Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission

CHAPTER 3
ASSESSING DEVELOPMENT: THE INCOME DIMENSION
57
Table 3.12: Inter-state Comparison of Social Security and Welfare Expenditure 2001-02 (Rs. in lakhs)
State
Social Security
and Welfare
Expenditure (SSW)
Revenue
Expenditure
(RE)
SSW/
RE
Plan
Component of
SSW (PSSW)
Non-Plan
Component of
SSW (NPSSW)
NPSSW/
PSSW
SSW/
Population
SSW/BPL
Population
Andhra Pradesh 31,216 24,72,633 1.26 16,586 14,630 0.88 41.36 262.30
Assam 7,465 6,84,624 1.09 4,689 2,776 0.59 28.50 78.96
Bihar 16,509 12,56,036 1.31 2,256 14,253 6.32 16.52 38.78
Gujarat 12,309 22,71,760 0.54 3,599 8,710 2.42 25.51 181.31
Haryana 39,450 8,65,549 4.55 34,300 5,150 0.15 198.93 2,276.10
Karnataka 34,168 18,60,570 1.83 14,268 19,900 1.39 65.59 327.31
Kerala 21,772 11,66,203 1.86 7,221 14,551 2.02 67.48 530.54
Maharashtra 42,346 38,28,152 1.10 1,218 41,128 33.77 46.48 185.75
Madhya Pradesh 29,730 14,36,878 2.06 12,201 17,709 1.45 37.28 99.60
Orissa 20,830 9,87,754 2.10 9,465 11,365 1.20 58.09 123.21
Punjab 11,299 12,70,981 0.88 3,783 7,516 1.99 48.01 779.34
Rajasthan 14,727 15,94,898 0.92 1,317 13,410 10.18 27.50 179.95
Tamil Nadu 68,960 21,55,697 3.19 3,835 65,125 16.98 111.63 528.56
Uttar Pradesh 44,754 31,77,971 1.40 24,550 20,204 0.82 26.30 84.42
West Bengal 49,246 23,39,452 2.10 15,240 34,006 2.23 62.33 230.69
Note: SSW and RE are in Rs. lakhs.
Source: Computed from State Finances- A Study of Budgets of 2003-04, Reserve Bank of India, April 2004.
correction places emphasis on the deficit as a proportion
of State domestic product, irrespective of how it is
achieved, whether by expenditure reduction or by revenue
consolidation. In such a situation, capital expenditure
faces a cut. A higher proportion of non-Plan expenditure
can make SSW also liable for cuts when deficit targeting
is the prime objective. 22 This may not happen if there is
a political will and commitment towards implementing
these schemes and the resistance to the cuts is strong. But
streamlining of operational processes and introduction of
cost efficiency in administering the schemes are necessary
and the money thus saved can go to increasing the welfare
payments to vulnerable sections.
5. Concluding Observations
Chapters 2 and 3 together suggest that Kerala’s
development experience has been pronouncedly more
impressive in various non-income dimensions of wellbeing
than in the income dimension, though its attempts
at reducing deprivation through various social security
measures have met with considerable success. As stressed
earlier, the perspective informing this report is one that
reckons income too as being an important component of
development. From this standpoint, Kerala’s achievement
on the income front has been a mixed one.
Up until the mid to late 1980s, Kerala’s outstanding
performance in various non-income dimensions of
achievement was nowhere matched by its performance
in either per capita income growth or consumption
expenditure-related poverty. In the matter of poverty,
group inequality is still a matter of concern for Kerala
as we see in the following chapter: Absolute deprivation
22 Non-Plan expenditure is the recurring expenditure for schemes outside the Plan outlay. It is the expenditure incurred directly through the
budget for non-Plan schemes and schemes started during the previous Plans. This distinction between Plan and non-Plan for assessing
fiscal strength of a State is not always a desirable criterion to be adopted, as this does not consider the social impact of expenditure.