Di­men­sions of Re­gional Dis­par­i­ties in So­cio Eco­nomic De­vel­op­ment of Haryana

- Dr. Shobha Chaud­hary - Ms. Nisha, Ms. Ma­hak

Economic Challenger - - NEWS - Dr. Shobha Chaud­hary * Ms. Nisha** Ms. Ma­hak*** *As­sis­tant Pro­fes­sor, Depart­ment of Economics, M.D.U. Ro­htak. **Re­search Scholar, Depart­ment of Economics, M.D.U. Ro­htak. Email: nishas­sharma1986@gmail.com ***Re­search Scholar, Depart­ment of Economics, M.D.U


The prob­lem of re­gional im­bal­ances has be­come a world­wide phe­nom­e­non to­day. Re­gional dis­par­i­ties in the lev­els of so­cio eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment have been ei­ther a myth or re­al­ity in In­dian con­text since Bri­tish times. In spite of a planned econ­omy for the last 65 years, one of the main ob­jec­tives of our national plan­ning to nar­row down th­ese re­gional dis­par­i­ties at all lev­els of de­vel­op­ment could not be achieved. Th­ese re­gional dis­par­i­ties could lead to se­ri­ous com­pli­ca­tions in the do­main of econ­omy as well as polity of the state. The is­sues of con­cern are that the re­gion­ally skewed dis­tri­bu­tion of or­ga­nized eco­nomic ac­tiv­i­ties can cause fur­ther so­cial dishar­mony in the state. If th­ese dis­par­i­ties are al­lowed un­abated, it could lead to se­ri­ous so­cial and po­lit­i­cal dis­con­tent in the state. There­fore it needs im­me­di­ate in­ter­ven­tion and course of cor­rec­tion. In or­der to de­sign ap­pro­pri­ate pol­icy re­sponse to rec­tify the prob­lems re­lated to dis­par­i­ties, the phe­nom­e­non needs to be in­ves­ti­gated (Bish­noi, M.K & Aneja, R, 2008) . “The task can­not be ob­tained with­out iden­ti­fy­ing the com­par­a­tively lagged ar­eas and prob­ing into their lev­els of so­cio eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment” (Kal­mar. S.C, 200 2 ) . The main prob­lem faced by Haryana econ­omy is the alarm­ing growth rate of re­gional dif­fer­ences among dif­fer­ent dis­tricts in terms of so­cio eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment in fields such as agri­cul­ture, ir­ri­ga­tion, power, in­dus­try, health, ed­u­ca­tion and in­fra­struc­ture.


(1) Agri­cul­tural In­di­ca­tors (2) In­dus­trial In­di­ca­tors (3) De­mo­graphic In­di­ca­tors (4) In­fras­truc­tural In­di­ca­tors

Haryana is an agri­cul­tur­ally im­por­tant state of In­dia and is the sec­ond largest con­trib­u­tor of food­grain (17.6% dur­ing 2009-10) with merely 1.4% (4.4 M ha) of the ge­o­graph­i­cal area of the coun­try. Agri­cul­ture is the main­stay and back­bone of its econ­omy and more than 65% of the pop­u­la­tion is di­rectly or in­di­rectly de­pen­dent on agri­cul­ture and re­lated ac­tiv­i­ties. The share of agri­cul­ture in GSDP went down to 7.5% dur­ing 2008-09 to 5.1% dur­ing 2011-12. But the state has made re­mark­able progress in the field of agri­cul­tural pro­duc­tion and it has emerged as the grain bowl of the coun­try. Re­sul­tantly, the food grains pro­duc­tion in the state touched an im­pres­sive 161.66 lakh tonnes dur­ing 2009-10 from 25.92 lakh tones dur­ing 1966-67 reg­is­ter­ing a more than six fold in­crease. The gross area sown was 45.99 lakh hectares dur­ing 1966-67 and it has in­creased to 65.00 lakh hectares dur­ing 2009-10 and 59.15% dur­ing 2010-11.The to­tal area of the state un­der cul­ti­va­tion has al­ready reached a sat­u­ra­tion level and thus there is hardly any scope to bring more area un­der

cul­ti­va­tion. The agri­cul­ture pro­duc­tion can only be in­creased through en­hanced crop­ping in­ten­sity, change in crop­ping pat­tern, im­prove­ment in seeds of high yield­ing va­ri­eties, bet­ter cul­ti­va­tion prac­tices and de­vel­op­ment of post har­vest tech­nol­ogy etc. But th­ese fa­cil­i­ties are avail­able in some dis­tricts and on the other hand some dis­tricts clearly re­flected the re­gional dif­fer­ences in soil cover and ir­ri­ga­tion fa­cil­i­ties. Th­ese dif­fer­ences ul­ti­mately af­fect the agri­cul­tural pro­duc­tiv­ity, crop­ping in­ten­sity and ul­ti­mately the lev­els of agri­cul­tural de­vel­op­ment. The state govern­ment is try­ing to re-ori­ent agri­cul­ture through var­i­ous pol­icy mea­sures for in­creas­ing the pro­duc­tion. For agri­cul­ture de­vel­op­ment it­self in­dus­tri­al­iza­tion is vi­tal.

In­dus­tri­al­iza­tion also plays a vi­tal and cru­cial role in the de­vel­op­ment of an econ­omy. It ac­cel­er­ates eco­nomic growth and thereby in­creases the con­tri­bu­tion of in­dus­trial sec­tor in the state do­mes­tic prod­uct (GSDP) by way of in­crease in the pro­duc­tion and em­ploy­ment. The in­dus­trial sec­tor is the 2nd largest con­trib­u­tor to the state GDP, the con­tri­bu­tion of this sec­tor in the state GDP had im­proved con­tin­u­ously be­fore 2005-06. But there­after, the share of this sec­tor de­creased con­sid­er­ably from 32.7 per­cent in 2005-06 to 29.1 per­cent in 2011-12. Dur­ing th­ese years, the ser­vices sec­tor has grown at the rate much higher than the growth rate of in­dus­trial sec­tor which even­tu­ally re­sulted in the de­creased share of in­dus­try sec­tor and in­creased share of ser­vices sec­tor. It is true that the ser­vices sec­tor has be­come the growth engine for the State econ­omy but the good growth of In­dus­try Sec­tor is also equally es­sen­tial for the bal­anced and higher growth of state econ­omy (Eco­nomic Sur­vey of Haryana, 2011-12).

De­vel­op­ment of agri­cul­tural and in­dus­trial sec­tors re­quires a bal­anced hu­man re­source de­vel­op­ment in the coun­try. Higher growth of pop­u­la­tion gen­er­ally en­coun­ters nu­mer­ous con­straints to de­vel­op­ment. Fur­ther for im­prove­ment in hu­man re­source de­vel­op­ment var­i­ous de­ter­mi­nants of pop­u­la­tion such as pop­u­la­tion den­sity, fe­male lit­er­acy, to­tal lit­er­acy rate and sex ra­tio also have to im­prove. Ac­cord­ing to Pop­u­la­tion Cen­sus 2001, the pop­u­la­tion of Haryana was about 211.45 crore. The crude birth and death rates are 26.8 and 7.6 re­spec­tively. The in­fant mor­tal­ity rate in the State was 66.0 and sex ra­tio was 848 dur­ing 2001. Lit­er­acy rate of Haryana was 68 per­cent ac­cord­ing to cen­sus 2001 but in 2011 it in­creased to 76.75 per cent which is com­par­a­tively higher than 2001. Re­gional dis­par­i­ties in the state can also be ob­served in terms of male-fe­male lit­er­acy; male lit­er­acy rate in Haryana was 78.49 and fe­male lit­er­acy rate was only 55.73 per­cent dur­ing 2001, and lit­er­acy rate for male was (85.38) and fe­male was (66.77) re­spec­tively dur­ing 2011 which in­di­cated the gap in male fe­male lit­er­acy rate both in ru­ral and ur­ban ar­eas in Haryana. Thus the ef­forts are made to en­hance the qual­ity of life of peo­ple by pro­vid­ing the ba­sic necessities of life as well as ef­fect­ing im­prove­ment in their so­cial and eco­nomic well­be­ing and to de­crease th­ese re­gional dis­par­i­ties. In­fra­struc­ture has the po­ten­tial to fuel the econ­omy for eco­nomic growth & de­vel­op­ment. In this re­gard the state govern­ment has taken var­i­ous short term and long term mea­sures for im­prov­ing in­fra­struc­ture fa­cil­i­ties like met­alled roads, en­ergy, and health f acil­i­ties. De­vel­op­ment of agri­cul­ture de­pends, to a con­sid­er­able ex­tent, on the ad­e­quate ex­pan­sion and de­vel­op­ment of ir­ri­ga­tion fa­cil­i­ties. In­dus­trial progress de­pends on the de­vel­op­ment of power, elec­tric­ity gen­er­a­tion and trans­port etc, roads are ba­sic means of trans­porta­tion for the de­vel­op­ment of any econ­omy. Haryana state has an ef­fi­cient net­work of roads but there are in­ter­dis­trict dis­par­i­ties from the point of view of met­alled road fa­cil­i­ties in Haryana. In ad­di­tion to en­hanc­ing the avail­abil­ity it has also un­der­taken

other mea­sures for the im­prove­ment in op­er­a­tional ef­fi­ciency. The state has also un­der­taken re­forms in the power sec­tor, which have in­creased the power gen­er­a­tion ca­pac­ity of the state. En­ergy plays a cru­cial role in de­vel­op­ment of vi­tal in­put in agri­cul­ture. With in­creased power avail­abil­ity it would be pos­si­ble for the state to meet the in­creased de­mand of all the con­sumers in the state and re­duce the re­gional dis­par­ity in power sec­tor. Health in­sti­tu­tions are also in­creased by state govern­ment to pro­vide the bet­ter health fa­cil­i­ties to the peo­ple in ru­ral and ur­ban ar­eas and re­duce th­ese dis­par­i­ties. But in­fras­truc­tural dis­par­i­ties do ex­ist in the to­tal length of met­alled roads and vil­lages con­nected with met­alled roads, health ser­vices, and in­suf­fi­cient in­crease in num­ber of hos­pi­tals per mil­lion pop­u­la­tion. Pub­lic health ser­vices are largely in­ac­ces­si­ble though poor qual­ity with long wait­ing pe­riod. Re­gional dis­par­ity shows that in some dis­trict, health ser­vices in­crease rapidly and on the other hand some dis­tricts are back­ward in th­ese fa­cil­i­ties.

Var­i­ous di­men­sions of eco­nomic and so­cial dis­par­i­ties of Haryana have ag­gra­vated in the re­cent pe­riod. So­cio-eco­nomic in­di­ca­tors of de­vel­op­ment show that dis­par­i­ties ex­ist in the state in agri­cul­tural growth, level of lit­er­acy, to­tal road length, elec­tric­ity, in­fant mor­tal­ity rate, sex ra­tio and health etc. Al­though suc­cess­ful at­tempts have been made to re­duce the dis­par­ity yet ef­forts should be made to re­duce re­gional dis­par­i­ties in Haryana in term of var­i­ous in­di­ca­tors. To an­a­lyze the de­vel­op­ment of th­ese sec­tors and re­gional dis­par­i­ties ex­ist­ing in a to­tal of thirty two de­vel­op­men­tal in­di­ca­tors have been taken de­pict­ing the progress of agri­cul­tural, in­dus­trial, de­mo­graphic and in­fras­truc­tural de­vel­op­ment of so­cio-eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment in Haryana. (S.C. Rai and V.K. Bha­tia, 2004)


The main ob­jec­tive is to ex­am­ine the dis­trict wise re­gional dis­par­i­ties in the lev­els of so­cio-

eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment in Haryana.


The data used in this study is sec­ondary in na­ture. It has been col­lected from Sta­tis­ti­cal Ab­stract of Haryana(2008-09), is­sued by Eco­nomic and Sta­tis­ti­cal Ad­viser, Plan­ning Depart­ment, Govern­ment of Haryana, Eco­nomic Sur­vey of Haryana (Var­i­ous is­sues).


The di­men­sions of so­cio eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment have been an­a­lyzed with the help of thirty two in­di­ca­tors (Ta­ble avail­able with au­thors). The study has been car­ried out on the year 2008-09 at dis­trict level. The Prin­ci­pal Com­po­nent Anal­y­sis Method has been used to an­a­lyze the data be­cause it gives math­e­mat­i­cal weigh­tage in a purely ob­jec­tive man­ner and pro­vides so­lu­tion to the prob­lem of mul­ti­colliner­ity and as­sesses the rel­a­tive lev­els of de­vel­op­ment. The data re­gard­ing all the se­lected in­di­ca­tors is sub­jected to this method to de­rive com­pos­ite scores of in­di­vid­ual dis­tricts in terms of the lev­els of de­vel­op­ment. The tech­nique in­volves trans­for­ma­tion of the orig­i­nal data set into a new set con­sist­ing of gen­eral com­po­nents, the num­ber of which equals to the num­ber of vari­ables in the orig­i­nal data set. It is gen­er­ally seen that the first few com­po­nents ex­plain a greater part of the to­tal vari­ance in the orig­i­nal data set. Fur­ther, the cor­re­la­tion co­ef­fi­cient of each of the com­po­nent with the vari­ables in the orig­i­nal data set i.e., the com­po­nent load­ings can be mean­ing­fully in­ter­preted only in the case of first few com­po­nents. The load­ings of the se­lected com­po­nents (cor­re­la­tion co­ef­fi­cient be­tween the com­po­nent and the orig­i­nal val­ues in­ter­preted very much in a sim­i­lar way) are used as weights of the stan­dard­ized val­ues of the given vari­ables for work­ing out com­po­nent scores cor­re­spond­ing to each of the ob­ser­va­tion.

“PCA de­scribes the variation of a set of cor­re­lated mul­ti­vari­ate data (X's) in terms of a

set of un­cor­re­lated vari­ables (Y's), known as

prin­ci­pal com­po­nents . Each Y is a lin­ear com­bi­na­tion of the orig­i­nal vari­ables X.

Where, Yij is the stan­dard­ized val­ues of ob­ser­va­tion 'i' on the vari­able 'j'; Fij is the load­ing of vari­able 'j' on the com­po­nent 'J'; Yij is the score of ob­ser­va­tion 'i' on com­po­nent j; and sum­ma­tion is over­all 'm' vari­ables. The Yij's (be­tween -1 to 1) are the weights of each X vari­able con­tribut­ing to the new Yi”. ( Y H Chan, Prin­ci­pal com­po­nent

and fac­tor anal­y­sis). To cal­cu­late the over­all score we con­vert the raw score to a Z-score. SPSS will do this by us­ing An­a­lyze - De­scrip­tive - De­scrip­tive Statis­tics - Save Stan­dard­ized Val­ues. Then we do the sum of Z-score and find

the com­po­nent scores for the vari­ables. ( Jeromy Anglin- Psy­chol­ogy and Statis­tics “Cal­cu­lat­ing Com­pos­ite Scores of Abil­ity and

Other Tests in SPSS”). A high and pos­i­tive score in­di­cates that a par­tic­u­lar dis­trict is more de­vel­oped than oth­ers with lower scores.


The com­pos­ite in­dices of de­vel­op­ment have been ob­tained for dif­fer­ent dis­tricts for agri­cul­tural sec­tor, i ndus­trial sec­tor, de­mo­graphic and in­fras­truc­tural de­vel­op­ment. The dis­tricts have been ranked on the ba­sis of de­vel­op­men­tal in­dices. The com­pos­ite in­dices of de­vel­op­ment along with rank of dis­tricts are given in ta­ble 1.1

Ta­ble 1.1 (with au­thors) re­veals the scores of each com­po­nent with over­all scores for the 19 ob­ser­va­tions. The scores of in­di­vid­ual com­po­nents in­di­cate the di­rec­tion and ex­tent to which an ob­ser­va­tion is as­so­ci­ated with the re­spec­tive com­po­nents. The ag­gre­gate score of each in­di­ca­tor in­di­cates the rel­a­tive po­si­tion of each of the ob­ser­va­tion. In some cases, the scores work out to be pos­i­tive, while in the re­main­ing oth­ers they are neg­a­tive. A high and pos­i­tive score in­di­cates that a par­tic­u­lar dis­trict is more de­vel­oped than oth­ers with lower scores. It may be seen from the ta­ble that in case of agri­cul­tural de­vel­op­ment , the dis­trict ofAm­bala is ranked first and dis­trict of Bhi­wani is ranked last. The com­pos­ite in­dices of de­vel­op­ment vary from 4.6 to -6.98. In case of in­dus­trial de­vel­op­ment the dis­tricts of Farid­abad and Gur­gaon are found to oc­cupy the first and sec­ond po­si­tion and dis­trict of Mahin­dr­garh is on the last place. The com­pos­ite in­dices of de­vel­op­ment vary from 6.5/6.3 to -3.5. As re­gards de­mo­graphic de­vel­op­ment the dis­trict of Gur­gaon is on the first po­si­tion and Fate­habad is on the last po­si­tion. The com­pos­ite in­dices of de­vel­op­ment in­di­cate 7.5 to -5.3. On the other hand in­fras­truc­tural fa­cil­i­ties, the dis­trict of Panchkula is on the first po­si­tion and Pa­ni­pat on the last po­si­tion, be­cause of Cap­i­tal of Haryana in­fras­truc­tural fa­cil­i­ties are bet­ter in Panchkula. The com­pos­ite i ndices of de­vel­op­ment in­di­cate 9.3 to -4.04. If we see the over­all so­cio eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment in the state Farid­abad dis­trict is in first po­si­tion and again Mahin­dr­garh is in last po­si­tion. The com­pos­ite in­dices value 8.3 to -0.93 of over­all so­cio eco­nomic in­di­ca­tors re­veal the wide variation in de­vel­oped and back­ward dis­tricts. No doubt, cer­tain re­gions are more con­ducive to fetch over­all pros­per­ity to the peo­ple of those re­gions in com­par­i­son to other re­gions. A con­certed ef­fort is para­mount in or­der to en­hance the over­all econ­omy of all the dis­tricts. In fact Haryana is rel­a­tively a small state and there­fore much at­ten­tion is not paid per­tain­ing to the sen­si­tive is­sue of re­gional dis­par­i­ties. How­ever, the anal­y­sis demon­strates that the is­sue can­not be ig­nored any fur­ther.


To in­di­cate the com­par­a­tive level of dis­par­i­ties in so­cio eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment, the over­all scores have been cat­e­go­rized into fol­low­ing three cat­e­gories (as given in ta­ble 1.2

above): Ac­cord­ingly, the state has been di­vided into three re­gions (i) Highly De­vel­oped Re­gion (ii) Mod­er­ate de­vel­oped Re­gion (iii) Low de­vel­oped Re­gion.


The re­sult per­tain­ing to the agri­cul­ture de­vel­op­ment is de­picted in Ta­ble (1.2). The ta­ble demon­strates that in 2008-09 seven dis­tricts were de­vel­oped, five dis­tricts were mod­er­ate and seven dis­tricts were less de­vel­oped in the agri­cul­ture sec­tor. Am­bala, Fate­habad, Ku­ruk­shetra, Gur­gaon, Soni­pat and Sirsa dis­tricts were highly de­vel­oped whereas Kaithal, Farid­abad, Panchkula, Jha­j­jar and Ya­mu­na­gar were mod­er­ately de­vel­oped dis­tricts in the state and Jind, Pa­ni­pat, Mahin­dr­garh, Re­wari, Bhi­wani, Hisar and Ro­htak dis­tricts were agri­cul­tur­ally less de­vel­oped. The re­sult of agri­cul­tural in­di­ca­tors shows that agri­cul­ture de­vel­op­ment in Haryana clearly re­flected that the re­gional dis­par­i­ties in­creased in most of in­di­ca­tors e.g. per­cent­age of gross area sown un­der com­mer­cial crops to to­tal cropped area, per­cent­age of net area ir­ri­gated to net area sown, gross value from agri­cul­ture per hectare at cur­rent prices, Non-Food grains as per­cent­age of gross value of agri­cul­tural out­put at cur­rent prices, fer­til­izer con­sump­tion in terms of nu­tri­ents, pes­ti­cides and crop­ping in­ten­sity. High value of com­pos­ite score of th­ese in­di­ca­tors has shown that re­gional dis­par­ity in­creased in agri­cul­ture de­vel­op­ment in Haryana. All this hap­pened due to lack of ir­ri­ga­tion fa­cil­i­ties, use of HYVS, and in­creases in the use of con­sump­tion of fer­til­iz­ers but th­ese fa­cil­i­ties are used by the larger farm­ers, small farm­ers can­not in­crease their out­put due to un­avail­abil­ity of th­ese fa­cil­i­ties. This shows the re­gional dis­par­ity in agri­cul­ture out­put in­crease be­cause of rise in the stan­dard of liv­ing of the farm­ers in ru­ral ar­eas. This is one of the key chal­lenges in agri­cul­tural de­vel­op­ment in Haryana. There­fore, agri­cul­tural pro­duc­tion is be­ing in­creased through en­hanced crop­ping in­ten­sity, change in crop­ping pat­tern, im­prove­ment in seeds of high yield va­ri­eties and avail­abil­ity of mod­ern tech­nol­ogy in less de­vel­oped dis­tricts in the state.

