Socioeconomic staus and Social Security Measures

Socioeconomic status
 Dr Anupkumar T N
 Junior Resident
 Dept of Community Medicine
 Govt Medical College,Thrissur

OUTLINE
 DEFINITION
 HISTORY
 DIFFERENT SCALES
 UPDATION
 MERITS AND DEMERITS
 POVERTY LINES
 SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY REPORT 2011
 REFERENCES

Socioeconomic status (SES) Socioeconomic status (SES) is one of the most important
social determinants of health and disease, thus, a widely
studied construct in the social sciences.
 SES influences the accessibility, affordability, acceptability
and actual utilization of available health facilities
 Socioeconomic status (SES) is a combination of social and
economic variables

Definition
 A composite measure that typically incorporates
economic, social, and work status .
 Economic status is measured by income.
 Social status is measured by education, and
 Work status is measured by occupation.
• Each status is considered an indicator.
• These three indicators are related but do not overlap

SES Scales and health
 Low SES population presenting more commonly with
nutritional deficiency and communicable diseases and
 High SES showing more of obesity and noncommunicable
diseases;
 Access to healthcare with high SES showing a better
access.

Methods for social classification
 Status inequalities between individuals are common,.
 In general, the more complex the society, the more
numerous the layers or strata of social differentiation

Defintion SES Scale
 The position that an individual or family occupies with
reference to the prevailing average standards of cultural
and material possessions, income, and participation in
group activity of the community

Why SES scale?
1. Understand the distribution of population based on SES
2. To develop a uniform system of socioeconomic
classification of the population universally based on the
income with scientific basis
3. Resources are scarce
a. Need to identify the most needy
b. Difficulty in identifying the exact number of people living
below the poverty line (BPL families) in India

International SES scale
 Hollingshead scale, (The Hollingshead Four Factor Index
of Socioeconomic Status is a survey designed to measure
social status of an individual based on four domains:
Marital status, retired/employed status, educational
attainment, and occupational prestige.)
 Mac Arthur scale (Domains: Education, income,
occupational status and wealth)

Standard of Living Index (SLI) scale
 (NFHS - II) had used the Standard of Living Index (SLI) scale
 Contains 11 items viz. house type, source of lighting, toilet
facility, main fuel for cooking, source of drinking water,
separate room for cooking, ownership of the house,
ownership of agricultural land, ownership of irrigated
land, ownership of livestock, ownership of durable goods
 Used for measuring the SES both urban and rural areas
for the entire country

Wealth Index Variables
 The NFHS-3 wealth index is based on the following 33 assets
and housing characteristics

Wealth Index Variables
 Household
electrification
 Type of windows
 Drinking water
source
 Type of toilet
facility
 Type of flooring
 Material of
exterior walls
 Type of roofing
 Cooking fuel
 House ownership
 Number of
household
members per
sleeping room
Ref:NFHS-3, India, 2005-06
• Ownership of a bank
or post-office
account
• Ownership of a
mattress,
• A pressure cooker,
• A chair, a cot/bed, a
table, an electric fan,
a radio/transistor,
• A black and white
television, a color
television,
• A sewing machine
• A mobile telephone,
• Any other telephone
• A computer,
• A refrigerator,
• A watch or clock,
• A bicycle,
• A motorcycle or
scooter,
• An animal-drawn
cart,
• A car
• A water pump,
• A thresher,
• A tractor

Socioeconomic Status Scales - India
 Rahudkar scale 1960,
 Udai Parikh scale 1964,
 Jalota Scale 1970
 Kulshrestha scale 1972,
 Kuppuswamy scale 1976
 A Sukumaran Nair scale 1976
 Shrivastava scale1978
 Bharadwaj scale 2001

Udai Pareek and G. Trivedi (1964)
 Udai Pareek and G. Trivedi (1964) attempts to examine
the socio-economic status for the rural or mixed
population only
 This scale has nine factors which assess the
socioeconomic status of the individual

Pareek & Trivedi’s Scale:
Components
 Caste
 Occupation
 Education
 Social participation
 Land
 House
 Farm powers
 Material possession
 Family

1.Caste 2.Occupation
Scheduled caste 1 Labour 1
Lower caste 2 Caste occupation 2
Artisan caste 3 Business 3
Agricultural caste 4 Independent profession 4
Prestige caste 5 Cultivation 5
Dominant caste 6 Service 6
3.Education 4.Social participation
Illiterate 0 Member of one organization 1
Can read only 1 Member of > 1 organization 2
Can read and write 2 Office holder 3
Primary 3 Wider public leader 6
Middle 4
High school 5
Graduate 6

