INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025
availability of a composite metric that evaluates the actual level of people’s empowerment across sectors and
social groups.
Towards a GEP (Gross Empowerment of People) Framework
The emerging idea of a GEP-centric model represents a paradigm shift—placing human empowerment at the
center of governance and policy. Recent speeches by the Indian Prime Minister emphasize "empowered
citizens, not just enriched ones", reflecting the urgency to build an index that values agency, access, and dignity
alongside income.
Despite its conceptual appeal, no standardized or empirically tested GEP Index exists as of now. This gap
highlights the need for a comprehensive framework that is empirically grounded, multidimensional, and
tailored to the Indian context.
Proposed GEP Index for India
The proposed Gross Empowerment of People (GEP) Index is a comprehensive, multidimensional tool
designed to assess the actual empowerment and well-being of individuals beyond the narrow confines of income
or economic output. Unlike GDP, which measures the quantity of economic production, the GEP Index is rooted
in the belief that development is meaningful only when people gain real freedoms, agency, and equal
opportunities to lead fulfilling lives. This index has been carefully framed to reflect the Indian socio-political
context, incorporating dimensions that align with national priorities, policy goals, and lived realities of diverse
communities. It draws inspiration from established multidimensional indices such as the Human Development
Index (HDI), Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), while
expanding their scope to include emerging domains of empowerment.
The index comprises five key dimensions: Economic Empowerment, Social Empowerment, Political
Participation, Digital Inclusion, and Psychological and Cultural Empowerment. Each dimension is broken
down into specific, measurable indicators—for instance, economic empowerment includes employment status,
access to credit, and livelihood security; social empowerment measures access to education, healthcare, and
social welfare; political empowerment looks at voter turnout, representation, and participation in local
governance; digital empowerment tracks access to the internet, mobile usage, and digital literacy; while
psychological and cultural empowerment examines self- perception, freedom from discrimination, and cultural
expression.
The framework for the GEP Index has been developed through a triangulated approach: reviewing global best
practices in measuring empowerment, analyzing Indian policy documents such as NITI Aayog reports and
flagship schemes (e.g., Digital India, Skill India, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao), and consulting available secondary
data from government surveys (NFHS, NSSO, Census, etc.). Each indicator within the GEP Index is normalized
on a 0–1 scale, weighted according to relevance and data availability, and then aggregated to produce composite
scores at state or district levels. This methodological design ensures flexibility, comparability, and policy
relevance, allowing the GEP Index to be adapted to local contexts while maintaining a standard evaluative
framework.
The proposed Gross Empowerment of People (GEP) Index is a comprehensive tool designed to assess
empowerment beyond economic indicators. While the framework integrates multiple dimensions and draws
from established indices, the study acknowledges a need for more primary, perception-based data to capture
psychological and cultural empowerment with greater accuracy. Future iterations of the index should incorporate
standardized surveys, psychometric tools, and community-level assessments to refine subjective indicators.
Additionally, piloting the GEP Index at the district level is recommended before full-scale deployment. A
district-level pilot would help validate indicator relevance, weighting accuracy, and contextual variability. This
approach aligns with the reviewer’s recommendation for a more granular methodological exploration.
Page 5