How else do economists measure development in the country as a whole if they can't take the average?
I'm really not an economist at all, but what's the better way to measure an economy. I noticed looking at the GDP per capita of many larger welfare states, they ranked pretty well but were not dominant, while measuring median income they performed better. What's more useful?
I am a proud Bihari... having spent much of my life in South India and Delhi and right now I am back to Bihar working in administration. Let's try to find out real reasons what is pulling down Bihar (in comparison to other states) for so so long? After that, we can figure out possible solutions as well.
For me, the top reasons are these:
-
200 years of British Rule: The fixed rate Zamindari system (applicable in Eastern India) was the worst form of exploitation which had made Bihar one of the poorest states in India by the time British left in 1947. Rest of India didn't suffer as much under rule of Princely states or other forms of revenue collection (Ryotwari or Mahalwari). So that's the original sin.
-
Over population: Barring few exceptions, any region or state which has huge population pressure is simply too poor as it has too few resources for every single person and too tough to govern, thus making it tougher for government to focus on development. Bihar is the most densely populated big state in India. And it has one of the lowest land availability per capita (it matters since it's mostly agrarian economy).
-
Unstable Polity: Till 1990, we have had so many CMs; then after that Lalu Yadav rule ruined the economic development of the state (although it can be arguably said he empowered the middle castes -mostly his own- under social justice plan) for 15 years, Nitish Govt has done a relatively much better job but again the spark is missing in last 5 years or so. Also, a major factor- there has been very small periods when Govts both in Bihar and Centre were run by same party or coalition.
-
Hostile and unfavourable policies of the Centre: First comes Freight Equalisation policy of 1950s and 60s by Nehru: This is a big reason why industries went to Southern and western states and not in Bihar/Jharkhand. Second is reluctance of the Centre to not give "Special status" to Bihar, when relatively prosperous states like Uttarakhand and North Eastern states have been granted (I am not questioning the criteria here) and thus extra funding for development all these decades.
-
Caste: It's relevant in all of India. But what I have seen, when I came back for work in Bihar I found caste factor to be a thing of an altogether another level! It's divisive, it doesn't foster a feeling of cooperation- be it in top echelons of decision making or at the clerk/peon level, in society or in Govt. It feels we are like warring tribes of Sub Saharan Africa, the only d
