Millennium development goals achievement in different states of India (2003-2004 to 2013-2014)
| Pages | 275-299 |
| Date | 03 October 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-01-2016-0011 |
| Published date | 03 October 2016 |
| Author | Ranajit Chakrabarty,Mahuya Chakrabarti,Ayan Chattopadhyay |
| Subject Matter | Public policy & environmental management,Environmental technology & innovation |
Millennium development goals
achievement in different states of
India (2003-2004 to 2013-2014)
Ranajit Chakrabarty
Calcutta University, Kolkata, India
Mahuya Chakrabarti
Bethune College, Kolkata, India, and
Ayan Chattopadhyay
Future Retail Ltd, Kolkata, India
Abstract
Purpose –According to the Government of India 2015 report on millennium development goal (MDG),
India is yet to achieve almost 50 per cent of the goals set by UN. Characterized by its diversity, India’s
progress in terms of the indicators of MDGs for the country as a whole averages out the prevailing
state level variations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the status of these goals during
1993-1994-2013-2014 at state level using 12 targets and 35 indicators relevant for India along with an
attempt to explain inter-state variations in this regard.
Design/methodology/approach –Using the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal
solution method, a multiple criteria decision making method, the states have been ranked in terms of all
the indicators of MDGs. These ranks were then analysed using socio-economic and political factors to
understand the root cause of variation.
Findings –Ranking of the states considering all the indicators reveals the actual scenario in an
effective way. The factors like state domestic product, state-wise standard of education level, social
backwardness and political leadership help in finding the link between the derived ranks and these
socio-economic and political factors.
Originality/value –Previous studies in this area have been carried out taking the indicators
separately. However, without a comprehensive idea with all the indicators, the overall impact cannot be
understood effectively. This study is novel since it takes into account each state with respect to all the
indicators taken together thereby providing a comprehensive view on the variation in the achievement
of MDG goals.
Keywords TOPSIS, MDGs, PCNSDP, Social backwardness, MCDM, Political leadership
Paper type Research paper
I. Introduction
Over the last two decades of the twentieth century, inequality in society within a
country, and across many countries, was at the centre of all discussions about world
development. The United Nations conferences and summits held during that period
generated an unprecedented global consensus on a shared vision of development
(The UN development agenda: development for all, UN Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, 2007). This gradually led to the millennium summit in September 2000
when the world leaders came together at the United Nations headquarters in New York
to adopt the United Nations millennium declaration. To address countless development
issues like right to development, gender equality,eradication of the many dimensions of
World Journal of Science,
Technology and Sustainable
Development
Vol. 13 No. 4, 2016
pp. 275-299
©Emerald Group Publis hing Limited
2042-5945
DOI10.1108/WJSTSD-01-2016-0011
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2042-5945.htm
Authors are deeply indebted to S. Chakrabarty, Deputy Director General, CSO, Government of
India for his immense support in carrying out this study.
275
Millennium
development
goals
achievement
poverty, sustainable human development, the declaration committed nations to a new
global partnership and set out a series of eight goals including 18 time-bound targets
with a deadline of 2015 that have become known as the millennium development goals
(MDGs). These targets have further been translated into some indicators.
The Indian case
The Indian reaction to the MDGs was not very positive initially. As the promotion of
MDGs was principally driven by United Nations Secretariat, International Monetary
Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Bank,
the effort was considered as an imposition of “first world”countries upon “third world”
countries (Basu, 2007). Many questioned about usefulness and comprehensiveness of
the goals. It was widely believed that MDGs were important not for a developing
country like India, but for the least developed sub-Saharan African countries
(Basu, 2007). Later gradual acceptance of the MDGs has been seen within government
as well as well as among non-governmental organizations.
India’s MDG framework is based on the 2003 United Nations Development Group
(UNDG) guidelines on concepts, definitions and methodology of MDG indicators which
recognizes 53 indicators (48 basic and five alternatives). In the context of India’snational
policies, 12 of the 18 targets covering all the eight goals are considered for the tracking of
MDGs. As a result 35 of the 53 indicators are required to be monitored for the 12 targets
relevant to India. (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 2010). The goals,
targets and indicators relevant for India can be seen in the following table (serial numbers
of targets and indicators are given following the UNDG, 2003 guidelines) (Table I).
Being the second most populated country in the world, India’s progress with respect
to 35 indicators of MDGs as indicated above is considered to have a decisive role in
determining its global status. Sen and Dreze (2014) have expressed concern over India’s
non-achievement of targets with respect to many of the indicators, especially sanitation
access against the backdrop of this nation’s overall economic prosperity in recent years.
According to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (2015)
report on MDG, for about 50 per cent of the targets the country is lagging behind
marginally (moderately on-track) or significantly (slow or almost off-track). For goals 3
(promote gender equality and empower women) and 8 (develop a global partnership for
development), India’s progress is on-track. For goals 2 (achieve universal primary
education) and 4(reduce child mortality), India is moderately on-track. For goals 6
(combat HIV/AIDS/malaria and other diseases) and 7(ensure environmental
sustainability), the country’s progress is a mixed one –some targets are on-track
and some other are moderately on-track. However, for goals 1(eradicate extreme
poverty and hunger) and 5(improve maternal health) some targets are almost off-track.
Following this report, indicator wise achievements are summarized below.
Indicator 1A (poverty headcount ratio)
India has been pretty successful in bringing it down. In fact, India achieved the target
well ahead of time, as in 2011-2012 the all India figure was 21.9 per cent which was
supposed to be 23.9 per cent by 2015 to reach the target.
Indicator 2 (poverty gap ratio)
The country has witnessed nearly 50 per cent decline in this ratio during 2004-2005 to
2011-2012 in both rural and urban areas which is quite impressive.
276
WJSTSD
13,4
To continue reading
Request your trial