Houseless Population and Deprivation in India

 

Shamshad

Research Scholar, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002

 

ABSTRACT:

The present paper is an attempt to analyse spatial patterns of houseless population, variations in the level of socio-economic deprivation and relationship between houseless population (dependent variable) and selected variables of socio-economic deprivation (independent variables) among the twenty eight states and seven union territories (UTs) of India. The present study is based on secondary sources of data obtained from Census of India publications (2001), New Delhi. The boundary of state/union territory has been taken as the unit of study. The spatial patterns of houselessness is characterized by a steady decline from western and north-western parts towards the northern, southern, eastern and north-eastern parts of the country. While, the level of socio-economic deprivation is high in the north-central states, and it is steadily decreases towards the north, south, east and north-eastern parts into the medium level of socio-economic deprivation in India. The analysis of relationship between houseless population and other variables of socio-economic deprivation indicates that the rate of houselessness is accentuated by the prevalence of housing shortage, slum population and poverty rate, etc. in the country.

 

KEY WORDS: Houseless Population, Deprivation, State, Union Territory, Region, India

 

INTRODUCTION:

The process of growth population and migration from rural to urban areas cause the increasing pressure on the urban housing and infrastructure, however, it can be much in excess of the supply, which in turn may result in rising land prices and growth of sub-standard living conditions for the relatively weaker sections of the society and even result more frequently of the housing shortage and the development of slums & squatter settlements and houselessness particularly in the developing countries of the world. The Census of India 2001 recorded 1943766 houseless persons in the country, of which 59.94 per cent was classified as rural houseless population and 40.06 per cent was as urban houseless population.

 

Houselessness is often associated with poor physical & mental health, substance use, morbidities, etc. The susceptibility of homeless young people or street youth to substance abuse and dependence (Baer, Ginzler, & Peterson, 2003: 5-14; Kipke, Montgomery, Simon, & Iverson, 1997: 969-986), mental health disorders (Slesnick & Prestopmik, 2005: 179-201), medical problems (Farrow, Deisher, Brown, Kulig, & Kipke, 1992: 717-776; Kelly & Caputo, 2007:726-736), and violence and victimization (Baron, 2003: 22-44) has been well established. In fact, the homeless  persons  are  relatively homogeneous  and  their  problems  are  due  to  social and economic  factors  such  as  a  lack  of affordable  housing, employment,  and  social service programmes  (Caton,  1990). Thus, the genesis of homelessness runs on the functions of loss of jobs, business closings, broken relationships, low skills, drug or alcohol addiction, family violence, mental illness, fire in or condemnation of apartments, lack of affordable housing, and long-term poverty (Hertzberg, 1992: 152).

Persons who sleep in public places or squat in derelict buildings are houseless, but the following questions are often asked. How should we classify people who have no accommodation of their own, but they are staying temporarily with other households? Are they houseless?


How about a person living in a conventional house who is experiencing domestic violence? Is he or she houseless? Are people in institutions ‘houseless’ if they have nowhere to go when they leave? Hence, it is impossible to define houselessness. For example, Field (1988 cited in Glasser & Bridgman: 205) noted; the questions: What is houselessness? Who are the houselesses? Which are simply unanswerable questions? Homelessness continues to escape precise definition, because of its complexity and increasing diversification (Hopper, 2003: 144 and Burke, 1998 cited in Glasser & Bridgman: 207).  Thus, words ‘houseless’, ‘homeless’, ‘roofless’ and ‘shelterless’ are relative terms and synonymous and used inter-changeably with each other, based on the suitability of the  subject matter. Therefore, The Census of India defines ‘houseless population’ as the persons who are not living in ‘census house’; a ‘census house’ is referred to a ‘structure with roof’. The enumerators are instructed to take of the possible places where the houseless population is likely to live such as on the roadside, pavements, in hump pipes, under staircases or in the open, temples, mandaps, platforms etc. (Census of India, 1991: 64).

 

The deprivation is a popular concept in all social sciences and it may be somewhat, difficult to have a universal cross-disciplinary definition of the concept but deprivation generally depicts ‘a lack of’ some status, commodities, abilities or capabilities’ (Verme, 2007: 1). It implies a standard of living or a quality of life below that of the majority in a particular society, to the extent that it involves hardship, inadequate access to resources, and under privilege (Herbert, 1975: 362-372). In absolute terms, deprivation reflects the inability of an individual to satisfy his/her basic minimum needs of the life and it prevents people from participating in the development process. However, the concept of relative deprivation points out that it is not the absolute level of the outcome, but the perceived discrepancy between what one obtains and what one desires or feels entitled to (Agarwal and Mishra, 1993: 327-340). There is one question that we often ask: ‘Are we satisfied with our income?’ in fact, we may be satisfied in absolute terms, but often our level of satisfaction depends on what we see around us (Dambrosio and Frick, 2007: 497-519). In this context, Runciman (1966) defined the concept of relative deprivation as follows: a person is relatively deprived of X when (i) he does not have X; (ii) he sees some other person, which may include himself at some previous or expected time, as having X, (iii) he sees it as feasible that he should have X. He further adds: The magnitude of a relative deprivation is the extent of the difference between the desired situation and that of the person desiring it. Actually, the income inequality can be seen as a proxy for deprivation, in that as inequality increases, the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ grows up, and the overall deprivation in society also increases (Eibner and Evans, 2005: 591-620).

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

In the present study an attempt is made to cover three main specific objectives:

i.        to examine the geographical patterns of houseless population  in the country, 

ii.      to analyse the spatial variations in the level of socio-economic deprivation in the study area, and

iii.     to find out relationship between houseless population (dependent variable) and selected socio-economic variables of deprivation (independent variables) among the states and union territories (UTs) of India

 

DATABASE AND METHODOLOGY:

The present research work is entirely based on secondary sources of data collected from Census of India publications (2001), New Delhi, In the present analysis, a set of twenty indicators of socio-economic deprivation have been taken into account to determine the levels of deprivation in the twenty eight states and seven union territories of India (Table 1).These indicators fall into categories like population characteristics, education and illiteracy, agriculture, unemployment, poverty and housing conditions.  In the first step, the raw data for each variable which determines the areal variations in the level of deprivation have been computed into standard score. It is generally known as Z value or Z-score. The score quantify the departure of individual observations, expressed in a comparable form. This means it becomes a linear transformation of the original data (Smith, 1973: 85). It may be expressed as:   

 

Where,     

Zij = Standardized value of the variable i in state/UT­­­ j,

Xij = Actual value of variable i in state/UT j,

Xi = Mean value of variable i in all states/UTs, and

σi = Standard deviation of variable i in all states/UTs.

 

To find out the computed ‘t’ value, student t-test technique is used which is given below: 

                           

Where,    t = is the calculated value of ‘t’ in the test of significance,

n =is the number of observation, and

r = is the computed value of co-efficient of correlation.

 

 


 


 


In the second step, the z-scores of all variables have been added state and union territory wise and the average has been taken out for these variables which may be called as

composite score (CS) for each state/UT and may be algebraically expressed as:

 

Where, CS stands for composite score, N refers to the number of indicators (variables), and ∑Zij indicates z-scores of all variables i in state/UT j. The positive values relating to the Z-score of a State/UT explain high level of concentration in respect houseless population and levels of socio-economic deprivation and the negative values show the low level of concentration in these aspects.

 

The correlation co-efficient is worked out between dependent variable (houseless population) and independent variables (selected variables of socio-economic deprivation) and student t-test technique is applied to find out the determinants which are significant at 1 per cent and 5 per cent levels. The correlation co-efficient has been computed on the basis of the Karl Pearson’s correlation co-efficient (r) method which is as follows:

 

Where, r = is the co-efficient of correlation,

         x, y = are the two given variables, and

        n = is the number of observation.


Table 1: States/ Union Territories Wise Distribution of Houseless Population and Levels of Socio-Economic Deprivation in India, 2001

States

 

Z-Score of Houseless Population

Composite Mean Z-Score of Socio-Economic Deprivation

Houseless Population vis-à-vis Level of  Deprivation

Jammu & Kashmir

-0.509

0.026

H3SED2

Himachal Pradesh

-0.561

-0.551

H3SED3

Punjab

-0.102

-0.004

H2SED2

Uttrakhand

-0.486

-0.053

H2SED2

Haryana

0.045

-0.048

H2SED2

Rajasthan

1.046

0.554

H1SED1

Uttar Pradesh

1.730

0.847

H1SED1

Bihar

-0.155

0.909

H2SED1

Sikkim

-0.657

-0.220

H3SED2

Arunachal Pradesh

-0.655

0.110

H3SED2

Nagaland

-0.637

0.369

H3SED2

Manipur

-0.626

-0.292

H3SED2

Mizoram

-0.656

-0.633

H3SED3

Tripura

-0.650

-0.394

H3SED2

Meghalaya

-0.639

0.020

H3 SED2

Assam

-0.502

0.132

H3SED2

West Bengal

0.654

0.278

H1SED2

Jharkhand

-0.531

0.169

H3SED2

Orissa

-0.151

0.458

H2SED2

Chhattisgarh

-0.318

-0.033

H2SED2

Madhya Pradesh

2.090

0.516

H1SED1

Gujarat

1.965

-0.058

H1SED2

Maharashtra

3.394

0.307

H1 SED2

Andhra Pradesh

1.289

0.263

H 1SED2

Karnataka

0.555

0.125

H1SED2

Goa

-0.598

-0.364

H3SED2

Kerala

-0.464

-0.646

H2SED3

Tamil Nadu

0.368

-0.033

H2SED2

Union Territories

Chandigarh

-0.364

-0.328

H2SED2

Delhi

-0.648

-0.123

H3SED2

Daman & Diu

-0.643

-0.582

H3SED3

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

-0.660

0.304

H3SED2

Lakshadweep

-0.641

-0.233

H3SED2

Pondicherry

-0.658

-0.320

H3SED2

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

-0.509

-0.361

H3SED­2

Source: Calculation is based on State Level Published Data, Census of India, 2001 and Data Dissemination Wing, Office of the General Registrar, New Delhi.

 

Note:  H1= High Level of Houselessness, H2= Medium Level of Houselessness and H3=Low level of Houselessness. SED1= High Level of Socio-Economic Deprivation, SED2= Medium Level of Socio-Economic Deprivation and SED3= Low Level of Socio-Economic Deprivation.

 

Table 2: Houseless Population in India, 2001

Category

Z-Score

No. of States

Name of the States

High

Above 0.500

08

Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka

Medium

0.500 to -0.500

08

Punjab, Uttrakhand, Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu

Low

Below -0.500

12

Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, Assam, Jharkhand and Goa

Total

28

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Based on Table 1.  

 

Table 3: Levels of Socio-Economic Deprivation in India, 2001

Category

Z-score

No. of States

Name of the States

High

Above 0.500

4

Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh

Medium

-0.500 to 0.500

21

Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Uttrakhand, Haryana, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Assam, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,  Goa and Tamil Nadu

Low

Below -0.500

3

Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Kerala

Total

28

-

Source: Based on Table 1

 

 


Besides, advanced statistical techniques, SPSS (Version 16.00) & R (Version 2.12.2) software to analyse the statistical data and GIS-Arc view programme (Version 3.2a) to show the spatial patterns of houseless population and levels of socio-economic deprivation among the states/UTs of India through maps, have been applied. The spatial distribution of the houseless population and levels of socio-economic deprivation in the union territories of India have not been shown on the figures, but the level of concentration in all the union territories of India in these aspects has been studied and their Z-scores values have been given in Table 1.

