For states in India, rapid economic growth is often hailed as one of the most critical markers of developmental progress. But does a rising gross state domestic product (GSDP) translate into equitable access to essential services like healthcare, education and justice? This has been asked without presenting suitable alternatives to the state-wise measurement of economic and developmental progress.
The Access (In)Equality Index Report (AEI) 2025 created by the Centre for New Economics Studies at O.P. Jindal University seeks to answer this by assessing inequality through the lens of access rather than just economic outcomes.
We discuss some critical insights with respect to a few states and observed divergences between achieved growth and distributive equity experienced by these identified states across pillars.
An observed divide between economic growth and social outcomes
One of the AEI’s stark revelations over the years has been that economic performance for states (if measured solely in terms of GSDP) does not always translate into better social outcomes. While some high-income states have successfully invested in public services, others lag, highlighting a disconnect between wealth creation and equitable service provision.
The index ranks states based on their ability to convert economic growth into social progress, uncovering significant disparities across India.
Front-runners: bridging state growth with development
Sikkim (0.62), Andhra Pradesh (0.62) and Kerala (0.58) emerge as top performers, demonstrating how targeted policies can bridge economic growth and social welfare. Sikkim, despite its small economy, excels in education and healthcare, emphasising that state capacity is more critical than GDP size.
Andhra Pradesh’s top ranking is attributed to strong governance in education and public welfare. Kerala, long known for its human development model, maintains its standing due to a robust public healthcare system and high literacy rates.
Some economic powerhouses fall short. Maharashtra (0.52) and Karnataka (0.52) highlight the urban-rural divide in service access.
Maharashtra, despite a GDP exceeding $400 billion, struggles with high out-of-pocket healthcare costs and disparities in education. Karnataka, home to India’s IT sector, shows stark gaps between urban hubs and its rural heartland, reinforcing the reality that economic expansion alone does not ensure inclusive development.
Achievers: states with promise but persistent gaps
States like Punjab (0.49), Rajasthan (0.45) and West Bengal (0.42) fall into the ‘achievers’ category, reflecting progress as well as significant gaps.
Punjab, despite a per capita income of nearly Rs 196,000, struggles with declining school enrolments and an overburdened healthcare system.
Rajasthan has improved healthcare access through schemes like the Janani Suraksha Yojana but still faces gendered literacy gaps.
West Bengal, while economically vibrant, sees development concentrated in Kolkata, leaving rural districts behind.
Aspirants: the urgent need for structural reforms
At the bottom of the ranking, Uttar Pradesh (0.37), Jharkhand (0.37) and Bihar (0.27) underscore the deep structural inequalities plaguing India.
Bihar, growing at 15.55% (2022-23), has the lowest AEI score, revealing how high economic growth does not equate to better social services.
Jharkhand, even as it has industrial hubs, sees vast economic benefits bypassing marginalised communities.
Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, suffers from alarming malnutrition rates, poor literacy and inadequate health infrastructure.
The AEI’s findings make it clear that economic growth without equitable investment in public services perpetuates inequality. States with low AEI scores fail to allocate resources effectively, proving that GDP growth alone is an inadequate measure of progress.
The higher education divide: a reflection of systemic inequality
Education remains a critical determinant of upward mobility, yet disparities persist. While Goa and Haryana boast high gross enrolment ratios above the national average of 28.4%, Bihar lags at 17.1%. This gap reflects historical disadvantages, inadequate infrastructure and socio-economic constraints that prevent millions from accessing higher education.
Despite policy efforts, higher education remains an uneven playing field, reinforcing existing inequalities rather than alleviating them.
Source: Access (In)equality Report 2025.
The healthcare crisis: a tale of two Indias
Healthcare access remains one of the most glaring disparities in India.
Kerala continues to outperform other states with stronger, more decentralised access to public healthcare, high literacy and preventive care initiatives.
In stark contrast, states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar still continue to struggle with overburdened hospitals, severe shortages of medical personnel, poor medical-infra funding and alarmingly high maternal mortality rates.
High privatisation of medical facilities and a widening rural-urban divide further exacerbate the inequity crisis, forcing millions to rely on ill-equipped primary health centres or travel long distances for treatment, while the elite gather healthcare at the highest possible price and best possible service.
Chart: Access (In)equality Report 2025.
The AEI’s findings indicate that without systemic reforms, healthcare access will remain deeply unequal.
Socio-economic security: digital and employment gaps
Socio-economic security encompasses stable employment, financial inclusion and digital literacy. Urban centres witness rapid fintech adoption and digital skilling, while rural India lags behind.
For example, Chhattisgarh has trained 72 people per 1,000 in digital literacy programs, whereas Kerala, despite strong educational metrics, lags in formal digital skilling due to alternate models of education.
Employment trends further complicate the picture. Goa, despite high literacy, has rising unemployment at 8.7% (2023-24), pointing to a mismatch between education and job market demands.
Chart: Access (In)equality Report 2025.
India’s unregulated informal economy, the backbone of livelihood for millions, also remains highly vulnerable to economic shocks. The AEI underscores how states with better socio-economic social safety nets weather economic downturns more effectively, while others leave vulnerable populations exposed.
Policy imperatives: from economic growth to inclusive development
The AEI 2025 highlights a fundamental inconvenient truth: safeguarding economic growth through high GSDP alone does not guarantee social progress for states in India. Unequal income growth combined with a low AEI score for states reflects a failure to prioritise the equitable and proportional distribution of resources. Addressing these disparities requires a policy shift that places social welfare at the centre of economic planning.
For states lagging in the AEI ranking, lessons can be drawn from high-performing states. Kerala’s emphasis on public healthcare, Sikkim’s investments in education and Andhra Pradesh’s welfare schemes provide models for bridging the gap between economic expansion and human development.
The post-pandemic period widened existing inequalities of access and outcomes, making it imperative to secure livelihoods, strengthen social safety nets and ensure that economic gains translate into real improvements in quality of life.
Measurement tools like the AEI serve the states’ interests not just as a ranking or critical measurement tool, but as an advocacy call to improved policy action, urging policymakers to redefine progress beyond GDP and income-based numbers and focus on building a more inclusive and equitable India less divided by stark inequities.
Deepanshu Mohan is a Professor of Economics, Dean, IDEAS, and Director, Centre for New Economics Studies. He is a Visiting Professor at London School of Economics and an Academic Visiting Fellow to AMES, University of Oxford. Siddhartha Bhaskar is Associate Professor of Economics at O.P. Jindal Global University. Swati Aggarwal and Achint Kaur are Researchers with IIHED and Aditi Desai and Ankur Singh are Research Analysts with the Centre for New Economics Studies (CNES). The authors thank Najam Us Saqib for his research assistance in documenting the synopsis of the report.
This is the second article about the observations and findings from the latest edition of the Access (In)Equality Index Report 2025. Read the first here.
