The spatial spread of economic activities must be mapped for data accuracy
How well an average person does in life is determined largely by an accident of birth. A child born in rural Tamil Nadu is better nourished and educated, on average, than one born in rural Chhattisgarh. There are stark differences in economic outcomes even within states.
Economic opportunities are far more abundant in the Konkan belt of Maharashtra than in Marathwada. Yet, we do a poor job of tracking regional inequality. When the national accounts estimates are released each quarter, one has no way of knowing how much each state or region has contributed to the national total.
The few states that do compile such estimates do not release them publicly. Even annual estimates of state domestic product (SDP) are issued after a long time lag. District domestic product (DDP) estimates depend on guesswork to a large extent, and aren’t comparable across states.
The neglect of local statistical capacity in India has a long history. As India’s modern statistical edifice was being erected by the British in the mid-19th century, the Bombay government requested funds to set up a provincial statistical office. The central authorities denied that request, retarding local statistical capacity.
The lack of investment in local statistical offices meant that by the middle of the 20th century, only three provinces (Bombay, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar) had any estimates of provincial income. It was only after India’s independence that estimating state income became a priority. Following recommendations of the National Income Committee in the early 1950s, a handful of states began preparing state income estimates.
Read more on livemint.com
