Understanding the Creative Economy in India

The Martin Prosperity Institute (MPI) is the world’s leading think-tank on the role of sub-national factors—location, place, and city-regions—in global economic prosperity. It takes an integrated view of prosperity, looking beyond traditional economic measures to include the importance of quality of place and the development of people’s creative potential.

About the cover: Peering out from the circles, you might not recognize Chilkur Balaji, more popularly know as the “Visa God” or “Visa Balaji”. At one of the oldest temples in Hyderabad, devotees make traditional Hindi prayers and walk around the temple 11 times, making a wish and a vow. After the wish is granted, they return for another 108 trips around the temple. Since most wishes relate to the granting of visas to the U.S. and other countries, the nickname is well-earned.

Understanding the Creative Economy in India Martin Prosperity Institute May 2013

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26

Agricultural breakdown (2001) Manufacturing breakdown (Household industries) (2001) Manufactuing breakdown (Non Household industries) (2001) GDP per capita (2010 GDP per capita at constant (2004–05) prices) Population by State and Union Territory (2011) Population change (2001–2011) Change in population density (2001–2011) Changing composition of workforce in U.S. (1800–2020) Historical U.S. class share graph (1800–2020) Rise of the Creative Class in U.S. (1990–2020) Creative occupations as percentage of total employment (2011) Global Creativity Index scores for BRICS countries Mosaic Index (2001) Religious Herfindahl Index (2001) % Foreign born (2001) Rural/Urban literacy ratio Tolerance Index (2001) Creativity Class share by State and Union Territory (2001) Wage differentials (2012) Degree share (2001) Talent Index Tech Connectivity (2011) Tech Education Computer access (2011) Technology Index Creativity Index

ii | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

CONTENTS

About the Collaborating Research Bodies

iv

Executive Summary

vi

Introduction 1

Scope 2

Brief Review of India’s Economy: 1950s to Today

2

Current Indian Demographics

8

The Creative Economy

11

The Rise of the Creative Class

11

The 3Ts of Economic Development in India

14

The Performance of India’s States and Union Territories in the Creative Economy

17

Tolerance 17 Talent 23 Technology 27 Creativity Index 31

Conclusion 32 Appendices 33 Works Cited

49

Acknowledgments 51

www.martinprosperity.org | iii

ABOUT THE COLLABORATING RESEARCH BODIES

Martin Prosperity Institute (MPI) The Lloyd & Delphine Martin Prosperity Institute is the world’s leading think-tank on the role of sub-national factors — location, place, and city-regions — in global economic prosperity. We take an integrated view of prosperity, looking beyond economic measures to include the importance of quality of place and the development of people’s creative potential. The Institute conducts relevant research to shape debate about economic prosperity and to inform private, public and civic decision-making at the highest levels. We are part of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto on the St. George campus. We also serve as a special resource to the province of Ontario and the greater Toronto region. The Institute for Competitiveness, the Indian knot in the global network of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School and the Martin Prosperity Institute, at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management have joined hands to establish The Prosperity Institute of India. The Institute has been set up with the objective of enhancing the prosperity and creativity of Asia by sharing knowledge on 3Ts which are Technology, Tolerance, and Talent. Developed by the Martin Prosperity Institute, they are a useful analytical tool for understanding regional economic prosperity and growth by improving the traditional model emphasizing on companies, jobs, or technology. The primary activities of the Institute will be research and publications, training, advisory, and events which would further help in disseminating knowledge about creativity and prosperity among the genres.

Richard Florida, Director of MPI In addition to his role as Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute, Dr. Florida is professor of Business and Creativity at the Rotman School. He is the founder of the Creative Class Group, a global think tank based in Washington, DC. Prior to joining the Rotman School he was the Hirst Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University and a senior scientist with the Gallup Organization. Prof. Florida taught for nearly two decades at Carnegie Mellon University and has been a visiting professor at MIT and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He earned his bachelor’s from Rutgers College

iv | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

THE PROSPERITY INSTITUTE INDIA

TPII

and his Ph.D. from Columbia University. His books include three best sellers: The Rise of the Creative Class (Basic Books, 2002), The Flight of the Creative Class (Harper Collins, 2005), and Who’s Your City (Basic Books, 2008). His most recent works are The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive PostCrash Prosperity (Harper Collins, 2010), and Rise of the Creative Class—Revisited: 10th Anniversary Edition—Revised and Expanded (Basic Books, 2012).

Jamison Steeve, Executive Director of MPI Jamison Steeve is Executive Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute and the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity. His responsibilities include the development of the strategic plan and the future vision for the organizations. Prior to joining the MPI and ICP, Steeve built a successful career in Ontario public policy serving as advisor to provincial cabinet Ministers and most recently as Principal Secretary in the Office of the Premier. During that time, Ontario became known as a “public policy powerhouse”. In this most recent position, he worked with Premier Dalton McGuinty to create and shape the policy and legislative agenda for the provincial government. Steeve played a key role in the development and writing of Throne Speeches, Provincial Budgets, and the Liberal Party Platform in 2007 and 2011. Before entering the public policy arena, he practiced law with Fasken Martineau DuMoullin. He is a graduate of Queen’s University and Dalhousie University. Kevin Stolarick, Research Director of MPI Dubbed the “Official Statistician of the Creative Class”, Kevin Stolarick, PhD, combines a depth of knowledge with an appreciation of the importance of finding and sharing the knowledge or “pearls of wisdom” gained from his comprehensive understanding of the Creative Class and the Creative Economy. He is the Research Director at The Martin Prosperity Institute at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto and the Inaugural Walton Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Sustainability at the School of Sustainability, Arizona State University. He has held faculty positions at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and the H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA and for over a decade worked with technology in the insurance industry as a manager of strategic projects. He holds a PhD in Business Administration and an MBA from the Tepper School of Management, Carnegie Mellon University and a BS in Honors in Applied Computer Science from Illinois State University. He has taught numerous courses in Statistical Analysis, Information Systems and Regional Economic Development. His research interests

include the relationship between firm performance and information technology and the impacts of technology, tolerance, talent, and quality of place on regional growth and prosperity. Kevin provided quantitative research and analytical support for several of Richard Florida’s books including The Rise of the Creative Class and Rise Revisited (the 10th Anniversary Edition). He continues in collaboration with Richard and others researchers. This research includes primary development of measures, indicators, and benchmarking approaches with significant impact on the growth and development of the Creative Class and Creative Economy theory. Kevin is one of the few statistical analysts who has the complete works of Edward Tufte and Donald Norman on his shelves. Amit Kapoor, Honorary Chairman, Institute for Competitiveness, India Dr. Amit Kapoor is Honorary Chairman at Institute for Competitiveness, India; Prosperity Institute of India and Professor of Strategy at Management Development Institute. He sits on the board of Competitiveness initiatives in Mexico, Netherlands & France in addition to being advisor to Thinkers50 and participant with the Global Solutions Network of Martin Prosperity Institute & Rotman School of Management. He is an affiliate faculty for the Microeconomics of Competitiveness & Value Based Health Care Delivery courses of Institute of Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School. He has been inducted into the Competitiveness Hall of Fame at Harvard Business School, which is administered by Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School. Amit is a Ph.D. in Industrial Economics and Business Strategy and has received the Ruth Greene Memorial Award winner for writing the best case of the year, by North American Case Research Association (NACRA). He has been invited by Kennedy School of Government & Harvard Law School, Harvard University; Pennsylvania State University to address the Vice Chancellors & Academic Leaders training programs; World Economic Forum (Complete list of speaking engagements). Amit is the author of India City Competitiveness Report, India State Competitiveness Report, India State Sustainability Report, Livability Report et al. He is also a columnist with Mint, Financial Express, Outlook Business & Governance Now in addition to penning down academic pieces (Complete set of articles & publications). Based on his work two awards have been constituted within the country titled “State Competitiveness Awards” by Mint & Hindustan Times wherein the Chief Ministers are awarded and “Institute for Competitiveness ­Mint Strategy Awards” wherein the corporates are awarded for their strategic acumen. He chairs the jury and curates Porter Prize & Tapscott Award in addition to curating events like Competitiveness Forum, Thinkers 50 (India) etc. He tweets @arthsastra and maintains a professional profile at LinkedIn.

www.martinprosperity.org | v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report measures the Creativity Index which is a combination of regional levels of Technology, Talent, and Tolerance (the 3Ts) that is meant to be a leading indicator or measure of regional potential for the 28 Indian States and 7 Union Territories. The report presents both the component sub-indices of the Creativity Index and other, related measures for regional technology, talent, and tolerance. Delhi (NCT, National Capital Territory of Dehli) takes the top spot as the place in India with the greatest potential for success in today’s Creative Economy. While Delhi takes the top spot as the most creative state in India, Chandigarh, Punjab, Kerala, Goa, Mizoram, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Puducherry, and Maharashtra round out the top 9. Haryana and Manipur are tied for 10th. Each of the 3Ts is important to economic development and in establishing a robust Creative Economy, no one T on its own can provide sufficient support to sustain growth and continued prosperity. India should recognize the importance of building Talent, courting Technology, and promoting Tolerance in gaining an economic advantage. Such an approach for India would mean recognizing the creative talent of its residents in order to develop the businesses and industries of tomorrow; investing in the infrastructure required to mobilize more innovation and economic growth; and recognizing the importance of openness and diversity in gaining economic advantage. Tolerance, the first “T” of economic development is a quality recognized as essential to objective thinking since the 19th century. In the Indian context, the Mosaic index has been used to measure the level of tolerance in a region. The Mosaic Index is calculated by the concentration of Scheduled Tribes or Castes, percent of population that is foreign born, rural and urban literacy divide, and finally, a Religious Herfindahl Index which measures religious diversity within a specific State or Union Territory. In the overall Tolerance Index, the results show that regions in the Far North, Far East, and South West stand out among India’s 28 States and 7 Union Territories. More generally, the regions located on or near geo-political borders, major metropolitan areas, and those positioned along the West coast tend to score better on the Tolerance Index than those in central regions and along the East coast, which score poorly. Talent is the second “T” of economic development. Talented individuals are responsible for generating the innovative ideas that result in newly developed technologies that can stimulate economic growth and prosperity. While incubating talent through investments in employee training and education is important, the regions that can successfully attract and retain Talent will ultimately be the most competitive. The Talent Index is used to measure the amount of Talent within a region. Talent is measured as the percentage of a region’s workforce that is employed in Creative Class occupations. The Creative Class is largely responsible for generating the new and creative ideas that support economic growth. The Creative Class is individuals who are often engaged in either complex problem solving or in the generation of new ideas, new technology, and new creative content. This occupational grouping includes people employed in management, finance, law, healthcare, science, engineering, architecture, design, education, arts, music, and entertainment. The Creative Class in India comprises approximately 14% of the workforce, but varies considerably from region to region. Two regions (Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir) have over 40% of their workforce in the Creative Class while another three (Chandigarh, Punjab, and Goa) are over 20%. Another seventeen have over 10% of their workforce in creative occupations. Within India, the Far North, Far East, and Southern States and Union Territories appear to have higher concentrations of the Creative Class than Central and Western regions. High performing regions tend to have lower overall populations than the low performing regions. Due to smaller populations, the proportion of the population employed in management and professional occupations is relatively higher compared to the same in more populous regions. This inflates the Creative

vi | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Class component of the Creativity Index in these regions; thereby inflating their final overall score on the Index. Approximately 4.1% of Indians over the age of 25 hold a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Like the concentration of the Creative Class, Degree share is not evenly distributed around the country. The States or Union Territories with the highest Degree shares are Chandigarh (16.47%), Delhi (13.12%), and Puducherry (8.59%). The Talent Index combines Creative Class and Degree share measures to illustrate which States and Union Territories have been the most successful in attracting and retaining talented individuals. Chandigarh leads all regions followed in second by Delhi, Goa, Kerala, and Puducherry. Technology is a critical component for any region that seeks to achieve economic growth and prosperity and is the final “T” in the 3T analysis. The greater the extent to which technology is part of a region raises the competitiveness of that region by improving the ability of businesses to provide new goods and services and acquire cost-saving advantages, often through productivity gains. Three composite indexes — Tech Connectivity, Tech Education, and Computer Access are used to calculate a region’s level of technological capability and together, these measures are used to produce what is called the Technology Index. Tech Connectivity is composed of three sub-categories: the shares of households per 100,000 with broadband internet access, hard line telephone access, and mobile phone access. Tech Education is measured by combining the numbers of universities, colleges, technical colleges, and technical research institutions in a region. Finally, internet connectivity is measured by the share of households with a computer or laptop and access to the internet. Although 3.1 % of the Country’s households have access to the Internet, certain regions have much higher rates such as Chandigarh (18.8%), Delhi (17.6%), and Goa (12.7%), and access to a mobile or landline phone usage follows a similar pattern as the Internet access. While 63.2% of Indian households have a phone, the regions of Lakshadweep (93.7%), Delhi (90.8%), and Kerala (89.7%), have rates high above the national average. Approximately 9.5% of the Indian population has access to a computer while certain regions perform considerably higher. Chandigarh (33.2%), Goa (31.1%), and Delhi (29.1%) have the highest rates of computer access. Technical educational institutions are well distributed around the county with particularly high scores in Mizoram (4.99), Tripura (3.72), and Delhi (3.11). The leading regions in India that are the most technology sophisticated, according to the Technology Index, are the States and Union Territories in the far north and south. Delhi ranks the highest of all regions followed by Kerala, Mizoram, and Karnataka. Similar to the Talent Index, the Tech Index scores appear to be highest in regions with large urban centres and/or strong international economic connections either through trade or tourism. The Creativity Index, along with the 3T’s, allows us to gauge the economic potential of a region to succeed within the knowledge economy. If our initial results are any indication of the potential for regional development throughout India, then the urban regions are far better situated for economic growth than rural areas. If this divide is not curbed, then the gap between the rural areas, where the majority of the population lives and urban regions, where the greatest growth has occurred, will grow at an alarming rate, as only by mitigating the effects of uneven development can India’s regional and national economies reach their full potential.

“National innovative capacity has to be the country’s important potential for producing competitive products. Globalization and competitiveness leads to an interconnected economy. This requires the combined effort of researchers, technologists, production engineers and business leaders. For building competitiveness what you need is talent. Leadership grows talent.” — Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam – Address at the Martin Prosperity Institute. Rotman School of Management. MaRs Centre Toronto. 29 September 2010 www.martinprosperity.org | vii

Understanding the Creative Economy in India

INTRODUCTION The continuation of global economic restructuring in the wake of the current economic crisis has presented a number of challenges for India as the country attempts to maintain a competitive global presence through continued prosperity. As Richard Florida (2010) points out, global economic crises have a way of upending the existing geopolitical order, hastening the fall of established powers and encouraging the rise of new ones. For example, it was only after the collapse of the European economy in the years following WWII that the U.S. dollar came to dominate international financial and monetary markets; the European monetary crisis in 1992 led to the establishment of the European Economic and Monetary Union (EEMU), and introduction of the Euro; and the Asian financial crisis in 1997 gave rise to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). As the global economy begins to recover from the current financial crisis, opportunities exist for new economic powers to emerge that will reshape current global hierarchies and political-economic relationships. Emerging economies are playing increasingly important roles in shaping today’s global economic environment. Several emerging economies, including South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, China, South Korea, India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia, are now included in various international conversations regarding economic decision making (such as the G20). Of particular significance is the exceptional economic performance of the world’s four largest emerging economies, which are Brazil, Russia, India, and China and the African continent’s leading economy, South Africa. Although China was the only developing country to be included in the “trillion-dollar club”2 before the year 2000, since 2006 Brazil, India, and Russia have all reached this milestone. Together, Brazil, Russia, India, and China form what has come to be referred to as the BRIC economies (Goldman Sachs, 2003). Despite a smaller economy compared to global giants like Mexico, South Korea, and Turkey, South Africa gained

2

entry to the BRICS in 2011 largely due to the country’s vast mineral reserves crucial to future growth in the larger, more powerful partners (Shmuel, 2012). This suggests that the BRICS are more than a loose economic classification and are actively partnering with one another to promote their own best interests. With this in mind, the current global economic crisis presents opportunities for the BRICS economies, including India, to strengthen their presence on the global economic platform in the 21st century. In the contemporary global environment, sustainable economic gains come from attracting and retaining a talented and creative workforce rather than staying focused on existing businesses and industries. Focus on building a talented and creative workforce is a more productive goal because it helps to create a sustainable competitive advantage by driving innovation, new business formation, and encouraging broader improvements in overall productivity and prosperity (Florida, 2002; Florida, Mellander and Stolarick, 2008; Florida, Mellander and Stolarick, 2009; Martin Prosperity Institute, 2009). In other words; wherever talent goes, innovation, creativity, and economic growth are sure to follow (Florida, 2005). Investing in people during times of crisis (instead of businesses or places) provides a proactive and flexible approach to economic restructuring that allows labour markets to adapt, while new businesses, industries, and economic structures emerge. Leading postindustrial nations, such as the United States, Sweden, Japan, Finland, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom (Florida, 2005) are now competing based on creativity and related factors like technology, innovation, and talent attraction. Establishing an approach to economic development that centres on creativity will help India to re-build (build) its economy and generate future prosperity. As a result, India should recognize the importance of building Talent, courting Technology and promoting Tolerance in gaining an economic advantage. Taken together, the metrics of Talent, Technology, and Tolerance are referred to as the 3Ts of economic development (Florida, 2002). Such an approach for India would mean recognizing the creative talent of its residents in order to develop the businesses and industries of tomorrow; investing in the infrastructure required to mobilize more innovation and economic growth; and recognizing the importance of openness and diversity in gaining economic advantage. The Martin Prosperity Institute (MPI) has conducted an analysis of India’s creative economic assets across its 28 States and 7 Union Territories. The analysis explores the presence of Technology, Talent and Tolerance within each State and Union

The trillion-dollar club is an unofficial classification of the world’s major economies with a gross domestic product (nominal GDP) of more than USD $1 trillion per year. The trillion dollar club currently includes the following countries: United States (1970), Japan (1979), Germany (1987), France (1988), Italy (1990), United Kingdom (1994), China (1998), Spain (2004), Canada (2005), Brazil (2006), India (2007), Mexico (2007), Russia (2007), and Australia (2008).

www.martinprosperity.org | 1

Territory (where data is available) in India and compares each region’s results to other major selected cities and countries. This assessment will help to measure the capacity of each State and Union Territory level region to support creativity-driven economic development strategies. Another report in the future will focus on India’s metropolitan areas, which will in turn be compared to other global cities. The results of the analysis will help in charting a course for India’s transition from an industrial economy to a creativity- and services-driven post-industrial economy during the 21st century.

SCOPE Creative Capital theory and the 3Ts of economic development, which include Tolerance, Technology and Talent, provide an innovative framework for measuring a region’s Creative Economy potential. In this paper, the core characteristics of the 3Ts are reworked to apply to the Indian context. In addition to this, depending on the specific measure, some States and Union Territories are excluded from the analysis due to a lack of availability and/or organization of data. Finally, the analysis of India’s creative assets is also limited to state and union territory level comparisons due to the lack of available data at smaller geographical units.

Myths and Misconceptions about India In the minds of Westerns, mention of India conjures up diverse images of the Taj Mahal, exotic wild life, sprawling mega cities, tech call centres, and artistic exuberance of Bollywood films. Many of these popular conceptions, however, are grounded on myths and as such do not relate to the current realities on the ground. The geographical scale, expansive population, and regional diversity all contribute to a country that is far more complicated than most believe. Some of the more common misconceptions about India and its people are that the majority of its residents cannot read and write English, that the country is experiencing uncontrollable population growth, and that it is unsafe, for locals and tourists alike. Conversely, there is a common belief that India has a world class educational system and that the information technology sector is the primary driver of the country’s rapid economic growth, both of which are misconceptions2. India’s rising regional and global influence should theoretically eliminate these misconceptions. As such the psychological and sociological barriers that restrict many Western companies and entrepreneurs from engaging in the country’s flourishing domestic market will decrease.

2

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/features/five-myths-about-india/articleshow/5387992.cms

2 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

This report focuses on all 28 States and 7 Union Territories that exist in India: • States: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal. • Union Territories: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep, National Capital Territory of Delhi, and Puducherry.

BRIEF REVIEW OF INDIA’S ECONOMY: 1950s TO TODAY India is one of the fastest growing countries in today’s rapidly changing global economy and is already considered an emerging global leader by many developed nations. In 2009, India’s GDP, based on purchasing power parity (PPP), stood at 3.5 trillion (USD); making it the fourth strongest economy in the world. A 2010 study by Price-Waterhouse-Coopers identifies the possibility that India could eclipse Japan in global economic output at PPP by 2030, just as China overtook Japan in economic output earlier the same year (Bloomberg 2010). The economic output in India is driven by the service industry, accounting for approximately 62.5% of total GDP, while the industrial sector accounts for a mere 20% of total output. Much of the country’s economic activity is “informal” and not well measured or understood. Due to this growth, India is also experiencing an expansion of its middle class as economic activity in the import/export service sector grows. Together these changes are signaling the emerging presence of a post-industrial economy. However, India continues to face a number of challenges in completely harnessing and benefiting from its economic potential in promoting prosperity. By all accounts, India best exemplifies the benefits of globalization and the economic potential of emerging nations. This widespread success, however, was only made possible due

States and Union Territories to changes to the country’s fiscal policies in the early 1990s. After independence from Britain, India adopted socialist economic policies driven by large state owned utility monopolies, a robust public sector, agricultural subsidies, and driven by protectionism. For more than four decades, convoluted bureaucratic practices severely limited economic growth and foreign investments. As a result of these policies, the development of India’s physical, civic, and educational infrastructure and private sector suffered. Following a fiscal crisis and near government collapse in 1991 however, in accordance with an IMF bailout, sweeping liberalization policies were passed to open the Indian economy to the world market. During the 1990s, as result of these reforms, foreign direct investment increased exponentially as Indian cities such as Bangalore emerged as global ICT centres and the Nation’s manufacturing sector gained ground. As the domestic consumer market expanded, private sector entrepreneurs rushed to meet the demands of previously impoverished Indians and the emerging middle class. According to the BRICS Report (2012), India’s strong domestic demandbased economy is a key determinate of both the country’s rapid growth and more recently, ability to endure the global financial crisis without significant damage. While the country’s booming industrial sector benefits from an abundance of unskilled labour, high-tech companies benefit from educated, English speaking, and perhaps most importantly, low-cost knowledge workers in urban and semi-urban centres. Despite the availability of skilled labour, weak educational infrastructure, and large educational disparities between both male and female and urban and rural populations contribute to a significant education gap. As a result there is chronic shortage of professionals needed to service modernizing economic and physical infrastructure (Economist, 2012). This is further complicated by the migration of students from India to the U.S. and European universities. These students settle down abroad after completing their education to avail the benefits of better income and lifestyle. In addition, by gaining access to typically better funded and respected universities, India’s international students can better compete in the global talent market. In essence, these processes create a brain drain. The allure of

India’s democratic parliamentary system features 28 States and 7 Union territories united under a broad federalist structure. There are constitutional divisions of power between the levels of government, and like in Canada the parliamentary government holds the residual powers over the States (S.248). As the constitutional head of the country, the President has the power to appoint the governors of each State and Union Territory, who in turn, serve as representatives of the President and his or her political party (S. 156). Similar to other forms of federalism, each Indian State and Union Territory holds legislative power to generate its own policies and legal statutes but such laws must comply with those established by the Union (Federal Government) (S.162 and 256). Union Territories are contrarily administered directly by the President, as he or she appoints an Administrator for each Territory. The President also holds power within five of the Union Territories to make their own regulations (S.240). In 1991, The Union Territory of Delhi became the National Capital Territory or NCT, in which the administrator became a Lieutenant Governor. The States and Union Territories also hold seats within the two Houses of Parliament: Raiya Sabha (Council of States) and Lok Sabha (House of the People). The number of seats held by each State and Union Territory is determined by the region’s population. Despite their constitutional position, in recent years, considerable discussion has been directed to transforming certain Union Territories into full-fledged States. Simultaneously, larger States have broken down into smaller, more manageable regions, in order to better serve their rapidly increasing populations. For example, in November 2000, Uttarakand, the 27th State, was carved out of the Himalayan and adjoining Northwestern districts of Uttar Pradesh. Source: India’s constitution, found at knowindia: http://india.gov.in/topics/governance-administration/constitution and http://knowindia.gov.in/knowindia/state_uts.php

the West and other developed countries in lieu of the social, economic, and physical conditions in India has spurred an Indian diaspora around the globe. This diaspora, however, perhaps ironically, is an essential strength of the growing Indian economy due to the connections (networking) it facilitates into global markets and remittances. According to the United Nation’s Human Development Index (HDI), which uses a composite of health, education, and income indicators to provide a more nuanced description of economic growth and well-being, India performs quite poorly. For example, “Between 1980 and 2012 India’s HDI rose by 1.7% annually from 0.345 to 0.554 today (2013), which gives the country a rank of 136 out of 187 countries with comparable data” (UNDP, 2013). Furthermore, compared to other countries in South Asia, India performs below the regional average (ibid). The country’s poor performance has drastic implications for its future economic growth potential. It should be noted that a challenge with the broad country-level indicators is that because of the regional diversity and uneven development within the country, these

www.martinprosperity.org | 3

Agriculture breakdown (2001)

kinds of measures don’t illustrate a true picture of what is happening on the ground. We used state-level data to mitigate the skewing effects of this methodology an attempt to get a more complete picture of current conditions. Furthermore, the same diverse cultural, linguistic, natural and climatic variations that contribute to the vibrancy of the nation also make it a very difficult one to lead. Widespread corruption, regionalism, and outdated bureaucratic structures have created a leadership vacuum at the highest levels of government which in turn has placed much of the responsibility for economic growth and innovation on individual entrepreneurs. As such, entrepreneurship and the “informal” economy are both essential components of the Indian economy and national identity. It has been suggested that around 45 million individual entrepreneurs contribute significantly to the Indian economy (BRICS, 2013). By targeting economic and social policies at the country’s most talented individuals, India can harness the tested entrepre-

