PROJECT REPORT ON
EFFECT OF POOR
INFRASTRUCTURE
FACILITIES ON SOCIO
ECONOMIC CHANGES
Submitted by
1 Angad BIR Singh -21432
FACULTY
SAUMYA JAIN
EFFECT OF POOR INFRASTRUCTURE
FACILITIES ON SOCIO ECONOMIC
CHANGES
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this is to reveal the effect of poor infrastructure facilities and advancement in a
socio-economic condition in rural areas of developing countries. Today, inadequate infrastructure is
recognised as a concern. It is crucial to understand that the majority of the poor reside in rural areas,
including Khana Local Government Area, which is marked by a lack of or poor access to
infrastructure like electricity, good roads, portable drinking water, a reliable communication system,
health centres, recreation areas, and so forth. Lack of amenities makes living difficult and makes it
difficult to access portable drinking water, a good communication system, health centres, recreation
areas, and other things. Rural life is harsh and unattractive due to a lack of facilities. The growth and
development of a nation's economy are closely related to its infrastructure. By enabling access to
fundamental requirements like health care, education, food resources, transportation, employment
possibilities, and more, it serves as a catalyst for the creation of solutions to end poverty.
Additionally, it boosts productivity and raises living standards in numerous areas. The structures,
facilities, and processes that help a nation run are referred to as its infrastructure. These consist of
infrastructure such as structures, roads, bridges, airports, airways, electricity supply, water and
sewage systems, telecommunications networks, and more. The chain of production is disturbed
when these infrastructures are not functioning properly. This interference slows down development,
which results in an economic deficit and lower-than-average living standards. This leads to a
deteriorating quality of life for people in this community. It means they’re also unable to contribute
to the economic activity of the municipality in which they live, therefore, unable to contribute to the
national economy at large.
2 INTRODUCTION
The importance of infrastructure for economic growth and development in rural area can hardly be
overemphasised in a developing economy like India. With poor rural infrastructure, even a marginal
improvement in its quantity and quality could significantly improve economic development and
human well-being. Improving basic infrastructure, such as roads, transport, electricity,
telecommunications, housing, health, water and sanitation, is essential for development and wellbeing of the rural population. The development of rural infrastructure could promote economic
growth, improve the standard of living of the population and reduce the incidence of poverty by
generating both farm and non-farm employment and earning opportunities, increasing productivity,
providing access to basic goods and services and improving the health and physical condition of
people (NCAER, 2007). Empirical studies also report a strong relationship between infrastructure,
economic growth, rural development and poverty reduction. In spite of the crucial importance of
infrastructure, significant deficiencies have persisted in rural infrastructure across Indian states. The
quantity and quality of infrastructure facilities are substantially lower in rural areas than in urban
areas. A relatively low density of population, low household incomes and the absence of scale
economies are considered to be challenges to the expansion of basic infrastructure facilities in rural
areas. The present study evaluates the status of rural infrastructure facilities in 16 major states of
India, and examines the impacts of infrastructure on some income and non-income dimensions of
rural development. The states included in this study are: Andhra Pradesh (AP), Assam, Bihar, Gujarat,
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh (HP), Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh (MP), Maharashtra, Odisha,
Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu (TN), Uttar Pradesh (UP) and West Bengal (WB). The data set used in
the study was compiled from the various sources cited. The rest of the paper is organised as follows.
The second section reviews the literature evaluating the relationship between infrastructure and
economic development with special reference to rural development; the third section reviews the
Indian government’s initiatives for and expenditure on rural infrastructure; the fourth section
evaluates the status of rural infrastructure; the fifth section empirically examines the nexus between
infrastructure and rural development and the sixth section concludes.
2. Energy and poverty
2.1. Energy and Human Development Index (HDI)
Energy influences socio-economic condition of developing countries as shown in Fig. 1. In particular,
access to modern energy like electricity will drastically improve the quality of life of those who do
not have yet. There has also been increasing attention on poverty reduction through energy access
improvement among international organizations in the energy field. For example, recently the
International Energy Agency (IEA) has been focusing on the topic through the improvement of
energy demand and supply situations in developing countries, devoting a chapter to explain the
roles of energy for the development in its World Energy Outlook 2002 (IEA, 2002). It mentions that
some 2.4 billion people depend on traditional biomass such as wood, agricultural residues, and dung
for their cooking and heating demand and that there is one fourth of the world’s population, about
1.6 billion people, who does not have access to electricity. Furthermore, most of them are in rural
areas. It is estimated that 2.6 billion people will not improve their energy situation for cooking and
heating and 1.4 billion people will not have electricity access by 2030. The lack of energy access
also causes
also causes serious adverse effects on the socio-economic condition of rural population. Therefore,
achieving energy access improvement has huge impacts on people’s lives in rural areas of the
developing countries. Nowadays, development strategy has been increasingly focusing on
microlevel, or software of the developmental issues, in other words, human development. Access to
modern energy enables people to not only have economic opportunities for income generation but
also save their time from time-consuming drudgery and allocate to more enjoyable or educational
activities. Considering electricity as a representative of modern energy, electricity consumption has
significant correlation with GDP as well as HDI for 120 countries, and the countries which mark high
consumption level of per capita electricity, attain upper rank of both economic activities (GDP per
capita) and HDI as shown Figs. 2 and 3, respectively.
3.Review of Literature
The role of infrastructure in fostering economic development and progress has received a great deal
of attention in the literature. In economic development generally and agricultural development
specifically, the significance of social overhead capital has long been acknowledged (see, for
instance, Hirschman, 1958; Mellor, 1976; Rosenstein-Rodan, 1943; Rostow, 1960; Wharton, 1967).
Not for use in commerce The Journal of Applied Economic Research, 11: 3, pp. 256-289, 2017. By
increasing productivity and reducing manufacturing costs, infrastructure quickens the pace of
economic expansion. Carlsson, Otto, and Hall (2013) highlight the significance of transportation and
digital communications infrastructure in economic growth by lowering the cost of trade, critiquing
the existing growth theories for not explicitly considering infrastructure as an input in the production
function, and exploring the mechanisms through which infrastructure can influence economic
growth.
in India has been extensively examined in the literature. States with better infrastructure facilities
are more attractive for domestic and foreign private investment, and perform better in terms of
economic growth. Disparities in per capita income across states have been attributed to inter-state
disparities in physical, social and financial infrastructures (see, for example, Ghosh, 2012; Ghosh &
De, 1998, 2004; Lall, 1999). Sahoo and Dash (2009, 2012) and Dash and Sahoo (2010) report that
physical and social infrastructures have played an important role in economic growth in India and
some other South Asian countries, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. They observe a
unidirectional causality running from infrastructure development to output growth. Chatterjee
(2005), Demurger (2001), Sahoo, Dash and Nataraj (2010) and Stephane, Vellutin and Warlters
(2007) explain China’s high economic growth and regional disparities in terms of infrastructure. Like
general infrastructure, rural infrastructure also contributes to rural economic growth and poverty
alleviation by enhancing agricultural productivity, increasing rural farm and non-farm employment
and improving living standard of the rural population. It is argued that ‘Roads, electricity supplies,
telecommunications, and other infrastructure services are limited in all rural areas, although they
are of key importance to stimulate agricultural investment and growth’ (FAO, 1996, Chapter 10, p.
