INVESTIGATING THE INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE, POVERTY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: A DISTRICT-WISE STUDY OF RAJASTHAN

International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research_____________________________ ISSN 2277-3630 IJSSIR, Vol. 3 (6), JUNE (2014) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com

211

INVESTIGATING THE INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE, POVERTY AND ECONOMIC

GROWTH: A DISTRICT-WISE STUDY OF RAJASTHAN

VARUN CHOTIA*; OMVIR CHAUDHRY**

*RESEARCH SCHOLAR, ECONOMICS AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT,

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES, PILANI, RAJASTHAN.

**ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,

ECONOMICS AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT, BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES, PILANI,

RAJASTHAN.

ABSTRACT

Through this paper, we have tried to analyze the disparities in infrastructure facilities

across the 33 districts of Rajasthan. For latest year of data availability i.e. 2011, we have

used Principal Component analysis method to construct the composite Infrastructure index

using different criteria – Economic, Social and Physical. Further, an attempt has been made

to examine the extent of disparities between the different districts in terms of the

composite district Infrastructure Index (IFI), Per Capita Net District Domestic Product

(PCNDDP) and poverty. The empirical analysis also proves that there exists a positive

relationship between IFI and PCNDDP and a negative relationship between IFI and

Poverty.

KEY WORDS: Economic Infrastructure, Social Infrastructure, Per capita district income,

Poverty, Principal Component analysis, Infrastructure Index, Regional Disparity

1. Introduction

Infrastructure is the building foundation for economic development of a nation. Adequate

infrastructure facilities have become a major pre-requisite for achieving sustainable

economic and social development. Improving the infrastructural services is a key necessity

for enhancing the productive efficacy of the process and for bringing economic growth.

Identifying their importance in achieving economic development, these infrastructure

services are also referred as “Social Overhead Capital” (Hirschman, 1985). Infrastructure

is defined in the dictionary as “the underlying foundation or basic framework” and can be

categorized into “Economic Infrastructure” and “Social Infrastructure”. Economic

Infrastructure includes all internal measures of infrastructure that make business activity

possible and subsequently promote it. Economic infrastructure includes Transport and

Communication, Irrigation, Energy, Banking and Insurance etc., whereas Social

infrastructure typically includes social service sectors like Health, Education, and Housing

etc. In our study, we have devised one separate category of infrastructure named Physical

Infrastructure. This includes all those indicators which facilitate the transfer of goods,

services and people from one geographical place to another.eg. Roads per sq.km of area,


212

number of registered motor vehicles etc. We have included all those indicators under the

physical infrastructure category which could not lie under economic and social

infrastructure categories. Overall, Infrastructure comprises of all those activities that share

technical features (such as economies of scale) and economic features (such as spillovers)

from users to non-users (WDR, 1994). When the World Bank published the World

development Report (WDR) in 1994 titled “Infrastructure for Development”, it rightly

affirmed the fact that Infrastructure represents the wheels of economic movements of a

nation. These wheels if start running on the right track can bring together major

repayments in terms of higher economic growth, poverty alleviation etc. However, this

could happen only when Infrastructure efficiently provides the services in response to

effective demand (World Bank 1994: pp. 2, 14). The report also talks about the fact that

sufficiency of infrastructure helps in determining a nation’s success and stresses that the

type of infrastructure establishes whether growth can impose its maximum effect on

reducing poverty.

By definition, Infrastructure is the public accumulation of social and economic overhead

capital due to its immense potential for improving the quality of life and effectively putting

a large impact on overall economic scenario. This has been quoted quite often in early

research studies of economists like Rosenstein-Rodan (1943), Lewis (1955), Hirschman

(1958), Myrdal (1958), Hansen (1965) and others. The World development report of 1994

while emphasizing on the strong relationship between infrastructure and economic

development, also mentioned that one should be careful that investment in infrastructure

alone does not assure us growth. This was supported with one more study which showed

that effect of infrastructure on final output is a bit difficult to measure along with a tough

task of measuring this direction of causality. The WDR 1994 report estimated that

infrastructure capacity and economic output go hand in hand i.e. a 1 % increase in

infrastructure stock brings about 1 % in GDP growth or effectively economic growth.

Also, there are different infrastructure sectors which have their own separate impact on

improving quality of living and reducing poverty. Concurrent to the 1994 WDR report, a

decisive contribution by Gramlich (1994) made the way for further empirical researches at

both national and regional levels (Ramirez, 2004; Lambrinidis, 2005; Dasgupta and Koji,

2006; Zou et al. 2008). All these empirical works proved that there existed a significant

difference in the estimates for achieving economic growth for different countries.

Therefore in the current context, it appears quite relevant to analyze these three interrelated

issues – infrastructure, economic growth and poverty and that too at district level as it

gives a more realistic picture. We have done this analysis on the 33 districts of Rajasthan.

An effort has been made through this paper to investigate the spatial gaps in infrastructural

facilities across the 33 Rajasthan districts and in turn analyze their impact on regional

economic development. These inter-district inequalities are a result of various factors like

differences in natural and physical endowments, variations in social factors, institutional

formation etc. These factors hinder the economic development and therefore some districts

keep on developing at a high rate, the others are kept lagging on their slow pace of

development. This backwardness in certain districts of Rajasthan is obviously a contrast to

the essential goal of balanced growth of the state which policy makers aim to achieve.

Further in the study, an attempt has been made to study the interlinkages between Per


213

Capita Net District Domestic Product (PCNDDP), poverty and infrastructure. Therefore as

we see, this inter-district economic imbalance is a problem which has been feebly

addressed while formulating the five year plans of Rajasthan. Hence, we felt it appropriate

to undertake a study keeping in view the magnitude of this problem.

2. Literature Review

Talking about Rajasthan’s geographical dynamics, it has a total geographical area of 3.42

lakh sq. Km, out of which 61 % is under arid and semi-arid zones. The State does not have

the presence of any perennial river, except Mahi and Chambal which also depend on the

water resources coming in from other states. However, it is strange to see that even after

the policy framework envisioned in the state during the past fifty years, there has not been

much effort made to impede the inter-district inequalities among 33 districts of Rajasthan.

Also, there have not been much studies analyzing these inter regional inequalities. Some

region-specific programmes such as Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP), Desert

Development Programme (DDP), District Poverty Initiative Project (DPIP), Mewat Region

Development Programmes, Tribal Area Development Programme, Sahariya Project etc.,

have been aimed at bridging the gap between the economically developed districts like

Jaipur, Alwar etc. and the other districts which are still slow on economic (and social)

development forefront.

