India State Hunger Index

8/14/2019 India State Hunger Index

1/21

ADVANCECOPYFORDISCUSSION

TheIndiaStateHungerIndex:ComparisonsOfHungerAcrossStates

PurnimaMenon

AnilDeolalikar

AnjorBhaskar

October14,2008

Thisadvancecopyversionisintendedfordiscussionandfeedback.Thereportwill

be revised in response to feedback received from workshop participants at the

releaseof theGlobalHunger Index2008andthe IndiaStateHunger Index2008

onOctober14,2008.

AcknowledgementsThisworkwassupportedbyWeltHungerHilfethroughagranttotheInternationalFoodPolicy

ResearchInstitute.Wearegratefultothefollowingindividualsforvaluablecommentsand

feedback: DorisWiesmann,MarieRuel,KlausvonGrebmerandothercolleaguesatIFPRIand

WeltHungerHilfe.

Abouttheauthors:PurnimaMenonisResearchFellowwiththeFoodConsumptionandNutritionDivisionandthe

NewDelhiOfficeattheInternationalFoodPolicyResearchInstitute(IFPRI). AnilDeolalikaris

ProfessorattheDepartmentofEconomics,UniversityofCalifornia,Riverside.AnjorBhaskarisa

ResearchAnalystattheNewDelhiOfficeatIFPRI.


2/21

KEYFINDINGS

IndiasGHI2008scoreis23.7,whichranksit66thoutof88countries.ThisindicatescontinuedpoorperformanceatreducinghungerinIndia.

TheIndiaStateHungerIndex(ISHI)2008wasconstructedinasimilarfashionastheGHI2008toenablecomparisonsofstateswithinIndia,andtocompareIndian

statestoGHI2008scoresandranksforothercountries.

TheISHI2008scorewasestimatedfor17majorstatesinIndia,coveringmorethan95

percent

of

the

population

of

India.

ISHI2008scoresforIndianstatesrangefrom13.6forPunjabto30.9forMadhyaPradesh,indicatingsubstantialvariabilityamongstatesinIndia.Punjabisranked

34th

whencomparedtotheGHI2008countryrankings,whileMadhyaPradeshis

ranked82nd.

All17stateshaveISHIscoresthatarewellabovethelowandmoderatehungercategories.Twelveofthe17statesfallintothealarmingcategory,and

one MadhyaPradeshintotheextremelyalarmingcategory.

ISHIscoresarecloselyalignedwithpoverty,butthereislittleassociationwithstateleveleconomicgrowth.Highlevelsofhungerareseeneveninstatesthatare

performingwellfromaneconomicperspective.

Inclusiveeconomicgrowthandtargetedstrategiestoensurefoodsufficiency,reducechildmortalityandimprovechildnutritionareurgentprioritiesforall

statesinIndia.


3/21

1

INTRODUCTION

Foodandgoodnutritionarebasichumanneeds,therecognitionofwhichisenshrinedinthe

firstMillenniumDevelopmentGoal(MDG),theeradicationofextremepovertyandhunger.

However,developingsoundwaystomonitorprogresstowardstheeradicationofhungerisvital

tosustainthesalienceofhungeringlobalandnationalpolicydiscussions. TheGlobalHunger

Index(GHI)isoneapproachtomeasuringandtrackingprogressonhungerandenabling

widespreaddiscussionaboutthereasonsfor,andtheconsequencesofhunger.TheGHIwas

developedbytheInternationalFoodPolicyResearchInstitute(IFPRI)in2006(Wiesmannetal.

2006)asameansofcapturingthreeinterlinkeddimensionsofhungerinadequate

consumption,childmalnutrition,andchildmortality.

Althoughhungerismostdirectlymanifestedininadequatefoodintake,overtimeinadequate

foodintakeandlackofaproperdiet,especiallyincombinationwithlowbirthweightsandhigh

ratesof

infections,

can

result

in

stunted

and

underweight

children.

The

most

extreme

manifestationofcontinuedhungerandmalnutritionismortality. TheGlobalHungerIndex

recognizestheinterconnectednessofthesedimensions,andtherefore,capturesperformance

onallthreeoftheminhowitisconstructed. Theindexhasbeenaneffectiveadvocacytool

whichhasbroughttheissueofglobalandnationalhungertotheforeinpolicydebates,

especiallyindevelopingcountries.Therankingofnationsonthebasisoftheirindexscoreshas

beenapowerfultooltohelpfocusattentiononhunger,especiallyforcountrieslikeIndiawhich

underperformonhungerandmalnutritionrelativetotheirincomelevels.

IndiahasconsistentlyrankedpoorlyontheGlobalHungerIndex.TheGlobalHungerIndex2008

(vonGrebmer

et

al.

2008)

reveals

Indias

continued

lackluster

performance

at

eradicating

hunger;Indiaranks66thoutofthe88developingcountriesandcountriesintransitionforwhich

theindexhasbeencalculated. ItranksslightlyaboveBangladeshandbelowallotherSouth

Asiannations.1 ItevenranksbelowseveralcountriesinSubSaharanAfrica,suchasKenya,

Nigeria,Cameroon,andevenCongoandSudan.Thisisinspiteofthefactthatthelevelofper

capitaincomeinthesesubSaharanAfricancountriesismuchlowerthanthatinIndia. Table1

belowshowshowthesecountrieshavemuchlowerhungerindexscorestheirlowerpercapita

incomelevels.

1IndiasslightlybetterperformancerelativetoBangladeshisentirelyduetobetteraccesstofoodinIndia

relativetoBangladesh,whichinturnisaconsequenceofIndiashigheragriculturalproductivity.Onthe

othertwocomponentsoftheGHIchildunderweightandchildmortality,IndiaranksbelowBangladesh.

Indeed,Indiaschildunderweightratesareamongthehighestintheworld.


4/21

2

Table1. GDPpercapitainrelationtoscoresontheGlobalHungerIndex2008

Country GHI2008 GDPperCapita*

Nigeria 18.4 1977

Cameroon 18.7 2124

Kenya 19.9 1535

Sudan

20.5

2088

India 23.7 2753

*GrossDomesticProduct(GDP)dollarestimatesatPurchasingPowerParity(PPP)percapita

Source:WorldDevelopmentIndicators,2007(WorldBank)

AstatelevelhungerindexforIndia

Withover200millionpeoplewhoarefoodinsecure,Indiaishometothelargestnumberof

hungrypeopleintheworld. Whiletherehasbeenattentiontohungerandundernutritionatthe

centrallevel,withinIndiaspoliticalsystem,statesareimportantpoliticalunitswithregardto

theplanning

and

execution

of

development

programs.

Thus,

unpacking

the

hunger

index

at

the

levelofthestateisanimportanttooltobuildawarenessofthelevelsanddisparitiesinhunger

amongstates.Inaddition,thevariabilityintherelativecontributionoftheunderlying

componentsofthehungerindexacrossthedifferentIndianstatescanhelpinformthe

discussionaboutthedriversofhungerindifferentstatecontexts.

TheavailabilityofnationalhouseholdsurveysinIndiathatcapturethethreeunderlying

dimensionsoftheGlobalHungerIndexatthestatelevel enablesustodevelopastatehunger

indexforIndia.Thestatehungerindexiscalculatedusingaprocedurethatissimilartothatused

forcalculatingtheGHIscoresofcountries.ThispermitscomparisonofIndianstatestoother

countriesintermsoftheirperformanceonhungerandmalnutrition.

TheoverallobjectiveofthedevelopmentofanIndiaStateHungerIndexistofocusattentiontotheproblemofhungerandmalnutritionatthestateandcentrallevelsinIndiathroughthedevelopmentofanindexthatenablescomparisonswithinIndia,andglobally.DATAANDMETHODS

TheIndiaStateHungerIndexisbasedonthesameunderlyingvariablesastheGlobalHunger

Index.Theseare:

Theproportionofpopulationthatdoesnotconsumeanadequatelevelofcalories Theproportionofunderweightchildrenunderfiveyearsofage;and, Themortalityrateamongchildrenunderfiveyearsofage,expressedasthepercentageof

childrenbornalivewhodiebeforetheyreachtheageoffive.


5/21

3

WeusetwodatasourcesfortheestimationoftheIndiaStateHungerIndex.Thesearethethird

roundoftheNationalFamilyHealthSurvey(20052006)forIndia(referredtoastheNFHSIII

data)2andthe61stroundoftheNationalSampleSurvey(NSS)datafrom200420053.

TheIndiaStateHungerIndexiscalculatedandpresentedfor17majorstatesinthecountry.

