PROSPECTS ON BALANCED REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN KARNATAKA

GOPAL K KADEKODI

FRAMEWORK OF PRESENTATION

• BALANCING WHAT?• WHAT HAS NANJUNDAPPA COMMITTEE

REPORT TO OFFER?• FOLLOW-UPS FROM RECENT KARNATAKA

DEVELOPMENT REPORT AND KARNATAKA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT

• APPROACHES TOWARDS 11TH FIVE YEAR PLAN

• 5. SOME MAJOR STEPS TOWARDS BALANCED REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

• BALANCING WHAT?

• BALANCING CAPABILITY BE A PRIORITY• BALANCING DOES NOT MEAN EQUAL OUTCOMES OR

INCOME• BALANCING RESOURCE ALLOCATION WITH

ATTAINMENT• IDENTIFICATION IS NO MORE AN ISSUE• NANJUNDAPPA COMMITTEE HAD IDENTIFIED 35

INDICATORS AS MOST RELEVANT

• GUIDELINES FOR BALANCING:• MAXIMIZING FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES• MATTERS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY

• MAJOR FEATURES OF NANJUNDAPPA COMMITTEE REPORT

• TALUKA AS A UNIT OF SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT• REGIONS WITH HIGH AND GOOD INFRA

STRUCTURES CAN ATTAIN MORE BALANCED DEVELOPMENT

• REGIONS WITH LOW INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOW CAPACITY OF DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE NEED SPECIAL ATTENTION TO BUILD CAPABILITY

• DEVELOPMENT FOCUS SHOULD BE BEYOND AGGREGATE DEVELOPMENT: – SOCIAL AND HUMAN SECTORS,– IMPROVING FUNCTIONALITIES: REQUIRES

CAPABILITY AND MOTIVATION– DECENTRALIZED PROCESS AND EMPOWERMENT– REDUCING RURAL-URBAN DIVIDE

•

SOME INSTANCES OF CAPABILITY IMBALANCES

Literacy rate 2001.

AggregateDevelopmen

tIndex

DEALING WITH IMBALANCES: STRATEGIES

So urc e: H igh P o w er C o m m ittee R epo rt, G o vernm ent o f K arnataka, 2002

Clustering of Taluks According to Performance and Infrastructrue in Industrial Sector in Karnataka

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

Performance

Infr

astr

uctu

re

North Karnataka

South Karnataka

N K = 6S K = 22

N K = 9S K = 18

N K= 53S K = 42

N K = 12S K = 12

Clustring of Talukas according to Performance and infrastracture in industrial Sector in Karnataka

Clustering of Taluks According to Performance and Infrastructure in Agriculture Sector in Karnataka

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1

Performance

Infra

struc

ture

North KarnatakaSouth Karnataka

• MAJOR FINDINGS FROM KHDR AND KDR

SECTORAL PERFORMANCE SHOULD BE ANALYSED AT THE REGIONAL LEVELS.RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND SECTORAL PERFORMANCE ARE UN-CORRELATED. (See next table)

Correlation Coefficients Between Resource Allocations and

Performance Indicators

Under Plan Schemes Under Non-Plan Schemes Per Capita

Income Per Capita

Income

1998-99 2001-02

Composite Index

of Dev. 01-02

1998-99 2001-02

Composite Index

of Dev. 01-02

Education 0.108 0.018 0.200 -0.017 0.291 0.308 Health and Family Welfare

0.406 0.493 0.323 0.078 0.419 0.464

Water Supply and Sanitation

0.332 0.337 0.374 0.059 0.349 0.361

Social Welfare

0.130 0.188 0.118 0.168 0.424 0.445

Rural Development

-0.140 0.128 0.188 -0.092 0.363 0.374

Total 0.090 0.251 0.292 0.004 0.323 0.341

Source: Own calculations on the data from Budget Documents of Government of Karnataka.

NEED TO CHANGE THE RESOURCE ALLOCATION FORMULA:

Second Finance Commission’s Awards

Criteria Weightage [%]

Proportion of Rural population 28.31 Proportion of Rural Area 28.31 Road length per 100 Sq.Km. 9.44 Illiteracy Rate and No. of Persons per Hospital Bed

18.88

Total Weight Rounded off to:

84.94 85.00

Source: Second Finance Commission, Government of Karnataka.

Very little of weightage is given on HUMAN CAPABILITY BUILDING.

Sixth Plan Strategies on Allocations

Sl. No.

Indicator Weightage (%)

1 Population 50 2 Agriculture backwardness as measured by the value of agricultural

output per hectare 5

3 Backwardness in irrigation as measured by the proportion of irrigated area to net area sown

5

4 Backwardness as measured by the value of industrial output 5 5 Backwardness in communication as measured by road and railway

mileage, for 100 Sq.Km/lack population 2 ½

6 Backwardness in financial infrastructure as measured by size of population served by each Commercial and Co-operative bank

2 ½

7 Backwardness in medical and health facilities as measured by the number of hospitals per 1000 population/bed population ratio

5

8 Backwardness in power supply: [a] as measured by the proportion of villages electrified 2 ½ [b] as measured by per capita consumption power 2 ½

5

9 Problems of weaker section: [a] as measured by the proportion of SCs/STs in population 2 ½ [b] as measured by the proportion of landless agricultural labour 2 ½

5

10 Local Tax effort 5 11 Special problems of Malnad area and Drought prone areas:

[a] As measured by the area under Forest 2 ½ [b] As measured by the rural population of drought prone area 2 ½

5

12 Incidence of unemployment measured by the proportion of registrants at the Employment Exchange [with appropriate adjustment wherever necessary]

5

Source: Plan Documents, Government of Karnataka.

THE FORMULA CAN INCLUDE WEIGHTAGE FOR EDUCATION, GENDER BALANCE IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION

TOWARDS NEW STRATEGIES

• TALUKA AS A UNIT OF ENQUIRY• REVISION IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION

PATTERN: MORE FLEXIBILITY BASED ON REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS.

• ASSESSING RESOURCE CAPABILITIES• ENHANCING CAPABILITIES: HUMAN, NATURAL

AND INSTITUTIONAL• BALANCING REGIONAL CLUSTERS IN TERMS

OF CAPABILITIES AND DELIVERIES• STRENGTHENING ZP, TP AND GP IN

LEADERSHIPS, TECHNOLOGY AND PLANNING• • DEVELOPING DISTRICT LEVEL INCOME

MEASURES

Table : Income versus Backwardness: Targeting Balanced Development

S. No. District Total no. of taluks

in district

No. of taluks in the lowest

quintile: Ranked

according to development

index

No. of taluks in the lowest

quintile: Ranked

according to per capita

income

Taluk(s) figuring in the lowest quintile of both

rankings

1 Bangalore (U) 3 - - - 2 Bangalore (R) 8 2 2 Kanakapura; Magadi 3 Bagalkote 6 1 1 - 4 Belgaum 10 1 - - 5 Bellary 7 4 2 Hagaribommanahalli;

Kudligi 6 Bidar 5 4 3 Aurad; Basavakalyan;

Homnabad 7 Bijapur 5 - 1 - 8 Chamarajanagar 4 - - - 9 Chikmagalur 7 - - - 10 Chitradurga 6 3 3 Holalkere; Hosadurga 11 Davangere 6 1 2 Harapanahalli 12 Dakshina

Kannada 5 - - -

13 Dharwad 5 - - - 14 Gadag 5 1 1 - 15 Gulbarga 10 6 3 Aland; Jevargi; Yadgir 16 Hassan 8 - - - 17 Haveri 7 1 3 - 18 Kodagu 3 - - - 19 Kolar 11 2 2 - 20 Koppal 4 2 2 Kushtagi; Yelbarga 21 Mandya 7 - 1 - 22 Mysore 7 1 1 Heggadadevankote 23 Raichur 5 3 4 Devadurga; Lingsugur;

Manvi 24 Shimoga 7 - - - 25 Tumkur 10 3 4 Gubbi; Pavagada; Sira 26 Udupi 3 - - - 27 Uttara Kannada 11 - - -

TOTAL 175 35 35 22

• SOME MAJOR STEPS TOWARDS BALANCED REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

• CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT APPROACH: ONE CLUSTER ONE PRODUCT

• IMPOSING STRICT GOVERNANCE MEASURES:

• GOOD PUBLIC FINANCE APPROACH (FRBM): BUDGET RELEASE ON INCENTIVE BASIS

• INVOLVEMENT OF NGOs• STRENGTHENING LOCAL CAPABILITIES:

Stree Shakti, SHGs

I think I have acquired some wisdom over the years; but there

does not seem to be much demand for it

Thank You