For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8

India has become fifth largest economyin the year 2021 after surpassing the United Kingdom in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at current Prices (Table-1). India and China are the most populous countries in the world andhave tremendous growth potential owing to vast domestic demand for goods and services. Even during the covid-19 period, China sustained more than 7 percent annual growth rate in GDP, whereas India achieved more than 6 percent growth rate. Investment is another growth engine which makes the economy of a country to grow faster. Total investment and savings in China remained more than 40 percent of GDP throughout the observed period. India ranked second with around 30 percent of GDP being saved and invested in the economy during same period. However, there are 28 states and 8 Union Territories (UTs) in India and the growth performance of all the states and union territories have not been same. All these states and UTs differ fromeach other on availability of natural resources and their demographic, geographic and climatic conditions are also different. Gujarat is a leading state in India when overalleconomic performance of the Indian states is considered (Hitesh Gujarati 2014). Maharashtra has the highest Net State Domestic Product in India and also a big state in terms of demography and geography. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are highly populated states and per capita Net State Domestic Products of the two states are low among other Indian states.Labour from these two states usually migrate to other developed states in search of employment opportunities(Mahmood Ansari 2001 and Khanet. al. 2015). Therefore, in the present study, an attempt has been made to analyse thegrowthperformance of four Indian states: Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, so that remedial measures may be adopted to improve the economic performance of least developed states in India.

A study by Mahmood Ansari (2001) indicated most of the Bihari labourers out-migrated to Punjab in seventies and eighties for employment opportunities as they were able to bargain high real wages in Punjab as compared to Bihar itself. It was also due to the reason that Punjabis themselves out-migrated to other places in search of better opportunities.Khanet. al.(2015) made another attempt to analyse trends and reasons of migration in Uttar Pradesh for a period from 1971 to 2001. The study revealed that employment for males and marriage for females were the major reasons behind migration in Uttar Pradesh. Hitesh Gujarati (2014) examined economic growth of Indian states, their efficiency and productivity considering population and geographical area. The states and union territories were ranked based on their performance. The study revealed that Gujarat, Delhi and Maharashtra ranked first, second and third respectively, on their economic performance.

S. S. Jha and J. K. Tandan (2019) attempted to study growth models of Kerala and Gujarat states and assess the role of transportation and power in economic development of these states. The study revealed that hard-infrastructural variables played important role in the development of Gujarat, whereas Kerala model of growth mostly relied on social change (soft-infrastructural variables like Human Development Indicators). Sainiet. al. (2021)studied the socio-economic conditions of the farmers in  Vidarbh region.The study concluded with the result that although governmental policies significantly affected the socio-economic conditions of the farmers, but not to the expected level.Samridhi Narula (2022) attempted to establish causal relationship between economic growth and socio-economic and environmental variables in India on the basis of time-series data for a period of 1991-2018. The study revealed a strong correlation among the variables. Most of the variables exhibited unidirectional relationship. However, school enrolment and life expectancy displayed a bi-directional relationship between the variables.

Table-1: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of top 9 countries in the world

Sl. No.	Name of Countries	GDP* at current prices					Annual growth rate (%)
		2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
1.   2.    3.    4.    5.   6.    7.    8.   9.	United States of America  China  Japan    Germany   India   United Kingdom  France    Italy    Canada	20533 (I)  13842 (II)  5041 (III)  3976 (IV) 2703 (VII) 2882 (V) 2792 (VI)  2093 (VIII)  1725 (IX)	21381 (I) 14341 (II)  5118 (III)  3889 (IV) 2836 (VI)  2859 (V) 2729 (VII)  2012 (VIII)  1744 (IX)	21060 (I)  14863 (II)  5049 (III)  3887 (IV) 2672 (VI)  2706 (V) 2636 (VII)  1896 (VIII)  1648 (IX)	23315 (I)  17759 (II)  5006 (III)  4263 (IV) 3150 (V)  3123 (VI) 2957 (VII)  2116 (VIII)  2001 (IX)	25464 (I)  18100 (II)  4234 (III)  4075 (IV) 3386 (V)  3071 (VI) 2784 (VII)  2012 (IX)  2140 (VIII)	5.84    7.16    -4.02    0.76    6.13    1.90   0.17    -0.74    5.99

Source: IMF World Outlook Database, April 2023.

Table-2: Total investment and Gross National Saving as precent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of top 9 countries in the world

Sl. No.	Name of Countries	Investment & Saving	As percent of GDP at current prices
			2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
1.    2.   3.    4.   5.    6.    7.   8.     9.	United States of America  China    Japan    Germany    India   United Kingdom   France  Italy    Canada	Investment Saving  Investment Saving Investment Saving  Investment Saving  Investment Saving Investment Saving  Investment Saving  Investment Saving  Investment Saving	21.21 19.61  43.96 44.14  25.62 29.17  21.92 29.87  32.34 30.23  21.92 29.87  23.86 23.03 18.53 21.13  23.38 21.00	21.32 19.70  43.07 43.79 25.79 29.24  22.12 30.29  30.10 29.23  18.14 15.31 24.37 24.88  18.24 21.55  23.04 21.09	21.01 19.26  42.86 44.53  25.26 28.19  22.09 29.15  28.75 29.65  17.21 14.01 23.72 21.92  17.70 21.55  22.26 21.10	21.10 17.96  43.29 45.08  25.60 29.54  23.29 31.03  31.23 30.00  17.93 16.42 25.01 25.37  20.65 23.70  23.81 23.54	21.55 18.74  43.88 46.18  26.64 28.77  24.83 29.03  31.62 29.01  19.29 13.74 25.76 23.98  21.75 21.02  24.54 24.16

Source: IMF World Outlook Database, April 2023

Present study is based on secondary data. Secondary data related to Net State Domestic Product, population, Human Development Index, Life Expectancy at birth, Sex ratio and other socio-economic parameters were obtained from Economic Survey Report of 2023 and other related websites. Simple tabular and graphical analysis were followed to draw conclusions about the study and based on these conclusions, policy implications were suggested to improve the overall economic performance of the least developed states in India.

Year-wise data on Net State Domestic Product (NSDP), Per Capita Net State Domestic Product (PCNSDP) and Growth Rate in Per Capita Net State Domestic Product (GRPCNSDP) at current prices for Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh are shown in table-1. It is evident from the table that

Table-3: NSDP, PCNSDP and GRPCNSDP (at current prices) of the Statesselected for study

(NSDP in ‘000 crores of Rs, PCNSDP in ‘000 Rs. and GRPCNSDP in percent) Source:

State Domestic Product and other Aggregates, 2011-12 Series, MoS & PI Growth Rate in Per Capita Net State Domestic Product of Gujarat state remained higher than the other three states during the study period. Maharashtra ranked first in Per Capita Net State Domestic Productamong four states under study in the year 2016-17. However, Gujarat occupied first position in Per Capita Net State Domestic Product in succeeding years due to higher growth rate in per capita income (Figure-2). Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are densely populated states and demand plays crucial role in growth of these two economies. However, maximum growth rate in per capita income of Gujarat state was observed possibly due to high investment. Therefore, it is recommended that opportunities for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) must be developed especially in UP and Bihar to realize full potential of the resources available in these states. Maharashtra had maximum NSDP all through the years (Figure-1).Socio-economic parameters of Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh states were also studied for comparative analysis. Life expectancy at birth and Human Development Index of the four states are shown in table-4. Maharashtra has the highest life expectancy at birth followed by Gujarat, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Human Development Index is also maximum in Maharashtra state. Gujarat, UP  and Biharoccupy II, III and IV rank, respectively in terms of HDI. Maharashtra has the highest Net State Domestic Product and a lot of investment especially by the private sectorhas been done in the state to improve health and educational facilities. It  is evident from the figure-3 that UP state lags much behind the other three states asfar as life

Figure-1: Net State Domestic Product of the states under study

Figure-2: Per CapitaNet State Domestic Product of the states under study

expectancy at birth is concerned. It means, health facilities available in the state is not enough to serve large population of the state. Therefore, more investment is required in Uttar Pradesh to develop health infrastructure. Human Development Index is constructed considering various health and educational parameters of the population and indicate that Maharashtra is the leading state in HDI (Figure-4). However, both the figures (3 & 4) reveal that Life expectancy at birth and HDI have increased consistently for all the states from 2010 to 2019.

Table-4: Life Expectancy at Birth (LEB) and Human Development Index (HDI) of the four Statesselected for study

Sl. No.	Name of states	Particulars	Periods
			2010	2015	2019
1.   2.   3.   4.	Bihar   Gujarat   Maharashtra   Uttar Pradesh	LEB HDI LEB HDI LEB HDI LEB HDI	68.1 50.8 68.7 59.9 71.6 63.8 64.1 52.8	68.9 55.8 69.7 65.4 72.5 68.3 65.0 57.7	68.7 58.1 70.9 65.0 73.2 70.1 65.7 60.3

 (Life expectancy at birth in years and HDI in percent)

Source: Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. HDI figures are calculated by National Commission of India.

Figure-3: Comparison of Life Expectancy at Birth in four States

Figure-4: Comparison of Human Development Index (HDI) in four States

Table-5: Number of Recognised Educational Institutions in the Statesselected for study

Sl. No.	Name of States	Years	Number of Educational Institutions
			Primary Schools	Secondary School	Higher Sec. School	Colleges	Universities
1.   2.   3.   4.	Bihar   Gujarat   Maharashtra   Uttar Pradesh	2020-21 2021-22 2020-21 2021-22 2020-21 2021-22 2020-21 2021-22	42505   13827   51152   138078	3855   4638   17741   12783	8620   8126   10871   20763	1035   2267   4532   8114	37   83   71   84

Source: Economic Survey 2022-23 (Statistical Appendix)

Number of educational institutions in a state is another indicator of economicprogress of the state. Table-5 indicates number of recognised schools, colleges and universities in four states. UP state has significantly higher number of primary schools, higher secondary schools and colleges as compared to the other three states. This so because basic education is a primary need for younger generation and large number of educational institutions are required to serve large population of a state like Uttar Pradesh.Demographic features of the four states are shown in table-6. The table

Table-6: Demographic features of the states

Sl. No.	Socio-economic indicators/ items	States
		Bihar		Gujarat		Maharashtra		Uttar Pradesh
		2001	2011	2001	2011	2001	2011	2001	2011
1.   2.   3.	Population (in crores) Decadegrowth rate(%) Sex Ratio (Fem Per 1000 male)	8.3   28.6   919	10.4   25.4   918	5.1   22.7   920	6.0   19.3   919	9.7   22.7   922	11.2   16.0   929	16.6   25.9   898	20.0   20.2   912

Source: Economic Survey 2022-23 (Statistical Appendix)

Figure-5: Population of the States (in crores)

shows that Uttar Pradesh has the maximum population. Decadal growth rate of population is declining in all the states. However, higher growth rate in population was observed in case of Bihar state. Although sex ratio dipped below 900 in 2001 in Uttar Pradesh, yet its sex ratio recovered considerably in 2011. Other socio-economic indicators of the four states are shown in table-7. It is evident from the table that Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have high poverty ratio as compared to other two states.However, poverty is declining for all the states in the succeedingyear (Figure-6).Unemployment rates are also higher in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh as compared to the other two statesMaximum unemployment rate (4.6 %) is observed in Bihar state. Gujarat has least unemployment rate (2.2%). Due to low rate of unemployment, poverty percent is minimum in Gujarat followed by Maharashtra, UP and Bihar. Child mortality rate is

Table-7: Socio-EconomicIndicators of the states

Source: Economic Survey 2022-23 (Statistical Appendix)&Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011-12

Figure-6: Persons living below Poverty Line (in percent)

minimum in Maharashtra as compared to other three states. This is due to the fact that considerable investment has been made in Maharashtra to develop health infrastructure in the state. This investment is large because it has brought down child mortality rate to minimum in a state which has second largest population out of the four states. Obviously, Bihar and UP rank third and fourth respectively, in child mortality ratio. However, child mortality rate has declined from 2019 to 2020 for all four states selected for the study (Figure-6). Drop-out rate of children from secondary schools for

Figure-7: Child Mortality Rate (per thousand live birth)

the year 2021-22 has been minimum for Uttar Pradesh state. This indicates that considerable emphasis has been given on primary and secondary level school education in Uttar Pradesh.Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bihar states follow Uttar Pradesh with second, third and fourth ranks respectively, in secondary drop-out rate of school children.

1. Ansari, Mahmood (2001). “Migration from the Rural Region: A Study from Bihar in India”, Journal of Assam University,6(1). 2. Economic Survey of India (Statistical Appendix) 2022-23 3. IMF World Outlook Database, April 2023. 4. Gujarati Hitesh (2014). “Study on Economic Growth, Efficiency and Productivity of Indian States: A Comparative Analysis”, A Research Paper Presented and Published at International Conference on ‘Role of Financial Industry in Accelerating Economic Growth’ held on 26th and 27th September, 2014 and Organised by Centre for Financial Services, Gujarat Technological University. 5. Jha, Sanjeev Sushil and J. K. Tandon (2019). “A Comparative Study of Economic Development of Gujarat and Kerala (A study with special reference to role ofinfrastructure in economic development)”,Journal of Management,6(1): pp. 39-54. 6. Khan, Jabir Hasan; Shajia and Tarique Hassan (2015). “Migration Streamsin Uttar Pradesh: Trends and Reasons”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences,4(8). 7. Narula Samridhi (2022). “Causal Relationship between Economic Growth and Socio-Economic and Environmental Variables in India: A Time Series Analysis”, Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research,9(7). Office of Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. 8. Press Note on Poverty Estimates: 2011-12, Government of India 2013. 9. Saini Sandeep Singh, Jay Paranjape Kshitij Patil and Savya Sachi Pandey (2021). “Constructing Indices Using Socio-Economic Parameters: A Study of Farmers in Vidarbha”, Journal of Humanities and Social Science”,26(11) Series 6, pp. 16-34. 10. State Domestic Product and other Aggregates: 2011-12 Series, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.