Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Understanding India's Socio Economic Progress

Understanding India's Socio Economic Progress

India's Socio-Economic Progress from 1900 to 2010
Analysis of Education, Quality of Life

Araf Karsh Hamid

June 01, 2022
Tweet

More Decks by Araf Karsh Hamid

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. ARAF KARSH HAMID
    v1.0 – August, 2013
    v2.0 – June, 2021
    Should we go for
    - Pro Poor, Pro Economic Growth?
    OR
    - Pro Economic Growth?
    I cannot teach anybody anything,
    I can only make them think.
    - Socrates

    View Slide

  2. WORLD : From 1960 to 2011
    • Education, Health, Living Standards,
    • World Economic Factors
    1
    2 INDIA
    • GDP: 1951-2013, Population, GDP and Food Grain production
    • Population and Poverty, Education, HDI 1980 – 2012
    3 STATE OF STATES
    • HDI: 1980 – 2001, MPI 2007, MPI 2007
    • GSDP for All States: 1981 – 2012
    4 ANALYZING GUJARAT’S SOCIO ECONOMIC PROGRESS
    • HDR1980 – 2000, 2005 National Family Health Survey,
    • MPI 2007, HDI 2008, GSDP 1981-2012,
    • Education, Health, Poverty, IMR, State Debt, Employment, Investments
    5 COMPARING DIFFERENT ECONOMIC MODELS
    • Mixed Economy, Welfare States, Neoliberalism, Laissez-faire
    • Human Development Approach Vs. Neoliberalism
    6 KERALA
    • Understanding Caste System & Socio Economic Background
    • Kerala Development Model: Old and New
    What Economic Model
    should we follow?
    Pro Poor, Pro Growth
    Economy
    OR
    Pro Economic Growth?
    Understanding the
    progress made by other
    countries will help us to
    set our own goals.
    This section focuses on
    how the world
    progressed in the last
    50 years, looking at the
    societal well being.
    (Source: World Bank)

    View Slide

  3. Human development, as
    an approach, is concerned
    with what I take to be the
    basic development idea:
    namely, advancing the
    richness of human life,
    rather than the richness of
    the economy in which
    human beings live, which
    is only a part of it.
    Amartya Sen
    Professor of Economics,
    Harvard University
    Nobel Laureate in Economics, 1998
    http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev/
    Joseph E Stiglitz
    Professor of Economics,
    Columbia University
    Nobel Laureate in Economics, 2001
    In 2011 Time Magazine named him as
    one of the most 100 influential person
    in the world.
    GDP is not a barometer to measure
    Societal well being.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUaJMNtW6GA

    View Slide

  4. Concept Past Approaches New Approaches
    Individual Interests /
    Advantage / Well-
    being
    Income /
    Consumption /
    Utility (i.e.,
    Individual
    Happiness and/or
    desire fulfillment)
    Human Capabilities
    and opportunities –
    with an explicit role
    for freedom, agency
    and rights
    Food Security National Food
    availability
    The food entitlements
    of individuals and
    groups.
    Poverty Deprivation in
    income /
    consumption /
    expenditure
    Deprivation in human
    capabilities such as
    knowledge, longevity,
    and living standards
    (e.g., access to water,
    and services) – more
    emphasis on self
    reporting, self esteem,
    participation and
    empowerment.
    Market outcome and
    Government actions
    should be judged in
    terms of valuable Human
    ends.
    To understand the
    Economy what matters
    most is NOT GDP per
    capita but Individual
    entitlements, capabilities
    and freedoms and rights.
    We will get into the
    economical models after
    we go through the state
    of World, India, and
    Indian States on Human
    Developmental aspects.
    Next:
    Capability Approach
    Blind growth model is 1980s neoliberalism and a very narrow approach, an
    approach which can result in huge disparity in various forms, and potentially lead
    developing nations into polarization of wealth and extreme poverty.

    View Slide

  5. Aristotle
    384-322 BC
    Adam Smith
    1723-90
    Karl Marx
    1818-83
    Amartya Sen
    1933 –
    Martha Nussbaum
    1947 –
    Source: Stanford University
    Capability Approach is a
    theoretical framework
    about
    • Well being
    • Development
    • Justice
    Roots of this framework
    can be traced back to
    Karl Marx to Adam
    Smith to Aristotle.
    However, Economist
    Philosopher Amartya
    Sen pioneered the
    approach and
    Philosopher Martha
    Nussbaum & others
    enhanced it further.
    Core Ideas
    Functioning Capabilities
    Beings Doings
    • Healthy
    • Educated
    • Illiterate
    • Under Nourished
    • Being depressed
    • Travelling
    • Caring for child
    • Voting in an election
    • Taking part in a debate
    • Donating money to charity
    Examples
    Capabilities are a
    person’s real freedoms or
    opportunities to achieve
    functionings.
    Thus while travelling is
    functioning, real
    opportunity to travel is
    the corresponding
    capability.
    Conversion
    Factors
    Another important idea in Capability Approach is the Conversion
    Factors.
    It’s the usability of a product to enhance the functioning. For E.g.,
    a bicycle can enhance the mobility of a person to move around.

    View Slide

  6. Source: Stanford University
    Conversion Factors
    Amartya Sen, uses
    “Capability” not to refer
    exclusively to a person’s
    abilities or other
    internal powers but to
    refer to an opportunity
    made feasible, and
    constrained by both
    • Internal (personal)
    • External (social &
    environmental)
    conversion factors.
    Next: Organization of
    this presentation
    Environmental
    Personal Social
    These are internal to a
    person, such as
    metabolism, physical
    condition, sex, reading
    skills or intelligence.
    If a person is disabled, is
    in bad physical condition,
    or has never learned to
    cycle, then the bicycle
    will be of limited help in
    enabling the function of
    mobility.
    These are factors
    from the society in
    which one lives,
    such as public
    places, social norms,
    practices that
    unfairly discriminate,
    societal hierarchies,
    or power relations to
    class, gender, race or
    caste.
    These factors emerge from the
    physical or built environment in
    which the person lives.
    Among aspects one’s
    geographical location are
    • Climate
    • Pollution
    • Proneness to earthquakes
    • Presence or absence of seas
    and oceans.
    Built Environment are
    • Stability of Buildings
    • Roads & Bridges
    • Means of transportation &
    communication
    Categories of Conversion Factors
    It’s the usability of a product to enhance the functioning.
    For E.g., a bicycle can enhance the mobility of a person to move around.
    3
    Human Development Initiative
    Multidimensional Poverty Index
    Both these models were derived
    from the Capability Approach.
    We will be using these models to
    evaluate the performance of Indian
    States.
    How much a bicycle contributes to a person’s mobility
    depends on that persons:
    • Physical Condition (Personal Factor)
    • Whether socially allowed to ride a bicycle (Social)
    • Availability of decent roads (Environmental)

    View Slide

  7. Organization of this presentation 1. World
    2. India
    3. States
    4. Specific States
    5. Kerala
    Next: World 1960-2011
    From the highest
    vantage points to the
    reality in Kerala.
    Kerala’s socio
    economic background
    will be analyzed using
    the Capability
    Approach Framework.
    So that, we will get a
    better understanding
    of Kerala’s ranking in
    Human Development
    Initiative.
    World
    Kerala

    View Slide

  8. • Education
    • Health
    • Living Standards
    • Other Economic Factors
    1

    View Slide

  9. India is worse than most of the African countries
    That’s 526
    million life
    1

    View Slide

  10. Source: World Bank
    Compare these world stats with Gujarat, Tamil Nadu & Kerala
    Mortality Rate
    7.5Child
    Mortality Rate of
    USA (under 5 years
    / 1000)
    12.0Child
    Mortality rate of
    Kerala
    With a population
    double the size of
    Kerala, Tamil Nadu
    did a good job in
    the Health
    segment.
    62.7Child
    Mortality rate of
    India
    1

    View Slide

  11. Compare these world stats with Gujarat, Tamil Nadu & Kerala
    3.9%
    Malnutrition (too
    short for age) USA
    21%
    Malnutrition Kerala
    With a population
    double the size of
    Kerala, Tamil Nadu
    did a good job in
    the Health
    segment.
    48%
    Malnutrition India
    Malnutrition
    Too Short for Age
    Source: World Bank
    1

    View Slide

  12. Compare these world stats with Gujarat, Tamil Nadu & Kerala
    100%
    Improved Sanitation
    (% of population with
    access) USA
    96.4%
    Improved Sanitation
    Kerala
    71% Tamil
    Nadu
    64%Gujarat
    34%
    Improved Sanitation
    India
    Sanitation
    Source: World Bank
    1

    View Slide

  13. Compare these world stats with Gujarat, Tamil Nadu & Kerala
    Water
    99%
    Improved Water
    source (% of
    population with
    access) USA
    95%
    Tamil
    Nadu
    92%
    Kerala
    92%
    India
    90%Gujarat
    Source: World Bank
    1

    View Slide

  14. Compare these world stats with Gujarat, Tamil Nadu & Kerala
    Literacy
    100%
    Literacy Rate: South
    Korea
    94%
    Kerala
    80%
    Tamil
    Nadu
    79%
    Gujarat
    74% India
    Overall Tamil Nadu
    did an excellent job
    in Education and
    Health sectors in
    comparison to
    Gujarat.
    Source: World Bank
    1

    View Slide

  15. 1

    View Slide

  16. Source: World Bank
    Expenditure (% of GDP) on Education & Health, GNI Per Capita, Poverty Head count
    1

    View Slide

  17. • Progress is not measured by how many billionaires
    produced by the country. It’s measured by the quality
    of life for the common man.
    • We are worst than most African countries on Child
    Malnutrition !?! And we expect to be an Economic
    Power in 2020 or 2030?
    • What we need:
    • ZERO Corruption + Lokpal
    • Good quality Education
    • Skill development programs in sync with Industry
    • Health Care System
    • Improving the Living Standards
    • Automating & Streamlining the agriculture sector.
    • Now it’s time to look deep into each Indian state and
    do an analysis on state of the states!
    Country %
    • Africa
    • South Africa 8.70
    • Guinea 20.80
    • Central African Republic 21.80
    • Burkina Faso 26.00
    • Nigeria 26.70
    • Mali 27.90
    • Congo 28.20
    • Sudan 31.70
    • Somalia 32.80
    • Chad 33.90
    • Ethiopia 34.69
    • Niger 39.90
    • Asia
    • Pakistan 31.30
    • Afghanistan 32.90
    • Bangladesh 41.30
    • India 43.50
    Malnutrition Prevalence, weight for age
    (% of children under 5)
    Source: World Bank 2006
    1

    View Slide

  18. Many people, especially
    ignorant people, want to
    punish you for speaking
    the truth, for being
    correct, for being you.
    Never apologize for being
    correct or for being
    years ahead of your time.
    If you are right, you
    know it, speak your mind.
    Even if you are minority
    of one, the truth is
    still the truth.
    - Mahatma Gandhi
    2

    View Slide

  19. 2.1
    GDP, LABOR FORCE & ECONOMY
    • GDP: 1951 – 2012
    • India, China and USA – GDP, Labor Force & Economy Comparison
    • Labor Force mismatch
    • Agriculture & Industry – 2011
    • Summary on GDP
    2.2
    POPULATION, RURAL & URBAN, POVERTY
    • Rural, Urban distribution – 1951 to 2011
    • Urban India 1951 – 2011
    • Population, GDP and Food grain Production
    • GDP of 100 large cities
    • Poverty: 1950 – 2013
    2.3
    EDUCATION
    • Top 400 Universities in the World
    • PISA 2010 High School Ranking
    • Education: High School Math and Science Ranking (1995 – 2007)
    • World’s most educated countries
    • Education Summary
    2.4 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX
    • HDI: 1980 - 2012
    • INDIA Population (Rural Urban Growth in 2031)
    • Summary (India & South Korea Comparison)
    Key Areas
    • GDP
    • Labor Force Mismatch
    • Economy
    • Population Rural &
    Urban
    • Poverty
    • Health of Education
    System in the Country
    • Human Development
    Index
    2

    View Slide

  20. Economic
    Reforms
    1991
    Sharp spikes & dips from 1950-90s
    is reduced after Economic reforms.
    2.1

    View Slide

  21. Source : http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/India_in_Figure_2013_28jun13.pdf
    • Compare the
    contributions of
    Service Industry to
    the overall GDP.
    • The almost
    negligible % of
    Agriculture Growth
    (towards GDP) in
    the last 5 years is
    alarming.
    • We will understand
    this in the next few
    slides, Why is it
    alarming?
    2.1

    View Slide

  22. ④ Public Debt – The cumulative total of all government borrowings less
    repayments that is denominated in a country's home currency. It should not be
    confused with external debt, which reflects the foreign currency liabilities of
    both the private and public sector and must be financed out of foreign
    exchange earnings.
    ⑤ GDP Per Capita - GDP Per Capita on a Purchasing Power Parity basis divided by
    population.
    ⑥ GDP PPP – GDP based on Purchasing Power Parity.
    ⑦ GDP OER – GDP based on Official Exchange Rate
    ⑧ GDP RGR – Real Growth Rate - GDP growth on an annual basis adjusted for
    inflation and expressed as a percent
    $4.78
    Trillion GDP PPP
    Public Debt
    51.9% of GDP
    $3900per
    capita Income
    9.9%
    Unemployment
    6.5% GDP
    Growth Rate
    INDIA
    Source: CIA Web Site, USA
    2.1

    View Slide

  23. Compare the Labor Force
    distribution of US with India
    and China.
    15% - China reduced
    their Agriculture labor force.
    8%- China increased
    their Industrial Labor force
    compared to their 2004
    figures. Now compare that
    with India you will get a
    shock!
    US Labor Force and GDP is
    proportionate. This is the
    case with every developed
    countries. Proportionate
    GDP and Labor Force.
    China is slowly catching up
    to that ratio.
    So, What’s happening with
    India?
    2.1

    View Slide

  24. 90%
    of China’s
    GDP is equally distributed
    across Industry and Services
    and resulting from
    65% of Labor force.
    83%
    of India’s
    GDP is heavily focused on
    Services and resulting from
    47% of Labor force.
    53% of
    Agricultural Labor
    Force which accounts
    for 270 million people
    is the key for the
    country.
    2.1

    View Slide

  25. Checkout the
    disparity between the
    Labor force and GDP
    for Service and
    Agriculture.
    65%
    of the
    GDP is produced by
    Services sector which
    is only 28% of Labor
    Force.
    17% of the
    GDP is produced by
    Agriculture sector
    which is a whopping
    53% of Labor Force.
    2.1

    View Slide

  26. 2012 GDP Labor
    Agriculture 17% 53%
    Industry 18% 19%
    Services 65% 28%
    • To reduce the poverty and improve health we
    need to transfer atleast 150million from
    Agriculture (out of 270 million) to Industry /
    Manufacturing and automate & streamline (the
    goods transit to market) the agriculture sector.
    • To do that we need Good Quality Education
    system, skill development in sync with Industry.
    • Compare the growth, hardly any growth in Agriculture and
    checkout the Labor Force in Agriculture.
    • 53% Agriculture Labor Force is around 270million people.
    2.1

    View Slide

  27. • Agriculture accounts for nearly 17% of GDP, about 11% of
    exports and supports about half of the country’s population
    as its principal source of income.
    • During 2011-12 there was a record production of food grains
    at 259.32 million tones.
    • However, the Kharif production during 2012-13 declined
    about 5% due to late onset of monsoon and deficient rainfall
    in several states.
    • Significant improvement in rainfall during August-September
    2012 has somewhat compensated by improving the
    prospects for Rabi crops.
    Central Statistics Office (CSO)
    Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation India Source: http://mospi.gov.in
    • China beats us in every category. In Rice and Coarse Grains
    China and United States is far ahead of us.
    • The key question is how can we improve the production to
    2-3 times of the current output using latest technologies (in
    house), and move ¾ of the Agriculture labor force into other
    Industries.
    • This will give us a huge man power in manufacturing and
    other Industries.
    In the previous slide we saw that China
    reduced their labor force, still they lead
    in Agriculture production.
    2.1

    View Slide

  28. Central Statistics Office (CSO)
    Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation India Source: http://mospi.gov.in
    2.1

    View Slide

  29.  We have seen the issues with our Labor force. It’s very critical to understand
    that more than half of the Labor force is dependent on Agriculture and more
    than 500 million people is dependent on Agriculture.
     Cost of the Vegetables, Rice, Wheat is going up. However, does that mean
    Farmers are getting rich? If the cost of iPhone or Samsung Galaxy S4 goes up,
    Apple and Samsung makes profit.
     However over here, food prices are climbing and farmers are still in poverty!
    Why is that?
     This is where we need to clean up our system. Just because the GDP is going
    up doesn’t mean that as a nation we are doing great.
     To understand the problem in depth, we need to understand how the GDP
    has played in the Urban and Rural population. Lets have look at that in the
    next few slides – Population (Urban and Rural), GDP, Poverty and Education.
    2.1

    View Slide

  30. Population Density
    Source: Census India 2011
    2.2

    View Slide

  31. Source: IIHS 2012
    Urban Area: All statutory places with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area committee. A
    place satisfying the following three criteria simultaneously: A minimum population of 5000; at least 75% of male working
    population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits; and a density of population of at least 400 per sq. km. Census 2011.
    2.2

    View Slide

  32. Source: http://www.iihs.co.in/wp-content/themes/education/resources/IUC-Book.pdf
    India 1951 | 361 Million India 2011 | 1.21 Billion
    Source: IIHS 2012
    • There were only 5 Indian cities
    with a population greater than 1
    million and only 41 cities greater
    than 0.1 million population.
    • Much of India effectively lived in
    0.56 million villages
    • So, that’s at the max 10 million
    people living in Urban Area.
    • There are 3 cities with
    population greater than 10
    million and 53 cities with
    population greater 1 million.
    • Over 833 million Indians live in
    0.64 million villages.
    • 377 million live in about 8000
    Urban centres.
    833
    Million people in
    villages.
    Don’t you think the
    growth MUST start
    from the villages?
    2.2

    View Slide

  33. From 1950, the
    population went up 3.3
    times, while the food
    grain production went
    up by 4.3 times.
    GDP went up by a
    whopping 20 times
    especially the
    exponential growth
    from 1991 onwards.
    Does this exponential
    growth in GDP resulted
    in accumulation of
    wealth in few areas or
    benefitted the whole
    country?
    2.2

    View Slide

  34. Source: IIHS 2012
    16%
    of the
    population contributes to
    41%
    of the
    GDP
    Rest of the 84%
    predominantly in
    agriculture produce 59%
    of GDP .
    104
    million in
    slums by 2017
    Now is this inclusive
    growth?
    GDP Large Cities – 2013
    2.2

    View Slide

  35. Source: Planning Commission, 2013
    We still have more poor
    people compared to
    1951.
    Even with 21% poverty
    line in 2013 we still
    have
    269million
    under poverty (216
    million in 1951).
    216million in
    Rural Area
    52 million in
    Urban Area.
    Next: Education
    2.2

    View Slide

  36. 111 Universities
    for USA
    48for UK
    25 for Germany
    15for China
    7for Taiwan
    6for South Korea
    3for India
    #50 Highest ranking
    for South Korea
    #226 for India
    Source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking
    2.3

    View Slide

  37. 54 Universities for
    USA
    30for UK
    12 for Germany
    12for China
    11for Japan
    5for South Korea
    0for India
    #42 Highest ranking
    for South Korea
    #218 for India
    0 Why no Indian Institutes in top 200?
    • IIT Delhi Rank #218
    Are we poorer than these countries?
    • Taiwan - #87
    • Malaysia - #167
    • Mexico - #169
    • Brazil - #169
    • Thailand - #171
    Competing neighbors
    • Singapore - #28
    • South Korea - #42
    • China - #186
    Population
    • Singapore – 4 Million
    • South Korea – 50 Million
    • Gujarat – 60 Million
    • Tamil Nadu – 72 Million
    • Kerala – 33 Million
    Source: http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world
    2.3

    View Slide

  38. PISA Test 2010
    India Ranks 72nd, SECOND LAST!!!!
    Finland
    • Finnish children don’t start school until they are 7
    • They rarely take exams or do homework until they are well into
    their teens.
    • There is just one standardized test when the kids reach 16
    • The children are not measured at all for the first 6 years of their
    education. Its about being ready to learn and finding your
    passion.
    • They are the topers in International test (OECD) for Math, Science
    and Language and India stands Second Last (72nd Rank).
    • Teachers are selected from the top 10%
    INDIA
    • The average 15-year-old Indian is over 200 points behind the
    global topper.
    • Comparing scores, experts estimate that an Indian eighth grader
    is at the level of a South Korean third grader in math abilities or a
    second-year student from Shanghai when it comes to reading
    skills.
    Source: Finland : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm
    2.3

    View Slide

  39. Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathematics_and_Science_Study
    We have very few
    universities in top
    400.
    We are not doing
    good in High School
    Education.
    We rank very low in
    Math & Science in
    School.
    Look at South Korea,
    they are at the top.
    2.3

    View Slide

  40. Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathematics_and_Science_Study
    We have very few
    universities in top
    400.
    We are not doing
    good in High School
    Education.
    We rank very low in
    Math & Science in
    School.
    Look at South Korea,
    they are at the top.
    2.3

    View Slide

  41. Rank Country % of Population
    with tertiary
    education
    GDP Per
    Capita
    Public spending on
    Education % of GDP
    1 Canada 51% $39,050 6.1%
    2 Israel 46% $26,531 7.2%
    3 Japan 45% $33,785 5.2%
    4 USA 42% $46,548 7.3%
    5 New Zealand 41% $29,711 NA
    6 South Korea 40% $28,797 8.0%
    7 UK 38% $35,756 NA
    8 Finland 38% $36,307 6.4%
    9 Australia 38% $40,790 NA
    10 Ireland 37% $40,478 NA
    Source: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/27/and-the-worlds-most-educated-country-is/
    http://247wallst.com/special-report/2012/09/21/the-most-educated-countries-in-the-world/3/
    Source: Time & Wall St.
    #1 Canada spends
    less on GDP still no.1
    #6 South Korea has
    a spectacular growth in
    Education in the last 4
    decades.
    120million in US
    has college degree,
    that’s the combined
    population of Gujarat
    and Karnataka.
    How long will it take us
    to reach within the top
    10?
    • Canada is the only nation where more than half of all adults had a tertiary
    (college) education in 2010. This was up from 40% of the adult population in
    2000, when the country also ranked as the world’s most educated.
    • Canada has managed to become a world leader in education without being a
    leader in education spending, which totaled just 6.1% of GDP in 2009, or less
    than the 6.3% average for the OECD.
    • A large amount of its spending went towards tertiary education, on which the
    country spent 2.5% of GDP, trailing only the United States and South Korea.
    • One of the few areas Canada did not perform well in was attracting international
    students, who made up just 6.6% of all tertiary students — lower than the
    OECD’s 8% average
    2.3

    View Slide


  42. 2nd last in the PISA high school
    test (2010) for Language, Science
    and Math.

    http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf

    http://www.acer.edu.au/media/acer-releases-results-of-pisa-2009-
    participant-economies/

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Indian-
    students-rank-2nd-last-in-global-test/articleshow/11492508.cms

    http://indianexpress.com/article/education/pisa-tests-india-to-take-part-
    in-global-teen-learning-test-in-2021-4537231/

    Only 3 Universities in the top 400
    (IIT Kharagpur, Mumbai and
    Delhi) as per the Ranking of
    Times Higher Education 2013.

