The Red Corridor Region of India: What Do the Data Tell Us?

Mukhopadhyay, Jyoti Prasad and Banik, Nilanjan (2013): The Red Corridor Region of India: What Do the Data Tell Us?

Abstract

In this paper we analyze why Naxalism (an ultra-left movement) still persists in pockets of India. One popular perception about the existence of Naxalism is deprivation. We examine deprivation in terms of seven development indicators, namely, access to health and health outcomes; access to education and educational outcomes; access to finance; access to communication and other basic amenities; nature of work participation; living standard; and poverty. We examine the hypothesis whether people living from rest of India has a better living standard in comparison to people living in the Red Corridor region (areas affected by Naxalism). We find evidence that Red Corridor region is deprived in comparison to rest of India.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Naxalism, Deprivation, Paired t-test
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C10 - General; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O11 - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

References

1. Banerjee, K and P. Saha, (2010) “The NREGA, the Maoists and the Development Woes of the Indian State”, Economic and Political Weekly, 45 (28), pp. 42-47.

2. Banerjee, S. (1980). In the Wake of Naxalbari: A History of the Naxalite Movement in India, Subarnarekha, Calcutta.

3. Banerjee, S.(2008) “On the Naxalite Movement: A Report with a Difference”, Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (21), pp. 10-12.

4. Banik, N. (2009), “Trade and Social Development: The Case of Asia”, Asia- Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade Working Paper Series No.68.

5. Bell, C. and S. V. Dillen (2012) “How Does India’s Rural Roads Program Affect the Grassroots?”, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.6167, South Asia Region.

6. Burgess, R. and R. Pande, (2004), “Do Rural Banks Matter? Evidence from the Indian Social Banking Experiment”, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 4211, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

7. Chaudhuri, S. N. Gupta, (2009), ‘ “Levels of Living and Poverty Patterns: A District-Wise Analysis for India”, Economic and Political Weekly, 44 (9), pp. 94-101.

8. Debroy, B. (2003), “Introduction” in Debroy, B., and L. Bhandari, (eds.), District-Level Deprivation in the New Millennium, Konark Publishers and Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies, New Delhi, pp.8 -11.

9. Editorial (2008) “Widening Debate on the Naxalite Movement”, Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (19), pp. 5-6.

10. Guha, R. (2007), “Adivasis, Naxalite and Indian Democracy”, Economic and Political Weekly, 42 (32), pp. 3305-3312.

11. Khandker, S.R. and H.A. Samad, R. Ali, D.F. Barnes (2012), ‘ “Who Benefits Most from Rural Electrification?”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6095.

12. Kochar, K., U. Kumar, R. RajanA. Subramanian, (2006), “India’s Patterns of Development: What Happened, What Follows”, NBER Working Paper No. 12023. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

13. Kujur, R.K. (2009), “Naxal Conflict in 2008: An Assessment”, Issue Brief No. 93, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi.

14. Kumar, H. (2009), “Who Is the Problem, the CPI (Maoist) or the Indian State?”, Economic and Political Weekly, 44 (47), pp. 8-12.

15. Kurian, J. N. (2000), “Widening Regional Disparities in India: Some Indicators”, Economic and Political Weekly, 35 (7), pp.538-550.

16. Mankiw, N. G., D. Romer, and D. N. Weil, (1992), “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (2), pp. 407–437.

17. Mukherji, N. (2010) “Arms Over the People: What Have the Maoists Achieved in Dandakaranya?”, Economic and Political Weekly, 45 (25), pp.16-20.

18. Navlakha, G (2006), “Days and Nights in the Maoist Heartland”, Economic and Political Weekly, 45 (16), pp. 38-47.

19. Navlakha, G. (2006), ‘“Maoists in India”, Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (22), pp.2186-89.

20. Planning Commission (2008), “Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas”, Government of India, at http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/publications/rep_dce.pdf accessed on Jan 30, 2012.

21. Planning Commission (2010), “Evaluation Study on Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojana (RSVY), Government of India.

22. Purfield, C. (2006), “Mind the Gap – Is Economic Growth in India Leaving Some States Behind?”, International Monetary Fund Working Paper No. 06/103, International Monetary Fund Washington DC.

23. Ramana, P.V. (2011), Measures To Deal With Left-Wing Extremism/Naxalism, Occasional Paper No.20, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

24. Romer, P. (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), pp. 71–102.

25. Rosenzweig, M. R. (1990), “Population Growth and Human Capital Investments: Theory and Evidence”, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), pp. S38-S70.

26. Singh, P. (2006), The Naxalite Movement In India, Rupa and Co. New Delhi.

27. Subramanian, K.S. (2010), “Naxalite Movement and the Union Home Ministry”, Economic and Political Weekly, 40 (8), pp. 728-729.

28. Subramanian, K.S. (2010), “State Response to Maoist Violence in India: A Critical Assessment”, Economic and Political Weekly, 45 (32), pp. 23-26.

29. Tendulkar, D. S. (2010), “Inequality and Equity during Rapid Growth Process”, in S. Acharya and R. Mohan (Eds.) India’s Economy: Performance and Challenges. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.