North Bengal Report

REPORT ON COMPARATIVE
BACKWARDNESS
OF NORTH BENGAL REGION

A Study Sponsored by Planning Commission
Government of India

November 2002

Institute of Applied Manpower Research
I.P. Estate, Mahatma Gandhi Road
New Delhi

1

IAMR

North Bengal Report

CONTENTS
Contents
List of Tables
Chapter I

ii
iv
Objectives and Methodology
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6

Chapter II

1
1
3
3
4
7
9-13

Population Size and growth
Sex Ratio
Population Density
Ranking of Districts on the Basis of Demographic Attributes

The Economic Indicators
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

Chapter IV

Background
Brief Profile of North Bengal Region
Objectives of the Study
Scope Coverage & Methodology
Choice of Variables
Constructing Indices of Development Backwardness

Demographic Attributes
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

Chapter III

1-8

9
11
11
12
14-25

Introduction
Distribution of Workers
Agricultural Productivity
Institutional Credit
State Domestic Product
Composite Index of Economic Development

14
14
15
17
18
19

Infrastructure and Human Development

26-37

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

26
26
28
31
32
38-49

Chapter V

Introduction
Education Related Indices
Health Infrastructure
Human Development Index 1981-91
A Composite Index of Health and Education Infrastructure
Implementation of Central Schemes
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7

Chapter VI

Introduction
Allocation and Release of Funds
District-wise Allocation of Funds
Amount Utilised vis- à-vis Funds Available
District-wise Utilisation of Funds
Performance Under Different Schemes
Summing-up

Concluding Observations
Summing-up
Towards Reducing Regional Disparities

Annexures

38
39
41
42
45
46
48
50-51
50
51
52-71

References Cited

72

2

IAMR

North Bengal Report

List of Tables
Table No.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9A
3.9B
3.9C
3.9D
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6

Titles
Demographic Attributes of North Bengal Region and West Bengal
Correlation Coefficient between Decennial Population Growth Rates in
West Bengal
Distribution of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Population (1991)
Sex Ratio
Population Density
Demographic Attributes- Scale Free Index

9
10

Occupational Structure 1991
Food Grain Yield
Growth in Agricultural Productivity (1977-78 to 1995-96)
Institutional Credit -1995
Institutional Credit –2001
Share of State Domestic Product and Projected Value of District
Domestic Product.
Ranking of Districts Based on SDP
Composite Scores- Economic Indicators (1991)
Correlation Between Economic Indicators
Total Variance Explained Eigen Values
Component Matrix
Factor Scores- Economic Indicators (1991)

15
16
16
17
18
19

Educational Infrastructure and Use - 1991
Teacher Pupil Ratios and Intake Capacity in Engineering Colleges (1999)
Distribution of Health Facilities
Deprivation Index of Infant Survival
Child Women Ratio (1991)
Deprivation of Districts by HDI Components
Composite Index of Health and Education Infrastructure.
Proportion of Households with Access to Electricity, Drinking Water and
Toilets
Index Value of Households with Access to Electricity, Drinking Water and
Toilets
Indicators of Physical Infrastructure (2001)

27
28
29
30
30
31
34
35

Allocation and Release of Funds under different Schemes during the year
1999- 2000 to 2001-2002 in West Bengal
District wise percentage of Allocation of Funds For Different Schemes,
2001-2002
Scheme wise Expenditure as percent of Total funds Available during
1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002
Central Allocation and Central Release under Major Poverty Alleviation
Programmes ro West Bengal
District wise Percentage of Expenditure on Different Scheme for the Year
2001-2002
Year wise target and achievement of different schemes

40

3

10
11
12
13

19
22
23
24
24
25

36
37

41
43
45
46
47

IAMR

North Bengal Report CHAPTER I Objectives and Methodology 1. The study is expected to use available information and not designed to generate primary data. to assess the relative backwardness and to provide policy support for the future development of North Bengal region.1 The total number of districts in West Bengal currently is 19 after West Dinajpur has been divided into two districts as Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshin Dinajpur and creation of Siliguri district. It is also clear that given the large backlog in the provision of social and physical infrastructure. regionally also there are ‘gainers and losers’. (iii) Siliguri. (v) Uttar Dinajpur. have to be addressed separately.1 It is necessary to recognize the fact that the economic reforms that accelerated in the early nineties is geared to accelerate growth in the economy . Meanwhile. (i) Coochbehar. it is necessary to develop area specific development strategies based on the strength of the regional resources.2. has been prepared at the instance of the Planning Commission. This proposal. accentuate disparities. The democratic federal structure cannot be sustained if such disparities continue to accentuate.2 Also. In this background. (iv) Darjeeling. This warrants a regional package to address areas less attractive for private investment. The concerns of equity will therefore. Government of India. The North Bengal region consists of seven districts viz.1. 1. (ii) Jalpaiguri.2 A Brief Profile of North Bengal Region 1. (vi) Dakshin Dinajpur and (vii) 1 IAMR .at best. The change in the ranking of States based on per capita income in the recent years is an indication of such losers and gainers.1. having shifted from a position of balanced regional development to one of comparative advantage.1 The Background 1. Thus. the Planning Commission has initiated a number of studies to look at the development prospects of selected States and regions. the probability of private investment in the crucial infrastructure sector hinges upon state level reforms. 1. it would fail to address concerns of equity and at worst. development gravitates towards those pockets where a semblance of infrastructure is already available.

Districts under North Bengal were characterized by lower literacy levels (50. Sal is also quite abundant in the forest.31 percent as against 17.2 The region is predominantly rural. Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshin Dinajpur) with an annual mean rainfall between 1500 – 2000 mm.13 percent in 2001) whereas in the rest of Bengal it was 61. the districts of North Bengal fall under: (a) the Eastern Himalayan Region (Hills – Darjeeling. which is about 24 percent of the State. 1.0 per cent and 13. The districts of Coochbehar.72 million.2. About 18 percent of the region is classified as forest land much of which is concentrated in the districts of Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri. The decennial population growth of the region(1991-2001) was 22. the districts of North Bengal were poorly placed in comparison to the State of West Bengal.35 percent of the State of West Bengal. 1.North Bengal Report Malda. electricity. The snow-fed rivers of the Himalyas – Teesta.7 percent.3 North Bengal covers an area of about 21. 1.2. 21. Mahananda and Jaldhaka flow through the region.6 per cent.2. i. These rivers are characterised by erratic changes in their courses and flooding. safe drinking water and sanitation facilities. the Scheduled tribe population account for a sizeable proportion. Being predominantly rural the access to the infrastructure is even more limited. There are both diversities and disparities within the districts of North Bengal region.84 percent in the case of the State as a whole.5 Available statistics indicate that with reference to the three main civic amenities i. As per the 2001 Census. Fir and other evergreen types like Gurjan.4 As per the agro-climatic regional classification. 1. the total population of the districts under North Bengal was 14. which was 18. Jalpaiguri and West Dinajpur are characterized by incidence of higher proportion of Scheduled caste population (well above the State average).e.000 square kilometers. Darjeeling district 2 IAMR . The hills and adjacent areas are covered with temperate and tropical forest composed of Pine.6 Similar situation exists when we consider the region in terms of human development indicators.e. In Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling districts. Terai – Jalpaiguri and Coochbehar) with an annual rainfall varying between 2500 to 3500 mm. and (b) the Lower Gangetic Plain (older alluvium – Malda.2.8 per cent respectively as compared to the State average of 5. 1. low temperatures and high humidity.2. Poor sun shine coupled with low soil nutrients affects agricultural productivity.

4. The services sector is gradually picking up.4 Scope. In comparison to the State as a whole.à. The study was envisaged as a SWOT analysis of districts of North Bengal vis. each of the important indicators has also been separately analysed to bring out the level of regional disparity.e. in Darjeeling district. the per capita incomes in all the districts have increased in the region but at a slower pace than that of the State. during 1990-91 to 1995-96. whereas. the per capita income in all the districts of North Bengal was far below the State average.North Bengal Report recorded a literacy of over 64 percent.vis future development initiatives.1 Data matrices on the above dimension at least for two points of time (during the 90’s) for as many development indicators as possible were collated for each of the district in the State. (c) Infrastructure and Human Development. it has already taken roots. 1. 1. In addition to making a composite index of inter-district disparity. The educational composition of main workers in the districts of North Bengal reveals the large preponderance of illiterate workers in comparison to the State as a whole. As per the income estimates available for the year 1995-96. In each of the five themes multivariate analysis has also been under taken to bring out the co-linearity among variables and to identify mutually exclusive dimensions. Over a period of time.1 The main objective of the study is to bring out the inter-district disparity in different dimensions of development broadly under the following heads: (a) Demographic attributes.3. The relative proportion of educated (matriculate and above) in the districts of North Bengal (excluding Darjeeling) was far below the State average. comparable district wise data matrices relating West Bengal has also been prepared. in Darjeeling. 1.3 Objectives of the Study 1. it was just below the State average. the level of industrialization in North Bengal is very low. (b) Economic Sectors. In addition to low levels of literacy there is also marked gender disparity. 3 IAMR . i.3. Coverage and Methodology 1. However.2 In the process of the study. and (d) Implementation of development schemes.

) and output variables such as income. etc. it has been found to be positively related with a number of economic and social development indicators and as such has also 4 IAMR . Since male urban in-migration is a better representative of such economic opportunities. As a result. and such pressures normally are high only when the land resources are in a position to support high densities.5. whereas high natural growth rate would represent a negative dimension.). proportion of children attending schools. iii) Literacy: Although in the Indian context. ii) Population density represents the pressure of population on land. 1.5 The Choice of Variables 1. poor correlations between these two sets of variables would indicate the inability to convert effectively investments and inputs into viable outcomes and outputs.2 For a number of indicators.2 The variables for which data is available at the district level among the relevant demographic attributes are as follows: i) Population Growth and migration: When growth is largely through inmigration would represent relatively better economic opportunities. 1. which may have either positive/ negative relationship with each other or may be unrelated with each other. etc. As such population density could be taken as an indicator of development.4. The choice of variables needs to be discussed in depth in order to understand the direction in which they impact on development/backwardness.North Bengal Report 1. We also need to distinguish between input variables (such as infrastructure: roads.5. to conceptualise the nature of relationship of these variables as those that represent positive dimensions of development and those that represent negative dimensions. literacy is very liberally defined (ability to sign ones name). comparison over time has not been attempted. mortality rates. comparable district level data on a time series basis is not available. It is necessary therefore. population growth along with proportion of male in-migration in urban areas could be chosen as demographic indicators. except for some selected indicators. hospital/medical facilities. schools.1 The multidimensional nature of development is captured through a variety of variables.

the composition of the District Domestic product is not available. iv) Percentage of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Population: Although there is no logical basis for relating the strength of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Population with development indicators. several empirical results in various parts of the country indicate strong negative relationship between incidence of these segments of population with development indicators such as school enrolment. In the country as a whole the sex ration has been consistently falling over a number of decades. diversification of economic base. 1. Such relationships are found to be stronger in the case of female literacy. better earning. mortality rates. possible to monitor the changing structure of the district economy. literacy levels. but there are regional variations. district literacy level has also been chosen as a variable in this analysis. we have chosen a number of input as well as output variables from among those that are available at the district level. Secondly. school enrolment of children. Literacy has been found to be related with modernization of agriculture. It is not therefore.3 Although the District Domestic Product captures the net effect of various economic inputs. Thus. access and utilisation of health care facilities by women. at the district level. social attitudes and so on. much of such data relate to estimates.5. 5 IAMR . These are discussed below. Consequently. v) Sex ratio: The proportion of female to male population captures the gender dimension and represents such features as female mortality rates. etc. (i) Net sown area relative to the number of cultivators measures the pressure on agricultural land (ii) Area under food grains as a proportion of net sown area is expected to indicate agricultural diversification and the extent of diversification is an indicator of development. etc. since in backward areas heavy concentration of land under food crops does not represent specialisation but compulsions and subsistence agriculture.North Bengal Report been used as a component of Human Development Index in many earlier attempts.

the proportion workers engaged in primary sector is expected to move over to secondary and tertiary sectors. (vi) Yield levels of crops and the trend in agricultural productivity would measure inter district disparities in out put variables.5. (vii) The proportion of workers manufacturing sector in household and non-household is intended to represent the capacity of the manufacturing sector in absorbing the labour force and therefore.North Bengal Report (iii) Ratio of the number of agricultural labourers to cultivators is taken to represent land distribution. a related indicator is the proportion of bargadars. with dispersed villages access to all weather roads is an important infrastructure input that increases market access. (v) Proportion of land under irrigation that would impact on yields could be one of the indicators of agricultural development as an input/investment variable. 6 IAMR . (c) Credit disbursed for industry. social interaction and diffusion of innovations. the density of roads and the proportion of villages with pucca roads are available and could capture differences in access.4 The third broad dimension of development that we consider in this study related to development of infrastructure and the level of human development. and would have an impact on productivity. since with the development of economy. (viii) Since access to capital is a basic input in development. (iv) The percentage of main workers engaged in agriculture would indicate the strength of dependence on agricultural sector. 1. This dimension is captured through the following variables: i) In a predominantly rural area. At the district level. the available data on institutional credit such as: (a) Credit-Deposit ratio. To this. the impact on employment/unemployment situation. (b) Credit disbursed for agriculture. we can also add the spread of post offices across the villages. (d) Per capita bank deposits and per capita credits for which district level data is available could be used as indicators of development.

6.1 Constructing Indices of Development/Backwardness An attempt has been made to construct composite indices for three development dimensions – Demography. however. Even when connected. x being the mean value of the variable. The method used is a simple self weighting method (in which weights of variables are determined on the basis of skewness in the distribution.2 It must. number of Primary Health Centres/subcentres. the proportion of rural households and urban households with electric connection and are being used for inter district comparisons. In addition. and proportion of children attending schools. Economy. be emphasized that the composite indices at two point of time are not directly comparable since the indicators used at a point of time would be different from the other 7 IAMR . At the district level we have data on proportion of villages electrified to inhabited villages. a large proportion of households may not be able to afford domestic connections. Infrastructure and Human Development. v) The impact of such access to infrastructure would then be reflected on output indicators such as infant mortality or infant survival rates. and schooling are important for human resource development. and the proportion of teachers to students in such schools is expected to represent social infrastructure.6 1. 1. = Σ XI/N _ _ where N is the number of variables and XI = xiI/x . iii) Similarly. 1. among the basic needs we also have indicators such as access to drinking water and toilet in terms of proportion of rural and urban households with these facilities. The composite index has been developed as: C.I. the proportion of households with none of these facilities represents another facet of lack of access to basic amenities. child-women ratio. number of schools at various level available per unit of population. iv) Among such infrastructure facilities. Variables such as hospital-bed/population ration. access to health care centres.6.North Bengal Report ii) Access to electricity is still limited in the country as a whole. with a number of villages without electric connection.

4 In much of the analysis. for which earlier data are not available. an alternate index using principal component extraction has also been used. However.3 Since this method does not take into account multi-co-linearity among variable. in much of the analysis we are using earlier district framework where in Dinajpur is considered a single district. wherein the weights of variables are determined based on the correlation between variables used in the analysis. broad conclusions based on the ranking of the districts are possible.North Bengal Report depending on availability of comparable data. 1.6.6. Kolkata has been excluded. 1. since its metropolitan character distorts inter-district comparison. 8 IAMR . Since new districts have been created.

54 21.17 Source: India Census 2001.50 80.1: Demographic Attributes of North Bengal Region and West Bengal Sr. 9 IAMR 38.06 23. North Bengal th recorded a population of 14.1.22 23.46 18. the growth rate of population in North Bengal is higher than the rest of the State. However.31 16.47 1.North Bengal Report CHAPTER II Demographic Attributes 2.16 28.36 21.2 A study of the correlation coefficients between district decennial population growth rates in West Bengal (Table 2.15 23.85 22.88 17. No.07 23. As per the Census 2001.1 records some of the basic demographic characteristics for the 5 districts of North Bengal as well as for the rest of the State. Higher growth-rate in North Bengal is partly because of the smaller population base.12 31.28 31.1 Table 2.08 27.72 million.78 30.48 32.91 26.02 26.94 14.2) shows that in general the current population distribution is basically the one in the previous decade. which is a little less than 1/5 of the State’s population.00 27.66 10.76 31.73 1961-71 25.33 26.00 29.98 40. We may notice that significant spatial redistribution of population is taking place – explained variation in growth rates ranging from 31 to 64 percent in different decades.1.17 21.61 3. It may also be noted that the population growth rate has declined between 1981-91 and 1991-2001 both in North Bengal as well as in the rest of the State.11 22. 1991 2.67 31.55 26.72 65.40 3.31 28.67 25.29 3. Districts Total Population Percent Male (in million) urban in2001 migrants to urban population 1981-91 Percent Population Growth 1991-01 1981-91 1971-81 1 2 3 4 5 Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur North Bengal Rest of the State Total State 2.87 .05 28.55 26. Table 2.43 24.52 24.50 33.1 Population Size and Growth 2.44 29.77 26.21 14.

Table 2.33 25.25 34.43 9.76 16.3) as per Census 1991. urban male migrants as a proportion of the urban male population has been chosen as an indicator. it is over 29 per cent (Table 2. No.62 5.89 28.22 0. Two districts stand out with high concentration of Scheduled Caste population (Coochbehar and Jalpaiguri).55 5.66* 1 0.33 21.21 3..78 21. the corresponding value for rest of Bengal is less than 19 per cent (Table 2.43 1 0.20 11. Within North Bengal all the districts have recorded higher immigration than the State average.92 4.60 19. within the region.3: Distribution of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Population Sr.02 16.75 22.50 5.62* 0. 1 2 3 4 5 Districts Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur North Bengal Rest of the State Total State Source: Census of India Percent Scheduled Caste Population 1991 1981 1971 Percent Scheduled Tribe Population 1991 1981 1971 51.1).80** 1981-91 1991-2001 • 1 Significant at 5 percent and ** significant at 1 percent levels 2.61 16.98 10 47.57 14.61 13. highest being in the districts of Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri.57 29.03 12.97 29.35 6.99 18.10 21.83** 0.North Bengal Report Table 2. While the State average of Scheduled Caste population is about 24 per cent in North Bengal.60 10.72 IAMR .54 10.2: Correlation Coefficients between Decennial Population Growth Rates in West Bengal (District Data) 1961-71 1971-81 1981-91 1991-2001 1961-71 1 1971-81 0.12 28.3 It is also important to note that the higher growth in population of North Bengal is not a result of natural growth alone but because of significant in migration.29 4. Since a large proportion of in-migration recorded in the census happens to be within-district rural migration (largely representing marriage related migration).69 18.62 0.15 36.48 23.1.20 7.82 11.04 6. Although the region as a whole records little less than 3 times the proportion of tribal population in the State.84 14.4 North Bengal is also characterized by higher proportion of Scheduled Caste population and tribal population.63 0.59 49. 2.91 20.1.41 16. It may also be noted that both the proportion of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population has recorded an increase between 1971 and 1991 in the State as whole and also in the North Bengal region.44 6.56* 0.58 34.99 23. It may be noted that while North Bengal recorded over 27 per cent male urban immigrants.10 27. it is concentrated in Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling.

family migration is also high in the State and in North Bengal Region. the correlation coefficient between the percent Scheduled Caste Population in 1981 and 1971 was 0. Table 2. This would indicate that besides male selective migration.2.1. 11 IAMR .North Bengal Report 2.4: Sex Ratio Sr.1 The pressure of population on land.5). Note: Dinajpur includes both Uttar 2. the sex ratio is more favorable in North Bengal than the rest of the State and has increased significantly both in the State as a whole as well as in all the districts of North Bengal (Table 2. The sex ratio is negatively related with population density and urban male migration and positively with child-women ratio.5 However. 2. No. The densities have been increasing over the years across the country as much as in West Bengal and the North Bengal Region. denoted by population density. It may be noted that the densities in North Bengal are substantially lower than the rest of the State (Table 2.1 Despite significant magnitude of male in-migration.2 Sex Ratio 2. higher sex ratio and lower urban male migration. Districts of North Bengal tend to portray this combination of lower population density. 2. This is also true in the case of tribal population – the correlation being 0.2.3 Population Density 2.2 1971 1961 916 874 886 948 921 913 886 891 and Dakshin 889 864 853 965 906 898 874 878 Dinajpur.4). Sex Ratio (Females per 1000 males) Districts 2001 1991 1981 1 2 3 4 5 Coochbehar 949 935 935 Darjeeling 943 914 888 Jalpaiguri 941 927 909 Malda 948 938 949 Dinajpur 942 930 936 North Bengal 944 930 927 Rest of the State 931 914 907 Total State 933 917 911 Source: Census of India 1991. is also an expression of the resources to support the population base and of economic opportunities.3. 2001.98. unlike general population the increasing concentration of Scheduled Caste population is found to be in the same districts that had higher proportion of Scheduled Castes – for example.99.

2 The index value of unity would indicate State average. The values indicate that in so far as demographic attributes are concerned. Dinajpur and Coochbehar) record below State average values. values above and below the value of one the relative positive and negative distance from the State average. 2. In the case of negative indicators an inverse of this has been used. The analysis would show that demographic attributes do not constrain development any more than in the rest of the State.6. density. 12 IAMR .5: Population Density Sr. sex ratio and per cent urban male immigrants could be taken as positive indicators of demographic characteristics.1 The Ranking of Districts by Demographic Characteristics: From the variables discussed above 6indicators have been chosen to rank two districts on the basis of demographic attributes. Since these 6 variables are measured in different scales.4 Ranking of Districts on the Basis of Demographic Attributes 2. The resultant values and the composite index are tabulated in Table 2. No. Variables such as child-women ratio and proportion of Scheduled Caste population may be treated as a negative indicator of demographic strength. Districts 1 2 3 4 5 Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur North Bengal Rest of the State Total State Source: Census of India Population Density (persons per square kilometre) 1991 1981 1971 1961 641 413 450 706 584 551 838 767 523 325 356 544 449 418 254 280 434 357 301 203 218 329 254 615 504 398 2.4.4. the districts of Darjeeling and Malda score higher than the State average and the other three districts (Jalpaiguri. Variables such as population growth. they have been brought under a scale free measure by dividing the values of each district of a particular variable by the mean value of the variable for the State.North Bengal Report Table 2.

77 0.86 0.14 Average Score Rank 0.01 1.20 1.89 1.78 1.91 1.01 1.98 0.84 1.65 0.71 1.03 0.05 0.06 1.43 0-4 age 0.48 7.58 0.19 0.78 1.81 0.98 1.20 1.02 0.92 1.41 7.09 0.88 7.78 9.84 1.50 0.08 0.26 1.5 5 6.96 0.07 0.19 1.08 1.85 0.01 0.88 14 2 9 4 10.87 0.70 1.28 0.09 1.North Bengal Report Table 2.96 13 5-9 age 0.36 1.30 6.17 7.52 1.01 1.15 1.5 8 13 15 10.27 1.40 6.00 1.54 0.10 5.79 0.06 0.10 1.85 0.84 0.00 8.86 0.12 1.00 1.22 0.81 0.96 1.96 0.98 1.28 6.04 0.75 1.29 1.01 1.76 0.68 0.97 1.09 1.51 8.5 1 3 6.33 1.16 0.74 0.73 6.90 0.12 1.10 1.93 1.97 1.43 1.27 1.99 0.01 0.01 1.68 1.6: Demographic Attributes – Scale Free Index S.00 1.98 1981-91 1.96 1.78 0.5 12 IAMR .00 1.50 0.01 Percent Percent Population Scheduled Growth Caste Population 91-2001 1991 0.81 0.82 7.70 1.15 0.17 1.48 1.93 1.29 Population Child/women Ratio Percent Urban Aggregate Density 1991 Male Score in-migrants 1991 0.97 1.70 0.07 1.00 1.No Districts Sex ratio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur Burdwan Birbhum Bankura Midnapur Howrah Hoogli 24'Pgs Nadia Murshidabad Purulia 2001 1.12 0.72 3.01 1.36 0.33 0.61 6.65 6.86 1.01 1.91 1.07 1.40 0.98 0.58 0.55 0.13 0.04 0.00 1.13 1.50 1.

and (d) district domestic product.1 Four broad categories of indicators to represent various dimensions of the regional economy have been used: (a) distribution of workers across occupational category.1 Introduction 3.1. Within agricultural sector the distribution of land among agricultural workers is an important determinant of productivity. As mentioned earlier. the lack of data compels us in some cases to use estimated and interpolated values based on recent trends. The manufacturing sector is represented by the proportion of workers in the household and non-household manufacturing activities. owing to the increased agricultural productivity and partly because of pull factors of manufacturing and service sectors that grow with economic development.2 Distribution of Workers 3. 14 IAMR .North Bengal Report CHAPTER III The Economic Indicators 3.2. These have been indicated at appropriate sections. (b) agricultural productivity. These four indicators are based on 1991 population Census. 3.2 As the economy develops it is generally believed that workers in the agriculture sector would move out to other sectors of the economy. This coupled with the effect of increasing number of land-less agricultural labourers (1991-2001) as compared to land-owning cultivators inhibits agricultural productivity. 3. Corresponding figures for 2001 census is yet to be made available at district level. A study of this Table tells us that North Bengal has substantially larger proportion of workers in agriculture as compared to the rest of the State. These two indicators: the proportion of agriculture workers and the cultivators to land-less agriculture labour ratio have been analysed.1.1 Table 3.1 records the value of workforce related indicators. (c) institutional credit.

wherein plantation workers are not included as a part of the agriculture labour. The cultivator-agricultural labourers ratio is particularly worse in Malda.13 68.47 55. Agricultural labourers per cultivator 1991 2001 0.20 89.27 1.00 0. The position is somewhat better in Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri in so far as the proportion of agriculture labourers is concerned.67 58.3).72 0.00 11.North Bengal Report Table 3.55 8.22 36. Districts 1 2 3 4 5 Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur North Bengal Rest of the State Total State Source: Census of India.22 71.40 10.86 29. However.15 63.78 0.91 5.54 0.03 4.97 3.70 0. 15 IAMR .61 57. The growth in agricultural productivity is again much lower in the North Bengal than the rest of the State.86 0.1: Occupational Structure Sr.00 Within North Bengal region there are sharp variations both in the proportion of agriculture labourers as well as the ratio of land owning cultivators to land-less agriculture labourers. No.1 The figure yield in North Bengal was of the order of 1400 Kg per hectare in 1991 as compared to over 1800 Kg in the rest of Bengal (Table 3.29 69.01 2.13 5.62 6.39 1.49 2001.58 1.31 4.02 5.3 The absorption capacity of labour in the manufacturing sector also appear to be low in North Bengal where only about 2 per cent of workers are in the household manufacturing sector and about 6 per cent in the non-household sector.18 1991 and 85. lower than even the drought prone district of Purulia.80 0.3.08 1.94 4. Within North Bengal.59 1.91 0.21 78.31 Percent Percent workers in workers in Manufacturing Manufacturing (Household (NonSector) Household Sector) 2.43 48.87 1. 3.55 46.2. 3. Malda is better placed in terms of the absorption of workers in manufacturing sector.37 60.2 Percent Agricultural workers 1991 2001 74.2). Coochbehar and Jalpaiguri have recorded very low growth in agricultural productivity (Table 3. The corresponding figures for the rest of the State is 5 and 11 respectively.3 Agricultural Productivity 3.48 1. this is partly a result of substantial tea gardens in these two districts. 3.59 0.2.71 1.47 0.

46 Nadia 7. soil erosion.North Bengal Report Table 3.Bengal 4.91 Malda 5.No Districts Growth in Agricultural Productivity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Coochbehar 2.) 1990-91 Districts Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur North Bengal Rest of the State Total State Source: Statistical Abstract. No.08 Bankura 5. 16 IAMR .97 Source: Directorate of Agriculture.62 Midnapur 6.47 Birbhum 2.28 24'Pgs (North+ South) 4. 1 2 3 4 5 Food Grain Yield (kg.42 Hawrah 4.81 Dinajpur 5. West Bengal (1994-95) 1303 1151 931 1693 1601 1411 1833 1735 Table 3.22 Murshidabad 5. Per ha.86 W.47 Darjeeling Jalpaiguri 1. Government of West Bengal 3. we find that the agricultural productivity index of districts of North Bengal is just about the same as those of low productive drought-prone districts such as Purulia in the southern part of Bengal. Generally.3. Average agricultural credit in North Bengal appears higher because of the high per capita credit in Dinajpur.22 Purulia 2.37 Hoogli 5.4).02 Burdwan 4. This is despite the fact that the North Bengal does not suffer from drought although it does suffer flood and therefore.3: Growth in Agricultural Productivity (1977-78 to 1995-96) S.2 This is despite the fact that the per capita agriculture credit in North Bengal was higher than the rest of the State (Table 3.2: Food Grain Yield Sr.

49 3. In the case of North Bengal Region.3385 to Rs. except for slightly higher deposit-credit ratio in the case of Darjeeling.81 2.99 1.4).5190 to Rs.) 46 428 455 51 31 179 239 226 1.70 to 5.1995 Sr. No. the per capita institutional credit for industries is found to be significantly lower in the districts of North Bengal. however.46 2.97 2. The Deposit-Credit ratio has increased significantly between 1995 and 2001 (Table 3.1 Given the poor development of secondary sector in the region.42 and in the case of rest of the State from 3.73.4820 and the credit decreased sharply from Rs.5).70 3.09 2845 24951 3547 2668 1737 5080 3385 3709 Per Capita Credit (Rs.) 1539 8333 1804 1082 777 2036 5190 4633 As a result the deposit-credit ratio works out to 3. Within the region.49 to 3.4 Institutional Credit 3. Table 3.North Bengal Report 3. 5080 whereas per capita credit was less than half of this amount.23 2. 841.4: Institutional Credit . The per capita bank deposits in 1995 was Rs. where as in the rest of the State the per capita deposits increased from Rs. it increased from 2.) Credit (Rs.7 in the case of southern districts and only 2.4.2 59 128 77 80 380 159 71 104 Per Deposit/Credit Per Capita Capita Ratio Deposit Industrial (Rs. 1 2 3 4 5 Districts Per Capita Agricultural Credit (Rs. Both per capita deposits and credits reduced significantly in North Bengal region.) Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur North Bengal Rest of the State Total State Source: Reserve Bank of India 3. Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri which record higher proportions of urban population and based on plantation economy have received almost twice the per capita industrial credit as that of the West Bengal. which was close to that of the State ratio in 1991.4. 17 IAMR .49 for North Bengal region. The situation is exactly reverse in the case of southern districts of the State (Table 3.

5: Institutional Credit .1 About 14 per cent of the State Domestic Product was from the districts of North Bengal in 1988-89.25 Per Capita Credit (Rs.26 3. Darjeeling district stands out with a ranking of 5 in 1981 and 6 in 1991 (Table 3.1352 crore from the rest of Bengal during 1995-96 (Table 3. The ranking of districts based on SDP indicates that between 1981-91.5 State Domestic Product 3.73 5. 3. since the population densities in North Bengal are lower than the rest of the State the per capita SDP in North Bengal is higher than the rest of the States.North Bengal Report Table: 3.7).2 However.2001 Sr. the districts of North Bengal had come down as compared to the district of South Bengal.64 3. 18 IAMR .5.6). No.7). 496 crore as against Rs.) 2010 9855 3337 2205 1647 3119 4820 4489 3.) 603 2706 1023 617 526 912 841 854 3.57 3.33 3.5.42 5. In fact between 1981-91 the per capita SDP in Southern districts of the State has recorded significant decline whereas those of North Bengal have improved the position barring Jalpaiguri district (Table 3. Within North Bengal. 1 2 3 4 5 Districts Deposit/Credit Ratio Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur North Bengal Rest of the State Total State Source: Reserve Bank of India Per Capita Deposit (Rs.13 3. The average District Domestic Product from the districts of North Bengal amounted to Rs.

84 1542.449 0.74 910.7: Ranking of Districts Based on SDP S.694 0.86 372.6: Share of State Domestic Product and Projected Value of District Domestic Product S.53 849.00 1410.244 0.7 680.Bengal 88.578 0.14 649.448 0.20 Nadia 4.96 Hoogli 7.930 0.32 4525.No Districts Percent Share of SDP (1988-89) Projected Values for DDP 1995-96* (Rs.812 0.44 459.95 Bankura 3. the one tabulated in this column is based on average percent share Table 3.25 1687.827 0.771 0.66 Darjeeling 1.85 Jalpaiguri 3. In crores) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Coochbehar 2.94 Source: Banerjee and Ray (1998). * Three different methods of projection have been used.831 0.414 0.20 Dinajpur 3.844 0.68 667.712 SDP (1981) Rank 15 5 10 16 13 3 7 11 14 2 4 6 9 13 8 SDP 1991 Rank 15 6 11 16 14 5 7 8 12 2 3 4 10 13 9 Source: Bhattacharya (1998) 19 IAMR .000 0.384 0.974 0.345 0.55 Purulia 2.803 0.607 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Districts Coohbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur Burdwan Birbhum Bankura Midnapur Howrah Hoogli 24'Pgs (North + South) Nadia Murshidabad Purulia Per Capita SDP 1981 0.40 2060.804 1.65 Howrah 7.736 1991 0.773 1.44 24'Pgs (N+ S) 22.989 0.51 Birbhum 3.99 19623.645 0.77 537.326 0.23 614.915 0.939 0.North Bengal Report Table 3.328 0.02 383.71 Murshidabad 4.No.69 W.22 Malda 2.422 0.000 0.55 Burdwan 10.21 Midnapur 9.

North Bengal Report

3.6

3.6.1

Composite Index of Economic Development

Using 8 selected indicators of economy a composite index of development has been
computed for the districts of West Bengal. Interestingly, Darjeeling ranks number one as
per this index (Table 3.8).
Darjeeling

A study of this Table suggests that this high score of

is almost entirely because of the high per capita bank deposits. If this
th

indicator is omitted it slides down to 5 rank.

3.6.2 Since there would be a problem of co-linearity among variables, we have also attempted
an index by extracting principal components. In doing so we have also used a slightly
modified set of variables, in order to see whether the ranking of districts remain similar.
The results of the analysis are tabulated in Tables 3.9A, B, C, and D. The correlation
matrix (Table 3.9A) suggests that cultivators/agricultural labourers ratio is positively
related with proportion of land devoted to food grain production, and proportion of
workers in manufacturing activity, and negatively related with proportion of workers in
primary sector, credit deposit ratio and per capita state domestic product. This would
indicate that large concentration workforce in the primary sector is accompanied by lager
number of land less agricultural workers, subsistence cropping devoted to food grain
production and low per capita income. The positive feature is that this heavy dependence
on primary sector is also accompanied by labour absorption in manufacturing sector.

3.6.3

While larger proportion of workers in manufacturing sector results in higher share of the
domestic product and the value of District Domestic Product, it also results in higher
density of population and therefore, lower per capita SDP. That the districts with higher
concentration of workers in manufacturing are characterized by low Deposit-credit ratios
and districts with higher proportion of workers in primary sector are characterized by
higher credit-deposit ratios is also clear.

3.6.4

From the nine variables three components have been extracted which together explain
about 90 percent of the variance contained in the nine variables (Table 3.9B), of which
the first component explains almost two thirds of the total variance. The first component
is loaded positively on variables such as proportion of manufacturing workers, the district
share of SDP, and the District Domestic Product and negatively loaded on variables such
as proportion of workers in primary sector, credit-deposit ratio and per capita SDP (Table
3.8C).

20

IAMR

North Bengal Report

3.6.5

The first component scores indicate the relative ranking of districts that are characterized
by manufacturing and share of SDP (Table 3.9 D). This indicates four of the five districts
of North Bengal region occupy the bottom rung of the development ladder with ranking
12, 13, 14, and 15 among the districts of the State. Darjeeling district is ranked ninth.

21

IAMR

North Bengal Report

Table 3.8: Composite Scores - Economic Indicators (1991)
Cultivator
Percent
Deposit- Food Per capita
Per capita
Per capita Per capita Aggregate Average
to
Workers
Credit
Grain Agricultural Industrial credit deposits
credit
Score
Score
agricultural Manufacturing
ratio
yields
credit
labour ratio (NHH+HH)
(kg/ha)
Coochbehar
0.44
1.03
1.62
0.76
0.63
0.20
0.59
0.99
6.27
0.78
Darjeeling
0.98
0.44
1.00
0.68
1.37
1.90
5.21
5.34
16.93
2.12
Jalpaiguri
0.68
0.72
1.52
0.55
0.82
2.02
0.74
1.16
8.21
1.03
Malda
0.57
0.94
1.21
0.99
0.86
0.23
0.56
0.69
6.06
0.76
Dinajpur
1.96
0.98
1.24
0.94
4.07
0.14
0.36
0.50
10.19
1.27
Burdwan
0.74
1.18
0.87
1.48
0.91
1.64
0.88
0.79
8.49
1.06
Birbhum
0.35
1.02
1.12
1.24
1.07
0.27
0.89
1.03
7.00
0.87
Bankura
0.40
1.05
0.93
1.13
0.85
0.20
0.76
0.73
6.05
0.76
Midnapur
0.64
1.11
0.98
0.87
1.51
0.33
0.28
0.29
6.01
0.75
Howrah
1.97
1.41
0.69
1.00
0.45
3.95
1.63
1.15
12.24
1.53
Hoogli
1.56
1.09
0.79
1.30
1.02
2.65
1.02
0.83
10.25
1.28
24' Pgs (N)
2.35
1.05
0.58
1.27
0.17
0.70
0.77
0.45
7.34
0.92
24' Pgs(S)
0.85
0.93
0.72
0.70
0.15
0.56
0.41
0.30
4.61
0.58
Nadia
1.01
1.14
0.82
1.20
0.94
0.81
0.63
0.53
7.09
0.89
Murshidabad
0.99
1.06
1.00
1.16
0.82
0.12
0.32
0.33
5.81
0.73
Puralia
0.51
0.84
0.92
0.73
0.35
0.28
0.94
0.89
5.47
0.68

22

IAMR

475 .544 1.548 0.000 .756 0.353 1.574 State Domestic Product 1991 .0.0.0.000 0.755 0.000 0.9A: Correlation Between Economic Cultivator to Percent Percent Area under Credit agricultural Workers Workers in Food grain Deposit labour ratio Manufacturing Primary /Net Sown Ratio (NHH+HH Sector Area 1.000 .0.000 Indicators State Domestic Product 1981 .665 1.01 level(2-tailed) 23 IAMR .816 0.141 .299 0.0.05 level (2-tailed) **significant at the 0.0.416 .0.712 .411 0.678 .401 .794 .627 Share of SDP (1991) District Domestic Product 0.0.614 .962 .0.626 1.000 *significant at the 0.581 .740 0.363 0.000 0.347 .0.0.0.0.000 .0.374 0.490 1.661 .999 1.0.624 .604 .788 1.North Bengal Report Vaiables Cultivator to agricultural labour ratio Percent Workers Manufacturing (NHH+HH Percent Worker in Primary Sector Area under Food grain /Net Sown Area Credit/Deposit Ratio State Domestic Product 1981 State Domestic Product 1991 Share of SDP (1991 District Domestic Product Table 3.626 .0.000 0.777 0.0.589 1.0.0.0.680 0.

894 1991 Share of SDP (1991 .871 Sector Area under Food grain /Net .319E -02 .344 -.825 9.216535 98.133857 12.80925 7 0.020458 99.535 Cultivator to agricultural labour ratio Percent Workers .112 .66385 3 1.547 .256 -.82971 8 0.000544 0.380482 4.117 -.011E -02 .456 .903 Manufacturing (NHH+HH Percent Worker in Primary -.06544 65.9B: Total Variance Explained Eigen values Component Total Percent of Variance Explained Cumulative Percentage 1 5. 24 IAMR .817 District Domestic Product .164247 99.129 .352273 96.006048 100 Table 3.01286 4 0.06544 2 1.199488 2.014782 0.North Bengal Report Table 3.34901 89.227583 93.816 1981 State Domestic Product -.004E -02 2.855889 65.59271 6 0.59841 77.301705 3.507 Sown Area Credit/Deposit Ratio -.99395 9 0.24044 5 0.021411 11.827 State Domestic Product -.114 .135 .823 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.533 3 -.9C: Component Matrix Component 1 2 .091841 1.287 6.108 .178 .729 .

39678 -0.01021 -0.29998 1.23644 -0.North Bengal Report Table 3.85996 1.88359 -0.31817 -0.38913 -0.15132 0.03589 -0.56308 1.61169 25 Rank 15 9 14 12 13 4 6 10 7 2 3 1 5 8 11 IAMR .73789 -0.19311 2.9D: Factor Scores – Economic Indicators (1991) Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur Burdwan Birbhum Bankura Midnapur Howrah Hoogli 24' Pgs Nadia Murshidabad Purulia First Factor Scores -1.22 -0.

Economic and Political Weekly.2. there are districts such as Darjeeling and Dinajpur which are better off than some of the districts in the southern parts of Bengal.1. poverty and so on. 1 Basabi Bhattacharya (1998).2 The education related indicators are tabulated in Table 4.1 It has been realised that social indicators and level of social development may not necessarily move with economic development and economic indicators. 4. 4. XXXIII. For the year 1981 and 1991 index of human development for 1 different districts of West Bengal was computed by Bhattacharya (1998) . She has used the now commonly known approach of UNDP: of infant-mortality.2 Essentially in this section we are using indicators of education and health to represent social infrastructure. attempt to measure social development independent of indicators such as per capita income. literacy and per capita income.2 Education Related Indices 4.2. percentage of children attending school in the age group of 6-14 and educational institution of higher studies in age group of 15-24.1. 4.North Bengal Report CHAPTER IV Infrastructure and Human Development 4. For the year 2000 we have teacher-pupil ratio for primary and high schools as well as number of seats in engineering colleges.1 For the year 1991 we have data on number of lower primary schools per unit of population.1. Urbanization and Human Development in West Bengal. It may also be worthwhile to distinguish between indicators of input and those of output. 1998 26 IAMR . studies relating to disparities in development. For ready reference and comparison to the analysis of data in this Chapter we have also included results of Bhattacharya’s study. The same situation also prevails when we consider middle and higher levels of schooling. The former would indicate efforts of government as well as of private sector and NGOs in providing infrastructure facilities and the later would indicate the ability of the population to access such facilities and the impact of such access. A study of this Table indicates that while the overall provision of primary school is slightly lower in North Bengal as compared to rest of the State. December 4.1 Introduction 4. As a result.

34 17.24 3.1: Educational Infrastructure and Use .69 Dinajpur 85.85 4. The study of this (Table 4.30 Purulia 132.97 24'Pgs(N) 34 2.97 6.74 18. the teacher-pupil ratio is quite adverse in North Bengal.72 21.1) 4.53 11.01 19.88 4.55 13.23 Census of India.8 15.04 9.99 5.No Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Source: Lower Primary Upper Primary Percent Children Percent Attending School per unit School per unit Attending Schools Educational of population of population (6-14 age) Institutions (15.33 23.27 2.63 16.31 Darjeeling 90.89 28.2. It is also to be noted that there is no relationship between the provision of schools per unit of population and the proportion of children attending school (Table 4.21 Murshidabad 62.34 24 Pgs(S) 26.83 18.77 12.4 For the year 1999-2000 we have information on teacher-pupil ratio.78 Midnapur 90.18 22.45 10.00 6.15 Howrah 60.82 25.62 9.24 age) Coochbehar 81.81 3.45 2.65 5. However.45 7.71 Burdwan 63.80 16.41 3.North Bengal Report Table 4.97 11. with a number of schools in which children from other parts of the country enroll.99 24.15 Malda 72. We may also note that the total number of seats available in engineering colleges in North Bengal is substantially lower than in the State.3 On the other hand when we look at the utilization of these facilities in terms of proportion of relevant population age groups attending educational institutions.419 4.75 19.9 3.2) indicates that at the primary and high school level the situation in North Bengal is comparable to that of rest of Bengal and the inter-district variations are not very large.61 8. The proportion of attendance in institutions of higher learning is also significantly lower in the North Bengal region.5 20. we find that the North Bengal region is significantly lower than that rest of Bengal.19 25. 27 IAMR .63 9.72 7.92 4.71 Bankura 115.06 12.2.43 3.87 26. The only exception to this is Darjeeling.13 Jalpaiguri 71.77 Birbhum 93. at the level of higher secondary.78 Nadia 63.1991 S.42 15. 1991 4.22 26.83 6.84 Hoogli 70.

In fact. 19992000. However.1 The provision of health infrastructure does not appear to distinguish between the districts of North Bengal region and rest of the State (Table 4. 28 IAMR .94 Nadia 785 1. Jalpaiguri is poorly served when we consider number of PHCs per hundred inhabited villages.52 24 Pgs(S) 570 1.25 Purulia 0 2. Within North Bengal.55 Hoogli 1810 1.North Bengal Report Table 4.72 6.35 9.58 8.70 Birbhum 260 1. Malda and Dinajpur districts have smaller number hospital-beds per unit of population.53 24'Pgs(N) 300 1.48 8.40 6. for example.54 7.96 Howrah 880 1.50 7.2:Teacher Pupil Ratios and Intake Capacity in Engineering Colleges (1999) Districts Number of Intake per year in Engineering Colleges Number of Teachers per 100 students in Lower and Upper Primary Schools Number of Teachers per 100 students in High Schools Coochbehar 110 1. In terms of outcome we find. also the difference between North Bengal and rest of the State is marginal. a position that was held by Malda in 1981 number one in terms of infant survi val.48 11.34 Murshidabad 360 1.21 5. Statistical Abstract. 2000.27 Dinajpur 0 1. within the North Bengal region.23 8.19 Darjeeling 530 1.55 7.98 Jalpaiguri 320 1.26 6.67 Burdwan 1710 1. West Bengal. In terms of the number of hospitals-beds available per unit of population.66 Source: All India Council for Technical Education.3). Darjeeling records the highest number of hospitals-beds per unit of population compared to any other district in the State. Government of West Bengal.91 12.04 Midnapur 730 1.83 Bankura 0 1.74 4.52 Malda 0 1.23 5.3 Health Infrastructure 4.3.29 8. Directorate of School Education. 4. that the deprivation index of infant survival rate was substantially higher in the districts of North Bengal as compared to the other districts with Dinajpur ranking the most deprived (1991).

00 207.80 Statistical Abstract.90 12.78 37.3.83 55.42 54.11 15.93 93.28 4.51 10.61 14.71 Bankura 2.22 Hoogli 4.45 75.02 15.98 12.97 19.17 80.25 72.08 87.16 72.64 34.28 Birbhum 3.27 105. It may be noted that relative deprivation in infant survival rate increased in the case of West Dinajpur and Darjeeling districts of North Bengal during the decade 1981-91.09 Jalpaiguri 7.01 Howrah 7.11 50. we find significant changes in the inter-district patterns between 1981-91. The details of the district performance of this indicator are available in Table 4.52 12.47 103.65 50.67 Darjeeling 5.19 9. 29 IAMR .56 54.18 Murshidabad 5.62 168.07 74.48 96.3: Distribution of Health Facilities S.4.2 When we consider deprivation index of infant survival rate.26 Nadia 4.North Bengal Report Table 4.30 Malda 3.67 8.62 Number of hospital beds per lakh population (1999) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Source: Coochbehar 3.34 47.25 Dinajpur 1.49 Midnapur 1.93 94. West Bengal (1999-2000) 62.14 12.88 111.No Districts Number of Number of Number of Medical PHCs per hospital-beds per Institutions per lakh 100 lakh of population population (1999) inhabited (1991) villages 1991 14.16 24 Pgs(S) 4.63 87.09 96.38 Burdwan 5.21 63.90 12.01 13.67 18.24 50.99 131.94 37.96 32.84 Purulia 2.17 47.35 24'Pgs(N) 4.03 12.11 85.

394 0.143 0.North Bengal Report Table 4. The only exception is Darjeeling district where these indicators record lower than State averages.702 0.310 0. The infant mortality rates in North Bengal are significantly higher than that of Bengal .217 0. This is also the case when we consider child-women ratio both in the case of children in the age group of 0-4 and that of 5-9 (Table 4.238 0.714 0.942 0.000 0. No.760 0.167 0.3 Districts Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur Burdwan Birbhum Bankura Midnapur Howrah Hoogli 24'Pgs(North + South) Nadia Murshidabad Purulia 1981 1991 0.352 0.512 0.988 0.286 0.3.466 Infant mortality rate and child-women ratio are taken as an indicator of health status. Table 4.242 0.714 0.465 0.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4.356 0.857 0.583 1.544 0. 5: Child Women Ratio (1991) Sr. particularly of women and they also have a bearing on demographic structure of the population.655 0.000 0. 1991 Number of Children (age 0-4) per 1000 Woman (age 15-49) Number of Children (age 5-9) per 1000 Woman (age 15-49) 552 415 515 626 567 481 699 576 666 727 713 629 98 58 79 96 89 62 30 IAMR .664 0.321 0.5). 1 2 3 4 5 Districts Infant Mortality Rate Coochbehar Darjeeling Jalpaiguri Malda Dinajpur Total State Source Census of India.406 1.329 0.4 Deprivation Index of Infant Survival S.255 0.

238 0.808 0.242 0.345 0.449 0.598 0. Bhattacharya (1998) has combined the inter-district indices on infant survival rate.429 0.000 0.310 0.702 0.974 0.854 0. Jalpaiguri.167 0.321 0.913 0.2 It has also been observed that urbanised districts have higher levels of human development depriving the less urbanised ones. it has been observed that the HDI reveals the extent of relative deprivation at the district level is much more than at the inter-state level.512 0. The coefficient of variation in HDI was found to be higher than that of the all India inter-state level indicating a higher degree of relative deprivation in West Bengal.758 0.4.568 0. it has been summarised that the structural system in West Bengal continues to remain geared to Calcutta-centric. The most deprived districts of West Bengal were Dinajpur.714 0.930 0. Further.694 0.498 0.000 0. 4.Coochbehar.375 0.607 0.4 Human Development Index 1981-91 4.448 0.854 1.381 0. A drastic fall in Human Development Index for Darjeeling can be seen as a result of increase in relative deprivation with reference to infant survival rate and per capita domestic product.655 0.406 1.No Districts 1 Coochbehar 2 Darjeeling 3 Jalpaiguri 4 Malda 5 Dinajpur 6 Burdhwan 7 Birbhum 8 Bankura 9 Midnapur 10 Howrah 11 Hooali 12 24'Pgs(N+ S) 13 Nadia 14 Murshidabad 15 Purulia Source: Bhattacharya (1998) Infant Survival Per Capita SDP 1981 1991 1981 1991 1981 1991 0.771 0.544 0.714 0.773 1.939 0.466 0.422 0.329 0.736 0.244 0.831 0.638 0.North Bengal Report 4.804 1.465 0.317 0.197 0.817 0.414 0. Coochbehar and Malda. Malda and Dinajpur (Table 4.217 0.583 1.6: Deprivation of Districts by HDI Components Literacy S.000 0.1 As mentioned earlier. Table 4.258 0.286 0.827 0.000 0.000 0.6).000 0.712 31 IAMR .255 0.468 0.937 0.328 0.652 0.775 1.989 0. As per her computation most of the low ranking districts are found in North Bengal .915 0.760 0.664 0.533 0.844 0.143 0.896 0.384 0.692 0. However. In the larger context.356 0.645 0.803 0.377 0.609 0.326 0. Except for minor variation the situation between 1981 and 1991 has not changed substantially.352 0.988 0.857 0.736 0. This was found to be true both in 1981 and 1991.946 0.578 0.4.812 0. this inter-district variation has marginally reduced during1981-91.394 0.942 0. literacy rate and State Domestic Product and using the methodology adopted by UNDP.238 0.

5. A study of this Table reveals that among the rural households the access to electricity in North Bengal is much less than the rest of the State whereas in the case of urban households the North Bengal is placed better.North Bengal Report 4. The access to drinking water indicates that in both urban and rural areas.3 Among the infrastructure that contribute to better health and quality of life we also have information on the proportion of rural and urban households that have access to safe drinking water. this is because of lower density of population in the region and the infrastructure indicators are per unit of population. North Bengal districts are better off when we consider access to toilets in urban centres.5 A Composite Index of Health and Education Infrastructure 4.1 Using seven variables representing educational and health infrastructure a composite index has been constructed for 1991 (Table 4. is much lower than the proportion of households havi ng access to drinking water. In fact. such as infant survival rate or literacy rate.5. The differences between North and South Bengal is not as sharp . because of concentration of urban population in a few centres in the north. This indicates that in terms of infrastructure while North Bengal has some of the poorly served districts such as Malda and Dinajpur. the region as a whole is comparable to the rest of the State. 4.8.5. 4. drinking water and toilet across districts for the year 1991 is tabulated in Table 4. North Bengal has lesser proportion of households. as compared to a more diffused distribution in the south. No significant difference across districts can be found when we consider percentage of villages that have connection to electricity. toilet facilities. This may be.7).5.4 The proportion of households having access to sanitary toilets.there are districts in both region which are relatively better served as much as there are districts which are poorly served.2 The previous analysis would tend to suggest that the districts of North Bengal are not that poorly provided in terms of social infrastructure but they have not been successful in converting the access to the infrastructure in terms of outcomes. 32 IAMR . 4. electricity connection and transportation facilities. This is partly because of greater concentration of urban population in a few centers in North Bengal as against southern parts of Bengal where the urban centres are more dispersed. The problem appears to be the failure of the region to utilise the infrastructure provided efficiently. The proportion of rural and urban households with access to electricity. which have access as compared to the districts in southern parts of the State. Clearly. in general.

8. it may also be noted that a few districts such as Purulia and Bankura in southern parts of the State have lower index value than the districts in North Bengal.9). However. into a composite index we find most of the districts in North Bengal have low index value compared to districts in southern parts of the State (Table 4. 33 IAMR .5 Information is also available on the proportion of households having all these three facilities and those that have none of these facilities. If we combine the 11 indicators given in Table 4.5.North Bengal Report 4.

65 1.25 0.83 0.15 0.94 4.05 1.39 1.80 1.91 0.83 3.76 1.10 0.27 0.01 Darjeeling 1.36 1.91 Birbhum 0.46 0.81 0.75 1.97 1.33 9.30 0.7 Composite Index of Health and Education Infrastructure S.33 Number of Teacher Pupil Hospital Beds Ratio (Lower and per Unit of Upper Primary) Population 0.32 1.43 0.92 8.52 0.57 1.03 0.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Districts Number Number of Number of of Upper Upper Primary Primary Primary Health School per School per Centres Unit of Unit of per 100 Population Population inhabited Villages Coochbehar 0.81 0.55 0.98 0.16 1.72 2.33 1.27 1.51 24 Pgs(S) 1.09 0.84 5.11 8.56 8.74 1.38 1.81 Burdwan 1.85 34 Teacher Pupil Ratio (High School) 4.44 0.52 0.74 0.47 13.14 IAMR 3 2 5 14 13 7 8 6 1 10 12 15 16 11 9 4 .67 0.51 1.00 0.34 0.57 7.62 0.24 0.50 0.52 1.77 0.33 0.13 1.24 0.54 Bankura 0.57 0.87 Malda 0.North Bengal Report Table 4.81 1.00 7.16 10.80 1.59 0.64 24'Pgs(N) 1.82 0.19 0.23 1.22 1.88 0.13 1.28 6.50 0.60 1.84 1.64 Midnapur 0.93 2.75 1.30 1.68 0.40 2.93 0.95 0.56 0.19 0.15 1.08 Howrah 1.58 0.11 Hoogli 0.02 0.09 1.92 1.99 Jalpaiguri 1.87 4.32 Purulia 0.17 0.96 0.56 6.08 0.43 1.01 1.19 0.98 1.94 1.04 0.06 1.60 0.93 2.48 1.21 0.99 0.79 7.70 1.44 0.44 7.49 1.72 0.70 0.61 1.55 0.86 1.91 1.20 1.91 Dinajpur 0.33 7.53 Nadia 1.80 Murshidabad 1.14 1.35 Teacher Pupil Ratio (Higher Secondary) 1.13 1.86 0.84 0.69 0.75 0.98 1.27 0.42 Aggregate Average Rank Score Score 10.

11 34.87 22.63 Rural Urban None of Three 18.83 4.28 14.36 1.73 64.15 36.99 27.15 0.34 35 Rural Urban Toilet 9.05 3.96 22 2.56 9.93 1.48 29.44 61.05 48.13 42.74 56.17 61.31 2.4 Urban Water 84.81 5.23 64.43 67.41 95.22 22.79 49.4 19.91 Rural Urban All three 3.53 73.03 4.31 22.15 75.23 69.99 62.67 4.29 35.6 15.65 8. Districts 1 Coochbehar 2 Darjeeling 3 Jalpaiguri 4 Malda 5 Dinajpur 6 Burdwan 7 Birbhum 8 Bankura 9 Midnapur 10 Howrah 11 Hoogli 12 24'Pgs (N) 13 24' Pgs (S) 14 Nadia 15 Murshidabad 16 Purulia Source: Census of India 1991 Rural Urban Electricity 8.84 13.19 60.84 1.31 5.28 64.48 84.03 94.97 9.3 13.1 8 52 15.34 11.3 50.91 75.86 16.25 23.24 14.08 93.11 55.11 3.71 76.12 12.57 71.26 39.79 17.46 69.41 1.93 54.57 59.26 96. No.6 77.35 73.36 27.2 0.59 1.45 27.55 6.95 94.38 6.94 47.84 71.71 75.11 9.78 1.88 0.99 48.94 3.74 68.87 22.8 3.58 73.69 4.52 39.8 91.14 IAMR .95 15.12 2.34 82.29 13.9 21.73 7.69 83.27 41.91 8.86 82.06 33.89 Rural Drinking 78.51 8.05 1.81 3.25 7.22 42.23 72.43 72.44 75.36 60.47 60.73 89.13 50.47 7.27 20.54 7.7 70.5 40.41 57.43 6.78 1.84 0.8: Percent Households with Access to Electricity.76 9.09 94.86 92.41 97.64 88.45 15.61 13.67 36.33 86.56 69.35 0.09 91.58 26.27 53.08 98.54 6.71 9.83 49.96 51.1 40.13 97.North Bengal Report Table 4.36 51. Drinking Water and Toilets Sr.03 15.66 48.89 66.34 73.87 28.93 73.32 60.

75 1.37 0.54 1.15 0.8 0.49 0.7 1.65 29.74 2.97 1.73 0.78 0.921 0.74 0.85 Rural Urban Rural Toilet 0.427 2.08 1.66 1.26 0.09 0.86 2.94 11.05 1.35 1.52 0.74 1.06 8.99 9.24 1.79 11.21 7.97 3.6 1.24 7 Average Rank Score 1.79 36 Urban Rural All three 0.28 1.624 0.809 2.21 0.078 1.99 1.43 1.11 0.04 1.33 0.05 0.02 1.18 5.24 0.56 6.94 1.7 0.92 1.41 1.9:Index Values of Households with Access to Electricity.03 0.09 0.75 0.712 2.91 0.64 1.12 24.62 0.09 1.48 Water 1.14 2.04 0.7 9 12 13 6 10 8 11 16 14 5 3 4 2 1 7 15 IAMR .08 0.38 1.23 2.7 30.76 0.1 2.63 0.53 0.37 0.16 0.52 0.83 1.71 0.03 0.15 1.816 1.18 0.47 1.47 1 7.19 0.15 0.99 0.45 0.38 5.21 3.09 0.91 1.18 1.64 0.82 0.25 1.89 0.44 0.94 0.38 1.8 Rural Urban Electricity 0. No.28 1.62 1.74 16.25 0.91 1.15 1.05 1.75 2.99 2.16 1. Drinking Water and Toilets Sr.09 24.27 1.16 1.21 1.88 1.16 0. Districts 1 Coochbehar 2 Darjeeling 3 Jalpaiguri 4 Malda 5 Dinajpur 6 Burdwan 7 Birbhum 8 Bankura 9 Midnapur 10 Howrah 11 Hoogli 12 24'Pgs (N) 13 24' Pgs (S) 14 Nadia 15 Murshidabad 16 Purulia Note: Based on Table 4.17 1.18 0.71 0.32 1.96 2.27 1.52 8.7 1.63 8.3 0.41 0.32 18.99 1.8 0.89 0.76 1.North Bengal Report Table 4.76 Urban None of Three(-) 0.27 28.37 0.5 0.52 1.18 0.18 1.11 1.79 0.97 1.74 1.9 9.13 0.16 10.056 0.47 0.12 1.22 2.05 0.79 1.127 1.68 7.668 0.61 7.78 1.465 2.86 0.8 0.68 0.99 5.732 1.89 10.27 10.074 1.18 1.03 0.34 0.96 0.11 1.06 0.78 11.94 0.04 1.05 Aggregate Score 10.08 0.29 1.96 0.07 0.18 1.11 0.14 Rural Urban Drinking 1.41 1.73 0.77 0.36 0.2 1.

percentage villages connected with Pucca road and access to Post Office are the 4 indicators available for 1999-2000.46 38.47 Percent Aggregate Average Rank Villages Score Score connected by pucca road 40.10 4.56 1.05 7 43. 1999-2000 37 Number of Post Offices per 100 Villages 31.34 5 Dinajpur 45. the density of roads.5.43 22.53 0.22 1.43 3 Jalpaiguri 98.02 12.79 10 Howrah 102.86 3.87 14.15 4 58.65 1.25 3.05 34.79 0.5 52.00 4.52 4.96 9 25.15 21.06 14.67 33.51 28.97 8 0.77 20.49 0.93 15.10).87 27. Table 4.50 0.61 1.North Bengal Report 4.88 12.87 12.90 15.89 8 Bankura 66.37 24.09 0.08 34.16 30.18 1 36.16 3 0.87 14. The proportion of electrified villages.32 4.38 46.20 3.5 30.6 Similar information is not however available for recent years.75 3.63 4.88 12.5 35.93 11 0.83 13.91 6 Burdwan 97.63 9 Midnapore 52. Districts Percent Road Villages length Electrified per sq.86 36.67 1.87 0.71 16.68 11.45 4.77 16 45.81 4 Malda 97.61 3.05 14 Nadia 93.14 5 36.5 75.70 1.78 15 Murshidabad 93.00 3.72 0.38 13.50 0.35 2 Darjeeling 82.94 36. No.94 3.95 10 IAMR .21 13 24-Parganas(S) 82.59 30.59 3.83 0.07 6 70.10: Indicators of Physical Infrastructure (1999-2000) Sr.59 7 Birbhum 99. West Bengal.73 26.17 2 65. A composite index of these four variables show that generally the districts in North Bengal have low index value compared to other districts in the State (Table 4.51 19.26 16.83 17.35 39. 1 Coochbehar 98. km.81 11 Hoogly 100.00 3.27 1.93 12 24-Parganas(N) 94.94 Source: Stattistical Abstract.54 4.13 29.51 20.24 16 Purulia 62.

1. Indira Avas Yojna (IAY) 3. Jawahar Gram Smridhi Yojana (JGSY) 4. National Family Benefits Scheme (NFBS) 5. 1.1. Creating Assets and Infrastructure building. National Maternity Benefits Scheme (NMBS) 6. National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS) 38 IAMR . Banks and other quasi-government organizations. Swaranjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) 2. we have included data for the last three financial years. 5. The main programmes for which district level information could be obtained from the secondary sources are listed below. funds available. particularly when multiple line departments float development programmes that over lap and have different implementation guidelines. All these are Central Sector Schemes. expenditure incurred. 5. etc.1 An important indicator of development is the status of performance relating to development programmes. and c. on the basis of the information like funds allocated funds released. broad indications are derivable from official statistics on the items like resource allocated.1. Panchyati Raj Institutions.2 The implementation of development programmes envisages a close-knit integration and coordination of various agencies viz. This chapter attempts to study these programmes in the context of five districts of North Bengal vis. Generation of supplementary wage employment and encouraging self- employment initiatives among unemployed. Since the data on this are dynamic and the position of available funds and their utilisation changes from month-to-month. NGOs. assets created.3 Social welfare/Assistance Schemes.1 Introduction 5. For purpose of this analysis.à-vis rest of Bengal. expenditure incurred and physical achievements. District Rural Development Agencies. employment generated. Although a detailed analysis at the grass-root level through beneficiary survey may be necessary for such an assessment. b. the programmes may be grouped as follows: a.North Bengal Report CHAPTER V Implementation of Central Schemes 5.

4 While the SGSY is essentially a programme aiming as self-employment initiatives and creating employment opportunities in rural areas. The funds released under this scheme went down to 78 percent in 2000-2001 and 86 percent in 2001-2002.North Bengal Report 5.1 provides the information for the three years i.2 The release of fund was only 45percent in the case of SGSY in the year 1999-2000 for North Bengal. 39 IAMR . The NFBS. Allocation for welfare-oriented programmes is more or less proportional to the population of these areas. 2000-2001 and 2001-02.2. which further reduced to 8. the NMBS and NOAPS are the welfare/assistance-oriented schemes. the IAY and JGSY are the programmes which focus on asset and infrastructure building in the target areas.2.1 Table 5. While for other programmes the release of funds varied largely between 60 to 90 percent with the exception of release 100 percent in case of NOAPS in the year 1999-2000. It is the least in the case of employment generation related programmes. 5. Analysis of the figures given in the Table reveals that substantial amount has been allocated for asset / infrastructure building programme in North Bengal as compared to the rest of Bengal. 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.1. In the process the job creation (in terms of man-days) also emerges as one of the objectives of JGSY. This trend is more or less the same in all the three years under study i.16 percent in 2000-2001. 1999-2000.e. 5. 1999-2000.2 Allocation and Release of Funds 5.e.

17 90.27 Nil Nil • I.A N.S 172.44 6261.SY.A.16 80.46 80.G.50 72.40 8711.19 • N.M.04 1668. Government of India 40 IAMR .87 7118. 88.S.F.93 7373.Y.70 77.95 87.Y.S 585.14 • I.Y.A.83 • N.16 9696.61 414.85 8584.63 72.S 100.O.61 414.71 172.F.44 8.26 80.65 100.82 583. 45.16 9.26 • N.A • N.73 2257.16 83.B.A N.65 • N.B.89 86.27 9108.S.98 66.32 8513.O.29 Amount Released (In percentages) • S.93 7373.18 525.88 83.B.42 740.57 8529.26 92.A N. 8711.18 585.S 92.40 N.1: Allocation and Release of Funds by Schemes (1999-2000 to 2001-2002) Scheme/ 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 Fund allocated/Released North Rest Bengal of North Rest Bengal Bengal of North Rest of Bengal Bengal Bengal Amount Allocated (In lakh of Rs) • S.05 86.A N.54 77.47 93.A • J.P.50 56.A • N.16 42.M.SY.B.G.A • J.A.S 82.01 4160.Y.A.62 N.G.89 N.North Bengal Report Table 5.48 7319.47 99.00 100.S 89.42 740.05 1040.P.60 Source: Ministry of Rural Development.26 N.84 86. 77.00 78.71 135.32 2513.G. 6686. 1956.

16 42.16) (109.North Bengal Report 5. Besides population size there would be other criteria for such allocations.19 30.65 34.2 About 54 percent of the State’s share under I.83 Darjeeling 19.26 23.20 15.55 18.81 10.Bengal Source: Ministry of Rural Development.89 18.00 100.00 100.80 10.06 18.33 18.90 22. District-wise allocation reveals large allocation to Coochbehar and Jalpaiguri.97 25.2: District wise Allocation of Funds For Different Schemes.00 100.27 23.65 30.91 21.01) (8711.00 100. Government of India. 2001-2002 Districts Schemes Percent Population SGSY IAY* JGSY NFBS NMBS* NOAPS (2001) Coochbehar 17.89 18.53 7.2 provides the relevant information.42) (525.26 23. this allocation seems to be related to population size.69 54.84 21.73) (14722015) 19.82 10.A.3. Lakh 5. With respect to the welfare oriented schemes.3.89 19.18 33.Bengal (1040.11 10.91 Jalpaiguri 17.79 Sub Total 100.89 11. Daerjeeling and Coochbehar districts have received relatively higher priority. which are characterized by heavy concentration of Scheduled Caste population.79 25.12 12.12 Malda 23. As regards district-wise allocation on employment generation schemes.98 26.1 The exercise of allocating amount at the district level is undertaken at the State headquarters.00 100. has been earmarked for the districts in North Bengal.93) (7118.3 District wise Allocation of Funds 5.71 23.05 18.05 16.97 25. * Relates to the Year 2000-2001.Y. Table 5.00 N.06 15. Table 5. 41 IAMR .46 As percent to Total W.35 Dinajpur 22.94) (172.00 100. Figures with in brackets are the absolute allocation in Rs.90 21.54 8.

4. the relative proportion of the amount spent to the funds available shows a declining trend through all the three years.4.3 Scheme-wise.3 gives scheme-wise expenditure as percentage of total fund during the year 1999-2000.à. in some cases since the former includes unspent amount from the previous year. (ii) JGSY.North Bengal Report 5.4 Amount Utilized vis. The amount of funds available is noted to be higher than the funds allocated for that year. There has also been a significant decline in the expenditure level of programmes dealing with social welfare. from 70 percent to 43 percent in case of JGSY during the same period. 5. 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.4. Table 5. It is noted to be sharper in case of NFBS being 43 percent during 2001-2002 in comparison to that of 79 percent in 1999-2000.Y.à-vis funds available is noted to be high in North Bengal as compared to that in rest of the Bengal in each of the schemes for every year with the exception of one instance in the year 1999-2000 and three cases for the year 2000-2001.à-vis Fund Available 5. This is noted to be from 45 percent in 19992000 to 15 percent in 2001-2002 in case of SGSY. 5.1 Amount utilized vis.2 The proportion of expenditure incurred vis. (iii) NOAPS for 2000-2001 where the proportion of expenditure was less in North Bengal. These are NMBS for the year 1999-2000 and (i) I.vis funds available is yet another indicator of the status of implementation of a programme. 42 IAMR .A. The amount spent was noted to be more than 100 percent in both the parts of Bengal for NFBS in the 2000-2001 but it was more than 100 percent in rest of Bengal for JGSY too. this decline in case of NOAPS was from 80 percent to 60 percent during this period.

02 78.33 3391.92 6760.17 72.Bengal 7786.25 160.47 R-Bengal 12912.98 54.93 108.91 15.52 60.66 70.20 88.11 13.13 87.84 9003.34 14. 20002001 and 2001-2002) 1999-2000 Scheme 2000-2001 2001-2002 Total Percent Total Fund Percent Total Fund Percent Fund Expenditure Available * Expenditure Available* Expenditure 2 3 4 5 6 7 N.14 8119.11 37.31 2860.89 62.81 NA NA R-Bengal 8207.Bengal 7810.59 79.26 6161.11 35.29 N.1 95. *** percent expenditure 5.24 42.59 449.84 658.North Bengal Report Table: 5. and NSAP are based on fixed criteria and the allocated amounts are released based on 43 IAMR .97 N.73 56.4.Bengal 258.26 84.92 R-Bengal 1009.Bengal 130.69 69.64 8078.95 67.20 1981. funds available In lakh of Rupees.82 79.4 It is to be noted that the allocation of funds by the Centre for SGSY.87 870.58 11353.69 10565.29 R-Bengal 13429.68 138.40 34.84 Available* 1 SGSY IAY JGSY NFBS NMBS NOAPS * Information relates to the year 2000-01. SGRY.60 NA NA R-Bengal 559.14 R-Bengal 3782.8 95.05 N.34 43. IAY.68 N.66 813.22 91.3: Scheme wise Expenditure as Percent of Total funds Available (1999-2000.61 9182.11 15.Bengal 857.18 2331.81 54.82 105.51 103.06 8621.62 N.169 93.Bengal 3380.38 67.09 31.

The reasons for low utilization of funds resulting in large opening balances and poor physical performance needs to be discussed with the officials at the district and state level.North Bengal Report unspent balances available. etc. crude birth rate.vis Central allocation under major poverty alleviation programmes (IRDP/SGSY. budget preparation is not given the attention it deserves and is left to Section Officers of the Department and Finance Department. The low releases of funds have a direct impact on physical progress. At the district level.5 The Central release vis. the Central assistance is allocated to the States/Union Territories on the basis of proportion of rural poor in a State to total rural poor in the country as per criteria decided by the Government from time to time. The latter would attempt to peg the outlay at the previous year’s level. ratio of population above the age of 65 years. 44 IAMR . The Central release to the State under the rural development programmes depends upon the utilization of the available funds and the release of State share wherever such sharing arrangement has been prescribed. However. The inability of the State Government to fully absorb the Central allocation would obviously have an impact on anti poverty programmes in the state. Under NSAP allocation of funds is made to the States and Union Territories on the basis of the parameters as that consider total population. should intervene and ensure that adequate provisions are made in the budget. EAS and IAY to West Bengal during the first four years of the Ninth Plan is given in Table 5. in some States.34 crore on account of less Central release vis. poverty ratio.4. mortality rate in the age group 18-6. The district-wise allocation is made by the State Government keeping view the requirements of the districts with a consideration of the parameters referred to above. In the case of IAY. 5. It is at this stage that the senior officials concerned in consultation with Finance and Planning.à.4 which reveals that the State had lost Rs. 594.4. poverty ratio as well as housing shortage are used as criteria for allocation. 5. the allocation is made on the basis of the index of backwardness formulated using equal weightage to the proportion of rural SC/ST population in a district to the total SC/ST population in the State and inverse of per capita production of agricultural workers in the district.6 The States have to make budgetary provision for the particular CSS. Under the SGSY and SGRY. SGSY/JGSY.à-vis Central allocation under four poverty alleviation programme during the first four years of the Ninth Plan period. at least in respect of schemes for which funds can be obtained as additionality.

Malda and Darjeeling spent only 5 percent.4: Central Allocation and Release under Major Poverty Alleviation Programme to West Bengal (Rs. District wise trends of amount utilized as observed from the above Table reveal that Coochbehar comes up as a most developed district wherein relatively higher available amounts have been utilized during the year 2001-2002. Darjeeling has performed the best by spending 98. Its spending was less only under NFBS and NOAPS.32 188. As against an average spending of 15 percent for the North Bengal as a whole 62 percent was spent under SGSY in Coochbehar.81 124.7 percent of the amount under NFBS.63 594.52 Difference 114.94 382. Contrary to this.5 percent under NFBS against an average of 43 percent spending for the district as a whole. Jalpaiguri. Crore) Year 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Total Central Allocation 374.1 Table 5.46 260. The only scheme in which Coochbehar has not utilized the funds in NFBS.48 448. the relative proportion being 27 percent as against 43 percent for the district as a whole.42 232.48 122. 84 percent under IAY. 100 percent of the amount was spent on NOAPS and NMBS in Jalpaiguri. 9 percent and 10 percent of the funds available under SGSY.79 431. 45 IAMR .5. 96 percent under NMBS. 45 percent under JGSY.5 District-wise utilization of funds 5. Interestingly under NMBS and NOAPS 100 percent amount was spent in Coochbehar.67 324.70 1637. Dinajpur has spent 30 percent under SGSY.91 Central Release 260.5 gives the percentage of expenditure to funds available for the district of North Bengal in the year 2001-2002. Similarly 98 percent of the amount was utilized under IAY as against the average of 85 percent spending for the district as a whole. and 88.07 1032.North Bengal Report Table 5.34 5.

29 A** 31.37 98.1 How the amount spent has been able to meet the targets is another issue for study in order to decide whether the programmes/schemes in operation are being implemented in an cost-effective manner.02 2826.03 41.98 43.96 77. **Fund available (in Rs lakh) .47 316.11 E*** 40.North Bengal Report Table 5.02 3391.29 37.47 59. 5. In contrast to this the achievement under IAY has been more 92 percent in the year 1999-2000 and above 60 percent in 2000-2001.26 87.05 810.08 1981.33 96.4 lakh in 2000-2001 to 29.31 SGSY IAY* JGSY NFBS NMBS* Cooch Darj- Jalpai- behar eeling guri A** 103.04 15. ***Percentage expenditure 5.72 86. It would be interesting to note that as against the large proportions of amount spent the achievements have not been very encouraging. Government of India.6 Performance under different schemes 5.20 98.63 28.35 33.39 777.21 E*** 62.83 32.08 99.34 5.6.78 44.09 83.24 658.36 3074.77 88.85 301. These achievements were relatively less when compared to that of rest of Bengal.30 699.2 Similarly under JGSY.88 84.36 8078.6 34.1 E*** 100. Same is the case with respect to the rest of Bengal.24 95.6 9.8 813.93 A** 3184.66 59.77 23. *Information relates to the Year 2000-2001.70 29.408 in 1999-2000 to 5841 in 2000-2001 and further gone down to 2317 in 2001-2002.60 95.6.23 51.5: District wise Percentage Expenditure on Different Scheme for the Year 2001-2002 Districts Dinaj- North Rest pur Bengal Bengal 570.47 14. The number of such cases declined from 75418 in 1999-2000 to 15389 in 2000-2001 and further to 5071 in 2001-2002 for the rest of Bengal.97 NOAPS A** 106.68 A** 26.67 870.69 1489.92 34.11 49.2 lakh in 20012002 in North Bengal.00 96.59 547.31 97.95 160.76 443.82 1482.35 E*** Malda Source: Ministry of Rural Development.41 138.50 34.58 68.82 225. despite substantial spending in 2000-2001 the number of mandays employment generated have declined from 46.85 8621.18 8.05 963.62 99.81 88.13 * E*** 99.77 9003.11 8119. The achievement in the case of welfare related/ 46 IAMR . This trend of decline is visible in the entire Bengal.37 138.34 11353.70* 88.40 E*** 27.28 34.10 43.28 18.03 42. Under the SGSY programme the number of self-employed assisted under the programme declined from 13.82 78.65 30.08 9.62 A** 2307.

Government of India.A N. **Number of houses constructed.A 2317 RB N.A 21230 N.A 113.A N.A N.A 89658 N.3 N. The related information is given the Table 5.A N.A 90.A N. 47 IAMR .6.A NB N.2 RB N.7 N.A 15389 N.A NB N.A N. Table 5. *Swarojgaries assisted.A 108765 N.A N.A 88826 N.A RB 78826 73464 N.North Bengal Report assistance oriented programmes was of the order of nearly 100 percent in the case of NOAPS.A 1460 1306 434 RB N.A 46.A 5071 WB N.4 N.0 N.A WB 96126 62653 96126 90783 N.A NB 62557 62405 N.6: Year wise target and achievement of different schemes Schemes 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 Target Achievement Target Achievement Target Achievement SGSY* N.A 61.A 7878 5607 3593 WB N.A WB 97193 87640 N.A N.3 WB N.A RB 44240 31517 44240 43293 N.A 9243 N.A 75418 N.A 65.A 5841 N.A N.A 9338 6913 4027 NB 18367 14176 N.A 268273 253465 248769 WB 331034 327944 N.9 N.A 330223 297329 308477 IAY** JGSY*** NFBS**** NMBS**** NOAPS**** Source: Ministry of Rural Development.A 48.A 19107 N.A N.A 32.A 7388 NB 52063 31136 51886 47490 N.A 136.A N. ***Lakh mandays employment generated. ****Number of beneficiaries.A 2111 N.5 NB N.A 29.A 7132 N.A 13408 N.9 N.A 61950 43864 59708 RB 268477 265539 N.

7. IAY is under category (ii) and NFPS and NMBS. As against an average spending of 15 percent for the North Bengal as a whole 62 percent was spent under SGSY in Coochbehar.7.7. the allocations for the other set of programmes include other criteria such as distribution of Scheduled Caste/Tribe population among others. 48 IAMR . 5.2 While for welfare/assistance programmes.7.S.1 Summing-up Three broad categories of Centrally sponsored programmes are under implementation (i) Aiming at employment generation/creation of supplementary wages employment.Y comes under category (i) of the above-mentioned types of programmes and JGSY under category (i) and (ii) both. and (iii) social welfare/ assistance oriented.4 The proportion of expenditure incurred vis. NOAPS are essentially welfare/assistance oriented programmes i. the relative proportion being 27 percent as against 43 percent for the region.5 Scheme wise. 5. S. the relative proportion of the amount spent to the funds available shows a declining trend through all the three years. allocations are on the basis of populations consideration.3 As regards districts-wise allocation. Malda and Dinajpur on the contrary have received lesser allocation as compared to other districts. Similarly 98 percent of the amount was utilized under IAY as against the average of 85 percent spending for the North Bengal as a whole. The only scheme in which Coochbehar has not utilized the funds in NFBS. These are NMBS for the year 1999-2000 and (i) I. 5. category (iii). (iii) NOAPS for 2000-2001 where the proportion of expenditure was less in North Bengal.A. Analysis of the three consecutive years reveals that release proportion have steadily declined from year to year.7.Y.G. infrastructure building and employment generation. (ii) Creating assets and infrastructure.à-vis funds available is noted to be high in North Bengal as compared to rest of the Bengal under each of the schemes for every year with the exception of one instance in the year 1999-2000 and three cases for the year 2000-2001. 5.7 5. The amounts allocated are released based on unspent balances available with the districts. (ii) JGSY.North Bengal Report 5. Coochbehar has received relatively higher priority in the case of both the programmes viz.e. Substantial amounts have been allocated for assets/ infrastructure building programmes but the allocations are lower in the case of employment generation related programmes.

5. Malda and Darjeeling spent only 5 percent.7 Under JGSY.4 lakh in 2000-2001 to 29. In contrast to this the achievement under IAY has been more 92 percent in the year 1999-2000 and above 60 percent in 2000-2001.7. This trend of decline is visible in the entire Bengal. These achievements were relatively less when compared to that of rest of Bengal.7. 49 IAMR .2 lakh in 2001-2002 in North Bengal. The number of such cases declined from 78385 in 1999-2000 to 15729 in 20002001 and further to 5071 in 2001-2002 for the rest of Bengal.441 in 1999-2000 to 5501 in 2000-2001 and further gone down to 2317 in 2001-2002. the number of man-days employment generated have declined from 46. 9 percent and 10 percent of the funds available under SGSY.6 Jalpaiguri. Under the SGSY programme the number of self-employed assisted under the programme declined from 10.North Bengal Report 5. Same is the case with respect to the rest of Bengal.

Agricultural productivity is low and has not been growing rapidly except in the districts of Jalpaiguri and Coochbehar. better placed from among the districts of North Bengal region in almost all important indicators. This would then call for better convergence between development agencies such as DRDA.1. particularly when we consider deposit credit ratio and per capita industrial credit.3 The region is not drought prone. 6. Despite such poor ranking of districts. 6. Darjeeling district scores better on many development indicators. where the growth rates in agricultural yield is comparable to the State averages.1 That the districts of North Bengal have lagged behind with regard to a number of development dimensions for over two decades is clear from the preceding analysis.1 Summing-up 6.1.1.1.North Bengal Report CHAPTER VI Concluding Observations 6. Darjeeling district is. It may be noted that at the macro level it has been repeatedly noted that.1. with Scheduled Caste segment concentrated in Coochbehar and Jalpauguri districts and the Tribal population in Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling districts. that there is a negative correlation between indicators of development and incidence of Scheduled Caste and Tribal population. financial institutions. 50 IAMR .1. however. 6. urban male migration and rate of growth of population in the districts of North Bengal have been higher than the rest of the State. 6. particularly on economic indicators. the disparity in input variables such as social infrastructure are not that sharp. the region is characterised by higher incidence of land-less labour as compared to landowning cultivators. but suffers from floods and soil erosion. From the agricultural point of view. However.2 The proportions of both Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population are higher in the districts of North Bengal regions.5 While the disparity between the North Bengal districts and the rest of the State is sharp when we consider outcome variables such as SDP.6 It is also clear from the preceding analysis within North Bengal.4 The situation of institutional credit is also poor in North Bengal as compared to the rest of the State. Panchayat and institutions. this has to be seen in the backdrop of lower densities of population in the districts of North Bengal. 6.

7 While for welfare/assistance programmes.2 From the Plan documents of the State. the probability of private investment in the crucial infrastructure sector hinges upon State level reforms.1 In the reduction of regional disparities within the State. have to be addressed separately. Coochbehar has received relatively higher priority in the case of both the programmes viz. it is necessary to recognize the fact that the economic reforms that accelerated in the early nineties is geared to accelerate growth in the economy . it would fail to address concerns of equity and at worst. 6. The concerns of equity will therefore. allocations are largely on the basis of population consideration. it is the State government as well as panchayat at District level that needs to evolve a medium term development strategy. Malda and Dinajpur on the contrary have received lesser allocation as compared to other districts. the allocations for the other set of programmes include other criteria such as distribution of Scheduled Caste/Tribe population among others. 6. The State government may like to consider strengthening such a regional development agency that could play a coordinating role for greater convergence of development efforts and to prepare a blueprint for regional development involving the district pnachayat of the districts in the region.2. Thus. Substantial amounts have been allocated for assets/ infrastructural building programmes but the allocations are lower in the case of employment generation related programmes. As observed earlier. regionally also there are ‘gainers and losers’. The Growth Centre approach may also be reviewed particularly in the context of adequacy of resources.2. Meanwhile. 51 IAMR .1. Analysis of the three consecutive years reveals that release proportion have steadily declined from year to year. we could identify two broad interventions in this context. infrastructure building and employment generation.8 As regards districts-wise allocation. The amounts allocated are released based on unspent balances available with the districts. 6. accentuate disparities. efforts to develop Growth Centres in the North Bengal region and a beginning to address the problems of the region. It is also clear that given the large backlog in the provision of social and physical infrastructure.at best.2 Towards Reducing Regional Disparities 6. development gravitates towards those pockets where a semblance of infrastructure is already available. since under-provided Growth Centre strategy is unlikely to attract investments.1.North Bengal Report 6.

Government of India 52 IAMR .North Bengal Report Annexure Source for all Tables in the Annexure is Ministry of Rural Development.

3 794.05 86.00 100.46 6. Bengal Allocation Release Total Expenditure Available funds 5 31.11 18.51 5.77 172.91 3.13 40.41 79.14 79.11 18.09 4.16 67.82 1009. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda N.00 50.42 740.26 912.55 204.87 682. 8 3.01 1.16 23.68 (Instalments) Total 4 31.48 142.89 153.17 76.8 258.13 40.95 IAMR .63 44.00 Total exp. No.55 79.00 Relative share of release to allocation 9 100.54 641.09 percent of exp.84 6 31. to total funds avail.63 44.45 3. Bengal R.78 6.59 100.2 Reported 3 31.44 23.38 1268.28 887.15 53 Relative share to Total funds 7 2.00 100.63 87.01 20.91 100.50 77.59 69.01 89.19 50.78 37. Bengal W.09 76.41 60.North Bengal Report National Social Assistance Programme Statement Financial and Physical Progress Name of the Scheme: NFBS Name of the State-West Bengal (1999-2000) (Rupees in lakh) S.17 48.3 30.78 18. 10 100 63.5 61.35 33.85 6.00 100.

93 7.93 18.32 0.28 92.32 Release Total Expenditure Available Fund (Instalments) Reported Total 4 5 6 16.42 15. No.00 100.77 11.86 6.66 61.07 44.00 100.98 66.72 21.38 54 Relative share to Total funds 7 3.61 414.03 20.52 5.45 726.41 353. to total funds avail. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda N.00 82. 10 63.00 Relative share of release to allocation 9 100.88 2.89 373.70 69.North Bengal Report National Social Assistance Programme Statement Financial and Physical Progress Name of the Scheme: NMBS Name of the State-West Bengal (1999-2000) (Rupees in lakh) S.85 130.25 62.61 35.71 507.00 Total exp.14 4.01 24.7 444.76 76.00 50.67 percent of exp. Bengal W.56 1.81 70.55 8.81 10.07 20.02 50.01 13.52 16.52 30.97 276.6 595.08 10.01 4.51 1.58 24.05 54. bengal Allocation 3 16. Bengal R.05 100.72 25. 8 3.03 100.53 10.00 82.59 63.12 1.97 84.15 IAMR .32 78.28 35.62 0.

48 81.79 5.99 684.33 73.04 244.63 3. Bengal W.18 3782.66 136.24 192.02 79.North Bengal Report Statement on Financial and Physical Progress Name of the scheme: NOAPS Name of the State: west Bengal (1999-2000) (Rupees in lakh) S.5 122.00 Total exp.00 Relative share of release to allocation 9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 percent of exp.22 63.92 2735.52 100.59 2513.12 5.72 99.19 61.20 195.87 72.5 4639.26 4.76 Expenditure Reported 6 104 204.98 100.97 1.17 3098.38 152.88 63.32 2513.99 62. bengal Allocation 3 105.14 204. Bengal R. 10 89.25 78. to total funds avail. 8 3.04 5.No.04 128.18 3098.60 20.92 136.28 98. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda N.20 18.50 4.03 128.68 55 Relative share to Total funds 7 2.40 2.73 IAMR .32 857.20 585.28 152.14 63.06 79.5 Release Total (Instalments) Available Total Of funds 4 5 105.04 585.66 115.76 3420.

78 6.84 6 31. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda N.54 641.59 87.19 50.2 Reported 3 31.00 (Rupees in lakh) Relative share percent of exp.North Bengal Report National Social Assistance Programme Statement Financial and Physical Progress Name of the Scheme: NFBS Name of the State-West Bengal (1999-2000) S.00 100 100.13 40.77 172.09 76.44 23. Bengal Allocation Release Total Expenditure Available of funds 5 31.01 60.00 63.16 23.63 44.63 67.91 3.55 204.26 912.48 100.89 153.87 682. 9 10 100.38 1268.15 56 Relative share to Total funds 7 2.5 61.95 IAMR .55 100.14 89.46 6.11 18.42 740. No.50 77.63 44.68 (Instalments) Total 4 31.8 258.82 1009.28 887.09 69.78 18. Bengal R.78 37.11 18.01 20.00 Total exp.59 100.3 794.91 100.13 40.3 30.51 5.45 3.17 76. Bengal W.09 4.17 48.01 1. of release to to total allocation funds avail.41 50.00 79.00 142. 8 3.05 79.85 6.41 79.16 86.35 33.

