Industrial Face Of Tamil Nadu

By S. Sivathasan -January 9, 2014 

S. Sivathasan

“Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider” – Francis Bacon

Among Prime States

To a fair degree the size of the economy will be conveyed by GDP data. Its composition will indicate both

health and direction. UNIDO has ranked Japan first in industrialization, China seventh and India 43^rd. Indian industry is 17.6% of GDP. Industry in Tamil Nadu is 34% of state gdp. The impression immediately created is that in TN, industry surges ahead of that in India. It is so, having registered second rank in industrialization next only to Maharastra. This change in the profile and the quickening pace of growth have also made TN the most urbanized state.TN is also the second largest economy. The state’s wealth  gave the citizen a gdp per capita of Rs.72,993 in 2011/12. Comparative figures are Rs: 63,961 for Andhra, 60,458 for Gujarat and 59,763  for Karnataka – (source: Planning Commission of India)

Prelude

Daimler Light & Heavy Commercial Vehicle Factory at Oragadam

A survey of the industrial sector will indicate how TN came to this position. It was certainly not by sudden flight. Two millennia of intellectual tradition, premium value on education resulting in the establishment of Madras University in 1857, together with state wide growth in education and the development of human resources explain this wholesome phenomenon. Business culture given a fillip to in Coimbatore by the advent of Gujaratis too made its contribution. It may also be said that the diligent selection of industrial projects by the Tamil entrepreneurs, support extended by the British before independence, initiatives of TN government thereafter account for success. Never to be missed are commitment and work ethic of the workforce.  

Read More

Assumption Is The Mother Of All Development

By Arjuna Seneviratne -January 9, 2014 

Arjuna Seneviratne

The point:

In December 2012, at their annual symposium of the Center for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) and titled “Reimagining development”, Dr. Harni Amarasuriya, in her address, made one of the most significant observations on development that I have heard in recent times from anywhere in the world. Referring to log-frame analysis, she said “We discuss in particular the column that is titled ‘assumptions’ and we reflect on how the assumptions columns describe in detail the context within which development is practiced. However, the ‘logic’ of the log-frame places the assumption column outside of the project – what is listed in this column is usually regarded as those issues that may impede the successful implementation of a carefully constructed development project. In other words, the social, political, environmental and cultural processes that shape our lives are seen as ‘external factors’ beyond the control of the development project. Herein lies one of the greatest contradictions of development: while professing to be about transformation, development is also particularly uncomfortable with risk, or uncertainty. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that more than after 50 years of development, we are still debating its worth”.

She goes on to pick apart the nature of development as essentially a process through which “global and local interests converge with a sufficient level of incoherence so that multiple interests can be served” through a delightful and insightful anthropological treatment of the issue, the full text of which may be read here. I propose, through this post, to consume a few hundred words to try to start the process of unpacking the implications of her assertion from a more procedural / mechanistic standpoint.     Read More