The authors of the article A Look in the Mirror (Mar 31) presented their analysis in a totally ideology-free method that shed light on the comparative development of our states. Not only is it a sophisticated econometric method to answer how robust the economic performances of states are so that they can be ranked on the basis of data and not of sentiment, but the method is also very intuitive. A leader has to be good on an absolute account but also be better than his or her predecessor in his state and better than contemporary leaders in others; the ‘marginal productivity’ has to be positive on both counts. And what the report reveals is that Gujarat has done quite well in the last few decades but any additional gains under the stewardship of Modi are statistically insignificant in terms of growth. The conclusion is intuitive given that his government’s main agenda is to promote market mechanisms and less government intervention in social sectors. And let me clarify, I have no objections to these principles per se.
Sanjay Banerji, London
‘Differences in differences’ is an excellent and effective method that I’ve seen as an IT professional myself. The choice of indices by the authors seems good as the Gujarat model tries to champion the cause of the underprivileged. In any case, the data from the rbi, Planning Commission and the statistics department of the Gujarat government itself indicates that Gujarat’s share in cumulative FDI between 2000-13 is only four per cent. It is fifth statewise in gross state domestic product, contributing only 7.3 per cent to India’s GDP. And the state’s contribution to India’s manufacturing employment has been almost stagnant over the three decades, despite its growing GSDP. This when the might of the entire corporate class is behind Narendra Modi.
Satish K.G., Bangalore
To get a meaningful view, the figures contributed by Mumbai should be excluded, or indicated separately. All of Maharashtra’s statistics get totally vitiated by Mumbai.
Ashok Sapru, Lagos
Another attempt to prove that there is no story to the Gujarat story.
Deven V., Mumbai
Well, I do see the bonnet of a glitzy car behind all the filth and muck. So it must be a developed state.
While the experts deal with abstract concepts, I’ll concentrate on the concrete things: 24x7 electricity and water supply, tarred roads, ambulance access to every village, vastly improved government hospitals....
Akash Verma, Chennai
Differences in differences is quite a complicated formula, not a lazy plotting of readymade points. For example, does this approach consider the trend (not the average ) of the last five years prior to the period of Modi-led Gujarat growth? What were the levers available to either accelerate or maintain the growth and how well were they utilised? Without considering complexities, this simplistic plotting of graphs looks like a fifth-grader’s work.
Abhijeet Kulkarni, Pune
Modi can afford to boast about development in his state because his people can see it and elect him three times for it. Other CMs cannot boast of development because there is nothing to show for it.
P.B. Joshipura, Suffolk, US
Who is stopping other states or their CMS from making their case and running for the prime minister’s post? They have to put the message out to see if it resonates with the public.
Priya Madhavan, Rochester, US
Looks like a cheap statistician's trick rather than the work of academics.
Vaibhav Shrivastava, Calcutta
People do not go to the polling booth with the hdi report or economic indicators in their hands. They vote for a party if their quality of life has seen improvement in the last five years. In this regard, Modi’s governance can be seen as successful.
Novonil Guha, Delhi
Apropos the study by two academics on Gujarat (A Look in the Mirror, Mar 31), perhaps the only thing it has not considered is the varying natural abilities, skills and talents of people from various states. For example, people from Gujarat, Rajasthan (Marwaris), Punjab and Haryana are better entrepreneurs. This means Gujarat ought to have done much more in terms of growth. The myth and hype of Modi’s development model stands exposed. But the reduction of poverty in India over the past 30 years is commendable, and should be attributed to the Congress’s economic policies.
any links available to the statistics sources ?
"..it also pays ( not directly though) a tribute people of Gujrat who made this spurt of growth possible with their sheer hard work and enterprise. This it sounds foolish if a political party or an individual claims that the miracle over the last twenty years belong to them.”
London, United Kingdom
I too pay a tribute (though directly) to the people of Gujarat who made this spurt of growth possible with their sheer hard work and enterprise. You can say that for any other state for whatever little growth took place due to the hard work put in by the people there. It has been always the people but where is the leadership? You perhaps said all about the statistical analysis in a classroom. Come to India; walk the neighborhoods; meet people and tell me if what you see is any different than what was left behind after you moved out with the firangi. In UP, they still talk of chopping someone to pieces! Not in Gujarat because there is a nationalist state government that cares for its citizens.
We have had such statistics for as long as we remember, especially used as whip to beat the opponent with. Now, go find two BJP academics to portray Gujarat as a shining example of communal tolerance and peaceful co-existence, bolstering personal, social, and economic growth. That was politics but if Maitreesh Ghatak and Sanchari Roy walk outside the cozy room in which they had been working on these statistics and take a good look around they will see the beaten down villages, towns, and cities bearing tiring gray look all over. And for the ordinary inhabitants lies, damned lies, and statistics have little or no meaning.
To get meaningful view, the figures contributed by Mumbai should be excluded or separately indicated.All statistics of Maharashtra get totally vitiated by Mumbai.
#38 @DC -
>> Modi's proven competence in ruling one state can not be extrapolated to assume automatically that he will succeed.
True. But the alternative we have is proven incompetence.
>> Decisive leaders often act in a dictatorial manner. More importantly, when a leader emerges through anti incumbancy and strong discontent against the current rulers, his immense popularity and mass hysteria can lead to dictatorial tendencies.
Agreed. We have but to look at Indira Gandhi's example. But Modi in Gujarat has been very decisive without being overtly dictatorial.
>> Can a decisive Modi manage to create a team of competent ministers who are equally committed , capable and decisive?
Competent - may be, Equally committed and decisive - Depends on coalition compulsions.
>> Can Modi tolerate dissenting opinions?
If he can afford the luxury, he may not - you never know.
>> Can he manage challenges of coaltion partners?
Depends on the electoral equation. If the government is critically dependent on an unreliable party, he may have problems on his hand.
>> Can he manage ever asserting state governments often run by local political parties with narrow local agenda?
If he has sufficient elbow space at the centre, yes.
>> Any view on these would be purely speculative and a statement of faith.
It is speculative but I am confident. Remember he has demonstratred exemplary patience during 10 years of relentless, concerted demonisation by opposition and media.
I think the most important lesson statisticians and economists need to understand is that people do not go to the polling booth with the HDI report or economic indicators in their hands. They vote for the party if their quality of life has seen improvements in the last five years (especially if that's the issue on which elections are fought). In this regard Modi's governance is successful and Maharashtra is not!
>>In per capita income, Maharashtra and Gujarat have been in number 1 & 2 respectively among large states. Consider the other parameters and let's see whether Modi deserves credit or not!
While you are right, Maharashtra's lead is purely because of Mumbai. However, the government's contribution to driving Mumbai revenues is zero. Mumbai has arguably the worst roads compared to all cities in India while infrastructure is collapsing. That is why statistics can be deceptive if not explained in context. Tell a resident of Maharashtra that the state has seen impressive governance and he will most likely slap you!
Governance is one aspect which unambiguously separates the two states. Modi's stable, transparent, peaceful Gujarat is miles ahead of scam-ridden, unsafe Maharashtra. People of Maharashtra tremble in the name of underworld dons; killing of innocent people by terrorists is a regular event; frequent attacks on non-Marathi people are quite common. On the contrary, Gujarat is the only state, where terrorists and underworld mafias tremble in the name of Modi.
D. L Narayan/ Arun Maheshwari,
Defining crony capitalism is difficult because we can argue that all capitalists since time immemorial have tried to influence the rulers - monarchs or senators. Businessmen, traders, merchants and industrialists alike have overtly or covertly bribed the eulers and politicians, exchanged favor bagged preferential trade policies for furthering business. Business -politics nexus is centuries old . The battle of Palassey that modern Indian history interpretes with a nationalist perspective was also fought over clash of business interests between British merchants and Indian merchants over license to trade. East India company installed a stooge replacing Shrirazuddaullah so that they could further their lucrative business interests in Bengal. We do not have to look at 19th century America to see Crony Capitalists. Birlas, tatas and other large business houses courted the British government and the leaders of Congress - Gandhi and Nehru alike.
I am no Marxist to embrace socialism highlighting the problems of capitalism, but to me crony capitalism in modern times comes from rent seekers who turn rich only using political connections without adding much value to the economy. The Russian oligarchs or billionaires in Mexico and other developing countries emerged from political manipulation in a post cold war era when erstwhile socialized countries were treated with the capitalist "shock therapy" of the IMF dictated refors through privatization of nationalized enterprises and assets. India was late in joining the party and India's halted pace of reforms in 1990s was a blessing in disguise. But since the new millenium as pace of privatization increased and natural resources as well as public sector monopolies started changing hands we saw a group of upstart businessmen who got incredibly rich in no time. In India traditional business groups including cronies of Nehru-Gandhi establishment during the license permit raj did not exercise as much control over the economy. India needs capitalism, but surely you don't want only the upstart rent seekers becoming billionnaires in the process. Acquisition of land for industrial urposes, selling of state controlled monopolies, selling of mining rights of land to entrepreneurs are serious issues that no drive for veering to privatization can ignore. It does not mean I am suggesting either we should go back to socialist past or do nothing hoping markets have self correcting mechanism. Tackling crony capitalism should also form a part of proper governance.
If I could come to India in summer, I certainly would have voted for Modi. But I am not as absolute in my faith as you appear to have in yours. I lived in Gujarat during pre-Modi years and I can tell you Gujarat was a prosperous state even then and Gujaratis in my opinion are among the most entreprenurial people in India. So governing a state well which was disciplined and prosperous even earlier cannot be a litmus test, though I would agree that Modi has given a decisive corruption free governance that also won him elections in Gujarat multiple times. But sadly many Indian states are not as organized, prosperous and entrepreneural as Gujarat. Modi's proven competence in ruling one state can not be extrapolated to assume automatically that he will succeed. We have to wait and see.
Decisive leaders often act in a dictatorial manner. More importantly, when a leader emerges through anti incumbancy and strong discontent against the current rulers, his immense popularity and mass hysteria can lead to dictatorial tendencies.
Can a decisive Modi manage to create a team of competent ministers who are equally committed , capable and decisive ? Can Modi tolerate dissenting opinions? Can he manage challenges of coaltion partners? Can he manage ever asserting state governments often run by local political parties with narrow local agenda? Any view on these would be purely speculative and a statement of faith. I am still skeptical if not cautiously optimistic. We have to wait and see.
To rule over a chaotic democracy, diverse populace, and
DC ... crony capitalism is a phase that even the US went thru. So may be this is a necessary phase in Capitalism. They of course grew out of it (there are of course other examples primarily Latin America where they didn't) and BTW, many of those crony capitalists left lasting legacy in education institutions/arts-culture that still serve the US well. So the real question is can we grow out of it? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for this to happen? What can be done to accelerate this getting out, if anything? Will we do the US way or Latin American way?
>>(a) Investment - Gujarat's share in cumulative FDI between 2000-2013 is only 4% and is on decline for the last 3 years despite 'Vibrant Gujarat' (b) Gujarat stands 5th in state-wise Gross State Domestic Product contributing only 7.3% to India’s GDP (c) Gujarat’s contribution to India’s manufacturing employment is almost stagnant over the three decades, in spite of growing GSDP.
1) FDI is recorded in the place of registered office. Hence even if Gujarat actually has more investments, cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore show the FDI inflow. This has been explained many times in the past.
2) It is stupid to compare absolute numbers of GSDP and say Gujarat is fifth. One also has to take the size of the state and the population. Hence per capita GDP becomes relevant.
3) Gujarat GDP is 7.3% of India's GDP is impressive given that it has only 4.8% of the population and about 6% of the land given large parts of it was barren land.
4) Gujarat has the lowest unemployment rate in India despite large migration into it while the socialist secular heaven Kerala has the highest despite large number of people working in the Gulf.
>>Fundamentally Congress, NDA and UPA governments have followed the same markets based reforms for two decades, but only during the later years of UPA rule the corrupt politicians and crony capitalists could hijack the economic reforms for their own benefits.
Actually this is factually incorrect. Liberalization and reform took place under Narsihma Rao when blue print for it was ready 6 months earlier. Reform went on for exactly two and half years and then he got embroiled in the JMM bribery case and all reforms stopped. Congressis became apologetic about reforms in 1994-95. Next stage of reform came in the 6 years of NDA. NDA's main focus to withdraw from businesses, ease regulation and create opportunities. Once UPA came into power, since 2004 not one reform step was undertaken and instead the government was more interested in wasteful social expenditure. Actually ALL the scams took place in UPA 1 itself. So while it is fashionable to say that UPA and NDA follow the same economic policy, it is just not true.
>> Everybody is expecting corruption free nepotism free governance from Modi. But if the NDA regime chooses to go overboard with the free markets courting the large industrialists and capitalists, India's economic growth can again be held hostage to crony capitalism.
"But if" ? There is no basis for expressing this doubt. If any, Modi's governance in Gujarat has been relatively corruption-free and nepotism-free.
>> However, I seriously doubt NDA/Modi will/can take a strong ideological position on economic policies if elected to power and play a class war.
Again there is no basis for this scepticism. Modi has shown he can convince his party to agree to his vision/plan. Capitalists are fueling the economic growth which Modi is channeling for the public good. And note that it is 'public' good not targeted at 'select groups'. The only reason for doubt would be if NDA is critically dependent on an unreliable ally for survival.
>> Instead better administrative skills, corruption free governance and decisive executive action can turn around India's ailing economy.
There is no better example today for 'administrative skills, corruption free governance' than Modi. This calls for employing a firm hand, which is branded 'authoritarianism' by his detractors. One can see only a Jayalalita or Mamata capable of deploying such a firm hand in administration.
In the assessment of Modi, his proven skills in administering a state ruled his party is extrapolated to a possible coalition government at the centre. While this may not be realistic, the next best person who can do this is way down the list.
I agree that any drastic shift either way will be cataclysmic for any society. For all his faults, Nehru's patriotism can never be called into question and it is to his great credit that he was able to ensure that India made the transition from slavery to sovereignty as painless as possible. Where he failed, as was pointed out by many scholars, is that he opted for socialism in industry and capitalism in agriculture, which was the reason why India lagged behind most other countries which became independent at the same time. Another reason why the transition was smooth is the fatalistic and docile nature of the masses who were emerging from millennia of serfdom.
As for crony capitalism, it was the Birlas, Tatas and others who flourished during the licence-permit raj. Entry barriers were incredibly high and only those like the late Dhirubhai Ambani, who knew how to work the system, were able to gatecrash their way through these barriers. Today, it is a far more level playing field and there have been several success stories in the IT and Pharma fields which owe nothing to political patronage.
The strength of democracy is that the articulation of divergent opinions is not suppressed. From the debate that ensues, a consensus will emerge which will obviously be the best course in the long term.
For those questioning the competence or political motivation of the authors, or just swearing at them, please consider pointing out what other data or method of analysis that the authors could have used (as some readers have). Otherwise, your reactions display your inability to do so and the resulting frustration. If statistics are the worst form of lies, how do you know Modi's performance was great? Blind faith? Sorry guys, facts are facts. If you don’t like them, don’t hurl abuse or condemn statistics, come up with better ones! Also, the data used in the article are publicly available - if you think the authors are biased or have done a poor job, what is preventing you from carrying out this analysis and posting it here or somewhere else in the public domain? It was the Modi supporters that started the oversell and so naturally those claims are receiving scrutiny, although belatedly. I did not see the article either support the UPA or any other CM or endorse any state's model of governance.
Those of us who grew up with a socialist India and saw its transformation afterwards can say (like D. L Narayan) that the socialistic ideas did not make us economically better off. But at the same time for a trasformational economy I am concerned about any drastic move to the right that could all of a sudden bring miseries for millions of people while offering bonanza to the chosen few.
For a poor resource starved country like India wealth generation is important and for that we need economic growth driven by a capitalist, free market economy. Yet if we ignore the quality of the economic growth, allow crony capitalists to corner the resources by bribing politicians,the expansion of the middle class and socio economic mobility will halted as plutocrats will enjoy the benefits of growth. You can read a recent cover story in the Economist which has expressed concern about the crony capitalism hurting especially the developing world.
Fundamentally Congress, NDA and UPA governments have followed the same markets based reforms for two decades, but only during the later years of UPA rule the corrupt politicians and crony capitalists could hijack the economic reforms for their own benefits. Modi's economic blue print hardly deviates from the market based economic policies India has been following for over two decades. Everybody is expecting corruption free nepotism free governance from Modi. But if the NDA regime chooses to go overboard with the free markets courting the large industrialists and capitalists, India's economic growth can again be held hostage to crony capitalism.
Capitalism creates wealth for the winners, but unbridled capitalism also creates poverty for the losers and raises economic disparity. Even in the developed world rising disparity of income and backlash against the capitalist is a serious political issue that threatens ring wing economic policies. Governments cannot therefore completely let go reins from the markets and continue with welfare schemes to protect the disadvantaged.
You can argue that welfare schemes are all populist , vote buying policies to suit a right wing rhetoric, but instead of reforming welfare scheme or reducing welfare dependence if NDA crafts any economic policy to dump the welfare schemes , it will bring only miseries for a very large section of the population.
However, I seriously doubt NDA/Modi will/can take a strong ideological position on economic policies if elected to power and play a class war. Instead better administrative skills, corruption free governance and decisive executive action can turn around India's ailing economy.
Sick and tired of the rants from a loud mouth like you. You lack decency to make civilized comments about anyone in a forum. Nor are you educated enough to understand what people are arguing on. ( For a more civilized exchange of views read the arguments between Satish and D L Narayan here.)
Calling names on renowned economists and researchers and talking foul about opinions you disagree, you exhibit the filth that occupies your mind.
Instead of acting like a "partisan moron" (your expression) yourself, come up with different data points and a different set of metrics to prove why the conclusion of this article does not hold. But that needs rigorous research which you are neither qualified nor competent enough to conduct. Talking trash is an easy and convenient option.
Debating on economic models and governance is interesting, but reading garbage from an opinionator like you is a pain. Surely there will be hundreds of people better qualified than you to challenge the authors' research finding or provide a different conclusion.
Okay , Let us go ahead with the BASHING OF CORPORATES strategy, nationalize all industries and ah, impose 95 or 97% taxation on all private income above 10000 Rupees and Year and hope for improvement in human lives. But well, this is what we had for a very long period - 30 years, between 1955 (when LIC was nationalised) right till 1980s...
My only question is - Were the poor much better off then? Was the adivasi or dalit labourer or small farmer h aving a life of fun and fortune then? Why did we miss those good old days? And there was no unemployment and everyone had complete access to education, healthcare and good drinking water right? How is that we forgot the golden age of Indian socialism, when GODs like Nehru and Indira ruled us and gave us the paradise ?
COMMUNALIST >> Well, this is exactly what the Secularists are saying, there is no story in the Gujarat story.
THen let us hear the SECULARIST's INDIA STORY OF LAST 10 YEARS - A UPA GOVERNMENT that has ruined India, increased inflation and destroyed infrastructure and made life hell for millions in India and destroyed all hope and enterprenuership and stalled all important national projects in the name of environment and land acquisition laws.
The SECULARIST CON MAFIA is in rule for 55 out of 66 years and If India is still the home to largest number of destitute, poor, hungry, and sick people in the world the CREDIT goes entirely to the SECULAR NEHRUVIAN SOCIALISTS and their supporters .
"The forthcoming election, it seems, will be fought mainly on issues of governance and economic performance."
Excellent first sentence. Now we can dispense with the rest of the article. People are not interesting in knowing that "Gujarat/NaMo is not 100% perfect as made out to be", nor "UPA is not 100% bad as made out to be". People weigh options before them in relative terms - like,
"All said and done, Is Modi/BJP/NDA a BETTER CHOICE for governance and economic performance than Rahul/Congress/UPA ? "
As far as voters are concerned, all the blah, blah about development indices amount to nothing. To win an election you don't need 100% vote share.
Saying stupid sh*t politely is not in any way better than saying non-stupid sh*t aggressively -- all you pretentious t*rds who think otherwise need to get yourself an enema and a lobotomy, not necessarily in that order.
another stupid remark" We can and MUST debate on what's the right model but it does not mean we should choose the wrong model and hope for the best!"
This is not some class where things can be "modeled" before execution -- policies need to be executed and the outcomes of every policy need to be tabulated over the years. Policies must be picked on the basis of outcomes they produce in the long term and not on whether some loser socialist f*rt like Amartya Sen or the cretins who wrote this "analysis" are able to model their stupid concepts so they can pretend that everything will work as planned in the real world.
@ Satish KG
Maybe our perspectives on developemt are different because I belong to a generation which suffered on account of the flawed model of development followed by Nehru and Indira Gandhi whereas you most probably belong to the generation which benefitted from the economic liberalisation which was initiated in 1991. My political beliefs in my youth were distinctly leftist but after I understood the world better, I realised that a laissez-faire ecoomic policy was far superior to a Soviet style state controlled economy?
While I agree that true development happens only when it is inclusive and the social and economic disparities are narrowed as much as possible, we do not live in an ideal world and India, notwithstanding its pretensions to superpower status, is still a poor and underdeveloped third world country, home to the maximum number of illiterate adults and the malnutrition capital of the world.
To create a prosperous nation, we need to create wealth first. It is industries which create wealth, provide jobs and fill up government coffers through the taxes they pay. The much maligned Reliance Industries accounts for 10 % of the revenue earned by the Government of India.
Capitalists are the creators of wealth and no capitalist will invest his money in a loss making proposition. The sad fact of life is that capital is in short supply and it has to be wooed aggressively. Once development is set in motion, the onus on ensuring that the wealth created trickles all the way down lies with the government as is the implementation of law which prevents erring capitalists from looting a nation's wealth like those involved in selling away telecom licences and coal mining leases.
Priot to the 90's, we followed the Nehruvian socialist model which gave priority to massive investments in the public sector. See where that policy has taken us vis-a-vis others who were more or less at par with India when we got our independence - China and Korea.
On the verge of bankruptcy, Narasimha Rao and his team liberalised the economy and it was carried forward by the Vajpayee government. The IT revolution was facilitated by these reforms and it was admitted by no less a person than Narayana Murthy of Infosys that it was liberalisation which facilitated the rise of India and a global IT powerhouse.
If the fruits of development have not really percolated to the masses, it is to a large extent due to big-ticket financial malfeasance on the part of successive UPA governments running into mind-bogglingly astronomical figures. Add to that populist and hare brained schemes like the NREGA and FSB, which are unsustainable and provide plenty of scope for siphon off the funds from reaching the intended benificiaries and you will knwo what I mean.
While statistics are important tools, they are highly susceptible to misinterpretation. A wag once commented that statistics are like a bikini - while they reveal a lot, they do not reveal vital information. More than statistics, it is how industrialists invest that tells us about the economic climate of a state. Gujarat undoubtedly attracts a lot of investment and one of the important causes for this is the investor-friendly approach of the Modi government.
I agree with you that there is no fundamental difference between the economic policies of the Congress and the BJP; the difference is in approach to transparency and corruption. More importantly in the style of leadership. The UPA, with its controversial dyarchy had a passive and unassertive prime minister and a shadowy, unapproachable eminence grise who actually called the shots. There was no clarity of leadership and the lack of a decisive leader had a huge negative impact on the quality of governance. Notwithstanding his impressive credentials, Dr. Manmohan Singh will go down in history as one of India's finest finance ministers and one of India's worst prime ministers!
I also agree with you that widely perceived views may be wrong.The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have had enough of the UPA brand of governance. It is high time we opted for an alternative which is prima facie better than what we have endured for the past decade. Surely, it cannot get any worse.
Finally, thank you for rebuttal of your views in a civil and gracious manner. As you might have noticed, a lot of people do not take kindly to criticism and resort to ad hominem attacks. I look forward to more such debates with you.
satishkg"he fact remains Mr.Modi has done no magic but he is the blue-eyed boy of the corporates after all! Nothing surprising that he's making news!"
what is so nice about morons who make such remarks is that they are probably holding a well-paying job under the same "evil corporates" or someone in their family is, in order to pay the bills. But then jholawallah sh*theads like Abhinandan Sekhri and his ilk live as parasites on society while pulling down industrialists and people who create jobs and provide livelyhood for Indians towards building a strong economy. India has taken a leftward turn for the worse with slimy a**holes like Kejriwal promising to make the UPA look like the golden age. Country gets the politicians and politics it deserves, and India deserves nothing good given the choices it has made decade after decade.
Instead of holding up a mirror to gujarat, the authors of this article should hold up a mirror to their own intellect and let us all know if they see anything other than a horse's butt that the rest of us can espy.
""How robust are the economic performances in the states so that we can evaluate and rank them on the basis of data and not on the basis of our ideology or preconceived notion. "
Some f*rt wrote the above as a defense of this "analysis" by these two cretins from LSE. Firstly, as the saying goes, there are lies, lies and then statistics. One of the failings of "econometrics" that these horse's asses from LSE are using is that you can reach any conclusion you want if you choose a different year as the base line. Add to it the fact that policies of any government may take effect only a few years from its implementations, if there are any effects at all.
Another astute comment noted that life on the ground needs to affirms these "conclusions" by these two bit academics from the LSE or whereever. Given the rather selective choices of HDI alone as the metric for comparison while ignoring all else, demonstrates that this study is incomplete, if not useless, and is therefore insufficient to make the extravagant conclusions that it makes.
Of course, politically partisan morons will lap anything up if it reaffirms their political party's spin on matters, accuracy be damned.
I am not sure if we understand the term 'development' the same way. Is it FDI, corporate investments, high GDP or is it job security, free & univerasal access to basic needs? FDI, corporate investment etc.. do create some 'high end' jobs but more importantly, they create higher RoI and Modi is liked by corporates precisely for this reason.
But, on what basis, can we conclude that 'what is good for coprorates is good for everyone'? From the perpesptive of a marginal farmer or a low end worker, how does it feel to see that despite so-called 'high growth', Gujarat has slid from 10th to 11th position in Human Development? That a poor Gujarati (and there are milllions of them) earns less than national average? That more and more jobs are 'contract' jobs and not 'regular' jobs? That infants and mothers die more in Gujarat than in many other states? That an average Gujarat dies earlier than a Punjabi or a Keralite? I can go on. Mind you, the so-called 'trickle-down effect' has failed us in India and even in the US which president Obama himself admits!
One need not be a leftist to see all this. To me, both Kerala Model as well as Gujarat Model are flawed. We can and MUST debate on what's the right model but it does not mean we should choose the wrong model and hope for the best! I believe the right model does not happen if we expect the politicians (like Modi or Nitish) to offer it to us thinking 'changing one government with another will solve problems by voting one-in-5-years'. I don't see any policy of Modi is fundamentally different from Manmohan nor is his implemenation any better from the lower stratas of the social pyramid. After all, 'widely perceived' views may be wrong - as wrong as 'politically motivated' articles :-)
You seem to be missing the point that the job of politicians is to make the environment conducive for investment by ensuring law and order, transparency and various incentives like land and tax sops. Modi is the "blue-eyed boy of the corporates" for precisely this reason.
You have the example of Andhra Pradesh which developed well under Chandrababu Naidu. Then, YSR replaced him and the state slid down on all parameters. However, during YSR's tenure, AP was the no. 1 state when it came to contributing to the Congress party's coffers. displacing Maharashtra from the top spot. It is also worth noting that the CM's son flourished well during his father's rule, enriched himself from zero to several thousand crores and becoming in the process the richest MP in the outgoing Lok Sabha.
Then, you have Kerala, which is far ahead on HDI and most other developmental parameters. Why do you think that the corporates are not interested ininvesting in that state?
As far as I am concerned, this article is politically motivated and written with an intention to denigrate a person who is widely perceived to be the next Prime Minister of India.
As Mark Twain remarked, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."
A careful and important piece of research. Even while sticking to the narrowest indicators of economic success - those that the Modi-bhakts point to most frequently - we find that Gujarat has done no better than could have been "projected" based on trends prior to Modi's governance. Add in indicators of human development, political violence and corruption, and of course the story the becomes even worse.
Posting again with a correction: 'Differences in differences' is an excellent and effective method that I've seen as an IT professional myself. The choice of indices by the authors look OK since the Gujarat Model tries to champion the cause of the underprivileged. In any case, the data from RBI/Planning Commission/Economic & Statistics Dept of Gujarat Govt indicate that: (a) Investment - Gujarat's share in cumulative FDI between 2000-2013 is only 4% and is on decline for the last 3 years despite 'Vibrant Gujarat' (b) Gujarat stands 5th in state-wise Gross State Domestic Product contributing only 7.3% to India’s GDP (c) Gujarat’s contribution to India’s manufacturing employment is almost stagnant over the three decades, in spite of growing GSDP!
Let's NOT forget that the might of entire corporate class is behind Mr.Modi after the sops/subsidies/amentieis/cheap land etc.. given to the Tatas (in Nano project, with the total loss to the state, if you monetise, was Rs.30,000 crore), Adani group, Reliance Ambanis, Essar etc.. CAG also severely criticised the Gujarat goverment for passing undue favours to corporates citing irregularities worth Rs.16,700 crore in 2012 - 4 times more than the 2011 figures. These corporates peddle the story through the media which they anyway control as we all know. Mr.Modi is NOT the only one talking about development. Nitish is talking a great deal about Bihar Development Model, there is noise around Kerala Development Model too. If any of them were supported by the corporates, Mr.Modi would have been NOWHERE. As the authors say, the fact remains Mr.Modi has done no magic but he is the blue-eyed boy of the corporates after all! Nothing surprising that he's making news!
'Differences in differences' is an excellent and effective method that I've seen as an IT professional myself. The choice of indices by the authors look OK since the Gujarat Model tries to champion the cause of the underprivileged. In any case, the data from RBI/Planning Commission/Economic & Statistics Dept of Gujarat Govt indicate that: (a) Investment - Gujarat's share in cumulative FDI between 2000-2013 is only 4% and is on decline for the last 3 years despite 'Vibrant Gujarat' (b) Gujarat stands 5th in state-wise Gross State Domestic Product contributing only 7.3% to India’s GDP (c) Gujarat’s contribution to India’s manufacturing employment is almost stagnant over the three decades, in spite of growing GSDP.
Let's forget that the might of entire corporate class is behind Mr.Modi after the sops/subsidies/amentieis/cheap land etc.. given to the Tatas (in Nano project, with the total loss to the tune of Rs.30,000 crore), Adani group, Reliance Ambanis, Essar etc.. CAG also severy criticised the Gujarat goverment for passing undue favour to corporates citing irregularities worth Rs.16,700 crore in 2012 - 4 times more than the 2011 figures. They peddle the story through the media which they anyway control. Nitish is already talking a great deal about Bihar Development Model, there is noise around Kerela Development Model too. If any of them weere supported by the corporates, Mr.Modi would have been nowhere. As the authors, say, the fact remains Mr.Modi has done no magic but he is the blue-eyed boy of the corporates after all! Nothing surprising that he's making news.
Why other states' CM don't claim development as Gujarat CM is doing? Because they know that their own people would not believe it. Why, then Gujarat CM is boasting about development in Gujarat under Modi? Because Gujarat local people see it, experience it and benefit from it. That is why even after unprecendented attack on Modi, Gujarat people elected him three times over.
If the analysis is so good then what is conclusion apart from obvious attack on guj & Modi
a. Maharashtra is best governed state in India ?? -> when did you visit last time to India and did you care to stop by mumbai and check with local folks out there.
b. Another pointer is Bihar? --> again check what Biharis are thinking about development of their state.
plotting publically available & random data points in graphs is a typical homework assignment that we give in India to 5th standard students. Looks like in LSE you have class for the same!!!
Who is stopping the other states or the Chief Ministers from other states from making their case and running for the Prime Minister's post? There is always a media bias in favor of the Congress Party and the third front as these graphs reveal. Yet most of these ministers seem to want to kowtow to the family rather than challenging them.
They have to put the message out to see if it resonates with the public.
Congratulations to Professor Ghatak and Dr. Ray for presenting their analysis in a completely ‘’value neutral’’ method that sheds light on comparative development of our states. The write up is based on sophisticated econometric method to answer the question: How robust are the economic performances in the states so that we can evaluate and rank them on the basis of data and not on the basis of our ideology or preconceived notion.
The method is also very intuitive. A leader, for that matter, not only has to be good on absolute account but also must be better than his (her) predecessors in the state in question and has to outshine contemporaneous colleagues from the other states. That is, the ‘’marginal productivity’’ of a leader has to be clearly positive on both accounts if s(he) claims that miracle during the ruling of state is solely due to his/her caliber. The painstaking analysis revealed that the state of Gujarat has done quite well in the last couple of decades and additional gains under stewardship of Modi is statistically insignificant in terms of Growth and he fared either worse or at most average in development indicators like HDI etc. The conclusion is intuitive, given that his Government’s main agenda is to promote market mechanism and less government intervention in social sectors. ( I have no objections to those principles , per se).
Some readers have pointed out that the analysis omits the current year. The argument is very weak because the authors have calculated yearly average growth rates (for example, one of the indicators) for several decades. Adding or omitting a particular year will not have much impact on their conclusions unless the year is specifically noted for a drastic change in either direction. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, a reliable data for the last two years is not available in the public and trusted domain.
The write up is significant for two specific reasons. First, it is an example of a pure academic honesty which set aside pre conceived opinions and rely on hard facts and use the most up to date econometric methodology to analyse the issues at hand. Second, it also pays ( not directly though) a tribute people of Gujrat who made this spurt of growth possible with their sheer hard work and enterprise. This it sounds foolish if a political party or an individual claims that the miracle over the last twenty years belong to them.
before 2002 modi was nobody,nobody knews him or heard about him,after 2002 riots he appeard like superhero like a powerhunger monster he destroyed everything camebefore him weather his enemies,mentors,collegues,friends etc he dontcare anything only one thing his target power
his proves LSE needs to dramatically improve their interview procedures!! How these low IQ folks are employed as profs there instead of teaboys!!
Difference in Difference is a quite complicated formula , not like a lazy plotting of ready made points in convenient fashion!! For example does this approoach consider what was last 5 years "trend" (and not average) prior to Modi period for Guj Growth. what were levers available to either accelrate or maintain growth with respective states and how well they were utilized?
without considering complexities, this simplistic plotting of graphs look like a fifth standards students homework !!
Do they want us to believe that Maharashtra is best governed state!!
want to try telling people in Maharashtra??
if you look for filth , you can always find filth .
why are there no photos from the other states being compared ?
While the article treats with abstract concepts, let us see the concrete things. 24/7 electricity, water supply, tarred roads, ambulance access to every village, vastly improved govt hospitals..............
I will take these things over abstract concepts of income inequality etc.
Good article! It says, "this assessment goes against the view held by many people independent of their political leanings that Gujarat has done spectacularly well under Mr Modi." This is exactly what Rahul has been saying.
Also notice how these "analysts" maitreesh and sanchari have conveniently left out addressing the period 2009 to 2014 -- because it obviously does not help them spread the cowdung of a conclusion they reached before they even wrote the first sentence in this article. Losers like maitreesh and sanchari give economists a bad name.
I must be clairvoyant because I knew what these "academic" scumbags from LSE were going to say before I started reading this "study". The graphs seem to show magically that poverty and HDI figures improved under the UPA and worsened under the BJP. This "report" cannot be politically motivated garbage can it? Perish the though, academic vermin from LSE are so independent and unbiased, right? right? not really. How come these disingenous sh*theads who call themselves academics have failed to compare other important indices such as investment in manufacturing, and job creation and wealth creation during these same period. Oh, it cannot because the lowlives in the Congress Party have screwed all that up for 60 years can it? Perish the thought. If it were not for Nehru and the fruit of his goddamned loins, Indians would still be poor and malnourished, if you believe the losers in academia. Just selectively present numbers appropriately massaged to send the political message. These two scumbags could have cut all the garbage charts and graphs and just simplified their "analysis" to ""UPA is best for India".
But if you want to pull the wool over the readers of outlook, you need to put up BS graphs and charts that lead you to the predetermined conclusion these two losers started with before they wrote this article. Effing losers.
well, i do see the bonnet of a glitzy car behind the filth and muck....so it must be a developed state.
Well, this is exactly what the Secularists are saying, there is no story in the Gujarat story.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT