SR CONTENT PAGE

NO NO

1 INTRODUCTION 2

2 DEFINITION 2

3 NEEDS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE 2

4 CLASSIFICATION 2-16
 UDAI PAREEK AND G TRIVEDI
 B.G. PRASAD’S SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
 KUPPUSWAMY SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
 O P AGGARWAL SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
 SC TIWARI AND AMRISH KUMAR SOCIO ECONOMIC
STATUS SCALE
5 STANDARDS OF LIVING INDEX 17

6 CONCLUSION 20

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 21

SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE

1
INTRODUCTION
Socioeconomic status (SES) is an economic and sociological combined total measure of a
person's work experience and of an individual's or family's economic access to resources and
social position in relation to others. It is the measure of the social standing of the individual
or a family and has a wide impact on an individual/family's health, educational attainment,
diet, lifestyle, etc., The per capita income of citizens is a major factor that decides the SES of
the population.
DEFINITION
SES was defined by Mueller and Parcel as "the relative position of a family or individual on a
hierarchical social structure, based on their access to or control over wealth, prestige and
power.” Another recent definition of SES was given as "a broad concept that refers to the
placement of persons, families, households and census tracts or other aggregates with respect
to the capacity to create or consumer goods that are valued in our society."

NEED FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE

Utilization of health services which is based on SES is the key to understand the health
seeking behaviour. Another need of measuring SES is to describe and monitor the social
distribution of diseases and health status in order to influence health policy, to monitor
changes over time or across different regions, social groups and to evaluate whether policy
targets to diminish health inequalities. Another purpose for measuring SES relates to
explaining the causal mechanisms through which SES generates health differences due to
wide variations in distribution of diseases in different socio economic classes. In health
research it is imperative to statistically adjust for socioeconomic circumstances when some
other exposure is the main focus of interest

CLASSIFICATION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE

SES classification is a key parameter for proper understanding the affordability of health
services, amenities and their purchasing capacity. A number of scales have been developed
all over the world but till now no single scale have been developed that can comprehensively
assessed SES uniformly. In India, several scales have been proposed for classifying different
populations by socioeconomic status: like Udai Parikh scale - 1964, Kuppuswamy scale -
1976, O P Aggarwal scale, S C Tiwari and Ambrish Kumar scale etc. Most of the scales use
education, occupation and income categories for assessment of SES. However, it is found that
there can be marked differences in education levels in similar occupation classes and vice
versa.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SCALE USED IN INDIA

2
 1. UDAI PAREEK AND G TRIVEDI
2. B.G. PRASAD’S SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
3. KUPPUSWAMY SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
4. O P AGGARWAL SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
5. SC TIWARI AND AMRISH KUMAR SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE

UDAI PAREEK AND G. TRIVEDI (1964):RURAL

This scale was developed for rural population only. SES is assessed according to score based
on nine characteristics of the individual and weighted score of each item needs to be referred
in the information manual provided. Detailed classification is given below
The nine characteristics used to assess SES are - Caste, Occupation, Education, Social
participation, Land, House, Farm powers, Material possession and Family type.
Table 1 :Udai Pareek and G. Trivedi socio economic status scale for rural India Components
COMPONENTS WEIGHTED COMPONENTS WEIGHTED
SCORE SCORE
A.CASTE E.SOCIAL PARTICIPATION
Schedule caste 1 None 0
Lower caste 2 Member of one organisation 1
Artisan caste 3 Member of more than one 2
organization
Agriculture caste 4 Office holder in such a 3
organization
Prestige caste 5 Wide public leader 4
Dominant caste 6 G. HOUSE
B. OCCUPATION No house 0
None 0 Hut 1
Laborer 1 Kutcha house 2
Caste occupation 2 Mixed house 3
Business 3 Pucca house 4
Independent 4 Mansion 5
profession
Cultivation 5 H.FARM POWER
Service 6 No draught animals 1
C.EDUCATION 1-2 draught animals 2
Illiterate 0 3-4 draught animals 4
Can read only 1 5-6 draught animals 6
Can read and write 2 I.MATERIAL POSSESSIONS
Primary 3 Bullock cart 0
Middle 4 Cycle 1
High school 5 Radio 2
Graduate 6 Chairs 3
And above 7 Mobile phone 4
D. LAND Television 5

3
 No land 0 Refrigerators 6
Less than 1 acre 1 J.FAMILY TYPE
1-5acre 2 Single 1
5-10 acre 3 Joint 2
10-15 acre 4 Extended 3
15-20acre 5 Size up to 5 2
20 and above 6 Any other distinctive features 2

