These revenues have grown fairly steadily over time. Table 10 presents estimates of the “buoyancy” of specific revenue sources for selected States, where the “buoyancy” is defined as the percentage change in revenues divided by the percentage change in gross State product (without controlling for any structural changes in the revenue sources) and is estimated using simple regression methods. With some exceptions, many of these buoyancy estimates approximate unity. The highest average buoyancy (or 1.15) is for stamp duties and registration fees.

|**Table 10. Estim**|**ated Buoyan**|**cies of Own **<br>|**Revenues a**<br>|**nd its Components**<br>|**, 1980-1**|**981 to 200**|**0-2001 **<br>||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**State**|**Own**<br>**Revenues**|**Own**<br>**Tax**<br>**Revenues**|**Own**<br>**Non-tax**<br>**Revenues**|**Own Non-Tax**<br>**Revenues less**<br>**Interest Receipts**|**Sales**<br>**Tax**|**State**<br>**Excise**|**Motor Vehicles,**<br>**Goods, and**<br>**Passenger Taxes**|**Stamp Duties**<br>**and Registration**<br>**Fees**|
|Bihar|0.98|1.04|0.83|0.24<sup>a</sup>|1.02|1.17|1.15|1.33|
|Orissa|1.05|1.13|0.90|1.02|1.20|1.12|1.23|1.07|
|Uttar Pradesh|0.99|1.04|0.79|0.82|1.11|1.23|0.76|1.12|
|Madhya Pradesh|0.92|0.99|0.78|0.67|0.92|1.11|1.00|1.16|
|Rajasthan|0.96|1.01|0.86|0.79|0.96|1.34|0.88|1.26|
|West Bengal|0.90|0.94|0.64|0.75|0.98|0.89|0.38|1.09|
|Andhra Pradesh|0.91|0.92|0.87|0.81|1.06|0.62|0.96|1.04|
|Karnataka|0.97|1.03|0.77|0.82|1.08|0.92|1.00|1.25|
|Tamil Nadu|0.96|0.99|0.79|0.79|0.99|0.97|0.92|1.05|
|Kerala|0.96|1.02|0.65|0.82|1.08|0.87|1.07|1.06|
|Gujarat|1.02|1.02|1.01|0.90|1.04|0.81|0.88|1.13|
|Haryana|1.06|0.98|1.11|1.24|1.08|0.80|0.86|1.09|
|Maharashtra|0.91|0.96|0.77|0.61|0.97|1.05|0.86|1.47|
|Punjab|1.07|0.95|1.35|1.55|0.99|1.03|0.78|0.90|
|**Average**|**0.98**|**1.00**|**0.86**|**0.89**|**1.03**|**1.00**|**0.91 **|**1.15**|

a This estimated buoyancy is statistically significant at the 78 percent level only. All other estimates are statistically significant at the 98 percent level or higher. Source: From Table 6 in Uttar Pradesh Policy Notes (2002), “UP's Own Revenue System: Assessment and Reform Suggestions”.

Figures 1 to 11 show the trends in real per capita revenues for selected States since 19801981, where real revenues are deflated by the GDP deflator. Over this period of time, real nonjudicial stamp duties grew on average by 24.0 percent per year. States with above-average annual growth in real revenues include Maharashtra (63.4 percent), Karnataka (30.4 percent), Haryana (26.1 percent), Uttar Pradesh (25.5 percent), Rajasthan (24.2 percent), and Madhya Pradesh (24.1 percent). In no State was the average annual growth in real revenues less than 12.0 percent. In this regard, the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (1995) estimates that the overall buoyancy and elasticity coefficients for selected States over the decade of the 1980s were well in excess of 1 (or 1.23 and 1.12, respectively).<sup>29</sup> As illustrated in Figures 1 to 11, revenues grew steadily in nearly all States over the entire period. Simple linear trend lines fit for each State indicate a clear upward trend, for each State and for each measure of revenues, even for real per capita revenues. Discussions with government officials indicate that several States, such as West Bengal and Maharashtra, have

> 29  See National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (1995), _Economic Reforms and the Stamp Act_ (New Delhi, India).

20