REGIONAL PATTERN OB DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA

UMA DATTA SOY CHOUDHURY

NO.3 APRIL,1990

This paper is a marginally revised version, of

the study undertaken at the instance of the

State Bank of India. Views expressed are those

of the author and not necessarily of the

organisation to which the author belongs.

Computer assistance by Shri D.Maity is

gratefully acknowledged. The Section on

District Level Disparity has been prepared by

Dr. V.B. Tulsidhar, Senior Economist, NIPFP, New

Delhi.

REGIONAL PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA

Introduction

By a measure of overall development for a country like In

dia, one refers to a concept allied to gross/net national product

which is sensitive to the process of economic change that is

labelled as development, as distinct from growth of GNP or NNP.

In other words, under the concept of a measure of development one

is going beyond the observed rates of growth of output, consump

tion and investment, so as to establish quantitatively, to the

extent possible, the build-up of growth potential, and the

development of human resources and related infrastructure for

balanced development and improved levels of living of the people

in general and of the lower income groups in particular.

In a vast country like India in view of the size and diverse

nature of the levels of development as well as the regional dis

parities within the country, any measure of development at the

national level alone would carry very little meaning and can even

be misleading. For any study of the problem of development and

policy formulation for India, it is thus essential that meaning

ful measures of economic development at the regional level are

obtained and specific indicators are identified which would

enable c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of individual regions/States within the

country according to their levels of development. This would, in

the process, also help in highlighting the wide diverse nature of

development between regions and the potentialities existing ready

to be exploited.

1

SDP as an Indicator

Per capita State Domestic Product (SDP) is g e nerally c o n

sidered as almost the only satisfactory comprehensive measure for

determining the levels of economic development. Thus the Planning

Commission uses the estimates of SDP for measuring relative

backwardness of the States. Because of the direct applicability

of SDP for policy purposes, considerable attention has been paid

to o b t a i n " c o m p a r a b l e " e s t i m a t e s of SDP which ensure c o m

parability in the measure of inter-State differentials.

In spite of such attempts at having a satisfactory set of

comparable estimates of SDP, the use of SDP for study of inter

state differentials in levels of economic development is open to

question. One of the deficiencies of SDP as an index of develop

ment between States is the variation in the purchasing power of

the rupee between States. Further, because of the intertemporal

differences in movement of prices among States this approach be

comes further questionable when time series data on SDP are con

sidered. One possible satisfactory answer to this problem is to

derive a set of indices which would measure the variation in the

purchasing power of the rupee among States and differences in its

movement over time. This, however, is a complicated and time con

suming process and has to be pursued along the lines of the UN

International Comparison Project in which meaningful measures of

purchasing power of currencies of countries are being obtained

with the ultimate objective of having more meaningful estimates

of per capita income comparable between countries.

Limited e x ercises undertaken on inter-State variations in

the p u r c h a s i n g power of the rupee not only show substantial

variation between States but also show no sign of reduction in

the range of variation over time. In one exercise, Chatterjee and

Bhattacharya1 have studied the inter-State variations in consumer

2

prices in rural areas of different States and used these price

indices to compare the levels of real per capita consumer expen

diture (Table 1). Subsequently in another exercise Majumder2 has

analysed the changes in the inter-State variations in the pur

chasing power of rupee (PPR). An exercise over the period 1960-61

to 1977-78 in terms of standard deviation and the coefficient of

variation has revealed no one-way trend in the inter-State dis

parity in the PPR. A study of the implicit price deflators of SDP

for the more recent period (1961 to 1985) (Table 2) presents the

same pattern with no significant change in the coefficient of

variation between States and over time.

Other Indicators of Development

To overcome these problems, consideration of a selected few

regional indicators of economic and social development may be an

answer. The Committee on Regional Accounts in its Reports recom

mended a set of indicators which, according to the Committee,

could serve as indices of development of d i f ferent aspects of

socio-economic activities. An attempt has been made in this

paper to identify a few crucial indicators of development out of

those suggested by Regional Accounts Committee and considered by

different scholars from time to time. One of the primary c o n

sideration for the selection of the indicators has been their

quantitative character, i.e., indicators which are to a great ex

tent, independent of the interregional differences in the pur

chasing power of the rupee. Using these indicators for two points

of time (1971 and 1983/85), an attempt has been made to determine

the steps of the economic development ladder where each of the

different States fit and the extent to which the behaviour of

these indicators over time affects the inter-se position of the

States. These indicators have also been examined together with

the trend of SDP per capita to analyse the extent to which the

3

measure of per capita SDP alone can serve the purpose. The

analysis brings out quite clearly that often the less developed

States with lower per capita incomes are more advanced in certain

socio-economic field and if such measures are integrated into a

meaningful c o n c e p t of development these would qualify them for

higher ranks than what the SDP per capita measure would assign.

The meaningful indicators of d e v e l o p m e n t (independent of

prices) considered in this study are (i) life expectancy, (ii)

literacy rate, (iii) per capita power consumption (utilities and

non-utilities) in KWH, (iv) ratio of employment in manufacturing

to total e m p l o y m e n t in organised sectors, and (v) ratio of

workers in sectors of mining, manufacturing, electricity and con

struction to total workers. The measures of inter-State disper

sion using these indicators are compared with the overall

masures like (a) per capita SDP at current and constant prices3 ,

(b) per capita consumer expenditure, (c) share of primary sector

(agriculture, f o r e s t r y and f i s h e r y ) a n d s e c o n d a r y s e c t o r

(manufacturing, electricity and construction) to total SDP, (d)

productivity in manufacturing and finally (e) percentage of per

sons above poverty level. No attempt has been made to combine

these indicators or any selected few of them as any combination

would involve a great extent of subjectivity and cannot assist in

unbiased measure of development. Also, estimate of SDP is perhaps

the most comprehensive overall measure of economic achievements

(if the question of PPR is ignored) and all the indicators are

being considered in conjunction with SDP per capita and a further

combination between the indicators may not really be necessary.

The results of the analysis would thus itself indicate whether

SDP per capita would be enough to tell the whole story of

development of the States.

4

The summary results of the analysis for a few selected in

dicators have been presented in Table 3 while the background data

for 1971 and 1983/85 are included as an Appendix. Table 3 ranks

the States separately for each of the indicators and for each of

the two points of time. The levels of growth rate between the two

points of time, for each of the indicators, have also been used

to rank the States. In this case the ranking is according to the

descending order from the highest to the lowest. Thus, it is

clear from the table that States with high per capita SDP or high

per capita electricity consumption may have an entirely different

pattern with respect to the other indicators. Also, the rates of

growth as measured through the various indicators have an e n

tirely d i f f e r e n t behavioral pattern. The table summarises the

detailed information presented in the Appendix and highlights the

differential nature of the performance of the States with respect

to each of the indicators. In other words, no meaningful picture

emerges. Also, besides such variations in the performance between

the States, there is no indication of a possible reduction in

inter-State d i s p a r i t i e s (measured through the coefficient of

variation or s t a n d a r d deviation among States). The only very

positive indication coming out of the exercise is the gradual

reduction of the share of agriculture in total SDP and c o r

responding increase in the share of ma n u f a c t u r i n g for all the

States.

The indicators in Table 3 also highlight the wide gap that

exists between the States and also between the States and the na

tional average, considering the span of twelve to fourteen years

for which data have been analysed, there appears to be not much

indication of t h e n a r r o w i n g of the g a p b e t w e e n the l e a s t

developed and the highly developed States. For example, in 1961

the per capita SDP of Punjab was nearly four times that of the

lowest in that year and even in 1985 the gap in per capita income

continued to be large with the income per capita in Punjab being

5

as much as three and a half times that of Bihar and three times

that of OP. Even if some of the other indicators are considered,

any reduction in the wide disparity in regional development does

not become more obvious. Thus per capita electricity consumption

is higher than all-India in as many as half of the States and the

level is eight time in Punjab - which has the highest - as com

pared to Assam which has the lowest. However, low per capita

electricity consumption in Assam is not accompanied with low in

dustrial activity, as can be seen from the fact that Assam has a

comparatively higher share of secondary sectors (manufacturing,

electricity and construction) output in total SDP as also a very

high level of output per p e r s o n 4 in m a n u f a c t u r i n g sector. All

this would suggest that possibly Assam has a highly labour-

intensive pattern of industries which are particularly agro-based

with comparatively less consumption of electricity. Examining the

performance of the States differently, it is seen that high rates

of growth have not always been recorded by the States which have

the highest ranking. Thus Andhra Pradesh with an average level of

per capita c o n s u m p t i o n of e l ectricity has the highest rate of

growth recorded for this indicator. Also UP, with almost the

lowest per capita SDP has a very high rate of increase of

manufacturing employment and highest change in domestic product

in the secondary sector. Similar pattern is also seen in the case

of MP. Also, if the behaviour of the States in terms of the other

indicators is studied, similar patterns become obvious.

These differentials in behaviour would suggest that a pos

sible reduction in regional disparity in the not too distant fu

ture may not be too far-fetched to imagine. However, when the

coefficient of variation between States is considered, the inter

state disparities do not seem to have reduced in spite of there

being signs of all States generally moving towards greater in

dustrialisation. Thus, the share of agriculture in total SDP gets

reduced in all the States and both per capita power consumption

6

and value added5 in secondary sector (manufacturing, electricity

and construction) register comparatively higher rates of growth

than per capita SDP. Considering the period 1970 to 1985, annual

rate of growth of SDP ranged from 3.23 p.c. in Punjab to 0.40

p.c. in Kerala while per capita power consumption increased by

6.74 p.c. in Punjab, 4.16 p.c. in Kerala and as much as 8.21 in

AP. Secondary sector output similarly increased by as much as

7.15 p.c. in OP, 6.47 p.c. in Karnataka and 5.95 per cent in Pun

jab .

Ranking of States separately by different indicators and the

corresponding rates o f‘growth makes the position even more clear.

The overall conclusion that can thus be drawn from this limited

study is that the States vary widely in their patterns of

development and potentialities do exist in States like UP with

low per capita income to shift towards i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n and

higher productivity as measured through value added per worker in

manufacturing.

Next, the results discussed so far are summarised to examine

the question of possible reduction in inter-regional disparity

over the last one and half decades as a result of the faster

development in selected fields in the States ranked lower in the

listing of the States in the descending order. Thus the measures

of standard deviation and coefficient of variation for the two

points of time are presented in Tables 4 and 5. An examination of

the results does not suggest any such trend. On the contrary, the

results appear to indicate a tendency towards deepening of

inter-regional disparity. Statewise growth rates for each of the

indicators (Table 6) also tell the same story when the pattern of

behaviour since 1971 is considered.

7

District Level Disparity

To examine the question in some more depth, a limited study

was undertaken of the performance of agriculture at the district

level. It is seen that there is considerable spatial variation in

the productivity of the agricultural sector (Table 7). If dis

trict is taken as a unit, value of output per hectare in the top

10 districts is roughly 2.5 to 3.5 times more than the all-India

average. When compared to the average of the bottom 10 districts,

the average value of output per hectare in the top 10 districts

is roughly 10 times more. Much of this variation in the level of

agricultural development can be attributed to the differences in

the availability of assured irrigation. It is interesting to note

that while the average extent of irrigated area is about 6 per

cent of gross cropped area in the bottom 10 districts, it is ap

proximately 60 per cent in the top ten districts. Similar spatial

variation can be observed in the case of per hectare consumption

of fertilisers w h ich is a supplementary input to irrigation.

These data clearly indicate the extent to which output per hec

tare can be increased through creation of fresh irrigation poten

tial in the less developed regions of the country.

