Report of the
Committee on Optimum Sample Sizes
For North Eastern States
Government of India
Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation
National Sample Survey Office
Survey Design and Research Division
May 2011
Contents
Chapter No.
Description
Page No.
1
Introduction
1 - 4
2
Some salient features of NE region
5 - 10
3
Surveys of NSSO with particular reference to
North-Eastern region
11 - 15
4
Sample size issues for NE States
16- 20
5
Resources and their optimal Utilization
21 - 23
6
Synthesis and Recommendations
24 - 27
List of Tables
31 - 32
Appendix Tables
33 - 58
Annexure - I
59 - 60
Acknowledgement
The Committee acknowledges, with sincere thanks, the contributions made by
the members of the Committee in the course of deliberations in the meetings of
the Committee. The contribution of the officers of SDRD, DPD and FOD in
facilitating discussion of the meetings of the Committee is also acknowledged.
The technical contributions made by Sri Biswajit De, DDG, SDRD, Sri P.C.
Sarker, DDG, DPD, Sri J.P. Bhattacharjee, DDG, SDRD, Sri Atanu Kumar
Chaudhuri, JD, SDRD and Sri O.P. Ghosh, DD, SDRD in preparation of the
report are also gratefully acknowledged.
(Prof. Atul Sarma)
Chairman
(Dr. Rajiv Mehta)
Member-Secretary
Chapter One
Introduction
A. Background
1.1 The surveys conducted by National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) are the primary source of
data on wide-ranging socio-economic aspects needed for the purpose of planning, evolving
development strategies and assessing their impact over the time and space. The NSS socioeconomic surveys, accordingly, are designed and organized to provide national and statewise estimates of important characteristics on diverse aspects such as level of living, labour
force, social consumption (health and education), household assets, liabilities and
indebtedness, informal non agricultural enterprises etc. and to bridge the gaps in data
needs. The distinctive feature of these surveys is that the indicators are arrived at using
harmonised concepts, definitions and approaches across states, consistent with international
standards, for their meaningful interpretation and comparison.
1.2 However, the requirement of these indicators for north-eastern states, separately, is not
adequately met. Amongst the reasons cited for this inadequacy, prominent are the
constrained sample size and other survey related resources. Consequently, separate state
wise estimates for the North-East (NE) states are not available on a regular basis except for
Assam. Instead of separate estimates for each State, estimates of Assam and a combined
estimate for other NE States are usually published. This aspect has invited the attention of
the Governing Council as well as the Steering Committee (SC) of NSS in the past.
Incidentally, this data limitation, particularly in the context of estimates on prevalence of
poverty in north-eastern states, was also echoed in the document of North Eastern Council
for 11th Five Year Plan proposal.
1.3 The Governing Council of NSSO in its 82nd meeting expressed the following views: „There
has been persistent demand for providing state wise estimates of NSSO Survey results in
respect of North-eastern States. The sample sizes in each of the North-eastern States are
considered to be inadequate for deriving state wise estimates. Augmentation of sample
sizes is also found to be difficult due to resource crunch in both NSSO & States‟.
1
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
The Working Group on NSS 58th Round recommended the following action for North
Eastern states.
„Feasibility of generating estimates for each of the North-eastern states may be explored.
For four states (Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram and Tripura) for which State
agencies are responsible for collecting data for both State and Central samples, the pooled
estimate of State and Central sample may be used. An exercise of pooling Central and
State samples and obtaining estimates should be carried out for one of the three remaining
states viz. Meghalaya, Nagaland and Sikkim.‟
1.4 On the basis of the recommendation of the Governing Council, the Ministry of Statistics &
PI, Govt. of India, constituted a “Committee to Examine the Issue of Separate Estimates
for Each of the NE states”. On the issue of quality of the estimates in the NE States, the
Adhikari committee observed that sampling errors in estimates of different characteristics
covering consumer expenditure, employment-unemployment and informal sector
enterprises for NE States are more or less similar to other smaller States which are
comparable in terms of the sample size. It is expected that the estimates at a lower level are
bound to have higher errors i.e. more disaggregation leads to more sampling fluctuations.
On the sample size, the committee recommended that “if the separate estimates for NE
States are necessary, the sample size in these States has to be increased for getting reliable
estimates in case of many characteristics. However State level estimates for these States
can be brought out for some characteristics at a broader level of items. Sample size in each
of the States has to be decided on the basis of the characteristics for which State level
estimates are to be brought out”.
1.5 The Adhikari Committee did not suggest optimum sample size for the states in respect of
any variable. However, NSSO made a number of studies on the requirements of sample
size in the NE States considering various variables like Monthly Per Capita Expenditure
(MPCE)-food/non-food/total, percentage of people in each of the five quintiles of MPCE
classes, Worker Population Ratio (WPR) - male/female/persons, PU (proportion
unemployed) -
male/female/persons, and Gross value Added (GVA) per worker by
tabulation categories. The results of these studies were placed for consideration in various
meetings of the SC and the then previous Governing Council of NSSO. SC in its fifth
2
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
meeting advised to include the variable „Proportion of Population below Poverty Line
(PL)‟ for deriving the optimum sample size required for State level estimates of the
variable with reasonable degree of accuracy. According to the findings of the study placed
in the sixth meeting of the SC – except for Assam and Tripura in the rural sector, existing
sample sizes (as in NSS 61st round) were found inadequate for attaining RSE level of 10%
for State level estimates of ‘Proportion of Population below PL’ in both rural and urban
sectors. There needs to be substantial increase and even complete enumeration in case of
certain States.
1.6 Against this background, the issue of optimum sample size of NSS survey for the North
Eastern states for generating reliable estimates of key socio economic indicators is of
contemporary significance and needed to be looked into for meeting the requirement of
planning and development of this region.
B. The Present Committee and its Terms of Reference
1.7 The socio-economic surveys conducted by NSSO in the form of successive NSS rounds are
designed generally to provide estimates at the state level. However,as the separate
estimates for the North Eastern States (as well as those of other smaller states/UTs) are not
published on a regular basis due to the limitations of sample size, as per the
recommendation of the Steering Committee for National Sample Surveys (NSS) made in
its sixth meeting held on 27-28 January 2009, the present committee with Prof. Atul Sarma
as the Chairman was constituted vide this Ministry‟s OM no. M-12011/17/2009-NSSO
(CPD) dated the 25th March 2010 (copy in Annexure I) with the following terms of
reference:
(a)
To suggest appropriate sample size requirements at state level in NE States vis-à-vis
the corresponding number of field investigators required; and
(b)
To see whether it would be feasible to re-allocate the existing field strength as per the
study of sample size requirements.
The Committee sought the extension of its tenure till 31st march 2011 to complete the
assigned task.
3
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
1.8 The members constituting the committee included Prof. A.K. Adhikari, Dr. A.K. Yogi,
former Additional Director General. NSSO FOD, the heads of different divisions of NSSO,
Director (E & M), North Eastern Council (NEC), Shillong and directors of State
Directorate Economics and Statistics (DES)s of all the NE States including Sikkim . The
Additional Director General, Survey Design and Research Division (SDRD) of NSSO was
the Member-secretary of the committee.
1.9 The committee had its first meeting on 16th July 2010 at Kolkata. The issues and analysis,
deliberated in the first meeting were synthesised and the draft report of the committee was
discussed in the second and final meeting of the Committee was held on 28th February,
2011 at Guwahati. The suggestions and views expressed in the meeting have been
incorporated in the final report.
1.10 Structure of the Report : The report is organised in six chapters, including the present one.
While synthesizing the aspects of data needs, indicators and correspondingly the
assessment of the sample size of NSS in its deliberations, the committee considered
distinct geographic and demographic features of the North Eastern region, corresponding to
other states of the country. Accordingly, a synoptic view of the North East region, covering
its geography and demography and socio economic milieu is summarized in the Chapter 2.
The Chapter 3 briefs on the salient aspects of NSS Socio Economic Surveys and
corresponding indicators in key classificatory features with special reference to the North
Eastern region. Corresponding to the Terms of Reference of the Committee, the focal
theme of sample size issues and resources and their optimal utilization are discussed in the
Chapter 4 and 5 respectively. Finally, the Chapter 6 provides the synthesis of the issues and
the recommendations of the committee.
4
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Chapter Two
Salient Features of North Eastern Region
2.1
North Eastern Region is situated in the East Himalayan region. This region consists of eight
states viz., Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura,
Sikkim. The region has international borders with China, Bhutan, Myanmar, Bangladesh
and Nepal. The Siliguri Corridor in West Bengal, with an average width of 21 km to
40 km, connects the north eastern region with the Indian mainland. More than 2000 km of
boundary is shared with other countries.
North Eastern India (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura)
5
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
2.2
The region is the gateway of monsoon rains in India. It is one of the heaviest rainfall areas
in the world. Abundance of rainfall results in bountiful forest and agricultural products for
the region. Major part of Assam is plains area made fertile by the mighty Brahmaputra
river. Some part of Tripura is also plain area. Rest of the region form part of mountains and
hill ranges. Along with the west coast of India, this region has some of the Indian subcontinent's last remaining rain forests.
2.3
The North Eastern Region is one of the most bio-diverse regions in the world. The rich
natural beauty, serenity, exotic flora and fauna together with the art, culture, traditions of
tribal inhabitants of the region are attractions for ecological researchers, tourists,
anthropologists, nature lovers, adventurers as well as socio-economic researchers.
Geographic and demographic profiles of the States of the region
2.4
The NER of India covers an area of 2.63 lakh sq. km. which accounts for approximately
8% of geographical area of the country and is inhabited by 39 million (2001 census)
population which is about 4% population of the country. While Arunachal Pradesh is the
largest state in the region in respect of geographical area, Sikkim has the smallest area.
2.5
Forest cover of the NER is substantially higher at 66% compared to about 20% for the
country. Except Assam and Sikkim, in all other States, the forest cover is more than 75% of
their geographical area (Appendix Table 2.1). Density of population is 148 persons per Sq.
Km compared to 313 for India. In Arunachal Pradesh, it is as low as 13 persons per Sq.
Km. The highlands are areas of sparse population while the lowlands are densely
populated.
2.6
The demographic composition and its settlement in number of villages and towns are
important aspects in planning and development programmes and for organizing statistical
activities such as NSS socio-economic surveys. Except Assam and Mizoram, urbanization
in the region is very less (Appendix Table 2.2). 16% of population lives in urban areas
compared to 28% for the country. Shares of rural and urban populations in the total
population of the country are 4% and 2% respectively. There are 254 towns in the region
with Assam alone accounting for 125 of them. There are 20 towns with population 50000
or more.
6
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
2.7
Total 42250 villages in the NE States account for 6.6 percent of villages in India. Assam
has 26312 villages followed by 6026 villages in Meghalaya and 4065 villages in Arunachal
Pradesh (Appendix Table 2.3). Rest of the States together is having less than 6000 villages.
Villages are generally small except in Assam and Tripura. 76% villages in the Region have
less than 1000 population and 91% has less than a population of 2000. Corresponding
figures for India are 64% and 84% respectively Appendix Table 2.4). Average population
of the village in North-East is 775 as compared to the All India average of 1129 persons per
village Within North-east, while the average population per village in Tripura is about
3000, in Arunachal Pradesh it is only 214.
2.8
Tribal population forms 27% of the population of the North East, and in four States i.e.,
Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, tribes are in majority. North East
India is the region of social and cultural diversity with more than 166 separate tribes
speaking a wide range of languages. The states of Arunachal Pradesh (ST-64%),
Meghalaya (ST-86%), Mizoram (ST-95%) and Nagaland (ST-89%) are mostly inhabited
by a number of native tribes. Each tribe has its own distinct tradition of art, culture, dance,
music and life styles. The numerous fairs and festivals celebrated by these communities are
integral part of socio-economic panorama of North Eastern region.
2.9
Along with social and cultural traditionalism, the North East has moved on development
parameters of modernizations such as literacy. Literacy rate for the Region is higher than
the all-India literacy rate. Higher literacy rate for women has contributed to the overall high
literacy rate. Mizoram has a literacy rate of 88%. Birth rate and death rates for most of the
States are lower compared to all-India.
2.10 Though the region is diverse and heterogeneous, it is also homogeneous in the sense that
the social stratification found in other parts of the country is not present in the North East.
Economic profile of the States of the region
2.11 The economy of the region continues to be predominantly agrarian but its full potential is
yet to be exploited. Very large proportion of population in the area depends on agriculture
or agriculture related activities for livelihood. Assam‟s tea gardens produce about half of
the country‟s tea production and contribute about one sixth of the world‟s entire tea
production. In Manipur, about 88% of the total working population in the hills and about
7
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
60% of the working population in the valley depend entirely on the agriculture and allied
pursuits like animal husbandry, fisheries and forestry. 90% of people in Mizoram are
cultivators and the village exists like a big family. Over 85% population of Nagaland is
directly dependent on agriculture. Meghalaya is basically an agricultural state and about 80
percent of its total population is dependent primarily on agriculture for livelihood.
2.12 However, the NER lags behind other regions in the country in industrialisation. The states
in the region are devoid of any industrial base, except perhaps for Assam which has
factories based on traditional products such as tea, oil and wood. Meghalaya is trying to
make headway in setting up of small and medium industries. There are a number of factors
contributing to the lack of industrial growth in the region like poor infrastructure,
inadequate backward and forward linkages, difficulties in communication and
transportation, etc.
2.13 In the absence of potential exploitation of agriculture and industry, the pressure for
employment is on the service sector. The contribution of agriculture to the state domestic
income is much higher in this region, except for Meghalaya and Nagaland. Mining in case
of Meghalaya and forestry and logging in case of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland are
important contributors to NSDP. Despite being rich in natural resources, development in
the North Eastern region has lagged behind the rest of the country. The region‟s economy
is generally characterized by low per-capita income, low capital formation, in-adequate
infrastructure facilities, geographical isolation and communication bottleneck, inadequate
exploitation of natural resources like mineral resources, hydro power potential, forests etc.,
low level of industrialisation, lack of private and foreign direct investment and high unemployment rate among the relatively high literate people.
2.14 The pace of development in the hilly areas and plains differ considerably. The valleys are
economically active areas of the region, the Brahmaputra valley being the most active. In
the remote tribal areas, principal source of livelihood happens to be timber and minor
forest produce. Selling firewood to those requiring the same for cooking purpose augments
their meagre incomes from other sources. There are plenty of natural resources in the
region. Crude Oil and natural gas is the major mineral resource of the region. Assam is the
first state in India where crude was found and extracted. Assam is also the state where
8
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
production of tea is one of the highest in India. There are large forest tracts in the hilly area
of each state rich in products such as timber, bamboo, silk, etc. The region is rich with
variety of cultures and traditions which find expression in colourful products of handicraft
and handloom.
2.15 Poverty ratio for the States is not calculated separately for each of the State. Instead,
poverty ration of Assam is taken as a proxy for other States of the region also. The main
constraint faced in arriving at state specific poverty line was the non-availability of statespecific price indicators. This constraint was, to an extent, obviated in the methodology
adopted by the recent Expert group (Tendulkar Report, 2009) where the state-specific
poverty line for NE States is derived using intrinsically derived price indicators from NSS
consumer expenditure surveys. The available estimates of poverty Head Count Ratio
(HCR) for North-eastern states is given in Appendix Table 2.5.
Development strategies of Government of India for NER
2.16 The Northeast India has got its definite identity due to its peculiar physical, economic and
socio-cultural characteristics. The eight states are officially recognised as special category.
The North East Council (NEC) was constituted in 1971 as the nodal agency for the
economic and social development of the eight states. The North Eastern Council (NEC)
came into being by an Act of Parliament, The North Eastern Council Act, 1971 to act as
advisory body in respect of balanced socio-economic development of the North Eastern
Areas consisting of the present States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. The NEC started functioning in the year 1972.
The Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DONER) was set up in September
2001 to act as the nodal Department of the Central Government to deal with matters
pertaining to socio-economic development of the eight States of North East i.e. Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Sikkim. The NEC
Act was amended in 2002. As a consequence thereof, Sikkim is now a member of the
NEC. Subsequently, through an critically important amendment in 2005, the role of NEC
has been altered from the main security perspective to a development perspective. And
thus, NEC is made the Regional Planning Body for the North Eastern Region with Minister
of DONER as chairman and a member of Planning Commission as one of the members.
9
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
2.17 Development strategies for NER documented in the 11th five year plan, besides other
aspects, emphasized also that capacity building is urgently needed for the States of the
Region: There is an urgent need for intensive, effective, focused and time-bound drive for
capacity building of State machinery wherever States feel that the existing capacity is
inadequate. There is need to revisit the „Capacity Building‟ scheme of DONER. One
critical area that requires immediate re-look is the States‟ capacity to mobilize their own
resources. Capacity building of personnel in this area would have to be upgraded.
2.18 In the context of current development perspective, the NEC has important roles in the
matters of common interest in the field of economic and social planning of the region. As
noted above, the capacity building has been recognized as one of the development
strategies of NER in the 11th Plan. At present NEC compiles „Basic Statistics‟ for NE
region based on the information available mainly from Census and Central Statistical
Office (CSO). There are other information in NSS Reports which may be included in this
compilation such as distribution of population by MPCE classes, consumption pattern,
labour force indicators and unorganised sector economic activities, etc. Also NSS Reports
have more recent information in respect of some indicators compared to Census or other
sources. These may be more helpful for the users. In the present context, the NEC can play
enhanced role in matters of capacity building with technical facilitation by NSSO.
10
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Chapter Three
Surveys of NSSO with particular reference to North Eastern Region
3.1 The National Sample Survey (NSS) was set up in 1950 on the recommendations of the
National Income Committee, chaired by the late Prof. P.C. Mahalanobis, to bridge large
gaps in statistical data for computation of national income aggregates, especially in respect
of the unorganized and household sector of the economy. NSSO has been conducting
nationwide multi-subject, integrated, large-scale sample surveys in the form of successive
rounds covering various aspects of social, economic, demographic, industrial and
agricultural statistics. These surveys are undertaken striking a balance between the urgent
and contemporary need for reliable statistical data on different topics and the constraints of
limited resources, both physical and financial.
3.2 The subject coverage of Socio-Economic enquiries for different rounds is decided on the
basis of a 10-year cycle. Certain topics like labour force and household consumer
expenditure are repeated once in every 5 years while some other topics are covered once in
10 years in such a way that 7 years out of the Ten-Year cycle are allotted for specified
subjects while the remaining years are allocated to subjects of special interest. The subjects
covered include employment and unemployment, consumer expenditure, housing condition
of people, land holdings, live stock, enterprises, debt and investment, social consumption,
demography, morbidity, disability, etc. The remaining years are for open rounds in which
subjects of current/special interest are undertaken on the demand of other Central Ministries,
and national and international organizations, etc.
3.3 In general, each survey extends to a year, which is termed a round. However, there are some
rounds of six months duration also. Presently at the All-India Level, each round covers
about 12,000 to 14,000 villages and urban blocks in the Central sample (covered by NSSO)
and an independent sample of about 14,000 to 16,000 villages and urban blocks in the State
sample (covered by the Governments of various states and union territories). The SocioEconomic Surveys cover the whole of the Indian Union except for a few inaccessible and
difficult pockets.
3.4 Broad Subjects covered by NSSO and Indicators are:
11
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
3.4.1 Household Consumer Expenditure: Level and Pattern of Household Consumer
Expenditure; Nutritional Intake;
Commodity-wise Consumption; Adequacy of Food;
Differences in Level of Consumption among Socio-Economic Groups; Energy Used; Use
of Durable Goods; Consumption from Public Distribution System; etc.
3.4.2 Employment-Unemployment and Migration: Labour Force Parameters by Age, Sex,
industry
/
occupation
classification,
, Sector
and
States;
Employment / Unemployment Situation among Religious Groups; Unemployment
Situation
among
Social
Groups;
Employment
/
Unemployment
Situation in Cities and Towns; Participation of Indian Women in Household Work and
other Specified Activities; Non-Agricultural Workers in Informal Sector; etc.
Nature,
Reason and other Aspects of Migration;
3.4.3 Household Wealth / Finance: Household Assets and Liabilities; Household Indebtedness;
Household Borrowings and Repayments; Household Capital Expenditure;
3.4.4 Health & Hygiene: Morbidity and Treatment of Ailments; Health Care and the Condition
of the Aged; Maternal and Child Health Care; Profile of disabled Persons; Housing
condition, drinking water, sanitation and hygiene; Conditions of urban slums; etc.
3.4.5 Education: Literacy and Levels of Education; Attending Educational Institution: Its Level,
Nature and Expenditure on Education Status of Education and Vocational Training;
Economic Activities and School Attendance by Children; etc.
3.4.6 Non
Agricultural
unorganised/
informal
/
unincorporated
enterprises:
Manufacturing, Trade, Services: Salient Features and Characteristics of Enterprises Size,
Employment and Other Key Estimates; Assets and Borrowings of Enterprises;
3.4.7 Land Holdings, Livestock Holdings and other agrarian issues: Household Ownership
Holdings; Seasonal Variation and Other Aspects; Consumption by Farmer Households;
Access to Modern Technology for Farming; Income, Expenditure and Productive Assets;
3.4.8 Some Aspects of Farming: Cultivation of Selected Crops; Ownership of Livestock etc.
3.4.9 Others: Common Property Resources; Travel by Indian Households; Village facilities in
India, Culture, Prices etc.
12
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
3.5 Outline of sample design: In NSS surveys, uniform sampling design is followed for all the
states/UTs including the North Eastern States and information on sampled household is
collected. Since no frame exists at household level, to arrive at the sampled households, two
or three stage sampling technique are resorted to, where villages and UFS blocks are the
first stage units for rural and urban sectors respectively. Household are the ultimate stage
units. In case of big villages/UFS blocks there is another intermediary stage where big
villages/UFS blocks are sub-divided into number of small pockets called hamlet groups/sub
blocks and two or three hamlet groups/sub blocks are selected for survey work to control the
work load of the field officials at listing stage. Stratification is done at village/UFS block
level and also at household level. Thus basically, NSS design is a stratified two stage/ three
stage design.
3.6 Stratification and sub-stratification
3.7.1 Stratification: Within each district of a State/ UT, two basic strata are formed as follows:
i) rural stratum comprising of all rural areas of the district and
ii) urban stratum comprising of all the urban areas of the district.
However, within the urban areas of a district, if there are one or more towns with population
10 lakhs or more as per population census 2001 in a district, each of them is considered as a
separate basic stratum and the remaining urban areas of the district is considered as another
basic stratum. For NE region, there is no million plus city as per census 2001.
3.7.2 Sub-stratification:
3.7.2.1 Rural sector: Rural part of each district is divided into number of sub-strata consisting of
villages, based on some criteria which again depend on the subject coverage of the survey.
3.7.2.2 Urban sector: The towns within a district, except those with population 10 lakhs or
more, are merged together and then divided into number of sub-strata consisting of UFS
blocks.
For towns with population 10 lakhs or more, the urban blocks of the town are classified
into number of sub-strata using suitable criteria which varies from round to round.
13
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
3.8 Selection of FSUs: From each sub-stratum of a district of rural sector, FSUs are selected
with Probability Proportional to Size With Replacement (PPSWR), size being the
population as per census. For urban sector, from each sub-stratum FSUs are selected by
using Simple Random Sampling Without Replacement (SRSWOR) for UFS towns. Within
each sub-stratum, samples have been drawn in the form of two independent sub-samples in
both the rural and urban sectors.
3.9 Selection of hamlet-groups/ sub-blocks/ households: Large FSUs having approximate
present population of 1200 or more is divided into a suitable number (say, D) of „hamletgroups‟ in the rural sector and „sub-blocks‟ in the
Nagaland (U)
: triple
including Sikkim from the NE region, the number
Manipur
: double
of hamlet-groups is formed with relaxed condition.
Remaining States
: equal
urban sector. For rural areas of
some States,
Generally, two hamlet-groups (hg)/ sub-blocks (sb)
are selected from a large FSU wherever hamlet-groups/ sub-blocks have been formed.
Listing and selection of the households are done independently in the two selected hamletgroups/ sub-blocks to be described as sample hg/ sb 1 and 2.
3.10 Ultimate Stage Units (USUs) : Households or enterprises are the ultimate stage units in
both rural and urban sectors.
3.11 Formation of Second Stage Strata for USUs: List of households/eligible non agricultural
enterprises (NAEs) in the sample villages/blocks is used as frame for selection of second
stage units. Households or NAEs are classified into number of homogeneous strata (second
stage strata) using some characteristics of the units as classificatory variable.
3.12 Selection of households/Enterprises: From each SSS the sample households/enterprises
are selected by SRSWOR. If a household is selected for more than one schedule only one
type of schedule is canvassed in that household in some priority order and the household is
replaced for other type of schedule. Thus if a household is selected for Schedule 1.0, it is
not selected for Schedule 10 or any other type of schedule.
3.13. Participation of State DESs: Directorates of Economics and Statistics (DES)/ State
Statistical Bureaus (SSB) of States/UTs participate in NSS by following the same sample
design and canvassing the same enquiry schedules through their personnel. The sample
14
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
FSUs for DES/SSB of all the States/UTs are selected by NSSO and supplied to them. This
is known as „state sample‟ as opposed to the term „central sample‟ for samples canvassed
by NSSO. All the States and Union Territories except Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Lakshadweep participate in the survey. Usually
equal number of FSUs is selected in the „central‟ and „state‟ samples. However, some
States opt for more number of samples if they are in a position to allocate more resources
for the survey. The term „matching pattern‟ denotes the ratio of sample size of „state
sample‟ to „central‟ sample. Following is the „matching pattern‟ for States of NER.
3.14 Central sample data are collected by NSSO and the state sample data are collected by the
Directorates of Economics and Statistics (DES) of the respective State governments.
However, for the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur and Tripura, central
sample data are also collected by the DES of the State governments.
3.15 Important statistical indicators and estimates in respect of NE States available through NSS
are given in Appendix Tables 3.1 to 3.6. These are:
(i)
Estimates of MPCE and WPR
(ii)
Distribution of persons by MPCE classes
(iii) Quintiles of distribution of MPCE
(iv)
3.16
Consumption Basket
(v)
Average unit value for certain specific items
(vi)
Average budget share for different item groups
It may be seen that the estimates of main parameters are available for each of the Northeastern states from main rounds of NSS such as quinquennial Survey on Household
Consumer Expenditure and Employment and Unemployment.
15
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Chapter Four
Sample Size Issues for NE States
4.1
One of the terms of reference of the committee is to suggest an appropriate sample size at
State level in NE States. Since sample size varies depending on the nature of parameter to
be estimated, one can restrict only to a few important characteristic for suggesting sample
sizes.
4.2
It has been mentioned in Chapter One that several studies have been conducted by NSSO in
the past on the aspect of sample size in NSS surveys for generating reliable estimates of
key indicators. These indicators include the variables MPCE, Proportion of people in
MPCE quintile classes, WPR, Proportion of unemployed (PU), Gross Value Added (GVA)
per worker, etc. These studies were done for estimates at State level as well as for district
level estimates. Further, analysis was done at disaggregated levels such as MPCE- food and
non-food, WPR – male and female, PU – male and female, GVA per worker by tabulation
categories as per National Industrial Classification, etc. Data of schedule 1.0 and schedule
10 of NSS 55th and 61st rounds and data of 56th rounds were utilised for the studies.
4.3
It should be recognised that the determination of the optimal sample size on common
yardstick for various parameters estimated in a multi subject survey like NSS is not easy.
The sample size may be optimum for some characteristics but may not be optimum for
some other characteristics. Hence, the issue of sample size is examined on following
criteria:

existing sample size

the sampling fraction for north eastern states in comparison with other comparable
states in India

corresponding relative precision of estimates of key parameters

simulation of required sample size corresponding to 5% RSE of key indicators
For this analysis, sample sizes allocated for the NE States in past several rounds of NSS are
given in Appendix table 4.1. The sample sizes for enterprise survey rounds (62nd, 63rd and
16
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
67th) are relatively less because proportion of non-agricultural workers is small in NE
States.
4.4
The sample size of various NSS rounds could also be seen from the point of view of
sampling fraction for respective states (Appendix Tables 4.2 and 4.3). It may be seen that
overall sampling fractions of first stage units( FSUs, villages in respect of rural and UFS
blocks in respect of urban) for central sample in respect of NE region were 3.1% for rural
and 7.3% for urban for 61st Round. The corresponding sampling fractions for rural and
urban for all-India were 1.3% and 1.2%, respectively. Thus, the sampling fraction for NE
region is almost three times that of all-India. The sampling fractions in respect of Assam
were 1.3% and 2.4% for rural and urban respectively. For NE region excluding Assam, the
sampling fractions for NSS 61st round works out to be 6.3% and 12.9% for rural and urban
respectively. In respect of states of Nagaland, Mizoram and Sikkim for central sample for
rural the sampling fraction was more than 20% and for urban it was 18%.(fig. 4.1).
4.5
The percentage of all-India population in the States and the corresponding percentages of
all-India sample size allocated to NE States for different rounds can be seen in Tables 4.4
and 4.5. The percentage of samples allocated to NE States is relatively more compared to
proportion of population of NE States.
Fig 4.1 : Sampling Fractions in different states of North-EastNSS 61st Round
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Rural
Urban
17
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
4.6
The existing sample size is also to be seen the level of precision available for various
estimates. The relative standard errors of important indicators based on 61st round data are
presented below (Appendix Table 4.6 and Table 4.7).
(a)
RSEs of MPCE-all and MPCE-food are less than 5% for almost all States of NE
except for Assam (urban). For MPCE-non food, RSEs are between 5% and 10% for
all the NE States. The RSEs are smaller than corresponding RSEs of other smaller
States of India.
(b)
RSEs of WPR-persons are less than 5% for almost all the NE States. However, RSEs
of WPR-females are above 10% in some cases. RSEs of PU are quite high.
4.7
The important inferences emerging from above analysis on required sample sizes of FSUs
based on data of 61st rounds are briefly summarised below.
(a)
For MPCE -all, (i) current sample sizes (c.s.) are good enough for a precision of 10%.
For MPCE (non-food), increase of sample size is required for attaining 5% RSE level.
(b)
For WPR – persons and WPR- males, current sample sizes are adequate at 5% and
10% levels of RSE. For WPR-females, increase of sample sizes is required.
(c)
For indicators like PU, which is a rare event compared to WPR or LFPR, the RSE is
expected to be more. This aspect leads to complications in determining the sample
size for arriving at estimates of PU with low RSE. This issue has been recognised in
other studies and reports on employment and unemployment.
(d)
In respect of Assam, the urban sample size may need to be augmented by 50% and
Tripura by 25% to attain the precision of MPCE at 5% level.
4.8
From the discussions and the information provided in the tables above, it is evident
that within the resources available for survey of any round of NSS, issue of sample size of
FSUs for North East are given adequate weightage while designing the survey. It is seen
that important characteristics like MPCE and WPR are estimated for NE States with fairly
good precision, comparable to other smaller States of India, at State level in the
quinquennial rounds. This has been observed by the previous committee also. The
estimates for quinquennial rounds are also published separately for each State.
18
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
19
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
4.9 For Annual rounds of consumer expenditure survey, sometimes separate estimates are not
published for all the States when surveyed number of households is very small (less than 300
for a State × Sector). However, annual rounds have been discontinued from 65th round.
Therefore, the issue is not studied by the present committee.
4.10 However, the question remains if estimates can be generated at disaggregated level of
population or geographical domain for which augmentation of sample sizes may be required.
It is true that there is a large diversity in the socio-economic profiles among the NE states
inter se, and also within each of them. Estimates may sometimes be important for section of
population of the state or for a district of the state. Distribution of population by MPCE
classes is an important indicator of the inequalities of income within a state. However, the
allocated sample size was found to be adequate to build up aggregate estimates on important
characteristics with desired level of reliability at state level. This level of precision was found
to be not much in variance from several of the other states. This may also be noted that for
many NE States, the sampling fraction is already high and there is limited scope of increasing
sample size. Thus, the feasibility of generating sub state level estimates on the basis of the
sample size examined by the committee may call for further investigation. This issue is
outside the purview of the terms of reference of the present committee.
20
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Chapter Five
Resources and their optimal utilization
5.1
The issue of generating reliable estimates for North-Eastern states cannot be resolved by
simply increasing the number of sample FSUs. It is well known that marginal rate of
decrease of sampling error goes down with the increase of sample size. On the other hand,
non-sampling errors have increasing trend with increase of sample size unless the
management aspects of survey work are of top order. The management aspects include
trained personnel, high level of motivation, logistical support, local conditions, high quality
supervision, scrutiny, monitoring, etc. The non-sampling error factor is more important in
the case of NE states because of the diversity, natural and social, which perhaps puts a
limitation on a standard uniform approach with regard to survey management for all states
of the region or even regions within a state.
5.2
Efficient management of survey operations within the available resources is to be given top
priority. The areas to be given emphasis are
(i)
Training of personnel
(ii)
Increasing the motivational level of survey personnel
(iii) Increasing the quality of supervision of field work
(iv) Improving the quality of collected data through post field-work interventions like
manual scrutiny, validation checks, re-checking of collected data, etc.
5.3
The DESs of the states, during the deliberations of the committee, highlighted the problems
of infrastructure in terms of manpower and computers in their respective States. Major
issues are:
(i)
Lack of infrastructure like computer hardware and software;
(ii)
Shortage of staff for NSS jobs;
(iii) Diversion of even the limited staff and resources for other jobs compromising the
statistical jobs. The quality and timeliness of the NSS work is impacted due to lack
of exclusive staff and logistics.
21
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
(iv) Besides, lack of appreciation towards data needs for development planning and low
priority on providing infrastructure, logistics lead to lack of motivation for the staff
engaged in NSS jobs.
5.4
DES Assam mentioned that there are 43 primary investigators in DES but none of them are
meant exclusively for NSS work. Computers are not adequate in numbers and are quite old
and require replacement. Their data processing capacity also needs to be improved. There
is no separate data processing unit at present. They need training, augmentation of
resources and software assistance. DES Manipur mentioned the need for staff and
hardware. DES Mizoram faces some problems in data processing due to inadequacy of
technical knowledge on tabulation work. DES Sikkim pointed out that field officials are
often assigned other types of work. Sometimes officials are called back from the field to
attend other assignments. There are no exclusive computers for NSS work.
5.5
In order to augment the sample size without changing the central sample sizes, other
alternatives were also studied. One such alternative is to pool the data of central and state
samples. This has the potential to be an optimum use of resources for augmenting the
sample size. This exercise was undertaken by the previous committee with the consumer
expenditure data of NSS 55th round for two States – Sikkim and Tripura.
5.6
The exercise involving Sikkim and Tripura revealed that if the pooled estimates were to
have better quality, then it would be necessary to examine first if the data were „poolable‟
in the sense that (i) the two sets of estimates were not widely divergent indicating presence
of varying degrees of sampling and/or non-sampling errors and (ii) the two sets of data
were not having varying degrees of non-sampling errors and inconsistencies. The
conclusions drown by the Adhikari Committee that (a) A cautious approach should be
taken regarding pooling of the estimates and the central and state sample results need to be
studied and validated from the viewpoint of internal and external consistencies. In other
words, „poolability‟ may be ascertained before pooling is undertaken so that quality of the
estimates does not become worse after pooling. (b)Time lag between publication of central
and state sample results should be minimized. If necessary, hardware/software resources
etc. at the disposal of the SSBs/DESs may be enhanced. (c) There should be uniformity of
concepts, definitions and operational procedures practiced by central and state field staff so
22
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
that content of non-sampling errors may be reduced and brought to the same level in both
the samples. This may be attained through more interactions between central and state
agencies. The observations made by the previous committee are contextually relevant.
5.7
The present committee has again studied the estimates generated from central and state
samples with the consumer expenditure and employment-unemployment data. Findings of
the present exercise involving 61st round data of Mizoram is summarised below. It may be
noted that data in respect of both central and state sample for the state of Mizoram are
collected by the Directorate of Economics and statistics, Govt of Mizoram.
5.7.1 The estimates of MPCE – food are close to each other between central and state samples.
The estimates for MPCE-non-food vary a little between the samples but are fairly close to
each other. The RSEs of the estimates are small in both central and state samples – below
5% in all cases except central non-food MPCE where the RSE is 5.3% (see tables 5.1 and
5.2).
5.7.2 Estimates of WPR and LFPR are given in the tables 5.3 and 5.4 for central and state
samples. There are some differences in the estimates between the central and state samples
in the rural sector – primarily because of differences in estimates of female WPR. Further
analysis by status wise break-up of WPR (table 5.5) shows that the difference is mainly in
the Status code 11-21 which is the status code relating to regular wage/salary earners. In
general, there seems to be an under reporting of workers in the state sample in rural and
urban sectors and over sex categories and status codes (tables 5.3 to 5.6).
5.8
Thus there is ample scope of harvesting the resources available for field work of NSS
through improving the survey skill of field personnel and orientation to quality of data
collection. The importance of training of field officials is integral part of survey operations
and this may be given emphasis in respect of North-Eastern states. Besides, the capability
of procession of data which is a skilled component of entire exercise needs special attention
for resource up gradation and augmentation.
23
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Chapter Six
Synthesis and Recommendations
6.1
The committee has recognised that NSS data, which is very useful in many ways for
planning and monitoring the development parameters of States, has not been fully utilised
in most NE States. Even NEC, which is supposedly a Regional Planning Board, has not
made desired efforts to make use of NSS data. What is more, like many other states in the
country, many of the NE States do not bring out results based on state sample data in time
due to low priority assigned to the NSS work and other bottlenecks. In some states, no
report has been published on NSS data in recent years. It is observed that the efforts
undertaken by NSSO for collection and processing of data in case of central sample are not
matched by DES of the States due to various reasons.
6.2
Any survey has mainly two sources of errors – sampling and non-sampling error. Studies in
RSEs show that sampling error is controlled at state level for important indicators, although
there is a need to further reduce it if estimates at decentralized region or category are
intended. However, extent of non-sampling errors is not estimable. Reduction of sampling
error and non-sampling error simultaneously and optimally is the primary concern. Lack of
priority coupled with inadequate capabilities for data generation and processing are two
important contributing factors to high non sampling errors in N. E States.
6.3
RSEs can be reduced by increasing the sample sizes. But, as noted earlier also, marginal
rate of reduction of RSEs decreases with increase of sample size. Thus for lowering an
already controlled RSE by small amount, a large increase in sample size requiring
relatively more resources may not be an optimum strategy.
6.4
The sampling fractions for the NE states, except in Assam, are already on the higher side
and there is limited scope of increasing sample sizes. Moreover, in terms of population and
number of villages and towns, these states, except Assam, are similar to an average district
in rest of the country. Taking into account the already high sampling fraction, the level of
RSE , its parity with other states and trade-off with non sampling error, further increase in
sample size , in general, is not needed. However, in case of Assam and Tripura, there is a
need to augment the sample size for urban sector by 50% for the former and by 25% for the
later.
24
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
6.5
In respect of four North Eastern states, viz, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram and
Tripura the survey for central sample work is currently carried out by the state DES.
Acknowledging the importance of controlling of non sampling errors and the importance of
dedicated field staff for this, NSSO should directly collect data for central sample in these
States as in other states and NSS field offices may be opened in these States. This will also
have a stimulating effect on statistical activities in the States.
6.6
As stated above, the existing sample size either of central and state samples was found to
be more or less adequate to provide lead indicators such as MPCE and WPR with
reasonable precision of less than 5% RSE. However, the precision can be further improved
by pooling the central and state sample data, particularly in the states where NSSO collect
data for central samples and state agency for state samples. This may enhance the scope
deriving indicators at broad sub-state level also. This should be achieved through
appropriate measures to collect data for central samples by central agency and state
samples by state agency for which NSSO should orient its field survey setup in the four
States viz. Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur and Tripura for improving the
capabilities of human resources in the State for conducting survey and processing of NSS
State Sample data.
6.7 The resources used for conduct of state sample thus need to be used judiciously so that the
endeavour of undertaking the survey leads to estimates for informed decision making. For
this purpose, the state staff resources are required to be properly oriented for the survey
programmes. Therefore, besides augmentation of dedicated staff for data collection and
processing of state sample, specific measures for their capacity development are also
necessary.
6.8 Towards strengthening the data processing capabilities in North-East, given the relatively
smaller sample size compared to other bigger states, a coordinated approach to be adopted.
It will be most appropriate that this is undertaken in collaboration with NSSO. For this
purpose, a data processing centre of NSSO may need to be established in North Eastern
region for processing the central sample data and supporting and improving the human
resources of the states for the data processing of their state sample.
25
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
In the light of the above, the specific recommendations of the committee are as follows:
 Coordinated effort by the states to resolve the non-technical issues for improving the
data system in the North East, particularly data from NSS is as much important as the
sample size issues for NE States.

Keeping in view the utmost need for the quality data for the NE States, while noting the
thrust on capacity building , an integrated office of NSSO in North East should be
established on a priority basis (a) for imparting training to State DES staff (b) guiding
processing of State sample data, (c) providing software and required training for their
applications (d) providing guidance in acquiring appropriate hardware for data processing
and finally (e) locating central processing unit for North East.

In the context of the regional planning role assigned to the NEC, the committee is of the
view that the NEC should give high priority in generating both adequate and quality data
for the North Eastern states, which could be very useful inputs towards regional planning.
Towards this end a synergy could be created by networking with regional offices of
NSSO and recently established centre of Indian Statistical Institute Centre at
Tezpur, which should be able to provide desired support for capability development
in related fields such as sampling methodology, data processing, data analysis and
informed decision support. In short, the committee strongly recommends that the Zonal
office of NSSO in the North East truly emerge as proactive resource centres.
 NSS activities in the North Eastern region should be suitably streamlined both from
the point of view of survey operations and it‟s processing.
 Resource augmentation for quality data generation should judiciously put emphasis
on human resource development, infrastructural improvement, and functional
improvement of survey operations together with increase of sample sizes.
 While existing sample size for generating lead indicators such as MPCE, WPR and LFPR
is generally adequate in NE states, in case of Assam, the urban sample size needs
augmentation by about 50% and in case of Tripura by 25% to attain the desired
precision.

Acknowledging the importance of controlling of non sampling errors and the importance
of dedicated field staff for this, NSSO may directly collect data for central sample in
these States as in other states and NSS field offices may be opened in these States.
26
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
For this purpose, NSSO should orient its field survey setup in the four States viz.
Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur and Tripura for improving the capabilities
of human resources in the State for conducting survey and processing of NSS State
Sample data.
27
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Appendix-Tables
list of tables
Table No.
Description
Table 2.1
Geographical area, percentage of forest cover , population and
population density in different North-Eastern states
33
Table 2.2
Distribution of Population by Rural and Urban - 2001
34
Table 2.3
State-wise number of districts, area, number of villages & towns
in North Eastern Region (NER)
34
Table 2.4
Percentage distribution of villages by size class of village
population for NE States
35
Table 2.5
State-wise Poverty Head Count Ratio (2004-05)
35
Table 3.1
Table 3.2R
Page No.
st
Estimates of MPCE, WPR (NSS 61 round)
36
st
37
st
Distribution of persons by MPCE classes (61 round)
Table 3.2U
Distribution of persons by MPCE classes (61 round)
37
Table 3.3R
First, second, third and fourth quintiles of distribution of MPCE
in rural sector: NE States and all-India- NSS 64th round
38
Table 3.3U
First, second, third and fourth quintiles of distribution of MPCE
in urban sector: States and all-India NSS 64th round
38
Table 3.4
Consumption Basket (NSS 61st Round)
39
Table 3.5
Average unit-value of specific items in 61st round – comparison
of Assam and other NE States (NSS 61st round)
40
Table 3.6R
The average budget share in states of North-Eastern States of
Rural India(61st round)
41
Table 3.6U
The average budget share in states of North-Eastern States of
Urban India (61st round)
42
Table 3.7R
Distribution (per 1000) of usually working persons in the
principal status and subsidiary status taken together by broad
industry division (NIC 1998) for the north-eastern states
43
Table 3.7U
Distribution (per 1000) of usually working persons in the
principal status and subsidiary status taken together by broad
industry division (NIC 1998) for the north-eastern states
44
Table 4.1
Sample sizes in different rounds for NE States
Table 4.2
Comparison of sampling fractions for NER States and other
smaller States and all-India - Rural
47
Table 4.3
Comparison of sampling fractions for NER States in relation to
smaller States and all-India – Urban
48
45-46
31
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table No.
Description
Page No.
Table 4.4
Comparison of percentage of sample sizes for NER States and
other smaller States and all-India - Rural
49
Table 4.5
Comparison of percentage of sample sizes for NER States and
other smaller States and all-India - Urban
50
Table 4.6
RSE of MPCE - 61st round
51
st
Table 4.7
RSE of WPR - 61 round
52
Table 4.8
Required sample sizes for different indicators (based on data of
61st round)
Table 5.1
MPCE for Mizoram : NSS 61st Round Schedule 1.0 - URP
55
Table 5.2
MPCE for Mizoram : NSS 61st Round Schedule 1.0 - MRP
55
Table 5.3
WPR, LFPR for usual status ( PS+SS) for Mizoram : NSS 61st
Round Schedule 10
56
Table 5.4
WPR, LFPR for usual status ( PS+SS) for Mizoram : NSS 61st
Round Schedule 10
56
Table 5.5
WPR, LFPR by usual activity status ( PS+SS) for Mizoram : NSS
61st Round Sch 10
57
Table 5.6
WPR, LFPR by usual activity status ( PS+SS) for Mizoram : NSS
61st Round Sch 10
58
53-54
32
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 2.1: Geographical area, percentage of forest cover , population and population
density in different North-Eastern states
State
Geographical
Area
Percentage area
of forest cover
Population
(Persons)
(‘000)
(Sq. Km)
Density
(Persons/
Sq.Km)
Arunachal Pradesh
83743
81.22
1098
13
Assam
78438
35.48
26656
340
Manipur
22327
77.12
2167
97
Meghalaya
22429
75.08
2319
103
Mizoram
22081
87.42
889
40
Nagaland
16579
82.09
1990
120
Sikkim
7096
45.97
541
76
Tripura
10486
77.18
3199
305
NE-total
263179
66.10
38859
148
All India
3287263
20.64
1028610
313
Source: Basic Statistics of North East
33
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 2.2 : Distribution of Population by Rural and Urban - 2001
rural
percentage
population
to all(‘000)
India
population
urban
state
total
population
(‘000)
Arunachal
Pradesh
1,098
870
0.12%
228
0.08%
20.75%
26,656
23,216
3.13%
3,439
1.20%
12.90%
Manipur
2,167
1,591
0.21%
576
0.20%
26.58%
Meghalaya
2,319
1,865
0.25%
454
0.16%
19.58%
Mizoram
889
448
0.06%
441
0.15%
49.63%
Nagaland
1,990
1,647
0.22%
343
0.12%
17.23%
Sikkim
541
481
0.06%
60
0.02%
11.07%
Tripura
3,199
2,653
0.36%
546
0.19%
17.06%
NE-Total
38,859
32,771
4.41%
6,087
2.13%
15.66%
all India
10,28,610
7,42,491
100.00%
2,86,120
100.00%
27.82%
Assam
population
(‘000)
percentage
to all-India
population
% of urban
population
Source: Census 2001
Table 2. 3: State-wise number of districts, area, number of villages & towns in North Eastern
Region (NER)
states
Arunachal
Pradesh
Assam
no. of
district
area
(sq. kms.)
no. of
villages
in the
state
no. of
villages
per district
no of
towns in
the state
no. of
towns
per
district
statutory
towns
census
towns
13
83743
4065
313
17
1
0
17
23
78438
26312
1144
125
5
80
45
Manipur
9
22,327
2391
266
33
4
28
5
Meghalaya
7
22429
6034
861
16
2
10
6
Mizoram
8
22081
817
102
22
3
72
0
Nagaland
8
16579
1317
165
9
1
8
1
Sikkim
4
7096
452
113
9
2
8
1
Tripura
4
10486
870
218
23
6
13
10
NE-Total
76
263179
42258
556
254
3
219
85
all India
593
3287263
638596
1077
5161
9
3799
1362
Source: 2001 census.
34
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 2.4: Percentage distribution of villages by size class of village population for NE States
villages
state
Arunachal
Pradesh
Assam
total
number
*
percentages
size classes (2001 census pop)
0
1-50
51100
101200
201500
5011000
10012000
20013000
30015000
percent of
villages
below
avg.
village
size
average
village
pop
>5000
4065
5
25
22
21
17
7
3
0
0
0
214
75
26312
5
3
5
10
23
24
21
6
3
1
882
65
Manipur
2228
3
2
8
23
32
14
9
4
3
1
701
75
Meghalaya
6034
4
7
14
25
35
11
3
1
0
0
309
68
Mizoram
817
13
3
3
11
31
24
9
3
1
0
548
67
Nagaland
436
0
0
1
4
16
26
22
12
11
8
1858
67
Sikkim
452
0
5
3
2
18
35
27
6
3
2
1064
67
Tripura
870
1
0
0
1
6
11
22
21
22
15
3050
64
NER-tot
41214
4
6
8
14
24
20
16
5
3
1
-
-
all-India
636127
7
4
4
7
20
23
20
8
5
3
1129
68
*number of villages under NSS coverage.
Table 2.5: State-wise Poverty Head Count Ratio (2004-05)
as per Expert Group
( Tendulkar Committee)
as per Planning Commission*
state
rural
urban
combined
rural
urban
combined
Arunachal Pradesh
22.3
3.3
19.7
33.6
23.5
31.1
Assam
22.3
3.3
19.7
36.4
21.8
34.4
Manipur
22.3
3.3
19.7
39.3
34.5
38.0
Meghalaya
22.3
3.3
19.7
14.0
24.7
16.1
Mizoram
22.3
3.3
19.7
23.0
7.9
15.3
Nagaland
22.3
3.3
19.7
10.0
4.3
9.0
Sikkim
22.3
3.3
19.7
31.8
25.9
31.1
Tripura
22.3
3.3
19.7
44.5
22.5
40.6
all India
28.3
25.7
27.5
41.8
25.7
37.2
Source : Basic statistics of NE and Economic Survey, India, 2001-2002.
* Note: Poverty ratio of Assam is taken to be the poverty ratio of other NE states by the Planning Commission.
35
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 3.1 : Estimates of MPCE, WPR (NSS 61st round)
rural
urban
MPCE
MPCE
items
WPR
(ps+ss)
total
expenditure
(Rs.)
food
MPCE
in %
non-food
MPCE in
%
Arunachal
Pradesh
771.53
50.62%
49.38%
458
Assam
543.18
65.99%
34.01%
614.2
54.75%
Meghalaya
655.31
Mizoram
Nagaland
WPR
(ps+ss)
food
MPCE
in %
non-food
MPCE in
%
881.10
51.34%
48.66%
319
391
1057.98
49.50%
50.50%
336
45.25%
440
726.38
49.29%
50.71%
338
56.10%
43.90%
525
1190.08
40.36%
59.64%
373
778.35
56.95%
43.05%
521
1200.51
46.35%
53.65%
383
1010.81
54.11%
45.89%
527
1498.47
45.44%
54.56%
364
Sikkim
688.53
54.16%
45.84%
443
1106.79
41.98%
58.02%
369
Tripura
487.63
63.19%
36.81%
323
1000.54
47.15%
52.85%
298
all India
558.79
55.05%
44.95%
439
1052.36
42.51%
57.49%
365
Manipur
total
expenditure
(Rs.)
MPCE – monthly Per Capita Expenditure; WPR – Worker Population Ratio
36
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 3.2R : Distribution of persons by MPCE classes (61st round)
rural
per 1000 number of persons in mpce class (Rs)
0
–
235
state/UT
235 270
–
–
270 320
320
–
365
365
–
410
410
–
455
455
–
510
510
–
580
580
–
690
690
–
890
890 1155
–
&
1155 more
estd.
av.
no.of
MPCE persons
all
classes (Rs)
(00)
Arunachal
Pradesh
10
8
24
41
50
58
87
122
147
187
141
124
1000
772
7713
Assam
14
15
64
78
104
98
118
152
177
129
33
17
1000
543
229124
Manipur
0
0
2
27
41
79
147
241
231
155
54
21
1000
614
14516
Meghalaya
0
0
0
24
22
57
123
183
276
207
83
26
1000
655
18053
Mizoram
0
0
11
12
17
17
70
116
231
283
153
90
1000
778
4280
Nagaland
0
0
0
0
0
12
5
45
157
324
211
245
1000
1011
5721
Sikkim
2
1
35
81
82
79
107
122
148
139
102
104
1000
689
4465
Tripura
26
44
105
114
120
116
140
124
96
68
27
21
1000
488
27511
all-India
48
51
99
105
102
94
99
102
104
98
50
50
1000
559
7331055
Table 3.2U: Distribution of persons by MPCE classes (61st round)
urban
per 1000 number of persons in mpce class (Rs)
675
–
790
790
–
930
930 1100 1380
–
–
–
1100 1380 1880
1880
–
2540
2540
&
all
more classes
estd.
no.of
persons
(00)
0 335 395
– –
–
335 395 485
485
–
580
Arunachal
Pradesh
11
17
93
122
121
150
125
120
153
62
18
9
1000
881
998
Assam
14
26
89
99
76
121
105
166
96
121
63
25
1000
1058
23365
Manipur
1
12
99
193
197
190
140
105
36
22
3
1
1000
726
4691
Meghalaya
0
1
15
50
134
115
100
134
129
229
66
27
1000
1190
2770
Mizoram
0
2
10
29
95
110
141
157
179
157
86
34
1000
1201
2789
Nagaland
0
0
0
7
26
40
145
140
175
227
167
74
1000
1498
2379
Sikkim
4
7
16
92
104
49
180
158
186
115
55
31
1000
1107
568
Tripura
21
60
91
109
141
102
103
84
99
112
37
40
1000
1001
4488
all-India
50
51
98
103
97
99
103
97
102
99
51
49
1000
1052
2485051
state/UT
580
–
675
av.
MPCE
(Rs)
37
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 3.3R: First, second, third and fourth quintiles of distribution of
MPCE in rural sector: NE States and all-India- NSS 64th round
rural
quintile
State
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
average
MPCE
(Rs)
no. of
sample
persons
Arunachal Pradesh
631
775
994
1442
1087
1890
Assam
510
635
822
1034
799
4305
Manipur
631
731
836
975
843
4021
Meghalaya
645
771
895
1062
904
2753
Nagaland
986
1150
1309
1586
1335
2738
Sikkim
608
694
814
1152
917
2262
Tripura
547
626
735
988
802
4053
North-Eastern States
604
729
893
1150
923
19030
all-India
469
586
724
958
772
166621
The kth quintile is the level of MPCE below which 20k% of the rural population
lies; k=1,2,3,4. The quintiles may also be called the 20 th, 40th, 60th and 80th
percentiles.
Table 3.3U: First, second, third and fourth quintiles of distribution of MPCE
in urban sector: States and all-India NSS 64th round
urban
quintile
State
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
average
MPCE
(Rs)
no. of sample
persons
Assam
877
1183
1409
1942
1452
1658
Manipur
773
899
980
1078
1008
1828
Mizoram
1197
1461
1753
2233
1800
1808
North-Eastern States
866
1081
1414
1959
1460
7496
all-India
714
983
1328
1950
1472
75748
The kth quintile is the level of MPCE below which 20k% of the urban population lies;
k=1,2,3,4. The quintiles may also be called the 20 th, 40th, 60th and 80th percentiles.
38
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 3.4: Consumption Basket (NSS 61st Round)
item
item description
code
Assam
quanti
ty (kg)
value
(Rs)
Arunachal
quanti
value
ty (kg)
(Rs)
Manipur
quanti
value
ty (kg)
(Rs)
Mizoram
quanti
value
ty (kg)
(Rs)
Tripura
quanti
value
ty (kg)
(Rs)
Sikkim
quanti
ty (kg)
value
(Rs)
Nagaland
quanti
value
ty (kg)
(Rs)
Meghalaya
quanti
value
ty (kg)
(Rs)
All India
quanti
value
ty (kg)
(Rs)
rural
129
cereal: sub-total
13.04
134.81
14.627
151.87
15.69
177.86
13.237
147.48
12.245
119.19
11.216
102.41
12.427
165.58
11.318
122.15
12.114
100.65
159
pulses & pulse
prdcts: sub-total
0.622
18.25
0.56
14.22
0.447
10.82
0.574
19.25
0.384
12.43
0.491
14.71
0.861
20.07
0.315
9.36
0.705
17.91
169
milk & milk
products: sub-total
-
23.75
-
19.3
-
6.74
-
18.63
-
17.97
-
61.46
-
39.92
-
11.9
-
47.31
179
edible oil: subtotal
0.455
26.58
0.514
14.78
0.591
14.7
0.511
27.89
0.396
23.98
0.523
33.73
0.192
12.85
0.361
20.49
0.484
25.72
189
egg, fish & meat:
sub-total
-
55.01
-
81.44
-
44.07
-
80.86
-
58.36
-
45.05
-
146.86
-
84.09
-
18.6
229
vegetables: subtotal
-
53.51
-
60.33
-
37.51
-
88.75
-
43.2
-
62.49
-
89.02
-
52.69
-
36.23
249
fruits (fresh): subtotal
-
5.05
-
7.67
-
6.21
-
8.58
-
5.44
-
5.41
-
10.73
-
7.75
-
8.44
269
sugar: sub-total
0.461
8.62
0.412
8.16
0.268
5.29
0.769
15.1
0.375
5.66
0.438
7.81
0.611
11.15
0.603
12.12
0.741
13.25
urban
129
cereal: sub-total
11.92
144.02
12.62
131.34
15.38
166.00
12.08
143.02
12.19
156.59
10.22
113.61
12.61
172.42
10.39
130.40
9.94
105.82
159
pulses & pulse
prdcts: sub-total
0.77
23.80
0.68
21.01
0.53
13.44
0.62
21.33
0.57
18.65
0.61
17.84
0.89
23.18
0.39
11.72
0.82
23.62
169
milk & milk
products: sub-total
-
50.05
-
43.24
-
12.07
-
46.93
-
48.97
-
72.13
-
63.08
-
38.10
-
83.30
179
edible oil: subtotal
0.65
38.62
0.53
32.93
0.33
22.47
0.72
32.85
0.60
35.43
0.61
38.36
0.94
20.54
0.56
33.30
0.66
36.37
189
egg, fish & meat:
sub-total
-
82.38
-
84.88
-
48.02
-
115.23
-
93.76
-
54.95
-
172.44
-
102.85
-
28.47
229
vegetables: subtotal
-
67.87
-
67.60
-
38.08
-
111.88
-
58.73
-
80.49
-
107.47
-
59.07
-
49.91
249
fruits (fresh): subtotal
-
14.01
-
12.89
-
6.49
-
12.16
-
12.87
-
14.20
-
26.22
-
14.11
-
18.60
269
sugar: sub-total
0.60
11.91
0.54
10.52
0.30
5.93
0.85
14.90
0.52
8.36
0.53
10.20
0.55
11.43
0.67
13.76
0.87
15.88
39
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 3.5 : Average unit-value of specific items in 61st round – comparison of
Assam and other NE States (NSS 61st round)
sec
item
item-description
other NE
States
ASSAM
% difference=>
100*(NES-ASSAM)
/ASSAM
rural
1
102
Rice
11.10
10.43
6.424
1
144
Masur
32.20
31.54
2.093
1
160
Milk :Liquid
13.03
15.56
-16.260
1
171
Mustard oil
49.82
58.49
-14.823
1
180
Eggs(no.)
2.37
2.19
8.219
1
181
Fish, prawn
1
182
Goat meat/mutton
1
190
1
1
60.01
57.89
3.662
102.82
114.40
-10.122
Potato
7.67
7.53
1.859
191
Onion
12.21
11.43
6.824
261
Sugar
20.64
20.16
2.381
urban
2
102
Rice
11.89
11.91
-0.168
2
144
Masur
32.39
30.88
4.890
2
160
Milk :Liquid
16.96
17.19
-1.338
2
171
Mustard oil
51.49
59.27
-13.126
2
180
Eggs(no.)
