Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:05 pm IST

Home » Business/Economy, Manipur » Political Economy Of Manipur: Transformation Within The Mixed Economy Paradigm

Political Economy Of Manipur: Transformation Within The Mixed Economy Paradigm

For an agricultural economy like Manipur, where private enterprises are absent and investments are dependent on the Central government initiatives, the plan outlay must focus on improving the agricultural sector. This demands optimum utilization of cultivable land, particularly in the hill areas of the state.

The Nehruvian strategy of development which may be regarded as the first formulation of Indian development strategy was sought to be implemented in the framework of a mixed economy. The mixed economy paradigm was exceedingly relevant for the India of Nehru’s time and is still very relevant for Manipur and the rest of the Northeast India where private enterprise is in its infancy. The economy of Manipur perpetually handicapped by its formidable terrain and its unfavorable location at the eastern periphery of the country has been moving at a slow rate. Nevertheless, it achieved a limited degree of transformation because of planned development efforts over the last fifty years or so.


In an economy where the private enterprise is weak and inactive, plan investments made by the government are the principal determinant of the productive capacity and output, and hence of the rate of economic growth. Public investments have two facets: the quantum and the composition. The quantum reflects the magnitude of efforts made and the composition indicates the various heads/items of the development prioritized by the government. (The plan outlays and expenditure of Manipur’”First to Tenth Five Year Plans’”are presented in the Annexure.)

The plan outlays for the first four Five Year Plans of Manipur were fixed at Rs. 154.89 lakhs, Rs. 625.11 lakhs, Rs. 1,287.56 lakhs, and Rs. 3,025.00 lakhs which were 0.06 per cent, 0.13 per cent, 0.15 per cent, and 0.19 per cent respectively of the public sector outlays for the first four Five Year Plans of India.1 Even such meager outlays could not be spent with the expenditure falling short of the approved outlays by 33.79 per cent and 4.50 per cent respectively, especially during the First and Second Plans. The main reason for this was the underdeveloped administrative capacity then. With the improvement in administrative infrastructure, the rate of spending plan money increased and the actual plan expenditure during the Seventh and the Eighth Plans were substantially higher than the outlays.

Unlike the First Five Year Plan of India which was characteristically described as a plan for the development of agriculture, the First Five Year Plan of Manipur was for the development of ‘˜transport and communication’ and ‘˜social services’ in as much as these two heads of development accounted for 87.54 per cent of the total plan outlay and 90.84 per cent of the actual plan expenditure for the First Plan. The high priority given to road construction and provision of ‘˜social service’ is quite understandable because inaccessibility and social backwardness has been the biggest hurdle in way of the development of the State. Other heads of development which were highly prioritized in the First

Five year Plan of India were just listed without significant allocation of funds in the First Plan document of the State.

The high emphasis on ‘˜transport & communication’ and ‘˜social services’ continued up to the Fifth Plan in which the two heads of development claimed more than 50 per cent of the plan resources. With the completion of a twenty-year road development plan for the State (1961’“81) which provided for a total road mileage of 1,547 miles consisting of an outer ring of roads along the borders of the State (480 miles), inner ring roads in the valley (89 miles), link roads connecting the sub-divisional headquarters (230 miles) and radial roads (748 miles),2 a network of rudimentary roads (covering both the hills and valley) was laid and with this the share of road construction in the total plan provision of the State came down to 14.25 per cent in the Sixth Plan and stabilized around that figure in the subsequent Plans. But the share of the ‘˜social services’ stabilized at around one-third of the plan provisions up to current Plan.

The Five Year Plans of Manipur did very little for development of medium and large industries. Industrialization is undoubtedly desirable. But it was not meaningful to attempt to establish modern large-scale industries in Manipur which does not have even the minimum baseline of social overhead capital. Therefore, the strategy for industrial development in Manipur has been directed towards the qualitative improvement of household/cottage industries, especially handloom weaving and handicrafts. Manipur government also follows a policy of encouraging small carpentry workshops, light engineering industries like rice mills, oil crushing mills, fruit processing, etc. set up on private initiatives. But the government’s own efforts to establish a few medium scale industries in the public sector, for instance, a spinning mill at Loitang Khunou, a cement factory at Hundung, a Vanaspati ghee project at Koirengei, etc. failed miserably.

Agriculture is the mainstay of the people of Manipur and, except the First Five Year Plan; all Five Year Plans of the State allocated a substantial proportion of the total plan outlay to agriculture and allied services/activities. Further, from the Fourth Plan onwards substantial allocations were made for closely-related heads of development, viz. ‘˜water and power development’ (up to the Sixth Plan) and ‘˜irrigation and flood control’ and ‘˜energy’ (from the Seventh Plan onwards). As a result, Manipur has been able to participate modestly in the Green Revolution of India. The yield per hectare of rice in Manipur valley (2003’“04) estimated at 2,809.48 kg compares favorably with all-India average of 2,051 kg (average of Rabi and Kharif crops) in the same year.3 The productivity of maize estimated at 3,217.95 kg per hectare in the hills of Manipur (2003’“04) is much higher than the all-India average of 1,983 kg/hectare in the same year.4 A notable dimension of development of agriculture in Manipur is diversification of farm activities in the areas of pisciculture, poultry, piggery and horticulture. These areas, however, await sufficient growth of demand for achieving their immense potentials.

But the development of agriculture in Manipur is not so much due to public intervention as to private enterprise. Despite substantial plan investments in agriculture and allied activities and in water and power development, and irrigation and flood control, only 25.33 per cent of areas5 under rice cultivation (the most extensively cultivated crop) are irrigated, and no power is available for use in agricultural operations and extensive areas of standing crops are damaged by floods every year. The farmers do not have easy access to other inputs like agricultural credit, modern farm equipments and fertilizers. What is worse, the farmers cannot get remunerative prices for their produces because of lack of market facilities. As a result of these limitations, only 6.81 per cent of the net area cropped is sown twice a year and the total production of rice in the State falls short of the requirement of the population by about 55,000 tonnes a year (20.2 per cent of the requirements).

A comparison of the investment patterns of the different Five Year Plans of Manipur presented in the Annexure reveals that later Plans had more balanced investments than the earlier ones. In particular, the development head ‘˜water and power development’ which remained as a single head from the First Plan to the Sixth Plan was bifurcated in the Seventh Plan into two heads, ‘˜irrigation and flood control’ and ‘˜energy’ emphasizing the importance of hydro-power generation for the economic development of the State along with the provision of irrigation water and prevention of flood damages. Disappointingly, by 2002’“03 hydel power stations in the State had a meager installed capacity of 3.2 MW in total generating only 0.165 million KWH of power. (6)


The impact of plan investment on the economy of Manipur may be analyzed in term of their effects on infrastructural growth, changes in income and employment generation, poverty alleviation and human development.


A major thrust of the Five Year Plans of Manipur has been on the development of infrastructure, both economic and social. While development of roads has been an exclusive responsibility of the government, that of road transport is mainly the contribution of private enterprise. The only public undertaking in road transport, the Manipur State Road Transport Corporation, which once enjoyed a virtual monopoly position, has now vanished. However, the contribution of the government to road construction and development is enormous. The total road mileage in Manipur increased more than seven fold from 959.8 km in 1956 to 7,172.0 km in 2002.7 While the mileage of state highways remained stagnant, that of national highways increased more than fourfold from 216.4 km in 1956 to 957.0 km in 2000. The growth rate of major district and other district roads increased from 743.4 km in 1956 to 1,639 km in 2000. But the most impressive growth profile is witnessed in respect of inter-village roads which increased from 296 km in 1961 to 3,563 km in 2000. Almost every village in Manipur valley is now connected with the state capital by a motorable road.

Reference has already been made to the poor performance of the State in the fields of hydel power generation and provision of irrigation water. Although there are a large number of branches of the nationalized banks in Manipur, bank credit is the scarcest commodity in the State. The credit deposit ratio in Manipur is one of the lowest amongst the Indian states. On the whole, Manipur has not achieved the minimum of economic infrastructure needed for development of agriculture, industry and services.

The high priority accorded to ‘˜social services’ in the Five Year Plans of Manipur resulted in substantial expansion of health and educational infrastructure. The number of hospitals including primary health centers rose from 24 in 1966 to 1,034 in 2001 and that of dispensaries, including primary health sub-centers, increased from 97 to 440 over the same period. Over the three and half decades under review, the number of doctors and para-medical staff (nurses, midwives and dais) employed in health centers increased from 65 and 168 to 971 and 1064 respectively. The number of beds available and that of indoor patients treated in these hospitals and dispensaries increased respectively from 514 and 3,400 to 2,286 and 52,800. The number of outdoor patients registered a nineteen-fold increase from 59,700 to 11, 22,400.8

However, the existing health infrastructure is still inadequate. Most of the primary health sub-centers in the State are without doctors. Where doctors are available, the doctor-indoor patient ratio is very low and declining. In 1966 one doctor was available for every 52 indoor patients, but in 2001 a doctor had to treat 54 such patients. The availability of hospital beds is very inadequate and declining. In 1966, 15 beds were available for every 100 indoor but in 2001 only 4 beds were available for 100 indoor patients.

There has been a phenomenal growth of educational infrastructure in Manipur during the plan period in terms of the number and the variety of educational institutions and the type and level of education they seek to impart. Starting from a low base with a few primary and secondary schools in the immediate post-World War II, Manipur has now two central universities, an Institute of Bio-diversity, a Regional Institute of Medical Sciences and a large number of colleges affiliated to Manipur University for imparting higher education in humanities, social sciences, basic sciences, and in engineering, medical, and agricultural sciences. Besides imparting instruction at the undergraduate and graduate levels, these institutions of higher learning provide research opportunities in fundamental studies and applied problems of national and regional significance.

For imparting secondary education, Manipur has now 603 high and higher secondary schools for boys and 56 such schools for girls with 7,490 male and 4,570 female teachers. For elementary education the State has 4,908 middle/junior high/senior basic schools and UJB/JB/primary schools for boys and 2,916 middle/junior high/senior basic schools and 3,498 UJB/JB/primary schools for girls.9 These elementary schools together have 11,048 male and 6,414 female teachers. The arrangements for pre-primary education are, however, poor.

Income & Employment Generation and Structural Changes-

With the increase in the role of private enterprise in generating the national output, impact of plan expenditure on the state domestic product of general category states, especially the developed states, has come down. But in the special category states, which have larger plan size per capita (funded mainly by central assistance) relatively to their own resources, plan expenditure remains as a significant factor in determining the size of their state domestic product. Manipur being a special category state, its plan expenditure exerts significant influence on its state domestic product.

Four series of estimates of the state domestic product of Manipur are available with the base years 1960’“61, 1970’“71, 1980’“81 and 1993’“94. The Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) of Manipur at 1960’“61 prices was estimated at Rs. 1187.4 lakhs in 1960’“61 and the NSDP per capita at Rs. 154.2. The NSDP and NSDP per capita rose by 53.75 and 11.69 per cent respectively over the decade 1960’“61 to 1970-71.10 Similarly the NSDP and NSDP per capita at 1970’“71 price registered 81.44 and 37.37 per cent rise during the period 1970’“71 to 1980’“81.11 Between 1960’“61 and 1970-74 and also between 1970’“71 and 1980’“81, there was little structural change in income generation. In 1960’“61, the shares of the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors in NSDP of Manipur were 55.68, 19.3 and 34.00 per cent respectively.12 In 1970’“71, the relative corresponding shares of the three occupational sectors in the NSDP were estimated at 50.82, 19.40 and 29.75 per cent.13 The sectoral distribution of NSDP juxtaposed with the sectoral distribution of workers is compiled from census reports. The distribution of workforce by occupational sectors in the State in the last five censuses is shown in Table 1. Taking into account the sectoral distribution of both income and employment generation, it may be observed that there were no major changes in the economic structure of Manipur during the sixties and seventies of the last century.

As against this, there were marked structural changes in income generation during the 1980s and 1990s and in employment creation during the 1990s and the changes are continuing. A major structural shift of manpower between 1991 census and 2001 census is seen in Table 1. While the number of workers employed in the primary and secondary sectors came down by 30.28 per cent (from 69.97 to 49.69 per cent of the total workforce) and 32.50 per cent (from 9.69 to 6.54 per cent of the total workforce) respectively, the number of workers engaged in the tertiary/service sector rose by 151.91 per cent.14 The shift in the workforce was not so marked during 1981’“91. But the sectoral change in income generation was quite marked right from 1980’“90 decade.15 The growth rates of the NSDP and NSDP per capita were also higher during 1980s and 1990s than during the previous decades. This is illustrated in Table 2.

Tables 1 and 2 indicate that the income generated in the secondary sector moved erratically, while that generated in the primary and tertiary sectors witnessed a continuous downswing and a continuous upswing respectively. Read together, the two tables reveal that the service sector is booming in income and employment generation while the agricultural sector is slumping in both.

The rising role of the service sector and the lessening part played by the agrarian sector are the natural consequences of growth process. A disquieting feature in this process is the marked inequality in inter-sectoral per capita income generation. According to the 2001 census, out of 22,93,896 persons in Manipur 6,59,314 were main workers of whom 3,27,578 were engaged in agriculture and allied activities, 43,163 worked in manufacturing and other secondary economic activities and 2,88,573 were employed in service sector. Out of the total net state income of Manipur for 2001’“02, estimated at Rs. 2947.33 crores at current price, Rs. 935.5 crores were generated in the primary sector. Rs. 194.8 crores and Rs. 1817.0 crores originated in the secondary and tertiary sectors respectively. Therefore, the NSDP per workers worked out at Rs. 28,599, Rs. 45,129 and Rs 62,966 in the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors respectively. Hence, an average agricultural worker is placed in the most disadvantageous position.

Poverty Alleviation-

The growth performance of Manipur has crucial implications for poverty reduction. In the light of sample surveys of poverty conducted by the NSSO, the Planning Commission made estimate of state specific percentage of the population below poverty line.16 According to these estimates, while the percentage of population below poverty line for India as a whole declined from 54.88 in 1973’“74 to 26.1 in 1999’“2000, the poverty ratio of Manipur gradually came down from 49.96 per cent to 28.54 per cent over the same period, and in the year 1999’“2000 Manipur occupied the 22nd position among 32 states and union territories in terms performance in poverty reduction. The same estimates also indicate that while the rural poverty ratio of the State came down from 52.67 per cent in 1973’“74 to 40.04 per cent in 1999’“2000, the urban poverty ratio declined from 34.67 per cent to 7.47 per cent over the same period. The relatively rapid decline in urban poverty is due to the growth of employment opportunities in the service sector noted earlier.


The review given above on the transformation of Manipur’s economy indicates that continuation of the process of growth demands large amounts of investible resources and their effective utilization. At present, Manipur has neither investible resources of her own nor the ability for efficient spending. As Manipur is a ‘˜special category state’, it is likely to get liberal central assistance for development purposes on a long-term basis.

But this is not unconditional; much depends on policy changes at the level of the National Development Council and the Government of India. The current thinking is for moving away from the traditional approach of steadily increasing the flow of development fund and expecting commensurate development results. The stress is now on ‘˜effectiveness, quality and reforms and not so much on the volume of investment alone’.17 Therefore, how much plan money Manipur will get from the Centre depends upon the State government’s capacity to engage effective spending, quality improvement in the services it renders, and its capacity to implement reform measures and consolidate its own fiscal strength by mobilizing own resources and reducing unproductive non-plan expenditure. Improvement in the quality of governance invariably is the prime necessity of the hour.

Another prime necessity is improvement on the condition of the law and order in the State. Any investment for development, public or private, requires a peaceful environment for successful implementation of the development program. This is absolutely necessary for attracting and stimulating private investment. Private investors are profit seekers who would like to plough back profits and subsequently enhance further investments for additional profits. If the society by and large is to gain from their contributions, the State must ensure that private investors’ investments are protected by creating conducive atmosphere for development activities. Unfortunately, such protections are not assured in Manipur. This serves as the biggest reason for the absence of private enterprise in the State. But development efforts cannot wait for the return of completely peaceful conditions. Efforts for peace and development have to go on side by side.

To attain fiscal viability in the long run is another stiff challenge. To tackle this task, the State government has to pursue some fiscal objectives and reform measures such as widening of the tax base, increasing tax rates, plucking out loopholes in the tax collection system, revision and stricter collection of user charges, reduction/abolition of unproductive subsidies, abolition of vacant post except in the departments of health and education, etc.

Fiscal reforms need to be synchronized with, if not preceded by, expansion of income generation. It is not possible to increase taxation and implement tax like ‘˜measures of resource mobilization’ without increasing the paying capacity of the people. For this purpose, it is necessary to revise plan priorities among the major heads of development as well as among different subheads/schemes/projects within a major head.

For a primarily agricultural economy like Manipur, the need is to increase the plan allocation on agriculture and allied activities by transferring some resources from ‘˜social services’ which are not directly productive. This must be treated as a policy imperative. Diversification of farming also deserves high policy priority in the valley areas of Manipur along with macro-level policy incentives to which farmers with progressive ideas will respond positively. Simultaneously, agro-industries need to be developed to create demand for the rising farm output. At present, there is a glut of farm produces of various types of crops in the Imphal market in the peak season because of lack of export markets for the raw produces and absence of internal demand for industrial use. If a number of units of agro-based industries of various kinds are set up, farmers will get remunerative price for their produce along with growth of income and employment in the manufacturing sector.

Alongside, the development of agriculture in the hill areas of Manipur deserves special attention. At present, farming practices in the hill districts are primitive because, in the absence of individual land ownership in the hill areas, the cultivators cannot have settled cultivation. So the most fundamental requirement of agricultural development in the hill areas is reform of land holding system to confer permanent, heritable and transferable ownership of land on the individual cultivators. The opening up of the present inaccessible areas must follow this by constructing a good network of roads. Once these two conditions are fulfilled, the hill people can give up the destructive practice of shifting cultivation and specialize in the cultivation of horticultural crops on settled farms. This is an area of development, which deserves high priority in the Five Year Plans of Manipur.

If agriculture and industry grow and are filliped by the development of infrastructure, trade & commerce and transport industry will come up, and their growth will be financed by private enterprise independently of state intervention.

Table 1: Distribution of Workforce in Manipur by Occupational Sector Percentages

Census year Primary sector Secondary sector Tertiary sector
1961 66.26 23.05 10.69
1971 71.27 14.53 14.20
1981 68.59 9.68 21.73
1991 69.97 9.69 20.34
2001 49.69 6.54 43.77

Source: Census Report as Compiled by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Manipur and published in Statistical Abstract of Manipur 2004, pp.16’“21.

Table 2: Sectoral Distribution of NSDP Generated (in %)

Income year 1970’“71 1980’“81 1990’“91 1997’“98
Base Year (at 1970’“71 prices) (at 1980’“81 prices) (at 1980’“81 prices) (at 1980-81 prices)
Primary Sector 52.13 49.10 38.02 35.59
Secondary Sector 17.18 7.65 10.20 9.12
Tertiary Sector 30.64 43.25 51.78 55.29

Annexure I (B): Five Year Plan Outlay & Expenditure in Manipur (Rs. in lakhs)

Income year 1970’“71 1980’“81 1990’“91 1997’“98
Base Year (at 1970’“71 prices) (at 1980’“81 prices) (at 1980’“81 prices) (at 1980-81 prices)
Primary Sector 52.13 49.10 38.02 35.59
Secondary Sector 17.18 7.65 10.20 9.12
Tertiary Sector 30.64 43.25 51.78 55.29

Annexure I (B): Five Year Plan Outlay & Expenditure in Manipur (Rs. in lakhs)

Head of Development 5th Five Year Plan


Ad-hoc Plan


6th Five Year Plan


Outlay Exp. Outlay Exp. Outlay Exp.
1 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 Agriculture & Allied Services 1,635.00




1,008.50 1,046.44 4,361.00




2 Co-operation 126.00 84.69 62.00 54.94 178.00 192.00
3 Water & Power Development 2,862.00




1,740.00 1,910.76 6,356.00




4 Industry & Mining 691.00 474.76 364.00 322.55 1498.00




5 Transport & Communication 1,876.00




1,170.80 1,092.10 3,517.00




6 Social & Community Services 1,694.00




1,334.00 1,499.69 7,973.00




7 Economic Services 63.00 38.25 36.00 32.84 218.00 203.27
8 General Services 339.00 226.10 211.30 154.07 564.00 686.89
Grand Total 9,286.00 6,661.91 5,926.30 6,113.39 2,4665.00 2,4312.32
Shortfall in Exp. (%) 28.25 ‘“ Marginal

Annexure (C): Five Year Plan Outlay & Expenditure in Manipur (Rs. in lakhs)

Head of Development 7th Five Year Plan (1985’“90) 8th Five Year Plan (1992’“97) 9th Five Year Plan (1997’“2002)
Outlay Exp. Outlay Exp. Outlay Exp.
1 18 19 20 21 22 23
1 Agriculture & Allied Services 566.00












2 Rural Development 1,435.00




1,450.00 4,525.19






3 Special Area Programme ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ 2,000.00




4 Irrigation & Flood Control 7,800.00












5 Energy 3,642.00












6 Industry & Mining 2,410.00












7 Transport 7,150.00












8 Communication ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“
9 Sc., Tech. & Environment 250.00 233.67 500.00 490.02






10 General Eco. Services 916.00 838.72 1,694.00 2,129.59






11 Social Services 12,687.00












12 General Services 1,050.00












13 External Aided Projects ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ 14600.00


14 NHPS ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“
Grand Total 43,000.00












Shortfall in Exp. (%) 17.40 (Overspent) 25.02 (Overspent) 31-68

Source: [Annexure I (B) & I (C)]: Department of Planning, Govt. of Manipur. Exp. ‘“ Expenditure; NHPS ‘“ National Highway Patrolling Scheme



Annexure I (A): 18.11 Five Year Plan Outlay and Expenditure in Manipur (Rs. in lakhs)

Head of Development 1st Five Year Plan (1951’“56) 2nd Five Year Plan (1956’“61) 3rd Five Year Plan (1961’“66) Ad-hoc Plan


4th Five Year Plan (1969’“74)
Outlay Expenditure Outlay Expenditure Outlay Expenditure Outlay Expenditure
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Agriculture & Allied Services 6.30


4.33 109.51








125.97 101.17 356.42




2 Co-operation 0.40 0.03 12.11 11.34 18.21 22.54 11.21 9.78 50.58 45.06
3 Water & Power Development. 12.00 4.29 45.00 41.82 118.37 58.56 115.00 89.19 424.88




4 Industry & Mining 0.60 0.68 13.06 12.08 49.39 35.28 44.00 18.90 117.22




5 Transport & Communication. 91.89












428.60 316.86 1170.85




6 Social & Community Services. 43.70












260.20 152.07 897.05




7 Economic Services ‘“ ‘“ 0.62 0.61 1.75 8.03 27.84 31.92 8.00 11.49
8 General Services ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“ ‘“
Grand Total 154.89 102.56 625.11 569.93 1,287.56 1281.28 1012.82 719.89 3052.00 3100.00
Shortfall in expenditure (%) 33.79 4.50 Almost nil ‘“ Overspent

Source: Department of Planning, Govt. of Manipur.

Annexure II: Tenth Plan Outlays and Progress of Actual Expenditure during First Three Annual Plans (2002’“05) and Anticipated Expenditure of the 4th AP (2005’“06) and Proposed Outlay for the Annual Plan 2006’“07 (Rs. in lakhs)

Major Heads of Development Tenth Five Year Plan 2002’“07 First Three Annual Plans 2002’“05 4th Annual Plan 2005’“06 5th Annual Plan 2006’“07
Approved outlay Approved Outlay Actual Expenditure %  of expenditure

to outlay

Approved outlay Anticipated Expenditure Proposed outlay %  of the total outlay
Amount % Amount Amount % Amount Amount Amount
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Agricultural Activities 11,386.00 4.06 4,125.95 3,754 91.00 1,455.77 1,455.77 2,411.66 1.86
2 Rural Development 8,769.50 3.13 7,376.79 5,449.39 73.87 3784.22 3,783.22 14,143.38 10.88
3 Irrigational Flood Control 2,288.00 0.82 6,464.54 3,596.98 55.64 2366.37 2,366.37 2,863.00 2.20
4 Irrigation & Mineral 36,853.50 13.14 22,465.00 11,982.93 53.34 14,690.33 14,690.33 22,109.00 17.01
5 Energy 3,050.50 8.22 20,279.63 4,972.65 24.52 8,066.00 8,066.00 9,282.00 7.14
6 Industry & Mineral 33,294.00 11.89 17,842.26 5,985.51 33.55 5,359.00 5,359.00 11,989.85 9.23
7 Transport 22,348.05 7.97 15,788.00 10,474.63 66.16 6,611.00 6,611.00 7,286.00 5.61
8 Communication
9 Sc. & Tech. & Environment 1,721.50 0.61 3,650.61 1,545.88 42.35 1,495.00 1,895.00 1,835.00 1.41
10 Gen. Eco. Services 24,521.50 8.75 8,474.19 4,577.12 54.01 10,288.88 10,288.88 6,578.80 5.06
11 Social Services 1,06,522.00 37.99 78,774.25 48,897.39 62.07 39,381.57 39,381.57 42,306.40 32.55
12 General    Services 35,685.00 2.03 6,180.50 2,410.64 39.00 4,879.62 4,879.62 8,900.68 6.85
13 Others 3,960.00 1.41 2,714.13 1,184.67 43.64 160.24 160.24 255.02 0.20
Grand Total 2,80,400.00 100.00 1,92,772.00 1,05,510.63 54.73 98,537.00 98,937.00 1,29,958.79 100.00

Source: Planning Department, Government of Manipur

Note: Actual Expenditure during the first 3 annual plans=54.73% outlays for the 3 annual plans=37.63% of the total Tenth Plan outlay


1. Annexure I (A)

2. ‘˜Techno-Economic Survey of Manipur’, Chapter 8, National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi, 1961. An outline of the Road Plan for twenty years (1961’“81) is available in the Report along with a Road Map of Manipur. The implementation of the Plan was verified with a former Chief Engineer, Manipur.

3. Government of Manipur, Statistical Abstract of Manipur 2004, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, p. 317.

4. Government of India, Economic Survey, 2004’“05, Ministry of Finance Economic Division, p. 318.

5. Statistical Abstract of Manipur 2004, op.cit., pp. 140’“43.

6. Ibid., p. 186.

7. Government of Manipur, Statistical Handbook of Manipur, 1975, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, pp. 170’“71.

8. Government of Manipur, Statistical Handbook of Manipur 2002, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, pp. 294’“95.

9. Ibid., pp. 261’“71.

10. Statistical Handbook of Manipur, 1975, op.cit., pp. 254’“57.

11. Government of Manipur, Statistical Handbook of Manipur, 1985, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, pp. 250’“51.

12. Statistical Handbook of Manipur, 1975, op.cit., p. 15.

13. Statistical Handbook of Manipur, 1985, op.cit., p. 13.

14. Compiled from Census Reports by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Manipur.

15. ‘˜Domestic Product of States in India, 1960’“61 to 2000’“01’, Economic and Political Weekly Research Foundation, Mumbai, 2003, p. 205.

16. Government of India, Tenth Five Year Plan, Vol. III, Planning Commission, New Delhi, para 3.21.

17. Ibid., para 6.7


*The paper was written by M. Iboton Singh

* The article was originally published at www.manipurresearchforum.org.

* The article has been published with due permission from the Manipur Research Forum.

* You may visit www.manipurresearchforum.org for further readings.

(Picture Courtesy: The Hindu)

Enhanced by Zemanta
Number of Views :2064

Related Sites:

*The Sangai Express- Largest Circulated News Paper In Manipur
*E-Pao! :: Complete e-platform for Manipuris

Share |

*All postings on this website are provided “AS IS” from the source duly mentioned at the end of the post. It comes with no warranties, and confer no rights. All entries in this website are the views/opinions of the writers and don’t necessarily reflect the view/opinion of ManipurOnline.

Leave a comment