The results of the India State Hunger Index 2008 highlight the continued overall severity of the hunger

situation in India, while revealing the variation in hunger across states within India. It is indeed alarming that not a single state in India is either low or moderate in terms of its index score; most states have a serious hunger problem, and one state, Madhya Pradesh, has an extremely alarming hunger problem. Although variation exists in index scores of the states, and hence in the ranking of Indian states in relation to other countries, few states perform well in relation to the GHI 2008. Even the bestperforming Indian state, Punjab, lies below 33 other developing countries ranked by GHI. Even more alarming is the fact that the worst-performing states in India-Bihar, Jharkhand, and Madhya Pradesh-have index scores similar to countries that are precariously positioned on the GHI 2008 rankings. For instance, Bihar and Jharkhand rank lower than Zimbabwe and Haiti, whereas Madhya Pradesh falls between Ethiopia and Chad. Our analysis of the associations between the ISHI 2008 and state economic indicators shows that the relationship between poverty and hunger is largely as expected-greater ISHI 2008 scores are seen in poorer states, with a few exceptions.

The lack of a clear relationship between state-level economic growth and hunger, taken along with the relationship between the ISHI 2008 and poverty and incomes, has a number of implications. First, economic growth is not necessarily associated with poverty reduction. Additionally, even if equitable economic growth improves food availability and access, it might not lead immediately to improvements in child nutrition and mortality, for which more direct investments are required to enable rapid reductions. Thus, in addition to wide-scale poverty alleviation, direct investments in improving food availability and access for poor households, as well as direct targeted nutrition and health interventions to improve nutrition and mortality outcomes for young children, will be needed to raise the ISHI scores and rankings of Indian states. Child underweight contributes more than either of the other two underlying variables to the GHI score for India and to the ISHI scores for almost all states in India. Tackling child under nutrition, therefore, is crucially important for all states in India. Achieving rapid reductions in child underweight, however, will require scaling up delivery of evidence-based nutrition and health interventions to all women of reproductive age, pregnant and lactating women, and children under the age of two years. Some economically strong states had rankings on the Nutrition Index that deteriorated when compared with the ISHI 2008, suggesting that it might be important for these states to invest in direct nutrition and poverty alleviation interventions even during sustained economic growth. The design and implementation of policies and programs to improve all three underlying dimensions of the ISHI will need to be strengthened and supported to ensure that hunger is reduced rapidly over time. Although strides are being made on the public health front to ensure sustained reductions in child mortality, improvements in child nutrition are not satisfactory in India. Nutrition programs in India are not effectively delivering evidence-based interventions at

scale to vulnerable age groups that need to be reached to ensure rapid reductions in undernutrition. In conclusion, for Indian states to progress along the ISHI, and to ensure that ISHI scores for Indian states are more closely aligned with GHI scores of countries with comparable economic growth, investments will be needed to strengthen agriculture, improve overall food availability and access to all population segments, and to improve child nutrition and mortality outcomes.

Fast growth trickles up from the states

Forget trickle-down economics. Indias record GDP growth of 8.49% per year in the five-year period 2004-09 is a case of improved productivity and growth in states trickling up and

aggregating into rapid growth at the national level. The acceleration did not originate in New Delhi. It originated in the states, especially the large, poor ones, and then trickled up. We are used to thinking of Kerala as having good social welfare without growth, and of Punjab as the main economic dynamo north of the Vindhyas. These old notions have been shaken up in Indias five years of miracle growth, from 2004-05 to 2008-09. Some historical laggards have skyrocketed while one leader has plummeted. The overall pattern is heartening: the vast majority of states have had a growth bonanza. When I wrote recently that Bihar and other poor states had become miracle economies (New miracle economies: Bihar, poor states, Sunday Times of India, January 3, 2010), many readers expressed disbelief. So here is a detailed table culled from the latest government data (the link is

Nobody should call this a success of trickle-down economics. Trickle-down assumes that fast growth can be had simply by changing a few policies that benefit the rich, after which some benefits trickle down to the poor. In fact, miracle growth is globally rare precisely because it is so difficult for countries to improve the productivity of a substantial proportion of the population. Only when productivity improvement is widespread is there enough productivity improvement from all regions and people to add up to fast growth. In other words, fast growth does not trickle down, it trickles up.

Once a country grows fast, government revenues will boom, and can be used to accelerate spending in social sectors and welfare. Miracle growth and record revenues enabled the central government to finance the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme, Bharat Nirman, SarvaShikshaAbhiyan, the farm loan waiver and enormous oil subsidies. This can be called the trickling down of part of the revenue bonanza into welfare and workfare. But neither welfare nor workfare could have caused the sharp acceleration of economic growth. The growth bonanza itself was sparked by state-level political and policy changes that accelerated local growth, which then trickled up to the national level.

Their widespread participation is confirmed by the rapid rise in rural sales of motorcycles and branded consumer goods. Even stronger confirmation comes from the spread of the cellphone revolution. The rate of new cellphone connections has risen steadily to touch 12-15 million per month in 2009. Hundreds of millions earlier excluded from telecom are now getting included.

The unfinished agenda remains wide and deep. Even if three quarters of the population has enjoyed improved productivity and growth, this still means that 25%, or 300 million people, may have participated only marginally or not at all. Rapid growth has been substantially inclusive, but not totally so. Much more needs to be done, mainly in public service delivery at the state level.

PREVIOUS STORY Google's threat: China may l...

NEXT STORY India's new miracle economie...

Readers' opinions (5)

Post a Comment Sort by:Newest|Oldest|Recommended (0)|Most Discussed

DR Patna 07/01/2010 at 01:23 PM What are the state level policies that the author mentions in the article that have turned "potential into growth"? A follow up article that goes into details of these policy changes will be most helpful. Good to see such figures, but we should keep in mind the low base on which these growth figures have been based, secondly when we actually travel to these places we still see people living in inhospitable conditions, the analysis should be based on how many ppl do not sleep empty stomach and not on the mobile penetration. Is it not true that ppl who do not have proper sanitation at home still go and buy cell phones as tht is much cheaper but that is not what we are aiming for? The divide between haves and have nots is equal if not more widespread in rural areas as compared to urban areas. Figures show no fall in migration of ppl from these areas to urban areas in searh of employment oppourtunities. But still anything position is always welcomed atleast we are moving in somewhat right direction. Agree (0)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive harishLucknow 06/01/2010 at 03:19 PM Very happy to know that, once BIMARU states are now growing economically. However, the author has not indicated the social development index pattern of these developing states. Though visionary leaders like Chandrababu Naidu are not there in many states, yet, trickle down effect has ensured growth of earlier written off states. Agree (0)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive SharatJhaAnand 06/01/2010 at 02:37 PM I like to take further the comment made before me. I am not sure the conditions of the poor have actually improved significantly from what it was five years back. A better idea can be got from the per capita income of the BPL in these developing states like Bihar and compare them with rate of inflation. But I have a hunch that its still trickle down effect thats working with middle

and upper middle class being the drivers of the growth. The example stated by MrAiyer does not seem to throw much light with easy availablity of mobile and call rates among the lowest in the world. Ultimately it might be poorer states that are coing up but growth is not driven by the poor from these states. Atleast I don't think so. Agree (0)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive venuchennai 06/01/2010 at 06:50 AM Very informative article.I wish we get detailed informtion re: distribution of wealth among the people, statewise on ac count of this phenominalgrowth.If in these growth states, capital expenditure is sizeable in health care, education, sufficient supply of drinking water, it will generate further growth and create enthusiasm among the people.

One needs to carefully examine which section of the society has really benefitted from the growth and have contributed to it. I believe its again the middle class and upper middle class who have been the drivers of the growth.