Comparison of Human Development of Gujarat with other Indian States

Comparison of Human Development of Gujarat with other Indian States

Chapter 5 : Comparison of Human Development of Gujarat with other Indian States 5.1 Calculation of GUIDEs for Selected Indian States 5.2 Comparison of Economic Development 5.3 Comparison of Education Development 5.4 Comparison of Health Development 5.5 Comparison of Amenities Development 5.6 Comparison of Infrastructure Development 5.7 Comparison of Level of Environment Protection 5.8 Comparison of human development in selected Indian States 88

Chapter 5 Comparison of Human Development of Gujarat with other Indian States 5.1 Calculation of GUIDES for Selected Indian States The ranking of human development of Indian states is being done on the basis of HDIs calculated by the Planning Commission of India/the state Governments because this has been the only measure available for human development so far. This thesis provides GUIDE as another measure of human development. As discussed in the previous Chapter, GUIDE is a superior measure of human development than HDI. A comparison of the ranking of human development of selected Indian states by using GUIDES and HDIs will further establish the superiority of GUIDE over HDI as a measure of human development. Since values of HDIs of Indian states are available only for the year 2007-08 from NHDR 2011, we need to have values of GUIDES of Indian states for the same year. Further for making this comparison meaningful, we need to restrict the interstate comparison to the selected states having healthy track record of human development. Taking advantage of the flexibility of GUIDE with regards to selection of determinants as well as indicators of human development, data (to the extent available) on the actual achievements of indicators has been gathered for the year 2007-08 from secondary sources and GUIDES of selected states of India have been calculated so as to compare the ranking of human development in these states on the basis of GUIDES as well as the HDI based rankings given in IHDR, 2011. This data is given in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Human Development Indicator Values for selected states for the year 2007-08 Indicator Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Kerala Maharashtra Punjab Tamil Nadu Per Capita NSDP (1) 50,016 58,090 42,076 45,700 57,218 49,422 47,654 Growth Rate - GSDP (1) 16.07 18.55 12.19 11.69 16.72 20.49 12.80 Growth rate of Agriculture Sector (1) Growth rate of NSDP in Industry (1) 16.73 0.97 12.96-4.52 10.37 3.90-7.10 (11) 9.15 13.31 10.02 8.14 9.92 3.35 Enrolment Ratio (1) 106.0 84.8 112.7 95.2 96.1 83.6 114.8 89

Indicator Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Kerala Maharashtra Punjab Tamil Nadu Drop-out Rates in I-X (1) % of schools with building (3) % of schools with water facility (3) % of schools with Electricity (3) 59.11 36.43 30.21 0.00 46.17 49.99 37.73 98.88 99.35 99.83 99.37 99.61 99.43 99.96 85.62 97.18 92.93 97.73 85.30 97.50 100 77.49 94.97 55.40 88.53 65.89 84.51 71.74 IMR(l) 48 51 45 12 31 38 28 Maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births) (5) 148 153 (150) 81 104 172 97 Total Fertility Rate (1) 2.6 2.6 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.6 % of villages having govt, health facilities (6) Beds per 1 Lac Population (6) Percentage of Institutional Deliveries (6) % of villages/ households electrified (7) % of villages having access to clean drinking water (7) % of household having toilet (7) Per capita electricity consumption (4) 46.9 49.1 49.1 99.8 42.6 43.8 61.8 53 32 123 85 28 40 72 56.4 46.8 48.3 99.4 63.5 63.1 94 85.4 92.4 98.2 91.8 77.6 98.4 91.2 89.8 96 90.3 28.8 81.7 99.5 94.7 43.5 56.3 55.9 96.7 47.4 75.9 39.3 1486 (1200) (1250) (500) 1020 1614 (1100) T&D Loss in % (1) 25 33 16 22 29 22 18 Road length per 100 sq km (2) Surfaced roads as % of total roads (2) Proportion of land area covered by forest (8) 74.80 67.24 65.20 526.87 72.57 89.71 139.33 90.24 93.19 58.4 56.87 79.72 82.97 81.31 7.46 3.61 26.35 44.58 16.46 3.3 17.94 90

Note 1: The data in bracket in columns containing names of states are either of preceding year or of succeeding year. Note 2: The figures mentioned in bracket in the Indicator column of above Table 5.1 represent the sources of data and the details of these sources are given below. Sources of data: (1) Data taken from Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission of India; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in) (2) Basic Road Statistics of India, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08; Government of India Ministry Of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Research Wing, New Delhi, July 2010 (3) Elementary Education in India, Facilities in schools, Part 2, Analytical Tables 2007-08 (4) Central Electricity Authority s year end review 2007-08 (5) Special Bulletin on Maternal Mortality in India 2007-09, Sample Registration System Office of Registrar General, India, Vital Statistics Division, New Delhi-110 066, June, 2011 (6) National Health Profile 2008, Government of India (7) District Level Household and Facility Survey 200708, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai (8) India State of Forest Report, 2009, Forest Survey of India) Over and above the data included in Table 5.1, data on the achievements of economic development indicators of selected Indian states have also been extracted for the years from 2001-02 to 2009-10 from the Website of the Planning Commission of India so that Income GUIDEs can be calculated for the selected Indian states from the year 2001-02 to 2009-10 so as to make the interstate comparison more meaningful. This data is presented in Table 5.2 to 5.8. Table 5.2: Economic Development Indicator achievement Values for Gujarat from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Year/Indicator 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 19,823 22,683 26,922 32,021 37,780 43,395 50,016 55,140 63,961 Growth Rate - GSDP Growth rate of Agriculture Sector Growth rate of NSDP in Industry 11.19 14.53 18.76 21.00 20.34 15.92 16.07 11.68 16.75 30.64-6.83 39.89-6.76 22.31-2.45 16.73 Avg 18.12 Avg 18.12-2.09 17.72 12.50 15.19 10.66 12.48 11 11 11 (Source; Data taken from Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission of India; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in) 91

Table 5.3: Economic Development Indicator achievement Values for Haryana from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Year/Indicator 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 27,998 30,413 34,099 37,842 42,133 49,892 58,090 67,757 78,781 Growth Rate - GSDP Growth rate of Agriculture Sector Growth rate of NSDP in Industry 12.58 10.72 14.25 15.03 13.79 19.99 18.55 18.56 18.25-0.14-1.13 7.73 3.37-1.68 14.47 0.97 3.47 3.08 5.36 6.04 9.42 8.63 7.94 8.98 9.15 2.87 6.27 (Source; Data taken from Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission of India; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in) Table 5.4: Economic Development Indicator achievement Values for Himachal from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Year/Indicator 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 24,608 26,627 28,333 32,564 35,850 38,931 42,076 46,019 50,365 Growth Rate - GSDP Growth rate of Agriculture Sector Growth rate of NSDP in Industry 9.49 10.25 9.61 16.20 12.67 11.60 12.19 13.57 12.21 8.38 2.41 11.50 1.57-0.12-4.37 12.96-3.09 3.65 0.15 6.57 8.83 15.69 11.41 2.72 13.31 10.16 8.6 (Source; Data taken from Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission of India; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in) Table 5.5: Economic Development Indicator achievement Values for Kerala from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Year/Indicator 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 21,257 23,482 25,995 31,871 36.276 40,419 45,700 52,012 59,179 Growth Rate - GSDP Growth rate of Agriculture Sector Growth rate of NSDP in Industry 9.52 0.10 18.43 9.81 10.05 16.34 11.69 15.52 16.31 1.40 1.86-1.39 5.21 2.63-3.12-4.52 0.36 0.3-3.53 5.95 5.57 1.07 1.93 10.20 10.02 7.68 4.86 (Source; Data taken from Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission of India; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in) 92

Table 5.6: Economic Development Indicator achievement Values for Maharashtra from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Year/Indicator 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 24,035 26,015 29,139 35,915 41,624 49,568 57,218 64,238 74,027 Growth Rate - GSDP Growth rate of Agriculture Sector Growth rate of NSDP in Industry 8.29 9.62 13.73 21.50 16.77 20.38 16.72 13.84 16.61 5.56 2.52 10.43-6.04 8.81 10.50 10.37 6 6-6.72 11.79 10.70 10.35 7.74 10.73 8.14 7.52 7.52 (Source; Data taken from Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission of India; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in) Table 5.7: Economic Development Indicator achievement Values for Punjab from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Year/Indicator 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 28,943 29,309 31,261 32,948 35,865 41,651 49,422 55,504 62,153 Growth Rate - GSDP Growth rate of Agriculture Sector Growth rate of NSDP in Industry 6.61 3.31 9.53 7.33 11.91 17.17 20.49 14.59 13.93 0.81-1.22 5.76 2.16 1.98 2.78 3.90 3.41 3.72-7.50 6.18 4.08 6.09 7.53 16.53 9.92 9.98 10.16 (Source; Data taken from Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission of India; htpp://planningeommission.gov.in) Table 5.8: Economic Development Indicator achievement Values for Tamil Nadu from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Year/Indicator 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 20,942 21,830 24,087 30,105 35,183 42,330 47,654 54,514 62,499 Growth Rate - GSDP Growth rate of Agriculture Sector Growth rate of NSDP in Industry 1.41 6.24 10.89 25.01 17.56 20.66 12.80 14.62 15.40-2.33-20.55-2.42 18.01 11.67 12.89-7.10-2.08 1-16.42 7.75 8.84 6.81 14.76 10.36 3.35 0.95 4.55 (Source; Data taken from Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission of India; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in) Further, we have used the Goalposts given in Table 5.9 for categorization of achievements for different indicators into Very Poor, Poor, Good, Very Good and Excellent categories. 93

Table 5.9: Goalposts for categorization of achievements of indicators Category of progress Very Poor Poor Good Very Good Excellent Points on Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Indicator Range Range Range Range Range Range % growth of Agriculture <2.39 2.39-4.4 4.41- >6.41 4.39 6.41 % growth of Industry <7.79 7.79-9.8 9.81 - > 11.81 9.79 11.81 % growth in GSDP <7.79 7.79-9.8 9.81 - > 11.81 9.79 11.81 Per Capita NSDP in rupees <16000 16001-38001- 60001- > 78000 38000 60000 78000 Enrolment Ratio-Std I to VIII <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 Dropout rate 1 to 10 >20 20-15 15.01-10 10.01 5-0 -5.01 % of schools with Bldg <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 % of schools with water facility <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 % of schools with Electricity <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 IMR >56 56-47 46-37 36-27 <26 Maternal mortality ratio (per > 120 120-100 99-79 78-58 <57 100,000 live births) Total Fertility rate >3.9 3.9-3.4 3.3-2.8 2.1-22 <2.1 % of villages having govt, <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 health facilities Beds per 1 Lac Population <92 92-157 158-223 224- >290 289 Percentage of Institutional <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 Deliveries % of villages/households <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 electrified % of villages having access to <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 clean drinking water % of household having toilet <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 Per capita electricity <779 779-1273- 1769- >2264 consumption 1273 1768 2263 T&D Loss (%) >20 20-15 15.01-10 10.01-5.01 5-0 Road length per 100 sq km < 100 100-205 206-311 312-416.99 >417 94

Category of progress Very Poor Poor Good Very Good Excellent Points on Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Surfaced roads as % of total <66 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95 roads Proportion of land area covered by forest (Source: Table 4.1 of this Thesis) <17.19 17.2-23.59 23.6 23.61-29.99 >30 On the basis of achievement values of economic development indicator of selected Indian states given in Tables 5.2 to 5.8, Human Development indicator values given in Table 5.1 and the goalposts for categorisation of achievements of indicators given in Table 5.9, Income GUIDES from the year 2001-02 to the year 2009-10 and GUIDE for the year 2007-08 of selected Indian states have been worked out in Tables 5.10 to 5.19. Table 5.10: Income GUIDE for Gujarat from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Indicators/ GUIDES 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 Growth Rate - GSDP 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 % growth of Agriculture 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 5 5 % growth of Industry Sector 1 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 Sub Total Income 12 13 17 13 16 14 17 16 18 Income GUIDE 0.6 0.65 0.85 0.65 0.8 0.7 0.85 0.8 0.9 Table 5.11: Income GUIDE for Haryana from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Indicators/ GUIDES 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 Growth Rate - GSDP 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 % growth of Agriculture 1 1 5 2 1 5 1 2 2 % growth of Industry Sector 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 Sub Total Income 9 8 14 11 11 15 11 12 13 Income GUIDE 0.45 0.4 0.7 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.55 0.6 0.65 95

Table 5.12: Income GUIDE for Himachal from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Indicators/ GUIDES 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Growth Rate - GSDP 2 4 2 5 5 4 5 5 5 % growth of Agriculture 5 2 5 1 1 1 5 1 2 % growth of Industry Sector 1 1 2 5 4 1 5 4 2 Sub Total Income 10 9 11 13 12 9 18 13 12 Income GUIDE 0.5 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.6 0.45 0.9 0.65 0.6 Table 5.13: Income GUIDE for Kerala from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Indicators/ GUIDES 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Growth Rate-GSDP 2 1 5 3 4 5 4 5 5 % growth of Agriculture 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 % growth of Industry Sector 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 Sub Total Income 6 5 9 10 9 13 12 10 10 Income GUIDE 0.3 0.25 0.45 0.5 0.45 0.65 0.6 0.5 0.5 Table 5.14: Income GUIDE for Maharashtra from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Indicators/ GUIDES 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 Growth Rate - GSDP 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 % growth of Agriculture 4 2 5 1 5 5 5 4 4 % growth of Industry Sector 1 4 4 4 1 4 2 1 1 Sub Total Income 9 10 16 12 14 17 15 14 14 Income GUIDE 0.45 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.85 0.75 0.7 0.7 Table 5.15: Income GUIDE for Punjab from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Indicators/ GUIDES 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 Growth Rate - GSDP 1 1 2 1 5 5 5 5 5 % growth of Agriculture 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 2 2 % growth of Industry Sector 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 4 4 Sub Total Income 5 5 9 5 9 15 14 14 15 Income GUIDE 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.25 0.45 0.75 0.7 0.7 0.75 96

Table 5.16: Income GUIDE for Tamil Nadu from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Indicators/ GUIDEs 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Per Capita NSDP 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 Growth Rate - GSDP 1 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 % growth of Agriculture 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 % growth of Industry Sector 1 1 2 1 5 4 1 1 1 Sub Total Income 5 5 9 13 17 17 10 10 11 Income GUIDE 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.5 0.5 0.55 Table 5.17: Income GUIDEs for selected Indian states from 2001-02 to 2009-10 Year 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 States/GUIDE IG IG IG IG IG IG IG IG IG Gujarat 0.6 0.65 0.85 0.65 0.8 0.7 0.85 0.8 0.9 Haryana 0.45 0.4 0.7 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.55 0.6 0.65 Himachal 0.5 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.6 0.45 0.9 0.65 0.6 Kerala 0.3 0.25 0.45 0.5 0.45 0.65 0.6 0.5 0.5 Maharashtra 0.45 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.85 0.75 0.7 0.7 Punjab 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.25 0.45 0.75 0.7 0.7 0.75 Tamil Nadu 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.5 0.5 0.55 (Source: Table No. 5.10 to 5.16) Table 5.18: Calculation of GUIDEs of selected Indian states for 2007-08 Indicator Gujarat Haryana Himachal Kerala Maharashtra Punjab Tamil Nadu Per Capita NSDP 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Growth Rate - GSDP 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 Growth rate of Agriculture 5 1 5 1 5 2 1 Growth rate of NSDP in 4 2 5 4 2 4 1 Industry Sub Total 17 11 18 12 15 14 10 Income GUIDE 0.85 0.55 0.9 0.6 0.75 0.7 0.5 Enrolment Ratio 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 Drop-out Rates in I-X 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 % of schools with building 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 % of schools with water facility 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 % of schools with Electricity 3 4 1 4 1 3 2 Sub Total 18 18 16 24 16 17 18 Education GUIDE 0.72 0.72 0.64 0.96 0.64 0.68 0.72 IMR 2 2 3 5 4 3 4 97

Indicator Gujarat Haryana Himachal Kerala Maharashtra Punjab Tamil Nadu Maternal mortality ratio (per 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 100,000 live births) Total Fertility Rate 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 % of villages having govt, 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 health facilities Beds per 1 Lac Population 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 % of Institutional Deliveries 1 1 1 5 1 1 4 Sub Total 10 10 13 24 14 12 18 Health GUIDE 0.33 0.33 0.43 0.8 0.47 0.4 0.6 % of villages/households 4 4 5 4 3 5 4 electrified % of villages having access to 4 5 4 1 3 5 4 clean drinking water % of household having toilet 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 Sub Total 9 10 10 10 7 13 9 Amenity GUIDE 0.6 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.47 0.87 0.6 Per capita electricity 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 consumption T&D Loss (%) 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 Road length per 100 sq km 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 Surfaced roads as % of total 4 4 1 1 3 3 3 roads Sub Total 9 8 6 8 7 8 9 Infrastructure GUIDE 0.45 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.45 Proportion of land area covered 1 1 4 5 1 1. 2 by forest Sub Total 1 1 4 5 1 1 2 Environment GUIDE 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 Grand Total 64 58 67 83 60 65 66 GUIDE 0.56 0.5 0.58 0.72 0.52 0.56 0.57 (Source: Table No 5.1) Table 5.19: GUIDES of selected Indian states for 2007-08 GUIDE Kerala Himachal Punjab Maharashtra Tamil Nadu Haryana Gujarat Income GUIDE 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.75 0.5 0.55 0.85 Income GUIDE Rank 5 1 4 3 7 6 2 Education GUIDE 0.96 0.64 0.68 0.64 0.72 0.72 0.72 98

GUIDE Kerala Himachal Punjab Maharashtra Tamil Nadu Haryana Gujarat Education GUIDE Rank 1 4 3 4 2 2 2 Health GUIDE 0.8 0.43 0.4 0.47 0.6 0.33 0.33 Health GUIDE Rank 1 4 5 3 2 6 6 Amenities GUIDE 0.67 0.67 0.87 0.47 0.6 0.67 0.6 Amenities GUIDE Rank 2 2 1 4 3 2 3 Infrastructure GUIDE 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.35 0.45 0.4 0.45 Infrastructure GUIDE Rank 2 4 2 3 1 2 1 Environment GUIDE 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 Environment GUIDE Rank 1 2 4 4 3 4 4 GUIDE 0.72 0.58 0.56 0.52 0.57 0.5 0.56 GUIDE Rank 1 2 4 5 3 6 4 (Source GUIDE values taken from Table 5.18 and ranks have been accorded in this Table) HDI values of selected Indian states and values of Indices of three components of HDI are given in table 5.20. Table 5.20: HDIs of selected states for 2007-08 HDI Kerala Himachal Punjab Maharashtra Tamil Nadu Haryana Gujarat Income Index 0.629 0.491 0.495 0.351 0.355 0.408 0.371 Income Index Rank 1 3 2 7 6 4 5 Education Index 0.924 0.747 0.654 0.715 0.719 0.622 0.577 Education Index Rank 1 2 5 4 3 6 7 Health Index 0.817 0.717 0.667 0.650 0.637 0.627 0.633 Health Index Rank 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 HDI 0.790 0.652 0.605 0.572 0.570 0.552 0.527 HDI Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Source: HDI values have been taken from IHDR 2011 and ranks have been accorded in this Table) Ranking of selected Indian states based on different measures/criteria of development have been compared below to find out the measure which gives true and correct picture of development in different states and to examine the superiority of GUIDE as a measure of human development over its counterpart HDI. 99

5.2 Comparison of Economic Development Figure 5.1: Ranking of states based on Income Index & Income GUIDE in 07-08 Hint*cha, ^jab^^tra G^t It may be seen from Figure 5.1 that HDI based ranking puts Kerala at the top position in economic development in the year 2007-08 as compared to other six states including economic leaders like Gujarat and Maharashtra. This picture of economic development of these states is not fathomable because of several reasons discussed in the following paragraphs of this chapter. On the other hand, Income GUIDE ranking puts Himachal at the top, Gujarat and Maharashtra at second and third position respectively and Kerala at the fifth place in economic development among the selected Indian states. It is examined below whether or not the picture of economic development presented by GUIDES is close to reality. In the past, Per Capita Net State Domestic Product and Percentage Growth of Gross State Domestic Product have been used for finding out economic development of a region (country/state/district etc) or for comparing economic development between regions. Therefore, the values of these two parameters of economic development have been taken from the Planning Commission Website and Table No. 5.21 containing Per Capita Net State Domestic Product (Rs.) at Current Prices from the year 2006-07 to the year 2009-10 and Table No. 5.22 containing Percentage Growth of Gross State Domestic Product at Current Prices from the year 2006-07 to the year 2009-10 have been generated and based on the level of achievements of different states, ranks have been accorded to the states in tables 5.21 and 5.22. 100

Table 5.21: Per Capita Net State Domestic Product (Rs.) at Current Prices: Andhra Pradesh From 2006-07 to 2009-10 States 06-07 06-07 07-08 07-08 08-09 08-09 09-10 09-10 Per capita Rank Per capita Rank Per capita Rank Per capita Rank Arunachal Pradesh NSDP NSDP NSDP NSDP 33,135 12 39,727 12 45,007 12 51,025 11 30,811 14 34,518 14 40,055 14 51,644 10 Assam 19,737 26 21,290 26 24,195 25 27,197 25 Bihar 10,055 29 11,514 29 13,980 28 16,119 28 Chhattisgarh 24,800 19 29,385 19 32,566 19 38,059 18 Delhi 78,741 2 89,212 2 101,381 2 116,886 2 Goa 94,512 1 107,311 1 119,273 1 132,719 1 Gujarat 43,395 5 50,016 5 55,140 6 63,961 5 Haryana 49,892 3 58,090 3 67,757 3 78,781 3 Himachal 38,931 9 42,076 11 46,019 11 50,365 13 Pradesh J&K 24,443 20 26,285 22 28,332 22 30,582 23 Jharkhand 19,744 25 25,069 23 27,700 23 30,719 22 Karnataka 35,954 10 42,347 10 46,386 10 50,676 12 Kerala 40,419 8 45,700 8 52,012 8 59,179 8 Madhya Pradesh 19,028 27 20,935 27 23,757 26 27,250 26 Maharashtra 49,568 4 57,218 4 64,238 4 74,027 4 Manipur 21,380 24 23,237 24 25,658 24 28,531 25 Meghalaya 30,373 15 33,576 15 37,376 16 42,601 16 Mizoram 28,764 17 32,488 16 38,888 15 45,982 15 Nagaland 21,730 23 22,418 25 NA - NA - Orissa 21,980 22 27,560 20 30,121 21 33,226 21 Punjab 41,651 7 49,422 6 55,504 5 62,153 7 Rajasthan 24,055 21 26,882 21 30,647 20 34,189 20 Sikkim 32,203 13 36,452 13 41,868 13 48,937 14 Tamil Nadu 42,330 6 47,654 7 54,514 7 62,499 6 Tripura 29,081 16 31,111 18 33,350 18 35,799 19 Uttar Pradesh 15,865 28 17,602 28 20,004 27 23,132 27 Uttaranchal 35,172 11 42,681 9 48,543 9 55,877 9 West Bengal 27,822 18 31,407 17 35,403 17 41,469 17 (Source: Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission, Government of India, P.94; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in) 101

Table 5.22: Percentage Growth of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) at Current Prices: From 2006-07 to 2009-10 States 06-07 06-07 07-08 07-08 08-09 08-09 09-10 09-10 Average % Rank % Rank % Rank % Rank Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Andhra 17.62 10 21.19 3 13.98 18 14.29 18 Pradesh Arunachal 7.81 28 13.63 19 17.89 4 33.67 1 Pradesh Assam 8.94 25 9.87 26 14.27 16 13.85 20 Bihar 23.97 2 16.16 11 23.13 1 15.74 14 Chhattisgarh 25.28 1 20.01 5 16.10 7 17.86 7 Delhi 17.52 11 16.49 10 16.78 6 18.10 6 17.22 Goa 14.26 17 17.48 8 15.57 10 15.76 13 15.76 Gujarat 15.92 15 16.07 12 11.68 26 16.75 10 15.11 Haryana 19.99 7 18.55 7 18.56 3 18.25 5 18.84 Himachal 11.60 20 12.19 22 13.57 20 12.21 24 Pradesh Jammu & 10.19 23 10.39 25 10.13 27 10.21 27 Kashmir Jharkhand 9.75 24 26.95 1 11.78 25 12.21 24 Karnataka 16.39 13 18.88 6 11.89 24 10.79 26 Kerala 12.38 19 13.89 16 14.78 13 14.57 17 Madhya 16.34 14 11.69 23 15.52 12 16.31 12 Pradesh Maharashtra 20.38 5 16.72 9 13.84 19 16.61 11 16.89 Manipur 7.23 29 10.79 24 12.60 22 13.47 22 Meghalaya 18.23 9 12.94 20 12.98 21 14.97 16 Mizoram 10.74 22 15.99 13 22.14 2 20.85 2 Nagaland 8.67 26 8.83 27 NA - NA - Orissa 19.47 8 26.95 1 12.18 23 13.73 21 Punjab 17.17 12 20.49 4 14.59 15 13.93 19 16.55 Rajasthan 20.25 6 13.90 15 15.58 9 13.44 23 Sikkim 8.43 27 15.96 14 16.80 5 18.72 3 Tamil Nadu 20.66 4 12.80 21 14.62 14 15.40 15 15.87 Tripura 11.07 21 8.09 28 11.08 28 11.45 25 Uttar Pradesh 14.37 16 13.79 18 15.59 8 18.39 4 Uttaranchal 23.40 3 24.81 2 15.56 11 16.84 9 West Bengal 13.72 18 13.83 17 14.06 17 17.62 8 (Source: Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission, Government of India, P.99; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in) It may be seen from Table 5.21 that Goa, Delhi, Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Punjab have occupied top seven positions in the country in Per Capita 102

Net State Domestic Product between 06-07 and 2009-10. It may also be seen that while Goa, Delhi, Haryana and Maharashtra have retained 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Ranks respectively over the entire period, the other three states have moved between 5th and 7th Ranks. Further, it may be seen from Table 5.22 that these seven states have also had a very high average percentage Growth of GSDP, ranging from 15.11% to 18.44%, during the period from 06-07 and 2009-10. This shows the robustness of economic conditions and the high level of economic developments in these seven states. In order to make the inter-state comparison of economic development meaningful, the comparison should be made between the economically developed states and keeping this point in mind, the top seven states in terms of Per Capita Net State Domestic Product have been selected and the performance of Gujarat in the area of economic development has been compared with the other six economically developed states of India. For this purpose, Table 5.23 and 5.24 have been prepared for the selected seven Indian states based on data from Table 5.21 and Table 5.22 respectively and new rankings have been accorded to the selected seven states. Table 5.23: Per Capita Net State Domestic Product (Rs.) at Current Prices of top seven Indian states: 2006-07 to 2009-10 States 06-07 06-07 07-08 07-08 08-09 08-09 09-10 09-10 Per Capita Rank Per Capita Rank Per Capita Rank Per Capita Rank NSDP NSDP NSDP NSDP Goa 94,512 1 107,311 1 119,273 1 132,719 1 Delhi 78,741 2 89,212 2 101,381 2 116,886 2 Haiyana 49,892 3 58,090 3 67,757 3 78,781 3 Maharashtra 49,568 4 57,218 4 64,238 4 74,027 4 Gujarat 43,395 5 50,016 5 55,140 6 63,961 5 Tamil Nadu 42,330 6 47,654 7 54,514 7 62,499 6 Punjab 41,651 7 49,422 6 55,504 5 62,153 7 (Source: Data taken from above Table No. 5.21) Table 5.24: Percentage Growth of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) at Current Prices of top seven States as per capita NSDP: 2006-07 to 2009-10 States 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 06-07-09-10 % Growth % Growth % Growth % Growth Average Growth Goa 14.26 17.48 15.57 15.76 15.76 Delhi 17.52 16.49 16.78 18.10 17.22 Haryana 19.99 18.55 18.56 18.25 18.84 Maharashtra 20.38 16.72 13.84 16.61 16.89 Gujarat 15.92 16.07 11.68 16.75 15.11 Tamil Nadu 20.66 12.80 14.62 15.40 15.87 Punjab 17.17 20.49 14.59 13.93 16.55 (Source: Data taken from above Table No. 5.22) 103

It may be observed from Table 5.23 that Gujarat has its place in the top seven states of the country in terms of Per Capita Net State Domestic Product whereas Kerala does not have a place among the top seven states of India. This indicates far better economic condition in Gujarat than that in Kerala. This is also supported by the fact that Gujarat also has a high average percentage Growth of Gross State Domestic Product at Current Prices as revealed by Table 5.24 containing names of Indian states having high average percentage Growth of Gross State Domestic Product at Current Prices. In short, the indicators included in Table 5.23 and 5.24 clearly bring out the fact that Gujarat is far ahead of Kerala in the area of economic development. If the comparison of Income Index Rankings of Indian states as given in NHDR 2001 and/or IHDR 2011 also presents the same picture of economic developments of Gujarat and Kerala and that of Gujarat vis-a-vis other economically developed states as revealed by Table 5.23 and 5.24 above, it will certainly suggest that the HDIs have relevance and importance as a measure of economic development of Indian States. However, if a contrary picture of economic development is presented by the HDIs, their relevance as an appropriate measure of human development will remain doubtful. Since HDI values of Indian states are available in NHDR 2001 and/or IHDR 2011 for the years 1999-2000 and 2007-08 respectively, Per Capita NSDP based rankings of Indian states for these two years have been tabulated in Table 5.25. Table 5.25: Comparison of Per Capita NSDP rankings and Income Index States rankings of selected States in 1999-2000 and 2007-08 Per Capita NSDP 1999-2000 Rank Income Index Rank Per Capita NSDP 07-08 Rank Income Index Rank Goa 42,296 1 0.672 2 107,311 1 0.443 6 Delhi 38,913 2 0.800 1 89,212 2 0.678 1 Punjab 25,631 3 0.455 4 49,422 6 0.495 3 Haryana 23,229 4 0.417 7 58,090 3 0.408 7 Maharashtra 23,011 5 0.297 10 57,218 4 0.351 10 Himachal Pradesh 20,806 6 0.426 6 42,076 11 0.491 4 Kerala 19,461 7 0.458 45,700 8 0.629 2 Tamil Nadu 19,432 8 0.285 12 47,654 7 0.355 9 Gujarat 18,864 9 0.323 8 50,016 5 0.371 8 Karnataka 17,502 10 0.260 13 42,347 10 0.326 11 (Source: Per Capita NSDP values taken from Data for use of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, 18 May 2011; Planning Commission, Government of India; htpp://planningcommission.gov.in and Income Index values taken from NHDR 2001 & IHDR 2011) 104

Figure 5.2 depicts the ranking of economic development of selected Indian states both on the basis of Per Capita NSDP as well as Income Index for the year 1999-2000, whereas Figure 5.3 does it for the year 2007-08. Figure 5.2: Per Capita NSDP and Income Index based Ranking of selected states in 1999-2000 Figure 5.3: Per Capita NSDP and Income Index based Ranking of selected states in 07-08 Observations: It may be seen from the above figures that: Goa with 1st Rank in Per Capita NSDP in both the years 1999-2000 and 07-08 was 2nd in Income Index Ranking in the year 1999-2000 but was ranked 6th in the year 07-08. Delhi with 2nd Rank in Per Capita NSDP was 1st in Income Index Ranking in both the years i.e. 1999-2000 and 07-08. Kerala with 7th Rank in Per Capita NSDP was 3rd in Income Index Ranking in the year 1999-2000, whereas in spite of slipping down to 8th Rank in Per Capita NSDP, it has moved up to 2nd Rank in Income Index in the year 07-08. 105

Maharashtra with 5th Rank in Per Capita NSDP was 10th in Income Index ranking in 1999-2000, whereas in spite of moving up to 4th Rank in Per Capita NSDP, it has remained at 10th in Income Index ranking in year 07-08. Gujarat with 9th Rank in Per Capita NSDP was 8th in Income Index ranking in 1999-2000, whereas in spite of moving up to 5th Rank in Per Capita NSDP, it has slipped down to 8th Rank in Income Index Ranking in year 07-08. Thus, there is no correlation between Per Capita NSDP and Income Index Rankings of Indian states which suggests that the HDIs present a distorted picture of economic development of Indian states. Neither NHDR 2001 nor IHDR 2011 offers any explanation for such a distorted presentation of economic development of Indian States. The HDIs, thus, do not present a true and correct picture of economic development and hence do not appear to be an appropriate measure of human development. The following Table 5.26, drawn from Table 5.25, further reveals that both the NHDR 2001 as well as the IHDR 2011 showcases distortion of economic development in Indian States. Item Table 5.26: Ranking in 07-08 as per Per Capita NSDP & Income Index Per Capita NSDP Ranking In 07-08 Income Index Ranking In 07-08 Rank of Gujarat 5 8 Rank of Maharashtra 4 10 Rank of Kerala 8 2 Per Capita NSDP Ranking in 07-08: Maharashtra > Gujarat > Kerala Income Index Ranking in 07-08 : Kerala > Gujarat > Maharashtra It may be seen from Table 5.26 that according to the Planning Commission data on Per Capita NSDP, Maharashtra has a higher Per Capita NSDP than Gujarat and Kerala has a lower Per Capita NSDP than Gujarat in 07-08, whereas according to IHDR 2011, Kerala has a higher income Index than Gujarat and Maharashtra has a lower Income Index than Gujarat. The outcome of IHDR 2011 is just opposite of the outcome based on Per Capita NSDP rankings. It is not fathomable that the Per Capita NSDP rankings and Income Index Rankings can present a contrary picture of economic development. Based on the observation made above, it can be said the HDIs given in IHDR 2011 do not appear to project the true and correct picture of economic development of Indian States. On the other hand, Income GUIDEs have always put Gujarat ahead of Kerala in economic development as shown in Figure 5.4. 106

Figure 5.4: Ranking of Gujarat & Kerala based on Income GUIDES from 2001 to 2009 Gujarat Income GUIDE ------ Kerala Income GUIDE The economic development of Gujarat vis-a-vis other selected Indian states has been compared in Figures 5.5 to 5.9 to find out as to how Gujarat has fared in the area of economic development in comparison with other selected Indian states. It appears from these Figures that Gujarat has made extremely good progress on economic front in most of the years between 2001-02 and 2009-10 and has done better than other selected states in most of the years. Figure 5.5: Ranking of Gujarat & Maharashtra based on Income GUIDES - 2001 to 2009 107

Figure 5.6: Ranking of Gujarat & Haryana based on Income GUIDES- 2001 to 2009 ------ Gujarat Income GUIDE ------- Haryana Income GUIDE Figure 5.7: Ranking of Gujarat & Himachal based on Income GUIDES from 2001 to 2009 Figure 5.8: Ranking of Gujarat & Tamil Nadu based on Income GUIDES- 2001 to 2009 i o i 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-00 2009-10 ------ Gujarat Income GUIDE -------Tamil Nadu Income GUIDE 108

Figure 5.9: Ranking of Gujarat & Punjab based on Income GLIDES- 2001 to 2009 l o.i 0 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Gujarat Income GUIDE ------ Punjab Income GUIDE The level of economic development in Kerala from 2001-02 to 2009-10 has also been compared with other selected Indian states in Figures 5.10 and 5.11 and it may be seen that Haryana, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab have done better than Kerala on economic front, in most of the years between 2001-02 and 2009-10. This further, goes on to establish that the comparison of economic development of Indian states on the basis of GUIDES gives a true and correct picture of economic development. Figure 5.10: Ranking of Kerala with Haryana & Maharashtra based on Income GLIDES from 2001 to 2009 Kerala Income GUIDE ------ Haryana Income GUIDE Maharashtra Income GUIDE 109

Figure 5.11: Ranking of Kerala with Himachal. Punjab & Tamil Nadu based on Income GUIDES from 2001 to 2009 The fact that Gujarat is well placed in the area of economic development is also evident from the following achievements of Gujarat in the area of economic development: i. Between 1999-2000 and 2007-2008, Gujarat s gross state domestic product (GSDP) in nominal terms grew at a compound annual rate of 15.8 percent (13.8 percent in per person terms). ii. Gujarat s economy is well-balanced, with primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors contributing 21 percent, 33 percent, and 46 percent, respectively of GSDP in 07-08. iii. With 5 percent of the country s population and 6 percent of the country s geographical area, Gujarat contributes to about 16 percent of industrial production in India. iv. Gujarat accounts for 54 percent of India s onshore crude and 39 percent of onshore Natural Gas Production. It has about 46 percent of India's installed refining capacity and 60 percent of India s total crude oil import facility. v. Gujarat accounts for 40 percent of India s total pharmaceutical production and 17 percent of its exports. vi. Gujarat contributes to around 20 percent of India s total chemical production. It produces about 98 percent of total soda ash. 90 percent of liquid chlorine and 66 percent of phosphatic fertilizers. Gujarat also houses India s only chemical port terminal, which has a capacity of 3 million metric tonnes. vii. Almost 80 percent of the cutting & polishing of diamonds (processing) is done in Gujarat. It is one of the fastest growing industries in the country and contributes to about 15 percent of India's total exports. 110

viii. About 33 percent of cotton production in the country is from Gujarat and the State contributes to about 35 percent of the woven fabrics from the organized sector in India. The city of Surat alone contributes to 40 percent of art silk fabric produced in India and is the largest production base for man-made fabrics. Further, 23 percent of the State GDP comes from textiles. Gujarat contributes around 20 percent of textile exports from India and 6 percent of garments export from India. ix. There are 41 ports, of which Kandla is a major port. Out of the remaining 40 ports, 11 are intermediate ports and 29 are minor ports. x. The State has one of the largest optical fibre networks in the country with more than 60,000 kilometres network. xi. With world class health facilities, zero waiting time and most importantly, one tenth of the medical cost in US or UK, Gujarat is becoming a preferred medical tourist destination. About 1,200 to 1,500 NRI s, Non Resident Gujaratis (NRGs) and a small percentage of foreigners come every year for different medical treatments. Gujarat contributes close to 25-31 percent of the total medical tourism business in India. xii. Gujarat provided round the clock electricity for 100% of the villages in the state in 06-07. xiii. Investment of 102 Billion USD was committed in Gujarat in 2007. xiv. Per Capita power consumption in Gujarat was more than the national average in 05-06. xv. Annual growth rate of GDP from Agriculture was 12.87% between 2000-01 and 05-06. xvi. Increase in per capita NSDP was 54.1 % between 2000-01 and 05-06. Even the averaged annual farm growth rate reported by Shankar Acharya, in his article, Agriculture: be like Gujarat dated July 14, 2011 places Gujarat on the top and Kerala at 3rd position from the bottom of the table as can be seen from the following extract of the said report. (Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ shankar-acharya-agriculture-be-like-gujarat/442588/) In the 60 years since 1950 Indian Agriculture has recorded growth at an average rate of 2.7 % per year. In the past 30 years the rate has crept slightly above three percent, well short of the four percent target set in successive recent Five-Year Plans. Most analysts infer that it would take great luck (with weather) or a sweeping revolution in policy design and implementation to achieve and sustain four percent growth. Is that really so?

For a more optimistic answer let s look at the variation in agricultural performance across India s 20 largest states (by population) in the last decade (see Table 5.27). It s striking that agriculture in seven sizeable states ;Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa) grew faster than four per cent between 2000-01 and 07-08. And that fact doesn't change when the relatively bad agricultural years of 2008-09 and 2009-10 are included. What s more, most of these states are more water-stressed than average. The s:ar performer is semi-arid Gujarat, clocking eight per cent (nearly triple the national average) agricultural growth over the decade. Table 5.27: Agriculture Growth (Gross Value Added) across Indian States (%) State 2000-01- 07-08# 2000-01- 2009-10## Sectoral share of agriculture in state GSDP* (07-08) Gujarat 11.7 8.0 16.0 Chhattisgarh 9.4 6.7 17.0 Rajasthan 5.8 3.5 23.9 Maharashtra 5.6 4.0 13.0 Andhra Pradesh 5.6 4.7 22.4 Madhya Pradesh 5.5 6.2 24.2 Orissa 4.6 4.8 23.3 Himachal Pradesh 4.0 1.6 19.4 Jammu and Kashmir 3.6 3.1 24.1 Haryana 3.6 3.4 21.0 Uttarakhand 2.5 2.2 16.1 Tamil Nadu 2.5 2.0 12.2 Punjab 2.4 2.2 31.7 West Bengal 2.1 2.0 18.5 Uttar Pradesh 1.7 1.8 27.3 Bihar 1.5 1.1 23.0 Karnataka 1.2 0.6 15.4 Kerala 0.7 0.9 12.4 Assam 0.5 1.6 24.6 Jharkhand -0.7 1.1 8.6 # Based on national income data at 1999-2000 prices ## 1999-2000 prices data up to 07-08 and 04-05 base data for growth in 2008-09 and 2009-10 *Gross state domestic product Source: Central Statistical Organisation Similarly, according to another article by Sanjeeb Mukherjee titled. Plan panel praises 3 BJP-ruled states. Group on agriculture flags performance of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh for emulation, which appeared in Business Standard, Ahmedabad, 17/18 December 2011, P. 7, a Planning Commission Working Group on Agriculture has commended Gujarat, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh for remarkable 112

agriculture production and growth rate over the past decade but has not referred to Kerala even in the medium growth rate states as reported in Table 5.28: Tabic 5.28: Net Farm Growth Rates (%) High* Medium* Low* State Growth State Growth State Growth Gujarat 11.5 Orissa 3.6 Assam 0.8 Chhattisgarh 6.1 Haryana 3.5 Karnataka 0.4 Madhya Pradesh 5.2 J&K 3.4 Jharkhand -0.9 Average annual figures between 1999-2000 and 2008-09 at 1999-00 prices *High growth is classified as those that averaged annual farm growth rate in excess of 4 %, medium growth had averaged annual farm growth rate of more than 2 % but less than 4 %, low' growth had averaged annual farm growth rate of less than 2 % Note: The national annual average growth rate of agriculture was 3.5 % in the 11th five year plan period (2007-2012) and 2.2 % in the 10th five year plan period (2002-2007) (Source: Planning Commission Working Group on Agriculture) In order to further substantiate the fact that Kerala is economically a laggard, reference is made to an article titled, Conundrum of Kerala s struggling economy by Soutik Biswas, BBC News. Kerala, reported on 17 March 2010 wherein Soutik Biswas mentions Kerala as the money order economy and says,...today Kerala is a straggler economy almost entirely dependent on tourism and remittances sent back by two million of its people who live and work abroad, mostly in the Gulf. Joblessness is rife due to the lack of a robust manufacturing base... It may be seen that Gujarat has done extremely well on economic front via-avis the selected Indian states. Maharashtra and Haryana are close to Gujarat as far as economic development is concerned. This reveals that the Income GUIDES calculated in this Thesis and presented in Table 5.19 truly and correctly reflect the level of economic development in Gujarat vis-a-vis other Indian states, whereas the Income Index calculated in IHDR 2011. does not reflect this level of economic development in the state of Gujarat vis-a-vis other Indian states. Not only this, but the Income Indices calculated in NHDR 2001 and IHDR 2011 present a distorted picture of economic development in Indian States. Hence, the HDIs cannot help in planning for economic development and taking any corrective measures to arrest the situation, if required. On the other hand, depending upon availability of data, the GUIDES can not only be an important and useful tool for planning, evaluation and control of human development but they can even point out the specific sub indicators of the main indicators which need attention of the planners. 113

Income Index has one-third weightage in the calculation of HDI. Therefore, if income Index is wrongly reported, it will have negative effect on HDI value and will in turn either pull it down or push it up depending upon whether Income Index is reported lower or higher than the actual value. It has been seen above that the Income Indices of HDI have presented a distorted picture of economic development of Indian states and in case of Gujarat, it has pulled down its economic development as compared to other states. This in turn, has also affected the position of Gujara: in the overall human development among Indian states. This can be seen below in Figure 5.12 showing ranking of selected Indian states in human development in the year 2007-08. If economic development of Gujarat was correctly reported in HDI ranking in 2007-08, its HDI ranking would have been higher than what is shown in Table 5.29 and Figure 5.12. Table 5.29: HDI Ranking and GUIDE Ranking of selected States in 07-08 States GUIDE GUIDE Rank HDI HDI Rank Kerala 0.72 1 0.790 1 Himachal 0.58 2 0.652 2 Tamil Nadu 0.57 3 0.570 5 Gujarat 0.56 4 0.527 7 Punjab 0.56 4 0.605 3 Maharashtra 0.52 5 0.572 4 Haryana 0.5 6 0.552 6 If the rankings of selected Indian states are done on the basis of GUIDES, the position of Gujarat compared to other states will be as shown in Figure 5.13 where Gujarat is placed at 4th position after Kerala, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu; Punjab is at par with Gujarat; and Maharashtra and Haryana occupy positions below Gujarat. 114

Figure 5.13: GLIDE ranking of selected Indian states in 2007-08 We have already discussed above that the Income Index does not give a true and correct picture of economic developments in Indian states and instead distorts the picture of development. Since Income Index has pulled down the economic development of Gujarat to 8th position (Figure 5.3), it has in turn brought down its HDI ranking to 7th rank i.e. at the bottom of the selected seven states (Figure 5.12). The HDI ranking of states shown in Figure 5.12, therefore does not give a true and correct picture of human development in selected states. If the correct impact of ranking of Income GUIDHs is taken into account, the human development ranking of Gujarat is far better than what is shown by HDI ranking and it is rightly depicted by the GUIDE ranking of states in Figure 5.13. In short GUIDE is a better measure human development than HDI. 5.3 Comparison of Education Development Like economic development, education development of states is also being ranked on the basis of Education Indices calculated as a part of HDI. The state of Education development is also reported by DISE from time to time through a Composite Educational Development Index (EDI) developed by it. Since EDI, like GUIDE, is also based on several important education indicators, it has superiority over HDI which is based on only two indicators comprising enrolment ratio and literacy rate. Therefore, we will place more reliance on EDI in comparing the education development in selected Indian states than HDI. Table 5.30 has been prepared based on the data from DISE 07-08: Flash Statistics & DISE 2009-10: Flash Statistics and Ranks have been accorded to different states based on this data. 115

Table 5.30: Composite Educational Development Index, All Schools States 06-07 06-07 07-08 07-08 08-09 08-09 09-10 09-10 EDI Rank EDI Rank EDI Rank EDI Rank Andhra Pradesh 0.670 8 0.740 7 0.702 9 0.662 9 Arunachal Pradesh 0.458 26 0.485 28 0.516 24 0.474 25 Assam 0.477 25 0.515 25 0.483 27 0.445 26 Bihar 0.321 29 0.406 29 0.463 28 0.421 29 Chhattisgarh 0.521 21 0.570 23 0.577 20 0.498 21 Delhi 0.757 2 0.780 2 0.732 5 0.720 4 Goa 0.645 12 0.716 10 0.678 12 0.692 5 Gujarat 0.677 6 0.748 5 0.702 8 0.657 10 Haryana 0.612 15 0.755 4 0.752 2 0.680 6 Himachal Pradesh 0.707 4 0.695 12 0.679 11 0.654 12 Jammu & Kashmir 0.633 13 0.678 13 0.627 16 0.512 19 Jharkhand 0.381 28 0.491 26 0.456 29 0.431 28 Karnataka 0.680 5 0.743 6 0.708 7 0.656 11 Kerala 0.772 1 0.791 1 0.756 1 0.772 1 Maharashtra 0.677 7 0.727 9 0.700 10 0.663 8 Manipur 0.598 16 0.611 18 0.547 21 0.519 18 Meghalaya 0.517 22 0.556 24 0.510 25 0.433 27 Mizoram 0.661 10 0.705 11 0.714 6 0.641 13 Nagaland 0.581 18 0.663 17 0.654 15 0.624 14 Orissa 0.487 23 0.572 22 0.545 22 0.496 22 Punjab 0.654 11 0.732 8 0.737 4 0.730 3 Rajasthan 0.582 17 0.663 16 0.612 18 0.544 16 Sikkim 0.662 9 0.656 15 0.670 13 0.678 7 Tamil Nadu 0.741 3 0.771 3 0.750 3 0.744 2 Tripura 0.545 19 0.609 19 0.539 23 0.491 23 Uttar Pradesh 0.528 20 0.588 21 0.614 17 0.523 17 Uttaranchal 0.629 14 0.660 14 0.661 14 0.587 15 West Bengal 0.458 27 0.488 27 0.494 26 0.503 20 (Source: DISE 07-08: Flash Statistics & DISE 2009-10: Flash Statistics) Table 5.31 is prepared based on Table 5.30 in order to make the analysis of education development in Indian states more meaningful. 116

Table 5.31: Top Nine States as per EDI Rankings: 06-07 to 2009-10 States 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Kerala 1 1 1 1 Tamil Nadu 2 2 3 2 Himachal Pradesh 3 9 9 9 Karnataka 4 5 5 8 Gujarat 5 4 6 7 Maharashtra 6 8 8 5 Andhra Pradesh 7 6 7 6 Punjab 8 7 4 3 Haryana 9 3 2 4 Figure 5.14: EDI ranking of selected states: 06-07 to 2009-10 ------ 2006-07 ------ 2007-08 ------ 2008-09 ------ 2009-10 Figure 5.15: Movement of EDI ranking of selected states: 06-07 to 2009-10 117

Figure 5.16: EDI ranking of selected states: 06-07 and 2009-10 Observations: It may be seen from the above Table 5.31 and Figure 5.14 to Figure 5.16 that between 06-07 and 2009-10: Kerala has retained 1st position as per composite EDI. Tamil Nadu has retained 2nd position as per composite EDI Himachal with 3rd rank in 06-07 has slipped to bottom from 07-08 onwards. Karnataka slipped from 4th rank in 06-07 to 5th in 07-08 and 2008-09 to 8th in 2009-10. Gujarat slipped from 5th to 7th position. Maharashtra has moved ahead of Gujarat from 6th in 2006-07 to 5th in 2009-10. Andhra Pradesh improved from 7th to 6th position and moved ahead of Gujarat. Punjab and Haryana appearing in bottom two in 06-07 made quantum jumps in their performances and occupied 3rd and 4thranks respectively in 2009-10 and moved ahead of Gujarat. Since 1HDR 2011 contains Education Indices of Indian States for the year 07-08, we can compare the outcome of EDIs with that of Els only for the year 07-08. This comparison will, however, help us know whether or not the outcomes of EDIs are supported by the outcomes of Els.

Table 5.32: Comparison of EDIs and Els for 07-08 States 07-08 07-08 07-08 07-08 EDI Rank El Rank Kerala 0.791 1 0.924 1 Tamil Nadu 0.771 3 0.719 5 Haryana 0.755 4 0.622 9 Gujarat 0.748 5 0.577 12 Karnataka 0.743 6 0.605 10 Andhra Pradesh 0.740 7 0.553 14 Punjab 0.732 8 0.654 7 Maharashtra 0.727 9 0.715 6 Himachal Pradesh 0.747 4 (Source: EDI values from above Table 5.30 and El values from Table 2A.5, IHDR 2011, Page No. 257) Figure 5.17: Comparison of EDIs and Els for 07-08 It may be seen from Table 5.32 and Figure 5.17 that barring Kerala, the rankings of all other states included in the table do not match when two different measures of performance in the area of education development are applied to assess the level or extent of development. This shows that one of the two measures (EDI or El) is definitely not a measure suitable for measuring and reporting the level of education development. Since we have Education GUIDE values for 07-08 for the selected seven states, we have tried to compare the outcomes based on EDIs, Els and Education GUIDEs (EGs) of seven states in Table 5.33. 119

Table 5.33: Comparison of ranks based on EDIs, Els & EGs for 07-08 State EDI Rank New Rank Out of El Rank New Rank Out of seven seven Kerala 0.791 1 1 0.924 1 1 0.96 1 Tamil Nadu 0.771 3 2 0.719 5 3 0.72 2 Haryana 0.755 4 3 0.622 9 6 0.72 2 Gujarat 0.748 5 4 0.577 12 7 0.72 2 Punjab 0.732 8 5 0.654 7 5 0.68 3 Maharashtra 0.727 9 6 0.715 6 4 0.64 4 Himachal 0.747 4 2 0.64 4 EG Rank As mentioned above, the rankings of EDI and El have no similarity and present completely different pictures of education development and a similar situation is seen from Table 5.33 and Figure 5.18. On the other hand, the rankings of EDI and EG have greater similarities than that between EDI and El. This goes on to suggest that EGs are better measures of education development than the Els. The El and EG rankings of selected Indian states have been again compared in Figure 5. 19 below to highlight the impact of low HDI based ranking of Gujarat in education development on the overall human development ranking of the state. 120

Figure 5.19: Ranking of selected Indian states based on Education Index & Education GUIDE in 07-08 Ke<-aia Por>jab*aharashtra HarVana GuJ*rat 0 8 -------Education Index Rank in 07-08 ------- Education GUIDE Rank in 07-08 Like Income Index, Education Index (El) too has one-third weightage in the calculation of HDI. Therefore, if El is wrongly reported, it will have negative effect on HDI value and will in turn either pull it down or push it up depending upon whether El is reported lower or higher than the actual value. It has been seen above that the Education Indices of HDI have presented a distorted picture of economic development of Indian states and in case of Gujarat, it has pulled down its education development to bottom position as compared to other six selected states. This in turn, has also affected the position of Gujarat in the overall human development among Indian states. This can be seen in Figure 5.12 showing ranking of selected Indian states in human development in the year 2007-08. If economic development and education development of Gujarat were correctly reported in HDI ranking in 2007-08, its HDI ranking would have been higher than what is shown in Table 5.29 and Figure 5.12. We have already discussed above that the Income Index does not give a true and correct picture of economic developments in Indian states and Education Index does not give a true and correct picture of education developments in Indian states and instead distorts the picture of development. Since Income Index and education index have pulled down the economic development and education development respectively of Gujarat to 8th position (Figure 5.3 above) and 7th position (Figure 5.19), it has, in turn, brought down its HDI ranking to 7th rank i.e. at the bottom of the selected seven states (Figure 5.12). The HDI ranking of states shown in Figure 5.12, therefore does not give a true and correct picture of human development in selected states. If the correct impact of ranking of Education GUIDES is taken into account, the human development ranking of Gujarat is far better than what is shown by HDI ranking and it is rightly depicted by at the GUIDE ranking of states in Figure 5.12. In short GUIDE is a better measure of human development than HDI. 121

5.4 Comparison of Health Development Since we have Health Index for the year 07-08 only. Health GUIDES for the selected seven states have also been calculated for the year 2007-08 and we have compared the outcomes based on His and Health GUIDEs (HGs) of seven states in Table 5.34. Table 5.34: Comparison of outcomes based on His and HGs for 2007-08 State HI Rank New Rank Out of seven Kerala 0.817 1 1 0.8 1 Tamil Nadu 0.637 7 5 0.6 2 Himachal 0.717 3 2 0.43 4 Punjab 0.667 4 3 0.4 5 Maharashtra 0.650 6 4 0.47 3 Gujarat 0.633 8 6 0.33 6 Haryana 0.627 9 7 0.33 6 Figure 5.20: Comparison of outcomes based on His and HGs for 2007-08 HG Rank *era/a an>"n*<iu Hlrt)acha/ Punm harashtra GlJiara, harv*na 0 It may be seen in Figure 5.20 that the HGs put Tamil Nadu next to Kerala in Health development and put Himachal Pradesh at number four among the selected seven states, whereas the His place Himachal at second position and Tamil Nadu at the bottom among these seven states. The positions given by HGs appears to be in line with the observation made by Sen Amartya and Jean Dreze (Sen, 2011 P.50-59) where they have said, It is perhaps not an accident that Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh also tend to have the best social indicators among all major Indian states. For instance, a simple index of children s health, education and nutrition achievements clearly places these three states at the top (Dreze, R. Khera, S. Narayanan, 2007, Early Childhood in 122

India: Facing the Facts, Indian Journal of Human Development, 1(2), Jul-Dec 2007)...., whereas the HI based rankings do not support this development. Hence, the HG appears to be a more appropriate measure of health development than the HI. 5.5 Comparison of Amenities Development HDI does not have any Indices for measuring the level of development of amenities because only three determinants are considered necessary for calculating HDI and indicators representing amenities sector have no place in HDI. On the other hand, GUIDEs give sufficient importance to amenities which are otherwise basic necessities of life and no human development is possible if the basic amenities are not available to human beings. Since GUIDEs give due importance to amenities and allows calculation of Amenities GUIDE, a comparison of development of amenities in the selected Indian states is given in Figure 5.21. This is based on the values of amenities GUIDEs given in Table 5.19. Figure 5.21: Ranking of Amenities development in selected Indian states in 2007-08 It may be seen that Punjab was on the top in amenities development in 2007-08; Kerala. Himachal Pradesh and Haryana were second; Gujarat and Tamil Nadu occupied third position and Maharashtra was at the bottom among the selected Indian states. 5.6 Comparison of Infrastructure Development HDI also does not have any Indices for measuring the level of development of infrastructure because no indicator pertaining to infrastructure is used in calculating HDI, whereas GUIDEs give due importance to infrastructure and allows calculation of Infrastructure GUIDE and makes it possible to compare level of development of infrastructure in the selected Indian states which is shown in Figure 5.22. This is based on the values of Infrastructure GUIDEs given in Table 5.19. 123

Figure 5.22: Ranking of Infrastructure development in selected Indian states in 2007-08 It may be seen that Gujarat and Tamil Nadu occupy 1st position in infrastructure development in 2007-08; Kerala, Punjab and Haryana remain at 2nd position; Maharashtra gets the 3rd place, whereas Himachal Pradesh was at the bottom among the selected Indian states. 5.7 Comparison of level environment protection HDI does not have any Indices for measuring the level of environment protection or degradation, whereas GUIDES give due importance to this factor and allows calculation of Environment GUIDE and makes it possible to compare level of environment protection in the selected Indian states which is shown in Figure 5.23. This is based on the values of Infrastructure GUIDEs given in Table 5.19. Figure 5.23: Ranking of level Environment Protection selected Indian states in 2007-08 124

It may be seen that Kerala has remained on the top in 2007-08 among the selected Indian states as far as environment protection is concerned; Himachal Pradesh got 2nd rank; Tamil Nadu remained at 3rd position and the laggards Punjab, Maharashtra, Haryana and Gujarat remained at the bottom. 5.8 Comparison of human development in selected Indian states In view of the above, GUIDE is found as a very w'ell balanced measure of human development. It is a measure which is based on nine important determinants and forty important indicators of human development. Human development ranking of selected Indian states in the year 2007-08 is presented in Figure 5.24 below. This is based on the values of GUIDES given in Table 5.19. Figure 5.24: Ranking of human development in selected Indian states based on GUIDES in 2007-08 According to GUIDES, Kerala continue to remain at top position in human development in 2007-08; Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu occupied 2nd and 3rd places respectively; Gujarat and Punjab w'ere at par occupying 4th rank; Maharashtra was at 5th position and Haryana remained at the bottom. The positions given in Figure 5.24 appears to be in line with the observation made by Sen Amartya and Jean Dreze (Sen, 2011 P.50-59) where they have said, It is perhaps not an accident that Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh also tend to have the best social indicators among all major Indian states. For instance, a simple index of children s health, education and nutrition achievements clearly places these three states at the top (Dreze, R. Khera, S. Narayanan. 2007, Early Childhood in India: Facing the Facts', Indian Journal of Human Development, 1(2), Jul-Dec 2007).... 125

Table 5.35: Relationship between level and Growth of HDI from Level/Growth Low Level Base 1999-2000 Medium Level Base 1999-2000 High Level Base 1999-2000 Low Growth 1999-2000 to 07-08 1999-2000 to 07-08 Medium Growth 1999-2000 to 07-08 Uttar Pradesh Haryana, Rajasthan Maharashtra, Gujarat, J&K, TN, West Bengal Delhi, Goa, Himachal, Punjab Kerala (Source: Based on data from Table 2A.5, P 257, IHDR 2011) High Growth 1999-2000 to 07-08 Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, MP, Orissa, Uttaranchal Karnataka Generally the growth rate of states/countries with the lowest level base tends to be the highest provided adequate resources are allotted and required efforts are put in as a part of development programme. Similarly the growth of those having the highest level base tends to be the lowest and those with medium level base tend to be medium. This tendency is not seen in the above Table 5.35. Table 5.36: Comparison of HDIs and Guides of Gujarat for 2000 and 2008 HDI HDI HDI GUIDE GUIDE GUIDE SNo 2000 2008 SNo 2000 2008 1 Health Index (0.562) 2 Education Index (0.512) 3 Income Index (0.323) Health Index (0.633) Education Index (0.577) Income Index (0.371) 1 Income GUIDE (0.650) 2 Education GUIDE (0.600) 3 Amenities GUIDE (0.470) 4 Others GUIDE (0.470) 5 Infrastructure GUIDE (0.370) 6 Health GUIDE (0.290) 7 Law & Order GUIDE (0.270) Income GUIDE (0.850) Education GUIDE (0.640) Amenities GUIDE (0.530) Others GUIDE (0.470) Infrastructure GUIDE (0.400) Health GUIDE (0.400) Law & Order GUIDE (0.330) (Source: HDIs taken from Table 2A.5, P 257, IHDR2011and GUIDE values taken from Table 4.12 of this Thesis) 126

Observations: Both in years 2000 & 2008: Health Index > Education Index > Income Index This gives an impression that Gujarat is performing exceedingly well in health area which is followed by Education and the state is the worst in economic progress. This does not reveal the true and correct picture of human development in Gujarat. Both in years 2000 & 2008: Income GUIDE > Education GUIDE > Health GUIDE This shows that Gujarat is performing exceedingly well on economic front which is followed by Education and the state is doing poor as far as health area is concerned. This appears to reveal the true and correct picture of human development in Gujarat. Table 5.37: Relationship between level and Growth of GUIDES from 2000 to 2008 Level/Growth Low Level Base in 2000-01 Medium Level Base In 2000-01 High Level Base in 2000-01 Low Growth 2000 to 2008 Education GUIDE Medium Growth 2000 to 2008 Income GUIDE High Growth 2000 to 2008 Health GUIDE If adequate resources are allotted and required efforts are put, the growth rate of an Indicator GUIDE having the lowest level base tends to be highest; the growth rate of an Indicator GUIDE with highest level base tends to be the lowest and the growth rate of an Indicator GUIDE with the medium level base tends to be medium. The outcomes of GUIDEs of Education and Income Indicators are not in line with the general tendency. In case of Education GUIDE, though the base level was medium, its growth was low whereas Income GUIDE showed medium growth in spite of having a High level base. This requires some change in the strategy being followed for human development in the state of Gujarat. 5.9 Rationale of GUIDE over HDI The statement of Sakiko Fukuda-Parr (Fukuda, 2003, P. 307), the human development concept has been trapped inside its reduced measure is very true because HDI assumes that only three factors comprising income, education and health are enough to reveal the level or extent of human development in a region/nation/state which is far from reality. If human development is considered as a process of enlarging people s choices then people should also have access to basic amenities such as safe 127

drinking water, sanitation, housing and electricity, they should feel safe and secured and should have proper infrastructure to help them use their acquired capabilities to the fullest extent without degrading the environment. This means that a measure of human development must consider other important factors such as amenities, infrastructure, law & order, environment, women empowerment etc. so that the resultant measure does not remain a narrow measure of human development. In this regard, GUIDE is a very broad measure of human development as it encompasses all the major dimensions of human development. 5.10 Areas of Superiority of GUIDE over HDI In HDI calculation, health is represented by one indicator (life expectancy); education is represented by two indicators (literacy and school enrolment or now Mean Years of Schooling Index and Expected Years of Schooling Index) and standard of living is represented by one indicator (GDP per capita). HDI is thus, based on a further assumption that these four indicators representing three factors of HDI are sufficient to give a true and correct picture of the level of human development. This assumption is also wrong because the spread of human development goes far beyond the territory of these four indicators. In contrast, GUIDE is based on forty indicators representing nine factors which are relevant for human development and hence, GUIDE is a very broad measure of human development. HDI considers only GDP Per Capita as the sole income indicator and hence based on Income Index calculated under HDI, it is not possible to know whether the economic development of the nation/state is a balanced development of all three sectors (primary, secondary and tertiary) of an economy or a skewed development in favour of one or two sectors. It is highly desirable that all sectors of an economy develop in the proportion considered appropriate for a country/state and a measure of economic development truly and correctly represents such a development. While HDI fails to bring out this aspect of economic development, the GUIDE does it by taking the growth rate of all the three sectors of economy into consideration in its calculation. This difference between HDI and GUIDE is further elaborated with the help of an illustration below: Table 5.38: Illustration Indicators Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 GDP Per Capita (Rs) 50000 50000 50000 50000 % Growth rate of Primary Sector 2 5 8 11 % Growth rate of Secondary Sector 5 8 11 14 % Growth rate of Tertiary Sector 8 11 14 17 Income Index under HDI = (In 50000- In 100) / (In 40000- In 100) = Say P 128

Table 5.39: Calculation of Income GUIDE (Illustration) Indicators Points Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 GDP Per Capita 2 2 2 2 % Growth rate of Primary Sector 1 4 4 5 % Growth rate of Secondary Sector 1 2 4 5 % Growth rate of Tertiary Sector 2 4 5 5 Total 6 12 15 17 Income GUIDE 0.3 0.6 0.75 0.85 While Income Index remains same in all the four cases irrespective of different level of development in all three sectors of economy, the Income GUIDE changes by incorporating the change in the level of development of different sectors of the economy. The GUIDE thus, is a better measure of income development as compared to HDI. The HDI considers the logarithmic transformation of income indicator in its calculation which is based on the notion that income has diminishing returns after a certain level. In a developing country like India, it is not proper to go with the assumption or notion that income will give diminishing returns in some states. GUIDE does not consider this assumption because absolute values of GDP per capita are considered for its calculation and hence it is a better measure of human development than HDI. In HDI calculation, health is represented by life expectancy. There is no way in the world to record life span of a person during his life time and life expectancy is always estimated on the basis of some other indicator/s. Any measure calculated on the basis of an estimated value of an indicator will be as accurate or as inaccurate as the estimated value of the indicator used in its calculation. In this respect, HDI is a weak measure of health development because it is based on the estimated value of life expectancy. In contrast, GUIDE is based on the actual value of achievement of every indicator considered under health sector. Moreover GUIDE is calculated using seven health indicators comprising health facilities (Percentage of villages having government health facilities, Beds per 1 Lac Population), human resources required in the health sector (Population served per doctor) and critical outputs in the health sector (IMR, MMR, TFR and Percentage of Institutional Deliveries). HDI is a very rigid measure as it does not allc-w any flexibility in choosing either the factors or the indicators used for its calculation. In contrast, GUIDE is a highly flexible measure of human development as it freely allows addition and/or deletion of both the factors as well as the indicators depending upon their relevance to a particular country/state/region. Those factors and/or indicators which are redundant under a particular situation can be dropped, whereas those which are critical for highlighting a particular aspect of development can be taken into consideration for the calculation of 129

GUIDE with ease. Such flexibility helps in further refining this measure to suit the local developmental needs and requirements. GUIDE only needs appropriate goalposts for the selected indicators which too can be easily decided based on the local developmental needs. HDI is calculated very infrequently by the Planning Commission of India or by individual Indian states due to non-availability of data on a regular basis. For example after 1999-2000, HDIs have been calculated by the Planning Commission of India in 2011 and that too based on the data of the year 2007-08. Assuming that everything is fine with the HDI calculation and rankings, it can hardly be of any use to know the standing of a state after a lapse of four years. No action or remedial measure are possible on such late reporting as it cannot help in planning or deciding correct strategy or enhancing human development. On the other hand, it is possible to calculate GUIDES every year with great ease and thus, this measure of human development can be of great help in taking timely corrective actions and for planning and decision making. HDI cannot be of any help in identifying the reasons for low performance in a particular sector and hence can be of no help in planning and deciding appropriate strategy for human development. On the other hand, GUIDE not only reveals the level or extent of development in a particular sector, it also helps in identifying specific indicators which are helpful in pushing the development northwards as well as indicators which are responsible for pulling it southwards. For example, in education sector in Gujarat, low Education Index only reveals that the state is lagging in development in the education sector vis-a- vis other Indian states but Education GUIDE even tells us that eight (with specific name of each indicator) out of selected fourteen education indicators have helped push education development upward whereas six (with specific name of each indicator) out of selected fourteen education indicators have been responsible for pulling it downwards in Gujarat. There is no doubt that this kind of specific information provided by GUIDE about the areas of strength and weaknesses will go a long way in planning and deciding appropriate strategy for remedying the situation. The strong concern expressed in HDR, 1992 (UNDP 1992: P. 17) for future generation through a strong statement reading: If development is to widen the range of people s choices, it must do so not only for the current generation but for future ones as well. It must be sustainable gets due recognition in GUIDE as calculation of GUIDE includes environment as one of the determinants of human development. GUIDE as a measure of human development, thus not only cares for the current generation but shows equally serious concern for the future generation as well. GUIDE S counterpart HDI has no concern for the future generation. In this respect GUIDE is also superior to HDI as measure of human development. 130