TAMILNADU ECONOMY: Contours of Change A Secondary Data

Exploration

K.Nagaraj
J.Jeyaranjan

TAMILNADU ECONOMY: Contours of Change A Secondary Data

Exploration

Introduction:
Livelihoods of individuals and social groups are a product of natural, social
and economic environment apart from other elements within which the individuals
and social groups function. The present exercise attempts to map the contours of
changes that the Tamil Nadu economy has experienced over a period of time. It
touches upon several issues that directly impinge on the livelihoods of individuals and
social groups. It starts with the demographic transition in the state and highlights the
salient characteristics of these changes before proceeding to look into the spatial
distribution of the population and the changes therein in terms of urbanization and
migration processes. Employment is a major livelihood option and we analyse the
changes in its pattern over time as well as differences across sectors and gender. This
analysis is necessarily at a broad level constrained by the data availability. Literacy
a source of empowerment among the population is analysed next. The structural
changes in the economy is sought to be mapped by looking into the state income, its
magnitude, sectoral composition and changes in it. We analyse, in some detail, the
salient aspects of the structure and changes in the agricultural and industrial sectors.
Finally, we have attempted to profile the levels of living of the people in the state and
in the districts.
This exercise provides a sort of backdrop- the macro picture- for our study on
the livelihood strategies in the state. Our next phase of our work involves mapping the
livelihood strategies at the micro level. These specifics are to be located in an overall
context and this exercise is precisely aimed at providing that context prior to our field
exploration. After all, micro and macro conditions are so strongly interconnected that
one without the other is hard to understand.
Tamil Nadu, the southernmost state in the Indian subcontinent covers a little over
130,000 sq. km about 4 percent of Indias geographical area and had a population,
according to the 2001 census of 62.11 million. The economy of the state is relatively
more modernised in comparison with most other states in the country in terms of
industrialisation, urbanisation, educational attainment and literacy, access to health
care etc. But the most striking characteristic of the economy and the process of
economic change in the last few decades appears to be a certain dichotomy or
disjunction in it, which can be stated as follows: While in overall gross terms the
performance of the economy in terms say, level and increase in percapita income, or
the level and decrease in poverty is only moderate and modest, more often than not
below par compared to the performance at the all-India level, the economy over the
year has witnessed a relatively high level of diversification and broad-basing. This
process of socio-economic diversification and broad-basing in the state has a number
of dimensions: (a) The process of sectoral diversification, viz., a relatively rapid move
away from the primary sector; (b) diversification within different sectors, like say, the
process of commercialization and marketisation within the agrarian sector; (c) Spatial
aspects of diversification and broad-basing: viz., the relatively higher spatial spread
and reach of agricultural and industrial growth, as also relatively strong rural-urban
linkages, which have got strengthened in the last couple of decades; and (d) a socio-

political dimension to the process of broad-basing where certain dimensions of old.

Power structure particularly in the caste equations have got loosened, providing
some space for assertion and participation by the lower castes in the socio-political,
and economic processes in the state.
This report attempts to highlight some of the dimensions of this disjunction or
dichotomy in the socio-economic processes in the state, and also point to a couple of
consequences of it. As for the factors underlying this disjunction which perhaps
would take us to complex social, economic, political and historical aspects the
report, we would admit, will have very little to say.
It is useful to start our discussions with the last dimension viz., the socio-political
dimension in the process of diversification and broad-basing of the socio-economic
process. The socio-political and cultural movement its emergence, growth and
vicititudes is absolutely central to any understanding of the socio-economic
processes in Tamil Nadu, and the bare outlines of it are the following: This movement
the Self Respect Movement or the Dravidian Movement with its strong
progressive, anti-caste, rationalistic planks, at least in its initial phases, has left its
imprints on all major aspects of Tamil Society. In particular the emergence of this
movement remoulded the caste movements in the state in significant ways. Before its
advent from around the second quarter of the present century, the various caste
movements in the state had strong Sanskritising elements: . their constant attempt
was to emulate Brahmin or Kshatriya caste status, secure the privileges of entering the
temples and the right to dress and live like members of the upper castes [Singh
1986:170]. With the Dravidian Movement taking strong roots by incorporating many
of these caste movements within its fold, the lower castes tended to give up their
former orientation to identify with or claim the status of the Kshatriyas or Brahims;
instead, they.. tend[ed] to reject the whole ideology of upper castes. The
earlier aspiration from vertical mobility or Sanskritisation among the lower castes
[was] replaced by a new feeling of self-identity within ones own caste or
increased horizontal caste identity. [Ibid:171]. It is undeniable that this movement
provided a basis for the middle and lower castes for at least a section among them
to gain socially, economically and culturally: or in other words, a basis for broadbasing the socio-economic and political processes in the state. Paradoxically, the
decades of seventies and eighties which saw the political ascendency of the parties
owing allegiance to the Dravidian Movement the Dravida Munnetra Kazagam
(DMK) and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazagam (AIADMK) also
happen to be period when the social and cultural thrust of the movement witnessed a
considerable degree of dilution, and hence, provided the space for the re-emergence of
Sanskritising tendencies among many caste groups in fact, precisely among those
caste groups which had gained because of the movement earlier1. And this, as we
shall see later, has important socio-economic consequences.
As we had noted earlier, this socio-political dimension is one among the several
aspects responsible for the broad-basing of the socio-economic process in Tamil
Nadu. One among these other dimensions, we had noted, was the strong rural-urban
1.

This, admittedly, is a very sketchy account of a very complex phenomenon. For those interested,
there is a considerable body of literature on this topic; see, for example, Rudolph and Rudolph
[1967]; Irschick [1969]; Ram [1977]; Singh [1986]; Pandian [1994] etc.

linkages in the state, which is an aspect of population distribution and movement. Let
us turn to some of these issues, related to the demographic regime in the state, now.
I: POPULATION SIZE, DISTRIBUTION AND CHANGE
1. Size and Growth of Population:
At the time of 2001 census, Tamil Nadu had a population close to 62.11 million. It is
not only among the more populous states (ranking seventh among the states in India
in terms of the size of total population), but also among the most densely populated.
The population density in Tamil Nadu (at 478 persons per sq. km in 2001) was nearly
two-thirds higher than the national average and fifth highest among the major states.
The decadal [1991-2001] growth rate of population in TN is 11.19 percent in contrast
to the countrys growth rate of 21.34 percent. The sex ratio [number of females per
000 males] in TN works out to 986 in 2001 against 933 for the country. The density
of population in TN is 478 persons per sq. km. in 2001, as against 324 persons per sq.
km. for All-India. While the percentage of population in urban areas in 2001 for TN
works out to 43.86 percent, the same is only 27.78 percent for the country as a whole.
Similarly, while the literacy rate for TN in 2001 is 73.47, for All-India it is just 65.38.
[Table 1]
Table 1 Census at a Glance : Tamil Nadu and All India
Sl.
No.

Particulars
Tamil
Nadu

1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
2001
All
Tamil All
Tamil All
Tamil All
Tamil
All
Tamil All India
India Nadu India Nadu India Nadu India Nadu
India Nadu

1 Total Population (million)

30.12 361.09 33.69 439.23

41.2 548.16 48.41 683.33

55.86 846.3 62.11

1027.02

2 Decennial Growth Rate (%)

14.66 13.31 11.85 21.51

22.3

17.5 24.66

15.39 23.85 11.19

21.34

3 Literacy Rate

20.85 16.67 31.41 24.02 39.46 29.45 46.76 36.23

62.66 52.21 73.47

65.38

24.8

4 Density per Sq.Km.

232 117 259 142 317 177 372 216
429 267 478
5 Sex Ratio
1007 946 992 941 978 930 977 933
974 927 986
(no.of females per 000
males)
Source: Tamil Nadu, Government of.,Tamil Nadu An Economic Appraisal 2001-2002, Department of Evaluation
and Applied Research, Cehnnai, 2003, pS-1

324
933

Table 2: Population, Decadal Growth Rate, Sex Ratio and Density, Tamil Nadu
and Districts, 2001.
District

Thiruvalluvar
Chennai
Kancheepuram
Vellore
Dharmapuri
Tiruvannamalai
Viluppuram
Salem
Namakkal
Erode
The Nilgiris
Coimbatore
Dindigul
Karur
Trichirapalli
Perambalur
Ariyalur
Cuddalore
Nagapattinam
Thiruvarur
Thanjavur
Pudukottai
Sivaganga
Madurai
Theni
Virudhunagar
Ramanathapuram
Thoothukudi
tirunelveli
Kanniyakumari
Tamil Nadu

Population 2001
Persons
Males
Females
2738866 1390292 1348574
4216268 2161605 2054663
2869920 1455302 1414618
3482970 1743871 1739099
2833252 1462136 1371116
2181853 1093191 1088662
2943917 1484573 1459344
2992754 1551357 1441397
1495661
760409
735252
2574067 1306039 1268028
764826
379610
385216
4224107 2156280 2067827
1918960
966201
952759
933791
464489
469302
2388831 1194133 1194698
486971
242664
244307
694058
345777
348281
2280530 1148729 1131801
1487055
738287
748768
1165213
578870
586343
2205375 1091557 1113818
1452269
720847
731422
1150753
565594
585159
2562279 1295124 1267155
1094724
553118
541606
1751548
870820
880728
1183321
582068
601253
1565743
764087
801656
2801194 1372082 1429112
1669763
829542
840221
62110839 31268654 30842185

Decadal growth rate

1981-1991 1991-2001
31.53
17.24
26.14
15.14
21.61
14.4
16.08
13.43
12.79
12.17
12.7
14.65
12.54
12.87
15.57
17.92
11.16
16.13
11.68
12.04
11.13
14.72
10.72
17.51
12.98
16.71
12.11
7.8
12.53
12.43
15.39

22.35
9.76
18.84
15.09
16.66
6.8
6.83
16.28
13.08
10.94
7.69
20.4
8.99
9.32
8.76
7.97
9.06
7.43
7.95
5.92
7.38
9.43
4.32
6.75
4.33
11.92
5.73
7.54
11.97
4.34
11.19

Sex Ratio
Density
1991
2001 1991 2001
957
934
962
978
942
983
969
925
960
958
983
952
976
999
982
975
975
967
993
987
996
1005
1033
964
964
994
1011
1051
1034
991
974

970 654 800

951 22077 24231
972 545 647
997 498 573
938 252 294
996 330 352
983 380 406
929 493 573
967 386 436
971 283 314
1015 279 300
959 470 566
986 291 317
1010 284 311
1000 499 542
1007 258 278
1007 328 358
985 582 626
1014 507 548
1013 508 538
1020 605 649
1015 285 312
1035 263 275
978 686 733
979 342 357
1011 365 409
1033 271 287
1049 315 339
1042 367 411
1013 950 992
986 429 478

Source: India, Government of., Census of India, 2001, Table 1, Provisional Population Total, Series 1, Paper-1 of
2001, Supplement: District Totals, pg.116-117

Table 2 profiles the growth and distribution of population, district-wise, within TN

[Table 2]. It is clear from Table 2, that, the decadal growth rate of population is the
fastest in Thiruvallur [22.35 percent between 1991 and 2001 as compared to the
average of 11.19 percent for the state], followed by Coimbatore and Kancheepuram.
Similarly, the density of population per sq. km. for Thiruvallur, Kancheepuram and
Cuddalore is way above the average for the state as a whole in 1991 as well as in
2001.

Table 3: Tamil Nadu : Sex Ratio

District

Sex Ratio per 1000 male

All Age Groups 0-6 age group
1991
2001
1991

2001

Thiruvalluvar
957
970 NA
954
Chennai
934
951
962
968
Kancheepuram
962
972 970**
961
Vellore
978
997
962
937
Dharmapuri
942
938
905
878
Tiruvannamalai
983
996
964
952
Viluppuram
969
983 NA
969
Salem
925
929 849***
826
Namakkal
960
967 NA
896
Erode
958
971
929
936
The Nilgiris
983
1015
968
990
Coimbatore
952
959
966
951
Dindigul
976
986
934
929
Karur
999
1010 NA
923
Trichirapalli
982
1000
955
949
Perambalur
975
1007 NA
945
Ariyalur
975
1007 NA
950
Cuddalore
967
985
970
938
Nagapattinam
993
1014 NA
960
Thiruvarur
987
1013 NA
974
Thanjavur
996
1020
968
950
Pudukottai
1005
1015
976
965
Sivaganga
1033
1035
958
946
Madurai
964
978
918
927
Theni
964
979 NA
893
Virudhunagar
994
1011
946
962
Ramanathapuram
1011
1033
960
964
Thoothukudi
1051
1049
964
953
tirunelveli
1034
1042
955
952
Kanniyakumari
991
1013
970
967
Tamil Nadu
974
986
948
939
Source: Tamil Nadu, Government of, Human Development Report, 2003, Pg.147-148

On the other hand the sex ratio figures give an interesting pattern [Table 3]. In the
case of All age-group sex ratio, while Villupuram and Cuddalore match the state
figure of 985 females per 000 males, Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur return below
state average figures of 961 and 970 respectively. But, in the 0-6 age-group category,
while Villupuram, Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur are way above the state figure of
939 females per 000 males, Cuddalore matches that of the state. It would be
interesting to explore why this initial advantage in the three former districts in
particular does not translate into a better future as the girl children transcend into
adulthood.

At the turn of the century, the areas which constitute the present state of Tamil Nadu
had barely 19 million people. There has been a more than three-fold increase in
population during the last 100 years, close to three fourths of this increase occurring
since Independence. But a comparison with the All-India picture clearly shows that
the growth rate of population in the state is of a lower order compared to the rest of
the country, and this is particularly so in the post-Independence period.
Table 1: Population of Tamil Nadu and India, 1901-2001:

Year
1901
1911
1921
1931
1941
1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
2001

Population (in
millions)
Tamil
India
Nadu
19.25
238.40
20.90
252.09
21.63
251.32
23.47
278.98
26.27
318.66
30.12
361.09
33.69
439.23
41.20
548.16
48.41
685.18
55.86
846.30
62.11
1027.02

Decadal change in
population (percent)
Tamil
India
Nadu
8.57
5.74
3.49
-0.31
8.51
11.01
11.93
14.22
14.66
13.32
11.85
21.64
22.29
24.80
17.50
25.00
15.39
23.51
11.19
21.34

Additions to population
over the decade (in millions)
Tamil
India
Nadu
1.65 (100)
13.69 (100)
0.73 (44)
-0.77 (-6)
1.84 (112)
27.66 (202)
2.80 (170)
39.68 (290)
3.85 (233)
42.43 (310)
3.57 (216)
78.14 (571)
7.51 (455)
108.93 (796)
7.21 (437)
137.02 (1001)
7.45 (452)
161.12 (1077)
6.25(378)
180.72(1301)

Note: Figures in brackets give the index for decadal increase in population with 1901-1911= 100.

Source: Census of India.

It is also noteworthy that there is a distinct downward trend in the growth rate of
population from 1971 onwards in Tamil Nadu; in fact the net additions to the
population in the state in the seventies through nineties have remained at the same
level as in the sixties. And the contrast in this regard with the country as a whole is
very striking: the growth rate of population has declined only marginally in the
country since 1971, and the decadal additions to the population have witnessed a
steady increase over this period.
With net migration from the state accounting for only a small proportion of the total
population, this decline in the rate of growth of population in the state in the seventies
and the eighties should be very largely related to the behaviour of the vital rates the
birth rate and the death rate over this period. Let us look into this issue in some
detail.
2. Vital Rates in Tamil Nadu:
While both birth and death rates have registered a decline from around early seventies
in Tamil Nadu in the rural as well as urban areas the order of decline is
significantly higher in the case of birth rates, and hence the natural rate of growth of
population has witnessed a decline over this period [Table 2]. But a closer look at the
data

Table 2: Birth Rates and Death Rates in Tamil Nadu, 1971-2001:

(Three year moving averages; per mile)
Rural
Urban
Combined
MidBirth
Death
Birth
Death
Birth
Death
Year
rate
rate
rate
rate
rate
rate
1972
33.4
16.9
26.2
8.9
31.3
14.5
1973
32.9
16.8
25.0
8.7
30.6
14.4
1974
32.1
16.7
25.0
8.7
30.0
14.3
1975
32.1
16.8
25.8
9.2
30.2
14.5
1976
31.9
16.5
26.9
9.6
30.4
14.4
1977
30.9
15.4
27.0
9.7
29.8
13.7
1978
30.1
14.3
27.0
9.3
28.9
12.9
1979
29.6
13.4
26.0
8.7
28.5
12.0
1980
29.6
13.1
25.2
8.3
28.3
11.7
1981
29.4
13.1
24.4
7.9
27.8
11.4
1982
29.3
13.4
24.9
7.9
27.9
11.6
1983
28.9
12.9
26.0
8.2
27.8
11.2
1984
27.5
12.1
25.6
8.0
26.9
10.7
1985
25.9
11.2
24.7
7.6
25.5
9.9
1986
24.4
10.9
23.3
7.1
24.1
9.6
1987
23.8
10.7
22.5
7.2
23.5
9.5
1988
23.6
10.3
22.2
7.0
23.3
9.3
1989
22.9
9.9
21.6
6.8
22.5
8.8
1990
22.0
9.6
21.4
6.9
21.8
8.7
1991
21.2
9.4
20.6
6.9
21.0
8.6
1992
20.4
9.3
19.9
6.7
20.2
8.4
2000
20
8.7
18.1
6.5
19.3
7.9
2001
19.6
8.5
13.8
6.0
19.1
7.7
Source: Sample Registration System.

reveals that rapid declines in the birth rates in the state is a recent phenomenon,
discernible from around the mid-eighties onwards. While the decline in the birth rate
had set in from around early seventies if not earlier the magnitude of decline was
only modest till about the early or mid-eighties, a rapid decline setting in only
thereafter. Thus, taking the state as a whole, from the triennium 1971-73 to 1982-84
the birth rate declined by only 3.5 points; the decline in the next decade was of the
order of 7.6 points, i.e., more than double the decline in the earlier decade. The death
rate as noted earlier, also registered a steady decline from the early seventies in the
state, but did not witness any perceptible increase in the magnitude of decline in the
eighties as compared to the seventies. Thus, the decline in the death rate from 1971-73
to 1982-84 was 3.3 points, and from 1982-84 to 1991-93 was just 2.8 points. Given
this, the natural rate has witnessed a much more steeper fall in the eighties as
compared to the seventies in Tamil Nadu.
A striking feature of the decline in the birth rate in Tamil Nadu over the seventies and
the eighties is the distinct patterns displayed by the birth rates in the rural and the
urban areas. While the birth rate in urban Tamil Nadu has consistently been lower
than the rate in its rural areas, the decline in the latter appears to have set in much
earlier. Thus, the rural birth rate registered a substantial decline in the seventies (of

the order of 4.5 points between 1971-73 and 1982-84); and the decline continued, at
an accelerated pace, from the early or mid-eighties, the decline being by 8.5 points
between 1982-84 and 1991-93. In sharp contrast, the urban rate virtually stagnated
with considerable amount of fluctuations in the seventies, but started declining at
rapid rates from around the early or mid-eighties. The urban birth rate declined by a
meagre amount, of 0.2 points, between 1971-73 and 1982-84; but the decline between
1982-84 and 1991-93 was much higher, at 6.1 points. In sum, while the moderate
decline in the overall birth rate in Tamil Nadu in the seventies was solely due to the
decline in the rural rate, the rapid decline in the eighties was the resultant of the rapid
decline in both the rural and the urban rates. It is also noteworthy that the pattern of
decline in the death rate, either in rural or urban Tamil Nadu, follows more or less the
pattern in the birth rate, pointing to the possibility that the decline in death rate
which is also associated with a decline in the infant mortality rates in both rural and
urban Tamil Nadu over this period was a factor underlying the decline in birth rates.
We shall come back to this issue shortly.
It is also clear that precisely because of the distinct patterns in the decline of the vital
rates in the rural and urban areas of the state, the gap between the rural and the urban
vital rates has declined very sharply, particularly in the eighties and 1990s. And this
phenomenon is noticeable particularly in the case of the birth rate. And this, we
believe, reflects a larger phenomenon, of the homogenisation of the demographic
regime in Tamil Nadu over the seventies and the eighties. The available data indicate
that the differentials in most of the demographic variables have declined sharply in
the state across space i.e., between rural and urban areas as well as across districts
and also across social groups, like say groups with different levels of educational
attainment, or groups belonging to different castes. And this homogenisation is
noticeable particularly in the case of, what may be called for want of a better term,
volitional indices of fertility, as for example, the desired family size. The amazing
spread of the small family norm across space and social groups with very little
variation across them in terms of the desired family size, with almost all desiring just
about 2 children is a striking feature of Tamil Nadu economy in recent times.
Two important implications of this process of homogenisation of the demographic
regime in Tamil Nadu may be noted. The first is that it is a reflection an outcome, as
we shall point out later of diversification and broad-basing of the socio-economic
processes in the state. And as we shall see later, the increasingly strong rural-urban
linkages have played a major role in this process. The second implication is that if the
socially disadvantaged sections like the illiterate population, the Scheduled Castes,
the rural population etc had higher levels of fertility earlier and there is some
evidence to this effect the decline in birth rate or fertility would be sharper for these
sections compared to the rest. So in order to understand the factors underlying the
decline in birth rates in Tamil Nadu, one has to look particularly for socio-economic
forces responsible for the sharp decline in fertility of the more disadvantaged sections
in the state.
While we shall deal with the issue of the factors underlying the decline in birth rate
and hence, of fertility in Tamil Nadu later in the report, it is useful to provide some
details on the exact manner in which the fertility decline has come about the
components of this decline etc in the state: These details would provide some clues
as to the factors responsible for fertility decline in the state.

3. Components of Fertility Decline:

The decline in birth rate and the associated decline in fertility levels in Tamil
Nadu in the seventies and eighties are largely due to a decline in marital fertility rates,
with nuptiality playing only a secondary role in this [Table 3]. In the seventies, when
fertility declined by a
Table 3: Marital Fertility Rate and Nuptiality Rate in Tamil Nadu, 1972-1991

Year

1972
1984
1991
1995-97

Rural
Total
Nuptiality Total
Marital
Rate
Fertility
Fertility
Rate
Rate
4.1
5.9
85.6
2.9
3.6
5.3
72.6
3.1
2.3
4.1
71.1
2.0
2.2
1.3

Total
Fertility
Rate

Urban
Total
Nuptiality
Marital
Rate
Fertility
Rate
5.1
69.8
4.9
70.9
4.1
69.3

Source: 1. Registrar General of India: Level, Trends and Differentials in Fertility, 1979. (for 1972)
2. Registrar General of India: Fertility Differentials in India, 1984. (for 1984)
3. For 1991, the Sample Registration System.

moderate level in rural Tamil Nadu, it was due to a decline in both marital fertility
and nuptiality rates; when the fertility declined rapidly from around the early or mideighties here it was almost solely due to a decline in the marital fertility rate. The
decline in fertility in urban Tamil Nadu, which had set in only in the eighties, was
almost solely due to a decline in the marital fertility rate. Given the universality of
marriage in India Tamil Nadu being no exception to this this would imply that age
at marriage (for the female) has not played any major role in the fertility decline in
Tamil Nadu. The singulate mean age at marriage for females registered a modest
increase from 19.6 years in 1971 to 20.3 years in 1981 in Tamil Nadu, and remained
virtually stagnant thereafter. The value, according to the National Family Health
Survey, being 20.5 years in 1992-93. This value is only marginally higher than the allIndia figure of 20.0 years, but significantly lower than the figure for Kerala where it
stood at 22.1 in 1992-93. In Kerala, an increase in female age at marriage played a
significant role in the initial phase of its fertility decline, and it was attributed to high
female literacy. The fact that Tamil Nadu presents a different scenario in this regard
would imply that female literacy or social sector advances in general did not play
the same central role in its fertility decline.
Now, there is considerable evidence to the effect that the decline in marital fertility in
the state has come about essentially through family limitation by recourse to terminal
methods of contraception overwhelmingly to female sterilisation with spacing of
births playing very little role in it. If anything it appears that there is a tendency for
births to be bunched around lower birth intervals. The norm, which appears to be
getting increasingly generalised, is a relatively early marriage (compared to Kerala,
say); two or at most three children in quick succession after that; and go in for female
sterilisation after that.

This rapid generalised and rather unexpected fertility decline in the state from
around the mid-eighties has given rise to a considerable amount of debate and
literature, particularly on the factors underlying this phenomenon. There is one view,
which ascribes the decline largely to an efficient and successful family welfare
programme in the state, which in itself is due to the requisite political will and an
efficient bureaucracy2. This, we believe, is at best a partial explanation for the simple
reason that while an efficient family planning programme may be necessary for a
rapid decline in fertility, it cannot explain the rather amazing spread of the small
family norm in Tamil Nadu in recent times; one has to look for more basic socioeconomic factors to explain this phenomenon.
The relatively high level of social sector development of literacy, health care etc is
also often adduced as one of the reasons for the rapid fertility decline in the state. As
we shall see later the level of social sector development in the state is indeed higher
than the all-India average, but a comparison with Kerala would show that while the
role of the social sector advances in fertility decline in the state cannot be completely
discounted, they would again provide only a partial explanation. While Tamil Nadu
today has a fertility level almost as low as Kerala, in terms of social sector advances
like female literacy, health care development etc it is a distant second.
It is also often claimed that some important state interventions in the social sector in
the eighties have led to considerable improvements in the health status of women and
children, and hence have resulted in rapid fertility decline. One such intervention is
the noon meal programme, covering children in the age-group 3 to 15 years, which
was introduced in 1982. This noon meal scheme, along with the almost total
universalisation of immunisation programme including the programme for tetanus
toxoid coverage of pregnant women it is claimed, improved the general health status
of infants and children, and hence was a major factor behind fertility decline
[Ramasundaram, 1995]. The behaviour of the infant mortality rate a very sensitive
indicator of the health status of a society would throw some light on this issue, and
let us turn to a brief discussion on it.

2.

See, for example, Srinivasan (1995).

4. Infant Mortality Rate in Tamil Nadu:

The infant mortality rate in Tamil Nadu has witnessed a steady decline in the
seventies through 1990s (Table 4); and this decline has occurred both in the rural and
urban areas.
While there is, thus, a link between decline in infant mortality and decline in birth rate
in Tamil Nadu, we may just emphasise that the decline in infant mortality or
advances in social sectors in general cannot be seen as the major factor
Table 4: Infant Mortality Rates, 1971-2001

Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
2000
2001

Rural
Urban
Combined
Tamil Kerala India Tamil Kerala India Tamil Kerala India
Nadu
Nadu
Nadu
127
60
138
77
48
82
113
58
129
133
66
150
85
43
85
121
63
139
122
58
142
68
46
88
109
54
133
118
56
136
71
44
74
106
54
126
129
57
151
65
36
84
112
54
140
121
58
139
81
47
80
110
56
129
114
49
140
79
37
81
103
47
130
120
45
137
63
29
74
105
42
127
114
45
130
63
30
72
100
43
120
103
41
124
64
34
65
93
40
114
104
40
119
55
24
62
91
37
110
97
32
114
51
24
65
83
30
105
100
35
114
59
26
66
87
33
105
90
29
113
53
27
66
78
29
104
95
32
107
53
30
59
81
31
97
93
28
105
54
20
62
80
27
96
86
29
104
54
25
61
76
28
95
84
20
102
54
22
62
74
28
94
80
23
98
51
15
58
68
21
91
70
17
86
43
15
50
59
17
80
65
17
87
42
16
53
57
16
80
66
17
85
42
13
53
58
17
79
66
15
82
38
7
45
56
13
74
56
14
38
14
51
14
68
55
12
35
9
49
11

Source: Sample Registration System.

underlying fertility decline in Tamil Nadu. A comparison of Tamil Nadu with Kerala
should bring it out very clearly. While the fertility levels in the two states are not very
different, the infant mortality rates are. The IMR in Tamil Nadu in 1993 (at 56) was
more than four times as high as the IMR in Kerala (13).
And a disturbing tendency that is discernible, at least from the beginning of the
nineties, is that this decline in the infant mortality rate seems to have been arrested, at

this relatively high level, in the state. This stagnation in IMR which is largely due to
stagnation in the neo-natal mortality rate may be due to a relatively high incidence
of high-risk pregnancies in the state which in itself may be largely due to increasing
bunching of births around low birth intervals as also the level of social sector
development, which at best can be characterised as being only modest. Thus, further
substantial declines in IMR from the relatively high levels prevalent in the state today
would require a reorientation of state policies towards better social sector
development, as also towards later marriages and higher birth spacing as means for
fertility decline, rather than an almost total reliance on female sterilization as in the
case of the official family planning programme in the state today.
In sum, either social sector development or the efficiency of the official family
planning programme can at best be partial explanations for the rapid fertility decline
in Tamil Nadu. As we shall argue later the basic explanation for this phenomenon has
to be sought in what we have termed the disjunction in the economy, between the
rather poor overall performance of the economy and the diversification and broadbasing experienced by it. One of the dimensions of this broad-basing, we had noted
earlier, was the spatial dimension, viz., the rural-urban linkages in the state. Let us
now turn to this issue.
5. Urbanisation in Tamil Nadu:
Tamil Nadu happens to be one of the relatively more urbanised states in the country.
According to the 1991 census slightly more than a third (34.2 percent) of its
population lived in urban areas only Maharastra and Gujarat were more urbanised,
with a degree of urbanisation of 38.7 percent and 34.4 percent respectively. But Tamil
Nadu has a better spread of urbanisation. it has a larger number of towns per unit area
and a better mix of small, medium and large towns, as also a better spatial spread of
these towns, compared to either Maharastra or Gujarat. In fact if a composite index of
urbanisation taking into account (a) the degree of urbanisation, (b) rural population
served by a town and (c) the average distance to a town from the village, is used for
comparison across the states, Tamil Nadu ranks first among the major states in the
country both in 1981 and 1991 [Rukmani, 1994]. An important consequence of this
good spread of towns in Tamil Nadu is that the rural-urban linkages in the state are
quite strong compared to other states in the country (with the possible exception of
Kerala). And there is reason to believe that the rural-urban linkages in the state have
got strengthened in the recent past, from the seventies onwards in particular. The
sixties, seventies and the eighties witnessed a very significant increase in the spread
and development of the road network of the minor roads, viz., roads other than
highways and major district roads, in particular and of transportation facilities of
public transportation in particular in the state [Table 5]. According to the census, in
1971 nearly a third (32.4 percent) of the villages in Tamil Nadu had a town less than
10 kilometres away [Rukmani, 1996]; this proportion had increased to nearly half
(49.0 percent) by 1992-93 according to the National Family Health Survey.

Table 5: Development of Road Network in Tamil Nadu, 1960-1992:

(Kilometres)
National
high
ways

Year

State
high
ways

Major roads
Major
Municipal,
district
P.W.D and
roads
others

1960-61

1754

1754

13742

5827

1965-66

1754

1780

13591

6423

1970-71

1804

1780

13776

7235

1975-76

1865

1745

13866

7956

1980-81

1865

1814

14028

7956

1985-86

1884

1864

14004

9169

1988-89

1884

1885

14008

15022

1989-90

1884

1885

14008

15022

1990-91

1884

1896

13923

15156

1991-92

2002

1915

13930

15156

2001-02

3850

7163

48325

Total

23077
(100)
23548
(102)
24595
(107)
25432
(110)
25663
(111)
26921
(117)
32799
(142)
32799
(142)
32859
(142)
33003
(143)

Other
distric
t roads

Minor roads
Panchayat Total
union
roads

1194

19748

6859

35160

9537

40032

15833

53468

18118

71527

21927

99112

29254

102515

30420

102515

31733

102515

33110

102515

37122

82859

20942
(100)
42019
(201)
49569
(237)
69301
(331)
39645
(428)
121039
(578)
131769
(629)
132935
(635)
134248
(641)
135625
(648)

Total
for all
roads

44019
(100)
65567
(149)
74164
(168)
94733
(215)
115308
(262)
147960
(336)
164568
(374)
165734
(377)
167107
(380)
168628
(383)
179319

Note: Figures in brackets give indices with 1960-61=100.

Source: Tamil Nadu: An Economic Appraisal, 1992-93; Government of Tamil Nadu; Madras.

We should hasten to add that the high level of urbanisation in Tamil Nadu should be
seen solely in relative terms, viz., relative to other states in the country. It is obvious
that with just about a third of its population living in urban areas, Tamil Nadu is still a
predominantly rural society, and what is more, even at this modest level of
urbanisation there are clear indications of deceleration of urban growth in the state in
the last two decades [Table 6]. In the post-Independence period the rapid urban
growth of the large urban agglomerations in particular in the sixties and a moderate
growth in the seventies may be related to the
Table 6: Degree of Urbanisation and Rate of Urban Growth in Tamil Nadu, 1951- 2001

Year

1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
2001

Degree of
urbanisation
(percent)
24.4
26.6
30.2
33.0
34.2
43.86

Source: Census of India.

Decadal variation in
urban
population
(percent)
22.3
38.6
28.4
19.3

Minor
roads
as a
percent
of all
roads
47.6
64.1
66.8
73.2
77.7
81.8
80.1
80.2
80.3
80.4

expansion and diversification in the industrial sector, and the growth and increasing
market orientation associated with the green revolution in the agricultural sector. And
sharp decline in urban growth in the eighties may again be linked to fortunes of the
industrial sector which, as we show later, witnessed a sharp decline in its growth in
this period.
In sum, the strong and strengthening rural-urban linkages in Tamil Nadu in the
recent past appear to provide a contrast to a decelerating or a stagnant picture of urban
growth in this period. This contrast, we believe, is an instance of what we have called
the disjunction between the broad-basing of the socio-economic processes on the one
hand, and a poor or modest real sector performance on the other. And this dichotomy
has led to or is associated with certain other changes in the demographic regime in
the state. And one such change relates to migratory patterns.
6. Migration:
The strong and strengthening rural-urban linkages and the decelerating urban
growth in the seventies and the eighties in the state were associated with significant
changes in the patterns of migration or mobility in the state. The sharp decline in the
rate of urban growth in the seventies and the eighties after a decade of rapid urban
growth in the sixties was accompanied by a significant decline in the net urban-ward
migration in the state. A simple component analysis of the urban growth in the state
shows that decadal net rural-urban migration rate was of the order or 8.6 percent in
the sixties, and had declined marginally to 7.9 percent in the seventies; but the
eighties witnessed a very sharp decline in this rate to 0.2 percent. But a sharp
decline of this order in the net rural-urban migrant stream is consistent with a situation
where the relative importance of different mobility streams would have undergone
drastic changes, but the overall volume of migration a summation of all the mobility
streams would not have declined to any significant extent. While we do not have
any data to test this contention we have not been able to obtain the census migration
data for 1991 this we believe is a safe surmise in the context of Tamil Nadu. with
continuing high levels of unemployment and poverty in the state an issue we shall
deal with later and with its strong and improving spatial connectivity, the overall
volume of migration would not have witnessed any drastic decline, but better ruralurban linkages among other things would have induced significant changes in the
relative importance of different migrant streams. More to our point, a sharp decline in
net rural-urban migration in the state is consistent with
a) An increase in both rural-urban and urban-rural migration streams, with the
increase in the latter being larger than in the former. An analysis of the census
migration data for 1971 and 1981 lend support to such a surmise for the sixties and
the seventies [Rukmani, 1993:54]. Unfortunately we have not been able to obtain
migration data from the 1991 census to test whether a similar scenario would hold for
the eighties.
b) A change in the nature of rural-urban migration i.e., short-terms circulatory
movements like daily commutation to work in a nearby urban area, or seasonal
migration to an urban area which would be largely left out in a census, would
become relatively more and more important over time within the rural-urban mobility

streams. While we do not have any data on this for the state as a whole, some village
resurveys done recently do lend some support to this hypothesis. Thus, a resurvey
conducted in 1993-95 in three villages Nesal, Vinayagapuram and Veerasambanur
in northern Tamil Nadu points to the increased spatial mobility of labour, in
particular daily commuting, seasonal and permanent outmigration of male labour,
which increasingly avoids agricultural work . in these villages [Harris White and
Janakarajan, 1997:1474]
Now, a context like this where circulatory movements between rural and urban
areas as also urban-rural migrant streams become increasingly important would
facilitate better rural-urban linkages. But apart from that it can also have important
implications for sectoral distribution of workers, particularly in the rural areas, an
issue we turn to now.
7. Distribution of workers:
Eventhough Tamil Nadu is more industrialised and modernised compared to most of
the other states in India, in terms of distribution of workers it is still largely
agricultural: slightly more than 60 percent of its workers are in the primary sector, and
within this the agricultural sector proper accounts for the lions share. [Table 7]. But a
comparison with the all-India picture

Table 7: Sectoral Distribution of Workers in India and Tamil Nadu, 1971-1991:

State /
country
Tamil Nadu

India

State /
country
Tamil Nadu

India

Year
1971
1981
1991
1971
1981
1991

Year
1971
1981
1991
1971
1981
1991

Percentage distribution of workers by sectors

Primary sector
Cultivators Agrl.lab.
Livestock
Mining and
Total
forestry etc
quarrying
primary
31.3
30.5
2.7
0.3
64.8
29.2
31.7
2.6
0.2
63.7
24.8
34.6
2.0
0.3
61.7
43.3
26.3
2.4
0.5
72.5
41.6
24.9
2.2
0.6
69.3
38.7
26.1
2.1
0.6
67.5
Percentage distribution of workers by sectors
Secondary sector
Household
Manufacturing
Construction Total
industry (HHI) other than HHI
secondary
4.5
8.8
1.6
14.9
4.7
10.5
1.6
16.8
3.5
10.5
2.2
16.2
3.5
5.9
1.2
10.6
3.5
7.8
1.6
12.9
2.4
7.7
1.9
12.0

Percentage distribution of workers by sectors

Tertiary sector
State /
Year
Trade and
Transport storage
Other services
country
commerce
and communication
1971
7.8
3.2
9.3
Tamil Nadu
1981
8.5
3.2
7.7
1991
8.7
3.1
10.2
1971
5.6
2.4
8.7
India
1981
6.3
2.7
8.8
1991
7.5
2.8
10.3
Source: Census of India.

Total
tertiary
20.3
19.4
22.0
16.7
17.8
20.6

shows that the workforce is more diversified in Tamil Nadu. It has a lower percentage
of workers in the primary sector, and higher percentage in both secondary and tertiary
sectors, in comparison with the country as a whole. As for changes in the composition
of workforce over time, Tamil Nadu shares some similarities, and provides some
contrasts, when compared to the all-India situation. The proportion of workers in the
primary sector has declined and the proportions in the secondary and tertiary sectors
have increased in both; within the secondary sector the proportion of workers in
household industry has declined, and the proportion in manufacturing other than
household industry has increased, in both. But a striking difference between the two
is observed in terms of the intra-sectoral distribution of the workforce within the
primary sector itself. While there is a decline in the proportion of cultivators in both
Tamil Nadu and the country the magnitude of decline though being of a higher
order in the former the proportion of agricultural labourers, the other major
component of the agricultural workforce, has registered a substantial increase in

Tamil Nadu, while in the country as a whole this proportion was more or less constant
between 1971 and 1991, and had registered only a modest increase in 1991 compared
to 1981. The net upshot of all this is that while in 1971 in Tamil Nadu cultivators and
agricultural labourers constituted the two largest, and roughly equal, occupational
groups, the picture had changed by 1991: agricultural labourers, accounting for
roughly a third of the workforce, constituted the largest occupational group;
cultivators, accounting for a fourth came second; and workers in manufacturing other
than household industry and other services accounting for a tenth each, came
next. And in sharp contrast, cultivators accounting for more than a third of the
workforce still constitute the largest occupational group in the country as a whole in
1991; agricultural labourers, accounting for a fourth, come second; other services;
the third; manufacturing other than household industry and trade and commerce
accounting for roughly 8 percent of the workforce each, come next. Thus, a higher
level of diversification away from the primary sector, and a higher level of
proletarianisation within the primary sector seem to be the two important
distinguishing characteristics with regard to the transformation of the workforce in
Tamil Nadu.
Now, the urban areas by their very nature i.e., by definition represent a much more
diversified economy and workforce compared to the rural. So, let us concentrate
on the rural areas and see the extent and nature of transformation of workforce there
[Table 8]. It appears that the extent of diversification of the workforce away from the
primary sector is of a higher order for male workers compared to female workers in
rural Tamil Nadu. Not only is the proportion in primary sector significantly lower for
male workers, but also the decline in this proportion over time is of a higher order
compared to female workers. As for the process of proletarianisation within the
primary sector, while the proportion of agricultural labourers is significantly lower
and the proportion of cultivators significantly higher in the case of male workers,
the transformation of the agricultural workforce away from cultivators and towards
agricultural labourers appears to be at work only in their case, and not among the
female workers. Thus the sectoral composition of the workforce and the changes in it
vary between male and female workers.
Considering rural Tamil Nadu as a whole, while both the processes of
diversification away from the primary sector, and the process of

Table 8: Sectoral Distribution of Workers in Rural Tamil Nadu, 1971-1991:

Sex

Persons

Male

Female

Sex

Persons

Male

Female

Year
1971
1981
1991
1971
1981
1991
1971
1981
1991

Year
1971
1981
1991
1971
1981
1991
1971
1981
1991

Percentage distribution of workers by sectors

Primary sector
Cultivators Agrl.lab.
Livestock
Mining and
forestry etc quarrying
40.3
38.1
2.6
0.4
38.3
40.3
2.3
0.2
32.8
44.7
1.9
0.3
45.6
30.9
2.5
0.4
43.8
30.9
2.6
0.2
37.4
36.0
2.1
0.3
22.3
62.2
2.6
0.3
26.5
60.1
1.7
0.1
24.3
60.9
1.4
0.2

Total
primary
81.4
81.1
79.7
79.4
77.5
75.8
87.4
88.4
86.8

Percentage distribution of workers by sectors

Secondary sector
Household
Manufacturing
Construction
industry (HHI)
other than HHI
3.7
4.1
1.0
3.8
5.0
0.8
3.1
5.3
1.1
3.5
4.6
1.1
3.5
6.0
1.1
2.5
6.4
1.6
4.1
2.3
0.5
4.4
2.8
0.3
4.0
3.2
0.3

Percentage distribution of workers by sectors

Tertiary sector
Sex
Year
Trade and
Transport storage and
Other services
commerce
communications
1971
3.4
0.8
5.8
Persons
1981
3.8
1.1
4.4
1991
3.6
1.3
5.9
1971
3.9
1.0
6.3
Male
1981
4.9
1.6
5.3
1991
5.0
2.0
6.7
1971
1.5
0.1
4.0
Female
1981
1.4
0.1
2.6
1991
1.2
0.1
4.5
Source: Census of India.

Total
secondary
8.8
9.6
9.5
9.2
10.6
10.5
6.9
7.5
7.5

Total
tertiary
10.0
9.3
10.8
11.2
11.8
13.7
5.6
4.1
5.8

proletarianisation within the primary sector seem to be at work here, the extent to
which the process of diversification has occurred between 1971 and 1991 seems to be
limited the percentage of workers in the primary sector has declined, between 1971
and 1991, by just 1.7 percent points from 81.4 percent to 79.7 percent.

There is reason to believe that the census data understate the process of diversification
of the workforce in rural Tamil Nadu. The National Sample Survey data- which, we
believe, is more reliable than the census data with respect to employmentunemployment characteristics - summarised in Table 9 below appear to support such
a contention. Not only is the proportion of non-agricultural employment in rural
Tamil Nadu as given by the NSS, significantly higher than the figure given by the
census, the increase in the proportion is also of a higher order. Thus it appears that
there is a clear trend towards diversification away from agricultural employment
of the workforce in rural Tamil Nadu in the last three decades. We may also note here
that the NSS data support our earlier contention, based on census data, that this
process of diversification is significantly stronger for the male workforce compared to
female workers.
Table 9: Non-agricultural Employment in Rural Tamil Nadu, 1977- 2000

Year
1977-78
1983
1987-88
1993-94
1999-00

Percent of workers in non-agricultural employment

Male
Female
26.1
16.4
31.1
18.2
34.8
22.9
36.0
21.5
37.9
24.8

Source: Various issues of Sarvekshana.

Now, what could be the factors underlying this phenomenon of diversification of the
workforce in rural Tamil Nadu? In order to understand this, it is useful to get into the
issue of the nature or the quality of this transformation of the workforce. In the
quantitative shift towards non-agricultural employment in rural Tamil Nadu in the last
couple of decades accompanied by a shift to a more skilled, regular workforce? Or is
it accompanied by a shift to a more casualised workforce? The answer, it appears, is
both [Table 10]. A striking tendency that is discernible within the non-agricultural
labour force both in rural and urban Tamil Nadu from around the late seventies
onwards (if not earlier) is a tendency towards

Table 10: Composition of Non-agricultural workforce in Tamil Nadu, 1977-1988:

Rural / Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural / Urban

Rural

Urban

Year
1977-78
1983
1987-88
1977-78
1983
1987-88

Year
1977-78
1983
1987-88
1977-78
1983
1987-88

Percentage distribution of the non-agricultural labour force

Persons
Workers in household
Casual workers Regular salaried/
enterprises
wage workers
58.0
17.5
24.5
46.9
26.8
26.3
43.0
24.3
32.6
42.4
15.8
41.8
32.8
26.5
40.8
34.9
18.0
47.0
Percentage distribution of the non-agricultural labour force
Males
Workers in household
Casual workers Regular salaried/
enterprises
wage workers
52.1
17.4
30.5
43.6
24.9
31.5
39.6
25.6
34.8
36.8
15.2
48.0
32.1
23.7
44.2
32.2
17.3
50.6

Percentage distribution of the non-agricultural labour force

Females
Rural / Urban
Year
Workers in household
Casual workers Regular salaried/
enterprises
wage workers
1977-78
70.7
17.6
11.7
Rural
1983
54.0
29.3
16.7
1987-88
49.5
21.9
28.6
1977-78
57.8
17.5
24.6
Urban
1983
34.5
35.5
29.9
1987-88
43.1
20.3
36.6
Note: Date refer to the adjusted usual status workers.
Source: Various issues of Sarvekshana.
differentiation. On the one hand there is a distinct tendency towards a decline in the
relative importance of workers in the household enterprises, which may be
interpreted as a move away from the traditional non-agricultural occupations as also a
move towards proletarianisation within the non-agricultural workforce. On the other
hand, there are two distinct strands which have got strengthened within the wage
worker category: a strand which has got increasingly formalised and regularised;
and a strand which has got increasingly casualised.
A closer look at Table 10 brings out couple of other interesting points. First, the
change in the composition of the non-agricultural workforce outlined above is more
visible in the rural areas compared to urban. Secondly, the process of regularisation or
formalisation of the workforce is particularly striking for the female non-agricultural

labour force, and that too in the rural areas in particular. This may in part be due to
employment generation in the government sector as, for example, in the Noon Meal
Scheme; it may also be related to the point we had made earlier regarding the
strengthening rural-urban linkages in the last two decades or so. We had noted that the
strengthening rural-urban linkages were accompanied by a change in the character of
migration, with circulatory migration commutation to work in urban areas in
particular becoming increasingly important over time. And it appears that this
phenomenon of living in a village and commuting to work, often of a regular nature,
in the nearby town is particularly strong among female workers. The third important
point that comes out from the table is the sharp increase in the proportion of casual
workers both in rural and urban areas in 1983. This, we believe, is largely due to
the fact that the monsoons had failed in 1983; and this phenomenon, hence, would
point to the role that agrarian distress would play in the process of casualisation of the
non-agricultural workforce.
The points made above perhaps may be generalised. The increasing incidence of nonagricultural employment in rural Tamil Nadu is accompanied by a) process of
proletarianisation, which is largely a reflection of the decline in the traditional
household industries; and b) a process of differentiation within the wage-worker
stream. Factors like agrarian modernisation, strong rural-urban linkages, expansion of
the state sector etc seem to underlie the tendency towards formalisation or
regularisation of this wage-worker stream; and agrarian distress due to failure of
monsoon, or through process of agrarian differentiation itself appears to be an
important factor underlying the tendency towards casualisation within this stream.
In urban Tamil Nadu, the extent of proletarianisation move away from employment
within household enterprises is, as one would expect, significantly higher than in
rural areas, and so is the extent of formalisation or regularisation of the workforce.
All the same, the tendency towards casualisation is also discernible within the urban
workforce. This is basically a reflection of the informal-formal dichotomy within the
urban economy, which, it appears, is getting strengthened over time.
The discussions above regarding the differentiation of the workforce was confined to
the non-agricultural worker, in both rural and urban Tamil Nadu. Is there a similar
trend in the case of agricultural employment in rural Tamil Nadu? Table 11 below
summarises the NSS data on this issue. We had noted earlier, on the basis of census
data, that while the proportion of agricultural labourers within the agricultural
workforce is higher for female workers, this proportion as well as the proportion of
cultivators had remained more or less stable over time in their case; and the process
of proletarianisation in terms of an increase

Table 11: Composition of Agricultural Workforce in Rural Tamil Nadu, 1977-1988:

Year
Self
employed
workers
1977-78
1983
1987-88

52.0
44.9
47.2

Percentage distribution of agricultural workforce

Male
Female
Casual
Regular
Self
Casual
workers
salaried/ wage employed
workers
workers
workers
42.1
52.2
50.2

5.9
3.0
2.5

44.3
41.6
44.9

54.7
57.6
54.5

Regular
salaried/
wage
workers
1.0
0.7
0.6

Source: Various issues of Sarvekshana.

in the proportion of agricultural labourers was discernible only in the case of male
workers. The NSS data broadly support this observation. while the composition of
female agricultural labour force has not witnessed any significant change, the
proportion of self-employed workers has declined in the case of the male workforce.
But this process of proletarianisation has not been accompanied by the emergence of
duality as in the case of the non-agricultural labour force. while casualisation has
increased, the proportion of regular workers which is low compared to nonagricultural workforce has in fact registered a decline over time, proletarianisation is
only accompanied by casualisation. Institutional factors like progressive alienation
of land from the small and marginal peasantry as well as demographic factors
leading to continuous sub-division of holdings may be the factors underlying this
phenomenon.

Table 11 sketches out for 2001 the distribution of the population in TN as well as for
the country into Workers and Non-workers; within workers, there is a further
distribution between Main and Marginal workers. It is clear from the table that the
work participation rates in TN for both men and women are above those for the
country as a whole. An interesting aspect discernible from the same Table is the
following: while the percentage of marginal workers in TN are lower than the average
for the country, the percentage of marginal workers in urban TN, however, is higher
than that for the country, for both men and women. The issue of marginal workers is
extremely important for TN as will be clear from the discussion below.
By the TN governments own admission in its Human Development Report, 2003,
what is worrisome about the 2001 Census results is that the number of marginal
workers has gone up from 1.4 million in 1991 to 4.1 million in 2001. This suggests
that the increase in WPR during this time period is largely accounted for by an
increase in marginal workers as opposed to main workers. The number of main
workers has only risen from 22.8 million to 23.7 million, by less than a million[ibid:
20].
The Census 2001, so far, has provided only a four-fold classification of workers [in
place of the usual nine-fold classification]. These categories are: Cultivators,
Agricultural Workers, Household Industry and Other Workers. A comparison of
worker classification between TN and India into these categories reveals that a larger
proportion of workers in TN [both males and females] belong to the Agricultural

Labour and Household Industry category [Table 12]. In the absence on any further
information on the nature of employment in these two categories, and given our
existing knowledge of the poor quality of employment characterizing these
categories, it is not far from the truth to state, that, the higher WPRs in TN do not
necessarily signify higher/better quality of employment for TN workforce. Further,
another worrisome point noted in the governments Human Development Report and
worth quoting at some length is the following: Even though agriculture continues to
account for the bulk of employment, this is not reflected in the income originating
from the sector. Agriculture income declined from 24.82 percent in 1993-94 to 18.16
percent in 1999-2000, whereas the share of income from secondary and tertiary
sectors improved from 33.72 percent to 34.12 percent and from 41.46 percent to 47.72
percent respectively. In per capita terms, this means that the average output per
worker in the primary sector increased only marginally compared to other sectors
where significant increases were noticed[ibid: 26].
The district-wise distribution of workers [male and female] into the four-fold
classification gives the following picture: while 31 percent of workers overall for TN
are categorized as Agricultural workers, the percentages of agricultural workers for
Villupuram and Cuddalore are way above the state average, at 47 and 46 percent
respectively. In a similar vein, while 45 percent of workers are categorized as Other
Workers for the state as a whole, the percentages for Thiruvallur and Kancheepuram
for the same category are above the state average at 63 and 57 percent respectively
[Table 13].
The district and sex-wise distribution of workers into the four-fold classification
indicate the following: while overall for the state, only 24 percent of male workers are
returned as agricultural labourers, almost 45 percent of female workers belong to this
category. The bulk of male workers [almost 55 percent] belong to the Other
Workers category. In contrast, just 27 percent of women workers belong to the
Other Workers category [Table 14 & 15]. In the case of men workers, the districts
of Thiruvallur and Kancheepuram have returned almost 70 and 65 percent of workers,
respectively, as belonging to the Other Workers category; in Villupuram and
Cuddalore on the other hand, the share of agricultural workers are above the average
for the state, as far as men workers are concerned. The female workforce distribution
follows a similar pattern. Here again, while Thiruvallur and Kancheepuram show
higher than state average female workers as Other Workers, Villupuram and
Cuddalore have higher than state average female workers in the agricultural labour
category.
Official data on age-wise distribution of the workers across the industrial
classification as well as across districts has yet to be released. In the absence of such
information it is not possible to state at this juncture whether, say, for the decade of
the 1990s, child labour has declined; if so, in which districts and in which categories
of industrial classification. Similarly, since the Social and Cultural Tables of Census
2001, have not been released, the distribution of workers, caste-wise, and across
industrial category-wise is not possible. A brief discussion of the picture obtaining in
1991 however follows more in order to understand the structural nature of the
employment situation then [that is in 1991] and the kind of questions that the data
then raised. With the release of Census 2001, it should be possible to compare the

decade of the 1990s with that of the 1980s and decide how far questions raised in
1991 are relevant for 2001.
Between 1981 and 1991 the WPR increased for women in TN both in rural and urban
areas; for men on the other hand the WPR showed a marginal increase in urban areas
but a marginal decrease in rural areas. However, a district-wise classification of WPR
data for 1991 revealed the following disquieting feature: those districts that showed a
distinct increase in female WPR were also the districts where female child and
adolescent work participation rates had increased. For 1991, in 13 of the 21 districts
that revealed female WPRs higher than state average, also showed higher than
average increases in female child and adolescent WPRs. For males, 7 districts that had
recorded WPRs higher than state average, showed higher than average male child and
male adolescent WPRs in these districts [Swaminathan, 2002].
Disaggregating the WPR data for 1991 by SC and non-SC categories introduces
another significant dimension to the analysis of the magnitude and pattern of female
employment in TN. As far as WPRs for all ages is concerned, the SCs and non-SCs
show different patterns for male and female workers. While the SC male WPR is
marginally lower than the non-SC male WPR, the SC female WPR is significantly
higher than the non-SC female WPR for rural as well as urban areas. In other words, a
larger proportion of SC women work [relative to their population] when compared
to non-SC women.
More gender related points that emerged from the analysis of 1991 Census in
comparison with 1981 included the following: [i] For TN as a whole and for almost
every district across the state, rural child female WPR in the age-group [5-14] is
higher than rural child male WPR in the same age-group. In other words, the
proportion of female child workers is greater than male child workers; [ii]
Disaggregating this data by caste, we find that, the proportion of female child and
adolescent workers among SCs is greater than the proportion of female child and
adolescent among non-SCs; [iii] The proportion of SC female workers in the farm
sector is greater than among non-SC female workers irrespective of age-group
signifying less occupational diversification among SC workers; [iv] A glance at the
age-wise and industrial category-wise distribution of female WPR [SC and non-SC]
for the state as a whole revealed that, in the case of female participation in non-farm
employment [that is, Census categories Household and Other-than Household
categories], the bulk of those employed are in the age-group [5-14] followed by those
in the 15-19 age-group; thereafter there is a distinct fall in percentages employed in
these industrial categories from the age-group 20-24 onwards. On the other hand,
female employment in farm employment shows no such distinct decline as we go
from child to adolescents to adult workers. To put it differently, if we equate non-farm
employment with shift into more modern employment, then we need to take
cognizance of the fact that such employment is concentrated among the younger age
groups, namely, child and adolescent workers. As we go into the higher age groups,
namely, 20-24 years onwards, the percentage of female employed in non-farm sectors
progressively declines. For SCs and rural SC female workers in particular, the
Agricultural Labour category still forms the dominant employment category,
whatever the age group [Swaminathan, 2002].

Table 11 Distribution of Population Across workers and Non-workers, India and Tamil Nadu: 2001
Total/Rural/Urban Persons/Males/
Workers
Total
Females
Sl.No. India/State
Non
Population Total
Main
Marginal
%
%
% workers
workers
workers
Workers
1
1

Total

Persons
Males
Females

1025251059 402512190 39.26 313173394 30.55 89338796 8.71 622738869 60.74

530422415 275463736 51.93 240520672 45.35 34943064 6.59 254958679 48.07
494828644 127048454 25.68 72652722 14.68 54395732 10.99 367780190 74.32

Rural

Persons
Males
Females

740255371 310655339 41.97 229672348 31.03 80982991 10.94 429600032 58.03

380438194 199199602 52.36 169333233 44.51 29866369 7.85 181238592 47.64
359817177 111455737 30.98 60339115 16.77 51116622 14.21 248361440 69.02

Urban

Persons
Males
Females

284995688
149984221
135011467

91856851 32.23 83501046 29.30

76264134 50.85 71187439 47.46
15592717 11.55 12313607 9.12

8355805
5076695
3279110

2.93 193138837 67.77

3.38 73720087 49.15
2.43 119418750 88.45

Tamil Nadu Total

Persons
Males
Females

62110839
31268654
30842185

27811647 44.78 23684611 38.13

18153275 58.06 16346879 52.28
9658372 31.32 7337732 23.79

4127036
1806396
2320640

6.64 34299192 55.22

5.78 13115379 41.94
7.52 21183813 68.68

Rural

Persons
Males
Females

34869286
17508985
17360301

17572083 50.39 14290211 40.98

10396912 59.38 9067457 51.79
7175171 41.33 5222754 30.08

3281872 9.41 17297203 49.61

1329455 7.59 7112073 40.62
1952417 11.25 10185130 58.67

Urban

Persons
Males
Females

27241553
13759669
13481884

10239564 37.59
7756363 56.37
2483201 18.42

India

9394400 34.49
7279422 52.90
2114978 15.69

845164
476941
368223

3.10 17001989 62.41

3.47 6003306 43.63
2.73 10998683 81.58

Source: Tamil Nadu Govt.of - Provisional Population Totals Paper 3 of 2001 Distribution of Workers and Non workers, Census of India, 2001, Series 34, Tamil Nadu pp.
101/109

Sl.No.

India/State

1 India

Table 12 Total Workers and their categories : India and Tamil Nadu by residence and sex - 2001
Total/Rural/Urban Persons/Males/Females Total workers
Categories of Workers
(Main+Marginal)
Agricultural Household
Cultivators
Labourers
Industry

Other Workers

Total

Persons
Males
Females

No.
%
No.
%
No.
402512190 127628287 31.71 107447725 26.69 16395870
275463736 86328447 31.34 57354281 20.82 8312191
127048454 41299840 32.51 50093444 39.43 8083679

%
No.
%
4.07 151040308 37.52
3.02 123468817 44.82
6.36 27571491 21.70

Rural

Persons
Males
Females
Persons

310655339 124682055 40.14 103122189 33.20 11709533

199199602 84046644 42.19 54749291 27.48 5642112
111455737 40635411 36.46 48372898 43.40 6067421
91856851 2946232 3.21 4325536 4.71 4686337

3.77
2.83
5.44
5.10

Urban

2 Tamil Nadu Total

Rural

Urban

71141562 22.90
54761555 27.49
16380007 14.70
79898746 86.98

Males
Females

76264134
15592717

2281803 2.99
664429 4.26

2604990 3.42 2670079 3.50 68707262 90.09

1720546 11.03 2016258 12.93 11191484 71.77

Persons

27811647

5114384 18.39

8665020 31.16 1458546 5.24 12573697 45.21

Males
Females
Persons
Males

18153275
9658372
17572083
10396912

3305413 18.21
1808971 18.73
4725890 26.89
3028113 29.13

4277140 23.56
4387880 45.43
7565439 43.05
3667853 35.28

619096
839450
815009
324381

3.41
8.69
4.64
3.12

9951626 54.82
2622071 27.15
4465745 25.41
3376565 32.48

Females
Persons
Males
Females

7175171
10239564
7756363
2483201

1697777 23.66
388494 3.79
277300 3.58
111194 4.48

3897586 54.32
1099581 10.74
609287 7.86
490294 19.74

490628 6.84
643537 6.28
294715 3.80
348822 14.05

1089180 15.18
8107952 79.18
6575061 84.77
1532891 61.73

Source: Tamil Nadu Govt.of - Provisional Population Totals Paper 3 of 2001 Distribution of Workers and Non workers, Census of India, 2001, Series 34, Tamil
Nadu pp. 110-118

Table 13 Distribution of Total Workers into four main industrial categories at District level, 2001
District

Total Workers

Cultivators
(C)

Thiruvalluvar

1025961

Chennai

1441382

Kancheepuram

1142662

Vellore

1427003

Dharmapuri

1419617

Tiruvannamalai
Viluppuram
Salem
Namakkal
Erode

Agricultural labourers

Household industries

( AL )

83701

(HHI)

Other workers
(OW)

Percentage to total workers

C

AL

HHI

OW

244572

47876

649812

8.16 23.84

4.67 63.34

788

715

22108

1417771

130143

305115

63490

0.05

0.05

1.53 98.36

653914 11.39 26.70

5.56 57.23

258688

392206

161704

544627

449540

34414

391036 38.36 31.67

2.42 27.55

1062317

347609

424482

52330

237896 32.72 39.96

4.93 22.39

1436373

438891

681437

34595

281450 30.56 47.44

2.41 19.59

1452366

305047

389594

131464

626261 21.00 26.82

9.05 43.12

841816

181204

268953

48493

343166 21.53 31.95

5.76 40.76

621405 18.13 27.48 11.33 43.55

1431276

300443

486580

73388

570865 20.99 34.00

5.13 39.89

The Nilgiris

346669

14269

47902

1771

282727

4.12 13.82

0.51 81.56

Coimbatore

1969332

177211

397614

70255

1324252

9.00 20.19

3.57 67.24

972775

195651

411304

26989

338831 20.11 42.28

2.77 34.83

Dindigul
Karur

495737

106863

187594

19597

181683 21.56 37.84

3.95 36.65

Trichirapalli

1055580

218856

335524

39465

461735 20.73 31.79

3.74 43.74

Perambalur

267042

127662

92111

3616

43653 47.81 34.49

1.35 16.35

Ariyalur

345132

112098

158133

19608

55293 32.48 45.82

5.68 16.02

Cuddalore

974966

190482

454614

28640

301230 19.54 46.63

2.94 30.90

Nagapattinam

584310

69072

313174

9032

193032 11.82 53.60

1.55 33.04

Thiruvarur

489904

68374

286033

8068

127429 13.96 58.39

1.65 26.01

Thanjavur

910414

147918

416052

40297

306147 16.25 45.70

4.43 33.63

Pudukottai

677314

248055

229846

15796

153627 36.62 33.93

2.33 22.68

Sivaganga

509493

187615

147550

10559

167769 36.82 28.96

2.07 32.93

Madurai

1081686

125892

332249

36774

586771 11.64 30.72

3.40 54.25

Theni

519449

53494

281574

11419

172962 10.30 54.21

2.20 33.30

Virudhunagar

880579

84953

197249

49140

549237

9.65 22.40

5.58 62.37

Ramanathapuram

520623

179562

124483

24952

191626 34.49 23.91

4.79 36.81

Thoothukudi
Tirunelveli
Kanniyakumari
Tamil Nadu

673682

71315

167407

45783

1310582

144834

363434

288409

545605

16067

81998

38514

27811647

5114384

8665020

1458546

289177 10.59 24.85

6.80 42.92

513905 11.05 27.73 22.01 39.21

2.94 15.03

7.06 74.97

12573697 18.39 31.16

409025

5.24 45.21

Source: Census of India, 2001 Provisional Populaiton Total Paper-3, Tamil Nadu, (Series 34) pg.30

Table 14 Distribution of Total male Workers into four main industrial categories at District level, 2001
Males
District

Total Workers Cultivators Agricultural labourers

(C)

Thiruvalluvar
Chennai

763577

61952

( AL )

Household industries
(HHI)

Other workers
(OW)

Percentage to total male workers

C

AL

HHI

OW

136957

26122

538546 8.11 17.94

3.42

70.53

1192924

425

416

12912

1179171 0.04 0.03

1.08

98.85

Kancheepuram

810771

85386

156293

38420

530672 10.53 19.28

4.74

65.45

Vellore

956403

176050

192037

80103

508213 18.41 20.08

8.38

53.14

Dharmapuri

856414

335425

204619

13993

302877 39.17 23.89

1.63

35.37

Tiruvannamalai

633227

229754

178369

32722

192382 36.28 28.17

5.17

30.38

Viluppuram

855584

294049

317783

16141

227611 34.37 37.14

1.89

26.60

Salem

943770

182643

183091

82283

495753 19.35 19.40

8.72

52.53

Namakkal

489545

99876

117619

23088

248962 20.40 24.03

4.72

50.86

Erode

872493

177967

232884

35997

425645 20.40 26.69

4.13

48.78

The Nilgiris

209834

8716

25311

827

173980 4.15 12.06

0.39

82.91

Coimbatore

1380139

116369

201174

43543

1019053 8.43 14.58

3.15

73.84

Dindigul

587667

119589

192466

12768

262844 20.35 32.75

2.17

44.73

Karur

294150

65898

80774

9534

137944 22.40 27.46

3.24

46.90

Trichirapalli

684117

135081

152891

19560

376585 19.75 22.35

2.86

55.05

Perambalur

139537

70695

37930

1975

28937 50.66 27.18

1.42

20.74

Ariyalur

202592

77120

71114

10315

43043 38.07 35.10

5.09

21.25

Cuddalore

640889

134665

236740

14353

255131 21.01 36.94

2.24

39.81

Nagapattinam

411816

6497

183818

4866

166635 1.58 44.64

1.18

40.46

Thiruvarur

332546

56782

161190

4405

110169 17.07 48.47

1.32

33.13

Thanjavur

627237

114384

235198

23607

254048 18.24 37.50

3.76

40.50

Pudukottai

418584

159490

101901

7748

149445 38.10 24.34

1.85

35.70

Sivaganga

317168

112006

64367

4731

136064 35.31 20.29

1.49

42.90

Madurai

737871

78400

164810

17656

477005 10.63 22.34

2.39

64.65

Theni

319163

35605

143421

5355

134782 11.16 44.94

1.68

42.23

Virudhunagar

519499

51089

88891

14518

365001 9.83 17.11

2.79

70.26

Ramanathapuram

322437

100568

52447

7997

161425 31.19 16.27

2.48

50.06

Thoothukudi

430386

47050

81574

9554

292208 10.93 18.95

2.22

67.89

tirunelveli

760564

106260

210669

28284

415351 13.97 27.70

3.72

54.61

Kanniyakumari

442871

14622

70386

15719

342144 3.30 15.89

3.55

77.26

18153275

3305413

4277140

619096

9951626 18.21 23.56

3.41

54.82

Tamil Nadu

Source: Census of India, 2001 Provisional Populaiton Total Paper-3, Tamil Nadu, (Series 34) pg.31
Table 15 Distribution of Total Female Workers into four main industrial categories at District level, 2001
Females
District

Total Workers Cultivators Agricultural labourers Household industries Other workers

(C)

Thiruvalluvar

262384

21749

Chennai

248458

363

Kancheepuram

331891

34757

Vellore

470600

75638

Dharmapuri

562703

209202

Tiruvannamalai

429090

Viluppuram

580789

Salem
Namakkal

( AL )

(HHI)
107615

(OW)

Percentage to total female workers

C

AL

HHI

OW

21754

111266 8.29 41.01

8.29

42.41

299

9196

128600 0.15 0.12

3.70

51.76

148822

25070

123242 10.47 44.84

7.55

37.13

200169

81601

113192 16.07 42.53

17.34

24.05

244921

20421

88159 37.18 43.53

3.63

15.67

117855

246113

19608

45514 27.47 57.36

4.57

10.61

144842

363654

18454

53839 24.94 62.61

3.18

9.27

508596

122404

206503

49181

130508 24.07 40.60

9.67

25.66

352271

81328

151334

25405

94204 23.09 42.96

7.21

26.74

Erode

558783

122476

253696

37391

145220 21.92 45.40

6.69

25.99

The Nilgiris

136835

4553

32591

944

108747 3.33 23.82

0.69

79.47

Coimbatore

589193

60842

196440

26712

305199 10.33 33.34

4.53

51.80

Dindigul

385108

76062

218838

14221

75987 19.75 56.83

3.69

19.73

Karur

201587

40965

106820

10063

43739 20.32 52.99

4.99

21.70

Trichirapalli

371463

83775

182633

19905

85150 22.55 49.17

5.36

22.92

Perambalur

127505

56967

54181

1641

14716 44.68 42.49

1.29

11.54

Ariyalur

143540

34978

87019

9293

12250 24.37 60.62

6.47

8.53

Cuddalore

334077

55817

217874

14287

46099 16.71 65.22

4.28

13.80

Nagapattinam

172494

12575

129356

4166

26397 7.29 74.99

2.42

15.30

Thiruvarur

157358

11592

124843

3663

17260 7.37 79.34

2.33

10.97

Thanjavur

283177

33534

180854

16690

52099 11.84 63.87

5.89

18.40

Pudukottai

258730

88565

127945

8048

34172 34.23 49.45

3.11

13.21

Sivaganga

192325

75609

79183

5828

31705 39.31 41.17

3.03

16.49

Madurai

343815

47492

167439

19118

109766 13.81 48.70

5.56

31.93

Theni

200286

17889

138153

6064

38180 8.93 68.98

3.03

19.06

Virudhunagar

361080

33864

108358

34622

184236 9.38 30.01

9.59

51.02

Ramanathapuram

198186

78994

72036

16955

30201 39.86 36.35

8.56

15.24

Thoothukudi

243296

24265

85813

36229

96989 9.97 35.27

14.89

39.86

tirunelveli

550018

38574

152765

260125

98554 7.01 27.77

47.29

17.92

Kanniyakumari

102734

1445

11613

22795

66881 1.41 11.30

22.19

65.10

9658372

1808971

4387880

839450

2622071 18.73 45.43

8.69

27.15

Tamil Nadu

Source: Census of India, 2001 Provisional Populaiton Total Paper-3, Tamil Nadu, (Series 34) pg.31

We may briefly summarise our discussions so far on the characteristics of the workforce
in Tamil Nadu. The important characteristics associated with the workforce in Tamil
Nadu are: (a) Diversification of the workforce away from the primary sector (b)
Proletarianisation - which is observed in both rural and urban areas, and in agricultural as
well as non-agricultural workforce (c) Differentiation or an emergence of duality
where both formalisation as well as casualisation occur within the non-agricultural
workforce, both in rural and urban areas and (d) Increasing incidence of casualisation
accompanying the process of proletarianisation in the case of the agricultural workforce
in the rural areas. These processes within the workforce, we believe, reflect a number of
basic socio-economic processes agrarian differentiation; sub-division of landholdings
because of demographic pressure; agrarian distress spatial diversification of the economy
(strengthening rural-urban linkages being one aspect of it); formal-informal duality
within the urban sector; diversification of the economy away from the primary sector etc
have all played a role in these processes. We shall deal with some of these basic socioeconomic processes later in the report.
As the foregoing discussion points out, strong rural-urban linkages appear to have an
important role to play in the composition and transformation of the rural workforce.
Apart from this, these linkages have been a factor underlying other demographic changes
also.
These strong rural-urban linkages in Tamil Nadu can act as an effective mechanism for
the transmission of urban values in terms of say, the small family norm, but perhaps
more importantly in terms of norms and aspirations regarding lifestyles to rural areas.
They, thus aid the process of Sankritisation, and hence provide the basis for increasing
aspirations of the people, which, as we shall see later is perhaps the most important factor
underlying fertility decline in Tamil Nadu. These increasing aspirations - and the process
of Sankritisation in general have also led to wide ranging socio-economic changes in
Tamil Nadu. They have been a factor underlying the change observed in the marriage
system like the emergence of dowry or a decline in the incidence of consanguenous
marriages etc. And these changes have got reflected in the status of women in Tamil
Nadu, an index of which is the sex-ratio of the population.
8. Sex-Ratio
The sex-ratio number of females per 1000 males in Tamil Nadu while being
consistently favourable to males from 1961 onwards, nevertheless has been consistently
higher than the figure for all-India, at least from the beginning of this century [Table 12].
Part of the reason for the

Table 12: Sex-Ratio in Tamil Nadu, 1901-12001

Tamil Nadu
All-India
Year
Rural Urban Combined (combined)
1901
1043
1047
1044
972
1911
1044
1032
1042
964
1921
1033
1007
1029
955
1931
1034
997
1027
950
1941
1017
990
1012
945
1951
1014
986
1007
946
1961
1003
963
992
941
1971
990
951
978
930
1981
988
957
978
933
1991
981
960
974
927
2001
991
979
986
933
Source: Census of India.

higher sex-ratio in Tamil Nadu may be that given the high unemployment rate, as well as
higher levels of educational attainment of the population and the workforce issues we
shall come to later- the propensity for sex-selective, out-migration may be higher in
Tamil Nadu. In fact this is a major reason why rural Tamil Nadu has a higher sex ratio
compared to urban areas.
But the low level of sex ratio in the country, or in most of the states, is generally
explained in terms of the prevalence of socio-economic discrimination against females.
The relatively more favourable sex ratio does not mean that there is no discrimination
against females in Tamil Nadu: the fact that it has a sex ratio less than 1000 testifies to
the prevalence of such discrimination. But the extent of such discrimination may be lower
in Tamil Nadu compared to the country as a whole. Some of the basic development
indicators, for females as well as males, summarised in Table 13 below, show that
compared to the country as a whole Tamil Nadu performs better with respect to many of
these indices of development for women; the male-female differentials are also generally
of a lower order in Tamil Nadu. But it is also clear that in terms of many of these gender
related development

Table 13: Some Basic Gender Related Development Indicators for Tamil Nadu:
Indicator

Tamil Nadu

India

States which have done better than Tamil

Nadu
Life expectancy at
Female
63.2 (7)
59.4
Kerala, Punjab, Maharastra, Himachal
birth (1990-92) in years
Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana
Male
61.0 (6)
59.0
Kerala, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh,
Maharastra, Haryana
Adult literacy rate, 1991
Female
35.8 (7)
65.0
Kerala, Maharastra, West Bengal, Punjab,
(percent)
Gujarat, Karnataka
Male
33.9 (5)
62.4
Kerala, Maharastra, Gujarat, West Bengal
Female share in economically active
34.0 (5)
28.6
Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh,
population, 1991 (percent)
Maharastra, Karnataka
Regular non-agricultural
Female
13.91 (16)
26.28
Tamil Nadu ranks last among the 16 majo
adult wage rate
states
(Rs per day), 1987-88
Male
26.30 (16)
34.90
Tamil Nadu ranks last among the 16 majo
states
Sex-Ratio (1991)
974 (3)
927
Kerala, Himachal Pradesh
Gender Related Development Index (GDI)
0.402 (7)
0.388
Kerala, Maharastra, Gujarat, Himachal
Pradesh, Punjab, Karnataka
Note: Figures in brackets in the column for Tamil Nadu give the ranking of the state among the 16 major
states in the country.
Source: Shiva Kumar (1996).

indicators there are a number of states in the country Kerala, Maharastra, Punjab,
Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, etc which have performed better than Tamil Nadu. In terms
of UNDPs gender-related index of development (GDI) Tamil Nadu ranks only seventh
among the 16 major states in the country.
As for the trend, the sex ratio in Tamil Nadu as in the country as a whole has
witnessed an overall decline since 1901, the decline in Tamil Nadu being somewhat
sharper. The factors likely to be responsible for this trend may be the following. First, in
the earlier part of the century, whenever a famine or epidemic hit the population, the
female population the female infants in particular suffered more heavily than the male
population; the socio-economic discrimination against the females resulted in what little
relief or protection that was available going to the males. And secondly, in the latter half
of the century and upto 1981, while both men and women have gained in terms of
expectancy of life, the males have gained at a faster rate than females. Thus the skewed
distribution of gains from the process of development in favour of males appears to be a
plausible explanation for the declining sex ratio upto 1981 [Sen, 1985:94-95].
But a look at the life expectancy data from 1981 onwards for Tamil Nadu as well as
India reveals that in this periods the gains that females have made in life expectancy are
in fact higher than the gains made by the males [Table 14]. So, the decline in the sex ratio
between 1981 and 1991 appears to be a paradox.
The reason why the sex-ratio trend between 1981 and 1991 as given by the census
head-count and the life expectancy data as given by vital registration provide two
difference conflicting, scenarios may be because certain demographic processes while

influencing the sex-ratio figures, may not be captured by vital registration. There is
reason to believe that two such phenomena sex-selective abortion or female foeticide as
well as female infanticide have reared their ugly heads in Tamil Nadu in the last decade
or two.
Table 14: Expectation of Life at Birth in Tamil Nadu, 1971-1996:
Years
Expectation of life at birth in years
Increase in life expectancy
Male
Female
Male
Female
1971-81
56.05
55.63
1981-86
58.25
57.85
+2.20
+2.22
1986-91
60.85
60.80
+2.95
+2.95
1991-96
62.85
63.05
+2.00
+2.25
Source: CMIE; Indias Social Sectors; February, 1996; P121.

There is considerable evidence on the prevalence of female infanticide in large parts of

Tamil Nadu, particularly in the northern tract in the state 3. As regards the practice of
female foeticide, while we do not have any direct evidence on this, two indirect pieces of
data, when read together would suggest that even this practice may be prevalent, at least
in some pockets, in Tamil Nadu. The first piece of evidence relates to the incidence of
abortion. The National Family Health Survey (1992-93) data show that the incidence of
abortion i.e., abortions as a percent of pregnancies is quite high in Tamil Nadu (at
11.3 percent) compared to the country as a whole (5.8 percent). The second piece of
indirect evidence relates to sex-ratios at birth. Athreya and Chunkath, on the basis of
PHC records, put this figure, i.e., sex ratio at birth, in Tamil Nadu as a whole in 1995 at
937 [Athreya and Chunkath, 1997: WS-23]. While this figure is within the normal range
for human populations, there are pockets in the state again largely confined to the
northern tract in the state where the sex ratio at birth appears to be low. It was as low as
884 in Salem district, 903 in Dharmapuri, 912 in Coimbatore, 916 in Periyar etc.
Incidentally, going by the 1991 census data Salem has the dubious distinction of having
the lowest sex ratio for the 0-6 age group, among all the districts in the country. The
studies on female infanticide and foeticide in Tamil Nadu have almost invariably
identified the increasing role of dowry as the major factor responsible for these two
phenomena. And issue of increasing role of dowry cannot be seen in isolation from the
process of Sankritisation or elite-emulation at work in the state and as we noted
earlier the strong rural-urban linkages have made a contribution to this process.

Literacy Profile:
Between 1991 and 2001, while the urban literacy rate for TN has increased by 4
percentage points, the rural rate has increased by 12 percentage points. For urban males,
the increase between 1991 and 2001 is 2.34 percent, while for rural males the increase
works out to 10.3 percentage points. During the same period, the literacy rate for urban

3 For a comprehensive account on the prevalence of female infanticide in Tamil Nadu, see Athreya and
Chunkath [1997]. See also George, ct al [1992].

females has increased by 6 percentage points while the increase is of the order of 14
percentage points for rural females. [Table 4]

Even so, the disparity between male and female literacy rate in 2001 stands at almost 18
percent for the state as a whole. Among the districts, while the disparity between male
and female literacy rates is slightly below the state average in Thiruvallur and
Kancheepuram [16.4 and 14.6 respectively], in Villupuram and Cuddalore the disparity is
above the state average, at almost 23 and 22 percent, respectively. [Table 5]
Analyzing the disparity dimension, space-wise, and sex-wise, we get the following
interesting picture. For the state as a whole, while the difference between urban and rural
literacy rate stands at 15.4 percentage points, Kancheepuram, Villupuram and Cuddalore
depict higher magnitude of disparity between urban and rural literacy rates [at 18.34,
19.40, and 16.82 percent respectively] than the state average. Thiruvallur, on the other
hand is not too far from the state average at 14.91 percent. [Table 6]
In Table 7 we have calculated the disparity in literacy rates between Urban and Rural
males, and between Urban and Rural females. For the state as a whole, the disparity
between urban and rural male literacy rate in 2001 stands at almost 11 percent. For
females, on the other hand, the disparity between urban and rural literacy rate is almost
double at 20 percent. District-wise, Kancheepuram, Villupuram and Cuddalore show
higher disparity rates than state average for both males and females, while Thiruvallur is
almost equal to the state average for both males and females.
Table 8 is an attempt to understand the dimension of disparity between the sexes, keeping
space constant. Thus, for the state as a whole, the difference in literacy rates between
urban male and urban female works out to almost 13 percent; but the difference between
rural male and rural female literacy rates is as high as 22 percent. District-wise, while sex
differentials in literacy rates in urban Kancheepuram, Thiruvallur, Villupuram and
Cuddalore do not vary significantly from the state average, rural rates vary quite
significantly, particularly in Villupuram and Cuddalore. Thus, being a female and a rural
female at that is doubly disadvantageous as far as acquisition of literacy is concerned.
Table 9 gives an idea of the gross enrolment and drop out rate characterizing the literacy
scene in the districts of TN. For the state as well as for the districts, there is a sharp fall in
enrolment rates as one proceeds from the primary to higher secondary education. Among
the districts, the pattern of enrolment in Cuddalore is intriguing. While the enrolment
rates in the primary and middle levels of education in Cuddalore is above the average for
the state, there is a steep decline in enrolment rate at the secondary level and an even
steeper one at the higher secondary level, such that at both these levels the enrolment rate
in Cuddalore is lower than the state average. The picture in Thiruvallur district is in direct
contrast to Cuddalore. Here the enrolment rate for the primary and middle levels are
below the state average; however, at the secondary and higher secondary levels, the
enrolment rates are way above the state average. In Kancheepuram, except at the higher
secondary level [where the district enrolment rate is above the state average], at all other
levels the district average is below the state average. In Villupuram, on the other hand,
the enrolment at the secondary stage is above the state average; at all other levels, the
district enrolment rate is below the state average. The drop out rates show similar varying
patterns. While these patterns are interesting in themselves, they signal an urgent need to
capture ground realities; what motivates enrolment and subsequent dropping out. Why is
universal enrolment even at the primary stage eluding us? Are dropouts more among

certain sections of the population, in certain areas, in particular institutions and at certain
levels of education? In the absence of hard information it is difficult at this juncture to go
beyond raising these questions.
In Table 10 we provide some information on the availability of toilet facilities in schools,
that could constitute one possible reason for lower retention of girls in schools and
therefore for the greater disparity in literacy rates among [rural] females as compared to
boys a point that we alluded to earlier. Whether or not the availability [or otherwise] of
such amenities is responsible for differential literacy outcomes between males/females,
rural/urban, between and within districts, need to be empirically established. As of now,
available official data do not enable us to arrive at causal explanations. For the state as a
whole, hardly 20 percent of primary educational institutions have urinal facilities. In the
districts of Kancheepuram, Cuddalore and Villupuram, the scene is even worse, with
only, 11, 9 and 12 percent of primary educational institutions in these districts,
respectively, having such facilities. As we go from primary to higher levels of
educational institutions, the scenario improves; thus as per data provided almost 91
percent of higher secondary educational institutions in the state have urinal facilities. The
district scenario however varies; while the facilities in Kancheepuram and Cuddalore are
closer to the state average [88 and 84 percent respectively], Villupuram is way behind
with only 61 percent of higher educational institutions in this district having urinal
facilities. The picture regarding separate lavatory for girls in schools is extremely dismal.
For the state as a whole, hardly 8 percent of primary educational institutions have
separate lavatory for girls; at the other end only 70 percent of higher educational
institutions have separate lavatory for girls. Among the districts, the situation in
Villupuram is particularly distressing; hardly 2 percent of primary educational institutions
and only about 46 percent of higher secondary educational institutions have provision for
separate lavatory facilities for girls.
It would not be out of place at this point to refer to the study conducted by Professor
Yash Aggarwal in TN in all the schools covered under DPEP to measure, among other
things, school efficiency, by estimating the proportion of children who complete primary
education in five years [Aggarwal, 2002]. Aggarwal poses an important question with
which governments rarely engage. The fact that dropout rates in more literate states like
TN are way below the national average [15 percent for TN as against 40 percent for AllIndia in 1998-99] generally gives an impression that primary education in TN has a
higher rate of internal efficiency. Aggarwal points out that an important dimension of
inefficiency, namely grade repetition, is hardly dealt with by the educational system.
Using three indicators for analysis of cohort data, namely: one, the holding capacity of
the educational system for five years, two, the extent to which children reach grade V in
five years, and finally, what proportion of children complete primary education in five
years, Aggarwals study documents the following important conclusions that need to be
urgently addressed by policy.
The persistence of high repetition rates across all districts is a matter of worry and raises
a question mark on the success of DPEP in improving retention and completionNot all
children reaching Grade V pass the final examination successfullyOf all the repeaters,
35.1 percent repeated in Grade I, 18.8 percent in Grade II, 20.7 percent in Grade III, and
25.4 percent in Grade IVWhy so many children should repeat for so many years?
Further analysis of spatial patterns of dropout and repetition revealed that the two have to

be handled separatelyAggarwals analysis of dropout data showed, among other things,

that, while dropout among girls was lower than boys, schools with girls toilets showed
lower dropout rates compared to those without; that the number of teachers in schools
were inversely associated with dropout rate; that although the share of ST in total school
population is about 2 percent, they had the highest dropout as compared to other
communities; and that the government schools had much higher dropout rate than the
schools under private management [ibid. 2002].As regards, grade repetition, Aggarwal
notes that, repetition is higher among boys as compared to girls; repetition was higher
among SC students whereas dropout was highest among ST students; ever repeater was
far greater in rural as compared to urban areas. Similarly, the government schools had
much higher ever repeaters as compared to privately managed schools. Schools with
facilities like girls toilets, boundary walls, showed much lower ever repeaters as
compared to schools without these facilities [ibid: 2002].

9. Concluding Observations:
Our discussions so far on demographic aspects in Tamil Nadu have served to highlight
some dimensions of the process of diversification and broad-basing of the economy. At
one level it is seen in terms of the spread of urbanisation and the strong and
strengthening rural urban linkages. At another level, the process of diversification
was observed in the structure of workforce in terms of its movement away from the
primary sector, and from traditional household based production; and these processes
were particularly discernible in rural Tamil Nadu.
The processes of demographic and occupational diversification have aided transference
of urban values and life-styles to rural areas, provided a basis for increasing aspirations
among the people and for the spread of elite-emulation or Sanskritisation. And these
phenomena in turn provided a basis for some striking changes in the demographic regime
itself in the state like the rapid fertility decline from the early eighties; and most
distressingly, to phenomena like female infanticide and foeticide.
It is also clear that these processes of diversification were accompanied by a processes of
differentiation, or emergence of dualities: growth of a regular, formal workforce on the
one hand, and a casual workforce on the other, is one such instance of differentiation. In
the case of urbanisation the growing urban spread was also accompanied by a process of
differentiation: while the larger urban agglomerations whose linkages more often than not
went beyond the local economy to national or international linkages, grow at rapid
rates, the small, isolated towns linked to local economy experienced considerable
fluctuations in their growth rates, and often stagnated.
These processes of diversification and differentiation at the demographic level are
essentially reflections of similar tendencies of growth or stagnation, differentiation and
diversification operating in the productive sectors of the economy, like agriculture and
industry. Let us now turn to a discussion of these issues, starting with a general
discussion of growth as diversification of the state domestic product.
II STATE INCOME: MAGNITUDE, SECTORAL COMPOSITION AND CHANGE
One of the major problems faced by us in analysing the behaviour of the net state
domestic product (NSDP) from around the early sixties is the availability of an NSDP
series for the whole period from the sixties onwards in any one constant price, the
data for the sixties are available in 1960-61 prices, for the seventies in 1970-71 prices and
for the eighties and the nineties in 1980-81 prices. All the same, for a couple of years in
the early seventies and early eighties the data are available in two constant prices for
the early seventies in 1960-61 prices and 1970-71 prices, and for the early eighties in
1970-71 prices and 1980-81 prices; and hence, it has been possible to construct a series
for NSDP from 1960-61 onwards in 1980-81 prices using appropriate conversion ratios.
Notwithstanding the obvious limitations of this NSDP series we have used it in our
analysis, our only justification for doing so being that we are only concerned with broad

general trends in this series, rather than with exact magnitudes and estimates, and the
series may be good enough for that. These data, on the NSDP in 1980-81 prices for Tamil
Nadu are given in Table 15 below. The table also gives the Net National Product (NNP)
for the country as a whole from 1960-61 onwards in constant (1980-81) prices4. The table
also gives the per capita income in 1980-81 prices for Tamil Nadu and all-India.
1.Size and Growth of Net State Domestic Product:
Considering the period of three and a half decades, from 1960-61 to 1995-96 as a whole,
the growth rate in NSDP in Tamil Nadu is in fact marginally lower compared to the
corresponding growth rate for NNP in the country. The annual compound growth rate of
NSDP over this period in Tamil Nadu is 3.8 percent, compared to the growth rate for
NNP of 4.1 percent. The difference marginal though persists even if we compare the
average values for the first and the last trienniums in the series. Between the triennium
ending 1963 and the triennium ending 1996, the NSDP in Tamil Nadu grew at 3.8
percent per annum, the corresponding rate for all-India being 4.0 percent.
Table 15: Net State Domestic Product and Net National Product in Constant (1980-81)
Prices, Tamil Nadu and India, 1960-61 to 1995-96
Year
1960-61
1961-62
1962-63
1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78

NSDP / NNP
(Rs crores)
Tamil
India
Nadu
4613
58602
4596
60168
4725
61165
4816
64216
4982
68942
4870
65734
5019
66089
5231
71519
5376
73285
5558
78177
6086
82211
6394
82675
6418
81991
6697
86010
5817
87116
6877
95433
7093
96253
7781
103670

Per capita
income (Rs)
Tamil
India
Nadu
1385
1350
1344
1355
1356
1347
1361
1384
1381
1454
1315
1355
1336
1335
1365
1413
1377
1415
1398
1478
1491
1520
1538
1492
1512
1446
1548
1483
1319
1469
1532
1572
1556
1552
1679
1635

Year
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96

NSDP / NNP
(Rs crores)
Tamil
India
Nadu
8066
109466
8170
102937
7218
110685
8011
117140
7578
119704
7988
129392
9033
133808
9391
139025
9310
144242
9893
149787
10733
165750
11468
177315
12411
186469
12746
186418
13370
194093
14621
202670
16031
221406
16984
236738

Per capita
income (Rs)
Tamil
India
Nadu
1717
1689
1715
1550
1498
1630
1640
1693
1527
1691
1582
1790
1758
1811
1798
1841
1755
1871
1837
1901
1965
2059
2071
2157
2238
2225
2266
2178
2343
2226
2526
2228
2728
2449
2692
2578

Source: 1. Various issues of Economic Appraisal, Government of Tamil Nadu.

2. Economic and Political Weekly, November 18, 1995.

4 The NNP series is taken from National Accounts Statistics of India 1: MacroAggregates, given in the Economic and Political Weekly, November 18, 1995.

It appears that the growth performance of NSDP in Tamil Nadu over this span of three
and a half decades can be broadly divided into three periods [Table 16].
a) In the first period from the early sixties to early seventies, the NSDP witnessed a
moderate rate of growth with low fluctuations; the performance of Tamil Nadu economy
during this period was roughly comparable to the performance of the economy at the allIndia level. This period extends from 1960-61 to 1973-74. It may be noted that the earlier
part of this period the sixties was one where growth was low, and the early seventies
witnessed an acceleration in the growth rate. Thus between 1960-61 and 1969-70, the
NSDP grew barely at the rate of 2.0 percent per annum; over the next few years, i.e.,
from 1969-70 to 1973-74, the NSDP kept up a steady rate of increase, almost of the order
of 4.8 percent per annum, before a steep fall in NSDP occurred in 1974-75.
b) The second period from around the mid-seventies to early eighties, appears to be a
period of recurrent crises in the Tamil Nadu economy. the overall growth rate of the
economy during this period witnessed a decline; the economy also witnessed a
Table 16: Growth and Fluctuations of Income in the Different Periods in Tamil Nadu:

Period

1960-61
to
1973-74
1974-75
to
1983-84
1984-85
to
1995-96
1960-61
to
1995-96

NSDP / NNP
Per capita income
Annual compound growth Average deviation from Annual compound growth
rate (percent)
the trend (percent)
rate (percent)
Tamil Nadu
India
Tamil Nadu
India
Tamil Nadu
India
3.1

3.1

1.4

1.5

1.1

0.8

2.5

4.0

4.2

2.1

1.1

1.7

6.2

5.3

1.2

0.8

4.6

3.2

3.8

4.0

2.2

1.5

2.0

1.8

Note: 1. In calculating the annual compound growth rate the averages for the trienniums at the
beginning and the end of each period are considered.
2. The annual average percentage deviation from the trend given by the three-year moving
averages is used as a measure of fluctuation of the series.

high degree of fluctuations in this period. And the contrast with the national economy in
this period is quite marked. The overall growth rate in Tamil Nadu was lower, and
fluctuations higher, compared to all-India. This period begins with the bad year of 197475 and extends upto 1983-84, the year when a recovery from a very poor performance in
the previous year (1982-83), had set in; but even with this recovery the NSDP in 1983-84
stood almost at the same level as in 1978-79. It is only in the next year, viz., 1984-85,
that a steady, healthy recovery of the NSDP seems to have set in.

c) The period from the mid-eighties, i.e., from 1984-85 onwards, appears to be a period
of rapid recovery and growth, with low fluctuations, in Tamil Nadu. While the national
economy also grew at high rates in this period, the performance of Tamil Nadu economy
appears to be better.
2.Growth of Per Capita Income:
Since the rate of growth of population in Tamil Nadu in the post-Independence period has
been consistently lower than the rate for the country as a whole, the per capita income in
the state appears to have grown at a slightly higher rate compared to the country as a
whole for the period after the early sixties. considering the period 1960-61 to 1995-96 as
a whole the per capita income (in constant 1980-81 prices) in the state has grown by
around 2 percent per annum, which is slightly higher than the corresponding all-India rate
of 1.8 percent per annum.
Of the three periods demarcated earlier, the per capita income in the state grew at a
modest rate of 1.1 percent per annum in the first period, viz., from the early sixties to
early seventies; and this rate was slightly higher than the corresponding all-India rate (of
0.8 percent per annum). But in the next period, from the mid-seventies to mid-eighties,
when the growth rate of the per capita income in the country doubled (to 1.7 percent per
annum), Tamil Nadu just about managed to maintain the sluggish growth of 1.1 percent
per annum. And even this has been possible because the state witnessed a steady decline
in its birth rate from around the early seventies; as noted earlier, the growth rate of NSDP
in this period had witnessed a steep fall in the state. In the third period, viz., from the
mid-eighties onwards, the per capita income in the state has witnessed a sharp increase,
growing at rate significantly higher than the all-India rate. Steady increase in NSDP as
well as a sharp fall in the birth rate have contributed to this phenomenon.
It is worth noting that eventhough the growth of per capita income for the period under
consideration in Tamil Nadu is of a slightly higher order compared to the country as a
whole, for the larger part of this period, the level of per capita income in the state was in
fact lower than the all-India level [Table 15]. Considering the period as a whole, of the 36
years between 1960-61 and 1995-96 in as many as twenty years the per capita income in
the state was lower than the all-India average. In fact it is only in the nineties that the per
capita income in the state has consistently been higher than the all-India average; in the
period before that the per capita income in the state kept fluctuating around the all-India
average, but was below the all-India average for 20 out of these thirty years. The rapid
growth of income from the mid-eighties as in the country as a whole coupled with a
rapid decline in the birth rate unlike in most other parts of the country provided a
clear advantage to Tamil Nadu in terms of the level of per capita income in the nineties.
In sum, for the larger part of the period under consideration, i.e., from the early sixties to
the mid-eighties the overall performance of Tamil Nadu economy either in terms of the
level of per capita income, or in terms of growth and fluctuations in the income levels
has only been modest, and more often than not below par compared to the performance of
the economy in the country as a whole. And the turn around in the economy observed

from around the mid-eighties is in part a reflection of the general turn around in the
national economy in this period; but part of this turn around may also be ascribed to
specific socio-economic processes in the state which led to a sharp decline in fertility in
the state.
The foregoing discussion provided a broad, general picture on the performance of Tamil
Nadu economy in terms of its domestic product. Needless to add, this performance is a
resultant of the way the different sectors the primary, secondary and tertiary have
behaved over time in the state; and it is to a discussion of these issues that we now turn.
3. Size and Growth of Different Sectors in the Tamil Nadu Economy:
Table 17 below gives the sectoral incomes in 1980-81 prices for the period 1960-61 to
1990-91 in Tamil Nadu. Table 18 gives the growth performance of the three sectors for
the different periods.
Table 17: Sectoral Incomes in Tamil Nadu in Constant (1980-81) Prices; 1960-61 to
1990-91:
(Rs crores)
Year
Primary Secondary Tertiary Year
Primary Secondary Tertiary
sector
sector
sector
sector
sector
sector
1960-61 2013
925
1482
1976-77 2252
2106
2669
1961-62 1923
986
1526
1977-78 2608
2187
2891
1962-63 1937
1043
1588
1978-79 2558
2371
3063
1963-64 1930
1100
1640
1979-80 2203
2860
3084
1964-65 1961
1180
1706
1980-81 1871
2417
2930
1965-66 1797
1279
1702
1981-82 2357
2511
3143
1966-67 1860
1307
1768
1982-83 1814
2594
3170
1967-68 1867
1397
1940
1983-84 2175
2562
3251
1968-69 1843
1458
2005
1984-85 2571
2933
3528
1969-70 1933
1538
2071
1985-86 2365
2949
4077
1970-71 2174
1627
2199
1986-87 2413
2792
4105
1971-72 2436
1672
2308
1987-88 2455
2887
4551
1972-73 2261
1709
2367
1988-89 2483
3259
4603
1973-74 2479
1640
2495
1989-90 2806
3076
5240
1974-75 1787
1683
2327
1990-91 2819
3221
5310
1975-76 2376
1861
2549
Note: 1. There is a slight discrepancy between this table and table 15 in that the sectoral incomes
do not always add up to the NSDP as given in the earlier table. The differences, however, are
marginal and do not affect the broad, general trends displayed by the series.
2. The 1990-91 figures are provisional revised estimates.
Source: Various volumes of Economic Appraisal, Government of Tamil Nadu.

Table 18: Growth Performance of Sectoral Incomes in Tamil Nadu, 1960-61 to 1990-91:

Period

1960-61
to
1973-74
1974-75
to
1983-84
1984-85
to
1990-91
1960-61
to
1990-91

Period
1960-61
to
1973-74
1974-75
to
1983-84
1984-85
to
1990-91
1960-61
to
1990-91

Growth Performance of Sectoral Income

Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Annual
Average Annual
Average Annual
Average
compound deviation compound deviation compound deviation
growth
from the growth
from the growth
from the
rate(%)
trend(%) rate(%)
trend(%) rate(%)
trend(%)
1.8

3.3

4.9

0.9

4.1

1.1

-0.2

9.2

5.3

3.8

3.5

2.1

2.5

3.3

2.5

3.6

6.7

3.5

1.2

5.5

4.3

2.5

4.4

2.0

Percentage contribution of the sector to overall growth

Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
21.9

34.8

43.3

-1.7

50.9

50.9

14.9

17.4

67.7

11.5

34.0

54.4

Note: 1. In calculating the annual compound growth rate and the sectoral contributions to overall
growth the average for the trienniums at the beginning and the end of each period are considered.
2. The annual average percentage deviation from the trend given by the three-year

moving averages is used as a measure of fluctuation of the series.

Perhaps the most striking phenomenon to be noticed from the table is the sluggishness of
the primary sector. over the three decades, from the early sixties to early nineties, this
sector grew at a rate of just above 1 percent per annum. The secondary and the tertiary
sectors, in sharp contrast, have grown at rates which are nearly three and a half times the
rate registered by the primary sector over this period.

In the first period, i.e., from the early sixties to early seventies, the secondary sector grew
at a rapid rate, followed by the tertiary sector; the primary sector grew at a low 1.8
percent per annum in this period. The crisis in the second period, from the mid-seventies
to the mid-eighties, was very largely a crisis in the primary sector: next to no growth,
coupled with high instability characterized the performance of this sector in this period.
The crisis in this sector in the early eighties appears to be so severe that the income
originating in this sector in these years in 1982-83 in particular was of the same order,
or even lower, than the corresponding income in the early sixties. In sharp contrast, the
performance of the secondary sector in the second period if anything appears to have
improved compared to the previous period, it grew at a rapid rate, albeit with a higher
level of instability compared to the previous period.
As for the last period, viz., from the mid-eighties onwards, we have been able to obtain
the data on sectoral incomes only for a part of this period, i.e., from the mid-eighties to
early-nineties. And these data seem to indicate that the rapid growth of the economy in
the state was very largely tertiary sector induced. The growth rate of the secondary sector
in fact witnessed a sharp decline in this period. The recovery in the primary sector did
contribute to the rapid growth in the NSDP in this period, but even with this recovery, the
primary sector grew only at a modest 2.5 percent per annum the same rate as a seventh
of the increase in NSDP. In sharp contrast to both the primary and secondary sectors, the
tertiary sector grew at a very high rate in this period a rate which was almost the double
its rate of increase in the previous period and accounted for more than two-thirds of the
increase in the NSDP.
In sum, the striking aspects of sectoral growth in Tamil Nadu from the early sixties to
early nineties may be summarised as: (a) a sluggish primary sector, which witnessed a
severe crisis from the mid-seventies to early eighties, and a moderate recovery thereafter;
(b) rapid growth of the secondary sector till about the mid-eighties and (c) a relatively
high growth of the tertiary sector all through, but particularly so in the period after the
mid-eighties, when it emerges as the major factor behind the rapid growth of the state
economy.
These disparate growth profiles for different sectors in the economy, it is obvious,
would lead to significant shifts in the composition of the domestic product over time
and let us turn to a brief discussion on this issue.
4. Sectoral Diversification in Tamil Nadu:
With the secondary and tertiary sectors growing at much higher rates compared to the
primary sector, it is but natural that diversification of the economy away from the
primary sector takes place over time. While such a process of diversification is not
confined to just Tamil Nadu every other state in the country has witnessed a similar
process of diversification the extent and pace of such a process of diversification seem
to be of higher order in the state when compared with the picture for the country as a
whole.

The process of diversification of the economy, away from the primary sector, had set in
much earlier in Tamil Nadu compared to the country as a whole. Even by 1960-61 the
Tamil Nadu economy was more diversified. And even by the mid-sixties the primary
sector had ceased to be the most important sector in its economy the tertiary sector by
then had taken that place; the country as a whole had to wait for nearly two decades, till
the mid-eighties, for this to happen.
It is also noteworthy that, eventhough the level of diversification of Tamil Nadu economy
was of a higher order compared to the country as a whole even in the early sixties, the
process of further diversification or the decline in the importance of the primary sector
over the next three decades was as sharp and strong in the state as in the country; in fact
till about the early eighties, this process of diversification appears to be stronger in Tamil
Nadu compared to all-India. The net result of this is that today Tamil Nadus economy is
one of the most diversified if not the most diversified economies in the country.
Having said this, we would like to emphasise that this process of diversification at least in
part is a reflection of a sluggish primary sector. This is clear from the fact that till about
the early eighties the period during which the primary sector hardly witnessed any
growth the process of diversification was sharp and strong; and with the recovery of the
primary sector from around the mid-eighties the decline in the percentage contribution of
this sector to NSDP is in fact quite slow. But it should also be clear that the rapid growth
of the secondary and tertiary sectors has also contributed to this process of
diversification. Till about the early eighties the period during which the secondary
sector grew at a rapid rate the importance of the secondary sector increased quite
sharply; the eighties, when there was a decline in the growth rate of this sector, in fact
witnessed a decline in the relative importance of this sector. The relative importance of
the tertiary sector on the other hand has seen a steady increase all through this period of
these three decades; and this increase was particularly sharp in the eighties when this
sector grew at very high rates. The point we would like to emphasise is simply that the
process of diversification of the Tamil Nadu economy is not a reflection of a dynamic
economy where all the sectors within it grow at high but differential rates; on the
other hand it is a reflection of an economy where the primary sector is sluggish, and the
secondary and the tertiary sectors grow at reasonably high or very high rates.
Thus, it appears that underlying this process of diversification is the phenomenon of
strengthening duality or differentiation between the primary sector on the one hand, and
the secondary and tertiary sectors on the other. This differentiation also gets reflected in a
widening technological differentiation between the primary sector on the one hand and
the secondary and tertiary sectors on the other. we had noted earlier that the process of
diversification, away from the primary sector, had also occurred in the case of the
workforce in Tamil Nadu. But this process in the case of the workforce was
significantly weaker compared to the process of diversification in the case of income.
This would imply that the differentials in productivity income originating in a sector
per worker employed in the sector would have widened considerably, between the
primary and the non-primary sectors, over the period under consideration in the state.

While this process of technological differentiation would have taken place in the
country as a whole also, it is more strong in Tamil Nadu. Thus in 1971, the ratio of perworker productivity in the non-primary (i.e., secondary plus tertiary) sectors to primary
sector in the state was 3.1 and by 1991, this ratio had increased to 5.1; the corresponding
ratios for the country as a whole are 3.2 (in 1971) and 4.3 (in 1991)5.
5. Concluding observations:
Our discussions in this section on the level and trends in domestic income and in its
composition have in a broad and general way reinforced the picture we had drawn of the
Tamil Nadu economy in the earlier section. While being one of the most diversified
economies in terms of the sectoral composition of income in the country today, its
performance, either in terms of growth performance or the level of per capita income,
appears to be just about average. In fact the high level of diversification of the economy
at least in part is a reflection of a sluggish primary sector. Now, does the primary sector,
while being sluggish, also display a tendency towards high and increasing diversification
within it? Let us look into this issue in some detail.
III THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR:
Going by the level of yield or the extent of use of modern inputs, the agricultural sector in
Tamil Nadu is relatively more modernised compared to most of the states in the country.
It has a relatively high level of irrigation, and in terms of ground-water utilisation as
Table 19: Some Characteristics of the Agricultural Sector in Tamil Nadu:

Characterisitcs

Reference
year / period
Average value of yield (Rs /
1992-95
Hectare)

Tamil
Nadu
14074

India
7388

Percentage of gross cropped area

(GCA) irrigated

1992-95

47.9

35.7

Cropping intensity (GCA/NSA)

1992-95

1.27

1.30

States which are ahead of Tamil

Nadu.
Only Kerala with a yield of Rs
15626 per hectare is ahead of Tamil
Nadu.
Punjab (94.6), Haryana (77.1), Uttar
Pradesh (62.3) and West Bengal
(54.3).
Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana,
West Bengal, Orissa, J and K, U.P,
Bihar and Kerala do better than

5 These ratios have been obtained by using the census data on workforce, which perhaps underestimate the extent of
diversification in the workforce And hence it is likely that the, above ratios over state the increase in technological
dualism between sectors. In fact the per worker productivities calculated using census workforce data and the sectoral
incomes (in constant 1980-81 prices) which we had calculated on the basis of data given in the Economic Appraisals
show that the per worker productivity had declined in absolute terms in the primary sector between 1971 and 1991 in
Tamil Nadu. This we find hand to believe. So the ratios given above should not be taken literally. The general idea they
convey of widening technological dualism or differentiation between sectors we believe, holds.

Consumption of fertilisers (Kgs /

ha)

1992-95

141

89

Number of pumpsets(peroooha)

1987

194

65

Number of tractors (per oooha)

1987

2.7

11.7

2.36

2.71

Annual compound growth rate of Bet 1965-65

agricultural output (percent)
and
1992-95

Tamil Nadu.
Punjab (297), Haryana (191) and
Andhra Pradesh (150) do better than
Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu is ahead of all other
states in this.
Tamil Nadu has the lowest level of
tractorisation in the country.
Punjab (4.89), Haryana (4.14),
Rajasthan (3.56), Karnataka (0.04),
West Bengal (2.99), M.P (2.83), U.P
(2.27), J and K (2.70) and A.P (2.68)

Source: Bhalla and Singh (1997).

given by the number of pumpsets per unit of cultivated area it is ahead of even Punjab
and Haryana; it also has a relatively high level of fertiliser use [Table 19]. It also has a
high level of yield, next only to Kerala among the major states. This is in part due to a
relatively high level of commercialisation of its cropping pattern, an issue we shall deal
with in some detail later.
Land Utilisation Pattern across Districts:
Cropping intensity is one indicator which informs us about the level of land use. There
are clear differences in terms of land use pattern across districts. Lands that receive canal
water has more intensity (Nagappattinam, Thiruvarur and Thanjavur districts) as
compared to southern districts where the recorded intensity is at a low level.
Table: Land Utilisation: By Districts- 2001-02, Tamilnadu
S.NO District
Net Area sown Gross cropped Area Cropping Intensity
1 Chennai
0
0
0.00
2 Kancheepuram
150879
186933
123.90
3 Thiruvallur
119385
153860
128.88
4 Cuddalore
224997
291250
129.45
5 Villupuram
343000
380611
110.97
6 Vellore
214340
264832
123.56
7 Thiruvannamalai
240595
322796
134.17
8 Salem
253457
372420
146.94
9 Namakkal
177720
261234
146.99
10 Dharmapuri
400149
492742
123.14
11 Coimbatore
311480
328858
105.58
12 Erode
283854
309175
108.92
13 Tiruchirapalli
169632
187205
110.36
14 Karur
92740
94316
101.70
15 Perambalur
198436
214454
108.07
16 Pudukottai
144275
147372
102.15

17 Thanjavur
18 Thiruvarur
19 Nagapattinam
20 Madurai
21 Theni
22 Dindigul
23 Ramanathapuram
24 Virudhunagar
25 Sivagangai
26 Thirunelveli
27 Thoothukudi
28 Nilgiris
29 Kanniyakumari
STATE

202413
148745
149668
137000
108626
220550
182945
140547
108512
136659
152164
78780
80944
5172492

271652
257700
255434
150704
119060
227900
182945
145326
108787
166822
154892
78853
98324
6226457

134.21
173.25
170.67
110.00
109.61
103.33
100.00
103.40
100.25
122.07
101.79
100.09
121.47
120.38

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Chennai-6.

1. Growth Performance of the Agricultural Sector:

But the growth performance of the agricultural sector in the state just as the growth
performance of its domestic product appears to be just about average, once again. The
annual compound growth rate of the value of agricultural output (in constant prices) is
just about 2.4 percent per annum between the early sixties and early nineties in the state,
which is even lower than the corresponding all-India rate of about 2.7 percent per annum.
In fact, in a comparison among the seventeen major states in the country, Tamil Nadu
ranks tenth in this regard.
Thus, a relatively higher level of modernisation, and sluggishness seem to be two
important characteristics of the agricultural sector in Tamil Nadu. The sluggish growth of
the agricultural sector noted here is in line with the phenomenon of sluggish growth of
the primary sector income in the state that we had noted earlier [Section II .3]. There we
had noted that the primary sector income grew at a low to moderate rate, with a moderate
level of fluctuation, in the first phase, i.e., from around the early sixties to early seventies;
and it was virtually stagnant, with high levels of instability in the second period, i.e., from
around the mid-seventies to early eighties; and a recovery with moderate fluctuations set
in from around the mid-eighties. The scenario appears to be somewhat similar even for
the agricultural sector. This is clear from Table 20, which gives the indices for area, yield
and production in the agricultural sector in the state from the early sixties to early
nineties, and from Table 21 which summarises the growth performance of this sector over
this period. These tables also point out that there has been a steady decline in the gross
cropped area in the state from the mid or late seventies onwards; and hence the recovery
witnessed in agricultural production from around the mid-eighties is largely attributable
to productivity growth.

The setback in agricultural sector in the recent past is clearly evident from the new series
index on agricultural production and productivity. There is an overall decline and it is
more acute in terms of productivity both for food and non-food crops. Area losses are
experienced both by food and non-food crops. Recovery of the sector is nowhere in sight
and hence the sector needs urgent attention from the state.
Table 20: Index Numbers for Area, Yield and Production in the Agricultural Sector in
Tamil Nadu, 1962-63 to 1990-91:
(Base: Triennium ending 1961-62 = 100)
Year
Area
Yield
Production
Year
Area
Yield
Production
1962-63
101.9
103.7
105.9
1977-78
108.0
125.1
155.1
1963-64
101.1
102.0
103.4
1978-79
107.2
128.6
160.6
1964-65
100.6
104.4
105.4
1979-80
108.0
122.5
156.4
1965-66
97.5
98.4
97.8
1980-81
88.9
112.7
128.1
1966-67
105.1
101.3
102.4
1981-82
95.7
130.1
154.8
1967-68
99.5
102.6
103.7
1982-83
82.5
121.4
119.0
1968-69
94.8
108.4
102.5
1983-84
96.0
113.6
128.0
1969-70
100.0
101.3
114.3
1984-85
98.3
122.3
152.6
1970-71
102.2
109.6
126.7
1985-86
94.8
134.0
164.2
1971-72
106.1
114.5
135.7
1986-87
88.0
154.1
158.3
1972-73
107.6
114.2
139.2
1987-88
91.0
141.6
166.9
1973-74
106.0
122.9
150.2
1988-89
86.6
139.6
166.9
1974-75
93.3
102.9
113.0
1989-90
92.1
145.6
182.0
1975-76
101.3
124.8
140.8
1990-91
86.2
143.2
173.5
1976-77
99.0
119.6
134.0
Source: Various issues of Economic Appraisal, Government of Tamil Nadu. While the
Appraisals give the series for the sixties, seventies and the eighties with different base
years, we have constructed this series with a single base year using appropriate
conversion ratios.

Table: Index Number Of Area, Yield And Production Of Crops: Tamil Nadu (New
Series)

Year
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00

Foodcrops
A
Y
P
80.04 162.75 137.60
69.46 130.62 96.54
74.04 129.25 104.85
75.51 146.80 122.88
76.10 171.02 144.37
86.47 132.17 154.30

Non-foodcrops
A
Y
P
A
142.25 125.01 187.51 99.42
133.63 111.72 162.96 89.45
118.03 106.79 140.92 87.74
128.81 118.59 164.48 92.12
120.00 118.00 170.45 89.77
113.12 137.79 141.29 92.71

All crops
Y
138.31
84.79
115.16
128.99
137.14
133.10

P
162.98
130.20
123.18
144.02
157.62
151.90

2000-01
93.64 105.40 116.29 75.96 100.01 95.82
2001-02
92.59 100.29 110.54 73.16 93.96 89.69
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Chennai-6.

88.41 104.37 111.89

86.84 99.07 106.06

Table 21: Growth Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Tamil Nadu:

Item

Area
Yield
Production

Item

Area
Yield
Production

1962 / 63 to 68 / 69
Annual
Average
compound deviation
growth
from trend
rate (%)
(%)
-0.3
2.1
0.2
2.2
-0.5
2.4

1962-63 to 1973-74
1969 / 70 to 73 / 74
Annual
Average
compound deviation
growth
from trend
rate (%)
(%)
3.8
1.4
5.0
3.7
11.2
3.2

1962 / 63 to 73 / 74
Annual
Average
compound deviation
growth
from trend
rate (%)
(%)
0.6
1.8
1.4
2.9
3.4
2.8

1974 / 75 to 1983 / 84
Annual
Average
compound deviation
growth
from trend
rate (%)
(%)
-1.0
5.4
0.7
4.6
0.5
8.5

1984 / 85 to 1990 / 91
Annual
Average
compound deviation
growth
from trend
rate (%)
(%)
-1.5
2.5
1.1
2.8
2.6
3.1

1962 / 63 to 1990 / 91
Annual
Average
compound deviation
growth
from trend
rate (%)
(%)
-0.5
3.3
1.2
3.2
2.0
5.0

Note: 1. In calculating the annual compound growth rate, the averages for the trienniums
at the beginning and the end of each period are considered.
2. The annual average percentage deviation from the trend given by the three-year
moving averages is used as a measure of fluctuation of the series.
We would like to register a strong caveat at this stage. The data on the index numbers
given in Tables 21 & 21 appear to be of very poor quality. The indices for area and yield
more often than not, do not add to production indices, and hence, so do the growth rates
summarised in Table 21. Given this, we have used these data the only ones we could
lay our hands on, on the important aspect of overall performance of the agricultural sector
only to infer the broad generalisations, stated above, which are in line with
generalisations arrived at on the basis of other, more reliable, sets of data. While one such
set of data refers to the series on primary sector income which we had analysed earlier,
another such set of more reliable data, refers to area, yield and production figures for the
major individual crops in the state. Analysis of this set of data will also help us construct
a picture of the growth performance of the major crops over time in the state, and hence,
the changes, if any, in the composition of the agricultural sector over time in the state.
2. Growth Performance of the Major Crops:

The growth performance of the major crops from the early sixties onwards in the state is
summarised in Table 22 below. The crops covered here rice, coarse cereals, pulses,
groundnut, cotton and sugarcane account for close to 80 percent of the gross cropped
area in the state today. The residue, given as other crops in the Table consist of nonfoodgrains like contiments and spices, plantation crops, fruits and vegetables etc.
Perhaps the most striking result to come out from the Table is the widely differing growth
performance registered by different crops. Thus considering the period of nearly three
and a half decades from the early sixties to mid-nineties as a whole, the foodgrain
production has registered a very modest growth of just about 1.4 percent per annum; this
growth rate, it may be noted, is in fact less than the growth rate of population in the state
which is of the order of 1.7 percent per annum between 1961 and 1991 which would
imply that per capita production of foodgrains in the state in fact has declined over this
period. Movement of cropped area away from the foodgrains is a major factor underlying
this poor performance
Table 22: Growth Performance of Major Crops in Tamil Nadu:

Crop

Item

Rice

Foodgrains

Coarse
cereals
Pulses
All
foodgrains

Crop

Rice

Coarse

Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.

Item
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield

1960/61 to 1968/69
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
neg.
2.8
-0.4
1.8
-0.4
3.9
-1.6
1.3
-0.6
2.3
-2.1
3.1
1.1
2.0
-1.0
1.6
0.2
2.5
-0.6
1.8
-0.4
1.8
-1.0
3.6

1960-61 to 1973-74
1969/70 to 1973/74
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
4.4
2.4
8.7
5.2
13.1
6.5
-5.3
1.8
3.2
4.5
-2.5
4.9
12.4
5.3
7.1
4.9
20.4
6.8
0.3
1.6
4.2
4.4
4.5
5.0

1960/61 to 1973/74
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
0.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.3
4.9
-1.4
1.5
0.2
3.1
-1.2
3.8
3.5
3.3
1.2
2.6
4.8
4.2
0.1
1.7
2.1
2.8
2.2
4.1

1974/75 to 1983/84
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
-0.8
9.7
1.4
7.3
0.6
15.7
-3.1
6.1
1.0
7.7

1984/85 to 1995/96
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
0.1
3.3
3.3
2.1
3.5
3.2
-4.3
2.5
2.5
2.9

1960/61 to 1995/96
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
-0.4
4.9
2.4
4.0
2.0
7.5
-2.2
3.2
1.3
4.4

Foodgrains

cereals
Pulses
All
foodgrains

Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.

Crop

Groundnut

Nonfoodgrains

Cotton

Sugarcane
Others
Total nonfoodgrains
All crops

Crop

Groundnut

Nonfoodgrains

Cotton

Sugarcane
Others
Total nonfoodgrains
All crops

Item
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Area
Area

Item
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Area
Area

-2.2
3.5
2.6
6.3
-1.1
1.2
0.1

13.1
5.4
4.7
9.3
6.9
8.1
14.2

-1.9
0.9
1.2
2.0
-1.1
3.6
2.5

1960/61 to 68/69
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
1.7
2.5
-5.6
2.5
-3.9
3.6
-4.5
2.5
1.0
4.1
-3.5
5.8
9.6
10.9
0.7
2.0
10.4
11.9
neg.
2.1
0.4
1.2
-0.3

1.2

1.8

5.1

-1.0
1.9
1.4
3.3
-0.7
2.1
1.4

6.6
5.3
5.1
7.7
3.5
4.4
6.7

1960-61 to 1973-74
1969/70 to 1973/74
1960/61 to 73/74
ACGR
ADT
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
4.9
4.4
1.9
3.2
4.8
5.8
-1.0
3.8
9.5
10.1
0.8
6.1
0.5
2.7
-2.2
2.6
-0.2
6.0
2.2
4.8
0.5
6.3
neg.
6.0
7.6
7.9
7.0
9.8
5.9
3.4
1.5
2.5
14.2
10.3
8.7
11.3
6.4
5.6
1.2
3.4
5.0
3.7
1.2
2.2

1974/75 to 1983/84
ACGR
ADT (%)
(%)
0.4
5.1
1.4
12.1
1.9
16.7
-1.9
7.6
0.6
4.3
-1.5
11.3
2.5
5.3
-0.1
3.1
2.6
7.0
-0.4
4.4
neg.
2.2
-0.8

4.2
7.4
8.4
10.3
2.6
2.7
2.9

1.2

0.5

1984/85 to 1995/96
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
2.1
4.0
3.9
3.0
6.1
4.7
0.1
4.8
0.5
8.5
0.5
10.4
5.3
3.7
0.5
1.8
5.9
4.6
4.5*
9.2*
3.3*
3.6*
neg*.

2.3*

1.2

1960/61 to 1995/96
ACGR
ADT
(%)
(%)
0.7
4.0
0.9
6.0
1.6
8.7
-1.3
4.8
2.1
5.9
0.7
9.0
4.4
6.5
1.2
2.4
5.7
7.8
1.3*
5.1*
0.8*
2.5*
-0.2*

Note: 1. Due to non-availability of data, these values have been calculated with 1991-92 as the
terminal year.

2.7*

2. In calculating the annual compound growth rates (ACGR), the averages for the
trienniums at the beginning and the end of each period are considered.
3. The annual average percentage deviation from the trend given by the three-year moving
averages is used as a measure of fluctuation of the series (ADT).

in foodgrains production; the rather moderate growth in productivity which grew at a

rate of just about 2 percent per year is also a contributory factor in this lacklustre
performance.

Looking at the individual crops among the foodgrains, it is clear that the poor
performance of the sector as a whole is very largely due to a very poor performance of
the coarse cereals whose production in fact has registered a decline, at the rate of around
1.0 percent per year, over the period; and this decline in production is solely due to a
reduction in the area under these coarse cereals. It may be noted that even with this
decline of the order of more than two percent per annum these coarse cereals, viz.,
Cholam (Jowar), Cumbu (Bajra) and Ragi, still account for a significant proportion
nearly a sixth of the gross cropped area in Tamil Nadu today. The performance of the
most important crop, viz., rice which accounts for nearly a third of the gross cropped
area in the state today has been relatively better: although this crop has also lost some
area albeit at a much lower rate (0.4 percent per year) compared to coarse cereals its
production has registered a modest gain of the order of about 2 percent per annum
because of productivity increases. But it is the pulses which account for nearly a tenth
of the gross cropped area in the state today which have registered the best performance
among food grains. Gains in area as well as productivity modest though, in both have
resulted in a reasonably high growth rate of more than 3 percent per annum in the
production of pulses in the state over the last three and a half decades.
Coming to non-foodgrains, the most important among them, viz., groundnut which
accounts for nearly a sixth of the gross cropped area in the state today has registered
sluggish, albeit positive, growth. Productivity gains in this important cash crop in the
state have been very modest. Of the two minor cash crops in the state, viz., sugarcane and
cotton accounting for 3 to 4 percent each of the gross cropped area in the state today
the former appears to have done very well: its production, over the last three and a half
decades has grown at a high rate of more than five percent per annum, and this growth is
very largely due to a rapid growth in the area under this crop.
Cotton production on the other hand has virtually been stagnant over this period, and this
is largely due to a decline in the area under the crop. As for the residue, viz., others,
among the non-foodgrains which consist mostly of high value cash crops like plantation
crops, fruits and vegetables, condiments and spices etc unfortunately we have not been
able to obtain their production figures. But the area under these crops has registered a
significant increase of the order of 1.3 percent per year over the period under
consideration. Only sugarcane among cash crops and pulses among foodgrains have
registered more rapid gains in area under them. As a consequence, these other crops
account for nearly a fifth of the gross cropped area in the state today.

It is also clear from the Table (Table 22) that the individual crops differ considerably in
terms of their pattern or profile of growth across the three periods that we had demarcated
within the last three and a half decades or so. Thus, while the growth profile of the
foodgrain sector as a whole broadly corresponds to the profiles sketched earlier, either for
the primary sector income or for the agricultural sector as a whole, the individual crops
within this sector have different profiles of growth. For the foodgrain sector as a whole,
the first period, i.e., from 1960-61 to 1973-74, was a period of moderate growth with a
moderate level of fluctuations; the second period, i.e., from 1974-75 to 1983-84, was a
period of stagnation with high levels of instability; and the third period, i.e., from 198485 to 1995-96, was a period of recovery, with modest levels of growth and instability.
With the first period itself one could identify two sub-periods, as it were. In the first subperiod, i.e., from 1960-61 to 1968-69, there was in fact a decline in foodgrain production,
due to a decline in both area and productivity; but this was followed by a short period, of
just about four years from 1969-70 to 1973-74, of sharp recovery in foodgrain
production, which was almost completely due to a sharp growth in yield. As is well
known, this period happens to be the heyday of green revolution in the country, as well
as in Tamil Nadu. Thus, the overall growth profile for the foodgrain sector as a whole can
be summarised as: stagnation or decline in the sixties; rapid recovery and growth for a
short span of the period of green revolution; stagnation with high levels of instability
during a period of crisis (from 1974-75 to 1983-84); and a recovery in the last period
(from 1984-85 to 1995-96).
The recovery phase seem to have lost its momentum and the sector has been suffering
during the recent past with decline in area under important crops as well as decline in
production. Area under food grains declined to 34.5 lakh hectares in 2001-02 from 36.33
lakh hectares in 1999-00. Production of food grains fell to 76.8 lakh tones during 2001-02
from 88.42 lakh tones in 1999-00. Most of the important non-food crops have
experienced such a decline during this period. However, the importance of non-food
crops in the sector is growing over time. Ratio of area under food crops and non-food
crops was 5:2 in 2000-01 as against 3:1 during 1980-81.
Table: Area, production and Yield of Foodgrains, Tamilnadu
Year
Area (lakh ha)
Production
(lakh
tones)
1999-2000
36.33
88.42
2000-01
35.01
86.17
2001-02
34.52
76.89
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics

Yield (kgs/ha)
2434
2461
2228

Now, the major foodcrop, viz., rice, follows more or less the same pattern, except that the
growth rates in the two phases of recovery in the green revolution period, and the
period after the mid-eighties onwards are higher in the case of rice compared to
foodgrains as a whole. In sharp contrast, the coarse cereals have witnessed a consistent
decline in their production all through the three-and-a-half-decade period from 1960-61
to 1995-96: In fact, the rate of decline in their production was the highest during the
green revolution period (of 1969-70 to 1973-74), and this was solely due to reduction in

area under these crops during this period. The pulses, which have recorded the best
growth performance among the foodgrains, have displayed an altogether different growth
profiles. Their production grew at an extremely rapid rate of the order of 20 percent per
annum during the short green revolution period, with both area and productivity gains
contributing to this performance, the former more than the latter. But this is a
performance which obviously cannot be sustained over a longer period, and the growth
rate in the production of pulses has in fact witnessed a steady decline after this short
period of very rapid growth. All the same, it is worth noting that in the period of crisis for
the agricultural economy in the state i.e., from 1974-75 to 1983-84 the production of
pulses in the state in fact kept growing at a high rate of around 6 percent per annum,
albeit with high levels of fluctuation. In fact it is in the period from mid-eighties onwards
when recovery sets in the case of rice that the growth rate of production for pulses
declines sharply, to a level of just about 2 percent per annum, and instability also
increases.
Coming to the non-foodgrains, the major cash crops in the state, viz., groundnut, had the
same growth profile across the various periods and sub-periods, as the agricultural sector
as a whole, or the foodgrain sector, except that the extent of instability in the case of
groundnut appears to be higher compared to say, rice. The overall stagnation in
groundnut production in the last three and a half decades hides periods of stagnation
(sixties), sharp recovery (green revolution period), stagnation with instability (1974-75 to
1983-84) and recovery (from the mid-eighties). In sharp contrast the other stagnant cash
crop, viz., cotton, has witnessed stagnation all through this period of three and a half
decades. Sugarcane the cash crop with a good overall growth performance once again
displays a different growth profile compared to the rest. A high growth period, albeit with
high levels of instability, all through the sixties and early seventies, is followed by a
relative stagnation in the seventies and early eighties, and a recovery thereafter. Going by
the performance of area under other crops, they seem to follow the standard pattern for
the agricultural sector as a whole, viz., stagnation in the sixties, rapid growth during the
green revolution period, stagnation during the period of crisis and a recovery from around
the mid-eighties.
It should be obvious that the differing growth performances and profiles for different
crops would lead to considerable changes over time within the agricultural sector in terms
of its composition or cropping pattern. Before we come to a discussion on this issue, we
would like to note a third important point from Table 22. Considering the period 1960-61
to 1995-96 as a whole, the extent of instability as given by the average annual absolute
percentage deviation from the trend (given by the three-year moving average series) is
significantly higher in the case of the production series, compared to either area or yield
series; this seems to hold for all the major crops. This seems to indicate that, for the
period as a whole, the area and yield instabilities have more often than not reinforced
each other, or the area, yield and production have moved in unison, as it were, around the
respective trends. But a closer look at the table shows that while this scenario is generally
observed upto the mid-eighties, the picture is somewhat different thereafter. In the case of
foodgrains for rice in particular the instability in production from around the mideighties onwards is roughly of the same order as for area and yield; and this appears to be

true for the major cash crop in the state, viz., groundnut, and to a lesser extent for pulses
also. This would perhaps imply that in this period of recovery i.e., from the mideighties onwards the area and yield fluctuations would have often been in opposite
directions (with respect to the trend) and hence would have compensated one another,
rather than reinforcing each other. This would have happened at least in the case of a few
important crops like rice and groundnut [Table 23]. It is also noteworthy that it is in the
period of crisis, viz., from 1974-75 to 1983-84 when stagnation in production was
coupled with a high degree instability that area and yield fluctuations reinforce
Table 23: Number of Years when Area and Yield Reinforced or Compensated Each
Other:

Crop

Rice
Coarse cereals
Pulses
All food grains
Groundnut
Cotton
Sugarcane

Crop

Rice
Coarse cereals
Pulses
All food grains
Groundnut
Cotton
Sugarcane

1960/61 to 73/74
1974/75 to 83/84
No of years No of years when No of years No of years when
when area and area and yield when area and area and yield
yield reinforce compensate
yield reinforce
compensate
8 (61.5)
5 (38.5)
9 (90.0)
1 (10.0)
7 (53.8)
6 (46.2)
8 (80.0)
2 (20.0)
7 (53.8)
6 (46.2)
8 (80.0)
2 (20.0)
10 (76.9)
3 (23.1)
8 (80.0)
2 (20.0)
6 (46.2)
7 (53.8)
7 (70.0)
3 (30.0)
10 (76.9)
3 (23.1)
8 (80.0)
2 (20.0)
6 (46.2)
7 (53.8)
5 (50.0)
5 (50.0)

1984/85 to 95/96
1960/61 to 95/96
No of years No of years when No of years No of years when
when area and area and yield when area and area and yield
yield reinforce compensate
yield reinforce
compensate
2 (18.2)
9 (81.8)
19 (55.9)
15 (44.1)
7 (63.6)
4 (36.4)
22 (64.7)
12 (35.3)
7 (63.6)
4 (36.4)
22 (64.7)
12 (35.3)
5 (45.5)
6 (54.5)
23 (67.6)
11 (32.4)
5 (45.5)
6 (54.5)
18 (52.9)
16 (47.1)
4 (36.4)
7 (63.6)
22 (64.7)
12 (35.3)
6 (54.5)
5 (45.5)
17 (50.0)
17 (50.0)

Note: Figures in brackets give percentages to total number of years in each period.
each other to generate wide fluctuations in production. The reversal of this trend in the
following period particularly in the case of rice perhaps is a factor underlying the
recovery witnessed by the agricultural sector in this period, and perhaps points to a
significant extent of reorganisation within the sector, we shall return to this issue later in
the report.

Yield Differences across Districts:

There are significant differences in the yield levels across districts. We have considered
the most important food grain crop of the state viz. paddy for the year 2001-02. The yield
levels are very high in Dindugul, Theni, Erode and Namkkal districts whereas it is very
low in districts like Perambalur, Nagappattinam and Thiruvarur districts. Poor water flow
in the canal systems of Cauvery could be the reason for the poor performance of these
districts. It is also well known that productivity is not very high in the Cauvery delta of
the state as compared to other parts of the state.
Table: Yield of Paddy: By Districts, 2001-02
S.No
District
Area (Hectare)
Yield (Kgs/Hectare)
1
135160
3544
Kancheepuram
2
Thiruvallur
94422
3406
3
108375
3717
Cuddalore
4
Villupuram
155555
3607
5
60113
3895
Vellore
6
122688
3024
Thiruvannamalai
7
Salem
46233
4419
8
21361
4570
Namakkal
9
Dharmapuri
54334
3488
10
10548
3526
Coimbatore
11
Erode
50474
4634
12
72317
4100
Tiruchirapalli
13
15539
3611
Karur
14
Perambalur
48734
2436
15
83500
2642
Pudukottai
16
Thanjavur
192161
2923
17
174722
2633
Thiruvarur
18
168265
2541
Nagapattinam
19
Madurai
68131
3986
20
17422
4470
Theni
21
Dindigul
16106
4739
22
124517
1364
Ramanathapuram
23
Virudhunagar
29388
3140
24
77246
2066
Sivagangai
25
71983
4030
Thirunelveli
26
Thoothukudi
10201
4193
27
2154
3916
Nilgiris
28
Kanniyakumari
28229
4300
2059878
3196
STATE
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Chennai-6.

3.Changes in the Cropping Pattern:

As pointed out earlier the differential rates and patterns of growth for different crops in
the state would have meant considerable shifts in the cropping pattern over time. Table
24 below brings it out clearly.
The shifts in the cropping pattern over the three decades from the early sixties to early
nineties, appear to subsume two distinct processes. The first is a shift from foodgrains to
non-foodgrains, which, for want of a better term, we call the process of
commercialisation. The other process, which we call the process of crop diversification6,
involves shifts in area across different crops or crop groups. Thus considering the
foodgrain sector alone, it is clear that the importance within this sector of coarse grains
has clearly declined over the period under consideration, while that of pulses has clearly
increased. Similarly within the cash crop economy,
Table 24: Shifts in Cropping Pattern in Tamil Nadu:

Type of land

All land

On irrigated
land

On
unirrigated
land

Year
Triennium
ending
1962-63
Triennium
ending
1991-92
Triennium
ending
1962-63
Triennium
ending
1991-92
Triennium
ending
1962-63
Triennium
ending
1991-92

Percentage distribution of gross cropped area by crops

Food-grains
Rice
Coarse cereals
Pulses
Total
35.3

29.0

5.7

70.0

29.1

17.7

12.8

59.5

72.9

12.0

0.3

85.2

59.2

4.8

1.7

65.6

5.1

42.7

10.0

57.8

4.4

28.3

21.8

54.5

We have used a very simple index to measure the extent of crop diversification: D= 1/SD x 100,where D
is index of diversification, and SD is the standard deviation for the distribution of the GCA across the major
crop group. In calculating this index, the seven crop groups as given in table 24 are considered for all
land; sugarcane is left out in the case of unirrigated land and pulses are not considered in calculating this
index for irrigated land. We may just note here that the broad conclusions given in this section do not
change, even if we include all the seven crop groups for both irrigated and unirrigated lands.