In­dus­trial De­vel­op­ment:

Ta­ble (1.2) re­veals that Farid­abad, Gur­gaon, Pa­ni­pat, Ya­mu­na­gar and Ku­ruk­shetra dis­tricts are in­dus­tri­ally de­vel­oped. On the other hand, Am­bala, Hisar and Bhi­wani are mod­er­ately de­vel­oped dis­trict and Panchkula, Karnal, Jind, Soni­pat, Ro­htak, Sirsa, Fate­habad, Kaithal, and Mahin­dr­garh dis­tricts are less de­vel­oped in

in­dus­trial de­vel­op­ment. Gur­gaon and Farid­abad emerged as the in­dus­tri­ally most de­vel­oped dis­trict. The con­cen­tra­tion of in­dus­tri­ally de­vel­oped dis­tricts clearly shows that the ar­eas around Delhi have made sig­nif­i­cant progress but not all the ar­eas of the state. It in­creases the re­gional variation and shows that the in­ter­dis­tricts dis­par­i­ties are grow­ing over time. In­ter­est­ingly, in­dus­tri­ally de­vel­oped dis­tricts have been agri­cul­tur­ally back­ward dis­tricts of the state. For the bal­anced re­gional de­vel­op­ment of the state the back­ward ar­eas must be iden­ti­fied and ef­forts must be made to de­velop them.

De­mo­graphic De­vel­op­ment:

Dis­trict wise hu­man re­source de­vel­op­ment is pre­sented in ta­ble (1.2). In de­mo­graphic de­vel­op­ment Panchkula, Farid­abad, Gur­gaon, Ya­mu­na­gar, Am­bala, Pa­ni­pat and Ro­htak dis­tricts are highly de­vel­oped in hu­man re­source de­vel­op­ment due to lit­er­acy. On the other hand, dis­tricts of Ku­ruk­shetra, Re­wari and Soni­pat are mod­er­ately de­vel­oped and Jha­j­jar, Karnal, Mahin­dr­garh, Bhi­wani, Jind, Hisar, Fate­habad and Sirsa are l ess de­vel­oped i n hu­man re­sources de­vel­op­ment. De­mo­graphic in­di­ca­tors sig­nif­i­cantly in­di­cate the re­gional dis­par­i­ties in the level of hu­man re­source de­vel­op­ment in the state. There­fore, in­crease in wel­fare and im­prove­ment in qual­ity of life of the peo­ple should be the main con­cerns of the de­vel­op­ment. Sex ra­tio is an im­por­tant so­cial in­di­ca­tor to mea­sure the ex­tent of the pre­vail­ing eq­uity be­tween males and fe­males in a so­ci­ety at a given point of time. The grim pic­ture of un­fa­vor­able sex ra­tio pre­vails at the dis­trict level which re­flects the un­der­ly­ing so­cio-eco­nomic pat­terns of a so­ci­ety in dif­fer­ent ways. The de­clin­ing sex ra­tio and fe­male lit­er­acy are mat­ters of great con­cern, as th­ese will lead to se­ri­ous de­mo­graphic im­bal­ances and ad­verse so­cial con­se­quences .

In­fras­truc­tural De­vel­op­ment

Dis­trict­wise de­vel­op­ment in ba­sic in­fra­struc­ture and ser­vices is pre­sented in ta­ble (1.2). In in­fras­truc­tural de­vel­op­ment Panchkula, Farid­abad, Gur­gaon, Re­wari, Bhi­wani, Hisar and Fate­habad dis­tricts are highly de­vel­oped due to in­dus­tri­al­iza­tion in th­ese dis­tricts and Panchkula is the cap­i­tal of the state. On the other hand Kaithal, Jha­j­jar, Jind and Karnal are mod­er­ate in in­fras­truc­tural fa­cil­i­ties and Am­bala, Ya­mu­na­gar, Ku­ruk­shetra, Pa­ni­pat, Soni­pat, Ro­htak and Mahin­dr­garh are less de­vel­oped in in­fras­truc­tural fa­cil­i­ties. If we look at all the so­cio eco­nomic in­di­ca­tors, Mahin­dr­garh dis­trict is a least de­vel­oped dis­trict in the state. It seems that the fruit­ful­ness of all other fac­tors is based on the avail­abil­ity of fa­vor­able phys­i­cal re­sources. In­fra­struc­ture dis­par­ity in­creases in the to­tal length of met­alled roads and vil­lages con­nected with met­alled roads in Haryana. In­fras­truc­tural dis­par­i­ties also in­crease in health ser­vices be­cause there has been in­suf­fi­cient in­crease in num­ber of hos­pi­tals per mil­lion pop­u­la­tion. Pub­lic health ser­vices are largely in­ac­ces­si­ble hav­ing poor qual­ity with long wait­ing pe­riod and with over­lap­ping func­tions among var­i­ous tiers lead­ing to du­pli­ca­tion and in­ef­fi­ciency in ser­vices. Re­gional dis­par­ity shows that in some dis­trict health ser­vice in­creases rapidly and on the other hand some dis­tricts are back­ward in th­ese fa­cil­i­ties. Elec­tric­ity has an im­por­tant role in de­vel­op­ment of any area. Its avail­abil­ity is cru­cial to mod­ern­iza­tion of agri­cul­ture, es­tab­lish­ment of in­dus­tries and run­ning of di­verse ed­u­ca­tional med­i­cal and other fa­cil­i­ties. Th­ese dis­par­i­ties are at­trib­ut­able to the fac­tors of the ini­tial ad­van­tage which dif­fer­ent parts of the state en­joyed in terms of their ad­min­is­tra­tive his­tory, in­fras­truc­tural base, phys­i­cal re­sources and rel­a­tive, lo­ca­tion. Broadly speak­ing western Haryana is far be­hind than its eastern coun­ter­part.

Over­all De­vel­op­ment:

Out of 19 dis­tricts two dis­tricts are clas­si­fied as over­all de­vel­oped dis­tricts, while two dis­tricts are mod­er­ate and all the in­di­ca­tors are poor in low de­vel­oped dis­tricts. The re­sults of the prin­ci­ple com­po­nent anal­y­sis dur­ing 2008-09 in­di­cate that the Gur­gaon and Farid­abad dis­tricts are highly de­vel­oped be­cause of in­dus­trial de­vel­op­ment. On the other hand Am­bala and Panchkula dis­tricts are mod­er­ate in all the so­cio eco­nomic in­di­ca­tors. The dis­trict of Am­bala is

de­vel­oped in agri­cul­ture and Panchkula is the cap­i­tal of the state which con­sist of a small area of the state but highly de­vel­oped in in­fras­truc­tural fa­cil­i­ties. As re­gards this all the other dis­tricts are in cat­e­gory of less de­vel­oped due to many so­cio eco­nomic in­di­ca­tors in the anal­y­sis which af­fect the value of one vari­able to the other. Thus the govern­ment needs to make con­certed ef­forts to spread de­vel­op­ment in all dis­tricts, par­tic­u­larly in agri­cul­tur­ally and in­dus­tri­ally back­ward dis­tricts of the state.


The for­go­ing anal­y­sis proves that Haryana is a de­vel­oped part of In­dia. But there are in­ter­dis­tricts dis­par­i­ties of var­i­ous di­men­sions in so­cial and eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment of the state. The in­di­ca­tors used in the anal­y­sis show that some parts of the state are highly agri­cul­tur­ally de­vel­oped and some are highly in­dus­tri­ally de­vel­oped. But on the other hand, some dis­tricts are nei­ther agri­cul­tur­ally de­vel­oped nor in­dus­tri­ally de­vel­oped. The progress of so­cio eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment is found to be pos­i­tively re­lated with agri­cul­ture and in­dus­trial de­vel­op­ment. Th­ese dis­par­i­ties arise due to im­bal­ances in fa­cil­i­ties for agri­cul­tural and in­dus­trial de­vel­op­ment. In­fras­truc­tural fa­cil­i­ties have also left pos­i­tive im­pact on over­all so­cio eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment of agri­cul­ture & in­dus­try ben­e­fit­ing the de­vel­op­ment of th­ese sec­tors. The re­sult of the so­cio-eco­nomic in­di­ca­tors of de­vel­op­ment shows that dis­par­i­ties ex­ist in the state in ir­ri­ga­tion, soil, and crop­ping in­ten­sity, level of lit­er­acy, to­tal road length, elec­tric­ity, in­fant mor­tal­ity rate, sex ra­tio, health and in­fras­truc­tural fa­cil­i­ties etc. If th­ese dis­par­i­ties are not ad­dressed im­me­di­ately then they may gen­er­ate, fric­tion among var­i­ous sec­tions of the so­ci­ety with tragic, un­de­sir­able and even

vi­o­lent out­comes. Thus suc­cess­ful ef­forts have to be made to re­duce th­ese dis­par­i­ties in var­i­ous in­di­ca­tors through mas­sive pri­vate in­vest­ment to be done on de­vel­op­ment for back­ward dis­tricts in the state. Govern­ment will strive to re­move dis­par­i­ties at var­i­ous lev­els and will take im­me­di­ate mea­sures to en­sure sus­tain­able and bal­anced de­vel­op­ment in the en­tire re­gion of Haryana.


Ardeshna,N.J and Shiy­nai, R.L (2012) “Growth Di­men­sions of Agri­cul­ture in Gu­jarat State: A Fac­tor Anal­y­sis Ap­proach”, Eco­nomic Af­fair, Vol.No-57(1), p.p-41-50. Bhan­dari, L. “Dis­trict Level De­pri­va­tion in New Mil­len­nium”, Edited by Bibek. De­broy, Ra­jeev Gandhi In­sti­tute for Con­tem­po­rary Stud­ies Indi­cusA­n­a­lyt­ics Bish­noi, M.K and Aneja, R (2008) “Re­gional Vari­a­tions of So­cio- Eco­nomic De­vel­op­ment in Haryana: A Dis­trict Level Anal­y­sis”, In­dian Jour­nal of Re­gional Science, Vol-XXXX, No-2. Chan Y. H (2004) “Bio­statis­tics 302. Prin­ci­pal com­po­nent and fac­tor anal­y­sis”, Sin­ga­pore Med J 2004 Vol 45(12) : 558 Govern­ment of Haryana (2011-12), “Eco­nomic Sur­vey of Haryana 2011-2012 ” Min­istry of Fi­nance, Chandi­garh. Govern­ment of In­dia (2009), “Haryana De­vel­op­ment Re­port ” Plan­ning Com­mis­sion, Aca­demic Foun­da­tion, New Delhi. Govern­ment of Haryana (2007-08 &2010-11), “Sta­tis­ti­cal Ab­stract of Haryana ” Eco­nomic and Sta­tis­ti­cal Ad­viser, Plan­ning Depart­ment, Chandi­garh, Haryana, var­i­ous is­sues. Kal­war, S. C( 2002) “Re­sources and De­vel­op­ment”, Ritu Pub­li­ca­tions, Jaipur, P173. Kurian.N.J (2007) “Widen­ing Eco­nomic and So­cial Dis­par­i­ties: Im­pli­ca­tion for In­dia”, In­dian J Med Res 126, Oct 2007, pp374-380, Coun­cil for So­cial De­vel­op­ment, New Delhi, In­dia. Narain.P, S.D. Sharma, S.c. Rai and V.K. Bha­tia (2005) “Es­ti­ma­tion of So­cio-Eco­nomic De­vel­op­ment of dif­fer­ent Dis­tricts in Ker­ala” In­dian So­ci­ety ofA­gri­cul­tural Statis­tics. New Delhi,Jour. Ind. Soc. Ag. Statis­tics 59( I). 2005 : 41-55 . Sharma, Ur­mila ( 2010) “Agri­cul­tural De­vel­op­ment in Haryana” In­ter­na­tional Re­search Jour­nal, Vol -1 is­sue, May”. Singh, M and Harvin­der, K (2004) “Eco­nomic De­vel­op­ment of In­dia” Deep & Deep Pub­li­ca­tion Ltd. Delhi

Ta­ble 1.2 Rel­a­tive Po­si­tion of So­cio Eco­nomic De­vel­op­ment In­di­ca­tors in Haryana

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.