Conditional β -convergence model estimates

When estimating convergence rates for the states at the national level, it is not ideal to assume that all the states have the same socioeconomic steady state. Therefore, to account for and disentangle the effects of socioeconomic factors on fertility rates, I have estimated conditional β-convergence model by incorporating the control variables.

Conditional β-convergence gives the convergence rate, if fertility would not have been influenced by other factors. This study estimated the conditional β-convergence by adding two critical socioeconomic covariates namely a) the percentage of literate population and b) the poverty ratio to Barro regression model.

Table 6.3 presents the results of conditional β-convergence estimates. Similar to absolute β-convergence estimates, conditional β-convergence estimates also showed the evidence of divergence in fertility rates across states in India during 1981-2009. Unlike, piecewise convergence estimates of absolute β-convergence model that showed divergence in the initial period and convergence in the recent period, the piecewise

142 convergence estimates of conditional β-convergence model showed evidence of fertility divergence for all the three periods (1981-1991, 1991-2001, and 2001-2009). However, the rate of divergence declined for the recent period (i.e. 14% in 1981-91 declined to just 1% in 2001-09). Overall, the conditional β-convergence model estimates showed the evidence of convergence in terms of absolute β-convergence estimates for the recent period disappeared after disentangling of the variation in literacy and poverty ratios across the states. This indicates the strong connection between fertility convergence and socioeconomic steady state conditions of the states.

β-convergence in total fertility rates by socioeconomic spectrum of major Indian states:

β-convergence estimates for total fertility rates by the socioeconomic groups (Scheduled caste, Scheduled tribe, Other backward caste, Other caste, Hindus, Muslims, Other religion groups, Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer and Richest economic groups [n=12]) across the 15 states (15*12=180 cases) indicated evidence of divergence (β= .02566, p<0.870, S= 2% per annum) for entire period under observation (1992-2006). However, assessments of convergence for shorter interval indicated that fertility rates of socioeconomic groups across the states converged during initial phase of 1992-99 (β= -.82391, p<0.004, S= 29% per annum), but diverged (β= -.23388, p<0.334, S= 13% per annum) during the recent phase of 1999-2006. Overall, β-convergence estimates for socioeconomic groups across the states suggest that evidence of convergence in earlier phase was being replaced with divergence in fertility rates in the later phase.

6.4.4. Convergence clubs

The fertility rates may not converge as strongly and consistently across all the states, but may converge more strongly in a subset of states of a particular region. In India, it may be possible that the demographically advanced south Indian states (club) are converging faster and earlier than the north India states. Therefore, to examine such possibilities, I have incorporated south Indian regional dummy variable in the conditional β-convergence model to estimate the fertility β-convergence among south Indian states.

Table 6.3 provides the results of fertility convergence estimates among south Indian states. The negative β coefficient (β= -.43388, p<0.400) for south Indian states demonstrates evidence of fertility convergence during the long-term phase of 1981-2009. However, in the south Indian states too fertility diverged during the early phase of

143

Note- n=sample, df=degree of freedom

Table 6.4 also presents the convergence estimates for the club of south Indian states across socioeconomic spectrum using the three rounds of NFHS data. Compared to the major states, the conditional β-convergence estimates for the socioeconomic cross-sections of south Indian states suggested evidence of strong fertility convergence (β= -1.7956, p<0.000) for the entire period of 1992-2006. However, short-term disaggregated convergence estimates also revealed convergence in fertility rates across the socioeconomic stratum, but the volume of convergence was greater during the earlier assessed. Further, low fertility and lowest-low fertility clubs are also identified. Figure 6.5 documents the shifting pattern of major states from high fertility to high, medium

144 replacement level club. This number may further go up if we count small states like Himachal Pradesh, Goa, North eastern states and other Union Territories. This number is also more according to latest report of office of registrar general of India (2010).

Figure 6.5. Changing Patterns of Fertility Clubs among Major States of India, 1951-2009

Source: Rele (1951-66); Office of Registrar General of India (1971-2009) Note: A.P.-Andhra Pradesh; M.P. Madhya Pradesh, U.P. - Uttar Pradesh.

Low and lowest-low fertility is an emerging phenomenon in India. However, yet, no

145 a number of intriguing findings on less know phenomena of lowest-low fertility in India. In the year 1992-93, only eight socioeconomic groups such as A.P. (Others);

Karnataka (Others); Kerala (Hindu, Others; Richest, SC, ST); Maharashtra (Richer) are identified in low fertility club. However, during this period, none of the socioeconomic groups reached to the lowest-low fertility group. By 1998-99, the number has increased to 28: A.P. (Others); Assam (OBC; Hindu, Others; Richest); Gujarat (Others);

Karnataka (OBC; Hindu; Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); Kerala (SC, OBC, Others;

Hindu, Others; Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer); Punjab (Others; Richest); T.N.

(Others); WB (OBC; Others; Richer, Richest). Even in 1998-99, none of the socioeconomic groups in India had reached to the lowest-low fertility group. However, the more interesting findings are observed in the year, 2005-06. The number of socioeconomic groups in the club of low fertility has increased to 46: A.P. (SC, OBC, Others; Hindu, Muslim, Others; Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); Assam (OBC; Hindu;

Richer); Gujarat (Others; Richest); Karnataka (OBC, Others; Middle); Kerala ( OBC;

Hindu, SC; Middle, Richer, Richest); MP (Richest); Maharashtra (OBC; Hindu, Others;

Richest); Orissa (Others; Middle, Richer, Richest); Punjab (Others; Richest); T.N. ( OBC; Hindu, Others; Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); UP (Others); WB ( Hindu;

Richer). Three socioeconomic groups are also found with lowest-low fertility: Assam (Richest); Kerala (SC), WB (Richest). It can be expected that this number would have been much more if we would have information on fertility by socioeconomic groups for the year, 2012-13.

146 Muslim, Poorest); Kerala (Poorer, Poorest);

M.P. (SC, ST, Others; Hindu, Muslim;

Poorest Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest);

Maharashtra (SC, ST; Muslim; Poorest);

Orissa (SC; Muslim, Others; Poorest);

Punjab (SC; Muslim; Others; Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer); Rajasthan ( SC, ST; Others;

Hindu, Muslim, Others, Poorest, Poorer,

Hindu, Muslim; Poorest, Poorer, Middle); Gujarat (SC;

Muslim; Poorest); Haryana (SC, OBC; Muslim; Poorest, Poorer, Richer); M.P. (SC, ST, OBC; Hindu, Muslim;

Poorest, Poorer, Middle); Maharashtra (Muslim); Orissa (Muslim); Punjab (Muslim); Rajasthan (SC, ST, OBC, Other; Hindu, Muslim; Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer);

UP (SC, ST, OBC, Others; Hindu, Muslim; Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); WB (Muslim)

Assam (Muslim; Poorest); Bihar (SC, ST, OBC, Others; Hindu, Muslim, Others; Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer); Gujarat (Poorer); Haryana (Poorer, Middle);

M.P. (SC, ST, OBC; Hindu, Muslim; Poorest, Poorer, Middle); Orissa (ST); Rajasthan (SC, ST, OBC;

Hindu, Muslim; Poorest, Poorer, Middle); UP (SC, ST, OBC, Others; Hindu, Muslim; Poorest, Poorer, Middle,

Richer); WB (Muslim; Poorest)

Figure 6.6. Changing patterns of fertility clubs among socio-economic groups of major states of India, 1992-2006

147 Source: Three rounds of NFHS (1-3) and Author’s estimation based on NFHS data.

Medium Fertility Club

2.1-3 A.P. ( SC, Others; Hindu, Muslim; Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); Assam ( SC;

Hindu; Richest); Gujarat (SC, Others; Hindu;

Middle, Richer, Richest); Karnataka (ST, Others; Hindu; Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); Kerala (Others; Muslim; Poorest, Richer); MP (Others); Maharashtra (Others;

Hindu, Others; Poorer, Middle, Richest);

Orissa (ST, Others; Hindu; Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); Punjab (Others; Hindu;

Richest); T.N. ( SC, Others; Hindu, Muslim, Others, Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); WB (Others; Hindu, Others; Middle, Middle, Richer, Richest); Haryana (Others; Hindu, Others;

Middle); Karnataka (SC, ST, Others; Muslim, Others;

Poorest); Kerala (Muslim; Richest); MP (Others; Others;

Richer, Richest); Maharashtra (SC, ST, OBC, Others;

Hindu, Others; Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest);

Orissa (SC, ST, OBC, Others; Hindu, Others; Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); Punjab (SC, OBC; Hindu, Others; Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer); Rajasthan (Others; Richest); T.N. ( SC, ST, OBC; Hindu, Muslim, Others; Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest);UP (Others); WB (SC, ST, Others; Hindu; Poorest, Poorer,

Low Fertility Club 1.4-2 A.P. (Others); Karnataka (Others); Kerala (Hindu, Others; Richest, SC, ST);

Maharashtra (Richer)

A.P. (Others); Assam (OBC; Hindu, Others; Richest);

Gujarat (Others); Karnataka (OBC; Hindu; Poorer, Middle, Richer, Richest); Kerala (SC, OBC, Others; Hindu, Others;

Poorest, Poorer, Middle, Richer); Punjab (Others; Richest);

T.N. (Others); WB (OBC; Others; Richer, Richest)

148 6.4.5. Sigma convergence

As we mentioned in the previous chapters that β-convergence is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for Sigma convergence. Alternatively, Sigma convergence is sufficient, but not a necessary condition for β-convergence (Young et al. 2004).

Therefore, in order to test for both these conditions, I have estimated Sigma convergence alongside β convergence and it was estimated based on reduction in standard deviations in TFR of the major Indian states. Commensurate with absolute β-convergence estimates, Sigma β-convergence estimates of TFR across the states also indicate divergence in fertility rate during the initial period of 1981-91 and convergence in fertility in the post-1991 period. However, the speed of convergence was much greater for recent period than earlier period (Figure 6.7).

Figure 6. 7. Sigma convergences estimates of TFR across the major states of India, 1981-2009

6.4.6. Inequality adjusted convergence measures: Convergence in absolute and