5. Land Score 7. Farm power Score 9.Family Score
No land 0 No drought animal 0 Type
< 1 Acre 1 1-2 drought animals 2 Single 1
1- 5 Acres 2 3-4 drought animal 4 Joint 2
5-10 Acres 3 Or one prestige animal 4 Extended 3
10-15 Acres 4 5-6 drought animal or tractor 6 Upto 5 2
15-20 Acres 5 Distinct
features
2
>20 Acres 6
6. House Score 8. Material possession Score
No home 0 Bullock -cart 1
Hut 1 Cycle ,Radio , Chair 1
Katcha house 2 Improved agri implements 2
Mixed house 3 Television 3
Pucca house 4 Mobile 4
Mansion 6 Refrigerators 8

Scoring:
 After filling the information ,and scoring the individual
items, the total score is summed up.
 With the help of the key provided in the manual, total
score is interpreteding terms of the class.

Social class
 Above 43 Upper Class (I)
 33-42 Upper Middle Class (II)
 24-32 Middle Class (III)
 13-23 Lower Middle Class (IV)
 Below 13 Lower Class (V)

Merits
 Includes many domains

Limitations
 This scale does not emphasize the income aspect
 Can only be used for rural subjects
 Caste system varies in each state

 Per capita monthly income = Total monthly income of the
family/Total members of family.

The need to update SES scale
 Income ranges in the scale lose their relevance following
the depreciation in the value of the rupee .
 Steady inflation, lower interest rates, and country’s
current account deficits are the main factors contributing
to fall in the value of currency.
 Therefore, it is needed to update the scale regularly for
socioeconomic classification of study populations.

Methods to update SES scale
 Kumar had tried to update Prasad Scale’s income limits
using consumer price index (CPI)
 Kuppuswamy socioeconomic scale was revised with CPI .
 Linking of the scale with price index makes it relevant
and meaningful and also provides a opportunity for
constant updation .

Price index
 A price index (plural: “price indices” or “price indexes”) is
a normalized average (typically a weighted average)
of price relatives for a given class of goods or services in a
given region, during a given interval of time
 Calculating the CPI for a single item

Wholesale price index(1902)
 The change in the average price level of 676 commodities
traded in wholesale market
 Weekly basis availability

Consumer Price Index (CPI)
 Definition: A comprehensive measure used for estimation
of price changes in a basket of goods and services
representative of consumption expenditure in an
economy is called consumer price index

Consumer price index(1970)
 Comprises multiple series classified based on different
economic group
 4 series
CPI UNME (Urban Non-Manual Employee) -20th-CSO
CPI AL (Agricultural Labourer)-20 th
CPI RL (Rural Labourer)-20 th
CPI IW (Industrial Worker)-last day of month
 From February 2011 the CPI (UNME) released by CSO is
replaced as CPI (urban),CPI (rural) and CPI (combined)

 The prices of 85,000 items from 22,000 stores, and
35,000 rental units are added together and averaged.
They are weighted this way:
 Housing: 41.4%, Food and Beverage: 17.4%,
 Transport: 17.0%, Medical Care: 6.9%,
 Other: 6.9%, Apparel: 6.0%,
 Entertainment: 4.4%.
 Taxes (43%) are not included in CPI computation.

 Consumer Price Index is used in calculation of Dearness
Allowancewhich forms an integral part of salary of a
Government Employee.Base year to calculate CPI is
2001=100
 CENTRAL= Avg AICPIN for 12 months-261.4 ×100
261.4
 Kerala = Avg AICPIN for 12 months-239.92 ×100
239.92

Modified BG Prasad socioeconomic
scale
 Modified BG Prasad socioeconomic scale is widely used to
determine the socioeconomic status .
 The BG Prasad scale was formulated in 1961 keeping the
base of Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 1960 as 100
 Mishra, undertook the important task of revision of
family income per month for 1998 using base year
1982=100.Presently the base year has been changed
from 1982 to 2001
 The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for industrial workers (IW)
is used to calculate updated income categories

Updating Prasad’s Scale
 The BG Prasad scale was formulated in 1961Consumer
Price Index (CPI) for 1960 as 100.
 This was revised in 1982 by introducing a linking factor
of 4.93 to convert CPI (1982) from the new base of 100
to the old base CPI (1960).
 Again a need was felt in 2001 to revise the base, which
was done by introducing the linking factor of 4.63.

Formula updated as for January
2017
 CPI [IW]× 4.63× 4.93 ÷ 100.
 [ 274 × 4.63) × 4.93 ÷ 100.
 = 62.5429=62.5
Class Prasad’s Classification
(1961) In Rupees
New Starting classes
before they are
rounded off
Modified Prasad’s
Classification after
rounding off to the
nearest Rs. 10/=
I 100 & above 6250 6250 & above
II 50-99 3125 3130 – 6250
III 30-49 1875 1880– 3130
IV 15-29 937 940-1880
V Below 15 937 Below 940

MERITS
 Can assess the socioeconomic status in both rural and
urban areas
 Only income considered
 Per capita family income so includes all earning members
 Can be updated

Limitation
 It is only income-based scale
 No other domains addressed
 Inflation not considered

Kuppuswamy’s socioeconomic
scale
 The most widely used scale for urban population was
devised by Kuppuswamy in 1976.
 Kuppuswamy scale is a composite score of education and
occupation of the head of the family along with monthly
income of the family, which yields a score of 3-29.
 This scale classifies the study populations into high,
middle, and low SES
 To get current income group, a conversion factor
calculated based on current All India Consumer Price
Index (AICPI) is applied

Contents
 Manual
 Two information blanks (one for the person concerned
and second for the father or guardian)
 Score card
• The information is collected in the devised
Information blanks and with the help of
the score card the status score is obtained.
• On the basis of the total score, the
respective class is found out.
Scoring:

Modification in income slabs
 In 1976 the CPI was taken as 296 based on 1960
 In 1982 new CPI base was set at 100 when 1960 based
value became 460 (so multiplying factor 4.6)
 In 2001 CPI base was set at 100 and when 1982 based
valur reached 490 (so multiplying factor 4.9)
 As per 2017 January CPI value is 274 base year 2001

Modified Kuppuswamys
socioeconomic status Jan 2017 CPI
SL NO FAMILY
INCOME/MO
NTH(
1976)
FAMILY
INCOME/MO
NTH(
1982)
FAMILY
INCOME/MO
NTH(
2001)
FAMILY
INCOME/MO
NTH(
2017)
SCORE
1 2000 3108 15230 41730 12
2 1000-1999 1554-3107 7614-15229 20865-41729 10
3 750-999 1166-1553 5711-7613 15649-20864 6
4 500-749 777-1552 3807-5710 10432-15648 4
5 300-499 466-776 2284-3806 6259-10431 3
6 101-299 155-465 761-2283 2086-6258 2
7 <100 <155 <761 <2086 1

Socioeconomic Class
 26 –29 Upper (I)
 16 –25 Upper Middle (II)
 11 –15 Middle (III)
 05 –10 Lower Middle (IV)
 < 4 Lower (V)

Merits
 Main 3 domains are considered
 Income total family income

Limitations
 Steady inflation and consequent fall in the value of currency
make the economic criteria in the scale less relevant.
 Income part is considered to be the total income of the
family and no consideration is given to size of the family:
 A small family with a particular income will have higher SES
status than a bigger-sized family with similar income.
 There is an overemphasis on income
 Material possessions not considered


Marketing
Research Society of India scoring
 Based on two variables
 Number of “consumer durables” (from a predefined
list)-owned by the family. The list has 11 items,
ranging from ‘electricity connection’ and ‘agricultural
land’-to cars and air conditioners
 Education of chief earner

 The household is categorised into one of the five groups
Class I – Upper;
ClassII – Upper Middle;
Class III – Lower Middle
Class IV – UpperLower
Class V – Lower Lower

Kerala Socio-Economic Status scale
 A. Sukumaran Nair's (1976)
 The general data sheet is divided into 5 sections
 Section one elicits the name, age, caste, religion, locality
of the school, place of residence etc.
 The second part calls for information regarding the level
of education of parents, siblings and other occupants of
the family
 Section three elicits the details of occupation of the
members of the family

 The last part (fifth) contains the information regarding the
school marks.
 Here, the highest income given was 2501/- and above and
lowest was 300. But in now a day's even a coolie earns
750-800 per day

DEMERITS
 The education and the lifestyle of people are totally
improved. So the application of this scale in this changed
social condition of Kerala is in question

