Dimensions of Regional Disparities in Socio-Economic Development of Assam

Jour. Ind. Soc. Ag. Statistics 57 (Special Volume), 2004: 178-190 Dimensions of Regional Disparities in Socio-Economic Development of Assam S.C. Rai and V.K. Bhatia Indian Society ofagricultural Statistics, New Delhi SUMMARY The status of of different districts of Assam has been estimated with the help of composite index based on optimum combination of forty-eight al indicators. The data on various socio-economic indicators of the year 2001 for different districts have been used in the study. The level of is separately estimated for agricultural sector, industrial sector, infrastructural facilities and overail socio-economic sectors. The district of Sonitpur is found to rank first and the district of NC Hills is on the last position in the overall socio-economic. There is positive significant association between the levels of in agriculture and.socio-economic fields. Wide disparities in the levels of have been observed in different districts of the State. For bringing about uniform regional in the State, model districts have been identified and potential targets for various indicators have been estimated for low developed districts. Key-words : Regional disparities, Potential targets, Composite index, Model districts, Developmental indicators. 1. Introduction Developmental programmes were taken up in the country in a planned way through various Five Year Plans with the main objective of enhancing the quality of life of people by providing the basic necessities of life as well as effecting improvement in their social and economic well being. Social is not a pre-determined stage but it is a continuous process of improvement of levels of living. Although resource transfers are being executed in the backward regions, it has been observed that the regional disparities in terms of economic is not declining over time. For focusing the attention of the scientists, planners, policy makers and administrators on the level of disparities in economic, a seminar was organized jointly by the Planning Commission, Government of India and State Planning Institute, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow during 1982. Realizing the importance and seriousness of the problems of estimation of level

REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVEWPMENT OF ASSAM /79 of, the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics conducted a series of studies for estimating the level of of different states. After analyzing the data on socio-economic variables of major 17 states for the year 1971-72 and 1981-82 ([1], [2]), it was felt that the regional variability in socioeconomic could better be explained through analyzing the data of district level of various states. The district level data on socia-economic variables have been analyzed in respect of the states of Orissa ([3], [4]), A.P. [5], Kerala [6], V.P. [7], Maharashtra [8], Karnataka [9], combined analysis of districts of Southern Region [10], Tamil Nadu [11] and M.P. [13]. The present study has been undertaken in the state of Assam where an attempt has been made to evaluate the level of in agricultural, industrial, infrastructural and overall socio-economic sectors for different districts. Assam is predominately rural and agrarian. As per 2001 Census, more than 80 per cent people of the State live in rural areas. The decadal growth rate of population from 1991 to 200I is about 19 per cent whereas. the growth rate of the population of the country during this period is about 21 per cent. The literacy rate in Assam is about 64 per cent against the all India literacy rate of about 65 per cent. The literacy rate among the female of the State is about 56 per cent and among male about 72 per cent. The estimatep annual birth rate in the State is about 27 against the death rate of 9.7 and infant mortality rate 76. The district has been taken as the unit of analysis. It would be of interest to measure the level of at district level since there has been a growing consensus about the need of district level planning in the State. A knowledge of the stages of at district level will help in identifying where a given district stands in relation to others. The study will also throw light on the relationships between the levels of of different sectors of economy of the State. An attempt will be made to identify the model districts for fixing up the potential targets of various al indicators of low developed districts. 2. Developmental Indicators Each district faces situational factors unique to it as well as common administrative and financial problems. Administrative and financial problems along with the situational factors common to all the districts have been included in the study for estimating the level of. The composite indices of for different districts have been obtained on the basis of following indicators of the year 2001. 1. Percentage forest area 2. Percentage area not available for cultivation 3. Percentage uncultivated land

180 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN SOCIElY OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 4. Percentage net area sown 5. Area sown more than once 6. Area under HYV of paddy 7. Fertilizer consumption 8. Area irrigated 9. Irrigation potential created 10. Number of seedling planted under social forestry 11. Fish production 12. Number of cattle 13. Number of buffaloes 14. Number of sheep 15. Number of goats 16. Number of pigs 17. Area under silk worm 18. Production of silk worm 19. Number of trainees in handloom training centre 20. Production of cloth 21. Number of weavers engaged whole time 22. Distribution of registered factories 23. Number of small scale industries 24. Registered area under tea 25. Number of motor vehicles on road 26. Road length per '00 sq. km. of area 27. Number of employment exchange 28. Registration of employment exchange 29. Number of hospitals 30. Number of beds in hospitals 31. Immunization performance 32. Number of teachers in primary schools 33. Total literacy rate 34. Female literacy rate 35. Incidence of crime reported 36. Per capita gross domestic product

REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVEWPMENT OF ASSAM 181 37. Total allocation for DRDA 38. Percentage of expenditure over total final available 39. Number of habitations providing with drinking water 40. Flood affected area 41. Total value damaged due to flood 42. Sex ratio 43. Population density per sq. km. 44. Decadal growth rate of population (1991-2001) 45. Number of male workers 46. Number of female workers 47. Percentage of S.C. population 48. Percentage of S.T. population A total of forty-eight al indicators depicting the progress of agricultural, industrial, infrastructural facilities and overall socio-economic have been included in the analysis. These indicators may not form an all inclusive list but these are the major interactive components of socio-economic in the State. 3. Estimation oflevel ofdevelopment and Fixation ofpotential Targets Indicators of are recorded in different units of measurement and they come from different population distributions. Hence the values of these indicators are not quite suitable for simple addition in estimating the level of. The values of the indicators are transformed in such a way that the transformed variables follow the standard normal distribution. Let f. be the 1 observed values of the indicators (i = 1, 2,..., n districts) and (j = 1, 2,..., k indicators). x -x Now Xij is transformed to Zij as Zij = IJ Sj Where Xj =mean ofjth indicator and Sj =S.D. ofjth indicator The best values of the transformed variables for each indicator (maximum/minimum value depending upon the direction of the impact of indicator on ) are identified and deviation of the transformed variables from their best value is obtained. The statistical technique given by Narain et al. ([4], [11]) is applied to construct the composite index of. The composite indices have been obtained for each district J

182 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS separately in respect of agricultural, industrial. infrastructural and socio-economic. The value of the composite index is non-negative and it lies between 0 and 1. A value close to 0 indicates higher level of and value close to 1 indicates low level of. The al distances based on all the indicators are obtained for each pair of districts and the model districts have been identified on the basis of composite index of and the al distances. Model districts are better developed districts and the best value of the indicators of model districts are taken as potential targets of al indicators. 4.1 The Level of Oevelopment 4. Results and Discussion The composite indices of have been worked out for different districts separately for agricultural sector, industrial sector. infrastructural service sector and overall socio-economic sector. The districts have been ranked on the basis of al indices. The composite indices of along with the district ranks are presented in Table 1. It may be seen from the table that the district of Sonitpur was ranked first and district of NC Hills was ranked last in the overall socio-economic. The values of composite indices varied from 0.72 to 0.99. In case of agricultural, the district of Nagaon occupied the first position and the district of N.C. Hills was on the last position. The composite indices varied from 0.46 to 0.97. T.he district of Karnrup was placed on the first position whereas the district of Hailakandi was on the last place in industrial. The values of composite indices varied from 0.55 to 0.94. In case of infrastructural facilities. the district of Karbi Anlong was on the first position and the district of HC Hills was on the last place. The composite indices varied from 0.70 to 0.99. In case of socio-economic sector, three most developed districts in the State are Sonitpur. Karbi Anglong and Lakhimpur. 4.2 Relative Share of Area and Population under Different Level of Development For classificatory analysis, a simple ranking of districts on the basis of composite indices is sufficient but a suitable classification of the districts formed on the basis of mean and standard deviation of the composite indices will provide a more meaningful characterization of various stages of. For relative comparison, it appears appropriate to assume the districts having composite index less than or equal to (Mean - SO) as highly developed districts and the districts having composite index greater than (Mean + SO) as low developed districts. Similarly. districts with composite index lying between

REGIONAL DlSPARrrlES IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTOFASSAM 183 (Mean and Mean - SD) are cjassified as middle level developed and districts with composite index lying between (Mean and Mean + SD) are classified as developing districts. Table 1. Composite indices of S.No. District 01 Dhubri 02 Kokrajhar 03 Bongaigaon 04 Goalpara 05 Barpeta 06 Nalbari 07 Kamrup 08 Darrang 09 Sonitpur 10 Lakhimpur 11 Dhemaji 12 Morigaon 13 Nagaon 14 Golaghat 15 Jorhat 16 Sibsagar 17 Dibrugarh 18 Tinsukia 19 Karbi Anglong 20 NC Hills 21 Karimganj 22 Hailakandi 23 Cachar Agricultural C.I. IRank Industrial C.1. IRank Infrastructural C.I. IRank Socioeconomic C.1. IRank 0.59 6 0.76 10 0.82 19 0.81 17 0.65 10 0.77 11 0.79 17 0.79 15 0.70 14 0.74 07 0.75 07 0.77 11 0.72 18 0.80 17 0.74 05 0.77 09 0.53 2 0.74 06 0.77 13 0.76 07 0.63 9 0.71 03 0.74 04 0.75 04 0.58 5 0.55 01 0.95 22 0.85 20 0.57 4 0.77 12 0.76 10 0.75 06 0.55 3 0.68 02 0.73 03 0.72 01 0.61 8 0.81 19 0.71 02 0.72 03 0.84 22 0.86 21 0.78 15 0.82 18 0.68 13 0.80 18 0.76 11 0.78 12 0.46 1 0.75 08 0.77 12 0.75 05 0.67 12 0.11 04 0.75 08 0.77 08 0.67 11 0.79 14 0.85 20 0.85 19 0.74 20 0.76 09 0.76 09 0.78 14 0.73 19 0.78 13 0.78 14 0.80 16 0.70 16 0.79 15 0.88 21 0.88 21 0.70 15 0.74 05 0.70 01 0.72 02 0.97 23 0.87 22 0.99 23 0.99 23 0.71 17 0.86 20 0.74 06 0.77 10 0.81 21 0.94 23 0.82 18 0.91 22 0.60 7 0.79 16 0.78 16 0.78 13 An important aspect of the study is to find out the relative share of area and population affected under various stages of in the State. The details regarding area and population under different levels of are given in Table 2 below for agricultural sector, industrial sector, infrastructural service sector and overall socio-economic sector.

184 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS Table 2. Area and population under different levels of Level of No. of districts Area % Population % Agriculture High Medium Developing Low 03 09 08 03 14 38 36 12 21 35 33 11 Industry High Medium Developing Low 02 11 06 04 12 53 21 14 16 47 22 15 Infrastructural facilities High Medium Developing Low 02 15 03 03 16 58 09 17 06 64 12 18 Socio-economic High Medium Developing Low 03 13 04 03 23 47 17 13 13 53 18 16 With regard to overall socio-economic, three districts namely Sonitpur, Lakhimpur and Karbi Anglong were found to be better developed and these districts are classified as highly developed in the State. These districts cover about 23 per cent area and 13 per cent population of the State. Similarly three districts namely Kamrup, Tinsukia and N.C. Hills are observed to be low developed. These districts cover about 17 per cent area and 20 per cent population. Thirteen districts namely Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon, Goalpara, Barpeta, Nalbari, Darrang, Morigaon, Nagaon, Golaghat, Sibsagar, Dibrugarh, Karimganj and Cachar are classified as medium level developed districts. They cover about 47 per cent area and 53 per cent population of the State. The remaining four districts namely Dhubri, Dhemaji, Jorhat and Hailakandi are grouped into developing districts. They cover about 13 per cent area and 14 per cent population of the State. In agricultural, three districts namely Barpeta, Sonitpur and Nagaon are found to be better developed. They are grouped as highly developed districts. They cover about 14 per cent area and 21 per cent population of the

REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN SOCIO ECONOMIC DEVEWPMENT OF ASSAM 185 State. Similarly three districts namely Dhemaji, NC Hills and Hailakandi are observed to be low developed districts. They cover about 12 per cent area and 11 per cent population of the State. Nine districts namely Dhubri, Kokrajhar, Nalbari, Kamrup, Darrang, Lakhimpur, Golaghat, Jorhat and Cachar are middle level developed and they cover about 38 per cent area and 35 per cent population of the State. The remaining eight districts namely Bongaigaon, Goalpara, Morigaon, Sibsagar, Dibrugarh, Tinsukia, Karbi Anglong and Hailakandi are also low developed but these districts are having tendency to improve the level of and they can be classified as developing districts. These districts cover about 36 per cent area and 33 per cent population of the State. In the case of industrial, two districts namely Kamrup and Sonitpur are found to be highly developed and eleven districts namely Dhubri, Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon, Barpeta, Nalbari, Darrang, Nagaon, Golaghat, Sibsagar, Dibrugarh and Karbi Anglong are middle level developed. The districts of Goalpara, Lakhimpur, Morigaon, Jorhat, Tinsukia and Cachar are observed to be in the developing stage whereas the districts of Dhamagi, NC Hills, Karimganj and Hailakandi are low developed. The area and population covered under highly developed districts are 12 per cent and 16 per cent respectively whereas the area and population covered by the middle level districts are about 53 per cent and 47 per cent respectively. Developing districts cover about 21 per cent area and 22 per cent population and low developed districts occupy 14 per cent area and they cover about 15 per cent population. Infrastructural facilities are very important and they play significant role in enhancing the level of. Two districts namely Lakhimpur and Karbi Anglong are found to be highly developed in infrastructural facilities and these districts cover about 16 per cent area and 6 per cent population. Fifteen districts namely Kokrajhar, Bongaingaon, Goalpara, Barpeta, Nalbari, Darrang, Sonitpur, Dhemaji, Morigaon, Nagaon, Golaghat, Sibsagar, Dibrugarh, Karimganj and Cachar are having middle level facilities and they cover about 58 per cent area and 64 per cent population of the State. Three districts namely Dhubri, Jorhat and Hailakandi are in the developing stage and these districts cover about 9 per cent area and 12 per cent population. The remaining three districts namely Kamrup. Tinsukia and NC Hills are low developed and they cover about 17 per cent area and 18 per cent population. In order to improve the level of, infrastructural facilities should be enhanced in the rural areas. 4.3 Inter-relationship among Different Sectors of Economy For proper and effective, it is desirable that agriculture, industry, infrastrucutral facilities and overall socio-economic should prosper together. The correlation coefficients between agricultural, industrial, infrastructural facilities, socio-economic and literacy level have been worked out and presented in Table 3.

186 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN SOCIElY OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS Table 3. Correlation coefficients Factors Agricultural Industrial Infrastructural Socio Literacy economic Agricultural Industrial Infrastructural Socioeconomic Literacy... Significant at 0.01 probability level. 0.602... 0.359 0.605... 0.227-0.010 0.199-0.130 0.959... 0.264 0.284 The correlation coefficient between agricultural and industrial is highly significant. This indicates that the area. which is well developed in agricultural sector is also better developed in the industrial sector. The significant association between agricultural and industrial s also indicates that agriculture and industry are flowering together in the State. Industries provide basic inputs for agricultural improvement and use agricultural produce as the principal raw material for producing finished goods. Agricultural is also found to be very highly associated with the socio-economic in the State. Infrastructural facilities such as electrification of villages, construction of roads, provision of medical help, enhancement in literacy level etc. are not associated with the agricultural. These facilities are also not associated with the industrial. Socioeconomic is also not associated with the industrial. Infrastructural facilities are very highly associated with the socio-economic in the State. The level of literacy is not found to affect the status of any sector in the State. Agricultural has played a positive role in improving the overall socio-economic. 4.4 Model Districts and Potential Targets for Low Developed Districts For enhancing the level of of low developed districts, model districts have been identified on the basis of composite index of and the distance between different pairs of districts. Three districts covering about 13 per cent area and 16 per cent population of the State are found to be low developed in the socio-economic field. List of model districts for the low developed districts is given in Table 4.

REGIONAL DISPARrrlES IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVEWPMENT OF ASSAM 187 Table 4. List of model districts for low developed districts Low developed districts NC Hills Hailakandi Tinsukia Model districts Cachar, Morigaon, Goalpara, Karimganj Karimganj, Golaghat, Sibsagar, Barpeta Dibrugarh, Morigaon, Golaghat, Barpeta In comparison with low developed districts, model districts are better developed. The best values of the. al indicators of the model districts are taken as potential targets for the low developed districts. Improvements required in different indicators for the low developed districts are presented in Table 5.. Table S. Improvements required in low developed districts S.No. Developmental indicators N.C. Hills Hailakandi Tinsukia 01 Net area sown (%) 5.2 (62.8) 34.9 (53.4) 25.2 (62.8) 02 Area under HYVP 5.0 (68.0) 26.0 (102.0) 31.0 (102.0) 03 Fertilizer consumption 1.0 (92.0) 13.0 (103.0) 61.0 (103.0) 04 Area irrigated 345.0 (345.0) 8.0 (8199.0) 18.0 (819.0) 05 Production of fish 1.0 (115.0) 50.0 (294.0) 53.0 (256.0) 06 No. of cattle 51.0 (428.0) 183.0 (497.0) 455.0 (497.0) 07 No. of buffaloes 24.0 (87.0) 34.0 (177.0) 31.0 (177.0) 08 Production of silk warm 38.0 (107.0) 2.0 (107.0) 26.0 (107.0) 09 Production of cloth 10.0 (197.0) 15.0 (197.0) 80.0 (197.0) 10 No. of weavers engaged 110.0 (320.0) 170.0 (320.0) 135.0 (320.0) 11 No. of small scale industries 330.0 (2838.0) 267.0 (1242.0) 471.0 (1242.0) 12 Road length 33.0 (56.0) 33.0 (67.0) 35.0 (42.0) 13 Registration in Employment 1.0 (10.0) 2.0 (10.0) 6.0 (10.0) Exchange 14 No. of hospital beds 266.0 (986.0) 80.0 (368.0) 291.0 (1395.0) 15 No. of teachers in primary 24.0 (38.0) 30.0 (87.0) 26.0 (44.0) schools 16 Total literacy rate 69.0 (69.0) 60.0 (75.0) 63.0 (71.0) 17 Female literacy rate 59.0 (60.0) 51.0 (68.0) 53.0 (62.0) 18 Per capita gross domestic 5.8 (16.6) 7.9 (17.0) 5.8 (16.6) product 19 Total main workers 418.0 (418.0) 114.0 (339.0) 247.0 (339.0) Note: Figures in bracket indicate the best values of the model districts It may be seen from the above table that in al indicators, large improvements are required in the low developed districts to attain the level of model districts. However, steps should be taken to improve the al indicators in future planning. The following specific improvements are required in the low developed districts.

188 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (a) District N.C. Hills This district is low developed in agricultural and industrial sectors. Most of the areas of the district are covered by hills and forest and only 5 per cent area is net sown. Irrigation system is poor and fertilizer use is low. Improvements are needed to enhance the agricultural by creating additional irrigation potential and also popularizing the use of manure and chemical fertilizer. Developmental programmes suitable for hilly and forest area should be taken in the district. About 66 per cent population of the district belongs to SC and ST. Developmental programmes suitable to these communities should be enhanced. Literacy rate is quite high in the district. (b) District Hailakandi The district is low developed in agricultural and industrial sectors. About 48 per cent area of the district is covered by forest and about 35 per cent area is available for cultivation. Irrigation facilities are not sufficient for enhancing the agricultural production. Irrigation potential should be enhanced in the district. Medical facilities and employment opportunities are very low. Developmental programmes for creating new job opportunities should be undertaken in the district. (c) District Tinsukia Agricultural and industrial in the district is quite low. Infrastructural facilities are also poor. About 35 per cent area of the district is covered by forest and only 25 per cent area is available for cultivation. Irrigation facilities should be increased. Industrial in the district requires improvement and medical as well as transport facilities need enhancement. 5. Conclusions The broad conclusions emerging from the study are as follows (i) With reference to overall socio-economic, three districts namely Sonitpur, Karbi Anglong and Lakhimpur are found to be better developed and three districts namely NC Hills, Hailakandi and Tinsukia are observed to be low developed. (ii) In agricultural, three districts namely Nagaon. Barpeta and Sonitpur are better developed. The districts of NC Hills, Dhemaji and Hailakandi are found to be low developed. (iii) In industrial, two districts are found to be better developed and four districts are low developed. In case of infrastructural facilities, two districts are better developed and three districts are low developed. (iv) The overall socio-economic is found to be positively associated with agricultural and infrastructural facilities. The

REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF ASSAM 189 in agricultural and industrial sectors are also observed to be highly correlated. The literacy level has not influenced the status of in agricultural, industrial and overall socio-economic sectors. (v) It is observed that the entire part of the low developed district are not low developed but some parts are middle level or high level developed. (vi) Wide disparities in the level of have been observed in different districts of the State. (vii) In order to reduce the disparities in the level of, model districts have been identified and potential targets of various indicators of have been fixed. The low developed districts require improvement of various dimensions in the al indicators. REFERENCES [I] Narain, P., Rai, S.C. and Shanti Sarup (1991). Statistical evaluation of on socio-economic front. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 43, 329-345. [2] Narain, P., Rai, S.C. and Shanti Sarup (1992). Evaluation of economic in India. Souvenir of 11th Economic Development Conference in Complementarity of Agriculture and Industry in Development, Instt. Trade & Industrial Development, New Delhi, 67-77. [3] Narain, P., Rai, S.c. and Shanti Sarup (1992). Classification of districts based on socio-economic in Orissa. Yojana, 36, 23, 9-12. [4] Narain, P., Rai, S.C. and Shanti Sarup (1993). Evaluation of economic in Orissa. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 45, 249-278. [5] Narain, P., Rai, S.C. and Shanti Sarup (1994). Regional dimensions of socioeconomic in Andhra Pradesh. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 46, 156 165. [6] Narain, P., Rai, S.C. and Shanti Sarup (1994). Inter-districts disparities in socio-economic in Kerala. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 46, 362 377. [7] Narain, P., Rai, S.C. and Shanti Sarup (1995). Regional disparities in the levels of in Uttar Pradesh. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 47, 288-304. [8] Narain, P., Rai, S.C. and Shanti Sarup (1996). Dynamics of socio-economic in Maharashtra. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 48, 360-372. [9] Narain, P., Rai, S.C. and Bhatia, V.K. (1997). Regional pattern of socioeconomic in Karnataka. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., SO, 380-391. [101 Narain, P., Rai, S.c. and Bhatia, V.K. (1999). Inter district variation of in Southern Region. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 52, 106-120.

190 JOURNAL OF THE 1NDJAN SOC1ErY OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS [11] Narain, P., Sharma, S.D., Rai, S.C. and Bhatia, V.K. (2000). Regional disparities in socio-economic in Tamil Nadu. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 53, 35-46. [12] Narain, P., Shanna, S.D., Rai, S.C. and Bhatia, V.K. (2001). Regional dimensions of disparities in crop productivity in Uttar Pradesh. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 54, 62-79. [13] Narain, P., Sharma. S.D., Rai, S.c. and Bhatia, V.K. (2002). Dimensions of regional disparities in socio-economic in Madhya Pradesh. Jour. Ind. Soc. Agril. Stat., 55,88-107. [14] Regional dimensions of India's economic. Proc. ofseminar held on April 22-24, 1982 sponsored by Planning Commission, Govt. of India and State Planning Institute, Govt. ofu.p. [15] Statistical Handbook Assam (2002). Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Govt. of Assam, Guwahati.