1. SOCIO ECONOMIC SCALES
-Dr. MANJU.T.L

2. INTRODUCTION
Our society has always been classified into classes/strata based on various criteria
Indian society is rigidly based on caste system
Caste groups are hierarchical
Social class – closely bound up with economic status, level of education, way of life, attitudes & expectations and exposure to stress.(1)
Caste gps- rigid in rural areas. Exposure to different types and degrees of stress

3. Social stratification
A kind of social differentiation; whereby a society groups people into socioeconomic strata
Social mobility
Movement of individuals, social groups or categories of people between the layers/strata in a stratification system.
Based on this, there are open & closed stratification systems

4. TYPES OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
open class system is the stratification that facilitates social mobility, with individual achievement and personal merit determining social rank. The hierarchical social status of a person is achieved through their effort.
In closed class systems, people tend to be ranked by ascribed status. Caste as a closed social stratification system in which membership is determined by birth and remains fixed for life
Horizontal social mobility.-switching from one position to another without a change in social status. 
Vertical social mobility.-person or group's movement up or down a status hierarchy.
Intergenerational mobility.
Intra-generational mobility.
Occupational Mobility.

5. HISTORY PLATO OTHERS Concept of social class
3 classes – philosophers, warriors, producers
ARISTOTLE
Similar to Plato
However, more on importance of middle class
OTHERS
Main feature of differentiation is income
Land owners, owners of capital, workers.(2)
Others – Locke, Rousseau & Montesquieu
Land owners- those who receive rent; owners of capital- who receive profit; workers- receive wages

6. VIEWS IN SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Functionalist view
Social inequality is necessary; it plays a vital role in smooth operation of society
Davis – Moore theory
Conflict view
Social stratification benefit some at the expense of others
Karl Marx & Max Weber theory

7. DAVIS & MOORE THEORY
Social positions have varying degrees of functional importance
“A position does not bring power or prestige because it draws a high income. Rather, it draws a high income because it is functionally important & the available personnel, is for one reason or another, scarce.”
Criticism of this theory:
It did not make much sense in non-competitive societies, eg: feudalism, where all positions are distributed by birth (not by merit).(3)
This hypothesis is an attempt to explain social stratification

8. MARX & WEBER THEORIES Fundamental
Karl Marx – social class has 2 class systems
Max Weber – 3 dimensions of stratification – class, status & party
Class – The possession of material resources by a person, based on birth and individual achievements
Status – A person’s prestige, social honour or popularity in a society
Party – Determined by the acquisition of social power.
“Power” is a person’s ability to get their way despite the resistance of others, particularly in their ability to engage in social change.(4)

9. WEBERIAN THEORY Weber further divided “class” into 4 categories:
Propertied upper class
Property less intelligentsia
Petty bourgeoisie
Manual working class
Thus, Weber brought out a theory of the existence of middle class
Propertied upper class- economic power, social status, political influence +
Property less intelligentsia- professional class
Petty bourgeoisie- small business owner

10. CONTINUED…
Weber described social stratification in societies as a multidimensional distribution of people by ranks, rather than a simple hierarchy of specific classes.
Liberatos et al (1988) state, that in accordance with Weber’s ideas, sociologists use the term “socio economic status” to designate a complex classification based on various dimensions of social inequality.(4)

11. SES – WHY IT MATTERS?
To understand the distribution of population based on SES
Resources are scarce – identify the most needy
SES has been observed to influence the health status of the community
To develop a uniform system of socioeconomic classification of the population universally, in a scientific manner.(5)

12. SES AND HEALTH
Related to health & life outcomes for as long as social groups existed:
Lower SES – more negative life events/stressors than high SES
Lower SES – less likely to engage in healthy behaviours – exercising, healthy diet, not smoking
The access to & quality of healthcare vary across the different SES.(5)

13. SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
Position that an individual or family occupies with reference to the prevailing average standards of cultural and material possessions, income, and participation in group activity of the community
SES can be measured by the following methods:
Rahudkar scale (1960)
B.G.Prasad method (1961)
Udai Pareek method (1964)
Jalota scale (1970)
Kulshrestha scale (1972)
Kuppuswamy scale (1976)
Srivastava scale (1978)
Bharadwaj scale (2001).(6)

14. Rural- Urban Differentiation
The "rural sector" means any place as per the 2011 census which meets the following criteria,
A population of less than 5,000
Density of population less than 400 per sq.km and
more than "25 per cent of the male main working population" is engaged in agricultural pursuits.(7)
Urban area:
All places with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area committee, etc.
All other places which satisfied the following criteria:
A minimum population of 5,000;
At least 75 per cent of the male main working population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits; and
A density of population of at least 400 persons per sq. km.(8)

