Human Development in Karnataka New

8/6/2019 Human Development in Karnataka New

1/25

1

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN KARNATAKA STATE: AN INTER-

DISTRICT DISPARITIES

Dr. Gopalakrishna B.V. & Dr. Devaraj.K

1.1 Introduction

Economic development of a country is traditionally judged in terms of Gross

Domestic Product (GDP). The greater the volume of GDP per capita, higher the state of

development and prosperity. But, the GDP measure of development completely ignores

the welfare of the people. It is not necessarily true that high GDP generates well-being to

the people. It is not the volume of GDP per se, but its distribution that matters much for

the well-being of the people. It is for these reasons that economists like Nobel laureate

Amartya Sen, Mahbub Ul Haq, Frances Stewart, Paul Streeten and others have

considered GDP as an inadequate measure of development and instead advocated the

concept of human development.

The first Human Development Report (HDR), published by the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP) in 1990, clearly stressed the primary message of every

HDR at global, national and sub-national level the human centered approach to

development that places human well being as the ultimate end of development. People

are the real wealth of a nation. The basic objective of development is to create an

enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. This may

appear to be a simple truth, but it is often forgotten in the immediate concern with the

accumulation of commodities and financial wealth.

Human Development is the process of widening peoples choices and their level of

well-being. The choices change over time and differ among societies according to their

stage of development. The three essential choices for people are - to lead a long and


2/25

2

healthy life, to acquire knowledge and to have access to the resources needed for a decent

standard of living. If these choices are not available, many other opportunities remain

inaccessible. Other choices, highly valued by many people include political, economic

and social freedom, access to opportunities for being creative and productive and

enjoying self-respect and guaranteed human rights. (UNDP, 1994, 1995).

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a simple composite measure that measures

the overall achievements of a region in terms of three basic dimensions of human

development a long and healthy life, knowledge, a well as a decent standard of living

health status (measured by longevity), knowledge (measured by literacy and enrolments)

and a decent standard of living (measured by per capita income). These three dimensions

are measured by life expectancy at birth, educational attainment (adult literacy and the

combined gross primary, secondary and tertiary enrolment ratio) a proxy for a decent

standard of living and as a surrogate for all human choices not reflected in the other two

dimensions.

The Planning Commission of India prepared and published the first HDR of India in

2001 in which all the Indian states are ranked in the order of their achievement in terms

of the indicators that reflect human development. Therefore the Planning Commission

has also been encouraging state governments to produce their own human development

reports. In fact, Madhya Pradesh was the first state in India to produce a HDR long before

the Planning Commission. Karnataka state was the second state brought out such report

in 1999. The other Indian States have come out with their state level reports, one by one.

Against this background, this paper mainly focused on progress of human

development of Karnataka State by focused on inter district disparities in HDI and GDI


3/25

3

values across districts in Karnataka though simple composite indices such as human

development index and gender related development index

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The following are the objectives of the study

1. To examine progress of human development index in the Karnataka State.2. To identification of inter-district disparities in human development in the state.3. To examine the role of state in Human development and to draw the policy

implications.

1.3 Karnataka: A Profile

Karnataka State is situated in the Southern part of India, it lies between the latitudes

11.310

and 18.450

North and the longitudes 74.120

and 78.400

East on the western part of

the Deccan Plateau. The state covers a total area of 1, 91,791 Sq km, accounting for 5.83

per cent of the total geographical area of the country. The state is bounded by

Maharashtra and Goa states in the north and northwest by the Arabian Sea in the west by

Kerala and Tamil Nadu states in the south and by Andhra Pradesh on the east.

Demographically, Karnataka State has total population 53 million out of which 5.13

percent of Indias population. Out of which 27 millions are males and 26 millions are

females. The Sex Ratio of 965 in the state stands above the all India average of 933. The

highest sex ratio in the state is recorded by Udupi district (1,130) and the lowest by

Bangalore (908). The state has the Density of Population 275 as compared to 324 at the

all-India level in 2001. Bangalore has the highest density of population of (2,985 persons


4/25

4

per Kms) where as Uttar Kannada has lowest density of 132. The literacy rate among the

population is 67.04 percent 59.68 percent in rural and 81.05 percent in urban areas.

For administrative purposes, Karnataka has been divided into 4 divisions (Madaiah

and Ramapriya, 1989), Coastal Region, Malnad Region, Northern Region and Southern

Region. State comprises of 176 taluks, 27 districts, 27,481 inhabited villages, 1,925

uninhabited village and 270 towns have been conceded by Karnataka state itself. Bijapur

has the largest area of 17,069 Sq Kms and Kodagu has the smallest area of 4,102 Sq

Kms. Karnataka had highest growth rate of GDP and per capita Income in the country

during 1990-2001 of 7.6 percent and 5.9 percent respectively. Nevertheless, the state

continues to be in the middle-income states, with per capita income slightly below the all

India average.

The state is relatively better placed in economic development and it ranked 6th

in

terms of per capita GSDP among the 15 major states of India in 2001-02 (KHDR, 2005).

However, the state ranked only 7th

in terms of per capita consumption expenditure Rs.

639 as compared to Rs. 591at all India level in 2005-06. Due to a strong agricultural

recovery supplemented by improved scorecard of the services sector. The incidence of

poverty in the state is somewhat higher than the national average. The expert group set up

by the planning commission has estimated that in 1999-2000, 20.04 percent of the

population was living below the poverty line in Karnataka compared to the all India

average of 26.10 percent (Government of India 2001, Planning Commission). However,

when only rural areas are considered, poverty ratio was slightly lower in Karnataka 17.38

percent in comparison to 27.09 percent at the all India level. Urban poverty appears to be

particularly high in Karnataka where as estimated 25.25 percent of the population live

below the poverty line in comparison to 23.62 percent at the all India level.


5/25

5

Presently, Karnataka is being recognized as the new growth center in a reforming

Indian economy powered by knowledge based industries such as software, electronic,

biotechnology pharmaceuticals and back offices for many overseas companies. The state,

which started a software revolution, has been aggressively wooing job seekers not only

from across the country but also from overseas. Karnataka in recent times seems to be

surging ahead powered by its booming higher education sector to produce manpower for

diverse jobs in a booming economics.

1.4 Status of Human Development in Karnataka

Human development situation in Karnataka State was mostly guided by the

Millennium Development Goals (UNDP, HDR 2001). The progress of human

development of Karnataka state was reasonably good, since the last two decades of

human development experiences in terms of literacy rate, life expectancy at birth, infant

mortality rate and other human development indicators has been better than all India

average. For example, the improvement in the literacy rate in the state during 1991-01

was 66.64 percent (76.10 and 56.87 percent for male and female literacy rate

respectively) against an increase of 56.64 percent (67.26 & 44.34 percent for male and

female respectively) during 1981-91. The increase in the literacy rate in the 1990s was

less than half of the achievement in the 1980s. Similarly life expectancy was also

improved marginally during 1991-92 to 2001-02 62.1 years (61.0 & 63.2 years to 65.8

years (64.5 & 67.0 years). The Infant Mortality Rate was decline from 82 per 1000

population in 1991-92 to 55 per 1000 in 2001-02.

Karnataka State has medium human development rank it improves from 0.541 to

0.650 between 1991 to 2001 with 7th rank of the 15 Indian states were well above the


6/25

6

national average 0.423 and 0.621 respectively during same period. The level of human

development of Karnataka state is more or less equal with that of Egypt and considerably

higher than South Asian countries such as Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh in

2001. At the international level, state has 120th

rank while the country has 127th

rank

(UNDP, HDR 2003). The human development indicators such as per capita NSDP, life

expectancy at birth, literacy and infant mortality rate are also improved over the period of

time. The states per capita gross state domestic product (GSDP) is above the national

average and it occupies sixth place in the ranking of 15 major states in India. The total

fertility rate in 1999 state has 3rd

place, which is equal with Tamil Nadu next only to

Kerala and West Bengal. Life expectancy at birth for males and females was 62.4 and

66.4 respectively. The literacy rate has been increasing over the years and reached the

level of 66.6 percent in 2001.

Table 1.1 Selected Indicators of human development of Karnataka and other

neighbor states

Sl

No.

Name of the

Districts

Per Capita

NSDP

Life Expectancy

at Birth (LEB)

Literacy

Rate 2001

Infant

Mortality

Rate HDI

1. Andhra Pradesh 10,590 63.9 61.11 59 0.609

2. Karnataka 10,709 65.8 66.64 52 0.650

3. Maharashtra 14,892 68.3 77.27 42 0.706

4. Kerala 10,832 73.4 90.92 11 0.746

5. Tamil Nadu 12,717 68.4 73.47 43 0.687

India 10,774 64.8 65.49 57.4 0.627

Source: Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report 2005.

The table 1.1 presents selected indicators of human development of Karnataka with

other neighboring states. It also infers relative human development position of Karnataka


7/25

7

State with other neighbouring states such as Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and

Andhra Pradesh. Karnataka has accounted per capita NSDP Rs. 10,709, life expectancy at

birth 65.8 years, infant mortality rate has 52 per 1000 birth, and literacy rate has 66.64

percent and HDI value of 0.650. While most of the neighboring states except Andhra

Pradesh well above Karnatakas relative position in all respects.

According to National Human Development Report (NHDR) prepared by the

planning commission, Karnataka state has improved HDI values from 0.346, 0.412 and

0.478 during 1981, 1991 and 2001 among 15 major Indian states and its rank was sixth in

1981 and seventh position in 1991 and 2001. (NHDR, 2001). Specific data on each of

the indicators such as life expectancy, literacy and income suggests, however, that

Karnataka is placed well above the all India, it still lags behind neighbouring states.

Kerala is well ahead of Karnataka and top among Indian states followed by Tamil Nadu

and Maharashtra, in literacy and life expectancy at birth, while Maharashtra is ahead in

LEB and income. The GDI values of Karnataka state has improved from 0.525 to 0.637

during 1991 to 2001 which is well above the national average of 0.621 in 2001 but when

compared with other neighbouring states except Andhra Pradesh 0.621 Kerala, Tamil

Nadu and Maharashtra above the state average value of 0.746, 0.706 and 0.687

respectively. Therefore, Karnataka long way to go to reach to high human development

states.


8/25

8

This is not because the state has achieved the optimum levels of literacy or IMR,

when rate of improvement would slow down. The marginal improvement in these two

rates is at a comparatively low level of achievement. This has been the case in spite of the

increase in the rate of economic growth in state during the 1990s.

1.5 Linkages: EG and HD in the State

A closer examination of the level of achievement in the three indicators of human

development reveals some insight into their inter-relationship. The importance of income

for achieving higher standards of living it well known. Income gives people the ability to

buy goods and services that is as income increases it widens the range of consumption

options. Nonetheless high literacy and health can be achieved even with low per capita

income is a typical example of this category.

It is common experience that good economic performance has not always led to a

good human development index. Infact, India has done much better in terms of income

growth than in terms of human development. For example Maharashtra and Punjab


9/25

9

income growth is fairly high, but these states have not made significant progress in the

social sector literacy and health. Whereas, Kerala with a relatively low per capita

income has made rapid strides in human development. The point to note is, therefore, that

enhancing income level of the people is no doubt necessary but it must be ensured that

the increased income is used by the people for improving their literacy and health status.

Accessibility and affordability of education and health services for the people is crucial

states to improve their level of human development.

Even Karnataka state is not exceptions from trade off relationship between economic

growth and human development For example - Mysore and Bellary districts are placed at

5th

and 10th

ranks in terms of per capita income. Whereas they are placed at 14th

and 17th

ranks respectively in terms of HDI. Probably one of the important reasons for the

distortion of this relationship of economic growth and human development is inadequate

attention paid to the development of social infrastructure through public policy on health

and education (HPCFRRI, 2004). Various districts of Karnataka state have differences in

per capita income and human development index and this has been classified into three

groups.

Mutually reinforcing growth and human development - some of districts such as

Bangalore Urban, Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu, Shimoga and Bangalore Rural fall in the

category of higher human development with highest per capita income.

Mutually stifling growth and human development other districts have remained at

low human development with low per capita income. For example Raichur, Chamaraja

Nagar suffered slow advances in human development and slow economic growth.


10/25

10

Modest growth and Human Development The rest of districts of the state have either

human development or per capita income growth, which, includes Tumkur, Mysore,

Hassan and Mandya and Chitradurga.

The table 1.2 presents district-wise estimates of HDI and per capita income 1991-92

and 2001-02. It may be noted that there is no trade off relationship between ranks of per

capita income with HDI. Bangalore Urban, Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, Kodagu and

Bangalore Urban has shown highest per capita income with highest human development

index of the state were above the state average, while Raichur, Gulbarga, Bijapur and

Haveri were lowest development in both per capita income and human development

index. Mysore, Bellary and Bagalkot has lopsided stifling development of better

performance in per capita income than HDI in one hand on the other hand Lopsided

development were found in Shimoga, Uttar Kannada, Tumkur, and Kolar has better HDI

performance than per capita income.


11/25

11

Table: 1.2

Per capita income and human development index of Karnataka State

Name of the

districts

Per capita GDP at 1993-94 prices (Rs.) Human Development Index (HDI)

1991-92 2001-02 1991 2001

Values Ranks Values Ranks Values Ranks Values Ranks

Bangalore Urban 9,816 5 24,774 1 0.623 4 0.753 1

Dakshina Kannada 13,390 16 20,682 2 0.661 1 0.722 2

Udupi 10,714 3 15,471 5 0.659 2 0.714 3

Kodagu 16,090 1 18,838 3 0.623 3 0.697 4

Shimoga 7,797 7 12,152 10 0.584 5 0.673 5

Bangalore Rural 6,427 19 17,144 4 0.539 11 0.653 6Uttar Kannada 7,788 8 12,043 11 0.567 6 0.653 7

Belgaum 7,028 10 11,085 13 0.545 9 0.648 8

Chikmagalur 10,132 4 13,328 6 0.559 7 0.647 9

Dharwad 7,905 6 12,549 8 0.539 10 0.642 10

Hassan 6,681 15 10,263 16 0.519 16 0.639 11

Davangere 6,815 13 9,989 19 0.548 8 0.635 12

Gadag 5,918 23 10,607 15 0.516 17 0.634 13

Mysore 6,888 12 13,178 7 0.524 14 0.631 14

Tumkur 6,133 21 9,408 22 0.539 12 0.630 15

Chitradurga 6,658 16 10,155 18 0.535 13 0.627 16

Kolar 6,219 20 9,619 21 0.522 15 0.625 17

Bellary 7,277 9 12,291 9 0.512 18 0.617 18

Mandya 6,745 14 9,908 20 0.511 19 0.609 19

Haveri 4,850 27 8,679 24 0.496 22 0.603 20

Bidar 5,136 26 7,654 26 0.496 23 0.599 21

Bagalkot 6,511 18 11,557 12 0.505 20 0.591 22

Bijapur 6,562 17 9,092 23 0.504 21 0.589 23

Chamaraja Nagar 6,985 11 10,182 17 0.488 24 0.582 24

Gulbarga 5,505 24 8,616 25 0.453 25 0.576 25

Koppal 5,476 25 10,882 14 0.446 26 0.564 26

Raichur 6,022 22 7,579 27 0.443 27 0.547 27

KARNATAKA 7,447 13,057 0.541 0.650

Note: Shantappa, Coordinator, KHDR 2005 using latest UNDP Methodology.

Source: 1. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Karnataka

2. Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report

2005, Planning Commission


12/25

12

1.6 Inter district disparities in human development

Since the publication of First Global Human Development Report in 1990, various

countries of the World including India have started publishing Regional Human

Development Reports which contain HDI that is believed to express the level of

development in a better way than per capita income. In this regard Madhya Pradesh was

the first Indian state which has published region-wise human development report in 1995.

Karnataka was the second state, which has brought out its first human development

report in 1999. There have been some independent studies which carried out works on

inter district disparities in human development using latest UNDP methodology of which

studies by Benerjee & Roy 1998, Rani 1999, Roy & Bhattacharya, 1999, Shanmugaum

2005 and Vysula 1997 are significant. The Government of Karnataka again brought out

his second successive human development report 2005 in 2006. In this report HDI has

been computed for 27 districts in the state using the UNDP, HDR 1999 methodology.

This can be infers the regional disparities in HDI of various districts in the state enables

an understanding of the nature and changing magnitude of variations among districts.

This, inturn points to either divergence or convergence of regional variations in human

development among districts in the state.


13/25

13

Table 1.3. Top and Bottom Five Districts in Human Development

Indicators of Karnataka State in 2001

Indicators Top 5 Bottom 5

Per Capita Income Bangalore Urban

Dakshina Kannada

Kodagu

Bangalore Rural

Udupi

Raichur

Bidar

Gulbarga

Haveri

Bijapur

Literacy Rate Bangalore Urban

Dakshina Kannada

Udupi

Kodagu

Uttar Kannada

Raichur

Gulbarga

Chamaraja Nagar

Koppal

Bijapur

Combined Gross

Enrolment ratio of

children (I X)

Bangalore Urban

Udupi

Kodagu

Gadag

Kolar

Bijapur

Koppal

Bellary

Chamaraja Nagar

Bangalore Rural

Life Expectancy at

Birth

Udupi

Belgaum

Shimoga & Dakshina

Kannada

Bangalore Urban

Bangalore Rural

Bagalkot

Dharwad

Haveri

Bijapur

Gadag

Source: Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report

2005, Planning Commission, Bangalore.


14/25

14

The range of variation in human development index levels fairly alarming and varies

from 0.753 to 0.547. Bangalore Urban takes the top position while Raichur is placed at

the bottom. The high per capita income of Bangalore Urban has considerably influenced

its HDI value. Bangalore Urban literacy rates and life expectancy are also fairly high

followed by Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu and Bangalore Rural, were above the state

average and national average, even best in international standards, while other districts

like Gulbarga and Chamaraja Nagar were in bottom place which is not only lowest in

state average but also less than national average and also lower than so called low human

development countries such as Niger, Sierra Leone and others.

The table 1.3 presented top and bottom of human development indicators in terms of

per capita GDP, literacy rate, combined gross enrolment and life expectancy at birth of

various districts of the state. Bangalore Urban district that is called as the silicon valley of

India occupied top list in all human development. At the international level its rank is 83,

which is on par with Philippines and above China and Srilanka. While Raichur district is

bottom district of the state, its international status is at 133 rank on par with Papu and

New Guinea and lower than Ghana, Botswana, Myanmar and Cambodia (KHDR, 2005

Page No. 18).

The following table 1.4 presents selected indicators of human development indicators

of Karnataka State at the district level for the year 2001. Infact, Bangalore Urban district

comes out with HDI value as high as 0.753 of the state, which has been higher than

Keralas state average 0.746 While, Raichur which is the bottom district with the HDI

value of 0.547, this is also the lowest index compared to other low human development

states in the country. The HDI values for the state have been computed as 0.650. This


15/25

15

figure is higher than our countrys value of 0.621 in 2001 as per UNDP methodology1. In

20 districts, the HDI values are found to be below the state figure. And rest of 7 districts

was found to be above the value for the country.

The overall literacy rate of Karnataka state is 67.04 percent, which is above the all-

Indian average of 64.8 percent. Bangalore Urban district has highest literacy

rate of 83.91 percent followed by Dakshina Kannada 83.47, Udupi 79.87, Kodagu 78.17,

Uttar Kannada 76.59, Shimoga 74.86 and Chikmagalur 72.63 percent. While Raichur and

Gulbarga have lowest literacy rate of 49.54 and 50.65 respectively.

The Per Capita GDP of 2001-02 again Bangalore Urban district ensuring highest

income of Rs.24, 774 followed by Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu, Bangalore Rural

accounted Rs 20,682, 18,838 and 17,144 respectively. These districts were also above the

state average of Rs.13, 057. While on the other hand districts such as Bidar, Bijapur,

Tumkur and Kolara have lowest income of Rs 7,654, 9092, 9,408 and 9,619 respectively.

The two poorest districts are Bidar and Gulbarga is adjacent to the two richest districts of

Bangalore Urban and Dakshina Kannada. It is surprising that prosperity did not spread to

the neighboring districts from Bangalore Urban and Dakshina Kannada.

1

Computed by V. Shantappa, Coordinator, KHDR 2005 using latest UNDP Methodology.


16/25


17/25

17

The combined gross enrolment ration of children (I-X) has been presented in 7th

column. The overall gross enrolment ratio is highest in Bangalore Urban accounted

113.97 was above the state average of 89.95, while lowest is in Raichur 89.95

respectively. Another fact to be noted is that 21 out of 27 districts have a per capita

income below the state average. The fact mentioned earlier, namely, the Per Capita

Income of the poorest district is only 25-30 percent of that of the richest district of the

state.

