(1)
Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University, Delhi, India
Abstract
Characteristically, perhaps there may not be too many commonalities to make the three underlying states—UP, Rajasthan and Delhi—mutually comparable. Among the few that make them to a certain extent comparable is that each of these states belongs mostly to the northern belt of the country and they largely remain monolingual with Hindi as the dominant language of daily usage. In most other cases, all the three states are mutually far apart with Delhi being the smallest in terms of population size and UP the largest. Compared to UP and Rajasthan, Delhi provides much better socio-economic opportunities to its residents and has a considerably higher per capita income with better access to medical and public health-care services. These interstate differences are expected to embody the socio-economic and health conditions of individuals and households described in the rest of this or in subsequent chapters.
Characteristically, perhaps there may not be too many commonalities to make the three underlying states—UP, Rajasthan and Delhi—mutually comparable. Among the few that make them to a certain extent comparable is that each of these states belongs mostly to the northern belt of the country and they largely remain monolingual with Hindi as the dominant language of daily usage. In most other cases, all the three states are mutually far apart with Delhi being the smallest in terms of population size and UP the largest. Compared to UP and Rajasthan, Delhi provides much better socio-economic opportunities to its residents and has a considerably higher per capita income with better access to medical and public health-care services. These interstate differences are expected to embody the socio-economic and health conditions of individuals and households described in the rest of this or in subsequent chapters.
2.1 Sample Households and Composition of Sample Population
Distribution of households in all the three states and their respective districts is given in Table 2.1. Three locational categories of households have been analysed in the rest of the analysis for their OOP spending on diseases with or without inpatient care. These are, as noted earlier, a total of 1,250 rural and 400 urban households from UP and Rajasthan and 360 households from Delhi. Delhi households were further broken into slums and non-slums with the latter numbering 258 and the remaining 102 were drawn from the identified slums. In all, rural households constituted over 62 % of the total sample while the rest came from slums and non-slums of the urban locations.
Table 2.1
Distribution of sample households by three reference states and districts
Sample districts and states | Rural | Urban | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of villages | No. of HHDs | No. of urban wards | No. of HHDs | ||
Unnao | 9 | 450 | 3 | 150 | |
Jhansi | 6 | 300 | 2 | 100 | |
1. UP | 15 | 750 | 5 | 250 | |
Dausa | 5 | 250 | 1 | 50 | |
Dungarpur | 5 | 250 | 2 | 100 | |
2. Rajasthan | 10 | 500 | 3 | 150 | |
Slums | Non-slums | Total HHDs | |||
West Delhi | – | – | 17 | 37 | 54 |
Central Delhi | – | – | 5 | 12 | 17 |
South Delhi | – | – | 25 | 47 | 72 |
East Delhi | – | – | 18 | 28 | 46 |
New Delhi | – | – | 1 | 3 | 4 |
North-West | – | – | 15 | 52 | 67 |
North Delhi | – | – | 6 | 14 | 20 |
South-West | – | – | 1 | 33 | 34 |
North-East | – | – | 14 | 32 | 46 |
3. Delhi | – | – | 102 | 258 | 360 |
Population size, sex and religious composition of the households covered in the study are provided in Table 2.2. While all other distributions in this table are on expected lines, the share of women in the sample of all the four districts in UP and Rajasthan is smaller—implying more men in many of the sample households than women. The slum households of Delhi are however the only exception where women constitute over 52 % of the sample. In a situation of growing male migration, these results may look somewhat arbitrary. They however match fairly closely with the Census figures for 2001.
Table 2.2
Size and religious composition of sample households
States/districts | No. of HHDs | Size and sex composition of sample population | Average HHD size | Religion-wise distribution of sample population (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Persons | Male | Female | Hindu | Muslim | Sikh | Christian | Others | |||
Unnao | 600 | 3,436 | 53.3 | 46.7 | 5.7 | 92.17 | 7.67 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.00 |
Rural | 450 | 2,635 | 53.2 | 46.8 | 5.9 | 91.56 | 8.44 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Urban | 150 | 801 | 53.8 | 46.2 | 5.3 | 94.00 | 5.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Jhansi | 400 | 2,167 | 52.6 | 47.4 | 5.4 | 83.00 | 16.75 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Rural | 300 | 1,601 | 52.5 | 47.5 | 5.3 | 84.67 | 15.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Urban | 100 | 566 | 52.8 | 47.2 | 5.7 | 78.00 | 21.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
UP | 1,000 | 5,603 | 53.0 | 47.0 | 5.6 | 88.5 | 11.3 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.00 |
Dausa | 300 | 1,704 | 52.7 | 47.3 | 5.7 | 91.67 | 8.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Rural | 250 | 1,394 | 52.8 | 47.2 | 5.6 | 94.80 | 5.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Urban | 50 | 310 | 52.3 | 47.7 | 6.2 | 76.00 | 24.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
D. Pur | 350 | 1,819 | 52.4 | 47.6 | 5.2 | 92.00 | 3.71 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.29 |
Rural | 250 | 1,311 | 52.3 | 47.7 | 5.2 | 99.60 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Urban | 100 | 508 | 52.8 | 47.2 | 5.1 | 73.00 | 12.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 15.00 |
Rajasthan | 650 | 3,523 | 52.6 | 47.4 | 5.4 | 92.00 | 3.71 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.29 |
Slum | 102 | 569 | 47.5 | 52.5 | 5.6 | 74.50 | 24.50 | 0.00 | 1.00
 Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
Get Clinical Tree app for offline access
| |