Overall, the one major consistent result we obtain, whether on a short or long term basis, is that no new state has seen a complete unravelling of institutions or growth post re-organization.  That should be sufficient enough evidence to not blindly oppose the formation of smaller states, but to promote them on a case by case basis.

 

 

 

As forces favouring a larger number of smaller states gather momentum, the question of whether they indeed perform better needs to be answered empirically.  We focus on economic growth, and find that there is some evidence that growth, post reorganisation into smaller states, is higher.  However, in each of the cases of past reorganisations exogenous factors have played an important role in enabling (or disabling) higher growth.  

At the time of independence in 1947, India chose to be a federal state, with significant power to the state governments in response to the diversity in socio-economic conditions across the country. Over the last 60 years, the number of states and their boundaries has changed frequently and India now has 35 states and union territories, with strident demands for more still coming in. While the first major reorganisation of states was done in 1956 on linguistic lines, the economic rationale for the existence of a state was extensively debated then. However, in recent times, this strand of thought has had little analysis, despite the creation of new states since the sixties.

This paper therefore looks at the following issues: is there an economic case for smaller states? Or alternatively, would the states perform better after they break up from into smaller states? The motivation for this paper comes from the new states of this decade, which have left their parent states behind in growth rates and governance initiatives. This paper does not aim to find the ‘correct’ size of a state, however it makes the point that there are two countervailing forces – one, smaller states may do better as administration can be more responsive to local needs and regional differences combined with greater homogeneity. And two, smaller states have access to lesser human capital and civil society institutions and therefore might be susceptible to the problem of poorer institutions and susceptible to ‘take-over’ by non-desirable forces. 

This paper also focuses only on economic growth, not on other socio-economic parameters.  However, since most socio-economic factors that are used to measure progress are highly correlated with economic growth, arguably, economic growth should be one of the most important parameters to look at.  That admittedly does not imply that growth is the only parameter to study.  

Section II:  Rationale behind reorganisation of states 

At the time of independence, India had more than 500 states, most of which were extremely small, unviable to function as independent economic entities. By 1950, these states were organised into 28 units, by merging tiny states into larger entities. For instance, in 1948, 30 princely states occupying a combined territory of 27,000 sq km came together to form Himachal Pradesh. States were multi-lingual, raising severe administrative and social issues. The initial demarcation of state boundaries was therefore contested, with demands for reorganisation on linguistic grounds. There was intense debate and though the State Reorganisation Commission set up in 1953 accepted the rationale of language as a basis of state composition, it also went into the criterion of size and resources in different regions while forming the states. The case of Telangana and Andhra illustrates these issues best (see Box).  

---

---