15. RURAL
URBAN
RAHUDKAR SCALE
KUPPUSWAMY SCALE
UDAI-PAREEK SCALE
SRIVASTAVA SCALE
SHIRPURKAR SCALE
JALOTA SCALE
KULSHRESHTA SCALE
MODIFIED B.G. PRASAD SCALE- both urban & rural population
BHARADWAJ SCALE- for student population

16. B.G. PRASAD’S CLASSIFICATION
First introduced in 1961
Revised in 1968 & 1970
After Kuppuswamy SES scale, this is the most widely used scale for classifying people according to socioeconomic status.
Applicable to both urban and rural population.
Based on per capita monthly income.(9)
Total monthly income of family
Per capita monthly income=
Total no: of members in family

17. Table 1: Revision of B.G. Prasad’s SES classification
SOCIAL CLASS
ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION OF PER CAPITA INCOME
REVISED CLASSIFICATION FOR 2016
I (upper class)
≥100
≥6346
II (upper middle)
50-99
III (middle)
30-49
IV (lower middle)
15-29
V (lower class)
˂15
≤951

18. WHAT IS THE NEED TO UPDATE SES SCALES?
Income ranges in the scale lose their relevance following the depreciation in the value of the rupee.
Steady inflation, lower interest rates and country’s current account deficits are the main factors contributing to the fall in the value of currency.(10)

19. Consumer Price Index (CPI)
It is a measure of change in retail price of basket of commonly used goods & services, consumed by a defined population group, in a given area, with reference to a base year.(10)
Gives an idea of the cost of living.
The percentage change in this index over a period of time gives the amount of inflation over that specific period, i.e, the increase in prices of a representative basket of goods consumed.(11)

20. Comprises of multiple series, classified based on different economic groups – 4 series:
Industrial workers (IW)
Agricultural labourers (AL) Dept. of Labour
Rural labourers (RL)
Urban non manual employees (UNME) - Central Statistical Organization
UNME- replaced as CPI (urban), CPI (rural) & CPI (combined)
The RBI has started using CPI- combined as the sole inflation measure for the purpose of monetary policy.(11)

21. HOW TO CALCULATE CPI?

22. Step 1
Select a base year for the CPI – always set at 100
Step 2
Select a “basket of goods” and add the prices of all these goods in your base year. For instance, choose 2001 as your base year.
Step 3
Select the year for which you want to calculate the CPI and add the prices of all the goods in your basket of goods for that year. For instance, to calculate CPI in 2005.
Step 4
[Price of basket of goods in 2005/ price of basket of goods in 2001]*100. For instance, if your basket of goods cost Rs. 500 in 2001 and Rs. 550 in 2005 :
[550/ 500]*100. By calculation, CPI in 2005 is 110.
This means prices increased 10% from 2001 to 2005.

23. Revision of B.G. Prasad scale (12)
BG Prasad scale- introduced in 1961 considering base year as 1960(CPI-100)
Scale modified in 1982 and 2001 by introducing linking factors to convert CPI (1982 and 2001) from the new base of 100 to the old base CPI (1960).
The linking factors for 1982 and 2001 were 4.93 and 4.63, respectively.(LB)
CPI − Industrial Workers (IW) for September 2016 = 277
Multiplication factor = Current index value (277)/ Base index value in 2001 (100) = 2.77
New income = multiplication factor × old income value × × 4.93

24. Criticism of B G Prasad scale
Socioeconomic scale or just an economic scale? Is income the sole determinant of the socioeconomic status of a person?
It's too simplistic- one size fits all approach- its validity?
No differentiation with respect to income and wealth.
While the scale uses CPI (IW), it claims its applicability for both urban and rural areas, completely ignoring the CPI for rural labourers and agricultural labourers.
Income may vary from month to month.(13)

25. KUPPUSWAMY SCALE Proposed by Kuppuswamy in India, in 1976
Most widely used scale.
He prepared a scale based on three variables which contributes to the socio-economic status. These are:
1) Education of head of the family
2) Occupation of head of the family
3) Total family income
Used for urban communities
Each component is given a weighted score and then total is summed up and the individual/ family can be classified.(9)

26. A) Educational component
Professional or honours 7
Graduate or post graduate 6
Intermediate or post- high school diploma 5
High school certificate 4
Middle school certificate 3
Primary school certificate 2
Illiterate 1

27. B) Occupational component
Professional 10
Semi-professional 6
Clerical, shop owner, farmer 5
Skilled worker 4
Semi-skilled worker 3
Unskilled worker 2
Unemployed 1

28. C) Family income per month (Rs.)
The income is updated on the basis of Consumer Price Index.
≥ Rs.42,
21,438-42,
16,078-21,
10,719-16,
6,431-10,
2,165-6,
≤2,
Current income groups = original family income groups of Kuppuswamy (1976) X current CPI X (multiplication factor)

29. CLASS TOTAL SCORE UPPER CLASS 26-29 UPPER MIDDLE CLASS 16-25
LOWER MIDDLE CLASS
11-15
UPPER LOWER CLASS
5-10
LOWER CLASS ˂5
Current income groups = original family income groups of Kuppuswamy (1976) X current consumer price index X (multiplication factor)

30. Criticism of Kuppuswamy scale
Total income of the family- independent of family size.
Inter-assessor variation in identifying the head of the family.
No clear definition and classification of various occupations.
While the income ranges are updated regularly, no update has been done of evaluation of various educational and occupational levels.(13)
 does not necessarily reflect the standard of living or other human development indicators such as sanitation and health. Conversely well educated/skilled person may remain jobless with poor income and poor standards of living. Accurate identification of low category is important to health indices.

31. UDAI PAREEK SCALE
Attempts to examine the socio-economic status for rural population.
This scale has nine factors which assess the socio-economic status of the individual.
After filling the information, and scoring the individual items, the total score is summed up and interpreted in terms of the class.
Score ranges from a maximum value of 49 to minimum value of 3.(13)
Udai Pareek scale does not collect information on income, so the data collected with the scale may be more valid.

32. The 9 factors included in Udai Pareek scale:
Caste
Occupation
Education
Land
Social participation
House
Farm power
Material possessions
Family type

34. Agarwal scale
Comprehensive; wide utility across urban and rural areas.
takes into consideration both direct and indirect measures for assessment of the financial status of the family.
22-item long
caste, material possessions (vehicle, TV, fridge, AC, washing machine, mobile phone, house, tap water, domestic servant, land, milch cattle etc), visits abroad, monthly per capita income, income tax paid, highest education in the family and occupation.
However, the length of the Agarwal questionnaire makes it a time and labour-intensive exercise.
Several items are not relevant to urban areas
calculation of pooled income of the family is difficult as it is unclear whether to include income of the individual who is earning but not contributing to the family purse
occupation scoring-difficult as many categories are not mentioned

35. STANDARD OF LIVING INDEX(SLI) SCALE
The GoI in the National Family Health Survey (NFHS - II) had used the Standard of Living Index (SLI) scale.
It contains 11 items viz.
house type
source of lighting
toilet facility
main fuel for cooking
source of drinking water
separate room for cooking
ownership of the house
ownership of agricultural land
ownership of irrigated land
ownership of livestock
ownership of durable goods.(14)

36. On the basis of total score, households are divided into 3 categories as:
Low- total score ≤9
Medium- total score is >9, but ≤19
High- score >19
Can be applied in both urban & rural areas of the entire country.

37. Advantages of SLI Can be applied in both rural and urban settings.
It is based on a scoring system which can be modified depending on the requirements. Thus families classified under SLI are more in touch with reality.
An exploratory study on socio economic status scales in a rural and urban setting, was conducted in Bangalore, in 2010, to compare the most commonly used SES in rural and urban setting.
In the rural areas, the SLI was compared with Pareek's scale and Prasad scale. In the urban areas, the SLI was compared with modified Kuppuswamy scale and B G Prasad scale.
SLI stands out as a unique reliable measure of SES at rural setting by taking into consideration the wealth possession.(14)
There is a universal relationship between socio-economic position and health, and often that the ‘best’ measure is the one that produces the strongest association between socio-economic position and health. 

38. WEALTH INDEX
A composite measure of a household’s cumulative living standard.
Used in Demographic & Health Surveys (DHS)
The wealth index places individual households on a continuous scale of relative wealth.
Information on the wealth index is based on data collected in the Household Questionnaire.
Each household asset for which information is collected is assigned a weight or factor score generated through principal components analysis.
These scores are summed by household, and individuals are ranked according to the total score of the household in which they reside. The sample is then divided into population quintiles -- five groups with the same number of individuals in each.(15)

39. The NFHS-3 had used the wealth index for determining the living standards of the population.
The NFHS-4 was conducted among more than 6 lakh households in
The wealth index as part of NFHS-4 was prepared on basis of information of scores on ownership of consumer goods such as television and bicycles and others, and household characteristics such as availability of clean drinking water
This information was used to classify all households into wealth quintiles. Those in lowest quintile were poorest 20%, while those in top were richest 20% of lot. The report then used these quintile scores to classify population for states, caste and religious groups and rural-urban areas into each quintile.(15)

41. Hollingshead Four Factor Index
The Hollingshead Four Factor Index (1975) of Socioeconomic Status is a survey designed to measure social status of an individual based on four domains:
marital status
retired/employed status
educational attainment
occupational prestige
Obtained separately for adult & child.
Child years & Adult years.(16)

42. Education code is rated on a 7-point scale:
Education code is rated on a 7-point scale: 7=graduate/professional training
6= standard college or university graduation
5=partial college, at least one year of specialized training
4= high school graduate
3=partial high school, 10th or 11th grade
2= junior high school, including 9th grade
1= less than 7th grade
0=not applicable or unknown.

43. Occupational code rated on a 9-point scale:
9=higher executive, proprietor of large business, major professional
8=administrators, lesser professionals, proprietor of medium-sized business
7=smaller business owners, farm owners, managers, minor professionals
6=technicians, semi-professionals, small business owners
5=clerical and sales workers, small farm and business owners
4=smaller business owners, skilled manual labourers, craftsmen, tenant farmers
3=machine operators and semi-skilled workers
2=unskilled workers
1=farm labourers, menial service workers, students, housewives, (dependent on welfare, no regular occupation)
0=not applicable or unknown.
If the participant has a spouse/significant other that is contributing to the household, their education and occupational codes are obtained as well.
The participant is asked who was financially supporting him or her at age 16, and education and occupational codes are obtained for these parent/guardians as well.

44. CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Investigators wanting to examine the relationship between socio-economic position and health need to decide which health measure to use. If one wishes to demonstrate strong associations between SES and health, it would be better to use limiting long-standing illness, income and household rather than individual measures of social position, and older measures of occupational social class.
Individual income is a different measure that should be chosen if the individual position in terms of status or material success is to be measured.
In present scenario other SES indicators like physical assets, savings, debts etc must also be taken into consideration while assessing SES.
There is a universal relationship between socio-economic position and health, and often that the ‘best’ measure is the one that produces the strongest association between socio-economic position and health. 

45. The strengths and limitations of any measure of socio- economic position (SEP) depend on the context and purpose for which it is being used.
There are still important socio-economic gradients in the use of some health services. Further research needs to focus on socio-economic differences in the reasons, the outcome and the quality of the provided care.
We could recommend an outcome- and social group–specific approach to SES measurement that involves (1) considering plausible explanatory pathways and mechanisms, (2) measuring as much relevant socioeconomic information as possible, (3) specifying the particular socioeconomic factors measured (rather than SES overall), and (4) systematically considering how potentially important unmeasured socioeconomic factors may affect conclusions.

46. REFERENCES
1. Park.K , Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine., 24th edition, Medicine and Social Sciences Chap, Page no
2. Azarkievi JS. SOCIAL STRATIFICATION ACCORDING TO MARX AND WEBER : COMPARISON OF THE THEORIES AND MODERN RELEVANCE [Internet] p. Available from: Marx_and_Weber_Comparison_of_the_Theories_and_Modern_Relevance
3. Kerbo HR. Modern Theories of Social Stratification [Internet]. Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical, Comparative, and Global Perspective p. Available from:
4. Karl Marx and Max Weber have different views upon social class in contemporary societies [Internet]. Available from: weber-have-different-views-upon-social-class-in-contemporary- societies.html
5. Oakes J. Measuring Socioeconomic Status 1. [Internet]. e-Source: Behavioral and Social Science Research p. 1–31. Available from: kes_FullChapter.pdf

47. 6. Swamy N, Lecturer S. OVERVIEW OF SOCIO ECONOMIC
6. Swamy N, Lecturer S. OVERVIEW OF SOCIO ECONOMIC. Int J Innov Res Dent Sci. 2016;1(2):1–7.
7. National Portal Content Management Team. Rural Indian: National Portal of India [Internet] Available from:
8. Urban - Arthapedia [Internet]. Available from:
9. Shaikh Z, Pathak R. Revised Kuppuswamy and B G Prasad socio-economic scales for Int J Community Med Public Heal [Internet]. 2017;4(4):997. Available from:
10. Definition of Consumer Price Index | What is Consumer Price Index ? Consumer Price Index Meaning - The Economic Times [Internet] Available from: index
11. Consumer Price Index [Internet]. Vol. September, Statistical release p. 1–13. Available from:

48. 12. Khairnar MR, Wadgave U, Shimpi P V
12. Khairnar MR, Wadgave U, Shimpi P V. Updated BG Prasad socioeconomic classification for J indian Assoc public Heal Dent [Internet]. 2016;14(4):469–70. Available from: ;year=2016;volume=14;issue=4;spage=469;epage=470;aulast=Khairnar
13. Singh T, Sharma S, Nagesh S. Socio-economic status scales updated for ;5(7):3264–7. Available from:
14. Kulkarni P, Ramesh Masthi N, Gangaboraiah. An exploratory study on socio economic status scales in a rural and urban setting [Internet]. Vol. 2, Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care p. 69–73. Available from:
15. The DHS Programe, USAID. The DHS Program - Research Topics - Wealth Index [Internet]. Available from:
16. Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Socioeconomic Status (SES- Child) — Nathan Kline Institute - Rockland Sample documentation [Internet] Available from: child.html

49. Thank you