2.28
2.11
8.057
2
181
Fish, prawn
64.34
73.64
-12.629
2
182
Goat meat/mutton
78.20
117.99
-33.723
2
190
Potato
9.75
7.77
25.483
2
191
Onion
14.45
11.04
30.888
2
261
Sugar
20.56
20.18
1.883
40
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 3.6R: The average budget share in states of North-Eastern States of Rural India(61st round)
item-group
Sikkim
Arunachal
Pradesh Nagaland Manipur Mizoram Tripura Meghalaya Assam
cereal
13.85
20.60
16.45
27.71
17.75
23.36
18.18
23.76
pulses
1.98
1.91
1.91
1.67
2.29
2.43
1.37
3.16
Milk and milk products
8.29
2.59
3.81
1.04
2.21
3.51
1.74
4.12
oils and fats
4.55
1.98
1.22
2.26
3.31
4.69
3.00
4.61
Meat, Fish and Eggs
6.08
10.92
14.00
6.78
9.60
11.41
12.32
9.54
Vegetables
8.43
8.09
8.49
5.77
10.53
8.45
7.72
9.28
Fruits
0.74
1.10
1.04
0.99
1.03
1.08
1.19
0.92
Sugar, honey, etc.
1.05
1.09
1.06
0.81
1.79
1.11
1.78
1.49
salt and spices
0.94
1.24
0.75
1.74
1.14
1.96
0.89
1.59
Non-alcoholic beverages
1.94
1.97
1.56
1.84
1.86
1.21
2.32
1.82
prepared meals
2.45
0.97
2.43
1.45
1.28
1.06
3.45
2.24
pan, supari and tobacco
2.79
6.18
3.60
2.35
4.45
4.55
7.60
4.08
10.57
14.66
9.27
12.49
10.80
9.40
8.38
9.54
clothing & bedding
9.03
5.85
6.62
5.32
6.89
6.31
7.21
6.77
Footwear
2.82
1.37
2.44
1.48
4.03
0.77
1.69
0.98
Housing
4.23
1.52
1.08
0.88
0.82
0.91
1.33
1.43
Education
4.91
2.24
7.93
6.86
3.29
4.32
3.44
2.77
Medical care
0.52
1.82
0.95
2.57
1.95
3.77
1.81
1.97
Recreation and amusement
2.38
1.27
1.30
1.26
1.44
0.40
0.91
0.81
Transport and Communication
6.46
3.69
5.39
6.87
2.48
3.08
6.08
2.50
Personal care and effects
3.01
4.05
3.06
3.53
3.37
2.54
2.70
2.61
Household requisites
2.09
4.22
5.37
3.78
7.31
2.53
4.38
3.38
others
0.88
0.68
0.27
0.54
0.38
1.15
0.50
0.61
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Fuel and light
total
41
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 3.6U: The average budget share in states of North-Eastern States of Urban India (61st round)
item-group
Sikkim
Arunachal
Pradesh Nagaland
Manipur
Mizoram Tripura Meghalaya
Assam
cereal
8.84
13.55
10.03
17.45
9.94
14.03
8.65
11.12
pulses
1.39
2.16
1.34
1.41
1.47
1.67
0.77
1.83
Milk and milk products
5.61
4.45
3.64
1.27
3.24
4.38
2.52
3.84
oils and fats
2.99
3.39
1.18
2.36
2.27
3.17
2.20
2.96
Meat, Fish and Eggs
4.28
8.73
9.94
5.03
7.95
8.39
6.80
6.32
Vegetables
6.26
6.95
6.20
3.99
7.72
5.26
3.90
5.21
Fruits
1.13
1.44
1.56
0.74
0.87
1.23
1.00
1.18
Sugar, honey, etc.
0.79
1.08
0.66
0.62
1.03
0.75
0.91
0.91
salt and spices
0.71
1.32
0.61
1.29
0.67
1.11
0.51
0.95
Non-alcoholic beverages
1.69
1.80
1.57
1.91
1.76
1.17
1.71
1.74
prepared meals
2.46
1.67
2.60
1.51
1.53
1.08
2.77
4.13
pan, supari and tobacco
1.87
3.10
2.55
2.09
4.44
2.24
4.42
2.34
Fuel and light
7.08
9.56
6.38
10.21
7.50
8.01
6.84
8.07
clothing & bedding
7.06
7.22
5.68
4.41
6.05
5.22
5.02
5.10
Footwear
2.17
1.83
2.13
1.34
3.53
0.70
1.60
0.89
Housing
24.35
9.04
12.97
22.09
16.35
15.74
26.08
19.52
Education
5.12
3.36
8.58
6.26
4.27
5.94
6.36
5.60
Medical care
0.87
3.04
0.87
2.39
1.28
5.93
1.53
2.44
Recreation and amusement
4.12
2.53
2.83
1.31
2.99
1.26
2.30
1.87
Transport and Communication
6.02
4.23
10.39
5.74
5.39
5.56
8.72
7.25
Personal care and effects
2.97
4.59
3.02
2.91
2.89
2.43
1.78
2.53
Household requisites
1.52
4.35
4.91
3.00
6.48
3.76
3.00
3.63
others
0.69
0.61
0.35
0.67
0.40
0.98
0.61
0.58
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00 100.00
100.00
100.00
total
42
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 3.7R Distribution (per 1000) of usually working persons in the principal status and subsidiary status
taken together by broad industry division (NIC 1998) for the north-eastern states
Rural
broad industry division
electri- constrtrade,
city, uction hotel &
water,
restauetc.
rant
agriculture, etc.
mining
&
quarring
manufacturing
(01 – 05)
(10 – 14)
(15 – 37) (40 – 41)
Arunachal
Pradesh
740
0
4
15
50
36
11
10
134
Manipur
694
5
31
0
50
53
34
3
129
1000
Meghalaya
792
19
29
7
39
45
18
0
49
1000
Mizoram
849
0
10
1
14
26
9
3
88
1000
Nagaland
696
0
17
8
24
65
25
5
159
1000
Sikkim
547
5
36
18
106
77
58
0
153
1000
Tripura
424
0
44
0
123
121
43
1
244
1000
all-India
665
6
79
2
68
83
38
7
52
1000
Arunachal
Pradesh
927
0
3
0
28
4
0
2
36
1000
Manipur
691
6
172
0
1
87
0
0
44
1000
Meghalaya
848
4
47
0
1
66
1
0
31
1000
Mizoram
911
0
7
0
5
49
0
0
29
1000
Nagaland
904
0
25
0
8
30
1
1
32
1000
Sikkim
719
10
7
2
29
105
0
0
128
1000
Tripura
486
0
102
0
52
26
1
0
332
1000
all-India
833
3
84
0
15
25
2
1
38
1000
Arunachal
Pradesh
819
0
4
9
40
23
6
6
92
1000
Manipur
693
5
86
0
31
66
21
2
95
1000
Meghalaya
818
13
37
4
22
55
11
0
41
1000
Mizoram
874
0
9
0
10
35
5
2
65
1000
Nagaland
793
0
21
4
17
49
14
3
100
1000
Sikkim
605
6
26
12
80
86
39
0
144
1000
Tripura
432
0
51
0
114
109
37
1
256
1000
all-India
727
5
81
2
49
61
25
5
45
1000
state/u.t.
transport,
etc.
other services
fin.
pub.
inter,
admin.
business
educn.
act. etc.
comm..
serv. etc
all
(45) (50 – 55) ( 60 – 64) ( 65 – 74) (75 – 99) (01 – 99)
male
1000
female
person
43
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 3.7U Distribution (per 1000) of usually working persons in the principal status and subsidiary
status taken together by broad industry division (NIC 1998) for the north-eastern states
urban
broad industry division
electri- constr
trade,
transcity,
hotel &
port,
water,
uction
restauetc.
etc.
rant
agriculture,
etc.
mining &
quarring
manufacturing
(01 – 05)
(10 – 14)
(15 – 37)
(40 -41)
(45)
47
0
45
3
90
256
30
16
513
1000
315
0
78
0
65
170
60
10
300
1000
25
4
89
14
83
183
88
24
488
1000
Mizoram
326
1
49
0
72
112
40
11
388
1000
Nagaland
53
0
45
15
51
425
73
12
326
1000
Sikkim
2
0
108
1
118
329
71
62
309
1000
Tripura
46
0
77
6
61
300
52
20
437
1000
all-India
61
9
235
8
92
280
107
59
149
1000
Arunachal
Pradesh
353
0
0
0
47
142
0
0
459
1000
Manipur
215
0
290
0
0
261
0
18
216
1000
13
0
22
20
4
112
0
5
824
1000
Mizoram
424
0
57
0
14
277
3
14
212
1000
Nagaland
state/u.t.
(50- 55)
( 60 – 64)
other services
fin.
pub.
inter,
admin.
business
educn.
act. etc.
comm..
serv. etc
( 65 – 74)
(75 – 99)
all
(01 – 99)
male
Arunachal
Pradesh
Manipur
Meghalaya
female
Meghalaya
285
0
107
9
5
360
5
0
228
1000
Sikkim
0
0
36
27
27
364
0
0
547
1000
Tripura
16
0
85
0
80
131
0
10
678
1000
181
2
282
2
38
122
14
32
327
1000
Arunachal
Pradesh
111
0
36
2
81
232
23
13
502
1000
Manipur
283
0
148
0
44
200
40
13
273
1000
20
2
60
16
49
152
50
16
635
1000
Mizoram
361
1
52
0
51
172
27
12
324
1000
Nagaland
129
0
66
13
35
404
51
8
294
1000
Sikkim
2
0
93
7
99
336
56
49
360
1000
Tripura
41
0
78
5
64
272
43
19
479
1000
all-India
88
8
246
7
80
246
86
53
187
1000
all-India
person
Meghalaya
44
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.1:
Sample sizes in different rounds for NE States
rural
no of
villages
in frame
state
Arunachal Pradesh
round
61st
62nd
63rd
64th
65th
66th
67th
4065
156
71
64
88
104
140
144
26312
340
238
256
200
376
328
320
Manipur
2228
220
56
96
192
192
172
104
Meghalaya
6034
116
57
68
128
128
108
80
Mizoram
817
80
39
36
64
64
80
88
Nagaland
371
96
47
32
128
80
88
104
Sikkim
452
92
38
24
120
88
76
32
Tripura
870
176
103
120
216
216
164
136
NE-total
41149
1276
649
696
1136
1248
1156
1008
all-India
636127
8124
4847
5601
7984
8188
7508
8380
Assam
Table 4.1:
Sample sizes in different rounds for NE States
urban
state
Arunachal Pradesh
no of
blocks in
frame
round
61st
62nd
63rd
64th
65th
66th
67th
380
60
24
51
56
40
76
48
4682
92
112
140
104
88
104
168
Manipur
849
100
64
62
96
96
148
56
Meghalaya
892
44
40
56
48
48
52
48
Mizoram
524
112
64
97
96
96
112
48
Nagaland
398
32
32
65
48
32
40
32
Sikkim
115
20
22
28
24
24
20
24
Tripura
774
56
80
85
72
72
68
64
NE-total
8604
516
438
584
544
496
620
488
4660
5150
7721
4704
4764
5276
7620
446611
446633
*
Assam
all-India –sample no.
of blocks
all-India –no. of
390913
*
* 415438
blocks in frame
* mixed frame – Economic Census(EC) and Urban Frame Survey (UFS )
45
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.1:
Sample sizes in different rounds for NE States
rural + urban
round
state
61st
62nd
63rd
64th
65th
66th
67th
Arunachal Pradesh
216
95
115
144
144
216
192
Assam
432
350
396
304
464
432
488
Manipur
320
120
158
288
288
320
160
Meghalaya
160
97
124
176
176
160
128
Mizoram
192
103
133
160
160
192
136
Nagaland
128
79
97
176
112
128
136
Sikkim
112
60
52
144
112
96
56
Tripura
232
183
205
288
288
232
200
NE Total
1792
1087
1280
1680
1744
1776
1496
all-India
12784
9997
13322
12688
12952
12784
16000
46
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.2: Comparison of sampling fractions for NER States and other smaller States and all-India
Rural
round
state
number
of census
villages
(N) **
61st
number
of
sample
FSUs (n)
64th
100*Sampling
fraction
(100*N/n)
number
of
sample
FSUs (n)
65th
100*Sampling
fraction
(100*N/n)
number
of
sample
FSUs (n)
66th
100* Sampling
fraction
(100*N/n)
number
of
sample
FSUs (n)
100*Sampling
fraction
(100*N/n)
NE states
Arunachal Pradesh
4065
156
3.8
88
2.2
104
2.6
140
3.4
26312
340
1.3
200
0.8
376
1.4
328
1.2
Manipur
2228
220
9.9
192
8.6
192
8.6
172
7.7
Meghalaya
6034
116
1.9
128
2.1
128
2.1
108
1.8
Mizoram
817
80
9.8
64
7.8
64
7.8
80
9.8
Nagaland
371
96
25.9
128
34.5
80
21.6
88
23.7
Sikkim
452
92
20.4
120
26.5
88
19.5
76
16.8
Tripura
870
176
20.2
216
24.8
216
24.8
164
18.9
41149
1276
3.1
1136
2.8
1248
3.0
1156
2.8
Assam
NE-total
other smaller states
8
33.3
Chandigarh
24
8
33.3
8
33.3
4
16.7
Uttarakhand
16826
148
0.9
104
0.6
72
0.4
132
0.8
Delhi
165
8
4.8
16
9.7
16
9.7
8
4.8
Dadra & NH
70
16
22.9
16
22.9
16
22.9
12
17.1
Daman & Diu
23
8
34.8
16
69.6
16
69.6
8
34.8
Goa
359
16
4.5
16
4.5
16
4.5
20
5.6
Puducherry
92
16
17.4
16
17.4
40
43.5
16
17.4
416
52
12.5
32
7.7
24
5.8
36
8.7
1.3
7984
1.3
8188
1.3
7508
1.2
A & N Island
all-India*
*Excluding Kerala;
636127
8124
** villages under NSS coverage
47
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.3: Comparison of sampling fractions for NER States in relation to smaller States and all-India
Urban
round
61
state
no. of
UFS
blocks in
the
frame
(N)**
64th
st
no. of
sample
FSUs
(n)
100*
Sampling
fraction
(100*N/n)
no. of
UFS
blocks in
the frame
(N)
no. of
sample
FSUs (n)
65th
100*
Sampling
fraction
(100*N/n)
no. of
UFS
blocks in
the frame
(N)
no. of
sample
FSUs (n)
66th
100*
Sampling
fraction
(100*N/n)
no. of
UFS
blocks in
the
frame
(N)
no. of
sample
FSUs
(n)
100*
Sampling
fraction
(100*N/n)
North-Eastern states
Arunachal
Pradesh
209
60
28.7
380
56
14.7
380
40
10.5
380
76
20.0
3815
92
2.4
4094
104
2.5
4682
88
1.9
4682
104
2.2
Manipur
805
100
12.4
716
96
13.4
849
96
11.3
849
148
17.4
Meghalaya
752
44
5.9
891
48
5.4
892
48
5.4
892
52
5.8
Mizoram
524
112
21.4
518
96
18.5
514
96
18.7
514
112
21.8
Nagaland
280
32
11.4
312
48
15.4
398
32
8
398
40
10.1
Sikkim
110
20
18.2
115
24
20.9
115
24
20.9
115
20
17.4
Tripura
NE-total
618
56
9.1
754
72
9.5
774
72
9.3
774
68
8.8
7113
516
7.3
7780
544
7.0
8604
496
5.8
8604
620
7.2
Chandigarh
1416
32
2.3
1416
other smaller states
40
2.8
1517
40
2.6
1517
36
2.4
Uttarakhand
2951
76
2.6
3296
64
1.9
3421
40
1.2
3421
92
2.7
18210
120
0.7
22658
144
0.6
21269
272
1.3
21269
120
0.6
Dadra & NH
26
8
30.8
26
16
61.5
95
16
16.8
95
12
12.6
Daman & Diu
105
8
7.6
105
16
15.2
119
16
13.4
119
8
6.7
Goa
789
24
3
860
24
2.8
1045
24
2.3
1045
36
3.4
Puducherry
830
56
6.7
839
40
4.8
1041
16
1.5
1041
56
5.4
A & N Island
all-India*
148
36
24.3
178
24
13.5
202
16
7.9
202
36
17.8
1.1
446611
4764
1.1
446633
5276
1.2
Assam
Delhi
390913
4660
*Excluding Kerala;
1.2
415438
4704
** villages under NSS coverage
48
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.4: Comparison of percentage of sample sizes for NER States and other smaller States and all-India
rural
pop of
State as
percenta
ge of
all-India
populati
on
round
870
0.1
156
64th
sample size
number
of State as
of
percentage
sample
of all-India
FSUs (n)
sample size
NE states
1.9
88
1.1
23216
3.1
340
4.2
200
Manipur
1591
0.2
220
2.7
Meghalaya
1865
0.3
80
Mizoram
448
0.1
Nagaland
642
Sikkim
Tripura
State
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
NE-total
Chandigarh
Uttarakhand
Delhi
Dadra & NH
Daman & Diu
Goa
Puducherry
A & N Island
all-India
census
populati
on
(’000)
61st
sample size
number
of State as
of
percentage
sample
of all-India
FSUs (n)
sample size
65th
sample size
number
of State as
of
percentage
sample
of all-India
FSUs (n)
sample size
66th
sample size
number
of State as
of
percentage
sample
of all-India
FSUs (n)
sample size
104
1.3
140
1.9
2.5
376
4.6
328
4.4
192
2.4
192
2.3
172
2.3
1.0
64
0.8
64
0.8
80
1.1
116
1.4
128
1.6
128
1.6
108
1.4
0.1
96
1.2
128
1.6
80
1
88
1.2
481
0.1
92
1.1
120
1.5
88
1.1
76
1
2653
0.4
176
2.2
216
2.7
216
2.6
164
2.2
32771
4.4
1276
15.7
1136
14.2
1248
15.2
1156
15.4
92
6310
945
170
101
677
326
237
742491
0.01
0.8
0.1
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.04
0.03
100
8
148
8
16
8
16
16
52
8124
other smaller states
0.1
8
1.8
104
0.1
16
0.2
16
0.1
16
0.2
16
0.2
16
0.6
32
100
7984
0.1
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
100
8
72
16
16
16
16
40
24
8188
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
100
4
132
8
12
8
20
16
36
7508
0.1
1.8
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.5
100
49
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.5: Comparison of percentage of sample sizes for NER States and other smaller States and all-India
urban
State
census
popn.
(’000)
pop of State
as
percentage
of all-India
popn.
round
228
0.08
60
64th
sample size
number
of State as
of
percentage of
sample
all-India
FSUs (n)
sample size
NE states
1.29
56
1.19
3439
1.20
92
1.97
104
Manipur
586
0.20
100
2.15
Meghalaya
454
0.16
44
Mizoram
441
0.15
Nagaland
343
Sikkim
Tripura
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
NE-total
Chandigarh
Uttarakhand
Delhi
Dadra & NH
Daman & Diu
Goa
Puducherry
A & N Island
all-India
61st
sample size
number
of State as
of
percentage of
sample
all-India
FSUs (n)
sample size
65th
sample size of
number
State as
of
percentage of
sample
all-India
FSUs (n)
sample size
66th
sample size
number
of State as
of
percentage of
sample
all-India
FSUs (n)
sample size
40
0.84
76
1.44
2.21
88
1.85
104
1.97
96
2.04
96
2.02
148
2.81
0.94
48
1.02
48
1.01
52
0.99
112
2.4
96
2.04
96
2.02
112
2.12
0.12
32
0.69
48
1.02
32
0.67
40
0.76
60
0.02
20
0.43
24
0.51
24
0.5
20
0.38
546
0.19
56
1.2
72
1.53
72
1.51
68
1.29
6097
2.12
516
11.07
544
11.56
496
10.41
620
11.75
809
2169
12889
50
57
671
649
116
286048
0.28
0.76
4.51
0.02
0.02
0.23
0.23
0.04
100
32
76
120
8
8
24
56
36
4660
0.85
1.36
3.06
0.34
0.34
0.51
0.85
0.51
100
40
40
272
16
16
24
16
16
4764
0.84
0.84
5.71
0.34
0.34
0.5
0.34
0.34
100
36
92
120
12
8
36
56
36
5276
0.68
1.74
2.27
0.23
0.15
0.68
1.06
0.68
100
other smaller states
0.69
40
1.63
64
2.58
144
0.17
16
0.17
16
0.52
24
1.2
40
0.77
24
100
4704
50
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.6: RSE of MPCE - 61st round
state
/ut
rural
food
all
non-food
NE States
all
urban
food
non-food
Arunachal Pradesh
2.9
2.4
5.1
3.1
3.4
5.7
Assam
1.4
1.2
2.6
6.2
3.5
9.5
Manipur
1.4
0.9
2.9
1.7
1.5
2.9
Meghalaya
1.7
1.6
3.3
3.8
2.6
6.4
Mizoram
2.6
2.3
5.7
2.2
1.9
3.9
Nagaland
2.7
2.1
4.3
4.0
2.8
6.0
Sikkim
4.6
2.2
8.5
4.9
5.4
6.6
Tripura
1.8
5.6
3.0
9.2
8.2
6.0
7.0
6.9
10.3
15.8
11.9
15.6
4.5
5.2
3.4
4.3
7.2
5.3
6.1
3.2
6.1
3.3
10.4
9.9
10.0
9.6
14.1
22.5
19.8
30.3
6.3
Chandigarh
Uttarakhand
Delhi
Dadra & NH
Daman & Diu
Goa
A & N Island
Lakshadweep
Puducherry
Andhra Pradesh
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
all-India
10.0
4.5
14.4
11.6
11.0
8.1
10.6
28.5
7.8
1.5
1.0
3.0
2.0
9.2
2.7
1.8
1.6
2.9
2.5
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.4
3.4
1.2
2.0
0.6
1.3
3.5
other smaller states
9.1
11.1
1.8
9.3
10.8
18.2
9.7
15.2
8.4
15.4
5.7
12.0
2.6
25.2
15.3
41.6
7.6
10.2
other states
1.0
2.7
0.7
1.8
1.9
5.5
1.5
3.8
3.4
15.5
1.5
4.5
1.4
2.8
1.4
3.1
1.4
5.5
1.4
3.9
1.0
3.0
1.2
2.4
1.3
3.0
1.4
3.0
1.1
2.5
1.3
6.6
0.8
2.3
1.0
4.1
0.3
1.1
3.7
5.1
11.3
2.9
5.3
9.7
3.3
5.6
3.4
4.7
2.4
5.7
5.6
10.2
10.5
2.3
5.0
3.2
1.2
2.1
3.3
4.3
2.1
2.8
3.1
2.5
3.1
2.3
3.0
1.4
2.3
4.3
2.7
2.5
1.5
2.3
2.1
0.6
5.5
7.5
16.8
4.1
7.5
16.0
4.5
8.5
4.9
6.3
3.5
8.6
8.2
16.2
16.9
3.3
7.6
4.5
1.7
MPCE – Uniform Reference Period (URP) of 30 days
51
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.7: RSE of WPR - 61st round
rural
state /ut
WPR(F)
WPR(P)
urban
PU(P)
WPR(F)
WPR(P)
PU(P)
NE states
Arunachal Pradesh
4.3
2.8
37.2
14.1
6.7
40.8
Assam
5.3
1.7
15.4
18.2
4.9
29.2
Manipur
4.5
2.6
25.7
6.1
2.3
23.6
Meghalaya
2.6
1.6
46.6
13.8
6.5
33.1
Mizoram
4.1
2.3
43.5
5.2
2.6
21.0
Nagaland
3.3
2.4
20.8
9.6
4.8
43.0
Sikkim
4.9
2.2
26.2
19.8
4.9
41.7
Tripura
8.7
1.8
10.6
13.2
4.7
10.7
18.8
10.4
14.3
33.2
21.5
15.6
9.7
13.0
21.7
3.9
4.0
3.2
13.7
5.9
3.9
3.9
4.4
10.0
58.8
20.2
22.6
37.5
80.8
31.5
24.9
19.7
18.6
5.6
16.6
12.4
7.1
8.5
11.4
5.5
16.1
5.6
6.0
3.2
6.3
6.7
7.4
10.3
3.9
7.9
6.8
1.7
2.2
4.7
3.7
2.6
1.9
5.7
2.1
4.7
1.9
2.5
1.4
1.7
2.7
2.3
3.1
1.4
1.8
1.8
0.5
13.3
25.2
20.5
25.2
15.2
34.5
13.2
24.9
14.6
8.0
10.1
16.5
13.6
12.2
17.8
10.0
13.0
10.7
3.5
Chandigarh
Uttarakhand
Delhi
Dadra & NH
Daman & Diu
Goa
A & N Island
Lakshadweep
Puducherry
Andhra Pradesh
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
all-India
70.9
3.5
77.5
45.7
6.3
22.2
10.6
4.1
58.1
1.4
4.3
2.5
2.5
3.9
1.8
3.9
3.5
1.9
3.0
1.3
2.1
2.8
3.3
2.3
1.9
2.3
3.8
0.6
other smaller states
25.1
98.1
1.9
27.0
15.8
96.4
3.0
103.6
6.2
54.5
8.2
18.2
4.2
25.3
2.0
10.4
18.5
68.6
other states
0.9
14.0
1.3
15.1
1.5
29.6
1.4
23.1
1.7
16.1
1.3
15.5
1.5
15.7
1.7
15.8
1.0
17.9
1.4
5.4
0.8
14.0
1.0
26.9
1.2
10.4
1.5
14.2
1.2
17.0
1.1
13.9
1.0
13.8
1.1
10.0
0.3
3.2
52
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.8: Required sample sizes for different indicators (based on data of 61st round)
indicator
MPCE –
all
MPCE –
Food
required sample size of fsus at desired rse level*
data
analysed
for
schedule
1.0
1.0
state
WPRPersons
1.0
10
10%
rural
urban
rural
urban
Arunachal Pradesh
c. s.
c.s.
c. s.
c. s.
Assam
c. s.
142(92)
c. s.
c. s.
Manipur
c. s.
c.s.
c. s.
c. s.
Meghalaya
c. s.
c.s.
c. s.
c. s.
Mizoram
c. s.
c.s.
c. s.
c. s.
Nagaland
c. s.
c.s.
c. s.
c. s.
Sikkim
c. s.
c.s.
c. s.
c. s.
Tripura
c. s.
71(56)
c. s.
c. s.
Arunachal Pradesh
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Assam
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Manipur
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Meghalaya
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Mizoram
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Nagaland
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Sikkim
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Tripura
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
161(156)
79(60)
c. s.
c. s.
Assam
c.s.
334(92)
c. s.
Manipur
c.s.
c.s.
c. s.
c. s.
Meghalaya
c.s.
72(44)
c. s.
c. s.
Mizoram
149(116)
c.s.
c. s.
c. s.
Nagaland
c.s.
46(32)
c. s.
c. s.
Sikkim
268(92)
35(20)
c. s.
c. s.
Tripura
c.s.
188(56 )
c. s.
c. s.
Arunachal Pradesh
c. s.
108(60 )
c.s.
c. s.
Assam
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Manipur
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Meghalaya
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Mizoram
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Nagaland
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Sikkim
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Tripura
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Arunachal Pradesh
MPCE –
Non-Food
5%
53
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 4.8: Required sample sizes for different indicators (based on data of 61st round)
indicator
WPRMale
required sample size of fsus at desired rse level*
data
analysed
for
schedule
10
state
PUpersons
10
10%
rural
urban
rural
urban
Arunachal Pradesh
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Assam
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Manipur
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Meghalaya
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Mizoram
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Nagaland
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Sikkim
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Tripura
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
c. s.
Arunachal Pradesh
c. s.
477(60)
c. s.
119(60)
382(340 )
1219(92)
c. s.
305(92)
Manipur
c. s.
149(100)
c. s.
c. s.
Meghalaya
c. s.
335(44)
c. s.
c. s.
Mizoram
c. s.
121(112)
c. s.
c. s.
Nagaland
c. s.
118(32)
c. s.
c. s.
Sikkim
c. s.
314(20)
c. s.
78(20)
Tripura
533(176)
c. s.
c. s.
98(56)
Arunachal Pradesh
2159(156)
999(60)
Assam
806(340)
784(92)
Manipur
1453(220)
557(100)
Meghalaya
2519(80)
482(112)
Mizoram
1514(116)
494(44)
Nagaland
415(96)
592(32)
Sikkim
632(92)
348(20)
Tripura
198(176)
64(56)
Assam
WPRFemale
5%
* sample size estimated under the assumption that RSE „r‟
1
n
c.s – current size
Figures within the parenthesis indicate the current sample size for the state and sector.
54
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 5.1: MPCE for Mizoram : NSS 61st Round Schedule 1.0 - URP
item group
MPCE
RSE
central
state
central
state
rural
total: food group
443.25
448.12
2.37
2.51
total: non-food group
335.10
306.28
5.30
4.78
total
778.35
754.4
2.56
2.56
800
800
total: food group
556.44
576.66
1.82
1.94
total: non-food group
644.07
670.90
3.68
3.53
1200.51
1247.56
2.24
2.48
1112
1110
sample size (hhd)
urban
total
sample size (hhd)
Table 5.2: MPCE for Mizoram : NSS 61st Round Schedule 1.0 - MRP
item group
MPCE
RSE
central
state
central
state
total: food group
443.25
448.12
2.37
2.51
total: non-food group
398.80
370.49
3.66
3.39
total
842.52
818.84
2.29
2.39
800
800
total: food group
556.42
576.66
1.82
1.94
total: non-food group
710.76
774.77
2.58
3.45
1267.63
1351.67
1.97
2.46
1112
1110
rural
sample size (hhd)
urban
total
sample size (hhd)
55
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 5.3: WPR, LFPR for usual status ( PS+SS) for Mizoram : NSS 61st Round Schedule 10
activity
status
male
estimated number (’00)
number per 1000
(WPR/LFPR)
central
state
central
worker
594
567
1282
1195
1189
1117
in labour force
597
568
1288
1199
1201
1123
1000
1000
2159
2110
2083
2054
worker
441
375
853
715
749
612
in labour force
441
377
854
718
750
617
1000
1000
1935
1904
1918
1894
worker
521
476
2135
1910
1938
1729
in labour force
523
478
2142
1917
1951
1740
1000
1000
4095
4013
4001
3948
all
state
rural
sample size (persons)
central
state
female
all
persons
all
Table 5.4: WPR, LFPR for usual status ( PS+SS) for Mizoram : NSS 61st Round Schedule 10
urban
activity
status
male
estimated number (’00)
WPR / LFPR
central
state
sample size
central
state
central
state
worker
484
456
666
634
1313
1236
in labour force
491
463
676
645
1341
1254
1000
1000
1376
1392
2717
2625
worker
281
277
382
398
732
752
in labour force
288
281
392
404
756
767
1000
1000
1361
1438
2623
2677
worker
383
365
1048
1032
2045
1988
in labour force
390
371
1068
1049
2097
2021
1000
1000
2737
2831
5340
5302
all
female
all
persons
all
56
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 5.5: WPR, LFPR by usual activity status ( PS+SS) for Mizoram : NSS 61st Round Sch. 10
rural
usual activity
male
status
estimated person(’00)
WPR
sample size
central
state
central
526
503
1135
1060
892
820
31
55
56
120
118
264
268
41&51
13
8
27
17
33
29
11-51
594
567
1282
1195
1189
1117
3
2
6
3
12
6
11-81
597
568
1288
1199
1201
1123
91-99
403
432
871
911
882
931
11-99
1000
1000
2159
2110
2083
2054
422
365
818
695
697
568
12
7
24
14
43
37
6
3
12
6
9
7
441
375
853
715
749
612
0
2
1
3
1
5
11-81
441
377
854
718
750
617
91-99
559
623
1082
1186
1168
1277
11-99
1000
1000
1935
1904
1918
1894
477
437
1952
1755
1589
1388
31
35
33
144
132
307
305
41&51
10
6
39
23
42
36
11-51
521
476
2135
1910
1938
1729
2
2
7
6
13
11
11-81
523
478
2142
1917
1951
1740
91-99
477
522
1953
2097
2050
2208
11-99
1000
1000
4095
4013
4001
3948
11-21
81
state
central
state
female
11-21
31
41&51
11-51
81
persons
11-21
81
57
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
Table 5.6: WPR, LFPR by usual activity status ( PS+SS) for Mizoram : NSS 61st Round Sch. 10
urban
usual activity
male
status
estimated number (’00)
WPR
Central
State
Central
11-21
239
213
329
297
628
590
31
200
200
275
278
532
484
41&51
44
43
61
60
153
162
11-51
484
456
666
634
1313
1236
8
8
11
11
28
18
11-81
491
463
676
645
1341
1254
91-99
509
537
700
747
1376
1371
11-99
1000
1000
1376
1392
2717
2625
212
204
289
293
533
549
60
62
82
90
168
163
8
11
11
15
31
40
281
277
382
398
732
752
7
5
10
7
24
15
11-81
288
281
392
404
756
767
91-99
712
719
969
1034
1867
1910
11-99
1000
1000
1361
1438
2623
2677
11-21
226
208
618
589
1161
1139
31
131
130
357
367
700
647
41&51
26
27
72
75
184
202
11-51
383
365
1048
1032
2045
1988
7
6
20
17
52
33
11-81
390
371
1068
1049
2097
2021
91-99
610
629
1669
1781
3243
3281
11-99
1000
1000
2737
2831
5340
5302
81
State
sample size
Central
State
female
11-21
31
41&51
11-51
81
persons
81
58
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
ANNEXURE 1
Copy of the office memorandum of the committee to look into the issue of optimum sample
size for North Eastern States
No. M -12011/17/2009-NSSO (CPD)
Government of India
Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation
Sarder Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001
Dated the 25th March, 2010
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Committee to look into the issue of optimum sample size for North Eastern States
The Steering Committee for National Sample Surveys (NSS) in its Sixth meeting held on
27-28 January 2009 recommended that a Committee to look into the issue of Optimum Sample
size for North Eastern States for conducting surveys by National Sample Survey Organisation be
formed. Accordingly, the Committee with the following composition:
1.
Dr. Atul Sarma, Member, 13th Finance Commission, New Delhi
Chairman
2.
Prof. A.K. Adhikari, Retd. Professor, ISI, Kolkata
Member
3.
Dr. A.K. Yogi, Ex-ADG, NSSO(FOD), NEW Delhi
Member
4.
Sh. D. Khound, Director(E & M), NEC, Shillong
Member
5.
Director, DES, Govt. Of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar
Member
6.
Director, DES, Govt. Of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati
Member
7.
Director, DES, Govt. Of Manipur, Imphal
Member
8.
Director, DES, Govt. Of Meghalaya, Shillong
Member
9.
Director, DES, Govt. Of Mizoram, Aizawal
Member
10.
Director, DES, Govt. Of Nagaland, Kohima
Member
11.
Director, DES, Govt. Of Tripura, Agartala
Member
12.
Director, DES, Govt. Of Sikkim, Gangtok
Member
13.
ADG, NSSO, FOD, NEW Delhi
Member
14.
ADG, NSSO, DPD, Kolkata
Member
15.
DDG, NSSO, CPD, NEW Delhi
Member
16.
ADG, NSSO, SDRD, Kolkata
Member Secretary
59
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states
2. The terms of reference for the committee is as follows:(i)
To suggest approp[riate sample size requirements at state/UT level vis-à-vis the
corresponding number of field investigators required.
(ii)
The committee might also see whether it would be feasible to re-allocate the
existing field strength as per the study of sample size requirements
3. The Committee would submit its report within six months.
4. Secretarial assistance to the Committee will be provided by the SDRD, NSSO, Kolkata.
5. Chairman at Sl. No. 1 and members at Sl. No. 2 & 3 will be paid Sitting fee (Rs. 1000/-per
day)/TA/DA (as admissible)/ Conveyance allowance (limited to Rs. 300/- or actual fare
whichever is less per day) for attending meetings as per the Office Memorandum No.
19020/1/84-E.IV dated 23rd June, 1986 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure as
amended and clarified from time to time and this Ministry‟s Office Memorandum No.A27017/1/2002-Ad.IV dated 1.3.2007. Sanction of the President is hereby accorded to the
Chairman at Sl. No. 1 and members at Sl. No. 2 & 3 for travel by Air as per the entitlement, for
attending the meetings of Committee. The Expenditure (on account of TA/DA, etc.) will be met
from the Major Head 3454, 02.204 CSO, 01.01.11 Domestic Travel Expenses (Non-Plan) of the
Ministry.
6. The expenditure on TA/DA of the members at Sl. No. 4 to 16 will be borne by the respective
Ministries/Departments/organisations.
7. This issues with the concurrence of AS&FA vide Dy. No. 151 dated 22.03.2010
8. Hindi version will follow
(Yashodhara Vijayan)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel No. 23747503
To
Chairman and members of the Committee
60
Report of the committee on Optimum sample sizes for North Eastern states