The Research Journal of Sciences and Technology 2(1&2):49-66

2011, ISSN 2226-0110

The official publication of Faculty of Sciences
FEDERAL URDU UNIVERSITY OF ARTS, SCIENCES & TECHNOLOGY

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DISPARITIES, SINDH, BALUCHISTAN

AND PAKISTAN - A COMPARATIVE STUDY
1

Syed Nawaz ul Huda and 2Farkhunda Burke

1. Department of Geography, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology, Gulshan Campus,
Karachi. Pakistan.
2. Department of Geography, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan

Abstract
A high degree of internal inequality is a common characteristic of intermediate and less developed countries like
Pakistan. Its comprehension is an essential requisite for amelioration and this study is a pioneering work in the
context of the two provinces i.e. Sindh and Baluchistan, focusing on the inter-relationship of a gamut of factors
to enable the deciphering of comparative status of social and economic development. The study suggests that
ethnicity, which is the basis of administrative delineation in Pakistan, has fostered clan feudalism, and
development policies based on lines of Islamic justice and equity, embodied in the constitution of the country
can make inequalities bearable.

Article Received: 07-01-11, Accepted: 14-06-11

Key words: welfare state, inequality, Sindh, Baluchistan, Pakistan,

1 INTRODUCTION
Disparities cause uncertainty in society. They damage social values and drag the nation to
disaster. Inequalities strangle democracy and trigger dictatorship, igniting problems related to
human wellbeing. Development is the movement from one social state to a higher social state
and concerned with the improvement of social and economic welfare or quality of life (Islam
et al., 2001). Perhaps, rapid economic growth is not the most effective means of achieving
general social progress. One of the greatest dangers in the present situation of development
inequality is its potential for human conflict. This applies to inequality within nations as well
as among them (Smith, 1977). A high degree of internal inequality is a common characteristic
of intermediate and less developed countries like Pakistan.
Well-established socio-economic background is based on the income of any area. Inequality
in terms of income presents a narrow view of overall inequality prevailing in a society, while
the study referred to as social and economic inequality considers the disparities in income and
standard of living (Pandey and Nathwani, 1997).
During recent decades, most of the developing countries have been engaged arduously not
only in nation building processes but also in economic and social development to pull their
people out of the morass of poverty, ignorance, squalor and morbidity (Khanna, 1991). The
explicit engagement of geography with morality and social justice dates from the latter part of
the 1960s (Smith, 1994).
The economic life of any people includes activities of several different orders. As a
minimum, there are always formalized patterns controlling ownership, production,
distribution and consumption. Income and consumption are the most direct measures of
49

Social and economic disparities, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakistan - A comparative study

living standards. In addition, income refers to the earnings from productive activities and
current transfers. It can be observed as comprising claims on goods and services by the single
or households. In general words, income permits people to obtain goods and services. The
empirical literature on consumption wealth effects intends to answer the question of how
much consumption will increase as a result of an exogenous increasing wealth (Bover, 2005).
The main difficulty for progress in this area is lack of household survey data that contains at
the same, direct measures of asset holdings and consumption.
Several works regarding inequality with special reference to income distribution and poverty
on the economic perspective in Pakistan are on record e.g. those of Bergen, 1967; Azfar,
1973; Naseem, 1973; Khundkar 1973; Alauddin, 1975; Chaudhry, 1982; Mahmood, 1984;
Krujik and Leeuwen, 1985; Krujik, 1986; Krujik, 1987; Ahmad and Ludlow, 1989; Malik,
1992, Ahmad, 2000, Anwar, 2003 and Kemal, 2003. Most of these studies are based on data
from FBS (Federal Bureau of Statistics, Govt. of Pakistan), Household Income and
Expenditure Surveys (HIES) and that of the Government of Pakistan census data.
These studies reveal a declining trend in income (or expenditure) inequality. These studies
mainly focus on the economic point of view, while there is dearth of spatial analysis.
According to the Economic Survey (2004-05), population in Pakistan has grown at an
average rate of 3 percent annually since 1951 to the mid 1980s. During the periods 1985-86
to 1999-2000, population growth reduced to an average rate of 2.6 percent per annum.
Subsequent to 2001, population of Pakistan is growing at an average, further reduced rate of
almost 2 percent annually.
A welfare state has been defined in the Webster dictionary as a government that undertakes
responsibility for the welfare of its citizens through programs in public health, housing, pensions,
and unemployment compensation, etc. There are a number of empirical studies of how quality of
life is linked to demand for public facilities (Rosen, 1974; Liu, 1976; Roback, 1982; Blomquist,
et al., 1988; Mwabu, et al., 1993; Lavy and Germain, 1994; Alderman and Lavy, 1996; Ultee,
2006; Sorensen, 2006; Palme, 2006 and Moro, et.al., 2008).
As an Islamic welfare state, Pakistan in its Constitution provides a guarantee to the nation about
the promotion of social and economic well-being of people (Mahmood, 2007). In a country,
where there are a few monopoly houses who benefit by exploiting the less fortunate or less
influential classes, the existence of social and economic inequalities or disparities are
unacceptable in their intensity, complex in pattern, and persistent in occurrence and by no means
simple.
The spatial dimensions of social and economic inequalities in Pakistan now is a prominent
outcome of development strategies reflected in its provision of basic necessities of life essential
for human development and an acceptable quality of life which has been hampered by various
delivery hurdles. UNDP being the pioneer of the National Human Development Report 2003,
(Hussain, et al, 2003) for Pakistan has presented a Human Development Index (HDI). However,
with reference to this aspect, Statistics Division of the Government of Pakistan (FBS, 2004; 2002
& 2001) published socio-economic indicators at district level and social indicators for Pakistan.
PMDG (2004, 2005, 2006, 2009 & 2010) provides valuable guidelines in terms of hunger and
poverty eradication, universal primary education target, enhancement in gender equality and
empowerment of women, child mortality reduction, health improvement, combating HIV/AIDS,
malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, etc.
The purpose of this paper is to decipher the comparative status of social and economic
development of Sindh and Baluchistan in the purview of Pakistan. For formulation of policies
and plans aimed at developing, a suitable operational strategy for minimizing and
eliminating, to the extent possible, such disparities, identification of socio-economically
depressed regions is a prerequisite. For this purpose z-score based standard score additive
model (SSAM) for inequality measurements have been introduced. In the present era,
technological advances have improved the researchers capacity to observe and analyze
50

Huda, et al., 2011

phenomena that occur over micro to macro matrixes. The modification or increased use of
new statistical tools in various disciplines provides support to researchers to increase their
capacity of analysis in their studies.
The present study is a pioneering work in the context of the two provinces, Sindh and Baluchistan
of Pakistan, focusing on the varying dimensions of social and economic inequalities in spatial
perspective, based on the inter relationship of a gamut of factors represented by an array of
selected relevant variables. After the identification and delineation of inequality regions and
analysis of their contributory factors, strategies for a more just spatial social order may be
suggested for amelioration of disparities.
2

METHODOLOGY

No project can survive for long if the data produced are not put to proper use and this
is possible by quantitative methods. The traditional method of measuring inequality are
Lorenze Curve, which is closely related to the Gini-Coefficient, Williamsons Coefficient of
Variation and computation of the Location Quotient, Schutz Coefficient of Equality and
Theils Index, Joint Count Statistics, etc. However, these are measures employed for the
measurement of disparities on a limited scale, i.e. they have the limitation of being methods
of bi-variate interrelationship and are cumbersome. Therefore, in order to undertake a more
comprehensive study based on a wide array of variables the SSAM has been used to arrive at
a composite picture. The present study based on Census 1998 database is followed by two
major steps. (1) Selection of variables and (2) SSAM for disparities.
2.1 Selection of Variables
In regional planning, analysis of QOL has bounded within a range of indicators that
represent components in human well-being. Indicators provide reasons in the context of
quality assurance, to which the following definition can be employed: a specially selected
measure or attribute that may indicate and point to good or poor quality. (Ader et al., 2001).
While there is an abundance of different types of governments promoting social and
economic welfare which have been suggested in several literatures, none can be considered as
one that would best support the construction of a good set of internationally applicable
social and economic indicators (Kalimo, 2005). In the research and development of regional
planning, selection of indicators depends on the purpose of the study and mental level of the
people (Diener, et al., 1995, Diener, and Suh, 1997 and Rahman, et al., 2005).
For the representation of well-being many terms may be used, but the most commonly used
terms are quality of life, standards of living, human well-being and welfare. Due to
unequivocal meaning of those terms, sometimes various problems have been observed
(Veenhoven, 2000 and 2008). In the study of social sciences, it is generally assumed that
individuals behavior is guided by the goal of seeking a higher level of the QOL and that
actual behavior should be seen as its reflection. However, in economic research utility
provides an alternative concept to QOL, while psychologists use the term, satisfaction or
happiness. A massive variety of literature is helping promote the study of well-being.
QOL is a multidimensional concept, which has many distinct domains (Hirschberg et al.,
2001). QOL is a broad term that encompasses notions of a good life, a valued life, a
satisfying life, and a happy life (McGregor et al., 2006). In what follows an attempt has been
made to select a set of indicators suitable for showing social and economic disparities.
In multivariate analysis, a diversified collection of variables helps to depict the overall scenario of
the study area while their grouping or categorization assists in a comprehensive evaluation of
specific aspects under consideration. (Diener, and Diener2001; Graham, and Felton, 2006 and
Copestake, 2007).
51

Social and economic disparities, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakistan - A comparative study

Too many indicators that cannot be combined into an overall indicator or a set of sectoral
indicators fail to represent a summary view. At the same time, too few would gloss over
important trends that need to be noted. As a compromise, it has been thought best to pick up
one key indicator to reflect the progress towards each major goal with a few supplementary
indicators to reflect related trends or important components of the major goals. Social
indicators have been grouped under the following main heads:
1.
Health and Nutrition (HN)
2.
Housing and Environment (HE)
3.
Education and Culture (EC)
4.
Social Welfare (SW)
5.
Urbanization (U)
Similarly, Economic indicators have been categorized as follows:
6.
Income, Wealth and Consumption (IWC)
7.
Occupational Structure (OS)
8.
Agricultural Development (AD)
9.
Industrial Development (ID)
and overall study of variables,
10.
Composite Social and Economic Inequality (CSEI)
In all, forty-seven variables have been included in the study. A list of the variables along with
abbreviations used in the present study has been given in Table 1.
Table 1
Selected Variables
CBR:
HC:
H
:
BAPHC&H
D:
LHW:
CIV:
SNU:
HP:
NOH:
ARC:
PH:
HUE:
HUPW:
HUG:
PO:
HTRA:
HTRP:
HTRTRN:
L:
PE:
M:
G+:
S:
ES:
STR:

Crude Birth Rate

Percentage of Public Health Centers / Total Population
Percentage of Hospitals / Total Population
Percentage of Beds available in Public Health Centers and Hospitals / Total Population
Percentage of Doctors / Total Population
Lady Health Workers / Total Female Population
Percentage of Children Immunized & Vaccinated (Less than 10 years)
Standard Nutrition Units
Percentage of Houses to Population Age 18 & above
Percentage of Non-Ownership of Households
Average Room Congestion
Percentage of Pacca Houses / Total Households
Percentage of Housing Units Electrified
Percentage of Housing Units with inside Potable Water
Percentage of Housing Units with fuel Gas connection
Proportion of Post Offices / Population Density
Percentage of High Type Road / Total Area of the District
Proportion of High Type Road Per Thousand Population
Percentage of High Type Road to Total Road Network
Percentage of Literate
Percentage of Primary Educated / Total Literate
Percentage of Matriculate / Total Literate
Percentage of Graduates and above / Total Literate
Percentage of Schools / Total School Going Age (4-16 years)
Percentage of Enrolled Student / Total School Going Age (4-16 years)
Student Teacher Ratio

52

Huda, et al., 2011

SCCH:
UP:
PD:
S&TW:
CC:
PS:
NM:
GDP
CLAW:
TRH:
IS:
DAP:
W:
PW:
SW:
TW:
UR:
P_H:
P_W:
IW_W:
VA_IW:

Percentage of Seating Capacity in Cinema Halls / Population

(Age 10 & Above)
Percentage of Urban Population
Population Density
Percentage of Secondary and Tertiary Workers / Total Workers
Percentage of Cognizable Crimes / Population (Age 14 & Above)
Percentage of Police Station / Population (Age 14 & Above)
Percentage of Never Married / Population (Age 18 & Above)
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita
Ratio of Cultivable Land per Agricultural Workers
Percentage of Three Roomed Houses / Total Households
Percentage of Information Services Availed Houses / Total Houses
Dependent to Economically Active Population
Percentage of Workers / Economically Active Population
(Age 10 & Above)
Percentage of Primary Workers / Total Workers
Percentage of Secondary Workers / Total Workers
Percentage of Tertiary Workers / Total Workers
Unemployment Rate
Productivity per Hectare
Productivity per Worker
Percentage of Industrial Workers to Total Workers
Proportion of Value Added to Industrial Workers

2.2 Standard Scores Additive Model for Disparity Measurements

The identification of broad spatial pattern of inequality requires the derivation of a
single indicator or a restricted set of indicators measuring the major dimensions of the
concept. The SSAM is an easy method for analysis of inequality and other related studies
(Burke, et al. 2006a & 2006b). The derivation of selected variables involves the
transformation of data on individual variables into some kind of standard scores. This can be
achieved in various ways including conversion into ranking and the standardization of the
ranges, but the most common method is to use z-score (Smith, 1973; 1977). A specific
standard i.e., highest value has been selected for each variable in the study area. The Model
has been arranged in steps. For observation i on any variable, the Standard Score (Z i) is
given by:
Xi X
Zi =
S
Where
Xi is the value for observation i
Xi = X Xs
X
is the value of variables
Xs is the specific standard for each variable
is the mean of the specific standard
X
Xs
X =
n
n
is the number of observations
S
is the Standard Deviation

53

Social and economic disparities, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakistan - A comparative study

Xs X
n 1
This model has been applied here to measure inequalities of social and economic parameters.
Firstly, the data has been converted into percentages and units i.e. variables.
Secondly, all selected variables have been arranged in descending order (X).
Thirdly, highest value of each variable has been selected as specific standard for each
variable in the study area (Xs).
Fourthly, the specific standard for each variable has been subtracted from the value of
variables formulated (Xi).
Fifthly, the mean and standard deviation of the set of specific standards for the set of
variables has been calculated.
Finally, Standard Score has been calculated for each variable (Zi).
To remove negativity of Zi the values have been squared. (Zi)2
The Standard Scores Additive Model (SSAM) has been used to develop a Composite Social
and Economic Indicator.
The magnitude of inequality of each set of selected indicators requires the addition of z-score
for each variable in the set. The model is thus:

S=

Ij = Zij
i 1

Where
Ij
is the magnitude of inequality of the set of indicator for district j
Zij
is the standard score on variables i in district j
K
is the number of variables measuring the criterion in question.
District scores on different indicators can thus be directly compared, irrespective of the
number of variables contributing to them. Composite Social and Economic Inequality (CSEI)
for any district will be:
m

CSEI j =

Zij
i 1

or in this case
47

CSEI j =

Zij
i 1

Where
CSEI Composite Social and Economic Inequality for district j
Zij
Sum of Standard Score on variables i in district j
m
is the last variable for district j
I
is the first variable for district j
3

PROVINCIAL STANDARD AND IDEAL PROVINCIAL INEQUALITY

Comparative analysis depends on a standard or fixed value of a variable, which is the

representative maximum beneficiary in that category. In the present study, all sets of
indicators have been analyzed with reference to the highest/lowest value of each variable.
Highest value for positively trending variables (e.g. percentage of electrified housing units)
and lowest value for negatively trending (e.g. volume of cognizable crimes) has been taken as
the provincial standard for analysis and ranking of districts. After the development of
standard variables SSAM provides a convenient method for calculating magnitude of

54

Huda, et al., 2011

inequality. In the present study the procedure for calculating Ideal Provincial Inequality (IPI)
is as follows:
Z
Zs
X 100
IPI = i
Zs
Where:
(i)
(ii)

Zi =

Xi X
S

X Xs
Zs = s
Ss

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Disparity, socio-economic growth and welfare are related approaches. Inequality mainly rises
due to uneven distribution of resources and development. In addition, increased inequality
may culminate in slackened growth rates. Therefore, growth cannot be sustained without an
appropriate income distribution in the country. Welfare means the comprehensive good of
people considered as an aggregate.
In Pakistan there is a crucial problem of unsound growth over the years, and although
economic growth has remained high sometimes, yet it has failed to improve the living
standards of the poor sector of the society. In order to fulfill the needs of the exploding
population as well as to maintain their well being, sustainable growth is an essential prerequisite. Pronounced and prolonged inequality for any income bracket in a country can have
a negative and deprecatory impact on welfare. There are good reasons to focus our attention
on inequality and social welfare from aspects of comprehensive assessment of public policies
and social programs that go beyond an impact on poverty. This realization is important in
order to suggest amelioration policies and has prompted researchers to conduct studies on
income distribution and welfare aspects. Based on results depicted in Table 2, the present
study categorically reveals that Baluchistan is economically and socially more backward
compared to its neighboring province Sindh and the national level.
In its contemporary form, planning arises where communities give way to societies, where
the traditional pattern of social relations, clustered around the extended family, is disrupted
and replaced by a pattern in which the achievement of status, impersonal rules, large
collectivities, and rational administrative organization predominate.
Post independence Pakistan has witnessed, 8 Five Year Plans. The first launched for 1955-60
envisaged 93.52 million PKR, while the allocation in 1993-98 was 752.1 billion. Subsequent
to the 4th five year plan i.e., for 1970-75, the eastern wing of Pakistan was lost and the funds
were totally for West Pakistan, specifically allocated for development of public sectors. After
independence Government of Pakistan introduced social and economic objectives for the
development of quality of life of the nation on the bases of resources of the country, within
the purview of the 1956 Constitution. The 5th plan focused on the basic needs of people, i.e.,
nutrition, clothing, health and education (Isani, 2001), while the sixth plan (1983-88) focused
on womens development. The overall objective of the 8th five year plan was once again,
enhancement of socio-economic development and well-being in Pakistan (Isani, 2001). The 5
years plans have been quite ambitious with reference to social and economic development but
something has definitely been cankerous as Pakistan is still a feudal dominated country, inspite of being an Islamic Republic which seeks the welfare of each and every individual.
Comparative study of indicators pertaining to the provinces of Sindh and Baluchistan to the
national standard has been depicted in Table 2, where highest scores indicate highest
disparities. At the national level, social and economic conditions are better for indicators
55

Social and economic disparities, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakistan - A comparative study

pertaining to HN, HE, EC and CSEI set of indicators, while Sindh leads in U, IWC, OS, AD
and ID. Baluchistan has shown better position for SW.
Table 2
Standard Scores on Nine Criteria of Social and Economic Inequality and on a Composite
Indicator Pakistan, Sindh and Baluchistan 1998
Indicators

IPI

Pakistan

Sindh

Baluchistan

HN

2.04

2.11

2.39

3.74

HE

15.81

20.56

28.16

42.15

EC

6.29

13.77

15.55

18.95

SW

1.03

1.52

1.33

1.03

3.98

5.49

4.35

6.88

IWC

4.38

5.41

5.14

10.69

OS

11.83

14.40

12.68

17.10

AD

9.14

29.74

9.14

20.60

ID

5.22

9.50

5.66

16.49

CSEI

40.65

54.05

60.17

88.75

Percentage Variation of Inequality of Standard Scores Above IPI

Pakistan, Sindh and Balochistan - 1998

250
Pakistan
Sindh
Balochistan

IPI Percentage

200

150

100

50

0
HN

HE

EC

SW

U
ICW
Indicators

Fig.1, shows disparities among indicators

56

OS

AD

ID

CSEI

Huda, et al., 2011

Fig. 1 reveals the magnitude of inequalities. Conditions of health and nutrition at the national
level are much better (3.43 percent) while Baluchistan is 83.09 percent backward to IPI. The
percentage variation of inequality of standard scores above IPI is also better in the national
perspective, the level of development being 36.34 and 118.93 percent backward to IPI,
respectively, while Sindh and Baluchistan show greater inequality. Baluchistan has shown an
ideal situation with reference to SW. Sindh depicts higher urbanization, income, wealth and
consumption dynamics, situation of job opportunities, ideal agricultural productivity and
industrial development. Baluchistan has emerged as a more backward province in comparison
to national and Sindh levels. Fig. 2, is a graphical depiction of sixteen selected variables. It
has not been possible to calculate SNU at the national level due to data constraint. (Data of
FATA and F.R. are restricted). Sindh has shown better performance with reference to CBR,
ideal situation with reference to HP and HUE, HUW and HUG values are higher than
national standards. The figures of D, LHWs, CIV, PH and PO show much better
performance at their respective national levels. Baluchistan shows comparatively better
performance for PHCs, BAPHC&H with reference to both national and Sindh standards.
Fig. 3 is a graphical depiction of the next sixteen variables. The national standards are highest
for HTRA, HTRP, PE, S and SE. High percentage of cognizable crimes coupled with low
facilities of PS has been recorded for Pakistan. A cause of great national social concern.
Sindh shows better than national performance for HTRTRN, L, M, G+, SCCH, PS, UP and
PD and education facilities have been responsible for high urban population and density of
population. Baluchistan reveals poor performance with reference to national and Sindh
standards except for M, S, STR, CC and NM.
Fig.4 is the graphical representation of the last fifteen variables for Pakistan, Sindh and
Baluchistan. Highest values at the national level have been recorded for S&TW, TRH, TW
and VA_IW. Sindh has shown better than national performance for GDP, while it is a little
less in Baluchistan. The performance of IS, W, PW, SW, P_H, P_W, IW_W is much more
appreciable than national standards. Sindh records lower than national standards. In addition
Sindh records lower than national standard for DAP, TW and UE indicating that dependency
and unemployment are much lower in Sindh. Agriculturally as well as industrially, Sindh is
in a better position. Baluchistan has poor standing with reference to IS and SW. IW_W is a
major cause of its economic and hence social backwardness.

Conclusion
A comparative study of social and economic inequality of Sindh and Baluchistan was
deemed essential as these provinces, although, being richly endowed by natural resources,
strategic location, and historical inertia remain the most backward in terms of development
and resource allocation seems to be lagging behind national standards.
Although, both provinces are contiguous in location, there seems to be a yawning gap in the
standards of living and quality of life of their populace, deeming identification of the
causative factors an essential prerequisite for formulation of ameliorative policies for the
reduction or minimization of disparities. One of the main objectives of this paper, the need of
the hour is to develop these areas in order to bring them at par to the national level and to
make them a viable part of the national setup which is possible by recognition of their
contribution to the national development, of which they have always held great potential.
Ethnicity, which is the basis of administrative delineation in Pakistan, has fostered clan
feudalism, hence the relative levels of development and inequality in the country. The
country needs to develop on the lines of Islamic justice and equity, which will promote
equity, hence make inequalities bearable. It is a country which needs incessant development
in order to support its population at a progressively better standard of living.
57

Social and economic disparities, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakistan - A comparative study

Fig.2 Depiction of Variables

58

Huda, et al., 2011

Fig.3 Depiction of Variables

59

Social and economic disparities, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakistan - A comparative study

Fig.4 Depiction of Variables

60

Huda, et al., 2011

REFERENCES
(FBS) Federal Bureau of Statistics, (2001). Socio-Economic Indicators At District Level
Sindh. Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
(FBS) Federal Bureau of Statistics, (2002). Socio-Economic Indicators At District Level
Baluchistan. Statistics Division ,Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
(FBS) Federal Bureau of Statistics, (2004). Social Indicators of Pakistan-2003. Statistics
Division ,Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
(PMDG) Pakistan Millennium Development Goals Reports, (2004). Government of Pakistan.
(PMDG) Pakistan Millennium Development Goals Reports, (2005). Government of Pakistan.
(PMDG) Pakistan Millennium Development Goals Reports, (2006). Government of Pakistan.
(PMDG) Pakistan Millennium Development Goals Reports, (2009). Government of Pakistan.
(PMDG) Pakistan Millennium Development Goals Reports, (2010). Government of Pakistan.
Ader, M., Berensson, K., Carlsson, P., Granath, M., and Urwitz, V., (2001). Quality
indicators for health promotion programmes. Health Promotion International. 16(2): 187-195.
Ahmad, E. and Ludlow, S., (1989). Poverty, Inequality and Growth in Pakistan. The Pakistan
Development Review, 28(4): 831850
Ahmad, M (2000). Estimation and Distribution of Income in Pakistan, Using Micro Data.
The Pakistan Development Review 39:4, 807824.
Alauddin, T., (1975). Mass Poverty in Pakistan: A Further Study. The Pakistan Development
Review, 14(4): 431- 450.
Alderman, H. and Lavy, V., (1996). Household responses to public health services: Cost and
quality tradeoffs. The World Bank Research Observer, 11 (1): 322
Anwar, T. (2003). Trends in Inequality in Pakistan between 1998-99 and 2001-02, The
Pakistan Development Review, 42: 4. 809821
Azfar, J., (1973). The Distribution of Income in Pakistan: 1966-67. Pakistan Economic and
Social Review, 11: 4066.
Bergen, A., (1967). Personal Income Distribution and Personal Savings in Pakistan, 1963-64.
The Pakistan Development Review, 7: 160212.
Blomquist, G. C., Mark C.B. and John P. H., (1988). New Estimates of Quality of Life in
Urban Areas. American Economic Review, 78: 89-107.
Bover, O., (2005). Wealth Effects on Consumption: Microeconomic Estimates from the
Spanish Survey of Household Finances. Madrid, Banco De Espana.
61

Social and economic disparities, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakistan - A comparative study

Burke, F., Huda, S.N., Hamza, S. and Azam, M., (2006a). 8th October 2005 Earthquake:
Analysis of Foreign Aid. Pakistan Horizon, 59(4): 55-67.
Burke, F., Huda, S.N., Hamza, S. and Azam, M., (2006b). Health Inequalities in the Province
of Sindh - A GIS Perspective. Pakistan Journal of Geography, 16(1/2): 73-88.
Chaudhry, M. G., (1982). Green Revolution and Redistribution of Rural Income in Pakistan.
The Pakistan Development Review, 21(2): 173205.
Copestake, J. (2007). Reconnecting wellbeing and development: a view from Peru.
Introduction and overview. Bath: Wellbeing in Developing Countries Research Group
Diener, E., Diener, M and Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of
nations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(5): 851-864)
Diener, E., Suh, E. and Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective wellbeing, Indian
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(1): 24-41
Diener, R. B. and Diener, E. (2001). Making the best of a bad situation: Satisfaction in the
slums of Calcutta., Social Indicators Research, 55: 34-43.
GoP (Government of Pakistan). (1955) First Five Year Plan 1955-60, The Planning
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad
GoP (Government of Pakistan). (1960) Second Five Year Plan 1955-60, The Planning
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad
GoP (Government of Pakistan). (1965) Third Five Year Plan 1955-60, The Planning
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad
GoP (Government of Pakistan). (1970) Fourth Five Year Plan 1955-60, The Planning
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad
GoP (Government of Pakistan). (1977) Fifth Five Year Plan 1955-60, The Planning
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad
GoP (Government of Pakistan). (1983) Sixth Five Year Plan 1955-60, The Planning
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad
GoP (Government of Pakistan). (1988) Seven Five Year Plan 1955-60, The Planning
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad
GoP (Government of Pakistan). (1993) Eighth Five Year Plan 1955-60, The Planning
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad
GoP (Government of Pakistan, (2005). Economic Survey, 2004-05. Finance Division,
Economic Advisers Wing, Islamabad.

62

Huda, et al., 2011

Graham, C. and Felton, A. (2006), Inequality and Happiness: Insights from Latin America.,
Journal of Economic Inequality 4: 107-122.
Hirschberg, J.G., Maasoumi, E. and Slottje, J.D., (2001). Clusters of Attributes and Wellbeing in the USA. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3): 445-460.
Hussain, A., Kemal, A.R., Hamid, I.A., Ali, I., Mumtaz, K. and Qutub, A., (2003). Pakistan
National Development Report-2003: Poverty, Growth and Governance, UNDP, Pakistan.
Isani, U.A., (2001) Higher Education in Pakistan, Unpublished dissertation, National
University of National Institute of Modern Languages
Islam, S., Munasinghe, M., Clarke, M., (2001). Is Long-Term Economic Growth Sustainable?
Evaluating the Costs and Benefits. Centre for Strategic Economic\ Studies Mimeo, Victoria
University, Melbourne.
Kemal, A. R. (2003) Income Distribution Studies in Pakistan and the Agenda for Future
Research. In Human Condition Report 2003. Centre for Research on Poverty Reduction and
Income Distribution (CRPRID), Islamabad.
Khandkar, R., (1973). Distribution of Income and Wealth in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and
Social Review 11.
Khanna. B.S., (1991). Rural Development in South Asia-2-Pakistan: Policies, Programmers
and Organization. Deep & Deep Publication, New Delhi.
Krujik, H. de (1986). Inequality in the Four Provinces of Pakistan. The Pakistan
Development Review 25: 685-706
Krujik, H. de (1987). Inequality in the Four Provinces of Pakistan. The Pakistan
Development Review 26, 659-672
Krujik, H. de and Leeuwen, M.V. (1985) Changes in Poverty and Income Inequality in
Pakistan during the 1970s. The Pakistan Development Review 24, 407-422
Lavy, V. and Germain, J. (1994). Quality and Cost in Health Care Choice in Developing
Countries. LSMS Working Paper 105. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Liu, B. (1976). Quality of Life Indicators in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Praeger, New York.
Mahmood, M. (2007). The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan-1973. Pakistan Law
Times Publications, Karachi.
Mahmood, Z., (1984). Income inequality in Pakistan An analysis of existing evidence. The
Pakistan Development Review, 28: 831-850.
Malik, S. (1992) Rural Poverty in Pakistan. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis Submitted to the
University of Sussex.
McGregor, P. (2006). Economic growth, inequality and poverty: An analysis of policy in a
two period framework. Journal of International Development, 7(4): 619-635.
63

Social and economic disparities, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakistan - A comparative study

Moro, M., Brereton, F., Ferreira, S. and Clinch, J. P., (2008). Ranking quality of life using
subjective well-being data. Ecological Economics, 65: 448-460.
Mwabu, G. M., Ainsworth M. and Nyamete A., (1993). Quality of Medical Care and Choice
of Medical Treatment in Kenya: An Empirical Analysis. The Journal of Human Resources,
28: 838-862.
Naseem, S.M., (1973). Mass Poverty in Pakistan, Some Preliminary Findings. The Pakistan
Development Review, 12: 317360.
Pandey, M.D. and Nathwani, J.S. (1997). Measurement of Socio-Economic Inequality Using
the Life-Quality Index. Social Indicators Research, 39: 187-202.
Rahman, T., Ron, C., Mittelhammer, and Wandschneider, P., (2005). Measuring the Quality
of Life across Countries: A Sensitivity Analysis of Well-being Indices, WIDER. Research
Paper No. 2005/06: 1-34.
Roback, J. (1982) Wages, Rent, and the Quality of Life. The Journal of Political Economy,
90(6): 1257-1258.
Rosen, S., (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure
competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82: 34-55.
Smith, D. M., (1994). Geography and Social Justice. Oxford, Blackwell.
Smith, D.M., (1973). The Geography of Social Well Being in the United States. New York,
McGraw Hill.
Smith, D.M., (1977). Human Geography: A Welfare Approach. Edward Arnold, London,
UK.
Sorensen, A., (2006). Welfare states, family inequality, and equality of opportunity. Research
in Social Stratification and Mobility, 23(4): 405-411.
Ultee, W., (2006). Problem shifts in the study of welfare states and societal inequalities.
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 23(4): 405-411.
Veenhoven, R. (2008). Sociological theories of subjective wellbeing, in Eid, M. and Larsen,
R. (Eds), The Science of Subjective Wellbeing, Guilford Publications, New York, NY: 44-61.
Veenhoven, R., (2000). The Four Qualities of Life: Ordering Concepts and Measures of
Good Life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1: 1-39.

64

Huda, et al., 2011

Annexure
Illustration of SSAM Disparities Application
Step I: Selection of variables for study
Variables
Pakistan Sindh Baluchistan
% HP(18)
30.51
31.60
30.38
% NOH
18.82
23.10
13.37
AC
03.10
03.33
02.80
%PH/H
58.50
46.70
14.19
%HUE
70.50
70.08
46.62
%HUW
28.10
37.17
25.31
%HUG
20.20
32.43
09.84
NPO/PD
80.08
08.38
31.00
LHTR/Area
00.17
00.15
00.01
HTR/P
01.01
00.72
00.78
% HTR/TRN
55.40
87.09
21.35
Step II: Selection of Standards among Selected Variables
Variables
Standard
Variables
% HP(18)
31.60
% NOH
13.37
AC
02.80
%PH/H
58.50
%HUE
70.50
%HUW
37.17
%HUG
32.43
NPO/PD
80.08
LHTR/Area
00.17
HTR/P
00.78
% HTR/TRN
87.09
Step III: Calculation of Xi
Variables
Standard Pakistan Xi = X - Xs (+)
Xs
X
Xi = Xs X (-)
% HP(18)
31.60
30.51
-10.09
% NOH
13.37
18.82
-50.45
AC
02.80
03.10
-00.30
%PH/H
58.50
58.50
00.00
%HUE
70.50
07.50
00.00
%HUW
37.17
28.10
-90.07
%HUG
32.43
02.20
-12.23
NPO/PD
80.08
80.08
00.00
LHTR/Area
00.17
00.17
00.00
HTR/P
00.78
01.01
-00.23
% HTR/TRN
87.09
55.40
-31.69
37.68
X
S
32.24

65

Social and economic disparities, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakistan - A comparative study

Step IV: Calculation of z-score

% HP(18)
% NOH
AC
%PH/H
%HUE
%HUW
%HUG
NPO/PD
LHTR/Area
HTR/P
% HTR/TRN

Standard Pakistan
Xs
X
Xi = X - Xs
31.60
30.51
-10.09
13.37
18.82
-50.45
02.80
03.10
-00.30
58.50
58.50
00.00
70.50
70.50
00.00
37.17
28.10
-90.07
32.43
20.20
-12.23
80.08
80.08
00.00
00.17
00.17
00.00
00.78
10.01
-00.23
87.09
55.40
-31.69

Zi =

Ij

Xi X
S

(Zi )
-1.20
-1.34
-1.18
-1.17
-1.17
-1.45
-1.55
-1.17
-1.17
-1.18
-2.15

1.45
1.79
1.39
1.37
1.37
2.10
2.40
1.37
1.37
1.38
4.63

Zij
i 1

Note: Value of mean depends on differences of variables and varies

Value of standard deviation variables differences and varies

66