Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India: A Study ...

Monograph Series No. - 105

Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India: A Study on Inter-state and Intra-state Analysis

S V Hanagodimath

Centre for Multi Disciplinary Development Research (CMDR) R.S.No. 9A2, Plot No. 82 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar

Near Yalakki Shettar Colony Dharwad-580004 Karnataka State, India.

www.cmdr.ac.in

September - 2019

CMDR Monograph Series No. - 105 All rights reserved. This publication may be used with proper citation and due acknowledgement to the author(s) and the Centre For Multi-Disciplinary Development Research (CMDR), Dharwad © Centre for Multi-Disciplinary Development Research (CMDR), Dharwad ISBN No. : "978-81-935209-9-4"

First Published : September – 2019

Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India: A Study on Inter-state and Intra-state Analysis

S V Hanagodimath

Centre for Multi DisciplinaryDevelopment Research (CMDR)

R.S.No. 9A2, Plot No. 82 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Near YalakkiShettar Colony

Dharwad-580004 Karnataka State, India.

www.cmdr.ac.in

September - 2019

CMDR Monograph Series No.- 105

All rights reserved. This publication may be used with proper citation and due

acknowledgement to the author(s) and the Centre For Multi-Disciplinary Development

Research (CMDR), Dharwad

© Centre for Multi-Disciplinary Development Research (CMDR), Dharwad

ISBN No.:"978-81-935209-9-4"

First Published : September– 2019

1

Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India:

A Study on Inter-state and Intra-state Analysis

S V Hanagodimath1

ABSTRACT:

No country/state is an exception for the challenge of regional imbalances. In the

recent years, in India, the problem of intra-state REGIONAL DISPARITY is more serious

than the inter-state disparity. In the present study inter-state and intra-state disparities

have been analysed for per capita state and district domestic products. This study is a

unique of its kind, which traces the inter-state, intra-state and intra-division regional disparity for Indian states.

The study found that inter-state disparity in per capita income has increased in

India over the period of time in India. With respect to intra-state disparity no state is an

exception for it. Quantum of imbalances differs, in some states it has become a serious

challenge. States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Himachal Pradesh have higher

disparity. Whereas, states like Kerala, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Jammu Kashmir have lower intra-state disparity.

To measure the regional disparity more meaningfully and to suggest the proper

policy, strong data base at different disaggregated level is the prerequisite. For this

purpose, first of all, district (as well as taluk) domestic product should be calculated /

estimated every year. At present, only some states like, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh,

Telangana calculate district domestic product every year. Hence, CSO should make

proper guidelines and give appropriate training to the officials of Directorate of

Economics and Statistics of all states. Thus, one can see the per capita income level of

all the districts of the country and also these districts can be ranked. Through this, intra-

state disparity can properly be addressed more meaningfully.

The present study has observed that in most of the states, the divisions, which

have the higher per capita income, have the higher quantum of regional disparity. This

is because of centralisation of industrial units in one place. Moreover, economic

activities are concentrated only in some selected place. Hence, to achieve the balanced

regional development- proper infrastructure facilities (to increase the income and

employment opportunities) should be developed in all the regions/divisions based on

potentiality and necessity. Increasing of number of administrative divisions (wherever is

necessary) is needed for decentralised governance. Further, decentralised

administration will be helpful in reduction of regional imbalances. Hence, number of

administrative divisions should be increased based on agro-climatic zones. Along with

other policies and programmes, these initiatives will be helpful in achieving the BALANCED REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

1Assistant Professor, CMDR, Dharwad, Karnataka, India

Author is very much grateful to Prof. P R Panchamukhi, Prof. G K Kadekodi, Prof. V B Annigeri and Prof. N S Nayak for their useful comments and suggestions for this Monograph.

2

Introduction:

India is a vast country with diversification in geographical contours, languages and

also several socio-economic conditions. Further, diversification can be found not only

between states (inter-state) but also between districts and taluks (intra-state). Every region

has its own identity and uniqueness in consumption, spending patterns and economic

activities. In such circumstances, measurement of national accounts statistics becomes very

difficult2. However, we have a very good mechanism

3 for the national accounts calculation

thanks are due to Central Statistical Organisation (CSO). The contribution of CSO is highly

appreciated for its handling of systematic and scientific measurements of national accounts

statistics in India since independence. Further, at the state level, Directorate of Economics

and Statistics of many states are estimating the district domestic products for their respective

states under the guidance of CSO.

However, some states do not calculate district domestic product every year. In recent

years, several socio-economic policies and programmes are being planned implemented at the

grass-root level, even up to blocks and villages. Hence, availability of data on different socio-

economic measures at district and sub-district levels is important in general and per capita

income or domestic product in particular. This is helpful to understand the intra-state regional

disparity in economic growth. Further, it also improves the process of framing and

implementing of policies and programmes at the grass-root level.

Brief Review of Earlier Studies:

There are a plethora of studies on regional imbalances in India at the inter-state levels

[see among others, Ahluwalia (2002), Dholakia (1977), Dholakia (1985), Rao, Ric and

Kalirajan (1999), Sachs, Jeffrey, Bajpai and Ramaiah (2002), Singh (1999)]. Further there are

good number of studies, which have examined the intra-state disparities taking district as the

unit of the study for individual states. But there is a scarcity of studies, which have studied

the intra-state disparity in incomes taking into consideration of all Indian states.

However, there are studies, which have analysed the intra-state disparities taking into

consideration of more than one state (but not all states). Kanbur and Venables (2005) found

2 Major difficulties in calculation of national income are different consumption patterns of food and non-food

commodities, assigning weight to different commodities and so on. 3 CSO successfully modifies the methodology of calculation of National Income over the period of time.

3

that regional disparity in income and social indicators are increasing in most developing and

transition economies world over. India is not an exception for growing regional disparity.

Suryanarayana (2009) analysed the intra-state regional disparities in Karnataka and

Maharashtra. The study reveals that even though Karnataka and Maharashtra are in some

better-off positions in terms of mean-based estimates of average income, they have

experienced inter-regional disparities, interpersonal inequalities and intra-regional

deprivations. Dubey (2009) using the National sample survey (NSS) consumption data,

analysed the intra-state disparity for Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Orissa and Punjab. The study

found that not only inter-state disparities but also intra-state disparities are increasing in

India. Bhattachary (2009) has also observed increasing intra-state disparities in government

expenditure taking into consideration of six north Indian states. Using NSSO data, Chaudhuri

and Gupta (2009) estimated poverty ratios for districts, and found wide spatial disparity in the

levels of living of the Indian districts, both within and across the states. The study indicated

that the range of disparity at the sub-state level within a state is often more serious than the

disparity between the states. However, as it has been already mentioned that there is a

scarcity of studies, which have studied the intra-state disparity in per capita income, taking

into consideration of all Indian states (with comprehensive approach).There is a need for a

study, which should analyse the intra-state disparities for Indian states with per capita income

and its (intra-state disparity) association with economic growth of the nation. Hence, the

present study is an attempt to fulfil this research gap.

Data and methodology:

The study is entirely based on secondary sources of data. State-wise domestic product

and population data have been collected from ‘Hand book of statistics on Indian economy’ of

RBI (Reserve Bank of India). GSDP and per capita GSDP data have been used from 1993-94

to 2015-16 at constant prices of 2011-12. For this purpose base shifting and GSDP deflator

methods have been used. District wise domestic product and population data have been

collected from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES) of respective state

governments. All the states do not estimate the district domestic products every year. Among

the available district domestic product data, latest year data have been used (see appendix

table 1 for source of data for different states for district domestic product). Comparison of

districts ‘within the state’ has been made; not for ‘inter-state’. For intra-state analysis, only

those states are selected, which have the data on district level domestic product, are selected.

4

For more meaningful analysis districts are categorised into four groups namely Very

High, High, Above Average, Below Average, and Very Low. For this purpose all the states

are first divided into two groups on the basis of state average index values - one above the all-

India average and the other below the all-India average. Then two more averages are worked

out, one for the group of states whose values are above the all-India average and another for

the group of states whose values are below the all-India average. The states whose values are

above and below the former average are classified as ‘Very High’ and ‘Above Average’

states, respectively. The states whose values are above and below the latter average are

classified as ‘Below Average’ and ‘Very Low’ states respectively.

Different tools such as ratios, averages, percentage, compound annual growth rates

(CAGR), coefficient of variation (CV) and correlation coefficient are used. Further, for the

pictorial presentation line, bar and scatter diagrams have been used. Thematic maps have

been used to mark the regions on the basis of level of development and quantum of disparity.

This study has been divided into 4 sections; apart from introduction; section II is

devoted to inter-state imbalances in India; while in section III, quantum of regional disparity

at intra-state has been discussed; last section concludes the present study with way forward.

II. Inter-state Imbalances:

Before initiating the analysis on intra-state disparities in economic growth, a

discussion on inter-state disparities gives a proper picture of the regional disparity in India at

a macro level. This section provides the information related to it.

Per capita income is one of the good indicators of measurement of economic growth

of any region. In figure 1, per capita income of Indian states for the year 2015-16 (at 2011-12

prices) has been presented. It is found that Goa, Delhi, Chandigarh, Sikkim and Haryana are

found to be the top category states with per capita income of more than Rs. 1,30,000 in 2015-

16. On the other hand, states like, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Uttar Pradesh and

Bihar are observed in the bottom position with per capita income of less than Rs. 50,000 in

the same period. Through this figure, it is clear that there is existence of huge inter-state

disparity in India.

