2.42

21.27
10.59
7.70
25.77
13.68
34.06
22.86
34.64
47.80
22.37
8.17
14.05
33.14
11.97
33.64
22.99

58.77
47.34
47.89
52.22
63.84
56.90
72.59
45.22
55.73
41.69
62.83
48.93
67.07
47.60
66.96
55.00

67.69
57.95
42.84
48.71
63.99
65.21
75.83
41.16
56.00
36.45
63.19
47.23
60.35
39.07
51.66
53.76

Based on Dreze and Sen (1995), Table A 3 and Shivakumar(1996), p 891.

EPW, Research Foundation(1994), pp 1300-07.
Dreze and Sen (1995).
Sundar(1995), Tables 1 and 2.
CMIE (1996a), pp 188-90 and 276-84.
NCAER (1994).
Based on Census, 1991.
Based on Statistics from Crime Bulletin.
Based on India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (1988), pp 174-84.

Economic and Political Weekly

October 26, 1996

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WS-91

opportunitiesfor development. For women,

who are also responsible for reproduction
of new life, good healthstatus is a must. We
selected several variables to measure
women's health: life expectancy at birth,
infant mortality rate of females, maternal
mortality rate as well as incidence of
morbidityandthe use of pollutingfuels. The
lastis veryimportantin thecontextof women
in thedevelopingeconomies as theextensive
use of polluting fuels that creates indoor air
pollutiondoes harmwomen's healththough
it is not always reflected in statistics on
morbidity.
(4) Housitng Status Component: The
housingstatusof women reflectstheirsafety
and securityon the one handandtheirbetter
health and productivityon the other hand.
For a large section of women in the
developing economies home is also a workplace, a means of enhancing their income.
It is therefore an important variable that
measuresgenderdevelopment. Two sets of
indicatorsarethereformeasuringthehousing
statusacrossthestates.These areavailability
of housing measured in terms of the
percentageof people living in a serviceable
house (i e, not houseless or living in nonserviceable 'katcha' houses) and the
availability of the three basic facilities drinkingwater,electricityandtoilet- within
or near the house. The three basic facilities
are very important for women as their
availabilityreduces women's drudgeryand
ensures their better health and hygiene.
(5) Employment Diversification:
Employment diversification of women
reflects the extent of opportunitiesavailable
to them in the labour market. The level of
occupationaldiversificationof female labour
force is observed to be very poor in the
developing economies where most women
are employed in farm and farm related
activities. Larger diversification implies
diverse skills, higher wages and, more

importantly,better access to development.

The indicators selected for measuring
occupational diversification in the selected
states are (a) percentageof women workers
in the non-farm sector, (b) percentage of
women workersin the organisedsector, and
(c) percentage of women workers in the
factory sector.
(6) Empowerment of Women: Since
empowermentis a very wide concept, there
can be many variables to indicate the level
of achievement in this area. Empowerment
can be viewed at two levels, householdlevel
to overcome intra-householdinequalityand
at the societal level to overcome inequalities
at that level. Due to non-availability of
relevant data to measure empowerment
adequately, only two areas have been
considered here - atrocities and violence
against women as represented by the
incidence of rapes, dowry deaths, murders,
suicides and unnaturaldeaths of women,
and participationby women in economic
and political organisations.
UNDP uses percentageof women holding
seats in the parliament as one of the
components of the GEM. But this variable
will not be adequatein a developing country
where women's participationin the national
parliamentis very low. We have therefore
used additional indicators for measuring
politicalparticipation
by women-percentage
of womencontestingas well as gettingelected
to parliamentand the state assembly and
percentage of women voting in different
elections.Now withthereservationof women
in the parliamentand assembly proposed
under a new bill introducedrecently in the
parliament,only percent women voting will
remaina variableformeasuringtheirpolitical
participation.

is strongly recommended by several

researchers.In fact, Dreze and Sen (1995)
have laid emphasis on FMR as an indicator
that displays intra-household inequalities.
We have not selected this variable in our
afialysis for depicting gender inequity. Our
analysis of the data across the Indianstates
shows that the FMR is significantly related
to the LEB and literacy rate (+ve), IMR (ve), TFR and naturalgrowth rate (-ve) and
female WFPR (+ve). Thus, FMR is higher
in the states where fertility rates are low,
IMRis low, literacyratesarehighandWFPR
is also high. In other words, FMR does, to
some extent,reflectthelevel of opportunities
for females at the household level.
But when the data of FMR is observed
for some states like Punjab,where the LEB
for women is second highest, IMR fourth
lowest and literacy rate fourth highest, it is
seen that the FMR is very low, i e, the third
lowest among the selected states. This is
explained by the immigration of male
populationdue to availabilityof employment
opportunities.Inthesameway,UttarPradesh,
not performing very well with other
indicators of gender development also has
a low FMR. It seems that, the FMR at the
state level is partly influenced by the
migration factor as well. For comparison
across the countries,where migrationfactor
does not affect much,FMRis perhapsa good
variableforconstructinggenderdevelopment
index. For a large country like India with
considerable inter-statemigration,FMR is
not a good demographic variable.
In Table 1, all the variables considered
for measuring GDM-I are listed. Not all
variables listed in this table were used for
constructing the GDM-I. To take care of
the problem of multicollinearity and to
allow for representation of all the
WHYNOT FMR?
components in the index, few among this
In the context of measuring gender list were selected for constructingthe index.
development,useof FMR(female-maleratio) In Table 3 the list of variables used for

