GDP Per Capita of Indian Sates

[velu]

 

 

 

 

[velu]

Tamilnadu and amma

Gujarat is so much developed that it is only slightly behind TN .

 

Northie states screwing our statistics badly as usual

 

 

[FischerTal]

17 minutes ago, velu said:

Tamilnadu and amma

Gujarat is so much developed that it is only slightly behind TN .

 

Northie states screwing our statistics badly as usual

 

 

most rich gujjus live in mumbai and pune, hence maharashtra being higher than TN 

Edited August 3, 2016 by FischerTal

[velu]

39 minutes ago, FischerTal said:

most rich gujjus live in mumbai and pune, hence maharashtra being higher than TN 

1700rs diff only

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Bengal higher in the rank than i expected.

[Laaloo]

2 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Bengal higher in the rank than i expected.

How does Mirpur rank? Or are you from Dhaka?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

How does Mirpur rank? Or are you from Dhaka?

Maar Khayega BC.

[G_B_]

highlights the problems of combating poverty in India as a whole... 25% of Indian population living in UP and Bihar..... poorest states are the same. 

Untill UP and Bihar reach 1 lakh per capita IMO combating extreme poverty is going to be hard.... 

 

Its also 2013-2014 I think by now Bihar has probably overtaken UP or is at the same level. MP has overtaken Odisha.... and Rajasthan overtaken west bengal.... Tamil nadu too has probably overtaken Maharashtra.

 

Over the past 2-3 years MP has been growing at the best pace. (not this year due to drought). While, Andhra Pradesh under CBN and Rajasthan under Raje have seen the most reforms at state level. 

 

Dont be surprised if all three states, Andhra MP and Rajasthan rapidly climb up the ladder.

 

As for Bihar... well you had IAS Sushil Modi who was pulling the strings in terms of admin replaced by a 9th standard fail 27 year old.... clearly growth is going to suffer. 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by G_B_

[zen]

One way to increase GDP per capita is to battle over population .... look at the density of population per km in UP, Bihar, WB, etc. - Link

 

UP for example has as many people as Brazil, which has a much larger area .... Kerala has similar population to Canada's 

[randomGuy]

1 hour ago, rett said:

One way to increase GDP per capita is to battle over population .... look at the density of population per km in UP, Bihar, WB, etc. - Link

 

UP for example has as many people as Brazil, which has a much larger area .... Kerala has similar population to Canada's 

While lesser population would maybe be better from environment point of view, population density has absolutely nothing to do with lack of development in today's world of technology and telecommunication.

 

 

All of UP and Bihar's problems can be attributed to inefficient and corrupt leadership. 

[zen]

26 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

While lesser population would maybe be better from environment point of view, population density has absolutely nothing to do with lack of development in today's world of technology and telecommunication.

All of UP and Bihar's problems can be attributed to inefficient and corrupt leadership. 

The point of population density is that higher the density, more the burden on resources esp on developing states. Which in turn could impact the development, opportunities, etc of the citizens reflecting on GDP per capita

 

The formula for GDP per capita = GDP divided by population .... So to increase GDP per capita, you can either increase the output or decrease the population to the optimal level where it does not impact the output 

 

Just based on GDP, UP, Bihar, WB, etc. are in the top 15. Now if you are suggesting that everyone in those states is contributing to the GDP then the output per citizen is very low. And that could be because of competition for resources .... If everyone is not contributing, then again it is overpopulation that is creating a burden on resources as highlighted through the density 

 

Ranking	State/UT	GDP in 2014-15 (in crore rupees)
	India	₹125.41 lakh crore (US$1.9 trillion)
1	Maharashtra	₹16.8 lakh crore (US$250 billion)
2	Tamil Nadu	₹9.76 lakh crore (US$150 billion)
3	Uttar Pradesh	₹9.76 lakh crore (US$150 billion)
4	West Bengal	₹8.00 lakh crore (US$120 billion)
5	Gujarat	₹7.65 lakh crore (US$110 billion)
6	Karnataka	₹7.02 lakh crore (US$100 billion)
7	Rajasthan	₹5.7 lakh crore (US$85 billion)
8	Andhra Pradesh	₹5.20 lakh crore (US$77 billion)
9	Madhya Pradesh	₹5.08 lakh crore (US$75 billion)
10	Delhi	₹4.51 lakh crore (US$67 billion)
11	Telangana	₹4.30 lakh crore (US$64 billion)
12	Bihar	₹4.02 lakh crore (US$60 billion)
13	Kerala	₹3.96 lakh crore (US$59 billion)
14	Haryana	₹3.89 lakh crore (US$58 billion)
15	Punjab	₹3.17 lakh crore (US$47 billion)

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by rett

[randomGuy]

I am saying there is inefficiency, corruption and lack of safety due to Govt.
Who will invest when there are all these things?
GDP is equal to overall consumption plus investment plus trade.
When there is no investment, there are no jobs, no money for consumption, and no goods or services for trading either.

While GDP per capita for small nations is invariably more than that for bigger nations, there is no stopping nations/states achieving atleast a minimum level of GDP per capita. 

Overpopulation is not a reason for lack of development in today's world imho.

 

BTW GDP of Delhi etc is jacked up because people from all over the country come to work here. Actual population or actual footfalls is far more than the registered population. I think there's a lot more poverty here or in Mumbai than in cities like Pune.

[randomGuy]

Another interesting thing if one notices is that GDP per capita of J&K is quite less but on HDI, it is ranked right at the top.

 

 

[zen]

22 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

I am saying there is inefficiency, corruption and lack of safety due to Govt.
Who will invest when there are all these things?
GDP is equal to overall consumption plus investment plus trade.
When there is no investment, there are no jobs, no money for consumption, and no goods or services for trading either.

While GDP per capita for small nations is invariably more than that for bigger nations, there is no stopping nations/states achieving atleast a minimum level of GDP per capita. 

Overpopulation is not a reason for lack of development in today's world imho.

 

BTW GDP of Delhi etc is jacked up because people from all over the country come to work here. Actual population or actual footfalls is far more than the registered population. I think there's a lot more poverty here or in Mumbai than in cities like Pune.

As I said by mentioning the formula that there are different ways to increase GDP per capita .... I have no where said xyz is the only way. It is probably you who is interpreting this as population vs output where output is influenced mainly by the govt .... govt though is usually as good as its people 

 

For me, population (and environment) factor is important. Because if population is less, resources distributed per citizen is high, which in turn helps them to develop more efficiently impacting the output positively .... If population keeps growing at a greater rate than what the output can manage to support optimally, no matter what the govt does it could be less so you are usually in the perpetual state of trying to catch up.  And the environment would also be impacted negatively creating problems for the future generations

 

In layman's terms - even if you want to invite guest (investment) to your house, your house (state) should be in the order.  Who would come to your home, if it is filled with so many people that you have difficult even breathing. That to go to washroom, you have to wait for your turn. And food served on the table is limited because everyone has to eat from the available limited resources .... And where the house leader is selected from the same bunch of people who are used to such situation and see nothing wrong with it 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by rett

[gattaca]

Up and Bihar always....  surprised to see Sikkim Is it just tourism in Sikkim ?

Edited August 4, 2016 by gattaca

[randomGuy]

13 minutes ago, rett said:

As I said by mentioning the formula that there are different ways to increase GDP per capita .... I have no where said xyz is the only way. It is probably you who is interpreting this as population vs output where output is influenced mainly by the govt .... govt though is usually as good as its people 

 

For me, population (and environment) factor is important. Because if population is less, resources distributed per citizen is high, which in turn helps them to develop more efficiently impacting the output positively .... If population keeps growing at a greater rate than what the output can manage to support optimally, no matter what the govt does it could be less so you are usually in the perpetual state of trying to catch up.  And the environment would also be impacted negatively creating problems for the future generations

 

In layman's terms - even if you want to invite guest (investment) to your house, your house (state) should be in the order.  Who would come to your home, if it is filled with so many people that you have difficult even breathing. That to go to washroom, you have to wait for your turn. And food served on the table is limited because everyone has to eat from the available limited resources .... And where the house leader is selected from the same bunch of people who are used to such situation and see nothing wrong with it 

 

 

 

 

These are absolutely baseless, false assumptions.

 

Investments actually thrive in a space where there is scope for development provided governments are not inept , corrupt or can't provide basic security or rule of law.

 

There is no dearth of space. There is also absolute abundance of arable land. There are so many examples for countrys which are at the very top in GDP per capita or HDI or whichever parameters you take which have more population density than UP/Bihar.

 

It all comes down to Govts. (which are again chosen by people only).

[zen]

1 minute ago, randomGuy said:

These are absolutely baseless, false assumptions.

 

Investments actually thrive in a space where there is scope for development provided governments are not inept , corrupt or can't provide basic security or rule of law.

 

There is no dearth of space. There is also absolute abundance of arable land. There are so many examples for countrys which are at the very top in GDP per capita or HDI or whichever parameters you take which have more population density than UP/Bihar.

 

It all comes down to Govts. (which are again chosen by people only).

I guess you are not able to see the deeper points being made. It is like someone reading "who moved my cheese" and taking about how cute the mouse is

 

Idea of space is a metaphor indicating that in short - quality > quantity 

[G_B_]

38 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Up and Bihar always....  surprised to see Sikkim Is it just tourism in Sikkim ?

small state...

 

literally one hydro electric project and their GDSP jumps....

[G_B_]

The big problem with UP Bihar is... fine due to multiple factors they are poor. UP especially has been growing below the Indian average growth per state for years. So the gap between states at the top and UP just keeps on increasing in nominal and % terms. Atleast with Bihar you can say they have somewhat bridged the gap in % terms, though i doubt the future is going to be so good due to who they elected.

 

Keep in mind you take away the NCR part of UP and those 2-3 districts their per capita income will take a dip....taking out NCR parts of UP IMO Bihar is richer per capita than UP.

[zen]

To be at a relatively decent level of say $1500 GDP per capita, back of envelope calculations suggest that for a state such as UP, its GDP should either be 205M*$1500 or ideally its population should be $150B/$1500