- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
Finding potential and exploiting it is a mark of a good businessman.
BIMARU states fueling India's GDP growth
- Thread starter Shredder
- Start date
Iamanidiot
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Messages
- 5,325
- Likes
- 1,504
Getting kidnapped for extortion is the mark of a moron
nrj
Ambassador
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,658
- Likes
- 3,911
YB is rich, he will cut a profiting deal.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
That was before. There is no fodder and no rabri now!
nrj
Ambassador
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,658
- Likes
- 3,911
India's breakout states?
India's average annual economic growth during the seven-year period since the United Progressive Alliance, or UPA, formed its government at the Centre in 2004-05 is estimated at 8.5 per cent. The growth figure for the eight-year period under the UPA will be a bit lower after incorporating India's 2011-12 performance, which is expected to be 6.9 per cent. That should be a cause for concern because with the growth prospects for the current year looking not too bright, analysts have every reason to wonder if the UPA's good run with economic growth will fizzle out in the remaining two years of its second five-year tenure.
That is one perspective. The other way of looking at the India growth story under the UPA regime would be to assess how the various states in India performed in this period and whether any one of them has the ability to continue with its good run in the coming years. An assessment of how different states performed in the seven-year period – from 2004-05 to 2010-11 – brings out interesting nuggets of information that seem to challenge the conventional wisdom on which states are growing fast and which are laggard.
For instance, which are the states that clocked double-digit growth in gross state domestic product during the seven-year period from 2004-05? Only five states make that list. On top is Uttarakhand at 13.2 per cent, followed, as expected, by Bihar at 10.9 per cent, Maharashtra at 10.7 per cent, Tamil Nadu at 10.4 per cent and Haryana at 10.1 per cent. The real story here is not about Uttarakhand and Bihar with their relatively low bases (they grew by 4.6 per cent and 4.9 per cent, respectively, in the previous ten years), but Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Haryana.
Many analysts had virtually written off Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, and had begun extolling the virtues of fast-growing Gujarat and Karnataka. It would be interesting to compare these states on growth parameters. Maharashtra's performance is significant. From an average annual growth of five per cent in the ten-year period from 1994-95, Maharashtra doubled its performance to 10.7 per cent in the seven years under the UPA regime. Tamil Nadu's achievement is equally remarkable, with almost the same base performance in the 10 years prior to 2004-05 almost doubling to 10.4 per cent in the seven years of the UPA.
Haryana's growth story is perhaps the most remarkable. In the ten-year period from 1994-95, it grew annually by over 6.5 per cent. So there was no low-base effect for Haryana to bank on for its 10.1 per cent annual average growth in the seven years from 2004-05. Its growth may be skewed and services sector-led (including construction), but Haryana will clearly emerge as the star performer among all the fast-growing states in India in the last few years.
There is a political angle to the states' growth pattern as well. Of the five states with double-digit growth, three are ruled by the Congress. The remaining two – Bihar and Tamil Nadu – are ruled by regional parties — the Janata Dal (United), which is part of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance, and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam of J Jayalalithaa.
The performance of Gujarat in this period is a puzzle. In the ten-year period ended 2002-03, its average annual growth was relatively low at 3.6 per cent. In spite of that, however, it could grow by 6.3 per cent annually in the seven years from 2004-05 to 2010-11. Karnataka had a high base of over six per cent average annual growth in the 1994-2003 period, but it could raise the growth level to 8.7 per cent in the seven years from 2004-05. Haryana's performance stands out even more when compared to that of Karnataka. Leaving Karnataka behind, it clocked double-digit growth in spite of having a high base growth of over six per cent in the previous ten-year period.
Odisha, too, has done well in this period, although it had the advantage of a low base of less than four per cent average annual growth in the ten-year period ended 2003-04. But to have clocked 9.5 per cent growth in the following seven years is testimony to Odisha's inherent economic potential and ability to grow fast.
No clear conclusions can be drawn from these data. What does emerge is that states with stable governments have a better chance to grow fast. Bihar, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Odisha and Uttarakhand will fall in that category. Maharashtra may be an exception, as the state has seen changes in leadership and yet it has recorded double-digit growth in the last seven years. But then, how does one explain Gujarat? It has seen the most stable of governments for the last several years. And yet, it has seen its growth hovering at around six per cent for the last seven years. Or is there something more that helps in the emergence of what analysts would like to describe as the breakout states of India?
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/a-k-bhattacharya-indias-breakout-states/473113/
India's average annual economic growth during the seven-year period since the United Progressive Alliance, or UPA, formed its government at the Centre in 2004-05 is estimated at 8.5 per cent. The growth figure for the eight-year period under the UPA will be a bit lower after incorporating India's 2011-12 performance, which is expected to be 6.9 per cent. That should be a cause for concern because with the growth prospects for the current year looking not too bright, analysts have every reason to wonder if the UPA's good run with economic growth will fizzle out in the remaining two years of its second five-year tenure.
That is one perspective. The other way of looking at the India growth story under the UPA regime would be to assess how the various states in India performed in this period and whether any one of them has the ability to continue with its good run in the coming years. An assessment of how different states performed in the seven-year period – from 2004-05 to 2010-11 – brings out interesting nuggets of information that seem to challenge the conventional wisdom on which states are growing fast and which are laggard.
For instance, which are the states that clocked double-digit growth in gross state domestic product during the seven-year period from 2004-05? Only five states make that list. On top is Uttarakhand at 13.2 per cent, followed, as expected, by Bihar at 10.9 per cent, Maharashtra at 10.7 per cent, Tamil Nadu at 10.4 per cent and Haryana at 10.1 per cent. The real story here is not about Uttarakhand and Bihar with their relatively low bases (they grew by 4.6 per cent and 4.9 per cent, respectively, in the previous ten years), but Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Haryana.
Many analysts had virtually written off Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, and had begun extolling the virtues of fast-growing Gujarat and Karnataka. It would be interesting to compare these states on growth parameters. Maharashtra's performance is significant. From an average annual growth of five per cent in the ten-year period from 1994-95, Maharashtra doubled its performance to 10.7 per cent in the seven years under the UPA regime. Tamil Nadu's achievement is equally remarkable, with almost the same base performance in the 10 years prior to 2004-05 almost doubling to 10.4 per cent in the seven years of the UPA.
Haryana's growth story is perhaps the most remarkable. In the ten-year period from 1994-95, it grew annually by over 6.5 per cent. So there was no low-base effect for Haryana to bank on for its 10.1 per cent annual average growth in the seven years from 2004-05. Its growth may be skewed and services sector-led (including construction), but Haryana will clearly emerge as the star performer among all the fast-growing states in India in the last few years.
There is a political angle to the states' growth pattern as well. Of the five states with double-digit growth, three are ruled by the Congress. The remaining two – Bihar and Tamil Nadu – are ruled by regional parties — the Janata Dal (United), which is part of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance, and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam of J Jayalalithaa.
The performance of Gujarat in this period is a puzzle. In the ten-year period ended 2002-03, its average annual growth was relatively low at 3.6 per cent. In spite of that, however, it could grow by 6.3 per cent annually in the seven years from 2004-05 to 2010-11. Karnataka had a high base of over six per cent average annual growth in the 1994-2003 period, but it could raise the growth level to 8.7 per cent in the seven years from 2004-05. Haryana's performance stands out even more when compared to that of Karnataka. Leaving Karnataka behind, it clocked double-digit growth in spite of having a high base growth of over six per cent in the previous ten-year period.
Odisha, too, has done well in this period, although it had the advantage of a low base of less than four per cent average annual growth in the ten-year period ended 2003-04. But to have clocked 9.5 per cent growth in the following seven years is testimony to Odisha's inherent economic potential and ability to grow fast.
No clear conclusions can be drawn from these data. What does emerge is that states with stable governments have a better chance to grow fast. Bihar, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Odisha and Uttarakhand will fall in that category. Maharashtra may be an exception, as the state has seen changes in leadership and yet it has recorded double-digit growth in the last seven years. But then, how does one explain Gujarat? It has seen the most stable of governments for the last several years. And yet, it has seen its growth hovering at around six per cent for the last seven years. Or is there something more that helps in the emergence of what analysts would like to describe as the breakout states of India?
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/a-k-bhattacharya-indias-breakout-states/473113/
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 8,005
- Likes
- 5,758
Bihar is country's fastest growing state at 13.1%
Bihar is country's fastest growing state at 13.1% - Times Of India
We are the second largest economy in India now...Now time to set sights on Maharashtra.
Bihar is country's fastest growing state at 13.1% - Times Of India
We are the second largest economy in India now...Now time to set sights on Maharashtra.
trackwhack
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 3,757
- Likes
- 2,590
Re: Bihar is country's fastest growing state at 13.1%
However I am not surprised by the growth in TN considering the resourcefulness of Tamilians.
That is an awesome accomplishment considering the challenges TN faces from an agrarian productivity perspective. A vast majority of TN faces water deficit. If TN can lead the way in purification of salt water for irrigation, it can become a true pioneer and triple its agri output in a decade. This will also remove dependence on Karnataka and Kerala.Bihar is country's fastest growing state at 13.1% - Times Of India
We are the second largest economy in India now...Now time to set sights on Maharashtra.
However I am not surprised by the growth in TN considering the resourcefulness of Tamilians.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 8,005
- Likes
- 5,758
Re: Bihar is country's fastest growing state at 13.1%
^^ I am actually surprised that this was accomplished considering the twin problems of water deficit and [a huge] power scarcity in the last year...Things can only get better from here, I hope.
^^ I am actually surprised that this was accomplished considering the twin problems of water deficit and [a huge] power scarcity in the last year...Things can only get better from here, I hope.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Messages
- 495
- Likes
- 275
Re: Bihar is country's fastest growing state at 13.1%
Then the question is which states pulled down growth rate .
Then the question is which states pulled down growth rate .
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
The political problems in AP as Karnataka is clearly reflected in the growth rate. We can feel it. Business is down drastically. Anyone in industrial supplies will be able to tell that Karnataka is going to dogs these days.
Tolaha
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,158
- Likes
- 1,416
Re: Bihar is country's fastest growing state at 13.1%
Some of those states have been mentioned in the article:
Some of those states have been mentioned in the article:
Rahul92
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,622
- Likes
- 752
check out how backward states are fueling India's GDP growth.
The fall in India's GDP growth to just 6.5% in 2011-12 has caused much moaning and groaning, along with a search for silver linings.
The silver linings most often highlighted are falling oil prices - which will reduce both the fiscal and current account deficits - the sharp contraction in gold imports since January and the likely boost to exports from rupee depreciation
Yet, the biggest silver lining lies elsewhere: in the continuing fast growth of India's backward states.
The accompanying table shows that while national GDP has fallen sharply from 8.4% in 2009-10 and 2010-11 to 6.5% in 2011-12, it has fallen less sharply in many backward states, which have often bettered the national average.
Many large, poor states that once pulled down the national average are now pulling it up. That is a revolutionary change. The central government may suffer from policy paralysis, but not all state governments do.
The best performers include not only rich, advanced states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu but many backward ones too. Moreover, the backward ones are still so far behind the prosperous ones that they have immense potential for catching up, without requiring any fancy policy changes.
Some caveats are in order. First, the data for 2011-12 are only estimates, and may be revised down a bit (as has already happened to the national GDP estimate). Second, state data are not of the same quality as central data. Nevertheless, state trends have been strong for several years, adding to their credibility.
The two giant poor states are Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which between them account for 300 million people, or a quarter of India's entire population. The performance of Bihar continues to be mind-boggling, vastly exceeding the national average for three years running.
In 2009-10, despite a major drought, Bihar grew by 10.4%, following up with 14.8% and 13.1% in the next two years. Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh may look panicky and ineffective in New Delhi, but Nitish Kumar looks assured and fully in charge in Bihar. That is an excellent sign.
The record of UP is nowhere near as good. Yet, its performance has improved a lot in recent years, and is now only slightly below the national average. This is a sea change from the old days when Uttar Pradesh grew at half the national rate.
The third-biggest poor state, Madhya Pradesh, was sluggish in most of the last decade, but has accelerated recently. It almost matched or exceeded the national average in 2009-10 (10.5%) and 2010-11 (8.2%). Its growth data for last year is not yet available. Rajasthan, next in size, achieved 5.5% and 10.9% in the two earlier years, with data not available for last year.
Next in size comes Orissa, which has done very well under Naveen Patnaik. It outpaced the national average in the last two years - with 8.6% and 7.2% growth respectively. The Congress often looks defensive and spineless when challenged politically in New Delhi, whereas Patnaik has just quashed a rebellion in Orissa with an iron fist. He has sacked over 20 ministers - some very powerful - for corruption in the last decade. If only New Delhi could do the same!
Chhattisgarh remains a star performer under Raman Singh. A bad drought dragged its GDP growth down to 3.35% in 2009-10 but it bounced back with 11.6% and 10.8% in the next two years. Remember, this state suffers most of all from Maoist insurrection. Yet, it now has a reputation for not just growth but also public distribution and public health systems that work.
The performance of Bihar, Orissa and Chhattisgarh has been amazing for a decade. This can't be said of Jharkhand, the most corrupt and badly-run of the backward states. Naturally, its GDP growth has been below the national average.
Uttarakhand, smallest of the backward states, is a superstar, averaging almost double-digit growth for a decade. But this owed a lot to excise-duty exemption for new industries set up there, and this benefit is now ending. The state's growth has slowed, yet its 8.8% in 2011-12 was far above the national average.
All analysts believe that paralysis in decision-making has held up several projects for mining coal and iron ore. Most of the minerals are in the backward states. Of these, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh have continued to grow fast, showing that progress is possible despite difficulties in land acquisition and environmental clearance. Jharkhand remains in the dumps. Andhra Pradesh has slowed, partly because of a weak state government.
The performance of fast-growing backward states has implications beyond their borders. For decades, politicians have been cynical about economic development. Laloo Yadav famously said that political success depended on caste and religion, not development. He won three elections in a row and almost won a fourth, lending credibility to the thesis that GDP growth was electorally irrelevant.
That thesis is now discredited, thanks to Nitish Kumar, Naveen Patnaik and Raman Singh. They have won repeated elections by delivering fast economic growth. That is a great lesson for all other states and the greatest silver lining in the dark clouds that swirl over India today.
Backward states growing fast, proving good economics can be good politics - Economic Times
The fall in India's GDP growth to just 6.5% in 2011-12 has caused much moaning and groaning, along with a search for silver linings.
The silver linings most often highlighted are falling oil prices - which will reduce both the fiscal and current account deficits - the sharp contraction in gold imports since January and the likely boost to exports from rupee depreciation
Yet, the biggest silver lining lies elsewhere: in the continuing fast growth of India's backward states.
The accompanying table shows that while national GDP has fallen sharply from 8.4% in 2009-10 and 2010-11 to 6.5% in 2011-12, it has fallen less sharply in many backward states, which have often bettered the national average.
Many large, poor states that once pulled down the national average are now pulling it up. That is a revolutionary change. The central government may suffer from policy paralysis, but not all state governments do.
The best performers include not only rich, advanced states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu but many backward ones too. Moreover, the backward ones are still so far behind the prosperous ones that they have immense potential for catching up, without requiring any fancy policy changes.
Some caveats are in order. First, the data for 2011-12 are only estimates, and may be revised down a bit (as has already happened to the national GDP estimate). Second, state data are not of the same quality as central data. Nevertheless, state trends have been strong for several years, adding to their credibility.
The two giant poor states are Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which between them account for 300 million people, or a quarter of India's entire population. The performance of Bihar continues to be mind-boggling, vastly exceeding the national average for three years running.
In 2009-10, despite a major drought, Bihar grew by 10.4%, following up with 14.8% and 13.1% in the next two years. Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh may look panicky and ineffective in New Delhi, but Nitish Kumar looks assured and fully in charge in Bihar. That is an excellent sign.
The record of UP is nowhere near as good. Yet, its performance has improved a lot in recent years, and is now only slightly below the national average. This is a sea change from the old days when Uttar Pradesh grew at half the national rate.
The third-biggest poor state, Madhya Pradesh, was sluggish in most of the last decade, but has accelerated recently. It almost matched or exceeded the national average in 2009-10 (10.5%) and 2010-11 (8.2%). Its growth data for last year is not yet available. Rajasthan, next in size, achieved 5.5% and 10.9% in the two earlier years, with data not available for last year.
Next in size comes Orissa, which has done very well under Naveen Patnaik. It outpaced the national average in the last two years - with 8.6% and 7.2% growth respectively. The Congress often looks defensive and spineless when challenged politically in New Delhi, whereas Patnaik has just quashed a rebellion in Orissa with an iron fist. He has sacked over 20 ministers - some very powerful - for corruption in the last decade. If only New Delhi could do the same!
Chhattisgarh remains a star performer under Raman Singh. A bad drought dragged its GDP growth down to 3.35% in 2009-10 but it bounced back with 11.6% and 10.8% in the next two years. Remember, this state suffers most of all from Maoist insurrection. Yet, it now has a reputation for not just growth but also public distribution and public health systems that work.
The performance of Bihar, Orissa and Chhattisgarh has been amazing for a decade. This can't be said of Jharkhand, the most corrupt and badly-run of the backward states. Naturally, its GDP growth has been below the national average.
Uttarakhand, smallest of the backward states, is a superstar, averaging almost double-digit growth for a decade. But this owed a lot to excise-duty exemption for new industries set up there, and this benefit is now ending. The state's growth has slowed, yet its 8.8% in 2011-12 was far above the national average.
All analysts believe that paralysis in decision-making has held up several projects for mining coal and iron ore. Most of the minerals are in the backward states. Of these, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh have continued to grow fast, showing that progress is possible despite difficulties in land acquisition and environmental clearance. Jharkhand remains in the dumps. Andhra Pradesh has slowed, partly because of a weak state government.
The performance of fast-growing backward states has implications beyond their borders. For decades, politicians have been cynical about economic development. Laloo Yadav famously said that political success depended on caste and religion, not development. He won three elections in a row and almost won a fourth, lending credibility to the thesis that GDP growth was electorally irrelevant.
That thesis is now discredited, thanks to Nitish Kumar, Naveen Patnaik and Raman Singh. They have won repeated elections by delivering fast economic growth. That is a great lesson for all other states and the greatest silver lining in the dark clouds that swirl over India today.
Backward states growing fast, proving good economics can be good politics - Economic Times
Rahul92
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,622
- Likes
- 752
Re: check out how backward states are fueling India's GDP growth.
The Federal States of India
Financial Year 2011
Indian Rupee (Ten Million) US Dollar (Billion) Growth Rate (YoY) %age of Total GDP Per-capita Income (INR)
1 Maharashtra 10,29,621 $224.12 14.23% 14.09% 83,471
2 Uttar Pradesh 5,88,467 $128.09 13.42% 8.05% 26,051
3 Andhra Pradesh 5,67,636 $123.56 19.44% 7.77% 60,458
4 Tamil Nadu 5,47,267 $119.13 17.94% 7.49% 72,993
5 Gujarat 4,81,766 $104.87 12.21% 6.59% 63,961
6 West Bengal 4,43,644 $96.57 10.76% 6.07% 41,469
7 Karnataka 3,98,893 $86.83 15.73% 5.46% 59,763
8 Rajasthan 3,03,358 $66.03 18.76% 4.15% 39,967
9 Kerala 2,68,183 $58.38 16.44% 3.67% 59,179
10 Haryana 2,57,793 $56.12 19.19% 3.53% 92,327
11 Madhya Pradesh 2,40,239 $52.29 10.73% 3.29% 27,250
12 Punjab 2,21,332 $48.18 10.97% 3.03% 67,473
13 Bihar 2,13,073 $46.38 21.59% 2.92% 20,069
14 Orissa 1,86,356 $40.57 14.80% 2.55% 36,923
15 Chhattisgarh 1,29,718 $28.24 18.12% 1.78% 44,097
16 Jharkhand 1,06,696 $23.23 10.76% 1.46% 29,786
17 Assam 1,04,218 $22.69 12.70% 1.43% 30,413
18 Uttrakhand 77,580 $16.89 24.70% 1.06% 68,292
19 Himachal Pradesh 52,426 $11.41 21.13% 0.72% 58,493
20 Jammu & Kashmir 47,709 $10.39 10.35% 0.65% 33,056
21 Goa 29,873 $6.50 15.42% 0.41% 1,32,719
22 Tripura 16,328 $3.55 11.80% 0.22% 38,493
23 Meghalaya 14,645 $3.19 17.14% 0.20% 48,383
24 Nagaland 10,933 $2.38 7.02% 0.15% 21,434
25 Manipur 9,198 $2.00 5.88% 0.13% 29,684
26 Arunachal Pradesh 7,263 $1.58 6.12% 0.10% 51,644
27 Mizoram 6,179 $1.35 9.69% 0.08% 45,982
28 Sikkim 5,652 $1.23 19.24% 0.08% 48,937
The Union Territories of India
Financial Year 2011
State Rank State/Union Territory Indian Rupee (Ten Million) US Dollar (Billion) Growth Rate (YoY) %age of Total GDP Per-capita Income (INR)
1 Delhi 2,58,808 $56.34 18.80% 3.54% 1,16,886
2 Chandigarh 20,704 $4.51 16.54% 0.28% 1,20,912
3 Pondicherry 12,929 $2.81 13.97% 0.18% 82,767
4 Andaman & Nicobar 4,323 $0.94 12.55% 0.06% 74,340
5 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1,984 $0.43 16.20% 0.03% 51,364
6 Daman & Diu 1,220 $0.27 13.60% 0.02% 39,970
7 Lakshadweep 442 $0.10 9.35% 0.01% 51,320
India's Total GSDP 66,66,455 $1,451.12 91.23%
India's Total GDP 73,06,990 $1,590.55
The Federal States of India
Financial Year 2011
Indian Rupee (Ten Million) US Dollar (Billion) Growth Rate (YoY) %age of Total GDP Per-capita Income (INR)
1 Maharashtra 10,29,621 $224.12 14.23% 14.09% 83,471
2 Uttar Pradesh 5,88,467 $128.09 13.42% 8.05% 26,051
3 Andhra Pradesh 5,67,636 $123.56 19.44% 7.77% 60,458
4 Tamil Nadu 5,47,267 $119.13 17.94% 7.49% 72,993
5 Gujarat 4,81,766 $104.87 12.21% 6.59% 63,961
6 West Bengal 4,43,644 $96.57 10.76% 6.07% 41,469
7 Karnataka 3,98,893 $86.83 15.73% 5.46% 59,763
8 Rajasthan 3,03,358 $66.03 18.76% 4.15% 39,967
9 Kerala 2,68,183 $58.38 16.44% 3.67% 59,179
10 Haryana 2,57,793 $56.12 19.19% 3.53% 92,327
11 Madhya Pradesh 2,40,239 $52.29 10.73% 3.29% 27,250
12 Punjab 2,21,332 $48.18 10.97% 3.03% 67,473
13 Bihar 2,13,073 $46.38 21.59% 2.92% 20,069
14 Orissa 1,86,356 $40.57 14.80% 2.55% 36,923
15 Chhattisgarh 1,29,718 $28.24 18.12% 1.78% 44,097
16 Jharkhand 1,06,696 $23.23 10.76% 1.46% 29,786
17 Assam 1,04,218 $22.69 12.70% 1.43% 30,413
18 Uttrakhand 77,580 $16.89 24.70% 1.06% 68,292
19 Himachal Pradesh 52,426 $11.41 21.13% 0.72% 58,493
20 Jammu & Kashmir 47,709 $10.39 10.35% 0.65% 33,056
21 Goa 29,873 $6.50 15.42% 0.41% 1,32,719
22 Tripura 16,328 $3.55 11.80% 0.22% 38,493
23 Meghalaya 14,645 $3.19 17.14% 0.20% 48,383
24 Nagaland 10,933 $2.38 7.02% 0.15% 21,434
25 Manipur 9,198 $2.00 5.88% 0.13% 29,684
26 Arunachal Pradesh 7,263 $1.58 6.12% 0.10% 51,644
27 Mizoram 6,179 $1.35 9.69% 0.08% 45,982
28 Sikkim 5,652 $1.23 19.24% 0.08% 48,937
The Union Territories of India
Financial Year 2011
State Rank State/Union Territory Indian Rupee (Ten Million) US Dollar (Billion) Growth Rate (YoY) %age of Total GDP Per-capita Income (INR)
1 Delhi 2,58,808 $56.34 18.80% 3.54% 1,16,886
2 Chandigarh 20,704 $4.51 16.54% 0.28% 1,20,912
3 Pondicherry 12,929 $2.81 13.97% 0.18% 82,767
4 Andaman & Nicobar 4,323 $0.94 12.55% 0.06% 74,340
5 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1,984 $0.43 16.20% 0.03% 51,364
6 Daman & Diu 1,220 $0.27 13.60% 0.02% 39,970
7 Lakshadweep 442 $0.10 9.35% 0.01% 51,320
India's Total GSDP 66,66,455 $1,451.12 91.23%
India's Total GDP 73,06,990 $1,590.55
Rahul92
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,622
- Likes
- 752
Re: check out how backward states are fueling India's GDP growth.
State Domestic Product of India 2011-12 | State-Wise GDP 2011 | District GDP of India | State-wise Population 2011 | VMW Analytic Services
State Domestic Product of India 2011-12 | State-Wise GDP 2011 | District GDP of India | State-wise Population 2011 | VMW Analytic Services
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 8,005
- Likes
- 5,758
Re: check out how backward states are fueling India's GDP growth.
@post 2:
UP is not India's second biggest economy...TN is.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/economy-infrastructure/37246-bihar-countrys-fastest-growing-state-13-1-a.html
@post 2:
UP is not India's second biggest economy...TN is.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/economy-infrastructure/37246-bihar-countrys-fastest-growing-state-13-1-a.html
parijataka
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 4,916
- Likes
- 3,751
Re: check out how backward states are fueling India's GDP growth.
Bihar has a lot of catching up to do still - its per capita income and literacy are at the last rank. UP is a shade better.
Bihar has a lot of catching up to do still - its per capita income and literacy are at the last rank. UP is a shade better.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 12,835
- Likes
- 7,762
Re: check out how backward states are fueling India's GDP growth.
Bihar's growth is awesome, though it had to start from a low base point. But the other low performing states cant be claimed to be doing great considering they are not doing upto to their potential since they too have a small base to start from.
Bihar's growth is awesome, though it had to start from a low base point. But the other low performing states cant be claimed to be doing great considering they are not doing upto to their potential since they too have a small base to start from.
Re: check out how backward states are fueling India's GDP growth.
Well if you look at the link given by Rahul for the 2011 data or even check out the 2010-11 FY data released by the GoI Economic Survey, then TN comes out to be the 4th largest economy in India. And it has been at this position for the last couple of years
http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2011-12/estat1.pdf (Page 12)
Currently the top five economies is Maha, UP, Andhra Pradesh, TN, Gujarat
So I am not sure where the article got its data from. Indian journalism is quite shoddy at times, and going to source information like GoI released data is the best way to get accurate info.
According to the Economic Survey released in April this year, the values of the economies at current prices for 2010-11 are
Maha - 9.4 lakh crore
UP - 5.2 lakh crore
AP - 5.1 lakh crore
TN - 4.9 lakh crore
Well if you look at the link given by Rahul for the 2011 data or even check out the 2010-11 FY data released by the GoI Economic Survey, then TN comes out to be the 4th largest economy in India. And it has been at this position for the last couple of years
http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2011-12/estat1.pdf (Page 12)
Currently the top five economies is Maha, UP, Andhra Pradesh, TN, Gujarat
So I am not sure where the article got its data from. Indian journalism is quite shoddy at times, and going to source information like GoI released data is the best way to get accurate info.
According to the Economic Survey released in April this year, the values of the economies at current prices for 2010-11 are
Maha - 9.4 lakh crore
UP - 5.2 lakh crore
AP - 5.1 lakh crore
TN - 4.9 lakh crore
Last edited:
