09
AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ON SUSTAINABILITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH PERSPECTIVE OF DIFFERENT INDIAN STATES
Geetanjali Singh1 and Nistha Pattar2
1

Assistant Professor, 2Masters in Economics,
Department of Economics, Mehr Chand Mahajan DAV College, Chandigarh, India
Email: geetanjalis52@gmail.com, nisthapattar6@gmail.com

How to cite this paper:
Singh, Geetanjali and Pattar,
Nistha (2021) An Empirical
Analysis on Sustainability andEconomic
GrowthPerspectiveofDifferent
Indian States, Journal of
Global Resources, Vol. 07
(02)
DOI:
10.46587/JGR.2021.v07i02.009

Received: 05 March 2021
Reviewed: 25 April 2021
Revised: 21 May 2021
Final Accepted: 25 May 2021

Freely available Online
www.isdesr.org

Abstract: The world is witnessing massive changes, whichclearly highlight the fact that for long-term development andgrowth, the approach of sustainability is the only viableoption. The present research paper aims at highlighting therelationship between the gross state domestic product(GSDP) of various Indian states and its relationship with thelong-term vision of sustainability that these states hold. The
paper aims at portraying that sustainable development andnot shortsighted materialistic growth holds the key toultimate well-being of the people. Our Forests constitutenatures wealth and therefore are taken as a criteria andparameter to measure the sustainability quotient of thevarious Indian states. The central government and also
various state governments have come up with various
programmes and schemes for increasing the forest cover,
but the results of percentage increase in forest cover holds
the key to show as to whether these schemes andprogrammes have been fruitful in reality or not. Throughvarious graphs, ratios and other statistical tools andtechniques, we show whether or not the states have thevision and foresight towards a more environmentally
inclusive development. It is clearly visible that only few
states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh andKarnataka have shown improvement that can be
categorized as satisfactory. Other states have followed only
a short-term and narrow approach to development, notrealizing the fact that sustainability ultimately holds the key
and is the future of mankind. It is high time that we realize
the need of the hour and take immediate steps in the right
direction for long term prosperity of the states and nation asa whole.
Keywords: Economic development, Economic Growth, Forest
Cover, Gross State Domestic Product, Sustainability.

Journal of Global Resources, July 2021, Volume 07 (02) Geetanjali Singh and Nistha Pattar Page 93 | 9

Introduction
For a long period of time economic growth and economic development had been used assynonyms terms. But the difference between the two is now well accepted. While economic
growth caters to quantitative perspectives like GDP, per capita income etc., economic
development is a broader and more holistic concept. Economists over the years havedeveloped the concept beautifully well and it is still under the process of evolution. the concept
is wide and dynamic enough to cater to and subsume all additions around the world. The
concept of Sustainable Development gained ground in 1987 when the Brundtland Report was
published. It laid down the foundation stone for a new approach of how world’s development
would henceforth be valued.
The concept of sustainability has now become a reality and the only source of humanbeings' long term healthy survival. Today’s uncertain times have made it certain that humanbeings cannot be the master of the planet and the best option is to remain in harmony withnature, to develop by enriching the world rather than recklessly destroying it. The sustainability
aspect opens the eyes, stating that we have only borrowed the world from our ancestors andthis has to be given to the future generations at least as it is if not better. The sustainable
development goals that have come into force after the MDGs clearly portray that long term
goals need complete overhaul and can be satisfying only when nature and various natural
resources are cherished, saved and conserved well. Various criteria about health andwellbeing can materialise only when the importance of environment, forests and trees ishighlighted and their role is acknowledged. The sustainable development goals also mention
about forests. In our analysis, we account for forests cover (expanse of forest in a country ora region) of states as synonymous to their vision of economic development with sustainability
parameters.
Study of the relation between the role of social forestry and sustainable development
highlighted that investments in forestry and tree growing will have to be enormous in themedium-term future to achieve a reasonable balance between requirements for environmental
stability and local demands for forest and tree products. (Gregersen; Draper and Ela, 1989).
Their findings of a study employing a panel data model for 130 countries, suggested evidenceof diminishing marginal propensity to emit CO2 as economies develop. Further, the forecast
results indicate that global emissions of CO2 will continue to grow at an annual rate of 1.8per
cent. (Holtz-Eakin and Selden ,1995). A study highlighted the assessment of socio‐economic
and biophysical constraints on the deforestation process and quantified forest change hotspots
by utilizing land use/cover data, in conjunction with socio‐economic and biophysical indicatorsof South India. Jayantha Kumaran et al. (2012) using ARDL methodology compares therelationship between growth, trade and energy use for India and China. (Prasad andBadarinath, 2005). It was also proposed that structural breaks are endogenously determined
for the period 1971–2007 using the Lagrange multiplier unit root test. (Lee and Strazicich,2003). Another study put to light the issues concerning environmental sustainability andeconomic growth in India using micro and macro level evidences. They highlighted
urbanization and forest cover change. The article stressed on existence of crucial
environmental thresholds to India's growth strategy and various governance issues
surrounding Indian environment policy to make growth more environmentally sustainable(Mukhopadhyay and Shyam Sundar, 2012). Another study investigated the dynamic causal
relationships between CO2 emissions, economic growth, renewable and nonrenewable energy
consumption, and trade in Tunisia during the period 1980–2009. The authors observe that
EKC hypothesis is not supported in the long-run, whereas in the short-run the inverted Ushaped EKC hypothesis is supported. In case of trade, both per capita exports and imports
Journal of Global Resources, July 2021, Volume 07 (02) Geetanjali Singh and Nistha Pattar Page 94 | 9

have a positive impact on per capita CO2 emissions. (Jelbi and Youssef, 2015). Another study
focused on study of state of Karnataka and analysed green GDP which would measuresustainability of development. It would be an appropriate and valuable decision-making aid in
economic planning. (Singh et al., 2016). Also, study has been conducted to highlight theconcept of the importance of sustainable development in Uttarakhand and suggests some
important measures to improve sustainability. The relation between economic growth andsustainable development was also presented in the paper. (Singh and Nautiya, 2017)
Materials and Methods
Sources of data –Secondary data has been used in the analysis. The various sources for thisdata include the Envi Stats 2020 (Supplement on Environmental Accounts) and Indian Forest
survey report 2019 and 2017, RBI report 2020.
Techniques and methods used-To compute the relationship between the sustainability
parameter and the gross domestic state product, a number of techniques including – ratios,
percentages, graphs and the statistical technique of correlation has been applied. The SPSS
Software has been used for computation.
Objective
To study the relationship between the Sustainability aspect as measured by the forest coverin different states and the economic growth as measured by the gross state domestic product(GSDP at constant prices 2011-2012). The aim primarily is to understand whether the various
Indian states are growing and developing in a sustainable manner or not. The aim is also tomake out whether along with economic growth, sustainability in the form of increasing forest
cover in various states is taking place or not. If it is increasing, what is its extent and what is
the scope for improvement. To analyse the change in forest cover in different states over the
five-year period, between 2015 and 2019. The hypothesis can be stated that the growth in
GSDP and sustainable development go hand in hand for the various states. Indian states havestarted giving importance to sustainable development. The various assumptions made include
that the GSDP of states is evenly distributed throughout the year, the gross state domestic
product is assumed to increase at the same rate throughout the year as the data about forest
cover is available yearly from January to December while the GSDP is available for thefinancial year April to March and weighted averages have been computed to find out the yearly
GSDP for 2015-19.Forest cover is an important constituent to analyse the sustainability aspect.
Discussion and Result
Economic growth is measured using the quantitative measures and under this study the grossstate domestic product (GSDP at constant prices 2011-2012) of various Indian states has beenaccounted for the years 2015- 19. Economic growth is deemed narrower in approach toeconomic development which is considered a holistic approach that accounts for various
indicators apart from income which aim at enhancing quality of life of people, provide selfesteem and freedom. it should be emphasized that development accounts for the concept ofsustainability which is at its core.
The comparison between the gross state domestic product change from the year 201519 shows that every state has improved its GSDP ranging from 26.821 per cent to 47.721
percent between 2015-19. This shows that between the years, GSDP has improved
considerably for all the Indian states under the study. Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Telangana, Haryana, Sikkim, Tripura etc., show the highest percentage increase in GSDP from2015- 19 and Bihar, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Telangana, Tripura etc., show increase between
the time period 2017-2019. Though the overall aggregate score for all states shows a very
Journal of Global Resources, July 2021, Volume 07 (02) Geetanjali Singh and Nistha Pattar Page 95 | 9

positive and healthy sign as far as the increase is concerned, it ranks lower in comparison to
the rest of the states for Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, West
Bengal, Punjab (2015-2019) and Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, West Bengal (2017-2019)
etc.

Figure 01: GSDP of Different Indian States a Comparative View (2015 to 2019)
Figure 1 depicts the GSDP (at constant price 2011–2012) for the year 2015- 2019 (Rs.
crore). It clearly shows that states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal,
Andhra Pradesh etc., have high GSDP aggregates. Also, the figure clearly depicts that no state
has registered negative growth in GSDP and every state has shown increase in its aggregate
buy a significant amount.
Figure 2 has also been prepared showing the percentage increase in GSDP of thevarious states highlighting the trend of considerable increase in GSDP. This shows that allstates have fared well on the GSDP percentage increase criteria. The period under study has
seen commendable increase showing how the states have been the path of continuous growthover the time period under study. Figure 2 depict the percentage change in GSDP from 201519. This clearly states that the eastern street of Tripura has shown the highest percentage
increase between the GSDP during the two time periods. Other states that have shownconsiderable improvement include the southern state of Karnataka, its neighbouring state ofTelangana, Odisha, Haryana, Bihar and Tamil Nadu. On the other hand, the states that haveshown lower percentage increase the ones where the percentage change ranges from 20 to30 per cent. These include the states of Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya, Punjab, Rajasthan and West
Bengal.
In figure 3, the percentage change in forest cover between 2015 to 2019 clearlyhighlights that Andhra Pradesh has made significant leap in increasing its forest cover over theperiod. There is massive difference between the high-ranking state of Andhra Pradesh andsecond in rank Karnataka. Apart from Karnataka certain states including Himachal
Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana etc., have also shown improvement. But certain
states including Meghalaya, Sikkim, and Tripura Have shown negative growth rate. But the

Journal of Global Resources, July 2021, Volume 07 (02) Geetanjali Singh and Nistha Pattar Page 96 | 9

fact still remains that these eastern states have a huge percentage of their total area covered
under forest.

Figure 02: Percentage Change in GSDP from 2015-19

Figure 03: Percentage Area Under Forest Cover of Indian states for 2015-19
Figure 4 takes into consideration the change in forest area between 2015 to 2019 andits relationship with the percentage of forest area in the year 2019. The first one clearly showsthat Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh stand far ahead than the otherstates, which lie somewhere between negative growth to 1 per cent. These three states in2019 have forest cover. The other states except Sikkim, Tripura and Meghalaya lie in a similar
bracket and it can clearly be seen that these states have had lower share of forests initiallyand have shown little improvement over the years. Bihar, Punjab, Rajasthan, West Bengal,
Uttar Pradesh, Haryana etc., fall in similar categories, all having low percentage area under
forest cover signifying lack of sustainability approach in development and little efforts toimprove the very same The figure showing the comparative analysis between percentagechange in GDP from 2015 to 2019 accounting for the percentage change in forest area during
the same period, it becomes clear that Andhra Pradesh has outshined all other Indian states
understudy. Certain states including that of Meghalaya Sikkim and Tripura rank quite low inpercentage change in forest cover from 2015 to 19, depicting negative growth rate, but very
Journal of Global Resources, July 2021, Volume 07 (02) Geetanjali Singh and Nistha Pattar Page 97 | 9

significantly in their GSDP ranking. Tripura his outshined all other Indian states In terms ofincrease in GSDP during the period under study, followed by Karnataka and Telangana.
Accounting for the percentage change in forest area The top-ranking state of Andhra Pradesh
is followed by its neighbouring state of Karnataka. Karnataka can be seen as an apt exampleof how it has improved both its GSDP percentage over the years and has also significantly
shown improvement in the increase in forest area between the four years period under study.
But a large number of states other than these lie in a similar bracket of 25 to 40 per cent inpercentage change in GSDP between 0 per cent to 5 per cent change in forest area between
the same time period.

Figure 04: Percentage Change in Forest Cover between 2015 to 2019

Figure 05: Relationship of percentage change of GSDP and percentage change offorest cover (2015-2019)
The major chunk of states in India lie in a similar bracket where the GSDP growth rate
ranges between 20 per cent -30 per cent while a minute change in forest cover, showing
sustainable development negligence. The major chunk of percentage increase lies in a bracket
lower than 0.01 percent. Examples of such states include Bihar, Telangana, Haryana, West
Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, Rajasthan Orissa, Chhattisgarh etc. Meghalaya is an
exception hair which has performed poorly on both grounds, the GSDP front and the
Journal of Global Resources, July 2021, Volume 07 (02) Geetanjali Singh and Nistha Pattar Page 98 | 9sustainability front. But a sign of caution here is that the state has one of the maximum areas
under forest cover. On the other hand, there are only three states as mentioned above whichhave done an applaudable job via-a-vis all other states. This shows that these states have along-term vision of growth along with sustainability.
Limitations
Nineteen states have been accounted for the analysis, for which the secondary data wasavailable. Certain states and union territories have been excluded because the latest GSDP
data was not available on the government website for the same. Secondary data fromgovernment sources has been has been used in regards to the total forest cover. The
possibility of qualitative deterioration of this forest has been ignored.
Conclusion
Thus, it is clear that a majority of Indian states fall in the similar category. Only few states,
namely, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka have shown satisfactory
improvement. All other states lie on similar footing where under they have followed a shortterm Growth approach, notwithstanding the fact that sustainability holds the key. The silver
lining is the fact that sustainability as a concept has emerged as the forest area has not
reduced, even when it has increased only minutely but a long road still needs to be taken. It istime that states realize that development is not a narrow concept, and human beings are only
a very small element in the endless world. It is in the best interest of all to understand that man
can survive only when it stays in harmony and not at war with nature. We need to broaden our
horizons and understand that real development can only come with the approach ofsustainability deep-rooted in it.
References
1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative
development: An empirical investigation. The American Economic Review 91, 1369–1401.
2. Chauhan, Pradeep S. (2019). Climate Change and Paris Agreement: Challenges after US
Withdrawal. New Century Publications, New Delhi.
3. Chauhan, P. (2009). Energy and Climate Change: Issues of Sustainable Development.
Associate Publisher.
4. Chauhan, P.S. (2010). Energy and Sustainable Development. Trafford Publication: USA.
5. Chauhan, P.S. (2014). Energy and Sustainable Development in India. Twenty first Century:
PB
6. Carroll, M., Townshend, J. R. G. & Hansen, M. C. MODIS Vegetative Cover Conversion
and Vegetation Continuous Fields. In Land Remote Sensing.
7. Dr. P.D. Singh, Dr. Sunita Gusainv and Prof. R.R. Nautiya (2017). Growth of SDP andstructural changes in state economies: interstate comparison. Researcher 2017;9(11).
Also please refer to the document at http://www.sciencepub.net/researcher.
8. EnviStats 2019
9. Gregersen, H; Draper, S; Ela, D (1989). People and trees: The role of social forestry insustainable development. Publication Date:1989-01-01 Research Org.: International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC (USA). Economic Development
Inst.
10. Grossman, G. M. & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 353–377.
11. Handbook of Statistics On Indian States {Gross State Domestic Product (constant prices),
RBI
12. Hansen, B. (2000). Sample splitting and threshold estimation. Econometrical 68, 575–603.
Journal of Global Resources, July 2021, Volume 07 (02) Geetanjali Singh and Nistha Pattar Page 99 | 913. Holtz-Eakin, D. and Selden, T.M. (1995). Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic
growth. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 57, pp. 85-101
14. Hosonuma, N. et al. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers indeveloping countries. Environmental Research Letters 7, 044009 (2012).
15. Kauppi, P. E. et al. (2006). Returning forests analyzed with the forest identity. Proceedingsof The National Academy of Sciences 103, 17574–17579.
16. Indian state of Forest report (2019). Published by – Forest survey of India (Ministry ofenvironment Forest and climate change), Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
17. Jayanthakumaran, K., Verma, R. and Liu, Y. (2012). CO2 emissions, energy consumption,
trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy, No. 42, pp.
450-460.
18. Jayachandran, S. (2013). Liquidity constraints and deforestation: The limitations of
payments for ecosystem services. The American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings
103, 309–313.
19. Jebli, M.B. and Youssef, S.B. (2015). The Environmental Kuznets Curve, economic growth,
renewable and non-renewable energy, and trade in Tunisia. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, Vol. 47, pp. 173-185.
20. Kaya, Y. and Yokobori, K. (1993). Environment, Energy and Economy: Strategies for
Sustainability. BROOK-0356/XAB, United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
21. Lee, J. and Strazicich, M.C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two
structural breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 1082-1089.
22. Mukhopadhyay, P. and Shyamsundar, P, (2012). Economic growth and ecologicalsustainability in India. The Oxford handbook of Indian economy.
23. O’Grady, M. A., Eiras, A. I., Schaefer, B. D. & Kim, A. B. Index of economic freedom.
Heritage Foundation (2006).
24. Östlund, L., Zackrisson, O. & Axelsson, A. L. (1997). The history and transformation of a
Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 27, 1198–1206.
25. Prasad V, Badarinath (2005). Assessing forest cover sustainability and deforestation risk
from social economic and biophysical indicators – a case study from Ramapa forests.
South
India.
First
published:
04
April
2005
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.250
26. Pao, H.-T. and Tsai, C.-M. (2011). Modeling and forecasting the CO2 emissions, energy
consumption, and economic growth in Brazil. Energy, Vol. 36, pp. 2450-2458.
27. Singh R, Soujanya N, Singh V, Keshava RS, Kumar, Kakkar R (2016). Green GSDP for
sustainable development. Chapter First Online: 16 November 2016 Part of theEnvironmental Challenges and Solutions book series (ECAS, volume 3).
28. Redo, D. J., Grau, H. R., Aide, T. M. & Clark, M. L. (2012). Asymmetric forest transition
driven by the interaction of socioeconomic development and environmental heterogeneity
in Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 8839–8844.
29. Zaloumis, N. P. & Bond, W. J. (2016). Reforestation or conservation? The attributes of old
growth grasslands in South Africa. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371,
20150310
30. World Bank. World Development Indicators data.worldbank.org (2010).
31. www.niti.gov.in
32. www.mospi.gov.in
33. www.un.org

Journal of Global Resources, July 2021, Volume 07 (02) Geetanjali Singh and Nistha Pattar Page 100 | 9

APPENDICES
Appendix 01: shows the percentage forest area for the years 2015, 2017 and 2019 andalso the percentage change in forest area from 2017 to 2019 and from 2015 to 2019.
GSDP 2019(Rs. Crore)

GSDP 2017(Rs. Crore)

Percentage
Percentage
GSDP 2015 change in GSDP change in GSDP
(Rs. Crore)
2015-20192017-2019

Andhra Pradesh

659339.02

581183.535

485095.76

35.91935333

13.44764266

Bihar

405145.395

338579.45

292236.74

38.63602331

19.66036184

Chhattisgarh

240403.1225

213438.9825

189561.04

26.82095567

12.63318429

Haryana

561951.0725

484715.86402687.22

39.55026248

15.93412118

Himachal Pradesh

122765.0525

108289.1975

94470.59

29.95055128

13.36777383

Jharkhand

236273.6325

206233.955

177794.46

32.89144808

14.56582525

Karnataka

1181879.175

1018205.29

810604.71

45.80215985

16.07474314

Madhya Pradesh

551853.4475

487804.6275

410037.92

34.58595427

13.13001484

Meghalaya

26191.9125

22355.805

20513.89

27.67891658

17.15933513

Odisha397341.9775

354912.2375

286838.03

38.52485931

11.95499493

Punjab413568.39

369608.8275

325570.28

27.0289137

11.89353696

Rajasthan703077.145

624274.97

552881.88

27.16588668

12.62299128

Sikkim19693.4675

17104.3375

14044.86

40.21832542

15.13727147

Tamil Nadu

1288523.775

1103535.61

949150.61

35.75545982

16.7632257

Telangana650650.4025

546605.18

452489.84

43.7933728

19.0348036

Tripura39635.8175

32848.7825

26831.47

47.72137904

20.66145069

Uttar Pradesh

1174824.7

1061661.948

889789.06

32.03406884

10.65901931

West Bengal

779798.59

684589.2225

600749.58

29.8042672

13.9075177

State

Appendix 02: shows GSDP (Rs. Crore) of various Indian states and union territories understudy for the years 2015, 2017 and 2019 and also the percentage change in GSDP from 2017 to2019 and 2015 to 2019.

State
Andhra Pradesh
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Meghalaya
OdishaPunjabRajasthan
SikkimTamil Nadu
Telangana
TripuraUttar PradeshWest Bengal

Percentage
forest area (outof total area ofstate) 2019

Percentage
forest area (outof total area ofstate) 2017

Percentage
forest area (out Percentage
of total area of change fromstate) 20152017 to 2019

17.88

17.27

15.96

3.53

12.03

7.76

7.75

7.7

0.13

0.78

41.13

41.08

41.09

0.12

0.10

3.62

3.59

3.57

0.84

1.40

27.72

27.12

26.42

2.21

4.92

29.62

29.54

29.51

0.27

0.37

20.11

19.58

19

2.71

5.84

25.14

25.11

25.12

0.12

0.08

76.33

76.79

76.96

-0.60

-0.82

33.15

32.98

32.41

0.52

2.28

3.67

3.65

3.52

0.55

4.26

4.86

4.84

4.71

0.41

3.18

Percentagechange from2015 to 2019

47.1

47.13

47.26

-0.06

-0.34

20.27

20.2

20.15

0.35

0.60

18.36

18.22

17.71

0.77

3.67

73.68

73.68

75.24

0.00

-2.07

6.15

6.09

5.97

0.99

3.02

19.04

18.98

18.9580.32

0.43

Journal of Global Resources, July 2021, Volume 07 (02) Geetanjali Singh and Nistha Pattar Page 101 | 9