-
DISCUSSION
-
-
A Reply
Himanshu
M
Apart from pointing out inconsistencies such as a sharp decline in per capita consumption expenditure alongside a sharp increase in incomes, the article also showed that Indicus data were not consistent with any of the secondary sources cited.
These problems were not only evident in constituency-level data, which required the use of statistical techniques for spatial disaggregation and aggregation, but also with state-level data, which were readily available from secondary sources. It also highlighted the irrelevance of using outdated and old (pre-2004) data for arriving at any conclusion on the performance of elected MPs and state governments for the period 2004-09.
The response by Laveesh Bhandari (LB) has failed to provide any evidence to counter the criticisms of the Indicus data. It has neither refuted any of the inconsistencies nor rejected the alternative data
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
| I presented in my article. On the other | off the mark for individual years and also |
| hand, LB has mentioned the same sources | in the opposite direction of trends suggest |
| in his defence (without giving any statis | ed by the DLHS data. This is true not only |
| tical evidence), sources which I had | for district-level estimates but also for |
| used to point out the problems with | state-level data. Further, there is no |
| Indicus data. | e xplanation for some of the obvious |
| While LB’s explanation of using small | p roblems such as estimates of a sharp |
| area estimation technique is a welcome | d ecline in per capita expenditure accom |
| insight into the estimation procedures of | panied by a reduction in poverty. It is then |
| Indicus data, he has failed to satisfactorily | unfair to harp on the small area technique |
| explain the details of the process. One | when the very foundation of the database |
| would have liked greater clarity on the | is wrong. |
| sources of data used, particularly for | Finally, LB’s pontification on the effi |
| block-level indicators. But what surprises | ciency or otherwise of public service deliv |
| us is LB’s claim that his methods differ | ery is irrelevant here. My comment was |
| from state to state and district to district. | not on why public service delivery is poor |
| While this explains some of what I can only | but on the fictitious statistics used by Indi |
| describe as the weird and absurd results | cus to analyse the performance of elected |
| arrived at by Indicus, it is obvious that | representatives and governments. While a |
| such data cannot then be used for intra | d ebate on why public service delivery and |
| state or inter-state comparisons, which is | basic services do not work is welcome, it is |
| the main objective of the Indicus dataset. | better done with credible statistics and |
| Further, it does not at all address the real | statistical evidence. |
| problem with the dataset, which are that | It is unfortunate that LB has not used |
| is generated by extrapolating from out | the opportunity of the response and |
| dated data to derive supposed “evidence” | EPW’s columns to be transparent on the |
| of the recent performance of state govern- | Indicus data and to do so by presenting |
| ments and elected representatives. | statistical evidence. |
| The lack of explanation on this count is a | At the same time, Indicus’ claim of |
| major issue because the primary purpose of | being the first to show certain trends |
| the exercise was inter-temporal compari | reveals its own ignorance of contempo |
| son using recent data to evaluate the per | rary academic work. For example, the |
| formance of constituencies. | claim that it was the first to demonstrate |
| LB, in his response, has failed to men | that Himachal Pradesh had caught up with |
| tion a single source of data which could | Kerala in basic education is invalid. The |
| have been used to arrive at his district- | Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE) |
| level estimates for so many indicators for | report was the one that first showed the |
| 2008. The most recent data that LB men | r emarkable achievement of Himachal |
| tions are the District Level Household and | Pradesh on basic education. For the record, |
| Facility Survey (DLHS) data – but these | the PROBE report was published in 1999 – |
| actually show that Indicus data were way | before I ndicus was established. |
| vol xliv no 40 | 63 |
