Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Estimation of GSDP based oin the New (2011-12) GDP Series-An Evaluation of Critical Comments and a Few Suggestions


Affiliations
1 The EPW Research Foundation, Mumbai and Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


This paper makes an attempt to have a detailed state-wise, sector-wise assessment of the changes that have occurred in the Gross State Value Added (GSVA or formerly known as Gross State Domestic Product, GSDP) estimations as per the 2011-12 series over the 2004-05 series. This paper finds that, at the aggregate level, the differences are l0% or less except for three major states, namely, Karnataka, Telengana and Uttarakhand wherein such differences have ranged from 10% to 21%. Sector-wise assessment reveals that major changes occurred in the relative share of several sectors, as in mining and quarrying, manufacturing, trade, etc., across states reflect the all-India picture, as the all-India estimates have been allocated to states based on certain chosen indicators.

Substantive part of the paper has, however, been devoted to closely examine Dholakia-Pandya (2017) critique on the GSVA revision and offer comments on each of them. Not only many of the criticisms offered by these authors fail to stand the test of empirical scrutiny, but the abandonment of 2011-12 GSVA base series will create serious differences between the national level estimates and the state level aggregates. On a balanced consideration, this paper argues that it is neither advisable nor is it necessary to abandon the 2011-12 series of GSDP evolved on the basis of the national level revision at this stage. Some of the limitations noticed in the GSVA estimation procedures can be easily corrected by the Central Statistics Office (CSO). This has been borne out by the analysis using data compiled from Bureau of Economic and Statistics of Government of Maharashtra.

Apart from these proposals, this paper present a fresh list of suggestions for improving the 2011-12 GSDP series and expanding the coverage of state-level estimates. Amongst them that has immediate relevance include: the CSO should adopt state specific indicators wherever indicators are used either for deflation purposes or for allocation devices or for carrying forward the benchmark estimates; and, whenever CSOprepares comparableGSVAestimates, its sources and actual numbers should be transparent and open to scrutiny at the state level so that the State Directorates get a sense of involvement and participation in their own estimates.


User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • Anant, T. C. A., 2016; "IIP has limitations as a representative of aggregate growth in manufacturing", The Hindu, 20 June.
  • CSO, 2012; National Accounts Statistics: Sources and Methods 2012, National Accounts Division, Central Statistics Office (CSO), New Delhi, March.
  • CSO, 2015; Final Report of the Sub-Committee on Private Corporate Sector including PPPs, National Accounts Division, Central Statistics Office (CSO), New Delhi, February.
  • CSO, 2015a; Changes in Methodology and Data Sources in The New Series of National Accounts: Base Year 2011-12, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, New Delhi, June 26.
  • Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, 2011; Report of the Expert Committee on Agricultural Statistics (Chairman: Prof. AVaidyanathan), Directorate of Economics & Statistics, February.
  • Dholakia, Ravindra H., Manish B. Pandya and Payal M. Pateria, 2014; Measurement Issues in State Income from Registered Manufacturing Sector - Case of Gujarat, W.P. No. 2014-11-02, Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad, November.
  • Dholakia, Ravindra H. and Manish B. Pandya, 2017; ‘Critique of Recent Revisions With Base Year Change For Estimation of State Income in India’, Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol. XXIX, January-June, Nos.1& 2.
  • Government of India, 1976; Final Report of the Committee on Regional Accounts, CSO, Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, September.
  • Ministry of Mines, IBM, 2017; Indian Minerals Yearbook 2015, (Part- I), 54th Edition, State Reviews, (Gujarat)- (Final Release), Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), Nagpur, July, website: www.ibm.gov.in
  • Ministry of Mines, IBM, Indian Minerals Yearbook 2016; Vol. I - General Review (Advance Release) Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), 2009; Report of the High Level Committee on Estimation of Saving and Investment, (Chairman Dr. C. Rangarajan), Government of India, New Delhi, March.
  • Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), 2015; Press Note on New Series Estimates of National Income, Consumption Expenditure, Saving and Capital Formation (Base Year 2011-12), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), New Delhi, January 30.
  • Nagaraj, R and T.N. Srinivasan, 2016; ‘Measuring India’s GDP Growth: Unpacking the Analytics & Data Issues behind a Controversy that Refuses to Go Away’, India Policy Forum 2016, National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi, 12-13, July.
  • National Statistical Commission, 2001; Report of the National Statistical Commission, (Chairman: Dr. C. Rangarajan), Volume I and II, Government of India,NewDelhi, August http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/css_12.html
  • Rajeswari T, Reena Singh, and Ranmohan Singh, 2015; ‘Estimation of All India and State level Capital formation NSS 67th Round Survey’, The Journal of Income and Wealth, Indian Association for Research in National Income and Wealth, Volume 37, Number 1, January-June.
  • Reserve Bank of India, (RBI), 2002; Annual Report 2001-02, August 29.
  • Shetty S.L. and J.D. Rajakumar, 2017; ‘New National Accounts Series: A Review and Highlights of Crucial Issues for Debate’, Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol. XXIX, January-June 2017, No.1 & 2.
  • Srinivasan, T. N., 1994; ‘Data Base for Development Analysis: An Overview’, Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, Vol. 44, No. 1, June.
  • Srinivasan, T. N., 2003; ‘India’s Statistical System: Critiquing the Report of the National Statistical Commission’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXVIII, No 4, January 25.
  • United Nations, 1993; A System of National Accounts 1993, United Nations.
  • United Nations, 2008; A System of National Accounts 2008, United Nations.
  • Vidwans, S. M., 2002; ‘Indian Statistical System at the Crossroads I: Ominous Clouds of Centralisation’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, Nos. 37, and 39 September 14.
  • Vidwans, S. M., 2002; ‘Indian Statistical System at the Crossroads II: Expansion of National Sample Survey’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37. No.38, September 21.
  • Vidwans, S. M., 2002; ‘Indian Statistical System at the Crossroads III: Modernisation Project - Centralisation Par Excellence!’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No 39, September 28.

Abstract Views: 274

PDF Views: 0




  • Estimation of GSDP based oin the New (2011-12) GDP Series-An Evaluation of Critical Comments and a Few Suggestions

Abstract Views: 274  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

J. Dennis Rajakumar
The EPW Research Foundation, Mumbai and Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, India
S. L. Shetty
The EPW Research Foundation, Mumbai and Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, India
R. R. Shinge
The EPW Research Foundation, Mumbai and Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, India
J. V. Chaudhari
The EPW Research Foundation, Mumbai and Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, India
Mangal P. Deshpande
The EPW Research Foundation, Mumbai and Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, India

Abstract


This paper makes an attempt to have a detailed state-wise, sector-wise assessment of the changes that have occurred in the Gross State Value Added (GSVA or formerly known as Gross State Domestic Product, GSDP) estimations as per the 2011-12 series over the 2004-05 series. This paper finds that, at the aggregate level, the differences are l0% or less except for three major states, namely, Karnataka, Telengana and Uttarakhand wherein such differences have ranged from 10% to 21%. Sector-wise assessment reveals that major changes occurred in the relative share of several sectors, as in mining and quarrying, manufacturing, trade, etc., across states reflect the all-India picture, as the all-India estimates have been allocated to states based on certain chosen indicators.

Substantive part of the paper has, however, been devoted to closely examine Dholakia-Pandya (2017) critique on the GSVA revision and offer comments on each of them. Not only many of the criticisms offered by these authors fail to stand the test of empirical scrutiny, but the abandonment of 2011-12 GSVA base series will create serious differences between the national level estimates and the state level aggregates. On a balanced consideration, this paper argues that it is neither advisable nor is it necessary to abandon the 2011-12 series of GSDP evolved on the basis of the national level revision at this stage. Some of the limitations noticed in the GSVA estimation procedures can be easily corrected by the Central Statistics Office (CSO). This has been borne out by the analysis using data compiled from Bureau of Economic and Statistics of Government of Maharashtra.

Apart from these proposals, this paper present a fresh list of suggestions for improving the 2011-12 GSDP series and expanding the coverage of state-level estimates. Amongst them that has immediate relevance include: the CSO should adopt state specific indicators wherever indicators are used either for deflation purposes or for allocation devices or for carrying forward the benchmark estimates; and, whenever CSOprepares comparableGSVAestimates, its sources and actual numbers should be transparent and open to scrutiny at the state level so that the State Directorates get a sense of involvement and participation in their own estimates.


References