Based on scoring above classification, the individual is categorised with SES as given below;
TABLE 2: Udai Pareek and G. Trivedi SES classification
GRADE CATEGORY SCORE ON SCALE
A Upper class Above 43
B Upper middle class 33-42
C Middle class 24-32
D Lower middle class 13-23
E Lower class Below 13

Applicability and Limitations

This scale is applicable in rural areas only because of some items which are not found in
urban setting. However it is quite comprehensive taking various items which indicates social
status in the community such as land, material possession, and social participation. Income
has not been mentioned in the classification which is one predominant feature in other scales.
Some of the categories in all categories are ambiguous. For example, options of lower caste
and scheduled caste can be confusing for the researcher. Similar confusion can be seen with
other options like business and independent profession options. In family type option of “any
other distinctive features” is not clear. Option of farm power may not be that relevant in
current time when other technological options like tractor, are available. Another limitation is
that it is applicable on individual level only.

B.G. PRASAD’S SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE

This classification was developed in 1961, modified in 1968 and 1970 by Prasad BG. BG
Prasad’s classification can be used in both urban and rural areas. BG Prasad’s classification is
based on per capita monthly income. It uses only one variable i.e., income. It has to be
revised regularly. Advantage of this scale is easy to use, universal in all populations and
areas. It is calculated as
Monthly Per capita income = Total monthly income of the family/total number of members
in family.

4
Table 3: Updated BG Prasad socio economic status classification
SOCIO-ECONOMIC PER CAPITA MONTHLY PER CAPITA MONTHLY
CLASSIFICATION INCOME(PRASAD’S INCOME (MODIFIED
CLASSIFICATION 1961) PRASAD’S
CLASSIFICATION)

Lower limit Upper limit

I 100 and above 5798 Infinity
II 50-99 2899 5797
III 30-49 1739 2898
IV 15-29 870 1738
V <15 0 869

APPLICABILITY AND LIMITATIONS

This scale is applicable on both rural and urban areas, it is difficult to interpret SES in both
rural and urban areas with same scale. For example, a person with per capita income of one
lakh in a rural area may be having higher SES as a person with having same per capita
income in urban area looking at the different cost of living in both areas. It is also age
dependent. Advantage of having income as a criteria, is its ease of data collection and the fact
that they directly measure material possession. Although income do have an impact on
environment in which an individual works, consumption pattern of commodities and access
to health services. On the other hand, the way income affect directly health can be
controversial. It allows provision of better medical resources. But looking at the high out of
pocket expenditure on health in India, people suffer huge loss of money and wealth due to
health issues. Other limitations with this scale is reliability of data collection. Personal
income is a sensitive issue and people are reluctant to reveal their actual income which
questions its reliability. For many people like daily wage workers, traders etc. income vary
from day to day basis and short term fluctuations are common. Looking at the gender issues
prevalent in India where females are not given equal share of income even after they earn for
family, these disparities within a family leads to change of SES among different members of
same family. It has to be updated regularly for inflation.
KUPPUSWAMY SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
The Kuppuswamy scale was proposed in 1976, measures the SES of a family based on three
variables namely, education and occupation of the head of the household and total monthly
income of the family living in urban areas. Detailed scale is given in Table 4.
TABLE 4:KUPPUSWAMY SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
EDUCATION OF HEAD OF THE FAMILY SCORE
Professional or honours degree 7
Graduate or post graduate 6
Intermediate or post high school diploma 5
High school certificate 4
Middle school certificate 3
Primary school certificate 2

5
 Illiterate 1
OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF THE FAMILY
Professional 10
Semi-professional 6
Clerical, shop-owner, farmer 5
Skilled worker 4
Semi-skilled worker 3
Unskilled worked 2
Unemployed 1
TOTAL MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME
40095 12
20047-40092 10
14998-20044 6
10024-14995 4
6014-10021 3
2008-6011 2
2005 1

TABLE 5: SCORING FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE AS PER MODIFIED

KUPPUSWAMY SCALE
CATEGORY SCORE SOCIO-ECONOMIC
CLASS
1 26-29 Upper
2 16-25 Upper middle
3 11-15 Lower middle
4 5-10 Upper lower
5 <5 Lower

APPLICABILITY AND LIMITATIONS

Although this scale has wide applicability in research but it does have lots of drawbacks. The
occupation categories are not defined clearly which results in ambiguity. There is always
controversy with home makers, retired personnel, beggars etc regarding their occupational
category. Similarly education classes are also not defined clearly which degree comes in
which category. Education has different context with certain issues like vary with culture and
teaching methods and institutions. Somebody studying in madrasa or gurukul based on
cultural or religious institutions would be difficult to classify. Due to gender bias, women
with similar education may face bias in income and occupational opportunities. It fails to
capture the individual education or occupation of the family which may significantly differ
from head of household. A leader in the slum may not be having education or occupation but
his social status may be much higher than what is determined from the scale. It may not get
true data on income as described earlier that the income is a sensitive issue in Indian setting.
It is not necessary that income increase with same proportion with education qualification
and so with SES. It also needs to be revised regularly.

