Growth rates in district domestic product (DDP) and per capita DDP shows that 7 districts of Telangana (Ranga Reddy, Nizamabad, Khammam, Hyderabad, Mahbubnagar, Warangal and Medak) and 2 districts of North Coastal (Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam) recorded higher growth rates than that of state average. On the other hand, all the districts in South Coastal and Rayalaseema and three districts of Telangana and one district of North Coastal showed lower growth than that of state average. However, one has to see the quality of growth in Telangana and Rayalaseema districts.some more interesting facts, relevant to some issues discussed in recent posts on this blog, can be gleaned from table 27 (page 33). for instance:
* of the nine districts that showed higher per capita gdp (or ddp) than the per capita gsdp of andhra pradesh (of rs.1300, in 1993-94 prices) in 2003-04, four were from telangana and five were from coastal andhra and none from rayalaseema.
* there was greater inequality within each region (in coastal andhra, per capita ddp in vizianagaram is rs.904 in 2003-04 while it is rs.2026 in neighbouring visakhapatnam; in telangana per capita ddp in mahbubnagar is rs.976 while per capita ddp in hyderabad is rs.1758) than across regions (median per capita ddp in telangana is rs.1192, while median per capita ddp in andhra-rayalaseema is rs.1220; median per capita ddp in coastal andhra is rs.1317 and in rayalaseema it is rs.1083).
but i am uncomfortable with the estimates in the table. mahendra dev says (at the bottom of the table):
Note: Per capita DDP is in 1993-94 pricesbut the gdp/ddp estimates for andhra pradesh and india, in 1993-94 prices, are hard to find and this web page (published by the chandigarh government) offers very different figures for the gdp of andhra pradesh, in 1993-94 prices, from 1993-94 to 2003-04.
Source: Estimated from the data provided by Department of Economics and Statistics, GOAP
so, how did mahendra arrive at figures which are less than the figures offered elsewhere by around 90%? i'm sure there is a good explanation for this discrepancy. i think mahendra dev's estimates are probably based on 1980-81 or 1970-71 prices because i've noticed elsewhere that the recent estimates government of andhra pradesh put the state per capita gdp figures for 2003-04 somewhere around rs.19000 (based on 1999-2000 prices), which is nearly 15 times the figure of rs.1300 offered by mahendra dev's estimates. i don't think a change in base year, apart from growth, could account for such a huge difference. but the growth rate in gsdp offered by mahendra dev's estimates seems to match the growth rate indicated by figures (in the second page), and both the gsdp figures (for 1993-94 and 2003-04) too seem to be lower by a uniform 90% or so. it almost seems like all his per capita ddp estimates miss a zero at the end. so for the rest of this post, i am going to accept and use mahendra dev's figures to make some observations. but i hope readers will understand that they need to take my observations based on these figures as efforts to get a general sense of economic disparities within regions, than as accurate estimates.
a commenter here has tried to make the point that comparing the growth statistics of telangana with andhra-rayalaseema is like comparing similar statistics relating to ethiopia or iraq with the united states. i don't think so. as another commenter pointed out: comparing karimnagar with kurnool isn't so outlandish. it's more like comparing iraq with ethiopia. because, as we can learn from mahendra dev's paper, all three regions of andhra pradesh have more in common with iraq or ethiopia, when one looks at human development indicators, than with the united states. and when it comes to bland, purely economic statistics like per capita gdp figures, they've more in common with each other than many assume.
why comparing karimnagar with kurnool or guntur isn't like comparing ethiopia or iraq with the united states
i looked at the district-wise population figures on this page (census 2001)#, and a little calculation helped me arrive at rough estimates of what could be the ddp figures (based on the per capita ddp figures in table 27 in mahendra dev's paper), and then figure out the region-wise gdp figures and per capita gdp numbers for each of the three regions. after some very tiresome math i came up with some very rough figures (all figures are based on 1993-94 prices, as in the table, and pertain to 2003-04) which would help me gain an insight into region-wise differences in per capita gdp. these are, let me repeat, very rough estimates (i could be definitely be inaccurate, but i don't think i'm very wrong). so don't look for precision here, only an attempt to gain a sense of regional differences, and how comparable those differences are. i'm sure there are official estimates available somewhere, some participants at televised debates have quoted figures for even 2009-2010. but, anyway, here are my estimates (and my neck):
* the per capita gdp in telangana (all ten districts including hyderabad) is rs.1317 (approx), while the per capita gdp of the thirteen districts of andhra-rayalaseema is rs.1284 (approx) as in 2003-04, based on 1993-94 prices. not comparable?
* while the per capita gdp of the ten districts of telangana is rs.1317 (approx), the per capita gdp of the nine districts of coastal andhra is rs.1368 (approx) and the per capita gdp of the four districts of rayalaseema is rs.1087 (approx). not comparable?
some commenters have said that the gdp and growth figures of the districts of hyderabad and ranga reddy districts (the greater hyderabad capital region) inflate the overall gdp and growth figures of telangana. let's see how telangana looks without hyderabad and other growth-inflating districts:
* the per capita gdp of nine districts of telangana (excluding hyderabad) is rs. 1258 (approx), while the per capita gdp of the thirteen andhra-rayalaseema districts is rs. 1284, or 2% more. not comparable?
* the per capita gdp of eight districts of telangana (excluding hyderabad and ranga reddy districts) is rs.1195 (approx), while the per capita gdp of the thirteen andhra-rayalaseema districts is rs. 1284, or 7% more. not comparable?
* the per capita gdp of seven districts of telangana (excluding hyderabad, ranga reddy and medak districts) is rs.1138 (approx), while the per capita gdp of the thirteen andhra-rayalaseema districts is rs. 1284, or 13% more. not comparable?
one could go on. if one excludes the per capita gdp figures of visakhapatnam from the andhra-rayalaseema statistics (because it inflates the gdp figures of the area like hyderabad and the capital region inflate the gdp figures of telangana), the per capita gdp for the remaining twelve districts goes down to rs.1215 (approx), while the per capita gdp of seven districts of telangana (excluding hyderabad, ranga reddy and medak districts) is rs.1138 (approx). not comparable?
i think all those minor differences would become much more minor if one takes into account the simple fact that telangana started out on its journey to modernity, democracy and development a good two generations behind andhra-rayalaseema.
when a movement shifts, in spurts, from making wild charges of discrimination to colonization to cultural domination, and fails to substantiate any of those charges, one can clearly see that its campaign is built along the lines of similar 'cultural' movements like the 'ram janmabhoomi' agitation. when its votaries in their public pronouncements, repeatedly, fail to make a distinction between a small class of alleged oppressors and the whole ethnic group to which the class of alleged oppressors belong, one does not need to excavate the ram jamabhoomi years in one's mind to understand what's happening. it's happened before. the politics of the separatists is now mostly about hate-mongering.
# i'm assuming there is no major change in the proportion (of total population of the state) living in each region in the period 2001 to 2003-04. even accounting for variations wouldn't affect my figures in a very big way, i think. please correct me if i'm wrong, anywhere.