assets creation, up-gradation and maintenance: …assets creation, up-gradation and maintenance:...

www.indiastat.com November - December, 2013 1 socio - economic voices

Assets creation, Up-gradation and Maintenance: Review of Progress of MGNREGA through 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 (Yogesh Kumar, Joint Director, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission, Govt of India)

Introduction Huge number of assets has been created under the NREGS. It has become imperative to ascertain whether the

assets created under NREGS are productive, durable and useful to the community. Enhancing sustainable

livelihood security to the rural poor through creation of durable productive assets, especially in the agriculture

based economy, is the very prime objective MNREGA for the revival of rural economy (Kumar, 2012). The author

further states that as the schemes are being implemented throughout the rural India, the magnitude of lives that will

be touched by it is inevitably massive.

Padhi (CRD, 2013) finds that the NREGS has the potential to transform the rural economy. Evidently, the NREGS

is already making a difference to the lives of millions of people. A comprehensive assessment of the National Rural

Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Delhi,(2008) stated

that the scheme has huge potential for regenerating the village economy in India, but only if its focus remains on

the creation of productive assets. CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) recently (2013) have quashed upon

severe lapses in MGNREGA – government cherished flagship programme (see Notes) in creation of durable and

sustainable assets while UNDP (2013) praised the outcomes of the programme (see Notes).

Magsaysay award winner Deep Joshi believes that NREGA should actually be used for assets creation on all lands.

In the above perspectives, the present paper reviews the programme making year by year and state by state

assessments. The years and period under review is 2008-09 to 2012-13 (when the scheme was extended to all the

districts and States of the country.

Nine major types of works being carried out under MG-NREGA are: 1 - Flood Control, 2 - Rural Connectivity, 3 -

Water Conservation and Water Harvesting, 4 - Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies, 5 - Drought Proofing, 6 -

Irrigation Canals, 7 - Irrigation Facilities to SC/ST/IAY/LR, 8 - Land development, and 9 - Other Works. Analysis is

carried out covering 20 major states of India.).

The pattern followed is growth over years in different types of Infrastructure development works (CAGR), change in

percentage share of type of works over years in a state, and change in state share (state share compared to all

India share of the work).

Primary activities in rural areas in India are roller and coaster to survival for almost entire populace of Rural India

and about 60 per cent of country’s populace. The activities and works taken up under MG-NREGA have been

designed looking into the aspect and is so a demand based drive – demand emerging from the rural general people

themselves. Water provision, harvesting and conservation thus assume and draw largest proportion of works and


expenditure under the scheme. Paper attempts to dwell upon a critical temporal review of individual and community

oriented works in the states in rural areas most of activities in rural areas

Findings at a Glance Concentration of Assets Creation works: Inter- state variations A comparison of scheme’s relative concentration (percentage of works under a scheme in the state compared with

percentage of works under the same scheme in the country) in a state and changes over years in the relative

concentration of the different schemes provide important hunches on

1. Changing importance of the schemes 2. Relative importance of the works in a state 3. State wise most prominent and least prominent activities in different years A. Changing importance of the schemes Table: Schemes wise Changing Concentration Index of the States (Schemes’ state share/scheme's all India Share): Flood Control Remarks regarding relative concentration of activity in a

state States 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

AP 0.41 0.88 1.00 0.55 0.30 First three years indicate a rise from less than all–India level to at par with at par with all-India and then a fall

Assam 2.61 1.46 1.28 1.19 1.17 Concentration more than all-India level throughout, downward trend

Bihar 2.18 0.88 2.02 0.58 0.49 Steep downward trend Chhattisgarh 0.49 0.36 0.30 0.29 0.26 Concentration much less than all-India, downward trend Gujarat 2.04 1.34 0.10 2.89 4.07 Concentration more than all-India, upward trend Haryana 1.04 0.76 1.36 0.86 0.83 Concentration same as all-India, downward trend

HP 5.20 2.93 2.82 3.46 Concentration much more than all-India, downward trend

J & K 13.02 5.55 2.72 4.95 7.58 Concentration many times more than all-India, downward trend

Jharkhand 0.19 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.07 Concentration one sixth to one-tenth than all-India, downward trend

Karnataka 1.56 1.37 6.05 2.62 2.83 Concentration more than all-India, upward trend

Kerala 11.54 7.39 0.98 5.05 4.70 Concentration many times more than all-India, downward trend

M P 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.07 Concentration one sixth to one-tenth than all-India, downward trend

Maharashtra 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.05 Concentration much less than all-India, downward trend Orissa 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.15 Concentration much less than all-India Punjab 0.00 0.55 6.25 0.68 0.93 Concentration fluctuating compared to all-India Rajasthan 0.35 0.21 0.24 0.29 0.32 Concentration much less than all-India

Tamil Nadu 0.16 0.11 0.76 0.12 0.11 Concentration one sixth to one-tenth than all-India, downward trend

U P 1.74 1.19 0.82 1.11 1.32 Concentration more than all-India, downward trend

Uttarakhand 10.85 4.23 1.05 6.98 10.26 Concentration many times more than all-India, initial downward than upward trend

W B 2.11 1.24 1.73 0.95 1.19 Concentration many times more than all-India, downward trend

Red ink mark show concentration up to one tenth or less of all India level: The state in this category are

Jharkhand, MP, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu (in 2009-10 and 2012-13), Orissa (in 2010-11, and 2011-12) and


Gujarat (in 2010-11). Blue ink mark describes concentration ten times that of all India level: J & K and Kerala (in

2008-09), and Uttarakhand (in 2008-09 and 2012-13) lied in the category.

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on x-axis are years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Y axis indicates states share with respect to share at all-India level of the activity/ works Rural Connectivity

Remarks regarding relative concentration of activity in a state States 2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

AP 0.13 0.37 0.39 0.16 0.07 Concentration much less than all-India, downward trend. Worst Performing among all States.

Assam 2.10 2.27 1.86 1.58 2.04 Concentration more than all-India, no trend. Best performing among all states.

Bihar 1.96 1.52 0.44 1.31 1.37 Concentration more than all-India, downward trend Chhattisgarh 1.15 1.11 0.88 0.77 0.00 Concentration from more to less than all-India Gujarat 0.54 0.40 0.35 0.55 1.79 Concentration from less than all-India to more than all -India Haryana 0.79 1.06 2.43 1.15 0.78 Concentration initially upward then downward

HP 1.74 1.49 0.93 1.74 Concentration was down from more than all-India to less than all –India till 2011-12 but regained in 2012-13

J & K 1.44 1.37 0.89 1.26 0.46 Concentration was more than all-India but exhibiting downward trend, it became much less than all –India in 2012-13

Jharkhand 0.93 0.88 0.68 0.52 0.07 Concentration was same as all-India but exhibiting downward trend, it became much less than all –India in 2012-13

Karnataka 0.44 0.35 0.13 0.42 0.77 Almost same throughout (about 40 per cent that of all-India) till 2011-12, rise in 2012-13 (0.75 times)

Kerala 0.21 0.15 1.07 0.09 0.41 Less than one-fifth of all India, excepting in 2010-11 (same as all-India)

M P 0.59 0.55 0.52 0.46 1.72 Almost same throughout (about 50 per cent that of all-India) till 2011-12, steep rise in 2012-13 (1.75 times)

Maharashtra 0.41 0.36 0.33 2.57 Almost same throughout (about 50 per cent that of all-India) till 2011-12, steep rise in 2012-13 (2.5 times)

Orissa 1.58 1.52 1.11 0.90 1.44 Almost same throughout (more than all-India) Punjab 2.14 1.09 0.24 1.10 1.02 Rajasthan 0.73 1.04 0.96 0.87 0.98 Almost same throughout with slight upward trend (less than all-India) Tamil Nadu 0.95 0.97 1.88 0.89 1.22

U P 1.63 1.62 1.34 1.35 0.76 Almost same throughout (about 1.5 times that of all-India) till 2011-12, fall in 2012-13 (0.75 times)

Uttarakhand 0.11 0.08 1.39 0.31 0.59 Worst Performing among all States initially. Tough more than all-India in 2009-10, but declined to least performing. again


W B 1.48 1.37 0.53 0.84 1.07 Highest concentration was in Assam while lowest was in Andhra Pradesh (and also in Uttarakhand in years 2008-

09 and 2009-10)

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on x-axis are years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Y axis indicates states share with respect to share at all-India level of the activity/ works Water Conservation and Water Harvesting States 2008-

09 2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Remarks regarding relative concentration of activity in a state

AP 0.68 0.96 1.59 2.52 1.90 Upward trend from about two third of all-India to about two times Assam 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.22 Stagnant at about 30 percent to that of all-India Bihar 0.36 0.27 0.33 0.30 0.30 Stagnant at about 30 percent to that of all-India

Chhattisgarh 0.58 0.70 0.63 0.65 4.84 Stagnant at about 65 percent compared with all-India excepting in 2012-13 (when it was 5 times to that of all-India)

Gujarat 1.06 2.25 1.79 1.10 0.53 Downward trend –concentration halved in five years Haryana 0.75 1.04 0.80 0.64 1.10 Overall an Upward trend HP 0.45 0.72 0.89 0.97 0.36 Trend upward till 2011-12 J & K 0.29 0.45 0.51 0.45 0.69 Trend upward Jharkhand 1.73 2.07 2.64 2.82 0.81 Continuously upward trend till 2011-12 Karnataka 1.16 0.66 0.78 0.86 1.10 Kerala 0.38 0.39 0.64 0.80 1.36 Continuously going upward M P 1.40 1.56 1.71 1.64 0.44 Great de-concentration in 2012-13, an otherwise Maharashtra 1.25 1.69 2.20 1.88 0.78 Going upward initially up to 2010-11, downward since then Orissa 0.50 0.68 0.94 1.02 0.06 Continuously going upward till 2011-12 Punjab 0.60 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.34 Continuously going downward till 2011-12 Rajasthan 0.46 0.73 0.92 0.96 0.72 Tamil Nadu 0.98 0.80 0.92 0.95 0.85 Stagnant almost at all-India level U P 0.82 0.74 0.59 0.55 2.35 Continuously going upward Uttarakhand 0.75 1.81 1.49 1.20 0.76 W B 0.64 0.92 1.13 0.88 0.87 Going upward initially up to 2010-11, downward since then Concentration in Jharkhand was significantly higher than all-India in 2008-09 to 2011-12. Gujarat had appreciable

concentration in 2009-10, Maharashtra in 2010-11 and Andhra Pradesh in 2011-12. Chhattisgarh had highest

concentration among all states in 2012-13. Punjab, Assam and Bihar on the other hand much less concentration of

works in all these years.


1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on x-axis are years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Y axis indicates states share with respect to share at all-India level of the activity/ works Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies States 2008-

09 2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Remarks about concentration in the state vis-à-vis all-India

AP 1.63 1.87 0.96 0.64 0.25 Deteriorating relative share from almost two times that of the country as a whole to almost one-fourth of the country share.

Assam 0.30 0.32 0.27 0.38 0.57 Upward trend throughout but lowest share compared to all –India throughout

Bihar 1.21 0.71 0.75 0.85 0.88 Downward – from 20 percentage points more than country share to 20 percentage points less.

Chhattisgarh 1.16 1.33 1.44 1.80 1.95 Upward trend throughout. More than all –India throughout

Gujarat 0.72 0.61 0.70 1.05 1.97 Upward trend throughout – from three fourth of the country share to almost double.

Haryana 0.61 1.02 1.12 1.20 1.49 Upward trend throughout – from 60 percent to the country share to almost one and half times.

HP 0.56 0.73 0.83 0.87 0.89 Upward trend throughout. Less than all –India throughout

J & K 0.53 0.35 0.64 0.75 0.74 Upward trend throughout but second lowest share compared to all –India throughout

Jharkhand 0.63 0.75 0.82 0.91 0.89 Upward trend throughout. Less than all –India throughout Karnataka 1.34 0.75 0.99 1.41 1.54 Down ward in first three years, upward in next three. Kerala 1.83 2.16 2.26 2.49 3.10 Upward trend throughout. More than all –India throughout

M P 0.56 0.43 0.49 0.63 0.60 Less than all –India throughout with relative position more or less stagnant.

Maharashtra 2.18 1.99 2.30 1.55 1.21 Downward trend throughout. Tough ,more than all –India throughout

Orissa 3.43 2.96 2.79 3.12 3.43 More than all –India throughout – maintaining relative share.

Punjab 1.29 4.43 4.39 5.58 6.33 Steep upward trend throughout. More concentration compared to all –India throughout

Rajasthan 1.03 1.33 1.76 2.27 2.08 Upward trend throughout. More than all –India throughout

Tamil Nadu 3.48 5.28 7.07 9.72 13.12 Steep upward trend throughout. Highest share compared to all –India throughout

U P 0.60 0.57 0.54 0.72 0.74 Upward trend throughout. Yet less than all –India throughout

Uttarakhand 2.32 0.94 1.18 1.51 1.42 Downward trend throughout. Yet, more than all –India throughout

W B 1.28 1.27 1.68 2.09 3.24 Steep upward trend. More than all –India throughout


Tamil Nadu followed by Punjab, Orissa and Kerala depicted significant concentration of activities while Assam had

very low level of activities taken up compared to concentration of water bodies renovation activities taken up in the

country as a whole under MGNREGA all through 2008-09 to 2012-13.

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on x-axis are years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Y axis indicates states share with respect to share at all-India level of the activity/ works Drought Proofing Remarks about concentration in the state vis-à-vis all-India States 2008-

09 2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

AP 1.19 1.12 0.81 1.74 1.69 Assam 0.38 0.43 1.43 1.95 1.35 Going upward till 2011-12 Bihar 0.44 3.75 3.20 4.23 3.84 Highest amongst all states Chhattisgarh 0.76 0.76 0.71 0.69 0.43 Gujarat 0.99 0.79 1.45 1.70 0.97 Going upward till 2011-12 Haryana 1.78 1.23 1.01 0.51 0.09

HP 0.09 0.13 0.19 0.30 0.20 Though increasing but still only 20 per cent to that of all-India in 2012-13

J & K 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.05 Less than 10 per cent to that of India, Second Lowest amongst all states

Jharkhand 0.58 0.38 0.30 0.22 0.15 Going downward Karnataka 1.30 1.61 1.93 1.63 0.87 Going upward initially up to 2010-11, downward since then Kerala 0.44 0.50 0.40 0.35 0.21 Going downward M P 1.39 1.42 1.78 1.70 1.06 Going upward initially up to 2010-11, downward since then Maharashtra 3.15 2.60 2.50 2.77 2.37 Second highest , but declining concentration Orissa 0.43 0.37 0.73 0.89 0.75 Punjab 0.00 1.28 1.73 1.38 0.87 Rajasthan 0.54 0.57 0.66 0.68 0.38 Tamil Nadu 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Close to zero U P 0.73 0.62 0.49 0.50 0.34 Going downward Uttarakhand 1.81 1.50 1.27 1.05 0.58 Going downward W B 1.71 1.05 2.40 3.40 1.78 Bihar since 2009-10 and Maharashtra all through have highest concentration among all major states. West Bengal

in 2010-11 and 2011-12 too had significant concentration vis-à-vis all-India. On the other hand, Tamil Nadu had

virtual absence of any such activity under the scheme. Jammu & Kashmir too had marginal presence. Himachal

Pradesh also indicated low level of drought proofing activities.


1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on x-axis are years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Y axis indicates states share with respect to share at all-India level of the activity/ works Irrigation Canals Remarks about concentration in the state vis-à-vis all-India States 2008-

09 2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

AP 2.05 2.84 2.95 2.77 1.39

Assam 2.60 1.05 0.71 0.64 0.65 Downward from two and a half times more than all-India to half as much, stagnant there for last three years

Bihar 4.88 1.95 1.64 1.22 1.20 Downward from five times more than all-India to almost as much al India, stagnant there for last two years

Chhattisgarh 1.12 0.74 0.53 0.48 0.48 Downward from more than all-India to half as much, stagnant there for last three years

Gujarat 0.37 0.25 0.27 0.20 0.15 One of the lowest amongst all states Haryana 3.19 1.64 2.41 3.22 3.37 HP 4.09 1.95 1.60 1.44 1.64 J & K 1.68 1.69 1.86 1.87 2.12 Jharkhand 0.19 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.15 Ranging between one tenth to one fifth of that of all-India Karnataka 2.92 1.69 1.20 1.06 1.00 Kerala 4.04 2.74 1.74 1.45 1.40 M P 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 Lowest amongst all states Maharashtra 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.18 One of the lowest amongst all states Orissa 0.31 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.26 One of the lowest amongst all states Punjab 0.00 1.30 1.60 1.22 1.15 Rajasthan 0.76 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.88 Tamil Nadu 6.06 2.78 2.55 2.40 2.51 Going downward U P 1.26 0.89 0.81 0.73 0.88 Going downward Uttarakhand 3.23 2.03 1.81 1.62 1.92 W B 2.04 1.14 0.75 0.63 0.68 Going downward As many as ten states (red ink earmarked) had significant works pertaining to irrigation canals in 2008-09. Number

of states having significant works pertaining to irrigation canals came down to just 4 in 2009-10 and further to 3 only

in 2010 to 2013.


Jharkhand had very low levels of irrigation canal activities carried out in all these years and so are the activities

levels in Maharashtra and Orissa.

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on x-axis are years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Y axis indicates states share with respect to share at all-India level of the activity/ works Irrigation Facilities To SC/ST/IAY/LR Remarks about concentration in the state vis-à-vis all-India States 2008-

09 2009-10

2010-1

2011-2

2012-3

AP 0.04 0.15 1.28 0.66 0.65 Assam 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.24 0.81 Bihar 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 Close to Zero Chhattisgarh 2.10 1.91 2.42 2.06 1.71 Gujarat 3.25 1.33 1.45 1.54 1.80 Haryana 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.12 Upward but still only one-tenth of all-India HP 0.03 0.18 0.22 0.65 1.21 J & K 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 Close to Zero

Jharkhand 0.26 0.35 0.78 1.16 1.63 Sharply rising (from just about one-fourth compared to all-India in 2008-09 to about 1.7 times in 2012-13)

Karnataka 0.67 1.87 1.10 0.91 0.77 Kerala 0.18 0.32 0.28 0.31 0.64 Upward trend M P 1.65 2.09 1.55 1.72 1.86

Maharashtra 0.19 0.28 0.30 1.36 1.86 Sharply rising in last three years (from just about 30 per cent to all-India in 2010-11 to about two times in 2012-13)

Orissa 0.87 1.11 1.29 1.31 1.19 Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Lowest, close to zero or zero Rajasthan 2.00 1.61 1.20 1.60 2.37 Tamil Nadu 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Lowest, close to zero or zero U P 0.23 0.50 1.00 1.07 1.15 Uttarakhand 0.01 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.04 Too low and getting further down since 2009-10, W B 0.10 0.29 0.25 0.33 0.57 Upward trend Three states of Gujarat, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan had significant concentration of irrigation activities pertaining

to individual deprived sections in 2008-09 compared to all-India. But in 2009-10 only Madhya Pradesh, in 2010-11

and 2011-12 Chhattisgarh, and in 2012-13 Rajasthan had significantly higher concentration vis-à-vis all-India.


Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab had least concentration of irrigation activities pertaining to individual deprived

sections closely followed by Haryana and Uttarakhand. In fact in 2008-09 ten states had less than 10 percent of

concentration vis-à-vis all-India. The number of states having less than 0.10 percent of concentration vis-à-vis all-

India declined however to 6 states in 2009-10, went up to 7 states in 2010-11. Again in 2011-12, six states had had

less than 10 percent level compared to the country as a whole, while this number further went down to five.

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on x-axis are years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Y axis indicates states share with respect to share at all-India level of the activity/ works Land development Remarks about concentration in the state vis-à-vis all-India

States 2008-09

2009-10

2010-1

2011-2

2012-3

AP 2.94 2.05 0.79 0.35 0.10 Downward : from about three times in 20009 to two times in in 2009-10 to about 80 percent in 2010-11 to

Assam 1.16 1.10 0.86 1.16 1.37

Bihar 0.35 0.36 0.45 0.56 0.89 Upward trend, from about 35 percent of all-India level to 90 per cent

Chhattisgarh 1.31 1.25 1.21 2.14 3.70 Upward trend, multiplied by about three times.

Gujarat 0.19 0.18 0.30 0.56 0.73 Upward trend from just about one-fifth of all-India level to three fourth

Haryana 1.85 1.07 1.09 1.64 1.96

HP 0.71 0.87 1.06 1.81 2.79 Upward trend from just about 70 percent of all-India level to about three times

J & K 0.65 1.38 1.20 1.48 1.67 Upward trend from just about two third of all-India level to one and a half times

Jharkhand 0.60 0.78 0.61 0.63 0.93 Karnataka 1.01 1.87 1.53 1.89 1.74 Kerala 1.89 1.48 2.38 3.61 5.25 Upward trend from about two times of all-India level to 5.25 times M P 1.02 0.99 1.11 1.47 1.86 Maharashtra 0.74 0.65 0.48 0.43 0.40 Orissa 0.01 0.09 0.36 0.70 1.42 Upward trend from nil level to 1.5 times all-India Punjab 0.97 0.81 0.97 1.34 1.93

Rajasthan 2.43 1.40 1.16 0.83 0.87 Downward trend from just about 30 percent of all-India level to two times

Tamil Nadu 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 Lowest, almost zero U P 0.64 0.70 1.10 1.04 1.19

Uttarakhand 0.31 0.39 0.71 1.24 2.04 Upward trend from just about 30 percent of all-India level to two times

W B 0.59 0.74 0.66 0.87 1.32 Upward trend from just about 60 percent of all-India level to one and a half times


Two states namely, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan in 2008-09 but only State of Andhra Pradesh had noticeably

higher concentration. In 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 Karnataka had reasonably higher concentrations with

increasing tendencies of Coefficient of Localisation. Chhattisgarh too had higher and still higher concentration

levels in last two years 20111-12 and 2012-13.

Tamil Nadu on the other hand had little presence of Land Development activity in all these years. The only other

states with less than 10 percent level of concentration compared to all-India was Orissa in the years 2008-09 and

2009-10.

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on x-axis are years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Y axis indicates states share with respect to share at all-India level of the activity/ works Other works Remarks about concentration in the state vis-à-vis all-

India States 2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

AP 3.88 0.92 0.20 0.07 0.00 Assam 0.49 0.63 1.94 0.90 1.57 Bihar 0.33 0.42 0.37 0.28 0.47 Chhattisgarh 0.26 0.24 0.17 0.10 0.28 Gujarat 0.69 0.51 0.71 0.79 1.04 Going upward Haryana 2.10 1.40 0.36 0.32 0.46 Going downward HP 0.53 0.65 0.45 0.30 0.30 Going downward J & K 0.11 0.32 0.61 0.59 0.77 Jharkhand 1.37 1.14 0.72 0.47 0.63 Going downward Karnataka 1.29 1.16 0.89 0.76 1.06 Kerala 0.10 0.19 0.12 0.10 0.13 M P 0.83 0.59 0.39 0.30 0.60 Maharashtra 0.84 0.70 0.56 0.44 0.40 Going downward Orissa 0.69 0.73 0.86 0.91 2.08 Going upward Punjab 1.23 1.34 0.95 0.87 1.99 Rajasthan 1.92 0.96 0.65 0.61 1.22 Tamil Nadu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 U P 1.37 1.82 1.79 1.51 2.02 Going upward Uttarakhand 0.21 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.43 W B 0.51 0.41 0.23 0.18 0.18


1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on x-axis are years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Y axis indicates states share with respect to share at all-India level of the activity/ works B. Relative importance of the works in a state Tables: Scheme wise Concentration Variation of States in different years: 2008-09

States 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 AP 0.41 0.13 0.68 1.63 1.19 2.05 0.04 2.94 3.88 2 Assam 2.61 2.1 0.37 0.3 0.38 2.6 0.07 1.16 0.49 3 Bihar 2.18 1.96 0.36 1.21 0.44 4.88 0.06 0.35 0.33 4 Chhattisgarh 0.49 1.15 0.58 1.16 0.76 1.12 2.1 1.31 0.26 5 Gujarat 2.04 0.54 1.06 0.72 0.99 0.37 3.25 0.19 0.69 6 Haryana 1.04 0.79 0.75 0.61 1.78 3.19 0.03 1.85 2.1 7 HP 5.2 1.74 0.45 0.56 0.09 4.09 0.03 0.71 0.53 8 J & K 13.02 1.44 0.29 0.53 0.05 1.68 0.06 0.65 0.11 9 Jharkhand 0.19 0.93 1.73 0.63 0.58 0.19 0.26 0.6 1.37

10 Karnataka 1.56 0.44 1.16 1.34 1.3 2.92 0.67 1.01 1.29 11 Kerala 11.54 0.21 0.38 1.83 0.44 4.04 0.18 1.89 0.1 12 M P 0.12 0.59 1.4 0.56 1.39 0.07 1.65 1.02 0.83 13 Maharashtra 0.03 0.41 1.25 2.18 3.15 0.27 0.19 0.74 0.84 14 Orissa 0.17 1.58 0.5 3.43 0.43 0.31 0.87 0.01 0.69 15 Punjab 0 2.14 0.6 1.29 0 0 0 0.97 1.23 16 Rajasthan 0.35 0.73 0.46 1.03 0.54 0.76 2 2.43 1.92 17 Tamil Nadu 0.16 0.95 0.98 3.48 0.01 6.06 0 0.01 0 18 U P 1.74 1.63 0.82 0.6 0.73 1.26 0.23 0.64 1.37 19 Uttarakhand 10.85 0.11 0.75 2.32 1.81 3.23 0.01 0.31 0.21 20 W B 2.11 1.48 0.64 1.28 1.71 2.04 0.1 0.59 0.51

Schemes having greater importance in the state are earmarked with red ink Schemes having lesser importance in the state are earmarked with blue ink

1 - Flood Control, 2 - Rural Connectivity, 3 - Water Conservation and Water Harvesting, 4 - Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies, 5 - Drought Proofing, 6 - Irrigation Canals, 7 - Irrigation Facilities to SC/ST/IAY/LR, 8 - Land development, 9 - Other Works

Highest Concentration levels were found in Flood Control activities (Coefficient of Localisation being more than ten

times in Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand).