4 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Exhibit 1

neurial acumen of its citizens and increase regional and national prosperity. Historically, India has undergone an atypical process of industrialization and urbanization when compared to many developed economies. Despite the positive economic growth in the last three decades, the emerging economies have not witnessed large scale migration to urban locations seen in other developing countries, most notably China. For example, using 2010 Data, The BRICS report (2012) found that India had an urbanization rate 31.16% (2011) while China’s rate was recorded at just over 40 percent. India remains predominately a rural nation — two-thirds of the population, some 833 million people live in 640,000 rural villages (Economist, 2012). The agricultural

Manufacturing breakdown (Household industries) (2001)

dominance of India’s economy is illustrated in Exhibit 1 — which maps the percentage of agricultural labourers or cultivators by State or Union Territory. Interestingly, out of all the BRICS, India has the largest contribution to GDP from the agricultural sector at 14.6% in 2010 compared to an average of 6–10% for the other BRICS (Institute for Competiveness, 2012). Despite this comparatively high rate, from 1991 to 2010 the percent contribution to GDP of agricultural actually decreased from 31.4% to 14.6%, a decrease of 16.8%. Within India’s agricultural sector 70% of employment is comprised of labourers and cultivators (ibid). There is a great potential to transfer many of these workers into the

Exhibit 2

manufacturing sector, which in turn will lead to a multiplier effect, generating employment opportunities. Physical infrastructure and technology deficits, however, continue to limit the ability for the Indian manufacturing sector to flourish (ibid). Barriers of entry, such as the high costs of land and the nature of rural economies contribute to the development of strong household industries. By looking at the manufacturing share of Household and Non Household industries (Exhibits 2 and 3) interesting patterns emerge. The highest concentrations of Household industries are located in the East, particularly in West Bengal and Bihar, while the lowest rates are present, perhaps not surprisingly in Chandigarh and Delhi. Conversely, looking at Non Household industries, the highest rates are present in the States and Union Territories in the North around Delhi and along the West and Southern coasts, while the lowest share of Non Household industries are located in the Far East.

www.martinprosperity.org | 5

Manufacturing breakdown (Non Household industries) (2001)

There is a great potential to harness household industries in rural and semi-urban areas if economic policies are properly coordinated. The concentration of the majority of the population in rural areas also assures that political power is firmly in the hands of those living outside of major urban centres. The sheer scale of the population imbalance between urban and rural areas has contributed to the development of rural centric urban and economic policies. The sweeping demographic, social, economic, and cultural shifts that typically accompany a society’s urbanization process have been less marked in India. In economic terms, however, India’s cities are incredibly productive, producing nearly half of national income (Economist, 2012). The economic success of urban areas is a key reason why experts expect the rate of urbanization to increase dramatically in the coming decades. While some major cities have strong social welfare systems, many emerging cities, Tier-II and Tier-III

6 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Exhibit 3

towns, and rural areas lack the ability to provide their residents with access to healthcare, employment insurance, or housing. Despite this variation, almost all of India’s metropolitan regions lack any formal urban planning strategies and have over-taxed and underdeveloped physical infrastructure. Improving the social and physical infrastructure will not only improve the quality of life for their residents, but also enhance the economic potential of citizens previously excluded from participating in metropolitan prosperity. Although India’s economy has grown aggressively during the last three decades and has weathered the global financial crisis relatively well, it still faces the challenges of a transitioning national economy, most notably of uneven

GDP per capita (2010 GDP per capita at constant (2004–05) prices)

Exhibit 4

economic development. Exhibit 4 illustrates how GDP per capita varies considerably by region, with the highest rates concentrated along the western coast and National Capital Territory. In moving forward, India must address the gap between the country’s poor inner regions and more prosperous coastal areas as well as the socioeconomic inequalities among its urban and rural areas. The sprawling urban slums and super-rich enclaves in cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, and Bangalore also must be addressed through policy. In addition to addressing these gaps, India’s rapid growth must be evaluated as it is preventing the long term sustainability and equity of its regional and national economies.

www.martinprosperity.org | 7

Population by State and Union Territory (2011)

Exhibit 5

CURRENT INDIAN DEMOGRAPHICS India remains the youngest of the BRICS countries, with 32.1 percent of the population falling between the ages of 0–14. By current projections, in 2020 the average Indian will be only 29 years old “compared with the average of 37 years in China and the U.S., 45 years in Western Europe, and 48 years in Japan” (BRICS 2013). Without significant improvements to physical infrastructure and essential services, particularly in urban areas, the country will find it difficult to retain the most talented of the younger generations which will have implications on future economic growth, social development, and cultural production. As Exhibit 5 illustrates, the country’s central States and Union Territories are the most populous with the Far North and Far East regions registering lower populations. Uttar Pradesh, comes first with a population of nearly 200 million or 16.5% of the country’s population (2011), followed by Maharashtra with approximately 112 million people or 9.3%, and Bihar

8 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

with 104 million people or 8.6%. When considering population change from 2001 to 2011, the Northern States and Union Territories, especially those in the North East and Far East, have seen the largest population gains (Exhibit 6). Considering changes in population density over the same span (Exhibit 7), a slightly different pattern emerges. The greatest increases in population density have occurred in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi. While in the Far East, despite increases in population, changes in density were not marked, which is indicative of the national trend where increased population growth does not necessarily lead to increased urbanization.

Population change (2001–2011)

Exhibit 6

www.martinprosperity.org | 9

Change in population density (2001–2011)

10 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Exhibit 7

THE CREATIVE ECONOMY Creativity has become the mantra of regional economic development theory for the 21st century. Just as technology and innovation were seen as drivers of economic growth in the 20th century, today creativity plays a similar role in shaping the economic trajectories of regions around the world. While many see the emerging economy as one that is driven by knowledge, Richard Florida (2002) suggests that it is instead driven by creativity. According to Florida (2002) it is not simply the possession of knowledge and the creation of new knowledge that drives economic growth, but more importantly, the creative ideas and products that come out of such knowledge that drive continued prosperity. In other words, generating prosperity through new economic activity is more about stimulating the flow of knowledge and creative ideas found in a talented workforce than it is about simply attracting and retaining that talent. The continual churning of ideas and knowledge is what leads to the creation of new products and technology and eventually new economic activity and growth. Simply attracting talent and employing it in activities that have been replicated from elsewhere is not enough. Within the Creative Economy, regional economic growth is powered by the Creative Class. It is in attracting and retaining these creative workers that regions now compete for. The Creative Class is one of four occupational categories defined by Florida (2002) that he derives from unique occupational groupings. According to Florida (2002), the Creative Class is characterized by workers who are not only paid to think, but more importantly, to create. Creative Class workers tend to prefer places in which to live and work that are diverse, tolerant, and open to new ideas. It is in these places within the emerging Creative Economy that will succeed and grow. However, the Creative Capital theory differs from Human Capital theory in that Creative Capital theory places more importance on the attraction and retention of a specific type of applied human capital — people in creative occupations. This distinction is important because the Creative Economy is more concerned with what people are paid to

do than how many years they have attended school. In addition to isolating Creative Capital as the driver of economic growth, Creative Capital theory, unlike Human Capital theory, points to the fact that people are active agents in making decisions about where they live and work as opposed to suggesting that certain places are simply endowed with attractive amenities. In this sense, Creative Capital theory suggests that creative workers do not follow jobs but instead make decisions regarding where to live that are independent of where to work. As such, Florida (2002) suggests the global economic hierarchy of the Creative Age will be determined not by access to natural resources, but by which regions are able to successfully attract and retain creative workers. The Creative Class is often engaged in either complex problem solving, which requires a great deal of independent judgment, or in the generation of new ideas, new technology and new creative content (Florida, 2002). The Creative Class as an occupational grouping includes people employed in management, finance, law, healthcare, science, engineering, architecture, design, education, arts, music, and entertainment. These workers also tend to share a common set of values that include creativity, individuality, difference and merit (Florida, 2002). The three other employment categories defined by Florida are the Service Class,3 the Working Class, 4 and people employed in Farming, Fishing, and Forestry.5 Unlike those in the Creative Class, who are paid to both think and create, the primary function of individuals employed in the Service or Working Class is to execute tasks according to a plan. The Creative Class also has a great deal more autonomy over how they perform their job, whereas the Service Class and Working Class are largely engaged in more repetitive and rudimentary tasks with less autonomy.

THE RISE OF THE CREATIVE CLASS The rise of the Creative Economy in North America and parts of Western Europe is the direct result of the transition from agricultural and manufacturing activities to service and knowledge producing activities. This transition to a post-industrial economy has catalyzed a number of significant changes to their respective urban and economic landscapes. Roughly over a century ago, the economies of today’s most developed countries entered into a period of industrial expansion and transformation, commonly referred to as the Industrial Revolution. During this period, economic activity shifted from agriculture in the countryside to large manufacturing industries, located in densely populated cities and urban areas. Over the course

3

The Service Class includes occupations in food service, custodians and groundskeepers, retail, personal care attendants, secretaries and clerical workers, and security guards.

4

The Working Class includes occupations in manufacturing, construction and transportation.

5

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry includes occupations in resource extraction, farming, and fishing.

www.martinprosperity.org | 11

Changing composition of workforce in U.S. (1800–2011)

Exhibit 8

70 60 50 40 Millions 30 20 10 0

1800

1850

1900

of the following fifty years, between 1900 and 1950, a number of technological improvements were made not only in manufacturing but also in communication and transportation industries. As a result of these improvements, the overall prosperity of these countries began to rise. Beginning in 1970, and lasting throughout the 1980s, these technological improvements provided the opportunity for manufacturing industries to relocate to more profitable areas, mostly overseas in developing countries but also to small towns across the countryside. As these industries left, they were replaced by employment opportunities in the growing service industry. Employment in highly-paid business occupations such as those in finance, marketing, and management grew alongside employment in other knowledge-intensive service occupations such as science, architecture, design, education, and healthcare. Employment growth in these well-paid, knowledge intensive occupations was mirrored by the growth of an army of people employed in low-wage service occupations, such as in food services, retail, secretarial and clerical, cultural and recreational, security, and custodial occupations. In a sense, the low-paid service workers grew to provide the highpaid service workers with cheap labour to perform the tasks it was no longer productive for them to do themselves. As service industries began to dominate economic activity throughout the 1990s, the importance of knowledge work in driving growth became apparent. No longer having to monitor production facilities, companies and businesses turned to activities in product development, marketing, and research. As this occurred, it became apparent that the Creative Class was beginning to play an increasingly important role in the functions of these businesses. The final turning point towards the emergence of the Creative Economy occurred in the latter half of the 1990s when it became clear that creating value was no longer

12 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

1950

2000

simply a matter of producing and distributing existing products, but had shifted to the task of creating new content and products. While the Creative Economy has grown considerably over the past century, it was only in the last two decades that it made its most significant impact (Florida and Tinagli, 2004). Exhibit 8 shows the changing composition of the workforce in the United States since 1800. By examining the changing composition of the workforce over time, the evolving industrial structure of the country becomes apparent. Between 1900 and 1950, the dominance of manufacturing industries was apparent given the percentage of the workforce employed in the Working Class. Over time, as technological improvements increased the productivity of manufacturing industries, the percentage of people employed in the Working Class began to decline. By 1970, when many manufacturing industries began to relocate to developing countries, the percentage of the workforce employed in the Working Class quickly fell (See Exhibit 9). At the same time, with the emergence of the service economy, we see a significant growth in the percentage of the workforce employed in the Service Class, and the beginnings of faster growth in the Creative Class. Finally, by the end of the 1990s, when the Creative Economy really begins to grow, we see that the Creative Class as a percentage of the workforce has increased to be well above that

Historical U.S. class share graph (1800–2011)

Exhibit 9

70% 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

Rise of the Creative Class in U.S. (1900–2020)

Exhibit 10

70%

Historical Projected

60 50 40 Workforce (%) 30 20 10 0

1900

1920

of the Working Class. Throughout the course of this entire period, as advancements in technology were made, the percentage of people employed in agriculture and forestry steadily declined. As Exhibit 10 illustrates, today, anywhere from 25 to 30 percent of the workforce in advanced industrial nations is employed in the Creative Class (Florida and Tinagli, 2004). Exhibit 11 shows the percentage of the work-

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

force employed in the Creative Class in different developed and developing countries with a particular focus on the BRICS. Just as the Industrial Revolution brought an end to the dominance of the rural economy, the rise of the Creative Economy is bringing an end to cities built upon single industries. Places like Pittsburgh and Detroit in the U.S. or Windsor and Oshawa in Canada are struggling to survive in a world that has passed them by (Martin Prosperity Institute, 2009a). The same situation is happening in industrial regions of China, which are

www.martinprosperity.org | 13

Creative occupations as percentage of total employment (2011) RANK

COUNTRY

4

Australia

Exhibit 11

CREATIVE CLASS SHARE

44.52

11

United Kingdom

41.27

12

Canada

40.84

20

Russian Federation

38.63

27

United States

35.22

48

South Africa

21.71

57

Brazil

18.52

63

Japan

17.54

70

India

14.00

76

China

7.37

struggling to maintain employment that was tied to specific industrial sectors. In the Creative Economy, the ability to massproduce goods is less critical to economic growth than the ability to generate new ideas, concepts, products, and processes. The influence of a post-industrial landscape in North America and Europe did not just affect the industrial structure of these countries — it also had significant consequences for the role of cities and urban areas. It is not a coincidence that certain global centres that have successfully attracted the Creative Class tend to be hotbeds of innovation and activity. Places like New York, London, Paris, and recently San Jose (home to Silicon Valley) are all prosperous. These regions produce a continuous infusion of new ideas, export new products, services and/or cultural trends in fashion, literature, computers or finance industries around the world. Understanding the geography of the Creative Economy and its effects on economic outcomes rests on what Richard Florida (2002) identifies as the 3Ts of economic development: Tolerance, Talent and Technology. While each of the 3Ts is important to economic development and establishing a robust Creative Economy, no one T on its own can provide sufficient support to sustain growth and continued prosperity. To be successful, Florida argues, a region must have all three. As an example, Florida (2002) points to cities like Baltimore, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh as places that have failed to grow despite having world class universities and well established technology sectors. Regions that thrive on the presence of well-established technology sectors and universities or talented workers, yet lack the openness and tolerance to attract new people from diverse backgrounds, will fail to grow if the current talent base or industries leave. Taken together, these 3Ts of economic development combine to produce the Creativity Index (Florida, 2002), a measure of a regions overall Creative Economy. The Creativity Index measures a region’s underlying creative capabilities; as opposed to simply the percentage of its workforce employed in the Creative Class (Florida, 2002). This composite measure helps to highlight the various characteristics described that support the growth of a Creative Economy. In addition, it helps to consolidate all

14 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

the information gathered together by the 3Ts so that they are more easily understood and helps to set regional benchmarks and gauge variations in regional creativity. To measure the global Creative Economy, Florida (2005) develops what he calls the Global Creativity Index (GCI), which uses the same inputs as the Creativity Index except it is used to measure creativity between countries instead of cities. We will now turn to examine what Florida (2002) captures with each of these 3Ts and place it within the context of economic development in India.

THE 3Ts OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA Tolerance is the first “T” of economic development. There is a growing body of research (Florida, 2002; Florida, Mellander, and Stolarick, 2008; 2010; 2011) that has begun to show how Tolerance can give nations, regions, provinces, states and cities an important economic boost as a result of being open to diversity. When places are open to newcomers, immigrants, minorities, and gays and lesbians, they signal that their community is open to all types of people. Places that display these signals of openness and possess low barriers to entry for talented individuals create an environment that is attractive to the best and brightest individuals from around the world. Yet this idea is not new. Tolerance has been recognized as essential to objective thinking since the 19th century (Mill, 1859). Silicon Valley in the United States is an example of a successful region

that has benefited tremendously from having an open and diverse community. According to the Martin Prosperity Institute (2009c), recent studies have found that between one-third and one-half of all high-tech startup companies within Silicon Valley have one new immigrant on their founding team. Places and firms that are open to diversity also demonstrate a greater degree of receptiveness to new ideas, intellectual freedom, risk tolerance, and an entrepreneurial spirit (Martin Prosperity Institute, 2009b). To understand the variation between the 28 States and 7 Union Territories in India, three variables, originally developed by Florida (2002) and adapted to accurately apply to the Indian context, are being used to measure the level of tolerance in a region. These variables are the Mosaic Index, calculated by the concentration of Scheduled Tribes or Castes, percent of population that is Foreign Born, Rural and Urban Literacy Divide, and finally, a Religious Herfindahl Index which measures religious diversity within a specific State or Union Territory. A region’s population diversity is measured by two different indicators, the Mosaic Index and percentage of foreign born. First, the Mosaic Index encompasses the number of residents in each State or Union Territory that identify and/or are classified as members of Scheduled Tribes and Castes. Historically these two groups have experienced significant social exclusion and extreme levels of poverty. Second, we include the percentage of the population that is foreign born. The general premise behind these measurements is that a greater number of Scheduled Caste members and Tribal members and foreign born residents within a population will correspond to a more tolerant population. Another aspect of our Tolerance measures is the relationship between urban and rural literacy rates. The strength of this ratio will highlight a region’s commitment to providing basic education to residents regardless of their location. Finally, we include the Religious Herfindahl Index which analyses the regional religious diversity rates with the assumption that regions with increased religious diversity are more tolerant than those without such diversity. Two measures typically used to evaluate Tolerance within a region are the Visibility Minority Index and Gay and Lesbian Index. However, due to the lack of data collected and made publicly available on both groups

in India, this report could not produce a reliable measure on either the number of individuals who identify as LBGT or those who identify as visible minorities. Despite the lack of data on these topics, homosexuality was only legalized in India in 2009. While India has moved faster than other developing countries in South East Asia, gay, lesbian, and transgendered individuals still face considerable social exclusion and physical violence. As high ranking politicians regularly dispense anti-gay rhetoric and strong urban/rural cultural divides continue to inform public policy, it is unlikely that Indian society becomes more tolerant of the gay community in the near future. This intolerance will negatively impact urban, regional, and national economic growth and prosperity. Talent is the second “T” of economic development. Talented individuals are responsible for generating the innovative ideas that result in newly developed technologies that can stimulate economic growth and prosperity. While incubating talent through investments in employee training and education is important, the regions that can successfully attract and retain talent will ultimately be the most competitive. Northern California is an incredibly prosperous region due to the ability of Silicon Valley to attract talented workers from all over the world. These workers have in turn created some of the most successful companies, increasing the pull of this prosperous region. The Talent Index is used to measure the amount of Talent within a region. Talent is measured as the percentage of a region’s workforce that is employed in Creative Class occupations. The Creative Class is largely responsible for generating the new and creative ideas that support economic growth and is therefore used to measure a region’s level of Talent. Human Capital is an alternative measure that can be used to proxy the level of Talent within a region. When measuring Talent using Human Capital or Degree share it is calculated as the percentage of the population over the age of 25 with a Bachelor’s degree or higher. However, when calculating the Creativity Index, the Human Capital measure of Talent is used as a comparison measure of a region’s level of Talent as opposed to the sole indicator. Technology is a critical component for any region that seeks to achieve economic growth and prosperity and is the final “T” in the 3T analysis. The greater the extent to which technology is part of a region raises the competitiveness of that region by improving the ability of businesses to provide new goods and services and acquire cost-saving advantages, often through productivity gains. Robert Solow (1956) and Paul Romer (1990) have found technology to be a driving force behind economic growth. Global city-regions like New York, London, Tokyo or Los Angeles have highly sophisticated technology sectors and consumers. Success in the Creative Age is determined by a region’s ability to gain first mover advantages and market share. Regions that are able to introduce innovations more quickly, and that have well-developed high-tech industrial sectors, are able to reap significant benefits in the form of sustainable growth and the production of new wealth. In this report three composite indexes are used to calculate a region’s level of technological capability: Tech Connectivity,

www.martinprosperity.org | 15

Scheduled Tribes and Castes The Caste System, from its inception to its current implications, remains a hotly debated and controversial topic in India. Although the nature of its origins vary considerably, the core of the system is based in Hindu theology and holds that there is a hierarchy of social groups or Castes, often determined by occupation, that determine one’s social position. During the British Raj, the system was formally codified, although there is evidence it existed for centuries before it was officially recognized by the British. The lower Castes, particularly the lowest — Dalits or Untouchables — have traditionally worked in low end service occupations and lived in poverty. These social groups were formally denied access to education and other social services which in turn kept even the most ambitious individuals trapped in lower rungs of the social hierarchy. After independence from Britain, however, India made concerted efforts to address the social exclusion and inequalities caused by the Caste System through political action. India’s Constitution recognized the disadvantaged members of the Caste System by identifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and providing these members with certain social services such as land grants or reservations and affirmative action. Since then there have been numerous amendments within the Constitution, such as the creation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and National Commission for Schedules Tribes, which are committees created to better monitor the safeguards provided for the Castes and Tribes (S.338). Interestingly, working in collaboration with State Governors, the President has the authority to determine who qualifies for specific Castes or Tribes (S.341 and S.342). By monitoring the Castes and Tribes, different resources are then to be allocated to these areas in order to increase the social mobility of their residents. The 2011 Census of India displays that the Scheduled Castes (SC) account for 16.2% of the total population of India, while the Scheduled Tribes (ST) account for 8.2%. Punjab has the highest proportion of SCs of all states with 28.9%, while Mizoram has the lowest with only 0.03% of its population registering as SCs. Looking at Union Territories; Chandigarh has the highest proportion of residents that qualify as members of the SCs at approximately 17.5%. Conversely, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, with a proportion of 1.9% has the lowest SC rates out of India’s Union Territories. Interestingly, the State with the highest proportion of STs is Mizoram, with an incredibly high 94.5% of all residents, qualifying as members of the officially recognized social group, while the state has the lowest proportion of SCs. These results illustrate that despite their similar social positions and economic struggles, SCs and STs do not necessarily geographically co-exist. Goa has the lowest ST proportion, with only 0.04% of its population qualifying. Lakshadweep has the highest proportion of STs out of all Union Territories with 94.5% and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands have the lowest with 8.3% of its residents qualifying as members of Scheduled Tribes. Combined, Scheduled Castes and Tribes comprise 24.4% of India’s population. It is a challenge for the country to engage and incorporate nearly a quarter of its population into its growing domestic market and labour pool. These groups generally have low educational attainment, are unskilled, and face systemic social exclusion. By adopting more inclusive and equitable economic and educational policies, India has the potential to incorporate millions of SCs and STs into the country’s growing prosperity and help mitigate the uneven development that has so far marked economic growth in recent decades. Sources: http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_Glance/scst.aspx, Baader, Gerard. The Depressed Classes of India: Their Struggle for Emancipation. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30097438?seq=4, Vakil, A.K. Reservation and Schedules Castes in India. APH Publishing, 1985. Also, the National Commission for Schedules Castes and Tribes have their own sites.

Tech Education, and Computer Access. Together, these measures are used to produce what is called the Technology Index. Tech Connectivity is composed of three sub-categories: the shares of households per 100,000 with broadband internet access, hard line telephone access, and mobile phone access. Tech Education is measured by combining the numbers of universities, colleges, technical colleges, and technical research institutions in a region. Finally, internet connectivity is measured by the share of households with a computer or laptop and access to the internet.

16 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIA’S STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES IN THE CREATIVE ECONOMY According to research by Florida, Mellander, and Stolarick (2011), India ranks 50th out of 82 selected developed and developing countries on the Global Creativity Index (Exhibit 12). India’s performance on the Global Creativity Index in 2011 places it well behind most developed countries. Compared to its BRICS peers, India falls behind Russia (30), South Africa (45), and Brazil (46) but finishes ahead of China (58). On the individual 3T measures used to produce the Global Creativity Index, India demonstrates generally below average results. While India does not fall within the top twenty five countries on any one of the 3T measures, according to Florida, Mellander, and Stolarick’s (2011) results, India produces its best results on the Tolerance Index — ranking 30th out of 80 countries. On the Technology Index, India ranks 42nd out of 75 countries included. On the Talent Index, India performs very poorly, ranking 75th out of 82 countries and one spot ahead of China. Understanding the Creative Economy provides key insights into the nature of India’s uneven economic landscape. In order to better understand the economic geography of India’s Creative Economy, an analysis of how the 3T factors attract and build a robust Creative Economy is required. The next sections examine each of the 3Ts of economic development across the States and Union Territories in India. This assessment will help to shed light on the internal economic structure and development potential of the regions from a Creative Economy perspective.

Tolerance Situated within the context of a global discussion, India is considered to be relatively tolerant compared to both developing and developed countries (Florida, Mellander, and Stolarick 2011). India ranked 30th out of 80 countries included on Florida, Mellander, and Stolarick’s Global Tolerance rankings (2011). Within the BRICS, India ranks third behind South Africa (15) and Brazil (22), while finishing much higher than Russia (74) and China, which did place at all. This report adapts the methodology originally developed by Florida (2002) to measure Tolerance within India’s States and Union Territories. The variables included are the Mosaic Index, calculated by the concentration of Scheduled Tribes or Castes, the percent of population that is Foreign Born, Rural/Urban Literacy Divide, and finally, a Religious Herfindahl Index which measures religious diversity within a specific State or Union Territory. The Mosaic Index, Exhibit 13, illustrates the concentration of Scheduled Tribes and Castes in a region. Due to the history of economic and social exclusion experienced by individuals in these groups, the Index also serves as a de facto indicator of poverty levels. States and Union Territories in the Far East and central band have higher concentrations of residents classified as Scheduled Tribes or Castes. Conversely, regions in the South and Far North and major urban centres, such as the NCT of Delhi, have much lower concentrations. The Religious Herfindahl Index, Exhibit 14, indicates the religious diversity of a region’s population. Higher scores correspond to a higher level of homogeneity and as such, less diversity. While a clear pattern is not immediately apparent, the central band of States and Union Territories emerges as the least religiously diverse region in the country. The Far East and South West regions, conversely, have high levels of religious diversity, which is likely due to their location near borders with countries with significant non-Hindu populations.

