THE CONTEXT: Ever since the start of the Fourteenth Finance Commission award period (2015-16), the Union government has been reducing financial transfers to States. This is in contrast given that the Fourteenth Finance Commission recommended devolving 42% of Union tax revenues to States, which is a clean 10 percentage points increase over the 13th Finance Commission’s recommendation. The Fifteenth Finance Commission retained this recommendation of 41%, excluding the devolution to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and Ladakh, which were recategorised as Union Territories.

ISSUES

• Weakening of cooperative federalism: The Union government’s moves are reducing the aggregate financial transfers to States. The Union government has not only reduced the financial transfers to States but also increased its own total revenue to increase its discretionary expenditure. The discretionary expenditures of the Union government are not being routed through the States’ Budgets, and, therefore, can impact different States in different ways.
• Lesser share for states in gross tax revenue: The Finance Commissions recommend the States share in the net tax revenue of the Union government. Though the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Finance Commissions recommended 42% and 41%, respectively, of the net tax revenue to be the shares of States, the share of the gross tax revenue was just 35% in 2015-16 and 30% in 2023-24. While the gross tax revenue of the Union government increased from ₹14.6 lakh crore in 2015-16 to ₹33.6 lakh crore in 2023-24, the States’ share in the Union tax revenue increased from ₹5.1 lakh crore to ₹10.2 lakh crore between these two years. In other words, the gross tax revenue of the Union government more than doubled while the share of States just doubled.
• Decline in Grants in aid: Grants-in-aid to States is another statutory grant recommended by the Finance Commission. The grants-in-aid to States declined in absolute amount from ₹1.95 lakh crore in 2015-16 to ₹1.65 lakh crore in 2023-24. Thus, the combined share of the statutory financial transfers in the gross tax revenue of the Union government declined from 48.2% to 35.32%.
• Increasing cess and surcharge: The Union government is increasing tax collection under cess and surcharge categories mainly to implement its own schemes in specific sectors, and at the same time, the revenues so raised need not be shared with the States.
• More centralisation of public expenditure: When the financial transfers to States either as tax devolution or grants-in-aid decline this leads to availability of larger discretionary funds for the Union government to spend. This could affect the equity in distribution of financial resources among States.
• Increase in allocation for CSS: The Union government has two other routes of direct financial transfers to States, i.e., Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) and Central Sector Schemes (CSec Schemes). Between 2015-16 and 2023-24, the allocation for CSS increased from ₹2.04 lakh crore to ₹4.76 lakh crore through 59 CSS. Thus, the Union government compels the State to spend more.
• Inter state inequality: This creates two different effects in terms of inter-State equity in public finances. Wealthy States can afford to commit equivalent finances and leverage Union finances inwards through the implementation of CSS. Less wealthy States will have to commit their borrowed finances in these CSS, thus increasing their own liabilities. These differential trajectories of the public finances of States accentuate inter-State inequality in public finances, the major reason being CSS.
• Scope for anti-federal fiscal policies: Together with statutory grants, the total financial transfers as a proportion to gross tax revenue were only 47.9% in 2023-24. Further, the non-statutory grants are tied grants, i.e., they have to be spent on specific schemes for which the grants are allocated. This reduces the freedom of States in conducting public expenditure.
• More power to Union government: In addition to retaining more than 50% of gross tax revenue, the Union government incurs a fiscal deficit to the extent of 5.9% of Thus, the Union government wields enormous financial powers with limited expenditure responsibilities.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Increase the devolution: There is a need to increase the devolution of states to bring the cess and surcharges collections under a divisible pool, given that these are legitimate revenues and states do not have these additional leverages. By this inclusion, States will get a bigger pie of devolution from the Centre’s net proceeds to meet their expenditure commitments.
• Consensus Building: There is a need for collaboration and consensus building between the Centre and States for open discussions on fiscal matters. Finance commission can act as a mediator and facilitator in fostering dialogue.
• More weightage to fiscal efficiency: The Finance commission can give more weightage to fiscal efficiency in its criteria for transfers. By emphasizing fiscal consolidation and measuring the tax effort of States, the FC can encourage responsible financial management.
• Addressing Fiscal Disparities: There is a need to address the disparities between states by providing financial transfers to less economically developed states. Revenue deficit grants and other means can help bridge the fiscal gap and supports states with limited revenue-raising capacity.
• Promoting Cooperative Federalism: There is a need for an institutional mechanism that fosters cooperative federalism by facilitating intergovernmental fiscal transfers. It encourages collaboration and coordination between the Centre and the States, fostering a sense of shared responsibility in fiscal matters.
• Strengthening Fiscal Discipline: There is a need to promote fiscal discipline and accountability of states as well. It can be done by assessing the fiscal performance and needs of the States, to encourage responsible fiscal behaviour and to discourages unnecessary spending practices.

