Finance Commission transfers in India: An alternative approach to the devolution process

Abstract

The study aims to identify significant missing dimensions that can enhance the existing formula-based devolution by the Finance Commission in its objectives towards vertical and horizontal fiscal balance. Horizontal devolution of the central divisible pool by the Finance Commission has been so far undertaken on a formula-based approach. The Commission includes certain criteria in the devolution formula as a proxy to address the differences in revenue capacity, fiscal need, and the cost of providing public goods of the states to eliminate horizontal fiscal imbalances. However, the methodology has been strongly questioned in its inclusiveness, ability to address the inherent complexities and actual needs of different states. The paper attempts to address the plausibility of incorporating new dimensions in the devolution formula of the Finance Commission to making it a more effective instrument facilitating vertical and horizontal equity in the backdrop of the huge diversity among the recipient states. The empirical analysis highlights significant impact of five criteria on fiscal imbalance of the states; income distance, fiscal performance index, demographic performance, geographic disadvantage index and state energy and climate index, which justify their inclusion in the devolution formula.

Keywords

Finance Commission tax devolution efficiency equity fiscal capacity H H2 H21 H3 H7

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sarma

JVM

. Federal fiscal relations in India: issue of horizontal transfers federal fiscal relations in India issue of horizontal transfers. Econ Polit Wkly 1997; 32: 1719–1723.

Bagchi

. Fifty years of fiscal federalism in India. Artha Vijnana 2002; 44: 1–46. https://doi.org/10.21648/arthavij/2002/v44/i1/115829

Sarma

JVM

. Federal fiscal relations in India: imperatives for restructuring. Sage India, 2020.

Bhaskar

Subrahmanyam

. Population as a criterion for horizontal devolution by the 14th finance commission. Econ Polit Wkly 2014; 49: 20–23.

Das

Mishra

. Horizontal equity and the thirteenth Finance commission: issues and ponderables. Gujarat Institute of Development, 2008.

Sahu

Mahamallik

Mahapatra

. Recommendations of the 15th Union Finance Commission: expectations and realities. Indian Econ J 2024; 72: 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/00194662231203460

Chakraborty

Gupta

. Terms of reference of the Fifteenth Finance Commission: use of 2011 population and horizontal inequality. In: The Routledge Handbook of Post-Reform Indian Economy. Routledge India, 2021, pp. 239–258.

Subrahmanyam

. Finance commission transfers in India: a critical note. Indian Econ Rev 1988; 23: 121–138.

Guhan

. Devolution Criteria: From Gamble to Policy. Econ Polit Wkly 1984; 19: 2036–2044.

10.

Vidwans

. Finance commissions: perilous proxies and dangerous dummies. Econ Polit Wkly 1999; 34: 2725–2734.

11.

Chelliah

. Review Article : Report of the Finance Commission 1978. 1979; 14: 51–64.

12.

Kumar

. Regional development criteria and horizontal devolution under the finance commission awards. Econ Polit Wkly 2001; 36: 4671–4675.

13.

Bajaj

Viswanathan

. Financial management in states: role of finance commission. Econ Polit Wkly 1989; 24: 2255–2266.

14.

Godbole

. Finance commissions in a cul-de-sac. Econ Polit Wkly 2001; 36: 29–34.

15.

Arun

. Poverty ratio as A devolution criterion: a note. Econ Polit Wkly 1989; 24: 319–321.

16.

Sethia

. Fiscal federalism and redistributive politics in India. Working Paper No WP/06/016/ECO, Indian Institute of Management, Indore.

17.

Bagchi

Datta

Choudhury

. Poverty measures as an index of backwardness and their relevance for tax devolution poverty measures as an index of backwardness and their relevance for tax devolution. Econ Polit Wkly 1989; 24: 831–836.

18.

Sarmah

Panda

. Intergovernmental transfers and fiscal equalization across the north-eastern states of India: evidence from panel data. J Public Aff 2023; 23: e2872. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2872

19.

Busch

Mukherjee

. Encouraging state governments to protect and restore forests using ecological fiscal transfers: india’s tax revenue distribution reform. Conserv Lett 2018; 11: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12416

20.

Xavier

FAD

Mukhopadhyay

. Can fiscal transfers help India meet its SDG goals? South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance 2023; 12: 218–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/22779787231168771

21.

Sahu

Mahamallik

Mahapatra

. Recommendations of the 15th Union Finance Commission: expectations and realities. Indian Econ J 2024; 72: 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/00194662231203460

22.

Srivastava

. Resolving vertical and fiscal imbalances in India: a task for the Sixteenth finance commission. Indian Econ J 2025; 73: 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/00194662241303987

23.

Shah

. A practitioner’s guide to intergovernmental fiscal transfers. In: Boadway

Shah

(eds). Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers: Principal and Practice. World Bank, 2007, pp. 1–51.

24.

Boadway

Shah

. Fiscal federalism: principles and Practice of multiorder Governance. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

25.

Dougherty

Nebreda

Mota

. Adapting intergovernmental fiscal transfers for the future: emerging trends and innovative approaches. In: OECD Working Papers on Fiscal Federalism, vol 49. https://doi.org/10.1787/6389ca23-en

26.

Brenton

. The price of Federation: comparing fiscal equalization in Australia, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. Reg Fed Stud 2020; 30: 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2019.1658082

27.

Bagchi

. Readings in public finance, 2005. https://philpapers.org/rec/BAGRIP (accessed 7 March 2026).

28.

Rangarajan

Srivastava

. Federalism and fiscal transfers in India. Oxford University Press, 2024.

29.

Bhutani

Mishra

. India’s perverse fiscal federalism: some suggestions for the 15th Finance Commission. J Public Aff 2022; 22: e2523. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2523

30.

Pattnaik

. Indian fiscal federalism: a study of factors affecting resource position of the state governments. J Soc Econ Dev 2019; 21: 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-019-00087-9

31.

Reddy

. Indian fiscal federalism. Oxford University Press, 2018.

32.

Mukhopadhyay

Das

. Horizontal imbalances in India issues and determinants. Econ Polit Wkly 2003; 38: 1416–1420.

33.

Sen

Trebesch

. Use of socio-economic criteria for intergovernmental transfers. Econ Polit Wkly 2004; 39: 2748–2755.

34.

Tiebout

. A pure theory of local expenditure. J Polit Econ 1956; 64: 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839

35.

Dholakia

. Measuring fiscal performance of states: an alternative approach. Econ Polit Wkly 2005: 3421–3428.

36.

Bora

Barua

. Management of fiscal imbalance through intergovernmental transfers in India: an empirical study. Indian J Econ 2020; 101: 331–349.

37.

NITI Aayog . State energy and climate index: round I. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-08/State-Energy-Climate-Index-Round-I_0.pdf 2021.

38.

Wooldridge

. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, 2002.

39.

Baltagi

. Limited dependent variables and discrete choice modelling. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance, 2021.

40.

Neter

Wasserman

Kutner

. Applied linear statistical models. Richard D. Irwin. Inc, vol 842.

41.

Wooldridge

. Introductory econometrics a modern approach. South-Western cengage learning, 2016.

42.

Bring

. How to standardize regression coefficients. Am Stat 1994; 48: 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1994.10476059

43.

Nardo

Saisana

Saltelli

, et al. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing, 2008. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/42495745.pdf

44.

Loh

W-Y

Zhou

. Variable importance scores. J Data Sci 2021; 19: 569–592. https://doi.org/10.6339/21-jds1023

45.

OECD . Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2008. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/42495745.pdf

46.

Nieminen

. Application of standardized regression coefficient in meta-analysis. BioMedInformatics 2022; 2: 434–458. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedinformatics2030028

47.

Kharas

Rivard

. Debt, creditworthiness, and climate A new development dillema. Center for Sustainable Development, Brookings.

48.

Bloom

Sousa-Poza

. Economic consequences of low fertility in Europe. Eur J Popul 2010; 26: 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-010-9209-7

49.

Golley

Tyers

. Contrasting giants: demographic change and economic performance in China and India. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2013; 77: 353–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.03.093

50.

Azam

Bhatt

. Spatial income inequality in India, 1993-2011: a district level decomposition. IZA Discussion Papers, No 9892, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.

51.

Raychaudhuri

Roy

. The optimal distribution rule of federal funds to states in India: a suggested methodology. South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance 2021; 10: 193–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277978721989921

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.68 MB

0.00 MB