Kerala, with lower per capita income has a better human development ranking than Haryana. Hence, per capita income is not a useful criterion at all and should not be used to compare states. Do you agree? Discuss.
I do not fully agree with the given statement. While it is true that Kerala has a better human development ranking than Haryana despite having lower per capita income, it would be incorrect to say that per capita income is not a useful criterion at all.
The level of income is important as it indicates the average earning capacity of people in a state. For instance, Haryana has the highest per capita income among the three states compared, which means an average person earns more. This makes per capita income a relevant measure for comparing economic development.
However, income by itself is an inadequate measure of development. Money in one's pocket cannot buy all the goods and services needed to live well. It cannot buy a pollution-free environment or ensure unadulterated medicines. Money may also not protect from infectious diseases unless the whole community takes preventive steps.
This is why the Human Development Report published by UNDP compares countries based on educational levels, health status, and per capita income together. Health and education indicators have come to be widely used along with income as a measure of development.
Therefore, per capita income should not be discarded but should be used along with other important criteria like health and education indicators to get a complete picture of development.
Explanation
The question tests the student's understanding that while per capita income is an important indicator, it is not sufficient by itself. The textbook clearly states that income is important but inadequate, and that's why HDI uses health and education indicators alongside income. Students should recognize that the statement is partially correct (income alone is inadequate) but the conclusion (income should not be used at all) is wrong.