1. STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN INDIAN ECONOMYBY
PROF. SAYYAD I.M.
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS,
Rayat Shikshan Sanstha’s
S.M.JOSHI COLLEGE HADAPSAR, PUNE

2. STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN INDIAN ECONOMY
Since every country thrives for development which is a ‘path dependent’ Process of structural transformation from low productive sectors to high Productive sectors (Rodrik, 2008); thus, studying the structural change in itself becomes the centre of understanding the modern economic growth (Syrquin, 1988).

3. Although, ‘structure’ of an economy can be defined by the supply of productive factors like natural resources, labour, capital, technology etc and their employment in different uses or Sectors while any proximate causes of change, therein causes ‘structural transformation’, which in itself is a inter-related process of various demand and supply factors. Thus, the Accumulation of physical and human capital and shifts in the composition of demand, trade, production and employment (Chenery et al, 1986; Syrquin 1988) along with initial conditions (Pack, 1988), government policies (Rodrik, 2008) all accompany ‘structural transformation’ from one stage to another

4. The theories which evolves implicitly in the classical literature (Singh, 2004) to the most pronounced and explicit views in the works of Kuznets (1966), Hoffman (1958), Chenery et al. (1986); all emphasized the dominant role of the structural transformations for achieving economic growth. These studies premise that the development is induced by the way of Shifting the available factors to the more efficient activities.
As expected as economies develop the share of agriculture in national GDP drops over time. However, the agriculture GDP continues to grow in absolute terms (unless of course nature or politics go horribly wrong) For example India’s agriculture GDP is currently 18.5% of national GDP down form 42% in 1970.

5. According to A.G.B.Fisher In every progressive economy there has been a steady shift of employment and investment from the essential primary activities to secondary activities of all kinds and still to a greater extent into tertiary production.
Colin Clark in his work argues that there is a close relationship between development of an economy on the one hand, and structural changes on the other and economic progress is generally associated with certain distinct necessary and predictable changes in structure of the economy.

6. He writes “ A high average level of real income per head is always associated with high proportion of working population engaged in tertiary industries and low real income per head is always associated with low proportion of working population engaged in tertiary production and a high percentage in primary production.  

7. SHARE OF GDP BY INDUSTRY ORIGION
Year
Agriculture
55.4
38.0
14.3
Industry
15.0
24.0
27.9
Services
29.6
57.8
Total
100

8. DISTRIBUTION OF WORKING FORCE
Year
Agriculture
72.1
68.6
50.2
Industry
10.7
13.7
20.3
Services

9. RELATIVE EFFICIENCY RATIOS
Year
Agriculture
55.1/72.1=0.76
37.9/68.6=0.55
14.3/50.2=0.28
Industry
10.7/10.7=1.40
13.7/24=1.75
27.9/20.3=1.37
Services
29.9/17.2=1.74
38.0/17.7=2.15
20.3/20.3=2.89

10. Changes in Gini’s Coefficient of operational holdings in 15 Major states
Andhra Pradesh
0.603
0.599
0.576
0.543
Assam
0.422
0.519
0.494
0.366
Bihar
0.566
0.606
0.637
0.421
Gujarat
0.54
0.588
0.604
0.605
Haryana
0.464
0.598
0.675
Karnataka
0.527
0.581
0.609
Kerala
0.647
0.649
0.636
0.348
Madhya Pradesh
0.533
0.535
0.558
Maharashtra
0.526
0.571
Orissa
0.501
0.511
0.381
Punjab
0.418
0.702
0.73
0.706
Rajasthan
0.564
0.613
0.61
Tami Nadu
0.516
0.64
0.646
0.508
Uttar Pradesh
0.495
0.565
0.572
0.45
West Bengal
0.49
0.597
0.585
0.313
ALL INDIA
0.586
0.629
0.641
0.557

11. Distribution of workers by broad groups of industry; rural India
Male
Female
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
1980
77.5 10
12.2
87.5
7.4
4.8
74.5
12.1
13.4
84.7
5.3
74.1
11.2
14.7
86.2
8.3
5.5
74.4
12.6
16.1
85.4
9.0
5.8
66.5
15.5
18.0
83.3
10.2
6.6

12. Private Investment (%)
Gross Capital Formation in Agriculture & Allied as percentage of GDP in Agriculture & Allied in India.
Year
Public Investment (%)
Private Investment (%)
Total Investment (%)
1.94
9.29
11.23
1.81
8.4
10.21
2.05
9.99
12.04
1.99
10.69
12.68
2.24
8.85
11.09
2.7
9.28
11.98
3.12
9.81
12.93
3.53
10.26
13.79
3.97
10.27
14.24

13. STATE
% SHARE IN NSDP 2001 PRICES
A I S
OUTPUT EMPLOYMENT RATIOS
A I S
PUNJAB
40.5/53.4
22.5/20.1
37.0/26.6
0.76
1.12
1.39
MAHARSHTRA
13.7/56.6
32.8/17.7
53.5/26.4
0.24
1.85
2.08
HARAYANA
33.0/53.8
26.3/19.9
0.61
1.32
1.54
TAMILNADU
18.6/47.2
31.8/26.8
49.6/26
0.39
1.19
1.91
GUJRAT
15.0/60.1
38.1/17.4
0.25
2.19
KARNATAKA
30.3/63.1
23.5/15.7
46.2/21.2
0.48
1.50
2.18 HP
24.4/69.6
33.1/15.2
42.5/15.2
0.35
2.80
KERALA
25.1/40.0
19.7/26.7
55.2/33.2
0.62
0.73
1.66
A.P.
30.0/66.3
23.0/13.4
47.0/20.2
0.45
1.72
2.33
W.B
26.5/46.6
21.2/25.3
52.5/28.1
0.57
0.84
1.88

14. STATE
% SHARE IN NSDP 2001 PRICES
A I S
OUTPUT EMPLOYMENT RATIOS
A I S
RAJASTHAN
27.5/67.6
28.6/17.1
52.5/28.1
0.57
0.84
1.88
M.P.
27.6/74.5
29.6/10.5
42.8/15.0
0.37
2.82
2.85
J&K
36.6/62.9
12.2/15.2
51.2/21.9
0.58
0.80
2.33
ASSAM
38.7/60.5
40.3/30.9
0.64
2.44
1.30
ODISSA
34.4/71.6
18.4/14.1
47.2/14.3
0.48
3.30
U.P
35.7/63.7
21.4/16.5
42.9/19.8
0.56
2.17
BIHAR
32.0/74.0
24.7/10.7
43.3/15.3
0.43
2.32
2.83
INDIA
25.5/60.8
24.0/17.1
50.5/22.1
0.42
1.40
2.20