The adjusted Intensity of Formal Education is estimated as
weighted average of the enrolled students from class I to class XII
(where weights being 1 for Class 1,2 for Class II and so on) to the total
enrolment in Class I to Class XII. This is adjusted by proportion of total
enrolment to population in the age group 6-18 (Raju, undated).
According to the formula suppose Ei be the number of children (rural
and urban combined) enrolled in ith standard in 2002, i= 1 for Class I to
12 for Class XII. Then WAE becomes the Weighted Average of the
Enrolment from Class I to Class XII:
12
£/xe,
WAE =
Now, let TE be the total enrolment of Children from Class I to
Class XII in 2002. Then by definition, we have:
12
7E=Xe,
Hence, the Intensity of Formal Education (IFE) for children
(rural and urban combined) in 2002 becomes:
ifeJFFL×ioo
TE
From the IFE, we can determine the Adjusted Intensity of
Formal Education (AIFE) for children (rural and urban combined) in
2002 by using the following formula:
TF
AIFE=IFE×—
16
Where Pc represents the Population OfChiIdren (rural and urban
combined) in the age group 6 to 18 years in 2001.
The Composite indicator on health attainment (X3) is arrived at
by considering two variables, namely Life Expectancy (LE) at age one
(hɪ) and the reciprocal of Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) as the second
variable (h2). For hɪ, which measures the life expectancy at age 1 (Rural
and Urban Combined), the two data points considered for the two periods
are 1990-94 and 1998-2002 respectively. On the other hand, the IMR
(Per Thousand) data is considered for two periods, namely - 1992 and
2000. The following weightage is assigned for the two variables so as to
determine the composite indicator used for calculation of the HDI:
X3 =[(Λi×0.65) + (Λ2×0.35)]
3.3 Economic Growth (EG)
Economic growth in the current analysis is measured by the
PCNSDP of the States at constant (1993-94) prices. PCNSDP for the
Period A is the average PCNSDP for the period 1993-94 to 1995-96 and
for Period B, it is the average PCNSDP over 1997-98 to 1999-2000. The
average is taken to smoothen out uneven fluctuations. To understand
the size of the economy and growth pattern of each of the 14 States,
we have classified the States into three categories with respect to their
Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) at constant 1993-94 prices, e.g.,
high income States (having GSDP: greater than 3rd Quartile), medium
income States (GSDP: 1st to 3rd Quartile) and low income States (GSDP:
less than 1st Quartile), for early 1990s (1993-96), late 1990s (1997-
2000) and early years of new millennium (2001-2005).