With the inception of national multi-year development plans in the 1950s, development received a focused national agenda in Nepal. Eight consecutive development plans stretching over the last 45 years have represented the guiding principles for developing various sectors in the country. During this time, hundreds of billions of rupees have been spent by the Government and through bilateral and multilateral agencies on various development programmes in Nepal.

The regional development strategies have been formulated to help minimize disparities among the population and enhance the pace of overall development. The 75 districts of the country have been the focal points for the allocation and mobilization of the resources. At the crossroads of the last 45 years of development efforts in Nepal, it is appropriate to ask: How much progress has been made in each district? and: How do the districts stand up against each other with regard to their respective levels of development?

"Development" is a composite concept. Hence it warrants multiple indicators to assess its impact. In 1990, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) proposed the "Human Development Index" (HDI) as a way to assess the relative position of each country with regard to three main dimensions of development: namely, longevity, knowledge and standard of living.

Longevity is measured by expectation of life at birth. Knowledge is measured by literacy and (since 1991) mean years of educational attainment. Standard of living is measured by purchasing power based on real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita adjusted for the local cost of living. The HDI is an unweighted average of the three measures. The index values for each dimension are expressed in terms of the relative distances between the lowest and highest observed values on each indicator, ranging from 0 to 1.

The HDI is based on the premise that human development is a "process of expanding choice". The index may thus be considered as a "measure of people's ability to live a long and healthy life, to communicate and to participate in the life of the community and to have sufficient resources to obtain a decent living" (UNDP, 1993). The three are assumed to be critical dimensions in that "if these choices are not available, many other opportunities remain inaccessible" (UNDP, 1990).

In its 1994 Report (UNDP, 1994), UNDP calculated the HDI on a different basis than in the previous years. Minimum and maximum values were fixed to calculate the index for each country. The fixed values were: for life expectancy, 25 and 85 years; for literacy, 0 and 100 per cent; for mean years of schooling, 0 and 15 years; and for income (real GDP per capita adjusted for the local cost of living),US $200 and $40,000.

The HDI overlaps with other indicators of development (cf. Hicks and Streeten, 1979; Baster, 1985). However, it differs from the "basic needs approach" in that it "moves away from a commodities-based approach" and instead focuses on the "issues of human choices" (UNDP, 1993).

Since the formulation of the concept, the HDI has received much attention worldwide, though not without some critical reviews. Research results have led some development economists to advise those applying the concept to "handle (HDI) with care" (Kelley, 1991), while others have warned that it may be "yet another redundant composite development indicator" (McGillivray, 1991). The HDI has also been criticized for its failure to incorporate the freedom dimension or human rights (Dasgupta, 1990). Still others have referred to it as "a new approach" or a "new development indicator" (Trabold-Nubler, 1991).

These debates clearly indicate that the HDI lacks (as yet, anyway) a consensus on its value among development economists. The index is most likely to receive continued rigorous scrutiny, empirically and conceptually. UNDP itself acknowledges the limitations of the HDI measure by commenting that it is a "constantly evolving measure", which may "never capture human development" (UNDP, 1993) in the fullest sense of the term. To put it another way, HDI is not and should not be considered the sum total of human development. Despite the on-going debate, the three dimensions included in the HDI are generally recognized to be much stronger indicators than a single measure. More importantly, the HDI is a highly useful measure to assess the relative position of, say, one region or district in comparison with another region or district within a country. The present analysis builds upon the strength and utility of this measure of relative ranking within a country.

This article reports on the HDI for each of Nepal's 75 districts. Nepal ranked in the twenty-second and twenty-fifth position from the bottom of the list among 173 countries in UNDP's 1993 and 1994 assessments, respectively. Although the rankings are not strictly comparable owing to changes in some measures over the years, there seems to have been a gradual improvement in the ranking for Nepal since 1990 (UNDP, 1990).

In computing the HDI for each of Nepal's 75 districts, the maximum and minimal values based on the data from Nepal are used in this analysis, not the "fixed values" as suggested in the 1994 Report. In this sense, the HDI index computed here is consistent with the approach taken in the reports preceding the 1994 Report.

The use of fixed values aims at assessing how far a country's or region's level of "human development" might be compared with the theoretically possible limits, whereas the original approach aims at assessing the relative differences between countries or regions given the currently observed minimum and maximum values. The latter may be considered to be a better measure for assessing intracountry variations and disparities.

The new additional measure, "mean years of schooling", has not been used. This measure was used in the 1994 Report because the literacy rate "failed to discriminate among industrial countries". However, literacy rate does have a discriminatory power for developing countries such as Nepal where the national literacy rate is only about 40 per cent and the mean years of schooling is low, i.e. less than three years. For this reason, the literacy rate may be considered as an "analytically appropriate" measure for Nepal. In fact, literacy has been suggested as the appropriate measure for countries with low development levels (UNDP, 1993).

Life expectancy and literacy data are based on the 1991 census. Life expectancy is calculated by using "life-table" techniques based on a 10 per cent sample of the census data. More specifically, the estimates are derived from the application of the South Asia model of "life-table" technique (United Nations, 1983 and 1988).

Literacy rate refers to the percentage of people six years and older who can read, write and count. Because literacy is self reported, it is possible that some who reported themselves to be literate may not be functionally literate. Some small-scale studies carried out in Nepal (Joshi, 1994) have found that up to 8 per cent among the self-reported cases may be functionally illiterate, but there is no way of knowing the magnitude of this problem at the district, regional or national levels. Therefore, the present analysis uses the data as reported in the census and makes no attempt to adjust the literacy rate.

Data on the third dimension of the HDI - income - are the most difficult to obtain for Nepal. This measure also happens to have received the most revision over time, and the difficulties with it appear far from being resolved (UNDP, 1993:106-107). The indicator used in the 1994 Report is real per capita GDP in United States dollars' purchasing power parity (PPP). Information on public investments and expenditures, private sector consumption and investments, exports and imports required to compute the GDP for each of the districts is unavailable.

Owing to the lack of information on GDP, this study uses data on total bank deposits and credits in each district, as reported by the commercial banks as of mid-1991 (Nepal Rastra Bank, n.d.). These data are converted into per capita values by using the data on population from the 1991 census (CBS, 1993). In this analysis, this measure is referred to as "resource access" per capita.

Although it is acknowledged that this is a poor substitute for the GDP measure, to the extent that the GDP per capita as used in the UNDP Report is purported to measure "the utility or the welfare-generating capacity of income", and that it is an indicator of "access to resources" to "obtain a decent living" (UNDP, 1993), bank deposits and credits comprise a useful indirect way to assess a particular district's accessibility to resources.

Districts with fewer banking facilities will obviously present fewer opportunities for people to deposit or borrow money. But this sort of problem also characterizes the measure of literacy rate: a district with a less well developed physical infrastructure and less human resources tends to have less opportunity to improve on the literacy rate.

Table 1 presents the minimum, maximum and average values of the three HDI indicators for the 75 districts in Nepal. The values for each district are provided in the appendix table on pages 12 and 13.

Life expectancy ranges from a low of 37 years (Mugu District) to a high of over 74 years (Kathmandu District), with the overall average being 55 years. Therefore, there is a total of 37 years of variation among the districts. The literacy rate is about 40 per cent nationally. It ranges from 21 per cent (Humla District) to 71 per cent in Kathmandu, indicating a wide variation of nearly 50 percentage points.

Similar variations are found with respect to resource access, also. While the national average is Rs. 2,590 per capita (US$1.00 = average of 37.2 Rupees in 1991), resource access ranges from only Rs. 147 in Kalikot District to a high of over Rs. 47,000 in Kathmandu District. Kathmandu thus scores highest on all three indicators. The data clearly indicate wide disparities in human development among Nepal's 75 districts.

	Life expectancy (years)	Literacy (%)	Resource access (per capita Rs.)
Minimum	37.4	20.9	146.9
Maximum	74.4	70.5	47,239.1
Average	55.0	39.5	2,590.0

The degrees of association (correlation) among the three HDI indicators are presented in table 2. The theoretical value of a correlation ranges from a low of 0 to a high of 1. A value closer to 1 indicates a very strong correlation, whereas a value closer to 0 indicates a very weak association. A positive or negative sign indicates the direction of association between the two variables considered.

The data from Nepal's 75 districts suggest a moderate degree of association among the three HDI indicators. The correlation between life expectancy and literacy is stronger than among other indicators. Overall, the data suggest that, while there is some overlap among the three indicators, none of them appears redundant. Each appears to represent some unique dimension not captured by the other indicators. However, it should be noted that the degree of district-level correlation among the HDI indicators for Nepal is considerably weaker than the correlations based on the cross-national data (UNDP, 1993:109).

Table 3 presents the HDI values and HDI rank for each of the 75 districts. Kathmandu ranks first and Mugu lowest. The differences between the two are vast: the former is 83 times better than the latter. The second best district is Lalitpur, but there is considerable disparity even between it and Kathmandu. Gorkha District, the hub of the making of modern Nepal, ranks in the thirty-second position. Chitwan, which is becoming one of the most prosperous districts, ranks in the eighth position. Nuwakot and Sindhupalchowk, two adjoining districts of Kathmandu in the north, rank fifty-first and fifty-fourth, respectively. Solukhumbu District, the home of Mt. Everest, ranks forty-third. Morang District, with the industrial city of Biratnagar, ranks fifth. Palpa District, which is famous for its traditional garments and brassware, lies in the seventeenth position. Kapilbastu, the birthplace of Buddha, ranks fifty-sixth.

Among all the districts, only five rank over 0.5. Fourteen districts have an HDI value between 0.4 and 0.5. Thirty districts, the largest number, have HDI values between 0.3 and 0.4. Another 15 districts have HDI values between 0.2 and 0.3. Finally, 11 districts are the worst ones, with HDI values below 0.2.

District	HDI	HDI rank	District	HDI	HDI rank
Kathmandu	1.000	1	Mustang	0.331	39
Lalitpur	0.624	2	Manang	0.329	40
Kaski	0.535	3	Darchula	0.328	41
Bhaktapur	0.514	4	Kanchanpur	0.326	42
Morang	0.506	5	Solukhumbu	0.325	43
Tanahu	0.486	6	Siraha	0.323	44
Teharathum	0.478	7	Bara	0.322	45
Chitwan	0.474	8	Ilam	0.314	46
Jhapa	0.471	9	Sindhuli	0.310	47
Dhankuta	0.468	10	Mahotari	0.307	48
Syanja	0.465	11	Sarlahi	0.306	49
Parbat	0.451	12	Pyuthan	0.281	50
Bhojpur	0.432	13	Nuwakot	0.277	51
Lamjung	0.429	14	Rautahat	0.276	52
Sunsari	0.405	15	Dang 0.276	53
Rupandehi	0.404	16	Sindhupalchowk	0.272	54
Palpa	0.404	17	Bardiya	0.261	55
Arghakhachi	0.404	18	Kapilbastu	0.261	56
Baglung	0.401	19	Dadheldhura	0.243	57
Gulmi	0.399	20	Dhading	0.238	58
Sankhuwasawa	0.398	21	Kailali	0.231	59
Myagdi	0.396	22	Baitadi	0.229	60
Kavre	0.394	23	Humla	0.215	61
Panchthar	0.388	24	Doti	0.212	62
Dolkha	0.386	25	Rolpa	0.202	63
Okhaldunga	0.385	26	Salyan	0.200	64
Taplejung	0.382	27	Rukum	0.196	65
Parsa	0.369	28	Rasuwa	0.192	66
Saptari	0.362	29	Dailekh	0.191	67
Banke	0.362	30	Dolpa	0.186	68
Udayapur	0.360	31	Achham	0.184	69
Gorkha	0.352	32	Jumla	0.165	70
Surkhet	0.351	33	Bajhang	0.110	71
Khotang	0.345	34	Bajura	0.093	72
Ramechhap	0.345	35	Jajarkot	0.093	73
Nawalparasi	0.336	36	Kalikot	0.068	74
Makwanpur	0.333	37	Mugu	0.012	75
Dhanusha	0.333	38	All Nepal	0.334

According to the classification proposed by UNDP, countries with an HDI below 0.5 are considered to have a low level of human development; those between 0.5 and 0.8, a medium level; and those above 0.8, a high level. If the same classification is followed for Nepal, there is only one district (Kathmandu) that has a high level of human development. Furthermore, only four districts (namely, Lalitpur, Kaski, Bhaktapur and Morang) have a medium level of human development. The vast majority, 70 districts, have a low level of human development. Many of the most deprived districts lie in the mountains and the hills of the mid- and far-western regions of the country.

How does the HDI correlate with other dimensions of development in Nepal? In other words, what other development factors may be associated with lower and higher levels of human development?

Table 4 presents the correlation of HDI with 12 other dimensions of development. The results show that HDI is strongly and positively related to other dimensions of development, such as communication, roads, urbaniza- tion, school enrolment, health service utilization, non-agriculture, industrialization, and toilet and piped water facilities. The results also indicate that population growth and infant mortality are considerably lower in districts with higher HDI values. Similarly, the proportion of females married in the age group 15-24 years is lower in districts with higher HDI values.

Overall, these results suggest that the level of human development is higher in districts where the levels of other dimensions of development are also higher. It may also be the case that the other developmental inputs are higher because the HDI level is higher. In this sense, the human development and other dimensions of development most probably have mutually reinforcing and synergistic effects.

Communication refers to total number of telephone lines, newspapers and number of airline flights per 1,000 population. Roads refer to length of roads (black-topped, graveled or earthen) in kilometre per 1,000 hectares of land area. Urbanization refers to percentage of population that lives in nationally defined urban areas. Non-agriculture refers to percentage of population engaged in non-agricultural occupation. Manufacturing refers to number of manufacturing industries employing at least 10 persons weighted by the number of employees. School enrolment refers to the averages of primary and secondary school gross enrolment ratios. Toilet facility refers to percentage of households with a flush, pan or pit toilet. Piped water refers to percentage of households with access to a piped water facility. Health services utilization refers to percentage of currently married women in reproductive age groups, 15-49, who have used various maternal and child health services. Population growth refers to annual number of births per 1,000 women in reproductive age groups, 15-49. Infant mortality refers to the average number of deaths under one year of age per 1,000 live births during a specific year. Female married refers to the percentage of females in the age group 15-24 who are married.

Source: The data are from multiple sources compiled by the author and archived in the Nepal Population and Health Data Bank, Family Health International/Nepal.

The Human Development Index provides a portrait of the development status of each of Nepal's 75 districts. It does not, by any means, capture all the dimensions of development, but it is a better and more comprehensive indicator than that based on a single measure. The HDI may also be considered a yardstick for determining deprivation and disparity in that it indicates which districts in the country are relatively more disadvantaged than others.

The data analyzed here clearly indicate that a great disparity in human development exists among the districts of Nepal. They provide an objective assessment of which particular districts are lagging behind in human development in relation to other districts in the country and by how much. The data conceal variations that might exist among different population subgroups, such as males and females, or ethnic groups. To this end, it is hoped that the present analysis encourages further research in improving deficiencies and gaps in our understanding of the HDI for the districts in Nepal.

With the ushering in of a democratically governed political system in the country (1990-91), parliamentary representatives are expected to be more responsive to the needs of their constituents. The development portrait of disparity presents a great challenge to the vision and efforts of these policy- and law-makers. The effectiveness of their role will be evident only when the particular district they represent scores a higher development level. The public, too, should play a more active role in setting priorities in programme intervention and resource allocation for human development in their districts. At the same time, the Government must show a real commitment, with specific strategies, to improving the overall "index" nationally and at the same time to reducing the large disparities among the districts. The donor community, too, should take into consideration the HDI ranking of the districts in its efforts to minimize the intracountry levels of deprivation and disparity in Nepal. This is the collective challenge.

Baster, Nancy (1985). "Social indicator research: some issues and debates", In: J.G.M. Hilhorst and M. Klatter (eds.) Social Development in the Third World (London: Croom Helm).

CBS (1993). Population Census 1991, General Characteristics Tables. Vol. 1, Part I (Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS]).

Dasgupta, Partha (1990). "Well-being in poor countries", Economic and Political Weekly (August 4):1713-1720.

FHI/Nepal (1995). Nepal Population and Health Data Bank (Kathmandu: Family Health International/Nepal [FHI/Nepal]).

Hicks, Norman and Paul Streeten (1979). "Indicators of development: the search for a basic needs yardstick", World Development 7:567-580.

Joshi, Arun R. (1994). "Maternal schooling and child health: preliminary analysis of the intervening mechanisms in rural Nepal", Health Transition Review 4(1):1-28.

Kelley, Allen C. (1991). "The Human Development Index: `handle with care'", Population and Development Review 17(2):315-324.

McGillivray, Mark (1991). "The Human Development Index: yet another redundant composite development indicator?" World Development 19(10):1461-1468.

Nepal Rastra Bank (n.d.). Commercial Banking Statistics. No. 27 (Kathmandu: Nepal Rastra Bank, Central Office, Banking Operations Department).

Trabold-Nubler, Herald (1991). "The Human Development Index: a new development indicator?" Intereconomics (September/October): 236-243.

UNDP (1990). Human Development Report 1990 (New York: Oxford University Press).

__________ (1991). Human Development Report 1991 (New York: Oxford University Press).

__________ (1992). Human Development Report 1992 (New York: Oxford University Press).

__________ (1993). Human Development Report 1993 (New York: Oxford University Press).

__________ (1994). Human Development Report 1994 (New York: Oxford University Press).

United Nations (1983). Manual X: Indirect Techniques for Demographic Estimation, Population Studies No. 81 (New York: United Nations).

__________ (1988). MORTPAK-LITE: The United Nations Software Package for Mortality Measurement, Population Studies No. 104 (New York: United Nations).

District	Life expectancy (years)	Literacy (%)	Resource access (Rs per capita)
Kathmandu	74.4	70.5	47,239
Morang	71.3	48.5	2,356
Lalitpur	69.6	64.7	5,729
Ramechhap	68.2	30.8	320
Bhojpur	68.0	44.0	325
Okhaldunga	67.7	37.4	330
Dhankuta	67.4	49.4	1,019
Saptari	66.9	34.7	686
Dolkha	66.4	39.1	525
Kavre	66.4	40.3	568
Tanahu	66.1	54.3	659
Sarlahi	66.1	27.8	399
Siraha	66.0	30.3	492
Dhanusha	65.6	31.6	1,143
Kaski	65.5	59.7	3,099
Rupandehi	65.5	41.8	1,652
Mahotari	65.5	28.7	356
Banke	65.2	35.6	1,929
Teharathum	64.5	55.3	578
Rautahat	64.3	25.7	410
Udayapur	64.2	38.2	461
Bara	64.2	32.5	492
Parsa	64.1	35.5	4,435
Ilam	64.0	31.6	439
Myagdi	63.7	44.0	637
Syanja	63.4	54.8	598
Sunsari	63.4	44.7	1,665
Baglung	63.4	45.4	511
Parbat	63.0	53.1	636
Lamjung	62.8	50.2	583
Sindhuli	62.7	32.9	290
Bhaktapur	62.6	61.7	2,022
Chitwan	62.3	56.8	1,403
Panchthar	62.0	45.2	582
Arghakhachi	61.6	48.3	374
Jhapa	61.5	58.1	774
Humla	61.1	20.9	340
Khotang	61.0	40.4	422
Solukhumbu	60.6	37.5	772
Sankhuwasawa	60.4	49.0	454
Sindhupalchowk	60.2	30.7	358
Taplejung	60.0	47.2	343
Makwanpur	59.4	39.8	1,315
Nuwakot	59.4	32.4	337
Gulmi	59.3	50.5	537
Bardiya	58.9	30.7	425
Surkhet	58.5	44.5	475
Palpa	58.2	52.6	691
Gorkha	58.1	45.2	478
Nawalparasi	58.1	42.7	483
Darchula	58.0	41.9	377
Kapilvastu	57.5	32.4	541
Pyuthan	57.4	35.5	437
Kanchanpur	56.0	44.1	547
Rasuwa	55.3	25.3	240
Kailali	54.7	31.2	992
Achham	54.7	25.0	236
Mustang	54.0	46.3	1,652
Doti	54.0	29.9	402
Dhading	53.9	34.2	230
Dolpa	53.6	26.5	427
Manang	53.0	47.9	1,101
Rolpa	52.9	30.1	183
Dang	51.6	42.4	684
Jumla	51.4	26.4	389
Rukum	51.3	31.3	254
Dadheldhura	50.8	38.9	339
Salyan	50.5	33.2	157
Dailekh	50.2	32.2	202
Baitadi	49.7	38.3	300
Kalikot	44.9	21.0	147
Jajarkot	44.8	24.7	180
Bajhang	44.7	27.5	194
Bajura	43.0	27.2	156
Mugu	37.4	22.5	313
All Nepal	55.0	39.5	2,590

Note: In this table, the districts are listed in descending order according to life expectancy values. Life expectancy for Mustang is based on averages of the Mountain region districts.

For further information on this material please contact: loftus.unescap@un.org