Is Gujarat’s development record as bad as Arvind Kejriwal claims? Let’s separate the wheat from the chaff. On August 2, 2013, using the latest statistics from the Planning Commission, the 2011 Census and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), I’d compared the performance of India’s 10 largest states. That article can be read here. Seven months later, not much has changed. It’s therefore useful to update the data where available and revisit the conclusions. The first premise: when comparing development indices of different states, size matters. It’s unfair and statistically pointless to, for example, compare the Human Development Index (HDI) of a relatively affluent state like Goa with that of a large, poor state like Bihar. Our data therefore compares India’s 10 largest states by population. The second premise: we must compare these states across both economic as well as social indices to capture a realistic picture of relative progress. First, a snapshot of India’s 10 most populous states which form a part of this study: Population (2011 census) Uttar Pradesh: 199 million Maharashtra: 112 million Bihar: 104 million West Bengal: 91 million Andhra Pradesh: 85 million Madhya Pradesh: 73 million Tamil Nadu: 72 million Rajasthan: 69 million Karnataka: 61 million Gujarat: 60 million Start with economic indices of India’s 10 largest states: Per capita income (FY 2012) Maharashtra: Rs. 1,01,314 Gujarat: Rs. 89,668 Tamil Nadu: Rs. 84,496 Karnataka: Rs. 69,055 Andhra Pradesh: Rs. 68,970 West Bengal: Rs. 55,222 Rajasthan: Rs. 53,735 Madhya Pradesh: Rs. 37,994 Uttar Pradesh: Rs. 30,051 Bihar: Rs. 22,691 All-India Per Capita Income: Rs. 61,564 As I wrote in my August 2, 2013 piece, Maharashtra ranks no. 1, Gujarat no. 2 and Tamil Nadu no. 3. But Maharashtra has an unfair advantage because Mumbai, India’s wealthiest city, increases its average per capita income significantly. Let’s compute the precise impact. Here are the GDPs of India’s wealthiest cities as per the IMF: City GDPs (PPP) Mumbai: $209 billion Delhi: $167 billion Kolkata: $150 billion Bangalore: $84 billion Hyderabad: $74 billion Chennai: $66 billion Ahmedabad: $52 billion Pune: $47 billion Again, as I wrote: if we exclude Mumbai’s $209 billion GDP from Maharashtra’s GDP (adjusting PPP GDP for exchange rate nominal GDP to align with Planning Commission figures) but keep Pune (whose $47-billion GDP is not dissimilar to the GDP of the capitals of other key states), Maharashtra’s per capita income falls from Rs. 1,01,314 to around Rs. 78,000. So without Mumbai (but including Pune), Maharashtra would slip to no. 3 in our per capita income chart. Gujarat would move up to no. 1, Tamil Nadu to no. 2. ...... Abhi Kalla
Posted on: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:29:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015