Principles of Allocating Development Grant at the Sub-National Level in India: A Suggested Methodology

Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)


One of the major objectives of our national planning process is to reduce inequality in various dimensions of level of living of the people scattered around different geographical regions. States and districts are considered as administrative units at sub-national and sub-state levels, respectively. The national as well as state governments sometimes provide special grants to specific states as well as specific districts based on certain development indicators in order to ensure social justice or to attain inclusive growth. But, the principle of allocating fund does suffer from various grounds like arbitrary selection of the indicators, equal weights assigned to the indicators, unclear objectives, etc. Keeping in mind, the regional backwardness as multidimensional in nature, we propose here a methodology of a rational allocation rule of development grants which is based on principal component techniques. This principle can be applied at the disaggregate level if the disaggregate data on different dimensions of development vis-à-vis deprivations are available. This allocating rule simultaneously addresses two issues: the amount of fund to be released to each geographical unit as well as the necessity of including each development parameter considered so far in the above-mentioned devolution methodology. Our proposed methodology tries to capture inclusivity, and it is expected to be helpful to the development practitioners at both policy levels and academics.


Gross Domestic Product United Nations Development Programme Deprivation Index Multidimensional Poverty Inclusive Growth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alkire S (2007) Choosing dimensions: the capability approach and the multidimensional poverty, Working Paper 88, Chronic Poverty Research Centre, AugustGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand S, Sen AK (1997) Concepts of human development and poverty: a multidimension perspective, Background Papers for Human Development ReportGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson E (2008) Practices and implications of aid allocation. Background study for the 2008 Development Cooperation Forum, UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (mimeo)Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya G, Haldar SK (2013) Does spending on human capital reduce fertility and poverty in India? A panel data study. Asia Pac Soc Sci Rev 13(2):1–23Google Scholar
  5. Birdsall N, Kelley AC, Sinding SW (eds) (2001) Population matters: demographic change, economic growth and poverty in the developing world. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloom DE, Jeffrey DS (1998) Geography, demography and economic growth in Africa. Brook Pap Econ Act 2:207–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandrasekhar CP, Ghosh J, Roy Chowdhury A (2006) The ‘demographic dividend’ and young India’s economic future. Econ Polit Wkly 41(49):5055–5064Google Scholar
  8. Collier P, Dollar D (2001) Can the world cut poverty in half? How policy reform and effective aid can meet international development goals. World Dev 29(11):1787–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collier P, Dollar D (2002) Aid, allocation and poverty reduction. Eur Econ Rev 46(8):1475–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deaton A (2003) Health, inequality, and economic development. J Econ Lit XLI:113–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guillaumont P (2008) Adapting aid allocation criteria to development goals: an essay for the 2008 Development Cooperation Forum, United Nations Economic and Social Council.
  12. Guillaumont P (2011) Making Development Financing in LDCs More Conducive to Development, Working Paper/P18 (Eng). Retrieved from unohrlls.orgGoogle Scholar
  13. Guillaumont P, Guillaumont SJ (2007) Big push versus absorptive capacity: how to reconcile the two approaches? UNU-WIDER Discussion Paper, n°2007/05, October 23Google Scholar
  14. Johnson RA, Wichern DW (2006) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Pearson Education, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  15. Krishnaji N (1997) Human poverty index: a critique. Econ Polit Wkly 32(35):2202–2205Google Scholar
  16. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28Google Scholar
  17. McGillivray M (2004) Descriptive and prescriptive analyses of aid allocation: approaches, issues, and consequences. Int Rev Econ Finance 13:275–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGillivray M (2006) Aid allocation and fragile states. WIDER Discussion Paper, 2006/1Google Scholar
  19. Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India (2013) Report of the Committee for Evolving a Composite Development Index of States, September, 2013. New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  20. Pet MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ (2003) Making sense of factor analysis. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  21. Pillai VN (2004) CES Function, Generalized Meanand Human Poverty Index: exploring Some Links. Centre for Development Studies, Working Paper No. 360Google Scholar
  22. Planning Commission (2013) Govt. of India 2013, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  23. Population Reference Bureau (2009) 2009 World population data sheet. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Roy K, Haldar SK (2010) Measuring poverty and socio-economic deprivation inequalities in India at sub-national level. Asia-Pac Soc Sci Rev 10(1):59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. United Nations. Millennium Development Goals Report (2011, 2012)
  26. Wagstaff A, van Doorslaer E (2000) Income inequality and health: what does the literature tell us? Ann Rev Public Health 21:543–67. Accessed 22 Nov 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations