GROWTH INEQUALITIES AND POVERTY IN TAMILNADU
Item
- Title
-
GROWTH
INEQUALITIES
AND
POVERTY
IN
TAMILNADU - extracted text
-
Cre-A:
GROWTH
INEQUALITIES
AND
POVERTY
IN
TAMILNADU
S. Guhan
GROWTH
INEQUALITIES
AND
POVERTY
IN
TAMILNADU
S. Guhan
Cre-A:
GROWTH, INEQUALITIES AND POVERTY
IN TAMILNADU
My object in this guest lecture* will be to attempt a bold sketch,
as it were, of certain key aspect s of socio-economic development in
Tamilnadu, particularly in the last two decades. The concept of
development is an abstraction to which wc have to give meaning
by examining a whole host of inter-related and issue-related facts'.
It is for this purpose that I have chosen the triangular frame of
growth, inequalities and poverty. In relation to Tamilnadu, we
shall primarily look at the levels of growth, its pattern, and the
extent to which poverty and inequalities of various kinds have
persisted despite such growth as has taken place.
Tamilnadu is one of the States that form the polity'and economy
of India, itself a part of the global economy'. In assessing socio
economic performance in Tamilnadu, it will be' useful to draw
comparisons with levels of development in other major States and
in India as a whole. Such'comparisons, however, are essentially
no more than pointers. They can make us “sit up and think” but'
it is as the result of further thought that final judgments should
be attempted. In coming to such judgments, we have to take note
of the resource base of Tamilnadu in relation to that of otherstates or India generally; forces and factors in the wider Indian’
and global economy that have had an impact on Tamilnadu as’
well; and Government policy and programmes both in the Central
and State levels. At the same time, our survey will have to leadus back to Tamilnadu in the sense that our focus is on the ways inwhich it might be possible to increase growth, to reduce inequality
and to purposefully attack poverty at the decision making levels of
our stale.
We shall use for the purpose of our survey a variety of data that
are generally available and come from official statistical sources
of the Central and State governments.*1 Undoubtedly, there are
This is the text of a Guest Lecture delivered at the Madurai Kamaraj
University, Madurai on March 4, 1983. I am grateful to Prof.
John D. Sundersingh for the invitation, to my colleague Mr. V. K.
Ramachandran for comments on an earlier draft and to Mr. J.
Robihson and Mr K. C. Devassy for secretarial assistance.
1. The data sources are identified in each of the tables. For' National
Income and State Don estic Product Data, we have referred to
Tamilnadu, An Economic Appraisal (TEA) issued by the Government
of Tamilnadu and the annual Economic Survey of the Government
of iu-ia.
•
6
inadequacies and various other difficulties pertaining to data.
These difficulties should not however discourage the effort to
seek a broad understanding of where Tamilnadu stands in terms
of growth, inequalities and poverty. The present purpose is to
develop such an understanding rather than to nail down firm
quantitative indicators, absolute or relative. Others may tend to
interpret some of our “dark” conclusions in terms of various
shades of “grey”; still they will be distinguishable from “white”.
Income and Growth
The well-understood and commcnly.-used measure of aggregate
growth is the GNP and in relation to Tamilnadu, the State
Domestic Product (SDP). From 1960-61 onwards, comparable
estimates for Tamilnadu and other States are available. One
limitation of the SDP is that it estimates the income originating
in Tamilnadu rather than what accrues to Tamilnadu including
net income flows fiom outside. Nevertheless, the SDP is a
useful first informant of the level of growth. We can relate the
SDP to population figures in the censuses and find out about the
level and trends in per capita incomes. We can see how SDP has
behaved over time and get an idea of the trend of growth. By
comparing the SDP of Tamilnadu] with that of other States, its
relative performance can be gauged. The contributions to SDP
from various sectors of the economy such as agriculture, industry
and services can be analysed to find out the composition or
structure of the SDP and variations of this over time can be
looked at. Thus the SDP can give a first general insight into the
economy and its performance in terms of broad averages. This
picture can then be supplemented with a more detailed insight
into the principal sectors of the economy such as agriculture and
industry to understand both sources of the grjwth in the past and
the constraints that might operate tn the future.
Let us accordingly begin by reviewing the income level in
Tamilnadu in terms of per capita SDP. Comparable data in this
regard is available only from the 1960s. Table 1 gives Statewise
figures for per capita SDP for the 15 major States in India for
1960/61, 1970/71 and 1978'79, the latest year for which data for . ..
all these States is available. Per capita net National Product for
all-India is also given for these years.
In 1960'61, Tamilnadu had the fourth highest per capita SDP,
Its per capita SDP was 7.8 per cent higher than the all - India
7
average and was 80.7 per cent of that of the richest State
(Maharashtra). In 1970/71,' Tamilnadu had slipped to the 9th
position, its per capita SDP was 8.2 per cent below the all-India
average and 56.4 per cent of the richest State (Punjab). In fact,
in constant prices of 1960-61 there was hardly any increase in the
per capita SDP of Tamilnadu from 1960/61 (Rs. 330) to 1969/70
(Rs. 337). In 1978/79, lamilnadu’s position had improved some
what to the 7th place. Yet, its per capita SDP was 12.1 per cent
below the all-India average and only 53.4 per cent of that of the
richest State (Punjab).
Table 2 compares growth rates in net domestic product and its per
capita of the major States during 1960/61 to 1977/78. These
estimates are the latest made available by the Central Statistical
Organisation and are based on standard methodologies evolved by
them. A strict comparison inter-se among the States is not possible
because of some differences in methodology, source material used,
the base years used for constant price comparison and differences
in terminal years in a few cases. However, the table can serve to
give some idea of relative performance. It shows that in terms of
growth, overall (at 2.3 per cent per annum) and per capita (at 0.44
per cent per annum), Tamilnadu has been very much at the bottom
of the list if we take the last two decades as a whole. During
1961-81, the population of Tamilnadu grew by 43. 4 per cent. This
was significantly lower than the growth in all India population,
which was 55. 7 per cent; it was also the lowest rate of population
growth among the 15 major States in this period. It will thus be
immediately clear that per capita SDP in Tamilnadu has registered
a relatively poor increase not because of high population growth.
On the other hand, it has occurred in spite of a low growth in
population.
We obtain a somewhat more encouraging picture if SDP growth
rates in Tamilnadu are analysed separately for 1960-70 and for
1970-78. In the 1960s, Tamilnadu with an annual growth rate of
2.1 per cent significantly lagged behind the all-India growth rate
of 3.5 per cent (in 1960-61 prices). In 1970-78 there was an
improvement. The SDP growth rate in Tamilnadu went upto 2.7
per cent but was still distinctly behind the all-India growth rate
of 3.7 per cent (in 1970-71 prices).
Table 3 gives the sectoral growth rates in Tamilnadu for the two
periods viz., 1960-70, and 1970-78. It will show that growth in
agriculture and allied sectors was negative (at an annual rate of
minus 0.7 percent) in the 1960s while there was an improvement
to an annual rate of 1.6 per cent in 1970-78. On the other hand,
there was a sharp deceleration in the industrial growth rate: from
6.1 per cent in the 1960s it dropped to 1.5 per cent in 1970-78.
The growth rate in electricity generation also decelerated from
8.4 to 5.3 per cent between these two periods.
Agriculture and Irrigation
It is of interest to find out how Tamilnadu stands in relation to
other States in the matter of the rate of growth of foodgrain
production and in the current level of per capita food production.
Table 4 gives the statewise picture of growth rates from 1960/61 to
1978/79 as well as average per capita food production in the five
years ending 1979/80. The long term growth rate in Tamilnadu at
1.83 per cent has been distinctly below the all-India average of
2.77 per cent. In terms of ranking, as many as 9 States come
ahead of Tamilnadu. Per capita food grain production in Tamil
nadu is currently at the level of 145 kg per annum. This is below
the all-India average of 166.3 kg and below that in 9 other States.
As is well'known, there are year-to-year fluctuations in foodgrain
output due to variations in seasonal conditions. It will therefore
be useful to compare average production in the two decades. In
1960/61 to 1969/70 average annual food-grain production was
54.83 lakh tonnes. In 1970/71 to 1978/79, average annual production
was 68.54 lakh tonnes or 25.0-per cent: higher. This order of
increase was not very far ahead of the population growth ofabout 19 per cent in the corresponding span of time.*
1965,66 in the 1960s and 1974/75 in the 1970s were two years of
the most serious droughts in Tamilnadu. Foodgrain output in
the 1960s varied from a high of 57.88 lakh tonnes in 1962/63 to a
low of 50.32 lakh tonnes in 1965/66. In the 1970s, the variation
was from a high of 77.5 lakh tonnes in 1977/78 to a low of 47.97
lakh tonnes in 1974'75. The low point in the 1970s was thus lower
than the low point of the 1960s. As compared to a low- to- high
ratio of about 87 percent in the 1960s, the corresponding ratio ;
was only 62 per cent in the 1970s pointing to increased vulnerability ...
Agricultural output in physical terms is a function of the net area
cropped, the yield rates or productivity, and the intensity .of—
2
TEA, 1973 and 1979.
9
cropping. Changes in cropping pattern are also relevant. In
Tamilnadu, the average annual net sown area increased marginally
from 6.03 million hectares in the 1960s to 6.12 million hectares in
1970-79. Area sown more than once went up from an average of
1.07 million hectares in the 1960s to 1.3 million hectares in
1970-79, i e., by nearly 11 per cent. However, having reached a
peak of 1.47 million hectares in 1973-74, it did not increase
thereafter. In other words, net area increases more or less came
to an end in the 1960s and increases in the intensity of cropping
have plateaued off from the mid-1970s. Average productivity of
rice (kg per hectare) went up from 1503 in 1960-70 to 1725 in
1970-79 or by 14.8 per cent. It too reached a peak of 2057 in
1973-74 There has been no substantial change in the cropping
pattern in Tamilnadu in the period-under review, and in fact since
the 1950s. Food grains (cereals and pulses) have continued to
account for nearly 70 per cent of gross cropped area; within this,
there has been a small shift to paddy from cholam, cumbu and
ragi. Paddy accounts for about half of the area under foodgrains
with dry crops like millets and pulses taking the other half. Among
cash crops, the share in acreage of sugarcane has nearly doubled
from 1960/61 to 1978/79 but the total area under sugar cane even
in the latter year was only 2 per cent of gross cropped area.
Irrigation and the use of high yielding seeds, chemical fertilisers
and pesticides have enabled improvements in the intensity of
cropping and in productivity, besides contributing to the increase
in the area under a more remunerative crop like sugar cane.
Investments in irrigation and government programmes
for
agricultural extension credit and supply of inputs have helped ia
this process. The current per hectare consumption of chemical
fertilisers in Tamilnadu (NPK) at 64.2 kg is more than twice the
all-India average of 31.9 kg. It is next only to that of Punjab
(1'25.3 kg) but also only a little more than half of the level in that
State?
Irrigation being a crucial element in increasing agricultural output,
we may look at the irrigation picture in Tamilnadu in a little
more detail. Table 5 gives statewise figures of the percentage
of irrigated area for all crops to gross cropped area in 1976/77.
The proport.on of irrigated area in Tamilnadu at 42 per cent
3.
Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy District Level Dara for
Key Economic Indicators May 1981 Table 3. 9-2.
10
compares favourably with the all - India average of 25.8 per cent.
The only States with significantly higher ratios are Punjab (80.8
per cent) and Haryana (51.1 per cent). Gross area irrigated in
terms of annual averages went up from 2.7 million hectares in the
First Plan (1951-56) to 3.2 million hectares during the Third Plan
(1961-66). The corresponding increase in net irrigated area was
from 2.1 to 2.5 million hectares. The contributions to this
inciease were to the extent of 39 per cent from tanks, 33 per cent
from wells ana 28 per cei.t from canals.
In the 1970'., net litigated area expanded from 2.6 to 2.9 million
hectares. In this phase, there has been little increase under
canal irrigation and the area under tank irrigation has actually
declined. Almost the whole of the increase of 300,000 hectares is
accounted for under well irrigation. Of the extent of 2.9 million
hectares of net irrigated area in Tamilnadu in 1978/79, 32 per cent
was served by canals, 29 per cent by tanks which are largely rainfed, 37 per cent by wells and 2 per cent by other sources. It is
also to be noted that Tamilnadu has already exhausted most of the
potential it has under mrjor, medium and minor irrigation.
Table 6 will show that as compared to an all-India ratio of 45.9
per cent for utilisation of ultimate potential in irrigation,
Tamilnadu has already reached 78.7 per cent, the highest ratio
among all the States.
Consistent with the growth in well irrigation, there has been a
striking increase in the number of electrified pumpsets in
Tamilnadu, from 5.3 lakhs in 1970/71 to 9.2 lakhs in 1980/81.
Tamilnadu is the leading State in India in pumpset irrigation and
accounts for 21.3 per cent of irrigation pumpsets in India.* This
has been rendered possible by extensive rural electrification.
Electricity has been extended to almost all of our 16,000 villages
while in terms of the percentage of villages elect, ified, the all-lndia
average is only 47 per cent. While being an impressive and
welcome development, the rapid growth of pumpset irrigation is
not without its costs. It has created a heavy burden on the
electricity system in physical and financial terms because of the
large supply of power to agriculture at highly subsidised rates of
4.
TEA 1979 and ibid Table 3. 7-2.
Il
tariff? Due to over - exploitation of groundwater, there are signs
that the water table is progressively going down, particularly in
the districts which have a large number of pumpsets such as
Coimbatore, Salem and N. Arcot. The investment, maintenance
and operating costs on pumpsets are such as to make it difficult
for poorer farmers to invest in, or use, them without incurring
debt. Fragmentation of land is also a constraint in the efficient
and economic use of well water for crop irrigation.
Industry and power
Tamilnadu, along with Maharashtra, W. Bengal and Gujarat, is
among the most industrialised States of India whether measured in
terms of employment, value added in manufacture, or capital
investment in the manufacturing sector. Table 7 gives the
relevant comparisons. In the 1960s and 1970s, there has been
a diversification and sophistication of our industrial structure with
chemical-based and engineering industries contributing to signifi
cantly larger shares in output and to the growth in industrial
employment.
In analysing the sectoral growth rates in Tamilnadu, we have
drawn attention to the fact that while there was an improvement
in the 1970s in the growth rate in agriculture, the growth rates
in industry and in electricity generalion both show a distinct
decline in the latter phase. Tamilnadu being part of the larger
all-India industrial market and economy, trends in industrial
output from one period to another in the State could in large
measure be influenced by factors that are not specific to Tamil
nadu alone. Such linkages should be quite obvious in the case of
some of our major industries such as cotton textiles, leather.
automobile ancillaries and sugar. And, in fact from about the
mid-1960s there has been a deceleration in industrial growth in
all-India as well, and in particular continued stagnation in the
cotton textile industry. Having said this, it is necessary to draw
attention to certain trends and features that should cause concern.
One is that additions to installed capacity for electricity
generation considerably slowed down in the 1970s. Between 1961/62
5.
The Tamilnadu Electricity Board’s estimate of the actual cost
of supply of a unit of electricity to the pumoset is 47 paise as
compared to he tariff of 12 paise for small farmers ;with
less than 5 acres of land) and 15 paise for others. The overall
subsidv at cutrent levels of agricultural consumption can be
estimated to be over Rs 70 crores
12
and 1970/71, installed capacity increased from 560 MW to 1965
MW i. e., by about 1400 MW or by more than 250 per cent.
Between 1970/71 and 1979/80 the increase was from 1965 MW
to 2929 MW i. e., by about 1000 MW or by only 49 per cent.
It is noteworthy that in this period in the 1970s, installed capacity
at an all-India level has increased from about 15,000 to about
28,000 MW or by over 93 per cent.0 Secondly, about 47 per cent
of power generation capacity in Tamilnadu is still based on hydel
sources subject to fluctuations in rainfall. A third factor is that
as much as about 26 per cent of power generation in Tamilnadu
is consumed for groundwater irrigation. Thus given capacity
constraints, vicissitudes of generation, and a large draft on available
power from agriculture, industrial demands for electricity have
been under severe pressure, particularly in the 1970s. Undoubtedly,
this has been a major factor that accounts for the deceleration
in the industrial growth rate in the 1970s which was brought out
in Table 3. We must also note that Tamilnadu is disadvantageous^
placed in the power sector. Hydro potential has been very nearly
exhausted. The State is far away from the main coal fields of
Bengal - Bihar or Madhya Pradesh, leading to higher costsand
haulage problems in thermal power generation. It has, however,
large lignite deposits in Neyveli. The phased exploitation of lignite
for power and nuclear power plantswill need massive central
investments.
A second trend that deserves notice is the lag in new industrial
investment in Tamilnadu in the 1970s. This is not unrelated to the
power shortage. Table 8 gives figures of fixed capital investment
in the registered factory sector for 1970-71 and 1976-77 in respect
of Tamilnadu and the other 14 major States. It will show that in
this relatively short period, Tamilnadu has slipped from the 4th
to the 5th place in terms of investment. Industrial investment.in
Tamilnadu increased in this period only by 35. 4 per cent as
compared to 81.7 per cent for all the 15 States taken together.
In terms of the rate of growth in investment, Tamilnadu stood
12th among 15 States. In 1970-71, investment in Tamilnadu was
67 per cent of the level in Maharashtra which was the leading
State in this respect; in 1976-/7, it came down to 48 per cent of
that in Maharashtra which retained its 'first place.
6.
TEA. 1973 and 1979; and Government of India, Economic Survey
1980-81.
13
Changes in the Structure of SDK and Employment
We have touched upon some principal factors related to agri
cultural and industrial growth in Tamilnadu. Let us now return
to the SDP and look at the changes that have occurred in the
sectoral composition. The share of the primary sector has declined
from about 52 per cent in 1960/61 to about 40 per cent in 1969/70
and to 37. 4 per cent in 1977/78. The share of mining and manu
factoring has gone up from about 15 per cent in 1960/61 to 20.9
per cent in 1969/70 and has remained at around that level in the
late 1970s. Together, the share of the primary and secondary
commodity producing sectors has decreased from 67 to about 61
per cent during the 1960s and to about 57 per cent in the late
1970s. Correspondingly, the share of construction, utilities and
services has gone up from 33 per cent in 1960/61 to 43 per cent
towards the end of the 1970s.
A decreasing share for the primary sector in the SDP is sometimes
viewed as an automatic sign of development. This is not always
so. In the case of Tamilnadu, it has largely been the result of a
low growth rate in agriculture and allied sectors, and a shift
to construction, transport and a number of miscellaneous service
activities rather than primarily to industry. We must also notice
that the fall in the share of agriculture and allied sectors in the
SDP has not resulted in a shift in employment from agriculture
to industry or to other sectors. Population Census data for 1961
and 1971 show that the share of the primary sector in employment
has gone down only slightly from 64. 4 per cent in 1961 to 63.3
per cent in 1971. The share in employment of mining and
manufacturing has remained at 13.4 per cent over the entire
decade of the 1960s.
Census figures of 1981 are not yet available in sufficient detail for
us to review the trend in the 1970s. We however have figures of
total main workers, and of cultivators and agricultural labourers
in 1981. With these, it is possible to study the changes in these
two decades in the share of the agricultural work force (consisting
of cultivators and agricultural labourers) in the total work force.
Table 9 gives these figures. It shows that the agricultural work
force has continued to remain at about 61 per cent of all workers.
But as between cultivators and agricultural workers, a striking
14
shift has taken place between 1961 and 1981." In the agricultural
work force, about 30 per cent were agricultural labourers in 1961
with little or no land dependent on wage incomes as their main
source of earnings. This proportion has sharply risen to 52 per
cent by 1981. In absolute numbers, the increase in 1961-81 of
agricultural labourers is from about 28 lakhs to about 59 lakhs
i. e., their number has more than doubled in the last two decades.
Thus while there has been no reduction in the proportion of those
engaged in agriculture, a large shift has occurred from cultivation
to wage labour within the agricultural work force. A number of
factors must have accounted for this very significant increase in
the numbers of agricultural labourers which has taken place mainly
in the 1960s: demographic growth; the resumption of tenancies;
debt and distress leading to loss of land on the part, of small
peasants; rural non-agricultural workers such as craftsmen and
weavers shifting to coolie work on land; as well as a greater
demand for labour arising from increased irrigation, higher
agricultural output and spread of the new technology.
The Broad Picture of Growth
We can now try to very briefly sum up the picture of growth in
the last two decades that emerges from the data that has been
reviewed. The long term growth rate in Tamilnadu has continued to
be low although there has been a turn for the better in the 1970s.
The fact that the population growth rate in Tamilnadu has been
the lowest for any State in India in 1961 -81 has helped to buttress
per capita growth. Yet the density of population (1981) at 371 per
sq. kilometre is well above the all-India average (221 per sq. km.):
Tamilnadu occupies the 5th highest place among major States in
regard to the pressure of population.
The scope for area increases for cropping has been exhausted about
two becades ago, and that for surface irrigation from canals and
tanks about a decade ago. There has been a striking increase in
groundwater irrigation. But this entails a heavy draft on limited
power availability and a progressive depletion of groundwater
resources. The increase in irrigation has nevertheless enabled a
relatively high use of improved seeds and chemical fertilisers
7.
See S. Subramanian and V. K. Ramacbandran. Agricultural
Labourers in the Working Peculation o) Rural Tamilnadu-,
Preliminary Results from the censuses of 1961, 1971 and 1981
Madras Institute of Development Studies June 1982 for a detailed
discussion of the trends.
15
which in turn has brought gains in productivity. But both
productivity increases and increases in intensity of cropping appear
to have tapered off since the mid 1970s. While foodgrain output has
increased, in the 1970s, per capita foodgrain production is relatively
low and has not risen very much in the last two decades.
Irrigation, power and agricultural output are all highly vulnerable
to rainfall within Tamilnadu and in catchment areas elsewhere.
Agriculture has not diversified; Tamilnadu is not self-sufficient
in pulses, oilseeds or cotton; there has been little growth in the
proportion of milk, meat and fish; and poor progress in
farm forestry Despite a shift in the sectoral contributions to
SDP from agriculture to industry, there has been no decrease
in the share of employment in agriculture nor a growth in the
proportion of employment in industry. Within the agricultural
work force, the numbers of agricultural labourers who depend
mainly on wage earnings rather than on self cultivation has more
than doubled pointing to growing impoverishment.
While there has been a growth and diversification in the industrial
sector, output increases have sharply declined in the 1970s.
Strikingly so is also the case with additions to installed capacity in.
power generation. There has been a sluggish growth in
new industrial investments as well. Industry continues to be
concentratedin the greater Madras Metropolitan area and in
Coimbatore.1 Many areas in the State, notably eastern Ramanatha
puram and Dharmapuri, remain backward both in terms of
industry and agriculture.
Inequalities
Our analysis so far has been based on national income data, the
Censuses and other official data relating to overall income and
production. As a next step, it will be of interest to know how
much of the State’s income is saved and the proportion of it that
is finally consumed. Proceeding further, it will greatly help if one
can have data on incomes, savings and consumption among
different fractiles of the population. For example, to find out
what these are among households in the top 5 or 10 per cent of
income earners as compared to those in the bottom 20 or 40 per
cent. Unfortunately, data are not available on either savings at
8.
The three districts of Madras, Chengalpattu and Coimbatore
account for over 51 per cent of employment and. nearly 65 per
cent of value added in the factory sector.
16
the level of the State or on the distribution of incomes and savings
at household levels within the State. Our exploration into
inequalities will therefore have to be pursued in other ways. On
economic inequality, we can obtain some idea of the distribution
of land and of other assets from NSS and RBI surveys. This is
valuable because assets and income have a circular or mutually
reinforcing relationship. Incomes get translated or congealed
into assets through savings. In turn, assets provide the basis for
generating income flows through investment, trade, moneylending
and a variety of other means. In the next section we move from
inequality to absolute poverty which is a stark consequence of the
nature of growth and inequality in our context. Thereafter, in
discussing the‘quality of life’, v. e turn to dimensions of inequali
ties which prevail in relation to literacy and health.
Two tables will suffice for our purpose in vividly bi ingingout
the extreme concentration of land and other assets in Tamilnadu.
Table 10 gives the ownership distribution of land in 1971-72 as
brought out in the 26th Round of the NSS. It shows that among
those who own land, marginal farmer households owning upto
2.5 acres constitute 78.4 percent while the extent of land that
they own is only 20.2 per cent of the total. Small and marginal
farmer households owning upto 5 acres constitute 89.8 percent
of households but account for only 42.1 per cent of land owned.
The remaining about 10 per cent of households with 5 acres
or more own as much as about 58 per cent of land. The estimates
in the 26th Round of the NSS also show that among all the
States in India Tamilnadu had the highest percentage in 1971/72
of rural households not owning any land at all (17. 01 percent)
as also of those who n..ther owned nor operated any land
(14. 09 per cent).
We have information from the RBI’s All-India Debt and Invest
ment Survey 1971-72 on the distribution among rural households
of all assets including not only land but also such items as
buildings, livestock, farm and non-farm equipment, durable
consumablesand financial assets. Table 11 is based on the data
available from this source. It shows that the top 10 per cent of
rural households own about 78 per cent of assets. Within them,
the top one per cent owned about 38 per cent of assets i. e.,
more than the assets owned by the bottom 95 per cent taken
together. This is indeed striking.
17
We shall not enter into a discussion of whether concentration of
land and other assets has worsened or lessened in the 1960s.
Even if concentration has lessened, for which there is no clear
evidence, the skewness of distribution in 1971-72 is striking
and little consolation is gained. If on the other hand it has
worsened, the picture of inequality only gets heightened by the
indication that it is not only great but might have also grown.
In this context, it might be of interest to comment on the progress
of land reform in the State. In 1960, land ceiling legislation was
introduced fixing the ceiling at 30 standard acres. In 1970, the
ceiling was reduced to 15 standard acres. In the 1960s, when land
ceilings were originally imposed, the potential surplus was officially
estimated at 25.5 lakh acres at a ceiling of 10 standard acres.
However up to the end of 1981, only 1.37 lakh acres have been
notified as surplus of which 1.01 lakh acres have been so far
distributed. Clearly, many large landlords have been able to evade
the ceiling legislation through partitions and benami transactions.
Unlike as in some other States (notably, W. Bengal and Karnataka),
Tamilnadu has not brought forward legislation to enable tenant
tillers to own leased land. Nor has there been adequate
implementation of legislation assuring tenants of security and
fair rents. No attempt has been made to bring about consolidation
of landholdings despite States like Punjab, Haryana and Uttar
Pradesh having shown me way.
Poverty
The study we can rely on for obtaining a systematic idea of the
poverty level State-wise and the changes in it over time is one
undertaken by M. S. Ahluwallia9.
This is based on NSS data
available on a State-level basis from the 13th Round (1957-58) to
the 28th Round (1973-74). He takes the rural poverty line at
Rs. 15 per capita per month in all-India rural prices for 1960-61,
estimates State poverty lines with reference to it, and allows for
price changes using State-level indices in the Consumer Price Index
for Agricultural Labour. The all-India estimates are arrived at as
a- weighted sum of the estimated percentages in the individual
States. Table 12 gives the position of Tamilnadu vis-a-vis the all
India level and the rank of Tamilnadu from the poorest end of
the list of 14 major states for which estimates are available. The
9.
Montck S. Ahluwallia Rural Poverty in India: 1956-57 to
1975-74 World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 279 May 1978.
IX
table shows that the rural poverty proportion lias fluctuated in
Tamilnadu from year to year during this period. This is to be
expected because of variations in seasonal conditions affecting
agricultural output. Consistently however Tamilnadu has remained
among the States in India with a very high poverty proportion
It had the highest proportion in two years (1957/58 and 1959/60),
the second highest in one year (1961/62), the third highest in one
year (1960, 61), the fourth highest in three years (1965,66. 1968/69
and 1970/71), the fifth highest in one year (1964/65), the sixth
highest in two years (1963/64 and 1966,67) and the seventh highest
in two other years (1967.68 and 1973/74). In this span of 12
years, its relative position did not at any time improve beyond
the 7th. Furthermore, in this entire period, the "proportion of the
rural poor in Tamilnadu has been above the all-lndia level. It has
also never been less than 50 percent, except in 1973-74 when it
dipped marginally to 48.3 per cent.
In order to estimate the urban poverty line, we can use Rs.55
per capita per month in current prices of 1973-74 which can be
taken as a reasonable basis. From NSS data the proportion of
the urban poor can then be estimated at 49.1 per cent. In absolute
numbers this would mean that in 1973-74, 146 lakhs in the rural
population and 63 lakhs in the urban population of Tamilnadu
or about 2 crore persons constituted the absolutely poor.
In regard to “who are the poor", an estimate made by C. T.
Kurien for Tamilnadu in 1970-71 is that 56 per "cent of cultivators
consisting of those operating a hectare of wet land or three
hectares of dry land, 87 per cent of agricultural labourers, and
about 85 per cent of non-agricultural rural labourers would
come under the poverty line.10 The bulk of the latter would
be handloom weavers, other rural artisans, construction workers,
fishermen and destitutes and old people without occupation.
A very high proportion of agricultural labourers arc among the
absolutely poor and, as we have seen, there has been a very
large increase in their numbers in Tamilnadu in the last two
decades. It is therefore of particular interest to know whether
their condition has improved. An agricultural labourer derives
his or her earnings mainly from wage employment. As such, his
(or her) level of annual earnings will depend mainly on the
10. C. T. Kurien Rural Poverty in Tamilnadu in International Labour
Organisation Poverty and Landlessness iu Rural Asia 1977.
19
number of days in the year for which employment is available
and the average daily wage level. Trends in these two parameters
will have to be analysed with reference to price increases so
that it would be possible to obtain an idea of the change in
real terms. There is unfortunately no hard data in regard to the
growth in the availability of employment to agricultural labourers.
Micro-level village studies suggest that factors have operated
both to increase employment as well as to offset such increases. 11
Greater output arising from the use of improved seeds and
chemical inputs, higher intensity of cropping, more irrigation
and crop diversification would have led to greater labour
absorption in agriculture. Growth in non-agricultural activities
and in government services have resulted in some shift of
agricultural labour to non-agricultural rural activities. On the
other hand, mechanisation, particularly the use of tractors, has
displaced employment. On the supply side, there has been an
increase of about 24 per cent in the agricultural work force as
a whole in 1961-81 and an increase of 110 per cent in the numbers
of agricultural labourers. In the result, it seems that any increase
in the duration of employment is not likely to have been
significant. 11
in regard towages, trends vary in different regions of the State
but aggregate data indicates that in real terms wages have
fallen between 1951/52 and 1973/74. Discounting money wages
by the prices of rice II sort, Kurien finds that in real terms, the
average daily wage for men field labourers in 1973/74 was 71
per cent of its level in 1951/52 with the corresponding ratio
being about 76 per cent for women.11 Again in regions where
real wages have increased, duration of employment may have gone
up to a relatively lesser extent so that total real earnings would
show no significant increase. There is little doubt that despite
such growth that Tamilnadu has had, a large proportion of
agricultural labourer households, most marginal farmers and
11.
See, for instance. S. Guhan and Joan Mencber Iruvelpattu
Revisited Madras Institute of Development Studies 1982.
12.
Data from the Agricultural Labour and Rural Labour Enquiries
of 1956 / 57 and 1964/65 and the NSS 25tl> Round (1970-71) do not
lead to any definite conclusions regarding a possible — increase vide
C. T. Kurien op. cit.
13.
C. T. Kurien Dynamics of Rural Transformation A Study of
Tamilnadu 1960-1975 Orient Longman 1981
20
many small farmer and rural non-agricultural households remain
under the poverty line.
In regard to aggregate employment, data is available on where
Tamilnadu stands in relation to other States. Table 13 gives
aggregate measures of unemployment in the equivalent of person
years (i. e., taking into account the extent of underemployment
as well) on a State-wise basis for 1972-73 based on the 27th
Round of the NSS. At the all-India level these estimates place
unemployment at 18.57 million in equivalent ^person years and
the unemployment rate, i. e., the proportion in the labour foice
of those seeking and available for work, at 8. 34 per cent.
Tamilnadu accounts for 2. 35 million person-years of unemploy
ment, the largest for any single State, Its share in all-lndia
unemployment at 12.63 per cent is the highest for any Stale. The
unemployment rate for Tamilnadu at 12.17 per cent was
significantly higher than the all-lndia level of 8. 34 per cent and
the second highest among all the States.
We can supplement this data by pointing out that applicants in
the live registers of employment exchanges in Tamilnadu have
increased in number from 347,000 in 1970 to 968,000 in 1979. In
the same period, the numbers of educated job seekers—SSLC, PUC,
graduatesand post graduates—have increased from 179,000 to
485,000.'*
The Quality of Life
Let us now turn to an examination of the levels of literacy, health
and nutrition in Tamilnadu since these are the prime indicators of
social development. Table 14 gives the relevant figures for
Tamilnadu and other states. In literacy, Tamilnadu stands third in
India coming after Kerala and Maharashtra. Its literacy rate of
45.8 pet cent in 1981 is close to that of Maharashtra (47.4 per cent)
but less than two-thirds of that of Kerala (69.2 per cent) which is
the leading State. In life expectancy, Tamilnadu is 7th among the
major States. There are only five other States with a lower
infant mortality rate than Tamilnadu. In per capita calorie
consumption, Tamilnadu stands lowest among all States.
Using estimates of life expectancy, infant mortality and literacy, a
composite index of the Physical Quality of Life (PQLI) has been
14.
TEA, 1979.
21
constructed for 12 States in India for 1971. The sources of data
and the methodology followed have been explained by the author
of this index Morris D. Morris and his colleague Michelle D. Me
Alpin in a recent book entitled “Measuring the condition of India’s
Poor."''
The PQLI is useful in providing us with an idea of the comparative
position of different States. Within each State, differences in the
PQLI as between rural and urban areas and as between males and
females have also been worked out. As might be expected, the
differential is greatest between urban males and rural females.
Table 15 gives these figures.
In terms of the composite PQLI, Tainilnadu stands fifth coming
after Kerala, Punjab, Maharashtra and Karnataka. While its
index (viz., 46) is close to that of the last three States (50, 49
and 48 respectively) it is far behind that of Kerala (70). In terms
of rural-urban differentials, the disparity in Tamilnadu is larger
than in 7 other States. Likewise, in terms of male-female
differentials, 6 other States fare better than Tamilnadu.
Some of the differentials in regard to literacy need’ to be further
highlighted. In 1981, while overall literacy in Tamilnadu was 45.8
per cent, female literacy at 34.1 per cent was less than three-fifths
of male literacy at 57.2 per cent. Literacy among the rural
population was 37.7 per cent or just about three-fifths of the urban
rate of 62.2 per cent. Among rural females, it was as low as 25.1
percent. In regard to scheduled castes, the figures for 1981 are
not yet available. In 1971, it was only 21.8 per cent or less than
half of what it was in the rest of the population (viz., 43.3 per
cent). It was a mere 9 per cent among scheduled caste, rural
females.
The question of female literacy is particulary important because a
high literacy among women tends to be associated with lower
infant mortality and consequently lower death rates."1 Kerala for
15.
Morris D. Morris and Michelle D Me Alpin: Measuring the
condition of India's poor: The Physical Quality of Life Index
Promilia and Co. New Delhi 1982.
16.
A Survey of infant and child mortality undertaken by the
Registrar-General of India showed that the infant mortality rate
(Per 1000 live births) was 132 among illiterate mothersand 64 in the
case of mothers who bad had education at the primary level or
above.
22
instance not only has the highest literacy rate of 69.2(in 1981) but
its female literacy rate is as high as 64.5 which is 87 per cent of
its male literacy rate of 74. Kerala also has a high life expectancy
and the lowest infant mortality rate (vide Table 14). Rural-urban
and male-female differentials in PQL1 are the lowest in Kerala
(vide Table 15). What is particularly impressive about Kerala
is that it has achieved outstanding levels of literacy and health
despite being one of the poorest States in India in terms of per
capita SDP (vide Table 1).
A comparison with Kerala in regard to death rates is also of
interest. According to all-India Health Statistics, the death rate
in Tamilnidu in 1978 has been estimated at 12.8 while it was
placed at 7 0 for Kerala. In fact, it is a higher death rate rather
than a particularly low birth rate that accounts for the low
population growth rate in Tamilnadu. The implication of this is
that if mortality gets reduced with better health facilities, the
population growth rate in Tamilnadu might well increase. A '
reduction of mortality, particularly infant mortality, and family
planning, in a framework of better health, education and nutrition,
are both necessary.
Data on inequalities in the health status is less firm. The
differential in rural-urban infant mortality rates (IMR) is a signifi
cant one. According to the estimates of the Registrar-General of
India, rural IMR in Tamilnadu was estimated at 133.9 in 1970
while the urban IMR was 89.9.” There are large disparities in
the provision of health facilities in Tamilnadu In the late 1970s,.
the population-bed ratio was 761 for Madras City while it was
6901 for the rural areas. The population-doctor ratio was 621 in
Madras city and 4840 in the districts.'*
In all respects, the scheduled castes occupy a very disadvantaged
position. We already saw that their literacy level was low. In
villages they have very poor access to basic amenities such
as drinking water supply, health facilities, house sites, housing and
electricity. About 82 percent of scheduled caste workers in 1971
17.
It is also striking that in India as a whole the rural IMK
remained at 136 between 1970 and 1978 while the urban IMK
declined from 90 to 70 in this period.
18. S. Guhan Htahh in Tamilnadu: Fact and Issues
Institute of Development Studies 1V81.
••
Madras
were engaged in agriculture. Of them, 78 per cent weie agricultural
labourers belonging to the poorest segment of the population. It
is a cruel misnomer to call the Harijans the “Children of God”
when they suffer from so much economic inequality and social
discrimination.
Conclusion
At an earlier stage, we had summed up the broad picture ofgrowth
in Tamilnadu. Subsequently, we had drawn attention to the large
inequalities in the ownership of land and other assets; to the
existence of massive poverty and to large scale unemployment; and
to inadequacies and inequalities in the provision oF^uch basic
needs as literacy and health. This picture of slow and uneven
growth with much inequality and poverty represents a general
equilibrium of backwardness with such mutually supportive
elements as massive poverty, low purchasing power, and low per
capita food production; a low population increase related to
relatively high mortality; and low levels of demand and of output
in the commodity producing sectors of the economy. Illiteracy
and passivity could also perhaps be added to this list.
These elements are not unique to Tamilnadu vis-a-vis other States
in India or to India with reference to many other developing
countries. It is true also that for Tamilnadu to achieve accelerated
growth, much support and assistance will be needed from the
Centre, especially in power, water and industry as well as the
co-operation of neighbouring States and a faster development of
all-India markets. One cannot however rest with saying this
without also pointing out that much needs to be done, and can be
done at the State level for promoting growth and reducing poverty.