6
O P AGGARWAL SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
Another scale developed by O P Aggarwal et al5 is shown in Table 6 consist of 22 items
namely; monthly per capita income, education of either husband or wife who is more
educated among them, occupation of husband/wife, family possessions, type of house,
possession of a vehicle, number of earning members in the family, number of children from
the head of the family, essential facilities, education of children, employment of a domestic
servant at home, type of locality where family is residing, caste, members of family gone
abroad in last three years, possession of agricultural land for cultivation, possession of non
agriculatural land/land for housing etc, milch cattles in the family for business or non
business purposes, non milch cattles or pet animals in the family, possessing any other house,
shop or shed etc. of any size given on rent or not, positions held by any one member in the
family, parental support in the form of non-movable property and total amount of income tax
paid by the family. Total scoring is given afterwards to categorise into upper high, high,
upper middle, lower middle, poor, very Poor or below poverty line as shown in Table below:
TABLE 6: AGGARWAL ET AL SOCIO- ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
DOMAIN SCORE DOMAIN SCORE
1.MONTHLY PER CAPITA 11.EMPLOYMENT
INCOME FROM ALL
SOURCES(IN INR)
>50000 7 Employes ≥2 full time servants on 4
salary for domestic work
20000-49999 6 Employed only 1 full time servant 3
on salary for domestic work
10000-19999 5 Employed ≥3 part time servants on 2
salary for domestic work
5000-9999 4 Employed 1-2 part time servants on 1
salary for domestic work
2500-4999 3 Employed no servants for domestic 0
work
1000-2499 2 12.TYPE OF LOCALITY THE
FAMILY IS RESIDING
<1000 1 Living in urban locality 5
2.EDUCATION OF EITHER Living in rural locality 4
HUSBAND OR WIFE WHO
IS MORE EDUCATED
AMONG THEM
Professional qualification 7 Living in resettlement colony 3
with technical degree or
diplomas eg. Doctor,
Engineer, CA, MBA, etc.
Postgraduation (non-technical 6 Living in slums/jhuggins 2
also Ph.D)
Graduation 5 No fixed living and mobile 1
10th class pass but < 4 13.CASTE OF THE FAMILY
Graduation
Primary pass but <10th class 3 Upper caste 4
<Primary but attended school 2 Other backward class (OBC) 3
7
for at least one year
Just literate but no scholling 1 Dalits 2
Illiterate 0 Tribals 1
3.OCCUPATION OF 14.MEMBERS OF FAMILY
HUSBAND, OTHERWISE GONE ABROAD IN LAST
WIFE THREE YEARS
Service in central/state/Public 5 Whole family 3
undertakings or Owner of a
company employing >20
persons or self employed
professional viz Doctors, Cas,
Engineer. Etc
Service in Private sector or 4 Only husband and wife 2
independent business
employing 2-20 persons
Service at shops, home, 3 Only 1 family member 1
transport, own cultivation of
land
Self employed E.g. shops, 2 None 0
rehides or petty business with
income>5000
Self employed with income 1 15.POSSESSION OF
<5000 AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR
CULTIVATION
None of the family member is 0 Own agricultural land >100 acres 5
employed
4.FAMILY POSSESSION 10 Own agricultural land 51-100 acres 4
(presence of each item given
below will carry score of ‘1’)
Refrigerator/TV/Radio/ Own agricultural land 21-50 acres 3
Transistor/music
system/AC/washing
Machine/Telephone/Mobile/
Credit card/Sanitary
latrine/Any newspaper
subscribed throughout the
month
5.TYPE OF HOUSE Own agricultural land 6-20 acres 2
Own house with 5 or more 7 Own agricultural land 1-5 acres 1
rooms
Own house with 3-4 6 No agricultural land 0
Rented/Govt. house with 5 or 6 16.POSSESSION OF NON-
more rooms AGRICULTURAL LAND/LAND
FOR HOUSING OR OTHER
TYPE OF LAND
Own house with 1-2 rooms 5 Own non-agricultural land/land for 3
housing>1000 Sq Yards
Rented/Govt. house with 3-4 5 Own non-agricultural land/land for 2
rooms housing 501-1000 Sq. Yards

8
Rented/Govt. house with 1-2 4 Own non-agricultural land/land for 1
rooms housing 25-500 Sq Yards
Own jhuggi 3 Own non-agricultural land/land for 0
housing<25 sq. Yards or does not
own non-agricultural land/land for
housing at all
Rented jhuggi 2 17.PRESENCE OF MILCH
CATTLES IN THE FAMILY FOR
BUSINESS OR NON-BUSINESS
PURPOSES
No place to live, pavement, 1 Own 4 or more milch cattles 3
mobile cart
6.POSSESSION OF A Own 1-3 milch catlle 2
VEHICLE OR EQIVALENT
2 or more 4 Own 1 milch cattle 1
cars/Tractors/trucks
1 car/Tractor/Truck 3 Does not own any milch cattle 0
1 or more more 2 18.PRESENCE OF NON MILCH
scooter(s)/bullock cart(s) CATTLE OR PET ANIMALS IN
THE FAMILY
1 or more cycles(not baby 1 Owns 2 or more 2
cycle)
None of the above 0 Own 1 1
7.NUMBER OF EARNING 19.BESIDES THE HOUSE IN
MEMBERS IN THE WHICH THE FAMILY IS
FAMILY(NUCLEAR/JOINT LIVING, THE FAMILY OWNS
) OTHER HOUSE OR SHOP OR
SHED ETC. OF ANY DIZE
WHETHER GIVEN ON RENT OR
NOT
3 or more members earning 3 Owns 3 or more 3
and income pooled
2 or both husband and wife 2 Owns 2 or more 2
earning
Only 1 family member 1 Own 1 1
earning
No earning member 0 Does not own any 0
8.NUMBER OF CHILDREN 20.POSITIONS HELD(BESIDES
HEAD OF THE FAMILY THE POSITIONS AS
HAS/HAD EMPLOYEE) BY ANY ONE
MEMBER IN THE FAMILY
0-1 5 Holding position of 3 or more 4
official or non-official
organizations viz.
president/chairman/secretary/
treasurer etc
2 4 Holding position 1-2 official or not- 3
official organizations viz.
president/chairman/Secretary/Treas

9
 urer etc
3 3 Holding position as member only 2
of executive or other committees of
official or non-official
organizations.
4 2 Does not hold any such position 1
5 1 21.PARENTAL SUPPORT IN
THE FORM OF NON-MOVABLE
PROPERTY
>6 0 >50 acres of agricultural land or a 4
house/plot>1000 sq yards or both
9.FACILITY OF SOME 21-50 acres of agricultural land or a 3
ESSENTIALS IN THE house/plot 501-1000 sq yards or
FAMILY both
Both tap water supply and 2 1-20 acres of agricultural land or a 2
electricity house/plot 100-500sq yards or both
Only one of above two is 1 No agricultural land but a 1
present house/plot 25-100sq yards
None is present 0 No parental property 0
10.EDUCATION OF 22.TOTAL AMOUNT OF
CHILDREN(IN RELATION INCOME TAX PAID BY THE
TO HEAD OF THE FAMILY (INCLUDE ALL THE
FAMILY)- EXCLUDE EARNING MEMBERS)
UNDER 5 CHILDREN FOR
THIS ITEM
All children going/ever gone 3 >10 lakh 7
to school/college
>50% children ever 2 1-10 lakh 6
gone/going to school/college
≤50% children ever 1 >50000 but <1 lakh 5
gone/going to school/collge
No child ever gone/going to 0 >20000-<50000 4
school/college
>10000-<20000 3
>5000-<10000 2
<5000 1
Nil 0

TABLE 7: OP AGGARWAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE SCORING

SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCORE
Upper high ≥76
High 61-75
Upper middle 46-60
Lower middle 31-45
Poor 16-30
Very poor or below poverty line ≤15

