14th Finance Commission
14th Finance Commission
14th Finance Commission
www.visionias.in
The Chairman of the Finance Commission is selected among people who have had the experience of public
affairs. The other four other members are selected from people who:
1.
2.
3.
4.
www.visionias.in
Vision IAS
Th
is
do
c
um
en
ti
pe
rs
on
al
is
ed
fo
rv
ar
dh
m
an
.b
ed
ut
th
a(
va
dy
10
1@
gm
ai
l.c
om
The Fourteenth Finance Commission (FFC) was appointed on 2nd January, 2013under the chairmanship of Dr. Y.
V. Reddy. The major recommendations given by FFC are shown in the image below:
www.visionias.in
Vision IAS
www.visionias.in
Vision IAS
is
Th
ti
en
um
do
c
is
ed
al
rs
on
pe
rv
ar
fo
an
dh
m
om
l.c
ai
gm
1@
10
dy
va
a(
th
ut
ed
.b
rs
on
al
is
ed
fo
rv
ar
dh
m
an
.b
ed
ut
th
a(
va
dy
10
1@
gm
ai
l.c
om
Fiscal Discipline
Th
is
do
c
um
en
ti
pe
www.visionias.in
Vision IAS
gm
ai
l.c
om
All states stand to gain from FFC transfers in absolute terms. However, to assess the
distributional effects, the increases should be scaled by population, Net State Domestic Product
(NSDP) at current market price, or by states own tax revenue receipts.
The biggest gainers in absolute terms under GCS are UP, West Bengal and MP while for SCS it is
J&K, HP, and Assam. A better measure of impact is benefit per capita.
The major gainers in per capita terms turn out to be Kerala, Chhattisgarh and MP for GCS and
Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Sikkim for SCS.
The FFC transfers have more favorable impact on the states (only among the GCS) which are
relatively less developed which is an indication that the FFC transfers are progressive i.e. states
with lower per capita NSDP receive on average much larger transfers per capita.
The significant impact due to increase in the divisible pool is on states like UP, Bihar, MP, West
Bengal and Andhra Pradesh (United) while states like Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, MP,
Karnataka and Jharkhand are the major gainers due to a change in the horizontal devolution
formula which now gives greater weight to a states forest cover.
10
va
dy
The spirit behind the FFC recommendations is to increase the automatic transfers to the states to
give them more fiscal autonomy, and this is ensured by increasing share of states from 32 to 42 %
of divisible pool which will increase the flow of untied resources (or resources transferred without
condition) to States.
Estimates show that post the 14th commission award, the untied statutory transfers would be
more than 70 % of the aggregate resource transfers from the Union to the States.
rv
ar
dh
m
an
.b
ed
ut
th
a(
1@
al
There is concern that fiscal space or fiscal consolidation path of the Centre would be adversely
affected as Centre has to shed 42% of the share. However, it must be realized that there is no
significant rise in the devolution as there will be commensurate reductions in the Central
Assistance to States (CAS) known as plan transfers.
The Centre should not have much difficulty in meeting its fiscal consolidation plan as the actual
increase in tax devolution to states is only 3 to 4 %.
Thus, there is more like a qualitative shift to the States, rather the quantitative shift.
um
do
c
Th
is
en
ti
pe
rs
on
is
ed
fo
A major issue, post Budget 2015-16, is the sharp decline in allocations to the social sector in the
form of various conditional grants to the States. This decline has happened to accommodate a
large increase in tax devolution. As per the Budget estimates, enhanced tax devolution should
www.visionias.in
Vision IAS
result in an increase in the flow of untied funds to the tune of Rs.1,86,150 crore and a reduced
flow of grants to the tune of Rs.87,730 crore.
This decline in grants has happened in two categories: in a specified list of schemes where the
Centres contribution has been reduced, implying a corresponding increase in contribution by the
States and for a set of schemes where Central support has been withdrawn. Important schemes in
the first category are the RKVY, the ICDS, Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan and allocation for elementary
education under the MDM and the SSA. Major schemes delinked from Central support are the
JNNURM, the BGRF and Normal Central Assistance.
This change in the structure of grants has also to be viewed in the context of a restructuring of
Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS), which is a right step.
Conclusion
Th
is
do
c
um
en
ti
pe
rs
on
al
is
ed
fo
rv
ar
dh
m
an
.b
ed
ut
th
a(
va
dy
10
1@
gm
ai
l.c
om
FFC has made far-reaching changes in tax devolution that will move the country toward greater fiscal
federalism, conferring more fiscal autonomy on the states. This will be enhanced by the FFC-induced imperative
of having to reduce the scale of other central transfers to the states. In other words, states will now have greater
autonomy on the revenue and expenditure fronts. The numbers also suggest that this renewed impulse toward
fiscal federalism need not be to the detriment of the centers fiscal capacity. A collateral benefit of moving from
Central Assistance To States(CAS) to FFC transfers is that overall progressivity will improve.
www.visionias.in
Vision IAS