Further, six out of the top 10 agriculturally most developed

districts are located in either poor States or in middle income

States and 4 out of 10 agriculturally least developed districts

are located in Maharashtra, which is a relati v e l y developed

State. Thus State-level averages hide the enormous spatial varia

tions in the level of development within a State.

Similar studies in the sectors of manufacturing or organised

transport would have thrown more light on the extent of disparity

within the country as also within States but can not be under

taken because of the absence of relevant data at the district

level.

8

Conclusion

This short aggregative exercise thus might conclude with a

positive note regarding possibilities of more balanced develop

ment within the country in the near future. The results of

analysis at a disaggregated level, i.e., at the State or the dis

trict level, are positive enough to suggest existence of pockets

with potentialities of development. It would thus not be u n

realistic to presume that potentialities do exist within the

country for substantial development and it will be desirable to

identify such areas and put more attention to their development

not only to encourage overall development of the country but also

to bring down substantially the gaps in the levels of development

between regions and in the levels of living of the people within

the country.

9

N o t e s

1. Chatterjee, G.S. and Bhattacharya, N(1976),

2. Majumdar, Krishna (1982)

3. Comparable estimate of SDP at constant prices have been obtained by using the implicit price indices derived from State estimates of SDP at current and constant (1970-71) prices. The exercise has been undertaken at the sectoral level.

4. In the absence of data from 1981 Population census for Assam, the number of workers in the secondary sector in 1981 has been estimated by applying 1971 proportions to the projected population for 1981 (projected by RG's Office). This might have affected the results somewhat, though even in 1971 Assam registered a high figure of value added per worker in the secondary sector.

5. Value added per worker is derived by dividing the total value added in the sector by the number of workers according to 1981 census. The number for Assam is estimated by RG's office by applying 1971 proportions to projected population for 1981.

1 0

TABLE 1

INDICES OF PRICE LEVEL IN RURAL AREAS B7 STATES AND AVERAGE PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE AT ALL INDIA PRICES

States Indices of Indices of per capita expenditurePrice Level At State At All India

Prices Prices

AP 101.92 93.00 91.30ASM 107.64 116.40 108.20BHR 101.96 95.50 93.70GUJ 112.03 101.70 90.80J & K 100.81 125.00 124.00KTK 99.12 91.60 92.40KER 107.02 91.30 85.30MAH 107.11 97.40 90.90MP 95.57 104.80 109.60ORS 98.15 86.70 88.30PUN 104.92 128.50 122.50RAJ 101.32 103.70 102.30TN 108.72 104.80 96. 40UP 93.86 95.50 101.70WB 115.89 106.20 91.60

ALL INDIA 100. oo 100 ,00 1 0 0 .00

Source: Chatterjee and Bhattacharya, 1976.

11

TABLE 2

RANKING OF STATES WITH ALL INDIA PERCAPITA INCOME=100

Rank

1971

States Index

1985

CurrentStates

priceIndex

1985

ConstantStates

price (1970-71 Index

1 PUN 168.56 PUN 157.82 PUN 195.942 HAR 147.24 MAH 134.55 HAR 138.633 GUJ 133.49 HAR 125.15 MAH 138.264 MAH 128.12 GUJ 124.19 GUJ 129.685 WB 115.17 JK 100.19 KTK 107.446 HP 106.79 JK 104.057 KTK 106.64 INDIA 100.00 AP 100.368 KER 100.47 WB 100.27

WB 96.03INDIA 100.00 KTK 93.64 INDIA 100.00

KER 90.459 RAJ 99.37 HP 88.25 TND 98.91

10 TND 97.31 AP 87.33 HP 92.7511 AP 92.58 TND 86.83 KER 86.1012 ASM 90.05 ASM 81.93 ASM- 85.5613 JK 87.99 RAJ 73.46 RAJ 81.5614 ORS 85.47 ORS 73.27 ORS 79.5915 UP 77.88 MP 70.72 MP 77.9516 MP 77.25 UP 62.33 UP 66.0317 BHR 66.03 BHR 58.44 BHR 63.79

NOTE : Constant price estimates for 1985 are at 1970-71 priceand directly comparable with 1971 data. Comparison between these two sets is more meaningful than between 1971 and 1985 current price data as it eliminates the effect of price rise between 1971 and 1985 and therefore is a direct comparison of volume change.

1 2

T U U )

c u riu m iu u or m n s 11 stucra im a m s or m iu m n in m u i m i

Per ciplti poitr couuiptloi Iitio of m c . net. irkrs U total irkrs. Per ciplti SOP it cist, (rices Sroep 'C TiWe idded per iorker li uc. uct.

l u l u 1IT1 m sS tite i Sroitk

r it ts 1)T1 Il l sSUtes Groitk

rites m i 1IISS tltM (ro itk

rit« sS lu e i i s ir

1171 1IISIilu e added

S tite i Sro«tk rites 1171 m sS U U s Sroitk

r i t a

1 m FBI IP 1.2 1 I I I I I I U J 3.4) POI POI P ll 3.2} I U U l IP 7 . IS 1SI 1SI IP 3.112 i n 111 IP 7 .1 1 n I I IP 2 .SI H I 111 S IJ 2 .11 T l T l 111 1.47 U l U l IP M 2J CIJ S IJ I1 J T .l l Tl 6BJ IP 2.41 S IJ U l 111 2.4T I T I I I J r i i 5.14 P ll 111 1SI 3.314 T l U l POI 1.74 i n Tl 111 2 .1 1 111 GOJ IP 2.30 11 OP i p S.54 111 P ll 111 2.755 n T l I I I 8.36 GOJ POI S IJ 2 .IT I I IT I OIS l . t l S IJ IT I i r 5.34 I I J U l POI 2.S71 IT I I T I U l I .t 4 POI U l pei 2.12 I T I 111 l .T I U l i n 4.14 U l DP IP 2.417 111 SOJ S .21 I T I U l U l 1 .11 I I I I U U IP 1.75 I U U U l U l 4 .11 III SOJ U l 1 1 11 OIS i n n U l 4 .I f U l IT I OIS l . l l T l 4 .71 IT I IT I 111 1 .IS