5

Source: Computed from the data available from Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy, RBI

Box 1: State-wise Categorisation of PCI Low PCI Below average PCI Above average PCI High PCI

Bihar, Uttar Pradesh,

Manipur,Madhya

Pradesh, Assam,

Jharkhand,Odisha,

Meghalaya,Jammu&

Kashmir

(PCI Between Rs.

24572-Rs.60171)

[9 States, (329%)]

Nagaland, Tripura,

Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan,

Andhra Pradesh, Punjab,

Arunanchal Pradesh

(PCI Between Rs.

61363- Rs.99823)

[7 States, 23%]

Andaman & Nicobar Island,

Telangana, Tamil Nadu,

Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh,

Kerala, Maharashtra, Gujarat,

Uttarakhand, Puducherry, Haryana

(PCI Between Rs. 107873-

Rs.133591)

[11 States, (35%)]

Sikkim,

Chandigarh,

NCT of Delhi,

Goa

(PCI Between

Rs. 193569-

Rs.267329)

[4 States, (13%)]

24,572

36,850

45,652

46,324

48,465

50,817

58,165

59,373

60,171

61,363

64,173

67,185

68,048

86,118

99,372

99,823

107,873

111,454

113,303

114,478

119,777

121,514

122,148

126,306

126,880

133,591

193,569

193,604

234,328

267,329

0 30

00

0

60

00

0

90

00

0

12

00

00

15

00

00

18

00

00

21

00

00

24

00

00

27

00

00

Bihar

Uttar Pradesh

Manipur

Madhya Pradesh

Assam

Jharkhand

Odisha

Meghalaya

Jammu and Kashmir

Nagaland

Tripura

Chhattisgarh

Rajasthan

Andhra Pradesh

Punjab

Arunachal Pradesh

A & N Islands

Tamil Nadu

Karnataka

Himachal Pradesh

Kerala

Maharashtra

Gujarat

Uttarakhand

Puducherry

Haryana

Sikkim

Chandigarh

Delhi

Goa

Per Capita GSDP

Stat

es

Figure 1: State wise per GSDP for the year 2015-16 at constant prices capita of 2011-12

6

Map1: Thematic Map of Per Capita Income of Indian States, 2015-16

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data


The gap between the highest and the lowest per capita income among the states [Goa (Rs.

2,67,329) and Bihar (Rs. 24,572)] is around 11 times. Goa’s per capita income is 11 fold

higher than that of Bihar’s per capita income.

7

In figure 2, share of population and share of GDP of different states have been presented for

the year 2015-16 to see the performance of different states in domestic product. Out of the

selected 33 states and union territories, except 12 states (Sts) and Union Territories (Uts),

remaining 21

Sts and Uts

have higher

share of

GDP than

their

population

share in the

country. The

GDP

contribution

of Bihar is

only 3.07 per

cent,

whereas, its

population

share is 8.60

per cent to

the nation.

On the other

hand, Goa

contributes

0.54 per cent

of GDP with

only 0.12 per

cent of

population

share. Uttar

Pradesh,

Madhya

Pradesh and Bihar are bigger states in terms of population, while they contribute lower share

Figure 2: State-wise share of GDP and Share of Population in Indian states,

2015-16 (constant prices of 2011-12)

Source: Source: Computed from the data available from Handbook of Statistics on Indian

Economy, RBI

8

of the national GDP than their population share. Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat are

bigger states in terms of population share, which contribute higher share of GDP to the

nation.

In figure 4, ratio between GSDP and Population has been presented. It is found from the

figure that Goa

(4.46) has the

highest4 GSDP -

population ratio

followed by

Chandigarh, Delhi,

Pondicherry, A & N

Islands and Sikkim.

On the other side,

Bihar (0.36) has the

lowest GSDP -

population ratio

followed by Uttar

Pradesh, Assam,

Manipur and

Madhya Pradesh.

To see the regional

imbalances,

computing of

coefficient of

variation (CV)5 is a

commonly used

method by many researchers, which has been presented in figure 4. Coefficient of variation

has been calculated for the years from 1993-94 to 2015-16. It is found from the figure that at

4GSDP-Population Ratio has been calculated using these steps, firstly, share of each state’s GDP has been

calculated dividing GSDP with GDP and multiplying it with 100. Secondly, share of each state’s population has been calculated dividing state population with national population and multiplying it with 100. Further, in the third step, share of GDP has been divided with share of population to arrive GDP population ratio. 5Calculation of Coefficient of Variation (CV) % =

, where, σ-Standard Deviation, µ-means

Source: Appendix Table 3

9

the initial years of the study period, inter-state disparity is low (CV%-50.48%), which

increased significantly in the year 1998-99 (CV-61.53%). Afterwards, it (CV %) started to

decrease, which reached to 52.95 per cent in the year 2013-14. Further, it again increased and

reached to 57.10 per cent in the year 2015-16. Totally, inter-state disparity has increased from

the initial year to the recent year. To see the trend for this data, a curve trend line has been

drawn. Trend line is found to be in inverted ‘U’ shape.


For more meaningful analysis, states have been categorised into four groups on the basis of

average of per capita GSDP and its growth rate from the year 1993-94 to 2015-16.

Categorisation has been made as follows,

Group I High Per capita Income

and High Growth Rate Best (Virtuous Cycle)

Group II High Per capita Income

and Low Growth Rate Lopsided Growth Rate

Group III Low per capita income

and High Growth Rate Lopsided Per capita Income

Group IV Low per capita income

and Low Growth Rate Worst (Vicious Cycle)

50.48

61.53

52.95

57.10

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

19

93

-94

19

94

-95

19

95

-96

19

96

-97

19

97

-98

19

98

-99

19

99

-00

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

20

10

-11

20

11

-12

20

12

-13

20

13

-14

20

14

-15

20

15

-16

CV

(%)

Years

Figure 4: Inter-state imbalances in per capita GSDP from 1993-94 to 2015-16

10

Results from using above mentioned methodology have been presented in table 1. The table

reveals some of the interesting observations as follows,

It is found that 10 states (32%) are in the Best category, where both average Per

Capita Income and its Growth Rates are above the national average. This group can

also be called as virtuous cycle.

On the other hand, 13 states/union territories (42%) are observed in the worst

category. This category can also be called as vicious category, because in this

category both Per Capita Income and its Growth Rates are below the national average.

Six states (23%) are found in the Lopsided Growth Rate, (group II), where, High Per

Capita Income and Low Growth Rate can be seen.

Further, only Tripura is found in the Lopsided Per capita Income, (group III), where,

Low Per Capita Income and High Growth Rate is observed.

Table 1: Categorisation of states and union territories based on their average per capita

GSDP and average Growth Rate of GSDP from 1993-94 to 2015-16

↓G

row

th R

ate

fro

m 1

99

3-9

4 t

o 2

015-1

6↓

Hig

h G

row

th R

ate

↓

Tripura

Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal

Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra,

Pondicherry, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu,

Uttarakhand

low per capita income and High

Growth Rate (1 State, 3%)

High Per capita Income and High Growth

Rate (10 Sts and Uts, 32%)

Low

Gro

wth

Rate

↓ Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,

Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir,

Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh,

Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland,

Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh

A & N Islands, Arunachal Pradesh,

Chandigarh, Goa, Karnataka, Punjab

low per capita income and Low Growth

Rate (13 Sts and Uts, 42%)

High Per capita Income and Low Growth

Rate (6Sts and Uts, 23%)

Low Per capita GSDP ↑ High Per capita GSDP ↑

↑Per Capita GSDP from 1993-94 to 2015-16↑

Source: Calculated based on appendix Table 2

11

To see the

association

between Per

capita GSDP

and its growth

rates in the

selected time

period a scatter

diagram has

been prepared

and presented in

figure 5. From

the figure log

liner curve is

observed it is

found that there

is a positive

association

between per capita income and its growth rate.

Intra-state Imbalances:

In the recent years, policies and programmes are being framed and implementation at

the gross root level. In such situations, identification of the economic growth with respect to

sub-state level becomes very important to analyse. In the recent years, most of the states have

estimated the district domestic products. However, some of the states have not estimated the

district domestic products. Gujarat is the state, which does not have district domestic product.

Though, most of the major states have estimated the district domestic product, very less

numbers of states estimate it every year. Hence, comparison of district domestic product at

inter-state level has not been carried out in the present study. The comparison has been made

‘within the state’ not for ‘inter-state’ comparison. First of all, the quantum of regional

imbalances, which exist in different states has been discussed. For this purpose, coefficient of

variation of per capita district domestic products of each state has been calculated and

presented in figure 6 (appendix table 3). It is found from the figure that out of 18 selected

Figure 5: Per capita GSDP and its growth rate for selected Indian

states


12

16.82

17.57

20.84

25.3

25.37

28.01

28.43

32.93

33.98

35.78

39.25

42.65

43.48

45.4

48.94

56.55

73.2

90.35

0 20 40 60 80 100

Kerala

Punjab

Andhra Pradesh

Rajasthan

Jammu Kashmir

Jharkhand

Haryana

Tamil Nadu

West Bengal

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Uttarakhand

Karnataka

Odisha

Telangana

Himachal Pradesh

Bihar

Uttar Pradesh

CV %

Stat

es

Figure 6: Intra-state Regional Imbalances in Different States in India for Per capita District Domestic Product (CV %)

Indian states, Bihar has the highest intra-district disparity and Kerala has the lowest intra-

state disparity.

