By: Aparna Shukla Asst. Prof. ,Dr.

VSIPS, Kanpur

This paper is an attempt to analyse the effect of economic reforms on UPs economic growth, poverty and income inequality. Here GDP and per capita GDP of state has chosen to measure economic growth and Gini Index and MPCE are chosen as a variable to analyse the inequality and poverty

 Uttar

Pradesh is the most populous state in the country accounting for 16.4 per cent of the countrys population. It is also the fourth largest state in geographical area covering 9.0 per cent of the countrys geographical area, encompassing 2, 94,411 square kilometres and comprising of 83 districts, 901 development blocks and 112,804 inhabited villages. The density of population in the state is 473 people per square kilometres as against 274 for the country.

 The

pace of urbanisation has been lower in the state. The state's debt was estimated at 67 per cent of GDP in 2005. nearly 40 percent of the total population lives below the poverty line In 2011 Census , literacy growth rate in UP was 56.40% as against 38.82% country wise and rank wise it is at 29th position. Uttar Pradesh had been one of the famous Indian BIMARU states for long time, the term that was used for state developing at very slow growth rate.

 But

recently in 11th five year plan(2007-12), Uttar Pradesh has registered 7.28% GDP growth rate against the target of 6.10% and is the part of 5 states the exceeded the targets of growth rates. At per capita income Uttar Pradesh have the sluggish rates of 2.9 per cent that in UP multidimensional poverty index (.387)is very high in comparison to Indian multidimensional poverty index(.296)

Net State Domestic Product of Uttar Pradesh (at factor cost)

(Rs. Crore)
Year 1980-81 1990-91 % change(pre liberalization) 1999-2000 % change(post liberalization) 2008-09 % change(post liberalization) 14112 49496 250% 144160 199% 350297 142%

PER CAPITA NET STATE DOMESTIC PRODUCT AT FACTOR COST - STATE-WISE (At Constant Prices)

Rupees(Crore)
Year 1980-81 1990-91 % change(pre liberalisation) 1999-2000 1278 1652 29% 5675

% change(post liberalisation)
2008-2009 % change

243%
12481 119%

 The

per capita income of the state at Rs. 4787 in 1993-94 is one of the lowest in the country except Orissa (Rs. 4726) and Bihar (Rs. 3620). The per capita of the state in 1950-51 at Rs. 259 was very close to the national per capita income of Rs. 267 The post-1974 period the state achieved a growth of 5-7 per cent per annum, which is higher than the national growth of 5.3 per cent .

 Globalisation

and disparities in UP: Globalization has also not done much good to reduce disparities in UP. Uttar Pradesh with 4.4% is far behind the fast growing states like Gujarat with 8.8%, Delhi with 7.4% and Haryana with 8.7%. Inequality in UP: Apart from economic growth and reduction in poverty rate, inequality remain the major problem of UP. Globalization has also not done much good to reduce disparities here.

Change in Inequality: India & UP (199394 to 2004-05) 0.07 India

UP

0.04 0.03

0.04

1993-94

2004-05

Inequality among the various regions of UP

0.17
0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12

0.18

0.1
0.08 0.06 0.04

Rural
0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04

Urban
Urban

0.02
0

Western

Central

Rural

Eastern

Southern

Gini Coefficient of India in comparison to UP :

197778

197374
R U India
.28 .30

1983
R
.30

1993 1999-94
2000
R
.28

200405 (URP)
R
.30

200405 (MRP)
R
.25 .35

R
.34

U
.34

U
.32

U
.34

R
.26

U
.34

U
.37

U.P.

.24

.29

.30

.33

.29

.31

.28

.32

.25

.33

.29

.37

.23

.34

Average MPCE across Uttar Pradesh (2004-05)

Sect State Best or Av. MP MP CE CE Distr (Rs.) ict Av. MP CE (Rs.) Wor st MP CE Distr ict Av. MP CE (Rs.) Leas HCR Most HCR t (%) Poor (%) Poor Distr Distr ict ict

Rural 647 Urban 978

Faijab 917 ad 1393 Agra

Chitra 348 koot 436 Banda

GB 2.6 Nager 3.6 Shanj apur

Chitra 81.5 koot 74.5 Chaun dli

Findings:
Before

liberalisation specially in 80s economic growth of UP was very good and was very close to national economic growth even in one or two years it was more, then what happened further, one and only answer is for that time period was, growth of population of UP was more than economic growth. After liberalisation there has been a wide gap between per capita GDP of UP and of India. In 80s this was 17.2%, in 90s this was 27.6% and in 2K it is 42.7%. Post reform period there is decline in poverty in UP but inequality has been increased more in urban areas than in rural areas.

 High

level of illiteracy in the younger age group. The incidence of illiteracy in the 10-14 age group was as high as 32 %for rural males and 61 %for rural females, and more than two-thirds of all rural girls in the 12-14 age group never went to school. Unequal development of UP, the western region where since August 1991 till March 2006 74.6 % of investment have been in Western region, 13.6 % in Central Uttar Pradesh while 9.9 percent and 1.9 percent in Eastern and Bundelkhand region respectively.

 Proportion

of agriculture is decreasing but dependency on agriculture as an employment option is increasing which is generating unemployment. Interstate migration has grown by 53.6%. The total number of interstate migrants was42.3 million. Uttar Pradesh (-2.6 million) and Bihar (-1.7 million) were the two states with the largest net outmigration that is because of lesser numbers of employment opportunities within the state. Before liberalization 17.83% of total population was living in urban areas, in 90s it was 19.68% and in 2k it was 20.78%, which is creating population density in urban areas of state also degradation in the quality of life.

 Uttar

Pradesh comes under the alarming category of level of corruption in comparison to other states. A survey done by Indiaoffline.com states that 70% of population is not satisfied with administration of UP.

Conclusions: UP is lagging from the main stream of growth because of low economic growth after liberalisation. Because of low rate of industrialization and less opportunities of employment UP is lagging in terms of per capita GDP. Wide Gender inequality in education makes UP a backward state. Lesser employment opportunities and uneven development within the state made UP the second interstate migrant state after Bihar.

Suggestions: UP government should try to reduce the level of corruption so that the policies and plans of states welfare can be properly implemented. UP government should try to develop favourable environment for investment so that more opportunities for employment may be generated that may reduce the interstate migration from the UP. Urbanisation of UP is not done properly there is wide inequality in urban population in terms of health, education, standard of living inequality etc.