000			01598pab a2200193 454500
008			180718b2013 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aGhate, Chetan
245			_aWhy were some Indian states so also to participate in the turn around?
260			_c2013
300			_ap.118-127.
362			_a30 Mar
520			_aIn earlier research we identified the start of the growth turnaround in the late 1980s. This is consistent with the pattern of (particularly trade) policy liberalisation at the time. Since then there has been a remarkable improvement in per capita incomes. But a puzzle remains. The change in policy should have had a symmetric effect across India. Yet the participation of different states in the turnaround has been very uneven. In this paper we examine whether the relative size of shifts in growth across states could have been predicted from data on state characteristics, measured before the turnaround. We use the "robustness" techniques first proposed by Sala-i-Martin. As might be expected, higher initial literacy, urbanisation and access to ports all predicted stronger growth. But we also find that relatively high shares of both agriculture and registered manufacturing predicted weaker growth across all sectors of a given state, suggesting negative externalities. We guess, along with some other evidence, that this reflects the negative impact of state intervention. - Reproduced.
650			_aEconomic growth - India
650			_aEconomic growth
700			_aWright, Stephen
773			_aEconomic and Political Weekly
908			_aN
909			_a99244
999			_c99243 _d99243