Our review would have itself conveyed the broad agenda for
action, while a detailed blueprint is beyond the scope of this
lecture.
We can conclude that whether it is growth or equity, the tasks
ahead will be complex because of the increasing pressure of
population on basic resources such as land, water and minerals
that confronts Tamilnadu. They will demand considerable politi
cal will and vision, technical expertise and administrative
dynamism. The very first step is to be aware that Tamilnadu faces
serious development problems which are bound to become increa
singly severe. The purpose of this lecture is to draw attention to
this crisis amidst the fog of complacency and the noisy distractions
of day-to-day politics which surround us.
25
Table 1 :
Per capita SDP in current prices (Rs)
1960/61
1970/71
1978/79
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamilnadu
Uttar Pradesh
W. Bengal
275
315
215
362
327
285
265
260
409
217
374
284
330
246
321
585
539
402
829
870
685
564
484
784
482
1030
620
581
486
712
1052
953
773
1505
1797
1136
1056
893
1788
860
2088
1098
1114
977
1282
All-India (per capita NNP)
306
633
1267
State
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Source:
’
Central Statistical Organisation and Government of
India : Economic Survey 1980-81
26
Table 2;
Growth rates in net domestic product and per
capita ndp of States 1960/61 to 1977/78.
(Factor cost, 1960/61 prices)
Annual compound rates in percentage
State
NDP
Per capita NDP
0.93
- 0.25
0.45
0.71
2.45
10. Orissa’
11. Punjab
12. Rajasthan
13. Tamilnadu
14. Uttar Pradesh
15. W. Bengal1
3.0
2.8
2.4
3.2
5.3
3.5
3.0
2.8
3.8
4.1
5.2
3.1
2.3
2.4
2.3
All-India
3.6
1.34
1. Andhra Pradesh
2. Assam
3. Bihar1
4. Gujarat
5. Haryana1
6. Karnataka1
7. Kerala1
8. Madhya Pradesh
9. Maharashtra
1 relates to 1976/77.
Source:
’ relates
1.34
0.73
0.22
1.50
1.89
3.20
0.48
0.44
0.52
- 0.05
to 1975/76
Central Statistical Organisation Monthly Abstract of
Statistics 1979 and World Bank Report No. 3401-IN
on Economic Situation and Prospects of India April 1981.
27
Tabic 3 :
Sectoral growth rates of SDP in Tamilnadu
(Annual compound rate in percentages)
1960.61
to
1969/70’
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1970/71
to
1977/78*
0.7
Primary sector1
Mining and manufacturing
6.1
8.4
Electricity generation
Construction
5.0
Transport and Communication 7.9
3.0
Others’
1.6
1.5
5.3
7.0
3.4
3.8
2.1
2.7
SDP
1 Includes agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry and fishery.
8 Includes trade, storage hotels and restaurants, banking and
insurance, real estate and ownership of dwellings, public administra
lion and other services.
’ In 1960/61 constant prices.
‘ In 1970/71 constant prices.
Source :
Government of Tamilnadu:
Appraisal (Various issues).
Tamilnadu, An Economic
28
Table 4 :
Growth and per capita levels of foodgrain production
State
1. Andhra Pradesh
2. Assam
3. Bihar
4. Gujarat
5. Haryana
6. Karnataka
7. Kerala
8. Madhya Pradesh
9. Maharashtra
Growth rate'
1960 - 1979
(per cent)
1.69
159.8
2.35
1.92
NA
120.8
121.5
416.1
173.6
51.0
183.0
148.6
10. Orissa
12. Punjab
13. Rajasthan
14. Tamilnadu
15. Uttar Pradesh
16. W. Bengal
3.56
5.33
3.43
1.39
1.67
1.77
1.19
8.01
2.97
1.83
2.79
2.72
All-India
2.77
Source :
Per capita’
foodgrain output
(kg)
(Average of 5
Years upto
1979/80)
164.4
626.9
194.9
145.0
173.4
142.1
166.3
1 J. S. Sarma Agricultural Policy in India International
Development Research Centre 1982.
’ Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy. District
Level Data for Key Economic Indicators May 1982.
29
Table 5 :
Irrigated cropped area to gross cropped area 1976 77
(per cent)
State
r.
2.
3.
4.
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
35.0
17.3'
31.8
13.5
5.
6.
7.
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Oi’ssa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamilnadu
Uttar Pradesh
W. Bengal
51.1
44.9
12.7
'9.8
11.2
19.2
20.21
All-lndia
25.8
8.
9.
10.
II.
12.
13.
14.
15.
1
Source :
Refers to 1953/54
50.8
17.6
42.0
42.1
* Refers to 1967/68
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation : Indian Agricul
lure in Brief 1978.
30
Table 6 :
Utilisation of Ultimate potential
upto 1977/78.
(Percentage)
State
Medium and
major
irrigation
Minor
irrigation
44.8
17.1
35.6
77.7
76.1
44.3
29.1
33.3
47.2
22.6
79.7
73.3
78.8
57.5
46.4
50.7
13,0
35.5
43.7
63.4
42.0
35.6
26.0
36.0
31.3
77.6
49. j
45.9
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
11.
12.
13.
14.
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamilnadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
55.6
6.2
35.4
32.0
57.0
40.4
43.0
21.0
27.3
36.9
75.0
50.2
78.7
43.8
61.5
All-India
42.4
15.
Source:
in irrigation
Planning Commission Drajt Sixth
1978/83.
Total
60.9
78.7
50.8
44.5
Five
Year Plan
31
Table 7 :
Position of major
India, 1976/77
industrialised States in
(Shares in all-India in percentage)
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Employment
Value
added
Fixed
Investment
Maharashtra
W. Bengal
Tamilnadu
Gujarat
Uttar Pradesh
Bihar
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Others
18.2
13.3
10.0
8.9
8.9
5.2
8.5
5.2
4.1
17.7
24.4
12.1
9.4
9.4
7.4
5.4
5.1
4.9
4.8
17.1
16.1
8.0
7.7
9.2
6.3
12.4
5.3
4.6
6.3
24.1
All-India
100.0
100.0
100.0
.Source :
Central Statistical Organisation Annual Survey of
Industries 1976-77 Summary Results for Factory Sector,
32
Table 8:
Fixed Capital Investment in Factory Sector 1970 77.
State
1.
2.
3.
A.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Percentage
increase of
1970 71
1976 77
1976 '77 over
(Rs. crores) (Rs. crores)
1970 71
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamilnadu
Uttar Pradesh
W. Bengal
574.47
219.' 6
414.43
192.42
530.46
1374.35
413.76
266.93
299.36
917.39
968.88
1049.13
Total
8566.77
Source:
483.60
184.17
677.46
857.98
294.97
2004.29
1489.97
495.77
747.40
540.18
1020.65
2610.66
492.40
799.96
664.07
1242.21
1013.14
1289.00
77.4
60.2
195.9
159.4
125.4
80.3
180.7
92.4
90.0
19.0
199.7
121.8
35.4
4.6
22.9
15,562.65
81.7
Central Statistical Organisation
Industries 1976—77.
Annual
Survey of
33
Agricultural work force in
1971 and 1981.
Table 9 :
Tamiinadu :
1961,
(per cent)
1961
1971
1981
Cultivators
Agricultural labour
42.07
18.42
31.26
30.46
29.40
31.45
Other workers
60.49
39.51
61.72
38.28
All workers
100.00
100.GO
Source :
-
60.85
39.15
100.00
Census of India 1S61, 1971 and 1981.
Table 10 :
Distribution of ownership holdings in Tamilnadu
1971-72.
Size class of household
ownership holding
(acres)
Cumulative
percentage
of
household s
Cumulative percentage
of area owned
Upto
0.99
1.00 - 2.49
2.50 - 4.99
5.00 - 7.49
7.50 - 9.99
10.00 - 14.99
15.00 - 19.99
20.00 - 24.99
25.00 - 29.99
30.00 - 49.99
50.00 and above
60.53
78.40
89.79
94.55
96.54
98.55
99.27
99.54
99.69
99.91
100.00
4.45
20.23
42.07
58.02
67.28
80.27
87.00
90.25
92.49 .
96.95
100.00
Source :
NSS Report 215 Vol. I (Rural Table 2)
34
Table 11 :
Concentration in the ownership of assets in
rural Tamilnadu 1971-72
Decile group
Percentage share in total
assets owned
0- 10 .
10-20...
0.04
20-30
30-40
40 - 50
0.32
0.58
50-60
60 - 70
1.61
2.75
70 - 80
5.08
10.86
12.47
80-90
90-95
0-95
95 - 99
99 - 10ft
0.15
0.97
34.83
26.20
38 97
100.00
Source :
C. T. Kurien Dynamics oj Rural Transformation A
Study oj Tamilnadu 1950-1975 Orient Longman 1981
based on RBI's All-India Debt and Investment Survey
1971-12.
Table 12:
Relative position of Tamilnadu in rural poverty
(Percentage of rural poor)
Year
Tamilnadu
All-lndia
Rank of Tamilnadu (from the bottom)
1957 — 58
67.8
53.4
1
1959 — 60
64.4
48.7
1
1960 — 61
53.9
42.0
3
r 1961 - 62
51.0
42.3
1963 — 64
52.0
49.1
6
1964- 65
57.4
50.4
5
1965 — 66
59.5
51.1
4
1966 — 67
62.7
57.4
6
1967 - 68
58.1
57.9
7
1968 - 69
60.6
53.5
4
1970 — 71
57.3
49.1
4
1973 -■74
48.3
47.6
7
Source : Derived from Montck S. Ahluwallia Hurtil I’overlv hi liltlhi:
World Bank Staff Working Paper No, 2/9 May lu7H,
•
H'7f> /i’V
b'.'.t- 74.
2
Table 13 :
Unemployment
in equivalent
person years
(million)
Share in total
all-lndia
Unemployment
(per cent)
Tamilnadu
Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra
Bihar
Kerala
W. Bengal
Uttar pradesh
Karnataka
Orissa
Madhya Pradesh
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Punjab
Haryana
Jammu & Kashmir
Assam
Other States and UTs
2.35
2.32
2.22
2.05
1.88
1.64
1.22
1.15
1.01
0.71
0.66
0.49
0.23
0.15
0.14
0.09
0.26
12.63
12.49
11.93
11.05
10.11
8.79
6.54
6.36
5.43
3.85
3.56
2.62
1.26
0.79
0.74
0.48
1.37
All India
18.57
100.00
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Status of unemployment by States 1972 - 73
Source :
Draft Five Year Plan 1978-83
Unemployment rate (per cent)
'
12.17
12.01
9.73
10.26
25.23
10.66
3.68
9.20
10.82
3.67
6.36
3.72
4.54
4.10
8.38
1.98
8.34
Table 14 ;
" ■
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Statewise indicators of Health, Literacy and Nutrition
: 1
Life expectancy
(years)
Infant mortality
rate (per 1000 live
births)
Literacy
(in 1981)
Calorie
intake
per day
2040
NA
NA
1612
NA
2220
1842
2779
2281
NA
2832
2044
1498
2307
NA
1985
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamilnadu
Uttar Pradesh
W. Bengal
56.1
51.3
NA
53.4
NA
56.3
62.8
55.9
56.1
52.6
64.3
50.5
54.8
48.9
NA
109
137
NA
144
NA
93
58
145
107
134
112
127
114
182
NA
29.9
NA
26.0
43.8
35.8
38.4
69.2
27.8
47.4
34.1
40.7
24.1
45.8
27.4
40.9
All India
54.6
134
36.2
Source:
Literacy figures are from the 1981 Census. Others are from Mqrris D. Morris and Michelle B. Me Alpio
Measuring the Condition of India’s Poor t The Physical Quality of Life Index Promilla. & Co. New Delhi
1982.
Table 15:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
PQLl for States
PQLl
Rural-urban
differential
Male-female
differential
Urban Male-Rural
Female differential
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Gujarat
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamilnadu
Uttar Pradesh
43
37
40
48
70
37
49
37
50
33
46
25
23
29
21
22
5
28
20
24
17
30
25
28
7
9
13
9
5
13
9
13
8
12
12
26
30
36
33
All-India
40
26
13
38
Source : Morris D Morris and Michelle B. Me Alpin op. cit,
31
9
40
29
36
29
43
37
42
'
This short monograph-,^originally delivered as a lecture in the
Madurai Kamaraj University, examines the development experi
ence of Tamiinadu since the 1960s in terms of growth^ inequali
ties and poverty. The picture that emerges is one of poor
growth, sharp inequalities, massive poverty, large scale unemploy
ment and inadequacies and inequalities in the provision of such
basic needs as literacy and health.
The author concludes that, whether it is growth or equity, the
tasks ahead will be complex. They will demand considerable
political will and vision, technical expertise and administrative
dynamism. The very first step is to be aware that Tamiinadu
faces serious development problems which are bound to become
increasingly severe.
S. Cuhan is Senior Fellow in the Madras Institute of Development
Studies and was formerly Secretary, Finance and Planning to the
Government of Tamiinadu.
Price : Rs 6.00
- Media
3813.pdf
Position: 448 (14 views)