Sie sind auf Seite 1von 119

ISSN: 2277-9108

JOURNAL OF
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

Volume 1 Issue 2 December 2012


CONTENTS

Pages
Editorial Note i

Articles
Regional Disparity in Agricultural Development: A
District-Level Analysis for Uttar Pradesh
Rakesh Raman &
Reena Kumari
71

Economic Growth and Sectoral Linkages: Empirical
Evidence from Odisha
Deepak Kumar Behera 91

Dispossession for Development in India: Some
Experiences on Land Acquisition
Bhaskar Majumder 103

Regional Origin of Manufacturing Exports: Inter-State
Patterns in India
Jaya Prakash Pradhan
& Keshab Das
117

Rural Infrastructure Availability and Wellbeing

S. Chakraborty,
A. Baksi & A.K.Verma
169

Book Review
An Introduction to Development and Regional Planning
with special reference to India; Jayasri Ray Choudhuri
Tanushree De 180



Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012



JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING



Editorial Team


Chief Editor
Kalyanbrata Bhattacharya
formerly of Department of Economics, University of Burdwan


Editor
Rajarshi Majumder
Department of Economics, University of Burdwan


Managing Editor
Jhilam Ray
Department of Economics, University of Burdwan



Editorial Advisory Board

Aditya Chattopadhyay, Calcutta University
Ajit K Singh, Director, Giri Institute of Development Studies,
Amitabh Kundu, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Alakh N Sharma, Director, Institute for Human Development
Biswajit Chatterjee, Jadavpur University
Dinesh C Sah, Director, MPISSR
Kausik Gupta, Rabindra Bharati University
Rabindranath Bhattacharya, Kalyani University
Rajendra P Mamgain, Director, Indian Institute for Dalit Studies
Shankar K Bhaumik, Calcutta University
Sibranjan Misra, Viswa Bharati
Tarun Kabiraj, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata



If you take care of the parts, the whole will take care of itself
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012 i

Editorial Note


Journal of Regional Development and Planning received tremendous enthusiasm and
encouragement when it hit the stands six months back. It was acknowledged that JRDP has
succeeded in placing itself as a peer reviewed journal providing interdisciplinary and applied
perspective on regional development.
In the past six months, we have had evidence of expanding regional imbalance across the globe.
Spatial inequality is rising not only in terms of economic indicators like income and consumption,
but also in terms of human development parameters like educational standards and health
indicators. It may also come as a surprise to some, but not all, that disparity is rising not only in
geographically large countries of the third world, but also in EU and CIS countries. Even NAFTA
has shown marginally increasing regional disparity in recent times. This has serious implications
for not only global economic order, but social dynamics as well. Even world peace depends on a
sustainable balance between different regions and countries. This makes the study of regional
development all the more important.
We reiterate that Journal of Regional Development and Planning will continue to publish original
work that explores conceptual and empirical papers from all branches of social sciences with a
focus on regional development.

RM
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

71
REGIONAL DISPARITY IN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: A DISTRICT-
LEVEL ANALYSIS for UTTAR PRADESH
Rakesh Raman & Reena Kumari
1


The growth of agriculture is prerequisite for overall development of Indian economy. It
contributes significantly to the export earnings and affects the performance of other sectors of the
economy through forward and backward linkages. The present paper analyses district and
regional level disparity in agriculture development in Uttar Pradesh on a number of agricultural
parameters. It uses UNDP methodology (subsequently used by a number of others) to standardize
various indicators for agricultural attainment in the state of Uttar Pradesh using 13 agricultural
development indicators. A composite index has been constructed at the district level and also
regional level for two cross-section years 1990-91 and 2008-09. The relative variations and
changes in ranks of different districts have been computed during the period under consideration.
Evidence shows existence of high and persistent inter-state disparity in agriculture in the state
over the years. The transformation of some districts from the level of relatively underperformer to
the rank of better performer and vice versa has been witnessed and explained. The findings
encourage the authors to conclude that a more determined effort on the part of the policy makers
is needed if the development policy has to be made truly inclusive.


INTRODUCTION
Indian economy at the dawn of 21
st
century finds itself at the cross-roads. Last few years have seen
its transformation from an ailing agricultural economy to a rapidly growing one with services
sector emerging as the power house for the economy. The economy has experienced an average
annual growth rate of approximately 6 to 8 per cent during the last two decades. As is to be
expected, improvement in economic growth and per capita income has translated, at least partly,
into reduction in the level of poverty in the country and accelerated improvement in various
indicators of human development. However, there is a broad consensus among critics as regards
growth not being inclusive and balanced. It is claimed that there exist huge diversity and regional
disparity across the economy at state level. The gap between rich and poor regions that existed
even at the time of independence has widened over the years and significantly intensified during
the period of reforms.
There exists voluminous literature dealing with the issue of regional disparity. Most studies have
targeted state as unit for measuring disparity and have sought to gauge the impact of development
policy on relative development of the states. The findings of such studies have been used by
government agencies to frame policies to promote balanced regional development. These policies
have met with limited success and not only disparity has increased but has started showing its
ugliest face. One significant factor causing limited success to efforts of balanced developments has
been the neglect of variations within states and exclusive reliance on information relating to
disparity at the state level. For a huge country like India where some of the states are bigger than

1
Associate Professor and Senior Research Fellow respectively at Department of Economics, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi 221005; contact: raireena86@gmail.com
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
72
many nations, it is very important to look at the disparity at the disaggregate level. This is an
account of a number of reasons. First, the regional development policy is framed by the
government by treating the state as a homogenous unit which it is not. Measurement of disparity at
the district level would help to frame area specific plans and policies in a better manner and adopt
policies suitable to tackle different regions within a state. Second, a study of disparity at the
disaggregated level is essential for ascertaining the level of development in agriculture, industry,
infrastructure, per capita net state domestic product (NSDP), level of literacy among men and
women, health cover and other sectors across all the districts of a particular state and also for
analyzing the respective roles of physical/natural factors vis--vis man-made factors in causing (or
aggravating) interregional economic inequalities. Third, the widening gulf between advanced and
backward regions within a state leaves those living in backward regions disgruntled and
dissatisfied, creates an aversion towards the civic processes and raises doubt about the viability
and usefulness of the political system. This has destabilizing impact on district economy and
polity. Fourth, growth of developed pockets within a particular state promotes concentration of
economic units in the region, results in increased internal migration, causes environmental
backlash etc. Fifth, experience shows that cross-country comparisons of stage and pace of
development are impossible and, following the same logic, inter-state interregional comparisons
are also very difficult when the regions differ significantly in terms of size, principal features,
governance etc. A study at the disaggregated level is required for identification of the factors that
are instrumental in the controlling regional disparity and developing policy mix to promote the
same.
It is this realisation that has encouraged the present authors to attempt at analysing inter-district
agricultural disparity in Uttar Pradesh. Indian agriculture is known for its diversity which is
mainly the result of variations in resource endowments, climate, topography and historical,
institutional and socio economic factors. Policies followed in the country and nature of technology
that became available over the times has reinforced some of the variations resulting from natural
factors. As a consequence, production performance of agriculture sector has followed an uneven
path and large gaps have developed in productivity between different geographic locations across
the country. Being primarily agricultural, high growth in agriculture sector is a pre-requisite for
attaining higher growth in the overall economy of the state, as also for reduction in the incidence
of poverty. Unfortunately however, since the tenth plan the agricultural sector in the economy has
not been doing well and the growth rate in the sector has remained in the vicinity of a low 2 per
cent per annual. There is deceleration in the growth of agriculture along with the distressed state
of farmers, in general and that of small and marginal farmers, in particular. What is more
intriguing is that there is wide inter-region and inter-district disparity within the state. While the
districts of the Eastern and Central (Bundelkhand) regions are fighting tough situation riddled with
the problem of small size of land holding, farmers indebtedness, migration and poor access to
modern technology; those located in Western region are relatively better-off. This variation in
situation of agriculture is on the one hand causing lop-sided development of the state and
increasing dissatisfaction and disenchantment of farmers of the backward area, on the other
making policy formulation extremely difficult. Policymakers can not apply one set of policy for all
the regions/districts of the state because the nature of the ailment, level of development and
complications differ. What is, therefore, required is to have firsthand detailed information of the
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

73
variation among different districts of the state in agricultural development, their growth trend,
strength and weaknesses, so as to formulate right mix of policy that can resurrect the agricultural
sector of the State. It is this need that the present paper addresses. It attempts to see the extent of
variation among different districts of UP in the last two decades. It compares the districts at two
time periods 1990-91 and 2008-09 to see how the disparity is evolving over a period of time.
This paper thus raises questions about the ability of decentralized planning to promote agricultural
equality in Uttar Pradesh. What are the levels of various districts of Uttar Pradesh in agricultural
development during the period 1990-91 to 2008-09? What are the causes and effects of disparity
which allow for both equality and growth? The paper is divided into four sections. Section-I
provides a brief review of literature. Section-II describes methodology and data source of the
study. Section-III analyses district and regional level attainment of agricultural in Uttar Pradesh in
terms of the indicators chosen and measures the inter-district and inter-region disparity. Section-
IV provides suggestions to make things better for the state.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: A REVIEW
The literature on regional disparity relating to agricultural development is vast and varied. Here
we have divided the extent literature into three broad ways-
1. Regional Disparity at State-level
2. Regional Disparity at District-level
A good number of writings and research papers have been carried out to identify disparity at state
level using different methods and indicators. There are a number of approaches that have tested
the convergence hypothesis for India. Their finding has been conflicting- We have on the one hand
the works of Dholakia (1994), Cashin and Sahay (1996), Nagaraj, et al. (1998 and 2000) and few
others who have tested for conditional and absolute convergence by including a number of
alternative variables and have observed that there has been conditional convergence for the states
of the Indian economy. We on the other hand have works of Bajpai and Sachs (1996), Rao et.al
(1999), Dipankar et.al (2000), Aiyar (2001), Trivedi (2002), Singh, et al. (2003), Bhattacharya &
Sakthivel, (2004) who claim that there has been divergence between states in the post
independence era. Nayyar (2008) in his generalised methods of moment method confirms that
there is no evidence of any convergence in growth of Indian states. These authors have attempted
to identify factors that have caused divergence and are seems to be in unison so far as the negative
impact of structural reforms and liberalisation on disparity is concerned.
In sum, two key points emerge from the existing literature analyzing convergence across Indian
states. First, there is robust evidence for unconditional divergence or the lack of unconditional
convergence. Second, the evidence on conditional convergence is not entirely conclusive.
The alternative approach defines convergence as a reduction in the equality of regional incomes
over time. The simplest way to measure a reduction in regional income inequality is in terms of a
fall in the standard deviation of the logarithm of regional (per capita) incomes. This standard
deviation-based approach is also known in the literature as sigma convergence (Barro and Sala-i-
Martin, 1995). The list of works using different alternative methods of disparity such as Ginni
Coefficient, Theils entropy index, Coefficient of variation, Rank Analysis, Index of Rank
Concordance, Composite Indices using factor analysis etc. is very long. The important works
include the one by Nair (1971), Gupta (1973) Chaudhury (1974) Majumdar and Kapoor (1980),
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
74
Cashin and Sahay (1996), Rao, Shand and Kalirajan (1999), Ahluwalia (2000), followed by
Bhattacharya and Sakthivel (2004), Sabyachi kar and Sakthivel etc. Almost invariably all the
works have found that disparity between states no matter which inequality concept is used has
increased since independence and has intensified since the launching of reforms. These works
have also sought to identify different factors especially government policies that have led t the
intensification of disparity.
There is great dearth of studies measuring disparity in India at the disaggregated level. There are
very few works of quality available dealing with intra-state disparity. We can quote only a
handful. These include the one by Shaban (2006) for the state of Maharashtra, using Principle
Component Analysis (PCA) for the benchmark years 1972-73, 1982-83 and 1988-89. The study
finds that regions of Vidarbha and Marathwada and the district of Ratnagiri, Raigadh Dhule and
Jalgaon have been the least developed both at sectoral and the aggregate levels of development.
Shastri (1988) has examined the regional disparity for the state of Rajasthan which covers a period
of 23 years (1961-1984). The study delineates the developed and underdeveloped districts and
within the districts, the developed and underdeveloped sectors which require the attention of
the policy makers. It clearly brings out the existing inter-district imbalances in the economic
development of Rajasthan and makes the need for greater emphasis on regional approach to
development planning obviously. A recent study, by Diwakar examine the regional disparity at
disaggregate level, using district as a unit for the state of Uttar Pradesh and find that no district in
the Eastern and Bundelkhand regions were in the most developed category. At the same time,
many districts in the Western and Central regions were also on the lower rungs.
There are a number of attempts made at discussing backwardness of a particular region or
prevalence of crisis like situation in some other but the thrust on regional disparity in agricultural
development has been rather lacking. Clearly, the studies relating to backwardness of agriculture
have pointed out some major problems of the agriculture sector but have failed to compare the
variations in performance of different regions and the reasons thereof.
Among the works that investigate causes of backwardness of agriculture/crisis of agriculture in the
state and in selected regions mention may be made of the works of Vakulabharanam, Chand,
Mishra and others. For example, Vakulabharanam (2005, 2008) has argued that the reduction of
domestic support in terms of subsidy and credit on the one hand, and drastic price fall of
agricultural commodities in the international market on the other hand, has led to distress in the
farming class of the state. Mishra, (2007), Reddy and Mishra, (2008) emphasise that crisis in
agriculture was well underway by the 1980s and economic reforms in the 1990s have only
deepened it. Decline in the supply of electricity to agriculture has been regarded as major cause of
distress by Chand et. al (2007); Chand (2005); and Chand and Kumar (2005).
Narayanamoorthy (2007) argues that fall in wheat and rice production is not due to technology
fatigue rather due to extensive mono crop cultivation and high use of fertilisers and faulty
agricultural pricing. Lack of allocation of funds to irrigation development after liberalisation has
also resulted in the stagnation of net area irrigated. This poor growth in surface irrigation has
compelled farmers to rely heavily on groundwater irrigation. The increased dependence on
groundwater irrigation increases the cost of cultivation and depletion of ground water resources
and in addition to this credit unavailability for investment on inputs put farmer in further crisis.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

75
Suri (2007) and Reddy (2006) argue that agrarian distress is result of the liberalisation policies
which prematurely pushed the Indian agriculture into the global markets without a level-playing
field; heavy dependence on high-cost paid out inputs and the other factors such as changed
cropping pattern from light crops to cash crops; growing costs of cultivation; volatility of crop
output; market vagaries; lack of remunerative prices; indebtedness; neglect of agriculture by the
government; decline of public investment have contributed further to agrarian crisis. Same time,
they points out that technological factors, ecological, socio cultural and policy related factors have
contributed for the crisis.
Further, authors argue that extensive cultivation has led to decrease in productivity, which is due
to intensive use of fertilisers, which in turn resulted in increasing cost of inputs, ultimately leading
to decrease in profit margins. Ecological factors include decreasing quality of land and water
resources due to intensive chemical and fertiliser use. Socio and cultural factors include the effects
of globalisation and urban culture on villages had shown impact on health and education
consciousness in the rural agrarian families, in order to get the access of better facilities farmers
have changed their cropping pattern. Policy related factors like decrease in public investment from
4 per cent of agricultural GDP during 1980s to 1.86 during early 2000. Patnaik (2005) examined
how neo liberal policies introduced in the 1990s affected peasant community by examining the
fund allocation to the rural development and concludes that fund allocation has come down from 4
per cent of NNP in 1990-91 to 1.9 per cent of NNP by 2001-02. Gulati and Bathla, (2001), Chand
and Kumar, (2004) have studied the impact of capital formation on Indian agriculture and have
found that growth in capital formation in Indian agriculture has been either stagnating or falling
since the beginning of 1980s. The process has been further aggravated by the macro economic
reforms that have squeezed public investment. Vyas (2001) examined the impact of economic
reforms on agriculture and claimed that Indian farmers mostly consists of small and marginal
farmer who mainly depend on agricultural price policies such as Minimum Support Prices (MSP)
subsidies on inputs and irrigation, however, after reforms the MSP has not been properly regulated
by the government leading to farmers distress.
A review of the studies reveals that the studies have highlighted major reasons for agricultural
distress. These reasons include vagaries of nature (primarily, inadequate or excessive water), lack
of irrigation facilities, market related uncertainties such as increasing input costs and output price
shocks, emphasis on commercial and plantation crops due to agricultural trade liberalisation,
unavailability of credit from institutional sources or excessive reliance on informal sources with a
greater interest burden and new technology among other. In addition, decline in the area under
cultivation, which seems to be a result of expanding urbanization and industrialisation,
deterioration in the terms of trade for agriculture, stagnant crop intensity, poor progress of
irrigation and fertiliser have also been stressed.
Most of existing studies do not highlight the inter-district or inter-region variation in agricultural
development and talk mainly in terms of the overall state or just one region of it but, contribute in
finding the variables that should be taken to measure level of agricultural development in different
regions of the state. The present study gets hints and impetus from the study done so far in
identifying the appropriate variable and bridging the gap in the literature pertaining to
comprehensive treatment of agricultural disparity. It makes an attempt to identify the backward
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
76
regions of Uttar Pradesh in agricultural development indicators at two cross-section periods 1990-
91 to 2008-09.
Methodology & Database
The present paper an attempt has been made to develop suitable indices involving appropriate
indicators to measure the extent of disparity in agricultural attainment in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
The indicators are different and heterogeneous across the district of the state. District level data on
the variables have been chosen keeping in the view the availability of information. There are two
problems related to methodological that the present author has come across. First, there are a
number of indicators of level of agricultural attainment, but the source of data for these indicators
are varied making it difficult to use all the indicators jointly to develop a composite index. Further,
the fact that the present study attempts to compare disparity in agricultural attainment at different
time periods cause additional problem. This is because the agencies providing the information
have been frequently changing the definition and coverage making it difficult to use data across
time period without involving considerable error. Second, the study seeks to compare regional
variation for the benchmark year 1990-91, and 2008-09. The year 1990-91 represents the turning
point of reform period and 2008-09 represents the latest year for which most of the information are
available. Between 1990-91 & 2008-09 a number of new districts have come up in UP. Although
in most cases one big district has been bifurcated to form two new districts but in some stray cases
out of two big districts a third one has been carved out. For making comparisons as we try to
reconstruct the old districts in 2008-09, the ideal methodology would have been to find figures for
different blocks and add these to get figure of the whole old district. The non-availability of
relevant block level data however has forced us to shun this and go for adding the data of new
districts to get information of the old district in the process assuming that the new districts are
subset of the old one. This indeed involves some error but we are compelled to commit this
because of lack of information. The study thus takes only 54 districts and all newly created
districts have been merged accordingly on the basis of 1990-91 year. The merging of these new
districts for the year 2008-09 have been done by averaging all the indicators according to
population of districts. Data for regional development are mainly cited or calculated from the
latest available statistics, mostly from U.P. Planning Commission, Census of India and U.P.
District Development Report. The study computes composite index for agricultural development
which shows the pattern of development and rank of various districts in agricultural attainment.
First, the values of the selected indicators for all the 54 districts of the state were collected and
tabulated.


Then the tabulated data were transformed into standardised X
id
s, using equation 1, where X
idr
stands for actual value of i
th
variable for district dr
th
(number of district) and Min X
idr
stands for
minimum value of i
th
variable of all districts, Max X
idr
stands for the maximum value of i
th

variable within the all districts and X
id
stands for the standard value of the i
th
variable in the d
th

district and d
th
runs from 1 to 54, representing the 54 districts of the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

77
If, however, Xi is negatively associated with development, as, for example, the infant mortality
rate or the unemployment rate which should decline as the district develops and then equation 1
can be written as:


By giving the weight on the basis of HDI method we have averaged the value of all variables
according to the weight and find the composite index of agricultural sector. The following
indicators were used:
1. Per-capita Food-grain Production (PCFP)
2. Distribution of Total Fertilizer per Hectare of Gross Area Sown (DTFGAS)
3. Gross Irrigated Area as Percentage of Gross Sown Area (GIA)
4. Percentage of Area Under Commercial Crops to Gross Sown Area (PCCGSA)
5. Availability of Gross Area Sown per Tractor (AGAST)
6. Cropping Intensity (CI)
7. Percentage of Area Under Forest to Total Reporting Area (PAUFTRA)
8. Percentage of Net Area Sown to Total Reporting Area (PNASRA)
9. Number of Regulated Mandies per Lakh of Population (NRASRA)
10. Percentage of Net Area Sown to Cultivable Land (PNASCL)
11. Percentage of Total Electricity Consumption in Agriculture Sector (PECASTE)
12. District-wise Percentage Distribution of Private Pumping Sets/Tube wells (DPDPPT)
13. District-wise Percentage Distribution of Government Tube wells (DPDGT)
Agriculture Development in Uttar Pradesh: overview
Uttar Pradesh, despite more than six decades of planned efforts and industrialization drives still
remains basically an agricultural and food producing state of India. Agriculture not only
contributes significantly to the states NSDP but, at the same time, is a major source of
employment in rural areas. Despite the prominence of agriculture the situation of agriculture in the
state is not something to be really proud of. Table-1 and Chart-1 provides a brief description of
how the UP economy and agriculture have grown vis--vis the country.
A brief perusal of the table and the chart reveals some important things. First, that barring Fifth
Plan (and marginally the Sixth Plan), the Annual Plans and the Tenth Plan, the growth rate of
agricultural sector in UP has remained considerably lower than that for the nation as a whole. For
a state where agriculture is the mainstay for bulk of population this shows the poor state of affairs
of the sector and also the apathy and lack of support of the government. Second, in all the plans in
which the growth rate of agriculture has exceeded that for the nation as a whole, the overall
growth rate of the UP economy has also exceeded the growth of the nation as a whole. This
reaffirms our hypothesis that Uttar Pradesh is basically an agricultural state. Third, the chart
clearly shows that the agricultural sector in the state has not grown in any consistent fashion.
There has been regular fluctuation in the growth rate (Chart makes it very clear) with the rate of
growth varying between -0.09 per cent in the III Plan to 5.42 per cent during the Annual Plans.
The fluctuation shows the vulnerability of the sector to seasonal conditions.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
78
Table 1
Growth Rate of Agriculture and Allied Sector during the Plan Period (in per cent)

Plan
Agriculture & Allied Sector Overall Economy
UP India UP India
1 First Plan (1951-56) 1.86 2.71 2.12 3.60
2 Second Plan (1956-61) 1.48 3.15 1.75 3.95
3 Third Plan (1961-66) -0.09 -0.73 1.58 2.32
4 Three Annual Plan (1966-69) 0.62 4.16 0.32 3.69
5 Fourth Plan (1969-74) 0.94 2.57 2.23 3.25
6 Fifth Plan (1974-79) 5.23 3.28 5.70 5.30
7 Sixth Plan (1981-85) 2.54 2.52 4.11 4.10
8 Seventh Plan (1985-90) 2.69 3.47 5.70 5.80
9 Two Annual Plan (1990-92) 5.42 1.01 3.14 2.47
10 Eighth Plan (1992-97) 2.70 3.90 3.20 6.80
11 Ninth Plan (1997-02) 0.80 1.90 2.00 5.60
12 Tenth Plan (2002-07) 2.10 1.10 5.30 7.70
Sources: Uttar Pradesh Planning Commission
Besides uneven and rather tardy growth of the agricultural sector in the state, a permanent issue is
wide inter-region and inter-district variation in terms of almost all indicators of economic
development and human development. The state, fifth largest in size and first in terms of
population, UP is huge by any standard and variations in resource endowment, climate,
topography and historical, institutional and socio-economic parameters, besides apathetic attitude
and faulty policies of the government over a period of time, have taken together, resulted not only
in perpetuation of inter-district/region disparity but even its intensification.

Chart 1
Growth Rate of Agriculture and Allied Sector during the Plan Periods

Sources: Uttar Pradesh Planning Commission
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

79
Table 2
Region-wise Comparative Status of Development in UP
Source: 11
th
five year plan document of Uttar Pradesh, Mishra, 2007(Row 19 and 20) and Statistical
Abstract, Uttar Pradesh, 2010
The primary focus of the present work is to talk about inter-region and inter-district
variations/disparity in agricultural development in the state. The state is divided into four
administrative/economic zones and nine agro-climatic zones. Since, for overall policy formulation
administrative division is giving credence, we have also provided explanting of variation in terms
of economic zones. Table 2 provides a summary picture of different zones of the state in terms of
some important indicators. It has been noticed that Bundelkhand was the most backward region in
almost all the agricultural and allied indicators except road length (infrastructure indicator) in the
period 2008-09. In contrary, Western region was the most advanced region in several same
indicators only except road length. The Bundelkhand followed by Eastern region of Uttar Pradesh
were less developed regions compared to Western followed by Central region of the state in
agricultural parameters. The reasons behind backwardness of these states are the low financial

Indicator Year Western Central Eastern
Bundelkh
and
U P
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
I. Agriculture and
Allied

1. Area under marginal
holdings less than one
(hect.)
2000-01 1906.9 1374.2 3003.5 362.9 6647.7
2. Percentage of total
fertilizer distribution to
gross cropped area(Kg.)
2008-09 17.9 15.4 15.9 4.3 15.5
3.
Cropping Intensity 2008-09 162.4 153.4 154.8 125.0 153.8
4 Length of roads per
lakh of population
(Kms.)
2008-09 76.8 80.5 84.8 118.3 82.7
5. Percentage of Net
irrigated area to net area
sown
2008-09 91.7 84.5 76.4 56.4 81.1

I.1 Productivity of Major Crops (qtls /hect)
6. Average yield of food-
grain
2008-09 27.8 23.6 22.6 14.5 23.6
7.
Wheat 2008-09 34.0 30.3 26.9 23.8 30.0
8.
Rice 2008-09 22.5 20.5 22.1 13.2 21.1
9.
Potato 2008-09 223.8 184.2 157.3 205.5 205.5
10
Pulses 2008-09 8.6 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.0
11.
Oilseeds 2008-09 12.6 7.8 6.9 4.5 8.9
12.
Sugarcane 2008-09 564.5 477.4 444.2 369.9 524.7
13. Monthly Returns from
Cultivation per farmer
Households (Rs)
2002-03 1398.0 815.0 572.0 1011.0 836.0
13. Average Household
Size of Farmer
2002-03 6.1 5.6 6.3 5.7 6.1
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
80
assistance, high indebtedness of farmers, crisis of agriculture and most concrete problem is
colonial policy of development. In spite of several government policies that is launched by central
and state government, huge climatic condition for agricultural production and located in indo-
gangetic plains notwithstanding, these regions are failed in agricultural production. Another
problem of the Eastern region is population pressure and high dependence of workers on
agriculture which creates marginal size of holdings. On the other hand low income and high
poverty was next cause for lower performance of agriculture in this region. When we see the
physical quantities of food-grains crops, Bundelkhand region followed by Eastern region were
again less developed compared to Western followed by Central region of Uttar Pradesh in the
period 2008-09. Average yield of food-grains production was highest in Western region that was
also higher than state average in the same period. In 2002-03, monthly returns from cultivation per
farmer household was high in Bundelkhan region, due to some specific production of crops like
potato and some-how influenced by positive policy implication and government subsidy
assistance.
Regional Disparity: Inter-district and Regional Analysis
Disparity in agricultural productivity in Uttar Pradesh across different regions and districts is a
matter of deep concern. In spite of planned efforts, the gap between developed and backward
regions has not been bridged. The variation in agricultural productivity across various regions of
the state may be attributed to differential resource endowment in terms of soil fertility, land
pattern, average annual rainfall, irrigation and infrastructure and also socio-cultural and economic
conditions of farmers. In the current era of liberalization and privatization and free play of market
forces, many foresee that regional disparity may increase due to the logic of the survival of the
fittest.
Table 3 & Table 4 together provide a picture of inter-region disparity in terms of agricultural
development in the state. Table-3 classifies the districts of the state into three categories on the
basis of percentile and index scores. The percentile score has been computed on the basis of the
score of the best performing district of the state. The first category of high performers have a
percentile score of 0.8 and above (the index score spread of the categories have been shown in
column -2), the districts with a percentile score falling in the range 60 per cent and 80 per cent
have been put in the category of moderate performers, while districts with index score of less than
60 per cent have been branded as low performers. The Table reveals some very interesting results.
First, there exist wide variations among districts with respect to agricultural development. In both
time periods we have on the one hand some districts that have done very well while on the other
there are some who have lagged behind.
Second, the Western region overall has been the best performing region of the state in terms of
agricultural development. Out of a total 14 high performing districts in 1990-91, 12 belonged to
the Western region. Similarly for 2008-09 out of 25 districts in this category 17 were from the
Western Region. None of the districts of this region fell in the low performer category. The
relative position of the districts of this region has also improved with time as is evident from
shifting of 5 districts of this category from moderate performer category to high performer
category.

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

81

Table 3
Classification of Districts According to Index Score
Category
Index
Score
Location
Districts
1990-91
High
0.49 &
above
West-12
East- 2
Bulandsahar, Saharanpur, Moradabad, Muzzafarnagar,
Meerut, Pilibhit, Bijnor, Rampur, Budaun, Aligarh,
Shahjahanpur, Mau, Ghazipur, Etah,
Moderate
0.37 to
0.48
West- 9
East-13
Central- 7
Ghaziabad, Varanasi, Deoria, Farrukhabad, Bareilly,
Ballia, Kheri, Mainpuri, Faizabad, Jaunpur, Firozabad,
Agra, Etawah, Basti, Gorakhpur, Azamgarh, Rae
Bareilly, Mathura, Fatehpur, Maharajganj, Bahraich,
Gonda, Allahabad, Barabanki, Hardoi, Sitapur,
Siddarthnagar, Kanpur Dehat, Sultanpur
Low

below
0.37
Central- 3
Bundelkhand- 5
East- 3
Kanpur Nagar, Mirzapur, Unnao, Jalaun, Lucknow,
Pratapgarh, Hamirpur, Banda, Jhansi, Sonebhadra,
Lalitpur
2008-09
High
0.47 &
above
West-17
Central- 3
East- 5
Bulandsahar, Shahjahanpur, Moradabad, Badaun,
Rampur, Saharanpur, Muzzafarnagar, Etah, Mainpuri,
Pilibhit, Kheri, Bijnor, Meerut, Farrukhabad, Bareilly,
Sitapur, Maharajganj, Ghazipur, Ghaziabad, Aligarh,
Faizabad, Firozabad, Hardoi, Jaunpur, Gorakhpur,
Moderate
0.35 to
0.46
West- 3
Central- 7
East-12
Barabanki, Mau, Eatawa, Sultanpur, Agra, Pratapgarh,
Ballia, Raebareily, Kanpur Dehat, Gonda, Azamgarh,
Basti, Fatehpur, Deoria, Allahabad, Siddarthnagar,
Varanasi, Kanpur Nagar, Mathura, Unnao, Bahraich,
Lucknow,
Low

below
0.35
Bundelkhand-5
East- 2
Mirzapur, Jalaun, Jhansi, Banda, Sonebhadra, Hamirpur,
Lalitpur
Source: Authors calculations
The findings of Table 3 are substantiated by that of Table 4 which shows region wise scores of
different districts. The table shows that the average index score of the districts of the Western
region was the highest i.e. 0.521 in 1990-91 (0.517 in 2008-09). This value is very high as
compared to the state average of 0.44 in 1990-91 (0.445 in 2008-09). If compared with the lowest
place region Bundelkhand the average score of Western region was 1.9 times higher in 1990-91
(2.08 times in 2008-09).
Another interesting feature of Western region is that not only the region has the best average score
reflecting higher agricultural development; it also has relatively low inter-district variation in
agricultural development. The best performing district of the region as judged by the index score
in both the periods has been Bulandsahar with index score of 0.621 in 1990-91(0.58 in 2008-09)
and the worst performer has been Mathura with a score of 0.43(0.39). The Coefficient of variation
of index score among the districts was found to be 11.31 % in 1990-91 which has shown a decline
over a period of time. It stood at 9.29% in 2008-09.
Among the districts of Western region while Bulandsahar has been able to maintain its position,
Shahjahanpur has shown remarkable progress climbing up 9 places from 11 overall in 1990-91 to
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
82
2 in 2008-09. Mainpuri, Etah and Farukkabad have also shown relative progress. The positions of
Aligarh, Mathura and Meerut have deteriorated in the intervening period. Mathura was in 2008-09
standing at 44th position out of 54 districts. This shows that although overall the Western region
has made progress over time and the inter-district variation as judged by CV has gone down, but
the gap in the performance of best performing districts and the lagging district within the region
has widened.
Table 4
Level of Development of Agriculture in Different Districts of Uttar Pradesh

S.N.
Districts
1990-91 2008-09
Index R Index R
Western Region
1 Saharanpur 0.615 2 0.551 6
2 Muzaffarnagar 0.591 4 0.549 7
3 Bijnor 0.547 7 0.534 12
4 Moradabad 0.595 3 0.555 3
5 Rampur 0.545 8 0.552 5
6 Meerut 0.588 5 0.531 13
7 Ghaziabad 0.49 15 0.487 19
8 Buland Shahar 0.621 1 0.58 1
9 Aligarh 0.514 10 0.478 20
10 Mathura 0.426 32 0.389 44
11 Agra 0.455 26 0.449 30
12 Firozabad 0.459 25 0.475 22
13 Etah 0.499 14 0.548 8
14 Mainpuri 0.467 22 0.548 9
15 Budaun 0.539 9 0.554 4
16 Bareilly 0.477 19 0.501 15
17 Pilibhit 0.55 6 0.546 10
18 Shahjahanpur 0.509 11 0.557 2
19 Farrukhabad 0.484 18 0.509 14
20 Etawah 0.453 27 0.455 28

WR Average 0.521 0.517
WR S.D. 0.059 0.048
WR C.V. 11.31 9.329

Central Region
21 Kheri 0.472 21 0.536 11
22 Sitapur 0.391 41 0.495 16
23 Hardoi 0.392 40 0.473 23
24 Unnao 0.338 46 0.388 45
25 Lucknow 0.332 48 0.355 47
26 Rae Bareli 0.44 31 0.444 33
27 Kanpur Dehat 0.402 37 0.443 34
28 Kanpur Nagar 0.36 44 0.395 43
29 Fatehpur 0.425 33 0.418 38
30 Barabanki 0.397 39 0.459 26

CR Average 0.395 0.441
CR S.D 0.044 0.054
CR C.V. 11.11 12.25
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

83

Table 4 (contd)
Level of Development of Agriculture in Different Districts of Uttar Pradesh

S.N.
Districts
1990-91 2008-09
Index R Index R
Bundelkhand Region
31 Jalaun 0.335 47 0.327 49
32 Jhansi 0.231 52 0.26 50
33 Lalitpur 0.18 54 0.198 54
34 Hamirpur 0.325 50 0.209 53
35 Banda 0.299 51 0.244 51

BKD Average 0.274 0.248
BKD S.D 0.066 0.051
BKD C.V. 24.22 20.57

Eastern Region
36 Pratapgarh 0.331 49 0.449 31
37 Allahabad 0.399 38 0.407 40
38 Faizabad 0.463 23 0.476 21
39 Sultanpur 0.372 43 0.452 29
40 Bahraich 0.416 35 0.367 46
41 Gonda 0.408 36 0.431 35
42 Siddharth Nagar 0.382 42 0.406 41
43 Basti 0.451 28 0.425 37
44 Mahrajganj 0.421 34 0.493 17
45 Gorakhpur 0.448 29 0.464 25
46 Deoria 0.489 17 0.409 39
47 Azamgarh 0.443 30 0.425 36
48 Mau 0.503 12 0.457 27
49 Ballia 0.474 20 0.449 32
50 Jaunpur 0.461 24 0.471 24
51 Ghazipur 0.503 13 0.489 18
52 Varanasi 0.489 16 0.405 42
53 Mirzapur 0.341 45 0.341 48
54 Sonebhadra 0.23 53 0.239 52

ER Average 0.422 0.424
ER S.D 0.069 0.06
ER C.V. 16.39 14.1


State Average 0.44 0.445
State S.D 0.095 0.092
State C.V. 21.7 20.77
Source: Authors Calculations
The Bundelkhand region of the state has been the most lagging region in terms of agricultural
development. All five districts of the region fell in the low performing category in both the time
periods. The region had an average index score of 0.274 in 1990-91 and 0.248 in 2008-09. The
highest rank district of the region was Jaluan which had a rank of 47 in 1990-91 that deteriorated
to 49 in 2008-09. Obviously all other districts of the region had ranks below 47 in 1990-91 and 49
in 2008-09. Another noteworthy point is relatively high inter-district variation in this lagging
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
84
region. The CV (Coefficient of variation) of index score for the region was 24.22% in 1990-
1(20.57% in 2008-09) symbolising very high variation. If the best performing district of the region
has a low average score of 0.335 the position of other districts with such high CV can be easily
ascertained. Lalitpur district of the state the lowest overall had a score of only 0.18 in 1990-91,
3.45 times less than the best performing district of the state Bulandsahar.
The reasons for agricultural backwardness of Bundelkhand are not difficult to understand. We may
mention some important ones here. The regions agricultural sector is heavily dependent on
rainfall which has been erratic. It is supplemented by groundwater which has been receding.
Agriculture here is diverse, complex, under-invested, risky and vulnerable. The region lacks
alternate sources of water for irrigation. A depleted groundwater table and the high costs
associated with building and operating irrigation infrastructure are putting the region in deep
trouble.
Further harsh and worsening biophysical conditions such as low soil fertility, combined with more
frequent extreme events such as droughts caused by climate variability and change, further
exacerbate the regions vulnerability. Of late, climate change that is being reflected in high rainfall
intensity coupled with decrease in winter precipitation has resulted in high runoff and higher rivers
flow making flood and erosion an eventuality.
The region has a population of approximately 21 million, out of which 82.32 per cent is rural and
more than one third of the households in these areas are considered to be Below the Poverty Line
(BPL). The condition of the farmers in the region is very bad; they are in debt which is mounting.
They neither have the resources not adequate governmental assistance to take up the agricultural
work well. Low resources here have forced farmers to go for solo cropping and cultivate only 20%
of the net shown area in the Kharif season. About 60% of the gross cropped area remains irrigation
less. Gradual decrease in the area cultivated during the Kharif season is also easily visible. It was
around 33% of the gross cropped area in the year 1977-78 and which got reduced to 26% in the
year 1993-94 and remained only 23% in the year 1998-99 to around 20% at present.
75% of the farmers are small and marginal with average land holding of up to 2 hectares and most
of them can only think of mere survival. Their continued existence is by and large reliant on the
blend of produces of their own land and daily wage earning. Whereas gradual growing cost of the
agriculture ingredients which is largely because of change in agricultural practices and adaptation
of high water consuming varieties. This is also another critical component that is responsible for
increasing vulnerability of the small and medium cultivators due to reason of entire control of big
landlords on water in Bundelkhand.
Land rights in the region are also not very clear. Land shown in records to be in the possession of
weaker sections, or as part of the village commons, has been encroached upon by big landowners.
Many landless families have been given land on paper, but, for various reasons, have not been able
to occupy the land. There are several allottees who do not know exactly which plot of land has
been allotted to them. They cultivate a plot only to be told later that it is not their land.
All these factors taken together make the situation of agriculture in Bundelkhand really precarious
and increase the inter-region variation substantially.
The Eastern Region of the state, where a bulk of population resides also fair badly in terms of
agricultural development. Table-4 shows that the region had an average score of 0.422 in 1990-
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

85
1(0.4.24 in 2008-09) with a CV of 16.39%. Only two districts Mau and Ghazipur of the region
could find a place in the high performing districts in 1990-91. The number however increased to
05 in 2008-09. Most of the districts were placed in moderate performer category with the
exception of Sonebhadra and Mirzapur which in both time periods stood in the category of low
performers.
The Central Region of the state that comprises of Kanpur, Kheri, Sitapur etc. have been by and
large moderate performers over the years.
Regional Disparity in terms of Key Indicators
Regional variation among different districts of Uttar Pradesh in terms of key indicators of
agricultural development is depicted in Table 5 & Table 6. They also show how the variation has
changed since the launching of period of reforms. The table is split into two parts the upper part
shows the indicators in terms of which over the intervening period disparity has widened while the
lower half shows indicators in terms of which it has gone down. There are some very interesting
things to note.
Table 5
Some Statistical facts about Regional Disparity in Agricultural Indicators
Indicators
1990-91 2008-09
Mean S.D. C.V. Mean S.D. C.V.
Declined
PCFP 270.73 87.6 32.35 220.93 112.52 50.92
AGAST 241.43 311.1 128.85 171.54 249.41 145.39
DTFGAS 89.15 34.42 38.61 153.39 64.79 42.23
NRASRA 1.47 0.6 40.72 1.71 0.71 41.9
PNASCL 84.88 8.4 9.9 69.22 10.22 14.77
PECASTE 47.79 21.7 45.4 22.49 11.9 52.89
Improved
GIA 59.89 19.62 32.76 46.18 13.01 28.18
PCCGSA 19.67 14.36 72.99 17.85 12.87 72.09
PNASRA 69.03 10.45 15.14 69.22 10.22 14.77
CI 148.19 15.63 10.55 155.64 16.26 10.44
PAUFTRA 6 9.04 150.63 5.48 8.15 148.54
DPDPPT 1.83 1.08 59.17 1.56 0.83 54.64
DPDGT 1.84 1.1 59.81 1.52 0.83 54.64
Source: Authors Calculations
First, for a number of indicators the disparity across the districts has widened over a period of
time. A deeper look reveals that in terms of indicators that work as proxy for technology such as
distribution of fertilizer per hectare of gross area sown, tractor use, electricity use etc., the gap has
widened (coefficient of variation of these indicators among districts has increased with time). This
means that in terms of technology used while the advanced regions are marching ahead the
backward ones are lagging further behind.
Second, while there has been increase in the average value of a number of indicators, for some
other decline has been witnessed. For example there is decline in percentage of electricity
consumption in agriculture sector to total consumption; number of regulated mandies per lakh of
population, percentage of net area sown to cultivable land, per-capita food-grain production,
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
86
percentage of area under commercial crops to gross sown area etc. This shows that because of
poor performance of the backward regions of the state, the overall position of the state has
worsened over a period of time. This calls for immediate attention to be paid on the backward
regions and more appropriate measures for the particular indicator where the performance of the
state is sliding down
Table 6
Top and Bottom Ranking Districts in Agriculture Development in Uttar Pradesh
Indicators
1990-91 2008-09
Top 2 Districts Bottom 2 Districts Top 2 Districts Bottom 2 Districts
PCFP
Pilibhit,
Shahjahanpur
Kanpur Nagar,
Lucknow
Pilibhit,
Shahjahanpur
Ballia, Badaun
GIA Meerut, Ghaziabad
Bahraich,
Sonebhadra
Mainpuri,
Bulandsahar
Sonebhadra,
Hamirpur
PCCGSA
Meerut,
Muzafarnagar,
Banda,
Siddarthnagar
Muzzafernagar,
Bijnor
Siddarthnagar, Mau
AGAST Mau, Rae Bareilly Agra, Meerut Maharajganj, Ballia Varanasi, Agra
PNASRA
Siddarth Nagar,
Moradabad
Sonebhadra,
Mirzapur
Muradabad, Rampur
Sonebhadra,
Lalitpur
NRASRA
Bulandsahar,
Saharanpur
Basti, Azamgarh Rampur, Saharanpur
Azamgarh,
Mathura
PNASCL Rampur, Saharanpur
Lalitpur,
Sonebhadra
Meerut, Ghaziabad Sonebhadra, Jhansi
CI Bulandsahar, Mau Hamirpur, Jhansi Mainpuri, Rampur Hamirpur, Banda
DTFGAS
Kanpur Nagar,
Pilibhit
Sonebhadra,
Hamirpur
Varanasi, Kanpur
Nagar
Lalitpur, Hamirpur
PAUFTRA
Sonebhadra,
Mirzapur
Varanasi,
Azamgarh
Sonebhadra, Kheri Ballia, Ghazipur
PECASTE Hamirpur, Azamgarh
Sonebhadra,
Lalitpur
Ghazipur, Badaun
Kanpur Nagar,
Lucknow
DPDPPT Moradabad, Basti Jalaun, Sonebhadra Pratapgarh, Sitapur
Lalitpur,
Sonebhadra
DPDGT Varanasi, Allahabad Lalitpur, Mathura Badaun, Allahabad Mathura, Lalitpur
Source: Authors calculations
Third, top two and bottom two districts in terms of major indicators at the two points of time
chosen indicate that while the leading districts have by and large maintained their position over the
period of eighteen years (between 1990-91 and 2008-09), the bottom place districts have been
changing their position. Apart from few exceptions here and there, normally the districts from
Western region have occupied the top two positions in all the indicators.
Fourth, the table reveals that over the years the government has been to some extent successful in
providing irrigation facility in backward regions. The disparity in terms of all the indicators of
irrigation facility such as district-wise percentage distribution of private and government pumping
set/tube wells, gross irrigated area as percentage of gross sown area etc. has gone down. This is
indeed a welcome sign. However, explored more intensively we could notice that the expansion is
not so high in the most deficient region i.e. Bundelkhand.
Fifth, a look at Table 7 shows the variation among the different agro-climatic zones of the state. It
reveals that there exists wide variation among the zones, with Western Plain Zone and Mid-
Western Plain Zone leading and Bundelkhand and Vindhya Regions lagging behind. However,
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

87
there has been no perceptible increase in disparity if judged from this angle. Chart-2 given below
plots the coefficient of variation among districts of the zones between the two time periods. The
primary reason for backwardness of the lagging regions is that the climate of both these regions is
dry sub-humid and soil mixed red and black and medium black respectively that require more
water. Non-availability of assured irrigation facilities in the regions chiefly accounts for the poor
performance of agriculture there.
Table 7
Agro-Climatic Zones of Uttar Pradesh & Performance of Districts in Agriculture
SN Agro-Climatic Zones Districts
1990-91 2008-09
Mean S.D Mean S.D
1 Central Plain
Kheri, Sitapur, Hardoi, Farrukhabad,
Etawah, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur Dehat,
Unnao, Lucknow, Rae Bareilly,
Fatehpur, Allahabad, Pratapgarh
0.401 0.051 0.443 0.05
2
Southern Western
Semi Arid Zone
Aligarh, Etah, Mainpuri, Mathura Agra,
Firozabad
0.47 0.031 0.481 0.06
3 Bundelkhand Zone
Jhansi, Lalitpur, Banda, Hamirpur and
Jalaun
0.273 0.66 0.247 0.55
4 Eastern Plain Zone
Barabanki, Faizabad, Sultanpur,
Pratapgarh, Jaunpur, Azamgarh, Ballia,
Ghazipur , Varanasi, Mau
0.443 0.058 0.453 0.02
5
North-Eastern Plain
Zone
Gonda, Bahraich, Basti, Gorakhpur,
Deoria, Siddarth Nagar, Maharajganj,
0.43 0.034 0.427 0.04
6 Vindhyan Zone Mirzapur, Sonebhadra 0.285 0.078 0.289 0.07
7 Bhabhar & Tarai Zone Bijnour, Rampur, Bareily, Pilibhit 0.529 0.354 0.533 0.02
8 Western Plain Zone
Muzzafar Nagar, Saharanpur, Meerut,
Ghaziabad, Bulandsahar
0.582 0.047 0.541 0.03
9
Mid Western Plain
Zone
Budaun, Shahjahanpur, Moradabad 0.547 0.043 0.555 0.1
Source: Authors Calculations
Conclusions and Suggestions
The study has shown that development of agriculture in Uttar Pradesh over the year has remained
polarised in Western region followed by Central region. Bundelkhand region has been the least
developed over the periods 1990-1991 to 2008-09. The empirical evidence suggested that
maximum number of district have scored best record in the attainment, located in western and
central region of the state, where agriculture is commercialised, technology is also advanced. This
was the region that was much influenced to green and technical revolution, resulted high
contribution in export and food production of the state. The disparity existing in agricultural
development is high and alarming. A series of measures are needed on the part of the government
to bridge the yawning gap. We give three suggestions to alleviate the problem-
First, there is need for region specific policies in this state which is huge in size. For the high
density eastern regions where excessive dependence of population is causing adoption of
backward technology and small size of holding, more that resurrecting agriculture we need to
create alternative employment opportunities in rural areas in form of Rural Non Farm Sector.
Once, the surplus population shifts in the non-agricultural sector and is able to generate some
surplus there, it would be possible to pool back the surplus in agriculture and higher farm-nonfarm
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
88
linkages which work in both the direction would pull the agricultural sector up. For Bundelkhand
region, long term policy and planning is required. Apart from shifting the population away from
agriculture, the government need to provide cheap finance and dependable source of irrigation in
the region. Agriculture extension activities are required to educate farmers to adopt cheap, suitable
and effective technology and crop variety. In the Western region where the signs of crisis of the
nature in Andhra Pradesh and Vidarbha are gradually appearing, suitable interventions in form of
future trade in agriculture through involvement of banks, less water intensive agricultural
technology etc. are required.
Second, Despite all efforts by the RBI on promoting financial inclusion and all toll claims of its
success, non-availability of cheap, dependable and easy finance remains a chief concern for
farmers in the backward regions. Micro-finance has its own limitations which are well known. We
need to develop a mechanism that ensures credit and subsidy to the neediest region.
Third, There is need to identify the agro-climatic zones that have problems. Table 7 clearly reveals
that the two most backward zones are Bundelkhand and Vindhya. Specific efforts should be made
for these regions.
Agriculture in Uttar Pradesh has stagnated and grown in uneven fashion. Since for most part of the
next couple of decades agriculture is going to remain as the mainstay of population and so if this
unevenness and disparity are allowed to persist it will be putting bulk of the population of the state
under duress. The state government in consultation with experts and the Central government
should adopt a long term policy for giving a direction to the states agriculture. Formulation of
area/region specific plans with emphasis on direct assistance to the most needy and plugging the
leakages in government sponsored schemes are going to be the key in this regard. We all hope that
the present government of Uttar Pradesh under the stewardship of a young and energetic leader
would take appropriate steps to bridge the disparity and resurrect the backward sectors.
_____________________________

References
Ahluwalia, M.S. (2000): Economic Performance of States in the Post-Reform Period, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol 35, No19, pp1637-48.
Bajpai, N and J. D. Sachs (1996): Trends in Interstate inequalities of Income in India, development
Discussion Papers, Harvard Institute for International Development, number 528.
Bhattacharya, B.B. and S. Sakthivel, (2004) Regional Growth and Disparity in India: Comparison of Pre
and Post-Reform Decades Economic and Political Weekly, March 6, pp. 1071-1077.
Cashin, P. A. and R. Sahay (1996): Internal Migration, Centre-State Grants and Economic Growth in the
States of India, IMF Staff Papers, IMF, Vol 43, pp 123-71.
Chakrabarty, P. (2009): Intra-Regional Inequality and the Role of Public Policy: Lessons Learnt from Kerla,
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol, XLIV NOS 26&27.
Chakravorty, S. (1994), Equity and the Big City. Economic Geography 70:1-22.
Chand, R. (2005) - Whither Indias Food Policy: From Food Security to Food Deprivation, Economic and
Political Weekly, vol. 40(12):1055 1061, March 12, 2005.
Chand, R. and P. Kumar (2004) - Determinants of Capital Formation and agriculture growth: Some New
Exploration, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.39, No.2, PP. 161-84
Chand, R., S. S. Raju, & L. M. Pandey, (2007) - Growth crisis in agriculture: Severity and options at
national and state levels, Economic and Political Weekly, June 30, 2528-2533.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

89
Das S.K. and A. Barua, (1996), Regional Inequalities, Economic Growth and Liberalization: A Study of the
Indian Economy, The Journal of Development Studies, vol.32, February.
Datta Roy Choudhury, Uma (1993): Inter-State and Intra-State Variations in Economic Development and
Standard of Living, New Delhi, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
De la Fuente, A. (2002), Regional Convergence in Spain, 1965-95, CRPR Discussion Paper No. 3137,
centre for Economic Policy Research, London, U.K.
Dholakia, R.H. (2003): Regional Disparity in Economic and Human Development in India, Economic and
Political Weekly, vol. 38, No. 39, pp. 4166-4172.
Gaurav Nayyar (2008),Economic Growth and Regional Inequality in India, Feb9, 2008 Economic and
Political Weekly.
Ghosh, B. S. Marjit and C. Neogi (1998), Economic Growth and Regional Divergence in India: 1960-1995,
Economic and Political Weekly 33(26): 1623-30.
Gulati, Ashok and Bathla, Seema (2001) - Capital Formation in Indian Agriculture: Revisiting the Debate,
Economic and Political Weekly, 36 (20), May.
Marjit. S. and S. Mitra (1996): Convergence in Regional Growth rates: Indian Research Agenda,
Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 31. No-33.
Mishra, S. (2007) - Risks, Farmers Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India: Is There A Way Out? Indira
Gandhi Institute of Development Research Mumbai.
Nagaraj, R, A. Varoudakis, and M.A. Veganzones (2000) . Long-run Growth Trends and Convergence
across Indian States, Journal of International Development, 12 (1): 45-70.
Narayanamoorthy, A. (2007) Deceleration in Agricultural Growth: Technology Fatigue or
Policy Fatigue? Economic and Political Weekly,42 (25). pp. 2375-2379.
Patnaik, P (2005) - The Crisis in the Countryside, downloaded from http://ccc.uchicago.edu/ docs/
India/patnaik.pdf, Paper presented in a seminar titled India: Implementing Pluralism and
Democracy, organized by the department of Philosophy, University of Chicago, Nov 11 to 13.
Rao, M.G, Shand R.T. and Kalirajan (1999): Convergence of Incomes across Indian States: A Divergent
View, Economic and Political weekly, March 27, pp 769-78.
Ravallion, M., and G. Datt (1996), How Important to Indias Poor Is the Sectoral Composition of Economic
Growth, The World Bank Economic Review, 10 (1); 1-25.
Reddy, D.N. (2006), Economic Reforms, Agrarian Crisis and Rural Distress, 4
th
Annual Prof.Janardhan
Rao Memorial Lecture, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, 27 February.
Reddy, D.N. and Mishra, S. (2008) - Crisis in agriculture and rural distress in post- reform India, In:
Radhakrishna, R. (ed.) India Development Report 2008, 40-53, Indira Gandhi Institute of
Development Research. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Ric Shand & S. Bhide (2000): Sources of Economic Growth Regional Dimension of Reform, Economic and
Political Weekly.
Sachs, J.D., N. Bajpai, and A. Ramiah (2002).Understanding Regional Economic Growth in India, Asian
Economic Papers, 1 (3): 32-62.
Shaban,A (2006), Regional Structures, Growth and Convergence of Income in Maharashtra, Economic
and Political Weekly.
Singh N., Bhandari L, Chen A. and A. Khare (2003): Regional Inequality in India: A fresh Look,
Economic and Political Weekly.
Singh, N and T. N. Srinivasan (2002): Indian Federalism, Economic Reform and Globalisation, mimeo.
Suri, K.C. (2006) - Political Economy of Agrarian Distress, Economic and Political Weekly, April, 22
Vakulabharanam, (2005) - Growth and Distress in a South Indian Peasant Economy during the Era of
Economic Liberalisation, The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 41, issue 6, pages 971-997.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
90
Vyas, V.S. (2001) - WTO and Indian Agriculture, Agricultural Science Section at the 88
th
Session of the
Indian Science Congress, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
Yanrui Wu (2008), Comparing Regional Development in China and India, United Nations University
UNU-WIDER World Institute for Development Economics Research, Research Paper No. 2008/13.
Zhang, X., and K. Zhang (2003) . How Does Globalization Affect Regional Inequality within a Developing
Country? Evidence from China, Journal of Development Studies, 39(4): 47-67.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

91
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SECTORAL LINKAGES: EMPRICAL EVIDENCE
FROM ODISHA
Deepak Kumar Behera
1



The present paper analyses the trends in sectoral shares in state domestic product and inter-
sectoral linkages in Odisha for the period 1980-81 to 2011-12. Results drawn from Granger
causality test suggest that there is a weak linkage between primary and secondary sectors in the
growth process. In the case of primary and tertiary sector services, though the primary sector
does not show linkages with the tertiary sector as a whole, it does have linkages with some
important sub-services like trade, hotel and restaurant services. Between secondary and sub-
sector of tertiary sectors, there is an independent relationship of industry with trade, hotel and
restaurant, and community, social and personal services. However, there is a unidirectional
causality between secondary to finance, insurance, real estate and business services on one hand
and transport, storage and communication to secondary sector on the other. The long-run
cointegration results show a strong relationship between secondary and TSC services in the
economy on one hand and independent long run relationship within FIRB on the other. However,
results based on error correction model indicate a weak association between the sectors in the
short run. Though the linkage is significant between the sectors, but it is not linked with three
sector analysis where primary sector is completely missing for a relatively faster adjustment
towards long run equilibrium rate of growth.


INTRODUCTION
Odishas economy has been following a high growth trajectory in recent years as shown by
acceleration in terms of the gross state domestic product (GSDP). The evidence clearly shows that
the economy is poised for a take-off to a high growth phase, almost similar to that at the national
level (Panda, 2008). In real terms at 1999-2000 prices, Odisha reported an average annual growth
rate of 9.51 per cent for the 10
th
Five Year Plan against a target of 6.20 per cent and achievement
of 5.30 per cent for the 9
th
Plan. The economy has grown, in real terms at 2004-05 prices, at an
average annual rate of 9.57 per cent during the rst three years of the 11
th
Plan. This bounce-back
is remarkable and is in line with national trends (Economic Survey, 2010-11). Similar to the other
states, the economy of Odisha has been going through structural changes away from agriculture in
favour of industry and services, where service sector becoming more and more pronounced. In
2011-12, the service sector accounted for nearly 50 per cent of the Gross State Domestic Product
(GSDP) followed by secondary sector (29 per cent) and primary sector (21 per cent). The high
growth rate recorded by the State in the rst decade of this century comes mainly from that in the
industrial sector. The growth in the agriculture sector continues to be highly volatile due mainly to
adverse impacts of natural shocks such as cyclones, droughts and oods. The service sector has
been growing in a comparatively stable manner.

1
Assistant Faculty, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, Gandhinagar, Gujarat - 382428, E-mail:
deepak@ediindia.org, dkbehera1982@gmail.com
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
92
Such sectoral composition has undergone a structural shift over the year. With the declining share
of agricultural income, the shift in the composition is likely to cause substantial changes in the
production and demand linkages among various sectors and in turn, could have significant
ramifications for the growth and development process in the economy. Now the question is
whether agriculture is more important for acceleration in the rate of growth of the economy or
industry should be considered as the engine of growth? And how tertiary is linked up with the two
sectors have also been another debatable issue in the development literature. A number of studies
have been made to analyse the sectoral linkages in context to India. Like Rangarajan (1982) who
found a strong degree of association between the agricultural and industrial sectors. He claimed
that the consumption linkages are much more powerful than the production linkages between
sectors. Kanwar (1996) found that the process of income growth in manufacturing and
construction gets significantly affected not only by agriculture but also by infrastructure and
services. Bhattacharya and Mitra (1997) provided empirical evidence in support of a positive
linkage among the broad sectors. It established that many services activities are significantly
associated with the agricultural and industrial sectors and this helps in overall employment
generation. Hansda (2001), in his study, found that services and agriculture do not seem to share
much interdependence; industry is observed to be the most services-intensive. Sustained services-
growth requires a growing industry too. Bhanumurthy and Mitra (2003) have found that a shift in
value added mix towards industry and tertiary activities have caused a larger decline in the
incidence of poverty in the nineties compared to that in the eighties. Sastry et al (2003) maintained
that due to modernisation of agriculture the dependence of agriculture on the industry for inputs
has grown. As for the services sector, they found a movement of production linkages from the late
1960s to the early 1990s moderately in favour of agriculture, and sharply in favour of the services
sector.
From the above discussion, it has seen that the importance of sectoral linkages is useful to
understand the association between different sectors in the economy. However, there is a
significant gap in the literature because the inter-sectoral linkage studies were mainly concentrated
on the national economy. The studies at the state or region level have not received comparable
attention. With this backdrop, an attempt has been made in this paper to examine whether a
significant inter-sectoral causal relationship does exist in the state of Odisha, and if it does, what is
the nature of long-run relationship between them. Since developments in the liberalization of
agriculture, industry and services are understood to have brought a structural shift, an empirical
investigation of inter-sectoral growth linkages is essential to divulge meaningful directions for
prioritisation of reforms across the sectors.
The analysis is based on National Accounts data on gross domestic product (GDP) at 2004-05
from 1980-81 to 2011-12. However, the data set are available from 2004-05 onwards but the back
series of state GSDP have not been provided by CSO at the same base year. Therefore, for the
purpose of the study, GSDP series with 2004-05 base have been built by applying splicing method
for the period 1980-81 to 2004-05.
The outline of the paper follows; section II revisits the structure and growth of states income
across major economic activities. Section III examines the inter-sectoral linkages between the
sector where Granger-causality, cointegration and error correction technique has been used.
Finally, summary and policy implications of the paper are given in Section-V.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

93
STATES STRUCTURE AND GROWTH OF OUTPUT: SECTORAL ANALYSIS
Prior to analysing the sectoral linkages in Odisha economy, it would be useful to review the
changes in the sectoral composition of the gross domestic product, in terms of share of primary,
secondary and tertiary sector. Sectoral shares, at 2004-05 prices, are given in Figure 1 and Table 1.
From the table it depicts that the average share of states GSDP to all-India GDP has gone down
from 3.55 per cent in 1980-90 to 2.81 per cent in 1991-00 and further declined to 2.59 per cent in
2001-11. This suggests that despite the states own GDP has increased, the share from those
states whose contribution are quite higher to the all-India GDP has taken into to a higher level
and hence the level of share of Odisha has gone down. On sectoral basis, over the period the
average share of real income of agriculture plus mining i.e. primary sector has declined from 47.25
per cent in 1980-90 to 36.14 per cent in 1991-01 and further declined to 27.86 per cent in 2001-11.
In contrast, manufacturings share together with electricity, gas, water, sanitation and construction
activities considered under the secondary sector has accelerated from 24.43 per cent in 1980-90 to
a maximum 27.63 per cent in 1991-01 and surprisingly come down to 27.42 per cent in 2001-1
due to a 4 per cent point in share decline in construction sector. Tertiary (services) has witnessed a
continuous expansion with a share in total income rising from 28.32 per cent to 44.72 per cent
over time. Within services, share of transport, storage, communication has become doubled and
that of trade, hotel, restaurant and social, community, personal services has increased its share by
almost one and half times. And the share of finance, insurance, real estate and business services
along with community, social and personal services has risen by one per cent change in point from
1991-00 to 2001-11. The skewed pattern of economic growth has been observed where the relative
share of agriculture is declining, industry nearly constant and services rising in the gross domestic
product.
Figure 1
Percentage Share of States Income by Sector (at 2004-05 prices)
4
7
.
2
5
2
4
.
4
3
2
8
.
3
2
3
6
.
1
4
2
7
.
6
3
3
6
.
2
3
2
7
.
8
6
2
7
.
4
2
4
4
.
7
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
Primary Secondary Tertiary
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

S
h
a
r
e
1980-90 1991-00 2001-11

Source: National Account Statistics


JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
94
Table 1
Average Percentage Share of States GDP by Sector
Sector
1980-81 to
1990-91
1991-92 to
2000-01
2001-02 to
2011-12
1980-81 to
2011-12
Primary Sector 47.25 36.14 27.86 34.03
Agriculture and allied 45.34 31.67 20.57 28.59
Mining & Quarrying 1.91 4.47 7.29 5.44
Secondary Sector 24.43 27.63 27.42 26.85
Manufacturing 7.75 8.96 13.71 11.24
Electricity, Gas and Water supply 3.74 4.30 3.44 3.73
Construction 12.94 14.37 10.26 11.89
Tertiary Sector 28.32 36.23 44.72 39.11
Trade, Hotel and Restaurant 6.95 8.77 12.04 10.13
Transport, Storage and Communication 3.15 4.59 8.27 6.25
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 8.67 9.57 10.38 9.81
Community, Social and Personal Services 9.55 13.30 14.04 12.92
Total GSDP 100 (3.55) 100 (2.81) 100 (2.59) 100 (2.80)
Note: Bracketed figures are average percentage share of Odisha GSDP to All India GDP
Source: National Account Statistics
While analysing the rate of growth of the state, figure 2 plots the 3-year moving average series of
the annual growth rates in GSDP. This figure clearly reveals a rising trend since 2001-02. There
thus seems to be an upturn for a high growth phase in Odisha. The only other time when above 7
per cent average growth had been achieved earlier was the 3-year period ending 1989-90. The
1990s clearly was a lost decade for Odisha from economic growth point of view when it could not
take advantage of the benefits of reforms.
Figure 2
Three Year Moving Average Series of GSDP Growth
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1
9
8
2
-
8
3
1
9
8
4
-
8
5
1
9
8
6
-
8
7
1
9
8
8
-
8
9
1
9
9
0
-
9
1
1
9
9
2
-
9
3
1
9
9
4
-
9
5
1
9
9
6
-
9
7
1
9
9
8
-
9
9
2
0
0
0
-
0
1
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
6
-
0
7
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
G
r
o
w
t
h

R
a
t
e
GSDP

Source: National Account Statistics
The semi-log regression on a time trend
1
in table.2 suggests that since 1980 to as of now, the long
term average GSDP growth rate of Odisha is growing at a rate of 4.58 per cent against all-India
growth of 6.15 per cent. The states growth of output has peaked at a rate of 9.1 per cent during
2001-11 over 3.6 per cent in 1991-00. A major development during the 2001-11 phases is

1
Semi-log Regression: Ln(GSDP) = + T, where, T stands for time trend, and are the
coefficients of the model. A positive value of coefficient of time, , for a particular sector indi-
cates a positive trend of that sector, while a negative value of the coefficient would mean a
negative trend.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

95
accompanied by much higher growth in the non-agricultural sectors, particularly in tertiary sector.
In a sectoral approach, primary sector growth rate was below 2 per cent in 1990s and 2001, but
witnessed a higher rate of growth i.e. 5.23 per cent during 2001-11. Such an acceleration growth
occurs due to a significant growth in agricultural sector. For the secondary sector, it witnessed a
declining trend in 2000 compared to 1990, but recorded a highest growth rate of 11.25 per cent in
2001-11. This is because of a tremendous shift of growth occurs in manufacturing sector followed
by construction sector. In tertiary sector, it has witnessed a phenomenal growth from 5.81 per cent
in 1980-90 to 6.19 per cent in 1991-00 and 10.39 per cent in 2001-11. Almost all the activities that
fall under the services, except community, social and personal services, all have grown
significantly. Though Tertiary sector has not recorded the highest growth rates in 2001-11 under
study, but this sectors growth rate has been showing a consistently rising trend.
Table 2
Rate of Growth of Sectoral GDP at 2004-05 Prices
Sector
1980-81 to
1990-91
1991-92 to
2000-01
2001-02 to
2011-12
1980-81 to
2011-12
Primary Sector 1.18 1.60 5.23 2.04
Agriculture and allied 0.77 0.33 3.69 0.83
Mining & Quarrying 10.47 11.72 10.36 11.45
Secondary Sector 6.51 2.83 11.25 5.24
Manufacturing 7.70 3.80 17.05 7.36
Electricity, Gas and Water supply 5.63 3.07 5.73 3.64
Construction 6.85 0.03 8.83 4.25
Tertiary Sector 5.81 6.19 10.39 6.82
Trade, Hotel and Restaurant 4.80 4.80 13.46 7.14
Transport, Storage and Communication 7.94 6.94 14.69 9.30
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 4.34 4.64 9.14 5.43
Community, Social & Personal Services 7.21 7.94 6.90 6.62
Total GSDP 3.83 (5.29) 3.60 (6.36) 9.10 (8.08) 4.58 (6.15)
Note: Bracketed figures are all-India GDP growth.
Source: Same as Table.1

To assess the fluctuations in growth an instability index is calculated. In this study, Instability
index (I) suggested by Parthasarathy (1984) is used where; the instability index is calculated using
from the residuals of the exponential trend equation for the various sectoral real incomes and for
the state economys GSDP in the following manner.
Instability Index
k n
e
I
n
i
i

=1
2
, where e
i
= residual of i
th
observation, N =number of observations,
K = number of parameters estimated.
The results are presented in the Table 3, where it shows that in 1980-81, secondary sector, which
registered the highest growth rate showed the second highest instability of 0.02374. By the 1991-
2000 and 2001-11, the service sector had the highest growth rate, but showed the lowest value of
instability among the various sectors. For the entire period under study, industrial sector showed
the highest instability followed by primary sector. Though the primary sector is least volatile, its
growth rate being negligibly low, is not very relevant. Among the remaining sectors, service sector
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
96
is less volatile and hence more stable. Since this sector contributes nearly 50 per cent of the state
income and its growth rate has shown a consistently growing and stable trend, the next section
studies whether the service sector growth is autonomous or has linkages with the other sectors in
the economy.
Table 3
Index of Instability for the Major Sectors in Odisha (1980-81 till 2011-12)
Time Period Primary Sector Secondary Sector Service Sector Total GSDP
1980-90 0.03459 0.02374 0.01127 0.01823
1991-00 0.02151 0.01830 0.00749 0.01114
2001-11 0.01611 0.02186 0.00479 0.00951
1980-11 0.02116 0.02406 0.01609 0.02026
Source: Same as Table.1
INTER-SECTORAL LINKAGES IN ODISHA
Having observed the pattern of structural change in the state of Odisha economy, the paper now
explores the linkages among the major sectors of the state economies. The structural linkages
among the sectors in an economy are generally examined in different ways. The literature largely
focuses on estimating sectoral output growth multiplier, elasticity of sectoral output, forward and
backward linkages, etc. Over the years different methodologies have been developed for these
estimates, such as input-output (I-O) analysis, econometric modelling and statistical causality
tests, etc. (Saikia, 2011). In this regard, the present paper used the standard econometric tool of the
Granger causality test for the short-run behavioural analysis and followed by co-integration and
error correction model for long run and short run adjustment in long run respectively. This paper
proposes to examine the nature and direction of linkages between primary, secondary and tertiary
sectors and their long-run equilibrium relationship from 1980-91 to 2011-12.
Table 4
Unit Root Test for various Sectors of Odishas economy from 1980-2011 (at 2004-05 prices)
ADF Test PP Test
Variable Name Level 1
st
Difference Level 1
st
Difference
Ln(Primary) 0.275 -9.399
*
0.-867 -10.318
*

Ln(Secondary) 0.571 -6.514
*
0.855 -6.514
*
Ln(Tertiary) 3.380 -6.523
*
4.231 -4.938
*
Ln(THR) 1.394 -6.546
*
2.190 -6.467
*
Ln(TSC) 2.325 -2.958
***
2.214 -4.096
*
Ln(FIRB) 5.117 -3.014
**
5.608 -3.100
**
Ln(CSP) 0.301 -5.943
*
0.861 -6.708
*
Note: * is 1 per cent, ** is 5 per cent, *** is 10 per cent level of significance
Source: Authors calculations
The nature and direction of causality and long-run equilibrium relationship between primary,
secondary and tertiary sectors are examined using GDP data from 1980-81 to 2011-12 in a log-
linear specification. The causality between the sectors is tested in a bivariate analysis based on
Granger Test. Long-run relationship between three sectors and their short run error correction
mechanism are examined in a multivariate framework using co-integration and vector error
correction model. Before going into the econometric analysis, first determine the order of
integration of variables using Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) and Phillips-Perron (PP) unit root
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

97
test; if the variables are integrated, they are converted into stationary series. The result for
stationary test in Table 4 suggests that all the variables are non-stationary at level so the null
hypothesis of unit root at level cannot be rejected. However, at first difference null hypothesis of
unit root is rejected for all the variables and all the variables are integrated of order one.
Granger Causality Test
Granger Causality test helps in determining the direction of causal relationship between different
variables. It is based on a premise that if forecasts of some variable, say X, obtained by using both
the past values of X and the past values of another variable, say Y, is better than the forecasts
obtained using past values of X alone, Y is then said to cause X. To test the causality relationships
following model is used.
t j t
n
j
i i t
n
i
i t
Y X Y
1
1 1
+ + =

=


t j t
n
j
i i t
n
i
i t
Y X X
2
1 1
+ + =

=



Where, Xi and Yi are two stationary time series with zero mean:
1
and
2
are two uncorrelated
series, n is assumed to be finite and shorter than the time series considered.
Since the series of the variable are usually non-stationary and integrated of order I (1), first
difference of the variable (growth rate) is normally taken which is stationary. The optimal lag
length of the variables is determined by minimizing Akaikes Information Criterion. Based on the
equations1 and 2, unidirectional causality from X to Y (i.e. X granger causes Y) is indicated if the
estimated coefficients on the lagged X in equation 1 is statistically different from zero as a group
(i.e.
i
0) and the set of estimated coefficients on the lagged Y in equation 2 is not statistically
different from zero (i.e.
j
= 0). Similarly, unidirectional causality from Y to X (i.e. Y granger
causes X) exists if the set of lagged X coefficients in equation 1 is not statistically different from
zero (i.e.
i
= 0) and the set of the lagged Y coefficients in equation 2 is statistically different
from zero (i.e.
j
0). Feedback or mutual causality (bi-directional) occurs when the set of
coefficients on the lagged X variable in equation (1) and on lagged variable Y in equation (2) are
statistically different from zero. Finally, independence exists when the coefficients of both X and
Y variables are equal to zero.
Unit root test based on Augmented Dickey Fuller Test confirms that the GDP series of Primary,
secondary and tertiary sectors are difference-stationary and integrated of order one. The Service or
the Tertiary sector is included in greater detail by taking all its sub sectors as given in the System
of National Accounts. Thus four broad components of the services viz. (a) Trade-Hotel-
Restaurant (THR), (b) Transport- Storage- Communication (TSC), (c) Financial- Insurance, real
estate- Business (FRB) and (d) Community-Social-Personal services (CSPD) are also examined.
Based on RBI guidelines, one can classify, THR as consumer services, TSC and FBR as Producer
services and CSS as government services. In view of varied nature of services, one can group them
into two i.e. marketed and non-marketed services. Marketed services may indicate NSDP derived
from a, b and c sectors and non- marketed services can represent social, community and other
services that are provided by the government to the society at large. At the outset, causality is
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
98
checked between primary and secondary, primary and sub-sectors of tertiary sectors and
secondary with sub-sectors of tertiary sectors by taking first difference of the natural logarithms of
each GDP series. Causality between the sectors is estimated from 1980 to 2011.
Results obtained from the table.5 indicate that in a bivariate case, causality between primary and a
secondary sector is independent, indicating a weak linkage between the sectors in the growth
process. Inadequate technological progress, declining productivity of food crops and low rate of
public investment, a weak linkage of agriculture with industry was, thus inevitable. In the case of
primary and tertiary sector services, though the primary sector does not show linkages with the
tertiary sector as a whole, it does have linkages with some important sub-services within the
service sector. There is a strong linkage between primary and trade, hotel and restaurant sector
over 32 years. For other three services viz. transport-storage-communication (TSC), finance,
insurance, real estate and business services (FIRB) and social and community services (CSPD) an
independent relationship exists with the primary sector. In case of causality between secondary
and tertiary sectors, the estimated equations report independent relationship of industry with trade,
hotel and restaurant, and community, social and personal services. However, there is a
unidirectional causality between secondary to finance, insurance, real estate and business services
in one hand and transport, storage and communication to secondary sector on the other.
Table 5
Granger Causality Tests between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sectors GDP from 1980-
81 to 2011-12
Sector Null Hypothesis F-Statistics Probability
Direction of
Causality
Primary and
Secondary
Primary to Secondary 0.80014 0.46089
Independent
Secondary to Primary 1.78746 0.18896
Primary and Tertiary
Primary and THR
Primary to THR 4.89963 0.01643
Bi-directional
THR to Primary 2.94274 0.07195
Primary and TSC
Primary to TSC 0.24764 0.78261
Independent
TSC to Primary 0.52695 0.59708
Primary and FIRB
Primary to FIRB 0.48258 0.62305
Independent
FIRB to Primary 0.71649 0.49862
Primary and CSP
Primary to CSP 0.53928 0.59007
Independent
CSP to Primary 1.50542 0.24215
Secondary and Tertiary
Secondary and THR
Secondary to THR 1.13791 0.33718
Independent
THR to Secondary 2.52880 0.10079
Secondary and TSC
Secondary to TSC 0.31114 0.73552
TSC to Secondary 4.04439 0.03064 Unidirectional
Secondary and FIRB
Secondary to FIRB 2.61517 0.09387 Unidirectional
FIRB to Secondary 1.23931 0.30746
Secondary and CSP
Secondary to CSP 0.09156 0.91282
Independent
CSP to Secondary 0.35471 0.70499
Source: Authors Calculations
An upshot of the empirical exercise is a limited association between primary and secondary as
well as between primary and social, community, personal services and a strong causal relationship
between primary and trade, hotel and restaurant services and a unidirectional between secondary
and finance, insurance, real estate and business services and transport storage and communication
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

99
sectors . Now the paper will explain the results of cointegration and error correction model in a
multivariate framework based on real GDP of the three sectors from 1980-81 to 2011-12 to see if
any cointegration exist between the sectors and how it adjust the short-run mechanism into long
run.
Long-Run Analysis based on Co-integration Tests
With the aim of determining long run, relationship between variables cointegration technique is
used. To test cointegration among the variables, there exist two main techniques; Engle and
Granger (1987) approach and Johansen (1988) approach. In order to test cointegration among
procedure developed by Johansen is used.
There are four different steps involved while testing cointegration, in the first step order of
stationarity is determined and variable must be stationary at same level. We have already found
that variables are stationary at first difference i.e. series of the model are I (1). Therefore, the
cointegration can be determined between the variables. Second step involves choosing the optimal
lag length. To determine the lag length VAR model is used. According to AIC criteria, it
determines the lag length of two for the model. Next step deals with determining the number of
cointegrating vectors. The structure of the method with a Vector Auto Regressive (VAR) model is
briefly explained below for three variables viz. primary, secondary and tertiary sectors GDP. A
linear combination of the specified series is called co- integration equation that implies a stable
long-run linear relationship.

Table 6
Results based on Johansen Cointegration Test
Hypothesized No.
of CE (s)

Eigen Value Max-Eigen
Statistics
0.05
Critical Value
Probability
Primary, Secondary and THR
None 0.406757 15.66456 21.13162 0.2451
At most 1 0.339721 12.45279 14.26460 0.0948
At most 2 * 0.120209 3.842128 3.841466 0.0500
Max-Eigen value test indicates no cointegration at the 0.05 level
Primary, Secondary and TSC
None * 0.532934 22.83855 21.13162 0.0285
At most 1 0.315265 11.36169 14.26460 0.1370
At most 2 0.064420 1.997657 3.841466 0.1575
Max-Eigen value test indicates 1 cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level
Primary, Secondary and FIRB
None * 0.593945 27.03798 21.13162 0.0065
At most 1 0.301617 10.76961 14.26460 0.1661
At most 2 * 0.223917 7.604875 3.841466 0.0058
Max-Eigen value test indicates 1 cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level
Primary, Secondary and CSP
None 0.367062 13.72146 21.13162 0.3883
At most 1 0.160919 5.263446 14.26460 0.7083
At most 2 0.009390 0.283040 3.841466 0.5947
Max-Eigen value test indicates no cointegration at the 0.05 level
Note: * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level
Source: Authors Calculations
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
100
Table 6 shows the results of co-integration tests under the null hypothesis of no co-integration.
The results indicate that there is no cointegration exists (null hypothesis accepted) between
primary, secondary and trade, hotel and restaurant in one hand and primary, secondary and
community and social services. But Eigen value for primary, secondary and transport, storage and
communication sector along with primary, secondary and finance, insurance, real estate and
business services suggests at least one cointegrating vector exists at 5 per cent critical value in the
model. The estimates of long-run co-integrating vectors normalized around primary sector are:
Primary 3.217 Secondary + 1.785 TSC = 0
Primary 0.101 Secondary 0.119 FIRB = 0
Since in a co-integration analysis, it is not possible to interpret the magnitude of estimated
coefficients, it is convenient to consider the estimated parameter that provides information about
the speed of adjustment of each variable towards long-run equilibrium. In other words, Error
correction model shows the speed of adjustment towards the long run equilibrium after a short run
shock. In order to check error correction following equations are estimated.
i
r
i
t r i
n
i
t i
m
i
t i
i
t i t
ECT TERGDP
PRIGDP SECGDP PRIGDP
1
1
1 , 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1 1


+ + +
+ + =


=

i
r
i
t r i
n
i
t i
m
i
t i
i
t i t
ECT TERGDP
PRIGDP SECGDP SECGDP
2
1
1 , 2
1
1 2
1
1 2
1
1
1 2 2


+ + +
+ + =


=

i
r
i
t r i
n
i
t i
m
i
t i
i
t i t
ECT TERGDP
PRIGDP SECGDP TERGDP
3
1
1 , 3
1
1 3
1
1 3
1
1
1 3 3


+ + +
+ + =


=


Since trade, hotel and restaurant and community, Social Services do not have much significance
through the above cointegration effect hence are excluded from the analysis of error correction
model. Table 7 and 8 present the estimates of the error correction model of the sectors at lag 2.
The results estimated for primary, secondary and transport, storage and communication services
show that the estimates of error correction coefficients are significant for two sectors i.e.
secondary and TSC sectors at 1 per cent level of significance.
The speed of adjustment to a shock in own sectoral income in a year is much faster in the case of
secondary sector (-0.117) and very slow in the case of transport, storage and communication of the
tertiary sector (-0.072). The estimated coefficient values of -0.117 and -0.072 suggest that the
system corrects its previous periods disequilibrium by 12 per cent and 7 per cent in a year. Error
correction coefficient for FIRB services under the tertiary sector is significant for only one sector
i.e. its own sector (0.072) It suggests only 7 per cent corrects its previous periods disequilibrium.
Error correction coefficient for FIRB services under the tertiary sector is significant for its own
sector and shows an adjustment at 28 per cent compared to 16 per cent adjustment in agriculture.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

101
Table 7
Reduced Form Error Correction Estimates: 1980-2011
Co-integration Equation D[Ln(P)] D[Ln(S)] D[Ln(TSC]
ECM -0.084776 - 0.117554
*
-0.071690
*
D[Ln(P)
-1
] -0.766533
*
-0.001589 -0.090939
D[Ln(P)
-2
] -0.341086 0.035578 0.012355
D[Ln(S)
-1
] 0.332391 0.120029 0.036308
D[Ln(S)
-2
] -0.213402 0.052493 0.194902
D[Ln(TSC)
-1
] -0.227050 -0.745022
*
-0.036332
D[Ln(TSC)
-2
] -0.015560 0.101537 -0.280444
Constant 0.063633 0.105504
*
0.111994
*
R
2
0.525669 0.525374 0.294094
Adj.R
2
0.367558 0.367166 0.058792
F-statistics 3.324696 3.320769 1.249858
Log Likelihood 33.12133 40.58822 46.13174
AIC -1.732505 -2.247463 -2.629775
SC -1.355320 -1.870278 -2.252590
Note: * Significant at 1 per cent level
Source: Authors Calculations

Table 8
Reduced Form Error Correction Estimates: 1980-2011
Co-integration Equation D[Ln(P)] D[Ln(S)] D[Ln(FIRB]
ECM -0.162693 0.345107 -0.282169
*
D[Ln(P)
-1
] -0.489021 -0.124362 -0.194954
*
D[Ln(P)
-2
] -0.144870 0.055375 -0.111294
*
D[Ln(S)
-1
] 0.185834 -0.250484 -0.007398
D[Ln(S)
-2
] -0.290037 -0.152686 0.055877
D[Ln(FIRB)
-1
] 0.699391 -0.810597 -0.230715
D[Ln(FIRB)
-2
] 0.931535 0.196757 -0.410232
*
Constant -0.044896 0.117357 0.097596
*
R
2
0.459699 0.219562 0.670459
Adj.R
2
0.279598 -0.040584 0.560612
F-statistics 2.552459 0.843995 6.103574
Log Likelihood 31.23312 33.37695 75.28872
AIC -1.602284 -1.750135 -4.640601
SC -1.225099 -1.372949 -4.263416
Note: * Significant at 1 per cent level
Source: Authors Calculations
CONCLUSION
It appears from the analyses that Odisha economy has undergone a structural shift. A higher rate
of growth is observed in the secondary and tertiary sectors over a period of decades. But within the
sectors, the pattern of growth has changed towards market and demand driven. Inter-sectoral
relationships investigated using Granger causality test from 1980 to 2011 suggests that there is a
limited association between primary and secondary as well as between primary and social,
community, personal services and a strong causal relationship between primary and trade, hotel
and restaurant services and a unidirectional between secondary and finance, insurance, real estate
and business services and transport storage and communication sectors. The long-run
cointegration results show a strong relationship between secondary and TSC services in the
economy in one hand and independent long run relationship within FIRB on the other. However,
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
102
results based on error correction model indicate a weak association between the sectors in the
short run. Though the linkage is significant between the sectors, but it is not linked with three
sector analysis where primary sector is completely missing for a relatively faster adjustment
towards long run equilibrium rate of growth. In order to foster the rapid, sustained and broad-
based growth in Odisha, the agricultural and industrial sector remains the key priority for
governmental policies. Like agricultural policy 2008 aims to enhance productivity of major crops,
shift the emphasis from subsistence agriculture to profitable commercial agriculture and
facilitate long term investment in agriculture by public and private sectors and by public-private
partnership ventures, particularly for post harvest management, marketing, agro-processing and
value addition. For industrial sector, the state has been receiving heavy investments in the
industrial sector in recent years. There are new potential entrants such as Vedant, Jindal and Posco
into this sector in Odisha. If and when these investments fully materialise, the steel producing
capacity of the State will improve substantially and Odisha will grow at a much faster rate.
_________________________________
References
Ahluwalia I J and C Rangarajan (1986), Agriculture and Industry: A study of Linkages the Indian
Experience, mimeo, World Economic Congress of International Association, December.
Bathla, S (2003): Inter-sectoral Growth Linkages in India: Implications for Policy and Liberalized
Reforms, Institute of Economic Growth Discussion Papers, No 77, Institute of Economic Growth,
Delhi.
Bhanumurthy, N.R. and Arup Mitra (2003), Declining Poverty in India: A Decomposition Analysis,
Discussion Paper Series No. 70/2003, Institute of Economic Growth, University of Delhi Enclave.
Bhattacharya, B.B. and Arup Mitra (1997), Changing Composition of Employment in Tertiary Sector: A
Cross Country Analysis, Economic and Political Weekly, March 15.
Devnath, Avijit and Niranjan Roy (2012), Structural Change and Inter-sectoral Linkages: The Case of
North-east India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLVII, No.6. pp. 72-76, 11 February.
Engle, R.F. and C.W.J. Granger (1987), Co-integration and Error-Correction: Representation, Estimation
and Testing, Econometrica, Vol.55, pp.251-276.
Government of Odisha (2011), Economic Survey: 2010-11, Planning & Coordination Department,
Directorate of Economics & Statistics.
Hansda, S (2001): Sustainability of Services-led Growth: An Input-Output Analysis of the Indian
Economy, Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, Vol 22, pp 73-118.
Johansen, S (1988), Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors, Journal of Economic Dynamics and
Control, Vol. 12, pp. 231.54.
Kanwar, Sunil (1996), Does the Dog Wag the Tail or the Tail the Dog: Cointegration of Indian Agriculture
with Non-agriculture, CDE Working Paper No. 35, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi.
Panda, Manoj (2008), Economic Development in Orissa: Growth Without Inclusion?, Working Paper
Series No-2008-025, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, [available from
http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2008-025.pdf ]
Parthasarathy G. (1984),Growth and Fluctuations of Agricultural Production: A Districtwise Analysis ,in
Andhra Pradesh ,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 26, June 30 ,pp. A74-A 84.
Rangarajan, C (1982), Agricultural Growth and Industrial Performance in India, Research Report No.33,
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C.
Saikia, Dilip (2011), Analyzing Inter-sectoral linkages in India, African Journal of Agricultural Research,
Vol. 6, No.33, pp. 6766-6775, 30 December.
Sastry, D V S, B Singh, K Bhattacharya and N K Unnikrishnan (2003): Sectoral Linkages and Growth:
Prospects Reflection on the Indian Economy, Economic & Political Weekly, 14 June, Vol 38, pp.
2390-97.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

103
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND DISPOSSESSION: SOME EXPERIENCES
ON LAND ACQUISITION IN INDIA
Bhaskar Majumder
1



For an economy like India where agricultural land is the primary base of livelihood for land-
dependent people in rural areas, land acquisition by the state for development without prior
informed consent of the people-to-be-affected leads to displacement and dispossession of land-
dependent people. Although land acquisition is justified under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act
enacted by the British Parliament during the colonial period which legitimizes land acquisition by
the state for public purposes, and the affected people are paid compensation by the state, the
process causes immeasurable misery of the people abruptly dispossessed of their meagre means
of production and base of livelihood. This paper focuses on some recent experiences of land
acquisition by the state for industrialization in India, examines the role of the state vis-a-vis public
response in this context, and suggests measures to be adopted in the process of land acquisition
for industrialization.


Second half of the previous century has witnessed a Darwinian race for development between the
post-Second World War decolonized countries, which has intensified in the first decade of the
current century. Mainstream economic policy making during this period has distilled down the
concept of development to mean extension of the production-cum-consumption frontier of the
economy through greater and faster conversion of natural resources. In the scheme of things,
transforming the economy from being agriculture-based to being industry-based became the sine-
qua-non of development. This evolution aims at lessening dependence on the natural production
process productive capacity of land and minimizing the risk of remaining nature-dependent by
shifting to an invention-innovation guided production of goods in a scale and order that opens up
the path for industrialization. The essence of industrialization is the application of advanced
technologies to increase human productivity, diminish the limitations imposed by nature, and raise
standards of living (Magill, 1997, Vol. I, p. 721). The origin of industrialization is located in pre-
history but the fundamental changes associated with industrialization are usually derived from the
industrial revolution in the United Kingdom (UK) that began in the late 18
th
century and
subsequently had a spatial spread both within nations and internationally (Deane, 1984). In
addition, for geographically large and diverse countries, the industrialisation process has
significant bearing on the issue of balanced regional development. Since agricultural development
can only support economic growth only up to a certain level, it becomes crucial for agriculturally
flourishing regions to start a gradual shift to industries to maintain its growth. On the other hand,
regions that are handicapped by natural factors and do not have a thriving agro sector looks at
industrialisation as the only ray of hope. However, setting up of industries needs land, often in
large scale, and the society has to make a conscious decision regarding changing the use/purpose

1
Professor, Centre for Development Studies, School of Social Sciences and Policy, Central University of
Bihar, Patna 800 014, India; contact: majumderb@rediffmail.com
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
104
of land at its disposal. Since a trade-off between the existing and the proposed is involved, almost
all industrialisation process and associated land diversion requires state intervention land has to
be acquired by the state, because such land-to-be-acquired would be large by area and the impact
of acquisition would be multiple, unequal, and long-term. During the half-a-century prior to the
First World War, more than 50 million people had to leave Europe for the US, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil for resettlement after being displaced from the
agricultural sector. The displacement was a reflection of pushing out land-dependent people from
land scarce Europe (Nayyar, 2002, p. 145). Post-1917 revolution in Russia that went for planned
industrialization led to large scale eviction of peasants from land who were put to uses in
industries, mines, hydroelectric projects, collective farms (kolkhozy), and state farms (sovkhozy).
In Japan, the path of industrialization based on the Post-Meiji restorations in 1868 led to end of
feudalism there by reducing the proportion of people dependent on agriculture and land (Magill,
1997, p. 723-724). The percentage of population working on land gradually declined not only in
the UK and the US but also in Japan and China, particularly since the days of the first industrial
revolution in the UK. Around 1600 AD 2.76 per cent of the total land was enclosed and 50,000
persons out of a total population of around four millions were evicted in the UK. In China since
the 1950s around ten-million people have been displaced due to hydraulic and hydroelectric
projects alone (Sarkar, 2007, p. 1436). While any path of development will have unequal
consequences for people located at different layers of the society, the process of industrialisation is
being increasingly seen in developing countries as a fight between the traditional knowledge based
agricultural population and the new emerging educated youth, with the state taking the side of the
latter in most cases. As a result a large group of people are dispossessed from their existing
livelihood while new avenues of livelihood open up for another group. The sufferings of the
former are often taken to be the cost of development a sacrifice necessary for the greater good of
the society. In the process it is often conveniently forgotten that the development process entails
sacrifice by these people and the society should devise means to minimise such costs and
compensate for the dispossession that follows. At the same time, too many projects in India are
stuck up in land related disputes and unless they can be resolved soonest regional disparities
between the developed and lagging regions will rise. To ease such difficulties, one must
understand the nuances of land acquisition and suggest measures so that the process becomes
more humane.
This paper narrates the nature of dispossession for development, the dispossession that follows
from the displacement of people that, in turn, follows the acquisition of land by the state for
industrialization. We have cited a few examples of land acquisition of the recent past for
industrialization in India in this paper. The rest of the paper is structured into the following
sections. In Section III we analyze dispossession of people dependent on land because of
acquisition of agricultural land for industrialization in India. In Section IV we present the law on
land acquisition in India and the role of the state and public response in that context. Finally, in
Section V we suggest measures in land acquisition for industrialization.
Philosophy of industrialisation in india
The economic policy of the Government of India for industrialization was based both on
technological advancement and the Lewisian conjecture of absorption of labour in industries that
would have been released from agriculture because of the technological advancement. Both these
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

105
had to go parallel to an emerging production relation weighted in favour of the controllers of
capital. In the international context, though the economy of India politically pledged to maintain
equidistance from both the US and the USSR in the post-Second World War bipolar world, yet
India followed the path of USSR-type planned industrialization since she floated the Second Five-
Year Plan. The structure of the economy, however, remained the US-type capitalistic with
privilege of private property. While aiming at strengthening the state-cum-national economy,
industrialization also provided the space for the wage-workers to get united as a class to come out
from the local economy based inertia and start realizing their own strength (Plum, 1977, p. 68).
Industrialization in fact breaks isolation by tying localities by investment-production-employment
chain. In India, modern industry was supposed to eradicate the hereditary divisions of labour
based on the rigid caste system and hence wipe out the impediments to growth and development.
Industrialization in India was considered as a step forward in breaking the self-sufficient inertia of
the villages (Marx, 2006).
In India, the percentage of population working on land remained more or less unchanged with
absolute number rising during the post-independence sixty-five years. Its agriculture is
characterized by a monotonically declining land-man ratio. During the early decades of planning,
the Indian economy went for setting up of capital-intensive industries remote from the final
consumption point of the people living at the bottom of the economic ladder and imported
technology for production of goods for the economic elite that left little scope for employment of
labourers that could have been released from agriculture. The inherited industrially irrelevant skill
of the workers generally attached to land prolonged the limited role of industries for employment
of the labourers releasable from land.
Development became production-centered by transformation of natural resources following
collective collection-cum-consumption by human beings who lived as natural members of the
world since pre-historic time. The forest-based living did not resist the emerging agriculture mode
of living, and subsequent development of industries. Since the scope for agriculture is limited by
the size and type of land, the question arose about setting up of industries by location and time. As
opposed to limited flexibility in locating agricultural practices, industrial set up has higher
flexibility by its location and change. Generally industrialization is based on the availability of raw
materials and physical infrastructure, market size-cum-access, transport and communication,
cluster of firms for externality advantages and inter-industry linkages. Annihilation of agricultural
land is a corollary. In parallel, with the urban boundaries expanding to grab rural areas that
circumscribe cities, agricultural land shrinks by area.
DISPOSSESSION FOR INDUSTRIALIZATION IN INDIA
Countries like India late on the trajectory of independent industrialization relative to the path
traversed by the countries called industrialized today face several economic problems due to the
falling carrying capacity of land. The size and rate of growth of population show declining land-
man ratio in agriculture that is aggravated by service sector-led urbanization and annexation of
agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The falling carrying capacity of land asks for
reducing population to remain dependent on land. Contrary to natural reduction, what has been
happening is forced reduction of population dependent on land by two ways, one, displacement
from land for exogenous reasons like war, partition, drought, flood, landslide, cyclone, and
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
106
earthquake, and two, the state-sponsored shift empowered by the 1894 Land Acquisition Act
formulated and implemented during the colonial rule. This Act empowers the Government to
acquire any land from private hands for public purposes decided by the state (GOI, The Land
Acquisition Act, 1894). Land acquisition actually implies acquisition of a physical area that covers
cultivable soil area, plus trees and plants, water bodies, residential buildings, animal sheds and
many other assets that land by area and volume carry.
In the state-led development paradigm, since independence, the state has been executing a top
down approach for development projects that displaced people by land acquisition. Looking at the
scenario by states in India, Orissa used 40,000 hectares of land for industry between 1951 and
1995; West Bengal used two million hectares of land between 1947 and 2000 for industry. The
private corporate sector, often in collaboration with the Transnational Corporations, has been
targeting the mining land and hills in the states of Orissa, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh in India.
For example, Posco, the South Korean steel company, had signed a MoU with the Government of
Orissa in 2005 to set up a plant near Paradip port in Orissas Jagatsinghpur district that would
produce 12 million tonnes of steel per annum. The Government of Orissa on July 09, 2010
announced a Rs. 70-crore rehabilitation package for a population of 3,000 to-be-displaced by land
acquisition (Hindustan Times, Aug. 31, Lucknow, India, July 10, 2010). Mostly the mineral-rich
and land-abundant less industrialized states are being targeted for acquisition of land and
extraction of resources. Vedanta Aluminiums proposal to mine bauxite in the Niyamgiri Hills in
Orissa that is destined to oust the local tribal people violated forest and environment laws, as
reported by the National Advisory Council (The Hindu, Chennai, India, Aug. 24, 2010, p. 1).
Construction of dams to feed drought-prone areas, of which the Narmada Dam Project is
notoriously known for the disputes around the Narmada River that flows into the Arabian Sea after
passing through the states of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra, led to displacement of
people. The acquisition is not only for public sector units but also for private sector units like
Reliance, ESSAR, Jaypee for both power generation and mining that inescapably displace people
(Sharma and Singh, 2009, p. 62, 64-66).
The population displaced post-partition of British India is a matter of conjecture by mostly
remaining unrecorded. Of the available estimates, development projects like dams and canals
displaced most (Fernandes and Rao, 1989). Displacement by Notification and payment of cash
compensation does not make it voluntary. This is for many reasons. One is that the displaceable
people living at the bottom of the economic ladder hardly understand the intricacies of laws. The
other is that many of them do not have land rights in paper. They are neither made part of the
decision-making processes ex-ante nor do they have the capacity to negotiate vis-a-vis the section
having power to manoeuvre. These people-to-be-displaced are the consequence of development
who were earlier thought of as the cause of underdevelopment.
Land was never thought to be a factor of production in industry, either because land was abundant
in supply relative to what was required or because the required land area was insignificant relative
to the available land area of any particular economy. However, after a point, the scarcity-value or
unearned increment of land rises because of, among others, the requirement of land for setting up
or extension of industries (Kitay, 1985, p. 107). This takes two forms first, near the market-cum-
urban areas, and second, by selection of mining areas, forests, and hills. The proximity to market-
cum-physical infrastructure for location of industries means people settled by housing and land-
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

107
based occupations are displaced. The immediate consequence is similar the displacement of the
people living in the villages adjacent to the urban areas, and the displacement of the people living
in the forests and hills remote from the urban areas.
While landowners get compensation by giving up land in the process of acquisition by the state,
landless people are ineligible for compensation and miss the opportunity to remain engaged as
wage-workers. The landless people dependent mainly on Common Property Resources (CPRs) are
outside the purview of compensation of any type. One of the major reasons why people remain
rooted in rural region in India is CPRs for livelihood. Access to and uses of CPRs in India are
delinked from property rights. Since CPRs belong to none, the individual fails to be
compensated for loss of access to CPRs following land acquisition.
The immediate victims in land acquisition are the people living at the bottom of the socio-
economic ladder who continue to practice socially inherited caste-cum-gender division of labour
that fails to break the local trap. These people remain displaceable and are displaced by
execution of state-led development projects. Development, thus, occurs by capital accumulation
for A and dispossession of physical means of production for B. In the context of land acquisition,
following section 38A, Land Acquisition Act 1894, land can be acquired for a private limited
company for the purposes of developing dwelling houses for its workers and for the provision of
related facilities (Lobo and Kumar, 2009, p. 105). As a consequence of long-term stagnation at the
bottommost level of the economy, B fails to develop the capacity to be a partner in the decision-
making processes of development projects planned by A. This failure gets prolonged for the
multiple boundaries erected against B by obstructive education, power language (English by
colonial inheritance), caste, community, height-weight-colour of the person, gender, access to
institutions, and the domain of privileges. The additional factors that prolong the vulnerability of
B are ignorance, immobility and tradition-custom-belief. B remains confined to a traditional
society as fait accompli. As a corollary, B fails to foresee changes. In the same process often B
symbolizes anti-development. What B fails to communicate is an unequal impact of development
planning executed by the state that goes decidedly against it; it benefits the already privileged A
by the power of the purse, education and free walk on the corridors of power; it goes against B
who are rooted, tradition-bound, and localized. Development (accumulation) of A and
displacement (dispossession) of B go together.
During Kautilyas era, All land in the country not specifically owned by an individual was state
property (Rangarajan, 1992, p. 73). The owner of land would cease to remain as owner if he
disappeared or died without heirs, so that the state (king) became the owner of that property. The
state, thus, had a natural endowment of land resources. In addition to this being valid today, the
state may adopt one or a combination of the techniques for land acquisition from private hands
(Table 1).
Bhoodan, and subsequently Gramdan, were methods of collecting land through private initiatives
in India for distribution among the landless agricultural labourers. This was a response to the
radical peasant riots in Telengana region in Andhra Pradesh in India and went parallel to the non-
legitimized path like Land Grab practiced by the political radicals in India since early
independence (Nanekar & Khandewale, 1973, p. 2, 8, 27-28). In parallel, abolition of Zamindary
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
108
system in India immediately after independence and other land reform measures led to state-
accumulation of surplus private land for re-distribution.
Table 1
Techniques of Land Acquisition
Sl.
No.
Techniques Purpose/Example/Country
1 Gift & Donations Bhoodan (Land Gift)/Gramdan (Village Gift) (India)
2 Voluntary Bargain & Sale Allowing Price Mechanism to Operate in Land Market
3 Barter Land for Land
4 Leasehold For Specific Purposes, Short to Medium Period, Extendable
5 Nationalization State Ownership & Control over Land
6 Confiscation Coercive State Policy in Urgency to Take Away Land
7 Compulsory (Constitutional)
Acquisition
State Control over Land for Public Purposes, based on
Payment of Compensation (India)
Source: Structured from Kitay, 1985, p. 14-36.
Land acquisition by the state depends on the urgency and purpose, like military needs, or refugee
re-settlement. Public response, immediate or delayed, may also lead to multiple methods followed
by the state. The methods may differ across regions within the same economy. In case of the first
two techniques, direct state intervention was not required. However, donations and voluntary
exchange may fail in a land-scarce country and in a country where livelihood is mainly land-
dependent or where aristocracy is defined by possession of land. The credible threat of
compulsory land acquisition, as in India, hence may work even to make voluntary exchange a
success. The political system also is responsible for adoption of particular techniques, like
confiscation and nationalization may be remote possibilities in a system characterised by
Parliamentary Democracy, as in India.
We cite here three examples of actual and attempted land acquisition in India, two for National
Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) representing the public sector and one for Reliance Energy
Limited in the private sector, all for generation of electricity.
Case I: Meja, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh: A Case of Completed Acquisition
The NTPC Ltd. and Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Nigam Ltd. on 22
nd
November, 2007 signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to set up a thermal power plant of 1,320 MW under the
name, Meja Urja Nigam Private Ltd. (MUNPL), at Kohrarghat of Meja tehsil in Allahabad District
of east UP. The Government of UP acquired a total land area of 2500 acres for setting up the plant
covering seven villages partially, namely, Kohrar, Bhagdeva, Esauta, Mai Khurd, Salaiya Kala,
Salaiya Khurd, and Patai Dandi that reportedly affected the livelihood of 469 settled households.
The adverse impact by displacement was felt by social disintegration. The economic loss was felt
by landlessness, shelterlessness, loss of non-land productive assets like wells, fruit trees and
timber trees. Lost self-production led to loss of food security. Loss of CPR like common grazing
land led to loss of food, fuel and fodder. Non-uses and insecurity of domestic animals was a
corollary. The worst hit were the stone quarry workers, landless both pre-and post-acquisition,
who remained ineligible for compensation and suffered joblessness post-acquisition. The loss of
Common Property Resources (CPRs) remains unaddressed perhaps because it is owned by no
single individual.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

109
Most of the project-affected persons (PAPs) received compensation. The major reasons for
pending or delayed payment of compensation were court cases, speed money asked by the
officials of District Land Acquisition Office, disputes related to canal, outstanding bank loans of
the displaced persons, errors in name written on the bank cheque book, objections raised by the
displaced person against the meagre compensation money offered, disputes between Treasury and
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), official apathy, family disputes, and expiry of validity
by date shown on the bank cheque book.
Most of the project-affected households were rehabilitated by caste-cluster type housing. For
example, the Mallahs (fishermen households) along with a few Mushahars (pig-rearing
community) have been rehabilitated at Nai Basti in Jhariyahi, from their past settlement at Amhwa
at Mai Khurd. The Jadavs (cattle-rearing community) have been rehabilitated at Nai Basti, Jadav
Nagar, Koyaltara having a dry canal. However, the approach road to new location has remained
non-motorable. No provision has been made for rehabilitation of domestic animals in the new
settlement for absence of animal shed and absence of grazing land. The original inhabitants
initially expressed hostility to the resettlement of displaced persons, but following the intervention
of police, harmony was restored. Access to elementary education has remained undisturbed at the
new location because of the proximity to the same school where the children had been enrolled
earlier before displacement. The resettled women face problems in absence of proper public space
for sanitation. The households displaced by land acquisition expect to be employed by the
MUNPL (Majumder, 2010, 2011).
Case II: Dadri, Ghaziabad District, UP: A Case of Aborted Acquisition
To set up a 3500 MW gas-based power plant in Dadri region in Ghaziabad district in west UP, the
Government of UP acquired about 1,011 hectares of land in 2004 in seven villages for Reliance
Energy Generation Ltd. (REGL). The villages were Dehra, Jadopur, Bajhera Khurd, Kakrana, and
Dhaulana. The other two affected villages, namely, Nandlalpur and Baharmandpur, were un-
inhabited. Most of the land acquired was under multi-cropping. The major assets covered in land
acquisition were canals, ponds and wells. On July 13, 2007 the Government of India gave
environmental clearance to the project.
Land acquisition in Dadri could have led to displacement of large number of settled families. The
rate of compensation was fixed at Rs. 150 per sq. yard that was more than the market rate
prevailing there before land acquisition. The market rate immediately after land acquisition was
Rs. 300 per sq. yard at the minimum and Rs. 400 per sq. yard at the maximum. The rate of
compensation offered was twelve times the annual output value calculated at the-then current
market price.
The farmers formed an association called Maharana Pratap Sangram Sangharsh Samiti to protest
against the acquisition and claimed a compensation of Rs. 500 per sq. yard. On 30
th
December,
2006 Reliance Energy Ltd. decided to start the construction work by applying the Urgency
Clause of 1894 Act. Following continuous protests since 2004 against low rate of compensation,
and based on the magnitude of loss of fertile agricultural land, the Allahabad High Court on 4
th

December 2009, cancelled the acquisition, quashing of urgency powers to acquire land exercised
by the-then Government. It passed order acting on writ petitions filed by the farmers and the
former Prime Minister, late Mr. V.P. Singh, claiming that the petitioners were forced to sign on
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
110
documents and accept the meagre compensation offered by the Collector. The Court said that the
farmers had the option to refund the compensation received (Majumder, 2007).
Case III: Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, UP: A Case of Peoples Struggle
Set up in 1980-81 by the UP State Electricity Board (UPSEB), Government of UP, the power
plant was transferred on 15
th
January 2000 to NTPC Ltd. with a capacity of 440 MW. Geographic
area of the plant remained the same since it was set up. In 2009 the NTPC, Tanda thought of its
expansion by acquisition of land from adjoining nine villages, namely, Samariya, Husainpur
Sudhana, Salarpur Rajpur, Keshopur Pachpokhra, Hasimpur, Sarifpur, Kakrahi, Ashopur,
Ladanpur. The argument for acquisition was based on capacity expansion-cum-cost
minimization for the NTPC, Tanda. The people settled in the selected villages since last two
decades to-be-affected for acquisition had been victims of repetitive displacement in different
locations. Initially the small and marginal farmers having no productive assets and those whose
cultivable land is being adversely affected by dumping of fly ash by the power plant expressed
their willingness to give up land in exchange of compensation. Some of the households with
double settlement, housing at a long distance from the identified land to be acquired and socially
oppressed households expressed consent to give up land. Representatives of Gram Panchayats
were silent on the issue. Subsequently, the agitation against land acquisition for construction of
Expressway in Agra-Mathura region in west UP showed the path for mass mobilization of affected
people against land acquisition in Tanda. The potential victims by mid-2010 became adamant not
to give up land. An organization called Kisan Mazdoor Sava Samity has come into action against
land acquisition in the targeted villages. There is virtual curfew declared by the displaceable
people in some of the targeted villages where the NTPC officials and the state authorities do not
dare to enter. The farmers unanimously expressed their dissent against the land acquisition. The
farmers alleged that the NTPC officials supported by the district administration were misguiding
the farmers in order to appropriate the land. The process of land acquisition for NTPC for
expansion of its power plant is gradually converting into a noose around the neck of the
administration. The state is, however, in the process of negotiating the rate of compensation and
has applied its Urgency Clause through Notification to acquire land. The rate of compensation-
to-be-fixed is being influenced by demonstration effect from recent land acquisition-cum-
compensation from affluent regions in the state (Majumder, 2010, 2011).
In case of land acquisition in Meja, the shock was minimal because of the perceived positive net
benefits from giving up land - the barren nature of land given up, the low population density and
the revealed aspiration of the PAPs to get physical infrastructure like concrete roads and
electricity, and possibility to be employed in industry. In case of Dadri, the PAPs initially failed to
understand the gravity of the situation, and once understood took support from polity and
subsequently Judiciary to get rid of giving up land. In case of Tanda, the protest against land
acquisition is on.
LAW ON LAND ACQUISITION IN INDIA: ROLE OF THE STATE AND PUBLIC
RESPONSE
Article 31 Section A of the Constitution of India (Compulsory Acquisition of Property) empowers
the State to acquire land based on payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than
the market value prevailing (The Constitution of India, p. 14). Nearly after a century, the first
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

111
Land Acquisition Act 1894 was comprehensively amended in 1984. The Conference of the
Revenue Secretaries of states followed in July 1989 that endorsed the major provisions of the 1984
amendment. The Draft National Policy for Rehabilitation of Persons (1996) of the Ministry of
Rural Development, GOI, acknowledged that cash compensation was not an acceptable
proposition for most of the tribal people who inhabit in the remote and backward regions full of
mineral resources like coal, iron ore, and manganese reserves (Report, 1996). While tribal people
constitute 8.08 per cent of Indias total population, they constitute more than 40.0 per cent of the
project affected population (PAP); another 22.0 per cent of the PAPs are dalits, and the rest,
including the above, are rural poor (Lobo and Kumar, 2009, p.9). After a decade, the GOI
approved the National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2007, replacing the earlier
National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation for Project Affected Families, 2003
(Chakrabarty and Dhar, 2010, p. 4).
The Government of India introduced The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2007 in the Lok
Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) on 30
th
November 2007 that was a Bill further to
amend the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Source: Bill No. 97 of 2007, Lok Sabha). Once passed, it
will be called the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 2007.
The Bill, 2007, acknowledged that the acquisition of land would lead to displacement of people,
deprive them of their livelihood and shelter, restrict their access to their traditional resource base,
and uproot them from their socio-cultural environment. Land acquisition would have traumatic
psychological and socio-cultural consequences for the affected population, which call for
protecting their rights, including those of the weaker sections of the society, particularly tribal
people, and tenants. Following the Bill 2007, public purpose restricts the scope of land
acquisition under the Act to provision of land for strategic purposes relating to naval, military and
air force works or any other work vital to the state, and for infrastructure projects like generation,
transmission or supply of electricity, construction of roads, highways, bridges, airports, ports, rail
systems or mining activities, water supply project, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage
system, any other public facility as may be notified in this regard by the Central Government in
the Official Gazette where the benefits accrue to the general public. The expression person
interested in the Act (1894) is proposed to be expanded in the new Act (2007) to include tribals
and other traditional forest dwellers, who have lost any traditional rights recognized under the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
and expanded to include persons having tenancy rights under the relevant State laws.
The Bill, 2007, pledged to make the process of land acquisition transparent through Notification in
the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers in circulation in that locality. The Bill says that
the appropriate Government shall, for the purpose of providing speedy disposal of disputes
relating to land acquisition, set up, by notification in the Official Gazette, the Land Acquisition
Compensation Disputes Settlement Authority. The Bill mentions that the Collector of the
concerned District, ascertain the intended land use before acquisition and take into account the
value of the land of the intended category in the adjoining areas, for the purpose of determination
of the market value of the land being acquired.
The determination of market value of land to-be-acquired is pledged to include the market value
of the buildings and other immovable property or assets attached to the land or building which are
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
112
to be acquired, the value of trees and plants, and the value of the standing crops damaged
during the process of land acquisition proceedings. The Collector has to ensure that physical
possession of the land is taken over and the amount of compensation is paid within a period of
sixty days commencing from the date of the award.
Following the proposed Act 2007, the state (of India) owns the responsibility of land acquisition
for which the catalyst is the District Collector and the Disputes Settlement body is the Court. The
role of the Judiciary is limited by the guidelines provided by the proposed Act. By regulating
market value of land for the compulsory nature of the acquisition, by guiding the Judiciary in
determining compensation, the state aims to execute the development model that it perceives fit
for the country.
A CRITIQUE OF STATE DETERMINISM
The catalyst in land acquisition is the state in India. The person interested in the context of land
acquisition includes all those going to be affected by land acquisition of a particular zone. De
facto, the person interested is the tribal people, the original settlers on land who generally do not
possess any land records, the small and marginal farmers, the tenants and sharecroppers, the
settled and migrant agricultural wage-workers, and the women workers for collection of food-fuel-
fodder from the CPRs. These interested persons generally do not express their interests. While
the migrant agricultural workers, as an example of rural to rural migration, are disempowered by
not daring to ask the District Collector for payment of any compensation when his employers plot
of land is lost by acquisition for purposes other than agriculture, the employer by being a small
farmer is disempowered by standing on the queue to receive compensation, the time distance
between acquisition and compensation being sixty days. A span of sixty days is too long for the
cash compensation to-be-paid to the small and marginal farmers who are now robbed off their
means of production. The compulsion imposed on them is that they need to stay in the rural areas
where they were to receive the compensation. It is a different question what economic activity
they could have been absorbed into had they immediately migrated to some other region. It is
beyond the capacity of tribal people and dalits, unless politically mobilized, to raise voice for a
compensation equal to 30.0 per cent mark up of prevailing market rate. Eviction from CPRs is
non-questionable - CPRs belong to all or none if it exists at all post-acquisition. The small and
marginal farmers may feel shaky to move the Court and remain content with whatever cash
compensation they are offered. Judiciary by its cobweb nature may itself be a trap for them. Fear
factor works for the holders of petty property lest it is also lost in the process of bargaining and
negotiating with the administrative authority. Public purpose incorporated and interpreted by the
state either gets camouflaged by silence of the displaced or manifests itself in public response to
land acquisition by protest. While silence of the displaced ensures easy implementation of the
project by fixing the rate of money compensation, protest is not prolonged in absence of political
mobilization. The trade-off between the interests of the lightweight large public and the
heavyweight few elite is weighted in favour of the latter.
For launching projects in cities, the state aims for vertical measures like constructing flyovers for
surface transport, tunnels underground for metro rail and tube rail so that buildings and other
assets possessed by the urbane civil society, both public and private, are not affected; however, in
rural areas the state plans horizontal expansion by acquisition of private and collective cultivable
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

113
land and hence eviction of vulnerable people. It is arguable that the state historically followed
similar measures for conversion of rural areas into urban areas in India and abroad. But the time of
21
st
century by the role of civil society by public response is sharply different from the centuries
that preceded it by size and density of population, economic engagement under compulsions,
democracy and voice of people. The reaction to displacement is more acute in 2010s because of
imminent land-scarcity relative to land area required for rehabilitation. It is understood that any
site is not suitable for rehabilitation, like ecologically sensitive zones, reserve forests, desert areas,
water bodies, hills, and seismic zones. Rehabilitable land area, thus, is much less than available
geographic area at any point of time. Heterogeneous culture between the two, the displacing zone
and the rehabilitating zone, complicates the scenario further. Resettlement for the displaced
individual or resettlement for the displaced castes/community as a cluster needs to be resolved pre-
acquisition. The question of prior informed consent thus becomes relevant now that might have
been not relevant earlier. Instead of taking measures at the root, the state takes measures that are
generally consequential or derivative in nature. The state takes pre-emptive measures by
inclusion in the safety net of social welfare those who the state threw out of the development
trajectory in the first place. Since high growth via industrialization is urgent for trickle down, the
state first evicts people from land by its acquisition, makes them expendable and then catches
them in the safety net. The objects caught in the net are never asked if they had the right to self-
determination in the development map. The map is drawn and guarded by the state.
The displacement by land acquisition destroys the inherited skills or indigenous knowledge of the
people, destroys inter-generational social relations shaped over generations what may be called
social disintegration, imposes social Darwinism by the state, empowers industrial capitalists by
enhancing their unhindered access to natural resources, converts marginal and small landowners
into manual labour-based wage workers, expands labour size in informal sector, and imposes
forced migration on the displaced people. Fixing rate of cash compensation and paying it to the
displaced is a non-substitute of life-saving land for the land-dependent people. Urban-type
resettlement does not help the villagers because the domestic animals need common space (CPRs)
for grazing. Since village space is horizontal while urban space is vertical, the difference explained
by population density, hence urbanization does not help the people accustomed with village mode
of living of the recent past. In absence of re-creation of similar village life elsewhere by
rehabilitation of the displaced, the villagers feel robbed off their earlier mode of living. Nearby
rehabilitation could be the solution but not bankable because of unanticipated further expansion of
the industrial plant. The once displaced people remain vulnerable by future unanticipated
displacement. Extension of the urban boundary by such acquisition subsidizes the better off by
assured supply of cheap labour from the newly displaced villagers converted urban slum
dwellers. Both land and necessary labour, thus, are curved out by land acquisition for the industry-
cum-urban economy.
The state represents the ideology of the dominant political society and camouflages it by the
declaration of a democratic republic. The state remains strong internally by imposition of laws it
formulates for non-or-restricted access of the original settlers in forests and on land who were the
original natural custodians of these resources. Through dispossession of the natural custodians, the
state becomes the protector of forests and land. In parallel, the state has a tendency to allow
private capital to get utilized to extract natural resources and convert them into commodities for
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
114
the mainstream. The sections that are considered not-in-the-mainstream at present constituted the
original stream in the past. These constituents of the original stream were the tribal people and the
downtrodden who distanced themselves from the institution of private property the possession of
which is ensured by excludability. The sections are now evicted who protected these resources as
the life-support system since pre-history not backed by any state laws. By acquisition of land,
collective social ownership-cum-use is surrendered what gets supreme is state authority.
Land carries dual meaning by uses by the people. Land has both precautionary and speculative
value apart from immediate exchange value to its holders. For the state, land is a resource for
conversion into commodities for growth measured by gross domestic product. In view of the
affected people, it is displacement and loss of livelihood. The ultimate decision-maker is the state
that calculates the costs and benefits of land acquisition. Even if the outcome of the
industrialization initiatives by the state is positive by accelerating growth, the time span between
displacement and the final GDP outcome is long and displacement is often repetitive to lead to
misery of many. Stagnation or decline of the village economy in India is also put forward as an
argument for the dispossession of the village income-poor, which remains questionable
(Bannerjee-Guha, 2010, p. 221). In an inter-generational frame, the successors of land may like to
move out for a number of reasons like education-linked attractive urban life, and opportunity to be
engaged in higher wage earning occupations delinked from land. This is voluntary migration
different from displacement that is involuntary in nature.
The fact is that state is not the owner of natural resources. The state can at best be the custodian of
natural resources that belong to people. The state as an institution is itself accountable to the
nation.
SOME SUGGESTIONS IN LAND ACQUISITION FOR INDUSTRIALIZATION
In the light of the above, we offer the following suggestions in land acquisition for
industrialization in India:
The 1894 Land Acquisition Act should be repealed because it was enacted in the interest
of the colonial government.
The farmers relying on self-production of foodgrains for family consumption should be
exempted from giving up land under distress.
The target for land acquisition by the state has to be the absentee landlords, the land
owners with distress-free double settlement and the big landowners. The land that
remains idle as estate and in fictitious name should be acquired.
The state has to select barren land far from human settlement for acquisition for
industrialization. Accurate measurement of land by area for acquisition is needed to get
rid of excess idle land post-acquisition.
There has to be pre-project participation of people of the going-to-be affected zone as
equal partners in the decision-making processes in public interest.
Land acquisition for industrial purposes has to minimize deforestation, diminishing water
table, emission of gas and other health hazards.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

115
The real resources of a country are land, rivers, mines, forests, the coastal belt, and above
all the people. A national Resource Protection Policy has to be formulated by the state
to preserve these resources.
The people unsettled in the rural region by land acquisition have to be economically
rehabilitated within a reasonable radius.
CPRs lost have to be re-created at the site of rehabilitation through combined efforts of
the Forest Department and the beneficiary industry.
There has to be national Land Census on a regular basis. All land records have to be
computerized and put on website, the latter publicized through print media.
There has to be a Land Rights Commission (LRC) to work as a vigilant over the activities
of the government so far as land market is concerned.
The corporate sector as the beneficiary of land acquired for it has to shoulder Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) by adoption of one or a cluster of rehabilitation zones as
identified by the state.
The compensation has to cover land price post-acquisition plus the cost of surrendering
domestic animals and other productive assets plus the cost for surrendered opportunity to
have access to common space (CPR) plus the cost for security loss.
The technique for land acquisition has to be culturally conditioned, politically suited and
economically feasible.
Over all, in addition to a National Policy on Land Acquisition by prior provision of R&R, there
has to be regional planning in advance for industrialization.
_______________________________
Acknowledgement
I thank M. G. Gupta, Tinku Paul, G.N. Jha, S. Jaiswal, and A. Singh for the field work. The usual
disclaimer applies.
References
Bannerjee-Guha, Swapna, 2010, Revisiting Accumulation by Dispossession: Neoliberalizing Mumbai, in
Bannerjee-Guha, Swapna (Ed), Accumulation by Dispossession, Sage Pub, New Delhi.
Chakrabarti, Anjan and Dhar, Anup, 2010, Dislocation and Resettlement in Development, From Third
World to the World of the Third, Routledge, London and New York.
Constitution of India, 1982 (As Amended up to the Constitution (45
th
Amendment Act), Central Law
Agency, Allahabad.
Deane, Phyllis, 1984, The First Industrial Revolution, Cambridge University Press.
Fernandes, Walter, 2007, Singur and the Displacement Scenario, Economic and Political Weekly, 20
January.
Fernandes, Walter, Das, J.C. and Rao, Sam, 1989, Displacement and Rehabilitation An Estimate of Extent
and Prospects, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi.
GOI, The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (As amended up to 1985).
Hindustan Times, 2010, July 10, 12, Sept. 11, Lucknow, India.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
116
Kitay, Michael G., 1985, Land Acquisition in Developing Countries, A Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Book, Boston, US.
Lobo, Lancy and Kumar, S. 2009, Land Acquisition, Displacement and Resettlement in Gujarat, 1947-2004,
Sage, New Delhi.
Lok Sabha, The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2007 (Bill No. 97 of 2007).
Magill, Frank N. (Ed), 1997, International Encyclopaedia of Economics, Vol. I and II, London.
Majumder, Bhaskar, 2007, Development Hydra, Two Cases of Forced Industrialization in India, Report
submitted to G. B. Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad, India (Mimeo).
----------Social Justice in Economic Perspective: Displacement of People by Land Acquisition for
Industrialization in India, Journal of Social and Political Studies, Vol. 1 (1), December, 2010.
---------Political Economy of Dispossession: Some Recent Experiences in India, Journal of Social and
Economic Studies, Vol. XXI, No. 1, January-June, 2011.
Marx, Karl, 2006, The Future Results of the British Rule in India, in James P. and Phillip, D. (Ed),
Globalization and Violence, Vol. 2, Sage Pub., London.
Nanekar, K.R. and Khandewale, S.V., 1973, Bhoodan and the Landless, Popular Prakashan, Bombay.
Nayyar, Deepak, 2002, Cross-border Movements of People, in Nayyar, Deepak (Ed.), Governing
Globalization, Issues and Institutions, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Plum, Warner, 1977, Industrialization and Mass Poverty: Points from two Centuries of Debate, (Translated
from the German by Lux Furtmuller), Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Bonn, Fed. Rep. of Germany.
Rangarajan,L.N., 1992, The Arthashastra, Penguin Books, New Delhi.
Report, 1996, Economic and Political Weekly, June 15.
Sarkar, Abhirup, 2007, Development and Displacement, Land Acquisition in West Bengal, Economic and
Political Weekly, April 21.
Sharma, R.N. and Singh, Shashi R, 2009, Displacement in Singrauli Region: Entitlements and
Rehabilitation, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLIV, No. 51.

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

117
REGIONAL ORIGIN OF MANUFACTURING EXPORTS:
INTER-STATE PATTERNS IN INDIA
Jaya Prakash Pradhan
1
and Keshab Das
2


Regardless of exports increasing roles in national and state level economic growth performance,
there are hardly any studies that analyze inter-state disparities in export activities. Constructing a
unique dataset from a variety of published and unpublished sources of information, the study has
estimated state level manufacturing exports for 19912008. It is the first ever attempt on
estimating state level exports focusing on plant information. The estimation derived with reference
to plant size information and covering majority of sub-national entities in India, has offered
preliminary but useful findings for furthering policy understanding on inter-state disparities in
firms export activities.

Introduction
Indian industries and firms are rapidly internationalizing their businesses in recent years. The
adoption of economic openness policy by India during the last two decades, particularly trade
policy reforms have produced significant growth in exports from India (Hosamane and Bisaliah,
2006). National firms were forced through heightened competitive pressures to participate in
world markets and facilitative measures were put in place to support firms internationalization
process.
In the first-decade of the twenty-first century, emerging Asian firms became the leading players
contributing to the recent export growth from emerging market economies (EMEs). They
accounted for 31 per cent share in global merchandized exports in 2009. Between 1990 and 2009,
while Chinese firms quintupled their global merchandise export share, Indian firms more than
doubled their share of merchandise export. Indian exports grew substantially by 16.9 per cent
during 200009, more than the growth rate of such exports from EMEs (Table-1).
With exports become an important determinant of economic growth in India, there is increasing
realization among Indian states about the critical role that exports may play in improving their
growth prospects. A number of Indian states started adopting conscious policies to support
internationalization of their firms through exports.
In January 2003 Karnataka became the first Indian state to unveil a state level export promotion
policy with the mission to accelerate its export growth and achieve the doubling of her share in all
India exports from the existing level of 7 per cent to 15 per cent by 2007.
1
Government of Gujarat
has been undertaking proactive policies for promoting exports from the state, especially by its
small and medium enterprises (SME) sector. The vision of recently adopted Gujarat Industrial
Policies are to make Made in Gujarat a global brand through exports of high quality products
and to promote global sourcing from the state (Government of Gujarat, 2009). Augmenting
exports from the industrial units in the state is an important objective of the Maharashtra Industrial

1
Corresponding Author: Associate Professor, Centre for Studies in Economics & Planning,
Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar-382 030, E-mail: pradhanjayaprakash@gmail.com
2
Professor, Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Gota, Ahmedabad380 060, E-mail:
keshabdas@gmail.com
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
118
Policies, which is to be achieved through investment-friendly industrial policies, improving
infrastructure and proactively promoting the setting up of Special Economic Zones (Government
of Maharashtra, 2001). With a view to promote exports, the Tamil Nadu New Industrial Policy
2003 laid emphasis on various measures like setting up of Apparel Parks, Agri Export Zones and
Special Parks and formulation of a SEZ Policy (Government of Tamil Nadu, 2003).
Given the faster internationalization behaviours of Indian firms and growing focus of Indian states
on promoting exports by their firms, there is urgent requirement of understanding regional
dimension of Indian exports. However, the extant literature is predominantly focused national
trends of exports or firm-level export behaviour, with little attention paid to the regional
dimension of such activities. For instance, studies on export performance of Indian economy and
firms have explored changing sectoral and technological profile of manufactured exports (Lall,
1999), determinants and drivers (Pradhan and Sahu, 2008; Roy, 2007; Kumar and Pradhan, 2007;
Siddharthan and Nollen, 2004; Aggarwal, 2002; Bhavani and Tendulkar, 2001; Singh, 2001); and
relationship between growth and exports (Chandra, 2003). Studies on state level export
performance, for example, Chaudhuri and Chakraborty (2010) and Marjit and Kar (2008) are of
limited use as far as the objective is to compare Indian states on the basis of export performance.
These studies, in the absence of reliable data, use the correspondence between states production
pattern and national export structure as indirect ways of arriving at potential export products for a
state or regional openness index.
India, as a large EME, is known to comprise a very diverse set of sub-national geographies with
often significant inter-regional differences in the levels of development and economic growth.
Regional disparities in the size and growth of local markets, endowments of human and
technological resources, industrial specialization, infrastructure, etc., are like to play an important
role in the firms export behaviour and differential contribution to the national exports. Therefore,
unless the export studies related to India are expanded to incorporate regional heterogeneity, we
will continue to miss the regional learning and capacity building process that make Indian firms
from certain regions more active in trade than firms from other regions.
As there is little literature about the regional pattern of firms export activities in India, the present
study attempts to fill the analytical gap by focusing on issues of internationalization of firms at the
subnational level. Are manufacturing exports by Indian firms regionally concentrated? How have
Indian states, the unit of sub-national analysis, performed in Indias ongoing export boom? These
questions have important policy implications.
The study begins with a brief discussion on the data issues related to regional exports in India and
in particular the limitations of official statistics. It then proceeds to elaborate on an alternative
method of estimating state-wise exports based on plant size and location information. Based on the
new estimates on firms exports by Indian states, it analyses the trends and patterns of regional
exports.
State-level Exports: Data Issues and Method of Estimation
Database
Despite maintaining long time series databases on foreign trade by commodities and trading
partners, India has paid little attention to the compilation of data on sub-national origin of exports
until recently. Whether it is the trade data from the Director General of Commercial Intelligence
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

119
and Statistics (DGCI&S) or trade statistics from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) none have any
cues to segregate national exports by state or district level.
Table 1
Average Merchandise Exports of Selected Emerging Economies, 200009
Region/economy
Average exports ($ billion)
Annual average growth
(per cent)
Percentage share in
global exports
2000-04 2005-09 2000-09 2000-04 2005-09 2000-09 1990 2000 2009
World 7189 13030 10110 10.4 7.4 8.9 100.0 100.0 100.0
Developed economies 4671 7552 6111 8.4 5.0 6.7 73.3 65.7 56.6
European Union 2896 4895 3895 10.1 5.0 7.6 45.2 38.0 36.7
North America 1025 1475 1250 4.3 4.9 4.6 15.1 16.4 11.0
Other developed
economies
586 882 734 7.5 3.6 5.6 10.1 9.1 6.5
Other developed
Europe
165 300 232 10.4 8.7 9.5 2.9 2.2 2.4
Emerging economies 2519 5483 4001 14.6 11.3 12.9 24.6 34.3 43.5
Africa 170 410 290 16.5 12.5 14.5 3.1 2.3 3.0
America 386 723 554 10.0 9.2 9.6 4.3 5.6 5.5
Asia 1766 3825 2795 14.8 11.2 13.0 17.2 23.9 31.0
CIS 181 490 335 21.1 15.0 18.1 0.0 2.3 3.6
Oceania 5 8 7 4.9 4.9 4.9 0.1 0.1 0.1
South-East Europe 11 28 19 16.2 12.2 14.2 0.0 0.1 0.2
Selected emerging economies
Argentina 29 54 41 8.5 11.4 10.0 0.4 0.4 0.4
Brazil 69 154 111 15.5 11.2 13.3 0.9 0.9 1.2
Chile 22 57 40 15.1 12.5 13.8 0.2 0.3 0.4
China 374 1116 745 25.4 16.5 21.0 1.8 3.9 9.6
Egypt 7 19 13 23.7 19.1 21.4 0.1 0.1 0.2
Hong Kong, China 218 333 276 9.2 4.7 7.0 2.4 3.1 2.6
India 54 144 99 16.9 17.0 16.9 0.5 0.7 1.2
Indonesia 63 114 89 7.5 12.0 9.8 0.7 1.0 1.0
Korea, Republic of 187 354 270 13.1 8.1 10.6 1.9 2.7 2.9
Malaysia 102 167 135 9.1 5.3 7.2 0.9 1.5 1.3
Mexico 168 251 210 7.1 5.1 6.1 1.2 2.6 1.8
Philippines 37 45 41 2.2 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.6 0.3
Russian Federation 127 336 231 20.6 14.4 17.5 0.0 1.6 2.4
Singapore 149 282 215 12.6 7.3 10.0 1.5 2.1 2.2
South Africa 34 65 49 12.2 7.5 9.9 0.7 0.5 0.5
Note: The regional classification of countries is as per the UNCTAD (2009).
Source: Estimation based on World Trade Organizations online trade database, available at
http://stat.wto.org/Home/WSDBHome.aspx?Language=E
It seems there was lack of incentives to go beyond national aggregates of trade measures, largely
because of Indias marginal dependence on exports reflected in the contemporary inward-looking
policy regime and anti-export bias of excessive protection given to import-substitution economic
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
120
activities. As a result, for the entire period since 1950s90s, unfortunately, there are hardly any
official estimates on state wise exports.
With the trade becoming an important source of economic growth in the liberalized period, there
has been an attempt to develop a data inventory on the state level exports. In the late 2001, the
Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) revised the formats of Daily Trade Returns (DTRs)
for imports and exports and the circular no. 32/2001-CUS of the Central Board of Excise &
Customs, dated 31
st
May, 2001 made these revisions mandatory with effect from 1
st
July 2001. As
per this new format, shipping bills submitted by exporters to the custom authorities at ports are
required to furnish the state of origin of goods exported, among other information.
Notwithstanding the above regulatory provision for information on exports by state of origin, the
official source is far from releasing reliable estimates. For the first time, the Economic Survey of
the Government of India related to the year 200809 provided preliminary estimates on exports
for major 15 Indian states starting since 200607. The Economic Survey 200910 carries forward
the information up to 200910. These figures are estimated by the DGCI&S based on state of
origin of export goods as reported in the DTRs filled with the customs.
These official estimates on state wise exports are by no means complete and satisfactory. First, the
effective implementation of the revised DTR appears to be lacking uniformity across different
custom points and exporter-specific heterogeneity in actually filling up the state of origin
information in the shipping bills. Take the case of Southern custom zones, where exporters non-
compliance with the mandatory requirements of furnishing the state of origin information has
forced the authority to issue another trade notification No. 4/20022003, dated: 11
th
October 2002.
The implementation can similarly be unsatisfactory at smaller ports, distorting the estimated state-
wise exports data. As the DTRs of many exporters still suffered from non-furnishing of the state of
origin information, there is likely to be incomplete coverage of exports. However, the compliance
is expected to improve overtime.
Second, the dependence on exporters information on state of origin for estimating state level
exports is not free from weakness in a federal setup. The information provided by non-
manufacturer exporters can vitiate the estimation as the state of procurement of goods can differs
from state of their production. However, DGCI&S is yet to take into account such measurement
errors in its state-wise export estimation. Third, the released state-level export data covers unduly
short time period and for just major exporting states. These data will not be of much help when
one would like to analyze the long term trend and patterns of exports by Indian states since the
starting of the liberalization in the early 1990s. Lastly, official state level export data fails to
incorporate the vital export segments like export of services.
Methodology
In view of the above limitations of official statistics on state wise exports, this study seeks to adopt
an alternative method of estimation. As the basic idea is to allocate exports to their place of
production, this study has mainly considered the state-wise location of manufacturers plants to
arrive at the state level export figures. In the absence of comprehensive firm-level data for the
entire manufacturing sector, the estimation in this study has been provided only for the organized
segment of the manufacturing activities. In the service sector, the focus has been restricted to the
information technologies (IT) activities only.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

121
The study has drawn upon the recently updated Prowess database of the Centre for Monitoring
Indian Economy (CMIE) for estimating state level export series during 19912008. This database
has been furnishing a set of financial and non-financial variables including exports for an
increasing number of Indian industrial firms and also now provides basic plant information for a
number of them. The location data of the Prowess provides the name of the place of plant location,
names of product manufactured, year for which this location information is related, plant capacity
and actual production quantity. However, the availability of information on the last two indicators
is not for all firms and plants in the database; rather it is limited to available firms and plants only.
While the financial information have been gathered for 9296 firms in both manufacturing (8486
firms) and IT sectors (810 firms), plant location information on 1000 odd companies is not
available in the prowess database. These gaps in location data have been filled with information
collected through intensive internet searches of company websites, annual reports, consultancy
reports, etc.
Taking recourse to the most recent location information on number of plants, size of production
and number of states where plants exist, firms have been broadly divided into what are termed as
(i) single-state based firms and (ii) multi-state based firms. The former comprises of 8129 firms
and accounts for above 87 per cent of the total number of firms which have all of their production
units located in a single state/union territory (UT). Total exports/sales of these single-state based
firms are directly allocated to their respective host state/UT. The latter includes a total of 1167
firms those have plants located in more than one state/UT. Nearly 25 per cent of these multi-state
based firms are producers of single products and have given information on their plant sizes, based
on which exports/sales of these firms are divided into different states where their plants are
located. The state-wise breakups of a multi-state based firms total exports/sales are based on the
application of host states share in the aggregate production capacity of the firm. For the remaining
single product multi-state based firms for which plant size data is insufficient and those firms that
are producing multiple products (where plants sizes are in different units of measurements or not
available), the study has assumed uniform economic size of plants for a firm to derive the state-
wise production shares for fragmenting its total exports/sales across host states.
While using the production share to derive state-wise exports/sales of a firm is a practical
approach, this method is not without its limitations. However, as the firms with relatively small
number of host states account for the major proportion of total exports by all the industrial firms in
the sample, it is unlikely that these limitations may overshadow the overall estimates. For
example, the single state-based firms accounted for more than 42 per cent of total exports of all
sample firms during 19912008, followed by two states-based firms with 27 per cent and three
states-based firms with 11 per cent sharestogether these firms nearly contributed 80 per cent of
total exports by sample firms (Figure-1). As this is the first systematic exercise to derive state-
wise industrial exports for an important phase of the evolution of globalized India, results obtained
should be taken as useful starting estimates on state-level exports.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
122
Figure 1
Export Share of Firms by Number of Host States, 19912008.
Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)
It is reassuring to emphasize that the sample firms exports, which have been assigned to different
Indian states based plant location information, account for substantial proportion of national
exports during the study period. The share of sample firms manufactured exports in national
manufacturing exports grew from 30 per cent in 199091 to 77 per cent in 20072008, achieving
as much as 58 per cent share in national exports for the study period (Table-2). So this empirical
exercise is able to distribute a fair proportion of national manufacturing exports by states. The
sample software firms contributed about 47 per cent of total software and IT services exports from
India in the period 199091 to 20072008. Similarly to the trend in sample firms share in
national manufacturing exports, sample firms software exports has been growing from a
relatively lower levels in the early 1990s to higher levels in the first decade of the twenty-first
century. These trends may lead us to believe that the reliability of the obtained distribution of
exports by Indian state is better for more recent years.
As a bench mark to our state-level export estimates, it may be suggestive to compare the obtained
state ranking and export shares to such information available from the official statistics. This is
preferable as the absolute values of our state-wise manufacturing exports is not strictly and
meaningfully comparable to the absolute values from the official source since the later includes
merchandise exports covering products from the primary sector as well. Table-3 reports official
and our estimates on state-wise exports for a two years period, 200607 to 200708.
Given the differences in sectoral coverage, it is natural to observe divergence between export
ranking of states based on official statistics and those derive from our estimates. Unlike
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

123
Maharashtra that tops the merchandise export performance from India in this period, it is Gujarat
that has the highest level of exports in manufacturing products. It is apparent that both these
Western states are export powerhouse in India together claiming above 48 per cent and 50 per cent
respectively of national merchandise and manufacturing exports.
Table 2
Share of Sample Firms Manufacturing and Software Exports in National Exports: 1991-
2008
Year
Manufacturing exports (US$ billions) Software exports (US$ billions)
National
exports
Sample
firms
exports
Sample as
a per cent
of national
National
exports
Sample
firms'
exports
Sample as a
per cent of
national
199091 13 3.9 30.0 0.14 0.03 21.4
199192 13.15 4.74 36.0 0.21 0.04 19.0
199293 14.04 5.35 38.1 0.24 0.06 25.0
199394 16.66 7.28 43.7 0.33 0.11 33.3
199495 20.4 8.98 44.0 0.47 0.19 40.4
199596 23.75 10.34 43.5 0.79 0.27 34.2
199697 24.61 10.7 43.5 1.16 0.35 30.2
199798 26.55 11.25 42.4 1.83 0.55 30.1
199899 25.79 11.32 43.9 2.97 0.91 30.6
199900 29.71 12.55 42.2 3.96 1.49 37.6
200001 34.34 15.96 46.5 6.21 2.58 41.5
200102 33.37 16.02 48.0 7.65 3.05 39.9
200203 40.24 21.14 52.5 9.53 4.47 46.9
200304 48.49 27.61 56.9 12.67 5.92 46.7
200405 60.73 37.09 61.1 17.84 9.53 53.4
200506 72.56 44.8 61.7 23.51 11.43 48.6
200607 84.92 68.89 81.1 33.37 17.31 51.9
200708 102.98 79.12 76.8 40.83 18.96 46.4
All Years 685.29 397.04 57.9 163.72 77.26 47.2
Note: Financial year average exchange rate has been used to convert rupee figures into US$.
Source: (i) National exports of manufactured goods is from RBI Database on Indian Economy Online
database (2010); (ii) National software exports data is from Statistical Year Books, various issues,
Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council (ESC) and Annual Reports,
200405 & 200910, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communication &
Information Technology, Government of India; (iii) SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess
manufacturing firms (2010)
The second category of major state exporters includes three southern Indian states, namely
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh jointly contributing 23.5 per cent of national
merchandise exports and 22 per cent of manufacturing exports from India. The official statistics,
similar to our estimates on manufacturing exports, suggest that these top five exporting states
together account for 72 per cent of exports from India. Clearly, the official and our estimates on
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
124
state-wise exports, not withstanding their differences in sectoral coverage, largely led to similar
export share of the group of top five exporting states and names of individual members. This
perhaps shows that our estimates on state-wise exports are broadly reliable and consistent for
larger exporting Indian states.
Table 3
State Ranking and Export Shares Based on Merchandise and Manufacturing Exports
Official Statistics

Our Estimates
Merchandise exports (US$ million) during
200607 to 200708.
(Manufacturing & primary sector products)
Manufacturing exports (US$ million) during
200607 to 200708
Rank State Value Per cent Rank State Value Per cent
1 Maharashtra 80714 27.9 1 Gujarat 40936 27.7
2 Gujarat 58945 20.4 2 Maharashtra 33086 22.4
3 Tamil Nadu 27913 9.6 3 Karnataka 15101 10.2
4 Karnataka 27317 9.4 4 Tamil Nadu 9403 6.4
5 Andhra Pradesh 12906 4.5 5 Andhra Pradesh 7969 5.4
6 Delhi 10063 3.5 6 Uttar Pradesh 5113 3.5
7 West Bengal 9690 3.3 7 West Bengal 4208 2.8
8 Haryana 8206 2.8 8 Rajasthan 3539 2.4
9 Uttar Pradesh 7927 2.7 9 Madhya Pr 3479 2.4
10 Rajasthan 6632 2.3 10 Haryana 3468 2.3
11 Orissa 4995 1.7 11 Orissa 2779 1.9
12 Madhya Pr 4908 1.7 12 Delhi 2556 1.7
13 Punjab 4746 1.6 13 Punjab 2505 1.7
14 Kerala 4657 1.6 14 Kerala 2457 1.7
15 Goa 2811 1.0 15 Dadra & NH 2208 1.5
16 Himachal Pr 1467 1.0
17 Uttarakhand 1411 1.0
18 Jharkhand 1310 0.9
19 Daman & Diu 1207 0.8
20 Chhattisgarh 1172 0.8
21 Bihar 864 0.6
22 Assam 787 0.5
23 Jam & Kashmir 454 0.3
24 Goa 361 0.2
25 Pondicherry 45 0.0
Others 17063 5.9 Others 116 0.1

India's total
exports
289493 100
Total sample
firms exports
148002 100
Source: Economic Surveys 20082009 & 200910 based on DGCI&S, Government of India; SPIESR-
GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)as indicated in the text.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

125
In the following sections the paper discusses broad trends and patterns of manufacturing exports at
the state level. The time series data on state level total manufacturing exports and its important
components, and IT exports are provided in the Appendix Tables, A1A16. This data appendix
shall be useful for researchers working on the issues of state level export performance in India.
TRENDS AND PATTERNS OF STATE-WISE MANUFACTURING EXPORT
Indian manufacturing exports began rapidly growing since the 1990s as the home country started
to seriously implement the policies of economic openness and outward-orientation. The annual
average growth rate attained by Indian manufacturing exports was 15 per cent in 199299 and it
has further accelerated by 25 per cent in 200008 (Table-4). It appears that Indian manufacturing
firms desire and ability to participate in world markets were positively affected by the
liberalization process. Because of the increased competitive pressures, corporate restructuring and
efficiency gain, and improvement in funding opportunity, Indian manufacturing firms found it
more worthwhile to expand the geography of their market and business operation. However, not
all Indian companies from all Indian states are expected to be similarly affected by these forces.
As the decision to exports or not is the result of the interplay of firm-, sector- and location-specific
factors, firms response to economic openness is likely to vary over different regions. It then
becomes important to explore if recent high growth of Indian manufacturing exports is regionally
broad-based or not.
Regional Trends
The high export growth achieved by Indian manufacturing during the last decade appears to be
regionally broad based. In terms of manufacturing export growth during 200008, all regions
except Central India enjoyed annual average growth rate higher than that attained in the previous
decade (i.e., 1990s). West India and East India nearly doubled their annual average export growth
rates between these periods and Northeast India has seen its export growth rebounding to 18 per
cent reversing the past negative trend. North India and South India continued to experience
accelerating growth in their exports in the last two decades. Though the annual average growth
rate of exports from Central India declined to 17.5 per cent in 200008 from 19.4 per cent in
199299, this growth rate is quite strong (Table-4). Therefore, the impressive manufacturing
export growth from India in 200008 is generally driven by active participation from different
sub-regions.
Although the manufacturing export growth is regionally enveloping in India, regions significantly
differs in terms of their relative contribution to the national manufacturing exports. Among Indian
regions, West India is the largest contributor to the national manufacturing exports with 37.2 per
cent share in 199195, which has increased consistently over time to about 53 per cent share in
200508 (Figure-2, Table-4). It is followed by South and North India respectively accounting for
23.6 per cent and 16.5 per cent of total manufacturing exports from India in 199195. These three
regions continued to be ranked as the top three export contributing geographies in India and
together their share in Indias national manufacturing exports increased from 77 per cent in
199195 to 90 per cent in 200508. This indicates that there is considerable regional concentration
in Indian manufacturing exports that has only increased over the years.


JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
126
Table 4
Manufacturing Exports by Indian States
Region/state
Manufacturing exports (US$ billions)
Annual average
growth (per cent)
1991-95 1996-99 2000-04 2005-08 1992-99 2000-08
Central India 1.54 (5.0) 2.57 (5.9) 3.89 (4.1) 7.49 (3.2) 19.4 17.5
Chhattisgarh 0.24 (0.7) 0.39 (0.8) 0.58 (0.6) 1.63 (0.7) 24.7 31.1
Madhya Pradesh 1.30 (4.3) 2.19 (5.0) 3.31 (3.5) 5.86 (2.5) 19.4 15.3
East India 4.53 (14.9) 4.95 (11.3) 7.65 (8.2) 15.13 (6.5) 7.7 17.4
Bihar 0.67 (2.2) 0.50 (1.1) 0.54 (0.5) 1.25 (0.5) -1.5 22.1
Jharkhand 0.64 (2.1) 0.69 (1.5) 1.00 (1.0) 2.19 (0.9) 12.5 21.6
Orissa 1.16 (3.8) 1.22 (2.8) 2.43 (2.6) 4.80 (2.0) 6.8 21.8
West Bengal 2.05 (6.7) 2.54 (5.8) 3.67 (3.9) 6.90 (3.0) 10.1 15.1
North India 4.99 (16.5) 7.31 (16.7) 13.51 (14.4) 27.79 (12.0) 14.6 20.6
Delhi 0.07 (0.2) 0.14 (0.3) 0.46 (0.5) 3.77 (1.6) 219.6 99.3
Haryana 1.32 (4.3) 1.74 (4.0) 3.10 (3.3) 5.60 (2.4) 11.8 19.9
Himachal Pradesh 0.28 (0.9) 0.54 (1.2) 1.22 (1.3) 2.39 (1.0) 27.4 21.3
Jammu & Kashmir 0.05 (0.1) 0.11 (0.2) 0.36 (0.3) 0.79 (0.3) 27.6 25.4
Punjab 0.90 (2.9) 1.55 (3.5) 2.74 (2.9) 4.33 (1.8) 18.5 13.7
Uttar Pradesh 1.88 (6.2) 2.53 (5.8) 4.41 (4.7) 8.42 (3.6) 11.6 17.9
Uttarakhand 0.50 (1.6) 0.69 (1.5) 1.14 (1.2) 2.30 (1.0) 16.2 20.2
Northeast India 0.81 (2.6) 0.62 (1.4) 0.58 (0.6) 1.16 (0.5) -1.5 17.7
Assam 0.81 (2.6) 0.62 (1.4) 0.58 (0.6) 1.14 (0.4) -1.5 17.4
South India 7.14 (23.5) 10.32 (23.6) 22.65 (24.2) 57.14 (24.8) 19.0 23.8
Andhra Pradesh 1.69 (5.5) 2.53 (5.8) 5.85 (6.2) 12.13 (5.2) 27.6 22.2
Karnataka 1.68 (5.5) 2.11 (4.8) 6.40 (6.8) 24.91 (10.8) 21.8 37.0
Kerala 0.83 (2.7) 0.91 (2.0) 1.62 (1.7) 3.96 (1.7) 10.4 27.1
Pondicherry 0.03 (0.1) 0.09 (0.2) 0.08 (0.0) 0.09 (0.0) 36.0 9.7
Tamil Nadu 2.90 (9.6) 4.68 (10.7) 8.70 (9.3) 16.06 (6.9) 17.3 16.1
West India 11.26 (37.2) 17.83 (40.9) 44.98 (48.2) 121.17 (52.7) 16.2 29.4
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
0.21 (0.6) 0.35 (0.8) 0.85 (0.9) 3.19 (1.3) 33.0 36.5
Daman & Diu 0.07 (0.2) 0.14 (0.3) 0.49 (0.5) 1.63 (0.7) 25.9 38.9
Goa 0.09 (0.2) 0.17 (0.3) 0.38 (0.4) 0.51 (0.2) 27.5 23.6
Gujarat 3.96 (13.0) 6.52 (14.9) 19.02 (20.3) 59.37 (25.8) 17.9 34.4
Maharashtra 6.15 (20.3) 9.43 (21.6) 22.29 (23.9) 51.23 (22.2) 14.8 25.6
Rajasthan 0.78 (2.59) 1.22 (2.79) 1.94 (2.08) 5.26 (2.29) 19.1 24.1
Grand Total 30.26 (100) 43.61 (100) 93.28 (100) 229.89 (100) 14.8 25.0
Note: Percentage share in parentheses.
Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

127
Figure 2
Regional Distribution of Manufacturing Exports, 199195 to 200508

Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)
The bottom three regions, namely East India, Central India and Northeast India have contributed
relatively small shares of national manufacturing exports during 19912008 and at the same time
their individual shares have declined. The decline of the export share of East India from 15 per
cent in 199195 to about 7 per cent in 200508 is a reflection on relative sliding of this region in
the current manufacturing exports from India. It appears that firms located elsewhere have
expanded their export activities relatively faster than firms based in East India, Central India and
Northeast India leading to increasing disparity in the export contribution of different regions.
State-Level Trends
Among individual states, Maharashtra dominated the regional export profile throughout
19912004 (Table-4). Its share in Indian manufacturing exports consistently remained above 20
per cent mark reflecting, perhaps, its greater attractiveness for export-oriented firms and the effect
of a relatively larger and strongly growing local market. The export capacity of the local firms
based in Maharashtra appears to have been enhanced by existence of advanced industrial and
transportation infrastructure including port facilities.
Gujarat turned out to be Indias second most export contributor in manufacturing after
Maharashtra during 19912004. In fact the annual average growth rate of manufacturing exports
from Gujarat substantially surpassed that from Maharashtra by 3 per cent in the 1990s and 9 per
cent in the last decade. This superior export growth rate helped Gujarat to remarkably improve its
manufacturing export share from 13 per cent in 199195 to 20.4 per cent in 20002004. In
20052008 Gujarat outperformed Maharashtra to be Indias largest manufacturing exporting state
(Table-4). Gujarat represents an interesting case of how a state led by its entrepreneurial culture,
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
128
business friendly policies and investment in basic infrastructure like roads, ports and power can
make a huge difference in local firms ability to internationalize.
Given the impressive export performance of firms from Maharashtra and Gujarat, the Western
India can be considered as Indias most competitive and internationalized manufacturing space.
The impressive export performance of the Western region is likely to be continued given the
strong emphasis of concerned state governments on industrial clustering and the mega project like
the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor Development aims at creating globally competitive
economic base and state-of-the-art infrastructure to promote local firms and attract foreign
investments.
Tamil Nadu emerged as the third largest exporting state in manufacturing during 19912004. The
share of Tamil Nadu in total manufacturing exports from India was around 10 per cent in the
1990s, which has subsequently fallen to 9 per cent in 20002004 and then to 7 per cent in
20052008. Tamil Nadu, similar to its peer exporting states like Maharashtra and Gujarat is a
rapidly industrializing state of India and boast a fastest growing economy, proactive industrial
policies, good base of human capital and decent infrastructural facilities including ports. These
factors appear to be fostering firms competitiveness and export activities in Tamil Nadu.
In the early 1990s, other important manufacturing exporting states include West Bengal (6.8 per
cent), Uttar Pradesh (6.2 per cent), Andhra Pradesh (5.6 per cent) and Karnataka (5.6 per cent).
Among these four states, the first two states had seen consistent decline in their export shares to be
half in 20052008 as compared to their levels in 1991-95 (Table-4). West Bengal demonstrates
the case of what an unfriendly political and public policy regime towards capital can do to firms
growth and internationalization. Once an industrial centre of the country in the 1950s60s, West
Bengal suffered a long-term industrial decline under an unfriendly political regime and militant
trade unionism. The contribution of manufacturing sector in the state value-added plunged with
the existing businesses either departed from the state or remained stagnated and new investments
have shied away. Lack of business enabling environment, labour unrest and poor physical
infrastructure paved the way for West Bengals declining role in national manufacturing exports.
The declining export share of Uttar Pradesh in the last two decades testify the exporting
limitations of a state that has been besieged by sluggish economic growth and lagged significantly
behind other Indian states in terms of levels of economic development and physical and social
infrastructure.
Both the Southern states, namely Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka emerged as other important
sources of manufacturing exports from India. Relatively faster growth of firms export activities
from these states appears to have closer links with their faster industrial growth, business friendly
environments, cordial employer-labour relations, improvements in infrastructure, and availability
of skilled manpower. While there was a marginal slowdown in export growth from Andhra
Pradesh between 19921999 and 20002008, Karnataka achieved significantly accelerating
growth (Table-4). In fact, Karnataka emerged as the third largest exporter in manufacturing in
200508 thanks to her proactive strategy to encourage foreign trade by her firms (Pradhan, et. al.,
2012).


Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

129
Table 5
States' Manufacturing Exports by Sector
Region/state
199199
Top five exporting sectors
Share of
top five
Central India
Metals (19.5); Pharma. (10.1); Food. (21.8); Oth. non-metal. miner. (10.0);
Textil. (15.2)
76.6
Chhattisgarh
Metals (71.9); Petro. (2.0); Divers. (2.7); Oth. non-metal. miner. (10.3); Textil.
(12.3)
99.1
Madhya Pr
Metals (10.1); Pharma. (11.9); Food. (25.7); Oth. non-metal. miner. (9.9); Textil.
(15.7)
73.4
East India Metals (39.7); Petro. (16.9); Food. (14.9); Textil. (11.1); Trans. euip. (3.7) 86.3
Bihar Petro. (66.4); Food. (27.5); Leath. (1.5); Oth. non-metal. miner. (2.5); Textil. (1.5) 99.4
Jharkhand
Metals (70.5); Chem. (1.8); Elec. & optic. euip. (2.6); Machi. & euip. (1.8); Trans.
euip. (22.3)
98.8
Orissa
Metals (89.0); Divers. (0.5); Food. (3.8); Oth. non-metal. miner. (3.7); Pulp &
paper (1.2)
98.2
West Bengal Metals (15.3); Chem. (6.9); Petro. (17.8); Food. (21.7); Textil. (22.6) 84.2
North India
Petro. (14.2); Elec. & optic. euip. (7.8); Food. (7.4); Textil. (17.0); Trans. euip.
(18.7)
65.2
Delhi
Elec. & optic. euip. (14.6); Leath. (31.7); Publish. (3.0); Textil. (33.1); Trans.
euip. (16.4)
98.9
Haryana
Metals (4.6); Petro. (25.4); Elec. & optic. euip. (10.5); Textil. (6.8); Trans. euip.
(34.5)
81.7
Himachal Pr
Chem. (10.9); Pharma. (38.1); Elec. & optic. euip. (8.5); Leath. (4.2); Textil.
(26.4)
88.1
Jam & Kash
Chem. (74.1); Pharma. (4.1); Food. (6.6); Machi. & euip. (1.2); Rub. & plas.
(12.4)
98.5
Punjab Chem. (7.8); Petro. (7.9); Pharma. (13.5); Textil. (41.4); Trans. euip. (8.2) 78.9
Uttar Pr Petro. (17.7); Food. (10.8); Rub. & plas. (9.9); Textil. (11.9); Trans. euip. (19.8) 70.2
Uttarakhand
Elec. & optic. euip. (16.6); Food. (13.2); Machi. & euip. (14.2); Oth. non-metal.
miner. (15.0); Rub. & plas. (10.9)
70.0
Northeast India Petro. (54.8); Food. (40.2); Pulp & paper (0.8); Textil. (2.1); Wood (1.0) 98.9
Assam Petro. (54.9); Food. (40.3); Pulp & paper (0.8); Textil. (2.1); Wood (0.9) 98.9
South India Metals (10.6); Chem. (8.0); Pharma. (7.9); Food. (16.6); Textil. (22.2) 65.3
Andhra Pr Metals (24.8); Chem. (5.5); Pharma. (20.7); Food. (20.9); Textil. (8.2) 80.1
Karnataka Metals (10.6); Elec. & optic. euip. (9.4); Food. (19.0); Leath. (7.2); Textil. (15.4) 61.6
Kerala Chem. (8.1); Petro. (18.4); Food. (37.5); Oth. mfg. (8.4); Textil. (14.6) 87.0
Pondicherry
Elec. & optic. euip. (29.8); Food. (22.1); Oth. non-metal. miner. (10.1); Rub. &
plas. (9.6); Textil. (22.9)
94.5
Tamil Nadu Chem. (11.9); Food. (8.0); Machi. & euip. (6.9); Textil. (35.1); Trans. euip. (7.8) 69.8
West India Metals (11.6); Chem. (20.4); Pharma. (6.4); Oth. mfg. (11.4); Textil. (15.6) 65.5
Dadra & NH Metals (17.9); Chem. (27.0); Divers. (14.1); Pharma. (6.8); Rub. & plas. (11.8) 77.6
Daman & Diu
Chem. (9.9); Pharma. (18.7); Machi. & euip. (35.1); Rub. & plas. (10.6); Textil.
(11.6)
86.0
Goa
Divers. (15.0); Elec. & optic. euip. (17.1); Food. (18.2); Machi. & euip. (14.6);
Rub. & plas. (17.8)
82.7
Gujarat Metals (10.1); Chem. (21.9); Petro. (11.3); Oth. mfg. (15.4); Textil. (16.5) 75.2
Maharashtra Metals (13.5); Chem. (20.0); Pharma. (7.2); Oth. mfg. (9.8); Textil. (15.2) 65.7
Rajasthan Chem. (16.6); Divers. (9.6); Food. (12.0); Textil. (19.6); Trans. euip. (9.2) 67.0
Grand Total Metals (13.7); Chem. (11.7); Petro. (8.5); Food. (10.9); Textil. (16.6) 61.4
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
130
Table 5 (contd)
States' Manufacturing Exports by Sector
Region/state
2001-08
Top five exporting sectors
Share of
top five
Central India
Metals (30.6); Pharma. (19.1); Food. (11.1); Oth. non-metal. miner. (8.5);
Textil. (10.4)
79.7
Chhattisgarh
Metals (79.5); Petro. (2.0); Divers. (3.9); Oth. non-metal. miner. (11.2); Textil.
(2.4)
99.0
Madhya Pr
Metals (18.8); Pharma. (23.7); Food. (13.8); Oth. non-metal. miner. (7.9); Textil.
(12.3)
76.4
East India Metals (49.0); Chem. (12.3); Petro. (10.7); Food. (7.9); Textil. (6.3) 86.1
Bihar
Petro. (61.2); Pharma. (2.3); Food. (29.7); Oth. non-metal. miner. (3.4); Textil.
(2.3)
98.9
Jharkhand
Metals (68.3); Chem. (0.9); Machi. & euip. (6.2); Oth. non-metal. miner. (0.9);
Trans. euip. (23.0)
99.3
Orissa
Metals (90.3); Food. (1.9); Oth. mfg. (1.6); Oth. non-metal. miner. (2.8); Pulp &
paper (1.2)
97.8
West Bengal Metals (23.2); Chem. (25.9); Petro. (12.5); Food. (10.7); Textil. (13.0) 85.3
North India
Metals (9.8); Pharma. (11.6); Elec. & optic. euip. (10.5); Textil. (15.4); Trans.
euip. (13.5)
60.8
Delhi Food. (5.2); Oth. mfg. (62.0); Publish. (3.0); Textil. (20.1); Trans. euip. (4.6) 95.0
Haryana Metals (20.8); Petro. (12.6); Food. (10.3); Textil. (10.1); Trans. euip. (26.6) 80.4
Himachal Pr
Chem. (6.4); Pharma. (59.3); Elec. & optic. euip. (6.9); Textil. (14.6); Trans. euip.
(4.0)
91.2
Jam & Kash
Chem. (45.1); Pharma. (34.9); Food. (7.9); Machi. & euip. (1.4); Rub. & plas.
(9.4)
98.6
Punjab Metals (5.3); Chem. (6.4); Petro. (3.9); Pharma. (25.5); Textil. (42.1) 83.1
Uttar Pr
Metals (12.5); Petro. (8.6); Elec. & optic. euip. (20.7); Food. (10.9); Trans. euip.
(16.7)
69.3
Uttarakhand
Elec. & optic. euip. (16.8); Machi. & euip. (13.9); Oth. mfg. (12.4); Rub. & plas.
(9.2); Trans. euip. (15.8)
68.0
Northeast India Metals (2.2); Chem. (1.8); Petro. (63.2); Food. (27.1); Textil. (3.5) 97.8
Assam Metals (1.4); Chem. (1.8); Petro. (64.0); Food. (27.5); Textil. (3.5) 98.3
South India Metals (13.0); Petro. (20.2); Pharma. (11.6); Food. (11.4); Textil. (9.7) 66.0
Andhra Pr Metals (15.5); Chem. (4.4); Petro. (15.8); Pharma. (32.6); Food. (14.0) 82.2
Karnataka Petro. (34.6); Pharma. (5.4); Food. (12.6); Oth. mfg. (20.8); Textil. (7.2) 80.6
Kerala Metals (12.5); Chem. (9.8); Petro. (40.1); Food. (12.0); Textil. (8.9) 83.4
Pondicherry
Chem. (8.2); Elec. & optic. euip. (13.4); Oth. non-metal. miner. (26.0); Rub. &
plas. (38.4); Textil. (10.5)
96.6
Tamil Nadu Metals (21.4); Chem. (7.7); Food. (7.9); Textil. (17.2); Trans. euip. (18.5) 72.8
West India Metals (16.1); Chem. (10.3); Petro. (37.8); Oth. mfg. (8.9); Textil. (5.7) 78.8
Dadra & NH
Metals (39.7); Chem. (11.3); Elec. & optic. euip. (6.9); Rub. & plas. (7.8); Textil.
(15.6)
81.3
Daman & Diu Metals (5.0); Chem. (18.1); Pharma. (15.3); Machi. & euip. (45.8); Textil. (7.2) 91.3
Goa
Divers. (18.3); Pharma. (22.9); Elec. & optic. euip. (24.7); Food. (6.8); Rub. &
plas. (13.6)
86.2
Gujarat Metals (10.3); Chem. (10.3); Petro. (55.8); Oth. mfg. (7.8); Textil. (4.6) 88.7
Maharashtra Metals (20.7); Chem. (9.8); Petro. (25.8); Pharma. (5.6); Oth. mfg. (11.1) 73.1
Rajasthan Metals (24.7); Chem. (13.7); Oth. mfg. (7.7); Rub. & plas. (9.1); Textil. (20.7) 75.7
Grand Total Metals (17.3); Chem. (8.2); Petro. (26.3); Oth. mfg. (8.2); Textil. (8.1) 68.2
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

131
Table 5 (contd)
States' Manufacturing Exports by Sector
Region/state
Technology-based classification
199199 200008
High-
tech.
Medium-
tech.
Low-
tech.
High-
tech.
Medium-
tech.
Low-
tech.
Central India 26.3 34.0 39.8 33.9 43.0 23.1
Chhattisgarh 0.6 84.2 15.2 0.7 92.7 6.6
Madhya Pr 30.9 25.0 44.2 41.8 31.1 27.1
East India 9.9 60.6 29.6 18.4 62.9 18.6
Bihar 0.3 69.1 30.6 2.3 64.6 33.1
Jharkhand 28.3 71.3 0.4 30.7 69.2 0.1
Orissa 0.9 93.2 6.0 1.3 93.7 5.0
West Bengal 11.6 38.4 50.0 29.1 39.7 31.1
North India 42.1 26.4 31.5 44.4 20.2 35.5
Delhi 31.2 0.0 68.8 8.7 0.1 91.1
Haryana 51.5 34.1 14.4 40.0 36.3 23.6
Himachal Pr 61.2 5.7 33.1 77.7 4.0 18.3
Jam & Kash 79.9 12.4 7.7 81.6 9.5 9.0
Punjab 33.5 13.7 52.8 39.6 12.9 47.5
Uttar Pr 34.5 33.7 31.8 45.5 26.0 28.5
Uttarakhand 47.4 26.2 26.5 60.5 13.9 25.6
Northeast
India
0.9 55.0 44.1 1.9 65.9 32.2
Assam 0.9 55.0 44.1 2.0 65.8 32.2
South India 30.7 20.4 49.0 30.1 36.8 33.0
Andhra Pr 32.3 32.1 35.6 42.7 34.7 22.6
Karnataka 28.6 22.4 49.0 16.2 42.1 41.7
Kerala 13.1 25.9 61.0 15.8 56.6 27.5
Pondicherry 33.2 19.6 47.2 21.8 64.4 13.8
Tamil Nadu 34.8 11.6 53.6 41.9 27.1 31.0
West India 39.9 25.0 35.1 23.9 58.0 18.1
Dadra & NH 43.3 33.1 23.6 29.6 49.1 21.3
Daman &
Diu
65.9 12.5 21.6 80.8 9.5 9.6
Goa 43.2 23.0 33.7 52.5 22.4 25.0
Gujarat 34.0 29.1 36.9 16.6 68.8 14.5
Maharashtra 44.3 23.1 32.6 28.9 50.9 20.1
Rajasthan 32.7 16.7 50.6 27.9 35.6 36.5
Grand Total 32.7 29.8 37.5 27.9 47.8 24.3
Note: Percentage share in parentheses; High-tech. - pharmaceuticals, electrical & optical equipment,
transport equipment, chemicals, machinery and equipment; Medium-tech. - coke and refined petroleum
products, rubber and plastic products, other non-metallic mineral products, basic metal and metal products;
Low-tech. - other manufacturing, diversified, pulp and paper products, publishing and printing, textiles and
textile products, Food including beverages and tobacco, wood and wood products, leather and leather
products.
Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)
Sectoral Patterns of State Manufacturing Exports
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
132
The regional manufacturing exports from India tend to be epitomized by a much skewed sectoral
contribution. The share of top five exporting sectors in total manufacturing exports from West
India, South India, and North India remained above 65 per cent in 199199 and the same for East
India and Central India was 86 per cent and 77 per cent respectively (Table-5). While this ratio
remained largely the same for South India and East India between 199199 and 200008 or
marginally fallen for North India, it has increased substantially for West India from 65.5 per cent
to 78.8 per cent.
The sectoral structure of state-level exports also confirmed that regional manufacturing exports
growth from India is dominated by a small group of exporting sectors. Indeed, during the period
200008, about 11 sub-national entities (Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Assam, Jharkhand, Jammu &
Kashmir, Orissa and Pondicherry) were found to have derived more than 90 per cent of their
manufacturing exports from their top five exporting sectors. The share of top five sectors lies in
the range of 8089 per cent for another 9 Indian states including UTs.
Is this highly concentrated sectoral pattern of manufacturing exports from India a cause of
concern? Traditional literature would advise developing countries against excessive dependence
on a few sectors for export performance. This is because a diversified export profile is driven by a
broadening of the production specialization away from primary commodities and it tends to reduce
instability in export earnings, and promote higher economic growth (Hamid, 2010; Hesse, 2008;
ESCAP, 2004, Asheghian and Saidi, 1999).
However, there exists an alternative view that exports dominated by high technology products
reflecting a countrys specialization in more technology-intensive sectors may in fact be desirable
policy objective. For example, Porter (1990) argued that a countrys firms must also develop the
capabilities required to compete in more and more sophisticated industry segments, where
productivity is generally higher pp. 6. These technology-intensive sectors have higher
technological opportunities, higher value added and generate knowledge spillovers in the economy
for productivity growth (Guerrieri and Milana, 1995).
In the above backdrop, therefore, the study proceeds to examine about the technological character
of the export basket of Indian states. Table-5 summarizes the technological structure of exports
measured as the share of high technology products in total manufacturing exports across Indian
states/UTs. It is clear that there are substantial inter-state differences in the technological structure
of manufacturing exports. For states like Jammu & Kashmir, Daman & Diu, Himachal Pradesh,
Uttarakhand and Goa, high technology products accounted for largest share of their manufacturing
exports in the period 200008. High technology product share in manufacturing exports of these
states vary in the range of 82 per cent to 53 per cent. Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Assam, Bihar and Delhi
remain at the bottom of the scale with least shares in the said period.
The special policy pursued by the central government in the form of exemptions from excise duty
and concessional income tax for economically backward and hilly areas like Himachal Pradesh,
Uttarakhand and Jammu and Kashmir appear to have immensely benefited these states. As a result
of these policies, large scale relocation of manufacturing facilities by technology-intensive firms
from pharmaceuticals, chemicals, electrical & optical equipment and transport equipment into
respective states took place.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

133
It may also be noted that the technological structure of Indian states may not necessarily be related
to the volume of their export activities. There is hardly any correspondence between the major
states with predominantly high technology export basket and top ranking highest export
contributing states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. In 200008, high
technology products comprises of just 29 per cent, 17 per cent, 43 per cent, and 16 per cent of total
manufacturing exports of these top exporting Indian states respectively.
Table 6
State-wise IT Exports from India
Region/state
Software exports (US$ millions)
Annual average growth
(per cent)
199195 199699 200004 200508 199299 200008
Central India 0.0 (0.0) 0.7 (0.0) 2.9 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0) -9.9
Madhya Pr 0.0 (0.0) 0.7 (0.0) 2.9 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0) -9.9
East India 21.3 (5.0) 83.4 (4.0) 679.2 (3.9) 1688.9 (3.0) 67.0 37.5
Orissa 2.0 (0.5) 30.7 (1.5) 317.7 (1.8) 837.2 (1.5) 40.3
West Bengal 19.3 (4.5) 52.7 (2.5) 361.4 (2.1) 851.7 (1.5) 58.5 36.2
North India 29.5 (6.9) 217.0 (10.4) 2934.7 (16.8) 6281.5 (11.0) 102.4 44.2
Chandigarh 0.0 (0.0) 0.6 (0.0) 10.4 (0.1) 23.9 (0.0) 57.6
Delhi 12.6 (2.9) 85.6 (4.1) 1345.0 (7.7) 1446.0 (2.5) 103.7 64.4
Haryana (0.0) 12.8 (0.6) 442.2 (2.5) 1309.9 (2.3) 90.7
Himachal Pr 8.0 (1.9) 62.7 (3.0) 415.7 (2.4) 1307.9 (2.3) 98.8 39.7
Punjab 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 1.6 (0.0) (0.0)
Uttar Pradesh 8.8 (2.1) 55.2 (2.7) 711.7 (4.1) 2170.3 (3.8) 142.1 48.1
Uttarakhand 8.1 (0.0) 23.5 (0.0) 19.3
South India 160.9 (37.5) 973.1 (46.8) 9336.8 (53.3) 26886.2 (47.0) 70.2 42.4
Andhra Pradesh 21.9 (5.1) 105.8 (5.1) 762.4 (4.4) 2304.5 (4.0) 41.8 39.0
Karnataka 78.2 (18.2) 401.4 (19.3) 2945.7 (16.8) 8290.6 (14.5) 56.2 36.9
Kerala 13.7 (3.2) 109.7 (5.3) 1419.7 (8.1) 4822.2 (8.4) 88.9 47.6
Tamil Nadu 47.1 (11.0) 356.2 (17.1) 4209.0 (24.0) 11468.9 (20.0) 91.5 48.7
West India 217.8 (50.7) 805.5 (38.7) 4563.2 (26.1) 22380.9 (39.1) 37.3 45.7
Dadra & NH 0.2 (0.0) 17.8 (0.9) 74.3 (0.4) 83.4 (0.1) 13.8
Goa 100.2 (23.3) 173.6 (8.3) 304.0 (1.7) 104.9 (0.2) 16.7 -14.5
Gujarat 4.1 (0.2) 17.4 (0.1) 22.6 (0.0) 906.7
Maharashtra 117.3 (27.3) 608.8 (29.3) 4141.2 (23.6) 22160.9 (38.7) 59.3 49.9
Rajasthan 1.2 (0.1) 26.4 (0.2) 9.1 (0.0) 34.5
Grand Total 429.6 (100) 2079.6 (100) 17516.7 (100) 57237.8 (100) 48.6 41.7
Note: Percentage share in parentheses.
Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
134
In a worrying trend the share of high technology products in total manufacturing exports for India
declined by 5 percentage points from 33 per cent in 199199 to 28 per cent in 200008 (Table-5).
This decline in the share of high technology exports at the national level is largely due to the
sharpest decline of the ratio in the case of West India. Between 199199 and 200008, significant
decrease in the share of high technology exports can be noticed for Delhi (-72 per cent) followed
by Gujarat (-51 per cent), Karnataka (-43 per cent), and Maharashtra (-35 per cent). More than half
of the manufacturing exports from Maharashtra and Gujarat in 200008 took place in the form of
medium-technology products like coke & petroleum products and metals. It may indicate that
Maharashtra and Gujarat, despite contributing largest share of Indias exports, are specializing
more in the exports of medium technology products than exporting high technology products.
Trends of State-wise IT Export
Similar to the manufacturing exports, Indias IT export also characterizes the dominance of a few
regions and a few states. More than 80 per cent of IT exports actually originated from just two
regions, namely West India and South India during the study period. Notwithstanding the presence
of Bangalore Indias IT hub, Karnataka has been observed to be slowly losing ground to other
states in terms of IT export share. Its share in IT exports has fallen marginally from 18 per cent in
199195 to about 15 per cent in 200508 (Table-6). Among individual states, Maharashtra
recorded the highest IT export share at 39 per cent in 200508, followed by Tamil Nadu with 20
per cent. In terms of growth rate of IT exports too Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu outperformed
Karnataka in both the sub-periods 199299 and 200008. Other Indian states that showed an
improved export shares includes Kerala and Uttar Pradesh.
Conclusion
India is passing through a remarkable phase of global integration with rapid expansion of her trade
in the last two decades. The recent liberalization and openness policies have led to faster
internationalization activities of Indian firms as reflected in the rapid growth of their exports.
However, one is at a loss if he is interested to understand how sub-national entities are connected
to this Indian export boom, simply due to the absence of suitable dataset. This study summarized
the regional origin of Indias manufacturing and IT exports. Based on a unique locational database
and using a reasonable method, it presented state-wise export series for 18 year period since 1991.
The findings broadly suggest that the manufacturing and IT exports are subjected by a significant
inter-regional and inter-state variation. The geographical distribution of exports yields a
significantly concentrated pattern with states like Gujarat and Maharashtra dominating in
manufacturing products while Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka accounting for largest
share in IT services. However, Indian states with low export shares are found to have more
technology-intensive structure of manufacturing exports than leading exporting states.
_______________________________
[This study is prepared as a part of the research project, Regional Patterns of Internationalization
of Indian Firms: Learnings for Policy, sponsored by the Indian Council of Social Science
Research, New Delhi.]
Note
1
Hindu Business Line (2003), Karnataka to double export share, January 25.

