Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India

Home , Per capita income, Saharanpur division, Shahdol division

Monograph Series No. - 105

Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India:

A Study on Inter-state and Intra-state Analysis

S V Hanagodimath

Centre for Multi Disciplinary Development Research (CMDR) R.S.No. 9A2, Plot No. 82 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Near Yalakki Shettar Colony Dharwad-580004 Karnataka State, India. www.cmdr.ac.in

September - 2019

CMDR Monograph Series No. - 105

ISBN No. : "978-81-935209-9-4"

First Published : September – 2019

Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India:

A Study on Inter-state and Intra-state Analysis

S V Hanagodimath

Centre for Multi DisciplinaryDevelopment Research (CMDR) R.S.No. 9A2, Plot No. 82 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Near YalakkiShettar Colony Dharwad-580004 Karnataka State, India. www.cmdr.ac.in

September - 2019

CMDR Monograph Series No.- 105

ISBN No.:"978-81-935209-9-4"

First Published : September– 2019

Regional Disparity in Per Capita Income in India: A Study on Inter-state and Intra-state Analysis

S V Hanagodimath1

ABSTRACT:

No country/state is an exception for the challenge of regional imbalances. In the recent years, in India, the problem of intra-state REGIONAL DISPARITY is more serious than the inter-state disparity. In the present study inter-state and intra-state disparities have been analysed for per capita state and district domestic products. This study is a unique of its kind, which traces the inter-state, intra-state and intra-division regional disparity for Indian states.

The study found that inter-state disparity in per capita income has increased in India over the period of time in India. With respect to intra-state disparity no state is an exception for it. Quantum of imbalances differs, in some states it has become a serious challenge. States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Himachal Pradesh have higher disparity. Whereas, states like Kerala, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Jammu Kashmir have lower intra-state disparity.

To measure the regional disparity more meaningfully and to suggest the proper policy, strong data base at different disaggregated level is the prerequisite. For this purpose, first of all, district (as well as taluk) domestic product should be calculated / estimated every year. At present, only some states like, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana calculate district domestic product every year. Hence, CSO should make proper guidelines and give appropriate training to the officials of Directorate of Economics and Statistics of all states. Thus, one can see the per capita income level of all the districts of the country and also these districts can be ranked. Through this, intra- state disparity can properly be addressed more meaningfully.

The present study has observed that in most of the states, the divisions, which have the higher per capita income, have the higher quantum of regional disparity. This is because of centralisation of industrial units in one place. Moreover, economic activities are concentrated only in some selected place. Hence, to achieve the balanced regional development- proper infrastructure facilities (to increase the income and employment opportunities) should be developed in all the regions/divisions based on potentiality and necessity. Increasing of number of administrative divisions (wherever is necessary) is needed for decentralised governance. Further, decentralised administration will be helpful in reduction of regional imbalances. Hence, number of administrative divisions should be increased based on agro-climatic zones. Along with other policies and programmes, these initiatives will be helpful in achieving the BALANCED REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

1Assistant Professor, CMDR, Dharwad, Karnataka, India Author is very much grateful to Prof. P R Panchamukhi, Prof. G K Kadekodi, Prof. V B Annigeri and Prof. N S Nayak for their useful comments and suggestions for this Monograph.

Introduction:

India is a vast country with diversification in geographical contours, languages and also several socio-economic conditions. Further, diversification can be found not only between states (inter-state) but also between districts and taluks (intra-state). Every region has its own identity and uniqueness in consumption, spending patterns and economic activities. In such circumstances, measurement of national accounts statistics becomes very difficult2. However, we have a very good mechanism3 for the national accounts calculation thanks are due to Central Statistical Organisation (CSO). The contribution of CSO is highly appreciated for its handling of systematic and scientific measurements of national accounts statistics in India since independence. Further, at the state level, Directorate of Economics and Statistics of many states are estimating the district domestic products for their respective states under the guidance of CSO.

However, some states do not calculate district domestic product every year. In recent years, several socio-economic policies and programmes are being planned implemented at the grass-root level, even up to blocks and villages. Hence, availability of data on different socio- economic measures at district and sub-district levels is important in general and per capita income or domestic product in particular. This is helpful to understand the intra-state regional disparity in economic growth. Further, it also improves the process of framing and implementing of policies and programmes at the grass-root level.

Brief Review of Earlier Studies:

There are a plethora of studies on regional imbalances in India at the inter-state levels [see among others, Ahluwalia (2002), Dholakia (1977), Dholakia (1985), Rao, Ric and Kalirajan (1999), Sachs, Jeffrey, Bajpai and Ramaiah (2002), Singh (1999)]. Further there are good number of studies, which have examined the intra-state disparities taking district as the unit of the study for individual states. But there is a scarcity of studies, which have studied the intra-state disparity in incomes taking into consideration of all Indian states.

However, there are studies, which have analysed the intra-state disparities taking into consideration of more than one state (but not all states). Kanbur and Venables (2005) found

2 Major difficulties in calculation of national income are different consumption patterns of food and non-food commodities, assigning weight to different commodities and so on. 3 CSO successfully modifies the methodology of calculation of National Income over the period of time.

2 that regional disparity in income and social indicators are increasing in most developing and transition economies world over. India is not an exception for growing regional disparity. Suryanarayana (2009) analysed the intra-state regional disparities in Karnataka and Maharashtra. The study reveals that even though Karnataka and Maharashtra are in some better-off positions in terms of mean-based estimates of average income, they have experienced inter-regional disparities, interpersonal inequalities and intra-regional deprivations. Dubey (2009) using the National sample survey (NSS) consumption data, analysed the intra-state disparity for Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Orissa and Punjab. The study found that not only inter-state disparities but also intra-state disparities are increasing in India. Bhattachary (2009) has also observed increasing intra-state disparities in government expenditure taking into consideration of six north Indian states. Using NSSO data, Chaudhuri and Gupta (2009) estimated poverty ratios for districts, and found wide spatial disparity in the levels of living of the Indian districts, both within and across the states. The study indicated that the range of disparity at the sub-state level within a state is often more serious than the disparity between the states. However, as it has been already mentioned that there is a scarcity of studies, which have studied the intra-state disparity in per capita income, taking into consideration of all Indian states (with comprehensive approach).There is a need for a study, which should analyse the intra-state disparities for Indian states with per capita income and its (intra-state disparity) association with economic growth of the nation. Hence, the present study is an attempt to fulfil this research gap.

Data and methodology:

The study is entirely based on secondary sources of data. State-wise domestic product and population data have been collected from ‘Hand book of statistics on Indian economy’ of RBI (Reserve Bank of India). GSDP and per capita GSDP data have been used from 1993-94 to 2015-16 at constant prices of 2011-12. For this purpose base shifting and GSDP deflator methods have been used. District wise domestic product and population data have been collected from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES) of respective state governments. All the states do not estimate the district domestic products every year. Among the available district domestic product data, latest year data have been used (see appendix table 1 for source of data for different states for district domestic product). Comparison of districts ‘within the state’ has been made; not for ‘inter-state’. For intra-state analysis, only those states are selected, which have the data on district level domestic product, are selected.

For more meaningful analysis districts are categorised into four groups namely Very High, High, Above Average, Below Average, and Very Low. For this purpose all the states are first divided into two groups on the basis of state average index values - one above the all- India average and the other below the all-India average. Then two more averages are worked out, one for the group of states whose values are above the all-India average and another for the group of states whose values are below the all-India average. The states whose values are above and below the former average are classified as ‘Very High’ and ‘Above Average’ states, respectively. The states whose values are above and below the latter average are classified as ‘Below Average’ and ‘Very Low’ states respectively.

Different tools such as ratios, averages, percentage, compound annual growth rates (CAGR), coefficient of variation (CV) and correlation coefficient are used. Further, for the pictorial presentation line, bar and scatter diagrams have been used. Thematic maps have been used to mark the regions on the basis of level of development and quantum of disparity.

This study has been divided into 4 sections; apart from introduction; section II is devoted to inter-state imbalances in India; while in section III, quantum of regional disparity at intra-state has been discussed; last section concludes the present study with way forward.

II. Inter-state Imbalances:

Before initiating the analysis on intra-state disparities in economic growth, a discussion on inter-state disparities gives a proper picture of the regional disparity in India at a macro level. This section provides the information related to it.

Per capita income is one of the good indicators of measurement of economic growth of any region. In figure 1, per capita income of Indian states for the year 2015-16 (at 2011-12 prices) has been presented. It is found that Goa, Delhi, Chandigarh, Sikkim and Haryana are found to be the top category states with per capita income of more than Rs. 1,30,000 in 2015- 16. On the other hand, states like, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are observed in the bottom position with per capita income of less than Rs. 50,000 in the same period. Through this figure, it is clear that there is existence of huge inter-state disparity in India.

Figure 1: State wise per GSDP for the year 2015-16 at constant prices capita of 2011-12 Goa 267,329 Delhi 234,328 Chandigarh 193,604 Sikkim 193,569 Haryana 133,591 Puducherry 126,880 Uttarakhand 126,306 Gujarat 122,148 Maharashtra 121,514 Kerala 119,777 Himachal Pradesh 114,478 Karnataka 113,303 Tamil Nadu 111,454

A & N Islands 107,873

Arunachal Pradesh 99,823

Punjab 99,372 States Andhra Pradesh 86,118 Rajasthan 68,048 Chhattisgarh 67,185 Tripura 64,173 Nagaland 61,363 Jammu and Kashmir 60,171 Meghalaya 59,373 Odisha 58,165 Jharkhand 50,817 Assam 48,465 Madhya Pradesh 46,324 Manipur 45,652 Uttar Pradesh 36,850

Bihar 24,572

210000 0 30000 60000 90000 120000 150000 180000 240000 270000

Per Capita GSDP

Source: Computed from the data available from Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy, RBI

Box 1: State-wise Categorisation of PCI Low PCI Below average PCI Above average PCI High PCI Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Nagaland, Tripura, Andaman & Nicobar Island, Sikkim, Manipur,Madhya Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Chandigarh, Pradesh, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Jharkhand,Odisha, Arunanchal Pradesh Kerala, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa Meghalaya,Jammu& (PCI Between Rs. Uttarakhand, Puducherry, Haryana (PCI Between Kashmir 61363- Rs.99823) (PCI Between Rs. 107873- Rs. 193569- (PCI Between Rs. Rs.133591) Rs.267329) 24572-Rs.60171) [9 States, (329%)] [7 States, 23%] [11 States, (35%)] [4 States, (13%)]

Map1: Thematic Map of Per Capita Income of Indian States, 2015-16

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data Source: Computed from the data available from Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy, RBI

The gap between the highest and the lowest per capita income among the states [Goa (Rs. 2,67,329) and Bihar (Rs. 24,572)] is around 11 times. Goa’s per capita income is 11 fold higher than that of Bihar’s per capita income.

In figure 2, share of population and share of GDP of different states have been presented for the year 2015-16 to see the performance of different states in domestic product. Out of the selected 33 states and union territories, except 12 states (Sts) and Union Territories (Uts), remaining 21

Figure 2: State-wise share of GDP and Share of Population in Indian states, Sts and Uts 2015-16 (constant prices of 2011-12) have higher share of GDP than their population share in the country. The GDP contribution of Bihar is only 3.07 per cent, whereas, its population share is 8.60 per cent to the nation. On the other hand, Goa contributes 0.54 per cent of GDP with only 0.12 per cent of population

share. Uttar

Source: Source: Computed from the data available from Handbook of Statistics on Indian Pradesh, Economy, RBI Madhya Pradesh and Bihar are bigger states in terms of population, while they contribute lower share

7 of the national GDP than their population share. Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat are bigger states in terms of population share, which contribute higher share of GDP to the nation.

In figure 4, ratio between GSDP and Population has been presented. It is found from the figure that Goa (4.46) has the highest4 GSDP - population ratio followed by Chandigarh, Delhi, Pondicherry, A & N Islands and Sikkim. On the other side, Bihar (0.36) has the lowest GSDP - population ratio followed by Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Madhya Pradesh.

To see the regional imbalances, computing of coefficient of

variation (CV)5 is a Source: Appendix Table 3 commonly used method by many researchers, which has been presented in figure 4. Coefficient of variation has been calculated for the years from 1993-94 to 2015-16. It is found from the figure that at

4GSDP-Population Ratio has been calculated using these steps, firstly, share of each state’s GDP has been calculated dividing GSDP with GDP and multiplying it with 100. Secondly, share of each state’s population has been calculated dividing state population with national population and multiplying it with 100. Further, in the third step, share of GDP has been divided with share of population to arrive GDP population ratio.

5Calculation of Coefficient of Variation (CV) % = , where, σ-Standard Deviation, µ-means

8 the initial years of the study period, inter-state disparity is low (CV%-50.48%), which increased significantly in the year 1998-99 (CV-61.53%). Afterwards, it (CV %) started to decrease, which reached to 52.95 per cent in the year 2013-14. Further, it again increased and reached to 57.10 per cent in the year 2015-16. Totally, inter-state disparity has increased from the initial year to the recent year. To see the trend for this data, a curve trend line has been drawn. Trend line is found to be in inverted ‘U’ shape.

64 Figure 4: Inter-state imbalances in per capita GSDP from 1993-94 to 2015-16 62 61.53

58 57.10

CV(%) 56

54 52.95 52

50.48

1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Years

Source: Computed from the data available from Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy, RBI

For more meaningful analysis, states have been categorised into four groups on the basis of average of per capita GSDP and its growth rate from the year 1993-94 to 2015-16. Categorisation has been made as follows,

High Per capita Income Group I Best (Virtuous Cycle) and High Growth Rate

High Per capita Income Group II Lopsided Growth Rate and Low Growth Rate

Low per capita income Group III Lopsided Per capita Income and High Growth Rate

Low per capita income Group IV Worst (Vicious Cycle) and Low Growth Rate

Results from using above mentioned methodology have been presented in table 1. The table reveals some of the interesting observations as follows,

 It is found that 10 states (32%) are in the Best category, where both average Per Capita Income and its Growth Rates are above the national average. This group can also be called as virtuous cycle.

 On the other hand, 13 states/union territories (42%) are observed in the worst category. This category can also be called as vicious category, because in this category both Per Capita Income and its Growth Rates are below the national average.

 Six states (23%) are found in the Lopsided Growth Rate, (group II), where, High Per Capita Income and Low Growth Rate can be seen.

 Further, only Tripura is found in the Lopsided Per capita Income, (group III), where, Low Per Capita Income and High Growth Rate is observed.

Table 1: Categorisation of states and union territories based on their average per capita

GSDP and average Growth Rate of GSDP from 1993-94 to 2015-16

Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, 16↓ Tripura - Pondicherry, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu,

Uttarakhand 94 to 2015 to 94 - low per capita income and High High Per capita Income and High Growth

High Growth Rate ↓ HighRate Growth Growth Rate (1 State, 3%) Rate (10 Sts and Uts, 32%)

Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, A & N Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chandigarh, Goa, Karnataka, Punjab Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh

low per capita income and Low Growth High Per capita Income and Low Growth ↓Growth Rate 1993 Rate from ↓Growth Low Growth Rate ↓ Rate LowGrowth Rate (13 Sts and Uts, 42%) Rate (6Sts and Uts, 23%) Low Per capita GSDP ↑ High Per capita GSDP ↑

↑Per Capita GSDP from 1993-94 to 2015-16↑ Source: Calculated based on appendix Table 2

Figure 5: Per capita GSDP and its growth rate for selected Indian To see the states association between Per capita GSDP and its growth rates in the selected time period a scatter diagram has been prepared and presented in figure 5. From the figure log liner curve is observed it is found that there is a positive Source: Appendix Table 2 association between per capita income and its growth rate.

Intra-state Imbalances:

In the recent years, policies and programmes are being framed and implementation at the gross root level. In such situations, identification of the economic growth with respect to sub-state level becomes very important to analyse. In the recent years, most of the states have estimated the district domestic products. However, some of the states have not estimated the district domestic products. Gujarat is the state, which does not have district domestic product. Though, most of the major states have estimated the district domestic product, very less numbers of states estimate it every year. Hence, comparison of district domestic product at inter-state level has not been carried out in the present study. The comparison has been made ‘within the state’ not for ‘inter-state’ comparison. First of all, the quantum of regional imbalances, which exist in different states has been discussed. For this purpose, coefficient of variation of per capita district domestic products of each state has been calculated and presented in figure 6 (appendix table 3). It is found from the figure that out of 18 selected

Indian states, Bihar has the highest intra-district disparity and Kerala has the lowest intra-

Figure 6: Intra-state Regional Imbalances in Different States in state disparity. India for Per capita District Domestic Product (CV %) Income disparity Uttar Pradesh 90.35 of Uttar Pradesh is 5.4 fold higher Bihar 73.2 than that of the Himachal Pradesh 56.55 disparity of Kerala. Among Telangana 48.94 the selected 18 Odisha 45.4 states, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar Karnataka 43.48 and Himachal Uttarakhand 42.65 Pradesh have higher intra-state Maharashtra 39.25 disparity. These

Madhya Pradesh 35.78 states have the

States coefficient of West Bengal 33.98 variation more Tamil Nadu 32.93 than 45 per cent.

Haryana 28.43 On the other

Jharkhand 28.01 hand, states like Kerala, Punjab, Jammu Kashmir 25.37 Andhra Pradesh,

Rajasthan 25.3 Rajasthan and Jammu Kashmir Andhra Pradesh 20.84 have lower intra-

Punjab 17.57 state disparity. These states have Kerala 16.82 the coefficient of 0 20 40 60 80 100 variation less than CV % 26 per cent. Source: Appendix Table 3

Map 2: Thematic Map of Intra-State Disparity in India (Selected States)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

Box 2: Categorisation State in Intra-State Disparity in PCI (Selected States) Low Intra-State Below average Intra- Above average Intra- High Intra-State Disparity State Disparity State Disparity Disparity Kerala, Punjab, Jharkhand, Haryana, Telangana, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Karnataka, Bihar, Himachal Rajasthan, Bengal, Madhya Uttarakhand, Pradesh Jammu Kashmir Pradesh Maharashtra

[5 States, 28%] [5 States, 28R] [5 States, 28%] [3 States, 17%]

Each State-wise Analysis:

In this section, each state-wise intra-state disparity has been analysed. Many states have grouped the districts into different administrative divisions to implement the government policy and programmes more effectively with decentralised approach. Some states have no administrative setup between district and the state government. Some states have been excluded in the analysis of inter-district disparity and inter-division disparity due to non-availability of the data. Based on the developmental status (per capita income), districts have been categorised into four different categories namely, ‘Very High Per capita Income,’ ‘Above Average Per Capita Income’, ‘Below Average Per Capita Income’ and ‘Very Low Per Capita India’ per capita income . They have been depicted in the thematic maps. For this purpose, ‘QGIS’ software has been used.

Andhra Pradesh:

ANDHRA PRADESH is found in the group of medium developed states with the population share of 4.10 per cent and GDP share of 4.37 to the nation. The state has less intra-state disparity compared to other states. Its position is 3rd out 18 selected Indian states.

Table 4: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Andhra Pradesh, 2015-16 (2011-12 prices) Districts PCI (Rs.) Rank Srikakulam 63411 13 Vizianagaram 65320 12 Visakhapatnam 121373 1 East Godavari 88021 6 West Godavari 98477 4 Krishna 108924 2 Guntur 89242 5 Prakasam 83796 7 S.P.S.Nellore 99204 3 Y.S.R 73706 9 Kurnool 69821 10 Ananthapuramu 68479 11 Chittoor 80986 8 State 87217 Average 85570 CV (%) 20% Source: Appendix Table 3

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 4 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 3. There are thirteen districts in Andhra Pradesh among them, Visakhapatnam is in the first position and Srikakulam is in the last position.

Categorisation in per capita income of different districts within the states reveals that,

 Two districts (15.4%) are found in the high per capita income category, they are Visakhapatnam and Krishna.  East Godavari, Guntur, West Godavari and Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore are the four (30.8%) districts, which are found in the category of above average per capita income.  Three districts (23.1%) namely, Y.S.R., Chittoor and Prakasam observed in below average Per capita income category.  Remaining four districts (30.8%) are in the last category i.e., Very low per capita income, the districts are Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Anantapur and Kurnool.

Thematic Map 3: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Andhra Pradesh (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

BIHAR is the least developed state in India. It ranks last in per capita GSDP. Further, it should be noted that with respect of intra-state disparity the state is found in the 17th position out of 18 selected Indian states. The state contributes 8.60 per cent of population and only 3.07 per cent of GDP to the nation. The state has the lowest per capita income and higher intra-state disparity among Indian states.

Table 5: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Bihar, 2015-16 (2011-12 prices) Districts/Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Districts/Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Patna 59531 1 Gaya 10570 13 Nalanda 11186 8 Jehanabad 9941 17 Bhojpur 11026 10 Arwal 8123 34 Buxar 9950 15 Nawada 8563 29 Rohtas 12303 6 Aurangabad 9739 18 Kaimur 9216 24 Magadh Division Patan Division Average 9387 Average 18869 CV (%) 10.79 CV (%) 105.72

Saran 9407 23 Muzaffarpur 13797 5 Siwan 9571 20 E.Champaran 9510 22 Gopalganj 10794 12 W.Champaran 8860 28 Saran Division Sitamarhi 8512 31 Average 9924 Sheohar 6333 38 CV (%) 7.63 Vaishali 11152 9 Tirhut Division Darbhanga 9696 19 Average 7638 Madhubani 8243 32 CV (%) 26.25 Samstipur 9565 21 Darbhanga Division Begusarai 15601 3 Average 9168 Munger 18860 2 CV (%) 8.76 Sheikhpura 8539 30 Lakhisarai 11666 7 Bhagalpur 15332 4 Jamui 8872 26 Banka 8218 33 Khagaria 10202 14 Bhagalpur Division Munger Division Average 11775 Average 12290 CV (%) 42.72 CV (%) 33.47

Purnea 9048 25 Saharsa 10807 11 Kishanganj 8865 27 Supaul 7542 37 Araria 7875 35 Madhepura 7642 36 Katihar 9949 16 Kosi Division Purnia Division Average 8664 Average 8934 CV (%) 21.43 CV (%) 9.52 Source: Appendix Table 1

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 5 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 4. Out of 38 districts in the state, Patna is found in the first position and Sheohar is found in the last position in per capita income. Categorisation in per capita income of different districts within the states reveals that,

Thematic Map 4: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Bihar (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

Categorisation in per capita income of different districts within the states reveals that,

 Patna is the only district, which is found in the very high per capita income category.  Lakhisarai, Rohtas, Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Begusarai and Munger are the six districts (15.8%), which are observed in the Figure 7: Division-wise Regional above average category. Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Bihar Patna 105.72  42 per cent (16) of districts are found Bhagalpur 42.72 in the below average category. Munger 33.47  15 (40%) district are observed in the Tirhut 26.25 Very low per capita income category. Kosi 21.43 Magadh 10.79 This state has nine administrative divisions, Purnia 9.52 among them Patana division has higher per Darbhanga 8.76 Saran 7.63 capita income and Kosi has the lowest per

0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 capita income (table 5). Further, it should be noted that Patana division has the highest inter-district disparity and Saran division has the lowest inter-district disparity (Figure 7).

HARYANA is another north Indian state, which is found to be in the top group of states with respect to per capita income. The state is found in the 7th position in intra-state disparity out of 18 selected Indian States. The state contributes 2.09 per cent of population with 3.53 per cent of GDP to the nation.

Table 6: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Haryana, 2002-03 (1993-94 prices) Districts/Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Ambala 19637 3 Kurukshetra 11463 16 Panchkula 15527 5 Yamuna 14058 9 Average: Ambala Division 15171 CV% 22.53 Faridabad 14837 7 Gurgaon 24737 1 Mahendragarh 7900 19 Rewari 18270 4 Average Gurgaon Division 16969 CV% 50.05 Fatehabad 13213 10 Hisar 14441 8 Jind 11623 15 Sirsa 12932 12 Average Hisar Division 13052 CV% 8.86 Kaithal 12106 14 Karnal 14852 6 Panipat 21410 2 Average Karnal Division 16123 CV% 29.65 Bhiwani 10805 17 Jhajjar 10615 18 Rohtak 12123 13 Sonipat 13099 11 Average Rohtak Division 11661 CV% 10.48 Source: Appendix Table 3

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 6 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 5. Gurgaon district has the highest per capita income and Mahendragarh has the lowest per capita income among the 19 districts. Categorisation in per capita income of different districts within the states reveals that,

 Rewari, Ambala, Panipat and Gurgaon are found in the very per capita income category (4 districts, 21%)  Same percentage, i.e., four districts namely, Hisar, Faridabad, Karnal and Panchkula are found in the above average category.  32 per cent of districts (6) are observed in the category of below average, they are Kaithal, Rohtak, Sirsa, Sonipat, Fatehabad and Yamunanagar.

 Remaining, six districts (26%) can be seen in very low per capita income category, they are Mahendragarh, Jhajjar, Bhiwani, Kurukshetra and Jind

This state has been divided into administrative Figure 8: Division-wise Regional divisions. Among them, Gurgoan has higher Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Haryana per capita income and Rohtak has the lower Gurgaon 50.05 per capita income (table 6) Karnal 29.65 Inter-district disparity has been presented for Ambala 22.53 different administrative divisions of the states in figure 8. It is found from the figure that Rohtak 10.48 Gurgaon division has the highest inter-district Hisar 8.86 disparity and Hisar division has the lowest inter-district disparity. 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

Thematic Map 5: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Haryana (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

Himachal Pradesh:

HIMACHAL PRADESH is found in the group of medium developed state with the population share of 0.57 per cent and GDP share of 0.84 per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state disparity its position is 17th out 18 selected Indian states.

Table 7: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Himachal Pradesh, 2015-16 (2011-12 prices) Districts PCI (Rs.) Rank Bilaspur 125958 7 Chamba 98006 11 Hamirpur 102217 9 Kangra 86637 13 Kinnaur 217993 2 Kullu 119231 8 L & S 192292 3 Mandi 96052 12 Shimla 152230 4 Sirmaur 145597 5 Solan 394102 1 Una 100295 10 HP 135621 6 Average 152550 CV% 56.55 Source: Appendix Table

Thematic Map 6: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Himachal Pradesh (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 7 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 6. There are thirteen districts in Himachal Pradesh. Solan is in the first position and Kangra is in the last position. Categorisation in per capita income of different districts within the states reveals that,

 Only Solan district is found in the category of very high per capita income.  L & S and Kinnaur are the two districts, which are found in the category of above average.  Four (33%) districts, namely, Kullu, Bilaspur, Sirmaur and Shimla are observed in the category of below average per capita income.  Kangra, Mandi, Chamba, Una and Hamirpur are the five districts which can be seen in the category of very low per capita income.

Jammu and Kashmir:

JAMMU AND KASHMIR is found in the group of lower middle developed states in per capita income among Indian states. The state contributes population share of 1.04 per cent and GDP share of 0.81 per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state disparity its position is 5th out 18 selected Indian states.