TABLE 6: SECTORALAND COMPOSITEINDICESOF GDM -

State

Income

Education

Health - I

Health - 11

Housing

I WITH RANKINGS

Employment Empowerment Composite-I Composite- II

Diversification

Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index
AndhraPradesh0.5493
0.2897
AssaIn
0.1025
Bih1ar
0.6540
Gujarat
0.0900
Haryana
0.4966
Karnataka
Kerala
0.0719
Madhya
0.3064
Pradesh
Maharashtra 1.0000
Orissa
0.1754
0.0700
Punjab
0.2899
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu 0.3323
UttarPradesh 0.0440
West Bengal 0.0000
0.4379
India

3
8
10
2
II
4
12
6
1
9
13
7
5
14
15

0.3178
0.3987
0.1247
0.4849
0.6317
0.3362
1.0000

11
8
14
5
2
9
1

0.6514
0.4110
0.4409
0.8865
0.7883
0.7160
0.5245

7
13
12
2
4
5
10

0.1590
0.4760
t).3228
0.5775
0).0874
0.6063
0.1934
0.4431
0.3386

13
6
10
4
15
3
12
7

0.5736
0.9199
0.1390
0.7089
0.3443
0.8397
0.4694
0.6385
0.6265

9
1
15
6
14
3
11
8

Rank

Index Rank Index Rank

0.5462
0.5036
0.4544
0.7436
0.6937
0.6384
0.5245

8
10
11
2
3
6
9

0.4734
0.2830
0.2378
0.7187
0.8240
0.7181
0.2954

9
13
14
5
2
6
12

0.1415
0.4834
0.0000
0.2634
0.3323
0.2677
0.8528

10
4
15
8
5
7
2

0.7066
0.5354
0.5418
0.5219
0.7735
0.6383
0.8803

4
9
8
10
3
6
1

0.4733
0.4002
0.2413
0.5882
0.5733
0.5288
0.6042

9
10
14
4
6
7
3

0.4558
0.4156
0.2435
0.5644
0.5575
0.5159
0.6042

9
10
13
4
5
7
2

0.4092
0.8427
0.1043
0.6695
0.4488
0.6672
0.4206
0.5619
0.5498

14
1
15
4
12
5
13
7

0.3616 10
4
0.7536
0.0000 15
1
1.0000
0.3294 11
7
0.7132
8
0.5279
0.7847
3

0.0417
0.1406
0.1724
1.0000
0.0576
0.2798
0.1192
0.6366
0.2090

14
11
9
1
13
6
12
3

0.1405
0.4306
0.3639
0.8379
0.4817
0.6826
0.4875
0.6136
0.5639

15
12
13
2
-11
5
14
7

0.2638
0.6201
0.1956
0.6991
0.2651
0.5756
0.3069
0.5194
0.4474

13
2
15
1
12
5
11
8

0.2364
0.6072
0.1898
0.6925.
0.2825
0.5469
0.2988
0.5066
0.4346

14
3
15
1
12
6
11
8

Health- I and Composite - I are with MMR and Health - I1and Composite - II are with LEB

WS-92

Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October 26, 1996

constructing the GDM-I along with their

weightages is given.
GENDER
DEVELOPMENT
MEASURE-II

The GDM-II measures the gender

development at the macro level. Five
componentsareconsideredfor measuringit.
These are stated below:
(1) Environment and Ecology: The
environmentand ecology of any region has
a direct influence on the life opportunities
of people. This parametercan be broadly
classified into two categories,namely,status
of naturalresourcessuch as land, water and
vegetation, and status of pollution of air,
water and land. The former affects the
intensity of natural calamities such as
droughtsandfloods andalso the productivity
of land and land based activities, while the
latter affects the quality of natural
environmentavailableto people. The former
can be measuredin terms of environmental
degradation, i e, changes in areas under
deserts/droughts,waste land, forests, etc,
andchangesin quantityandqualityof ground
and surface water while the latter can be
measuredin termsof the extent of air, water
and land pollution arising out of industrial
development and other such activities.
Stateof naturalenvironmenthas a critical
relationship with women's development,
specially ruralwomen who depend on these
fortheirandtheirfamily's survival. In times
of naturalresource degradationand in the
absence of any radical changes in society,
they are forced to spend more time on
activitiesrelatedto family survivalandhence
neglect their health and education. Since
much has been written about women and
environmentand impact of environmental
degradationon women's lives we are not
repeating these arguments.
The indicators selected to measure
environmentalstatus in the selected states
are: (a) the percentage of Lalukasunder
drought-proneand desert areaprogrammes,
(b) the percentageof areaunderwastelands,
(c) the percentageareaunderforests, (d) the
percentageof area under degraded forests
to total forest area and (e) investments per
capita/hectarein chemical and pollutionprone industries.
(2) CommunityLevelFacilities: Thereare
certain community level amenities and
facilities which have a direct impact on the
quality of life that people enjoy and the
extent of the access that people have to
developmentalopportunities.Broadly,these
are (a) availability of street lights, 'pucca'
approach roads, all-weather bus service,
electricity/energy,postal and telecommunication facilities, (b) availability of a fair
price shop, a flour mill, a chemist shop, etc,
(c) availability of potable drinking water,
sanitation and public hygiene, etc, and
(d) pre-primaryand primary schools and
primaryhealthfacilities. These variablesare

Economic and Political Weekly

different from those considered for constructing individual level GDM. For the
GDM-I, basic facilities considered were at
the householdlevel attachedto an individual
house.
We have used several variables,based on
the availabilityof the data,to measurebasic
communityfacilities availableto the people
(a) percentageof villages with an all weather
approach road, (b) percentage of villages
with electricity, (c) percentage of villages
with a fair price shop, (d) percentage of
villages with some medical facilities, and
(e) areaorpopulationservedbyapostoffice.
(3) InstitutionalParticipation:Institutional
participationby women at different levels
suggestsdecentralisationof decision-making
in the society. It ensures empowermentof
people at lower levels. This once again
resultsin higherlevel of freedomandliberty,
betterenjoymentof humanrightsandlesser
exploitation of people at the bottom. Only
in a decentralisedand participatorysystem
can ordinarywomen come into the public
sphere. Participation of women can be
throughthe co-operatives, self-help groups
(SHGs), trade unions, political parties and
economic groups such as DWCRA groups.
Data with respect to none of these except
the first one, that too for both men and
women, were available for all the states.
Since the DWCRA groups often exists on
paperandhave not provedto be the genuine
meansof women'sinstitutionalparticipation,

we have not used these data. Thus, for the

time being, only one variable, viz,
participationof the populationin credit cooperativesis consideredfordepictingoverall
environmentof institutionalparticipation.
(4) Social Environment: Social
environment and human rights is an area
which is crucial for humandevelopmentas
it hasimplicationsforthe freedomandliberty
as well as for law and order enjoyed by a
community. In manyinstances,bettersocial
environmentenhances human capabilities.
For example, removal of untouchabilityin
its true sense can enhance educational
opportunities for SCs in India. Repeated
communal riots or wars can force a whole
generation to a life with poor safety and
security. Education and health are also
neglected in the times of war or civil strife,
besides inflicting direct casualities. The
majorvariableshere would be the incidence
of communalviolence andriots,theincidence
of crimes in generalas well as the incidence
of atrocitieson backwardcastes, women and
minorities. High crime rate in any society
discourageswomen fromfully participating
in the non-domestic domain and realising
their capabilities. Besides, human rights
have their own intrinsic value to human
beings.
For the want of adequatestate level data,
only two variables - incidence of rapes
which has direct bearingon women and the
general incidence of murdersand attempted

TABLE 7: DATA USED FOR CONSTRUCTINGGDM - II

Per Cent Per Cent

Talukas Area as
under WasteDDP and land
DPAP 1988

State

YI
AndhraPradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
MadhyaPradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil'Nadu
UttarPradesh
West Bengal
All-India

20.91
0.00
9.14
23.85
40.74
40.57
0.00
10.68
17.45
12.42
0.00
48.73
11.20
9.70
9.97
14.40

Y2
67.31
19.41
28.54
46.95
47.01
42.71
45.18
30.40
39.92
48.21
24.48
39.15
59.03
37.04
30.67
36.15

Per CentMember- Murder+ Reported Land ConcentVillages ship in Attempt Rapes Concent- ration
(Per Lakh) ration of Per
to
Connec- Credit
(Gini's Capita
ted with Societies Murder, Av of
Bank
All (Per 1000 1991 1990-92 CoeffiCredit
cient)
Weather Pop)
Roads 1986-87
1992-93
Y8
Y7
Y6
Y4
Y5
Y3
43.00
64.60
34.90
73.60
99.10
32.90
100.00
23.40
52.90
15.10
98.80
21.20
63.20
42.80
41.40
40.70