 

Spatial Analysis of Houseless population in India

Table 1 visualizes the state and union territories wise z-score values of houseless population and levels of deprivation in India. The whole range of spatial variations of these variables may be arranged into three categories such as, high (above 0.500 score), medium (-0.500 to 0.500 score) and low (below -0.500 score) as given in Tables 2 & 3.

 

Table 2 indicates that there are eight states of the country that have the high z-score value (above 0.500 score) of houseless population they are Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, and nearly all states of them make a foremost region in north-western, central and south-western parts of the country, excluding the state of West Bengal. The eight states of the country fall under the medium grade (-0.500 to 0.500 score) of houseless population namely, Punjab, Uttrakhand, Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Seven states, out of them, constitute three distinct regions in the country, one region lies in the north-western part of the country, comprising the states of Punjab, Uttrakhand and Haryana, the second region locates in the southern part, including of the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and third region situates in the eastern part of the study area, involving the states of Orissa and Chhattisgarh.

 

Remaining twelve states of India lie under the low level (below -0.500 score) of houseless population and all of them form two separate remarkable regions in the country, excluding the states of Jharkhand and Goa. The first region which is comparatively large in size locates in the north-eastern part of India, comprising the states of Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya and Assam. Another region is witnessed in the northern part of the country, including the states of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. The geographical patterns of houselessness in the country are characterized by gradual increase from northern, southern and eastern parts towards central-western parts of the country. The high level of houselessness in the central-western parts of the country is due to high rates of slum population, housing shortage, poverty, urbanization, etc. As far as, houselessness in the union territories of India is concerned, there are six union territories that experience the low level (above 0.500 score) of houselessness, namely Delhi          (-0.648 score), Pondicherry (-0.658 score) and Lakshadweep (-0.641 score), Daman & Diu (-0.643 score), Andaman & Nicobar Islands (-0.509 score) and Dadar & Nagar Haveli (-0.660 score), while, the union territory of Chandigarh (-0.364 score) has the medium level of houseless population in the country (Table 1).

 

Levels of Socio-Economic Deprivation in India

The states with mean z-score values above 0.500 are categorized under the high level of socio-economic deprivation, wherein, only four states are counted, and the states included in this category are Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh and all of these states constitute an outstanding region in the north-central part of the country.

 

The mean z-score value of medium category ranges from -0.500 to 0.500 score, and Table 3 exhibits that there are twenty one states of india that have the  medium level of socio-economic deprivation and, which are forming three remarkable regions in the country. The first region is much extensive and contiguous in size, and extends over the whole southern parts of India, comprising states of Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa and Tamil Nadu. The second region emerges out in the north-eastern part of the country, including the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, and Assam, and this region is connected with the southern region by the state of West Bengal in the study area (Fig. 3). The last third small region is formed by the states of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Uttrakhand and Haryana in the northern part of India.

 

The states scoring the mean z-score value of less than -0.500, are grouped under low level of socio-economic deprivation. Table 3 depicts that there are only three states which are widely scattered in the country. The spatial patterns in the level of socio-economic deprivation can be witnessed from Figure 3 that the level of socio-economic deprivation is high in the north-central states, and it gradually decreases towards the northern, southern, eastern and north-eastern parts into the medium level of socio-economic deprivation in India.

 

As far as the level of socio-economic deprivation in union territories of India is concerned, all the UTs come under the medium level (-0.500 to 0.500 score) of deprivation, as Chandigarh (-0.328 score), Delhi (-0.123 score), Lakshadweep (-0.233 score), Pondicherry (-0.320 score) and Andaman & Nicobar Islands (-0.361 score), excluding the union territory of Daman & Diu (-0.582 score) that come under the high level of socio-economic deprivation in India (Table 2).   The spatial variations in the level of socio-economic deprivation is due to prevalence of high poverty rate, illiteracy rate, unemployment rate, poor housing conditions, slum population, etc. in the country.

