10th 5yr Plan

33

3.1A comparison of the targeted and actualrates of growth recorded in the nine Five YearPlans so far show that while up to the Fifth Planthe actual growth rates fell generally short of thetargeted rates of growth, from the Fifth Plan tothe Eighth Plan growth rates achieved wereconsistently higher than those targeted. Thistrend has been broken with a shortfall in theactual versus targeted growth in the Ninth Plan.However, the gross domestic product (GDP) ofthe country as a whole has grown steadily overall the Five Year Plans (Chart 3.1).3.2The high rate of economic growth hasbeen accompanied by a reduction in poverty.There has been an appreciable decline in thepercentage of population below the poverty linefrom over 50 per cent in the 1970s to less than30 per cent in the late 1990s. There have beenimprovements in the social indicators as well. The

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT TRENDS

literary rate has increased from less than 20 percent in 1951 to 65 per cent in 2001. According tothe recent Human Development Reports (HDRs)of United Nations Development Programme(UNDP), India has been moving up steadily inthe international comparative ranking of humandevelopment.3.3The adoption of planning and a strategyof State-led industrialisation was intended to leadto a more balanced growth in the country. It wasexpected that, over time, inter-State disparitieswould be minimised. Plans and policies weredesigned to facilitate more investments in therelatively backward areas. Nevertheless, socio-economic variations across States continue toexist even today.3.4This chapter attempts to bring outcomparable trends in the development of various

TENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN 2002-07

34

States of the country in terms of available andgenerally accepted development indicators. Anattempt is made to cover as large a period ofplanning experience of the States as is possible,given the constraints of consistency andcomparability of data. The chapter is arranged insections that deal with specific subjects andareas, as: Major Economic Indicators, HumanDevelopment, Infrastructure, and Capital Flows.

MAJOR ECONOMIC INDICATORS

3.5This section compares broad economictrends in States over as long a time span as isfeasible. The major economic indicators usedhere to capture long term development trends ofStates are income growth, structural compositionof income and employment, poverty, agriculturalproductivity and population.

Income Growth

3.6Growth of State Domestic Product (SDP)is the single most important indicator ofdevelopment for a State. Ideally, the SDP seriesof each State should be fully consistent with thenational accounts estimates of GDP. However,this is not the case. Information on SDP compiledby the State Governments is collected by theCentral Statistical Organisation (CSO) and isused as one of the inputs of national accountsestimation. In this process, the CSO takes notesof the differences in methods of estimating theSDP in different States, but it does not refine theseries to make them statistically comparable witheach other and with the national accounts.Accordingly, we restrict the use of the data tocomparison of the trends in growth rate only inorder to reduce the error margin inherent in thedata and avoid direct inter-State comparison ofdata as far as possible.3.7We look at the trend rates of growth forState domestic product from 1960s to 1990s ofmajor States only, as comparable data are notavailable for smaller States and new Statescreated during this period. With the exception ofAssam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab,the State income data from 1960-61 is availablefor all of the other major States. For Assam,Haryana and Punjab, data for 1960-61 and from1965-66 onwards is available. For HimachalPradesh the data set begins from 1967-68. Baseyears taken for arriving at the trend real rates ofdecadal growth are 1960-61, 1970-71, 1980-81and 1993-94 for the four decades respectively.3.8Although the first data series continuesthrough 1984-85, we have taken 1960-61 to1979-80 to be the first period. This is becausewith effect from 1980-81 a second data seriescame into existence, incorporating improvementsin method and extension of coverage. The 1980-81 series was in use till 1997-98. A third serieswith 1993-94 as the base year was introduced in1999, with changes in the coverage of economicactivities. In our analysis of the growthexperience of individual States, we will thus bemaking use of these three distinct data series.The source of the data is the Central StatisticalOrganisation.3.9In the nineteen sixties, the highest growthrates were recorded by the erstwhile unifiedPunjab and adjoining areas (now HimachalPradesh, Punjab and Haryana). In this decade,Bihar was the slowest growing State economyrecording less than 1 per cent growth, whichimplied a decline in per capita income. UttarPradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh andAndhra Pradesh recorded less than 2 per centgrowth (Table 3.1).3.10In the seventies, the pattern of rates ofgrowth remained largely unchanged. Along withPunjab, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, the westernStates of Maharashtra and Gujarat, and thesouthern States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadubegan to register higher rates of growth. MadhyaPradesh and Kerala were at the bottom withnegative real per capita income growth in thisperiod.3.11The national average of economic growthpicked up from the 3.6 per cent of the previousdecade to 5.6 per cent in the eighties. IndividualStates showed the greatest consistency in theirgrowth record during this decade as reflected inthe decrease of measure of inter-State disparityfrom 2.20 to 1.39. The difference between the

DEVELOPMENT TRENDS

35

highest and the lowest values for the rates ofgrowth across States was 4.0 percentage points.Haryana, Rajasthan, Punjab, Maharashtra,Karnataka and Tamil Nadu recorded the highestgrowth. Jammu and Kashmir and Assam slippedto the lower end of the growth table.3.12The new series of GSDP data wasreleased by the CSO in August 2000 andsubsequently updated in November, 2001. Table3.2 gives the trends of growth in GSDP from1993-94 onwards for the decade of nineties (withbase year 1993-94) based on the new series. The

Table 3.1Trends of Rates of Growth in Net State Domestic Product atCurrent Prices - Decades of Sixties and SeventiesNet State Domestic ProductNet State Domestic Product(NSDP)(NSDP) per capitaStates1960-61 to1970-71 to1960-61 to1970-71 to1969-701979-801969-701979-80

Goana6.1na3.6Maharashtra2.95.7.043.3Punjab5.65.43.53.2Haryana5.54.82.62.2Gujarat2.74.50.12.0Karnataka3.44.31.21.8Delhi5.16.20.71.7Jammu & Kashmir3.14.40.51.6Tamil Nadu2.13.40.11.6All India3.03.60.81.2Andhra Pradesh1.53.2-0.41.1Assam4.03.00.90.8West Bengal2.52.90.020.7Bihar0.72.8-1.30.6Uttar Pradesh1.62.6-0.20.4Orissa9.72.37.30.3Rajasthan1.33.0-1.10.2Himachal Pradesh5.62.43.40.2Kerala3.81.71.4-0.2Madhya Pradesh1.51.3-1.1-1.0

Note:

Deflators used in estimation of NSDP for Orissa in this period have discrepancies, as a result of which the Statedgrowth rates are non-comparable. Name of States is arranged in order of rank in rates of growth of per capitaNSDP in 1970-71 to 1979.

Source:

Central Statistical Organisation.