a comparative study of pre & post liberalized

7/31/2019 A Comparative Study of Pre & Post Liberalized

1/21

By:Aparna Shukla

Asst. Prof. ,Dr. VSIPS, Kanpur


2/21

This paper is an attempt to analyse theeffect of economic reforms on UPs

economic growth, poverty and income

inequality. Here GDP and per capita GDP of state has chosen to measure economicgrowth and Gini Index and MPCE arechosen as a variable to analyse the

inequality and poverty


3/21

Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state in the

country accounting for 16.4 per cent of thecountrys population .It is also the fourth largest state in geographical

area covering 9.0 per cent of the countrysgeographical area, encompassing 2, 94,411 squarekilometres and comprising of 83 districts, 901development blocks and 112,804 inhabited villages.The density of population in the state is 473 people

per square kilometres as against 274 for thecountry.


4/21

The pace of urbanisation has been lower in thestate.

The state's debt was estimated at 67 per cent of GDP in 2005.

nearly 40 percent of the total population livesbelow the poverty line

In 2011 Census , literacy growth rate in UP was56.40% as against 38.82% country wise and rankwise it is at 29 th position.Uttar Pradesh had been one of the famous IndianBIMARU states for long time, the term that wasused for state developing at very slow growth rate.


5/21

But recently in 11th five year plan(2007-12), UttarPradesh has registered 7.28% GDP growth rateagainst the target of 6.10% and is the part of 5states the exceeded the targets of growth rates.At per capita income Uttar Pradesh have thesluggish rates of 2.9 per cent

that in UP multidimensional poverty index (.387)isvery high in comparison to Indian multidimensionalpoverty index(.296)


6/21

Net State Domestic Product of Uttar Pradesh (at factorcost)

(Rs. Crore)Year

1980-81 14112

1990-91 49496

% change(pre liberalization) 250%

1999-2000 144160

% change(post liberalization) 199%

2008-09 350297

% change(post liberalization) 142%


7/21

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

Rupees(Crore)Year

1980-81 1278

1990-91 1652

% change(pre liberalisation) 29%

1999-2000 5675

% change(post liberalisation) 243%

2008-2009 12481

% change 119%


8/21

The per capita income of the state at Rs. 4787 in1993-94 is one of the lowest in the country exceptOrissa (Rs. 4726) and Bihar (Rs. 3620).The per capita of the state in 1950-51 at Rs. 259was very close to the national per capita income of Rs. 267

The post-1974 period the state achieved a growthof 5-7 per cent per annum, which is higher than thenational growth of 5.3 per cent .


9/21


10/21


11/21

Globalisation and disparities in UP: Globalizationhas also not done much good to reduce disparitiesin UP. Uttar Pradesh with 4.4% is far behind the fastgrowing states like Gujarat with 8.8%, Delhi with7.4% and Haryana with 8.7%.Inequality in UP: Apart from economic growth andreduction in poverty rate, inequality remain themajor problem of UP. Globalization has also notdone much good to reduce disparities here.


12/21

0.03

0.04

1993-94 2004-05

Change in Inequality: India & UP (1993-94 to 2004-05)

India UP


13/21

Inequality among the various regions of UP

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.02

0.17

0.05

0.04

Rural

Urban


14/21

Gini Coefficient of India in comparison to UP :

1973-

74

1977-78 1983

1993-94 1999-

2000

2004-05 (URP)

2004-05 (MRP)

R U

R U R U R U R U R U R U

India .28 .30 .34 .34 .30 .32 .28 .34 .26 .34 .30 .37 .25 .35

U.P..24 .29 .30 .33 .29 .31 .28 .32 .25 .33 .29 .37 .23 .34


15/21

Sect

or

State

Av.

MPCE (Rs.)

Best

MPCE District

Av.

MPCE (Rs.)

Wor

st

MPCE Distr

ict

Av.

MPCE (Rs.)

Leas

tPoorDistrict

HCR

(%)

Most

PoorDistrict

HCR

(%)

Rural

Urban 647

978 Faijabad

Agra

917

1393 Chitrakoot

Banda

348

436 GBNager

Shanjapur

2.6

3.6 Chitrakoot

Chaundli

81.5

74.5

Average MPCE across Uttar Pradesh (2004-05)


16/21

Findings:Before liberalisation specially in 80s economicgrowth of UP was very good and was very close tonational economic growth even in one or two yearsit was more, then what happened further, one andonly answer is for that time period was, growth of population of UP was more than economic growth.

After liberalisation there has been a wide gapbetween per capita GDP of UP and of India. In 80sthis was 17.2%, in 90s this was 27.6% and in 2K it is42.7%.

Post reform period there is decline in poverty in UPbut inequality has been increased more in urbanareas than in rural areas .


17/21

High level of illiteracy in the younger age group.The incidence of illiteracy in the 10-14 age groupwas as high as 32 %for rural males and 61 %for ruralfemales, and more than two-thirds of all rural girlsin the 12-14 age group never went to school.Unequal development of UP, the western region

where since August 1991 till March 2006 74.6 % of investment have been in Western region, 13.6 % inCentral Uttar Pradesh while 9.9 percent and 1.9percent in Eastern and Bundelkhand regionrespectively.


18/21

Proportion of agriculture is decreasing butdependency on agriculture as an employmentoption is increasing which is generatingunemployment.Interstate migration has grown by 53.6%. The totalnumber of interstate migrants was42.3 million.Uttar Pradesh (-2.6 million) and Bihar (-1.7 million)

were the two states with the largest netoutmigration that is because of lesser numbers of employment opportunities within the state.Before liberalization 17.83% of total population wasliving in urban areas, in 90s it was 19.68% and in 2kit was 20.78%, which is creating population densityin urban areas of state also degradation in thequality of life.


19/21

Uttar Pradesh comes under the alarming category of level of corruption in comparison to other states.

A survey done by Indiaoffline.com states that 70% of population is not satisfied with administration of UP.


20/21

Conclusions:UP is lagging from the main stream of growth

because of low economic growth afterliberalisation.Because of low rate of industrialization and lessopportunities of employment UP is lagging in terms

of per capita GDP.Wide Gender inequality in education makes UP abackward state.Lesser employment opportunities and unevendevelopment within the state made UP the secondinterstate migrant state after Bihar.


21/21

Suggestions:UP government should try to reduce the level of

corruption so that the policies and plans of stateswelfare can be properly implemented.UP government should try to develop favourableenvironment for investment so that more

opportunities for employment may be generatedthat may reduce the interstate migration from theUP.Urbanisation of UP is not done properly there is

wide inequality in urban population in terms of health, education, standard of living inequality etc.

a comparative study of pre & post liberalized

Documents