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

135
Reference
Aggarwal, A. (2002) Liberalisation, Multinational Enterprises and Export Performance: Evidence from
Indian Manufacturing, Journal of Development Studies, 38 (3), pp. 119137.
Asheghian, P. and R. Saidi (1999), Commodity Concentration and Export Earning Instability: The Case of
Venezuela, Development Policy Review, 17(4), pp. 419427.
Bhavani, T.A. and S.D. Tendulkar (2001) Determinants of Firm-level Export Performance: A Case Study of
Indian Textile Garments and Apparel Industry, Journal of International Trade & Economic
Development, 10 (1), pp. 6592.
Chandra, R. (2003), Reinvestigating Export-led Growth in India Using a Multivariate Cointegration
Framework, Journal of Developing Areas, 37 (1), pp. 7386.
Chaudhuri, B.R. and D. Chakraborty (2010), Export Potential at the State-Level: A Case Study of
Karnataka, IIFT Working Paper, No. EC-10-02, New Delhi: Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.
ESCAP (2004), Export Diversification and Economic Growth: The Experience of Selected Least Developed
Countries, Development Paper, No. 24, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific, New York: United Nations.
Government of Gujarat (2009), Industrial Policy 2009, Gandhinagar: GoG.
Government of Maharashtra (2001), Maharashtra Industrial Policy 2001, Mumbai: GoM.
Government of Tamil Nadu (2003), Tamil Nadu New Industrial Policy2003, Chennai: GoTN.
Guerrieri, P. and C. Milana (1995), Changes and Trends in the World Trade in High-technology Products,
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), pp. 225242.
Hamid, Z. (2010), Concentration of Exports and Patterns of Trade: A Time-Series Evidence of Malaysia,
The Journal of Developing Areas, 43(2), pp. 255270.
Hesse, H. (2008), Export Diversification and Economic Growth, Working Paper, No. 21, Commission on
Growth and Development, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Hosamane, M.D. and S. Bisaliah (2006), Export Performance of India During Post-Reform Period: Constant
Market Share Analysis, Indian Journal of Economics and Business, 5 (1), pp. 6777.
Kumar, N. and J. P. Pradhan (2007), Knowledge-Based Exports from India: A Firm-level Analysis of
Determinants, in Nagesh Kumar and KJ Joseph (eds.) International Competitiveness &
Knowledge-based Industries, pp. 5396, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Lall, S. (1999) India's Manufactured Exports: Comparative Structure and Prospects, World Development,
27(10), pp.17691786.
Marjit, S. and S. Kar (2008), Regional Trade Openness Index, Income Disparity and Poverty: An Experiment
with Indian Data, Jaipur, India: CUTS International.
Pradhan, J. P., M. Zohair and M.V. Alagawadi (2012), Regional Policies, Firm Characteristics, and
Exporting in the Indian State of Karnataka (with), MPRA Paper No. 40717, 2012, University of
Munich Library, Germany.
Pradhan, J.P. and P.P. Sahu (2008), Transnationalization of Indian Pharmaceutical SMEs, New Delhi:
Bookwell Publisher.
Roy, S .S. (2007), Demand and Supply Factors in the Determination of Indias Disaggregated Manufactured
Exports: A Simultaneous Error-Correction Approach, CDS Working Paper, No. 383, Trivandrum:
Centre for Development Studies.
Siddharthan, N.S. and S. Nollen (2004) MNE Affiliation, Firm Size and Exports Revisited: A Study of
Information Technology Firms in India, Journal of Development Studies, 40(6), pp. 146168.
Singh, N. (2001), Trade Intensities Over a Liberalization Phase: The Influence of Firm Size, Foreign
Ownership, and Technological Inputs in Indian Pharmaceuticals, in A. Guha, K.L. Krishna and A.
Lahiri (eds.), Trade and Industry: Essays by NIPFP-Ford Foundation Fellows, pp. 2764, New
Delhi: Vikas.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
136

Appendix

Table A1
Manufacturing Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Manufacturing exports (US$ million)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 165.2 219.7 266.9 430.6 457.4 618.5 704.1 652.2 599.1
Chhattisgarh 20.9 23.6 35.6 73.6 83.0 76.3 100.5 130.9 79.2
Madhya Pradesh 144.3 196.2 231.4 356.9 374.4 542.2 603.6 521.3 519.9
East India 659.0 780.3 911.9 1070.9 1106.4 1176.3 1320.5 1297.9 1153.9
Bihar 117.3 133.1 145.6 150.9 124.2 133.6 148.7 121.8 95.4
Jharkhand 67.3 99.9 121.6 168.8 185.3 158.2 181.7 209.3 138.2
Orissa 165.5 202.9 247.2 260.1 287.4 299.7 333.8 322.1 265.5
West Bengal 308.8 344.4 397.5 491.1 509.5 584.8 656.3 644.7 654.8
North India 650.8 894.7 906.3 1170.6 1370.7 1712.8 1932.5 1839.2 1821.1
Delhi 0.4 4.3 16.7 45.7 6.6 19.2 13.9 44.4 60.5
Haryana 177.2 264.3 251.4 289.1 339.9 447.9 506.7 411.9 377.6
Himachal Pradesh 24.9 42.3 44.1 74.6 89.7 111.3 129.1 151.5 148.0
Jammu & Kashmir 5.6 7.4 7.0 9.7 16.9 19.3 28.3 29.7 34.3
Punjab 117.3 169.6 157.1 204.5 250.9 323.1 394.8 407.1 421.6
Uttar Pradesh 270.5 328.1 325.4 426.6 525.1 601.8 679.7 627.6 618.9
Uttarakhand 53.4 77.6 103.9 119.8 141.4 188.9 178.5 165.7 159.2
Northeast India 152.7 164.7 171.9 164.1 153.7 176.1 176.9 141.1 130.1
Assam 152.7 164.7 171.9 164.1 153.7 175.9 176.8 140.7 129.4
South India 746.2 980.2 1185.4 1851.5 2371.7 2516.5 2427.3 2619.8 2757.1
Andhra Pradesh 133.1 190.0 277.1 494.5 592.5 674.1 468.7 658.8 727.3
Karnataka 144.4 234.7 275.1 465.6 561.0 505.6 493.2 529.2 581.1
Kerala 102.6 114.1 143.9 213.1 257.6 227.1 250.1 233.5 199.5
Pondicherry 2.8 2.8 4.3 6.0 13.9 29.1 32.0 12.9 13.2
Tamil Nadu 363.3 438.5 485.0 671.2 945.7 1080.0 1182.3 1184.6 1235.9
West India 1522.7 1703.7 1911.9 2596.5 3522.5 4140.3 4135.2 4701.9 4856.2
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
13.7 28.9 36.0 49.0 79.0 94.6 66.9 104.0 87.9
Daman & Diu 8.7 8.5 9.1 18.0 24.7 22.3 34.2 40.0 42.6
Goa 12.2 14.7 17.1 19.6 23.5 29.3 35.1 33.1 69.4
Gujarat 531.8 549.1 628.6 997.8 1249.4 1475.3 1477.2 1732.5 1837.8
Maharashtra 873.9 999.5 1094.5 1310.0 1875.3 2223.1 2214.9 2479.3 2516.8
Rajasthan 82.4 103.0 126.6 202.0 270.6 295.7 307.0 313.0 301.7
Grand Total 3896.5 4743.4 5354.3 7284.2 8982.5 10340.6 10696.5 11252.1 11317.4

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

137
Table A1 (contd)
Manufacturing Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Manufacturing exports (US$ million)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 660.9 648.4 716.4 834.6 1033.8 1307.7 1533.7 2217.0 2434.2
Chhattisgarh 103.9 85.0 92.5 109.7 190.7 212.7 243.0 568.4 603.8
Madhya Pradesh 557.1 563.5 623.8 724.9 843.1 1095.0 1290.7 1648.6 1830.4
East India 1224.4 1322.9 1233.7 1625.8 2240.1 2640.7 3333.4 4764.7 4395.7
Bihar 91.0 122.1 117.6 93.4 120.7 159.3 227.8 441.3 422.2
Jharkhand 160.1 148.2 127.1 232.2 335.7 413.8 469.0 708.9 601.0
Orissa 370.4 419.6 365.2 560.5 710.2 968.4 1048.0 1418.6 1360.6
West Bengal 602.9 632.9 623.9 739.7 1073.5 1099.2 1588.6 2195.9 2011.9
North India 1963.6 2242.9 2538.4 2910.6 3857.3 4987.1 5733.6 7480.1 9594.2
Delhi 70.1 91.2 108.0 86.8 108.6 416.4 796.3 363.2 2193.0
Haryana 381.5 466.3 649.0 694.9 911.4 1054.4 1075.6 1758.8 1709.5
Himachal Pr 174.5 184.3 208.4 258.8 393.0 441.4 485.1 674.4 792.1
J & K 41.0 62.9 66.3 73.1 120.2 148.5 183.4 214.2 239.9
Punjab 445.6 473.1 463.9 623.9 738.1 898.6 929.6 1246.5 1258.9
Uttar Pradesh 680.6 765.9 807.2 905.7 1247.9 1543.6 1764.5 2537.8 2575.6
Uttarakhand 169.8 198.1 232.4 236.3 303.2 435.9 452.1 627.8 783.5
Northeast India 116.0 130.7 119.8 91.4 126.6 147.7 207.1 407.7 395.1
Assam 115.5 130.3 119.3 90.8 125.8 146.0 203.8 404.1 382.4
South India 2862.8 3774.8 3795.4 5098.3 7122.6 9643.9 12519.2 17734.7 17241.1
Andhra Pradesh 796.9 972.5 1064.7 1413.7 1606.9 1825.8 2330.7 3937.1 4032.0
Karnataka 572.3 859.5 870.0 1320.2 2775.8 4044.2 5760.1 7378.5 7722.9
Kerala 211.3 384.3 256.0 350.9 417.0 700.0 806.6 1270.8 1186.5
Pondicherry 11.2 12.6 16.0 23.8 16.8 23.1 18.0 22.2 23.1
Tamil Nadu 1271.1 1545.9 1588.6 1989.6 2306.1 3050.7 3603.9 5126.2 4276.6
West India 5719.3 7841.4 7616.4 10577.7 13229.0 18361.9 21475.1 36281.5 45055.8
Dadra & NH 93.0 160.9 140.1 187.6 272.4 403.9 573.8 1065.8 1142.1
Daman & Diu 55.3 65.5 93.3 125.4 155.5 188.6 232.4 507.1 699.9
Goa 61.0 36.0 80.1 86.9 113.9 65.1 85.9 152.1 209.2
Gujarat 2364.9 3565.1 3357.9 4374.0 5358.8 8347.0 10083.2 17679.7 23256.3
Maharashtra 2854.2 3676.8 3631.3 5365.4 6765.9 8624.4 9514.6 15033.7 18052.6
Rajasthan 290.9 337.1 313.7 438.5 562.5 732.9 985.3 1843.1 1695.8
Grand Total 12547.1 15961.2 16020.0 21138.4 27609.3 37089.0 44802.1 68885.7 79116.2
Note: Grand total and sub-regional total also include exports of a few firms based in Chandigarh, Nagaland,
Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Meghalaya.
Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)


JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
138

Table A2
IT Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Manufacturing exports (US$ million)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 0.0 0.3 0.4
Madhya Pradesh 0.0 0.3 0.4
East India 1.5 2.0 3.8 6.2 7.8 11.2 15.8 20.9 35.5
Orissa 0.5 1.5 2.9 4.5 8.0 15.3
West Bengal 1.5 2.0 3.8 5.7 6.3 8.2 11.4 12.9 20.2
North India 0.8 0.9 2.1 3.8 21.8 30.3 35.0 48.9 102.9
Chandigarh 0.0 0.3 0.3
Delhi 1.0 2.1 9.5 13.0 16.9 20.2 35.4
Haryana 0.2 0.0 5.0 7.6
Himachal Pradesh 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 5.7 8.8 13.0 16.3 24.6
Punjab 0.1
Uttar Pradesh 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 6.6 8.3 5.1 7.1 34.7
Uttarakhand
South India 6.6 17.9 22.5 38.7 75.1 108.5 154.4 268.6 441.6
Andhra Pradesh 7.4 4.7 3.4 6.4 11.3 17.0 27.8 49.7
Karnataka 5.7 8.1 12.6 17.0 34.8 47.6 57.9 111.5 184.4
Kerala 0.7 1.8 4.0 7.2 10.6 15.9 27.7 55.5
Tamil Nadu 0.9 1.8 3.4 14.4 26.7 39.0 63.7 101.7 151.9
West India 20.7 21.7 31.8 57.3 86.2 122.5 139.8 210.1 333.0
Dadra & NH 0.2 2.3 2.0 3.3 10.1
Goa 13.7 15.9 19.4 24.2 27.1 29.6 33.6 49.3 61.2
Gujarat 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.8 0.9 0.0
Maharashtra 7.1 5.8 12.3 33.1 59.0 89.2 102.4 156.3 260.9
Rajasthan 0.0 0.3 0.9
Grand Total 29.7 42.5 60.3 106.1 190.9 272.4 345.0 548.9 913.3

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

139
Table A2 (contd)
IT Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Manufacturing exports (US$ million)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Madhya Pradesh 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
East India 68.0 110.5 132.0 153.0 215.6 313.7 401.5 430.6 543.0
Orissa 26.1 43.8 66.0 80.3 101.5 137.8 170.2 228.7 300.5
West Bengal 41.9 66.7 66.0 72.7 114.1 175.9 231.3 201.9 242.5
North India 176.5 278.5 399.5 834.5 1245.7 1177.7 1119.8 2093.9 1890.1
Chandigarh 0.4 0.6 2.7 2.7 4.0 5.0 6.1 7.6 5.1
Delhi 48.2 59.0 67.0 438.0 732.9 483.8 399.5 525.1 37.7
Haryana 42.2 66.3 98.5 100.9 134.3 177.7 160.2 465.2 506.8
Himachal Pradesh 38.0 62.4 76.9 100.6 137.7 198.3 254.4 373.4 481.9
Punjab 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.6
Uttar Pradesh 47.5 89.5 152.0 189.4 233.3 308.3 293.4 715.1 853.5
Uttarakhand 2.1 2.3 3.6 4.7 6.1 7.6 5.1
South India 786.0 1514.2 1776.3 2328.2 2932.0 4118.1 5346.9 8179.4 9241.9
Andhra Pradesh 71.8 131.0 167.2 198.3 194.1 353.1 463.7 671.1 816.6
Karnataka 253.6 456.3 565.9 721.3 948.6 1227.3 1589.6 2698.4 2775.3
Kerala 93.5 184.1 261.1 371.1 509.9 698.3 963.4 1482.0 1678.5
Tamil Nadu 367.1 742.8 782.2 1037.6 1279.3 1839.4 2330.2 3327.8 3971.4
West India 458.1 679.5 741.4 1155.9 1528.1 3923.0 4564.8 6609.0 7284.2
Dadra & NH 9.7 14.3 7.5 17.8 24.9 22.2 23.0 29.3 8.9
Goa 49.1 67.6 57.3 53.7 76.3 104.9 0.0 0.0
Gujarat 0.7 1.6 2.0 7.4 5.6 5.7 2.4 7.6 6.9
Maharashtra 395.9 589.6 665.8 1071.9 1417.9 3788.1 4537.7 6569.2 7265.9
Rajasthan 2.8 6.4 8.8 5.0 3.4 2.1 1.7 2.8 2.5
Grand Total 1489.8 2583.3 3049.8 4472.0 5921.8 9532.8 11433.0 17312.9 18959.1
Note: Grand total and sub-regional total also include exports of a few firms based in Chandigarh, Nagaland,
Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Meghalaya.
Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
140
Table A3
Basic Metal and Metal Products Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Manufacturing exports (US$ million)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 29.3 35.4 49.1 102.0 109.3 108.4 129.6 144.5 94.7
Chhattisgarh 17.6 17.3 26.8 59.1 61.5 47.3 71.5 97.6 49.6
Madhya Pradesh 11.7 18.1 22.3 42.9 47.8 61.2 58.1 46.9 45.0
East India 234.5 306.9 381.9 453.5 438.2 448.2 519.4 560.1 420.8
Bihar 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1
Jharkhand 47.4 71.7 91.5 131.5 117.1 108.2 124.3 153.1 93.1
Orissa 153.6 191.7 230.0 232.5 235.7 250.2 298.3 297.4 231.8
West Bengal 33.5 43.4 60.2 89.3 84.7 89.4 96.4 109.2 95.9
North India 10.8 15.2 21.4 30.2 35.3 50.6 49.0 62.7 65.4
Haryana 6.5 10.4 13.3 16.6 17.2 20.5 14.2 23.5 18.7
Himachal Pr 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.6
J & K
Punjab 0.3 0.7 1.2 2.1 2.4 3.3 4.3 3.7 4.1
Uttar Pradesh 3.3 2.8 5.0 8.7 12.3 23.5 26.9 33.3 40.5
Uttarakhand 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2
Northeast India 0.1
Assam 0.1
South India 42.3 70.3 153.6 268.5 252.6 340.4 204.4 307.7 212.3
Andhra Pradesh 4.0 8.1 80.6 195.8 165.8 218.2 66.2 187.8 119.7
Karnataka 24.6 35.3 43.8 41.5 42.9 61.3 59.9 48.1 44.4
Kerala 0.8 1.1 3.1 1.9 2.5 3.6 5.7 7.3 7.8
Tamil Nadu 13.0 25.7 26.1 29.3 41.3 57.3 72.6 64.6 40.4
West India 104.5 128.3 189.2 317.1 396.7 546.0 514.6 612.6 557.9
Dadra & NH 0.6 10.2 8.0 17.6 25.8 23.5 5.0 4.9 4.3
Daman & Diu 0.6 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.8
Goa 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3
Gujarat 16.3 11.4 39.1 126.2 117.0 167.3 174.7 187.4 221.4
Maharashtra 87.3 105.8 137.3 163.6 238.4 346.2 317.6 394.1 313.3
Rajasthan 0.3 0.9 4.8 9.7 14.6 7.4 16.2 25.5 17.8
Grand Total 421.4 556.1 795.1 1171.2 1232.1 1493.6 1417.0 1687.7 1351.1

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

141
Table A3 (contd)
Basic Metal and Metal Products Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Manufacturing exports (US$ million)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 116.4 105.8 138.4 213.2 211.5 339.8 542.4 865.4 946.4
Chhattisgarh 74.1 51.9 54.4 80.2 136.5 164.5 178.0 489.5 527.6
Madhya Pradesh 42.3 54.0 84.1 133.0 75.0 175.4 364.4 376.0 418.8
East India 576.9 564.3 526.1 855.1 1090.8 1507.2 1589.4 2318.8 2132.0
Bihar 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1
Jharkhand 119.1 93.5 79.6 173.5 240.2 295.1 294.2 484.9 402.4
Orissa 335.6 381.0 337.1 505.1 631.8 895.3 936.8 1281.5 1219.5
West Bengal 122.2 89.6 109.2 176.4 218.7 316.8 358.5 552.3 510.1
North India 94.3 95.0 167.8 278.1 376.5 550.7 579.7 990.2 904.8
Haryana 40.7 42.9 89.1 136.8 215.0 220.6 239.5 474.4 348.4
Himachal Pradesh 1.1 8.0 8.3 2.2 4.0 8.3 8.5 7.9 21.7
Jammu & Kashmir 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8
Punjab 4.0 5.7 6.1 24.9 32.2 64.6 64.6 83.3 87.2
Uttar Pradesh 47.7 36.5 62.5 97.7 106.5 225.9 236.0 386.0 403.5
Uttarakhand 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.5
Northeast India 0.4 1.9 1.4 1.8 2.4 4.6 7.7 17.8
Assam 0.4 1.9 1.4 1.8 2.4 4.2 5.5 6.4
South India 234.2 246.4 271.6 514.8 669.2 1196.5 1576.7 2895.9 2763.0
Andhra Pradesh 114.9 106.8 118.9 204.0 279.4 261.9 317.3 671.9 710.5
Karnataka 51.7 47.3 42.2 87.6 84.4 277.2 230.3 390.9 369.6
Kerala 9.8 17.8 14.8 33.7 39.3 73.6 96.5 224.3 187.3
Tamil Nadu 57.8 74.5 95.8 189.6 266.1 583.8 932.6 1608.8 1495.6
West India 741.9 808.9 790.2 1718.9 2057.5 3455.4 3670.7 6750.6 6754.3
Dadra & NH 9.8 16.0 21.9 54.4 85.9 140.2 273.1 518.8 483.5
Daman & Diu 1.4 2.3 0.9 7.1 5.1 38.9 19.9 9.3 21.8
Goa 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.2 1.5 0.9 0.2
Gujarat 271.0 217.4 161.0 513.2 602.5 1112.9 1135.6 1942.6 2103.8
Maharashtra 442.6 541.7 578.5 1103.5 1310.7 2059.2 2016.1 3507.4 3635.6
Rajasthan 16.6 31.0 27.5 40.5 52.9 102.9 224.4 771.7 509.4
Grand Total 1763.8 1820.8 1896.0 3581.6 4407.4 7052.0 7963.4 13828.6 13518.1
Note: Grand total and sub-regional total also include exports of a few firms based in Chandigarh, Nagaland,
Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Meghalaya.
Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
142
Table A4
Chemicals & Chemical Product Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Manufacturing exports (US$ million)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 8.3 8.0 9.2 13.8 34.2 48.5 33.2 33.5 45.4
Chhattisgarh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Madhya Pradesh 8.3 8.0 9.2 13.8 34.2 48.5 33.2 33.5 45.4
East India 18.2 19.5 20.9 20.5 36.3 43.1 58.8 61.6 66.6
Bihar 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1 0.0
Jharkhand 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 7.7 7.3 6.4
Orissa 2.3 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
West Bengal 15.3 18.3 19.3 20.4 35.9 41.9 51.0 54.3 60.2
North India 41.1 42.2 45.3 51.0 79.1 106.0 103.4 111.4 112.2
Haryana 0.5 0.6 1.0 2.1 9.4 12.7 8.7 6.6 6.6
Himachal Pradesh 6.4 8.5 8.1 10.4 9.9 10.3 12.9 10.5 11.6
J & K 5.4 7.1 6.6 8.4 15.2 15.0 18.7 19.1 21.6
Punjab 11.9 13.2 17.8 14.9 7.5 29.7 18.5 37.0 40.0
Uttar Pradesh 14.8 11.4 9.4 12.3 33.6 33.6 39.2 34.0 27.9
Uttarakhand 0.5 0.4 1.6 2.4 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.2 3.7
Northeast India 0.4 0.3 1.3 1.8 2.1 1.8 0.8 0.9 0.2
Assam 0.4 0.3 1.3 1.8 2.1 1.8 0.8 0.9 0.2
South India 80.8 87.3 104.1 126.6 177.4 189.1 196.0 203.3 226.0
Andhra Pradesh 12.2 15.3 13.9 19.1 26.6 30.2 34.9 38.6 41.6
Karnataka 4.1 5.8 14.0 4.8 9.2 18.7 18.2 9.7 27.6
Kerala 7.8 9.6 8.5 13.8 17.8 15.0 19.1 23.1 26.4
Pondicherry 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.0 1.9
Tamil Nadu 56.7 56.5 67.6 88.9 123.5 125.0 123.2 131.9 128.4
West India 316.7 346.6 411.1 497.7 746.4 839.9 905.4 970.8 904.6
Dadra & NH 6.0 9.9 17.3 10.1 18.2 16.7 22.1 25.6 25.0
Daman & Diu 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.4 1.6 2.6 4.6 5.5 3.8
Goa 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.9 1.4 4.7 4.5 4.8
Gujarat 126.8 143.4 159.1 225.9 300.3 308.5 352.4 355.1 321.4
Maharashtra 177.5 180.2 218.3 238.2 384.4 458.4 462.8 511.4 490.5
Rajasthan 5.9 11.6 15.5 21.3 40.0 52.3 58.7 68.7 59.1
Grand Total 465.5 504.0 591.9 711.5 1075.5 1228.4 1297.7 1381.5 1355.1

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

143
Table A4 (contd)
Chemicals & Chemical Product Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Manufacturing exports (US$ million)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 50.4 53.1 52.9 66.7 77.9 93.5 114.0 101.9 93.1
Chhattisgarh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 1.1
Madhya Pradesh 50.4 53.1 52.9 66.7 77.9 93.3 113.9 101.1 91.9
East India 66.7 130.9 147.3 139.4 385.1 200.2 535.8 661.4 524.9
Bihar 0.1
Jharkhand 0.9 7.2 6.6 7.4 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Orissa 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 9.3 8.9 6.9
West Bengal 65.7 123.5 140.4 131.7 380.1 199.9 526.5 652.4 517.4
North India 123.1 123.3 118.0 141.6 206.1 250.9 332.5 406.1 466.4
Haryana 9.1 8.8 6.2 11.0 13.4 16.0 14.5 20.7 18.4
Himachal Pradesh 13.2 14.8 16.7 20.3 20.2 19.5 28.7 41.4 57.0
Jammu & Kashmir 25.3 33.7 33.8 32.3 63.6 74.4 80.3 85.5 88.9
Punjab 38.8 21.7 17.0 24.1 41.1 52.7 63.0 91.1 101.6
Uttar Pradesh 33.1 39.0 37.6 40.9 50.5 61.5 97.8 100.4 112.1
Uttarakhand 3.6 5.5 6.6 12.9 17.3 26.9 48.1 67.1 88.4
Northeast India 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.8 2.8 4.1 7.2 5.2 5.0
Assam 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.8 2.8 4.1 7.2 5.2 5.0
South India 242.0 358.6 303.0 348.3 368.9 466.7 512.0 605.1 568.5
Andhra Pradesh 53.2 54.8 57.0 63.3 75.7 92.2 112.7 146.9 135.5
Karnataka 33.4 38.8 39.0 45.3 49.6 66.9 73.6 61.1 101.3
Kerala 28.2 120.7 28.0 34.5 48.3 89.0 73.9 72.2 53.4
Pondicherry 1.7 1.4 2.1 2.4 2.5 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0
Tamil Nadu 125.6 142.8 176.9 202.9 192.8 217.8 250.8 323.9 277.3
West India 1158.1 1204.5 1103.6 1373.6 2072.2 2172.0 2596.3 2585.4 2874.3
Dadra & NH 34.0 35.3 36.6 35.9 37.6 49.5 51.3 85.1 90.1
Daman & Diu 4.7 13.6 26.6 34.5 36.0 55.6 58.5 68.9 86.0
Goa 4.1 2.1 1.5 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0
Gujarat 499.7 433.6 432.4 581.9 970.5 1072.6 1394.1 1276.5 1404.3
Maharashtra 549.5 650.5 546.7 632.6 924.7 886.3 966.9 968.6 1114.8
Rajasthan 66.1 69.4 59.7 88.3 102.7 106.8 125.0 186.3 179.1
Grand Total 1641.5 1871.7 1726.5 2072.4 3113.1 3187.4 4097.8 4365.2 4532.1
Note: Grand total and sub-regional total also include exports of a few firms based in Chandigarh, Nagaland,
Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Meghalaya.
Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
144
Table A5
Coke & Petroleum Product Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Coke & Petroleum Product exports (US$ million)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 165.2 219.7 266.9 430.6 457.4 618.5 704.1 652.2 599.1
Chhattisgarh 20.9 23.6 35.6 73.6 83.0 76.3 100.5 130.9 79.2
East India 659.0 780.3 911.9 1070.9 1106.4 1176.3 1320.5 1297.9 1153.9
Bihar 117.3 133.1 145.6 150.9 124.2 133.6 148.7 121.8 95.4
Orissa 165.5 202.9 247.2 260.1 287.4 299.7 333.8 322.1 265.5
West Bengal 308.8 344.4 397.5 491.1 509.5 584.8 656.3 644.7 654.8
North India 650.8 894.7 906.3 1170.6 1370.7 1712.8 1932.5 1839.2 1821.1
Delhi 0.4 4.3 16.7 45.7 6.6 19.2 13.9 44.4 60.5
Haryana 177.2 264.3 251.4 289.1 339.9 447.9 506.7 411.9 377.6
Punjab 117.3 169.6 157.1 204.5 250.9 323.1 394.8 407.1 421.6
Uttar Pradesh 270.5 328.1 325.4 426.6 525.1 601.8 679.7 627.6 618.9
Northeast India 152.7 164.7 171.9 164.1 153.7 176.1 176.9 141.1 130.1
Assam 152.7 164.7 171.9 164.1 153.7 175.9 176.8 140.7 129.4
South India 746.2 980.2 1185.4 1851.5 2371.7 2516.5 2427.3 2619.8 2757.1
Andhra Pradesh 133.1 190.0 277.1 494.5 592.5 674.1 468.7 658.8 727.3
Karnataka 144.4 234.7 275.1 465.6 561.0 505.6 493.2 529.2 581.1
Kerala 102.6 114.1 143.9 213.1 257.6 227.1 250.1 233.5 199.5
Tamil Nadu 363.3 438.5 485.0 671.2 945.7 1080.0 1182.3 1184.6 1235.9
West India 1522.7 1703.7 1911.9 2596.5 3522.5 4140.3 4135.2 4701.9 4856.2
Dadra & NH 13.7 28.9 36.0 49.0 79.0 94.6 66.9 104.0 87.9
Daman & Diu 8.7 8.5 9.1 18.0 24.7 22.3 34.2 40.0 42.6
Goa 12.2 14.7 17.1 19.6 23.5 29.3 35.1 33.1 69.4
Gujarat 531.8 549.1 628.6 997.8 1249.4 1475.3 1477.2 1732.5 1837.8
Maharashtra 873.9 999.5 1094.5 1310.0 1875.3 2223.1 2214.9 2479.3 2516.8
Grand Total 3896.5 4743.4 5354.3 7284.2 8982.5 10340.6 10696.5 11252.1 11317.4

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

145
Table A 5 (contd)
Coke & Petroleum Product Exports by Indian States, 19912008 (US$ million)
Region
Coke & Petroleum Product exports (US$ million)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 3.4 3.4 3.7 5.6 6.3 0.1 5.9 9.4 6.5
Chhattisgarh 3.4 3.4 3.7 5.6 6.3 0.1 5.9 9.4 6.5
East India 103.8 166.1 150.1 63.2 122.3 177.0 294.3 683.9 675.0
Bihar 48.3 78.0 71.3 24.2 56.0 80.8 125.8 311.4 302.8
Orissa 1.1 1.2 1.1 2.7 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.6
West Bengal 54.5 86.9 77.7 36.4 63.7 93.6 165.5 369.1 368.6
North India 108.6 175.5 160.4 54.4 126.2 182.0 283.5 700.6 681.3
Delhi 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4
Haryana 48.3 78.0 71.3 24.2 56.0 80.8 125.8 311.4 302.8
Punjab 12.1 19.5 17.8 6.0 14.0 20.2 31.5 77.8 75.7
Uttar Pradesh 48.3 78.0 71.3 24.2 56.0 80.8 125.8 311.4 302.8
Northeast India 48.4 78.1 71.3 24.2 56.1 81.0 126.1 311.9 303.1
Assam 48.4 78.1 71.3 24.2 56.1 81.0 126.1 311.9 303.1
South India 80.1 244.1 216.3 668.3 1294.1 1896.4 3479.2 4126.6 4132.5
Andhra Pradesh 18.8 71.6 84.9 126.8 151.9 262.3 450.4 745.9 919.7
Karnataka 77.8 54.5 410.7 988.0 1283.9 2631.2 2809.1 2560.9
Kerala 54.6 84.7 68.0 109.6 141.4 334.9 352.5 511.9 582.5
Tamil Nadu 6.7 9.9 8.8 21.2 12.8 15.2 45.1 59.6 69.4
West India 500.2 2133.3 2229.1 2559.3 2886.8 5809.1 7677.5 16187.7 22837.4
Dadra & NH 0.7 1.1 1.9 3.3 3.5 5.6 9.2 16.1 17.5
Daman & Diu 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 3.8 5.2
Goa 3.4 3.4 3.7 5.4 6.2 5.9 9.4 6.5
Gujarat 340.9 1720.5 1551.7 1724.6 1967.1 3995.8 5067.4 11130.5 16225.3
Maharashtra 154.8 408.1 671.7 825.8 909.7 1807.1 2594.2 5028.0 6582.8
Grand Total 844.5 2800.6 2830.9 3375.0 4491.8 8145.5 11866.6 22020.1 28635.8
Note: Grand total and sub-regional total also include exports of a few firms based in Chandigarh, Nagaland,
Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Meghalaya.
Source: SPIESR-GIDR locational dataset of Prowess manufacturing firms (2010)

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
146
Table A6
Exports of Drugs & Pharmaceuticals by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 15.7 20.3 24.1 36.2 50.6 58.3 74.2 61.1 73.7
Madhya Pradesh 15.7 20.3 24.1 36.2 50.6 58.3 74.2 61.1 73.7
East India 6.5 3.7 1.8 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.4 5.9
Bihar

1.2
Jharkhand

0.1 0.0

West Bengal 6.5 3.7 1.8 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.3 4.7
North India 29.6 43.6 35.8 57.4 86.8 112.6 132.1 133.1 151.6
Haryana 0.9

0.4 0.3 3.0 2.2 1.1 7.4 6.7
Himachal Pradesh 9.5 13.3 12.5 21.6 29.0 43.3 59.4 60.2 61.9
Jammu & Kashmir

0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.6 4.0
Punjab 14.3 24.5 18.1 27.7 37.8 46.3 58.6 44.4 58.1
Uttar Pradesh 3.6 3.4 2.4 3.7 9.6 7.0 6.2 9.0 11.3
Uttarakhand 1.4 2.5 2.4 3.9 7.0 13.5 6.5 10.5 9.7
South India 36.3 57.4 69.3 91.6 145.1 208.6 207.8 240.8 327.2
Andhra Pradesh 29.3 46.1 51.3 63.0 96.7 132.1 111.1 146.8 194.7
Karnataka 3.5 6.0 4.5 13.2 15.9 26.9 18.3 14.7 32.3
Kerala 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.5 2.0 5.2 4.4 3.8
Pondicherry

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

0.2 0.2
Tamil Nadu 3.4 5.1 13.2 15.3 30.9 47.5 73.2 74.8 96.2
West India 106.6 125.3 95.5 152.8 196.7 277.5 288.1 289.4 330.1
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.9 1.7 2.1 2.6 3.7 4.5 5.9 7.5 9.2
Daman & Diu 2.0 1.5 1.8 2.9 1.8 4.0 7.4 9.2 8.3
Goa

0.0 0.0 0.0
Gujarat 52.3 49.5 27.5 53.3 58.8 90.1 87.6 108.0 100.7
Maharashtra 51.0 72.3 62.8 92.3 130.5 171.3 180.0 158.2 200.7
Rajasthan 0.3 0.3 1.4 1.6 1.9 7.6 7.1 6.4 11.3
Grand Total 194.7 250.3 226.5 340.5 482.2 659.5 705.1 726.9 888.5
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

147
Table A6 (contd)
Exports of Drugs & Pharmaceuticals by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 92.4 88.8 117.0 205.3 278.1 300.5 290.6 395.2 406.1
Madhya Pradesh 92.4 88.8 117.0 205.3 278.1 300.5 290.6 395.2 406.1
East India 6.4 5.4 3.2 13.9 19.2 19.9 20.8 9.5 28.2
Bihar 2.1 2.6

6.6 8.7 10.6 10.4

Jharkhand

1.8 3.1 5.2 3.3 4.2 3.2
West Bengal 4.3 2.8 3.2 5.5 7.4 4.0 7.1 5.4 25.0
North India 204.4 208.1 265.3 419.7 580.8 606.3 639.5 880.0 971.2
Haryana 7.8 13.1 20.0 25.0 27.5 23.9 17.8 14.8 19.9
Himachal Pradesh 92.1 85.9 113.1 160.0 246.4 260.1 294.0 411.4 478.0
Jammu & Kashmir 5.9 16.6 20.2 26.6 38.9 43.8 61.2 84.6 103.6
Punjab 82.7 74.6 96.6 180.9 240.7 245.6 234.2 324.9 321.9
Uttar Pradesh 6.3 7.7 2.2 8.8 4.2 4.3 5.9 8.2 7.6
Uttarakhand 9.5 10.2 13.2 18.4 23.0 28.6 26.6 36.1 40.2
South India 360.8 462.2 576.1 682.0 892.3 971.4 1223.0 2083.7 2025.0
Andhra Pradesh 221.2 302.3 386.7 468.5 544.7 559.4 691.6 1401.3 1279.0
Karnataka 37.5 54.6 75.2 65.8 169.6 217.2 296.3 394.1 382.9
Kerala 1.3 2.8 2.9 2.8 1.1 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.9
Pondicherry 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1

Tamil Nadu 100.8 102.4 111.2 144.8 176.9 193.3 234.6 287.9 362.3
West India 334.3 383.2 447.9 616.0 825.7 934.1 1103.3 1443.0 1765.6
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 9.2 11.2 13.7 16.2 22.7 28.7 32.2 44.8 61.2
Daman & Diu 8.9 13.5 20.8 31.2 43.0 29.0 50.6 64.6 62.9
Goa 0.7 8.2 10.6 14.8 20.9 20.8 28.4 42.4 56.8
Gujarat 107.1 120.4 154.7 207.0 267.6 327.1 401.1 531.7 616.0
Maharashtra 196.7 215.2 234.9 329.3 449.4 506.6 564.0 721.3 923.5
Rajasthan 11.7 14.8 13.2 17.6 22.1 21.8 26.9 38.1 45.2
Grand Total 998.3 1147.8 1409.5 1936.8 2596.1 2832.3 3277.3 4811.4 5196.2
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.


JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
148
Table A7
Exports of Electrical & Optical Equipment by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 15.9 16.9 8.6 10.4 11.9 26.9 29.0 24.3 16.9
Madhya Pradesh 15.9 16.9 8.6 10.4 11.9 26.9 29.0 24.3 16.9
East India 15.9 14.9 8.1 10.2 27.8 9.9 17.8 14.4 14.3
Bihar

0.2 0.3

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Jharkhand 3.1 2.4 2.0 4.3 20.0

1.8 0.1 0.2
Orissa 1.8 0.1 0.8 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.2
West Bengal 11.0 12.4 5.1 4.5 6.6 9.3 15.8 13.1 13.8
North India 40.3 64.7 56.2 84.6 113.4 141.3 158.6 146.2 155.4
Delhi 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.0 3.0 4.1 19.7
Haryana 7.8 14.1 14.8 22.2 33.2 65.3 60.2 57.0 46.7
Himachal Pradesh 3.5 7.3 3.6 9.7 11.0 7.5 7.4 8.2 11.0
Jammu & Kashmir 0.0

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
Punjab 14.0 10.4 7.6 7.9 3.8 5.0 9.2 10.2 8.4
Uttar Pradesh 12.6 26.6 16.9 21.8 32.1 25.0 43.7 40.4 43.6
Uttarakhand 2.3 6.2 13.2 22.7 31.9 34.9 34.8 26.1 25.8
South India 38.4 54.9 58.4 86.6 78.8 98.3 110.4 127.4 164.0
Andhra Pradesh 5.6 4.2 5.7 18.4 14.4 12.5 11.1 16.2 16.0
Karnataka 22.8 31.5 27.6 38.9 31.4 38.3 41.5 50.7 72.4
Kerala 1.8 5.1 4.9 7.2 7.8 9.9 8.5 8.7 11.3
Pondicherry 0.5 0.9 1.8 2.3 5.3 5.1 6.5 8.0 4.6
Tamil Nadu 7.7 13.1 18.4 19.8 19.9 32.6 42.8 43.9 59.7
West India 74.0 85.7 73.8 136.8 133.3 130.1 191.0 173.0 176.8
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.2 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.4 3.9 3.1 3.9
Daman & Diu 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.2
Goa 4.5 3.6 4.3 5.6 6.3 5.5 2.6 6.1 4.8
Gujarat 12.7 12.1 10.7 20.5 21.9 22.0 35.4 31.9 34.7
Maharashtra 55.2 63.8 51.5 98.7 87.4 84.6 140.7 123.6 118.4
Rajasthan 1.5 5.7 5.9 9.8 15.2 15.3 7.9 7.5 13.9
Grand Total 184.4 237.1 205.2 328.5 365.2 406.6 506.9 485.3 527.4
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

149
Table A7 (contd)
Exports of Electrical & Optical Equipment by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 10.9 9.8 14.8 17.1 19.0 18.1 30.1 48.5 57.2
Madhya Pradesh 10.9 9.8 14.8 17.1 19.0 18.1 30.1 48.5 57.2
East India 11.3 16.7 13.0 15.0 14.4 16.2 17.5 22.9 41.0
Bihar 0.0

Jharkhand

Orissa 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.6 2.8 5.8
West Bengal 10.4 15.8 12.3 13.4 12.6 14.1 15.9 20.2 35.2
North India 155.2 242.4 263.4 381.7 543.8 558.1 623.7 768.6 817.3
Delhi 8.6 14.8 10.1 20.6 7.7 7.9 9.6 10.6 7.8
Haryana 47.2 57.7 24.0 46.5 74.1 51.3 55.6 80.5 88.9
Himachal Pradesh 9.2 15.0 15.9 16.9 22.7 35.5 36.2 44.2 53.4
Jammu & Kashmir 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.2
Punjab 5.7 5.4 5.0 5.7 13.3 49.1 61.3 60.9 39.3
Uttar Pradesh 56.8 104.1 163.4 255.0 368.2 357.4 393.1 452.4 502.7
Uttarakhand 27.5 45.1 44.8 36.1 56.4 55.3 67.6 119.4 124.9
South India 155.4 177.9 195.8 168.6 280.2 329.5 398.8 601.1 764.3
Andhra Pradesh 15.0 19.2 16.1 18.6 20.9 31.1 60.6 96.4 140.9
Karnataka 63.6 71.7 81.0 68.8 146.4 167.3 176.3 340.4 457.4
Kerala 11.8 14.0 10.8 5.3 15.0 12.2 19.2 18.9 17.4
Pondicherry 2.2 2.2 0.1 2.6 2.1 1.8 2.7 6.4 2.4
Tamil Nadu 62.8 70.8 87.8 73.3 95.8 117.1 140.0 138.9 146.2
West India 168.1 226.3 192.1 243.0 341.1 433.3 480.9 843.5 1293.6
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1.8 46.5 9.7 7.4 9.4 13.8 22.1 66.3 101.5
Daman & Diu 1.1 1.7 4.6 3.2 8.9 2.7 2.2 5.3 3.7
Goa 7.3 6.9 7.5 10.7 13.6 18.2 21.6 42.8 91.1
Gujarat 33.3 24.1 24.3 32.9 46.6 75.8 120.7 162.8 179.2
Maharashtra 114.2 128.7 122.6 163.4 231.9 274.5 269.1 509.3 842.8
Rajasthan 10.4 18.5 23.4 25.3 30.9 48.4 45.1 56.9 75.3
Grand Total 501.0 673.2 679.0 825.3 1198.5 1355.2 1551.0 2284.7 2973.4
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.



JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
150
Table A8
Exports of Food Products, Beverages & Tobacco by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 44.0 59.6 87.9 128.3 74.0 151.3 166.3 109.5 76.7
Chhattisgarh 0.0 0.0

0.1 0.3

0.1
Madhya Pradesh 44.0 59.5 87.9 128.3 74.0 151.1 165.9 109.5 76.6
East India 83.3 105.8 123.7 167.9 184.5 178.2 157.5 163.3 247.0
Bihar 21.9 35.7 38.9 47.9 46.0 34.1 33.6 35.9 27.8
Jharkhand 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9

Orissa 0.5 2.6 4.2 8.5 25.7 23.3 9.4 1.2 15.3
West Bengal 60.4 67.1 80.0 110.7 112.0 119.9 114.4 126.3 203.9
North India 57.7 68.7 79.5 100.2 108.1 121.5 111.3 139.2 128.3
Delhi

1.7 0.1

0.4
Haryana 1.8 2.1 3.5 5.9 7.7 11.0 12.3 24.8 24.2
Himachal Pradesh 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.4
Jammu & Kashmir 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 1.7 2.8 2.3 1.9
Punjab 8.2 10.9 11.1 14.5 19.5 18.3 23.8 38.3 25.0
Uttar Pradesh 39.0 41.7 49.0 58.9 59.7 70.1 51.6 51.1 55.5
Uttarakhand 8.2 13.0 15.5 19.4 19.9 18.4 20.0 22.1 20.0
Northeast India 60.3 67.9 61.2 60.3 73.2 73.4 56.0 57.1 66.5
Assam 60.3 67.9 61.2 60.3 73.2 73.4 56.0 57.1 66.5
South India 112.2 177.0 210.9 418.3 527.8 347.7 324.4 359.8 414.9
Andhra Pradesh 31.5 60.7 58.7 96.6 144.1 116.1 86.4 110.8 176.6
Karnataka 18.8 29.2 34.8 148.6 180.4 53.9 57.1 99.4 99.7
Kerala 25.9 36.7 55.8 96.4 110.9 82.1 105.8 88.6 51.6
Pondicherry 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.2 4.2 5.5 5.3 3.6 2.0
Tamil Nadu 35.2 48.8 60.0 75.5 88.4 90.1 69.8 57.4 84.9
West India 34.1 62.0 86.4 139.3 182.2 203.9 190.5 219.8 246.3
Dadra & Nagar Haveli

0.2
Daman & Diu 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7
Goa 0.8 0.9 2.3 3.3 4.1 6.8 8.4 9.6 10.1
Gujarat 9.1 9.7 22.8 41.4 32.3 49.8 76.2 126.4 119.8
Maharashtra 18.0 44.1 40.0 46.3 109.6 110.9 63.4 56.6 100.0
Rajasthan 6.2 7.3 21.2 48.3 36.0 36.1 42.1 26.6 15.6
Grand Total 391.6 540.9 649.7 1014.3 1149.8 1075.9 1005.9 1048.8 1179.7
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

151
Table A8 (contd)
Exports of Food Products, Beverages & Tobacco by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 73.6 92.6 88.5 54.4 112.9 139.6 157.7 226.3 320.4
Chhattisgarh

0.1

0.9 2.0 0.3
Madhya Pradesh 73.6 92.6 88.5 54.4 112.8 139.6 156.8 224.3 320.1
East India 186.4 104.6 105.6 194.8 171.5 175.2 257.1 335.7 269.5
Bihar 28.5 28.3 37.7 54.5 46.2 55.8 76.6 109.5 96.8
Jharkhand

0.0

Orissa 15.9 15.5 4.1 22.4 20.1 0.5 21.7 31.3 5.5
West Bengal 142.1 60.7 63.7 117.9 105.2 118.9 158.7 194.9 167.3
North India 121.8 203.5 378.8 270.5 296.1 336.8 384.3 557.4 547.8
Delhi 0.6

20.4 40.7 42.5 63.6 34.6 19.3
Haryana 11.9 54.8 225.1 88.4 64.2 77.9 57.8 141.0 172.2
Himachal Pradesh 1.5 2.3 2.4 3.8 5.3 6.5 8.9 9.9 12.1
Jammu & Kashmir 2.6 3.8 2.7 2.7 3.2 7.9 20.3 21.3 26.5
Punjab 16.1 17.7 21.9 15.5 19.3 15.2 16.9 24.7 27.3
Uttar Pradesh 72.8 107.9 105.9 115.3 139.3 159.6 180.2 273.7 241.1
Uttarakhand 16.2 17.0 20.8 24.3 24.0 27.2 36.6 52.3 49.4
Northeast India 51.7 42.4 39.3 56.0 58.4 50.2 56.2 67.5 51.2
Assam 51.7 42.4 39.3 56.0 58.4 50.2 56.2 67.5 51.2
South India 414.0 802.1 785.1 877.3 848.2 921.1 1081.3 1611.0 1775.0
Andhra Pradesh 172.3 200.4 223.5 287.3 220.5 268.6 337.3 415.1 397.1
Karnataka 106.3 267.9 252.5 303.6 385.5 428.5 471.8 817.3 915.1
Kerala 38.8 75.2 58.7 70.3 65.7 61.7 77.1 117.1 107.8
Pondicherry 1.8 1.0

1.0 0.7 0.6 0.4

Tamil Nadu 94.8 257.6 250.4 215.0 175.8 161.7 194.6 261.5 355.0
West India 283.8 279.2 215.5 326.9 563.8 346.5 431.9 615.0 757.2
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.2

Daman & Diu 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.3 3.0 4.0 3.7
Goa 5.9 6.6 7.4 5.0 6.7 5.2 5.7 8.3 9.4
Gujarat 168.3 147.4 90.2 111.6 182.1 152.5 155.1 218.1 315.5
Maharashtra 90.7 104.5 99.3 188.7 340.0 147.1 191.6 298.7 306.5
Rajasthan 17.8 19.8 17.7 20.7 33.5 39.4 76.5 85.8 122.1
Grand Total 1131.4 1524.4 1612.7 1779.9 2051.0 1969.4 2368.4 3413.0 3721.1
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
152
Table A9
Exports of Leather & Leather Products by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India

0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2
Madhya Pradesh

0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2
East India 2.9 3.0 1.9 2.9 4.3 4.6 3.3 8.4 9.5
Bihar 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1
West Bengal 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.1 6.2 7.4
North India 6.1 10.6 13.7 61.3 43.6 53.3 68.1 70.8 61.6
Delhi

8.2 36.5 1.0 6.5 8.8 5.0 1.2
Haryana 1.0 1.0 0.6 4.2 16.0 6.4 14.6 11.5 8.8
Himachal Pradesh

1.6 2.0 4.9 4.8 9.4 7.3 2.1 2.2
Punjab

1.6 2.0 3.2 2.4 3.2 5.2 4.1 2.2
Uttar Pradesh 5.2 6.3 0.7 12.5 19.1 25.9 30.4 47.6 46.0
Uttarakhand

0.0 0.3 1.8 1.7 0.5 1.3
South India 18.4 31.2 31.1 70.1 111.1 154.9 147.2 89.9 121.4
Andhra Pradesh 3.1 2.8 2.3 2.1 3.6 5.0 4.6 4.5 5.8
Karnataka 1.0 25.1 24.4 39.7 51.4 48.0 36.2 23.1 22.8
Pondicherry

0.8 1.3 0.4

Tamil Nadu 14.4 3.3 4.4 28.3 55.2 100.7 106.0 62.2 92.7
West India 1.2 1.5 2.1 8.4 11.9 23.7 12.0 4.3 4.1
Dadra & Nagar Haveli

1.7 2.6 6.9 4.9 0.4

Gujarat

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Maharashtra 1.2 1.5 2.1 6.6 9.3 14.2 5.0 1.6 0.5
Rajasthan

2.6 2.0 2.3 3.6
Grand Total 28.6 46.3 48.8 142.8 171.0 237.0 231.0 173.7 196.8
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

153
Table A9 (contd)
Exports of Leather & Leather Products by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India

Madhya Pradesh

East India 4.8 12.3 12.4 24.0 18.5 23.3 27.2 27.0 1.2
Bihar 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.7
West Bengal 3.1 10.8 11.1 22.9 17.6 22.5 26.7 26.1 0.5
North India 51.8 69.6 75.1 90.2 109.4 132.7 139.6 200.8 194.6
Delhi 1.1 2.5 3.1 4.0 2.8 4.4 5.0 4.5 6.6
Haryana 2.4 5.3 5.7 10.8 12.5 16.0 21.7 28.7 24.8
Himachal Pradesh 2.4 1.8 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.2 1.2
Punjab 1.9 1.4 1.0 3.4 2.8 5.3 7.5 12.2 10.2
Uttar Pradesh 44.0 57.3 61.4 69.4 82.6 97.8 95.9 146.7 145.0
Uttarakhand

1.3 2.3 2.0 7.9 8.2 9.0 7.5 6.9
South India 122.9 85.8 82.0 124.6 134.5 157.4 106.0 65.8 67.5
Andhra Pradesh 6.4 4.2 1.7

0.1

Karnataka 19.1 18.0 18.7 16.5 18.0 22.6 21.8 27.3 27.0
Pondicherry

Tamil Nadu 97.3 63.6 61.6 108.1 116.4 134.9 84.2 38.6 40.5
West India 3.6 2.9 3.3 6.2 5.2 8.2 10.9 16.9 9.0
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.1

Gujarat 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

Maharashtra 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.1

Rajasthan 2.2 1.7 2.2 5.9 5.1 8.1 10.8 16.8 9.0
Grand Total 183.1 170.6 172.8 245.0 267.6 321.6 283.7 310.6 272.3
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.



JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
154
Table A10
Exports of Machinery & Equipment by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 10.0 20.1 19.6 27.6 16.0 15.9 22.3 20.1 10.0
Chhattisgarh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9
Madhya Pradesh 9.9 19.7 19.3 27.3 15.7 15.4 21.8 19.5 9.1
East India 9.0 3.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 10.1 9.3 16.6 10.6
Jharkhand 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 2.1 0.7 11.0 7.9
Orissa

West Bengal 8.4 3.6 4.4 4.3 3.9 8.0 8.6 5.6 2.7
North India 44.4 61.7 71.0 57.9 41.7 46.0 51.5 43.9 31.7
Delhi

0.1 0.1

0.1
Haryana 20.3 21.8 26.4 9.2 9.8 14.0 12.3 8.8 8.9
Himachal Pradesh 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.8 1.4
Jammu & Kashmir 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3
Punjab 1.2 1.6 1.8 3.8 2.4 2.9 3.7 3.1 1.4
Uttar Pradesh 7.4 14.8 11.7 19.0 10.7 9.6 16.0 12.5 9.7
Uttarakhand 14.5 22.5 30.0 24.6 17.1 17.3 16.8 16.5 9.8
Northeast India

3.6

Assam

3.6

South India 67.8 68.9 71.4 94.2 105.0 125.6 121.7 129.0 104.6
Andhra Pradesh 5.8 6.7 7.3 10.4 5.4 25.8 12.0 12.9 7.1
Karnataka 18.8 20.1 20.4 36.4 28.6 31.0 39.3 47.1 29.4
Kerala

Pondicherry

0.1 0.1

Tamil Nadu 43.2 42.2 43.6 47.3 70.9 68.8 70.4 69.1 68.1
West India 158.1 130.0 116.3 134.9 202.6 155.0 188.2 194.4 185.8
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.8 5.7 4.1 10.2 9.1
Daman & Diu 5.4 4.9 5.2 8.7 8.8 9.8 10.7 10.5 9.0
Goa 0.3 3.6 3.9 3.9 4.6 8.9 9.1 2.8 0.2
Gujarat 73.1 44.5 30.2 29.3 33.9 23.1 32.3 39.7 43.2
Maharashtra 77.3 74.6 74.3 89.2 151.6 105.7 129.6 129.8 122.1
Rajasthan 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.5 1.9 1.8 2.4 1.4 2.3
Grand Total 289.2 284.3 286.4 319.2 369.8 352.6 392.9 404.0 342.7
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

155
Table A10 (contd)
Exports of Machinery & Equipment by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 30.1 23.8 73.4 38.3 40.8 70.6 64.6 108.2 88.3
Chhattisgarh 0.8 0.9 2.2 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.8 1.6
Madhya Pradesh 29.3 22.9 71.1 36.9 39.8 69.2 62.8 105.4 86.7
East India 6.5 10.6 10.7 24.9 37.4 44.9 57.1 65.3 42.8
Jharkhand 4.1 6.5 5.7 20.4 28.2 25.8 37.7 45.4 24.6
Orissa

0.9

0.0

0.3

0.0
West Bengal 2.4 4.1 4.1 4.6 9.1 19.1 19.1 19.8 18.2
North India 63.4 62.8 128.7 103.5 125.1 202.6 189.4 318.2 250.1
Delhi 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.8 6.1 3.3 21.4 31.9 6.9
Haryana 9.5 18.0 17.0 22.9 17.1 42.9 56.7 91.9 77.2
Himachal Pradesh 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.8 3.5 5.4 5.5 9.3 10.8
Jammu & Kashmir 0.7 1.6 2.0 2.4 3.5 3.7 1.0 0.5 0.5
Punjab 4.6 2.2 5.6 3.7 3.2 12.5 13.8 12.1 11.2
Uttar Pradesh 21.3 13.3 40.1 25.4 62.5 73.8 36.0 75.2 62.2
Uttarakhand 26.3 26.1 62.1 41.3 29.3 60.9 55.0 97.3 81.3
Northeast India

0.2 1.0 1.3

Assam

0.2 1.0 1.3

South India 116.9 103.4 167.8 169.7 232.1 293.2 273.3 379.0 320.0
Andhra Pradesh 12.6 10.3 25.8 17.2 22.5 36.9 35.3 60.1 64.0
Karnataka 34.7 30.4 49.2 30.8 58.9 88.5 68.3 105.0 72.4
Kerala

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.1
Pondicherry

Tamil Nadu 69.6 62.7 92.8 121.7 150.7 167.7 169.7 214.0 183.5
West India 202.1 219.0 254.2 293.6 414.0 601.0 708.0 1311.1 1581.6
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1.9 11.0 10.5 13.6 31.0 31.7 33.5 49.1 38.3
Daman & Diu 18.2 18.1 18.1 23.3 25.5 31.3 66.5 314.6 455.8
Goa 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Gujarat 44.7 39.4 47.4 61.5 71.2 86.9 124.3 259.0 328.9
Maharashtra 136.3 147.6 175.2 192.3 282.8 446.3 477.2 679.2 754.5
Rajasthan 0.9 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.3 4.7 6.4 9.1 3.9
Grand Total 419.0 419.7 634.7 630.0 849.3 1212.5 1293.4 2183.1 2282.8
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
156
Table A11
Exports of Publishing & Printing by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India

East India 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0

Bihar 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4

Jharkhand

Orissa

West Bengal

0.0 0.0

North India 0.1 0.1 2.4 2.4 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.5 4.5
Delhi 0.0

2.3 2.1

0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6
Haryana

3.8
Uttar Pradesh 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0

Uttarakhand

South India 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.2 5.7 5.7 4.4 6.4
Andhra Pradesh

1.2 1.4

Karnataka 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.2 3.2
Kerala

0.0

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Tamil Nadu 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.2
West India 0.5 0.7 1.5 2.2 2.2 5.4 4.4 3.9 3.3
Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

0.0

0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7
Gujarat 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.5
Maharashtra 0.3 0.5 1.2 1.7 0.9 3.0 2.6 2.0 1.2
Rajasthan 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4

Grand Total 2.4 3.1 6.4 7.5 6.3 12.4 10.7 8.8 14.2
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.



Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

157
Table A11 (contd)
Exports of Publishing & Printing by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India

East India 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.5 2.2 2.9 2.8
Bihar 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.0
Jharkhand

0.1 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.8
Orissa

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

West Bengal

0.1

0.1 0.0

North India 8.3 6.4 14.1 19.6 24.2 28.1 23.3 30.3 31.1
Delhi 2.9 2.4 8.6 10.5 14.5 18.9 19.1 24.5 25.7
Haryana 4.8 3.3 4.7 8.2 8.2 6.6

Uttar Pradesh 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.4 2.2 3.0 2.9
Uttarakhand 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.1 1.9 2.6 2.5
South India 9.3 15.2 9.8 13.9 24.4 25.4 27.6 27.8 22.0
Andhra Pradesh 2.0 2.3 2.0 3.6 3.1 4.8 5.1 0.0

Karnataka 3.8 3.8 4.0 5.1 7.5 10.5 11.0 13.8 12.0
Kerala 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

Tamil Nadu 3.3 8.9 3.6 5.0 13.6 9.8 11.4 14.0 10.0
West India 5.5 7.7 11.6 14.5 17.7 27.2 25.2 30.2 30.8
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.1 1.9 2.6 2.5
Daman & Diu 0.7 1.3 2.1 2.7 2.9 2.6 1.8 1.7 1.7
Gujarat 2.1 3.2 5.0 6.1 6.5 11.5 5.1 5.7 5.4
Maharashtra 2.1 2.7 3.8 4.7 7.1 10.8 15.0 18.3 19.2
Rajasthan 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.0
Grand Total 23.7 29.9 36.3 48.7 67.3 82.2 78.3 91.2 86.7
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
158
Table A12
Pulp & Paper Products by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
East India 4.5 2.2 2.5 2.8 4.8 5.7 6.0 0.7 2.9
Orissa 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 4.6 5.3 5.8 0.7 2.9
West Bengal 2.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0
North India 1.9 2.4 3.8 5.1 11.2 17.0 12.9 6.4 3.9
Haryana 1.8 2.4 3.8 3.2 4.3 6.7 4.1 2.5 3.3
Himachal Pradesh

Punjab 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 6.9 10.3 8.7 3.9 0.6
Uttar Pradesh

0.0 0.1 0.1

0.0
Uttarakhand

Northeast India

0.1

5.6 4.9

0.7
Assam

0.1

5.6 4.9

0.7
South India 4.1 8.8 13.3 11.2 24.4 26.5 19.5 15.7 13.3
Andhra Pradesh 3.9 7.0 9.0 8.2 12.5 12.4 9.9 8.1 6.8
Karnataka 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.7 1.6 0.6 0.1 0.5
Kerala

0.3 0.2

Tamil Nadu 0.2 1.6 4.2 2.9 10.2 12.3 8.8 7.6 6.0
West India 5.6 8.4 10.3 12.0 15.2 24.8 25.4 10.4 16.4
Dadra & Nagar Haveli

1.2 0.0 0.4 0.1
Daman & Diu

Gujarat 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.3 1.9 4.7 1.8 2.6
Maharashtra 5.6 7.9 9.4 11.4 13.9 21.7 20.7 8.2 13.7
Rajasthan

0.0 0.0 0.0
Grand Total 16.2 21.8 29.9 31.1 55.6 79.7 68.7 33.3 37.3
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.


Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

159
Table A12 (contd)
Pulp & Paper Products by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
East India 1.4 3.5 5.6 5.7 15.2 18.0 14.4 13.1 9.1
Orissa 1.4 3.4 5.6 5.6 15.1 17.9 14.2 13.0 9.1
West Bengal 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1

North India 1.2 4.5 3.7 8.5 20.7 25.0 20.3 24.1 28.6
Haryana 1.0 4.2 3.4 3.6 12.8 12.5 9.2 9.2 7.6
Himachal Pradesh

0.0

Punjab 0.1 0.0 0.2 4.6 7.4 11.8 10.5 13.2 18.6
Uttar Pradesh 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.8 0.3
Uttarakhand

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0

2.1
Northeast India 6.0 0.7

3.6
Assam 6.0 0.7

3.6
South India 29.6 47.6 33.7 79.7 72.1 64.3 57.4 74.1 62.9
Andhra Pradesh 13.4 23.8 3.7 39.6 27.2 9.7 7.1 8.2 9.8
Karnataka 2.1 1.7 1.7 6.8 7.9 9.4 4.8 6.0 8.7
Kerala

0.1 0.2

3.5 0.7 3.2
Tamil Nadu 14.1 22.1 28.3 33.2 36.9 45.1 42.0 59.2 41.2
West India 5.6 40.7 13.5 52.7 70.8 75.2 50.2 58.4 53.4
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Daman & Diu

1.1 8.7

Gujarat 1.1 1.5 5.6 4.5 9.3 14.3 13.1 18.7 24.7
Maharashtra 4.4 39.2 7.9 47.1 52.8 60.8 37.0 39.7 28.7
Rajasthan

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grand Total 43.8 97.0 56.5 146.7 178.7 182.5 142.2 169.7 157.6
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
160
Table A13
Exports of Rubbers & Plastics by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 7.7 9.2 7.0 13.5 18.6 16.7 33.0 33.8 31.7
Chhattisgarh

0.1 0.1

0.0
Madhya Pradesh 7.7 9.2 7.0 13.5 18.6 16.6 32.9 33.8 31.7
East India 13.0 0.3 7.3 7.8 7.7 4.8 8.9 6.5 7.1
Jharkhand 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

Orissa

0.0

0.5 0.8 0.7
West Bengal 13.0 0.3 7.3 7.8 7.7 4.8 8.4 5.8 6.4
North India 33.7 51.3 40.2 77.4 95.3 124.7 129.3 90.9 93.7
Delhi

Haryana 3.1 2.8 5.2 7.7 7.7 7.5 5.8 5.9 11.5
Himachal Pradesh 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
Jammu & Kashmir

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.9 5.7 6.0 5.9
Punjab 2.1 8.8 13.8 12.1 13.4 10.5 8.5 7.8 13.8
Uttar Pradesh 26.8 37.3 14.3 49.7 62.2 69.1 83.0 51.4 42.7
Uttarakhand 1.6 2.1 6.9 7.3 11.5 35.4 26.0 19.4 19.4
Northeast India 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2
Assam 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2
South India 66.1 43.2 64.9 106.1 103.4 113.0 132.3 125.7 113.5
Andhra Pradesh 11.5 7.5 8.4 19.2 19.2 24.3 19.5 25.0 23.1
Karnataka 8.7 14.3 20.9 27.7 34.9 33.9 39.8 40.8 36.0
Kerala 7.6 6.2 13.5 17.6 11.7 7.6 8.9 7.7 6.6
Pondicherry

1.1 1.2 3.4 3.2

2.3
Tamil Nadu 38.2 15.3 22.1 40.7 36.4 43.9 61.0 52.2 45.4
West India 52.0 57.7 74.3 119.8 138.9 166.0 153.0 192.9 176.5
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1.8 2.5 2.3 5.4 8.0 13.9 8.8 11.8 11.7
Daman & Diu 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.4 1.9 4.3 4.3 8.8
Goa 5.0 4.0 3.7 5.6 4.3 3.7 6.0 5.9 7.0
Gujarat 4.3 3.6 16.1 29.7 23.9 26.5 21.1 30.6 23.4
Maharashtra 33.2 38.1 44.8 67.5 81.7 103.6 92.0 116.7 106.0
Rajasthan 7.8 9.4 7.4 11.5 18.6 16.3 20.6 23.6 19.6
Grand Total 172.5 161.8 193.8 324.7 364.1 425.4 456.9 450.2 422.7
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.


Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

161

Table A13 (contd)
Exports of Rubbers & Plastics by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 29.6 29.7 19.7 33.8 44.2 55.3 53.6 69.6 70.7
Chhattisgarh

Madhya Pradesh 29.6 29.7 19.7 33.8 44.2 55.3 53.6 69.6 70.7
East India 10.1 8.7 6.7 8.2 15.8 24.8 24.5 22.0 36.5
Jharkhand

Orissa 1.4 2.1 1.0 2.2 1.8 1.3 6.3 0.4 0.2
West Bengal 8.8 6.6 5.7 6.0 13.9 23.5 18.2 21.6 36.3
North India 94.9 97.0 92.7 110.5 130.4 174.0 169.4 217.6 206.7
Delhi

0.6 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.9

Haryana 11.0 8.0 10.4 17.6 21.0 22.8 24.4 22.4 22.6
Himachal Pradesh 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.9 3.4 3.4
Jammu & Kashmir 5.6 6.1 6.1 7.4 8.8 15.8 18.1 20.7 19.1
Punjab 16.5 12.7 15.6 13.2 12.9 19.1 11.1 34.3 37.5
Uttar Pradesh 38.4 39.2 34.3 37.6 45.8 69.5 72.7 95.3 83.7
Uttarakhand 22.5 29.7 24.8 31.7 39.7 44.2 40.4 41.5 40.5
Northeast India 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.3
Assam 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.3
South India 106.2 124.3 124.7 151.3 173.4 233.3 247.0 321.6 323.2
Andhra Pradesh 21.7 23.1 22.0 28.7 37.7 48.6 52.5 72.9 67.6
Karnataka 26.3 28.1 34.1 25.3 38.7 45.9 39.9 51.3 53.2
Kerala 8.0 9.8 9.7 14.8 20.5 19.4 23.2 32.6 35.0
Pondicherry 3.1 5.1 5.4 8.1 0.2 8.2 8.7 9.0 16.1
Tamil Nadu 47.1 58.1 53.5 74.4 76.2 111.2 122.8 155.8 151.3
West India 187.8 187.5 193.3 296.9 346.9 512.7 570.5 905.7 892.5
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 13.4 16.3 14.7 22.9 25.7 44.4 44.7 80.1 53.3
Daman & Diu 10.9 5.3 7.4 6.7 7.1 9.8 10.6 12.0 14.3
Goa 7.8 8.1 8.5 11.2 12.5 14.4 16.8 21.7 20.2
Gujarat 30.4 29.0 31.3 56.2 52.8 73.5 79.6 131.7 136.6
Maharashtra 108.7 112.6 118.1 160.2 190.0 285.7 320.2 512.1 489.8
Rajasthan 16.5 16.2 13.3 39.7 58.7 84.8 98.6 148.0 178.2
Grand Total 428.9 447.4 437.4 601.1 711.1 1001.2 1066.0 1537.8 1530.8
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
162


Table A14
Exports of Textiles & Textile Products by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 5.2 16.7 22.9 44.3 76.9 104.6 118.3 111.9 124.6
Chhattisgarh 0.4 2.4 3.3 6.9 11.7 17.6 13.0 12.0 9.2
Madhya Pradesh 4.8 14.3 19.6 37.4 65.2 87.0 105.3 99.9 115.4
East India 43.0 64.7 76.1 103.5 127.2 150.5 182.5 174.5 133.3
Bihar 2.2

1.7 3.7 2.8 1.6 2.7 2.6
Jharkhand

0.0 0.0

Orissa 0.2 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
West Bengal 40.6 64.7 76.1 101.9 123.5 147.7 180.9 171.7 130.6
North India 47.9 87.5 86.4 139.7 213.0 302.9 355.0 407.6 450.3
Delhi 0.3

2.7 3.1

0.5 28.8 34.7
Haryana 4.2 6.9 9.0 23.5 30.6 36.1 37.7 25.6 34.0
Himachal Pradesh 2.4 6.9 11.8 17.9 23.7 29.7 29.2 48.5 45.3
Punjab 29.4 56.7 38.5 66.8 104.7 144.3 178.7 182.9 211.8
Uttar Pradesh 8.8 13.3 20.1 24.4 48.3 85.1 99.0 111.8 114.8
Uttarakhand 2.8 3.7 4.3 4.0 5.8 7.6 9.9 10.0 9.7
Northeast India 1.0 1.7 1.4 1.4 2.5 3.4 6.1 6.5 6.0
Assam 1.0 1.7 1.4 1.4 2.5 3.4 6.1 6.5 6.0
South India 141.9 214.5 205.7 295.0 474.1 548.6 642.5 675.1 675.4
Andhra Pradesh 10.2 15.9 16.5 24.8 37.4 42.3 61.0 60.0 77.7
Karnataka 11.8 29.3 35.8 50.0 82.4 95.9 100.9 81.2 95.0
Kerala 8.6 12.4 12.6 16.7 34.4 37.7 43.7 45.2 42.4
Pondicherry

0.0 12.4 14.4 0.0

Tamil Nadu 111.3 156.8 140.7 203.5 319.7 360.3 422.6 488.7 460.2
West India 216.2 272.9 303.3 355.8 527.6 674.0 688.8 746.7 767.1
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.2 0.5 0.3 3.9 5.1 6.5 3.1 7.4 7.9
Daman & Diu 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 3.7 0.8 2.7 5.8 7.4
Goa 0.1 0.1 0.4

0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
Gujarat 68.4 82.5 98.7 144.5 222.9 300.9 275.2 270.2 264.3
Maharashtra 133.2 169.6 184.4 187.2 251.0 304.3 337.6 395.4 409.9
Rajasthan 13.4 19.3 18.4 19.3 44.5 61.4 70.2 67.9 77.7
Grand Total 455.2 657.8 695.7 939.8 1421.3 1784.0 1993.3 2122.3 2156.7
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

163

Table A14 (contd)
Exports of Textiles & Textile Products by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 153.2 135.0 105.9 105.6 127.3 147.0 108.8 152.3 144.3
Chhattisgarh 11.0 7.9 4.7 3.4 4.1 4.1 3.9 6.3 6.9
Madhya Pradesh 142.3 127.0 101.3 102.2 123.2 142.9 105.0 145.9 137.4
East India 127.7 157.4 130.6 158.6 160.2 179.8 182.8 185.4 143.3
Bihar 4.0 4.6 3.0 2.4 2.4 5.1 6.5 7.2 6.6
Jharkhand

Orissa 0.1

0.1 0.1 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.9
West Bengal 123.7 152.8 127.7 156.2 157.7 172.2 173.8 176.6 134.8
North India 493.9 543.8 549.2 565.6 563.6 773.9 820.0 1010.4 1056.5
Delhi 48.6 64.1 82.4 22.4 0.5 137.6 159.7 179.2 155.0
Haryana 57.7 63.8 79.8 90.3 69.7 86.7 106.8 133.5 190.5
Himachal Pradesh 43.0 43.5 35.4 39.0 68.8 75.1 63.0 81.2 78.0
Punjab 216.5 265.8 244.8 296.5 307.5 351.9 368.2 454.5 477.4
Uttar Pradesh 118.5 98.5 99.7 98.0 94.5 97.1 97.6 130.0 147.5
Uttarakhand 9.6 8.1 5.8 5.4 7.0 8.6 8.4 12.9 8.0
Northeast India 6.4 6.3 3.6 5.3 6.1 6.8 7.3 9.3 9.9
Assam 6.4 6.3 3.6 5.3 6.1 6.8 7.3 9.3 9.9
South India 633.7 689.7 596.3 730.2 752.2 893.6 869.0 1306.9 1282.5
Andhra Pradesh 82.3 70.8 44.5 63.1 85.6 87.2 77.0 103.4 94.8
Karnataka 77.1 99.7 110.7 123.0 145.4 322.2 355.9 499.6 532.3
Kerala 36.6 37.7 41.3 43.6 49.6 37.8 61.4 93.2 96.7
Pondicherry

4.0 3.8 4.8 4.9

Tamil Nadu 437.8 481.4 395.8 496.7 466.6 441.3 374.7 610.7 558.8
West India 753.0 722.4 673.8 877.0 896.3 1085.2 1075.2 1552.9 1783.8
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 9.2 11.1 13.1 18.1 37.7 70.0 85.4 162.4 224.5
Daman & Diu 7.1 8.5 11.4 13.8 15.0 14.8 17.4 21.0 43.0
Goa 0.0 0.1

Gujarat 297.2 244.5 307.3 334.9 326.1 407.8 432.4 609.1 643.7
Maharashtra 358.8 364.6 251.5 394.8 365.9 424.5 338.5 478.7 569.0
Rajasthan 80.8 93.7 90.5 115.5 151.5 168.1 201.5 281.7 303.6
Grand Total 2167.9 2254.5 2059.4 2442.4 2505.7 3086.2 3063.2 4217.1 4420.4
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
164



Table A15
Exports of Transport Equipment by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India 4.9 5.5 7.0 10.8 11.3 14.3 14.3 15.2 27.2
Madhya Pradesh 4.9 5.5 7.0 10.8 11.3 14.3 14.3 15.2 27.2
East India 17.8 32.1 29.9 36.1 49.7 49.5 49.8 41.6 44.4
Jharkhand 14.8 24.3 25.6 30.3 45.0 44.7 45.8 36.5 29.4
Orissa 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.8 1.3

1.7 1.7
West Bengal 2.0 7.1 3.3 5.0 2.9 3.5 3.9 3.5 13.3
North India 90.4 185.1 163.2 210.0 290.3 328.4 391.8 325.1 313.2
Delhi 0.1 4.3 3.5 3.9 4.6 7.6 1.1 6.1 3.7
Haryana 34.8 103.5 64.0 86.3 117.8 156.3 212.6 146.2 135.2
Himachal Pradesh 0.7 1.2 1.7 2.0 1.0 1.1 1.9 3.7 3.6
Punjab 6.3 10.9 17.2 22.7 28.2 21.2 37.0 32.4 24.9
Uttar Pradesh 43.6 59.9 70.1 85.2 125.9 125.9 119.5 117.6 126.0
Uttarakhand 4.9 5.3 6.8 9.9 12.7 16.3 19.7 19.0 19.7
South India 43.1 58.9 65.7 88.9 96.5 115.2 124.3 126.2 151.7
Andhra Pradesh 3.7 3.0 4.6 5.2 6.6 9.4 10.2 8.8 9.7
Karnataka 11.5 13.6 18.9 17.3 21.1 24.3 31.6 34.7 37.1
Kerala 0.0 0.7 0.0

1.1 1.0

1.1
Pondicherry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Tamil Nadu 28.0 41.5 42.2 66.4 67.7 80.5 82.6 82.7 103.7
West India 73.6 89.3 108.8 101.3 128.9 158.7 164.1 165.0 176.0
Daman & Diu

0.0 0.0 0.0
Goa 1.2 1.7 1.6 0.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.3
Gujarat 2.9 6.0 8.6 3.4 7.3 13.7 17.8 9.0 21.1
Maharashtra 59.8 68.8 83.8 82.0 98.1 116.6 117.3 126.6 129.0
Rajasthan 9.8 12.8 14.8 15.6 22.4 27.1 27.9 28.4 25.6
Grand Total 229.8 371.0 374.7 447.1 576.5 666.1 744.4 673.1 712.6
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.


Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

165

Table A15 (contd)
Exports of Transport Equipment by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India 23.8 16.2 7.7 6.8 7.5 20.5 32.5 46.8 52.1
Madhya Pradesh 23.8 16.2 7.7 6.8 7.5 20.5 32.5 46.8 52.1
East India 45.2 41.0 34.1 31.5 66.2 91.2 138.2 182.0 181.3
Jharkhand 33.9 38.4 32.0 26.4 56.8 83.5 129.4 168.7 165.0
Orissa 1.7

3.7 7.9 5.7 6.9 10.9 13.0
West Bengal 9.6 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.5 2.0 1.9 2.5 3.3
North India 318.9 289.6 220.5 346.8 587.7 766.0 811.1 1091.1 1151.2
Delhi 8.2 7.2 3.2 1.3 35.3 34.8 40.7 64.2 0.9
Haryana 116.4 95.6 81.8 198.7 308.1 380.2 330.3 402.8 403.3
Himachal Pradesh 3.6 3.2 3.0 2.9 7.5 15.2 22.5 43.3 43.9
Punjab 25.8 29.4 21.0 26.8 21.2 30.5 24.9 30.4 28.1
Uttar Pradesh 147.9 138.1 93.8 88.2 178.6 251.8 325.3 461.0 459.8
Uttarakhand 17.0 16.1 17.6 28.9 37.0 53.4 67.3 89.6 215.2
South India 168.8 215.0 249.9 348.2 571.3 927.5 1107.2 1562.1 730.5
Andhra Pradesh 14.1 22.1 28.2 32.9 37.9 39.9 45.6 52.5 59.4
Karnataka 34.4 36.8 32.9 48.9 70.7 94.5 105.6 166.3 178.0
Kerala

0.2 1.6 9.1 1.4 21.4 41.4 122.5

Pondicherry 0.0

Tamil Nadu 120.3 155.9 187.1 257.3 461.3 771.7 914.6 1220.8 493.1
West India 166.4 195.2 154.1 288.8 384.5 543.5 692.3 982.0 1501.5
Daman & Diu 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7
Goa 0.6

0.0 0.1 0.1 16.9 15.0
Gujarat 18.5 21.9 6.8 53.6 57.2 53.9 72.2 109.2 86.8
Maharashtra 129.4 150.7 124.9 205.3 291.5 432.7 559.7 757.4 1297.6
Rajasthan 17.9 22.5 22.2 29.7 35.5 56.5 60.0 97.8 101.4
Grand Total 723.3 757.0 666.2 1022.1 1617.2 2348.6 2781.2 3864.0 3616.4
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.

JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
166
Table A16
Exports of Wood & Wood Products by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Central India

0.4 0.2 0.0

Chhattisgarh

0.4 0.2 0.0

Madhya Pradesh

East India

0.1 1.1 2.3 1.0 0.7 0.5 1.3
Orissa

0.1 0.9 2.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0
West Bengal

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.4 1.3
North India 0.3 0.4 0.2 2.1 3.4 4.3 2.9 2.2 1.7
Haryana 0.0 0.0

0.0 1.4 2.7 0.7 0.1 0.0
Uttar Pradesh 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.1 1.8 1.2 1.9 1.3 0.4
Uttarakhand

0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.3
Northeast India 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.4 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.7 2.1
Assam 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.4 1.9 1.8 2.8 1.3 1.4
South India 0.8 0.6 0.7 5.1 5.3 3.5 4.1 3.1 3.3
Andhra Pradesh

2.8 2.9 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.4
Karnataka

Kerala 0.7 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5
Tamil Nadu

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.2
West India 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.1 1.9 1.4 2.5 3.2 3.1
Maharashtra 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.1 1.8 1.2 2.4 2.8 2.5
Rajasthan

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7
Grand Total 1.6 1.6 1.4 12.8 14.9 12.5 13.4 10.7 11.5
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

167

Table A16 (contd)
Exports of Wood & Wood Products by Indian States, 19912008, US$ million.
Region/state
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Central India

1.6 1.8 0.1 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.6
Chhattisgarh

0.1 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.6
Madhya Pradesh

1.6 1.8

East India 1.2 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.7 3.1
Orissa

West Bengal 1.2 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.7 3.1
North India 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.5 2.2 2.5 4.1 4.4
Haryana

0.0 0.1 0.5 1.4 1.8
Uttar Pradesh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

0.0 0.0
Uttarakhand 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.7
Northeast India 2.1 1.2 1.7 1.3 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.3
Assam 1.7 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.1

0.0 0.0
South India 2.5 1.1 1.5 5.5 6.0 8.0 10.9 18.6 10.9
Andhra Pradesh

Karnataka

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Kerala 1.2 0.4 0.5 1.7 1.7 0.2 3.5 2.6 3.0
Tamil Nadu 1.2 0.7 1.1 3.9 4.3 7.6 7.3 15.9 7.9
West India 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.3 3.6 5.1 3.9 5.6 8.8
Maharashtra 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.7 2.9 4.1 2.9 4.2 7.5
Rajasthan 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.3
Grand Total 9.3 6.2 9.3 14.2 12.8 18.4 20.3 33.5 29.2
Note & Source: Same as Table-A1.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
168

ECONference 2013
6
th
International Conference

Development, Environment and Sustainable Livelihood

January 18-19, 2013

organised by
Department of Economics, University of Burdwan


Call for Papers
The 6
th
International Conference organised by the Department of Economics,
University of Burdwan, shall be held during January 18-19, 2013 at the
university campus in Burdwan. Papers (not exceeding 35 pages including
graphs and tables) are invited on the four broad themes of the conference:
a) Natural Resources and Livelihood
b) Economics of Farm and Non-farm Sector
c) Trade Openness and Growth
d) Gender and Other Issues

An Abstract within 150 words, Sub-theme under which the paper comes,
Contact address with Telephone number and email address, and the institutional
affiliation of the author(s) must reach the Convener of the Conference by 17th
December, 2012.
Electronic Version (MSWord 2007 format) of the full paper must reach the
Convener at the address given below by 7th January, 2013.

The Convener, Conference Sub-Committee, Department of Economics,
University of Burdwan, Golapbag, Burdwan 713104, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: econ.conference.bu@gmail.com
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

169
RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABILITY AND WELLBEING
S. Chakraborty
1
, A. Baksi
2
and A. K. Verma
3


The income poverty of a household does not only depend upon its income but it also depends upon
its capability to develop suitable functionings and infrastructure, both physical and soft, plays a
vital role in it. Another important factor in poverty reduction programme is the generation and
availability of decent works. There is no denial of the fact that income plays an important role in
poverty reduction, but it is not the sole factor. The earning of a person depends on the types of
work she/he is performing and the choice that a person would make among available alternatives
depends upon her/his functionings. The infrastructure plays a crucial role in decision making
process of a worker and in turn in reduction of income poverty. This paper tries to identify the
relationship between poverty, employment and infrastructure based on data of rural India. The
proposed methodology can be replicated in the rural sector of any developing economy. Here first
we identified some core facilities (infrastructures) which are available in villages and then
develop a village facility index to get an idea of their availability. The villages are then
categorized based on the index and related socio-economic profiles for each category of villages
are analysed to get an idea of overall wellbeing of the rural folks in India.

INTRODUCTION
Analytical examination of development policies and processes in a developing country generally
puts lot of importance on poverty reduction, especially income poverty, and therefore studies the
trends of the basic indicators like Head Count Ratio or Per Capita Consumption Expenditure.
Generally the idea of capability deprivation is ignored owing to lack of data or ambiguity of its
concept. However, this approach confines the analysis to only instruments rather than the
process itself. Recent discussion on Capability Deprivation and Capability measure of
multidimensional poverty argues that income poverty of a household does not only depend upon
its derived income but also on its capability to develop suitable functionings which in turn will
increase the households possibilities of earning a sustainable income. To develop the functioning
of an individual, environment plays a vital role environment here meaning economic & business
environment including availability of basic facilities like health care system, educational
institutions, financial institutions, roads, electricity, telecommunications, etc. The role of these
amenities, also called infrastructure, in reduction of income poverty is well established and is more
important in developing countries where a large section of population lives in rural area without
sufficient access to basic facilities as compared to their urban counterpart.
The term infrastructure can be broadly classified as physical infrastructure and soft
infrastructure. While by physical infrastructure we mean those infrastructures which are
tangible, soft infrastructure generally signifies the intangible one. For example while an all
weather road is a physical infrastructure, availability of health facility is a soft infrastructure.

1
Corresponding Author: Joint Director, Survey Design and Research Division, National Sample Survey
Office, 164, G.L.T. Road, Kolkata-700108, India, E- mail: bubaihashi@gmail.com
2
Director, Survey Design and Research Division, National Sample Survey Office, 164, G.L.T. Road, Kolkata-
700108, India, E-mail: ajay_baksi@rediffmail.com
3
Deputy Director General, Data Processing Division, National Sample Survey Office, 164, G.L.T. Road,
Kolkata-700108, India, e-mail: issa_verma@rediffmail.com
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
170
Although the role of infrastructure in poverty reduction is well established, its influence is not a
linear one. Its often problematic to get a direct causal relationship between them. While good
infrastructure stimulates growth and therefore enhance the chance of a person to become a non-
poor following relative definition of poverty; the growth itself can be used as an impetus of
infrastructural development. And this circular relationship quintessentially exists in all developing
economies.
Another important factor in poverty reduction programmes is the generation and availability of
decent works. A household can escape the spider web of poverty if and only if it earns sufficient
money to sustain in long run. The relative concept of poverty, giving sole emphasis only on
earnings, often misses the long run perspectives. There is no denial that income plays an important
role in poverty reduction, but it is not the only factor. The earning of a person depends on the
types of work he/she is performing and the type of work a person has depends upon the
environment in which he/she develop his/her different functionings which are suitable to get a
decent work. In developing economies, a considerable portion of rural workforce works either in
agriculture sector or works as self-employed. The choice that a person would make among
different available alternatives depends upon his/her capabilities to work. The infrastructures, both
physical and soft, influence this choice process. Thus infrastructure plays a crucial role in decision
making process of a worker and in turn in reduction of income poverty.
The relationship between poverty, infrastructure and employment was studied by different authors
and donor agencies at different point of time. All of these studies identified the positive role of
infrastructure on generation of employment and reduction of poverty. Ifzal and Ernesto (2003)
observed that poverty reduction requires economic growth which, when accompanied by sound
macroeconomic management and good governance, results in sustainable and socially inclusive
development. Also it was observed that greater access of the poor to education and health services,
water and sanitation, employment, credit, and markets for produce is needed. Moreover, the
vulnerability of the poor to economic shocks and natural disasters must be reduced to enhance
their well-being and encourage investment in human capital and in higher-risk and higher-return
activities.
Public policy reforms and investment in physical infrastructure will significantly contribute to the
pursuit of socially inclusive development. Two schools of thought emerged in the 1990s regarding
physical infrastructure and poverty reduction. On one hand, great importance was attached to
physical infrastructure in the poverty reduction efforts of developing countries; on the other hand,
many in the international development community viewed assistance for infrastructure with
considerable scepticism on three grounds (Masika and Baden, 1997). First, though important for
economic growth, infrastructure investment had little relevance to poverty reduction. Second,
actual benefits from infrastructure were significantly less than anticipated. Third, weak
governance and institutions gave way to corruption, distorted public investment choices, and
neglected maintenance, thereby lowering infrastructures contribution to economic growth and
diverting benefits intended for the poor. Nevertheless, there is now wider recognition, including in
the international donor community, that if governance and institutional frameworks are
strengthened, the linkage between infrastructure and reduction of poverty can become stronger.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

171
In this paper we have tried to identify the relationship between infrastructure, employment
opportunities and level of living in rural India. The methodology described here can be replicated
for any developing economy. We have identified some core infrastructures which are critical for
development of rural economy. These infrastructures are both physical as well as soft. We then
develop a basic infrastructure index which gives an idea of the level of infrastructural
development of each village. The villages are then categorized based on the index and
employment profiles for each category of villages are presented. Finally expenditure pattern of
households among different categories of villages are analysed. These are then collated to examine
whether there exists any linkage between different categories (in respect of availability of
infrastructural facilities) of villages and their employment profile as well as consumption level.
This paper thus attempts to empirically test the hypothesis that regional development depends
critically on the infrastructural level of the region.
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
The objective of this study was to find out whether there is any relationship between
infrastructure, employment opportunities and level of living. The infrastructure, both physical and
soft, being a primary vehicle of development has the capacity to increase the functional
capabilities of individuals and therefore, it enhances their chance of living a quality life. It is true
that in the developing countries, a person in rural area can not choose to remain unemployed
because of financial constraints of their respective families. And therefore the incidence of child
labours and underemployment is also very high in these areas. But a person equipped with better
functionality, can expect to get a decent work in comparison to a person without it.
To be equipped with better functionality which may suit the labour market, a person needs some
basic facilities like education and health from the very beginning of his/her life. A person with
feeble health and without basic education has a lower chance of getting a decent work which is
sufficient to meet the needs of his/her family. To be able to access the basic education and existing
health facilities, a family at the same time needs the presence of some physical and financial
infrastructural facilities like metalled roads, basic sanitation, electricity, fair price shop, co-
operative banks etc. at their place of residence. Thus there exists a simultaneous relationship
between all types of these basic facilities and one cannot solely influence other; but they all
influence each other at the same point of time and making the relationship interesting one.
In this analysis, as our interest rests on villages and villagers of India; we broadly identified four
core facilities which a villager must have to equip themselves with better functionality. These
core facilities are (A) health facility, (B) education facility, (C) financial facility and (D) physical
infrastructure facility. The first three relates with soft infrastructure while the last one is
physical infrastructure. The composition of each of these core facilities is as follows:
(A) Medical facilities includes
1. Health sub-centre/dispensary
2. Primary health centre
3. Community health centre
4. Government hospital
5. ICDS
6. Private clinic/doctor
7. Medicine shop
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
172
(B) Education facility includes
1. Schools having primary level classes
2. Schools having secondary level classes
3. Higher secondary school / junior college
(C) Financial facility includes
1. Fair price shop
2. Cooperative credit society
3. Commercial bank
4. Agricultural produce market / rural primary market
5. Fertilizer / pesticide shop
(D) Physical infrastructure facility includes
1. Metalled road
2. Electricity connection
3. Type of drainage arrangement
Based on these core facilities, first we assessed the relative position of each village in India and to
do this, we develop village facility index for each village. We first assign a score for each sub-
facility and then convert them to normalized score to obtain their relative position. Based on this
normalized scores, we obtain an average score for each core facility. Keeping in mind the
differential importance of each core facility, we assign separate weight to them and compute
village facilities index of a village as a weighted mean of average scores of core facilities with
respect to that village.
Let us define,
=
ijk
s score of the j
th
sub facilities among i
th
core facility in k
th
village
i = 1,2,, I; j = 1,2,,J, k = 1,2,,K
S
i
= set of all possible scores of j
th
sub-facility among i
th
core facility = } ,.. 2 , 1 ; { J j s
ij
=

The normalized score of j
th
sub-facility among i
th
core facility in k
th
village is

;
} min{ } max(
} min{
i i
i
S j
ijk
S j
ijk
ijk
S j
ijk
ijk
s s
s s

=

J i j I i
ijk
,.. 2 , ; .... 2 , 1 1 0 = =

And the average score of i
th
core facility for k
th
village will be
J
d
J
j
ijk
ik

=
=
1


Defining,
i
w = weight of i
th
core facility with 1
1
=

=
I
i
i
w

; for k
th
village, we will get village
facilities index as

=
=
I
i
ik i k
d w V
1

Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

173
The villages are then categorised on the basis of village facility index. The more the value, the
better is the relative position of that village. We divide the state of facility in a village based on

=
=
I
i
ki i k
d w V
1
as follows:
Table 1
State of facilities in a village based on
Village Facility Index
V
k
State of facilities
0.0 0.20 Poor
0.20 0.50 Marginally Good
0.50 0.80 Good
0.80 1.0 Very good

Here we had to choose the weights keeping in mind the relative importance of core facilities. To
enhance the functionality of an individual, the importance of basic health and education is
unquestionable. Also if India needs to meet several Millennium Development Goals by 2015, no
one can argue the importance of basic health and education in its rural heartland and the same is
true for all developing economies. In our analysis we use the following weighting diagram for
core facilities:
Table 2
Weights for each core facility
w value
weight for medical facility (w
1
) 0.3
weight for education facility (w
2
) 0.3
weight for financial facility (w
3
) 0.2
weight for physical infrastructure facility (w
4
) 0.2

As discussed, to obtain the village facility index we have used different scores for each of sub-
facilities. The detailed score structure of each facility is described in Table 3.
THE DATA
The paper uses unit level Village Schedule data from the 66
th
round survey of National Sample
Survey Office in India on Household Consumer Expenditure and Employment and
Unemployment held during July 2009 to June 2010. The area coverage of the survey was whole
of the Indian Union except (i) interior villages of Nagaland situated beyond five kms of the bus
route and (ii) villages in Andaman and Nicobar Islands which remain inaccessible throughout the
year. A stratified multi-stage design had been adopted in the 66
th
round survey. The first stage
units (FSU) were the 2001 census villages (Panchayat wards in case of Kerala) in the rural sector
and Urban Frame Survey (UFS) blocks in the urban sector. In addition, two non-UFS towns of
Leh and Kargil of Jammu & Kashmir were also treated as FSUs in the urban sector. The ultimate
stage units (USU) were households in both the sectors. In case of large FSUs, one intermediate
stage of sampling was the selection of two hamlet-groups (hgs)/ sub-blocks (sbs) from each rural/
urban FSU. The survey period of one year were divided in to four sub-rounds of three months
duration each starting from July 2009 September 2009. In each of these four sub-rounds, equal
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
174
number of sample villages/ blocks (FSUs) was allotted for survey with a view to ensure uniform
spread of sample FSUs over the entire survey period.
Table 3
Score structure of each facility
Core facility Sub-facility Codes with description Scores
Medical
facilities
Health sub-
centre/dispensary
Within village

Outside village: less than 5 kms away

Outside village: 5 kms or more away
3

2

1
Primary health centre
Community health centre
Government hospital
ICDS
Private clinic/doctor
Medicine shop
Educational
Facilities
Primary Schools
Secondary Schools
Hr Sec School / Junior
College
Economic
Facilities
Fair price shop
Cooperative credit society
Commercial bank
Agricultural produce
market / rural primary
market
Fertilizer / pesticide shop
Physical
Facilities
Metalled road
Electricity connection
More than 50% households electrified
25-50% households electrified
Less than 25% households electrified
Village not electrified
4
3
2
1
Type of drainage
arrangement
Underground
covered pucca
open pucca
open katcha
no drainage
5
4
3
2
1

During this round, three schedules of enquiry were canvassed by NSSO enumerators. These
schedules were (i) Schedule 0.0: list of households, (ii) Schedule 1.0: consumer expenditure and
(iii) Schedule 10: employment and unemployment. In schedule 0.0 an attempt was made to collect
information on the availability of some specific facilities like communication, educational
institutions, health institutions, banks, credit societies, drainage, participation in NREG works etc.
in rural FSUs (villages). If a facility was available in general to the residents of a village, it was
considered as a facility. The required information was obtained by contacting the village officials
and/ or other knowledgeable person(s) and in case of their non-awareness, the relevant information
was collected from the nearest Block Development Officer or other related government agencies.
In our analysis, from the surveyed data we identified the above discussed four core facilities and
related sub-facilities. Only those villages were considered where information was available for all
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

175
facilities. For a particular village if there was any item specific non-response in any of the
facilities, the information on that village was altogether dropped. Thus we consider only those
villages for which information for all facilities were available. Therefore while in this survey 7320
number of villages was surveyed, our analysis is based on 7301 number of sample villages. Using
proper multiplier, we then derive all the estimates.
Village Facilities: Overview
We first compute the village facility index for each village in India to assess the existing state of
facilities there. Table 4 shows the percentage distribution of villages in India categorized by state
of facilities.
Table 4
Distribution of villages in India on basis of state of facilities during 2009-10

State of facilities Estimated no of
villages
Percentage of villages
Poor 57633 8.7
Marginally Good 423854 64.0
Good 170652 25.8
Very good 9796 1.5
All 661934 100
Source: Authors calculations based on data source mentioned in text
The table gives a very interesting picture. While only 8.7 percentage villages are facility wise
poor, which is a good sign of development; the fact that as big as 64 percentage of villages have
only marginally good facilities is very alarming. Extending the argument little further, if we add
poor facility with marginally good facility, we find that the existing facilities are not even
good for almost 73 per cent of villages of India. And the lack of infrastructure development on
those villages is bound to hurt the development of its inhabitants.
Generally in developing countries it is observed that there is a tendency for people with lesser
fortune, both in terms of income and social position, stays in the lesser developed area. To get an
idea of it we compute the distribution of households of these villages by their social status and
religion. Here we prepare two sets of tables in each case. In the first set, we identify the
households by the facility index of their respective villages and then cross tabulate the households
according to their religion and social class. Table 5 and Table 6 show the percentage distribution
of households among different religious groups categorized by facilities in the villages and
percentage distribution of households among different social groups categorized by facilities in
the villages .
It can be observed that there is no difference among villagers having access to different facilities if
we classify them on basis of their religious beliefs. Although it is customary to believe that one or
two particular religious group stays in a lesser developed area, the data seems to be in completely
disagreement with it. But there really exist some alarming feature when we look in to the matter
through the lens of social classes. While only 13 per cent of schedule tribes households are staying
in a village which can be considered facility wise good or very good, it is true for 57 per cent
households who belongs to general category. Thus there seems to be a clustering among social
groups and backward classes are staying in backward regions.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
176
Table 5
Distribution of households by religious groups in villages of India during 2009-10
State of facilities Hindu Muslim Christian Others Total
Poor 82 13 3 2 100
Marginally good 85 11 1 1 100
Good 82 11 2 4 100
Very good 81 13 2 3 100
All 84 12 2 3 100
Source: Authors calculations based on data source mentioned in text
Table 6
Distribution of households by social groups in villages of India during 2009-10
State of facilities ST SC OBC General Total
Poor 35 16 30 18 100
Marginally good 14 22 43 22 100
Good 7 22 44 27 100
Very good 6 21 42 30 100
All 11 22 43 25 100
Source: Authors calculations based on data source mentioned in text
To get an idea of this clustering, in the second set, we identify the households by their religion and
social groups and then cross tabulate them on the basis of the facility indices of their respective
villages. Table 7 and Table 8 show the percentage distribution of households having a particular
type of village facilities categorized by different religious groups and percentage distribution of
households having a particular type of village facilities categorized by different social groups.
Table 7
Distribution of village types by religious groups 2009-10
State of facilities Hindu Muslim Christian Others Aggregate
Poor 4 4 7 3 4
Marginally good 44 43 32 25 43
Good 43 43 53 61 44
Very good 8 9 8 11 8
All 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Authors calculations based on data source mentioned in text
Table 7 shows that both Hindu and Muslim households behave similarly at the all India level. Out
of 100 Hindu/Muslim households, 4 were staying on those villages which had poor facilities.
The data reveals that 7 percent of Christian households were staying in villages having poor
facilities. Therefore, from Table 5 and 7, it can be concluded that there does not exists ay
clustering among households having a particular villages to stay a particular type of villages.
Table 8 shows a quite different status. As in Table 6, Table 8 clearly indicates a clustering among
deprived social groups to stay in a more disadvantaged condition. The table shows that while only
3 percent of SCT/OBC/General households were staying in a poor facility village during 2009-
10, the same is true for 13 percent of ST households, which is more than 3 times of
SC/OBC/General households.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

177
Table 8
Distribution of village types by social groups 2009-10
State of facilities ST SC OBC General Aggregate
Poor 13 3 3 3 4
Marginally good 54 43 43 38 43
Good 27 45 45 49 44
Very good 5 8 8 10 8
All 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Authors calculations based on data source mentioned in text
These two sets of tables are indicating that there exists a clustering among social groups and
backward classes and they are more prone to stay in more backward regions. The agenda of so
called inclusive growth seems to defy its very basic objective and benefit of growth is not
distributed judiciously across the social fabric. And because of this lesser infrastructural
development, the inhabitants of these villages are lagging behind in living a decent life. The basic
hindrance of getting basic facilities is making them more vulnerable in the job market and in the
process a great amount of human resources are either not used at all or get wasted.
Linkage with wellbeing
Does the level of facilities have any bearing on the wellbeing of the rural mass? To examine this
issue we can look at the employment profile and the consumption pattern of the villages with
different levels of facilities.
Therefore we look at the employment opportunities that villagers in India can ascertain and try to
assess whether there is any relationship between infrastructures (measured by village facility
index) of a village with employment scenario among inhabitants of that village. To do this we
categorize the villages on the basis of state of facilities and compute labour force participation rate
(LFPR) and work force participation rate (WPR) based on current weekly status. The LFPR is
defined as the ratio between the number of persons in the labour force and population; while WPR
is defined as the ratio between number of workers and the population, also called Employment
Rate in common parley.
Table 9
Interlinkage between Rural Facilities and Well Being during 2009-10
State of facilities
LFPR
(%)
WPR
(%)
Avg. MPCE
(URP)
Poor 37.51 36.80 683
Marginally good 39.35 38.17 839
Good 39.53 38.08 1008
Very good 41.02 39.56 1085
All 39.39 38.08 928
Source: Authors calculations based on data source mentioned in text
Table 9 above shows an interesting trend. LFPR, being an indicator of employment opportunities,
is very high for the villagers having very good facilities but it is comparably low for the villagers
having poor facilities. The difference is in tune of 3.5 percentage points, which is quite alarming
keeping in view the total rural population of the country. Had there been a proper infrastructural
development, there might be a higher participation in the labour force. Thus one can infer that
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
178
quite a significant proportion of rural population is missing the employment opportunities because
of lesser infrastructural development on their villages.
The trend is similar if we consider WPR or Employment Rate. In this case too, employment rate in
villages with poor infrastructural facilities is lower by at least 3 percentage points compared to the
villages with better facilities. It is thus evident that rural population is denied of getting
remunerative jobs because of lower infrastructural development.
Two important aspects of well being labour force participation and employment availability
therefore suffers in regions with lower infrastructural facilities.
The interlinkage between rural facilities and well being will be clearer if we look at the average
consumption level in different type of villages. To ascertain the relationship between the
infrastructural development and the level of living of the villagers in India, we compute the
average monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) of the households belonging to each category of
villages. Table 7 indicates that while a typical household living in a village with poor facilities
has a monthly consumption expenditure in tune of Rs 683 per month, the same is Rs 1085 for a
typical household residing in a village with very good facilities. Thus relative inequality across
space is quite high as households in villages having very good facility can actually expend one
and half times more than households staying in a village with poor facilities. This has serious
implications for regional disparity and the policies for balanced regional development.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The result shows that there are linkages between infrastructure of a village and level of living of
its inhabitants. The villagers of a village with good or very good infrastructure has a better
chance to live a more decent life than their counterparts who lives in villages with either poor or
marginally good infrastructures. The better facility (infrastructure wise) one gets, the better one
earns and lives. The gap between poorly facilitated villagers and the villagers having very good
facilities is of considerable amount in some cases. Although the schedule tribes and schedule
castes are more deprived than others, there is no such disparity among religious groups. A detailed
level analysis at state level may depicts more interesting scenario. Also if one does this analysis
over different NSS rounds, the impact of liberalization and trickledown effect of growth can be
ascertained in rural India. In addition, this paper is only an indicative study that brings out the
richness of database available from NSSO and how several important socioeconomic interlinkages
can be tested using this database. Further detailed research on this issue will throw more light on
the importance of infrastrcuture in poverty alleviation through better job creation.
________________________________
[The views expressed are of the authors solely and not of the organization they are working. The
authors are indebted to the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions.]
Reference
Ali Ifzal and Pernia M. Ernesto (2003): Infrastructure and Poverty Reduction: What is the Connection? Asian
Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.
Government of India (2011): Employment and Unemployment Situation in India, 2009-10, NSS Report
Number 537, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, New Delhi.
Government of India (2011): Level and Pattern of Consumer Expenditure, 2009-10, NSS Report Number
538, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, New Delhi.
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

179
Masika R. and Baden S. (1997): Infrastructure and Poverty: A Gender Analysis, Institute of Development
Studies, University of Sussex, United Kingdom.
Mohanan P.C. and Chakrabortty S. (2008): Inter-state comparisons of housing conditions-a study based on
NSS 58th round, Sarvekshana, 94
th
Issue, Vol XXVIII, No. 3 & 4, New Delhi.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
180

BOOK REVIEW
An Introduction to Development and Regional Planning with special reference to
India; Jayasri Ray Choudhuri; 483 pages; Price: ` `` ` 250; ISBN 81-250-1880-8

The book under review is on Development and Regional Planning with special reference to India.
The book is mainly focused on comprehensive analysis of planning at both micro and macro level.
The book also highlights the various theories and concept of development. Starting from the
concept of development, in the twelve chapters of the book, the author has discussed the models of
economic and regional growth and their application in Indian context.
The first chapter of the book elucidates the different definition of the term development and its
measures. The chapter also discusses classification of the countries of the world on the basis of
development level. As a way to measure the development level of a nation, the author has made a
critical discussion of the Human Development Index. Classification of the countries has also been
discussed according to the views of different economists and also in terms of the score of Human
Development Index.
The second chapter of the book is on the concept of region and regional planning. This chapter
also discusses the methods through which a geographical area can be divided into several regions.
The concept of micro level planning has been introduced in terms of development planning within
state by forming a district, sub-division, block etc. Lastly, this chapter focuses on the various types
of planning from both short run and long run perspective.
The third chapter of the book discusses the concept of urban and urbanization. Defining the
concept Urban, several criteria for delimiting urban areas has also been discussed. In this context,
that is, to define urban area, along with Indian census, some other international comparison to
define urban area has also been discussed. The next section of this chapter speaks on the
significance of urbanization is closely related to development. Lastly, in this chapter an attempt
has been made to group and classify urban settlements in various ways so as to help the policy
makers and planners.
The fourth chapter of the book is on hierarchy of settlements. Classification of settlements has
been discussed in terms of the hierarchical structure of megapolis. Discussing on various theories
on urban hierarchy the author has tried to give an insight to the system of urban hierarchy in India.
At the end of the chapter, the significance of settlement hierarchy in context of planning is
discussed with the context of identification of settlement hierarchy would be very helpful for the
purpose of regional planning.
The fifth chapter of the book explains the idea of metropolis and metropolitan area. Using the
historical idea of settlements, the introduction of the chapter clearly describes the development of
metropolis in certain steps; rural to urban migration and the emergence of cities-crowd in the city
and resulting like in cost of living development of sub urban area and wave of reverse migration
from cities to sub urban area, resulting decentralization. After defining the structure of a
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

181
metropolis, the chapter introduces the concept of primate city and mega city and discusses on the
role of primate city and mega city in economic development.
The sixth chapter of the book is on the development of linkage between rural and urban and the
expected impact of this interlinkage on the two settlements in socio-economic and physical terms.
Discussing various theories of economic growth, the chapter tries to highlight the types of linkages
between rural and urban that were used in growth models to show the way to development.
In the seventh chapter of the book the author has highlighted migration of human capital and
associated classification of population mobility. Using various theories of migration the author has
talked about the consequences of migration in both source area and in destination area in terms of
various indicators, such as income, wage, employment, income distribution. At the end of the
chapter, after having a discussion on the overall trend of migration in India since Independence the
author has come across the conclusion that the development of migration linkage is crucial for the
development of an economy and the dynamics of this migration has to be given due to attention
while formulating policies of economic development.
In the eight chapter of the book the author has discussed the effect of this development procedure
in environment, bringing the concept of sustainable development. Considering development in two
spheres, namely Agricultural Development and Industrial Development, this chapter highlighted
the problem of depletion of natural resources and also the increased level of pollution in the
various components of environment (water, air etc) due to the growth of the economy. The main
idea of this chapter is maintaining a balance between development and environment by the way of
technological innovation and controlling environment.
The next chapter is focused on development through Five Year Planning in India. Planning
process of the Indian economy has been discussed from the pre-British Economy to post
Independence planning. Author also focuses on the trade oriented policy of the British
Government. After discussing each and every plan after independency the author also highlighted
the problem of corruption and suggests some policies.
After giving the idea of development through planning process, in the tenth chapter of the book
the author has discussed the concept of regional development and disparity in development.
Explain the idea of balanced and unbalanced growth the chapter has discussed the regional
disparities across states of India in terms of disparities in agricultural and industrial development,
disparities in social sector development and disparities in economic growth by using several
economic indicators.
In the eleventh chapter of the book the author has discussed the necessity of rural development and
various rural development programs which have important role in overall economic growth. These
sorts of programs are land revenue, green revolution, agricultural subsidy, wage employment
program, self employment program, non-employment program, environment program, and
education oriented program, etc.
The last chapter of the book speaks of the need for urbanization and accordingly policies taken for
urban development. Policies regarding urbanization has been discussed for every five year plan
and finally an analysis has been made of the polices taken in the eighth five year plan. Those
policies are namely, policies for the alteration of city size distribution, development of urban
infrastructure and poverty and development Program.
JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
182
Overall, the book has improved the concept of regional planning and thereby the process of rural-
urban development in a quite elaborative way. Though this book is not a recent one, and the
emprirical exercise are quite dated, it should be taken as a primary learning tool for theoretical
ideas about planning from regional point of view with special reference to developing countries
where regional inequality acts as a drawback to development. Theoretical conceptualizations along
with some empirical evidences discussed in various chapters of the book have enriched the book
to speak on various stages of development in both rural and urban region. Apart from that the
book is very useful to understand the role of planning in regional development. At last, the book
leaves scope for further study with empirical work by using some example of micro level thought
in rural and urban area.

Tanushree De
Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012

183
INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
Manuscripts should be between 5000 and 8000 words accompanied by an abstract/summary of NOT MORE
THAN 250 words and a short biographical note, submitted electronically to jrdp.india@gmail.com.
Contributors should note that they are addressing a diverse audience of academicians, policy makers,
administrators and development practitioners.
The manuscript should conform to the template and house style given here, including page size and margins
(page size 10 inches long and 7.5 inches wide, with 1 inch wide margin all around). For detailed template see
the journal website www.jrdp.in
1. Apart from the article/paper, the contributions should include: (i) the name(s) of the author(s); (ii)
the latters professional affiliations; (iii) an abstract of the paper in not more than 150 words; (iv) a
Reference list at the end containing details of all the References quoted in the paper.
2. Spellings: Use British spellings throughout, not American spellings.
3. Notes: These should be numbered serially in the text and expanded in the same chronological order at the
end of the text in the form of Endnotes.
4. Quotations: Use double quotation marks for the entire quotation, reserving single quotation marks for
quoted words within a quotation. The spellings of words in the quotation should be retained as in the
original. In case of long quotations (50 or more words), the quotation should be broken off from the text
and indented 0.5 inch on the left, with a 1.5 line space above and below the quotation.
5. Italics: Avoid italicising words frequently as that affects readability. Italics should be used only for book
titles, journal names, foreign words (like panchayat, bania, guru, etc.), and if a particular word needs
to be emphasised.
6. Hyphenation: Use hyphens consistently throughout the article. For instance, words like macro-
economic, micro-credit, sub-sets, long-term, short-term, short-circuit, etc., if hyphenated once,
should be hyphenated throughout the text.
7. Capitals: Capital letters should be used sparingly throughout the article as that affects readability.
Numbers: Generally, numbers from one to ten should be spelt out. Numbers above ten should be given in
figures. However, if several numbers occur in a sentence or paragraph, all of them should be in figures,
for easy readability. In case of units or percentages, all numbers should be in figures. For instance, 3 km.,
5 kg., 8 per cent, etc. In case of percentages, the word per cent should be spelt out in the text, but the
symbol % can be used in tables, graphs, figures and equations. In case of large numbers, use only
millions and thousands, not lakhs and crores.
8. Abbreviations: All abbreviations such as pp., vol., no., Dr., Mr., edn., eds., etc. must end
with a full stop. There should also be full stops between initials of names, such as V.K. Seth, G.K.
Chadha, D.N. Reddy, etc. However, in case of well known acronyms like USA, UK, UNO, etc. there
should not be full stops between the initials. All acronyms should be spelt out at the place of first
occurrence with the acronym given in brackets. Subsequently only the acronym can be used. For instance,
at the place of first usage, write Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY), but subsequently, write only JRY.
9. Dates: Specific dates should be written as, for instance, November 9, 2002. Decades should be referred to
as the 1980s, 1990s, etc. The names of years should be in figures (1998, 2002, etc.), but the names of
centuries should be spelt out (twentieth century, twenty-first century, etc.).
10. Figures and Tables: Number each figure and table. All figures and tables should appear at the relevant
places in the text and not at the end of the article. All figures and tables should be referred to by their
numbers in the text (for instance, Refer to Table 1, Please see Figure 3, etc.). The titles of the tables
and figures should be brief and to the point. The Source and Notes, if any, should be given at the bottom
of the table or figure. Within the table or figure, numbers should be given in digits, not spelt out. Symbols
like per cent, &, # should be used, where required, within the table or figure.
11. Tables should be typed in Times New Roman 9 point font with Table Footnote in Times New Roman 8
point font, drawn in MS Word native format and not pasted from other applications like MS Excel.
12. Tables/Figures should be contained within the writable area of the page: should not be more than 5 inches
wide and 7.5 inches in length. Tables/Figures should not break across pages. Long Tables should be
manually divided into continuing parts, repeating headers for each part.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen