INTRODUCTION:

Regional inequalities in human development are a new dimension of spatial inequalities and become very popular since UNDP introduced the first human development report in 1990. The inequalities in human development are mainly focused on the level of human development index. Human development indices should attempt to evaluate the achievements of growth and development in terms of improvement in quality of life of masses and overall development of society and environment.

UNDP introduced Human Development Index (HDI) in 1990 Human Development Index (HDI) was developed by Mahabub-ul-Haq and Amartya Sen. its covers three dimension. Human development is defined as a process of enlarging people’s choices to enable them. It evaluates the average improvement in a country or region in basic three feature of human development, along health life, access to knowledge and decent standard of living. Per capita real income is usually considered as a means of good living and a catch-all variable capturing those aspects of well-being that are not well represented by life expectancy or education (Gosh 2006). The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices measuring the improvements in each aspect (UNDP, 2011). Human Development Index would significantly contribute to the preparation of better plans focusing on the Human Development Indicators.

Karnataka has gradually become low level human development state, in terms of proportion of people living below the poverty line, and with much slower improvements in human development indicators. There are large inequalities within the state. Karnataka Government has taken various serious measures and started implementation through many developmental boards. Prof. D.M. Nanjundappa committee had done an extensive and sophisticated study on spatial inequalities and recommended series of measures for the development. This study focused protective measured of spatial inequality of human development indicators to education, health and income index. This study is being to identify spatial inequality across the district in Karnataka. Karnataka at the district level in respect of per capita income, overall backwardness, poverty and human development are followed by an analysis of districts human development regional inequality.

REVIEW OF LITRATURE:

Many studies regarding human development, this study focused on regional inequalities education, health and income human development in Karnataka. A number of studies, both at the national and international level have dealt with the problem of regional inequality and human development.

Madhusudan Gosh (2006) in this paper shows that regional disparities in human development and their association with per capita income and per capita social sector expenditure. The results shows regional convergence in human development despite a divergence in real per capita income, indicating that the poor states, which have failed to catch up with the rich ones in terms of per capita income, have however managed to catch up in terms of human development. Female literacy is found to have a significant impact on human development. Dholakia (2003) in this paper study period of 1977-80 to 1997-2000, his taken 26 states, No significant trend for increase or decrease of disparity in per capita income in 1980-90s. Analysis the trends in regional disparity with respect to a range of human development indicators-12 out of 16 indicators show convergence. Vyasulu and vani (1997) conducted a study of human development in Karnataka using HDI. While making concluding remarks they suggested that sustained political support to an across-the-board improvement in each district was essential if the human development index was to show improvement. Rao (2000) in this report made an attempt to bring out the insights provided by the human development report for the state of Karnataka. His study revealed that the state was lagging behind even in achieving what is regarded as minimum essential norms of human development. Mahanty (2000) conducted a study with an alternative set of indicators for Andhra Pradesh for the year 1982-83, 1981-88 and 1992-93 using five different methods of index. He found that while the pattern of human development was relatively stagnant, some districts were lagging behind. Vijaybhaskar et al (2004) in their study while highlighting the key findings of the Human Development Report of the state of Tamil Nadu and concluded that there is a vast inter-district and intra-regioanl differences across gender and caste in human development achievements. Ramchandra and Shivanand (2016) in this paper focused on human development in Karnataka, role of the district wise, analyse the human development index in Karnataka. The HDI value of the state has improved from 0.541 to 0.650 between 1991 to 2001 with 7^th rank of the 15 Indian states were has above the national average 0.423 and 0.621 respectively during same period, it states that growth of human development has been important in terms of infant mortality, literacy rate and life expectancy. It highlights that district wise range from 0.753 with Bangalore urban, Karnataka taking the top position in 2001 Dr, D.M. Nanjudappa (2002) in this report to find out the extent of regional imbalance at the taluk level in Karnataka. It is analyses the socio-economic indicators, identified 114 taluks as backward taluks among 175 taluks in the state. Further these 114 taluks were categorized as most backward (35), more backward (40) and backward (39). The study suggested an outlay Rs. 31,000 crore for the development of these under developed taluks through the 8 years of Special Development Plan (SDP).

The numbers of studies have already been undertaken on human development and its three dimensions like socio-economic indicators. The present study is to analyse the regional inequalities in the level of human development in Karnataka.

METHODOLOGY:

Human development is a multivariate phenomenon several aspect of life. The present study is carried out Karnataka of where the level of inequalities in regional and socio-economic parameters for human development, education, health, longevity is persistently ranking average norms. It is based on secondary data. The study is related to all the districts of Karnataka. In this study data period 2001-2011, this data collected from Karnataka economic survey report 2002-03, 2012-13 and 2014-15, Karnataka human development reports 2005-2014. This study use for the methodology is very simple statistical tools and techniques are being used to interpret results.

Karnataka Profile:

Karnataka, India’s eighth largest state in terms of geographical area (191791 sq.km) is home to 6.11 crore people (2011 Census). The state’s population has grown by 15.7% during the last decade, and population density has risen from 276 per sq. km in 2001 to 319 per sq.km in 2011. It has a sex ratio of 968 females for 1000 male and IMR & MMR of 35 for thousand live births and 144 per lakh institutional deliveries respectively. The fertility rate in the state is 1.9 and life expectancy at 65.3 years. It is seen that in all other major demographic indicators Karnataka fairs well than all India average. Karnataka occupies 9^th place (5.05%) of the country total population) in India with regard to population. In 2011, the state had 30 districts, 176 taluks, 29340 villages and 347 towns in Karnataka. The Karnataka state on annual exponential growth, literacy rate and sex ratio which form one of the basic indicators of human development, Karnataka show a better performance in decreasing the gender gap with 968 in 2011 and 965 in 2001 respectively. There is overall good performance in literacy rates in state with Karnataka (75.90%).

Table: 1 Karnataka Human Development Index Report 2001-2014

Karnataka state	KHDI 2001		KHDI 2011
District	Values	Rank	Values	Ranks
Bangalore	0.753	1	0.928	1
Bangalore Rural	0.653	6	0.603	7
Chitradurga	0.627	16	0.386	23
Davanagere	0.635	12	0.528	14
Kolar	0.625	17	0.543	11
Shimoga	0.673	5	0.596	8
Tumkur	0.63	15	0.471	17
Chikkamanglore	0.647	9	0.627	5
Dakshina Kannada	0.722	2	0.691	2
Udupi	0.714	3	0.675	3
Hassan	0.639	11	0.576	9
Kodagu	0.697	4	0.658	4
Mandya	0.609	19	0.491	15
Mysore	0.631	14	0.533	12
Chamarajanagar	0.576	25	0.401	22
Belagavi	0.648	8	0.449	18
Vijayapura	0.589	23	0.33	27
Bagalkot	0.591	22	0.384	24
Dharwad	0.642	10	0.61	6
Gadag	0.634	13	0.35	26
Haveri	0.603	20	0.406	21
Uttara Kannada	0.653	7	0.565	10
Bellari	0.617	18	0.354	25
Bidar	0.599	21	0.43	19
Gulbarga	0.564	26	0.407	20
Raichur	0.547	27	0.165	30
Koppal	0.582	24	0.28	28
Yadgiri	0	0	0.196	29
Ramnagara	0	0	0.533	13
Chikkaballapura	0	0	0.486	16
Karnataka	0.650		0.508

Source: Karnataka Human Development Report- 2001, Economic Survey Report -2014

Human Development in Karnataka:

Karnataka has made significant progress in improving the human development status of its people over the last few decades. However despite the progress the state has a long way to go in achieving the desired Human Development Index goals (2015). Karnataka's performance in human development has been improving over the years in terms of HDI value, despite the slightly hovering ranking positions varying between 6th to 8th positions over the period from 1981- 0.346 to 2012- 0.611. It can be noted from that over the years there is a positive growth rate in human development index. While Kerala has fared well in all indices of human development and stands first in HDI rank, states like Karnataka are also affirmative. Karnataka does better in education index 0.577 respectively. Health index compared to Karnataka with 0.633 and 0.577 respectively. The aggregate of all three indices puts Karnataka in 12^th place. It is analysis form that in the state the poverty is on a decline. Karnataka have shown a decrease of 12.6 percent and 12.5 percent respectively. This means that, the consumption expenditure is better in Karnataka.

Table: 2 present the data relating to the Karnataka HDI figures have shown wide inter district variation, the estimated value of HDI varies from 0.650 to 0.508 HDI values in 2001-2011, where the districts have been ranked on the basis of HDI values. Data depicts that Bangalore urban to the best performing district during 2001-2011 periods. Raichur and Gulbarga were the Low performing districts in terms of HDI in 2001, and then Raichur and Yadgiri were the worst performing districts in terms of HDI until 2011. However, the most recent HDI calculations for the year 2011-12 reveal that Yadgiri is now the worst performing district and large inequality.

Education Index:

The human development paradigm recognizes the role of education in the expansion of choices for well being security and comfort. Therefore, the right to education is recognized as one of the fundamental human right and, the drive towards universal elementary education aims at ensuring its delivery. Karnataka state is a fast growing economy and this growth is largely based on the knowledge base of the society. The state has embarked on significant reforms in the education sector with increased public investment to ensure access, equity and quality in education, with community involvement. The literacy rate and the total enrollment rate in elementary and high schools has become a major indicator of education.

Literacy rate:

Literacy is vital for development in different fields. Separately from form livelihood development, where the importance of education is principal, literacy can cover the way for reduction in population growth, child mortality and poverty and facilitate in attaining gender equality, sustainable and holistic growth.

Table 4: Karnataka District Wise Literacy Rate 2001-2011

Karnataka state	Literacy rate (%)
District	2001	2011
Bangalore	82.96	88.48
Bangalore Rural	69.59	78.29
Chitradurga	64.45	73.82
Davanagere	67.43	76.3
Kolar	65.84	74.33
Shimoga	74.52	80.5
Tumkur	67.01	74.32
Chikkamagalore	72.2	79.24
Dakshina Kannada	83.35	88.62
Udupi	81.25	86.29
Hassan	68.63	75.89
Kodagu	77.99	82.52
Mandya	61.05	70.14
Mysore	63.48	72.56
Chamarajanagar	50.82	1.6
Belagavi	64.21	73.94
Vijayapura	57.01	67.2
Bagalkot	57.3	69.39
Dharwad	71.61	80.3
Gadag	66.11	75.18
Haveri	67.79	77.6
Uttara Kannada	76.6	84.03
Ballari	57.4	67.85
Bidar	60.94	71.01
Gulbarga	54.34	65.65
Raichur	48.81	60.46
Koppal	54.1	67.28
Yadgiri	39.9	52.36
Ramnagara	60.71	69.2
Chikkaballapura	59.24	70.08
Karnataka	66.6	75.6

Source: Economic Survey Report- 2002-03, 2012-13

Table 3 shows that literacy rate in the India has 74.4%. Karnataka urban male literacy rate in the state has crossed 90%. In contrast, however, rural female literacy rate in the state is yet to cross 60%. The literacy rank of the state was 9^th among 16 major states during 2001. It maintained this position even in 2011.

Table 4 shows that literacy rate in Karnataka has increased to 75.60% in 2011 from 66.64% in 2001 exhibiting significant success. The literacy rank of the state was 9^th among 16 major states during 2001 and the same is continued even in 2011. Dakshina Kannada recorded the highest literacy rate of (88.62 %) and Yadgiri the lowest rate of 52.36%. While other districts were Bangalore (88.48), Udupi (86.29), Kodagu (82.52), Uttar Kannada (84.43), Chikkamanglore (79.24), Shimoga (80.5), Hasan (75.89), Bangalore Raral (78.29), had the districts is highest literacy rate in 2001-2011. While Yadagiri (52.36), Raichure (60.46), Koppal (67.28), Gulbarga (65.65), Ballari (67.85), Bagalkote (69.39), had the low literacy districts in Karnataka in 2001-2011.

Health Index:

Health is an important human development indicator and has a great significance for the overall development of the state. Achieving and maintaining health is an important and on- going process. Health is a basic human right. It is a priority item on the national and international development agenda. The Millennium Development Goals (MDG), which encompasses child and maternal health, form a blueprint agreed to by all the countries in the world. The progress of the health indicators has been encouraging in the state during the last few years. The death rate is already at a lower level and the birth rate is declining faster. However, there are wide inequities in the health status within the state.

Table 5 shows that the health sector, has aimed at controlling population and reducing infant and maternal mortality through strengthening health services. In addition, attempts have been made to remove intra-regional and regional inequalities by improving health services. The progress of the health indicators has been encouraging in the state during the last few years. The death rate is already at a lower level and total fertility rate 1.9 children per woman for the year 2013. The infant mortality has 10 per 1000 live births from about 58 in 2001-02 to 35 in 2011.

Table 6: Karnataka District Wise Health Index report 2001-2011

Karnataka state	Infant mortality rate
District	2001	2011
Bangalore	45	15
Bangalore Rural	48	27
Chitradurga	54	42
Davanagere	52	38
Kolar	59	34
Shimoga	45	24
Tumkur	53	34
Chikkamanglore	62	22
Dakshina Kannada	44	19
Udupi	45	11
Hassan	59	19.5
Kodagu	62	29
Mandya	62	26
Mysore	56	39
Chamarajanagar	57	34
Belagavi	45	37
Vijayapura	67	34
Bagalkot	64	43
Dharwad	69	35
Gadag	66	50
Haveri	66	35
Uttara Kannada	59	25
Ballari	53	55
Bidar	66	31
Gulbarga	67	49
Raichur	59	67
Koppal	65	58
Yadgiri	0	48
Ramnagara	0	27
Chikkaballapura	0	34
Karnataka	55	32

Source: Economic Survey Report 2001-03, 2012-13

Table 3 shows that the health indicator has aimed at controlling population and reducing infant and maternal mortality through strengthening health services. In addition, attempts have been made to remove intra-regional and regional inequalities by improving health services. The number of the Infant Mortality Rate is defined as the number of infant deaths (deaths below the age of one year) per thousand births. The infant mortality rates based on the data for the years 2001-2011 are presented. Karnataka Infant Mortality Rate from 95 in 1971 to 28 in 2013, MMR has from 213 to 133 for 1 lakh live births. Total fertility rate from 2.3 in 2003 to 1.9 in 2012 and crude birth rate from 41.6 in 1961 to 18.3 in 2013, crude death rate from 22.2 in 1961 to 7.0 in 2013. The Infant Mortality Rate was decline from 82 per 1000 population in 55 per 1000 in 2001-02 and 32 percent in 2011. Dharwad35, Vijauapura 34, Gadag 50, Koppal 58, Raichure 67, Bagalkote 43, Raichure 67, Ballari 55, Hasan, Gulbarga 49, and Yadgiri 48, district is highest IMR in Karnataka in 2001-2011. While Bangalore 15, Hassan 19.5, Dakhshina Kannda 19, Udupi 11, Bangalore Rural 27, Chikkamagalore 22, Uttar Kannada 25, and Mandya 26, had the districts were lowest IMR in Karnataka in 2001-2011.

Table 4: Karnataka per Capita Income 2001-2011

Karnataka state	PC NSDP (Rs)
District	2001	2011-12
Bangalore	24774	130577
Bangalore Rural	17144	59879
Chitradurga	10155	30812
Davanagere	9989	32889
Kolar	9619	36747
Shimoga	12152	40606
Tumkur	9408	30145
Chikkamanglore	13328	37193
Dakshina Kannada	20682	67725
Udupi	15471	54454
Hassan	10263	30716
Kodagu	18838	63729
Mandya	9100	26408
Mysore	13178	38430
Chamarajanagar	10182	25896
Belagavi	11085	30551
Vijayapura	9092	26471
Bagalkot	11557	30166
Dharwad	12549	53600
Gadag	10607	30510
Haveri	7793	26812
Uttara Kannada	12043	32154
Bellari	12291	52881
Bidar	7654	23292
Gulbarga	8616	26647
Raichur	7579	27475
Koppal	10882	27160
Yadgiri	0	37154
Ramnagara	0	38416
Chikkaballapura	0	30165
Karnataka

Source: Karnataka Economic Survey Report- 2001-02, 2012-13

Per capita Income:

The standards of living of a person/ family depends on the quality of the living with the basic needs of the employment status, the income and the decent standard of living and power, safe drinking water, baths and toilet facilities, or at least, close access to the premises. They should use modern cooking fuels. Thus, the availability of all these facilities in every home becomes a major indicator of good quality life (DHDR, 2014)

Karnataka had highest growth rate of GDP and per capita Income in the country during 2001-2011 of 8.2 per cent and 7.6 per cent in that order. The per capita income (PCI) measures the standard of living of the people and is a major constituent of Human Development Indicators. However, the state continues to be in the middle- income state, with per capita income slightly below the all India average. The state is moderately better placed in economic development and it ranked 6^th terms of per Capita GSDP in 2001-2011. While Bangalore Urban 24774, Dakshina Kannada 20682, Kodagu 18838, districts were the highest per capita income, Bidar 7654, Gulbarga 8616, Raichure 7579, Vijauapura 9092, Thumkur 9408, Kolara 9619, Haveri 7793, district were lowest per capita income in 2001. While Bangalore 130577, Dakshina Kannada 67725, Kodagu 63729, Udupi 54454, and Bangalore Rural 59879, Dharwad 53600, and Ballari 52881, districts were the highest per capita income, in 2011. While Bidar 23292, Koppal 27160, and Yadgiri 37154, Gulbarga 26647, districts were lowest per capita income in 2011. The growing inter-district variation is on important indicator and source of broader inter-spatial inequality in the process of state’s economic development. However, a low coefficient of variation as such does not necessarily imply either a higher or lower district economic growth or regional inequality.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS:

The present study is carried out Karnataka of where the level of inequalities in regional and socio-economic parameters for human development, education, health, longevity. It is based on secondary data. The study is related to all the districts of Karnataka. In this study data period 2001-2011, study using secondary data and simple statistical tools. Karnataka HDI figures have shown wide inter district variation, the estimated value of HDI varies from 0.650 to 0.508 HDI values in 2001-2011, Data depicts that Bangalore urban to the best performing district during 2001-2011 periods. Raichur and Gulbarga were the Low performing districts in terms of HDI in 2001, and then Raichur and Yadgiri were the worst performing districts in terms of HDI until 2011. However, the most recent HDI calculations for the year 2011-12 reveal that Yadgiri is now the worst performing district and large inequality. Literacy rate has Dakshina Kannada were the highest district and Yadagiri had the low literacy districts in Karnataka in 2001-2011. Health indices has Raichure district is highest and Bangalore is lowest district IMR in Karnataka in 2001-2011. Karnataka had growth rate of GDP and per capita Income While Bangalore, Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu, Udupi, Ballari districts were the highest per capita income. While Bidar, Koppal, Yadgiri and Gulbarga districts were lowest per capita income in 2011. The human development is an important input to growth economic and in turns, the economic growth activates the human development. Human development is the expected outcome of all policy actions, and hence assessment of human development serves as an evaluation of policy itself.

REFERENCE:

1. Madhusudan Gosh (2011) Regional inequality in Education, Health and Human development, Indian Journal of Human Development, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2011.

2. Rao, V.M (2000): “Towards Human Development: Glimpses from India and Selected
States”, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol.43, No.2, pp.327-338.

3. Purushotham Nayak (2011) A Human Development Approach to the development in North East Indai, MPRA paper No, 30499, 2011.

4. Ramchandra and Shivanand (2015) An Analysis of Human Development Index in Karnataka, IJSER, ISSN 2249-6270, Volume. 5, Issue: 4, Dharwad and Mysore.

5. Anandhi S et, al (2004) Human Development in Tamil Nadu, EPW, Vol. 39, Issue No.08, Feb, 2004.

6. Sen, A. K. (Vol-1, 2000). A Decade of Human Development. Journal of Human Development , 17-23.

7. UNDP. (1990). Human Development Report 1990: Concept and Measurement of Human Development. New York: UNDP.

8. Nanjundappa, D. M. (2002). High Power Committe for Redressal of Regional Imbalances,. Karnataka: Govt of Karnataka Govt of Karnataka Economic Survey Reports 2001-02, 2011-12, 2013-14.

9. Karnataka Human Development Reports 2001, 2005, 20011

Received on 23.03.2018 Modified on 10.04.2018

Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(3):1171-1176.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00189.0

Education	1970-71	1980-81	1990-91	2000-01	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13
Primary Schools	32630	35143	40208	50340	59428	59555	60036
Enrolment	4064	4974	6922	8581	7425	7490	7428
High Schools	2002	2381	5020	8928	13447	13862	14194
Enrolment	483	713	1334	1955	2604	2607	2634

	Karnataka	India	Karnataka (Rural)	Karnataka (Urban)
Persons	75.6	74.04	68.86	86.21
Males	82.85	82.14	77.92	90.54
Females	68.13	65.46	59.6	81.71

Indicators	2000-01	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Birth Rate	22.2	19.5	19.2	18.8	18.5	18.3
Death Rate	7.6	7.2	7.1	7.1	7.1	7
Total Fertility Rate	-	2	2	1.9	1.9	1.9
Maternal Mortality Rate	-	178	-	178	144	144
Infant Mortality Rate	58	41	38	35	32	31
Under-five Mortality Rate	-	50	45	40	37	37
Average life Male expectancy (years)	-	63.6	-	63.6	63.6	63.6
Female	-	67.1	-	67.1	67.1	67.1