Advertisement

Fiscal Rule and Social Sector Spending: A Study of North-East India

  • Vikas Dixit
Chapter
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)

Abstract

The management of public finances continues to be a challenging task not only for the central government, but also for the states since the initiation of rule-based fiscal consolidation. The states have been facing severe fiscal constraints, particularly in sharing own funds for capital formation. The problem sounds acute when it comes to the northeastern (NE) region of India which is faced with several economic and social challenges including financial constraints, poor infrastructure and of course, the unfriendly attitude of the neighbouring states. An attempt is, therefore, made in this chapter to analyse the impact of fiscal rule on social sector spending of NE states of India.

Keywords

Annual Average Growth Rate Social Sector Fiscal Deficit Fiscal Consolidation Fiscal Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alesina A, Bayoumi T (1996) The costs and benefits of fiscal rules: evidence from U.S. states. NBER Working Paper No 5614Google Scholar
  2. Auerbach A (2008) Federal budget rules: the US experience. NBER Working Paper No 14288Google Scholar
  3. Ballabriga F, Martinez-Mongay C (2003) Has EMU shifted monetary and fiscal policies?. In: Buti M (ed) Monetary and fiscal policies in EMU: interactions and coordination. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Baltagi BH (2005) Econometric analysis of panel data, 3rd edn. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltagi BH, Chang Y (1994) Incomplete panels: a comparative study of alternative estimators for the unbalanced one-way error component regression model. J Econom 62(2):67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breitung J (2000) The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In: Baltagi B (ed) Advances in econometrics, vol 15 (Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels). JAI Press, Amsterdam, pp 161–178Google Scholar
  7. Chakraborty P (2005) Debt swap in low interest rate regime: unequal gains and future worries. Econ Polit Wkly 40(40):4357–4362Google Scholar
  8. Chakraborty P, Bhusana B (2013) Fiscal reforms, fiscal rule and development spending: how ­Indian states have performed? NIPFP Working Paper No 2013–122, National Institute of ­Public Finance and Policy, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi I (2001) Unit root tests for panel data. J Int Money Finance 20(2):249–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choudhury M, Amar Nath H K (2012) An estimate of public expenditure on health in India. http://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2013/08/health_estimates_report.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2014
  11. Claeys P (2008) Rules, and their effects on fiscal policy in Sweden. Swed Econ Policy Rev 15:7–47Google Scholar
  12. Dupont J, Kwarteng K (2012) Binding the hands of government—a credible fiscal rule for the UK. IEA Current Controversies Paper No 36Google Scholar
  13. Galí J, Perotti R (2003) Fiscal policy and monetary integration in Europe. Econ Policy 18(37):533–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econom 115(1):53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levin A, Lin CF, Chu C (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample ­properties. J Econom 108(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maddala GS, Wu S (1999) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(1):631–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marneffe W, Aarle B, Wielen W, Vereeck L (2010) The impact of fiscal rules on public finances: theory and empirical evidence for the Euro area. CESifo Working Paper No 3303Google Scholar
  18. Milesi-Ferretti, G (1996) Fiscal rules and the budget process. IMF Working Paper No 96/60Google Scholar
  19. Millar J (1997) The effects of budget rules on fiscal performance and macroeconomic stabilization. Bank of Canada Working Paper No 97–15Google Scholar
  20. Misra B (2012) Fiscal consolidation and macroeconomy: India’s experience with rule-based ­fiscal policy and post-crisis challenges. In: Franco D (ed) Rules and Institutions for sound fiscal policy after the crisis. Public finance workshop papers presented at the Bancad’Italia workshop held in Perugia, 31 March-2 April, 2011, vol 11. Bancad’Italia Printing Office, Rome. pp 75–106Google Scholar
  21. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007) OECD Economic Outlook.No. 81, JuneGoogle Scholar
  22. Poterba J (1997) Do budget rules work? In: Auerbach A (ed) Fiscal policy: lessons from economic research. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Rao M Govinda, Chakraborty P (2006) Multilateral adjustment lending to states in India: hastening fiscal correction or softening the budget constraints? J Int Trade Econ Dev 15(3):335–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reserve Bank of India (2013) State finances: a study of budgets of 2012–2013. Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai (Chapter VI)Google Scholar
  25. Reserve Bank of India (2014) State finances: a study of budgets of 2013–2014. Reserve Bank of India (Chapter VI)Google Scholar
  26. Simone AS, Topalova P (2009) India’s experience with fiscal rules: an evaluation and the way forward. IMF Working Paper No. 09/175, Asia and Pacific Department, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Srivastava D K, Rao C B (2009) Review of trendsiin fiscal transfers in India. Study prepared for the thirteenth finance commission, JulyGoogle Scholar
  28. Sucharita S, Sethi N (2011) Fiscal discipline in India. Rom J Fiscal Policy 2(1):1–23Google Scholar
  29. Tapsoba R (2012) Do national numerical fiscal rules really shape fiscal behaviours in developing countries? A treatment effect evaluation. Econ Model 19(4):1356–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Viren M (2002) Do the OECD countries follow the same fiscal policy rule?. In: Buti M, et al. (eds) The behaviour of fiscal authorities, stabilisation, growth and institutions. Palgrave Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambr­idgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations