{"id":122797,"date":"2020-05-03T22:30:42","date_gmt":"2020-05-03T17:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797"},"modified":"2020-05-03T22:49:38","modified_gmt":"2020-05-03T17:19:38","slug":"status-of-bihar-across-social-parameters-of-the-sdgs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797","title":{"rendered":"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The 2030\nAgenda for Sustainable Development<\/em><\/strong> adopted in 2015 provides a shared\nblueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the\nfuture.  At its heart are the 17\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs),<\/em><\/strong> that recognize that ending\npoverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that\nimprove health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth \u2013 all\nwhile tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

India, having\n17 per cent of the world\u2019s population, holds the key to global SDG achievement.\nToday, the country faces multiple challenges in several sectors of development,\nbe it health, nutrition, education, sanitation and infrastructure. But it also\nprovides opportunities to come out with innovative solutions to such problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given\nthe federal structure of India, States and local governments are crucial to\nIndia\u2019s progress, as they play a pivotal role in implementing development programmes\nand are therefore essential stakeholders in realising SDG.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\ndocument studies the 4 social parameters of SDG related to poverty,\nhunger, healthcare and education.<\/em><\/strong> It uses data from the NITI\nAayog SDG Index report 2019-20<\/em><\/strong> and the Economic Survey of Bihar\n2019-20<\/em><\/strong> and reflects upon the status of Bihar across these social\nparameters and compares it with other states of India. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bihar<\/em><\/strong> has\nbeen chosen as subject of study owing to its large geographic area, huge  population, high population density and\nbackward socio-economic parameters making it key to overall performance of\nIndia in achieving SDG targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SDG 1: NO POVERTY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

End Poverty in All its\nForms Everywhere<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equitable\n& inclusive development requires improving human capital which can be\nachieved by breaking out from the vicious cycle of intergenerational poverty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bihar\nranks Second Last<\/em><\/strong> at 27th<\/sup> position only above\nJharkhand. The best states are Tamil Nadu, Tripura and Andhra Pradesh which has\nmore than double the SDG index score of Bihar. Analysing sub-parameters of\nPoverty following were the findings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. BPL POPULATION:<\/em><\/strong>
    • The poverty ratios using the Tendulkar Committee methodology, for Bihar was 34.1 % for rural and 31.2 % for urban areas in 2011-12. The overall poverty ratio was 33.7 %. <\/li>
    • These poverty ratios are much higher than Kerala which has only 7% BPL population, Himachal Pradesh (8%), Sikkim (8%) and Punjab (8%) and even substantially higher than the all-India level of 21.92 %.<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
    • MGNREGA COVERAGE:<\/em><\/strong>
      • MGNREGA ensures 100 days of employment to the people in need of work and is key to ensure minimum income to poor.<\/li>
      • In Bihar coverage under MGNREGA stands at 77% while Mizoram, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland have over 95% population who demanded and got employment under MGNREGA. <\/li>
      • Bihar delivered only 108.4 million person days out of a target of 140 million, completed only a third of its target of rural roads, resulting in 2,095 habitations still being unconnected and built just around 388,000 rural houses out of a target of 1.17 million houses by March 2019.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        A\nmultipronged strategy to eliminate poverty lies at the core of India’s national\ndevelopment agenda. Targeted programmes<\/em><\/strong> to facilitate income\ngrowth for the economically disadvantaged, social protection measures<\/em><\/strong>\nand access to basic services<\/em><\/strong> are key to achieve goal of No\nPoverty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        SDG 2: ZERO HUNGER<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        End Hunger, Achieve\nFood Security & Improved Nutrition and Promote Sustainable Agriculture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        With a\nnearly six-fold increase in food grain production from 50 million tonnes in\n1950-51 to more than 283.37 million tonnes in 2018-19, India has done well to\nexpand food production and build up stocks of food grains. However, there is\ninequality among performance of states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In\nachieving goal of zero hunger, Bihar ranks Third Last at 26th position.<\/em><\/strong>\nOnly Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand are placed below Bihar. The top states\nworking progressively for food security and improved nutrition to end hunger\nare Goa, Mizoram and Kerala which has SDG Index score thrice that of Bihar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Following\nresults were obtained on studying the performance of Bihar:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1. STUNTING & MALNUTRITION<\/em><\/strong>: <\/em>
          • In Bihar, NFHS-4 (2015-16)<\/em><\/strong> estimates that 48.3 percent of children under 5 years are stunted (too short for their age), which signifies chronic undernutrition.<\/em><\/strong> <\/li>
          • The stunting is observed to be 9.5 percentage points higher among the children in rural areas (49.3 percent), <\/em><\/strong>compared to urban areas (39.8 percent). Among the districts of Bihar, the prevalence of stunting is the highest in Sitamarhi (57.3 percent) and Nalanda (54.1 percent).<\/em><\/strong><\/li>
          • The percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted is the highest in Bihar at 48 per cent whereas Jammu & Kashmir (12%), Goa (19.6 per cent), Tamil Nadu (19.7 per cent) and Kerala (20.5 per cent) has much lower number of children who are stunted.<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
          • UNDERWEIGHT: \u00a0<\/em><\/strong>
            • As per NFHS-4 results, in Bihar about 43.9 percent of children under 5 years are underweight<\/em><\/strong> in Bihar. <\/li>
            • There is a difference of 7.1 percentage points between rural and urban areas, standing at 44.6 percent and 37.5 percent respectively. <\/li>
            • Among the 38 districts, Arwal records the highest share of underweight children at 54.0 percent, followed by Gaya (53.1 percent) and Sheikhpura (51.7 percent).<\/em><\/strong> <\/li><\/ul><\/li>
            • WASTING: <\/em><\/strong>
              • 20.8 percent of children under 5 years of age in the state are wasted (too thin for their height), which signify acute undernutrition as a consequence of malnourishment. (NFHS-4)<\/li>
              • Among the districts, Arwal (30.7 percent), Jamui (29.4 percent) and Sheikhpura (28.9 percent) are worst <\/em><\/strong>performing districts. Bihar has 44% children under 5 who are underweight while Sikkim and Mizoram have 11% underweight children.<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
              • ANAEMIC POPULATION: <\/em><\/strong>
                • Bihar has 58% pregnant women and 43% under age of 5 children who suffer from Anaemia while Kerala has 22% and 12% respectively.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                  The\nsolution to Zero Hunger lies in food & nutritional security,\nagricultural income & productivity and promoting climate adaptive\nagriculture and sustainability<\/em><\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  SDG GOAL 3: GOOD HEALTH AND WELL BEING <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Ensure Healthy Lives\n& Promote Well Being for all at all Ages<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  The\nGoal addresses all major health priorities, including reproductive, maternal\nand child health; communicable, non-communicable and environmental diseases;\nuniversal health coverage; and access for all to safe, effective, quality and\naffordable medicines and vaccines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  It also\ncalls for more research and development, increased health financing, and\nstrengthening the capacity in health risk reduction and management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Bihar\nstands at Third last position at 26th<\/em><\/strong> in providing health\nservices to its people both in terms of quality and quantity of health\ninfrastructure. The top positions in good health are occupied by mostly\nsouthern states of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  RANKING ACROSS VARIOUS\nHEALTH PARAMENTERS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  • MMR (Mother Mortality Rate):<\/em><\/strong> Bihar\nhas high MMR of 165 whereas 3 States – Kerala, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu,\nhave already reached the SDG-3 target of MMR of less than 70 per 1,00,000 live\nbirths. (National Average is 122).<\/li>
                  • Institutional\nDeliveries:<\/em><\/strong> Bihar has 42% women undergoing institutional\ndeliveries while Kerala, Mizoram and Telangana have over 70% institutional\ndeliveries.<\/li>
                  • Under 5\nMortality Rate<\/em><\/strong>:<\/em><\/strong> Bihar has very high U5MR of 58\nwhile Kerala stands first at 7 and Tamil Nadu at 27.<\/li>
                  • Full\nImmunisation of Children Under 5:<\/em><\/strong> Only 48% of children under 5\nare fully immunised while Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur,\nMizoram, Telangana and Uttarakhand has over 70% immunisation.<\/li>
                  • Total\nPhysicians, Nurses and midwives:<\/em><\/strong> Bihar has 19 per 10,000\nPopulation while Kerala has 112 and Tamil Nadu has 71 per 10000. The National\nAverage is 38 and target being 45.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                    POOR HEALTH\nINFRASTRUCTURE IN BIHAR:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    The\npoor status of health in Bihar is not only due to its quality of healthcare but\nalso due to lack of sufficient healthcare workforce. This has been reflected in\nthe following study:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    • Doctor’s Vacancy:<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>As\nregards doctors, in 2018-19, there were 3821 regular doctors in Bihar, against\n6261 sanctioned posts, indicating a high vacancy ratio of 39 %. In addition,\nthere were also sanctioned posts for 2314 contractual doctors, of which only\n533 posts were filled up, representing vacancy of 77 percent.<\/li>
                    • Nurses Vacancy:<\/em><\/strong> there were 4704 sanctioned posts, but the number\nof working nurses were lesser at 1994, indicating a high vacancy ratio of 58\npercent. Similarly, in case of contractual nurses, against the sanctioned\nstrength of 1719, only 308 were working, implying a high vacancy ratio of 82\npercent. <\/li>
                    • ANMs Vacancy<\/em><\/strong>:<\/em> In\n2018-19, the actual strength of regular ANM was 11,830, against the sanctioned\nposts of 21,859, indicating a vacancy ratio of 46 percent. Likewise, the\nworking strength of contractual ANMs was 5889, against 12,587 sanctioned posts,\nindicating a vacancy ratio of 53 percent.<\/li>
                    • Dilapidated Health Condition:<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>In\nBihar, there are as many as 7 districts (Sheikhpura, Jahanabad, Arwal, Sheohar,\nNalanda, Bhagalpur and Patna), in each of which a government doctor has to serve\nmore than 5 lakh people. <\/li>
                    • Health Institution\/Lakh Population:<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>The\nbest three districts in terms of availability of health infrastructure\/lakh\npopulation are \u2014 Jamui (179), Sheikhpura (173) and Sheohar (169). At the other\nend, three most disadvantaged districts are \u2014 Patna (62), Sitamarhi (78) and\nDarbhanga (83).<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                      The prime focus area should be reducing MMR, under\n5 Mortality Rate, addressing burden of Communicable disease & focussed\napproach on NCD. This can be achieved by providing for sanctioned number of\ndoctors, specialists, ANMs and nurses and a dedicated scheme for mother and\nnew-born with proper monitoring. A bold approach can be shifting the focus to Universal\nHealth Coverage.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      SDG GOAL 4: QUALITY EDUCATION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      Ensure Equitable &\nEquitable Quality Education and Promote Life Long Learning Opportunities for\nAll<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      Investing\nin human development requires a heavy focus on education. While the Millennium\nDevelopment Goals focused on increasing student enrolment, the SDGs placed particular\nemphasis on improving the quality of education and learning outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      While\nSDG 4 focuses on equity, inclusion and quality of education, it also aims to\nbuild and upgrade education facilities that are sensitive to the needs of\nchildren and person with disabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      Bihar\nis positioned Last<\/em><\/strong> in Quality and inclusive and equitable\nEducation. Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu have outperformed in\nproviding education to students. Following analysis highlight the position\nBihar in contrast to other states on various educational parameters:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      1. Literacy\nRate:<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>The literacy rate in Bihar was 61.8 percent in 2011\nas compared to a national average of 72.9 percent. Kerala has highest literacy\nrate of 94%.<\/li>
                      2. Proportion\nof Trained Teacher:<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>The National Average of trained teacher is 79%\nwhile that in Bihar is 24% while Kerala, Punjab, Arunachal, Himachal, Haryana,\nDelhi, Karnataka, MP have over 95% trained teachers.<\/li>
                      3. Average\nAnnual Dropout Rate at Secondary Level<\/em><\/strong>:<\/strong> The dropout rates at secondary\nlevel are much higher than that at the elementary level. The dropout rate was\n56.1 percent in 2017-18 at the secondary level. Thus, only 44 percent of\nstudents enrolled in Standard I presently complete their secondary level education\nin Bihar. While dropout rate for Himachal\nPradesh (7%), Uttarakhand (9%), Delhi (11%) and Kerala (12%) stood much lower.<\/li>
                      4. GER\nin Higher Education:<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>Bihar has Gross Enrolment Ratio of only 13.6% in\nhigher education whereas Kerala tops the list with GER of 37 percent.<\/li>
                      5. Scheduled\nCaste Dropout Rate:<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>As per Bihar’s Economic Survey, the dropout rates\nfor Secondary Education in 2017-18 was 58% and gender-wise dropout was 62% for\nBoys and 53% for girls and for the Upper Primary level it was 48% (combined) and\n52% for boys and 43% for girls.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                        The solution lies in providing free, equitable and\nquality primary and secondary education, <\/em><\/strong>Access to quality early\nchildhood development, care and pre-primary education and Accessible,\nAffordable and Quality Higher Education along with Skill Development courses.\nThis will build a cadre of quality workforce and help realise the true benefits\nof demographic dividend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        CONCLUSION:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        Overall,\nin NITI Aayog\u2019s SDG Index, Bihar is positioned last<\/em><\/strong> with Index\nscore of 50, while Kerala (70) stands at top followed by Himachal Pradesh (69)\nand Andhra Pradesh (67), with India\u2019s average index score being 60. This is\nalso supported by above report findings where we observe that Bihar has ranked\npoorly on parameters of poverty alleviation, zero hunger, food security, health\nand education. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        The\npresent scenario demands the State government to take responsibility for the\nsame and align the budgetary allocation to these human development parameters.\nMoreover, a proper monitoring mechanism needs to be setup to evaluate the\nprogress of steps taken to achieve these goals. \n\n\nInterventions in Poverty Alleviation<\/em><\/strong>\nby targeted schemes & access to basic services; Fighting Hunger<\/em><\/strong>\nby providing food and nutritional security; provision of Good Health for\nAll <\/em><\/strong>via better healthcare facilities and universal health coverage and\nproviding Quality Education<\/em><\/strong> which is accessible, affordable and inclusive at all levels holds the key to\nachieve the Sustainable Development Goals.\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                        Overall, in NITI Aayog\u2019s SDG Index, Bihar is positioned last with Index score of 50, while Kerala (70) stands at top followed by Himachal Pradesh (69) and Andhra Pradesh (67), with India\u2019s average index score being 60. This is also supported by above report findings where we observe that Bihar has ranked poorly on parameters of poverty alleviation, zero hunger, food security, health and education. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":122799,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[295,293,171,294],"class_list":["post-122797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-indian-economy","tag-development-of-bihar","tag-sdg","tag-sustainable-development","tag-sustainable-development-goal"],"yoast_head":"\nSTATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs - The Public Economist<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs - The Public Economist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Overall, in NITI Aayog\u2019s SDG Index, Bihar is positioned last with Index score of 50, while Kerala (70) stands at top followed by Himachal Pradesh (69) and Andhra Pradesh (67), with India\u2019s average index score being 60. This is also supported by above report findings where we observe that Bihar has ranked poorly on parameters of poverty alleviation, zero hunger, food security, health and education.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Public Economist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ThePublicEconomist\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-05-03T17:00:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-05-03T17:19:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/secureservercdn.net\/160.153.138.71\/73a.736.myftpupload.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/SDG.jpg?time=1635872114\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"787\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"502\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rajesh Prasad\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@EconomistPublic\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@EconomistPublic\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rajesh Prasad\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Rajesh Prasad\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d37537d236b79a796a9c7df184efb4d1\"},\"headline\":\"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-05-03T17:00:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-05-03T17:19:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797\"},\"wordCount\":1942,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/05\\\/SDG.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Development of Bihar\",\"SDG\",\"Sustainable Development\",\"Sustainable Development Goal\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Indian Economy\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797\",\"name\":\"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs - The Public Economist\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/05\\\/SDG.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-05-03T17:00:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-05-03T17:19:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/05\\\/SDG.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/05\\\/SDG.jpg\",\"width\":787,\"height\":502},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?p=122797#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Public Economist\",\"description\":\"The Policy Monitor\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"The Public Economist\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secureservercdn.net\\\/160.153.138.71\\\/73a.736.myftpupload.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/log.png?time=1618112527\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secureservercdn.net\\\/160.153.138.71\\\/73a.736.myftpupload.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/log.png?time=1618112527\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"The Public Economist\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/ThePublicEconomist\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/EconomistPublic\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/the-public-economist\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/channel\\\/UCzP8-NRgwG9noDdmVq34ddg\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d37537d236b79a796a9c7df184efb4d1\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Prasad\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/de3a9ec00a09d71e6792ea8618b105fc8142454e4892cd0782f5e5f6f3d7f6dd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/de3a9ec00a09d71e6792ea8618b105fc8142454e4892cd0782f5e5f6f3d7f6dd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/de3a9ec00a09d71e6792ea8618b105fc8142454e4892cd0782f5e5f6f3d7f6dd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Rajesh Prasad\"},\"description\":\"Rajesh is Lead Analyst, Strategy & Research, at Indian Political Action Committee. His work and research papers on water contamination, water treatment and soil health have been published in various international journals and conferences.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/thepubliceconomist.com\\\/?author=44\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs - The Public Economist","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs - The Public Economist","og_description":"Overall, in NITI Aayog\u2019s SDG Index, Bihar is positioned last with Index score of 50, while Kerala (70) stands at top followed by Himachal Pradesh (69) and Andhra Pradesh (67), with India\u2019s average index score being 60. This is also supported by above report findings where we observe that Bihar has ranked poorly on parameters of poverty alleviation, zero hunger, food security, health and education.","og_url":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797","og_site_name":"The Public Economist","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ThePublicEconomist\/","article_published_time":"2020-05-03T17:00:42+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-05-03T17:19:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":787,"height":502,"url":"https:\/\/secureservercdn.net\/160.153.138.71\/73a.736.myftpupload.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/SDG.jpg?time=1635872114","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Rajesh Prasad","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@EconomistPublic","twitter_site":"@EconomistPublic","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rajesh Prasad","Estimated reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797"},"author":{"name":"Rajesh Prasad","@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/#\/schema\/person\/d37537d236b79a796a9c7df184efb4d1"},"headline":"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs","datePublished":"2020-05-03T17:00:42+00:00","dateModified":"2020-05-03T17:19:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797"},"wordCount":1942,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/SDG.jpg","keywords":["Development of Bihar","SDG","Sustainable Development","Sustainable Development Goal"],"articleSection":["Indian Economy"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797","url":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797","name":"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs - The Public Economist","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/SDG.jpg","datePublished":"2020-05-03T17:00:42+00:00","dateModified":"2020-05-03T17:19:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/SDG.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/SDG.jpg","width":787,"height":502},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?p=122797#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"STATUS OF BIHAR ACROSS SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF THE SDGs"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/","name":"The Public Economist","description":"The Policy Monitor","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/#organization","name":"The Public Economist","url":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secureservercdn.net\/160.153.138.71\/73a.736.myftpupload.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/log.png?time=1618112527","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secureservercdn.net\/160.153.138.71\/73a.736.myftpupload.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/log.png?time=1618112527","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"The Public Economist"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ThePublicEconomist\/","https:\/\/x.com\/EconomistPublic","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/the-public-economist\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCzP8-NRgwG9noDdmVq34ddg"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/#\/schema\/person\/d37537d236b79a796a9c7df184efb4d1","name":"Rajesh Prasad","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/de3a9ec00a09d71e6792ea8618b105fc8142454e4892cd0782f5e5f6f3d7f6dd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/de3a9ec00a09d71e6792ea8618b105fc8142454e4892cd0782f5e5f6f3d7f6dd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/de3a9ec00a09d71e6792ea8618b105fc8142454e4892cd0782f5e5f6f3d7f6dd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Rajesh Prasad"},"description":"Rajesh is Lead Analyst, Strategy & Research, at Indian Political Action Committee. His work and research papers on water contamination, water treatment and soil health have been published in various international journals and conferences.","url":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/?author=44"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122797","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=122797"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122797\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":123199,"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122797\/revisions\/123199"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/122799"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=122797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=122797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thepubliceconomist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=122797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}