Type of land

All land

On irrigated
land

On
unirrigated
land

Year
Triennium
ending
1962-63
Triennium
ending
1991-92
Triennium
ending
1962-63
Triennium
ending
1991-92
Triennium
ending
1962-63
Triennium
ending
1991-92

Percentage distribution of gross cropped area by crops

Non-foodgrains
Groundnut
Cotton Sugarcane Others Total
Index of crop
diversification
12.4

5.3

1.0

11.3

30.0

119.3

15.4

3.8

3.4

17.9

40.5

173.4

3.2

3.1

2.2

6.4

14.8

65.5

9.6

3.0

7.5

14.2

34.4

84.2

19.7

7.1

Nil

15.3

42.1

131.7

20.1

4.4

Neg.

20.9

45.5

183.8

Note: The index of crop diversification is defined as [1/SD] x 100, where SD is the
standard deviation for the distribution of GCA across the major crop groups. In
calculating the SD, the 7 major crops are considered for all land; in the case of
unirrigated land sugarcane is left out, and hence n=6, and pulses are left out in the case
of irrigated land (n=6).
the relative importance of sugarcane and other crops have increased, while that of
cotton has declined. It is clear from the table that a process of increasing diversification
of the cropping pattern was under way in Tamil Nadu over the three decade period from
the early sixties to early nineties.
An interesting point that comes out from the table is the striking difference between
irrigated and unirrigated lands in terms of the relative importance of these two processes
of commercialisation and diversification in each. In the early sixties, the irrigated
economy was essentially a rice economy accounting for nearly 70 percent of its gross
cropped area and hence, predominantly a foodgrain economy; the cash crops accounted
for just about a sixth of its gross cropped area. But over the three decades from the early
sixties to early nineties, the relative importance of cash crops has increased considerably,
from around one-sixth of the gross cropped area in the early sixties to about a third in the
early nineties. The relative importance of all the major cash crops, except cotton, has
increased over this period. The unirrigated economy in contrast was significantly more
commercialised and diversified even by the beginning of the sixties, but over the next
three decades the degree of commercialisation percentage of area under non-foodgrains

 did not increase by any significant amount; but the increase in the extent of crop
diversification here was very striking, and was in fact higher than the corresponding
increase (in diversification) on irrigated land. Within the foodgrain sector pulses gained
significantly, while coarse grains lost out; and within the cash crops other crops gained
and cotton lost out. In sum it appears that while increasing commercialisation as we
have defined it was largely confined to the irrigated economy within the agricultural
sector, there was a significant increase in crop diversification within the unirrigated
economy.
We had noted earlier that not only the growth rates, but also the growth profiles across
different periods, varied considerably across crops. This would imply that the rate at
which these two processes of commercialisation and diversification proceeded would also
vary across different periods. Table 25 gives the indices for these two processes for each
year between 1960-61 and 1991-92 clearly bring this out.
The degree of commercialisation witnessed a steady, but a moderate, rate of increase on
irrigated land upto the middle of seventies; thereafter, there appears to be an increase in
this rate, particularly in the eighties. On the unirrigated land in sharp contrast, there has
been no
Table 25: Indices for Degree of Commercialisation and Diversification of the Cropping
Pattern in Tamil Nadu:
All land
Year
1960-61
1961-62
1962-63
1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81

C
30.3
29.9
29.7
30.1
29.2
31.1
30.4
31.5
31.9
30.0
29.6
32.4
31.8
33.8
33.7
30.0
31.3
31.7
32.9
33.2
36.5

D
121.4
119.8
116.6
118.9
117.3
121.2
118.7
121.4
126.9
120.1
119.8
126.8
126.0
134.6
132.6
120.1
130.1
127.5
130.9
123.2
137.7

Irrigated land
C
D
15.1
67.2
15.0
65.2
14.4
64.1
16.1
65.3
15.5
64.9
15.6
66.3
15.5
64.8
17.7
67.8
19.0
70.8
17.1
68.0
18.3
67.8
19.7
68.7
19.1
67.3
23.1
72.5
22.0
73.5
18.5
68.6
21.3
72.9
21.6
70.3
24.2
73.6
23.7
71.9
27.6
77.9

Unirrigated land
C
D
42.4
134.5
41.6
123.6
42.4
132.1
41.8
135.1
40.6
130.6
43.9
136.5
43.2
136.9
44.0
139.5
42.3
141.1
40.8
127.6
39.4
133.5
43.4
141.5
43.4
157.7
43.7
165.9
43.5
145.9
40.0
126.0
38.2
132.1
41.0
141.1
41.5
151.7
43.3
145.3
45.7
153.0

1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92

33.0
35.2
32.1
34.6
32.3
36.5
37.9
36.4
37.7
41.2
42.6

132.2
148.5
135.5
135.1
145.8
157.1
157.9
169.7
175.8
176.3
163.9

25.2
27.5
25.3
27.3
29.6
30.3
33.7
34.0
33.8
34.8
34.5

72.9
75.5
72.3
73.9
77.1
78.5
83.4
84.1
84.8
85.4
82.4

40.7
41.5
38.0
41.7
34.8
41.3
41.2
38.4
40.9
46.1
49.6

143.0
142.2
138.6
151.7
145.5
155.5
160.1
157.1
169.0
183.0
186.0

Note: C is the index of degree of commercialisation, given by the percentage of gross

cropped area under non-foodgrains; D is the index of crop divesification as defined in
table 24 and footnote 7.
consistent increase in the degree of commercialisation over any of the stretches in the
three decade span from the early sixties to early nineties, but the index seems to have
witnessed a considerable degree of fluctuation around the stagnant trend. The eighties, it
appears, have witnessed some increase in this index (on unirrigated land), but it is
difficult to say whether this trend will be maintained, or it is part of a cycle, to be
followed by a downtrend, as the earlier behaviour of the index seem to suggest. Be that as
it may, the overall result of these two trends on irrigated and unirrigated area
respectively is that considering the agricultural sector as a whole, the degree of
commercialisation increased only at a modest rate till about the early or mid-eighties, and
this rate picked up considerably thereafter. Thus between the trienniums ending 1962-63
and 1985-86, i.e., over a period of more than two decades, the degree of
commercialisation increased from 30.0 percent to 33.0 percent; and between the
trienniums ending 1985-86 and 1991-92, i.e., in less than a decade, the increase was from
33.0 percent to 40.5 percent.
As for the increase in crop diversification, we had noted earlier that this phenomenon was
particularly striking on unirrigated land. And even here, the increase was only modest
with considerable fluctuations around the trend upto the early eighties; the
diversification index increased at a higher rate, with much lower fluctuation after that.
Irrigated land, where the index of diversification and the increase in it are lower
compared to unirrigated land, nevertheless, follows a similar pattern, albeit with lower
fluctuations. As a consequence the process of crop diversification follows a similar trend
a moderate rate of increase upto the early eighties, and an accelerated one thereafter
even for the agricultural sector as a whole.
In sum, two broad generalisations regarding shifts in the cropping pattern in the state
seem possible. First, of the two forms that such shifts can take, the process of increasing
commercialisation is largely prevalent in the irrigated sector; on the unirrigated sector
these shifts have largely taken the form of crop diversification, with no consistent trend
towards increasing commercialisation. The fact that the two indices display a higher level

of fluctuation around the trend in the unirrigated sector also point to a higher degree of
volatility of this sector. The second generalisation is that while both these processes have
witnessed an increase over the period under consideration, the rates of increase was only
moderate till about the early eighties; and these rates picked up thereafter.
These processes of commercialisation and diversification constitute just one facet of
changes related to land use in the agricultural sector in Tamil Nadu. Shifts in land use
across seasons kharif and Rabi and changes in overall land use patterns are some of
the other important changes observed in the agricultural sector. Let us look in to these
issues in some detail.
4. Shifts across Crop Seasons:
The data for distribution of gross cropped area across seasons are available only for
foodgrains, and that too only for the period 1970-71 to 1995-96. Some important features
of the kharif and Rabi foodgrain economy in the state during this period are summarised
in Table 26 below.
It appears that the Rabi season played only a minor role accounting for just about 2 to 3
percent of the area and production in the foodgrain economy of Tamil Nadu right upto
the mid-eighties. During the period 1974-75 to 1983-84 the period of stagnation and
instability the Rabi crop suffered more compared to the kharif crop. But in the period of
recovery, i.e., in the period from 1984-85 onwards, the importance of the Rabi crop in the
foodgrain sector seems have increased dramatically.
Table 26: Growth Performance of Foodgrains in Kharif and Rabi Seasons:

Season
Kharif

Rabi

Item
Area
Yield
Production
Area
Yield
Production

1974-75 to 1983-84
ACGR (%)
ADT (%)
-1.0
7.2
1.3
8.1
0.3
14.3
-4.7
7.2
-0.6
6.7
-5.2
11.7

1984-85 to 1995-96
ACGR (%)
ADT (%)
-2.3
3.8
4.6
2.4
2.2
5.3
8.3
21.6
-3.2
9.6
4.9
23.8

Note: 1. In calculating the annual compound growth rates (ACGR), the averages for the
trienniums at the beginning and the end of each period are considered.
2. The annual average percentage deviation from the trend given by the three-year
moving averages is used as a measure of the fluctuation of the series (ADT).
In the beginning of this period in the year 1986-87 to be exact there was a rapid shift
in the area under the Rabi crop, from 167,000 hectares in 1985-86 to 739,000 hectares in
1986-87, while the area under kharif foodgrains declined from 4450,000 hectares in
1985-86 to 3394,000 hectares in 1986-87. All through the rest of this period Rabi had a

significant presence in the foodgrain sector of Tamil Nadu, accounting for roughly a tenth
of area and production.
But it is also clear from the table that this shift to the rabi crop was accompanied by a
very high degree of instability. The indices for instability for the Rabi crop in this period
(1984-85 to 1995-96) are very high; they are in fact much higher than in the previous
period of general stagnation and instability in the agricultural sector (1974-75 to 198384), in contrast to the kharif crop where the period of recovery from the mid-eighties was
also a period of higher stability. In fact one can identify three short, but distinct, phases
within this period in terms of the shifts across kharif and rabi crops in the foodgrain
sector. In 1986-87 there was a rapid shift of land of better quality perhaps land with
good irrigation from kharif to rabi, leading to a sharp increase in yield in Rabi (from
1275 Kgs/ha in 1985-86 to, 2494 Kgs/ha in 1986-87), and a decline in yield in Kharif
(from 6961 Kgs/ha in 1985-86 to 5341 Kgs/ha in 1986-87); this situation continued in
1987-88 also. In the second phase, i.e., in 1988-89, some of this land was shifted back to
kharif. the area under kharif increased from 3419,000 hectares in 1987-88 to 3774,000
hectares in 1988-89 and the area under Rabi declined from 761,000 hectares to 328,000
hectares. The shift led to a decline in yield on Rabi and an increase on kharif. This
situation continued with some fluctuations till 1993-94, when a considerable shift of
area occurs once again from kharif to Rabi but this time, the area shifted appears to be of
poorer quality, thus resulting in a decline in yield on Rabi and an increase in kharif.
It is high time, we believe, that we register a strong caveat. These rapid shifts across crop
seasons, as well as a number of other changes observed in the agricultural sector in Tamil
Nadu in the period from around the mid-eighties onwards, may have something to do
with the quality of data. The abolition of the post of the traditional village karnam who
knew his village well and the appointment of village administrative officers in his place
in the early eighties, it is often claimed, introduced considerable amount of noise in
agricultural data, in area statistics in particular. Now it is difficult to say that how of
much of the trends, shifts and patterns that we have observed so far in the period from the
mid-eighties onwards is attributable to real changes in the economy, and how much of it
is due to the noise in the data. All the same, we would also claim that not all the patterns
that we have observed so far can be attributed to the noise in the data alone. As for
example, the shifts that we had observed earlier in the compensating or reinforcing
movements of area and yield and the period of recovery (1984-85 to 1995-96) compared
to the period of stagnation and instability (1974-75 to 1983-84). So, a proper attitude to
many of the results we have presented so far would be that they should be read with a
degree of skepticism, and be seen as broad, plausible hypotheses, and no more.
With this caveat in mind, the shifts across crop seasons that we had talked about earlier,
may be viewed as one of the facets of a plausible scenario of reordering and
reorganisation of the agricultural sector that is under way in the period of recovery from
around the mid-eighties onwards in Tamil Nadu. We had noted some other facets of
this scenario. The processes of diversification and commercialisation, the shifts observed
in the compensating or reinforcing movements of area and yield etc. Let us now turn to

one other facet of it, and this relates to changes in overall land utilisation patterns in the
state.
5. Changes in Land Utilisation Patterns:
Table 27 below gives data on land utilisation pattern in Tamil Nadu. the averages for the
sixties, seventies and eighties, and for the period 1990-94 are given in the table.
Table 27: Trend in Land Utilisation Pattern:
(Annual average in 000 hectares)
Classification of area
1. Total geographical area
2. Land under forests
3. Barren and uncultivable land
4. Culturable land
5. Permanent pastures and other
grazing land
6. Land put to non-agricultural uses
Current follows
7. Follows Other follows
Total follows
8. Land under miscellaneous tree crops
and groves not included in the net
sown area
9. Net sown area
10. Gross cropped area
11. Cropping intensity (percent)

1960-61
to
1969-70
13013 (100.0)

1970-71
to
1979-80
13006 (100.0)

1980-81
to
1989-90
13006 (100.0)
2076 (16.0)
557 (4.3)
308 (2.4)
145 (1.1)

1990-91
to
1993-94
13018
(100.0)
2149 (16.5)
510 (3.9)
303 (2.3)
12.3 (0.9)

1906 (14.6)
885 (6.8)
660 (5.1)
334 (2.6)

2005 (15.4)
705 (5.4)
415 (3.2)
198 (1.5)

1357 (10.4)
969 (7.4)
612 (4.7)
1581 (12.1)
264 (2.0)

6026 (46.3)
7200
119.5

1999-00 to
2001-02
12991 (100
0
2134 (16.4)
476 (3.7)
363 ( )
121 (0.9)

1600 (12.3)
1202 (9.2)
531 (4.1)
1733 (13.3)
215 (1.7)

1795 (13.8)
1618 (12.4)
703 (5.4)
2321 (17.8)
182 (1.4)

1857 (14.3)
1055 (8.1)
1033 (7.9)
2088 (16.0)
233 (1.8)

1998 (15.4)
1082 (8.2)
1259 (9.4)
2341 (17.6)
262 (2.1)

6135 (47.2)
7456
121.5

5622 (43.2)
6677
118.8

5755 (44.2)
7094
123.3

5313 (40.8)
6361
119.7

Note: Figures in brackets give percentages to total geographical area.

Source: 1. Upto 1989-90: Tamil Nadu An Economic Appraisal, 1992-93; Government of Tamil
Nadu.
2. For 1990-91 to 1993-94: Profiles of States, CMIE, March, 1997.

It is obvious that the pattern of land utilisation in the state has undergone considerable
changes in the period from the early sixties to around mid-nineties, and three of these
changes are worth mentioning. The first such striking change refers to a sharp decline in
lands classified as permanent pastures and other grazing land, barren and uncultivable
land and cultivable waste. The total area under these three categories has got halved,
from 1879,000 hectares in the sixties to 936,000 hectares in the early nineties. While not
all the areas under these categories can perhaps be classified as common property
resources, the point noted above. We believe, does point to a sharp decline in the
common property resources in the state. A study conducted in the early eighties in the dry
regions of seven states Tamil Nadu being one among them very clearly brought out
the sharp declines in the extent of CPRs in all these states between the early fifties and
the early eighties [Jodha, 1990]. The decline in Tamil Nadu was one of the sharpest, next
only to Rajasthan. The pressure on the CPRs given by the number of persons per
hectare of CPR area was the highest in the state and had witnessed a very sharp

increase, and the extent of dependence of the poor on the CPR in the state was one of the
highest, again next only to Rajasthan [Table 28]. It is
Table 28: Some Aspects of Common Property Resources in Dry Regions of India:

State

CPRs as a percent of Percentage decline

total village area
in CPR area
between 1950-52
and 1982-84
1950-52 1982-84

Andhra Pradesh
18
Gujarat
19
Karnataka
20
Madhya Pradesh
41
Maharastra
22
Rajasthan
36
Tamil Nadu
21
Source: Jodha [1990].

11
11
12
24
15
16
10

42
44
40
41
31
55
50

No of persons
per 10 hectares
of CPR area
1951

1981

48
82
46
14
40
13
101

134
238
117
47
88
50
286

CPR-income as a
percent of income from
all other sources in
1982-84
For the
For the
poor
rest
17
1
18
1
20
3
22
2
14
1
23
2
22
2

more than likely that this trend towards the decline in CPRs has continued in the state all
through the eighties and after, with adverse consequences for the poor whose dependence
on these resources is of a much higher order compared to the rest.
The second important change discernible in the pattern of land utilisation in the state is
that the amount of land put to non-agricultural use has consistently increased over time,
and in the early nineties roughly a seventh7 of the states area was under non-agricultural
use in contrast to just a tenth in the sixties. In fact in the early nineties the extent of nonagricultural use of land was one of the highest, among all the major states, in Tamil Nadu
only West Bengal had a higher percentage of its total area under non-agricultural use.
The third major change in the land utilisation pattern in the state refers to the magnitude
and composition of cultivable land. If we define the potential cultivable land as the sum
of net sown area; fallows, both current and long term; and culturable waste, this potential
had remained more or less stable, at around 8200,000 hectares right upto the end of the
eighties, registering a small decline in the early nineties. And a high and increasing
proportion of this potential is brought under the plough. If we include net sown area and
the fallows as area brought under cultivation in a broad sense, it represented close to 92
percent of the total cultivable potential in the sixties, and this proportion has increased to
around 96 percent by the early nineties. But within the total area brought under
cultivation (understood in the broad sense of inclusive of fallows), the area actually
cultivated in any year i.e., the net sown area has in fact witnessed a decline in the
eighties; on the other hand, the area under fallows has registered an increase over the
7 Of the total geographical area of the state, 4.7 percent was accounted for the urban areas in 1991. If we
assume that all the land in urban areas is utilised for non-agricultural purposes, the percentage of rural land
put to non-agricultural uses in the early nineties in Tamil Nadu is 10.1.

years, and this is particularly true of the eighties; in the early nineties current fallows
witnessed a decline while the long term fallows showed an increase. In fact by the early
nineties, Tamil Nadu had one of the highest fallowing of land among the major states in
the country. In 1993-94, close to a fourth (24.4 percent) of the total area brought under
cultivation (i.e., net sown areas plus fallows) was left as fallows in Tamil Nadu; this
proportion was higher only in two states, Andhra Pradesh (30.0 percent) and Bihar (29.7
percent).
We may now briefly summarise our discussions so far on the agricultural sector. The
major characteristics of this sector that we have noted so far are.
1. An increasing level of diversification of the cropping pattern over the years. This
process, which is particularly discernible in the unirrigated sector, got accelerated from
around the mid-eighties onwards.
2. An increasing degree of commercialisation of the agricultural sector over time. This
process, which is confined mostly to the irrigated sector, appears to have got accelerated
again, after the mid-eighties. Going by the indices that we have used for the degree of
commercialisation viz., the proportion of gross cropped area under non-foodgrains, and
the geographical area earmarked for non-agricultural uses rural Tamil Nadu is one of
the most commercialised economics among the major states in the country today8.
We may just note here that the degree of commercialisation of the cropping pattern as
measured by the proportion of non-foodgrains in the gross cropped area in fact
understates the overall extent of commercialisation and market orientation of the
agricultural sector. This is because foodgrains are also sold in the market, and perhaps
increasingly so. While we do not have data to substantiate this hypothesis that the
proportion of marketed surplus has increased over time in the case of foodgrains, there is
reason to believe that the very process of crop diversification would have led to an
increasing degree of market orientation of the foodgrain sector.
This is because the proportion of output marketed in the case of coarse cereals whose
importance in foodgrain production has declined considerably over time is of a lower
order compared to rice, whose weight within the foodgrain sector has not decline by any
significant extent. The data on marketed surplus for different crops for the year 1992-93
given in table 29 below clearly brings it out.
Thus increasing commercialisation, crop diversification and market orientation appear to
go hand in hand in the agricultural sector in Tamil Nadu, and these processes, it appears,
got accelerated from around the mid-eighties.
Table 29: Marketed Surplus for Foodgrains in Tamil Nadu, 1992-93:

8 In the early nineties, i.e., for the period 1992-95, only Kerala and Gujarat had a substantially higher
proportion of the gross cropped area under non-foodgrains compared to Tamil Nadu; in Andhra Pradesh
this proportion was marginally higher, and in Karnataka just about the same [See Jodha (1997)].

Crop
Rice
Cholam
Cumbu
Ragi

Marketed surplus as a percent of production

Kharif
Rabi
Total
49.5
46.1
48.1
37.9
49.9
40.9
44.5
45.8
44.7
26.8
33.8
29.3

Source: Quarterly Statistical Abstract of Tamil Nadu, Quarter ended March, 1994;
Department of Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu.
3. These processes of increasing commercialisation, diversification and market
orientation are accompanied by a process of considerable reordering and reorganisation
of the agricultural sector, particularly in the period from the mid-eighties onwards. Some
of the manifestations of this process of reorganisation are: (a) increasing resort to
fallowing; (b) within the cultivated land shifts across seasons, in response perhaps to
contingencies involving water availability and rainfall; and (c) the increasing tendency
for area and yield to compensate, rather than reinforce, each other for rice crop in
particular.
4. We had also noted that there was considerable diversity, across crops, within the
agricultural sector, in terms of growth performance and growth profiles across different
periods identified. But in broad general terms one could identify three or four periods /
sub-periods in terms of its growth performance; a period of stagnation till the late sixties;
rapid growth for a short period, from the late sixties to early seventies; a period of
stagnation and instability from the mid-seventies to early / mid-eighties; and a recovery
thereafter.
Now, what could be the factors underlying this growth performance and profile? What
we provide below as an answer to this question, we should emphasise, should be seen
only as broad general hypotheses, and no more.
6. Level and Changes in Input Use:
We had noted earlier that going by the extent of use of modern inputs like HYVs,
fertilisers etc, the agricultural sector in Tamil Nadu is relatively more modernised
compared to most of the states in the country. And going by the trends in the use of these
inputs like the HYVs and fertilisers, this process of modernisation, which began with the
onset of green revolution in the late sixties, has proceeded at a more or less steady pace
after that. The level of fertiliser use has increased steadily over this period. As for the
HYVs, in the case of rice, after a very rapid diffusion in the green revolution period i.e.,
from around the late sixties to early seventies the level of adoption has been maintained
at a high level; and in this case of coarse cereals there is a steady increase in the level of
adoption of improved varieties [Table 30].

But it is also clear from the table that the level and change in the use of inputs explain the
growth performance in the agricultural sector only to a limited extent, except perhaps in
the period from 1969/70 to 1973/74 when rapid diffusion of HYVs
Table 30: Level of Input Use in Tamil Nadu Agriculture:
1960-61 to 1973-74

Input
Percent of
GCA under
HYV - Rice
Percent of
GCA under
HYV Coarse
cereals
Gross
Irrigation
Ratio (Percent)
Fertiliser use
Kgs / ha of
GCA

Input
Percent of
GCA under
HYV Rice
Percent of
GCA under
HYV Coarse
cereals
Gross
Irrigation
Ratio (Percent)
Fertiliser use
Kgs / ha of
GCA

1960/61 to 1968/69
Value of input
At the
At the end ADT (%)
beginning

1969/70 to 1973/74
Value of input
At the
At the end ADT (%)
beginning

NA

18.1

NA

65.5

79.7 (10.3)

4.2

NA

3.0**

NA

10.3

23.9 (52.3)

11.9

44.5

46.2 (0.6)

1.2

46.0

47.3 (1.4)

0.9

23 (21.9)

5.0

39

42 (3.8)

10.9

1974-75 to 1983-84
Value of input
At the
At the end
ADT (%)
beginning

1984-85 to 1991-92
Value of input
At the
At the end ADT (%)
beginning

85.5

83.6 (-0.3)

2.9

94.8

98.3 (0.7)

0.9

20.4

45.9 (12.3)

4.4

62.0

74.6 (3.8)

7.4

44.8

47.2 (0.7)

2.7

46.9

45.0 (-0.8)

1.8

39

78 (10.4)

3.7

100

120 (3.7)

2.8

Input
At the beginning

1960-61 TO 1991/92
Value of input
At the end
ADT (%)

Percent of GCA under

HYV Rice
Percent of GCA under
HYV Coarse cereals
Gross Irrigation Ratio
(Percent)
Fertiliser use Kgs / ha
of GCA

18.1*

98.3 (7.6)

2.5

3.0**

74.6 (15.7)

7.0

44.5

45.0 (neg).

1.8

120 (10.3)

5.0

Note: 1. The values of input given are the averages for the trienniums at the beginning and the
end of the periods. The annual compound growth rates, given in brackets are calculated using
these values. ADT refers to annual (absolute) percentage deviation from the trend given by the
three-year moving averages.
2.* refers to the triennium ending 1968-69; ** refers to the year 1968-69. The ACGR and
ADT given for these inputs in the last two columns refers to the corresponding period in each
case.

in the case of rice in particular appears to be a factor underlying the rapid growth of
agricultural production. In the period when the agricultural sector went through a
crisis with next to no growth and with high instability i.e., from 1974-75 to 1983-84
HYV use in the case of rice was maintained at a high level, and HYV use in the
case of coarse cereals and overall level of fertilisers use doubled. In the period of
recovery from around the mid-eighties onwards, the levels of input use of HYVs,
fertilisers, say are significantly higher than in the earlier period, but the rate of
increase in these levels are only modest in fact these rates appear to be significantly
lower compared to the previous period and do not seem to explain fully the steady
increase in productivity among the major crops in this period.
It is obvious that growth performance of agriculture is too complex a phenomenon to
be explained solely in terms of gross levels of input use. The quality of inputs as for
example, the yield potential of different HYVs introduced at different times the
combination in which the different inputs are used9 etc, i.e., factors which have a
crucial bearing on the efficacy of input use would play on important role as proximate
factors underlying the growth performance in agriculture.
While we have very little to say directly on any of these issues in the context of Tamil
Nadu, there is one important variable which would have a crucial bearing on all these
factors, and about which we have some broad generalisations to offer and this
relates to irrigation.
7. Irrigation: Overall stagnation:
9 The combination in which the different nutrients i.e., N, P and K are used is obviously an
important consideration here. The average of the absolute percentage deviations of utilisation of these
nutrients from the requirement would provide a rough index of deviation of fertiliser use from the
required combination. This index was 43.1 for the triennium ending 1976-77, declined to 12.7 for the
triennium ending 1983-84, and increased to 20.6 for the triennium ending 1991-92. Thus the period of
crisis witnessed a decline in the deviation from the efficient combination, and the period of recovery
a reversal in it!

One of the most striking aspects regarding irrigation in Tamil Nadu is the almost
complete stagnation of the gross irrigation ratio that is, gross irrigated area as a
percent of gross cropped area right from the early sixties, right through the period
under consideration. In fact among the major states in the country only Kerala and
Himachal Pradesh10 appear to have witnessed a similar phenomenon. And in states
where substantial agricultural modernisation and growth have occurred over this
period, extension of irrigation appears to be a very major contributing factor. Thus in
Punjab the gross irrigated ratio increased from 58.4 percent for the triennium 1962-65
to 94.6 percent in 1992-95; in Haryana this ratio had more than doubled over the
same period, from 33.1 percent to 77.1 percent; Uttar Pradesh also witnessed a similar
increase (from 27.0 percent to 62.3 percent); and so did West Bengal (from 22.6
percent to 54.3 percent). Tamil Nadu thus appears to be the only state with a
relatively more modernised agricultural sector, where the overall irrigation level has
remained virtually stagnant.
An important implication of this is that, since irrigation plays a central role in
agricultural growth and modernisation, it is not extension of irrigation but changes
within the irrigated sector that would have provided the basis for growth and
modernisation of agriculture in Tamil Nadu. We shall return to this issue shortly.
8. Duality between Irrigated and Unirrigated Sectors:
There is another important albeit obvious implication of this phenomenon to be
noted. If irrigated area has remained stagnant at around half of the gross cropped area
over the last three decades or so, the sharp dichotomy within the agricultural sector,
between the irrigated sector on the one hand and the unirrigated on the other, is also
likely to have persisted all through this period unlike say in Punjab or Haryana
where extension of irrigation would have modulated the overall importance of such a
dichotomy or duality within the agricultural sector. In fact, one can go a step further
and state that such a duality has got strengthened over this period, because
modernisation and growth have largely been confined to the irrigated sector in the
state. The data we have on the area, yield and production on irrigated and unirrigated
lands from 1970-71 onwards summarised in Table 31 clearly brings this out.
Over the seventies and the eighties while the gross cropped area under both irrigated
and unirrigated sectors has declined in fact, more so in the former than the latter
there has been a substantial increase in the yield levels in the irrigated sector, but a
sharp decrease in it in the unirrigated sector. The net result of this has been an
increase in production a rather modest one, of 0.8 percent per annum in the
irrigated sector, and a sharp decline in it of more than 2 percent per annum in the
unirrigated sector. Thus, whatever growth or modernisation has occurred in the
10. In Himachal Pradesh the irrigation ratio for the triennium 1962-65 was 17.1 percent, and for 199295 it was 17.84 percent; in Kerala the ratio had in fact declined over this period from 19.7 percent to
12.3 percent [See Bhalla and Singh, 1997].

agricultural sector in Tamil Nadu, it has been confined solely to the irrigated sector
and hence the duality between the irrigated and the unirrigated sector, if anything, has
got sharpened over time.
Table 31: Area, Yield and Production, Irrigated and Unirrigated Land:

Year
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
ACGR (%)
ADT (%)

Gross cropped area (000 Yield (in Rs per GCA Value of production (in Rs
hectares)
in 1986-87 prices
crores in 1986-87 prices
Irrigated
Unirrigated Irrigated Unirrigated
Irrigated
Unirrigated
land
land
land
land
land
land
3410
3974
5022
2455
1713
976
3530
4111
6100
2726
2153
1121
3673
4026
6422
2535
2359
1021
3674
3976
7802
2970
2866
1181
3033
3607
6731
1976
2042
713
3376
3859
6924
2638
2338
1018
3001
4146
6868
2471
2061
1024
3723
4045
7707
2934
2869
1187
3818
3866
7477
3000
2855
1160
3983
3734
7203
2501
2869
934
3294
3176
6960
1851
2293
588
3427
3482
7549
2721
2587
947
2732
3324
5377
2172
1469
722
3249
3696
6354
2378
2064
879
3506
3582
6826
1586
2393
568
3240
3579
7654
2126
2480
775
2844
3664
11781
2341
3351
858
2945
3783
7218
1687
2126
638
2873
3578
8185
1769
2352
633
3044
3778
8664
2106
2637
796
-1.1
-0.5
1.9
-1.9
0.8
-2.4
5.5
2.8
8.0
12.0
11.6
13.7

Note: 1. The averages for the trienniums at the beginning and the end of the period are
considered for calculating the annual compound growth rate (ACGR).
2. The annual average deviation from the trend (ADT) is the absolute percentage
deviation from the trend given by the three-year moving averages.

A closer look at the table also reveals that this duality between the irrigated and the
unirrigated sectors got strengthened particularly from around the mid-eighties. The ratio
of gross yield (i.e., yield per gross cropped area) on irrigated land to gross yield on the
unirrigated land showed only a mildly increasing trend, with substantial fluctuations, till
about the early or mid-eight; but witnessed a very rapid increase thereafter. And this was
largely because while the unirrigated yield declined steadily all through the period
although the decline after the early / mid-eighties appears to be of a slightly higher order
the irrigated yield which remained more or less constant with wide fluctuations, till
about the early eighties, increased steadily thereafter.

Now, what are the factors underlying this sharp increase in the irrigated yields from
around the mid-eighties onwards. How does one explain the differential performance of
these yields from around the mid-eighties compared to the earlier period? As we had
pointed out earlier the level and change for modern inputs like fertilisers, HYVs etc can
provide only a partial explanation, if at all, for this phenomenon. We had also noted
earlier that this is the period beset with problems of quality of data; given this, what we
offer below as explanation for the phenomenon should be seen as only preliminary
hypotheses and conjectures.
When we look into the ratio of gross yield (i.e., yield per gross cropped area) to net yield
(i.e., yield per net sown area) for both irrigated and unirrigated sectors we find that while
the gross yield is less than the net yield, for both irrigated and unirrigated lands, all
through this period, the gap between the two appears to have narrowed in the case of
irrigated land from around the early or mid-eighties, while in the case of unirrigated land
this gap, if anything, seems to have widened in this period. And the narrowing of the gap
in the case of irrigated areas occurred because while both gross yield and the net yield
increased. The rate of increase was higher in the former. This phenomenon is related at
least in part to shifts in area and production of foodgrains across crop seasons from
around the mid-eighties onwards [See section 4]. From around the middle of eighties till
the late eighties better quality land had been shifted from kharif to Rabi, thus leading to a
sharp increase in Rabi productivity and production. The declining yield gap on irrigated
land from the mid to late eighties noted above is commensurate with this phenomenon. It
may be noted that there was a sharp fall in the yield levels in Rabi in the nineties,
probably because poorer quality land was shifted to this season. Unfortunately we do not
have yield rates on irrigated (or unirrigated) lands for this period, and hence cannot say
whether there was any corresponding increase in the gap between net and gross yields on
the irrigated land in this period. Be that as it may, the point made above perhaps
illustrates a more general phenomenon. The period from mid-eighties onwards appears to
have witnessed a considerable degree of re-ordering and restructuring in the agricultural
sector like shifts across seasons, fallowing etc which probably are a factor underlying
the increase in irrigated yield and production, and hence of an agricultural recovery in
this period. One other manifestation of this process of reorganisation of agriculture from
the mid-eighties onwards, we had noted earlier, was the increasing tendency for area and
yield to compensate, rather than reinforce, each other. This is particularly true for paddy.
And since paddy as we shall see shortly is almost completely irrigated, it is likely that
this phenomenon is more prominent in the irrigated sector compared to the unirrigated
sector. The limited data we have on area, yield and production on irrigated and
unirrigated land from 1970-71 to 1989-90 do lend some support to this proposition. In the
period 1970-71 to 1983-84, area and yield reinforced each other in 10 out of 13 years
and compensated each other in only 3 years on irrigated lands; in the period from 198485 to 1989-90, in sharp contrast, area and yield compensated each other in all the five
years in this sector. In the unirrigated sector area and yield compensated each other 3 out
of 13 years in the first period, and 3 out of 5 years in the second period.

