Lok Sabha Question No. 360 (STARRED), answered on 2018-08-10
Subject: Funding Pattern of Social Sector Schemes
Ministry: FINANCE
Asked by: GAURAV GOGOI, BALABHADRA MAJHI

## Governmetrt  of lndia Ministry  ofFinance

## l)cpa ment of Economic Affairs

## LOK SABHA

## STARRED QUESTTON  NO.36o* ANSWERED ON FRIDAY. AUCUST IO. 20 I8 Shravana 19, 1910  (Sako)

## Funding Pattern  of Social Sector  Schcmc

- *360.  SHRI CAURAV  GOGOI SHRI BALABHADRA MAJHI

## Will  rhe  Minister of FINANCE (  frf, ri* )  bc  pleased  to state:

- (a) whelher  the Union  Covernmenr has revised lhe funding  pa[em  oI several  social sector  schemes  and ifso, the delails ihereof;
- (b) whether the State Govemmenrs  have agreed on the reviscd  funding pattem of the Union  Governmcnt  on such schemcs;
- (  c ) i f so, thc details  thcreof along  with the dcta ils of thc State Covernments  which  have objected to the revised funding pattem  ofthe tjnion Govemment on social sector schemes;
- (d) whether the Union  Govemment  appreciates  the genuine  conccms of thc State Govemments and considers  restoring the earlier sharing  patlem  so that more resources ofthc State  would  be available  for the State  soheme  and ifso, the details  thereof; and
- (e) lhe conective steps  proposed to be taken by thc Union Govemmcnl in this rcgard?

## ANSWER

## TIIE FINANCE  MINISTER (SHRI PIYUSH GoY L)

- (a) to (e) A Slatement is laid  on the Table oflhc House

Statement referred  to in reply to parts  (a) to (e) of l,ok Sabha  Starrcd  Qucstion  No.360 (20th  Position)  for 1oth  August,20l8 by Shri Caurav  Oogr)i  and Shri Balahhadr:r  Majhi regarding  Funding Pattern olSocial Scctor Schcmc

- Ycs Madam. The Cenirally Sponsored Schemes  have been rationalized in 28 schemes, broadly  divided into three cateSories.  namely,  (i) Core of the Core Schemes  (6 nos.), (ii) Core Schemes  (20 nos.) and (iii) Optional Schemes  (2 nos.).  The funding paftern  ofthe restructured Centrally Sponsored  Schemes is as under:
- )> Core ofthe Core schemes: No change  in the erstwhile funding pattern.
- i Core schemes: For the 8 North Eastern States and Himalayan  States ol' Uttarakhand,  Himachal  Pradesh  and Janrmu  & Kashmir.  909/0 ofexpendilure is borne  by Centre,  and remaining  l0% by States-  For the rest ofthe States sharing ratio between  Centre  and State is 60:40.
- > Optional Schemes: For the North  Eastern and Ilimalayan  States 80% by Centre  and 20% by States. For the rest ofthe States: 50:50

Ilowever, all the sharing  pattems indicated  above were subject  to the proviso that ilthe Central share was already below  that indicated  in the sharing paftem, then  the Centre's  share would remain  capped at that level.

- (b)  & (c) A Sub-Group of Chief Ministers was constituted  on Rationalization  ofCentrally Sponsored  Schemes.  'fhe  Sub-Group  consuhcd thc Statcs.  Ihe views of the States were broadly  as under:
- Proliferalion of CSS  should  be addressed. Slates  must have voice as to which scheme to implemenl.
- Year-on-year  uncertainty  regarding  allocation  in CSS should  be addressed. At the stan of the year. the lunds allocaEd  to a State in CSS as a wholc must be known and predictable.
- The funding pattem should  not be so onerous that the State may finds it diffrcult to access the Central funds. Special dispensations arc needed  lbr States  with  a weak revenue  base.

- . The scheme  design should provide  for flexibility  in implementing  the scheme.  The Centre should monilor oulcomes and leave implementation  to States.
- . FFC devolution means unticd funds. CSS should not become an instrumcnt to take  away this flexibility.
- . Procedure  for release  ofinstalments  should  be simplified.
- . Funding  for some incomplete  projects taken up under  CSS in earlier  years, has been  discontinucd  from the  current year,  which needs  resolution.
- . Need for a platform  (like NITI) at the Centre  to discuss  pmblems of the States in implementing  CSS and to resolve  difficulties.
- . ShiR from cxpenditure-based  monitoring and releasc of funds  to outcomebased  monitoring and release  of fund.
- (d)  &  (e) Irollowing  the implementation  of the recommendations  ol the l4'h Finance Commission. the devolution  to States  has been increased  frcm 32yo to 42yo. lhereby increasing the resource  availability  with thc States vis-a-vis the Centre. Further.  the level  offlexi  fund available  in each CSS has been raised  from l0% to 25olo  after revising the funding pattem  of CSS. This \ras done to cnable the States to satisry the local needs  and undertake innovations.  The flexi fund under an umbrella  progr,unme is provided  to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Under lhese circumstances,  restoring lhe earlier sharing  pattern has no real .iunification.