Malappuram and Patna: What District Income Figures Really Show About Kerala and Bihar

A social media graphic compares Malappuram, Kerala’s lowest-ranked district for per-person economic output, with Patna, the highest-ranked district in Bihar. It says Malappuram has a per-capita income of about ₹1.6 lakh while Patna has just ₹1.3 lakh. The contrast points to a genuine question about India’s unequal regional development, but those figures should not be treated as a verified, like-for-like comparison.

What the district figures actually show

Kerala’s Directorate of Economics and Statistics reports Malappuram’s per-capita gross district domestic product (GDDP) for 2023–24 at ₹2,11,798 at current prices and ₹1,15,288 at constant 2011–12 prices. Malappuram ranked last among Kerala’s 14 districts on this measure. The state’s more recent data portal also identifies Malappuram as its lowest-ranked district in 2024–25.

For Bihar, official statistics reproduced in a March 2026 parliamentary answer put Patna’s 2023–24 per-capita district domestic product at ₹2,22,531 at current prices and ₹1,18,896 at constant prices. A later Bihar Economic Survey estimate cited by PRS Legislative Research gives Patna’s 2023–24 figure as ₹2,41,220 at current prices. These are different published estimates or revisions, not figures that can simply be mixed together.

Using the Kerala report and the parliamentary Bihar series at current prices, Patna’s ₹2,22,531 is slightly higher than Malappuram’s ₹2,11,798. At constant prices in those same releases, Patna’s ₹1,18,896 is also slightly above Malappuram’s ₹1,15,288. The Instagram graphic’s claimed ₹1.6 lakh versus ₹1.3 lakh advantage for Malappuram is therefore not established by these comparable-year figures.

Why the comparison is still important

The districts occupy very different positions inside their respective states. Malappuram is at the bottom of Kerala’s district ranking, while Patna is at the top of Bihar’s. Yet a district near the bottom of one state can have output per resident in the same range as the leading district of another. This is a more careful and still important illustration of regional disparities than the graphic’s exact amounts.

The gap is more striking at state level. Bihar’s per-capita GDP was ₹68,624 in 2023–24, compared with ₹2,15,935 for India as a whole, according to PRS Legislative Research’s Bihar budget analysis. Kerala’s 2023–24 state per-capita GDDP was ₹3,17,723 at current prices in the state statistical report. The figures use gross domestic product concepts, rather than a survey of how much money individual residents actually take home.

Per-capita GDP is not a household salary

Gross district domestic product measures the value of economic activity attributed to a district. Dividing it by the number of residents produces an average output per resident, not an average wage, median household income or measure of how equally money is shared. Large businesses, commuters, workers employed outside their home districts, remittances and differences in local industry can all complicate what this statistic tells us about living standards.

Current-price estimates are expressed in the rupees of that year. Constant-price estimates adjust for inflation using a base year. Comparing one district’s current-price figure with another district’s constant-price figure, or mixing figures from different years and statistical revisions, can produce an artificial contrast. Even matching the year and price basis does not remove all differences in how the two states compile and revise their district data.

The wider development question

Kerala and Bihar have different economic histories, levels of urbanisation, public services, employment patterns and opportunities for residents. District GDP alone cannot tell us which policy or government produced those differences. A proper account must also examine wages, jobs, poverty, education, health and migration, and how economic gains reach ordinary families. Patna’s concentration of activity is itself a reminder that a state’s most productive district need not represent conditions across the rest of the state.

The supported conclusion is narrower and stronger than the graphic: Kerala and Bihar have substantial differences in per-person economic output, and Malappuram and Patna reveal how far district rankings can differ across states. But the specific ₹1.6 lakh and ₹1.3 lakh figures should not be circulated as a matched, current statistical comparison. Greater opportunity across Bihar’s districts, and reducing disparities inside every state, remain substantive development challenges—not a contest over a misleading pair of numbers.