Income disparity

of Uttar Pradesh

is 5.4 fold higher

than that of the

disparity of

Kerala. Among

the selected 18

states, Uttar

Pradesh, Bihar

and Himachal

Pradesh have

higher intra-state

disparity. These

states have the

coefficient of

variation more

than 45 per cent.

On the other

hand, states like

Kerala, Punjab,

Andhra Pradesh,

Rajasthan and

Jammu Kashmir

have lower intra-

state disparity.

These states have

the coefficient of

variation less than

26 per cent.


13

Map 2: Thematic Map of Intra-State Disparity in India (Selected States)


Box 2: Categorisation State in Intra-State Disparity in PCI (Selected States)

Low Intra-State

Disparity

Below average Intra-

State Disparity

Above average Intra-

State Disparity

High Intra-State

Disparity

Kerala, Punjab,

Andhra Pradesh,

Rajasthan,

Jammu Kashmir

[5 States, 28%]

Jharkhand, Haryana,

Tamil Nadu, West

Bengal, Madhya

Pradesh

[5 States, 28R]

Telangana, Odisha,

Karnataka,

Uttarakhand,

Maharashtra

[5 States, 28%]

Uttar Pradesh,

Bihar, Himachal

Pradesh

[3 States, 17%]

14

Each State-wise Analysis:

In this section, each state-wise intra-state disparity has been analysed. Many states

have grouped the districts into different administrative divisions to implement the

government policy and programmes more effectively with decentralised approach. Some

states have no administrative setup between district and the state government. Some states

have been excluded in the analysis of inter-district disparity and inter-division disparity due

to non-availability of the data. Based on the developmental status (per capita income),

districts have been categorised into four different categories namely, ‘Very High Per capita

Income,’ ‘Above Average Per Capita Income’, ‘Below Average Per Capita Income’ and ‘Very

Low Per Capita India’ per capita income . They have been depicted in the thematic maps. For

this purpose, ‘QGIS’ software has been used.

Andhra Pradesh:

ANDHRA PRADESH is found in the group of medium developed states with the population

share of 4.10 per cent and GDP share of 4.37 to the nation. The state has less intra-state

disparity compared to other states. Its position is 3rd

out 18 selected Indian states.

Table 4: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Andhra Pradesh, 2015-16 (2011-12 prices)

Districts PCI (Rs.) Rank

Srikakulam 63411 13

Vizianagaram 65320 12

Visakhapatnam 121373 1

East Godavari 88021 6

West Godavari 98477 4

Krishna 108924 2

Guntur 89242 5

Prakasam 83796 7

S.P.S.Nellore 99204 3

Y.S.R 73706 9

Kurnool 69821 10

Ananthapuramu 68479 11

Chittoor 80986 8

State 87217

Average 85570

CV (%) 20%


District wise per capita income has been presented in table 4 and its categorisation has been

presented in thematic map 3. There are thirteen districts in Andhra Pradesh among them,

Visakhapatnam is in the first position and Srikakulam is in the last position.

15

Categorisation in per capita income of different districts within the states reveals that,

Two districts (15.4%) are found in the high per capita income category, they are

Visakhapatnam and Krishna.

East Godavari, Guntur, West Godavari and Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore are the four

(30.8%) districts, which are found in the category of above average per capita

income.

Three districts (23.1%) namely, Y.S.R., Chittoor and Prakasam observed in below

average Per capita income category.

Remaining four districts (30.8%) are in the last category i.e., Very low per capita

income, the districts are Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Anantapur and Kurnool.

Thematic Map 3: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Andhra

Pradesh (within the state)


16

BIHAR is the least developed state in India. It ranks last in per capita GSDP. Further, it should

be noted that with respect of intra-state disparity the state is found in the 17th

position out of

18 selected Indian states. The state contributes 8.60 per cent of population and only 3.07 per

cent of GDP to the nation. The state has the lowest per capita income and higher intra-state

disparity among Indian states.

Table 5: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Bihar, 2015-16 (2011-12 prices)

Districts/Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank


Patna 59531 1

Gaya 10570 13

Nalanda 11186 8

Jehanabad 9941 17

Bhojpur 11026 10

Arwal 8123 34

Buxar 9950 15

Nawada 8563 29

Rohtas 12303 6

Aurangabad 9739 18

Kaimur 9216 24

Magadh Division

Patan Division

Average 9387

Average 18869

CV (%) 10.79

CV (%) 105.72

Saran 9407 23

Muzaffarpur 13797 5

Siwan 9571 20

E.Champaran 9510 22

Gopalganj 10794 12

W.Champaran 8860 28

Saran Division

Sitamarhi 8512 31

Average 9924

Sheohar 6333 38

CV (%) 7.63

Vaishali 11152 9

Tirhut Division

Darbhanga 9696 19

Average 7638

Madhubani 8243 32

CV (%) 26.25

Samstipur 9565 21

Darbhanga Division

Begusarai 15601 3

Average 9168

Munger 18860 2

CV (%) 8.76

Sheikhpura 8539 30

Lakhisarai 11666 7

Bhagalpur 15332 4

Jamui 8872 26

Banka 8218 33

Khagaria 10202 14

Bhagalpur Division

Munger Division

Average 11775

Average 12290

CV (%) 42.72

CV (%) 33.47

Purnea 9048 25

Saharsa 10807 11

Kishanganj 8865 27

Supaul 7542 37

Araria 7875 35

Madhepura 7642 36

Katihar 9949 16

Kosi Division

Purnia Division

Average 8664

Average 8934

CV (%) 21.43

CV (%) 9.52



presented in thematic map 4. Out of 38 districts in the state, Patna is found in the first

position and Sheohar is found in the last position in per capita income. Categorisation in per

capita income of different districts within the states reveals that,

17

Thematic Map 4: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Bihar

(within the state)


Categorisation in per capita income of different districts within the states reveals that,

Patna is the only district, which is found in the very high per capita income category.

Lakhisarai, Rohtas, Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Begusarai and Munger are the six

districts (15.8%), which are observed in the

above average category.

42 per cent (16) of districts are found

in the below average category.

15 (40%) district are observed in the

Very low per capita income category.

This state has nine administrative divisions,

among them Patana division has higher per

capita income and Kosi has the lowest per

capita income (table 5). Further, it should be

noted that Patana division has the highest

inter-district disparity and Saran division has the lowest inter-district disparity (Figure 7).

7.63

8.76

9.52

10.79

21.43

26.25

33.47

42.72

105.72

0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00

Saran

Darbhanga

Purnia

Magadh

Kosi

Tirhut

Munger

Bhagalpur

Patna

Figure 7: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Bihar

18

HARYANA is another north Indian state, which is found to be in the top group of states with

respect to per capita income. The state is found in the 7th

position in intra-state disparity out

of 18 selected Indian States. The state contributes 2.09 per cent of population with 3.53 per

cent of GDP to the nation.

Table 6: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Haryana, 2002-03 (1993-94 prices)


Ambala 19637 3

Kurukshetra 11463 16

Panchkula 15527 5

Yamuna 14058 9

Average: Ambala Division 15171

CV% 22.53

Faridabad 14837 7

Gurgaon 24737 1

Mahendragarh 7900 19

Rewari 18270 4

Average Gurgaon Division 16969

CV% 50.05

Fatehabad 13213 10

Hisar 14441 8

Jind 11623 15

Sirsa 12932 12

Average Hisar Division 13052

CV% 8.86

Kaithal 12106 14

Karnal 14852 6

Panipat 21410 2

Average Karnal Division 16123

CV% 29.65

Bhiwani 10805 17

Jhajjar 10615 18

Rohtak 12123 13

Sonipat 13099 11

Average Rohtak Division 11661

CV% 10.48



presented in thematic map 5. Gurgaon district has the highest per capita income and

Mahendragarh has the lowest per capita income among the 19 districts. Categorisation in per

capita income of different districts within the states reveals that,

Rewari, Ambala, Panipat and Gurgaon are found in the very per capita income

category (4 districts, 21%)

Same percentage, i.e., four districts namely, Hisar, Faridabad, Karnal and Panchkula

are found in the above average category.

32 per cent of districts (6) are observed in the category of below average, they are

Kaithal, Rohtak, Sirsa, Sonipat, Fatehabad and Yamunanagar.

19

Remaining, six districts (26%) can be seen in very low per capita income category,

they are Mahendragarh, Jhajjar, Bhiwani, Kurukshetra and Jind

This state has been divided into administrative

divisions. Among them, Gurgoan has higher

per capita income and Rohtak has the lower

per capita income (table 6)

Inter-district disparity has been presented for

different administrative divisions of the states

in figure 8. It is found from the figure that

Gurgaon division has the highest inter-district

disparity and Hisar division has the lowest

inter-district disparity.

Thematic Map 5: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Haryana

(within the state)


8.86

10.48

22.53

29.65

50.05

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

Hisar

Rohtak

Ambala

Karnal

Gurgaon

Figure 8: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Haryana

20

Himachal Pradesh:

HIMACHAL PRADESH is found in the group of medium developed state with the population

share of 0.57 per cent and GDP share of 0.84 per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state

disparity its position is 17th


Table 7: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Himachal Pradesh, 2015-16 (2011-12

prices)

Districts PCI (Rs.) Rank

Bilaspur 125958 7

Chamba 98006 11

Hamirpur 102217 9

Kangra 86637 13

Kinnaur 217993 2

Kullu 119231 8

L & S 192292 3

Mandi 96052 12

Shimla 152230 4

Sirmaur 145597 5

Solan 394102 1

Una 100295 10

HP 135621 6

Average 152550

CV% 56.55

Source: Appendix Table

21

Thematic Map 6: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Himachal




presented in thematic map 6. There are thirteen districts in Himachal Pradesh. Solan is in the

first position and Kangra is in the last position. Categorisation in per capita income of

different districts within the states reveals that,

Only Solan district is found in the category of very high per capita income.

L & S and Kinnaur are the two districts, which are found in the category of above

average.

Four (33%) districts, namely, Kullu, Bilaspur, Sirmaur and Shimla are observed in the

category of below average per capita income.

Kangra, Mandi, Chamba, Una and Hamirpur are the five districts which can be seen

in the category of very low per capita income.

22

Jammu and Kashmir:

JAMMU AND KASHMIR is found in the group of lower middle developed states in per capita

income among Indian states. The state contributes population share of 1.04 per cent and GDP

share of 0.81 per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state disparity its position is 5th

out

18 selected Indian states.

Table 8: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Jammu and Kashmir, 2005-06 (1999-00 prices)

District/Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank

Doda 31118 1

Jammu 27095 3

Kathua 20954 9

Punch 15511 13

Rajouri 16862 11

Udhampur 27232 2

Average Jammu Division 23129

CV% 27.24

Anantnag 25022 7

Badgam 16803 12

Baramula 21617 8

Kupwara 11757 14

Pulwama 25286 6

Srinagar 26481 5

Average Kashmir Valley Division 21161

CV% 27.38

Kargil 18603 10

Leh - ladakh 26981 4

Average Ladakh Division 22792

CV% 25.99


There are three administrative divisions in the state among them Jammu has higher

average per capita income, followed by Ladak and Kashmir Valley. Further, all the divisions

have more or less similar intra-division disparity, which is between 5 per cent and 28 per

cent.

23

Thematic Map 7: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of

Jammu Kashmir (within the state)



presented in thematic map 7. Out of 23 districts of Jammu and Kashmir, we have the data for

only 14 districts on per capita income. Even this data is for the year 2005-06. Doda is in the

first position and Kupwara is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income

categorisation within the state reveals that,

Three districts, namely, Jammu, Udhampur and Doda are found in the category of

very high per capita income.

In the category of above average there are four districts namely Anantnag, Pulwama,

Srinagar and Leh - Ladakh

Kargil, Kathua and Baramula are the three districts, which are found in the category

of below average.

In the very low per capita income category, there are four districts viz., Kupwara,

Punch, Badgam and Rajouri.

24

Jharkhand:

JHARKHAND is found in the group of least developed states in per capita income among

Indian states. The state contributes population share of 2.73 per cent and GDP share of 1.94

per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state disparity its position is 6th

out 18 selected

Indian states.

Table 9: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Jharkhand, 2005-06 (1999-00 prices)


Dumka 10079 13

Jamtara 9641 16

Deoghar 12621 10

Godda 8334 21

Pakur 15327 4

Sahebganj 14314 5

Hazaribagh 13555 9

Koderma 12561 11

Chatra 8477 20

Giridih 8957 18

Bokaro 14146 6

Dhanbad 19761 1

Ranchi 15359 3

Lohardaga 9643 15

Gumla 10218 12

Simdega 9569 17

Palamu 8712 19

Latehar 9657 14

Garhwa 7090 22

East Singhbhum 17951 2

West Singhbhum 13627 8

SaraykelaKharsawa 13703 7

Average 11968

CV% 28.01


25


presented in thematic map 8. Out of 24 districts of Jammu and Kashmir, we have the data for

only 22 districts on per capita income. Even, this data is for the year 2005-06 at 1999-00

prices. Dhanbad is in the first position and Garhwa is in the last position. Inter-district per

capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

Three districts, namely, Pakur, Ranchi, East Singhbhum and Dhanbad are found in the

category of very high per capita income.

In the category of above average, there are seven districts namely, Koderma,

Deoghar, Hazaribagh, West Singhbhum, Saraykela Kharsawa, Bokaro and Sahebganj.

In below average category also are the three districts, which are seven districts, viz.,

Giridih, Simdega, Jamtara, Lohardaga, Latehar, Dumka and Gumla

In the very low per capita income category, there are four districts viz., Garhwa,

Godda, Chatra and Palamu.

Thematic Map 8: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Jharkhand

(within the state)


26

Karnataka:

KARNATAKA is found in the group of medium developed state with the population share of

5.05 per cent and GDP share of 5.69 per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state



Table 10: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Karnataka, 2014-15 (2011-12 prices)



Belagavi 61675 24

Bengaluru 230240 1

Vijayapura 60661 26

Bengaluru(R) 102434 6

Bagalkot 90033 12

Ramanagara 95599 8

Dharawad 91113 11

Chitradurga 64267 23

Gadag 73144 18

Davanagere 67126 21

Haveri 65050 22

Kolar 76212 17

Uttara Kannada 83700 14

Chikkaballapura 72318 19

Average: Belagavi Division 75054

Shivamogga 105609 5

CV% 17.6

Tumakuru 92919 10

Average: Bengaluru Division 100747

Chikkamagaluru 130634 4

CV% 50.56

Dakshina Kannada 182829 2

Udupi 149653 3

Ballari 93473 9

Hassan 87824 13

Bidar 56349 29

Kodagu 71780 20

Kalaburagi 56336 30

Mandya 97284 7

Yadgiri 56597 28

Mysuru 76229 16

Raichur 61213 25

Chamarajanagar 78034 15

Koppal 59807 27

Average: Mysuru Division 109283

Average: Kalaburagi Division 63963

CV% 37.21

CV% 22.83


In Karnataka, there are four administrative

divisions. Among them Bengaluru division

has the highest per capita income and

Kalaburagi division has the lowest per

capita income (table 10).

To see the inter district disparity in these

four administrative divisions; coefficient of

variation has been calculated and presented

in figure 9. It is found from the figure that

Bengaluru division has the highest inter-

district disparity and Belagavi division has

the lowest inter-district disparity.

17.60

22.83

37.21

50.56

0 20 40 60

Belagavi

Kalaburagi

Mysuru

Bengaluru

Figure 9: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Karnataka

27


presented in thematic map 9. Bengaluru Urban district is in the first position and Kalaburagi

is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals

that,

Only three (10%) out of 30 districts are in the category of very high per capita income

namely, Bengaluru, Dakshina Kannada and Udupi.

There are seven (23%) districts, namely Tumakuru, Ballari, Ramanagara, Mandya,

Bengaluru(R), Shivamogga and Bagalkot in the category of above average.

Thematic Map 9: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Karnataka

(within the state)

In the category

of below average there

are eight districts

namely Kodagu,

Chikkaballapura,

Gadag, Kolar, Mysuru,

Chamarajanagar, Uttara

Kannada and Hassan.

10 districts,

namely Kalaburagi,

Bidar, Yadgiri, Koppal,

Vijayapura, Raichur,

Belagavi, Chitradurga,

Haveri and Davanagere

are found in the last

category that is very low

per capita income.


28

Kerala:

Among the south Indian states, performance of KERALA is in the better-off position in all the

socio-economic indicators. Among the selected 30 states and union territories, Kerala is

found the 10th

position in per capita GSDP. The population and GDP shares of Kerala to the

nation are 2.76 per cent and 4.00 per cent respectively.

Table 11: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Kerala, 2015-16 (2011-12 prices)

Districts PCI

(Rs.) Rank

Districts PCI

(Rs.) Rank

Districts PCI

(Rs.) Rank

Ernakulam 152318 1

Kannur 109632 8

Alappuzha 136804 2

Idukki 132107 4

Kasaragod 100198 10

Kollam 136282 3

Kottayam 126238 6

Kozhikode 109602 9

Pathanamthitta 96134 12

Thrissur 122679 7

Malapuram 89357 14

Thiruvananthapuram 129922 5

Palakkad 100128 11

Wayanad 92353 13

Average:

Central Kerala

Division

133336

Average:

North Kerala

Division

100212

Average: South

Kerala Division 124786

CV% 9.93

CV% 8.04

CV% 15.51


A point is to be noted that intra-state

imbalances in Kerala is very low, it is in the

first position with lower intra-state

disparity among major Indian states (table

11).

Further, this state has three administrative

divisions. South Kerala has the highest

inter-district disparity and North Kerala has

the lowest inter-district disparity.

Information related to this has been

presented in figure 10.

8.04

9.93

15.51

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

North Kerala

Central Kerala

South Kerala

Figure 10: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Kerala

29


presented in thematic map 10. Ernakulam district is in the first position and Malapuram is in

the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

Idukki, Kollam, Alappuzha and Ernakulam are the four districts, which are found in

the category of very high per capita income.

Three (21%) districts are found in the category of above average in per capita income

they are Thrissur, Kottayam and Thiruvananthapuram.

In the category of below average there are four districts namely Palakkad, Kasaragod,

Kozhikode and Kannur

4 districts, namely, Malappuram, Wayanad and Pathanamthitta are found in the last

category that is very low per capita income

Thematic Map 10: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Kerala

(within the state)


30

MADHYA PRADESH is observed in the group of bottom category states in per capita GSDP

among Indian states. This state contributes 4.07 per cent of GDP with the 6 per cent of

population to the nation.

Table 12: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Madhya Pradesh, 2012-13 (2004-05 prices)

Districts/

Divisions

PCI

(Rs.) Rank

Districts/

Divisions

PCI

(Rs.) Rank

Districts/

Divisions

PCI

(Rs.) Rank

Bhind 17607 37

Betul 22483 17

Rewa 16590 43

Morena 17650 36

Harda 32421 6

Satna 20093 29

Sheopur 17549 38

Hoshangabad 30393 8

Sidhi 30085 9

Average:

Chambal

Division

17602

Average:

Narmadapuran

Division

28432

Average: Rewa

Division 22256

CV% 0.29

CV% 18.47

CV% 31.46

Bhopal 49979 2

Chhatarpur 17674 35

Raisen 21374 23

Damoh 20495 28

Datia 23442 16

Rajgarh 19598 31

Panna 16884 40

Guna 22047 21

Sehore 19909 30

Sagar 22395 18

Gwalior 36223 4

Vidisha 20818 25

Tikamgarh 16107 44

Shivpuri 16828 41

Average: Bhopal

Division 26336

Average: Sagar

Division 18711

Average: Gwalior

Division 24635

CV% 50.26

CV% 14.13

CV% 33.42

Dewas 24454 15

Barwani 17446 39

Mandsaur 27477 11

Dhar 22095 20

Neemuch 27475 12

East Nimar 22129 19

Ratlam 29011 10

Indore 55348 1

Balaghat 21739 22

Shajapur 20797 26

Jhabua 16735 42

Chhindwara 30884 7

Ujjain 32567 5

West Nimar 18197 33

Dindori 18715 32

Average: Ujjain

Division 26964

Average: Indore

Division 25325

Jabalpur 41462 3

CV% 14.88

CV% 58.8

Katni 24620 14

Mandla 14123 45

Shahdol 25779 13

Narsimhapur 20649 27

Umaria 17798 34

Seoni 21275 24

Average:

Shahdol Division 21789

Average: Jabalpur

Division 24183

CV% 25.9

CV% 35.01



presented in thematic map 11. Out of 50 districts of Madhya Pradesh, we have the data for

only 45 districts on per capita income. Indore is in the first position and Mandla is in the last

position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

Five (11%) districts, namely, Ujjain, Gwalior, Jabalpur, Bhopal and Indore are found

in the category of very high per capita income.

In the category of above average there are 10 (22%) districts.

36 per cent (16) districts are in the category of below average.

31

In the very low per capita income category, there are 14 districts (31%).

With respect to intra-state disparity the

Madhya Pradesh stands in the 10th

position out of 18 states in India. Madhya

Pradesh has 10 administrative divisions

Narmdapuram has the highest per capita

income, whereas, Chambal has the lowest

per capita income (table 12). Indore

division has the highest inter-district

disparity and Chambal division has the

lowest inter-district disparity.

Information related to administrative

division wise inter-district disparity has

been presented in figure 12.

Thematic Map 11: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Madhya



0.29

14.13

14.88

18.47

25.90

31.46

33.42

35.01

50.26

58.80

0 20 40 60 80

Cha…

Sagar

Ujjain

Nar…

Shah…

Rewa

Gwal…

Jabal…

Bhopal

Indore

Figure 12: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Madhya

Pradesh

32

MAHARASHTRA is found in the 9th

position with respect to per capita income, out of 30

selected Indian states. This state contributes 15.8 per cent of GDP with 9.29 per cent of

population.

Table 13: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Maharashtra, 2015-16

Districts/ Divisions PCI

(Rs.) Rank

Districts / Divisions PCI (Rs.)

Mumbai 256391 1

Nashik 131288 8

Thane 215180 2

Dhule 104965 17

Raigad 171584 5

Nandurbar 65211 34

Ratnagiri 130829 9

Jalgaon 97084 20

Sindhudurg 136891 7

Ahmednagar 120368 14

Average: Konkan Division 182175

Average: Nashik Division 103783

CV% 29.3

CV% 24.4

Pune 202407 3

Buldhana 67863 31

Satara 124988 12

Akola 101853 18

Sangli 130053 10

Washim 66049 33

Solapur 129720 11

Amravati 98961 19

Kolhapur 151654 6

Yavatmal 82176 27

Average: Pune Division 147764

Average: Amravati Division 83380

CV% 21.82

CV% 20.13

Aurangabad 122961 13

Jalna 82210 26

Wardha 116134 15

Parbhani 82465 25

Nagpur 178036 4

Hingoli 66856 32

Bhandara 95989 21

Beed 78480 29

Gondia 94022 22

Nanded 85115 24

Chandrapur 112948 16

Osmanabad 78793 28

Gadchiroli 70947 30

Latur 88879 23

Average: Nagpur Division 111346

Average: Aurangabad Division 85720

CV% 32.73

CV% 19.1



presented in thematic map 12. Out of 34 districts of Maharashtra, Mumbai is in the first

position and Nandurbar is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation

within the state reveals that,

Raigarh, Nagpur, Pune, Thane and Mumbai are the districts, which are found in the


In the category of above average there are 10 (28%) districts.

22 per cent (8) districts are in the category of below average.


33

With respect to intra-state imbalances this

state is found in the 12th

position out of 18

selected states. Maharashtra has 6

administrative divisions, among them

Konkan division has the highest per capita

income, whereas, Aurangabad has the

lowest per capita income (table 13). With

respect to inter-district disparities,

Aurangabad division has the lowest

regional imbalances and Nagpur division

has the highest regional imbalances (see

figure 11 for more details).


Maharashtra (within the state)


19.10

20.13

21.82

24.40

29.30

32.73

0 10 20 30 40

AURANGA…

AMRAVATI

PUNE

NASHIK

KONKAN

NAGPUR

Figure 11: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP,

Maharahstra

34

ODISHA is also one of the underdeveloped states in India. The state contributes 2.43 per cent

of GDP to the nation with 3.47 per cent of population. This state is also not an exception for

the intra-state imbalances. The state is found in the 15th

position in intra-state disparity among

the selected 18 Indian states.

Table 14: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Odisha, 2010-11 (2004-05 prices)

Districts/ Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank

Angul / Anugul 65038 2

Balangir 25731 13

Bargarh 22458 19

Deogarh / Debagarh 21225 24

Dhenkanal 26652 12

Jharsuguda 69913 1

Kendujhar 40201 6

Sambalpur 38730 7

Subarnapur 20683 25

Sundargarh 51051 3

Average: North Revenue Division, Sambalpur 38168

CV% 48.05

Balasore / Baleshwar 24326 16

Bhadrak 19323 26

Cuttack 33787 9

Jagatsinghapur 35576 8

Jajpur 28169 11

Kendrapara 18767 27

Khordha 41777 5

Mayurbhanj 21265 22

Nayagarh 17823 28

Puri 21260 23

Average: Central Revenue Divisions, Cuttack 26207

CV% 31.59

Baudh 23370 18

Gajapati 23440 17

Ganjam 25156 15

Kalahandi 21519 20

Kandhamal 43762 4

Koraput 29562 10

Malkangiri 17203 29

Nabarangpur 16289 30

Nuapada 21420 21

Rayagada 25349 14

Average: Southern Revenue Division, Berhampur 24707

CV% 51.94

Source: Appendix Table1


presented in thematic map 13. Out of 34 districts of Odisha, Jharsuguda is in the first position

and Nabarangpur is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within

the state reveals that,

Three out of 30 districts namely, Sundargarh, Anugul and Jharsuguda are in the


35

In the category of above average there are 6 (26%) districts viz., Cuttack,

Jagatsinghapur, Sambalpur, Kendujhar, Khordha and Kandhamal

In the category of below average there are 10 (33%) districts.


Odisha has three administrative divisions

namely, north, central and south. Among

them north division has the highest per capita

income and south has the lowest per capita

income (table 14). Division wise inter-district

disparity has been presented in figure 13. It is

found from the figure that north division has

the highest disparity and south division has

the lowest disparity. Totally, it is observed

that division, which has the highest per capita

income that has the highest inter-district

disparity.

Thematic Map 13: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Odisha

(within the state)


31.3

31.6

48.0

0.0 25.0 50.0

Southern(Berhampur)

Central (Cuttack)

North(Sambalpur)

Figure 13: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Odisha

36

PUNJAB is found as one of the middle income states in the recent days with respect to per

capita GSDP. Comparatively, Punjab has very low inter-district disparity. This state is found

in the 2nd

position after Kerala. The state’s population share is 2.29 per cent and the GDP

share is 3.08 per cent to the nation.

Table 15: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Punjab, 2014-15 (2011-12 prices)


(Rs.) Rank


(Rs.) Rank

Nawanshehar 108982 6

Bathinda 88223 14

Rupnagar 116184 3

Faridkot 94375 13

SAS Nagar 117932 1

Mansa 77364 18

Average: Rupnagar Division 114366

Average: Faridkot Division 86654

CV% 4.15

CV% 9.94

Barnala 94384 12

Fatehgarh Sahib 113628 4

Ludhiana 112820 5

Patiala 95294 11

Sangrur 104668 8

Average: Patiala Division 104159

Amritsar 86367 15

CV% 8.84

Gurdaspur 63086 22

Hoshiarpur 102662 10

Fazilka 83891 16

Jalandhar 107387 7

Firozpur 74671 19

Kapurthala 116535 2

Moga 103467 9

Pathankot 70975 20

Shri Muktsar Sahib 81244 17

Tarn Taran 69242 21

Average: Firozpur Division 85818

Average: Jalandhar Division 88036

CV% 14.44

CV% 23.96

Source: Appendix Table


presented in thematic map 14. SAS Nagar district is in the first position and Gurdaspur is in


Six (27%) districts are in the category of very high per capita income namely,

Ludhiana, Fatehgarh Sahib, Rupnagar, Kapurthala, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar.

There are five (23%) districts, namely Hoshiarpur, Moga, Sangrur, Jalandhar and

Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, in the category of above average.

In the category of below average there are seven (32%) districts, they are Muktsar,

Amritsar, Bathinda, Faridkot, Barnala and Patiala.

Four districts, namely Gurdaspur, Tarn Taran, Firozpur and Mansa are found in the

last category that is very low per capita income.

37

Punjab has five administrative

divisions, among them,

Rupnagar division has the

highest per capita income and

Firozpur division has the

lowest per capita income (table

15). Figure 7 shows the inter-

district disparity among

divisions. Jalandhar division

has the highest inter-district

disparity and Rupnagar

division has the lowest inter-

district disparity.

Thematic Map 14: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Punjab

(within the state)


4.15

8.84

9.94

14.44

23.96

0.00 9.00 18.00 27.00

Rupnagar

Patiala

Faridkot

Firozpur

Jalandhar

Figure 14: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Punjab

38

RAJASTHAN is no longer a BIMARU state. This state is found in the middle income state

with respect of per capita GSDP in the year 2015-16. The state contributes 4.56 per cent of

GDP to the nation with the population share of 5.66 per cent. With respect to intra-state

disparity, this state is found in the 4th

position out of 18 selected Indian States.

Appendix Table 16: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Rajasthan, 2016-17 (2011-12 prices)



Ajmer 96379 7

Bikaner 86075 10

Bhilwara 100276 5

Churu 59045 30

Nagaur 64090 23

Ganga Nagar 105549 3

Tonk 71808 20

Hanumangarh 96667 6

Average: Ajmer Division 83138

Average: Bikaner Division 86834

CV% 21.52

CV% 23.22

.

Banswara 50250 31

Barmer 135987 1

Dungarpur 46132 33

Jaisalmer 81503 14

Pratapgarh 61299 27

Jalore 59068 29

Rajsamand 80549 15

Jodhpur 76871 19

Udaipur 77055 18

Pali 84003 11

Chittorgarh 83994 12

Sirohi 86787 9

Average: Udaipur Division 66547

Average: Jodhapur Division 87370

CV% 24.42

CV% 29.46

.

Alwar 104366 4

Dausa 62867 25

Jaipur 109501 2

Jhunjhunu 60790 28

Sikar 70849 21

Average: Jaipur Division 81675

CV% 28.69

.

Baran 78244 16

Bharatpur 62727 26

Bundi 82242 13

Dholpur 46650 32

Jhalawar 77275 17

Karauli 64012 24

Kota 92078 8

S.Madhopur 67889 22

Average: Kota Division 82460

Average: Bharatpur Division 60320

CV% 8.2

CV% 15.54



presented in thematic map 15. Barmer district is in the first position and Dungarpur is in the

last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

Seven (21%) districts are in the category of very high per capita income namely,

Ajmer, Hanumangarh, Bhilwara, Alwar, Ganganagar, Jaipur and Barmer.

There are eight (24%) districts, namely Rajsamand, Jaisalmer, Bundi, Chittaurgarh,

Pali, Bikaner, Sirohi and Kota, which are found in the category of above average .

39

In the category of below average there are seven (21%) districts, they are Sawai

Madhopur, Sikar, Tonk, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Jhalawar and Baran.

In the last category, that is very low per capita income, there are 11 (33%) districts,

viz., Dungarpur, Dhaulpur, Banswara, Churu, Jalor, Jhunjhunun, Pratapgarh,

Bharatpur, Dausa, Karauli and Nagaur.

This state has seven administrative

divisions. Among them, Jodhapur

division has the highest per capita

income and Bharatpur division has the

lowest per capita income (table 16).

Figure 16 shows the inter-district

disparity among different administrative

division in Rajasthan state. It is found

from the figure that Jodhpur division has

the highest inter-district disparity and

Kota division has the lowest inter-district

disparity.

Thematic Map 15: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Rajasthan

(within the state)


8.20

15.54

21.52

23.22

24.42

28.69

29.46

0 10 20 30

Kota

Bharatpur

Ajmer

Bikaner

Udaipur

Jaipur

Jodhapur

Figure 16: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Rajastan

40

TAMIL NADU state is found in the middle income state in per capita GSDP in 2015-16. The

state contributes 8.51 per cent of GDP with the population share of 5.96 per cent to the

nation. This state also has comparatively lower inter-district disparity.

Table 17: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Tamil Nadu, 2012-13 (2011-12 prices)

Districts / Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank

Districts / Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank

Ariyalur 56558 28

Chennai 150275 1

Karur 98013 13

Cuddalore 75039 20

Nagapattinam 67456 25

Kancheepuram 136345 3

Perambalur 46840 30

Thiruvallur 141293 2

Thanjavur 67520 24

Tiruvannamalai 38449 32

Thiruvarur 46228 31

Vellore 97308 14

Tiruchirappalli 121527 6

Viluppuram 55419 29

Average: Central Division 72020

Average: North Division 99161

CV% 38.89

CV% 45.01

Dindigul 80387 19

Kanniyakumari 98077 12

Madurai 85040 18

Coimbatore 121099 7

Pudukkottai 66335 26

Dharmapuri 74807 21

Ramanathapuram 64558 27

Erode 119683 8

Sivaganga 71152 22

Krishnagiri 113583 9

Theni 69828 23

Namakkal 128532 4

Tirunelveli 90692 15

Salem 88040 16

Thoothukudi 122648 5

The Nilgiris 87174 17

Virudhunagar 104055 11

Tiruppur 112192 10

Average: South Division 85277

Average: West Division 103430

CV% 22.09

CV% 18.48



presented in thematic map 16. Chennai district is in the first position and Tiruvannamalai is in


Eight (25%) districts are found in the category of very high per capita income, they

are Erode, Coimbatore, Tiruchirappalli, Thoothukkudi, Namakkal, Kancheepuram,

Thiruvallur and Chennai.

Tirunelveli, Vellore, Karur, Kanniyakumari, Virudunagar, Tiruppur and Krishnagiri

are the seven (22%) districts, which are found in the category of above average.

Nine (28%) districts, namely, Thanjavur, Theni, Sivaganga, Dharmapuri, Cuddalore,

Dindigul, Madurai, The Nilgiris and Salemare are observed in the category of below

average per capita income.

Tiruvannamalai, Thiruvarur, Perambalur, Viluppuram, Ariyalur, Ramanathapuram,

Pudukkottai and Nagappattinam are the eight (25%) districts which can be seen in the

category of very low per capita income.

41

This state also has comparatively lower inter-district disparity. Out of 18 selected states, this

state is observed in 3rd

position. The state

has been divided into four administrative

divisions. Among them West division has

the highest per capita income and central

division has the lowest per capita income

(table 16). Further, to see the division wise

inter-district disparity coefficient of

variation has been calculated and presented

in figure 15. It is observed from the figure

that north division has the highest inter-

district disparity and West division has the

lowest inter-district disparity.

Thematic Map 16: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Tamil Nadu

(within the state)


18.48

22.09

38.89

45.01

0 25 50

West

South

Central

North

Figure 15: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Tamil Nadu

42

Telangana:

TELANGANA is the new state carved out of Andhra Pradesh. The state has the per capita

income more than the above average among Indian states. The state contributes population

share of 2.89 per cent and GDP share of 3.65 per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state



Table 18: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Telangana, 2015-16 (2011-12 prices)


Adilabad 79907 15

Kumuram Bheem 72687 18

Mancherial 79944 14

Nirmal 70171 20

Nizamabad 71754 19

Jagtial 56636 31

Peddapalli 96717 6

Jayashankar 74592 16

Bhadradri Kothagudem 103073 5

Mahabubabad 62232 26

Warangal Rural 72899 17

Warangal Urban 64038 25

Karimnagar 80683 13

RajannaSircilla 66044 23

Kamareddy 60301 30

Sangareddy 142331 3

Medak 86260 9

Siddipet 93639 8

Jangaon 66469 21

YadadriBhuvanagiri 95161 7

Medchal-Malkajgiri 139166 4

Hyderabad 240777 1

Rangareddy 228696 2

Vikarabad 65947 24

Mahabubnagar 66319 22

Jogulamba Gadwal 61981 28

Wanaparthy 62102 27

Nagarkurnool 61548 29

Nalgonda 84049 10

Suryapet 83367 11

Khammam 82603 12

GSDP/PCI 112168

Average 89422

CV(%) 48.94 Source: Appendix Table 1


presented in thematic map 17. Out of 31 districts of Telangana, Hyderabad is in the first

43

position and Jagtial is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation

within the state reveals that,

Three (10%) districts, namely, Sangareddy, Rangareddy and Hyderabad are found in

the category of very high per capita income.

Thematic Map 17: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Telangana

(within the state)


In the category of above average there are five (16%) districts namely Siddipet,

Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Peddapalli, Bhadradri Kothagudem and Medchal-Malkajgiri

In the below average category there are the 11 (36%) districts, namely Nizamabad,

Kumuram Bheem, Warangal Rural, Jayashankar, Adilabad, Mancherial, Karimnagar,

Khammam, Suryapet, Nalgonda and Medak

In the very low per capita income category, there are 12 (39%) districts viz., Jagtial,

Kamareddy, Nagarkurnool, Jogulamba Gadwal, Wanaparthy, Mahabubabad,

Warangal Urban, Vikarabad, Rajanna Sircilla, Mahabubnagar, Jangaon and Nirmal

44

UTTAR PRADESH is another north Indian state which is also an underdeveloped state. The

state contributes 8.22 per cent of GDP to the nation with 16.51 per cent of population.