Thesestates

cover

95

percent

of

the

countrys

population,

according

to

the

2001

census

in

India.

WhiletheNFHSIIIhasalargeenoughsamplesizetoyieldrepresentativeestimatesofthechild

underweightandmortalityratesevenforthesmallerstatesandunionterritoriesinthecountry,

thesamplesizeoftheNSS61stroundisinsufficientforestimatingundernourishmentratesin

theseplaces.Therefore,werestrictedoursampletothosestatesforwhichtheNSSyields

precisestatelevelestimates.

Populationundernourishedbasedoncalorieconsumption: Theproportionofthepopulation

undernourishedbasedoncalorieconsumptionwasestimatedusingunitlevelfoodconsumption

datafromthe61stroundoftheNationalSampleSurvey,conductedin200405.TheNSS

obtainedhouseholdconsumptiondataonmorethan225individualfoods;thesewere

convertedtocaloriesusingfoodtocalorieconversionfactorsreportedbyNSSO(2007).

Allowancesforcaloriesfrommealseatenoutsidethehomeweremadeusingtheprocedures

suggestedandfollowedbyNSSO(2007).

TheGHI2008(vonGrebmeret.al,2008)reportsthecaloriebasedundernutritionforIndiatobe

20%,basedontheFAOundernourishmentcutoffof1,820kcalsperperson.4 TheFAOestimate

ofcalorieundernutritionisbasedondataonfoodavailability,collectedfromnationalfood

balancesheets.Assuch,itislikelytodifferfromcalorieundernutritionestimatesthatarebased

2

The

National

Family

Health

Survey

III

is

the

third

one

in

aseries

of

such

surveys.

It

was

conducted

by

the

InternationalInstituteforPopulationSciences(IIPS,Mumbaiwhichactedasthenodalagency.Thesurvey

collecteddataon51,555childrenunder5yearsofage.TechnicalsupportwasprovidedbyMacro

InternationalwhileUSAIDprovidedfinancialassistanceforthestudy.

3TheNationalSampleSurveyOrganisatonconductssurveysonvarioussocioeconomicissuesannually.

The61stroundoftheNationalSampleSurvey(NSS)wasconductedbetweenJuly2004toJune2005.The

HouseholdConsumerExpenditureSurveywasconductedonalargesamplebasisandwastheseventh

quinquennialsurveyonthesubject.Itcoveredasampleof79,298ruraland45,346urbanhouseholdsin

allthestatesandunionterritoriesofIndia.

4ItshouldbenotedthatthecalorienormsforpovertyusedwithinIndiadiffersignificantlyfromtheFAO

recommendednormsforundernourishment.DandekarandRath(1971)usedanormof2,250caloriesper

dayperpersontosetapovertylineforIndia.AtaskforceoftheIndianPlanningCommission

subsequentlyrevisedthesecalorienormsto2,400inruralareasand2,100inurbanareas(thedifference

beingattributedtothelowerratesofphysicalactivityintheurbanareas(GOI1979).Thesearethecalorie

normsthatunderlietheofficialpovertylinecurrentlyinusebytheGovernmentofIndia.Tocomplicate

mattersfurther,theNationalSampleSurveyOrganisation(NSSO)usesadailycalorienormof2,700

caloriesperconsumerunit(notpercapita)(NSSO2007).


6/21

4

onconsumptiondataobtainedfromhouseholdconsumptionexpendituresurveys,suchasthe

NSS(SmithandWeisman,2007).InthecaseofIndia,theuseof1,820kcalsperpersonperday

asthecutoffyieldsacalorieundernutritionrateof34%,whichissubstantiallylargerthanthe

20%reportedbyFAOandusedintheestimationoftheGlobalHungerIndex2008.Sincean

importantgoalofthisstudywastoensurecomparabilityoftheIndiaStateHungerIndexwith

theGlobal

Hunger

Index,

we

use

acalorie

cut

off

that

yields

anational

calorie

undernutrition

rateofexactly20%.Thisleadstoacutoffof1,632kcalsperpersonperday.

Childunderweight: Theproportionofunderweightamongchildrenunderfiveyearsofagewas

estimatedatthestatelevelusingunitleveldatafromtheNFHSIIIdataset(availableat

www.measuredhs.com). WeusedtheWHO2006internationalgrowthreferenceandNFHS

recommendedsamplesurveyweightstoestimatetheproportionofchildrenineachstate

whoseweightforagewaslessthantwostandarddeviationsbelowtheWHOreference.

Childmortality: Weutilizetheunderfivemortalityratesatthestatelevelasreportedinthe

NFHSIIIreport(Table7.4,Chapter7,pp.187)(IIPS,2007).Themortalityrateisexpressedasthe

percentageoflivebornchildrenwhodonotsurvivepastage59months.

TheIndiaStateHungerIndexiscomputedbyaveragingthethreeunderlyingcomponentsofthe

hungerindexviz.,theproportionofunderweightchildren,theunderfivemortalityrate

(expressedasapercentageoflivebirths),andtheprevalenceofcalorieundernutritioninthe

population.


7/21

5

RESULTS

CurrentstatusandrankingofstateswithinIndiaTable2presentstheIndiaStateHungerIndex(ISHI)aswellasitsunderlyingcomponentsforthe

17majorstatesinthecountry.

Table2. UnderlyingcomponentsofIndiaStateHungerIndexandIndiaStateHungerIndex

scores

State

Prevalenceof

calorie

undernourish

ment3

Proportionof

underweight

among

children


8/21

6

TheseverityofhungerisreportedinTable3,whiletherankingofthe17statesbytheIndia

StateHungerIndexisdisplayedbelowinFigure1. Theseverityofhungerisbasedonthe

classificationofcountriesbytheseverityoftheirhungerindexbytheGlobalHungerIndex2008.

WhatisdisconcertingtonoteinTable3isthatnotasinglestateinIndiafallsinthelowhunger

ormoderate

hunger

categories

defined

by

the

GHI

2008.

Instead,

most

states

fall

in

the

alarmingcategory,withonestateMadhyaPradeshfallingintheextremelyalarming

category.FourstatesPunjab,Kerala,AndhraPradeshandAssamfallintheserious

category. ThemapoftheIndiaStateHungerIndexinFigure2depictsthisclearly,andshows

thatthebulkofIndianstatesforwhichthehungerindexwasestimatedareinthealarming

category.

Table3. SeverityofIndianStateHungerIndex,byState.


9/21

7

Figure1. RankingofstateswithinIndiafromlowesttohighestIndiaStateHungerIndexscores.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

India

Punja

bKerala

Andh

raPrad

esh

Assam

Harya

na

TamilNad

uRajas

than

W

estBen

gal

Uttar

Pradesh

Maharashtra

Karnata

kaOrissa

Gujar

at

Chhatt

isgarh

B

StatesinIndia

IndiaState

HungerIndexscore


10/21

8

Figure2. MapoftheIndiaStateHungerIndex,byseverity5.

5Thismapisintendedtobeaschematicrepresentationofhunger.


11/21

9

Figure3.ContributionofunderlyingcomponentsoftheIndianStateHungerIndextooverallscores

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

India

Punjab

Ke

rala

Andhra

Pradesh

Assam

Ha

ryana

TamilNadu

Raja

sthan

WestBe

ngal

UttarPra

desh

Maharashtra

Karnataka

Orissa

Gujara t

Calorieundernourishment

Childunderweight

Underfivemortalityrate


12/21

10

Table4. ComparisonofIndianstateswithcountriesoutsideIndia,basedontheGHI2008

GHI

Rank Country/State

Hunger

Index

GHI

Rank Country/State HungerIndex

GHI

Rank Country/Sta

Note:ShadedcellsrepresentIndianStates

Argentina


13/21

11

Table4(continued)

GHI

Rank Country/State

Hunger

Index

GHI

Rank Country/State HungerIndex

GHI

Rank Country/Sta

48 Botswana 17.90 Orissa 23.74 86 Burundi

49 Togo 18.17 Maharashtra 23.79 87 Eritrea

50 TimorLeste 18.37 67 Zimbabwe 23.83 88 Congo,Dem

51 Nigeria 18.43 68 Tanzania 24.17

52 Cameroon 18.67 69 Haiti 24.30

53 Korea,Dem.Rep. 18.77 Gujarat 24.69

54 Congo,Rep. 19.13 70 Bangladesh 25.23

Haryana 19.54 71 Tajikistan 25.89

Assam 19.85 72 Mozambique 26.33

55 Kenya 19.87 Chhattisgarh 26.65

AndhraPradesh 20.01 73 Mali 26.93

56 Sudan 20.52 Bihar 27.30

57 Nepal 20.57 74 GuineaBissau 27.45

58 LaoPDR 20.63 75 CentralAfricanRepublic 28.05

59 Djibouti 20.87 Jharkhand 28.67

60 Guinea 20.87 76 Madagascar 28.77

UttarPradesh 20.88 77 Comoros 29.07

TamilNadu 20.99 78 Zambia 29.17

Rajasthan 21.00 79 Angola 29.50

61 Pakistan 21.67 80 Yemen,Rep. 29.77

62 Malawi 21.80 81 Chad 29.93

WestBengal 22.17 MadhyaPradesh 30.90

63 Rwanda 22.33 82 Ethiopia 30.97

Karnataka 22.81 83 Liberia 31.80

64 Cambodia 23.20 84 SierraLeone 32.19

65 BurkinaFaso 23.53 85 Niger 32.40

66 India 23.70

Notes:GHI2008ranksandscoresarefromtheGHI2008report(vonGrebmeretal.,2008);onlycountrieswithGHI>=5areranked..


14/21

12

ComparisonofIndianstateswithothercountriesTable4showsthepositionofthe17IndianstatesrelativetothecountriesforwhichtheGlobalHunger

Index2008isreported.IndiasrankontheGHI2008is66;theranksofthedifferentstatesinrelationto

theGHIrangefrom34forthestateofPunjab(whoseISHIscoreliesplacesitbetweenNicaraguaand

Ghana)to

82

for

Madhya

Pradesh

(whose

ISHI

score

places

it

between

Chad

and

Ethiopia).

Ten

of

the

17

stateshaveanISHIrankthatisaboveIndias(66),whichindicatesthatthesestatesarerelativeout

performers(atleastrelativetotheIndianaverage).Sadly,eventhebestperformingstateinIndia,

Punjab,ranksbelowsuchcountriesasGabon,Honduras,andVietnam.

Itisusefultoexaminetheunderlyingdimensionsonthehungerindextounderstandthecontributions

ofdifferentdimensionstotheoverallhungerindex.ThisisshowninFigure3,andrevealsthatforthe

majorityofstates,childunderweightisresponsibleforthelargestvariabilitybetweenstates.Inaddition,

formoststates,theoverallscoresarehighbecauseofparticularlyhighchildunderweightrates. When

comparedtothemajorityofstates,thecontributionoflowcalorieconsumptionlevelstothehunger

indexishigherforKeralaandTamilNadu,andtoalesserextentinMaharashtraandKarnataka. The

contributionofchildmortalitytothehungerindexscores,however,isrelativelysmallandlessvariable

acrossallthestateswhencomparedtothecontributionsofchildunderweightandcalorie

undernourishment.

TheHungerIndexinrelationtoothersocialandeconomicindicatorsHowdoestheIndiaStateHungerIndex(ISHI)comparetootherindicatorsofeconomicandsocial

progress?Toaddressthisquestion,wepresentinFigure4thesimpleassociationbetweenISHIscores

andlevelsofpovertyatthestatelevel.Theassociationbetweenthehungerindexandthepercentageof

thepopulationbelowthepovertylineisstrong.Thisisexpected,giventhatpovertyisoftentheroot

causeof

insufficient

food

intake,

child

malnutrition,

and

child

mortality.

A

few

states,

however,

deviate

fromthepredictedline.GujaratandMadhyaPradeshareclearnegativeoutliers,meaningthatthey

haveamuchhigherhungerindexthanwouldbeexpectedbasedontheirpovertylevel; Punjab,Orissa

andKerala,ontheotherhand,standoutaspositivedeviantsthatis,theyhavesignificantlylower

hungerindexscoresthanwouldbeexpectedofstateswiththeirlevelofpoverty.

Inadditiontotheabove,Figure5presentsascatterplotofthe17statesbythehungerindexandnet

statedomesticproduct(NSDP)percapita,withthelatterservingasaproxyforpercapitaincomeina

state.Inthiscase,astronginverseassociationisobservedbetweenthetwovariables,withpoorerstates

havingasignificantlyhigherhungerindexthanmoreprosperousstates.However,theassociationisfar

from

perfect,

with

a

number

of

states

appearing

as

outliers.

For

instance,

Madhya

Pradesh

again

stands

outashavingamuchhigherlevelofhungerthanwouldbeexpectedbasedonitspercapitaincome;

JharkhandandChhattisgarharealsonegativeoutliers,asisMaharashtrawhichhasahungerindex

almostashighasthatofOrissa,butaNSDPtwiceaslarge.Severalstatesarealsodoingbetterthan

expectedgiventheireconomiclevel,withPunjabbeinganoticeablepositiveoutlier,and,toasmaller

extent,Kerala,AssamandRajasthan.


15/21

13

Figure4. IndiaStateHungerIndexinrelationtopoverty

12

16

20

24

28

32

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

%ofpopulationbelowpovertyline,200405

IndiaState

HungerIndex

MadhyaP

Punjab

Karnataka

Kerala

Gujarat

Haryana

AndhraPradesh

Jh

Assam

WestBengal

Tamil

Nadu

Maharashtr

UttarPradesh

Chhattisgarh

Bihar

Rajasthan


16/21


17/21

15

Finally,Figure6presentstheassociationbetweenthehungerindexandtherateofeconomicgrowthfor

eachstate.Thefigureshowslittleevidenceofaconsistentrelationshipbetweenthetwovariables.A

statethatexperiencednegativerealgrowth(innetstatedomesticproductpercapita)between1999

2000and200405(e.g.,MadhyaPradesh)hasahighhungerindex,butsodidstateslikeBihar,

JharkhandandChhattisgarhthatexperiencedmuchhigherratesofeconomicgrowthoverthistime

period.Again,

Punjab

stands

out

as

aremarkable

positive

outlier,

with

its

much

lower

hunger

index

thanstatessuchasKerala,AndhraPradeshandHaryanawhoserateofeconomicgrowthwastwo to

threetimeslargerduringthesameperiod (


18/21

16

TrendsacrosstimeSincetheIndiaStateHungerIndexhasnotbeenestimatedovertwopointsintime,itisdifficultto

examinechangesinthevaluesofthestateIndicesovertime.However,thesimilarityinconstructionof

theIndiaStateHungerIndextoastatelevelNutritionIndex6calculatedusingdatafor1994(Wiesmann,

2004)gives

us

the

ability

to

examine,

at

aminimum,

the

changes

in

rankings

of

the

different

states

over

thelast14years.

Table5presentstherankingsofstateswithinIndiausingtheIndiaStateHungerIndexin2008andthe

NutritionIndexin1994.Wenotesomedistinctchangesinrankingovertime. Particularlystrikingisthe

poorperformanceofthestatesofOrissaandMadhyaPradesh.In1994,MadhyaPradeshranked11th

outofthe15states,whileitrankedlast(17th)in2008. Giventhelargecontributionofchildunderweight

totheISHIscores,thedeclineinrankingcouldbeduetothelackofimprovementinchildundernutrition

ratesinMadhyaPradeshoverthelastsevenyears7. Similarly,Orissa,whichranked5thontheNutrition

Indexin1994,nowranks12thontheISHI2008. Haryana,despiteitsimpressiveeconomicperformance,

alsoseemstohaveperformedpoorlyintermsofreductionofhunger;whileitwasaheadofallother

statesin1994,itnowranks5thontheISHI2008.

Thereareafewstateswhichhaveoutperformedothersinenhancingfoodandnutritionsecurity,and

thisisapparentinupwardchangesintheranksbetweentheNIandtheISHI2008.Noteworthyamong

theseistheincreaseinrankingofAssam.Thestatewasoneofthepoorestperformersandranked14th

ontheNutritionIndexin1994butbecameoneofthebestperformersin2008,inspiteofhavinghadthe

lowestgrowthrateofpercapitaincomeoverthepast14yearsamongallstates.TamilNaduisanother

statewhichhasperformedwellandimproveditsrankingfrom12thin1994to6thin2008.

Overall,thechangesinrankingsaresomewhatsobering. Thetrendsinfewstatesthathaveimproved

despitethe

economic

odds

underscore

the

importance

of

investments

in

social

protection,

health

and

nutritionservicestoensureprogressonpovertyandhungeralleviation. Continuedmonitoringoftrends

usingindicatorsliketheIndiaStateHungerIndexisessentialtomonitorprogressandsustainattention

totheissueofhungerandundernutrition.

6The

Nutrition

Index

estimated

by

Wiesmann

(2004)

uses

the

same

variables

as

the

India

State

Hunger

Index,

i.e.,

childnutrition,childmortalityandcalorieundernourishment. TheNutritionIndexdiffersinthatitusesFAO

dietaryenergysupplydataforestimatingcalorieundernourishment,anditusesprevalenceofunderweightamong

childrenunderfouryearsofage,ratherthanchildrenunderfiveyearsofage. Whileindexscorescannotbe

comparedbetweentheNutritionIndexandtheISHI,thecomparisonsarestillvalidfromthepointofviewof

comparingrankingsacrosstime.7AuthorscalculationsbasedontheNFHSdatashowthattheunderweightrateamongchildrenunderthreeyears

ofageincreasedfrom55.1percentin199899to57.7percentin200506.


19/21

17

Table5.ChangesinstaterankingsfromtheNutritionIndex1994totheIndiaStateHungerIndex2008.

NutritionIndex

rank(1994)1

StateIndiaStateHungerIndex

rank(2008)State

1 Haryana 1 Punjab

2 Kerala 2 Kerala

3 Rajasthan 3 AndhraPradesh

4 Punjab 4 Assam

5 Orissa 5 Haryana

6 AndhraPradesh 6 TamilNadu

7 WestBengal 7 Rajasthan

8 UttarPradesh 8 WestBengal

9 Karnataka 9 UttarPradesh

10 Gujarat 10 Maharashtra

11 MadhyaPradesh 11 Karnataka

12 TamilNadu 12 Orissa

13

Maharashtra

13

Gujarat

14 Assam 14 Chhattisgarh

15 Bihar 15 Bihar

16 Jharkhand

17 MadhyaPradesh

1NutritionIndex1994resultsarefromWiesmann(2004).

SUMMARYANDPOLICYIMPLICATIONS

TheIndia

State

Hunger

Index

2008

findings

highlight

the

continued

overall

severity

of

the

hunger

situationinIndia,whilerevealingthevariabilityinhungeracrossstateswithinIndia. Itisindeed

alarmingthatnotasinglestateinIndiaiseitherlowormoderateintermsoftheirhungerindexscores;

moststateshaveaserioushungerproblem,andonestate,MadhyaPradesh, hasanextremely

alarminghungerproblem.

ThepositionsofIndianstatesvisvistheGlobalHungerIndex2008showthateventhoughthereis

variabilityinthescores,andhencetherankingofIndianstatesinrelationtoothercountries,thereare

fewstatesthatperformwellinrelationtotheGHI. EventhebestperformingIndianstate,Punjab,lies

below33otherdevelopingcountriesrankedbyGHI. Evenmorealarmingisthefactthattheworst

performingstatesinIndiaBihar,Jharkhand,andMadhyaPradeshrankmostcloselywithcountries

thatareprecariouslypositionedontheGHI2008rankings.Forinstance,BiharandJharkhandranklower

thanZimbabweandHaiti,whileMadhyaPradeshfallsbetweenEthiopiaandChad.

OuranalysisoftheassociationsbetweentheISHI2008andstateeconomicindicatorsshowsthatthe

relationshipbetweenpovertyandhungerislargelyasexpectedgreaterISHI2008scoresareseenin

poorerstates,withafewexceptions. OutlierslikePunjabandOrissaandKeralaperformbetteronthe

ISHI2008thanmightbeexpectedgiventheirpovertylevels,whileMadhyaPradesh,Gujaratand


20/21

18

Karnatakaperformworse.Acloserexaminationofthepastandcurrentinvestmentsmadebythese

statesinsocialprotection,healthandnutritionprogramscanhelpinformthedebateaboutpolicy

instrumentstoprotectpopulationsagainsthungereveninthefaceofpoverty.

Thelackofaclearrelationshipbetweenstateleveleconomicgrowthandhungerisalarming. The

implicationsof

this,

taken

along

with

the

relationship

between

the

ISHI

2008

and

poverty,

are

that

first,

economicgrowthisnotnecessarilyassociatedwithpovertyreduction.Additionally,evenifthereis

equitableeconomicgrowththatimprovesfoodavailabilityandaccess,thismightnotleadimmediately

toprogressonimprovingchildnutritionandmortality,whichneedmoredirectinvestmentstoenable

rapidreductions.Thus,inadditiontowidescalepovertyalleviation,directinvestmentsinimproving

foodavailabilityandaccessforpoorhouseholdsaswellasdirecttargetednutritionandhealth

interventionstoimprovenutritionandmortalityoutcomesforyoungchildrenwillbeneededtoimpact

theISHIscoresandrankingsofIndianstates.

TheexperiencesofstateswhoserankingsontheNutritionIndexdeterioratedontheISHI2008scoresin

spiteofconsistentpositiveeconomicgrowthisindicativeoftheneedtoinvestsolidlyindirectnutrition

andpovertyalleviationinterventionseveninthefaceofcontinuedeconomicgrowth. Thedesignand

implementationofpoliciesandprogramstoimproveallthreeunderlyingdimensionsoftheISHIwill

needtobestrengthenedandsupportedtoensurethathungerisreducedrapidlyovertime.While

stridesarebeingmadeonthepublichealthfronttoensuresustainedreductionsinchildmortality,

improvementsinchildnutritionarenotsatisfactoryinIndia. Thisislargelybecausenutritionprograms

inIndiaarenoteffectivelydeliveringevidencebasedinterventionsatscaletothosevulnerableage

groupswhichneedtobereachedtoensurerapidreductionsinundernutrition.

Inconclusion,forIndianstatestoprogressalongtheISHI,andtoensurethatISHIscoresforIndianstates

aremorecloselyalignedwithGHIscoresofcountrieswithcomparableeconomicgrowth,investments

willbe

needed

to

strengthen

agriculture,

improve

overall

food

availability

and

access

to

all

population

segments,andtoimprovechildnutritionandmortalityoutcomes.


21/21

REFERENCES

DandekarVM,RathN.(1971).PovertyinIndia.IndianSchoolofPoliticalEconomy,Pune.

GovernmentofIndia,1979.ReportoftheTaskForceonProjectionsofMinimumNeedsandEffective

ConsumptionDemand. PlanningCommission,NewDelhi,mimeo.

IIPS.(2007).NationalFamilyHealthSurvey200506(NFHS3).NationalReport.InternationalInstituteof

PopulationSciences,Mumbai

NationalSampleSurveyOrganisation(NSSO),2007,NutritionalIntakeinIndia200405,Report513

(61/1.0/6),MinistryofStatisticsandProgrammeImplementation,GovernmentofIndia,NewDelhi,

mimeo(May).

Smith,L.C.andD.Wiesmann.(2007).IsfoodinsecuritymoresevereinSouthAsiaorinSubSaharan

Africa?Acomparativeanalysisusinghouseholdexpendituresurveydata.IFPRIDiscussionPaper

712.Washington,D.C.:InternationalFoodPolicyResearchInstitute.

UnitedNations.(2006)TheMillenniumDevelopmentGoalsReport2006.UnitedNations,NewYork.

VonGrebmerK,FritschelH,NestorovaB,OlofinbiyiT,PandyaLorchR,YohannesY. (2008).Global

HungerIndexReport2008.Welthungerhilfe,InternationalFoodPolicyResearchInstitute,Concern.

WeismannD,SostAK,SchoeningerI,DalzellH,KiessL,ArnoldT,CollinsS.(2007)TheChallengeof

Hunger2007:GlobalHungerIndex:Facts,determinants,andtrends.Measuresbeingtakentoreduce

acuteundernourishmentandchronichunger.Welthungerhilfe,InternationalFoodPolicyResearch

Institute,Concern.

WiesmannD,

Weingartner

L,

Schoeninger

I,Schwarte

V.

(2006)The

Challenge

of

Hunger.

Global

Hunger

Index:Facts,determinants,andtrends.CasestudiesinthepostconflictcountriesofAfghanistanand

SierraLeone.Welthungerhilfe,InternationalFoodPolicyResearchInstitute,

WiesmannD.(2004)AnInternationalNutritionIndex:ConceptandAnalysesofFoodInsecurityand

UndernutritionatCountryLevels. DevelopmentEconomicsandPolicySeriesNo.39.PeterLang,

Frankfurta.M.

WFPandMSSRF.(2002)FoodInsecurityAtlasofRuralIndia.WorldFoodProgrammeand

M.S.SwaminathanResearchFoundation

India State Hunger Index

Documents

Transcript of India State Hunger Index