Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68020a191aa76-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68020a191aa76-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68020a191aa76-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27413,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;img src=&quot;tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 2 March, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/budget-2015/union-budget-2015/Budget-2015-Centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper/articleshow/46424852.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675464,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27413,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Devolution of Tax Revenue,Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF),Union Budget,Union Budget 2015&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27413,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;img src=&quot;tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 2 March, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/budget-2015/union-budget-2015/Budget-2015-Centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper/articleshow/46424852.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675464,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27413
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Devolution of Tax Revenue,Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF),Union Budget,Union Budget 2015&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify">PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &quot;fiscal space&quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won't really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.</p><p align="justify">How's that possible when the states' share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here's how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that'll have state and Central funding but the Centre's share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.</p><p align="justify">On Category B, budget documents insist that &quot;total finances won't undergo change&quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. </p><p align="justify">How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it's a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.</p><p align="justify">Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre's gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.</p><p align="justify">The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they'd be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.</p><p align="justify">Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they'll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.</p><p align="justify">Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.</p><p align="justify">This analysis doesn't take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn't provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that'd add several thousand crores more to their spending.</p><p align="justify"><img src="https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg" alt="Devolution" width="631" height="314" /> </p><p align="justify">So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn't monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. </p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68020a191aa76-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68020a191aa76-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68020a191aa76-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27413,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;img src=&quot;tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 2 March, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/budget-2015/union-budget-2015/Budget-2015-Centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper/articleshow/46424852.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675464,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27413,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Devolution of Tax Revenue,Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF),Union Budget,Union Budget 2015&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27413,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;img src=&quot;tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 2 March, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/budget-2015/union-budget-2015/Budget-2015-Centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper/articleshow/46424852.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675464,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27413
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Devolution of Tax Revenue,Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF),Union Budget,Union Budget 2015&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify">PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &quot;fiscal space&quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won't really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.</p><p align="justify">How's that possible when the states' share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here's how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that'll have state and Central funding but the Centre's share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.</p><p align="justify">On Category B, budget documents insist that &quot;total finances won't undergo change&quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. </p><p align="justify">How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it's a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.</p><p align="justify">Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre's gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.</p><p align="justify">The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they'd be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.</p><p align="justify">Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they'll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.</p><p align="justify">Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.</p><p align="justify">This analysis doesn't take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn't provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that'd add several thousand crores more to their spending.</p><p align="justify"><img src="https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg" alt="Devolution" width="631" height="314" /> </p><p align="justify">So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn't monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. </p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68020a191aa76-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68020a191aa76-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68020a191aa76-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68020a191aa76-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27413,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;img src=&quot;tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 2 March, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/budget-2015/union-budget-2015/Budget-2015-Centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper/articleshow/46424852.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675464,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27413,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Devolution of Tax Revenue,Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF),Union Budget,Union Budget 2015&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27413,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;img src=&quot;tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 2 March, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/budget-2015/union-budget-2015/Budget-2015-Centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper/articleshow/46424852.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675464,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27413
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Devolution of Tax Revenue,Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF),Union Budget,Union Budget 2015&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn&#039;t have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &amp;quot;fiscal space&amp;quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won&#039;t really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How&#039;s that possible when the states&#039; share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here&#039;s how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that&#039;ll have state and Central funding but the Centre&#039;s share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On Category B, budget documents insist that &amp;quot;total finances won&#039;t undergo change&amp;quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it&#039;s a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre&#039;s gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they&#039;d be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they&#039;ll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This analysis doesn&#039;t take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn&#039;t provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that&#039;d add several thousand crores more to their spending.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Devolution&quot; width=&quot;631&quot; height=&quot;314&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn&#039;t monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify">PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &quot;fiscal space&quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won't really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.</p><p align="justify">How's that possible when the states' share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here's how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that'll have state and Central funding but the Centre's share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.</p><p align="justify">On Category B, budget documents insist that &quot;total finances won't undergo change&quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. </p><p align="justify">How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it's a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.</p><p align="justify">Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre's gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.</p><p align="justify">The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they'd be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.</p><p align="justify">Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they'll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.</p><p align="justify">Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.</p><p align="justify">This analysis doesn't take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn't provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that'd add several thousand crores more to their spending.</p><p align="justify"><img src="https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg" alt="Devolution" width="631" height="314" /> </p><p align="justify">So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn't monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. </p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 27413,
		'title' => 'Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India
</div>
<p align="justify">
PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &quot;fiscal space&quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won't really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.
</p>
<p align="justify">
How's that possible when the states' share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here's how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that'll have state and Central funding but the Centre's share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.
</p>
<p align="justify">
On Category B, budget documents insist that &quot;total finances won't undergo change&quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. 
</p>
<p align="justify">
How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it's a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre's gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they'd be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they'll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.
</p>
<p align="justify">
This analysis doesn't take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn't provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that'd add several thousand crores more to their spending.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<img src="tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg" alt="Devolution" width="631" height="314" /> 
</p>
<p align="justify">
So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn't monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. 
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 2 March, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/budget-2015/union-budget-2015/Budget-2015-Centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper/articleshow/46424852.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4675464,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 27413,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Devolution of Tax Revenue,Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF),Union Budget,Union Budget 2015',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify">PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &quot;fiscal space&quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won't really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.</p><p align="justify">How's that possible when the states' share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here's how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that'll have state and Central funding but the Centre's share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.</p><p align="justify">On Category B, budget documents insist that &quot;total finances won't undergo change&quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. </p><p align="justify">How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it's a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.</p><p align="justify">Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre's gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.</p><p align="justify">The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they'd be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.</p><p align="justify">Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they'll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.</p><p align="justify">Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.</p><p align="justify">This analysis doesn't take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn't provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that'd add several thousand crores more to their spending.</p><p align="justify"><img src="https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg" alt="Devolution" width="631" height="314" /> </p><p align="justify">So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn't monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. </p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 27413,
	'title' => 'Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India
</div>
<p align="justify">
PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &quot;fiscal space&quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won't really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.
</p>
<p align="justify">
How's that possible when the states' share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here's how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that'll have state and Central funding but the Centre's share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.
</p>
<p align="justify">
On Category B, budget documents insist that &quot;total finances won't undergo change&quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. 
</p>
<p align="justify">
How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it's a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre's gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they'd be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they'll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.
</p>
<p align="justify">
This analysis doesn't take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn't provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that'd add several thousand crores more to their spending.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<img src="tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg" alt="Devolution" width="631" height="314" /> 
</p>
<p align="justify">
So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn't monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. 
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 2 March, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/budget-2015/union-budget-2015/Budget-2015-Centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper/articleshow/46424852.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'budget-2015-centres-cash-spread-to-states-lavish-only-on-paper-4675464',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4675464,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 27413
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper'
$metaKeywords = 'Devolution of Tax Revenue,Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF),Union Budget,Union Budget 2015'
$metaDesc = '
-The Times of India


PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify">PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced &quot;fiscal space&quot; he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won't really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off.</p><p align="justify">How's that possible when the states' share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here's how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that'll have state and Central funding but the Centre's share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support.</p><p align="justify">On Category B, budget documents insist that &quot;total finances won't undergo change&quot;. While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. </p><p align="justify">How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it's a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher.</p><p align="justify">Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre's gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre.</p><p align="justify">The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they'd be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples.</p><p align="justify">Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they'll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding.</p><p align="justify">Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum.</p><p align="justify">This analysis doesn't take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn't provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that'd add several thousand crores more to their spending.</p><p align="justify"><img src="https://im4change.in/siteadmin/tinymce/uploaded/Devolution.jpg" alt="Devolution" width="631" height="314" /> </p><p align="justify">So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn't monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities. </p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Budget 2015: Centre’s cash-spread to states lavish only on paper

-The Times of India PM Narendra Modi in his speech in Parliament on Friday underlined how his government had decided to transfer a much larger share of resources to the states in line with Finance Commission recommendations, though it didn't have to. The finance minister in his budget speech repeatedly referred to the issue and the reduced "fiscal space" he had. The budget numbers reveal, however, that the states won't really get much more in 2015-16 than in 2014-15 and they may even be worse off. How's that possible when the states' share of Central taxes is up to 42% from 32%? Here's how: The list of existing Central schemes has been unbundled into three categories in the budget. In Category A are schemes the Centre continues funding fully. Category B consists of programmes that'll have state and Central funding but the Centre's share will go down. Category C schemes will no longer have central support. On Category B, budget documents insist that "total finances won't undergo change". While no such stipulation exists for Category C, they can run at current levels only if states provide funding that the Centre was doing so far. The only way to keep Category B and C schemes going -without enhancing them - is for the states to make good the drop in Central funding. How big is this decline? Comparing budget estimates of 2015-16 with those of 2014-15 shows the fall in Central funding to Category B and C schemes together is about Rs 66,000 crore. Comparing them with the revised current year estimates, it's a more modest Rs 29,000-odd crore. These amounts are assuming no change in total outlay of schemes. The budget says the actual Centre-state sharing formula is yet to be worked out for Category-B schemes, so the state share could well be higher. Compare this with how much states gained in net transfers from the Centre, including tax devolution. As the accompanying graphic shows, on a BE to BE comparison, states have gained little under Rs 64,000 crore, 1.5% of the Centre's gross tax revenues. On a BE to BE comparison, what the states have to shell out for Category B and C schemes wipes out what they gain through fund transfer from the Centre. The BE-to-RE comparison makes matters a little better for the states. Here the gain of about Rs 1.59 lakh crore in transfers is over the additional amount they must spend on schemes, so they'd be net gainers by about Rs 1.3 lakh crore. But does it make sense to compare a target (BE) with an estimate of what happened in course of the year (RE)? The BE to BE comparison is apples to apples. Whichever comparison we take, the net gain/loss figures for state are based on the minimalist assumption that they'll have to do no more than make up for the drop in Central funding. Even a 5% increase in outlays to neutralize inflation would add to the amount they must spend and so could a sharing formula demanding more than this minimum. This analysis doesn't take account of things like the Backward Regions Grant Fund and smaller schemes for which the budget hasn't provided funds. If the states are to sustain these, that'd add several thousand crores more to their spending. So, do the state gain nothing from the finance commission award? They do, but the real gain isn't monetary but greater control over schemes and perhaps more flexibility in determining priorities.