1.Human Development and Growth Experience: Considerations for Uttar Pradesh in the Indian Canvas Sacchidananda Mukherjee, NIPFP Debashis Chakraborty, IIFT For presentation at the Conference on, Education and Health: Special focus on Uttar Pradesh, jointly organized by Glocal University and E&H Foundation to be held during 25 and 26 October, 2013, Saharanpur

2. Structure of Presentation Objective Literature Review Methodology Data Results Concerns for UP Observations 3. Objective Economic growth (EG) since Reforms in 1991 focus on export-orienteddevelopment strategy Growing rural-urban disparity in the growth process Importance of Human development (HD) in manufacturing and services sectorof the economy How to assess HD achievements over the last two decades? Recent HD Policies as part of unilateral initiatives as well as to comply with theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) Education:Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan(proposed) , creation of new IITs, IIMs and several universities etc. Health: National Rural Health Mission, Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana etc. Indirect Implications? Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment GuaranteeAct (MGNREGA) for rural areas, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, the National Food Security Ordinance etc. What has been the Effect of Growth on Human Development over the last twodecades? 4. Literature Review: EQ and HDTwo-way relationship between EG and HD, implying that nations may enter either into a virtuous cycle of high growth and large HD gains (Scandinavian countries), or a vicious cycle of low growth and low HD improvement (several African states, Mexico) (Ranis, 2004; Ranis, et al., 2000; Mayer-Foulkes, 2007).Strength of the EG-HD relationship influenced by public expenditure on social services, female education, investment rate, income distribution etc. (Ramirez et al., 1997).Role of government institutions and the governance mechanism in strengthening EG-HD interrelationship (Amin, undated; Joshi, 2007).Role of social capital formation through development initiatives, in addition to economic growth, in determining the HD augmentation process (Christoforou, 2006).On the other hand, higher initial level of HD may, in turn, augment governance mechanisms (for example, lesser corruption) and indirectly fuel the process of EG (Costantini and Salvatore, 2008)Cutting expenditure on HD without improving services leaves an adverse impact on longrun growth opportunities (Patnaik and Vasudevan, 2002).In a cross-country analysis, HD is positively and linearly related to both political openness and the income level, indicating that the countries characterized by higher levels of income and a better democratic set-up are likely to witness higher HD achievements (Mukherjee and Chakraborty, 2010) . 5. Literature Review: EQ and HD in India NHDR ( 2001) ranked Kerala, Punjab and Tamil Nadu at the top on HDachievement, while Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh were placed at the other extreme. The two-way causality between EG and HD holds good in India as well,which indicates possibilities of vicious cycles (Ghosh, 2006). Non-farm growth process has been more pro-poor in states characterizedby higher HD achievements like a high initial literacy rate, higher farm productivity, higher rural living standards (relative to urban areas), lower landlessness and lower infant mortality (Ravallion and Datt, 2002). Extreme poverty is concentrated in the rural areas of northern Stateswhile income growth has been dynamic in the southern States and urban areas (Antony and Laxmaiah, 2008). Increased investment in human capital formation, with a higher prioritybeing accorded to secondary education, would ensure faster economic growth and better income distribution (Ojha and Pradhan, 2006). 6. Methodology Following NHDR 2001, for calculation of the Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI) for Indian states, three variables - the per capita consumption expenditure, composite index of educational attainment, and composite index of health attainment - are considered. The HDI score for the jth state is given by the average of thenormalized values of the three indicators: namely - inflation and inequality adjusted per capita consumption expenditure (X1); the composite indicator on educational attainment (X2); and the composite indicator on health attainment (X3). The normalization is done by dividing the difference between anyvariable ( Xij) within these categories and the minimum value of Xi to the difference between the maximum and the minimum value of Xi [i.e., (Xij min(Xij))/(max(Xij)-min(Xij))] 7. Data To understand the evolution in EG-HD relationship in India, five periods have been considered - NSSOs quinquennial surveys (38th Round: 1983, 50th Round: 1993-94, 55th Round: 1999-2000, 61st Round: 2004-05 and 66th Round: 2009-10)The analysis has been conducted separately for rural and urban areas.Income: database of the EPW Research Foundation (EPWRF, 2009), State Domestic Product (State Series), Central Statistical Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of IndiaEducation: Population Census (1981, 1991 and 2001), 4th All-India Educational Survey (NCERT, 1982); 6th All-India Educational Survey (NCERT, 1999), 7th All India Educational Survey (NCERT, 2002), 8th All India School Education Survey (NCERT, 2013), NCERT (2006), Government of India (undated), Registrar General of India and Census Commissioner (RGI & CC, 2006) for 2001.Health: Government of India (2002), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Office of the Registrar General of India (1999), Sample Registration System (SRS) Bulletins (various issues).Three new states, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand were created from Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in 2001. For periods before 2001, we have assumed the values of the variables are same for both the new and the existing states. 8. Modified Indicator of Income (X1) UNDP methodology, the real GDP Per Capita in PPP USD is considered forconstructing the HDI. NHDR (2001) instead preferred the inflation- and inequality-adjusted averagemonthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) of a state, which has been adopted in the current framework. The current analysis also considers inflation- and inequality-adjusted MPCE of astate as an indicator of consumption (X1) for constructing the HDI. In order to understand the size of the economy and growth pattern of each ofthe states, we have classified them into three categories with respect to their PCGSDP at constant prices in the following manner: high-income states (PCGSDP: greater than the 3rd quartile), medium-income states (PCGSDP: 1st to the 3rd quartile) and low-income states (PCGSDP: lesser than the 1st quartile). In order to even out the yearly fluctuations in the per capita GSDP, the currentanalysis considers the three years average per capita GSDP - for 1983 (average for 1981-82 to 1983-84), for 1993 (average for 1992-93 to 1994-95), for 19992000 (average for 1998-99 to 2000-01), for 2004-05 (average for 2003-04 to 2005-06) and for 2009-10 (average for 2008-09 to 2010-11). 9. Composite indicator on educational attainment (X2) Two variables are considered, namely, the literacy rate for theage group of 7 years and above (e1), and the adjusted intensity of formal education (e2). The analysis assigns a weightage of 0.35 to e1 and of 0.65 to e2to estimate X2, in line with the NHDR, 2001 methodology. Intensity of Formal Education (IFE) is the Weighted Average ofEnrolment (WAE) of students from class I to class XII (where weight 1 is assigned for Class I, 2 for Class II, and so on) expressed as percentage of Total Enrolment (TE) in Class I to Class XII. The IFE is multiplied with the ratio of Total Enrolment (TE) toPopulation in the age group 6-18 years (PC ) to get the Adjusted Intensity of Formal Education (AIFE). The analysis has been conducted for rural and urban areasseparately. 10. Composite indicator on health attainment (X3) Composite indicator on health attainment (X3) isdetermined by taking into account two variables, namely, Life Expectancy (LE) at age one (h1), and the inverse of Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) (h2). The current analysis assigns weightages of 0.65 and0.35 to h1 and h2 respectively, to determine the composite indicator (X3), in line with the NHDR 2001 methodology. Here again, the analysis has been carried out for ruraland urban areas, separately. 11. State-wise Consumption Index (X1) Scores and Ranks 1983States / UTs Rural1993-94 UrbanRural1999-2000 UrbanRural2009-102004-05UrbanRuralUrbanRuralUrbanAndhra Pradesh0.223(18)0.163(20)0.221(15)0.000(28)0.104(20)0.053(21)0.130(26)0.422(19)0.162(24)0.531(11)Arunachal Pradesh0.407(9)0.269(11)0.200(17)0.570(6)0.315(10)0.225(15)0.634(5)0.197(26)0.516(12)0.261(24)Assam0.407(9)0.269(11)0.153(19)0.434(9)0.074(22)0.265(13)0.452(14)0.376(21)0.332(17)0.284(23)Bihar0.000(27)0.044(25)0.004(25)0.080(22)0.056(23)0.032(26)0.201(21)0.093(27)0.122(26)0.176(27)Chhattisgarh0.038(24)0.110(23)0.012(23)0.003(26)0.000(27)0.038(24)0.000(28)0.584(11)0.000(28)0.490(13)Goa0.958(2)0.758(2)0.988(2)0.383(11)0.750(2)0.499(5)0.628(6)0.973(2)0.694(3)1.000(1)Gujarat0.358(15)0.506(6)0.219(16)0.279(15)0.216(15)0.301(10)0.171(24)0.756(5)0.268(19)0.717(6)Haryana0.732(4)0.392(7)0.301(10)0.299(13)0.384(7)0.275(12)0.582(8)0.413(20)0.581(8)0.422(18)Himachal Pradesh0.767(3)1.000(1)0.229(14)0.626(5)0.335(9)0.590(4)0.550(11)0.966(3)0.737(2)0.727(5)Jammu & Kashmir0.564(6)0.294(10)0.390(8)0.456(8)0.425(6)0.366(7)0.721(4)0.596(10)0.691(4)0.414(20)Jharkhand0.000(27)0.044(25)0.004(25)0.080(22)0.056(23)0.032(26)0.274(18)0.600(9)0.252(22)0.342(21)Karnataka0.237(17)0.218(17)0.125(21)0.087(21)0.153(18)0.182(19)0.206(19)0.602(8)0.253(21)0.709(7)Kerala0.520(7)0.214(18)0.436(5)0.355(12)0.502(4)0.290(11)1.000(1)1.000(1)1.000(1)0.970(2)Madhya Pradesh0.038(24)0.110(23)0.012(23)0.003(26)0.000(27)0.038(24)0.061(27)0.485(15)0.076(27)0.572(10)Maharashtra0.181(19)0.367(9)0.105(22)0.258(16)0.153(17)0.206(17)0.152(25)0.749(6)0.302(18)0.820(3)Manipur0.497(8)0.253(15)0.375(9)0.177(17)0.265(11)0.255(14)0.423(15)0.000(28)0.263(20)0.000(28)Meghalaya0.407(9)0.269(11)0.403(7)0.775(3)0.357(8)0.631(3)0.752(3)0.341(23)0.578(9)0.210(26)Mizoram0.625(5)0.753(3)0.744(3)1.000(1)0.574(3)0.689(2)0.562(10)0.495(14)0.411(15)0.471(15)Nagaland0.407(9)0.582(5)1.000(1)0.805(2)1.000(1)1.000(1)0.853(2)0.729(7)0.499(14)0.230(25)Orissa0.032(26)0.153(22)0.165(18)0.108(19)0.083(21)0.000(28)0.173(23)0.441(16)0.393(16)0.579(9)Punjab1.000(1)0.382(8)0.532(4)0.402(10)0.426(5)0.308(9)0.613(7)0.497(13)0.638(6)0.448(17)Rajasthan0.264(16)0.210(19)0.135(20)0.154(18)0.147(19)0.146(20)0.206(20)0.432(17)0.204(23)0.488(14)Sikkim0.407(9)0.662(4)0.280(11)0.710(4)0.224(14)0.460(6)0.519(12)0.238(25)0.689(5)0.630(8)Tamil Nadu0.113(20)0.158(21)0.268(13)0.102(20)0.257(12)0.198(18)0.453(13)0.811(4)0.564(10)0.799(4)Tripura0.407(9)0.269(11)0.416(6)0.548(7)0.253(13)0.365(8)0.352(16)0.351(22)0.601(7)0.524(12)Uttar Pradesh0.080(22)0.000(27)0.000(27)0.058(24)0.044(25)0.046(22)0.183(22)0.290(24)0.128(25)0.328(22)Uttarakhand0.080(22)0.000(27)0.000(27)0.058(24)0.044(25)0.046(22)0.301(17)0.429(18)0.527(11)0.419(19)West Bengal0.093(21)0.247(16)0.275(12)0.281(14)0.185(16)0.215(16)0.568(9)0.541(12)0.511(13)0.460(16) 12. State-wise Education Index (X2) Scores and Ranks States / UTs1983 Rural1993-94 UrbanRural1999-2000 UrbanRural2009-102004-05UrbanRuralUrbanRuralUrbanAndhra Pradesh0.087(23)0.165(22)0.088(25)0.515(25)0.272(22)0.237(23)0.267(23)0.198(25)0.001(27)0.195(24)Arunachal Pradesh0.000(27)0.238(20)0.128(20)0.656(15)0.138(25)0.408(12)0.142(25)0.452(12)0.029(26)0.731(5)Bihar0.343 0.084(12) (24)0.449 0.140(11) (23)0.323 0.047(15) (26)0.766 0.524(8) (22)0.358 0.000(17) (28)0.507 0.010(10) (27)0.357 0.000(17) (28)0.525 0.011(8) (26)0.229 0.000(18) (28)0.502 0.158(11) (26)Chhattisgarh0.109(21)0.259(18)0.100(21)0.644(18)0.385(14)0.387(16)0.390(14)0.403(13)0.185(20)0.436(12)Goa Haryana0.683 0.363 0.254(3) (10) (15)0.566 0.470 0.333(7) (10) (15)0.737 0.392 0.337(2) (11) (13)0.836 0.739 0.659(6) (11) (14)0.743 0.347 0.446(3) (19) (12)0.563 0.318 0.339(7) (19) (18)0.736 0.342 0.432(3) (20) (12)0.523 0.296 0.298(9) (19) (18)0.629 0.330 0.335(4) (14) (12)0.555 0.392 0.283(10) (16) (22)Himachal Pradesh0.467(4)0.746(4)0.565(4)0.944(3)0.721(4)1.000(1)0.699(4)0.999(2)0.664(3)1.000(1)Jammu & Kashmir0.077(26)0.000(28)0.138(19)0.000(28)0.128(26)0.028(26)0.121(26)0.000(28)0.106(23)0.000(28)Jharkhand0.084(24)0.140(23)0.047(26)0.524(22)0.039(27)0.248(22)0.050(27)0.294(20)0.045(24)0.216(23)Karnataka0.254(16)0.381(13)0.299(16)0.674(13)0.369(16)0.392(15)0.360(16)0.366(15)0.206(19)0.425(13)Kerala1.000(1)1.000(1)1.000(1)0.988(2)1.000(1)0.877(3)1.000(1)0.779(4)1.000(1)0.715(6)Madhya Pradesh0.109(21)0.259(18)0.100(21)0.644(18)0.309(20)0.355(17)0.347(19)0.504(10)0.122(22)0.392(17)Maharashtra0.391(8)0.591(6)0.447(5)0.746(10)0.613(5)0.582(6)0.603(5)0.577(7)0.462(9)0.604(8)Manipur0.396(6)0.311(17)0.444(6)0.648(17)0.497(10)0.405(13)0.488(9)0.377(14)0.462(8)0.399(15)Meghalaya0.213(18)0.553(8)0.185(18)0.798(7)0.285(21)0.756(4)0.302(21)0.893(3)0.250(17)0.888(3)Mizoram0.804(2)0.994(2)0.701(3)1.000(1)0.759(2)0.919(2)0.771(2)1.000(1)0.594(5)0.990(2)Nagaland0.413(5)0.719(5)0.420(10)0.840(5)0.351(18)0.530(8)0.375(15)0.607(6)0.334(13)0.734(4)Orissa Punjab0.259 0.348(14) (11)0.226 0.319(21) (16)0.261 0.387(17) (12)0.610 0.617(21) (20)0.369 0.459(15) (11)0.315 0.228(21) (24)0.356 0.451(18) (10)0.290 0.212(22) (24)0.269 0.295(16) (15)0.382 0.319(18) (19)Rajasthan0.000(28)0.051(25)0.000(28)0.515(24)0.262(23)0.205(25)0.278(22)0.261(23)0.033(25)0.170(25)Sikkim0.237(17)0.334(14)0.421(9)0.713(12)0.533(8)0.393(14)0.554(8)0.346(16)0.559(6)0.285(21)Tamil Nadu0.394(7)0.546(9)0.436(8)0.764(9)0.520(9)0.519(9)0.440(11)0.314(17)0.380(10)0.585(9)Tripura0.385(9)0.896(3)0.440(7)0.851(4)0.574(6)0.693(5)0.582(6)0.672(5)0.686(2)0.661(7)Uttar Pradesh0.110(19)0.030(26)0.100(23)0.436(26)0.222(24)0.000(28)0.225(24)0.011(27)0.163(21)0.013(27)Uttarakhand0.110(19)0.030(26)0.100(23)0.436(26)0.573(7)0.472(11)0.573(7)0.467(11)0.495(7)0.424(14)West Bengal0.294(13)0.391(12)0.332(14)0.650(16)0.441(13)0.318(20)0.431(13)0.293(21)0.338(11)0.289(20)AssamGujarat 13. State-wise Health Index (X3) Scores and Ranks States / UTs1983 Rural1993-94 UrbanRural1999-2000 UrbanRural2009-102004-05UrbanRuralUrbanRuralUrbanAndhra Pradesh0.424(7)0.583(8)0.379(8)0.315(11)0.377(11)0.361(11)0.375(11)0.354(11)0.377(9)0.358(9)Arunachal Pradesh0.126(20)0.233(22)0.096(26)0.234(19)0.080(23)0.328(14)0.081(24)0.328(14)0.076(22)0.341(11)Bihar0.126 0.172(19) (12)0.233 0.311(20) (11)0.096 0.268(25) (11)0.234 0.371(20) (9)0.080 0.240(26) (13)0.324 0.342(21) (13)0.081 0.237(26) (14)0.326 0.326(19) (21)0.075 0.238(26) (12)0.339 0.329(16) (19)Chhattisgarh0.066(23)0.243(14)0.000(27)0.129(23)0.000(27)0.102(25)0.000(27)0.093(25)0.000(27)0.103(24)Goa Haryana0.520 0.379 0.515(3) (8) (5)0.602 0.282 0.796(7) (13) (4)0.470 0.348 0.475(4) (10) (3)0.638 0.161 0.500(3) (22) (6)0.492 0.365 0.502(6) (12) (5)0.667 0.241 0.499(3) (23) (8)0.498 0.358 0.502(6) (12) (5)0.672 0.233 0.484(2) (23) (8)0.501 0.354 0.511(4) (10) (3)0.681 0.245 0.489(2) (21) (8)Himachal Pradesh0.000(28)0.000(25)0.141(14)0.000(25)0.588(4)0.472(9)0.594(4)0.466(9)0.151(15)0.001(26)Jammu & Kashmir0.000(25)0.000(25)0.141(14)0.000(25)0.588(3)0.471(10)0.594(3)0.466(10)0.151(16)0.000(27)Jharkhand0.172(12)0.311(11)0.268(11)0.371(9)0.240(14)0.342(12)0.237(13)0.326(18)0.238(11)0.330(18)Karnataka0.505(6)0.903(3)0.389(7)0.436(8)0.405(9)0.528(7)0.404(9)0.521(7)0.412(7)0.518(7)Kerala1.000(1)0.952(2)1.000(1)1.000(1)1.000(1)1.000(1)1.000(1)1.000(1)1.000(1)1.000(1)Madhya Pradesh0.066(23)0.243(14)0.000(27)0.129(23)0.000(28)0.102(26)0.000(28)0.093(26)0.000(28)0.103(23)Maharashtra0.520(4)0.602(6)0.470(5)0.637(4)0.491(7)0.666(4)0.496(7)0.671(3)0.499(5)0.678(3)Manipur0.127(15)0.234(16)0.097(19)0.235(14)0.081(20)0.325(17)0.083(19)0.327(15)0.077(19)0.342(10)Meghalaya0.126(17)0.233(19)0.096(24)0.235(14)0.080(25)0.324(18)0.081(25)0.326(20)0.075(25)0.339(17)Mizoram0.126(16)0.234(17)0.096(21)0.235(16)0.081(20)0.326(15)0.082(21)0.328(12)0.076(24)0.340(12)Nagaland0.126(18)0.234(18)0.096(20)0.234(17)0.081(19)0.326(16)0.082(20)0.328(13)0.076(20)0.340(15)Orissa Punjab0.187 0.656(11) (2)0.175 1.000(24) (1)0.126 0.672(18) (2)0.258 0.718(12) (2)0.125 0.685(18) (2)0.231 0.675(24) (2)0.121 0.687(18) (2)0.223 0.670(24) (4)0.128 0.691(18) (2)0.226 0.677(22) (4)Rajasthan0.167(14)0.320(10)0.192(13)0.242(13)0.228(15)0.277(22)0.225(15)0.270(22)0.232(13)0.282(20)Sikkim0.126(20)0.233(23)0.096(22)0.234(18)0.080(24)0.324(18)0.081(22)0.327(16)0.076(23)0.340(14)Tamil Nadu0.298(10)0.456(9)0.429(6)0.476(7)0.462(8)0.536(6)0.462(8)0.531(6)0.459(6)0.527(6)Tripura0.126(22)0.233(21)0.096(23)0.234(21)0.080(22)0.324(18)0.081(22)0.326(17)0.076(21)0.340(13)Uttar Pradesh0.000(26)0.000(27)0.141(16)0.000(27)0.148(17)0.000(28)0.150(17)0.000(28)0.151(17)0.000(28)Uttarakhand0.000(26)0.000(27)0.141(16)0.000(27)0.148(16)0.001(27)0.150(16)0.001(27)0.151(14)0.001(25)West Bengal0.323(9)0.690(5)0.374(9)0.516(5)0.394(10)0.545(5)0.393(10)0.549(5)0.401(8)0.555(5)AssamGujarat 14. Observations X1: Stark difference in terms of consumption pattern within thestates. In 2009-10, while Arunachal Pradesh was ranked 24th in terms ofurban consumption, it was ranked 12th in terms of rural consumption scores. On the other hand, during the same year, while Maharashtra ranked 3rd in terms of urban consumption, it was ranked 18th in terms of rural consumption scores. Marked transformation in relative positions - while Keralasranking has improved over the period 1983-2005, the same has deteriorated for the urban sector in Haryana. X2: Rural-Urban disparities - in 2009-10, Chattisgarh secured the12th ranking in terms of urban educational achievements, but it was placed in the 20th position in terms of performance in the rural belt. X3: Intra-state divergence - in 2009-10, while Gujarat ranked 21stin terms of urban health achievements, it has been ranked 10th in terms of rural health scores. 15. State-wise Human Development Index Scores and Ranks States / UTs1983 Rural1993-94 UrbanRural1999-2000 UrbanRural2009-102004-05UrbanRuralUrbanRuralUrbanAndhra Pradesh0.245(17)0.303(17)0.229(16)0.277(23)0.251(18)0.217(20)0.257(21)0.325(21)0.180(22)0.361(19)Arunachal Pradesh0.178(20)0.247(19)0.141(21)0.487(11)0.178(22)0.320(17)0.286(20)0.325(20)0.207(21)0.444(12)Bihar0.292 0.085(13) (23)0.317 0.165(16) (24)0.191 0.106(19) (23)0.478 0.325(14) (20)0.171 0.098(23) (28)0.365 0.128(14) (27)0.297 0.146(18) (26)0.409 0.143(14) (27)0.212 0.120(20) (26)0.375 0.221(18) (26)Chhattisgarh0.071(25)0.204(20)0.037(27)0.259(24)0.128(25)0.175(24)0.130(28)0.360(18)0.062(28)0.343(21)Goa Haryana0.720 0.366 0.500(2) (7) (5)0.642 0.419 0.507(3) (12) (8)0.732 0.320 0.371(2) (10) (7)0.619 0.393 0.486(4) (17) (12)0.661 0.310 0.444(2) (12) (7)0.576 0.287 0.371(5) (19) (12)0.620 0.290 0.505(2) (19) (5)0.723 0.428 0.398(3) (13) (16)0.608 0.317 0.476(2) (13) (5)0.745 0.451 0.398(2) (11) (16)Himachal Pradesh0.411(6)0.582(4)0.312(12)0.523(10)0.548(3)0.687(2)0.615(3)0.811(2)0.517(4)0.576(6)Jammu & Kashmir0.214(19)0.098(26)0.223(18)0.152(28)0.380(10)0.288(18)0.479(6)0.354(19)0.316(14)0.138(27)Jharkhand0.085(23)0.165(24)0.106(23)0.325(20)0.112(26)0.207(22)0.187(24)0.407(15)0.178(23)0.296(23)Karnataka0.332(10)0.501(9)0.271(14)0.399(16)0.309(13)0.367(13)0.323(17)0.497(9)0.290(17)0.551(7)Kerala0.840(1)0.722(1)0.812(1)0.781(1)0.834(1)0.722(1)1.000(1)0.926(1)1.000(1)0.895(1)Madhya Pradesh0.071(25)0.204(20)0.037(27)0.259(24)0.103(27)0.165(26)0.136(27)0.361(17)0.066(27)0.356(20)Maharashtra0.364(8)0.520(6)0.340(8)0.547(8)0.419(8)0.485(7)0.417(11)0.666(4)0.421(9)0.701(3)Manipur0.340(9)0.266(18)0.305(13)0.353(18)0.281(15)0.328(16)0.331(16)0.235(26)0.267(18)0.247(25)Meghalaya0.249(16)0.352(15)0.228(17)0.603(5)0.241(19)0.570(6)0.378(13)0.520(8)0.301(16)0.479(10)Mizoram0.518(4)0.660(2)0.514(4)0.745(2)0.471(6)0.645(3)0.472(7)0.608(5)0.360(12)0.600(5)Nagaland0.315(11)0.512(7)0.505(5)0.627(3)0.477(5)0.619(4)0.437(10)0.555(6)0.303(15)0.434(14)Orissa Punjab0.159 0.668(21) (3)0.185 0.567(23) (5)0.184 0.530(20) (3)0.325 0.579(19) (6)0.193 0.523(21) (4)0.182 0.404(23) (10)0.217 0.583(23) (4)0.318 0.460(23) (11)0.263 0.541(19) (3)0.396 0.481(17) (9)Rajasthan0.144(22)0.194(22)0.109(22)0.304(22)0.212(20)0.209(21)0.236(22)0.321(22)0.156(24)0.313(22)Sikkim0.257(15)0.410(13)0.266(15)0.552(7)0.279(16)0.392(11)0.385(12)0.304(24)0.441(8)0.418(15)Tamil Nadu0.268(14)0.387(14)0.378(6)0.447(15)0.413(9)0.418(9)0.451(9)0.552(7)0.468(6)0.637(4)Tripura0.306(12)0.466(10)0.317(11)0.544(9)0.302(14)0.461(8)0.338(15)0.450(12)0.454(7)0.508(8)Uttar Pradesh0.064(27)0.010(27)0.080(25)0.165(26)0.138(24)0.015(28)0.186(25)0.101(28)0.147(25)0.114(28)Uttarakhand0.064(27)0.010(27)0.080(25)0.165(26)0.255(17)0.173(25)0.341(14)0.299(25)0.391(11)0.281(24)West Bengal0.237(18)0.443(11)0.327(9)0.482(13)0.340(11)0.359(15)0.464(8)0.461(10)0.416(10)0.435(13)AssamGujarat 16. Observations It has been observed from the table that the HD level has beenconsistently high for states like Kerala, Goa, Mizoram, and Himachal Pradesh, which are otherwise also performing well in the constituent categories. On the other hand, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar,and Orissa have always remained among the bottom liners. Some interesting movement across the states has been noticed over theperiod of analysis. For instance, Punjab and Haryana started with an appreciable HDscenario in 1983, but their performance in the urban areas declined considerably during the last period. A similar worsening effect has been noticed for Arunachal Pradesh atthe bottom end of the spectrum as well. On the other hand, J&K and West Bengal managed to improve their HDlevel to some extent over the period. Interestingly, Jharkhand has shown a marked improvement in terms ofHD achievements in the urban belt after its separation from Bihar. 17. Relationship between HDI and PCGSDP across Indian States HDI Score vs. PCGDP: 1993HDI Score vs. PCGDP: 19830.8000.7000.7000.6000.600 HDI Score0.9000.800HDI Score0.9000.500 0.4000.500 0.4000.3000.3000.2000.2000.1000.1000.000 5,0000.000 7,0009,00011,00013,00015,00017,00019,0005,00010,00015,000PCGDP (Rs.) RuralUrbanRuralLog. (Rural)30,000UrbanLog. (Urban)Log. (Rural)HDI Score vs. PCGDP: 2004-05 1.0000.9000.9000.8000.8000.7000.700 HDI Score0.600 HDI Score25,000PCGDP (Rs.)Log. (Urban)HDI Score vs. PCGDP: 1999-20000.500 0.400 0.3000.600 0.500 0.400 0.3000.2000.2000.1000.1000.000 5,00020,0000.000 10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,0005,00010,00015,00020,00025,000PCGDP (Rs.) RuralUrbanLog. (Urban)30,00035,00040,00045,00050,000PCGDP (Rs.) Log. (Rural)RuralUrbanLog. (Urban)Log. (Rural)55,000 18. Relationship between HDI and PCGSDP across Indian States (2009-10) 19. Observations Positive relationship between EG and HD has been observed during all the five periods under consideration. Relationship between EG and HD is non-linear in nature, that is, the rising level of income is associated with a lesser degree of increase in terms of HD achievements beyond a critical level. Barring a few exceptions, the urban HDI score is generally higher than the rural HDI score for all the periods in the current analysis. On one hand in the case of Goa, a high-income state, the rural HDI score has been found to be higher than the urban HDI score for the years 1983, 1993 and 1999-2000, but an opposite scenario emerges in 2004-05. On the other hand, for high-income states like Punjab and Haryana (1999-2000, 2004-05), the rural HDI score is higher than urban HDI score. 20. Scenario in UP: Rural Education 21. Scenario in UP: Urban Literacy 22. Characteristics on Human development parameters Profiles of Select States CriteriaYear 2011 2011Uttar Pradesh 199.58 22.28Andhra Pradesh 84.67 33.49Population (in Million) Urban Population (% of Total Population) Literacy Rate (7 Years & Above): Rural Literacy Rate (7 Years & Above): Urban Per Capita NSDP (at Constant Prices, 2004-05 Base, Rs.) Percentage of Population Below Poverty Line: Rural Percentage of Population Below Poverty Line: Urban HDI Score: Rural HDI Score: Urban Gini Ratio of Per Capita Consumption Expenditure: Rural Gini Ratio of Per Capita Consumption Expenditure: Urban Unemployment Rate: Rural Unemployment Rate: Urban Infant Mortality Rate (Per Thousand): Rural Infant Mortality Rate (Per Thousand): Urban Average Per Capita Social Sector Expenditure (Rs.) Average Per Capita Development Expenditure (Rs.)201167.552011BiharMadhya Pradesh 72.60 27.63Chhatti sgarh 25.54 23.24OdishaKerala103.80 11.30Rajastha n 68.62 24.8941.95 16.6833.39 47.7261.1461.8362.3465.2966.7670.7892.9277.0180.5478.7580.7384.0984.7986.4594.992011-1218,09942,68513,97127,42124,59829,63526,90053,4272009-1039.3622.7555.3326.4241.9856.1339.2012.002009-1031.6717.7039.4019.9422.9223.7925.9312.072009-10 2009-10 2009-100.147 0.114 0.2310.180 0.361 0.2690.120 0.221 0.2150.156 0.313 0.2130.066 0.356 0.2760.062 0.343 0.2340.263 0.396 0.2481.000 0.895 0.3502009-100.3950.3530.3160.3160.3650.3050.3760.3992009-10 2009-10 20091.0 2.9 661.2 3.1 542.0 7.3 530.4 2.2 650.7 2.9 720.6 2.9 553.0 4.2 687.5 7.3 12200947354035454746112005-101,6853,1551,5972,4721,2523,3962,3482,8212005-102,6285,5472,2173,4502,0484,4493,1453,727 23. Some Observations .. Relationship Development expenditure and HD (Mukherjee and Chakraborty, 2011) The association between per capita development/social expenditure and HD wasstronger during the early 1980s and 1990s, but the same became weaker during 2004-05. PCSE had a larger impact on HD as compared to PCDE. The association between PCSE/PCDE and achievement in HD has been stronger inurban areas as compared to rural areas. On policy front, the lower value of the expenditure coefficients in the rural areasindicates the presence of a vicious cycle, owing to the lower initial HD scenario and other bottlenecks, which deserve immediate government attention. Therefore, the state governments need to urgently acknowledge the underlyingrelationship between development expenditures and human development, on one hand, and the relationship between human development and economic growth, on the other. Fiscal Space? In 2004-05, both the middle- and high-income states registered anincrement in the tax-GSDP ratio; but in the low-income states, this figure declined Inequality - Role of government in ensuring balanced growth process