Table 8: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Jammu and Kashmir, 2005-06 (1999-00 prices) District/Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Doda 31118 1 Jammu 27095 3 Kathua 20954 9 Punch 15511 13 Rajouri 16862 11 Udhampur 27232 2 Average Jammu Division 23129 CV% 27.24 Anantnag 25022 7 Badgam 16803 12 Baramula 21617 8 Kupwara 11757 14 Pulwama 25286 6 Srinagar 26481 5 Average Kashmir Valley Division 21161 CV% 27.38 Kargil 18603 10 Leh - ladakh 26981 4 Average Ladakh Division 22792 CV% 25.99 Source: Appendix Table 1

There are three administrative divisions in the state among them Jammu has higher average per capita income, followed by Ladak and Kashmir Valley. Further, all the divisions have more or less similar intra-division disparity, which is between 5 per cent and 28 per cent.

Thematic Map 7: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Jammu Kashmir (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 8 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 7. Out of 23 districts of Jammu and Kashmir, we have the data for only 14 districts on per capita income. Even this data is for the year 2005-06. Doda is in the first position and Kupwara is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Three districts, namely, Jammu, Udhampur and Doda are found in the category of very high per capita income.  In the category of above average there are four districts namely Anantnag, Pulwama, Srinagar and Leh - Ladakh  Kargil, Kathua and Baramula are the three districts, which are found in the category of below average.  In the very low per capita income category, there are four districts viz., Kupwara, Punch, Badgam and Rajouri.

Jharkhand:

JHARKHAND is found in the group of least developed states in per capita income among Indian states. The state contributes population share of 2.73 per cent and GDP share of 1.94 per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state disparity its position is 6th out 18 selected Indian states.

Table 9: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Jharkhand, 2005-06 (1999-00 prices) Districts/Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Dumka 10079 13 Jamtara 9641 16 Deoghar 12621 10 Godda 8334 21 Pakur 15327 4 Sahebganj 14314 5 Hazaribagh 13555 9 Koderma 12561 11 Chatra 8477 20 Giridih 8957 18 Bokaro 14146 6 Dhanbad 19761 1 Ranchi 15359 3 Lohardaga 9643 15 Gumla 10218 12 Simdega 9569 17 Palamu 8712 19 Latehar 9657 14 Garhwa 7090 22 East Singhbhum 17951 2 West Singhbhum 13627 8 SaraykelaKharsawa 13703 7 Average 11968 CV% 28.01 Source: Appendix Table 1

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 9 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 8. Out of 24 districts of Jammu and Kashmir, we have the data for only 22 districts on per capita income. Even, this data is for the year 2005-06 at 1999-00 prices. Dhanbad is in the first position and Garhwa is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Three districts, namely, Pakur, Ranchi, East Singhbhum and Dhanbad are found in the category of very high per capita income.  In the category of above average, there are seven districts namely, Koderma, Deoghar, Hazaribagh, West Singhbhum, Saraykela Kharsawa, Bokaro and Sahebganj.  In below average category also are the three districts, which are seven districts, viz., Giridih, Simdega, Jamtara, Lohardaga, Latehar, Dumka and Gumla  In the very low per capita income category, there are four districts viz., Garhwa, Godda, Chatra and Palamu.

Thematic Map 8: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Jharkhand (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

Karnataka:

KARNATAKA is found in the group of medium developed state with the population share of 5.05 per cent and GDP share of 5.69 per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state disparity its position is 14th out 18 selected Indian states.

Table 10: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Karnataka, 2014-15 (2011-12 prices) Districts/Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Districts/Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Belagavi 61675 24 Bengaluru 230240 1 Vijayapura 60661 26 Bengaluru(R) 102434 6 Bagalkot 90033 12 Ramanagara 95599 8 Dharawad 91113 11 Chitradurga 64267 23 Gadag 73144 18 Davanagere 67126 21 Haveri 65050 22 Kolar 76212 17 Uttara Kannada 83700 14 Chikkaballapura 72318 19 Average: Belagavi Division 75054 Shivamogga 105609 5 CV% 17.6 Tumakuru 92919 10 Average: Bengaluru Division 100747 Chikkamagaluru 130634 4 CV% 50.56 Dakshina Kannada 182829 2 Udupi 149653 3 Ballari 93473 9 Hassan 87824 13 Bidar 56349 29 Kodagu 71780 20 Kalaburagi 56336 30 Mandya 97284 7 Yadgiri 56597 28 Mysuru 76229 16 Raichur 61213 25 Chamarajanagar 78034 15 Koppal 59807 27 Average: Mysuru Division 109283 Average: Kalaburagi Division 63963 CV% 37.21 CV% 22.83 Source: Appendix Table 1

In Karnataka, there are four administrative Figure 9: Division-wise Regional Imbalances divisions. Among them Bengaluru division in Per capita GSDP, Karnataka has the highest per capita income and Bengal 50.56 Kalaburagi division has the lowest per uru capita income (table 10).

Mysur 37.21 u To see the inter district disparity in these four administrative divisions; coefficient of Kalabu 22.83 ragi variation has been calculated and presented in figure 9. It is found from the figure that Belaga Bengaluru division has the highest inter- 17.60 vi district disparity and Belagavi division has

0 20 40 60 the lowest inter-district disparity.

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 10 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 9. Bengaluru Urban district is in the first position and Kalaburagi is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Only three (10%) out of 30 districts are in the category of very high per capita income namely, Bengaluru, Dakshina Kannada and Udupi.  There are seven (23%) districts, namely Tumakuru, Ballari, Ramanagara, Mandya, Bengaluru(R), Shivamogga and Bagalkot in the category of above average.

Thematic Map 9: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Karnataka (within the state)

 In the category of below average there are eight districts namely Kodagu, Chikkaballapura, Gadag, Kolar, Mysuru, Chamarajanagar, Uttara Kannada and Hassan.

 10 districts, namely Kalaburagi, Bidar, Yadgiri, Koppal, Vijayapura, Raichur, Belagavi, Chitradurga, Haveri and Davanagere are found in the last category that is very low per capita income.

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

Kerala:

Among the south Indian states, performance of KERALA is in the better-off position in all the socio-economic indicators. Among the selected 30 states and union territories, Kerala is found the 10th position in per capita GSDP. The population and GDP shares of Kerala to the nation are 2.76 per cent and 4.00 per cent respectively.

Table 11: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Kerala, 2015-16 (2011-12 prices) PCI PCI PCI Districts Rank Districts Rank Districts Rank (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) Ernakulam 152318 1 Kannur 109632 8 Alappuzha 136804 2 Idukki 132107 4 Kasaragod 100198 10 Kollam 136282 3 Kottayam 126238 6 Kozhikode 109602 9 Pathanamthitta 96134 12 Thrissur 122679 7 Malapuram 89357 14 Thiruvananthapuram 129922 5 Palakkad 100128 11

Wayanad 92353 13

Average: Average: Average: South Central Kerala 133336 North Kerala 100212 124786 Kerala Division Division Division CV% 9.93 CV% 8.04 CV% 15.51

Source: Appendix Table 1

A point is to be noted that intra-state Figure 10: Division-wise Regional imbalances in Kerala is very low, it is in the Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Kerala

first position with lower intra-state South Kerala 15.51 disparity among major Indian states (table 11). Central Kerala 9.93 Further, this state has three administrative divisions. South Kerala has the highest inter-district disparity and North Kerala has North Kerala 8.04 the lowest inter-district disparity. Information related to this has been 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 presented in figure 10.

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 11 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 10. Ernakulam district is in the first position and Malapuram is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Idukki, Kollam, Alappuzha and Ernakulam are the four districts, which are found in the category of very high per capita income.  Three (21%) districts are found in the category of above average in per capita income they are Thrissur, Kottayam and Thiruvananthapuram.  In the category of below average there are four districts namely Palakkad, Kasaragod, Kozhikode and Kannur  4 districts, namely, Malappuram, Wayanad and Pathanamthitta are found in the last category that is very low per capita income

Thematic Map 10: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Kerala (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

MADHYA PRADESH is observed in the group of bottom category states in per capita GSDP among Indian states. This state contributes 4.07 per cent of GDP with the 6 per cent of population to the nation.

Table 12: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Madhya Pradesh, 2012-13 (2004-05 prices) Districts/ PCI Districts/ PCI Districts/ PCI Divisions (Rs.) Rank Divisions (Rs.) Rank Divisions (Rs.) Rank Bhind 17607 37 Betul 22483 17 Rewa 16590 43 Morena 17650 36 Harda 32421 6 Satna 20093 29 Sheopur 17549 38 Hoshangabad 30393 8 Sidhi 30085 9 Average: Average: Average: Rewa Chambal 17602 Narmadapuran 28432 22256 Division Division Division CV% 0.29 CV% 18.47 CV% 31.46

Bhopal 49979 2 Chhatarpur 17674 35 Raisen 21374 23 Damoh 20495 28 Datia 23442 16 Rajgarh 19598 31 Panna 16884 40 Guna 22047 21 Sehore 19909 30 Sagar 22395 18 Gwalior 36223 4 Vidisha 20818 25 Tikamgarh 16107 44 Shivpuri 16828 41 Average: Bhopal Average: Sagar Average: Gwalior 26336 18711 24635 Division Division Division CV% 50.26 CV% 14.13 CV% 33.42

Dewas 24454 15 Barwani 17446 39 Mandsaur 27477 11 Dhar 22095 20 Neemuch 27475 12 East Nimar 22129 19 Ratlam 29011 10 Indore 55348 1 Balaghat 21739 22 Shajapur 20797 26 Jhabua 16735 42 Chhindwara 30884 7 Ujjain 32567 5 West Nimar 18197 33 Dindori 18715 32 Average: Ujjain Average: Indore 26964 25325 Jabalpur 41462 Division Division 3 CV% 14.88 CV% 58.8 Katni 24620 14 Mandla 14123 45 Shahdol 25779 13 Narsimhapur 20649 27 Umaria 17798 34 Seoni 21275 24 Average: Average: Jabalpur 21789 24183 Shahdol Division Division CV% 25.9 CV% 35.01 Source: Appendix Table 1

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 12 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 11. Out of 50 districts of Madhya Pradesh, we have the data for only 45 districts on per capita income. Indore is in the first position and Mandla is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Five (11%) districts, namely, Ujjain, Gwalior, Jabalpur, Bhopal and Indore are found in the category of very high per capita income.  In the category of above average there are 10 (22%) districts.  36 per cent (16) districts are in the category of below average.

 In the very low per capita income category, there are 14 districts (31%).

With respect to intra-state disparity the Figure 12: Division-wise Regional Madhya Pradesh stands in the 10th Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Madhya Pradesh position out of 18 states in India. Madhya Indore 58.80 Pradesh has 10 administrative divisions Bhopal 50.26 Jabal… 35.01 Narmdapuram has the highest per capita Gwal… 33.42 income, whereas, Chambal has the lowest Rewa 31.46 per capita income (table 12). Indore Shah… 25.90 division has the highest inter-district Nar… 18.47 disparity and Chambal division has the Ujjain 14.88 lowest inter-district disparity. Sagar 14.13 Information related to administrative Cha… 0.29 division wise inter-district disparity has 0 20 40 60 80 been presented in figure 12.

Thematic Map 11: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Madhya Pradesh (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

th MAHARASHTRA is found in the 9 position with respect to per capita income, out of 30 selected Indian states. This state contributes 15.8 per cent of GDP with 9.29 per cent of population.

Table 13: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Maharashtra, 2015-16 PCI Districts/ Divisions Rank Districts / Divisions PCI (Rs.) (Rs.) Mumbai 256391 1 Nashik 131288 8 Thane 215180 2 Dhule 104965 17 Raigad 171584 5 Nandurbar 65211 34 Ratnagiri 130829 9 Jalgaon 97084 20 Sindhudurg 136891 7 Ahmednagar 120368 14 Average: Konkan Division 182175 Average: Nashik Division 103783 CV% 29.3 CV% 24.4

Pune 202407 3 Buldhana 67863 31 Satara 124988 12 Akola 101853 18 Sangli 130053 10 Washim 66049 33 Solapur 129720 11 Amravati 98961 19 Kolhapur 151654 6 Yavatmal 82176 27 Average: Pune Division 147764 Average: Amravati Division 83380 CV% 21.82 CV% 20.13

Aurangabad 122961 13 Jalna 82210 26 Wardha 116134 15 Parbhani 82465 25 Nagpur 178036 4 Hingoli 66856 32 Bhandara 95989 21 Beed 78480 29 Gondia 94022 22 Nanded 85115 24 Chandrapur 112948 16 Osmanabad 78793 28 Gadchiroli 70947 30 Latur 88879 23 Average: Nagpur Division 111346 Average: Aurangabad Division 85720 CV% 32.73 CV% 19.1 Source: Appendix Table 1

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 13 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 12. Out of 34 districts of Maharashtra, Mumbai is in the first position and Nandurbar is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Raigarh, Nagpur, Pune, Thane and Mumbai are the districts, which are found in the category of very high per capita income.  In the category of above average there are 10 (28%) districts.  22 per cent (8) districts are in the category of below average.  In the very low per capita income category, there are 11 districts (34%).

Figure 11: Division-wise Regional With respect to intra-state imbalances this Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, state is found in the 12th position out of 18 Maharahstra NAGP 32.73 selected states. Maharashtra has 6 UR administrative divisions, among them KONK 29.30 AN Konkan division has the highest per capita NASHI 24.40 income, whereas, Aurangabad has the K lowest per capita income (table 13). With PUNE 21.82 respect to inter-district disparities, AMRA 20.13 VATI Aurangabad division has the lowest AURA regional imbalances and Nagpur division 19.10 NGA… has the highest regional imbalances (see 0 10 20 30 40 figure 11 for more details).

Thematic Map 12: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Maharashtra (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

ODISHA is also one of the underdeveloped states in India. The state contributes 2.43 per cent of GDP to the nation with 3.47 per cent of population. This state is also not an exception for the intra-state imbalances. The state is found in the 15th position in intra-state disparity among the selected 18 Indian states.

Table 14: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Odisha, 2010-11 (2004-05 prices) Districts/ Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Angul / Anugul 65038 2 Balangir 25731 13 Bargarh 22458 19 Deogarh / Debagarh 21225 24 Dhenkanal 26652 12 Jharsuguda 69913 1 Kendujhar 40201 6 Sambalpur 38730 7 Subarnapur 20683 25 Sundargarh 51051 3 Average: North Revenue Division, Sambalpur 38168 CV% 48.05 Balasore / Baleshwar 24326 16 Bhadrak 19323 26 Cuttack 33787 9 Jagatsinghapur 35576 8 Jajpur 28169 11 Kendrapara 18767 27 Khordha 41777 5 Mayurbhanj 21265 22 Nayagarh 17823 28 Puri 21260 23 Average: Central Revenue Divisions, Cuttack 26207 CV% 31.59 Baudh 23370 18 Gajapati 23440 17 Ganjam 25156 15 Kalahandi 21519 20 Kandhamal 43762 4 Koraput 29562 10 Malkangiri 17203 29 Nabarangpur 16289 30 Nuapada 21420 21 Rayagada 25349 14 Average: Southern Revenue Division, Berhampur 24707 CV% 51.94 Source: Appendix Table1

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 14 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 13. Out of 34 districts of Odisha, Jharsuguda is in the first position and Nabarangpur is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Three out of 30 districts namely, Sundargarh, Anugul and Jharsuguda are in the category of very high per capita income.

 In the category of above average there are 6 (26%) districts viz., Cuttack, Jagatsinghapur, Sambalpur, Kendujhar, Khordha and Kandhamal  In the category of below average there are 10 (33%) districts.  In the very low per capita income category, there are 11 districts (37%).

Figure 13: Division-wise Regional Odisha has three administrative divisions Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Odisha namely, north, central and south. Among North them north division has the highest per capita 48.0 (Sambalpur) income and south has the lowest per capita income (table 14). Division wise inter-district

Central (Cuttack) 31.6 disparity has been presented in figure 13. It is found from the figure that north division has the highest disparity and south division has Southern 31.3 (Berhampur) the lowest disparity. Totally, it is observed that division, which has the highest per capita 0.0 25.0 50.0 income that has the highest inter-district disparity.

Thematic Map 13: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Odisha (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

PUNJAB is found as one of the middle income states in the recent days with respect to per capita GSDP. Comparatively, Punjab has very low inter-district disparity. This state is found in the 2nd position after Kerala. The state’s population share is 2.29 per cent and the GDP share is 3.08 per cent to the nation.

Table 15: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Punjab, 2014-15 (2011-12 prices) PCI PCI Districts/ Divisions Districts/ Divisions (Rs.) Rank (Rs.) Rank Nawanshehar 108982 6 Bathinda 88223 14 Rupnagar 116184 3 Faridkot 94375 13 SAS Nagar 117932 1 Mansa 77364 18 Average: Rupnagar Division 114366 Average: Faridkot Division 86654 CV% 4.15 CV% 9.94

Barnala 94384 12 Fatehgarh Sahib 113628 4 Ludhiana 112820 5 Patiala 95294 11 Sangrur 104668 8 Average: Patiala Division 104159 Amritsar 86367 15 CV% 8.84 Gurdaspur 63086 22 Hoshiarpur 102662 10 Fazilka 83891 16 Jalandhar 107387 7 Firozpur 74671 19 Kapurthala 116535 2 Moga 103467 9 Pathankot 70975 20 Shri Muktsar Sahib 81244 17 Tarn Taran 69242 21 Average: Firozpur Division 85818 Average: Jalandhar Division 88036 CV% 14.44 CV% 23.96 Source: Appendix Table

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 15 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 14. SAS Nagar district is in the first position and Gurdaspur is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Six (27%) districts are in the category of very high per capita income namely, Ludhiana, Fatehgarh Sahib, Rupnagar, Kapurthala, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar.  There are five (23%) districts, namely Hoshiarpur, Moga, Sangrur, Jalandhar and Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, in the category of above average.  In the category of below average there are seven (32%) districts, they are Muktsar, Amritsar, Bathinda, Faridkot, Barnala and Patiala.  Four districts, namely Gurdaspur, Tarn Taran, Firozpur and Mansa are found in the last category that is very low per capita income.

Punjab has five administrative Figure 14: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per divisions, among them, capita GSDP, Punjab Rupnagar division has the Jalandhar 23.96 highest per capita income and Firozpur division has the Firozpur 14.44 lowest per capita income (table

15). Figure 7 shows the inter- Faridkot 9.94 district disparity among divisions. Jalandhar division Patiala 8.84 has the highest inter-district disparity and Rupnagar Rupnagar 4.15 division has the lowest inter- district disparity. 0.00 9.00 18.00 27.00

Thematic Map 14: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Punjab (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

RAJASTHAN is no longer a BIMARU state. This state is found in the middle income state with respect of per capita GSDP in the year 2015-16. The state contributes 4.56 per cent of GDP to the nation with the population share of 5.66 per cent. With respect to intra-state disparity, this state is found in the 4th position out of 18 selected Indian States.

Appendix Table 16: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Rajasthan, 2016-17 (2011-12 prices) Districts/ Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Districts/ Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Ajmer 96379 7 Bikaner 86075 10 Bhilwara 100276 5 Churu 59045 30 Nagaur 64090 23 Ganga Nagar 105549 3 Tonk 71808 20 Hanumangarh 96667 6 Average: Ajmer Division 83138 Average: Bikaner Division 86834 CV% 21.52 CV% 23.22 .

Banswara 50250 31 Barmer 135987 1 Dungarpur 46132 33 Jaisalmer 81503 14 Pratapgarh 61299 27 Jalore 59068 29 Rajsamand 80549 15 Jodhpur 76871 19 Udaipur 77055 18 Pali 84003 11 Chittorgarh 83994 12 Sirohi 86787 9 Average: Udaipur Division 66547 Average: Jodhapur Division 87370 CV% 24.42 CV% 29.46 .

Alwar 104366 4 Dausa 62867 25 Jaipur 109501 2 Jhunjhunu 60790 28 Sikar 70849 21 Average: Jaipur Division 81675 CV% 28.69 . Baran 78244 16 Bharatpur 62727 26 Bundi 82242 13 Dholpur 46650 32 Jhalawar 77275 17 Karauli 64012 24 Kota 92078 8 S.Madhopur 67889 22 Average: Kota Division 82460 Average: Bharatpur Division 60320 CV% 8.2 CV% 15.54 Source: Appendix Table 1

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 16 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 15. Barmer district is in the first position and Dungarpur is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Seven (21%) districts are in the category of very high per capita income namely, Ajmer, Hanumangarh, Bhilwara, Alwar, Ganganagar, Jaipur and Barmer.  There are eight (24%) districts, namely Rajsamand, Jaisalmer, Bundi, Chittaurgarh, Pali, Bikaner, Sirohi and Kota, which are found in the category of above average .

 In the category of below average there are seven (21%) districts, they are Sawai Madhopur, Sikar, Tonk, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Jhalawar and Baran.  In the last category, that is very low per capita income, there are 11 (33%) districts, viz., Dungarpur, Dhaulpur, Banswara, Churu, Jalor, Jhunjhunun, Pratapgarh, Bharatpur, Dausa, Karauli and Nagaur.

This state has seven administrative Figure 16: Division-wise Regional divisions. Among them, Jodhapur Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Rajastan Jodhapur division has the highest per capita 29.46 income and Bharatpur division has the Jaipur 28.69 lowest per capita income (table 16). Udaipur 24.42 Figure 16 shows the inter-district Bikaner 23.22 disparity among different administrative Ajmer 21.52 division in Rajasthan state. It is found from the figure that Jodhpur division has Bharatpur 15.54 the highest inter-district disparity and Kota 8.20

Kota division has the lowest inter-district 0 10 20 30 disparity. Thematic Map 15: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Rajasthan (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

TAMIL NADU state is found in the middle income state in per capita GSDP in 2015-16. The state contributes 8.51 per cent of GDP with the population share of 5.96 per cent to the nation. This state also has comparatively lower inter-district disparity.

Table 17: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Tamil Nadu, 2012-13 (2011-12 prices) Districts / Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Districts / Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Ariyalur 56558 28 Chennai 150275 1 Karur 98013 13 Cuddalore 75039 20 Nagapattinam 67456 25 Kancheepuram 136345 3 Perambalur 46840 30 Thiruvallur 141293 2 Thanjavur 67520 24 Tiruvannamalai 38449 32 Thiruvarur 46228 31 Vellore 97308 14 Tiruchirappalli 121527 6 Viluppuram 55419 29 Average: Central Division 72020 Average: North Division 99161 CV% 38.89 CV% 45.01

Dindigul 80387 19 Kanniyakumari 98077 12 Madurai 85040 18 Coimbatore 121099 7 Pudukkottai 66335 26 Dharmapuri 74807 21 Ramanathapuram 64558 27 Erode 119683 8 Sivaganga 71152 22 Krishnagiri 113583 9 Theni 69828 23 Namakkal 128532 4 Tirunelveli 90692 15 Salem 88040 16 Thoothukudi 122648 5 The Nilgiris 87174 17 Virudhunagar 104055 11 Tiruppur 112192 10

Average: South Division 85277 Average: West Division 103430 CV% 22.09 CV% 18.48 Source: Appendix Table 1

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 17 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 16. Chennai district is in the first position and Tiruvannamalai is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Eight (25%) districts are found in the category of very high per capita income, they are Erode, Coimbatore, Tiruchirappalli, Thoothukkudi, Namakkal, Kancheepuram, Thiruvallur and Chennai.  Tirunelveli, Vellore, Karur, Kanniyakumari, Virudunagar, Tiruppur and Krishnagiri are the seven (22%) districts, which are found in the category of above average.  Nine (28%) districts, namely, Thanjavur, Theni, Sivaganga, Dharmapuri, Cuddalore, Dindigul, Madurai, The Nilgiris and Salemare are observed in the category of below average per capita income.  Tiruvannamalai, Thiruvarur, Perambalur, Viluppuram, Ariyalur, Ramanathapuram, Pudukkottai and Nagappattinam are the eight (25%) districts which can be seen in the category of very low per capita income.

This state also has comparatively lower inter-district disparity. Out of 18 selected states, this state is observed in 3rd position. The state Figure 15: Division-wise Regional Imbalances has been divided into four administrative in Per capita GSDP, Tamil Nadu divisions. Among them West division has North 45.01 the highest per capita income and central division has the lowest per capita income Central 38.89 (table 16). Further, to see the division wise inter-district disparity coefficient of South 22.09 variation has been calculated and presented in figure 15. It is observed from the figure

West 18.48 that north division has the highest inter- district disparity and West division has the 0 25 50 lowest inter-district disparity.

Thematic Map 16: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Tamil Nadu (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

Telangana:

TELANGANA is the new state carved out of Andhra Pradesh. The state has the per capita income more than the above average among Indian states. The state contributes population share of 2.89 per cent and GDP share of 3.65 per cent to the nation. With respect to intra-state disparity its position is 16th out 18 selected Indian states.

Table 18: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Telangana, 2015-16 (2011-12 prices) Districts/ Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Adilabad 79907 15 Kumuram Bheem 72687 18 Mancherial 79944 14 Nirmal 70171 20 Nizamabad 71754 19 Jagtial 56636 31 Peddapalli 96717 6 Jayashankar 74592 16 Bhadradri Kothagudem 103073 5 Mahabubabad 62232 26 Warangal Rural 72899 17 Warangal Urban 64038 25 Karimnagar 80683 13 RajannaSircilla 66044 23 Kamareddy 60301 30 Sangareddy 142331 3 Medak 86260 9 Siddipet 93639 8 Jangaon 66469 21 YadadriBhuvanagiri 95161 7 Medchal-Malkajgiri 139166 4 Hyderabad 240777 1 Rangareddy 228696 2 Vikarabad 65947 24 Mahabubnagar 66319 22 Jogulamba Gadwal 61981 28 Wanaparthy 62102 27 Nagarkurnool 61548 29 Nalgonda 84049 10 Suryapet 83367 11 Khammam 82603 12 GSDP/PCI 112168 Average 89422 CV(%) 48.94 Source: Appendix Table 1

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 18 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 17. Out of 31 districts of Telangana, Hyderabad is in the first

42 position and Jagtial is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Three (10%) districts, namely, Sangareddy, Rangareddy and Hyderabad are found in the category of very high per capita income.

Thematic Map 17: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Telangana (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

 In the category of above average there are five (16%) districts namely Siddipet, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Peddapalli, Bhadradri Kothagudem and Medchal-Malkajgiri  In the below average category there are the 11 (36%) districts, namely Nizamabad, Kumuram Bheem, Warangal Rural, Jayashankar, Adilabad, Mancherial, Karimnagar, Khammam, Suryapet, Nalgonda and Medak  In the very low per capita income category, there are 12 (39%) districts viz., Jagtial, Kamareddy, Nagarkurnool, Jogulamba Gadwal, Wanaparthy, Mahabubabad, Warangal Urban, Vikarabad, Rajanna Sircilla, Mahabubnagar, Jangaon and Nirmal

UTTAR PRADESH is another north Indian state which is also an underdeveloped state. The state contributes 8.22 per cent of GDP to the nation with 16.51 per cent of population.

Table 19: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Uttar Pradesh, 2016-17 (2011-12 prices) Districts/ Districts/ Districts/ PCI Rank PCI Rank PCI Rank Divisions Divisions Divisions Agra 59729 5 Aligarh 40314 29 Badaun 30497 44 Faizabad 28261 51 Etah 54312 11 Bareilly 53034 12 Firozabad 33741 37 Hathras 42311 25 Pilibhit 40538 28 Mainpuri 29532 49 Kasganj 52525 14 Shahjahanpur 36406 35 Mathura 43237 22

Agra Div. Aligarh Div. Bareilly Div. 38900 47366 40119 Average Average Average CV (%) 33.5 CV (%) 14.9 CV (%) 23.8

Jalaun 39263 31 Azamgarh 22521 64 Basti 27898 52 Sant Kabeer Jhansi 54883 9 Ballia 21786 68 19608 74 Nagar Lalitpur 39220 32 Mau 27532 53 Siddharth Nagar 19795 72 Jhansi Div. Azamgarh Basti Div. 44455 23947 22434 Average Div. Average Average CV (%) 20.3 CV (%) 13.1 CV (%) 21.1 .

Banda 25867 54 Bahraich 17736 75 Deoria 22226 66 Chitrakoot 22526 63 Balrampur 19762 73 Gorakhpur 29610 48 Hamirpur 42427 24 Gonda 24295 59 Kushi Nagar 22139 67 Mahoba 62724 3 Shravasti 21619 69 Maharajganj 23618 60 Chitrakoot Gonda Div. Gorakhpur 38386 20853 24398 Div. Average Average Div. Average CV (%) 48.0 CV (%) 13.4 CV (%) 14.5 . .

Ambedkar 23190 61 Etawah 39266 30 Sambhal 30177 46 Nagar Amethi 31543 43 Farrukhabad 32908 41 Amroha 57154 6 Auraiyya 32196 42 Kannauj 42714 23 Bijnor 41937 26 Barabanki 33556 39 Kanpur Dehat 36570 34 Moradabad 41617 27 Sultanpur 29866 47 Kanpur Nagar 54853 10 Rampur 48851 17 Auraiyya Div. Kanpur Div. 30070 41262 43947 Average Average CV (%) 13.5 CV (%) 20.4 22.7

Baghpat 52555 13 Hardoi 24421 58 Chandauli 23188 62 Buland Shahar 49178 16 Kheri 33062 40 Ghazipur 22513 65 Lucknow 60102 4 Jaunpur 20429 70

Ghaziabad 55647 7 Raebareilly 25028 56 Varanasi 38407 33 Hapur 55116 8 Sitapur 29261 50 Meerut 75658 2 Unnao 33577 38

Meerut Div. Lucknow Div. Varanasi Div. 103224 34242 26134 Average Average Average CV (%) 108.6 CV (%) 38.7 CV (%) 31.6

Allahabad 45685 19 Bhadohi 25630 55 Muzaffar Nagar 46926 18 Fatehpur 34116 36 Mirzapur 30488 45 Saharanpur 44063 20 Kaushambi 24922 57 Sonbhadra 50281 15 Shamli 43742 21 Pratapgarh 20135 71

Prayagraj Div. Mirzapur Saharanpur 31215 35466 44910 Average Div. Average Div. Average CV (%) 36.1 CV (%) 36.8 CV (%) 3.9

Note: Gautambudh Nagar (1st Rank) is an out-layer with the highest per capita income; hence, the district has been excluded. Source: Appendix Table 1

The state is found in the 11th position in intra-state disparity among the selected 18 Indian states. The state has 18 administrative divisions. Among them Meerut division has the highest per capita income and Gonda division has the lowest per capita income (table 19). Intra-State disparity of different divisions has been presented in figure 16. It is found from the figure that Chitrakoot division has the highest disparity and Saharanpur division has the lowest disparity. The highest inter-district disparity is observed in these divisions, which have the higher per capita income.

Thematic Map 18: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Uttar Pradesh (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 19 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 18. Gautam Buddha Nagar and Meerut districts are in the top position and Bahraich, Sant Kabir Nagar are in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

Figure 16: Division-wise Regional Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, Uttar Pradesh  22 (31.9%) Chitrakoot 48.0 Lucknow 38.7 districts are in the Meerut 36.8 category of very high Prayagraj 36.1 per capita income. Agra 33.5 Varanasi 31.6  There are 15 Bareilly 23.8 (271.7%) districts in the Mirzapur 22.7 category of above Basti 21.1 average. Kanpur 20.4 Jhansi 20.3  In the category Moradabad 18.0 of below average there Aligarh 14.9 are 17 (24.6%) districts. Gorakhpur 14.5 Auraiyya 13.5  15 (21.7%) Gonda 13.4 districts are found in the Azamgarh 13.1 last category that is very Saharanpur 3.9 low per capita income. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

UTTRAKHAND state is found in the middle income state in per capita GSDP in 2015-16. The state contributes 1.26 per cent of GDP with the population share of 0.83 per cent to the nation. Out of 18 selected states, this state is observed in 13th position in intra-state disparity. District wise per capita income has been presented in table 20 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 19. Haridwar is in the first position and Rudraprayag in the last position among the 13 districts in the state. This state also has higher inter-district disparity. Categorisation of districts (within the state) in per capita income reveals that,

 Only one district Haridwar is in the category of very high per capita income.  Two districts namely U.S.Nagar and Dehradun are found in the category of above average .  Five districts, namely, Bageshwar, Pithoragarh, P Garhwal, Nainital and Chamoli are observed in the category of below average per capita income.  Rudraprayag, T Garhwal, Uttarkashi, Champawat and Almora are the five districts, which can be seen in the category of very low per capita income.

Table 20: Per Capita District Domestic Product, Uttarakhand 2015-16, Current Prices Districts/ Divisions PCI Rank Almora 86961 9 Bageshwar 91145 8 Chamoli 109163 4 Champawat 84878 10 Dehradun 176658 2 Haridwar 233566 1 Nainital 105273 5 P Garhwal 98086 6 Pithoragarh 93070 7 Rudraprayag 75939 13 T Garhwal 76145 12 U.S.Nagar 173117 3 Uttarkashi 81954 11 CV(%) 42.65

Source: Appendix Table 1

Thematic Map 19: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of Uttarakhand (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

WEST BENGAL contributes 6.58 per cent of GDP to the nation with population contribution of 7.54 per cent. The state has also huge intra-state disparity. Among the 18 selected Indian states, West Bengal is found in the 9th position in intra-state disparity.

Table 21: Per Capita District Domestic Product, West Bengal, 2012-13 (2004-05 prices) Districts/ Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Districts/ Divisions PCI (Rs.) Rank Birbhum 53362 14 Cooch Behar 42765 16 Burdwan 210175 1 Darjeeling 57090 13 Hooghly 129568 5 Jalpaiguri 73656 10 Average: Burdwan Division 131035 Average: Jalpaiguri Division 57837 CV (%) 59.84 CV (%) 26.73

24-Parganas(S) 155058 3 Howrah 121930 6 Kolkata 187525 2 Nadia 95466 9 Average: Presidency Division 139995 CV (%) 28.56

Dakshin Dinajpur 26766 18 Bankura 63521 11 Malda 62792 12 Midnapore East 147867 4 Murshidabad 109973 7 Midnapore West 101532 8 Uttar Dinajpur 36531 17 Purulia 44540 15 Average: Malda Division 59016 Average: Medinipur Division 89365 CV (%) 63.07 CV (%) 75.49 Source: Appendix Table 1

District wise per capita income has been presented in table 21 and its categorisation has been presented in thematic map 20. Kolkata district is in the first position and Uttar Dinajpur is in the last position. Inter-district per capita income categorisation within the state reveals that,

 Kolkata, Darjiling and Purba Medinipur are the three (16%) districts, which are found in the category of very high per capita income.  Four (21%) districts are found in the category of above average in per capita income they are Birbhum, Haora, North 24 Parganas and Hugli.  In the category of below average there are five (26%) districts namely, Medinipur, Presidency, Medinipur, Jalpaiguri and Presidency.  Seven (37%) districts, namely, Uttar Dinajpur, Dakshin Dinajpur, Puruliya, Barddhaman, Murshidabad, Maldah and Koch Bihar are found in the last category that is very low per capita income.

Figure 17: Division-wise Regional This state has been divided into four Imbalances in Per capita GSDP, West Bengal administrative divisions viz.,

Malda 63.07 Burdwan, Jalpaiguri, Malda, Medinipur and Presidency. Among Burdwan 59.84 them Presidency division has the highest per capita income and Medinipur 55.35 Jalpaiguri division has the lowest

Presidency 28.56 per capita income (table 21). To see the inter-district disparity among Jalpaiguri 26.73 different administrative divisions, coefficient of variation has been 10 21 32 43 54 65 calculated and presented in figure 17. It is found from the figure that Malda division has the highest inter-district disparity and Jalpaiguri division has the lowest inter-district disparity.

Thematic Map 20: Categorisation of Districts in Per capita Income (PCI) of West Bengal (within the state)

Legend: Very Low Below Average Above Average Very High No Data

Intra-state disparity and Economic Growth:

To see the association of intra- Figure 18: Scatter diagram of association of per state disparity and economic capita state income and intra-state disparities growth a scatter diagram has been attempted and presented in figure 18. Intra-state disparity (CV%) is presented on OX axis and per capita state income (GSDP) has been presented on OY axis. It is found from the scatter diagram that there is a negative association between intra-state disparity and per capita state income. It means, the states, which have the higher Source: Computed from Appendix table 2 and 3 intra-state disparity have the lower per capita income. In other words, unequal income distribution results into lower economic growth.

Way Forward:

Due to higher focus on economic growth during the initial years of independence, the nation has achieved noticeable growth, but it has not distributed equally among different regions. This needs to be explored further by examining the lags in the relationships between different variables. This unequal distribution of economic growth, further resulted into unequal distribution of developmental fruits such as gaps in employment opportunities, unequal distribution of education and health outcomes, significant disparities in infrastructure facilities like, road, rail, electricity, industrialisation, irrigation and so on. Consequently, over the period of time, the causal relationship among and between different socio-economic indicators (all other, along with above mentioned) have increased the regional disparities (inter-state and intra-state) noticeably. Eradication of regional disparity is the main motto of the recent successive governments at Central and State level, which has been addressed through many policies and programmes.

However, to measure the regional disparity more meaningfully and to suggest the proper policy, strong data base at different disaggregated level is the prerequisite. For this purpose, first of all, district (as well as taluk) domestic product should be calculated/estimated for each district every year. At present, some states like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana calculate district domestic product every year. State like Gujarat has no district domestic product. Hence, CSO should make proper guidelines and give appropriate training to the officials of Directorate of Economics and Statistics of all states. Thus, one can see the per capita income level of all the districts of the country and also these districts can be ranked. Through this, intra-state disparity can properly be addressed more meaningfully.

Second very important initiative is estimating domestic products for taluks. This work will be helpful to see the intra-district (inter-taluk) disparity. Moreover, this work will be helpful to see the agro-climatic zone wise economic growth in different states. This helps to prepare policies and programmes based on potentiality and availability of resources on agro- climatic base.

Third issue is related to public expenditure. Till date we do not have proper data available on public expenditure on different departments at district level. For this, ministry of finance should take an initiative incorporating different departments, IT technicians, academicians, bureaucrats and so on.

The present study has observed that in most of the states, the divisions, which have the higher per capita income, have the higher quantum of regional disparity. Hence, to achieve the balanced regional development- proper industrialisation, infrastructure facilities should be developed in all the regions/divisions based on potentiality and necessity. Increasing of number of administrative divisions (wherever is necessary) is needed for decentralised governance. Further, decentralised administration will be helpful in reduction of regional imbalances. Hence, number of administrative divisions should be increased based on agro-climatic zones. Along with other policies and programmes, these initiatives will be helpful in achieving the BALANCED REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

Appendix Table 1: State-wise Data Source for District Domestic Product States Websites Andhra https://core.ap.gov.in/cmdashboard/Download/Publications/District%20at Pradesh %20Glance%20-%202018.pdf Bihar http://dse.bih.nic.in/ Haryana http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/stateplan/sdr/sdr_haryana1909.pdf Himachal http://himachalservices.nic.in/economics/pdf/distt_dp_2015-16.pdf Pradesh Jammu https://www.districtsofindia.com Kashmir Jharkhand http://desjharkhand.nic.in/stateincom.html http://des.kar.nic.in/sites/KAG201617/CHAPTER%20%201%20GENERA Karnataka L.pdf http://ondemandwebcast.niyamasabha.org/report/er/Economic_Review_en Kerala glish_volume2.pdf Madhya file:///C:/Users/dataentry1/Downloads/STATE%20DOMESTIC%20PROD Pradesh %2012-13.pdf Maharashtra https://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/files/publication/ESM_17_18_eng.pdf Odisha http://pc.odisha.gov.in/Download/Economic_Survey_2017-18.pdf Punjab http://www.esopb.gov.in/static/PDF/FinalPunjabATGlance-2016.pdf Rajasthan http://desddp.raj.nic.in/PDF/Publication_8302018%2024239%20PM.pdf Tamil Nadu http://www.tn.gov.in/deptst/stat.htm https://www.telangana.gov.in/PDFDocuments/Socio-Economic-Outlook- Telangana 2017.pdf Uttar Pradesh https://updes.up.nic.in Uttarkandh http://des.uk.gov.in/pages/display/101-district-domestic-product-estimates West Bengal https://www.wbpspm.gov.in/SiteFiles/Publications/2_18052017142017.pdf

Appendix Table 2: State-wise Per capita GSDP from 1993-94 to 2015-16 and its Growth Rate, (2011-12 prices) 1993-94 2015-16 Growth Rate Year Per Capita GDP Rank Per Capita GDP Rank CAGR Rank A & N Islands 46168 5 107873 14 4.21 20 Andhra Pradesh 28188 20 86118 17 5.26 12 Arunachal Pradesh 39054 8 99823 15 4.40 17 Assam 27630 21 48465 26 2.64 30 Bihar 10350 30 24572 30 4.38 15 Chandigarh 74928 2 193604 3 4.30 21 Chhattisgarh 30446 17 67185 19 4.10 22 Delhi 72386 3 234328 2 5.49 11 Goa 93843 1 267329 1 4.39 19 Gujarat 29441 19 122148 8 6.33 5 Haryana 41116 6 133591 5 5.82 8 Himachal Pradesh 33567 12 114478 11 5.57 9 Jammu and Kashmir 31882 14 60171 22 2.87 28 Jharkhand 22099 26 50817 25 3.75 23 Karnataka 37054 10 113303 12 5.26 13 Kerala 35565 11 119777 10 5.96 7 Madhya Pradesh 21017 27 46324 27 3.68 25 Maharashtra 40330 7 121514 9 5.53 10 Manipur 25349 22 45652 28 2.82 29 Meghalaya 25293 23 59373 23 4.39 18 Nagaland 29760 18 61363 21 3.62 24 Odisha 23669 25 58165 24 4.60 14 Puducherry 32893 13 126880 6 6.30 6 Punjab 48207 4 99372 16 3.49 26 Rajasthan 23670 24 68048 18 4.44 16 Sikkim 37658 9 193569 4 8.57 1 Tamil Nadu 30478 16 111454 13 6.31 4 Tripura 14342 29 64173 20 7.22 3 Uttar Pradesh 19213 28 36850 29 3.00 27 Uttarakhand 31018 15 126306 7 7.48 2 All India 28249 88746 5.42 Source: Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy, RBI,

Appendix Table 3: State wise Intra-state disparities in per capita income States CV (%) Rank Andhra Pradesh 20.84 16 Bihar 73.2 2 Haryana 28.43 12 Himachal Pradesh 56.55 3 Jammu Kashmir 25.37 14 Jharkhand 28.01 13 Karnataka 43.48 6 Kerala 16.82 18 Madhya Pradesh 35.78 9 Maharashtra 39.25 8 Odisha 45.4 5 Punjab 17.57 17 Rajasthan 25.3 15 Tamil Nadu 32.93 11 Telangana 48.94 4 Uttar Pradesh 90.35 1 Uttarakhand 42.65 7 West Bengal 33.98 10

Source: Computed from the tables from 4 to 21

References:

Ahluwalia, Montek (2002): 'State Level Performance Under Economic Reforms in India' in Anne Krueger, (ed), Economic Policy Reforms and the Indian Economy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press

BhattacharyG (2009): Intra-State Disparity in Government Expenditure: An Analysis, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 26/27 (Jun. 27 - Jul. 10, 2009), pp.231- 237

ChaudhuriS and Gupta N (2009): Levels of Living and Poverty Patterns: A District-Wise Analysis for India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 9 (Feb. 28 - Mar. 6, 2009), pp. 94-110

Dholakia, Ravindra H (1977): 'State Income Inequalities in India and Interstate Variations in Price Movements', presented at the conference of Indian Association for Research in National Income and Wealth (IARNIW) held at Shillong in November. Subsequently it was published in Arthavikas, Vol 14, No 1, January 1978

Dholakia, Ravindra H (1985): Regional Disparity in Economic Growth in India, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay.

Dubey A (2009): Intra-State Disparities in Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Orissa and Punjab, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 26/27 (Jun. 27 - Jul. 10, 2009), pp.224- 230

Kanbur, R and A J Venables, ed. (2005): Spatial Inequality and Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press

Rao, M Govinda, RicShand and K P Kalirajan (1999): 'Convergence of Incomes Across Indian States: A Divergent View', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 34, March 22- April 2.

Roy Choudhury, Uma Dutta (1993): 'Interstate and Intrastate Variations in Economic Development and Standard of Living', Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol V, No 1, January-March, pp 47-116.

Sachs, Jeffrey D, NirupamBajpai and Ananthi Ramaiah (2002): 'Understanding Regional Economic Growth in India', CID Working Paper No 88, Harvard University, March

Singh, A. K. (1999), "Inter- State Disparities in Per Capita State Domestic Product in India: Trends and Causes", ArthaVijnana, XLI (2): 108-24.

Suryanarayana (2009): Intra-State Economic Disparities: Karnataka and Maharashtra, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 26/27 (Jun. 27 - Jul. 10, 2009), pp.215- 223