196
78
88
145
124
181
338
121
203
139
120
138
261
111
78
144

6.67
5.38
10.00
6.03
5.67
4.35
3.15
10.29
5.90
4.60
23.32
6.52
5.15
14.08
3.32
7.85

2.08
4.00
1.93
1.29
2.10
0.74
1.33
7.83
2.37
1.77
0.62
3.75
0.88
2.39
1.66
2.49

0.737
0.558
0.687
0.693
0.735
0.685
0.700
0.650
0.707
0.615
0.735
0.623
0.761
0.627
0.700
0.714

0.9309
0.8721
0.8113
0.8960
0.6224
0.6373
0.7957
0.9279
0.9874
0.7271
0.7130
0.8897
0.8152
0.9151
0.9766
0.8520

Source: Y I
Y2

CMIE (1996b).
Based on Ministry of Environment and Forests, Report on Developing India's
Wastelands.
Tata Services Limited (1995).
Y3
Y4
Based on CSO (1989).
Y5, Y6 Based on Bulletin of Crime Statistics.
Y7
India, Ministryof Agriculture(1992).
Based on CMIE (1993).
Y8

October 26, 1996

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WS-93

murders that create an environment of helped us in identifying the significant

insecurity- areconsideredhere. Availability variables, multicollinearity among the
of reliabledataon the incidenceof communal variables, and in selecting the critical
riots, othergeneralcrimes, etc, can improve variables for constructingthe indices. The
this component of the index.
selected variablesas well as the weightages
(5) Inequalities of Assets and Incomes: given to them are presentedin Tables 3 and
Inequalities of distribution of assets and 4 respectively.
income have important implications for
METHOD
OFCONSTRUCrION
humandevelopmentas, higher the extent of
the inequalities, resulting in concentration
GDM-I and GDM-II for the 15 major
of assets/incomes in a few hands, the lower states were constructed by, more or less,
will be the bargaining strength of people employing the same method used in the
with no/low assets or incomes. This will constructionof the HDI. Since ourobjective
imply relatively low levels of wages and was to construct gender development
remunerationfor those with poor assets; measures independently for women only
lower access of the no/low asset population (that is without reference to male-female
to credit marketsas well as to development disparity), we did not use any E value
opportunities in general; and in extreme attributingto the preference given by any
cases acute exploitation of vulnerable society on gender equity. Also, a value of
sections at the lower end of asset andincome 2 is arbitrarilyassignedto E for constructing
distribution. The countries with relatively GDI by the HDR 1995. Hence also, we have
equal distributionof assets and income will not used e. This is an importantdeparture
provide their populations, relatively, equal from the methodused in the constructionof
access to developmental opportunities on the GDI.
the one handand reducechances of extreme
The steps followed for the constructionof
exploitation and acute deprivation of the the indices are described below:
weaker sections of the society on the other. (1) To start with, variable scores were
Two indicatorsof inequalities have been calculated for all variables using the
selected by us for measuring the degree of following formula
iniquitous structure of the society: (a)
actual value - min value
inequalities in the distribution of land I =
max value - min value
measuredin terms of concentrationratio Gini coefficient - of ownership of land, and where I is the variable score for the index,
(b) inequalitiesin thedistributionof financial min value is the minimum value observed
assets (measuredin per capita bank credit) in the 15statesandmaxvalueis themaximum
across the districts in the state. Table 2 value observed in the 15 states.
presents the total list of the variables (2) The negative variable scores were
convertedintopositive scores by subtracting
considered for measuring GDM-II.
each of these from one. This was done in
OF GDM-I AND II FOR STATES
CONSTRUCTION
order to have all the variables as positive
Ourfirststepwas to constructa correlation variables.
matrix of all the variables listed in Tables (3) Sectoral indices were constructed for
I and 2. This was done in order to identify eachof thecomponentsby giving appropriate
the relevant variables for the construction weightages stated in Tables 3 and 4.
of the two indices, GDM-I and GDM-Il, for (4) GDM-I and GDM-II, which are the
the 15 major states. The correlationmatrix composite indices of the componentindices,
TABLE

State

Environment
Index

AndhraPradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
MadhyaPradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
UttarPradesh
West Bengal
All-India

WS-94

0.2855
1.0000
0.8109
0.4678
0.2938
0.3405
0.7310
0.7757
0.6069
0.5720
0.9471
0.2939
0.4715
0.7164
0.78*1
0.6774

were computedfor each of the 15 states and

for all-India by giving equal weightage to
each of the component (sectoral) indices
and adding up the scores.
The data for the variables used in
constructingGDM-I and GDM-II are given
in the Tables 5 and 7 and the composite and
componentindices of GDM-I and GDM-II,
along with the rankingof states in Table 6
and 8 respectively. The majorobservations
emergingfromthetablesarediscussedbelow.
For GDM-I
(1) There arewide variationsin the values
of GDM-I across the states. Punjabtops the
list with the highest GDM (.6925), followed
by Maharashtra(.6072), Kerala (0.6072)
andGujarat(.5844). On theotherhandOrissa
is atthebottomwiththelowest GDM(.1898),
followed by MadhyaPradesh(.2364), Bihar
(.2435) and Rajasthan(.2825). The value of
GDM-I in Orissa is almost one-thirdof the
value in Punjab.
(2) None of the states, however, has
maintained consistent ranking in the six
sectoral indices (Table 6). Punjab ranks
among the top five in five sectoral indices,
but it ranks very low (13th) in per capita
income share of women which implies low
WFPRrateand low wages for women in the
state. Kerala, which ranks second in the
TABLE 9: PERFORMANCEOF THE STATES IN GDM-I
AND GDM -

GDM - I
Ranks
1-5

II

GDM - II Ranks
6-10

11-15

1-5

Kerala
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Punjab
TaamilNadu
6-10
Haryana Karnataka Andhra
Assam
West Bengal Pradesh
Bihar
UttarPradesh
11-15
Rajasthan
Orissa
Madhya
Pradesh

8: SECTORALAND COMPOSITEINDICESOF GDM - II WITHRANKINGS

Basic Facility

Rank

Index

Rank

15
1
3
11
14
12
6
5
8
9
2
13
10
7
4

0.3286
0.5830
0.2332
0.6890
0.9894
0.2097
1.0000
0.0978
0.4452
0.0000
0.9859
0.0718
0.5665
0.3263
0.3098
0.3015

8
5
11
4
2
12
1
13
7
15
3
4
6
9
10

Institutional
Participation
Index
Rank
0.4533
0.0000
0.0388
0.2582
0.1780
0.3971
1.0000
0.1641
0.4793
0.2340
0.1616
0.2307
0.7022
0.1281
0.0012
0.2543

4
15
13
6
9
5
1
10
3
7
11
8
2
12
14

Social Environment
Index
0.8110
0.7100
0.7394
0.8824
0.8352
0.9622
0.9511
0.3229
0.8106
0.8847
0.5000
0.6990
0.9325
0.6065
0.9239
0.7537

Rank
8
11
10
6
7
1
2
15
9
5
14
12
3
13
4

Equality

Composite

Index

Rank

Index

Rank

0.1661
0.2849
0.2508
0.2055
0.3213
0.3388
0.2522
0.2110
0.1528
0.3290
0.2760
0.2437
0.2119
0.2289
0.1617
0.2170

13
4
7
12
3
1
6
11
15
2
5
8
10
9
14

0.4089
0.5156
0.4146
0.5006
0.5236
0.4497
0.7868
0.3143
0.4990
0.4039
0.5741
0.3078
0.5770
0.4012
0.4353
0.4408

11
5
6
7
4
9
1
14
8
12
3
15
2
13
10

Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October 26, 1996

composite index of GDM-I, rankslow in per

capitaincome share,in healthandin housing
indices and Maharashtra ranks low, in
diversification
employment
and
empowerment indices.
The same observationis applicableto the
statesat the bottom as well. Orissa has done
relatively well in per capita income share
andin employmentdiversification(9thrank)
in spite of its lowest level of gender
development;MP has done well in percapita
income share of women (6th rank), while
UttarPradeshhas done well in housing (8th
rank).An importantinferenceis that,though
in general, some states (Punjab, Kerala,
Maharashtra,Haryana and Gujarat) have
performed well in gender development
(GDM-1) and some states (Orissa, Bihar,
Rajasthan, UP and MP) have performed
poorly, no state is good or bad in all the
sectors.
(3) SurprisinglyKerala, which is known
to be very good in humandevelopment and
genderdevelopment,is not all thatgood and
ranks 9th in health (which is primarily
because of its high incidence of morbidity
and a high percentage of women using
pollutingfuels), and 12thin housing(because
of high incidence of poor basic facilities
within the house in the state). In the same
way, Haryana which is one of the most
prosperousstates of the country, ranksfifth
in GDM-I, mainly because of the low share
of women in the earnedincome in the state.
(4) It is interesting to note that the two
top rankingstates in overall per capita SDP,
namely,PunjabandHaryanahave very poor
ranks, 13th and 12th respectively, in terms
of share of women's income. This speaks
of the low WFPRof women as well as their
low wages in these states. Maharashtraand
Gujarat,which rank 3rd and 4th in overall
percapitaSDP, have also done well in terms
of women's share in earned income by
rankingfirst and second respectively. The
poor performance of Maharashtra in
diversification
and
employment
empowerment,however, seems to be due to
the extremely
poor occupational
diversification of its rural women (94 per
cent of women workershere are in the farm
sector) and the high crime rate in Bombay
and in other urban centres.
(5) Some of the inter-statevariations are
indeed striking. While Keralahas zero nonenrollmentrateand99 percent retentionrate
of girls in schools after class VIII, in
Rajasthan,43 per cent of girls between 611 years are not enrolled in schools at all
and only 27.06 per cent of those enrolled
remain in the school after 8th standard.It
is not surprising that female literacy in
Rajasthanis just 20 per cent against 86 per
cent in Kerala.The cases of Bihar, UP and
MP are also the same. Similar wide gaps
between them and Keraia with respect to
MMR and LEB.

Economic and Political Weekly

For GDM-II

experienced a holistic and comprehensive

gender development.

(1) Kerala ranks first with the highest

value of GDM-lI (.7868), implying better
opportunitiesfor women's development at
the macro level. It is followed by Tamil
Nadu, Punjab, Haryana and Assam.
Rajasthanis at the bottom with the lowest
value of GDM-II (.3078), followed upward
by MP, UP and Orissa.
(2) Once again, no state is consistently
high or low in ranking. However, some of
the variationsareindeedverystriking.Punjab
is in the top five states with regard to
environment and ecology, basic facilities
and equality, but it is 14th in social
environment and 11th in institutional
participation.In the same way, Assam ranks
first in environmentand ecology, but ranks
very poor in social environment(11th) and
institutionalparticipation(15th).Orissaranks
high in equality (2nd) but ranks very poor
in basic facilities (15th rank). In short, the
sectorwise variationsin the performanceof
the states are very high.
(3) It is interesting to note that some
prosperousstateshavevery high inequalities
of asset distributionacrossthe people as well
as the regions. For example, Maharashtra
ranks at the bottom (15th) in the equality
index. Same is the case with respect to
Gujarat.However,PunjabandHaryana,with
the highest overall percapitaincomes in the
country, do not have such high inequalities
across the people and the regions.
(4) AndhraPradesh,Haryana,Karnataka,
Rajasthan and Gujarat are very poor in
environment and ecology. This speaks of
the poor managementof naturalresources
in these states.
(5) It is worthnoting thatthe five sectoral
indicesof theGDM-IIdo nothavesignificant
correiations among themselves. This
confirmrs our observation that the
performanceof the states across the various
sectorshasbeenhighlyuneven. An important
inference from here is that no state has

GDM-I, GDM-II AND GDM

The values of the GDM-I and the GDMIIin the 15 stateshavea significantcorrelation
(r = .61, which is significant at 5 per cent
level) between them. However, ranksof the
states differ considerably. There is no state
that has maintained the same rank in both
the indices. Nine states have betterranksin
GDM-I,'while six states have better ranks
in GDM-II. The former are Punjab,
Maharashtra,Gujarat,Karnataka,AP, UP,
West Bengal, MP andRajasthan,whichhave
achieved relatively
better gender
development at the individual level than at
the macrolevel. On the otherhand,the latter
set of states are Kerala,Assam, Tamil Nadu,
Orissa, Haryanaand Bihar that have better
macroenvironmenitfor genderdevelopment
but have not translatedit into the individual
achievements of women. The differences
in the relative positions of the states with
respect to GDM-I and GDM-II provides a
justification for computing two separate
indices at two different levels.
We have computed the GDM for each
state by averagingthe values of GDM-1and
GDM-11.The reason for computing GDM
is to have one comprehensive measure of
GDM for each state.Table 10 presentsthese
values along with the values of the GDI
computed by Shivakumar(1996) using the
UNDP methodology. The ranksof the states
are also given along with the index values.
The table shows that in this final Gender
Development Measure, Keralatops the list
followed by Punjab, Tamil Nadu,
Maharashtra
andHaryana.Ontheotherhand,
Rajasthanis at the bottom followed upward
by MadhyaPradesh,Orissa,Bihnlrand Uttar
Pradesh.
Let us compare the state level GDIs, as
computed by Shivakumar(1996) using the
UNDP methodology and the GDM
constructedby us (Table 10). Our analysis

TABLE 10: PERFORMANCEOF STATES WITH RESPEcr TO DIFFERENTMEASURE OF GENDER DEVELOPMENT

States
AndhraPradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Kamataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
UttarPradesh
West Bengal
India

GDM
Shivakumar'sGDI
GDM - I (with MMR) GDM- I1
Ranks
Ranks- Index
Index
Ranks Index
Ranks Index
0.4733
0.4002
0.2413
0.5882
0.5733
0.5288
0.6042
0.2638
0.6201
0.1956
0.6991
0.2651
0.5756
0.3069
0.5194
0.4474

9
10
14
4
6
7
3
13
2
15
1
12
5
11
8

0.4089
0.5156
0.4146
0.5006
0.5236
0.4497
0.7868
0.3143
0.4990
0.4039
0.5741
0.3078
0.5770
0.4012
0.4353
0.4408

11
5
6
7
4
9
1
14
8
12
3
15
2
13
10

0.4411
0.4579
0.3280
0.5444
0.5485
0.4893
0.6955
0.2891
0.5596
0.2998
0.6366
0.2865
0.5763
0.3541
0.4776
0.4441

October 26, 1996

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10
9
12
6
5
7
1
14
4
13
2
15
3
11
8

0.371
0.347
0.306
0.437
0.370
0.417
0.565
0.312
0.492
0.329
0.424
0.309
0.402
0.293
0.399
0.388

6
10
14
3
9
5
1
12
2
11
4
13
6
15
7

shows thatthereis no significantcorrelation

betweenourGDM-IandGDi of Shivakumar.
This in a way is expected considering the
differences in the variables used and the
methodologyused for computingthe index.
However,it is interestingto note thatKerala,
Punjab,Maharashtraand Gujarathave high
ranks in both the GDM-I and GDI of
Shivakumar.

concerns of the women in the south and it

is therefore relevant for the developing
countries of the south. We would like to
point out, however, that there is scope for
improvinguponthis measureby using better
data (as and when available) in the future.
We would also like to suggest that
constructionof GDIs in may morecountries
will throw more light on the concepts and
methods used in the construction of
alternativeindices.

India,Ministryof Agriculture(1992):Agriculture
Census, 1991-92, Government of India.
India,Ministryof HumanResourceDevelopment
(1988): Womenin India-A StatisticalProfile,
1988, Department of Women and Child
Development, Government of India, New
Delhi.
Laird,K C (1974): 'Social IndicatorModels: An
Overview' in K C Land and S Spilerman
(eds), Social Indicator Models, Russel Sage
Foundation, New York, pp 5-36.
CONCLUDING
OBSERVATIONS
Morris,M D andM B McAlpin( 1982):Measuring
the Conditionof India's Poor - The Physical
In this paperwe have arguedthatthe GDI
Quality of Life Index, Promillaand Co, New
References
and GEM as conceptualised by the UNDP
Delhi.
are not satisfactoryconcepts as (a) they do Agarwal, B (1994): 'Genderand Commandover NationalCouncilfor AppliedEconomicResearch
not measure the concerns of women in the
(1994): Non-Enrolment,Drop-outcandPrivate
Property:A CriticalGapinEconomicAnalysis
Expenditure on Elementary Education - A
andPolicyin SouthAsia', WorldDevelopment,
south,(b) they measuregenderdevelopment
22(10). pp 1455-78.
Comparison across States and Population
at the individual level only ignoring the
Groups, September, NCAER, New Delhi.
macro and structural aspects of gender CentralStatisticalOrganisation(1989): Statistical
Abstract, Ministryof Planning, Government Nubler, 1 (1992): The Knowledge Dimension in
development,and(c) they arefairlynarrowly
the Human DevelopmentIndex: In Search of
of India.
definedin termsof theircoverage. We have, Centrefor Monitoringof IndianEconomy(1993):
a Broader Concept, UNDP, New York.
therefore,presentedanalternative conceptual
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
'District Profiles', Bombay.
framework for measuring the gender - (1996a): 'India's Social Sector', February
Development( 1976):MeasuringSocial WellBeing-A ProgressReporton theDevelopment
Bombay.
developmentin the south (naming it GDM)
of Social Indicators, The OECD Indicator
and computed GDM-I, GDM-II and GDM - (1996b), 'India's Agricultural Sector: A
Development Programme,OECD, Paris.
Coi,ipendium Of Statistics', Bombay.
for the major 15 states.
Our measures appear more satisfactory Cobb, C. T Halsteadand JonathanRowe (1995): Oscar, A and S Juan (1980): 'MeasuringLevels
of Living in LatinAmerica', LSMS Working
'If the GDP Is UP, Why Is AmericaDown?',
than the GDI and GEM of the UNDP for
Paper No 3, The World Bank, Washington,
The AlterntativeMonthly,October,pp 62-78.
severalreasons. Firstly,the formermeasures Dasgupta.P and M Weale (1992): 'On Measuring
DC.
are related to gender development at two
the Quality of Life', World Development, Sethi, J D (1992): 'Quality of Life' in A Dutta
and M M Agarwal (eds), The Qualityof Life,
levels, the individualandthe societal levels.
20(1), pp 119-31.
Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimnla
Individual achievements cannot be very Datta, A and M M Agarwal (eds) (1992): The
and B R Publishing Corporation,Delhi, pp
Quality of Life, IndianInstituteof Advanced
effective in enlarging opportunities in
23-34.
Stutdly, Shimnla and B R Publishing
unfavourablemacro environment and vice
ShivaKumar,A K(1996): 'NDP's Gender-Related
Corporation, Delhi.
versa.Consequently,a realistic measurehas Desai, M (1995): 'Income and1Alternative
DevelopmentIndex:A ComputationforIndian
to have two levels of measurement.
States', Economic and Political Weekly,
Measuresof Well-being' in D G Westendorff
Secondly, our measures are more
31(14), pp 887-97.
andD Ghai(eds), MonitoringSocial Progress
comprehensiveas these incorporateall the
in the1990s,forUNRISD,Avebury,Aldershot, Stewart, F (1996): 'Groups for Good or Ill',
OxfordDeVelopmentStudies, 24(1), pp 9-25.
Hong Kong, Singapore. Sydney, pp 23-39.
critical aspects of gender (human)
development,which is much wider thanjust Development Alternativefor Women for a New Sundar,R (1995): 'Household Survey of Health
Care Utilisation and Expenditure',Working
Era( I995): 'RethinkingSocial Development:
the achievementswith respect to health and
Paper No 53, National Council of. Applied
DAWN's Vision', World Development, 23
education at the individual level. It is also
Economic Research, New Delhi.
(Il), pp 2001-4.
influenced by the status of housing, safety Drewnowski, J (1974): On Measuring and Szalai, A (1980): 'The Meaning of Comparative
andsecurityof the individuals,environment
Researchon the Qualityof Life' in Alexander
Planntingthe Quality (f Life, The Mouton,
and ecology, community level services and
Szalai andFrankM Andrew(eds), TheQuality
The Hague.
of Life - ComparativeStudies, Sage Studies
inequalities. And thirdly, our measures Dey-Abbas, J and R Gaiha (1995): 'The Use of
in InternationalSociology, 20, sponsored by
Socio-Economic Indicators for Evaluating
provideusefulinferencesforpolicy purposes
the InternationalSociological Association,
Progress in Implementingthe.Programmeof
as they presentsectoral indices for different
pp 7-21.
Action of the WorldConferenceon Agrarian
sectors,which makesit easier for the policyReform and Rural Development' in D G Tata Services limited (1995): Statistical Outline
makersto see the strengthsand weaknesses
of India, 1994-95, Departmentof Economics
Westendorff and D Ghai (eds), Monitoring
of the development in different sectors and
and Statistics, TSL, Bombay.
Social Progress in the 1990s, for UNRISD,
devise policies accordingly.
UnitedNationsbevelopment Programme( 1990):
Avebury, Aldershot, pp 234-59.
HumacnDevelopment Report, 1990, Oxford
Our measures, however, are likely to be Dreze, J and A Sen (1995): India: Economic
University Press, Oxford, for UNDP.
Developmentand Social Opportunity,Oxford
criticised on one ground that they include
- (1991): HuumanDevelopment Report, 1991,
University Press, Delhi.
too many variables and therefore they are
Oxford University Press, Oxford, for UNDP.
no more simple indices that could be EPW Research Foundation (1994): 'Social
Indicators of Developmnentfor India - 11: - (1992): Human Development Report, 1992,
constructedeasily. We would like to reply
Oxford University Press, Oxford, for UNDP.
Inter-State Disparities', Economic and
tothiscriticismbypointingoutthatsimplicity
- (1993): Human Development Report, 1993,
Political Weekly,May 21, pp 1300-07.
at the cost of reality is not desirable. Also, Galtung, J and A Wirak(1977): 'HumanNeeds,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, for
the numberof variables are not really very
UNDP.
Human Rights and the Theories of
Development' in UNESCO (ed), Indicators - (1994): Human Development Report, 1994,
large consideringthe coverage of the most
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, for
of Social and Economic Change and Their
critical issues in gender development.
UNDP.
Applications, UNESCO, pp 7-34.
Finally, data with regards most of these
- (1995): Human Development Report, 1995,
variables are easily available, as far as our Goulet, D (1992): 'Development: Creator and
Destroyer of Values', World Development,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, for
experience with Indian data systems goes.
UNDP.
20(3), pp 467-75.
While summing up, we would like to Henderson, D W (1974): Social Indicators - A - (1996): Human Development Report, 1996,
observethatouralternativemeasureof gender
Rationale and Research Framework,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, for
development definitely represents the
Economic Council of Canada, Ottawa.
UNI)P.

WS-96

Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:59:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October 26, 1996