{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02498048399687744, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02810304449648712, 'mean_word_length': 5.047169811320755, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Alternative estimates of the real product of India, 1900-46

The second volume of the recently published Cambridge Economic History of India (Kumar and Desai, 1983) includes a lengthy article by Alan Heston which surveys the literature on measurement of Indian economic growth, and provides new annual estimates of net domestic product (NDP) and net national income (NNI) for fiscal years 1884-1946, and for three earlier years beginning 1868 for undivided India. This note is concerned only with the period 1900-46. It compares Heston’s estimates with those of Sivasubramonian (1965) and Maddison (1971). In fact both Heston’s and Maddison’s estimates were based mainly on Sivasubramonian’s unpublished series, with two main modifications which give higher growth estimates for crops, and lower estimates for growth in services. In the case of Heston the impact of the adjustments in offsetting and his NDP growth is virtually the same of that of Sivasubramonian, whereas my estimate showed substantially lower growth than both of these. Heston criticises the level of my estimates and on reworking them, I discovered that I had made an error for agriculture. Correction of this lowers my estimate of the NDP level but does not significantly affect the estimate of growth. I still