Comes across as an interesting discussion. It is a comparative analysis on how Modi's policies in Gujarat are better placed to sort out the economic mess created by the UPA compared to some other states. Let us have a detailed discussion using the OP as a means to draw up a comparative analysis. It gains importance for now Modi does get seen as an option of being a future PM, and one does need to get a good critical sense of how good the policies in Gujarat are, and would those be of much good to India if he and his team were to get a shot of governing India. The Narendra Modi economic model offers a compelling alternative to the mess at the Centre - The Economic Times By: Arvind Panagariya The writer is professor of Indian political economy at Columbia University. For some time now, a debate has raged on both the economic performance of Gujarat and its chief minister Narendra Modi. Critics of Gujarat say that the state hardly ranks at the top of any indicator and that the hype over it is the result of effective public relations by Modi. Modi critics say that he is hardly the only successful chief minister in the country: look at what Nitish Kumar has accomplished in Bihar, Prithviraj Chavan in Maharashtra and Bhupinder Singh Hooda in Haryana. But these critics miss the point that Modi and Gujarat are inseparable. The Gujarat experience matters precisely because Modi, who nurtures national ambitions , leads it and he matters precisely because he is the man behind the Gujarat miracle. Without Modi at its helm, Gujarat would not be the centre of attention ; and without the accomplishments of Gujarat, Modi would not command the attention he does. Begin with the accomplishments of Gujarat. No doubt, the state saw strong growth even during the 1990s, before Modi became chief minister. But growth rate during that decade fluctuated wildly from year to year. The state's economy also suffered a massive shock from the earthquake in 2000-01 , just before Modi became chief minister. Under Modi, the Gujarat economy not only made speedy recovery from the shock, its growth rate also accelerated significantly and became much more stable in the subsequent years. The average growth rate of the gross state domestic product (GSDP) during the Modi years, 2001-02 to 2011-12 , edged out those in Bihar, Haryana and Maharashtra. You can dent this top ranking by playing with the starting and ending years but you cannot rob the state of the distinction of being one of the fastest-growing states during the 2000s. Moreover, under Modi, Gujarat has decisively moved up two places in per-capitaincome rankings. It now ranks ahead of Kerala and Punjab and trails only Maharashtra and Haryana among the large states. Critics retort: why should Maharashtra and Haryana, which lead in per-capita income levels and have had an almost equally stellar growth record as Gujarat, not be accorded the same prominence? The answer is that chief ministers Chavan and Hooda have shown no inclination to challenge the leadership of their party and offer their states as models to replace the current mess at the Centre. In contrast, Modi has placed the experience of his state before the nation for all to see and assess, articulated a national vision for tomorrow that draws on Gujarat's accomplishments and challenged the (lack of) vision of the current national government. A persistent critic might ask, what about Nitish Kumar? After all, confining to the years of his rule, 2006-07 to 2011-12 , growth in Bihar beats Gujarat by a solid 1.5 percentage points. Moreover, after decades of neglect by both the central and state leadership, for the first time since Independence , he has brought hope to the people of Bihar. And, of course, no one can accuse Nitish of lacking national ambitions. But, alas, there is very little by way of economic policies that one can glean from the Bihar experience for the national economy. With just 11% population in urban areas, today, the state is not only the least urbanised among all states in India, its current rate of urbanisation stands where the national average stood in 1901. Bihar also remains the state with by far the lowest proportion of households with electricity. A depressing 16.4% of its households light their houses using electricity. This is proportionately less than half of the households in Uttar Pradesh, the state with the second lowest achievement in this area. With the share of manufactures in the GSDP just 4.3% and declining, Bihar is also by far the least industrialised state in India. Given that the transformation of the national economy desperately requires accelerated growth in manufacturing, urbanisation and household electrification, Bihar could not possibly serve as the model for it. Nitish may have the qualifications to hold the country's top job but they do not derive from the turnaround he has brought about in the fortunes of Bihar. In sharp contrast, Gujarat today has by far the highest share of GSDP in manufacturing among all states. It also ranks near the top in urbanisation and electrification of households. Though the concentration of manufacturing nearly exclusively in capital- and skilled-labour-intensive sectors is a concern, this is a national feature deriving wholly from central labour laws that asymmetrically punish the unskilled-labour-intensive sectors. Critics have often pointed to lower levels of education and health indicators in Gujarat relative to states such as Kerala, as the Achilles heel of its experience. But they neglect to mention that a significant part of the difference comes from historically higher levels of those indicators in these latter states. If one goes by the progress made in education and health, Gujarat's performance, especially in areas in which the problems were identified by the early 2000s, is quite respectable. Moreover, the leaders of states making faster progress, such as Tamil Nadu, are simply not in play on the national stage.