Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Presentation by
Priya Basu
The World Bank
I.
Total investment
Percentage share of total investment (1991/92 2002/03)
Other states
Poor states
77.3
22.7
00 0
20
40
60
80
100
other states,
87.3
Poor s tates,
12.7
20
40
60
80
100
2002/03
Other states
70.4
1990/91
29.6
Poor states
70.8
1980/81
75.4
2002/03
17.2
29.2
24.6
0
31.6
60
80
100
Poor states
Percentage share of states' service output in AllIndia service sector output
66.9
1980/81
40
Other states
68.4
1990/91
20
33.1
82
2002/03
20
40
60
18
80
26.2
1980/81
27.1
Poor states
72.9
Source: CSO
Other states
73.8
1990/91
20
40
60
80
100
6
4.8
5
4
3
3.1
2.4
2.5
1999/00
Poor states
Poor states
Other states
1980/81
1
0
1980/81-1989/90
Source: CSO
1990/91-1999/00
20
40
60
80
India - Chandigarh
Time, days
45
80
45
70
40
40
35
40
30
25
30
20
20
15
Cost
(right axis)
10
0
1
Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.
10
50
90
35
60
30
50
25
40
20
Cost
(right axis)
30
15
20
10
10
10
50
Time
(left axis)
50
Time, days
60
Time
(left axis)
0
1
10
11
Procedure
Application forms
Combined Application Form
E-governance
Le a s t Ti m e - R e g i o n
14 2
140
12 3
120
10 9
10 0
100
75
80
61
63
R ajast han
( Jaip ur)
T amil N ad u
( C hennai)
67
60
40
35
20
0
Karnat aka
(B ang alo re)
M ahar asht r a
(M umb ai)
C o s t to R e g is te r P ro p e rty (% o f p ro p e rty va lu e )
16
L ea st C o st - R eg io n
13 .9
14
13 .9
14.1
13.1
12
11.2
11.4
T a m il N a d u
(C he nna i)
K a rna ta ka
(B a nga lo re )
12.2
12 .2
W e st B e nga l
(C a lcutta )
U tta r P ra d e s h
(L uc kno w )
10.2
10
8
6
4
2
0
P unja b
(C ha nd iga rh)
R a ja stha n
(J a ipur)
M a ha ra s htra
O ris sa
A nd hra P ra d e sh
(M um ba i)
(B huba ne shw a r) (H yd e ra ba d )
20
15.42
15
10
8.33
8.83
Karnataka
(Bangalore)
Punjab
(Chandigarh)
9.5
9.5
10.0
10.42
11.34
Rajasthan
(Jaipur)
Orissa
Uttar Pradesh
(Bhubaneshwar) (Lucknow)
W est Bengal
(Calcutta)
1200
1000
934
942
Punjab
(Chandigarh)
W est Bengal
(Calcutta)
875
800
683
709
712
765
600
425
400
200
0
Maharashtra
(Mumbai)
Tamil Nadu
(Chennai)
Rajasthan
(Jaipur)
Uttar Pradesh
(Lucknow)
3.9
5.0
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.8
7.6
K
er
al
a
D
el
hi
H
ar
y
M
ah an
a
ar
a
U
sh
tta
r P tra
ra
de
sh
K
ar
na
ta
ka
P
un
ja
b
G
A
u
nd
ra jara
t
P
ra
de
Ta
sh
m
il
N
W
ad
es
u
tB
en
ga
l
M
ad
hy
a
P
ra
de
sh
1.9
Inspections
Random sampling (Karnataka)
Reducing statutory inspections to once a year and drawing up
annual schedule of inspections (AP)
Ad hoc inspections based on written complaints
Accrediting private agencies for inspections (Gujarat)
Self certification
AP - barring major hazardous industries, all industries can self
certify compliance with labor laws
Tamil Nadu Self certification for compliance with select labor
laws being considered
Annual returns and registers for labor regulations
Streamlined and reduced
Common returns: AP, TN, Gujarat, Karnataka
51.9
50
4 0 .9
40
2 5.9
30
20
17.1
17.6
18 .2
18 .8
2 6 .3
2 0 .8
2 7.3
3 1.4
10
0
Year 2000
Year 2003
3 5.3
Need to catch up
The states with poorer investment climate need to catch-up
with the better states
But the better states also need to catch up with their
counterparts abroad on some key regulatory indicators,
as well as in providing more reliable and infrastructure
(particularly power) at more competitive prices
If each Indian state could attain the best practice in India in
terms of investment climate, the economy would grow
about 2 percentage points faster.