In terms of Indian context, there are studies which have tried to address the interrelated

issues of infrastructure, economic growth and poverty (Ghosh and De, 1998, 2000; Lall,

1999; Thorat and Fan, 2007; Sahoo and Dash, 2009). Studies like that of Somik V.Lall

(1999, 2007), deal with the role of infrastructure investments in achieving regional

economic development. To put infrastructure at the levels where it can start promoting

economic growth, we need to have the optimal level of investments in infrastructure. There

have been numerous studies in literature corroborating this argument. The starting point of

investigating the role of infrastructure in economic growth was the seminal study done by

Aschauer (1989) where he had put forth the view that public expenditure was quite

productive and slow pace of US economy was due to dip in the public infrastructure

investment. Except this, there have been other studies by Mera (1973), Looney and

Frederiksen (1981), Biehl (1986), Munnell (1990), Antanio Cutanda & Joaquina Parico

(1994) which had their focal point that public infrastructure investment brings about

economic growth. All these studies were done for Japan, Mexico, EEC, USA and Spain.

There have been research studies done on the inter-state disparities examining the

relationship between economic development and infrastructure facilities ,e.g., Rao (1977),

Elhance and Lakshmanan (1988), Ghosh and De (1998, 2004), Sahoo and Saxena (1999)

are a few among these. Meher (1999) in his paper tried to measure inter-state disparities in

the level of development by selecting 16 development indicators for 15 Indian states. He

proposed two methods for measuring inter-state disparities i.e. (a) Equal Weightage Index

Method and (b) Deprivation Method.

There have been quite a few research studies analyzing the regional disparities within the

Indian states or focusing particularly on Rajasthan. Damodar Suar (1984) analyzed the

district-wise data of Orissa relating it to 20 indicators. He used Factor analysis for his

study. Likewise, P.Sudershan (1985) investigated inter-district disparities in the

development levels of Andhra Pradesh. He made use of 21 indicators for his study.

B.D.Parmar (1985) performed an inter-district disparities study centered at the Saurashtra


214

region of Gujarat. He had used Principal Component Analysis for his research. A number

of studies were done measuring the inter-district disparities in Bihar, Orissa and West

Bengal – Pathak (1970), Uttar Pradesh (U.P) - Sharma and Katiar (1974), and Karnataka-

Nandappa and Sudershan (1981). However, comparatively a broader study with a holistic

prospective was accomplished by Hemlata Rao (1984) when she had used 85 indicators.

She had basically analyzed the tehsil-wise data to describe inter-regional disparities in

India using the Factor Analysis Method. In her study, she classified all the indicators in

two sets. One set was linked to the structural diversity of regions, while in the second set,

indicators were chosen based on the disparities in sectoral and composite levels of

development.

Talking about Rajasthan, the first study talking about inter-district disparities was done by

K.L. Sharma (1975). He selected 22 indicators taken up from four sectors. K.M.Kulkarni

(1977) in this study used demographic data of 1971 Census and selected 8 indicators.

Siddharth Shastri (1997) did a micro-regional study focusing on the disparities in

Rajasthan by telling that how proper planning in Rajasthan could help in reducing the

regional disparities. His period of study was 1961-84. He identified 32 district-wise

indicators chosen from six different sectors and the method was Principal Component

Analysis. Coming to the method of constructing the Infrastructure Index, there is vast

literature available on the same. Sarkar (1994) had used the principal components method

to compute the infrastructure index. In 1997, CMIE (Centre for Monitoring Indian

Economy) had calculated the infrastructure index as a weighted average of various

components pertaining to infrastructure facilities. However, these weights were assigned

arbitrarily. In his study, Bhatia (1999) also constructed an index measuring rural

infrastructure and discovered the fact that infrastructure index had a significant impact on

the per hectare yield of food grains in the analysed state. This was followed by Nagar and

Basu (2002) who together calculated the Infrastructure Development Index for 17 major

Indian states through Principal Component Analysis method. In terms of Rajasthan, the

technique of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was first employed by M.N.Pal in

1961, and was later extended by Hemlata Rao in 1977. Shastri analysed inter-tehsil (taluk)

disparities in Rajasthan by comprehensively reviewing similar scholary works and finally

gave a detailed note on PCA.

2.1 Infrastructure Scenario in Rajasthan (A) Economic Infrastructure: The Economic infrastructure comprises of all those

indicators which are productive in nature and help in improving the economy eg.

Agricultural production Energy, Telecommunication, Number of post offices etc.

(a) Agriculture: In spite of the era of industrialization and growing contribution of

industrial sectors to the state economy, Rajasthan being an agrarian state still depends

heavily on its agricultural sector. About 70 percent of the state population is dependent on

agriculture and allied activities for their livelihood with around 30 percent of the total

state’s income generated through agriculture. Agriculture in Rajasthan still today depends

heavily upon the timely arrival of monsoon. In kharif crops, the production and

productivity not only depends upon the quantity of rainfall but also on the proper and even

distribution of rain over an adequate time span along with intensity. Bajra is the single

largest crop in terms of area in the state whereas Wheat is the most important Rabi crop

grown in the state. Gram is also one of the important rabi crops of Rajasthan. Under the


215

pulses, crops sowing was done in 47.22 lakh hectare area in the year 2010-11 against the

sowing done in 35 lakh hectare area on an average from 2005-06 to 2009-10. Similarly

from the point of production, the average production from the year 2005-06 to 2009-10

was 12.92 lakh metric tonne. Against this, the production in 2010-11 was 32.32 lakh

metric tonne, which was about two and half times more than the average production of five

years.

Development reforms in Agriculture:

The State Government constituted the Rajasthan Kisan Commission for improving

the condition of farmers and finding effective and efficient solutions to problems

related to loan to farmers, price of production, mandi arrangements, agriculture

production export, agro-based industries, agriculture labourers etc. The

Commission started functioning and submitted its first interim report to the Chief

Minister on June 21, 2012.

The agriculture insurance scheme was lunched to reduce the risk in agriculture and

to compensate the farmers for the damage caused to the crops due to adverse

weather. Under this scheme, compensation of Rs.1773.70 crores was provided to

28.60 lakh farmers from kharif-2008 to rabi-2009. Similarly compensation of Rs.

969.27 crores was provided to 59.32 lakh farmers under the weather based crop

insurance scheme from kharif-2008 to rabi-2011.

New Agriculture Colleges have been setup under the Rajasthan Agriculture

University, Bikaner and Agriculture University, Udaipur.

Pack houses have started operating at Chomu (Jaipur), Muhana (Jaipur) and Sohela

(Tonk), while the construction of cold storage of 4000 metric tonne capacity has

been completed at Jhalawar. Under the Agricultural Processing and Agriculture

Business Promotion Policy in 2010, a total of 643 proposals have been received

most of which are related to the setting up of agriculture based industries.

(b) Energy: Rajasthan wants to lead the way in the field of electricity by utilizing

resources available in specific non-renewable energy resources. The power sector has

always been one of the major sectors which receives the major share of the Rajasthan

budget outlay. Recently the centre government has given its thumbs up to set up a new

atomic power project on the banks of river Mahi in Banswara district of the state.

The Power generation picture of Rajasthan is:

Total installed power generation capacity 8958 MW

State generated of which, 56.68 %

Coal based power 71.00 %

Gas based power 9.00 %

Hydro based power 20.00 %

Centre generated 24.26%

Private sector generated 19.06%

(Source: Phd Research Bureau, Compiled from Monthly Review of Power Sector February

2011)


216

Development Reforms: Some of the inventive programs taken up by Rajasthan

Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. (RREC) are Solar City Program, Remote Village

Electrification Programme (RVE), Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant (Grid Interactive)

Program, MW scale Grid Interactive Electricity generation from Solar Energy. The Rural

electrification covers a wide reach of over ninety two percent of villages in the state.

Keeping aside the thermal power generation and conventional wind energy sources,

Rajasthan has a nuclear power plant at Kota.

(c) Telecommunication: Rajasthan has a strong infrastructure in terms of

telecommunication facilities. Rajasthan today possesses a competitive business

environment in both fixed and value added network services. Main service providers in

telecom are BSNL, Airtel, IDEA, AIRCEL, Tata, Reliance, and MTS which are catering to

the ever increasing needs of the state. The strong infrastructure of Rajasthan in

Telecommunication is cemented by the following facts:

As of January 2011, Rajasthan had a massive 29.08 million GSM subscribers.

According to TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India), there are 33.7 million

wireless subscribers coming in from the state of Rajasthan. Internet connectivity is

available throughout the state and it consists of 1, 95,118 Internet/Broadband

subscribers.

Number of post offices and other communication services: The state has 10321

post offices, 559 telegraph offices and 2350 telephone exchanges.

(B) Social Infrastructure:

Social Infrastructure is a major sub-category of the infrastructure sector and includes all

the assets which provide social services. Social infrastructure includes facilities and

measures for providing health care, education, social welfare and employment etc.

However, the cost of providing all these social benefits is very high. Major social policy

apprehensions of the Government include the provision of infrastructure services,

encouraging more and more Government and community partnerships, integrated service

delivery and social justice.

(a) Education –In Rajasthan there are total 37 Universities out of which 16 are private, 9

are deemed and 12 are Government universities. There are more than 1032 colleges, 6010

senior secondary schools, 11610 secondary schools, 51525 primary schools.

Rajasthan’s literacy rate according to 2011 census was 67.06%, out of which male and

female literacy rates were 80.51% and 52.66% respectively. Even though the female

literacy rate has improved over the last decade, it still lags behind the national average of

65.46%, whereas the male literacy is quite close to the national average of 82.14%.

Education development in Rajasthan:

Recently the state government of Rajasthan has declared the opening of 4 new

government universities in different parts of Rajasthan.

With already the presence of one of the top ranked private universities in India-

Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani (BITS PILANI), Rajasthan is well

placed on the education map of the country.

IIT in Jodhpur, IIM in Udaipur, and Central University in Kishangarh are the top

level educational institutions which have been recently started functioning with the

assistance of the Government of India.

Physical education and Sports University is going to be set up on PPP (Public

private partnership) Mode at Jhunjhunu.


217

Hydrology and Water Management Institute is going to be established in Bikaner.

This type of institute has been set in only two countries of the world till now.

A State level Agro and Food processing center would be made in Bharatpur.

The State Literacy Mission Authority encourages PPP (Public Private Partnership)

to strengthen and consolidate the infrastructure of CECs (Continuing Education

Centers). In the state budget of 2011-12, a significant amount of Rs 1707.72 Crores

was allocated to the education sector.

(b) Health:

In Rajasthan, there are total 13848 health centers out of which we have 127 hospitals, 199

dispensaries, 1504 Rural PHCs, 37 Urban PHCs, 368 CHCs, 118 Maternity and Child

Health Centers, 13 Urban Aid Posts, 11461 Sub Health Centers and 43864 inpatient beds

as of 2011 census.

There is a provision of Rs 663.53 Crores for the medical and health sector including

ayurveda in the Rajasthan budget of FY12.The development in this sector is ongoing as the

services and amenities in all the hi-tech hospitals and nursing homes of the state are

regularly been upgraded to attract patients from abroad for specialized medicare and health

checkups.

Development reforms: During the Budget session of 2011-12, The Chief Minister of

Rajasthan came up with a policy of distributing useful medicines to the citizens of the state

free of cost. However, this facility would be made available only in government hospitals.

This was implemented from October 2nd, 2011.

(C) Physical Infrastructure

The Physical infrastructure of a particular state comprises of Airports, Railways, and

Roads. The following points tell us all the information pertaining to physical infrastructure

of Rajasthan:

(a) Roads: Rajasthan’s location between landlocked Northern States and Western port

States inflict extra burden on roads due to main reason of interstate movement of

goods and passenger traffic. Also the presence of border areas and the long

international boundary calls for a very good quality of road infrastructure in the

state. Rajasthan has a total road length of 189034 km. as of May, 2011. Out of this,

5724 km. constitute the length of national highways, 11615 km are state highways

and the remaining 7340 km are major district roads.

Infrastructure development:

The construction of new roads is going on to connect all villages in the state.

Different schemes like Missing Link Project (MLP) and Central Road Fund (CRF)

have been put into action for this purpose. Over 1000 km of road stretches joining

national highways are now being upgraded into expressways under the Mega

Highway Project (MHP).

