Question

Kerala, with lower per capita income has a better human development ranking than Haryana. Hence, per capita income is not a useful criterion at all and should not be used to compare states. Do you agree?

Answer 1

One cannot completely conclude that comparing states based on Per Capita Income is wrong, but one can definitely say that the comparison of states based on only Per Capita Income is highly inadequate, as it does not clearly portray a right picture of the well-being of people living in that state.

• While comparing data of Kerala and Maharashtra, as per 2012 data, Infant Mortality Rate per 1000 live births in Kerala is 12 whereas in Maharashtra it is 25.
• Before completing one year of age, in Kerala, 12 children died out of 1000 children born whereas in Maharashtra, the proportion of children dying within one year of birth is 25 which is more than double of Kerala.
• The Per Capita Income of Kerala is much lower at Rs 88,527 (2012-13 figure) when compared to Per capita income of Rs 1,07,670 (2012-13 figure) of Maharashtra.
• This shows that having higher income does not necessarily mean the health care infrastructure is superior in Maharashtra compared to Kerala. From Nutrition and health perspective, Kerala is in a better position compared to Maharashtra.
• It goes on to show that merely having a higher income wont help in saving the lives of people.
• Income by itself is not a completely adequate indicator of material services and goods that citizens are able to use.
• Health, Nutrition, Education levels are other important metrics which must be measured to understand the true nature of development taking place in a state or country.
• Unless the whole of your community takes preventive steps, money may not be able to protect a person from infectious diseases
• Money cannot ensure that a person can get unadulterated medicines.
• Money alone cannot buy a person a pollution-free environment.