HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN KARNATAKA STATE: AN INTERDISTRICT DISPARITIES Dr. Gopalakrishna B.V. & Dr. Devaraj.

K
1.1 Introduction Economic development of a country is traditionally judged in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The greater the volume of GDP per capita, higher the state of development and prosperity. But, the GDP measure of development completely ignores the welfare of the people. It is not necessarily true that high GDP generates well-being to the people. It is not the volume of GDP per se, but its distribution that matters much for the well-being of the people. It is for these reasons that economists like Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, Mahbub Ul Haq, Frances Stewart, Paul Streeten and others have considered GDP as an inadequate measure of development and instead advocated the concept of human development. The first Human Development Report (HDR), published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1990, clearly stressed the primary message of every HDR at global, national and sub-national level the human centered approach to development that places human well being as the ultimate end of development. People are the real wealth of a nation. The basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. This may appear to be a simple truth, but it is often forgotten in the immediate concern with the accumulation of commodities and financial wealth. Human Development is the process of widening peoples choices and their level of well-being. The choices change over time and differ among societies according to their stage of development. The three essential choices for people are - to lead a long and 1

healthy life, to acquire knowledge and to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living. If these choices are not available, many other opportunities remain inaccessible. Other choices, highly valued by many people include political, economic and social freedom, access to opportunities for being creative and productive and enjoying self-respect and guaranteed human rights. (UNDP, 1994, 1995). The Human Development Index (HDI) is a simple composite measure that measures the overall achievements of a region in terms of three basic dimensions of human development a long and healthy life, knowledge, a well as a decent standard of living health status (measured by longevity), knowledge (measured by literacy and enrolments) and a decent standard of living (measured by per capita income). These three dimensions are measured by life expectancy at birth, educational attainment (adult literacy and the combined gross primary, secondary and tertiary enrolment ratio) a proxy for a decent standard of living and as a surrogate for all human choices not reflected in the other two dimensions. The Planning Commission of India prepared and published the first HDR of India in 2001 in which all the Indian states are ranked in the order of their achievement in terms of the indicators that reflect human development. Therefore the Planning Commission has also been encouraging state governments to produce their own human development reports. In fact, Madhya Pradesh was the first state in India to produce a HDR long before the Planning Commission. Karnataka state was the second state brought out such report in 1999. The other Indian States have come out with their state level reports, one by one. Against this background, this paper mainly focused on progress of human development of Karnataka State by focused on inter district disparities in HDI and GDI 2

values across districts in Karnataka though simple composite indices such as human development index and gender related development index 1.2 Objectives of the Study The following are the objectives of the study 1. To examine progress of human development index in the Karnataka State. 2. To identification of inter-district disparities in human development in the state. 3. To examine the role of state in Human development and to draw the policy implications. 1.3 Karnataka: A Profile Karnataka State is situated in the Southern part of India, it lies between the latitudes 11.310 and 18.450 North and the longitudes 74.120 and 78.400 East on the western part of the Deccan Plateau. The state covers a total area of 1, 91,791 Sq km, accounting for 5.83 per cent of the total geographical area of the country. The state is bounded by Maharashtra and Goa states in the north and northwest by the Arabian Sea in the west by Kerala and Tamil Nadu states in the south and by Andhra Pradesh on the east. Demographically, Karnataka State has total population 53 million out of which 5.13 percent of Indias population. Out of which 27 millions are males and 26 millions are females. The Sex Ratio of 965 in the state stands above the all India average of 933. The highest sex ratio in the state is recorded by Udupi district (1,130) and the lowest by Bangalore (908). The state has the Density of Population 275 as compared to 324 at the all-India level in 2001. Bangalore has the highest density of population of (2,985 persons

per Kms) where as Uttar Kannada has lowest density of 132. The literacy rate among the population is 67.04 percent 59.68 percent in rural and 81.05 percent in urban areas. For administrative purposes, Karnataka has been divided into 4 divisions (Madaiah and Ramapriya, 1989), Coastal Region, Malnad Region, Northern Region and Southern Region. State comprises of 176 taluks, 27 districts, 27,481 inhabited villages, 1,925 uninhabited village and 270 towns have been conceded by Karnataka state itself. Bijapur has the largest area of 17,069 Sq Kms and Kodagu has the smallest area of 4,102 Sq Kms. Karnataka had highest growth rate of GDP and per capita Income in the country during 1990-2001 of 7.6 percent and 5.9 percent respectively. Nevertheless, the state continues to be in the middle-income states, with per capita income slightly below the all India average. The state is relatively better placed in economic development and it ranked 6th in terms of per capita GSDP among the 15 major states of India in 2001-02 (KHDR, 2005). However, the state ranked only 7th in terms of per capita consumption expenditure Rs. 639 as compared to Rs. 591at all India level in 2005-06. Due to a strong agricultural recovery supplemented by improved scorecard of the services sector. The incidence of poverty in the state is somewhat higher than the national average. The expert group set up by the planning commission has estimated that in 1999-2000, 20.04 percent of the population was living below the poverty line in Karnataka compared to the all India average of 26.10 percent (Government of India 2001, Planning Commission). However, when only rural areas are considered, poverty ratio was slightly lower in Karnataka 17.38 percent in comparison to 27.09 percent at the all India level. Urban poverty appears to be particularly high in Karnataka where as estimated 25.25 percent of the population live below the poverty line in comparison to 23.62 percent at the all India level. 4

Presently, Karnataka is being recognized as the new growth center in a reforming Indian economy powered by knowledge based industries such as software, electronic, biotechnology pharmaceuticals and back offices for many overseas companies. The state, which started a software revolution, has been aggressively wooing job seekers not only from across the country but also from overseas. Karnataka in recent times seems to be surging ahead powered by its booming higher education sector to produce manpower for diverse jobs in a booming economics.

1.4 Status of Human Development in Karnataka

Human development situation in Karnataka State was mostly guided by the Millennium Development Goals (UNDP, HDR 2001). The progress of human development of Karnataka state was reasonably good, since the last two decades of human development experiences in terms of literacy rate, life expectancy at birth, infant mortality rate and other human development indicators has been better than all India average. For example, the improvement in the literacy rate in the state during 1991-01 was 66.64 percent (76.10 and 56.87 percent for male and female literacy rate respectively) against an increase of 56.64 percent (67.26 & 44.34 percent for male and female respectively) during 1981-91. The increase in the literacy rate in the 1990s was less than half of the achievement in the 1980s. Similarly life expectancy was also improved marginally during 1991-92 to 2001-02 62.1 years (61.0 & 63.2 years to 65.8 years (64.5 & 67.0 years). The Infant Mortality Rate was decline from 82 per 1000 population in 1991-92 to 55 per 1000 in 2001-02. Karnataka State has medium human development rank it improves from 0.541 to 0.650 between 1991 to 2001 with 7th rank of the 15 Indian states were well above the 5

national average 0.423 and 0.621 respectively during same period. The level of human development of Karnataka state is more or less equal with that of Egypt and considerably higher than South Asian countries such as Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh in 2001. At the international level, state has 120th rank while the country has 127th rank (UNDP, HDR 2003). The human development indicators such as per capita NSDP, life expectancy at birth, literacy and infant mortality rate are also improved over the period of time. The states per capita gross state domestic product (GSDP) is above the national average and it occupies sixth place in the ranking of 15 major states in India. The total fertility rate in 1999 state has 3rd place, which is equal with Tamil Nadu next only to Kerala and West Bengal. Life expectancy at birth for males and females was 62.4 and 66.4 respectively. The literacy rate has been increasing over the years and reached the level of 66.6 percent in 2001. Table 1.1 Selected Indicators of human development of Karnataka and other neighbor states
Sl No. Name of the Districts Per Capita NSDP Life Expectancy at Birth (LEB) Literacy Rate 2001 Infant Mortality Rate 59 52 42 11 43 57.4

HDI 0.609 0.650 0.706 0.746 0.687 0.627

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Maharashtra Kerala Tamil Nadu India

10,590 10,709 14,892 10,832 12,717 10,774

63.9 65.8 68.3 73.4 68.4 64.8

61.11 66.64 77.27 90.92 73.47 65.49

Source: Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report 2005. The table 1.1 presents selected indicators of human development of Karnataka with other neighboring states. It also infers relative human development position of Karnataka 6

State with other neighbouring states such as Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. Karnataka has accounted per capita NSDP Rs. 10,709, life expectancy at birth 65.8 years, infant mortality rate has 52 per 1000 birth, and literacy rate has 66.64 percent and HDI value of 0.650. While most of the neighboring states except Andhra Pradesh well above Karnatakas relative position in all respects. According to National Human Development Report (NHDR) prepared by the planning commission, Karnataka state has improved HDI values from 0.346, 0.412 and 0.478 during 1981, 1991 and 2001 among 15 major Indian states and its rank was sixth in 1981 and seventh position in 1991 and 2001. (NHDR, 2001). Specific data on each of the indicators such as life expectancy, literacy and income suggests, however, that Karnataka is placed well above the all India, it still lags behind neighbouring states. Kerala is well ahead of Karnataka and top among Indian states followed by Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, in literacy and life expectancy at birth, while Maharashtra is ahead in LEB and income. The GDI values of Karnataka state has improved from 0.525 to 0.637 during 1991 to 2001 which is well above the national average of 0.621 in 2001 but when compared with other neighbouring states except Andhra Pradesh 0.621 Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra above the state average value of 0.746, 0.706 and 0.687 respectively. Therefore, Karnataka long way to go to reach to high human development states.

This is not because the state has achieved the optimum levels of literacy or IMR, when rate of improvement would slow down. The marginal improvement in these two rates is at a comparatively low level of achievement. This has been the case in spite of the increase in the rate of economic growth in state during the 1990s.

1.5 Linkages: EG and HD in the State

A closer examination of the level of achievement in the three indicators of human development reveals some insight into their inter-relationship. The importance of income for achieving higher standards of living it well known. Income gives people the ability to buy goods and services that is as income increases it widens the range of consumption options. Nonetheless high literacy and health can be achieved even with low per capita income is a typical example of this category. It is common experience that good economic performance has not always led to a good human development index. Infact, India has done much better in terms of income growth than in terms of human development. For example Maharashtra and Punjab 8

income growth is fairly high, but these states have not made significant progress in the social sector literacy and health. Whereas, Kerala with a relatively low per capita income has made rapid strides in human development. The point to note is, therefore, that enhancing income level of the people is no doubt necessary but it must be ensured that the increased income is used by the people for improving their literacy and health status. Accessibility and affordability of education and health services for the people is crucial states to improve their level of human development. Even Karnataka state is not exceptions from trade off relationship between economic growth and human development For example - Mysore and Bellary districts are placed at 5th and 10th ranks in terms of per capita income. Whereas they are placed at 14th and 17th ranks respectively in terms of HDI. Probably one of the important reasons for the distortion of this relationship of economic growth and human development is inadequate attention paid to the development of social infrastructure through public policy on health and education (HPCFRRI, 2004). Various districts of Karnataka state have differences in per capita income and human development index and this has been classified into three groups. Mutually reinforcing growth and human development - some of districts such as Bangalore Urban, Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu, Shimoga and Bangalore Rural fall in the category of higher human development with highest per capita income. Mutually stifling growth and human development other districts have remained at low human development with low per capita income. For example Raichur, Chamaraja Nagar suffered slow advances in human development and slow economic growth.

Modest growth and Human Development The rest of districts of the state have either human development or per capita income growth, which, includes Tumkur, Mysore, Hassan and Mandya and Chitradurga. The table 1.2 presents district-wise estimates of HDI and per capita income 1991-92 and 2001-02. It may be noted that there is no trade off relationship between ranks of per capita income with HDI. Bangalore Urban, Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, Kodagu and Bangalore Urban has shown highest per capita income with highest human development index of the state were above the state average, while Raichur, Gulbarga, Bijapur and Haveri were lowest development in both per capita income and human development index. Mysore, Bellary and Bagalkot has lopsided stifling development of better

performance in per capita income than HDI in one hand on the other hand Lopsided development were found in Shimoga, Uttar Kannada, Tumkur, and Kolar has better HDI performance than per capita income.

10

Table: 1.2 Per capita income and human development index of Karnataka State
Per capita GDP at 1993-94 prices (Rs.) Human Development Index (HDI) 1991 Values 0.623 0.661 0.659 0.623 0.584 0.539 0.567 0.545 0.559 0.539 0.519 0.548 0.516 0.524 0.539 0.535 0.522 0.512 0.511 0.496 0.496 0.505 0.504 0.488 0.453 0.446 0.443 0.541 Ranks 4 1 2 3 5 11 6 9 7 10 16 8 17 14 12 13 15 18 19 22 23 20 21 24 25 26 27 2001 Values 0.753 0.722 0.714 0.697 0.673 0.653 0.653 0.648 0.647 0.642 0.639 0.635 0.634 0.631 0.630 0.627 0.625 0.617 0.609 0.603 0.599 0.591 0.589 0.582 0.576 0.564 0.547 0.650

Name of the districts

1991-92 Values Ranks 5 16 3 1 7 19 8 10 4 6 15 13 23 12 21 16 20 9 14 27 26 18 17 11 24 25 22

2001-02 Values 24,774 20,682 15,471 18,838 12,152 17,144 12,043 11,085 13,328 12,549 10,263 9,989 10,607 13,178 9,408 10,155 9,619 12,291 9,908 8,679 7,654 11,557 9,092 10,182 8,616 10,882 7,579 13,057 Ranks 1 2 5 3 10 4 11 13 6 8 16 19 15 7 22 18 21 9 20 24 26 12 23 17 25 14 27

Ranks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Bangalore Urban Dakshina Kannada Udupi Kodagu Shimoga Bangalore Rural Uttar Kannada Belgaum Chikmagalur Dharwad Hassan Davangere Gadag Mysore Tumkur Chitradurga Kolar Bellary Mandya Haveri Bidar Bagalkot Bijapur Chamaraja Nagar Gulbarga Koppal Raichur KARNATAKA

9,816 13,390 10,714 16,090 7,797 6,427 7,788 7,028 10,132 7,905 6,681 6,815 5,918 6,888 6,133 6,658 6,219 7,277 6,745 4,850 5,136 6,511 6,562 6,985 5,505 5,476 6,022 7,447

Note: Shantappa, Coordinator, KHDR 2005 using latest UNDP Methodology. Source: 1. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Karnataka 2. Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report 2005, Planning Commission

11

1.6 Inter district disparities in human development

Since the publication of First Global Human Development Report in 1990, various countries of the World including India have started publishing Regional Human Development Reports which contain HDI that is believed to express the level of development in a better way than per capita income. In this regard Madhya Pradesh was the first Indian state which has published region-wise human development report in 1995. Karnataka was the second state, which has brought out its first human development report in 1999. There have been some independent studies which carried out works on inter district disparities in human development using latest UNDP methodology of which studies by Benerjee & Roy 1998, Rani 1999, Roy & Bhattacharya, 1999, Shanmugaum 2005 and Vysula 1997 are significant. The Government of Karnataka again brought out his second successive human development report 2005 in 2006. In this report HDI has been computed for 27 districts in the state using the UNDP, HDR 1999 methodology. This can be infers the regional disparities in HDI of various districts in the state enables an understanding of the nature and changing magnitude of variations among districts. This, inturn points to either divergence or convergence of regional variations in human development among districts in the state.

12

Table 1.3. Top and Bottom Five Districts in Human Development Indicators of Karnataka State in 2001 Indicators Per Capita Income Top 5 Bangalore Urban Dakshina Kannada Kodagu Bangalore Rural Udupi Literacy Rate Bangalore Urban Dakshina Kannada Udupi Kodagu Uttar Kannada Combined Gross Enrolment ratio of children (I X) Bangalore Urban Udupi Kodagu Gadag Kolar Raichur Bidar Gulbarga Haveri Bijapur Raichur Gulbarga Chamaraja Nagar Koppal Bijapur Bijapur Koppal Bellary Chamaraja Nagar Bangalore Rural Bottom 5

Life Expectancy at Birth

Udupi Belgaum Shimoga & Dakshina Kannada Bangalore Urban Bangalore Rural

Bagalkot Dharwad Haveri Bijapur Gadag

Source: Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report 2005, Planning Commission, Bangalore.

13

The range of variation in human development index levels fairly alarming and varies from 0.753 to 0.547. Bangalore Urban takes the top position while Raichur is placed at the bottom. The high per capita income of Bangalore Urban has considerably influenced its HDI value. Bangalore Urban literacy rates and life expectancy are also fairly high followed by Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu and Bangalore Rural, were above the state average and national average, even best in international standards, while other districts like Gulbarga and Chamaraja Nagar were in bottom place which is not only lowest in state average but also less than national average and also lower than so called low human development countries such as Niger, Sierra Leone and others. The table 1.3 presented top and bottom of human development indicators in terms of per capita GDP, literacy rate, combined gross enrolment and life expectancy at birth of various districts of the state. Bangalore Urban district that is called as the silicon valley of India occupied top list in all human development. At the international level its rank is 83, which is on par with Philippines and above China and Srilanka. While Raichur district is bottom district of the state, its international status is at 133 rank on par with Papu and New Guinea and lower than Ghana, Botswana, Myanmar and Cambodia (KHDR, 2005 Page No. 18). The following table 1.4 presents selected indicators of human development indicators of Karnataka State at the district level for the year 2001. Infact, Bangalore Urban district comes out with HDI value as high as 0.753 of the state, which has been higher than Keralas state average 0.746 While, Raichur which is the bottom district with the HDI value of 0.547, this is also the lowest index compared to other low human development states in the country. The HDI values for the state have been computed as 0.650. This

14

figure is higher than our countrys value of 0.621 in 2001 as per UNDP methodology1. In 20 districts, the HDI values are found to be below the state figure. And rest of 7 districts was found to be above the value for the country. The overall literacy rate of Karnataka state is 67.04 percent, which is above the allIndian average of 64.8 percent. Bangalore Urban district has highest literacy rate of 83.91 percent followed by Dakshina Kannada 83.47, Udupi 79.87, Kodagu 78.17, Uttar Kannada 76.59, Shimoga 74.86 and Chikmagalur 72.63 percent. While Raichur and Gulbarga have lowest literacy rate of 49.54 and 50.65 respectively. The Per Capita GDP of 2001-02 again Bangalore Urban district ensuring highest income of Rs.24, 774 followed by Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu, Bangalore Rural accounted Rs 20,682, 18,838 and 17,144 respectively. These districts were also above the state average of Rs.13, 057. While on the other hand districts such as Bidar, Bijapur, Tumkur and Kolara have lowest income of Rs 7,654, 9092, 9,408 and 9,619 respectively. The two poorest districts are Bidar and Gulbarga is adjacent to the two richest districts of Bangalore Urban and Dakshina Kannada. It is surprising that prosperity did not spread to the neighboring districts from Bangalore Urban and Dakshina Kannada.

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

15

Table 1.4 Selected indicators of HDI for Districts in Karnataka

Literacy Rate in 2001 Per capita GDP 2001-02 (1993-94 current prices) Combined Gross Enrolment ratio of Children (I X)

SL. No

Name of the Districts

Male

Female

Total

IMR 2001-02

LEB at birth

Income Index

Education Index

Health Index

HDI

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Bangalore Urban Dakshina Kannada Udupi Kodagu Shimoga Bangalore Rural Uttar Kannada Belgaum Chikmagalur Dharwad Hassan Davangere Gadag Mysore Tumkur Chitradurga Kolar Bellary Mandya Haveri Bidar Bagalkot Bijapur Chamaraja Nagar Gulbarga Koppal Raichur KARNATAKA

24,774 20,682 15,471 18,838 12,152 17,144 12,043 11,085 13,328 12,549 10,263 9,989 10,607 13,178 9,408 10,155 9,619 12,291 9,908 8,679 7,654 11,557 9,092 10,182 8,616 10,882 7,579 13,057

88.36 89.74 86.59 83.80 82.32 74.43 84.48 75.89 80.68 81.04 78.29 76.44 79.55 71.30 76.88 74.69 73.14 69.59 70.71 77.94 73.29 71.31 68.10 59.25 62.52 69.15 62.02 76.29

78.98 77.39 74.02 72.53 67.24 55.12 68.48 52.53 64.47 62.20 59.32 58.45 52.58 55.81 57.18 54.62 52.81 46.16 51.62 57.60 50.01 44.10 46.19 43.02 38.40 40.76 36.84 57.45

83.91 83.47 79.87 78.17 74.86 65.00 76.59 64.42 72.63 71.87 68.75 67.67 66.27 63.69 67.19 64.88 63.14 58.04 61.21 68.09 61.98 57.81 57.46 51.26 50.65 55.02 49.54 67.04

113.97 96.44 102.96 101.23 91.37 78.45 92.37 90.43 89.20 93.80 91.33 86.95 99.51 83.51 90.37 91.53 98.96 78.09 93.53 81.99 93.43 83.95 85.24 78.65 80.45 71.85 65.96 89.95

45 44 45 62 45 48 59 45 57 69 59 52 66 56 53 54 59 53 62 66 66 64 67 57 67 65 59 55

67.3 67.4 67.8 63.3 67.4 66.5 62.9 67.7 63.2 61.9 65.2 65.8 62.7 64.8 65.3 64.6 64.2 66.1 62.9 62.2 63.3 60.8 62.6 63.5 62.9 63.5 63.9 65.8

0.666 0.636 0.588 0.621 0.547 0.605 0.546 0.532 0.518 0.553 0.519 0.515 0.525 0.561 0.505 0.517 0.508 0.549 0.513 0.491 0.470 0.539 0.499 0.518 0.490 0.529 0.469 0.559

0.705 0.707 0.842 0.638 0.707 0.692 0.632 0.712 0.642 0.615 0.670 0.711 0.750 0.663 0.672 0.660 0.653 0.685 0.632 0.699 0.638 0.636 0.627 0.570 0.632 0.576 0.648 0.680

0.887 0.823 0.713 0.883 0.766 0.662 0.781 0.699 0.570 0.758 0.729 0.680 0.628 0.669 0.714 0.704 0.713 0.618 0.682 0.620 0.689 0.597 0.642 0.642 0.572 0.642 0.524 0.712

0.753 0.722 0.714 0.697 0.673 0.653 0.653 0.648 0.647 0.642 0.639 0.635 0.634 0.631 0.630 0.627 0.625 0.617 0.609 0.603 0.599 0.591 0.589 0.582 0.576 0.564 0.547 0.650

Source: Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report 2005, Planning Commission, Bangalore. 16

The combined gross enrolment ration of children (I-X) has been presented in 7th column. The overall gross enrolment ratio is highest in Bangalore Urban accounted 113.97 was above the state average of 89.95, while lowest is in Raichur 89.95 respectively. Another fact to be noted is that 21 out of 27 districts have a per capita income below the state average. The fact mentioned earlier, namely, the Per Capita Income of the poorest district is only 25-30 percent of that of the richest district of the state. The Life Expectancy at Birth for the State was 65.8 years and for India 64.8 years. Belgaum obtained the highest figure 67.7 years, while, Dharwad got the lowest 61.9 years. In about 21 districts, the life expectancy at birth was below the state average only in six districts such as Bangalore Urban, Bangalore Rural, Belgaum, Bellary, Dakshina Kannada and Shimoga have above the state average. Surprisingly, Kodagu districts has 3rd highest in HDI of the state has only 63.3 years which is below the state figures. Infant Mortality Rate for Karnataka State was 55 for 1,000 populations in 2001-02. In 17 districts, the rate was above the state values. It may be noted that the highest infant mortality rate of 67 was in Gulbarga district. This information indicates that significant human development disparities exist between the districts. It is also seen that the poor districts are associated with low human development, low industrial development and low agricultural productivity. The following table 5.4 presents HDI of 27 districts of Karnataka state for 1981, 1991 and 2001. The districts are ranked in the descending order of the HDI. The table reveals significant inter-district disparities in human development in Karnataka state. The HDI

17

values vary from 0.753 for Bangalore Urban to 0.547 for Raichur districts in 2001. In the 1999 human development report, the variation was from 0.661 in Dakshina Kannada district to 0.443 in Raichur district. However, what is encouraging is the fact that the difference between the districts with the highest and the lowest HDI has narrowed from 49.21 percent in 1991 to 37.6 percent in 2001. During 1981 Dakshina Kannada was the 1st place among 20 districts of Karnataka state. But 1991 and 2001 Bangalore urban got first place and Dakshina Kannada pushed to 2nd place, while Raichur keeps the bottom of the state. Karnataka state has improved 0.360 in 1981 to 0.541 and 0.6450 in 1991 and 2001 with 20.14 percentage changes during the same period.

18

Table 1.4 HDI of various Districts of Karnataka State during 1981 to 2001
1981 Sl No. Name of the Districts Value 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Bangalore Urban Dakshina Kannada Udupi Kodagu Shimoga Bangalore Rural Uttar Kannada Belgaum Chikmagalur Dharwad Hassan Davangere Gadag Mysore Tumkur Chitradurga Kolar Bellary Mandya Haveri Bidar Bagalkot Bijapur Chamaraja Nagar Gulbarga Koppal Raichur KARNATAKA 0.435 0.436 0.429 0.377 0.406 0.352 0.381 0.360 0.357 0.338 0.354 0.352 0.352 0.308 0.330 0.319 0.324 0.305 0.298 0.360 Rank 2 1 3 6 4 5 11 7 8 13 9 12 10 17 14 16 15 18 19 Value 0.623 0.661 0.659 0.623 0.584 0.539 0.567 0.545 0.559 0.539 0.519 0.548 0.516 0.524 0.539 0.535 0.522 0.512 0.511 0.496 0.496 0.505 0.504 0.488 0.453 0.446 0.443 0.541 Rank 4 1 2 3 5 11 6 9 7 10 16 8 17 14 12 13 15 18 19 22 23 20 21 24 25 26 27 Value 0.753 0.722 0.714 0.697 0.673 0.653 0.653 0.648 0.647 0.642 0.639 0.635 0.634 0.631 0.630 0.627 0.625 0.617 0.609 0.603 0.599 0.591 0.589 0.582 0.576 0.564 0.547 0.650 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1991 2001 Percentage changes in 2001 from 1991 20.86 9.22 9.31 11.87 18.66 21.15 15.16 18.89 19.32 19.10 23.12 17.16 23.20 20.41 16.88 17.19 19.73 20.50 19.17 24.16 26.76 18.21 20.76 18.00 24.50 31.07 23.47 20.14

Source: Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report 2005, Planning Commission Note: 1. 1981 human development index for computed only 20 districts of the state 2. Shantappa, Coordinator, KHDR 2005 using latest UNDP Methodology.

19

Gender related development Index Karnataka has performed better in gender related development and occupies seventh rank among major states. But HDI values of Karnataka are higher than GDI values in all districts. It shows that the levels of socio-economic development of women are lower than the general level all over Karnataka. It is to be noted that a higher level of economic development does not ensure higher gender related development or human development. Districts of Malnad and coastal areas, which rank lower in per capita income, have higher gender development. The table 1.5 depicted progress of Gender related development of various districts of Karnataka state. The progress of GDI at the state level has improved from 0.525 in 1991 to 0.637 in 2001 registering an increase of 21 percent in ten years. The pace of reduction in gender disparities is rather slow. It is only marginally higher than the increase of 20 percent in the HDI during the same period. Although the values for the GDI of districts are lower than the corresponding values for the HDI, the GDI ranking compares favorably within the HDI ranking for a majority of districts in 1991 and 2001. This indicates that districts with high human development levels will have lower gender disparities while districts with poor human development indicators will have greater gender inequality. However, there are significant variations in the GDI across districts. GDI indices vary from 0.645 in Dakshina Kannada and low of 0.422 in Raichur in 2001. It is also interesting to note that ranking in GDI almost follow the HDI ranking, a phenomenon that is not very common at the international level. The four districts such as Bangalore Urban, Dakshina Kannada, Udupi and Kodagu placed first four places from the top and Raichur, Gulbarga, Chamaraja Nagar and Koppal lie at the bottom of the list.

21

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

1991 SL No. Name of the Districts Value 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Rank Value

2001

Rank

Percentage changes in 2001 from 1991

Bangalore Urban 0.592 4 0.731 1 23.47 Dakshina Kannada 0.645 1 0.714 2 10.69 Udupi 0.644 2 0.704 3 9.31 Kodagu 0.617 3 0.690 4 11.83 Shimoga 0572 5 0.661 5 15.55 Bangalore Rural 0.524 12 0.640 6 22.13 Uttar Kannada 0.548 7 0.639 7 16.60 Belgaum 0.525 11 0.635 9 20.95 Chikmagalur 0.550 6 0.636 8 15.63 Dharwad 0.531 8 0.26 11 17.89 Hassan 0.507 14 0.630 10 24.26 Davangere 0.530 9 0.621 13 17.16 Gadag 0.502 16 0.625 12 24.50 Mysore 0.496 18 0.605 18 21.97 Tumkur 0.528 10 0.618 15 17.04 Chitradurga 0,514 13 0.618 14 20.23 Kolar 0.505 15 0.613 16 21.38 Bellary 0.499 17 0.606 17 21.44 Mandya 0.491 19 0.593 20 20.77 Haveri 0.480 22 0.596 19 24.16 Bidar 0.477 23 0.572 22 19.91 Bagalkot 0.483 21 0.571 23 18.21 Bijapur 0.486 20 0.573 21 17.90 Chamaraja Nagar 0.472 24 0.557 25 18.00 Gulbarga 0.432 25 0.543 26 25.69 Koppal 0.428 26 0.561 24 31.07 Raichur 0.422 27 0.530 27 25.59 KARNATAKA 0.525 0.637 21.33 Source: Government of Karnataka (2006) Karnataka Human Development Report 2005, Planning Commission

22

The extent of gender disparities in development among different district is alarming. The GDI of Bangalore Urban would place it at the 92nd rank among the countries of the world, which is far ahead of the 103rd ranking that the state itself would attain and 0.574 positions accorded to the country. But Raichur district would only achieve a position nearly 130th given the degree of disparity in human development between the sexes. 1.7 Public Expenditure on Human Development in Karnataka Financing human development is a very critical aspect for the modest human development index of states like Karnataka, especially for the poor and other vulnerable sub-populations are supported by the state, enabling them to become empowered beings capable of realizing their inherent potential in a participatory and democratic context. UNDP human development report 1991 noted, the best strategy for human development is to ensure, through strong policies, generation and better distribution of primary incomes. In addition, government services in services in social infrastructure schools, health clinics, nutrition, food subsidies as well as physical infrastructure road, electricity and housing can help the poor bridge the gap caused by paucity of income. The size of public expenditure in a state depends on the states own revenue income as well as on transfers from the central government. The size of central transfers in a federal set-up such as India depends on several factors, such as the recommendations of the finance commission, central schemes for welfare and development, central aid in disasters and calamities and so on. Social sector expenditure is the most effective measure to improve human development through augmenting various social attainments like literacy rate, and life expectancy at birth. However, with the prevailing fiscal constraint in the state, it is of utmost importance to evaluate

23

the governments commitment in terms of the expenditure incurred by it. In the post-reforms periods, these ratios don not show any radical improvement. Table 1.7 Expenditure ratios in Karnataka, 1990-91 to 2002-03 (Percent) Public expenditure ratio (PER) Social allocation ratio (SAR) Social priority ratio (SPR) Human expenditure ratio (HER)

Year

1990-91 17.78 41.22 55.45 4.06 1991-92 17.61 40.20 53.72 3.80 1992-93 19.18 36.77 52.54 3.71 1993-94 18.45 39.50 54.03 3.94 1994-95 17.70 39.19 53.83 3.73 1995-96 17.79 37.62 51.94 3.48 1996-97 17.75 36.90 51.02 3.34 1997-98 16.73 38.40 51.99 3.34 1998-99 16.33 39.49 52.55 3.39 1999-2000 18.09 37.75 54.86 3.75 2000-01 18.22 37.89 52.84 3.65 2001-02 20.06 34.96 52.29 3.67 2002-03 18.83 34.36 50.69 3.28 Note: Expenditure under different heads has been estimated as the sum of revenue | expenditure and capital expenditure (including loans and advances net of repayments) Source: Estimated from Finance Accounts of Karnataka, Account General, GOI

The table 1.7 presented public expenditure ratio and other three ratio of Karnataka State between 1990-91 to 2002-03. The PER increased from 17.78 percent in 1990-91 to 18.83 percent in 2002-03, before declining to 16.33 percent in 1998-99. Thereafter, mainly due to pay and pension revision, the PER increased to constitute more than 18 percent of GSDP in 1999-2000. Infact, the full effect of the pay revision was seen in 2000-01 as the government had to incur substantial expenditures to pay arrears. Thus, in 2001-02, the public expenditure GDP ratio 24

increased to over 20.06 percent. However, the fiscal adjustment programme resulted in the deceleration of expenditure, to reduce the PER to 18.8 percent in the following years, and has stabilized at that level in subsequent years. Although the aggregate expenditure GDP ratio showed a significant increase over the years, social sector expenditures have actually shown a marginal decline. The share of social sector expenditures in the total or social allocation ratio declined by seven percentage points from 41.22 percent in 1990-91 to 34.36 percent in 2002-03. As a ratio of GSDP too, social sector expenditures declined by about 0.8 percentage point, from 7.3 percent to 6.5 percent the decline in the expenditure. GDP ratio as well as the share of social sector expenditures implies that overall, the allocation to social sector in real terms has declined despite substantial increases in the pay and pension revision. The trend in the social priority ratio, which is a sub-set of SAR is similar. The SPR declined from 55.5 percent in 1990-91 to 50.69 percent in 2002-03 or as a ratio of GSDP in decline was from 4.1 percent to 3.3 percent. Thus, as compared to 1990-91 both SAR and SPR in 2002-03 were lower. This shows that the expenditures on sectors that are considered to have high social priority were crowded out by the pressure of increasing expenditure on salaries, debt servicing and other implicit and explicit subsidies in the wake of stagnant revenues. The second global human development report 1991suggested - PER for a country should be around 25 percent, SAR should be about 40 percent and SPR about 50 percent. The human expenditure ratio (HER) should be about 5 percent. However, data reveal that PER in Karnataka has been less than the suggested norm of 25 percent over the entire decade.

25

1.8 Summary Human development of Karnataka state was guided by the Millennium Development Goals. The progress of human development of Karnataka state was reasonably good. The HDI value of the state has improved from 0.541 to 0.650 between 1991 to 2001 with 7th rank of the 15 Indian states were well above the national average 0.423 and 0.621 respectively during same period, but lower than neighbouring states such as Kerala, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. GDI values are also improved from 0.525 to 0.637 during same period. But Karnatakas relative position was very lower than those neighbouring states. Therefore, government has to increase investment in social sectors targeted to the more needy districts is a necessary condition for achieving higher levels of human development and improving the wellbeing of the population. Enhanced allocations alone, however, are not sufficient to reach the desired objective. In-depth analysis of the social sectors indicators that the state has also to overcome structural inadequacies to get the maximum benefit from government intervention.

1.9. References
1. Government of Karnataka (2002): High Power Committee on Regional Imbalances Redressel, Planning Commission, Bangalore. 2. Government of Karnataka, Planning Commission (1999):Human Development in Karnataka, UBS Publishers Distributors Limited, Bangalore. 3. GOI (2002): National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. 4. Government of Karnataka, Planning Commission (2006):Human Development in Karnataka 2005, UBS Publishers Distributors Limited, Bangalore.

26