Now, if these reorderings in the agricultural sector which are perhaps more prominent
in its irrigated sector are a factor underlying the recovery of the agricultural sector from
around the mid-eighties, the question still remains as to the basis, if any, for these
reorderings as such. Could these be reflections of or responses to some more basic
transformations within the irrigation regime itself? Let us turn to a brief discussion of
these issues now.
9. Irrigation Levels for Different Crops:
While the irrigation regime in an overall sense in terms of gross irrigation ratio has
witnessed a high degree of stagnation in Tamil Nadu, there have been important
structural changes within the irrigation regime itself. One such important change relates
to shifts in irrigated area across different crops. We had discussed earlier these cropping
pattern shifts on irrigated and unirrigated lands, and the processes of
commercialisation and diversification associated with these shifts [See section 3]. These
shifts have also resulted in important changes over time in the irrigation ratios i.e.,
gross irrigated area as a percent of gross cropped area for different crops which in turn
have influenced the yield levels and growth performances of different crops. The data on
these irrigation ratios are given in Table 32.
A couple of points made earlier get reinforced by the table. The process of
commercialisation of the cropping pattern which as we noted earlier, was largely
confined to the irrigated sector also gets reflected in the increasing irrigation ratios for
cash crops like groundnut, cotton and other crops. It is also clear that the irrigation ratio
had also influenced the growth performance in a broad general sense: crops which have
performed better are either those with a high level of irrigation all through, or those with
an increasing irrigation ratio thus reinforcing the point we had made earlier that growth
was largely confined to the irrigated sector.
Table 32: Irrigation Ratios for Different Crops:

Crops

Food
grains

Nonfoodgrains

Rice
Coarse
cereals
Pulses
Total
Groundnut
Cotton
Others
Total

1960/61 to 1968/69
Value of GIR
At the
At the end
beginning

1960-61 to 1973-74
1969/70 to 1973/74
Value of GIR
ADT
At the
At the end
(%)
beginning

ADT
(%)

91.9
18.3

91.8 (neg)
19.3 (0.9)

0.6
3.7

91.6
17.7

92.1 (0.3)
18.3 (1.7)

0.8
1.5

2.1
54.1
11.4
25.6
25.2
22.0

1.5 (-5.5)
55.5 (0.4)
14.9 (4.6)
27.5 (1.2)
26.8 (1.0)
25.6 (2.6)

19.7
1.2
6.2
4.4
4.8
2.8

2.2
54.2
17.2
31.2
28.3
27.5

2.3 (2.2)
55.8 (1.5)
19.8 (7.3)
37.0 (8.9)
28.3 (0.0)
29.8 (4.1)

16.7
0.9
10.9
7.2
7.8
4.0

All crops

Crops
Rice
Coarse
cereals
Pulses
Total
Groundnut
NonCotton
foodOthers
grains
Total
All crops
Food
grains

44.5

1974-75 to 1983-84
Value of GIR
At the
At the end
beginning
90.6
93.8 (0.5)
17.5
13.7 (-3.4)
1.9
51.9
17.0
37.3
28.4
29.3
44.8

Crops
Rice
Coarse cereals
Pulses
Total
Groundnut
Non-food grains
Cotton
Others
Total
All crops
Food grains

46.2 (0.6)

2.2 (2.1)
52.5 (0.2)
22.7 (4.2)
42.0 (1.7)
38.3 (4.4)
36.7 (3.3)
47.2 (0.7)

1.2

ADT
(%)
1.2
3.9
12.9
3.0
7.1
5.0
5.1
2.0
2.7

46.0

47.3 (1.4)

1984-85 to 1991-92
Value of GIR
At the
At the end
beginning
92.1
91.6 (-0.1)
11.9
12.0 (0.2)
3.6
50.8
28.1
44.2
38.2
39.6
46.9

6.4 (12.2)
49.6 (-0.5)
28.2 (0.1)
35.8 (-4.1)
36.3 (-1.0)
38.2 (-0.7)
45.0 (-0.8)

1960-61 to 1991-92
Value of GIR
At the beginning
At the end
91.9
91.6 (neg)
18.3
12.0 (-1.4)
2.1
6.4 (3.9)
54.1
49.6 (-0.3)
11.4
28.2 (3.2)
25.6
35.8 (1.2)
25.2
36.3 (1.3)
22.0
38.2 (1.9)
44.5
45.0 (neg)

ADT (%)
0.9
3.2
16.2
1.9
7.0
6.4
6.9
3.0
1.8

Note: 1. Sugarcane, which is completely irrigated, has been left out.

2. The value of gross irrigation ratio (GIR) given are averages for the trienniums at the
beginning and the end of the periods. The annual compound growth rates, given in brackets, are
calculated using these values. ADT refers to annual (absolute) percentage deviation from the
trend given by the three-year moving averages.

Paddy among foodgrains and sugarcane among non-foodgrains crops with a very high
level of irrigation ratios have a good growth record; coarse cereals with a low and
declining level of irrigation have a very poor growth record; pulses, which are essentially
unirrigated crops, but have witnessed some increase in the irrigation ratio, have also
witnessed good growth. Among the cash crops increase in irrigation ratio has gone along
with an increase in yield in cotton, and a moderate growth in output in the case of
groundnut. But apart from this broad, general relationship between irrigation and growth,
the level and change in the irrigation ratio in any of the periods identified does not appear
to have any clear relationship with growth in any of the crops. Neither do instability
indices for irrigation ratios for different crops correspond to instabilities in their
production. Thus the relationship between irrigation and growth performance even at

0.9

ADT
(%)
0.9
2.7
16.5
1.9
5.0
9.9
11.0
4.1
1.8

the level of individual crops can only be a broad, general level. The phenomenon of
agricultural growth or performance at a more disaggregrated level appears to be far too
complex to be understood in terms of the behaviour any one input variable, including an
important one like irrigation. Among the other dimensions that one has to consider in
order to understand growth and transformation in agriculture is the important one of
quality of irrigation. That the quality of irrigation is an important factor is clear from the
fact that the degree of instability in area, yield or production is quite substantial even
in the case of irrigated agriculture [Table 31]. The fact that different crops have displayed
different degrees of instability in their irrigation ratios [Table 32] perhaps also indicates
that the quality of irrigation varies across crops. It appears that better quality irrigation is
earmarked for better irrigated crops like rice and sugarcane, and poorly irrigated crops
like coarse cereals and pulses as also cash crops like cotton and groundnut have to
make do with irrigation of poorer quality also.
An important determinant of the quality of irrigation is the source of irrigation. The
structural changes within the irrigation regime in Tamil Nadu in terms of the sources,
would thus have an important bearing, and hence perhaps on its growth performance. Let
us turn to this important issue now.
10. Sources of Irrigation:
The irrigation regime in Tamil Nadu has undergone important changes in terms of its
sources [Table 33]. The most striking change to be noted is the steady gains made by the
wells both in terms of net irrigated area (NIA) as well as the percentage of total net
irrigated area contributed by the source and a corresponding decline in the importance
of tanks.
Table 33: Irrigation by Different Sources:

Source

Canals

Wells

Tank

Item
NIA
Percent
of total
NIA
NIA
Percent
of total
NIA
NIA
Percent
of total
NIA

1960-61 to 1973-74
1960/61 to 1968/69
1969/70 to 1973/74
Value
Value
At the
At the end ADT
At the
At the end ADT
beginning
(%)
beginning
(%)
903
882 (-0.4)
2.2
907
933 (1.4)
1.4
36.3

35.0 (-0.6)

2.4

34.9

33.6 (-1.9)

1.8

602

691 (2.3)

2.5

762

880 (7.5)

2.2

24.2

27.5 (2.2)

3.6

29.3

31.6 (3.9)

2.6

941

902 (-0.7)

3.7

900

934 (1.9)

3.8

37.8

35.8 (-0.9)

2.5

34.6

33.6 (-1.5)

2.7

1974-75 to 1983-84
Source

Canals

Wells

Tank

Source

Canals
Wells
Tank

Item
NIA
Percent
of total
NIA
NIA
Percent
of total
NIA
NIA
Percent
of total
NIA

Value
At the
At the end
beginning
825
844 (0.3)

ADT
(%)
6.5

Value
At the
At the end
beginning
830
801 (-0.7)

ADT
(%)
5.1

33.7

33.4 (-0.1)

3.9

33.2

32.2 (-0.6)

5.9

873

977 (1.6)

2.4

1016

1132 (2.2)

3.7

35.7

38.8 (1.2)

5.7

40.7

45.4 (2.2)

1.2

715

687 (-0.6)

14.0

632

544 (-3.0)

7.6

31.9

27.0 (-2.4)

10.1

25.2

21.8 (-2.9)

6.8

Item
NIA
Percent of total NIA
NIA
Percent of total NIA
NIA
Percent of total NIA

1960-61 to 1991-92
Value
At the beginning
At the end
903
801 (-0.4)
36.3
32.2 (-0.4)
602
1132 (2.2)
24.2
45.4 (2.2)
941
544 (-1.9)
37.8
21.8 (-1.9)

ADT (%)
4.2
3.6
2.7
3.6
8.1
6.0

Note: 1. Other sources which account for less than 2 percent of the net irrigated area (NIA)
have been left out.
2. The values given are averages for the trienniums at the beginning and the end of each
period. The annual compound growth rates, given in brackets, are calculated using these values.
ADT refers to annual (absolute) percentage deviation from the trend given by the three-year
moving averages.
3. The values of net irrigated area (NIA) are in thousand hectares.

Considering the period as a whole, the net area irrigated by wells, as well as the
contribution of wells to total net irrigated area increased by more than 2 percent per
annum; and both these variables for tanks witnessed a decline of the order of close to two
percent in the same period. Since the net irrigated area as well as gross irrigated area
had remained more or less stable over the period, and since the net irrigated area under
the third major source, viz., canals had also remained largely unaltered, this would mean
that wells had largely gained at the expense of tanks. The net outcome of it all was that
by around the middle of the seventies, the irrigation regime in Tamil Nadu had undergone
a complete transformation in terms of its internal structure. Tanks, which were the most
important source to begin with, had, by then become the least important; wells, which

were the least important, next to tanks and canals to begin with, had become the most
important source of irrigation by the middle of seventies; and canals whose importance
did witness some decline over time managed to hold the middle ground accounting for
about a third of the net area irrigated all through.
While this transformation within the irrigation regime has gone on all through the period
under consideration, it appears that its pace was particularly rapid during the two phases
of rapid agricultural growth identified by us earlier, viz., the first phase of green
revolution (1969-70 to 1973-74) and the period of recovery in the agricultural sector
(1984-85 to 1991-92). In the first of these two periods, area under well irrigation
increased very rapidly; while the wells continued to gain even in the next period (1974-75
to 1983-84), the rate of increase had seen a sharp decline in this period; but this rate
appears to have picked up once again in the period of recovery, i.e., from the mideighties, although it still was much lower than the rate of increase attained in the first
phase of green revolution. But there seems to be an important difference between these
two periods: The first period, viz., 1969-70 to 1973-74, saw an all round extension of
irrigation, under all the major sources, and by the end of this period the three sources
were more or less evenly matched, each accounting for nearly a third of the net irrigated
area. The period of recovery from around the mid-eighties, in sharp contrast, is one where
only the wells gained area, mostly at the expense of tanks: by the end of this period wells
had established a clear dominance over the other two, as a source of irrigation.
There is another important point to be noted from the table and the graph. The extent of
instability within the irrigation regime is the highest for the tanks, and the least for wells.
This would perhaps imply that in terms of quality of irrigation viz., in terms of
assurance and controllability of supply well irrigation appears to be the best of the three
major sources, followed by canals, and then, tanks. It is also noteworthy that the degree
of instability which remained at a low level in the first period (1960-61 to 1973-74)
increased, rather sharply, in the next period, viz., 1984-85 onwards, the degree of
instability declined sharply in the case of tanks, but the picture was somewhat mixed in
the case of the other two sources: in the case of canals instability declined if one
considered the net irrigated area but it had shown an increase if one considered the
percentage contribution of the source to the total net irrigated area; and it was the other
way round in the case of wells. Anyway, the behaviour of some of the overall indices for
the irrigation regime like the gross irrigated area, the gross irrigation ratio, the net
irrigated area, irrigation intensity etc would indicate that the period 1974-75 to 1983-84
was the period of high instability even in this regime [Table 34].
The factors underlying the instability in the irrigation regime are perhaps too complex for
us to deal with them in any detail here; but there is one rather obvious candidate viz., the
pattern of rainfall, whose influence on the irrigation regime, and hence on agricultural
production, is worth looking into in some detail.
Table 34: Index of Instability for the Irrigation Regime:
Index of instability (ADT, Percent)

Indices in the irrigation

regime
Net irrigated area (NIA)
Gross irrigated area (GIA)
Gross irrigation ratio
Irrigation intensity

1960/61 to 1973/74
1960/61 to 1968/69
1969/70 to 1973/74
1.6
2.2
1.2
0.9

1.3
1.7
0.9
0.6

1974/75
to
1983/84
6.4
7.5
2.7
1.3

1984/85
to
1991-92
2.6
3.7
1.8
1.2

Note: 1. Irrigation intensity = GIA / NIA; gross irrigation ratio = GIA / GCA
2. Index of instability, ADT, refers to annual (absolute) percentage deviation from the trend
given by the three-year moving averages.

11. Rainfall and Irrigation:

That variability in rainfall does have an important bearing on variability in gross irrigated
area. One can identify three distinct phases more or less corresponding with the three
periods of growth performance identified earlier in the relationship between these two
variables. Till about the mid-seventies the variability in gross irrigated area was of a
relatively low order, and did not show a high degree of synchronicity with rainfall; the
period of mid-seventies to mid-eighties the period of stagnation and instability in the
agricultural sector was a period of high variability in the gross irrigated area, and there
was a high degree of responsiveness and synchronicity between rainfall and gross
irrigated area; in the period from the mid-eighties onwards the period of agricultural
recovery synchronous movement between rainfall and gross irrigated area persisted, but
the degree of variability in the latter declined, partly perhaps in response to a decline in
the variability in rainfall itself in this period.
Now, it is obvious that the behaviour of the gross irrigated area and its responsiveness
to rainfall would depend on the way the area irrigated by each of the three major
sources of irrigation would have behaved, and their responsiveness to rainfall. And each
of the three major sources displayed a different pattern in this. As one would expect,
dependence on rainfall was the highest for tank irrigation. The movement of area
irrigated by tanks was almost completely synchronous with the movement of rainfall all
through the period under consideration . And in sharp contrast, well irrigation, which has
the lowest degree of instability of the three sources of irrigation, also displayed the lowest
degree of synchronicity or responsiveness to rainfall. But it is canal irrigation which
displays the most interesting and somewhat intriguing pattern. In the period upto the
early or mid-seventies the extent of instability in canal irrigation remained low, and so
also its responsiveness to rainfall. From around the mid-seventies to mid-eighties the
period of stagnation and instability in Tamil Nadu agriculture the extent of instability in
canal irrigation was high, and it displayed a high degree of responsiveness to rainfall. In
the period after the mid-eighties while instability persisted albeit at a lower level it is
the relationship between this instability and the pattern of rainfall that is somewhat
intriguing. It appears that in this period, rainfall and area irrigated by canals, rather than
moving synchronously, mostly move in opposite directions.

1960/61
to
1991/92
3.4
4.2
1.8
1.1

The onset of this instability in canal irrigation in the state in the early seventies is perhaps
related to the inter-state dispute as yet unresolved between the state and its neighbour,
Karnataka, on sharing the waters of river Cavery. This dispute began in the early
seventies. Because of significant growth in utilisation of Cauvery waters in Karnataka
the upper riparian state since the 1970s, the quantum of availability as well as its
reliability of these waters for Tamil Nadu witnessed a significant decline from the early
1970s onwards11. And since Cauvery is the major canal irrigation system in Tamil Nadu,
this has been a factor responsible for the poor performance of the canal irrigation system
as a whole in Tamil Nadu in this period. A very poor record of rainfall12, coupled with
the poor performance of the canal system would have also affected the performance of
the other surface irrigation system, viz., tanks, which, as we noted earlier, recorded the
highest degree of instability in this period.
Now, how does one explain the rather intriguing phenomenon of area irrigated by canals
and rainfall moving in opposite directions rather than synchronously in the period
from around the mid-eighties to the beginning of the nineties? Is this phenomenon part of
a process of reordering within the agricultural sector within the irrigated sector in
particular that we had talked above earlier? We may note here that the Cauvery dispute
is still unresolved, and hence the uncertainties associated with the quantum and timing of
water release in this system continue to persist, and on an average the quantum of water
received by cultivators in the Cauvery delta in Thanjavur after the early seventies has
been of a significantly lower order compared to what they were used to earlier. By around
the mid-eighties cultivators, as well as the state government, appear to have realised that
these problems are likely to persist at least in the foreseeable future, and considerable
reordering and restructuring within the agricultural sector were set in motion to counter
these problems. In a year with poor monsoon, when these problems are likely to be
exacerbated, and normal agricultural operations particularly in paddy cultivate are
likely to be disrupted, cultivators adopted a number of strategies like: (a) shift from
paddy to pulses, groundnut etc i.e., crop diversification and commercialisation which
we had talked about earlier; (b) shift from kharif (kurvai) to Rabi (samba), which, as we
had noted earlier, set in around the mid-eighties; (c) shift to HYVs which are more
suitable to samba more blast tolerant varieties of ponni, ADT36 rather than the usual
ones like IR 50 and TKM9 etc; (d) cultivate paddy with broad casting technique replacing
transplantation etc. All these strategies are likely to lead to a lowering of the average
yield and would the extension of gross irrigated area during a year of bad monsoon be a
compensatory move on the part of cultivators to counter this likely decline in yield? We
may recall here that from around the mid-eighties area and yield movements tended to
compensate one another, unlike in the previous period when they reinforced each other,
and that this phenomenon was particularly noticeable on irrigated land.
11 For a detailed account of the history of this dispute, and a framework for its solution, see Guhan [1993].
12

The average rainfall for the first period (1960-61 to 1973-74) was 926mm, and the coefficient of
variation 11.2 percent; the corresponding figures for the second period (1974-75 to 1983-84) were 912mm
and 21.1 percent; and for the period 1984-85 to 1991-92, 833 mm and 13.2 percent. It may be noted that
the record of rainfall improved considerably in the nineties.

We may briefly summarise our discussions so far on the major structural changes that
have taken place within the irrigation regime, and their implications for the growth
process in agriculture in Tamil Nadu over the last three decades or so. The first, and
rather short, episode of rapid agricultural growth in the period 1969-70 to 1973-74,
represents the initial phase of green revolution in the state, with a rapid diffusion of
modern inputs particularly, the HYV for rice and of irrigation, well irrigation in
particular. This period of rapid growth was followed by a period of stagnation and
instability in the agricultural sector from around the mid-seventies to mid-eighties. While
the diffusion of modern inputs like fertilisers, HYVs (particularly for coarse cereals)
as well as changes within the irrigation regime replacement of tanks by wells
continued apace in this period, these factors were overshadowed, as it were, by the crisis
in irrigation, partly due to intensification of river water dispute on Cauvery with
Karnataka, and partly due to a poor record of rainfall. Agricultural recovery from around
the mid-eighties in the state is somewhat difficult to explain. If this recovery is real and
not just an illusion created by problems with the data base two broad sets of factors
seem to underlie it: The first is the rapid replacement of tank irrigation the least reliable
of the three major sources of irrigation by well irrigation. While this process had gone
on all through the period from around the sixties, the pace of this replacement was
particularly sharp in the period from the mid-eighties, and by the end of the eighties. Well
irrigation had gained an unquestioned predominance within the irrigation regime, with
tank irrigation reaching an all time low. This would provide a higher degree of
controllability for the farmers who own the wells on irrigation water compared to the
earlier periods. Well irrigation is also more intensively used compared to canals or tanks:
the average irrigation intensities (the ratio of gross irrigated area to net irrigated area) for
the period 1987-88 to 1991-92 were 118.4 percent for canals, 116.2 percent for tanks and
127.9 percent for wells. We may also note here that extension of well irrigation from the
mid-eighties has come about very largely through energisation of existing/dug wells, or
an increase in the number of tubewells [Table 35]. Faced with a depleting and receding
ground water level, this could be the response of farmers the richer among them in
particular aided by state policies like free electricity supply for agricultural use to
maintain high level, intensity and reliability of ground water use.
Table 35: Dugwells, Tubewells, Energised Wells in Tamil Nadu:

Year
1981-82
1985-86
1992-93

Electric
62715
54335
(-3.5)
81713
6.0)

Tube wells
Diesel
Total
10955
73670
8567
62902
(-6.0)
(-3.9)
20359
102072
(13.2)
(7.2)

Electric
666935
796933
(4.6)
947111
(2.5)

Dug wells
Diesel
Others
143109
788671
181117
684636
(6.1)
(-3.5)
289283
442536
(6.9)
(-6.0)

Total
1598715
1662686
(1.0)
1678930
(0.1)

Year
1981-82
1985-86
1992-93

Electric
729650
851268
(3.9)
1028824
(2.7)

All wells
Diesel
154064
189684
(5.3)
309642
(7.3)

Others
788671
684636
(-3.5)
442536
(-6.0)

Note: Figures in brackets give annual compound growth rates with respect to the previous row.
Source: Season and Crop Reports, Government of Tamil Nadu.

The second set of factors underlying agricultural recovery from around the mid-eighties
seem to be operating very largely on canal irrigated lands. They essentially relate to what
we have termed the reorderings within the agricultural sector like shifts in cultivation
across crops and seasons; fallowing; experimentations with inputs like HYVs, and with
different agricultural techniques etc. These reorderings it appears, are a response to
problems relating to uncertainties in quantum and timing of water availability on canal
irrigated lands problems, which have their genesis in the still unresolved inter-state
river water dispute.
The net result of the above was that agricultural production, which in the period from
mid-seventies to mid-eighties displayed a high degree of instability very largely in
response to vagaries of the monsoon was put on a much more even keel from around
the mid-eighties, and its instability, and responsiveness to fluctuations in monsoon, got
considerably modulated.
A couple of implications of our discussions above on the changes in the irrigation system
and their implication for agricultural production may be noted. First of all the processes
noted above, viz., growth of well irrigation and various processes of reordering, seem to
be confined solely or largely to the irrigated sector within agriculture, and hence, so
would be the process of recovery from around the mid-eighties onwards. This would
sharpen the duality between the irrigated and unirrigated sectors within agriculture a
point which we had noted earlier.
But the irrigated sector itself appears to harbour a duality within it, viz., one between
wells essentially private sources of irrigation, with intensive, controlled use of irrigation
water at one extreme, and the tanks essentially public sources with a high degree of
volatility at the other extreme; canal irrigation a public source with significant
instability, but one where a considerable degree of reordering in response to volatility
appears to have taken place perhaps falls between the two extremes.
Now, how do these dualities relate to the structure of landholding pattern in the state?
Do they tend to reinforce the inequalities engendered by a skewed landholding pattern
which, as we shall see shortly, is as much a phenomenon in Tamil Nadu as elsewhere in
the country? Is there evidence to believe that the better off sections among the cultivators
have more access to irrigation to better quality irrigation in particular? Some data

pertaining to these issues from the agricultural census of 1990-91 are summarised in
Table 36 below.
As regards overall access to irrigation, the picture is somewhat mixed. If one looks at
percentage of holdings with access to irrigation, the larger farmers13 appear to do
distinctly better than the smaller ones; but if the gross irrigation ratio (i.e., gross irrigated
area as a percent of gross cropped area) is considered, the equation gets reversed in that
the smaller size-classes have a higher value of this ratio compared to the larger ones. This
would imply that while a smaller proportion among the poorer farmers have access to
irrigation, for those among them who have such access, irrigation is carried out more
extensively covering a larger proportion of their holdings; and among the larger farmers
with access to irrigation a smaller part of the holding is covered by it.
Table 36: Some Indices on Irrigation across Different Size-classes of Landholdings in Tamil
Nadu, 1990-91

Size-class of holdings
Marginal
Small
Semi-medium
Medium
Large
All size-classes

Size-class of
holdings
Marginal
Small
Semi-medium
Medium
Large
All size-classes

Size-class of
holdings
Marginal

Access to irrigation
Percent of holdings Gross irrigation Wholly irrigated holdings as a
with irrigation
ratio
percent of irrigated holdings
43.9
51.7
87.6
49.2
45.3
63.6
54.3
43.1
50.0
60.4
42.6
39.4
62.7
36.7
32.2
46.1
45.6
78.0

Access to different sources of irrigation

Distribution of irrigated holding by
Distribution of irrigated area by source (%)
source (%)
Canals Tanks Wells Tube wells
Canals
Tanks
Wells
Tube wells
28.7
37.9
26.1
5.6
31.3
35.2
25.8
5.8
23.3
24.9
43.6
6.7
31.2
24.8
36.2
6.4
21.1
21.4
49.3
6.8
31.6
21.4
38.7
7.1
19.4
18.9
52.7
7.4
31.9
18.9
39.5
8.4
18.4
18.9
51.3
9.7
33.6
19.3
35.5
10.5
26.7
33.3
32.4
6.0
31.6
26.4
33.7
6.9
Characteristics of wells
Percent of wells (in use) which are energised
Electricity
Diesel
Total
60.8
20.7
81.5

Percent of wells
not in use
5.8

13 The agricultural census data from which the table is prepared gives data by size-class of holding, and
not by size-class of farmers. This, if anything, is likely to understate the extent of concentration in
landholding, and the inequalities in access to irrigation.

Small
Semi-medium
Medium
Large
All size-classes

69.0
73.0
78.6
80.4
67.7

18.6
17.2
13.6
12.0
18.5

87.6
90.2
92.2
92.4
86.2

3.7
3.4
3.2
3.5
4.5

Note: 1. Holdings less than a hectare are marginal; 1-2 hectares are small; 2-4 semi-medium; 4-10
medium and above10, large.
2. Other sources (accounting for less than 2 percent of irrigated area) are left out.
Source: Agricultural Census, 1990-91.

The inverse relationship between percentage of wholly irrigated holdings among the
irrigated ones on the one hand, and size-class of holdings on the other, testifies to this.
Coming to the quality of irrigation, there appears to be a clear, unambiguous relationship
between the size of holding and this aspect. The quality improves as we move to higher
size-classes. For example, wells as a whole (i.e., wells plus tube wells) account for only a
third of the holdings irrigated among marginal farmers; the corresponding proportion for
the medium and large farmer is nearly 60 percent. And a higher proportion of the wells
are energised in the case of larger farmers; and this differential is particularly sharp if
consider only wells energised by electricity. The larger farmers also have a slightly
smaller percentage of wells not in use. If we look at the irrigation source of a poorer
quality viz., tanks there appears to be a clear inverse relationship between the sizeclass and access to this source. This source accounts for close to 40 percent of the
irrigated holdings in the case of marginal farmers, while for the medium and large
farmers the corresponding proportion is less than a fifth.
In sum, a significant proportion of poorer farmers do not have any access to irrigation;
and of those who have such access, a significant proportion depend on extensive
irrigation from a poorer quality source. In contrast a high proportion of richer farmers
have access to irrigation mostly to intensive, private sources with a high degree of
controllability over water use.
While the dualities in the irrigation regime and the inequalities in landholding pattern
appear, thus, to reinforce each other, there is another important dimension regarding the
spread of irrigation across different size-classes in Tamil Nadu which should not be lost
sight of; and this refers to the rather amazing spread and diffusion of well irrigation even
among the poorer strata of peasantry in Tamil Nadu. It is clear from table 36 that even for
the small farmers those with 1-2 hectares of holding wells constitute a most important
source of irrigation: wells as a whole (i.e., wells plus tube wells) account for close to a
half of their irrigated holdings, with canals and tanks accounting for a fourth each. And it
is only for the poorest of the farmers i.e., the marginal farmers that tanks constitute
the most important source; and even in their case wells as a whole are equally important
if not, slightly more as canals. And this has an important implication regarding the very
nature of the process of agricultural transformation in Tamil Nadu.
We had noted earlier that agricultural growth, recovery and modernisation in Tamil Nadu
is based on significant changes in the composition within the irrigation system rather

than any extention of irrigation. The rapid extension of well irrigation at the expense of
tank irrigation seems to have played a major role in this process. Or in other words,
agricultural transformation in the state was largely based on what is termed the pumpset
revolution; and this is much more so compared to modernisation of the agricultural
sector in states like Punjab and Haryana [Table 37].
Table 37: Number of Pumpsets Per Thousand Hectares of Gross Cropped Area:
State
Tamil Nadu
Punjab
Haryana
All-India

1962-65
31.94
8.20
2.32
4.58

1980-83
218.82
157.69
71.50
49.16

1987
194.07
160.09
120.47
64.94

Source: Bhalla and Singh [1977: A-8].

And this would have important implications for the spread and reach of agricultural
modernisation in Tamil Nadu. Fist of all, well irrigation is likely to have a much wider
spatial reach, compared to say canal irrigation. And hence the gains from an agricultural
transformation (based on well irrigation) are likely to be distributed much more evenly
across space compared to say, a transformation based on large surface irrigation systems,
whose benefits tend to get concentrated in certain pockets. We had also noted above that
there is a significant degree of diffusion of well irrigation even among the middle and
small farmer sections in Tamil Nadu. Thus the spread and reach of modernisation of
agriculture in Tamil Nadu in spatial, and perhaps also in social terms are of a higher
order compared to most other states.
We should hasten to add that what we have said above should be viewed purely as a
relative statement; and we do not say that gains from agricultural growth in Tamil Nadu
are more or less equally distributed. As pointed out earlier, these gains have more or less
completely bypassed the unirrigated sector, and this sector would have larger
concentration of small and marginal farmers compared to the irrigated sector. And even
within the irrigated sector gains accruing to those with poorer access to productive assets
and modern inputs to well irrigation in particular would be of a lower order compared
to those who do have such access. And the former group of farmers is likely to have
significantly larger concentration of small and marginal farmers compared to the latter.
The point we are making is simply this. While certain basic dualities, differentiations and
inequalities particularly in terms of access to productive assets like land and irrigation
continue to be central to the agrarian situation in Tamil Nadu, one can also see certain
tendencies towards broad basing and diversification within the rural sector. Increasing
crop diversification, commercialisation and market orientation; increasing role of nonagricultural employment within the rural sector; significant spatial and social reach of
agricultural modernisation are some of the manifestations of this process of
diversification and broad basing.