The Life Expectancy at Birth for the State was 65.8 years and for India 64.8 years.

Belgaum obtained the highest figure 67.7 years, while, Dharwad got the lowest 61.9

years. In about 21 districts, the life expectancy at birth was below the state average only

in six districts such as Bangalore Urban, Bangalore Rural, Belgaum, Bellary, Dakshina

Kannada and Shimoga have above the state average. Surprisingly, Kodagu districts has

3rd

highest in HDI of the state has only 63.3 years which is below the state figures. Infant

Mortality Rate for Karnataka State was 55 for 1,000 populations in 2001-02. In 17

districts, the rate was above the state values. It may be noted that the highest infant

mortality rate of 67 was in Gulbarga district.

This information indicates that significant human development disparities exist

between the districts. It is also seen that the poor districts are associated with low human

development, low industrial development and low agricultural productivity.

The following table 5.4 presents HDI of 27 districts of Karnataka state for 1981, 1991

and 2001. The districts are ranked in the descending order of the HDI. The table reveals

significant inter-district disparities in human development in Karnataka state. The HDI


18/25

18

values vary from 0.753 for Bangalore Urban to 0.547 for Raichur districts in 2001. In the

1999 human development report, the variation was from 0.661 in Dakshina Kannada

district to 0.443 in Raichur district. However, what is encouraging is the fact that the

difference between the districts with the highest and the lowest HDI has narrowed from

49.21 percent in 1991 to 37.6 percent in 2001. During 1981 Dakshina Kannada was the

1st

place among 20 districts of Karnataka state. But 1991 and 2001 Bangalore urban got

first place and Dakshina Kannada pushed to 2nd place, while Raichur keeps the bottom of

the state. Karnataka state has improved 0.360 in 1981 to 0.541 and 0.6450 in 1991 and

2001 with 20.14 percentage changes during the same period.


19/25

19

Table 1.4 HDI of various Districts of Karnataka State during 1981 to 2001

Sl

No.

Name of the

Districts

1981 1991 2001 Percentagechanges in

2001 from

1991Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank

1. Bangalore Urban 0.435 2 0.623 4 0.753 1 20.86

2. Dakshina Kannada 0.436 1 0.661 1 0.722 2 9.22

3. Udupi - - 0.659 2 0.714 3 9.31

4. Kodagu 0.429 3 0.623 3 0.697 4 11.87

5. Shimoga 0.377 6 0.584 5 0.673 5 18.66

6. Bangalore Rural - - 0.539 11 0.653 6 21.15

7. Uttar Kannada 0.406 4 0.567 6 0.653 7 15.16

8. Belgaum 0.352 5 0.545 9 0.648 8 18.89

9. Chikmagalur 0.381 11 0.559 7 0.647 9 19.3210. Dharwad 0.360 7 0.539 10 0.642 10 19.10

11. Hassan 0.357 8 0.519 16 0.639 11 23.12

12. Davangere - - 0.548 8 0.635 12 17.16

13. Gadag - - 0.516 17 0.634 13 23.20

14. Mysore 0.338 13 0.524 14 0.631 14 20.41

15. Tumkur 0.354 9 0.539 12 0.630 15 16.88

16. Chitradurga 0.352 12 0.535 13 0.627 16 17.19

17. Kolar 0.352 10 0.522 15 0.625 17 19.73

18. Bellary 0.308 17 0.512 18 0.617 18 20.50

19. Mandya 0.330 14 0.511 19 0.609 19 19.17

20. Haveri - - 0.496 22 0.603 20 24.16

21. Bidar 0.319 16 0.496 23 0.599 21 26.76

22. Bagalkot - - 0.505 20 0.591 22 18.21

23. Bijapur 0.324 15 0.504 21 0.589 23 20.76

24. Chamaraja Nagar - - 0.488 24 0.582 24 18.00

25. Gulbarga 0.305 18 0.453 25 0.576 25 24.50

26. Koppal - - 0.446 26 0.564 26 31.07

27. Raichur 0.298 19 0.443 27 0.547 27 23.47

KARNATAKA 0.360 0.541 0.650 20.14

Source: Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report 2005,

Planning Commission

Note: 1. 1981 human development index for computed only 20 districts of the state

2. Shantappa, Coordinator, KHDR 2005 using latest UNDP Methodology.


20/25

21

Gender related development Index

Karnataka has performed better in gender related development and occupies seventh rank

among major states. But HDI values of Karnataka are higher than GDI values in all districts. It

shows that the levels of socio-economic development of women are lower than the general level

all over Karnataka. It is to be noted that a higher level of economic development does not ensure

higher gender related development or human development. Districts of Malnad and coastal areas,

which rank lower in per capita income, have higher gender development.

The table 1.5 depicted progress of Gender related development of various districts of

Karnataka state. The progress of GDI at the state level has improved from 0.525 in 1991 to 0.637

in 2001 registering an increase of 21 percent in ten years. The pace of reduction in gender

disparities is rather slow. It is only marginally higher than the increase of 20 percent in the HDI

during the same period. Although the values for the GDI of districts are lower than the

corresponding values for the HDI, the GDI ranking compares favorably within the HDI ranking

for a majority of districts in 1991 and 2001. This indicates that districts with high human

development levels will have lower gender disparities while districts with poor human

development indicators will have greater gender inequality. However, there are significant

variations in the GDI across districts.

GDI indices vary from 0.645 in Dakshina Kannada and low of 0.422 in Raichur in 2001. It is

also interesting to note that ranking in GDI almost follow the HDI ranking, a phenomenon that is

not very common at the international level. The four districts such as Bangalore Urban, Dakshina

Kannada, Udupi and Kodagu placed first four places from the top and Raichur, Gulbarga,

Chamaraja Nagar and Koppal lie at the bottom of the list.


21/25

22

Table 1.5 GDI of various Districts of Karnataka State during1991 to 2001

SL

No.

Name of the

Districts

1991 2001 Percentage

changes in

2001 from

1991Value Rank Value Rank

1. Bangalore Urban 0.592 4 0.731 1 23.47

2. Dakshina Kannada 0.645 1 0.714 2 10.69

3. Udupi 0.644 2 0.704 3 9.31

4. Kodagu 0.617 3 0.690 4 11.83

5. Shimoga 0572 5 0.661 5 15.55

6. Bangalore Rural 0.524 12 0.640 6 22.137. Uttar Kannada 0.548 7 0.639 7 16.60

8. Belgaum 0.525 11 0.635 9 20.95

9. Chikmagalur 0.550 6 0.636 8 15.63

10. Dharwad 0.531 8 0.26 11 17.89

11. Hassan 0.507 14 0.630 10 24.26

12. Davangere 0.530 9 0.621 13 17.16

13. Gadag 0.502 16 0.625 12 24.50

14. Mysore 0.496 18 0.605 18 21.97

15. Tumkur 0.528 10 0.618 15 17.04

16. Chitradurga 0,514 13 0.618 14 20.23

17. Kolar 0.505 15 0.613 16 21.3818. Bellary 0.499 17 0.606 17 21.44

19. Mandya 0.491 19 0.593 20 20.77

20. Haveri 0.480 22 0.596 19 24.16

21. Bidar 0.477 23 0.572 22 19.91

22. Bagalkot 0.483 21 0.571 23 18.21

23. Bijapur 0.486 20 0.573 21 17.90

24. Chamaraja Nagar 0.472 24 0.557 25 18.00

25. Gulbarga 0.432 25 0.543 26 25.69

26. Koppal 0.428 26 0.561 24 31.07

27. Raichur 0.422 27 0.530 27 25.59

KARNATAKA 0.525 0.637 21.33Source: Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report 2005,

Planning Commission


22/25


23/25

24

the governments commitment in terms of the expenditure incurred by it. In the post-reforms

periods, these ratios don not show any radical improvement.

Table 1.7 Expenditure ratios in Karnataka, 1990-91 to 2002-03

(Percent)

Year

Public

expenditure

ratio (PER)

Social

allocation ratio

(SAR)

Social

priority

ratio (SPR)

Human

expenditure

ratio (HER)

1990-91 17.78 41.22 55.45 4.061991-92 17.61 40.20 53.72 3.80

1992-93 19.18 36.77 52.54 3.71

1993-94 18.45 39.50 54.03 3.94

1994-95 17.70 39.19 53.83 3.73

1995-96 17.79 37.62 51.94 3.48

1996-97 17.75 36.90 51.02 3.34

1997-98 16.73 38.40 51.99 3.34

1998-99 16.33 39.49 52.55 3.39

1999-2000 18.09 37.75 54.86 3.75

2000-01 18.22 37.89 52.84 3.65

2001-02 20.06 34.96 52.29 3.672002-03 18.83 34.36 50.69 3.28

Note: Expenditure under different heads has been estimated as the sum of revenue

| expenditure and capital expenditure (including loans and advances net of

repayments)

Source: Estimated from Finance Accounts of Karnataka, Account General, GOI

The table 1.7 presented public expenditure ratio and other three ratio of Karnataka State

between 1990-91 to 2002-03. The PER increased from 17.78 percent in 1990-91 to 18.83 percent

in 2002-03, before declining to 16.33 percent in 1998-99. Thereafter, mainly due to pay and

pension revision, the PER increased to constitute more than 18 percent of GSDP in 1999-2000.

Infact, the full effect of the pay revision was seen in 2000-01 as the government had to incur

substantial expenditures to pay arrears. Thus, in 2001-02, the public expenditure GDP ratio


24/25

25

increased to over 20.06 percent. However, the fiscal adjustment programme resulted in the

deceleration of expenditure, to reduce the PER to 18.8 percent in the following years, and has

stabilized at that level in subsequent years.

Although the aggregate expenditure GDP ratio showed a significant increase over the years,

social sector expenditures have actually shown a marginal decline. The share of social sector

expenditures in the total or social allocation ratio declined by seven percentage points from 41.22

percent in 1990-91 to 34.36 percent in 2002-03. As a ratio of GSDP too, social sector expenditures

declined by about 0.8 percentage point, from 7.3 percent to 6.5 percent the decline in the

expenditure. GDP ratio as well as the share of social sector expenditures implies that overall, the

allocation to social sector in real terms has declined despite substantial increases in the pay and

pension revision.

The trend in the social priority ratio, which is a sub-set of SAR is similar. The SPR declined

from 55.5 percent in 1990-91 to 50.69 percent in 2002-03 or as a ratio of GSDP in decline was

from 4.1 percent to 3.3 percent. Thus, as compared to 1990-91 both SAR and SPR in 2002-03 were

lower. This shows that the expenditures on sectors that are considered to have high social priority

were crowded out by the pressure of increasing expenditure on salaries, debt servicing and other

implicit and explicit subsidies in the wake of stagnant revenues. The second global human

development report 1991suggested - PER for a country should be around 25 percent, SAR should

be about 40 percent and SPR about 50 percent. The human expenditure ratio (HER) should be

about 5 percent. However, data reveal that PER in Karnataka has been less than the suggested

norm of 25 percent over the entire decade.


25/25

26

1.8 Summary

Human development of Karnataka state was guided by the Millennium Development Goals.

The progress of human development of Karnataka state was reasonably good. The HDI value of

the state has improved from 0.541 to 0.650 between 1991 to 2001 with 7th

rank of the 15 Indian

states were well above the national average 0.423 and 0.621 respectively during same period, but

lower than neighbouring states such as Kerala, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. GDI values are also

improved from 0.525 to 0.637 during same period. But Karnatakas relative position was very

lower than those neighbouring states.

Therefore, government has to increase investment in social sectors targeted to the more needy

districts is a necessary condition for achieving higher levels of human development and improving

the wellbeing of the population. Enhanced allocations alone, however, are not sufficient to reach

the desired objective. In-depth analysis of the social sectors indicators that the state has also to

overcome structural inadequacies to get the maximum benefit from government intervention.

1.9. References

1. Government of Karnataka (2002): High Power Committee on Regional ImbalancesRedressel,Planning Commission, Bangalore.

2. Government of Karnataka, Planning Commission (1999):Human Development inKarnataka,UBS Publishers Distributors Limited, Bangalore.

3. GOI (2002): National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission,Government of India, New Delhi.

4. Government of Karnataka, Planning Commission (2006):Human Development inKarnataka 2005,UBS Publishers Distributors Limited, Bangalore.

Human Development in Karnataka New

Documents

Transcript of Human Development in Karnataka New