Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Does It Matter How We Assess Standard of Living? Evidence from Indian Slums Comparing Monetary and Multidimensional Approaches

  • 430 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

As part of Sustainable Development Goals, the United Nations have set targets of upgrading slums and reducing poverty in all its dimensions by 2030. Policies towards improving the living conditions of slum-dwellers require proper assessment of their standard of living as well as understanding the associated characteristics. In this paper, using slum-level primary household survey data from three largest Indian cities, we, first, assess the standard of living of slum dwellers using both monetary and non-monetary approaches and then explore how various household and spatial characteristics are consistently or differently associated with both forms of assessments. We use standard monetary indicators, but to assess non-monetary standard of living, use a counting approach framework and justify the selection of specific indicators in the context of slums. Our analysis yields some interesting observations as some characteristics are differently associated with monetary and non-monetary living standards, which should affect policy designs in slums.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The information has been accessed in April 2016 at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgsproposal.html.

  2. 2.

    According to the 2011 Census, the total population and the proportion of slum population of Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata were 12.5 million and 52%, 11 million and 15.5%, and 4.5 million and 32%, respectively. See Bag et al. (2016) for further discussions about these slums’ colonial history.

  3. 3.

    The need for looking at indicators beyond income to understand and assess living standards has been widely discussed. See, for instance, Stiglitz et al. (2009) and in the Indian context Swaminathan (1995). Whether we should combine monetary and non-monetary indicators into a single SoL measure, is a subject of debate. In this paper, we are interested in comparing monetary SoL with non-monetary SoL and thus we do not pursue that route. For a novel effort to integrate monetary and non-monetary indicators into a single multidimensional measure, see Santos and Villatoro (2016).

  4. 4.

    Locally, a tenement housing settlement is referred to as Basti in Kolkata, Chawl in Mumbai, and Katra in Old Delhi; whereas a squatter settlement is referred to as Jhupri in Kolkata, Zopadpatti in Mumbai, and Jhuggi Jhopri in Delhi. For related discussion on types of slums see (Risbud 2003, pp. 2; O’Hare et al. 1998, pp. 270).

  5. 5.

    The Slum Area Improvement and Clearance Act of India (a Union Act) was brought in 1956 (accessed in April 2017; web: http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/P-ACT/1956/A1956-96.pdf). In Kolkata, the first Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act was brought in 1949, the Calcutta Slum Clearance Bill was proposed in 1957 offering subsidized flats to evictees, and the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Bill was brought in 1981 to enhance the protection status further by enabling provision of basic amenities to the dwellers. In Mumbai, the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act was passed in 1971, by which most tenements housing settlement constructed before 1956 were censused and declared as slums. In Delhi, the Union Act of 1956 declared the Old City areas as slum designated area, but by a recent order in 2004 these areas were de-notified to be slums ceasing tenement settlements in this area to be legally recognised as slum.

  6. 6.

    According to the local municipal corporation data of 2001, nearly 63% of all slum clusters in Mumbai were protected from eviction threats. The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Act (Delhi Act 07 of 2010) although recognizes most of the squatter settlements (and maintains a list of Jhuggi Jhopri Cluster settlements), it does not necessarily confer any protection from eviction.

  7. 7.

    It is worth noting that pavement dwellers are treated differently from slum dwellers by most civic authorities, census and national surveys. While DUSIB maintains a list of daily attendees at various night shelters, it does not provide any data on pavement dwellers. Ironically, civic bodies of Kolkata and Mumbai fail on both counts. Our survey does not collect data on pavement dwellers.

  8. 8.

    The Maharashtra Slum Areas Act 1971 classified registered squatter settlements into two further categories: protected and notified (web: http://www.sra.gov.in/data/Maharashtra_Slum_Areas_Improvement_Clearance.pdf; accessed in April 2017). The Slum Rehabilitation Act (1995), passed by the state government to promote the development of slum areas and to protect slum dwellers’ rights, protects anyone from eviction who could produce a city-residency status document prior to January 1995, regardless of previously living in that slum. Dwellers in notified slums only deserve basic shelter requirements.

  9. 9.

    In Delhi, we interviewed households from Resettlement and Relocation colonies and in Mumbai we interviewed households residing in resettlement lands (during 1970s) and in buildings constructed by the Slum rehabilitation authority (SRA) since 1995. Studying these households is out of the scope for this paper. For further details on the sampling design and the entire sample collection process, see Bag et al. (2016).

  10. 10.

    We acknowledge that many pagri tenants in Mumbai may appear to claim the ownership of the house, perhaps due to the prospect of getting a house under resettlement schemes.

  11. 11.

    For a detailed discussion of historical migration pattern please refer to Bag et al. (2016).

  12. 12.

    Kolkata’s fortune changed dramatically with the shift of capital to New Delhi in 1921 and with partition in 1947, once thriving industries started to stagnate in post-independence era. However, Kolkata registered a large influx of refugee migration twice: around 1950 due to the partition and during 1970s due to civil conflict in Bangladesh. In Mumbai, World War II introduced a number of incentive schemes for industrial expansion coupled with the diversification of the manufacturing sector and the construction of the port in late 1950s.

  13. 13.

    Between 1960 and 1970, Delhi witnessed a substantial drive to evict squatter settlements as well as rehabilitate them into Resettlement colonies. After a break of close to two decades, the rehabilitation programme was resumed in late 1990s.

  14. 14.

    The six geographical regions consist of the following states. North-Central: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand; North-Western: Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi; Central: Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh; Western: Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, and Daman-Diu; Southern: Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra and Telengana; Eastern: West Bengal and Orissa. The native state of Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi are West Bengal, Maharashtra and Delhi itself, respectively.

  15. 15.

    Our survey data show that over 98% of Delhi’s squatters are on public land and in Mumbai, about half of all houses are on public land, 5% are on private land, and 45% are on land of unknown status.

  16. 16.

    The caste composition is created irrespective of the household head’s religious affiliation. For example, an OBC (or SC/ST) family could have their religious belief in Hinduism, Islam or any other faith. It should be noted that these scheduled categories are constitutionally mandated categories that are entitled for affirmative action. However, benefits of affirmative action can be availed provided the appropriate state authorities have issued a caste certificate to the individuals. We have noticed two issues while interviewing households belonging to non-general caste categories: (a) many households do not have caste certificates despite belonging to scheduled sub-castes (44–52% for SC/STs, 57–72% for OBCs); (b) many households preferred to represent themselves belonging to the general caste category either because they were not able to get respective caste certificates from their place of origin or because they found it embarrassing to reveal their true caste category.

  17. 17.

    Income data were reported for 98.5% of households in Kolkata and 99.7% of households in Mumbai and Delhi. Income data are difficult to collect, and are likely to be subject to error (possibility of both over- and under- reporting). The figures from these surveys can be considered approximations of incomes earned by households in the month prior to the survey.

  18. 18.

    Total expenditure of households does not include the cost of clothing, water, and sanitation, the transport cost for the employed persons, cost of Cable TV connection, Mobile and Internet recharges, cost of treatment for illness and chronic diseases, and the expenditure on food consumed outside of the house.

  19. 19.

    To ensure comparability of monetary aggregates across cities and across the duration of the survey, incomes and expenditures have been adjusted for price differences using consumer price indices obtained from http://labourbureau.nic.in/indtab.html. Delhi’s price index for October 2014 (the final month and city of our survey) has been used as the base price.

  20. 20.

    When we refer to higher or lower average, we imply statistically significantly higher or lower at 95% level of significance. In order to test whether CDFs are statistically distinguishable, we compute 95% confidence interval for each pairwise difference using the Distributive Analysis Stata Package (DASP) (Araar and Duclos 2013). In majority of the cases, pairwise differences are not statistically significant throughout the support.

  21. 21.

    One may wonder why Mumbai slum dwellers encounter higher non-food expenditure and earn higher income than their counterparts in the other two cities. Regarding non-food expenditure, Mumbai slum dwellers incur much higher expenditure on house rents, electricity and cooking fuel bills, and outward remittances (refer to Tables 10 and 11 of Bag et al. (2016). Regarding income, average education levels among Mumbai slum dwellers are higher than in other two cities for every age group, irrespective of gender (Table 15 of Bag et al. 2016). Moreover, Mumbai slum dwellers have comparatively much higher participation in formal contractual jobs (30%) yielding significantly higher salary than informal jobs (Table 16 of Bag et al. 2016).

  22. 22.

    Mismatches between monetary poverty and non-monetary poverty have been documented in various studies. Across nine European countries, Whelan et al. (2004) found mismatches between income poverty and material deprivation. Using longitudinal data for Vietnam, Van Tran et al. (2015) observed that the overlap between income poverty and multidimensional poverty was even less than 50%. For further discussions on relevant studies, see Alkire et al. (2015), Ch 1.

  23. 23.

    There exist several competing multidimensional approaches, ranging from statistical techniques, such as principal component analysis, factor analysis, and structural equation models to the Fuzzy sets approach to numerous axiomatic approaches. Most of these approaches either do not distinguish well between cardinal and ordinal variables or may not be intuitive for policy purposes. See Chapter 3 of Alkire et al. (2015) for an in-depth discussion on these approaches.

  24. 24.

    The most well-known application of the counting approach is the global Multidimensional Poverty Index (Alkire and Santos 2010, 2014), which was created with the purpose of cross-country comparisons. This framework however has been adopted for poverty assessment at the national and regional level in various countries. For an application of the MPI in the Indian context, see Alkire and Seth (2015).

  25. 25.

    For an attempt to revise the well-known Multidimensional Poverty Index in the urban context, see Lucci et al. (2016).

  26. 26.

    We acknowledge that the indicator may underestimate the level of deprivation, as the questionnaire does not directly inquire if the sanitation facilities are improved or not. However, barring a few cases of no access to a facility (which is less than 2% in Kolkata and Mumbai but around 10% in Delhi), majority of slum households (67–73%) access shared facilities (these are either improved flush toilets constructed by local bodies or private charitable trusts or mobile toilet vans, as verified during surveys).

  27. 27.

    According to the Millennium Development Goals “A house is considered to provide a sufficient living area for the household members if not more than three people share the same habitable (minimum of four square meters) room.” The website http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=0&SeriesId=711 was accessed in August 2016.

  28. 28.

    Worth noting an important omission from our set of indicators is households’ access to electricity, lacking which may cause being deprived of other important facilities. However, we observed that the proportion of sampled slum dwellers not having access to any electricity is barely statistically significantly different from zero. Moreover, more than 95% of slum dwellers had access to electricity for 18–24 h. We thus decided to not include this indicator in order to avoid redundancy in estimation.

  29. 29.

    In fact, the completion of secondary education or 10 years of schooling is the first recognized education ‘degree’ one may accomplish. The Indian government is trying to improve the quality of secondary education with targets of achieving gross enrolment ratio of 100% by 2017 and universal retention rate by 2020. For further details, see GoI (2015).

  30. 30.

    The average-incidence of deprivations in all indicators is equivalent to the union approach based adjusted-headcount-ratio when all indicators are equally weighted (Alkire and Foster 2011).

  31. 31.

    We have also compared cities using unequal weights across indicators and the comparisons are robust to alternative weights.

  32. 32.

    Pair-wise association between indicators are reported in "Appendix 2" to reflect the bivariate joint distributions. None of the 11 indicators are perfectly associated with any other indicator.

  33. 33.

    For further discussions and interpretations on this poverty measurement methodology, readers are referred to Alkire and Foster (2011) and Chapter 5 of Alkire et al. (2015).

  34. 34.

    For the sake of brevity, we only report the coefficients of each correlates and suppress the standard errors.

  35. 35.

    For example, the years of schooling is expected to increase monetary SoL (say, income) of household, but we refrain from using it as a correlate since this may lead to endogeneity issue in the non-monetary regression model where the left-hand-side variable includes education as an indicator.

  36. 36.

    It should be noted that of the surveyed households in Kolkata only 7% have BPL + (i.e. BPL, Annapurna or Antyodaya) cards, 84% are APL and 9% have no card. In Mumbai, 21% households have BPL + card, 70% are APL and 9% have no card. In Delhi, however, 49% households have BPL + cards, only 19% are APL and 32% have no card.

  37. 37.

    However, Marx et al. (2013) noted that in the slums of Kenya, Bangladesh, the living standard of households do not seem to be improving over time (i.e. the number years either spent in slum or the household first leaving the countryside).

  38. 38.

    In the absence of any official regional categorization for Kolkata, we create six regional divisions consisting of different boroughs and wards as follows. North-West: boroughs 1, 2 and 4; North-East: borough 3 and wards 57 and 58; South-West: boroughs 9, 14 and 13; South-East: boroughs 10, 11 and 12; West: borough 15; Central: rest of the areas.

  39. 39.

    For Delhi, regrouping 11 revenue districts as follows creates regional divisions. East: districts North-east, Shahdara, and East; Central: district Central; South: district South; South-east: district South-east; New Delhi: district New Delhi; North and West: districts South-west, West, North-West and North. It should be noted that areas in Central, South and New Delhi are either close to or are better integrated to the heart of the city, and are thus expected to be relatively well off areas. We observe slum dwellers in these areas to enjoy better economic prospects.

  40. 40.

    The city of Mumbai has six official zonal divisions by combining different wards (See, Risbud 2003, pp. 2). Inner island city: A, B, C, D and E; Outer island city: F/S, F/N, G/S and GN; Inner Western Suburbs: H/E, H/W, K/E and K/W; Outer Western Suburbs: P/N, P/S, R/S, R/C and R/N; Inner Eastern Suburbs: L, M/E, M/W; and Outer Eastern Suburbs: T, S and N.

  41. 41.

    For discussions on rural spatial poverty traps, see Jalan and Ravallion (2002) and Golgher (2012); for discussion on urban slum poverty traps see Marx et al. (2013).

  42. 42.

    This finding supports the findings of Mohan (1979) in the developing country contexts in general.

  43. 43.

    Our findings based on per-capita expenditures for Delhi partially supports Mitra’s (2005) findings in terms of intra-city spatial differences, female-headed households, and castes, but contradicts Mitra’s findings related to household size or child dependence (the proportion of children). We observe households with large size and higher child dependence to have lower per-capita consumption expenditure.

  44. 44.

    Mitra (2005) observed SC/ST households usually resided in poor quality houses in Delhi slums. We however do not observe SC/ST households to be usually worse off non-monetarily than general Hindu households but SC/ST households without caste certificates are non-monetarily worse off than general Hindu households.

  45. 45.

    We should also point that the households in legally protected slums are non-monetarily worse off than those whose tenure status is unavailable. Note that those slums for which the legal status is unavailable are quite diversified collection, some of which are on central government land and thus are not covered in any slum development program under the Slum Act. One important factor, commonly noticed across these slums, is that there’s hardly any deprivation in water facility indicator.

  46. 46.

    To test the robustness of our main findings in non-monetary regressions, we reconstruct the deprivation scores using other weighting schemes and for different combinations of deprivation cut-offs of indicators. Our main findings discussed above are mostly robust to these changes.

  47. 47.

    The relationship between tenure security and investments in housing/land has been not been empirically well explored in slums. However, Field (2005) and Galiani and Schargrodsky (2010) showed that formal titling could encourage investments in poor urban areas.

  48. 48.

    In the Inner Eastern suburb (wards L, MW and ME) area of Mumbai has relatively higher non-monetary SoL. There are two striking features of this zone. First, 30% of households are Muslim and 29% are SC/ST. This is the largest concentration of these two communities here among all zones of Mumbai. Notably, one-third of Mumbai’s general Muslim households reside here. Secondly, in this area, almost 84% of surveyed households reside in either protected or declared slums and many of these slums were created by resettling the households from various parts of the city. Almost 56% of the surveyed households reside in non-pucca houses and about 43% of households report some kind of leaking (mostly through roof).

  49. 49.

    Various state and central governments’ schemes are available at the following sources, accessed in September 2016: http://www.wbdma.gov.in/HTM/MUNI_AtaGlance.htm (tab: programmes).

    http://www.mhupa.gov.in/User_Panel/UserView.aspx?TypeID=1405.

    http://performance.gov.in/?q=flagship-programmes.

References

  1. Agarawal, S. (2011). The state of urban health in India; comparing the poorest quartile to the rest of the urban population in selected states and cities. Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 13–28.

  2. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 476–487.

  3. Alkire, S., Foster, J. E., Seth, S., Santos, M. E., Roche, J. M., & Ballon, P. (2015). Multidimensional poverty measurement and analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  4. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries. Working Paper No. 38, Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, University of Oxford.

  5. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2014). Measuring acute poverty in the developing world: Robustness and scope of the multidimensional poverty index. World Development, 59, 251–274.

  6. Alkire, S., & Seth, S. (2013a). Identifying BPL households: A comparison of methods. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVIII, 49–57.

  7. Alkire, S., & Seth, S. (2013b). Selecting a targeting method to identify BPL households in India. Social Indicators Research, 112, 417–446.

  8. Alkire, S., & Seth, S. (2015). Multidimensional poverty reduction in India between 1999 and 2006: Where and how? World Development, 72, 93–108.

  9. Araar, A., & Duclos, J.-Y. (2013). DASP version 2.3: Distributive analysis stata package. PEP, CIRPÉE and World Bank, Université Laval.

  10. Atkinson, A. B. (2003). Multidimensional deprivation: Contrasting social welfare and counting approaches. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1, 51–65.

  11. Bag, S., Seth, S., & Gupta, A. (2016). A comparative study of living conditions in slums of three metro cities in India. Working paper No. 253, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.

  12. Banerjee, A., Pande, R., & Walton, M. (2012). Delhi’s slum-dwellers: Deprivation, preferences and political engagement among the urban poor. London School of Economics, London: International Growth Centre Working Paper. Accessed October.

  13. Bourguignon, F., Bénassy-Quéré, A., Dercon, S., Estache, A., Gunning, J. W., Kanbur, R., Klasen, S., Maxwell, S., Platteau, J. -P., & Spadaro, A. (2008). Millennium development goals at midpoint: Where do we stand? European Report on Development.

  14. Buckley, R. M., & Kalarickal, J. (2005). Housing policy in developing countries: Conjectures and refutations. World Bank Research Observer, 20(2), 233–257.

  15. Carr-Hill, Roy. (2013). Missing millions and measuring development progress. World Development, 46, 30–44.

  16. Deaton, Angus. (1992). Understanding consumption. Oxford: Clarendon.

  17. Fay, M., & Opal, C. (2000). Urbanization without growth: A not so uncommon phenomenon. Policy Research Working Paper No. 2412, Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  18. Field, Erica. (2005). Property rights and investment in urban slums. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2–3), 279–290.

  19. Fink, Günther, Günther, Isabel, & Hill, Kenneth. (2014). Slum residence and child health in developing countries. Demography, 51, 1175–1197.

  20. Foster, J. E., & Shorrocks, A. F. (1988). Poverty orderings and welfare dominance. Social Choice and Welfare, 5, 179–198.

  21. Fox, S. (2012). Urbanization as a global historical process: Theory and evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Population and Development Review, 38(2), 285–310.

  22. Fox, S. (2014). The political economy of slums: Theory and evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 54, 191–203.

  23. Frankenhoff, C. A. (1967). Elements of an economic model for slums in a developing economy. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 16(1), 27–36.

  24. Fuentes-Leonarte, V., Ballester, F., & Tenías, J. M. (2009). Sources of indoor air pollution and respiratory health in preschool children. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/727516.

  25. Galiani, S., & Schargrodsky, E. (2010). Property rights for the poor: Effects of land titling. Journal of Public Economics, 94(9–10), 700–729.

  26. Golgher, A. B. (2012). The selectivity of migration and poverty traps in rural Brazil. Population Review, 51(1), 9–27.

  27. Government of India. (2015). Annual Report 201415. Department of Higher Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.

  28. Gulyani, S., & Talukdar, D. (2010). Inside informality: The links between poverty, microenterprises and living conditions in Nairobi’s slums. World Development, 38(12), 1710–1726.

  29. Jalan, J., & Ravallion, M. (2002). Geographic poverty traps? A micro model of consumption growth in rural China. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 17(4), 329–346.

  30. Jensen, R. (2007). The digital provide: information (technology), market performance, and welfare in the South Indian fisheries sector. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 879–924.

  31. Lucci, P., Bhatkal, T., & Khan, A. (2016). Are we underestimating urban poverty?”. London: Overseas Development Institute.

  32. Martinez, J., Mboup, G., Sliuzas, R., & Stein, A. (2008). Trends in urban and slum indicators across developing world cities, 1990–2003. Habitat International, 32, 86–108.

  33. Marx, B., Stoker, T., & Suri, T. (2013). The economics of slums in the developing world. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27, 187–210.

  34. Mitra, A. (2005). Living standard in Delhi slums: Consumption expenditure, housing and ability to save. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 48(3), 509–520.

  35. Mohan, R. (1979). Urban economic and planning models: Assessing the potential for cities in developing countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  36. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. (2010). Mumbai human development report 2009. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

  37. Muto, M., & Yamano, T. (2009). The impact of mobile phone coverage expansion on market participation: Panel data evidence from Uganda. World Development, 37, 1887–1896.

  38. O’Hare, G., Abbott, D., & Barke, M. (1998). A review of slum housing policies in Mumbai. Cities, 15, 269–283.

  39. Ravallion, M. (1994). Poverty comparisons. London: Taylor & Francis.

  40. Risbud, N. (2003). The case of Mumbai, India. Understanding slums: Case studies for the global report 2003. Development Planning Unit, University College London, London. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/pdfs/Mumbai.pdf.

  41. Ruggeri-Laderchi, C., Saith, R., & Stewart, F. (2003). Does it matter that we do not agree on the definition of poverty? A comparison of four approaches. Oxford Development Studies, 31, 243–274.

  42. Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37, 17–33.

  43. Santos, M. E., & Villatoro, P. (2016). A multidimensional poverty index for Latin America. Review of Income and Wealth. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12275.

  44. Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and capabilities. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

  45. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. K. & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris. www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.

  46. Swaminathan, M. (1995). Aspects of urban poverty. Environment and Urbanization, 7, 133–143.

  47. Turner, J. F. C. (1969). Uncontrolled urban settlement: Problems and policies. In G. Breese (Ed.), The city in newly developing countries: Readings on urbanism and urbanization (pp. 507–534). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  48. United Nations. (2003). The challange of slums global report on human settlement. Human Settlements Programme, Earthscan Publications Ltd., USA.

  49. United Nations. (2015). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/366), Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York.

  50. Van Tran, Q., Alkire, S., & Klasen, S. (2015). Static and dynamic disparities between monetary and multidimensional poverty measurement: Evidence from Vietnam. OPHI Working Paper 97, University of Oxford.

  51. Whelan, C. T., Layte, R., & Maître, B. (2004). Understanding the mismatch between income poverty and deprivation: A dynamic comparative analysis. European Sociological Review, 20, 287–302.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the Nopoor Research Project supported by the European Commission (www.nopoor.eu) under Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Agreement No. 290752. We are grateful to the participants of the Development Studies Association Conference held in September 2015 at Bath, UK; the NOPOOR Policy Conferences held in March 2016 at Delhi, India, in May 2016 at Accra, Ghana and in July 2016 at Mexico City, Mexico; at TERI University, Delhi, India in August 2016 and at Keele Management School, Keele University in March 2017 at Staffordshire, UK. The paper has also benefitted by the comments received from Araceli Ortega, Bharat Ramaswami, Gerardo Leyva Parra, Himanshu, Anirban Kar, Abhijit Banerji, and the anonymous referee. We also thank to Tanu Gupta for valuable research assistance, and Anish Gupta for his support.

Author information

Correspondence to Suman Seth.

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of Sampled Slums in Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai

Kolkata
Borough no. Slum name
1 Chiria More, Dumdum Road
Churipara, Ghosh Bagan
Seth Pukur Road
2 27, Munshi Para Lane, Canal West Road
93\1a, 440, Masjid Bari Street, Hatibagan
Krishna Ram Bose Street
3 1 No Dr. Panchanan Mitra Lane, Narkeldanga
1-6, 67-71, Surah 2nd Lane, Narkeldanga
15\H\6\1 8\A, 8\C 7\7 Chamru Singh Lane
89,93,94,95,97,98,99,100 Narkeldanga
4 1, Ramesh Dutta Street, Rabindra Sarani
2,3a, 3b, 3c, 3d Gas Street
2b, Brojo Kumar (B.K.) Seth Street
5 1 No Srinath Babu Lane
3 & 12 Gour Dey Lane
3,3\1,3\4,15,16,14, Beliaghata Rd
6 1-4, Chhatu Babu Lane
14 Elliot Rd, Ripon Street
14, Niyogi Pukur Lane
15 Convent Lane. 114-120 Ananda Palit Rd.
29\2, 51\1, Doctor (Durga Charan) Lane
Islam St; 1-3,29,30,47 Phool Bagan Rd.
7 1,2,5-14, Tiljala Road
12\4\7,12\4, Gobind Khatick Raod
13, Mahendra Chatterjee Road
13-14, Paymental Garden Lane
15-16, Gobra Road
17,19, 21, 105, Beck Bagan Rd.
17, New Tangra Road
2, New Tangra Road
28-30, Christopher Road
4-9, Ram Mohan Bera Lane
41, Pulin Khatik Road
6-16, Guri Para
Muslim Camp, 69 D.C. Dey Road
Swinhoe Lane
8 19, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road
39, Beltala Road. Pyara Bagan Basti
Kali Lane
9 16, Ibrahim Road
Bhut Ghat
Jayananda Mistri Lane
10 Chetla Rd., Mandal’s Temple
Dr. Deodar Rahman Road
Kumor Para Bustee
11 Atabagan, Sheikh Para
H.L. Sarkar Road
Pratapgarh Manashatala
12 EM Bypass, Purba Rajdanga
Safui Road, Naskar Para
Shahid Smriti Colony
Uttar Purba Panchanna Gram
13 Agarwal Garden Road, Behala
Manjhi Para Road, Behala
Motilal Gupta Road, Behala
14 33, Pathak Para Road
Dr.A.K. Paul Road
Ram Narayan Mukherjee Rd
15 Fatehpur Village Road
Gazipara, Akra Road
Paharpur Road I
Paharpur Road Ii
Panch Para Basti
Delhi
Revenue district Slum name
Central Ambedkar Basti
Dhobi Ghat, Press Road
LNJP Hospital
Malikpur
Shakoor Ki Dandi
East Indira Camp Trilok Puri
Pandit Bismil Camp
Ravidas Camp
North East CPJ Block, New Seelam Pur
Imbira Pushtha Basti
New Delhi Indira Gandhi Camp
Saraswati Camp RK Puram
Sewa Camp Vasant Vihar
Shaheed Arjun Das Camp
Shri Ram JJC
North Block- EE, Ring Bund Huts
CD Block- Sabzi Mandi
Ekta Camp
Hanuman Mandir, Model Town
Kabir Nagar
Samaypur Badli
Sanjay Sudhar Samiti Camp
North West Chandra Shekhar Azad Colony
Dhobi Ghat, Y Block, Mangolpuri
Kanhaiya Nagar Crossing
Meera Bagh
Shakti Nagar Extension
South East Bhoomiheen Camp Kalkaji
Harijan Camp, Lodhi Road
Pratap Camp
Sanjay Colony Tilak Bridge
Shahdara Deepak Colony Dilshad Garden
Kalender Colony
Rajiv Gandhi Camp
Sundar Nagari
Sunder Nagri
South Grah Kalyan Samiti
Harijan Camp and Banjara Camp
JJC in Front Of B4/B5, Vasant Kunj
Jeewan Jyoti Rajeev Camp
Kusumpur Pahari
Mini Subhash Camp
Motilal Nehru Camp Jnu
Sanjay Colony, Okhla
South West Behind Police Station Vasant Kunj
East Sagarpur, Nallapar
Sonia Gandhi Camp
West 5/35 Industrial Area Kirti Nagar
Chara Mandi Jhakira Flyover
Harijan Basti, Chuna Bhatti
Jagannath Camp
Mayapuri Railway Line
Natraj Cinema, Sudama Puri
Peeli Kothi,Hari Nagar
Raghubir Nagar
Sanjay Camp, Chuna Bhatti
Mumbai
Ward name Slum name
A Dhobi Ghat
Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar Nagar
B Bibijan Street
D Banganga
Shivaji Nagar, Malabar Hills
E Nava Nagar
Patra Chawl
FN Dinbandhu Nagar
Ganesh Nagar
Sangam Nagar
Sion Koliwada (+Sra)
FS Shivdi Cross Road
GN Janta Naya Nagar
Kashinath Dhrurubhai Patra Chawl
Kumbharwadi
Palwadi (+Sra)
GS Mahatma Phule Nagar, Ward G/S
Rajiv Gandhi Transit Campus
HE Behram Pada
Jaku Club Santacruz
Jawahar Nagar, Ward H/E
Shastri Nagar, Santacruze
Valmiki Nagar
HW Navjeevan Society
Sidhivinayak Chawl
KE Ambewadi
Malapa Dongri-2
Railwayline Service Road
Shiv Tekdi
KW Gaon Devi Dongri (+Sra)
Gilbert Hill
Jeevan Nagar
Umar Bhai Chawl, Behrambagh (+Sra)
L Ambedkar Nagar, Ward-L
Mahatma Phule Nagar, Ward L
Nehru Nagar Kurla
Shivaji Kutir Jhoparpatti
Vasant Nagar
Vinoba Bhave Nagar
ME Borla Kamawadi Zopadpatti
Indira Nagar
Kamala Raman Nagar
Nirankari Nagar
Raman Mama Nagar
Shivaji Nagar, Chembur
MW Ayodhaya Nagar
Bhai Bhai Nagar
Chhatrapati Shivaji Nagar
N Hanuman Nagar
Pant Nagar Ghatkopar (East)
Pitamaha Ramji Nagar
Siddharth Nagar
PN Irani Wadi (+Sra)
Makrani Pada
Nivedita Compound
Pathan Wadi
Shivaji Nagar-Malad
Valni Jhopadpatti
PS Govind Nagar
Jawahar Nagar, Ward P/S
Sundar Nagar
RC Holy Cross Road
Kasturba Road, 8/9 Kaheri
RN Ketaki Pada
Maratha Colony
RS Ganesh Nagar Govt.
Ganesh Nagar Kandivali
Ganesh Nagar Pvt.
Ratna Bai Chawl
S Ambedkar Nagar, S-Ward
Anand Nagar
Kamble Compound
Sambhaji Nagar
Shah Colony
Shree Datta Mandir
T Gavan Pada
Ghati Pada

Appendix 2: Pairwise Association Between Indicators in Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai

The following table reports the percentage of slum dwellers deprived in each indicator as well as the percentage of slum dwellers that are deprived in every pair of indicators simultaneously, reflecting the pair-wise association between indicators’ deprivations.