I I I 1.T7 m u IP I U U l .S I I I I I U U S IJ 4.71 U J IP I I I l.SSI U U i r i n u 4 .IS I U U I U U u 1.86 11 I I I IP N I T I 1.4 7

i r I1 J I I I I I I l .S I POI u n o n 3 . « 8 T l T l T l 1 .4 11 I I I U J i p 4 .11 i r IP I l l l l 1.2S Tl Tl U J 1.22 111 V IP U J SOJ l .T I

11 I I I i n h i 4 .IS U J U J IP U J Tl 1.13 IP I I I U J 3.13 OIS IP U J -1 .1 411 i r i i I T I 3 .11 i r OP Tl 1 .1 1 1SI 1SI I I I 1 .1 7 IP IP 1SI 3 .1 ! i n I I I n 1 .3 112 i f OIS Tl 3.35 DP IP I T I 1 .1 1 OIS IP OP 1 .74 1SI 1SI I I I 3.15 i r OIS OIS -2 .1 11 ) i p or 1SI 2.51 OIS OIS IP O.IS OP OIS III 1 .13 IP P ll I T I 3.1114 U J U l OIS 2.14 I I I I I I 111 t .( S IP IP 1SI 1 .4 1 U J U J 11 2 I Il i 151 1SI 11 I I I 1S1 1SI 1SI 1 .1 I I I I I I IT I 1 .4 1 OIS OIS OIS 1.14

lotej : 1. Secoidirr Sac tor :liiiif*liff.»Coist.»ll«ct. 2. Group C: Secoidirj Sector licludiif liiiif.

13

TUU 4

□ran or u s io u iis n im u lu s n o m o«a rn cirin stiti tousric rtoNcr

1961 IITI 1ST* 1966 1115

STI CT STI Cl STI CT STI Cl STI C»

1 .Per CipiU SDP (it cerreit prices)

2.Per CtplU SIP (it conUit prices)

14.21 1.3214

351.13 S.4116

164.31

164.36

S.2471

1 2471

Z43.IS

177.62

0.2317

6 2776

466.14

245.57

1.3365

6.3516

677.79

253.45

6.2766

6.3011

J.Iipllcit price deflator* (1171- T1:1M) 1.1)43 4.4(11 - - 6.1625 1.0635 1.9966 6.646T 6.1722 6.1572

lot* : lesilti for 1911 eiclrie IP uillke tke lit* tor tke iiMHit periods. Flfuei (or 1911 ire tkerefore lot itrictl? coipirikle iltk tk< rest of tk« iitiSt# SUUul Befiitloi; CT:Coefflcleit of TirUtloi

14

EXTENT OF RH3ICNAL DISPARITY AS MEASDBH) T HHCO® DOICATOBS (X EBVKLCRfiNT

TABU 5

1971

STD CV

1985

SID CV

1. Per Capita power consumption (KWH) 40.57 0.448 93.17 0.491

2. Ratio of employment in manufacturing to total employment in organised sectors( P . c . ) 8.98 0.293 8.12 0.279

3. Ratio of eaployment in secondary2 sector to total working force (p.c.) 4.46 0.404 3.60 0.256

4. Share of agriculture i Sector in total SIX’ (p.c.) 9.99 0.185 10.02 0.225

5. Share of secondary2 and raining sector in total SDP (p.c.) 6.02 0.333 6.20 0.311

6. Value added per worker in secondary sector (Rs) 997.93 0.288 1756.86 0.387

7. Per capita SDP at current prices (Rs) 172.68 0.258 660.79 0.297

8. Per capita SIS’ at constant prices (Rs) 172.68 0.258 274.54 0.358

9. Per capita consumer expenditure at current prices (Rs) - - 243.34 0.154

Note: Results exclude HP and J&K and aretherefore, not conparable with the flqurea In Table 4.

1. Includes forestry and fishery2. manufacturing, electricity and construction

STD: Standard Deviation CV : Coefficient of variation

15

TABU 6

SKWIH HATES OF SEUK7IED ItCICATOBS OF KVELORBNT ,1971-1965

States Per capita Agriculture1 Sector Secondary* Sector Proportion of worker in second ary sector to total work force*

Powerconsumption

State domestic product at constant price

Value added at constant price

ShareintotalSDP

Value Share added at in constant total price SEP

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1. ANDHRA PRADESH 8.21 2.30 2.09 -1.76 5.54 1.55 0.952. ASSAM 2.56 0.49 2.33 -1.19 3.93 0.35 N.A.3. BIHAR 6.04 1.07 1.06 -2.25 3.15 -0.23 1.914. GUJARAT 5.29 2.88 3.87 -0.74 4.71 0.07 2.175. HARYANA 6.36 1.78 2.93 -1.93 6.47 1.46 2.186. KARNATAKA 3.99 1.50 2.32 -1.48 4.94 1.05 1.777. KERALA 4.16 0.40 -0.28 -2.08 3.11 1.25 1.018. MAHARASTRA 4.66 2.47 4.20 -0.47 4.88 0.19 0.659. MADHYA PRADESH 7.86 1.75 1.41 -1.97 5.34 1.84 2.4610. ORISSA 2.04 1.89 3.21 -0.09 1.94 -1.33 1.8911. PUNJAB 6.74 3.23 4.07 -1.15 5.94 0.62 2.1212. RAJASTHAN 7.11 1.22 3.56 -0.48 3.93 -0.12 3.4913. TAMIL NADU 3.35 1.13 -1.27 -4.24 4.79 1.65 1.1814. OTTAR PRADESH 4.61 0.74 2.76 -1.20 7.15 3.04 2.5915. WEST BENGAL 0.90 0.63 2.60 -0.26 2.09 -0.78 1.68

ALL INDIA 4.65 1.56 1.70 -1.42 3.98 0.34 1.25

1. Agriculture includes forestry and fishery sectors besides agriculture proper (including livestock).

2. Secondary includes mining, manufacturing, construction and electricity. However, for ool. (8) secondary wvnlnAw mining.

