The key objective of this article is to empirically examine the trends and determinants of revenue diversification with respect to 14 major Indian states. The findings highlight a gradual decrease in the level of revenue diversification, which has become more visible in recent years. This indicates an erratic pattern of growth in tax and non-tax revenue sources. The panel cross-sectional–autoregressive distributed lag model test results reveal a positive contribution of economic and institutional factors, as compared to political factors, toward the process of revenue diversification. Overall, it is evident that cyclical fluctuations in the major tax revenue sources, coupled with a lessened emphasis on rationalising the structure of non-tax revenue sources, seem to have had an adverse impact on the process of revenue diversification on the part of states.
BakerS. H. (1983). The determinants of median voter tax liability: An empirical test of the fiscal illusion hypothesis. Public Finance Quarterly, 11(1), 95–108.
2.
BuchananJ. M. (1967). Public finance in a democratic process. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
3.
CarrollD. A. & JohnsonT. (2010). Examining small town revenues: To what extent are they diversified?Public Administration Review, 70(2), 223–253.
4.
ChakrabortyP. (2014). Fiscal reforms, fiscal rule and development spending: Two decades of Indian experience. In R. Khasnabis & I. Chakraborty (Eds.), Market, regulations and finance: Global meltdown and the Indian economy (1st ed., pp. 1–26). Springer. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299748905
5.
ChudikA., MohaddesK., PesaranM. H., & RaissiM. (2013). Debt, inflation and growth: Robust estimation of long-run effects in dynamic panel data models. (Globalization Institute Working Papers 162). Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
6.
DyeR. F., & McGuireT. J. (1997). The effect of property tax limitation measures on local government fiscal behaviour. Journal of Public Economics, 66(3), 469–487.
7.
EbekeC. H., & EhrhartH. (2011). Is vat stabilizing?CERDI. Retrieved from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00617272v1
8.
EbekeC., & EhrhartH. (2013). Tax revenue instability in sub-saharan Africa: Consequences and remedies, Journal of African Economies, 21(1), 1–27.
9.
HadriK. (2000). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panel data. Econometrics Journal, 3(2), 148–161.
10.
JimenezB. S., & AfonsoW. B. (2022). Revisiting the theory of revenue diversification: Insights from an empirical analysis of municipal budgetary solvency. Public Budgeting & Finance, 42(2), 196–220. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1111/pbaf.12309.
11.
KurianJ. N., & SushmitaD. (2004). Rising revenue gap of the states – dimensions of the problem and possible approaches for a solution. New Delhi: NIPFP. Retrieved from, https://fincomindia.nic.in/
12.
LaddH. F. & DanaR. W. (1987). State and local tax systems: Balance among taxes vs. balance among policy goals. In StockerFrederick D.(ed.),The quest for balance in state-local revenue structures (pp. 39–69). Tax Policy Roundtable/Property Tax Papers Series TPR-16, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
13.
PurohitM. C., & PurohitV. K. (2009). Mobilising non-tax revenue: An empirical analysis of trends in states. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(5), 54–62.
14.
Medium term fiscal plan for Karnataka - 2002 to 2018, various issues.
15.
MisiolekW. S. & ElderH. W. (1988). Tax structure and the size of government: An empirical analysis of the fiscal illusion and fiscal stress arguments. Public Choice, 57(3), 233–245.
16.
MukherjeeS. (2019). State of public finance and fiscal management in India during 2001-16(Working Paper 265). New Delhi: NIPFP.
17.
OatesW. E. (1985). Searching for Leviathan: Empirical study. American Economic Review, 75, 748–757.
18.
OatesW. E. (1991). On the nature and measurement of fiscal illusion: A survey. Retrieved from: http://psu.edu
19.
PedroniP. (1995). Panel cointegration; asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests, with an application to the PPP hypothesis(Working Paper 92−013). Indiana University.
20.
PedroniP. (1999). Purchasing power parity tests in co-integrated panels(Working Paper 1−5). Indiana University.
21.
PedroniP. (2004). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20, 597–625.
22.
PesaranM. H., ShinY., & SmithR. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621–634.
23.
PesaranM. H., & SmithR. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panel. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 79–113.
24.
PesaranM. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967–1012.
25.
PesaranM. H. (2015). Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econometric Reviews, 34, 1089–1117.
26.
PesaranM. H., SmithL. V., & YamagataT. (2013). Panel unit root tests in the presence of a multifactor error structure. Journal of Econometrics, 175(2), 94–115.
27.
RajaramanI. (2004). Fiscal development and outlook in India(Working Paper 04/15). New Delhi: NIPFP.
28.
RathinR. (2022). Changing fiscal dynamics. Retrieved from https://www.india-seminar.com/2019/717/717_rathin_roy.htm
29.
Reserve Bank of India, State Finances A Study of Budgets of 2008-09 to 2015-16.
30.
SchunkD., & PorcaS. (2005). State-local revenue diversification, stability and growth: Time series evidence. Review of Regional Studies, 35(3), 246–265.
31.
SeeunR. (2013). Revenue strategies of US states under conditions of economic and political stress: Revenues diversification 1980 to 2011. [ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertation]. Arizona State University.
32.
ShamsubH., & AkotoJ. B. (2004). State and local fiscal structures and fiscal stress. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 16(1), 40–61.
33.
ShiY., & JieT. (2018). “Faulty” fiscal illusion: Examining the relationship between revenue diversification and tax burden in major U.S. cities across the economic cycle. Local Government Studies, 44(3), 1–33.
34.
SinghN. (2006). State finances in India: A case for systemic reform. (Working Paper 1–37). Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8560h76z
35.
SuyderhoudJ. P. (1994). State-local revenue diversification, balance, and fiscal performance. Public Finance Quarterly, 22(2), 168–195.
36.
WagnerR. E. (1976). Revenue structure, fiscal illusion, and budgetary choice. Public Choice, 29(1), 127–132.
37.
WesterlundJ. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748.
38.
WhiteF. C. (1983). Trade-off in growth and stability in state taxes. National Tax Journal, 36(1), 103–114.
39.
WhitneyB. A. (2013). Diversification toward stability? The effect of local sales taxes on own source revenue. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 25(4), 649–674.
40.
YanW. (2008). The impact of revenue diversification and economic base on revenue stability: An empirical analysis of county and state governments. [Doctoral Dissertations]. University Of Kentucky. Retrieved from https://Uknowledge.Uky.Edu/Gradschool_Diss/619
41.
ZhangP., & Nguyen-HoangP. (2021). Home rule and municipal revenue stability: New evidence from Texas. Public Budgeting and Finance, 1–23.
