Gujarat GDP growth and Narendra Modi's economic record

Supporters of Narendra Modi tout his economic record as the primary argument for his candidature for Prime Minister. This argument is based on the GDP growth that Gujarat has achieved under his leadership. I wanted to look under the hood and see whether the GDP growth numbers support this argument. After careful analysis of the data, I observed that:
1. Gujarat's performance in the last ten years is not off-the-charts; its growth rate is only narrowly ahead Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. There hasn't been a lot of press about the high growth rates in MH and TN being the handiwork of the respective CMs of those states.
2. Gujarat experienced much faster growth under Chimanbhai Patel right after liberalization, than it has done under Narendra Modi. The Gujarat economy is capable of achieving high growth, and has done so in the past as well. 

Based on these observations, my conclusion is that Modi's much-touted economic record isn't all that it is made to be. He did a decent job maintaining pro-growth policies. But Gujarat, along with Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, are growing faster than the rest of the country because of their relative industrialization, and the relative advantage they had over other states when the game started. (On an unrelated note, the real tragedy that emerges from this analysis is West Bengal -- a state that has a solid industrial base at one time, and now lags the BIMARU states).

Now, to two sets of analysis that led me to these conclusions. First, let us compare Gujarat to other large states in terms of compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of GDP since 2004. The last year for which we have data available is 2011. With this data, we obtain the chart below:


This shows very clearly that Gujarat is not the breakout economic success story that Modi's supporters portray it as. Instead, it has stayed in the group of high growth states, which hasn't changed much since liberalization began in 1991. If Modi is a great candidate for PM because of this record, then so are the Chief Ministers of MH and TN.

Now, let us compare the GDP growth rates (CAGRs) of Gujarat since liberalization, under different Chief Ministers. In order to do this, I ignored a few short-tenure CMs, and only included people who were in office for more than a year. Here is the chart showing the GDP CAGRs achieved by each CM:


The red ones are from BJP, blue is from RJP (a breakaway faction of BJP), and the green is Congress. The period of political chaos involved three CMs and a bout of President's Rule all within a year. As you can see, Gujarat achieved higher growth under Chimanbhai Patel than it did under Narendra Modi. This indicates that the economy of Gujarat has the potential to achieve high rates of growth. Modi deserves credit for not screwing it up, like Keshubhai Patel seems to have done. He also deserves credit for staying the course with pro-growth policies to sustain a long period of solid growth. But Modi doesn't deserve a reputation for exceptional economic leadership that his supporters claim for him.

Notes and sources: 
1. The first analysis comparing states is based on data from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, state GDP at constant prices. The government's base year for reporting at constant prices was 2004. Data for prior years was reported at 1999 prices. This does not matter in the big picture, because Gujarat's GDP CAGR between 2002 and 2011 is also 10.3%, as you can see in the second chart. 

2. The second analysis comparing growth under different CMs of Gujarat is based on data from the Reserve Bank of India's Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy. I used the state GDP at constant prices table. Between 1991 and 2011, the government changed its base year for reporting thrice: 1993, 1999, and 2004. In order to do a fair, inflation-adjusted comparison, I computed all GDP numbers at constant 2004 prices.

Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

Nice analysis. Thanks for sharing.

It's only a few more hours before Upps Aunty and devoted NaMo fanboys come online to discredit you, your wife, your employer, the Ministry of Statistics, the RBI and of course the whole charlatan economics behind state GDP calculation, all of it cooked up to show CONgoons in great light and glorious Hindu Nationalists in poor light. And oh, in case you won any awards from the GoI, coddle those plaques and citations as much as you can for the next one year because the next NDA government will strip you of all those.

Idéfix wrote:Supporters of Narendra Modi tout his economic record as the primary argument for his candidature for Prime Minister. This argument is based on the GDP growth that Gujarat has achieved under his leadership. I wanted to look under the hood and see whether the GDP growth numbers support this argument. After careful analysis of the data, I observed that:
1. Gujarat's performance in the last ten years is not off-the-charts; its growth rate is only narrowly ahead Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. There hasn't been a lot of press about the high growth rates in MH and TN being the handiwork of the respective CMs of those states.
2. Gujarat experienced much faster growth under Chimanbhai Patel right after liberalization, than it has done under Narendra Modi. The Gujarat economy is capable of achieving high growth, and has done so in the past as well. 

Based on these observations, my conclusion is that Modi's much-touted economic record isn't all that it is made to be. He did a decent job maintaining pro-growth policies. But Gujarat, along with Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, are growing faster than the rest of the country because of their relative industrialization, and the relative advantage they had over other states when the game started. (On an unrelated note, the real tragedy that emerges from this analysis is West Bengal -- a state that has a solid industrial base at one time, and now lags the BIMARU states).

Now, to two sets of analysis that led me to these conclusions. First, let us compare Gujarat to other large states in terms of compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of GDP since 2004. The last year for which we have data available is 2011. With this data, we obtain the chart below:


This shows very clearly that Gujarat is not the breakout economic success story that Modi's supporters portray it as. Instead, it has stayed in the group of high growth states, which hasn't changed much since liberalization began in 1991. If Modi is a great candidate for PM because of this record, then so are the Chief Ministers of MH and TN.

Now, let us compare the GDP growth rates (CAGRs) of Gujarat since liberalization, under different Chief Ministers. In order to do this, I ignored a few short-tenure CMs, and only included people who were in office for more than a year. Here is the chart showing the GDP CAGRs achieved by each CM:


The red ones are from BJP, blue is from RJP (a breakaway faction of BJP), and the green is Congress. The period of political chaos involved three CMs and a bout of President's Rule all within a year. As you can see, Gujarat achieved higher growth under Chimanbhai Patel than it did under Narendra Modi. This indicates that the economy of Gujarat has the potential to achieve high rates of growth. Modi deserves credit for not screwing it up, like Keshubhai Patel seems to have done. He also deserves credit for staying the course with pro-growth policies to sustain a long period of solid growth. But Modi doesn't deserve a reputation for exceptional economic leadership that his supporters claim for him.

Notes and sources: 
1. The first analysis comparing states is based on data from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, state GDP at constant prices. The government's base year for reporting at constant prices was 2004. Data for prior years was reported at 1999 prices. This does not matter in the big picture, because Gujarat's GDP CAGR between 2002 and 2011 is also 10.3%, as you can see in the second chart. 

2. The second analysis comparing growth under different CMs of Gujarat is based on data from the Reserve Bank of India's Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy. I used the state GDP at constant prices table. Between 1991 and 2011, the government changed its base year for reporting thrice: 1993, 1999, and 2004. In order to do a fair, inflation-adjusted comparison, I computed all GDP numbers at constant 2004 prices.

Good stuff, Car. Is there a way for you to show year by year growth over the last ten years in Gujarat (since it will be more revealing)?

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

surely the disingenuous MBAs on this forum know this. interesting how they dont offer similar stats to support why congress should be re-elected. oh I forgot, coz they're secular and were very protective of merlot's tailor. also it's been too long since the congress riots of delhi so it's ok

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

surely the disingenuous MBAs on this forum know this. interesting how they dont offer similar stats to support why congress should be re-elected. oh I forgot, coz they're secular and were very protective of merlot's tailor. also it's been too long since the congress riots of delhi so it's ok

Maybe disingenuous MBAs have no interest in promoting the Congress. Dismantling Pheku Modi's (and his fanboys') tall claims of economic miracle-working in Gujarat is no endorsement of Pappu Gandhi.

If Modi is a great candidate for PM because of this record, then so are the Chief Ministers of MH and TN.

Offcourse, exactly the point supporters of Modi are saying that Modi is a great candidate. TN, MH can tout their leaders on same lines.

BTW, congratulations to Modi for first elevating and then maintaining the growth record in his tenure. I like the 10.3% growth for Gujarat, behind Uttarakand and Delhi. There's nothing wrong in that number.

In case anybody missed, Chimanbhai's 15.4% was followed by lackluster 2.1% and 3% growth, so  Modi's 10.3% during his period starting in 2001, must have received a higher growth % jump-start to elevate from 2.1%. ...and maintaining. Not an easy task for any Chief Minister in India.

I get the point of Modi supporters and their leader's performance as Gujarat CM. Modi supporters have the right to boast Modi's candidature for PM based on your numbers. Good job to you for highlighting that.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

surely the disingenuous MBAs on this forum know this. interesting how they dont offer similar stats to support why congress should be re-elected. oh I forgot, coz they're secular and were very protective of merlot's tailor. also it's been too long since the congress riots of delhi so it's ok

Maybe disingenuous MBAs have no interest in promoting the Congress. Dismantling Pheku Modi's (and his fanboys') tall claims of economic miracle-working in Gujarat is no endorsement of Pappu Gandhi.

then it logically follows that atleast one D. MBA is afraid of change and has no other alternative to offer to the only credible leader at this time

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

Well said... When I saw the thread i was looking for the hidden trickery and first thing that I noted was what you mentioned above.

Economy was in such a hole in 91, and Gujarat had the best base to exploit the liberalization. Even Air India started an Ahmedabad - Manchester direct flight (while not even Bangalore or Hyderabad had direct overseas flights). So Chimanbhai's 13.4 % was not surprising. Modi's 10+ % is noteworthy given the Muslim-initiated riots in Gujarat and the consequences. If he achieved 10+ despite this, he is definitely a Shaktiman....

Oh...what did our Mata ji achieve since the last elections?I will let out pSeudoIslamic secularists (PIS) answer that.

goodcitizn wrote:Good stuff, Car. Is there a way for you to show year by year growth over the last ten years in Gujarat (since it will be more revealing)?

Sure, I will post it that in a little bit.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

Ingenious job ignoring the long post with colorful charts, and focusing on the postscript. I already compared Gujarat to its peers, and showed that it has not experienced breakout growth from its peers.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

Well said... When I saw the thread i was looking for the hidden trickery and first thing that I noted was what you mentioned above.

Economy was in such a hole in 91, and Gujarat had the best base to exploit the liberalization. Even Air India started an Ahmedabad - Manchester direct flight (while not even Bangalore or Hyderabad had direct overseas flights).  So Chimanbhai's 13.4 % was not surprising. Modi's 10+ % is noteworthy given the Muslim-initiated riots in Gujarat and the consequences. If he achieved 10+ despite this, he is definitely a Shaktiman....

Oh...what did our Mata ji achieve since the last elections?I will let out pSeudoIslamic secularists (PIS) answer that.

You are welcome to make all the excuses you want to for Modi. The numbers don't lie; they just show his economic performance to be OK, not exceptional.

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

Ingenious job ignoring the long post with colorful charts, and focusing on the postscript. I already compared Gujarat to its peers, and showed that it has not experienced breakout growth from its peers.

oh, you mean you want to see 49% YOY growth of a highly industrialized state compared to perennial also-rans before you can be impressed with modi? ok then

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

Well said... When I saw the thread i was looking for the hidden trickery and first thing that I noted was what you mentioned above.

Economy was in such a hole in 91, and Gujarat had the best base to exploit the liberalization. Even Air India started an Ahmedabad - Manchester direct flight (while not even Bangalore or Hyderabad had direct overseas flights).  So Chimanbhai's 13.4 % was not surprising. Modi's 10+ % is noteworthy given the Muslim-initiated riots in Gujarat and the consequences. If he achieved 10+ despite this, he is definitely a Shaktiman....

Oh...what did our Mata ji achieve since the last elections?I will let out pSeudoIslamic secularists (PIS) answer that.

You are welcome to make all the excuses you want to for Modi. The numbers don't lie; they just show his economic performance to be OK, not exceptional.

 numbers dont lie? numbers that economists deal with are almost always lies, per one illustrious galbraith. that's besides the point. numbers may not lie but interpretations and conclusions CAN lie

southindian wrote:In case anybody missed, Chimanbhai's 15.4% was followed by lackluster 2.1% and 3% growth, so  Modi's 10.3% during his period starting in 2001, must have received a higher growth % jump-start to elevate from 2.1%. ...and maintaining. Not an easy task for any Chief Minister in India.

I get the point of Modi supporters and their leader's performance as Gujarat CM. Modi supporters have the right to boast Modi's candidature for PM based on your numbers. Good job to you for highlighting that.

Congratulations on hanging on to a priori beliefs even when the data shows otherwise. Anyone else would have blamed Chimanbhai's successors for failing to maintain the strong platform they received, but you appear to be in possession of a different class of intellect. The steady growth for Gujarat over the last 10 years would be a point in Modi's favor if other, comparable states did not achieve the same. The examples of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra show that Modi was not exceptional.

Propagandhi711 wrote: numbers dont lie? numbers that economists deal with are almost always lies, per one illustrious galbraith. that's besides the point. numbers may not lie but interpretations and conclusions CAN lie

Yes, the numbers don't show Gujarat being far and out ahead of its peers. If the CM of Gujarat is a great PM candidate because of its performance, the CM of MH should be too, with 10% CAGR. Do you even know who the CM of MH is? I had to look it up.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

Ingenious job ignoring the long post with colorful charts, and focusing on the postscript. I already compared Gujarat to its peers, and showed that it has not experienced breakout growth from its peers.

oh, you mean you want to see 49% YOY growth of a highly industrialized state compared to perennial also-rans before you can be impressed with modi? ok then

Both MH and TN are highly industrialized states compared to the rest of India. See where they figure on the chart. Slow down to understand the numbers before you feel compelled to express outrage because a notion that you have been fed through careful propaganda is being questioned with raw data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_by_GDP

Can you keep the discussion focused on facts?

The link above provides an overview of Indian States Gdp over the past 10 years.
Indian economy and most state economies have gone up and down with world economy(some time lag between India and world crisis). However Gujarat economy remained above 10% and in fact it accelerated in the last 3 to 4 years whereas other States have slowed down.

The States that performed well over the past 7 or 8 years including over the past 3 to 4 years are bihar Mp chattisgarh. All of them are nda States.

Indian Gdp growth mostly comes from major cities. However non of the three States mentioned in earlier post has a major city.

The numbers wikipedia show how consistent Modi is over years and deserves recognition for that. As idefix pointed he also deserves credit for not screwing up over a longer period of time.

Modi's economic success is no fluke and he is not a rider of a temprrory wave. He seems to know how to run a state, and how to attract business despite stiff negative opposition from Congress.
Give him that. Question then is does that make his 2002 riot history go away? Why not chouhan or nitish without the baggage?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is another interesting comparison: Modi achieved a GDP CAGR of 10.3% during his tenure in Gujarat. Nitish Kumar achieved a GDP CAGR of 13.5% in Bihar since he assumed office in 2005. Data for both numbers are from source 2 listed above.

there is a vast difference in states that had already experienced hockeystick growth for a long time, like karnataka and gujarat growing at 10% compared with  states left for dead like bihar and uttarkhand achieving 12%.

Well said... When I saw the thread i was looking for the hidden trickery and first thing that I noted was what you mentioned above.

Economy was in such a hole in 91, and Gujarat had the best base to exploit the liberalization. Even Air India started an Ahmedabad - Manchester direct flight (while not even Bangalore or Hyderabad had direct overseas flights).  So Chimanbhai's 13.4 % was not surprising. Modi's 10+ % is noteworthy given the Muslim-initiated riots in Gujarat and the consequences. If he achieved 10+ despite this, he is definitely a Shaktiman....

Oh...what did our Mata ji achieve since the last elections?I will let out pSeudoIslamic secularists (PIS) answer that.

 "Pseudo Islamic secularists"? Stop underestimating them. They are Pseudo Islamic Super Secularists. It is sickening to see how people waste their brains to indulge in hate-mongering against one person while ignoring the most important issues - development, eradication of corruption and building security. Even after seeing how China has become a strong nation, these brilliant people haven't changed. Looks like India can't be saved from these characters. Disgusting.

Idéfix wrote:

southindian wrote:In case anybody missed, Chimanbhai's 15.4% was followed by lackluster 2.1% and 3% growth, so  Modi's 10.3% during his period starting in 2001, must have received a higher growth % jump-start to elevate from 2.1%. ...and maintaining. Not an easy task for any Chief Minister in India.

I get the point of Modi supporters and their leader's performance as Gujarat CM. Modi supporters have the right to boast Modi's candidature for PM based on your numbers. Good job to you for highlighting that.

Congratulations on hanging on to a priori beliefs even when the data shows otherwise. Anyone else would have blamed Chimanbhai's successors for failing to maintain the strong platform they received, but you appear to be in possession of a different class of intellect. The steady growth for Gujarat over the last 10 years would be a point in Modi's favor if other, comparable states did not achieve the same. The examples of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra show that Modi was not exceptional.

Nope! Not true. Your data does not paint Modi as bad administrator and puts him in good light. Thanks!

Data shows 10.3% growth during Modi's tenure. Absolutely nothing wrong in that. Also a jump from 3.0% to 10.3% after Modi became CM. Is that bad? I'd say good job Modi. If other state CMs want to also stake for PM position, then so be it.

I was not expecting 25% growth from Modi in Gujarat. I am Okay, fine with 10.3% growth performance by Modi. Based on this I'm happy about his candidature for PM as his supporters say.

Propagandhi asks in another thread: 

instead try comparing gujarat's performance with a place where congress ran the show for the same time period, say...andhra perhaps?


Here is a comparison of Gujarat to Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. Maharashtra is a real peer of Gujarat, while AP was a latecomer to the industrialization game. The interesting thing about Maharashtra is that it has a much bigger base to grow from. If Propagandhi thinks, as he says above, that it is harder to grow large economies by double digits, the challenge is twice as big in MH as it was for Modi. 


Congress has been running the show in MH since 1999. In AP, TDP ran the show when Modi came to power in Gujarat; Congress replaced them in 2004, two years into Modi's tenure. So I split up AP into three bars, showing all three rates. 

Some of these numbers surprised me. Based on hearsay I had heard from people, I expected that AP did better in the last two years of TDP rule than it did under subsequent Congress rule. The data indicate otherwise.

carvaka -- thanks for putting this together. here are some other things i'd like to see compared between gujarat and the other industrialized states (if such data are available)-- labor participation of women, sex ratios, health indices, child mortality, overall and female literacy rates and general levels of education, and income distribution.

Idéfix wrote:Propagandhi asks in another thread: 

instead try comparing gujarat's performance with a place where congress ran the show for the same time period, say...andhra perhaps?


Here is a comparison of Gujarat to Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. Maharashtra is a real peer of Gujarat, while AP was a latecomer to the industrialization game. The interesting thing about Maharashtra is that it has a much bigger base to grow from. If Propagandhi thinks, as he says above, that it is harder to grow large economies by double digits, the challenge is twice as big in MH as it was for Modi. 


Congress has been running the show in MH since 1999. In AP, TDP ran the show when Modi came to power in Gujarat; Congress replaced them in 2004, two years into Modi's tenure. So I split up AP into three bars, showing all three rates. 

Some of these numbers surprised me. Based on hearsay I had heard from people, I expected that AP did better in the last two years of TDP rule than it did under subsequent Congress rule. The data indicate otherwise.

Does Maharashtra include Bombay?

Why is Modi getting credit for gujarats growth spurt?
ad si pointed already, the growth rate prior to modi's arrival was less than 4% for years. Modi moved it higher and stayed their despite Indian economic ups and downs.
A similar example is that of cbn in ap. 90 to 94 ap growth stagnated with a decline in Gdp. Cbn moved it to positive territory. Another contribution was the infrastructure for rapid growth of services that add much more to growth than traditional sectors.

[quote="truthbetold"]Indian Gdp growth mostly comes from major cities. However non of the three States mentioned in earlier post has a major city.

The numbers wikipedia show how consistent Modi is over years and deserves recognition for that. As idefix pointed he also deserves credit for not screwing up over a longer period of time.

Modi's economic success is no fluke and he is not a rider of a temprrory wave. He seems to know how to run a state, and how to attract business despite stiff negative opposition from Congress.
Give him that. Question then is does that make his 2002 riot history go away? Why not chouhan or nitish without the baggage?[/quote]

This is a bogey raised by the Pesudo-Islamic Secularists whenever they are afraid.

When there are 100s (and perhaps 1000s) of rapists and murders with pending cases sitting as MLAs and MPs and running the various governments, why should Modi be subjected to the consequences of an iSlamist-initiated riot when there is not a single case pending against him, and numerous investigations have absolved him of any wrong doing?

Wasn't there a case of rape against Prince Rahul? Aren't there cases of Bofors, Fodder scams, DLF scams, 2G scams linking MT Sonia Mata, Prince Rahul, and Crown Prince Vadra and the whole pseudo-Islamic gang? why aren't the Elite SuCHERS investigate and discuss these? After all, they all claim to be unbiased and objective.

Hellsangel wrote:

Does Maharashtra include Bombay?

what is the relevance of the question? does gujarat include baroda?

truthbetold wrote:The numbers wikipedia show how consistent Modi is over years and deserves recognition for that. As idefix pointed he also deserves credit for not screwing up over a longer period of time.

Modi's economic success is no fluke and he is not a rider of a temprrory wave. He seems to know how to run a state, and how to attract business despite stiff negative opposition from Congress.
Give him that. 

I agree. The analogy that comes to my mind is of well-trained pilot flying an airliner. What Modi has done is pilot a plane steadily on a long transpacific flight, and showed that he can do it without screwing up, and giving the passengers (or at least the majority of them) a comfortable ride. Several thousand pilots in the world have accomplished this feat, and they are not feted by their companies or the media for doing so. Then there is that Sulzberger guy who landed the plane on the Hudson river. Many of those thousand pilots may be capable of doing that, but Sully actually did it. Now, the data from Modi's record show that he is one of those several thousand pilots. But his supporters portray him as Sully. The data do not support treating Modi as a Sully when it comes to the economy.

Chimanbhai Patel was an interesting character. He was the cause of anti corruption movement that later became janata party to topple Mrs. Gandhi.
However he was also a very able administrator who was admired as modern Gujarat builder. He was a Congress cm in 1990s.
Jayalalitha could be taking a lesson from his book.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Does Maharashtra include Bombay?

what is the relevance of the question? does gujarat include baroda?

No Indian city can come any where close to Bombay in terms of economy. In fact, Bombay probably has an economy the size of some of the smaller states. And Bombay is not truly a Maharashtrian city. So if you include Bombay in Maharashtra's economy, the numbers are bound to be skewed.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Does Maharashtra include Bombay?

what is the relevance of the question? does gujarat include baroda?

No Indian city can come any where close to Bombay in terms of economy. In fact, Bombay probably has an economy the size of some of the smaller states. And Bombay is not truly a Maharashtrian city. So if you include Bombay in Maharashtra's economy, the numbers are bound to be skewed.

but we are talking about rates of growth. shouldn't an emerging economy have a much higher growth rate than a mature economy like bombay?

truthbetold wrote:Why is Modi getting credit for gujarats growth spurt?
ad si pointed already,  the growth rate prior to modi's arrival was less than 4% for years. Modi moved it higher and stayed their despite Indian economic ups and downs.
A similar example is that of cbn in ap. 90 to 94 ap growth stagnated with a decline in Gdp. Cbn moved it to positive territory. Another contribution was the infrastructure for rapid growth of services that add much more to growth than traditional sectors.

Exactly my point.

A Chief Minister of an Indian State gets a legacy growth rate of 2.1%, improves and maintains the growth to over 10% for Ten+ years.  Many, many Indians want that person to become India's PM for this reason. Is that bad?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Does Maharashtra include Bombay?

what is the relevance of the question? does gujarat include baroda?

No Indian city can come any where close to Bombay in terms of economy. In fact, Bombay probably has an economy the size of some of the smaller states. And Bombay is not truly a Maharashtrian city. So if you include Bombay in Maharashtra's economy, the numbers are bound to be skewed.

but we are talking about rates of growth. shouldn't an emerging economy have a much higher growth rate than a mature economy like bombay?

Are there any figures for Bombay alone?

Idéfix wrote:

truthbetold wrote:The numbers wikipedia show how consistent Modi is over years and deserves recognition for that. As idefix pointed he also deserves credit for not screwing up over a longer period of time.

Modi's economic success is no fluke and he is not a rider of a temprrory wave. He seems to know how to run a state, and how to attract business despite stiff negative opposition from Congress.
Give him that. 

I agree. The analogy that comes to my mind is of well-trained pilot flying an airliner. What Modi has done is pilot a plane steadily on a long transpacific flight, and showed that he can do it without screwing up, and giving the passengers (or at least the majority of them) a comfortable ride. Several thousand pilots in the world have accomplished this feat, and they are not feted by their companies or the media for doing so. Then there is that Sulzberger guy who landed the plane on the Hudson river. Many of those thousand pilots may be capable of doing that, but Sully actually did it. Now, the data from Modi's record show that he is one of those several thousand pilots. But his supporters portray him as Sully. The data do not support treating Modi as a Sully when it comes to the economy.

Wikipedia numbers on nominal Gdp growth show an accelerating growth rate in recent past. Non of the other big States show anything close to it. Modi may not be able to walk on water but he seems to be more successful than others. He is more like micheal Jordan of basketball than Alex Rodriguez of baseball(who fails on the big stage, rahul).

Idéfix wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:Good stuff, Car. Is there a way for you to show year by year growth over the last ten years in Gujarat (since it will be more revealing)?

Sure, I will post it that in a little bit.

GC, here are the year-over-year growth rates for Gujarat GDP. 


The source is item 2 listed in the first post, GDP at constant, 2004 prices. This shows that the steadiness argument is also not supported by the numbers. Growth has varied between 2.5% and 15.8% during Modi's term in office. This is not necessary a ding on Modi's record. It is natural for state economies to experience more fluctuations in growth rates than the national economy. Modi should not be blamed for 2008 any more than he should be treated as a miracle worker because of 2005.

truthbetold wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

truthbetold wrote:The numbers wikipedia show how consistent Modi is over years and deserves recognition for that. As idefix pointed he also deserves credit for not screwing up over a longer period of time.

Modi's economic success is no fluke and he is not a rider of a temprrory wave. He seems to know how to run a state, and how to attract business despite stiff negative opposition from Congress.
Give him that. 

I agree. The analogy that comes to my mind is of well-trained pilot flying an airliner. What Modi has done is pilot a plane steadily on a long transpacific flight, and showed that he can do it without screwing up, and giving the passengers (or at least the majority of them) a comfortable ride. Several thousand pilots in the world have accomplished this feat, and they are not feted by their companies or the media for doing so. Then there is that Sulzberger guy who landed the plane on the Hudson river. Many of those thousand pilots may be capable of doing that, but Sully actually did it. Now, the data from Modi's record show that he is one of those several thousand pilots. But his supporters portray him as Sully. The data do not support treating Modi as a Sully when it comes to the economy.

Wikipedia numbers on nominal Gdp growth show an accelerating growth rate in recent past. Non of the other big States show anything close to it. Modi may not be able to walk on water but he seems to be more successful than others. He is more like micheal Jordan of basketball than Alex Rodriguez of baseball(who fails on the big stage,  rahul).

I am skeptical of nominal GDP numbers because of high inflation rates in India. This is why all the data I am analyzing is real GDP (i.e. at constant prices). The government keeps changing the price basis for reporting real GDP, so I adjusted all the numbers to 2004-'05 prices.

Ha,
Good question about Bombay. Look at the link I provided. It has numbers for Bombay and it contributes a significant chunk of mh economy. So does ahmedabad and Surat for Gujarat. Cities contributes insanely high Gdp numbers for national economy. But that could true of most countries.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Does Maharashtra include Bombay?

what is the relevance of the question? does gujarat include baroda?

No Indian city can come any where close to Bombay in terms of economy. In fact, Bombay probably has an economy the size of some of the smaller states. And Bombay is not truly a Maharashtrian city. So if you include Bombay in Maharashtra's economy, the numbers are bound to be skewed.

but we are talking about rates of growth. shouldn't an emerging economy have a much higher growth rate than a mature economy like bombay?

Are there any figures for Bombay alone?

Not that I am aware of; nor are there numbers for Ahmedabad alone.

truthbetold wrote:Ha,
Good question about Bombay.  Look at the link I provided. It has numbers for Bombay and it contributes a significant chunk of mh economy. So does ahmedabad and Surat for Gujarat. Cities contributes insanely high Gdp numbers for national economy. But that could true of most countries.

That's right; cities are the engines of the economy. Gujarat can't complain of a disadvantage compared to MH in terms of cities; it has Ahmedabad, Surat, and Vadodara, all of which are fast-growing cities.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Does Maharashtra include Bombay?

what is the relevance of the question? does gujarat include baroda?

No Indian city can come any where close to Bombay in terms of economy. In fact, Bombay probably has an economy the size of some of the smaller states. And Bombay is not truly a Maharashtrian city. So if you include Bombay in Maharashtra's economy, the numbers are bound to be skewed.

but we are talking about rates of growth. shouldn't an emerging economy have a much higher growth rate than a mature economy like bombay?

Are there any figures for Bombay alone?

i don't know, but your argument is tantamount to saying we shouldn't include the bay area when we discuss the californian economy or wall street when we discuss the NY economy or tokyo when you discuss japan and so on. any chief minister is expected to make the best of the resources available to him. by the same token the problems of bombay are more complex to manage and modi is not saddled with the problems that are unique to bombay, like large slums, the underworld etc.

I found this on Google:

http://drnarendrajadhav.info/drnjadhav_web_files/Published%20papers/Role%20of%20Mumbai%20City%20in%20Indian%20Economy.pdf

I haven't finished going thru it.

And this news link:

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/gdp-growth-surat-fastest-mumbai-largest/266636

Idefix,
You should be skeptically of nominal Gdp. But when you are comparing across same basis, any bias is automatically spread across the board. In statistical terms the error is evenly distributed allowing acceptable comparison.
ex:growth rate of 10% in mh is comparable to 17% growth rate in Gujarat in the same year (assuming inflation is similar in mh and Gujarat).

basic question -- what gets recorded in measures of GDP are above the board transactions. i wonder how the numbers will be skewed if you include all the stuff that goes on.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Does Maharashtra include Bombay?

what is the relevance of the question? does gujarat include baroda?

No Indian city can come any where close to Bombay in terms of economy. In fact, Bombay probably has an economy the size of some of the smaller states. And Bombay is not truly a Maharashtrian city. So if you include Bombay in Maharashtra's economy, the numbers are bound to be skewed.

Bombay is governed by MH. If the government of MH sets policy that adversely affects Bombay, MH GDP suffers. So the ethnic makeup of the residents of Bombay makes no difference to the economic performance question we are talking about here.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:basic question -- what gets recorded in measures of GDP are above the board transactions. i wonder how the numbers will be skewed if you include all the stuff that goes on.

Yeah, that's a really complicated question, and I don't think anyone has reliable answers to that.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Does Maharashtra include Bombay?

what is the relevance of the question? does gujarat include baroda?

No Indian city can come any where close to Bombay in terms of economy. In fact, Bombay probably has an economy the size of some of the smaller states. And Bombay is not truly a Maharashtrian city. So if you include Bombay in Maharashtra's economy, the numbers are bound to be skewed.

Bombay is governed by MH. If the government of MH sets policy that adversely affects Bombay, MH GDP suffers. So the ethnic make up of the residents of Bombay makes no difference to the economic performance question we are talking about here.

Not really. With institutions like BSE and NSE being located in Bombay, Maharashtra would not do anything to upset the goose that lays the golden egg. Also, Bombay alone contributes 20% of the state's GDP according the link above.

the fundamental question is how successful the ploy of using gujarat's economic success to offset modi's image as a communally divisive leader is going to be.  the attempt at changing the conversation has definitely been loud, but will it also be effective? we'll see.

I think politically Congress is on weak wicket on economics. National growth has slowed and inflation increased. Job growth has also slowed significantly. While Congress should continue to make noises about economy and poor people in Gujarat but it is not likely to sway many people across India.
Congress should keep challenging Modi on hindutva hoping to consolidate non Hindu vote and south Indian vote.

GC, please disregard the previous chart I posted on year-over-year growth rates. Those numbers were not for Gujarat, but Maharashtra. Here are the year-over-year growth numbers for Gujarat, shown against all-India average growth rates. 



These data show that Modi hasn't achieved some miraculous steadiness of growth that is being claimed for him. In the nine years for which we have data available, during three years Gujarat's growth was slower than national average. Growth has fluctuated between 4 and 17%. As I said before, the 4% is not Modi's fault, just as the 17% is not his singlehanded achievement the way it is portrayed by Modi's supporters.