Lok Sabha Question No. 301 (STARRED), answered on 2016-12-07
Subject: Regional Disparity
Ministry: PLANNING
Asked by: KAMAL NATH, JYOTIRADITYA MADHAVRAO SCINDIA

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PLANNING

## LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO.  *301 TO BE ANSWERED ON 07-12-2016

## REGIONAL DISPARITY

## *301 SHRI KAMAL NATH SHRI JYOTIRADITYA M. SCINDIA

Will the Minister of PLANNING be pleased to state:

- (a) whether the Union Government is aware that regional disparity among States has been growing over the years and if so, the facts and details in this regard;
- (b) whether any study has been conducted to ascertain the factors responsible for such wide gap in regional disparity amongst States and if so, the details along with the findings in this regard; and
- (c) the key role played by various State Governments to bridge the aforesaid gap and bring parity amongst the States?

## ANSWER

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR MINISTRY OF PLANNING AND MINISTER OF STATE FOR MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN POVERTY ALLEVIATION

(RAO INDERJIT SINGH)

- (a) to (c) A statement is laid on the Table of the House.

## STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION. NO. *301 REGARDING REGIONAL DISPARITY BY SHRI KAMAL NATH AND SHRI JYOTIRADITYA M. SCINDIA DUE FOR ANSWER ON 7.12.2016

- (a)& (b)   The sub-continental dimensions of India, with inherent   differences in geographical parameters and historical developments, have led to regional disparities in the levels of development of different areas, owing to the differences in resource endowment, levels of infrastructure and socio-economic parameters.  In view of this background, the Union Government's aim has been to promote   inclusive and balanced growth. To  redress  growing  regional  imbalances,  an  Inter-Ministerial  Task  Group  was constituted in August, 2004, which submitted its recommendation in January, 2005. This  group  identified  170  Districts  as  backward  including  55  extremists  affected districts.  It was also recommended for setting up a Backward District Grant Fund over and above the then existing mechanisms.  Further in May, 2013, a Committee under the Chairmanship   of the then Chief Economic Adviser Dr. Raghuram G. Rajan was constituted to consider backwardness of the States and to suggest a Composite Development  Index  for  States.    This  Committee  submitted  its  report  on  26 th September, 2013. The  Committee  suggested a multi-dimensional index of backwardness, which is an average of 10 sub-components.

The details of the findings of the studies are at Annexure - I.

- (c) Development  of  States  is  primarily  the  responsibility  of  the  State  Governments concerned.  The States have been implementing their own schemes to address specific development needs to bridge intra-state and inter-state disparities.   The steps taken by all  the  State  Governments  to  bridge  the  aforesaid  gaps  is  being  collected  from  the States.

## ANNEXURE - I

Inter  Ministry  Task  Force  observed  that  the  concept  of  regional  disparities  can  be understood in terms of unequal resource endowments, uneven human development, inadequate infrastructure and poor budgetary resources.  This Task Force in its recommendation focussed on   creating a backward district fund, integrated with a district level budget/plan developed from below through a system of village plans based on the perceived needs and real capacities of these areas.  This Task Force adopted a backwardness criteria based on resource endowment and human development parameters related to per capita income, health indicators, education indicators, physical infrastructure and capacity to raise revenue etc.  This Task Force identified 170  districts  of  various  States  as  backward  districts  and  recommended  for  setting  up  a Backward District Grant Fund over and above the then existing mechanisms for allocation of funds.  This included 8 districts of Andhra Pradesh, 8 districts of Assam, 36 districts of Bihar, 9  districts  of  Chhattisgarh,  1  district  of  Gujarat,  17  districts  of  Jharkhand,  20  districts  of Madhya Pradesh, 4 districts of Maharashtra, 2 districts of Manipur, 3 districts of Meghalaya, 3 districts  of  Nagaland,  15  districts  of  Odisha,  9  districts  of  Rajasthan,  30  districts  of  Uttar Pradesh and 5 districts of West Bengal.

The  Dr.  Raghuram  G.  Rajan    Committee  had  evolved  a  under  development  index, which included the ten sub-components: (i) monthly per capita  consumption expenditure, (ii) education, (iii)  health,  (iv) household amenities, (v) poverty rate, (vi) female literacy, (vii) percent  of  SC-ST  population,  (viii)  urbanization  rate,    (ix)  financial  inclusion,  and  (x) connectivity.  This report recommended that the States that score 0.6 and above on the index are  'least  developed'  States,  while  States  that  score  below  0.6  and  above  0.4  are  'less developed' States, while States that score below 0.4 are 'relatively developed' States.  Ten States namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh have been classified as 'Least Developed' by the Committee.

*****