3. Covers the period 1971-81.

16

ta b le : 7

AGRICGLTDRAL FKUUUTlViTY (1984-85)

Value of Irrigated Fertilizer Agriculturaloutput area as % oonsumrtion bank creditper hectare gross cr per hectare per hectare

States Rs. opped area Kg. Rs.

TOP 10 DISTRICTS

WEST GODAVARI (AP) 9552 79 306 1077SARAN (BHR) 8438 40 52 200EAST GCSDAVARI (AP) 7243 61 77 935KAHJRTHALA (PUN) 6678 87 208 712CHIKMAGALUR (KTK) 6611 7 67 1521PATIALA (PUN) 6534 78 182 983MUZAFFARNAGAR (UP) 6534 77 104 292LUEHIANA (PUN) 6510 89 241 866TRICHOR (KER) 6452 30 50 768h u g l i (WB) 6382 37 153 534

UNWEI®TED AVERAGE OFTCP 10 DISTRICTS 7093 59 144 789

BOTTOM 10 DISTRICTS (EXCLUDING DESERT AREA AND HILL AREAS)

GULBARGA (KTK) 936 3 10 118SHAHDOL (MP) 902 1 30 31KOCH BIHAR (WB) 877 4 32 151OSMANABAD (MAH) 874 14 3 109SITHI (MP) 847 2 5 69AURANGABAD (MAH) 624 12 17 183WEST NIMAR (MP) 559 9 31 114RATNAGIRI (MAH) 542 5 18 108PAREHANI (MAH) 518 5 13 144NORTH CACHAR (ASM) 390 6 2 280

UNWEIQfTED AVERAGE OFBOTTOM 10 DISTRICTS : 707 6 16 131

ALL INDIA AVERAGE 2708 26 52 346

Source: CMIK (1987) District-level data.

17

TUUI.lPU CAPITA COffilUU sun BOUSTIC PIONCT ill

IMPLICIT PIICI lirmilTIil

COftPilAlU in PD CAPITA Sim DOUSTIC PIONCT IT CIIIUT PIICB(II K.)

1961 III 1971 in 1975 III 1988 Ul 1985 UK

AP 314 8 S86 a 1026 8 1175 11 2267 10AS8 349 6 570 12 849 13 1031 13 2127 12BIB 216 16 418 17 706 17 785 17 1517 17GOJ 360 4 845 3 1051 7 1877 4 3224 4Ii! 359 5 932 2 1401 3 2023 3 3249 3HP li li 676 6 1086 5 1287 10 2291 9JI 26T 13 557 13 887 11 1299 9 2601 5ITI 292 9 675 7 1106 4 1438 1 2431 7UK 276 10 636 8 969 9 1334 7 2348 8IP 2T4 11 489 16 825 14 901 16 1836 15Hil 419 1 811 4 1435 2 2058 2 3493 2OiS 226 IS 541 14 780 15 966 14 1962 14POI 363 3 1067 1 1585 1 2528 1 4097 1BiJ 271 12 629 9 860 12 1053 12 1907 13TIB 344 7 616 10 964 10 1330 8 2254 11DP 244 14 493 15 740 16 916 15 1618 16KB 386 2 729 5 1080 6 1446 5 2493 6

STD : 94.28 164.36 243.65 466.94 677.79C! : 0.3204 0.2479 0.2387 0.3385 6.2766

IIPIICIT PIICI MfUTOK

1961 1971 1975 1980 1985

iP 0.7499 1 1.6091 1.8683 2.8306ASI 0.3472 1 1.5514 1.9712 3.1152m 0.4422 1 1.7421 1.9438 2.9799GOJ 0.3372 1 1.5898 1.9468 3.1153Bil 0.2820 1 1.6210 2.0194 2.9368IP l.i 1 1.5830 1.9273 3.0953

0.3797 1 1.4667 2.0567 3.1325Ul 0.3722 1 1.5631 1.8458 2.8355III 0.3445 1 1.5300 2.0756 3.4173HP 0.8156 1 1.7913 2.1569 2.9516Hil 0.4122 1 1.5963 2.0239 3.1659OIS 0.3924 I 1.7441 1.9816 2.9945POI 0.2811 1 1.4592 1.9119 2.6202liJ 0.3383 1 1.8024 1.9634 2.9301Tl 0.4689 1 1.6060 1.9152 2.8557OP 0.7803 1 1.6886 2.2351 3.0709HI 0.4228 1 1.5086 1.9536 3.1156

STD : 0.1943 0 0.1025 0.0968 0.1722CT : 0.4610 9 O.Ofitt 0 0487 MST2

MU 1.1 (CoacM.)

c o i p i i i i u iS T iH in s o r r n capita s i p at c o k t a it ( i m - T i ) p i i c b( I I I S . )

1961 III 1971 III 1975 RIK 1961 UK 1985 UK

IP 419 14 586 11 634 8 629 11 801 7ASI 100S 5 570 12 547 12 523 13 683 12Bll 488 13 418 17 405 17 404 17 509 17GOJ 112T 3 845 3 661 7 964 4 1035 4HI 1273 2 932 2 869 3 1002 3 1106 2IP 1.1 1.1 676 6 686 6 668 8 741 10J( T03 11 557 13 605 10 632 10 839 6ITI 784 9 675 7 708 5 779 5 857 5III 807 7 636 8 633 9 643 9 687 11IP 338 IS 489 16 461 14 418 15 622 15111 101T 4 811 4 992 2 1017 2 1103 3ORS 576 12 541 14 447 15 487 14 635 14POI 1362 1 1067 1 1086 1 1322 1 1564 1RAJ 891 8 629 9 477 13 536 12 651 13TID 734 19 616 10 609 11 694 7 789 9OP 313 16 493 15 438 16 419 16 527 16IB 913 6 729 5 716 4 740 6 890 8

STD : 351.13 164.36 177.62 245.57 253.45CT : 0.4716 0.2479 0.2776 0.3518 0.3091

I0TKS: Coiparablo estimates of SDP at constant prices have been obtaiied by asiif the iiplicit price indices derived froi state estiaates of SDP at curreit aid coistait (1970-71) prices. The exercise has beei undertaken at the sectoral level.STD: Standard Deviatioa CT : Coefficieit of fariatioa

19

T A B U A . 2

im ciT ois or H m o n m(UTl)

StatesPer capita Batio of latie of Per capita 1 of Share of Share of Tala* added poier uf|. eapl sec.sect. SDP poplta. groop 'A' |roup 'C' per vorker coiiaaptioa to total eapl.to at carreat above to total to total ia secoa- (ia kwh) or|a. eapl. tot. «rk. prices(Is) poverty SDP SDP dary

force liae sector (Bs)

1 2 3 4 5 ( T 8

AP 58 37.79 11.1 586 57.89 56.58 13.43 1760ASB 22 15.76 I.A 579 48.90 61.36 14.08 5317BHI 65 24.32 7.2 -418 42.50 58.01 16.83 3896GOJ 138 51.47 13.8 845 61.00 47.96 20.83 4085BAI 98 28.82 12.0 932 75.20 64.64 15.22 4194ITK 104 33.76 12.5 675 51.70 54.20 23.16 3452KKI 7$ 26.97 18.9 636 53.00 49.36 16.32 1844HAI 158 39.62 14.9 811 52.30 28.41 34.19 4908HP 54 22.90 8.9 489 42.30 59.70 14.73 2759OIS 96 22.(1 7.3 541 33.60 66.46 10.37 2554POI 159 33.91 13.3 19(7 84.90 58.33 15.31 4230IAJ 50 29.58 1.3 629 66.29 60.98 12.86 3333Tl 139 38.(4 15.2 (16 47.99 39.32 26.12 2801OP 60 25.75 7.9 493 49.99 60.04 14.93 2973KB 118 36.29 16.9 729 47.50 43.51 22.66 3884

ALL IIDIA 99 29.5 11.2 (33 51.7 49.2 19.7 (-)

STD:CT:

40.579.449

8.989.293

4.469.494

172.(( 9.258

12.730.234

9.990.185

6.020.333

997.930.288

VOTIS: iesults exclade BP and JU aad therefore are so coaparable with fibres ii Table 4. Group A' : Group A(:A|rl.*lorestry+Fishia|) :Priaarj sector eicludiai liainf.Groap 'C' : Group C(:Huff.+Coist.+llectJ;Secoadarr Sector:Gro«p C aid aiaia|.STD : Staadari DeTiatioaCT : Coefficieit of Viriatioi

SOOBCI: Colons 1 234

I T:

Basic statistics.Ceatre for Hoaitoriai Iadiaa Icoaoay Sept,19(8. laplojaeat miea 19T8-TT, D.G.I 4 T.Ceatre for Hoaitoriai Iadiaa Bcoaoar, Sept. 1988:T16-2-l .CSO estiaates of State doaestic product at carreat prices(1970-T1). latioaal Accoaats statistics 1978-71 to 1984-85, Jai,198T.Ceatre for Hoaitoriai Iadia icoaoay, Feb, 1988,Pa|e 7.2 Estiaates of State doaestic products at coastaat (1970-71)prices. Hatioaal Accouts statistics 1979-71 to 1984-85,Jaa,1987.Ceatre for Hoaitoriai Iadiu Icoaoay, Sept. 1988:T14-4.

2 0

TUU l.Z (CmcU .)

idicitois or N m o n o T

(1M 1-IS)

State*

Life

eipect-

aKJ li

rears

literacr

rates

Per capita

poter

COISIiptiOi

Hi kik)

latlo of latlo of Per capita Per capita Per capita

nf|. e*pl. sec.sect. SDP coasuer SDP at

t* total eipl.to at cirreit eipeidlUre coistait

orp. eapl. total lork prices (Is.) (1970-71) force (Is.) prices

(Is.)

1 ofpopilitloi Skare of

abore i m p

poverty to total

liie SDP

Skare of

iroap 'C

to total

SIP

lake added

per sorter it

secoidarr

sector!Is.)

at 1979- 71 prices

1 2 3 4 5 ( 7 S 9 19 11 12

IP 53.11 21.31 113 37.4$ 12.2 20(2 1517.(9 737 (3.79 42.1( 17.59 30(41SI 51.11 31.11 53 12.(1 1.1 1903 1429.19 (95 7( .75 59.94 l(.(l l(4(III 4(51 21.2 IS 21.11 1.7 1331 1212.79 417 59.55 45.25 21.19 513(s u 52.41 32.29 211 43.13 17.1 2I(( 1(52.17 999 75.97 39.(7 22.59 4542III 54.11 22.11 247 33.11 14.1 3152 1945.79 1131 (4 21 47.99 20.(7 (29(ITI 51.31 21.21 117 21.72 14.1 21(( 1(93.77 7(5 (5.15 45.32 21.59 4351III (5.51 (1 11 141 22.42 11.1 2071 1(49.4( (73 T3.K 39.44 17.94 2295Ml 5(31 35.31 313 34.41 15.1 3U 9 16SI.II 104( 55.09 25.27 35.53 (4(1IP 41.01 1C.2C 1(1 23.01 11.2 1731 1339.19 S(( 53.91 44.19 19.29 3944OIS 41.11 21.47 131 21.14 1.1 1175 1294.29 5(7 57.29 (4.97 7.24 1(45Pfl 11.51 34.35 423 34.11 1(.4 3721 212(.25 1492 91.29 51.21 1(.9S (1((IU 51.11 11.01 141 11.71 11.7 1(11 1(33.57 (27 (5.79 54 51 12.99 3311II 5). 41 35.41 213 31.17 17.1 1141 157(.73 (57 (9.33 24.19 29.31 34(9IP 41.21 14.11 111 21.11 11.2 1599 1343.(5 514 54.97 59.43 22.33 594911 52.11 41 II 13S 35.21 11.1 2194 14M . 7( 712 (9.92 43.29 19.44 3(((

ill m u i 52.} 3( 2 171 32.21 13.5 219( 1514 7(4 (2.( 39.7 29.( (-)

STI: 4.12 12.99 13.17 1.12 4.14 (((.71 243.34 274.54 19.51 10.02 (. 2( 1759.(1Cl : 0.012 l.44( 1.411 1.271 l.37( 0.217 (.154 9.359 9.159 0.225 0.311 0.397

I0IIS : lesilts eidode IP i JU nd ire tkerefore let coiparable iltk Table 4.Col. I : Data refer to coepirikle eitlutei. Ttese kne beet deri»ed itlif laplicit

price Ibices fro* State estiiate* of SDP at cirreit n4 coiitut (1171-71) price* Tie eiercise kas keei aidertikei at tke sectoral level.

Col. 12 : Fipres ire derited kr dbidii| total valie idled it secoidarr eector br wrkers accordii( te 1111 ceisu. Tke inker of lorkers for tssai are (itiuW br applflu 1171 propertiou te projected popelatioi of 1111 (projection udertata br K's office)

Cel.Stl: fipres are aferaie oier tkree rears ai tied br liitk Fliaice Co m IssIoi (cirreit prices)

SOOICI : Cols.1 : Ceiter for loiitoriaf Iidlu Icotoar. Feb.lfll:P4.72 ■■ Statistical abstract, I idle, lltlJ to : Si m as table 1.2. (1171-71)12

21

T i l U i . J

u n s o r m m i t i d i c i t o u o r i n i L o m n(1 IT 1 )

Per capita latio of latio of Per capita I of Skare of Skire of Talue addedlaiks poser uf|. eipl sec.iect. SDP poplta. groap T groap C per sorker

coasuiptioa to total eapl.to at carreat above to total to total ia secoi-(U kik) orji. eapl tot. irk. pricei poverty SDP SDP dary

force liae sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 T 8

POI GOJ III POH POH OIS Hil iSlHil Hil HB Iil Iil Iil Tl HilGOJ Tl Tl GOJ UJ iSl ITI POITl iP Iil Hil GOJ IiJ HB IilHB HB GOJ HI iP OP GOJ GOJITI PDI POI ITI III IP BllHii ITI ITI III Iil POH IlDIi HBOES Iil ITI BII ITI

IlDIi - IlDIi iP Bll UJIlDIi IlDIi IlDIi ITI in OP

iil UJ III POI TlIII III iP Tl OP iu HP

11 BH IIP UJ iP iSH IlDIi OP OIS11 DP III HP iSH Tl HP III12 iP IP OP OIS HB GOJ iSH iP13 HP OIS OIS OP Bll HB iP14 IiJ IiJ Bll IP IP Tl RiJIS iSH iSH iSH Bll OIS Hil OIS

Source : Saie u Tibia i.2 lot« : Sue it Table i.2

2 2

T1 IU I . ) (Cm U .)

tins or smis n intcirots or Diraonur(1911-1J)

Per c ip it* l i t io of l i t io of Per c ip lti rer c ip lti re r c ip lt i t TiUe iddedlift l i te r ic j poter mil. eipl sec.sect. SDT coiseier SDP of popli. Skire of Skire of per lorker

luki IipecW tcr l i t e i COISUftiM o f ie it to e ip l.to i t c ir re it eipeU itare i t c o u U it above iro«p T groip T iil i r e i n ( i i k ri) to t i l to t i l iork prices (U TI-Tl) poTertf to to ta l to to ta l secoidirr

o r ( i eipl.. force prices Hie sor SDP sector

1 2 J 4 5 1 7 1 1 14 11 12

1 III II I POI GOJ III roi POI POI POI OIS U l iSl2 Pll n 111 a III U l I i l IU IU U J Tl U lJ M l GU Tl GVJ U l U l U l iSl POI GOJ IU4 ITI IIDI1 IU ill Tl GIJ IU GOJ GOJ ISl OP PMS U l Tl POI POI GOJ ITI II I or ITI Bll( Tl Tl ITI U l U l IlDIi U J IiJ i n Bll OPT ir U l I i l U l ITI IlDIi ITI ITI IU GOJ1 GIJ POI IlDIi ITI III Tl U l Bll ITI

GOJ IlDIi ITI i f iP i r i r IlDIi i r1IDU ISl i r IIIU III 11 n M

ITI i r ITI i r IlDIi II I IlDIi ip 11 Tl1 11 Bll u j or ir Tl Tl IP IiJ11 UJ IU h i i r U J iSl 11 IU m IlDIi I I I i r11 ISl OIS n i n or UJ iSl ISl Tl i r i n12 OIS U OIS OIS i r OIS or IP OIS III iSl OIS11 IP IP or U l OIS i r i r OIS OP GOJ POI14 Bll DP Bll I1J Ml or OIS or i r U l I1J1) IP IU iS l ISl iSl Ml Ml Bll Bll Tl OIS

Soerce: Si m is tib le i.2.

23

TUU 1.4

6u r i utis> or im uTOB or m u o n m

States

Par capita poierCoasnptioa (la k.k)

latlo of laf|. ii|lto totalOrjn aipl.

latio of sec.sect. eipl.to tot. irk. force

Par capita SH at coaitaat pricei(1979-71)

tOf popla.aboiepoiertrliM

Skar* of troap T to totalsir

Skare of (roop 'C' to totalstr

Ibiolata Ibiolita leiel of larel of iroap 1' (roup T la SDP la SIT

Talie add* per torkeril JKOld-arj sector

1 2 1 4 5 9 7 9 9 19

IP 1.21 1.59 (.95 2.39 9.91 -1.79 1.55 2.09 5.54 3.911SI 2 59 -2.14 1.1 9.49 1.93 -1.19 9.15 2.11 1.91 3.39Ml 9.94 -1.19 1.91 1.97 1.41 -2.25 -9.21 1 19 1.15 1.99G9J 5.29 -1.24 2.17 2.99 1.94 -9.74 9.07 1.97 4.71 9.71111 9.39 3.45 2.19 1.79 9.95 -1.92 1.49 2.91 9.47 2.75III 3.99 -9.12 1.77 1.59 1.95 -1.49 1.95 2.12 4.94 1.55HI 4.19 -1.5S 1.91 9.49 2.72 -2.99 1.25 9 29 1.11 1.47111 4.99 9.12 9.95 2.47 1.94 -9.47 9.19 4.29 4.99 1.95HP 7.99 1.42 2.49 1.75 2.04 -1.97 1.94 1.41 5.14 2.41OIS 2.94 -9.45 1.99 1.99 4.55 -9.99 -1.11 1.21 1.94 -2.99Pll 9.T4 2.59 2.12 1.2) 9.13 -1.15 9 82 4.97 5.94 2.57IN M l 9.91 1.49 1.22 9.05 -9.49 -9.12 1.59 1.91 0.94ri 3.35 9.74 1.19 1.11 1.94 -4.24 1.9S -1.27 4.79 1.49n 4.91 1.2S 2.59 9.74 9.79 -1.29 3.94 2.79 7.15 3.92m 9.99 9.24 1.99 9.91 2.19 -9.29 9.79 2.99 2.09 -9.39

ILL IIDU 4.95 9.99 1.25 1.59 1.91 -1.59 9.34 1.79 3.99 (-)

I0TIS : Sim is Ubli 4.2 aid

1. Groatk riU (or tke period:Co

1971-9919T6-SS1971-91Coapoud iroiU riU 1971-95 1IT1-I1Coipoaad imiU riU UTl-iS Co«oud ptitk rat* 1911-15 1971-9$1971-951971-9$

S0HCI : Sue u tabl* 1.2.

24

T ilU 1.4.1

u m or s t i r s n eiom u rn or imciTois or KTiiom n

far Capita latio of t falie addedPer capita SDf latio ot sec.sect. Of popli. Skari of Skan of ikiolite ibsolate per aorkerpoier at coastait tafj. Ilf1.to above |rot» T froip T level of level of ia secoad-Coasaiptioi price* to total tot. ark. poverty to total to total Jroap T irni C' arj sector

States (ia kak) (U7I-T1) Orgii iipl. fore* lia. SDf sir ia SIT ia SDP

1 2 1 4 i 1 7 I 1 11

I if Pll 111 uj OIS OIS Of IU OP ifI If GU PM

u ru iic is

1. Centre for lonitoring Indiaa Kconoay (CIII), (1987), District Level Data for ter Kconoaic Indicatorsvitt 7 Raps, (loveaber, Sconoiic Intelligence Service (KIS), Boabay)

2. — (1988), Standard of Living of the Indian People (February), Kconoaic Intelligence Serice (KIS), Bonbay.

3. — (1989), Basic Statistics Relating to the Indian Kconoiy (Septeaber) Vol. 2: States, Kconoaic Intelligence Service (KIS), Boabay.

4. Central Statistical Organisation (1986), Statistical Abstract.

5. — (1988), Annual Survey of Industries (1984-85): Sunaary Results for Factory Sector, Governaent ofIndia, Hinistry of Planning, lei Delhi.

6. — National Accounts Statistics (different issues).

7. — (1979), Annual Survey of Industries (1976-77): Sunaary Results for Factory Sector, Governaent of India, Hinistry of Planning, let Delhi.

8. — (1985), Kstiaates of State Doaestic Product (1960-61 - 1983-84), Governaent of India, Hinistry of Planning, lei Delhi.

9. — (1986), Kstiaates of State Doaestic Product (1970-71 - 1984-85), Governaent of India, Hinistry of Planning, lei Delhi.

10. Chatterjee, G.S. and I. Bhattacharya, (1976), 'On levels of Consuaer Prices in Rural Areas of Different States by Areas of Budget', Journal of Incoae and Health. October.

11. Directorate General of Kaployaent and Training (1988), Kaployaent Reviei (1983-84), Governaent of India, linistry of Labour, lei Delhi.

12. — (1980), Kaployaent Reviei (1976-77), Governaent of India, Hinistry of Labour, Res Delhi.

13. Hajuadar Krishna, (1982), Interstate Variations in the Purchasing Poier of a lupee*, (Journal of Incoae and Wealth Vol.2. July).

14. Hinistry of Finance (1988), First Report of the linth Finance Coaiissioa (for 1989-90), Governaent of India, lei Delhi.

15. Hinistry of Planning (1986), Journal of the lational Saaple Survey Organisation, SARVKSHAIA Vol. II los 4 (Part II) April.

16. florid Bank: International Coaparisoa of leal Product and Purchasing Poier (Johns Hopkins University Press) (Three Voluaes containing data for 1970, 1973 and 1975).

26

NIFFP WORKING PAPER SERIES : 1990-91

Working Title Author's NamePaper No.

1/90 Economic Reforms in China Amaresh Bagchiand their Impact : an overview (February, 1990)

2/90 A Note cn the Measurement of Hasheem N. SaleemIrtfort Substitution (March, 1990)