Search results

Using NSS data (through 26 different rounds) on per capita consumption expenditure on various items (primarily, food), separately for rural and urban regions, we attempted to make a statistical measurement of the extent of interstate divergences in India. The basic objective was that, in a knowledge economy like ours, people need to be made aware of the gravity of the extent of such divergences. To accomplish the task, we performed Wilks' general classificatory analysis, duly followed by hierarchical and k‐means clustering of the states. General classificatory analysis pointed toward the existence of a high degree of overlap between rural regions of certain leader and laggard states. Results from the cluster analysis provided strong confirmatory evidence toward the presence of high‐profile gaps among the states. Constitution of the clusters of states for rural regions was at a gross variance with that for urban regions. The findings, thus, call for an urgent need to consider what is happening in individual states on social sector fronts, so as to be able to explain the reasons for interregional and interstate divergences. Region‐specific and state‐specific strategies need to be devised to enable the laggard states to replicate the success stories of the leading ones.

AbstractMaking use of NSSO data for the 50th, 55th, and 61st Rounds, an attempt has been made in the present empirical study to assess inter‐state differentials among 23 states and 6 Union Territories (UTs) of India with respect to per capita per diem intake of calories, protein, and fat, separately for rural and urban regions. The study (through the applications of univariate ANOVA, MANOVA, and clustering techniques) has revealed the presence of high‐profile gaps among states and UTs with respect to nutritional intake. Although constitution of clusters of the states/UTs for rural and urban regions was not exactly identical, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, and West Bengal happened to be the states/UTs which commonly appeared (among both the regions) in the laggard cluster (associated with the lowest nutritional intake). As an implication for framing policies regarding nutritional aspects, the government needs to remain vigilant about the presence of high‐profile inter‐state and inter‐regional differentials in nutritional intake and give increased emphasis to the states/UTs falling in the laggard clusters. The state must not shirk away from the responsibility of providing welfare means to the truly deserving section of the society so as to build a healthy nation.