Kolkata
Ind Depr (%) Wa Sn Ho Le Ov Co He Sv At Ce
21.2% 82.4% 74.5% 62.6% 65.0% 26.8% 42.8% 19.4% 60.7% 83.0%
Percentage of slum dwellers simultaneously deprived in row and column indicators
Sn 82.4 16.4          
Ho 74.5 16.7 65.6         
Le 62.6 16.4 55.0 53.9        
Oc 65.0 12.8 59.0 50.4 42.9       
Co 26.8 7.3 23.9 20.4 19.6 19.4      
He 42.8 7.6 37.9 31.6 28.9 28.5 13.5     
Sv 19.4 4.2 17.8 14.2 13.4 15.0 8.2 9.0    
At 60.7 14.4 53.1 48.3 41.2 42.0 20.1 25.8 14.4   
Ce 83.0 18.0 70.2 61.8 55.2 56.5 24.7 39.4 17.0 53.1  
Ed 41.7 9.7 37.1 32.4 28.4 29.0 14.3 18.0 11.0 28.2 36.2
Delhi
Ind Depr (%) Wa Sn Ho Le Ov Co He Sv At Ce
29.7% 80.3% 52.6% 67.1% 64.9% 39.0% 24.3% 15.6% 44.3% 88.6%
Percentage of slum dwellers simultaneously deprived in row and column indicators
Sn 80.3 25.2          
Ho 52.6 15.7 45.1         
Le 67.1 20.5 57.4 40.6        
Oc 64.9 18.1 52.5 36.9 46.0       
Co 39.0 11.8 34.2 24.9 29.3 27.9      
He 24.3 7.4 19.2 13.8 17.5 15.2 9.3     
Sv 15.6 3.9 13.1 9.7 11.8 11.0 7.3 3.5    
At 44.3 13.0 40.0 25.3 31.1 30.1 22.4 11.5 8.9   
Ce 88.6 26.4 72.0 46.9 60.7 59.0 36.2 22.6 14.2 39.3  
Ed 43.4 12.8 35.2 24.1 30.8 30.5 21.0 11.1 9.4 23.8 38.8
Mumbai
Ind Depr (%) Wa Sn Ho Le Ov Co He Sv At Ce
10.6% 84.4% 52.6% 51.9% 63.2% 19.7% 24.8% 15.7% 34.5% 64.6%
Percentage of slum dwellers simultaneously deprived in row and column indicators
Sn 84.4 9.6          
Ho 52.6 7.6 46.7         
Le 51.9 6.2 45.2 30.0        
Oc 63.2 7.7 54.8 34.4 34.1       
Co 19.7 3.0 17.5 13.6 11.6 12.8      
He 24.8 3.8 21.4 12.4 16.4 15.3 5.9     
Sv 15.7 2.8 13.8 9.3 10.0 11.3 5.4 5.4    
At 34.5 5.3 31.9 21.5 20.0 24.3 9.7 9.2 8.7   
Ce 64.6 7.5 57.1 34.9 35.6 44.9 14.0 19.1 11.5 25.8  
Ed 17.2 3.6 15.9 11.0 10.4 11.5 5.2 5.1 5.0 10.6 12.4
  1. Ind Indicator; Depr Percentage of population deprived in each indicator; Wa Water Facility; Sn: Sanitation Facility; Ho Type of house; Le Leakage in house; Ov Over-crowding; Re Respiratory health risk; He Health insurance; Sv Savings instrument; At Asset ownership; Ce Information instrument; Ed Education attainment

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bag, S., Seth, S. Does It Matter How We Assess Standard of Living? Evidence from Indian Slums Comparing Monetary and Multidimensional Approaches. Soc Indic Res 140, 715–754 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1786-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multidimensional counting approach
  • Slums in Indian metro cities
  • Monetary well-being
  • Regression analysis
  • Standard of living in slums

JEL Classification

  • O10
  • I3
  • R2