00 100.93 7. Districts Allocation 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda N.52 10.86 6.01 24.03 10.81 276.03 100.81 76.28 35. Bengal 3 16.62 0.32 5. 10 63.05 100.6 595.07 20.70 69.77 11.72 21.00 50.32 Release Total (Instalments) Available Total Of funds 4 5 16.66 61.00 82.00 82.25 62.52 30.15 IAMR .05 54.01 4.38 57 Relative share to Total funds 7 3.41 444.07 44.53 10.76 70.72 25.08 0.00 Relative share of release to allocation 9 100.59 63.61 414.85 130.67 percent of exp.98 66.88 2.97 373.00 100.89 353.55 24.00 Total exp.02 50.01 13.45 726.51 1.58 35.52 8.North Bengal Report National Social Assistance Programme Statement Financial and Physical Progress Name of the Scheme-NMBS Name of the State-West Bengal (1999-2000) (Rupees in lakh) S. to total funds avail.32 78. Bengal R.97 84. No.14 4.7 Expenditure Reported 6 16.93 18. 8 3.28 92.56 1.61 20.42 15. Bengal W.71 507.12 1.

32 2513.26 4.02 79.5 Release Total (Instalments) Available Total Of funds 4 5 105. Bengal W.66 136. Bengal R. 8 3.72 99.04 244. to total funds avail.87 72.20 195.24 192.66 115.59 2513.04 128.28 152.76 Expenditure Reported 6 104 204.5 4639.06 79.22 63.79 5.25 78.68 58 Relative share to Total funds 7 2.40 2.28 98.63 3.14 63.04 585.00 Relative share of release to allocation 9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 percent of exp.03 128.12 5. Bengal Allocation 3 105.92 136.No.14 204.18 3782.48 81.18 3098.North Bengal Report Statement on Financial and Physical Progress Name of the scheme: NOAPS Name of the State: west Bengal (1999-2000) (Rupees in lakh) S.04 5.98 100.60 20.20 585.99 62.97 1.92 2735.38 152. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda N.32 857.73 IAMR .76 3420.99 684.17 3098.19 61.52 100.88 63.00 Total exp. 10 89.50 4.33 73.5 122.20 18.

52 61.037 5200.070 57. Bengal 3900.05 14.130 49.11 1300. Bengal 780.53 Jalpaiguri 149.41 21.84 Darjeeling 137. to total funds available 15 62.42 31.52 Dinajpur 183.88 183.44 1.39 49.59 443.230 1.43 N.65 306.357 229.5 Total Relative share to Exp.034 4160.010 260.650 45.47 14.04 8.1 1040.01 R.18 9.5 100.17 9.710 198.69 Malda 172.18 78.33 IAMR .20 3.64 45.82 100. Total funds 9 10 64.21 316.96 2.13 133.00 59 Total exp.883 183.00 percent of exp.93 30.15 * No release of funds from Central and State Funds Available 8 103.370 5.360 5.44 3.51 19.North Bengal Report District-wise Financial Progress Under SGSY during 2001-2002* (Rupees in lakh) Districts Allocation Central Total State Total 1 2 3 4 Coochbehar 137.34 10100.14 W.61 1141 80.39 1447.65 15.47 547.76 1981.02 28.08 570.173 244.11 8119. Bengal 3120.003 1040.08 5.11 4. 11 4.

72 5.59 13.No 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest of Bengal W.84 22.39 69.North Bengal Report Physical Progress under SGSY during 1999-2000 S.83 42.95 6.64 percent of Women to Total 11 22.62 IAMR .65 5.79 8.50 33.27 8.30 44.Bengal Number of Swarojgaries Assisted TOTAL SC ST 5 3333 1228 863 5017 2967 10441 78385 88826 6 2242 103 602 1715 810 4662 21823 26485 7 4 8 50 431 397 493 4515 5008 WOMEN 8 765 84 196 2487 994 3532 33439 36971 60 percent of SC to Total 9 67.18 27.65 27.84 29.76 5.82 percent of ST to Total 10 0.38 4.66 41.12 0.57 33.71 49.76 34.

00 0 54.48 20.15 IAMR .84 31.18 88.53 37.00 0.10 12.29 85.87 5.53 0 78.00 61 percent of Women 11 89.North Bengal Report Physical Progress Under SGSY During 2000-2001 S.37 72.No 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda N total R total Total Number of Swarojgaries Assisted Physical Progress Total SC ST 5 2379 0 1732 1390 340 5501 15729 21230 6 1269 0 937 528 71 2734 4881 7615 7 0 0 217 104 8 321 740 1061 Women 8 2130 0 1354 1237 52 4721 10596 15317 Percentage percent percent of sc of St 9 10 53.70 5.70 35.34 0.03 4.82 67.35 49.99 7.99 15.88 2.

00 30.78 IAMR .35 9.10 0.61 5.No 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest of Bengal West Bengal No.81 8.03 26.31 62 percent of ST to total 7 3.60 4.71 0.00 7.05 21.20 7.13 18.07 20. of Beneficiaries reported SC 3 1774 938 0 1397 889 4998 17097 22095 ST 4 118 177 0 341 474 1110 7356 8466 Total 5 3282 4320 1936 4637 4932 19107 89658 108765 percent of SC to total 6 54.16 19.North Bengal Report National Social Assistance Programme Statement Physical Progress Name of the Scheme: NMBS Name of the State-West Bengal 2000-01 S.

32 33.00 0.27 6.North Bengal Report National Social Assistance Programme Statement on Physical Progress Name ot the scheme: NFBS Name of the State : West Bengal S.68 19.32 63 IAMR .39 2.44 31.36 23.98 15.18 12.58 9.10 0.17 3.No 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts No.29 7. of Beneficiaries reported 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest of Bengal West Bengal SC 3 151 97 0 102 111 461 967 1428 ST 4 10 55 0 9 60 134 550 684 Total 5 301 288 179 436 256 1460 7878 9338 Year 20002001 percent of percent of ST SC to to total total 7 8 50.00 23.06 43.

37 0.19 5.North Bengal Report National Social Assi stance Programme Statement on Physical Progress Name ot the scheme: NOAPS Name of the State : West Bengal (2000-01) S.08 4.27 10.50 21.39 5.54 5.74 24.65 3.70 5.00 0.00 35.69 64 IAMR .37 38.55 12.No 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest of Bengal West Bengal Achievement Number of Beneficieries SC ST Total 3 4 5 7576 496 11294 8679 491 14549 0 0 6708 5731 1715 16251 1670 706 13148 23656 3408 61950 57378 15398 268273 81034 18806 330223 percent of percent of SC to ST to total total 7 8 67.39 59.

50 2359.99 113.47 65 Man-days Generated (In lakh) 10 11.18 0.81 374.33 0.85 0.82 0.54 3.06 0.87 IAMR .2 0.71 14.47 0. (In lakh) 20002001 Exp.82 32. exp.23 1. 11 0.78 13074.88 2.47 0.22 0.60 14.12 29.79 7613.51 0.94 61.20 48.00 505.54 46.73 20. (In lakh) Man-days Man-days Man-days Man-days Generated generated Generated generated (In lakh) as percent of (In lakh) as percent of exp.86 Man-days Generated as percent of exp.76 3.35 0. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 940.6 4.North Bengal Report Physical Performance under JGSY 2001-2002 Sl.90 1631.75 0.87 1609. 1 1 2 3 4 5 District 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling DinajPur Malda North Bengal Rest Bengal West Bengal Exp.78 5.76 11472.53 2041.85 12 0.57 1.25 12.77 17628.78 6155.60 421.12 674.77 1.3 4.83 0.68 3732.03 1568. (In lakh) 19992000 Exp.87 427.29 1.07 0.88 90.85 0.26 0.75 5460.39 0.42 136.4 7.87 64.76 223.53 8009.No.35 324.65 0.89 0.94 4277.16 6.92 1315.91 930.

98 2.08 91.77 28.06 28.16 3.04 12.15 27.71 IAMR .27 Achievement as percent of target 8 64.12 133.59 23.00 9.67 1.23 3.19 52.51 Achievement as percent of target 2000-2001 Employment Generated (Lakh Man-days) Target 6 4.29 Achievement 4 0.81 18.57 25.30 4.83 86.75 57.74 192.23 28.73 116. Districts 2001-2002 Employment Generated (Lakh Man-days) 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest Bengal West Bengal Target 3 11.82 0.56 5 8.85 7.51 99.56 87.58 39.9 103.86 7.93 49.55 139.06 9.39 1.4 12.North Bengal Report Employment Assurance Scheme S.66 132.62 2.48 26.99 9.89 61.No.75 66 Achievement 7 3.29 2.54 89.11 9.46 9.

86 94.53 97.18 IAMR .39 3.44 67 1999-2000 No.30 92.86 91. of Houses Targeted Achievement 3 4 17870 19531 15775 15077 6351 2877 7949 7370 3941 2635 51886 47490 44240 43293 96126 90783 Houses constructed as percent of target 5 109.97 44.No.98 59.29 95. of Houses Targeted Achievement 6 7 17799 16014 15711 6974 6710 217 7917 5537 3926 2394 52063 31136 44064 31517 96127 62653 Houses constructed as percent of target 8 89.94 60.80 71. 1 1 2 3 4 5 District 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest Bengal West Bengal 2000-01 No.72 66.North Bengal Report INDIRA AWAAS YOJANA Physical Progress Sl.58 45.23 69.53 65.

00 30.00 7.60 4.05 21.10 0.North Bengal Report National Social Assistance Programme Statement Physical Progress Name of the Scheme: NMBS Name of the State-West Bengal (2000-01) S.61 5.13 18.31 68 percent of ST to total 7 3.81 8.No 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest of Bengal West Bengal No.03 26.20 7. of Beneficiaries reported SC 3 1774 938 0 1397 889 4998 17097 22095 ST 4 118 177 0 341 474 1110 7356 8466 Total 5 3282 4320 1936 4637 4932 19107 89658 108765 percent of SC to total 6 54.35 9.78 IAMR .71 0.07 20.16 19.

98 15.06 43. of Beneficiaries reported 2 Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest of Bengal West Bengal SC 3 151 97 0 102 111 461 967 1428 ST 4 10 55 0 9 60 134 550 684 Total 5 301 288 179 436 256 1460 7878 9338 percent of percent of ST SC to to total total 7 8 50.17 3.No 1 1 2 3 4 5 Districts No.29 7.58 9.00 0.36 23.32 33.00 23.10 0.18 12.39 2.North Bengal Report National Social Assistance Programme Statement on Physical Progress Name ot the scheme: NFBS Name of the State : West Bengal 2000-01 S.44 31.32 69 IAMR .27 6.68 19.

55 12.39 59.65 3.27 10.54 5.North Bengal Report National Social Assistance Programme Statement on Physical Progress Name ot the scheme: NOAPS Name of the State: West Bengal (2000-01) S.08 4.19 5.70 5.37 38.37 35.50 21.74 24.39 5.69 70 IAMR .No 1 2 3 4 5 Districts Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest of Bengal West Bengal Number of Beneficieries SC ST Total 7576 8679 5731 1670 23656 57378 81034 496 491 1715 706 3408 15398 18806 11294 14549 6708 16251 13148 61950 268273 330223 percent of percent of SC to ST to total total 67.

76 5.79 8.65 5.71 49.95 6.62 IAMR .12 0.84 22.39 69.18 27.76 34.BTotal TOTAL SC ST WOMEN Number of Swarojgaries Assisted 3333 1228 863 5017 2967 10441 78385 88826 2242 103 602 1715 810 4662 21823 26485 4 8 50 431 397 493 4515 5008 765 84 196 2487 994 3532 33439 36971 71 percent of SC to Total 67.57 33.38 4.59 13.No 1 2 3 4 5 Districts Coochbehar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Dinajpur Malda North Bengal Rest of Bengal W.50 33.83 42.27 8.66 41.64 percent of Women to Total 22.84 29.North Bengal Report Physical Progress under SGSY during 1999-2000 S.72 5.65 27.82 percent of ST to Total 0.30 44.

On Construction of District Development Index in West Bengal. XXXIII. pp. A District Level Study and Comparison with Inter-state Variation.3019-3026.Ray.North Bengal Report References Cited Banerjee Sarmila and S. Bhattacharya. (1998). November 21-27/December 4. November 21-27/December 4. XXXIII.3027-3032 72 IAMR . Economic and Political Weekly. Basabi (1998) Urbanisation and Human Development in West Bengal. pp. Economic and Political Weekly.