Advertisement

Deciphering Growth and Development: Past and Present

  • Ravi SrivastavaEmail author
  • Rahul Ranjan
Chapter
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)

Abstract

This paper argues that despite the initial favourable conditions such as Uttar Pradesh’s location in the fertile Indo-Gangetic belt, implementation of land reforms, a legacy of a unified administration under British India, a diversified base of traditional and modern industries and a political leadership which carried weight in the national political establishment after independence, the state could not build up the momentum of growth and development and thus continued to remain as laggard state. The gap between state’s per capita income and national income widened over the years. Various political regimes in Uttar Pradesh could hardly make any significant dent on accelerating the growth and development process despite their agenda of social development. UP’s comparatively better growth story in the 1970s and 1980s can broadly be understood in terms of a spread of agricultural growth to the agriculturally poor regions, which was supported by public policy, along with higher industrial growth, the concentration of which in the western region was sustained partly by higher levels of agricultural development in that region and in other regions by public investment and industrial incentives. But in later years, the state could not accelerate agricultural growth to higher levels and failed to bring about more dispersed and accelerated non-farm growth despite avowed focus on such growth. The regional disparities within the state tended to widen with concentration of poverty in eastern and central regions. The performance of the state on human development front was less than satisfactory. The authors argue that successive governments of various political parties in Uttar Pradesh could hardly step up the rate of inclusive growth over and above the rest of the country. The industrial development of the state tended to concentrate in few regions along with languishing micro and small enterprises in the state. Agriculture continued to suffer from lacklustre policy approach, particularly in eastern and Bundelkhand regions, thereby affecting the livelihoods of those depending on this sector. The special development package for Bundelkhand region could not make the desired impact on the development of the region. In terms of social policy, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the Samajwadi Party (SP) have followed an agenda which has purportedly been more tilted in favour of Dalits and Muslims or Muslims and OBCs. But small-scale production, which forms the economic basis of livelihoods of Muslims and OBCs, has languished in the state. Large-scale corruption and inefficient implementation have limited the benefits of social protection programmes. This has prevented UP’s growth from being inclusive, even by the lacklustre national standards. Overall, UP’s position among Indian states in terms of human development indicators remains virtually unchanged.

Keywords

Economic growth Human development Industrial development Social protection Inclusive development 

References

  1. Abhiyan, S. (2015). Bundelkhand drought impact assessment survey 2015. Retrieved on September 6, 2016 from https://static.swarajabhiyan.org/content/news/prod/145/bundelkhand%20survey%202015_v05.pdf.
  2. Bhalla, G. S., & Singh, G. (2012). Economic liberalisation and Indian agriculture: A district-level study. Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Centre for Policy Dialogue. (1998). Crisis in governance. Dhaka: The University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chatterjee, M. (2003). Maya’s gone but in these dalit homes the change’s for real. The Indian Express, September 1, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  5. Dreze, J., & Sen, A. K. (Eds.) (1997). Indian development: Selected regional perspectives. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dreze, J., & Gazdar, H. (1997). Uttar Pradesh: The burden of inertia. In J. Dreze & A. Sen (Eds.), Indian development: Selected regional perspectives. Delhi: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreze, J., Khera, R., & PEEP Team. (2014). A peep at another India. Retrieved on November 5, 2016 from http://gap2015.org/downloads/A_peep_at_another_India.pdf.
  8. Dreze, J., & Sen, A. K. (1995). India: Economic development and social opportunity. Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2013). An uncertain glory, India and its contradictions. Delhi and London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. Government of India, Planning Commission. (2002). National human development report 2001. New Delhi: Planning Commission.Google Scholar
  11. Government of India, Planning Commission. (2007).Uttar Pradesh development report (Vol. 1 & 2). New Delhi: Academic Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Government of Uttar Pradesh. (2003). First human developmentr of Uttar Pradesh. Lucknow: Government of Uttar Pradesh, Planning Department.Google Scholar
  13. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Planning Department. (2007). Uttar Pradesh human development Report 2003. Lucknow: Government of Uttar Pradesh, Planning Department.Google Scholar
  14. Gupta, A. K., et al. (2014). Bundelkhand drought: Retrospective analysis and way ahead. New Delhi: National Institute of Disaster Management.Google Scholar
  15. Institute of Applied Manpower Research. (2011). India human development Report 2011: Towards social inclusion. New Delhi: Institute of Applied Manpower Research (IAMR).Google Scholar
  16. Khan, A. (2009, September 5). Reliance power’s Dadri project hits road block. The Hindu.Google Scholar
  17. Khetan, A (2012, April 21). The Raja who stole from the poor. Tehelka Magazine, 9(16).Google Scholar
  18. Kumar, V. (2003). Uttar Pradesh: Politics of change. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(37), 3869–3871.Google Scholar
  19. Lieten, G. K., & Srivastava, R. (1999). Unequal partners: Power relations, devolution and development in Uttar Pradesh. Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Mehra, P. (2011, August 7). No man’s land. Tehelka.Google Scholar
  21. NCAER. (2015). Evaluation study of targeted public distribution system in selected states. New Delhi: National Council for Applied Economics Research.Google Scholar
  22. Pai, S. (2002). Dalit assertion and the unfinished democratic revolution: The Bahujan samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh. Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Pai, S. (2004). Dalit question and political response: Comparative study of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Economic Political Weekly, 39(11), 1141–1150.Google Scholar
  24. Pai, S. (2005). Populism and economic reform: The BJP Experiment in Uttar Pradesh. In J. Mooij (Ed.), Politics of economic reform in India. Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Parashar, A. (2011, May 14). Farmers versus investment: The conflict unfolds in UP. Tehelka.Google Scholar
  26. Rashid, O. (2013, November 14). Karchana power plant: Farmers to take a decision. The Hindu.Google Scholar
  27. Shrivastava, B. (2009, September 19). The curious case of the Dadri power plant. Mint.Google Scholar
  28. Singh, A. K. (1997). Socio-economic status at the district level in Uttar Pradesh, A Report. Lucknow: Giri Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
  29. Sood, J. (2011, June 15). Road to disaster. Down to Earth.Google Scholar
  30. Srivastava, P. (2009, August 17). Pension scam storm hits UP. Mail Today.Google Scholar
  31. Srivastava, R. (2012). Economic change and social inclusion in Uttar Pradesh, 1983–2010. UPEA Journal, 5(5), 3–25 (Revised Presidential Lecture, Seventh Annual conference of the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Economics Association, October 2011).Google Scholar
  32. Tripathi, P. (2004, February 14–27). Industry and concerns. Frontline.Google Scholar
  33. Umesh, R. (2010, October 14). UP changes rules to check scholarship frauds. Hindustan Times, Lucknow.Google Scholar
  34. Venkitesh, R. (2011, August 13–26). Blatant in Uttar Pradesh. Frontline, 28(17).Google Scholar
  35. Weiss, T. G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Quarterly, 21(5), 795–814.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713701075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. World Bank. (2010, April 30). India living conditions and human development in Uttar Pradesh: A regional perspective, poverty reduction and economic management. South Asia Report No. 43573-IN. April 30, Washington DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations