What the latest NFHS data says about the New Welfarism

 

Abhishek Anand, Arvind Subramanian write: On the key child stunting metric, it suggests not a catch-up, but a great switch between some of the BIMARU states and the mid-peninsular/western states

After the release of the first phase of the fifth wave of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), we wrote in these pages (‘New welfarism of India’s Right’, IE, December 22, 2020), providing evidence for: (i) The success of the Narendra Modi government’s New Welfarism — the public provision of essential, and essentially private, goods and services such as cooking gas, toilets, bank accounts, power, housing, and cash; and (ii) setbacks in health and nutrition outcomes for children such as stunting, and the prevalence of anaemia and diarrhoea.

The release of the second and final phase of NFHS-5, which covered 11 states (including Uttar Pradesh (UP), Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh (MP), Jharkhand, Haryana, and Chhattisgarh) and about 49 per cent of the population calls for an update of our previous findings.

First, it is now clear that the evidence for the success of New Welfarism is as strong as we had suggested earlier. Figure one plots household access to improved sanitation, cooking gas and bank accounts used by women. The improvements are as striking as they were based on the performance of the phase 1 states. In all cases, access has increased significantly, although claims of India being 100 per cent open defecation-free still remain excessive.

Second, on child-related outcomes, our earlier findings have to be qualified, significantly in the case of stunting and diarrhoea. Earlier we had found that child stunting had stagnated between 2015 and 2019 after decades of progress. When phase 2 states are added, we find that India-wide, stunting has declined although the pace of improvement has slowed down post-2015 compared with the previous decade. For example, stunting improved by 0.7 percentage points per year between 2005 and 2015 compared to 0.3 percentage points between 2015 and 2021. On diarrhoea too, adding the new data reverses the earlier finding. However, on anaemia and acute respiratory illness, there seems to have been deterioration as we had found earlier.

The new child stunting results are significant but also surprising because of the sharply divergent outcomes between the phase 1 and phase 2 states. Figure 3 tries to unpack the new evidence. It plots child stunting rates for the most recent period on the y-axis and rates for 2015 on the x-axis along with a 45-degree line. Points to the north of the line indicate deterioration in performance between 2015 and 2020, while points below the line denote improvement. The phase 1 and 2 states are shown in black and red, respectively. The interesting pattern is that nearly all the phase 2 states show large improvements, whereas most of the phase 1 states exhibited a deterioration in performance.

The survey for the latest data was conducted in two waves, the first before the pandemic and the second during the peak of the second wave (October/November 2020 – March/April 2021). How much the circumstances of the NFHS survey might have affected the results is difficult to say; and if anything, our priors would have been that phase 2 states would have fared worse due to the impact of Covid.

Evidently, the converse has happened. For the moment, we must accept the results while investigating this and other possible anomalies: For example, the data for Tamil Nadu shows a dramatic deterioration in the sex ratio at birth from 954 females to males in 2015 to 878 in 2020, indicating a sharp increase in selective abortion, despite an improvement in the sex ratio of the overall population from 1,033 to 1,088 females per males.

But here’s the real surprise in Figure 3. If the new child stunting numbers are right, a different picture of India emerges. Apparently, Madhya Pradesh now has fewer stunted children than Gujarat; Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand are almost at par with Gujarat; Chhattisgarh fares better than Gujarat, Karnataka, and Maharashtra; and Rajasthan and Odisha fare better than Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Telangana and Himachal Pradesh! On child stunting, the old BIMARU states (excepting Bihar) are no longer the laggards; the laggards are Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, and to a lesser extent, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

If true, on the key child stunting metric, what we are seeing is not catch-up but the great switch between some of the BIMARU states and the mid-peninsular/western states. Indeed, the decline in stunting achieved by the poorer states such as UP, MP, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan would be all the more remarkable given the overall weakness in the economy between 2015 and 2021. When commentators speak of two Indias, it is now important to ask: Which ones and on what metrics?

Finally, insofar as health and nutrition are determined by actions of the states, stunting outcomes reflect on their performance. The improvements in Rajasthan have happened under the Congress, in MP and Haryana under the BJP, in Odisha under the BJD, and in UP under both Samajwadi Party and BJP; and the stagnation/setbacks have occurred in Gujarat (BJP), West Bengal (Trinamool), and Telangana (TRS). Neither success nor failure seems to be the monopoly of any one political party.

Written by Abhishek Anand , Arvind Subramanian 

This column first appeared in the print edition on December 3, 2021 under the title ‘New geography of welfare’. Anand is Robert S. McNamara Fellow, World Bank and Subramanian is Senior Fellow, Brown University

Source: Indian Express, 3/12/21

Quote of the Day December 2, 2021

 

“If you get up one more time than you fall, you will make it through.”
Chinese proverb

“आप जितनी बार गिरते हैं, उससे अगर एक अधिक बार उठ खड़े हों तो आप सफल हो जाएंगे।”
चीन की कहावत

Cost of Living Index 2021

 The Economic Intelligence Unit recently released Cost of Living Index 2021. According to the report, Tel Aviv of Israel is the most expensive city in the world.

Key Findings

• Tel Aviv is the world’s most expensive cities. It was followed by Paris in second place and Singapore in third place.
• In 2020, Paris was the most expensive city according to the index.
• In 2021, Zurich and Hong Kong were at fourth and fifth places respectively.
• Overall, the upper rankings were dominated by developed Asian cities and European cities.
• The lowest rankings were occupied by cities in Africa, Middle East and less wealthier parts of Asia.

Inference

The index shows that the overall prices of goods and services in the world have increased by 3.5%. In 2020, this was 1.9%.

Reasons for the increase in price rise

• The global supply chain was greatly affected due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its restrictions. This affected the production and trade all over the world. And eventually led to the price rise.
• The oil price rise played a major role in the price rise. The unleaded petrol prices increased by 21%.
• Apart from oil, the prices of recreation, personal care products and tobacco products also increased.

Notable Price rise cities

• The highest price rise was reported in the Iranian city Tehran. It jumped from 79^th rank in 2020 to 29^th rank in 2021. This was mainly due to US sanctions. The US sanctions led to shortages and higher prices.
• The Syrian city Damascus was ranked the lowest. This is because its war-torn economy is still struggling to recover.
• Both Damascus and Tehran are suffering from high inflation.
• The other cities that are suffering from high inflation are Buenos in Argentina and Caracas in Venezuela.

About Cost-of-Living Index

• The Cost-of-Living Index tracks the cost of living of 173 cities in the world. It compares more than 200 every day products and services.
• The index bench marks the prices against the prices in New York. Thus, the cities with currencies that are stronger than the US Dollars appear higher in the ranking.

Indian cities in the index

None of the Indian cities topped the first 20 ranks. However, Tokyo of Japan, Shanghai of China topped in first twenty ranks.

National Pollution Control Day: December 2

 Every year, India marks the National Pollution Control Day on December 2. The day is observed in the memory of the people who lost their lives in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The National Pollution Control Day is celebrated in India to make the citizens aware of laws that exist in India that help to contain pollution.

Objectives of National Pollution Control Day

• To create awareness in increasing air pollution
• To educate people on controlling and managing industrial disasters.
• To make everyone aware of pollution control acts in the country
• To create awareness on ways to reduce the level of pollution
• To prevent industrial pollution that is caused by human negligence

Bhopal gas tragedy

The Bhopal gas tragedy occurred on December 2nd and 3rd, 1984. During the accident poisonous chemical methyl isocyanate leaked from a pesticide plant union carbide India Limited in Bhopal. This exposed more than 500 thousand people to the poisonous gas. Around 2259 people died immediately. Later the Government of India announced that the tragedy killed around 25,000 people. It was considered as the biggest industrial disaster in the world.

Air Pollution in India

India is home to 21 out of 30 polluted cities in the world. According to World Health Organization, around 140 million people in the country breath air that is ten times above the safe limit set by WHO.

Theme of National Pollution Control Day, 2021

• To create awareness about the importance of pollution control
• To educate people on how to prevent pollution

What are the laws of India that prevent and control pollution in the country?

The Government of India launched several rules and act to control and prevent pollution in India. They are as follows

• Environment impact assessment, 2006
• Maharashtra biodegradable garbage control ordinance, 2006
• Batteries management and handling rules, 2001
• Municipal solid waste management and handling rules, 2000
• Noise pollution regulation and control rules, 2000
• Ozone depleting substances regulation rules, 2000
• Recycled plastics manufacture and usage rules, 1999
• Biomedical waste management and handling rules, 1998
• Chemical accidents emergency, preparedness, planning and response rules, 1996
• National environment tribunal act, 1995
• Manufacture, import, storage, export and storage of hazardous micro organisms genetically engineered organisms or cells rules, 1989
• Hazardous waste management and handling rules, 1989
• Manufacture, import and storage of hazardous chemical rules, 1989
• Environment protection act, 1986
• Environment protection rules, 1986
• Air prevention and control of pollution act, 1981
• Water prevention and control of pollution act, 1977

Crimes against women keep them out of the job market

 India’s female labour force participation rate (FLFPR) is a puzzling feature of our economy. Though output more than doubled and the number of working-age women grew by a quarter over the last two decades, the number of women in jobs declined by 10 million. Global indices and gender empowerment measures also paint a dismal picture. The 2021 Global Gender Gap Index revealed that India ranks 140th of 156 countries, compared to its 98th position in 2006. India’s FLFPR (24.5% in 2018-19) has been declining and is well below the global average (45%). So, what is keeping women away from the labour market and can we address these constraints?

The scenarios of women in education and employment over the past two decades are paradoxical. India neared gender equality at the primary level about a decade after the enactment of the Right to Education Act, 2009. Between 2011 and 2019, there has been an increase in the rate of women enrolling in higher education. As more women pursue higher education, we would expect them to enter the job market. But our labour market trends are alarming. On one hand, India’s FLFPR has suffered since the start of the 2000s. On the other, the unemployment rate of women in the country has rapidly been increasing. This contradiction—that as more women pursue higher education they are less likely to join the workforce—merits attention and greater analysis. Our declining FLFPR, which has fallen from 31.2% in 2011-12 to 24.5% in 2018-19, can be attributed to restrictive gender and social norms.

Evidence shows strong correlations between a declining FLFPR and barriers that impede women’s labour-market choices. These barriers include: 1) domestic responsibilities and the burden of unpaid care, 2) occupational segregation and limited opportunities to enter non-traditional sectors, 3) inadequate supportive infrastructure such as creches or piped water and cooking fuel, 4) lack of safety and mobility options, or 5) the interplay of social norms and identities. Yet, crimes against women and girls (CaW&G) arguably constitute the most prevalent barrier to women’s equal participation in and contribution to society.

In 2020, Initiative for What Works to Advance Women and Girls in the Economy (IWWAGE) undertook research to understand why lack of safety affects the participation of women in the labour market. The research analysed data from Crime in India published by the National Crime Records Bureau in 2011 and 2017. The study looked at crimes that deter women from stepping out to work and raise perceptions of lack of safety; these are rape, kidnapping and abduction (K&A), and sexual harassment and molestation. We found that while the all-India FLFPR saw an 8 percentage-point decline, the rate of CaW&G more than tripled to 57.9%. The rates of K&A and sexual harassment increased by more than three times, and the rates of rape and molestation about doubled.

A state-level analysis shows that there is a low but negative correlation between the FLFPR and rate of CaW&G, as well as the FLFPR and K&A rate. Thus, an increased crime rate is associated with an FLFPR decrease. State-level data suggests that K&A can be considered a strong factor that can influence women’s willingness and ability to step out for work. It discourages women from participating in the workforce. This strengthens the hypothesis that CaW&G lead to regressive societal norms around why women should not step out of their homes.

The results for crimes of rape, molestation and sexual harassment show unexpected results, with a positive correlation suggesting that an increase in the crime rate is associated with an increase in the FLFPR. This can perhaps be attributed to underreporting of crimes due to either the victims’ lack of legal awareness or fear of shame. Also, these findings are a result of pure crime-FLFPR correlations, and several other factors could result in these observed trends.

Trends in Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Chhattisgarh and Sikkim show consistency: They maintain a high FLFPR and low rate of crime in comparison with other states and Union territories. Similarly, states which have had the lowest FLFPR, Bihar, Delhi, Assam and Tripura, strengthen the research’s argument that the crime rate is strongly correlated with women’s participation in the workforce. Bihar’s rate of CaW&G approximately tripled while it nearly halved in the observed time period. It had the lowest FLFPR in India. The rates for K&A and rape also increased. Tripura saw the biggest decline in FLFPR, as it fell by over 24% points. In 2017, its rate of CaW&G was as high as 51%. Delhi’s rate of CaW&G rose by more than four times from 31% to 133% as its FLFPR declined marginally. Rates of K&A and molestation surged by over 26% points, and the rate of rape sharply increased. In Assam, the rate of CaW&G quadrupled and its FLFPR declined. The rates of K&A and molestation were very high, and the rate of rape almost doubled during the observed period.

While violence against women and girls is one among several barriers that restrict their mobility and reduces the likelihood of their labour force participation, we need a comprehensive mechanism that involves the state, institutions, communities and households to address this challenge. Adopting a ‘SAFETY’ framework—focused on Services, Attitudes, Focus on community, Empowerment of women, Transport and other infrastructure, and Youth interventions—can be a critical element in framing policies and interventions to stop crimes against women and girls.

Neelanjana Gupta is a project manager at the Initiative for What Works to Advance Women and Girls in the Economy (IWWAGE), an initiative of LEAD at Krea University.

Source: Mintepaper, 1/12/21

Common entrance test for central varsities: plan, criticism

 

The Central Universities Common Entrance Test (CUCET) was launched in 2010, a year after 12 new central universities had been set up under the Central Universities Act, 2009.

