Introduction Regional disparity is a ubiquitous phenomenon in both developed and developing economies. But in the latter it is more acute and glaring. When economic development occurs unequally across a country, regional differences in the levels of living become an important political issue. State economies are often composed of sets of smaller and localized economies. If the national economy is to prosper then its constituent regional economies must be brought into some sort of harmony. Any attempt to implement regional balanced -growth strategy, it is necessary to identify nature and pattern of regional development, the availability of basic amenities and the quality of infrastructure available. In Uttar Pradesh too, area disparities in the level of poverty, unemployment, income, infrastructure, agriculture, industry and above all the level of living of people exist substantially across the regions. Numerous measures have been undertaken in the last sixty years of planning to achieve balanced regional development of the State, yet wide disparities in area development continues in this state. In the regional analysis of development one comes across regions which are well developed and the peopl e in such region enjoy reasonable standard of living while in others, resource utilization and development is low owing to historical circumstances or other wise, resulting in the underdeveloped of the region whereby people have a poor 1 standard of living. The problem of imbalance in regional development thus assumes a great significance. Regional development, therefore, is interpreted as intra-regional development design to solve the problems of regions lagging behind. The first connotation of regional is e conomic in which the differences in growth, in volume and structure of production, income, and employment are taken as the measure of economic progress. However, recently it has been argued that merely economic criteria cannot explain the level of development, which is multidimensional concept. Therefore, such variables or criteria should also be employed which indicate progress on technological, social and cultural fronts. Thus development means progress throughout the society. However, at the base of development process lies the progress in different sectors of the economy. Developing agriculture and reducing gaps between regions with regard to the efficiency of the agricultural system can only achieve regional development in an overwhelming agricultural situation. Progress in agriculture releases resources, labour as well as capital for use in industry and services. Progress in agriculture also leads to the modernization and social development and better level of living through education and generating propensity other than agricultural goods. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE The earliest study in the level of development was made by Schwartzberg (1962). The use of a composite index of development brought out areal differences in the levels of development, althoug h these differences 2 could not be further put rigorous regional analysis as the data were on the basis of states (prior to 1956) which are not ideally suited to reveal regional differences. Pal (1965) put a more systematic attempt in the construction of a composite index of selected variables, which permits several stages of analysis in relation to the group of variables contributing to overall development; with a study of All India level it may be regarded essentially as a contribution to methodology in areal differentiation by factor analysis. Mitra (1965) has grouped 324 districts of India into four levels of development. For this study he has selected 63 variables and these variables were grouped into six convenient blocks. The variables pertain to natural factors, agricultural infrastructure, traditional economy, human resources, organized industry etc. This study is unique for its simplicity and systematic approach. Nath (1970) on the basis of state and district level data worked out the regional patterns of economic development and economic growth within India. Analysis of the level of economic development has been made only for the states. The level of economic development of states has been measured in two ways: (i) on the basis of per cap ita income, and (ii) through the use of a composite index of economic development based on four indicators. Analysis of economic growth has been made with the help of data on growth rates of population, agricultural output, and per capita value added in the industry, and per capita income. He mapped the states of India into two categories of relatively developed and less developed. Prakash (1977) assessed the regional inequalities and economic development in relation to infrastructural facilities in Indi a. He selected several infrastructural factors: the various population characteristics that reflect the development of infrastructure determinants of industrialization, the development of power, irrigation and agricultural implements and road transportation, communication and banking services. He obtained two important conclusions from the analysis of development of individual regions 3 in various fields: (i) there is no region, which is equally developed or underdeveloped in all fields. (ii) the other impo rtant result is that the some region/regions come under the category of underdeveloped region if some other indicator relating to the same field is used for classification. It implies that an appropriate indicator should be chosen to determine the stage o f development of the regions. Hemlata Rao (1984) while studying the regional disparities, dimensions and typology of backwardness in Karnataka applied the technique of factor analysis in delineating the regions. The study covers 175 talukas (villages) of Karnataka and examines inter taluka diversities in the land utilization pattern, cropping pattern, agricultural development, pattern of industrial spread, and industrial developments, level of development of education, health, transport, communication, power, banking and cooperative sectors and overall development level during period between 1975 -76 and 1979-80. The study concludes that in Karnataka there is not only wide diversity in natural endowments but also wide disparities in the levels of secto ral and aggregate development. All backward regions are not the same rather they have different dimensions and typology of backwardness. The causes of backwardness also vary from region to region. Levels of socioeconomic development and regional development may show many dimensions of progress and backwardness. Therefore, the present study may found similarities and differences among different areas of Uttar Pradesh in respect of socioeconomic development. The most accepted and yet the most complex task of regional planning is to prepare a comprehensive regional development plan. The present study will help to prepare an integrated plan between the economic and social components in a given region and interregional, that is between different levels of regions. Regional planning is strongly advocated where there are conflicts arising out of administrative jurisdiction, resource patterns and sharp contrasts in the levels of development between regions of an Uttar Pradesh, which is in the process of development. 4 Hence, the researchers of the present investigation have made a humble attempt to find out the causes and consequences of regional disparity in socio-economic development of Uttar Pradesh. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The present study attempts to assess the existing level of socio- economic development in Uttar Pradesh, leading to the identification of regions having unequal share of socio-economic development. The specific objectives are as follows: 1. To analyze the existing levels of socio-economic development in the region. 2. To examine spatial distribution of socio-economic development in relation to their correlates. 3. Determination of levels of development at district levels on the basis of socio-economic development of the region. 4. To suggest a suitable strategy for accelerating the overall development of the region. HYPOTHESIS Corresponding to the objectives of the present research, the following null hypotheses have been framed for empirical verification and it has been verified: H.01: There would be no significant regional disparity in socio -economic development of Uttar Pradesh (District wise and Region wise) H.02: There would be no significant relationship between socio-economic development and regional disparity in Uttar Pradesh. METHODOLOGY: Data Collection: The study pertains to 70 districts of Uttar Pradesh. The secondary data is collected from the published and unpublished records, viz. census 5 reports, and revenue records, district statistical year books, the data kept at the state, district, tehsil and block headquarters. The data, which are not available through secondary sources, is collected through field surveys. The data is collected from National Information Centre (NIC) and Statistical Division, Department of Planning, Niyojan Bhavan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. As the district is a unit of analysis in this study, the data will also procure at the district level from district Statistical Division. Data Analysis: Since the focus of the study is on the economic and socia l dimensions of the development, the levels of development in this study are to be examined in the following specific indicators. A. Social Development B. Agricultural Development C. Industrial Development The first two encompass