What could these attributes be? Let us examine this through an example. Table 3
gives the per capita income of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Bihar. We find that
out of the three, Haryana has the highest per capita income and Bihar is at the
bottom. This means that, on an average, a person in Haryana earned Rs.2.15 lakhs in
one year whereas, on an average, a person in Bihar would earn only around
Rs. 0.66 lakhs. So, if the per capita income were to be used as the measure of
development, Haryana would be considered the most developed and Bihar the least
developed state of the three. Now, let us look at certain other data pertaining to
these states given in Table 4.
State
IMR per 1000 (2016)
Literacy Rate (%)
Net Attendance Ratio for Secondary Stage (2013-14)
Haryana
33
77
61
Himachal Pradesh
25
84
67
Bihar
38
64
43
First column of the table shows that in Himachal Pradesh, out of 1000 children
born alive, 25 died before completing one year of age. In Haryana, the number of
children dying within one year of birth is 33. In Bihar, the number is 38.
How is it that the average person in Haryana has more income than the average
person in Himachal Pradesh but lags behind in these crucial areas? The reason is
money in your pocket cannot buy all the goods and services that you may need to
live well.
So, income by itself is not a completely adequate indicator of material
goods and services that citizens are able to use. For example, normally your money
cannot buy you a pollution free environment or ensure that you get unadulterated
medicines, unless you can afford to shift to a community that already has all these
things.
Money may also not be able to protect you from infectious diseases, unless
the whole of your community takes preventive steps.
Actually, for many of the important things in life the best way, also the cheapest
way, is to provide these goods and services collectively. Just think: will it be cheaper