The UNDP’s Human Development Report 2004 has just been published. Each HDR has two components. One, there is the theme, which varies from year to year; this year’s theme is cultural diversity. Two, there is a data-cum-ranking component which enables one to track a country’s human development or deprivation over time, as well as across countries. Let me focus on the latter. The rankings that grab media attention are the human development index, based on the three components of health (life-expectancy at birth), education (adult literacy rate, combined enrolment ratio) and purchasing power parity per capita GDP.

Data surface with a time lag. Hence HDR 2004 usually, but not always, has data for 2002. Because methods of computation or survey vary, HDRs always caution against comparing across countries or across different years. However, such comparisons are inevitable and I want to flag instances where the Indian record for HDR 2004 varies considerably from the Indian record for HDR 2003.

But first things first. In 2004, India’s rank as per the HDI is 127th out of 177 countries. That’s the rank we had in 2003, but in that year, there were 175 countries in the reckoning. The HDI value can vary between 0 and 1. India’s present value is 0.595. More than 0.500 moves a country to the medium human development category. That’s a threshold we crossed around 1990; we are now nearing the 0.600 threshold.

From 2003 to 2004, India has had a marginal improvement in life expectancy at birth from 63.3 years to 63.7 years and a marginal drop in the combined enrolment ratio from 56 per cent to 55 per cent. The adult literacy rate has increased more than marginally from 58 to 61.3 per cent. But the PPP per capita income has dropped from $2,840 to $2,670. Since PPP is worked out in a complicated way, it is not immediately obvious why this decline has taken place. Incidentally, the estimated earned income of women has declined from $1,531 to $1,442.

The immunization record has improved. One-year-olds fully immunized against tuberculosis have gone up from 73 per cent to 81 per cent and one-year-olds fully immunized against measles have gone up from 56 to 67.5 per cent. The number of physicians per 100,000 population has increased from 48 to 51. However, public expenditure on health remains at 0.9 per cent of GDP, while private expenditure on health has gone up from 4 per cent of GDP to 4.2 per cent. But infants with low birth weight have increased from 26 per cent to 30 per cent. Clearly, there must be a data comparability problem, because the number of tuberculosis cases (per 100,000 people) has increased from 199 to 344.

Public spending on education is still stuck at 4.1 per cent of GDP. There is probably also a data comparability issue here because the percentage of children from grade 1 who make it to grade 5 has gone down from 68 to 59 per cent.

As expected, there has been a doubling in the number of cellular line subscribers and a more than doubling of internet users, while the number of telephone mainlines has increased marginally. Surveys make comparability of data on inequality even more suspect. Indian data are on distribution of consumption expenditure, not income, and the Gini index is an accepted measure of inequality. The Gini index ranges between 0 and 1 — the higher the value, the higher the inequality. HDR 2004 gives a Gini index of 0.325 for India, compared to 0.378 in HDR 2003. Data problems notwithstanding, this makes India a remarkably equal country. Also, the share of the poorest 10 per cent in consumption has increased from 3.5 per cent to 3.9 per cent, while the share of the poorest 20 per cent in consumption has increased from 8.1 to 8.9 per cent. Simultaneously, the share of the richest 20 per cent in consumption has declined from 46.1 per cent to 41.6 per cent and the share of the richest 10 per cent in consumption has declined from 33.5 to 27.4 per cent.

Expectedly, India’s official development assistance has declined. It was 0.4 per cent of GDP and is now 0.3 per cent. However, there is a serious comparability problem with the debt figures. Debt service was 1.9 per cent of GDP and is now shown as 2.6 per cent. Also, the debt service ratio (as percentage of exports of goods and services) was 12.6 per cent in HDR 2003 and is now 14.9 per cent.

We also have comparability problems for environment-related data. Traditional fuel as percentage of total energy consumption has increased from 20.7 per cent to 24.3 per cent. That can’t be right. Electricity consumption per capita (kilowatt hours) cannot also jump from 355 to 561. Despite warts and without giving rise to complacency, India’s track record on human development hasn’t been that bad in the Nineties.

There are valid complaints about the non-comparability of National Sample Survey data of 1993-94 with that of 1999-2000, because of changes in methodology. The head count ratio or poverty ratio on an all-India basis was 36 per cent in 1993-94 and 26.1 per cent in 1999-2000. Corrected for methodological changes, it was probably slightly higher than 26.1 per cent in 1999-2000 and indeed, there are significant regional variations and across gender and caste groups. Using the NSS data and correcting for methodology, HDR 2004 cites an Indian head count ratio of 28.6 per cent in 1999-2000. The fact remains that this drop from 36 to 28.6 per cent is the sharpest India has witnessed since independence and as the HDR points out, has been surpassed only by Azerbaijan and Uganda.

But in those countries, the base level of poverty was much higher. Nor should one forget that poverty ratios have actually increased in Zimbabwe, Morocco, Pakistan and Hungary. Internationally, some millennium development goals were set, to be attained by 2015. Everyone pays lip service to the MDGs nowadays. Of the eight MDGs, the first six goals are precise. The first is on eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. On the target of halving these by 2015, India seems to be well on track, even if the developing countries as a group are not. The second goal of achieving universal primary education and ensuring that children complete a full course of primary school is also one where India seems to be on track. Arguably, the problem in India is now that of adult literacy, although there are issues of reducing dropouts, as opposed to increasing enrolment. Even on the third goal of eliminating gender disparity in education, India seems to be doing well, although progress is perhaps less satisfactory than on the second goal.

The problems remain the fourth and the fifth goals of reducing child mortality and improving maternal health, as also the sixth goal of combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.

Reforms don’t mean an abdication of the role of the state, certainly not in education and health. Arguably, the achievements of the Nineties are due to the growth effect. Not because public expenditure in the social sectors has increased or its efficiency has improved. These are the goals of the common minimum programme. If implemented, India’s human development record should be even more impressive in the next 10 years.