From the 2022-23 academic session, a common entrance test is likely to be implemented across central universities in India for admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate courses, marking a departure from the current predominant pattern of screening based on class 12 marks.

On November 26, the University Grants Commission (UGC) wrote to the vice-chancellors of the 45 central universities that “after detailed deliberations, it was resolved that the Common Entrance Test for UG and PG may be conducted for Central Universities from the academic session 2022-23 through National Testing Agency (NTA)”.

Answer to soaring cut-offs?

The push for a common entrance test comes at a time when unrealistic cutoffs for admission to premier institutions like Delhi University have underlined the need for alternatives. While the UGC hopes it will create a level playing field, critics fear it will encourage the coaching industry further.

The genesis

The Central Universities Common Entrance Test (CUCET) was launched in 2010, a year after 12 new central universities had been set up under the Central Universities Act, 2009. In the year of its rollout, seven new central universities adopted CUCET. Over the years, the list grew, and this year 12 central universities, from Assam to Kerala, held CUCET with the assistance of the NTA, which functions under the Ministry of Education.

The UGC has been keen on bringing more central universities under the ambit of the CUCET ever since the National Education Policy, 2020 advocated this.. Last December, the UGC set up a seven-member committee under R P Tiwari , Vice-Chancellor of Central University of Punjab, to prepare a plan to implement CUCET from 2021-22. The committee’s report gave the proposal the go-ahead, but the UGC had to shelve the plan due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The latest push came on November 22, when the UGC held a meeting with the vice-chancellors of 45 central universities, following which the letter was sent.

What changes

The test will cover sciences, humanities, languages, arts, and vocational subjects, and is likely to be held at least twice every year.

CURRENT PATTERN: At present, the CUCET papers consist of two segments. Part A tests a candidate’s language, general awareness, mathematical aptitude, and analytical skills, while Part B evaluates domain knowledge. Both papers contain multiple choice questions (MCQs). For admission to MBA, LLB and MCA courses offered by some universities, there is one paper comprising 100 MCQs covering English, reasoning, numerical ability, general awareness and analytical skills.

The test does not have under its ambit engineering and medical courses that are offered by some of these central universities. These will not be included in the new pattern either.

AFTER EXPANSION: Although the UGC has not yet announced the pattern of the exams once it is expanded, the report of the Tiwari committee holds some clues. It says the test for the undergraduate level would be in two parts. Section A will be a common aptitude test carrying 50 questions, while Section B will be a “domain specific test” comprising 30 questions each from a chosen combinations of subjects. The committee also recommended that to begin with, a minimum 50% of a candidate’s CUCET score should be factored in during admissions to undergraduate courses. It will be a computer-based test.

The CUCET might also be called Common Universities Entrance Test (CUET) in its proposed new avatar.

The Tiwari committee has also recommended that existing policies regarding quotas, subject combinations, preferences etc that govern a particular university will remain applicable even after the rollout of a common test.

The rationale

The NEP, 2020 envisages that a common entrances will test the conceptual understanding and ability to apply knowledge, and will aim to eliminate the need for taking coaching for these exams. The flexibility of the NTA testing services will enable most universities to use these common entrance exams “rather than having hundreds of universities each devising their own entrance exams”, which will reduce the burden on the entire education system, it says.

Criticism

Not everyone has welcomed the idea of an overarching common entrance test, though.

Disha Nawani, Professor, School of Education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (Mumbai), agreed that the existing board-exam based screening is leading to unrealistic cut-offs, but felt a common entrance will not be an improvement. “Children come from very different socio-economic backgrounds and to expect them to sit together and tackle a centrally-set paper will not be fair. Eventually it will boil down to mastering the techniques to crack it which coaching institutes offer. As long as we continue to focus on modes of assessment instead of learning, this will be a continuation of the unjust system,” Nawani said.

Abha Dev Habib, associate professor (Physics) at Miranda House in Delhi, and Ayesha Kidwai, professor at JNU’s Centre for Linguistics and former president of its teachers’ association, called the proposal an affront to the autonomy of universities. “Many universities offer highly specialised as well as multidisciplinary courses. And using the NET score for admission to PhD programmes is a terrible move. It has no academic rationale and will not promote equality,” Kidwai said.

Source: Indian Express, 2/12/21

Quote of the Day December 1, 2021

 

“It's been my observation that most people get ahead during the time that others waste.”
Henry Ford

“मैंने देखा है कि ज्यादातर लोग उस समय आगे निकल जाते हैं जब दूसरे समय को बरबाद कर रहे होते हैं।”
हेनरी फ़ोर्ड