Summary
 SES is a predictor of health status
 Socioeconomic status (SES) is a combination of social and
economic variables
 SES Scales help to develop a uniform system of socioeconomic
classification of the population universally based on the
income with scientific basis
 Udai Pareek and G. Trivedi scale, Kuppuswamy scale 1962, B G
Prasad classification are some Indian SES scales .
 Steady inflation, lower interest rates, and country’s current
account deficits are the main factors contributing to fall in the
value of currency, so, it is needed to update the scale regularly
for socioeconomic classification of study populations

SES at a glance
Criterias Udai pareek B. Kuppu swamy B.G. Prasad
Income x Total family income Per capita income
Education + Edu of family head X
Occupation + Occ of family head X
Caste + X X
Land + X X
Social participation + X X
Family type + X X
Family size + X X
Type of house + X X
Farm power + X X
Material possession + X X
Composite score + + X
Rural or urban R U R & U

Poverty lines
 Below Poverty Line is an economic benchmark to indicate
economic disadvantage and to identify individuals and
households in need of government assistance and aid
 Since 2008, the last update, we have used $1.25 as the
global line.
 As of October 2015, the new global line will be
updated to $1.90.
 29.8% in India below poverty line-70 th world wide

 'International Poverty Line
An international monetary thresholdunder which an
individual is considered to be living in poverty
 The World Bank has revised its definition and benchmarks
to measure poverty since 1990, with $2 per day income
on purchasing power parity basis

 In 2012, the Indian government stated 22% of its
population is below its official poverty limit
 The World Bank, in 2011 based on 2005's
PPPs International Comparison Program,estimated 23.6%
of Indian population, 276 million people, lived below
$1.25 per day on purchasing power parity
 According to United Nation's Millennium Development
Goals (MDG) programme 270 millions or 21.9% people
out of 1.2 billion of Indians lived below poverty line of
$1.25 in 2011-2012

 Those above poverty line live a fragile economic life.
 The World Bank reviewed and proposed revisions in May
2014, to its poverty calculation methodology and
purchasing power parity basis for measuring poverty
worldwide, including India
 According to the Modified Mixed Reference Period
(MMRP) concept proposed by World Bankin 2015, India's
poverty rate for period 2011-12 stood at 12.4% of the
total population, or about 172 million people; taking the
revised poverty line as $1.90.

 Each state in India has its own poverty threshold to
determine how many people are below its poverty line
 Since 2007, India set its official threshold at Rs 26 a day
($0.43) in rural areas and about Rs32 per day ($0.53) in
urban areas
 These numbers are lower than the World Bank's $1.25
per day income-based definition, the definition is similar
to China's US$0.65 per day official poverty line in 2008.

 In 2011-2012, Puducherryhad its highest poverty line of R
s 1,301 (US$19) a month in rural and Rs 1,309 (US$19) a
month in urban areas, while Odishahad the lowest
poverty thresholds of Rs695 (US$10) a month for rural
and Rs 861 (US$13) a month for its urban areas

Ninth Plan
 In its Ninth Five-Year Plan (1995–2002), BPL for rural
areas was set at annual family income less
than Rs.20,000, less than two hectares land, and no
television or refrigerator.
 The number of rural BPL families was 650,000 during the
9th Plan.
 The survey based on this criterion was again carried out
in 2002 and the total number of 387,000 families were
identified.
 This figure was in force until September 2006.

Tenth Plan
 In its Tenth Five-Year Plan(2002–2007) survey, BPL for
rural areas was based on the degree of deprivation in
respect of 13 parameters, with scores from 0–
4: landholding, type of house, clothing, food
security, sanitation, consumer durables, literacystatus,
labour force, means of livelihood, status of children, type
of indebtedness, reasons for migrations, etc.

 The Planning Commission fixed an upper limit of 326,000
for rural BPL families on the basis of simple survey.
Accordingly, families having less than 15 marks out of
maximum 52 marks have been classified as BPL and their
number works out to 318,000
 BPL for urban areas was based on degree of deprivation
in respect of seven parameters:
roof, floor, water, sanitation, education level, type of
employment, and status of children in a house.
 A total of 125,000 upper families were identified as BPL
in urban area in 2004.

Kerala
 The Government of Kerala is one of the few state
governments which has formulated its own criteria.
 In Kerala there are nine parameters.
 Families which lack access to four or more parameters are
classified as BPL.

The nine parameters
 No land or less than five cents of land
 No house or dilapidated house
 No sanitation latrine
 Family with an illitrate family member
 No regular employed person in the family

 No access to safe drinking water
 Women-headed household or presence of widows or
divorcee
 Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (SC/ST)
 Mentally retarded or disabled member in the family

BPL survey 2009
അര്‍ഹതയില്ലാത്ത കുടുുംബങ്ങള്‍
 സര്‍കാര്‍ ജീവനകാര്‍ ഉള്ള കുടുുംബും
(ക്ലാസ്1 മൂതല്‍ 4 വരെ)
 സവകാെയ/അര്‍ധ സര്‍കാര്‍/എയ്ഡഡ്
സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല് ജീവനകാര്‍ ഉള്ള കുടുുംബും
 സഹകെണ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല് ജീവനകാര്‍
ഉള്ള കുടൂുംബും
 സര്‍കാര് ‍‍/സര്‍വീസ് രപന്‍ഷണര്‍മാര്‍ ഉള്ള
കുടുുംബും
 അര്‍ധസര്‍കാര്‍ /എയ്ഡഡ് സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളില്‍
നിന്ുും രപന്‍ഷന്‍ ല്ഭികുന്വര്‍ ഉള്ള

 സഹകെണ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല് രപന്‍ഷണര്‍മാര്‍ ഉള്ള
 രപാതുമമഖല്ാ /പ്രപവറ്റ് സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല് സ്ഥിെും
ശന്പളും പറ്റുന് ജീവനകാര്‍ആരെങ്കില്ുും
(പെന്പൊഗത രതാഴില്‍ മമഖല്യിരല് സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല്
ജീവനകാര്‍ ഒഴിരക)‍ഉള്‍രെടുന് കുടുുംബും
 1000 ച.അടിയില്‍ അധികും വിസ്തീര്‍ണും ഉള്ള
മകാണ്‍കരകീറ്റ് വീട് ഉടമസ്ഥാവകാശത്തില്ുള്ള കുടുുംബും
 സവകാെയ ഉപമയാഗത്തിനുള്ള 4 ചരക മമാട്ടര്‍ വാഹനും
ഉടമസ്ഥതയില്ുള്ള കുടുുംബും
 വിമേശ ൊജയങ്ങളില്‍ മജാല്ി രചയ്യുന്വര്‍ ഉള്ള
 പട്ടികവര്‍ഗകാര്‍ ഒഴിരക ഒമെകറില്ധികും കാര്‍ഷിക
ഭൂമി പ്കവശാവകാശത്തില്ുള്ള കുടുുംബും

 2011-12 Suresh tendulkar-committee
Rural Rs. 27 /-&Urban-33/- per day2meals difficult
 2014- Rangarajan committee- Rural Rs. 32/-Urban-Rs.47/-
per day spending
 BPL families 21 %t0 28%

Criticism
 Corruption in the system allows those ineligible to gain
benefits of the BPL status
 Other social security measures dependant on this
 Political influence

Socio Economic and Caste Census
2011
 First findings were revealed on 3 July 2015
 The first paperless census in 640 districts
 To use the SECC data in all its programmes such
as MGNREGA, National Food Security Act, and the Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana

 In January 2017, Central Government accepted
recommendations to use Socio-Economic Caste Census,
instead of poverty line, as the main instrument for
identification of beneficiaries and transferring of funds for
social schemes in rural areas

Report-key findings
 There are 24.39 crore (243.9 million) households in India,
of which 17.91 (179.1 million) crore live in villages. Of
these, 10.69 crore households are considered as
deprived.
 5.37 crore (29.97%) households in rural areas are
"landless deriving a major part of their income from
manual labour".
 As many as 2.37 crore (13.25%) families in villages live in
houses of one room with 'kachcha' (impermanent) walls
and roof.

 21.53%, or 3.86 crore, families living in villages belong to
SC/ST categories.
 56% of India's rural households lack agricultural land.
 36% of 884 million people in rural India are non-
literate.This is higher than the 32% recorded by 2011
Census of India
 Of the 64% literate rural Indians, more than a fifth have
not completed primary school.

 60% of the 17.91 crore rural households are deprived or
poor.
 35% of urban Indian households qualify as poor.
 74.5% (13.34 crore) of rural households survive on a
monthly income of Rs 5,000 for their highest earner.
 5.4% of rural India has completed high school.

 3.4% of rural households have a family member who is a
graduate.
 4.6% of all rural households in India pay income tax.
 14% of rural households are employed either with the
government or the private sector.

 1,80,657 households are engaged in manual
scavenging for a livelihood. Maharashtra, with 63,713,
tops the list of the largest number of manual scavenger
households, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
Tripura and Karnataka.
 Over 48 per cent of the Indian rural population is female.
 44.72 crore are Indians are non-literate, more than a third
of its 121.08 crore population.

 Transgender people comprise 0.1 per cent of India’s rural
population. The Andaman and Nicobar islands, West
Bengal, Gujarat, Odisha and Mizoram have the highest
proportions of transgender people.
 The military and the para-military were kept out of the
SECC.

 Government of Karnatakas Socio Economic Survey
2015 conducted by the Karnataka State Commission
for Backward Classes was put up on the official
website.
 The survey was launched on 11 April 2015.
 1.33 lakh enumerators carried out the Socio Economic
Survey 2015 into every village, town and street to
compile data related to religion, caste, education,
social and economic condition of about 6.60 crore
people in Karnataka by covering about 1.26 crore
families.

 Social Welfare Department of Government of
Karnataka may carry out a second round of caste census
for 2.37 lakh families in Bengaluru as the survey covered
only 18.8 lakh families out of total 21,16,949 families
in Bengaluru, which accounts for 88.82%.
 Kerala tops in the number of people with mental ailments
in India.
 1% of rural households own a landline phone without a
mobile phone, while 68.35% rural households have
mobile phones as their only phone(s).

WHAT IS AN IDEAL TOOL...?
 Five indicators are identified which are
Education profile,
Occupation profile
Economic/social profile
Land/house profile
Material possession profile
 Weightage for each domain

RFERENCE
• M Bairwa, M Rajput, S Sachdeva :Kuppuswamy’s
Socioeconomic Scale: Social Researcher Should Include
Updated Income Criteria: Indian J Community Med. 2013
Jul-Sep; 38(3): 185–186
 Kuppuswamy B. Manual of SocioeconomicStatus (urban),
Delhi, Manasayan, 1981.
 Mishra D, Singh HP. Kuppuswami’ssocioeconomic status
scale: A Revision.Indian JPediatr 2003; 70:273-4.
 Kumar N, Shekhar C, Kumar P and KunduA.S.
Kuppuswamy’s Socioeconomic StatusScale-Updating for
2007. Indian J Pediatr2007; 74:1131-2

 Labour Bureau, Government of India, [cited 2017 March14].
Available fromhttp://labourbureau.nic.in/indnum.htm
 Grusky, David B. (2011). “Theories of Stratification and
Inequality”. In Ritzer, George and J. Michael Ryan (eds.). The
Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 622–
624. Retrieved 23 June 2014
 Agarwal AK. Social classification: The need to update in the
present scenario. 2008:33(1); 50-1
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio_Economic_and_Caste_Ce
nsus_2011

 National Journal of Research in Community Medicine. Vol. 2.
Issue 2. July-Sep. 2013 (079-148)
 Adler, N.E., Socioeconomic status and health: The
challenge of the gradient. American psychologist, 1994.
49(1): p. 1
 Ref: Sunil K. Raina: Use of Socioeconomic Status Scales in
Medicine and Public Health :J Family Med Prim Care.
2015 Jan-Mar; 4(1): 156
 Tendulkar SD. New Delhi: Government of India; 2009.
Report of the expert group to review the methodology for
estimation of poverty. Planning commission; p. 29

 Hollingshead, A. A. (1975). Four-factor index of social
status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New
Haven, CT.
 NFHS-3, India, 2005-06
 Ref:NFHS-2, India, 1998-99
 Prasad BG. Changes proposed in social classification of
Indian families. J Indian Med Assoc. 1970;55:98–9.
 Pareekh U. Delhi: Mansayan; 1981. Mannual of socio
economic status (rural)
 Gupta MC, Mahajan BK. Social environment. In: Guptha
MC, editor. Text book of preventive and social medicine.
3rd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Publications; 2005. p. 117.

 Ref: Holyachi S: Socio economic scales – An update:
Annals of comm health V1:issue 1:p24
 http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND
 bplsurveykerala2009.gov.in
 Jumana and Meera, American International Journal of
Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 12(2),
September-November, 2015 pp. 237-240
AIJRHASS

Socioeconomic staus and Social Security Measures

Socioeconomic staus and Social Security Measures

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Socioeconomic staus and Social Security Measures

Similar a Socioeconomic staus and Social Security Measures (20)

Último

Último (20)

Socioeconomic staus and Social Security Measures