Activity wise patterns indicate the following: Flood Control:

Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand had more than ten times all India concentration level followed by

Himachal Pradesh (more than five times all India concentration) further followed by Assam, Bihar, Gujarat

and Kerala (between two to five times all India concentration). Least concentration was that of Punjab

(zero) and Maharashtra (less than 5 per cent of all India concentration level).

Rural Connectivity:

Punjab and Assam had two to five times all India concentration. Least concentration was in Andhra

Pradesh (less than 15 per cent of all India concentration level).

Water Conservation and Water Harvesting:

No noticeable concentration differential among states vis-à-vis all India was noticed

Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies

Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Uttarakhand and Maharashtra had two to five times all India concentration level.

Drought Proofing

Uttarakhand and Maharashtra had two to five times all India concentration. Punjab (zero), Tamil Nadu and

Jammu and Kashmir had less than 5 per cent of all India concentration level.

Irrigation Canals

Tamil Nadu had more than five times all India concentration. Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala,

Uttarakhand, Haryana, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh had two to five times all India concentration level.

Individual Based Irrigation Schemes

Gujarat Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan had two to five times all India concentration level. Ten States had on

the other hand less than 10 per cent of all India concentration level (out of which 6 had less than 5 per cent

of all India concentration level). Activities level was less than 20 per cent of all India concentration level in

two States of Maharashtra and Kerala.

Land Development

Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan had two to five times all India concentration. Tamil Nadu and Orissa on the

other hand had less than 10 per cent of all India concentration level.


2009-10 States 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 AP 0.88 0.37 0.96 1.87 1.12 2.84 0.15 2.05 0.92 2 Assam 1.46 2.27 0.30 0.32 0.43 1.05 0.06 1.10 0.63 3 Bihar 0.88 1.52 0.27 0.71 3.75 1.95 0.03 0.36 0.42 4 Chhattisgarh 0.36 1.11 0.70 1.33 0.76 0.74 1.91 1.25 0.24 5 Gujarat 1.34 0.40 2.25 0.61 0.79 0.25 1.33 0.18 0.51 6 Haryana 0.76 1.06 1.04 1.02 1.23 1.64 0.01 1.07 1.40 7 HP 2.93 1.49 0.72 0.73 0.13 1.95 0.18 0.87 0.65 8 J & K 5.55 1.37 0.45 0.35 0.05 1.69 0.04 1.38 0.32 9 Jharkhand 0.06 0.88 2.07 0.75 0.38 0.14 0.35 0.78 1.14 10 Karnataka 1.37 0.35 0.66 0.75 1.61 1.69 1.87 1.87 1.16 11 Kerala 7.39 0.15 0.39 2.16 0.5 2.74 0.32 1.48 0.19 12 M P 0.09 0.55 1.56 0.43 1.42 0.05 2.09 0.99 0.59 13 Maharashtra 0.09 0.36 1.69 1.99 2.6 0.20 0.28 0.65 0.70 14 Orissa 0.12 1.52 0.68 2.96 0.37 0.24 1.11 0.09 0.73 15 Punjab 0.55 1.09 0.15 4.43 1.28 1.3 0.00 0.81 1.34 16 Rajasthan 0.21 1.04 0.73 1.33 0.57 0.87 1.61 1.40 0.96 17 Tamil Nadu 0.11 0.97 0.80 5.28 0.01 2.78 0.01 0.01 0.00 18 U P 1.19 1.62 0.74 0.57 0.62 0.89 0.50 0.70 1.82 19 Uttarakhand 4.23 0.08 1.81 0.94 1.50 2.03 0.17 0.39 0.27 20 W B 1.24 1.37 0.92 1.27 1.05 1.14 0.29 0.74 0.41



Highest Concentration levels were found in Flood Control activities, followed by Renovation of Traditional Water

Bodies and Irrigation Canals Flood Control:

Kerala and Jammu and Kashmir had more than five times all India concentration level followed by Jammu

& Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh (more than three to five times all India concentration).

Least concentration was in Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra (5 to 10 per cent of all India

concentration level).

Rural Connectivity:

Assam had two to five times all India concentration. Least concentration was in Uttarakhand (less than 10

per cent of all India concentration level).


Gujarat and Jharkhand had up to two times. No noticeable concentration differential among other states

vis-à-vis all India (excepting Punjab – less than 15 per cent, Bihar and Assam - less than 30 per cent) was

noticed.



Tamil Nadu had more than five times all India concentration level followed by Orissa, Punjab and Kerala

having two to five times all India concentration level.

Drought Proofing

Bihar and Maharashtra had two to five times all India concentration. Tamil Nadu and Jammu and Kashmir

on the other hand had less than 5 per cent of all India concentration level.

Irrigation Canals

Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Uttarakhand had two to five times all India concentration level. Bihar,

and Himachal Pradesh had close to two times all India concentration level.


Gujarat Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan had two to five times all India concentration level. Ten States had on

the other hand less than 10 per cent of all India concentration level (out of which 6 had less than 5 per cent

of all India concentration level). Activities level was less than 20 per cent of all India concentration level in

two States of Maharashtra and Kerala.

Land Development

Andhra Pradesh had two to five times all India concentration. Tamil Nadu and Orissa on the other hand had

less than 10 per cent of all India concentration level.

2010-11

States 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 AP 1.00 0.39 1.59 0.96 0.81 2.95 1.28 0.79 0.20 2 Assam 1.28 1.86 0.30 0.27 1.43 0.71 0.09 0.86 1.94 3 Bihar 0.77 1.68 0.33 0.75 3.2 1.64 0.02 0.45 0.37 4 Chhattisgarh 0.30 0.88 0.63 1.44 0.71 0.53 2.42 1.21 0.17 5 Gujarat 1.73 0.53 1.79 0.7 1.45 0.27 1.45 0.3 0.71 6 Haryana 0.82 1.34 0.80 1.12 1.01 2.41 0.01 1.09 0.36 7 HP 3.13 1.36 0.89 0.83 0.19 1.60 0.22 1.06 0.45 8 J & K 4.69 1.41 0.51 0.64 0.08 1.86 0.02 1.20 0.61 9 Jharkhand 0.04 0.68 2.64 0.82 0.30 0.08 0.78 0.61 0.72 10 Karnataka 2.02 0.44 0.78 0.99 1.93 1.20 1.10 1.53 0.89 11 Kerala 6.05 0.13 0.64 2.26 0.40 1.74 0.28 2.38 0.12 12 M P 0.10 0.52 1.71 0.49 1.78 0.05 1.55 1.11 0.39 13 Maharashtra 0.10 0.35 2.20 2.3 2.50 0.20 0.3 0.48 0.56 14 Orissa 0.11 1.11 0.94 2.79 0.73 0.21 1.29 0.36 0.86 15 Punjab 0.58 1.12 0.11 4.39 1.73 1.60 0.00 0.97 0.95 16 Rajasthan 0.24 0.96 0.92 1.76 0.66 0.86 1.20 1.16 0.65 17 Tamil Nadu 0.14 0.97 0.92 7.07 0.00 2.55 0.01 0.01 0.00 18 U P 1.05 1.39 0.59 0.54 0.49 0.81 1.00 1.10 1.79 19 Uttarakhand 6.25 0.24 1.49 1.18 1.27 1.81 0.10 0.71 0.26 20 W B 0.98 1.07 1.13 1.68 2.4 0.75 0.25 0.66 0.23




Highest Concentration levels were found in Flood Control activities, followed by Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies. Flood Control:

Uttarakhand and Kerala and had more than five times all India concentration level followed by Jammu and

Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka (two to five times all India concentration). Least concentration

was in Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Odisha (5 to 10 per cent of all India concentration

level).

Rural Connectivity:



Jharkhand and Maharashtra had up to two times concentration of non-India. No noticeable concentration

differential among other states vis-à-vis all India (excepting Punjab – less than 15 per cent) was noticed.


Tamil Nadu had more than five times all India concentration level followed by Punjab, Orissa, Maharashtra

and Kerala having two to five times all India concentration level.

Drought Proofing

Bihar, Maharashtra and West Bengal had two to five times all India concentration. Tamil Nadu (zero) and

Jammu and Kashmir had less than 10 per cent of all India concentration level.

Irrigation Canals

Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Haryana had two to five times all India concentration level. Jharkhand

and Madhya Pradesh had less tan 5 per cent of all India concentration level.


Chhattisgarh had two to five times all India concentration level. Seven States had on the other hand less

than 10 per cent of all India concentration level (out of which 5 had less than 5 per cent of all India

concentration level).

Land Development

Kerala had two to five times all India concentration. noticeable concentration differential among other states

vis-à-vis all India.


