sukanta_swain@yahoo.com
SPECIAL ARTICLEseptember 13, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly50villages of Orissa. While the first aspect highlights the retarda-tion in the physical growth of children as reflected in their weights, the second aspect exhibits the inadequacy of the children’s calorie intake.The analysis is based on a framework, which is typically used in measuring income poverty but rarely used in the measurement of physical underdevelopment of children. Analysing poverty or deprivation when income is the only indicator is convenient as there is a common poverty benchmark assumed for all individu-als. In such analysis, individuals whose incomes do not exceed the assumed benchmark are identified as deprived or poor. The researchers who consider income as the parameter to analyse poverty have also ranked the poor individuals on a “1” to “q” scale, where the poorest person has a rank of “q” and the poor person nearest to the poverty line has a rank of “1”. This paper tries to apply the technique developed in the literature on the measurement of income poverty to areas it has not been applied to before, i e, deprivation in nutrition and physical growth.The plan of the paper is as follows. The analytical framework of the study has been properly elaborated in Section 1 of the paper highlighting the technique when there is only one real indicator and when there are more than one real indicators. Section 2 of the paper exhibits the socio-economic profile of the two villages of Orissa considered for this study. Two indices of deprivation among children in these two villages in terms of their physical growth and calorie intake are incorporated in Section 3 of the paper. Section 4 of the paper tries to integrate two real indicators of deprivation in order to find an overall measure of it. Last but not least, the concluding remarks of the study have been placed in Section 5. 1 AnalyticalFramework Literature on income poverty considers a collection N of individu-als i = 1, 2, ..., n, each receiving a respective quantity yi of income. The convenience of identifying and assessing poverty when income is the only indicator lies in the poverty line, which is com-mon for all individuals and assumed to be given. The poor are identified as all persons whose incomes do not exceed the pov-erty line (denoted asπ by welfare economists). Accordingly, the set of poor can be expressed as T (Y; π) = {iε N|yi≤π}; where Y = {y1, y2, ..., yn} is the income distribution.After identifying the individuals who are poor, in order to dis-tinguish one from another in the set of poor individuals on the basis of the extent of individual shortfall from the poverty line, welfare economists, particularly Amartya Sen introduced the notion of ranking (r). They define the ranking of the poor to be a one-to-one function, r: T → (1, 2, ..., q), which satisfies r(i) > r(j) whenever gi(Y;π) > gj(Y;π). Hence, the poorest person has a rank of q, while the poor person nearest the poverty line has a rank of one. On the basis of this, the income poverty measure is defined as 2Σgiri(Y;π)S(Y;π) = , i εT; (q+1)nπwhere ri(Y;π) is a ranking of the poor associated with Y and π. Aggregate poverty is the normalised weighted sum of individual poverty gaps, where the weights are given by ranking among the poor.The difference between income poverty and deprivation in terms of real attributes is regarding the poverty benchmark. While the convenience of the same poverty benchmark is assumed there, in the former case, the latter is deprived of that assumption as the poverty benchmark in that case varies with age, sex, height, etc, depending upon the attribute. This paper tries to analyse poverty going beyond the conveniences attached with income poverty. However, while we think of considering real attributes for analysing poverty, the option of going for either a single indicator or more than one indicator will be open to us. Although this study picks up two indicators for the pur-pose, the analytical frameworks for both the options are discused in this section.1.1 One Real IndicatorLet the population be N = {1, 2, …, n}. In the case of real attributes, the poverty benchmark may differ from individual to individual. As there is only one real attribute, poverty benchmarks for differ-ent individuals can be expressed as Qi = {Q1, Q2, ..., Qn}. The achievement of individuals in that attribute may be expressed as Si = {S1, S2, …, Sn}. An individual i will be deprived in terms of that given attribute, if Si < Qi. If the set of deprived individuals in N be M = {1, 2, …, m}, then the absolute shortfall vector (d) will be d = {d1, d2, ..., dm}, where d1 = Q1 – S1, d2 = Q2 – S2, …, dm = Qm – Sm.To obtain the normalised shortfall, we have to express the absolute shortfall as a proportion of the poverty benchmark of respective individuals. So the normalised shortfall of individual i in the given attribute here will be Qi–Si. The vector of the normalised shortfall can be expressed asQi Q1–S1 Q2–S2 Qm–SmD = { , , …, }. Q1 Q2 QmThis is all about identification and assessment when there is only one real indicator. If we take more than one indicator, which is what this paper has done, there will be more complicacies.1.2 More Than One Real IndicatorLet the population be N = {1, 2, ..., n} and M = {1, 2, …, m} be the set of attributes or indicators. If Sij is i’s achievement in terms of attribute j and Si the achieved attribute bundle of individual i, then Si = {Si1, Si2, …, Sim}.Let Q = {Q1, Q2, …., Qm} be the vector of the poverty bench-mark for individual i, one poverty benchmark for each attribute. The vector (Si, Q) may be represented as D(Si1, Si2, …, Sim; Q1, …, Qm) ε [0, 1]. This means the deprivation of individuals varies Table 1: Composition of Population of the Two VillagesAge-group (Category) Maskabari Gundarsahi Aggregate Male Female Total Male Female Total Male FemaleTotal0-12 (children) 27 36 63 12 06 18 39 42 8113-18 (adolescents) 17 12 29 09 04 13 26 16 4219 and above (adults) 114 86 200 37 35 72 151 121 272Total 158 134 292 5845103 216 179 395Source: Primary data. 
SPECIAL ARTICLEEconomic & Political Weekly EPW september 13, 200851Table 2: Index of Nutritional DeprivationSl No of Actual Ideal Shortfall Weights Weighted Weighted Simple Children CalorieCalorieinCalorieShortfallAverage Average IntakeIntake ShortfallShortfall43 918.76 1200 281.24 45 12655.8 495959/1891 11800.74/61 = 262.27 = 93.453 845.36 1200 354.64 55 19505.2 15 802.012 1200 397.98 59 23480.82 73 887.064 1200 312.93 50 15646.5 80 834.148 1200 365.85 56 20487.6 1 1380.77 1500 119.23 21 2503.83 47 1305.71 1500 194.29 35 6800.15 65 1403.68 1500 96.32 18 1733.76 70 1225.454 1500 274.55 44 12080.2 75 1254.498 1500 245.51 42 10311.42 76 1214.102 1500 285.89 46 13150.94 6 1495.42 1800 304.58 47 14315.26 12 1672.76 1800 127.24 23 2926.52 35 1636.65 1800 163.35 29 4737.15 55 1759.12 1800 40.88 6 245.28 29 1465.21 1800 334.79 52 17409.08 32 1774.2 1800 25.8 3 77.4 69 1354.408 1800 445.59 60 25735.6 78 1704.352 1800 95.64 17 1625.88 11 1901.5 2100 198.5 38 7543 19 1913.852 2100 186.14 34 6328.76 37 1765.56 2100 334.44 53 17725.32 42 1902.46 2100 197.54 37 7308.98 16 2002.84 2100 97.16 19 1846.04 18 2048.774 2100 51.22 9 460.98 33 2019.22 2100 80.78 12 969.36 68 1949.91 2100 150.09 26 3902.34 74 1832.082 2100 267.91 43 11502.13 77 1956.448 2100 143.55 24 3445.2 5 1091.2 1200 108.8 20 2876 14 1157.14 1200 42.86 7 300.02 21 1025.584 1200 174.41 31 5406.71 25 976.456 1200 223.54 40 8941.6 27 1107.39 1200 92.61 15 1389.15 36 1033.76 1200 166.24 30 4987.2 39 1003.71 1200 196.29 36 7066.44 49 1169.26 1200 30.74 4 12296 48 1250.77 1500 249.23 41 10218.43 13 1314.7 1500 185.3 33 6114.9 38 1353.48 1500 146.52 25 3663 24 1479.116 1500 20.88 2 41.76 46 1344.226 1500 155.77 27 4205.79 63 1090.96 1500 409.04 59 24133.36 67 1338.41 1500 161.59 28 4524.52 17 1222.526 1800 577.47 61 35225.67 20 1622.412 1800 177.58 32 5682.56 23 1450.314 1800 349.68 54 18882.72 59 1756.016 1800 73.98 10 739.8 52 1417.112 1800 382.88 57 21824.16 72 1762.398 1800 37.60 5 188 34 1793.9 2100 306.1 48 14692.8 53 2008.98 2100 91.02 14 1274.28 58 1782.276 2100 317.72 51 16203.72 28 2025.6210074.411818.4 30 1892.25 2100 207.7539 8102.25 31 2050.82100 49.28 393.6 41 1976.77 2100 123.23222711.06 45 2017.08 2100 82.92 131077.96 57 2092.47 2100 7.53 1 7.53 62 1791.01 2100 308.9949 15140.51 64 2004.76 2100 95.24 161523.84 Total (61) 11800.74 1891 495959 Source: Primary data.between zero and one. If it is zero, the individual is not deprived as the achieved value of the individual is just equal to the poverty benchmark. On the other hand, if it is one, the individual is mostly deprived. However, the vector (Si, Q) constitutes the complete informational basis of our analysis.An individual i will be deprived in terms of attribute j if Sij< Qj. If we consider the case of the individual 1 in terms of indicator 1, then the absolute shortfall of individual 1 will be expressed as s11 = Q1 – S11Thus, the absolute shortfall of individual i in terms of all attributes can be represented through the set si, where si = {Q1 – Si1, Q2 – Si2, …, Qm – Sim}.The normalised shortfall of individual i in terms of attribute j willbe Qj–Sij , which can be denoted as šij where i = 1, 2, …, n Qjand j = 1, 2, …, m.So normalised shortfall of individual i in terms of all attributes will be Q1–Si1 Q2–Si2 Qm–Sim[ , , …, ]. Q1 Q2 QmThe set of normalised shortfall of individual i can be denoted as ši = ši1, ši2, …, šim. The overall deprivation di of individual i will be assumed to be a function of ši. This function will be assumed to be the same for all individuals. Thus, we can write, di = d(ši), i = 1, 2, …, n. The normalised overall shortfall of all individuals is given by the vector (d1, d2, …, dn).The level of deprivation D in a society is assumed to be a func-tion of d1, d2, …, dn. Therefore, D = F(d1, d2, …, dn).To find overall individual deprivation and overall social depri-vation, we have adopted the following two poverty measures in the latter part of this paper:(1) quadratic Measure (di): di = 1 Σm šij2; and (2) modified mj=1version of Sen’s income-based measure (H): H = 2 Σm* n(m*+ 1) k=1tk (m* + 1 – k), where, n = total number of children, m * = total number of deprived children and tk = the proportion or fraction by which k falls short his/her ideal requirements. Here, tk = t1, t2, …, tm* and t1≥ t2≥ … ≥ tm*-2≥tm*-1≥ tm*2 Socio-economic Profile and Sources of DataLet us then get to a socio-economic profile of the two villages and our method of data collection.2.1 VillageProfileWe are going to apply the technique explained in the preceding section to measure the relevant aspects of deprivation of the chil-dren in two villages, namely, Maskabari and Gundarsahi of Orissa. It may be helpful for the reader to have some general information about these two villages. The purpose of this section is to provide such general information. Both the villages are from the Nuagaon block of the Nayagarh district. Natural resources are the means of livelihood and sources of physical and spiritual life of these two villages. Maskabari is a small village of the Paradhip gram panchayat. It borders Timirimundia Hill to the east, Pallava Hill to the west, Panchu Pandava Hill to the north and 
SPECIAL ARTICLEseptember 13, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly52Table 3: Index of Deprivation in Terms of WeightSl No of Observed Median Shortfall Weights Weighted Weighted Simple Children Weight Ideal Weight (kg) Shortfall Average Average (kg)(kg) ShortfallShortfall43 7.6 11.89 4.29 35 150.15 8468.59/1653 198.73/57 = 5.12 = 3.4973 10.6 11.89 1.29 21 27.09 80 9.8 11.89 2.09 28 58.52 3 12.8 13.78 0.98 17.5 17.15 15 7.5 13.78 6.28 46288.88 70 11.815.393.5934122.06 76 12.215.393.1933105.27 1 16.517.10.6 106 65 1217.15.1 40.5206.55 2 14.7 19.04.3 36154.8 9 18.519.00.5 8.5 4.25 26 18.7 19.00.3 4 1.2 61 20.6 21.00.4 6 2.4 6 21.7 22.60.9 1614.4 12 21.222.61.42230.8 35 15.122.67.551382.5 69 21.922.60.7 128.4 29 14.624.49.856548.8 78 23.624.4 0.8 1411.2 11 24.927.02.12960.9 19 26.227.00.81411.2 37 18.227.08.855484 42 19.927.07.148.5344.35 68 19.227.07.8 52 405.6 16 30.330.60.3 4 1.2 18 34.634.80.21.50.3 74 30.334.84.537166.5 77 31.734.83.13299.2 5 6.4 8.962.563076.8 66 7.8 8.961.161922.04 14 8.611.552.953191.45 21 9.5 11.55 2.05 27 55.35 25 12.513.480.9817.517.15 27 13.013.480.4873.36 36 7.8 13.48 5.6842238.56 39 7.3 13.48 6.1844271.92 49 12.813.48 0.68117.48 79 11.613.48 1.8826 48.88 48 13.515.121.622438.88 4 11.9 16.84.9 38.5188.65 13 15.116.81.72542.5 38 8.416.88.454453.6 24 17.017.80.81411.2 46 11.217.86.647310.2 63 9.7 17.88.1 53 429.3 17 13.520.87.350365 20 13.720.87.148.5344.35 23 14.620.8 6.2 45279 72 19.620.81.22024 22 23.323.50.21.50.3 52 18.4 23.55.1 40.5206.55 34 21.226.9 5.7 43 245.1 64 26.030.94.938.5188.65 28 34.535.00.58.54.25 30 28.435.01.62336.8 45 21.835.013.257752.4 51 34.7 35.00.3 4 1.2 Total (57) 198.73 1653 8468.59 Source: Primary data.Ramjenapalli and Gojisulia jungles to the south. Such a vegeta-tive highland not only stands for natural beauty but also provides (to some extent) a good livelihood to those who have no or little land. On the other hand, Gundarsahi is seven km away from Maskabari to the west. It has the Pallava Hill to its west and Singarpalli gram panchayat to its south. Besides, Pallava reserve forest at the south-west adds some extra feather to the natural beauty of the village. Being surrounded by hill and forest, Gundarsahi is full of potential. Maskabari is a small village with only 102 hectares of area and 56 households. It constitutes only 10.43 per cent of the total popu-lation of the Paradhip gram panchayat. Out of the 56 households of the village, only three belong to the scheduled caste (SC) cate-gory and the rest belong to the other backward classes (OBC). On the other hand, Gundarsahi is a very small village with an area of only 95 hectares and 25 households. Its population is only 3.8 per cent of the total population of Jakada gram panchayat. Out of 25 households of the village, 24 belong to the scheduled tribe (ST) category and the remaining one household is that of a milkman. Table 1 (p 50) depicts the composition of population of these two villages and their aggregates in different age groups.On an aggregate, these two villages have 81 children in the age group of zero-12 years among whom four children (three male and one female) are below one year of age and are mostly breast-fed. Keeping in mind the suitability of the children for this study, we have considered children in age group of one-12 years, ignor-ing these four children. Thus, out of 77 children, 36 are male and 41 are female. This paper analyses the problems of those 77 chil-dren pertaining to the real indicators, specifically nutrition. The performance of children on their nutrition and physical growth depends on their parents’ income. So it is essential to know the occupation of their parents. Out of 56 households in Maskabari, only four households depend on the service sector and one on business, that too on a small grocery shop. Rest of the households lives on agriculture whose landholdings are very small. Some of them are landless and depend on wage-labour in agricultural fields. One household depends on carpentry for its livelihood. Of course, the head of the household is not a carpen-ter by birth but by occupation. Among the total households of the village, 10-15 households are living in misery as they depend on daily wage in agricultural field. The only alterative for them is to work or starve. People of Maskabari do not view the hospital any more favourably because it is located at a distance of 10 km from their village. The village is without a metalled road or electricity. Only two to five households have cemented shelter. Others have earthen huts. However, they have easy access to drinking water from both wells and tube-wells. Irrigation facilities are not avail-able there for which the productivity of land is very low.The economic status of the people of Gundarsahi is much worse than that of Maskabarians. Households of this village are either marginal farmers or daily labourers. Because of the very small size of holdings and lack of irrigation facilities, agricultural productivity of this village is very low. However, some of the farmers produce parbol, sugarcane, moong and groundnut sea-sonally. Some villagers, basically women and children, are engaged in collecting sal leaves from nearby forests, which afford 
SPECIAL ARTICLEEconomic & Political Weekly EPW september 13, 200853Table 4: Overall Deprivation of Individuals and SocietySerial No Normalised (šic)2 Normalised (ših)2 di = di2 Weights of tk(m*+1-k) of Children Shortfall in Shortfall [(šic)2 + (ših)2]/2 di (ie, k) Terms of in Terms of Nutrition(šic) Health(ših) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 – – – – – – – –43 0.234 0.054 0.36 0.129 0.0915 0.00837 60 0.006573 0.26 0.067 0.108 0.011 0.039 0.0015 45.5 0.994580 0.304 0.092 0.175 0.031 0.0615 0.00378 55 0.9843 0.295 0.087 0.071 0.005 0.046 0.002 52.5 0.85115 0.331 0.109 0.455 0.207 0.158 0.0249 68 0.47470 0.183 0.033 0.233 0.054 0.0435 0.00189 45.5 0.978776 0.19 0.036 0.207 0.042 0.039 0.0015 45.5 0.99455 0.09 0.008 0.285 0.081 0.0445 0.00198 50 0.934556 – – – – – – – –66 – – 0.129 0.016 0.008 0.00006 27.5 0.34814 0.035 0.001 0.255 0.065 0.033 0.00108 42 0.95721 0.145 0.021 0.177 0.031 0.026 0.00067 39 0.83225 0.186 0.034 0.072 0.005 0.195 0.00038 69 0.3927 0.077 0.005 0.035 0.001 0.003 0.000009 20 0.15336 0.139 0.019 0.421 0.177 0.098 0.0096 62 0.88239 0.163 0.026 0.458 0.209 0.1178 0.0138 64 0.822549 0.025 0.0006 0.072 0.005 0.0028 0.000007 19 0.145679 – – 0.139 0.019 0.0095 0.00009 29.5 0.394248 0.166 0.027 0.107 0.011 0.019 0.00036 37 0.6461 0.079 0.006 0.035 0.001 0.0035 0.00001 21.5 0.173247 0.129 0.016 – – 0.008 0.00006 27.5 0.34865 0.064 0.004 0.298 0.088 0.046 0.0021 53.5 0.8514 – – 0.291 0.084 0.042 0.0017 47 1.00813 0.123 0.015 0.101 0.010 0.0125 0.000156 33 0.47538 0.097 0.009 0.50 0.250 0.1295 0.0167 65 0.77767 0.107 0.011 – – 0.0055 0.00003 24.5 0.25572 – – 0.266 0.070 0.035 0.0012 43 0.989 – – 0.026 0.0006 0.0003 0.0000001 10 0.018326 – – 0.015 0.0002 0.0001 0.00000001 5 0.006675 0.163 0.026 – – 0.013 0.00017 34.5 0.474524 0.013 0.0001 0.049 0.002 0.0011 0.000001 15 0.061646 0.103 0.010 0.37 0.136 0.073 0.0053 59 0.87663 0.272 0.073 0.455 0.207 0.14 0.0196 66 0.761 – – 0.019 0.0003 0.00015 0.00000002 6 0.00976 0.169 0.028 0.039 0.001 0.145 0.0002 67 0.5812 0.07 0.004 0.061 0.003 0.0035 0.000012 21.5 0.173235 0.09 0.008 0.331 0.109 0.0585 0.0034 54 0.994555 0.022 0.0004 – – 0.0002 0.00000004 7 0.012869 0.247 0.061 0.03 0.0009 0.0309 0.00095 40 0.95798 – – – – – – – –17 0.32 0.102 0.35 0.122 0.112 0.0125 63 0.89620 0.098 0.009 0.341 0.116 0.0625 0.0039 56.5 0.906223 0.194 0.037 0.298 0.088 0.0625 0.0039 56.5 0.906259 0.141 0.019 – – 0.0095 0.00009 29.5 0.394272 0.02 0.0004 0.057 0.003 0.0017 0.0000028 18 0.090129 0.186 0.034 0.401 0.160 0.097 0.0094 61 0.9732 0.014 0.0001 – – 0.00005 0.000000003 4 0.003454 – – – – – – – –60 – – – – – – – –78 0.053 0.002 0.032 0.001 0.0015 0.000002 16.5 0.081722 – – 0.008 0.00006 0.00003 0.000000001 2.5 0.002152 0.212 0.044 0.217 0.047 0.0455 0.0021 51 0.9111 0.094 0.008 0.077 0.005 0.0065 0.00004 26 0.292519 0.088 0.007 0.029 0.0008 0.0039 0.000015 23 0.187237 0.159 0.025 0.325 0.105 0.065 0.0042 58 0.84542 0.094 0.008 0.262 0.068 0.038 0.0014 44 0.02668 0.071 0.005 0.288 0.082 0.0435 0.00189 48.5 0.978734 0.145 0.021 0.211 0.044 0.0325 0.00105 41 0.87553 0.043 0.001 – – 0.0005 0.0000002 11.5 0.029758 0.051 0.022 – – 0.011 0.00012 32 0.42916 0.046 0.002 0.009 0.00008 0.00104 0.000001 14 0.059264 0.045 0.002 0.158 0.024 0.013 0.000169 34.5 0.474518 0.024 0.0005 0.005 0.00002 0.00026 0.00000007 9 0.016133 0.038 0.001 – – 0.0005 0.0000002 11.5 0.029774 0.127 0.016 0.129 0.016 0.016 0.00025 36 0.5677 0.068 0.004 0.089 0.007 0.0055 0.00003 24.5 0.255781 – – – – – – – –7 – – – – – – – –28 0.035 0.001 0.014 0.001 0.001 0.0000001 13 0.05830 0.098 0.009 0.188 0.035 0.022 0.00048 38 0.72631 0.023 0.0005 – – 0.00025 0.00000006 8 0.015741 0.058 0.003 – – 0.0015 0.000002 16.5 0.081745 0.039 0.001 0.377 0.142 0.715 0.0051 70 0.71551 – – 0.008 0.00006 0.00003 0.000000001 2.5 0.002157 0.003 0.000009 – – 0.000005 0.00000000002 1 0.0003562 0.147 0.021 – – 0.0105 0.00011 31 0.42Total (77) 1.296609 3.12812 0.17031850502 35.85805Source: Primary data.themasignificant part of their livelihood. But they do not get a reasonable price for the collected sal leaves. It is because of the presence of middlemen in the marketing of sal leaves. As regards to medical facilities, the people of Gundarsahi are more or less in the same position as the people of Maskabari. Transport and communication facility in Gundarsahi is at its wildest form. Roads are seasonal and muddy. The villages are far away from electrification. There is no question of cemented shelter. All the houses of the village have thatched roofs and mud walls. But they get drinking water easily as there are two tube-wells in that village.2.2 Method of Data Collection The measures taken for this study are standard health and nutri-tional data. For these, the study is entirely based on primary data collected through direct personal interviews. With the help of the members of the non-governmental organisation – Niswartha, Nayagarh, we could have face-to-face contact with the inform-ants. We put the desired questions together in the form of a ques-tionnaire for this survey. Thus, the data we obtained were first-hand and original in character. Collection of data relating to the measurement of nutrition deficiencies in children was a very dif-ficult task. One has to know the daily calorie requirement of chil-dren in different age groups, nutritional value of different food items consumed by children and the calorie value of different food items. There is no problem regarding the daily calorie allow-ance and nutritional value of food items as such information is available from secondary and published sources. The real prob-lem, however, is to obtain correct information regarding the exact quantities of different food items consumed by the chil-dren. As this study is confined to the case of rural children in the age group of 1-12 years only, difficulties encountered in making correct estimates are innumerable. Since it was difficult to obtain correct information regarding the pattern and composition of food consumption as available to children over a particular time, we had to resort to the direct method of collecting information regarding their food consumption from their parents. We also collected information about the quantities of different types of food available for the family and the respective share of the adults (for this study, who are above the age of 12) in such family consumption. This enabled us to find and measure the quantum of food that the families made available to their chil-dren. But to obtain the quantum of food made available to each child of the family, we distributed their aggregate share among them in proportion to their age. The reliability of information given to us by the parents regarding their children’s consumption had to be verified again and again and substantiated by their response to the second query relating to family consumption and the share of adults in family consumption. However, in most cases, the information obtained by those two processes was found to be the same. When there was any discrepancy between the two results, we followed the second process. Then by follow-ing the chart reflecting the nutritional value of different types of food, we calculated the calorie intake of children in the age group of 1-12 years. Information regarding the quantum of different types of food a child consumes differs from season to season and 
SPECIAL ARTICLEseptember 13, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly54person to person. During the post-harvesting period, parents provide more food items to their children in comparison to the pre-harvesting period. Similarly, the quantities of different types of food may also vary over time. As such there is genuine diffi-culty in relying on information for any particular period that will genuinely reflect on children’s daily consumption of different food items. We have however measured the deprivation among children on the basis of the last week’s consumption of different types of foodand that was almost the middle of the pre-harvest-ing and post-harvesting period.Data on health can be used to examine the growth of children in the village in comparison with statistical tables of “reference data”, which provides a value for a genetic potential of healthy individuals. In order to make such a comparison, indices are derived from the measurement of weight-for-age. The main prob-lem of using the weight-for-height index is that it disguises stunt-ing, ie, the failure of an individual to achieve his/her potential growth, for which weight-for-age or height-for-age is the best indicator. The next task is the choice of reference data. There are two sets of data available for weight and height indices. The international reference data are those advocated by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The second reference data is the Indian classification of weight-for-age, which is used for child welfare work in India. For our reference data, we have followed the second one. During the survey we used a weighing machine and a tape measure. The villagers cooperated with me in collect-ing data, thanks to the efforts of Niswartha. 3 Indices of Calorie Intake and Physical GrowthThis section highlights the performance of the children of these two villages in calorie-intake and weight. After finding the calorie value of the food items served to the children, we compared it with the ideal calorie-intake of the children. The shortfall of individual performance has been assessed by deducting the actual value from the ideal value. By ranking the set of individuals falling short of their ideal calorie-intake in line with the notion of ranking introduced by Amartya Sen, as mentioned in Section 1, the index of calorie intake has been constructed and presented in Table 2 (p 51). The children with equal or more than the ideal calorie requirement are not consid-ered in this index as they are not deprived. On an aggregate, 77 children are considered for this dimension out of which 16 chil-dren are shortfall free. The remaining 61 children constitute the shortfall group. In order to construct the index of physical growth, we have fol-lowed the dataset for the Indian classification of weight-for-age. From this dataset we have considered the median ideal weights for different ages. These are then compared with the actual weights of the children in order to find the shortfall. Those who are falling short of their ideal weights are ranked on the basis of the extent of their shortfall as mentioned in Section 1 so as to construct the weight index as presented in Table 3 (p 52). The children weighing equal to or more than the ideal weights are not considered in this index as they are not deprived. On an aggre-gate, 77 children are considered for this attribute, out of which 20 children are not under the shortfall category as they weigh either equal to or more than the ideal weight. The rest constitute the set of deprived in weight-for-age attribute. 4 Overall Deprivation and Integration of Real Attributes After calculating the individual shortfall in different attributes the next task is – “what procedure should one adopt to measure the overall deprivation of a society?” The conceptual framework of welfare economics would suggest that we should proceed by first measuring the overall deprivation of each individual on the basis of that individual’s achievements in terms of different attributes and then measuring the deprivation of the society by aggregating the overall deprivation levels of all individuals in the society. In doing so, we have used two methods.First, the quadratic measure for overall individual deprivation,ie, di= (šic)2+(ših)2 ,where (šic)2stands for the square of the nor- 2normalised shortfall of i interms of attribute, calorie intake (c) and (ših)2 stands for the square of the normalised shortfall of i in terms of attribute, health(h) and also quadratic measure for overall social deprivation, i e, D = ∑di2/n. Second, quadratic measure for overall individual deprivation and modified measureof Sen (H) for overall social deprivation, i e, 2H = n(m* + 1) ∑m*k=1 tk (m* + 1 – k), where, n = total number of children, m* = total number of children in the deprived group and k = rank of the children in the deprived group.Table 4 (p 53), depicts the overall deprivation of individuals and society. Overall individual deprivation in terms of both the attributes is calculated using the quadratic measure and is pre-sented in column 6 of Table 4. It is observed that the child bear-ing the serial number 45 is the most deprived, whose overall dep-rivation in both the attributes is 0.715 and the child with serial number 57 is the least deprived as the overall deprivation of this child in boththe attributes is 0.000005. Overall social depriva-tion by the quadratic measure, D = ∑di2/n. As here∑di2 = 0.1703185 and n = 77, D = 0.1703185/77 = 0.002. As per the sec-ond method, overall individual deprivation in terms of both the attributes is calculated by the quadratic measure as is done in the first method. But for overall social deprivation, Sen’s modified measure (H) has been adopted. 2H = n(m* + 1) ∑m*k=1 tk (m* + 1 – k). Here, n = 77, m* = 70 and ∑m*k=1 tk (m* + 1 – k) = 35.858. So, H = 2 (35.858) = 0.013 (77)(71)To know the link between nutritional deprivation, of children and their physical growth in terms of weight, one has to ascertain the correlation coefficient between nutritional deprivation and weight deprivation. By converting the shortfalls of individuals in percentage for both the parameters, nutrition and weight, we can get two variables. By making use of the values of these variables so obtained, we can find Karl Pearson’s simple correlation coeffi-cient as 0.402. The positive value of Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation suggests that high values of one variable are associ-ated with high values of the other. Thus, we can conclude that as nutritional deficiencies among children increase, their weight deficiencies also increase. But we can never conclude that 
SPECIAL ARTICLEEconomic & Political Weekly EPW september 13, 200855nutritional deficiency is the cause of weight deficiency or weight deficiency is the cause nutritional deficiency. It is because, there are nine children (with serial numbers 66, 79, 4, 2, 9, 26, 61, 22 and 51) free from deprivation in terms of nourishment but they are deprived in terms of weight. Similarly, 13 children (with the serialnumbers 47, 67, 75, 55, 59, 32, 53, 58, 33, 31, 41, 57 and 62) are not deprived in terms of weight but are deprived in terms of nourishment.5 ConclusionsIt is clear from the analysis that the children of these two villages of India are quite typical of a deprived community, being stunted and wasted to some degree from early childhood. Most of the children work in fields or forests to collect sal leaves. Poverty here is the chief cause of child labour. Children of these two villages work long hours for little pay, sacrificing their health and child-hood. From the nutrition point of view, most of the children are deprived. Malnourishment has been felt most frequently and severely among the children. There are conflicting claims on food. Out of 77 children, only 16 are capable of obtaining the ideal calorie-intake. Maximum percentage of their calorie-intake comes from rice and rice products, which provide plenty of energy but little protein. Poor nourishment reflects on morbidity and illness. The children in those two villages are deprived not because of lack of natural blessings and material efforts from their parents but because of lack of material and non-material assets. To rehabilitate children who are deprived of nutrition and are in poor health, an experiment in environmental adaptation is required. Governmental intervention in the form of assistance to those households, the children of which are going to work at the cost of their childhood, is inevitable so that those households can spare the children to concentrate on their development. In fact, ending poverty and increasing access to education are therefore crucial tools in the fight against deprivation of children in nutrition and health.The discussions on the concept of deprivation and extent of deprivation derived, as outlined in this paper show who counts as poor and what features characterise the poor population. This has wide-ranging implications for the selection of target groups and measures for poverty reduction. Thus, in each case the causes of poverty as well as measuring methods are to be considered in conjunction with their respective political implications for a consistent policy on poverty. The quantitative ascertainment, as done in this paper, assists in the assessment of the dimension of the problem of poverty and in the observation of the extent to which the problem of poverty has deepened or whether there has been an improvement in the situation. 
SPECIAL ARTICLEseptember 13, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly56MICROSOFT AD
