|
|
|
|
Strategic Analysis:
A Monthly Journal of the IDSA
Economic Development of the Northeastern States in the Context of Globalisation
By Prof. Atul Sarma
*
Abstract
This paper, to begin with, brings out the characteristics that make the seven northeastern states of India a distinct region, while at the same time highlighting dissimilarities between them. It then examines the major constraints that impede the faster growth of the northeastern states even in the normal course. With a narrow economic base and limited fiscal and financial capacity, together with many region-specific as well as exogenous obstacles, the current policy regime relying more on market forces, does not automatically operate in the region's favour. On the other hand, the need is great for the region's inhabitants, particularly the younger generation, to clearly perceive the unfolding economic changes that could throw up hitherto unknown opportunities in the economic field. Numerous interventions in many directions are needed for this to happen. This paper attempts to indicate some of these interventions in an illustrative manner.
Introduction
The shift of economic policy from the physical control regime to a market driven system, mildly from the mid-1980s and more drastically from mid-1991 is expected to have an important impact on the macro as well as regional levels in India. The thrust of the current economic reforms is on upgrading and modernising technology through globalisation of the Indian economy and thereby achieving rapid growth relying more on market forces. In response to such policy reforms, private investment, both domestic and external, is expected to rise at a faster rate in different sectors of the economy. The flow of private investment to different states of the country would, however, depend on the level and quality of administrative, social and economic infrastructures that are obtained in different states. Such differential flow would also lead to higher or lower growth depending on their respective capacity to induce private investment. On the other hand, the central government has now much fewer instruments to direct resources for correcting such imbalances in the changed policy environment.
It is in this context that this paper first highlights some of the major northeastern economic realities and their implications on the pace and performance of these economies. Then the paper discusses the policy options that the northeastern states have in the new regime.
Major Challenges
Northeast as a Distinct Region
Northeast India consisting of seven states is a distinct economic region. Apart from geographical isolation, there are several other features, which stand in sharp contrast to the rest of the country. The northeastern states, which are, by and large, hilly ones, are characterised by the preponderance of scheduled tribes (ST) and less significantly, scheduled castes (SC) population. As compared to the all-India share of 22.80 per cent, the SC and ST population in the northeast ranged from 28.7 per cent in Manipur to 93.1 in Mizoram. (See Table 1.) Second, all states in the region, as compared to the rest of the country, recorded a high decadal population growth even during 1981-91. Third, except for Arunachal Pradesh (ACP) the real per capita income is much below the all-India average per capita income. (See Table 2.) What is more, each of them is far behind the rest of the country in terms of administrative, social and economic infrastructure, be it per capita power consumption, credit-deposit ratios, road and railway transport or whatever. (See Table 5.) Another unique feature of the region is that unlike other tribal populations, the rate of literacy is way above the all-India average in five states despite the preponderance of tribal population. (Refer to Table 4.)
But the states within the region are dissimilar as well in several ways. They are dissimilar in terms of population size varying from 0.7 million in Mizoram to 24.5 million in Assam. Population density ranges from 8 per sq km (Arunachal Pradesh) to 230 per sq km (Assam). They are also dissimilar in terms of urbanisation rate, literacy rates and other demographic characteristics, physical features, stages of economic development and so on, leaving aside the ethnic composition.
An Interdependent System
It is important to recognise that the northeastern states are an interdependent economic system, both for historical and geopolitical reasons. The Northeast Council, which was set up about three decades ago, was the result of the recognition of this. Its performance over this long period, however, reflects its monumental failure to develop an integrated approach to the economic development of the region. There are many reasons for this failure. Essentially, these can broadly be traced to two sets of factors. One relates to its inability to visualise its role appropriate to the unique characteristics of the region. The other basically following from the first, owes to its failure to assess the economic system and institutions and to evolve the right instruments in alignment with the unique features of the region for releasing a dynamic growth process.
Unharnessed Resource Endowments
It is widely recognised that the northeast is a highly resource endowed region. No doubt, the region is endowed with mines and minerals, water and forest resources, fertile soil, and so on. In fact, crude oil production and its refining as well as tea plantation and the plywood industry are the few resource-based modern industries in the region. But both the oil and tea industries, which have been existing for a century or so, have not induced the industries that could have been developed on the basis of their backward and forward linkages. For example, tea plantations require a wide variety of inputs such as fertilisers, chappals, umbrellas, small tools, and so on. None of these backward linkage-based industries, though economically viable, was set up in the region. Instead, the industry depended on supplies from outside the region. This long dependence on trading has given rise to well-entrenched vested interests, which work against the emergence of local entrepreneurship. Similarly, the oil industry had been hesitant for long to develop refineries, and a petrochemical complex, which could have led to developing many downstream industries in the region. On the other hand, the surplus that accrued in these industries year after year was siphoned off for investment activities elsewhere. This has led to an "enclave economy" in which these few modern industries exist without having any linkage with the stagnant traditional activities. For reasons such as these, the resource-based extractive industries have come to be perceived as the symbol of exploitation.
There are several other types of resources potentials, which are yet to be realised. Water resources and natural gas call for a special mention. Hydel power potential of the northeast (38,000 MW or 30 per cent of the country's hydel potential) is large enough to meet a large part of the requirement of even the eastern states for many years to come. Natural gas based industries are also feasible. But water resources, instead of being a source of economic prosperity, have continued to cause flood havoc year after year with immense human suffering and loss of lives and property resulting therefrom. But harnessing water for irrigation and hydel power generation as also economic utilisation of natural gas and other resources involves large lumpy investment, which the northeastern states with their stagnant economies, and narrow tax base cannot provide. The resources available in terms of Plan assistance to these states can hardly be earmarked for such projects, as this type of investment cannot be made in doses. Nor are these projects finding a place in the Central Plan. As a result, these important resources, which should have been the base of vibrant economies, have remained a source of uncertainty, human suffering and property loss. The state governments continue with fire-fighting operations and provide flood/natural calamity relief, causing a heavy drain on their otherwise meagre resources. Farmers, on their part, do not make farm investment for fear of its being washed away by impending floods, while the rest of the country perceives this reluctance as the manifestation of their indolence.
Disruption of Traditional Trade Links
Partition led to the disruption of the long existing trade links and infrastructure that the northeast was accustomed to. The alternative trade routes and infrastructure that were developed in the post-partition period have remained for long a makeshift arrangement, as it were. The conversion of the metre gauge to broad gauge took years. A large part of the northeast is yet to have railheads. The railway network linking the places only to exploit the commercial interest of the colonial power, is yet to be restructured for even growth. The net effect has been that people pay higher prices for their purchases originating in the rest of the country. Producers do not get right prices for their products such as fruits, potatoes, ginger, or the exquisite handicrafts and handloom products. The income generation that has taken place, even if at a modest rate, leaks out to producers elsewhere through consumption linkage for these economies being unable to produce income induced consumption goods. They thus remain heavily dependent on the rest of the country for most of their day-to-day requirements.
The geographical isolation, coupled with inadequate infrastructure, is certainly a major stumbling block to growth. But an appropriate development strategy could use this disadvantage to gain maximum advantage. For such disadvantages act, in fact, as barriers to trade and to that extent, provide protection to the local entrepreneurs for undertaking a right mix of activities.
Population Influx
The population influx from across the borders has huge implications both on the polity and economies of the northeastern states. As such, this is a highly emotive issue as has been demonstrated by student uprisings in Assam and other northeastern states. But the inability to effectively deal with this problem by the student leaders when they came to power after a protracted movement against this issue, only highlights the extent of complexity that is associated with it.
This problem should be clearly understood, and its realistic solution sought. Without going into minute details of the migrant population from across the borders, the following points can be flagged. First, the flow of immigrants, which continued much beyond the aftermath of partition, has presumably been induced by economic considerations. This means that most of these immigrants have moved out of their hearth and home in search of a better means of living, which the sparsely populated northeastern states might offer. Second, these immigrants who are uneducated and unskilled, sought to get absorbed in agriculture and related sectors. These sectors being of the informal nature, were not very visible until the growing mass started having an impact on the polity of the states. The extreme example of this presence was felt in Tripura where the migrant population marginalised the local inhabitants in power sharing. Third, complete uprooting of the vast immigrant population is not feasible as the student leaders of Assam realised after being in the saddle of power for almost two terms of five years each.
Having noted the above points, one should seek a solution to the problem of population influx in the following perspective. The problem of immigrants should first be bifurcated between the existing stock and the future flow. The existing stock reckoning from a cut-off date should be given the status of economic migrants which would entitle them to earn their living, but not to property acquisition and political rights. This practice seems to be prevalent in Germany.
In order to arrest the future flow, a strategy with a longer time perspective needs to be adopted. This strategy should clearly recognise that fencing the vast border is neither easy, nor is foolproof vigilance practicable. Even developed countries found it difficult to stop illegal migrants. It should also recognise that there exists an element of schizophrenic attitude among local inhabitants. In private they prefer cheap and pliant immigrants as farm labour while in public they discard them. This makes the problem more complex.
Therefore, a longer-term strategy should aim at altering the prevailing conditions. There should be a well-designed attractive scheme of settling local inhabitants along the borders. They would greatly reinforce the existing vigilant force. Such a scheme, at the same time, would provide a viable means of sustenance to the landless poor. The other part of the strategy should be to upgrade the technology in the farm and other sectors. Such technology upgradation would necessitate higher skill, which immigrants do not have. Simultaneous effort to impart the required skill at the local level would meet the new demand while at the same time minimising the opportunities for immigrant labour. With the expansion of the modern organised sector, the scope for absorption of immigrant labour will shrink. More so, when the land providing job avenues for immigrants, as was the case before, does not exist any more. Thus, a strategy of introducing new technology simultaneous with generating the required skill at the local level would provide the longer-term solution to the much-vexed problem of population influx. The success of the Bangladeshi mass literacy and other development programmes with rising employment opportunities at home would further enhance the efficacy of the above strategy.
Infrastructure Lags
There exists a broad consensus that the northeast lacks the basic minimum physical, social and administrative infrastructure for unleashing growth dynamics in the region. Physical infrastructure such as power, communications, transport, irrigation, market access, and so on, is grossly inadequate to generate a dynamic process. The inadequacy of all this is reflected in poor market incentives and thus in low productivity and growth in different sectors of the economies of the region. But the creation of some of the crucial infrastructure has two important dimensions. First, because of the interdependence of the economic systems of the northeast, it is essential to develop a good network of inter-state transport and communication in addition to developing intra-state market and basic service accessibility. The remoteness and hilly terrain involves larger unit as well as maintenance costs. Again, for longer run connectivity and effective trade links, it is necessary to develop border road and water transport networks in liaison with neighbouring countries like Myanmar, Bangladesh and South China, and Southeast Asia which are very close to the region. Such infrastructure creation would obviously involve imaginative initiative by the Government of India.
The other aspect is that the full utilisation of the power potential of the region or effective flood control not only requires heavy investment as mentioned earlier, but also mutual understanding and cooperation of the individual units of the northeast.
As to social infrastructure, it should be noted that several of the major changes in the 1990s-collapse of the socialist world and emergence of a unipolar world order and globalisation-are all essentially technology driven. The thrust on continuous skill upgradation, which would facilitate technology assimilation, absorption and innovation, would, therefore, be the best survival strategy for a developing country like India. This is all the more important for the northeast region with its unique features and problems requiring appropriate technological solutions and with rich resources needing their economic utilisation.
By now the states have established many educational and skill generating institutions. At one level, these institutions should be strengthened in terms of equipping them adequately with advanced training facilities and teaching aids. At another level, there should be networking with similar institutions of excellence located elsewhere. Administrative infrastructure will be taken up later with the issue of governance.
Deeply Entrenched Interests
The availability of various types of infrastructure is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for spurring economic growth. Their utilisation depends on the response of the economic agents. For far too long, the northeast has been dependent for the supply of most of its requirements on the rest of the country. The extent of such dependence is estimated at Rs. 2,500 crore annually. This vast requirement is available through a trading and distribution network. The trading network was organised on the basis of monopolistic competition. In many situations, traders collude for price advantage. Trading margins being high, the investment on commodity production is understandably not preferred. It is so, particularly, because the risk factor is higher in a perennially disturbed environment as well as in a situation where adequate infrastructure is lacking. What is more, there are many instances which show that deeply entrenched mercantile capital militates against the emergence of local entrepreneurship. All this eventually means that the economies do not stir and fail to meet the growing aspirations of the people, particularly the younger generation. This, in turn, provides a fertile ground for grooming various militant groups, or a spurt of popular uprisings. In some sense, lack of growth and a disturbed environment feed on each other. This is exactly what is happening in most of the northeastern states.
Unaccountable Governance
Why have some states in India developed faster than some of their counterparts? It is certainly not because of resource endowments. Bihar, or the northeast, or Orissa with resource abundance are some of the least developed states. In contrast, Gujarat with no great claim on resources has grown faster than most other states. Is it then due to closeness to the national market? Why have not then Uttar Pradesh (UP) or Madhya Pradesh (MP), being at the centre of the national market, recorded high growth? On the other hand, Karnataka and Punjab, even though they are away from the national market, have grown faster. Even Haryana, which had poor infrastructure at the time of its creation in 1996, is one of the fastest growing states. The point is that widely recognised factors such as resource endowments, closeness to the national market, and so on, are by themselves not sufficient to spur growth.
It can be hypothesised that consistent pursuit of clearly defined priorities over a long period percolates down to the economic agents, who start demanding the state machinery to address their problems quickly and, thus, leads to a better delivery system. In the process, both the political masters and correspondingly bureaucrats, over time become accountable to the economic operators for better delivery, which eventually induces growth.
Lack of such prioritised thrusts, as indeed is the case in the northeast, is reflected in the poor delivery system even in the limited areas of operation. Widespread cynicism of the bureaucracy is both the cause and effect of the nonchalant approach to development.
The Minor Role of Manufacturing
State economies within the region do not reflect in several respects the general development pattern of the country. For example, as compared to the all-India average, the contribution of agriculture to the Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) was considerably higher in most of the states in 1980-81 and remained so even at the end of 1988-89. Interestingly, the role of agriculture in income generation was considerably low in a couple of hill states such as Nagaland and Mizoram, in 1980-81 and further declined in the subsequent years in Nagaland. (See Table 3.) Again, in contrast to the general pattern, the share of agriculture in the NSDP remained almost steady or increased over the years in a few states such as Tripura and Mizoram. Further, the contribution of banking and insurance to the NSDP was substantially lower than the all-India average in 1980-81. Even with some increase over the years, the relative position did not alter substantially.
The structure of state income varied from state to state within the region. States like Assam, Meghalaya and Mizoram derived a considerably larger proportion of income from mining and quarrying (ranging from 2.01 per cent in Mizoram to 4.3 per cent in Assam as against 1.23 per cent for all-India in 1988-89) than what the country as a whole did. This clearly indicates rich endowment of mining resources in these states. Similarly, the contribution of construction was substantially higher than the all-India average in all the states except Assam. A much higher than the all-India average share in total income was also derived from real estate, ownership of dwellings, and business service by the states. More importantly, public administration contributed a much larger share to the NSDP in all the states.
It is important to note that trade, hotels and, restaurants generated considerable income even in the hill states although the sector's share tended to decline over the years in most of them.
The manufacturing sector, in contrast, contributed a far smaller share to the NSDP ranging from 1.9 per cent in ACP to 12.78 per cent in Assam as against the all-India average of 19.6 per cent in 1988-89. Its share declined from 3.1 per cent in 1980-81 to 2.1 per cent in Nagaland. Although the registered manufacturing sector's share in the NSDP tended to increase in the states other than Nagaland, its contribution was far less than the all-India average in all the units.
Even with regard to the unregistered manufacturing sector, its share in the NSDP was much lower than the all-India average level. But two important points may be made in this regard. First, the importance of unregistered manufacturing for income generation was overwhelmingly higher as compared to the registered sector in all the states except Assam. Second, in contrast to the rising share of the unregistered sector of the country as a whole, the sector's share in the NSDP remained steady or declined over the years in the states other than Manipur and Mizoram. Thus, it emerges that the region is lagging far behind the all-India average level of industrialisation as reflected in the manufacturing sector's contribution to the NSDP.
Lead Industrial Sectors
The industrial base of Assam in 1980-81, comprised manufacture of food products and sugar, wood and wood products, gas and steam and repair services. Over the years i.e. in 1988-89, two additional sectors, viz, manufacture of rubber, plastic, petroleum and coal products and manufacture of non-metallic mineral products were added to the industrial base of the state. But repair services lost their importance over the years.
The industrial base of Manipur in 1980-81 comprised manufacture of food products, wood and wood products, paper and paper products, etc. and repair services. The only industrial sector that emerged by 1987 was "other manufacturing" while food products became insignificant.
In Meghalaya, wood and wood products, paper and paper products, etc. non-metallic mineral products and repair services made up the industrial base. One other industry i.e. "other manufacturing" was added to the industrial base by 1987-88 while the non-metallic mineral sector lost its significance.
Tripura had six important factory level industries comprising beverages, tobacco or tobacco products, wood and wood products, non-metallic products, metal products and parts except machinery and transport equipment, water works and supply and repair services. By 1987-88, jute textiles and other manufacturing emerged while beverages, wood products and metal products paled into insignificance.
The required data to identify the industrial base of Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram are not available.
Considering the four northeastern states together, we can make the following broad observations. First, the industrial base comprising significant factory level industries is very narrow. Second, the industrial sectors mainly consist of first stage processing industries such as grain mills, wood and wood products based on local resources and demand induced industry like repair services. Third, the few modern industries such as non-metallic mineral products and gas and steam that have come up in certain parts of the region are also resource-based. Finally, except for the growth of some miscellaneous type of industries, the factory level industrial base had not been significantly altered even in 1987-88.
Production Linkage
It is possible to argue that the lead industries identified in respect of four of the state economies would suggest the type of industries that can be developed on the basis of production linkages, backward and forward. State economies being highly open, this approach to industrialisation is subject to severe limitations.
Nevertheless, the author has attempted to suggest in an illustrative manner the industrial sectors that can be developed on the basis of backward and forward linkages of the lead sectors indicated earlier.
Of the four lead sectors in the Assam economy, only two, viz, the manufacture of food products and manufacture of wood and wood products, furniture and fixtures, reveal high backward employment linkages. This suggests that an increase in output of these two sectors would lead to high employment generation in the industries supplying inputs to them. But only one of the lead industries, which happens to be wood and wood products, has also high forward employment linkages.
In Manipur and Meghalaya also, the wood and wood products sector shows high backward and forward linkages. In both these economies, this is the only sector, which has high linkages.
This discussion on production linkages should be qualified. As mentioned earlier, production linkages based on national reference technology may not necessarily be relevant to a state economy, at least not to the same extent to all state economies. Secondly, it is possible that there are industries other than the revealed lead industries, which may have higher backward and forward linkages, but do not get captured in this analysis. Finally, backward and forward linkages indicate only the direction of demand. But supply factors may be more critical for industrial development.
Some Reflections on Constraints
There are many factors, which facilitate or inhibit the economic development of a state. These factors can be classified into two sub-sets: one relates to the supply side and the other to the demand side. Resource endowment, infrastructure support, evolution of the right type of institutions, access to market, availability of human capital in the form of entrepreneurship and skilled labour, and credit availability are all important determinants affecting the supply side. The income level and its distribution are important factors operating on the demand side. Both sets of factors need not be binding for the development of a state, which is a highly open economy. However, the working of the national economy over the past 50 years has favoured some and differentiated against several other state economies. In the process of evolution of the national economy, product and money/credit market got integrated faster with the national market, while labour market integration was hindered by several rigidities emerging especially from labour surplus situations. This led to a larger inflow of goods into, and outflow of savings from, the region.
When supply side factors are not equally conducive to all states, integrated product and credit market unaccompanied by similarly integrated labour market has led to a reverse flow of resources from the less developed to the more developed state economies. More importantly, such asymmetry results in an adverse effect on local industries by way of introducing competition from technologically superior counterparts. This process is eminently discernible in the context of the entire northeast.
The important reasons why some have developed faster than others are as follows. First, there were differences in the initial level of capital accumulation, human capital and infrastructure in some states. Second, and more importantly, as explained earlier, some states succeeded in identifying and pursuing clear priorities and developing a mechanism for better participation of economic agents particularly in the prioritised sectors. This generated pressure from below for better delivery and probably helped in developing a higher level of infrastructure as also an accountable system that led to its more efficient utilisation,. This was particularly important in the policy regime with the public sector directing the limited resources for providing infrastructure while the private sector was utilising them. To illustrate, Punjab and Haryana accorded consistently high priorities to agricultural development. When these priorities trickled down to the farmers, they created pressure for releasing the operational constraints faced by them. The industrial development in Gujarat and Maharashtra, and the high level of social services and their efficient delivery in Kerala can similarly be attributed to clear prioritisation and the development of a mechanism that ensures a powerful feed-back system between the decision-makers and the economic agents.
In addition to this general approach to development, it will be useful to take note of certain features that are inherent in the economic systems, or in the past growth process of the states in the region. Some illustrations are given below. The economic base of the northeastern hill states is very narrow. More importantly, they are characterised by activities which are carried on with primitive technology. This presents a two-fold problem. On the one hand, the administrative, social and economic infrastructure as also human capital needs to be developed fast. On the other hand, the narrow economic base stands as a great impediment to mobilising resources for developing the required infrastructure.
There is also some ambiguity in the perception of needs and goals of economic development in a hill state predominantly inhabited by a tribal population. It is argued that tribal identities need to be retained in the development process. But mainly because of relatively larger public expenditure in these states, as pointed out earlier, there is a perceptible change in the level and composition of consumption baskets of at least the segment of the population directly and indirectly associated with government operations. Demonstration effect must have resulted in an inroad of modern products into the consumption basket of others as well. It should be recognised that the activities carried on with primitive technology cannot enable the people at large to sustain a higher level of consumption. Therefore, there is a need for reorganisation of economic activities with better technology, which will inevitably lead to changes in the way of life of the people. If rapid economic development is the goal, the so-called tribal identity should be left to be evolved by the people themselves.
There are other important issues also. First, the narrow economic base and limited use of tax instruments for resource mobilisation in hill states have also imposed restrictions on Assam's manoeuvrability. It has done so in the following manner. Assam being surrounded by hill states, finds it difficult to levy high taxes for fear of diversion of economic activities to the neighbouring states, which are virtually tax havens.
Second, the major industrial activities that have come up in Assam are essentially resource based viz. oil and plantations in Assam. The backward linkages of these industries are rather limited while their forward linkages are with industries located in the big metropolises elsewhere. The result has been the emergence of an "enclave-type" economy, i.e, few modern industries in the midst of traditional industries with very little or no interactions between the two.
Third, as mentioned earlier, with an increasingly greater degree of integration of product market, the development of traditional industries which essentially make up the industrial profile of the states in the region is no longer feasible, more so in the context of the present liberalised framework. They can be developed only if the productivity can be raised using superior technology.
Development Strategy
The development strategy for the northeast has to be based on the explicit recognition of the following:
Table 1. Demographic Profiles of the Northeastern States and India
Sl.State% Increase inTotalDensity ofPer cent% Literate to estd.% Share of% Share of% Share of
PopulationPopula-Populationof PopulationPopulationSCs in TotalSTs in TotalSCs & STs
tion per sq.km.1981(above 7 yr.)PopulationPopulationin Total
(Million)Population
1971-811981-91199119811991Rural Urban19811991198119811981
1XX.INDIA24.723.5846.221626776.723.343.652.115.37.522.8
2XX.ARUNACHAL
PRADESH35.235.90.981093.46.625.545.10.069.569.5
3XX.ASSAM*23.423.624.6230284—-53.4
4XX.MANIPUR32.528.61.8648273.626.449.661.01.527.328.7
5XX.MEGHALAYA32.031.81.8607881.918.142.048.30.880.881.6
6XX.MIZORAM48.639.00.7233375.324.774.381.20.093.193.1
7XX.NAGALAND50.156.91.2477384.515.550.261.383.983.9
8XX.TRIPURA31.933.72.719626289.011.050.160.415.328.443.7
*:Based on the 1971 Census provisional results. The population of Assam for 1981 has been interpolated.
Table 2. Real Per Capita Net State Domestic Product at 1980-81 Prices (Rupees)
Sl.YEARALLARUNACHALASSAMMANIPURMEGHA-MIZORAMNAGALANDTRIPURA
PRADESHLAYA(*)
1XX.1980-8116251561120014291361128914481323
2XX.1981-8216921747130714721379138315781311
3XX.1982-8316991744136714571361147117201439
4XX.1983-8418041804137515471354172416951354
5XX.1984-8518271908145715711385213916811349
6XX.1985-8618572074148316231412248616541335
7XX.1986-8718932133147416181397316517681351
8XX.1987-8819292182152116751485407719071480
9XX.1988-8920992360151617231471402619751565
10XX.1989-9022012441177217611610413519801628
11XX.1990-9122582452180518501764 -18941664
(*): As NSDP at constant prices are not available for Mizoram, NSDP at current prices are taken.
Source: North Eastern Council, Basic Statistics of North Eastern Region 1995
Table 3. Structure of Real Net State Domestic Product at 1980-81 Prices (per cent)
SECTORALL INDIAARUNACHALASSAMMANIPURMEGHALAYAMIZORAMNAGALANDTRIPURA
PRADESH(*)(*)
1980-811988-891980-811988-891980-811988-891980-811987-891980-811987-881980-811986-871980-811988-891980-811986-87
1XX.AGRICULTURE36.3032.3537.1137.9650.2437.4844.7439.3637.7631.3424.3932.9928.6917.4245.6445.35
2X.FORESTRY & LOGGING2.931.8010.6310.201.471.072.381.642.120.454.393.323.677.179.593.64
3X.FISHING0.730.680.080.572.302.061.062.030.350.223.571.630.050.501.922.85
4X.MINING Quarrying1.341.230.061.16-0.164.26-0.001.664.17 0.002.01—0.01-
5X.MANUFACTURING16.9519.601.821.996.9412.786.007.853.223.452.533.263.062.054.485.26
5X.1 REGISTERED9.1111.56—4.3010.280.280.370.881.060.510.900.910.710.781.75
5X.2 UNREGISTERED7.848.041.821.992.632.505.727.482.342.392.012.352.161.343.703.50
6X.CONSTRUCTION5.234.4618.8319.044.364.036.407.9911.679.2416.9215.0110.6225.414.434.52
7X.ELECTRICITY, GAS &
WATER SUPPLY0.831.09-2.98-1.710.460.81-2.90-0.19-0.34-1.10-2.43-4.25-3.14-2.80-2.15-4.52
8X.TRANSPORT, STORAGE &
COMMUNICATION3.383.891.411.222.393.981.454.262.325.501.671.081.701.551.922.75
8X.1RAILWAYS0.510.49—0.520.66———0.050.120.020.03
8X.2OTHER TRANSPORT2.212.761.161.061.432.801.254.091.704.891.140.671.341.071.412.15
8X.3STORAGE0.100.09—0.060.070.010.01**—0.030.05
8X.4COMMUNICATION0.560.550.250.160.370.460.190.170.620.610.510.400.310.370.460.53
9X.TRADE, HOTEL
RESTAURAUNTS12.9813.814.823.9711.0210.775.204.5910.709.837.089.627.945.956.856.50
10X.BANKING & INSURANCE3.034.970.611.451.342.671.211.421.733.530.531.261.341.811.192.07
11X.REAL ESTATE, OWNERSHIP
OF DWELLING, BUSINESS
SERVICE5.374.7810.177.079.918.3812.5313.768.498.0813.779.8314.909.2310.039.97
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION4.815.5810.428.213.585.889.7912.0511.9516.1515.4815.1218.6218.188.2711.03
OTHER SERVICES6.145.777.028.886.155.8212.135.248.379.1412.109.1112.5513.537.8110.59
TOTAL100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100
(*):As NSDP at constant prices are not available for these states, NSDP at current prices are used.
*:8.3 is included in 8.2.
Source: North Eastern Council, Basic Statistics of North Eastern Region 1995.
Table 4. Index of Infrastructure Backwardness
Sl.State 1990
AdministrativeSocialEconomic
1X.INDIA100100100
2X.ARUNACHAL PRADESH143.473.433.9
3X.ASSAM52.694.979.5
4X.MANIPUR192.185.767.5
5X.MEGHALAYA203.710767.4
6X.MIZORAM335.5129.339.8
7X.NAGALAND709.892.866.7
8X.TRIPURA116.4122.876.1
Source: T.C.A. Anant, K.L. Krishna and Uma Roy Choudhury, Measuring Interstate Differentials in Infrastructure, 1994.
Table 5. Indicators of the Level of Economic Infrastructure
Sl.StatesElectricityTotal Consump-Per Capita% Consumption of ElectricityLength of Highways Per Sq.Km.Distance from the All India Ave-Credit Deposit
Generated (Net)tion to UltimateConsumptionfor Industrial Userage Length of Highways PerRatios of Com-
(Crores Kwh)Consumers(Kwh) Total SurfacedSq. Km. (Percent)mercial Banks
(Crores Kwh)At Low & Medium at High Total SurfacedIncluding RRBs
Voltage VoltageLast Friday of
June (Percent)
1980-811985-861980-811985-861980-811985-861980-811985-861980-811985-861980-811983-841980-811983-841980-811983-841980-811983-8419811986
1X.INDIA10.361.415719.38236.712299.9132.3178.09.010.249.444.30.40.40.20.20.00.00.00.066.665.5
2X.ARUNACHAL PRADESH1.43.00.92.314.632.3-17.4—0.10.10.00.060.367.186.488.812.719.8
3X.ASSAM44.779.860.594.433.552.626.662.240.5-0.70.70.10.1-82.9-54.650.969.245.458.6
4X.MANIPUR2.40.31.15.47.934.09.114.8-11.10.20.20.10.134.243.153.154.637.961.7
5X.MEGHALAYA35.035.34.111.631.076.412.238.826.8-0.20.20.10.145.548.335.964.817.824.1
6X.MIZORAM0.21.50.31.95.6261.8——0.10.10.00.185.370.693.474.65.426.6
7X.NAGALAND0.20.12.45.934.267.44.23.4-37.30.30.40.00.111.07.076.966.827.942.6
8X.TRIPURA4.16.82.96.414.528.020.720.3—0.60.80.10.1-78.1-90.740.150.953.466.9
Source: :North Eastern Council, Basic Statistics of North Eastern Region (various issues)
Endnotes