Artha Vijnana: Journal of The Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Paradox of Fiscal Imbalances:Recommendations of Fourteenth Finance Commission


Affiliations
1 Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur 302004, Rajasthan, India
2 Department of Economics, Sambalpur University, Burla 768019, Odisha, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


The assignment of significant weight to equity criterion without any weight to efficiency criterion in the distribution of federal transfers across states by the Fourteenth Finance Commission may increase both vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalances. The imbalances have persisted mainly due to the assignment of significant weight to equity or efficiency criterion as well as the level of contradiction between the two. The use with significant weightage of either one of them is not feasible with the existence of high economic disparities across states. When the equity criterion is used with significant weight, high fiscal capacity states exhibit their status as 'deficient states' to avail of the benefit. Similarly the assignment of significant weight to efficiency criterion does not enable the poorer states to get their due share. These states try to maximize their share through the reduction of social and economic expenditure which further deteriorates their fiscal health. The simultaneous use of both criteria involves contradiction between themselves because when equity criterion is based on the deficiency in fiscal capacity, the efficiency criterion is based on the improvement of the fiscal capacity of the states. When equity is assigned significant weight rich states exhibit their status as 'deficient states' and when efficiency is assigned significant weight, poorer states show themselves as 'efficient states'. In both cases the criteria fail to achieve their objectives. An optimal weight is the only solution to minimize the level of effect of contradiction which may reduce fiscal imbalances. It assigns one-third weightage to efficiency and two-thirds to equity criterion.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Chakraborty, P. (1998), Growing Imbalances in Federal Fiscal Relationship, Economic and Political Weekly, 33 (7): 350-354, February 14-20.

  • ---------- (2010), Deficit Fundamentalism vs Fiscal Federalism: Implications of 13th Finance Commission’s Recommendations, Economic and Political Weekly, 45(48): 65-63, November 27-Decembe 3.

  • Chelliah, Raja J. (2005), Malady of Continuing Fiscal Imbalance, Economic and Political Weekly, 40(31): 3399-3404, July 30-August 5.

  • Chelliah, Raja J., M.G. Rao and T.K. Sen (1992), Issues before Tenth Finance Commission, Economic and Political Weekly, 27(47): 2539-2550, November 21-27.

  • Dholakia, Archana R. (2015), Some Hits and Misses, Economic and Political Weekly, 50(21): 41-44, May 23.

  • Kurian, N.J. (1999), State Government Finances: A Survey of Recent Trends, Economic and Political Weekly, 34(19): 1115-1125, May 8.

  • ---------- (2005), Debt Relief for States, Economic and Political Weekly, 40(31): 3429-3434, July 30-August 5.

  • Lahiri, Ashok K. (2000), Budget Deficits and Reforms, Economic and Political Weekly, 35(46): 4048-4054, November 11.

  • Mahamallik, Motilal and Pareswar Sahu (2013), Efficacy of Equity Principle: Re-Examining the Issues in Indian Fiscal Federalism, Working Paper (168), Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur.

  • Mukhopadhyay, Hiranya and Kuntal Kumar Das (2003), Horizontal Imbalances in India: Issues and Determinants, Economic and Political Weekly, 38(14): 1416-1420, April 5-11.

  • Rao, M.G. (2000), Linking Central Grants to Revenue Deficit Reduction by States, Economic and Political Weekly, 35(23): 1883-1884, June 3-9.

  • ---------- (2002), State Finances in India: Issues and Challenges, Economic and Political Weekly, 37(31): 3261-3271, August 3-9.

  • ---------- (2004), Linking Central Transfers to Fiscal Performance of States, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(18): 1820-1825, May 1-6.

  • Rao, M.G. and P.R. Jena (2005), Balancing Stability, Equity and Efficiency, Economic and Political Weekly, 40(31): 3405 -3412, July 30-August 5.

  • Rao, M.G. and R.J. Chelliah (1996), Fiscal Federalism in India, Research in Economics: Second Survey, Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi.

  • Rao, M.G. and T.K. Sen (1996), Fiscal Federalism in Theory and Practice, New Delhi, Indian Council of Social Science Research.

  • Ravishankar, V.J., Farah Zahir and Neha Kaul (2008), Indian States Fiscal Correction: An Unfinished Agenda, Economic and Political Weekly, 43(38): 57-62.


Abstract Views: 441

PDF Views: 1




  • Paradox of Fiscal Imbalances:Recommendations of Fourteenth Finance Commission

Abstract Views: 441  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Motilal Mahamallik
Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur 302004, Rajasthan, India
Pareswar Sahu
Department of Economics, Sambalpur University, Burla 768019, Odisha, India

Abstract


The assignment of significant weight to equity criterion without any weight to efficiency criterion in the distribution of federal transfers across states by the Fourteenth Finance Commission may increase both vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalances. The imbalances have persisted mainly due to the assignment of significant weight to equity or efficiency criterion as well as the level of contradiction between the two. The use with significant weightage of either one of them is not feasible with the existence of high economic disparities across states. When the equity criterion is used with significant weight, high fiscal capacity states exhibit their status as 'deficient states' to avail of the benefit. Similarly the assignment of significant weight to efficiency criterion does not enable the poorer states to get their due share. These states try to maximize their share through the reduction of social and economic expenditure which further deteriorates their fiscal health. The simultaneous use of both criteria involves contradiction between themselves because when equity criterion is based on the deficiency in fiscal capacity, the efficiency criterion is based on the improvement of the fiscal capacity of the states. When equity is assigned significant weight rich states exhibit their status as 'deficient states' and when efficiency is assigned significant weight, poorer states show themselves as 'efficient states'. In both cases the criteria fail to achieve their objectives. An optimal weight is the only solution to minimize the level of effect of contradiction which may reduce fiscal imbalances. It assigns one-third weightage to efficiency and two-thirds to equity criterion.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.21648/arthavij%2F2015%2Fv57%2Fi4%2F111493