In a similar manner, EQIj, i.e., the overall environmental quality
index score for the jth State, is arrived at by summing the EXijs for all X
over i by using the following formula:
1 W=63
The obtained EQIs measure the environmental well-being of
the States, i.e., the States with higher score are characterised by cleaner
environment. The EQIjs (where j=l to 14), thus arrived, is therefore
used to obtain the REQIjs (the rank of the jth State), where the States
having higher EQIj are assigned higher rank.
3.2 Human Development Index (HDI)
Following the principle of the NHDR 2001 methodology
(GovernmentofIndia, 2002), for calculation of the Human Development
Index (HDI), we consider three variables, namely - inflation and
inequality adjusted per capita consumption expenditure (X1); and
composite indicator of educational attainment (X2) and composite
indicator on health attainment (X3). With this formulation, following
the HDI method, the HDI score for the jth State is given by:
HDI1 = ⅛ X1
j 3⅛
where, Xi represents the normalized values of the three
indicators selected for construction of the HDI score, obtained by using
the following formula:
A∙,=σ,-T)∕(<-T)
14
where Xij refers to attainment of the ith indicator by the jth State
and Xi** and Xi* are the scaling maximum and minimum values of the
indicators respectively (i = 1 to 3).
Although UNDP considers Real GDP Per Capita in PPP USD for
generating the HDI, the NHDR 2001 (2002) has preferred total inflation
and inequality adjusted per capita consumption expenditure of a State
(i.e., Rural and Urban Combined) over that for the analysis. Here the
monthly per capita consumption expenditure data obtained from NSSO
for two periods (1993-94 and 1999-2000), adjusted for inequality using
estimated Gini Ratios, and further adjusted for inflation to bring them
to 1983 prices by using deflators derived from State specific poverty
line (Raju, undated). We follow the NHDR methodology in our analysis
and consider total inflation and inequality adjusted per capita
consumption expenditure of a State as an explanatory variable.
The composite indicator on educational attainment (X2) is
arrived at by considering two variables, namely literacy rate for the
age group of 7 years and above (eɪ) and adjusted intensity of formal
education (e2). The idea is that literacy rate being an overall ratio alone
may not indicate the actual scenario, and the drop-out rate, needs to
be incorporated in the formula. We consider the data on literacy rate
for two periods, namely - 1991 and 2001. The adjusted Intensity of
Formal Education data is used for two periods - 1993 and 2002. The
following weightage is assigned for the two variables so as to determine
the composite indicator:
AT = [(eɪ ×0.35) + (c∖ ×0.65)]
15