10
Applicability and Limitations
This scale being a detailed lengthy scale can be used for research purpose but in general use it
takes time to elicit information from individual. Looking at the status of women in society
where even after being more educated, they do not get their due respect and regard and may
not be head of the family. In some communities where polygamy and polyandry is a
culturally acceptable, there the categorisation can be a problem in education and occupation
categories of each spouse. The scale cannot be applicable for individuals who are
unmarried/separated or single where options of number of children, education of children
remains blank. Taking history of income tax paid is difficult because people tend to hide such
information.
SC TIWARI AND AMRISH KUMAR SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
Individual or family status is affected by various factors as discussed earlier. For example, in
addition to the educational differences Indian societies may be differentiated into landowners,
tenant landowners, or migrant workers. The landowners may include aristocrats, chiefs, civil
servants, and educated people as well as farmers who have been successful and have been
able to buy land. Socioeconomic status may also arise from historical associations,
occupational differences, descent groups, or from administrative, political or religious office.
Bigger joint family in rural areas may be considered powerful.Therefore SC Tiwari and
Amrish Kumar developed a scale for assessment of socio-economic status (SES) of
households/individuals in urban as well as in rural areas in India taking many more variables
(Table 8).This scale had seven domains to assess socio-economic status. It included house,
material possession, education, occupation, monthly income, land and social participation and
understanding. These seven domains were equally weighted, each having a maximum score
of 10. The score range (0-70) was categorized into five groups based on Central Government
city compensatory allowance rules for each category of cities. The house type has been
categorized only on the basis of type of roof. In occupation, the alternatives in this profile
were categorized according to occupation of the family members. This profile related to the
primary occupation of the individual. The major source of livelihood was considered as a
primary occupation. The alternatives in the education profile were defined according to the
educational status achieved by those members of the family who have crossed the school
going age. In the possessed land/house cost profile, the alternatives were defined according to
the cost of land owned or cultivated by the family. If the respondent was living in the city and
had rural farming land/orchard/ ponds/any other house etc. as well, that was also taken into
account for this section.
TABLE 8: TIWARI AND KUMAR SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
DOMAIN URB RUR REMAR
AN AL KS
A-1 LAND AREA Final
score=A1
+A2

2
No land 0 No land 0
Upto 750 sq ft 2 Upto to 1000 sq ft 2

11
751-1500 sq ft 4 1001-5000 sq ft 4
1501-2250 sq ft 6 5001-10000sq ft 6
2251-3000 sq ft 8 10001-20000 sq ft 8
>3000 sq ft 10 >20000 sq ft 10
A.2 HOUSE TYPE
Not applicable 0 Not applicable 0
K1=no brick walls/floor 2 K1=No brick 2
kuccha/chhcppar/hutments(jhopari)/s walls/floor
hanty/khaprail kuchha/chhappar/hu
tments
(jhopari)/shanty/kha
prail
P1=Plastered or Unplastered brick 4 P1=Plastered or 4
walls/floor kuchha or made-up of Unplastered brick
bricks only/ordinary roof (R.B. roof) walls/floor kuchha
or tolly roof or tin roof or made-up of
bricks only/ordinary
roof (R.B. roof) or
tolly roof or tin roof
P2= Plastered walls/floor cemented or 6 P2= Plastered 6
mosaic/ordinary roof walls/floor
cemented or
mosaic/ordinary
roof
P3= Plastered walls / floor cemented or 8 P3= Plastered walls / 8
mosaic/RCC roof floor cemented or
mosaic/RCC roof
P4 = Plastered walls / floor made up 10 P4 = Plastered walls 10
of marble or mosaic or tile floorings / floor made up of
(excluding toilet & kitchen marble or mosaic or
floorings)/RCC roof *or plaster of tile floorings
paris roof design. (excluding toilet &
kitchen
floorings)/RCC roof
or plaster of paris
roof design.
B. Material possession profile
B.1- House Hold Gadget (according Final Score
to the cost of items) = B1 + B2 2
None 0 None 0
Upto Rs 10,000 2 Upto Rs 5000 2
Rs 10,001-50,000 4 Rs 5001-10000 4
Rs 50,001-100000 6 Rs 10001-50000 6
Rs 100001-300000 8 Rs 50001-100000 8
>300000 10 >Rs 100000 10
B.2 Conveyance Facility: (according
to the cost of vehicle)
None 0 None 0
Upto Rs 5000 2 Upto Rs 5000 2

12
Rs 5001-50000 4 Rs 5001-50000 4
Rs 50,001-500000 6 Rs 50001-500000 6
Rs 500001-2000000 8 Rs 500001-2000000 8
>Rs 2000000 10 >Rs 2000000 10
C- EDUCATIONAL PROFILE (FOR Final
URBAN & RURAL BOTH) score=tota
l sum of
scores
obtained
by family
members
getting
education
or have
completed
education
divided
by
number of
index
family
members
Illiterate 0 Illiterate 0
Just literature/religious education/uto 2 Just 2
to 8th literature/religious
education/uto to 8th
Upto 12th 4 Upto 12th 4
Upto graduation/Diploma holders 6 Upto 6
graduation/Diploma
holders
Upto Post-graduation/professional 8 Upto Post- 8
degree graduation/professio
nal degree
Higher studies (Ph.D., MD, MS, 10 Higher studies 10
D.Litt, MCH, DM etc.) (Ph.D., MD, MS,
D.Litt, MCH, DM
etc.)
D.OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE Final
score:
Total sum
of scores
divided
by the
number of
family
members
who are
engaged
in
monetaril

13
 y gainful
activity
No gainful employment. 0 No gainful 0
employment.
Unskilled Labour (labour, 2 2 Unskilled Labour 2
agricultural labour, rickshaw puller). (labour, 2
agricultural labour,
rickshaw puller).
Class IV employee, skilled worker 4 Class IV employee, 4
(tailor, black smith, carpenter, skilled worker
washer-man, potter, barber, driver (tailor, black smith,
etc.), hawker, vendor, (goods less carpenter, washer-
than 50,000.00) petty farmer man, potter, barber,
(cultivated land driver etc.), hawker,
vendor, (goods less
than 50,000.00)
petty farmer
(cultivated land
Class-III employee, primary school 6 Class-III employee, 6
teacher, high school teacher, small primary school
businessman (having his/her own or teacher, high school
rented shop and goods upto Rs. teacher, small
1,00,000.00), farmer (culivated land businessman
1-10 acres) & private contractor, (having his/her own
insurance agents etc. or rented shop and
goods upto Rs.
1,00,000.00),
farmer (culivated
land 1-10 acres) &
private contractor,
insurance agents
etc.
Class-II employee/junior 8 Class-II 8
professionals (experience up-to 5 employee/junior
years), intermediate teacher, professionals
principals upto intermediate colleges, (experience up-to 5
farmer (cultivated land upto 10-20 years), intermediate
acres), business man (goods upto Rs. teacher, principals
1,00,000.00 - 5,00,000.00), local upto intermediate
public leader like corporater, Govt. colleges, farmer
contractor etc. (cultivated land
upto 10-20 acres),
business man
(goods upto Rs.
1,00,000.00 -
5,00,000.00), local
public leader like
corporater, Govt.
contractor etc.
Class-I employee/executives/senior 10 Class-I 10

14
professionals (experience more than 5 employee/executive
years), university/degree colleges s/senior
teachers, principals of degree professionals
colleges, professors, farmers (land (experience more
more than 20 acre), businessman than 5 years),
(goods>Rs. 5,00,000.00), leaders university/degree
(MLA’s, MP’s etc). colleges teachers,
principals of degree
colleges, professors,
farmers (land more
than 20 acre),
businessman
(goods>Rs.
5,00,000.00),
leaders (MLA’s,
MP’s etc).
E- ECONOMIC PROFILE: Average
per capita income per month : (From
all sources)
Upto Rs 500 2 Upto Rs 500 2
Rs 501-3000 4 Rs 501-2000 4
Rs 3001-8000 6 Rs 2001-5000 6
Rs 8001-15000 8 Rs5001-10000 8
>Rs 15000 10 >Rs 10000 10
F-POSSESSED LAND/HOUSE
COST PROFILE
No land/house 0 No land/house 0
Upto Rs 50000 2 Upto Rs 50000 2
Rs 50001-500000 4 Rs 50001-500000 4
Rs 500001-2000000 6 Rs 500001-2000000 6
Rs 2000001-5000000 8 Rs 2000001- 8
5000000
>Rs 5000000 10 >Rs 5000000 10
G-SOCIAL PROFILE
G.1-UNDERSTANDING OF
SOCIAL ISSUES:
None 0 None 0
Religious-cultural 2 Religious-cultural 2
Developmental 2 Developmental 2
Educational 2 Educational 2
Health promotional 2 Health promotional 2
Political 2 Political 2
G-2-PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL
ACTIVITIES
None 0 None 0
Religious-cultural 2 Relious-cultural 2
Developmental 2 Developmental 2
Educational 2 Educational 2
Health promotional 2 Health promotional 2

15
 political 2 Political 2

TABLE 9: TIWARI AND KUMAR SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE SCORING

A-I CLASS A-CLASS B-I CLASS B-II CLASS C CLASS
CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY
Upper class 65-70 63-70 61-70 59-70 57-70
Upper 50-65 48-63 46-61 44-59 42-57
middle class
Middle class 35-50 33-48 31-46 29-44 27-42
Lower 20-35 18-33 16-31 14-29 12-27
middle class
Lower class 0-20 0-18 0-16 0-14 0-12

TABLE 10: CLASSIFIACTION OF CITIES IN TIWARI AND KUMAR SOCIO

ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE
A-I CLASS CITY Banglore, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad,
Kolkata & Mumbai
A-CLASS CITY Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Lucknow,
Nagpur, Pune, Surat & Vashi
B-I CLASS CITY Agra, Allahabad, Amritsar, Asansol,
Bhopal, Coinbatore, Dhanbad, Faridabad,
Indore, Jabalpur, Jamshedpur, Kochi,
Ludhiana, Madurai, Meerut, Nashik, Patna,
Rajkiot, Shilong, Vadodra, Varanashi,
Vijaywada & Vishakapattnam
B-II CLASS CITY Aligarh, Alwaye, Amrawati, Aurangabaad,
Bareily, Belagaum, Bhawnagar, Bhilai,
Bhiwandi, Bhubaneshwar, Bikaner,
Chandigarh, Cuttack, Dharwad, Dehradun,
Ghaziabad, Goa, Gorakhpur, Guntur,
Gurgaon, Guwahati, Gwalior, Jalandhar,
Jammu, Jamnagar, Jodhpur, Kolhapur,
Kota, Kozhikode, Manglore, Moradabad,
Mysore, Noida, Panchkula, Pondicherry,
Raipur, Ranchi, Rourkela, Salem, solaur,
Srinagar, Tiruchirapalli, Tiruppur,
Thiruvanantpuram & Warangal.

APPLICABILITY AND LIMITATIONS

This extensive scale given attention to many issues like occupation, education and city in
which the individual resides, however makes this very lengthy difficult to use in community.
Same scoring in some categories like land cost, computer proficiency, education may not
give same status in rural as in urban areas. The scale takes time for data collection.

16
STANDARD OF LIVING INDEX (SLI)
SLI consists of parameters like house type, toilet facility in house, lightening, fuel used for
cooking, source of drinking water, separate room for cooking, ownership of house or
agriculture land/irrigated land/livestock and durable goods. A scoring is given as per
parameters and total score is then added (Table 11). Scoring classification is given in Table
below
TABLE 11: STANDARD OF LIVING INDEX
PARAMETER SCORE
1. House type:
a) Pucca 4
b) Semi pucca 2
c) Kachha 0
2. Toilet facility
a) Own flush toilet 4
b) Public or shared flush toilet/ own pit 2
toilet 1
c) Shared or public pit toilet 0
d) No facility
3. Source of lighting
a) Electricity 2
b) Kerosene, gas or oil 1
c) Other sources of lighting 0
4. Main fuel for cooking
a) Electricity, Liquid petroleum gas or 2
biogas 1
b) Coal, charcoal or karosene 0
c) Other fuel
5. Source of drinking water
a) Pipe, hand pump or well in residence/
yard/ plot 2
b) Public tap, hand pump or well
c) Other water source 1
0
6. Separate room for cooking
a) Yes 1
b) No 0
7. Ownership of house
a) Yes 2
b) No 0
8. Ownership of agricultural land
a) 5 acres or more 4
b) 2.0-4.9 acres 3
c) 2 or less than 2 acres or acreage not 2

17
 known 0
d) No agricultural land
9. Ownership of irrigated land
a) Household owns some irrigated land 2
b) No irrigated land 0
10. Ownership of live stock
a) Owns livestock 2
b) Does not own 0
11. Ownership of durable goods
a) Mattress 1
b) Pressure cooker 1
c) Chair 1
d) Cot/bed 1
e) Table 1
f) Clock/watch 1
g) Electric fan 2
h) Bicycle 2
i) Radio/Transistor 2
j) Sewing Machine 2
k) Bullock Cart 2
l) Thresher 2
m) Water Pump 2
n) Television (Black & White) 3
o) Telephone 3
p) Refrigerator 3
q) Television (Colour) 3
r) Moped 3
s) Scooter 3
t) Motorcycle 4
u) Car 4
v) Tractor 0
w) None of the above

CLASSIFICATION OF SLI
CLASSIFICATION TOTAL SCORE
LOW 0-14
MEDIUM 15-24
HIGH 25-67

Limitations
This scale is simple for financial well being of the households. Income is not assessed so the
uncertainty of such assessment is not addressed in this scale. It cannot be applicable
uniformly in all places like urban areas where ownership of agricultural land or irrigated land
is difficult to find.
TENDULKAR COMMITTEE REPORT

18
 An Expert Group under the chairmanship of Suresh D. Tendulkar was constituted by
Planning Commission in December 2005. They convert the Uniform Reference Period (URP)
consumption based urban poverty line into Mixed Reference Period (MRP) consumption
based poverty line. URP consumption data was collected from the households using 30 day
recall period for all the items. In URP, respondents were asked about their consumption of
goods in past 30 days. MRP distribution was calculated as consumer expenditure data using
365-day recall period for five non-food items viz., clothing, footwear, durable goods,
education and institutional medical expenses, and 30-day recall period for the remaining
items. This was followed by derivation of state-specific urban poverty lines from the
(MRPconsumption based) national urban poverty line using urban state-relative-to-all-India
fisher indices. The state-specific rural poverty lines were then worked out from the state-
specific urban poverty lines by applying within-state rural-relative-to-urban Fisher indices.
State index numbers relative to the all-India numbers and the state-specific rural prices
relative to the state-specific urban prices were computed from the implicit price indices
derived from the quantity and value of different items of consumer expenditure. The state-
specific poverty ratios were estimated from the state-specific class distribution of persons
obtained from the MRP-consumption distribution of consumer expenditure and the state-
specific poverty line. The national poverty ratio was then estimated as a weighted average of
state-wise poverty ratios. The new poverty line thus work out to be monthly per capita
consumption expenditure of Rs.972 in rural areas and Rs.1,407 in urban areas in 2011-12.16
This poverty line estimates have always been under criticism for failed to provide correct
poverty estimates in India, hence require review.
EVALUATION
As discussed above, all scales have a number of merits as well as limitations which makes
them inappropriate to universally apply in all population groups and in all circumstances.
 In a survey, planning commission used a number of other parameters to assess socio
economic status of individuals like type of house, occupation, household assets,
education, family size, source of drinking water, electricity connection, savings,
income, average expenditure on food, clothing, education, health, festivals, travel,
loan repayment etc. it also include other parameters like perceptions about present
life, opinion about their status, happiness with their present occupation and present
life, place of work, exploitation etc.
 It is interesting to understand that for an individual who is legally prosecuted or
sentenced for some crime cannot have similar socioeconomic status as another
individual without legal jurisdictions despite of having same occupation category,
education or income. The point can be easily understood by the fact that a film star
and company manager despite of having same scoring in socio economic scale do not
have same socio economic status.
 Occupations categories should be designed in a way that they address all issues
including gender issues prevalent in society. Many common occupations, especially
those held by a women like homemakers, do not fit the typical categories of
occupation, income and prestige. Women headed households are an example. The fit
between prestige and socioeconomic characteristics of occupations can also be

19
 improved by applying some statistical tests. Also, participation in social life is also
important in today’s life because it affects our socio economic status.
 Participation in politics is also an important factor to determine social status. Local
leaders are influential people and are regarded in the community. Their family
members also by virtue of being associated to them also have high socio economic
status than their other counterparts who are not their family members but have same
socio economic score. Persons suffering from any diseases especially mental
disorders or persons with differently-abled capacities have significant social
implications. These people never enjoy a due socio economic status despite of having
decent parameters.
 Socio economic status scale has determinant role in health research. Thus measuring
and classifying socio economic status is of utmost importance. Looking at the high
out of pocket expenditure on health in India often makes vulnerable people fall below
poverty line. Figures say that around 35 million people in 1993-94 and 47 million
people in 2004-05 were pushed into poverty by the need to pay for healthcare
services. Thus it would be advisable to measure expenditure on health.
 Number of dependent, children, old persons, disabled, mentally challenged, spiritual
practices should also be included in SES. There is a need to develop a new scale
which is comprehensive, easy to apply, include all diverse populations, occupations
and determinants which affect or determine an individual’s socio economic status and
is uniformly applicable. Clarity in classifying different occupation categories is
important.

CONCLUSION
All the Socio economic scales which are widely used in India are not applicable for whole
population when we look at its diversity. There are a number of limitations with each scale.
There is a need to develop a comprehensive scale which can measure socio economic status
correctly and uniformly.

20
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
BOOK REFERENCE
1. Galobardes B, Lynch J, Smith GD. Measuring socioeconomic position in health
research.Br Med Bull; 2007.81-82:21-37.
2. Sodhi Jaspreet Kaur. Comprehensive Textbook of Nursing Education. 1 st ed. New
Delhi, India: Jaypee The Health Sciences Publisher; 2017. 284-285
3. Sudha R. Nursing Education Principles and Concepts. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee The
Health Sciences Publisher; 2021.200

INTERNET REFERENCE

1. Jugal Kishore, Charu Kohli, Neeta Kumar, Neeru Gupta. Scales in India to evaluate
the socio-economic status in Medical Research. Journal International Sciences
Academy; [updated 2017 April; cited 2021 Nov 24] Available
from:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329287402_Scales_used_in_India_to_
evaluate_socioeconomic_status_in_medical_research_Limitations_of_existing_scales
_and_the_need_of_a_more_comprehensive_one
2. Chinta Ankitha, B.K. Srivatava, Shruthi Eshwar et al. Overview of socio-economic
status scales in India.International Journal of Innovative Research in Dental Sciences.
Vol 1, Issue @. Reasearch gate publisher;[updated 2016 Oct; cited 2021 Nov 24]
Availablefrom:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324889032_OVERVIEW_O
F_SOCIO_ECONOMIC_STATUS_SCALES_IN_INDIA

21