IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/mareco/v4y2010i3p339-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

India Protection Index

Author

Listed:
  • Rajesh Shukla

    (Rajesh Shukla is Director, NCAER Centre for Macro Consumer Research (NCAER-CMCR) at the National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi)

  • Anil Rai

    (Anil Rai is Principal Scientist, Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi)

  • Nitasha Monga

    (Nitasha Monga is Statistical Analyst at Dunn and Bradstreet, US)

Abstract

The success and failure of any democratic government is gauged in terms of how effectively it has fulfilled its constitutional obligation of enhancing social and economic well-being, particularly the common man. While developed economies use a set of indices to measure well-being, a systematic and comprehensive empirical assessment of well-being is found wanting in most developing countries, including India. This paper discusses the status of social and economic well-being of Indian families as measured by a primary survey-based composite index, the India Protection Index (IPI), which is an integration of the important dimensions of well-being. It finds that nearly 65 per cent of households and people in India have a reasonable degree of protection (i.e., the power of well-being) and that most of the less- and under-protected are daily wage earners, without any village–urban divide. The western states are better protected, as Maharashtra has the largest number of well-protected households (16 per cent), followed by Kartnataka and Kerala each accounting for 10 per cent. In terms of concentration, Kerala with 70,735 well-protected households per million is at the top, followed by Karnataka with 44,949 households—Uttar Pradesh and Bihar being at the bottom, with 14,621 and 26,908 households, respectively. The results show that the IPI can effectively be used to identify the status of households in terms of social and economic protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Rajesh Shukla & Anil Rai & Nitasha Monga, 2010. "India Protection Index," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 4(3), pages 339-367, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:mareco:v:4:y:2010:i:3:p:339-367
    DOI: 10.1177/097380101000400305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/097380101000400305
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/097380101000400305?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ebert, Udo & Welsch, Heinz, 2004. "Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 270-283, March.
    2. White, Howard, 2002. "Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in Poverty Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 511-522, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valadkhani, Abbas & Roshdi, Israfil & Smyth, Russell, 2016. "A multiplicative environmental DEA approach to measure efficiency changes in the world's major polluters," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 363-375.
    2. Haegeman, Karel & Marinelli, Elisabetta & Scapolo, Fabiana & Ricci, Andrea & Sokolov, Alexander, 2013. "Quantitative and qualitative approaches in Future-oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): From combination to integration?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 386-397.
    3. Cherchye, Laurens & Knox Lovell, C.A. & Moesen, Wim & Van Puyenbroeck, Tom, 2007. "One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 749-779, April.
    4. Francis Teal, 2006. "Consumption and welfare in Ghana in the 1990s," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(7), pages 1252-1269.
    5. Van Puyenbroeck, Tom & Rogge, Nicky, 2017. "Geometric mean quantity index numbers with Benefit-of-the-Doubt weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 1004-1014.
    6. Alejandro Avenburg & John Gerring & Jason Seawright, 2023. "How do social scientists reach causal inferences? A study of reception," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 257-275, February.
    7. Jie Zhang & Majed Alharthi & Qaiser Abbas & Weiqing Li & Muhammad Mohsin & Khan Jamal & Farhad Taghizadeh-Hesary, 2020. "Reassessing the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Relation to Energy Efficiency and Economic Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-21, October.
    8. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2014. "Sustainable development in ecological economics," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 3, pages 41-54, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Van de Kerk, Geurt & Manuel, Arthur R., 2008. "A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: The SSI -- the Sustainable Society Index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 228-242, June.
    10. J. Ram Pillarisetti & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2008. "Sustainable Nations: What do Aggregate Indicators tell us?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-012/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Agossadou, A.J. & Fiamohe, R. & Tossou, H. & Kinkpe, T., 2018. "Agribusiness opportunities for youth in Nigeria: Farmers perceptions and willingness to pay for mechanized harvesting equipment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277553, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Emmerling, Johannes & Kornek, Ulrike & Zuber, Stéphane, 2024. "Multidimensional welfare indices and the IPCC 6th Assessment Report scenarios," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    13. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    14. Pollesch, N.L. & Dale, V.H., 2016. "Normalization in sustainability assessment: Methods and implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 195-208.
    15. Fabio Grazi & Jeroen Bergh & Piet Rietveld, 2007. "Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 135-153, September.
    16. Michael Tribe & Andrew Sumner, 2006. "Development economics at a crossroads? Introduction to a policy arena," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(7), pages 957-966.
    17. Nicky Rogge & Emilia Konttinen, 2018. "Social Inclusion in the EU Since the Enlargement: Progress or Regress?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 563-584, January.
    18. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & Oppen, Matthias Von, 2007. "Farmer willingness to pay for seed-related information: rice varieties in Nigeria and Benin," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(6), pages 799-825, December.
    19. Vijaya Krishnan, 2015. "Development of a Multidimensional Living Conditions Index (LCI)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 120(2), pages 455-481, January.
    20. Fabio Grazi & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & Piet Rietveld, 2006. "Modeling Spatial Sustainability: Spatial Welfare Economics versus Ecological Footprint," Working Papers 2006.5, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic Well-being; India Protection Index; Financial Security; Household Surveys; Principal Component Analysis; Index Construction; JEL Classification: C43; JEL Classification: C81; JEL Classification: C82; JEL Classification: C83; JEL Classification: D10; JEL Classification: D18; JEL Classification: D31; JEL Classification: D63; JEL Classification: I32; JEL Classification: J11;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C43 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Index Numbers and Aggregation
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C82 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Macroeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • D18 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Protection
    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
    • J11 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Demographic Trends, Macroeconomic Effects, and Forecasts

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:mareco:v:4:y:2010:i:3:p:339-367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ncaer.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.