CHAPTER-VI
ECONOMIC GROWTH, POVERTY AND SOCIAL SERVICES EXPENDITURE
6.1 Introduction:
In this chapter, the impact of social services expenditure on economic development and poverty reduction is analysed. Economic Development is a very important process in every welfare state. Every state wants to have optimum and sustainable economic development as it has considerable significance in developing country like India. India has been focussing on economic development and poverty eradication since Independence. Indian government has implemented various programmes and policies to eradicate poverty and to sustain the economic development process. Measurement of economic development differs from persons to persons, region- to-region and country-to-country. The present study considers per capita NSDP as a proxy for economic development. There are number of studies that examine the public expenditure on social services, education and health as the independent variables of economic development. (See, among others, Hariham, 2006; Malhotra and Singh, 2006;
Chandrasekaran, 2006; Malhotra and Shweta 2006, Kaur and Mistra, 2003)
Generally Economic growth means ‘An increase in real output per capita’.
Further, economic growth means a sustained increase in total output or output per person for an economy over a long period of time. Efficient human capital is needed for maintains of sustained economic growth.
make labour productive. Labour without education and skill cannot be graded as human resources, as it becomes a hindrance to development. Therefore one of the necessary conditions for development is the improvement in the quality of human resources through education. Government expenditure on education and health is justified mainly on this ground, and as a matter of fact, an increased proportion of expenditure on education and health is advocated to achieve a higher rate of economic growth and to eradicate poverty.
This chapter has been divided into 6 sections. Apart from the introduction (Section I), Section II analyses the importance of economic development; Section III analyses the impact of social sector expenditure on economic development, while Section IV analyses the issues relating to poverty; Section V deals with the impact of social sector expenditure on poverty, and section VI has conclusion of the chapter.
6.2 StatewisegrowthofNSDP inindia
Table 6.1 reveals Per capita net state domestic product in 1981, 1991 and 2001.
Punjab was at the top position, while Bihar stood at the bottom position in all the three years. Haryana improved its position from 3 to 2, Kerala from 7 to 4, Tamilnadu from 8 to 5, Andhra Pradesh from 9 to 8 and Rajasthan from 14 to 10, whereas, the states of Maharashtra (2 to 3), Gujarat (4 to 6), West Bengal (5 to 9), Karnataka (6 to 7), Madhya Pradesh (9 to 11) and Orissa (11 to 14) have declined in ranking. There was no variation in the ranks of Punjab, Assam and Bihar between 1981 and 2001. Inter-state disparities in NSDP increased from 1981 to 2001 where CV (%) increased from 31.10 % in 1981 to 39.42% in 2001.
Table 6.1: State wise Per capita Net State Domestic Product at constant prices (1993-94)
States 1981 1991 200
PCNSDP Rank PCNSDP Rank PCNSDP Rank
Andhra Pradesh 3719 9 6148 8 10516 8
Assam 3462 12 5809 9 6550 12
Bihar 2472 15 3610 15 3281 15
Gujarat 5228 4 7993 4 12350 6
Haryana 6388 3 10187 2 15248 2
Karnataka 4098 6 6239 7 11587 7
Kerala 4064 7 5698 10 13789 4
Madhya Pradesh 3659 10 5493 12 6723 11
Maharashtra 6564 2 10094 3 15238 3
Orissa 3540 11 4175 14 5489 14
Punjab 7208 1 11286 1 16087 1
Rajasthan 3293 14 5687 11 7698 10
Tamilnadu 4038 8 6761 5 12774 5
Uttar Pradesh 3444 13 4870 13 6244 13
West Bengal 4780 5 6340 6 10323 9
CV (%) 31.1 33.55 39.42
Note: Per capita siet State Domestic Product (NS DP) ini lupees Source: Various Issues of National Account Statistics, CSO
6.3 Relationshipbetweenper Capitapublicsocialservicesexpenditureand
Per Capita Net State Domesticproduct
The results of simple regression between per capita NSDP as a dependent variable and per capita public expenditure on social services, education and health as independent variables for the yearn 1981,1991 and 2001 are given in Tables 6.2. The results show that the Per capita NSDP has significant and positive relationship with per capita public expenditure on social service, education, and health in all years. Value of R2 is relatively low because NSDP is multi factorial and is also affected by factors other than per capita public expenditure on social services like production, employment opportunities, and the
Table 6.2: Simple Regression Results: Dependent Variable - Per capita Net State ____________________ Domestic Product
Independent Year a P ¥--- F
PCE on Social 1981 640.35 (0.546)
14.00**
(3.291) 0.455** 10.832 PCEon
Education
1168.35 (0.890
48.501*
(2.544) 0.332* 6.474
PCE on Health ** 1582.41 (1.648)
20.45**
(3.063) 0.419** 9.382
PCE on Social 1991 -1361.21 (-0.599)
16.42**
(3.63) 0.500** 13.005
PCEon Education
184 (0.178)
24.45**
(2.79) 0.375** 7.79
PCE on Health 2417.19
(1.20)
38.43
(1.85) 0.209 3.432
PCE on Social 2001 -1521.79 (-0.520)
15.78**
(4.14) 0.570** 17.21
PCEon Education
99 -1525.45 (-0.505)
28.79**
(4.01) 0.554** 16.11
PCE on Health 99 1917.77
(0.651)
5038**
(2.95) 0.402** 8.73
Note: PCE-Per Capita Expenditure
Figures in brackets are ‘t’ values of regression coefficients
♦♦Significant at 1 per cent of level, * Significant at 5 per cent of level Source: Computed from the table 5.3 and A 6.2
6.4 POVERTY IN INDIA
Poverty is a widespread phenomenon and is one of the outstanding features of developing economies. It is not just an economic problem; it is a human condition and is an emotional, cultural and political problem as well. Poverty is the hopelessness of the people and their disappointment, their suffering. In India, in spite of the developments that have taken place during more than five and a-half decades, majority of the people are poor and for most of the time, they suffer from extreme destitution.
6.4.1 THE CONCEPT OF POVERTY AND POVERTY LINE
It may be difficult to define poverty, but it is not difficult to identify it. Poverty may be defined as the inability to secure the minimum consumption requirements for life, health and efficiency. It is the helplessness resulting from an acute lack of life’s necessities. A person who fails to get a square meal a day is said to be poor. Poverty is a relative concept and it is expressed in materialistic terms.
Lord Boyd-off, the first Director General of FAO, was the first to introduce the concept of poverty on the basis of starvation line in 1945. According to him, an intake of less than 2300 calories per person per day was considered the line of starvation and this idea has been transformed into ‘poverty line’. The Indian Planning Commission has defined poverty line on the basis of nutritional requirement of 2,400 calories per person per day for rural areas and 2,100 calories per person per day for urban areas. The working
standard of private consumption at Rs. 240 per capita per year at 1960-61 prices as the barest minimum.
6.4.2 EXTENT OF POVERTY:
In India, appropriate and reliable data for the direct estimation of poverty are unfortunately not available. Government efforts in this direction were inadequate. The government does not seem to have made serious efforts in this direction. The poverty estimates currently are available are the contribution of some economists in their private capacity. Some of the worthwhile estimates are summarised below:
According to Dandekar and Rath (1964), in 1960-61, roughly 40 per cent of the rural population and 50 per cent of the urban population were living below the poverty line. Bardhan (1974), by fixing the poverty line at Rs. 15 per person per month in rural areas and Rs. 18 per person per month in urban areas at 1960-61 prices, found that around 55 per cent in rural areas and 41 per cent in urban areas were living below the poverty line in 1968-69. Minhas (1972) estimated that about 65 per cent of rural population in 1956-57 and 50.6 per cent of rural population in 1967-68 were living below the poverty line (Krishnamurty 2005). In the present study Planning Commission’s estimated poverty data has been used for the analysis.
Poverty is considered as one of the smouldering problems in India. Academics and policy makers have been coning out with innovative methods to tackle this problem.
Indian government has also implemented various schemes / programmes to eradicate.
These efforts have indeed caused a reduction in poverty ratio but the reduction is not
poverty was highest in Orissa (47.15 per cent) and Bihar (42.17 per cent). Number of poor was highest in Uttar Pradesh i.e., 5.29 crores (31.5 per cent). Haryana and Punjab have poverty ratio of only 8.74 and 6.17 respectively. In order to provide a historical perspective of changes in poverty ratio across states, the data for poverty ratio for the years 1981, 1991 and 2001 is presented in Table 6.3. Backward states failed to reduce their poverty ratio as rapid as the forward states. Inter-state variations in poverty ratio were identically same in both 1981 and 1991, but by 2001 variations had increased.
Table 6.3: Poverty Ratio in India
(Percentage)
States 1981 Rank 1991 Rank 2001 Rank
Andhra Pradesh 28.91 13 22.19 14 15.77 10
Assam 40.47 8 40.86 4 36.09 4
Bihar 62.22 2 54.96 1 42.6 2
Gujarat 32.79 12 24.21 13 14.07 12
Haryana 21.37 14 25.05 12 8.74 14
Karnataka 38.24 10 33.16 9 20.04 9
Kerala 40.42 9 25.43 11 12.72 13
Madhya Pradesh 49.78 5 42.52 3 37.43 3
Maharashtra 43.44 7 36.86 6 25.02 7
Orissa 65.29 1 48.56 2 47.15 1
Punjab 16.18 15 11.77 15 6.16 15
Rajasthan 34.46 11 27.41 10 15.28 11
Tamilnadu 51.66 4 35.03 8 21.12 8
Uttar Pradesh 47.07 6 40.85 5 31.15 5
West Bengal 54.85 3 35.66 7 27.02 6
Average 42 34 „ 24
SD 13.9 11.2 12.6 lt
CV(%) 33.3
„ 33.3 52.4
Source: NHDR, 2002 „
6.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PER CAPITA PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES EXPENDITURE AND POVERTY RATIO
Die results of simple regression between poverty ratio as a dependent variable and per capita public expenditure on social services, education and health as independent variables for the year 1981, 1991 and 2001 are given in Tables 6.4. The results show that poverty has a negative relationship and significant at 5 per cent level with per capita public expenditure on social service, education, and health in all the years. This goes to prove that public expenditure on social services is essential for eradication of poverty.
Table 6.4: Simple Regression Results: Dependent Variable - Poverty Ratio
Independent Variables Year a 3 R2 F
Social 1981 74.228
(5.580)
-0.121*
(-2.505) 0.325* 6.273
Education 99 66.434
(6.217)
-0.179*
(-2.408) 0.309* 5.800
Health 99 75.312
(5.715)
-0.503*
(-2.612) 0.344** 6.823
Social 1991 75.120
(6.686)
-0.085**
(-3.857) 0.534** 14.875
Education 99 67.136
(-2.941)
-0.126*
(5.775) 0.400** 8.650
Health 99 60.279
(5.529)
-0.240*
(-2.509) 0.326* 6.295
Social 2001 55.357
(5.224)
-0.042**
(-3.048) 0.417** 9.291
Education 99 47.728
(3.870)
-0.058*
(-1.979) 0.232* 3.918
Health 99 54.250
(6.798)
-0.183**
(-3.951) 0.546** 15.613 Note: Figures in brackets are ‘t’ values of regression coei ficients
**Significant at 1 per cent of level, * Significant at 5 per cent of level Source: Computed from the table 5.3 and A 6.2
6.7. CONCLUSION:
Achievement of sustained Economic Development and Poverty alleviation are the main challenges before developing countries like India. India has indeed made substantial progress in the field through the implementation of various programmes and policies. Over the years, per capita income has increased and the poverty ratio has decreased in all states. At the same time, regional disparities have also increased.
Forward states could achieve rapid economic development and reduce their poverty ratio quickly while, backward states lagged behind in achieving economic development and poverty eradication. Social sector expenditure in general and education and health expenditure in particular are found to have positive relationship with economic development and a negative relationship with poverty. This goes to prove that spending on social services is necessary to achieve economic development and eradication of poverty.
Table A6.1: Compound Annual Growth Rate (%) of NSDP per Capita 1993-94 Prices
States Total Pre Reform Post Reform
Andhra Pradesh 4.94 3.64 4.98
Assam 2.74 4.42 2.50
Bihar 0.23 2.56 1.81
Gujarat 4.21 2.73 4.42
Haryana 4.19 3.03 4.70
Karnataka 4.73 3.37 4.82
Kerala 5.47 2.81 6.13
Madhya Pradesh 3.04 3.89 3.96
Maharashtra 4.37 3.39 4.04
Orissa 3.02 3.58 3.25
Punjab 3.19 2.54 2.90
Rajasthan 3.92 2.12 3.32
Tamilnadu 5.44 4.52 4.78
Uttar Pradesh 2.51 2.83 1.35
West Bengal 3.58 2.64 5.54
Source: National Statistics Account, Various Issues
States
Per capita Pub a
lie Expenditure (1993-94 prices)
Figures in Rupees) Poverty Ratio PCNSDP
(1993-94 prices) (Figures in Rupees) Social Services Education Health
1981 1991 2001 1981 1991 2001 1981 1991 2001 1981 1991 2000 1981 1991 2000 Andhra Pradesh 264 444 703 117 209 316 62 89 147 28.91 22.19 15.77 3719 6148 10516 Assam 251 497 694 146 278 473 60 140 134 40.47 40.86 36.09 3462 5809 6550 Bihar 168 318 476 92 197 315 38 65 103 62.22 54.96 42.6 2472 3610 3281 Gujarat 311 553 1157 145 303 486 70 110 267 32.79 24.21 14.07 5228 7993 12350 Haryana 296 558 851 154 276 429 83 111 207 21.37 25.05 8.74 6388 10187 15248 Karnataka 241 473 787 127 244 427 52 94 172 38.24 33.16 20.04 4098 6239 11587 Kerala 398 615 841 230 372 522 87 135 169 40.42 25.43 12.72 4064 5698 13789 Madhya Pradesh 200 409 627 90 200 290 63 93 141 49.78 42.52 37.43 3659 5493 6723 Maharashtra 292 549 968 165 302 630 74 123 165 43.44 36.86 25.02 6564 10094 15238 Orissa 260 382 577 111 200 314 60 82 121 65.29 48.56 47.15 3540 4175 5489 Punjab 394 613 805 225 349 491 86 141 209 16.18 11.77 6.16 7208 11286 16087 Rajasthan 244 503 773 117 258 378 91 161 231 34.46 27.41 15.28 3293 5687 7698 Tamilnadu 253 621 874 136 316 457 62 131 193 51.66 35.03 21.12 4038 6761 12774 Uttar Pradesh 177 347 371 86 210 242 39 87 69 47.07 40.85 31.15 3444 4870 6244 West Bengal 272 474 692 123 278 368 70 107 154 54.85 35.66 27.02 4780 6340 10323 Average 268 490 746 138 266 409 66 111 165 42.00 34.00 24.00 4397 6693 10260
SD 65.9 96.8 193.5 43.3 56.1 104.4 16.2 26.7 50.9 13.9 11.2 12.6 1367 2245 4045
ev m 24.6 19.7 25.9 31.4 21.1 25.5 24.4 24 30.8 33.3 33.3 52.4 31.10 33.55 39.42
Source: Computed from the data available in RBI Bulletin, N1TOR 2002, and CSO