THE CONCLUSION:

There is constant fall of finances allocated to state from the Union government which is harming not only federalism in the country but hitting fiscal health of the nation. There is a need for constant review of the financial health of States and make periodic recommendations based on the evolving economic scenario.

UPSC PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTION

Q. How have the recommendations of the 14th France Commission of India enabled the States to improve their fiscal position? (2021)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Q. The Centre’s tax devolution to the States, which has been consistently falling short of the Finance Commission’s recommendation is a bad sign for cooperative federalism. Comment.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-unions-reins-on-financial-transfers-to-states/article67818520.ece

THE CONTEXT: There are concerns regarding the potential danger of political disenfranchisement in the South when the delimitation freeze ends in 2026 and the tussle over the distribution of Central taxes as well.

ISSUES ARISING:

• The decline in the share of resources: There is a drastic decline in the share of resources distributed to the South, and it is contented that the devolution of funds by the finance commission work against the Southern states. Inter-State distribution is based on two factors: State’s share in the total population and the income distance ratio. On both these counts, the south loses out. For example, in the case of Kerala, it was 3.8% during the 10th Finance Commission, now, it is 1.9%.
• Issue of unspent cash: Despite government relaxing the borrowing limits for States, there is a strange issue of unspent cash balances. Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act is structured as such that states don’t want to spend money on revenue expenditure and poorer States were the biggest depositories of these funds.
• Delimitation issue: There is rising issue related to delimitation as it can lead to shift in political power balance within the federal polity. Article 81 of the Constitution says that each State should have seats in proportion to the population and that constituencies should roughly have the same population. The delimitation of constituencies would lead to a decline in their representation in Parliament. This is a serious issue and it can have devastating consequences, marginalising the southern States in the political sphere.

THE WAY FORWARD

• No penalisation: The States which have successfully implemented the national policies cannot be penalised for their success. There is a need to identify the points where intervention is required so that the union does not tilt towards an unbalanced and disastrous course of development or move in a direction which could lead to fragmentation.
• Ensure Equity: Inter-state transfers would have to have a component of equity. The richer States and regions, though have to contribute to the development of the States which are backward, but the redistributive transfers must be within a certain limit. The equity principle has to be kept in the calculation in the sense that there is a certain number of cross transfers and redistribution across the federal polity.
• Devolution of sources: The terms of reference of the 16th Finance Commission are due soon and it is the time that a voice is raised for involving the States. There should be a strong effort to ensure that the next Finance Commission has terms of reference which take cognisance of the problems that the federal policy is facing. For example, if the population basis is being shifted from 1971 to a new figure, the weightage of the population can be adjusted. States must get a space and voice in the decision-making of federal finance.
• Reasonable distribution of seats: There is a need of reasonable distribution of seats by increasing the total number of seats in the parliament to ensure adequate representation of the states.

THE CONCLUSION:

After the proposed delimitation there may be inequitable distribution of seats which will not be in favour of southern states. Thus, there is a need for effective distribution of seats and equitable distribution of funds among all the states instead for a federal balance.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

Q.1 Discuss the main objectives of Population Education and point out the measures to achieve them in India in detail. (2021)

Q.2 How far do you think cooperation, competition and confrontation have shaped the nature of federation in India? Cite some recent examples to validate your answer. (2020)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Q. The upcoming delimitation exercise has raised concerns about the unequal representation of states in the Lok Sabha. What impacts can it have on the federal relations of the country?

Please refer to MAINS FOCUS article for more:  https://blog.lukmaanias.com/2023/10/06/retribution-for-the-south-accolade-for-the-north/

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/are-southern-states-being-punished-for-their-success/article67439076.ece