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-
    13/world-ranking
    1
    2
    3
    We can definitely do better than this…. Provided we accept that we got a sub standard
    education system. However, I don’t hear any politician talking about these issues.
    China, South
    Korea, Finland,
    Singapore leads
    in 2010 PISA Test
    ONLY
    ONLY LAST

    Only one University (IISC, Bangalore) in the top 500 as
    per the Academic Ranking of World Universities 2013

    http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html
    2.3

    View Slide

  43. Source: HDR 2013, UNDP
    India need to do a lot
    to catch up with
    medium human
    development.
    However, when we
    dive deep into state of
    states, we will find
    that some states HDI
    are at par with
    developed nations.
    Then the key is, what
    can we learn from
    those states to
    improve Education,
    Health & Societal well
    being.
    2.4

    View Slide

  44. Source: IIHS 2012
    • In 2031, it is projected that there will
    be 6 cities with a population greater
    than 10 million.
    • In 2013, 100 large cities produce 41%
    of the GDP and that involves just 16%
    of the population. Now if you
    extrapolate that to 2031 what will be
    the scenario? 24% of the population
    will contribute to 65% of GDP?
    • Now is that really an inclusive growth?
    Look at the series of cities
    popping up in Kerala. End
    to end the entire state will
    become a big city.
    2031
    1951
    2.4

    View Slide

  45. 1.21
    Billion population
    53%
    Depends on Agriculture
    4.7
    Trillion US$ - GDP PPP
    3rd Largest Economy
    .554
    HDI 2012
    21%
    Below Poverty (2013)
    .909
    HDI 2012
    0.05
    Billion population
    1.6
    Trillion US$ - GDP PPP
    12th Largest Economy
    6%
    Depends on Agriculture
    16%
    Below Poverty (2011)
    In Population South Korea (50 Million) is smaller
    than Gujarat (60 Million), Tamil Nadu (70
    Million) and Maharashtra (114 Million) . Still
    they have an economy 1/3 of Indian Economy!
    We can definitely do better than everyone,
    provided we understand what’s wrong with our
    system. ☺ I don’t think that’s rocket science!!
    (btw we are good with rockets!)
    Its time we realize our potential ! ☺
    2.4

    View Slide

  46. 1950 – 2013, Study based on
    Planning Commission, World
    Bank, UN Development Program
    3

    View Slide

  47. 3.1
    HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX
    • HDI: 1980 - 2005
    • MPI: 2007
    • MPI: Across Hindu Caste and Tribe
    • HDI: 2008
    3.2 EDUCATION & HEALTH
    • All States 2008 (HDI)
    • Changes in Education: 1998 – 2008
    3.3 GROSS STATE DOMESTIC PRODUCT
    • All States: 1981 – 2013 (Planning Commission)
    • GSDP Growth Rate: 1981 – 2013
    3.4 POVERTY
    • Percentage of Poor people based on various studies
    • Summary
    Key Areas
    • Human Development
    across all the states
    • Education
    • GSDP
    • Poverty
    State Population
    (Million)
    Uttar Pradesh 199
    Andhra Pradesh 84
    Tamil Nadu 72
    Karnataka 61
    Gujarat 60
    Kerala 33
    Punjab 27
    3

    View Slide

  48. Human Development Index
    • Human Development Index is based on averages of 3 indices in
    different dimensions:
    • Health Index
    • Education Index
    • Income Index
    • All the states in the country are measured on these different
    dimensions to measure the societal well being. Light color shows the
    states in good overall health (Health, Education, Income).
    Its interesting to note
    that Andhra Pradesh,
    Karnataka and Tamil
    Nadu were at par
    with most of the
    Northern states, while
    Gujarat is far better
    than these Southern
    states in 1980s.
    The entire progress in
    Southern states
    where much faster
    than the northern
    states.
    Kerala kept the No.1
    ranking for the past 3
    decades.
    3.1

    View Slide

  49. Source : http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/index.php?repts=nhdcont.htm
    Human Development Report 1980 -1990s Planning Commission
    (Government of India)
    #1Kerala
    maintained the No.1
    Rank from 1981 to
    2001
    #6 Gujarat
    Ranked No. 4 in 1980
    and fell down to 6th
    Rank in 2001
    #3
    Tamil Nadu
    Improved its rank from
    No. 7 in 1981 to No. 3
    in 2001
    • Maharashtra the Business capital of India ranked No. 3 in 1981
    and fell down to 4th Rank in 2001
    3.1

    View Slide

  50. Multidimensional Poverty across Indian States
    MPI
    Rank
    States
    Population
    (million)
    2007
    MPI
    Proportion
    of poor
    Average
    intensity
    Contribution
    to overall
    poverty
    Number of MPI
    poor (million)
    1 Kerala 35 0.065 15.9% 40.9% 0.6% 5.6
    2 Goa 1.6 0.094 21.7% 43.4% 0.0% 0.4
    3 Punjab 27.1 0.120 26.2% 46.0% 1.0% 7.1
    4 Himachal Pradesh 6.7 0.131 31.0% 42.3% 0.3% 2.1
    5 Tamil Nadu 68 0.141 32.4% 43.6% 2.6% 22.0
    6 Uttaranchal 9.6 0.189 40.3% 46.9% 0.5% 3.9
    7 Maharashtra 108.7 0.193 40.1% 48.1% 6.0% 43.6
    8 Haryana 24.1 0.199 41.6% 47.9% 1.3% 10.0
    9 Gujarat 57.3 0.205 41.5% 49.2% 3.4% 23.8
    10 Jammu and Kashmir 12.2 0.209 43.8% 47.7% 0.7% 5.4
    11 Andhra Pradesh 83.9 0.211 44.7% 47.1% 5.1% 37.5
    12 Karnataka 58.6 0.223 46.1% 48.3% 4.2% 27.0
    13 Eastern Indian States 44.2 0.303 57.6% 52.5% 4.0% 25.5
    14 West Bengal 89.5 0.317 58.3% 54.3% 8.5% 52.2
    15 Orissa 40.7 0.345 64.0% 54.0% 4.3% 26.0
    16 Rajasthan 65.4 0.351 64.2% 54.7% 7.0% 41.9
    17 Uttar Pradesh 192.6 0.386 69.9% 55.2% 21.3% 134.7
    18 Chhattisgarh 23.9 0.387 71.9% 53.9% 2.9% 17.2
    19 Madhya Pradesh 70 0.389 69.5% 56.0% 8.5% 48.6
    20 Jharkhand 30.5 0.463 77.0% 60.2% 4.2% 23.5
    21 Bihar 95 0.499 81.4% 61.3% 13.5% 77.3
    India 1,164.70 0.296 55.4% 53.5% - 645.0
    15.9%MPI
    poor in Kerala and
    holds #1 rank in the
    MPI.
    26.2% MPI
    poor in Punjab.
    32.4% MPI
    Poor in Tamil Nadu
    41.5% MPI
    Poor in Gujarat and
    holds #9 Rank.
    Source: http://www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/
    All States
    Multidimensional
    Poverty Index:
    2007 MPI
    3.1

    View Slide

  51. Breakdown of Multidimensional Poverty across Hindu Castes
    and Tribes
    States MPI
    Percentage of
    MPI Poor
    Average
    Intensity
    Scheduled Caste 0.361 65.80% 54.80%
    Scheduled Tribe 0.482 81.40% 59.20%
    Other Backward
    Class 0.305 58.30% 52.30%
    General 0.157 33.30% 47.20%
    Source: http://www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/
    60% of the
    population comprises
    of OBC, SC and ST.
    81% are multi
    dimensionally poor in
    Bihar.
    134.7million -
    The largest number
    of poor people (in
    India) live in Uttar
    Pradesh.
    • There are more MPI poor in eight Indian states (421 million in
    Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa,
    Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and West
    Bengal) than in the 26 poorest African countries combined
    (410 million).
    • Multidimensional poverty is lowest for Kerala.
    • The top five states have only 4.5% of the poor.
    • The five poorest states have more than 50% of the poor.
    3.1

    View Slide

  52. Source: Indian Human Development Report 2011,
    Planning Commission (GOI) Kerala’s HDI value is better than Russia
    3.1

    View Slide

  53. Source: Indian Human Development Report 2011, Planning Commission (GOI)
    • Income Index is calculated based
    on consumption expenditure.
    • Only three relatively more affluent
    states — Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,
    and Kerala have registered an
    improvement in the Income Index
    higher than the national average.
    • It is commendable that even in the
    relatively poorer states like Assam,
    Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya
    Pradesh, and Uttarakhand the
    Education Index is above 0.5.
    • The north-eastern states have been
    good performers despite low levels
    of income.
    • With the best public health system
    in the country Kerala has the
    highest life expectancy at birth.
    • The demographic transition of
    Kerala is widely acclaimed because
    its mortality and fertility levels have
    reached those of the developed
    countries.
    3.2

    View Slide

  54. Poor States and North eastern states
    75% change for
    Jharkhand from 1999-2008 in
    HDI Education Index, while
    50% for Bihar &
    12% for Gujarat
    Its surprising to see that one of
    the Rich state that lags in
    education has the least amount
    of changes in improving
    education. The poor states
    from North eastern part of the
    country did a much better job.
    This clearly shows you don’t
    need a huge economic growth
    to improve the education level
    of the people.
    Source: IHDR 2011, Planning
    Commission
    3.2

    View Slide

  55. #1 is Gujarat
    among the big states
    in GSDP. Other states
    lags way behind in
    terms investments
    when you compare
    them with Gujarat.
    #5 for Tamil
    Nadu.
    #7 for Andhra
    Pradesh
    #10for
    Karnataka
    Source: 2013 Planning Commission of India
    3.3

    View Slide

  56. 2013 Planning Commission of India
    is Gujarat’s Economic Progress being reflected Societal well being?
    We will find that out that in the State of States!
    3.3

    View Slide

  57. % Studies
    21.5% Planning Commission of India
    http://planningcommission.nic.in/news/pre_pov2307.pdf
    29.0% World Bank
    $1.25. At PPP Rs 21.6 a day urban and Rs 14.3 rural.
    37.0%
    Suresh Tendulkar
    Overall 37.2%, with 41.8% rural (below Rs 13.8 per day, Rs 446.68 per
    month) and 25.7% urban (Rs 578.80 per month). Expert Group on
    Methodology for Estimation of Poverty, Chair Prof. Suresh D.
    Tendulkar; http://www.planningcommission.gov.in/eg_poverty.htm
    37.2% UN Development Program
    http://www.in.undp.org/content/india/en/home/countryinfo/
    41.0%
    Arjun Sengupta
    41% below Rs 14.6 per day. Extremely Poor (6.4%, Rs 8.9), Poor
    (15.4%, Rs 11.6) Marginally Poor (19.0%, Rs 14.6). Vulnerable (36%,
    Rs 20) Total 77%, 836 million people, below Rs 20 per day.
    http://nceus.gov.in/Condition_of_workers_sep_2007.pdf
    55.4% Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) Oxford University
    3.4

    View Slide

  58. 4
    State comparison based on
    - 1980 – 2000 National Human Development Report 2001 Planning Commission (GOI)
    - 2005 National Family Health Survey (Government of India)
    - 2007 Multidimensional Poverty Index (Oxford University)
    - 2008 Human Development Index (United Nations Development Program – UNDP)
    - 2011 Census data (Government of India)
    - 2012 NSSO data (Government of India)

    View Slide

  59. 4.1
    NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT: 1980 – 2001
    • Gujarat Vs. Kerala : 1980 - 2001
    • Other Rich States
    • Southern States & Other States
    • Summary: Gujarat Analysis HDI 1980 – 2000
    4.2
    NATIONAL FAMILY HEALTH SURVEY: 1990 – 2005
    • Gujarat Vs. Tamil Nadu & Kerala : Health
    • Summary Gujarat Vs. Tamil Nadu and Kerala
    • Kerala Vs. Southern States & Northern States
    • Summary: Comparing Kerala in 1990s with Other States in 2005
    4.3
    MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX: 2007 (OXFORD)
    • Gujarat Vs. Punjab & Tamil Nadu (Poverty, Education, Health, Living
    Standards)
    • Infant Mortality Rate: 1961 – 2008
    • Poverty: 1973 – 2013
    • Summary: Gujarat Analysis with HDI 2008
    4.4
    ECONOMY
    • Investor Friendly States & Gujarat Investments: 2003 – 2011
    • Employment: 2005 – 2010
    • Monthly Per Capita Expenditure
    • Gujarat Vs. Tamil Nadu & Kerala – GSDP
    • State Debt: 2002 – 2009
    • Summary: Gujarat Analysis
    Key Areas
    • Human Development
    focusing on Gujarat,
    Tamil Nadu, Punjab
    and Kerala
    • Economy
    • GSDP
    • Investments
    • State Debt
    • Employment
    State Population
    (Million)
    Uttar Pradesh 199
    Andhra Pradesh 84
    Tamil Nadu 72
    Karnataka 61
    Gujarat 60
    Kerala 33
    Punjab 27
    4

    View Slide

  60. Check out the disparity
    between the Rural and the
    Urban areas in Gujarat.
    Let us see if this disparity
    changes after economic
    reforms in Gujarat!
    Kerala has already
    demonstrated that Quality of
    life can be improved even
    before the economic reforms.
    Most important, there is NO
    disparity in the development
    of Rural and Urban areas in
    Kerala.
    Compare 1980s and 1990s
    Radar of Kerala
    Source : http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/index.php?repts=nhdcont.htm
    Scale
    5 = Best Achievement
    0 = Least Achievement
    Source: National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission (GOI)
    4.1

    View Slide

  61. Source : http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/index.php?repts=nhdcont.htm
    Punjab and Haryana are
    two Economical well off
    state compared to
    other states in India.
    However, when you
    compare 1980s and
    1990s, you will find that
    the focus on Education
    and Health care is very
    low.
    The growth of Rural and
    Urban population is
    different.
    Scale
    5 = Best Achievement
    0 = Least Achievement
    Source: National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission (GOI)
    4.1

    View Slide

  62. Source : http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/index.php?repts=nhdcont.htm
    • Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are two Economic power house of South.
    • However, when you compare 1980s and 1990s, you will find that the focus on Education and Health
    care is very low.
    • The growth of Rural and Urban population is different.
    Scale
    5 = Best Achievement
    0 = Least Achievement
    Source: National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission (GOI)
    4.1

    View Slide

  63. Source : http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/index.php?repts=nhdcont.htm
    Scale
    5 = Best Achievement
    0 = Least Achievement
    Source: National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission (GOI)
    4.1

    View Slide

  64. Source: National Human Development Report
    2001, Planning Commission (GOI)
    #3
    Tamil Nadu did a remarkable job in
    jumping from 7th rank in 1981 to 3rd in 2001.
    #1 & #2
    Kerala and Punjab
    maintained their respective 1st and 2nd rank
    consistently for 2 decades.
    #6
    Gujarat slipped two ranks from
    1981.
    One of the remarkable achievement of Kerala
    is the symmetric growth of both Urban and
    Rural areas. While most of the other states
    development is happening predominantly in
    the Urban areas. This further increases the
    disparity between the rural population and
    the Urban population.
    In the next section we will focus on National
    Family Health Survey (Government of India)
    from 1990 to 2005.
    In Kerala rural households own private wells, however the census survey doesn’t
    recognize that for source of safe water. Even today (2013) when people buy land for
    house, the first priority is if there is water for a well.
    4.1

    View Slide

  65. Post Reforms of 1991 – National Family Health Survey 1990 – 2005 (15 years)
    4.2

    View Slide

  66. Post Reforms of 1991 – National Family Health Survey 1990 – 2005 (15 years)
    4.2

    View Slide

  67. Source: National Family Health Survey 2005 – Household Profile Comparison
    4.2

    View Slide

  68. • Comparing the data from 1991
    to 2005 clearly shows that Tamil
    Nadu and Kerala did a far
    superior job in Education,
    Health and Living Standards.
    • Based on the per capita Income
    Punjab and Haryana is well
    ahead of Kerala.
    • However, Kerala still able to
    reduce poverty substantially
    compared to the rest of the
    states.
    • Now its time to compare the
    progress of Kerala with respect
    to other states.
    Post Reforms of 1991 – National Family Health Survey 1990 – 2005 (15 years)
    4.2

    View Slide

  69. Post Reforms of 1991 – National Family Health Survey 1990 – 2005 (15 years)
    4.2

    View Slide

  70. Post Reforms of 1991 – National Family Health Survey 1990 – 2005 (15 years)
    4.2

    View Slide

  71. Post Reforms of 1991 – National Family Health Survey 1990 – 2005 (15 years)
    4.2

    View Slide

  72. Post Reforms of 1991 – National Family Health Survey 1990 – 2005 (15 years)
    4.2

    View Slide

  73. Few Development Indicators to compare Kerala
    1990
    Gujarat
    2005
    Maharashtra
    2005
    Punjab
    2005
    Tamil Nadu
    2005
    • Health
    • Infant Mortality Rate 24 50 38 42 31
    • Trends in Institutional Deliveries (%) 89 55 66 53 90
    • Trends in Any Antenatal Care (%) 98 87 93 91 99
    • Trends in Children’s Nutritional Status (in %, less is good)
    • Too Short for age 25 42 38 28 25
    • Too thin for height 13 17 15 9 22
    • Underweight 27 47 40 27 33
    • Education
    • Literacy Rate 90 75 76 71 78
    Now let us analyze the states using Multidimensional Poverty Index (developed by Oxford
    University), which is much more elaborate than Human Development Index.
    Most of the states are catching up with the standard Kerala achieved in the year 1990!
    4.2

    View Slide

  74. Source: http://www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/
    4.3

    View Slide

  75. # State %
    1 Delhi 12.44
    2 Kerala 12.66
    5 Punjab 24.55
    7 Tamil Nadu 30.46
    14 Gujarat 41.04
    15 Karnataka 43.20
    29 Bihar 79.34
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    4.3

    View Slide

  76. # State %
    1 Kerala 2.07
    6 Tamil Nadu 8.74
    7 Punjab 9.00
    14 Gujarat 18.46
    16 Karnataka 18.66
    29 Bihar 53.54
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    4.3

    View Slide

  77. # State %
    1 Kerala 3.54
    6 Punjab 19.35
    8 Tamil Nadu 29.10
    15 Gujarat 35.62
    17 Karnataka 39.66
    29 Bihar 72.83
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    The household’s sanitation
    facility is not improved or it
    is improved but shared with
    other households.
    4.3

    View Slide

  78. # State %
    1 Punjab 0.78
    2 Delhi 3.31
    3 Bihar 4.44
    4 Tamil Nadu 5.01
    5 Andhra Pradesh 6.18
    9 Kerala 7.62
    15 Gujarat 10.09
    29 Jharkhand 41.58
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    The household does not have
    access to clean drinking water or
    clean drinking water is more than
    30 minutes walk from home.
    Privately owned wells by most of households in
    rural Kerala is not accounted in Indian Census
    for clean drinking water.
    4.3

    View Slide

  79. # State %
    1 Delhi 5.11
    2 Kerala 12.37
    6 Punjab 21.05
    8 Tamil Nadu 28.68
    15 Gujarat 36.12
    20 Karnataka 40.04
    21 Andhra Pradesh 41.61
    29 Bihar 77.28
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    The household cooks with dung,
    wood or charcoal.
    4.3

    View Slide

  80. # State %
    2 Delhi 1.78
    3 Kerala 3.11
    5 Tamil Nadu 11.91
    7 Punjab 15.49
    8 Karnataka 18.28
    11 Andhra Pradesh 19.53
    14 Gujarat 24.11
    29 Bihar 68.59
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    The household has dirt, sand or
    dung floor.
    4.3

    View Slide

  81. Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    The household has no electricity.
    # State %
    1 Delhi 0.26
    4 Punjab 2.48
    5 Kerala 4.34
    9 Tamil Nadu 7.09
    11 Karnataka 7.87
    12 Andhra Pradesh 8.44
    13 Gujarat 8.87
    29 Bihar 64.08
    4.3

    View Slide

  82. # State %
    1 Delhi 5.61
    2 Kerala 9.58
    3 Punjab 11.09
    8 Tamil Nadu 23.46
    14 Gujarat 28.98
    15 Karnataka 30.96
    16 Andhra Pradesh 34.85
    29 Bihar 64.08
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    The house hold does not own more
    than one of: radio, TV, Telephone,
    bike, motorbike, or refrigerator, and
    does not own a car or truck.
    4.3

    View Slide

  83. # State %
    1 Kerala 3.51
    7 Punjab 9.15
    8 Tamil Nadu 10.49
    9 Maharashtra 13.40
    15 Andhra Pradesh 15.50
    16 Karnataka 16.40
    17 Gujarat 17.03
    28 Bihar 34.73
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    Any child has died in the family.
    4.3

    View Slide

  84. # State %
    1 Delhi 7.64
    2 Kerala 9.90
    6 Punjab 15.87
    7 Tamil Nadu 20.25
    12 Andhra Pradesh 28.49
    16 Karnataka 30.82
    18 Gujarat 32.35
    29 Bihar 60.23
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    Any adult or child for whom there is
    nutritional information is
    malnourished.
    4.3

    View Slide

  85. # State %
    1 Kerala 1.30
    8 Maharashtra 8.04
    11 Punjab 8.25
    12 Tamil Nadu 8.60
    13 Gujarat 11.77
    21 Rajasthan 20.62
    29 Bihar 34.86
    Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    No household member has
    completed five years of
    schooling.
    4.3

    View Slide

  86. Source : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    Any school aged child is not
    attending school in years 1 to
    8.
    # State %
    1 Kerala 2.36
    2 Tamil Nadu 3.58
    7 Punjab 10.35
    8 Maharashtra 10.57
    10 Gujarat 11.40
    11 Andhra Pradesh 12.10
    12 Karnataka 15.00
    29 Bihar 42.86
    4.3

    View Slide

  87. 1961 to 2008 :
    Economic Survey 2009-10
    76.92% Kerala
    reduced (the Infant
    Mortality Rate) in the last
    47 years.
    54.65% by
    Tamil Nadu
    40.47% by
    Gujarat
    To reduce the infant mortality
    rate what we require is a good
    health care system especially
    for the rural area.
    Now how do you define
    inclusive growth if you don’t
    have good health care system?
    4.3

    View Slide

  88. 80.83% of
    poverty is reduced by Andhra
    Pradesh in the last 40 years
    compare to
    65.41%for
    Gujarat and
    79.49% for Tamil
    Nadu
    88.33% for
    Kerala
    One factor which is consistent
    in these stats is the
    performance of Tamil Nadu &
    Kerala over Gujarat, you need
    to compare this with the heavy
    investments happened & still
    happening in Gujarat.
    What’s happening to those investments? Is it NOT translating into
    improving the basic necessities for the poor people?
    4.3

    View Slide

  89. Source: Planning Commission – 1973 – 2012 (40 Years of development)
    4.3

    View Slide

  90. 21.92%
    people
    under poverty in India. There is a
    controversy surrounding this %
    saying it should be more. That
    ONLY makes Gujarat’s Growth
    Model case even worse.
    16.63%
    of
    people in Gujarat is under
    poverty resulting in 102.23 lakhs
    of people.
    7.05%
    of people
    in Kerala under poverty resulting
    in 23.95 lakh people.
    3
    times more poor people in
    rural area compare to Gujarat’s
    Urban population. Which means
    Growth is not trickling down to
    the Rural population.
    4.3

    View Slide

  91. Source: Indian Human Development Report 2011
    Planning Commission, Government of India & Oxford University
    #1Kerala continued the
    No.1 position from 1980s.
    Punjab and Tamil Nadu
    consistently performed far
    better than Gujarat.
    #5Punjab
    #8Tamil Nadu
    #11Gujarat moved
    down
    7places and ranked
    No. 11 in 2008 compared to
    1981 (Rank No. 4)
    How do you explain this
    drop (7 places) in rankings
    for Gujarat?
    What caused it?
    4.3

    View Slide

  92. Source: Assocham, 2009
    #1 Gujarat
    consistently topped
    the investment chart
    for more than two
    decades.
    Punjab is in the worst
    performers list in
    terms Investment
    plans of India Inc.
    Except Kerala all the
    other 3 states (from
    South) are in the front
    runner for
    investments.
    4.4

    View Slide

  93. Source: Socio Economic Review 2011-12, Government of Gujarat
    http://gujecostat.gujarat.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/Publication/ser1112e.pdf
    # Vibrant Gujarat
    Global
    Investors meet
    Projects Proposed Implemented Under Implementation
    MOU’s Signed /
    Announced
    No. of
    project
    Investment
    Rs. In Crores
    No. of
    Project
    Investment
    Rs. In Crores
    No. of
    Project
    Investment
    Rs. In Crores
    1 2011 8380 8380 2,083,047.30 248 29,813.58 659 249,054.78
    2 2009 8660 8888 1,239,562.00 1342 104,590.45 872 281,620.41
    3 2007 363 454 465,309.80 160 107,897.34 152 184,245.06
    4 2005 226 227 106,160.41 115 37,939.94 22 27,931.80
    5 2003 76 80 66,086.50 42 37,746.00 5 10,710.00
    Total 17705 18029 3,960,166.01 1907 317,987.31 1710 753,562.05
    • That’s a total of Rs. 1,071,549.36 crore from
    2003 to 2011. Far more than any other state
    achieved in the last 10 years.
    • When will the we see the fruits of all these
    investments?
    • Now, if these investments in the last 9 years is
    atleast 50% (definitely more than that) more
    than a state in comparable population size,
    shouldn’t we see a drastic rise in employment?
    So, Lets look at the employment scenario in
    2005 to 2010.
    4.4

    View Slide

  94. Isn’t it surprising (or shocking), after all the pro growth investments and marketing blitz
    Gujarat lags in employment!
    Source: Census 2013
    4.4

    View Slide

  95. Why is Gujarat at the bottom?
    Where is the inclusive Growth?
    Years (1991-2012) of Pro Growth Economic Reforms in Gujarat.
    21
    4.4

    View Slide

  96. 2013 Planning Commission of India
    • Comparison of Growth between Gujarat, Tamil Nadu & Kerala clearly shows Gujarat had a
    better growth rate compared to Tamil Nadu & Kerala for the last 32 years.
    • However, on societal well being Gujarat lags far behind Kerala & Tamil Nadu and most of the
    other states.
    • So, as per Jagdish Bhagwati, if blind growth improves everything, then how do we explain
    the Education, Health & Living Standards disparity of Gujarat with others states?
    4.4

    View Slide

  97. States 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 RE 2006-07 Pre-Act. 2007-08 RE 2008-09 BE
    1. Andhra Pradesh 54831 64550 74288 79549 87474 86622 96126 105918
    2. Arunachal Pradesh 1267 1525 1778 2488 2668 2336 2733 3049
    3. Assam 13759 15089 17545 18628 20171 19853 21187 22405
    4. Bihar* 35249 37453 42484 46495 50476 49089 51395 54669
    5. Chattisgarh 8910 11144 12227 13273 14404 14113 15644 17506
    6. Goa 3335 3838 4350 5018 5707 5694 6371 7170
    7. Gujarat 52572 62876 71083 81367 87686 87971 94591 101482
    8. Haryana 19227 22194 24255 27023 28433 28616 29477 31932
    9. Himachal Pradesh 12393 14437 16533 17432 18710 18071 19426 21358
    10. Jammu & Kashmir 12269 13027 14188 16790 18221 18591 21150 NA
    11. Jharkhand 8923 10569 13512 17360 22000 19019 23073 24606
    12. Karnataka 37234 41967 46940 52236 56472 57278 60182 67142
    13. Kerala 33777 39227 43692 47832 54950 52161 58499 64638
    14. Madhya Pradesh* 29993 37772 44235 49150 53326 53280 58001 62864
    15. Maharashtra 85209 103419 119725 140673 155222 154522 156957 171663
    16. Manipur 2225 2300 3082 3905 4050 4187 4345 4586
    17. Meghalaya 1827 1952 2173 2566 2788 2762 2914 3107
    18. Mizoram 2090 2389 2711 2953 3229 3096 3027 3201
    19. Nagaland 2708 2515 2802 3174 3542 3557 3858 4048
    20. Orissa 30735 34014 36093 38468 39531 39466 40483 43330
    21. Punjab 38315 43197 47403 51364 55294 51035 55717 60150
    22. Rajasthan 45871 53361 60134 66407 71039 71146 77089 82858
    23. Sikkim 888 966 1107 1351 1551 1484 1750 2125
    24. Tamil Nadu 43915 49445 55144 62310 67491 66095 73098 83144
    25. Tripura 3156 3590 4181 4418 4669 4605 NA NA
    26. Uttar Pradesh* 102485 119240 131401 131239 143997 144528 153682 168035
    27. Uttarakhand 6003 8030 9909 11714 12824 13034 14430 15482
    28. West Bengal 77543 89388 104334 112386 121753 120892 131897 143716
    All States 766707 889476 1007311 1107569 1207678 1193102 1277101 1370182
    Even after improving the
    Education and Health,
    Tamil Nadu’s debt is far
    below Gujarat.
    Tamil Nadu has 10
    million more in
    population compare to
    Gujarat.
    So, What exactly is
    happening in Gujarat?
    • High GDP
    • High Debt
    • Poor in Education
    • Poor in Health Care
    • Poor in Living Standards
    Source: Ministry of Finance (GOI)
    4.4

    View Slide

  98. Source: Ministry of Finance (GOI)
    #1 Maharashtra
    has the highest debt
    #2 Uttar Pradesh
    #3 West Bengal
    #4 Andhra Pradesh
    #5Gujarat in debt
    Tamil Nadu did well in
    Education, Health and
    improving Living
    standards and still has
    a lower debt compare
    to Gujarat.
    Kerala has the highest
    per person debt
    among the big states.
    Per Person debt is: State Debt divided by the population of the State.
    4.4

    View Slide

  99. • Tamil Nadu state government has taken strong measures to ensure
    the effectiveness of the public health system and its health policies.
    • The Dravidian movement, which began in Tamil Nadu, aimed at
    providing opportunities to all, irrespective of the caste. With the
    dual objective of educating all and eradicating superstition, the
    movement proved to be one of the biggest achievements of the
    state government.
    • This was one of the main reasons for higher enrolment rates for SC
    and OBC children in the state. Thus, the real explanation for the
    better than average health, education, and nutritional status of the
    populace lies in the social movements and technical interventions
    initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
    • The Dravidian movement in the state provided socio-political and
    cultural space for even the deprived sections, making the process of
    development more inclusive. (Mehrotra 2006 / Page 30 IHDR 2011,
    Planning Commission)
    4.4

    View Slide

  100. • What are the reasons for Kerala’s High standard of Living?
    • What happened to the Investments in Gujarat post 1990
    reforms?
    • What kind of Economic Model should we follow?
    • Do we understand Economic Crisis in US in 1929 and
    2008?
    • How do we address the Inequality in a growing Economy?
    • Should we follow Free market capitalism or Pro Poor Pro
    Growth Economy ?
    4.4

    View Slide

  101. • The enactment of the Constitutional 73rd
    Amendment Bill, 1992 has paved the way for
    the creation of statutory institutional
    structures for realizing the goals of self-
    governance under the Panchayath Raj
    system.
    • The explicit objective of this initiative for
    democratic decentralization of governance is
    to accelerate the socio-economic
    development of the rural areas within a
    participatory framework at the grass-root
    level.
    • The amendment has given statutory
    recognition to a three-tier system of
    governance with
    • Panchayath Raj Institutions (PRIs) at the District (Zilla Parishad)
    • Intermediary (Mandal Panchayats)
    • Village levels (Gram Sabha / Panchayats).
    4.4

    View Slide

  102. 4.4

    View Slide

  103. It’s not just Kerala which went
    beyond Gujarat, Punjab and
    Tamil Nadu were far ahead of
    Gujarat apart from that, other
    states also went beyond
    Gujarat in improving the
    quality of people’s life.
    MortalityRate is
    very High in Madhya Pradesh
    and Uttar Pradesh.
    GDPshows good for
    Maharashtra and Gujarat.
    Education &
    Health Tamil Nadu,
    Kerala, Punjab and surprisingly
    even the poor North Eastern
    states also did a better job
    compared to Gujarat.
    Even in the post reform period of 21 years Kerala (and other states) went far beyond Gujarat in
    the following areas
    • Education, Health care, Living Standards
    So, What is this Angel like Gujarat model of Economy?
    It’s time we look for different models of Economy, like mixed economy, free market capitalism,
    welfare based Economy.
    4.4

    View Slide

  104. • Mixed Economy
    • Welfare state
    • Neoliberalism
    • Laissez-faire
    • Income Inequality in USA
    • Taxation in USA
    • Comparing Human Development Approach
    Vs. Neoliberalism
    5

    View Slide

  105. 5.1 ECONOMIC MODELS
    • Neoliberalism and Laissez-faire
    • Mixed Economy and Welfare States
    • Human Development Approach Vs. Neoliberalism
    5.2
    INEQUALITY
    • Income Inequality
    of USA
    • Taxation in USA
    • Summary on
    Economic Models
    5.3
    CONCLUSION
    • Issues we need to work on
    • Summary on Indian State
    Analysis
    • Highlighting the Key Issues
    Key Areas
    • Economic Models
    • Income Inequality
    • Issues the country is
    facing today.
    5
    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myH3gg5o0t0

    View Slide

  106. In political theory, or political philosophy, John
    Locke refuted the theory of the divine right of kings and
    argued that all persons are endowed with natural rights to
    life, liberty, and property and that rulers who fail to protect
    those rights may be removed by the people, by force if
    necessary. Much of what he advocated in the realm of politics
    was accepted in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89
    and in the United States after the country’s declaration of
    independence in 1776.
    Aug 29, 1632 – Oct 28, 1704
    Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Locke

    View Slide

  107. Understanding Deficit Spending
    The concept of deficit spending as economic stimulus is typically credited to the liberal British
    economist John Maynard Keynes. In his 1936 book The General Theory of Employment, Interest
    and Employment, Keynes argued that during a recession or depression, a decline in consumer
    spending could be balanced by an increase in government spending.
    Source: Sarwat Jahan, Ahmed Saber Mahmud, Chris Papageorgiou. "What Is Keynesian Economics?" Pages 53-54.
    International Monetary Fund, Finance & Development, September 2014.
    Embedded Liberalism – The Great Transformation – karl Polanyi

    View Slide

  108. 1. Society of rational individuals seeking to
    maximize their own utility.
    2. Competition primary driver in human affairs.
    3. Success of a nation = S of individuals utility
    (GDP)
    4. Proper role of Government: Establish and
    Protech Free Markets
    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rbp6DMclMQ

    View Slide

  109.  An Economic Philosophy emerged
    among European scholars in the
    1930s as the third or middle way
    between the conflicting
    philosophies of classical liberalism
    and collectivist central planning.
     As a policy framework, it’s a
    major shift from Keynesian
    welfarism towards a political
    agenda favoring the relatively
    unfettered operation of markets.
     Neoliberalism suggests that
    governments reduce deficit
    spending, limit subsidies, reform
    tax law to broaden the tax base,
    remove fixed exchange rates,
    open up markets to trade by
    limiting protectionism, privatize
    state-run businesses, allow
    private property and back
    deregulation.
     US, UK, Australia, New Zealand
    ▪ An Economic philosophy which
    creates an economic environment
    in which transactions between
    private parties are free from
    government restrictions, tariffs
    and subsidies with only enough
    restrictions to protect property
    rights.
    ▪ The phrase laissez-faire is French &
    literally meaning “let (them) do”, but it
    broadly implies “let it be”.
    ▪ The doctrine of Laissez-faire
    became an integral part of 19th
    century European liberalism.
    ▪ The most notable critics of Laissez-
    faire are Adam Smith, John Maynard
    Keynes (Keynesian Welfarism)
    Friedrich Hayek.
    ▪ This led to the depression and to
    the world wars & gave rise to
    Keynesian Welfarism. Stagnation
    of Economy in the 1970s gave rise
    to Neoliberalism (Regan in US and
    Thatcher in UK).
    Neoliberalism
    Laissez-faire / Classic Liberalism
    The single most
    comprehensive
    counter argument to
    both neoliberalism
    and laissez-faire
    theories by Nobel
    (2001) Laureate
    Joseph E Stiglitz.
    6
    generations of
    Walton family’s
    wealth is more than
    the combined wealth
    of bottom 40% of
    Americans.
    5.1

    View Slide

  110.  Means of production mainly under Private
    Ownership
     Profit-seeking enterprises and the
    accumulation of capital remain the
    fundamental driving force behind economic
    activity.
     Unlike a free-market economy, the
    government would wield considerable
    indirect influence over the economy through
    fiscal and monetary policies designed to
    counteract economic downturns and
    capitalism's tendency toward financial crises
    and unemployment.
     Government will play a key role in social
    welfare.
     Japan
     Government in which the state plays a key role in
    the protection and promotion of the economic and
    social well-being of its citizens.
     The welfare state is funded through redistributionist
    taxation and is often referred to as a type of "mixed
    economy”. Such taxation usually includes a larger
    income tax for people with higher incomes, called a
    progressive tax.
     It is based on the principles of equality of
    opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and
    public responsibility for those unable to avail
    themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.
     The welfare state involves a transfer of funds from
    the state, to the services provided (i.e., healthcare,
    education) as well as directly to individuals
    ("benefits").
     Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
    Finland
    5.1

    View Slide

  111. Human Development Neoliberalism Basic Needs
    Philosophical Underpinnings
    Normative assumptions Explicit Implicit Not fully specified
    Concept of Well-being Functioning's & Capabilities Utility Meeting basic needs
    Evaluative Aspect
    Leading criterion for
    evaluating development
    progress
    Human capabilities, equality of
    outcome, fairness and justice in
    institutional arrangements
    Economic well-being, economic
    growth, efficiency
    Poverty reduction in terms of
    income, access to basic social
    services
    Measurement tools
    favored
    Human outcomes, deprivational and
    distributional measures
    Economic activity and condition,
    averages and aggregate measures
    Access to material means,
    derivational measures
    Agency Aspect
    People in development as
    ends and/or means
    Ends: Beneficiaries
    Means: Agents
    Means: Human resources for
    economic activity
    Ends: Beneficiaries
    Mobilizing Agency Individual action and collective action Individual action Concern with political will
    and political base
    Development Strategy
    Key Operational Goals Expanding People’s choices
    (Social, Economic, Political)
    Economic growth Expanding basic social
    activities
    Distribution of benefits
    and costs
    Emphasis on equality and on the human
    rights of all individuals
    Concern with poverty Concern with poverty
    Links between
    development and human
    rights and freedom
    Human rights and freedom have
    intrinsic value and are development
    objectives. Current research on their
    instrumental role through links to
    economic and social progress
    No explicit connection. Current
    search for a link between political
    and civil freedoms and economic
    growth
    No Explicit connection
    Source: The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on Capabilities By Sakiko Fakuda-Parr
    5.1

    View Slide

  112. #1 Norway
    ranks no.1 in Human
    Development Index
    and has the lowest
    Income Inequality in
    the world.
    Capital gain taxation
    in US is reduced in
    the last 30 years
    starting from 1970s.
    Capital gain taxation
    in India is one of the
    lowest in the world.
    5.2

    View Slide

  113. Low capital gain
    taxation results in Rich
    getting richer and poor
    remains poor
    generations after
    generations.
    $1.9 trillion –
    Wealth of world’s 100
    richest people. Just a
    little less than the
    entire output of the
    UK. (Guardian, UK)
    5.2

    View Slide

  114.  We need to have a model where lot
    of emphasis is given on Good
    Quality affordable Education and
    Health Care system.
     To build a nation we need an
    Educated and a healthy society.
     After analyzing different models,
    what looks more promising is the
    model where:
    ▪ Human Development has the highest
    value.
    ▪ Participation of citizens in decision
    making process – Decentralization.
    ▪ All these points to a Pro Poor, Pro
    Growth Economy!
    5.2

    View Slide

  115. Key Areas
    • ZERO Corruption
    • Economic growth will
    stagnate without
    good Governance
    and streamlining the
    regulations.
    • We need more
    Ph.D.'s coming out of
    our Universities.
    • We can use
    technology (invented
    by us) to streamline
    and solve lot of issues
    across the country.
    For that research is
    the mantra.
    1
    GOOD GOVERNANCE
    • Effective delivery system
    • Transparency and Accountability
    • Implement Lokpal Bill without pruning it to benefit the ruling class
    • Implement Decentralization (Panchayat Raj)
    PROBLEMS
    • Accountability of the Politicians – there is no link between the votes
    and services (such as Quality Education, Health Care system,
    Infrastructure etc.) expected out of the political class.
    • Majority of the citizens don’t fight for better services. Organizational
    capabilities of citizens in Kerala is an exemption to this.
    • The role of the state is blurred in most cases in tune with services
    rendered and as a service provided.
    2 EDUCATION
    • Affordable Good Quality Primary Education is a fundamental right
    • Increase Quantity and Quality of the Universities with good focus on
    research
    PROBLEMS
    • Today Primary Schooling (12yrs) is all about Quantity instead of
    Quality. Conceptual learning is more important and more choice for
    students to opt for the subjects they like.
    • Professional colleges are all about Engineering or Medicine and
    without any research focus.
    • For students to be interested in research, we need to have more
    research based study even in Primary Schools (Projects).
    5.3

    View Slide

  116. Key Areas
    • ZERO Corruption
    • Economic growth will
    stagnate without
    good Governance
    and streamlining the
    regulations.
    • We need to have
    more Ph.D’s coming
    out of our
    Universities.
    • We can use
    technology (invented
    by us) to streamline
    and solve lot of issues
    across the country.
    For that research is
    the mantra.
    3 HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
    • Affordable Health Care for all
    PROBLEMS
    • Overall India Health Index if far below even compared to African
    countries.
    4
    AGRICULTURE SECTOR
    • Automate and streamline the agriculture sector
    • Increase production and we should strive for a major exporter of
    food products.
    PROBLEMS
    • 53% of the population depends on Agriculture for their livelihood.
    • Goods movements from Farmers to Families must be completely
    streamlined. Today middlemen decides the price and controls the
    supply chain, which is inefficient and increase the cost of
    production.
    5 ENVIRONMENT
    • We need to protect our Environment
    PROBLEMS
    • Lack of awareness of Environmental issues among the common
    public. An exception to this will be Kerala (where it goes overboard
    sometimes).
    • Today environmental issues are ONLY brought up by intellectuals.
    5.3

    View Slide

  117. Key Areas
    • ZERO Corruption
    • Economic growth will
    stagnate without
    good Governance
    and streamlining the
    regulations.
    • We need to have
    more Ph.D’s coming
    out of our
    Universities.
    • We can use
    technology (invented
    by us) to streamline
    and solve lot of issues
    across the country.
    For that research is
    the mantra.
    6
    INFRASTRUCTURE
    • Need excellent Road Network, High Speed trains across major and
    minor metros, Metro Network for city commute
    • Easy access to Quality Electricity, Drinking water and Cooking gas
    • Plan for the future.
    PROBLEMS
    • Delays in Understanding the problem (itself), to design and
    implementation.
    • By the time the solution is ready, it is not enough to solve the
    problem as the intensity of the problem has gone up exponentially.
    7
    ECONOMY
    • Credible Fiscal Policy (by not denying the rights of the poor people)
    • Increase trade with neighbors and focus on exports
    • Economic growth should start from villages
    • Create an Investment Environment suitable for each state.
    • We need to be a Agriculture, Manufacturing and export power
    house for atleast two decades.
    PROBLEMS
    • Lack of focus in Agriculture and Industrial sectors
    • Corruption and bad governance is destroying our capability to
    extract the best out of the natural resources (E.g., Coal). Even we
    import Coal from Indonesia.
    • Always on firefighting mode rather than planning ahead of the
    curve.
    5.3

    View Slide

  118. • Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh
    etc., done exceedingly well compared to
    Gujarat.
    • North Eastern States (excluding Assam)
    has done a tremendous job in Education
    and improved the standard of living.
    These states are considered poor.
    • Stats, policies like Land Reforms Act,
    Decentralization (Panchayath Raj) and
    other factors shows that Kerala went with
    Pro Poor Pro Growth Economic strategy
    where emphasis on Human Development
    (approach) was at the top along with
    Economic growth compared to a Pro
    Growth Economic strategy.
    • Most of the East Asian countries like
    Japan, South Korea, Taiwan all went with
    Pro Poor Pro Growth Strategy.
    • ZERO Corruption +
    Lokpal Bill
    • Good Quality &
    affordable Education
    • Skill development in
    sync with Industry
    requirements
    • Affordable Health Care
    System
    • Improving Living
    Standards
    • Automating &
    Streamlining the
    Agriculture segment
    (goods transit to
    market)
    • Investment friendly
    environment based on
    socio-geographical
    background of the
    state.
    What we need:
    • Question we need to ask (especially when we have the largest
    population in the world under poverty) is:
    • What kind of economic model should we follow? – You be the
    judge! ☺
    53%
    Depends on Agriculture
    4.7
    Trillion US$ - GDP PPP
    3rd Largest Economy
    .554
    HDI 2012
    21%
    Below Poverty (2013)
    5.3

    View Slide

  119. Labor force – 500 Million
    1.21
    Billion
    Pro Poor, Pro Growth Economy
    OR
    Pro Growth Economy
    Your decision matters
    Automation and Skill
    development for 120 Million
    in Agriculture Sector
    150 Million Labor force in Agriculture
    Sector need to be transferred to
    Industry and they need skill
    development for Industry Sector
    5.3

    View Slide

  120. Population Density
    Work in progress
    6

    View Slide

  121. 6.1
    Understanding Kerala’s Socio Economic Background
    • India’s Caste System
    • Constraints on the Lower Castes in Kerala
    • Understanding the Class Structure in Kerala
    • Fight against discrimination and Untouchability : 1850 – 1950
    • Literacy in Kerala – Cochin and Travancore 1901 – 2011
    • Quality of Life Indicators – 1980s
    • Basic Services in villages – 1970s
    6.2 KERALA DEVELOPMENT MODEL
    • Land Reforms Act
    • Decentralization
    • Focus on Social Welfare
    6.3 CHALLENGES AHEAD
    • Focus on Economic Development
    • How Global Economy affects Kerala
    Key Areas
    • Understanding
    Kerala’s Socio
    Economic scenario
    prior to
    Independence
    • Kerala Development
    Model
    • Challenges Ahead
    6

    View Slide

  122. 6.1
     Caste System determines
    ▪ Whom you can marry
    ▪ What kind of work you do
    ▪ What religious rituals you can perform
    ▪ Which God(s) you worship
    ▪ To which people you owe special duties
    ▪ How others will treat you and think of you
    ▪ Even how your body will be dealt with after death
     The Untouchables
    ▪ Lived in extreme poverty
    ▪ They had no political rights
    ▪ Were considered disgusting and immoral in their behavior by
    the higher castes
     Kerala
    ▪ Kerala had the most elaborate and rigid caste system compared
    to all regions in India
    ▪ Swami Vivekananda in the 19th Century called Kerala “a mad
    house of caste”
    ▪ Enforcement of caste privileges went further than anywhere
    else in India.
    Major Functions
    • Sort people into
    wealth and status in
    a highly unequal way.
    • Provide social and
    religious justification
    for inequality.

    View Slide

  123. Caste Rules for the Avarna Class
    They were tied or bonded to particular high castes households for whom they were
    always on call as laborers or servants.
    They lived on land owned by the master households and could be evicted at will if
    they displease them.
    The were forbidden entry into the main Hindu temples
    They were not allowed to bathe in the temple ponds.
    They were not allowed in the public markets.
    They were not allowed to put gate houses at the entrance to their plots.
    They were not allowed to have tile roofs on their houses.
    Neither men nor women were allowed to wear shirts, blouses or a covering cloth
    above the waist.
    They were forbidden to come physically within the prescribed distances of higher
    caste members and could be punished by death for violating this taboo. This
    “distance pollution” was more developed in Kerala than in any other part of India.
    They had to use extremely self-debasing forms of speech when talking to
    members of castes above them.
    They could not take water from wells belonging to other castes.
    6.1
    These data on traditional caste behaviors were derived from Fuller 1976, Krishna
    Iyer 1909, Mathew 1986, Mencher 1980 and Unni 1959.
    Source: Kerala: Development through radical reforms by Richard W Franke, Barbara H Chasin, Page 93
    Redistribution as a Development Strategy in Nadur village, Kerala By Richard W Franke, Page 71
    These issues persisted
    even after Indian
    independence and
    Kerala formation in
    1957.
    However, consistent
    protests by the public
    & some outstanding
    leaders fought against
    these caste atrocities
    and eliminated these
    discriminations.
    Caste In ft.
    Mukkuvan &
    Kammalan
    24
    Ezhavas 32
    Pulayas 64
    Nayadis 72
    Source: Mencher 1965:167, Fuller 1976:35

    View Slide

  124. Source: Kerala development through radical reforms by Richard W Franke, Barbara H Chasin – Page 91
    Percent of population data (1968) as estimated in the Kerala government sponsored
    Nettoor commission. The 4% not accounted for above are various other castes.
    Caste
    Categories
    Occupation Kerala
    Names
    Population %
    1968
    Brahmins Priests, Landlords
    Nambhudhiris
    Tamil Brahmins
    2.00
    Kshatriyas Soldiers, Administrators Upper Nairs 2.00
    Vaisyas
    Artisans,
    Traders
    Kammalan 7.00
    Christians 21.00
    Muslims 19.00
    Sudras Cultivators, Servants
    Coconut Tree Climbers
    Lower Nairs 14.00
    Ezhavas 22.00
    Untouchable
    s
    Farm and menial
    workers
    Pulayas
    Cherumas
    8.00
    Tribal people Farmers, workers 1.00
    Avarna
    Class
    Savarna
    Class
    45%
    50%
    were
    considered as Avarna
    class
    40%
    comprises of Christians
    and Muslims where
    mostly traders and
    artisans
    5% population
    held majority of the
    land.
    6.1
    • We need to look at the Educational and Health care achievements of Kerala with
    this caste backdrop to understand exactly how bad was the situation in the first
    half of the 20th century.
    • Jagdish Bhagwati in his book “Why Growth Matters” says Kerala had a head start
    in 1950s on Education. However, he does not mention that, from 1901 to 1950s
    Kerala’s socio background was worst in the country and in 1901 Kerala was at par
    with India and rest of the states on Literacy.

    View Slide

  125. 6.1
    The Shannar revolt refers to incidents surrounding the rebellion by Nadar climber
    women asserting their right to wear upper-body clothes against the caste
    restrictions sanctioned by the Travancore kingdom, a part of present-day Kerala,
    India.
    In Travancore, Cochin and Malabar, no female was allowed to cover their upper part
    of the body in front of Upper castes of Kerala until the 19th century. Under the
    support of Ayya Vaikundar, some communities fought for their right to wear upper
    clothes and the upper class resorted to attacking them in 1818.
    In 1819, the Rani of Travancore announced that the lower castes including the
    Nadar climber women have no right to wear upper clothes like lower non-Brahmin
    castes of Kerala.
    Violence against Nadar climber women who revolted against this continued and
    reached its peak in 1858 across the kingdom, notably in southern taluks of
    Neyyattinkara and Neyyur.
    On 26 July 1859, under pressure from the Madras Governor, the king of Travancore
    issued a proclamation announcing the right of Nadar climber women to wear upper
    clothes but on condition that they should not imitate the style of clothing worn by
    upper class women.
    References
    A Survey of Kerala History, p 314, By A Sreedhara Menon
    The Nadars of Tamil Nadu, By Robert Hardgrave
    The Spirituality of Basic Ecclesial Communities in the Socio-religious context of Trivandrum/Kerala, India, Silvester Ponnumuthan, p 108–110

    View Slide

  126. 6.1
    Ayyankali
    1863-1941
    Sri Narayana Guru
    1854-1928
    Chattambi Swamikal
    1853-1924
    EMS Nambhoodhiripad
    1909-1998
    • A Hindu Sage and a social reformer.
    • He denounced the orthodox interpretation of Hindu texts citing sources from Vedas.
    • Along with Sri Narayana Guru, strived to reform the heavily ritualistic and caste ridden
    Hindu society of the late 19th century Kerala.
    • He believed that different religions are different paths leading to the same place.
    Swamikal
    • Born in an Ezhava family, at that time considered as Avarna.
    • Led reform movement in Kerala, revolted against casteism and worked on propagating new
    values of freedom in spirituality and of social equality.
    • He stressed the need for spiritual and social upliftment of the downtrodden by their own
    efforts through educational institutions.
    Narayana Guru
    • A Dalit & leader, pioneered many reforms to improve the lives of the Dalit's.
    • In 1937 Mahatma Gandhi praised him when he visited Venganoor, Ayyankali’s hometown.
    • Dalits were not allowed to walk along public roads, and Dalit women were not allowed to
    cover their breasts in public. Ayyankali organized Dalits against these discriminations.
    • He was in forefront of movements against Manusmrithi color system and casteism.
    • He passed through the public roads (Venganoor) on a Bullock cart which was not allowed.
    • He demanded right for Children to study in school.
    Ayyankali
    • Born to aristocratic upper caste Brahmin family, was the leader of the first democratically
    elected communist government in the world (1957 Kerala Chief Minister).
    • He fought for the rights of the downtrodden and pioneered the Land Reforms and
    Educational reforms in the state, which is followed in other states after 60 years.
    EMS
    100years of
    fight against caste
    discrimination.
    1st
    democratically
    elected communist
    government in the
    world. Kerala
    Velur Lakshmikutty
    Amma
    (1911-2013).
    At the forefront of
    the agitation in 1952
    at Velur in the district
    where landlords traditionally insisted
    that women of lower caste should
    participate in 'Vela' (a festival) at a
    temple without their chests covered.

    View Slide

  127. Year Kerala % India %
    General Literacy 1901 11.00 5.00
    General Literacy 1951 47.18 18.13
    General Literacy 1971 69.75 34.45
    General Literacy 1981 75.00 47.00
    • Rural Literacy 1981 69.00 30.00
    • Female Literacy 1981 66.00 25.00
    • SC Literacy 1981 56.00 21.00
    General Literacy 1991 89.86 52.21
    General Literacy 2001 90.36 64.84
    General Literacy 2011 93.91 74.04
    6.1
    One of the fundamental
    principles of Capability
    Approach is defining
    equality and freedom.
    Some Historian says
    Aristocrat rulers of
    Travancore and Cochin
    started the Education
    initiatives in the late
    1880s.
    However, how can that
    be objectively succeed,
    when you have the
    worst form of caste
    atrocities drenched
    deep inside the society?
    Do you expect teenage girls from Avarna Class will go to a school
    without having an upper body cloth?
    Source: Census (GOI)

    View Slide

  128. 6.1
    Indicator Kerala India
    Percent Literate (all ages)
    • Males 75 47
    • Females 66 25
    • Urban 76 57
    • Rural 69 30
    • Lower Caste 56 21
    • Tribal Groups 32 16
    Life Expectancy in Years
    • Male 64 57
    • Female 68 56
    • Infant Mortality Rate (per 1000)
    • Urban 34 65
    • Rural 41 124
    Physical Quality of Life Indicators: 1981-82
    Distribution Across various social groups.
    Source: Redistribution as a development Strategy in Nadur Village, Kerala, By Richard W Franke, Page 4
    There is hardly any
    disparity between Rural
    and Urban areas in
    Kerala.
    The whole Kerala is
    developing rather than
    the city focused
    development model in
    the rest of the country.
    The line between Rural
    and Urban division is
    vanishing in Kerala

    View Slide

  129. Feature Rank Kerala India
    Within 2 Kilometers
    • All weather roads 1 98 46
    • Bus Stops 1 98 40
    • Post Offices 1 100 53
    • Primary Schools 1 100 90
    • Secondary Schools 1 99 44
    • Fair Price (Ration) Shops 1 99 35
    • Health Dispensaries 1 91 25
    • Health Centers 1 47 12
    Within 5 Kilometers
    • Higher Education Facilities 1 97 21
    • Hospitals 1 78 35
    • Fertilizer depots 1 93 44
    • Water Pump Repair Shops 1 65 19
    • Veterinary Dispensaries 1 82 45
    • Credit Cooperative Banks 1 96 61
    • Other Banks 1 96 40
    • Seed Stores 2 63 40
    • Storage Warehouses 4 34 21
    • Railway Stations 8 23 18
    In the Villages
    • Drinking Water 5 96 93
    • Electricity 5 97 33
    Source: Kannan 1988:18-21, based on
    surveys of the Government of India,
    Central Statistical Organization
    Even before the
    reforms of 1990s
    Kerala was able to
    establish a good
    governance and
    improve the basic
    services of the citizens.
    This clearly shows that
    even with moderate
    growth rate a state can
    drastically improve the
    quality of life.
    6.1

    View Slide

  130. SDG3 – Good Health and Well being
    #1
    #2
    #14 #3

    View Slide

  131. Kerala Karnataka Tamil Nadu Andhra Pradesh

    View Slide

  132. Now its time for everyone to go through the references section. You will find some
    awesome books, good videos on various topics by top Professors across the world.
    I cannot teach anybody anything,
    I can only make them think.
    - Socrates

    View Slide

  133. 7.1
     World Bank
    ▪ Data : http://data.worldbank.org/
    ▪ India : http://data.worldbank.org/country/india
    ▪ World Map : http://datatopics.worldbank.org/hnp/HNP_Map/DVMap.html
     University of Oxford – Multidimensional Poverty Index
    ▪ Home : http://www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/
    ▪ Indian States Map – http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-
    content/uploads/MPI2013/India/web/StatPlanet.html
    ▪ Understanding MPI : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ophi-wp38.pdf?7ff332
    ▪ MPI Formula : http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI_2011_Methodology_Note_4-11-
    2011_1500.pdf?7ff332
     United Nations Development Program
    ▪ Data : http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
    ▪ World Map : http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/
    ▪ India : http://www.in.undp.org/content/india/en/home/countryinfo/
    ▪ HDI Calculator: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/calculator/
     OECD
    ▪ http://www.oecd.org/economy/indiaeconomicforecastsummary.htm
     Government of India
    ▪ Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation:
    http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/site/home.aspx
    ▪ NSSO – http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/KI-68th-HCE.pdf
    ▪ Planning Commission of India – http://planningcommission.nic.in/index.php
    ▪ Planning Commission of India –
    http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/stateplan/sdr_pdf/shdr_kerala05.pdf
    ▪ Planning Commission of India – http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/0904/tab_169.pdf
    ▪ Census India – http://censusindia.gov.in/ |
    http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/pca/pca_data.html
    ▪ Census India – http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_results_paper1_india.html
    ▪ Data Portal – http://data.gov.in/
    ▪ Reserve Bank of India – http://www.rbi.org.in/home.aspx
    ▪ Literacy Rate : 1950 – 2001 : http://data.gov.in/dataset/state-wise-literacy-rates-1951-2001
    ▪ http://cpsindia.org/dl/religious/ppt-eng.pdf
    ▪ Assocham: http://www.assocham.org/arb/aim/Investment_StudyJan09-Dec09.pdf

    View Slide

  134. 7.1
     Gujarat Government
    ▪ http://gujaratindia.com/
    ▪ http://gujaratindia.com/state-profile/socio-eco-review.htm
    ▪ Census India : http://censusgujarat.gov.in/Census2001Data.htm
    ▪ Census India :
    http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/District_Tables/HLO_Distt_Table_Gujarat.ht
    ml
     Kerala Government
    ▪ http://www.spb.kerala.gov.in/images/pdf/er12/index.html
    ▪ http://www.kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2853&Itemid=2
    559
    ▪ http://www.spb.kerala.gov.in/images/pdf/er12/Chapter3/chapter03.html
    ▪ Stats : http://www.spb.kerala.gov.in/old/html/eco_2008/2008_ap_11.1,2.pdf
    ▪ Stats : http://spb.kerala.gov.in/~spbuser/images/pdf/er2011/pdf/Chapter14.pdf
    ▪ NSSO : http://www.ecostat.kerala.gov.in/index.php/national-sample-survey.html
    ▪ NSSO : http://www.ecostat.kerala.gov.in/docs/pdf/reports/nss/nss64.pdf
    ▪ NSSO :
    http://www.ecostat.kerala.gov.in/docs/pdf/reports/nss/nss65%20housing%20condtion.pdf

    View Slide

  135. Capability Approach
    Human Development Report
    On GDP and Societal Well being
    Health, Education & Food
    7.2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUaJMNtW6G
    A
    • Prof. Amartya Sen on
    Health, Education, Food
    and Water
    • Joseph E Stiglitz on GDP
    • Dr. Jeni Klugman on
    Human Development
    Report
    • Prof. Martha Nussbaum
    (Harvard University) on
    GDP and Capabilities
    Approach & Kerala
    Development.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxuuWbrwLuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoD-cjduM40
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV-xMg5qzh4

    View Slide

  136. Authors:
    • Amartya Sen
    • John Rawls
    • Joseph E Stiglitz
    • Richard W Franke
    • Arundhati Roy
    • Martha Nussbaum
    • EMS Nambhoodhiripad
    • John Kenneth Galbraith
    7.3

    View Slide

  137. GDP – Gross Domestic Product is the standard way of measuring the economic
    progress of a country, in the case of state it is known as GSDP – Gross State
    Domestic Product. However, as per most of the economists GDP doesn’t reflect
    the well being of the society - Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz
    clearly articulates this in his articles and speech.
    GDP is the economic indicator, which measures the country’s total output,
    which includes everything produced by all the people and all the companies in
    the country. The components of GDP are
    Standard formula: GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)
    7.4
    GDP C + I + G + (X-M)
    C Personal consumption expenditures
    I Business Investments
    G Government Spending
    NX Net Exports (X-M), X = Exports, M = Imports

    View Slide

  138. 7.4
    Product Spices
    Value Rs. 1440
    Price Rs. 120 Kg
    Quantity Value / Price = 12
    Value 2 Rs. 1200
    Product Spices
    Value Rs. 1000
    Price Rs. 100 Kg
    Quantity Value / Price = 10
    Value 2 NA
    Product Rubber
    Value Rs. 2000
    Price Rs. 200 Kg
    Quantity Value / Price = 10
    Value 2 NA
    Product Rubber
    Value Rs. 2860
    Price Rs. 220 Kg
    Quantity Value / Price = 13
    Value 2 Rs. 2600
    Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
    GDP Rs. 3000 Rs. 4300 Rs. 5010
    Nominal GDP % 43% 16%
    Real Growth Rs. 3800 Rs. 4740
    Real GDP % 26% 24%
    Product Spices
    Value Rs. 1560
    Price Rs. 130 Kg
    Quantity Value / Price = 12
    Value 2 Rs. 1440
    Product Rubber
    Value Rs. 3450
    Price Rs. 230 Kg
    Quantity Value / Price = 15
    Value 2 Rs. 3300
    Value 2 is calculated based on last years price

    View Slide

  139. Purchasing power parity is used in many situations. The most common is to adjust for the price differences
    between countries. For example, China produced $8.25 trillion in goods and services in 2012. The U.S.
    produced $15.66 trillion. However, you cannot compare the two without taking into account the fact that the
    cost of living in China is much lower than in the U.S. For example, a McDonald's Big Mac costs $4.37. In
    China, you can get the same thing for only $2.57. People in China don't need as much income because it
    costs less to live.
    That's because China artificially sets the value of its currency to be lower than the U.S. dollar. It intentionally
    wants its cost of living to be lower, so it can pay its workers less. As a result, its exports cost less, making it
    more competitive on the global market.
    Purchasing power parity solves the problem of comparing countries with different standards of living. It
    recalculates the value of a country's goods and services as if they were being sold at U.S. prices. Under PPP, a
    Chinese Big Mac costs $4.37, the same as it does in the U.S. As a result, China's GDP is $12.38 trillion, which
    makes it the world's third largest economy, after the U.S. and the EU. That's why the CIA provides GDP
    estimates on both an official exchange rate and a purchasing power parity basis.
    Similar methods are applied to convert India’s GDP Official Exchange Rate of $1.947 Trillion to $4.784 Trillion
    making India the world’s fourth largest economy after EU, USA and China.
    Without purchasing power parity, China's GDP per capita would only be $6,297, lower than the standard of
    living in Ukraine, Algeria or Kosovo. With PPP, each of the 1.3 trillion people will receive (on average) the
    benefit of $9,100 in economic production. This is better, but still only on the level of Jamaica and worse than
    Cuba. It's far less than the U.S. GDP per capita of $47,400. That's because the U.S. can divide its GDP among
    only 330 million people.
    7.4

    View Slide

  140. 7.4

    View Slide

  141.  3 Dimensions
    ▪ Education (2 Indicators, each weighted 1/6)
    ▪ Health (2 Indicators, each weighted 1/6)
    ▪ Standard of Living (6 Indicators, each weighted 1/18)
     Equal weight to 3 Dimensions (1/3)
    Oxford University
    7.4

    View Slide

  142. 7.4

    View Slide

  143.  A Household is Multi – Dimensionally Poor if
    ▪ Weighted sum exceeds 30% of deprivations (a
    score of 3/10 or more)
    ▪ Can be in any combination of Indicators
     Half of the world’s poor as measure by the
    MPI live in South Asia (51%, 844 million)
     Quarter in Africa (28%, 458 million)
    7.4

    View Slide

  144.  Simple Yes / No can be self administered
     Reflects both
    ▪ The Incidence of Poverty
    ▪ The Average Intensity of their deprivation
     Reveals the combination of deprivations suffered
     Makes focused intervention possible in terms of:
    ▪ Policies
    ▪ Programs
    7.4

    View Slide