Table 19: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Uttar Pradesh, 2016-17 (2011-12

prices) Districts/

Divisions PCI Rank

Districts/

Divisions PCI Rank

Districts/

Divisions PCI Rank

Agra 59729 5

Aligarh 40314 29

Badaun 30497 44

Faizabad 28261 51

Etah 54312 11

Bareilly 53034 12

Firozabad 33741 37

Hathras 42311 25

Pilibhit 40538 28

Mainpuri 29532 49

Kasganj 52525 14

Shahjahanpur 36406 35

Mathura 43237 22

Agra Div.

Average 38900

Aligarh Div.

Average 47366

Bareilly Div.

Average 40119

CV (%) 33.5

CV (%) 14.9

CV (%) 23.8

.

Jalaun 39263 31

Azamgarh 22521 64

Basti 27898 52

Jhansi 54883 9

Ballia 21786 68

Sant Kabeer

Nagar 19608 74

Lalitpur 39220 32

Mau 27532 53

Siddharth Nagar 19795 72

Jhansi Div.

Average 44455

Azamgarh

Div. Average 23947

Basti Div.

Average 22434

CV (%) 20.3

CV (%) 13.1

CV (%) 21.1

.

Banda 25867 54

Bahraich 17736 75

Deoria 22226 66

Chitrakoot 22526 63

Balrampur 19762 73

Gorakhpur 29610 48

Hamirpur 42427 24

Gonda 24295 59

Kushi Nagar 22139 67

Mahoba 62724 3

Shravasti 21619 69

Maharajganj 23618 60

Chitrakoot

Div. Average 38386

Gonda Div.

Average 20853

Gorakhpur

Div. Average 24398

CV (%) 48.0

CV (%) 13.4

CV (%) 14.5

. .

Ambedkar

Nagar 23190 61

Etawah 39266 30

Sambhal 30177 46

Amethi 31543 43

Farrukhabad 32908 41

Amroha 57154 6

Auraiyya 32196 42

Kannauj 42714 23

Bijnor 41937 26

Barabanki 33556 39

Kanpur Dehat 36570 34

Moradabad 41617 27

Sultanpur 29866 47

Kanpur Nagar 54853 10

Rampur 48851 17

Auraiyya Div.

Average 30070

Kanpur Div.

Average 41262

43947

CV (%) 13.5

CV (%) 20.4

22.7

.

Baghpat 52555 13

Hardoi 24421 58

Chandauli 23188 62

Buland Shahar 49178 16

Kheri 33062 40

Ghazipur 22513 65

Lucknow 60102 4

Jaunpur 20429 70

Ghaziabad 55647 7

Raebareilly 25028 56

Varanasi 38407 33

Hapur 55116 8

Sitapur 29261 50

Meerut 75658 2

Unnao 33577 38

Meerut Div.

Average 103224

Lucknow Div.

Average 34242

Varanasi Div.

Average 26134

CV (%) 108.6

CV (%) 38.7

CV (%) 31.6

.

Allahabad 45685 19

Bhadohi 25630 55

Muzaffar Nagar 46926 18

Fatehpur 34116 36

Mirzapur 30488 45

Saharanpur 44063 20

Kaushambi 24922 57

Sonbhadra 50281 15

Shamli 43742 21

Pratapgarh 20135 71

Prayagraj Div.

Average 31215

Mirzapur

Div. Average 35466

Saharanpur

Div. Average 44910

CV (%) 36.1

CV (%) 36.8

CV (%) 3.9

Note: Gautambudh Nagar (1st Rank) is an out-layer with the highest per capita income; hence, the district has been excluded.


45

The state is found in the 11th

position in intra-state disparity among the selected 18 Indian

states. The state has 18 administrative divisions. Among them Meerut division has the highest

per capita income and Gonda division has the lowest per capita income (table 19). Intra-State

disparity of different divisions has been presented in figure 16. It is found from the figure that

Chitrakoot division has the highest disparity and Saharanpur division has the lowest disparity.

The highest inter-district disparity is observed in these divisions, which have the higher per

capita income.

Thematic Map 18: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Uttar




presented in thematic map 18. Gautam Buddha Nagar and Meerut districts are in the top

position and Bahraich, Sant Kabir Nagar are in the last position. Inter-district per capita

income categorisation within the state reveals that,

46

22 (31.9%)

districts are in the

category of very high

per capita income.

There are 15

(271.7%) districts in the

category of above

average.

In the category

of below average there

are 17 (24.6%) districts.

15 (21.7%)

districts are found in the

last category that is very

low per capita income.

UTTRAKHAND state is found in the middle income state in per capita GSDP in 2015-16. The

state contributes 1.26 per cent of GDP with the population share of 0.83 per cent to the

nation. Out of 18 selected states, this state is observed in 13th

position in intra-state disparity.


presented in thematic map 19. Haridwar is in the first position and Rudraprayag in the last

position among the 13 districts in the state. This state also has higher inter-district disparity.

Categorisation of districts (within the state) in per capita income reveals that,

Only one district Haridwar is in the category of very high per capita income.

Two districts namely U.S.Nagar and Dehradun are found in the category of above

average .

Five districts, namely, Bageshwar, Pithoragarh, P Garhwal, Nainital and Chamoli are

observed in the category of below average per capita income.

Rudraprayag, T Garhwal, Uttarkashi, Champawat and Almora are the five districts,

which can be seen in the category of very low per capita income.

3.9

13.1

13.4

13.5

14.5

14.9

18.0

20.3

20.4

21.1

22.7

23.8

31.6

33.5

36.1

36.8

38.7

48.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Saharanpur

Azamgarh

Gonda

Auraiyya

Gorakhpur

Aligarh

Moradabad

Jhansi

Kanpur

Basti

Mirzapur

Bareilly

Varanasi

Agra

Prayagraj

Meerut

Lucknow

Chitrakoot

Figure 16: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Uttar Pradesh

47

Table 20: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Uttarakhand 2015-16, Current Prices

Districts/ Divisions PCI Rank

Almora 86961 9

Bageshwar 91145 8

Chamoli 109163 4

Champawat 84878 10

Dehradun 176658 2

Haridwar 233566 1

Nainital 105273 5

P Garhwal 98086 6

Pithoragarh 93070 7

Rudraprayag 75939 13

T Garhwal 76145 12

U.S.Nagar 173117 3

Uttarkashi 81954 11

CV(%) 42.65



Uttarakhand (within the state)


48

WEST BENGAL contributes 6.58 per cent of GDP to the nation with population contribution

of 7.54 per cent. The state has also huge intra-state disparity. Among the 18 selected Indian

states, West Bengal is found in the 9th

position in intra-state disparity.

Table 21: Per Capita District Domestic Product, West Bengal, 2012-13 (2004-05 prices)



Birbhum 53362 14

Cooch Behar 42765 16

Burdwan 210175 1

Darjeeling 57090 13

Hooghly 129568 5

Jalpaiguri 73656 10

Average: Burdwan Division 131035

Average: Jalpaiguri Division 57837

CV (%) 59.84

CV (%) 26.73

24-Parganas(S) 155058 3

Howrah 121930 6

Kolkata 187525 2

Nadia 95466 9

Average: Presidency Division 139995

CV (%) 28.56

Dakshin Dinajpur 26766 18

Bankura 63521 11

Malda 62792 12

Midnapore East 147867 4

Murshidabad 109973 7

Midnapore West 101532 8

Uttar Dinajpur 36531 17

Purulia 44540 15

Average: Malda Division 59016

Average: Medinipur Division 89365

CV (%) 63.07

CV (%) 75.49



presented in thematic map 20. Kolkata district is in the first position and Uttar Dinajpur is in


Kolkata, Darjiling and Purba Medinipur are the three (16%) districts, which are found

in the category of very high per capita income.

Four (21%) districts are found in the category of above average in per capita income

they are Birbhum, Haora, North 24 Parganas and Hugli.

In the category of below average there are five (26%) districts namely, Medinipur,

Presidency, Medinipur, Jalpaiguri and Presidency.

Seven (37%) districts, namely, Uttar Dinajpur, Dakshin Dinajpur, Puruliya,

Barddhaman, Murshidabad, Maldah and Koch Bihar are found in the last category

that is very low per capita income.

49

This state has been divided into four

administrative divisions viz.,

Burdwan, Jalpaiguri, Malda,

Medinipur and Presidency. Among

them Presidency division has the

highest per capita income and

Jalpaiguri division has the lowest

per capita income (table 21). To see

the inter-district disparity among

different administrative divisions,

coefficient of variation has been

calculated and presented in figure

17. It is found from the figure that Malda division has the highest inter-district disparity and

Jalpaiguri division has the lowest inter-district disparity.

Thematic Map 20: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of West

Bengal (within the state)


26.73

28.56

55.35

59.84

63.07

10 21 32 43 54 65

Jalpaiguri

Presidency

Medinipur

Burdwan

Malda

Figure 17: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, West Bengal

50

Intra-state disparity and Economic Growth:

To see the association of intra-

state disparity and economic

growth a scatter diagram has been

attempted and presented in figure

18. Intra-state disparity (CV%) is

presented on OX axis and per

capita state income (GSDP) has

been presented on OY axis. It is

found from the scatter diagram

that there is a negative association

between intra-state disparity and

per capita state income. It means,

the states, which have the higher

intra-state disparity have the lower

per capita income. In other words, unequal income distribution results into lower

economic growth.

