1

Multidimensional Poverty – Note

1.1 What is Multidimensional Poverty Index?

• The global Multidimensional Poverty Index (global MPI) is a poverty indicator that takes into
account the numerous disadvantages that impoverished people endure in terms of education,
health, and living conditions.
• The Global MPI measures both the occurrence (the percentage of people in a population that are
multidimensionally poor) and degree of multidimensional poverty (the average number of
deprivations that each poor person experiences).
• It enables for comparisons between countries, regions, and the world, as well as within countries
by ethnic group, urban/rural location, and other features of households and communities.

The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative publishes the Global Multidimensional Poverty
Index (MPI). The goal of this index is to use a variety of variables to evaluate acute multidimensional
poverty in emerging countries. It was created in 2010 by OPHI in collaboration with the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). It is published annually as part of the UNDP's Human Development
Report (HDR). In September 2021, MPI 2021 was issued. India was placed 62 out of 107 nations in the
Global MPI 2020. Government of India has acknowledged the significance of the global MPI under the
mandate of the Global Indices for Reform and Action (GIRG) initiative. The emphasis of the GIRG initiative
is not only to improve the country’s performance and ranking in the global indices, but also to leverage
the indices as tools for driving systemic reforms and growth. In this context, NITI Aayog, as the nodal
agency for MPI, has been responsible for constructing an indigenized index for monitoring the
performance of States and Union Territories in addressing multidimensional poverty.

1.2 Dimensions of MPI

MPI captures broad qualitative aspects of people’s life across 3 equally weighted dimensions – Health,
Education, and Standard of living; each dimension is represented by indicators. The national MPI largely
follows the global methodology. India’s national MPI retained 10 indicators from the Global MPI and has
added 2 new indicators, namely Maternal Health (in the dimension of Health) and Bank Account (in the
dimension of Standard of Living) as in below graphic (which also indicates the weight attached to each
dimension/ indicator):

1/6 Nutrition

Health 1/3 1/12 Child &

Adolescent Mortality
1/12 Maternal Health

1/6 Years of Schooling

Education 1/3
1/6 School Attendance

2
 1/21 Cooking Fuel

1/21 Sanitation
1/3
1/21 Drinking Water
Standard of
Living 1/21 Housing

1/21 Electricity

1/21 Assets

1/21 Bank Accounts

A person is multidimensionally poor if she/he is deprived in one third or more (means 33% or more) of the
weighted indicators (out of the 12 indicators).

1.3 Computing MPI

i) This is done by building deprivation profile for each household. Each household is assigned a
deprivation score based on its deprivation in each of the 12 indicators.
ii) Identifying the poor: if the deprivation score of a household is above 33% they are
multidimensionally poor.

1.4 Sub-indices of the National MPI

The indices of the national MPI comprise:

• Headcount ratio (H): How many are poor? Proportion of multidimensionally poor in the
population, which is arrived at by dividing number of multidimensionally poor persons by total
population.
• Intensity of poverty (A): How poor are the poor? Average proportion of deprivations which
is experienced by multidimensionally poor individuals. To compute intensity, the weighted
deprivation scores of all poor people are summed and then divided by the total number of
poor people.

MPI value is arrived at by multiplying the headcount ratio (H) and the intensity of poverty (A), reflecting
both the share of people in poverty and the degree to which they are deprived. MPI = H x A

An individual is considered MPI poor if their deprivation score equals or exceeds the poverty cutoff of
33.33%.

2.1 Multidimensional poverty in India

According to Global MPI 2021, India's rank was 66 out of 109 countries. Between 2015-16 and 2019-21,
the MPI value nearly halved from 0.117 to 0.066. According to NITI Aayog's National Multidimensional
Poverty Index (2021), India's Head Count Ratio (HCR) also reduced significantly over the same period from
24.85% (almost 22.8 crore people identified as poor) to 14.98%. This is a reduction of 9.85 percentage
points indicating that over this period of time some 13.5 crore (135.5 million) people were lifted from
multi dimensional poverty. The Intensity of poverty, which measures the average deprivation among the

3
people living in multidimensional poverty, reduced from 47% to 44%, thereby setting India on the path of
achieving the SDG Target 1.2 (of reducing multidimensional poverty by at least half by 2030). The Rural
HCR is 32.75% and the Urban HCR is 8.81%. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Odisha
recorded the steepest decline in MPI.

2.2 Multidimensional poverty in Uttar Pradesh

In terms of number of MPI poor, Uttar Pradesh saw the largest decline in the number of poor individuals,
with 3.43 crore (34.3 million) people escaping multidimensional poverty. Presently the Head Count Ratio
of Uttar Pradesh is 22.93% (2019-2021). This is a steep decline from the head count ratio of 37.68% of
2015-16. This translates to a reduction of 14.75 percentage points.

Uttar Pradesh's Headcount Ratio, Intensity and MPI (in comparison to 1National figures)

Uttar Pradesh India

Year Headcount Intensity MPI (HxA) Headcount Intensity (A) MPI (HxA)
Ratio (H) (A) Ratio (H)

2019-21 22.93% 44.83% 0.103 14.96% 44.39% 0.066

2015-16 37.68% 47.60% 0.179 24.85% 47.14% 0.117

Multidimensional Poverty in Uttar Pradesh's Rural and Urban Areas

Year Rural Urban

Headcount Ratio (H) Intensity (A) MPI (HxA) Headcount Ratio (H) Intensity (A) MPI (HxA)

2019-21 26.35% 44.89% 0.118 11.57% 44.36% 0.051

2015-16 44.29% 47.66% 0.211 17.72% 47.14% 0.084

As seen in above table the head count ratio in rural areas in Uttar Pradesh is more than double that in
urban areas indicating that focus of interventions and emphasis needs to be in rural areas of the state for
upliftment of the rural masses as there is concentration of deprivation in these areas. While the intensity
of poverty is virtually similar in both rural and urban areas the MPI score again denotes more deprivation
in the rural areas. If the rural head count ratio can be brought down the overall state HCR will reduce
drastically.

Percentage contribution of each indicator to Uttar Pradesh's MPI Score in comparison to India

UP value India Value

1
All figures are from National Multidimensional Poverty Index

4
 Health 2015-16 2019-2021 2015-16 2019-2021

Nutrition 28.25% 29.91% 28.15% 29.86%

Child & Adolescent Mortality 1.77% 1.79% 1.33% 1.48%

Maternal Health 11.71% 12.94% 10.41% 11.73%

Education 2015-16 2019-2021 2015-16 2019-2021

Years of Schooling 13.98% 14.94% 15.18% 16.65%

School Attendance 9.26% 12.35% 7.43% 9.10%

Standard of living 2015-16 2019-2021 2015-16 2019-2021

Cooking Fuel 9.09% 8.32% 9.36% 8.82%

Sanitation 8.43% 5.52% 8.62% 6.63%
Drinking Water 0.56% 0.43% 2.05% 1.60%
Electricity 4.87% 2.31% 3.37% 1.32%
Housing 8.85% 9.06% 8.33% 8.65%
Assets 2.35% 1.95% 3.59% 3.39%
Bank Account 0.88% 0.49% 2.18% 0.78%

Percentage of total population who are multidimensionally poor and deprived in each indicator – UP & India

UP Value India Value

Health 2015-16 2019-2021 2015-16 2019-2021

Nutrition 30.40% 18.45% 19.79% 11.90%

Child & Adolescent 3.81% 2.20% 1.87% 1.18%

Mortality

Maternal Health 25.20% 15.97% 14.64% 9.35%

Education 2015-16 2019-2021 2015-16 2019-2021

Years of Schooling 15.05% 9.21% 10.67% 6.63%

School Attendance 9.96% 7.62% 5.22% 3.63%

Standard of living 2015-16 2019-2021 2015-16 2019-2021

Cooking Fuel 34.24% 17.95% 23.03% 12.30%

Sanitation 31.74% 11.91% 21.20% 9.25%

5
 Drinking Water 2.09% 0.93% 5.05% 2.23%

Electricity 18.34% 4.98% 8.28% 1.84%

Housing 33.35% 19.56% 20.48% 12.07%

Assets 8.86% 4.22% 8.84% 4.72%

Bank Account 3.33% 1.06% 5.36% 1.09%

2.3 Brief analysis

The percentage of population who are multidimensionally poor and deprived in a particular indicator gives
us the Censored head count ratio. This is useful to determine immediate policy interventions required.
The above table and analysis can be useful in determining for the government and other stakeholders
which are the areas to focus upon in order to reduce the MPI even further and bring sustainable all round
development for the population. Nutrition and Housing emerge as areas in which people are most in need.
This is closely followed by cooking fuel despite the fact that the state government has done much in
distribution of cooking gas cylinders especially in the rural areas. In fact the available data shows that the
percentage of households using clean cooking fuel (Goal 7) for 2023 is 112.4%. For 2022 the state value
is 111.8%. It is also the second highest contributor to MPI in the ‘Standard of Living’ domain after
Housing. Under the same (Goal 7) the percentage of households electrified is 100% for 2022. The above
table shows still almost 5% population deprived in this indicator (to note that these figures are largely
drawn from NFHS-5).

Maternal health should be another area of focus for the state government along with sanitation. Only
35.85% of rural population and 26.58% in urban areas have access to safe drinking water within premises
(as per 2023 values). As regards sanitation or the definition of sanitation under MPI the CIF does not have
a dedicated or close proxy indicator on sanitation that can distinguish it from ‘Drinking Water’. ODF should
not be taken as a proxy indicator for sanitation as it does not indicate whether households share water
facilities or toilet facilities. Proper sanitation such as drainage and sewerage facilities have other
implications as well such as on health and well-being.

As regards maternal health the latest state data for 2023 indicates that 86.74% (HMIS) women had 4 or
more antenatal checkups of total registered in ANCs the NHFS-5 data for 2020-21 puts the figure at 42.1%
for women who had 4 or more ante natal care visits (note the difference in indicator wording as well as
the time period).

Child and adolescent mortality figures seem satisfactory. However, when looking at NFHS-5 data it is
evident that much needs to be done. The neo natal mortality (per 1000 live births) is 35.7% while the
global target for this indicator is 12 per 1000 live births. Similarly, the infant mortality rate is 59.8% per
1000 live births while the global target is to reduce this to at least 25 per 1000 live births.

Overall, it can be said to be a matter of satisfaction that of the total 12 indicators only 5 are in double digits
thereby indicating that the targets of reducing MPI as well as deprivation in each indicator is very much
achievable. This is especially true in the field of Education where only 7.62% of the population suffer from

6
lack of access to school till class 8. Admittedly it is also to be established that the years of schooling have
to be uninterrupted in order to satisfy the first indicator under Education. The state government, by 2030
can achieve this by charting out a roadmap to ensure free and compulsory education up to the age of 14.
Sufficient resources, manpower and data and statistical capacity are vital in achieving this and especially
in analyzing the key factors behind persistent deprivation. A further rural – urban break of data availability
as regards deprivation in each indicator will further assist analysis and formulation of key actions as it has
been noted above that head count ratio in rural areas is more than double that in urban areas. If the HCR
in rural populations can be reduced it will give a significant boost to overall state efforts to achieve SDGs
or at those elements of SDGs which directly impact people’s lives on a daily basis.