 

 


Relationship between Houseless Population and Levels of Socio-Economic Deprivation in India

Figure 4 exhibits that the eight states which have high level of houseless population in the country, out of them, only three states (Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh) recorded the high level of socio-economic deprivation and making an identifiable  region in the central part of the country ,while, other five states (West Bengal, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka) experienced the medium level of deprivation which are forming a distinguished region of high level of houselessness and medium level of deprivation, excluding the state of West Bengal.

 

Notwithstanding, there are eight states (Punjab, Uttrakhand, Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu) that recorded medium grades of houselessness, in which, six states have the medium level of socio-economic deprivation, excluding the two states (Bihar and Kerala), and these six states are forming three small distinct regions in the northern, eastern and southern parts of the country respectively (Fig. 4). Table 2 shows that twelve states (Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, Assam, Jharkhand and Goa) come under the low rate of houselessness, out of them, only two states (Himachal Pradesh and Mizoram ) as well experienced the low level of socio-economic deprivation, while, all remaining states (Jammu & Kashmir, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Assam, Jharkhand and Goa) have the medium level of deprivation in the country (Fig. 4).

It may be generalized that houseless population and level of socio-economic deprivation are associated with each other (Fig. 4). To be clear, the states of low and medium rate of houseless population have an important satisfactory affirmative relationship with the level of socio-economic deprivation, as falling in the same category. While, the states having high level of houseless population, they do have moderate relation with the level of socio-economic deprivation. Therefore, level of socio-economic deprivation should be discarded, and simultaneously replaced with the process of socio-economic development particularly, to curve the houselessness and reduce the level of deprivation in general, in the country.

 


 


The relationship between the houseless population and levels of socio-economic deprivation in the UTs of India is also positively correlated. Table 1 depicts that there are five UTs (Delhi, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry and Andaman & Nicobar Islands) that have charactrised with low rate of houselessness but medium level of deprivation while union territory of Daman & Diu has both low rate of houselessness and low level of deprivation. The union territory of Chandigarh experienced the medium grades in both the aspects i.e. houseless population and level of socio-economic deprivation in the country.

 

Correlation between Houseless Population (Y1) and other Selected Socio-Economic Variables of Deprivation in India

The analysis of simple correlation between houselessness (dependent variable) and selected variables of socio-economic deprivation (independent variables) has been listed in Table 4.

The examination of the Table 4 reveals the fact that Out of twenty independent variables of deprivation, the coefficient of correlation of three variables such as, X2 (Percent of housing shortage, r = .517*), X3 (Percent of slum population, r = .852*) and X6 (Urban poverty rate, r = .482*) have a higher level of significant relationship with the houseless population and all these three variables are significant at the confidence level of 99 per cent which are also positively correlated with the houseless population. Instead of one star and double star variables, other socio-economic variables of deprivation are too correlated with houselessness but not up to a significant level.

 

Table 4: Result of Correlation (r) between Houseless Population and other Selected Variables of Socio-Economic Deprivation in India, 2001

Variables

Definition of Variables

Houselessness (Y1)

X1

Percent of Houseless Population

1.000

X2

Percent of Housing Shortage

.517*

X3

Percent of Slum Population

.852*

X4

Poverty Rate

0.314

X5

Rural Poverty

0.197

X6

Urban Poverty

.482*

X7

Unemployment Rate

-0.044

X8

Rural Unemployment Rate

-0.173

X9

Urban Unemployment Rate

-0.191

X10

Illiteracy Rate

0.101

X11

Rural Illiteracy Rate

0.227

X12

Urban Illiteracy Rate

0.317

X13

Male Illiteracy Rate

0.088

X14

Female Illiteracy Rate

0.231

X15

Percent of Scheduled Caste Population to Total Population

0.308

X16

Percent of Scheduled Tribe Population to Total Population

-0.279

X17

Household Size

0.11

X18

Size of Land Holdings in hectare

0.093

X19

Population Growth

-0.206

X20

Population Density

-0.139

Source: Calculation is based on State Level Published Data, Census of India, 2001 and Data Dissemination Wing, Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the General Registrar, Govt. of India,  New Delhi.

* Significance at 1 per cent level, ** Significance at 5 per cent level.

 

Therefore, it may be inferred from the analysis of Table 4 that firstly rates of housing shortage, slum population and urban poverty rate have to be reduced, and simultaneously there should be formulation and implementation of strategies to decline in levels poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, population growth, etc. to curve the houselessness, and endorse the process of socio-economic development in the study area.

 

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS:

The geographical patterns of houseless population in the country are characterized by gradual increase from north to south and from east towards western directions. The high level of houseless population in the western parts of the states in the country might have been due to high concentration of slum population, housing shortages, poverty, urbanization, etc. On the other hand, the level of socio-economic deprivation is also high in the north-central states, and it uniformly decreases towards the northern, southern, eastern and north-eastern parts into the medium level of socio-economic deprivation in India. These spatial variations in the level in the socio-economic deprivation might have been due to prevalence of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, housing conditions, slum population, etc. in the country.

 

It may be generalized that houselessness and level of socio-economic deprivation are associated with each other. The states of low and medium rate of houselessness have a satisfactory positive relationship in term of levels of socio-economic deprivation as falling in the same category. While, the states that have high level of houselessness, they do have only moderate relation with the level of socio-economic deprivation. Therefore, it may be concluded that firstly there should be reduction in the rates of housing shortage, slum population, urban poverty unemployment, illiteracy, population growth, etc. to curve the houselessness in particular and simultaneously level of socio-economic deprivation should be replaced with the process of socio-economic development to reduce the deprivation in general, in the country.

 

Today, third World countries are experiencing rapid urbanisation involving major shifts in human settlements and their activities over the space. As urban problems become increasingly complex and challenging, the clear policies are required to guide the process of urban change towards the desired end (Gnaneshwar, 1995: 293-316). Firstly, housing is an effective treatment intervention that ends and prevents homelessness for individuals with severe mental illness, co-occurring addictions, and other health problems, who have remained homeless for years (Gulcur et al., 2003: 171-186; Tsemberis et al., 2004: 651-656).

 

Therefore, following measures may be adopted for minimizing the inter-state and regional variations in respect of availability of house, housing and modern household amenities and assets in various parts of India:

 

Ø There should be effective implementation and regular monitoring of the schemes and programmes that are launched by Government of India for better housing, households amenities and assets, and poverty alleviation like, Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY,1985), Scheme of Shelter Housing and Shelter Upgradation (SHASU, 1990), National Housing Bank Voluntary Deposit Scheme (NHBVDS, 1991), Scheme for Infrastructural Development in Mega Cities (SIDMC,1994), Prime Minister Integrated Urban Poverty Eradication Programme (PMIUPEP,1 995), Jawahar Lal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM, 2005), Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHDSP, 2006 in Himachal Pradesh), National Slum Development Programme (NSDP, 2006 in Meghalaya), etc.

 

Ø The engineers and scientists have to be inspired to develop new techniques of house construction as such that comparatively cheaper and durable houses may be constructed in various regions of India on the basis of easily available construction materials in varied physico-climatic regions of the country.

 

Ø   Special attention has to be given to provide basic civic amenities and facilities to the dwellers of slum and squatter settlements, or the population of such settlements, under special drives, may be shifted in new colonies having standard housing, adequate water supply, sanitation, electricity, etc. Moreover, it is also a need of the hour that such provisions have to be made that the benefits of urban development programmes may be percolated up to the lowest stratum of the society, surely, it will help in reducing the vertical inequalities in term of housing conditions in the urban areas of the country.

 

Ø Notwithstanding, nothing could be achieved without reducing the high natural growth of population. Therefore, there is an urgent need to popularize the slogan of two child norm in the lower sections of the society by raising the socio-economic standard particularly of the rural people.

 

REFERENCES:

1.       Agarwal  M. and Misra G. Socio-cultural values and relative deprivation in work organizations, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. 28 (4); 1993:327-340.

2.       Baer  J. S.; Ginzler J. A. and Peterson,P. L. DSM-IV  alcohol and substance abuse and dependence in homeless youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol.  64, 2003: 5–14.

3.       Baron S. W. Street youth violence and victimization. Trauma Violence & Abuse.  4, (1); 2003:  22–44.

4.       Caton, C. (1990) Homelessness in America, New York: Oxford University Press.

5.       Census of India. Primary Census Abstract, Total Population, Series-1, Table A-5Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the Registrar General.  Govt. of India, New Delhi, 1991:. 64.

6.       Census of India.  Primary Census Abstract, Total Population, Series-1, Table A-5.  Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the Registrar General, Govt. of India, New Delhi, 2001.

7.       Dambrosio C. and Frick  J. R. Income satisfaction and relative deprivation: a empirical link.  Social Indicators Research,  81 (3); 2007: 497-519.

8.       Edgar, B.  Doherty  J. and Meert  H.  Access to housing: homelessness and vulnerability in Europe. Policy Press, Bristol 2001.

9.       Eibner C.E and Evans W.N. Relative deprivation, poor health habits, and mortality.  Journal of Human Resources. 40 2005: 591-620.

10.     Farrow J. A.; Deisher R.W., Brown,R., Kulig J. W. and Kipke M. D. Health and health  needs of homeless and run away youth. Journal of Adolescent Health. 13, 1992:  717–776.

11.     Glasser I. and Bridgman R. Braving the Street: The Anthropology of Homelessness. Berghahn Books, New York 1999.

12.     Gnaneshwar V. Urban policies in India paradoxes and predicaments. Habitat International: A journal for the Study of Human Settlement. 19 (3); 1995: 293-316.

13.     Gulcur L., Stefancic A., Shinn  M., Tsemberis S. and Fischer S. N. Housing, hospitalization, and cost outcomes for homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities participating in continuum of care and housing first programmes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 13, 2003: 171– 186.

14.     Herbert D. T. Urban deprivation: definition, measurement and spatial qualities. The Geographical Journal 141 (3); 1975: 362-372.

15.     Hertzberg E.  L. The Homeless in the United States:  conditions, typology and interventions. International Social Work. 35, 1992: 149-61.

16.     Hopper K.  Reckoning with Homelessness, Ithaca. Cornell University Press, New York 2003): 144.

17.     Kelly K. & Caputo T. Health and street /homeless youth. Journal of Health Psychology. 12, 2007: 726–736.

18.     Kipke M. D.; Montgomery S. B.;  Simon T. R., and Iverson E. F. Substance abuse’ disorders among run away and homeless youth. Substance Use & Misuse. 32 (7& 8) 1997:  969–986.

19.     Runciman W.G. Relative deprivation and social justice. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1966: 11.

20.     Slesnick N. and Prestopmik J. L. Dual and multiple diagnosis among substance using run away youth. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 1, 2005: 179–201.

21.     Smith D.M. The Geography of social well-being in the United States: an introduction to territorial social indicators. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973: 85.

22.     Tsemberis S., Gulcur L. and Nakae M. Housing first, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health. 94, 2004:  651–656.

23.     United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Annual homeless assessment report to congress 2009, 2010 and retrieved from URL  http://www.huduser.org/portal/ publications/povsoc/ahar_5.html.

24.    Verme P. Relative deprivation in the labour space. Working Paper No. 01, Department of Economics, University of Torino, Italy, 2007: 1.

 

 

Received on 11.02.2012

Revised on   25.02.2012

Accepted on 20.03.2012

© A&V Publication all right reserved