Archive

Archive for August, 2006

Final Part of the report

August 28, 2006 Leave a comment

Table 33: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Manipur
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Per Capita SDP Growth (1.3)    Total Investment (1.7)
        Commercial Banks Credit Disbursement (1.10)
        
        
Business Efficiency    Industrial Labour Productivity Growth (2.3)    Registered Factories (2.1)
    Labour Cost (2.6)    Employment Growth (2.7)
        Profits in Manufacturing Industries (2.9)
        
Governance Quality    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)
    Govt. Expenditure  (% of SDP) (3.2)    Transport & Communication Spending (3.8)
    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)    
    Expenditure on S&T (3.7)    
        
Human Resource    Death Rate (4.2)    Number of workers (4.3)
    Enrolment Ratio (Secondary Schools) (4.16)    Access to Sanitation (4.13)
    Public Expenditure on
Education (4.18)     Pupil-Teacher Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.17)
    Child Labor (4.25)    Female Literacy Rate (4.19)
        
Infrastructure     Universities (Nos) (5.9)    Rail Route kms (5.1)
    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)    Drinking Water (5.15)
    Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)    Forest Area (5.17)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 34: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Meghalaya
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Share of Service (1.4)    SDP Growth (1.2)
    Consumer Prices (1.5)    Total Investment (1.7)
    FDI Inflow (1.8)    Commercial Banks Credit Disbursement (1.10)
        
Business Efficiency    Average Hours Worked (2.5)    Registered Factories (2.1)
        Industrial Labour Productivity Growth (2.3)
        Employment Growth (2.7)
        
Governance Quality    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)    Interest Payment (% of Revenue) (3.3)
    Transport & Communication Spending (3.8)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
        Revenue Receipts (3.5)
        
Human Resource    Pupil-Teacher Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.17)    Birth rate (4.1)
    Female Labor Participation (Rural) (4.20)    Industrial Workers (4.3)
    Unemployment Rate (4.24)    Immunization (4.9)
        Literacy Rate (4.14)
        
Infrastructure    Electricity Tariff (5.6)    Degree colleges (Nos) (5.10)
    T&D Losses of Electricity (5.8)    Drinking Water (5.15)
    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)    
        
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 35: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Mizoram
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Per Capita SDP (1.1)    SDP Growth (1.2)
    Share of Service (1.4)    Commercial Bank Deposits (1.9)
        Commercial Banks Credit Disbursement (1.10)
        
Business Efficiency    Small Scale Industries (2.10)    New Industries (Nos) (2.8)
        
Governance Quality    Revenue Receipts (3.5)    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)
    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)    Interest Payment (% of Revenue) (3.3)
    Transport & Communication Spending (3.8)    
        
Human Resource    Death Rate (4.2)    Public Expenditure on Education (4.18)
    Health Expenditure (4.12)    
    Literacy Rate (Total) (4.14)    
    Female Literacy Rate (4.19)    
    Female Labor Participation (Urban) (4.21)    
        
Infrastructure    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)    Rail Route kms (5.1)
    Primary Schools (Nos) (5.12)    Universities (Nos) (5.9)
    Primary Health Centres (5.13)    Drinking Water (5.15)
    Forest Cover (5.17)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 36: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Madhya Pradesh
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Consumer Prices (1.5)    Per Capita SDP (1.1)
    FDI Inflow (1.8)    Per Capita SDP Growth (1.3)
        Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)
        Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)
        
Business Efficiency    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.2)    Employment Growth (2.7)
    Profits in Manufacturing (2.9)    New Industries (2.8)
    Small Scale Industries (2.10)    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)
        
Governance Quality    Interest Payment (% of Revenue) (3.3)    Expenditure on S& T (3.7)
    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)    Reform Outlook (3.13)
    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)    Transparency (3.16)
    Government’s Finances in Next Two Years (3.18)    
        
Human Resource    Industrial Disputes (4.22)    Hospital Beds (4.11)
    Unemployment Rate (4.24)    Access to Sanitation (4.13)
    Female Labour Participation (Rural)(4.20)    Health Expenditure (4.12)
        
        
Infrastructure    Telephone Lines (5.3)    Availability of Power (5.19)
    Electricity Tariff (5.6)    Development and Maintenance of Infrastructure (5.20)
    Electricity Connected Villages (5.7)    Quality of Power (5.22)
    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)    Safe Drinking Water (5.15)
    Primary Schools (Nos) (5.12)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 37: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Nagaland
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Share of Service (1.4)    Per Capita SDP Growth (1.1)
    Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)    Commercial Bank Deposits (1.9)
         Commercial Banks Credit Disbursement (1.10)
        
Business Efficiency    Labour Cost (2.6)    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.2)
        Profits in Manufacturing (2.9)
        Small Scale Industries (Nos)(2.10)
        
Governance Quality    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)     Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
    Govt expenditure (% of SDP) (3.2)     Transport & Communication Spending (3.8)
    Revenue Receipts (3.5)    
    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)    
        
Human Resource    Female Labour Participation (Rural) (4.20)    Immunization  (4.9)
    Female Labor Participation (Urban) (4.21)    Access to Sanitation (4.13)
        
Infrastructure     Road Kms (5.2)    Rail Route Kms (5.1)
    Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)    Technical Institutes (Rs) (5.16)
    Drinking Water (5.15)    Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 38: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Orissa
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Consumer Prices (1.5)    Per Capita SDP (1.1)
        SDP Growth (1.2)
        Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)
        Commercial Bank Deposits (1.9)
        
Business Efficiency    Capital Intensity (2.4)    Industrial Labour Productivity Growth (2.3)
    Average Hours Worked (2.5)    Employment Growth (2.7)
        Small Scale Industries (2.10)
        
Governance Quality    Government Expenditure (% of SDP) (3.2)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
    Expenditure on S & T (3.7)    Interest Payment (% of revenue) (3.3)
        Transport and Communication Spending (3.8)
        Govt. Finances in the Next Two Years (3.18)
        
Human Resource    Pupil-Teacher Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.17)    Death Rate (4.2)
    Mandays Lost (4.23)    Hospital Beds (4.11)
    Educational System (4.32)    Health Expenditure (4.12)
        Population Below Poverty Line (4.26)
        
Infrastructure     Road kms (5.2    Rail Route kms (5.1)
    Telephones Lines (5.3))     Universities  (Nos) (5.9)
    Availability of Power (5.19)    Drinking Water (5.15)
    Quality of Power (5.22)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 39: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Punjab
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Consumer Prices (1.5)    Share of Service (1.4)
    Per Capita SDP (1.1)    FDI Inflow (1.8)
    Commercial Bank Deposits (1.9)    
    Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)    
        
Business Efficiency    Registered Factories (Nos) (2.1)    Capital Intensity (2.4)
    Industrial Labour Productivity Growth (2.3)    New Industries (2.8)
    Small Scale Industries (2.10)    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)
        
Governance Quality    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
    Revenue Receipts (3.5)    Computerization of Records (3.10)
    Transport & Communication Spending (3.8)    Govt. Procedures (3.15)
        
Human Resource    Life Expectancy (Male) (4.6)    Dependency Ratio (4.5)
    Life Expectancy (Female) (4.7)    Enrollment Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.15)
    Medical Practitioners (4.10)    Public Expenditure on Education (4.18)
    Population Below Poverty Line (4.26)    
    Labour Relations (4.29)    
        
Infrastructure    Rail Route kms (5.1)    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)
    Cellular Subscribers (5.4)    Primary Health Centres (5.13)
    Electricity Generation Capacity (5.5)    Forest Cover (5.17)
    Drinking water (5.15)    
    Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 40: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Rajasthan
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength         Share of Services (1.4)
        Commercial Bank Deposits (1.9)
        Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)
        
Business Efficiency    Average Hours Worked (2.5)    Small Scale Industries (2.10)
    Labour Cost (2.6)    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)
    Capital Intensity (2.4)    
        
Governance Quality    Government Expenditure (% of SDP) (3.2)    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)
    Entry/Local Taxes (3.17)    Transport & Communication Spending (3.8)
        Govt. Procedures (3.15)
        
Human Resource    Enrollment Ratio (Secondary Schools) (4.16)    Birth Rate (4.1)
    Unemployment Rate (4.24)    Immunization (4.9)
    Per Capita Protein Intake (4.28)    Literacy Rate (4.14)
        Female Literacy Rate (4.19)
        
Infrastructure     Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)    Rail Route Kms (5.1)
    Availability of Power (5.19)    Road kms (5.2)
    Development  & Maintenance of Infrastructure (5.20)    Universities  (Nos) (5.9)
    Urban Infrastructure (5.21)    Forest Cover (5.17)
    Quality of Power (5.22)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 41: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Sikkim
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Commercial Bank Deposits (1.9)    Total Investment (1.7)
    Per Capita SDP (1.1)    Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)
        
Business Efficiency        Small Scale Industries (2.10)
        New Industries (Nos) (2.8)
        
Governance Quality    Govt Expenditure (% of SDP) (3.2)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
    Revenue Receipts (3.5)    Expenditure on S&T (3.7)
    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)    
        
Human Resource    Dependency Ratio (4.5)    Hospital Beds (4.11)
    Enrollment Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.15)    Pupil Teacher Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.17)
    Child Labour (4.25)    Population Below Poverty Line (4.26)
        
Infrastructure    Universities (Nos) (5.9)    Road kms (5.2)
    T&D Losses (5.8)    Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)
    Degree Colleges (Nos) (5.10)    Technical Institutes (Nos) (5.16)
    Primary Health Centres Nos (5.13)    Forest Cover (5.17)
    Drinking Water (5.15)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 42: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Tamil Nadu
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Share of Service (1.4)    Per Capita SDP (1.3)
    FDI Inflow (1.8)    Consumer Prices (1.5)
    Commercial Bank Credit Disbursement (1.9)    
        
Business Efficiency    Registered Factories (2.1)    Industrial Labour Productivity Growth (2.3)
    Profits in Manufacturing (2.9)    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)
    Small Scale Industries (2.10)    
        
Governance Quality    Interest Payment (% of SDP) (3.3)    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)
    Computerization of Records (3.10)    Govt. Expenditure (% of GDP) (3.2)
    Entry/Local Taxes (3.17)    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)
    State Govt. Finances in Next Two Years (3.18)    
        
Human Resource    Industrial Workers (4.3)    Industrial Disputes (4.22)
    Immunization (4.9)    Unemployment Rate (4.24)
    Industrial Disputes (4.22)    Average Calorie Intake (4.27)
    Work Culture (4.30)    Average Protein Intake (4.28)
    IT Literates (4.31)    
        
Infrastructure    Telephone Lines (5.3)    Electricity Tariff (5.6)
    T&D Losses of Electricity (5.8)    Electricity Connected  Villages (5.7)
    Universities (Nos) (5.9)    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)
    Degree Colleges (Nos) (5.10)    Forest Cover (5.17)
    Technical Institutes (Nos) (5.16)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 43: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Tripura
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    SDP Growth (1.2)    Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)
    Per Capita SDP Growth (1.3)    Commercial Bank Credit Disbursement (1.10)
    Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)    
        
Business Efficiency    Labour Cost (2.6)    Capital Intensity (2.4)
    Employment Growth (2.7)    Small Scale Industries (2.10)  
        
Governance Quality    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)
    Government Expenditure (3.2)    Expenditure on S& T (3.7)
        
Human Resource    Birth rate (4.1)     Health Expenditure (4.12)
    Death rate (4.2)    Female Labour Participation (Rural) (4.20)
    Literacy Rate (4.14)    Female Labour Participation (Urban) (4.21)
    Public Expenditure on Education (4.18)    Unemployment Rate (4.24)
        Population Below Poverty Line (4.26)
        
Infrastructure     Road kms (5.2)    Degree Colleges (Nos) (5.10)
    Electricity Connected Villages (5.7)    Primary Schools (Nos) (5.12)
    Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)    Drinking Water (5.15)
         Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 44: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Uttar Pradesh
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Consumer Prices (1.5)    Per Capita SDP (1.1)
    Total Investment (1.7)    Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)
    Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)    Commercial Banks Credit Disbursement (1.10)
        
Business Efficiency    Industrial Labour Productivity Growth  (2.3)    Registered Factories (2.1)
    Capital Intensity (2.4)    Average Hours Worked (2.5)
    Profits of Manufacturing (2.9)    Employment Growth (2.7)
        
        
Governance Quality    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)    Interest Payment (% of SDP) (3.3)
    Expenditure on S & T (3.7)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
    Transparency (3.16)    Revenue Receipts (3.5)
        Entry/Local Taxes (3.17)
        
Human Resource    Industrial Disputes (4.22)    Birth Rate  (4.1)
    Man-days Lost (4.23)    Death Rate (4.2)
    Unemployment Rate (4.24)    Enrolment Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.15)
    Average Calorie Intake (4.27)    Female Literacy (4.19)
    Average Protein Intake (4.28)    Child Labour (4.25)
        
Infrastructure     Rail Route kms (5.1)    Electricity Generation Capacity (5.5)
    Average Electricity Tariff (5.6)    Universities (Nos) (5.9)
    Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)    Forest Cover (5.17)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 45: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Uttaranchal
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    SDP Growth (1.2)    Total Investment (1.7)
        
Business Efficiency    Industrial Labour Productivity Growth (2.3)    Capital Intensity (2.4)
    Employment Growth (2.7)    Profits of Manufacturing (2.9)
        
Governance Quality    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)
        Interest Payment (% of Revenue) (3.3)
        
Human Resource    Industrial Workers (4.3)     Health Expenditure (4.12)
    Death Rate (4.2)    Female Literacy Rate (4.19)
        
Infrastructure     Forest Cover (5.17)    Rail Route kms (5.1)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 46: Strengths & Weaknesses:  West Bengal
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    SDP Growth (1.2)    Per Capita SDP (1.3)
    Per Capita SDP Growth (1.3)    Consumption Expenditure (1.6)
    Consumer Prices (1.5)    
    Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)    
        
Business Efficiency    New Industries (Nos) (2.8)    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.2)
    Competent senior managers (2.12)    Capital Intensity (2.4)
        Profits of Manufacturing (2.9)
        Problem Solving Attitude of Managers (2.11)
        
Governance Quality    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)    Government Expenditure (% of GDP) (3.2)
    State Government’s Interface with Private Sector (3.11)    Interest Payment (% of Revenue) (3.3)
    Speed of Government Response (3.12)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
        Expenditure on S& T (3.7)
        
Human Resource    Death Rate (4.2)    Industrial Disputes (4.22)
    Dependency Ratio (4.5)    Pupil Teacher Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.17)
        Female labor Participation (Rural) (4.20)
        Mandays Lost (4.23)
        Unemployment Rate (4.24)
        
Infrastructure    Rail Route kms (5.1)    Cellular Subscribers (5.4)
    Drinking Water (5.15)    Universities (Nos) (5.9)
    Quality of Power (5.22)    Degree Colleges  (Nos) (5.10)
    Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)    Secondary Schools  (Nos) (5.11)
    Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)    Primary Health Centres (5.13)
        Technical Institutes (Nos)(5.16)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

                                                 

Categories: Uncategorized

Healthcare, Infrastructure, Human Rights, Technology, Law

August 28, 2006 Leave a comment

Table 16 (Contd.)
Bigger States
States    Immuniza-tion-vaccination
(4.9)    Registered Medical Practitioners
(4.10)    No. of hospital beds
(4.11)    Health Expenditure
(4.12)    Access to Sanitation
(4.13)    Literacy rate
(4.14)    Enrolment ratio primary schools
(4.15)    Enrolment ratio Secondary schools
(4.16)
AP    8    9    5    9    11    12    9    13
Assam    14    8    2    12    15    9    2    6
Bihar    15    10    13    15    8    15    12    15
Gujarat    7    6    3    8    3    4    1    7
Haryana    5    15    10    11    7    7    14    9
Karnataka    6    2    7    5    1    8    3    5
Kerala    4    4    1    2    2    1    11    1
MP    11    13    14    13    14    10    6    10
Maharashtra    2    5    4    7    6    2    7    3
Orissa    9    11    15    14    13    11    4    11
Punjab    3    1    9    1    4    5    13    8
Rajasthan    13    12    11    10    5    13    5    4
Tamil Nadu    1    3    6    3    10    3    10    2
UP    12    14    12    6    12    14    15    14
WB    10    7    8    4    9    6    8    12
Smaller States
Arunachal    8    NA    1    4    1    12    2    6
Chattisgarh    NA    NA    NA    14    NA    10    NA    NA
Delhi    3    1    3    8    3    3    11    11
Goa    1    2    2    1    8    2    10    5
HP    2    NA    6    6    6    4    9    1
J&K    4    3    4    5    10    13    8    7
Jharkhand    NA    NA    NA    13    NA    14    NA    NA
Manipur    7    NA    8    9    9    8    7    2
Meghalaya    10    NA    7    7    7    11    3    10
Mizoram    5    NA    5    2    2    1    4    3
Nagaland    11    NA    9    10    11    9    5    9
Sikkim    6    NA    10    3    4    7    1    4
Tripura    9    NA    11    11    5    5    6    8
Uttaranchal    NA    NA    NA    12    NA    6    NA    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 16 (Contd.)
Bigger States
States    Primary Pupil-Teacher ratio
(4.17)    Public Expenditure on Education (4.18)    Female literacy rate
(4.19)    Female labour participation (Rural)
(4.20)    Female labour participation (Urban)
(4.21)    No. of  Disputes
(4.22)    Mandays lost
(4.23)
AP    13    12    10    1    3    12    12
Assam    5    1    9    14    10    3    1
Bihar    15    3    15    13    15    4    7
Gujarat    10    8    6    4    9    13    8
Haryana    11    15    8    12    13    2    11
Karnataka    3    11    7    7    4    10    5
Kerala    1    2    1    10    1    11    14
MP    4    7    12    3    8    1    3
Maharashtra    9    10    2    2    6    9    9
Orissa    2    9    11    8    5    6    2
Punjab    6    14    4    9    11    5    6
Rajasthan    8    4    13    5    7    7    10
Tamil Nadu    7    5    3    6    2    14    13
UP    12    13    14    11    14    8    4
WB    14    6    5    15    12    15    15
Smaller States
Arunachal    3    7    12    5    8    NA    NA
Chattisgarh    NA    NA    11    NA    NA    NA    NA
Delhi    2    1    3    11    9    2    1
Goa    8    8    2    9    6    3    3
HP    4    5    4    3    7    4    2
J&K    6    NA    13    6    11    NA    NA
Jharkhand    NA    NA    14    NA    NA    NA    NA
Manipur    10    2    10    8    3    1    NA
Meghalaya    1    4    8    1    4    NA    NA
Mizoram    5    6    1    4    1    NA    NA
Nagaland    9    9    6    2    2    NA    NA
Sikkim    11    10    7    7    5    NA    NA
Tripura    7    3    5    10    10    NA    NA
Uttaranchal    NA    NA    9    NA    NA    NA    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 16 (Contd.)
Bigger States
States    Unemploy-ment rate
(4.24)    Child labour (4.25)    Population below poverty line (4.26)    Average Calorie Intake
 (4.27)    Average Protein Intake
(4.28)    Labour Relations
(4.29)    Work culture (4.30)    IT literates (4.31)    Educational system
(4.32)
AP    4    15    6    10    13    12    9    10    13
Assam    14    4    12    14    14    NA    NA    NA    NA
Bihar    9    10    14    5    5    2    6    5    5
Gujarat    2    6    4    12    8    5    5    4    11
Haryana    6    2    2    1    2    NA    NA    NA    NA
Karnataka    7    11    7    9    9    3    3    3    4
Kerala    15    1    3    13    10    13    10    7    12
MP    3    13    13    8    6    8    7    6    7
Maharashtra    11    12    9    11    7    6    2    2    1
Orissa    10    5    15    6    12    10    11    8    2
Punjab    8    3    1    3    3    1    4    9    8
Rajasthan    1    9    5    2    1    7    12    13    10
Tamil Nadu    12    7    8    15    15    4    1    1    3
UP    5    14    11    4    4    9    8    11    6
WB    13    8    10    7    11    11    13    12    9
Smaller States
Arunachal    2    3    8    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Chattisgarh    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    5    5    5    5
Delhi    7    8    4    4    4    3    3    1    1
Goa    11    1    2    3    3    1    2    2    2
HP    3    10    3    2    2    2    1    4    3
J&K    5        1    1    1    NA    NA    NA    NA
Jharkhand    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    4    4    3    4
Manipur    8    4    6    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Meghalaya    1    9    9    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Mizoram    4    5    5    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Nagaland    10    6    7    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Sikkim    6    2    11    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Tripura    9    7    10    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Uttaranchal    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 17: Criterion wise Ranking of States -Infrastructure  
Bigger States
States    Rail route kms
(5.1)    Road kms (5.2)    No of telephone lines
(5.3)    Cellular subscribers (5.4)    Electricity generation Capacity
(5.5)    Average Tariff (5.6)    Electricity Connected villages
(5.7)
AP    11    11    15    8    6    4    11
Assam    6    7    9    14    15    15    3
Bihar    7    13    10    12    14    11    4
Gujarat    8    14    6    3    2    8    12
Haryana    3    12    12    6    7    9    13
Karnataka    14    9    4    4    8    7    8
Kerala    9    1    8    1    4    1    15
MP    12    10    3    10    9    3    1
Maharashtra    10    5    11    7    3    14    9
Orissa    15    2    1    13    10    13    2
Punjab    2    3    7    2    1    2    7
Rajasthan    13    15    5    11    12    6    5
Tamil Nadu    5    4    2    5    5    12    14
UP    4    6    13    9    13    5    6
WB    1    8    14    15    11    10    10

Smaller States

Arunachal    13    10    NA    NA    NA    NA    2
Chattisgarh    5    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Delhi    1    1    4    1    2    5    NA
Goa    2    2    2    NA    4    3    10
HP    7    5    1    2    1    4    1
J&K    10    11    3    NA    3    1    8
Jharkhand    3    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Manipur    12    6    NA    NA    NA    NA    5
Meghalaya        7    NA    NA    NA    2    4
Mizoram    11    9    NA    NA    NA    NA    6
Nagaland    9    4    NA    NA    NA    NA    9
Sikkim    4    8    NA    NA    NA    NA    7
Tripura    8    3    NA    NA    NA    NA    3
Uttaranchal    6    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

 Table 17 (Contd.)
Bigger States
States    T& D Losses (5.8)    Universities or Equivalent (5.9)    Degree Colleges (5.10)    Secondary Schools (5.11)    Primary Schools (5.12)
AP    13    6    8    10    4
Assam    15    9    13    5    2
Bihar    7    12    15    8    6
Gujarat    5    11    11    3    14
Haryana    12    8    9    14    10
Karnataka    9    3    1    1    13
Kerala    6    7    7    12    15
MP    4    2    10    2    1
Maharashtra    2    4    2    7    12
Orissa    14    10    4    4    3
Punjab    3    5    6    11    9
Rajasthan    11    13    12    6    7
Tamil Nadu    1    1    3    13    11
UP    10    14    5    9    8
WB    8    15    14    15    5
Smaller States
Arunachal    4    4    2    5    4
Chattisgarh    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Delhi    10    3    11    11    11
Goa    5    1    1    10    8
HP    1    7    7    6    2
J&K    11    10    8    3    5
Jharkhand    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Manipur    8    5    5    4    6
Meghalaya    2    8    10    2    1
Mizoram    9    11    4    1    3
Nagaland    7    6    6    8    9
Sikkim    3    2    3    7    7
Tripura    6    9    9    9    10
Uttaranchal    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 17 (Contd.)
Bigger States
States    Primary/Village Health Centres  (5.13)    Population covered by primary health centers
(5.14)    Safe Drinking water
(5.15)    Technical Institutes (5.16)    Forest Area
 (5.17)    Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)
AP    10    6    11    4    4    6
Assam    7    3    13    13    3    14
Bihar    6    2    10    15    5    15
Gujarat    12    10    5    8    11    9
Haryana    13    4    3    7    15    10
Karnataka    2    15    4    3    7    12
Kerala    3    12    15    1    2    5
MP    5    5    12    10    8    11
Maharashtra    14    9    6    5    9    8
Orissa    1    14    14    9    1    13
Punjab    11    7    1    6    14    1
Rajasthan    4    13    9    12    13    4
Tamil Nadu    8    11    7    2    6    7
UP    9    8    8    11    12    3
WB    15    1    2    14    10    2
Smaller States
Arunachal    4    8    4    9    1    1
Chattisgarh    NA    NA    NA    NA    7    NA
Delhi    11    1    1    4    13    2
Goa    10    2    6    1    10    9
HP    2    10    2    2    11    8
J&K    6    6    7    3    4    4
Jharkhand    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Manipur    7    5    8    6    12    6
Meghalaya    5    7    10    5    8    7
Mizoram    1    11    11    11    2    5
Nagaland    9    4    5    10    6    10
Sikkim    3    9    3    8    9    3
Tripura    8    3    9    7    5    11
Uttaranchal    NA    NA    NA    NA    3    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 17(Contd.)
Bigger States
States    Power Availability (5.19)    Development & Maintenance of Infrastructure (5.20)    Quality of Urban Infrastructure (5.21)    Power Quality
(5.22)
AP    12    5    1    12
Assam    NA    NA    NA    NA
Bihar    9    7    7    8
Gujarat    7    1    5    6
Haryana    NA    NA    NA    NA
Karnataka    11    9    10    11
Kerala    10    6    8    9
MP    13    13    13    13
Maharashtra    5    4    6    5
Orissa    1    11    4    2
Punjab    6    3    3    7
Rajasthan    2    2    2    3
Tamil Nadu    3    8    11    4
UP    8    12    12    10
WB    4    10    9    1
Smaller States
Arunachal    NA    NA    NA    NA
Chattisgarh    1    4    4    5
Delhi    4    2    2    3
Goa    2    1    1    2
HP    3    5    5    1
J&K    NA    NA    NA    NA
Jharkhand    5    3    3    4
Manipur    NA    NA    NA    NA
Meghalaya    NA    NA    NA    NA
Mizoram    NA    NA    NA    NA
Nagaland    NA    NA    NA    NA
Sikkim    NA    NA    NA    NA
Tripura    NA    NA    NA    NA
Uttaranchal    NA    NA    NA    NA

Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1
Table 18: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Andhra Pradesh
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
Economic Strength    Total Investment (1.7)    Consumer Prices (1.5)
    FDI Inflow (1.8)    Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)
        Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)
        
Business Efficiency    Labour Cost (2.6)    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.2)
    Employment Growth (2.7)    Capital Intensity (2.4)
    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)     Small Scale Industries (2.10)
        
Governance Quality     Annual Plan Expenditure (3.6)    Govt. Expenditure (% of SDP) (3.2)
    Computerization of Records (3.10)    Corruption Level (3.14)
    Speed of State Government’s Response to Private Initiative (3.12)    Transparency (3.16)
    Government’s Procedures (3.15)    
        
Human Resources    Female Labor Participation (Rural) (4.4)    Enrollment Ratio (Secondary School) (4.16)
    Unemployment Rate (4.24)    Pupil Teacher Ratio (4.17)
        Child labour (4.25)
        Educational System (4.32)
        
Infrastructure    Electricity Tariff (5.6)    Number of Telephone lines (5.3)
    Primary Schools 5.12)    T&D Losses of Electricity (5.8)
    Urban Infrastructure (5.21)    Quality of Power (5.22)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 19: Strengths & Weaknesses: Arunachal Pradesh
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
Economic Strength    Per capita SDP (1.3)    SDP Growth (1.2)
        Share of Service (1.4)
        Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)
        
Business Efficiency    Small Scale Industries (2.10)    Average Hours Worked (2.5)
        
Governance Quality    Plan Expenditure (3.6)    Interest Payment (3.3)
    Transport & Communication Spending (3.8)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
        
Human Resource    Dependency Ratio (4.5)     Literacy Rate (4.14)
    Number of Hospital Beds (4.11)    Female Literacy Rate (4.19)
    Access to Sanitation (4.13)    
        
Infrastructure    Electricity Connected Villages (5.7)     Rail Route kms (5.1)
    Degree Colleges (5.10)    Road kms (5.2)
    Forest Cover (5.17)    Technical Institutes (5.16)
    Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 20: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Assam
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
Economic Strength        SDP Growth (1.2)
        Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)
        Commercial Bank Deposits (1.9)
        
Business Efficiency    Average Hours Worked (2.5)    Capital intensity (2.4)
    Labour Cost (2.6)    Small Scale Industries (2.10)
        
Governance Quality    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)    Revenue Receipts (3.5)
    Govt. Expenditure (3.2)    Expenditure on S&T (3.7)
        
Human resource    Dependency Ratio (4.5)     Access to Sanitation (4.13)
    Number of Hospital Beds (4.11)    Female Labor Participation (4.20)
    Enrollment Ratio (Primary School) (4.15)    
    Public Expenditure on Education (4.18)    
        
Infrastructure     Primary Schools (Nos) (5.12)    Electricity Generation (5.5)
    Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)    Electricity Tariff (5.6)
        T & D Losses of Electricity (5.8)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 21: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Bihar
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
Economic Strength    SDP Growth (1.2)    Per Capita SDP (1.3)
    Consumer Prices (1.5)    Total Investment (1.7)
        FDI Inflow (1.8)
        Commercial Bank Credit Disbursement (1.10)
        
Business Efficiency    Average Hours Worked (2.5)    Registered Factories (2.1)
    Problem Solving Attitude of Managers  (2.11)    Employment Growth (Mfg.) (2.7)
        Profits of Manufacturing Industries (2.9)
        
Governance Quality    Government Expenditure (3.2)    Revenue Receipts (3.5)
    Government’s Procedures (3.15)     Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)
    Transparency (3.16)    Transport & Communication Spending (3.8)
    Government’s Finances in Next Two Years (3.18)    
        
Human resource    Public Education Expenditure (4.18)    Birth Rate (4.1)
    Labour Relations (4.29)    Health Expenditure (4.12)
    IT Literates (4.31)    Pupil-Teacher Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.17)
         Female Literacy (4.19)
        
Infrastructure    Rail Route kms (5.1)    Degree Colleges (Nos) (5.10)
    Electricity Connected Villages (5.7)    Technical Institutes (Nos) (5.16)
    Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)    Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 22: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Chattisgarh
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Total Investment (1.7)    Per Capita SDP (1.3)
        Share of Service (1.4)
        
Business Efficiency    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.2)    Registered Factories (2.1)
    Capital Intensity (2.4)    
        
Governance Quality    Government Interface with Private Sector (3.11)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
    Speed of Government’s Response to Private Initiative (3.12)    Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)
        
Human Resource    Birth Rate (4.1)     Health Expenditure (4.12)
    Death Rate (4.2)    Literacy Rate (4.14)
        
Infrastructure    Availability of Power (5.19)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

 Table 23: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Delhi
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
Economic Strength    Share of Service (1.4)     Total Investment (1.7)
    Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)    
    FDI Inflow (1.8)    
    Commercial Bank Deposits (1.9)    
    Commercial Bank Credit Disbursement (1.10)    
        
Business Efficiency    Small Scale Industries (2.10)    Capital Intensity (2.4)
    Problem Solving Attitude of Managers (2.11)    Labour Cost (2.6)
    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)    
        
Governance Quality    Expenditure on S& T (3.7)     Cognizable Crimes (3.1)
    Investor Friendliness (3.9)    Revenue Receipts (3.5)
    Government’s Interface with Private Sector (3.11)    
    Government’s Reforms Outlook (3.13)    
        
Human Resource    Death Rate (4.2)    Female Labor Participation (4.4)

    Dependency Ratio (4.5)    Enrollment Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.15)
    Medical Practitioners (4.10)    
    Public Education Expenditure (4.18)    
        
Infrastructure    Rail route kms (5.1)    T&D Losses of Electricity (5.8)
    Cellular Subscribers (5.4)    Degree Colleges (Nos) (5.10)
    Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)
    Drinking Water (5.15)    Primary Schools (Nos) (5.12)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 24: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Goa
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
Economic Strength    Per capita SDP (1.1)    Consumer Prices (1.5)
    SDP Growth (1.2)    
    Commercial Bank Credit Disbursements (1.10)    
        
        
Business Efficiency    Registered Factories (2.1)    Labour Productivity (2.3)
    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.3)    Labour Cost (2.6)
    Employment Growth (2.7)    
        
Governance Quality    Investor Friendliness (3.9)    Interest Payment (% of Revenue) (3.3)
    Computerization of State Records (3.10)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
    Government’s Interface with Private Sector (3.11)    
    Government’s Reform Outlook (3.13)    
    Corruption Level (3.14)    
    Government’s Procedures (3.15)     
    Transparency (3.16)    
        
Human Resource    Birth Rate (4.1)    Enrollment Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.15)
    Immunization (4.9)    Unemployment Rate (4.24)
    Child Labour (4.25)    
    Population Below Poverty Line (4.26)    
        
Infrastructure    Universities (Nos) (5.9)    Electricity Connected Villages (5.7)
    Degree Colleges (Nos) (5.10)    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)
    Development & Maintenance of Infrastructure (5.20)    Primary Health Centres (5.13)
        Forest Area (5.17)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 25: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Gujarat
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength     Consumer Prices (1.5)    SDP Growth (1.2)
    Total Investment (1.7)    Per capita SDP Growth (1.3)
    FDI Inflow (1.8)    Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)
        
Business Efficiency    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.3)    Average Hours Worked (2.5)
    Capital Intensity (2.4)    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)
    New Industries (2.8)    
    Profits of Manufacturing Industries (2.9)    
        
Governance Quality    Investor Friendliness (3.9)    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)
    Corruption Level (3.14)    
    Entry/Local Taxes (3.17)    
        
Human resource    Industrial Workers (4.3)    Child Mortality (4.8)
    Enrollment ratio (Primary Schools) (4.15)    Pupil Teacher Ratio (4.17)
    Unemployment Rate (4.24)    Industrial Disputes (4.22)
    IT Literates (4.31)    Average Calorie Intake (4.27)
        
Infrastructure     Cellular Subscribers (5.4)    Road kms (5.2)
    Electricity Generation Capacity (5.5)    Electricity Connected Villages (5.7)
    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)    Primary Schools (Nos) (5.12)
    Development  & Maintenance of Infrastructure (5.20)    Forest Area (5.17)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 26: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Haryana
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength     Per Capita SDP (1.3)    Share of Service (1.4)
    Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)    Consumer Prices (1.5)
        Total Investment (1.7)
        
Business Efficiency    Registered Factories (2.1)    Average Hours Worked (2.5)
    Industrial Labor Productivity Growth (2.3)    Labour Cost (2.6)
    Employment Growth (2.7)    
        
Governance Quality    Revenue Receipts (3.5)    Interest Payment (% of Revenue) (3.3)
    Transport and Communication Spending (3.8)    Expenditure on S&T (3.7)
        
Human resource    Industrial Workers (4.3)    Dependency Ratio (4.5)
    Life Expectancy (Male) (4.6)    Registered Medical Practitioners (4.10)
    Industrial Disputes (4.22)    Enrolment Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.15)
    Average Calorie Intake Per Capita (4.27)    Public Expenditure on Education (4.18)
    Average Protein Intake Per Capita (4.28)    
        
Infrastructure    Rail route kms (5.1)    Electricity Connected Villages (5.7)
    Population covered by Primary Health Centres (5.13)    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)
    Safe Drinking Water (5.15)    Forest Cover (5.17)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 27: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Himachal Pradesh
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
Economic Strength    SDP Growth (1.2)    Share of Services (1.4)
    Total Investment (1.7)    Consumer Prices (1.5)
    FDI Inflow (1.8)    
        
Business Efficiency    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.2)     Labour Cost (2.6)
    Average Hours Worked (2.5)     Employment Growth (2.7)
    New Industries (2.8)    
    Small Scale Industries (2.10)    
        
Governance Quality    Interest Payment (% of Revenue) (3.3)    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)
    Fiscal Deficit (3.4)    Revenue Receipts (3.5)
    Entry/Local Taxes (3.17)    Computerization of Records (3.10)
        
Human Resource    Immunization (4.9)    Dependency Ratio (4.5)
    Enrolment Ratio (Secondary Schools) (4.16)    Enrollment Ratio (Primary Schools) (4.15)
    Female Labor Participation (Rural) (4.20)    Child Labour (4.25)
    Work Culture (4.30)    
        
Infrastructure    Telephone lines (5.3)    Rail route kms (5.1)
    Electricity Generation Capacity (5.5)     Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)
    Electricity Connected Villages (5.7)    Forest Area (5.17)
    T& D Losses (5.8)    
    Quality of Power (5.22)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 28: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Jammu & Kashmir
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)    Per Capita SDP (1.3)
        Commercial Bank Offices (Nos) (1.11)
        
Business Efficiency    Industrial Labor Productivity Growth (2.3)    Registered Factories (2.1)
    Employment Growth (2.7)    Industrial Labor Productivity (2.2)
        Profits in Manufacturing Industries (2.9)
        
Governance Quality    Revenue receipts (3.5)    Plan Expenditure (3.6)
    Expenditure on S&T (3.7)    Transport & Communication Spending (3.8)
        
Human Resource    Population Below Poverty Level (4.26)    Literacy Rate (4.14)
    Average Calorie Intake (4.27)    Female Literacy Rate (4.19)
    Average Protein Intake (4.28)    Female Labor Participation (Urban) (4.21)
        
Infrastructure    Average Tariff on Electricity (5.6)    Rail Route kms (5.1)
    T&D losses of Electricity (5.8)    Road kms (5.2)
     Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)    Population Covered by Primary Health Centres (5.14)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 29: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Jharkhand
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Total Investment (1.7)    SDP Growth (1.2)
        Per Capita SDP (1.3)
        Consumer Prices (1.5)
        
Business Efficiency    Capital Intensity (2.4)    Industrial Labor Productivity Growth (2.3)
    Profits of Manufacturing (2.9)    Employment Growth (2.7)
    Problem Solving Attitude of Managers (2.11)    
        
Governance Quality     Investor Friendliness (3.9)    Interest Payment (% of Revenue) (3.3)
    Government’s Reforms Outlook (3.13)    Plan Expenditure (3.6)
    Entry/Local Taxes (3.17)    
        
Human Resource    Industrial Workers (4.3)    Literacy Rate (4.14)
    Labour Relations (4.29)    Female Literacy Rate (4.19)
    IT Literates (4.31)    
        
Infrastructure    Development  & Maintenance of Infrastructure (5.20)    Rail route kms (5.1)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 30: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Karnataka
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
Economic Strength    Per Capita SDP Growth (1.3)    Consumer Prices (1.5)
    FDI Inflow (1.8)    Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)
    Commercial Bank Credit Disbursement (1.10)    
        
Business Efficiency    Problem Solving Attitude of Managers (2.11)    Industrial Labor Productivity Growth (2.3)
    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)    Labour Cost (2.6)
        New Industries (2.8)
        
Governance Quality     Interest Payment (3.3)     Cognizable Crimes (3.1)
    Computerization of Records (3.10)    Government Expenditure (% of SDP) (3.2)
    Reform Outlook (3.13)    
        
Human Resource    Medical Practitioners (4.10)    Literacy Rate (4.14)
    Access to Sanitation (%) (4.13)    Public Expenditure on Education (4.18)
    Labor Relations (4.29)     Child Labor (4.25)
    IT Literates (4.31)    
        
Infrastructure     Telephone Lines (5.3)     Rail Route Kms (5.1)
    Cellular Subscribers (5.4)    Primary Schools (Nos) (5.12)
    Degree Colleges (Nos) (5.10)    Population Covered by   Primary Health Centre (5.14)
    Secondary Schools (Nos) (5.11)    Infrastructure Expenditure (5.18)
    Technical Institutes (Nos) (5.16)    Quality of Power (5.22)
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 31: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Kerala
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Share of Service (1.4)    Consumer Prices (1.5)
    Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (1.6)    Total Investment (1.7)
    Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)    FDI Inflow (1.8)
        
        
Business Efficiency    Employment Growth (2.7)    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.2)
    Small Scale Industries (2.10)    Capital Intensity (2.4)
    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)    Average Hours Worked (2.5)
        
Governance Quality    Expenditure on S&T (3.7)    Cognizable Crimes (3.1)
    Corruption Level (3.14)    Government Expenditure (% of SDP) (3.2)
    Transparency (3.16)    
        
Human Resource    Birth Rate (4.1)    Dependency Ratio (4.5)
    Child Mortality (4.8)    Mandays Lost (4.23)
    Hospital Beds (4.11)    Industrial Disputes (4.22)
    Literacy Rate (4.14)    Unemployment Rate (4.24)
    Female Literacy Rate (4.19)    
        
        
Infrastructure    Road kms (5.2)    Electricity Connected Villages (5.7)
    Electricity Generation Capacity (5.5)    Drinking Water (5.15)
    Cell Phone Subscribers (5.4)    
    Average Electricity Tariff (5.6)    
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 32: Strengths & Weaknesses:  Maharashtra
Factors    Strong Criteria    Weak Criteria
        
Economic Strength    Total Investment (1.7)    SDP Growth (1.2)
    FDI Inflow (1.8)    Per capita SDP Growth (1.3)
    Commercial Bank Deposits (1.9)    
    Commercial Bank Credit Disbursement (1.10)    
        
Business Efficiency    Labour Cost (2.6)    Industrial Labour Productivity Growth (2.3)
    New Industries (Nos) (2.8)    
    Profits in Manufacturing (2.9)    
    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)    
        
Governance Quality        Government’s Expenditure (% of SDP) (3.2)
        Per Capita Plan Expenditure (3.6)
        Transport & Communication (3.8)
        
Human Resource    Life Expectancy (Male) (4.6)    Health Expenditure (4.12)
    Life Expectancy (Female) (4.7)    Child Labor (4.25)
    IT Literates (4.31)    
    Work Culture (4.30)    
    Educational System (4.32)    
        
Infrastructure     Electricity Generation Capacity (5.5)    T&D Losses (5.8)
    Degree Colleges (Nos) (5.10)    Primary Schools (Nos) (5.12)
        Forest Cover (5.17)

Categories: Uncategorized

Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States

August 28, 2006 Leave a comment

Table 9 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Business Efficiency
Smaller States    STD Values    Rank
Goa    0.864    1
Delhi    0.833    2
Jharkhand    0.672    3
HP    0.458    4
Arunachal    0.212    5
Mizoram    0.108    6
J&K    0.102    7
Chattisgarh    0.031    8
Uttaranchal    -0.031    9
Tripura    -0.120    10
Manipur    -0.382    11
Meghalaya    -0.477    12
Sikkim    -0.629    13
Nagaland    -0.674    14
–    –    –

Vast variations were seen among the smaller states in the case of Governance Quality too. Goa with a Standard Value of 1.254 came to the top followed by Sikkim (1.023). Delhi at the third place achieved far lower a Standard Value, 0.431. At the bottom of the list came Jammu & Kashmir (-0.193) (Fig. 10).

Table 10 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Governance Quality
Smaller States    STD Values    Rank
Goa    1.254    1
Sikkim    1.023    2
Delhi    0.431    3
Jharkhand    0.386    4
Chattisgarh    0.378    5
HP    0.315    6
Arunachal    0.268    7
Mizoram    0.104    8
Uttaranchal    0.099    9
Nagaland    0.039    10
Tripura    -0.041    11
Manipur    -0.149    12
Meghalaya    -0.161    13
J&K    -0.193    14
–    –    –

Smaller states showed significant variations among themselves in regard to Human Resources. Mizoram came to the top of the list with a Standard Value of 0.756 followed far below by Goa (0.369) and Himachal Pradesh (0.347) (Fig. 11). At the bottom of the list came Jharkand (-0.492) and Chattisgarh (-0.688).

Table 11 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Human Resources
Smaller States    STD Values    Rank
Mizoram    0.756    1
Goa    0.369    2
Delhi    0.347    3
HP    0.302    4
Arunachal    0.200    5
Sikkim    0.067    6
Manipur    0.019    7
Meghalaya    -0.145    8
Uttaranchal    -0.148    9
J&K    -0.187    10
Nagaland    -0.244    11
Tripura    -0.337    12
Jharkhand    -0.492    13
Chattisgarh    -0.688    14
–    –    –

Smaller states were characterized by significant variations as far as Infrastructure was concerned. Goa with a Standard Value of 0.505 came to the top followed by Jharkand (0.489). Nagaland (-0.402) and Tripura (-0.422) were at the bottom of the list (Fig 12).

Table 12 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Infrastructure
Smaller States    STD Values    Rank
Goa    0.505    1
Jharkhand    0.489    2
Arunachal    0.460    3
HP    0.427    4
Chattisgarh    0.349    5
Delhi    0.238    6
Uttaranchal    0.195    7
Meghalaya    0.101    8
Sikkim    0.056    9
Mizoram    0.023    10
J&K    -0.208    11
Manipur    -0.272    12
Nagaland    -0.402    13
Tripura    -0.422    14
–    –    –

Table 13 Criterion wise Ranking of States – Economic Strength
Bigger States
States    Percapita SDP
(1.1)    SDP Growth
(1.2)    Percapita SDP Growth
(1.3)     Share of Service
(1.4)    Consumer Price (Capital Cities)
(1.5)    Per capita Consumption Expenditure
(1.6)
AP    8    8    5    6    12    10
Assam    12    13    12    10    NA    13
Bihar    15    1    2    4    3    14
Gujarat    4    14    14    9    2    6
Haryana    3    4    4    14    14    3
Karnataka    7    3    1    7    11    7
Kerala    6    5    6    1    10    1
MP    11    12    13    11    5    12
Maharashtra    2    11    10    2    9    4
Orissa    14    15    15    13    7    15
Punjab    1    6    8    15    1    2
Rajasthan    10    10    11    12    8    8
Tamil Nadu    5    7    7    3    13    5
UP    13    9    9    8    6    11
WB    9    2    3    5    4    9
Smaller States
Arunachal    6    14    13    11    NA    7
Chattisgarh    13    10    12    12    NA    NA
Delhi    2    4    7    1    2    1
Goa    1    3    3    5    NA    2
HP    3    5    6    10    3    6
J&K    11    6    9    8    1    5
Jharkhand    14    9    10    13    NA    NA
Manipur    12    8    4    9    NA    9
Meghalaya    10    11    8    4    4    8
Mizoram    4    12    11    2    NA    4
Nagaland    7    13    14    3    NA    3
Sikkim    5    7    5    7    NA    11
Tripura    9    2    1    6    NA    10
Uttaranchal    8    1    2    NA    NA    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1
Table 13 (Contd.)
Bigger States
States    Total Investment
(1.7)    FDI Inflow
(1.8)    Commercial Banks Deposit
(1.9)     Credit Disbursement by Commercial Banks
(1.10)    Commercial Bank Offices (1.11)
AP    3    5    9    7    11
Assam    14    15    15    14    12
Bihar    15    14    13    15    7
Gujarat    2    4    4    6    10
Haryana    11    10    7    8    5
Karnataka    7    3    6    4    8
Kerala    13    13    3    5    1
MP    9    6    11    10    15
Maharashtra    1    1    1    1    9
Orissa    12    8    14    12    13
Punjab    6    12    2    3    2
Rajasthan    10    11    12    11    14
Tamil Nadu    5    2    5    2    4
UP    4    9    10    13    6
WB    8    7    8    9    3
Smaller States

Arunachal    11    NA    8    12    11
Chattisgarh    1    NA    10    6    NA
Delhi    5    1    1    1    1
Goa    4    3    2    2    2
HP    3    2    3    5    4
J&K    8    5    5    3    10
Jharkhand    2    NA    6    7    NA
Manipur    13    7    13    13    8
Meghalaya    9    4    7    10    5
Mizoram    NA    NA    12    11    9
Nagaland    10    6    11    14    7
Sikkim    12    NA    4    8    6
Tripura    7    8    9    9    3
Uttaranchal    6    NA    NA    4    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 14 Criterion wise Ranking of States – Business Efficiency
Bigger States
States    Registered Factories (2.1)    Industrial Labour Productivity (2.2)     Industrial Labour Productivity Growth
 (2.3)    Capital Intensity (Mfg.)
(2.4)     Average Hours Worked
(2.5)    Labour Cost Per Worker (Mfg.)
(2.6)
AP    6    15    8    12    11    2
Assam    12    12    5    13    1    1
Bihar    15    7    9    9    5    15
Gujarat    3    2    7    2    12    4
Haryana    4    5    1    8    13    11
Karnataka    8    8    14    7    10    13
Kerala    7    13    6    15    15    12
MP    5    3    4    5    6    9
Maharashtra    13    1    12    6    3    14
Orissa    14    6    15    1    2    8
Punjab    2    10    2    14    7    3
Rajasthan    9    9    10    4    4    5
Tamil Nadu    1    11    13    10    9    6
UP    11    4    3    3    14    10
WB    10    14    11    11    8    7
Smaller States

Arunachal    NA    NA    NA    NA    7    NA
Chattisgarh    7    3    7    3    NA    NA
Delhi    2    5    5    9    4    7
Goa    1    1    6    2    3    8
HP    4    2    4    4    1    5
J&K    9    11    1    8    6    3
Jharkhand    8    4    8    1    NA    NA
Manipur    10    7    2    7    8    4
Meghalaya    11    8    10    5    2    6
Mizoram    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Nagaland    6    10    9    6    9    2
Sikkim    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Tripura    5    9    NA    10    5    1
Uttaranchal    3    6    3    11    NA    NA
    Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 14 (Contd.)
Bigger States
States    Growth in Employment (Mfg.)
(2.7)    Number of New Industries/ Enterprises
(2.8)    Profits (Mfg.)
(2.9)    Number of Small Scale Industries  (2.10)    Problem Solving Attitude of Managers (2.11)    Competent Senior Managers (2.12)
AP    2    4    11    13    12    3
Assam    7    14    12    14    NA    NA
Bihar    15    12    14    8    1    6
Gujarat    6    3    2    7    4    8
Haryana    4    15    7    5    NA    NA
Karnataka    5    11    5    6    3    2
Kerala    1    9    9    2    7    4
MP    14    10    6    4    8    10
Maharashtra    8    1    1    9    2    1
Orissa    12    8    13    15    5    7
Punjab    11    13    8    1    6    11
Rajasthan    10    7    10    12    9    12
Tamil Nadu    3    6    3    3    10    13
UP    13    5    4    10    11    9
WB    9    2    15    11    13    5
Smaller States
Arunachal    NA    NA    NA    5    NA    NA
Chattisgarh    5    NA    4    NA    5    5
Delhi    6    1    2    1    1    1
Goa    3    5    3    4    2    2
HP    7    2    5    2    4    3
J&K    4    NA    8    6    NA    NA
Jharkhand    8    NA    1    NA    3    4
Manipur    11    3    10    7    NA    NA
Meghalaya    10    6    9    8    NA    NA
Mizoram    NA    8    NA    3    NA    NA
Nagaland    9    7    11    9    NA    NA
Sikkim    NA    9    NA    11    NA    NA
Tripura    1    4    6    10    NA    NA
Uttaranchal    2    NA    7    NA    NA    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1
        
Table 15 Criterion wise Ranking of States – Governance Quality
Bigger States
States    Cognizable crimes
(3.1)    Govt. Expendi-ture
(3.2)    Interest payment
(3.3)    Fiscal Deficit
(3.4)    Revenue receipts
(3.5)    State annual plan expenditure (3.6)    Expendi-ture on S&T (3.7)    Transport & Communication Spending
(3.8)
AP    7    11    8    4    8    1    8    8
Assam    4    3    4    6    10    7    13    5
Bihar    6    1    9    9    15    15    NA    14
Gujarat    12    7    6    14    3    2    7    3
Haryana    8    9    10    7    2    5    11    1
Karnataka    10    12    1    2    7    3    9    6
Kerala    14    10    7    8    6    9    2    4
MP    9    4    3    1    9    4    12    7
Maharashtra    15    15    5    5    4    14    3    15
Orissa    5    2    13    13    12    11    1    12
Punjab    1    8    11    11    1    8    4    2
Rajasthan    13    6    12    12    11    13    10    13
Tamil Nadu    11    13    2    3    5    10    6    9
UP    3    5    14    10    14    6    5    11
WB    2    14    15    15    13    12    14    10

Smaller States

Arunachal    9    NA    12    13    4    2    NA    1
Chattisgarh    NA    NA    3    12    NA    14    NA    NA
Delhi    11    9    2    4    11    9    1    6
Goa    8    8    10    9    2    4    7    8
HP    7    6    1    2    7    7    4    5
J&K    6    4    4    7    6    11    2    12
Jharkhand    NA    NA    8    6    NA    13    NA    7
Manipur    4    3    9    3    9    10    3    11
Meghalaya    2    7    14    11    10    6    9    4
Mizoram    10    NA    13    8    3    3    NA    3
Nagaland    1    2    5    10    5    5    5    9
Sikkim    5    1    6    14    1    1    6    2
Tripura    3    5    7    5    8    8    8    10
Uttaranchal    NA    NA    11    1    NA    12    NA    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Table 15 (Contd.)
Bigger States
States    Investor friendliness
(3.9)    Computeri
sation of Records
(3.10)    . Interface with Business
(3.11)    Speed of Response
(3.12)    Reform outlook
(3.13)    Corruption Level
(3.14)    Government Procedures
(3.15)    Transpar-ency
(3.16)    Entry/local Taxes
(3.17)    Govt. Finances
(3.18)
AP    9    1    5    1    7    13    1    10    2    1
Assam    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Bihar    10    5    10    7    8    4    2    1    5    3
Gujarat    1    6    4    8    6    3    4    5    4    9
Haryana    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Karnataka    2    2    3    3    2    1    5    6    7    5
Kerala    3    4    2    4    1    2    3    2    8    6
MP    11    7    12    12    13    10    11    12    11    4
Maharashtra    8    10    6    9    12    12    9    13    12    11
Orissa    12    12    11    11    9    6    6    7    10    13
Punjab    6    11    9    6    5    9    12    4    6    7
Rajasthan    13    13    13    13    10    11    13    8    3    10
Tamil Nadu    7    3    8    10    3    7    8    9    1    2
UP    5    9    7    5    11    8    7    3    13    8
WB    4    8    1    2    4    5    10    11    9    12

Smaller States
Arunachal    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Chattisgarh    4    3    2    2    3    5    4    4    3    3
Delhi    2    2    3    3    2    3    2    2    5    2
Goa    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    4    1
HP    5    5    5    5    4    2    3    3    1    5
J&K    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Jharkhand    3    4    4    4    3    4    5    5    2    4
Manipur    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Meghalaya    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Mizoram    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Nagaland    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Sikkim    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Tripura    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Uttaranchal    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA

Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1
 
    Table 16 Criterion wise Ranking of States – Human Resources
Bigger States
States    Birth rate
(4.1)    Death rate
(4.2)    Industrial Workers
(4.3)    Female labor
(4.4)    Dependency Ratio
(4.5)    Life Expectancy Male
(4.6)    Life Expectancy Female
(4.7)    Child Mortality
(4.8)
AP    5    9    5    1    4    8    8    7
Assam    10    12    10    15    1    14    12    9
Bihar    14    11    15    13    6    10    11    12
Gujarat    9    4    2    7    3    9    9    10
Haryana    11    5    3    10    15    4    6    8
Karnataka    7    7    8    6    9    7    5    5
Kerala    1    1    7    9    14    1    1    1
MP    12    13    11    3    10    15    15    15
Maharashtra    4    6    6    5    8    3    3    2
Orissa    8    15    13    8    11    13    13    11
Punjab    6    3    4    11    13    2    2    3
Rajasthan    13    10    12    2    5    11    10    13
Tamil Nadu    2    8    1    4    7    5    4    4
UP    15    14    14    12    12    12    14    14
WB    3    2    9    14    2    6    7    6

Smaller States
Arunachal    10    6    NA    3    2    NA    NA    NA
Chattisgarh    12    13    6    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Delhi    7    1    2    11    1    NA    NA    2
Goa    1    10    1    9    8    NA    NA    3
HP    9    9    4    1    10    0    0    1
J&K    5    7    8    6    NA    NA    NA    4
Jharkhand    11    11    3    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Manipur    4    4    10    7    7    NA    NA    NA
Meghalaya    13    12    11    2    4    NA    NA    NA
Mizoram    3    2    NA    4    5    NA    NA    NA
Nagaland    NA    NA    9    5    6    NA    NA    NA
Sikkim    8    5    NA    8    3    NA    NA    NA
Tripura    2    3    7    10    9    NA    NA    NA
Uttaranchal    6    8    5    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA
Figures in brackets are the criteria codes for details see Appendix 1

Categories: Uncategorized

2004 State Rankings – Chief Minister Performance

August 28, 2006 Leave a comment

State Rankings

Based on the results, the states are shown in the ranking order for each of the 95 ranked criteria. Whether a high Standard Value reflects good or bad performance depends on what the data is intended to measure and which competitiveness factor it is in. Factor-wise rankings are then determined by calculating the average of the Standard Values of all the ranked criteria, which make up each factor. This average is found by dividing the sum of the Standard Values of the ranked criteria by the number of ranked criteria. This enables us to “lock” the weight of the factors independently of the number of criteria they contain so that each factor has an equal impact on the overall ranking. Each criterion, whether from hard data or from survey data, is weighted equally in determining the average Standard Value in each factor. Wherever data is not available for a particular state, the missing values are replaced by a Standard Value 0.

Next, we arrive at the factor average Standard Values to determine the Competitiveness Factor rankings. The Standard Values of the Competitiveness Factors are then aggregated to determine the Overall Competitiveness Rankings. All the ranked criteria in the five Competitiveness Factors are thus covered in the Overall Competitiveness Rankings. Since all the values are standardized, they can be aggregated to compute the indexes. We use these indexes to compute the rankings for the five Competitiveness Factors and the Overall Competitiveness Scoreboard.

For purpose of presentation and comparison of the state rankings we grouped all the states in to two categories based on the size in terms of population, i.e., the bigger states and the smaller states. Overall Competitiveness Rankings of the states are given in table 1. State-wise Factor Competitiveness rankings are given in tables 2 – 6. The states are ranked according to the detailed 95 criteria in tables 7 – 11.

Based on the rankings obtained by the states for each of the 95 criteria (Tables 7 – 11), we have identified the strengths and weaknesses for each state (Tables 12-40). Strong criteria indicate that the state has considerable competitiveness (high rank) vis-à-vis the rest of the states in terms of those criteria. Similarly, weak criteria indicate that the state has low competitiveness (lower rank) vis-à-vis other states. It should be noted that this identification is not based on any international norm or comparison.

References

World Competitiveness Yearbook (2004), Institute for Management Development (IMD), Lausanne, Switzerland

Global Competitiveness Report ( 2004), World Economic Forum (WEF), Geneva, Switzerland

A.T. Kearney (2004), FDI Confidence Index, Global Management Consulting Firm, Chicago, US

Goldman Sachs (2003), Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050, by Dominic Wilson and Roopa Purushotaman, Global Economics Paper No. 99

National Productivity Council (1992a), Human Development in Indian States, Productivity, Vol. 33, No.2, July-September

National Productivity Council (1992b), Infrastructure Development in Indian States, Productivity, Vol.33, No.3, October-December

National Productivity Council (1994), Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States, Productivity, Vol. 35, No.2, July-September

Business Today (1995), Competitive Advantage of Indian States, June 7- 21

Business Today (1997), Best States to Invest in, Dec 22, 1997 – Jan 6, 1998

Business Today (B 1999), Best States to Invest in, Dec 22, 1999 – Jan 6, 2000

National Council of Applied Economic Research (2000), Policy Competitiveness of Indian States in Attracting Direct Investment

Confederation of Indian Industries & Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (2000) Performance of the Indian States

India Today (2003), Small is Beautiful – India’s Best and Worst States: The State of the States, May 19

India Today (2004), North South Lead – India’s Best and Worst States: The State of the States, August 16

Ranking of states (graphical representation)

There were wide variations in the Overall Competitiveness among the bigger Indian states Maharashtra came to the top of the list with a Standard Value of 0.543. Punjab with a Standard Value of 0.524 came the second followed by Gujarat (0.511). Karnataka (0.478) and Kerala (0.452) came to the fourth and fifth positions respectively. The Standard Values of UP (-0.106) and Assam (-0.238) at the bottom of the list were found far lower.

Table 1 Overall Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States
Bigger States STD Values Rank
Maharashtra 0.543 1
Punjab 0.524 2
Gujarat 0.511 3
Karnataka 0.478 4
Kerala 0.452 5
Tamil Nadu 0.440 6
AP 0.233 7
Haryana 0.090 8
WB -0.023 9
MP -0.066 10
Orissa -0.091 11
Rajasthan -0.091 12
Bihar -0.100 13
UP -0.106 14
Assam -0.238 15

Wide variations were noted among bigger Indian states in the case of Competitiveness Factor Economic Strength. Maharashtra on the top of the list recorded a Standard Value as high as 0.750 (Fig 2). The next in the list, Tamil Nadu, achieved a Standard Value significantly lower, 0.197, closely followed by Karnataka (0.189). Assam (-0.623) and Orissa (-0.674) were at the bottom of the list.

Table 2 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Economic Strength
Bigger States STD Values Rank
Maharashtra 0.750 1
Tamil Nadu 0.197 2
Karnataka 0.189 3
Gujarat 0.142 4
Punjab 0.140 5
Kerala 0.130 6
WB 0.099 7
AP 0.040 8
Haryana -0.091 9
UP -0.242 10
Bihar -0.271 11
Rajasthan -0.353 12
MP -0.413 13
Assam -0.623 14
Orissa -0.674 15

Wide variations were found among the bigger Indian states in the case of Competitiveness Factor Business Efficiency too. Maharashtra on the top of the list recorded a Standard Value as high as 0.990 (Fig 3). The next best state, Gujarat, achieved a Standard Value significantly lower, 0.779. The third in the list, Punjab had a score only of 0.402. West Bengal and Bihar at the bottom of the table were found with very low Standard Values, -0.254 and -0.401 respectively.

Table 3 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Business Efficiency
Bigger States STD Values Rank
Maharashtra 0.990 1
Gujarat 0.779 2
Punjab 0.402 3
Karnataka 0.225 4
Tamil Nadu 0.198 5
MP 0.151 6
Haryana 0.112 7
AP 0.092 8
Orissa 0.039 9
UP -0.003 10
Rajasthan -0.014 11
Kerala -0.016 12
Assam -0.138 13
WB -0.254 14
Bihar -0.401 15


Karnataka with a Standard Value of 1.194 came on the top of bigger Indian states in the case of Governance Quality closely followed by Kerala (1.074) and AP (1.003) (Fig. 4). Standard Values of the lowest in the list viz. Maharashtra and Rajastan were found far lower, 0.027 and -0.310 respectively.

Table 4 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Governance Quality

Bigger States STD Values Rank
Karnataka 1.194 1
Kerala 1.074 2
AP 1.003 3
Gujarat 0.939 4
Tamil Nadu 0.776 5
Punjab 0.733 6
Bihar 0.710 7
Haryana 0.691 8
UP 0.317 9
Assam 0.199 10
WB 0.177 11
Orissa 0.160 12
MP 0.065 13
Maharashtra 0.027 14
Rajasthan -0.310 15

Significantly wide variations were observed among the bigger states in the case of Human Resources. The list was headed by the highest literacy state in the country, Kerala with a Standard Value of 0.640 followed by Maharashtra (0.623) and Punjab (0.592). At the bottom of the list were Bihar (-0. 362) and UP (-0.465) (Fig. 5).

Table 5 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Human Resources
Bigger States STD Values Rank
Kerala 0.640 1
Maharashtra 0.623 2
Punjab 0.592 3
Tamil Nadu 0.560 4
Karnataka 0.504 5
Gujarat 0.408 6
Rajasthan 0.085 7
Haryana 0.049 8
AP 0.038 9
WB -0.212 10
MP -0.285 11
Orissa -0.285 12
Assam -0.296 13
Bihar -0.362 14
UP -0.465 15

Inter-state variations among bigger states in regard to Infrastructure were found to be very high. Punjab (0.751) headed the list followed by Tamil Nadu (0.469) and Kerala (0.435). Haryana (-0.309) and Assam (-0.330) were at the bottom of the list (Fig. 6).

Table 6 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Infrastructure
Bigger States STD Values Rank
Punjab 0.751 1
Tamil Nadu 0.469 2
Kerala 0.435 3
Maharashtra 0.324 4
Orissa 0.306 5
Gujarat 0.285 6
Karnataka 0.279 7
MP 0.151 8
Rajasthan 0.136 9
WB 0.074 10
AP -0.007 11
UP -0.139 12
Bihar -0.178 13
Haryana -0.309 14
Assam -0.330 15


As in the case of bigger states significant inter-state variations were observed among the smaller states in regard to Overall Competitiveness. Goa with a Standard Value of 0.776 came to the top followed very closely by Delhi (0.775). Himachal Pradesh (0.291) and Mizoram (0.172) at the third and fourth places respectively achieved significantly lower Standard Values. Nagaland at the bottom of the list recorded a Standard Value of -0.332 (Fig.7).

Table 7 Overall Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States
Smaller States STD Values Rank
Goa 0.776 1
Delhi 0.775 2
HP 0.291 3
Mizoram 0.172 4
Uttaranchal 0.144 5
Jharkhand 0.110 6
Arunachal 0.079 7
Sikkim 0.064 8
Chattisgarh -0.011 9
J&K -0.109 10
Tripura -0.166 11
Manipur -0.211 12
Meghalaya -0.220 13
Nagaland -0.332 14
- - -

Vast variations were seen among the smaller states in the case of Economic Strength. First in the list, Delhi with a Standard Value of 2.028 was far ahead of Goa (0.888) in the second and Uttaranchal (0.606) in the third. At the bottom of the list was Jharkhand with a Standard Value –0.504 followed by Arunachal (-0.744) (Fig. 8).

Table 8 Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Economic Strength
Smaller States STD Values Rank
Delhi 2.028 1
Goa 0.888 2
Uttaranchal 0.606 3
Tripura 0.091 4
HP -0.048 5
J&K -0.057 6
Chattisgarh -0.124 7
Mizoram -0.133 8
Sikkim -0.199 9
Manipur -0.271 10
Nagaland -0.377 11
Meghalaya -0.416 12
Jharkhand -0.504 13
Arunachal -0.744 14
- - -

Vast variations were observed among the smaller states in regard to Business Efficiency as well. Goa with a Standard Value of 0.864 came to the top of the list followed closely by Delhi (0.833). Sikkim (-0.629) and Nagaland (-0.673) remained at the bottom of the list (Fig. 9)

Categories: Uncategorized

Indian State Competitiveness Studies – 2004 Analysis

August 28, 2006 Leave a comment

State Competitiveness Studies

Experimental studies on competitiveness of Indian states have been pioneered by National Productivity Council (NPC) as early as in 1992 when fifteen major Indian states were ranked by it based on their performance in Human Development (HDI) (Productivity 1992 a). The four variables considered while ranking the states were life expectancy, literacy rate, per capita state domestic product (SDP) and population below poverty line. The study ranked Punjab at the top in terms of HDI followed by Kerala and Haryana. NPC followed this study with yet another study on the competitiveness of Indian States based on Infrastructure Development Index (IDI) (Productivity 1992 b). In this study also NPC considered the same list of fifteen major states for ranking purposes. Six variables related to infrastructure were taken in to account viz. road length, navigable waterways, railway route length, tele-density, electricity consumption and number of commercial bank branches. Based IDI Punjab was ranked at number one followed by Gujarat and Haryana. Bihar ranked last in both the studies.

In its third study (National Productivity Council 1994) a state level Competitiveness Index was developed by the NPC covering a total of eleven variables including all those already considered in the HDI and IDI studies. The additional factors covered by the Competitiveness Index were the man days lost, political stability and state government taxes. Here again the UNDP’s methodology had been followed in order to construct the Competitiveness Index for ranking the states. Punjab emerged as the most competitive Indian state followed by Kerala and Haryana. As in the case of earlier studies Bihar emerged as the lowest in terms of competitiveness.

In 1995, Business Today (BT), June 7- 21, carried out a survey on competitive advantage of Indian states. The main objective of the BT survey was three-fold viz. (i) identify, in order of importance, the parameters used by the corporate locating their projects (ii) rate the states on each of these parameters and (iii) combine the ratings into a composite rank for each state. In 1997, the BT (Dec 22, 1997 -Jan 6, 1998) conducted a second survey on best states to invest in. Besides relying purely on perceptions, an objective index was also constructed, which was used to rank 26 Indian states. The objective index was arrived at based on 28 parameters belonging to four broad categories viz. physical infrastructure (18 parameters), government (3 parameters), labour (4 parameters) and social infrastructure (3 parameters). A state was thus evaluated on two dimensions viz. objective score, which comprised 28 parameters and a survey or perception score consisting of 19 parameters. To obtain a summary statistic for the state these two scores were averaged. BT’s third study in the series published in 1999 (December 22, 1999 to January 6, 2000) introduced a marketing index besides the objective and the perception (survey) indices. The weights assigned to various factors while computing the objective rank of the states are as follows: physical infrastructure – 40%, quality of governance – 30%, financial infrastructure, labour and social infrastructure 10% each. The overall rank of a state was arrived at by averaging the scores in three different factors (objective, perception and marketing) with the objective score receiving 40% weight. The subjective score also received 40% weight while the marketing score was given a 20% weight. Maharashtra topped the list followed by Gujarat, Delhi, Tamil Nadu etc.

National Council of Applied Economic Research ( 2000) undertook a study to find out the policy competitiveness of Indian states in attracting direct investment and the effects of this competition on economic development. The study found infrastructure as the most critical variable influencing the investors’ decisions as compared to incentives offered by the state governments.

In 2000 Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) commissioned the Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (RGICS) to carry out a detailed study on the performance of the Indian states. The study was based on a detailed analysis of the physical, legal and capital market infrastructure as well as the level of human resource development in each state. Other factors included by the study are: economic and financial performance of the state, investment climate, labor force, law & order and consumer demographics. Based on the state’s performance in terms of these criteria, an overall ranking was worked out using Principal Components Analysis. The study covered 18 states of India. Delhi was rated the best performing state, followed by Goa (2nd rank), Kerala (3rd rank), Punjab (4th rank) and Maharashtra (5th rank). Bihar was once again at the bottom of the list.

In 2003 India Today (May 19) carried out a study to rank 19 Indian states according to what it called ‘to live and work in’. The study noted that small states enjoyed inherent advantages over their big brother counterparts. Goa was found as the number one Indian state with Delhi and Punjab in second and third positions respectively. Bigger states like Madhya Pradesh and UP received lower ranks of 17 and 15 respectively.

In their recent study on the state competitiveness by the India Today 2004 (August 16), 35 Indian States and Union Territories have been considered in three different categories such as Big States (20), Small States (10) and Union Territories (5). The bigger states are identified as the ones having more than 35000 sq.kms and with a population of over five million. Among the bigger states Punjab was ranked first, while Kerala got second rank and Himachal Pradesh got third rank while Bihar was ranked the last. Among the smaller states category Pondicherry was ranked first followed by Delhi while Meghalaya got the last rank. Among the Union Territories, Chandigarh was ranked first and Dadar & N.Haveli got the last rank. One major finding of the study is that the smaller states are relatively more competitive as compared to their bigger counter parts. This study considered 49 measures across eight broad macro economic performance parameters. Principal Components Analysis was used to generate weights for each of the measure.

Competitiveness Measurement

Innumerably a large number of micro and macro level aspects govern the competitiveness dynamics of anyone economy. It was found almost impossible to track all of them in a single study especially because of the non-availability of reliable indicators in the case of a developing country like India with inadequate data infrastructure. More so at the disaggregated levels of the states. The present study by the NPC identified about 95 socio-economic and technological criteria through extensive research of economic literature and feedback from the business community, government agencies and academia. The 95 criteria were grouped under the following five competitiveness factors:

1. Economic Strength 11 Criteria Macro-economic evaluation of the state economy:
Economy, Investment & Prices
2. Business Efficiency 12 Criteria Extent to which enterprises are performing in an innovative, profitable and responsible manner:
Productivity, Labor costs, management practices and entrepreneurial resources
3. Governance Quality 18 Criteria Extent to which government policies are conducive to competitiveness:
Fiscal Policy and health, transparency and outlook of the government towards business
4. Human Resources 32 Criteria Extent to which human resources meet the needs of business:
Quality of manpower, employment scenario and work culture
5. Infrastructure 22 Criteria Extent to which basic infrastructure meets the needs of business:
Basic infrastructure – Physical and Social

The study focuses on the impact of interaction by these five factors on the state’s local environment. The methodology assumes that healthy performance in these dimensions creates the environment that sustains the state’s competitiveness.

The study arrives at the Overall Competitiveness Index of the 29 Indian states based on the respective computed values by taking into account the identified socio-economic and technological criteria. For presentation of the ranks the states are grouped in to two broad categories based on the size of their population: bigger states and smaller states. In the construction of the competitiveness indices, two types of data are combined. First are the quantitative indicators related to the state’s economy, performance and policies of the state government, efficiency of the business units operating within the state’s borders, characteristic features of the state’s human resources and finally its state of the infrastructure. Referred to as hard data, these are obtained from various published sources at national and local levels. Out of the list of 95 identified criteria (Appendix 1) 75 are based on hard data sources (Appendix 2) to determine the overall ranking. These 75 criteria represent a weight of approximately eighty percent in the overall rankings.

Second, the survey data comes from an opinion survey specifically undertaken for purposes of the present study across all the states in India. The survey was conducted with a view to quantify aspects related to competitiveness for which there is no statistics, or statistics available with significant time lags. A survey schedule that incorporated 20 such aspects relating to competitiveness (Appendix 3) was mailed to about 3000 top and middle level executives from all the sectors, opinion leaders and policy makers in the country. The respondents were solicited to evaluate the prevailing and expected competitiveness conditions in the state in which they resided or operated during the year preceding the survey. The respondents’ assessment of the competitiveness issues was sought on a 6 point scale with response 1 indicating a positive, highest perception and 6 indicating the negative, lowest perception. Based on the responses the average value for each state was calculated. The data is then converted from a 1-6 scale to a 1-10 scale. Finally, the survey responses are transformed into their Standard Values, from which the rankings are calculated. In all 172 respondents participated in the opinion survey. Results reflected prevailing views about the conditions in each state and draw on the wealth of the respondents’ experience. The survey data help quantify aspects that otherwise would not have been measurable, but are nonetheless crucial to a state’s competitiveness. Each survey question is treated as separate criterion and used to calculate the rankings. In the overall rankings the survey data represent a weight of one-fifth.

With a view to avoid serious volatility in the case of hard data due to seasonal and cyclical factors we have used the averages of the previous five years values wherever available. In most of the cases, a higher value is found better. For example, for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) the state with the highest Standard Values is ranked first while the one with the lowest the last. However, in some cases, the lowest value is the most competitive, e.g. Consumer Price Inflation or number of Cognizable Offences. In such cases a reverse ranking is used, the state with the highest Standard Values receiving the last rank and the one with the lowest Standard Values receiving the first.

Standard Value

As the criteria are scaled differently, a comparable standard scale is used to compute the overall factor results. The relative performance of each state in the final rankings is measured through the Standard Deviation Method (SDM). First, for each criterion, we compute the average value for all the states. Then the standard deviation is calculated using the following formula:

S = (x – x)
N

Finally, we compute each of the 29 states Standard Values (STD) for the 95 ranked criteria by subtracting the average value of each criterion from the state’s original value and then dividing the result by the standard deviation.

Standard Value = x – x
S

Where:
x = original value
_
x = average value of for all the states
N = number of states
S = Standard Deviation

Categories: Uncategorized

Indian States Performance Analysis – 2004 : Economic Survey

August 28, 2006 Leave a comment

Economic Services Group
National Productivity Council
Lodi Road New Delhi
 

Preface

Despite globalization and liberalization, several recent studies underlined the key role by the states in shaping the environment in which enterprises from both public and private sectors operate. A significant part of the competitive advantage of states is believed to arise from far reaching incentive polices which are designed to attract foreign investment like tax breaks, subsidies etc. This study examined the dynamics of state level competitiveness and ranked all the Indian states based on both hard and soft data variables. Though the states are quite diverse in terms of area, population or resources, they are operating under more or less the same policy environment and hence are endowed with almost equal opportunity to grow and prosper. In this study the ranking of the states has been made based on a vast list of quantitative and qualitative parameters using a well-established methodology developed by Institute for Management Development (IMD) (Switzerland) for the World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) for the preparation of which NPC serves as a the Partner Institute from India.

National Productivity Council (NPC) has pioneered experimental studies on competitiveness of Indian states as early as in 1992 when fifteen major Indian states were ranked by it based on their performance in Human Development. NPC followed this study with yet another study on the competitiveness of Indian States based on Infrastructure Development Index.  In its third study, for the first time in India, a state level Competitiveness Index was developed by the NPC covering a total of eleven variables. Later on Business Today, CII, NCAER and India Today examined in some detail issues related to competitiveness of Indian states. Sub-national level competitiveness is a complex phenomenon, the dynamics of which is governed by innumerably a large number of socio-economic, technological and political aspects. It was found almost impossible to track all of them in a single study especially because of the non-availability of reliable indicators in the case of a developing country like India with inadequate data infrastructure. The present study by NPC identified about 95 socio-economic and technological criteria through extensive research and feedback from the business community, government agencies and academia.

This study is an addition to the growing literature on the subject. Though the report ranked the Bigger and Smaller Indian States based on their achievements in the identified competitiveness factors, the effort has been to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each state in order to enable policy formulation towards performance improvement.

We place on record our thanks to former Director General Shri. Brijesh Kumar IAS who was instrumental in initiating this study by NPC and to Smt. Sunila Basant IAS DG NPC under whose able guidance major portion of the work was completed and brought to the present form.

New Delhi                                            Dr. N.K.Nair
27th December 2004                                        Group Head
Economic Services (ES)
 

RESEARCH TEAM
Team Leader
 Dr. N.K.Nair  – Group Head (ES)

Research Co-ordinator
  Dr. K.P.Sunny – Dy.Director  

Team Members
V.Anilkumar – Dy Director
Utpal Chattopadhyay – Dy.Director
 D.Jagannath Rao – Asst. Director  
Rajesh Sund – Asst. Director  
Arundhati Chattopadhyay- Asst.Director

CONTENTS

    PAGE NO.
India in the World Competitiveness Landscape    1
Competitiveness: Role of the States    2
Competitiveness: The Concept    5
State Competitiveness Studies    7
Competitiveness Measurement    9
Standard Value    12
State Rankings    12
Ranking Highlights: Bigger States    13
Ranking Highlights: Smaller States    14
References    16
Figures    17-22
Tables    23-68
Appendices    

List of Figures

Figure    Title    Page No.
Figure 1     Standard Values – Overall Competitiveness, Bigger States    17
Figure 2    Standard Values – Economic Strength: Bigger States    17
Figure 3    Standard Values – Business Efficiency, Bigger States    18
Figure 4    Standard Values – Governance Quality, Bigger States    18
Figure 5    Standard Values – Human Resources : Bigger States    19
Figure 6    Standard Values – Infrastructure, Bigger States    19
Figure 7    Standard Values – Overall Competitiveness Smaller States    20
Figure 8    Standard Values – Economic Strength, Smaller States    20
Figure 9    Standard Values – Business Efficiency, Smaller States    21
Figure 10    Standard Values – Governance Quality Smaller States    21
Figure 11    Standard Values – Human Resources, Smaller States    22
Figure 12    Standard Values – Infrastructure, Smaller States    22

List of Tables

Table No.    Title    Page No.
Table 1    Overall Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States    23
Table 2    Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States-Economic Strength     23
Table 3    Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States- Business Efficiency    24
Table 4    Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States-Governance Quality    24
Table 5    Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States-Human Resources    25
Table 6    Factor Competitiveness Ranking of Indian States – Infrastructure    25
Table 7    Criterion wise Ranking of States – Economic Strength     26
Table 8    Criterion wise Ranking of States – Business Efficiency    28
Table 9    Criterion wise Ranking of States – Governance Quality    30
Table 10    Criterion wise Ranking of States – Human Resources    32
Table 11    Criterion wise Ranking of States -Infrastructure     36
Table 12    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Andhra Pradesh    40
Table 13    Strengths & Weaknesses: Arunachal Pradesh    41
Table 14    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Assam    42
Table 15    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Bihar    43
Table 16    Strengths & Weaknesses: Chattisgarh    44
Table 17    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Delhi    45
Table 18    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Goa    46
Table 19    Strengths & Weaknesses:Gujarat    47
Table 20    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Haryana    48
Table 21    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Himachal Pradesh    49
Table 22    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Jammu & Kashmir    50
Table 23    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Jharkhand    51
Table 24    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Karnataka    52
Table 25    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Kerala    53
Table 26    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Maharashtra    54
Table 27    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Manipur    55
Table 28    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Meghalaya    56
Table 29     Strengths & Weaknesses:  Mizoram    57
Table 30    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Madhya Pradesh    58
Table 31     Strengths & Weaknesses:  Nagaland    59
Table 32    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Orissa    60
Table 33    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Punjab    61
Table 34     Strengths & Weaknesses:  Rajasthan    62
Table 35    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Sikkim    63
Table 36    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Tamil Nadu    64
Table 37    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Tripura    65
Table 38     Strengths & Weaknesses:  Uttar Pradesh    66
Table 39    Strengths & Weaknesses:  Uttaranchal    67
Table 40    Strengths & Weaknesses:  West Bengal    68

Competitiveness of Indian States 2004

India in the World Competitiveness Landscape

At the turn of the new century, Indian economy was 10 years into economic reforms during which the traditional “command and control” management of the economy and the “commanding heights” of the public sector were slowly and steadily replaced by market oriented and business friendly economic structures and policies. In the process Indian economy became progressively synchronized with the global market. To its credit India successfully stood the contagion effects of South Asian meltdown of the late 1990s and also the currency crisis that hit many nations later. However, the global economic slowdown reached the Indian shores in 2001.
 
The recently released World Competitiveness Yearbook 2004 (WCY) by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) ranked India 34th among a list of 60 major countries and regions in the world it considered. This is 16 notches up from the 50th rank India achieved in the previous year. As succinctly summarised by WCY (2004) “India has taken off with a GDP growth of 8.1%. —— India thrives on qualified engineers, scientists, low wages, and especially an English-speaking work force. —- the country is becoming a hot spot for the “off shoring” of administrative and back office operations. But India is also developing its competitiveness in software operations, manufacturing, entertainment and financial services. It is estimated that 2 million jobs in financial services will be relocated from industrialized nations to India up to 2008. The main challenge for India will be to maintain a steady and predictable competitive strategy, avoiding the wide fluctuations of the past. If it succeeds, it will emerge as one of the most attractive investment places on the competitiveness landscape”.

Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) 2004 of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranked India in the 55th position among a larger list of 104 world economies in terms of the Growth Competitiveness Index. This is one step higher than the ranking the country received in the 2003 rankings. India received significantly higher rankings in regard to what GCR termed the Business Confidence Index, 30 from amongst 104 economies. This is up 8 ranks from what India received in the previous year and shows “the benefits of increased company sophistication and strengthened clusters”.

Compared to other large emerging markets, China and India are cited by A T Kearney’s (2004) FDI Confidence Index as the most attractive FDI destinations in the next three years and well into the future, beating markets like Brazil, Mexico and Poland. While China led for manufacturing and assembly, India led for IT, business processing and R&D investments. Investors found India’s highly educated workforce, management talent, rule of law, transparency, cultural affinity, and regulatory environment as more favorable than what China presents. For the first time in the history of the Index, India displaced the U.S. to become the second most attractive FDI location among manufacturing investors. India’s strong performance among manufacturing and telecom & utility firms was driven largely by their desire to make productivity-enhancing investments in IT, business process outsourcing, research and development, and knowledge management activities.   The recent Goldman Sachs (2003) study came out with forecast estimations, which showed that by 2050 India would overtake most of the leading world economies in terms of economic growth and would emerge as the third largest economy in the world behind China and US.

India’s Competitiveness: Role of the States

The story of India’s economic development is being scripted in the state capitals across the country. The failure of one state will undermine the success of the others as it pulls down the country’s average.  While there will always be high and low performing states in India, the country as an integrated whole cannot shine unless the growing gap between the standard of living of the people in different parts is halted. Hence, it becomes pertinent to study the performance of the states in terms of their relative position within the country’s competitiveness landscape. More so because the limiting edge of economic reforms is progressively felt at the level of the states, especially since all factor markets are either in the state list or in the concurrent list of the Constitution and different states have reacted differently to economic reforms.  

The competitiveness performance at sub-national level is predominantly dictated by the quality of governance.  The small northern hill state of Himachal Pradesh revolutionized its education and rural infrastructure in the 90s.  The state’s literacy rate rose 14 percentage points in a matter of a single decade, from 63 percent in 1991 to 77 percent in 2001.  Most of the villages in the state are electrified and about 80 percent of them have access to safe drinking water.  The proportion of people living below the poverty line fell dramatically from 29 percent in 1993-94 to less than 8 percent in 2001. Rajasthan’s big strides in education and agriculture and Madhya Pradesh’s fast progress in primary healthcare are instances of governance that improved the quality of life in those states. In contrast is the case of the most populous state in the country viz. Uttar Pradesh, the per capita income of which, despite being a low at about Rs. 5000 per annum in the early 90s, grew at a snails pace to reach less than Rs. 6000 by the close of the century. In Bihar, which spends only Rs. 60 a year on the healthcare of a person living in the state, 67 percent of the households had access to safe drinking water in 1991. By 2001, only 53 percent of the households enjoyed this amenity. By the beginning of the new millennium an average person in the state was at least four times poorer than his counterpart in Punjab, whose per capita income growth too tottered at less than 2.5 percent a year in the 90s.

India has states like Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka, which have grown as fast as Asia’s tiger economies during the past 10 years. It also has Bihar, with a population size of Germany’s and a living standard at par with Burundi’s.  The divisions among the states are widening because in the 1990s the guiding principle for resource sharing has shifted from entitlement to competition. Competition among the states is likely to increase regional disparities in future. In 1991, Bihar’s per capita income was 4 times lower than Goa’s.  By 2002, the difference had grown more than 8 times. This however does not imply that inter-state disparities in performance are wholly a post-economic reform phenomenon.

Why do liberalization and competition increase inequality?  Because competition gives participants a chance to perform to their potential, even as it allows non-performers to drift. Private investment has shied away from the poorly governed states and has flowed almost entirely to better-managed richer states.  Not all mechanisms of transferring funds from the rich (often also the better performing) to the poor (often also the non-performing) have been given up.  

The Planning Commission and the Finance Commission still redistribute resources from the rich to the poor even now. Such redistribution has, however, shrunk a bit and private investment is free to go where it wants to.  

While inequalities magnified, inter-state competition seemed to have been intensified in the nineties.  Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka had been successfully hot selling themselves as alternatives and even better investment destinations than the established investment centres such as Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu.  To a lesser extent, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and lately Chattisgarh have been competing for increased shares in the investment pie with varying degree of success.

Following economic reforms the states are now empowered with increased autonomy in many key areas such as infrastructure. Slowly but surely there is increasing realization among the states that they can shape their own destiny. This prompted the governments at the sub-national level to initiate measures to attract more financial resources into the states including foreign direct investments (FDIs). During the nineties some of the states emerged as the most happening places in India. Thus competition is a double-edged weapon.  It can increase or decrease the inequalities in economic growth. Not all poor states are necessarily non-performers and competition allows the laggards the chance to catch up with the rich and thus bridge the inequality gap.

Several recent studies underlined the key role by the states in shaping the environment in which enterprises from both public and private sectors operate, despite globalization and liberalization. A significant part of the competitive advantage of states is believed to arise from far reaching incentive polices which are designed to attract foreign investment like tax breaks, subsidies etc.

In the ongoing war in the market place economies should not, and indeed they did not, rely solely on products and services. They also competed with brains. The ability of a state to develop an excellent education system and to improve the knowledge of the labour force through training is vital to competitiveness. In addition to being competitive (temporarily) because of cheap labour, they aim to develop their competitiveness level so that it is based (permanently) on an educated workforce. Knowledge is perhaps the most crucial of the competitiveness criteria. As states move up the economic scale, the more they thrive on knowledge of the workforce higher will be their ability to compete in the fiercely competed world markets. How that knowledge is acquired and managed is almost entirely the state’s responsibility.

From the mid-1990s there has been coalition governments at the Centre with regional political outfits partnering the political power. This rendered the states to have larger say in the decisions of the Centre than was the case earlier. In an era of coalition governments, state Chief Ministers, at least some of them, became politically more powerful than they were before. With changes in the political scenario role of the states thus took a new dimension.

In this study National Productivity Council examined the dynamics of state level competitiveness and ranks all the Indian sates based on both hard and soft data variables. Even though the sates are quite diverse in terms of either area, population or resources they are operating under more or less the same policy environment and hence were endowed with almost equal opportunity to grow and prosper. In this study the ranking of the states has been made against a select list of quantitative and qualitative parameters using a well-established methodology developed by International Institute for Management Development (IMD) (Switzerland) for the World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) for the preparation of which NPC serves as a the Partner Institute from India.

Competitiveness: The Concept

The word competitiveness ordinarily means ‘ability to compete’. In economic terms it could be expressed at different levels such as the nation, industry and the company.  In conventional economic theory a nations’ growth prospects are governed by the principle of comparative advantage, derived from the factor endowments. The notion of national competitive advantage differs from the conventional comparative advantage in that, where as the latter is nature dictated and therefore unalterable, the former is policy driven, flexible and hence accommodates choices.

Competitiveness is one of the most powerful concepts in modern economic thinking and encompasses the economic consequences of non-economic aspects such as education, science, political stability or even culture and value systems. The present study looks at the relationship between the macro environment and wealth creation process by enterprises and individuals.  In a market economy, individual firms and industries play the critical role in building and sustaining national competitiveness. A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its organizations to innovate and upgrade. At micro levels, competitiveness is defined as the capacity to grow through market success or share, and improved profits based on its perceived superiority over the competitors, which depend on the macroeconomic environment in which firms operate and compete with each other.

World Economic Forum (WEF), which has been ranking the leading world nations on a number of competitiveness criteria, defines Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI) as “the ability of a country to achieve sustained high rates of growth in GDP per capita” (GCR 2003). The Business Confidence Index (BCI), on the other hand, evaluates the underlying microeconomic conditions that define the current sustainable level of productivity in each country. The two specific areas evaluated by the BCI are “the sophistication of the what the GCR called the operating practices and strategies of companies and the quality of the microeconomic business environment in which a nations companies compete”. In their World Competitiveness Yearbook the Institute For Management Development (IMD) defines competitiveness as “the ability of a nation to create and maintain an environment that sustains more value creation for its enterprises and more prosperity for its people”.  

While competitiveness of the nations is well understood now, the same is still fuzzy at the sub-national level. This is because competition among the states, which are part of the same nation, is limited in nature and magnitude, when compared to competition across the countries. States have to work under the socio-economic policies framed at the national level. This leaves a relatively small area of maneuverability on the part of individual states. This does not undermine the importance of competitiveness at the sub-national level. In the coming years more of economic functions may be entrusted to the state governments in India. Competition among regions/states is here to stay. State-level competitiveness ought to be understood within the context of national competitiveness, because a state is a miniature version of the country. Therefore, definitions applied for measuring the country’s competitiveness can be adopted for the states as well.

Among the available definitions of national competitiveness, the one used by the IMD in its annual World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) appears to be broader in terms of application.  The definition brings forth the role of the state in enhancing (or maintaining) competitiveness of the region. The state should provide the enabling environment to organizations within its borders and at the same time ensure prosperity to the people. This definition (of competitiveness) fits well within the functional autonomy enjoyed by the Indian states in the federal framework of the country.

However, while operationalising the above definition, certain modifications are required. This is necessary because some of the traditional national competitiveness parameters (e.g. exchange rate, foreign trade policy, monetary policy) operate uniformly across the country and therefore they become irrelevant for interstate comparisons. Moreover, for some variables state level data may not be available. Such variables need to be dropped or their proxies to be identified.

IMD’s methodology is known for its simplicity and the direct approach while dealing with a large number (over 300) of diverse indicators. The fundamental principle, which underlies the distinction between notions of national competitiveness and enterprise competitiveness, focuses on where the creation of economic value takes place. A nation’s environment hinders or supports the wealth creation process through its policies. The present report Competitiveness of Indian States 2004 (CIS 2004) extends this principle to the states in India. The competitiveness of economies and the competitiveness of firms are interdependent concepts. The CIS 2004 focuses on the first. It measures and compares how states are doing in providing an environment that sustains the domestic and global competitiveness of the firms operating within their borders.

Wealth is the outcome of readily available natural resources (e.g. Jharkhand) or accumulated capital and knowledge (e.g. Delhi). Economic power arises from a combination of wealth and the size. Uttar Pradesh is economically a powerful state in

the country but not necessarily competitive. A state’s competitiveness cannot be reduced merely to its gross value of production or its productivity measured per person or per unit of capital. This is because firms must cope with the political, cultural, and educational dimensions of the geo-political entity. Therefore, it is in providing firms with an environment that has the most efficient structure, institutions and policies that states should compete with each other.

Categories: Uncategorized

Business this week: 19th – 25th August 2006

August 25, 2006 Leave a comment

The pace of existing home sales in America fell by 4.1% in July, to its lowest level since January 2004. The drop deepened worries about the overall economy. Increases in house prices also slowed. The median price for existing homes was $230,000 in July, up 0.9% from a year earlier and the slowest annual gain in more than a decade. Shares fell on the news, with housebuilders particularly hard hit. See articleE+

An American central-bank official suggested that interest rates may rise further. Michael Moskow, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said further increases may be needed to slow inflation. There have been 17 increases in interest rates in the past two years.

BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining company, said attributable profit in the year ended June 30th rose 63%, to $10.45 billion. Although the firm plans a $3 billion share buyback, its shares fell on its concerns about rising wages and equipment costs. The results, spurred by strong prices for metals, come amid a strike at the Escondida copper mine in Chile, in which BHP is the biggest shareholder.

Banca Intesa and Sanpaolo IMI, Italy’s second- and third-largest banks, said they had proposed talks on a possible merger. Such a deal, if completed, would create a stronger rival to UniCredit, Italy’s largest bank. Intesa and Sanpaolo said they would hold board meetings by the weekend to discuss a merger. Before the announcements, their market capitalisations were euro28.1 billion ($35.9 billion) and euro23.3 billion, respectively. The Bank of Italy has encouraged consolidation in the banking sector.

Applications for corporate mergers in Europe are being filed at a record rate, European Commission statistics show. If the pace continues, merger filings this year will exceed those in 2000, the highest total to date.

New worries were raised about the proposed merger of Gaz de France and Suez. European officials are said to have concerns about their dominant positions in the gas and electricity markets of France and Belgium. See articleE+

VNU, a Dutch media company bought earlier this year by a group of private-equity firms, recruited David Calhoun as its chairman and chief executive. The veteran of General Electric was thought to have been offered compensation of at least $100m, which is double what he received at GE.

Prosecutors struck a deal with Frank Quattrone, a once-high-flying banker in Silicon Valley, to drop charges against him. Mr Quattrone, who has denied wrongdoing and will not face a fine, said he would resume his career as soon as possible.

Felix Rohatyn, a prominent figure in the financial world and a former American ambassador to France, will join Lehman Brothers as a senior adviser to the chairman and chief executive. See articleE+

Oil workers in Nigeria threatened to pull out of the Niger Delta because they fear for their safety, after a string of kidnappings and attacks. A union vote has been called for August 30th. Disruptions in oil supply from Nigeria have helped to push up oil prices.

Apple Computer will pay Creative Technology, a Singapore firm, $100m to settle a patent dispute over the iPod digital music-player.

China raised a benchmark interest rate in an effort to slow a boom in credit and investment. The People’s Bank of China raised banks’ one-year deposit and lending rates by 0.27 percentage points, the central bank’s second such move in the past four months.

Weyerhaeuser will merge its copier-paper business with Domtar, a Canadian firm. The $3.3 billion transaction is the latest restructuring in the paper industry. Under the deal, Weyerhaeuser will receive $1.35 billion in cash.

Net profit at Nestl��, the world’s biggest food company, rose by 11.4% in the first half, to SFr4.2 billion ($3.3 billion) on sales of SFr47 billion. The result, which surpassed many analysts’ predictions, was partly achieved through hedging and price increases to offset higher costs in energy and commodity inputs.

Confidence among German investors and financial analysts fell to a five-year low in August. A survey by ZEW, an economic-research centre, showed confidence at the lowest point since June 2001 on worries about higher taxes and higher borrowing costs. But a survey of business sentiment by Ifo, a research institute, showed that confidence did not fall as much as expected. The euro rose on the news.

Categories: Uncategorized