good report atlast people are aware of this poor rich difference in figures now!
http://www.paknews.org/main.php?id=2&date1=2003-07-02
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: July 02 (PNS) - The first ever ‘National Human Development Report 2003’ finds Jhelum ranking at the highest HDI at 0.703 while gas rich Dera Bugti, the lowest at 0.285.
The Human Development Index measures a country achievements in three aspects of human development: Jul 2 (PNS) - longevity, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. Longevity is measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the combined gross primary, secondary, and tertiary enrolment ratio; and standard of living, as measured by GDP per capita in dollars.
The United Nations Development Programme has published the report, covering inter-linkages between poverty, growth and governance, while Dr Akmal Hussain is its principle author with vital inputs from AR Kemal, AI Hamid, Imran Ali, Khawar Mumtaz and Ayub Qutub.
The data in the study indicates the large disparities in terms of human development between the districts of Pakistan.
In the NHDR study for the first time in Pakistan, human development indices have been estimated for provinces and districts. The variation in HDI between provinces and districts are indicative of regional disparities in both the level of economic growth as well as in terms of health, education and the quality of life.
The study finds considerable variation across provinces with respect to literacy rates that vary from 51% in the Sindh to 36% in the Baluchistan. Similarly the primary enrolment rate varies from 75% in the Punjab, to 64% in the Baluchistan.
As a consequence while the human development index for Pakistan, as a whole, is 0.541 the provincial HDI varies from the highest in the Punjab, at 0.557, to the lowest at 0.499 in Baluchistan. Islamabad has a greater weight of affluent citizens in its population with a far better social infrastructure than in any province of Pakistan. It is not surprising therefore that the human development index of Islamabad is 0.612 which is higher than that of any of the provinces in the country.
In terms of HDI ranking the Sindh urban has the highest rank, with an HDI of 0.659 which is higher than for Pakistan as a whole (0.541). Punjab urban comes out second in the ranking with HDI of 0.657, NWFP urban third with an HDI of 0.627 and Balochistan urban fourth at 0.591. It is interesting that in terms of the ruralurban ranking of provinces while Sindh urban has the highest rank, Sindh rural has the lowest with an HDI of 0.456. This suggests a larger urban rural disparity in Sindh compared to any other province. Punjab rural has the highest HDI (0.517) compared to the rural areas of any other province.
Among the districts, Jhelum has the highest HDI rank at 0.703 and Dera Bugti the lowest at 0.285. Data indicates the large disparities in terms of human development between the districts of Pakistan.
The studies also points out that the financial crisis is a manifestation of the interplay between the problems of governance, the decay of institutions, and the adverse structure and slow growth, of GDP. The essential feature of the problem in the context of economic revival, is that the government has severe fiscal constraints to undertaking major initiatives for stimulating the economy or directly attacking poverty.
The research finds that debt-servicing burden of total public debt as a percentage of government revenue increased from 19.6 percent in 1980 to 60.3 percent in 200 while overtime the tax burden on the poor has increased and on the rich has declined.
“The pattern of growth in the crop sector during the 1990s is characterized by a slow down in the annual growth rate of major crops, a declining growth rate of factor productivity and an increased instability of output growth” says national human development report.
While the availability of the irrigation water has been reduced, the requirement of water at the farm level has increased due to increased deposits of salts on the top soil and the consequent need for leaching, Dr Akmal observes.
“High drop out rates occur often because the household is facing adversity and gets pushed into such acute poverty that it is forced to send the children to work for a pittance rather than continue with education. There is a serious problem with the quality of education imparted to students not only with respect to the curricula but also the quality of instruction,” mentions the report.
The UNDP funded study says the adverse health and socio-economic status of poor women is accentuated as marginal households with given incomes bear the burden of a large number of children. In Pakistan high fertility rates, high population growth rates, ill health and poverty are linked in a vicious cycle.
GDP Growth has declined during the 1990s, there has also been a decline in employment elasticities, labour productivity and real wages in both agriculture and industry.
The NHDR 2003 says that the poor are not isolated heads to be merely counted. The poor exist as living communists who are looked into a structure of power which keeps them dependant on the landlord, the money lender and the local state officials.
On the gender inequality, the study finds, “Women from poor household today are subject to not only the stress from economic deprivation but also: ‘loneliness…, violence and fear of violence, depression and resignation…’” The report refers to the 1960s when the process of rapid economic growth was high and “while an exclusive and highly monopolistic class was amassing wealth, the majority of Pakistan’s population was suffering an absolute decline in its living standards.”
It also points to the fact that while the landlord’s incomes increased, those of the poor peasantry declined relatively, as they faced a reduction in their operated farm area and in many cases growing landlessness.
Apart from the increased expenditures on defence and administration, the budget was additionally burdened by the losses of the public sector industries, he noted.
On the subject of poverty and modes of financing consumption, the NHDR 2003 points out that the basic difference between the extremely poor and the poor categories is that in the former, the total annual household income (Rs 15,350) is substantially less than the food consumption requirement (Rs 18,497), while in the latter the annual total household income (Rs 40,566) is sufficient to fulfill the food consumption requirement, although not enough to fulfill the total consumption requirements (excluding durables) (Rs 41,092).
“Therefore the distinguishing feature between these two classes of the poor is that the extremely poor are obliged to use loans for food consumption requirements, while those in the poor category do not have to do so.
Similarly in the extremely poor category the total consumption requirements (Rs.23,722) is greater than the annual total household receipts including transfers and remittances received. In the poor category, by contrast, the total receipts (Rs.45,818) are greater than the total consumption requirements. In the non-poor category, annual total household income is not only enough to fulfill food consumption, but also more than enough to finance total consumption (excluding durables).
The UNDP funded report said the extremely poor, whose incomes and receipts fall below the poverty line, tend to use loans and sale of assets to increase their consumption level. Since availability of loans to the extremely poor is constrained and they often do not have substantial assets, they suffer from extreme nutritional deficiencies. Total available resources of the extremely poor are 84.0 percent of the poverty line.
In urban areas, the total household incomes of the extremely poor and the poor of Rs.30,266 and Rs.53,830, were only 39.5 and 70.9 percent of the poverty line, respectively. In the rural areas, household income levels of the extremely poor and the poor are 21.6 and 61.9 percent of the poverty line, respectively.
Transfers, especially the remittances, supplement considerably the total income of both the extremely poor and the poor categories. For the extremely poor, remittances account for 16% and total transfers 20.9%, and for the poor, remittances account for 4.2% and total transfers 5.3 percent of the total receipts. Despite the large transfers the current receipts of the extremely poor fall short of their consumption levels by 35 percent and they have to resort to credit and sale of assets to finance their meager consumption levels. As much as 17% of total consumption of the poor is financed through credit and 5% through the sale of land. Even though the poor on average spend less than the total receipts, yet a large number of households amongst them do use credit and proceeds from the sale of assets to finance their consumption; 10% of the consumption of the poor is financed through net credit and 2% through the sale of assets. The deficit between food consumption requirements and total household receipts of the extremely poor is much higher in the rural areas than in urban areas.
The report has little mention of the land reforms, minority groups as well as the exact percentage of the extremely poor segment of the population.