In a given year in India, official poverty lines are higher in some States than in others because

Contains the exact multiple‑choice question asking why official poverty lines differ across states, listing 'poverty rates vary' and 'price levels vary' as candidate reasons — showing these are standard hypotheses/patterns considered.

A student could take this list of candidate reasons and check state price level (cost of living) data and state poverty estimates to see which correlate with higher official lines.

The same MCQ formulation appears again, indicating that variations in poverty rates and in price levels across states are commonly cited factors in official discussions of statewise poverty lines.

Use statewise poverty rate tables alongside state price indices to test whether areas with higher poverty rates tend to have higher official poverty lines or whether cost differences explain them.

Defines the poverty line as based on private consumption expenditure for food and non‑food items and notes methods depend on local socio‑economic needs — implying local price/consumption patterns can affect the poverty line.

Combine this rule with state Consumer Price Index (CPI) and typical consumption baskets to infer why some states' official lines might be higher (higher local prices or different consumption norms).

Notes that poverty lines or poverty ratios of one state are sometimes used for small/other regions (e.g., 'Poverty Ratio of Assam is used for Arunachal Pradesh'), implying poverty lines are understood as state‑specific measures.

A student could map which states have distinct official lines versus those that borrow another state's line and then compare with state poverty/price data to see if distinct lines align with differing poverty/price conditions.

Provides concrete statewise poverty percentages showing large inter‑state variation (e.g., Odisha 57.0%, Punjab 8.4%), demonstrating that poverty rates do vary markedly across states.

Using these state poverty rates plus knowledge of which states report higher official poverty lines, a student could check whether higher official lines coincide with higher measured poverty or instead track with prices.

This exam-style item lists 'price levels vary from state to state' as a possible reason why official poverty lines differ across states, indicating this is a recognised factor to consider.

A student could combine this prompt with data on state-wise price indices to check whether states with higher price levels have higher official poverty lines.

A second source repeats the same multiple-choice formulation, again naming inter‑state price variation as a candidate explanation for differing poverty lines.

Use consumer price index or state CPI data alongside official state poverty thresholds to test for correlation.

Explains that the Tendulkar poverty line is defined by monthly spending on food and non‑food items and gives different rural/urban MPCE values, showing poverty lines are based on consumption costs.

Apply the same logic to states: if poverty lines are consumption‑based, then higher local price levels would raise the nominal MPCE threshold in those states.

States the poverty line is defined on the basis of private consumption expenditure for buying food and non‑food items, i.e., a threshold consumption expenditure.

A student could reason that because the threshold is an expenditure amount, regional price differences affecting expenditure needs could make nominal poverty lines differ by state.

Historical poverty lines are explicitly given 'at 1867-68 prices' or 'pre-war prices', showing that poverty thresholds have been tied to price levels historically.

This suggests a general rule that poverty lines move with price levels; a student can extend this to modern state price differences to hypothesize higher nominal lines where prices are higher.

This textbook MCQ explicitly lists 'Gross State Product varies from states to states' as one of the candidate reasons why official poverty lines might be higher in some states.

A student could note that textbooks consider GSP a plausible factor and then check whether official poverty line-setting formulas use income/GSP indicators across states.

The same question appears in another textbook edition, again presenting GSP variation as a possible explanation for different state poverty lines.

Treat this repeated inclusion as a clue to investigate official methodology documents to see if state income levels (GSP) enter the poverty-line determination.

Defines India's poverty line as based on private consumption expenditure (a threshold of income/expenditure) rather than directly on poverty rates or public distribution quality.

Combine this with the idea that higher state GSP generally implies higher average incomes and potentially higher local consumption norms/prices, which could lead authorities to set higher nominal poverty thresholds in richer states.

Notes inter-state differences in poverty incidence and links low poverty incidence to 'agricultural and industrial development' (i.e., economic development factors related to state output).

A student could use the link between state-level development (which correlates with GSP) and poverty patterns to hypothesize that measures tied to local economic conditions (including poverty lines) might also vary with GSP.

States that various scholars and agencies produce state-wise poverty estimates, and that 'state-wise variations' are routinely plotted, implying official/state-level differentiation in poverty measurement.

Use this as a prompt to compare methodologies of different estimating bodies (Planning Commission, NSS) to see if they adjust poverty lines by state economic indicators such as GSP.