KARNATAKA - of Planning Commission

Karnataka Human Development Report 2005TABLE 3.1.2Human development indicators in Karnataka and neighbouring statesIndicators Karnataka Tamil Nadu Kerala Maharashtra AndhraPradeshKarnataka’s rankamong 14 major statesHDI (2001) 0.478 0.531 0.638 0.523 0.416 7 (0.472)**HDI (1991) 0.412 0.466 0.591 0.452 0.377 7 (0.381)Per capita consumption expenditure, 1999-2000 (Rs.) 639 681 816 697 550 7 (591)Literacy rate 2001 66.64 73.47 90.92 77.27 61.11 8 (65.49)Female literacy rate 2001 56.87 64.55 87.86 67.51 51.17 7 (54.28)Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births) (2003)* 52 43 11 42 59 6 (57.4)Life expectancy at birth (LEB) (female) (2001-06) 66.44 69.75 75 69.76 65 7 (66.91)Birth rate (per 1000) 2003* 21.8 18.3 16.7 19.9 20.4 7 (24.05)Death rate (per 1000) 2003* 7.2 7.6 6.3 7.2 8.0 7 (7.88)Female work participation rates 2001 35.07 34.73 24.3 35.97 37.69 5 (31.56)Notes:1. Figures in parentheses indicate value of indicator for the country as a whole.2. ** indicates value of the indicator for the 15 major states of India.Sources:1. Data on HDI - National Human Development Report, 2001.2. Registrar General of India, Census, 2001.3. * Registrar General of India, Sample Registration System, SRS bulletin, volume 39 (1), April 2005.4. National Family and Health Survey-2, IIPS, Mumbai, 1998-99.The prevalence of inter-district variations – inlevels of development generally, as well as inhuman development particularly – is a matterof concern. It partly explains the seemingcontradiction between the high growth in GSDPand the median rank in HDI in the state. Amongall the districts of Karnataka, the HDI index wasthe highest in Bangalore Urban district (0.753)and the lowest in Raichur (0.547). 3 In general,the HDI of a district closely follows the level ofdevelopment as indicated by the per capita districtincome with a correlation coeffi cient of 0.9. TheHDI is high in the coastal districts, and very low inthe Hyderabad Karnataka and Bombay Karnatakaregions of the state.Improving the human development indicators ofthe state requires considerable augmentation ofinvestment, in both physical and human capital,as well as improvement in the productivity ofthe capital invested. 4 Any analysis of the taskof fi nancing human development in Karnatakaand the options for enhancing the investmentto desirable levels must take into accountthe condition of the state’s fi nances and theconstraints that they impose on fi nancing humandevelopment.The issue has gained importance for a numberof reasons. First, the sharply deteriorating fi scalhealth of the state had posed serious diffi cultiesin releasing resources for investment in humancapital. Second, compression of expendituresas a part of the fi scal adjustment strategy, andcompeting claims on fi scal resources at the statelevel, have underlined the need for prioritisingexpenditures in favour of human development.Third, the Millennium Development GoalsImproving thehuman developmentindicators of the staterequires considerableaugmentation ofinvestment, in bothphysical and humancapital, as well asimprovement in theproductivity of the capitalinvested.3These values are not comparable to the estimates of NationalHuman Development Report (NHDR) due to differences inmethodology as well as data used to estimate them.4There are numerous examples of countries where social sectorexpenditure was given a priority in their development strategyand these priorities have paid rich dividends. Sri Lanka andCuba are two such countries.35