Social Scientist. v 16, no. 183 (Aug 1988) p. 64.


Graphics file for this page
64 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

Another major issue that is raised in this volume is the inter-state redistributive bias involved in what the authors call the budgetary transfers, that is, the statutory, the plan, and the discretionary transfers, which together constitute the gross devolution of funds from the Centre to the states. Though this is a relatively old essay which uses data for 1956-57 to 1976-77, the findings in it should still be of interest to those who are engaged in this area of research. Classifying the states into three groups as high income states, middle income states and low income states, the authors estimate the per capita transfers to 15 states during 1956-77 and find that, while the high income states as a group received budgetary transfers in peer capita tern^s slightly higher than the average for all states, the receipts of the low income states as a group were below the all-India average transfers to all the states.

Apart from this, the essay entitled, 'Inter-State Redistribution Through Institutional Finance* argues that the flow of funds from the commercial banks and term lending institutions has been lower to the relatively small income group of states. This trend, to the extend that it holds good at present, has serious implications for regional growth. When the flow of public funds is biased in favour of the relatively richer states, the flow of private investments also should be in favour of these richer regions where the 'climate* of investment is expected to be more favourable to obtain higher marginal efficiency of capital than in the relatively poorer states. Further, since the taxable capacity of the richer states is higher they raise more internal resources and grow faster than the poorer states. The gulf between the richer and the poorer states thus remains wider. Unless the pattern of devolution is drastically altered, this condition would continue unchanged.

To conclude, it may be pertinent to mention that this book in many respects, as stated by Ashok Mitra in a very illuminating introduction to it, is path-breaking. Almost every aspect of the Centre-state financial relations finds expression in one or the other essay in this collection. The fact that the Sarkaria Commission report, which has recently become available, could not discuss any fresh issue in federal fiscalism other than what was already noted by the authors in their memorandum to the Commission speaks for itself the extent of their grasp on this vexed question. However, when one completes this book a doubt might brew in the mind whether the authors were not heavily biased in favour of the problems of the states. Of course, on introspection, that stand would appear inevitable. Yet another comment that comes to mind is about the editing of the book. When the publishers decide to conceal the authorship of each article separately and bring this out as a book of joint authorship, it would have been ideal for them to change the expressions appearing in some of the articles as T, 'in my view* etc. as 'we', 'in our view' etc. Despite this minor slippage, this collection has come out with all its elegance at a



Back to Social Scientist | Back to the DSAL Page

This page was last generated on Wednesday 12 July 2017 at 18:02 by dsal@uchicago.edu
The URL of this page is: https://dsal.uchicago.edu/books/socialscientist/text.html