Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
Assessing the Infrastructure Performance of Indian States
Ramakrishna Nallathiga
Associate Professor, National Institute of Construction Management Research, 25/1,
Balewadi, Pune – 411 045 Tel: 040 6685 9146 email: ramanallathiga@yahoo.co.uk
1. Introduction
Infrastructure provides the necessary services that support economic growth by
increasing the productivity of labours and capital, thereby reducing the costs of
production and raising profitability, production, income and employment. Cross-country
empirical studies of infrastructure development impact clear indicate that the level
and quality of infrastructure significantly contributes to economic growth and
promotes more equitable development through access to the poor (Claderon and
Serven 2004). This is further asserted by recent studies e.g., Estache and Garsous
(2012). The experience of Asian economies like Japan and Korea also point to the
fact that infrastructure development has been one of the key drivers of economic
development in them (Kim 2006). However, some cross-country studies also point to
the importance of good/effective governance in overall infrastructure development
(De 2012). Extensive and efficient infrastructure is critical for ensuring the effective
functioning of any economy. However, the development of infrastructure and its growth
depend upon the peculiar priorities as well as the performance of the State governments
in a federal structure of government such as that of India.
1.1 Study Framework
India has been growing extensively in the terms of infrastructure development through
the planning and implementation project investments in the five year plans. The eleventh
five year plan had set an investment target of 1 trillion. However, some states have
grown very fast while some have been sluggish in their infrastructure development, due
to various reasons. It is in this context that an attempt has been made to assess the
performance of Indian States on infrastructure (here, only ‘Developable Infrastructure1)
1
The categories under this include Power, Roads, Railways, Posts, Telecommunication and Banking.
-1-
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
through a study using the framework of inter-State analysis. The inter-state analysis of
development performance was first brought out under the State of States survey
carried out by Bibek Debroy and Laveesh Bhandari during the years 2010-2013.
These studies were focussed on the development of States – economic, social and
human – but touched upon the importance of infrastructure development in providing
effective development. In another study by Mundle et al (2012), the authors bring out
an inter-state comparison of how the Indian States performed on governance front.
1.2 Study Methodology
The study has drawn a sample of 15 Indian States2 and compiled secondary data on the
infrastructure categories viz., roads, railways, power, postal services, telecom and
banking, over the time period of 15 years covering two point observations (1995/96 and
2005/06). The secondary data is published records of Bureau of Statistics and
Economics. The infrastructure performance of these States has been analysed first
using levels data i.e., showcasing better/poor performers by comparing with group
average. Subsequently, the growth performance has also been analysed by comparing
within the group. For a better presentation, ‘quadrant analysis’ has been done to imply
the status of States. The assessment of the Infrastructure performance of the States has
been done later with reference to each infrastructure categories through the ranking of
States in terms of levels (over two time periods – 1990/91 and 2005/06) and growth
performance. Those States that have performed on both counts have further been
categorised into – top and bottom performers. The overall assessment of infrastructure
performance of States has been done subsequently by aggregating the sector rankings
and they have further been categorised into top and bottom overall performers.
In this section, we have laid down an introduction to the study by giving background
literature, study framework and its methodology. In the next section, we discuss the
quadrant analysis of infrastructure performance of sample states. Subsequently, we will
discuss the ranking of the performance on levels and growth. Finally, we conclude with a
ranking structure based on the above assessment.
2
The sample states include: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Assam, Kerala, Rajasthan, Bihar,
Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Orissa, West Bengal
-2-
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
2. Quadrant Analysis of Infrastructure Performance of the States
Throughout the section, quadrant analysis of infrastructure performance of Indian
states has been carried out with sector levels and growth rate forming X and Y axes.
2.1 Power Sector
Figure 2.1 shows the quadrant analysis of power generation in the States.
Among the States, the four States of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and
West Bengal have been outperformers in terms of recording above average growth
and levels of power generation (top right quadrant of figure). There are a good
number of States that are poor performers (bottom left quadrant of figure).
Karnataka and Gujarat were able to achieve above average power generation but its
growth rate is below average (bottom right quadrant). Further, Rajasthan, Orissa and
Uttar Pradesh were able to achieve well above average growth rates but below the
average generation levels (top left quadrant).
Figure 2.1 Growth Vs Generation of
Power in the States
1600.00
Growth in Power Generation (%)
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
-200.00
0
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
Power Generation (2004-05)
-3-
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
2.2 Roads Sector
Figure 7.2 shows the quadrant analysis of road length in the States.
The four States of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh Orissa and Uttar Pradesh have
been outperformers in terms of recording above average growth and levels of road
formation (top right quadrant). A good number of States – Bihar, Haryana, Rajasthan
and Punjab - are poor performers (bottom left quadrant).
Karnataka, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh were able to achieve above average road
formation but their growth rate is below average (top left quadrant). Further, Tamil
Nadu, Assam, Gujarat and West Bengal were able to achieve below average growth
rates but above average levels of road length (bottom right quadrant).
Figure 2.2 Road length level vs growth in
States
80.00
Growth of road length (%)
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
-10.00 0
-20.00
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Road Length (Km)
2.3 Railway Sector
Figure 2.3 shows the quadrant analysis of railway line length in the States.
The six States of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have been outperformers in terms of recording above
-4-
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
average growth and levels of railway line formation (top right quadrant). Assam and
Bihar are the poor performers (bottom left quadrant).
There are a good number of States – Haryana, Orissa, Kerala, Punjab and West
Bengal - that were able to achieve above average growth rate but below average
railway line formation (top left quadrant). Only Madhya Pradesh achieved well below
average growth rate but above average level of railway line (bottom right quadrant).
Figure 2.3 Railwayline Length Vs Growth in the
States
20.00
10.00
0.00
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
-40.00
2.4 Postal services
Figure 2.4 shows the quadrant analysis of postal services in the States.
The States of Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh have been the
outperformers in terms of recording above average growth and levels of postal
services (top right quadrant). Assam, Haryana, Maharashtra, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh
and West Bengal are the poor performers (bottom left quadrant).
A good number of States – Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Rajasthan were able to achieve above average level of postal services level but well below
-5-
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
average growth rate (bottom right quadrant). Only Bihar and Orissa achieved above
average growth but below average service levels (top left quadrant).
Figure 2.4 Post offices Levels Vs Growth in the
States
5.00
0.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
-5.00
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
-25.00
-30.00
2.5 Telecom services
Figure 2.5 shows the quadrant analysis of telecom services in the States.
The States of Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Orissa have been outperformers in terms of
recording above average growth and levels of telecom services (top right quadrant).
Maharashtra, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh are the only poor performers (bottom
left quadrant).
A good number of States – Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Kerala and Punjab - achieved
above average growth rate but below average telecom services (top left quadrant).
Also, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan achieved below
average growth rate but above average level of telecom services (bottom right
quadrant).
-6-
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
Figure 2.5 Telephone Exchanges Levels Vs
Growth in the States
300.00
Growth of Telexes (%)
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
-50.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
-100.00
Telephone Exchanges (No.)
2.6 Banking services
Figure 2.6 shows the quadrant analysis of banking services in the States.
The States of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab and Tamil Nadu
outperformed by recording above average growth and levels of banking (top right
quadrant). Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar
Pradesh and West Bengal are poor performers (bottom left quadrant).
There is no State with above average growth rate but below average level of banking
services (top left quadrant). Only Gujarat achieved below average growth rate but is
above average level of banking services (bottom right quadrant).
-7-
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
Growth rate (%)
Figure 2.6 Bank Branches Levels Vs Growth in
the States
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
-5.00 0
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
-25.00
-30.00
-35.00
-40.00
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Bank Branches (No. per 1000 people)
3. Ranking of the States and Correlation Analysis
In this section, we perform ranking and correlation analysis of the States so as to
give their relative position on each infrastructure parameter and also to check if there
is any convergence or divergence of performance rankings.
3.1 Power Sector
Table 3.1 shows the ranking of States on power sector performance.
It can be seen that while Gujarat has more or less maintained its top ranking, the
States of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and West Bengal
have improved their ranking during the period. The States such as Assam, Bihar,
Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Kerala also went down in terms of ranking.
It can also be seen from the table that Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan and
Maharashtra have achieved top ranking in terms of growth performance in power
sector. The States of Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Assam and Bihar have failed in
terms of growth performance.
-8-
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
Table 3.1 Ranking of States on Power Sector
State
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Level Rank
(1990/91)
15
9
10
1
6
2
3
4
7
11
5
13
12
8
14
Level Rank
(2005/06)
3
14
15
2
12
6
13
10
1
11
7
8
4
9
5
Growth
rank
1
14
15
8
12
10
13
11
5
6
9
3
4
7
2
The rank correlation analysis of power generation levels (2005/06) and growth
indicate a strong correlation (Cr = 0.75), implying that larger capacity addition leads
to higher growth. Also, we may want to know if there is any effect of generation
levels at first reference time point (1990/91) on that of next reference time point
(2005/06).
The correlation analysis indicates that both of them are not related
positively and significantly (Cr=-0.06) implying the importance of capacity addition.
3.2 Roads Sector
Table 3.2 shows the ranking of States on roads sector performance.
It can be seen that while Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh have maintained the top
rankings, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Gujarat, Karnataka and West
Bengal have improved their ranking through road development during the period.
The States such as Bihar, Haryana and Punjab went down in terms of ranking (with
Assam remaining at same rank) as they appear to have not focused on this sector to
create better connectivity through construction of roads.
-9-
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
It can also be seen that Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam and Uttar
Pradesh have achieved top rankings in terms of growth performance in roads sector.
The States of Kerala, Rajasthan, Haryana, Bihar and Tamil Nadu have failed in
terms of growth performance.
Table 3.2 Ranking of States on Roads Sector
State
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Level Rank
(1990/91)
7
12
10
11
14
8
6
5
1
4
13
9
3
2
7
Level Rank
(2005/06)
4
12
13
9
15
7
8
6
1
3
14
10
5
2
4
Growth
rank
3
4
14
1
13
8
11
9
7
6
10
12
15
5
2
The rank correlation analysis of road length levels (2005/06) and growth indicate a
strong correlation between them (Cr = 0.73), implying that larger network creation
leads to higher growth. Also, we may want to know if there is any effect of road line
length at first reference time point (1990/91) on that of next reference time point
(2005/06). The correlation analysis indicates that both of them are related positively
but not significantly (Cr=0.27), implying again the importance of new projects.
3.3 Railways Sector
Table 3.3 shows the ranking of States on railways sector performance.
It can be seen that while Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Gujarat have
maintained their top rankings, the States of West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh have
improved their ranking through railway line development. The States such as Punjab,
- 10 -
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
Orissa, Kerala and Haryana remained at bottom in terms of ranking and appear to
have lost opportunity to create better connectivity through rail network development.
It can also be seen that Gujarat, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Assam and Uttar
Pradesh have achieved the top rankings in terms of growth performance in railways
sector. The States of Kerala, Rajasthan, Haryana, Bihar and Tamil Nadu have failed
in terms of growth performance.
Table 3.3 Ranking of States on Railways Sector
State
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Level Rank
(1990/91)
7
12
10
11
14
8
6
5
1
4
13
9
3
2
7
Level Rank
(2005/06)
4
12
13
9
15
7
8
6
1
3
14
10
5
2
4
Growth
rank
3
4
14
1
13
8
11
9
7
6
10
12
15
5
2
The rank correlation analysis of railway length levels (2004/05) and growth indicate
negative and weak relation between them (Cr=-0.33), implying that larger network is
a barrier to higher growth (via a lower bargain/lobbying power to States). Also, we
may want to know if there is any effect of railway line length at first reference time
point (1990/91) on that of next reference time point (2004/05).
The correlation
analysis indicates that both of them are related positively and strongly correlated (Cr
= 0.92), implying that ‘legacy’ rather than new projects holds key to performance.
3.4 Postal Sector
Table 3.4 shows the ranking of States on Postal sector performance.
- 11 -
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
It can be seen that while Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have
maintained their top rankings, the States of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh have
improved their ranking through railway line development during the period. The
States such as Haryana, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal remained at
the bottom in terms of ranking and appear to be on losing ground of communication
through postal network.
It can also be seen that Madhya Pradesh and Bihar achieved top rankings in terms
of growth performance and these are the only States with positive growth rate. The
States of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana have failed in terms of
growth performance by remaining at bottom.
Table 3.4 Ranking of States on Postal Sector
State
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Level Rank
(1990/91)
1
9
14
6
11
5
8
9
12
2
7
3
4
13
15
Level Rank
(2005/06)
2
9
11
7
13
4
8
5
12
1
10
6
3
14
15
Growth
rank
8
7
2
13
15
9
3
1
10
5
11
14
4
12
6
The rank correlation analysis of post office levels (2005/06) and growth indicate
positive and weak relation between them (Cr=0.29), thereby implying that larger
network may or may not lead to higher growth, which is the case of sector like postal
services that faces competition from private sector. Also, we may want to know if
there is any effect of post offices at first reference time point (1990/91) on that of
next reference time point (2005/06). The correlation analysis indicates that both of
- 12 -
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
them are related positively and strongly correlated (Cr = 0.9).
It implies that
‘stagnation’ or ‘decline’ in postal services that is barrier to performance.
3.5 Telecom Sector
Table 3.5 shows the ranking of States on Telecom sector performance.
It can be seen that the performance of States is highly uneven. The States of
Karnataka, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have maintained their top rankings,
while the States of Orissa, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu have
improved their relative ranking during the period (with only Andhra Pradesh having
not achieved an increase in telephone exchanges). The States such as Assam,
Bihar, Haryana and Punjab remained at the bottom in terms of ranking and appear to
be on losing ground of landline communication network.
It can also be seen that Assam, Orissa, Kerala, Bihar and Punjab have achieved top
rankings in terms of growth performance through an increase in the number of
telephone exchanges (therefore subscribers) and these are the States with positive
growth rate. The States of West Bengal, Karnataka Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh
and Maharashtra have failed in terms of growth performance to remain at bottom.
Table 3.5 Ranking of States on Telecom Sector
State
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Level Rank
(1990/91)
5
15
11
8
12
4
13
2
1
14
9
6
7
Level Rank
(2005/06)
2
15
12
3
14
6
11
5
1
13
10
8
7
- 13 -
Growth
rank
5
3
13
1
12
14
8
15
4
7
9
11
6
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
3
10
4
9
10
2
The rank correlation analysis of telephone exchange levels (2005/06) and growth
indicate positive but weak relation between them (Cr=0.17), which implies that larger
exchange base may or may not lead to higher growth, which is the case of sector
like telecom services that faces competition from private sector (mobile telephony).
Also, we may want to know if there is any effect of post offices at first reference time
point (1990/91) on that of next reference time point (2005/06).
The correlation
analysis indicates that both of them are related positively but weakly correlated (Cr =
0.03).
It implies that expansion of telecom service is not dependent upon/
constrained by ‘level at begin’.
3.6 Banking Sector
Table 3.6 shows the ranking of States on Banking sector performance.
It can be seen that while Punjab, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Haryana have
maintained their top rankings, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and
West Bengal have improved their ranking during the period. The States such as
Assam, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal remained at the bottom in terms of
ranking and appear to be not gaining much in terms of reaching out banking services
to the public at large.
It can also be seen that Kerala, Haryana, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh
achieved top rankings in terms of growth performance by registering lower decline of
bank branches (only Kerala achieved positive growth rate). The States of Assam,
Bihar, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh have registered a greater decline in bank
branches thereby remained at the bottom.
Table 8.6 Ranking of States on Banking Sector
State
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Level Rank
(1990/91)
7
15
Level Rank
(2005/06)
6
14
- 14 -
Growth
rank
2
12
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
12
4
5
2
2
7
7
7
1
7
5
12
12
14
6
4
3
1
11
8
8
1
8
4
11
11
15
13
2
6
1
14
7
7
2
7
2
10
10
N.B. Same rank is given to some States that are at same level/growth rate
The rank correlation analysis of banking levels (2005/06) and growth indicate strong
and positive relation between them (Cr=0.82), which implies that larger network
leads to higher growth (or, lower decline), which appears to be due to the effect of
presence reinforcing more patronage. Also, we may want to know if there is any
effect of banking units at first reference time point (1990/91) on that of next reference
time point (2005/06). The correlation analysis indicates that both of them are indeed
related positively and strongly correlated (Cr = 0.94). It implies that there has been
an onset of ‘stagnation’ in banking services due to the restructuring among them.
4. Findings and Conclusions
Having analysed the performance of States on individual sectors, now we conduct
the same for the infrastructure sector comprising the above sectors. For this
purpose, cumulative rankings were computed from individual sector ranking tables
(tables 3.1 through 3.6) and they were further used to construct rankings. Table 4.1
shows the overall ranking of the States on infrastructure sector performance.
It can be seen from the table that Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat have
maintained their top rankings at two different time periods, while the States of
Andhra Pradesh and Orissa have improved their rankings significantly to reach top
- 15 -
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
positions.
Andhra Pradesh, in particular, has moved up by 7 ranks to become
overall ranked 1 on infrastructure, which is a big achievement.
The States such as Rajasthan Kerala and Punjab have performed modestly with
their rankings remaining more or less constant during the period. Further, the States
of Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, which were good in rankings at begin slipped
down to become the States of modest performance. The States of Assam, Bihar,
Haryana and West Bengal remained at the bottom in terms of ranking.
It can also be seen that Andhra Pradesh and Orissa have top ranked in terms of
growth performance, followed by Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. Modest
growth performance on overall infrastructure has been shown by the States of
Punjab, Assam, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana and Rajasthan. The States of
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have achieved bottom
rankings by showing lower growth performance.
Table 4.1 Overall Ranking of States on Infrastructure
State
Level Rank
(1990/91)
8
Level Rank
(2005/06)
1
Assam
15
15
9
Bihar
13
14
15
Gujarat
4
4
7
Haryana
13
13
13
Karnataka
2
5
11
Kerala
9
11
5
Madhya Pradesh
1
8
14
Maharashtra
3
2
6
Orissa
11
9
3
Punjab
9
10
8
Rajasthan
7
7
10
Tamil Nadu
5
3
4
Uttar Pradesh
5
6
11
West Bengal
12
12
2
Andhra Pradesh
Growth
rank
N.B. Same rank is given to some States that are at same level/growth rate
- 16 -
1
Paper for 20th Thinkers and Writers Forum of Skoch Summit, June 2014
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on the Draft report of the research work carried out as a part of
the institute sponsored research project entitled “An assessment of infrastructure
levels and performance”. The author thanks the Director General, National Institute
of Construction Management and Research (NICMAR), Pune for the sanction of
project. He is also thankful to Dr Mona Shah, Dean, School of Project, Real estate
and Infrastructure Management, NICMAR, Pune for the comments on Draft Report.
References
Bae, Suho., 2012, The Effects of Economic Performance on Infrastructure Spending at the
State and Local Levels, World Political Science Review, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 330349
Bibek Debroy and Laveesh Bhandari (2013), The State of States: The Best Performing
States of India, India Today, December 30, 2013 (p 38-62)
Bibek Debroy and Laveesh Bhandari (2012), The State of States: The Best Performing
States of India, India Today, December , 2012
Claderon, C and L Serven, 2004, The Effects of Infrastructure Development on Growth and
Income Distribution, Working Paper No. 270, Central Bank of Chile, Chile
Dash, L. N., 2007, Economics of Infrastructure: Growth and Development, Regal
Publications, New Delhi
De, Prabir, 2012, Does Governance Matter for Infrastructure Development? Empirical
Evidence from Asia, Journal of Infrastructure Development, Volume 4, No. 2, pp 153180
Estache, A. and G Garsous, 2012, The impact of infrastructure on economic growth in
developing countries, IFC Economic Notes No. 1, International Finance Corporation,
Washington DC
Kim, Byongyuki, 2006, Infrastructure Development for Economic Development in Developing
Countries: Lessons from Korea and Japan, GSICS Working Paper 11, Kobe
University, Japan
Mundle, S., P. Chakrabaorty, S. Chowdhury and S Sikdar, 2012, The Quality of Governance:
How have Indian States Performed, Economic and Political Weekly of India, Vol
XLVII, No. 49, pp 41-51
Purie, Arun 2012, India Today: State of the States 2012, India Today, New Delhi
- 17 -