Way Forward:

Due to higher focus on economic growth during the initial years of independence, the

nation has achieved noticeable growth, but it has not distributed equally among different

regions. This needs to be explored further by examining the lags in the relationships between

different variables. This unequal distribution of economic growth, further resulted into

unequal distribution of developmental fruits such as gaps in employment opportunities,

unequal distribution of education and health outcomes, significant disparities in infrastructure

facilities like, road, rail, electricity, industrialisation, irrigation and so on. Consequently, over

the period of time, the causal relationship among and between different socio-economic

indicators (all other, along with above mentioned) have increased the regional disparities

(inter-state and intra-state) noticeably. Eradication of regional disparity is the main motto of

the recent successive governments at Central and State level, which has been addressed

through many policies and programmes.

Figure 18: Scatter diagram of association of per

capita state income and intra-state disparities

Source: Computed from Appendix table 2 and 3

51

However, to measure the regional disparity more meaningfully and to suggest the

proper policy, strong data base at different disaggregated level is the prerequisite. For this

purpose, first of all, district (as well as taluk) domestic product should be

calculated/estimated for each district every year. At present, some states like Karnataka,

Andhra Pradesh, Telangana calculate district domestic product every year. State like Gujarat

has no district domestic product. Hence, CSO should make proper guidelines and give

appropriate training to the officials of Directorate of Economics and Statistics of all states.

Thus, one can see the per capita income level of all the districts of the country and also these

districts can be ranked. Through this, intra-state disparity can properly be addressed more

meaningfully.

Second very important initiative is estimating domestic products for taluks. This work

will be helpful to see the intra-district (inter-taluk) disparity. Moreover, this work will be

helpful to see the agro-climatic zone wise economic growth in different states. This helps to

prepare policies and programmes based on potentiality and availability of resources on agro-

climatic base.

Third issue is related to public expenditure. Till date we do not have proper data

available on public expenditure on different departments at district level. For this, ministry of

finance should take an initiative incorporating different departments, IT technicians,

academicians, bureaucrats and so on.

The present study has observed that in most of the states, the divisions, which have

the higher per capita income, have the higher quantum of regional disparity. Hence, to

achieve the balanced regional development- proper industrialisation, infrastructure facilities

should be developed in all the regions/divisions based on potentiality and necessity.

Increasing of number of administrative divisions (wherever is necessary) is needed for

decentralised governance. Further, decentralised administration will be helpful in reduction of

regional imbalances. Hence, number of administrative divisions should be increased based on

agro-climatic zones. Along with other policies and programmes, these initiatives will be

helpful in achieving the BALANCED REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

52

Appendix Table 1: State-wise Data Source for District Domestic Product

States Websites

Andhra

Pradesh

https://core.ap.gov.in/cmdashboard/Download/Publications/District%20at

%20Glance%20-%202018.pdf

Bihar http://dse.bih.nic.in/

Haryana http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/stateplan/sdr/sdr_haryana1909.pdf

Himachal

Pradesh http://himachalservices.nic.in/economics/pdf/distt_dp_2015-16.pdf

Jammu

Kashmir https://www.districtsofindia.com

Jharkhand http://desjharkhand.nic.in/stateincom.html

Karnataka http://des.kar.nic.in/sites/KAG201617/CHAPTER%20%201%20GENERA

L.pdf

Kerala http://ondemandwebcast.niyamasabha.org/report/er/Economic_Review_en

glish_volume2.pdf

Madhya

Pradesh

file:///C:/Users/dataentry1/Downloads/STATE%20DOMESTIC%20PROD

%2012-13.pdf

Maharashtra https://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/files/publication/ESM_17_18_eng.pdf

Odisha http://pc.odisha.gov.in/Download/Economic_Survey_2017-18.pdf

Punjab http://www.esopb.gov.in/static/PDF/FinalPunjabATGlance-2016.pdf

Rajasthan http://desddp.raj.nic.in/PDF/Publication_8302018%2024239%20PM.pdf

Tamil Nadu http://www.tn.gov.in/deptst/stat.htm

Telangana https://www.telangana.gov.in/PDFDocuments/Socio-Economic-Outlook-

2017.pdf

Uttar Pradesh https://updes.up.nic.in

Uttarkandh http://des.uk.gov.in/pages/display/101-district-domestic-product-estimates

West Bengal https://www.wbpspm.gov.in/SiteFiles/Publications/2_18052017142017.pdf

53

Appendix Table 2: State-wise Per capita GSDP from 1993-94 to 2015-16 and its Growth

Rate, (2011-12 prices)

Year 1993-94 2015-16 Growth Rate

Per Capita GDP Rank Per Capita GDP Rank CAGR Rank

A & N Islands 46168 5 107873 14 4.21 20

Andhra Pradesh 28188 20 86118 17 5.26 12

Arunachal Pradesh 39054 8 99823 15 4.40 17

Assam 27630 21 48465 26 2.64 30

Bihar 10350 30 24572 30 4.38 15

Chandigarh 74928 2 193604 3 4.30 21

Chhattisgarh 30446 17 67185 19 4.10 22

Delhi 72386 3 234328 2 5.49 11

Goa 93843 1 267329 1 4.39 19

Gujarat 29441 19 122148 8 6.33 5

Haryana 41116 6 133591 5 5.82 8

Himachal Pradesh 33567 12 114478 11 5.57 9

Jammu and Kashmir 31882 14 60171 22 2.87 28

Jharkhand 22099 26 50817 25 3.75 23

Karnataka 37054 10 113303 12 5.26 13

Kerala 35565 11 119777 10 5.96 7

Madhya Pradesh 21017 27 46324 27 3.68 25

Maharashtra 40330 7 121514 9 5.53 10

Manipur 25349 22 45652 28 2.82 29

Meghalaya 25293 23 59373 23 4.39 18

Nagaland 29760 18 61363 21 3.62 24

Odisha 23669 25 58165 24 4.60 14

Puducherry 32893 13 126880 6 6.30 6

Punjab 48207 4 99372 16 3.49 26

Rajasthan 23670 24 68048 18 4.44 16

Sikkim 37658 9 193569 4 8.57 1

Tamil Nadu 30478 16 111454 13 6.31 4

Tripura 14342 29 64173 20 7.22 3

Uttar Pradesh 19213 28 36850 29 3.00 27

Uttarakhand 31018 15 126306 7 7.48 2

All India 28249 88746 5.42

Source: Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy, RBI,

54

Appendix Table 3: State wise Intra-state disparities in per capita income

States CV (%) Rank

Andhra Pradesh 20.84 16

Bihar 73.2 2

Haryana 28.43 12

Himachal Pradesh 56.55 3

Jammu Kashmir 25.37 14

Jharkhand 28.01 13

Karnataka 43.48 6

Kerala 16.82 18

Madhya Pradesh 35.78 9

Maharashtra 39.25 8

Odisha 45.4 5

Punjab 17.57 17

Rajasthan 25.3 15

Tamil Nadu 32.93 11

Telangana 48.94 4

Uttar Pradesh 90.35 1

Uttarakhand 42.65 7

West Bengal 33.98 10

Source: Computed from the tables from 4 to 21

55

References:

Ahluwalia, Montek (2002): 'State Level Performance Under Economic Reforms in India' in

Anne Krueger, (ed), Economic Policy Reforms and the Indian Economy, Chicago,

University of Chicago Press

BhattacharyG (2009): Intra-State Disparity in Government Expenditure: An Analysis,

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 26/27 (Jun. 27 - Jul. 10, 2009), pp.231-

237

ChaudhuriS and Gupta N (2009): Levels of Living and Poverty Patterns: A District-Wise

Analysis for India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 9 (Feb. 28 - Mar. 6,

2009), pp. 94-110

Dholakia, Ravindra H (1977): 'State Income Inequalities in India and Interstate Variations in

Price Movements', presented at the conference of Indian Association for Research in

National Income and Wealth (IARNIW) held at Shillong in November. Subsequently

it was published in Arthavikas, Vol 14, No 1, January 1978

Dholakia, Ravindra H (1985): Regional Disparity in Economic Growth in India, Himalaya

Publishing House, Bombay.

Dubey A (2009): Intra-State Disparities in Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Orissa and Punjab,


230

Kanbur, R and A J Venables, ed. (2005): Spatial Inequality and Development (Oxford:

Oxford University Press

Rao, M Govinda, RicShand and K P Kalirajan (1999): 'Convergence of Incomes Across

Indian States: A Divergent View', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 34, March 22-

April 2.

Roy Choudhury, Uma Dutta (1993): 'Interstate and Intrastate Variations in Economic

Development and Standard of Living', Journal of Indian School of Political Economy,

Vol V, No 1, January-March, pp 47-116.

Sachs, Jeffrey D, NirupamBajpai and Ananthi Ramaiah (2002): 'Understanding Regional

Economic Growth in India', CID Working Paper No 88, Harvard University, March

Singh, A. K. (1999), "Inter- State Disparities in Per Capita State Domestic Product in India:

Trends and Causes", ArthaVijnana, XLI (2): 108-24.

Suryanarayana (2009): Intra-State Economic Disparities: Karnataka and Maharashtra,


223

Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India: A Study ...

Documents

Transcript of Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India: A Study ...