Indian Polity, Public Admin 2, Social Issue, Uncategorized

Discouraging the proliferation of CSS

Over the years, proliferation of the centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) has greatly curbed the autonomy of the state governments. The greater the devolution through these one-size-fits-all CSS, the lesser is the untied fund available to the state governments.

  • Hence, to examine the current centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) and recommend their suitable rationalization, a sub-group was constituted under the aegis of NITI Aayog.
  • The sub-group, composed of chief ministers, has offered the Union government an institutional framework to further consolidate the constructive trends in fiscal devolution under the new emblem of cooperative federalism.
  • Even, the Fourteenth Finance Commission (FFC) had brought in significant changes in state-centre finances by increasing the devolution to states from 32% to 42% of the net Union tax receipts.

Important recommendations made by the sub-group:

  • Reduce the number of centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) down to 30 from 50 in 2015-16.
  • Divide CSS into core schemes and optional schemes. The core schemes will require mandatory implementation by the states, and the centre will fund 100% share for the Union territories, 90% for the eight north-eastern (NE) and three Himalayan states, and 60% for the rest of the states. The corresponding figures for the optional schemes are 100%, 80% and 50%, respectively.
  • States should be given the flexibility to choose optional schemes they want to implement.
  • The fund meant for the scheme opted out by any state can be used in other schemes. The states should be made free to deselect some components of a scheme they are implementing.
  • Increase the flexi-funds—meant to provide greater flexibility to spend on diverse requirements under the overall objective of the scheme—from 10% to 25%.

Position on special category states:

The special category states were disproportionate beneficiaries of the block grants—including Normal Central Assistance, one-time Additional Central Assistance, Special Central Assistance and Special Plan Assistance—which have now been subsumed into the increased fourteenth finance commission devolutions.

  • It should be noted here that the sub-group, in its report, has no where used the phrase “special category states”. It has instead used the phrase “Eight North Eastern states and three Himalayan states”. This might have important implications, if this report is accepted. This may bring a much-needed end to the practice of states queuing up for special category status.

Why states are not happy with CSS?

The Union Budget allocates about 59% of the Central Plan funds as Central Plan Assistance (CPA) to the States and the balance 41% is allocated in the form of CSS. The straight-jacketed conditionalities of the CSS do not allow any flexibility to meet local needs which result in the States either conforming to a uniform eligibility and strategic posture, or losing out on resource allocation.

downloadHow can the financial position of states be improved?

  • Devolution of funds should be done leaving space for local initiatives.
  • The States should be given greater liberty in opting for strategies to achieve the national goals within the given time-frame.
  • The States must be allowed greater flexibility to raise funds from the market to finance their projects.

The states have an important role to play in terms of both economic growth as well as poverty reduction. It should also be recognized that the States are not homogenous and hence they should be allowed to collectively deliberate and do the groundwork for defining the national goals, the sectoral targets and the achievable indicators. The constitution of the sub-group was an excellent example of involving the states in the decision-making process. However, much more work still needs to be done in order to realize the true ideals of cooperative federalism.

The Centrally Sponsored Schemes do not fall within the subjects allocated to Union Government in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. However, they are funded by the Union Government to achieve certain national objectives. The flow of funds from the Union Government to the ultimate implementing agencies for any scheme is through one of these two channels. i) Funds are transferred to the Consolidated Fund of the State Governments which spend the money through the implementing agencies. ii) The Union Government transfers funds directly to implementing agencies in the States through normal banking channels.

In India’s developmental plan exercise we have two types of schemes viz; central sector and centrally sponsored scheme. Under Central sector schemes, it is 100% funded by the Union government and implemented by the Central Government machinery.

Under Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) a certain percentage of the funding is borne by the States in the ratio of 50:50, 70:30, 75:25 or 90:10 and the implementation is by the State Governments.

In the Union Budget 2015-16, there are 31 Schemes to be fully sponsored by the Union Government, 8 Schemes have been delinked from support of the Centre and 24 Schemes will now be run with the changed sharing pattern. The details of these Schemes may be seen here by clicking me.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s