See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360587772

Inclusive Growth in India and its Elements: A Review

Article · May 2022

CITATIONS READS
0 198

3 authors, including:

Dharm Pal Malik K.K. Kundu

16 PUBLICATIONS 105 CITATIONS

CCS Haryana Agricultural University
16 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dharm Pal Malik on 14 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development
Vol. 16(3), September-December 2021, 833-843

Inclusive Growth in India and its Elements: A Review

Nisha1, D.P. Malik2 and K.K. Kundu3

1
Ph.D. Scholar, 2Professor & Head, 3Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, CCS Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar-125004, Haryana

ABSTRACT
India is 5th in the world in terms of Gross Domestic Product. Its GDP in nominal prices was Rs. 190.1 lakh crore (US$
2.7 trillion) in 2018-19. As reported by UNDP, India ranks 129th in Human Development Index with a value of 0.649.
India ranks 62 among 74 emerging economies in Inclusive Development Index. Several schemes are being implemented
by the government for inclusive growth. MGNREGA has benefitted 22.5 per cent of the rural households by
providing wage employment for about 43 days. It has increased the income of rural households and has been
successful in reducing the poverty level by 4 per cent. PM-KISAN has helped those who are relatively more dependent
on agriculture. It is critical that the policy recommendations are in accordance with inclusive development of the
country. This requires a holistic approach that considers factors such as education, health, skill development and social
inclusion including employment.

Keywords: Agriculture, Gross domestic product, Inclusive growth, Poverty, Social sector development

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) defines inclusive growth as the
economic growth that is distributed fairly across society
and creates opportunities for all people. The top 10 per
cent of income earners take home over ten times more
pay than the bottom 10 per cent. Sreedhar (2017) in his
study confirmed that the poorest 40 per cent of the world’s
population account for only 5.0 per cent of world income.
On the other hand, the richest 20 per cent account for 75
per cent of global income. We need to develop new and
improved models and focus on ensuring growth that
actually improves lives of people. In other words, inclusive
economic growth is not only about expanding national
economies but also about ensuring that benefits must reach
the most vulnerable sections of the society. The “equality
of opportunity” and “participation in growth by all” with
a special focus on the working poor and the
unemployed are the very basis of inclusive growth
(UNDP).
The growth of Indian economy is projected at rate
of 5.8 per cent in 2020. India’s per capita income, a gauge
for measuring living standard, is estimated to be Rs. 96,563
(2018-19). India’s GDP in nominal prices was Rs. 190.10
lakh crores (US$ 2.7 trillion) in 2018-19 (Economic Affairs,
2018-19). Although India is 5th in the world in terms of
GDP but exclusion in terms of low agricultural growth
rate, poor education, inadequate healthcare services, low
quality employment, rural-urban divide, social inequalities
and regional disparities etc. are the key problems for the
nation. Child labour, illiteracy, poverty, poor quality of
education and women harassment etc. are some vital factors
which demand the importance of inclusive growth in
India.
Developing India’s stellar gross domestic product
(GDP) growth rates have concealed rapidly rising relative
and absolute inequalities, leading to two faces of India
(Shukla, 2009). ‘The Shining India’ segment can be said to
have propelled India to its present rates of remarkable
sustained economic growth. It constitutes India’s captains
of industry, its industrialists, its enterprising businessmen,
India’s middle-middle class and upper-middle class.
Whereas, a “suffering India”, not as well publicized by
media but even more significant, constitutes the population
who are underprivileged and helpless. India is a country
where 102 billionaires (Forbes, 2020) live alongside 230
million others living below poverty line without basic
everyday necessities. These two faces of India are both a
symbol of hope and a sign of despair. Merging these two

*Corresponding author email id: nishasharma890481@gmail.com

834 Nisha et al.
faces will bring what we referred to as the Inclusive Growth.
Inclusive growth was targeted for sustainable development
and impartial distribution of wealth in India during 11th
and 12th five year plan.
Global Economy
India is 5th in the world in terms of Gross Domestic
Product. Its GDP in nominal prices was Rs. 190.1 lakh
crore (US$ 2.7 trillion) in 2018-19. As reported by UNDP,
India ranks 129th in Human Development Index with a
value of 0.649. India, with an improving trend, ranks 62 nd
out of 74 emerging economies in Inclusive Development
Index. The country performs best (44th) in terms of
Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability, profiting from
a low dependency ratio that is set to further decline as the
economy reaps the dividends of an extremely young
population (28% of the Indian population was younger
than 14 years in 2017). However, despite this, India is
ranked below the neighbouring countries of Pakistan (47),
Sri Lanka (40) and Nepal (22) in terms of Inclusive
Development Index.
Scenario of Indian Economy
India’s GDP at current market prices and constant market
prices stood at 204.4 and 147.8 Rs. Lakh crores (2019-20)
respectively with an annual growth rate of 5 per cent
(Economic Affairs, 2018-19). The per capita net national
income at current prices was estimated Rs. 1,35,050 (2019-
20) showing a rise of 6.8 per cent as compared to Rs.
1,26,406 (2018-19) with the growth rate of 10.0 per cent
(PIB, Govt. of India). The growth rate in Gross Value
Added (GVA) at constant prices is 5.8 per cent (2017-18)
and the share of primary, secondary and tertiary sectors is
19.5, 27.0 and 53.5 per cent respectively. The per capita
income of India at constant prices has increased from Rs.
63462 in 2011-12 to Rs. 96563 in 2019-20. The share of
agriculture and allied sectors in total GVA of the country
is Rs. 3047187 crore. The overall farm mechanization in
India is about 40 per cent, which is lower compared to
China (59.5%) and Brazil (75%). Indian tractor industry is
the largest in the world, accounting for one-third of the
total global tractor production. The total tractor sales have
increased from 6.26 lakh in 2015-16 to 8.97 lakh in 2018-
19. The milk production of country has also increased
from 4.64 million tonnes in 2010-11 to 6.47 million tonnes
in 2018-19 with a growth rate of 6.47 per cent.
India with a value of 0.649 stood at 129th position in
terms of Human Development Index (HDI) among 189
countries, Norway being on the top with value 0.954.
Among G20 economies, India ranks second last, ahead
of only South Africa. Though the incidence of poverty
has declined in India over the past five years, 6 out of 10
Indians still live on less than $3.20 per day. Both labor
productivity and GDP per capita posted strong growth
rates over the past five years, while employment growth
has slowed. Healthy life expectancy also increased by
approximately three years reached to 59.6 years. According
to the study, Norway tops the chart followed by Iceland
and Luxemburg in advanced economies.
Scenario of Haryana
The Economic Survey of Haryana reveals that the Gross
State Domestic Product of Haryana has increased from
Rs. 297538.52 in 2011-12 to Rs. 531085.19 in 2018-19.
The per capita income of Haryana has increased from Rs.
106085 in 2011-12 to Rs. 180026 in 2019-20. The share
of Agriculture and allied sector, Industry sector and Service
sector in state’s economy is 16.6, 32.8 and 50.6 per cent
respectively.
Elements of Inclusive Growth
Several factors as inter-related components of inclusive
growth strategy comprised of expansion of investment
in rural areas, improvement in rural infrastructure, increase
in rural employment, access to essential services by all the
people of society, good governance, women
empowerment, increase in public spending on healthcare
and education, skill building and equality of opportunity.
The major elements of Inclusive Growth can be
summarized as-
1. Poverty reduction: The poverty ratio has declined from
45.3 per cent in 1993-95 to 18.7 per cent in 2013-14 and
the number of poor persons has declined from 403.7
million to 230.8 million during the same period (Table 1
and 2). Chhattisgarh have the maximum number of people
i.e. 104.11 lakhs (39.93 per cent of total population) below
poverty line. In Haryana, about 11 per cent of the total
population is under the below poverty line. There are many
poverty alleviation programs like Jawahar Gram Samridhi
Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Gramin Awaas Yojana, Integrated
Rural Development Programme, National Old Age
Pension Scheme etc being implemented by government
of India. Bayineni (2006) in his study explained about the
philosophy underlying these programs i.e. to reduce the
rural poverty by providing training to the poor for raising
 Inclusive Growth in India and its Elements: A Review 835

Table 1: Number and percentage of population below poverty line in India: 2011-2012
Geographical State/ UT Population below poverty line
Zones Rural Urban Total
No. of persons % of No. of persons % of No. of persons % of
(lakhs) persons (lakhs) persons (lakhs) persons
Western Rajasthan 84.19 16.05 18.73 10.69 102.92 14.72
Gujarat 75.35 21.5 26.88 10.14 102.23 16.63
Maharashtra 150.56 24.22 47.36 9.12 197.92 17.35
Goa 0.37 6.81 0.38 4.09 0.75 5.09
North-western Punjab 13.35 7.66 9.82 9.24 23.18 8.26
Haryana 19.42 11.64 9.41 10.28 28.83 11.16
Uttar Pradesh 479.35 30.4 118.84 26.06 598.19 29.43
Southern Tamil Nadu 59.23 15.83 23.4 6.54 82.63 11.28
Karnataka 92.8 24.53 36.96 15.25 129.76 20.91
Kerala 15.48 9.14 8.46 4.97 23.95 7.05
Andhra Pradesh 61.8 10.96 16.98 5.81 78.78 9.2
Eastern Bihar 320.4 34.06 37.75 31.23 358.15 33.74
West Bengal 141.14 22.52 43.83 14.66 184.98 19.98
Orissa 126.14 35.69 12.39 17.29 138.53 32.59
Jharkhand 104.09 40.84 20.24 24.83 124.33 36.96
Central Madhya Pradesh 190.95 35.74 43.1 21 234.06 31.65
Chhattisgarh 88.9 44.61 15.22 24.75 104.11 39.93
Hill states Himachal Pradesh 5.29 8.48 0.3 4.33 5.59 8.06
Uttarakhand 8.25 11.62 3.35 10.48 11.6 11.26
J&K 10.73 11.54 2.53 7.2 13.27 10.35
North-eastern Assam 92.06 33.89 9.21 30.49 101.27 31.98
Tripura 4.49 16.53 0.75 7.42 5.24 14.05
Mizoram 1.91 35.43 0.37 6.36 2.27 20.4
Meghalaya 3.04 12.53 0.57 9.26 3.61 11.87
Manipur 7.45 38.8 2.78 32.59 10.22 36.89
Nagaland 2.76 19.93 1 16.48 3.76 18.88
Arunachal Pradesh 4.25 38.93 0.66 20.33 4.91 34.67
Sikkim 0.45 9.85 0.06 3.66 0.51 8.19
Union Territories Delhi 0.5 12.92 16.46 9.84 16.96 9.91
Lakshadweep 0 0 0.02 3.44 0.02 2.77
A &N Islands 0.04 1.57 0 0 0.04 1
Puducherry 0.69 17.06 0.55 6.3 1.24 9.69
Daman & Diu 0 0 0.26 12.62 0.26 9.86
Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1.15 62.59 0.28 15.38 1.43 39.31
Chandigarh 0 1 2.34 22.31 2.35 21.81
836 Nisha et al.
Table 2: Trends of poverty ratio in India over the years
Year Poverty Ratio (%)
Rural Urban Total
1993-95 50.1 31.8 45.3
2004-05 41.8 25.7 37.2
2009-10 33.8 20.9 29.8
2011-12 25.7 13.7 21.9
2013-14 20.6 11.3 18.7
their skills and providing them with productive assets so
that they are assured of a regular stream of employment
and income in raising themselves above the poverty line.
2. Agricultural development: Agriculture has been
considered as central instrument for growth due to two
main reasons i.e. first, it has a big share of GDP and,
second, it stimulates the structural transformation means
moving resources from low productivity sectors to higher
productivity sectors (Ramesh, 2017). Kaur (2013) has
identified three key roles of agriculture in promoting
inclusive growth which are summarized as stimulating
economic growth, reducing poverty, and creating
employment. The agricultural credit flow target for 2019-
20 has been fixed at Rs. 13,50,000 crores, and till 30th
November, 2019, a sum of Rs. 9,07,843.37 crores has
been disbursed. Agriculture is vital input for better access
improved production technologies for improving farm
productivity. The regional distribution of agricultural credit
in India is highly skewed. It is observed that credit is low
in North Eastern, Hilly and Eastern states. The share of
North Eastern states has been less than one (1.0%) percent
in total agricultural credit disbursement.
At least 10,349 people working in the farm sector
(consisting of 5,763 farmers/cultivators and 4,586
agricultural labourers) ended their lives in 2018, accounting
for 7.7 per cent of the total number of suicides in the
country (1,34,516) according to the National Crime
Records Bureau (NCRB). Majority of suicides were
reported in Maharashtra (17,972) followed by Tamil Nadu
(13,896), West Bengal (13,255), Madhya Pradesh (11,775)
and Karnataka (11,561), accounting for 13.40, 10.30, 9.90,
8.80 and 8.60 per cent respectively. These five states
together accounted for 50.90 per cent of the total suicides
reported in the country. The remaining 49.10 per cent
suicides were reported in the remaining 24 states and 7
UTs. Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state with 16.90
per cent share of the country’s population, has
Number of poor in millions
Rural Urban Total
328.6 74.5 403.7
326.3 80.8 407.1
278.2 76.5 354.7
216.7 53.1 269.8
183.6 47.2 230.8
comparatively lower percentage share of suicidal deaths,
sharing only 3.6 per cent of the total suicides in the country
in 2018 as most of agriculture area is irrigated and less
effected from drought conditions. Delhi, which is the most-
populous UT, has reported the highest number of suicides
(2,526) among UTs, followed by Puducherry (500). Behera
(2015) made an overall analysis on the growth performance
of agriculture and allied activities of Gujarat and India. It
was found out that Gujarat has facilitated inclusive
development in agriculture by increasing farm income and
farm sector growth through the path of livestock and
horticulture sectors. Ranade (2020) in his book stated that
even if agriculture growth will take place at an accelerated
rate, the leakages in the linkage of agriculture with non-
tradable sectors will pose a binding constraint on poverty
alleviation and inclusive development. So our policies
should be framed to reduce these leakages.
3. Social sector development: A review of earlier studies
finds that social sector development and economic growth
are closely inter-related. Pattayat and Rani (2017) in their
study suggested that there exists a high degree of
correlation between economic growth and the expenditures
on social sector development. The policy measures focusing
on infrastructure development are highly anticipated for
commencing social sector development and for the long
run economic growth, there should be provision for better
healthcare, sanitation facilities and skill development
measures.
Sharma (2014) advocated that the human development
of a country can be enhanced through education and
healthcare, the demand for which will be increased if the
general level of per capita income will be increased.
Secondly, the poorer sections of the population will enjoy
the fruits of growth as economic growth is also associated
with the poverty reduction and ultimately it will have a
better impact on human development indicators.
 Inclusive Growth in India and its Elements: A Review 837

The Human Development Index (HDI) of India has
increased from 0.467 in 1990 to 0.708 in 2018. Kerala
tops among the states in HDI with the value of 0.779
depicting high human development (Table 3 and 4).
Haryana has the HDI value of 0.708. The lowest rank
among all the states and UTs has been occupied by Madhya
Pradesh with HDI value of 0.606.
Rani (1999) in her study concluded that the highest
share of the lowest HDI ranked districts fall in the states
of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan.
The study suggested that these states need serious and
immediate steps for improving the social and economic
condition. The lowest HDI ranked states in 2018 are Bihar,
Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh.
4. Regional disparities: Regional disparities or imbalances
mean wide differences in level of industrialization, per
capita income, health and education services, literacy rates,
etc. between different regions. Regions may be either states
or various regions within a state. Regional imbalance is a
threat to the goal of inclusive growth and reduction of

Table 3: Status of various parameters for Human Development Index in India: 1990-2018
Year Life expectancy Expected years Mean years GNI per capita HDI value HDI value
at birth of schooling of schooling (2011 PPP$) India Haryana
1990 57.9 7.6 3.0 1882 0.431 0.467
1995 60.3 8.2 3.5 2188 0.463 0.506
2000 62.5 8.3 4.4 2683 0.497 0.549
2005 64.5 9.7 4.8 3387 0.539 0.591
2010 66.7 10.8 5.4 4403 0.581 0.634
2015 68.6 12.0 6.2 5674 0.627 0.686
2016 68.9 12.3 6.4 6075 0.637 -
2017 69.2 12.3 6.5 6446 0.643 -
2018 69.4 12.3 6.5 6829 0.647 0.708

Table 4: Human Development Index of different states and union territories of India: 2018
Geographical Zones State/ UT HDI Geographical Zones State/ UT HDI
Western Rajasthan 0.629 Hill states Himachal Pradesh 0.725
Gujarat 0.672 Uttarakhand 0.684
Maharashtra 0.696 J&K 0.688
Goa 0.761 North eastern Assam 0.614
North western Punjab 0.723 Tripura 0.658
Haryana 0.708 Mizoram 0.705
Uttar Pradesh 0.596 Meghalaya 0.656
Southern Tamil Nadu 0.708 Manipur 0.696
Karnataka 0.682 Nagaland 0.679
Telangana 0.669 Arunachal Pradesh 0.66
Kerala 0.779 Sikkim 0.716
Andhra Pradesh 0.65 Union Territories Delhi 0.746
Eastern Bihar 0.576 Lakshadweep 0.75
West Bengal 0.641 A &N Islands 0.739
Orissa 0.606 Puducherry 0.738
Jharkhand 0.599 Daman & Diu 0.708
Central Madhya Pradesh 0.606 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.663
Chhattisgarh 0.613 Chandigarh 0.775
838 Nisha et al.

poverty (Kumar, 2016). The increasing regional disparities
are the main reason for reduced speed of further economic
reforms, and hence may act as a hindrance in India’s future
economic growth. These inequalities are a worldwide
phenomenon and occur in both developed and developing
economies. India is a country with huge regional disparities
where the National State Domestic Product per capita taken
on the basis of three years average (2017-20) varies from
Rs. 4.40 lakh in Goa to only 0.41 lakh in Bihar with national
average of Rs. 1.25 lakh as shown in Table 5.
Kumar and Rani (2019) in their study found Kerala as
the best state among all states and UTs in terms of social
progress. Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan
are at the bottom on the lowest in the ranking scale and
can be characterized as socially backward states. Haryana
stands at 5th among all states and Union Territories with
NSDP per capita of Rs. 2.64 lakh. The disparities can also
be depicted from the state wise gap in literacy rates of
males and females which is as high as 23.20 in Rajasthan
and as low as 2.20 in Kerala with Indian average of 14.40.
Gender gap in literacy rates in rural Haryana is found to
be 19.40 whereas in urban Haryana it is found to be 14.0
with state average of 16.70. The literacy rates in India have
increased from 67.30 in 2004-05 (NSS 61th Round) to
76.9 in 2017-18 (PLFS). Rani (1999) suggests that much
of the inequalities in human development at district level
come from the regional disparity in the levels of income.
Literacy, particularly the rural female literacy, across states
also brought out the regional disparity.
5. Gender Disparity: Gender disparity refers to the
differences in women’s and men’s access to resources, status
and well-being, which usually favour to men and are often
institutionalized through law, justice and social norms. In
an era of globalization, no country can develop and achieve
its full potential if half of its population is locked in non-
remunerative, less productive and non-economic activities
(World Bank, 2011). Klasen and Lamanna (2009) in their
study also supported that the current obstructions to female
employment are not only detrimental to women, but also
seem to reduce economic growth in developing countries
like India. Moreover, reducing existing gender inequality
in education and employment will not only promote
economic growth but also further reinforce the other
valuable development goals such as reductions in fertility,
child mortality and under-nutrition. The vast majority of
theories reviewed imply that gender inequality is an obstacle
to development, particularly over the long run (Klasen and
Silva, 2018). Gender disparity in India’s labour market
widened due to decline in female labour force participation
especially in rural areas and around 60 per cent of

Table 5: Status of per capita Net State Domestic Production (NSDP) in various states and union territories of India
Geographical Zones State/ UT 2017-2020 Geographical Zones State/ UT 2017-2020
Western Rajasthan 104986 Eastern Bihar 41226
Gujarat 185263 West Bengal 101601
Maharashtra 191855 Orissa 93749
Goa 440229 Jharkhand 72642
North-western Punjab 148736 North-eastern Assam 78131
Haryana 237293 Tripura 106789
Uttar Pradesh 65250 Mizoram 172377
Southern Tamil Nadu 193190 Meghalaya 89424
Karnataka 199268 Manipur 67493
Telangana 204399 Nagaland 110781
Kerala 193770 Arunachal Pradesh 134892
Andhra Pradesh 145426 Sikkim 337388
Hill states Himachal Pradesh 180495 Union Territories Delhi 347257
Uttarakhand 190529 A &N Islands 159664
J&K 87296 Puducherry 220441
Central Madhya Pradesh 86969 Chandigarh 312821
Chhattisgarh 96887 India 125265
 Inclusive Growth in India and its Elements: A Review 839

productive age (15-59) group are engaged in full time
domestic duties (Economic Affairs, 2019).
The female labour force participation rate in India has
decreased from 45.20 in 1993-94 to 25.30 in 2017-18 with
major decline in rural sector from 52.10 to 26.60 during
same period and less decline in urban sector from 25.10
to 22.30. The ratio of female to male labour force
participation rate has also declined in the rural as well as
urban sector during the same period with national average
of 0.3 to 0.28. The status of crime against women is also
increasing over the years with 3.29 lakh in 2015 to 3.60
lakh of cases in 2017. The gender gap in the literacy rates
of males and females in last two decades was found to be
highest in Rajasthan (23.20) and lowest in the state of
Kerala (2.20) with national average of 14.40 (Table 6). These
data reflects that India is so far from calling itself a ‘gender
neutral’ country and these gaps are rooted in cultural and
social practices of our nation. So it is not easy to provide
simple and direct solutions to minimize these gaps. Possibly,
the change will come only with awareness, cultural/
fundamental restructuring, mindset shifting and through
widening access to public service delivery without
discrimination on a gender basis (Singh, 2016).
Jayachandran (2014) gives several mechanisms through
which gender disparity decreases as countries grow. First,
a sectoral shift away from agriculture toward services
occurs. Second, technological advances reduce the time
needed for household chores. Third, decline in the frequency
and risk of childbearing. All these factors increase women’s
participation in the labor force, thereby increasing human
capital investment.
GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES FOR
INCLUSIVE GROWTH
Several schemes are being implemented by the government
of India for achieving the inclusive growth. It would be
cumbersome to include all the schemes in one go. So based
on the maximum budget expenditure allocated for the
schemes such as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act Scheme (51.20% of total
allocation to Ministry of Rural Development) and Pradhan
Mantri Kisan Sammaan Nidhi, (53% of total allocation to
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare) are reviewed
in this study.
1) MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act): The main aim of
MGNREGA is achieving social development by
providing employment opportunities and livelihood to all
segments/sections of the society. Over 53 per cent of the
total employment provided in the past eight years has been
undertaken by women. Aadhar based transfers as well as
improving the banking network (through both formal
banking as well as by making India Post as core banking
compliant) has improved livelihood among the poor in
the rural areas. The extent of employment is more in
agriculturally backward districts as compared to the
agriculturally-advanced districts (Usha et al., 2011). Despite
being a source of employment, MGNREGA has not been

Table 6: Status of gender gap in the literacy rates in various states of India in last two decades
State/ UT Gender Gap State/ UT Gender Gap
Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total
Andhra Pradesh 14.1 13.2 13.9 Madhya Pradesh 16.9 11.9 15.7
Assam 9.5 -5.1 8.9 Maharashtra 15.6 7.7 12.3
Bihar 19.9 20.2 19.2 Odisha 14.7 8.5 13.7
Chhattisgarh 18.4 7.0 16.7 Punjab 11.5 7.1 10.0
Delhi 0.0 8.4 11.3 Rajasthan 25.0 16.5 23.2
Gujarat 17.7 7.8 14.7 Tamil Nadu 13.4 6.4 10.0
Haryana 19.4 14.0 16.7 Telangana 16.9 12.7 15.4
Himachal Pradesh 13.1 4.8 12.4 Uttarakhand 14.1 11.5 13.6
J&K 18.9 12.8 17.7 Uttar Pradesh 20.1 11.9 18.4
Jharkhand 19.2 14.0 18.3 West Bengal 9.4 6.7 8.7
Karnataka 15.1 8.8 12.9 India 16.5 9.4 14.4
Kerala 2.6 1.8 2.2
th
Source: NSS 75 Round, Jul. 2017-Jun. 2018; * Gender Gap=Literacy rate for males-Literacy rate for females
840 Nisha et al.

Figure 1: The percentage of total 0.5

0.5
allocation for various schemes 7.7
implemented by Ministry of Rural MGNREGS
7.7
Development
PMAY-G
51.2 PMGSY
NSAP
16.2
NRLM
Rurban Mission
Others
16.2

able to check the migration from the developed region
because of higher market wage rates at destinations.
Farmers owning large size of landholdings and having
more number of animals are not much interested in
participating in MGNREGA activities. These activities have
been divided into 10 broad categories like watershed,
irrigation and flood management works, agricultural and
livestock related works, fisheries and works in coastal areas
and the rural drinking water and sanitation related works.
Across the different land classes of farmers, the
number of MGNREGA job card holders was maximum
in landless (29.2%), sub-marginal (37.5%) and marginal
(30.8%) households and was minimum but still substantial,
for large households (19.7%). Job seekers represent the
number of job card holders who sought employment
among the total job card holders. The mandate of
MGNREGA is to provide 100 days of wage employment
in a year, but no rural household could achieve this target
of 100 days employment. As the large households could
manage to get work for 67 man days and the landless and
small households, could get employment for 41-46 man
days only (Table 7). It was found that job card holders
under MGNREGA spent a higher percentage (57%) of
their income on food commodities compared to non-job
card holders (51%). In case of non-food commodities,
non-job card holders spent a higher percentage (49%) as
compared to job card holders (43%). The expenditure
(Rs./capita/day) was also high for the non-job card holders
(Table 8).
The constraints being faced by the beneficiaries of
MGNREGA were listed by Sarkar et al (2011). Most of
the beneficiaries (63%) reported the delay in wage payment
as the major constraint, followed by non-availability of
regular work (34%), political disturbances associated with

Table 7: Coverage of MGNREGA scheme in rural India

Category No. of MGNREGA MGNREGA MGNREGA beneficiaries
sample job card holders job seekers
rural No. of % of No. of % of No. of % of Employ- % of
house- house- house- house- house- house- job ment sample
holds holds holds holds holds holds seekers (No. of rural
days in house-
a year) holds
Landless 25087 7314 29.2 6243 85.4 5156 82.6 41.3 20.6
Sub-marginal (<0.5 ha) 21266 7974 37.5 6905 86.6 5797 84.0 42.9 27.3
Marginal (0.5-1.0 ha) 8158 2514 30.8 2040 81.1 1734 85.0 45.7 21.3
Small (1-2 ha) 2816 735 26.1 516 70.2 415 80.4 51.3 14.7
Medium (2-4 ha) 1330 379 28.5 225 59.4 185 82.2 52.4 13.9
Large (>4 ha) 472 93 19.7 45 48.4 39 86.7 67.2 8.3
Source: Kumar and Joshi, 2013.
 Inclusive Growth in India and its Elements: A Review 841

Table 8: Impact of MGNREGA on Expenditure pattern of rural households

Socio-economic dimension MGNREGA MGNREGA MGNREGA job card holders
job card non-job card Job seekers Non-job
holders holders Beneficiaries Non- beneficiaries seekers
Share of food expenditure in total expenditure %
Food commodities 57 51 58 58 54
Non- food commodities 43 49 42 42 46
Expenditure (Rs/ capita/ day) 28.80 37.20 28.60 26.60 31.60

Table 9: Opportunities and constraints faced by the Fasal Bima Yojana (11%). PM-KISAN accounted for 53
beneficiaries per cent of the allocation i.e. 75000 crores to the Ministry
Constraints Respondent identifying in 2020-21 (Fig 2). The PM-KISAN scheme was launched
the constraints (No.) in February 2019 to provide income support of Rs. 6,000
Delay in wage payment 52(63) per year (disbursed in three installments of Rs. 2,000) to
Non-availability of regular work 28(34) farmer families with the aim of supplementing their
Political disturbances 21(26) financial needs in procuring inputs for appropriate crop
No special provisions for elderly persons 17(21)
health and yields. Earlier, only small and marginal
landholder farmer families, i.e. families with total cultivable
Hectic process of Bank/ Post Office 12(15)
payments landholding of up to two hectares, were eligible for the
scheme. In May 2019, the Union Cabinet approved
Corruption 7(9)
extension of the scheme to all farmer families irrespective
Nepotism 4(5)
of their size of landholdings. PM-KISAN has significantly
Non-availability of work site facility 5(6) helped those who are relatively more dependent on
agriculture and have poor access to credit. Moreover,
scheme has significantly stimulated the KVK’s impact on
MGNREGA works (26%) and lack of special provision
the adoption of modern cultivars (IFPRI Discussion
for the old persons (21%) (Table 9).
paper, 2020). Uttar Pradesh (2,02,34,707) has the maximum
EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED number of beneficiaries of PM-KISAN followed by
Maharashtra (90,73,782) and Rajasthan (59,54,395). PM-
The scheme guarantees 100 days of employment. However, KISAN beneficiaries in Haryana accounts for 15,42,748
from 2012 to 2018, the average number of days of (Table 10). The first installment of PM-KISAN was majorly
employment has been 45.5 days, with a maximum of 49 spent on agricultural activities (52%), whereas, in second
days of employment in 2015-16. As MGNREGA is a
demand driven scheme, this could be due to either lower
demand for such work (signalling sufficient opportunities
to obtain work in the open market) or not providing
employment when demanded.
2) Pardhan Mantri-Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-
KISAN): Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
Government of India has got an allocation of Rs. 1,42,762
crores (5% of total central budget) in 2020-21. The
government believes that the welfare of farmers will
improve if there is an increase in net income from the
farms. Keeping this in view, more than 78 per cent of the
Ministry’s budget was proposed to be spent on three
schemes being implemented i.e. PM-KISAN (53%), Figure 2: Expenditure incurred in implementation of various
Interest Subvention Scheme (15%), and Pradhan Mantri centrally sponsored schemes: 2011-21 (Rs crore)
842 Nisha et al.

Table 10: State-wise number of beneficiaries under PM-KISAN scheme (As on Feb 11, 2020)
State Number of State Number of State Number of
Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries
A&N Islands 16,584 Haryana 15,42,748 Mizoram 69,420
Andhra Pradesh 51,54,980 Himachal Pradesh 8,75,212 Nagaland 1,70,286
Arunachal Pradesh 56,628 J&K 9,57,049 Odisha 36,54,583
Assam 31,07,195 Jharkhand 15,15,528 Puducherry 9,778
Bihar 54,98,078 Karnataka 49,73,543 Punjab 22,39,849
Chandigarh 457 Kerala 28,23,238 Rajasthan 59,54,395
Chhattisgarh 19,81,216 Lakshadweep 1,516 Sikkim 8,849
D&N Haveli 10,564 Madhya Pradesh 57,53,671 Telangana 35,02,566
Daman & Diu 3,587 Maharashtra 90,73,782 Tripura 1,96,462
Delhi 13,727 Manipur 2,05,549 UP 2,02,34,707
Goa 8,339 Meghalaya 72,690 Uttarakhand 7,14,783
Gujarat 47,88,238
Source: Website of PM-KISAN scheme as accessed on February 12, 2020; PRS

60 stable and democratic society one needs to have inclusive

52 First Installment Second Installment
growth. India, with an improving trend, ranks 62nd in
50
terms of Inclusive Development Index out of 74 emerging
39
40 economies and 129th in terms of Human Development
30 26
Index. Several schemes are being implemented by the
23 government for inclusive growth. MGNREGA has
20 19
20 16 benefitted 22.5 per cent of the rural households by
10 7 providing, on an average, wage employment for about 43
days. It has increased the income of rural households and
0
Agriculture Consumption Education/ Other
has been successful in reducing the poverty level by 4 per
Medical Expenditure cent (Kumar and Joshi, 2013). PM-KISAN has significantly
helped those who are relatively more dependent on
Figure 3: Spending pattern of PM-KISAN beneficiaries in
Uttar Pradesh
agriculture and have poor access to credit. Moreover,
Source: Indian Council of Agricultural Research-IFPRI, 2019 scheme has significantly stimulated the KVK’s impact on
Note: “Other expenditure” includes incidental expenses such as the adoption of modern cultivars (IFPRI Discussion
festivals, marriages etc. paper, 2020). It is critical that the policy recommendations
are in accordance with inclusive development of the
installment the major expenditure i.e. 39 per cent was country. This requires a holistic approach that considers
incurred on consumption (ICAR-IFPRI, 2019). factors such as education, health, skill development and
social inclusion apart from the employment.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
There are strong social, economic and political reasons
for achieving broader and inclusive growth. Socially, lack Agricultural Statistics at a glance 2018. Directorate of Economics
of inclusive growth leads to unrest among many people. & Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture.
There is also an economic argument. The measures which Demand for grants 2020-21. Ministry of Rural Development.
raise equity also promote economic growth. Lastly, the Demand for grants 2020-21. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer’s
political argument is that no government in a democracy Welfare.
can afford to ignore large sections of workers and non- Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Haryana @
working population. If it is not inclusive it can generate agriharyana.gov.in
very severe social tensions. Thus, politically, for having a Dripto, M. 2019. Inclusive Growth in India: A Perspective.

Economic Survey Volume I 2019. Ministry of Finance, India.
Economic Survey Volume II 2019. Ministry of Finance, India.
https://www.oecd.org/inclusive-growth/
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation @
www.mopsi.gov.in assessed on 15 Apr, 2020.
Periodic Labour Force Survey 2017-18. Ministry of Statistics &
Programme Implementation.
Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) and the
Adoption of Modern Agricultural Technologies in Uttar
Pradesh, India- IFPRI Discussion Paper 01907 http://
ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/
133592/filename/133804.pdf
Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, Government of India https://
pib.gov.in/
Statistical Abstract of Haryana, 2018-19. Department of Economic
and Statistical Analysis, Haryana. Publication no. 1227.
The Inclusive Development Index 2018, http://www3.
weforum.org/docs/WEF_Forum_IncGrwth_2018.pdf
The World Bank, 2018. World Inequality Report, https://
wir2018.wid.world/
Ahuja, U.R.; D. Tyagi; S. Chauhan and K.R. Chaudhary. 2011.
Impact of MGNREGA on Rural Employment and
Migration: A Study in Agriculturally-backward and
Agriculturally-advanced Districts of Haryana. Agricultural
Economics Research Review 24: 495-502.
Bayineny, S. 2006. Poverty alleviation programs in India: A study.
The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, 4: 79-89.
Behera, D.K. 2015. Agricultural development and inclusive growth
in India: A case study of Gujarat. International Journal of
Food, Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 5(1): 41-52.
Burange, L.G.; N.N. Karnik and R.R. Ranadive. 2014. The
Experience of India’s Inclusive Growth. Review of
Development and Change, 19: 71-92.
Jayachandran, S. 2014. The roots of gender inequality in
developing countries. Annual Review of Economics, 7(1): 63-
88.
Kaur, H. 2013. Agriculture : The Way To Inclusive Growth. IOSR
Journal of Business and Management, 9(6): 42-47.
View publication stats
Inclusive Growth in India and its Elements: A Review 843
Klasen, S. and F. Lamanna. 2009. The impact of gender inequality
in education and employment on economic growth: new
evidence for a panel of countries. Feminist Economics, 15(3):
91–132.
Klasen, S. and S.M. Silva. 2018. Gender inequality as a barrier to
economic growth: A review of the theoretical literature (No.
252). Courant Research Centre: Poverty, Equity and Growth-
Discussion Papers.
Kumar S.V. 2016. Regional imbalances in India: An overview.
Kumar, N. and R. Rani. 2019. Regional Disparities in Social
Development: Evidence from States and Union Territories
of India. South Asian Survey, 26(1): 1–27.
Kumar, P. and P.K. Joshi. 2013. Household Consumption Pattern
and Nutritional Security among Poor Rural Households:
Impact of MGNREGA. Agricultural Economics Research
Review, 26: 73-82.
Pattayat, S.S. and P. Rani. 2017. Social sector development and
economic growth in Haryana. Journal of Economics and
Economic Education Research, 18(3).
Ramesh, K. 2017. Agricultural development for Inclusive Growth
in India. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 7(11): 186-187.
Ranade, C. 2020. The future of Inclusive Growth in India. pp.
978-981.
Rani, G. 1999. Human Development Index in India: A district
profile. Artha Vijnana, 16: 9-30.
Sarkar, P.; J. Kumar and Supriya. 2011. Impact of MGNREGA
on reducing rural poverty and improving socio-economic
status of rural poor: A study in Burdwan district of West
Bengal. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24: 437-448.
Sharma, A.D. 2014. Understanding the social sector, economic
growth, social development and economic development:
Interrelationship and linkages. Economic Affairs, 59(4): 585-
590.
Shukla, Y. 2009. Inclusive Growth in India: Challenges and
Prospects. Daly College, Indore
Singh, S. 2016. The state of gender inequality in India. Gender
Studies, 15(1): 139-157.
Sreedhar, M. 2017. Poverty alleviation programs in India.
International Journal of Science and Research, 6(5): 1127-1132.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on July 2021; Revised on October 2021