This coexistence of inequalities, dualities and diversifications on the one hand, and a
significant degree of diversification and broad basing on the other, which happens to be
an important characteristic of Tamil Nadu agriculture, appears to be a reflection of a
similar phenomenon with respect to the asset holding patterns land holding patterns in
particular in the rural areas. Let us now turn to a brief discussion on this.
12. Aspects of Landholding:
A number of village studies conducted in different parts of Tamil Nadu have brought out
the changing caste-landownership nexus in the state. The general trend of these changes
has been a reduction in the extent and proportion of land held by the upper castes the
Brahmins in particular and the transfer of land to one or more middle or lower caste
communities in each locality or region. Thus in Appadurai, a village in Tiruchirapalli
district, there was a reduction in the amount of land owned by outsiders, especially
Brahmans, and a considerable increase in the landownership by the Muthuraja
community, a community registered as one of the backward castes, between the early
fifties and early eighties [Yanagisawa, 1996]. The studies on Slater villages five
villages which were first studied by Prof. Gilbert Slater and his students around 1916, and
resurvey a number of times by different researchers later have also documented similar
tendencies. In Gangaikondan village in Tirunelveli district the shift was from Brahmins
and Pillais to Maravars [Athreya, 1985]; in Dusi in northern Tamil Nadu it was from
Brahmins to Vanniars [Guhan and Bharathan, 1984] etc.
The socio-economic and political factors underlying these changes in the castelandownership nexus are far too complex to be dealt with here in any detail. The
differential impact of, and response to, the Great Depression by different dominant
landholding castes; professionalisation, urban-ward migration and the consequent
loosening of the hold on village by upper castes, particularly the Brahmins; the role of the
Dravidian movement in providing socio-economic and political space tot the middle and
lower castes they have all had a role to play in this change. While not dealing with
these issues in any detail, let us just note an important implication of these changes in the
caste-landownership nexus in the state. The fact that land transfer have generally been
from the upper castes from Brahmins in particular to one or more lower or middle
castes in different regions or localities has meant that Tamil Nadu unlike many other
states in the country does not have one or two dominant castes with state-wide
presence. This would also mean that the gains from agricultural modernisation would be
distributed more evenly across different caste compared to many other states.
Agricultural growth in Tamil Nadu would have a wider reach not only in spatial terms,
but also in social terms or caste terms.
Lest we give the impression that we are overstating the process of broad basing of the
caste-landownership nexus, we would hasten to add that there are clear limits to this
process; and it coexists with high levels of inequality in landownership and with
processes of agrarian differentiation. Thus, while there has been a substantial transfer of
landownership from the upper castes to middle and lower castes, access to land remains

very low for the scheduled castes [Table 38]. This is particularly true for landholdings in
higher size-classes, and for holdings with better quality irrigation like well irrigation.14
Table 38: Access to Landholding by Scheduled Castes:

Item
Marginal
Landholding by
Small
Size-class
Semi-medium
Medium
Large
Canals
Landholding by
Tanks
source of
Wells
irrigation
Tube wells
Other sources
Gross Irrigated Area
All land holdings

For SCs
49.6
34.6
22.3
12.3
5.3
33.9
41.6
25.7
30.3
31.9
32.5
29.9

Access Index
For others
Ratio of access indices
114.8
2.3
118.7
3.4
122.4
5.5
125.8
10.2
128.8
24.2
120.7
3.6
118.3
2.8
122.4
4.8
121.7
4.0
115.6
3.6
120.6
3.7
120.4
4.0

Note: 1. The access index for a group (SCs or Others) for any category of land is defined
as:
(Percentage of land in the category owned by the group)
A= -------------------------------------------------------------------- X 100.
(Percentage of total families in the group)
If the access index is less than 100, the access is poor.
2.Others refers to non-SCs / STs. Since STs account for a very small proportion
of the population in Tamil Nadu, they have been left out.
Moreover, it is not as if gains through land transfer were uniformly distributed across all
the households in the middle or lower castes to whom such transfers took place. It
appears that a section of the erstwhile tenants belonging to these castes gained land, while
another section lost the land they were cultivating because of evictions; and the transfers
very rarely touched the landless agricultural labourers who more often than not belonged
to the Scheduled Castes. In fact there is considerable evidence, from village studies, that
14 A similar phenomenon is observable in the case of caste-occupation nexus in the state. The casteoccupation nexus has got considerably loosened, and hence there is considerable broad basing of
occupational structure. But, while caste, thus, is no longer a determining factor it still remains a limiting
factor in occupational choice. For example in silk-weaving - which has grown considerably over the last
two decades there is a large scale influx of non-weaving castes, but hardly any by the scheduled castes
since skill acquisition through long-years apprenticeship becomes difficult because of continuation of
untouchability.

there is a process of differentiation at work within these middle and lower castes. While
some among them have gained land and other productive assets and moved up the
peasant hierarchy, some have lost land, land either through eviction, sale, mortgage or
subdivision over time and joined the ranks of agricultural labourers.
Underlying all these processes of differentiation and dualities in rural Tamil Nadu is the
highly skewed distribution of productive assets. Access to land which has not just
economic, but social as well as political significance in rural India continues to be very
highly restricted and unequal in Tamil Nadu [Table 39]. There are two important
characteristics of the structure of landholding in Tamil Nadu which may be noted from
the table. The first one may be called the process of marginalisation of the structure of
landholding, which in itself has two dimensions, a high and increasing proportion of
landholdings in the marginal category, and a low and declining average size of holding in
this category. Over the two decades, from 1970-71 to 1990-91, the number of marginal
holdings increased by 87 percent in the state; while they accounted for nearly 60 percent
of the total holdings in 1970-71, this proportion had increased to close to 3/4th by 199091. In 1990-91 this proportion in the state at three-fourths was significantly higher
than the corresponding figure of around 60 percent for the country as a whole. In fact,
of the major states in the country, only Kerala had a significantly higher proportion 92.6 percent of its holdings in the marginal category, and three other states at just about
the same level Bihar (76.6 percent), Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal (73.8 percent
each).
Table 39: Distribution of Operational Holdings across Size-classes:

Size-class
Marginal
Small
Semi-medium
Medium
Large
All-size classes

1970-71
Tamil Nadu
No of holdings (000)
Area (000 ha)
3125 (58.8)
1322 (17.1)
1109 (20.9)
1578 (20.5)
696 (13.1)
1914 (24.8)
325 (6.1)
1893 (24.6)
59 (1.1)
1003 (13.0)
5314 (100.0)
7710 (100.0)

1979-80
Tamil Nadu
No of holdings (000)
Area (000 ha)
5015 (69.7)
1907 (24.7)
1209 (16.8)
1710 (22.2)
658 (9.2)
1822 (23.6)
269 (3.7)
1555 (20.2)
40 (0.6)
714 (9.3)
7191 (100.0)
7708 (100.0)

1990-91
Size-class
Marginal
Small
Semi-medium
Medium
Large
All-size classes

Tamil Nadu
No of holdings (000)
Area (000 ha)
5848 (73.1)
2118 (28.3)
1275 (15.9)
1794 (24.0)
617 (7.7)
1687 (22.6)
228 (2.9)
1301 (17.4)
31 (0.4)
574 (7.7)
7999 (100.0)
7474 (100.0)

All-India
No of holdings (000)
62106 (59.0)
19971 (19.0)
13913 (13.2)
7630 (7.2)
1667 (1.6)
105286 (100.0)

Average size of holdings (ha)

Area (000 ha)

24615 (14.9)
28707 (17.3)
38348 (23.2)
45049 (27.2)
28885 (17.4)
165603 (100.0)

Size-class
Marginal
Small
Semi-medium
Medium
Large
All-size classes

1970-71
Tamil Nadu
0.42
1.42
2.75
5.82
17.00
1.45

1979-80
Tamil Nadu
0.38
1.41
2.77
5.78
17.97
1.07

1990-91
Tamil Nadu
0.36
1.41
2.74
5.71
18.52
0.93

Note: Less than 1 ha is marginal; 1-2 ha small; 2-4 semi-medium; 4-10 medium; 10 and above
large.
Source: Different Agricultural Census.

As for the other dimension of this process of marginalisation, viz., the low and declining
size of marginal holdings, this average size in 1990-91, at 0.36 hectares, was one of the
least in the country, with only Kerala having a lower figure (0.18 hectare). The net upshot
of these two processes a high and increasing proportion of marginal holding, and a low
and declining average size of marginal holdings is the high and increasing
fragmentation of the overall landholding structure in the state. The total number of
holdings in the state increased by about 50 percent between 1970-71 and 1990-91, almost
the whole of this increase being accounted for by the increase in the number of marginal
holdings. The overall average size of the holding also declined by about a third over this
period, again, it appears, largely because of the decline in the average size of marginal
holdings. In fact in 1990-91, the overall average size of holding in Tamil Nadu at 0.93
hectare was considerably lower than the corresponding all-India figure of 1.57 hectares,
and was one of the lowest in the country again, with only Kerala having a considerably
lower average (0.33 ha), and Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal having slightly lower
averages (at 0.90 hectares in both). It may be worth noting that the two northern states
with a high level of agricultural modernisation viz., Punjab and Haryana have a much
lower level of marginalisation and fragmentation of the landholding structure. In 199091, the marginal holdings accounted for only 26.5 percent and 40.7 percent of total
holding in Punjab and Haryana respectively; the average size of marginal holding was
0.56 hectare and 0.47 hectare respectively; and the average size of all holdings was 3.61
hectares and 2.43 hectares respectively. Thus it appears that Tamil Nadu is a state
perhaps the only state where relatively high levels of agricultural modernisation as
well as broadbasing and diversification coexist with high levels of marginalisation and
fragmentation of the landholding structure.
The second important characteristic of the landholding structure in Tamil Nadu is that
concentration of landholding continues to be high. Even though the extent of
concentration has declined over the seventies and eighties, in 1990-91, the top 3.3 percent
of the holdings those belonging to the medium and large size-class, i.e., operating 4 or
more hectares of land account for a fourth of the operated area; and the top tenth
household those with holding sizes of semi-medium (2-4 hectares) and above account
for nearly half the operated area. In fact, according to the Agricultural Census of 199091, the Gini coefficient for the distribution of land in Tamil Nadu was 0.761 and it was

All-India
0.40
1.44
2.76
5.90
17.33
1.57

the highest among the major states in the country15 . We may note that even this figure is
likely to understate the extent of concentration of productive assets, partly because, as
noted by earlier, the Agricultural Census, which gives data holding-wise and not
household-wise, is likely to understate land concentration, and partly also due to the fact
that the extent of concentration of productive assets other than land is likely to be
higher16.
Marginalisation of holdings has continued even during the first half of the 1990s as well.
Available Agricultural Census data (1995-96) indicates that the overall average size of
the holding has fallen further to 0.1 hectares. Number of marginal holdings has increased
from 73 to 74 per cent of the total holdings in the state. Concentration of land holding has
also increased during this period. Without any reduction in their area, the top few holders
in the state have reduced in numbers.
Table: Number and Extent of Holdings by Size Class, Tamil Nadu, 1995-96
S.No Size Class
Number
of Extent
of Average Size
holdings
Holdings
1
Marginal
5951104
2210343
0.37
2
Small
1233836
1721288
1.39
3
Semi-medium
600833
1622810
2.7
4
Medium
199791
1134853
5.68
5
Large
26268
613910
23.37
6
Total
8011832
7303206
0.91
In sum, it appears that while some correlates of rural power structure like the caste
landownership nexus have got modified, and perhaps become weaker and less rigid
over time, the persistence of high levels of concentration in landownership and in the
ownership of productive assets would also imply that there has hardly been any basic,
fundamental change in the power structure in rural Tamil Nadu.
13. Concluding Observations:
The agricultural sector in Tamil Nadu is relatively more modernised, commercialised,
diversified and broadbased compared to many other states, and has witnessed a moderate
rate of growth. And these changes, and the growth, seem to have come about in a context
where the expansion of basic productive forces has been only at a moderate level. Thus,
15 The data on Gini coefficients is taken from Hirway and Mahadevia [1996], table 7; P WS-93.
16 Ramachandrans detailed village study, of Gokilapuram a village in Kumbum Valley, a vanguard
agricultural area in the state done in the late seventies very clearly demonstrates this: Major and medium
landlords in the village viz., those who own and control the largest landholdings in the village and do not
participate in the major manual operations on the land accounting for about 3 percent of the households in
the village owned 33 percent of the total extent of crop land and cultivated 35 percent but owned 67 percent
of surface-irrigated land and operated 58 percent of it; owned 50 percent and operated 36 percent of
ground-water irrigated land, and owned and operated 23 percent of unirrigated land; these household
accounted for 79 percent of the other agricultural assets in the village. [Ramachandran, 1990:74].

in the case of an all important productive force viz., irrigation capacity as a whole
there has hardly been any expansion, in that gross irrigated area has virtually remained
stagnant over the last three decades or so. Even in the case of overall capital formation in
agriculture Tamil Nadus record does not appear to be good. While we do not have the
data on this issue from the 1991 Debt and Investment Survey as yet, the date from the
1931 survey summarised in table 40 below clearly bring this out. In a context like
this, it is basically through internal structural changes as in the irrigation regime or
through processes of reorderings, diversification etc within it that the agricultural sector
in the state has got modernised, and has registered a moderate growth over the last three
decades or so. Thus, the agricultural sector in the state appears to be an efficient one in
so far as utilisation of existing productive forces and capacities is concerned; but it
appears to have done poorly in terms of accumulation of productive forces.
This poor performance in terms of accumulation of productive forces in the states
agricultural sector may in fact be related to the other major characteristic of the sector,
viz., the persistence of sharp dualities and differentiations within the sector, particularly
in terms of the structure of land and asset distributions. In a context like this, surplus
generated through agricultural modernisation and growth is likely to be concentrated in
the hands of better off sections of farmers, and there is some evidence that this surplus is
increasingly diverted to non-agricultural activities, both productive and speculative, in
rural as well as urban areas [Harris White and Janakarajan, 1997].
Table 40: Private Fixed Capital Formation in Agriculture, 1981-82:
Item

Tamil
Nadu

India

1. Total capital expenditure per cultivator (Rs)

732 (12)

823

2. Fixed capital formation in agriculture per

cultivator (Rs)

164 (9)

176

3. Irrigation

64 (7)

46

4. Land improvements

29 (7)

26

States which are ahead of

Tamil Nadu
Punjab (2336), Haryana (1772),
Kerala (1671), J and K (1357),
Karnataka (1261), Rajasthan
(985), Maharastra (975), UP
(865), HP (829), AP (841),
Gujarat (732).
Punjab (915), Haryana (652),
Gujarat (322), AP (187), UP
(178),
Maharastra
(304),
Karnataka (253), Rajasthan
(234).
Haryana (156), Maharastra
(139), Gujarat (108), Punjab
(94), Rajasthan (90), AP (68).
Karnataka (88), Punjab (76),
Maharastra (63), Kerala (33),
Gujarat (32), Haryana (32).

Components of
fixed
capital
formation Rs 5. Agricultural improvements
per cultivator

6. Farm buildings

57 (10)

82

5 (13)

12

Punjab (631), Haryana (439),

Gujarat (175), UP (122),
Rajasthan (99), Karnataka (83),
Maharastra (81), AP (78), MP
(72).
Only Bihar (3), Gujarat (3) and
MP (4) have lower values;
Orissa has the same value (5);
Punjab has the highest value
(83).

Note: Figures in brackets for Tamil Nadu give the rank of the state among 17 major states; and
for other states the actual value of the item concerned.
Source: All-India Debt and Investment Survey 1981-82.

While state policies either through direct investment or heavy subsidisation of inputs,
including free electricity for agricultural use from 1990 onwards in the state17 would have
played a central role in this process of agricultural modernisation, there are obvious limits
to such intervention strategies, in that the state cannot continue to do so without
engendering a fiscal crisis. The unwillingness and inability of the state to bring about a
radical land reform programme which would have broadbased the process of
modernisation and growth, or to tax the rural rich, who are the main beneficiaries from
state intervention in agriculture, should be seen as major failures on its part.
And this leads us to two important issues: The first is the issue of sustainability of the
process of modernisation and growth in the agricultural sector in Tamil Nadu,
sustainability of the recovery that set in around the mid-eighties in particular. How far
can this growth or recovery can be sustained purely on the basic of reorderings within
the agricultural sector, in the absence of significant additions to productive forces is
debatable. It is particularly so in the case of the irrigated sector, where the limits to
internal, structure changes within the sector that have been at work, it appears, have been
reached in terms of over-mining on groundwater; and the drying up of the major surface
irrigation source, viz., tanks, in the state 21. Extension and efficient use of productive
resources would necessitate appropriate fiscal policies like taxing the rural rich who are
the major beneficiaries of the subsidies offered; as also appropriate institutional
mechanisms for restoration, repair, maintenance and efficient distribution irrigation water
from surface sources, from tanks in particular, and for a planned and controlled use of
groundwater.

17 It is estimated that the three major subsidies, viz., fertilizer, electricity and canal irrigation account for
Rs 405 crores, Rs 643 crores and 161 crores respectively in Tamil Nadu in 1992-93. The corresponding
figures for the country as a whole are: 6136 crores, 7395 crores and 3420 crores [Acharya, 1997]. These
three subsidies together account for nearly 15 percent of the income originating in agriculture in Tamil
Nadu; the corresponding percentage for all-India is significantly lower at 10%. On the other hand, public
investments in irrigation declined by 3.7 percent per annum in Tamil Nadu during 1980-90; the
corresponding figure for the country as a whole was 1.7 percent (decline per year) [Dhawan and Yadav,
1995].

These policies, noted above, would also have important implications for the second major
issue to be dealt with, viz., the distribution of the gains from agricultural growth. Even
though the process of diversification and growth in Tamil Nadu appears to be relatively
more broad based compared to many other states, the fact that deep-seated, basic dualities
and differentiations do persist would imply that these gains would be very unevenly
distributed18. And in the absence of a major change in the pattern of distribution of
productive assets of land in particular there is unlikely to be a major dent on the
massive problem of rural poverty in the state. But before we turn to a discussion on these
issues, let us briefly discuss the other major productive sector in the state, viz., industry
and infrastructure.
IV. INDUSTRY AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
Going by indices like number of factories, employment, value added etc, Tamil Nadu
happens to be among the relatively more industrialised states in India. [Table 41].
Table 41: Some Indices on the level of Industrialisation in Tamil Nadu:
Item

Year

No of registered working
No of
factories
establishments
No of registered SSI
units
Employment in
registered manufacturing
factories (000)
Employment
Percentage of workers in
manufacturing
Percentage of workers in
household industry

June, 1993

Tamil
Nadu
14627

1993

160527

June, 1993

903.1

8574.3

1991

14.0

10.2

1991

3.5

2.4

1970-71

75

57

1980-81

254

175

1985-86

463

306

1992-93

1275

812

1980-81

158.6

100.0

Value added

Net value added by

manufacturing factory
sector per capita (Rs in
current prices)

India

States which are ahead of

Tamil Nadu
206674 Bihar (43015), Maharastra
(25070), A.P (21028),
Gujarat (16048)
1772485 U.P (268345), M.P (220356)
Maharastra (1256.0)

West Bengal (16.0), Gujarat

(15.9), Kerala (14.2)
West Bengal (3.9)
Maharastra (167), Gujarat
(108), West Bengal (97)
Maharastra (476), Gujarat
(334), Haryana (268)
Maharastra (857), Gujarat
(574), Haryana (470)
Maharastra (1995), Gujarat
(1891), Punjab (1411)
Punjab (207.3)

18 For a detailed account of these issues for Tamil Nadu agriculture till the middle of seventies see Kurien
[1981]. Madras Institute of Development Studies [1988] extends some of the analysis done by Kurien uptill
about the mid-eighties.

Infrastructure

Relative infrastructure
development index

1985-86

148.5

100.0

1992-93

143.3

100.0

Punjab (205.8), Kerala

(149.2)
Punjab (191.6), Kerala
(153.2)

Source: 1. CMIE (1996): Indias Industrial Sector.

2. Census of India (1991).

In terms of per capita net value added by the manufacturing sector, Tamil Nadu ranks
fourth among the major states in the country, next to Maharastra, Gujarat and Punjab. Of
the two states, viz., Maharastra and Gujarat, which, on the basis of value added per
capita, have displayed a higher level of industrialisation than Tamil Nadu, only Gujarat
ranks above Tamil Nadu in terms of the percentage of workers in (manufacturing)
industry (as per the 1991 census data); and neither of these two states is ahead of Tamil
Nadu in terms of proportion of workers in household industry; where Tamil Nadu ranks
second, next only to West Bengal. Similarly, while both Maharastra and Gujarat have a
larger number of registered factories than Tamil Nadu, the number of registered small
scale industrial units is higher in Tamil Nadu compared to these two states. And in terms
of an overall index of infrastructural development19, Tamil Nadu is ahead of both these
states, ranking third, next to Punjab and Kerala.
We may just recall here that going by the level of yield or the extent of use of modern
inputs, Tamil Nadu also has a relatively more modernised agricultural sector compared to
most of the states in the country, only Punjab and Haryana appearing to be consistently
ahead of the state in this respect. Thus in overall terms, taking into account the different
sectors of the economy, the process of modernisation appears to be more broad based in
the state compared to most other states in the country: it has a relatively more modernised
and commercialised agricultural sector; it has a relatively high level of industrialisation
and infrastructural development, with a relatively better mix of modern industry, the
small scale sector and household industries it agricultural growth has a relatively better
spatial spread; its industrial sector too has a better spatial spread compared to states like
Maharastra and Gujarat20 and it has a relatively high level of urbanisation with a good
spatial spread of urban centres.
1. Growth Performance of the Industrial Sector:
Table 42 below gives the index numbers of industrial production at constant (1960)
prices for Tamil Nadu and India for the period 1960 to 1993-94.
Table 42: Index Number of Industrial Production with 1960 as the Base for Tamil Nadu
and India, 1960 to 1993-94:

19. This index, which gives the level of development of general infrastural facilities in each state with the
all-India as the base, is developed by the CMIE. The index is developed taking into account 13 different
indicators relating to (a) transport facilities (b) energy consumption (c) irrigation facilities (d) banking
facilities (e) communication infrastructure (f) educational facilities and (g) health facilities. For details see:
CMIE: Profiles of States, March 1997.
20 For details on the industrial spread in the state, see Rukmani

Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977

Tamil Nadu
100.0
110.4
117.2
123.4
134.2
148.6
148.1
158.3
163.3
172.8
182.5
218.5
222.1
213.5
233.8
233.6
251.1
261.2

India
100.0
108.3
118.7
128.4
139.4
152.3
151.8
149.9
159.5
170.8
179.1
187.1
198.1
198.9
202.5
213.5
239.4
247.7

Year
1978
1979
1980
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94

Tamil Nadu
299.5
315.2
333.1
350.6
378.5
433.4
421.7
491.7
529.9
542.0
578.4
641.9
664.7
693.0
721.4
691.2
679.0

India
264.7
267.8
270.0
275.5
301.1
310.7
331.7
360.1
391.5
427.3
458.4
498.4
541.0
585.7
589.3
603.0
639.1

Note: 1. The series for Tamil Nadu has been obtained by linking different series of index
numbers of industrial production with different base years, as given in different volumes of the
Economic Appraisal.
2. The series for India is taken from CMIE (1996): Indias Industrial Sector.

Considering the period 1960 to 1993-94 as a whole, the performance of the industrial
sector in Tamil Nadu appears to be somewhat better than all-India. if we compare the
averages for the trienniums at the beginning and the end of this period, the index of
industrial production in Tamil Nadu grew at an annual compound growth rate of around
6.0 percent, the corresponding growth rate for all-India being around 5.5 percent. It is
also clear that till about the late seventies the growth pattern in industry in Tamil Nadu
was more or less similar to the all-India pattern, but a divergence between these patterns
appears to have set in after that.
First, the growth pattern till about the late seventies in Tamil Nadu is similar to the allIndia pattern, although the annual growth rate on an average is higher, and exhibits a
higher degree of fluctuation, in Tamil Nadu compared to all-India during this period. But
the two patterns appear to diverge after that. In Tamil Nadu, after a steep fall in the
growth rate around the early seventies, a recovery sets in around the middle and late
seventies, and a reasonably high growth rate is maintained till about the mid-eighties,
after which the growth rate witnesses a steady decline. In the country as a whole on the
other hand, the recovery in the mid-seventies is followed by a recession in the late
seventies which appears to be absent in Tamil Nadu after which a recovery in growth
rate sets in, and the later half of eighties a steady, high growth rate is maintained unlike
in Tamil Nadu where a decline in growth rates is observed in this period. The early
nineties witnessed a fall in growth rates in both Tamil Nadu and India.

The second point to note is that till about the early eighties, the growth rate on an average
was higher in Tamil Nadu compared to all-India, and the situation got reversed after the
early eighties. If we divide the whole period under consideration (viz., 1960 to 1993-94)
into two segments, the first extending from 1960 to 1982-83 and the second from 198384 to 1993-94, in the first sub-period, growth rate in Tamil Nadu was higher than the allIndia rate in 14 years, and lower than the all-India rate in 8 years; and in sharp contrast in
the later sub-period Tamil Nadu had a higher growth rate only in 3 years and a lower rate
in as many as eight years. If we compare the averages for the trienniums at the beginning
and the end of each sub-period, the annual compound growth rate in the first sub-period
(i.e., 1960 to 1982-83) was 6.2 percent, and it declined to 4.7 percent in the second subperiod (i.e., from 1983-84 to 1993-94); the corresponding all-India growth rates were 4.9
percent and 6.8 percent respectively. Thus, while the growth process seems to have
decelerated from an above all-India average rate to a below-average rate in Tamil
Nadu between the two sub-periods21, the reverse seems to have happened in the country
as a whole.
2. Factors underlying Industrial Growth in Tamil Nadu:
The two points made above may provide certain clues regarding the factors underlying
industrial growth in Tamil Nadu. If nothing else, these points should help us dispel an
important misconception regarding the factors underlying industrial growth in the state. It
is often argued that from around the middle or late sixties, Tamil Nadu lost out in terms
of its industrial performance in that having kept up a creditable record of growth till then,
the industrial sector slipped, from then on, to a below-average performance compared to
industrial performance at the all-India level.
And the major reason for this is seen to be political. It has been argued that, since 1967,
when the Congress Party lost power in the state to the DMK, the Congress-dominated
Centre began to discriminate against Tamil Nadu, not giving it its due share of public
sector projects and industrial licenses22. Given that the industrial growth pattern in the
state was broadly similar to the all-India pattern till about the late seventies, and that the
growth performance in Tamil Nadu, on an average, was better compared to all-India,
such a view, it is obvious, is misconceived.
The fact that till about the late seventies the pattern of industrial growth in Tamil Nadu
was similar to the pattern at the all-India level, would point to the possibility that a
similar set of factors perhaps underlie the growth performance of the industrial sector in
the state as well as the country as a whole at least upto this period.
State induced, import-substituting industrialisation strategy leading to rapid industrial
growth until around the mid-sixties; the crisis around the mid-sixties partly due to poor
21 This is broadly in line with the pattern of behaviour of income originating in the secondary sector in the
state, the data on which were given in table 18 earlier. But the growth rates for the index of industrial
production in the state were significantly higher, in each of the two sub-periods, compared to the growth
rates for income originating in the secondary sector in the state. We have no explanation for this
discrepancy.
22 . MIDS [1988] gives a detailed refutation of this argument.

performance of the agricultural sector; deceleration in the growth of public investments;

the poor performance in crucial infrastructures like power all these factors which
moulded the performance of the industrial sector at the all-India level seem to have had a
role in industrial growth or stagnation in Tamil Nadu as well.
The fact that a similar set of factors would have moulded the industrial growth process in
the state as well as in the country perhaps would point to structural changes in the
industrial sector, so that the sector as a whole got increasingly integrated with the allIndia production structure over time. Let us look into this aspect in some detail.
3. Structure of the Industrial Sector in Tamil Nadu:
Considering the period of three decades from around the early sixties to early nineties
as a whole, the factory sector in Tamil Nadu has indeed witnessed a significant structural
change. The weight within sector of what may be called the traditional industries has
declined (Table 43) and there has been a corresponding increase in the importance of
what may be termed the modern industries.

Table 43: Net Value Added by Factory Sector by Major Industry Groups, Tamil Nadu:
(Rs lakhs in current prices)
Industry Group
1962
1982-83
1989-90
1993-94 Industries included in the
group
Textiles
3894
24575
91466
206544 Cotton textiles: wool, silk
(34.0)
(14.0)
(19.4)
(20.9)
and man-made textiles;
textile products.
Agro-based
2173
21590
73887
144909 Food products: beverage
(19.0)
(12.3)
(15.7)
(14.7)
and tobacco; wood and its
products; paper and its
Traditional
products and publishing.
Industries
Leather
282
4399
13022
57885
Leather and its products.
(2.5)
(2.5)
(2.8)
(5.9)
Minerals
610
20332
47689
126432 Coal: non-metallic mineral
(5.3)
(11.6)
(10.1)
(12.8)
products; rubber plastic,
petroleum etc.
Total
6959
70896
226064
535770
(60.7)
(40.5)
(47.9)
(54.2)
Chemical
901
23658
39941
84418
Basic chemicals.
(7.8)
(13.5)
(8.5)
(8.5)
Metals and
236
6846
9563
20380
Metals and alloys.
Alloys
(2.1)
(3.9)
(2.0)
(2.1)
Modern
Electricity
443
16666
69168
116449 Electricity,
gas,
nonIndustries
(33.9)
(9.5)
(14.7)
(11.8)
conventional energy.

Manufacturing

2277
(19.9)

53931
(30.8)

117655
(24.9)

215494
(21.8)

Total

3857
(33.7)
641
(5.6)
11457
(100.0)

101101
(57.8)
2925
(1.7)
174922
(100.0)

236327
(50.1)
9515
(2.0)
471906
(100.0)

436741
(44.2)
15801
(1.6)
988312
(100.0)

Others
All Industries

Machinery and equipments

transport
equipments;
metal
products;
other
manufacturing.
Repair of capital goods;
repair services; others.

Source: Economic Appraisal of Tamil Nadu.

Thus over this period there is reason to believe that industrial sector in the state has got
increasingly integrated into the all-India production structure. Within the traditional
industries the importance of textiles and agro-based industries has declined considerably,
while that of minerals and leather has increased. Within the modern sector, energy viz.,
electricity generation has registered a sharp increase in its importance; the engineering
industries (what we have termed manufacturing in the table) have also registered an
increase, although of a modest order over this period.
It is also worth noting from the table that this process of diversification into the modern
industrial sector in the state was very rapid from the early sixties to the early eighties,
when the process seems to have exhausted itself: in fact there was a reversal of the trend
from around the early eighties in that the importance of modern industries in the
industrial structure of the state in fact declined in this period. Thus, between 1962 and
1982-83, the weight of traditional industries declined very sharply, from around 60
percent to 40 percent; within the traditional industrial sector the decline was particularly
sharp for textiles (from 34 percent to 14 percent), and for agro-based industries (from
19.0 percent to 12.3 percent), while the weight of minerals went up (from 3.3 percent to
11.6 percent, largely due to the setting up of Neyveli Lignite factory). The weight of
modern industries in the same period increased from around one-third to nearly 60
percent; the increase within this sector was particularly noteworthy for the engineering
industries, chemicals and electricity. The decades of early eighties to early nineties
provides a sharp contrast to the two preceding decades: the weight of traditional
industries increased from around 40 percent to 54.2 percent during this period (i.e., from
1982-83 to 1993-94), and the weight of modern industries declined from around 58
percent to 44 percent; the decline was particularly noticeable in the case of engineering
industries and chemicals.
The net upshot of this is that even by the early or mid-nineties the traditional industries
continued to have a very strong presence within the overall industrial structure of Tamil
Nadu, accounting for more than half of the net value added within the factory sector. In
fact in comparison with Maharastra or Gujarat or even with the country as a whole
the weight of traditional industrial sector is of a significantly higher order in Tamil Nadu
around the early-nineties [Table 44].

Table 44: Net Value Added by Factory Sector by Major Industrial Groups, 1992-93:
(Rs crores in current prices)
Industry Group
Tamil Nadu
Maharastra
Gujarat
India
Textiles
1421 (19.5)
1352 (8.3)
676 (8.4)
6756 (9.5)
Agro-based
904 (12.4)
1453 (9.0)
404 (5.0)
8985 (12.6)
Traditional
Leather
305 (4.2)
38 (0.2)
1 (neg)
607 (0.9)
Industries
Minerals
851 (11.7)
1382 (8.5)
1864 (23.2)
7938 (11.1)
Total
3481 (47.7)
4225 (26.1)
2945 (36.6)
24286 (34.1)
Chemicals
618 (8.5)
3689 (22.8)
2786 (34.7)
10752 (15.1)
Metals and
167 (2.3)
1120 (6.9)
396 (4.9)
6434 (9.0)
Modern
Alloys
Industries
Electricity
703 (9.6)
2190 (13.5)
1011 (12.6)
12424 (17.4)
Manufacturing 2064 (28.3)
4366 (26.9)
781 (9.7)
15383 (21.6)
Total
3552 (48.6)
11365 (70.1)
4974 (61.9)
44993 (63.1)
Other industries
270 (3.7)
620 (3.8)
119 (1.5)
1969 (2.8)
All industries
7303 (100.0) 16210 (100.0)
8038 (100.0)
71248 (100.0)
Source: CMIE (1996): Indias Industrial Sector.

Thus it appears that from around the early sixties to early eighties the period in which
the industrial sector in Tamil Nadu performed better than all-India rapid diversification
to modern industries provided the basis for growth; with the exhaustion, or even a
reversal, of this process of diversification, growth also seems to have slackened from
around the early eighties onwards. There are certain fundamental factors relating to state
policies, the nature of entrepreneurship etc, which we believe, underlie the above
phenomenon. We have only some broad, general observations to provide regarding these
factors. But before we do that let us note that the discussions on diversification above was
confined to what is termed the factory sector. The non-factory sector consisting of small
and tiny industrial units, household industries etc has been left out of the discussions so
far. In the absence of ready availability of reliable data on this sector, what is given below
on the non-factory sector, should be considered rather impressionistic and preliminary.
4. Small Scale Sector and Household Industries:
Table 45 below gives the number of registered small scale industrial units in Tamil
Nadu, by type of industry for 1982-83 and 1992-93.
Even though the number of registered small scale industrial (SSI) units is not an
appropriate index of the strength of the small scale industrial sector, the sharp increase
at the rate of 13 percent per annum in this number over the period 1982-83 to 1992-93,
would be a pointer, we suppose, of the rapid growth of the small scale sector during this
period.
Table 45: Industry-wise Classification of Registered SSI (Permanent) Units, Tamil Nadu:
Industry Group

No of SS units registered No of units registered Percentage change

in 1982-83
in 1992-93
(ACGR %)

Textiles
Agro-based
Traditional
Leather
Industries
Minerals
Total
Chemicals
Metals and
Modern
Alloys
Industries Manufacturing
Total
Other Industries
All Industries

6137 (13.2)
11580 (25.0)
1042 (2.2)
4831 (10.4)
23590 (50.9)
7142 (15.4)
1551 (3.3)

29975 (19.0)
38852 (24.6)
4525 (2.9)
15069 (9.5)
88421 (56.0)
13187 (8.4)
3298 (2.1)

17.2
12.9

12297 (26.5)
20990 (45.3)
1798 (3.9)
46378 (100.0)

45856 (29.0)
62341 (39.5)
7130 (4.5)
157892 (100.0)

14.1
11.5
14.8
13.0

12.0
14.1
6.3
7.8

Source: Tamil Nadu An Economic Appraisal 1985-86; and 1993-94.

It is also noteworthy that the phenomenon of a decline in the weight of the modern
industrial sector observed in the factory sector during this period, is present in the small
scale sector also, but not to the same degree. In fact the engineering industries (what is
termed manufacturing in the table) whose weight had declined in the factory sector,
witnessed a very sharp growth their number growing at 14.1 percent per annum in the
small scale sector.
As for the household industries, handlooms accounting for more than half of the
workers in household industries constitute the most important industry in this sector.
But there is a decline in its importance over time [Table 46], largely due to the fierce
competition by the power looms. But within this pattern of overall decline there are two
important points to be noted.
Firstly, the handloom industry in the state like in many other parts of the country has
displayed a surprisingly high degree of tenacity, and an ability to survive as a major
segment of industry and as an important employer, despite the heavy odds faced by it.
The tenacity, or the ability of the sector to survive, however precariously, has often been
ascribed to its flexibility, its ability to find a niche for itself. Through appropriate
modifications of its product-mix, technology etc, in the ever-changing and emerging
markets for its products. This flexibility in turn has often been seen as the outcome of a
number of other inter-related characteristics of the sector: (a) the organisational structure
of the industry; the elaborate, complex organisational structure of the industry with the
putting-out system as its core has provided the industry an ability to tap the market
signals and adopt the production process the technology, the product-mix etc to the
needs of the market; (b) a considerable degree of spatial specialisation and concentration
which facilitate such flexibility; (c) the ability of the industry to pass the burden on to the
direct producer i.e., the weaver and (d) state intervention in the form of input subsidies,
reservation of products to be produced exclusively by this sector, encouragement to
formation of co-operatives23.
23 For a detailed of handloom industry in Tamil Nadu, see Bharathan (1988).

Table 46: Number of Cotton and Silk Handlooms in Tamil Nadu:

Year
1961

Cotton
589925 (100)

1973

409474 (69)

1987-88

314963 (53)

Silk
Source of data
20650 (100) Census of India (1961): Handlooms in Madras State;
Vol IX; Madras; Part XI- A.
26930 (130) Handloom Census, 1973; Director of Handlooms and
Textiles; Government of Tamil Nadu.
59967 (290) Census of Handlooms in India, 1987-88; Ministry of
Textiles; Government of India.

The other point to note about the handloom sector in Tamil Nadu is that while the number
of cotton handlooms has witnessed a sharp decline over the last three decades if not
earlier the number of silk handlooms, in sharp contrast, has witnessed a sharp increase
over this period. This increase has very largely occurred in the northern tract in and
around a medium sized town called Arni of the state. The factors underlying this
growth are many, and complex: sharp agrarian differentiation which, at one end provided
a local market for silk sarees which sustained the industry in its initial phase, and at the
end created distress conditions for the poor peasantry which facilitated their shift to silkweaving; the organisational structure of the industry which played a key role in tapping
and transmitting market signals and in the process of skill transmission; the locational
advantage of Arni and its environs in being close to Kancheepuram, the traditional silkweaving centre in the state, all these have played their role in this phenomenon24.
5. Concluding Observations:
Let us now summarise our discussions so far on the nature and growth of the industrial
sector in Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu is one of the more industrialised states in the country;
it has a relatively better mix of large, small and household industries; traditional
industries like textiles, leather etc play an important role in its industrial structure; and
its industries also have a better spatial spread compared to other industrialised states like
Maharastra, Gujarat and West Bengal. The factory sector in the state witnessed rapid
diversification towards modern industries from the early sixties to early eighties; but this
process seems to have been reversed in the next decade, i.e., from around the early
eighties to early nineties. The decades of diversification were also the decades when the
industrial growth rate in the state was high, and the reversal of this trend was co terminus
with the slackening of the growth process. But this latter period (early eighties to early
nineties) seems to have witnessed rapid growth in the small scale industrial sector even
among the engineering industries in this sector indicating thereby that the reversal in
the trend towards diversification to modern industries and the slackening of the growth
process in this decade is a phenomena confined to the factory sector.
While handlooms the major household industry in the state has witnessed a
considerable decline, it has displayed a significant degree of tenacity to survive as a

24 For details, see Nagaraj, et al [1996].

major industry in the state; and at least one segment of it silk weaving has witnessed
rapid growth.
As to the factors underlying the growth process of the industrial sector in the state, we
had noted earlier that during the sixties and the seventies when the process of
diversification of the industrial sector in the state resulted in its increasing integration
with all-India production structure this growth process in the state was similar to the
growth process of the industrial sector in the country as a whole, and hence one can
surmise that a similar set of factors may mould the industrial growth process in both. As
for the latter period, viz., from around the late seventies or early eighties when there is a
slackening of the growth rate in Tamil Nadu, and a disjunction between the pattern of
growth in Tamil Nadu and the all-India pattern emerges certain factors specific to the
state perhaps came to the fore to mould the growth process in the state. While this issue
would need an in-depth study which we do not attempt here we shall just touch upon
one such important issue which may have a significant bearing on the nature and growth
of the industrial sector in Tamil Nadu. And that issue relates to the characteristic of
industrial entrepreneurship in the state.
It is often claimed that industrial entrepreneurship in Tamil Nadu is more fragmented,
both in socioeconomic and spatial terms compared to say, Maharastra or Gujarat:
emergence of a number of industrial entrepreneurs, with a relatively small size of capital,
and on wider, dispersed social and spatial bases seems to be a distinct characteristic of
Tamil Nadu [Ito, 1966; Mahadevan, 1984; Rukmani 1993]. This may be an important
factor behind the better spatial spread of industries in Tamil Nadu as well as the better
mix of large, small and household industries that one finds in the state.
But there is another important characteristic of the entrepreneurial class, particularly at
the level of medium and large industries, which may in part be an off-shoot of its
fragmented nature viz., its risk-averseness. It is this quality which perhaps has been a
stumbling block in the process of modernisation of its industrial base, and hence, in its
integration with the all-India production structure. As a comparative study of growth of
the industrial sector in Tamil Nadu, Maharastra and Gujarat notes:
.. As compared to Maharastra and Gujarat, private investment forthcoming in Tamil
Nadu is low; further, while there has been a consolidation and even substantial
growth in certain traditional lines of business, there is not much (and even less private
investment) going into modern growing industries.over the years, the states in
Maharastra and Gujarat by their fairly extensive intervention in the form of industrial
estates and other industry-related promotional activities, have managed to expand the
entrepreneurial base of their economies to encompass specially those not belonging to
already established business groups/houses. In the process they have also been able to
attract entrepreneurs from all over. The combination of an inherently dynamic
entrepreneurial class willing to assume risks, and an aggressive state government tuning
its promotional activities to facilitate the setting up of industries has imparted
considerable dynamism to the economies of Maharastra and Gujarat.

. In contrast . entrepreneurship in Tamil Nadu is characterised by a pronounced

timidity. There appears to be an endemic inability to assume risks and conceive of and
implement large projects. Such development on a larger scale that has taken place in
recent years is insular and inbred with the same few business houses coming up with
expansion and fresh proposals. The entrepreneurial base at the level of medium and large
industries is yet to expand to include new classes of people. Under such circumstances
one would have expected the state to intervene in a more effective manner. On the
contrary the style of functioning of the state has, over the years, not only alienated the
established business classes but, worse, it has deterred the significant emergence of a new
entrepreneurial class. [Swaminathan, 1992: 25-26, 1994: M-67, 68 and 74].
V. LEVEL OF LIVING
We may briefly summarise the main points that emerge from our discussions so far in
this report.
A striking characteristic of the economy of Tamil Nadu is that the processes of
diversification, commercialisation and modernisation have a relatively larger reach
across sectors, social groups and space compared to most other states in the country. In
overall economic terms, diversification away from the primary of income and
workforce is of a higher order here compared to most other states. It has relatively more
modernised agricultural sector, perhaps next only to Punjab and Haryana; but even
compared to these two states the extent of crop diversification and commercialisation
appears to be of a higher order in this state, so also the spatial and social reach of
agricultural modernisation. Moreover, compared to Punjab and Haryana it is more
industrialised. In fact, only Gujarat and Maharastra appear to have a higher level of
industrialisation than Tamil Nadu. But Tamil Nadu has a higher level of modernisation of
the agricultural sector compared to these two states; it also has a better spatial spread of
its industry, as also a better mix of large, small and household industries compared to
these two states. While the degree of urbanisation is higher in these two states compared
to Tamil Nadu, the spread of urbanisation and rural-urban linkages are much better in
Tamil Nadu and hence in terms of a composite index of urbanisation incorporating both
level and spread of urbanisation, Tamil Nadu happens to be the most urbanised state in
the country. In socio-cultural terms the Dravidian Movement in the state has provided
some space for the middle and lower castes to assert their rights; the changing caste-land
nexus, certain aspects of state intervention as for example, the long history of the policy
of reservation have aided such a process.
Thus while Tamil Nadu is not the top ranking state in any of the sectors considered, it is
perhaps the only state which ranks within the top few say, within the top three of the
states in each of these sectors. Thus the relatively wide reach sectorally, socially and
spatially of the process of diversification, commercialisation and modernisation appears
to be the specific, or distinctive, characteristic of Tamil Nadu economy.
But this specificity appears to coexist with a generality, viz., a characteristic which is
observed in almost all other parts of the country. Tamil Nadu economy, like the

economics of other states, is characterised by sharp and often deepening dualities and
differentiations. The differentiations are to be found across sectors as between primary
sector on the one hand and the secondary and tertiary sectors on the other and within
different sectors also. In the agriculture such differentiations persist, and perhaps get
accentuated over time, in terms of access to productive resources, land in particular;
between irrigated and unirrigated sectors; within the irrigated sector in terms of access to
different types of irrigation. Spatially such differentiations exist between advanced tracts
(confined largely to the northern belt in the state) and the backward areas (to be found
largely in the dry southern regions of the state), between rural and urban areas and within
the urban sector, between large agglomerations and small, isolated towns. Socially, the
loosening caste-land or caste-occupation nexus has not done away with the caste system.
The inequities associated with it untouchability in particular continue to persist; and
the dilution of the social and cultural thrust of the Dravidian Movement in the last couple
of decades in the state perhaps has provided some space for the process of
Sanskritisiation to emerge.
As for the growth performance of the economy, Tamil Nadus record has only been a
modest one. considering the three decades from the early sixties to early nineties, the rate
of growth of the productive sectors like agriculture and industry has been only of the
order of the Hindu Rate registered by the country as a whole. But what is perhaps more
disquieting is that the possibility of any significant acceleration of the growth process
or even sustaining the present long term growth trends may be in doubt. In the
agricultural sector modernisation, growth and recovery have come about basically
through internal structural changes as in the irrigation regime or through the processes
of reorderings and diversifications, with accumulation of productive forces playing only
a secondary role. Sustaining, or accelerating, the growth process would require tapping of
surpluses, which largely accrue to rich farmers, for productive investments in agriculture,
through appropriate taxation measures and through land reforms and these policies do
not seem to be anywhere on the agenda of the state governments. And as for the
industrial sector, the risk-averse nature of the entrepreneurial class and inappropriate state
policies seem to be have resulted in a situation where the process of modernisation,
diversification and growth have witnessed a reversal from around the early eighties. In a
context like this the growth of the economy from around the mid-eighties has largely
been due to the growth of the tertiary sector induced by increasing and unsustainable
consumption expenditure by the state.
In sum, coexistence of a process of broad-basing and diversification of economy, with
sharp dualities and differentiations, and a modest, stunted growth of the economy seems
to characterise the Tamil Nadu economy. What are the implications of this for the wellbeing of the people?
1. Poverty Levels:
The persistence of sharp dualities and differentiations and the moderate and stunted
growth of the economy would mean that endemic poverty is a major problem perhaps
as acute as in the country as a whole in Tamil Nadu [Table 47]. In fact right upto 1987-

88 the incidence of poverty i.e., percentage of population living below the poverty line
was higher in Tamil Nadu compared to the country as a whole, and it counted among the
poorer states in the country [Table 48]. In fact from 1973-74 to 1987-88, only two states
the backward states of Bihar and Orissa had a consistly higher poverty levels than
Tamil Nadu, and Tamil Nadus rank among the major states consistently slipped: it was
the seventh poorest state in 1973-74, the sixth poorest in 1977-78, the fourth poorest in
1983, and in 1987-88 only Orissa and Bihar had a higher poverty ratio than Tamil Nadu.
There was a sharp decline in the poverty ratio in the state between 1987-88 and 1993-94
from 45.1 percent to 35.0 percent and as a consequence the incidence of poverty in
1993-94 in the state was lower albeit marginally compared to the country as a whole.
But even in 1993-94, Tamil Nadu was among the poorer states in the country. Reduction
in poverty was much sharper during the period between 1993-94 and 1999-2000 when
the rural poverty fell to 20.5 percent of the population and the urban levels fell to 22.1 per
cent. It translated to 8 million rural poor and 5 million urban poor in the state. We may
take these figures with some caution as the methodology of arriving at the poor resulted
in enormous controversy.
Table 47: Number and Percentage of Poor:

Year
1973-74
1977-78
1983
1987-88
1993-94
1999-00
Year
1973-74
1977-78
1983
1987-88
1993-94
1999-00

Rural
Tamil Nadu
57.4
57.7
54.0
45.8
32.5
20.5

India
56.4
53.1
45.6
39.1
37.3
27.9

Rural
Tamil Nadu
India
172.6 (100)
2612.9 (100)
182.5 (106)
2642.5 (101)
181.8 (105)
2517.2 (96)
160.7 (93)
2294.0 (88)
121.7 (71)
2400.7 (94)
80.5
1932.43

Percentage of Poor
Urban
Combined
Tamil Nadu
India
Tamil Nadu
India
54.5
49.2
56.5
54.9
53.2
47.4
56.3
51.8
49.2
42.2
52.4
44.8
43.9
40.1
45.1
39.3
39.6
33.5
35.0
36.3
22.11
23.62
21.12
26.1
Number of Poor (in lakhs)
Urban
Combined
Tamil Nadu
India
Tamil Nadu
India
73.8 (100) 603.1 (100) 246.4 (100) 3216.0 (100)
79.8 (108) 677.4 (112) 262.3 (106) 3319.9 (103)
84.6 (115) 752.9 (125) 266.4 (108) 3270.1 (102)
82.5 (112) 833.5 (138) 243.2 (99)
3127.5 (97)
80.4 (109) 740.9 (123) 202.1 (82)
3151.6 (98)
49.97
670.07
130.48
2602.5

Source: 1. For 1973-74 to 1987-88: Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of

Proportion and Number of Poor; Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission,
Government of India, New Delhi, 1993.
2. For 1993-94: for Tamil Nadu: CMIE: Profiles of States, March 1997. For all
India, the estimates are obtained using the CMIE for the 17 major states only.
Table 48: States with a Higher Incidence of Poverty than Tamil Nadu:

Year
1973-74

1977-78

1983
1987-88

1993-94

1999-00

Rural
West Bengal (73.2), Orissa
(67.3), Bihar (63.0), M.P
(62.7), Kerala (59.2),
Maharastra (57.7)
Orissa (72.4), West Bengal
(68.3), Maharastra (64.0),
Bihar (63.3), M.P (62.5),
Assam (59.8)
Orissa (67.5), Bihar (64.4),
West Bengal (63.1)
Orissa (57.6), Bihar (52.6),
West Bengal (48.3)

Urban
Kerala (62.2), U.P (59.5), M.P
(58.3), Orissa (56.3)

M.P (62.1), Kerala (59.5), U.P

(57.1), Orissa (53.6)

M.P (54.6), Orissa (50.6), U.P

(50.3)
Karnataka (49.1), Bihar (57.7),
M.P (48.2), U.P (45.2), A.P
(44.6), Orissa (44.1)
Bihar (58.2), Orissa (49.7), M.P (48.5), Orissa (42.0),
Assam (45.0), U.P (42.3), Karnataka (40.3)
West Bengal (40.8), M.P
(40.6), Maharastra (37.9)
Bihar (44.3), Orissa
Bihar (32.91), Madhya Pradesh
(48.01),W. Bengal (31.85), (38.44), A.P (26.63), Orissa
Madhya Pradesh (37.06),
(42.83), Maharashtra (26.81),
Maharashtra (23.72), Uttar Karnataka (25.2) U.P.(30.8)
Pradesh (31.2), Assam
(40)

Combined
Orissa (66.2), West Bengal
(63.4), M.P (61.9), Bihar
(61.8), Kerala (59.7), U.P
(57.0)
Orissa (70.4), M.P (62.4),
Bihar (62.0), West Bengal
(60.7), Assam (57.6)
Orissa (65.3), Bihar (62.5),
West Bengal (54.7)
Orissa (55.6), Bihar (53.4)

Bihar (55.0), Orissa (48.6),

M.P (42.5), U.P (40.9),
Assam (40.9), Maharastra
(36.9), West Bengal (35.7)
Assam(36.1), Bihar (42.6),
M.P. (37.4), Maharashtra
(25.2), Orissa (47.15),
U.P.(31.15), W.Bengal
(27.1)

Note: Figures in brackets give incidence of poverty, i.e., percentage of population below poverty
line.

It was the eighth poorest among the major states; and most of the states which were
poorer belonged to the backward northern and castern regions of the country, like Uttar
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, and Assam; of the relatively more advanced
states Maharastra and West Bengal had a (marginally) higher poverty ratios. It is also
noteworthy that of the four South Indian States, right from 1977-78 Tamil Nadu happens
to be the poorest; only in 1973-74, Kerala had a higher poverty ratio than Tamil Nadu.
This pattern has not changed even by 1999-2000 as the state witnessed a sharp reduction
in the poverty figures. As for the trend in poverty levels over time, a significant dent into
the problem of poverty in the state occurred only between 1987-88 and 1993-94 and
between 1999-2000. Even though the poverty ratio started declining around 1983, the
decline upto 1987-88 was not of an order to make any dent into the number of poor in the
state. In fact the number of poor in the state in 1987-88 (at 24.3 million) was around the
same as the number a decade and a half earlier in 1973-74 (24.6 million). It was only
between 1987-88 and 1993-94 that the decline in the poverty ratio was of an order which
resulted in a significant decline in the number of the poor also. Considering the period
1973-74 to 1993-94 as a whole, the record of Tamil Nadu in terms of reduction of
poverty appears to be better than the record for the country as a whole. Over this period
the poverty ratio declined by 21.5 percent points, the number of poor declined by 18% in

Tamil Nadu; over the same period in the country as a whole the poverty ratio declined by
18.6 percentage points, but this decline did not make any appreciable difference to the
number of poor in the country. But Tamil Nadus record in poverty reduction is poorer
than the neighbouring states of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, and only marginally better
than the record of Karnataka in the same period.
Within Tamil Nadu the record of poverty reduction is better in the rural sector compared
to the urban. Over the two decades 1973-74 to 1993-94, the poverty ratio declined by
24.9 percentage points, and the number of poor declined by 29 percent in rural Tamil
Nadu; in urban Tamil Nadu on the other hand the poverty ratio declined by only 14.9
percentage points, and the number of poor in fact increased over the same period. Thus
the problem of poverty is getting increasingly urbanised in Tamil Nadu. Poverty ratio in
the urban sector which was lower than the rural poverty ratio in 1973-94, had in fact over
taken the rural poverty ratio by 1993-94; in the country as a whole while the gap between
rural and urban poverty ratios has declined over time, the ratio in the rural areas is still
higher than the urban ratio. In 1973-74, three out of ten poor lived in its urban areas; by
1993-94 this number had increased to 4 out of ten. It is also noteworthy while the urban
poverty ratios in Tamil Nadu have consistently been higher than the corresponding ratios
for the country as whole it is true even for 1993-94 by 1993-94 the rural poverty ratio
in the state had fallen to a level below the rural ratio for the country as a whole. In 199394 only three states Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Karnataka had a higher poverty
ratios in the urban areas compared to Tamil Nadu.
Estimates of Poverty at the District Level in Tamilnadu:
The recent exercise by the State Planning Commission gives us estimates of poverty
levels at the district level. To quote one of the major finding of that exercise:
`The regionwise poverty estimates show that poverty levels have been especially high in
the Chennai (Chennai, Kancheepuram, North Arcot, Thiruvannamali, South Arcot,
Viluppuram) and Madurai regions (Madurai, Dindigul, Virudhunagar, Tirunelveli,
Kanyakumari, Toothukudi, Ramanathapuram, Sivagangai) and below the State average
in the Coastal and Coimbatore regions.
Estimates of Poverty in Tamil Nadu, 1993-94

S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Percentage of Population below Poverty Line

Districts
Rural
Rank
Urban
Rank
State
Rank
Chennai
31.58
6
31.58
15
Kancheepuram
23.38
10
33.62
7
27
11
Thiruvallur1
Cuddalore
51.3
21
48.58
15
50.91
22
2
Villupuram
Vellore
29.63
15
53.84
19
36.55
16
Tiruvannamalai
41.41
18
49.68
17
42.15
17
Salem
26.59
13
40.54
11
30.14
12
3
Namakkal

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Dharmapuri
26.61
14
27.73
3
26.7
9
Erode
17.86
4
21.81
1
18.32
1
Coimbatore
24.36
11
27.84
5
25.77
5
Nilgiris
17.64
3
27.75
4
21.24
3
Trichy
20.79
7
27.47
2
21.59
4
Karur4
Perambalur
Ariyalur
Thanjavur
18.4
5
52.22
18
30.73
14
5
Tiruvarur
Nagapattinam
15.55
1
36.71
8
20.21
2
Pudukkottai
23.35
9
48.24
14
26.9
10
Madurai
25.6
12
37.62
9
30.35
13
6
Theni
Dindigul
47.04
19
42.8
12
46.28
19
Viruthunagar
20.04
6
38.76
10
26.21
7
Ramanathapuram
16.7
2
60.71
21
25.86
6
Sivagangai
20.97
8
43.03
13
26.63
8
Tirunelveli
34.58
16
56.53
20
44.1
18
Thoothukudi
37.44
17
62.66
22
47.02
20
Kanniyakumari
48.55
20
48.82
16
48.59
21
STATE
28.93
38.63
31.66
Notes: 1 Figure relating to composite districts Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur.
2. Figure relating to composite districts Cuddalore and Villupuram.
3. Figure relating to composite districts Salem and Namakkal.
4. Figure relating to composite districts Trichy, Karur, Perambalur and Ariyalur.
5. Figure relating to composite districts Thanjavur and Tiruvarur.
6. Figure relating to composite districts Madurai and Theni.
Source: Department of Economics and Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu, 2000.
2. Social Sector Advances and Human Development:
If we take a broader view of human well-being by incorporating aspects. Like health
care, education etc in measuring human development Tamil Nadus record, while being
generally better than the record of the country as a whole, is invariably poorer than
Keralas record [Table 49]. In terms of access to maternal and child health Tamil Nadu
appears to have a very good record, but in terms of mortality (either child mortality or
overall levels of mortality) and child nutrition, its record once again is just about average;
it also scores quite low in sanitation.
In sum, Tamil Nadu represents a case where significant broad basing and diversification
of the socio-economic processes appear to coexist with high levels of poverty and rather
moderate levels of social sector developments. What are the implications of such a
disjunction?

Table 49: Indicators of Social Sector and Human Development:

Sector / Indicator

Year

Tamil
Nadu

India

1. Human Development Index

(HDI)

2001

0.531

0.472

a) Adult literacy
rate-all (%)

1991

50.6

48.7

Education
b) Adult literacy
rate-female (%)

1991

35.8

33.9

c) Adult literacy
rate-male (%)

1991

65.0

62.4

78.7

58.9

d) Percent attending 1992-93

school-females age
6
Sanitation

Mother
and child
care

Percent households 1992-93

with toilet facility

a) Percentage of
births delivered in a
health facility
b) Percentage of
deliveries assisted
by
health
professionals
c) Percentage of
mothers receiving
ante-metal care
d) Percentage of
mothers receiving
two doses of tetanus
toxoid vaccine

States which are ahead of

Tamil Nadu
Kerala (0.638), Punjab
(0.537).

Kerala (86.0), Maharastra

(60.3), W. Bengal (57.1),
Gujarat (56.7), Karnataka
(52.2), Punjab (51.8), H.P
(50.9)
Kerala (80.6), Maharastra
(44.2), Punjab (41.8), W.
Bengal (42.8), Gujarat
(41.8), Karnataka (37.7)
Kerala (91.7), Maharastra
(74.4), Gujarat (70.4), W.
Bengal (69.3), Karnataka
(65.3)
Kerala (94.8), H.P (87.6)

Kerala (70.9), Assam

(49.6), Maharastra (40.8),
W. Bengal (40.4), Punjab
(36.7), Gujarat (35.8),
Karnataka (31.2)

29.4

30.3

1992-93

63.4

25.5

Kerala (87.8)

1992-93

71.2

34.2

Kerala (89.7)

Source

National
Human
Development
Report 2001

Census

Census

NFHS

NFHS

NFHS
1992-93

94.2

62.3

Kerala (97.3)

1992-93

90.1

53.8

Tamil Nadu stands first;

Kerala (89.8) comes
second

Child
nutrition
and child
mortality

e) Percentage of
children (age 12-23 1992-93
months)
fully
immunised
a) Percentage of
living
children 1992-93
(under 4 years of
age) under weight
b) Infant Mortality
Rate
1992-93
c) Under five
mortality
1992-93

Life expectancy at birth (years)

1992-93

64.9

35.4

48.2

53.4

67.7

78.5

86.5

109.3

62.1

59.2

Tamil Nadu stands first;

Maharastra (64.1) second;
H.P (62.9) and Kerala
(54.4) third
Kerala (28.5); Haryana
(37.9), Rajasthan (41.6),
Punjab (45.9), H.P (47.0)
Kerala (23.8), Maharastra
(50.5), Punjab (53.7), H.P
(55.8), Karnataka (65.4)
Kerala (32.0), Punjab
(68.0),
H.P
(69.1),
Maharastra (70.3)
Kerala (71.6), Punjab
(66.4),
H.P
(64.0),
Maharastra
(63.9),
Haryana (62.8)

Note: Figures in brackets give the values for the respective states.

3. Social Capillarity?
Broad basing and diversification in sectoral, spatial and social terms can create a
situation which is conducive for increasing aspirations in the population. Strong, and
increasing rural-urban linkages; increasing role of circulation in the process of migration;
high social and spatial reach of agricultural modernisation and commercialsiation; high
and increasing exposure to mass media; loosening caste-land and caste-occupation
nexuses; the earlier role of Dravidian Movement in creating space for the assertion of
rights for the middle and lower caster, and the subsequent dilution of the socio-cultural
thrust of this movement all these can act as powerful stimulants for elite-emulation and
increasing aspirations even among the poorer and middle sections of the population in the
state, particularly in the last couple of decades, from around the seventies onwards. But
given the persistence of poverty on a larger scale, these aspirations would not be matched
for a large section of the population by the ability to fulfill these aspirations. The
rapid fertility decline in the recent past is perhaps attributable to this phenomenon of
rising but unfulfilled aspirations. In a society characterised by high levels of poverty and
a hierarchical social structure, and also a significant degree of social mobility and
circulation, the drive towards social recognition, and the desire to fulfill increasing
aspirations would result in low fertility. Just as a liquid has to be, thin to facilitate its
movement upwards in a capillary, a family has to be small to facilitate its upward social
mobility. This phenomenon of social capillarity seems to be at work in Tamil Nadu. As
we had noted earlier (section I), this fertility decline in the state has come about
essentially through family limitation, with increase in age at marriage playing very little
role in it; and family limitation is brought through female sterilisation, and spacing of
births has not played any role in it. If anything there is a distinct tendency towards

NFHS

Sample
Registration
System

bunching of births around lower birth intervals. This, we had noted there, would be a
major factor underlying stagnation of the infant mortality rate at a high level in the state
of late. So, the manner in which fertility decline has taken place in the state in itself may
act as a serious constraint on sustainability of this process of decline in future. We had
noted earlier that the per capita income the state which had remained largely below the
all India level started displaying a tendency towards a steady increase from around the
early or mid-eighties, and has remained above the all-India level from around the early
nineties. This, it appears, is to due to two factors: (a) high growth rate of NSDP from
around mid-eighties, which is attributable to a recovery in the agricultural sector, and
more importantly, the rapid growth of the tertiary sector; and (b) a sharp decline in the
birth rate. We had argued earlier that appropriate state policies regarding institutional
changes in the rural sector, taxation and investment in the rural and industrial sectors etc
would be essential to sustain this recovery and growth in agriculture, industry and
tertiary sectors, and hence in NSDP. And appropriate policies regarding social sector
advances in particular to sustain the process of fertility decline would be essential.
Now it is likely that the rather impressive decline in the poverty level in Tamil Nadu may
be, in part at least, due to the increasing levels of per capita income. While we have not
been able to obtain any data on the behaviour of income or consumption inequality in the
state over this period, rapid growth in per capita income even in the face of a likely
increase in inequality levels would have had some trickle down effect, and hence,
resulted in some poverty reduction. But the very sustainability of this process of poverty
reduction in future would depend on the sustainability of the growth of per capita income
on the one hand, and reduction in inequalities on the other. If the sustainability of growth
in per capita income is doubtful since sustainability in recovery and growth in the real
sectors, and in fertility decline, is doubtful and if reduction in inequalities is unlikely
as appropriate policies for institutional changes and taxation are not on the agenda
would the process of poverty decline be sustainable?
While this may look like a rather pessimistic note to end this report, it would also
highlight the broad policy dimensions necessary for poverty reduction and growth in the
state. These are: (a) Major institutional changes in rural areas; (b) appropriate policies for
taxation and investment to channel surpluses in the rural sector towards productive
investment; (c) appropriate investment and institutional policies to facilitate
modernisation and growth in the industrial sector; (d) much more emphasis on social
sector advances than what has been done so far and, (e) genuine democratic
decentralisation of governance and planning.

REFERENCE:
1. Acharya, S.S [1997]: Input subsidies in Indian Agriculture: Some Issues; in V.S.
Vyas and P. Bhargava (Ed): Policies for Agricultural Development; Rawat Publications,
Jaipur.
2. Athreya, V.B [1985]: Gangaikodan 1916-1984: A Resurvey Working Paper No 50,
Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.
3. Athreya, V.B and Sheela Rani Chunkath [1977]: Female Infanticide in Tamil Nadu
Some Evidence; Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXXII, No 7; April 26-May 2,
1997; pp ws-21 to ws-28.
4. Bhalla, G.S and Gurumail Singh [1977]: Recent Developments in Indian Agriculture:
A State Level Analysis; Economic and Political Weekly; Vol XXXII, No 13; March 29April 4, 1997; pp A-2 to A-18.
5. Bharathan, K [1988]: The Handloom Industry in Tamil Nadu: A Study of
Organisational Structure: Unpublished Ph.D This is submitted to Madras University.
6. Dhawan, B.D and S.S Yadav [1995]: Private Fixed Capital Formation in Agriculture:
Some Aspects of Indian Farmers Investment Behaviour; Economic and Political
Weekly; September 30, 1995; pp A-103 to A-107.
7. George, S, Abel, R and Miller B.D [1992]: Female Infanticide in Rural South India;
Economic and Political Weekly; Vol, XXXII, No 2; May 30, 1992; pp 1153-1156.
8. Government of Tamil Nadu [1994]: Report on Marketable Surplus of Paddy and
Prinicpal Millets in Tamil Nadu, 1992-93; Quarterly Statistical Abstract of Tamil Nadu,
quarter ended March, 1994; pp 9-21; Department of Statistics, Chennai
9. Guhan, S [1993]: The Cauvery River Dispute: Towards Conciliations; Frontline
Publication, Chennai.
10. Guhan, S and Bharathan K [1984]: Dusi: A Resurvey: Working Paper No 52; Madras
Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.
11. Harris-White, Barbara and Janakarajan, S [1997]: From Green Revolution to Rural
Industrial Revolution in South India; Economic and Political Weekly; Vol XXXII; No
25, June 21-27, 1997; pp 1469-1477.
12. Hirway, Indira and Darshini Mahadevia [1996]: Critique of Gender Development
Index: Towards an Alternative; Economic and Political Weekly; October 26, 1996; pp
ws-87 to ws-96.

13. Irschick, E.F [1969]: Polities and Social Conflict in South India: The Non-Brahmin
Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929: University of California Press, Berkely
and Los Angeles.
14. Ito, Shoji [1966]: A Note on the Business Combine in India; The Developing
Economics; Vol IV, No 3.
15. Janakarajan, S and Vaidyanathan, A [1977]: Conditions and Characteristics of
Groundwater Irrigation: Study of Vaigai in Tamil Nadu; Madras Institute of
Development Studies.
16. Jodha, N.S [1990]: Rural Common Property Resources: Contribution and Crisis;
Economic and Political Weekly; Vol XXV; No 26, June 30, 1990; pp A-65 to A-78.
17. Kurien, C.T.K [1981]: Dynamics of Rural Transformation: A Study of Tamil Nadu:
1950-1975; Orient Longman Limited; Chennai.
18. MIDS [1988]: Tamil Nadu Economy: Performance and Issues; Oxford and IBH
Publishing, Delhi.
19. Mahadevan, R [1984]: Entrepreneurship and Business Communities in Colonial
Madras, 1900-1929: Some Preliminary Observations; D. Tripathi (Ed): Business
Communities of India, Manohar Publications, Delhi.
20. Nagaraj K, Barbara Harris-White, Janakarajan S, and Jayaraj, D [1996]: SocioEconomic Factors Underlying Growth of Silk-weaving in the Arni Region A
Preliminary Study, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.
21. Pandian, M.S.S [1994]: Notes on the Transformation of Dravidian Ideology: Tamil
Nadu, 1900-1940; Social Scientist; Vol 22; Nos 5-6; May-June, 1994; pp 84-104.
22. Ram, N [1977]: Pre History and History of the DMK; Social Scientist; Vol 6; No
5; December, 1977; pp 59-91.
23. Ramachandran, V.K [1990]: Wage Labour and Unfreedom in Agriculture: An Indian
Case Study; Clarendon Press, Oxford.
24. Ramasundaram, S [1995]: Causes for Rapid Fertility Decline in Tamil Nadu: A
Policy Planners Perspective; Demography India, Vol 24, No 1, pp 18-21.
25. Reserve Bank of India [1988]: All-India Debt and Investment Survey: Statistical
Tables relating to Capital Expenditure and Capital Formation of Households during the
year ended 3oth June 1982; Department of Statistical Analysis and Computer Services,
RBI, Mumbai.

26. Rudolph, Lloyd, I and Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber [1967]: The Modernity of Tradition:
Political Development in India; The University of Chicago Press; Chicago.
27. Rukmani, R [1993]: The process of Urbanisation and Socio-economic Change in
Tamil Nadu, 1901-81: Unpublished Ph.D This is submitted to the University of Madras.
28: [1994]: Urbanisation and Socio-Economic Change in Tamil Nadu, 1901-1991;
Economic and Political Weekly, December 17-24, 1994; pp 3263-327.
29: [1996]: Factors underlying High Dispersal of Towns in Tamil Nadu; Review of
Development and Change; Vol 1; No 1; January-June, 1996; pp 113-125.
30. Sen, Abhijit [1996]: Economic Reforms Employment and Poverty: Trends and
Options; Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXXI; Nos 35, 36 and 37; Special
Number, September, 1996; pp 2459-2477.
31. Sen, Amartya [1985]: Commodities and Capabilities, North Holland Press,
Amsterdam.
32. Shiva Kumar, A.H [1996]: UNDPs Gender-Related Development Index A
Computation for Indian States; Economic and Political Weekly, April, 1996.
33. Singh, Yogendra [1986]: Modernisation of Indian Tradition: A systemic Study of
Social Change; Rawat Publications. Jaipur.
34. Srinivasan, K [1995]: Regulating Reproduction in Indias Population: Efforts, Results
and Recommendations; Sage Publications, New Delhi.
35. Swaminathan, Padmini [1994]: Where Are the Entrepreneurs? What the Data Reveal
for Tamil Nadu; Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXIX; No 2, May 28, 1994; pp
M-64 TO M-74.
36. Yanagisawa, Haruka [1996]: A Century of Change: Caste and Irrigated Lands in
Tamil Nadu, 1860s to 1970s; Monohar Publishers, New Delhi.