1 minute read

5.10 Per Capita Revenue Expenditure

Local Government Organization and Finance: Urban India 197

TABLE 5.10 Per Capita Revenue Expenditure

Advertisement

Per capita Annual growth Percentage revenue expenditure rate, 1997/98 to ofGSDP, State 2001/02 (Rs) 2001/02 (%) 2001/02

Maharashtra 1,253.71 6.51 1.82 Punjab 1,008.12 17.22 1.15 Himachal Pradesh 955.45 13.02 0.38a Gujarat 865.12 7.11 1.24 Goa 604.18 13.24 0.31 Andhra Pradesh 508.88 14.47 0.63 Kerala 493.17 10.65 0.39 West Bengal 487.49 10.33 0.61 Tamil Nadu 481.79 0.96 0.84 Madhya Pradesh 427.66 –2.59 0.82 Karnataka 418.29 11.32 0.67 Uttaranchal 399.77 — — Jammu and Kashmir 392.69 19.86 0.52a Rajasthan 390.36 7.30 0.56 Chhattisgarh 376.07 — 0.49 Tripura 356.75 7.09 0.37 Orissa 355.06 13.87 0.43 Uttar Pradesh 275.18 9.54 0.49 Haryana 255.23 1.45 0.25 Assam 211.79 5.21 0.16 Jharkhand 87.20 — 0.11a Bihar 87.20 5.53 0.15 Manipur 81.03 4.90 0.22 Sample states 576.71 7.36 0.85a

Source: Mathur and Thakur 2004. Note: — = not available. Sample states refers to those states whose data are contained in the table. a. Figures are for 2000/01.

The performance ofmunicipalities on the criterion ofexpenditures runs along the same track as that ofown-source revenues or even total municipal revenues.Maharashtra,Punjab,Gujarat,and Goa post relatively high per capita expenditures and higher ratios ofexpenditure to GSDP. Other states show medium levels ofexpenditures,including Andhra Pradesh,Kerala,West Bengal,and Tamil Nadu.Further examination shows that the expenditure levels are low and depressed in such states as Manipur, Bihar,Jharkhand,Assam,Haryana,and Uttar Pradesh.They are lower compared with the Zakaria Committee norms19 even in such states as Himachal Pradesh,Gujarat,Punjab,and Goa.On average,underspending in relation to the Zakaria Committee norm is 130 percent.This factor explains the

This article is from: