Views
8 months ago

POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY TN

which are significantly

which are significantly higher than rural prices. They find no evidence in the NSS purchase data that corresponds with this finding. There is also a discrepancy between the interstate price indexes incorporated in the Expert Group and official poverty lines, and those generated by the purchase data in this study. One of the main conclusions of their paper is that current official practice produces larger errors in calculating the distribution of poverty within a country than in calculating the changes in poverty levels over a period of time. Updating base poverty lines involves ‘correcting’ these for urban to rural price and interstate price differences, and Deaton and Tarozzi have shown that such specific numerical corrections are not easy to make. The pattern of sectoral prices in Tamil Nadu can be captured by the sectoral implicit price deflators. Table 2.13 shows the relative movement of agricultural, industrial, and services sectors obtained with reference to the 1999-00 base series of current and constant price GSDP data. The earlier series has been brought to the 1999-00 base with suitable conversions factors. It is noted that while all the sectoral prices have increased, the largest upward movement has been in the manufacturing sector prices, followed by services, which started at a lower level in 1993-94 compared to agriculture but has reached comparable levels by 2006-07. The growth in agricultural prices has been relatively the lowest. This indicates that the people whose incomes are linked to agriculture have experienced least income growth due to the increase in the prices of their produce while they pay relatively higher for the purchases that they make of outputs of the other two sectors. Table 2.13: Implicit Price Deflators in Tamil Nadu: Sectoral Prices (Base year 1999-00=100) Year Agriculture Manufacturing Services 1993-94 73.81 72.91 63.81 1994-95 73.37 76.45 69.39 1995-96 82.74 80.51 77.13 1996-97 92.07 85.79 83.14 1997-98 97.18 88.60 89.41 1998-99 102.26 99.28 97.97 1999-00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2000-01 100.94 103.32 103.77 2001-02 102.34 105.12 107.85 2002-03 105.84 107.93 112.65 2003-04 110.39 113.83 117.72 2004-05 118.82 121.31 117.57 2005-06 125.64 125.50 120.57 2006-07 123.75 131.04 123.40 Source (Basic data): Government of India, Central Statistical Organisation. 44

Chart 2.3 highlights that agricultural prices have been most volatile among the sectoral prices. Thus, the agricultural prices have shown relatively lowest upward movement and have exhibited highest volatility in terms of sectoral inflation rates. Chart 2.3: Relative Movement in Sectoral Inflation Rates in Tamil Nadu 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 -2.00 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996- 97 1997- 98 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 -4.00 Agriculture Manufacturing Services Table 2.14: Terms of Trade between Agriculture, Manufacturing and Services Year P(Agr.)/P(Man.) P(Agr.)/P(Ser.) P(Man.)/P(Ser.) 1993-94 101.24 115.68 114.26 1994-95 95.97 105.73 110.18 1995-96 102.77 107.27 104.37 1996-97 107.33 110.75 103.19 1997-98 109.68 108.69 99.09 1998-99 103.00 104.38 101.34 1999-00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2000-01 97.70 97.28 99.57 2001-02 97.35 94.89 97.47 2002-03 98.06 93.95 95.81 2003-04 96.98 93.77 96.70 2004-05 97.94 101.06 103.19 2005-06 100.11 104.20 104.09 2006-07 94.44 100.28 106.19 Source (Basic data): Government of India, Central Statistical Organisation. 45

World Comparative Economic And Social Data
Police Stations - Tamil Nadu Police
N u m b e r o f S c h o o l s - DISE
Census 2011 population of Latur district
PDF: 1.0MB - Population Reference Bureau