For ensuing better development of road infrastructure in Rajasthan, Road

Infrastructure Development Company Of Rajasthan Ltd. (RIDCOR) is a striving

enterprise of Government of Rajasthan. RIDCOR is a public limited company and

it is a 50:50 joint enterprise of the Government of Rajasthan and Infrastructure

Leasing & Finance Services Ltd.


218

(b) Railways: Rajasthan has a good quality railway network with a total length of

about 5911 km, out of which 3842.15 km (65 %) is under broad gauge. The

national average of railway route length (per 1000 sq. km. of geographical area) is

19.23 km. This is 17.05 km in Rajasthan which is quite close to the national

average.

Infrastructure development: Through the Jaipur Metro Rail Project, the State

Government established the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation in 2010 with the main objective

of improving the levels of city transport in Jaipur city. Many new railways lines have been

set up along with the extension of already existing ones.

(c) Aviation: On Aviation aspect, Rajasthan has full-developed national airports at

Jaipur, Bikaner, Kota, Jodhpur, Udaipur, and Jaisalmer. Jaipur is the only complete

international airport from the state with flights to Dubai, Sharjah, Bangkok and

Singapore. In 2003, Jaipur Airport was approved of the ISO 9001:2000 certification

for its quality Management systems. The number of passengers using the Jaipur

airport has been on the rise as the below numbers suggest:

Jaipur

Airport

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

International 47033 51689 140019 204283 221732 255704

National 338763 397204 598341 1137762 987608 1267876

Total 385796 448893 738360 1302045 1209340 1523580

(Source: Phd Research Bureau compiled from all India airports- Airport Authority of

India)

3. Data & Methodology

3.1 Data

Infrastructure is calculated either from the prospect of investment towards a particular

service or in terms of the availability of physical quantity of the services to the end users.

For this study we have used the below mentioned indicators of infrastructure classified

under Economic, Social and Physical Category.

Economic Infrastructure:

Cropwise Production in Tonne/hectares - Crops include Chillies, Ginger, Termeric,

Coriander, Cumin Seed and Ajwain.

Percentage of Gross Irrigated area (Out of Total area of district)

Number of Bank branches per lakh of population. The list of banks here include

State Bank of India and its Associates, Nationalized Banks, Foreign Banks,

Regional Rural Banks, Other Scheduled Commercial Banks

Number of post offices per lakh of population


219

Social Infrastructure:

Literacy Rate - We have used the percentage values for 2011 (provisional).

Government Medical Institutions (modern medicine) per lakh of population. The

medical institutions here include Hospital, Dispensary, Community Health Centre,

Mother and Child welfare Centre, Primary Health Centre, Aid Post Urban, Sub-

health centre.

Number of scholars per educational institution. The Educational institutions include

Pre-primary and Primary, Upper Primary (Middle), Secondary and Senior

Secondary, Colleges.

Number of Scholars per teacher

Physical Infrastructure: All those indicators which facilitate transfer of goods and

services, which are physical in nature and finally which could not be classified under

Economic and Social infrastructure criteria were included to construct this Physical

Infrastructure category.

Length of Roads per square km. of area. The type of roads includes Painted,

Metalled and Gravelled roads.

Number of census houses per square km. of area

Number of Registered Motor Vehicles per lakh of population

Percentage of Villages connected with roads (Out of total villages per district)

The required data is collected from various files/sources such as:

Basic Statistics,2012, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Rajasthan, Jaipur

Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of

Economics & Statistics, Government of India

Agriculture Statistics of Rajasthan, 2010-11, Directorate of Economics & Statistics,

Rajasthan, Jaipur ,

Statistical Abstract Rajasthan 2012

Economic and Human Development Indicators, UNDP report, Rajasthan

Census data Rajasthan, Planning Commission etc.

3.2 Methodology

In our study we have used all the above mentioned 12 indicators of infrastructure services /

facilities to construct firstly the respective individual indices i.e. Economic, Social and

Physical and then by integrating the three to construct a composite/overall infrastructure

index (Calculated as per the Principal Component methodology).

For constructing the index, firstly all the indicators under a specific category need to be

normalized before the Principal Component Analysis was applied to decide the factor

loadings and their respective weights. For normalization, the following formula was

employed:


220

NVij = 1 - (Best Xi- Observed Xii)

(Best Xi- Worst Xi)

(1)

Where NVij=Normalized value corresponding to the Xth indicator where i = corresponding

district and j = corresponding indicator

Best Xi = Best/Maximum value of Xth indicator, where i= number corresponding to the

district (In this case values of 33 districts under the Xth indicator will become the i series)

Observed Xij= Observed/current value of Xth indicator where i = corresponding district and

j = corresponding indicator

Worst Xi=Worst/Lowest value of Xth indicator

The Best and the Worst values are dependent upon the nature of a particular indicator. In

case of a positive indicator i.e. positive impact on Infrastructure, the highest value will be

treated as the Best value and the lowest will be considered as the Worst value. However, if

the indicator is a negative in nature (negative impact on infrastructure) , then the lowest

value will be considered as the Best value with highest value as Worst value. In our study,

out of all indicators used, Number of scholars per educational institution and number of

scholars per teacher which have been used to construct Social infrastructure index have a

negative impact on infrastructure.

More number of scholars per education institution signals that there is a scarcity in terms

of educational institutions and same logic applies when we have more number of scholars

per teacher. Therefore, for these two indicators in normalization process, the lowest or

minimum value was considered as the Best value and the highest as the Worst value. Once

the Normalized Values are obtained for all the indicators across the districts of Rajasthan,

in the next step we assign Factor Loadings and Weights. Principal

Component Analysis (PCA) is used to compute the Factor Loading

and Weights of these indicators.

(2)

Where I is the Index for a particular category, Xi is the ith indicator under a particular

category. Lij is the factor loading value of the ith variable on the jth factor; Ej is the Eigen

value of the jth factor.

4. Empirical Analysis and Results Applying the above methodology, we calculated the Economic infrastructure index, Social

Infrastructure index and Physical Infrastructure index for all 33 districts of Rajasthan.

Economic Infrastructure: All the districts were ranked based on the highest to lowest

values of Economic Infrastructure Index. Ganganagar was the highest in terms of

Economic Infrastructure followed by Alwar, Dholpur, Jhunjhunu and Bundi.

n

i

j

n

j

ij

j

n

j

ij

n

i

i

EL

ELX

I

1 1

11

.

.


221

Table 1:

Districts Economic Infrastructure

Index

Rank

Ganganagar 0.753 1

Alwar 0.618 2

Dholpur 0.604 3

We have then divided the districts according to the value of Economic infrastructure index

into two groups, viz., (i) developed districts and (ii) Under-developed districts. The

“developed districts” category have its economic infrastructure index value higher than the

average value of Economic Infrastructure index (0.464) and the “Under-developed

districts” category has its value lower than the average (0.464).

Developed Districts - Ganganagar, Alwar, Dholpur, Jhunjhunu, Bundi, Baran, Kota,

Chittorgarh, Bharatpur, Hanumangarh, S.Madhopur, Sikar, Dausa, Jaipur, Jhalawar,

Karauli

Under-Developed Districts - Dungarpur, Sirohi, Rajsamand, Banswara, Udaipur, Ajmer,

Pratapgarh, Bhilwara, Tonk, Pali, Jaisalmer, Nagaur, Jalore, Jodhpur, Churu, Bikaner,

Barmer

Descriptive Statistics analysis: Analyzing the districts with respect to Economic

infrastructure index, Ganganagar was the strongest with an economic infrastructure index

score of 0.753. This was 3.576 times the value of the lowest lagging district i.e Barmer

having a score of 0.211. The mean index value for all districts is 0.464, standard deviation

is 0.124 and coefficient of variation is 26.8%. This tells us that there is a good amount of

dispersion among Rajasthan districts on measures of economic infrastructure.

Social Infrastructure: Again, the districts were ranked based on the highest to lowest

values of Social Infrastructure Index. Sikar was the leading district on measure of Social

Infrastructure followed by Ganganagar, Jhunjhunu, Chittorgarh and Tonk.

Table 2:

Districts Social Infrastructure

Index

Rank

Sikar 0.661 1

Ganganagar 0.647 2

Jhunjhunu 0.637 3

Developed districts: Sikar, Ganganagar, Jhunjhunu, Chittorgarh, Tonk, Rajsamand,

Jaisalmer, Dungarpur, Bhilwara, Nagaur, Baran, Udaipur, Pali, Bundi, Alwar, S.Madhopur

Under-developed districts: Banswara, Barmer, Jhalawar, Karauli, Hanumangarh,

Bharatpur, Jodhpur, Kota, Churu, Bikaner, Jaipur, Pratapgarh, Jalore, Ajmer, Dausa,

Dholpur, Sirohi


222

Descriptive Statistics analysis: Sikar was the highest with on levels of social

infrastructure index score of 0.661. This was 1.946 times the value of the district with

minimum value i.e Sirohi having a score of 0.340. The mean index value for all districts is

0.499, standard deviation is 0.086 and coefficient of variation is 17.3%. This tells us that

there is some amount of dispersion but not up to those levels when compared with

economic infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: In terms of indicators pertaining to Physical Infrastructure,

Jaipur was the leading district followed by Alwar, Jhunjhunu, Dausa and Ajmer.

Table 3:

Districts Physical Infrastructure

Index

Rank

Jaipur 0.848 1

Alwar 0.727 2

Jhunjhunu 0.701 3

Developed districts: Jaipur, Alwar, Jhunjhunu, Dausa, Ajmer, Bharatpur, Rajsamand,

Banswara, Kota, Dungarpur, Dholpur, Sikar Pali, Nagaur, S.Madhopur, Sirohi, Udaipur

Under-developed districts: Bhilwara, Bundi, Jhalawar, Karauli, Jalore, Ganganagar,

Churu, Pratapgarh, Bikaner, Jodhpur, Tonk, Baran, Chittorgarh, Barmer, Hanumangarh,

Jaisalmer

Descriptive Statistics analysis: Analyzing the districts on physical infrastructure index,

Jaipur leads the way with a physical infrastructure index score of 0.848. This is 20.798

times the value of the district lying at the bottom with lowest value i.e Jaisalmer with a

score of 0.041. The mean index value for all districts is 0.469, standard deviation is 0.179

and coefficient of variation is 38.1%. This tells that there is a huge dispersion between

districts of Rajasthan with respect to the physical Infrastructure index higher than the

economic and social infrastructure.

Overall Infrastructure Index (IFI): After classifying all the districts in terms of

Economic, Social and Physical Infrastructure; an Overall infrastructure index (IFI) was

constructed using the three previously calculated indices. Consequently, the districts were

again classified based on the overall infrastructure levels.

When an overall measure of Infrastructure was constructed, Jhunjhunu was seen as the

leader among all the districts of Rajasthan followed by Ganganagar, Alwar, Sikar and

Jaipur.

Table 4:

Districts Overall Infrastructure

Index

Rank

Jhunjhunu 0.808 1

Ganganagar 0.779 2

Alwar 0.727 3


223

Descriptive Statistics analysis: Analyzing the districts on overall infrastructure index

(IFI), we can see that there is a huge variation in terms of infrastructure development.

Jhunjhunu has the distinction of being at the top of the list with an overall infrastructure

index score of 0.808. It is 3.759 times the value of the district with lowest value of

infrastructure index score i.e Barmer which has an index score of 0.215.Jhunjhunu.The

difference between these two extreme infrastructure index scores is 0.593. The mean index

value for all districts for IFI is 0.497, standard deviation is 0.156 and coefficient of

variation is 31.4%. This was a clear evidence of dispersion between districts of Rajasthan

with respect to the overall Infrastructure index (IFI).

Developed districts – Jhunjhunu, Ganganagar, Alwar, Sikar, Jaipur, Rajsamand,

Dungarpur, Bharatpur, Kota, Bundi, S.Madhopur, Chittorgarh, Banswara, Dholpur, Baran,

Dausa, Udaipur

Under-developed districts- Jhalawar, Bhilwara, Pali, Nagaur, Karauli, Ajmer,

Hanumangarh, Tonk, Sirohi, Pratapgarh, Jaisalmer, Churu, Jodhpur, Jalore, Bikaner,

Barmer

4.1 Inter-linkages between IFI, PCNDDP and Poverty Further in our study, we wanted to see whether the districts possessing good infrastructure

facilities are actually well off or not. To investigate this issue, we have taken two

indicators: (1) Per capita net district domestic product and (2) Percentage of below Poverty

line families out of total families pertaining to a particular district. The Per capita net

district domestic product data at 2004-05 prices (in Rs) was available from 2005 to 2010.

The yearly growth rates were calculated based on the available data and an average of all

these growth rates was taken and applied on the 2010 value to arrive at the 2011 PCNDDP

values which was used in the study. The data for number of below poverty line families as

of 11/3/2014 was used for our study. We calculated the percentage of below poverty line

families out of total families for each district of Rajasthan. The analysis of this data also

shows that there is a negative correlation/relationship between PCNDDP and poverty data;

if one is high the other is low. Also, we found out a positive correlation between PCNDDP

and IFI. This is in alignment with the economic logic.

As we did earlier for infrastructure indices, we made the classification of all the 33 districts

into two groups (i) developed districts and (ii) Under-developed districts on basis of

PCNDDP and percentage of below Poverty line families out of total families. The

“developed districts” will have their PCNDDP value higher than the average (23,942 Rs)

and the “Under-developed districts” will have their income lower than the average (23,942

Rs).For Poverty we will have the reverse case i.e. the good performing districts will have

their percentage value lower than the average (24.16%) and the bad performing districts

will have their value greater than the average (24.16%).

We proceeded in our analysis by analyzing the status of districts with respect to IFI,

PCNDDP and proportion of families below poverty line. Following are the things which

we inferred from the analysis:


224

The districts having a high IFI value should ideally signify high PCNDDP and low

percentage of families below poverty line - Alwar, Bundi, Jaipur and Kota fall

under this classification. They can be treated as ideal districts.

The contrary of the first point i.e. districts with a low value of IFI should lead to

low PCNDDP and high percentage of families below poverty line – Barmer,

Churu, Jalore, Karauli, Pratapgarh fall in this category. These can be taken as

the poor performing districts.

However, there are certain inconsistencies i.e. two indicators on the desired side but one on

the undesired side

(1) High IFI, High PCNDDP and High percentage of families below poverty line –

Baran, Ganganagar, Rajsamand, and Udaipur are those districts where

poverty is an issue.

(2) High IFI, Low PCNDDP and low percentage of families below poverty line -

Bharatpur, Chittorgarh, Dausa, Dholpur, Jhunjhunu, Sawai Madhopur

and Sikar are the districts which have their per capita net district domestic

product on the lower side.

(3) Low IFI, High PCNDDP and low percentage of families below poverty line –

Ajmer, Hanumangarh, Jodhpur, Pali and Sirohi are the districts which are

lagging behind on the infrastructure front.

When only one indicator on the desired side and the other two on the undesired side:

(4) Low IFI, Low PCNDDP and low percentage of families below poverty line –

Jhalawar, Nagaur and Tonk only have poverty under the check but fall

behind on infrastructure and income levels.

(5) Low IFI, High PCNDDP and high percentage of families below poverty line –

Bhilwara, Bikaner and Jaisalmer are good on their income levels but fall

behind on infrastructure and poverty measurement.

(6) High IFI, Low PCNDDP and high percentage of families below poverty line –

Banswara and Dungarpur have strong infrastructure but are short on income

poverty criteria.

4.2 Hypothesis Testing

In final part of our empirical analysis, we framed a hypothesis aimed at testing that

whether there is any difference between the rate of economic growth and Infrastructure.

Therefore, we framed the null and alternate hypothesis as :

Null hypothesis: H0: There is no difference between the rate of economic growth and

Infrastructure development

Alternate hypothesis: H1: There is difference between the rate of economic growth

and Infrastructure development

Pearson Correlation Coefficient or r is one of the most important parameters to determine

the linear dependence between two variables.

Using this coefficient the t test statistic is calculated by the relation:

t2 = (R

2) *(n-k)/ (1- R

2)*(k-1)


225

Where,

n = number of observations

k=DF= Degrees of Freedom =2 for our study

R2 = r

2 (Square of the correlation co-efficient for a simple linear regression model as

present in our study)

The two tailed t test table value for 0.05% significance level is 4.303 for degree of freedom

2. Therefore, if the calculated t statistic value is greater than the table value, the null

hypothesis can be rejected in the favor of the alternate hypothesis. We performed the

hypothesis testing by taking PCNDDP as our dependent variable as a proxy for economic

growth and changing our single explanatory variable i.e Social, Economic, Physical and

Overall Infrastructure Index (IFI) for each of our models. All the models had their

calculated t statistical value less than the table or critical value i.e 4.303. Therefore, we can

safely conclude that at each of the infrastructure levels, there is no difference between the

rate of economic growth and Infrastructure. In other words, we can say that infrastructure

development and economic growth go hand in hand.

5. Conclusion

This paper uses Principal Component analysis method to compute a composite or an

overall Infrastructure Development Index (IFI) by combining various infrastructural

indices constructed on the basis of social, economic and physical criteria at the district

level of Rajasthan. The Principal component analysis method assigns weights to each of

the indicators used for calculating a particular infrastructure index so as to make certain

that large disparity in any one of the indicators will not disproportionately dictate or

overlook the role of the remaining indicators and avoid any deformity in this inter-district

comparison for the state of Rajasthan.

Analyzing the regional disparities between the districts in terms of Social infrastructure,

we can see that Sikar district is the strongest while Sirohi is the weakest. High literacy rate

and the emergence of Sikar as an educational hub are main reasons behind Sikar’s strong

social infrastructure. There is a good proportion of youth in the district which is the main

catalyst behind this need for education. Many private educational institutions have come

up. On the health front also, Sikar has been on the uptrend with medical institutions

equipped with high end technology coming up in the district. Sirohi, on the other end lacks

the basic infrastructure of schools and hospitals which have led to its downfall on the

social infrastructure levels. On the Economic infrastructure front, Ganganagar shows

impressive results due to its agricultural and fertile land. The fraction of irrigation

happening in this district is enormous and it amounts to the fact that Ganganagar possesses

one of the most fertile lands of Rajasthan. Ganganagar scores well on other production

indicators like number of bank branches and post offices as it is a big district with

population on the higher side and therefore demand is high. Barmer has the lowest score

on economic infrastructure and it is pretty understandable keeping in view of its arid land

and hot climatic conditions which are not at all suitable for agricultural purposes. When it

comes to Physical infrastructure containing indicators like Roads per sq. km of area,

Number of census houses per sq. km, percentage of villages connected with roads etc.,

Jaipur holds the edge over the other districts of Rajasthan. Being the capital of the state, it

is understandable that roads will be of supreme quality along with their high connectivity


226

to nearby villages. The road density will be obviously high , setting the benchmark for the

state. On the other hand, Jaisalmer lies at the bottom on these measures. A major

proportion of the area of the district is covered with deserts and being on the Indo-Pak

border also makes it one of the less developed districts of Rajasthan.

Overall when we construct the Infrastructure index (IFI), we see that Jhunjhunu is leading

district among Rajasthan while Barmer is at the bottom. Jhunjhunu is the most consistent

district on each of the individual infrastructure indices whether it is Social, Economic or

Physical. Jhunjhunu gets the distinction of having the presence of educational towns like

Pilani, Bagar etc. In terms of health also, it maintains a good standard. On Economic

forefronts, banks are present in good number as it has high number of educational

institutions and consequently higher number of students. Agriculture is again a major

player in Jhunjhunu’s economy. Village connectivity with roads is good and therefore in

totality Jhunjhunu leads the way among the 33 districts of Rajasthan on measures of

Infrastructure.

6. Policy Implications

Through our empirical analysis investigating the inter-relationships between the IFI,

PCNDDP and poverty, we can see that there is a positive association between IFI &

PCNDDP and a negative association between IFI & Poverty for the districts of Rajasthan.

Therefore, if our economic policymakers of Rajasthan strengthen and improve the

infrastructure facilities along with focus on declining the regional disparities among the

districts, then for sure Rajasthan is on the ideal path of “economic growth with justice”.

Hence, more and more efforts should be aimed at creating a sound infrastructure at the

district level, which will eventually raise the district domestic product, reduce the poverty

levels and in due course improve the standard of living of the people of Rajasthan. Our

econometric hypothesis testing confirms the fact that economic growth and infrastructure

development are compliments to each other and improvement in one leads to the other.

While Rajasthan has been taken steps towards strengthening its infrastructure over the past

decade, there is still a long way to go. As our empirical analysis has shown, economic

growth follows infrastructure development. Boosting infrastructure development levels

will surely bring an increase the state domestic product, which will in turn lead to our

national income growth. Developing the infrastructure will create more employment

opportunities which would eventually help many people come out of abject poverty

conditions. Through improving infrastructure, the sideline attempt is to lift the poor from

one level to another so that they come out of their poverty and are able to participate more

effectively in the economic and social processes of the state. We require a coordinated

action between the policymakers and the government to achieve this.

References

1. Patra, A and A. Acharya (2011), Regional Disparity, Infrastructure Development

and Economic Growth: An Inter-State Analysis, Research and Practice in Social

Sciences, 6(2), pp. 17-30.

2. Cutanda, A. and J. Paricio (1994), Infrastructure and Regional Economic Growth:

The Spanish Case, Regional Studies, 28(1), pp.69-77.


227

3. Debapriya, A. and M. K. Mohanty (2008), Inter-district Disparity in the Levels of

Development in Education and Health Care Facilities-A Case of Orissa, Indian

Journal of Regional Science, 40(1), pp.118-123.

4. Agriculture Statistics of Rajasthan (2010-11), Directorate of Economics &

Statistics, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. Mehta, A.C. and S.A. Siddiqui (2009), Educational Development Index (EDI): A

Suggestive Framework for Computation, Department of EMIS, National University

of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), New Delhi, pp. 1-47.

6. Nagar, A.L. and S.R.Basu (2002), Infrastructure Development Index: An Analysis

for 17 Major Indian States (1990-91 to 1996-97), Journal of Combinatorics,

Information & System Sciences, 27(1-4), pp. 185-203.

7. Swaminathan, A.M., Infrastructure Investment and Regional Economic Growth: A

Case Study of Maharashtra, Research Article, Department of Economics,

University of Mumbai.

8. Basic Statistics (2012), Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

9. Ghosh, B. and P.De (2004), How do Different Categories of Infrastructure Affect

Development? Evidence from Indian States, Economic and Political Weekly,

39(42), pp.4645-4657.

10. Suar, D. (1984), “Development Indicator Identification and Regional Disparities in

Orissa: A Factor Analytic Study” Indian Journal of Regional Science, 16(2),

pp.108-120.

11. Esfahani, H.S. and M.T.Ramirez (2003), Institutions, Infrastructure and Economic

Growth, Journal of Development Economics, 70(2), pp. 443-477.

12. Rao, H.(1977), Identification of Backward Regions and the Trends in Regional

Disparities in India, Artha Vijana, 9(2), pp.93-112.

13. Rao, H. (1984), Regional Disparities and Development in India, Ashish Publishing

House, New Delhi.

14. Sharma, K.L. (1975), “Spatial Disparities in Rajasthan : A Comparative Study of

Levels of Development Between Two Points of Time” Indian Journal of Regional

Science, 7(1),pp.88-98.

15. Murty, K. N. and A. Soumya(2006), Macroeconomic effects of public investment

in infrastructure in India, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research,

Working Paper series no. WP-2006-003.

16. Pal, M. N. (1975), Regional Disparities in the Levels of Development in India",

Indian Journal of Regional Science, 7(1), pp.35-52.


228

17. Pal, M. N. (1971), Quantitative Techniques in Regional Planning, Indian Journal of

Regional Science, 3(1), pp. 1-33.

18. Bhatia, M.S. (1999), Rural Infrastructure and Growth in Agriculture, Economic and

Political Weekly, 34(13), pp.43-48.

19. Purohit, N.K (2013), Development of Infrastructure In Rajasthan, International

Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 2(3), pp.66-77.

20. Iyengar, N.S., Nanjappa, M.B. and P. Sudarshan (1981), A Note on Inter-District

Differentials in Karnataka's Development, The Journal of Income Wealth,5(1),

pp.79-83.

21. Phd Research Bureau (2010-11), Compiled from Economic Survey of India.

22. Sahoo, P. and R.K. Dash (2009) ,Infrastructure and Economic growth in India,

Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 14(4),pp. 351-365.

23. Sahoo,P., R.K Dash and G. Nataraj(2010) ,Infrastructure Development and

Economic growth in China, Institute of Developing Economies, Discussion paper

No.261.

24. Sahoo, P. and R.K Dash (2008), Economic growth in South Asia: Role of

Infrastructure with, Institute of Economic studies, Working paper no.288.

25. Sudarshan, P. (1985), Identification of Backward Districts in Andhra Pradesh-An

Application of Factor Analysis, Indian Journal of Regional Science, 17(2).

26. Dutta, R. A. (2009), State Budgetary Resources and Agricultural Development in

Rajasthan, Research Study No. 135, Agro Economic Research Centre, Sardar Patel

University, Gujarat.

27. Sahoo, S. and K.K.Saxena (1999), Infrastructure and Economic Development:

Some Empirical Evidence, The Indian Economic Journal, 47(2), pp. 54-66.

28. Shastri, S. (1988), “Regional Disparities in Economic Development of Rajasthan

(1961-84)” Indian Journal of Regional Science, 20(1), pp.11-28.

29. Statistical Abstract of Rajasthan 2012.

30. Somik, V.L. (2007), Infrastructure and Regional Growth, Growth Dynamics and

Policy Relevance for India, Annals of Regional Science, 41(3), pp. 581-599.


229

Appendix

Table 5: Economic Infrastructure Index Rankings

District Economic Infrastructure

Index

Rank

Ganganagar 0.753 1

Alwar 0.618 2

Dholpur 0.604 3

Jhunjhunu 0.599 4

Bundi 0.597 5

Baran 0.586 6

Kota 0.571 7

Chittorgarh 0.571 8

Bharatpur 0.563 9

Hanumangarh 0.563 10

S.Madhopur 0.545 11

Sikar 0.531 12

Dausa 0.524 13

Jaipur 0.514 14

Jhalawar 0.510 15

Karauli 0.461 16

Dungarpur 0.457 17

Sirohi 0.452 18

Rajsamand 0.452 19

Banswara 0.447 20

Udaipur 0.421 21

Ajmer 0.415 22

Pratapgarh 0.398 23

Bhilwara 0.398 24

Tonk 0.376 25

Pali 0.366 26

Jaisalmer 0.349 27

Nagaur 0.322 28

Jalore 0.293 29

Jodhpur 0.292 30

Churu 0.285 31

Bikaner 0.275 32

Barmer 0.211 33


230

Table 6 : Social Infrastructure Rankings

District Social Infrastructure

Index

Rank

Sikar 0.661 1

Ganganagar 0.647 2

Jhunjhunu 0.637 3

Chittorgarh 0.616 4

Tonk 0.598 5

Rajsamand 0.577 6

Jaisalmer 0.575 7

Dungarpur 0.570 8

Bhilwara 0.549 9

Nagaur 0.545 10

Baran 0.543 11

Udaipur 0.531 12

Pali 0.530 13

Bundi 0.516 14

Alwar 0.507 15

S.Madhopur 0.506 16

Banswara 0.496 17

Barmer 0.486 18

Jhalawar 0.484 19

Karauli 0.481 20


Bharatpur 0.477 22

Jodhpur 0.464 23

Kota 0.459 24

Churu 0.448 25

Bikaner 0.442 26

Jaipur 0.413 27

Pratapgarh 0.407 28

Jalore 0.398 29

Ajmer 0.378 30

Dausa 0.348 31

Dholpur 0.348 32

Sirohi 0.340 33


231

Table 7: Physical Infrastructure Index Rankings

District Physical Infrastructure Index Rank

Jaipur 0.848 1

Alwar 0.727 2

Jhunjhunu 0.701 3

Dausa 0.681 4

Ajmer 0.647 5

Bharatpur 0.633 6

Rajsamand 0.628 7

Banswara 0.626 8

Kota 0.626 9

Dungarpur 0.626 10

Dholpur 0.600 11

Sikar 0.562 12

Pali 0.527 13

Nagaur 0.495 14

S.Madhopur 0.493 15

Sirohi 0.482 16

Udaipur 0.477 17

Bhilwara 0.452 18

Bundi 0.444 19

Jhalawar 0.408 20

Karauli 0.396 21

Jalore 0.393 22

Ganganagar 0.384 23

Churu 0.360 24

Pratapgarh 0.339 25

Bikaner 0.319 26

Jodhpur 0.283 27

Tonk 0.282 28

Baran 0.257 29

Chittorgarh 0.254 30

Barmer 0.251 31


Jaisalmer 0.041 33


232

Table 8: Overall Infrastructure Index (IFI) Rankings

District Overall Infrastructure Index Rank

Jhunjhunu 0.808 1

Ganganagar 0.779 2

Alwar 0.727 3

Sikar 0.718 4

Jaipur 0.633 5

Rajsamand 0.625 6

Dungarpur 0.622 7

Bharatpur 0.622 8

Kota 0.610 9

Bundi 0.591 10

S.Madhopur 0.570 11

Chittorgarh 0.569 12

Banswara 0.555 13

Dholpur 0.529 14

Baran 0.521 15

Dausa 0.511 16

Udaipur 0.497 17

Jhalawar 0.490 18

Bhilwara 0.486 19

Pali 0.482 20

Nagaur 0.450 21

Karauli 0.448 22

Ajmer 0.445 23


Tonk 0.435 25

Sirohi 0.365 26

Pratapgarh 0.319 27

Jaisalmer 0.288 28

Churu 0.284 29

Jodhpur 0.267 30

Jalore 0.264 31

Bikaner 0.253 32

Barmer 0.215 33


233

Table 9 : Status table of 33 districts of Rajasthan with respect to IFI, PCNDDP and

Poverty District IFI PCDSP Poverty Overall Sign

Above

Average

Below

Average

Above

Average

Below

Average

Above

Average

Below

Average

Ajmer * * * €

Alwar * * * √

Banswara * * * €

Baran * * * €

Barmer * * * €

Bharatpur * * * €

Bhilwara * * * €

Bikaner * * * €

Bundi * * * √

Chittorgarh * * * €

Churu * * * €

Dausa * * * €

Dholpur * * * €

Dungarpur * * * €

Ganganagar * * * €

Hanumangarh * * * €

Jaipur * * * √

Jaisalmer * * * €

Jalore * * * €

Jhalawar * * * €

Jhunjhunu * * * €

Jodhpur * * * €

Karauli * * * €

Kota * * * √

Nagaur * * * €

Pali * * * €

Pratapgarh * * * €

Rajsamand * * * €

Sawai Madhopur * * * €

Sikar * * * €

Sirohi * * * €

Tonk * * * €

Udaipur * * * €

Note: √ represents High IFI, High PCDSP and Low Poverty (Ideal situation). €

represents inconsistent relationship between IFI, PCDSP and Poverty i.e either High IFI,

High PCDSP and High poverty where poverty is issue or High IFI, Low PCDSP and low

poverty where low PCDSP is issue.

INVESTIGATING THE INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE, POVERTY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: A DISTRICT-WISE STUDY OF RAJASTHAN

Documents