Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open soon. Sign up here to be notified when the dates are announced.
The percentage of the population living below the poverty line in India decreased to 22% in 2011-12 from 37% in 2004-05, according to data released by the Planning Commission in July 2013. This blog presents data on recent poverty estimates and goes on to provide a brief history of poverty estimation in the country. National and state-wise poverty estimates The Planning Commission estimates levels of poverty in the country on the basis of consumer expenditure surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
The current methodology for poverty estimation is based on the recommendations of an Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (Tendulkar Committee) established in 2005. The Committee calculated poverty levels for the year 2004- 05. Poverty levels for subsequent years were calculated on the basis of the same methodology, after adjusting for the difference in prices due to inflation. Table 1 shows national poverty levels for the last twenty years, using methodology suggested by the Tendulkar Committee. According to these estimates, poverty declined at an average rate of 0.74 percentage points per year between 1993-94 and 2004-05, and at 2.18 percentage points per year between 2004-05 and 2011-12. Table 1: National poverty estimates (% below poverty line) (1993 - 2012)
| Year |
Rural |
Urban |
Total |
| 1993 – 94 |
50.1 |
31.8 |
45.3 |
| 2004 – 05 |
41.8 |
25.7 |
37.2 |
| 2009 – 10 |
33.8 |
20.9 |
29.8 |
| 2011 – 12 |
25.7 |
13.7 |
21.9 |
Source: Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011 – 12, Planning Commission; Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission; PRS. State-wise data is also released by the NSSO. Table 2 shows state-wise poverty estimates for 2004-05 and 2011-12. It shows that while there is a decrease in poverty for almost all states, there are wide inter-state disparities in the percentage of poor below the poverty line and the rate at which poverty levels are declining. Table 2: State-wise poverty estimates (% below poverty line) (2004-05, 2011-12)
| State |
2004-05 |
2011-12 |
Decrease |
| Andhra Pradesh |
29.9 |
9.2 |
20.7 |
| Arunachal Pradesh |
31.1 |
34.7 |
-3.6 |
| Assam |
34.4 |
32 |
2.4 |
| Bihar |
54.4 |
33.7 |
20.7 |
| Chhattisgarh |
49.4 |
39.9 |
9.5 |
| Delhi |
13.1 |
9.9 |
3.2 |
| Goa |
25 |
5.1 |
19.9 |
| Gujarat |
31.8 |
16.6 |
15.2 |
| Haryana |
24.1 |
11.2 |
12.9 |
| Himachal Pradesh |
22.9 |
8.1 |
14.8 |
| Jammu and Kashmir |
13.2 |
10.4 |
2.8 |
| Jharkhand |
45.3 |
37 |
8.3 |
| Karnataka |
33.4 |
20.9 |
12.5 |
| Kerala |
19.7 |
7.1 |
12.6 |
| Madhya Pradesh |
48.6 |
31.7 |
16.9 |
| Maharashtra |
38.1 |
17.4 |
20.7 |
| Manipur |
38 |
36.9 |
1.1 |
| Meghalaya |
16.1 |
11.9 |
4.2 |
| Mizoram |
15.3 |
20.4 |
-5.1 |
| Nagaland |
9 |
18.9 |
-9.9 |
| Odisha |
57.2 |
32.6 |
24.6 |
| Puducherry |
14.1 |
9.7 |
4.4 |
| Punjab |
20.9 |
8.3 |
12.6 |
| Rajasthan |
34.4 |
14.7 |
19.7 |
| Sikkim |
31.1 |
8.2 |
22.9 |
| Tamil Nadu |
28.9 |
11.3 |
17.6 |
| Tripura |
40.6 |
14.1 |
26.5 |
| Uttar Pradesh |
40.9 |
29.4 |
11.5 |
| Uttarakhand |
32.7 |
11.3 |
21.4 |
| West Bengal |
34.3 |
20 |
14.3 |
| All Inda |
37.2 |
21.9 |
15.3 |
Source: Review of Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission, Government of India; Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011 – 12 (2013) Planning Commission, Government of India; PRS. Note: A negative sign before the number in column four (decrease) indicates an increase in percentage of population below the poverty line. History of poverty estimation in India Pre independence poverty estimates: One of the earliest estimations of poverty was done by Dadabhai Naoroji in his book, ‘Poverty and the Un-British Rule in India’. He formulated a poverty line ranging from Rs 16 to Rs 35 per capita per year, based on 1867-68 prices. The poverty line proposed by him was based on the cost of a subsistence diet consisting of ‘rice or flour, dhal, mutton, vegetables, ghee, vegetable oil and salt’. Next, in 1938, the National Planning Committee (NPC) estimated a poverty line ranging from Rs 15 to Rs 20 per capita per month. Like the earlier method, the NPC also formulated its poverty line based on ‘a minimum standard of living perspective in which nutritional requirements are implicit’. In 1944, the authors of the ‘Bombay Plan’ (Thakurdas et al 1944) suggested a poverty line of Rs 75 per capita per year. Post independence poverty estimates: In 1962, the Planning Commission constituted a working group to estimate poverty nationally, and it formulated separate poverty lines for rural and urban areas – of Rs 20 and Rs 25 per capita per year respectively. VM Dandekar and N Rath made the first systematic assessment of poverty in India in 1971, based on National Sample Survey (NSS) data from 1960-61. They argued that the poverty line must be derived from the expenditure that was adequate to provide 2250 calories per day in both rural and urban areas. This generated debate on minimum calorie consumption norms while estimating poverty and variations in these norms based on age and sex. Alagh Committee (1979): In 1979, a task force constituted by the Planning Commission for the purpose of poverty estimation, chaired by YK Alagh, constructed a poverty line for rural and urban areas on the basis of nutritional requirements. Table 3 shows the nutritional requirements and related consumption expenditure based on 1973-74 price levels recommended by the task force. Poverty estimates for subsequent years were to be calculated by adjusting the price level for inflation. Table 3: Minimum calorie consumption and per capita consumption expenditure as per the 1979 Planning Commission task force on poverty estimation
| Area | Calories | Minimum consumption expenditure (Rs per capita per month) |
| Rural | 2400 | 49.1 |
| Urban | 2100 | 56.7 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, 1993, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission; PRS Lakdawala Committee (1993): In 1993, an expert group constituted to review methodology for poverty estimation, chaired by DT Lakdawala, made the following suggestions: (i) consumption expenditure should be calculated based on calorie consumption as earlier; (ii) state specific poverty lines should be constructed and these should be updated using the Consumer Price Index of Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) in urban areas and Consumer Price Index of Agricultural Labour (CPI-AL) in rural areas; and (iii) discontinuation of ‘scaling’ of poverty estimates based on National Accounts Statistics. This assumes that the basket of goods and services used to calculate CPI-IW and CPI-AL reflect the consumption patterns of the poor. Tendulkar Committee (2009): In 2005, another expert group to review methodology for poverty estimation, chaired by Suresh Tendulkar, was constituted by the Planning Commission to address the following three shortcomings of the previous methods: (i) consumption patterns were linked to the 1973-74 poverty line baskets (PLBs) of goods and services, whereas there were significant changes in the consumption patterns of the poor since that time, which were not reflected in the poverty estimates; (ii) there were issues with the adjustment of prices for inflation, both spatially (across regions) and temporally (across time); and (iii) earlier poverty lines assumed that health and education would be provided by the State and formulated poverty lines accordingly.[1] It recommended four major changes: (i) a shift away from calorie consumption based poverty estimation; (ii) a uniform poverty line basket (PLB) across rural and urban India; (iii) a change in the price adjustment procedure to correct spatial and temporal issues with price adjustment; and (iv) incorporation of private expenditure on health and education while estimating poverty. The Committee recommended using Mixed Reference Period (MRP) based estimates, as opposed to Uniform Reference Period (URP) based estimates that were used in earlier methods for estimating poverty.[2] It based its calculations on the consumption of the following items: cereal, pulses, milk, edible oil, non-vegetarian items, vegetables, fresh fruits, dry fruits, sugar, salt & spices, other food, intoxicants, fuel, clothing, footwear, education, medical (non-institutional and institutional), entertainment, personal & toilet goods, other goods, other services and durables. The Committee computed new poverty lines for rural and urban areas of each state. To do this, it used data on value and quantity consumed of the items mentioned above by the population that was classified as poor by the previous urban poverty line. It concluded that the all India poverty line was Rs 446.68 per capita per month in rural areas and Rs 578.80 per capita per month in urban areas in 2004-05. The following table outlines the manner in which the percentage of population below the poverty line changed after the application of the Tendulkar Committee’s methodology. Table 4: Percentage of population below poverty line calculated by the Lakdawala Committee and the Tendulkar Committee for the year 2004-05
| Committee |
Rural |
Urban |
Total |
| Lakdawala Committee |
28.3 |
25.7 |
27.5 |
| Tendulkar Committee |
41.8 |
27.5 |
37.2 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, 1993, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission; Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty, 2009, Planning Commission; PRS The Committee also recommended a new method of updating poverty lines, adjusting for changes in prices and patterns of consumption, using the consumption basket of people close to the poverty line. Thus, the estimates released in 2009-10 and 2011-12 use this method instead of using indices derived from the CPI-AL for rural areas and CPI-IW for urban areas as was done earlier. Table 5 outlines the poverty lines computed using the Tendulkar Committee methodology for the years 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12. Table 5: National poverty lines (in Rs per capita per month) for the years 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12
| Year |
Rural |
Urban |
| 2004-05 |
446.7 |
578.8 |
| 2009-10 |
672.8 |
859.6 |
| 2011-12 |
816.0 |
1000.0 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission; Poverty Estimates 2009-10 and Poverty Estimates 2011-12, Planning Commission; PRS Rangarajan Committee: In 2012, the Planning Commission constituted a new expert panel on poverty estimation, chaired by C Rangarajan with the following key objectives: (i) to provide an alternate method to estimate poverty levels and examine whether poverty lines should be fixed solely in terms of a consumption basket or if other criteria are also relevant; (ii) to examine divergence between the consumption estimates based on the NSSO methodology and those emerging from the National Accounts aggregates; (iii) to review international poverty estimation methods and indicate whether based on these, a particular method for empirical poverty estimation can be developed in India, and (iv) to recommend how these estimates of poverty can be linked to eligibility and entitlements under the various schemes of the Government of India. The Committee is expected to submit its report by 2014.
[1] While private expenditure on education and health was covered in the base year 1973-74, no account was taken of either the increase in the proportion of these in total expenditure over time or of their proper representation in available price indices.
[2] Under the URP method, respondents are asked to detail consumption over the previous 30 days; whereas under the MRP method five low-frequency items (clothing, footwear, durables, education and institutional health expenditure) are surveyed over the previous 365 days, and all other items over the previous 30 days.
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was released on July 30, 2020. It will replace the National Policy on Education, 1986. Key recommendations of the NEP include: (i) redesigning the structure of school curriculum to incorporate early childhood care and education, (ii) curtailing dropouts for ensuring universal access to education, (iii) increasing gross enrolment in higher education to 50% by 2035, and (iv) improving research in higher education institutes by setting up a Research Foundation. In this blog, we examine the current status of education in the country in view of some of these recommendations made by the NEP.
Universal access to Education
The NEP states that the Right to Education Act, 2009 has been successful in achieving near universal enrolment in elementary education, however retaining children remains a challenge for the schooling system. As of 2015-16, Gross Enrolment Ratio was 56.2% at senior secondary level as compared to 99.2% at primary level. GER denotes enrolment as a percent of the population of corresponding age group. Further, it noted that the decline in GER is higher for certain socio-economically disadvantaged groups, based on: (i) gender identities (female, transgender persons), (ii) socio-cultural identities (scheduled castes, scheduled tribes), (iii) geographical identities (students from small villages and small towns), (iv) socio-economic identities (migrant communities and low income households), and (v) disabilities. In the table below, we detail the GER in school education across: (i) gender, and (ii) socio-cultural identities.
Table 1: GER in school education for different gender and social groups (2015-16)
|
Level |
Male |
Female |
SC |
ST |
All |
|
Primary (I-V) |
97.9% |
100.7% |
110.9% |
106.7% |
99.2% |
|
Upper Primary (VI-VIII) |
88.7% |
97.6% |
102.4% |
96.7% |
92.8% |
|
Secondary (IX-X) |
79.2% |
81% |
85.3% |
74.5% |
80% |
|
Senior Secondary (XI-XII) |
56% |
56.4% |
56.8% |
43.1% |
56.2% |
Sources: Educational Statistics at Glance 2018, MHRD; PRS.
