Articles by M Govinda Rao

The Fifteenth Finance Commission has trodden carefully in dealing with the controversial terms of reference issued to it in the presidential order. The commission had the challenging task of dividing fiscal resources between the union and the states due to the serious uncertainty posed by the pandemic. In many ways, the recommendations of the commission marks continuity. Devolution of 41% in the divisible pool of taxes to the states, despite the nudging of the centre in the terms of reference to review it and the continuation of revenue deficit grants, are some examples. The phasing out of the revenue deficit grants to the states in the next five years is likely to pose challenges to the fiscally weak states. The conditionalities mandated for availing local body grants may deny the much-needed money for them as the states may not have the incentive to undertake the reforms unless the public pressure builds up. On the whole, the report of the commission is on expected lines; it does not disappoint but all the same, like the previous commissions, it is a work in progress.

There were high expectations from the budget on the changes in the tax system to provide stimulus to the beleaguered economy. However, fiscal conservatism has prevailed. The attempt to broaden the base by eliminating tax exemptions and preferences could have been done without complicating the tax structure. On the macro side, there are questions about the unrealism of the revenue estimates. Unduly optimistic estimates result in “tax terrorism,” lead to inefficient budget management and have adverse impacts on state finances.

An overwhelming proportion of the poor live in low-income states in India. These states are home to over two-thirds of the children in the 0–14 age group. Therefore, provision of comparable levels of basic social services and physical infrastructure is important to ensure balance and stability in the Indian federation. This underlines the importance of intergovernmental transfers. Conceptually, general purpose transfers are given to enable the states to provide comparable levels of public services at comparable tax effort, and specific purpose transfers are given to ensure a minimum standard of public services. The shortcomings in both the design and implementation of the transfer system in India hinder its ability to achieve the objectives.

What lessons can economic and political theories and contemporary experiences offer to Nepal in designing a federal system? While political aspects are very important, the focus in this article is on fiscal federalism or efficient organisation of the multilevel system.

The report of the committee to review the introduction to the General Anti-Avoidance Rules gives the impression that it fi rst decided on a postponement and then looked for a rationale for the recommended delay. While the report makes a strong case for protecting the interests of foreign investors, it does not clarify how their interests align with those of India. For some reason, the report does not seem to refl ect on the interests of India or even if it does, it assumes that a tax policy which has been drafted in India goes against the interests of India and Indians!