Uttar Pradesh Economy and Society: A Profile
Uttar Pradesh Economy and Society: A Profile
Uttar Pradesh Economy and Society: A Profile
Table 1.3: Important Demographic Indicators for Uttar Pradesh and India
Figure 1.2: Decadal Rate of Population Growth in Major States of India : 1991- 2001
35
Population Growth
30
25
20
15
(%)
10
5
0
Ka ana
la
ra
Pu a
Ra n j a b
du
a
As .
Ha r a t
ar P.
P.
m
l
Gu r
T. n
a
ga
P
di
a
ak
s
ra
sa
h
A.
.
ht
U.
r is
ja
th
Na
M
en
In
Bi
at
ry
Ke
as
jas
O
rn
.B
W
ah
M
States
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
Table 1.5: Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of Total and Per Capita Income
in U.P. and India under the Plans
Period CAGR of Total Income (%) CAGR of Per Capita Income (%)
Uttar Pradesh India Uttar Pradesh India
1951-56 2.0 3.6 0.5 1.7
1956-61 1.9 4.0 0.3 1.9
1961-66 1.6 2.2 -0.2 0.0
1966-69 0.3 4.0 -1.5 1.8
1969-74 2.3 3.3 0.4 1.1
1974-79 5.7 5.3 3.3 2.9
1981-85 8.7 5.3 6.3 3.1
1985-90 5.7 5.8 3.3 3.6
1990-92 3.1 2.5 1.1 0.4
1992-97 3.2 6.8 1.4 4.9
1997-02 2.0 5.6 -0.4 3.6
2002-07 5.3 7.7 3.3 6.0
Fig 1.4 Average Annual Growth Rate of UP.and India Since 1951
10
8
Growth Rate
6
4
2
0
1951- 1956- 1961- 1966- 1969- 1974- 1981- 1985- 1990- 1992- 1997- 2002-
56 61 66 69 74 79 85 90 92 97 02 07
Period
CAGR of Total Income (%) Uttar Pradesh CAGR of Total Income (%) India
Table 1.6: Per Capita Plan Expenditure of Uttar Pradesh and India
(in Rs.)
I FYP II FYP III FYP IV FYP V FYP VI FYP VII FYP VIII FYP IX FYP X FYP
Source: Ravindra H. Dholakia, “Trends in Regional Disparity in Human and Social Development in India,” paper
presented at the IEA Seminar on Accelerated Economic Growth and Regional Balance, held at ISID, New Delhi
during September 16-18, 2005.
Source: Uttar Pradesh Government, White Paper on Budget 1998–99, Part–II and Budget Papers, 2005–06.
Note: Revenue deficit figures for 2003–04 exclude the underwriting of loans of Rs. 12277.40 crore to UPSEB
and Fiscal deficit figures for 2003–04 exclude the power bonds amounting to Rs.5871.86 cr.
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
20 0 5 -0 6 ( R E )
20 0 6 - 0 7 ( B E )
1 99 2 - 9 3
1 99 3 - 9 4
1 99 6 - 9 7
2 00 0 - 0 1
2 00 2 - 0 3
2 00 3 - 0 4
2 00 4 - 0 5
1 99 1 - 92
1 99 4 - 95
1 99 5 - 96
1 99 7 - 98
1 99 8 - 99
1 99 9 - 00
2 00 1 - 02
-2000
Years
Revenue Deficit Rs. Crore Fiscal Deficit Rs. Crore
Management Act of U.P. were to ensure fiscal stability expenditure out of the State budget has shown a
and sustainability; to enhance the scope for improving sizeable increase from Rs.3794 crore in 2002-03 to
social and physical infrastructure and human development Rs.9,718 crore in 2005-06. It is projected at Rs.13,437
by achieving sufficient revenue surplus, reducing fiscal crore in the budget for 2006-07.
deficit and removing impediments to the effective conduct 70. The improved fiscal situation and an increase
of fiscal policy; prudent debt management through limits in public investment is also reflected in an improvement
on State Government borrowings, government guarantees, in the rate of economic growth in the State. Thus, the
debt and deficits; and greater transparency in fiscal growth rate of GSDP, which had stagnated at around 3%
operations of the State Government and use of a medium during 1990-2002, has increased at an average rate of
term fiscal framework. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of around 5% during the period 2002-05. These trends
U.P., among other things, envisaged elimination of revenue suggest that the UP economy is once again showing signs
deficit and containing the fiscal deficit to 3 percent of of higher growth rate. The State government has received
GSDP by 31st March, 2009. sizeable grant in aid for the social sector from the Twelfth
68. These efforts resulted in a significant Finance Commission. This augurs well for the economic
improvement in the fiscal situation. The revenue deficit, and social development of the State.
which was Rs.6993 crore in 2004-05 came down to 71. To conclude, the low level of economic
Rs.1268 crore in 2005-06. According to the revised development and the financial crunch faced by the State
estimates for 2006-07, the State is likely to have a government restricted its capacity to invest in human
revenue surplus of Rs.3359 crore. The gross fiscal deficit and physical infrastructure in the past. Consequently,
which stood at the alarming level of Rs.16,648 crore in the performance of the State in terms of various
2003-04 came down to Rs.10,078 crore in 2005-06. The indicators of human development remained low. The low
improvement has come about due to a remarkable surge status of human development also constrained the growth
in the tax revenues of the State as well as larger flow performance in U.P. Thus, Uttar Pradesh seems to be
from the centre. The own tax revenue which was caught in a kind of vicious circle between low levels of
Rs.13,601 crore in 2003-04 went up to Rs.15,693 crore human development and low levels of economic
in 2004-05 and further to Rs.18,858 crore in 2005-06 and development. It is, therefore, imperative to break this
is projected at Rs.24,381 crore in 2006-07. That amounts vicious circle and to turn it into a virtuous circle by giving
to a creditable increase of about 80% in State revenues due priority to improvement in human development along
during the last three years. with a big push to the State economy. It needs to be
69. The improved fiscal situation is reflected in mentioned that the attainment of the Millennium
the higher plan and capital expenditure. Annual plan Development Goals in the country depends critically on
expenditure in UP has remained around Rs.7000 crore a fast improvement in the social indicators in Uttar
during the period 2001-02 to 2003-04. It went up to Pradesh. The following chapters of the report critically
Rs.9662 crore in 2004-05 and further to Rs.13,639 crore examine the status and trends in various dimensions of
in 2005-06. The size of the annual plan for 2006-07 human development in the State, identify the critical
was Rs.19,000 crore, which is nearly three times the areas and suggest suitable policies for human
plan size, five years back. Similarly, capital development for the State.