Background
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted in 2015 by all the members of United Nations including India. It is a blueprint with 17 goals[1]which guide all the countries to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all by 2030. In India, NITI Aayog is the SDGs’ torchbearer, which in 2018has designed and developed SDG India Index & Dashboard[2] to measure the progress towards 2030 agenda at the national and sub-national levels. The composite score ranges from 0 to 100. In its first report back in 2018, the agency covered 13 out of 17 Goals but the recent report released in the FY 2020-2021 covered all 17 Goals, 70 targets, and 115 indicators.
The increased coverage although indicates India’s efforts to continuously strengthen the monitoring systems for SDG achievements the consecutive worst ranking of Bihar makes it imperative to look more closely into the indicators, which are holding back the state’s performance. The state has been adjudged to be the worst performer consecutively for 3 years despite the fact that there are numerous relevant schemes being run in the State which should have improved the situation. Thus, a deep dive into the goals which have received the worst score is crucial to bring them into limelight and grab the attention of policy makers. This paper attempts to analyse the SDG India Index 2020-21 reports[3] and provide a comprehensive overview of the goals and related indicators where the state has been ranked the last or second last.
[1] SDG1: No Poverty, SDG2: Zero Hunger, SDG3: Good Health and Well-Being, SDG4: Quality Education, SDG5: Gender Equality, SDG6: Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG7: Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, SDG10: Reduced Inequalities, SDG11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, SDG12: Responsible Consumption and Production, SDG 13: Climate Action, SDG15: Life on Land, SDG16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, SDG17: Partnerships
[2] NITI Aayog, Government of India. SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020-21. Available fromhttps://sdgindiaindex.niti.gov.in/#/
[3]NITI Aayog, Government of India. SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020-21. Available from https://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/SDG_3.0_Final_04.03.2021_Web_Spreads.pdf [Accessed 12th September 2021]
Methodology
The paper has dived deep into the five SDGs where Bihar has been ranked the last and the second last namely; SDG1: No Poverty (ranked last), SDG2: Zero Hunger (ranked second last), SDG 4:Quality Education (ranked last), SDG9: Industry, Innovation, and infrastructure (ranked last), and SDG13: Climate Action (ranked last).
Performance of Bihar on SDGs Indications (2019-20 and 2020-21)
Bihar’s score has improved from 50 in 2019 to 52 in 2021 but out of 15 goals 8 has received less than 50 score. Moreover, the state has been ranked last and second last for 5 of the goals.
The composite score of Bihar has increased over the years from 50 in 2019 to 52 in 2020 with the improvement in 10 out of 15[1]of the goals (Table 1). But, this improvement is not impressive as 8 out of these 10 goals scored less than 50. Moreover, out of these 8 goals, which scored less than 50, a decrease in scores was found for 5 goals. Apparently, only 7 out of 15 indicators are performing well demanding special attention for 8 of the goals, which has scored less than or equal to 50. But analysis of all indicators are out of this paper’s scope as it mainly focuses on 5 of the goals which have attracted last or second last rank and is discussed in details in the next section.
Eight indicators has improved its SDG score in the FY 2020-21 from 2018-2019:SDG3: Good Health and Well-Being, SDG5: Gender Equality, SDG6: Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG7: Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, SDG12: Responsible Consumption and Production, SDG15: Life on Land, SDG16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.
[1] SDG14 (life below water applies) and SDG17 (partnerships for the goals )are excluded because the former is applied to 9 coastal States, and the latter is qualitatively analysed.
SDG1: No Poverty, SDG2: Zero Hunger, SDG3: Good Health and Well-Being, SDG4: Quality Education, SDG5: Gender Equality, SDG6: Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG7: Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, SDG10: Reduced Inequalities, SDG11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, SDG12: Responsible Consumption and Production, SDG 13: Climate Action, SDG15: Life on Land, SDG16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, SDG17: Partnerships
[1] NITI Aayog, Government of India. SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020-21. Available fromhttps://sdgindiaindex.niti.gov.in/#/
[1]NITI Aayog, Government of India. SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020-21. Available from https://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/SDG_3.0_Final_04.03.2021_Web_Spreads.pdf [Accessed 12th September 2021]
[1] SDG14 (life below water applies) and SDG17 (partnerships for the goals )are excluded because the former is applied to 9 coastal States, and the latter is qualitatively analysed.
Five goals’ score has decreased from previous year:SDG1: No poverty, SDG8: Decent Work and Economic Opportunities, SDG9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, SDG10: Reduced Inequalities, and SDG13: Climate Action.
Goals whose score grabbed last rank for Bihar:SDG1: No Poverty, SDG2: Zero Hunger, SDG 4:Quality Education, SDG9: Industry, Innovation, and infrastructure, and SDG13: Climate Action.
*The scores highlighted in bold are those value has decreased from previous year.
Deep-dive into the five lowest ranked performance indicators
Each SDG’s has been scored by NITI Aayog by measuring the pre-decided parameters. The following paragraphs will highlight the indicators for each the state has received the last and second last ranks as discussed in previous section.
SDG 1: No Poverty
Bihar has been ranked the last in SDG1 with a score of 32. Only 12.30 percent of the household has any usual member covered by a health scheme or health insurance. And, one-third of the population lives below the national poverty line.
Under this goal a total of 5 indicators have been measured as shown in Table 2.While the state need to focus on all the indicators it is very clear from the Table 2 below that the government needs to focus on increasing the health insurance coverage and lowering the percentage of people living in poverty. As shown in table 2 only 12.30 percent of the household has any usual member covered by a health scheme or health insurance, which is almost half of national coverage and way behind the target despite a dedicated scheme Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana which entitle almost half of the state’s families(1.08 crore) for healthcare coverage of Rs 5 Lakhs[1]. Another report mentioned that 74.4 percent of the state’s population pays out of pocket[2] (OOP) for the health services the healthcare coverage is abysmally low. Evidence suggests that high OOP medical expenditure can push the population into poverty[3]. Thus, there is no doubt that out of many dimensions which are responsible for high head count ration as per multidimensional poverty index (52.50% in comparison to 27.90% nationally) non-coverage of health under any health insurance is one of the critical reasons.
[1]National Health Authority, Government of India. PM-JAY State Health Profile-Bihar. Available from https://pmjay.gov.in/bihar-profile [Accessed 20th September 2021]
[2] National Health Systems Resource Centre. National Health Accounts Estimates for India (2015-16), New Delhi, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2018. p.4
[3]Pandey A, Ploubidis GB, Clarke L, Dandona L. Trends in catastrophic health expenditure in India: 1993 to 2014. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2018 Jan 1;96(1):18.
[5]National Health Authority, Government of India. PM-JAY State Health Profile-Bihar. Available from https://pmjay.gov.in/bihar-profile [Accessed 20th September 2021]
[6] National Health Systems Resource Centre. National Health Accounts Estimates for India (2015-16), New Delhi, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2018. p.4
Table 2: Performance of SDG1 Indicators
|
Indicators of SDG1 |
Bihar |
India |
Target 2030 |
|
Percentage of population living below the national poverty line |
33.74 |
21.92 |
10.96 |
|
Head count ratio as per the Multidimensional Poverty Index (%) |
52.50 |
27.90 |
13.95 |
|
Percentage of households with any usual member covered by a health scheme or health insurance |
12.30 |
28.70 |
100 |
|
Persons provided employment as a percentage of persons who demanded employment under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) |
78.60 |
84.44 |
98.95 |
|
Percentage of the population (out of total eligible population) receiving social protection benefits under Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) |
87.97 |
91.38 |
100 |
|
Percentage of households living in katcha houses |
8.20 |
4.20 |
0 |
|
SDG 1 Index Score |
32 |
60 |
100 |
SDG 2: Zero Hunger
Bihar has been ranked the second last among the 28 states with a score of 31.Despite an overwhelming coverage of 99.85 percent population under NFSA, 2013 the nutritional status of women, children and adolescent girls is worrisome; 42.0 percentage of children under five years are stunted and 58.3 percentage of pregnant women aged 15-49 years are anaemic.
The state has been performing well in only one of the indicator under this goal i.e. coverage under NFSA, 2013 at 99.85 percent. Despite such an overwhelming coverage under national food security act whose objective is to provide for food and nutritional security by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food the nutritional status of the state is contradictory. The critical indicators in this goal, which is containing the performance of the states are related to malnutrition among children, anaemia among women and adolescent, and crop production and gross added value. While the scores are more or less at par with national score it is really not great because even the national score does not stand anywhere close to the target. A study by Sharma in 2020 indicated that India including Bihar will miss SDG goal, which is 5.33% related to anaemia among reproductive age group women (15-49 years)[1].
The current nutrition status is despite the existence of a plethora of dedicated schemes for improving the nutrition status of children and women. Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), one of the world’s largest and most unique outreach programme for children has been running since 1975[2].Still the incidence of malnutrition has not improved in the state. According to a government estimates approximately 50 percent of the expenditure is diverted and the quality of meals provided is of not good quality, which again is provided on 60 percent of the days[3]. Furthermore, Iron Folic Acid supplementation scheme is there to control iron deficiency anaemia still the percentage of anaemic girls in the age group 15-19 years has increased from 61.0 percent to 65.7 percent between NFHS4 and NFHS5.[4]Furthermore, all these determinants are interlinked to each other for instance a child who is anaemic will grow into an anaemic adult who will then deliver an anaemic child[5]leading to a vicious cycle. Sadly, health department in Bihar is able to utilize only 73 to 78 percent of total plan and non-plan budget.[6]
[1]Mathew, J. L., Khan, A. M., Chandra, J., & Gupta, V. (2021). Cross-sectional Study to Identify the Range of Haemoglobin Levels in Normal Infants, Children, and Adolescents in India. Indian Paediatrics, 58(8), 786-792.
[2]Ministry of Women & Child Development Government of India. Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme. Available from: https://icds-wcd.nic.in/icds.aspx[Accessed 17th September 2021].
[3]Shah N.B. Quantitative Baseline Assessment of Child Nutritional Status and Performance of ICDS Supplementary Nutrition Programme in Bihar. International Growth Centre. 2012. Available from https://www.theigc.org/project/quantitative-baseline-assessment-of-child-nutritional-status-and-performance-of-icds-supplementary-nutrition-programme-in-bihar-2/[Accessed 17th September 2021]
[4]International Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5). Available from http://rchiips.org/NFHS/NFHS-5_FCTS/NFHS-5%20State%20Factsheet%20Compendium_Phase-I.pdf [Accessed on 16th September 2021].
[5]Abu-Ouf, Noran M, and Mohammed M Jan. The impact of maternal iron deficiency and iron deficiency anaemia on child’s health. Saudi medical journal vol. 36,2 (2015): 146-9. doi:10.15537/smj.2015.2.10289
[6]Berman P, Bhawalkar M, Jha R. Tracking Financial Resources for Primary Health Care in Uttar Pradesh, India. A Report of the Resource Tracking and Management Project. 2017 Jun.
[7]Pandey A, Ploubidis GB, Clarke L, Dandona L. Trends in catastrophic health expenditure in India: 1993 to 2014. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2018 Jan 1;96(1):18.
[8]Mathew, J. L., Khan, A. M., Chandra, J., & Gupta, V. (2021). Cross-sectional Study to Identify the Range of Haemoglobin Levels in Normal Infants, Children, and Adolescents in India. Indian Paediatrics, 58(8), 786-792.
[9]Ministry of Women & Child Development Government of India. Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme. Available from: https://icds-wcd.nic.in/icds.aspx[Accessed 17th September 2021].
[10]Shah N.B. Quantitative Baseline Assessment of Child Nutritional Status and Performance of ICDS Supplementary Nutrition Programme in Bihar. International Growth Centre. 2012. Available from https://www.theigc.org/project/quantitative-baseline-assessment-of-child-nutritional-status-and-performance-of-icds-supplementary-nutrition-programme-in-bihar-2/[Accessed 17th September 2021]
Table 3: Performance of SDG2 Indicators
|
Indicators of SDG2 |
Bihar |
India |
Target 2030 |
|
Percentage of beneficiaries covered under National Food Security Act (NFSA),2013 |
99.85 |
99.51 |
100 |
|
Percentage of children under five years who are underweight |
38.7 |
33.4 |
1.9 |
|
Percentage of children under five years who are stunted |
42.0 |
34.7 |
6.0 |
|
Percentage of pregnant women aged 15-49 years who are anaemic |
58.3 |
50.4 |
25.2 |
|
Percentage of adolescents aged 10–19 years who are anaemic |
28.1 |
28.4 |
14.2 |
|
Rice and wheat produced annually per unit area (Kg/Ha) |
2374.02 |
2995.21 |
5322.08 |
|
Gross Value Added (constant prices) in agriculture per worker (in Lakhs/ worker) |
0.29 |
0.71 |
1.22 |
|
SDG 2 Index Score |
31 |
47 |
100 |
SDG 4: Quality Education
Bihar has been ranked the last among the 28 states with score 29. Despite highest share of state’s budget allocation for almost 10 years to education department the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education remains at 13.6 percent only and Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) at secondary level (class 9-10) remains at 58
The state has maintained a good score in a few of the indicators like adjusted net enrolment in elementary education, access to basic education and others. But, gross enrolment ration in both higher secondary and higher education is a matter of concern; apparently, it is the lowest in the country and will affect the percentage of literate in future as well which at present stands at just 65 percent. Moreover, the pupil teachers’ ration is double of what is required and the state’s performance with regard to PwD’s education is also way behind the 2030 target. Interestingly , these status is despite the fact that Bihar has been allocating the highest share of state’s budget to education department for over a decade[1] even for the FY 2021-22 the education department has received 19 percent of total expenditure and is higher than the average allocation (15.8%) for education by all the states (2020-21 BE)[2].
[1] Bihar Finance Department, Budget. Available fromhttps://state.bihar.gov.in/finance/SectionInformation.html?editForm&rowId=3373 [Accessed 15th September 2021]
[2] PRS India. Bihar Budget Analysis 2021-22. Available from https://prsindia.org/budgets/states/bihar-budget-analysis-2021-22 [ Accessed 20th September 2021].
[1]International Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5). Available from http://rchiips.org/NFHS/NFHS-5_FCTS/NFHS-5%20State%20Factsheet%20Compendium_Phase-I.pdf [Accessed on 16th September 2021].
[1]Abu-Ouf, Noran M, and Mohammed M Jan. The impact of maternal iron deficiency and iron deficiency anaemia on child’s health. Saudi medical journal vol. 36,2 (2015): 146-9. doi:10.15537/smj.2015.2.10289
[1]Berman P, Bhawalkar M, Jha R. Tracking Financial Resources for Primary Health Care in Uttar Pradesh, India. A Report of the Resource Tracking and Management Project. 2017 Jun.
[1] Bihar Finance Department, Budget. Available fromhttps://state.bihar.gov.in/finance/SectionInformation.html?editForm&rowId=3373 [Accessed 15th September 2021]
Table 4: Performance of SDG4 Indicators
|
Indicators of SDG4 |
Bihar |
India |
Target 2030 |
|
Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio (ANER) in elementary education (class 1-8 |
86.54 |
87.26 |
100 |
|
Average annual dropout rate at secondary level (class 9-10) |
28.46 |
17.87 |
8.8 |
|
Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher secondary (class 11-12) |
26.39 |
50.14 |
100 |
|
Percentage of students in grade VIII achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in terms of nationally defined learning outcomes to be attained by the pupils at the end of the grade |
78.3 |
71.9 |
100 |
|
Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education (18-23 years) |
13.6 |
26.3 |
50 |
|
Percentage of persons with disability who have completed at least secondary education (15 years and above) |
18.5 |
19.3 |
100 |
|
Gender Parity Index (GPI) for higher education (18-23 years |
0.79 |
1 |
1 |
|
Percentage of persons who are literate (15 years and above |
64.70 |
74.6 |
100 |
|
Percentage of schools with access to basic infrastructure (electricity, drinking water) |
88.66 |
84.76 |
100 |
|
Percentage of trained teachers at secondary level (class 9-10) |
78.44 |
82.62 |
100 |
|
Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) at secondary level (class 9-10 |
58 |
21 |
30 |
|
SDG 4 Index Score |
29 |
57 |
100 |
SDG9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
Bihar has been ranked last in SDG9 with a total score of 24. The state has scored only 14.48 out of 100 in the India Innovation Score and only 2.85 on LEADs. Lower LEADS indicates the reason of lower score for other indicators as well.
Bihar has done applaudable job by connecting 97.18 percentages of targeted habitations by all-weather roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana but it has way behind in other indicators which clearly indicate that the state needs to focus on investing in innovation and resilient infrastructure as they are crucial drivers for economic growth and development. Logistics are a life line of economy and development, the lower LEADS score indicates the lack of welcoming environment which makes the State attractive for doing business. The percentage share of GVA in manufacturing is just 7.21 percent and manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment is mere 5.30 percent. Furthermore, the state has scored only 14.48 out of 100 in the India Innovation Score. The state needs to explore options as to how to use the available resources efficiently and attract innovation and industries, which are really important to facilitate sustainable development. For instance, according to LEADS 2019 reports the state should widen the road to foster seamless connectivity, develop of bypass, incentivise cold storage solutions etc. [1]
[1]Ministry of Commerce and industry, Government of India. Logistics Ease Across Different States, 2019.Available from https://commerce.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/MOC_637051086790146385_LEAD_Report-2.pdf[Accessed 20th September 2021.pp.76-67
[1] PRS India. Bihar Budget Analysis 2021-22. Available from https://prsindia.org/budgets/states/bihar-budget-analysis-2021-22 [ Accessed 20th September 2021].
Table 5: Performance of SDG9 Indicators
|
Indicators of SDG9 |
Bihar |
India |
Target 2030 |
|
Percentage of targeted habitations connected by all-weather roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGS) |
97.18 |
97.65 |
100 |
|
Score as per Logistics Ease Across Different States (LEADS) report |
2.85 |
3.18 |
5 |
|
Percentage Share of GVA in manufacturing to total GVA (current prices) |
7.21 |
16.1 |
25 |
|
Manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment |
5.30 |
12.07 |
20 |
|
Innovation score as per the India Innovation Index |
14.48 |
35.59 |
100 |
|
Number of mobile connections per 100 persons (mobile tele density) |
50.65 |
84.38 |
100 |
|
Number of internet subscribers per 100 population |
30.99 |
55.41 |
100 |
|
SDG 9 Index Score |
24 |
57 |
100 |
SDG 13: Climate Action
The state had developed Bihar State Action Plan[1] on Climate Change in 2015 yet out of all the goals that has been scored by NITI Aayog Climate Action has received the lowest score i.e. 16. Loosing 4308 years of healthy life to ill health due to air pollution is critical.
The state has received 16 out of 100 score and has been ranked the last among all the states in India. Another assessment report on climate vulnerability, 2019-20 also mentioned that Bihar has the highest number of districts vulnerable to climate change; out of total 50 districts 14 are in Bihar. The state has not at all performed well in any of the SDG13 indicators but two of the indicators really needs serious attention namely Co2 saved from LSE bulbs per 1,000 population and DALY rate due to air pollution (per 100,000 population). Other indicators have reached more or less half of the path but score of DALYs and CO2 related indicator is way behind the 2030 target. Human resources is the asset for Bihar (majority of Bihar’s population is youth) but with 4308 years of healthy life lost to ill-health due to air pollution is unaffordable for the state’s overall development. Despite the existence of a well-developed action plan with climate change mitigation strategies like staggering of working hours of offices, educational institutes, etc, installation of energy efficient street lights with LED lamps the current status indicate towards mere poor implementation.
Table 13: Performance of SDG13 Indicators
|
Indicators of SDG13 |
Bihar |
India |
Target 2030 |
|
Number of human lives lost per 1 crore population due to extreme weather events |
Null |
15.44 |
0 |
|
Disaster preparedness score as per Disaster Resilience Index |
19.5 |
19.20 |
50 |
|
Percentage of renewable energy out of total installed generating capacity (including allocated shares) |
19.5 |
36.37 |
40 |
|
CO2 saved from LED bulbs per 1,000 population (Tonnes) |
16.65 |
28.24 |
103.22 |
|
Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) rate attributable to air pollution (per 1,00,000 population) |
4308 |
3469 |
1442 |
|
SDG 13 Index Score |
16 |
54 |
100 |
[1]Government of Bihar. Bihar State Action Plan on Climate Change (2015). Available from http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Bihar-State-Action-Plan-on-Climate-Change-2.pdf
[1]Ministry of Commerce and industry, Government of India. Logistics Ease Across Different States, 2019.Available from https://commerce.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/MOC_637051086790146385_LEAD_Report-2.pdf[Accessed 20th September 2021.pp.76-67
[1]Government of Bihar. Bihar State Action Plan on Climate Change (2015). Available from http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Bihar-State-Action-Plan-on-Climate-Change-2.pdf
Conclusion:
Clearly, Bihar has enough resources and policies to improve the current status of the state. The state has done it successfully for many schemes and policies. The state for instance has implemented many PMGSY, which has connected 97 percent of targeted habitation. Similarly, the state has improved the basic infrastructure facilities in schools, has covered 99.85 percent of the population under NFSA, 2013, and has reached 87.97 percent of eligible beneficiaries under PMMVY. However, in other space it has not done so well despite availability of fund and policies. For instance, education department has been receiving the highest share of the state’s budget for a decade still the level of literacy is below 70 percent and the gross enrolment in higher education is the lowest in the country. There is no crisis of fund for extending PMJAY scheme to the entitled beneficiaries with the central government and state government sharing the fund still the percentage of households with any usual member covered by a health scheme or health insurance is just 12 percent. Moreover, the health department is able to utilize only 73-78 percent of total plan and non-plan allocations. Likewise, there is sufficient fund for containing malnutrition in the state through various schemes like ICDS, Supplementary Nutrition Programme, and Iron Folic Acid Supplementation etc. As far as tacking the climate change is concerned the state government itself has designed action plan for mitigating it still the state has the lowest score and the last rank in climate action.
All the evidences indicate that sheer existence of fund or policy is not sufficient to bring in the required change in the state but political willingness is a must. If a government is able to implement some scheme successfully why it is not able to do it likewise for others. Bihar government need to prioritize working at war foot on a few indicators like increasing the health insurance coverage, malnutrition (stunting and underweight among children), anaemia (adolescent and pregnant women), climate mitigation related to Co2 emission and air pollution, innovation and industry, enrolment in higher education and pupil teacher ratio, and others. The state needs to ensure efficient utilisation of resources, close monitoring of programme implementation, and review of achievements against agreed plan for action. For example, the state should review the achievement against the actions agreed on Bihar State Action Plan on Climate Change in 2015. Similarly, it should quarterly or semi-quarterly expenditure review for each department for proper utilisation of fund. If there is a lack of competency among the employees it should focus on building their capacity. Overall, a greater introspection and political willingness is required with adoption of immediate corrective measures, if the state is in want to achieve the 2030 agenda.
Author – Beauty Kumari
GHP – London School of Economics and Political Sciences(LSE), MBA – XISS, Ranchi (Gold Medalist)
Picture – UN