3.1 Top 5 districts with highest percentage of population who are multidimensionally poor

District Population %

Bahraich 54.44%

Shravasti 49.62%

Balrampur 41.55%

Budaun 40.37%

Sitapur 40.15%

Top 5 districts which recorded highest percentage point change in headcount ratio between 2015-16 and 2019-21

District Population %

Mahrajganj -29.64%
Gonda -29.55%
Balrampur -27.90%
Kaushambi -25.75%
Kheri -25.23%

Multidimensional Poverty Index Score (District-wise): NFHS-5 (2019-21)

Range of MPI score Number of Districts

(%)

Up to 0.065 12

0.066 – 0.102 34

0.103 – 0.138 12

0.139 – 0.175 11

7
 0.176 – 0.211 4

0.212 – 0.248 0

0.249 and above 2

The tables above can assist policy makers and stakeholders engaged in implementation of sustainable
interventions to determine which geographical areas or districts in the state are more deprived than
others. Subsequently interventions can be so targeted and also specifically designed or implemented.

8
 District-Wise Micro Analysis

Introduction:

The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) is a comprehensive measure that goes beyond income to assess
poverty. The multi dimensions of poverty index not only assess health, education but also the standard of
the living. This analysis focuses on the MPI trends in various districts of Uttar Pradesh from 2016 to 2021,
exploring changes over time and identifying key patterns.

Key Findings:

Districts with Significant MPI Reduction:

Noteworthy progress has been observed in districts such as Kheri, Kaushambi Balrampur, Gonda and
Maharajganj, where headcount ratio have substantially decreased over the five-year period.

Mixed Progress in Urban and Rural Districts:

Urban districts like Ghaziabad (-9.96%) and

Kanpur Nagar (-5.20%) have shown substantial
reductions in headcount ratio, highlighting
positive urban development trends.

Mau, an initially high-MPI (32.63% in 2016 to

13.36% in 2021) district, has experienced
significant improvement (-19.26%),
showcasing positive rural development.

Disparities Among Districts:

Disparities persist among districts, with some,

like Jhansi (5.03% reduction, change over time)
and Lalitpur (5.99% reduction, change over
time), witnessing considerable challenges,
reflected in considerably low reductions in
headcount ratio. Banda, with a high headcount
ratio of 40.18% in 2016, has experienced a
modest reduction to 33.80% in 2021, reflecting a change of -6.38%. This suggests that despite efforts, the
decrease in the percentage of poor people in Banda has been relatively low, indicating potential challenges
or slower progress in poverty alleviation initiatives during this period.

The challenges faced by these districts includes economic barriers, educational barriers, healthcare access
etc. for example Lalitpur is one of 10 highest deprived districts in assets (22.37% in 2016 and 12.59% in
2021). It is also 1 of the highest deprived districts in drinking water (18.58% in 2016 and 9.00% in 2021).
Lalitpur is also the highest deprived in cooking fuel (standard of living). Districts like Siddharthnagar,
Chitrakoot, Balrampur are among the highest deprived districts in school attendance.

9
Missing Data and Incomplete Trends:

It is crucial to highlight the presence of "**" in specific cells, signifying missing or incomplete data. Notably,
data for the year 2016 is unavailable for certain districts due to their incorporation into new districts.
Subsequently, before the year 2021, these districts underwent separation, forming distinct entities.
Consequently, the data is only accessible for the year 2021. This underlines the significance of data
completeness, as these nuances in administrative changes impact the accuracy of longitudinal analyses.

High headcount ratio Districts:

High headcount ratio districts in 2016, including Shravasti (74.35%), Balrampur (69.45%), and Gonda
(29.71%), have seen notable reductions (24.72%, 27.90% and 29.55%), indicating targeted efforts in
poverty alleviation.

Districts with Limited Improvement:

Several districts, such as Gautam Buddha Nagar, Lucknow, and Jhansi, have shown limited improvement
or stagnation in reduction in headcount ratio (3.01%, 3.68% and 5.03% change respectively). The districts
with limited reductions in MPI, may reflect urbanization reaching a saturation point, where further
reductions become challenging.

10
 Headcount, Intensity, MPI (District)

District Headcount Ratio (H) Intensity (A) MPI (H × A)

S.
No.
Change Change Change
2016 2021 over 2016 2021 over 2016 2021 over
time time time

1 Hapur 12.60% ** 42.44% ** 0.053 **

2 Shamli 22.45% ** 45.51% ** 0.102 **

3 Amethi 28.96% ** 45.06% ** 0.131 **

4 Sambhal 35.06% ** 46.63% ** 0.164 **

Gautam
15.17% 12.16% -3.01% 43.96% 39.82% -4.14% 0.067 0.048 -0.018
5 Buddha Nagar

6 Lucknow 12.16% 8.48% -3.68% 44.57% 41.88% -2.69% 0.054 0.036 -0.019

7 Jhansi 20.17% 15.14% -5.03% 44.32% 41.62% -2.69% 0.089 0.063 -0.026

8 Kanpur Nagar 14.32% 9.11% -5.20% 43.98% 43.33% -0.66% 0.063 0.039 -0.023

9 Lalitpur 35.98% 29.98% -5.99% 44.31% 43.77% -0.54% 0.159 0.131 -0.028

10 Banda 40.18% 33.80% -6.38% 46.08% 45.59% -0.48% 0.185 0.154 -0.031

11 Baghpat 21.08% 13.64% -7.44% 47.03% 43.96% -3.07% 0.099 0.060 -0.039

12 Meerut 21.10% 13.24% -7.86% 45.59% 44.88% -0.71% 0.096 0.059 -0.037

13 Jalaun 27.64% 18.12% -9.51% 43.79% 42.41% -1.38% 0.121 0.077 -0.044

14 Ghaziabad 16.59% 6.93% -9.65% 45.47% 43.25% ** 0.075 0.030 **

Mahamaya
32.35% 22.39% -9.96% 44.01% 42.84% -1.17% 0.142 0.096 -0.046
15 Nagar

16 Gorakhpur 26.17% 15.83% -10.35% 46.08% 43.63% -2.45% 0.121 0.069 -0.052

17 Auraiya 29.82% 19.28% -10.54% 44.92% 43.61% -1.30% 0.134 0.084 -0.050

18 Saharanpur 28.52% 17.86% -10.66% 48.89% 43.90% -4.99% 0.139 0.078 -0.061

11
19 Varanasi 26.00% 15.26% -10.74% 44.69% 43.00% -1.69% 0.116 0.066 -0.051

20 Etawah 27.29% 15.99% -11.30% 42.47% 40.12% -2.36% 0.116 0.064 -0.052

21 Mathura 33.78% 22.42% -11.36% 44.27% 43.17% -1.10% 0.150 0.097 -0.053

22 Mahoba 35.29% 23.81% -11.48% 43.70% 43.13% -0.58% 0.154 0.103 -0.052

23 Allahabad 32.77% 21.21% -11.56% 46.56% 44.48% -2.08% 0.153 0.094 -0.058

24 Rae Bareli 34.10% 22.37% -11.73% 46.87% 43.53% ** 0.160 0.097 **

25 Chandauli 37.91% 25.41% -12.50% 44.44% 44.50% 0.07% 0.168 0.113 -0.055

26 Etah 38.47% 25.63% -12.85% 45.61% 43.03% -2.58% 0.175 0.110 -0.065

27 Firozabad 32.03% 19.06% -12.97% 46.66% 42.08% -4.59% 0.149 0.080 -0.069

Ambedkar
34.03% 21.00% -13.03% 43.55% 40.42% -3.12% 0.148 0.085 -0.063
28 Nagar

29 Bara Banki 44.77% 31.68% -13.08% 49.41% 45.88% -3.53% 0.221 0.145 -0.076

30 Bijnor 29.76% 16.42% -13.33% 45.11% 42.57% -2.54% 0.134 0.070 -0.064

31 Mainpuri 31.41% 18.03% -13.38% 44.16% 42.43% -1.73% 0.139 0.077 -0.062

32 Hamirpur 30.92% 17.29% -13.63% 44.09% 41.32% -2.78% 0.136 0.071 -0.065

Jyotiba Phule
34.84% 21.11% -13.74% 48.24% 45.47% -2.77% 0.168 0.096 -0.072
33 Nagar

34 Farrukhabad 39.18% 25.44% -13.74% 48.04% 43.86% -4.18% 0.188 0.112 -0.077

35 Sultanpur 36.23% 22.32% -13.90% 47.22% 41.80% ** 0.171 0.093 **

36 Kannauj 43.50% 28.90% -14.60% 47.26% 42.84% -4.42% 0.206 0.124 -0.082

37 Agra 32.83% 18.20% -14.63% 46.83% 44.16% -2.68% 0.154 0.080 -0.073

38 Bareilly 38.58% 23.39% -15.19% 49.26% 45.35% -3.91% 0.190 0.106 -0.084

39 Fatehpur 42.63% 27.38% -15.25% 47.30% 44.76% -2.55% 0.202 0.123 -0.079

40 Aligarh 37.26% 22.00% -15.26% 46.55% 43.25% -3.30% 0.173 0.095 -0.078

41 Deoria 31.36% 16.09% -15.27% 45.43% 42.41% -3.02% 0.142 0.068 -0.074

42 Bulandshahr 32.88% 17.44% -15.45% 46.59% 42.22% -4.37% 0.153 0.074 -0.080

12
43 Azamgarh 32.77% 17.14% -15.63% 43.44% 41.68% -1.76% 0.142 0.071 -0.071

44 Pratapgarh 36.94% 21.29% -15.65% 45.00% 43.34% -1.65% 0.166 0.092 -0.074

45 Rampur 38.89% 23.03% -15.86% 49.64% 44.89% -4.75% 0.193 0.103 -0.090

Kanshiram
47.81% 31.43% -16.38% 49.55% 45.14% -4.40% 0.237 0.142 -0.095
46 Nagar

47 Sitapur 56.71% 40.15% -16.56% 49.63% 47.10% -2.52% 0.281 0.189 -0.092

48 Budaun 57.10% 40.37% -16.73% 52.22% 46.58% ** 0.298 0.188 **

49 Muzaffarnagar 29.85% 12.91% -16.94% 47.84% 45.49% ** 0.143 0.059 **

50 Hardoi 51.16% 34.14% -17.01% 48.14% 45.50% -2.64% 0.246 0.155 -0.091

51 Ballia 37.11% 19.97% -17.15% 45.09% 43.35% -1.74% 0.167 0.087 -0.081

52 Kanpur Dehat 37.98% 20.68% -17.30% 43.87% 43.86% -0.01% 0.167 0.091 -0.076

53 Bahraich 71.85% 54.44% -17.41% 54.38% 52.42% -1.96% 0.391 0.285 -0.105

54 Sonbhadra 48.35% 30.55% -17.80% 50.19% 46.17% -4.02% 0.243 0.141 -0.102

55 Unnao 40.79% 22.96% -17.84% 47.16% 46.56% -0.60% 0.192 0.107 -0.086

56 Shahjahanpur 50.52% 32.57% -17.95% 48.90% 44.84% -4.06% 0.247 0.146 -0.101

57 Moradabad 36.85% 17.80% -19.05% 48.04% 45.54% ** 0.177 0.081 **

58 Mau 32.63% 13.36% -19.26% 44.79% 41.79% -2.99% 0.146 0.056 -0.090

59 Siddharthnagar 57.24% 37.67% -19.57% 50.01% 47.64% -2.37% 0.286 0.179 -0.107

Sant Ravidas
42.19% 22.04% -20.15% 45.53% 42.71% -2.82% 0.192 0.094 -0.098
60 Nagar

61 Pilibhit 43.26% 22.54% -20.72% 47.95% 43.51% -4.45% 0.207 0.098 -0.109

62 Mirzapur 42.73% 22.00% -20.73% 47.11% 43.27% -3.83% 0.201 0.095 -0.106

63 Faizabad 38.73% 17.79% -20.94% 45.84% 43.91% -1.93% 0.178 0.078 -0.099

Sant Kabir
43.79% 22.57% -21.22% 46.77% 44.81% -1.96% 0.205 0.101 -0.104
64 Nagar

65 Chitrakoot 52.81% 31.41% -21.40% 48.17% 44.98% -3.20% 0.254 0.141 -0.113

13
66 Kushinagar 42.82% 20.54% -22.28% 46.07% 44.44% -1.63% 0.197 0.091 -0.106

67 Ghazipur 41.04% 18.22% -22.83% 44.95% 40.17% -4.78% 0.184 0.073 -0.111

68 Basti 43.26% 19.89% -23.36% 46.04% 43.59% -2.45% 0.199 0.087 -0.112

69 Jaunpur 40.78% 16.13% -24.65% 44.01% 39.91% -4.11% 0.179 0.064 -0.115

70 Shrawasti 74.35% 49.62% -24.72% 55.35% 50.18% -5.17% 0.412 0.249 -0.163

71 Kheri 59.95% 34.73% -25.23% 51.32% 45.90% -5.41% 0.308 0.159 -0.148

72 Kaushambi 56.06% 30.31% -25.75% 51.88% 47.37% -4.51% 0.291 0.144 -0.147

73 Balrampur 69.45% 41.55% -27.90% 53.77% 50.26% -3.51% 0.373 0.209 -0.165

74 Gonda 59.26% 29.71% -29.55% 50.81% 45.54% -5.27% 0.301 0.135 -0.166

75 Mahrajganj 49.12% 19.47% -29.64% 45.88% 43.64% -2.24% 0.225 0.085 -0.140

Policy Implications:

Policy measures should be tailored to address specific challenges in districts with limited reduction in MPI,
focusing on sectors contributing to multidimensional poverty. Conversely, higher reduction rates in rural
districts underscore both the potential for improvement and the existing development disparities between
rural and urban areas, emphasizing the need for targeted rural development strategies. Achieving more
equitable progress across diverse district profiles remains a critical aspect of comprehensive poverty
alleviation efforts.

The state should consider addressing both the breadth and depth of multidimensional poverty, to ensure
inclusive and sustainable development across Uttar Pradesh.

The 10 districts with the highest levels of deprivation and the 10 districts with the lowest levels of
deprivation are identified in each of the themes, namely health, education, and standard of living, along
with their respective 12 indicators.

10 districts with highest and lowest deprivation in health’s 3 indicators- nutrition, child and adolescent
mortality and maternal health.

14
 Highest Deprived in Nutrition Lowest Deprived in Nutrition

S. Change S.
Districts 2016 2021 Districts 2016 2021 Change over time
No. over time No.

1 Bahraich 62.08% 52.19% -9.89% 1 Ghaziabad 33.90% 22.89% -11.01%

Gautam
2 Shrawasti 59.09% 50.58% -8.51% 2 30.63% 26.29% -4.34%
Buddha Nagar
3 Sitapur 52.09% 48.37% -3.72% 3 Kanpur Nagar 27.11% 26.46% -0.65%
4 Balrampur 58.81% 47.76% -11.04% 4 Lucknow 29.03% 27.15% -1.88%
5 Siddharthnagar 56.66% 47.68% -8.98% 5 Muzaffarnagar 42.78% 27.92% -14.86%
6 Kheri 54.20% 46.71% -7.49% 6 Hapur 28.08% **
7 Banda 35.04% 45.61% 10.57% 7 Meerut 35.21% 28.27% -6.94%
8 Mahoba 46.29% 44.25% -2.05% 8 Baghpat 37.58% 29.84% -7.74%
9 Budaun 52.10% 43.75% -8.35% 9 Shamli 29.97% **

10 Gonda 56.46% 43.52% -12.94% 10 Rampur 44.55% 30.06% -14.49%

Highest Deprived in Child & Adolescent mortality Lowest Deprived in Child & Adolescent mortality

Change
S. No. Districts 2016 2021 S. No. Districts 2016 2021 Change over time
over time
1 Kheri 6.75% 6.80% 0.05% 1 Muzaffarnagar 3.61% 0.96% -2.64%

2 Amethi 6.37% ** 2 Jaunpur 6.69% 0.98% -5.71%

3 Kanshiram Nagar 8.99% 6.23% -2.76% 3 Deoria 3.85% 1.20% -2.66%

4 Bulandshahr 5.45% 6.17% 0.72% 4 Ballia 6.02% 1.29% -4.73%

5 Sitapur 6.26% 5.97% -0.30% 5 Varanasi 3.50% 1.52% -1.97%

6 Kannauj 6.51% 5.81% -0.70% 6 Siddharthnagar 6.26% 1.63% -4.63%

7 Mainpuri 7.25% 5.75% -1.50% 7 Ghaziabad 3.85% 1.68% -2.17%

8 Aligarh 7.29% 5.74% -1.55% 8 Ghazipur 5.27% 1.74% -3.54%

9 Shahjahanpur 7.45% 5.69% -1.76% 9 Kushinagar 5.56% 1.81% -3.75%

Sant Kabir
10 Sambhal 5.33% ** 10 5.73% 1.89% -3.84%
Nagar

15
 Highest Deprived in Maternal Health Lowest Deprived in Maternal Health

Change over Change

S. No. Districts 2016 2021 S. No. Districts 2016 2021
time over time

1 Bahraich 53.67% 44.12% -9.54% 1 Kanpur Nagar 18.71% 18.16% -0.55%

2 Balrampur 52.52% 40.82% -11.70% 2 Lucknow 13.64% 18.92% 5.28%
Sant Ravidas
3 40.60% 40.24% -0.36%
Nagar 3 Ghaziabad 28.15% 20.04% **
4 Shrawasti 58.65% 39.78% -18.86%
4 Jalaun 27.42% 22.68% -4.74%
5 Shahjahanpur 38.78% 38.91% 0.13% Gautam
5 27.50% 23.25% -4.25%
Buddha Nagar
6 Siddharthnagar 52.55% 38.16% -14.38%
6 Varanasi 31.05% 23.29% -7.76%
7 Sambhal 37.88% **
7 Jhansi 21.36% 24.14% 2.78%
Kanshiram
8 44.71% 37.44% -7.27% 8 Bareilly 27.52% 24.75% -2.77%
Nagar
9 Budaun 44.52% 37.15% ** 9 Mahoba 28.39% 25.07% -3.32%
10 Bara Banki 33.32% 36.93% 3.61% 10 Pilibhit 33.33% 25.14% -8.19%

In the below tables we can see highest deprived and lowest deprived 10 districts in 2 indicators of
education that is years of schooling and school attendance-

Highest Deprived in Years of Schooling Lowest Deprived in Years of Schooling

Change Change
S.No. Districts 2016 2021 S.No. Districts 2016 2021
over time over time

1 Etawah 6.72% 6.65% -0.07%

1 Bahraich 41.37% 43.30% 1.93%
2 Kanpur Nagar 7.19% 6.59% -0.61%
2 Shrawasti 44.81% 37.70% -7.11%
Gautam Buddha
3 Balrampur 40.91% 32.86% -8.05% 3 7.84% 5.45% -2.39%
Nagar
4 Siddharthnagar 29.62% 28.81% -0.81% 4 Auraiya 7.93% 7.77% -0.16%
5 Budaun 29.75% 26.28% 5 Mainpuri 8.53% 6.98% -1.55%
6 Rampur 32.04% 23.48% -8.56% 6 Lucknow 8.70% 7.95% -0.75%
7 Sambhal 23.12% 7 Jaunpur 9.34% 3.62% -5.73%
8 Bareilly 27.68% 21.60% -6.08% 8 Azamgarh 9.48% 5.35% -4.13%
9 Bara Banki 25.42% 21.05% -4.37% 9 Ambedkar Nagar 9.57% 6.54% -3.03%
10 Shamli 20.62% 10 Varanasi 9.77% 6.60% -3.17%

16
 Highest Deprived in School Attendance Lowest Deprived in School Attendance

Change Change
S.No. Districts 2016 2021 S.No. Districts 2016 2021
over time over time

1 Etawah 5.36% 2.44% -2.92%

1 Bahraich 26.36% 30.18% 3.83%
2 Jhansi 5.37% 4.43% -0.94%
2 Shrawasti 30.81% 26.05% -4.76%
3 Kanpur Nagar 5.72% 4.53% -1.20%
3 Balrampur 31.13% 23.43% -7.70%
4 Firozabad 11.55% 5.38% -6.16%
4 Budaun 28.94% 20.20%
5 Mainpuri 5.75% 5.67% -0.09%
5 Sambhal 19.95%
6 Ghazipur 7.42% 5.81% -1.61%
6 Chitrakoot 14.70% 18.52% 3.82%
7 Bulandshahr 11.05% 5.86% -5.19%
7 Siddharthnagar 17.61% 18.41% 0.80% Gautam Buddha
8 Lalitpur 6.08% 18.19% 12.11% 8 4.82% 5.89% 1.07%
Nagar
9 Bareilly 19.85% 17.86% -1.99% 9 Ghaziabad 7.75% 6.25%
10 Rampur 22.76% 17.47% -5.29% 10 Mahamaya Nagar 8.23% 6.37% -1.85%

10 districts with highest and lowest deprivation in standard of living’s 7 indicators- cooking fuel, sanitation,
drinking water, electricity, housing, assets and bank accounts.

Highest Deprived in Cooking Fuel Lowest Deprived in Cooking Fuel

Change over Change

S. No. Districts 2016 2021 S. No. Districts 2016 2021
time over time
1 Lalitpur 82.11% 80.87% -1.24% 1 Ghaziabad 24.87% 10.22%
2 Banda 85.11% 74.55% -10.56% 2 Kanpur Nagar 29.88% 25.23% -4.64%
3 Lucknow 25.29% 25.48% 0.19%
3 Amethi 74.23%
4 Varanasi 52.69% 30.37% -22.32%
4 Mahoba 84.61% 73.14% -11.47%
5 Hapur 33.27%
5 Hamirpur 80.74% 71.88% -8.87%
6 Deoria 68.11% 34.16% -33.96%
6 Hardoi 77.59% 71.72% -5.86%
Gautam Buddha
7 28.76% 34.33% 5.57%
7 Sonbhadra 83.20% 71.36% -11.84% Nagar
8 Gorakhpur 58.43% 34.37% -24.07%
8 Sitapur 81.52% 69.34% -12.19% 9 Meerut 39.02% 34.53% -4.49%
Ambedkar 10 Agra 56.66% 35.59% -21.07%
9 86.13% 69.24% -16.89%
Nagar
10 Auraiya 72.91% 68.62% -4.29%

17
 Highest Deprived in Sanitation Lowest Deprived in Sanitation

S. Change S. Change
Districts 2016 2021 Districts 2016 2021
No. over time No. over time

1 Siddharthnagar 84.33% 57.65% -26.68% 1 Baghpat 33.77% 13.68% -20.09%

2 Bahraich 86.03% 55.86% -30.17% 2 Hapur 14.35%
3 Gonda 89.20% 55.54% -33.65% 3 Shamli 16.09%
4 Pratapgarh 83.47% 48.38% -35.10% 4 Saharanpur 45.50% 16.14% -29.36%
5 Sitapur 82.53% 47.88% -34.64% 5 Ghaziabad 30.89% 16.63%
6 Rae Bareli 81.24% 45.14%
7 Hardoi 70.86% 44.31% -26.55% 6 Varanasi 49.76% 16.81% -32.95%
8 Chitrakoot 84.30% 43.41% -40.89% 7 Meerut 30.47% 18.01% -12.46%
9 Shrawasti 89.43% 41.96% -47.47% 8 Bulandshahr 49.68% 18.69% -30.99%
10 Allahabad 66.75% 41.70% -25.05% 9 Muzaffarnagar 42.95% 19.30%
10 Jalaun 51.03% 19.94% -31.09%

Highest Deprived in Drinking Water Lowest Deprived in Drinking Water

S. Change over S. Change over

Districts 2016 2021
Districts 2016 2021 No. time
No. time
1 Basti 0.04% 0.00% -0.04%
1 Sonbhadra 21.51% 16.76% -4.75%
2 Gonda 0.14% 0.00% -0.14%
2 Mahoba 18.77% 13.78% -4.99% Ambedkar
3 Mathura 16.23% 9.73% -6.49% 3 0.25% 0.07% -0.18%
Nagar
4 Lalitpur 18.58% 9.00% -9.59% Sant Kabir
4 0.14% 0.08% -0.05%
5 Chitrakoot 20.29% 8.23% -12.06% Nagar
5 Bulandshahr 0.51% 0.09% -0.41%
6 Allahabad 10.83% 7.98% -2.85%
6 Kushinagar 0.71% 0.12% -0.59%
7 Jhansi 11.09% 7.79% -3.30%
7 Hardoi 2.23% 0.14% -2.09%
8 Kaushambi 10.58% 7.07% -3.51% 8 Faizabad 0.83% 0.19% -0.64%
9 Banda 9.17% 5.25% -3.92% 9 Deoria 0.25% 0.21% -0.05%
10 Mirzapur 18.01% 4.83% -13.18% 10 Bareilly 0.37% 0.21% -0.15%

Highest Deprived in Electricity Lowest Deprived in Electricity

S. Change over S.
Districts 2016 2021 Districts 2016 2021 Change over time
No. time No.
1 Sitapur 69.55% 32.04% -37.50% 1 Ghaziabad 2.58% 0.11%
Gautam
2 Hardoi 56.08% 29.04% -27.04% 2 Buddha 1.10% 0.38% -0.73%
Nagar
3 Shrawasti 70.58% 26.70% -43.88%
3 Agra 4.74% 0.85% -3.89%
4 Bara Banki 48.12% 25.17% -22.95% 4 Hapur 1.20%
5 Unnao 51.63% 24.96% -26.67% 5 Shamli 1.36%
6 Fatehpur 53.52% 23.20% -30.32% 6 Meerut 4.04% 1.47% -2.58%
7 Bahraich 66.49% 22.13% -44.36% 7 Baghpat 7.12% 1.49% -5.63%
8 Balrampur 60.33% 21.90% -38.43% 8 Saharanpur 5.44% 1.70% -3.74%
9 Kaushambi 49.63% 21.58% -28.04% 9 Mathura 3.35% 1.75% -1.59%
10 Kanpur Dehat 54.36% 20.16% -34.20% 10 Jaunpur 19.33% 1.87% -17.46%

18
 Highest Deprived in Housing Lowest Deprived in Housing

S. Change over S. Change

Districts 2016 2021 Districts 2016 2021
No. time No. over time
1 Hardoi 81.49% 83.49% 1.99%
1 Ghaziabad 39.14% 24.40%
2 Bahraich 85.22% 83.17% -2.05%
2 Muzaffarnagar 46.90% 28.03%
3 Kheri 85.36% 82.46% -2.89%
3 Meerut 21.64% 28.30% 6.66%
4 Shrawasti 92.42% 81.86% -10.57%
4 Lucknow 30.15% 28.93% -1.22%
5 Chitrakoot 89.81% 80.62% -9.19%
5 Saharanpur 47.99% 33.50% -14.48%
6 Banda 86.89% 80.10% -6.80%
7 Sonbhadra 78.73% 79.83% 1.11% 6 Hapur 35.49%
8 Sitapur 84.44% 78.52% -5.92% 7 Kanpur Nagar 32.02% 35.77% 3.74%
9 Agra 82.05% 78.35% -3.69% 8 Moradabad 47.58% 36.09%
Ambedkar 9 Bijnor 50.70% 37.71% -12.99%
10 82.14% 76.77% -5.37%
Nagar 10 Bareilly 51.41% 39.01% -12.40%

Highest Deprived in Assets Lowest Deprived in Assets

S. Change over S. Change over
Districts 2016 2021 Districts 2016 2021
No. time No. time
1 Chitrakoot 25.00% 15.88% -9.12% 1 Hapur 1.99%
2 Bahraich 23.11% 15.76% -7.35% 2 Ghaziabad 10.05% 2.40%
3 Sonbhadra 17.51% 14.23% -3.29% 3 Jaunpur 6.24% 2.67% -3.57%
4 Sitapur 20.26% 13.98% -6.28% 4 Meerut 8.40% 3.97% -4.43%
5 Lalitpur 22.37% 12.59% -9.78% 5 Azamgarh 9.06% 4.07% -4.99%
6 Etah 16.59% 11.75% -4.84% Ambedkar
6 6.26% 4.22% -2.04%
Kanshiram Nagar
7 14.75% 11.68% -3.08%
Nagar 7 Varanasi 5.32% 4.26% -1.07%
8 Budaun 22.77% 11.66% 8 Faizabad 10.13% 4.38% -5.76%
9 Banda 17.77% 11.42% -6.35% 9 Etawah 9.51% 5.07% -4.45%
10 Fatehpur 15.94% 11.31% -4.63% 10 Kanpur Nagar 5.41% 5.37% -0.04%

Highest Deprived in Bank Account Lowest Deprived in Bank Account

S. Change over S. Change

Districts 2016 2021 Districts 2016 2021
No. time No. over time
1 Unnao 4.81% 6.73% 1.92% 1 Allahabad 4.18% 0.71% -3.47%
Sant Kabir
2 Banda 1.93% 5.90% 3.97% 2 5.52% 1.01% -4.52%
Nagar
3 Bara Banki 7.15% 5.77% -1.38%
Kanshiram
4 6.55% 5.38% -1.17% 3 Faizabad 4.28% 1.14% -3.14%
Nagar
4 Meerut 6.29% 1.32% -4.97%
5 Chitrakoot 2.35% 5.19% 2.84%
5 Bulandshahr 6.02% 1.45% -4.57%
6 Etah 4.06% 5.06% 1.00%
6 Siddharthnagar 9.63% 1.47% -8.16%
7 Kanpur Nagar 2.89% 4.99% 2.10%
7 Basti 3.75% 1.53% -2.22%
8 Rampur 3.03% 4.99% 1.96% Ambedkar
9 Bahraich 22.38% 4.84% -17.54% 8 3.19% 1.59% -1.60%
Nagar
10 Rae Bareli 3.17% 4.69% 9 Mau 2.82% 1.68% -1.13%
10 Amethi 1.75%

19
Need for Targeted Interventions:

Districts with consistently high MPI values, even after reductions, require targeted interventions to address
deep-rooted issues contributing to poverty. The thorough analysis of districts with the highest and lowest
nutrition deprivation rates is imperative to identify best practices. Analyzing successful strategies
implemented in the least deprived districts can provide valuable insights for replication in the most
deprived districts. This comparative analysis aims to uncover effective approaches and facilitate the
transfer of successful methodologies to address nutrition challenges in high-deprivation areas. Same goes
for other indicators in health, education and standard of living.

Additional observations:

• There is a distinct urban – rural divide leading to disparities in the MPI score as well as in the 3
dimensions and their associated indicators. This leads to the assumption that the urban centres
are doing much better or are the focus of interventions which also lead us to conclude that there
has to be equitable development across rural and urban districts
• Rural districts needs to be more focus and interventions from the government and the civil society
organizations in the coming years if they have to reduce MPI and match the performance of urban
districts.
• It is critical to note that sectors under MPI such as Nutrition, Maternal Health, Sanitation etc have
a high average rate of deprivation across all districts which are in the top 10. The Nutrition
deprivation is well above an average of 40% which is very high; even the lowest 10 deprived in
nutrition are above 20% average.
• The average deprivation in maternal health among the top 10 deprived districts in this indicator is
also almost 40% which is significant. For the lowest 10 too the average is hovering above 20%,
clearly indicting this should be an area of focus along with Nutrition.
• The disparity in the years of schooling / attendance among top 10 deprived districts and the top
10 performing districts is very large and this needs to be studied as to why there can exist such a
large disparity.
• The almost 70% average deprivation among the lowest 10 districts in cooking fuel is confounding.
If rural UP does not have adequate cooking fuel the question is what are they using. Possibly fossil
fuels. Equally confounding is the large percentage deprivation in sanitation both for rural and
urban districts as well as for both categories of lowest performing and best performing districts.
• With so may housing schemes of the central/ state government the 80% deprivation in housing
needs further analysis and revitalized intervention.
• The areas where the districts are doing relative well as per data is in child and adolescent mortality,
assets, bank accounts and drinking water.

Conclusion:

This analysis provides insights into the dynamic trends of MPI in Uttar Pradesh districts. It emphasizes the
need for nuanced policy approaches, recognizing the diverse challenges faced by different regions. Further
research and data completeness are crucial for a comprehensive understanding and effective
policymaking. There is clear need for targeted interventions in rural areas apart from a redesign of
interventions, aggressive monitoring and implementation with clear accountabilities and especially
rigorous data collection and verification. The large gaps in several of the MPI indicators are a cause for

20
concern and if the data is to be believed, there is much gap in implementation and also indicates gaps in
monitoring. There has to be greater transparency in beneficiary selection, identification apart from
prioritization of schemes as well as areas of implementation.

21
Appendix

The National Multidimensional Poverty Index: A Progress Review 2023 provides multidimensional poverty estimates
for India’s 36 States & Union Territories, along with 707 administrative districts across 12 indicators of the national
MPI. These estimates have been computed using data from the 5th round of the NFHS (NFHS-5) conducted in 2019-
21. It also presents the changes in multidimensional poverty between the survey periods of NFHS-4 (2015-16) and
NFHS-5 (2019-21). It not only tells us how many are poor, that is the headcount ratio, but also gives us insights into
how poor are the poor, that is the intensity of poverty, by following a holistic approach to poverty measurement.

The following points about Global MPI should be noted:

• It analyses poverty on a person-by-person basis.

• When a person is deficient in one-third of the 10 indications, he or she is labelled as "MPI Poor."
• The percentage of deprivations experienced by an individual is used to determine the depth of their
poverty.

Definitions of Indicators in India’s National MPI (source UNDP)

Indicator Definition
Nutrition A household is considered deprived if any child between the ages of 0 to 59 months, or
woman between the ages of 15 to 49 years, or man between the ages of 15 to 54 years -for
whom nutritional information is available - is found to be undernourished.

Child-Adolescent A household is deprived if any child or adolescent under 18 years of age has died in the
mortality household in the five-year period preceding the survey.

Maternal health A household is deprived if any woman in the household who has given birth in the 5 years
preceding the survey has not received at least 4 antenatal care visits for the most recent
birth or has not received assistance from trained skilled medical personnel during the most
recent childbirth.

Years of schooling A household is deprived if not even one member of the household aged 10 years or older
has completed six years of schooling.
School attendance A household is deprived if any school-aged child is not attending school up to the age at
which he/she would complete class 8

Cooking fuel A household is deprived if a household cooks with dung, agricultural crops, shrubs, wood,
charcoal, or coal.
Sanitation A household is deprived if the household has unimproved or no sanitation facility or it is
improved but shared with other households.

Drinking water A household is deprived if the household does not have access to improved drinking water
or safe drinking water is at least a 30-minute walk from home (as a round trip).

Housing A household is deprived if the household has inadequate housing: the floor is made of
natural materials, or the roof or wall are made of rudimentary materials.

Electricity A household is deprived if the household has no electricity.

22
Assets A household is deprived if the household does not own more than one of these assets:
radio, TV, telephone, computer, animal cart, bicycle, motorbike, or refrigerator; and does
not own a car or truck.

Bank accounts A household is deprived if no household member has a bank account or a post office
account.

23