2011-12

States 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 AP 0.55 0.16 2.52 0.64 1.74 2.77 0.66 0.35 0.07 2 Assam 1.19 1.58 0.32 0.38 1.95 0.64 0.24 1.16 0.90 3 Bihar 0.58 1.31 0.30 0.85 4.23 1.22 0.01 0.56 0.28 4 Chhattisgarh 0.29 0.77 0.65 1.80 0.69 0.48 2.06 2.14 0.10 5 Gujarat 2.89 0.55 1.10 1.05 1.70 0.20 1.54 0.56 0.79 6 Haryana 0.86 1.15 0.64 1.20 0.51 3.22 0.04 1.64 0.32 7 HP 2.82 0.93 0.97 0.87 0.3 1.44 0.65 1.81 0.30 8 J & K 4.95 1.26 0.45 0.75 0.11 1.87 0.01 1.48 0.59 9 Jharkhand 0.04 0.52 2.82 0.91 0.22 0.09 1.16 0.63 0.47 10 Karnataka 2.62 0.42 0.86 1.41 1.63 1.06 0.91 1.89 0.76 11 Kerala 5.05 0.09 0.8 2.49 0.35 1.45 0.31 3.61 0.10 12 M P 0.07 0.46 1.64 0.63 1.70 0.05 1.72 1.47 0.30 13 Maharashtra 0.07 0.33 1.88 1.55 2.77 0.14 1.36 0.43 0.44 14 Orissa 0.11 0.90 1.02 3.12 0.89 0.19 1.31 0.70 0.91 15 Punjab 0.68 1.10 0.09 5.58 1.38 1.22 0.00 1.34 0.87 16 Rajasthan 0.29 0.87 0.96 2.27 0.68 0.86 1.60 0.83 0.61 17 Tamil Nadu 0.12 0.89 0.95 9.72 0.00 2.4 0.00 0.01 0.00 18 U P 1.11 1.35 0.55 0.72 0.50 0.73 1.07 1.04 1.51 19 Uttarakhand 6.98 0.31 1.20 1.51 1.05 1.62 0.08 1.24 0.26 20 W B 0.95 0.84 0.88 2.09 3.4 0.63 0.33 0.87 0.18




times in Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand).


Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand had more than ten times all India concentration level followed by

Himachal Pradesh (more than five times all India concentration) further followed by Assam, Bihar,

Gujarat and Kerala (between two to five times all India concentration). Least concentration was that of

Punjab (zero) and Maharashtra (less than 5 per cent of all India concentration level).

Rural Connectivity:

Punjab and Assam had two to five times all India concentration. Least concentration was in Andhra

Pradesh (less than 15 per cent of all India concentration level).




Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Uttarakhand and Maharashtra had two to five times all India concentration level.


Drought Proofing

Uttarakhand and Maharashtra had two to five times all India concentration. Punjab (zero), Tamil Nadu

and Jammu and Kashmir had less than 5 per cent of all India concentration level.

Irrigation Canals

Tamil Nadu had more than five times all India concentration. Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala,

Uttarakhand, Haryana, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh had two to five times all India concentration

level.


Gujarat Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan had two to five times all India concentration level. Ten States had

on the other hand less than 10 per cent of all India concentration level (out of which 6 had less than 5

per cent of all India concentration level). Activities level was less than 20 per cent of all India

concentration level in two States of Maharashtra and Kerala.

Land Development

Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan had two to five times all India concentration. Tamil Nadu and Orissa on

the other hand had less than 10 per cent of all India concentration level.

2012-13 States 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 AP 0.30 0.07 1.90 0.25 1.69 1.39 0.65 0.10 0.00 2 Assam 1.17 2.04 0.22 0.57 1.35 0.65 0.81 1.37 1.57 3 Bihar 0.49 1.37 0.30 0.88 3.84 1.20 0.04 0.89 0.47 4 Chhattisgarh 0.26 1.12 0.51 1.95 0.43 0.48 1.71 3.7 0.28 5 Gujarat 4.07 0.71 0.76 1.97 0.97 0.15 1.8 0.73 1.04 6 Haryana 0.83 1.79 0.53 1.49 0.09 3.37 0.12 1.96 0.46 7 HP 3.46 0.78 1.10 0.89 0.2 1.64 1.21 2.79 0.30 8 J & K 7.58 1.74 0.36 0.74 0.05 2.12 0.01 1.67 0.77 9 Jharkhand 0.07 0.76 2.35 0.89 0.15 0.15 1.63 0.93 0.63

10 Karnataka 2.83 0.46 0.69 1.54 0.87 1.00 0.77 1.74 1.06 11 Kerala 4.70 0.07 0.81 3.10 0.21 1.40 0.64 5.25 0.13 12 M P 0.07 0.77 1.10 0.60 1.06 0.04 1.86 1.86 0.60 13 Maharashtra 0.05 0.41 1.36 1.21 2.37 0.18 1.86 0.40 0.40 14 Orissa 0.15 1.18 0.84 3.43 0.75 0.26 1.19 1.42 2.08 15 Punjab 0.93 1.44 0.06 6.33 0.87 1.15 0.07 1.93 1.99 16 Rajasthan 0.32 1.07 0.69 2.08 0.38 0.88 2.37 0.87 1.22 17 Tamil Nadu 0.11 1.07 0.87 13.12 0.00 2.51 0.01 0.03 0.03 18 U P 1.32 1.78 0.38 0.74 0.34 0.88 1.15 1.19 2.02 19 Uttarakhand 10.26 0.59 0.76 1.42 0.58 1.92 0.04 2.04 0.43 20 W B 1.19 1.22 0.85 3.24 1.78 0.68 0.57 1.32 0.18

Schemes having greater importance in the state are earmarked with red ink Schemes having lesser importance in the state are earmarked with blue ink 1 - Flood Control, 2 - Rural Connectivity, 3 - Water Conservation and Water Harvesting, 4 - Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies, 5 - Drought Proofing, 6 - Irrigation Canals, 7 - Irrigation Facilities to SC/ST/IAY/LR, 8 - Land development, 9 - Other Works



times in Uttarakhand) followed by Jammu and Kashmir (more than five times all India concentration) further

followed by Kerala, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Karnataka. Flood Control is followed by Renovation of

Traditional Water Bodies as the most prominent activity in maximum number of states (as many as four states, viz.,

having between two to five times all India concentration, Tamil Nadu more than 10 and Punjab more than five times

that of all-India).


Uttarakhand had more than ten times all India concentration level followed by Jammu and Kashmir

(more than five times all India concentration) further followed by Kerala, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh

and Karnataka (between two to five times all India concentration). Least concentration was that of

Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu (less than 5 and 10 per cent of all India concentration level, respectively).

Rural Connectivity:

Assam had two to five times all India concentration. Least concentration was in Andhra Pradesh (less

than 10 per cent of all India concentration level).


Jharkhand had more than 5 times all India concentration level. No noticeable concentration differential

among other states vis-à-vis all India was noticed


Bihar and Maharashtra had two to five times all India concentration level. Tamil Nadu and Jammu and

Kashmir had less than 5 per cent of all India concentration level.

Drought Proofing

Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Jammu and Kashmir had two to five times all India concentration.

Irrigation Canals

Rajasthan had more than two times all India concentration.


Kerala and Chhattisgarh had two to five times all India concentration level. Himachal Pradesh and

Uttarakhand on the other hand less than 7 per cent of all India concentration level.

Land Development


Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand had two to five times all-India concentration.

TamilNadu on the other hand had less than 10 per cent of all India concentration level.

C. State wise most prominent and least prominent activities in different years States Most Prominent Activities Least Prominent Activities

2008-9 2009-10 2010-1 2011-2 2012-3 2008-9 2009-10 2010-1 2011-2 2012-3

AP a. 9 6 6 6 3 1 7 9 9 9 b. 8 8 3 3 5 2 2 2 2 2

Pattern 6, 3 and 8 2 and 9

Assam a. 1 2 9 5 2 7 7 7 7 3 b. 6 1 2 2 9 4 3 4 3 4

Pattern 2, 9 and 1 7, 3 and 4

Bihar a. 6 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 b. 1 6 2 2 2 9 3 3 9 3


Chhattisgarh a. 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 1 b. 8 4 4 7 4 1 1 1 1 9


Gujarat a. 7 3 3 1 1 8 8 6 6 6 b. 1 1 1 5 4 6 6 8 2 2

Pattern 1 and 3 6, 8 and 2

Haryana a. 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 5 b. 9 9 9 8 8 4 1 1 9 7


HP a. 1 1 1 1 1 7 5 5 5 5 b. 6 6 6 8 8 5 7 7 9 9


J & K a. 1 1 1 1 1 5 7 7 7 7 b. 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 5 5 5

Pattern 1 and 6 7 and 5

Jharkhand a. 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 1 1 1 b. 9 9 9 7 7 1 1 6 6 5


Karnataka a. 6 8 8 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 b. 1 7 7 8 8 7 3 3 9 3


Kerala a. 1 1 1 1 8 9 2 2 2 2 b. 6 6 6 8 1 7 9 9 9 9


M P a. 7 7 7 7 8 6 6 6 6 6 b. 3 3 3 5 7 1 1 1 1 1


Maharashtra a. 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 b. 4 4 4 3 7 7 6 6 6 6


Orissa a. 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 3 b. 2 2 2 7 9 1 1 1 6 7


Punjab a. 2 4 4 4 4 3°° 3* 3* 3* 3 b. 4 9 9 5 9 8 1 1 1 7


Rajasthan a. 8 8 7 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 b. 7 7 8 7 7 3 5 5 9 5

Pattern 8, 7, 4 1 and 5

Tamil Nadu a. 6 4 4 4 4 5°°° 5** 5** 8*** 7° b. 4 6 6 6 6 8 7 7 1 8

Pattern 4 and 6 5,7 and 8

U P a. 1 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 5 5 b. 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3

Pattern 9, 2 7, 5 4, 3


Uttarakhand a. 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 2 7 7 b. 6 6 6 6 8 2 7 7 9 9

Pattern 1 and 6 7, 2 and 9

W B a. 1 2 2 5 4 7 7 7 9 9 b. 6 4 4 4 5 9 9 9 7 7

Pattern 4, 2, 5 7 and 9

a. Most Prominent/Least Prominent b. Second Most Prominent/Least Prominent


* Activity 7 is absent, ** Activity 9 is absent, *** Activity 5,7and 9 are absent ° Activity 5 is absent, °° Activities 1, 5, 6 and 7 are absent, °°° Activity 5, and 7 are absent

Relative importance of the schemes and activities are mostly consistent throughout the period 2008 to 2013 in

different states as is visible from above table. Table, however, indicates vividly that states vary . 2. Trend Analysis :

Total number of irrigation works taken up and completed in last five years (2008-09 to 2012-13) have been

13367585 (1 crore 33 lakhs 67 thousand 5 hundred and 85) of which 51 lakhs 31 thousand 3 hundred and 31 are

individual household based). Total amount spent on creation/ regeneration/ repairing of these old ponds is

371,000,490,000 (37100 crores) of which expenditure on individual works is 6547.75 crores) (Source: compiled

from MIS reports of MG-NREGA).

The points worth looking into then are:

1. What has been the impact of these works and expenditure incurred in assuring sustenance of benefits:

a. How much area is added in irrigation in the country as a whole b. How many resources are re-created

Associated points have been

2. States level and local level impacts of the works

a. What has been the impact on capacity building of Villages, villagers and state

Findings with respect to Irrigation Works over years across states: Dhananjaya and Prathibha (2011) emphasized on the aspect that for MGNREGA to realize its potential, it must

focus on raising the productivity of agriculture in India’s most backward regions. UNDP too (2013) too have

appreciated the efforts of MGREGA in creation of assets whereby people have switched over to alternative jobs

(see Notes)

However, for MGNREGA to realise its potential, it must focus on raising the productivity of agriculture in India’s

most backward regions. This can then lead further to the creation of allied livelihoods on the foundation of water

security.


Decline in total works pertaining to irrigation was found in eight states whereas lesser number of individual works

were found to be taken up in eleven states in 2012-13 compared to 2008-09 or 2009-Compared to it, overall

expenditure on works pertaining to irrigation has declined in none of the states while expenditure on individualistic

works has declined in only two states.

A study of comparative growth rates of states was made. It was aimed as to see what has occurred over the years :

whether individualistic and beneficiary oriented works have taken precedence over the years or generalised and

community level works have taken precedence.

What about expenditure patterns: what have been the expenditure growth patterns of individualistic schemes as

against community and mass schemes?

A comparison of the growths in number of schemes vis-à-vis expenditure growths were also looked into. CAGR: Overall (Community and individual works combined) number of Works vs. Individual works

1. CAGR of individual works was higher in states of AP, Assam, Haryana, HP, Jharkhand, Kerala, MP,

Maharashtra, West Bengal and Uttarakhand.

2. It was (CAGR of individual works) though higher but not that significant in Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Orissa,

Rajasthan and UP.

3. CAGR of individual works was less than CAGR of overall works in Bihar and Gujarat

4. It was (CAGR of individual works) was negative compared to CAGR of overall works (which was positive) in

states of Punjab and Tamil Nadu

CAGR: Expenditure on Community and individual works combined vs. Expenditure on Individual works

1. CAGR for Expenditure on individual works was found to be much higher compared to CAGR for overall

works in states of Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttarakhand

2. CAGR for Expenditure on individual works was found to be less compared to CAGR for overall works in

some states. But there was found to be two classes of these states depicted below:

a. In states of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Orissa, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh : both had

negative CAGR

b. In three states of Bihar, Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir, while Expenditure on overall works had

positive CAGR , expenditure on individual works indicated negative CAGR

3. CAGR for both indicated same growth in two states, viz., Rajasthan and West Bengal but there were

differentials in terms of


a. Both had negative CAGR in Rajasthan b. Both were having positive CAGR in West Bengal

CAGR : Expenditure vis-à-vis Works

1. For all the states CAGR of expenditure was found to be higher compared to CAGR of number of works.

This was true in both cases – overall works as well as individual works.

2. In six states of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh CAGR of

Expenditure in both categories (Overall as well as Individual) have gone up but CAGR of works in both

categories (Overall as well as Individual) have been negative.

3. CAGR of works as well as expenditure at overall (community and individual works combined) level has

gone up in three states of Bihar, Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir, but at individual levels, while CAGR of

works was negative but CAGR of expenditure was positive.

4. CAGR of works as well as expenditure at individual level was positive in state of Maharashtra, but at overall

(community and individual works combined) levels, while CAGR of works was negative but CAGR of

expenditure was positive. On the other hand in Punjab CAGR of works as well as expenditure at individual

level was negative, but at overall (community and individual works combined) levels, while CAGR of works

was negative, there was found neither a positive or negative CAGR of expenditure.

Comparative growths: Expenditure vs. Number of Works, Total (overall) vs. Individual Schemes

CAGR CAGR CAGR

Expenditure Works EXPD total

Expd Indi

Total Works

Ind Works

Above Avg

AVG Below Avg

Above Avg

AVG Below Avg

A P 1.20 4.80 1.21 2.45 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

ASSAM 0.47 0.79 0.92 1.75 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

BIHAR 0.78 0.18 0.74 0.45 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

CHHATTISGARH 0.23 0.33 0.13 0.16 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

GUJARAT 0.52 0.22 0.42 0.35 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

HARYANA 0.42 1.04 0.41 1.04 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

H P 0.33 1.63 0.44 1.89 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

J & K 2.13 0.62 1.70 0.71 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

JHARKHAND 0.22 0.88 0.22 0.60 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

KARNATAKA 0.44 0.49 0.70 0.89 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

KERALA 0.52 1.24 0.42 0.97 Total Yes Yes


Individual Yes Yes

M P 0.16 0.32 0.15 0.18 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

MAHARASHTRA 0.54 2.15 0.63 1.56 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

ORISSA 0.08 0.15 0.17 0.34 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

PUNJAB 0.00 -0.31 0.56 3.23 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

RAJASTHAN 0.19 0.26 0.30 0.33 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

U P 0.12 0.20 1.10 1.77 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

W B 0.67 1.29 0.45 1.00 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

UTTARAKHAND 0.71 2.29 0.37 1.32 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

TAMIL NADU 4.79 -0.32 0.84 0.13 Total Yes Yes Individual Yes Yes

All India 0.44 0.48 0.61 0.63 Red ink indicates unmatched growth rates (total and individual), yellow indicates mismatch between growth in expenditure and number of works

STATES State share of total Irrigation related works under NREGA 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 A P 0.78 5.57 13.92 18.73 33.73 ASSAM 0.19 0.22 0.38 0.34 0.46 BIHAR 2.66 4.73 4.29 3.20 3.97 CHHATTISGARH 9.58 4.49 4.01 2.20 1.66 GUJARAT 1.75 2.91 2.27 1.12 0.94 HARYANA 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.11 H P 0.98 0.97 0.57 0.40 0.56 J & K 0.03 0.08 0.14 0.25 0.41 JHARKHAND 4.95 2.15 1.96 1.17 1.24 KARNATAKA 1.82 14.00 6.76 2.74 2.38 KERALA 2.23 3.72 1.84 0.89 1.18 M P 32.50 19.65 13.08 7.50 6.10 MAHARASHTRA 4.35 2.12 1.46 2.76 4.64 ORISSA 8.52 3.98 3.77 1.95 1.74 PUNJAB 0.00 0.63 0.71 0.75 0.96 RAJASTHAN 11.40 9.71 5.95 3.32 3.93 U P 7.81 15.17 29.59 45.87 29.34 W B 6.79 4.61 4.93 4.12 4.10 UTTARAKHAND 0.54 0.69 0.65 0.41 0.24 T N 0.81 2.77 2.49 1.44 1.60 450164 1231394 2330906 4512933 4842188

Concentration of Irrigation efforts in a few states There are only six states, red-ink marked, (of total 35 states) which have cornered major irrigation related works

taken up in last five years. However, these states showed either a remarkable increase or a remarkable decline,

mostly consistently.

As such the share of these states in the irrigation related works in all these years has been remarkably noticeable:

63.89 percent in 2008-09, 68.60 per cent in 2009-10, 73.30 per cent in 2010-11, 80.36 per cent in 2011-12 and

77.14 per cent in 2012-13. Thus of late almost 80 per cent of total works are concentrated in these six states only.

(Comparing the same with seven other major states , namely , Assam, Haryana, HP, J & K, Punjab , Uttarakhand


and Tamil Nadu which together had a meager 2.75 percent in 2008-09, 5.55 per cent in 2009-10, 5.12 per cent in

2010-11, 3.71 per cent in 2011-12 and 4.33 per cent share in 2012-13).

Despite the large share of the six stated states, trend of the works taken up depict major rise or fall Those with rise are AP and UP. Share of AP depicted the trend as - from a meagre 0.78 percent in 2008-09, the

state inclined to 5.57 per cent in 2009-10, 13.92 per cent in 2010-11, 18.73 per cent in 2011-12 and 33.73 per cent

in 2012-13.

Uttar Pradesh too depicted a rise till 2011-12, and in 2012-13 was second only to AP. Its share throughout has

been remarkable from 7.81 percent in 2008-09, the state inclined to 15.17 per cent in 2009-10, 29.59 per cent in

2010-11, and to 45.87 per cent in 2011-12 (almost half of the entire nation). Share though slumped to almost 2010-

11 level (29.34 per cent) in 2012-13 yet was second only to AP.

Two sister states of MP and Chhattisgarh had consistent declines: MP from 32.50 percent in 2008-09 to 19.65 per cent in 2009-10, 13.08 per cent in 2010-11, 7.50 per cent in 2011-

12 and 6.10 per cent in 2012-13, while Chhattisgarh from 9.58 percent in 2008-09 to 4.49 per cent in 2009-10, 4.01

per cent in 2010-11, 2.20 per cent in 2011-12 and 1.66 per cent in 2012-13. The other state indicating a consistent

decline is Rajasthan: from 11.40 percent in 2008-09 to 9.71 per cent in 2009-10, 5.95 per cent in 2010-11, 3.32 per

cent in 2011-12 and 3.93 per cent in 2012-13.

The state of Karnataka though depicted more than ten fold rise in 2009-10, but is indicating a consistent decline

since. Its trend has been: 1.82 percent in 2008-09, 14.00 per cent in 2009-10, 6.76 per cent in 2010-11, 2.74 per

cent in 2011-12 and 2.38 per cent in 2012-13.

So far as irrigation related schemes concentrating on individual s (SC/ST etc) are concerned:


State share of Individuals oriented Irrigation related works under NREGA 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 A P 0.03 0.64 12.91 9.31 19.95 ASSAM 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.39 BIHAR 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.09 CHHATTISGARH 14.54 6.71 6.45 3.32 2.63 GUJARAT 3.51 4.65 2.96 1.36 1.34 HARYANA 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 H P 0.04 0.30 0.22 0.36 0.78 J & K 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 JHARKHAND 2.87 1.76 2.75 2.01 2.59 KARNATAKA 0.96 17.74 5.71 2.08 1.97 KERALA 0.34 0.97 0.57 0.33 0.87 M P 49.42 35.35 17.46 10.27 9.80 MAHARASHTRA 0.53 0.45 0.36 2.42 4.99 ORISSA 4.95 3.46 3.85 2.05 1.83 PUNJAB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 RAJASTHAN 18.69 13.55 6.40 4.06 6.74 U P 3.14 12.37 38.98 61.27 44.14 W B 0.64 1.52 1.09 0.93 1.75 UTTARAKHAND 0.00 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.01 T N 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 155733 395774 935679 1831060 1813085 The trends seem to not to deviate much (excepting for AP, and intensity being much higher in MP and UP).

However, intensity of concentration in the six states, again red ink marked, (share of these states) has further

aggravated. Now these states indicate concentration of individual schemes in only these states. Their total share

depicted percentage varying from 86.76 percent in 2008-09, 86.36 per cent in 2009-10, 87.91 per cent in 2010-11,

90.31 per cent in 2011-12 and 85.24 per cent in 2012-13. Simultaneously, the share of lowest 7 major states,

namely , Assam, Haryana, HP, J & K, Punjab , Uttarakhand and Tamil Nadu varied from 0.09 percent in 2008-09,

0.48 per cent in 2009-10, 0.38 per cent in 2010-11, 0.51 per cent in 2011-12 and 1.27 per cent in 2012-13.

Individual Oriented Irrigation and related works under MGNREGA

Percent of GP Based Programmes:


Percent of GP Based Programmes Trend 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Average ODISHA 54.9 56.5 61.3 64.2 65.2 60.42 Rising but

very slowly RAJASTHAN 100.0 98.8 99.5 100.0 98.6 99.38 Even CHHATTISGARH 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.9 99.1 99.66 Even JHARKHAND 93.6 93.1 89.4 85.3 91.4 90.56 Declining M P 90.4 98.0 98.2 96.0 97.5 96.02 Rising MAHARASHTRA 74.5 79.4 93.3 87.8 93.1 85.62 Rising GUJARAT 99.8 99.6 97.2 100.0 93.4 98.00 Declining

slowly W B 98.2 99.1 98.7 99.0 98.3 98.66 Even KERALA 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.98 Even KARNATAKA 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0 97.8 99.52 Even BIHAR 74.7 75.4 80.8 69.0 88.0 77.58 Declining HARYANA 100.0 99.9 95.9 100.0 97.2 98.60 Even H P 99.8 99.1 97.8 100.0 94.5 98.24 Even U P 99.4 96.6 86.5 100.0 80.8 92.66 Declining ASSAM 98.7 61.0 76.1 71.7 76.88 Declining UTTARAKHAND 99.9 99.2 98.4 99.7 96.2 98.68 Even PUNJAB 100.0 98.4 87.4 91.2 94.25 Declining TAMIL NADU 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 Even J AND K 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 Even ANDHRA PRADESH 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 Even

Grand Total 91.1 95.5 92.1 91.7 93.3 92.74 Average 91.1 95.5 92.1 91.7 93.3 CoV 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.10 Interstate variation trends depicted by CoV (Coefficient of Variation) have more or less remained stagnant. Shortage (Gap) from 100 Percent GP Based Programmes Shortage from 100 Percent GP Based Programmes

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Average Gap

ANDHRA PRADESH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ASSAM 1.30 39.00 23.90 100.00 28.30 23.12 BIHAR 25.30 24.60 19.20 31.00 12.00 22.42 CHHATTISGARH 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.90 0.34 GUJARAT 0.20 0.40 2.80 0.00 6.60 2.00 H P 0.20 0.90 2.20 0.00 5.50 1.76 HARYANA 0.00 0.10 4.10 0.00 2.80 1.40 J AND K 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 JHARKHAND 6.40 6.90 10.60 14.70 8.60 9.44 KARNATAKA 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 2.20 0.48 KERALA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.02 M P 9.60 2.00 1.80 4.00 2.50 3.98 MAHARASHTRA 25.50 20.60 6.70 12.20 6.90 14.38 ODISHA 45.10 43.50 38.70 35.80 34.80 39.58 PUNJAB 0.00 1.60 12.60 100.00 8.80 5.75 RAJASTHAN 0.00 1.20 0.50 0.00 1.40 0.62 TAMIL NADU 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 U P 0.60 3.40 13.50 0.00 19.20 7.34 UTTARAKHAND 0.10 0.80 1.60 0.30 3.80 1.32 W B 1.80 0.90 1.30 1.00 1.70 1.34


Conclusions The assets creation and up gradation works as carried out under nine different heads have varied levels of

presence in different state. Though concentration of type of work being undertaken varies from state to state, there

is a marked consistency within the state. Most of the States have two or at most three works being carried out

which seem to be more or less as found suitable by the local populace and authorities (almost 90 per cent works in

the country are GP based works).

Despite the encouraging results as pointed out above, it is found that over years, the expenditure has been rising

quite disproportionately compared to growth of number of works.

Another significant finding pertains to overall performance of the MGNREGA scheme. Only some six states have

cornered more than 50 per cent of total works in the country. Large chunk of states have been non-starter still after

8 years of MGNREGA.

Notes: Creation of assets in MGNREGA leads to increase in income: UNDP report:

The report states that MGNREGA has generated extra income for households with the survey indicating

that a majority of the households noted a 10- 15% increase in income post creation of assets through

MGNREGA. The report also states that 34% had taken up alternate sources of livelihoods due to creation

of assets and income generated. For example, some of the farmers reported opening their own grocery

shops, better linkages to markets etc. Almost 42% of the households who sought employment under

MGNREGA and on whose land work was undertaken, do not come back to work on MGNREGA.

CAG raises doubts on government’s claim on capital spend

The CAG report on the Union government accounts, tabled in Parliament on Aug 15, 2013, said "a large

number of works undertaken under MGNREGA did not result in creation of fruitful assets as they were

abandoned midway". It cited the example of works amounting to Rs 4,000 crore which were incomplete and

did not result in creation of assets. The audit had reviewed Rs 29,000 crore grants under MGNREGA, all of

which were earmarked as grants for creation of capital assets.

Many of this expenditure was focused on creation of employment generation rather than on creation of

assets, the audit said.

References

1. CAG (2013) ‘CAG raises doubts on government’s claim on capital Spend’, Aug 15.

2. CSE (2008) ‘NREGS must focus on creating productive assets’ Study Report, InfoChange News & Features, April 2008


3. Dhananjaya K and M.S Prathibha (2011) ‘Role of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in Rural Asset Creation in India – an Analysis’ Journal of Global Economy, (7/4) pp 275-91

4. Padhi Upendra ‘CENSUS OF MGNREGS WORKS IN DEOGARH DISTRICT OF ODISHA’ Centre of Rural Development, (institute of Media Studies), Bhubaneshwar, nrega.nic.in/netnrega/iceg.pdf

5. Raju Kumar (2012) ‘Ultimate goal for Assets Creation seems vanishing under NREGA’, March 30, 2012

http://www.centralchronicle.com/ultimate-goal-for-assets-creation-seems-vanishing-under-nrega.html

6. UNDP (2013) ‘Creation of assets in MGNREGA leads to increase in income’ 21 May 2013, New Delhi, Team MP

Irrigation Works

States 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Total works CAGR

Number of Works

Total work

s

Ind work

s Total works

Ind work

s Total works

Ind work

s Total works

Ind works

Total works

Ind works

Total works

Ind works

Total

works

Ind works

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2008/9 to 2012/3

A P 3518 53 68597 2552 32435

6 1208

22 84515

9 17052

5 16333

19 36177

3 287494

9 65572

5 0.00 0.68

ASSAM 845 45 2664 126 8763 580 15165 1840 22212 7031 49649 9622 -

0.23 -

0.35

BIHAR 1195

6 250 58266 427 99978 613 14424

7 474 19235

2 1595 506799 3359 0.02 -0.19

CHHATTISGARH

43137

22638 55350

26571 93496

60332 99099 60812 80270 47661 371352

218014 0.08 0.15

GUJARAT 7897 5469 35816 1839

3 52929 2765

7 50748 24921 45617 24277 193007 10071

7 0.07 -0.09

HARYANA 941 9 2390 12 4047 26 5616 109 5226 318 18220 474 0.01 0.00

H P 4396 70 11925 1193 13282 2096 18163 6600 26946 14068 74712 24027 -

0.07 -

0.09

J & K 136 8 964 32 3339 58 11307 96 19643 116 35389 310 0.16 -0.05

JHARKHAND 2229

8 4472 26475 6958 45595 2572

1 52817 36871 60210 46965 207395 12098

7 0.00 0.17

KARNATAKA 8183 1494 17235

3 7022

4 15759

6 5342

2 12373

4 38079 11506

8 35769 576934 19898

8 -

0.15 -

0.21

KERALA 1003

9 531 45758 3831 42932 5292 40027 6104 57246 15854 196002 31612 0.07 0.13

M P 1462

90 7696

6 24202

9 1398

98 30478

8 1634

02 33830

5 18802

1 29554

5 17761

7 132695

7 74590

4 0.00 0.11

MAHARASHTRA

19584 829 26143 1773 33946 3399

124335 44279

224684 90488 428692

140768

-0.05 0.23

ORISSA 3836

9 7703 49037 1371

2 87848 3604

8 88114 37560 84424 33242 347792 12826

5 -

0.08 -

0.14

PUNJAB 11 0 7781 1 16650 14 33912 14 46347 1061 104701 1090 -

0.36 -

0.84

RAJASTHAN 5131

8 2910

8 11961

0 5361

5 13871

5 5985

0 14994

2 74311 19045

6 12221

4 650041 33909

8 -

0.08 -

0.05

U P 3517

0 4884 18678

3 4894

8 68960

7 3647

45 20701

85 11218

95 14207

23 80038

2 440246

8 23408

54 -

0.46 -

0.57

W B 3058

6 995 56818 5997 11492

7 1019

7 18615

3 17018 19857

1 31775 587055 65982 0.15 0.15

UTTARAKHAND 2415 4 8450 459 15060 675 18317 719 11796 270 56038 2127 0.25 0.42

T N 3658 3 34131 77 58088 88 65124 24 77466 124 238467 316 2.14 -0.39

4501

64 1557

33 12313

94 3957

74 23309

06 9356

79 45129

33 18310

60 48421

88 18130

85 133675

85 51313

31 -

0.10 -

0.10


Expenditure in lacs

States 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Total works Total work

s

Ind works

Total works

Ind works

Total works

Ind works

Total works

Ind works

Total works

Ind works

Total works

Ind works

CAGR Total Ind

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2008/9 to 2012/3

A P 0.0 0.00 8107.2 27.1 142818.

8 1657

1.8 113894.4 11190.6 191030.330694.

9 455850.7 58484.4 1.20 4.80

ASSAM 1088.

3 34.3 4077.3 77.3 8354.9 137.

2 7403.1 199.9 7571.1 632.5 28494.6 1081.3 0.47 0.79

BIHAR 4062.

3 118.1 15861.8 147.2 48807.9 184.

0 36234.6 68.7 71812.2 265.9 176778.9 783.9 0.78 0.18

CHHATTISGARH

19637.0

2598.9 31085.0 2994.9 51850.1

9534.1 56677.5 8533.2 54229.9

10967.5 213479.5

34628.7

0.23 0.33

GUJARAT

1254.8 949.7 12616.0 5733.4 16896.0

7075.1 11843.1 3841.8 10248.3 2568.7 52858.2

20168.8 0.52 0.22

HARYANA

1233.1 7.5 2351.0 9.4 3493.2 20.8 5895.0 87.9 7243.5 265.8 20215.9 391.4 0.42 1.04

HP 2938.

4 44.0 7785.0 487.3 7452.3 1011.4 10010.5 3114.9 12316.8 5498.9 40502.9

10156.6 0.33 1.63

J & K 28.7 2.1 301.2 9.9 1157.6 43.4 4672.8 21.8 8656.2 23.5 14816.5 100.5 2.13 0.62 JHARKHAND

10906.9 981.6 14740.5 3033.4 20304.0

7201.4 26318.7 17996.7 28897.1

22842.1 101167.2

52055.2 0.22 0.88

KARNATAKA

6043.3 740.6 78124.1

13671.2 58316.2

9053.2 38311.6 6291.4 37115.9 5366.0 217911.2

35122.3 0.44 0.49

KERALA

4088.7 208.4 14971.2 1658.2 18277.6

3605.3 22095.3 4669.0 33352.7

11717.8 92785.6

21858.7 0.52 1.24

M P 36970

.9 1404

2.2 60567.7 36274.

1 70199.9 35608.8 75969.0 47453.0 76205.8

55335.4 319913.4

188713.6 0.16 0.32

MAHARASHTRA

10197.0 129.1 5285.4 518.5 8345.9

601.6 51171.8 24101.2 89076.3

40047.2 164076.5

65397.7

0.54 2.15

ORISSA 19513

.9 1676.

6 19627.8 1966.1 35465.0 7267.8 19633.6 3921.8 28594.8 3437.1 122835.1

18269.4 0.08 0.15

PUNJAB 0.0 0.0 5687.7 0.0 6851.3 3.7 5128.5 0.0 5580.3 1.2 23247.9 5.0 0.00 -0.31

RAJASTHAN

36558.3

10066.2 105850.5

19895.3 73141.6

8754.9 77655.9 20178.9 87179.2

31864.1 380385.4

90759.5 0.19 0.26

U P 19078

.3 1687.

3 55472.1 6513.8 74545.1 9269.9 71721.9 7799.2 33892.1 4194.3 254709.6

29464.6 0.12 0.20

W B 7753.

1 186.3 30469.5 1788.7 54578.2 4059.6 64954.0 6125.2

100949.4

11716.5 258704.3

23876.3 0.67 1.29

UTTARAKHAND 374.7 0.1 3151.4 52.7 9310.2

172.6 8363.9 120.7 5481.2 49.1 26681.4 395.2

0.71 2.29

TAMIL NADU 39.0 0.0 90501.4 243.1

128343.4

133.6 160903.6 26.9

253731.8 53.0 633519.2 456.5 4.79 -0.32

All India 18903

8 3373

3 581439 96102 860362

120795

6 901853 166328 1177313 237816 3710005

654775

0.44 0.48

Red ink mark indicates CAGR in last 4 years

assets creation, up-gradation and maintenance: …assets creation, up-gradation and maintenance:...

Documents