How can our less developed states keep pace with the rest of the states?

Per capita income is considered an incomplete measure of development, while the Human Development Index (HDI), a more people-centric measure, is a complex index, sensitive to the weightings of many of its constituent indicators, and it changes over time. is developing. Life expectancy is considered by Sen and others to be the best summary measure of socioeconomic success. [Amartya Sen, ‘Mortality as an indicator of economic success and failure’, The Economic Journal, 108 (446), 1998], While it is significantly correlated with per capita income, it is also determined by other quality-of-life elements. In data from Indian states, per capita income accounts for only 38% of the variation in life expectancy, as indicated by the regression line (dotted) in the adjacent scatter diagram (for the statistically inclined, the regression equation is significant at 1%). level with an r-square value of 38.3). I have used life expectancy in addition to per capita income in classifying states into different development groups.

In the bivariate development classification adopted here, the 22 states fall into four broad groups divided by the national average of per capita income and life expectancy (as shown in the chart). In the top right quadrant, we have six states, Delhi, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand, where both life expectancy and per capita income are higher than India’s average. Their trend growth rate is strong at 6-7% or more. These ‘Balanced Development’ states are the most successful development states in India.

In the upper left quadrant, we have Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and West Bengal, the ‘low growth’ states, which grew at a trend rate of less than 6% during the reference period compared to the national average of 7%. Their per capita income is also below the national average, except in Punjab, but life expectancy is much above the national average. Policies in these states should focus on promoting development.

In the lower right quadrant, we have four ‘high growth’ states with opposite characteristics: Gujarat, Haryana, Telangana and Karnataka. They all grew at a trend rate of over 8%, with Gujarat the highest at 9.2%, and their per capita income is also above the national average. However, life expectancy in all these states is below the national average. Social development should clearly be their policy priority.

Finally, in the lower left quadrant, we have a large group of less developed states: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, Rajasthan, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Chhattisgarh. In these, both per capita income and life expectancy are below the national average, in some cases even below. Thus, the per capita income in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar was only 50,000 more 34,000 respectively as compared to the national average of 1.3 lakh in actual in 2019-20. Similarly, life expectancy in Chhattisgarh and UP was 65.2 years and 65.3 years, respectively, as against the national average of 70.3 years.

India’s major development challenges are most clearly visible in these states. More than 52% of the workforce in these states is still dependent on agriculture; Chhattisgarh has 69%, compared to the national average of 43%. This indicates how these states have lagged behind in the structural shift of the workforce from agriculture to industry and services. As a result of the intense pressure of population on the land, the productivity and income of these workers are greatly reduced. The low life expectancy in these states reflects their low level of social development. These states are more dependent than others on government rather than private entrepreneurs to lead development, which is reflected in their higher share of public expenditure in GSDP. They are also heavily dependent on resource transfer from the Centre, which accounts for 44% of public spending in these states, compared to the national average of 36%.

Most worryingly, these poorest and least developed states include the most populous states, which have a large and growing share of the workforce. As Sonalde Desai cautions us in The Missing Women (Indian Express, 11 July 2022), India’s future lies in the hands of children growing up in states like UP, Bihar, MP and Chhattisgarh. Unless these children are educated and skilled when they enter the workforce, perhaps by migrating to more developed states, India will face a social time bomb in the not-too-distant future: millions of frustrated, unemployed and angry youth. Men and women.

How can this challenge be tackled? Large development distances within this group and between this group and more developed states may indicate further progress. While there are large differences in inheritance, resource endowment, and other conditions between states, they all have similar political, administrative and socio-economic structures, similar macroeconomic environments, and a common market. They have more similarities than differences. Therefore, it is conceivable that these least developed states can significantly up their game by adhering to policies and best practices seen in more developed states, especially states with ‘balanced development’.

These are the personal views of the author.

Sudipto Mundale, President, Center for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram

first article