Three years ago I did the following calculations based on per capita state domestic products:
State | 1993-94 | 2003-04 | Growth (percent) | Growth rank |
| 7416 | 11756 | 58.52 | 5 |
| 3037 | 3557 | 17.12 | 18 |
Jharkhand | 5897 | 7732 | 31.12 | 13 |
| 16558 | 30506 | 84.24 | 1 |
| 9796 | 16780 | 71.29 | 3 |
Haryana | 11079 | 15752 | 42.18 | 9 |
Karnataka | 7838 | 13141 | 67.66 | 4 |
Kerala | 7983 | 12328 | 54.43 | 7 |
| 6584 | 8284 | 25.82 | 16 |
Chhattisgarh | 6539 | 8383 | 28.20 | 14 |
| 12183 | 16479 | 35.26 | 11 |
Orissa | 4896 | 6487 | 32.50 | 12 |
| 12710 | 16119 | 26.82 | 15 |
Rajasthan | 6182 | 9685 | 56.66 | 6 |
Tamil Nadu | 8955 | 12976 | 44.90 | 8 |
| 5066 | 5975 | 17.94 | 17 |
Uttaranchal | 6896 | 9471 | 37.34 | 10 |
| 6756 | 11612 | 71.88 | 2 |
You can see that over the decade used in the table, the three slowest growing states were poor ones: Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and
There is newer data now, and here is a calculation for a later seven year period. It leaves out Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal) and
| 99-00 SDP PC | 06-07 SDP PC | Growth | Rank |
Andhra Pradesh | 15507 | 22835 | 58.56 | 6 |
| 5786 | 8167 | 62.43 | 3 |
Chhattisgarh | 11629 | 15660 | 51.74 | 8 |
| 18864 | 27027 | 62.02 | 4 |
Haryana | 23229 | 37314 | 85.75 | 1 |
Jharkhand | 11549 | 14252 | 39.40 | 13 |
Karnataka | 17502 | 22952 | 43.62 | 11 |
Kerala | 19461 | 30044 | 63.67 | 2 |
Madhya Pradesh | 12384 | 12881 | 18.95 | 16 |
| 23011 | 30982 | 50.83 | 9 |
Orissa | 10567 | 15528 | 59.02 | 5 |
| 25631 | 30041 | 32.58 | 15 |
Rajasthan | 13619 | 16460 | 39.69 | 12 |
Tamil Nadu | 19432 | 28320 | 54.81 | 7 |
Uttar Pradesh | 9749 | 11334 | 33.95 | 14 |
| 15888 | 21753 | 48.90 | 10 |
Haryana and Kerala do a lot better in this later snapshot. Karnataka does relatively worse.
All kinds of things can affect growth rates, but my guess is that governance matters a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment