This article discusses the objectives of the Finance Commission of India since inception, within the ambit of critical issues in public finance. Amidst increasing political tensions between the central and state governments in India and waning trends in single party majority at the Centre, the evolution of tax sharing arrangements are critical indi- cators of a functional federal structure. The article compares various objectives put forth by the Finance Commission and evaluates observed conditions in four important states in the country. We carefully evaluate if the recommendations of the Finance Commission have influenced the degree of industrialization in these states.
BagchiA. (1995). Tenets of Tenth Finance Commission: A critique. Economic and Political Weekly, 30(31–32), 1985–1992.
2.
BagchiA.ChakrabortyP. (2004). Towards a rational system of Centre–State revenue transfers, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(26), 2737–2747.
3.
ChandaA. (1965). Federalism in India: A study of Union–State relations. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
4.
ChelliahR.J. (2005). Malady of continuing fiscal imbalance. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(31), 3399–3404.
5.
Economic and Political Weekly. (2000). Finance commission inter-state shares. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(31), 2688.
6.
GeorgeK.K.GulatiI.S. (1985). Centre–State resource transfers, 1951–84: An appraisal, Economic and Political Weekly, 20(7), 287–295.
7.
GodboleM. (2001). Finance commissions in a cul-de-sac. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(1), 29–34.
8.
KannanR.PillaiS.M.KausaliyaR.ChanderJai. (2004). Finance commission awards and fiscal stability in states. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(5), 477–491.
9.
KurianN.J. (2000). Widening regional disparities in India: Some indicators, Economic and Political Weekly, 35(7), 538–550.
10.
PetheA. (2009). Aide-memoire to the 13th Finance Commission on devolution of funds. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(24), 16–22.
11.
PrakashOm. (1994). Centre–State financial relations in India. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.
12.
RajaramanI. (2004). Fiscal restructuring in the context of trade reform. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(26), 2787–2794.
13.
RaoH. (1985). Are states getting their due share of income tax proceeds?Economic and Political Weekly, XX(48), 2129, 2131–2132.
14.
RaoH. (1992). Devolution criteria for union excise duties and taxes on income: Should they be different?Economic and Political Weekly, 27(51–52), 2717–2720.
15.
RaoM.G.JenaP.R. (2005). Balancing stability, equity and efficiency. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(31), 3405–3412.
16.
RaoM.G.SenT.K. (1996). Fiscal federalism in India: Theory and practice. New Delhi: Macmillan India Limited.
17.
Report of the First Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1952
18.
Report of the Second Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1957
19.
Report of the Third Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1961
20.
Report of the Fourth Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1965
21.
Report of the Fifth Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1969
22.
Report of the Sixth Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1973
23.
Report of the Seventh Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1978
24.
Report of the Eighth Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1984
25.
Report of the Ninth Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1990
26.
Report of the Tenth Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 1995
27.
SarmaJ.V.M. (1997). Federal fiscal relations in India issue of horizontal transfers, Economic and Political Weekly, 32(28), 1719–1723.
28.
SenT.K.TrebeschC. (2004). Use of socio-economic criteria for intergovernmental transfers. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(26), 2748–2755.
29.
SrivastavaD.K (2010). Vertical Sharing and Horizontal Distribution of Resources: The Equity and Efficiency Trade-off. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(48), 64–70.
30.
The Government of West Bengal—Memorandum of the Government of West Bengal to the Fifth Finance Commission, Finance Department1969, West Bengal, 22.
31.
The Government of West Bengal—Memorandum of the Government of West Bengal to the Sixth Finance Commission, Finance Department, West Bengal, 1973, 3–4
32.
The Government of Maharashtra—Memorandum of the Government of Maharashtra to the Finance Commission, Finance Department Maharashtra, different years.
33.
The Government of Maharashtra—Memorandum of the Government of Maharashtra to the Seventh Finance Commission, Finance Department, Maharashtra, 1977: 8–9
34.
The Government of Maharashtra—Memorandum of the Government of Maharashtra to the Eighth Finance Commission, Finance Department, Maharashtra, 1983: 39–40.
35.
The Government of Tamil Nadu—Memorandum of the Government of Tamil Nadu to the Seventh Finance Commission, Finance Department, Tamil Nadu, 1977, 13.
36.
The Government of Gujarat—Memorandum of the Government of Gujarat to the Sixth Finance Commission, Finance Department, Gujarat, 1973, 14.
37.
The Government of Gujarat—Memorandum of the Government of Gujarat to the Eighth Finance Commission, Finance Department, Gujarat, 1982, 28.
38.
VithalB.P.R.SastryM.L. (2001). Fiscal federalism in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
