2.

INTER DISTRICT DISPARITIES IN TAMIL NADU

Introduction
Tamil Nadu, the fifth largest economy in India, with the third-highest Human
Development Index amongst 29 Indian states, is well on track to meet the major Millennium
Development Goals.
Tamil Nadu is one of the leading states in the country that has grown fairly well in terms
of economic and social indicators. It is also one of the most industrialised states and ranks next
to Maharashtra in terms of contribution made by the manufacturing sector to NSDP. The GSDP
at constant (1993-94) prices which was at Rs.70513 crores in 1996-97 has increased to Rs.90760
crores in 2000-2001 (AE) registering an annual average growth of 6.21%. The state’s NSDP
growth rate was 6.3% per annum which is greater than the all India growth rate of 5.99%. Per
capita income of the state is Rs. 19889 which is well above the national average and takes fourth
place in India. Poverty levels have declined from 45.80% in 1987-88 to 21.12% in 1999-2000 .
the all India average being 26.10 %. Table 1 gives economic profile of Tamil Nadu.

TABLE 1: ECONOMIC PROFILE OF TAMIL NADU

Population (census 2001) 62405679
Males 31400909
Females 31004770
Sex ratio (females/1000 males) 986
Density of population (persons/ square km) 478
Literacy rate (census 2001) ( %) 73.5
Male literacy ( %) 82.4
Female literacy ( %) 64.4
Male literates in numbers 22809662
Female literacy ( %) 64.4
Female literates in numbers 17714883
Birth rate (per 1000) (2002)p 18.5
Death rate (per 1000) 7.7
NSDP at current prices (2002-2003)* Rs 136781 Rs Crores *(2002-
crores 2003)
Per capita nsdp (2002-03) at current prices 21738 Rs *(2002-2003)
Rs
Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics of respective State Governments
(As on March 26, 2004), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India
(2002)P:Provisional
*(2002-03):Advanced Estimates
*(2001-02):Quick Estimate
*(2000-01): Provisional Estimate
NSDP: Net State Domestic product

Tamil Nadu has achieved notable success in human development outcomes moving from
being a near average to a high-performing state, as indicated by the Human Development Index
(HDI) measured in terms of longevity, education and command over resources. In 1981, its HDI
ranked seventh, at 0.343, only slightly above the national average of 0.302. By 2001, however,
Tamil Nadu's HDI rose to the third highest, at 0.657, higher than the national average of 0.571.
Tamil Nadu has been a pioneer in India in integrating nutrition and increasing enrolment of
children in elementary education. Education and health outcomes in the state have also improved
across gender, caste, income and regional dimensions, particularly in the access to primary-level
health and education services.

The performance of the state on the whole is commendable. Nevertheless, there are
many challenges, most important being, the disturbing disparities among the districts in the state.
This chapter is based on the project titled “ Inter District Disparities in Tamil Nadu” completed
in 2001. The project relied exclusively on secondary data drawing information from government
publications, publications by research institutions, and information and articles from web sites.
The principal objective of the project was to throw light on the problem areas of development in
the districts and to propose policy directions.

This Chapter has three sections. The first section examines the extent of disparities in
terms of available data; the second section highlights some of the problem areas and in the last
section discusses policy directions.

SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF TAMIL NADU

This section analyses the performance of Tamil Nadu as compared to other states in terms
of demographic data, select socio economic indicators such as per capita income, poverty,
CMIE, HDI etc.
Demographic Profile and Employment:
Tamil Nadu with a geographical area of 1.30 lakh sq. km has population density at 478
persons per square kilometre, up from 429 in 1991, and much higher than the all-India density of
324, which makes it the eleventh most densely populated State (1991 rank:10) in India. Tamil
Nadu's population stood at 62,110,839 as 2001. It is the sixth most populous State of the Indian
Union behind Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. The State
accounts for 6.05 per cent of the country's population.
During the decade 1991-2001, Tamil Nadu reported the second lowest decadal growth in
population after Kerala, among the group of States with population exceeding 20 million in
2001. While Kerala's population grew by 9.42 per cent between 1991 and 2001, Tamil Nadu's
grew by 11.19 per cent. In fact, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Orissa are the only three States in this
group to have shown a decline in decadal percentage change in population in every decade since
1971. Annexure 1 gives socio economic indicators of Tamil Nadu and India.

The population sex ratio for Tamil Nadu has increased from 974 females per 1,000 males
in 1991 to 986 in 2001. This is true of most States. Only four States among those with a
population exceeding 20 million in 2001 - Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Punjab - report a
decline in population sex ratios between 1991 and 2001. However, Tamil Nadu's child sex ratio -
defined as the number of girls per 1,000 boys in the age group of 0-6 years - shows a decline
from 948 in 1991 to 939 in 2001. The decline in child sex ratios in some districts of the State is
quite alarming.

The state supports 6.6% of India’s population on 4% of India’s land . Nearly 34.15 % of the
population lives in towns and cities giving Tamil Nadu third position in India. In terms of
population below poverty line. The state ranks 8th as the poorest state in rural India and fourth
poorest in urban India. Poverty line is defined as Rs.307 for rural and Rs. 450 for urban areas.
Comparison of data on poverty line for Tamil Nadu with the best and the last state is given in
Table 2. The percentage of rural poor in India declined between 1987-88 and 1993-94, as
compared to urban poor. This may be due to migration of rural poor to urban areas in search of
livelihood. Low agricultural productivity and social backwardness could also be reasons for the
low income.

TABLE 2 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

BELOW POVERTY LINE – 1999-2000

Rural Urban Combined

No.of % No.of % No.of %
Persons Persons Persons
(Lakh) (Lakh) (Lakh)
Tamil Nadu 80.51 20.5 49.97 22.11 130.48 21.12
5
Punjab (Lowest) 10.20 6.35 4.29 4.29 14.49 6.16
Orissa (Highest) 143.69 48.0 25.40 42.8 169.09 47.15
1 3
All India 1932.43 27.0 670.07 23.6 2602.50 26.10
9 2
Source : Planning Commission, Government of India, 2001
The structure of economy, measured as the share of the broad sectors in Net State
Domestic Product, has undergone a radical change in the last 40 years. The share of agriculture
has registered a steady decline from 43.5% in 1960-61 to 18.9% in 1999-2000. The share of the
secondary and tertiary sectors for the same period has increased by 11% and 14% respectively.
Agriculture continues to be the largest employer accounting for 54% of total workers in 1993-94,
which is currently 50%. Employment in secondary sector and tertiary sectors currently account
for 24% and 26% of total workers.

The value added by the secondary sector consisting of manufacturing, construction,

electricity, gas and water supply has been satisfactory. It has 2001. High recorded an annual
average growth of 4.14% during the period 1996-97 to 2000-growth was noticed in this sector
during the year 1999-2000 as 11.09%. All the sub groups of the tertiary sector have performed
well during the period from 1996-97 to 2000-2001. Trade, transport, storage and communication
sectors have recorded a high growth in 1999-2000 as 8.36 percent and a minimum of 3.48 per
cent in 2000-01. Banking and Insurance, real estates and business services sectors have
registered a maximum growth of 21.80 per cent in 1996-97 and a minimum growth of 8.00% in
1998-99. The high growth of 16.05% was noticed for the year 1997-98 in the services sector,
namely, Public Administration and Other services.
The total work force in Tamil Nadu is about 25 million constituting 44% of state
population. The organized sector accounting for 8.7% of total workers employs more than 9
million people. The public sector accounts for 63% of total organized sector employment.
However the number of job seekers in Tamil Nadu has gone up from 34.33 lakhs to 43.71 lakhs.
fixing the unemployment at 15.07%.
 Traditionally, Government of Tamil Nadu has been earmarking substantial amount of
funds in its annual budgets to continuously upgrade the quality of infrastructure. As a result,
today, Tamil Nadu is ranked third in terms of infrastructure development among Indian states.
The Center for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), Mumbai in its report dated March 2001 has
analyzed & published relative Infrastructure Development Index for India and other states. This
Index facilitates inter-state comparison.
CMIE index is a weighted composite index taking into account different components of
infrastructure. Fairly well developed infrastructure and comfortable power situation offer a
significant competitive advantage to Tamil Nadu in attracting investments.

TABLE 3: INFRASTRUCTURE INDEX FOR SELECT STATES AND INDIA

State Infrastructure Rank

Development Index
Tamil Nadu 145.62 3
Andra Pradesh 104.01 8
Gujarat 105.33 7
Haryana 133.12 4
Karnataka 106.12 6
Kerala 162.42 2
Maharashtra 106.77 5
Source: Punjab 171.92 1
India 100
Centre for
Monitoring Indian Economy, Mumbai
Social Indicators
The state of Tamil Nadu invests heavily on education and ranks the third highest in terms
of total expenditure on education, clearly indicating the thrust on creating a sound Human
Capital Base. The literacy level of the state is 62.6% and 44% of the state
In the social sectors of health, literacy and education, the state has taken some
impressive strides. Life expectancy at birth has improved over the past three decades, while total
fertility rate has shown a declining trend from 3.9 in 1971 to 2.0 in 1997 as per SRS. Tamil
Nadu’s human development achievements have been due largely to its educational heritage.
Literary rate has been increasing progressively.
In terms of social indicators, performance of Tamil Nadu has been very impressive.
• .Life Expectancy in Tamil Nadu is 64.1 years, higher than that of at least 8 major states.
• IMR is lower than in atleast eleven states at 50/100.
• The literacy state of Tamil Nadu is the second highest in the country with a figure of
62.66%
Available data shows that the development performance of the state is more impressive
against social rather than economic indicators, which is illustrated in Table 4.

TABLE 4 SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICES AND

TAMIL NADU’S PERFORMANCE

Index Tamil Nadu Highest Lowest

Rank Actua State Actua State Actual
l l
C M I 4 135 Punjab 199 Bihar 43
E
HDI 6 0.652 Punjab 0.793 Bihar 0.503
PCI 5 23549 Punjab 3730 Bihar 1142
Source : South Indian Human Development index OUP,2001.

Tamil Nadu's literacy map in 2001 looks impressive in comparison with most states.
Among the major states, it is just behind Maharashtra but way behind Kerala. The State's literacy
rate increased from 62.66 per cent in 1991 to 73.47 per cent in 2001. The female literacy rate
increased from 51.33 per cent in 1991 to 64.55 per cent in 2001, while the male literacy rate
grew at a slower pace from 73.75 per cent in 1991 to 82.33 per cent in 2001.
There has been an all round increase in the number of education institutions and students
in Tamil Nadu in recent years. Taking school education alone, there has been a fourfold increase
in the number of students from 32.9 lakh to 125.6 lakhs during 1956-1957 1990-1991, while the
number of schools increased by 73 % (23566 to 40747). The outlay on education for the year
2003 is roughly 22 % of the total state budget and nearly one-half of this amount is spent on
elementary education, highlighting the importance attached to elementary education in the state.
Table 5 shows that primary and middle schools together accounted for about 95 % of
students.
 TABLE 5: PROVISION OF EDUCATION IN TAMIL NADU 1990-91

Type of Schools Students

School (%) (%)
Primary 73.5 71.6
Middle 13.8 23.6
High 7.7 23.6
Higher 5.0 2.5
Secondar
y
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: Progress of Education in TN, 1989-90 and 1990-91

INTER DISTRICT DISPARITIES IN TAMIL NADU

This section analyses i)the extent of variation among districts of Tamil Nadu in terms of
demographic indicators, economic indicators, and social indicators, and ii) the disparities of
districts in terms of relationships among the above indicators, such as health and education,
human development index, per capita income and health, work participation rate and literacy

For administrative convenience Tamil Nadu has been divided into revenue districts. In
1999 there were 21 districts. To ease administration further in the light of growing population
and the accompanying problems, some of the districts have been bifurcated and today there are
29 districts. This study analyses 1991 data for 21 districts. These districts are:

1. Chengai _ Anna
2. Chennai
3. Chidambaranar
4. Coimbatore
5. Dharmapuri
6. Dindigul-Quaid-E-Milleth
7. Kamarajar
8. Kanyakumari
9. Madurai
10. Nilgiri
11. North Arcot-Ambedkar
12. Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan
13. Peiryar
14. Pudukotai
15. Ramanathapuram
16. Salem
17. South Arcot
18. Thanjavur
19. Tiruchirapalli
20. Tirunelveli Kattabomman
21. Thiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar
 The key data for 21 districts facilitate a comparison of the performance of the
districts in terms of relevant socio economic indicators listed in Table 1.

Demographic Profile of districts:

The demographic details of the various districts are given in Table 6.
Of the 21 districts, Chennai is a purely urban district covering 174 sq km with a
population of 38.4 lakhs and a density of over 22000 persons per sq km. In terms of size,
Tiruchirapalli and South Arcot are the largest each with an area about 11000 sq km. the district
with the largest population is South Arcot with 48.8 lakhs. The smallest districts in terms of area
are Nilgiri (2549 sq km) and Kanniyakumari (1684). Apart from Chennai. In terms of population
Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan and Nilgiri have the lowest population figures with 10,78 lakhs
and 7.10 laksh respectively.
In terms of source of income Thanjavur, South Arcot, and Chengai -Anna are primarily
agricultural accounting for 58% of food production of the state. Chengai-Anna along with
Chennai and Coimbatore accounts for 54% of industrial output of the state.

TABLE 6 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF DISTRICTS IN TAMIL NADU

Share
Density of Density of
Area in Population Population Urbanisatio
Districts Population Population
Sq. Km T.N 1991 2001 n 1991 (%)
1991 2001
(%)
Chennai 174 6.79 3841396 22077 4216268 24231 100
Chengai Anna 7857 9.03 4653593 592 5608786 714 44.87
NA-Ambedkar
6077 5.61 3026432 498 3482970 573 31.71

Dharmapuri 9622 4.56 2428596 252 2833252 294 9.5

Thiruvannamalai
6191 3.51 2042979 330 2181853 352 11.89
Sambuvarayar
South Arcot 10895 8.41 4878433 448 5224447 480 15.76
Salem 8649 7.23 3896382 451 4488415 519 29.16
Periyar 8209 4.14 2320263 283 2574067 314 24.71

Nilgiri 2549 1.23 710214 279 764836 300 49.76

Coimbatore 7469 6.8 3508374 470 4224107 566 52.59
Dindigul-Quaid
6058 3.1 1760601 291 1918960 317 21.41
– E – Milleth
Thiruchirappalli 11096 7.25 4138048 373 4503651 406 26.6
Thanjavur 8280 7.82 4531457 547 4857643 587 22.94

Pudukottai 4651 2.34 1327148 285 1452269 312 14.35

Pasumpon
Thevar 4086 1.85 1078190 264 1150753 282 26.91
Thirumagan
Madurai 6565 5.89 3449662 525 3657003 557 44.7
Kamarajar 4283 2.82 1565037 365 1751548 409 37.42
 Ramanathapura
4232 1.9 1144040 270 1183321 280 21.83
m
Chidambaranar 4621 2.52 1455920 315 1565743 339 41.19
Thirunelveli
6810 4.51 2501832 367 2801194 411 31.7
Kattabomman
1684 2.69 1600349 950 1669763 992 16.88
Kanniyakumari

Tamil Nadu 130058 55858946 429 62110839 478 34.15

Source: Census India 1991 and 2001

Demographic Indicators:

The decadal percentage increase in population is lower between 1991 and 2001 as
compared to 1981-1991 for most districts for the State as a whole. The only exceptions are
Coimbatore, Salem and Namakkal. This compares with eight districts reporting an increase
in the decadal percentage increase in population between 1981 and 1991 as compared with
1971-1981. An examination of decadal increases since 1901 shows that in 18 out of the
State's current 30 districts, the intercensal percentage increase has been declining in every
decade during the period 1971-2001. For 15 of these 18 districts, this is true for the period
1961-2001.

The percentage decadal growth in population between 1991 and 2001 has been
especially low in the central and southern districts, with only Virudhunagar and Tirunelveli
reporting growth higher than the State average of 11.19. Among the districts reporting
relatively high growth rates of population, we really seem to have two categories:
Coimbatore, Tiruvallur, Kancheepuram and Vellore possibly reflecting growth of industries
and some in-migration, on the one hand, and Dharmapuri, Salem and Namakkal reflecting
high fertility arising from very strong son preference, on the other. This argument is of
course somewhat speculative at this point in time, and one would need data on migration
and fertility to confirm this.

Population sex ratios have increased between 1991 and 2001 in practically all
districts of Tamil Nadu. The only exceptions are Dharmapuri, where it has declined from
an already low figure of 942 to 938, and Thoothukudi, where it has declined marginally
from a high of 1,051 to 1,049 - still the highest in the State. As many as 17 out of 30 districts
report a sex ratio in excess of the State average of 986. The southern districts with the
significant exceptions of Madurai and Theni report sex ratios in excess of 1,000, while
Chennai and its neighbouring districts of Tiruvallur and Kancheepuram as well as
Coimbatore report somewhat lower sex ratios, reflecting in considerable part male in-
migration from other districts for employment in industry. But there are at least two
districts where sex ratios are considerably lower than the State average - Dharmapuri (938)
and Salem (929) - for reasons other than sex selective migration. This becomes immediately
evident if we look at child sex ratios (CSRs).

According to the Census report CSR for Tamil Nadu declined from 948 in 1991 to
939 in 2001. Several districts have also shown declines. While in 1991, 12 out of the then
existing 21 districts had a CSR greater than 960, in 2001 only nine out of the current 30
districts have a CSR exceeding 960. Seven districts have a CSR below 930 in 2001: Salem
(826), Dharmapuri (878), Theni (893), Namakkal (896), Karur (923), Madurai (927) and
Dindigul (929). These are also the districts where there is considerable evidence from the
field of widespread practice of female infanticide (Frontline, July 11, 1997 and October 9,
1998). Besides these districts where the CSR is low, the district of Vellore has shown a sharp
decline in CSR from 962 to 937. It is a fact that female infanticide is widespread in the
Tirupathur division of this district as well as in some blocks of neighbouring
Tiruvannamalai district.

The decline in CSRs is more widespread than it may appear at first sight. If one
takes a look at the 1991 CSRs of the districts of Chengai (now, Tiruvallur and
Kancheepuram), Viluppuram (now, Viluppuram and Cuddalore) and Tiruchirapalli (now,
Karur, Perambalur, Ariyalur and Tiruchirapalli), and the CSRs in 2001 of the new districts
carved out of them, this becomes evident. In all the cases, the CSR of each one of the newly
constituted districts in 2001 is lower than that in 1991 of the district out of which it was
carved.

Economic Indicators:
Regional economic development is analysed in terms of Per capita Income per capita
GDDP, HDI, ODI, SDI, CMIE to facilitate inter district comparison of the performance of
districts. The most widely used measure of relative regional economic development is per capita
GDDP. We first consider the per capita income differences among the 21 district in Tamil Nadu,
Chennai (Rs.23044), Coimbatore (Rs.19930) ranking first and second and South Arcot
(Rs.8825.5) Thiruvannamalai (Rs.8255) ranking last two places in per capita GDDP. An analysis
of the district wise percapita income as per the UNDP report on Tamil Nadu Human
Development report (2003) reveals wide divergencies. Kancheepuram has the highest percapita
income (Rs. 23075) and is thrice that of Villupuram which is the lowest. Other districts with
very high percapita income are Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Salem, and Erode. It is noted
that the per capita income of the top ranked is about 2.85 times larger than that of poorest
districts. The per capita income of the state is about Rs. 13985. In about 2/3 rd of the districts the
percapita income was below the state average.

According to Tamil Nadu Human Development Report (2002) Chennai has the highest
HDI value (0.752) and Dharmapuri the lowest value (0.576). Chennai has a shortfall in the HDI
of about 25%. For all other districts the shortfall ranges from 25% to 43%. The HDI value for
the state has been computed as 0.636. The figure is higher than our country’s HDI value of 0.545
in 1997 reported in UNDP-1999. In most districts, the HDI value is found to be below the state
figure. However, in all the districts, the value is found to be above the value of the country. It is
to be noted that as per the Tamil Nadu Human Development Report 2003, Eleven district have
HDI greater than the state average.

Among the 20 districts (excluding Chennai), the range of the ODI is seen to be wider
than that of SDI. One could infer, therefore that inter-district variation in Tamil Nadu is
narrower with respect to Social Development as compared to Economic Development.
With reference of SDI, the districts has been classified in 3 groups:

(i) Districts with SDI above the state level (100) : Chennai, Nilgiris, Kanniyakumari,
Coimbatore, Madurai, Chidambaranar, Thanjavur and Chengai Anna.
(ii) Districts with SDI 90 and above, but less than 100 : Ramanathapuram, Pudukottai,
Tirunelveli, Tiruchirapalli, Pasumpon Thevar, Kamarajan and Periyar.
(iii) Districts with SDI below 90 are Salem, Dindigul, North Arcot (including
Tiruvannamalai), South Arcot and Dharmapuri. Table 7 provides the above details.

TABLE 7: DISTRICT-WISE DATA ON SELECT INDICES OF

DEVELOPMENT FOR TAMIL NADU, 1991

DISTRICTS PER CAPITA HDI ODI SDI CMIEI

GDDP (RS)
Chennai 23044 0.75 186 129 471
2
Chengai-Anna 19415 0.67 117 100 100
North Arcot-Ambedkar 13191 0.63 78 81 173
5
Dharmapuri 10559 0.57 88 76 79
6
Thiruvannamalai sambuvarayar 8255 0.58 78 81 N.A.
6
South Arcot 8822.5 0.58 85 79 90
Salem 14500.5 0.62 81 86 129
Periyar 16225 0.64 78 90 128
4
Nilgiri 13319 0.66 112 120 173
7
Coimbatore 19930 0.66 118 109 196
3
Dindigul-Quaid-E-Milleth 11841 0.59 68 85 87
9
Thiruchirapalli 12427.6 0.61 95 95 110
9
Thanjavur 10650.3 0.60 98 103 96
1
Pudukottai 10535 0.61 77 96 72
2
Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan 9276 0.60 88 92 72
8
Madurai 14224.5 0.63 99 105 100
Kamarajar 14484 0.63 87 90 118
9
Ramanathapuram 10325 0.62 74 98 75
2
Chidambaranar 16157 0.67 86 104 115
5
Tirunelveli Kattabomman 13111 0.65 94 95 112
2
Kanniyakumari 10266 0.67 91 112 80
9
 Tamil Nadu 13985 0.63 NA NA 135
6
Source: South Indian Human Development Report 2001

Based on Tamil Nadu Human Development Report, 2003, HDI varies from 0.757 in
Chennai and 0.554 in Dharmapuri district. Eleven districts have HDI greater than the State
Average.. A closer examination of the level of achievement in the three indicators of
Human development reveals some insights in to their inter relationships. Some districts
with high PCI also have performed well in health and literacy (Chennai, Madurai,
Kancheepuram). High literacy and health can be achieved even with low PCI Eg. Kanniya
kumari. The reverse is also true. Though PCI is relatively high in Salem and Perambalur
districts their performance in literacy and health is relatively low.

Gender Development Index (GDI) captures the position of women closely linked to
HDI values and have shown some disparities. GDI varies from 0.766 (Chennai) to 0.582
(Dharmapuri and Villupuram). Other districts like Kanniya kumari, Thoothukudi,
Kancheepuram, and Coimbatore faired well. These are some districts which faired well in
HDI also. Thoothukudi is one of the top 5 districts in terms of PCI, Literacy, Gross
enrollment ratio and GDI. If GDI is less than HDI women in the district suffer lower
achievement than men. If GDI is equal to HDI there is said to be gender equality. There is
not much variation between GDI and HDI at the district level.

The secondary and tertiary sector contribution of 98.9 % in GDDP in Chennai was almost
double the share of 53.7 % in South Arcot. However, Chennai is a special case. If we compare
Coimbatore and South Arcot, we find that the share of non-primary sector in that district is 87.3
% as against 53.7% in South Arcot. The share of non-primary sector for the state was 69.7 %
which was slightly lower than corresponding share in the country as whole of 70.7 %. It is clear
that the relatively high income districts are associated with a larger share of non-primary sector
in district income. All the poorest districts (with the per capita GDDP fall below Rs.10,000) fall
in the eastern part of the state.

The districts with highest income, i.e., above the state average are in three segment; at the
top and the east: Chennai, Chengai–Anna, in the north western part Coimbatore, Erode and in
the middle of the southern part, Tiruchirapalli, Madurai, Kamarajar, Chidambaranar.

The two poorest districts Tiruvannamalai and South Arcot are adjacent to the two richest
districts namely, Chennai and Chengai-Anna. It is surprising that prosperity did not spread to the
neighbouring district from Chennai and Chengai-Anna. Most of the districts have a per capita
income below the state average.

According to the Tamil Nadu Human Development Report 2003, an analysis of the
district wise Per capita income reveal wide divergencies. Kancheepuram has the highest
per capita income (Rs. 23075) and is thrice that of Villupuram which lowest. Other
districts with very high per capita income are Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Salem, and
Erode. Districts with very high per capita income are expected to have better education and
health standards.

The fact mentioned earlier, namely that the per capita income of the poorest district is
only 35 % of that of the richest district and the observation that the majority of the district have
less than average per capita income indicates that the inter-district distribution of income is
highly skewed.

Another important fact that the most of the poorest districts such as Thanjavur,
Tiruvannamalai, South Arcot are the major rice producers of the state. In all the rice-producing
districts, the productivity (i.e., Yield per hectare) is below the average productivity of 2.67 ton
per hectare of the state. We have found a positive and significant correlation between per capita
income and rice productivity. Therefore, we can infer that low productivity in agriculture is
another reason for low per capita income. We can also observe that most of the poorest districts
have a high proportion of scheduled caste, scheduled tribe population.
 Incidence of poverty:

There is a wide disparity in the extent of poverty across districts. In six districts
(Cuddalore, Thiruvannamalai, Dindigul, Thoothukudi, Kanniyakumari, and Tirunelveli)
poverty ratio is more than 40 % and in five districts namely Chennai, Vellore, Salem,
Thanjavur, and Madurai the ratio is between 30 – 40 %. The poverty ratio of other 11
districts is below 30%. These 11 districts are Kancheepuram, Dharmapuri, Nilgiris,
Tiruchy, Pudukkotai, Sivagangai, Coimbatore, Virudhunagar, Ramanadapuram,
Nagapatinam, and Erode.

TABLE 8: REGION WISE ESTIMATES OF POVERTY IN TAMIL NADU

Region 1987-88 % % Below Poverty Line Decline in Poverty
Estimate of Poverty levels in % points
%
Chennai 58.17 44.23 13.94
Coastal 37.09 21.09 16.00
Madurai 50.27 37.35 12.92
Coimbatore 28.78 22.50 6.28
Source: Department of Economics and Statistics

There is a significant drop in percentage of people below poverty line in the coastal
districts. Madurai and Coimbatore have the least percentage of people below poverty line.
Chennai has witnessed substantial decline in poverty line estimate from 58.17 in 87-88 to
13.94 in 2000 – 01. This is evident from Table 8. But Chennai experiences incidence of
poverty with 35% of people below poverty and Chennai experiences a very high Gini index
which is 33 as is evident from Table 9 and Table 10.

TABLE 9: PER CAPITA INCOME AND POVERTY IN DISTRICTS, 1993-94

POVERTY RATIOS %
PERCAPITA > 45-50% 40-45% 35- 30-35% 25-35% < 25%
INCOME
(RS) 50% 40%
Above 10000 Thoothukudi Chennai Coimbatore
Kancheepuram
9001-1000 Salem Virudhunagar Erode,
Madurai
8001-9000 Dindigul Thirunelveli North Nilgiris, Trichy
Arcot
7001-8000 Thanjavur Dharmapuri Nagapatinam
6001-7000 South Kanniyakumari Pudukkottai
Arcot Ramanadapuram
Sivagangai
5001-6000 Thiruvannamalai

Source: Tamil Nadu Human Development Report, 2002

 Table 9 shows that Chennai has a per capita income more than Rs. 10000 and 30-
35% incidence of poverty. South Arcot has a per capita income of Rs 6001–7000 and has
more than 50% incidence of poverty, while Erode with Rs. 9001–10000 per capita income
has poverty below 25 %.
Urban poverty roots probably in not creating adequate jobs in secondary and
tertiary sector of the migrated labour from rural areas. South Arcot which is a rural
district with a moderately high income of Rs. 6001–Rs. 7000 and more than 50 %
incidence of poverty has relatively high Gini Index (29.3). Gini Index is an index widely
used to assess the inequality in consumption as well as income. And ranges from 0 -100
with 0 suggesting perfect equality and 100 perfect inequality. Table 10 gives Gini index for
select districts of the state. Dharmapuri has the least Gini index (22.78) Chennai has the
highest (33.3)Rural Gini index ranks top 5 districts (30) while urban GI for the same is
lowest (19.7). Gini Index constructed for income disparity in rural and urban regions for
all districts shows a wide disparity in value.

TABLE 10 GINI INDEX OF SELECT DISTRICTS

DISTRICTS GINI INDEX
High Low
Chennai 33.3 (Urban) -
Thanjavur 36.3 (Rural) -
Virudhunagar - 19.7 (Urban)
Thiruvannamalai - 22.7 (Rural)
Source: Tamil Nadu Human Development Report 2003

There is a wide disparity in the extent of inequality between rural and urban regions of the
same districts as well as between rural and urban regions of different districts. Though
there is a close link between HDI and GDI, such a link can not be established between HDI
and per capita GSDP.

The existence of lower HDI than per capita GSDP in districts like
Dharmapuri is probably due to relatively low public spending on social sector in these
districts. Of course this requires data on district level public spending. This is evident from
Table 11.
 TABLE 11 GDP PER CAPITA RANK AND HDI RANK – A COMPARISON.

Districts with HDI Rank Districts with HDI rank

lower than higher than
GDP Per capita rank GDP Per capita rank
Dharmapuri Chennai
Erode Thiruvallur
Coimbatore Cuddalur
Perambalore Villupuram
Madurai Thiruvannamalai
Dindigul Nilgiris
Kancheepuram Trichy
Vellore Thanjavur
Salem Nagapatinam
Namakkal Thriruvarur
Virudhunagar Sivagangai
Karur Thirunelveli
Theni Thoothukudi
Ramnad Kanniyakumari

Source: Tamil Nadu Human Development Report, 2002

Literacy and Education:

Literacy: The performance of Tamil Nadu in the area of literacy has been impressive. Its
effective literacy rate of 62.66 percent, is next only to Kerala. The effective literacy rate for
males is much higher at 73.8 % as compared to 51.3 % for females. The most literate districts
with effective literacy rate of 70 and above, are Kanniyakumari, Chennai, Chidambaranar and
Nilgiris. Other districts with effective literacy rates above the state average are Madurai,
Chengai-Anna, Coimbatore, Thanjavur, Tirunelveli, Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan and
Kamarajar. Districts with below state average rates are Ramanathapuram, Tiruchirapalli, Salem,
South Arcot and Dharmapuri.

An encouraging feature of the progress between 1991 and 2001 is the significant
reduction in inter-district variation as well as in the gender gap in literacy. The difference
between the highest and the lowest district literacy rates in 1991 was 44.16 percentage
points for females, 30.65 for males and 36.04 overall. The corresponding figures for 2001
are 36.28, 22.06 and 28.88 - still large, but reflecting some progress. In 1991, only four of
the current 30 districts reported a female literacy rate in excess of 60 per cent. In 2001, the
number is 20. Similarly, only four districts reported a male literacy rate exceeding 80 per
cent in 1991. The number in 2001 is 23. Sixteen districts out of the current 30 had female
literacy rates below 50 per cent in 1991. In 2001, only Dharmapuri has that dubious
distinction.

The gender gap in literacy has also come down throughout the State. In 1991, in 27
out of 30 districts, the male literacy rate exceeded the female literacy rate by more than 20
percentage points. This number has now come down to 13, again large enough to forbid
complacency, but some progress all the same. The mass literacy campaigns of the early
1990s known in the State as "Arivoli Iyakkams" have no doubt played a significant part in
this progress.

A word of caution against complacency on the literacy front is perhaps in order. It is

sobering to note that despite the professed commitment to universal primary education by
successive governments in the State - this in itself being a considerable dilution of the
constitutional commitment to eight years of free and compulsory education for all - male
(and of course, female) literacy rates, even by the rather minimalist census way of
reckoning, are nowhere near full literacy. According to the 2001 Census, more than a third
of females in the State in the 7+ population remain illiterate. This figure is greater than 40
per cent in 10 districts, with female non-literates outnumbering female literates in
Dharmapuri district.

In line with the Educational attainment is explained in terms of number of educational

institutions, primary education, enrolment ratio, mean years of schooling, teacher-student ratio
and literacy rate.

There has been an all round increase in the number of education institutions and students
in Tamil Nadu in recent years. Taking school education alone, there has been a fourfold increase
in the number of students (from 32.9 lakh to 125.6 lakhs) between 1956-1957 and 1990-1991,
while the number of schools increased by 73 % (23566 to 40747). In Tamil Nadu the plan outlay
on education, which was only, Rs.3.82 crore during the First Five Year Plan has increased to
Rs.1781.60 crore during Tenth Plan. The outlay on education is roughly 22 % of the total state
budget and nearly one-half of this amount is spent on elementary education, highlighting the
importance attached to elementary education in the state. The Tamil Nadu Government proposes to
take action to provide uniform standard education of good quality for all students and provide special
educational concessions to the districts where literacy rates are low so as to bring them on par with
the educational levels of other districts.

Before examining the inter-district variations, it may be noted that enrolment rate does
not correspond to actual attendance in school. The number of students reported to be enrolled is
generally higher for various reasons than the number of children actually attending classes.
Similarly, the estimates of the number of children in the age-group 6-11 may be biased due to
certain assumptions. It is seen from the table for education attainment, that enrolment rate varies
from 85.5 in Chennai to 119.7 in Kanniyakumari. Based on the total enrolment rate, districts can
be grouped into three types:

(i) High Enrolment Districts: [8] These include southern districts of Kanyakumari,
Chidambaranar, Tirunelveli, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar, South Arcot, Madurai
and Kamarajar along with Chengai-Anna and Pudukottai.
(ii) Medium Enrolment Districts: [6] These are spread mainly in the central and western parts
of the state and include Thanjavur, Tiruchirapalli, South Arcot, Tiruvannamalai,
Coimbatore and Nilgiris.
(iii) Low Enrolment Districts: [7] These include the districts of Ramanathapuram, Dindigul,
Periyar, Salem, Dharmapuri, North Arcot and Chennai.

One important factor that determines the level of enrolment appears to be

current level of literacy in the district. In a district with a high rate of literacy, parents are more
eager to educate their children. On the supply side, the number of schools is considered a
determining factor, but it has been found that the average number of schools per lakh population
is 503, 539 and 532 respectively. This would suggest that the availability of schools is not a
determining factor for the level of enrolment in the district. In fact Kanniyakumari, the district
with the highest rate of enrolment, also has the lowest number of schools, namely 280 per lakh
students. The policy of the State Government has been to provide schooling facilities within
easy reach.

In terms of Mean years of schooling District-wise estimates show a variation from 4.0
years in Dharmapuri to 4.36 years in Nilgiris. It is significant that the variation is relatively
small and that even at the lowest level, the mean years of schooling is 4 years which means that a
child completes on a average 4 years out of 5, of primary schooling. It is observed that Chennai,
Coimbatore, Madurai, Nilgiri and Kanniyakumari have high mean, while districts with modest
mean are Kamarajar, Tirunelveli, Periyar, Tiruchirapalli, Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan,
Chengai-Anna and Thanjavur. The low mean group consists of the remaining districts which
include many of the less developed districts of the state.

Teacher-Student ratio is an indicator of the adequacy in terms of the supply of teachers.

For present purposes, teachers and students in primary and middle schools alone have been taken
into account. The number of students per teacher at state level averages at 46.3 and ranges from
38.8 in Kanniyakumari to 52.8 in Coimbatore. Dividing the districts into three groups according
to the ration, the following pattern emerges:

(i) Below 45.0 (10 districts): Kanniyakumari, Ramanathapuram, Thanjavur, Chidambaranar,

Tirunelveli, Nilgiri, Periyar, Tiruchirapalli, Salem and Kamarajar.

(ii) Between 45.0 and 50.0 (6 districts): Tiruvannamalai, Chennai, Dindigul,

Madurai, Chenga-Anna and Pasumpon Thevar.

(iii) Fifty and above (5 districts): North Arcot, South Arcot, Dharmapuri, Pudukottai
and Coimbatore.

(iv) The last group consists of districts which may, excepting Coimbatore, be regarded as
educationally backward. Otherwise, no relationship is found between this ratio and educational
performance of districts.

Work Participation Rate

Table 8 illustrates Work Participation Rate, Urbanisation and Literacy rate in the various
districts of Tamil Nadu in 1991.
 Overall WPR varies from 30.5 % in Chennai to 52.37 % in Periyar District. 11 Districts
have a higher than state average WPR and 10 have an equal or lower rate. Male Work
Participation Rate ranges from 49.8 % in Kanniyakumari to 65.4 % in Periyar districts. The
variation in the rate for females ranged from 8.4 % in Chennai to 38.1 % in Kamarajar district
Cultivators account for 32.8 % of rural workers. The corresponding figure for agriculture
labour is 44.7 %. Distribution of districts by Work Participation Rate in these two categories is
given in the Annexure 2

Female WPR ranged from 8.4 % in Chennai to 42.2 in Kamarajar district. This may be
due to the fact that in the rural areas, female WPR is higher than in the urban areas.

WPR of the above 60 age group ranges from 16.8 in Chennai to 48.6 in Kamarajar. This
may be attributed to the fact that in Chennai, the per capita income is the highest, but in
Kamarajar district, the old age people are forced to earn in their retirement age due to inadequacy
of income.

Illiterate WPR ranges from 14.2 % in Chennai to 63.3 % in Dharmapuri. This may be
due to the fact that in Chennai, the unskilled and uneducated labour force is lower, where as in a
rural district such as Dharmapuri, the percentage of the unskilled and uneducated labour force is
greate r.

Literate WPR ranges from 36.7 % in Dharmapuri to 85.8 % in Chennai. This shows that
in the urbanized areas, Literate WPR is greater than the Illiterate WPR. And in the rural areas
illiterate WPR is higher than the literate WPR.

Health Attainment

Health is a crucial investment for human resources development and poverty alleviation
and the government has taken upon itself the responsibility of providing adequate health care
facilities to all in the state. In line with the objective of ‘Health for all’, that is, all the people of
Tamil Nadu attain a level of health that will permit them to lead a socially and economically
productive life as declared by the World Health Assembly in 1977.

The extent and range of health and medical services available in Tamil Nadu places it
among the socially advanced states in India. Many programmes are being implemented by the
government to improve the medical facilities in the State.

Tamil Nadu has successfully conducted the pulse-polio immunization during the last 7
years, cataract operations made by the Tamil Nadu state have exceeded the target fixed by the
Government of India. Tamil Nadu is first state to integrate with the primary health care services
since 1 August 1997 in respect to leprosy eradication and it has been a great success with total
coverage.
 TABLE 12 HEALTH INDICATORS IN TAMIL NADU

LIFE
CBR CDR EXPECTANCY IMR (per '000 live
DISTRICTS
(per '000) (per '000) AT BIRTH (IN births)
YEARS)
Chennai 24.18 9.17 74.2 32
Chengai-Anna 13.61 5.67 68.35 49
North Arcot-Ambedkar 19.94 6.07 65.6 51
Dharmapuri 15.88 4.67 61.8 59
Thiruvannamalai
15.94 6.8 66.6 58
Sambuvarayar
South Arcot 15.19 5.5 67 68
Salem 18.4 5.78 65.7 54
Periyar 18.54 7 69.2 54
Nilgiri 15.82 5.4 69.2 41
Coimbatore 18.32 6.6 69.3 46
Dindigul-Quaid-E-Milleth 18.23 6.95 64.6 68
Tiruchirapalli 16.37 6.4 65.9 59
Thanjavur 19.87 6.7 65.6 40
Pudukottai 15.52 4.8 65.5 58
Pasumpon Thevar
18.15 5.2 67.7 49
Thirumagan
Madurai 20.57 5.76 62.45 55
Kamarajar 18.19 6.02 66.6 61
Ramanathapuram 16.66 3.9 65.2 53
Chidambaranar 20.26 6.3 68.3 43
Tirunelveli Kattabomman 20.7 5.7 65.8 72
Kanniyakumari 18.17 5.76 72.7 30
Tamil Nadu 17.91 6.1 66.7 54
Source:Census Report, 1991

The impact of several health and health related policies and programmes of the
government of Tamil Nadu is reflected in the health indicators of the state. Table 12 gives the
data on Crude Birth Rate, Crude Death Rate, Infant Mortality Rate and Life Expectancy.
Chennai ranks 21st in both CDR and CBR while Chengai-Anna ranks 1st in CBR and
Ramanathapuram ranks 1st in CDR. IMR is lowest in Kanniakumari (30) and highest in
Tirunelveli (72). This may be attributed to high female literacy rate in Kanniyakumari and low
female literacy rate in Tirunelveli. Life Expectancy is the highest in Chennai with 74.2 years and
least in Dharmapuri with 61.8 which is even below the state average of 66.7 years.

Inter district comparison in terms of alternative development indices

Table 13 gives the ranking of districts by alternative development indices such as ,

GDDP, HDI, ODI, SDI and CMIE. District like Chennai, Coimbatore appear among top seven
districts in terms of per capita GDDP, HDI, ODI, SDI and CMIE. Madurai. Chengai-Anna,
Chidambaranar, Tiruchirapalli, Nilgiris, Kamarajar and Thanjavur appear either among top seven
or middle seven in terms of all indicators except that Thanjavur that has a HDI rank among
bottom seven which is probably explained by its health indicator life expectancy at birth 65.6
years (15th rank) lower than the state average of 66.7 years. Periyar and Salem districts that are
found among top seven in terms of percapita GDDP fairs poorly in terms of ODI and SDI being
found among bottom seven districts. However, these two districts are found among middle
seven in HDI ranking. Further study into the relative weightage assigned for inputs may throw
light on the discrepancy, though it is obvious that the districts are lagging in terms of social
development required for their percapita GDDP. Kanniyakumari is an exception. Though it
appears among bottom seven in percapita GDDP ranking, it does credit to its people by
performing far better in terms of all other indicators HDI, ODI and SDI. Hence policy directives
should be geared to improving the purchasing power of the people.

Districts like Dharmapuri, Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar, Ramanathapuram, South

Arcot, Pudukottai are unfortunately placed among the bottom seven in accordance with all
rankings. These are economically and socially backward districts in Tamil Nadu. Among the 20
districts (excluding Chennai), the range of the ODI is seen to be wider than that of SDI. One
could infer, therefore that inter-district variation in Tamil Nadu is narrower with respect to Social
Development Index as compared to Economic Development.
 TABLE 13 RANKING OF DISTRICTS OF TAMIL NADU BY
PER CAPITA GDDP, HDI, ODI, SDI, AND CMIE

GDDP HDI ODI SDI CMIE

CHENNAI CHENNAI CHENNAI CHENNAI CHENNAI

COIMBATORE KANNIYAKUMARI COIMBATORE NILGIRI COIMBATORE

TOP 7 DISTRICTS

CHENGAI-ANNA CHIDAMBARANAR CHENGAI-ANNA KANNIYAKUMARI NORTH ARCOT & NILGIRI

PERIYAR CHENGAI-ANNA NILGIRI COIMBATORE SALEM

CHIDAMBARANAR NILGIRI MADURAI MADURAI PERIYAR

SALEM COIMBATORE THANJAVUR CHIDAMBARANAR KAMARAJAR

KAMARAJAR TIRUNELVELI TIRUCHIRAPALLI THANJAVUR

MADURAI PERIYAR TIRUNELVELI CHENGAI-ANNA CHIDAMBARANAR

MIDDLE 7 DISTRICT

NILGIRI KAMARAJAR KANNIYAKUMARI RAMANATHAPURAM TIRUNELVELI

PASUMPON THEVAR
NORTH ARCOT NORTH ARCOT PUDUKOTTAI TIRUCHIRAPALLI
& DHARMAPURI
CHENGAI-ANNA &
TIRUNELVELI MADURAI KAMARAJAR TIRUNELVELI
MADURAI

TIRUCHIRAPALLI RAMANATHAPURAM CHIDAMBARANAR TIRUCHIRAPALLI THANJAVUR

DINDIGUL SALEM SOUTH ARCOT PASUMPON THEVAR SOUTH ARCOT

THANJAVUR TIRUCHIRAPALLI KAMARAJAR DINDIGUL

DHARMAPURI PUDUKOTTAI SALEM PERIYAR KANNIYAKUMARI

PERIYAR, NORTH
BOTTOM 7 DISTRICTS

PUDUKOTTAI PASUMPON THEVAR ARCOT & SALEM DHARMAPURI

THIRUVANNAMALAI

RAMANATHAPURAM THANJAVUR PUDUKOTTAI DINDIGUL RAMANATHAPURAM

THIRUVANNAMALAI PUDUKOTTAI &
KANNIYAKUMARI DINDIGUL RAMANATHAPURAM
& NORTH ARCOT PASUMPON THEVAR

PASUMPON THEVAR THIRUVANNAMALAI DINDIGUL SOUTH ARCOT

SOUT ARCOT SOUTH ARCOT DHARMAPURI

THIRUVANNAMALAI DHARMAPURI

Source: Tamil Nadu Human Development Report, 2002

Inter district comparisons in terms of certain indicators of development

Inter district comparisons in terms of certain indicators of development indices like Sex
Ratio, urbanization, life expectancy at birth, female literacy rate and infant mortality rates
revealed certain interesting details that require further probe. Classification of districts as top 7,
middle 7 and bottom 7 districts in terms of sex ratio, IMR, urbanization and literacy rate are
summarized in Table 14. Chennai ranks among top seven in terms of all other components
except Sex Ratio in which it ranks last, i.e., bottom seven. Probably migration adjusted sex ratio
will resolve this conflict, since in-migration is largely male population. Kanniyakumari districts
show that lack of urbanization is not a deterrent in achieving good relative positions in IMR, life
expectancy at birth and literacy rate. Once again districts like Dharmapuri, Dindigul, South
Arcot fair poorly in all the components which explains their backwardness. Tiruchirapalli
district has an IMR higher than the state average, probably because female literacy rate being
lower than the state average level.

TABLE 14 RANKING OF VARIOUS DISTRICTS OF TAMIL NADU BY

SEX RATIO, IMR, URBANIZATION AND LITERACY RATE

SEX RATIO IMR URBANIZATION LITERACY RATE

CHIDAMBARANAR KANNIYAKUMARI CHENNAI KANNIYAKUMARI

TOP 7 DISTRICTS

TIRUNELVELI CHENNAI COIMBATORE CHENNAI

PASUMPON THEVAR THANJAVUR NILGIRI CHIDAMBARANAR

RAMANATHAPURAM NILGIRI CHENGAI-ANNA NILGIRI

PUDUKOTTAI CHIDAMBARANAR MADURAI MADURAI

KAMARAJAR COIMBATORE CHIDAMBARANAR CHENGAI-ANNA

PASUMPON THEVAR
THANJAVUR KAMARAJAR COIMBATORE
& CHENGAI-ANNA

NORTH ARCOT- NORTH ARCOT-

KANNIYAKUMARI THANJAVUR
AMBEDKAR AMBEDKAR
MIDDLE 7 DISTRICT

TIRUCHIRAPALLI RAMANATHAPURAM TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI

NILGIRI SALEM & PERIYAR SALEM PASUMPON THEVAR

THIRUVANNAMALAI MADURAI PASUMPON THEVAR KAMARAJAR

NORTH ARCOT- PUDUKOTTAI &

TIRUCHIRAPALLI RAMANATHAPURAM
AMBEDKAR THIRUVANNAMALAI

DINDIGAL PERIYAR TIRUCHIRAPALLI

SOUTH ARCOT THANJAVUR NORTH ARCOT-AMBEDKAR
BOTTOM 7 DISTRICTS

TIRUCHIRAPALLI &
MADURAI RAMANATHAPURAM PUDUKOTTAI
DHARMAPURI
CHENGAI-ANNA KAMARAJAR DINDIGAL DINDIGAL
SOUTH ARCOT &
PERIYAR KANNIYAKUMARI PERIYAR
DINDIGAL
COIMBATORE TIRUNELVELI SOUTH ARCOT SALEM

DHARMAPURI PUDUKOTTAI THIRUVANNAMALAI

SALEM THIRUVANNAMALAI SOUTH ARCOT

CHENNAI DHARMAPURI DHARMAPURI

Annexure 3 shows inter-district comparison of data on WPR shows that the total WPR is
higher in districts with very low percapita GDDP (Dharmapuri, Dindigul, Tirunelveli,
Kattabomman and Tiruchirapalli districts having percapita GDDP lower than state average)
Districts like Chennai, Nilgiri, Kanniyakumari, Chidambaranar having lower WPR are generally
those that have high literacy rate. In every district rural WPR is higher than the urban WPR
showing lesser percapita GDDP and the absence of any formal arrangements for old age security.
In every district female WPR is lower than male WPR showing the expected. Interesting to
observe is that the new districts that have low female WPR , Chennai and Kanniyakumari have
high female literacy rate alone in common.

Districts with very high PCI are expected to have better education and health
standards. A close examination reveals that this relationship does not necessarily hold true
in Tamil Nadu

TABLE 15. PERCAPITA INCOME AND LITERACY OF SELECT DISTRICS

DISTRICTS PCI LITERACY

Chennai >Rs. 20000 > 80%
Kancheepuram >Rs. 20000 70-80%
Udagamandalam Rs. 12000 - 15000 > 80%
Kanniyakumar Rs. 10000 - 12000 > 80%
Salem and Erode Rs. 15000 -20000 60-70%
Thoothukudi Rs. 15000 -20000 > 80%

On the health side, Table 16 shows PCI and Life expectancy at birth are given for three
districts

DISTRICTS PCI LEB (YRS)

Chennai >Rs. 20000 72-75
Kanniyakumari Rs. 10000 - 12000 72-75
Madurai Rs. 15000 - 20000 60-63

In districts like Chennai positive relationship between Income and health holds as
also districts like Dharmapuri, Perambalure, Theni, Villupuram. Thanjavur and
Thiruvarur. Kanniyakumari and Madurai are exceptions. Districts with very low
percapita income are expected to have better education and health standards. A closer
examination of the level of achievement in the three indicators of Human development
reveals some insights into their inter relationships
Conclusion:
The above study shows inter district disparities in terms of social and economic
indicators. The prominent reasons for such disparities are probably level of urbanization,
ineffective utilization of public spending on health and education and low agricultural
productivity and social backwardness. However further reasons may be investigated. Public
spending on health and education in specific districts that lag behind in social sector will
eventually reduce disparities. Steps must be taken to promote investements in rural infrastructure
and support services such as transport, communication, banking and insurance . This will
eventually reduce the rural urban gap. Employment opportunities in rural areas must be created.
By having urban centres in rural areas that is urbanizing rural sector will improve infrastructural
facilities and will prevent out migration thereby recuce disparity. Also public spending on
education and health must be increased. Care should be taken to reduce the incidence of poverty
and inequality in urban areas.
 ANNEXURE 1: SOCIO ECONOMIC INDICATORS IN TAMIL NADU

TAMIL INDIA
DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS
NADU
AREA AND POPULATION 2001
Population ( in Million) (2001 Census) 62.4 1029
Rural 34.9 742.7
Urban 27.5 286.1
Density of Population per sq.km. 480 3287
Increase in population from 1991 to 2001 (%) 11.72 21.34
Literacy Rate 2001 (%) 73.45 64.8
Urban Population (%) 44.04 27.78
Percentage of Workers to Total Population 44.67 50.61
Sex Ratio (Female per 1000 Males) 987 933

26.10
Percentage of population below poverty line (1999-2000) 21.12
STATE INCOME 2004- 05 (A.E.)
Per Capita Income at Current Prices (Rs.) 25965
Net State Domestic Product at current prices (Rs. in Lakhs) 167,18,2
(2002-03) 87
VITAL STATISTICS
Birth-rate per thousand 2004 18.3 24.8
Death-rate per thousand 2004 7.5 7.5
Infant Mortality Rate 2004 (Per ‘000’ Live Births) 41 60
Under 5 mortality rate (SRS 2002) 50.0 80.0
Maternal Mortality rate (per lakh) 2005 90 400
Total Fertility Rate (SRS 2003) 1.9 3.0
Life Expectancy at birth (2001 – 06) M 67.0 M 64.1
F 70.0 F 65.1
EDUCATION
Teacher-Pupil ratio
a. Primary Schools 33
b. Middle Schools 41
c. High Schools 40
d. Higher Secondary Schools 33
Number of Primary Schools per lakh of population
54
2001Census Population
Number of Middle Schools per lakh of population 11
Number of High Schools per lakh of Population 8
Number of Higher Secondary Schools per lakh of population 7
Drop Out Rate in Tamil Nadu (in Percentage) (2002-03)
Upto Primary stage 13.85
Upto High School stage 32.10
Upto High School stage 57.37
Upto Higher Sec. Stage 75.81
INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure Development Index 144 100
OTHER INDICATORS
Human Development Index 0.531 0.472
Total Fertility Rate 1.9 3.0
Source:Statistical Abstract of India – 2003
Statistical Outline of India - 2004
Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), November 2004
 REFERENCES:
R.J.Chellaiah and K.R. Shanmugam , “Some Aspects of Inter District Disparities in Tamil
Nadu” Worming paper no. 1

Tamil Nadu Human Development Report,