Data for all groups indicates decline in GER as we move from primary to senior secondary for all groups. This decline is particularly high in case of Scheduled Tribes. Further, we analyse the reason for dropping out from school education. Data suggests that the most prominent reason for dropping out was: engagement in domestic activities (for girls) and engagement in economic activities (for boys).
Table 2: Major reasons for dropping out (Class 1-12) for 2015-16
|
Reason for dropping out |
Male |
Female |
|
Child not interested in studies |
23.8% |
15.6% |
|
Financial Constraints |
23.7% |
15.2% |
|
Engage in Domestic Activities |
4.8% |
29.7% |
|
Engage in Economic Activities |
31.0% |
4.9% |
|
School is far off |
0.5% |
3.4% |
|
Unable to cop-up with studies |
5.4% |
4.6% |
|
Completed desired level/ Class |
5.7% |
6.5% |
|
Marriage |
|
13.9% |
|
Other reasons |
5.1% |
6.2% |
Note: Other reasons include: (i) timings of educational Institution not suitable, (ii) language/medium of Instruction used unfamiliar, (iii) inadequate number of teachers, (iv) quality of teachers not satisfactory, (v) unfriendly atmosphere at school. For girl students, other reasons also include: (i) non-availability of female teachers, (ii) non-availability of girl’s toilet.
Sources: Educational Statistics at Glance 2018, MHRD; PRS.
The NEP recommends strengthening of existing schemes and policies which are targeted for such socio-economically disadvantaged groups (for instance, schemes for free bicycles for girls or scholarships) to tackle dropouts. Further, it recommends setting up special education zones in areas with significant proportion of such disadvantaged groups. A gender inclusion fund should also be setup to assist female and transgender students in getting access to education.
Increasing GER in Higher Education to 50% by 2035
The NEP aims to increase the GER in higher education to 50% by 2035. As of 2018-19, the GER in higher education in the country stood at 26.3%. Figure 2 shows the trend of GER in higher education over the last few years. Note that the annual growth rate of GER in higher education in the last few years has been around 2%.
Figure 1: GER in Higher Education (2014-15 to 2018-19)
Sources: All India Survey on Higher Education, MHRD; PRS.
Table 3: Comparison of GER (higher education) with other countries
|
Country |
GER (2017-18) |
|
India |
25% |
|
Brazil |
51% |
|
China |
49% |
|
Indonesia |
36% |
|
South Africa |
22% |
|
Pakistan |
9% |
|
Germany |
70% |
|
France |
66% |
|
United Kingdom |
60% |
Sources: UNESCO; PRS.
The NEP recommends that for increasing GER, capacity of existing higher education institutes will have to be improved by restructuring and expanding existing institutes. It recommends that all institutes should aim to be large multidisciplinary institutes (with enrolments in thousands), and there should be one such institution in or near every district by 2030. Further, institutions should have the option to run open distance learning and online programmes to improve access to higher education.
Foundational literacy and numeracy
The NEP states that a large proportion of the students currently enrolled in elementary school have not attained foundational literacy and numeracy (the ability to read and understand basic text, and carry out basic addition and subtraction). It recommends that every child should attain foundational literacy and numeracy by grade three.
Table 4 highlights the results of the National Achievement Survey 2017 on the learning levels of students at Grade 3 in language and mathematics. The results of the survey suggest that only 57% students in Grade 3 are able to solve basic numeracy skills related to addition and subtraction.
Table 4: NAS results on learning level of Grade-3 students
|
Learning level (Grade 3) |
Percentage of students |
|
Ability to read small texts with comprehension (Language) |
68% |
|
Ability to read printed scripts on classroom walls such as poems, posters (Language) |
65% |
|
Solving simple daily life addition and subtraction problems with 3 digits (Mathematics) |
57% |
|
Analyses and applies the appropriate number operation in a situation (Mathematics) |
59% |
Sources: National Achievement Survey (2017) dashboard, NCERT; PRS.
To achieve universal foundational literacy and numeracy, the Policy recommends setting up a National Mission on Foundational Literacy and Numeracy under the MHRD. All state governments must prepare implementation plans to achieve these goals by 2025. A national repository of high-quality resources on foundational literacy and numeracy will be made available on government’s e-learning platform (DIKSHA). Other measures to be taken in this regard include: (i) filling teacher vacancies at the earliest, (ii) ensuring a pupil to teacher ratio of 30:1 for effective teaching, and (iii) training teachers to impart foundational literacy and numeracy.
Effective governance of schools
The Policy states that establishing primary schools in every habitation across the country has helped increase access to education. However, it has led to the development of schools with low number of students. The small size of schools makes it operationally and economically challenging to deploy teachers and critical physical resources (such as library books, sports equipment).
With respect to this observation, the distribution of schools by enrolment size can be seen in the table below. Note that, as of September 2016, more than 55% of primary schools in the country had an enrolment below 60 students.
Table 5: Distribution of schools by enrolment size
|
Strength (Grade) |
Below 30 |
31-60 |
61-90 |
91-120 |
121-150 |
151-200 |
More than 200 |
|
Primary schools (Class 1-5) |
28.0% |
27.5% |
16.0% |
10.3% |
6.3% |
5.6% |
6.4% |
|
Upper primary schools (Class 6-8) |
14.8% |
27.9% |
18.7% |
15.0% |
8.4% |
7.2% |
8.0% |
|
Upper primary schools (Class 1-8) |
5.7% |
11.6% |
13.0% |
12.1% |
10.4% |
13.4% |
33.8% |
Sources: Flash Statistics on School Education 2016-17, UDISE; PRS.
While nearly 80% primary schools had a library, only 1.5% schools had a librarian (as of September 2016). The availability of facilities is better in higher senior secondary schools as compared to primary or upper primary schools.
Table 6: Distribution of schools with access to physical facilities
|
Facilities |
Primary schools (Class 1-5) |
Upper primary schools (Class 1-8) |
Higher senior secondary |
|
Library |
79.8% |
88.0% |
94.4% |
|
Librarian |
1.5% |
4.5% |
34.4% |
|
Playground |
54.9% |
65.5% |
84.3% |
|
Functional computer |
4.4% |
25.2% |
46.0% |
|
Internet connection |
0.9% |
4.2% |
67.9% |
Sources: Flash Statistics on School Education 2016-17, UDISE; PRS.
To overcome the challenges associated with development of small schools, the NEP recommends grouping schools together to form a school complex. The school complex will consist of one secondary school and other schools, aanganwadis in a 5-10 km radius. This will ensure: (i) adequate number of teachers for all subjects in a school complex, (ii) adequate infrastructural resources, and (iii) effective governance of schools.
Restructuring of Higher Education Institutes
The NEP notes that the higher education ecosystem in the country is severely fragmented. The present complex nomenclature of higher education institutes (HEIs) in the country such as ‘deemed to be university’, ‘affiliating university’, ‘affiliating technical university', ‘unitary university’ shall be replaced simply by 'university'.
According to the All India Survey on Higher Education 2018-19, India has 993 universities, 39,931 colleges, and 10,725 stand-alone institutions (technical institutes such as polytechnics or teacher training institutes).
Table 7: Number of Universities in India according to different categories
|
Type of university |
Number of universities |
|
Central University |
46 |
|
Central Open University |
1 |
|
Institutes of National Importance |
127 |
|
State Public University |
371 |
|
Institution Under State Legislature Act |
5 |
|
State Open University |
14 |
|
State Private University |
304 |
|
State Private Open University |
1 |
|
Deemed University- Government |
34 |
|
Deemed University- Government Aided |
10 |
|
Deemed University- Private |
80 |
|
Total |
993 |
Sources: All India Survey on Higher Education 2018-19; PRS.
The NEP recommends that all HEIs should be restructured into three categories: (i) research universities focusing equally on research and teaching, (ii) teaching universities focusing primarily on teaching, and (iii) degree granting colleges primarily focused on undergraduate teaching. All such institutions will gradually move towards full autonomy - academic, administrative, and financial.
Setting up a National Research Foundation to boost research
The NEP states that investment on research and innovation in India, at only 0.69% of GDP, lags behind several other countries. India’s expenditure on research and development (R&D) in the last few years can be seen in the figure below. Note that the total investment on R&D in India as a proportion of GDP has been stagnant at around 0.7% of GDP. In 2018-19, the total expenditure on R&D in India was Rs 1,23,848 crore. Of this, Rs 72,732 crore (58%) of expenditure was by government, and the remaining (42%) was by private industry.
Figure 2: R&D Expenditure in India (2011-12 to 2018-19)
Sources: S&T Indicators Table 2019-20, Ministry of Science and Technology, March 2020; PRS.
Figure 3: Comparison of R&D expenditure in India with other countries (2017)
Sources: S&T Indicators Table 2019-20, Ministry of Science and Technology, March 2020; PRS.
To boost research, the NEP recommends setting up an independent National Research Foundation (NRF) for funding and facilitating quality research in India. The Foundation will act as a liaison between researchers and relevant branches of government as well as industry. Specialised institutions which currently fund research, such as the Department of Science and Technology, and the Indian Council of Medical Research, will continue to fund independent projects. The Foundation will collaborate with such agencies to avoid duplication.
Digital education
The NEP states that alternative modes of quality education should be developed when in-person education is not possible, as observed during the recent pandemic. Several interventions must be taken to ensure inclusive digital education such as: (i) developing two-way audio and video interfaces for holding online classes, and (ii) use of other channels such as television, radio, mass media in multiple languages to ensure reach of digital content where digital infrastructure is lacking.
In this context, we analyse: (i) the availability of computer and internet across households in India, and (ii) ability to use computer or internet by persons in the age group of 5-14. As of 2017-18, the access to internet and computer was relatively poor in rural areas. Only 4.4% of rural households have access to a computer (excludes smartphones), and nearly 15% have access to internet facility. Amongst urban households, 42% have access to internet.
Table 8: Access to Computer and Internet across households (2017-18)
|
Access to ICT |
Rural |
Urban |
Overall |
|
Households having computer |
4.4% |
23.4% |
10.7% |
|
Households having internet facility |
14.9% |
42.0% |
23.8% |
Note: Computer includes desktop, laptop, notebook, tablet. It does not include smartphone.
Sources: Household Social Consumption on Education (2017-18), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, July 2020; PRS.
Table 9: Ability to use Computer and Internet across persons in the age group 5-14 (2017-18)
|
Ability to use ICT |
Rural |
Urban |
Overall |
|
Ability to use computer |
5.1% |
21.3% |
9.1% |
|
Ability to use internet |
5.1% |
19.7% |
8.8% |
Note: Ability to use computer means to be able to carry out any of the tasks such as: (i) copying or moving a file/folder, (ii) sending emails, (iii) transferring files between a computer and other devices, among others. Ability to use internet means to be able to use the internet browser for website navigation, using e-mail or social networking applications.
Sources: Household Social Consumption on Education (2017-18), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, July 2020; PRS.
Public spending on education to be increased to 6% of GDP
The recommendation of increasing public spending on Education to 6% of GDP was first made by the National Policy on Education 1968 and reiterated by the 1986 Policy. NEP 2020 reaffirms the recommendation of increasing public spending on education to 6% of GDP. In 2017-18, the public spending on education (includes spending by centre and states) was budgeted at 4.43% of GDP.
Table 10: Public spending on Education (2013-2018)
|
Year |
Public expenditure (Rs crore) |
% of GDP |
|
2013-14 |
4,30,879 |
3.84% |
|
2014-15 |
5,06,849 |
4.07% |
|
2015-16 |
5,77,793 |
4.20% |
|
2016-17 |
6,64,265 |
4.32% |
|
2017-18 |
7,56,945 |
4.43% |
Sources: 312th Report, Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, March 2020; PRS.
Figure 4: Comparison of public spending on Education in India with other countries as % of GDP (2015)
Sources: Educational Statistics at Glance 2018, MHRD; PRS.
In the figure below, we look at the disparities within states in education spending. In 2020-21, states in India have allocated 15.7% of their budgeted expenditure towards education. States such as Delhi, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra have allocated more than 18% of their expenditure on Education for the year 2020-21. On the other hand, Telangana (7.4%), Andhra Pradesh (12.1%) and Punjab (12.3%) lack in spending on education, as compared to the average of states.
Figure 5: Budgeted allocation on Education (2020-21) by states in India
Note: AP is Andhra Pradesh, UP is Uttar Pradesh, HP is Himachal Pradesh and WB is West Bengal.
Sources: Analysis of various state budget documents; PRS.
For a detailed summary of the National Education Policy, see here.