Global Creativity Index scores for BRICS countries

Exhibit 12

2005 CREATIVITY SCORES (among 45 countries) COUNTRY

2011 CREATIVITY RANKING (among 82 countries)

CREATIVITY

TOLERANCE

TALENT

TECHNOLOGY

CREATIVITY

TOLERANCE

TALENT

TECHNOLOGY

Brazil

0.159

0.266

0.128

0.083

46

22

66

41

Russia Federation

0.339

0.385

0.521

0.112

30

74

13

20

India

0.177

0.309

0.085

0.137

50

30

75

42

China

0.230

0.550

0.031

0.109

58

N/A

76

29

—

—

—

—

45

15

68

45

South Africa

Source: Florida 2005, The Flight of the Creative Class; Florida, R., C. Mellander and K. Stolarcik. (2011) “Global Creativity Index.” Martin Prosperity Institute Working Paper Series (2011).

www.martinprosperity.org | 17

Mosaic Index (2001)

18 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Exhibit 13

Religious Herfindahl Index (2001)

Exhibit 14

Religious Herfindahl Index Similar to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, we have applied our Religious Herfindahl Index to the States and Union Territories within India to measure regional religious diversity. Similar to the original Herfindahl Index, the Religious Herfindahl Index aims to gauge the comparative size distribution of a metric within selected areas, but looking at religions as opposed to firms. For calculating this Index we used the percentages of the following religions in each State and Union Territory: Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jainism, Muslim, Communities, and Other Religions. The Religious Herfindahl Index examines the regional religious diversity rates with the assumption that regions with greater religious diversity are more tolerant than those without the same level of diversity. The goal of the Index is to try and better understand Tolerance within regions, as often the acceptance of a diverse set of religions has a direct correlation on the overall Tolerance of that region.

www.martinprosperity.org | 19

% Foreign born (2001)

According to census data, in 2011 only 0.6% of India’s population was foreign born. As such the majority of the country’s States and Union Territories also have very low foreign born populations. Not surprisingly, border regions with other countries have higher immigrant populations, primarily concentrated in two regions: the Far North and the Far East (Exhibit 15). In the Far North, the regions situated between Pakistan and China and large metropolitan areas such as Chandigarh and Delhi have higher immigrant populations due to their proximity to geo-politically contested regions in the case of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh and/or the strength of their economies. In the Far East, States and Union Territories are likely to absorb immigrants from impoverished Bangladesh or political refugees from neighbouring Myanmar and China. It is clear, however, that immigrants have achieved limited success moving beyond border regions, deeper into the Indian sub-continent.

20 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Exhibit 15

The final component of our Tolerance Index is the Rural/Urban literacy ratio which alludes to the degree to which state and local policies spend on public education outside of urban areas. The closer the number is to 1, the closer the literacy rates are between urban and rural residents, which we believe indicates comparable levels of education spending. By focusing on those outside of major cities, policy makers are acting equitably. The common pattern among the Far North, North, Central, Far East, and South is similarly present when mapping this ratio (Exhibit 16). Amalgamating these four measures, we arrive at the overall Tolerance Index. The results show that regions in the Far North, Far

Rural/Urban literacy ratio

East, and South West stand out among India’s 28 States and 7 Union Territories (Exhibit 17). More generally, the regions located on or near geo-political borders, major metropolitan areas, and those positioned along the West coast tend to score better on the Tolerance Index than those in central regions and along the east coast, which score poorly. Sikkim, located between Nepal, China, Bhutan, and Bangladesh in the far eastern region of the country ranked 1st on the Tolerance Index with a score of 0.796. Other states in the same area, Tripura (0.763), West Bengal (0.678), Arunachal Pradesh (0.666), and Mizoram (0.637) rank 2nd, 8th, 10th, and 11th overall. The Andaman & Nicobar Islands also per-

Exhibit 16

formed very well with a score of (0.743) placing it 3rd overall. Chandigarh (5th or 0.735), Punjab (6th or 0.727), Delhi (7th or 0.727), and Goa (9th of 0.665), regions with major metropolitan centres, also performed well on the Tolerance Index.

www.martinprosperity.org | 21

Tolerance Index (2001)

Exhibit 17

Violence against Women Despite decreases in overall crime rates over recent decades, India’s individual violent crime rates actually increased. For example, murder rates increased by 3% from 2010-2011, and as such remain a key social and political issue. These increases, which have been chronicled in several high profile violent crimes occurring in the spring of 2013, have resulted in the country’s crime rate ranking as one of the highest in the world. Even more troubling, approximately half of total crimes committed in 2011 were against women and children. The most horrific and highly publicized acts of violence have been vicious rapes of women and children as well as locals and tourists, in some of India’s largest cities. India’s rate of rape per female inhabitants, despite the events in the media, although high, is still lower than the U.S. One of the biggest issues regarding rape and violence against women in India, and all societies, is the severe underreporting of attacks. For example, a 2011 British Medical Journal survey found that although most women surveyed had experienced some sexual violence, most told no one and only 8% sought help [1]. Regions with high rates of violence against women and children are consistently less progressive, prosperous, or welcoming than those with healthy economies, progressive social policies, and high quality of life. Combatting crime against a society’s most vulnerable is the first step of many, to create a safe and tolerant environment required to attract talented individuals and other elements of the knowledge economy. 22 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Creative Class share by State and Union Territory (2001/2003)

Exhibit 18

Talent India’s Talent Index combines two variables: Creative Class share and Degree share. Recent research shows that India ranks 75th out of 82 developed and developing countries from around the world on the Talent Index, as measured by Florida, Mellander and Stolarick (2011). On this same Index, Russia outperforms the other BRICS, ranking 13th overall. It is followed by Brazil (66th), South Africa (68th), India, and China (76th). India’s poor performance on the Talent Index places it behind other developing countries in Asia as well, such as Malaysia (50th), Sri Lanka (55th), and Thailand (56th), and only slightly ahead of Vietnam (78th), Indonesia (80th), and Cambodia (81st) out of 82 countries included (ibid).

The Creative Class in India comprises approximately 14% of the workforce, but varies considerably from region to region (Exhibit 18). Although the percentage of the workforce employed in Creative Class occupations in India is much lower than what is found in developed countries, some of India’s regions have made significant efforts to close the gap between themselves and their counterparts in developed countries. Twelve States and Union Territories have over 20% of their workforce employed in the Creative Class. Those scoring highest are: Chandigarh (28.2%), Mizoram (29.1%), Arunachal Pradesh (29.5%), and Nagaland (35.5%). These percentages of individuals employed in the Creative Class in these high scoring regions are comparable to those found in average performing developed and developing countries such as Malayasia (26.2%), Spain (30.9%), and Poland (32.4%) but considerably behind global leaders such as Singapore (47.3%), Switzerland (46.2%), and

www.martinprosperity.org | 23

Wage differentials (2012)

Australia (44.5%). Compared to other BRICS economies, India ranks lower than Russia (38.6%), South Africa (21.7%), and Brazil (18.5%) but higher than China which performs very poorly with only 7.4% of its workforce employed in the Creative Class (Florida, Mellander, and Stolarick 2011). Within India, the Far North, Far East, and Southern States and Union Territories appear to have higher concentrations of the Creative Class than central and western regions. High performing regions tend to have lower overall populations than the low performing regions. Due to their smaller populations, the proportion of the population employed in management and professional occupations is relatively higher compared to the same in more populous regions. This inflates the Creative Class component of the Creativity Index in these regions; thereby inflating their final overall score on the Index. According to research by the Martin Prosperity Institute (2009), many of the occupations that compose the Creative

24 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Exhibit 19

Class tend to be associated with higher levels of income than those employed in other segments of the workforce. The average annual wages of the Creative Class in the province of Ontario, Canada is CAD$64,100, while the average annual wages for working class and service class members is only CAD$37,500 and CAD$30,900 respectively. This paper finds that those regions in India with higher concentrations of the Creative Class tend to have higher average annual wages across their entire workforce (Exhibit 19). India’s top three States or Union Territories according to Creative Class Share are Delhi (42.77%), Jammu & Kashmir (40.00%), and Chandigarh (36.88%), compared to the national average of 13.96% (Exhibit 19).

Degree share (2001)

Approximately 4.1% of Indians over the age of 25 hold a Bachelor’s degree or higher, while in the U.S., for example, it was 27.4% (Martin Prosperity Institute 2009). Like the Creative Class, degree share is not evenly distributed around the country (Exhibit 20). The States or Union Territories with the highest degree shares are Chandigarh (16.47%), Delhi (13.12%), and Puducherry (8.59%). Only 3 other regions have degree shares over 6%, which clearly illustrates that India’s major urban economic areas attract and retain the country’s most educated individuals. The Talent Index combines Creative Class and degree share measures to illustrate which States and Union Territories have been the most successful in attracting and retaining talented individuals. Chandigarh leads all

Exhibit 20

regions with a score of (0.981), followed in second by Delhi (0.971), Goa (0.905), Kerala (0.876), and Puducherry (0.790). When mapping Talent (Exhibit 21), the divisions within the country between the central regions on one hand and the Far North, Far East, and South become clearly visible. The disparity between those cities that perform well and the rest of the country may also help explain the “brain drain” and Indian diaspora as talented individuals may be more likely to leave the country, by studying in the west for example, rather than remaining in their home regions.

www.martinprosperity.org | 25

Talent Index

Exhibit 21

India’s University Problem While the Indian Government has dedicated significant financial and political capital to improving access to and the quality of primary education across the country, secondary and university institutions still pale in comparison with those in both developed and developing countries. The lack of world class universities constrains India’s ability to develop and retain talent. For example, no Indian Institutions rank within the Top 200 according to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2013). As the knowledge economy continues to expand in India, the lack of reputable global universities will constrain regional and national innovation and economic growth. Taking advantage of this academic void, many of the world’s top business schools, including the Schulich School of Business in Canada, are recruiting heavily from India and even establishing separate divisions of their schools in Indian cities known globally for their history of innovation, such as Bangalore and Delhi. Increasingly, renowned academics, such as The Rotman School of Management’s Dean, Roger Martin, and other global business leaders, visit the country to speak with business leaders, politicians, and aspiring entrepreneurs.

26 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Tech Connectivity (2011)

Technology India is often referred to as the key case study in successful globalization. The success of manufacturing, call centres, and technology clusters in cities like Bangalore, has earned India a reputation as an emerging global Tech leader. Despite this reputation, the country’s strong urban and rural divide has limited the penetration of Technology to more remote and less developed regions. The Tech Index combines Tech Connectivity, Tech Education, and Computer Access to illustrate a more nuanced description of technology on a regional basis. When compared to 75 other countries and regions, India ranks 42nd, behind developed countries in Asia, such as Japan (2nd), Singa-

Exhibit 22

pore (10th), and Hong Kong (21) and but performs better than most developing countries, such as Malaysia (54th), and Thailand (64th) (Florida, Mellander, and Stolarick 2011). Within the BRICS, India ranks below Russia (20th), China (29th), and Brazil (41st), but finishes slightly ahead of South Africa (45th) (ibid). Tech Connectivity illustrates how well regions are connected technologically by measuring the share of households with access to the internet and those that use mobile phones (Exhibit 22). Looking the share of households with Internet, now familiar patterns emerge again. Although 3.1 % of the Country’s households have access to the internet, certain regions have much higher rates such as Chandigarh (18.8%), Delhi (17.6%), and Goa (12.7%). Mobile phone usage follows a similar pattern. While 63.2% of Indians uses mobile phones, the regions of Lakshadweep (36.7%), Delhi (90.8%), and Kerala (89.7%) have rates high above the national average.

www.martinprosperity.org | 27

Tech Education

It is interesting that when mapping Tech Education the common geographic patterns do not exist as illustrated by Exhibit 23. Educational institutions are well distributed around the country with particularly high scores in Mizoram (4.99), Tripura (3.72), and Delhi (3.11). Conversely, Assam (0.24), Manipur (0.29), and Meghalaya (0.33) and other states in the Far East have considerably less technical educational infrastructure. Finally, looking at Computer Access, regional contrasts between the central and east on one hand, and the far north, far east, and south apparent in the majority of the data are again apparent (Exhibit 24). Approximately 9.5% of the Indian population has access to to a computer while certain regions perform considerably higher. Chandigarh (33.2%), Goa (31.1%), and Delhi (29.1%) have the highest rates of computer acces while central regions such as Odisha (5.1%), Madhya Pradesh (5.9%), and Chhattisgarh (4.6%) have rates below the national average.

28 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Exhibit 23

Combining these measures we arrived at the overall Technology Index (Exhibit 25) which varies significantly across the country from 0.314 in Odisha to 0.848 in Delhi. The leading regions in India that are the most technology sophisticated, according to the Technology Index, are the States and Union Territories in the far north and south. Delhi ranks the highest of all regions with a score of 0.848 is followed by Kerala (0.810), Mizoram (0.714) and Karnataka (0.714). Similar to the Talent Index, the Tech Index scores appear to be highest in regions with large urban centres and/or strong international economic connections either through trade or tourism.

Computer access (2011)

Exhibit 24

www.martinprosperity.org | 29

Technology Index

30 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

Exhibit 25

Creativity Index

Exhibit 26

Creativity Index Finally by combining the Talent, Technology, and Tolerance Indices we arrive at the overall Creativity Index. Not surprisingly, the regional patterns that emerged within each of the 3Ts individual analysis, predominately the variations between the high scoring Far North, Far East, and Southern regions and the poor performance of central regions, are more pronounced in the overall Creativity Index. Scores on the Creativity index ranged from a low of (0.095) in Odisha to a high (0.943) achieved by Delhi. Three regions in the Far North, Delhi, Chandigarh (0.914), and Punjab (0.867) lead all States and Union Territories, placing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respectively on the overall Creativity Index. Two regions on located on India’s West Coast,

Goa (0.810) and Kerala (0.790) rank 4th and 5th respectively. Mizoram, located in the Far East, ranks 6th with a score of (0.800).The States and Union Territories located in the central belt of the country performed poorest, with Odisha, Madhya Pradesh (0.114), Chhatisgarh (0.114), Bihar (0.114), and Rajasthan (0.152) ranking as the lowest 5 regions. The Creativity Index (Exhibit 26) illustrates the uneven economic development patterns that have resulted in considerable variation between the country’s many geographic regions. If the Indian economy is to reach its full potential, strategies must be developed to incorporate States and Union Territories in the central band into the growing prosperity experienced by cities in the Far North and along the western coast. The Far East, especially Mizoram and Sikkim performed stronger than expected, signaling that the region has the human infrastructure capable of achieving greater economic prosperity, despite the poverty faced by many of the region’s population today. www.martinprosperity.org | 31

CONCLUSION India’s economic growth in recent decades has led to significant prosperity in certain places — particularly in major cities such as Delhi, Chandigarh, and Bangalore — which are all operating at close to OECD and Western levels on many of the typical creative economy indicators while still having significantly lower overall economic performance. Despite the success of these emerging global cities, however, the Country has experienced uneven growth and urbanization, as only a third of the Country’s residents, live in metropolitan regions (2011). This uneven development has resulted in striking variation in Creativity, Technology, Talent, Tolerance, and other measures at the State and Union Territory level. This variation is seen across all of the creative economy metrics examined in this report. Our analysis of the States and Union Territories in the Far East of the Country, including; West Bengal, Sikkim, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Tripura, produced intriguing results. Although the Far East region shows great promise in regards to economic and social development, certain States and Union Territories within this region must overcome significant challenges such as geo-political disputes, immigration, urbanization, and the impacts of climate change in order to reach their full potential. With high levels of their populations working in the Creative Class, compared to the national average, and considerable investments in education, the States and Union Territories in this region are positioning themselves to benefit from growth in the less-labour intensive knowledge economy. The future for the Far East region appears to be optimistic, as when examining the States and Union Territories within this broad location, found are essential elements of the Creative Economy; talented workforces, greater tolerance, and growing technological infrastructure. Beyond the far east of India, most of the results show a north/ south and east/west divide across the country with northern states and western states generally out scoring more central and eastern locations. These tend to be places with greater manufacturing (especially non-household manufacturing) and correspondingly higher GDP per capita levels and generally higher scores across the 3T’s. Currently there is a strong Urban/Rural Divide in India’s Creative Economy as illustrated by our Creativity, Tolerance, Talent, and Technology Indices. As explained throughout this report, the Creativity Index, along with the 3T’s allow us to gauge the economic potential of a region to succeed within the knowledge economy. If our initial results are any indication of the potential for regional development throughout India, then the urban regions are far better situated for economic growth than rural areas. If this divide is not reduced, then the gap between the rural areas, where the majority of the population lives and urban regions, where the greatest growth has occurred, will grow at an alarming rate, as only by mitigating the effects of uneven development can India’s regional and national economies reach their full potential.

32 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

APPENDICES State

% Agricultural Labourers or Cultivators (2001)

Chhattisgarh

35.53%

Himachal Pradesh

33.71%

Mizoram

31.86%

Madhya Pradesh

30.55%

Nagaland

29.13%

Andhra Pradesh

28.46%

Rajasthan

27.72%

Meghalaya

27.54%

Sikkim

27.41%

Arunachal Pradesh

27.15%

Bihar

26.04%

Odisha

25.12%

Jharkhand

25.02%

Karnataka

24.81%

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

24.57%

Maharashtra

23.36%

Manipur

22.77%

Tamil Nadu

22.04%

Gujarat

21.64%

Uttaranchal

21.55%

Uttar Pradesh

21.40%

Haryana

20.32%

Assam

18.74%

Tripura

18.42%

Jammu & Kashmir

18.12%

West Bengal

16.24%

Punjab

14.59%

Puducherry

8.53%

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

7.48%

Kerala

7.36%

Goa

6.40%

Daman & Diu

3.39%

Delhi

0.38%

Chandigarh

0.30%

Lakshadweep

0.00%

Average for India www.martinprosperity.org | 33

State

Manufacturing share (Household industries) (2001)

State

Manufacturing share (Non Household industries) (2001)

Manipur

19.63

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

53.87

Bihar

17.69

Daman & Diu

47.59

Uttar Pradesh

15.97

Gujarat

28.68

Madhya Pradesh

14.05

Maharastra

25.02

Odisha

13.68

Tamil Nadu

24.01

Jharkhand

13.15

Uttar Pradesh

23.96

West Bengal

13.13

Delhi

22.95

Andhra Pradesh

12.40

Haryana

22.85

Jammu & Kashmir

11.85

Punjab

22.59

Tamil Nadu

10.41

West Bengal

20.82

Karnataka

9.09

Karnataka

19.49

Chhattisgarh

8.64

Puducherry

19.41

Rajasthan

8.35

Andhra Pradesh

18.42

Nagaland

8.13

Jharkhand

17.78

Assam

7.34

Rajasthan

17.49

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

6.44

Chhattisgarh

17.29

Punjab

6.02

Bihar

16.58

Tripura

6.01

Kerala

16.50

Lakshadweep

5.83

Uttarakhand

16.33

Maharastra

5.82

Madhya Pradesh

15.15

Himachal Pradesh

5.66

Odisha

14.84

Haryana

5.26

Chandigarh

14.65

Uttarakhand

5.14

Goa

14.16

Meghalaya

4.95

Assam

12.38

Kerala

4.58

Himachal Pradesh

9.99

Gujarat

4.25

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

8.87

Mizoram

3.81

Lakshadweep

6.94

Sikkim

3.65

Tripura

6.71

Goa

3.35

Manipur

6.49

Arunachal Pradesh

3.25

Jammu & Kashmir

5.96

Delhi

3.04

Sikkim

5.15

Puducherry

2.41

Mizoram

4.67

Daman & Diu

1.74

Nagaland

4.14

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

1.41

Meghalaya

3.81

Chandigarh

1.10

Arunachal Pradesh

2.95

Average for India

9.99

Average for India

34 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

20.48

Population by State and Union Territory (2011)

GDP per capita State Goa

(2010 GDP per capita at constant (2004–05) prices)

143,525.20

State Uttar Pradesh

199,581,477

Maharastra

68,968.50

Maharastra

112,372,972

Haryana

65,512.70

Bihar

103,804,637

Gujarat

60,495.70

West Bengal

91,347,736

Sikkim

59,932.10

Andhra Pradesh

84,665,533

Kerala

57,920.50

Madhya Pradesh

72,597,565

Himachal Pradesh

56,976.50

Tamil Nadu

72,138,958

Tamil Nadu

54,252.50

Rajasthan

68,621,012

Punjab

53,726.10

Karnataka

61,130,704

Uttarakhand

50,517.20

Gujarat

60,383,628

Karnataka

45,792.40

Odisha

41,947,358

Andhra Pradesh

45,111.90

Kerala

33,387,677

Nagaland

43,375.70

Jharkhand

32,966,238

Mizoram

41,768.50

Assam

31,169,272

Arunachal Pradesh

41,161.30

Punjab

27,704,236

Tripura

38,689.40

Chhattisgarh

25,540,196

Meghalaya

36,221.20

Haryana

25,353,081

West Bengal

34,788.60

Delhi

16,753,235

Chhattisgarh

30,996.60

Jammu & Kashmir

12,548,926

Jammu & Kashmir

30,870.40

Uttarakhand

10,116,752

Odisha

30,601.90

Himachal Pradesh

6,856,509

Rajasthan

29,786.50

Tripura

3,671,032

Manipur

26,394.70

Meghalaya

2,964,007

Madhya Pradesh

25,158.80

Manipur

2,721,756

Assam

23,810.30

Nagaland

1,980,602

Jharkhand

23,674.20

Goa

1,457,723

Uttar Pradesh

19,766.30

Arunachal Pradesh

1,382,611

Bihar

13,917.60

Puducherry

1,244,464

Delhi

9,403.60

Mizoram

1,091,014 1,054,686

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

n/a

Chandigarh

Daman & Diu

n/a

Sikkim

607,688

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

n/a

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

379,944

Puducherry

n/a

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

342,853

Lakshadweep

n/a

Daman & Diu

242,911

Chandigarh

n/a

Lakshadweep

64,429

Average for India

n/a

Average for India

1,210,193,422

www.martinprosperity.org | 35

State

Population change (2001–2011)

State

Population density change (2001–2011)

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

55.50%

Delhi

1,957

Daman & Diu

53.54%

Chandigarh

1,352

Meghalaya

27.82%

Daman & Diu

756

Puducherry

27.72%

Puducherry

564

Arunachal Pradesh

25.92%

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

249

Manipur

25.61%

Bihar

221

Bihar

25.07%

Uttar Pradesh

138

Jammu & Kashmir

23.71%

West Bengal

126

Mizoram

22.78%

Lakshadweep

118

Chhattisgarh

22.59%

Haryana

95

Jharkhand

22.34%

Jharkhand

76

Rajasthan

21.44%

Tamil Nadu

75

Delhi

20.96%

Punjab

66

Madhya Pradesh

20.30%

Assam

57

Uttar Pradesh

20.09%

Maharastra

50

Haryana

19.90%

Gujarat

50

Uttarakhand

19.17%

Tripura

45

Gujarat

19.17%

Karnataka

43

Chandigarh

17.10%

Kerala

40

Assam

16.93%

Madhya Pradesh

40

Maharastra

15.99%

Rajasthan

36

Karnataka

15.67%

Chhattisgarh

35

Tamil Nadu

15.60%

Odisha

33

Tripura

14.75%

Andhra Pradesh

31

Odisha

13.97%

Goa

30

West Bengal

13.93%

Uttarakhand

30

Punjab

13.73%

Meghalaya

29

Himachal Pradesh

12.81%

Manipur

25

Sikkim

12.36%

Jammu & Kashmir

24

Andhra Pradesh

11.10%

Himachal Pradesh

14

Goa

8.17%

Sikkim

10

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

6.68%

Mizoram

10

Lakshadweep

6.23%

Arunachal Pradesh

4

Kerala

4.86%

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

3

Nagaland

-0.47%

Nagaland

-1

Average for India

17.65%

Average for India

57

36 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

State

Mosaic Index (2001)

State

Religious Herfindahl Index (2001)

Lakshadweep

3.874

Lakshadweep

9,131.184

Mizoram

3.873

Himachal Pradesh

9,115.296

Nagaland

3.654

Chhattisgarh

8,982.503

Meghalaya

3.542

Odisha

8,923.399

Arunachal Pradesh

2.655

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

8,776.167

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

2.627

Madhya Pradesh

8,354.233

Tripura

1.985

Nagaland

8,162.914

Chhattisgarh

1.778

Daman & Diu

8,111.854

Odisha

1.584

Gujarat

8,031.321

Jharkhand

1.563

Andhra Pradesh

8,029.731

Manipur

1.515

Rajasthan

7,955.134

Madhya Pradesh

1.453

Haryana

7,850.508

Rajasthan

1.218

Tamil Nadu

7,845.862

Punjab

1.183

Mizoram

7,652.420

Himachal Pradesh

1.178

Puducherry

7,623.338

West Bengal

1.169

Tripura

7,419.802

Sikkim

1.050

Uttarakhand

7,371.962

Andhra Pradesh

0.934

Karnataka

7,219.978

Karnataka

0.933

Bihar

7,206.595

Gujarat

0.896

Delhi

6,882.413

Uttar Pradesh

0.869

Uttar Pradesh

6,846.720

Uttarakhand

0.856

Maharastra

6,624.187

Tamil Nadu

0.822

Chandigarh

6,457.373

Haryana

0.793

West Bengal

5,899.262

Assam

0.790

Jammu & Kashmir

5,369.588

Maharastra

0.781

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

5,356.655

Jammu & Kashmir

0.758

Meghalaya

5,294.531

Chandigarh

0.717

Assam

5,184.488

Delhi

0.693

Goa

5,136.016

Bihar

0.682

Jharkhand

5,089.313

Puducherry

0.664

Punjab

4,958.933

Daman & Diu

0.488

Sikkim

4,575.007

Kerala

0.449

Kerala

4,132.767

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

0.339

Manipur

3,474.427

Goa

0.074

Arunachal Pradesh

Average for India

0.244

Average for India

2,711.174 6,673.246

www.martinprosperity.org | 37

State

% Foreign born (2001)

State

Rural/Urban literacy ratio

Tripura

9.37

Lakshadweep

0.995

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

4.38

Kerala

0.978

Sikkim

4.18

Delhi

0.956

West Bengal

3.85

Chandigarh

0.944

Chandigarh

2.82

Goa

0.943

Delhi

2.37

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

0.942

Arunachal Pradesh

2.32

Daman & Diu

0.917

Mizoram

1.93

Tripura

0.914

Punjab

1.55

Puducherry

0.909

Haryana

1.32

Himachal Pradesh

0.907

Daman & Diu

1.22

Uttarakhand

0.905

Uttarakhand

1.20

Manipur

0.897

Himachal Pradesh

0.93

Sikkim

0.894

Assam

0.71

Uttar Pradesh

0.877

Goa

0.67

Haryana

0.868

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

0.57

Punjab

0.866

Meghalaya

0.53

Mizoram

0.859

Nagaland

0.40

Maharastra

0.858

Tamil Nadu

0.33

West Bengal

0.853

Jammu & Kashmir

0.32

Tamil Nadu

0.846

Puducherry

0.28

Nagaland

0.841

Bihar

0.26

Gujarat

0.834

Chhattisgarh

0.24

Jammu & Kashmir

0.831

Maharastra

0.20

Odisha

0.819

Rajasthan

0.20

Karnataka

0.799

Gujarat

0.16

Assam

0.793

Odisha

0.16

Chhattisgarh

0.787

Madhya Pradesh

0.11

Bihar

0.785

Manipur

0.10

Meghalaya

0.779

Uttar Pradesh

0.10

Madhya Pradesh

0.776

Kerala

0.09

Rajasthan

0.772

Karnataka

0.08

Andhra Pradesh

0.759

Jharkhand

0.06

Jharkhand

0.749

Andhra Pradesh

0.03

Arunachal Pradesh

0.728

Lakshadweep

0.01

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

0.725

Average for India

0.60

Average for India

0.811

38 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

State

Tolerance Index (2001)

State

Creative Class share (2001/2003)

Sikkim

0.796

Delhi

42.77

Tripura

0.763

Jammu & Kashmir

40.00

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

0.743

Chandigarh

36.88

Chandigarh

0.735

Punjab

23.94

Punjab

0.727

Goa

21.83

Delhi

0.706

Nagaland

15.85

West Bengal

0.678

Haryana

15.53

Arunachal Pradesh

0.665

Kerala

14.38

Goa

0.665

Arunachal Pradesh

14.36

Mizoram

0.637

Mizoram

14.26

Manipur

0.633

Meghalaya

13.93

Kerala

0.600

West Bengal

13.86

Uttarakhand

0.596

Sikkim

13.74

Meghalaya

0.563

Assam

13.58

Assam

0.535

Manipur

13.15

Haryana

0.531

Tripura

13.06

Daman & Diu

0.522

Puducherry

12.34

Himachal Pradesh

0.502

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

12.08

Puducherry

0.486

Uttar Pradesh

11.88

Jammu & Kashmir

0.478

Lakshadweep

11.69

Maharashtra

0.465

Karnataka

11.34

Nagaland

0.461

Gujarat

10.98

Uttar Pradesh

0.461

Tamil Nadu

10.84

Lakshadweep

0.445

Rajasthan

10.17

Tamil Nadu

0.429

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

9.60

Jharkhand

0.400

Andhra Pradesh

9.16

Bihar

0.359

Daman & Diu

9.04

Karnataka

0.339

Himachal Pradesh

8.99

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

0.335

Madhya Pradesh

8.43

Gujarat

0.335

Uttarakhand

7.92

Chhattisgarh

0.318

Maharashtra

7.71

Odisha

0.314

Bihar

4.11

Rajasthan

0.314

Odisha

3.91

Madhya Pradesh

0.261

Jharkhand

3.44

Andhra Pradesh

0.204

Chhattisgarh

3.38

Average for India

13.96

www.martinprosperity.org | 39

State

Wage variation by skill level (2012)

State

Degree share (2001)

Mizoram

0.300

Chandigarh

16.47

Jammu & Kashmir

0.293

Delhi

13.12

Tamil Nadu

0.259

Puducherry

8.59

Assam

0.240

Goa

8.45

Andhra Pradesh

0.187

Manipur

6.98

Tripura

0.171

Kerala

6.44

Meghalaya

0.167

Uttarakhand

5.74

Odisha

0.126

Maharashtra

5.60

Jharkhand

0.125

Karnataka

5.05

Sikkim

0.119

Daman & Diu

4.96

Himachal Pradesh

0.118

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

4.96

Punjab

0.117

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

4.76

Uttar Pradesh

0.117

Punjab

4.55

Arunachal Pradesh

0.113

Gujarat

4.53

Nagaland

0.111

Tamil Nadu

4.53

Maharashtra

0.104

Andhra Pradesh

4.30

West Bengal

0.095

Haryana

4.30

Delhi

0.090

Himachal Pradesh

4.24

Uttarakhand

0.089

West Bengal

4.14

Manipur

0.081

Odisha

3.66

Kerala

0.071

Jammu & Kashmir

3.43

Rajasthan

0.064

Madhya Pradesh

3.40

Chhattisgarh

0.061

Tripura

3.25

Haryana

0.050

Mizoram

3.15

Karnataka

0.049

Jharkhand

3.11

Goa

0.038

Uttar Pradesh

3.11

Madhya Pradesh

0.028

Chhattisgarh

3.05

Bihar

0.020

Nagaland

3.03

Gujarat

0.012

Lakshadweep

2.82

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

n/a

Sikkim

2.81

Chandigarh

n/a

Rajasthan

2.75

Daman & Diu

n/a

Assam

2.66

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

n/a

Bihar

2.66

Lakshadweep

n/a

Arunachal Pradesh

2.63

Puducherry

n/a

Meghalaya

2.34

Average for India

2.92

40 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

State

Talent Index

State

Tech Connectivity (2011)

Chandigarh

0.981

Delhi

5.053

Delhi

0.971

Kerala

2.257

Goa

0.905

Karnataka

1.618

Kerala

0.876

Maharastra

1.600

Puducherry

0.790

Punjab

1.468

Punjab

0.743

Tamil Nadu

1.384

Manipur

0.724

Himachal Pradesh

1.357

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

0.695

Gujarat

1.154

Mizoram

0.629

Andhra Pradesh

1.080

Haryana

0.629

Haryana

0.995

Daman & Diu

0.610

Madhya Pradesh

0.590

Karnataka

0.581

Mizoram

0.586

Maharashtra

0.562

Meghalaya

0.586

West Bengal

0.543

Nagaland

0.586

Uttarakhand

0.533

Manipur

0.586

Tamil Nadu

0.533

Tripura

0.586

Jammu & Kashmir

0.533

Sikkim

0.586

Gujarat

0.533

West Bengal

0.579

Himachal Pradesh

0.505

Jammu & Kashmir

0.579

Nagaland

0.505

Rajasthan

0.565

Tripura

0.476

Odisha

0.472

Lakshadweep

0.457

Uttar Pradesh

0.390

Sikkim

0.410

Uttarakhand

0.367

Andhra Pradesh

0.410

Assam

0.364

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

0.410

Bihar

0.312

Assam

0.352

Jharkhand

0.309

Meghalaya

0.305

Goa

0.287

Arunachal Pradesh

0.295

Chhattisgarh

0.287

Uttar Pradesh

0.295

Arunachal Pradesh

0.085

Odisha

0.295

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

n/a

Madhya Pradesh

0.286

Daman & Diu

n/a

Rajasthan

0.210

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

n/a

Chhattisgarh

0.190

Puducherry

n/a

Jharkhand

0.152

Lakshadweep

n/a

Bihar

0.076

Chandigarh

n/a

Average for India

n/a

www.martinprosperity.org | 41

State

Tech Education

State

Share of households with a computer or laptop (2011)

Mizoram

4.992

Chandigarh

33.2

Tripura

3.718

Goa

31.1

Delhi

3.107

Delhi

29.1

Goa

2.895

Kerala

15.8

Kerala

2.039

Mizoram

15.2

Uttarakhand

1.936

Lakshadweep

14.1

Karnataka

1.883

Puducherry

13.6

Chhattisgarh

1.844

Haryana

13.3

Punjab

1.439

Maharastra

13.3

Andhra Pradesh

1.074

Punjab

12.8

Jharkhand

1.041

Karnataka

12.8

Maharastra

0.920

Sikkim

11.5

Rajasthan

0.871

Uttarakhand

11.0

Gujarat

0.832

Tamil Nadu

10.6

West Bengal

0.761

Assam

9.4

Uttar Pradesh

0.751

Daman & Diu

9.3

Sikkim

0.750

Manipur

9.1

Jammu & Kashmir

0.674

Nagaland

8.9

Arunachal Pradesh

0.666

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

8.8

Tamil Nadu

0.612

Gujarat

8.8

Bihar

0.574

Andhra Pradesh

8.4

Odisha

0.541

Jammu & Kashmir

8.4

Haryana

0.489

Himachal Pradesh

8.4

Himachal Pradesh

0.443

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

8.3

Madhya Pradesh

0.406

West Bengal

8.3

Meghalaya

0.325

Arunachal Pradesh

8.2

Nagaland

0.286

Uttar Pradesh

8.1

Assam

0.240

Meghalaya

7.6

Manipur

0.196

Tripura

7.3

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

n/a

Bihar

7.1

Daman & Diu

n/a

Jharkhand

6.9

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

n/a

Rajasthan

6.9

Puducherry

n/a

Madhya Pradesh

5.9

Lakshadweep

n/a

Odisha

5.1

Chandigarh

n/a

Chhattisgarh

4.6

Average for India

9.5

Average for India

42 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

0.167

State

Technology Index

State

Creativity Index

Delhi

0.848

Delhi

0.943

Kerala

0.810

Chandigarh

0.914

Karnataka

0.714

Punjab

0.867

Mizoram

0.714

Kerala

0.857

Maharashtra

0.676

Goa

0.819

Punjab

0.676

Mizoram

0.800

Chandigarh

0.657

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

0.752

Lakshadweep

0.610

Puducherry

0.714

Puducherry

0.600

Maharashtra

0.648

Goa

0.590

Tripura

0.629

Tamil Nadu

0.533

Haryana

0.629

Andhra Pradesh

0.524

Manipur

0.619

Daman & Diu

0.514

West Bengal

0.619

Gujarat

0.514

Karnataka

0.610

Haryana

0.514

Daman & Diu

0.610

Uttarakhand

0.514

Sikkim

0.610

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

0.476

Uttarakhand

0.581

Sikkim

0.476

Tamil Nadu

0.514

Tripura

0.457

Lakshadweep

0.514

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

0.429

Himachal Pradesh

0.467

Himachal Pradesh

0.400

Jammu & Kashmir

0.448

West Bengal

0.362

Gujarat

0.419

Jammu & Kashmir

0.352

Nagaland

0.390

Nagaland

0.343

Assam

0.371

Manipur

0.333

Andhra Pradesh

0.343

Rajasthan

0.295

Meghalaya

0.343

Uttar Pradesh

0.295

Arunachal Pradesh

0.343

Assam

0.276

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

0.314

Jharkhand

0.267

Uttar Pradesh

0.267

Madhya Pradesh

0.257

Jharkhand

0.181

Meghalaya

0.257

Rajasthan

0.152

Chhattisgarh

0.238

Bihar

0.114

Arunachal Pradesh

0.210

Chhattisgarh

0.114

Bihar

0.190

Madhya Pradesh

0.114

Odisha

0.181

Odisha

0.095

www.martinprosperity.org | 43

State

Farming, Fishing, Forestry, and Extraction Class share

State

Service Class share

Jharkhand

90.16

Goa

42.72

Bihar

88.27

Chandigarh

30.50

Odisha

86.32

Delhi

19.88

Chhattisgarh

86.03

Punjab

16.90

Uttarakhand

80.38

Assam

16.67

Madhya Pradesh

76.05

Meghalaya

15.68

Maharashtra

75.06

Tripura

15.44

Andhra Pradesh

72.77

Mizoram

14.90

Rajasthan

72.59

Nagaland

14.11

Himachal Pradesh

68.35

Manipur

13.78

Uttar Pradesh

66.25

Kerala

13.73

Karnataka

64.43

Himachal Pradesh

13.67

Gujarat

63.69

Haryana

13.66

Assam

61.73

Sikkim

13.58

Tamil Nadu

61.30

Puducherry

13.52

Lakshadweep

58.90

Arunachal Pradesh

13.03

Kerala

58.82

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

12.18

Daman & Diu

56.49

Uttar Pradesh

10.63

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

56.31

Lakshadweep

10.57

Tripura

56.27

West Bengal

10.45

Meghalaya

56.26

Daman & Diu

9.90

Sikkim

56.05

Jammu & Kashmir

9.09

Arunachal Pradesh

55.85

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

8.95

Mizoram

55.64

Gujarat

8.94

Manipur

55.38

Uttarakhand

7.55

Puducherry

55.18

Rajasthan

7.07

Nagaland

54.52

Tamil Nadu

6.81

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

54.46

Madhya Pradesh

6.65

West Bengal

52.73

Andhra Pradesh

6.34

Haryana

40.99

Karnataka

5.88

Punjab

32.39

Maharashtra

5.40

Goa

12.68

Odisha

4.89

Chandigarh

0.00

Chhattisgarh

4.71

Delhi

0.00

Bihar

4.40

Jammu & Kashmir

0.00

Jharkhand

3.75

Average for India

9.13

Average for India

44 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

29.09

State

Working Class share

Average years of education

State

Jammu & Kashmir

52.73

Chandigarh

8.49

Delhi

36.75

Kerala

8.06

Chandigarh

33.33

Delhi

8.04

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

26.99

Goa

7.99

Punjab

26.76

Puducherry

7.71

Daman & Diu

24.57

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

7.25

Goa

23.24

Daman & Diu

7.22

West Bengal

22.05

Mizoram

7.08

Tamil Nadu

21.36

Himachal Pradesh

7.04

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

19.43

Maharashtra

7.04

Puducherry

18.96

Lakshadweep

6.98

Lakshadweep

18.84

Manipur

6.81

Karnataka

18.63

Punjab

6.71

Haryana

18.01

Tamil Nadu

6.70

Manipur

17.70

Uttarakhand

6.57

Arunachal Pradesh

16.76

Gujarat

6.40

Sikkim

16.63

Karnataka

6.39

Gujarat

16.40

Haryana

6.34

Nagaland

15.53

Tripura

6.30

Tripura

15.22

West Bengal

6.20

Mizoram

15.20

Nagaland

6.17

Meghalaya

14.13

Sikkim

6.13

Kerala

13.73

Andhra Pradesh

5.91

Andhra Pradesh

11.90

Odisha

5.90

Uttar Pradesh

11.88

Assam

5.81

Maharashtra

11.83

Chhattisgarh

5.68

Rajasthan

9.53

Madhya Pradesh

5.67

Himachal Pradesh

8.99

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

5.65

Madhya Pradesh

8.87

Jammu & Kashmir

5.55

Assam

6.79

Meghalaya

5.45

Chhattisgarh

5.73

Rajasthan

5.37

Odisha

4.89

Uttar Pradesh

5.29

Uttarakhand

3.40

Jharkhand

5.21

Bihar

2.93

Arunachal Pradesh

5.18

Jharkhand

2.81

Bihar

4.71

Average for India

47.8

Average for India

5.42

www.martinprosperity.org | 45

State

% Non-Hindu

State

Share of households with internet

Mizoram

96.45

Chandigarh

18.8

Lakshadweep

96.34

Delhi

17.6

Nagaland

92.30

Goa

12.7

Meghalaya

86.68

Kerala

6.3

Jammu & Kashmir

70.37

Puducherry

6.0

Arunachal Pradesh

65.10

Maharastra

5.8

Punjab

63.05

Punjab

5.4

Manipur

53.97

Haryana

5.3

Kerala

43.79

Karnataka

4.8

Sikkim

38.94

Tamil Nadu

4.2

Assam

35.08

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

3.5

Goa

33.89

Sikkim

3.3

Jharkhand

31.37

Uttarakhand

3.2

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

30.60

Lakshadweep

3.1

West Bengal

27.48

Gujarat

3.1

Chandigarh

21.38

Jammu & Kashmir

2.9

Maharastra

19.55

Daman & Diu

2.8

Uttar Pradesh

19.35

Himachal Pradesh

2.8

Delhi

17.98

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

2.8

Bihar

16.74

Andhra Pradesh

2.6

Karnataka

15.95

Mizoram

2.5

Uttarakhand

15.01

Manipur

2.2

Tripura

14.35

West Bengal

2.2

Puducherry

13.18

Arunachal Pradesh

2.0

Tamil Nadu

11.81

Uttar Pradesh

1.9

Haryana

11.76

Rajasthan

1.8

Rajasthan

11.23

Nagaland

1.7

Andhra Pradesh

10.88

Assam

1.6

Gujarat

10.85

Meghalaya

1.5

Daman & Diu

10.29

Jharkhand

1.5

Madhya Pradesh

8.83

Madhya Pradesh

1.4

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

6.41

Odisha

1.4

Odisha

5.60

Chhattisgarh

1.2

Chhattisgarh

5.27

Tripura

1.0

Himachal Pradesh

4.56

Bihar

0.9

Average for India

19.49

Average for India

3.1

46 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

State

Share of households with a telephone or mobile phone

Population density (2011)

State

Lakshadweep

93.7

Delhi

11,297

Delhi

90.8

Chandigarh

9,252

Kerala

89.7

Puducherry

2,598

Chandigarh

89.3

Daman & Diu

2,169

Goa

89.1

Lakshadweep

2,013

Daman & Diu

86.4

Bihar

1,102

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

83.6

West Bengal

1,029

Himachal Pradesh

82.3

Kerala

859

Punjab

82.1

Uttar Pradesh

828

Puducherry

80.9

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

698

Haryana

79.3

Haryana

573

Tamil Nadu

74.9

Tamil Nadu

555

Uttarakhand

74.6

Punjab

550

Sikkim

73.0

Jharkhand

414

Mizoram

72.7

Assam

397

Karnataka

71.6

Goa

394

Rajasthan

70.6

Maharastra

365

Jammu & Kashmir

69.5

Tripura

350

Maharastra

69.1

Karnataka

319

Gujarat

69.0

Andhra Pradesh

308

Uttar Pradesh

66.9

Gujarat

308

Andhra Pradesh

63.1

Odisha

269

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

62.9

Madhya Pradesh

236

Manipur

57.5

Rajasthan

201

Bihar

55.5

Chhattisgarh

189

Nagaland

53.1

Uttarakhand

189

West Bengal

49.2

Meghalaya

132

Arunachal Pradesh

48.3

Jammu & Kashmir

124

Tripura

48.1

Himachal Pradesh

123

Jharkhand

48.0

Manipur

122

Assam

47.9

Nagaland

119

Madhya Pradesh

46.0

Sikkim

86

Meghalaya

43.0

Mizoram

52

Odisha

39.8

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

46

Chhattisgarh

30.7

Arunachal Pradesh

17

Average for India

63.2

Average for India

382

www.martinprosperity.org | 47

State

Female/Male literacy ratio

Kerala

0.958

Meghalaya

0.956

Mizoram

0.954

Nagaland

0.921

Lakshadweep

0.918

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

0.908

Tripura

0.902

Chandigarh

0.899

Delhi

0.889

Goa

0.882

Puducherry

0.882

Sikkim

0.876

Punjab

0.876

Daman & Diu

0.870

West Bengal

0.861

Assam

0.854

Tamil Nadu

0.851

Manipur

0.846

Himachal Pradesh

0.843

Maharastra

0.840

Karnataka

0.822

Gujarat

0.811

Arunachal Pradesh

0.808

Uttarakhand

0.800

Andhra Pradesh

0.791

Haryana

0.782

Odisha

0.781

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

0.763

Uttar Pradesh

0.748

Madhya Pradesh

0.745

Chhattisgarh

0.744

Jammu & Kashmir

0.741

Bihar

0.727

Jharkhand

0.717

Rajasthan

0.654

Average for India

0.797

48 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

WORKS CITED

Badunenko, O. and K. Tochkov. (2010) “Soaring Dragons, Roaring Tigers, Growling Bears: Determinants of Regional Growth and Convergence in China, India, and Russia.” Economics of Transition 18(3), 539–570. Bloomberg News. China Overtakes Japan as World’s Second-Biggest Economy (Aug 16th 2010). Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/ china-economy-passes-japan-s-in-second-quartercapping-three-decade-rise.html on April 24th, 2013.

Goldman Sachs (2003) “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050” Global Economics Paper No. 99. Last accessed 11 August 2010 at http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/ brics/book/99-dreaming.pdf Kapoor, A. (2013) “Tolerance and development.” The Indian Express

DeVol, R. and P. Wong. (1999) “America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas.” Milken Institute Research Report.

Kapoor, A.and Pachouri, A. (2012) “Sustainable Competitiveness Report — 2012.” Institute for Competitiveness, India.

Duranton, G. (2008) “Cities: Engines of Growth and Prosperity for Developing Countries?” World Bank on behalf of The Commission on Growth and Development.

Kapoor, A.and Pachouri, A. (2012) “Urbanization in India.” The Financial Express

Florida, R. and I. Tinagli. (2004) “Europe in the Creative Age.” Alfred P. Sloan, Demos. n.p. Florida, R. (2010) The Great Reset. Toronto: Random House. Florida, R. (2005) The Flight of the Creative Class. New York: HarperCollins. Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books. Florida, R., C. Mellander and T. Gulden. (2009) “Global Metropolis: The Role of Cities and Metropolitan Areas in the Global Economy.” Martin Prosperity Institute Working Paper Series. Florida, R., C. Mellander and H. Qian. (2008) “Creative China? The University, Human Capital and the Creative Class in Chinese Regional Development.” Martin Prosperity Institute Working Paper Series. Florida, R., C. Mellander and K. Stolarcik. (2011) “Global Creativity Index.” Martin Prosperity Institute Working Paper Series. Florida, R., C. Mellander and K. Stolarick. (2009) “Talent, Technology and Tolerance in Canadian Regional Development.” Martin Prosperity Institute Working Paper Series. Florida, R., C. Mellander and K. Stolarick. (2008) “Inside the Black Box of Regional Development: Human Capital, the Creative Class and Tolerance.” Journal of Economic Geography 8(5), 615–649.

Kapoor, A.and Sharma, S. (2012) “The India State Competitiveness Report — 2012.” Institute for Competitiveness, India. Kresl, P. and P. Ni. (2008) “Global Urban Competitiveness Index Rankings.” Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2007/2008). Martin Prosperity Institute. (2009a) “Toronto’s Performance on the 3Ts of Economic Development.” Toronto: Martin Prosperity Institute. Martin Prosperity Institute. (2009b) “Ontario Competes: Performance Overview Using the 3Ts of Economic Development.” Toronto: Martin Prosperity Institute.Martin Prosperity Institute. (2009c) “Ontario in the Creative Age”. Toronto: Martin Prosperity Institute Mill, J. S. (1860) On Liberty. Retrieved 11 June 2010. . n.a. (2009) “2-1 Gross Domestic Product (1978–2008).” China Statistical Yearbook. CITY: PUBLISHER.

www.martinprosperity.org | 49

Price, M. and L. Benton-Short. (2007) “Immigrants and World Cities: From the HyperDiverse to the Bypassed.” Geojournal 68. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2009) “Global City GDP Rankings 2008–2025.” PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Economic Outlook, November. Romer, P.M. (1990) “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy 98(5), 71–102. Seoul Metropolitan Government. n.d. “About Seoul.” Retrieved May 2010. . Statistics Singapore. (2010) “Demography.” 2 June 2010. Retrieved 11 June 2010. Stolarick, K. (2004) “International Comparison of Montreal.” Prepared for “Culture Montreal”. 2 June 2004 (presentation). Tokyo Metropolitan Government. (2010) Tokyo Statistical Yearbook. 24 April 2010. Retrieved 11 June 2010. Shmuel, J. (2012, July 27). South Africa: Built like a Brice of the new frontier? The Financial Post. Retrieved from http://business. financialpost.com/2012/07/27/south-africabuilt-like-a-bric-or-the-new-frontier/ on April 25th 2013. Solow, R.M. (1956) “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 70, 65–94. “Special Report: India — Aim Higher” (2012, September). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/21563414 on April 3rd, 2013. The BRICS Report: A Study of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa with special focus on synergies and complementarities (2012). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: http://www.g20civil.com/ documents/199/499/ on April 4th, 2013 United Nations (2013). Human Development Report 2013. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/ hdr2013/ on April 3rd, 2013

50 | Understanding the Creative Economy in India

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2006) World Urbanization Prospects, the 2005 Revision. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WUP2005/ 2005WUPHighlights_Final_Report.pdf United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2010a) “Agglomerations Estimated for 2010.” Available at http://esa.un.org/unup/index.asp?panel=2 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2010b) “World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision.” Available at http://esa.un.org/unpd/ wup/index.htm World Bank. (2009a) “Gross Domestic Product 2008.” World Development Indicators Database. World Bank. (2009b) “Gross Domestic Product 2008, PPP.” World Development Indicators Database. World Bank. (2010) “Export value index (2000 = 100).” World Development Indicators Database. World Economic Forum. (2009) “The Global Competitiveness Report 2009–2010.” Geneva: World Economic Forum. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2007). “WIPO Patent Report: Statistics on World Wide Patent Activities.” Geneva: World Intellectual Property Office.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

OUR TEAM

CONTACT US

Authors

Martin Prosperity Institute Joseph L. Rotman School of Management University of Toronto 105 St. George Street, Suite 9000 Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6

Kevin Stolarick Garrett Morgan Shawn Gilligan Sandeep Goyal (TPII & IFC) Melanie Fasche

Contributing Advisor Amit Kapoor (TPII & IFC)

Phone: (416) 946-7300 Fax: (416) 946-7606 Email: [email protected] Richard Florida, Director Jamison Steeve, Executive Director

Project Team Taylor Brydges Ankita Garg (TPII & IFC) Michelle Hopgood Zara Matheson Kimberly Silk Valeria Sladojevic-Sola

Institute for Competitiveness, India U – 24 / 8 DLF Phase – 3 Gurgaon – 122 002 Haryana, India Phone: +91-124-4068076 Fax: +91-124-4376676 Email: [email protected] URL: www.competitiveness.in Amit Kapoor, Honorary Chairman

Supported in part by the Canada India Foundation and the generous contribution of Dr. “Lucky” V I Lakshmanan and others.

Design by Michelle Hopgood. Maps by Zara Matheson.

THE PROSPERITY INSTITUTE INDIA

TPII

www.martinprosperity.org | 51

Martin Prosperity Institute © May 2013 ISBN 978-0-9811974-5-6