15). It is also argued that human well-being in terms of education and health depends crucially on
infrastructure services, such as safe drinking water and sanitation to prevent disease, electricity to
serve schools and health centres and roads to access basic necessities for human life (Datt &
Ravallion, 1998). The lack of infrastructure is considered a major barrier to sustainable human
development. An excellent and comprehensive overview of the various aspects of rural
infrastructure in India is available in Satish (2007) The role of rural infrastructure in rural
development has been evaluated in the literature mostly by examining the impacts of specific
infrastructure indicators on various aspects of rural development. However, the relationship
between rural development and various composite indices of rural infrastructure has not been
adequately examined, largely due to the lack of adequate data on rural infrastructural indicators, on
the basis of which composite indices can be constructed. Moreover, the status of rural infrastructure
facilities and variations across Indian states at different time-points has not been given adequate
attention in the literature. This article makes a comprehensive study of rural infrastructure in India
by evaluating individual and composite indices across 16 major states, analysing their variations,
classifying states into categories based on their achievements in infrastructure building and, finally,
examining the effects of individual indicators and composite indices of rural infrastructure on
various dimensions of rural development
4. Initiatives and Expenditure on Rural
Infrastructure
As on 31 March 2016 since its inception, around 0.582 million projects and a cumulative RIDF (RIDFI–XXI) assistance of `2,601,585.5 million (including Bharat Nirman) were sanctioned. Rural
connectivity (roads and bridges) cumulatively accounted for the highest share (42 per cent) followed
by agriculture and related sectors (40 per cent) and social sector projects (15 per cent) (NABARD,
2016). A review of the performance of RIDF scheme is available in Dadhich (2014). Under the
Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Programme (AIBP) for accelerating the implementation of
major/medium irrigation projects, a cumulative amount of `663,670.9 million was allocated of which
`638,112.6 million (96.14 per cent) was released during 1996/97–2014/15, and irrigation potential
on 7,247.69 thousand hectares of land was created up to 1 March 2013. Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak
Yojana (PMGSY) was launched in December 2000 to provide all-weather road connectivity to eligible
unconnected habitations. A total amount of `1,193,770.7 million was released during 2006/07–
2015/16, and a total amount of `1,160,006 million was spent on road works during 2007/08–
2015/16. As on 31 January 2012, 220,612 km of road length was constructed during 2007–12, and
222,035.49 km of road length was completed, connecting 46,221 habitations during 2009/10–
2014/15. Moreover, as on 10 March 2016, 190,413.9 km of road length was completed and
258,189.88 km of road was upgraded under the rural road component of the Bharat Nirman
programme. Under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY), which was launched to (i)
electrify all the villages, (ii) provide electricity to all rural households and (iii) provide electricity
connection to all the households below poverty line (BPL) free of charge, a total amount `138,698.3
million was disbursed during 2010/11–2014/15.
Most of the rural infrastructure services (roads, water supply including drinking water, minor
irrigation, water management and watershed development, health and sanitation and housing) are
under the control of state governments, while the central government manages rural electricity and
telecommunications. Nevertheless, the central government has been contributing significantly to
the development of rural infrastructure. Its spending on rural infrastructure has increased
tremendously since 2000–01, particularly after 2005, when the rural infrastructure programme,
Bharat Nirman, was launched to improve roads, electricity, irrigation, drinking water,
telecommunications and housing in rural areas. Table 1 reveals a four-fold increase in total
expenditure on rural infrastructure between 2000/01 and 2010/11, but a subsequent decline in
2011–12 from the previous year. During the entire period (2000–12), rural roads received the
highest share, followed by drinking water and sanitation, rural housing and irrigation; the lowest
expenditure was on the provision of urban amenities to rural areas programme (PURA)
2.2. Energy and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
The MDGs are the numerical target that should be met by the year 2015 and were adopted at the
UN General Assembly in 2000. The MDGs consist of eight goals as shown below (UN, 2006):
Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender
equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS,
malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership
for development. The Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom
mentions links between energy and the MDGs, classifying into direct and indirect contributions
(DfID, 2002). For one of the MDGs, gender equality and women’s empowerment, energy access
improvement directly contributes to freeing up women and girls from time-consuming housework
such as laundry, cleaning, etc. by utilization of electricity. In addition, through reduction of timeconsuming chores and attainment of energy services, it has indirect contributions for women to
have opportunity to attend schools or educational activities as well as take into a part in the labor
market or establish small enterprises. As a result, gender equality and empowerment of women are
promoted. Of the various socio-economic conditions, education is one of the most indispensable
components to be considered in order for developing countries to achieve poverty alleviation. 2.3.
Energy and education Education is also widely recognized as one of the most essential components
for poverty reduction according to current discourses of developmental studies, which conclude that
inequality of income affects opportunities of education. Moreover, primary education generally
shows the highest return to investment. Poor households attain less enrollment and completion of
schools because direct and indirect educational expenditures are considerable burdens. This results
in a perceptibly lower literacy rate of these households than that of middle or high income
households. Such low-level attainment of education causes a lack of employment opportunity for
poor households, and, even though there is the opportunity, these poor households cannot earn
sufficiently for their basic needs Along with the effects on economic condition, through educational
achievement poor people are able to attain confidence, sociality, concern for society, participation
for social activity, resistance for oppression, and involvement in the political processes. Furthermore,
education has not only direct effects on those who are educated but also external and indirect
effects on their household/family, community, and society toward poverty reduction (Okada, 2004).
Energy access improvement, in particular access to electricity, has huge impacts on education. For
example, it reduces such drudgery and allows children to expand their opportunity for school
attendance and other educational activities. Also, due to electrification, rural households obtain
sufficient luminescence for study in a household at night and are able to utilize TV, radio, and
Information and Communication Technologies for educational purposes. Thus, access to electricity
and other modern energy creates child-friendly educational environment, and, in fact, electricity
consumption per capita is related to the education index, a component of HDI, as shown in Fig. 4
(IEA, 2005; UNDP, 2004).
5. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design and Target Population This study employed a descriptive design
. It is quantitative in nature. In analytical research, the researchers have to use facts or information
already available, and analyze them to make a critical evaluation of the material. The function of
research design is to provide for the collection of relevant information with minimal expenditure of
effort, time and money (Catherin, .R, & Ranji, 2002). The study was conducted in survey research
approach. Surveys are information-collecting methods to describe, compare, or explain individual
and societal knowledge, feelings, values, preferences, and behavior (Fink, 2009). This study was
conducted between Benadir region and Hir-shabelle regional autonomy. The researchers selected
those regions because they are the main regions that have had trade relationships. The sample size
of this study consisted of 90 respondents respectively. 3.2. Sampling Procedure In this study,
purposive sampling technique was employed According to Amin (2005). Purposive sampling is the
type of sampling where the researcher uses his/her judgment or common sense regarding
participants from whom the information was collected. The researchers used purposive sampling in
order to choose the respondents they believe to have the information concerned the study by using
their own judgment, and then the researchers distributed the questionnaire to respondents.
Moreover, the researchers chose purposive sampling because the researchers wanted to get the key
informants of this study, for that reason; selecting the respondents is more useful for this study than
the representativeness of the sample.
4. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
4.1. Profile of the Respondents The profile of the respondents was analyzed and the following tables
present gender, age marital status and education
4.Analyzed areas
The results convincingly establish the importance of electricity, irrigation and roads for growth in
agricultural output and productivity, the coefficients of these infrastructure variables being positive
and significant in all the equations for agricultural development. Roads turn out to be significant also
for poverty reduction and human development in terms of improvements in education and health;
electricity is found to play a significant role in reducing rural poverty and improving literacy and life
expectancy; tele-density turns out to be significant in increasing per worker productivity and rural
literacy and in reducing infant mortality; pucca houses are found to be significant in reducing
poverty and infant mortality and in improving life expectancy. While accessibility by roads is
important for agricultural growth, poverty alleviation and human development, the quality of the
road (surfaced road) turns out to be significant in improving rural literacy only but for the other
developmental variables. Access to safe drinking water appears to play no significant role in rural
development, the coefficient of PHDW being statistically insignificant in all the equations. As the
regression equations are specified in the double-log form, the coefficients of the explanatory
variables are estimates of the infrastructure elasticity of development, measuring responsiveness of
the developmental variables to additional investment in various infrastructures. Judged by the
magnitude of the absolute values of the significant coefficients, electricity, irrigation and roads are
found to be most important for agricultural development. Similarly, housing, electricity and roads
turn out to be most important for improving literacy and life expectancy, and reducing poverty and
infant mortality; telecommunications turns out to be the next important variable for improving
worker productivity and literacy, and reducing infant mortality, while the quality of roads appears to
be most significant for rural literacy only. These results suggest that the government should
prioritise additional investments in electricity, roads, irrigation, housing and telecommunications for
enhancing agricultural productivity, improving rural literacy and life expectancy, and reducing rural
poverty and infant mortality.
6. Summary and Conclusions
We have evaluated the status of rural infrastructure facilities in 16 major states of India, and
examined their impacts on some income and non-income dimensions of rural development. In spite
of several public initiatives for infrastructure development in rural India, infrastructure facilities are
still inadequate and progress has been mostly unsatisfactory with differential performance across
states. Variations in the level of infrastructure facilities across states may be Not for commercial use
286 Margin—The Journal of Applied Economic Research 11 : 3 (2017): 256–289 attributed, in
general, to inter-state variations in the amount of funds disbursed and utilised under various
schemes for infrastructure building, and in the extent of implementation of programmes and their
physical outcomes. The inadequacy of infrastructure has serious implications for agricultural
productivity, rural poverty and human development. Estimating the effects of the composite
indices/individual indicators of rural infrastructure on various dimensions of rural development, we
have found that better physical and social infrastructure facilities and livelihood opportunities
improve rural literacy and life expectancy, and reduce rural poverty and infant mortality, by raising
agricultural productivity and output. Among various infrastructure indicators, electricity, irrigation
and roads have been most important for agricultural productivity and output growth, poverty
reduction and human development in terms of improvements in health and education. Accessibility
through roads turns out to be more important than the quality of roads in bringing about socioeconomic changes in rural areas. Telecommunications have been significant in raising workers’
productivity and rural literacy, and in reducing infant mortality; housing has been important for
reducing poverty and infant mortality, and improving life expectancy. The estimates of infrastructure
elasticity of rural development, indicating the relative importance of various infrastructure indicators
in rural development, suggest that the government should prioritise additional investments in
infrastructure towards electricity, roads, irrigation, housing and telecommunications for achieving
growth in agricultural productivity and output, improvements in literacy and life expectancy and
reductions in poverty and infant mortality. In view of the prevailing inadequacy of various
infrastructure facilities, in spite of their proven importance in rural development, this study
advocates appropriate policies and programmes with effective implementation to ensure universal
coverage and access to basic infrastructure facilities for all villages and households in rural India.
Needless to say, the developmental outcomes of various infrastructures depend on their quality,
maintenance and management, apart from their levels. Appropriate steps should be taken for
improving governance, delivery mechanisms and efficiency of local level institutions to ensure
various infrastructure services to the rural people.
References
Antle, J.M. (1984). Human capital, infrastructure, and the productivity of Indian rice farmers. Journal
of Development Economics, 14(1), 163–81. Bansal, A.N., & Patil, B.R. (1979). Socio-economic impact
of roads on village development. New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Policy Research.
Bhalla, G.S., & Singh, G. (2012). Economic liberalization and Indian agriculture. New Delhi: SAGE
Publications. Bhatia, M.S. (1999). Rural infrastructure and growth in agriculture. Economic and
Political Weekly, 34(13), A43–48. Binswanger, H.P., Khandker, S.R., & Rosenzweig, M.R. (1993). How
infrastructure and financial institutions affect agricultural output and investment in India. Journal of
Development Economics, 41(2), 337–66. Carlsson, R., Otto, A., & Hall, J.W. (2013). The role of
infrastructure in macroeconomic growth theories. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems,
30(3–4), 263–73. Chakraborty, D., & Guha, A. (2009). Infrastructure and economic growth in India:
Analysing the village-level connectivity scenario of the states. Journal of Infrastructure Development,
1(1), 67–86. Chatterjee, S. (2005). Poverty reduction strategies—Lessons from the Asian and Pacific
region on inclusive development. Asian Development Review, 22(1), 12–44. Dadhich, C.L. (2014).
Revisiting the rural infrastructure development fund (RIDF) scheme. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 69(1), 142–49. Dash, R.K., & Sahoo, P. (2010). Economic growth in India: The role of
physical and social infrastructure. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 13(4), 373–85. Datt, G., &
Ravallion, M. (1998). Why have some Indian states done better than others at reducing rural
poverty? Economica, 65(257), 17–38. Demurger, S. (2001). Infrastructure development and
economic growth: An explanation for regional disparities in China. Journal of Comparative
Economics, 29(1), 95–117. Ellis, F.M.K., & Nyasulu, A. (2003). Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction
in Malawi. World Development, 31(9), 1495–1510. Estache, A., & Wodon, Q. (2014). Infrastructure
and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Fan, S., & Hazell, P.B.R. (1999).
Are returns to public investments lower in less-favoured rural areas? An empirical analysis of India.
EPTD Discussion Paper 43, Washington, DC: Environment and Production Technology Division,
International Food Policy Research Institute
FAO. (1996). Technical background documents (vol. 2, pp. 6–11). World Food Summit, Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Ghosh, M. (2012). Regional economic growth
and inequality in India during the pre- and post-reform periods. Oxford Development Studies, 40(2),
190–212. Ghosh, B., & De, P. (1998). Role of infrastructure in regional development: A study of India
over the plan period. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(47–48), 3039–48. ———. (2004). How do
different categories of infrastructure affect development? Evidence from Indian states. Economic
and Political Weekly, 39(42), 4645–57. Government of India. (2002). National human development
report 2001. New Delhi: Oxford University Press and Planning Commission. ———. (2007). Annual
report 2006–07. New Delhi: Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communications &
Information Technology. ———. (2010). Infrastructure statistics 2010. New Delhi: Central Statistical
Organisation, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Retrieved 5 December 2014, from
http://mospi.nic.in ———. (2013). Annual report 2012–13. New Delhi: Department of
Telecommunication, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology. Howe, J.D., & Richards,
P.J. (1984). Rural roads and poverty alleviation: A study prepared for ILO within the framework of
world employment programme. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Hirschman, A.O.
(1958). The strategy of economic development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. IDFC. (2013).
India rural development report 2012–13. Delhi: Orient BlackSwan. Jacoby, H. (1998). Access to
markets and the benefits of rural roads. Washington, DC: Development Research Group-Rural
Development, World Bank. Jahan, S., & McCleery, R. (2005). Making infrastructure work for the
poor. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Jayaraman, R., & Lanjouw, P. (1998). The
evolution of poverty and inequality in Indian villages. Policy Research Working Paper No. 1870,
Washington, DC: Development Research Group-Rural Development, World Bank. Lall, S.V. (1999).
The role of public infrastructure investments in regional development— Experience of Indian states.
Economic and Political Weekly, 34(12), 717–35. Lanjouw. P., Quizon, J., & Sparrow, R. (2001). Nonagricultural earnings in peri-urban areas of Tanzania: Evidence from household survey data. Food
Policy, 26(4), 385–403. Lebo, J., & Schelling, D. (2001). Design and appraisal of rural transport
infrastructure: Ensuring basic access for rural communities. Technical Paper No. 496, Washington,
DC: World Bank. Li, Z., & Liu, X. (2009). The effects of rural infrastructure development on
agricultural production technical efficiency: Evidence from data from the second national
agricultural census of China. Presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economist
Conference, Beijing, China, 16–22 August. Malhotra, R. (2014). India public policy report 2014. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press. Mellor, J.W. (1976). The new economics of growth: Strategy for India
and the developing world. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. NABARD. (2016). Annual
report 2015–16. Mumbai: National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). NCAER.
(2007). India rural infrastructure report. New Delhi: SAGE Publications and National Council of
Applied Economic Research